He was sent on a missionary tour with a young preacher, a Mr. Wilson, up the Allegheny Valley, above Pittsburgh, “to hold a celebration of the sacrament among the scattered Seceders of that then sparsely-settled region. He found there many members of other Presbyterian bodies who had not for a long time enjoyed the privilege of these by them so highly-cherished occasions. His heart urged him to deplore in his introductory sermon the existing divisions among Christians, and to invite all the pious among his hearers, who were prepared for it, to unite in the participation of this sacred feast of God’s people; and many accepted the invitation. This was a bold infraction of Seceder custom.” Campbell could have no fellowship with such bigotry. Mr. Wilson soon discovered that Campbell had no regard for sectarian differences and prejudices and that he was not sound in the Seceder faith. “His conduct of inviting those not of his Church to partake of the communion was an overt act of extreme transgression that could not be overlooked;” but he made no objection at the time this grave offense was committed. He felt it his duty, however, to bring the matter before the presbytery at its next meeting. The charge contained several complaints, but the principal one was this public act in regard to the communion. It recited, moreover, that “Campbell had expressed his disapprobation of things in the ‘Standards’ and of the practical application of them.” The presbytery, already much dissatisfied with his liberal course, readily took up Wilson’s charges. But they had before them a man who, although ever remarkably inclined to peace and warmly attached to the Seceder Church, would, nevertheless, not yield to any human authority against his convictions in matters of serious import. The present was a decisive moment in his life, reaching in its effects far beyond what was then thought. After an investigation, which called from him a most earnest plea in behalf of Christian liberty and fraternity, he was found deserving of censure. In vain did he protest the treatment he had received at the hands of his brethren. In vain did he appeal from the presbytery to the synod. Party spirit was unyielding. He had expressed sentiments, it insisted, which were “very different from sentiments held and professed by the Church.” This, it held, was an altogether sufficient ground of censure. From that time many of his fellow ministers became inimical to him and were disposed to inflict on him at every opportunity their petty persecutions.