demand not your columns, but only the continuing them open, as you had declared them open. My first condition repels your insinuations and frustrates your efforts to make me the challenger. Read it again, page 534: That as you have declared your columns open, you will keep them open to my pieces, until I shall have fully replied to such arguments as you may offer."

In the "Sentinel" for the 14th January, the editor again speaks of "Mr. Campbell's late challenge," as if it was an indisputed fact; and then and there represents me as about to "lay siege to their fortified city."

This is a specimen of the tact of these dexterous polemics, who are denouncing the orthodox as worse than Deists and Atheists. Perhaps this may be thought too strong; but I will ask the reader what means the following sentence:-"Such are our present views of the subject, that if it were possible for Mr. C. to convince us that our system of faith did inevitably lead to Deism, or even to Atheism, we should feel bound to embrace" [retain it; for it is already embraced] "it, unless he should be able to show us something better than orthodoxy." Does not this mean that Deism, or even Atheism, is preferable to orthodoxy ? No wonder, then, that the spirit and efforts of Universalism are more directed against orthodoxy, than against Deism or Atheism!

I will not now comment on these words. Let the reader bear them in mind. But this gentleman makes new conditions and appends them to his former challenge. There was no provided in the first invitation; but now it is "provided I publish in the Harbinger." If I do not, then he backs out of the challenge! It was obvious I think to all, that Iintended to publish the whole controversy in this work, if it should be interesting: but as the gentlemen did not require me in their first challenge, I did not think it necessary to propose it. It is too late for them now to say, provided I publish their arguments. This omen can easily be interpreted!

I object to all the drapery and imagery of the "Sentinel" in speaking of this discussion. There is no argument in calling me "Goliah of Gath"-"a lion coming out of his lair"-in calling upon me to "draw my sword"-of "blowing Universalism sky-high," &c. &c. This Drury Lane or Grub Street rhetoric illy comports with the gravity and deliberation of religious discussion. Let us have argument and testimony, and not this species of ribaldry and buffoonery. The new conditions, or rather the ex post facto conditions of the senior editor of the "Star," are thus propounded in the paper of the 14th inst. I give them fully with all that can be considered a reply under the conditions I stipulated. I say, every thing published in the "Sentine'," under the conditions proposed by me in accepting the ch llenge tendered, is in the following words:

"But before the dreadful blow is struck, and Universalism blown sky high, Mr. Campbell's conditions must be attended to. We submit to the following conditions:

1st. Our columns shall be open to Mr. Campbell's pieces so long as he pubfishes ours in the Harbinger.

2. In this piece we are to define what we mean by universal salvation, and enumerate such portions of scripture as we rely on for proof,

By universal salvation, we mean that all men, universally, will be saved by Jesus Christ, i e. they will be raised from the dead to a state of immortality and incorruption, by virtue of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ-that they will die no more, but be equal to the angels in heaven. For the proof of which we rely-1st. On all that part of the Scripture where the purposes of God, in sending his Son into the world, are brought into view directly or indirectly. 2d. We rely on all that portion where the resurrection of the dead, literally, is spoken of. 3d. We rely on all that portion of the Christian Scriptures which speak any thing concerning the accomplishment of the mission of Christ into this world. 4th. We rely on all that portion of the Scriptures which represent God good enough to desire, wise enough to devise, and as possessing power sufficient to effect the salvation of all men. 5th. We rely on all that portion of the book which speaks of his love and tender mercies to sinners, and his impartial goodness to the just and the unjust: in fine, we rely on the general tenor of the book-and if Mr. Campbell meant we should spread these portions of the Christian Scriptures before him, he can save us much labor by opening his Bible and reading it.

3. As to Mr. Campbell's third condition, let him adopt that method of nvestigation he recommends, and we will gladly follow the example.

4. We will abide by any rule of interpretation of Scripture warranted by reason, Scripture analogy, and the context.

On these conditions we consider Mr. Campbell is bound to proceed, after answering to the charges preferred against him, to show that our system of the gospel is absurd-contrary to the nature and fitness of things, and inevitably leads to Deism, or something worse.

We shall now wait on Mr. Campbell until he makes his formidable attack."

K.

Whether the senior editor, Mr. Kidwell, intended to say he "would submit to," or submit these conditions, is left for grammarians and critics to decide. Supposing that he intended to submit to them, rather than submit them to us, we shall proceed to notice his first essay in proof of Universalism:

1st. The Definition-indefinite and ambiguous. Whether all men do suffer in this present life all the punishment due to their offences; or all the punishment which will be inflicted upon them; or whether they suffer in an intermediate or separate state of existence, previous to the resurrection of the just and unjust, are matters very questionable from the definition submitted. It would seem from the ambiguity of the definition, as if the gentleman placed his universal salvation after the resurrection of the dead; so that the bringing of all men to holiness who die unholy, is to be effected between the moment of their death and the resurrection. Whether theirs be the Catholic notion of Purgatory, I know not. But if such be not his opinion, a definition should have been submitted unequivocally asserting his opinion.

