Page images

whence, instead of the pure streams is abundant testimony that to obedient of confidence and joy, proceed the tur- believers the Holy Spirit was both bid currents of doubt and dread. promised and given. Take a few in

There is something so childish in the stances :-John vii. 39, “ This spoke writer's over-anxiety to find an error he of the Spirit, which they that bein Mr. Campbell's words, “baptism is lieve on him should receive. Acts one of the things we must do for our- v. 32, “ So (a witness) is also the selves,” (meaning “ which God has Holy Spirit, whom God hath given to not done for us," as per previous sen- them that obey him.” Gal. iii. 2, tence) that disproof would be childish “ Received ye the Spirit by the works too. His petty maneuvre, which of the law, or by the hearing(the changes " we must do” into “ we do,” obedience W. Jones) “of faith.” Gal. and removes the emphasis from iv. 6, Because you ARE sons ; God "must" to ourselves, is equally despi- hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son cable. The whole paragraph is just into your hearts.” Eph. i. 13, “ AFTER killing his man of straw.

that ye believed ye were sealed with Error 4th. In conversion there is that holy spirit of promise.” Now, “ an influence or agency of the Spirit these are direct and explicit testialong with the word”—“ a display of monies, founded on fact. Many more divine power similar to that which he could be produced, but first our Bapwrought in Christ when he raised him tists should either fairly dispose of from the dead,” (p. 19.) This is ano- these, or (to be consistent) cry “how ther leading doctrine with these Bap- fallacious" at the author of them. tists, and to maintain it they string St. Paul, at Ephesus, clearly indicates together a number of isolated passages, the “mind of the Lord” on this as boys do egg-shells-supposing per- matter, by asking, “Have ye received haps, that although separately not one the Holy Spirit since ye believed ?” of them sustains the doctrine, they Had the Ephesian disciples been as may collectively, as showy ciphers be “enlightened” as our Baptist memthought to amount to å unit of proof. bers, they would have denounced this 1st. Nothing is said in the holy book as a “ dangerous error" of the apostle. of “ influence or agency of the Spirit Error 5th. The atonement is lialong with the word;" nor of any mited to a part of mankind ; this is divine power in conversion besides the contended for, p. 20. The word Holy Spirit's testimony concerning atonement occurs but once in the Christ. This may seem a bold asser- New Testament, and ought there to tion, but if such things are said they be “reconciliation,” as rendered in can be produced. 2nd. The divine other places. The reconciliation is, power displayed in conversion is “ the therefore, supposed to be limited to a gospel of Christ,” which is the power certain number of sinners. Now, 1st. of God unto salvation to every one This is a reflection on the goodness that believeth. By this power even and integrity of God !-On his gooda once injurious Saul could open sin- ness, because it exhibits Him who is ners' eyes-turn them from darkness LOVE as exhausting his compassion to light, and from Satan to God. 3rd. on particular persons, and shutting The scriptures contain neither promise up his bowels of pity against all for, nor narrative of the gift of the others !-On his integrity, because, Holy Spirit to other than Old Testa- although professing to love all manment or New Testament believers : kind, yea, to have so loved the WORLD old Simeon, Anna, Lydia, and Corne- as to give his only begotten ; yet, lius being of the former class, and con- after all, it was a mere part of the verts at Jerusalem, Ephesus, Corinth, world he loved, if he unmercifully and Rome, of the latter. 4th. There left a large proportion to their doom ! 2nd. It is contrary to the other deal- all ? And is he not a propitiationings of God with men, for he makes not for believers' sins only, but also his sun to shine on the evil as well as for the sins of the whole world ? on the good, and sends his fructifying Even Baptist members must answer showers equally on the lands of the these questions in the affirmative. just and the unjust. And it is con- 5th. I may conclude this head and tradicted by Jesus's injunctions to his this communication by noticing a disciples— to bless those who had curiosity in its way. Baptists somecursed, and do good to those who times talk of “ the extent of the hated them, and even to pray for atonement,” meaning that its benefits those who maliciously persecuted are confined to certain persons. This them, in order that they might truly Mr. Campbell meets by saying, “The be God's children—in these respects atonement, or propitiation, has no resembling their Father in heaven. extent,” embracing as it does all 3rd. It is contrary to divine testi- mankind. And the writer of this mony, for we are there informed, pamphlet rejoins, “ To say the atone“ God was in Christ reconciling the ment has no extent, is to say Christ world to himself,” not reckoning to died for no man.” This is, indeed, a them their trespasses. And by his poser. Philosophy itself might be authority and in his name his heralds puzzled to know how this conclusion proclaim, “ As though God did be- could be arrived at from the preseech you (the world) by us, we pray mises. It is just saying, If Christ you, in Christ's stead, BE YE RECON- died for all, he died for none! The CILED TO God.” 4th. These Bap- serpent was lifted up for all Israel; tists seem to suppose that, by showing therefore it was lifted up for none ! Christ died for believers, they prove Blessed be God, the son of man has he died for none else! Now, who been also lifted up, filled with health doubts that Jesus “ laid his life down and life for all, without exceptionfor the sheep,” or that his people truly that WHOSOEVER believes on him may sing, “ Thou hast redeemed us to God not perish, but have eternal life. by thy blood ?” But the questions Misapplications, &c. next month, here are, did he not die for all ? Did D.V. he not taste death for every man ?! In all benevolence, Did he not give himself a ransom for

