The preacher never failed in twenty years, except in a few cases of indisposition, to meet at the hour appointed; and his congregation became as punctual and circumspect in other matters as in their attendance at church: for it is almost impossible to be habitually punctual in one class of duties and to be remiss in all others. It is not only uncourteous, but it is unjust for any one of a company who have agreed to meet at a given time to transact any business, temporal or ecclesiastical, to keep others waiting for him. It is neither according to the golden rule of Christian morality, nor is it according to the oracles of common sense and common honesty. Time is money; and better still, it is the material of which life is made; and he that without my consent robs me of half an hour by a breach of contract, robs me not merely of so much money as my time commands, but takes from me a portion of my life. I labor this point for two reasons:-First for the sake of redeeming time and correcting a very common, though a very pernicious abuse; and in the second place, for the purpose of exemplifying, in comparatively a very small matter, the serious evils which result from one of the prevailing vices of this age, which is not confined to those called "the world," but has really entered and pervaded the professing community. Still I would press this matter rather as an indication of the insincerity of many professors, than as a matter of reform on its own merits. Prevarication, equivocation, double meanings, and mental reservations, much more the falsification of our own word in the breach of any contract, are not merely contrary to the letter and spirit of the gospel, but also declarative of a want of sincerity and honesty in our profession. They prove the heart not to be right in the sight of God, as did the words of Ananias and Sapphira his wife There is a deep-rooted love of the world, which lies below all our professions, when we suffer ourselves to fall into such acts of falsehood and injustice. The covenant-breaking and failures to redeem promises in this age, are unequivocal proofs of the hollow-heartedness of multitudes who have assumed the Christian name. They all spring from a species of idolatry in the heart, which is enmity against God and his Son. The love of the world and the desire of its friendship, displayed by many professors, show that they have not found rest to their souls, nor that riches and honor in Christ and his kingdom which they profess to have found, and which they so much need. To see a Christian in love with a ballroom or a theatre, is not more demonstrative of a worldly and fleshly temper, than to see him eager in the pursuit of wealth or popularity at the expense of truth, honor, and generosity. The love of God diffused in the heart by the Holy Spirit given to the Christian, elevates his mind above all that duplicity, insincerity, double mindedness, and ambiguity of character, so fatal to the culture and display of the graces of Christianity. A Christian, indeed, is a truly honorable man. He is one of Heaven's own nobility, and cannot condescend to an ignoble deed. He only needs to feel his royal sonship to be above a low, a mean, an unrighteous action. But he must look not at the things seen, but at the things unseen, to stand upon the summit level of his profession. In looking up so often to the skies, he acquires a dignified deportment which cannot but command the respect and homage of all discerning men. But this is really a degenerate age. We are all in the court of the Gentiles, and dwell in the midst of a people of unclean and polluted lips. That firm, robust, and vigorous piety, which in former and less corrupt times stood in unbending dignity in the presence of kings and courts, able to face a frowning or a smiling world with perfect equanimity, has almost fled to heaven and deserted the abodes of mortals. A singular pusillanimity has fallen upon the professing multitudes, the effect no doubt of tampering so much with a worldly and selfish spirit, the effect too of a singular scepticism which frequents the temples of Christian worship as well as the synagogues of Satan, though of a somewhat different type. A strong faith in God, in the promises of Christ, and in the means of purification, is not the present characteristic of the Christian profession. Christians are sceptical in the use of prayer, secret devotion, meditation, and abstraction from the world. They want to see the philosophic connexion between these holy institutions and the ends proposed: in one word, they wait to comprehend how and in what manner God will or can answer their prayers before hey ask; and hence they seek to ask in reason rather than in faith for promised grace and needed good. No wonder, then, we have to preach and write against insincerity, infidelity to solemn engagements, injustice, fraud, and all that conformity to a speculating and peculating age, which has superseded the grosser and more sensual vices of less enlightened and less ambitious epochs of human history. Christians, can you be so forgetful of your high callng-so unmindful of Him who gave himself for you, that he might purify to himself a peculiar people zealous of good works-so regardless of the favor and honor that come from God, as to imitate the children of the wicked one, rather than that illustrious cloud of witnesses placed before you by the holy Apostles and Prophets as examples worthy of your profession, whose purity, excellence, and dignity of character have shed such lustre 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 Justs 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 learn→ ed, 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 Inigrated 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 of 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 canse into the hands of the infidels, instead of defending it. A controversy ensued between Bacheler and Sleigh in the public papers and in pamphlets. 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 DR. W. W. SLEIGH vs. A. CAMPBELL. 463 anity was suffering much at the hand of its professed defender; and 1 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.] 'T'his 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 to be due. August 4, 1834. By authority from Alexander Campbell, cominunicated in his letter dated Bethany, Va. July 17th, 1838. (Signed) JAMES M. BROOM, 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 and demands whatever, of what kind or description soever, and especially from all complaint 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 Alcxander Campbell, or any other suit, proceeding, or prosecution whatever, of any kind, for the purpose of obtaining 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 |