Errors of Campbellism

BX 7323 .S89 1890x
Stuart, T. McK.
Errors of Campbellism

Digitized by

the Internet Archive

in 2014

https://archive.org/details/errorsofcampbellOOstua_0

Errors of Campbellism.

BEING

A REVIEW

OF AI,I. THE

FUNDAMENTAL ERRORS OF THE SYSTEM OF FAITH
AND CHURCH POLITY OF THE DENOMINATION
FOUNDED BY ALEXANDER CAMPBELL.

BY

T. McK. STUART, A. M., D. D.,

A MINISTER OF THE METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH.

CINCINNATI: CRANSTON & STOWE.
NEW YORK: HUNT & EATON.
1890.

Copyrifjht
BY CRANSTON & STOWE,
1890.

PREFACE.

For many years the writer has believed that there
ought to be accessible to the ministry and member-
ship of the Methodist Episcopal Church a review
of the theories of Campbellism, sufficiently complete
clearly to present and fully meet their errors. As a
system of religious formalism, it is the most aggress-
ive of modern times, and has had, in the half cen-
tury of its existence, a phenomenal growth. This
would be a matter of congratulation to all true Cliris-
tians were it not for the fact that its theories place it
squarely in conflict with other evangelical Christians.
It teaches doctrines that, if true, make other Christian
denominations fundamentally and radically wrong,
and therefore it is of necessity brought into conflict
with them.

It is a notable fact that wherever this system se-
cures a permanent foothold there is in such com-
munity, even outside of this denomination, a leaven
of disbelief in spiritual religion; and in such com-
munities it is usually quite difficult to secure anything
more than a merely formal profession of religion. It
is customary with their ministry, and especially with
their evangelists, to hold up to public ridicule every-
thing looking towards the emotional or experimental

3

4

PREFACE.

in religion; proclaiming, at the same time, a religion
of outward obedience alone.

It must not be inferred, from these remarks, that
it is thought there is an absolute want of all spirit-
uality with those who profess this faith. Such is not
the case. There are very frequently to be found
among them Christians of deep spirituality ; but they
are not such because of the system, but in spite of it.
The earnest soul-examination, the deep heart-search-
ing, the fervent penitence, the faith that requires com-
plete self-surrender, belong in no sense to this creed;
and necessarily so, for were these required, as ante-
cedents to baptism for remission of sins, there would
be also required, as the outcome of baptism under
such circumstances, an equally clear spiritual experi-
ence of the removal of condemnation, and of full ac-
ceptance with God; and then the fact of baptism
would not be the sole evidence to the sinner of his
salvation. And besides, if these intense feelings of
sinfulness and sinful need must precede pardon, then it
follows that, on their theory, without these there can be
no genuine baptism, and the baptism must be repeated
whenever such previous conditions do truly exist.

It is because of this incompatibility that their teach-
ers uniformly opp(.»se the sinner's praying for forgive-
ness. Praying might lead to intense earnestness in
seeking Christ, and this would necessarily demand a
witnessing Spirit to remove the felt condemnation.
So it must not be allowed, else the system is put
in jeopardy.

PREFACE.

5

Baptism for the remission of sins, administered to
the earnest and thoughtful and to the frivolous and
careless alike, must be held as valid for this pur-
pose, or there would be inextricable confusion in the
theory, or frequent baptisms, until the sinner is found
in a genuine state of belief and penitence. This
would be inconvenient. Hence spirituality is no es-
sential element in the system.

Many of our ministry and people hold to the ex-
ceedingly curious notion that if error is let alone it
will die of itself ; and the best way to overthrow this
system of error is to disregard it and its methods of
interpretation and preach the truth. Error has been
a long time in dying under this process. When it
has been let alone, it has invariably triumphed. So
that this policy has proven a failure ; and it is high
time a more successful one was adopted in its stead.
And the additional advice to preach the truth will, if
fully conformed to, set aside the policy of letting
error alone. Error, to be effectually met, must be
designated. There are many people who can not see,
or will not see, the incompatibility of two proposi-
tions until they are placed side by side ; and any
fencing against designating the error, will simply, in
these cases, make the truth ineffectual.

There is a sickly sentimentality, quite extensive
in the evangelical Churches, that leads many to sink
all differences of opinion, even in vital matters, and
to brother everything that calls itself by the name of
Christian, however heterodox it may be. And this

6

PREFACE.

same sentiment is also very much hurt at any in-
cisive antagonizing of error, especially if it is so de-
fined that there can be no mistake as to what is meant.
AVhile there is no need of invective or biting sarcasm
in dealing with error, there is need of open, firm,
decided, unequivocal opposition to it, in the interest
of that charity that seeks the glory of God and the
supreme good of the race of men.

It is also deemed important by the writer, that
our ministry and people should not, for the sake of
mistaken courtesy, yield to the discourteous claim of
these people to take to themselves, as theirs by right,
the distinctive appellation of the Christian Church.
They are not the Christian Church, else the Christian
Church in the Christian ages has been a failure, most
absolute and unequivocal. To style them such, be-
cause they demand it, is discourteous to the great body
of Christians throughout the world. It is a very dif-
ferent thing from admitting that they are Christians,
which can most cheerfully be done when the claim is
not made that they are the Christians.

The antagonism between the doctrines of Meth-
odism and those of Campbellism is so radical that
there can be no compromise, and will necessarily, in
the future, be open conflict. It is well, therefore, that
every Methodist minister prepare himself to meet in-
telligently and successfully this form of error. The
writer hopes that in this work he will be of some as-
sistance in this direction.

T. McK. STUART.

CoRMxc, Iowa, 1890.

CONTENTS.

Chapter I.

THE FOUNDERS OF CAMPBELLISM.

Thomas and Alexander Campbell — A Brief Sketch of their
Lives — The Evohition of the Central Idea, Baptism, as a Con-
dition to Pardon of Sin — The First Society in the New
Faith — 1823 the Date of the Inauguration of this New Re-
form, Page 13

Chapter II.

the central idea of CAMPBELLISM.

Justification by Water Baptism — It is the Keynote of Doctrines
and Polity — It leads to a Denial of the Immediate Operation
of the Holy Ghost — The Doctrine Papistic in Fact — Canons
of Church of Rome and Campbellism compared — A Shght
Modification of the Old Doctrine of Baptismal Regenera-
tion— It teaches Justification by Works — Antagonistic to
the Fundamental Principle of the Reformation — Sola fides
justificat, 21

Chapter III.

THE DIALECT OF CAMPBELLISM.

" Reign of Heaven," "Aliens," " Naturalized Citizens " In
Christ" baptized by Water—" Obedience of Faith "— " Con-
fession"— The "Action of Baptism " — " Gospel " used in same
Limited Manner — " The Loaf in the House of the Lord," . 35

Chapter IV.

THE THEORY OF POSITIVE INSTITUTES.

Sacrifices for the Remission of Sins under the Old Testament
Dispensation — Trespass Offerings cited — Sin of our First
Parents, and the Theory paralleled by these — Positive Insti-

7

8

CONTENTS.

tutcs under the Dispensation of the Baptist — Baptism e<?
Repentance, not i'k; Keniission — Use of ^ianTilu — Confession
hefore Baptism in John's Baptism — Jesus forgives Sin under
Dispensation of John without "Positive Institutes" —
When was the Kingdom of Heaven set up? ... Page 44

Chapter V.

THE COMMISSION.

The Commission according to the Four EvangeHsts— To dis-
ciple made Synonymous with Conversion — Baptism and
DiscipUng the same— St. Mark xvi, 16, not Water Bap-
tism— The Syriac on the Same — Wanting in Genuineness —
Commission according to St. Luke — Remission of Sim vpon
his Name — 'E-i-Commission, according to St. John — The
Prerogative of remitting Sins, 61

Chapter VI.

CAMPBELLISM ON FAITH AND REPENTANCE.

Faith put before Repentance — Mistake concerning the Nature
of Faith — If Faith and Repentance were placed in their
Right Relation, they must change their Interpretation of
Acts ii, 38 — Assert but One Kind of Faith — Faith purifies the
Heart — Pure Hearts before pardoned therefore, 73

Chapter VII.

THE SPECIAL TERRITORY OF THE THEORY: ACTS II, 38.

Claim to be at the Door of the Gospel Dispensation — Setting
up the Kingdom and laying down the Law of Induction
into this Kingdom — "Be converted," "reform,'' "turn,"
baptized same thing — Contradicted by Facts — For Remission
of Sins and Baptism not connected by f'f — 'E~i, upon the
Name, means upon Faith in the Name — Water Baptism a
Profession of Faith in Christ, 81

Chapter VIII.

OTHER SUPPOSED PROOF-TEXTS.

Attempt to prove the Doctrine by the Case of Cornelius — An
Argumentative Boomerang — Baptism of Paul, Acts xxii, 16—

CONTENTS.

9

Ananias's Commission, Acts ix, 17 — "Wash away thy
Sins" — Baptize in the Middle Voice — The Syriac on the
Same — "Washing by Prayer" the Teaching of the Pas-
sage— Paul's Account of his Commission— Paul not sent to
baptize, but to preach the Gospel — Baptisms of the Acts of
the Apostles immediate — Household of Cornelius — Simon
the Sorcerer — Lydia — Philippian Jailer — John's Disciples at
Ephesus, Page 90

Chapter IX.

BAPTISM INTO DEATH, INTO CHRIST, AND BAPTISMAL WASHINGS.

Eom. vi, 3, 4; Col. ii, 11, 12; 1 Cor. iii, 13— Difference between
baptism into Christ and into the Name of Christ — Perversion
of 1 Cor. xii, 13 — One Baptism, Eph. xiv, 5— Baptismal Wash-
ings, Eph. V, 25, 26 — Baptism assumed in these cases, 1 Cor.
vi, 11 — Cleansing in Heb. x, 20 — Attempt to draft Titus
iii, 5, into Support of the Theory — Gal. iii, 27 — An Author
his own Best Interpreter, 104

Chapter X.

SALVATION BY BAPTISM, BY WORKS, BY "OBEDIENCE OF FAITH."

1 Peter iii, 21, saved by Water, or by the Ark througli the Water,
which? — Proper Interpretation, (j Kai, "by which (Spirit)
also ;" (^i' vSaToc, through the Water — Justification by Works,
and James ii, 21-24— Paul and James reconciled — The At-
tempt to reconcile on Campbell's Theory — Gal. ii, 16 —
" Obeying the Gospel " not Baptism, 116

Chapter XI.
Campbell's seven causes of justification.
Confusion in Thought— Five of his Causes but One Cause—
" Works " not a Cause — Faith then the Only Conditional
Cause — Repentance and Godly Sorrow — Godly Sorrow the
Sorrow of a Baptized Person — " Bath of Regeneration," so-
called, an Exegetical Mistake— " Pure Water," in Heb. x,
22, not Water for cleansing — In the New Birth Water called
by Mr. Campbell the Mother — John iii reviewed — The New
Birth Essentially Spiritual, 128

10

COXTEXTS.

Chapter XII.

AN APPEAL TO AUTHORITIES.

Attempts to support the theory by the Teaching of the Primi-
tive Christian Fathers — By the Creeds and Symbols of Prot-
estant Churches — Also Eminent Christian Teachers of
the Reformation -Luther, Calvin, Wesley, Clarke, and
Others, Pagb 139

Chapter XIII.

SUNDRY OBJECTIONS TO THE DOCTRINE.

It declares the Whole Evangelical Dispensation a Failure for
Centuries — The Doctrine makes it impossible to account
for Virtue and Holiness in Other Christians — Contradicts
Christian Experience — It requires Rebaptism in the Back-
slider, and when the Conditions have not been int«-lligently
fulfilled — It can not be preached and applied to all Condi-
tions and Circumstances — It makes the Outbreaking Back-
slider a Child of the Kingdom — It makes that a Condition
to Pardon of Sin a Person can not perform for Himself, . 100

Chapter XIV.

JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH VERSUS WORKS.

Article IX, Methodist Articles of Religion, misrepresented —
The Question the Justification of the Sinner — What he
must do — James and Paul again — Baptism Works and not
Works— Justification by Works, that is, by Baptism, con-
tradicted by many Passages of Scripture — Tlie Meaning of
Faith only — Justification of Abraham the Type of the Jus-
tification of All— Mr. Braden's Attempt at the Explanation
of Rom. iii and iv, 175

Chapter XV.

CAMPBELLISM ON THE OPERATION OF THE HOLY GHOST.

Consistency requires that they deny it— Mr. Campbell's Con-
fusion and Contradiction of Himself — Defines Himself more
fully in the Debate with Professor Rice — An Attempt to
maintain Experimental Religion after Some Sort — Review
of Campbell's Objections — Objections aimed at an Imag-
inary Idea, .... 186

CONTENTS.

11

Chapter XVI.

OBJECTIONS FURTHER CONSIDERED.

The Immediate Operation of the Spirit does not imply Inspira-
tion or Miracle-working Power — His Fourth, Fifth, Sixth,
and Seventh Arguments assume the Point in Dispute a
Peiilio Principii — The Personal Spirit promised — The Com-
forter— His Offices defined — An Illegitimate Deduction made
from those Passages that ascribe Regeneration, Sanctifica-
tion, and Salvation to the Word — Paul's Commission mis-
interpreted, Page 200

Chapter XVII.

OFFICE AND WORK OF THE HOLY GHOST.

Their System beset with Difficulties — The Spirit reproves, re-
generates, baptizes, cleanses, purifies, seals, sanctifies,
anoints, witnesses, comforts, helps — Lydia, " whose Heart
the Lord opened" — Regeneration and "born from Above,"
" born again," " begotten of God," Same Thing— Perversion of
John iii, 8 — "Born of that he receives" a Supposed Diffi-
culty— Titus iii, 5, explained — Quickening by the Spirit, . 213

Chapter XVIII.

BAPTISM OF THE HOLY GHOST.

An Effort to limit to Apostolic Days — The Twelve Apostles
only baptized at Pentecost contradicted by the Scrip-
tures— The Promise of the Father the Baptism of the Holy
Ghost— A Perversion of 1 Cor. xii, 13 — The Rendering
" pour out from my Spirit " to meet the Difficulty— Rom. vi,
3, 4; Col. ii, 11, 12, Spiritual Baptism, 229

Chapter XIX.

IMMEDIATE OPERATION OF THE SPIRIT CONTINUED — SYNONYMS OF
BAPTISM.

Wash, cleanse, purify, sanctify, seal, anoint — Cleansing by the
AVord refuted— So also saving by the Gospel— Gospel de-
fined—Ps. li, Ezek. xxx\4, 25-27— The Witness of the Spirit,
This alone Sufficient Testimony to pardon— The Holy Ghost
as an Abiding Comforter — Numerous Forms of Expression
for the Immediate Influence of the Spirit — Objections to the

12

CONTENTS.

Doctrine of Campbellism — It destroys the Efficacy of
Prayer — It leaves the Backslider without Evidence of Par-
don, Page 243

Chapter XX.

OB.IECTIONS OF CAMI'IJELLITE TEACIIKRS TO METHODIST DOCTRINES
AND POLITV.

A System of Proselyti^m — Objection to the Name Methodist
Episcopal Church — A Plea for Unity— The Name Christian
Church not Divine — Christians, all Followers of Christ
such— The True Name of the Church, Church of God — The
New Name of Followers of Christ, "Sons" of God — As-
sault upon Article VIII of Methodist Discipline — Camp-
bellism on Reconciliation refuted, Article II sustained —
The Sinner seeking Christ — The Penitent Publican's
Prayer, 257

Chapter XXI.

CAMPBELLISM ON CREEDS, ETC.

Originally aimed at Christian Unity— Disavows Creeds, but
has one — A Creed Exceedingly Narrow — Will exclude the
Greatest Number of Christians of any Creed in Christen-
dom— Their Church Polity: Campbell its Author— Their
Discipline— Probationers in their Church — Their Assurance
and Confidence, 277

ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM.

CHAPTER I.

THE FOUNDERS OF CAMPBELUSM.

In entering upon the investigation of that system
of religious doctrine or faith called Campbellism, it
is proper and right that we give a brief sketch of its
founder, or, more properly, founders; for it was the
evolution not of one mind alone, but of two — those
of father and son, Thomas Campbell and Alexander
Campbell. The doctrinal system of this so-called
reformation is the sole product of these two men, in-
somuch that since their day it has rigidly adhered to
the principles taught by these men ; and in no mate-
rial respect, and in scarcely any minor points also, is
there the slightest particle of difference between the
representative teachers of to-day and the great ex-
pounders of its creed at first.

It may be said, without fear of successful denial,
that Alexander Campbell has impressed his doctrinal
ideas, and even the methods of elucidating and en-
forcing them, upon his followers as no other great
religious leader in modern times has done. He is a

13

14

ERRORS OF CAMPBELUSM.

very forceful illustration of tlic power possessed by a
man of commanding genius and force of character
over his fellow-men. Creeds of other Christian de-
nominations have usually been the productions of
many minds, and the result of the deliberations of
councils of learned men. J5ut not so Campbellism; it
is the work of one, or, at most, of two minds.

■ The assumed rejection of all human creeds gave
the Campbells a peculiarly favoral)le opportunity to
impress their doctrinal ideas upon those to whom they
were addressed, as the very essence of Bible teaching.
The marvel is, that the astute founder of the system
and his more intelligent followers have deceived them-
selves with the belief that their doctrine is anything
more than another human creed, though not presented
to the world in articles of religion or definite formu-
las of doctrine — a creed as really commanding assent
of every one who seeks to ally himself with them,
as any creed in the broad domain of Christendom.

Alexander Campbell, the man who more especially,
by his force of character, executive ability, and firm
faith in his own convictions, was the founder of the sys-
tem under consideration, was the eldest son of Thomas
Campbell, and was born in County Antrim, Ireland,
September 12, 1788.

Thomas Campbell became, in early life, a preacher
in the Presbyterian Church of Ireland, and while in
the old country was engaged in either preaching or
teaching. In 1807 he emigrated to America, leaving

FOUNDERS OF.

15

his family still in Ireland, to follow him subsequently
to his new home, when once he had provided for
them. In 1808, however, his family, under the con-
duct of Alexander, embarked for America, but were
shipwrecked on the coast of Scotland, which caused
them to tarry in that country for awhile, until, under
auspices more favorable, they might essay to start
again for their new home. While in Scotland, he was
brought into contact with many leading minds in Scot-
tish religious circles, and enjoyed the opportunity of
about one year's tuition in the University of Glasgow.
In September, 1809, they safely reached New York,
and shortly after joined their father in Western Penn-
sylvania.

Thomas Campbell, on his arrival in America, iden-
tified himself with the Seceder Synod and Presbytery
of Chartres, in Western Pennsylvania, which his son
Alexander likewise did upon his arrival. In a short
time after his uniting with this Presbytery, Thomas
Campbell was arraigned for a violation of the usages of
the Church with regard to the Lord's Supper, and was
condemned, whereupon he appealed unto the Synod, and
was released from condemnation, because of informali-
ties in the proceedings ; but the matter was at the same
time referred to a committee, which reported, censur-
ing him. This caused him to withdraw from the Se-
ceders, and in 1809 he and other disaffected parties or-
ganized "The Christian Association of Washington,''
in Western Pennsylvania. The purpose of this soci-

16

ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM.

cty, from its " Declaration " of principles formulated
and published, seems to have been an effort to fra-
ternize Christians of divergent views upon the funda-
mental truths of the Christian Scriptures, and was cer-
tainly a commendable undertaking. The fourth
article of the Declaration especially disclaims the pur-
pose of creating a new Church organization. It is one
of the marvels of human inconsistency that an institu-
tion that had its origin in a protest against party
spirit and dogmatism in the Church, should culminate
in one of the most imperiously dogmatic of the re-
ligious organizations of modern times, and at the same
time foster a spirit of controversy that is most un-
qualifiedly condemned in the preamble of the "Dec-
laration.''

Alexander Campbell began preaching in 1810.
He does not seem at first to have received any spe-
cial authorization from any society, Church, or asso-
ciation.

About this time Thomas Campbell made a propo-
sition to unite with the Synod of Pitttjburg of the
Eegular Presbyterian Church, but was refused.
Among the reasons assigned was this, that Alexander
Campbell " had been allowed to exercise his gifts of
public speaking without any regular ordination."
This refusal resulted in the foundation of the "Chris-
tian Association of Brush Run," on the 4th of May,
1811. After the organization of this small denomina-
tion, for such it was^ Alexander Campbell was, by its

FOUNDERS OF.

17

first council, session, or whatever it may be styled,
licensed to preach.

On the 12th day of June, 1812, he was baptized
by immersion, by Elder Luce, of the Baptist Church,
after having made, as he supposed, the proper con-
fession, namely : ^' I believe that Jesus Christ is the
Son of God.'^ And it was about this time he began
to regard faith as simply "the belief of the Scrip-
tures on the testimony of the apostles.''

In the fall of 1813, Alexander Campbell and the
Brush Run organization formed a union with the
Red-Stone Association of the Baptist Church. In
August, 1823, he withdrew from this Baptist Associa-
tion, in order to escape arraignment and trial by it,
and expulsion therefrom for heresy. It was in the
fall of this same year that he had his discussion, in
the State of Kentucky, with Mr. McCalla, in which
he, according to his own statement,* first fully and
maturely espoused his distinguishing tenet of baptism
as a necessary condition in order to the pardon of sin.

It may be said that the system, as a new doctrinal
adventure, was now successfully launched upon the
arena of conflict with all other sister denominations;
and that which had its birth professedly as a protest
against ecclesiastical domination, dissension, and dog-
matism, came into existence as a very theological Ish-
mael, its hand against all others.

♦"Christian System," p. 180.

2

18

ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM.

Mr. Campbell began, in the spring of 1823, the
publication of a periodical, which he entitled The
Christian Baptist, which, however, ultimately gave
place to The Millennial Harbinger. These papers
were the exponents of his new theories ; and in Ken-
tucky, Western Pennsylvania, South-eastern Ohio,
and Western Virginia, the new Church grew quite
rapidly, by accessions from the Baptist Church and
the Christian Church, so-called, embracing many of the
followers of James O'Kelly, and that branch of Arian
Baptists usually called New Lights."

Alexander Campbell was a kind of theological
gladiator. He rejoiced in a theological discussion as a
means of disseminating his peculiar views. And at
first he was quite successful, inasmuch as his oppo-
nents were not well enough acquainted with his system,
and the course adopted in its maintenance, to combat it
successfully. They struck in the dark, while he was
able, through the published polemical theology and
formularies of his opponents, to know just where and
how to make his assaults. His enthusiastic followers
boast much of his prowess in this direction, and affect
to believe that he was victor in every contest ; but his
debate with Professor X. L. Rice, of the Presbyterian
Church, held in Lexington, Kentucky, was anything
but a victory for this new system. In this long dis-
cussion, which was fully published, Campbellism, in
its distinctive tenets and methods of defense, was en-
tirely brought to light, so that future defenders of

FOUNDERS OF, 19

evangelical truth were advised as to just what they
were called upon to meet.

The founder of this system of faith, in his work
entitled ^' The Christian System/^ has given to the
world his doctrinal views, as well as the polity of his
Church. We shall have occasion to make frequent
reference to this work, which presents the system com-
pletely as devised, elucidated, and promulgated by its
author. And every careful reader of the work will
observe, by comparison with the present polity and
doctrinal teachings of its societies, as represented by
the leading preachers of the denomination, that " The
Christian System" is a full and complete disciplinary
and doctrinal guide for the people of this faith, as much
so as any discipline or confession of faith of any sister
Church, although it has not been formally adopted by
the Church at large as such ; for, according to the teach-
ing of its founder, each particular society is independ-
ent of all others. (See "Christian System," p. 73,
sec. 4.*) And therefore it is always possible for

*" Still, all these particular congregations of the Lord,
whether at Rome, Corinth, or Ephesus, though equally inde-
pendent of one another as to the management of their own
peculiar affairs, are, by virtue of one common Lord, one faith,
one baptism, and one common salvation, but one kingdom
or Church of God, and, as such, are under obligations to co-op-
erate with one another in all measures promotive of the great
ends of Christ's death and resurrection."

The edition of "The Christian System" from which the
author quotes, is the fourth edition, published at Cincinnati.
The definition of Church polity begins with p. 72.

20

ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM.

them to deny the existence among them of any au-
thoritative discipline, such as Churches that have a
central or connectional form of government have.
But it nevertheless is true that there is no society
among tliem that is not governed by the disciplinary
rules laid down by Mr. Campbell in The Christian
System."

It will also be seen, by the discriminating reader
of his chapters on '^Church Order'' and " Christian Dis-
cipline/' that he expects the doctrines he inculcates to
form the bond of union among Churches. It is there-
fore a very natural evolution of faith in his followers
to hold that their interpretations of the Scriptures are
infallibly correct, since they have so eminent an ex-
ample set for them in their great leader.

A system that arraigns all Christendom as pro-
foundly and fundamentally wrong, must, in the very
nature of the case, predicate a great deal upon the as-
sumed correctness of its interpretations of Scripture.
And these must be met by an appeal to the truth and
reason. No flattering unction, that error, left to
itself will perish, will meet this case. It is a large,
vigorous, healthy system of religious formalism, that
makes no hesitation in assaulting other denominations.
And if spiritual Christianity would maintain its own,
it must not take refuge in that coward's plea of, I^t
error alone and preach the truth. The truth is often-
times most successfully preached by showing where
the pitfalls of error are.

TEE CENTRAL IDEA.

21

CHAPTER II.

THE CENTRAL IDEA OF CAMPBELLISM.

The key-note of this system of faith is the doc-
trine of baptism by water as a necessary condition to
the remission of sins. This doctrine Alexander Camp-
bell specifically states in the following language

The apostle Peter, when first publishing the gospel
for the Jews, taught them that they were not for-
given their sins by faith, but by an act of faith, by a
believing immersion into the Lord Jesus." His fol-
lowers, in their discussions with representatives of
other confessions of faith, usually affirm it in the fol-
lowing language : " Christian baptism is a necessary
condition in order to the remission of the past sins of
the penitent believer." The writer has had several
joint discussions with difiPerent representative men
among them, and this was, in all material respects,
their method of stating this fundamental doctrine oi
their creed. By Christian baptism they mean dipping
in water in the name of Christ, or what they are
pleased to call immersion. By condition " they
mean the personal act of the free moral agent, by
which he accepts of the salvation provided him in

♦"Christian System," p. 194.

22 ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM.

Christ. By " necessary is meant that without which
no one can be saved, whatever else he may have or may
not have. Remission of sins they regard as the same
as pardon, justification, reconciliation, adoption, wash-
ing away of sin,'^ and the like. By " past sins they
mean the sins committed before baptism. In their
dialect the unbaptized is an " alien," and as such has
not the right of prayer or petition. In this phrase
" past sins " they think they avoid the force of the
argument that, if baptism is a condition to pardon, it
ought to be repeated at every recovery from backsliding.
This fanciful distinction of sinners into aliens and
rebellious members of Christ's kingdom, is a sheer
invention, to counteract the doctrinal embarrassments
they are thrown into by the system. By penitent be-
liever they mean the believer who, after believing, is
penitent. Faith must precede repentance, and with
them is simply the belief of testimony. " No testimony,
no faith ; for faith is only the belief of testimony." f
This doctrine, thus briefly defined, is the key-stone
to the whole doctrinal superstructure of Carapbcllism.
It is to this all the system has been conformed ; their
views of faith and prayer, the operation of the Holy
Ghost, the gifts of the Spirit, the witness of the Spirit,
assurance, reconciliation, inherited depravity, even
Church polity, — all are interpreted in the light of this
idea. For example, if the immediate office of the

*" Christian System," p. 187. tid. p. 113.

THE CENTRAL IDEA.

23

Holy Ghost in conviction and conversion were ac-
cepted as it is by other evangelical Christians, and if
the Spirit^s direct witness to conversion were allowed,
they could not well, in the face of the positive testi-
mony of those who had received the assurance of par-
don without baptism, explain how such could take
place without the previous fulfillment of this assumed
" necessary condition hence they must deny the im-
mediate operation of the Spirit, and hold that the
witness of the Spirit, as claimed by others, is a delu-
sion. Because of this logical necessity their ministry
generally are unsparing in their ridicule of the idea
of the direct witness of the Spirit. In this, however,
they do not exhibit the moderation and good taste of
Mr. Campbell, for it is difficult to make out clearly
his views on this matter from his writings. At one
time he seems to deny the doctrine, at another to ad-
pait it.

But one thing is certain, he denied the immediate
operation of the Spirit upon the heart of the sinner
in conviction and conversion ; but how the Holy
Ghost can impress the heart of a child of God so as
to give help, strength, joy,* and not be a direct witness
to his salvation, is something difficult to understand.
For, most evidently, if the child of God receives the
Holy Spirit as a " helper,^^ " comforter,'^ " sanctifier,''
giving " love, joy, peace, long-suffering, gentleness,

Christian System," pp. 64, 05.

24

ERRORS OF CAMPBELLJSM.

goodness, fidelity, meekness, temperance," as Camp-
bell seems to teaob,* he must be able to recognize this
as a fact in his experience, and therefore be able to
testify to it. But in this have simply the illus-
tration that his followers are very much more ultra
Campbellites than the founder of the system ; for the
only "joy, peace, goodness," etc., they will admit of
is entirely subjective, or such as the mind obtains
through its own beliefs and convictions. For ex-
ample, the advocate of this doctrine believes that he
must first believe the Bible ; secondly, repent of his
sins ; thirdly, confess that " Jesus Christ is the Son of
God," and be baptized on this confession. This
having done, his conscience approves him in it, be-
cause he has done what he believes to be right ; and
now, upon this purely subjective conviction, he be-
lieves himself to be in the kingdom of God and an
heir of heaven ; this furnishes him a degree of rest,
satisfaction, or peace. It is altogether in the mind,
and every proposition may be false upon which it is
founded, and yet the same confidence exist. The dev-
otee of Islam or papistic absurdities may have, and
often does have, the same.

If there is no immediate witness of the Holy Spirit,

* Christian System," p. 66. See also pp. 354-356, Vol. II,
"Richardson's Memoirs of A. Campbell." His biographer
here proves that ^Ir. Campbell accepted the belief that " those
who are sons of God receive the Holy Spirit promised through
faith." See Appendix A.

THE CENTRAL IDEA.

25

then his assurance of pardon is altogether subjective,
and to be sure of it he must postulate his infallibility in
interpreting the Scriptures. Hence there can be but
little marvel that the advocate of this faith is sure he
is right and all others wrong ; for his conviction that
he is a child of God depends upon the certainty that
he is not mistaken in his interpretation. But this
will be treated of in all its bearings when we come to
deal with the errors of this system, relative to the
offices of the Spirit. We have called attention thus
fully to this, at this juncture, that the reader may
see how relatively all-important is this central idea,
and, in the discussion of it, realize that it does not
stand or fall for itself alone, but for a whole system
of belief that is built up around it.

The doctrine of baptism as a condition to the re-
mission of sin is papistic, in fact. While they dis-
claim thi^, and are very bitter in denunciation of those
who so charge them, yet it is impossible to minds not
under the bonds of the system to distinguish the dif-
ference. They and the papists quote the same pas-
sages of Scripture, and, allowing for the difference in
ecclesiastical systems, put the same construction upon
them. As, for example, Matt, xvi, 18: Thou art
Peter, and upon this rock will I build my church, and
the gates of hell shall not prevail against it!^' This is
used by them to show that the Church was not founded
until the day of Pentecost ; that Peter opened the door
to it by his sermon on that occasion in the supposed

3

26

ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM.

announcement of the condition of baptism for the re-
mission of sins. And in reference to the confession
that Peter made, " Thou art the Christ, the Son of the
living God,'' which called forth the Savior's remark,
it is assumed that this confession is the "rock" upon
which Christ proposed to establish his Church. Hence
they require it of all candidates for baptism.

Along with this passage from the Gospel of Mat-
thew, they usually join one from John xx, 23 : " Whose-
soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them ; and
whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained !" This,
they claim, is the commission as given by John, and
that the disciples were to remit sins by baptism. When
pressed to define this latter passage, they usually de-
fine it as the conferring power to remit sins by bap-
tism, which evidently makes a perpetual priesthood
out of the ministry, and confers upon them marvelous
powers. Compare the following canons of the Church
of Rome with A. Campbell's claims f«r the adminis-
trator in the rite of baptism (Council of Trent, Seventh
Session :)

Canon IV: " If any one saith that the sacraments
of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but
superfluous, and that without them, or without a de-
sire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone,
the grace of justification — though all the sacraments
are not indeed necessary for every individual — let him
be anathema."

Canon YI : " If any one saith that the sacraments

THE CENTRAL IDEA.

27

of the New Law do not contain the grace which they
signify, or that they do not confer the grace on those
who do not place an obstacle thereunto, as though
they were merely outward signs of grace or justice re-
ceived through faith, and certain marks of Christian
profession, whereby believers are distinguished amongst
men from unbelievers, let him be anathema/'

Canon VIII : " If any one saith that, by the said
sacraments of the New Law, grace is not conferred
through the act performed (ex opere operato), but that
faith alone in the divine promises suffices for obtain-
ing the grace, let him be anathema."

On page 128 of the Catechism of the Council of
Trent we have the following : " The remission of all
sin, original and actual, is therefore the peculiar effect
of baptism. That this was the object of its institution
by the Lord and Savior, is a truth clearly deduced
from the testimony of St. Peter, to say nothing of the
array of evidence that might be adduced from other
sources. ' Do penance,' says he, ^and be baptized, every
one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remis-
sion of your sins.' "

Further on we read : " But in baptism not only is
sin forgiven, but with it all the punishment due to
sin is remitted by a merciful God and Baptism
remits all punishment due to original sin in the next
life."

On page 123 we have the following: "If, then,
through the transgression of Adam, children inherit

28

ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM.

the stains of primeval guilt, is there not stronger
reason to conclude that the efficacious merits of
Christ the Lord must impart to them that justice and
those graces which will give them a title to reign in
life eternal ? This happy consummation baptism alone
can accomplish. The pastor, therefore, will inculcate
the absolute necessity of administering baptism to in-
fants.'' *

Beside this place the following from A. Camp-
bell (Christian System, pages 19-i and 195), and it
could be duplicated from most any of their authors.
Campbell says : ^' The apostle Peter, when first pub-
lishing the gospel to the Jews, taught them that they
Avere not forgiven their sins by faith, but by an act
of faith, by a believing immersion into the Lord Jesus.
That this may appear evident to all, we shall examine
his Pentecostian address and his Pentecostian hearers."

" Peter, now holding the keys of the kingdom of
Jesus, and speaking under the commission for con-
verting the world, and by the authority of the Lord
Jesus, . . . may be expected to speak the truth,
the whole truth, plainly and intelligibly to his breth-
ren, the Jews. He had that day declared the gos-
pel facts, and proven the resurrection and ascension
of Jesus to the conviction of thousands. They be-
lieved and repented. . . . Being full of this faith,
they inquired of Peter and other apostles what they

* Note.— The writer is indebted to Dr. G, W. Hughey'a
work on "Baptismal Remission" for this compilation.

THE CENTRAL IDEA.

29

ought to do to obtain remission of sins. They were
informed that, though they now believed and re-
pented, they were not pardoned, but must ' reform
and be immersed for the remission of sins.' . . . This
act of faith was presented as that act by which a
change in their state could be effected ; or, in other
Avords, by which alone they could be pardoned/'
Again, page 197, he says: All these testimonies con-
cur with each other in presenting the act of faitli —
Christian immersion frequently called conversion — as
that act inseparably connected with the remission of
sins." Again, page 208 : " Remission of sins, or
coming into a state of acceptance, being one of the
present immunities of the kingdom of heaven, can not
be Scripturally enjoyed by any person before im-
mersion.

These quotations we might multiply to weariness,
were it necessary. But wherein consists the difference
between the averments of Mr. Campbell and the
canons of Rome? Both affirm that baptism is neces-
sary to the pardon of sin. Both lay stress on the
" act perfor7ned/' only Rome is the more liberal of
the two. With Rome a little water will do, but
Campbellism demands enough for an immersion, and
an immersion at whatever cost. Both claim that St.
Peter received the keys of the kingdom of heaven,
and both claim that Peter's successors use these keys
in admitting persons into this kingdom. There is some
little difference between them as to just who are the

30

ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM.

successors of St. Peter, but this difference is Dot fun-
damental. They agree in the fundamentals.

It ^vill be seen also, by the parallels above given,
that this doctrine is but a slight modification of the
old doctrine of baptismal regeneration. It is true
that this charge is resented "vvith considerable vehe-
mence by the advocates of this doctrine, yet, as in the
case before given, it is very difficult to make a dis-
tinction. The two parties use the same passages in
identically the same way. Dr. Pusey, of the Anglican
High Church party, may be regarded as very good
authority as to the doctrine of baptismal regeneration.
In Holy Baptism,'^ page 48, he comments on Titus
iii, 5: ^*^The washing of regeneration and renewing
of the Holy Ghost,^ i. e., a baptizing accompanied by
or conveying a reproduction, a second birth, a resto-
ration of our decayed nature by the new and first life,
imparted by the Holy Ghost. The apostle has been
directed both to limit the imparting of the inward
grace by the mention of the outward washing, and to
raise our conceptions of the greatness of this second
birth by the addition of the spiritual grace. The gift,
moreover, is the gift of God in and by baptism : every
thing but God's mercy is excluded — ^not by works of
righteousness which we have done ' — they only who
believe will come to the ^ washing of regeneration yet
not belief alone, but God, ^ according to his mercy,
saves them by the washing of regeneration by faith
are we saved, not by works ; and by baptism we are

THE CENTRAL IDEA.

31

saved, not by faith only, for so God hath said ; not
the necessity of preparation, but its efficiency in
itself is excluded ; baptism comes neither as ' grace of
congruity,' nor as an outward seal of benefits before
conveyed ; we are saved neither by faith only, nor by
baptism only, but faith bringing us to baptism, and
by baptism God saves us.'^

Put beside this some utterances of Campbell :*
^' Wherever water, faith, and the name of the Father,
Son, and Holy Spirit are, there will be found the
efficacy of the blood of Jesus. Yes, as God first gave
the efficacy of water to blood, he has now given the
efficacy of blood to water. This, as was said, is figura-
tive ; but it is not a figure which misleads, for the
meaning is given without a figure, viz., immersion for
the remission of sins. And to him that made the
washing of clay from the eyes the washing away of
blindness, it is competent to make the immersion of
the body in water efficacious to the washing away of
sin fro7n the conscience.^' Again : f " Being born of
water in the Savior's style, and the bath of regenera-
tion in the apostle's style, in the judgment of all writers
and critics of eminence, refer to one and the same act,
viz.. Christian baptism. Hence it came to pass that
all the ancients used the word regeneration as synony-
mous with immersion. Similar quotations might be
produced in numbers, showing that the difference

*" Christian System," p. 215. t/d.

32

ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM.

between the advocates of baptismal regeneration and
those of baptismal remission is more a difference of
words than of real principles. Campbell and his fol-
lowers quote without hesitation the writings of the
advocates of baptismal regeneration as supporting their
view, yet when charged with advocating baptismal
regeneration they become very indignant, and accuse
" the sects/' as they style other Christian denomina-
tions, of traducing them. A. Campbell, in a foot-note
on page 272 of the Christian System,'^ attempts to
meet the charge and explain the difference. The ex-
planation amounts to this: The advocates of baptismal
regeneration contend for a regeneration effected by
baptism alone, while Campbell contends that baptism
is but the last step in the process. The so-called dif-
ference upon which this explanation is grounded does
not exist in fact. In the case of adults the advo-
cates of baptismal regeneration require, as antecedent
conditions, faith and repentance; also, belief in the
presence of the Holy Spirit, imparted in the act of
baptism. In the case of infants, the difference may
exist ; but the doctrine does not by any means apply
to infants alone.

Tliis doctrine also teaches justification by works.
This is also disavowed by them, but with no better
reason than the two former. Baptism they are always
ready to set forth as a coimnand, and the observance
of it as obedience; and when their theory of doctrine is
met by the repeated declaration of the apostle Paul —

THE CENTRAL IDEA,

33

viz., that justification is by faith without works/'
aud " without the deeds of the law " — they are ever
ready to quote St. James to the contrary, leaving a
positive conflict between these apostles, when a rea-
sonable method of interpretation would show complete
agreement.

A. Campbell, in treating of the justification of sin-
ners, says : * " As an act of favor it is done by the
blood of Jesus, as the rigiitful and efficient cause ; by
the faith as the instrumental cause; by the name of
Jesus the Lord as the immediate cause; and by
works as the demonstrative and conclusive cause.
In what sense this jargon of supposed distinctions ex-
plains the justification of the sinner, it is difficult for
any one not looking at the Scriptures through a theory
to understand. The question still remains for expla-
nation. How is the sinner justified by works of right-
eousness, and not by works of righteousness, at one and
the same time? Until this question is answered, the
charge of teaching a doctrine of justification by works
must stand unimpeached.

It is at once apparent to the student of Church
history that this scheme of doctrine is in square antag-
onism, in this respect, to the fundamental doctrine of
the Reformation, and in harmony with Rome on the
ground of justification. The watch-cry of the Refor-
mation was, Sola fides justificat — faith alone justifies;

*" Christian Syttem," p. 183.

34

ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM.

while Rome shouted back, not faith alone, but works
also. Hagenbach (History of Doctriues, Vol. II,
page 281) says: *^Both Roman Catholics and Protest-
ants ascribe to faith a justifying power in the case
of the sinner ; but there was this great ditference be-
tween them, that the former maintained that, in ad-
dition to faith, good works are a necessary condition
of salvation, and ascribe to them a certain degree
of meritoriousness ; while the latter adhere rigidly
to the proposition, ' Sola fides justificatJ " If this emi-
nent German ecclesiastical historian had sought to
define the doctrinal conflict between Campbell ism and
other evangelical denomintitious, he could not have
found better words to distinguish them than the words
given above. Campbellism always defines baptism as
a necessary condition to the salvation of the sinner,
and they class it with the "works" spoken of by St.
James ii, 24. It is throughout a system of salvation
by works and nothing else ; and while they do not as-
cribe to works meritoriousness, yet they make them
essential antecedently to justification. And if they are
" good works," merit can not be denied to them any
more before than after justification. God ascribes
merit to all good works ; but good works are wrought
in faith, and faith justifies ; good works, therefore, be-
long to a justified state, and not antecedently to it.

DIALECT OF,

35

CHAPTER III.

THE DIALECT OF CAMPBELUSM.

This system bas a doctrinal dialect peculiarly its
own, and by wbicb it may be readily recognized any-
where. This dialect is made up of Scripture phrase-
ology, used in a certain dogmatic sense, w^hich dis-
tinctively indexes the characteristic interpretation of
this school in dealing with certain passages of Scrip-
ture. This its author calls purity of speech/'
" speaking of Bible things by Bible words.'' * But it is
plain to the unsophisticated that this Bible terminology
is given a meaning diiFerenl from that attached to it
by others. Bible terms may be used in a certain ar-
bitrary sense that is not legitimately to be attached to
them, and thereby be made to propagate error of the
most destructive consequences and character.

In this Scriptural phraseology, used in this pecu-
liar sense, we have another forceful illustration of the
unbounded influence of this man Campbell; for the
dialect is his own style of speech beyond all question.
"We doubt it possible in the history of the entire
Church of the Christian centuries to parallel this with
another example exactly similar. And yet his follow-
ing affect to believe that they, in their system, are

♦"Christian System," p. 125.

3G

ERRORS OF CAMPBELLTSM.

independent of all human leadership. Their creed is
the Bible, and their doctrines are infallible deductions
from the Scriptures. This must be so, else their
claim to take the Scriptures as their sole guide falls
to the ground, and they only take their interpretation
of the Scriptures, which is just what all other Chris-
tians do, and no more.

Let us consider some of this characteristic termi-
nology. For example, *^ reign of heaven, as a trans-
lation of the phrase kingdom of heaven," first pro-
posed by Mr. Campbell, is now with great unanimity
used by the doctrinal teachers of this system. Under
this form of translation they usually follow Mr.
Campbell's discussion of it, under the heads of
Xame,'' Constitution," " King," Subjects,''
^' Laws," Territory." An entirely fanciful treat-
ment, made use of to make it co-ordinate with a pre-
conceived system of doctrine. But of this more sub-
sequently.