But it may be said, that as he asserts the resurrection of all men from the dead, he asserts the salvation of all men. If, then, he holds the resurrection of all men equivalent to the salvation of all men, he should have so informed us: for such is not the received sense of the word resurrection. Upon the whole premises I would infer that his opinion is, that those who die in their sins will be purged from

their sins in the separate state, and that at the resurrection they will come forth immortal and incorruptible in the apostolic import of these terms. But I will not infer for the gentleman, lest he should again accuse me of slander. He must give a definite and unambiguous proposition, which he will pledge himself to sustain. Nor will it do to tell me for proof that I must go and read all the Bil le to find his proof, as he has done in the piece above extracted. To go to work upon such premises would be to attempt to cleanse the Augean stable. A vague proposition, and all the Bible for proof! Really, gentlemen, you are fond of sea-room! But you greatly err if you imagine you are about to draw me off into such a wild goose chase as to pursue you over the vasty deep, carrying a cargo of the flags of all nations aboard your ship. A vague proposition, like a Delphic oracle, with all the Prophets and Apostles for proof!!

In the mean time I would make two requests-First, that as you profess ignorance of any established rules of interpretation, you would examine Horne or Ernesti, or some standard work upon the subject. And, in the second place, that you desist, as far as you possibly can, from all that braggadocio declamation and railing accusation, which is so essential to the defence of your tenets. I will make no reply to any thing of that sort. And while I am about to sustain all that I have said of Unitarian Universalism, if you will only give me something tangible, do not again repeat your stale and ungrounded accusations of my misrepresenting you: for a few efforts more like that which you have made, and all men will see the nakedness of your territories.

EDITOR.

Letter to the Editor of the Millennial Harbinger.

Dear Brother Campbell,

HORACE, in describing his journey from Rome to Brundusium, speaks of a town which he was obliged to designate by signs, because he could not introduce the name into verse. Although not confined to metrical numbers, I find myself in the same predicament in regard to a late writer in the Religious Herald-not because I could not introduce his name into my prose, (this I could do, however uncouth and immelodious,) but because he has not condescended to give us any name for himself. By signs, then, I must introduce him to your

notice.

His production appears in the Religious Herald, 6th vol. 48th No. p. 189, column 2d, headed "Reformation." This writer, it seems, aspires to the character of a reformer of the reformers, and I would that he were indeed; for I do fear there is need in many instances of reformation, re-reformation, and even re-re-reformation. But, sir, I doubt his qualifications for the task, for several

reasons:

First-Because it appears to me that the first sentence which he has penned, is, to say the least, absurd. Read it:-"In this state of imperfection and sin, of darkness and prejudice, the best of men are liable to depart from the doctrine and practice of true religion, and many do apostatize." Now, I would humbly ask, is it good sense to say that "the best of men are liable to depart from the doctrine and practice of true religion"? Is it not absurd to say that such men depart from the doctrine and practice of true religion? If, then, in this early stage of his production, he has fallen into a gross absurdity, I esteem it needs no. argument to show that this is a valid ground upon which to urge his incompetency for the work in which he has engaged.

My second reason is, that I think his model of a good reformer shows that he is a poor judge of what a reformer should be Melancthon (the Melancthon of the Herald) is his model. Now, sir, you and I both know Melancthon; and although I take pleasure in testifying to the mild christian spirit and deportment of this Melancthon, his good sense, and beautiful, perspicuous, and chaste style of writing; yet I would say, if there can be such a thing as a good physician, who is nevertheless not a good surgeon, a man may possess all the good qualities above named, and yet not make a good reformer; and this remark I would apply to our modern Melancthon. He lacks the bold, steady, surgeonlike hand of a reformer. He is not qual fied for deep probing and hard cutting; and these things all experience shows a reformer must do.

In the third place, this writer talks about being "disgusted and provoked,” and about a "mixture of disgust and resentment-towards the reformers I suppose! I have no objection to as delicate a gust or taste in religion as possible; this is no disqualification to a reformer: but this being "provoked," this "resentment" won't do. A reformer must be cool and benevolent.

Fourthly-He says, "To render the attack more triumphant, the assailant" (meaning, I suppose, such a one as yourself,) "has generally pretended that, for himself, he has no creed!-that he draws his sentimen's directly from the Bible!" Now, sir, I would ask, did you ever "pretend" that, for yourself, you have "no creed"? I know you have frequently said you have no creed (of your own making) to force upon the consciences of others; but did you ever intend to convey the idea that you had no creed for yourself? By creed, etymologically, I understand belief; and he certainly is no christian, and would not pretend to be such, who would say he had no creed according to this acceptation of the term. But this writer would represent you as having only "sentiments" which you "pretend to draw directly from the Bible." Now I must ask you to put this writer right, and let him know that there is a difference between belief and sentiment, and that you have a creed or belief which you draw directly from the Bible, and advise this reformer to go to the same fountain to get his, and not rely upon long aqueducts to bring it to him, inasmuch as there is danger of the pure wa er becoming impregnated with some of the qualities of the metal through which it is drawn.

