without it; and you ask, "Were not the Apostles sanctified and clean through the word he had spoken to them, before he died?" You give to the death of Christ no retrospective character, no indispensable efficacy in its bearing either on God or man. It is merely a fuller proof and clearer demonstration of the love of God; but not a demonstration of his justice in passing by sins committed under a former economy. So I yet understand you. And here I may as well, as at any other time, notice your critique on Rom. iii. 25, 26,

You seem to object to the new version of this passage. First, to the substitution of justice for the term righteousness; and in reprobation of that fact add, that "in the New Testament it is every where translated righteousness in our version." But how is it in the Old? This you probably did not examine, else in your usual candor you would have told your readers (and justified me by assuring them) that generally where we have the English word justice in the common version we have the word dikaiosune in the Septuagint: such as when David says, "Justice and judgment are the habitation of thy throne;" and "I have done judgment and justice;" and where Solomon says, "When thou seest the perverting of justice," it is the same word so often used by Paul in the epistle to the Romans, and which is found almost a hundred times in the New Testament. But there is another fact you would have told them had you only thought of it-viz. that the word justice is not in the common version of the New Testament at all; and if the idea of justice be at all in the New Testament-(and if it be not, is it not a singular fact!!)—I say, if the idea of justice be in the Christian scriptures at all, it is found in the word dikaiosune, in this place most appositely, in my opinion, rendered justice. And is not the old English term righteousness equivalent in all cases to the term justice, though sometimes rather awkwardly expressive of it!When Daniel foretells "an everlasting righteousness" as being introduced by the Messiah, the seventy Hebrews use Paul's favorite dikaiosune found 36 times in the Epistle to the Romans. It must then depend always upon the good sense and judgment of the translators whether in the version it shall be read righteousness, justification, or justice. I was then authorized by every law of interpretation, and by the indisputable meaning of the word, to render it justice, Rom. iii. 25, 26, and which I doubt not, when all party prejudices shall have slept in the tomb of oblivion, will be universally admitted as the most correct and happy version of that most important passage ever given. But while 1 say this, I would not be understood as intimating that it materially differs from the common version. Indeed, I regard the common version as sufficiently just and faithful to the original in this particular, though neither so clear nor striking as the New.

You also demur to the insertion of own before righteousness, and yet agree with me that it is his own righteousness or justice that is spoken of! Now so long as we agree that it is God's righteousness that is spoken of, why demur at making this as plain as possible to our readers? But you complain of also, as giving an entirely different idea from that in the text, or from a version without it. Your words are, "You have also added the word also, in verse 26."

This is not the

am aware is an

fact. It is Macknight's version, not mine. This I oversight of yours; for, brother Stone, I know you would be the last man in the world to assume or assert a false fact. I agree with Macknight that this supplement is fairly implied, and that clearness demands it. The sins of two dispensations are clearly spoken of, both here and in Heb. ix.; which two passages have, as far as human language is capable of definitely expressing any ideas, in the clearest and most forcible manner expressed the true necessity of Christ's death as a sin-offering-To justify God before the universe, to sustain the dignity of his throne and government in the sight of all pure and holy beings, in passing by the sins committed under two testaments-of law and of favor; of which I have much to say, should we ever meet at Romans iii. 25, 25, and Hebrews ix. 13, 14, 15.-of which, at present, there is some doubt.

That the Messiah's death had aught to do with the remission of sins committed before that event, is, I know, an idea repudiated by all the elder speculators of the Arian, Socinian, and Unitarian schools.Therefore all their critics object to the most natural and obvious versions of these passages. I therefore regret that my brother Stone, who does not fraternize with them in their theories, should, to his own disadvantage, appear to prefer their construction; of which, however, I have not full evidence that he does. I hope, then, he will throw of all ambiguity on this subject.

I know, indeed, that the unfortunate representations of the Messiah's death as for faith, and not for sins-as a means of repentance, rather than a means of purification, propitiation, or expiation, savors, in appearance, of those ideas. Still I will not gravely assail them as your ideas until you more fully and explicitly avow them.

I will not, brother Stone, enter into a war of words with you or any brother, while we have so many things of great value in discussion.True, words must occasionally be subjects of discussion; but as seldom as possible is my intention. Your renewal, then, of the question about "all things" purged by blood, as including both persons and things, is not disputed by me. I stand to all I have written on the difference between the two propositions-concerning persons and

things; for, indeed, that ta panta may include both persons and things, militates nothing against it. "All things" often means both persons and things; but "all persons" does not mean all things and all persons: and this is enough for me. "To atone for," and "to make atonement for," are with me identical expressions. Now anxious though I be to please brother Stone by using words as he does, I cannot go so far as to repudiate the phraze "to atone for" till he explains to me the difference between the contraction and the scriptural phraze "to make atonement for," of which it is but the mere contraction. In the name of reason, why so morbidly sensitive on this, and not on a thousand other phrases found in your essays, never found in any version of the New Testament? Show, then, that to make atonement for a person or for a sin, differs from to atone for sin, or for a person; and, if pos sible, I will gratify this peculiar taste in my venerable correspondent. You sometimes seek to confound me with a question which is fatal to your scheme, or which places you in a light before the public in which I never before contemplated you. You ask me once and again, "Did the pious Jews and Patriarchs become clean by faith in the blood of Christ when they did not believe that he would die?" Well, then, in return I ask, Did the Jews and Patriarchs believe in God to their salvation without the knowledge of the death of Christ, which you say is essential to faith; for, with you, the death of Christ is essential to forgiveness only as it is essential to faith!!! Your question is suicidal to your scheme, but confirmatory of mine; because the death of the Messiah justified God in forgiving Jews, patriarchs, infants, &c. in all past ages, whether they believed in the sacrifice of the Messiah or not: for, says Paul, "God has set him forth a propitiatory, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past"-"for the redemption of the transgressions under the first testament." Thus your question, when properly answered, demonstrates the scriptural propriety of my interpretation, and the scriptural impropriety of that which is opposed

to it.

