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

fidelity." Mill. Harbinger, Vol. 3, p. 100, misquoted from Extra No. 1.

This is my first and fundamental error-the most fundamental of the "principles of Campbellism." We do indeed plead guilty to this charge. It is a true bill. Faith, in Gal.

v. 22, as in Matth. xxiii. 23, and Titus ii. 10, ought to be translated "fidelity." The word is the same in these three passages, viz. notis. "The weightier matters of the law are righteousness, temperance, fidelity." Matth. xxii. 23, "The fruits of the Spirit are goodness, fidelity, meekness, temperance," and "showing all good fidelity to their masters." Titus ii. 10. The king's version has fidelity in the last, and faith in the former two. Now it so happens that this radical error of "Campbellism" has been adopted by the good Presbyterian continuators of Matthew Henry's commentary. It is also the new version of Doctor McKnight. That faith frequently denotes fidelity, we have also the testimony of Parkhurst, Greenfield, Campbell, even the king's translators themselves, who so render it, Titus ii. 10. The American and English Episcopalians are, with many Presbyterian doctors, guilty of this fundamental sin of "Campbellism;" for with D'Oyley and Mants, they place fidelity or faith among the fruits of the Spirit, Gal. v. 22. Yes, and I fearlessly appeal to the Andover school itself, that I am right in translating noris fidelity in Matth. xxii. 23, and in Gal. v. 22, according to all their canons of interpretation. This fundamental error of Campbellism is, indeed, the common error of ninety-nine hundredths of the most learned and intelligent Christians on earth. But might not common sense itself perceive, that when Jesus associates righteousness and tem perance. with faith, and calls them "the weightier matters of the law," he means not a mere principle but a moral virtue? And that when Paul associates faith, in the passage in debate, with "goodness, meekness, and temperance, against which there is no law," he means not a mere favor bestowed, but a moral virtue, sister to meekness and temperance!

But to the 2d proof of "the fundamental error of Campbellism." It is in these words:-"His fundamental position in relation to the faith which the gospel requires, or that belief which is to the saving of the soul, is, that it is in its nature purely historical, consisting in the belief of a few simple. facts, and not doctrines; that there neither was, nor could

there possibly be any difference between that belief of the gospel which is requisite to the salvation of the soul, and that credence which we usually with readiness yield to any other well authenticated history.' Vide Debate, p p. 32-33, and ut supra."

The prejudices of my reviewer seem here to have effectually blinded his eyes, insomuch that he could not distinguish my words from those of a weak and prejudiced opponent. 1 answer this proof of my error and its illustration by simply affirming, that Mr. Landis has imposed upon his readers by putting into my mouth words which I never uttered, and which he can nowhere show in my writings.

But in the third place, he quotes the Christian Baptist, Vol. iii. No. 7, the substance of which he gives in the following words:" Mr. Campbell asserts, that to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, is to believe on him to the saving of the soul." "It is not possible," says he, "to misunderstand this." Very good. What does it mean? Let an apostle pronounce sentence on these words. John the apostle affirms, Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ (the Messiah) is born of God." Surely then, he has true faith! But he does not say that 'every one who thinks he believes' nor 'every one that professes to believe,' but "every one that does believe that Jesus is the Messiah, is begotten of God."

Again in the same epistle, chap. v., John affirms that "this is the victory that overcomes the world, even our faith ;" and in the next verse defines this faith, saying, "Who is he that overcomes the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?"

Mr. Landis has not, however, done me justice in saying that Mr. Campbell asserts that to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, is to believe on him to the saving of the soul." He is too indiscriminating a reader of my works, to be depended on in his quotations or comments. Had he carefully examined my writings on this subject he would have found me making this distinction :-"To believe a person and believe on him are not always identical expressions. The one is sometimes the cause, the other the effect. One must believe Jesus before he can believe on him." The demons believed Jesus, but could not believe on him, because he did not profess to be their Saviour. Sin

ners, however, amongst us, who believe all that Jesus says to them, will, I rejoice to say, believe on him.

I reason upon faith, as I do upon every thing else. Faith is something. It is an effect and has a cause. But the cause of faith, as well as the effect of faith upon us, are very dif ferent from faith itself. What then is faith? Confidence in testimony, a persuasion that it is true. It is never more nor less than the assurance that testimony is true. But if that testimony concern a person who professes to save us from sin, it is impossible to believe that testimony, without confiding in him, to the full amount of the testimony concerning him. May we not then say, that as respects faith religion is a personal thing? Subject and object! It is a person trusting in a person, loving a person, admiring, adoring, obeying a person. The special faith of the New Institution is belief in the testimony of God concerning his Son; -in the testimony of the Son concerning himself; and in the testimony of the Holy Spirit, in the apostle's speaking of the Father and the Son in reference to the complete and eternal salvation of man from sin and all its penal consequences.

Many, indeed, say they have faith in him, whom I cannot believe, because the world overcomes them: whereas he who believes on Jesus "overcomes the world." Saving faith, or faith unfeigned, with me, is confidence, faith, or trust in Jesus of Nazareth as the Son of God, the all-sufficient Saviour of sinners.

The next quotation from my writings (and on such an occasion I answer only for my views as I have expressed them) is the following: "In his Preface to his New Testament Mr. Campbell repeats this view: When one question of fact is answered in the affirmative, the way of happiness is laid open, and all doubts on the nature of true piety and humanity are dissipated. The fact is a historic one, and this question is of the same nature. It is this-Was Jesus the Nazarene the Son and Apostle of God? This question is capable of being converted into various forms-such as, Are the subsequent narratives true? Did Jesus actually and literally rise from the dead after being crucified and interred? Did he ascend into heaven in the presence of his disciples? Is he constituted the Judge of the living and the dead? or was he an impostor and a deceiver of men? It may be proposed in many a form; but it is still a unit, and

amounts to this-Is Jesus the Nazarene the Son of God, the Apostle of the Father, the Saviour of men? When this question is answered in the affirmative, our duty, our salvation, and our happiness are ascertained and determined.' Mill. Harb. Vol. vi. p. 82."

To this I fully subscribe; and the person that does not, has need to examine himself whether he be in the faith, or whether he believes on the Son of God; for surely if any one believes on him he will believe what he says, and what his apostles have said. And so explicit is Paul on this subject, that he simplifies still farther, and affirms that, “ if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thy heart that God raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved."

He next proceeds to my second fundamental error"The doctrine of Campbell on regeneration." The doctrine he expresses as follows:

"With one consent the Campbellites declare that regeneration, or being born again, is essential to salvation."

"Mr. Campbell and his friends declare that immersion in water is essential to regeneration."

"Mr. Campbell and his friends teach that immersion in water is absolutely essential to forgiveness of sins.”

"The Campbellites declare that immersion in water and regeneration are two names for the same thing."

Under these allegations some words of mine and other persons, found in my volumes, frequently dislocated, and never taken in their connexion, are offered as proof. Three of the four propositions are truly and properly false and delusive. * The last, though not in form false and perverted, is made so by its connexion with the others, and the main

If the reader will recur to Mr. Landis' article, p. 99, seq. he will find the foregoing propositions fully illustrated and fastened upon Mr. Campbell by ample quotations from his writings and publications. This defence, therefore, strikes us as an evasion of the points at issue, and we think every intelligent reader will see that Mr. C. has much more reason to confess, than to complain of, the want of candor. And we cannot see that his following remarks on his definition of the words "salvation," etc., relieve him in any measure from the point of Mr. Landis' statements.-EDITOR.