upon human nature, and endeared their memory to all the generations of the upright in every quarter of the world.

If, then, we would rise to their measure of excellence, we must begin with the purification of the heart from the love of the world, and from all sinful compliances which make provision for the flesh to fulfil the lusts thereof.

A. C.

DR. W. W. SLEIGH vs. A. CAMPBELL.

It will be remembered by most of our readers that a public controversy was held in the city of Cincinnati in the summer of 1834, by and between brother John T. Johnson of Kentucky, and W. W. Sleigh from London, on the question, "Is remission of sins by Jesus Christ conditional or unconditional?” Brother Johnson appeared on the affirmative, and Dr. Sleigh on the negative. This debate was followed up, as we learned, with certain abusive lectures delivered by Doctor Sleigh at the Mechanics' Institute, titled "CAMPBELLISM UNMASKED BY DR. SLEIGH FROM LONDON." A pamphlet was also published by Dr. Sleigh, grossly misrepresenting our views and proceedings. Finally, Dr. Sleigh migrated from Cincinnati in circumstances no way honorable to him as a Doctor from London, a gentleman, or a Christian; of all of which we were duly informed, as the events occurred, but of which we took no notice in our periodical lest we should appear to triumph over a fallen antagonist. Finally, however, Dr. Sleigh appears upon the stage debate against the infidels in the city of New York, and was figuring there as the defender of Christianity against their assaults. Meanwhile, Origen Bacheler of New York, who had acted as Moderator for Doctor Sleigh at their evening debates, (a gentleman of good standing as a professor of Christianity, an editor of religious and moral periodicals, and well read on the evidences of Christianity,) became disgusted with Dr. Sleigh's mode of treating the subject, and withdrew from the chair. Mr. Bacheler alleged that Dr. Sleigh injured the cause in various ways, especially in adducing false facts, or in misstating the authorities which he quoted, and was thereby surrendering the cause into the hands of the infidels, instead of defending it. A controversy ensued between Bacheler and Sleigh in the public papers and in pamphlets.

of

Having been known to Mr. Bacheler, he addressed me on the subject of Dr. Sleigh's reputation in Cincinnati-rumors of his behaviour there having already reached the city of New York. I wrote a private letter to my friend Bacheler, stating to him all that I had learned from my correspondent in Cincinnati touching Dr. Sleigh, and stating the reasons why I had not published these matters, principally because Dr. Sleigh had very much abused myself and brethren in Cincinnati, and therefore would not appear in the attitude of triumph over a dishonored foe. Mr. Bacheler thought the cause of truth required him to publish my letter to him in the New York SUN, or such extracts from it as expressed the above views.

After some time pamphlets were forwarded me from New York, clearly evincing, as. I thought, that the cause of our common Christi

anity was suffering much at the hand of its professed defender; and I was urged from a sense of duty-not from any unkind feeling or maliciousness to Dr. Sleigh, to publish certain extracts from said pamphlet, with some remarks, in the February number of 1836, to prevent, as far as I could, the injuries anticipated from the conduct of the Doctor.

Mr. Bacheler's pamphlet having been published in New York in the face of Dr. Sleigh, and no legal prosecution commenced against the author of it, and such a written defence being got up by Dr. Sleigh as I thought reached not the merits of the allegata, but left Mr. Bacheler's statements in all their force, I felt myself in duty bound to take some notice of the affair to prevent, if possible, farther injury to the cause of truth. So matters stood for some months, and uutil my arrival in Philadelphia, August, 1836; when, as stated in volume 7, first series, page 548, Dr. Sleigh commenced a prosecution against me under the plea of 10,000 dollars damages to his fair and saintly reputation, from my having copied and republished from O. Bacheler's pamphlets certain extracts as above described. [See February No., vol. 7, page 91.] This case has been under trial ever since, and has only been decided August 4, 1838.