J. D.

CAMPBELL v. ROBERTSON. Judgment in this case, the particu- damages were modestly set down at lars of which have appeared in our £5000, but subsequently reduced to pages, was given by the Lords Justices, £200! The Sheriff of Lanark, apin the Court of Session, Edinburgh, proving of this application, issued a on the 20th of November last. It warrant for the apprehension of Mr. will be remembered that the Rev. Campbell, who was accordingly inJames Robertson, through his legal carcerated in Glasgow. Application advisers, applied to the Sheriff of La- was thereupon made by the friends of nark for a warrant to apprehend the Mr. Campbell to the Lord Ordinary Rev. Alexander Campbell, on the (Murray) who declared the warrant ground that he (Mr. Campbell) having by authority of which Mr. Campbell published “ false and scandalous” had been imprisoned to be illegal, statements respecting Mr. Robertson, and directed his immediate liberation. was about to leave Scotland. The It was now sought by the Respondent,


Mr. Robertson, to set aside the deci- tained from said slanderous and sion of the Lord Ordinary, and obtain defamatory statements.” damages against the Suspender, Mr. The petitioner then stated his Campbell. It will be seen by our re- belief of Mr. Campbell's intention to port, that the Lords Justices affirmed leave Scotland, and the prayer conthe decision of the Lord Ordinary, cluded for warrant for the apprehenthereby establishing the illegality of sion of the Rev. Alexander Campbell the warrant by which Mr. Campbell as in meditatione fuge, and his was imprisoned. Lord Jeffrey-a imprisonment until he should find celebrated contributor to the Edin-caution, “ to abide the issue of any burgh Review, and perhaps the most action to be instituted at the petitiondistinguished ornament of the Scottish er's instance for damages and solatium bench-pronounced the application for said false, slanderous, and defafor the warrant to be an extraordinary matory statements.” course, “ affecting the liberty of the The petitioner, in his oath, deponed, subject,” and “ at least rash and erro- “That the Rev. Alexander Campbell

complained upon, is justly due and

addebted to the deponent a sum of REPORT.

£5000 of damages, for the injury the On the 31st August 1847, the Rev. deponent has sustained at the hands James Robertson presented a petition of the said Rev. Alexander Campbell to the Sheriff of Lanarkshire, shewing. I by the published letter referred to, “ That the Rev. Alexander Campbell, l

and by statements made in lectures in president of the Bethany College,

Scotland.” Virginia, United States, America, on Mr. Campbell, on being brought the 25th of August current, published up for examination, proposed several in the newspaper published in Edin- objections to the competency of the burgh of that date, called the · Edin-application

in application, the nature of which will burgh Journal,' a letter addressed to the editor of the said journal, con

be seen from the interlocutor of the taining a number of false and slande

de Sheriff-substitute :rous statements highly prejudical to “ Glasgow, 3rd September, 1847. the private character of the petitioner, -Having considered the foregoing and calculated to injure his usefulness objections and answers, and heard as a minister of the gospel : That a parties' procurators thereon, and recopy of the said newspaper is here- sumed consideration of the petition, with produced : That the said Rev. and whole procedure, in respect the Alexander Campbell, at different petition and oath sets forth that a places, both in public and in private, debt exists; that it has been contracted has made statements regarding the by the defender since he last came to petitioner of a slanderous and calum- Scotland ; that it arises from slandenious nature, and calculated to injure rous and calumnious statements made him, both privately and as a minister : in Scotland, both in writing and verThat the petitioner estimates the bally ; and that it amounts to the damage which he has sustained as specific sum of £5000, in respect it is aforesaid to the sum of £5000 ster- settled that a foreigner is subject to ling: That the said petitioner is in the operation of a meditatio fugoe course of raising an action for damages warrant, and liable to be attached for and for solatium against the Rev. Scotch debts, if contracted since his Alexander Campbell for injury sus- last arrival, in respect the newspaper containing the alleged written calumny lectures which constituted the injury referred to, and founded on in the and debt ; whether, in any case, a petition, has been produced therewith, meditatio fugce warrant might issue and in respect it was decided in the on account of damages due for any case of Wright, 6th February, 1782 ; slanders specified in the oath or petiMor. 5853, that it is sufficient for a tion, is a question which the Lord party appearing for a fugo warrant Ordinary does not feel himself called to make oath that a claim exists, and upon to decide ; but he conceives that that he thinks it well founded, and any statement so general as to make that it is not necessary to produce it matter of conjecture and examinawith such petition evidence of the tion, what are the particular slanders debt to justify the application ; repels which form the ground of debt, cannot the preliminary objections, and ap- authorise such proceedings. In the points the judicial examination of the case of Pratt v. Fleet, (30 June 1826) defender to be proceeded with.” there was some thing more nearly

