omission of the article with this word in the sense of the earth, and with ou gavos, where the insertion of the article is not necessary to avoid ambiguity, no general rules can be laid down. On the whole, I suspect that the Nominative, and Accusative,

I as the object, incline to take the article in prose, and that the cases, at least of yñ after a preposition incline to omit it. Thus we have φαέθων-τα επί γης ξυνέκαυσε, (Plat. Timaeus, 22. c.) and a little below, των επι γης φθορά. And yet on tlie next page we have των υπό τον ουρανόν. With us the article is never needed when heaven in its monadic sense is spoken of, but is freely added or left out in prose with earth: yet in such expressions as who on earth, no one on earth,' it is perhaps better suppressed. And yet we must always say the world, the sun, when those words are used in their monadic sense, except in exclamations. There are, perhaps, reasons for all this that may be ascertained ; but such instances show the necessity of considering each of such words by itself, and the folly of reasoning from one language respecting the article to another.

Χρηματίζοντα. Perhaps the translation of this word in our version is unfortunate, as it is far from meaning speaking in general, and as that is remote from its original sense. It denotes more exactly making communications. In the Septuagint it occurs several times almost solely in Jeremiah, and answers to 797 in every instance, I believe, except one. It is used of God both in the Septuagint and New Testament, except in one passage of Jeremiah, which I cannot at this moment find. Its common meaning in profane Greek, to do business (especially of a public nature, as an ambassador, president of an assembly, etc.), may be illustrated by the word negotior, wbich, in Latin, is limited, I believe to the act of trading, but the derivative of which, negotiate, is almost technically applied to certain actions of ambassadors.

ARTICLE VII.

CAMPBELLISM.

By Rev. R. W. Landis, Jeffersonville, Pa.

“Our country is full of pretended reformers, who never read the Bible, and who, animated by a blind impulse, vainly imagine they are turning the world upside down; while in fact, they are only turning upside down in the world.”_Clougu's DISCOURSES.

By Campbellism I mean the system of theology promulgated by Mr. Alexander Campbell, of Bethany, Brooke County, Virginia. But inasmuch as the followers of this gentleman reject this designation as offensive, we disclaim all intention of employing it as a term of reproach. It is used simply to avoid circumlocution, in discriminating this sect of religionists from other professors of Christianity. It is as foreign from our wishes to offend the Campbellites by this appellation, as it is from theirs to offend others by using the terms Lutheran, Calvinist, Arminian, and Papist, for a similar purpose.

Mr. Campbell was born, and educated with a view to the Presbyterian ministry, in Ireland. He subsequently, with his father, (who was a preacher in the same denomination) being in straitened circumstances, emigrated to America ; and arriving in the western part of Pennsylvania, it was found necessary to attempt something for their relief. Contributions were made by a number of Presbyterian churches for this purpose. We mean this as no reflection upon Mr. Campbell, but we desire to obviate the influence of some of his statements upon the minds of his followers. He has often asserted that in emigrating to America, he voluntarily relinquished many advantages not to be here enjoyed, and turned his back upon brighter and more attracting prospects than this country afforded. The proof of disinterested benevolence in this case is by no means so clear as to be satisfactory.

Soon after arriving in this country, Mr. Campbell forsook the communion of the Presbyterian church, and united himself with that of the anti-paedo-Baptists. He still professes to be a Baptist, but (as will appear hereafter) it would be doing the greatest injustice to that intelligent and evangelical community to identify it with Mr. Campbell and his followers. They have long ago, in the general, repudiated both him and his system.*

The leaders of this sect boast that it is very numerous. Mr. Campbell himself, in 1830, affirmed that he had 150,000 followers; another of their popular writers, in 1833, estimates the number at 200,000. Their number cannot now be ascertained with precision, but they are numerous in the Southern and Western States.

The questions are not unfrequently asked, What are the distinguishing doctrines of this seci?-and, On what do they rely in support of their views? It is the intention of the present article to give a distinct answer to these questions; and to examine, with some thoroughness, the system itself; together with their adopted translation of the New Testament.

It is a trite remark, that there is no new error in theology; and that what in the present day is regarded as such, is nothing more than the resuscitation of error which existed, and was exploded, in a former age. Were we disposed to illustrate the truth of this remark, we should look in vain for a better or a more confirmatory instance than the one now under consideration. Though it may be true that the whole system was never before advocated by any single errorist, it is still a fact that there is scarcely a weatherboard or a tile which Mr. Campbell has fastened on his singularly heterogeneous structure, that cannot be shown to belong, appropriately, to the demolished fabric of some other opposer of the gospel in former days. We had, at the first, some thoughts of making this apparent; but have abandoned the design, believing that such is not the kind of investigation demanded by the present age. Nor could it accomplish any good end, that may not be better answered by conducting the investigation in the method wbich we have resolved upon.