According to this dialect the unbaptized are styled
aliens," while the baptized, by parity of reasoning,
however backslidden, however besotted in sin, are
naturalized citizens, and may be saved by repentance,
faith, and prayer, at any time, while the " alien " can
not be saved without baptism. The Scriptures do use
the term aliens," but never to signify the unbap-
tized. In Eph. ii, 12, and iv, 18; the term undoubt-
edly refers to the Gentiles in their condition anterior
to the publication of the gospel, and as compared with

DIALECT OF.

37

Israel under the Levitical dispensation. One thing,
however, is certain. The Scriptures nowhere recog-
nize the unbaptized person as an alien simply because
he is unbaptized.

"In Christ/' is another Scriptural phrase that is
given in this system a peculiar signification. A.
Campbell says:* ^'JVhen are persons in Christ? I
choose this phrase in accommodation to the familiar
style of this day. No person is in a house, or in a
ship, or in a state, or in a kingdom, but he that is
gone, or is introduced into a state, into a kingdom ; so
no person is in Christ but he w^ho has been intro-
duced into Christ. . . . But the phrase, into
Christ, is always connected with conversion, regenera-
tion, immersion, or putting on Christ. Before we are
justified in Christ, live in Christ, or fall asleep in
Christ, we must come, be introduced or immersed into
Christ." What can teach more explicitly than this
that baptism is that Avhich puts the sinner into Christ,
and that the baptized state is the state of being " in
Christ?" An interpretation that contains a whole
brood of destructive fallacies.

It baptism puts the sinner into Christ, then all
who are baptized are in Christ, whatever may be their
present morals. If immorality will put the baptized
person out of Christ, then this Avhole theory falls to the
ground. If it does not, then the backslider is sure

Christian System," pp. 188-189.

38

ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM.

of final salvation; for, according to Rom. viii, 38, 39,
Nothing can separate us from tlie love of God,
Avhich is in Christ Jesus our Lord;" and 2 Cor. v, 17:
If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature.^' It
docs not help the matter at all to say, " We require
sincere repentance and faith in order to baptism;" for
these qualities may have existed, and the individual
be now "in the gall of bitterness and bond of in-
iquity." He is either in Christ or out of Christ. If
in Christ, he is safe; if out of Christ, how does he
now get into Christ? By baptism? If so, theu con-
stant re-baptism will be required. If not now by
baptism, then baptism does not put all sinners into
Christ. To this absurdity does this misapplication
of the Scriptures inevitably lead. The whole theory
is fallacious. Water baptism is not baptism into
Christ, but baptism into the name of Christ; that is,
into a profession of his name for the remission of sins.
Baptism into Christ is entirely spiritual, and does not
result in this congeries of absurdities.

"Obedience of faith," and "obeying the gospel,"
are choice phrases in the dialect of this system. They
mean, as used by them, but one thing, namely, bap-
tism. As, in the golden age of the Roman empire,
all roads were said to lead to Rome, so, according to
these teachers, all routes of Scripture exegesis inev-
itably lead to baptism. And yet there is not one sin-
gle passage that either directly or inferentially refers
to baptism as " the obedience of faith," or " obeying

DIALECT OF.

39

the gospel.'^ This is a very pertinent ilkistration of
the persistency of preconceived opinions in causing
individuals to see the Scriptures through the medium
of a theory. The obedience of faith is faith itself; or,
in other words, faith is obedience to the command to
believe in, on, or upon Christ. In Rom. x, 16, we
have "obeying the gospel defined: "But they have
not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, Avho
hath believed our report?'^ In what respect did they
not " obey the gospel?'' Plainly in not believing the
" report '' of the prophets. " Obedience to the faith,"
in Rom. i, 5, is obedience to the whole system of faith.
Yet despite these plain and obvious interpretations of
these phrases, they have become a veritable doctrinal
shibboleth of the followers of Campbell, and they in-
vite sinners to believe, repent, and confess Christ, and
obey the gospel.

The word "confession'' has also a peculiar sig-
nificance attached to it in this dialect. With them it
means the oral confession that " Jesus Christ is the
Son of God." Alexander Campbell says : * " The
only apostolic and divine confession of faith Avhich
God the Father of all the Church, and that upon
which Jesus himself said he would build it, is the
sublime and supreme proposition. That Jesus of Naz-
areth is the Messiah, the Son of the living God. This
is the peculiarity of the Christian system, its specific

* " Christian System," p. 58.

40

ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM.

attribute. This, then, is confession, according to their
teaching, and is one of the requisites of baptism, and
one of the works of righteousness. That such an oral
confession was ever required by the apostles as a pre-
requisite to baptism, has not one particle of proof in
the Acts of the Apostles or their Epistles. The only
passage they will attempt to cite is Acts viii, 37, which is
rejected as wanting in genuineness by the Revised Ver-
sion. Critical scholars have for a long time with perfect
unanimity held its spuriousness, an addition that crept
into some manuscripts from an ecclesiastical formula.

The words bfioAoyicoixui^ 6/ioAoycaf\re rendered indif-
ferently confesSj profesSj confessioiiy jjrofession, and refer
to faith or belief in almost every instance, without any
formulated statement or oral declaration. Confession
" with the mouth " is only spoken of in Rom. x, 9, 10,
and it requires an unlimited stretch of the imagination
to put into the words, as here used, the formal con-
fession that Mr. Campbell and his following require.

Again, ^^the action of baptism" is a prominent
technic in this dialect. Mr. Campbell, in "The Chris-
tian System," devotes a chapter to this subject. By
this word "action," it is sought to maintain the posi-
tion that the word in the original defines a specific
action, rather than a result to be brought about by
different acts or influences. What is the "action of
baptism" as defined by their mode of procedure?
Whose action is it? It is evidently the action of the
administrator after the immersion is partially secured

DIALECT OF.

41

by the action of the subject. At this juncture the
individual, passive in the hands of the administrator,
is actively dipped by liim, or immersed and emersed by
him. The object is not by this description to bur-
lesque their mode of procedure in immersion, so-called,
but to bring out clearly to logical discrimination this
"action" idea. Baptism is the passive receiving of
water, administered in the name of the Father, Son,
and Holy Ghost, as a Christian rite ; and the active
party, so far as physical action is concerned, is the
administrator. And when Mr. Campbell talks oi
baptism as "an action commanded to be done,"* he
talks of a command that never was given. The com-
mand to baptize was only given to apostles and ad-
ministrators— the "action" was to be their action.
The subjects of baptism were commanded to be bap-
tized— i. e., receive baptism — and this whole theory of
"action," and talk about the "action of baptism," is a
pertinent illustration of that want of" purity of speech "
that Campbell so unsparingly condemns in others.

With the same limited meaning the term "gospel"
is used. With them it means, preaching baptism in
order to the remission of sins. Whatever of repent-
ance, faith, love, or duty a sermon may have in it, if
it have not baptism as a condition to pardon, it is not
the gospel. t In this case it is true, as in the case of
" obedience " before spoken of, that there is not a

Christian System," p. 55.
tSee " Memoirs of A. Campbell," pp. 208-218, 224, 229.
4

42

ERRORS OF CAMPELLISM.

single passage that refers to baptism by water as any
part of the gospel. The fact is, the gospel was
preached during Christ's stay here upon the earth,
and that was before the institution of Christian bap-
tism according to Mr. Campbell. Again, the gospel
was preached unto Abraham, Gal. iii, 8 : And the
Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the hea-
then through faith, preached before the gospel unto
Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed."
So also was it preached in the wilderness, Heb. iv, 2 :
" For unto us was the gospel preached as well as unto
them.'' Certainly, in this gospel as well as in that
preached by Christ unto the poor '' (Luke vii, 22),
there was no water baptism as a condition to its bene-
fits. Again, Paul especially disclaims baptism as a
part of the gospel of remission, 1 Cor. i, 17: "For
Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gos-
pel." What is here set by antithesis to the gospel?
Water baptism. It is, therefore, no part of the gospel
of salvation to sinners. It belongs to those who are
saved, as a symbol of the grace whereby they were
saved; to wit, spiritual baptism, which is a fundamen-
tal part of the gospel of Christ, for it is purification
from sin. 1 Cor. xii, 13 : By one Spirit are we all
baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gen-
tiles, whether we be bond or free, and have all been
made to drink into one spirit."

"The loaf in the house of the Lord " is a some-
what unique and original method of presenting the

DIALECT OF.

43

communion of the Lord's Supper. This idea of "one
loaf * is founded on a fanciful rendering of the Greek
dpTO^, in 1 Cor. x, 16, 17 — a word which, in the great
majority of instances, is translated bread. But Mr.
Campbell conceived that, at the ancient or primitive
communion occasions, each member broke a piece from
the common " loaf So he translates dpzo^ " loaf to
accord with this idea. Justin Martyr, in his first Apol-
ogy (ch. 67, A. D. 140) gives an account of the Chris-
tian assemblies, in which he says of the elements of
the Eucharist : " There is a distribution to each.'' Of
course, this is a matter of but minor moment ; but it
serves to point the illustration of Campbell's doc-
trinal dialect, and the unparalleled authority his opin-
ions held, and do now hold, over his followers.

*" Christian System," pp. 303-331.

44

ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM.

CHAPTER IV.

THE THEORY OF rOSITIVE INSTITUTES.

Alexander Campbell and his followers, in
order to make their scheme of doctrine co-ordinate
with unity of purpose and plan in the divine economy
under all dispensations and in all ages, have pro-
mulgated the theory of salvation by obedience to
positive institutes or precepts. The theory in brief
is this : Under each dispensation God enjoined some
positive act of obedience as the final condition upon
which remission of sin was procured by the penitent
believer. But Ave prefer to let Mr. Camj^bell him-
self set forth his theory of doctrine. He says :*
" From Abel to the resurrection of Jesus trans-
gressors obtained remission of sins at the altar
through priests and sin-offerings; but it was an im-
perfect remission as respected the conscience. ' For
the law/ says Paul (more perfect in this respect than
the preceding economy), ' containing a shadow only
of the good things to come, and not the very image
of these things, never can, v.ith the same sacrifices
which they oflfered yearly, forever make those who

Christian System," p. 179.

THEORY OF POSITIVE INSTITUTES.

45

come to them perfect. Since being offered^ would
they not have ceased? because the worshipers, being
once purified, should have no longer conscience of
sins/ ^' This passage is remarkable, especially for
the assumption that " transgressors obtained remission
at the altar through priests and sin-offerings under
pre-Christian dispensations. There is not one particle
of proof offered for it. In fact, there is not one single
passage in the Old Testament that enjoins the offering
of a sacrifice as a condition to the pardon of sin.
Sacrifices were generally offered by priests; hence
the only thing that could be properly the act of the in-
dividual would be the bringing of the sacrifice. Again,
sacrifices were offered for families, or for the people at
large; therefore if pardon of sin were obtained through
them, it was, in the vast majority of instances, pred-
icated on the mental act, the state of the mind or
heart of the worshiper, which must be a state of re-
pentance and faith. No ; this is a lame attempt to
offer support to this theory of positive institutes as
being required in all ages in order to the remission
of sin. The Old Testament nowhere sustains it.
Balvation in numerous instances is predicated on
faith, trust, repentance, prayer, calling unto the Lord,
and these are each and all mental acts.

In a discussion with a minister of this denomina-
tion, where the utterances of the psalmists and proph-
ets with reference to prayer for the remission of sins
was cited by the writer, the attempt was made to

46

ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM.

break the force of these proofs by saying faith and
prayer, and faith and calling upon God, is not faith
alone, as the Methodist Discipline, in Article IX of
the Articles of Religion, teaches. To this the reply was
made that it was the faith in the prayer, and not the
faith and the prayer, that brought the remission of
sin. Wherever the heart exercised an implicit faith
in God, there, at that very moment, salvation was
realized. Prayer, or calling upon God for pardon of
sin, is proof of the fact that pardon was not suspended
on obedience to positive institutes, and proof that it
was suspended upon a state of mind and heart, which
was essential in prayer, without which there could be
no genuine prayer. We will give a couple of examples
out of the Old Testament out of the large number
that might be given: Psalms Ixxxvi, 5: "For thou
Lord, art good and ready to forgive ; and plenteous
in mercy to all them that call upon thee.'^ Isa. Iv,
6, 7 : " Seek ye the Lord while he may be found,
call upon him while he is near. Let the wicked for-
sake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts:
and let hiin return unto the Lord, and he will have
mercy upon him ; and to our God, for he will abun-
dantly pardon." These explicitly set forth the con-
dition upon which pardon was obtained by sinners
under the Old Testament dispensation.

Sometimes the trespass offerings enjoined in
Leviticus, chapters iv and v, are cited as examples
of sins forgiven upon the offering of sacrifices, but

THEORJ: OF^POSITIVL INSTITUTES. 47

the unbiased reader will see that these sins of igno-
rance, that are atoned for by certain sacrifices, are
not the sins from which sinners generally need to be
justified. The Levitical law nowhere offers any sup-
port to this theory, and it must be badly pressed for
a foundation to stand upon through the fifteen hun-
dred years of the Mosaic dispensation, to turn to the
trespass offerings as an example of positive institutes
as conditions to the remission of sin.

Again, this theory seeks to present a parallel be-
tween the fall of our first parents and the recovery
of the sinner. Mr. Braden, in his debate with Dr.
G. W. Hughey, of the Methodist Episcopal Church,
states the theory in full, of which we will quote
enough to bring out in clear view this particular
phase of their doctrinal teaching. He says:

*"Let us now analyze the successive steps — that
is, of the fall — " and learn when she became guilty in
the sight of God.

"1. There was a preacher of falsehood and diso-
bedience ; falsehood and disobedience were preached
and heard ; but she had not become guilty, she had
not fallen.

2. Next she disbelieved God in believing the
tempter ; but she had not yet fallen. Suppose she had
said to him, ' What you say is reasonable — indeed I
believe it — but God has said, You shall not eat of it,''

* "Hughey and Braden Debate," pp. 189, 190.

48

ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM.

and I will obey God/ would she have fallen ? Cer-
taiuly not. It would have been an error of the judg-
ment, but not a sin of the heart. . . .

"3. She desired the result of disobedience and be-
came dissatisfied with the reward of obedience ; but
she had not yet fallen or become guilty. Suppose she
had said to the tempter, ^ Sir, I feel a strong desire to
eat such pleasant fruit, and to become as God, know-
ing good and evil ; I do n't see w^hy I am restricted
in this way ; but God has said, " You shall not eat of
it," and I will not eat,' would she have fallen? Cer-
tainly not.

'^4. She next arrayed the best part of her nature
not already in rebellion against God, in opposition to
his law. She resolved to disobey, and as the act and
volition were in her case simultaneous nearly, — the
Bible makes them so, and says, ' She ate, and her eyes
were opened and she was ashamed,' or guilty ; * then
she fell, and not till then.'"

Xow, as to the recovery of the sinner, we have this :

"1. The gospel must be preached, and man must
hear it. He is not yet pardoned.

2. He must believe the gospel, or have faith.
He is not yet returned; he is not yet pardoned.

" 3. Man must repent, he must cease to love sin. . . .
He is not yet pardoned. . . .

^^4. Since man has been living in rebellion against
God, he must now confess Christ before men, as did
the eunuch to Philip; but he is not yet saved.

THEORY OF POSITIVE INSTITUTES.

49

"5. He must next obey the positive command of
God, or submit his will to the will of God in hi?
positive ordinance — baptism/'

Let us look at the first side of this attempted par-
allel, and see how many absurdities are compressed in
the compass of its assumptions. Acccording to the
second item in the category, Eve could believe the
tempter and disbelieve God, and yet have no sin in
her heart. To make God willfully a liar, is more
than "an error of judgment." AVe are told that in
addition to this '^she desired the result of disobe-
dience," and yet was not fallen. A monstrous doctrine,
squarely in contradiction to the teaching of Jesus,
Matt, v, 21-27, where hatred and lust are made murder
and adultery. Desire sin in the heart, and yet not sin !
How completely in conflict with all our ideas of the
nature of sin, that there must be the overt act before
there can be sin ! The fact is, sin existed before the
act Avas put forth, and had something occurred to
prevent the act, there would not have been any less
of sin in the heart. Sin existed in Eve when she dis-
believed God's word, and doubted his goodness in the
prohibition given. And her recovery from the guilt
of sin was secured by her heart-faith in the divine
faithfulness and goodness in the provision to be made
for the forgiveness of sin. But were it conceded that
the first sin consisted only in an overt act of disobe-
dience, it does not follow that the restoration shall be
through one formal act of obedience. The restoration

5

50

ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM.

must have underlying it a principle from which all
obedience may spring, and that principle is faith, or
heart-obedience, " the obedience of faith/'

Under the dispensation of the Baptist, Campbell
and his followers teach that baptism became the posi-
tive institute for the remission of sin, and in this
there was a preparation for the Christian dispensation.
Braden, on the design of baptism, says:* ''Our
fourth argument is, that John the Harbinger was
preparing the way for the coming of Christ ; baptism
was for the remission of sins, and in this he prepared
the way for the great law of pardon in Christ.
Mark i, 4: 'John did baptize in the wilderness, and
preach the baptism of repentance for the remission
of sins.' Luke iii, 3: 'John came into all the coun-
try about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance
for the remission of sins.' Matt. iii. 5, 6 : ' Then
went out to John all Jerusalem and Judea, and all
the region round about Jordan, and were baptized of
him in Jordan, confessing their sins.' This baptism
was one which could only be administered to peni-
tent believers of John's preaching. To all such it
Avas for the remission of sins, for Matthew assures us
he required confession before baptism. Then followed
baptism for the remission of their sins."

Here we have the last step from the supposed
positive institutes of the patriarchal and Mosaic dis-
pensation to the Christian dispensation, and the theory

• " Hughey and Braden Debate," p. 193.

THEORY OF POSITIVE INSTITUTES. 51

is equally without foundation here. When its un-
proved assumptions are taken away, it stands out as a
sheer fabrication. 1. It is sought to connect John's
baptism with remission of sins in causal relation; that
is, his baptism was for, meaning in order, to remission
of sins. Now, not one passage that is cited by Mr.
Braden, and none other that can be cited, connects
these two — baptism and remission of sins — as ante-
cedent and sequent, cause and effect. One passage
will forever set this matter at rest. Matt. iii. 11: ^'1
indeed baptize you with water unto repentance ; but
he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose
shoes I am not worthy to bear; he shall baptize you
with the Holy Ghost and with fire.'' Here we have
baptism connected with repentance by the preposition
£((;, the same preposition that,, according to Campbell's
teaching, connects baptism and remission in Acts ii.
38. John specifically states that the baptism he per-
formed was £c^ — for, or in order to — repentance. Now,
what is the obvious and common-sense interpretation
of this language ? This evidently : " I indeed baptize
you with water into [a profession of] repentance." John
preached the baptism of repentance e^c — for (into) —
the remission of sin. The repentance was for — or, in
order to — remission of sin; baptism was for — or, in
order to — repentance. Now, let it be borne in mind
that it was what John preached that was for remission
of sin. He preached a baptism, not a baptism of
water, but a baptism of repentance. Repentance itself
baptized into the remission of sin. It was a repent-

52

ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM.

ance that was crowned with faith. Acts xix, 4:
Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the bap-
tism of repentance, saying unto the people that they
should believe in him that should come after, that is
Christ/^ Now, whatever construction w^e give to the
phrase, "baptism of repentance,^' it is an unwar-
ranted liberty to construe it as baptism into remis-
sion. It can not be into repentance and into remis-
sion at the same time.

The words, 6a7:Ti^(o, 6d7TTi(T/jLa, and 6'a~rr<T/ioc, in
the original Greek, are by no means limited in their
signification to a submergence into something, or an
overwhelming with something. In fact, anything
that could bring about a changed condition had the
power of baptism, as grief, calamities, sufferings, in-
iquities, drunkenness, and the like. Hence Jesus
says, Luke xii, 50 : "I have a baptism to be baptized
with ; and how am I straitened until it be accom-
plishedSo also Matt, xx, 22, 23, and Mark x,
38, 39. Christ's cup, baptism. The baptism by drink-
ing the cup of suflPering in sacrifice for sin. Isa. xxi,
4, in the Septuagint, reads : " My heart panted, iniq-
uity baptizes me.'' To these may be added, from
classical and patristic sources in the Greek, an in-
definite number of like examples, as:

* Chariton — Baptized by desire.
Plutarch — Baptized by worldly affairs.
Chrysostoin — Baptized by passion.

* Dale's " Johannic Baptism^' pp. 208, 209.

THEORY OF POSITIVE INSTITUTES.

53

Themistius — Baptized by grief.
Josephus — Baptized by drunkenness.
Chrysostora — Baptized by poverty.
Proclus — Baptized with wantonness.
Plotinus — Baptized with diseases, or with arts of ma-
gicians.

Conon — Baptized with much wine.

Justin Martyr, wlio suffered martyrdom about the year
A. D. 166, says, in his dialogue with Trypho the Jew :
"By reason therefore of this laver of repentance and
knowledge of God, which has been ordained on account
of the transgression of God's people, as Isaiah cries, we
have believed, and testify that that very baptism which he
announced is alone able to purify those who have re-
pented ; and this is the water of life. But the cisterns
which you have dug for yourselves are broken and profit-
less to you. For what is the use of that baptism that
cleanseth the body alone. Baptize the soul from wrath
and from covetousness, and lo, the body is pure."

These Greeks, speaking and using the Greek lan-
guage as their vernacular, most certainly understood
the power of this word 6a7:zi^co, and these instances
show how wide is the range given to the application
of the term. And Justin the Martyr shows how re-
pentance will " baptize the soul from wrath, covetous-
ness, envy, hatred.^' It was this baptism or purifica-
tion by means of repentance that John preached ; and
it was /or, in order to represent this " baptism of re-
pentance," that John baptized with water. But let it
not be forgotten that John's baptism was ere, "unto

54

ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM.

repentance/^ and " repentance ^' was e/c, " nnto remis-
sion of sins," and not, as Campbell and his followers
have it, " baptism with water for remission of sins."
Baptism -svith water and remission of sins are not con-
nected together by the preposition s/c, unto, into, or for,
and it does violence to the text so to construe them.

The idea put forth by these teachers is, that John
went throughout Judea and Galilee preaching to the
people to come and be baptized with water by him;
while the Scriptures represent him as preaching re-
pentance, which purifies or baptizes the soul from sin ;
and having done this, he administered a symbolical
cleansing with water, which, in harmony with the ideas
in vogue, represented the repentance.

Mr. Braden says in the quotation above given, that
" Matthew assures us he required confession before
baptism." AVhere does Matthew assure us of such a
relation as that between confession and baptism ? I
suppose he thought he found it in ch. iii, vi : " And
were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins."
But the very structure of the language indicates that
the public confession was made by the baptism. It
was a baptism for confession of sin, and genuine con-
fession of sin is the public expression of repentance.
No language could more explicitly set forth the relation
between baptism by water and repentance than this
text. It requires blindness, superinduced by a theory,
to make confession in order to water baptism out of
the taxt, and that baptism in order to the remission

THEORY OF POSITIVE INSTITUTES.

55

of siu out of any thing or all that is said about John's
baptism in the New Testament.

But the absurdity of this theory of positive insti-
tutes, as applied to the dispensation of the Baptist, is
farther manifest in the fact that Jesus, while minis-
tering here on earth, uniformly forgave sins without
any postive acts of obedience, but directly upon an
exercise of faith. For example, the sick of the palsy,
Matt, ix, 2 : And Jesus seeing their faith, said unto
the sick of the palsy. Son, be of good cheer ; thy sins
be forgiven thee.'' To the sinning woman in the house
of Simon, Luke vii, 44-50: "Thy faith hath saved
thee ; go in peace." Here Jesus commanded no obe-
dience to positive institutes, in order to remission.
He did not command baptism or any thing else. It
can not be said obedience was impossible to them, as
it is said of the thief on the cross. The only attempted
reply is, that the Master himself was present, and had
a right to prescribe such conditions as he saw fit. To
this it is sufficient to reply that Jesus never contrar
vened any of the fundamental demands of his law.
What he requires of one sinner he requires of all, as
conditions to pardon of siu. He lays down the con-
ditions in order to justification, in the parable of the
Pharisee and the publican. Luke xviii, 10-14: The
publican simply prayed, "God be merciful to me a
sinner, . . . and he went down to his house
justified rather than the other." The Pharisee had
obedience to positive institutes to present as the

56

ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM.

grounds of bis justification. He coukl have even said,
as was said of his brethren, Mark vii, 4: And when
I come from the market, except I baptize I eat not." *
But he was not justified.

Jesus, in his conversation with Xicodemus, laid
down explicitly the conditions in order to salvation,
justification, or pardon of sin, John iii, 14-18: And
as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even
so must the Son of man be lifted up, that whosoever
believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal
life. For God so loved the world that he gave his
only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him
should not perish, but have everlasting life. . . .
He that believeth on him is not condemned ; but he
that believeth not is condemned already, because he
hath not believed in the name of the only begotten
Son of God." This language is definite as to what
Jesus required, in order to the remission of sin — the
removal of condemnation. This conversation was had
during the so-called dispensation of John the Baptist,
and manifestly laid down the conditions to salvation
at that time.

This scheme of doctrine teaches that the kingdom
of heaven, or reign of heaven in the dialect of

*In this text the verb and the noun 3a-rL(mo;\yoih.

occur, and are transhited wash, ivashing. Had they been trans-
lated baptize and baptism, the ordinary reader would have
had some light that he does not now have on this subject of
baptism.

THEORY OF POSITIVE INSTITUTES, 57

Campbellisra, was not set up until on the clay of Pen-
tecost ; and that to Peter was intrusted the keys of
the kiugdom, and that he opened its doors in his ser-
mon on that occasion. Mr. Campbell puts it in this
way : ^ " Peter, now holding the keys of the kingdom
of Jesus, and speaking under the commission for
converting the world, and by the authority of the
Lord Jesus — guided, inspired, and accompanied by the
Spirit — may be expected to speak the truth, the whole
truth plainly and intelligibly, to his brethren, the
Jews/' Again : t ''Thus commenced the reign of
heaven on the day of Pentecost, in the person of the
Messiah, the Son of God, and the anointed monarch
of the universe.''

Of course, harmonious with this theory, the decla-
rations concerning the Church of God which we find
in the Gospels must be explained away, as well as
liiose also about the kingdom of heaven, or kingdom
of God, which do not quadrate with it.

For example, the proclamation of the Baptist, and
also of the Master himself, that the kingdom of
heaven is at hand," is always interpreted ^' the king-
dom of heaven has come nigh," because the Greek
dut^o) has also that meaning. But in two instances
the verb (fddi^co occurs — Matt, xii, 28, and Luke xi,
20 : *' The kingdom of God is come unto you," and
■'The kingdom of God has come upon you." It wdll ^

Christian System," p. 194. m p. 171.

58

ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM.

hardly be maintained that in these instances the Savior
meant to teach these carping, fault-finding Jews that
in a few years the kingdom of God would come.

But there are other passages which can not, by any
torture or critical emendation, be made to teach that
the kingdom of lieaven had not yet begun. Matt, xxi,
31: "Verily I say unto you, that the publicans and
liarlots go into the kingdom of God before you."
Matt, xxi, 43: " Therefore I say unto you, the king-
dom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a
nation bringing forth the fruits thereof." Matt, xxiii,
13 : Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites,
for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men:
for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them
that are entering to go in." So also Mark i, 15; iii,
24 ; Luke xvi, 16, et al. It is true these phrases —
" kingdom of heaven," "kingdom of God " — are used
in the Gospels with somewhat of a diversity of signi-
fication,— at one time referring to the divine economy
of grace established among men in the calling of Israel
to be the depositors of the divine plan of salvation
and the conservators of revelation ; at another refer-
ring to the era of the Messiah ; at another referring to
his complete conquest of the world to himself; at an-
other to the reign of Christ in the heart; and at another
to his glorious perfect kingdom above. But these are
all grounded in the same great thought — the sov-
ereignty of Christ. It is therefore unreasonable and
confusing to attempt to make these terras to describe

THEORY OF POSITIVE INSTITUTES.

59

any one epoch in the scheme of divine grace — as Pen-
tecost. The kingdom of heaven in every essential
sense was established, or " set up/' among men long be-
fore this. But this idea is a part of a scheme of doc-
trine that has for its aim the complete isolation and
separation of the divine economy into parts, to show
that at one time God had plans and purposes that at
another he completely changed ; in other words, that
the Christian dispensation presents a thorough emen-
dation of the divine procedure and requirements from
what they were under the Mosaic dispensation.

Let it be not forgotten, that if this theory of the
" setting up'' of the kingdom on Pentecost falls to the
ground, a principal stone in the foundation upon which
Campbellism builds is gone, and the theory necessarily
falls with it. Mr. Campbell says : * " Having, from all
these considerations, seen that until the death of the
Messiah his kingdom coidd not commence, and haviug
seen from the record itself that it did not commence,
before his resurrection, we proceed to the develop-
ment of things after his resurrection, to ascertain the
day upon which the kingdom was set up, or the reign
of heaven begun." Now, all this is necessary to
prepare the way for the doctrine of the commission, as
propounded by him and his followers, and the idea
also that Peter, having the keys of the kingdom,
opened it in the thirty-eighth verse of the second

* "Christian System," p. 167.

60

ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM.

chapter of Acts, and laid down the inflexible con-
ditions to admission into it for the entire Christian
dispensation. Hence, Campbell tells us : * " The stat-
utes and laws of the Christian kingdom are not to be
sought in the Jewish Scriptures, or antecedent to the
day of Pentecost."

A more completely artificial system of faith could
not well be evolved. The crucial point of the whole
is baptism by immersion as a necessary condition to
the pardon of sin. To it the Scriptures must all be
made to conform, w^hatever violence of translation or
interpretation may be required.

* " Christian System," p. 157.

THE COMMISSION,

61

CHAPTER V.

THE COMMISSION.

An immediate doctrinal correlate of CampbelPs
theory of the kingdom of heaven, is his doctrine of the
commission given to the disciples. It is at once as-
sumed that the whole system is to be found here in
the narrow compass of a positive precept. Campbell
says:* "The commission for converting the world
teaches that immersion was necessary for discipleship;
for Jesus said, ^Convert the nations, immersing them
into the name,' etc., and ^ teaching them to observe,'
etc. The construction of the sentence fairly indicates
that no person can be a disciple according to the com-
jnission who has not been immersed ; for the active
participle, in connection with the imperative, either
declares the manner in which the imperative shall be
obeyed, or explains the meaning of the command; . . .
for example, * cleanse the house, sweeping it;' thus,
'convert (or disciple) the nations, immersing them.'"

Also, according to this system, the commission is
to be found in modified form in the other three Gos-
pels, Mark xvi, 15, 16: "And he said unto them.
Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to

*" Christian Sys*em," p. 198.

62

ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM.

every creature. He that believeth and is baptized
shall be saved, and he that believeth not shall be
damned." Luke xxiv, 46, 47 : "And said unto them,
Thus it is written, and thus it behooved Christ to suf-
fer, and to rise from the dead the third day: and that
repentance and remission of sins should be preached
in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusa-
lem." John XX, 22, 23 : " And when he had said this,
he breathed on them, and saith unto them. Receive ye
the Holy Ghost : whosesoever sins ye remit, they are
remitted unto them ; and whosesoever sins ye retain,
they are retained."

A careful comparison of these passages in the light
of subsequent Scripture teachings and facts, will show
that they lend no support whatever to the ideas that
these teachers assume to educe from them.

There are a number of assumptions usually made
here that need to be examined, — in the first place, the
assumption, in the face of the larger part of the Chris-
tian world, that immersion alone is baptism, and that
the Savior said, " Go ye therefore, and teach all na-
tions, immersing them.'** It is sufficient to dismiss

*It appears very certain to the author that if the assump-
tion that God commanded an immersion is true, he would
most certainly have commanded an emersion. Immersion
never takes its subject out of the water. If he is immersed,
he is there yet, unless he has been emersrd, and with emersion
the immersion has ended. This fundamental meaning of the
word immerse is here brought out that the reader may see
that baptism and immersion are not equivalents, as is assumed

THE COMMISSION.

63

this with the remark, inasmuch as we do not at pres-
ent propose to discuss the mode of baptism, that if
immersion is an essential condition to the remission
of sin, is it not passing strange that the act was not
carefully defined, so that multiplied millions of intel-
ligent, honest people could not be so greatly mistaken
as they hav^e been through the Christian ages?

A second assumption is that nadr^T£'j(o — to disciple
or make disciples, rendered teach in the Author-
ized Version — is synonymous with convert, and remit
sins. This idea is a very forcible illustration of the
close affinity between the theories of Campbell and the
doctrine of Rome. Both assume that they are com-
manded to go and remit sins, and both claim to do so
by baptism. This is the only difference : Rome con-
tinues to exercise the prerogative after baptism ; Camp-
bellism assumes to go no further than baptism. Con-
version is a word of quite a latitude of meaning. An
individual is converted when he has changed his faith
or opinions. This a purely intellectual process. He
may do this himself by investigation or inquiry after
the truth; or the teaching of another may be the

by Campbell and his followers. A person may be in a bap-
tized state ; but he can not be in a state of immersion without
being hopelessly drowned. Baptism and immersion are not syn-
onymous. Baptism is the rite of cleansing or purification, and
its ideas are wholly spiritual; immersion is a physical act of
submergence underneath a physical substance or fluid. Earlier
advocates of this theory called it dipping, and dipping it is ;
for the word dip takes out again.

64

ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM.

principal agency in it. In the second case, the teacher
may be said to have converted the other. But to con-
vert by the mere act of baptism, is an extension to the
meaning of the word that certainly has no warrant
whatever in Scripture.

It will be observed that the teaching comes after
the baptism in the only commission where baptism is
mentioned. First, ^'disciple them by baptism;" then,
teach" them. But does disciple" and convert "
mean the same thing? Alexander Campbell was the
first to broach such an idea. To make a disciple
means to make a learner, a pupil. To convert means
to change in heart, life, character. The first is an
outward act of profession ; the second is an inward
spiritual change. So the great body of the Church
for ages, even from apostolical times, has understood
the commission in Matt, xxviii, 19, to authorize the
baptism of infants.

There can be no conversion, the followers of Camp-
bell admit, without fiiith, repentance, confession. If
so, how could the disciples convert by baptism ?"
If, on the other hand, as Mr. Campbell says, conver-
sion and immersion are the same thing,* then repent-
ance, faith, and confession are no part of it. In this
hopeless confusion are we left by this attempt to har-
monize these ideas.

In tlie Scripture use of the term, conversion refers

*" Christian System," p. 195.

THE COMMISSION.

65

to all that change that takes place in a sinner. to tarn him
from sin to the service of God ; that is, conviction of sin,
repentance, faith, pardon, regeneration, adoption. The
work is both divine and human, — conviction, pardon,
regeneration, adoption are the divine side ; " repent-
ance towards God and faith towards the Lord Jesus
Christ"* are the human side. There is not one sin-
gle passage of Scripture that, either directly or by fair
inference, calls baptism conversion. Mr. Campbell
quotes Acts xxvi, 17, 18: "Unto whom now I send
thee, to open their eyes, and to turn them from dark-
ness unto light, and from the power of Satan unto God,
that they may receive forgiveness or sins, and inher-
itance among the sanctified.'^ Luke xxii, 32: "When
thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren ;" and
James v, 19, 20: "If any of you err from the truth,
and one convert him, let him know that he who con-
vert eth the sinner from the error of his way, shall
save a soul from death, and hide a multitude of sins.''
If we had been selecting passages of Scripture to show
the utter fallacy of this doctrine, we could have se-
lected none better for such purjiose. In the first the
apostle Paul most clearly sets forth that he was sent
to the Gentiles to convert them by teaching ; and as to
the divine side of the work, the forgiveness of sins
and sanctification was predicated upon faith as the
individual act. There is no water baptism in the

*Acts XX, 21.

6

66

ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM.

passage, and the inference that places it in the verb
i7:caz(fe(fcOj is without any warrant whatever. There
must bo, indeed, a wonderful virtue in water baptism,
if it will ^'turn men from darkness unto light.

But perhaps some follower of A. Campbell may
say that he meant that baptism is only an essential
step in the process of turning. To this it is sufficient
to reply that if converting and baptizing in the com-
mission are identical in signification, then CampVjell's
interpretation must, without limitation, be put on these
ms.sages.

AVith regard to the second passage which speaks
of Peter's reclamation after his grievous fall, what
evidence is there to show that he was baptized? If
reclamation is conversion, and baptism is conversion,*
then when was Peter converted or baptized ? And
why do not the followers of A. Campbell convert all
backsliders in the same way?

And, with reference to the quotation from James
V, 19, 20, the first verse of the quotation clearly
sets forth that the conversion here spoken of is the
conversion of the brother who may have "erred from
the way," a back.slidden disciple; and if conversion
and baptism are the same thing, here is a clear case
wdiere baptism must be repeated.

A third assumption is, that Christian baptism is
absolutely essential to making disciples, while no fact

*.See "Christian System," pp. 198, 208, 209.

THE COMMISSION.

67

is better attested than that there were disciples of
Christ who had never received Christian baptism. In
Acts xix, 1, we find disciples who were to all prac-
tical purposes such, and accepted of God, who yet were
not baptized by Christian baptism. Mark, the in-
spired historian, called them disciples.^'

Hence, from these insuperable objections, we
think the inference is legitimate and necessary, that
the theory finds no support in the commission as de-
fined by Matthew.

But the stronghold of the theory is believed by
its advocates to be the commission as given by St.
Mark xvi, 15, 16. This they triumphantly point to
as a " thus saith the Lord,'' in support of their doc-
trine. Mr. Braden, in his debate with Dr. Hughey,
says : * You can all understand a plain ^ Thus saith
the Lord.' The statement, ^ He that believes and is
baptized shall be saved from his sins,' is as plain as
the command, ^ Thou shalt not steal.' God has said,
* He that believes and is baptized shall be saved from
his sins.' Do you believe him ? Did the Son of
God mean what he said?"

Now, if there is a passage in the Scriptures, in
the Authorized Version, that seems to teach this doc-
trine, it is this one. If it can not be made out from
this, then it can not be made out at all. Let us look
at its terms. It will not be denied that shall be

* " Hughey and Braden Debate," pp. 195-196.

68

ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM.

saved" and ''shall be damned" are in antithesis to
each other. If so, the salvation spoken of here is
final or eternal salvation. " He that believeth not "
shall not be damned until the end of his probation.
"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved"
at last. " He that believeth not shall be damned " at
last. So that this does not set forth the conditions to
present salvation, the salvation of the sinner, but the
conditions to their final salvation. We have called
attention to this fact to show that there are not two
conditions or personal acts required here, but a condi-
tion, faith ; and a state of heart, baptism or j)urity.

The propriety of this interpretation will be more
manifest when it is seen that if both faith and bap-
tism are made personal conditions or acts of the in-
dividual, then, to complete the antithesis, the text
must read '' he that believeth not and is not baptized
shall be damned." The doctrine of Carapbellism is,
he that is not baptized shall be damned — the very
thing the text does not say. It affirms that damnation
is the consequence of unbelief The only escape from
this difficulty is to say that every true believer will
be baptized. Which is squarely untrue. Again it is
manifest that if the proposition is true that 'Mie that
believeth not shall be damned," it is also true that
" he that believeth shall not be damned," that is,
shall be saved. The Savior says identically the same
thing in John iii, 18: ''He that believeth on him is
not condemned ; but he that believed not, is condemned

THE COMMISSION.

69

already.'^ See also v, 24 ; vi, 40-47 ; and xx, 31. Here
we have an antithesis that clearly sets forth that con-
demnation is predicated on unbelief alone, Avhile non-
condemnation is the result of faith. The passage
therefore does not teach the doctrine of condemnation
for not being baptized, and this is Campbellism.

The whole difficulty in the interpretation of this
passage arises from the attempt to read ritual or
water baptism into it. Place Spirit baptism in the
text, and it coalesces into perfect harmony. " He
that believeth and is purified shall be saved. ^^He
that believeth not " will not be purified or baptized,
and therefore shall be damned.

* Dr. Murdock, translator of the Syriac New
Testament into English, in an article on the ^Syriac
Words for Baptism ' in the Bibliotheca Sacra, October,
1850, says: "The declaration in Mark xvi, 15, 16,
which in the Greek reads, ^ Go ye into all the world
and preach my gospel to every creature. He that
believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that
believeth not shall be damned,' would in the Syriac
read, ' He that believeth and standeth fast shall be
saved.' '' This serves to show that in very ancient
times — as early as the second century of our era — ■
this passage was conceived not to refer to the mere
rite of water baptism, but to something more spiritual
and enduring — something expressive of a state of
character.

Christie Baptism," p. 399.

70

ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM.

But the reader of the Revised Version will notice
that the section of Mark^ sixteenth chapter, that con-
tains the passage in question, is separated by a space
from the rest of the text. AVe are told that this was
done because it was not believed to be Mark's writ-
ing, but an addendum ^y\ some subsequent hand. (See
Roberts's Companion to the New Revision/' pages
61-63.) The reasons for this are: 1. It was not to
be found in the two oldest manuscripts, the Codices
Sinaiticus and Vaticanm. 2. The Primitive fathers,
Eusebius, Gregory of Xyssa, Victor of Antioch, Sev-
erus of Antioch, Jerome, and others, have said that
Mark did not write it, and tiie best copies extant in
their day did not contain it. 3. Internal evidence is
strongly in support of the claim that it is an addendum
subsequently made. It contains at least seventeen
new words that St. Mark nowhere else in his Gospel
has emj^loyed. AVe think these objections are fatal to
it as genuine Scripture. Certainly they present suffi-
cient reasons why the damnation of the believing
penitent should not be predicated upon his lack of
baptism.

The commission, according to St. Luke, has noth-
ing whatever to say about baptism. And yet Mr.
Campbell and his followers claim to find it in the
words " that repentance and remission of sins should
be preached m his name." The preposition here
translated in is irri, the primary meaning of which is
ujjon. It is not tbe preposition that connects bap-

THE COMMISSION.

71

tism and the name of Christ — that is, e/c invariably.
The obvious meaning is, "that remission of sins
should be preached upon (faith in his) name/^ So
Paul said to the Philippian jailer : " Believe [ir;] on
the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved/'
Similar illustrations of the use of this preposition are
to be found in Acts ii, 38; iii, 16; xi, 17; xv, 8, 9;
1 Peter i, 22. In all of which cases the preposition
izc, upon, connected with the name of Christ, either
has faith mentioned or implied ; and a large number
of similar instances might be quoted in addition to
these.

The commission as given by John xx, 22, 23, is
usually presented by them to show that the apostles
were charged with the responsibility of remitting sins,
and that this same prerogative has been handed down
from them to all preachers of the gospel in per-
petuity. Of course, so far as it goes, the claims of the
Papal Church could not be more absolute. These
men hold the keys of the kingdom in their right as
ministers of the word, and they open and shut the doors
at their convenience. The writer has known them
to postpone the remission of sins for two weeks, and
it is a common occurrence to defer this remitting act
for twenty-four hours, or from the time the penitent
believer makes the proper confession until the next
evening; or until the baptistery can be gotten ready,
or water sufficient can be found, be the time long or
short.

72

ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM.

But this is simply one of several examples where
difficult passages of Scripture are seized by them, and
given an interpretation in harmony with their views,
and then cited as proof-texts. The most reasonable
interpretation of the passage in question is this: the
apostles of the Lord, under him as founders of the
Church, were, through the inspiration given them,
endowed with powers and prerogatives in the Church,
that, however necessary at that time, were not per-
petuated after them.

This apostolical authority and power was mani-
fested in several instances, as in the case of Hymen-
eus and Alexander in 1 Tim. i, 20, and Ananias
and Sapphira in Acts v, 1-11. These were preroga-
tives that grew out of the apostolate, that have not
been perpetuated, and most certainly not in the i^er-
formance of mere ordinances. Nothing but the de-
mands of a false system could ever have prompted to
the construction put upon the apostoUcal commission
by these teachers.