The history of the prosecution is briefly this:-Action was commenced in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, under bail of 4000 dollars, and damages claimed 10,000 dollars. I was put upon the proof of O. Bacheler's allegata, an unexpected task, and undertaken from necessity. I went to work as conscientiously, though not so acceptably, as to prove the character of the Bible. Meanwhile, Doctor Sleigh thought it expedient to take the cause out of Court and have it arbitrated, a power which the laws of Pennsylvania confer on either party. It has been almost a year before these arbitrators, who met some twenty-six or thirty times on the trial. I sent on a volume of such documentary evidence as fell in my way. Finally, the Doctor proposed a compromise; and as a Christian, I felt in duty bound to meet him. His proposition was, that I should admit that two points in O. Bacheler's statement were not proved, and then pay all costs of prosecution, he renouncing all his claims and interests in the aforesaid ten thousand dollars. To this I would not consent. I authorized my

Attorneys, however, if they thought the testimony adduced by me did not prove, as the laws in such cases required, these points, to say so for me, and I should pay the legal costs only, he paying his own costs of prosecution. Accordingly they forwarded to me the following state

ment:

"After due investigation of the statements republished by me in my Millennial Harbinger, from a pamphlet published by Origen Bacheler of New York, to the effect that W. W. Sleigh had been arrested in Cincinnati for swindling; and that the London Lancet contain ed an account that he had run away from London after embezzling the funds of a public Institution-it is but candid to say, that I have now no reason to believe that the Lancet contained such an account as above stated, or that he was arrested in Cincinnati for swindling-the arrest alluded to being in a civil suit for the recovery of money claimed so be due.

August 4, 1834.

By authority from Alexander Campbell, communicated in his letter dated Bethany, Va. July 17th, 1838.

(Signed)

JAMES M. BROOM,
J. R. INGERSOLL,
Attornies for Deft."

The above document was drawn up in Philadelphia as it now reads, with the exception of one word, which I inserted before it was ratified: namely, the word "now" as above italicised. The fact, as appeared on the trial, is, that the "report that he had run away from London after embezzling the funds of a public Institution," was found in a pamphlet said to have been published dy Dr. Sleigh himself, and not in the Lancet. Besides a certificate, not very creditable to the Doctor and his connexions with said Institution, rather a caution to the public, on which I relied, though not verbally to the point, signed by some dozen of gentlemen of high standing in London, was not in the Lancet," but on the cover of one of its numbers.

Here follows Dr. Sleigh's dismission of the suit:

Know all men by these presents, That I, William W. Sleigh, of the city of Philadel phia, Doctor of Medicine, have remised, released, and forever discharged, and by these presents do remise, release, and forever discharge Alexander Campbell, of Bethany, Virginia, from all action and actions, cause and causes of action, claims, reckonings, dues aud den ands whatever, of what kind or description soever, and especially from all complamt and liability whatever to me, or on my account, for or by reason of any publication which he, the said Alexander Campbell, may have at any time heretofore made or uttered of or concerning me or any of my affairs; and I do hereby agree and engage that I will not further prosecute the suit now instituted by me against the said Alexander Campbell, or any other suit, proceeding, or prosecution whatever, of any kind, for the purpose of outaining compensation or satisfaction for any such publication as aforesaid; hereby acknowledging myself fully content and satisfied with the explanation given by the said Alexander Campbell in relation thereto, on the conditions arranged with his counsel. Witness my hand and seal, the fourth day of August, one thousand, eight hundred, and thirty-eight. (Signed)

W. W. SLEIGH."

I cannot think the Doctor deserves my thanks for the very high compliment he has bestowed on me in this prosecution; yet it is the highest compliment any person has ever bestowed upon me in my editorial capacity. The world knows I only copied and republished that of which O. Bacheler was the author. Now, of how much consequence my editorial character is in the judgment of my most unfeigned enemy, may be learned from the fact that he regarded himself as injured to the amount of 10,000 dollars by my only copying into my pages what he suffered Mr. Bacheler, a very responsible person, to write and publish without calling upon him for one cent! He can never retract this honor conferred on me, but by acknowledging he maliciously and wantonly prosecuted me because of his enmity against the cause which 1 plead; or, perhaps, he has since learned that his character is not now worth quite so much as he once thought it was. Meanwhile, as I have religiously acted as I thought my duty required in this whole affair, I have suffered the whole prosecution under the full conviction that it has been for righteousness' sake, and I am sincerely thankful for the experience which it has afforded me, and the issue to which it has come.

