which has any application to the defence of Mr. Campbell against the alleged slanders, etc., contained in the article by

Mr. Landis.

If an apology is required for devoting so much space to a defence so unsatisfactory as this may appear to be, the reader will find it in the considerations expressed in our letter to Mr. C. above. Our wish is to treat with perfect fairness every individual, whose doctrines are discussed in the Repository. No degree of rudeness on the part of a correspondent shall drive us from this determination.

Then, if one fails to secure the confidence of intelligent readers, or exhibits a spirit which incurs the disapprobation of wise and good men, the responsibility is his and not ours. After an introduction of some length, in the style of playful irony, Mr. C. proceeds as follows: [EDITOR.]

"Without further ceremony, and all raillery apart, I shall, with all gravity, commence my defence.

Narrative of the Case.

PERSONALITIES are no part of a literary, scientific, or theological Review, much less are they worthy of a place in a work of such reputation as that of the Am. Bib. Repository. 1 cannot, therefore, reply to the personal allusions, found in the commencement of the article for January, 1839.* Mr. Landis knows as little of my personal history, as did that opponent from whom he borrowed those illiberal and unfounded allegations. When next he writes the memoirs of a living friend, I would advise him not to collect his facts and documents from the imagination of a fallen antagonist.

It is now almost thirty years since, in the capacity of a public teacher of faith and righteousness, I lifted up my feeble voice in favor of the Bible, the whole Bible, and nothing

* One would have supposed from Mr. Campbell's letter, that a principal object of his proposed defence was to meet and refute these "personal allusions." These, we presumed, were among the principal" slanders" of which he complained. By recurring to them, the reader will perceive that they are something more than mere allusions." They are substantial statements; and while they remain, Mr. C.'s Defence must be regarded as unsatisfactory in a material point.-EDITOR.

66

but the Bible, as the only divine and necessary standard of Christian faith and manners. To suppose that it is not an adequate and an all-sufficient rule of faith, manners, dcctrine, discipline, and church policy, then appeared, and yet appears to me, an argument against its Divine inspiration and authority. On a candid and faithful examination of the history of religious controversies and parties, it appeared that the era of creeds was the era of confirmed partyism; that those human expedients, instead of uniting, reconciling, and healing divisions, have always either created or perpetuated them; that the making or adopting of a creed had always stereotyped one party and occasioned another. So deposed to me all the pages of church history, from the Nicene creed to that of Westminster.

The position which myself, and others with me, were conscientiously, benevolently, and in the fear of God, compelled to assume, as every one knows, is an invidious one; and necessarily provoked a degree of hostility and opposition, not only from our Presbyterian brethren and friends, but also from all parties. As we succeeded in making an impression in favor of these views, opposition arose, the controversy spread, and the crescit eundo of the poet became as apposite as ever. Still, we carried in our hands the olive branch of Christian peace to all who sincerely loved our common Lord and Saviour, and were always willing to unite with them on the broad and catholic principles of the ancient and primitive institution of Christ.

Our hostility to human creeds, however, had this peculiarity while most persons oppose creeds because they oppose them, our opposition arose not so much from objections to their doctrine as their dogmas; and a conviction of their divisive and schismatical tendencies. They appeared to us a collection of metaphysical, abstruse, and speculative opinions, rather than articles of belief, or rules of righteousness, adapted to the capacity of Christian communities; and, in a certain degree, they seemed to supplant the Scriptures of truth in the esteem, affections, and meditations of professors. But we argue not the case, we only state it.

In lieu of them, we agreed to call Bible things by Bible names; to use sacred terms and phrases, rather than human definitions; to adhere rigidly to the Apostolic style; to found communities upon the acknowledged facts, precepts,

SECOND SERIES, VOL. III. NO. II.

19

and promises, of the Book, and to bear with one another in all matters of mere opinion or doubtful disputation; to walk by the same rules, and mind the same Divine things. On this ground we commenced our career, resolved to reject from our faith and manners every thing for which we could not find an unequivocal warrant in the Sacred Scriptures. We have, moreover, found less trouble in explaining our Divine creed, than we formerly experienced, and now see others experiencing, in their attempts orally to explain their written abstracts of revealed truth.

This stand and profession, as already intimated, called out a very formidable opposition, and resulted in a longprotracted controversy, in which I have borne a very prominent part (well sustained, indeed, by many others) for almost a quarter of a century. The clergy of all parties have occasionally taken a hand in it; and every inch of our path, from the beginning to the present hour, has been contested with great spirit, insomuch that every principle, rule of interpretation, doctrine, and system of operations recommended by us, has been subjected to a very strict and severe exami

nation.