ON FAITH AND REPENTANCE.

73

CHAPTER VI.

CAMPBBLIvISM ON FAITH AND REPENTANCE.

Campbellism, in order to present a system that
will be consistent with itself, is compelled to place
faith before repentance, and also to deny heart-faith,
making it to consist only in the assent of the mind to
truths established. Require the system to put re-
pentance in the right place in the sinner's approach to
God, and its important proof-texts require at once an
explanation different from that they give them, and in
conflict with their theory of doctrine. This fact we
will make plain when we come to consider Acts ii, 38.

We will let them define the relation of faith and
repentance in their own language. Mr. Campbell
says : " Repentance is an effect of faith,'' having de-
fined faith above as the simple belief of testimony,
or of the truth, and never can be more or less than
that.''* So that, according to him, faith is the merely
intellectual act of the acceptance of truth, and repent-
ance must necessarily follow after such a faith. Mr.
Braden lays down the following order : f "1. Hearing
the gospel. 2. Believing the gospel as faith. 3. Re-

*" Christian System," p. 52.

t " Hughey and Braden," p. 18G.

7

74

ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM.

pcntancc. 4. Confes.sion of Christ. 5. Obedience or
baptism. 6. Pardon or remission. This order is es-
sential to the system. Reverse it, and tlie scheme of
doctrine falls to the ground. Put faitli after repent-
ance, and Acts ii, 38, must be given a different inter-
pretation from that they are accustomed to give it.

Faith after repentance, however, is the uniform
divine order. Nowhere within the range of the Di-
vine Word is the order reversed. In Matt, xxi, 32, we
have a specific statement as to the relation that faith
and repentance sustain to each other: "For John
came unto you in the way of righteousness, and ye be-
lieved him not; but the publicans and the harlots be-
lieved him : and ye, when ye had seen it, repented not
afterward, that ye might believe him." What can
more explicitly set forth the precedence of repentance?
It will not help the theory at all to say that the verb
for " repented " is /i£ra/^£/o/ia/, and not /i£Tauoi(o ; for
the repentance here is clearly defined as a repentance
that, with faith, would have brou;rht them into "the
kingdom of God,'' verse 31. Again, it is not by any
means conceded among scholars that fizzajdloiuu de-
fines simple regret, and never otherwise. Dean Trench,
in his " New Testament Synonyms," clearly disproves
this idea. But regret is a part of repentance, and be-
longs to all genuine repentance ; and therefore, unless
repentance is divided in two, and faith put between
regret and godly sorrow for sin, the argument from
the word amounts to Dothing.

ON FAITH AND REPENTANCE.

75

Again, in Mark i, 15, the same relation is clearly
exemplified: ^^And saying, The time is fulfilled, and
the kingdom of heaven is at hand : repent ye, and be-
lieve the gospel also Acts xx, 21 : Testifying both
to the Jews, and also to the Greeks, repentance
toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ/'
These will suffice to show that in the gospel plan re-
pentance comes before faith.

The mistake of Campbell and his followers arises
from their misconception of the nature of faith. With
them, faith is merely an act of the intellect. It is such
as all persons put forth who believe the Bible to be
the Avord of God. For if it is conceived of as an act
of the heart accepting Christ as the Savior from sin,
it must be preceded by repentance, sorrow for sin,
and an earnest turning from sin. Christ can not be
accepted as a Savior from sin only by such as are tired
of sin and want to get rid of it. A faith that comes
before repentance must come before a godly sorrow
for sin, or a desire to turn from sin. It is a rather
singular faith in Christ that does not desire to be saved
from sin. Yet this is the state of the case if faith
precedes repentance. But it is often retorted. How
can a man repent until he believes the Word? " He
must hear it, he must believe it before he will repent.
This is not necessarily true; multiplied thousands
truly repent who never hear the Word. All that is
necessary to a genuine repentance, is the belief that I
am a sinner, and a desire to get rid of my sins. This

76

ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM.

belief may exist \\it\i or without the AVord. But a
belief iu Christ as my Savior can not exist without
gorrow for sin, and therefore the faith that in any
eense has to do with personal salvation, is a faith
after repentance, and founded on repentance.

Attention has been called to the fact that if re-
pentance and faith were placed in right relation to
each other, a material change must be made in Camp-
bell's interpretation of Acts ii, 38. Faith after re-
pentance will place it in connection with " the name
of Jesus Christ,'' and the passage will read: "Re-
pent and be baptized every one of you [believing]
on the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins,
and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost."
And this will at once dispose of the supposed relation
as instrumental cause between baptism and remission
of sin. " [Believing] on the name of Jesus Christ is
for the remission of sin." The order then will stand:
'^Repent, and [believing] on the name of Jesus Christ
for the remission of sins, be baptized every one of
you." Baptism is upon repentance and faith on the
name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins. Now,
let it not be forgotten that if faith comes after re-
pentance, it must occupy just the place in this pas-
sage that is above given to it. It can occupy no other.
This is sufficient reason, we think, for their disagree-
ing with all Prot^.'Stant Christendom as to the relation
of faith and repentance.

But it is said by the advocates of Campbellism

ON FAITH AND REPENTANCE.

77

that the persons who were directly addressed in Acts
ii, 38, had faith, because they were pricked to the
heart, and asked, "What shall we do?'^ Here is the
mistake before spoken of, — intellectual belief or con-
viction as to the truth is put for faith in Christ as a
personal Savior. They were convinced of sin and felt
their need of salvation; but this was by no means
saviug faith in Christ. Again, it may with equal pro-
priety be said they had repented, for they had a pain-
fiil sense of sin and a desire to know how to get rid
of it. In other words, they had sorrow for sin, and
in their hearts were turning from it ; and this is gen-
uine repentance. So that the word translated repent^
in this connection simply means turn. " Turn and be
baptized [believing] on the name of Jesus Christ for
the remission of sins.^' Tlieir baptism was to be an
expression of their faith o?i or upon Jesus Christ for
the remission of sin.

The followers of Campbell are accustomed to assert
that there is but one kind of faith. In this they are
simply following in the wake of their great leader,
who declares that "faith is only the belief of testi-
mony,'^ * meaning thereby to deny that there is any
property or quality belonging to saving faith other
than the mere intellectual assent to truth estab-
lished. This in fact he asserts :t ^' Here I am led
to expatiate upon a very popular and pernicious error

* " Christian SystGrn," p. 113. t Id. 114.

78

ERRORS OF CAMPBELLIS}!.

of modern times. That error is that the nature or
power and saving efficacy of faith is not in the truth
believed, but in the nature of our faith, or in the
manner of believing the truth. Hence all that un-
meaning jargon about the nature of faith, and all
those disdainful sneers at what is called ^historic
faith,^ as if there could be any faith without history
written or spoken. Who ever believed in Christ
without hearing the history of him?'' What con-
fusion must have existed in this man's mind to cause
him to write, to use his term, such a jargon of ab-
surdities. He certainly would not have the reader to
understand that there is no difference in nature be-
tween the faith of devils and that of pious Abraham.
(James ii.) Or that Paul is not defining the nature
of faith in Rom. x, 10: "With the heart man be-
lieveth unto righteousness." Again, " weak " faith,
"strong" faith, "little" faith, "great" faith, are
terms defining tlie nature of the particular faith re-
ferred to in the Scriptures. In Matt, ix, 29, Jesus
said to the blind men : "According to your faith be it
done unto you." By this he meant. According to the
nature of your faith be it done unto you ; for they had
already faith enough to ask to be restored to sight.
And furthermore, how unreasonable the idea that
the saving efficacy of faith is only in the truth be-
lieved, and not in the nature of the faith also! The
truth believed is the divine side of the salvation, and
the manner of believing it is our individual act, and

ON FAITH AND REPENTANCE.

79

wc may believe with the heart, or we may not; and
right between these lies the possibility of our salva-
tion. How does it meet any issue concerning the
nature of the iudividuaPs personal act of faith to say,
" The saving efficacy is in the truth believed It is
there before it is believed, and there if it never is be-
lieved ; but it is only appropriated to the individual
by the manner of his personal belief. The fact is, the
saving efficacy is back of the truth also — is in God
alone. His truth contains the promise of this efficacy,
and heart faith appropriates it. It is characteristic
of Mr. Campbell, and also of his followers, to go clear
outside of the real issue, and beat down men of straw.
In this paragraph on faith there is still another false
issue. The advocates of " heart faith do not deny
"historic faith." There can be "historic faith" with-
out heart faith, but there can not be heart faith with-
out some historic faith, and we do Mr. CampbelPs in-
tellectual discernment the credit to believe that this
sophism did not deceive himself.

Again, these teachers recognize the fact that " faith
purifies the heart," being compelled to admit the
truth as set forth by the apostle Peter in his account
of the conversion of the household of Cornelius, given
in Acts XV, 8, 9 : "And God, which kuoweth the
hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy
Ghost, even as he did unto us ; and put no difference
between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith."
They usually lay down their doctrinal formula after

80

ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISyf.

this style : " Faith purifies the heart, repentance puri-
fies the life, and baptism changes the state or rela-
tion." But it follows that if faith purifies the heart,
and faith precedes repentance, an individual may have
a pure heart and yet be unrepentant ; not only so, but
be an heir of heaven, for the Savior says : ^' Blessed
are the pure in heart, for they shall sec God." This
objection is fatal to this scheme of doctrine, for it can
not be modified so as to annul the fierce of it. Faith
must come before repentance, and these together be-
fore baptism, else the whole scheme falls to the
ground. Admit heart faith after repentance, and
place conviction the result of historic faith before re-
pentance, and you have all the conditions, or rather
the complete condition, necessary to salvation. You
have salvation — for purity of heart is in itself the sal-
vation of the sinner — and baptism will then be an act
of grateful obedience upon the part of the child
of God.

SPECIAL TERRITORY OF THE THEORY. 81

CHAPTER VII.

THE SPECIAL TERRITORY OF THE THEORY.
ACTS II, 38.

We now approach the stronghold of Campbellism,
aware that all intruders are warned off this ground as
trespassers. It belongs by special pre-emption to the
theory. Who that has heard them preach has not
heard of Acts ii, 38? It is believed by them to be
just in the right place, and at just the right time,
and to have just the right ring to make out a clear
case for the doctrine. But despite the supposed in-
vincibleness of the deductions made from the passage,
we will examine it in the light of clear and explicit
Scripture teaching, and upon rules of interpretation,
the justness of which can not be questioned.

In their employment of this passage in support
of their theory of doctrine, the claim is uniformly
made that it stands just at the door of the gospel dis-
pensation. Peter, "holding the keys of the king-
dom,^' is opening the door ; is laying down the law
of universal induction into this kingdom, which is
repentance, confession, baptism, remission of sins.
But let us look at the passage : " Repent, and be bap-
tized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ

82

ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM.

for tlio remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift
of the Holy Ghost/^

The thoughtful student of the passage will at once
sec that the ideas above given spring rather out of a
doctrinal prepossession than legitimately out of the text.
Their interpretation is founded on several false as-
sumptions : 1. That Peter here lays down the law
of initiation into the kingdom of Christ. 2. That
this command was intended for all Gentiles as well as
the Jews then present. 3. That baptism by water is
the baptism spoken of in the text. Some eminent
scholars regard repentance as the baptism here spoken
of, as notably Dr. Dale, in his great work " Christie
and Patristic Baptism.'' ''"^ 4. That for the remission of
sins means in order to remission of sins. 5. That the
preposition erV, translated /or, connects causatively
baptism and " the remission of sins.''

AVe may say in the outstart, in reviewing this
passage, that if it contains a doctrine so vital, so

* Dr Dale, by several examples of contemporary usage from
reputable Greek writers, shows that repentance M'as believed
to be a baptism within and of itself. That the term baptize
is applied to a change wrought in the heart is something that
can not be disputed. In Col. ii, 11,12, we have circumcision
of the heart, "the'circumcision of Christ " called baptism. In
a quotation already given from Justin the Martyr, we have
repentance designated as the true baptism. So also Josephus
defines John's baptism [Ant. ch. xviii, 6-2) as being twofold,
outward by water, and inward by repentance. The line of
thought suggested by Dr. Dale's position is a very interesting
one, and worthy of careful study.

SPECIAL TERRITORY OF THE THEORY. 83

importaDt as the unvarying condition to the salvation
of the sinner, it has been most unfortunately con-
structed ; so much so that its importance as a doc-
trinal formula Avas not discovered until Alexander
Campbell brought it to light.

The assumption that the apostle Peter is here
laying down the law of induction into the kingdom
of Christ for all times and all races, is without any
proof whatever, and squarely contradicted as to the
facts, even though we should concede the interpreta-
tion they place upon this passage ; for Peter in chapter
iii, 19, says: Repent ye therefore, and be converted,
that your sins may be blotted out when the times of re-
freshing shall come from the presence of the Lord/'
Here is not a word said about baptism in order to the
remission of sins. In order to get baptism into this
passage, it is assumed that baptism and conversion
are the same thing. * " But the second discourse
recorded by St. Luke from the same Peter, pro-
nounced in Solomon's Portico, is equally pointed, clear,
and in full support of this position. After he had
explained the miracle w^hich he had wrought in the
name of the Lord Jesus, and stated the same gospel
facts, he proclaims the same command: 'Reform and
be converted, that your sins may be blotted out,' or
' Reform and turn to God, that so your sins may be
blotted out; that seasons of refreshment from the

■•■"Christian System," p. 195.

84

ERRORS OF CAMPBELUSM.

presence of the Lord may come, and that he may
send Jesus, whom the heavens must receive until the
accomplishment of all the things which God has fore-
told,' etc. Peter, in substituting other terms in this
])roclamation for those used on Pentecost, does not
preach a new gospel, but the same gospel in terms
equally strong. He uses the same word in the first part
of the command which he used on Pentecost. Instead
of ' be immersed/ he has here ^be converted,' or 'turn
to God f instead of '/or the remission of sins/ here it
is ' that your sins may be blotted out/ etc.''

It is hard to conceive anything more completely
visionary than this attempt at harmonization. 1. ^'Be
converted ^[ and ''be immersed" are assumed to be
identical in meaning. The word here translated " be
converted," is iTzcazoiifco^ and is in the active voice,
and should be translated "turn again." "Repent
therefore, and turn again, that your sins may be
blotted out." It requires therefore a marvelous
stretch of the imagination to make this word the
equivalent of the passive, "be baptized." The ob-
vious truth is, that the act of turning is the act of
heart faith, which is required in order to the blotting
out of transgressions. There is not the remotest ref-
erence to water baptism in the whole passage. It is
simply per force dragged into the text to save a
theory. This may be written down as a case of re-
mission of sins promised without water baptism, and
obtained by five thousand by faith. See Acts iv, 4:

SPECIAL TERRITORY OF THE THEORY.

85

" Howbeit many which heard the >vord believed, and
the number of the men was about five thousand.'^

With equal explicitness is the preaching of the
apostle Peter to the household of Cornelius in antag-
onism to the assumption. Peter preaches faith as the
condition to the remission of sins. Acts 43 : " To
him give all the prophets witness that through his
name whosoever believeth in him shall receive re-
mission of sins.^' And instantly upon this preaching
^^tlie Holy Ghost fell upon all that heard the word/'
sealing thus " the remission of sins" by faith without
water baptism, for the baptism came after this. It is
plain, therefore, that if Peter laid down the uniform
law of the kingdom, he forgot it in a very short time.

The assumption that "/or remission of sins
means " in order to remission of sins," is always made
when this passage is cited by them. Baptism to rep-
resent, or symbolize, the remission of sins is for the re-
mission of sins. Baptism as a sign and seal of re-
mission of sins in the name of Christ is for the re-
mission of sins. For these purposes it is not /or as a
condition in order to remission of sins. But it is re-
plied that whatever repentance is for, baptism is for,
and in the same sense. There is plausibility in this,
and hence we maintain that the interpretation is en-
tirely wrong that connects baptism and repentance
with remission of sins by the preposition s/c, rendered
for. The " name of Jesus Christ " and " the re-
mission of sins " are connected by for ; and this was

8G

ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM.

the purpose of the apostle to bring vivi<lly before the
minds of these Jews that remission of sins was in the
name of Christ alone. The recognition of this name
for the remission of sins was the essential thing for
them. And that recognition ^vas secured by heart
faith in him, or upon him.

This, to the writer, very apparent principle of in-
terpretation, leads to the fact that the text contains
an ellipsis that should have been supplied in trans-
lating. ' ErA Tw d'^ofiazt does not mean the same as
ere ro oi^ofia in Matt, xxviii, 19. The first means
" upon the name,^' the second means " into the namey
Alexander Campbell says:* ^' Uazzi^io and izc so
perfectly disagree as never to be found construed in
amity in any Greek author, sacred or profane.*' While
we do not accept this as at all true, yet we quote it as
serving to show that he could not reasonably accept
the phrase in Acts ii, 38, as a substitute for " baptism
into the name of Christ," or the baptismal formula.

The primary meaning, then, of izc is on or ?/;90?i.
Then, upon the name of Christ is believing upon his
name. There are quite a number of passages that
exemplify this. Luke xxiv, 17: "And that repent-
ance and remission of sins should be preached [i-r] in
his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem."
"Remission of sins on his name" is remission upon
faith in his name, or " believing on his name." So

*"0n Baptism," v. 154.

SPECIAL TERRITORY OF THE THEORY. 87

Acts iii, 16 : "And his name, through [iTrc] faith in his
name, hath made this man strong whom you see and
know ; yea, the faith which is by [o^«] him hath given
him this perfect soundness in the presence of you alL"
Peter, in describing the conversion of the househokl
of Cornelius, presents it as an exact parallel of the
Pentecostal occasion. Acts xi, 17: "Forasmuch then
as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who
believed on [irrr] the Lord Jesus Christ, what was I,
that I could withstand God V' If anything could give
more forcible illustration and warrant for reading ine
rw dvofiart in Acts ii, 38, " believing on the name oi
Jesus Christ,^' it is incomprehensible as to what it
could be. Here is an exact parallel of the phrase in
Acts ii, 38, with " believed just where we claim it
should be ; and furthermore, the inspired apostle tells
us, all the facts of the cases were similar. (See Acts
XV, 8, 9.) For im in connection with the " name of
Christ,'^ meaning "believing on his name," see Acts
ix, 42; xvi, 31; xxii, 19; Rom. iv, 5 and 24; ix, 33;
X, 11 ; Phil, iii, 9 ; 1 Tim. i, 16-18 ; iv, 10 ; v, 5; and
numerous other passages.

Acts ii, 38, is the only passage in the Scriptures
where baptism and the name of Christ are connected
with the preposition int. This, then, prepares the way
for the proper rendering of the passage : " Repent,"
or rather, " turn, and be baptized, every one of you,
[believing] on the name of Jesus Christ for the re-
mission of sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the

88

ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISyr.

Holy Ghost/' Xow, Campbcllism, in the use of this
text, always reads baptism and "/or remission of sins''
together, as if for immediately linked these two to-
gether; whereas in the Greek text there are seven
words intervening, and one of these words is a con-
nective by which baptism is linked to " the name of
Christ." It must therefore read, " be baptized upon
aud /or." The connective power of for is fully met
in joining together the "name of Jesus Christ" aud
"the remission of sins." Who can dispute the state-
ment that " the name of Jesus Christ is for the re-
mission of sins ?" If this is so, the text does not
teach that baptism is for the remission of sins. If
baptism was /or, or in order to, remission of sins, is it
not remarkable that nothing more is said about a mat-
ter so important as this? And is it not strange that
God should violate this unchangeable order in the
case of the household of Cornelius?

There was an appropriateness in Peter's enjoining
upon these Jews at this lime the outward expression
of their acceptance of Christ, namely, baptism. The
same reason did not exist in the case of the Gentiles,
and so the visible badge of discipleship was not en-
joined upon them in connection with their acceptance
by faith of Christ as their Savior. It was sufficient
to exhort them to believe on Christ, and baptism as a
Christian duty would be attended to by them in due
time. So to-day in heathen countries our missionaries
exhort to baptism as a visible pledge of the convert's

SPECIAL TERRITORY OF THE THEORY. 89

breaking caste with heathenism. The circumstances
cause them to lay a stress upon it as a matter of public
profession there that could not be placed upon it here.

But if faith comes after repentance — and so the
Scriptures uniformly teach — it comes just where we
have put it in this passage ; and if it must be supplied
at the juncture indicated, it forever separates baptism
and the remission of sins as antecedent and consequent,
and places the only proper Scriptural antecedent as a
condition to the remission of sins in connection with
the name of Christ.

So much attention has been given to this passage,
because by the advocates of the theory of baptismal
remission it is regarded as a stronghold, and because
we believe that a fair and reasonable interpretation of
the passage, at once and forever places it upon the side
of spiritual Christianity, and takes it out of the hands
of those who make the mere mode of a ritual act the
very gate to salvation.

8

90

ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM.

CHAPTER VIII.

OTHER SUPPOSED PROOE-TEXTS.

Thp:se teachers, by a process peculiarly their own,
seek to draft into the service of their theory quite a
number of passages of Scripture in tlie Acts of the
Apostles and the Epistles. But it is at once manifest
that their interpretations are mostly efforts to har-
monize the texts in question with the dogma. For
if the doctrine is true, it is fundamental and should
often appear in the Scriptures. Faith as the condition
to justification appears on almost every pa^e of the
Gospels or Epistles. If baptism is an equally impor-
tant condition, it ought to appear as often. Hence it
need not be a matter of great astonishment if these
people find baptism as a condition to salvation where
others do not.

It is, however, no doubt, a matter of not a little
surprise that an attempt should be made to prove this
dogma by the case of Cornelius, given in Acts x,
34-48. But Mr. Campbell, in his debate with Pro-
fessor Rice, actually assumes to prove his doctrine by
this instance ; so do also the present exponentii of the
doctrine. As Campbell presents the best attempt at

OTHER SUPPOSED PROOF-TEXTS.

91

an argument, We quote him : ^' My seventh argu-
ment is deduced from the conversion of Cornelius and
his Gentile friends. His excellent moral character,
and his great devotion to prayer and alms-deed, had
not yet saved him. The message received from God
directed him to send for the man who had the keys
of the kingdom of heaven, who could tell him words
by which he and his family and friends ' might be
saved.^ I need not relate the whole story as it is
represented in the tenth and eleventh chapters of Acts.
Peter, in relating the matter afterward, as reported in
the eleventh chapter, develops more fully the intention
of the mission, and details some of the incidents more
at length. Particularly in the fourteenth verse he gives
an account of the necessity of his sermon — as ^ words
whereby Cornelius and his family might be saved.'
He also states that as he began to speak these words —
as soon as he got to remission of sins through the
name of the Lord Jesus — at that moment the Spirit,
in its miraculous attestations, fell upou all the Gen-
tiles present, as it had done in the baptism of the
Jews on Pentecost. . . . Soon, then, as Peter saw
all this, he asked the believing Jews, who had accom-
panied him from Joppa, whether they could on any
account refuse them the grace of baptism. No de-
murrer having been instituted, he commanded them
to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Thus also

Campbell and Rice," p. 440.

92

ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM.

Avere the Gentiles saved by faith, repentance, and
baptism."

This extensive quotation is given that the reader
may seethe adroit manner in which the facts are modi-
fied to suit a theory. At each step from the out-
start there is a slight manipulation of the narrative,
so that in the outcome the theory may be fitted into it.

In the first place, the word saved in Acts xi, 14,
applied to Cornelius, is assumed to signify the par-
don of sins — his justification and acceptance with God —
while it is a fact that God showed Peter that Cornelius
was accepted of him before this. Verse 15 : " What
God hath cleansed, that call not thou common." And
not only so, but Peter recognized the divine ac-
ceptance of Cornelius in this language. Verses 34, 35 :
^' Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of
persons ; but in every nation he that feareth God and
worketh righteousness is accepted of him." So al-
ready Cornelius was accepted of God. The word
saved here undoubtedly means, saved from Gentile
superstition and ignorance — saved to the conscious-
ness of acceptance with God, under the broad priv-
ileges of the gospel. But suppose that saved here
does mean pardon of sin, what is there to prove that
lie was not saved until he was baptized with water?
Did not the Holy Ghost fall on them before they
were baptized with water ? And was not this divine
seal of their acceptance with God, made the grounds
for their baptism with water? Again, did not the

OTHER SUPPOSED PROOF-TEXTS. 93

apostle declare that the forgiveness of sin was pred-
icated on faith in Christ? Verse 43: ^^To him give
all the prophets witness, that through his name, ivho-
soever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins/^
At this juncture the Holy Ghost fell upon them,
" while Peter yet spake these words/^ Xote the
adroitness of Mr. CampbelFs narration of this circum-
stance. He represents Peter as telling his brethren
of the circumcision at Jerusalem, that as he "began
to speak these words — as soon as he got to remission
of sins through the name of the Lord Jesus — at that
moment the Spirit in his miraculous attestations fell
upon all the Gentiles present." Why leave out re-
mission of sins through ''believing in himf^ These
were the last words Peter spoke before the descent of
the Holy Ghost. AYhy say miraculous attestations "
when defining this baptism of the Holy Ghost ? Peter
says, chapter xi, 17, that it was "the like gift as unto
us who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ that is,
unto those of his Jewish brethren who received the
Holy Ghost at Pentecost, not in the first outpouring,
but that which afterward came upon the three thou-
sand— the gift of the Holy Ghost. Since followers of
Campbell make a distinction between the baptism
and the gift of the Holy Ghost, we desire that this
fact shall be noted. But, for the argument's sake, it
makes no difference whether it is considered wholly
miraculous or not; the truth remains, that God set his
seal to their acceptance before baptism by water.

94

ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM.

Had it been designed to furnish a positive refuta-
tion of the theory of C anipbell, we are unable to con-
ceive how it could be more perfectly done than in this
instance. How that can be regarded as a condition
to the remission of sin that does not come until after
God has set the seal of his approbation on the be-
liever, will ever remain inexplicable to careful think-
ers. No consequent can be its own cause, or anteced-
ent. The use of this instance by Mr. Campbell as an
argument for his theory looks very much like an at-
tem})t by sheer audacity to break somewhat of the
force of the argument to be deduced from this against
his scheme of doctrine.

The narration of the baptism of Paul is uniformly
presented by them as lending su])port to the dogma.
Campbell states the argument in this form:* "Paul
was now a believing penitent, a proper subject for the
grace of baptism; for baptism has its peculiar grace
as well as prayer or fasting. Paul had inquired of the
Lord what he should do. The Lord commissioned
Ananias to inform him. He went to Paul's room, . . .
and instantly commanded him to M)e baptized and
wash away his sins, calling upon the name of the
Lord.'t Now, the washing away (►f his sins was
certainly to be accomplished through the water of
l)aptism. . . . Neither his faith nor his repentance
had washed away his sins. . . . Li any other case

* " Campbell and Rire," p. 439. t Acts xxii, 16.

OTHER SUPPOSED PROOF-TEXTS.

95

the literary world would interpret this phrase as I
have done/^

1. In order to get an intelligent understanding of
this matter, let us inquire, first : What was the extent
of Ananias's commission? Was he commanded to
baptize Paul? If baptism is conversion, as Campbell
says, then it was the most important part of Ana-
nias's commission, and yet he does not mention it at
all in connection with this commission. But in Acts
ix, 17, he, going in unto Saul ^^and putting his hands
on him, said. Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that
appeared unto thee in the way, as thou camest, hath
sent me that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be
filled with the Holy Ghost. " Now note carefully the
result of the fulfillment of this commission, verse 18.
"And immediately there fell from his eyes, as it had
been, scales ; and he received sight forthwith, and
arose, and was baptized." If Ananias's mission was
fulfilled as he defined it, Paul " received sight and
was filled with the Holy Ghost. '' Having received
this baptism — the true baptism — he was, like Corne-
lius and his household, baptized with water. But he
did not first receive sight at the laying on of Ananias's
hands, to be then baptized with water, after which to be
baptized with the Holy Ghost. That is not the order
of the text, nor is it the order of the divine proced-
ure ; for when physical sight was restored by the di-
vine interposition, spiritual sight was also given.
Again, there is no question that the first blessing that

96

ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM.

came to Saul after the imposition of Ananias's hands,
^vas the restoration of sight. But it was by tlie lay-
ing on of the apostle's hands often, that the Holy
Ghost was imparted. (See ch. viii, 17; xix, 6.)
Hence the receiving of sight and of the Holy Ghost
cam(^ before the water baptism.

But it is said Saul was commanded to wash away
his sins by baptism.'' (Acts, xxii, 16.) In this asser-
tion there are three assumptions that are without
proof: 1. That wash away thy sins" means through
baptism performed as a condition. If this be so, the
language is exceedingly figurative. It will not be
claimed that the water of baptism actually washes away
sins. If it does not literally wash away sins, it must
simply stand for that that washes away sins, the bap-
tism of the Holy Ghost. With this agrees the lan-
guage of the apostle himself, 1 Cor. vi, 11 : "And
such were some of you : but ye are w ashed, but ye are
sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord
Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God;" and 1 Cor.
xii, 13; " For by one Spirit are we all baptized into
one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether
we be bond or free ; and have all been made to drink
into one Spirit."

2. Again, it is assumed that this is w^ater baptism
of which Ananias is speaking. The w^ord baptize in
the text is in the middle voice, and therefore has the
reflexive signification of that voice. A literal trans-
lation would be : "And why tarriest thou ? arise and

OTHER SUPPOSED PROOF-TEXTS.

97

baptize thyself, and wash away thy sins, calling
on the name of the Lord." Dr. Dale says,* with
reference to the translation above : " It will be ob-
served that the force of the middle voice is retained
in this translation. A discriminating use of words in
the Scriptures has always a reason for it, and our
business is not to change the statement to make it ac-
cord with some other statement, but to accept it and
seek for the reason of it. This is the oilly passage
where j^aTzzc^co is so used in the middle voice. There
must be a reason for it. The whole transaction is
unique. The baptism is entirely removed from or-
dinary baptism. There is nothing in the teaching of
Scripture, or in its free and frequent use of language,
to prevent a call being made upon Saul to ^ baptize
himself and wash away his sins by prayer.' The
translation of the passage from the Syriac, by Dr.
Murdock, is as follows: ^\rise, be baptized, and be
cleansed from thy sins while thou invokest his name.'
Here the baptism and the cleansing from sin are to be
secured by prayer, and ^ while' the prayer is being
made."

Etheridge's translation of the Syriac renders the
passage in question as follows : ^^Arise, and baptize,
and be washed from thy sins while thou callest his
name." It is clear, therefore, that Paul's baptism
was a baptism that he secured or invoked upon him-

*" Christie Baptism," pp. 106-107.

9

98

ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM.

self by prayer, and not water baptism, performed by
Ananias.

But thougli we should regard it water baptism, the
language of the text does not make the baptism to
wash away sins." Alexander Campbell has given
us the key to the proper interpretation of the text, in
his remarks on Matt, xxviii, 19:* ''To this I have
not found an exception. For example, ' cleanse the
house, sweeping it,' 'cleanse the garment, washing it/
shows the manner in which the command is to be
obeyed, or explains the meaning of it. Thus, ' dis-
ciple the nations, immersing them.' Does Acts xxii,
16, prove an exception to this rule of construction?
^AVash away thy sins, calling on the name of the
Lord.' ' For it shall come to pass, that whosoever
shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.' "f
It is very plain, therefore, that the conditional cause
of the washing away of sin is "calling on the name
of the Lord," which is the expression of faith in him;
and by this we are baptized into Christ, and by this
baptism our sins are washed away — a baptism that
comes by the prayer of faith. Hence Paul's baptism
through prayer was a baptism of the Holy Ghost.

But Paul drives an account of his commission in
Acts xxvi, 16-18: "But rise and stand upon thy
feet, for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to
make thee a minister and a witness, both of these

♦ " Christian System," p. 198. tActs ii, 21 ; Rom. x, 13.

OTHER SUPPOSED PROOF-TEXTS.

99

things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the
which I will appear unto thee, delivering thee from
the people and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I
send thee, to open their eyes and to turn them from
darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto
God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and an
inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith
that is in me/^

It will be observed, that although this commission
is more extensive and explicit than that given to the
other eleven apostles, yet there is not one word said
about water baptism. If water baptism occupies the
eminent place that Campbell claims it does in the plan
of salvation, as the act of inducting the sinner into the
kingdom of God, into the pardon of sin ; and if it is
to be to him the evidence of this blessed relation; in
other words, if, as Campbell claims, it is conversion
itself, — is it not singular that no mention whatever is
made of it here? Furthermore, according to this
scheme of doctrine, it is the act of faith — the last act
of faith upon which pardon or remission of sin is pred-
icated. It therefore should be mentioned as explicitly
3iS faith is mentioned in the text. It is clear, there-
fore, that Paul received no commission to baptize
people "into the remission of sins.''

There is still something more explicit from the
apostle on this matter of water baptism than its omis-
sion from his commission as the great apostle of the
Gentiles. In 1 Cor. i, 14-17, he especially disclaims

100

ERRORS OF CAMPBELLTSM.

being sent to baptize, and puts in striking antithesis
preaching the gospel and baptizing, saying : " I thank
God I baptized none of you but Grispus and Gains,
lest any should say I had baptized in my own
name. . . . For Christ sent me not to baptize,
but to preach the gospel/^ Does this language com-
port at all with the idea that Paul had himself been
saved by water baptism ; and also with the idea that
water baptism is essential to salvation ? It must be
remembered that Paul was the founder of this Church.
He says, 1 Cor. ix, 1 ; ''Are ye not my work in the
Lord Chapter xv, 10 : " But I labored more abun-
dantly than they all;'' yet, according to this theory,
he had converted only a very few.

More specifically, as to his declaration that he was
not sent " to baptize but to preach the gospel," how
can any one preach the gospel of salvation to sinners,
and yet not give baptism a prominent place, if Camp-
bellism is the true doctrine ? It does not fairly meet
the issue to say that the person who preaches the
gospel need not necessarily be charged with the ad-
ministration of baptism. Paul was sent unto the
Gentiles that they " might receive forgiveness of sins."
To hundreds and thousands of them he was the first
gospel preacher. If he was not sent to baptize, he
was inadequately commissioned for his great mission-
ary work. No, the plain and obvious truth is, that,
in the estimation of the apostle, water baptism was
something that could be administered by the disciples

OTHER SUPPOSED PEOOF-TEXTS.

101

when the believers were organized into Churches.
With Paul it was only an outward profession, a
Churchly rite, that had its proper place in the visible
Church, but was not an essential to the remission of sins.

The fact that the apostles and their co-laborers
were accustomed, according to the accounts given in
the Acts of the Apostles, to baptize immediately those
who professed faith in Christ, is often adduced as
proof that baptism was regarded by them as essential
to the remission of sins. Against this inference there
lie several unanswerable objections. These were
baptisijis after the divine a<3ceptance had been mani-
fested, as in the case of the household of Cornelius,
Lydia and her household, the Philippian jailer and all
his house, and, in one other instance, a baptism where
the individual was still " in the gall of bitterness aud
in the bond of iniquity,^' as in the case of Simon the
sorcerer (Acts, viii) ; and baptism where the persons
had already been baptized, as in the case of the dis-
ciples at Ephesus. (Acts xix.)

The case of the household of Cornelius has been
very thoroughly considered already. As to Lydia's
case, we are specifically told (Acts xvi, 14) that the
Lord " opened her heart, that she attended unto the
things spoken by Paul." In other words, God's
Spirit set the divine seal on her devotion and faith.
As to the Philippian jailer, subsequents facts indicate
that he did just what the apostle told him, in verse
31, to do, "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ."

102

ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM.

The case of Simon the sorcerer is one of pecu-
liar difficulty for Campbellisni, for Simon had all the
faith this system requires. He believed and was
baptized. (Verse 13.) Yet he was still '' in the
gall of bitterness and in the bond of iniquity." It
is assumed by the advocates of this doctrine that he
had backslidden in the intervening time; but there
is not one particle of proof of it. Simon was not
a penitent believer when he was baptized, and there-
fore, according to Campbellism, was not baptized at
all ; and therefore Peter should have commanded him
to repent and be baptized.

The case of the disciples found by Paul at Eph-
esus, the account of which is given in Acts xix, 1-6,
presents still more insuperable difficulties for the sys-
tem : 1. They were disciples (verse 1). As such
they were, according to Campbell, accepted of God
and saved. 2. They had believed (verse 2). 3.
They had been baptized (verse 3.) 4. They were
baptized again with Christian baptism (verse 5).
Xow, if John's baptism was unto remission of sins, as
Campbell and his followers claim, and if Christian
baptism is for the same purpose, here is a clear ex-
ample of persons being baptized twice for the same
purjwse, and the second baptism administered without
their having backslidden — they were "disciples."
Either John's baptism was not in order to remission
of sins, or Christian baptism is not for such purpose,

OTHER SUPPOSED PROOF-TEXTS.

103

or neither is for such purpose. And the last is with-
out question true.

The way in which they seek to avoid this di-
lemma is to assert that these persons were baptized
by John's baptism some years after the inauguration
of the Christian dispensation. This is squarely con-
tradicted by the apostle's declaration in verse 4 :
" John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance,
saying unto the people that they should believe on
him that should come after, that is, on Christ Jesus."
If they had not been baptized by John, why this
reference to the baptizing of John and his personal
preaching? The shortest method on the supposi-
tion above would have been to tell them that John's
baptism was not valid after Pentecost. No ; this in-
ference is a sheer gratuity. These were John's dis-
ciples, a portion of that immense number that came
to John's baptism, and had truly repented at his
preaching, and like other Jews had found their way
up here to Ephesus.

While baptism usually was administered imme-
diately by the apostles to their converts, the facts are
that, in all instances recorded, there is something in
the context indicating that the baptism was not per-
formed as a condition to the remission of sins. The
Philippian jailer is a typical example. If he obeyed
the apostle's mandate, he was saved by faith, and
baptized afterward.

104

ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM.

CHAPTER IX.

BAPTISM INTO DEATH, INTO CHRIST, AND BAPTISMAL
WASHINGS.

Theke are certain forms of expression in the
epistolary writings of the Xew Testament Scriptures
that the advocates of this scheme of doctrine make
use of in a peculiar and somewhat novel sense ; a'^,
for example, "in Christ is the baptized state;
baptism into water is baptism "into Christ;" bap-
tism into death is baptism by water, or rather into
water, into the remission of sins; and, of course,
buried by baptism" means immersion.

Mr. Braden presents these their ideas to the best
advantage in the briefest compass.* " We are said to
be separated from our sins, or the old man, in baptism,
and so put on the new man. (Rom.vi ; Col. ii.) . . .
Again, Christ is the door to his Church or kingdom.
How do we come into Christ, or enter into this par-
doned state? By baptism. (Gal. ii, 27.) Again, we
are said to be justified by the name of Christ. (1 Cor.
vi, 11.) AVe put on his name, and have his name
called on us in baptism."

The fallacy in this statement consists in the fact

♦"Hughey and Braden Debate," p. 236.

BAPTISM INTO DEATH.

105

that false assumptions are made with reference to
two important points: First, that water baptism is
here referred to primarily ; and, second, that baptism
into Christ and into the name of Christ are one aud
the same thing.

Let us give close attention to the Scripture lan-
guage of Rom. vi, 3, 4 : "Know ye not that so
many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were
baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried
with him by baptism into death ; that like as Christ
was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father,
even so we also should walk in newness of life.'^ In
the first place, let it be noted that baptism into Christ
is one thing, and baptism into the name of Christ
quite another. The Scriptures never confound these
two. The first introduces us into the blessings of
salvation. The second introduces us into visible
covenant relation with Christ. The first is an ex-
perience ; the second is a mere outward profession.
Baptism into Christ is baptism by the Holy Ghost;
baptism into the name of Christ is baptism with
water. (Matt, xxviii, 19 ; Acts xix, 5.) This is fully
illustrated by its ancient Old Testament counterpart,
circumcision. Rom. ii, 28, 29 : "For he is not a Jew^,
which is one outwardly ; neither is that circumcision
which is outward in the flesh ; but he is a Jew-,
which is one inwardly ; and circumcision is that of the
heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose
praise is not of men, but of God.'' Put beside this

106

ERRORS OF CAMPBELUSM.

language of the apostle the parallel passage found in
Col. ii, 11, 12: In whom also ye are cireunicised
with the circumcision made without hands, in putting
off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circum-
cision of Christ: buried with him in baptism, wherein
also ye are risen with him through the faith of the
operation of God, who hath raised him from the
dead." " Outward circumcision " distinguished a Jew
nationally, physically; "circumcision of the heart''
distinguished a true child of Abraham. So outward
baptism distinguishes a Christian by profession ; but
spiritual baptism distinguishes him as a real child of
God.

Every reasonable student of the Scriptures must
admit that the apostle is his own best interpreter, and
that what he has said upon this subject must be inter-
preted in consistency. He must not be made to con-
tradict himself. In 1 Cor. xii, 13, he sets forth spe-
cifically the baptism to which he attributes a saving
j)ower and efficacy : " For by one Spirit are we all
baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gen-
tiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all
made to drink into one Spirit.'' Let it be observed
that this is a formulated doctrinal statement of a
universal character. "Jews and Gentiles," "bond
and free," certainly comprise all the race of men with-
out distinction. And again, note the fact that the
baptism is specifically defined as "by one Spirit,"
and that this baptism inducts into "one body," which

BAPTISM INTO DEATH.

107

is Christ. Now place beside this Rom. vi, 3 : Know
ye not that so many of us as were baptized into
Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?" Xow,
how can these two propositions be true^ and baptism
in the one instance be by water, and in the other be
by the Holy Ghost ?

The very striking character of the metaphorical
language here used ought to prevent the careful stu-
dent of this Scripture from considering the baptism
here mentioned water baptism. First, it is " into
Christ second, it is into his death; and third, i)ito
death. Is it in consonance with reason to attribute to
a mere outward rite such an all-embracing spiritual
influence ?

But further light is thrown upon it by the parallel
passage in Col. ii, 11, 12. Baptism is here desig-
nated as ^^circumcision made without hands," '^the
circumcision of Christ." It is evident that baptism
and circumcision as physical facts have no similarity.
Their similarity must be in signification. But the
apostle tells us, Rom ii, 28, 29, that the circumcision
of Christ is a spiritual circumcision. A "circumcision
made without hands" must be spiritual, in the very
nature of the case. Then again, we are also told that
the burial and resurrection is "through faith of the
operation of God ;" that is, faith in us, and, because
of this, wrought by the Divine Spirit. " For by one
Spirit are we all baptized into one body." AVe fail to
conceive how the inspiring Spirit could have more

108

ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM.

completely hedged about these passages to prevent
meu from exalting a mere rite into a saving instru-
mentality.

It is sought to break the force of this chain of ar-
gument by giving an exceedingly novel interpretation
or rendering to 1 Cor. xii, 13. We are gravely told
that iv kvi TTviufiarc — by one Spirit — should be ren-
dered "by the authority of one Spirit."* We give
this individual credit for seeing the difficulty in the
^vay of the theory, else it is impossible to conceive
why any one should resort to such methods of exe-
getical torture and such special pleading to save his
case. When he undertakes to give such a rendering
of the passage, he drags bodily the word authority
into the text. In every passage in the Scriptures
where baptism by the Spirit or by the Holy Ghost is
spoken of, the phraseology is iv rzui'j/iaTi. What non-
sense to attempt to translate by the words " by the
authority of," as, for example, Acts i, 5 : " Ye shall be
l>aptized by [the authority of] the Holy Ghost not
manv days hence." Again, Christian l)aptism is not
administered " by the authority of the Holy Ghost,"
but by the command of Christ. No, this is a mere
makeshift to get rid of the force of an unanswerable
argument. Paul clearly defines what baptism into
Christ is in 1 Cor. xii, 13.

Closely related to the above argument in method

* Browder's " Pulpit," p. 77.