As the name of Lawrence Greatrake was connected with that of Dr. Sleigh in the article respecting the Doctor's debate in New York, as having renounced the Christian profession; and as I stated in the preface to the Christian Baptist, July 4, 1823, that if at any time any thing reported to me as a fact and so published, should afterwards appear not

to have been a fact, I should, on being convinced, correct it, I take the opportuuity of stating that Mr. James Hanna, now of Smithfield, Ohio, was the person who informed me that Lawrence Greatrake had renounced the Christian profession and become a sceptic, having been engaged in distributing atheistic tracts in a steam-boat on the Mississippi, in which he was a passenger. Since that time events have occurred which created some doubts that Mr. Hanna was mistaken in the person. On farther examination it appeared that a person came into said boat distributing such tracts, who was pointed out to him as Lawrence Greatrake by some of the passengers; but as their appears a possibility of a mistake in the person, I think it due even to Lawrence Greatrake, whom I have licensed to say of me what he pleases without being held responsible, to state the dubiety that now rests upon the mind of my informant on the subject. I presume there is no person in the mighty West whose censures and slanders can, with more uniform certainty, be regarded as commendation than those of this itinerant calumniator of all good men and good measures. Yet even Lawrence Greatrake shall not be unjustly treated on our pages. A. C.

From the Evangelist.

EVENTS OF 1823 AND 1827.

BROTHER FRANCIS W. EMMONS, in the May number of the Advocate, assumes the very gracious task of demonstrating to his readers the existence of certain inconsistencies in the answer of his brother Campbell to the questions of a certain lady, relative to Christians being among the sects, &c.; and having introduced a saying of that brother's respecting baptism, viz. that it was in 1823 when its true meaning and design were for the first time promulgated in America, brother Emmons, at the bottom of the page cites to a reference mark, the following sentence from the preface to my volume, titled The Gospel Restored:•In 1827 the true gospel was restored.' This is done by brother Emmons, so far as I can perceive his design by his doings, in order to make those who read his piece believe that brother Campbell and my self have contradicted each other. But I am confident that we have not contradicted each other in the matter; for supposing that the meaning and design of baptism was in 1823 first promulged in America, is this saying that the gospel was then restored? Certainly it is not. Brother Campbell would not, brother Campbell could not publish that the gospel was restored in 1823. He has, we are confident, more re>pect for truth and his own character than even to insinuate so ungrounded an imposition.

The restoration of the whole gospel in 1827 can never be confounded with the definition of a single one of its terms in 1823, or in any year preceding it. If the use of the meaning of baptism in a debate for

the purpose of putting down an opponent. may be regarded as the restoration of the gospel, then brother Campbell and myself knew baptism to be for the remission of sins two years at least before 1823. Brother Campbell, therefore, never even insinuates such a matter. The restoration of the gospel did not consist in the definition of any one of its terms-as faith, repentance, baptism, or the remission of sins; but in publicly, obviously, and avowedly receiving men to the remission of sins, and a participation of the Spirit of God on a profession of faith and repentance. Does hrother Campbell say this was done in 1827? He does no such thing; and, therefore, we do not contradict each other. The plan pursued in the promulgation of remission of sins and the Holy Spirit was to assemble all the great terms of the gospel, faith, repentance, baptism, remission of sins, the Holy Spirit, and eternal life; and when thus arranged, to define them in the order of their occurrence, and carefully point out their uses. But although our best proclaimers have, by adopting this plan, justified its wisdom and propriety, yet the plan itself was not the restoration; the restoration of the gospel consisted, 1 repeat it, in publicly and avowedly receiving into the bosom of the church believing penitents to the remission of sins and the Holy Spirit. WALTER SCOTT.

WITHOUT pronouncing any opinion on the motives that influenced brother Emmons to put such a note at the bottom of his page in the piece alluded to, or brother Scott to comment on the matter as he has done, I feel myself called upon to make some remarks on the apparent contradiction above noticed. I have never said that "the gospel was restored" in 1823, and brother Scott very justly says, as above quoted, that I have never said "that it was restored in 1827." There is then no contradiction, real or apparent. I never believed the one nor the other. To restore the gospel is really a great matter, and implies that the persons who are the subjects of such a favor once had it and lost it. I am thankful that I never put the title "Christianity Restored" nor "Gospel Restored" to any thing I ever wrote. The proprietors of a volume so named, written by me. or the book-binder, pasted on a norocco patch the golden words "Christianity Restored," as, in their judgment, more definite than my title-page; or, at least more easily pasted on the back: but assuredly I had nothing to do with it. iny own title-page!] If any man ever did restore the gospel to the English people, that man was John Wickliffe, who translated the New Testament into English and gave it in the vernacular to his countrymen. Still it might be asked, had the English nation formerly possessed and lost it!

[See

But I have often spoken and written on "the restoration of the ancient order of things" to the professed church of God; and have contributed my best efforts to have the ordinances of baptism, the Lord's supper, the Lord's day, &c. &c. taught and practised by the church of Christ as at the beginning. But to restore the gospel to a sinner by "admitting