In like manner your appeal to Hebrews xi. vacates and annuls all your reasonings about the death of Christ as a means of faith: for as you very justly demand, "Had the faith of one of the elders (Heb. xi.) the blood of Christ as its object?" Consequently their faith, and the model faith of Abraham, needed not the death of Christ as a means, or cause, or object; and with this you have fully settled the controversy about the design of Christ's death; conclusively showing that it was to affect God's government, rather than merely to enable persons to possess purifying faith. There are various other questions and points in your epistles, which, were I severally to notice, would operate in

the same direction with these. I have neither room nor need for them jast now, and will reserve them for other exigencies. Meanwhile I pray you to reflect on one point-that the forgiveness of sins on repentance in the Old Testament always presupposes sacrifice, as certainly as baptism in the New Testament always presupposes faith, whether named or not.

In all benevolence, I remain, &c.

A. CAMPBELL.

UNION CHRISTIAN MEETING,

Held in Lexington, Ky., beginning on Friday the 2d of April, 1841, in pursuance of the following notice:

"UNION MEETING—on the 2d day of April, 1841, at which all the religious parties will enjoy equal privileges.

"At the instance of many persons, it has been concluded to hold a Union Meeting at Lexington, commencing the 2d of April, 1841. As the union of Christians is most desirable, being of eternal importance, the great object will be to ascertain the scriptural bond of union, in order to its accomplishment. That all the talents and influence of the religious community may be enlisted and engaged in so commendable a work, the members of the different denominations, and especially their public speakers, are most pressingly and affectionately invited to attend and participate in all that may be attempted from first to last. The olive branch of peace is held out to all religious parties, and it is hoped they will act as becomes those who have submitted to the King of peace, love, and joy.

(Signed)

"JOHN T. JOHNSON, by request.”

Agreeably to the above public notice a very large audience assembled in the Christian meeting-house in Lexington, Ky., at 11 o'clock. After prayer and praise, brother J. T. Johnson explained the object of the meeting, and moved that brother Asa R. Runyan, of May's Lick, be chosen President, and H. B. Todd and George W. Elley, Secretaries. Unanimously adopted.

The meeting being thus duly organized, brother Johnson offered the following resolution, which was read, and after a short discussion carried unanimously in the affirmative:

Resolved, Thai Christian union is practicable.

It was then, on motion of the same,

Resolved unanimously, That brethren Fishback and Campbell be requested to address the convention on the subject of the foregoing resolution, in the order of their names.

The convention then adjourned till half past 2 o'clock. Met according to adjournment at half past 2 o'clock P. M. Dr. Fishback then addressed the audience for about two hours. An account of the position sustained by him in the discourse, and the discussion growing out of it, will be found below.

On motion of brother Campbell, it was then

Resolved, That the discourse of brother Fishback, and those to be delivered during the meeting, be made the subject of free inquiry and criticism.

On motion of the same,

Resolved, That brother Shannon be requested to deliver, at 7 oclock this evening, a discourse on the sin of schism. Adjourned till 7 o'clock. In pursuance of the foregoing resolution, at the time appointed brother Shannon delivered a discourse; in which, after showing that all who sincerely love the Lord Jesus, and truly believe on him, could be united in one holy and happy brotherhood without any sacrifice of truth or conscience, he proved from various scriptures, and especially from the 5th chapter of Galatians, that sects among Christians were ranked by Paul among the works of the flesh, (such as drunkenness, &c.) which exclude men from the kingdom of God.

Adjourned till half past 10 o'clock next morning.

Saturday morning met according to adjournment. Brother Campbell then addressed the meeting till half past 4 P. M., (with exception of a short intermission for dinner,) in proof of the following proposi

won:

Resolved, That the union of Christians can be scripturally effected by requiring a practical acknowledgment of such articles of belief and such rules of piety and morality as are admitted by all Christian denominations.

Adjourned till 7 P. M.; after which hour the convention was occupied during the evening in the discussion of the first discourse.

Dr. Fishback, in his address, and in the discussion of it in reference to Christian union, maintained that the first object ought to be to give to the scriptures in the view of the mind their appropriate divine origin, authority, and use-not merely as a sufficient rule of faith and practice in religion, but also as the only means of spiritual ideas, knowledge, and faith; and to place Jesus Christ as the light of the world, and as Prince and Saviour upon his throne.

He maintained that religion, or the knowledge of God, before the fall was natural to the state of man; but since the fall it has not been, on account of the change that has took place in his relation to God and to spiritual things by sin, and that it entered the world by revelation after the Fall, and has ever existed only by its influence. He affirmed that natural religion, or Deism, is false, and has in fact no proper existence independent of revelation, and that it is the product of a Pagan tradition and of a false philosophy of the human mind, and was incorporated with Christianity in an early period of its history, and involves in it the denial of the total depravity of man so far as the knowledge of God and of spiritual things is concerned, and denies that God and the fact of the creation of the heavens and the earth out of nothing are objects of faith according to the scriptures, or in the scriptural use of the term. He maintained that the assumption of natural religion withoat revelation supersedes, nullifies, and denies the divine origin, instrumentality, and use of the word of God as the means of obtaining spiritual ideas and of communicating original spiritual knowledge and of converting the world, and creates the necessity for the doctrine of the immediate physical operation of the Spirit in the production of