At the commencement of our editorial career, observing that God had placed one ear on each side of the head, while all partisan leaders sought to place them both on one side, we resolved to give to our readers both sides of every controversy, that they might for themselves judge the pro and the con. We have faithfully pursued this course for many years, as far as our pages would allow us; and the consequence has been not only a more thorough examination, but a much deeper conviction of the truth of the great points in issue. An unexpected, and, indeed, in these days an unprecedented success has attended our humble and imperfect efforts, and many, myriads of the excellent of the earth, of all parties (we bless the Lord), have united with us on the high and holy ground of apostolic precept and authority, so that hun. dreds of churches all over these United States, and some in Great Britain and her colonies, have been formed on the ancient platform.

*

As a ship at sea, by distress of tempests, is sometimes

* This boasting of numbers was very appropriately noticed by Mr. Landis, in his article referred to, p. 95.-EDITOR.

1

driven from its proper course, so this controversy in its progress has, by the untoward force of circumstances, occasionally been forced from its legitimate and wonted channels. For while contending for facts, precepts, and promisesagainst all theories and speculations; while arguing for one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one spirit, one hope, one God and Father of all, as the proper foundation of Christian union, communion and co-operation, and while pleading for a reformation of manners; for more of the good fruits of the Spirit of our God in all holiness and righteousness, rather than for a new suit of opinions-our opponents, by imputing to us heterodoxy in this point, and error in that, have compelled us, once and again, to enter the lists with them in self-defence. For, in truth, almost every obnoxious principle, every upopular dogma, has been, in time past, imputed to us. And thus the fortunes of the old reformers are so far ours. Of Paul it was affirmed that he said, "Let us do evil that good may come." And of Luther it was alleged that "he had formed a league with the devil to banish religion out of Germany and the world."

Through this fiery ordeal, however, we have passed unscathed, even in the esteem of many, the most orthodox and godly in the land. For although no one party of those called Evangelical entertain all our views, and none of them observe the same order of worship in their assemblies, yet we find every important view that we entertain, every leading doctrine, ordinance, and practice, for which we contend, admitted, or taught, or practised, by some of these protestant Evangelicals. Hence, we conclude, that if these parties possessing and professing, in part, our views and practices, forfeit not their evangelical reputation, neither ought we for possessing and professing in the aggregate the various items by them admitted, as necessary to the perfection of Christian character.*

After this very summary statement of the case, our readers will be able to understand more correctly our defence

* This conclusion strikes us as by no means legitimate. The "aggregate," here spoken of, may be an aggregate of If so, Mr. C. will in vain attempt to make it appear that a part is equal to the whole in its influence on the evangelical reputation of his sect.-EDITOR.

errors.

from the misconceptions and misrepresentations of Mr. Landis. And certainly, Mr. Editor, you have decided justly and correctly, that if our humble efforts and their success have rendered it either necessary or expedient that our views should appear in the Repository, it will be acceptable to all your readers to have an accurate and true representation of them in all those points upon which we have been assailed upon its pages.

I could have wished, indeed, that some competent person of your own party-who had not, like Mr. Landis, been engaged, in former years, in controversy with me, or my brethren, on these subjects-some impartial, honorable, and veritable gentleman had been at pains to have examined our works, and made a faithful and full report of our views for your pages. In that case, myself and brethren would have been satisfied, and a reply on my part would have been as unnecessary, as it is now disagreeable to me to appear in defence against the most jaundiced and distorted view of my sentiments and writings that has hitherto appeared.

In the very few pages allotted me, I shall not aim at a review of all that Mr. Landis has written; this I have more fully accomplished on my own pages already. I shall rather aim at a simple and intelligible statement of the views and actions on which he has so severely animadverted. Without acrimony, or any other feeling than that of benevolence, I shall pursue the plan which Mr. Landis has sketched for me in his review, and take up, in his own order, the points which, from an alleged thorough examination of my writings, he has selected as displaying what he is pleased to call,"essentially another gospel," and as proving "that the Mormons have quite as valid claims to be regarded Christians, as Mr. Campbell himself and his followers." His chapters are four: 1st, On Faith. 2d, The Doctrines of Campbellism on Regeneration. 3d," Unitarianism of the Campbellites." 4th, "The translation of the New Testament adopted by the Campbellites."

1st. On Faith.

"In Mr. Campbell's narrative," says Mr. Landis, " of the debate between him and the late Mr. Jennings, of Nashville, he asserts that faith, ranked among the fruits of the Spirit, is