BAPTISM INTO DEATH,

109

and ideas, is an argument predicated on the words,
one baptism,'^ in Eph. iv, 5. It is maintained that
the unity of the baptism consists in the one purpose
for which it was instituted, namely, remission of sins.
As already has been shown, there is but ^'one bap-
tism,'' but that baptism is spiritual baptism. By
one Spirit are we all baptized into one body/' It
may be asked, What, then, do you do with water bap-
tism? It is but the symbol of baptism. Jesus said
of the bread of the eucharistic feast, " Take, eat, this
is my body," and of the cup, " This is my blood,"
while he only meant. This symbolizes or represents
my body, my blood. So water, properly adminis-
tered represents baptism, the "one baptism" of puri-
fication from sin; baptism by "one Spirit" into "one
body," which is Christ. Rom. vi, 3, 4; Col. ii, 11, 12 ;
1 Cor. xii, 13; Eph. iv, 3-6, all refer to one and the
same baptism, the baptism of the Holy Ghost.

Eph. V, 25, 26, is another passage that is uniformly
presented by them as teaching baptismal remission.
"Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved
the Church, and gave himself fdr it; that he might
sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by
the word." In order to make this to teach the doc-
trine, it is necessary to assume that the phrase "wash-
ing of water" refers to baptism, and that this " washing
of water" is a figurative expression for the remission
of sins.

Now, in the first place, regardless of the ordinary

110

ERRORS OF CAMFBELLISM.

interpretatiou given this by commentators, we claim
there is no sufficient ground for believing that water
baptism is at all referred to in the passage. Cleansing
by water, when baptism is out of the question, is a
characteristic Scriptural figure. Psalm li, 7 : " Purge
me with hyssop, and I shall be clean : wash me, and 1
shall be whiter than snow.^^ Ezek. xxxvi, 25 : " Then
will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be
clean : from all your filthiness and from all your idols
will I cleanse you." John xiii, 10: "He that is
washed, needeth not save to wash his feet, but is clean
every whit." Xow, in all these instances cleansing by
water is referred to, and yet no one pretends to giv^e
the passages a physical import. The washing of water
stands for and represents spiritual cleansing ; but it is
certainly straining the figure out of all reason to make
it teach that the Church is actually washed from sin
by the physical washing of water.

But is it not claiming rather much for water bap-
tism to have it accomplish all this cleansing is said to
accomplish in verse 27: "That he might present it to
himself a glorious Church, not having spot or wrinkle,
or any such thing?" Truly that would be a won-
derful achievement secured by dipping a person once
under the water. How are backsliders cleansed in
this Church? for, according to Campbellism, they be-
long to the kingdom. Certainly their former cleans-
ing will not suffice for subsequent uncleanness; yet
they, according to the theory, belong to this spotless

BAPTISM INTO DEATH.

Ill

Church. But Campbelh'sm teaches that it is the sinner
that is cleansed by baptism. The promise here made
is Avith reference to the Church.

In 1 Cor. vi, 11, Ave have clearly defined the agency
by which the Church is purified or cleansed : " And
such were some of you; but ye are washed, but ye are
sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the
Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.'' Here the
"washing and sanctifying'' spoken of in Eph. v, 26,
are said to be accomplished by the Spirit. If by the
Spirit, then not by water. But we have from the
Master himself a complete and convincing definition
of this term water, John vii, 38, 39 : " He that be-
lieveth on me, as the Scripture hath said, out of his
belly " (or from within him) " shall flow rivers of
living water. But this he spoke of the Spirit, which
they that believe on him should receive."

Again, cleansing is spoken of in Heb. x, 20 ; " Hav-
ing our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and
our bodies washed with pure water." It needs but
a glance to see that cleansing from the defilement of
sin is attributed to sprinkling, and if physical sprink-
ling is referred to, it will at one dispose of immersion
baptism. On the other hand, if washing refers to
baptism, it only cleanses the body, not the soul, not
the heart — the sprinkling cleanses that. It is very
obvious, therefore, that moral or spiritual cleansing
is not secured by the performance of a mere rite. It
will no doubt be said by these teachers, " We do not

112

ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM.

mean that the water washes away sins/' If so, then
the language that attributes spiritual cleansing to water
is figurative. If figurative, which is the most reason-
able figure — that it stands for baptism as a condition
to the pardon of sin, or that it represents the cleans-
ing influence of divine grace in the Holy Spirit? Un-
questionably the latter, for the Lord himself has
defined the figure, again and again, in accordance
therewith.

An attempt is often made to draft into the service
of this doctrine Titus iii, 5 : " Xot by works of right-
eousness which we have done, but according to his
mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration,
and renewing of the Holy Ghost.'' The marvel is
that they should attempt to adduce the text in support
of their theory, for it is scarcely possible to find a
more positive contradiction of their fundamental
tenet — -justification by works. The text first shows
that man is not saved by his own works. Now, bap-
tism is either a work of righteousness, or it is not.
If it is, it does not save us, for this is especially ex-
cluded by the text. If it is not, in what category
shall we place it? It is always one of the 'Svorks "
when they come to interpret James ii, 24. To this
inconsistency does this theory of positive institutes
drive them.

In the second place, the salvation which is denied
to our acts, is attributed to God's grace or " mercy."
This "mercy" is made manifest to us, and applied by

BAPTISM INTO DEA TH.

113

liim, " by the Avasliing of regeneration and the renew-
ing of the Holy Ghost. The washing of regenera-
tion and renewing of tlie Holy Ghost " is God's Avork,
not man's, in any sense; neither the penitent's indi-
vidual act, nor that of another person. Mark the
words : This salvation is of the mercy " of the
Father, ^' through " the mediation of the Son, by"
the efficient agency of the Holy Ghost. The relative
oy^ ichich, can not agree with di^ayMv^waeco^, reneiving;
it may agree with Aouvpou, washing, or with IJi^eO/mTo^
Sipotj, Holy Ghost, in the neuter gender. "AVhich"
Holy Ghost in his washing and renewing power " he
shed on us abundantly," is the thought indicated by
the grammatical structure of the text.

In like manner, Gal. iii, 27, is interpreted to har-
monize with the dogma, " For as many of you as have
been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ." The
similarity in thought and expression in this passage
to those already quoted — as notably Rom. vi, 3, 4 ; Col.
ii, 11, 12; 1 Cor. xii, 13 — if properly considered, will
lead to its just interpretation. Baptism into Christ is
baptism by the Holy Ghost, as has already been shown.
" For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body."
If done by the Spirit, it can not be done by Avater.
AVhat right any one has to read the text, " For as
many of us as have been baptized [by water] into Christ,
have put on Christ," is past comprehension to any
one who takes into consideration the real import of

the term baptism.

^ 10

114

ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM.

But the verse immediately preceding the text
sets forth the condition fulfilled by us, by which we
become children of God : " For ye are all the chil-
dren of God by faith in Christ Jesus." If faith
makes us children of God, then baptism by water
does not make us such. In other words, if we are
"children of God by faith/' baptism, which comes
subsequently, does not have any part in the matter.
But baptism here spoken of is the divine act, not
ours. The context here is exactly similar to the lan-
guage of 1 Cor. xii, 13: "For by one Spirit are we
all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or
Gentiles, whether we be bond or free." Gal. iii,
27, 28 : " For as many of you as have been baptized
into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither
Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there
is neither male nor female : for ye are all one in Christ
Jesus." Is it possible that one of these cases is a
manifestation of the effect of water baptism, while the
other is the effect of spiritual baptism? Or is iden-
tically the same thing accomplished by the water
that is accomplished by the Spirit? The very reason-
able rule, that an author must be interpreted in con-
sistency with himself, divests this dogma of all sup-
port from the teachings of the great apostle to the
Gentiles. The apostle did not attribute the same re-
sults to physical means that he did to spiritual ; the
same effect to a mere rite that belonged to the agency
and power of the Holy Ghost. That he attributed

BAPTISM INTO DEATH.

115

induction into Christ to the baptism of the Spirit,
can not for one moment be questioned.

Eliminate from the whole attempt at argument
the false assumptions on which it is predicated, and
you have absolutely nothing left. The assumptions
are: 1. Whenever baptism is spoken of, unless it is
specifically defined as by the Spirit, water baptism is
meant. 2. Baptism into Christ is baptism by water,
notwithstanding the apostle affirms the contrary.
3. Washing, as applied to baptism, means the wash-
ing away of sin, which, however, is to be considered
figurative enough to get rid of physical washing, and
make it only become a metaphorical expression for
the remission of sins by baptism ; that is, the wash-
ing of regeneration " means the washing of justifica-
tion or pardon.

116

ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM.

CHAPTER X.

SALVATION BY BAPTISM, BY WORKS, BY " OBEDIENCE
OF FAITH."

Peter, to whom, according to this scheme of doc-
trine, the keys of the kingdom were given, and who,
on the day of Pentecost, opened its doors and laid
down its constitution for all subsequent ages, is
claimed to have set forth the saving efficacy of bap-
tism by water in his first epistle to the general
Church, ch. iii, 21 : The like figure whereunto bap-
tism doth also now save us (not the putting away of
the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good con-
science toward God), by the resurrection of Jesus
Christ.'^ On this passage Campbell says : * ^' But
Peter strongly maintains his Pentecostal address. He
says, speaking of Noah's salvation in water, and by
water, that we are saved in water, and by water, as
Noah, in the ark, was saved through the Deluge, to
which salvation, neither to the ark nor to the water
alone, baptism corresponds as an antitype to a type, in
saving those who enter the water, as Noah entered
the Deluge, relying on God's promises." These ideas
are with marked uniformity voiced by all the disciples

♦"Campbell and Rice," p. 558.

SA L VA TION BY BAP TISM.

117

of Campbell. They all, in the same confused way, set
forth at one time the water of the Deluge, and at an-
other the ark on the water, as the type of the salvation
the sinner secures in or through the water of baptism.
They also all agree in interpreting the word iTzepco-
TYjfia (^^ answer as signifying the requirement or
condition* of a good conscience, meaning in order to
a good conscience. And they variously interpret "the
putting away of the filth of the flesh as the washing
away of physical filth, and then again the removal of
ceremonial uncleanness.f There is a want of agree-
ment even in the same writer, as for example Dungan.

The passage in question is one quite difficult of
interpretation, and it is not to be marveled at that
there should be disagreement in interpretation ; but
it is not a little marvelous that there should be such
confident dogmatizing founded upon this passage as
that manifested by Mr. Campbell and his followers.
On the other hand, it has been as positively cited as
proving that baptism does not save us in any but a
symbolical sense. It does not " put away the filth of
the flesh,'^ but is simply the answer that a good con-
science gives to the fact of a salvation already secured
through faith in Christ.

But it seems possible to the writer to give an in-
terpretation which will make the apparent conflict

*Braden, in " Hughey and Braden's Debate," p. 259.
tD. R. Dungan, ''On the Rock," pp. 195 and 333.

118

ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM.

hot wcen the principal and parenthetic clauses to coalesce
into harmony. The whole matter turns on the sig-
nification attached to w xal. If we construe it as re-
ferring to the word uoazo': (water,) and ad()j)t the
conjectural reading of some critics, substituting o for
(J, then there will be some ground for the generally
received interpretation that the passage refers to bap-
tism by >vater. But if we construe oJ ya't in connec-
tion with the word U'uv'jfui.Tt (Spirit), which is found
in verse 18, the whole difficulty is at once removed :
"For Christ once suffered for sins, the just for the
unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to
death in the fiesh, but quickened by the S])irit \iu
by xchich also he went and preached unto the spirits in
prison; wdiich sometimes were disobedient, when once
the long-suffering of God waited in the days of Xoah,
while the ark was j)reparing, wherein few, that is,
eight souls were saved [di uoazo':] through the water,
\_(J xac]. By which [Spirit] also baptism, the antitype,
now saves us (not of the flesh, the putting away of
filth, but the answer to God of a good r(»ns('ience)
througli the resurrection of Jesus Christ/' With one
exce})tion, the rendering above follows the Greek
construction ; baptism is placed before antityj>e.

If we construe the relative as referring to the
word water in the preceding verse, and substitute the
reading o for <//, we have this absurdity, that the apostle
represents the water of the flood as tlie medium of
salvation, while in fact it was the medium of dcfttruc-

SALVATION BY FAITH.

119

tion, and Noah and his family were saved through it
by the ark. Baptism is not the antitype of the Flood,
but of the ark ; and if this be so, and it can not well
be questioned, the relative does not therefore refer to
the looter. If it does not, it must refer to the Holy
Spirit. The apostle declares that Jesus was quick-
ened [or raised from the dead] by the Spirit," verse
18. And in verse 21 our attention is again called to
his resurrection, as to our being saved through it by
baptism. The antitype baptism doth also now save
us by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.'^ In other
words, as Christ was raised from the dead by the
Spirit, we, by the same Spirit in baptism, are saved
through the resurrection of Christ.

How water baptism can save us by the resurrec-
tion of Jesus Christ, is past all comprehension. The
advocates of exclusive immersion think that baptism
was designed to represent a burial and resurrection;
but to say that baptism saves us by a representation of
the resurrection of Jesus Christ, only covers part of
their idea as to what baptism represents, and does not
make a very lucid exposition of the passage. And
yet this is the only conceivable exposition that can be
given from their stand-point.

In order to make clear our view of the teaching
of this difficult passage — not difficult because it offers
any support to Campbellism, but because of the ap-
parent conflict between the parenthetic clause and the
principal sentence — we will give a free paraphrase of

120

ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM.

it : By which Spirit also, baptism, the antitype of
the ark, now saves ns (not of the flesh, the putting
away of ceremonial taint, but the answer of a good
conscience toward God) through the resurrection of
Jesus Christ/^ It will be seen that the baptism spoken
of is spiriHial baptism, which saves, but not in putting
away ceremonial taint, as Jewish purifications and
baptisms were supposed to do, but the response of a
good conscience to God — that is, the witness of a good
conscience to God — through the resurrection of Jesus
Christ.

Attention has several times been called to the
fact that the fundamental tenet of Campbellism is a
system of justification by works. In support of this
doctrine, an extensive use is made of the language
of St. James, chapter ii, 21-14: Was not Abraham
our father justified by works when he offered up Isaac,
his son, upon the altar ? Seest thou how faith wrought
with his works, and by works was faith made per-
fect? And the Scripture was fulfilled, which saith,
Abraham believed God, and it was imj)uted unto him
for righteousness, and he was called the Friend of God.
Ye see how that by works a man is justified, and not
by faith only.'' It is at once assumed that James is
speaking of the justification of the sinner — justification
in the sense of the ])ardon of sin, and then in order to
make the plural works," in addition to faith, re-
pentance, confession, and baptism are each styled a
work. Of course, all this proceeds upon the unscrip-

SALVATION BY BAPTISM.

121

tural theory that repentance comes after faith, and
thatan oral confession of "I believe that Jesus Christ
is the Son of God/' is required as a part of the con-
dition.

The justification of which St. James is speaking, is
the justification or approval of the child of God, long
subsequent to his justification as a penitent sinner, and
his adoption into the family of God. Let it not be
forgotten that the question is, What must a sinner do
to be saved ? not Avhat the child of God must do to re-
tain the divine favor. The language of St. James
taken in its entirety shows that he is speaking of faith
and works in a Christian. Verses 14-17: "What
do'th it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath
faith and have not works? Can faith save him? If
a brother or sister be naked and destitute of daily food,
and one of yoic say unto them. Depart in peace, be ye
warmed and filled, notwithstanding ye give them not
those things which are needful to the body, what doth
it profit? Even so, faith if it hath not works is dead,
being alone.'' The words "brethren," a "brother or
sister," and "one of you," clearly indicate that the
apostle is speaking of the faith and good works of
Christians, and not of penitent sinners. Duties are con-
stantly required of Christians that are not required of
penitent sinners as conditions to pardon. The works
indicated here are works of charity, and not confession,
repentance, baptism ; and logical consistency requires
those who claim that the apostle teaches that good

11

122

ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM.

works are necessary to partlon of sin, to show just
what and how many are the works required.

But the verses ordinarily cited — -verses 21-24 — sim-
ply set forth Abraham's justification as a servant of
the Most High, about twenty-two years after the time
that the Scriptures said, A])raham believed God, and
it was counted unto him for righteousness.'^ When
was Abraham justified by works? When he offered up
Isaac. (Verse 21.) AVhen was his faith counted unto
him for righteousness ? When he believed God's prom-
ise made to him in Haran. All that can be made out of
the passage, to give any color of support to the dogma,
is contained in the expression, " a man" — Ye see
then how that by works a man is justified, and not by
faith only." The expression is construed to mean
the sinner, notwithstanding the example under con-
templation is righteous Al)raham, after long years of
faithfulness. ^Vhen Abraham believed God, and it
was imputed unto him for righteousness," what was
the work he then performed ? According to Campbell's
termiuolojrv, what was the act of faith ?

If Campbell's interpretation of this passage is cor-
rect, then there is a positive contradiction hereof what
Paul teaches in Rom. iv, 2, 3: "For if Abraham
were justified by works, he had whereof to glory; but
not before God. For what saith the Scripture? Abra-
ham believed God, and it was counted unto him for
righteousness." See also the rest of the chapter, and
chapter iii, 19-31 ; Gal. ii, 16, and iii, 6-11. These

SALVATION BY BAPTISM.

123

passages, with an inviucible clearness, evince that
Abraham was justified by faith without works, and that
the sinner is so justified ; but it is plain that Paul is
talking of another justification from James. Paul is
treating of the pardon of the sinner, James of the sub-
sequent approval of the righteous.

This is the only reasonable method of reconciling
James and Paul. It is customary with these teachers
to ridicule the idea that a reconciliation is necessary ;
but when compelled to attempt one in order to vindi-
cate their scheme of doctrine from the charge that the
Scriptures are brought by them into conflict (for Paul
says Abraham was justified by faith without works,
and James says he was justified by faith and works;
and here is conflict if both mean justification in the same
sense), they say that Paul is talking about justification
under the law of Moses, and James of justification
under the Christian dispensation.* Mr. Braden, when
pressed by Dr. Hughey on this point, says : " Let us
look at Paul's argument. He had proved that neither
Jew or Gentile could be saved by their works, for one
had not lived up to the light of nature, and the other
had not kept the Jewish law. How Avere they to be
saved? By faith in Christ, without the deeds of obedi-
ence to the law of nature or the Jewish law. ' But,'
says the Jew, ^how can he justify a man without
obedience to the Mosaic law ?' ^ Why,' says Paul,

* Braden in debate with Hughey, p. 252.

124

ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM.

' he justified Abraham without obedience to this law
l)efore the law was given, for the law was not given.
In like manner he has done away with the law now, and
he justifies men after the law, without the deeds of the
law, as he did before the law.^ "

It is the broadest possible stretch of charity to call
this an explanation or a reconciliation. It is an as-
sumption without any proof whatever, that the apostle
is treating of the impossibility of the Jews and Gen-
tiles being justified, the one under the law of nature,
and the other under the Jewish law, because neither
had kept the law. Those who were justified, of either
Jews or heathen, were either justified by faith without
works, or by faith and works. If Jews were justified
without obedience to the Jewish law, as Mr. Braden
says, then the tlieory of Campbellism, that the Jews
were justified by obedience to positive institutes, falls
to the ground.

Equally groundless is the assumption that Paul is
showing (Romans iii and iv) the impossibility of
Abraham's justification by the law, because it had not
yet been given. There is not one word said in the
whole of the apostle's argument about the law of
Moses, or any law given by Moses. The law of cir-
cumcision is the only law mentioned, and this is men-
tioned in order to exclude it from any part in Abra-
ham's justification. " Deeds of the law " and " works "
mean the same thing, and comprehend all acts of
obedience whether by Jew or Gentile, and are ex-

SALVATION BY BAPTISM.

125

eluded from having to do with the remission of
sins that are past." (Verse 25.) And when the
apostle sums up the argument in chapter iii, 28-30,
he makes it as clear as a sunbeam that he is treating
of justification under the gospel. Therefore, we con-
clude that a man is justified by faith, without the deeds
of the law. Is he the God of the Jews only ? Is he
not also of the Gentiles ? Yes, of the Gentiles also.
Seeing that it is one God which shall justify the cir-
cumcision by faith, and the uncircumcision through
foith.'^ Jews and Gentiles are justified by faith with-
out works, now and for all time. The justification
spoken of is a present tense and a future justifica-
tion, and is emphatically without works. When Mr.
Braden says, " Paul nowhere teaches that either saint
or sinner can be justified by faith alone without works
or obedience to the law of Christ," he asserts that
which squarely contradicts the facts ; for Paul asserts
that truth in the passages under consideration, and
does it in the very words of this denial, in Gal. ii, 16,
Revised Version : " Yet knowing that a man is not
justified by the works of the law, save [marginal read-
ing, ' but only through faith in Jesus Christ." Notice,
"a man" — not a Jew, but a man, any man — is not
justified " by works of the law," present tense, thereby
indicating its universal application. Therefore Paul
is treating of the justification of the penitent sinner,
under the Christian dispensation, and he declares it
is not by works ; and if James is speaking of the same

12(3

ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM.

thing, there is a square contradiction between them,
and no jugglery with Avords will get rid of it. That
must be a false scheme of doctrine that will put the
inspired writers into contradiction.

Again, the inconsistency of Campbell and his dis-
ciples in claiming the works " spoken of by St.
James as grounds of justification in the sense of pardon,
is seen in this, that they mean in reality but one work.
" The obedience of faith," " obeying the gospel," and

obeying that form of doctrine," are expressions with
them that mean but one thing. Campbell says:^'

That it is not faith, but an act resulting from faith,
which changes our state." Note "(7?i ac<" singular.
After quoting Rom, i, 5; x, 8; xvi, 26 ; 1 Thess. i, 8;
1 Peter iv, 17; Acts, vi, 7 — passages in which the ex-
pressions obedience of faith " and "obeying the gos-
pel " occur — he says : f " From these sayings it is un-
questionably plain that either the Gospel itself, taken
as a whole, is a command, or that in it there is a
command, through the obedience of which salyation
is enjoyed." Further on he says: "This act is some-
times called immersion." It is plain, therefore, that
they mean but one work as tlie " obedience of faith."
If this be so, then the quotation of St. James proves
that we are justified by acts of faiths and not an act
of faith, as Campbell teaches.

But do these phrases — " obedience of faith," " obey-

*" Christian System," p. 193. Md. p. 192.

SALVATION BY BAPTISM.

127

ing the gospel," and " obeying that form of doctrine" —
mean baptism ? Let us take a few passages as samples.
Rom. i, 5 : " By Avhom we have received grace and
apostleship for obedience to the faith among all na-
tions for his name." Substituting baptism for ^' obe-
dience to the faith/' will make manifest the absurdity.

By whom we have received grace and apostleship
for baptism among all nations." 1 Peter iv, 17:
^' What shall the end be of them that obey not the
gospel [are not baptized]?" Rom. vi, 17: ^^But ye
have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine
[baptism] which was delivered unto you." Well may
the reader exclaim, What nonsense ! but it is the non-
sense of the theory. The obedience of faith " is all
manner of obedience springing from faith; and it is
Christian fidelity that it defines, and not the condi-
tions the sinner performs in order to his salvation.
" Form of doctrine," r^/Toc, type, example, or pattern;
therefore pattern of Christian teaching in general. It
requires a fertile imagination to convert dcdayf^^, doc-
trine, into immersion, or runo^ didayr^^ into immer-
sion, and yet this is Avhat the theory does every time
this passage is cited as having reference to baptism.
Water baptism may be a tutco^, type of Holy Ghost
baptism ; but it reaches the very superlative of absurd-
ity to call water baptism a type of doctrine.

128

ERRORS OF CAMRBELLISM.

CHAPTER XI.

CAMPBELL'S SEVEN CAUSES OF JUSTIFICATION.

In order to refute the evangelical doctrine of jus-
tification by faith alone, that is, by faith without works,
Campbell and his followers are wont to call attention
to the fact that ju.stitication is ascribed in the Scrip-
tures to seven different causes; namely, * /ca'M (Rom.
V, 1), grace (Rom. iii, 24), by his blood (Rom. v, 9),
works (James ii, 21), in or by the name of the Lord
Jesus (1 Cor. vi, 11), by Christ (Gal. ii, 16), 6^ knowl-
edge (Isa. liii, 11). Five of these so-called causes of
justification are simply one cause — the meritorious
cause of the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and this
leaves but faith and u-orks as possible causes of justi-
fication. All this confusion is removed when we con-
sider that the question of controversy is only about
the conditional cause of the justification of the sinner,
and nothing else. It is not what Christ has done,
what the Father has done, or what the Holy Ghost
has done or must do, but what must the sinner do as
a condition to pardon or justification. And where
Mr. Campbell says, " He that selects faith out of seven
must either act arbitrarily or show his reason ; but the

* " Christian System," p. 247.

SEVEN CAUSES OF JUSTIFICATION.

129

reason does not appear in the text. . . . Why,
then, assume that faith alone is the reason of our jus-
tification?'^ he either misapprehends the whole ques-
tion, or is trying to confuse the matter in the minds
of his readers. There are but two of these seven causes
that with any show of reason w^hatever can be called
a condition, and one of these two " works is espe-
cially excluded by the apostle Paul in Rom. chapters
iii and iv, and Gal. ii, 16, and iii, 6-11. If any one
should assert that faith alone is the cause meritorious,
efficacious, and conditional of the sinner's justification,
Mr. Campbell would have some reason for this objec-
tion ; but all that is claimed is, that faith alone is the
conditional cause, or the condition upon which justifi-
cation is granted to the sinner.

The writer once had a discussion of three days
with a disciple of Alexander Campbell, on the subject
of justification, and although the proposition was.
Faith in Christ is the only condition necessary to
the justification of the penitent sinner," yet each time
his respondent spoke he insisted that " Faith alone,"
in the terms of the proposition, meant faith without
repentance, without grace, without the blood of Christ,
etc., through the entire catalogue, according to Camp-
bell. The only conceivable reason for this persistent
misrepresentation of the issue is, that baptism may be
brought in under works " as a cause of the sinner's
justification.

All that Mr. Campbell has to say about " moving,"

130

ERRORS OF CAMPBF.LLISM.

" efficient," procuring/' "disposing'' "formal/' "im-
mediate/' and "concurring" causes is so much in the
direction of confusing a plain issue, What is the con-
dition, or what are the conditions, if he so prefers it,
performed upon the part of the penitent sinner to se-
cure justification, pardon of sin, or salvation? Camp-
bell and his disciples say, confession and immersion.
Other evangelical Christians say, faith alone — mark
now the plain proposition — to the penitent sinner,
faith in Christ, and nothing else, is the conditional
cause of his justification.

As the interpretation of the Scriptural term, justi-
fication is bent to suit the demands of this scheme of
doctrine, so repentance is given a signification differ-
ent from that usually given to it by evangelical ex-
positors. Mr. Campbell defines repentance as *" sor-
row for sin," and further says: "Genuine repentance
does not always issue in reformation. Judas was sor-
rowful even unto death, but could not reform. Many
have been so genuinely sorry for their sins as to
become suicides. Speak we of a ^ godly sorrow?'
No, this is not to be expected from unconverted and
ungodly persons. Christians, Paul teaches, when they
err, may repent with a godly sorrow; but this is not
to be expected from the un regenerate or from those
who have not reformed."

These ideas have the merit of originality, if nothing

■•• " Christian System," p. 255.

SEVEN CAUSES OF JUSTIFICATION.

131

else. Godly sorrow is the sorrow of a baptized
person, for that is what he means by a Christian. It
would be difficult to distinguish any more godly qual-
ities about the sincere sorrow of a baptized person,
than that of one who had never been baptized. It is
to be inferred, if " godly sorrow in 2 Cor. vii, 10, is
the sorrow of a baptized person, then " the sorrow of
the world " must be the sorrow of an unbaptized per-
son ; but it is sadly to be observed that such a sorrow,
according to the apostle, worketh death/' never sal-
vation.

But Mr. Campbell claims that /^sravora, uniformly
rendered repentance, means reformation ; * and he
furthermore claims that reformatioji represents the
whole process of what is figuratively called regenera-
tion.''^ It then follows that if godly sorrow " work-
eth reformation, it works confession and baptism, for
these are parts of the process of reformation or re-
generation, according to this teacher. He also says
that the multitudes who on the day of Pentecost
asked, What shall we do " had already repented,
they were sorry for the past ^' had changed their
minds/' and were commanded to reform. But Mr.
Campbell said, Godly sorroAv' is the sorrow of
Christians alone/' but godly sorrow" worketh
fisTapocap, repentance — according to Campbell, refor-
mation— that is to say, that the sorrow of the Chris-

* " Christian System," p. 258. t Id. p. 259.

132

ERRORS OF CAMPBELUSM.

tian works regeueration, and regeneration is tne whole
process of reformation, repentance, confession, bap-
tism. Such is the inevitable confusion that results
from this man's ideas concerning repentance.

Reformation and regeneration are not the same
thing, neither is uzzdi^uia the unvarying equivalent of
reformation. It is properly translated repentance,
and includes in its meaning ordinarily genuine sor-
row, honest confession of sin, and an earnest effort of
heart to turn from sin.

But this doctrine of repentance and reformation is
a part of a fabric. Leave it out, and its consistency
as a theory is not maintained. Regeueration must be
made the equivalent of reformation in order to make it
reach its consummation in water baptism. In other
words, regeneration mUst be made the individuaPs
work alone, in order that it may be nothing more
than a reformation wrought out by sorrow for sin,
confession of Christ, and baptism. For if regenera-
tion is anything more than this, if it is a work wrought
out by the Spirit of God, then water baptism, as the
so-called ^M:)ath of regeneration, does not consum-
mate the new birth, and its efficacy as a condition to
salvation is at once set aside. That is to say, if re-
generation is spiritual, the witness to it must be the
Holy Spirit, and it would be inconvenient to deny
the claims of the unimraersed people to the witness
of the Spirit.

Mr. Campbell seems to have had quite a fancy for

SEVEN CAUSES OF JUSTIFICATION.

133

the phrase, "bath of regeneration/^* as a translation
of the Greek Xourpoi) TzahYjtvzaiaq, washing of re-
generation '^), Titus iii, 5 ; and he says this is the
equivalent of being born of water. But this, like all
of his other modifications of the Received Version, is a
modification in the interest of a theory. He says : " The
bath of regeneration means the water used for regen-
erating a person.^' f The word Xo'jt[)6v occurs but
twice in the New Testament, and in both of these
cases is rendered washing by the translators of the
Authorized Version and by the Revisers. It is true
the Revisers have put the word laver in the margin
as a possible rendering of the word. But the Septua-
gint uses Xoorijp for the containing vessel, and not
Xouzpov. This, however, is a matter of but little mo-
ment. CampbelPs idea is that Xoorpoh here stands for
the element in which regeneration is wrought; but
this is a sheer assumption. Washing/^ in this text,
defines a process as much as renewing.'^ We have a
similar form of phraseology in the fifty-first Psalm :
" Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean : wash me,
and I shall be whiter than snow.'' Is it reasonable
that, in the case in question, one of these expres-
sions should define the clement in which, and the
other the process by which ? The plain fact is, that
regeneration is accomplished by " washing " and " re-
newing'' of the Holy Ghost shed on us. Again,

*" Christian System," p. 263. Id. p. 268.

134

ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM.

^' the washing of regeneration and renewing of the
Holy Ghost'^ are put in antithesis to "works of right-
eousness which we have done/' Now, baptism is cer-
tainly a work of righteousness ''which we have done/'
if so, it is in antithesis to this so-called " bath of re-
generation/' and can not be the same thing.

In the same way Mr. Campbell attempts to han-
dle the phrase'^ pure water/' in Heb. x, 22. He tells
us that " pure water " is a metonymy for " cleansing
or washing of water." '' ' Having your bodies washed
with pure water/ or water that purifies or cleanses." *
Kadapo;, pure, occurs twenty-eight times in the New
Testament, and not in one single instance does it de-
fine any thing else than the quality of the noun with
which it agrees. Kadaow 'joazc means " pure water,"
and not water which cleanses. It is the most gratui-
tous assumption imaginable that attempts to attach a
morally cleansing efficacy to this clean icater. The
moral, or rather spiritual, cleansing is wrought by the
" sprinkling," because this is of the heart, and it is a
sprinkling from an evil conscience. Sprinkling stands
for cleansing; as, for example, "the blood of sprink-
ling." " Purge [sprinkle] me with hyssop."

But all this is in consonance with Mr. Campbeir.s
theory of the new birth or regeneration. Water is
the mother, according to him, out of which the Chris-
tian is born. He says, f iu commenting on John iii, 5:

*" Christian System," p. 265. Md. p. 201.

SEVEN CAUSES OF JUSTIFICATION.

135

" So in every place where water and the Spirit, or
water and the Word, are spoken of, the icater stands
first. Every child is born of its father when it is
born of its mother. Hence the Savior put the mother
first, and the apostles follow him/^ It has been face-
tiously remarked " that it is not marvelous that these
people have so much to say about water, for it is natu-
ral that children should think well of their mother/^
But is there one word in the Scriptures to support
this odd notion ? Did Jesus, in the conversation with
Nicodemus, give the remotest hint of any such a
thing? He only mentioned this so-called mother
once; and subsequently, when he had occasion to com-
pare the new birth and the natural birth, he made no
mention of the water. That which is born of the
flesh, is flesh; that which is born of the Spirit, is spirit.''
But Mr. Campbell says:* The Spirit of God is the
begetter; the gospel is the seed." It follows, by
the analogy that he is carrying out, that the Spirit's
oflice is fulfilled in regeneration before the new birth
takes place. Hence the Savior placed these two
agencies of the new birth in wrong relation to each
other — a relation contrary to fact. It should have been
born of the Spirit and of the water." But his theory
will not permit him to put being born of the Spirit
where the Master puts it, after being born of the
water ; for if he so does, a man is not born again when

*" Christian System," p. 201.

130

ERRORS OF CAMPBELLIS}f.

he is baptized, and tliis is fundamental to Canipellism.
So he must reverse the Savior's order in fact, and
make a distinction between begetting by the Spirit, as
the term is used in the Scriptures, and being born of
tlie Spirit. But the word in the Greek is the same
term that is transkited born, yeiywioj. But in one sin-
gle instance is another word used. In James i, 18,
anoxvico is used, but this properly means to bring
forth, and is so translated in the fifteenth verse of the
same chapter.

Being born of the Spirit means the whole divine
process of regeneration from commencement to con-
clusion, and especially is it that last divine work by
w^hich the individual comes forth a new creature — be-
ing born from above.'' Campbell must make being
born of the water, being born of the Spirit also ; for
if he does not, it follows that being born of the
water, or baptism, according to him, is no part of the
process of the new birth ; for the Savior says, " that
which is born of the Spirit is spirit " or spiritual ; and
if he is born of the Spirit before he is born of the
water, he is spiritual before he is born aijaiu. And if
he is not born of the Spirit until after he is born of
the water, he is not yet a chihl of (lod when born (.f
the water, because not born of the Spirit. Therefore,
born of the water and born of the Spirit must be one
and the same thing.

To this extent of absurdity does this peculiar doc-
trin:d theory lead in the interpretation of the Scrip-

SEVEN CAUSES OF JUSTIFCATION.

137

tares. Truth is consistent. It is prima facie proof
of falsity tliat a doctrinal scheme makes the Scriptures
self-contradictory, as does the one in question. Water
in regeneration can be nothing but a symbol. The
moment it is made an essential part of the process, it
is brought into conflict with the work of the Spirit;
for to be born of the Spirit is to be born again, to be
^' born from above,'' to be spiritual — a child of God.
If this comes before baptism then the w^ork is already
accomplished ; the subject of the change is already
" spiritual.'' If after baptism, then baptism does
not complete the work, and it may never be com-
pleted, as the individual may not exercise the faith re-
quired. Hence a careful study of Campbell's utter-
ances will lead to the conclusion that he regarded
being born of the water as being born of the Spirit ;
which is the only view that furnishes any escape from
a hopeless dilemma, and this at the expense of a
logical denial of the Spirit's work in the new birth.

It is true that he and his followers ascribe the
work of instructing and convincing the mind to the
Spirit; but this, according to them, is done by the
word of divine truth — the word being the pro-
duction of the Spirit. It therefore follows that every
one who sincerely inquires, " What must I do to be
saved?" is born of the Spirit, because he has been
convinced by the word ; but according to these teach-
ers, there is still repentance, confession, and baptism,
before such a spiritual personage, before he is born

12

138

ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM.

again. In otber words, he is born of the Spirit, and
is spiritual; and, according to Paul, Rom. viii, 6:
"To be spiritually minded is life and peace;'* that is,
he possesses this blessedness before repentance, con-
fession, and the new birth. A marvelous fabrication
of doctrinal inconsistencies.

And this is not all. Campbellism teaches that
Christian baptism was first instituted or ordained by
the commission, and the kingdom of heaven first set
up on Pentecost. Yet they have Jesus here telling
Nicodemus some two years previously that he must
be born into a kingdom two years off, by a process
not to be instituted for a similar length of time. One
thing is certain, that the new birth and the kingdom
of God were present facts at the time of this conver-
sation. If the Master had meant that this new birth
into this kingdom was to take place two years hence,
he would have told Xicodemus so. It is evident that
Jesus was not talking about Christian baptism in
speaking of being born of the water; and if baptism
is at all referred to, it must have been John's baptism,
for one thing is certain, baptism in the name of Christ
was an institution of the Gospel dispensation not yet
introduced. The reasonable view therefore is, that
water in the text no more refers to baptism than the
water spoken of by the Savior in his conversation with
the woman of Samaria at Jacob's well. The idea that
it refers to water baptism is a legacy of medijeval
rituals.

AN APPEAL TO AUTHORITIES,

139

CHAPTER XII.

AN APPEAL TO AUTHORITIES.

Although Alexander Campbell has declared that
"the meaning of this institution [the New Testa-
ment] has been buried under the rubbish of human
traditions for hundreds of years/' and that " it was
lost in the Dark Ages, and has 7iever been till recently
disinterred," and "since the grand apostasy was at-
tempted, till the present generation, the gospel of
Jesus Christ has not been laid open to mankind in its
original plainness, simplicity, and majesty;'' yet he
has appealed, as extensively as any polemical writer in
the Christian centuries, to great names, both in the
primitive Christian Church and in more modern times,
in support of his theory of doctrine.

From the extent of these quotations, the reader
whose knowledge of Church history is limited, would
be led to infer that his doctrine has been taught and
accepted by the Church at large in all ages, and is not
that new thing that he claims to have dug up in
this century from "the rubbish of human traditions."
These two positions can not both be true; the doctrine
can not be, as he claims in " Christian System," pp.
225-234, a part of the creeds of the great Protestant
bodies, and the teaching of the great expositors of

140

ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM.

Scriptural truth among them, and at the same time a
new dit^covery made by himself and his father within
this nineteenth century.

There can be but little question that Campbell is
correct as to the latter of these two alternatives.
The doctrine is new and essentially so, and he there-
fore . has misunderstood the authorities he quotes.
They do not hold to baptism as a necessary condi-
tion to justification. They certainly were not per-
sistently contradicting themselves. This misconcep-
tion is evidenced in the fact that he makes no
distinction between baptism as a symbol, sign, seal,
and means to salvation, and baptism as a condition
antecedent and absolutely necessary to the pardon of
sin. This confounding of these ideas, r^nd also of
baptismal regeneration, with his theory, will be seen
further along in our examination of the teachings of
these authorities.

As to the primitive Christian fathers — Justin Mar-
tyr, Origen, Ignatius, Irenjeus, Tertullian, Cyprian of
Carthage, Clement of Alexandria, and others — it is read-
ily conceded, without entering irito a detailed examina-
tion of their writings, that they attached an exaggerated
importance to baptism, as well as to all other Church
rites and ordinances. It is very possible to quote
them in behalf of baptismal regeneration, and also
for the superior efficacy of the baptism of blood,'*
"of fire," and the like. Let it be kept in remem-
brance that this is a mere appeal to men's opinions,

AN APPEAL rO AUTHORITIES.

141

and these are simply to be valued according to their
ability to form correct opinions. It is true, he claims
that he cites them as witnesses to fact. AVhat fact?
The fact as to v/hat they believed and taught, and
liothing more. Not in one single quotation that he
makes in the " Christian System,'^ pp. 218-225, is
there an historical statement, save and except in those
instances where the fact of infant baptism is set forth
as regeneration. These passages Avere quoted by Dr.
Wall to prove the existence of infant baptism as a
fact. The reason assigned by these fathers is a mere
matter of opinion ; but on the contrary, it is not the
fact for which Campbell cites these authorities, for
he rejects that as of any binding authority, but the
opinion^ namely, that the baptism was to effect regen-
eration. How he can claim, as he does,* that it is as
witnesses in a question of fact, and not of opinion^
we summon these ancients, and then proceed to quote
Origen as saying, "Infants are baptized for the for-
giveness of their sins.'^ Now, what is fact and what
opinion here? Is not the statement that 'Mnfants
are baptized a statement of fact, and the statement
that this is for forgiveness of sins a mere matter of
opinion? In the remainder of this quotation, Origen
proceeds to explain this matter of opinion, or how in-
fants, who are irresponsible, can be "baptized for the
forgiveness of sins," all of Avhich is only Ori gen's

* " Christian System," p. 223.

142

ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM.

opinion, and made necessary because of the fallacious
idea tliat this baj)tism was for the forgiveness of sin.

The fact is, Alexander Campbell and his frdlowers
will abide by the teachings of the Primitive Fathers
only in those things that serve their purjxxe, or seem to
do so. If we base our belief on primitive Christian doc-
trinal teaching, how much of it are we to take? Just
where will we draw the line? Campbell seems to in-
dicate at what they testify to as to fact. This we will
readily accept, and insist at the same time that the
reasons assigned by them for baptism, whether adult
or infant, must be considered only as matters of
opinion. The extent to which such opinions existed,
is a matter of fact : and if he can show as a fact that
his doctrine was generally received, he is entitled to
the benefit of that fact alone. We speak of his doc-
trine of baptismal justification, or the pardon of sin^
predicated on the condition of baptism. If they gen-
erally taught this doctrine, he is entitled to the benefit
of this fact, nothing more, and it is still left an open
question. Were they, in this respect, in harmony witli
Scriptural teaching or not? But did they really hold
to Campbell's doctrine? No. The most that can be
made out of their teachings is that baptism washes
away the sins of an individual, whether adult or in-
fant, because of an efficacy given to ♦he water by its
consecration. In other words, it was the doctrine of
baptismal regeneration, a doctrine Campbell disr-laims.
They also believed in infant regeneration by baptism,

AN APPEAL TO AUTHORITIES.

143

and administered it to infants for the same purpose
that they did to adults. It therefore could not be tor
the pardon of sin, as Campbell's system teaches, but
for a cleansing from the defilement of sin, a distinc-
tion that he has failed to see.

In fact, so far as the writer is acquainted with tha
writings and teachings of Campbell and his followers,
he has observed that with them there is no distinc-
tion between justification and regeneration, or pardon
and purification. Again, Campbell confounds what
the fathers say of the import of baptism as a symbol
with its design. Water baptism stands for and rep-
resents true baptism, the baptism of the Holy Ghost ;
and as Holy Ghost baptism is regeneration, and this
regeneration may take place when the symbol is being
used, so it is proper to speak of this baptism in sym-
bol as regeneration. As an outward sign it stands for
the presence of the thing signified. The only con-
sistent interpretation we can give of the teaching of
the primitive Christian fathers is that which we predi-
cate on the principle just laid down. They attributed
that to the symbol which was accomplished by the
agency of the thing symbolized. The penitent was
regenerated when baptized with water, because this
represented the spiritual process. But they never
taught that regeneration could not take place, and the
individual not be saved, until he was baptized by
water.

Justin Martyr, who suffered martyrdom about the

144

ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM.

year A. D. 166, and who, because of his previous
scholastic training and philosophical culture, was the
most careful and conservative teacher of the second
century, says, in his dialogue with Trypho* on the
subject of forgiveness of sins: For Isaiah did not
send you to a bath, there to wash away murder and
other sins, which not even all the waters of the sea
were sufficient to purge ; but, as might have been ex-
pected, this was the saving bath of the olden time
v;hich followed those that repented, and who were no
longer purified by the blood of goats and sheep, or
by the ashes of an heifer, or by the offerings of fine
flour, but by faith through the blood of Christ." 80
also he says further on : f " By reason, therefore, of
thislaver of repentance and knowledge of God, which
has been ordained on account of the transgression of
God's people, as Isaiah cries, we have believed and
testified that that very baptism which we announced
is alone able to purify those who have repented, and
this is the water of life. But these cisterns which
you have dug for yourselves arc broken and profitless
to you. For what is the use of that baptism which
cleanses the body alone? Baptize the soul from
wrath and from covetousness, from envy and from
hatred, and lo, the body is pure.'' Language can not
be more explicit as to the insufficiency of mere water
baptism, " which cleanses the flesh and body alone,"

*T. and T. Clarke's Translation, p. 101. t Id. p. 104.

