Mr. C., which he admits to be greatly inferior to a change of state, which change of state does not even imply, in his own estimation, a change of character. By the heart, as the word is used in the Bible, we are to understand the soul, with all its powers, including the understanding, conscience, will, affections, and memory. When God, then, says, My son, give me thine heart, he calls upon each and every individual to dedicate himself unreservedly to him-not merely to render to him a few outward and formal services, but fervently to embrace his doctrine, to follow his injunctions with the warmest affection, and to reduce them to practice without delay. The heart is what God requires. He claims the understanding, that he may pour upon it the light of truth-the conscience, that he may purge it from dead works-the will, that it may be brought into subjection to the divine mind-the affections, that they may be purified and exalted, and set on things above-the desires, that they may be concentrated in himself-the memory, that it may become the depository of divine and useful knowledge. In one word. God demands the whole soul, that we may know, love, serve, and enjoy him for ever.

Hence, God says: "A new heart, also, will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you; and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them;" Ezek. xxxvi., 26, 27. "And I will give them a heart to know me, that I am the Lord; and they shall be my people, and I will be their God: for they shall return unto me with their whole heart;" Jer. xxiv., 7. "And the Lord thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live;" Deut. xxx., 6. "I will give them one heart, and one way, that they may fear me for ever, for the good of them and of their children after them; and I will make an everlasting covenant with them, that I will not turn away from them, to do them good, but I will put my fear in their hearts, that they shall not depart from me;" Jer. xxxii., 39, 40. In comformity to the doctrine taught in these passages, the Psalmist prayed, "Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me;" li., 10. Hence the expressions, a pure heart, an upright heart, a clean heart, a sincere heart, are employed in the Scripture, to denote a true Christian; while, on the other hand, an evil heart, a gross heart, a stony heart, a wicked heart, a corrupt heart, a polluted heart, a depraved heart, an estranged heart, are used to designate a wicked and irreligious man. The terms, then, to change the heart, to cleanse the heart, to purify the heart, are employed in the Bible to denote that moral and religious change, which is wrought in a sinner, when he is truly converted to God.

Having considered the arguments which Mr. C. has derived from the Scriptures to sustain his theory, and having shown that they

are fallacious and unsustained by the true interpretation of the Living Oracles, we do not propose, at this time, having already extended these remarks to much greater length than was anticipated in the commencement, to prosecute the subject any further; being fully persuaded that the true doctrine of the gospel is clearly taught in the Holy Scriptures; and that no system of religion ought to be embraced and received as of divine origin, which cannot be sustained by the word of God. If Mr. C.'s theory of religion be essentially anti-scriptural, as we have abundantly shown it to be, then no pretended evidence derived from the Christian Fathers, or from the creeds of fallible and erring men, can possibly make it true. It is a sentiment universally embraced by the whole Protestant community, that the Bible contains everything necessary to the faith and practice of a Christian; and that all systems of religion, which are not derived from the Holy Scriptures, ought to be rejected as false and dangerous.

In the conclusion of my remarks on this subject, I most earnestly and sincerely recommend this article to the serious and candid perusal of my brethren in the ministry, especially in the western states, who may have fully or partially embraced the sentiments we have been canvassing, and, as we think, have fully refuted. The introduction of this new doctrine among our brethren in the west, has been the occasion of many evils, both to the ministry and to the churches, and has not been productive, to my knowledge, of any good. This doctrine is the grave-digger of experimental religion and practical piety; and, unless it be repudiated and abandoned, will certainly blast, and wither, and destroy, the vitality both of the churches and the ministry. I must say, I feel deeply interested on this subject, because it is one of vast importance to the souls of men, involving, as it does, the vital principles of the Christian religion. With these reflections, I commit this article to the press, leaving the effects which it is destined to produce, to the operations of that superintending Providence, which extends to all

events.

ARTICLE IX.

Reply to the Question, " Shall we Receive Them?”

I HAVE read, with deep regret, an article in the Christian Herald for December the 15th, from the pen of Br. Russel, one of the Editors of that Journal, entitled "Shall we receive them?" This article is understood to be called forth by my "Strictures on Elder Hawley's pamphlet," and, therefore, a reply from my pen has been earnestly solicited. I am aware that this is a subject in which I

am no more interested than my brethren in the ministry generally, but having engaged in the controversy, they naturally expect me to sustain the views which I have advanced, so far as those views may accord with the Holy Scriptures. It is desirable that the ministers of the same denomination should proclaim the same general sentiments, and especially on the subject of church building, which intimately affects the operations of the whole body; for, if different practices obtain in different churches, it will be the means of necessarily interrupting the harmony, both of the churches and ministers. If one church admit members who are unbaptized, she will naturally expect that these unbaptized members will be received by letter, or otherwise, by all the sister churches of the same body, and who profess to walk by the same rule; and should they be rejected, it would be the occasion of great grief and sorrow, both to the rejected brother, and to the church who gave him the letter of recommendation.

The article under consideration is one of a most extraordinary character, to proceed from the pen of a minister of the gospel, who professes to be a believer in Christian baptism. There is a vein of false and deceptive reasoning running through the whole of it. The argument is sustained by illogical deductions, by unjust and improper applications of Scripture, and by inconclusive reasoning. It will be the object of this communication to make all this clear, evident, and plain.