Fifthly-He says, "Another artifice of the Reformers has been to assume that the church is in as deplorable darkness as the Catholic church was when Luther rose to dispel the clouds." This is a misrepresentation. We do not assume any such thing. I think you have represented the Protestant churches as not having got far enough from "Mystery, Babylon," to have escaped from the smoke and mists of that great city. Now it is one thing to be in the smoke of a city, and another to be actually in the city. In a loose way of speaking it may have been said that the Protestant churches are in Babylon, but from the general tenor of what you and others have said, every one, who was willing to know the true state of the case, must have learned that the above is the correct representation-not actually in Babylon, but not far enough from it to have obtained a clear, unclouded atmosphere. If this is a correct statement, then our reformer is guilty of misrepresentation; and this may lie as a fifth objection to him.

In conclusion, I must tell you, although perhaps it is superfluous, that being convinced that I cannot ride in the same vehicle with this nameless reformer. Í am obliged to ask a seat in yours. It were certainly desirable that we should be seated side by side, and talk together, and I think I could have given ample assurance that I would have been quite civil and courteous; but it seems to be a law of the vehicle in which this writer has chosen to travel, that none who are not agreed in sentiment shall travel together in it. Safely sheltered, then, from the direct replies and refutations of his antagonists, this "disgusted, provoked, resentful" writer bas commenced to hurl forth the thunders of his wrath. I hope, however, if you will give this a place, that somebody who may see it, will, at least, tell him, that some of us poor reformers have heard the

distant thunders of his "resentment," and beg that he will not suffer his ire to wax too hot that we ask also in the language of the Trojans of old, "Propius res aspice nostras"-examine into our affairs more closely before he commence the dreadful work of extermination. I wish him to be informed that it is unchivalrous to commence the work of "resentment" upon an enemy whose guns are fast spiked, so that we cannot expect even to return a single shot, while some of us are actually compelled to pay some of the expences of the destructive weapon which is playing upon us.

To save the circumlocution which the reformation writer of the Herald obliges us to use, I will just call myself

NON NEMO.

To the Editor of the Millennial Harbinger.

Dear Brother Campbell,

CHEROKEE NATION, Dec. 1, 1831.

IF I am not greatly deceived, it is the prevailing and ardent desire of my heart to know, experience, practise, and proclaim the truth as it is in Jesus. I was born in North Carolina in the year 1800. My parents had me sprinkled in the days of my childhood. About the year 1815 my father moved to West Tennessee. In the fall of 1821 I joined the Methodist Episcopal Church on trial, and in a few months afterwards made a profession of religion. I continued very doubtful upwards of twelve months, when I inferred from my warm and joyful feelings, that I had what is called "the witness of the Spirit." Then my doubts fled. In 1823 I joined the travelling connexionn, in which I have continued ever since, until very recently. During five years past I have been proclaiming what I now believe to be an imperfect gospel, among the Cherokees, as a missionary. This year I have had some difficulties with the Geor gians. I have been arrested, chained, imprisoned, condemned, reprieved, and banished the territory of the state, because I refused to take, what I believe to be, an unconstitutional and impious oath! My affliction has also been increased by the loss of a pious Cherokee wife, who died not long since, leaving behind her two little ones, Benjamin and Mary. But the will of the Lord be done. All these things, I have no doubt, will work together for my good, provided I love God.

Ever since I made the christian religion my study, I have had doubts and fears respecting the sectarian gospels of the day, and sometimes almost despaired of understanding the way of the Lord more perfectly; but during two years past my hopes have been reviving. You can scarcely imagine how I have been surprized and delighted since the ancient gospel, like the sun of a cloudless morning, rose upon the eyes of my understanding. I deem it unnecessary to inform you of the means by which I have been led to this important discovery of the truth as it is in Jesus. While we admire the instrument, God must have the glory, through Christ Jesus our Lord. Amen. While on a visit to see my relatives in West Tennessee, I was, on the 29th of last October," immersed into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, by brother Payton Smith. I have returned to the Nation, and am now on a tour, proclaiming the glad tidings, with what success (God willing) will hereafter inform you.

The Cherokees are an interesting people; and with them, (God willing,) whatever their destiny may be, I expect to live and die. My heart's desire and prayer to God is, that the primitive gospel may be introduced, prevail, and triumph among this oppressed people. The days of inspiration have passed away; nevertheless, I believe i am divinely called to proclaim the word of salvation to the Cherokees.

VOL. III.

8

CHEROKEE.