AN APPEAL TO AUTHORITIES.

145

and also as to the necessity of a soul baptism which
must be esseutially spiritual. But the same writer
again says:* ^^But there is no other [way] than this
to become acquainted with this Christ, to be washed in
this fountain spoken of by Isaiah for the remission of
sins; and for the rest, to live sinless lives."

ISTow, it may be fairly asked, Does this writer be-
lieve in baptismal regeneration or baptismal justifica-
tion? Can such doctrines be harmonized with his
teachings, especially Avith the latter? But lest the
followers of Campbell should think that we have not
fully met the argument made from his quotation from
Justin, t we will give it, and examine it and see if it
in any manner conflicts with the views expressed
above. Justin, in his first apology, says: J I will
also relate the manner in which we dedicate ourselves
to God when we had been made new through Christ;
lest, if we omit this, we seem to be unfair in the ex-
planation we are making. As many as are persuaded,
and believe that what we say is true, and undertake
to be able to live accordingly, are instructed to pray
and entreat God with fasting for the remission of
their sins that are past, we praying and fasting with
them. Then they are brought by us to where there
is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in
which we ourselves were regenerated. For in the

*T. and T. Clarke's Translation, p. 143.

t" Christian System," p. 221.

XT. andT. Clarke's Translation, p. 57.

13

146

ERRORS OF CAMPBELTJSM.

name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe,
and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy
Spirit, they then receive the washing with water; for
Christ also said : ' Except ye be born again, ye shall
not enter into the kingdom of heaven.' . . . Since
at our birth we were born without our own knowl-
edge or choice, and were brought up in bad habits
and wicked training, in order that we may not remain
the children of necessity and of ignorance, but may
become the children of choice and knowledge, and
may obtain in water the remission of sins formerly
committed, there is pronounced over him who chooses
to be born again, and has repented of his sins, the
name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe/'
We have quoted thus extensively, that we might
not be thought to evade any difficulty. The only ex-
pression in this whole quotation that bears any real
resemblance to Campbell's doctrine is, " that they may
obtain in water the remission of sins." Mr. Campbell
has rendered this "remission of sins by water," evi-
dently seeing that there might be "remission of sins
in water " that was not remission of sins by water.
Remission of sins by water is his doctrine; and we
squarely contradict his translation of iu rw uoart — by
Avater." It is a translation to bolster up a theory.
"We are ready to admit, and always have been, that re-
mission of sins may take place in baptism if the proper
conditions of faith and repentance exist, and whenever
these do truly exist, remission of sins takes place.

AN APPEAL TO AUTHORITIES.

147

But the doctrine of Campbell is, no remission with-
out baptism, and this Justin does not teach. It is
very probable if seeking penitents were taught to-day
to expect remission of sins when being baptized, eithe?
by sprinkling, pouring, or immersion, they would ordi-
narily attain it then. But bear in mind, that " remis-
sion of sin in baptism " is a different thing from re-
mission of sin by baptism.

Campbell, how^ever, took care not to quote the
first part of Justin's remarks, where he speaks of
" fasting and prayer for the remission of sins,'' and
that, too, both by the penitent and by the Church for
him, for this praying Campbell condemns as useless.*
It is strange that if Justin's opinion is good testimony
in one instance, it is not in another. But Justin, in-
terpreted consistently with himself, teaches that re-
generation is a spiritual process, and that Avater can
not literally Avash away sins, but is only a symbol in
whose use sins may be washed away if repentance and
faith are present.

Had we space to examine other of the primitive
Christian fathers the same facts might be elicited as to
their real views with regard to baptism. But it is
unnecessary ; this question is not to be settled in any
sense by such an appeal. As has been already said,
the primitive Christians, from the middle of the sec-
ond century, on down to the establishment of popery,

* " Christian System," p. 209.

148

ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM.

attributed great efficacy to Chiirchly rites and cere-
monies, until they came to be used as instruments of
priestcraft, and came to be considered vehicles by which
the Church conveyed spiritual blessings to the people.
We much fear that it is this relic of priestly domina-
tion that Campbell has exhumed from the rubbish "
of the mediaeval ages.

Mr. Campbell also appeals to the creeds of the
Reformed Churches for a support for his doctrine ; and
in this case he has more completely misunderstood
authorities than in the former. In two instances —
the Episcopalian and the Methodist Episcopal — he has
cited the ritual, and not the articles of religion. Can
it be possible that Campbell did not know the differ-
ence between a ritual and a Church creed?

In the Episcopal ritual he gives us a quotation
from the prayer of the administrator. " Almighty and
everlasting God, who, by thy great mercy, didst save
^^oah and his family in the ark from perishing by water,
and also didst lead the children of Israel, thy people,
through the Red Sea, forgiving them by thy baptism,
and by the baptism of thy well-beloved son Jesus Christ
in the river Jordan didst sanctify the element of water
in the mystical washing away of sin: we beseech thee^
for thine infinite mercies, that thou w-ilt mercifully
look upon these thy servants; wash them and sanctify
them with the Holy Ghost, that they, being delivered
from thy wrath, may be received into the ark of Christ\s
Church. AVe have quoted all that is at all material

AN APPEAL TO AUTHORITIES.

149

to Mr. CampbelFs argument, aud if there is one word
in tliis prayer that gives support to his theory, we fail
to see it. First, baptism is called a " mystical wash-
ing/' What is a ^' mystical washing Evidently a
symbol or representation of a real washing, and to
make doubly certain that this is its meaning, the
ritual prayer asks for " washing with the Holy Ghost."
If the baptism brought this washing, why the prayer
for it by another agency ? And so in the exhortation
that follows there is nothing more implied than that
baptism is a mystical washing, which, if properly re-
ceived by an adult, may bring to him remission ot
sins and cleansing, not for the first time, but for all the
sins up to the moment of its reception. Campbell fails
to realize the truth contemplated by all these rituals,
that, however holy or righteous we may be, we con-
stantly need divine forgiveness and cleansing. For-
giveness and cleansing are prayed for in all these
rituals in the administration of the Lord's Supper.

He has cited the Presbyterian Confession on bap-
tism. Article XXYIII, Section 1, and the only lan-
guage he predicates his idea upon is the statement that
baptism " is a sign and seal of the covenant of grace,
of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of re-
mission of sins." His argument from this, "that this
Church does not believe her own creed " because she
baptizes infants, is the completest specimen of mere
special pleading that can be found even in his writings.
Baptism as a " sign and seal of the covenant of grace

150

ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM.

and of the remission of sins/' is something at an-
tipodes to the doctrine of baptism as a necessary
condition to the pardon of sin. Abraham "received
the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness
of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised."
(Rom. iv, 11.) Here is a sign and seal of righteous-
ness, justification, or remission of sins that came after
this great blessing had been received, yet this is a
blunder that Mr. Campbell and his followers uniformly
make of conceiving that sign and seal, in this case,
is nearly or quite equivalent to condition. All the
Scriptural signs were signs after the fact, and not be-
fore; as see Exodus xxxi, 13 and 17, also Deut. v, 15,
where the Sabbath was to be observed as a sign of de-
liverance from Egypt, and of sanctification by the
Lord of the Israelites as his peculiar people.

To the same intent Mr. Campbell cites the formal
address in the ritual of the Methodist Episcopal
Church, made by the minister as introductory to the
performance of the rite of baptism, and also the prayer
of the minister for the candidate. What was said
above with regard to the Episcopal ritual, applies also
to this. A prayer offered for a candidate for baptism
would most likely be for forgiveness of sin, cleans-
ing, and spiritual life ; and because it is such, Mr.
Campbell and his followers immediately conclude that
this implies that they have never been forgiven and
cleansed from sin, and can not be until baptized. As
well might he conclude that w^e teach by our ritual

AX APPEAL TO AUTHORITIES.

151

that the Lord's Supper is a condition to remission of
sin, for this is the burden of consecrating prayer.

This will suffice for the so-called creeds. A fur-
ther examination would reveal the fact that in the
large majority that he cites there is a manifest misap-
prehension of the signification of their language, un-
derlaid by his persistent misconception of the nature
of a sigyi and seal, as clearly defined by the Scriptures.

Campbell and his followers also appeal to some
eminent writers of the reformed Churches in support
of his creed, such as Luther, Calvin, Scott, Dr. D wight,
AVesley, Clarke, AVatson, and others. It would be an
exceedingly tedious and profitless task to examine all
that these writers have had to say upon this subject,
and from this educe their real belief But the reader
may be assured that whatever of exaggerated impor-
tance they may have seemed to attribute to the ordinance
of baptism, they did not believe and teach that it is
absolutely essential to the remission of sin. Luther,
although an earnest opponent to Rome in some of its
fallacious teachings, and more especially to its blas-
phemous claims, was still under the influence of some
of its false doctrines; as, for example, his doctrine of
consubstantiation, also his belief in baptismal regen-
eration and a mystical efficacy attached to the water
of baptism. But the quotation cited by Mr. Camp-
bell"^ from Luther's Commentary on Galatians does

*" Campbell and Rice," pp. 460, 461.

152

ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM.

not teach his doctrine. It simply presents baptism as
the rite in which the renewing of the inward man
takes place, and he ascribes this renewing or regen-
erating to the Holy Ghost — regenerated and renewed
by the Holy Ghost, is his language in this comment —
while Mr. Campbell says:* "To call the receiving of
any spirit, or any influence or energy, or any opera-
tion upon the heart of man, regeneration, is an abuse
of all speech, as well as a departure from the diction
of the Holy Spirit, v:ho calls nothing personal regen-
eration except the act of immersion J' ^

The next authority he quotes is Calvin, Insti-
tutes, chapter xv.f Whatever Calvin has here said
in this extensive quotation, must be limited by what
he lays down primarily as the ends, or design, of the
sacrament. He says : " Baptism is a sign of initiation
by which we are admitted into the society of the
Church, in order that, being incorporated in Christ,
we may be remembered among the children of God.
Now, it has been given us by God for these ends,
which I have shown to be common to all sacraments,
first, to promote our faith toward him; secondly, to
testify our confession before men. AVe shall treat of
both these ends of its institution in order." Xow, we
ask in this preliminary statement, Does Calvin hint at
remission of sins as one of the ends or design of

♦"Christian System," p. 202.

t" Campbell and Kice," pp. 470. 471.

AN APPEAL TO AUTHORITIES.

153

baptism? By this preliminary statement interpret all
he says concerning the design of baptism. But in
this same citation Calvin has especially and specifically
disclaimed CampbelPs doctrine. He says : " For it
was not the intention of Paul (Titus iii, 5 ; Eph.
V, 26) to signify that our ablution and salvation are
completed by the water, or that water contains in itself
the virtue to purify, regenerate, and renew ; nor did
Peter mean (1 Pet. iii, 21) that it was the cause of
salvation, but only that the knowledge and assurance
of it is received in this sacrament, which is sufficiently
evident from the words they have used. For Paul
connects ' the word of life' and the ^baptism of water,'
as if he said that our ablution and sanctification are
announced to us by the gospel, and by baptism this
message is confirmed.'' A careful examination of this
quotation will reveal the fact that it is in open conflict-
with Mr. Campbell's doctrine in three material points.
First, "our ablution and salvation are not completed
by the water." Campbell says they are.* " This im-
mersion, says Peter, saves us, not by cleansing the
body from its filth, but the conscience from its guilt."
Secondly, the citation says that " water " does not
contain in itself the virtue to purify, regenerate, and
renew." Campbell ascribes regeneration, renewing,
and sanctification to immersion ; f says " water is effi-
cacious to the washing away of sin."!|] Thirdly, the

*" Christian System," p. 215. t Id. p. 217. t Id. p. 215.

154

ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM.

citation denies that in any sense baptism is "the cause
of salvation/' On the contrary, Campbell says it is
one of the " seven causes " to which the Scriptures at-
tribute justification."^' The marvel is that Campbell
would quote such an extract from Calvin in support
of his views. Yet candor requires us to say that Cal-
vin here says some things with reference to the virtue
of baptism as a pledge of remission of sins through
the blood of Christ, and the impartation of the remis-
sion in baptism, that seem to harmonize with Camp-
bell's idea. But let it not be forgotten that Calvin's
recent connection with Rome will account for his still
seeking in some way to exalt the rite of baptism as
an instrumentality to salvation. But when lie is in-
terpreted consistently with his general teaching, he
will be found to be on the side of evangelical Chris-
tianity, and not on the side of papacy.

It is entirely unnecessary to follow Mr. Campbell
very much farther in his appeal to authorities. The
controversy might be carried on in this interminably,
and perhaps no very definite results reached. It will
suffice to call attention to but one more because it
immediately concerns us as Methodists. John AVesley
is cited as giving a very decided support to the doc-
trine of baptismal remission in the Doctrinal Tracts,
a small volume formerly extensively circulated among
American Methodists, and published by the Methodist

*" Christian System," pp. 247, 248.

AN APPEAL TO AUTHOEITIES.

155

Book Concern. There is one tract on baptism which
is invariably quoted by the followers of Campbell in
their discussions with Methodists. There is no ques-
tion, and can be none, that the tract advocates the
doctrine of baptismal regeneration. But was John
Wesley its author? AYe think not. It is not neces-
sary to enter into the details of the argument; but
suffice it to say that very convincing reasons can be
given to show that Samuel Wesley, the father of John
Wesley, was its author, and he was always a believer
in baptismal regeneration. But should ^ye concede
that John Wesley was the author of the tract, let it
be borne in mind that he was for a long time in har-
mony with the Church of England on its doctrines.
Not until after his conversion did he begin to break
away from its formalities, and have more spiritual
views of the conditions of salvation. It is well known
to those who are familiar with Wesley's writings, that
no more candid and teachable student of divine things
ever lived than he. Whenever he discovered himself
in error, he was prompt to acknowledge it. He has
left on record his mature views on the design of bap-
tism. See his sermon on the Xew Birth :

"lY. I proposed, in the last place, to subjoin a
few inferences which naturally follow from preceding
observations.

"1. And first it follows that baptism is not the new
birth; they are not one and the same thing. Many,
indeed, seem to imagine that they are just the same ;

156

ERRORS OF CAMPEFAAJSM.

at least they speak as if they thought so ; but I do not
know that this opinion is pul>licly avowed by anv de-
nomination of Christians whatever." Campbellisni
Mas not in existence then. "Certainly it is not bv
any within these kingdoms, whether of the estab-
lished Church or those dissenting from it. The judg-
ment of the latter is clearly declared in their large
Catechism :

"^Q. What are the parts of a sacrament?

"^^4. The parts of a sacrament are two; the one
an outward and sensible sign, the other an inward and
spiritual grace thereh)y signified.

'''Q. What is baptism?

" 'A. Baptism is a sacrament wherein Christ hath
ordained the washing with water to be a sign and seal
of regeneration by his Spirit.' Here, it is manifest,
baptism, the sign, is spoken of as distinct from regen-
eration, the thing signified. In the Church Catechism
likewise the judgment of our Church is disclosed with
the utmost clearness.

^^'Q. What meanest thou by this word sacrament ?

"'.4. I mean an outward and visible sign of an
inward spiritual grace.

" ^ Q. What is the outward part, or form, in baptism ?
Water, wherein the person is baptized in the
name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.

Q- What is the inward part or thing signified?

"M. A death unto sin, and a new life unto right-
eousness.'

AN APPEAL TO AUTHORITIES.

157

" ^N'othing, therefore, is plainer than that, accord-
ing to the Church of England, baptism is not the
new birth. But, indeed, the reason of the thing is
so clear and evident as not to need any other author-
ity. For what can be more plain than that the one
is an external, the other an internal work ; that the one
is a visible, the other an invisible thing, and therefore
wholly different from each other; the one being an
act of man purifying the body, the other a change
wrought by God in the soul; so that the former is
just as distinguishable from the latter as the soul
from the body, or water from the Holy Ghost

" From the preceding reflections we may, sec-
ondly, observe that as the new birth is not the same
thing with baptism, so it does not always accompany
baptism ; they do not constantly go together. A man
may possibly be ' born of the water,^ and yet not be
*born of the Spirit.' There may sometimes be the
outward sign where there is not the inward grace.
I do not now speak with regard to infants ; it is cer-
tain our Church [the Church of England] supposes
that all who are baptized in their infancy are born
again ; and it is allowed that the whole office for the
baptism of infants [in the Church of England] pro-
ceeds upon this supposition. Now, is it an objection
of any weight against this that we can not compre-
hend how this work can be wrought in infants? For
neither can we comprehend how it is wrought in per-
sons of riper years. But whatever be the case with

108

ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM.

inflmts, it is sure that all of riper years, who are bap-
tized, are not at the same time born again/'

To this might be added extensive quotations of a
similar import from other of his writings, showing that
in no sense was Wesley in agreement with Campbell on
the design of baptism.

Campbell and his followers often quote Wesley's
notes on Acts xxii, 16, where he says : " Baptism ad-
ministered to a real penitent is both a means and
seal of pardon. Xor did God in the primitive Church
ordinarily bestow this on any, unless through this
means." Here we have on the part of Campbell and
his followers a persistent confounding of means with
condition, and necessary condition. That may be a
means which is in no sense a condition, and much less a
necessary condition. Everything that helps to the
sinner's salvation is a means to that end. The Lord's
Supper has been such a means in many cases ; so also
a public confession in various ways has been a means
to the immediate pardon of sin.

And as to the second part of the statement, as to
primitive Christian times, baptism being the public
act of the espousal of Christ, and the breaking of caste
with heathenism, it is probable that Wesley's state-
ment was true in many instances, as it is to-day in
the heathen lands. Baptism performed thus, either in
sprinkling, pouring, or immersion, becomes the means
by which the confessor lays hold of Christ by faith
and secures the pardon of sin. But how absurd to

AN APPEAL TO AUTHORITIES.

159

attribute to the mere means an unconditional saving
efficacy, and say that the means is a condition with-
out which there can be no pardon of sin !

Methodists have been accustomed to make use of
a great diversity of means to help the inquiring soul
to complete heart faith in Christ, and often assure the
unconverted penitent that if he will exercise true faith
in the act of baptism he may be saved. If he has not
been saved then, but will afterward grasp in his mind
the full significance of his commitment and consecra-
tion to Christ in baptism, its blessed signification may
become a means of his salvation experimentally. And
he may ever afterwards look upon baptism as the
divinely appointed sign and symbol of his regenera-
tion, and seal of his covenant relation to God.

There is a world-wide difference between knowing,
through the witness of the Spirit, that I was saved when
I was baptized, and knowing that I have been saved
only because I have been baptized. In the first case,
the baptism performed in faith may be a blessed means;
in the other it is the saving condition that is to fur-
nish the only evidence of salvation, and as such can
only last so long as the individual is not a backslider.
When reclaimed from backsliding, he must have other
evidence. What shall it be ? It is a grave mistake
that the doctrines of the reformed Churches render
any support to this incongruous theory of the design
of baptism.

160

ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM.

CHAPTER XIII.

SUNDRY OBJECTIONS TO THE DOCTRINE.

The doctrine of Campbell and his followers is open
to a series of fatal objections, any one of which is
sufficient to show that it can not be a scheme con-
sistent with truth. Truth is harmonious, and revealed
truth must not be so interj)reted that it continually
conflicts with the soundest dictates of reason and
common sense.

The Lord said by the prophet Isaiah, * " Come,
now, let us reason together," placing thereby an honor
upon the proper use of reason, and especially in the
matter of pardon of sin. There must therefore be
unity, consistency, and adapation to human conditions
and needs in the scheme of salvation. Any interpre-
tation of it that makes it a failure through long ages,
and an impossibility under a diversity of circumstances,
over which free moral agents can have no control, is
too narrow for the abounding grace of God. And
Campellism is just such a system of interpretation, as
we hope to show most conclusively by these objections :

Fird. The system of doctrine declares the whole
evangelical dispensation a failure, absolute and unques-
tionable, from the days of the immediate successors of

*Isa. i, 18.

OBJECTIONS TO THE DOCTRINE. 161

the apostles, until the preaching of Alexander Campbell
and his coadjutors. Campbell has said;* It was in
this commonwealth (Kentucky) that this doctrine Avas
first publicly promulgated in modern times ; and it
has now spread over this continent, and with singular
success is now returning to Europe and the land of
our fathers." And in another place he substantially
makes the same claim.f It is true that he quotes
the primitive Christian fathers, and some of the creeds
of the Reformed Churches, and the teachings of the
leading commentators, to support his theory ; but this
declaration of the newness of this doctrine is far more
in harmony w^ith the facts than his use of these author-
ities, as we have shown in a former chapter. It would
be a very singular circumstance that a doctrine so vital
as that of the conditions essential to the remission of
sin should be accepted in creed and teaching, and
uniformly denied in practice, especially Avhen the con-
dition required was the observance of a Churchly
rite. The tendency of religious declension is not
toward spirituality, but toward form.

The objection, therefore, is valid, that if this doc-
trine be true, the Christian Church for fifteen centu-
ries has been a marvelous failure. The gates of hell
have prevailed against it from the third century of
tiie Christian era until the days of Alexander Camp-

* " Campbell and Rice," p. 472.

t" Christian System," pp. 8-10, and p. 180.

14

1G2

ERRORS OF CAMPRELLISM.

Ix'll. It must 1)0 nMiioinbcrcd tliat the doctrine is
vital, if it 1)0 true. Every sinner saved without im-
mersion as a condition to the remission of sins, is saved
outside the provisions of the covenant of grace, if saved
at all — saved alone through his ignorance. AVhat shall
we think of a doctrine so vital in the Chrislian svstem
as this must he, if true, and yet so obscure in Scripture
teaching that the great scholars of the Christian era
foiled to discover it, and conform to it?

What is true of the past is equpllv true of the
present ; for although Campbell and his followers
liave been publishing this doctrine for nearly three-
quarters of a century, yet the great body of evangel-
ical Churches have failed to subscribe to it, and have
therefore failed t<> find it in the Scriptures. Among
these are to ])e f(»und the vast majority of the most
eminent scholars of this intellectual and critical age —
scholars thoroughly versed in a knowledge of the
Scriptures. This failure must be ascribed either to
obscurity in the doctrine, or persistent prejudice in
the students of God's Word. The latter alternative
can scarcely be maintained, although some of these
teachers do not hesitate to put the rejection of this
doctrine on that ground. It is sometimes somewhat
toned down, and the failure to discover it is ascribed to
ignorance. Mr. Campbell himself puts it upon this
ground, at least by implication. He says:* "Infants,

* " Christian System," p. 233.

OBJECTIONS TO THE DOCTRINE. 163

idiots, deaf aud dumb persons, innocent pagans, wher-
ever they can be found, with all pious Piedobaptists we
commend to the mercy of God.'^ Then, further on, in
order to justify the hard uncharitableness of his doc-
trine, he says : " But such of them [Piedobaptists] as
willfully despise this salvation, and who, having the op-
portunity to be immersed for the remission of sins,
willfully despise or refuse, we have as little hope for
them as they have for all who refuse salvation on
their own terms of the gospel.'^ But this justification
will not do. Other Christian denominations do not
deny salvation to the penitent believer. Nor do they
hold any view that compels them to unchristianize
honest inquirers after the truth as it is in Christ.

Second. Akin to the objection just urged is this:
the doctrine makes it possible for the most perfect
human virtue, holiness, and devotion to Christ and his
cause to exist, without a fulfillment of all the condi-
tions of pardon of sin. Such names as Luther, Me-
lanchthon, Ridley, Latimer, Jerome of Prague, Huss,
AYesley, Fletcher, Payson, Guthrie, and Asbury will
occur to the reader, and a countless unnamed host be-
sides, who have toiled, sacrificed, suffered, denied them-
selves, wrought righteousness, and were Christian ben-
efactors to the sin-oppressed world. And yet they
failed in so essential a matter as the conditions of the
pardon of sin. It was in no minor matter, no in-
significant thing, in which they came short. It was
nothing less than tlie converting act; for Mr. Camp-

164 ERROBS OF CAMPBELLISM.

bell says : * " Immersion was [is] the act of turning
to God. . . . And from the day of Pentecost to
the final Amen in the revelation of Jesus Christ, no per-
son was said to be converted, or to turn to God, until
he was buried in and raised up out of the water."
And yet by the Savior's criterion we must know these
unconverted persons to be his, for he says : " By their
fruits ye shall know them." Where is the follower
of Campbell that has brought forth more of the fruits
of righteousness in holy consecrated living, than many
to be found in the Paedobaptist Churches?

Let it be observed that this righteousness must
exist without a fulfillment of the conditions to the
pardon of sinners — sinners unpardoned, yet bringing
forth all the fruits of righteousness.

Besides, these claim a consciousness of pardoned
sin in ''joy and peace in the Holy Ghost." Mr. Camj)-
beirs reply to this is : t " How far they may be happy
in the peace of God and the hot>e of heaven, I pre-
sume not to say. And we know so much of human
nature as to say, that he that imagines himself par-
doned will be as happy as he that is really so. But
one thing we do know, that none can rationally and
with certainty enjoy the peace of God and hope of
heaven but they who intelligently, and in full faith,
are born of water or immersed for the remission of
sins." It is plain from this statement, so positively

♦"Christian System," p. 209. t Id. p. 234.

OBJECTIONS TO THE DOCTRINE. 165

made, that Mr. Campbell, and likewise his followers,
predicate their assurance on their infallibility. If they
know, as he claims in the citation above, that immersion
in order to remission of sins is a necessary condition,
then they have assuranceof salvation. But if there is
the least particle of question as to this being a true
doctrine, there is just so much uncertainty in their
assurance, and they only " imagine they are saved.

But what must be the confusion in the mind of
any one who could perpetrate the following:* "And
as the testimony of God, and not conceit, imagination,
nor our reason upon what passes in our minds, is the
ground of our certainty, we see and feel we have an
assurance which they can not have?" There must first
be the "conceit" that despite the culture, piety, and
devotion of the residue of Christendom, he has dis-
covered the truth which they failed to discover, and
that he knows with certainty that he is right. He
fails to see what ought to be obvious to any careful
reasoner, that his assurance is predicated alone on a
process of " reasoning," which must of necessity be
fallible, and which if it err in any of its steps, leaves
him without any assurance whatever. But on the
contrary, the assurance he calls " conceit " and " im-
agination " is experimental and subjective, and the
product of faith in Christ, and actually gives its pos-
sessor joy and peace. Upon what is the believing

* " Christian System," p. 234.

166

ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM.

penitcut to base his conclusions, but upon the feeling
of non-condemnation, his assurance that his sin is par-
doned? It is all Mr. Camj)bell or his ft)llowers can
have after they have been baptized — a subjective as-
surance predicated on tlieir feeling and convictions.

But according to Mr. Campbell's statement of the
case, he is devoid of this assurance, for he was not
" intelligently immersed for the remission of sins.'*
He was baptized by Elder Luce, of the Baptist Church,
on the 12th of June, 1812.'^ Xow, in the debate with
Professor Rice, he declares that ^' some twenty years"
before this debate, and during his discussion with Mr.
McCalla, which was in 1823, he first preached the
doctrine of baptism as a condition to pardon of sin,
and all his statements go to show that he had not ap-
prehended his doctrine of baptismal remission until
eleven years after his baptism. In the paragraph
above quoted, f he says the experience of the first con-
verts— that is, the primitive Christians — shows the
difference between their immersion and the immer-
sions or sprinklings of modern gospels. Xow, then,
what is the difference between an immersion by the
Baptists and an immersion by him or his followers?
Solely a difference in design. Did A. Campbell de-
sign the remission of sin in his immersion? He sim-
ply received it on the belief that it was the proper

* " Memoirs of A. Campbell," p. 396.
t " Christian System," p. 234.

OBJECTIONS TO THE DOCTRINE. 1G7

mode, or, as he would say, " action,'' in baptism. His
was therefore one of the immersions he condemns,
and, ex necessitate rei, he is without a certainty of as-
surance.

This ad hominem argument lies as against his sys-
tem ; for conditions of salvation are such as must be
fulfilled by the free moral agent having God's gra-
cious pardon in view. Any merely accidental ful-
fillment of the condition will not suffice.

A minister of this belief, in a discussion with the
writer, replied to this argument by saying : " God, in
his mercy, would not reject any one who sought to
the best of his knowledge and ability to fulfill the
divine requirements, and therefore Brother Campbell's
baptism,' being performed in sincerity, was no doubt
accepted for the remission of his sins."

The reply was, that the statement concerning the
forbearance of God was fully accej^ted, and that it
required no further stretch of charity to save sincere
P^edobaptists. Yet still it remains that a matter so
essential as a condition to salvation is so obscure that
it took even Mr. Campbell eleven years from his bap-
tism to apprehend it, and multiplied thousands live
happy and die triumphant without complying with it.

Third. Again, it is an unanswerable objection to
this doctrine, that it is not and can not be consistently
carried out in practice.

Many who are not truly penitent believers are
baptized. Both faith and repentance must be thor-

1G8

ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM.

ougli and genuine, faitli of the ^'^^ " heart and
t godly sorrow/^

If they are not truly penitent believers, their bap-
tism must not be valid, and whenever they become
such they must be rebaptized. And it will be very
necessary that they wait at first until they are sure
that they are truly penitent. The fact is, that this
doctrine is compelled, by the difficulties that beset it,
to lay but little stress upon repentance and faith, and
all upon baptism.

AYe are aware that this is disclaimed; but it must
be admitted that there is a wide difference among
those that present themselves for baptism. Some are
serious, thoughtful, humble, and truly penitent, while
others evince but very little of these characteristics;
their profession is a mere form, scarcely producing in
them genuine sorrow for sin, and any earnest desire
to be cleansed from it. Now, in this latter class, is
the baptism a penitent believer's baptism? If it is
not, then it must needs be performed again after the
individual becomes a penitent believer. More than
this, because of the misleading influence of a baptism
performed under the conditions described above, would
it not of necessity be an important thing to inquire as
to the genuineness of the repentance and the faith be-
fore baptism ?

The only appearance of an escape from this di-

*Rora. X, 10. t2 Cor. vii. 10, 11, and Acts xx, 21.

OBJECTIONS TO THE DOCTRINE.

169

lemma is to assume that when the individual does be-
come a penitent believer in the true sense of the term,
he may appropriate his baptism before performed for
his salvation. But the baptism by the assumption is
made an impenitent's baptism. This is a tremendous
stride beyond infant baptism. There is no escape
from this objection, except to claim that all who pre-
sent themselves for baptism among them are penitent
believers in the strictest sense. A claim that nobody
will admit.

Fourth. Again, a very pertinent objection to this
scheme of doctrine is, that it requires a diversity of
conditions under the different dispensations of grace —
one in the Patriarchal age, another in the Mosaic,
and still another in the Christian — thus destroying the
unity of the divine plan. Yea, more, the Savior broke
in upon the established divine plan by saving the sick
of the palsy,^ the woman that w^as a sinner,t and the
thief on the cross, | outside the established conditions,
and simply upon repentance and faith. It has been
fully shown in a preceding chapter how baseless the
assumptions of this doctrine of positive institutes;
but the objection alleged is, that it makes God vary
in the conditions to the pardon of sins in the differ-
ent dispensations. It is not a sufficient answer to this
objection that God required duties under the Mosaic
dispensation that he does not now require. These

*Matt. ix, 2. tLuke vii, 48. t Luke xxiii, 43.
15

170

ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM.

duties were not conditions to the pardon of sin, but
obligations belonging to a righteous life. God is no
respecter of persons in the conditions to salvation,
and can not be, for he is just and impartial. Repent-
ance and faith are universal and indisputable condi-
tions. Rites are in no sense necessary, but are simply
expressions of faith, which may, and does, exist with-
out them.

Fifth. AVe object to this doctrine because it can
not be preached, and can not be made applicable
to the conditions and circumstances of all sinners.
Christians may, and often do, backslide ; and when
they are reclaimed they must rej>ent of their sins, be-
lieve on the Lord Jesus Christ as at first, and, if bap-
tism is a part of the condition, they should be bap-
tized. But Campbell and his followers will not
rebaptize ; therefore they occupy this anomalous jk>-
sition, that they refuse to a sinner a part of the con-
dition to salvation, or they say the conditions to sal-
vation are not the same to all penitent believers.

An attempt is made to evade this difficulty by
claiming that baptized persons are naturalized citi-
zens of the kingdom of Christ, and therefore can be
restored through prayer. But this leads to this ab-
surdity that an individual whom God has rejected
is still, because of his baptism, a citizen of the king-
dom of heaven. Baptism gives the title to citizen-
ship, however vile the individual may be ; and if he
remains unrepentant until death, it will result in this.

OBJECTIONS TO THE DOCTRINE. Ill

that a citizen of the kingdom of heaven will reach the
kingdom of darkness at last, and yet, by virtue of his
baptism, be a member of the kingdom of heaven.

Sixth. Again, is it not a singular doctrine that
makes the outbreaking backslider a child of the king-
dom of heaven, and at the same time makes an alien
of the virtuous and upright child of Christian parents,
simply because it has not been ascertained whether he
is old enough for the so-called believer^s baptism?
But children belong to the kingdom of heaven ;
Christ so declares it.* If so, when do they cease to
be such? When do they become aliens, that they
need to be naturalized ? t A child forfeits his place
in the kingdom, according to Campbell, but a bap-
tized backslider never. What a jumble of inconsist-
encies is involved in making this doctrine harmonize!

Among the denominations of professing Chris-
tians, there is none that the logic of their position
more requires to be believers in infant baptism than
these, for then the Christian could be taught by his
parents to pray ; but now, being born an alien, he
has, to use their language, none of the rights of peti-
tion. This belongs to citizens. Let it be remarked,
that Psedobaptists do not baptize children to make
them members of the kingdom of heaven, except in
its outward or visible conditions, and the right to
baptize them is predicated on the fact that they are

* Matt, xviii, 16. t " Christian System," p. 191.

172

ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM.

already members of the invisible kingdom of heaven.
But the absurdity of this position does not end here.
Mr. Campbell makes the assurance of the Christian to
depend on the fact of his intelligent immersion for
the remission of sins." * Xow, the backslider, having
no immersion for the remission of sins as a backslider,
must be devoid of assurance, or must receive his as-
surance from repentance and faith exercised by him
for the remission of sins. But where is the Chris-
tian who is not conscious of shortcomings, back-
slidings, omissions of duty, sins of haste and passion,
that he feels must be forgiven, or he be at last brought
under condemnation ? If he finds forgiveness, it must
be "by repentance toward God, and faith toward the
Lord Jesus Christ f and his assurance of this for-
giveness can not be founded on his baptism in any
sense, because the condemnation from which he seeks
release is subsequent to the baptism. How can he
make that act accrue to his remission of sin that was
previous to his sin for which he seeks remission?
The plain fact is, this doctrine of remission and assur-
ance runs a tilt against all reason and common sense.

Seventh. Again, we object to this doctrine because
it makes that a condition to the pardon of sin which a
person can not perform for himself. He is dependent
upon another sinner, who must exercise the priestly
prerogative of bringing him into the pardon of sin.

* " Christian System," p. 234. t Acts xx, 21.

OBJECTIONS TO THE DOCTBISE. 173

It is a sheer evasion to retort that we are dependent
upon our fellow-men for the word of life. The word
of life is not a condition to the pardon of sin. AVe
use the term condition here in the sense of a free
moral act to be performed by the seeker. If I can not
get this word of life, I am not held responsible for it.
I am only responsible when it is positively accessible
to me and I reject it. I may be saved without it ;
but I can not be saved without repentance or faith in
Christ. All the heathen that are saved, are saved
alone through their knowledge and trust in God,
through their belief in him as they know him.

But this doctrine says the penitent sinner can not
alone perform the conditions, must be lost, despite his
repentance and faith, unless he has another sinner
with him to put him into the water. These surely
are priestly prerogatives without parallel.

Eighth. Again, we object to this doctrine because
it makes salvation impossible under numerous circum-
stances and contingencies, — absence of water, in sick-
ness, in prison, on a dying bed. It can not be that a
righteous and merciful God has so hedged the way
to salvation about with conditions that penitent souls
must be sent to perdition because of mere physical
contingencies. There are large territories on this
globe where a sufficient quantity of water could not
possibly be procured for the purposes of immersion.
In other words, there are zones where souls can not
be saved; or else the Almighty must be continually

174

ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM.

altering the conditions of salvation because of these
physical contingencies.

There have come under the observation of the
writer several cases ^vhere repentance and faith in
Christ were exercised on the death-bed, and the per-
sons received the joyful assurance of salvation, and
were enabled to die triumphant; and yet baptism was
not administered at all, because the friends and pastors
of these sick ones did not believe in any thing but
immersion. It is an assumption, we think, too ultra
for the most audacious dogmatism to send these re-
deemed souls to perdition for want of an immersion,
and to attribute their joyful assurance to a deception.
But if they were saved, then it follows that baptism
is not a necessary condition to the pardon of sin.
But repentance and faith were necessary, and it is this
element of necessity that enters into all conditions
of salvation.

JUSTIFICAT10:S BY FAITH.

175

CHAPTER XIV.

JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH VERSUS WORKS.

Faith in Christ as the only antecedent and neces-
sary condition to the pardon of sin or to justification,
is the great and distinguishing doctrine of the Refor-
mation. It was from this invuhierable bulwark of
gospel truth that the papacy was assailed and de-
feated. Yet it is this doctrine that meets the most
bitter antagonism from Mr. Campbell and his fol-
lowers. It is the word only, in the evangelical creeds,
that awakens their most intense opposition. They as-
sume that justification by faith onlijy means justification
without Christ, without the word of truth, without
grace, etc.^ They usually quote a fraction of the
ninth article of the Methodist Articles of Religion,
and present it to the public as teaching that the
Methodist Episcopal Church holds that the sinner is
justified without grace, without Christ, without any
other agency or instrumentality than faith. The
writer once received a challenge for a discussion from
one of their representative men, who asked him to
affirm the words: AVherefore, that we are justified
by faith alone is a most wholesome doctrine and very

-"Christian System," p. 247.

17G

ERRORS OF CAMPBELLrSM.

full of comfort." To this he responded: "These
words, in separation from the rest of the article, do
not represent our belief; but I am quite williug to
affirm the entire article; Avill you deny it?'' To
which he replied that he did not wish to deny the
whole proposition. This incident is given to show
the fact of the misrepresentation of our doctrine so
prevalent among them. Some Methodist ministers
have been drawn by them into an affirmation of this
fragment of this article.

The article, as a whole, sets forth an unassailable
statement of doctrine, and the first part of it clearly
defines what is meant by the conclusion with which
the article ends. " We are accounted righteous before
God, only for the merit of our Lord and Savior Jesus
Christ, by faith, and not for our own works or de-
servings." It is plain to any unprejudiced reader
that '^fiiith only" is faith in Christ. Faith must
have an object, and that is defined in a former
part of the article. It is plain also that " faith
only" is in antithesis to "our own works and deserv-
ings." "It is by faith that it might be by grace."*
Yet the followers of A. Campbell scarcely refer
to this article of religion that they do not misrepre-
sent it and the teaching of the Methodist Episcopal
Church.

What is the question at issue? Simply this: On

* Rom. iv, 16.

JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH.

177

v»^hat condition can the penitent sinner be justified ?
Not what God must do or Christ has done to make
justification possible; not what must be done fov sin-
ners who are ignorant of the plan of salvation; not
what impenitent sinners must do; but what must the
penitent sinner do, who, like the Philippian jailer,
asks, "What must I do to be saved?"* It simply
serves to produce confusion to begin to talk of " seven
causes'' of justification. It is readily admitted that
there are causes meritorious, efficacious, gracious, in-
strumental, helpful; but what is the conditio7ial cause ,
the act the sinner must perform as a condition to the
pardon of sin.

Again, let it be borne in mind, that it is not what
the Christian must do to be justified as a Christian.
The Christian must obey the divine commandments to
the best of his ability — all the commands. Among these,
and only important as a Churchly rite, is baptism by
water. This distinction, so obvious to unbiased stu-
dents of the divine economy, clearly reconciles the
apostle James's statements with the teachings of the
apostle Paul. (James ii, 17-26.) James is treating
of the justification of the righteous, not of sinners.
Abraham is justified by faith and works before God
when he offers up Isaac twenty-two years after he
was justified by faith without works, according to the
apostle Paul. (Rom. iv, 1-12.)

* Acts xvi. 30.

178 ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM.

Campbell and bi.s followers are ready on all occasions
to cite the apostle James as condemning the doctrine of
the justification of the penitent sinner by faith alone, and
as supporting their theory of justification by baptism.
And in so doing they present themselves in the in-
consistent attitude of at one time holding that baptism
is one of the works upon which sinners are justified,
and then again that it is not a work. For by their
interpretation of Titus iii, 5, '^Xot by works of right-
eousness which we have done, but according to his
mercy he saved us by the washing of regeneration,
and the renewing of the Holy Ghost," they make
the washing of regeneration" to be baptism, and, if
baptism, then it is in direct antithesis to works of
righteousness," which are excluded by the apostle as
not having anything to do with our salvation. (So
also Eph. ii, 8, 9.) Now, either baptism is or is not a
" work of righteousness." If it is, it does not save
us; if it is not, then what has the justification taught
l)y James to do with the salvation of the sinner?
The followers of Campbell must decide just what dis-
position they will make of baptism. If it is a work,
then it is excluded from the justification of the sinner;
if they deny that it is a work, then they must give up
their favorite quotation from James.

Mr. Campbell seeks to save his system from the
charge that it teaches salvati(ni by works, by claim-
ing a peculiar excellence for ba2)tism as an act of

JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH.

179

faith. Under the caption, * " Immersion not a Mere
Bodily Act/' he says: "Views of baptism as a mere ex-
ternal and bodily act, exert a very injurious influence
on the understanding and practice of men. Hence
many ascribe to it but little importance in the Chris-
tian economy. ^ Bodily exercise/ says Paul, ' profits
little.^ We have been taught to regard immersion in
water into the name of the Father, the Son, and the
Holy Spirit. The soul of the intelligent subject is as
fully immersed into the Lord Jesus as his body is in
the water, as an act of the whole man — body, soul, and
spirit. His soul rises with the Lord Jesus, as his
body rises out of the water; and into one spirit with
all the family of God is he immersed.

If "immerson is not a mere bodily act," what is
it ? The condition of heart and mind is no more
a part of immersion than it is of sprinkling or pour-
ing. In other words, the heart can be just as humble,
trustful, submissive, along with affusion as with im-
mersion. And if the essential thing is the purpose of
heart and mind, why lay the stress on the bodily act?
What an absurd idea that " the soul of the intelligent
subject is as fully immersed into the Lord Jesus Christ
as his body is immersed in the w^ater.'' This is a
mysticism that surpasses everything that has come
within the knowledge of the writer. If baptism is a

♦"Christian System/' p. 246.

180

ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM.

spiritual change wrought within us, then water bap-
tism is a mere bodily act — a shadow, a symbol. How
are we immersed (baptized) into the Lord Jesus?
Not into water " into the Lord Jesus,'' for the act
terminates with the immersion in the water. So if
you are baptized into the Lord Jesus, some other
agency must accomplish this work. The very con-
fusion Mr. Campbell gets into here is a manifest token
of the inconsistency of the whole theory.

This doctrine, then, is contradicted by numerous
clear and explicit passages that ascribe salvation to
faith without any thing else — faith alone as a con-
dition. By the word condition we mean that which a
free, moral agent is required to perform Vi?, his personal
act to secure pardon or justification. Condition must
be distinguished from means. Christ is the meritorious
means ; the Holy Ghost, the efficacious means; the word
of divine truth, the instrumental means ; and baptism
or the Lord's Supper, the helpful means, to the per-
formance of the condition — faith in Christ.

