a moment, that he will take amiss my questions or remarks. They are merely adapted to call him out on subjects which he loves to canvass; and they offer him a good opportunity to enlighten a great host of inquirers, all much in the same plight with myself. Indeed, what better opportunity can he wish, in order to diffuse light over our country on these momentous subjects?

1

Dr. W. has pointed out at least some inaccuracies in the writer whose essay he has canvassed. If he is disposed to ask, why I have not put some questions to that writer, as well as to him, I have a ready answer-as before suggested. That writer is an incognito; but Dr. W. is before the public: that writer may be young, but he is a veteran of half a century's discipline. May I say one thing more? Dr. W. has asserted, that the views of the author on whom he criticises, are in direct and palpable opposition to God's word, to the dictates of conscience, and to the experience of devoted Christians." These are, to say the least, high charges. They go for the whole. They surely ought, then, to be sustained by radical and fundamental reasoning and argument, and plain and irrefragable conclusions. A writer who takes such high ground as this, should have no chinks in his own building; no tottering or bowing places in his own wall, no dark spot on his plat where so much light is needed; no tripping or crossing track in psychology or theology. If he can indeed satisfactorily answer the questions now put, I, at least, will concede to him the praise of omne talit punctum; and he will be entitled to the grateful acknowledgment of thousands of others.

I do trust, after the general kindness and candour and explicitness which he has shewn in the remarks that have called forth my questions, that he will be candid, and kind, and plain, and direct in his answers; and will not, as many disputants do, call hard names, or insinuate that there is some wrong motive at the bottom of such questions. I have, as I trust he has, an antipathy to every thing of this nature. I do trust too, that when he comes to the pinch of some questions, he will meet it like a man, and either solve the difficulty, or else concede the consequences, if it must remain unsolved. There is a circumgyration in matters of this kind, to which some disputants never fail to resort, when a real exigency comes. If he should feel pressed by any of these questions, I will

not suppose, for a moment, that he will place himself on a level with such disputants. Dr. W. may perhaps see, in many of these questions, nothing more than merely the evidence of a tyroship in metaphysics. Very good. The writer professes to be an inquirer merely-and, if he pleases, will not be angry at being deemed a tyro. Conceding this to be a fact, however, it will not be unbecoming for a master in Israel, to condescend so far as to solve the doubts, remove the difficulties, and instruct the mind, of a somewhat perplexed INQUIRER.

P. S. One question above all, I wish to have thoroughly cleared up. Dr. W. makes us mere passive recipients (pp. 186-188) in all our passions and desires. The effort to extricate the matter from this position on p. 189, is wholly unsatisfactory; and it contradicts what he has before said. The general tenor of all his reasonings seems to demonstrate that the matter lies in his mind in this shape-viz. that of spontaneous, invariable, uncontrollable passions, etc., over which the will has no power. These are his own representations. On this ground, I have an ardent desire to know how the command to love God and our neighbour is to be obeyed. What sort of obedience, is an involuntary affection, uncontrollable, invariable? What is the nature of the obligation which lies on the sinner, in this case, to exchange his enmity for love? Does God actually demand, in this case, what is feasible and practicable on the part of the sinner? or is it like a command to iron, that it shall yield itself to the attraction of the magnet? If Dr. W. can scatter light over this dark-dark place, he will lay all Christendom under obligation to him. It is clear also, from what he says about volition, that he regards it as being as necessarily governed by motives, as desires and passions are by their appropriate objects. In one sense this may be admitted, viz. that a choice must be made in view of some supposed good. But if, when motives have done their whole work upon the soul, the power of choice in any and every case is still in reserve, and is absolutely essential to free agency-what correctness, or justice can there be, in comparing with this the case of involuntary and invariable desires and feelings? What justice in comparing a passive receptivity, with an essentially active power of a being made in the image of his Maker?

ARTICLE XI.

REMARKS ON AN ARTICLE DENOMINATED "CAMPBELLISM. By REV. R. W. LANDIS:”—Am. Bib. Repos. for Jan. and April, 1839.-VoL. I. p. 94, seq. and p. 295, seq.

By Alexander Campbell, Bethany, Va.

INTRODUCTORY AND EXPLANATORY NOTE, BY THE EDITOR.

Those of our readers, who possess the first Nos. of the current series of the Repository, will readily recur to the article on 66 Campbellism," by Mr. Landis, above referred to. That article was read with much interest, and several of our most intelligent correspondents in the western and southern States, who are much better acquainted, than ourselves, with the peculiarities of Campbellism and their practical influence, have taken occasion to express their high sense of the ability and justice of Mr. Landis' discussion.

In the mean time Mr. Campbell has manifested much disturbance and dissatisfaction with what has appeared to others to be an able and candid exposition of his published views. He has replied to Mr. Landis at some length in his own publication, "The Millennial Harbinger," and, (if we may judge from one No. only, which we have seen,) with great severity and rudeness.

The spirit with which he has urged this subject upon our own attention has been truly extraordinary. After addressing us in one or two communications which we had delayed an swering, he addressed a letter to the "Publisher of the Am. Bib. Repository," dated December 13, 1839, accusing both the publisher and the editor of having "most wantonly and cruelly slandered" him, etc. etc., and threatening a civil prosecution for damages.