The Christian connexion profess to take the Scriptures as the only rule of faith and practice, and Jesus Christ as their only Lord and Master in the whole sum of their religion. Whatever, therefore, is clearly taught in the Scriptures on the subject of baptism, and the mode of receiving members into the churches, we, as a people, are bound to observe and obey. The church is a voluntary society in this sense, that no person is compelled by force to enter into it, and he only is a genuine member who has joined it from conviction and choice; but there is this important difference between it and other voluntary societies: the members have no right to settle the terms of their union, or to change the mode of receiving members, or the institutions of the gospel, but must implicitly submit to its original constitution. It is the duty of the church to submit to the authority of Christ; and this is not performed unless his word be received as the only rule of faith and practice, and everything which is done in religion be exactly conformable to his commands. In the world, his law may be disregarded and violated, but it should be held sacred in the church. No minister, church, or council, has any authority to change, alter, or abrogate one of the institutions of the gospel, to prescribe new modes of reception into the church, or to make any new articles of faith; neither can they increase or diminish the sum of our moral obligations. Whatever has been clearly enjoined upon the disciples of Christ in the New Testament as a rule of duty, still possess a bind

ing force, and they are still under the most solemn obligations to observe this rule. The doctrine, the precepts, and the institutions of the Christian religion, are unalterably fixed, and must necessarily remain the same till the dispensation itself closes. The rule of faith and of practice, as laid down in the Holy Scriptures, is equally binding upon all the disciples of Christ, whatever may have been their previous habits, education, or modes of thinking. And this rule of faith and practice is a uniform rule in all ages, and among all classes and conditions of disciples-that is, this rule is always of equal length; it is not six inches long in one man's hand, two feet in another's, and a ten foot pole in the hand of a third. In this statement, I understand the Christian connexion to be agreed.

Now, I would ask, what is the law of baptism as laid down in the New Testament, as a rule of duty? This is the only proper and legitimate question under consideration. And I have already stated in my "Strictures on Elder Hawley's pamphlet," that Christian baptism was the immersion of a true disciple of Christ in water, into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; and that, by this baptism, a disciple makes a public profession of faith in the Christian religion; by which, also, he is initiated into the church of God. These positions have been illustrated and defended in my " Strictures," and I shall now content myself by merely stating the rule of duty, the law of baptism, as laid down in the New Testament, and refer to my former communication for the proof of the same. Now, Br. Russel has neither denied, refuted, or even controverted the position I assumed, so far as the law of baptism is concerned. The sum of his argument, then, goes to show that the church and her ministers may safely dispense with the institutions of heaven and the laws of God, whenever a weak-minded disciple, or one who has been badly educated, may desire it. And I can understand him in no other light, when he declares he would do it " without a moment's hesitation." The true question, between Br. Russel and myself, appears to be this: Shall we receive members into our churches in accordance with the divine rule, or in opposition to the divine rule? I maintain, that they should be received in accordance with the divine rule, and that we have no authority to alter, change, or dispense with the rule, or to receive any one contrary to it; while he affirms the rule may be safely dispensed with, and persons received as members into the church in opposition to it; and he gives at length his reasons in justification of his proposed course. We shall now proceed to consider the reasons he offers in justification of the course he proposes. He says,—

I. "We should receive them, (in opposition to the divine rule,) because the Lord has received them. They are disciples of Jesus. Their sins are forgiven-their names are written in heaven. This we believe. The evidence of their acceptance with God, is satis

factory. They are children of God, and heirs of glory. How can we, how dare we reject from the church of God any man-any woman, who is a Christian-a member of the household of God?" But does God ever receive any one in a state of rebellion and disobedience to his own laws? Does God ever receive an impenitent and disobedient universalist, while remaining such, notwithstanding he may be honest and sincere in his belief? Certainly not. He receives none but truly sincere and believing penitents; sinners must come to him in his appointed way, and in the use of his appointed means, and in that penitent and believing frame of mind which he requires, to find acceptance and forgiveness at his hands. And to contend that God receives sinners in any other way, is anything but Christianity. Does not the New Testament declare, again and again, that the Jews did not attain salvation, because they sought it by the deeds of the law? and that the Gentiles did attain salvation, because they sought it by the hearing of faith? God never deviates from his own covenant engagements. And he never requires his ministers, whom he has sent to publish and execute his laws, to violate them to accommodate some prejudiced or weak-minded disciple; and if Br. Russel imagines that God has given him authority to violate his laws, or to change or to nullify his institutions, he has sadly mistaken his calling. "Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances as I delivered them unto you." God complained of his ancient covenant people, saying, " Even from the days of your fathers, ye are gone away from mine ordinances, and have not kept them." I would here ask Br. Russel, how he " dare," as a minister of the gospel, who has been sent to teach and enforce the divine rule in all things, violate this same rule at will and pleasure? To pretend, in justification of his conduct, that heaven violates its own laws in the salvation of souls, is an assumption too bold and impudent to be admissible. And, surely, because God saves souls in accordance with the divine will, this cannot be urged as a reason why we should violate the same will.

But Br. Russel says, "Christ received us before we were baptized; he received us without any reference to our views of baptism." He certainly did but, in the name of common sense, what has this to do with the subject under consideration? In the great commission, he directed his ministers to convert the nations, and then to initiate the converts into the church by baptism. A man must be first converted, before he is even a proper subject of baptism and church membership. Baptism does not enter into the process of conversion in any sense of the word whatever. A man must be first converted, first discipled, first accepted of God, before he is required to be baptized, and before the minister of the gospel is authorized to administer baptism to him. Conversion is the first step in discipleship. After a man is made a disciple by conversion, the next step is, to initiate him into the church by bap