By faith in Christ we do not mean simply intel-
lectual faith or the mind's assent to truth recognized;
that faith that is the result of evidence understood ;
for that is a necessitated faith — a compelled faith.
Man is so constituted intellectually that when he ap-
prehends the truth, he must believe it. He may deny
it ; and previous to his knowledge he may refuse to
see it or the evidence for it ; but if once he sees the
evidence, he must accept the truth, if the evidence

JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH.

181

is clear and explicit. Hence Campbell is wrong when
he sets forth faith as the simple ''belief of the truth on
testimony, and never can be more nor less than that.^^ ^
Saving or justifying faith is an unnecessitated act of
the soul. It is predicated upon some intellectual be-
lief. The believer accepts as true the gospel of Christ,
and then believes in, on, or upon him as his personal
Savior. And this faith is the heart faith spoken of
by Paul. Rom. x, 10 : For Avith the heart man be-
lieveth into righteousness.^' In this faith the will sub-
mits to the will of Christ, and the affections cling to
him as a Savior. Thus intellect, will, and sensibilities
are employed in this faith. Mr. Campbell's faith can
be, and no doubt is, exercised by devils, for they know
the truth of these things. Again, this faith crowns a
genuine repentance. Whenever a genuine godly sor-
row for sin exists, it will ultimate in this faith. So godly
sorrow and faith are inseparable in this, that faith implies
godly sorrow, and godly sorrow in its completest exer-
cise takes hold upon Christ. It is sorrow for Jesus' sake.

By faith only, we mean that faith is that without
which no adult sinner can be justified, and that which
when a penitent sinner has, he is justified whatever
else he may have or not have. Faith in Christ justi-
fies the sinner without works. No truth could be
more specifically stated and fully elaborated than this
has been by the apostle Paul in Rom. iii, 20-31,

♦"Christian System," p. 53.

182

ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM.

and iv, 1-25. He here sets forth that the sinner —
mark, the sinner — is "jnstified by faith without the
deeds of the law." What law does he refer to ? Evi-
dently the moral law; for in verse 29 he presents the
Gentiles and the Jews as the subjects of this law, and
the Gentiles never had any law but a moral law.

Again, he sets forth the justification of Abraham
as a type of the justification of all. Abraham was
justified by faith without works. ^' For if Abraham
were justified by works he had whereof to glory ; but
not before God. For what saith the Scripture?
Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him
for righteousness.'' It is clear that the works here
spoken of could not be works of the Mosaic law, but
works of the moral law. And then to show how
completely justification is independent of all ritual
performances, as baptism, he shows that Abraham was
justified before he was circumcised. ^' For we say
that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness.
How was it then reckoned? when he was in circum-
cision or in uncircumcision ? Not in circumcision,
but in uncircumcision." Then he shows the office of
circumcision, and the relation wherein Abraham and his
justification stand to all believers. "And he received
the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness
of the faith which he had, yet being uncircumcised ;
that he might be the father of all them that believe,
though they be not circumcised ; that righteousness
might be imputed to them also." Now, if this argu-

JUSTIFICA TION B Y FAITH. 1 83

ment of the apostle teaches anything, it teaches that
justification can not be predicated upon any works
whatever. But, if possible, the apostle is still more
explicit in excluding everything but faith as the con-
dition to the sinner^s justification, in Gal. ii, 16. We
quote from the Revised Version : Yet knoAving that
a man is not justified by the works of the law, save
[marginal reading *but only'] through faith in Jesus
Christ, even we believed on Christ Jesus, that we
might be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the
works of the law.'' Now, no amount of verbal shuf-
fling with seven causes," more or less, of the sinner's
justification can set aside the manifest import of this
language.

Mr. Braden, in his discussion with Mr. Hughey,*
suras up the result of his investigation of Romans
iii and iv, after this fashion: ^^Now, reasons Paul,
this was before the law was given, or before he was
circumcised, or he had done a single thing required in
the law. Then, if God could justify Abraham before
the law and without it, he can now justify men after
the law, when it has been abolished, by faith in Jesus,
just as he justified Abraham for faith in himself, with-
out the law, before it was given." A more baseless
assumption could not well be conceived than this,
upon which this attempt at an explanation is predi-
cated. It is assumed that Paul here refers to the

* " Hughey and Braden," p. 535.

184

ERRORS OF CAMPBEI.LISM.

ceremonial law, an assumption generally made by
followers of Campbell. In ch. iii, 10, the apostle
says: ''Now we know that what things soever the
law saith, it saith to them that are under the law, that
every mouth may be st()j)ped, and all the world be-
come guilty before God/' Now, what law is it that
makes "a// tJie world guilty before God?'' It cer-
tainly is not the ceremonial law. Again, verse 29
says: "Do we then make void the law through faith?
God forbid: yea, we establish the law." What law?
the ceremonial law? Evidently not.

But Mr. Braden here admits that Abraham was jus-
tified "before the law, and without it." If so, as an
example for us, we must be justified without it;
namely, the whole law of God, and baptism is a part
of that law.

Again, Mr. Braden asks in this connection : " Had
he [Abraham] believed God, and remained in Ur of the
Chaldees, would he have been justified by faith alone?"
He would have lost his justification. Was he not
justified until he started on his journey? The same
question might be asked at any stage of Abraham's
life. To show its pertinency, Mr. Braden believes
that as soon as the penitent believer is baptized he is
justified. Suppose, then, he stops in a righteous life
just there, would he be justified? The simple ques-
tion is, When was Abraham justified? The only an-
swer is, The moment he believed in God.

In Eph. ii, 8-10, the apostle Paul excludes from the

JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH.

185

salvation of the sinner, all works of righteousness, say-
ing : For by grace are ye saved through faith, and that
not of yourselves ; it is the gift of God. Not of works,
lest any man should boast. For we are his workman-
ship created in Christ Jesus unto good works. The
works that are here excluded, are not simply the works
of the law, but all good works, especially those that
belong to the gospel dispensation, for the very works
that are excluded are the works that come after the
sinner is created in Christ Jesus," — " a new crea-
tion." * Now, Christian baptism is a good work."
If so, it must come after the new creation. The doc-
trine here inculcated is this, that " good works " must
have a good source, as good fruit can alone spring
from a good tree, f I suppose that they will not
claim that baptism is not a good work, or a work at
all. If they should do so, then they must give up, as
already shown, their favorite quotation. Salvation then
is ^'by grace," and through faith," and "not of
works," which makes it a salvation through faith
alone, so far as the human side of it is concerned, /. e.,
the sinner's condition or act of acceptance.

*2 Cor. V, 17. tMatt. xii, 33.

16

186

ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM.

CHAPTER XV.

CAMPBELLISM ON THE OPERATION OF THE
HOLY GHOST.

It is somewhat difficult to get a clear and concise
understanding of just what Alexander Campbell held
with reference to the influence and operation of the
Holy Ghost in human hearts. At one time he seems
to be almost at one with the other evangelical de-
nominations; at another, he seems to hold the view
that the Holy Ghost does not in any manner impress
human hearts, aside from the influence of the Bible
teachings on the understandings and judgments of
men. One thing is certain, however, his followers have
reached stability of view in this matter, and very
promptly reject all immediate impression upon human
hearts by the personal Divine Spirit. However, there is
this one point upon which they and their great leader
concur; they agree in denying any immediate and per-
sonal influence of the Holy Ghost upon the heart of
the sinner previous to conversion. With them there
is no such thing as conviction by the Spirit. It is
simply the convincing of the judgment, wrought by
the naked word.

As already intimated, consistency requires that

OPERATION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 187

they deny the immediate influence of the Spirit, both
in and after conversion. For if there be such a thing
as the presence and immediate influence of the Spirit
upon the heart after conversion, it follows that such
presence and influence felt must be the testimony to
such heart of divine acceptance, and at once the theory
that the fact of obedience to the divine command-
ments is the pledge of pardon, is set at naught.
Hence Campbellism can not allow the doctrine of the
direct w^itness of the Spirit; for if this is conceded, on
what ground can they refuse to accept the salvation
of many who are not baptized according to their view,
who testify that they have the witness of the Spirit
to their salvation?

But we prefer to let Campbell and subsequent ex-
ponents of his doctrine state their belief in this matter.
Mr. Campbell says : * " The Spirit of God inspired
all the spiritual ideas in the New Testament, and con-
firmed them by miracles ; and he is ever present with
the word he inspired. He descended from heaven on
the day of Pentecost, and has not formally ascended
since. In the sense in which he descended, he cer-
tainly has not ascended, for he is to animate and in-
spire with new life the church or temple of the Lord.
^ Know ye not,' you Christians, ^ that your bodies are
temples of the living God?' ^ The temple of God is
holy ; which temple you are.' ' If the Spirit of him

* " Christian System, " p. 64.

188

ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM.

that raised up Jesiis from the dead dwell in you,
God shall quicken your mortal bodies by his Sjjirit
that dicelleth in you.' Now, we can not separate the
Spirit and word of God, and ascribe so much power
to one, and so much power to the other; for so did
not the apostles. Whatever the word does, the Spirit
does; and whatever the Spirit does in the work of
converting men, the W'ord does. We neither believe
nor teach abstract Spirit, nor abstract word, but word
and Spirit, Spirit and word.''

We doubt if it is posssible to find in the entire
range of theological discussion a more confused and
incoherent statement of doctrine than this. At one
time you are led to believe that its author accepts the
doctrine of the immediate presence of the Divine
Spirit in human hearts; then again this is all set aside
by putting the Spirit in some indefinable way in the
word. What can he mean by " Spirit and word "
not "abstract" from each other? Does the Spirit, as
a divine personal influence, go along with the word
to make it more potent than its unattended truths
would be to human understanding, judgment, and con-
science ? If he means this, we can in thought abstract
the Spirit in his influence, from the influence of the
naked word. Again, does the Spirit always attend
the word, so that to human minds the two are in-
separable ?

In the very next paragraph he heightens this con-
fusion by saying : " But the Spirit is not promised to

OPERATION OF THE HOLY GHOST. 189

any persons out of Christ. It is only promised to them
that believe and obey him/' And this leads to the
inquiry, How can this be if the convicted sinner had
both Spirit and ^yord before, in what sense different
do the persons in Christ have the Spirit now, than
they had before they obeyed God? Is the Spirit in
the word for the unconverted sinner, or is it for him
just the naked word? If the Spirit and the word go
together in convincing the sinner, it can not be said
that the Spirit is not promised to any one out of
Christ,'* and on the contrary, if this statement is true,
the Spirit is not in the word in any comprehensible
sense.

But Mr. Campbell says : The Spirit is promised
to them that believe and obey Christ,'' to "assist
them," to "help their infirmities," to "produce in
them the fruits of ^ love, joy, peace, long-suffering,
gentleness, fidelity, meekness, temperance.' " How
can this be, and the Spirit not be abstract from the
word? And how can it be, and the individual not be
conscious of it? If he is conscious of a divine "as-
sistance," joy, peace, love," has he not a direct wit-
ness of his acceptance with God, and is not that better
testimony than such an assurance to be deduced from
the fact of baptism ?

But Mr. Campbell was forced to define himself
more perfectly than he has done in the " Christian
System." In his debate with Professor Rice, he af-
firmed the following proposition : " In conversion and

190

ERRORS OF CAMPBELLJSM.

sanctification the Spirit of God operates on persons
only through the word." Xow, in order to get at
his belief, there is only one term in the proposition
that we need to have him define ; namely, sanctifiea-
tion — this he defines * as a progressive work. To
sanctify is to set apart ; this may be done in a moment,
and so far as mere state or relation is concerned it is as
instantaneous as baptism. But there is the formation of
a holy character; for there is a holy character as well
as a holy state. The formation of such a character is
the work of means. . . . Therefore it is the duty
and Avork of Christians ^ to perfect holiness in the fear
of the Lord.' So that by sanctification here is meant
all the subsequent development and culture of the
Christian character into ripeness for heaven.

This proposition therefore is explicit as teaching
that the Holy Ghost does not operate directly or im-
mediately upon the heart of either saint or sinner.
We are led to believe that the controversies into which
this man was drawn by his system of doctrine, com-
pelled Jiim to take a position consistent with himself.
The '^Christian System" was written some nine years
before his discussion with Professor Rice. We may,
for this reason consider the ideas advanced in his dis-
cussion with Dr. Rice as his more mature views, and
these are the views usually held and inculcated by his
followers.

Christian System," p. 65.

OPERATION OF THE HOLY GHOST. 191

But the reader may ask, Do they then deny all
experimental religion? Do they not believe in joy
and peace as positive facts of Christian experience?
They claim they do not, that they do believe in a re-
ligion felt in the heart. They even talk of the gifts
of the Spirit — " love, joy, peace, meekness," and the
like — as being the Christian's peculiar heritage, as
see " Christian System," p. 267. But Avhen they are
questioned carefully as to their real meaning, it is
discovered that this experience is altogether the re-
sult of subjective mental processes. That is to say, it
is not wrought by any direct or personal communica-
tion of the Spirit, but is the result of personal belief,
a mere deduction from the fact that they have obeyed
Avhat they suppose are the requirements in order to
salvation. In other words, there is no spiritual change
wrought by direct divine interposition, no witness of
the Divine Spirit. But the change is altogether
wrought by themselves, and the approval of their con-
sciences for doing what they suppose is right, is the
only source of peace, joy, love,'' etc. So it is at
once manifest that they do not mean what evangelical
Christians do by a change of heart or conversion.
AVhile these last by conversion mean a twofold
work — a work of the sinner in turning to God, and
a work of God in pardoning and renewing by divine
interposition — the followers of Campbell mean simply
the turning about of the sinner, and the pardoning
act of God, which takes place only in the divine mind;

192

ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM.

and the sinner's joy comes from believing it has taken
j)lace, because he has obeyed what he believes are the
commandments in order to remission of sin.

Now, let it be observed that this is no operation
of the Spirit in any reasonable sense. It is a misuse
of language to speak of this being either operation or
witness of the Spirit. It is simply the influence of
the word in the convictions as it may be understood
by a merely fallible being, and the Holy Spirit is in
no proper sense present. All of this too, as has been
before indicated, is the outgrowth of the doctrine that
makes baptism a necessary condition to the pardon of
sin. It is this legal system that compels the elimina-
tion of the Holy Ghost in his office of reproving, re-
generating, witnessing, comforting, helping, from the
" Christian System." For the sake of water baptism
as a condition to remission of sins, the Church must
be robbed of her heritage in the Holy Ghost.

But we will now review some of the arguments
by which it is sought to maintain the doctrine that
in conversion and sanctification the Spirit of God
operates on persons only through the word.'' *

The first argument is what Mr. Campbell claims to
adduce from the ^^constitution of the human mind.^f
In this connection he claims that "all our ideas of the
sensible universe are the result of sensation and re-
flection,'' and "all our supernatural knowledge comes

* " Campbell and Rice," p. 611. t Id. pp. 617, 618.

OPERATION OF THE HOLY GHOST. 193

wholly ^by faith/ and ^ faith by heariug."' ... So
that we have (1) the word spoken^ (2) hearing, (3)
believing, (4) feeling, (5) doing.'^ We are also told
in this same connection that ^' faith is the belief of
testimony/' and is the ''regenerating, justifying,
sanctifying principle. It will be difficult for any
one to see how, admitting these assumptions to be
true, just as Campbell posits them, the immediate
operation of the Holy Spirit is excluded. Suppose
that with the word spoken, there goes a spiritual influ-
ence that does not go Avith any other than with God's
revealed truth. There is nothing in the nature of the
word or in the constitution of the human mind to pre-
clude it. Is not this just what our Savior promises in
John xvi, 7-11: "For if I go not away, the Com-
forter will not come unto you ; but if I depart I will
send him unto you. And when he is come, he will
reprove the world of sin, of righteousness, and of
judgment. Of sin, because they believed not on me ;
of righteousness, because I go to my Father and ye
see me no more; of judgment, because the prince of
this w^orld is judged." The obvious meaning of this
passage is this, that the Comforter, in precisely the same
personage that he was to come to the apostles, was to
"reprove the world." It can not for one moment be
denied that this is the personal Holy Spirit that here,
under the appellation of " the Comforter," Avas prom-
ised to the apostles. And this additional fact must

be taken into consideration in the interpretation of

17

194

ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM.

this passage ; namely, that the fundaraeutal doctrines
of the gospel were already in the world ; but this
divine "Advocate^' was to come to be the advocate
of God's 'cause with man — in his judgment, con-
science, and heart — was to be sent by the Son from the
Father.

Mr. Campbell says feeling" comes by "believing
or faith,'' and that faith is the belief of testimony."
Does believing the testimony of the apostles " al-
ways and invariably produce ^'feeling?" This will
hardly be maintained. If it does not, then what pro-
duces feeling at one time that at another does not?
And again, is there any reason that can be assigned
why God can not impress the moral or spiritual sen-
sibilities aside from the truth ? Let it not be forgot-
ten that the argument proceeds on the assumption that
there is something in the constitution of the human
mind that precludes the possibility of the immediate
impression of the Spirit. If it can be shown, as has
been done above, that this is not necessarily so,
and that nothing is more reasonable than that God,
who is the author of the human spirit, can impress
it, the whole argument fails to the ground as uttc^rly
baseless.

But the arguments of Campbellism are all aimed
at a figment of their imagination. Those who believe
in the operation of the Holy Ghost immediately upon
the hearts of men, do not believe that this is done
without and aside from any intellectual convictions.

OPERATION OF THE HOLY GHOST.

195

from any belief whatever in moral truth. Intellect-
ual belief comes from a knowledge of moral truth,
and this belief is shaped by the knowledge, and ujjon
this belief is founded conviction ; and what is to pre-
vent the Holy Ghost from making this belief the
basis of a keen " reproof of sin, of righteousness, and
of judgment?" When, therefore, Mr. Campbell said,^
They have the spirit of God operating without testi-
mony, without apprehension or comprehension, without
sense, suceptibility, or feeling," he was either grossl}'
ignorant of the views of the evangelical Churches, or
he was indulging in special pleading wholly unworthy
a controversy on matters so vitally important. The
misfortune, however, is, that he has bequeathed a very
large legacy of the same kind to his followers, who
are wont to make the doctrine of the immediate oper-
ation of the Holy Ghost a subject of ridicule and ir-
reverent contempt.

For a wholesale ex cathedra deliverance, that dis-
plays the spirit of an arrant dogmatist, the following
can scarcely be excelled if I, therefore, ex animOy
repudiate their whole theory of mystic influence and
metaphysical regeneration as a vision of visions, a
dream of dreams, at war with philosophy, with the
philosophy of mind, with the Bible, with reason, with
common sense, and with all Christian experience."
If vociferous assertion would settle a question, this

*" Campbell and Rice," p. 619. t Id. p. 619.

196 ERRORS OF CAMPBELLTSM.

whole dispute would have been settled long since; for
this is the method with which they customarily meet
the question. It certainly is not unphilosophical to
say God can directly impress human minds and hearts.
He who made conscience to say, Thou art guiltv,"
Thou art condemned/' can make himself felt in con-
science bringing pardon and peace. He who could
^* move holy men of old " to write his revelation to men,
can certainly make penitent hearts to feel that their sins
are pardoned. It certainly is not uuscriptural to say,
"The Spirit himself beareth witness witli our spirits
that we are the children of God.'^ Nor is it contrary
to Christian experience ; for the hymnody of the Chris-
tian ages bears testimony to the fact that it always
has been the belief of Christians that Christ did send
the Holy Spirit of promise to abide with the Church
forever, and the only antagonism this doctrine meets
is from this very modern source.

Mr. Campbell's second argument is characterized
by the same total misapprehension of the real issue.
He says:* "Our second argument is deduced from
the fact that no living man has ever been heard of,
and none can now be found, possessed of a single con-
ception of Christianity, of one spiritual thought, feel-
ing, or emotion, where the Bible or some tradition
from it has not been before him. Where the Bible
has not been sent, or its traditions developed, there

» " Campbell and Rice," p. 019.

OPERATION OF THE HOLY GHOST. 197

is not one single spiritual idea, word, or action/'
He then infers from these sweeping assumptions that
the Holy Spirit has never operated on human hearts
where the Bible or some truth from it has not gone,
and then makes the following deduction : " If, then,
he has never operated in this way where the Bible has
never gone, who can prove that he so operates here
where the Bible is enjoyed The assumptions con-
tained in the first part of this quotation are not only
wholly unsupported by the evidence, but they are
positively contrary to fact. People who have not
the Bible, and never had it, are not absolutely ^' with-
out one spiritual thought, feeling, or emotion." The
apostle Paul said of the heathen of his day, Pom. ii,
14, 15: ''These having not the law are a law unto
themselves, which show the work of the la,w written
in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness,
and their thoughts the meanwhile accusing or excusing
one another.'^ And this has been found true of the
heathen of all ages. If Campbell and his followers
admit the salvation of any heathen without the gospel,
they must admit that such as are saved must have had
" spiritual thoughts, feelings, and emotions.'' The fact
is, the Lord said of the antediluvians, and that, too,
before a single word of the Scriptures had been written.
Gen. vi, 3 : " My Spirit shall not always strive with
man.'' Heathenism has presented such spiritual char-
acters as a Socrates, a Plato, an Epictetus, a Sen-
eca, a Confucius, and imdoubtedly an unnamed host

198

ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM.

besides. How can these be accounted for if CampbelPs
assertions are true? Again, how can the intense, ago-
nizing search after spiritual truth by the philosopher
Justin and Clement of Alexandria be accounted for
Avithout admitting that they were following the lead-
ing of the Divine Spirit?

So far are these assertions from being true, that
man everywhere, and in all ages, has given indication
of an unsatisfied heart and a troubled conscience on
the subject of liis spiritual well-being. His smoking
altars, his ministering priests, his hecatombs of bleed-
ing victims, his prayers, his lustrations, his attempts
at expiating his sins by his own sufferings, all give
token that something troubles the soul of man in the
directions essentially and only spiritual. What is it "?
Is it wholly intuitive ? If it were intuitive, it could
not be crushed out, as it often is, by those who prefer
not its guidance, but choose the way of sin.

Furthermore, the deduction made from this false,
assumption concerning the heathen, that if the Spirit
does not operate where the Bible is not, it can not be
claimed that he operates where the Bible is, is a per-
fect noil sequitur. It simply proves nothing. Mr.
Campbell admits that in some indefinable way " the
Holy Spirit is shed upon " the Christian " richly
through Jesus Christ our Savior; of which the peace
of mind, the love, joy, and hope of the regenerate is
full proof." Now, if this means anything more than
simply the Bible bringing to Christians promises of

OPERATION OF THE HOLY GHOST.

199

peace, joy, love, etc., it is an immediate operation
upon the heart by the Holy Ghost, along Avith, and
additional to, the word.

But this is a matter to be settled by an appeal to
God's Word, which will be fully made when once all
these objections have been considered.

200

ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM.

CHAPTER XVI.

OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED.

Mr. Campbell's third objection to the immediate
operation of the Holy Ghost, is based on the fact tluit
those who claim this immediate work are not able to
make any revelation additional to the one given in
the Bible, and do not give any new spiritnal insight
to the revelation that was originally given. This ob-
jection is founded upon the assumption that the Holy
Ghost can not operate on human hearts, except to re-
veal new doctrinal truth or to give a supernatural in-
sight into the truth already revealed. We are clearly
taught in 1 Cor. xii, that there are diversities of
gifts, but the same Spirit;'' and in verse 13, "For by
one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we
be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and
have been all made to drink into one Spirit.'' Here is
an immediate operation of the Spirit called a baptism,
which came certainly to some that did not have any
new truth to reveal, or any supernatural light to fur-
nish upon truth already revealed.

Mr. Campbell admits, and his followers likewise,
that the Holy Ghost in an immediate impartation came
to the Church in apostolic days. It fell on the house-
hold of Cornelius, was imparted by the laying on of

OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED.

201

the apostle's hands, in fact was enjoyed by very many
who never felt, and never received any new revela-
tion. If this is so, the objection amounts to nothing,
and the facts prove that the immediate operation of
the Holy Ghost is not confined to the work of the
giving of a revelation.

The immediate operation of the Holy Ghost in his
reproving office is to quicken conscience, and enforce
upon it the claims of truth and righteousness; in his
office in regeneration it is to cleanse the heart and
conscience from sin and guilt; in other words, to
create the penitent believer anew in Christ Jesus, and
to bear witness that the sins are forgiven, and that the
believer is adopted into the family of God. Is not
this a reasonable theory? And is there any necessity
in all this for a new revelation of spiritual truths?
When Jesus told the sick of the palsy and the sin-
ning woman, Thy sins are forgiven thee,'' there
was no new revelation in this, save and except one to
their hearts ; and since he has gone to heaven, has it
become impossible for him to say the same to human
hearts by the Holy Ghost ?

Mr. Campbell's fourth argument is especially di-
rected against the Presbyterian view of regeneration ;
namely, that it is the work of the Spirit that precedes
repentance, and is the effectual call of the elect sinner
to repentance. With this mistaken view^ we have
nothing to do, and should have passed the objection
by did not he and some of the exponents of his views

202

ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM.

regard it an objection valid against all who believe
in the immediate operation of the Holy Ghost on hu-
man hearts. When he says: ^ If then the Spirit of
God, without faith, without the knowledge of the gos-
pel, in any case regenerates an individual, he does so
in all cases. But if faith in God or knowled<re of
Christ is essential in one case, it is essential in every
other case." Here is a complete misapprehension of
the doctrine advocated by Arminians at least. Ar-
minians do not believe that the Spirit of God, with-
out any knowledge or without any faith " of any sort,
ever convicts the sinner or regenerates the penitent.
Some knowledge of moral truth and some faith in the
good exists wherever a soul is found seeking after
trutli. If there is no regeneration under such cir-
cumstances, then the heathen are all lost, or some get
to heaven without being born again. If a knowl-
edge of Christ is essential in every case " to regenera-
tion, how are the heathen saved, and how are those
saved who lived before Christ, and just how much
knowledge of Christ is essential now? This is an
objection that cuts every way.

Wherever there is faith in the good, however
darkened the knowledge, there is faith in God — a faith
that, with Christian knowledge, would take hold of
Christ as the Savior of sinners. Such a faith will
bring regeneration in all cases.

* " Campbell ami Kice," p. G20.

OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. 203

His fifth, sixth, and seventh arguments, so-called,
consist simply in asserting, because gospel truth was
revealed by the Holy Spirit in human language, that
therefore human language thus indited is to be the
only means of converting sinners. The Comforter of
John xiv, 15, 16, is translated Advocate, because he
believes this translation best harmonizes with his idea
that the Spirit's entire influence is to be confined to
the naked word. He says : ^ ^' Now, as the Spirit is
to advocate Christ's cause he must use means. Hence,
when Jesus gives him the work of conviction, he fur-
nishes him with suitable and competent arguments to
eflect the end of his mission. He was to convince
the world of sin, of righteousness, and of judgment.
In accomplishing this he was to argue from three
topics: 1. The unbelief of the world; 2. Christ's re-
ception into heaven ; 3. The dethronement of his
great adversary, the prince of this world."

A comment more utterly fanciful can hardly be
conceived; yet this comment is heard always, with
but little modification, in the mouths of his followers.
The plain, smiple question is: Does the Savior, by
the Paraclete, here mean the Person of the Holy
Ghost, or does he mean only the inspired Word? K
he means the latter, why did he not use the term that
is plain and comprehensible — the Word? Nothing
could be more calculated to mislead than the term

Campbell and Rice," p. 622.

204

ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM.

here made use of, if this theory of interpretation be
correct. Attention has ah'cady been called to the fact
tliat the fundamental doctrines of the gospel were at
that time in the world, and therefore they could not
be sent. But Mr. Campbell says "the advocate must
use means." In what way? Was he simply to re-
veal truth, or was he also to enforce truth already
revealed and to be revealed ? If the latter, how then
was it to be done but by direct spiritual impression
upon the minds and hearts of men? Is the Holy
Spirit limited only to words of human language as
means to reach the hearts and consciences of men?
But to the Savior's promises to settle this matter —
John xiv, 16-17: "And I will pray the Father, and
he shall give you another Comforter [^Paraclete], that
he may abide with you forever; even the Spirit of
truth, whom the world can not receive, because it
seeth him not, neither knoweth him. But ye know
him, for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you."
The personal pronouns "he" and "him," here used,
clearly establish the personality of this promised gift.
His taking the place of Christ with the disciples —
"with" them and "in" them — indicates most con-
clusively that it was not words of truth the Savior was
promising, but a conscious divine presence. The de-
clared inability of the world to receive him, at once
proves that it was not the word of truth about which
the Savior was speaking ; for this word the world can
receive and know, inasmuch as it is revealed for that

OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED.

205

very purpose. According to Mr. Campbell, sinners
1st. Hear the word; 2d. Believe; 3d. Obey. He
therefore can in no wise assert that the world can not
receive the word of God. Again, this Divine Com-
panion was to abide with the disciples of Christ for-
ever. How? Not as a revealer of new truth, but as
a Comforter. And, lastly, he already dwelt with
them in some of his gracious offices ; but should here-
after— after the Pentecost — be ^Mn them" as a con-
tinual abiding guest. In verse 26th of this same
chapter we have the Comforter clearly designated as
to personality : ^' But the Comforter, ruhlch is the Holy
Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he
shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your
remembrance whatsoever I have said unto you.''
Here, also, his office of teacher of things already re-
vealed is set forth. It is not the naked truth already
given, left to itself; but this truth '^called to remem-
brance," and its demands, obligations, promises, and
hopes given force and effect iv^eness by the Divine
Spirit's presence. It is to quicken men's spiritual fac-
ulties that the Spirit is present.

In ch. XV, 26, we have still another office of the
Comforter defined : " But when the Comforter is come,
whom I will send unto you from the Father, eve^i the
Spirit of truth which proceedeth from the Father, he
shall testify of me." The Revised Version reads:
" He shall bear witness of me." It is his office to
bear witness to our adoption (Rom. viii, 16); i. e., to

206

ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM.

Christ as indeed the Savi of sinners in the pardon
of onr sins.

In ch. xvi, 7-11, his oflBce as a reprover of sin is
clearly set forth: He shall reprove the world of sin,
of righteousness, and of judgment." The only ques-
tion of dispute in reference to the meaning of this
text is, Does it mean that the Holy Ghost shall only
" reprove the world " by means of the naked word,
or does it mean that the personal influence of the
Spirit shall attend that word to men's consciences
and hearts? It is certain that, in whatever sense this
Divine Personage was sent to the disciples, in that
same sense he was to be in *'the world " to reprove"
it. That is to say, if as a personal presence and power
he came to the disciples in his several offices towards
them, he also, as a personal presence, was to be in his
reproving office toward sinners. The offices of the
Spirit toward the disciples and the world are relatively
different, but the personal power and influence is the
same. It is He, the Spirit himself," or else the
very means al)out Avhich Mr. Campbell has so much to
say — the words of the Spirit — are misleading and com-
pletely bewildering.

The inference made by Mr. Campbell that, because
symbolical tongues of flame rested upon the heads of
the disciples at Pentecost, and because they were en-
abled to speak with tongues, that therefore, under the
gospel dispensation, the only agency toward the con-
version of men was to be the words of the gospel, is

OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED.

207

certainly not a legitimate one. Again, it may be asked,
Why may not the Spirit attend those words wherever
read, preached, or heard? Why may not the Spirit
make them more effective in conscience than they
otherwise would be? And why may not the Spirit bear
witness to those that accept the gospel that they are
accepted of God ? Is there any necessary conflict be-
tween these two facts that makes them incompatible?
Yet this seems to be the whole burden of the aro:u-
ments of Campbellism, that the mediate use of the
word at once sets aside the immediate office of the
Spirit. The persistency with which this inconse-
quential argument is alleged is quite discouraging for
those who have faith in the ability of the human mind
to grasp truth with discrimination.

Another argument made by the advocates of this
theory is founded upon those passages of Scripture
that ascribe regeneration, sanctification, and cleansing
to the instrumentality of the word. 1 Peter i, 23 :
Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of in-
corruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and
abideth forever." James i, 18; Of his own will be-
gat he us with the word of truth, that we should be
a kind of first-fruits of his creatures." 1 Cor. iv, 15 :
*^For, though ye have ten thousand instructors in
Christ, yet have ye not many fathers ; for in Christ
Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel." John
xvii, 17: "Sanctify them through the truth," — and
others; but these will suffice, for the same answer

208

ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM.

^vill be pertinent to each and all. It is the old an-
swer, already repeatedly given, that the admission of
the word of truth, as an instriimeutality to salvation,
does not necessarily exclude other agencies. If it did,
it would exclude Christ as the meritorious means, as
well as the Holy Ghost as the efficacious means. But
the " word or " gospel," here spoken of, is not the
New Testament Scriptures, as these persons suppose,
but simply the doctrine of salvation through Christ.
In other words, that God was in Christ reconciling
the Avorhl unto himself."^ This was the gospel that
was preached before unto Abraham,"! and also to
those who fell in the wilderness. % So, it was not
the ^' word " as understood by Campbell and his fol-
lowers, but the truth of the gospel simply in germ,
but vitalized by the Holy Spirit, that saved them.
Again, James i, 18, presents these two agencies — the
personal Spirit and the instrumentality — together:
"Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth."
So the apostle Paul says: In Christ Jesus I have
begotten you through the gospel." Here are three
agencies — a divine meritorious agency, a human
preacher, and the gospel truth. In 1 Peter i,
22, 23, we have the relation of the efficacious agency
and the instrumentality most clearly presented : " See-
ing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth
through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the breth-

*2 Cor. V, 10. tGal. iii, 8. X Keb. iv, 2 and 6.

OBJECTIOSS COXSIDERED.

209

ren, love one another with a pure heart fervently;
being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of in-
corruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and
abideth forever/^ Here it is distinctly stated that
their purification was through the agency of the
Spirit — purified your souls through the Spirit in
obeying the truth/' What is this " incorruptible
seed,'' of which they were born again? Xot the word,
for they were "born of" this ^'through the word;"
that is, by two agencies — " the incorruptible seed " and
" the word " — one efficacious, the other instrumental.
But it may be asked: '^Is it not the teaching of the
passage that Uhe incorruptible seed' is 'the word?' for
it is said to 'live and abide forever.'" The Revised
Version, in the margin, undoubtedly gives the true
reading: "Through the word of God, icJio liveth and
abideth." It is " God who liveth and abideth." Cer-
tain it is that if " living and abiding " defines the
"word," then "incorruptible seed" does not define
it. "Born of God,"^ "born of the Spirit," f and
"born from above," J are the Divine expressions for
the blessed state described by Peter. Xever " born
of the word," but " through the word " "' by the gos-
pel," clearly discriminating between instrumentality
and efficacious agency.

Mr. Campbell, in his discussion with Professor Rice,
offers five more so-called arguments. It may be here

^1 John V. 1. t.John iii, 6. i John iii. 3-
18

210

ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM.

stated that his arguments are selected for review, be-
cause he usually presents them in a better style than
subsequent exponents of his theory, who have slav-
ishly patterned after this man both in doetrines and
methods of defense. He who reads Campbell and
Rice's Debate,'' "Christianity Restored," or "The
Millennial Harbinger," will have absolutely all of
Campbellism, both creed and arguments.

The five arguments referred to above, are in brief
as follows: First. Paul was commissioned to " open
the blind eyes " of the Gentiles, and turn them from
darkness unto light. * Second. " Whatever is as-
cribed to the Holy Spirit in the work of salvation is
ascribed to the word." f Third. " Those who resisted
the word of God are said to resist the Spirit of God."|
Fourth. "That the strivings of the prophets by their
words, are represented as the strivings of the Holy
Spirit." J Fifth. "God nowhere has operated with-
out his word, either in the old creation or in the
new." X The first four of these supposed arguments
arc only a repetition in a slightly different form of
the idea, that the affirmation of mediate instrumentality
contradicts the personal agency of the Spirit, and
proves that he operates only by means of his word.
This has been so fully refuted before that only a passing
glance at the new examples cited is required. If Paul
as an instrumentality opening the blind eyes of the

* Acts xxvi, IS. t " Campbell and Rice," p. 749. t Id. 750.

OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED.

211

Gentiles proves that mediate means alone were used,
it proves too much, for that would exclude the word,
for the work is all ascribed to Paul. But it may be
said that he was to preach the word. So he was, but
with power sent down from above. He " received
the Holy Ghost " when Ananias laid his hand on him,
and received his sight at the same time. (Acts ix, 17.)
He tells us, in 1 Cor. ii, 4, how he preached the gos-
pel, and what made it efficacious. And my speech
and my preaching was not with enticing words of
man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and
of power;" iii, 6, I planted, Apollos watered, but
God gave the increase.

And so also, in pre-Christian ages, "the Spirit of
the Lord God anointed prophets " to preach the gos-
pel."* It was not naked word or words unattended
by spiritual power, but the word made efficient by
the Holy Ghost.

The last of these five alleged arguments is simply
the wholesale denial of one part of the question at issue;
namely, that the Holy Ghost does operate separate
and apart from any knowledge, moral or spiritual, but
not, as he alleges, apart from the Bible plan of salva-
tion. If this position is true, then it follows that the
heathen are all lost ; or if any are saved, they are saved
without any spiritual interposition whatever in their
behalf, and without any regeneration, as already shown.

* Isa. Ixi, 1.

212

ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM.

And, furthermore, the devil has more influence in this
world than the Almighty; for he can, according to
the teaching of the Bible, tempt men to sin, while
God can not help them, except he can secure some
one to go to them with the Bible.

All the arguments of Campbellism have passed
in review, and they are to be summed up in just two
assumptions :

1. That the presentation of the mediate means —
the word — sets aside the immediate agency of the
Holy Spirit.

2. That none have been impressed or regenerated
by the Spirit, who have not had the Bible or some
part of it. The first of these is a very obvious non
sequitur, and the second is false as to fact, and leaves
the vast majority of men in absolute darkness, and
without the possibility of any fitness for heaven.

WORK OF THE HOLY GHOST.

213

CHAPTER XVII.

OFFICES AND WORK OF THE HOLY GHOST.

The writer is constrained to believe that had not
logical consistency required it, Alexander Campbell
would never have put himself so squarely in antago-
nism to all other evangelical Christians, as he has
done in reference to the offices and work of the Holy
Ghost. His whole argument in the discussion with
Professor Rice, as well as his treatment of the subject
in " The Christian System/' seems to be shaped so as
to fence against the inevitable charge of a denial of
all spiritual impression outside of the moral and in-
tellectual influence of the Scriptures upon the minds
of men. But consistency compels the elimination ot
all spiritual impression or impact from a system that
has for a fundamental condition to salvation a mere
rite, as baptism ; and makes the performance of that
rite along with intellectual belief, repentance, and con-
fession the evidence of pardon. For were the witness
of the Spirit admitted, and were the conditions per-
formed, and the witness of the Spirit did not follow,
then this fact would be proof that the conditions were
not fulfilled, and the person seeking remission of sins
would be compelled to repeat them until the Spirit's

214

ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM.

witness was given. And, on the other hand, there
would be left no room for a denial of the witness of
the Spirit, as claimed by those who, according to this
theory have not fulfilled the conditions ; that is, have
not been baptized by immersion for the remission
of sins.

But it is marvelous that a system so beset with
difficulties in explaining the Scripture teachings con-
cerning the work of the Holy Ghost, and that de-
mands that the Church of the Christian dispensation
be robbed of the personal divine presence, should find
so many supporters. The system runs atilt against
very many plain and obvious passages of Scripture,
and is out of harmony with the whole scope of the
divine plan for the w^orld's evangelization. The Scrip-
tures teach that Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are each
in his divine personality engaged in the work of bring-
ing sinners back to righteousness and the favor of
God. The Father provides the plan and sends the
Son, and Father and Son send the Holy Ghost. If
the Holy Ghost is in the world in any sense different
from the divine omnipresence, it must be by spiritual
manifestation, and this spiritual manifestation is not
simply the presence of some words revealed eighteen
hundred years ago; for in that sense he has been in
the w^orld from the time of the promise made to our
first parents.

It is hard to conceive that any one can really bring
himself to believe that the only presence of the Holy

WORK OF THE HOLY GHOST.

215

Ghost in the world is the presence of the Bible in the
world. The Bible is no more the Spirit of God than
the writings of a man are his spirit, and yet when
the doctrine of Campbellism in this respect is disrobed
of the Scriptural verbiage in which they seek to
clothe it, the sum and substance of it is this: The
Holy Spirit gave the Word, and put all the power
and eftectiveness that it has in it when he gave it;
and since then in no sense is he with it any more
than the deceased writer is in his words now. So that
whatever of conviction the sinner is made to receive
comes from the Word alone ; and whatever of comfort,
joy, and peace the prayerful saint receives, is derived
from the naked promises of the Word, by process ot
intellectual deduction — a very cold and cheerless doc-
trine, sufficient to chill the ardor of the most devout
saint. But, thanks be to our gracious Father, the
saint knows it is not true.

We will now consider the offices of the Holy Ghost,
as set forth in the Scriptures: 1. The source of in-
spiration. 2. The source of miraculous gifts. Thes^
are special manifestations, and ceased with the giving
of divine revelation. 3. Reproving the sinner. 4.
Regenerating, baptizing, cleansing, purifying, sancti-
fying, sealing the penitent believer. 5. Witnessing
to his adoption. 6. Comforting, helping, teaching
the saint.

Now, all these offices, except the first two, are in
a diversity of w^ays set forth in the Scriptures as be-

216

ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM.

longing to the entire gospel dispensation. Far back,
toward the morning of human history, God said : ^ly
Spirit shall not always strive with men/'* So the
Psalmist, David, under intense conviction for his great
sin, prayed : Take not thy Holy Spirit from me." f
This was the reproving Spirit to which he was cling-
ing, for he immediately prays : Restore unto me the
joy of thy salvation, and uphold me with thy free
Spirit." X So also the Savior promised that when the
Holy Ghost came in fuller manifestation on the day
of Pentecost, he should thereafter " reprove the world
of sin, of righteousness, and of judgment." The im-
possibility of this being in any other sense than by
personal impression is seen in the fact that it was the
Comforter that was to come on Pentecost, that was to
do this work; and that manifestation is confessedly a
personality. The word as an instrumentality had al-
ready in great measure come. This also is the same
office that is set forth in 2 Thess. ii, 13: '^God hath
from the beginning chosen you to salvation through
sanctitication of the Spirit and belief of the truth and
1 Peter, i, 2 : Elect according to the foreknowledge
of God, the Father, through sanctitication of the Spirit
unto obedience, and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus
Christ." In these two passages the Holy Spirit, by
his convicting agency, is said to set apart the sinner
to faith, cleansing, and salvation. Both the Holy

*Gen. vi, 3. t Psa. li, 11. : Psa. li, 12.

WORK OF THE HOLY GHOST.

217 i

Spirit and the truth are mentioned ; the inference is
therefore necessary, that these refer to two separate
agencies, the one operating on the mind and judgment,
the other on heart and conscience. It is appropriate
to remark at this juncture that the Spirit's sanctifying
■work is continuous, so long as the sinner permits; that
is, begun in consecration, it continues on through regen-
eration and throughout the entire life. It is the Spirit's
work to sanctify, to make holy — sanctus, holy ; facere,
to make. And this begins with the first impression
made by the Spirit and yielded to by the sinner, and
continues on until the great work is wrought in a
character symmetrical in righteousness.

In Acts xvi, 14, we have a most unanswerable
example of an immediate divine influence operating
upon the hearts outside the word, and even before the
word, as a preparation for its honest reception. ''And
a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of
the city of Thyatira, which worshiped God, heard us :
whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto
the things that were spoken of Paul." Could the
preparatory influence of the Divine Spirit be more
clearly set forth ? The Lord opened her heart, so that
she attended to the word of truth. It was not the
word that opened her heart/' for that came afterward ;
and the divine influence was the cause of her listen-
ing with attention to that word. With this fact of
inspired history agree the declarations of Paul con-
cerning the success of his ministry in reaching men.

, 19

218

ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM.

Ill 1 Cor. iii, 6, he says : " I have planted, Apollos
Avatered ; but God gave the increase. How did Paul
plant ? The word of truth in the minds of his hearers;
and in the same manner Apollos watered it. How
did God give the increase? By his Spirit operating
with this word on human hearts in conviction, en-
treaty, and reproof. He reproved of sin because
they believed not in Christ ; of righteousness,'' be-
cause the Son of God was no longer in the world as a
teacher of men, but had committed this work to the
Holy Ghost; of judgment," because the prince of
this world — that is, the ruling spirit of this world —
should be brought under condemnation in the hearts
of men by the Spirit of God.