The petitioner having, by minute approaching to a specification of pardated 4th September, restricted the ticulars of debt than in the present caution to be found by Mr. Campbell case.” to the sum of £200, the Sheriff ad- The respondent reclaimed, and hered to the interlocutor of his Sub- pleadedThat there is no incomstitute, and warrant of apprehension petency in a meditatio fuga warrant, and committal was granted accord-founded on a claim for damages. There ingly. Mr. Campbell then presented was here sufficient specification of a note of suspension and liberation the debt; the newspaper was produced to the Lord Ordinary on the Bills -and it must have been evident to (Murray), on which his Lordship pro- any sheriff that the letter published nounced the following interlocutor :- in it contained actionable matter. The

“ 13th September, 1847.-The caution required had been limited to Lord Ordinary having heard counsel £200, so as to obviate any undue opfor the parties, and considered the pression ; and an action for damages note, passes the note, and grants war- at the instance of the respondent had rant of liberation as craved.

now been raised. “ Note.--It appears to the Lord Ordinary that there is no such speci

The suspender answered—That it fication of debt as entitles the party is not necessary to discuss the general to obtain a meditatio fugee warrant. matter of competency, the only quesThe oath says, that Mr. Campbell, tion being whether there was sufficient the person complained upon, is in-specification of the debt? The susdebted to the deponent a sum of pender's letter filled a whole column £5000 of damages for injury sustained by the published letter referred to,

of the newspaper, and except from the and bu statements made in lectures summons of damages since raised, it in Scotland. This published letter was impossible to distinguish the parreferred to is said in the petition to ticular slanders referred to; while the contain ' a number of false and slan- statements as to the slanders contained derous statements highly prejudiciallin lectures in various parts of the to the private character of the petitioner. This leaves it perfectly vague

country, were too loose to found any and matter of inquiry, what were the thing upon. particular false and slanderous state- Lord Justice- General.This is ments, or what had been said in the) undoubtedly a very delicate question. But I have always thought that, in various places in the course of lectures, proceedings or warrants of this kind, did not furnish good ground for apthe utmost care must be taken that plying for a meditatio fugæ warrant. every thing be perfect and complete. I conceive that much more specificaNow, has every thing been done here tion-much more detail than is here according to the rules of the law ? presented-is necessary in such a The petition sets forth, that the sus-proceeding as this. So then, I canpender published in the Edinburgh not but hold, that, although in one Journal a letter, “ containing a num-corner of this petition there may be ber of false and slanderous statements, set forth sufficient ground, yet, since highly prejudical to the private cha- this warrant was granted on all these racter of the petitioner, and calculated claims together—the greater part of to injure his usefulness as a minister which cannot support it-it was of the Gospel.” But it does not stop granted on wrong grounds. here ; it goes on to state, “ That the Lord Mackenzie.-I agree altosaid Reverend Alexander Campbell, gether with your Lordship, that this at different places, both in public and warrant is quite indefensible, so far in private, has made statements re- as it proceeds on the claim of damages garding the petitioner of a slanderous for slanders uttered at the various and calumnious nature, and calculated times and places referred to in the to injure him, both privately and as petition ; and if the circumstance, a minister ;” and the damage is es- that these statements are there, has simated at £5000. In this estimate, the effect of destroying altogether the the respondent founds, not only on competency of the petition, I agree the statements contained in the letters, also that it must be dismissed. But but on all the statements taken to- I doubt that. Are we, in such an gether. Then the oath is to the effect, application as this, unable to make that the suspender “is justly due and any separation ? If it is competent addebted to the deponent a sum of for the Sheriff to make a separation £5000 of damages, for the injury the to sustain one portion of the petideponent has sustained at the hands tion, and reject another-is it not so of the said Reverend Alexander for us also ? Suppose a man presents Campbell, by the published letter an application for a warrant as in referred to, and by statements made meditatione fugæ founding on two in lectures in Scotland." The respon- bills, one of which is stamped and the dent, no doubt, does not require other is not ; cannot the Sheriff refuse caution to that amount ; but the his application on the bill which is whole effect of his minute restricting invalid--the unstamped one-and the caution is strictly to limit that grant it on the other ? In the present ludicrous and extravagant claim to case, then, this application, so far as £200. The action of damages, it it relates to those other charges, was must be remembered, was not yet undoubtedly altogether incompetent, brought. Well, then, Mr. Campbell and ought to have been dismissed by presents his note of suspension, and the Sheriff. But, then, the petitioner the Lord Ordinary grants warrant of produces the newspaper containing liberation, as craved. In these cir- the letter, for which he claims dacumstances, I am decidedly of opinion, mages, and founds upon it. There is that, even if your Lordships were to the question, indeed, whether it was hold that the specification of debt, as enough to produce the letter, without founded on the claim for damages, on specifying the particular sentences on account of the slanders contained in which he founds ? but, on the whole, the letter, was sufficient ; yet the I think that the production of the statements as to slanders uttered in 1-tter was sufficient. So, then, I am

« PreviousContinue »