In reply to the letter above referred to, the following was addressed to Mr. Campbell, which, we are informed, Mr. C. has announced in his publication, as an "apology" for Mr. Landis' article in the Repository, etc. As some of our friends have expressed some alarm at this announcement, we insert our letter to Mr. C. entire, that the public may be disabused of all false impressions concerning it; premising also that this is the only communication we have ever made to Mr. C.

REV. A. CAMPBELL,

New-York, Jan. 2, 1840.

Dear Sir,-Your letter of the 13th, addressed to the publisher of the Am. Bib. Repository and enclosing $5, was received on the 20th of Dec. ult. Enclosed you have my receipt for the $5. Your name is stricken from the list of our subscribers, in compliance with your request.

The spirit of your letter appears to me to be such as you will, on further reflection, yourself disapprove. On that point, therefore, I need only remark that it is not in my heart to return "railing for railing, but contrariwise, blessing." I am not conscious of ever having indulged a wish to injure you; and I am sure I indulge no such wish or intention at present. Personally I have no acquaintance with you. I never saw you, and I am not aware that I have ever read ten pages of your writ ings. Nor have I ever formed any acquaintance with the sect of the Campbellite Baptists, of which you are the reputed leader. I had frequently heard you spoken of in the Western and Southern States as maintaining peculiar sentiments on the subject of Water Baptism and some other points, and as the leader of a numerous sect, denominated as above. But my associations and intercourse were wholly with other denominations of professing Christians, and that too in the prosecution of objects which led me away from the discussion of the peculiarities o your faith or those of your followers. I had also heard of your public debates with respectable individuals, but do not recollect that I ever read a page of those debates on either side. My impressions, therefore, both of yourself and your system, though decidedly unfavorable, were altogether crude and unsettled.

Such were the facts in regard to my own state of mind on this general subject, when the Rev. Mr. Landis wrote me proposing to furnish an article for the Repository, on Campbellism. It appeared to me to be a subject of sufficient interest to justify the reception of such an article. I had confidence also in Mr. Landis' ability to discuss the subject thoroughly, and had no reason to doubt his disposition to do it with candor. At that time also I was ignorant of the fact that Mr. Landis had ever had any dispute with you in regard to your sentiments, and did not sup pose that he was at all known to you. It was not until quite recently I have learned that he had been assailed in your Periodical and challenged to discuss your system, etc. Of all this I was wholly ignorant, and supposed Mr. Landis to have been moved in his discussion only by a desire to defend the truth against error, without the slightest mingling of personal considerations or feelings. His article was accordingly received and published in the Nos. of the Repository for January and April last.

I make the foregoing statement to assure you that you labor under an entire mistake, when you suppose I have intentionally slandered you, or that I have ever entertained any other feelings towards you than those of kindness and regret. I read Mr. Landis' article with care before committing it to the press, and erased several expressions in it which seemed to me to be unnecessarily severe, but added nothing to it. In my examination of the article I did not in any instance recur to the authorities referred to by Mr. Landis. They were not in my possession;

correctness.

and, as his quotations were referred to page, chapter, verse, etc. with so much apparent accuracy, I did not hesitate to trust the writer for their He too is responsible for the sentiments and statements which the article contains, as you will see by turning to my "Introductory Observations" in the same No. of the Repository (p. 5), where I say, the editor" will not be responsible for the correctness of every sentiment which may be advanced by writers. As a general rule, each article will be published with the name of its author, who will be held responsible for the defence of his own position," etc. Guided by this rule, and presuming the quotations made by Mr. Landis to be correct, (and also his statements,) his arguments appeared to me to be highly satisfactory, and to justify the commendation of them which is expressed in my Note, page 130. I think also that you will yourself admit, that, granting Mr. Landis' positions to be sustained, as they appear to me to be, they are sufficient to justify the language of my Note in reference to yourself. If however you regard any of the statements of Mr. Landis, in the article referred to, as untrue, or as personally injurious, you are at liberty to deny or refute them in the Repository. If you wish to do this, I will grant you space for a brief article in the April No., provided you will forward it in season to reach me before the 1st of March next. I say, a brief article, because I am sure your object may be answered in a few pages, better than by a protracted discussion of the subject, and my wish is to dispose of this discussion in as brief a space as I can, and do justice to the parties. It is only because you complain of injustice that I consent to admit any thing from you on the subject. But personal injury I am unwilling to inflict upon any man and if you have been slandered by Mr. Landis, as you suppose, it is but just that you should be allowed to deny the charges of which you complain, in the pages of the same work which contains the alleged slander. You will, therefore, oblige by letting me know, without unnecessary delay, whether I may expect a communication from your pen for the Repository, as above proposed.

Your letter arrived quite too late to receive any satisfactory notice in the Repository for the present month, which was all made up and nearly all printed. And the delay I trust will not be disadvantageous to you, as you will now have ample time to do justice to your own views of the subject, which, if you will suppress the excitement of your feelings, and write with candor and courtesy, will be better every way, than any explanation of the state of the case from me.

I shall be happy to hear from you soon, and your next letter, I trust will be such, both in spirit and manner, as to command that respect from me, which it will be my endeavor to merit from you, by training myself to kindness and justice, as well as firmness, in the defence of the truth. I remain truly yours,

ABSALOM PETERS.

Mr. Campbell promptly replied to the above, and has furnished a communication of which the following is the substance. Though the piece is quite too long, for the space we had proposed to allow, yet we insert the whole of it,