The Scriptures ascribe to the immediate work of
the Spirit regeneration, baptism, cleansing, purifying,
sanctifying, sealing. These terms represent aspects
of the same work wrought in the heart of the believ-
ing penitent, and present an overwhelming body of
proof of personal contact of the Divine Spirit with the
spirit of the believer. The terms, with possibly one
exception, sanctification, contain the idea of actual
impact. Regeneration is a radical change implying
divine power; baptism is an impartation of the bap-
tismal element to the subject; cleansing and purify-
ing, as conceptions, have their origin in the fact of
actual contact with a cleansing element; and sealing
is the direct impression of the seal upon the instru-
ment attested thereby. Unless we have, in the plain

WORK OF THE HOLY GHOST.

9A9

narratives and in the unembellished discussions of the
Scriptures, the boldest metaphors and the wildest hy-
perboles, we must regard these expressions as setting
forth facts of personal experience, and as referring to
impressions made not by an instrumentality, but by
the personal spirit.

Regeneration is the translation of the Greek
Trahyyeveata^ which occurs twice in the New Testa-
ment (Matt, xix, 28 ; Titus iii, 5) ; but it can scarcely
be called in question that yevvdco ducodsv (" born from
above of John iii ; ix too dedb yevudco born of
God of John V, 1, and others ; and dvayevpdco ("be-
ing born again of 1 Peter i, 23, refer to precisely
the same thing. The phrases, " begotten of God,'^ in
John V, 1, and 18, are translations of the same word
that in that chapter and elsewhere is translated " born
of God.'' So also "begotten again'' in 1 Peter i, 3,
is a translation of the same word rendered "born
again" in 1 Pet. i, 23. When, therefore, Mr. Camp-
bell attempts to make a distinction between being
" begotten of God,'' and being " born of God," as he
does in " Christian System," pp. 201 and 207, he makes
a distinction where there is absolutely no diflPerence.
Being born of God and being begotten of God are
one and the same thing, and present the whole divine
process from the first to the last. FevvdcOj in the
active voice, may express the divine side, the Spirit's
work, while the passive voice expresses the result,
which is a new birth ; not a mere begetting, a begin-

220

ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM.

ning of life, but the transition into the complete new
life. It is but little short of ridiculous to talk of
" first begotten with Spirit,imprognated with the word,
and then born of the water." It may support his
theory, but it is a long remove from being Scriptural.

Regeneration is essentially a spiritual process.
The Savior's first declaration is : " Except a man be
born from above, he can not see the kingdom of God.''
^' .'hwdev does not mean again ; and how any one can
say that Xicodemus plainly understood it in the
sense of again/' because he replies, How can a man
be born again when he is old ? He can not enter a
second time into his mother's womb and be born," is
to the writer marvelous. If diycodsv was understood
by him in the sense of again, he would have repeated
it both times with the verb je'^'^dco. But the render-
ing is not necessarily essential to the argument.
" Born again," as defined by the Savior, is a spiritual
w^ork: "That which is born of the flesh, is flesh; and
that which is born of the Spirit, is spirit." As has
been shown in a former chapter, " born of the water,"
spoken of in verse 5, is no part of the spiritual pro-
cess, for it is not named where the result of the work
is spoken of in verse 6 ; namely, " that which is born
of the Spirit, is spirit," or spiritual. It should read,
" That which is born of water and the Spirit, is spirit,"
if water is anything more than a symbol iu the ])ro-

Christian System," p. 201.

WORK OF THE HOLY GHOST.

221

cess, and the essential part of it, according to Camp-
bell and his followers.

In verse 8 the mysteriousness of the spiritual pro-
cess is evinced by the Divine Teacher. " The wind
bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound
thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh or whither
it goeth; so is every one that is born of the Spirit.''
Mr. Braden, in his debate with Dr. Hughey, of the
Methodist Episcopal Church, rendered this : The
Spirit breathes where he pleases, and you hear his
voice ; you can not tell whence he comes and whither
he goes. In this way is every one begotten who is
begotten of the Spirit.'' * For a wholly gratuitous
manipulation of the sacred record to make it fit into
a preconceived theory, it is doubtful if its like can be
found. What is the imaginary basis of this render-
ing? IJusb/iaj translated wind, is also the word used
for spirit ; and then it is assumed that Truiat may be
translated to breathe, although uncompounded with the
preposition iu, it is never used for breathe in the New
Testament ; and {pcovTjU may be translated voice. But
let us look at this translation, and see if it teaches
anything. In what sense does the Spirit ^' breathe
where he pleases," and how do we " hear his voice
how is it that w^e '^are not able to tell whence he
comes and whither he goes ;" and how does all this
describe the spiritual birth wrought by water? It is

*" Hughey and Braden Debate," p. 461.

222

ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM.

to be observed, if their theory of regeneration is the
correct one, we know all about the breathing^ going,
and coming of the Spirit. Again, what unjustifiable
liberty is taken with the text, when the last sentence
is translated " in this way is every one begotten who
is begotten of the Spirit/' AVhere, in the text, does
he find the words " who is begotten ?" There is not
one word in the text to answer to this phrase. A
theory must be badly beset to be compelled to resort
to such a handling of the inspired text.

The obvious meaning to any one who has not a
theory to sustain, is, that the mysterious movement
of the Avind recognized by the physical hearing as
fact, is a symbol of the operation of the Spirit in the
work of regeneration, felt in the experience of the
soul, but still incomprehensible in the mode of its im-
partation.

Mr. Campbell has a saying in regard to this matter
that is uniformly repeated by his followers, and is
believed by them to be finally crushing as an argu-
ment. It is this : " All must admit that no one can
be born again of that which he receives.'' ^ So also
" To call the receiving of any Spirit, or any influence,
or energy, or any operation on the heart of man, re-
generation, is an abuse of speech, as well as a depart-
ure from the diction of the Holy Spirit, who calls noth-
ing regeneration, except the act of immersion.'^ f The

* "Christian System," p. 20. t Id. pp. 202, 202.

WORK OF THE HOLY GHOST,

223

writer has carefully pondered the dictum, to get, if
possible, an inkling of its meaning, and an apprehen-
sion of some of the logical force that is supposed to
belong to it; but has entirely failed. Why can not
the dead sinner be born again out of sin unto right-
eousness by receiving the quickening Spirit? "For
it is the Spirit that quickeneth." * Even when we
were dead in sins hath quickened us together with
Christ/' t So also Col. ii, 13; 2 Cor. iii, 6. But let
us apply this dictum to Campbell's theory. Peni-
tent believers receive the word of the gospel. Acts
viii, 14; xi, 1; xv4i, 11, et al.; and yet these persons
tell us that we are born again of the Avord. "The
word of God is the seed of which we are born again,
or renewed in heart and life." % So, Mr. Campbell
being judge, we can be born of w^hat we receive.
More thau this, baptism is something received, some-
thing in which the candidate is passive. Hence the
command to sinners is to be baptized. He speaks of
the " act of immersion " being the new birth ; but
whose act? — the candidate's? No. The administra-
tor's. The candidate receives the immersion at his
hands, and if this is a new birth he is born of what
he receives.

In entire agreement with the essential spirituality
of this new birth is the teaching of the apostle Paul
in Titus iii, 5, 6. "Not by w^orks of righteousness

John vi, 63. t Eph. ii, 5. % " Campbell and Rice," p. 6G4.

224

ERRORS OF CAMPBFAJJSM.

Avliich we have done, but according to bis mercy batb
be saved us by tbe wasbing of regeneration, and tbe
renewing of tbe Holy Gbost, wbicb be sbed on us
abundantly tbrougb Jesus Cbrist our Savior."

Mr. Campbell and bis followers may make mucb
of tbe fact tbat commentators generally understand
that a reference is made to baptism in tbe phrase
washing of regeneration.'' It is far from being
clear tbat such is the case. Commentators generally
follow in the trend of thought or opinion marked out
by their predecessors. Baptismal regeneration has
been taught for many centuries by the Church of
Rome. It was therefore natural that her commen-
tators should see this doctrine in all passages where
regeneration was spoken of, and especially where it
was s])oken of as a '^washing.'' The Church of Eng-
land, and tbe Protestant bodies of Europe generally
adopted this error of the Church of Rome. Hence it
is not at all strange that commentators generally should
conceive that baptism is here referred to; and their
successors who were in Churches that do not accept
the dogma of baptismal regeneration, should be in-
clined, if possible, to accommodate their opinions with
views so uniformly put forth. But is it not time that
we should break away from the trammels of mediaeval
interpretation, and determine these by common sense
principles? Tbe very language of the text implies
that nothing physical is referred to. ^' The washing of
regeneration" is put in direct antithesis to "works of

WORK OF THE HOLY GHOST.

225

righteousness'^ which we have done. If so, it (bap-
tism) is not "the washing of regeneration/' because
that is contrasted with it. Also, we are told that
this "washing of regeneration and renewing of the
Holy Ghost " is something God has done ; now, what
we have done and what God has done are in con-
trast— in logical antithesis. Again, whatever it was
that saved us, was of him. "He saved us." How?
By what "he shed on us abundantly," through Jesus
Christ our Savior. Our baptism by water is some-
thing he did not do ; but the washing of regeneration
was something that he did perform. It really does
appear that no stronger language or more forceful
presentation could be used to exclude baptism by
water.

But it may be asked, Why use the term " wash-
ing?" To answer this it is sufficient to ask why not
use the term baptism, if that is what is meant ? Camp-
bell and his followers say "baptism is the washing ot
regeneration." The fact is, washing is used with jus-
tification when it is clearly defined, as by the Spirit,
1 Cor. vi, 11: "And such were some of you, but ye
are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified
in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit ot
our God."

But suppose, for the sake of the argument, that
baptism is alluded to in the phrase "washing of re-
generation," does the passage not emphatically teach
us that "the Holy Ghost is shed" upon those that

226

ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM.

are savetl, and that it is by this we are saved, because
this is what God docs of 'Miis mercy?" Now, if
this doctrine that denies the immediate impression of
the Holy Ghost in tlie work of regeneration be true,
and the "renewing of the Holy Ghost" is the influ-
ence of the word, leading to faith and repentance, it
follows tliat we are saved first by the renewing of the
Holy Ghost, then by the 'Svashing of regeneration;'*
that is, the renewing mnst come before the baptism.
In other words, as before shown, we mnst be born of
the Sj)irit, or beg()tten of the Word," in the style
of these teachers before we are "born of the water."

In fact, no theory of interpretation is more pro-
foundly beset with diffi(nilties, and more effectually
plunges its advocates into an inextricable tangle of
absurdities than does this that makes bajitism an es-
sential part of the work of regeneration, and, because
of this, eliminates the immediate influence of the Spirit
from any |)art of the work.

In harmony with this conception of a sj)iritual
birth into the kingdom of Ghrist, is the conception of
quickening, met with in several instances in the Scrip-
tures. Eph. ii, 4, o: " But God, who is rich in mercy,
for his great love wherewith he loved us, even when
we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together
with Christ." The Greek ^(ouzocioj really means to
give life; a term of very radical significance when ap-
plied to the new birth. It is also clearly defined in
the context, in the trend of the apostle's discussion.

WOBK OF THE HOLY GHOST.

227

The apostle parenthetically says, in the same verse:
*^ By grace are ye saved;" and then, in verses 8-10,
says: For by grace are ye saved, through faith, and
that not of yourselves ; it is the gift of God : not of
works, lest any man should boast. For we are his
workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good
works.'' Now, here it is first said our salvation is
not of ourselves; and in the second place, "not of
works ;" and in the third place, that spiritually " we
are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto
good works.'' No language could more eflfectually
teach the immediate work of the Spirit in our salva-
tion than does this.

Then, following on in the same discussion, the
apostle says, verse 18: "For through him we both
have access by one Spirit unto the Father." " Through
him" means through Christ. It is through Christ,
and by the agency of the Spirit, we are saved, and, as
children, are permitted to approach the Father; for
" likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities : for
we know not what we should pray for as we ought;
but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with
groanings Avhich can not be uttered."^ If the apos-
tle is here simply aiming to teach the mediate w^ork
of the Spirit through the word alone, he has certainly
employed strange language for a subject so easy of
statement as this — "quickened," "created," "access

* Rom. viii, 26.

228

ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM.

to God," and in verse 20, " a habitation of God through
the Spirit." It is difficult to find language, even in
the visions oi the prophets, more purely hyperbolical
than this, if the apostle only means the effect of the
word on the judgments and consciences of men.

BAPTISM OF THE HOLY GHOST.

229

CHAPTER XVIII.

BAPTISM OF THE HOIvY GHOST.

The baptism of the Holy Ghost, which, according;
to the Inspired Word, "washes,'' "cleanses,'' "puri-
fies," "sanctifies," "seals," and "anoints," is em-
ployed in these several forms of representation to
teach the immediate contact of the Holy Spirit with
the soul in the work of regeneration and sanctification.

But right at this point Campbellism is prolific of
contradictions. First, its followers deny that the bap-
tism of the Holy Ghost is the "gift of the Holy
Ghost" promised to the Church. Secondly, that this
baptism was designed to be perpetual in the Church.
There are some very cogent reasons, in the scheme of
doctrine they advocate, why they should maintain
this. The baptism of the Holy Ghost is something
that makes sad havoc with the idea of an exclusive,
dipping baptism; and to perpetuate the baptism of
the Holy Ghost in the Church as a reality would
make very forceful the doctrine inculcated by the ad-
vocates of affusion in general, that water baptism is
designed to be a perpetual symbol of the purifying
ministration of the Spirit, and not a representation
of a death and burial — and that the death and burial
of Christ. And, again, a baptism of the Holy Ghost,

230

ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM.

cleansing from sin, stands in the way of remission
of sin, grounded in water baptism as an essential con-
dition. For if a direct communication of the Spirit
were a requisite in each case of regeneration, such
communication must be a necessary concomitant (jf
water baptism, else there would be a conflict. So
that it is true that, with logical consistency, Campbell-
ism must deny to the Church this her heritage in
the gospel.

But lest it be thought that this is a misrepresenta-
tion of their views, a few quotations from approved
authors among them will be given. Mr. Bradeu
says : * " All who pray for a baptism of the Spirit now,
pray not according to knowledge of the word, for that
they never will receive. Those who pray for it and
claim it, should show that it was promised to all be-
lievers in all time ; that they can work miracles, as
all could who were thus baptized anciently. This
baptism was extraordinary, and has ceased." Another
author says if ''In the first place, the work of the
Holy Spirit in the salvation of sinners, is not once, in
all the Bible, called the baptism of the Spirit. Let
the reader remember this. Secondly, the baptism of
the Holy Spirit was only promised to the apostles;
and, thirdly, Jesus emphatically said the world could
not receive the Holy Spirit in this form. (See John

*" Hughey ami Briulen Debate," \k 458.
tBrowder's " Pulpit," pp. IK), 97.

BAPTISM OF THE HOLY GHOST.

231

xiv, 16, 17.)" The writer has had several discus-
sions with accepted exponents of their doctrine, and
has found them uniformly to maintain the theory
above given. It is very evident to the thoughtful
reader that if the baptism of the Holy Ghost is, as
these persons claim, a miracle-working endowment
alone, it must not only be limited to the apostolical
days, but must be limited in those days to those who
wrought miracles. Hence, an effort is made to show
that the baptism given on Pentecost was confined to
the twelve apostles. Professor McGarvey, in his com-
mentary on Acts, sub loco, says that the antecedent of
they in Acts ii is the twelve apostles. " It would
read thus: 'The lot fell upon Matthias, and he was
numbered together with the eleven apostles. And
when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were
all with one accord in one place.' It is indisputable
that the antecedent to they is the term apostles,'^ This
entirely gratuitous assumption is made to save a theory.
If they is limited to the twelve apostles, where, at this
time, were Mary, the mother of Jesus, and the rest of
the one hundred and twenty mentioned in ch. i, 15?
Were they with one accord in another place? They
had been meeting with the apostles. On what author-
ity are they now counted out? Be it remembered that
the pronoun they, in the first verse of this chapter, de-
fines simply the assembly, and, if this comment is cor-
rect, the rest of the one hundred and twenty must be
excluded from the assembly. It will be a startling

232

ERRORS OF CAMPRELLTSM.

revelation to niany Christians to learn that only the
twelve apostles were present on the day of Pentecost.

But there are other insuperable objections to this
interpretation. In ch. i, A, Jesus said to the as-
sembled disciples on the day of ascension : " But wait
for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye
have heard of me. For John truly baptized with
water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost,
not many days hence." When and how was this
promise made ? By the prophets Joel and John the
Baptist. Joel ii, 28 : ^^And it shall come to pass after-
ward that I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh ; and
your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your
old men shall dream dreams, and your young men shall
see visions." The Baptist, in Matt, iii, 11: " I in-
deed baptize you with water unto repentance; but ho
that Cometh after me is mightier than I, Vhose shoes
I am not worthy to bear : he shall baptize you with
the Holy Ghost and with fire." Observe now to
whom this promise was made, and the tenor of it; I
will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh.''^ Not upon the
twelve apostles, nor upon a few Jews, and then upon
a few Gentiles of the household of Cornelius, but
" upon all flcsh.^^ So also in the promise, as given by
the Baptist, we have the same comprehensiveness:
"He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost." Did
the Baptist teach that Christ should only baptize the
twelve apostles? Here is another troublesome pro-
noun for Professor McGarvey, which it will be ex-

BAPTISM OF THE HOLY GHOST.

233

ceedingly difficult to limit sufficiently to save the
theory from helpless ruin. Again, 'Uhe promise^'
that is spoken of in ch. i, 4, is also spoken of in ch.
ii, 38, 39 : "And ye shall receive the gift of the Holy
Ghost. For the promise is unto yon, and to your
children, and to all that are afar off, even as many
as the Lord your God shall call." Now, Campbell-
ite expositors are wont to make a distinction between
the gift of the Holy Ghost and the baptism of the
Holy Ghost.* But the promise spoken of by the Sav-
ior was the baptism of the Holy Ghost; this promise
Peter told his hearers was unto them and unto their
children, "and to all that are afar off,'' and this
promise he had just called the "gift of the Holy
Ghost." He certainly did not mean the word of di-
vine truth, for if they repented and confessed Christ,
and were baptized, as these persons teach, they had
before these acts received the word of truth. The
promise was something they were to receive as a re-
alization afterwards. Again, the baptism of the Holy
Ghost on the household of Cornelius is — Acts x, 45 —
called the "gift of the Holy Ghost," and in ch.
XV, 8, it is called the witness to their hearts of their
adoption into the kingdom of Christ. "And God,
which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving
them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us." In
ch. xi, 16, 17, this outpouring of the Holy Ghost is

*See " McGarvey on Acts," Browder's Pulpit," p. 51.
20

234

ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM.

])oth called a baptism and " the like gift as unto us,"
and the promise of the Savior was especially referred
to. So also the apostle Paul says to his Ephesian
brethren, Eph. i, 13: "After that ye believed ye were
also sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise." The
promised baptism, or gift of the Holy Spirit, is a seal
and tcitness to all Christians.

But to make assurance on this matter overwhelm-
ingly sure, we have the universality of this baptism
affirmed in language so complete that it is marvelous
that any one should attempt to advocate a theory so
squarely contradicted by divine inspiration. It is not
possible to make a stronger statement of the univer-
sality of Holy Ghost baptism on the Church of Christ
than is found in 1 Cor. xii, 13: " For l)y one Spirit
are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews
or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free ; and have
all been made to drink into one Spirit." Here is a
formulated statement of a truth. The " one body " is
the Church of Christ; that is, his spiritual body. And
all who are in Christ " have obtained this blessed
relation by baptism, " by one Spirit," " whether Jews
or Gentiles, bond or free."

It is sought to break the force of this plain text
by a new rendering of the text. Mr. Braden hints at
it : * " By the direction of one Spirit, or in accordance
to the command of the Spirit, we are baptized," that

♦ "Hnghey and Braden," p. 462.

BAPTISM OF THE HOLY GHOST. 235

is, by water. Mr. Browder says : * The Greek
preposition en is employed to express agency or au-
thority; hence, by the authority of one Spirit you were
all baptized into one body." In the first place, by
the agency of, and by the authority of, are two rad-
ically diiferent ideas, and the therefore'^ of the sup-
posed explanation is a total non sequitur. To confound
author and agent is a piece of exegetical legerdemain
that we can not permit to pass unnoticed. In the
second place, the preposition iv, with the dative iv
kvc IlueijfmTiy defines instrumentality, and is precisely
the phraseology that is used everywhere the baptism
of the Holy Ghost is spoken of In Matt, iii, 11, ii^
IIveufiaTc kjiw. So also Mark i, 8; Luke iii, 16 ; John
i, 33; Acts i, 5, and xi, 16. . If, then, Iv means by
the authority of," we shall have some choice reading
in these passages. Take a sample. Matt, iii, 11 : He
shall baptize you by the authority of the Holy Ghost
and fire." The reader may ask. Are these scholars that
attempt these manipulations of the text in the interest
of a theory ? They claim to be, and are put forward
as exponents of this doctrine. They also speak with
great positiveness in promulgating their interpretations
of the inspired text.

But there is still another way of a more recent dis-
covery, by which it is sought to avoid the difficulty.
D. R. Dungan, president of Drake University, at Des

tBrowder's "Pulpit," p. 77.

236

ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM.

Moines, Iowa, in a little romance written by him
in advocacy of this theory of doctrine, makes his
heroine to say * of the promise contained in Acts ii,
17 : " With a literal translation it wonld read, ^ I will
•pour out jrom my Spirits This rendition we have
heard from some of their ministers, so that it seems
to be thought by them to be a way out of the dif-
ficulty.

This rendering is founded upon the supposed mean-
ing of the preposition aTTo in Acts ii, 17 : ix-^eo) 0.7:0
Toi) nveu/xaTo^ fioo. This is made use of in this way :
It is not the Holy Spirit that is poured out, but his
truth or revelation that comes from him. Hence what
is poured out is the word. But it is difficult to see
how this helps the case ; for if it is the word of inspi-
ration which is here " poured out in this baptism,
then it follows that not only Christians are baptized
by the Holy Ghost, but impenitent sinners also, for
they receive this word, which comes from the Holy
Ghost. But admitting, for the sake of the argument,
that this rendering is proper, does it not follow that
what is "poured out" is a spiritual influence coming
after the word has been received and accepted ? It
came upon the household of Cornelius after they re-
ceived the word. No evangelical Christian whatever
holds to a conception so gross as this, that the entire
Third Person in the Trinity was " poured out upon

* On the Rock," p. 222.

BAP I ISM OF THE HOLY GHOST.

237

the disciples or any one else ; but what they do main-
tain is, that in the baptism of the Holy Ghost there is
an immediate impartation of the Holy Ghost, in his
baptizing or purifying influence, to the soul of the
believer.

Wonderful discovery this — the bjvptism of words I
Why, our Heavenly Father had been doing this from
the time of the first revelation to men. Strange that at
the time the revelation was about completed the frag-
ment that remained should be called a baptism.

But in Titus iii, 5, 6, we have the Holy Ghost
" poured out abundantly.^' The preposition dro is
not in this text. The relative oh, " which," must either
agree with XoDvpobj " washing," or with ni^s'jtiazoz
dyio'j, Holy Ghost ; for they are both in the neuter
gender, while " renewing " is in the feminine gender.
To construe the relative which " in the text with
" washing," will scarcely be admitted by these theorists.
If, then, construed with the Holy Ghost," the text
declares that it was poured out on the believer abun-
dantly. Xow, they tell us, in interpreting this text,
that " the renewing of the Holy Ghost " is the influ-
ence of the word upon the minds and consciences of
men. If so, how does it come that this relative
is not in the feminine gender, to agree with renemingf
It seems to the writer that the very grammatical struc-
ture is made to teach that it is not mediate agency
that comes in contact with the soul, but the Spirit
himself, and the result is a washing and renewing.

238

ERRORS OF CAMVBELLISM.

With this interpretation fully agree other declara-
tions of the apostle Paul concerning spiritual baptism.
As for example, Eph. iv, 5: One Lord, one faith,
one baptism;" Rom. vi, 3, 4: ^'Know ye not that so
many of us as were baptized in Jesus Christ, were
baptized into his death ? Therefore we are buried with
him by baptism into death : that like as Christ was
raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even
so we also should walk in newness of life and Col. ii,
11,12: "In whom also ye are circumcised with the cir-
cumcision made without hands, in putting off the body
of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ :
buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen
with him through the faith of the operation of God,
who hath raised him from the dead." Now, it is a
very reasonable rule of interpretation to hold that the
forms of expression peculiar to a writer have the
same interpretation in all places, that he has given to
them in one or a few instances. The characteristic
expressions here are " one body," "one baptism," and
" baptism into Christ." The one body is Christ, or
rather Christ's spiritual Church. The " one baptism "
is by the Spirit, and " baptism into Christ" is spiritual
baptism. AVater baptism never baptizes any one " into
Christ," but only into the name of Christ ; that is into
a profession of the name of Christ. Therefore, these
facts exclude water baptism from all these texts, only as
it is implied in the antitype, the baptism of the Spirit.

How do we make this out? Paul defines the " one

BAPTISM OF THE HOLY GHOST.

239

body " and the " one baptism/^ in 1 Cor. xii, 13 :
" For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body/'
Apply, then, this definition of the " one baptism to
the three texts before given, and you make spiritual
baptism out of all of them. Baptism does precisely
the same thing in Rom. vi, 3 and 4, and Col. ii, 11,
12, that baptism by the Spirit is said to do in 1 Cor.
xii, 13; that is, it baptizes us into one body^^ 'Mnto
Christ.'' Hence if water baptism does the same thing,
it follows that there are two baptisms effecting the
same result ; but there is but one baptism,'' and that
baptism is by '^one Spirit." The persistent tendency
of man to ritualism in religion is seen in the deter-
mination to read water into texts wherever baptism is
mentioned, unless it is specifically excluded.

The forms of expression used in Rom. vi, 3-6, and
Col. ii, 11, 12, do not agree with the idea of a refer-
ence to water baptism. The controlling thought here
is a death to sin, and a life to righteousness. It is a
baptism info Christy into his death, into death. Now,
we know that water baptism is "into the name of
Christ" (Acts xix, 5), and we know, as shown above,
that the baptizing of the Spirit is *^into Christ."
Baptism " into his death'^ is into the saving power
of his death, and into death is into a death to sin
and a life to righteousness. How preposterous to
attribute such overwhelming results to mere ritual
baptism ! If, as the followers of Campbell claim, water
baptism produces death to sin in the penitent believer,

240

ERRORS OF CAMPBELLTSM.

Avhat produces dcatli to sin in the penitent backslider?
For he must be buried by baptism into death also, if
he "would live again unto righteousness. But note
that this baptism is not, as immersionists claim, in the
^'likeness'' of a burial, but ''in the likeness of his
death so " our old man is crucified with him, that
the body of sin might be destroyed.'^ ''The likeness
of his death is crucifixion. There is still another like-
ness indicated in verse 3 : " That like as Christ was
raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father,
even so we also should walk in newness of life."
Now, the true interpretation of this depends upon the
agency by which Christ was raised from the dead.
In chapter viii, 11, we are told that Christ was raised
by the Spirit: "But if the Spirit of him that raised
up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised
up Jesus from the dead shall also quicken your mortal
bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you." So also
1 Peter iii, 18 : "Being put to death in the flesh, but
quickened by the Spirit." There is, then, a likeness as
to agency between our spiritual resurrection, and the
resurrection of Christ from the dead. The likeness
of his death is crucifixion ; the likeness of resurrection
is spiritual power.

A consideration of the parallel passage — Col. ii,
11, 12 — will reveal principles in harmony with the
interpretation just given. Here we are told that this
baptism is a circumcision — " the circumcision of
Christ " — " made without hands." This circumcision

BAPTISM OF THE HOLY GHOST. 241

is most certainly a spiritual circumcision ; for it is not
physical in its mode — it is made without hands.
Then the burial with Christ and the resurrection are
spoken of. The resurrection is through the faith of
the operation or energy (Ivepyica::) of God, and here
his resurrection from the dead is again grounded on
the operation of the Holy Spirit; and not only so, but
the quickening power of the Spirif is spoken of in
the next verse as the immediate effect of this baptism r
" And you, being dead in your sins, and the uncircum-
cision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with
him/' That is, the same power that raised him
quickened you in baptism. There can be no question,
therefore, that the resurrection is a spiritual resurrec-
tion; and if so, the burial must be spiritual. The
burial can not be physical, and the resurrection spir-
itual ; they must be similar in this respect. But again,
we call attention to the fact that the point of compari-
son is not a likeness of burial and resurrection to
which a physical immersion and emersion is made to
have some remote resemblance, but a likeness of
death and resurrection. Id Col. ii, 11, 12, the put-
ting off the body the sins of the flesh," that is death ;
and " risen through the faith of the operation of God,''
quickened together with him. In Rom. vi, 5 : In
the likeness of his death," " our old man crucified
wdth him that the body of sin might be destroyed,"
and " like as Christ was raised from the dead, even so

also we should walk in newness of life."

21

242

ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM.

The followers of A. Campbell contend that the
baptism of the Holy Ghost was a miracle-working
gift. This is an assumption wholly gratuitous. It is
for this reason, however, that they seek to confine it
to the apostles and to the household of Cornelius.
They point to the fact that, in both these instances of
Holy Ghost baptism, there was a speaking with tongues.
But in 1 Cor. xii, the various gifts of the Spirit
are set forth, and these are all summed up in verse 13,
as the result of the baptism of the Holy Ghost which
came upon all. The assertion that the baptism of the
Holy Ghost is only a miracle-working ministration, is
tantamount to the denial that there is any gift of the
Spirit with the Church to-day ; for it was in this
form that it was promised to the entire Church. " The
Holy Spirit of promise/' the Comforter," " the gift
of the Spirit," each and all came in a baptism on Pen-
tecost. Hence, to deny the baptism of the Spirit to
the Church to-day, is to deny each and all of these,
and is to leave the Church comfortless.

SYNOyyMS OF BAPTISM

243

CHAPTER XIX.

THE IMMEDIATE OPERATION OF THE SPIRIT CON-
TINUED—SYNONYMS OF BAPTISM.

The words icash, cleanse, purify, sanctify, seal,
and anoint, as used in the Scriptures as synonyms for
tlie baptism of the Spirit, imply direct and immediate
impression upon the hearts and consciences of be-
lievers. In but a Very few instances are any of these
ascribed, ev^en in a secondary and remote sense, to the
Avord. But we will examine these supposed instances,
lest it be thought that there is more in them in favor
of this theory than really is. John xv, 3, is often
quoted as setting forth the cleansing power of the
word: "Now ye are clean, through the word which
I have spoken unto you.'^ It depends entirely upon
what is meant by " the word which I have spoken
unto you." It is maintained that it refers to the gen-
eral teaching of Christ going before. If such were
the case, it would be the plural words, instead of
word. This " icord,^^ speaking them clean, will be
found in ch. xiii, 10: " Jesus saith to him. He that is
washed needeth not save to wash his feet, but is clean
every whit; and ye are clean, but not all.'' It is
manifest that the Savior here simply speaks them clean
by an exercise of that power he had to speak sins

244

ERRORS OF CAMPBFAJASM.

forgiven. So by the Holy Ghost he speaks to humau
hearts, Be thou clean/'

John xvii, 17, is also cited as a proof of sanctifi-
cation by means of the truth. It was extensively
quoted by Campbell in his debate with Professor
Rice, and Braden in his debate with Dr. Hughey.

Sanctify them through the truth ; thy word is truth."
Now it must be admitted that the word sanctify in
tliis case means the same, as applied to the disciples,
that it does as applied to Christ; for the Savior says,
verse 19: "And for their sakes I sanctify myself,
that they also might be sanctified through the truth."
The word sanctify therefore means consecrate ^ or set
apart. It can not mean to cleanse from sin, for they
were already ''clean," ch. xiii, 10, and xv, 3. And
besides, the Savior did not mean, even so cleanse /
myself^' for he had no sin to be cleansed from. The
Revised Version gives the key to the whole matter
in reading the text, " Sanctify them in the truth
that is, in the use of the truth for their office as
teachers; and verse 19 may be paraphrased thus:
"And for their sakes I set myself apart as their
teacher, that they might also be set apart as teachers
of the truth." This is the plain and obvious mean-
ing of the prayer. One thing, however, is excluded;
it can not be a prayer for the salvation of the apos-
tles, and hence is misemployed when used in this
sense.

Another passage used by them in the same way is

SYNONYMS OF BAPTISM.

245

Kuiii. i, 16 : "I am not ashamed of the gu^pel of
Christ, for it is the power of God unto salvation to
every one that belie veth." In the first place, the pas-
sage does not affirm that the gospel is the only power
of God unto salvation, and it would be sufficient
for all purposes of argument to dismiss it with this
remark. In the second place, what is the meaning of
the term gospel here? These parties seem to take it
for granted that it means the whole Xew Testament
canon. The gospel is the glad tidings of salvation
through Christ and his gifts unto men. Hence the
gospel was preached unto Abraham,"* and preached
to the children of Israel in the wilderness. f It there-
fore is this simple truth that ^' God is in Christ rec-
onciling the world unto himself," and has no water
baptism in it whatever.

For a similar purpose, Eph. v, 25, 26, is cited:
" Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ loved the
Church and gave himself for it, that he might sanc-
tify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the
word." In reply to the argument attempted from
this, it is only necessary to call attention to the fact
that those who contend for the immediate influence of
the Spirit do not deny his mediate work. But the
words iu pijuazi may, with equal propriety, be trans-
lated " in the -word " — that is, according to the word.
What word? The word of the prophet Ezekiel, ch.

*Gal. iii, 8. tHeb. iv, 2.

246

ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM.

xxxvi, 25-27 : Then will I sprinkle clean water
upon you and ye shall he clean, and Irora all y<iur
filthiness and idols will I cleanse you. A new heart
also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put
within you. I will take away the stony heart out of
your flesh, and I will give you a heart of flesh. And
I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to
walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments
to do them." Now, all other passages, where the word
of truth is spoken of in connection with cleansing,
washing, and the like, can be explained in the same
way. Xo supposed difficulty for the doctrine of evan-
gelical Christians has been evaded. lu fact, all their
arguments proceed upon the assumptions, already re-
ferred to, that the instrumentality of the word is de-
nied. It is not. Simply the additional fact of the
direct impression and immediate efficacy of the Holy
Spirit is asserted, and this latter the followers of A.
Campbell deny.

The psalmist David prays, after his great sin (Psa.
li, 7) : Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean ;
wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow." And
again, in verse 10: Create in me a clean heart, O
God, and renew a right spirit within me." Now, was
the psalmist praying for the word — for the law of
(lod — to be given him to ''purge and wash him," ''to
create in him a clean heart and renew a right spirit
within him?" In his debate with Professor Kice, Mr.
Caiupl)ell was wont to quote from Psa. xix: "The law

SYNONYMS OF BAPTISM.

247

of God is perfect, converting the soul/' David al-
ready bad this converting law; what more was he
praying for? This law had done its work, "for by it
was the knowledge of sin.'^ It accused him and con-
demned him, and he now felt he needed a direct com-
munication from the great Author of the law, saying
to his heart : " Thy sins are forgiven thee — " thou
art clean.''

Mr. Campbell and his followers teach that the nat-
uralized citizen of the kingdom of Christ has a right
to petition or pray. Now, in the case of a backslider,
like David, a petition for pardon and cleansing is of-
fered,— how is it obtained? Does God pardon? How
does the sinner know it? Does he cleanse? By
what agency does he do it? If it is all done by the
word, it is a decided waste of time, even a presump-
tion, to pray for that he already has in the Book of
Truth.

The cleansing spoken of in Ezekiel xxxvi, 25-27,
manifests the same unmistakable marks of divine, im-
mediate interposition. The promise to "sprinkle clean
water" upon Israel for the purpose of cleans-
ing, can scarcely be taken in a physical sense. And
it is certain that " clean water,'' as a symbol, does not
stand for the word. The "new heart" and "new
spirit" promised require an exercise of divine power,
and the promise of tlie gift of his Spirit is to "cause"
them " to walk in his statutes and keep his judgments."
No words could better set forth the wide difference

248

ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM.

between GocVs operation upon the hearts of men and
the office of the law of God. The law is in their
minds already. His Spirit causes them to walk in it.

The same great trrth is taught in Acts xv, 8, 9:
" And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them wit-
ness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as unto us;
and put no difference between us and them, purifying
their hearts by faith.'' Let it be noted that this re-
fers to the baptism of the household of Cornelius by
the Holy Ghost, and that God thus gave them the
Holy Ghost to " bear them witness," and to purify
their hearts, upon their faith in Christ. And in
1 Cor. vi, 11, we have, in formulated statement, the
presentation of the agency by which this washing,
cleansing, and sanctification are brought about : " And
such were some of you, but ye are washed, but ye are
sanctified, but ye are justified, in the name of the
Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.'^ So, also,
sanctification of the Spirit is spoken of as distinct
from the office of the truth, in 2 Thess. ii, 13: "But
we are bound to give thanks always to God for you,
brethren, beloved of the Lord, because God hath, from
the beginning, chosen you to salvation, through sanc-
tification of the Spirit and belief of the truth."

With an equally forceful import are those pas-
sages of divine truth which attribute sealing and
anointing to the Holy Ghost — 2 Cor. i, 21, 22 : " Now
he which stablisheth us with you in Christ and hath
anointed us, Is God; who hath also sealed us and given

SYNONYMS OF BAPTISM.

249

the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts.^^ Eph. i, 13 :
" In Avhom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the
Avord of the truth of the gospel of your salvation ; in
whom also, after that ye believed, ye were sealed with
the Holy Spirit of promise, which is the earnest of our
inheritance, until the redemption of the purchased
possession, unto the praise of his glory/^ Eph. iv, 30 :
" And grieve not the Holy Spirit of God, whereby ye
Avere sealed unto the day of redemption." 1 John ii,
20 and 27 : " But ye have an unction from the Holy
One, and ye know all things. . . . But the anoint-
ing which ye have received from him abideth in you,
and ye need not that any man teach you ; but as the
same anointing teacheth you all things, and is truth
and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall
abide in him."

Now there are several points to be noted with ref-
erence to these passages: 1. Sealing is by direct im-
press on wax, or the substance sealed. 2. As a seal it
is a perpetual attestation of the instrument sealed.
3. Anointing is the direct application of the anointing
oil to the person anointed. 4. The seal of the Holy
Ghost, in the first two passages, is called an ^' earnest " —
a pledge — to their acceptance with God. 5. This
anointing, sealing, and earnest came after the truth;
that is, the office of the truth is clearly defined, and
having received the truth, they afterward were sealed
and anointed of God by the Holy Spirit.

The Holy Spirit, in his office of a witness, a com-

250

ERRORS OF CAMPBELLTSM.

forter, a helper, abides with the Church of Christ
throiigli all ages to the end of time. These blessed
influences are set forth in a quite extensive variety
of statement in the Scriptures, statement totally in-
explicable if the immediate impact of the Spirit is
denied. In the eighth chapter of Romans the apos-
tle Paul very fully presents the office and work of the
Holy Ghost in the Christian Church, emphatically
setting forth the huJireUing of the Spirit in the hearts
of all who are truly children of God, saying, in verses
14-16 : " For as many as are led by the Spirit of God,
they are the sons of God. For ye have not received
the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have re-
ceived the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba,
Father. The Spirit itself beareth witness with our
spirit that we are the children of God.'' It would seem
that this needs no comment, that language could not
more explicitly teach a direct impression of the Spirit.
Yet such is the blinding influence of preconceived
theories, that in their interest these plain utterances
of inspiration are explained away. We are told that
the Spirit bears witness by the word. Then the
Spirit itself" is the word. If so, by what combina-
tion of words in language will we be able to designate
the Holy Ghost apart from the word ? The " earnest
of the Spirit," spoken of in 2 Cor. i, 22, and v, 5 ;
Eph. i, 13, 14, and iv, 30, is of like import.

This doctrine of the direct witness of the Spirit is
in consonance with the soundest dictates of reason.

SYNONYMS OF BAPTISM.

251

Sin is a fact of personal experience^ and felt in the
condemnation of conscience. The knowledge of sin
comes from a personal conscionsness of its existence.
Without this, no amount of reasoning could convince
of sin. Repentance is a godly sorrow for sin, a deep,
pungent feeling of the justice of divine displeasure at
it. Now, what can be the witness of the removal of
guilt and condemnation, and a sense of restoration
to divine favor, but an impression made in con-
sciousness? The same divine voice that speaks in
conscience, and says. Thou art guilty, thou art con-
demned, must say, Thou art pardoned, thou art
clear. The first is the voice of God in man, the sec-
ond must likewise be his voice ; " for who can forgive
sins but God alone?^^

But it may be said. Conscience simply condemns or
approves according to the knowledge of the right, and
violation of it or conformity to it; that the individ-
ual who does what he believes- to be right, whether it
be right or not, will have the approval of conscience.
This is readily conceded, and, as a fact, lies directly
against the theory that makes the only witness of
pardon to consist in a subjective process of reasoning,
which amounts to this alone : I have done what I be-
lieve to be right in believing, repenting, confessing
Christ, and being baptized ; I may therefore conclude
I am pardoned. But suppose this is a mistake ; what
then? I have the approval of conscience to an error
in judgment, and yet have no evidence of acceptance

252

ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM.

w itli God. The very fact that human reason is liable
to err, is a reason why God should say to the truly
believing penitent heart, *^Thy sins are forgiven thee,"
and u<jt leave him to the uncertainty arising from
con.seiousness of human fallibility.

But the Holy Spirit, as an abiding companion,
comforter, helper, and teacher, is taught in numerous
passages in the Scriptures. John vii, 38, 39 : He
that believeth on me, as the Scripture hath said, out
of his belly [^from within him, ^ marginal reading of the
Revised Version] shall flow rivers of living water.
But this he spake of the Spirit which they that be-
lieve on him should receive : for the Holy Ghost was
not yet given ; because that Jesus was not yet glori-
fied." Of similar import are the promises of the
ParadetCj in John xiv, 16, 17, and 26; xv, 26; and
xvi, 7-13, on which extensive comment has already
been made. Rom. viii, 26: ''Likewise the Spirit
also helpeth our infirmities, for we know not what
we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself
maketh intercession for us with groanings which can
not be uttered." 2 Cor. iii, 3 : " Forasmuch as ye
are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ,
ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the
Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but
in fleshly tables of the heart." 1 Cor. iii, 16: " Know
ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the
Spirit of God dwelleth in you?" Also vi, 19 : What !
know ye not that your body is the temple of the

SYNONYMS OF BAPTISM,

253

Holy Ghost, which is in you, which ye have of God,
and ye are not your own?'^ Rom. v, 5: "And hope
maketh not ashamed, because the love of God is shed
abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost, which is
given unto us."

These are some of the passages selected out of
many of a similar import, to be found in the Scrip-
tures, setting forth the positive presence of the Holy
Ghost in the hearts of Christians as a helper, com-
forter, teacher. No amount of exegetical manipula-
tion can break their force in this direction.

There are other passages that speak of " access by
the Spirit," Eph. ii, 18; "Habitation of God through
the Spirit," Eph. ii, 22 ; " Strengthened with might
by the Spirit in the inner man," Eph. iii, 16;
" Grieving the Spirit," Eph. iv. 30 ; " Filled with the
Spirit," Eph. V, 18; "Supply of the Spirit," Phil,
i, 19; "Fellowship of the Spirit," Phil, ii, 1;
" Quench not the Spirit," 1 Thess. v, 19 ; "Made par-
takers of the Holy Ghost," Heb. vi, 4 ; " Despite to
the Spirit of grace," Heb. x, 26 ; " Praying in the
Holy Ghost," Jude 20. There is the actual embarrass-
ment of riches on this great and blessed truth in the
Scriptures. It is with difficulty that the writer is
able to select, out of the many passages teaching, as
shown above by a great diversity of expression, this
truth, to set forth the fact of the immediate presence
of the Holy Spirit with the child of God.