Errorists, where the Bible is acknowledged, when they set out to establish a favorite theory in religion, invariably claim to be supported by the word of God, and manifest an anxious desire that this claim should be acknowledged by others:- or, at least, that their opinions, however wild and extravagant, should be adınitted to be the result of honest conviction on their part. Public sentiment, to an extent that is truly remarkable, sanctions this claim, and regards it as uncourteous and uncivil to doubt whether such an individual honestly believes that his views are sanctioned by inspiration. No matter how hallucinary, or preposterous, or abhorrent to the dictates of Scripture and common sense, the sentiment in question may be, we can express no doubt of the intelligent sincerity of the convictions in the mind of the errorist, without subjecting ourselves at once to the imputation of bigotry or uncharitableness. The same fate, also, pretty generally awaits us, when we venture to pronounce such sentiments repugnant to Scripture and to common sense. To such an extent did the late erratic, though transcendently gifted Irving urge this claim, that he considered himself harshly treated and persecuted by his opponents, because they affirmed that bis views could not be supported by their Confession of Faith, a measure which he even seriously attempted. The Mormon prophets of our own country, and the Christyans, and Campbellites, furnish other and not less remarkable instances.

It is not our intention to speculate upon this topic. But this abuse of public confidence appears to us, to annihilate the distinction between truth and error, at least as respects everything that pertains to its discovery and profession. It makes it equally meritorious for an individual to profess and suffer for error, as for truth. It assumes that man is not culpable for error, and loses sight of the fact that Paul has placed “heresies” along with other “works of the flesh," with “lasciviousness, idolatry, hatred, envyings, drunkenness," etc. ; and involves the absurd supposition that the Atheist's honesty ought not to have been doubted when he affirmed that he could prove everything by

“ the Bible, except that there is no God.”

It is clearly a doctrine of the Bible, tbat error in religion is, to say the least, much more the result of depravity of heart, than of honest and conscientious mistake. And though we cannot here pause to ascertain it, yet, there certainly must be some principle wbich will justify an individual in speaking decidedly, in terms of reprehension, of that which is clearly contrary to the word of God, without being justly the subject of censure. Surely if there are errorists, and if mankind are furnished with the means of ascertaining truth; if Christians are called upon to contend earnestly for the truth originally revealed; there must be some principle that justifies them in peremptorily refusing all such demands upon their christian fellowship and charity as are thus made by every one who chooses to represent himself as inspired of Heaven,

But errorists themselves practically concede the existence of such a rule or principle as the one referred to. The Mormons, the Christyans, and the Perfectionists, perpetually admonish all the churches in the land, hitherto regarded as Christian, that they are in dangerous error, that they are not Christian, but are corrupt, anti-apostolic, and have nothing to look for at the hand of God but bis uncovenanted mercies. The Campbellites assume precisely the same position, as we shall see hereaster. Nor is this all ; for, if we except the fact that the Campbellites and Christyans have, within a few years past, professed an agreement on all the essential points of their systems, they, with the utmost bitterness, denounce each other. Of this denunciatory spirit, we shall present here one brief example, from the writings of Mr. Campbell. He is speaking of the Mormons, (whom, we doubt not, it will be admitted, before we are through with this discussion, have quite as valid claims to be regarded as Christians, as Mr. Campbell himself and bis followers,) and thus remarks : * “I would say nothing to the disparagement of this deluded people. But 'tis a disgrace to the christian character, to the name, to any man who has ever read a Bible, to believe that absurd book, called the book of Mormon.' It is a matter of astonishment and grief, to think of a man in the exercise of reason,

for one moment, to give credit to this wretched bundle of lies. It must have been written by an ATHEIST, who did not believe that God would ever call him to judgment for lying in his name. A Yankee trick to make money. The author must have studied barrenness of sentiment and expression, a poverty of style, without an equal in the English language for the purpose of deception," etc.

Mr. Campbell, therefore, admits the existence of the rule, or principle in question. We also admit it. And without further

* See Mr. Campbell's Millennial Harbinger for April, 1834, Vol. V.

p. 148.