A few have been selected from the smaller epis-

254

ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM.

ties to give the reader an idea of how ample the
proof of this doctrine in the Book of divine in-
spiration. In fact, the gift of the Holy Ghost is the
one great gift through which all other good is to come
to us. In Luke xi, 13, the Master says: If ye then,
being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your
children ; how much more shall your heavenly Father
give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him !" Here
the Holy Spirit is given in answer to prayer. Can
this mean the word of truth ? If not, what does it
mean? Why the Holy Spirit first? Because that
implies the gift of pardon, regeneration, adoption,
comfort, help, — all the blessings that belong to the
children of God.

In closing up the discussion upon this theme, we
note some objections that are fatal to the doctrine that
the Spirit only operates through the word, as Mr.
Campbell says:* "As all the influence which my
spirit has exerted upon other spirits, at home or
abroad, has been the stipulated signs of ideas, of spir-
itual operations by my written or spoken word ; so
believe I that all the influence of God's good Spirit,
now felt in the way of conviction or co)isoIaflon, in the
four quarters of the globe, is by the Word written,
read, and heard, which is called the living oracles."
The italics are my own, to call the reader's attention
to how comprehensive the statement. It could be

* " Millennial Harbinger," Vol. VI, p. 35G.

SYNONYMS OF BAPTISM.

255

duplicated from a number of their most able doc-
trinal exponents.

If this is true doctrine, it follows that prayer for
spiritual blessings is useless. If God does not impress
himself upon human hearts aside from the word of
truth, and in addition to it, then the only comfort the
Christian can get is by meditation on this word and
a subjective feeling of satisfaction or peace wrought
within himself by his cogitations. And a prayer for
the conversion of sinners would be a sinful Avaste of
time, inasmuch as it would be mere idle asking of God
to do what he has commanded the Christian to do by
the use of the word, and which can only be done by
bringing its truths home to human judgments, or
getting those who know the truth to reflect on it.

Again, from the stand-point of this doctrine there
is no knowledge of forgiveness of sins; there may be
belief of forgiveness, but this is founded on fallible
reasoning, predicated on uncertain premises. For the
advocates of this doctrine will scarcely assert in the
face of nine-tenths of the Christian world who think
differently, that they know they are right as to the
conditions of pardon; nor can they claim that they are
infallibly certain they have completely fulfilled all
the conditions. No deductions can be more certain
than the premises upon which they are founded. Then,
if there is uncertainty in the premises, and uncertainty
in their process of fulfillment, there is a cumulative
uncertainty in the conclusion. No consistent follower

256

ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM.

of A. Campbell can say, I know that Jesus bath power
on earth to forgive sins. He may say, " 1 think so, I
believe so." Nor can he say, " Abba Father," for
the Spirit himself does not bear witness with him.
He can say, ^ly fallible interpretation of the Word
leads me to believe that I have obeyed the gospel, and
because I have done so, I may believe I am accepted
of him.

But then, as shown before, if he become a back-
slider, and repents, he is absolutely without evidence
of his reinstatement to divine favor, if there is no wit-
nessing spirit; for he can not go back to his baptism,
which he claimed was for the remission of his past
sins, for the sins he now seeks remission for are sub-
sequent sins. He may pray; but praying will bring
no sense of reconciliation, save and except such as he
may predicate simply on the fact that he prayed more
or less earnestly.

It is truly a doctrine beset with difficulties many
and profound, and were it not for the theory of bap-
tismal remission or justification, which anchors the
scheme to these fatal rocks, it is to be believed that
the maturer thought of broader scholarship would
ultimately drift these people over into the wide ocean
of an all-pervading, gracious spiritual inHuence, and
put them into fraternal harmony with the great l)odies
of Protestantism in one fcllowshij) of the Spirit.

CAMPBELLITE OBJECTIONS TO METHODISM. 257

CHAPTER XX.

SUNDRY OBJECTIONS OF CAMPBELUTE TEACHERS
TO METHODIST DOCTRINES.

It is customary with the exponents of this system
of faith to formulate a general proposition against
both the polity and doctrines of the Methodist Episco-
pal Church, and call upon our ministry to defend them
in discussion. The writer, on two occasions, has been
required to respond to the following proposition ;
namely, " The Methodist Episcopal Church teaches
doctrines, and enjoins usages that are contrary to the
Word of God.'^ This gives them opportunity to make
a general attack on the doctrines and economy of the
Methodist Episcopal Church, and at the same time
present the supposed simplicity and scripturalness of
the creed devised and promulgated by Alexander
Campbell.

When it is remembered by the reader that this so-
called reformation started out with the laudable pur-
pose of bringing about Christian unity among the
various denominations of Christians, and then the fact
is taken into consideration that it is a very de-
nominational Ishmael among the Churches, waging a
perpetual war of denunciation and proselytism against
I 22

258

ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM.

them, it is a sad comment upon the inability of our
luimanity, ordinarily, to take the proper gauge of its
own motives, impulses, and principles.

It is doubtful if there is to be found among the
denominations of Protestantism one more imperious
in its claims, narrower in its creed, and more unchar-
itable toward the honest principles of others, than
this one that claims to offer to the Christian world
a basis upon which all can unite.

But we will deal more fully with this subject when
we oome to treat of the distinctive creed and polity of
Campbellism. At present attention will be given to
their assault on Methodism — an assault that is made
wherever their ministers seek to make converts to
their faith. It is always with them a matter of great
rejoicing when they succeed in winning a convert
from some one of the sects," as they are wont to
style the other Christian bodies. The first point of
attack is usually the denominational name — Methodist
Episcopal Church. The assumption is, that to take
any other name than that of Christum Church, is to
violate a divine injunction, and build up a division
and schism in the body of Christ. It is usually main-
tained by them that Christian Church is a name of
divine appointment and sanction. In support of these
assumptions, the following Scriptures are uniformily
cited: Isa. Ixii, 2: "Thou shalt be called by a new
name, which the mouth of the Lord shall name."
Then, Acts xi, 2G : " The disciples were called Chris-

CAMPBELLITE OBJECTIONS TO METHODISM. 259

tiaiis first at Antiocb.'^ Acts xxvi, 28 : " Almost thou
persnadest me to be a Cbristian/^ 1 Peter iv, 16 :
" Yet if auy man suffer as a Cbristian, let bira be
not ashamed." James ii, 7 : Do not they blaspheme
that worthy name by the which ye are called?'' Eph.
iii, 14: "Of whom the whole family in heaven and
earth is named/' Rev. ii, 13: I know thy works,
and that thou boldest fast my name." It is held also
that the taking of distinctive denominational names
is condemned in 1 Cor. i, where the apostle Paul cen-
sures his brethren of the Corinthian Church for say-
ing, " I am of Paul, and I of ApoUos, and I of Ce-
phas, and I of Christ." These quotations make up
the entire body of Scriptural proof that is offered on^
this point.

In the determination of a question in dispute, it
always helps to get a clear idea of the point at issue,
and what is claimed by the disputants. Let it be un-
derstood here that it is not a question as to what the
individual followers of Christ should be called, for all
agree that they should be called Christians ; not per-
haps as a name specifically enjoined by divine inspira-
tion, but as an appropriate descriptive appellation.
Hence Baptists, Presbyterians, Congregationalists,
Methodists, and all other denominations call them-
selves Christians, and it is only when they wish to
discriminate between their several beliefs that thov
use the term Baptist, Methodist, and the like. Every
citizen within the United States may be called a citi-

260

ERIIORS OF CAMPBELLISM.

zen of the same. And yet there are tiaies when his
State citizenship is required properly to designate liiiu.
It is not dishonoring the name of American citizen
to say that he is a Peunsylvanian, a Virginian, an
Ohioan. So a Baptist or a Methodist, in avowing his
distinctive denominational relationship, does not dis-
avow his relationship to Christ or the name Christian.
Those who take the name Christian as their distinctive
denominational name, and refuse to be discriminated
by their peculiar characteristics or otherwise, display
an arrogance toward other Christians that should not
be tolerated. It is this exclusiveness that makes
division and schism. The Methodist can style the
Presbyterian or Baptist or Congregationalist his Chris-
tian brother; but the followers of Alexander Camp-
bell can not consistently do so. Therefore, the idea
that Christians who are of Methodist belief, and
Christians who are of Baptist belief, in taking these
denominational appellations properly to distinguish
themselves, ignore the name of Christ, is a total mis-
aj^prehension of the real facts in the case.

For an individual to have said, I am of the
Church of Ephesus, or of the Church of Smyrna, or
of the Church of Pergamos," would not have been to
deny the name of Christ or Christian ; for these local
appellation^ were necessary as designations, but no
more so than is Baptist, Lutlferan, Presbyt<?rian,
Methodist, to-day.

But the question is not. What shall the individual

CAMPBELLITE OBJECTIONS TO METHODISM. 261

followers of Christ call themselves? — for they all call
themselves Christians — but, AVhat shall the Church in
its organic capacity call itself? The followers of
Campbell say Christian Churchy and no other denom-
inational designation, for this is a divinely ordained
name. In the first place, this may be met with a
square contradiction. The name Christian Church
has no existence in the Scriptures. The individual
followers of Christ were called Christians, probably at
first as a nickname; but certainly not objectionable
to one who had espoused the cause of Christ ; but the
Church, as an organization, was not called the Chris-
tian Church ; and for any denomination of professing
Christians to make use of this false assumption to ar-
rogate to themselves the exclusive name of Christian
Church, and therefore demand to be called the Chris-
tian Church, is something that proper self-respect in
other Christians requires that they should promptly
resent.

The Church as a divine institution in its univer-
sality— that is, the body of those whose " names are
written in heaven — has a divine name uniformly
given to it in the Scriptures, and that is ^' the Church
of God.^' The term Church of Christ does not even
once occur in the Scriptures — " Churches of Christ
in one instance Rom. xvi, 16. There is a significance
in this fact. The Church existed before the Son of
God became the Christ, and therefore its generic name,
which belonged to it in all the past ages, was per-

262

ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM.

potuated with it, in order that its unity might hp
maintained.

But it may be asked, Is not Christian Church an
appropriate appellation? Most certainly, as an ap])el-
lation designating the Church in its catholicity under
the Christian dispensation, it is appropriate. Still it
is uot a divinely appointed name ; and when this as-
sertion is made, as it often is by these teachers, there
is not one particle of Scripture warrant for it. Yet
it is uncharitable and arrogant for any denomina-
tion distinctively to style itself the Christian Church,
as though other denominations were not Christian in
their faith and doctrines.

Having thus cleared away the false assumptions
underlying their arguments, it will be seen that the
passages of Scripture they are wont to cite are in no
sense relevant, and need but little further elucidation.
Isa. Ixii, 2, does not refer either to the name Christian
or Christian Church, and only such as have a precon-
ceived theory to maintain would attempt to broach
such an opinion. In verse 4 of this chapter, we have
both the old name and the new name given in the
prophetic symbolism : Thou shalt no more be termed
Forsaken; neither shall thy land any more be termed
Desolate ; but thou shalt be called Hephzibah, and
thy land Beulah : for the Lord delighteth in thee, and
thy land shall be married." Eph. ii, 14, 15: ''For
this cause I bow my knees unto the Fatiier of our
Lord Jesus Christ, of wlioin the whole family in

CAMPBELLITE OBJECTIONS TO METHODISM. 263

heaven and earth is named/^ It will suffice to ask,
Does this refer to the name Christian Church ? Is
there here even a remote allusion to this name as an
appellation of the Church? If it were conceded that
reference here is had to the term Christian as a per-
sonal designation of the individual followers of Christ,
that would in no sense prove that the Church of God
should be called by no other name than Christian
Church, and certainly would give no warrant for the
assumption of the name the Christian Church by any
one small fraction of the body of Christ. The fact is,
the expression " of whom the whole family in heaven
and earth is named,^' refers to the Father. Many ex-
cellent ancient MSS. and versions omit the words " of
our Lord Jesus Christ in verse 14. But the terms
Father and family have a mutual relation to each other;
they are correlative terms, and should be so construed
in the interpretation of the text. Saints in heaven and
saints on earth might properly be called Christians; but
would Christian be a proper designation of the angels
of God ? The term Christ is an official appellation, and
belongs to him as our anointed prophet, priest, and king.
The name referred to in the text is sons of God.'^
1 John iii, 1 : " Behold, what manner of love the
Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called
the sons of God.'' So also Gal. iv, 6, 7 : " And be-
cause ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his
Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father. Where-

264

ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM.

fore thou art no more a servant, but a son ; aud if a
son, then an heir of God through Christ.'^

Thus we think the Methodist Episcopal Church, in
having the modesty, and also the Christian charity, to
take a distinctive denominational appellation among the
organizations that compose the Church of God, in so do-
ing neither yields up their right to be called Christians,
nor violates any mandate of the Scriptures ; while, on
the contrary, those who arrogate to themselves that
name alone, put themselves in a place where other
Christians are compelled to give them a distinctive
appellation which may not be acceptable to them.
It is certainly in the worst kind of taste for the fol-
lowers of A. Campbell, or any other denomination, to
style themselves the Christian Church. The writer,
out of respect for his own personal rights, and out of
courtesy to other Christian denominations, begs to
be excused.

Following this, there are several objections that
they usually make to our book of Discipline and
Articles of Religion, to which we will reply when the
subject of Discipline and Creeds is considered — the
objections not being made to the doctrines as false, but
only to the form of their promulgation, they claiming
that they are not enjoined in the Scriptures as mat-
ters of faith.

But Article VIII of our Articles of Religion is
often by them held up as teaching a doctrine con-

CAMPBELLITE OBJECTIONS TO METHODISM. 265

trary to the teaching of the Scriptures. The article
reads : The condition of man, after the fall of Adam
is such that he can not turn and prepare himself, by
his own natural strength and works, to faith, and call-
ing upon God ; wherefore we have no power to do
good works, pleasant and acceptable to God, without
the grace of God by Christ preventing us, that we
may have a good will.''

The reason for their stout objection to this article
is the fact that it teaches the immediate influence of
the Divine Spirit and grace upon human hearts, and,
as shown in former chapters, that they can not admit,
without upsetting the very foundation-stones of Camp-
bellism, baptism as a condition to justification, and its
witness to the fact of justification; for if the Divine
Spirit helps the sinner, why may he not witness to
the believer? But in this respect the followers of A.
Campbell are more consistent, but less orthodox, than
was their great teacher. He taught inherent de-
pravity and human sinful helplessness. After speak-
ing of Adam's transgression and its effects upon his
race, he says : * " There is therefore a sin of our na-
ture, as well as personal transgression. Some inap-
positely call the sin of our nature our ' original sin,'
as if the sin of Adam was the personal offense of all
his children. True, indeed, it is ; our nature was cor-
rupted by the fall of Adam before it was transmitted

*" Christian System," p. 28.

23

26G

ERRORS OF CAMPBELLTSM.

to us, aad hence that hereditary imbecility to do good,
and that proneness to do evil, so universally apparent
in all human beings. Let no man open his mouth
against the transmission of moral distemper until he
satisfactorily explain the fact that the special charac-
teristic vices of parents appear in their children, as
much as the color of their skin, their hair, or the con-
tour of their faces. A disease in the moral constitu-
tion of man is as clearly transmissible as any physical
taint, if there be any truth in history, biography, or
human observation.'^

Here is language clearly asserting inherited de-
pravity,— " hereditary imbecility to do good, and
proneness to do evil.'' Xow, if such be the condition
of the human heart, no mere appeal to the intellect
will meet the demands of the case ; ^' hereditary imbe-
cility " can only be overcome by the immediate influ-
ence of' the Divine Spirit. With this agrees the
teaching of the Scriptures in the use of such terms as
express the utter helplessness of a race of sinners
without immediate divine assistance, — such as "dead
in trespasses and in sins * the whole head sick,"
the whole heart faint ;" t " enchained to the putre-
fying body of sin." %

In invciirhinor ao^ainst the doctrine of this Article of
Religion, it is customary for these teachers to hold it up
IS teaching total depravity. The words total depravity

^ Eph. ii, 1. t Isa. i, 5. X Rom. vii. 24.

CAMPBELLITE OBJECTIONS TO METHODISM. 267

have no existence in any Article of Religion of the Meth-
odist Episcopal Church; and while in orthodox theology
they have a very definite import, yet there is nothing in
our Articles of Religion requiring our use of them, or a
defense of them as a proper theological technic. The
term, however, as defined by those that use it, simply
means "hereditary imbecility to do good," a total
bent and inclination to sin, so that the sinner, left to
himself, would never turn to seek after righteousness.
But man has not been left to himself; but provisions,
gracious and ample, have been made for the salvation
of the entire race, and the only question of difference
between the followers of A. Campbell and Methodists
is this : What constitutes these provisions ? They
say they are the atonement and the word alone.
Methodists say, in addition to these is a manifestation
of the Spirit, given to every man to profit withal."^
They say because of man's " hereditary imbecility to
good, and proneness to evil,'' he needs the help of
God. Mr. Braden f says : " This teaches the doctrine
of election and reprobation." Let us see. Mr. Bra-
den believes that the word of divine truth is the di-
vine gracious provision for the salvation of men.
If tliis alone, then only those who have it are elected
to the gracious possibility of salvation. In other
words, God has passed by to this date the greater
part of the human race, making no provision what-

*1 Cor. xii, 7. t Hiighey and Braden Debate," p. 522.

268

ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISyr.

ever for thera ; and if auy of the heathen are saved,
they are saved through a morality that is wholly
their own. The Methodist Church believes that God
has made it possible for every child of man to be
saved who will use the grace given, while Campbell-
ism must either deny this, or else save some outside
of any manifestation of grace whatever. The simple
truth is, the article asserts man's natural inability to a
righteousness that will meet the divine requirements,
and also indicates that a gracious ability is given unto
him, that his salvation may be of grace, and not of
works;" of God, and not of man. Man's work is sim-
ply the employment of the grace supplied.

That part of Article II of the Articles c»f Re-
ligion which says Christ was crucified, dead, aud
buried, to reconcile his Father to us," is also very ve-
hemently assailed by them. The animus of this antag-
onism is found in the fact that it is thought that the
doctrine of a divine side to the work of reconciliation
leaves open a way of prayer to the sinner, and a wit-
nessing spirit to the believer. Much of their oppo-
sition is either founded upon a misapprehension of the
import of the language here used, or is a mere con-
tention about words. The article only asserts that
Christ suffered and died to reconcile the administra-
tion of divine justice to the pardon of our sin ; that
is, to reconcile divine justice with divine mercy.
Surely it will not be contended that Christ did not
die to make it possible for God to be just, and the

CAMPBELLITE OBJECTIONS TO METHODISM. 269

jiistlfier of sinners/'* If it is contended that this
propitiation of divine justice is in no sense a recon-
ciliation of God to the sinner, then this is a question
to be decided by an appeal to the Word of God.
Though it is^with some difficulty we get at the exact
meaning of these persons, yet their methods of rea-
soning lead to the conclusion that they mean to deny
in toto the application of the term reconciliation in the
plan of redemption to God ; that is, God was in no
sense reconciled to man. He never was unrecon-
ciled. What does the word reconcile mean? Web-
ster defines it " to bring together, to unite.'' There
are two parties in every reconciliation, and they are
only reconciled when they are brought into harmony.
Can God be in a state of reconciliation with man in
sin and willful disobedience? Can it be said that
God is well pleased with him? If not, then he needs
to be reconciled to him by man's repentance and faith.
The Scriptures teach that the Avrath of God abides on
the unbeliever. John iii, 36: He that believeth on
the Son hath everlasting life : and he that believeth
not the Son shall not see life ; but the wrath of God
abideth on him." Can God be said to be reconciled to
that individual upon whom his lor'ath abides f But
this shall be treated of more fully when we consider
the individual sinner's reconciliation to God.

The reconciliation in the article especially spoken of,

* Rom. iii, 20.

270

ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM,

is the reconciliation of the Father to man's jnstification
in the sacrificial death of Clirist. The fundamental idea
contained in the word sacrijice is the placating of divine
justice, and this placating is called in the Scriptures
^'making reconciliation for ini(piity." Daniel ix, 24:
" Seventy weeks are determined upon thy holy city to
finish the transgression, and to make reconciliation for
hiiquitij.^^ This, without question, refers to the sac-
rificial work of Christ, and that most certainly was
made to divine justice. What, then, wa« reconciled
on Calvary? Divine justice. The Hebrew word for
reconcile is kaphar — to cover, to make atonenient.
It would be raarvelously absurd to maintain that man
is the party that is to be reconciled here.

The word reconcile and its derivatives occur in
the New Testament twelve times, where it signifies
the restoration of man again to favor with God.
These are translations of fijur different Greek words,
xaza/ldacrcOj aTzoxaza/jAzTco, xaTa/layrjj DAaxoam. The
first three indicate or signify the change of relations
brought about between God and the sinner. Our
reconciliation is not spoken of until it is a reconcilia-
tion in fact, by bringing the alicnatccl parties to-
gether. The first employment of the term reconcile
{xaza)jAaao)) in reference to the relation in grace be-
tween God and man, is in Rom. v, 10: "For if,
when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by
the death of his Son ; much more, being reconciled,
we shall be saved by his life." X<»\v, what was rec-

CAMPBELLITE OBJECTIONS TO METHODISM. 271

onciled by the death of Christ? Most certainly di-
vine justice; not man, for this reconciliation took
place when " we were enemies." Reconciliation is
the divine side of the work of Christ, salvation is
our side ; that is, he reconciles God and saves us.
In 2 Cor. V, 18, 19 : "And all things are of God,
who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ,
and hath given us the ministry of reconciliation ; to wit,
that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto
himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them, and
hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation."
Note that this reconciliation " hath " been completed
through Jesus Christ. It therefore can not be the
reconciliation of the sinner to God. Verse 19 de-
fines this reconciliation ; to wit, " that God was in
Christ reconciling the world unto himself." When was
this done? In the incarnation. Notice the past
tense " was." If the reconciliation were that of man,
then it would be in the present tense. The past tense
refers to the atoning sacrifice of Christ. The recon-
ciliation was in the past; the "ministry" of divine
" reconciliation " is future. Of like import are Eph.
ii, 16 : "And that he might reconcile both unto God
in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity
thereby;" and Col. i, 20, 21: "And, having made
peace through the blood of the cross, by him to rec-
oncile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether
they be things in earth, or things in heaven. And
you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in

272

ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM.

your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he recon-
ciled in the body of his flesh through death."

Now, in both of these quotations the reconciliation
is by the cross, and is in the past tense. In Eph. ii,
16, it is in the aorist subjunctive, and in Col. i, 20 in the
aorist infinitive. This fact most conclusively demon-
strates that it does not refer to the future reconcilia-
tion of the sinner. Winer, in his " New Testament
Grammar/' says that it " is only in appearance that the
aorist is used for the future.'' If, then, the reconcilia-
tion took place in past time, through Christ's death
and by the cross, it was not the sinner that was recon-
ciled, for he is yet to be reconciled. It must there-
fore be God who has been reconciled to the justifica-
tion of the sinner.

In Heb. ii, 17, we have it distinctly stated that
Christ came to reconcile the Father. " Wherefore in
all things it behooved him to be made like unto his
brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful
high priest in things pertaining to God, to make recon-
ciliation for the sin.> of the people." It will be ob-
served that the word pertaining has been supplied by
the translators, and is not in the text. It should read
"a merciful and faithful high priest in things to God,
to make reconciliation." The only way that they at-
tempt to meet this text is by saying that reconcilia-
tion is not the proper translation of the verb i/.daxoaa:^
that it should be propitiation. But what is pmpitia-

CAMPBELLITE OBJECTIONS TO METHODISM. 273

tion but a stronger term for the same fact — the recon-
ciliation of divine justice to the pardon of man^s sin?

It in no wise meets the issues of the case to cito,
as Mr. Braden does, and as other exponents of Camp-
bellism do, the parable of the Prodigal Son, and sucli
passages as John iii, 16: God so loved the world
that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever
believeth in him might not perish, but have everlast-
ing life." For the question still remains, What was
Christ given for ? What Avas propitiated by his death ?
When these questions are answered, there will be the
recognition of the fact that, before man could be saved,
divine justice must be reconciled.

But the inspiration of their strenuous objection to
this Article of Religion is the belief that it teaclies
that God must be reconciled to each individual sinner
through his (the sinner's) fulfillment of the conditions
to salvation, and that the seeking of such reconcilia-
tion opens the way for penitential, importunate prayer —
a seeking of God with the whole heart. It is at this
point of opposition that Methodist mourners' benches,
anxious seats, inquiry meetings, seeking salvation,
calling on the Lord for salvation, and the like, arc
assaulted and excoriated as a manifestation of folly —
a course unwarranted by the Scriptures. Now, in
numerous passages of Scripture we are taught that
God is angry with the sinner. (Eph. ii, 3, and v,
G ; Col. iii, 6.) If angry, certainly not reconciled.

274

ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM.

Now, whatever will remove his righteous wrath, will
reconcile God to the sinner. We are told in John
iii, 36, that faith will do this.

But the Savior, in Luke xviii,9-14, related a j)ar-
able to show how God becomes propitious — is recon-
ciled to the sinner — the Pharisee and the Publican.
Notice the description of the prayer of the publican :
And the publican, standing afar off, would not so
much as lift up his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon
his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner."
Here is the representation of some very earnest seeking —
seeking w^hich nowadays incurs considerable criticism,
contempt, and condemnation from these reformers. Let
it be noticed again that the word translated " be merci-
ful" is VAaxojiac, which is translated by reconcile in
Heb. ii, 1 7 ; and the verbal cognate of the noun f/y/^/ioc,
propitiation, in 1 John ii, 2, and iv, 10. If, therefore, it
had been translated " God be reconciled to me a sin-
ner," it would have been far more in harmony with
the Scri])tural use of the word. The marginal read-
ing in the Revised Version has it " be pr()j)itiated to
me the sinner." So that a crying to God for |)ersonal
reconciliation has the divinest of all sanctions.

With the teaching of this parable agree other
teachings of the Savior concerning the value of inter-
cessory prayer to the seeker of righteousness. \\\ this
same chapter he spake another parable to teach the
value of importunity in prayer, to this end, that nien
ought always to pray and not t(j faint;" then follows

CAMPBELLITE OBJECTIONS TO METHODISM. 275

the parable of the UDjust Judge and the Widow,
which, if it teaches anything, teaches that God will
wait, no doubt for the seeker's good, to be importuned.
With this agrees Luke xiii, 24, when the Master
says: "Strive [original, agonize] to enter into the
strait gate ; for many, I say unto you, will seek to
enter iu, and shall not be able.'^ Also Matt, v, G :
" Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after
righteousness, for they shall be filled." A hungering
and thirsting after righteousness, that is not character-
ized by- earnest, importunate prayer, would be exceed-
ingly peculiar.

All this opposition is predicated upon the theory
that it is the duty of the penitent believer not to
pray, but to obey. But the Word of God teaches him to
pray, both in the examples above given, and in numer-
ous clear and explicit precepts. Psa. xxvii, 8 : " When
thou said&t, Seek ye my face ; my heart said, Thy face.
Lord, will I seek Isa. Iv, 6 : " Seek ye the Lord
while he may be found, call ye upon him while he is
near;" Lam. iii, 25; Amos v, 4 and 6; Acts xvii, 27,
and others. With this agrees the comprehensive
promise given by the apostle in Rom. x, 13, and
quoted from Joel ii, 32 : " Whosoever shall call upon
the name of the Lord shall be saved." If this is not
warrant sufficient for the penitent seeker's earnest
praying, it is hard to conceive what would be suffi-
cient for these teachers.

But it is asked, " Is not God willing to forgive

276

ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM.

whenever the conditions are complied with?" Most
surely. But mark, when the conditions are complied
witli, when iTpentance is genuine, thorough, comj)lete ;
that is, godly sorrow for sin, faithful confession r)f sin,
willingness to make all possible reparation for sin.
The man who has injured his neighbor in person,
property, or character, does not truly repent until he
is willing to make it all right, so far as is in iiis
power. After this, implicit faith in Jesus Christ.
And it is right and wise for God to withhold the
blessing until all the conditions are fulfilled, until the
whole heart is enlisted in seeking and in the faith.
If it requires importunacy in prayer to bring the soul
of the disciple of Christ into the proper attitude of
submission and faith, is it not likely to require self-
examination, earnest seeking, and fervent prayer, to
lead the seeker to that completeness of repentance
that is called godly sorrow, and that implicitness of
trust called faith of the heart? In the sinner's con-
version " faith tovards [or upon] the Lord Jesus
Christ'^ must crown repentance toward God. He who
ridicules intense earnestness in seeking pardon of sin,
has but an excedingly limited idea of what God re-
quires of personal self-surrender in order to a godly life.

ON CREEDS AND DISCIPLINE,

277

CHAPTER XXI.

CAMPBELLISM ON CREEDS AND DISCIPLINE.

Attention has already been called to the fact
that Alexander Campbell at first started out with the
laudable purpose of bringing the Christian denomina-
tions into unity. The first organized effort made in
this direction was in August, 1809, by his father,
Thomas Campbell, and resulted in the formation of
" The Christian Association of Washington," * in
Washington County, Pennsylvania. This association
promulgated a Declaration " of principles, or an " Ad-
dress,'' as it was styled, which, to the writer, as a bond
of union, has, as far as it goes, all the characteristics
of a creed ; and when it proclaims in the concluding
sentence that nothing shall be required of any one as
a ^' matter of Christian faith or duty, for which there
can not be expressly produced a ^Thus saith the
Lord,' either in expressed terms or by approved
precedent," the question naturally arises. Who will
be the judge when a ^'Thus saith the Lord,"
either directly or by "approved precedent," is pro-
duced ? It is right here where Christian creeds have

♦"Richardson's Memoirs of A. Campbell," p. 240.

278

ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM.

had their origin. It is a question of considerable
possible disagreement as to what is an approved
precedent for all are compelled to concede that ob-
ligation rests not alone upon a specific and explicit
"Thus saith the Lord/' but upon inspired example,
reasonable inference, and the analogy of faith.

There is no doubt but the purpose originally was
to bring about Christian union, and establish a plat-
form upon which all that do truly love the Lord Jesus
Christ may stand. But Mr. Campbell was a man of
strong convictions, and it was not long after the for-
mation of his societies, until it was manifest that he
was simply the founder of another denomination, that
took the peculiar type of its faith from the teachings
of its founder. The marvel is, however, that the
self-deception has been perpetuated in the belief that
they offer a basis broad enough for all true Christians
to unite upon, and that they are any thing more than
another denomination, with a peculiar creed, so nar-
row that nine-tenths of the Christian world can not
subscribe to it. The facts prove this ; either the
Christian world in the main are hopelessly blind or
peculiarly obstinate, or the oral creed of Campbellism
is too circumscribed for anything like Christian unity.

But Mr. Campbell was, and his followers, treading
exactly in his foot-steps, are wont to inveigh against
human creeds. Mr. Campbell, in his debate with
Professor Rice, affirmed the following proposition :
''Human creeds, as bonds of union and communion,

ON CREEDS A^W DTSCIPLIXE.

279

are necessarily heretical and schismatical." This, in
substance, the exponents of his doctrines are to-day
ready to affirm. It is, however, entirely unnecessary
to follow them through their argument against creeds;
for these arguments are, by parity of reasoning, proven
to be fallacious by their own promulgation and en-
forcement of a human creed. It is only a question
between an oral and a written creed. The followers
of Campbell have a very narrow oral creed, which
they thrust at the individual who seeks admission
among them — a creed that is very far from having
any Thus saith the Lord for either one of its two
fundamental requisitions, " Confession that Jesus Christ
is the Son of God,'' and immersion in order to remis-
sion of sin.

Creed is from credo, I believe. Xow, I can print this
belief in short, formulated propositions, or I caii simply
publish it orally; but neither printing nor oral pub-
lication is necessary to make it a creed. It is a creed
when it is a matter of belief. Most Christians print,
in Confessions of Faith or Articles of Religion, what
they believe the Bible to teach in certain matters re-
garded as fundamental or essential. This A. Camp-
bell and his followers refuse to do. Is what they
believe and require, because unpublished in a printed
confession, any more the truth necessarily than what
others believe?

Every one of Mr. Campbell's arguments against
human creeds lies with equal force against his luipub-

280

ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM.

Ihhcd creed; for by this unpublished creed his people
will arraign, try, and exclude from their fellowship
the individual who should teach otherwise aniouir
them. Take, for an example, the mini>ter of the gos-
])el among them who should come to the belief that
sprinkling and pouring are proper modes of baptism,
and go to preaching the same. Would they not ex-
clude him, or sever connection with him ? From
what stand-point would this be done ? From that of
an oral creed, which certainly they can only claim to
be their interpretation of the Scripture. The only
difference between them and others consists in this,
that the interpretation in other Churches has been
formulated beforehand in a printed statement; in their
case it is a written consensus of opinion among them,
found in their doctrinal authors.

It has already been said that to every one who
comes seeking admission among them they present
their creed, asking of them a certain verbal confes-
sion, and immersion for a certain purpose. And this
creed, though of few articles, is so narrow that nine-
tenths or more of as devout, holy, faithful, self-sacri-
ficing Christians as are to be found in the world, will
be excluded by it. Without fear of successful con-
tradiction, it is the narrowest creed of all Protestant
Christendom. It will even exclud<j the honest Baptist,
though a believer in exclusive immersion.

The confession, ^' I believe that Jesus Christ is the
Son of God,'^ is nowhere in the Scriptures required

ON CREEDS AND DISCIPLINE.

281

as a condition to salvation. The only place that in
this form it exists is in Acts viii, 37, and this passage
is rejected by the best commentators as spurious, and
is not to be found in the Revised Version. Let it
be remarked that the expression of the belief that
"Jesus Christ is the Son of God^^ is not saving faith,
but is a mere article of intellectual belief. Wicked
men may, and some wicked men do, believe this.
Devils believe it. There is a wide difference between
this mere act of intellectual faith, and "believing
on the Son of God.'^ (John ix, 35.) The propo-
sition that " Jesus Christ is the Son of God is
incomprehensible by mortals, for it involves the un-
derstanding of the mode of Divine existence. Mr.
Braden, * in opposing Article I of our Articles of
Religion, says concerning its affirmation of the Trinity
in Unity : " The Scriptures declare there is Father,
Son, and Holy Spirit. These, then, are in some sense
one ; but they nowhere teach or explain how they are one.
I do not know how they are one. I do not believe they
are one; for I know nothing about it, and lean not be-
lieve what I do not understands^ The italics are given
to call attention to the principle laid down. If faith
must be an intelligent understanding of the subject
believed, then the belief that " Jesus Christ is the Son
of God is a requirement utterly impossible. Now,
while we do not agree with the idea that a proposi-

" * Hughey and Braden Debate," p. 518.

24

282

ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM.

tion that is not comprehensible, can not be the subject
of belief, yet it is true that the Scriptures do not require
the belief of an incomprehensible proposition in order
to salvation. To ''believe on the Son of God" is to
rest the faith of the heart for salvation on this divine
personage whom the Bible calls " the Son of God."

The second article of this creed is to believe that
immersion alone is baptism ; and the third is to be-
lieve that it is a necessary condition for the remission
of sins. Suppose, now, to illustrate the exclusiveness
of this creed, a person who believes that baptism is
necessary to the remission of sins, should believe that
sprinkling is baptism, could he pass the narrow doc-
trinal gate ? Who believes he could ? Suppose, again,
he should believe immersion is baptism, but at the
same time believe it is not a condition to the remis-
sion of sin. He probably would pass because of being
immersed; if so, it illustrates that the matter of form
is omnipotent in this scheme, while the matter of be-
lief is entirely unimportant. We are compelled to
this view, because Alexander Campbell himself was
not baptized with reference to obtaining the remission
of sins by baptism ; and also Baptist baptism is accepted
by them to-day. Could any creed put salvation more
absolutely in the outward form? In fact, immersion
may go before faith, before repentance, and be for any
other religious purpose, and the individual afterward
get the benefit of it as a saving ordinance, but it mast
not he omitted.

ON CREEDS AND DISCIPLINE.

283

But the creed of any denomination is not its printed
and published Articles of Religion; for these are
usually but partial, and limited to affirmations antago-
nizing what were believed to be errors at the time of
their formulation. For example, the doctrines of the
Methodist Episcopal Church are not all found in the
Articles of Religion. But the doctrines of the various
denominations are to be found in the general consensus
of their doctrinal writers. Campbellism has a distinct
and marked consensus. J^'o leader in Protestantism
in modern times has more completely stamped his
peculiar doctrinal beliefs, and their mode of inculca-
tion and defense, upon his followers, than has this
man. It would not be difficult to write out his and
their creed from his controversial affirmations and de-
nials. It is true that all of this creed is not made a
bond of union or communion among his followers ;
but enough of it is used to put a very specific de-
nominational stamp upon the communicants of their
Churches, and to make a doctrinal shibboleth, which
is readily recognized anywhere, and discriminated
from other Christian beliefs. The writer has fre-
quently had occasion to note how completely in forms
of statement, methods of argumentation, and interpre-
tation, his followers conform to the model set for them
by this their great leader, and yet no people have more
to say about the trammels of creed and preconceived
opinions. It is quite amusing at times to those who are
familiar with Mr. CampbelPs writings, to hear these

284

ERRORS OF CAMPBFAAASM.

men proclaim thoir entire indopoiulence of human
creeds while they are retailing even his exegetical
blunders.

AVe have now shown that Campbellism has a creed
in the consensus of its writers, and in the uniform
usage of its societies — a creed that, in some of its doc-
trinal requirements, will bar a large part of the Chris-
tian Church out of its societies, and that in others
will prohibit its teachers from inculcating among them
numerous doctrines and beliefs held by other Chris-
tians; such as infant baptism, sprinkling and pouring
as baptism, the necessity for the immediate witness of
the Spirit, and the like.

Of course they claim that they condemn these by
the Word of God. But who is the interpreter of the
Word of God? They, themselves. And this is by
implication to claim infallibility for their interpreta-
tion. It is a little singular that this Church that be-
gins with a doctrine of salvation by works, must land
at least in another of the claims of the Church of
Rome, the infallibility of her doctrinal opinions.

There is no doubt but human creeds have been al-
together too minute in their attempted definitions of
doctrine, and too exacting ; and that efforts were made
to define some things that were incapable of defini-
tion, because beyond human comprehension; still this
concession does not change the fact that creeds that
are purely and only human — such because they are

OiV CREEDS AND DISCIPLINE.

285

men\s opinions — must be made tests of faith and bonds
of union and communion. Campbellism has just such
a creed, and it is not any the less eifectively used for
this purpose, even though it is only to be found in the
consensus of its writers. And yet their pulpits un-
ceasingly ring with denunciations against the tyranny
of creeds and their hindrance to Church union. The
altogether nonchalant air with which they present
their doctrinal scheme and Church polity as the one of
divine institution, and as offering the only basis of
Church union, is exceedingly surprising to people
who have not the same confidence in their deductions
that they seem to have. Their evangelistic propagan-
dists generally dwell long and earnestly upon the
evils of sectarian divisions, the divisive influence of
printed creeds, the enthralling character of disciplinary
requirements, and the sinfulness of sectarian names ;
and with an assurance that is truly amazing they
will invite people to leave or avoid the sects, and join
the Christian Churchy as though their small organi-
zation of but yesterday defined the whole limits of the
Church of Christ. What a comment on sectarian
blindness !

Again, the same infallible certitude that they claim
for their doctrinal teachings, they likewise claim for
their Church polity. Their Church polity is what
might be styled independent ; that is, each local society
has absolute control over all its affairs, both as to doc-

286

ERRORS OF CAMPBKLLJSM.

triuc^ and government. Members pass between these
separate societies by letters of formal introduction." *
The rulers of these societies are called by them eld-
ers," and they have about the entire government in
their hands, except as they find it necessary to appeal
to the congregation upon any question of general
moment.

The question of Church polity is one that has
been a subject of much discussion. This we do not
intend to enter into. We believe there is no divinely
instituted form of Church government. God has left
this in its details to the Church ; and whether it shall
be connectional, as the Methodist Episcopal and the
Presbyterian Churches, or Congregational, or Inde-
pendent, we believe to be a matter of indifference.
But it does, however, look reasonable that the Church,
being a divinely ordained organization for the evan-
gelization of the world, should have throughout that
organic bond that will most effectually bring all its
parts into unified effort for this purpose. Independ-
ency certainly can not do this, only as it organizes
societies indei>endeutly of the Church, and of which
the Church at large is itself independent.

While the polity of the Methodist Episcopal
Church is subject to modification by its legislative
body, the General Conference, the polity of the Church
founded by Alexander Campbell must remain forever

* " Christian System," ch. " Christian Discipline."

ON CREEDS AND DISCIPLINE,

287

unchanged, for that is claimed by them to be of di-
vine appointment. Should any bodies springing up
among them come to believe that the polity might be
lawfully changed, there would be two Churches, each
claiming to be the Christian Church. Mr. Campbell
has been the sole legislator for this Church. He is the
founder of its economy, as well as the author of its
doctrines. The Christian Discipline,'' contained in
*'The Christian System," pages 85 to 90, lays down
the discipline of this Church, that by which it must
be governed for all time; for it was evolved by
Mr. Campbell out of the New Testament. If so,
it must be forever and unchangeably obligatory,
according to their teaching. Is not this putting
a great amount of confidence in one man? To-day
the exact form of discipline presented in the " Chris-
tian System " by this one man is the absolute law of
the Church. And yet they are wont to claim they have
no discipline. It is true their societies have never
adopted formally any form of discipline. Why ? Be-
cause, in all essential matters of government, that was
evolved out of the Word, according to their belief
and teachings by Alexander Campbell, and all that is
necessary now for them to do, is to go to the " Chris-
tian System,'^ and ascertain what are its directions,
w^hen needed.

Now, suppose that, in some future period, some so-
cieties among them come to the conclusion that this
discipline is not of divine ordain ment, but that there

288

ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM.

may be, and ought to be, some modifications of it;
^vluit is left for them but the establishment of another
Christian Church

The writer is aware of tlie fact that they, to some
extent, recognize the law of expediency ; but only in
minor things; not in the matter of Church govern-
ment, such as the entire independency of each society,
the authority of the elders, and the exclusion of mem-
bers for immorality or heresy. Again, even in mat-
ters of expediency Mr. Campbell has furnished them
with disciplinary rules that they uniformly find it ex-
pedient to observe. Methodists no more carefully
follow the forms of order in business laid down in our
Book of Discipline than the followers of Campbell
follow his directions in matters merely expedient.

The preachers of this denomination are accus-
tomed to hold up to ridicule and public condemnation
the system of probationship in the Methodist Episco-
pal Church, a system merely prudential, and that
does not deprive any one of any of the spiritual priv-
ileges belonging to Church membership, such as the
means of grace, the sacrament, and the helps of Chris-
tian fellowship; but only limits as to official priv-
ileges, such as holding certain offices, sitting in cases
of Church trial, etc.; and accords the right of with-
drawal without question, if dissatisfied with doctrines
or polity, and accords the Church the right, without
formal trial, if she is not satisfied with the Christian
life or character of the probationer, to dismiss him.

ON CREEDS AND DISCIPLINE.

289

This has been variously characterized as the "back
porch ^' or kitchen/^ or "anteroom^' of the Meth-
odist Church. After all this, would it be thought a
matter within the range of possibility that this Church
has a si/stem of prohationship also? Yet such is the
fact — an indefinite prohationship or novitiate. In
their Discipline, " Christian System," page 88, " Chris-
tian Discipline," section 10, we have the following:

"The whole community act, and ought to act, in
receiving and excluding persons; but in the aggregate
it can never become judges of offenses and a tribunal
of trial. Such an institution never was set up by Di-
vine authority. Xo community is composed only of
wise and discreet full-grown men. The Christian
Church engrosses old men, young men, and babes in
Christ. Shall the voice of a babe be heard or counted
as a vote in a case oj discipline? AVhat is the use of
bishops in a Church, if all are to rule ; of judges, if
all are to be judges of fact and law? Xo wonder that
broils and heart-burnings and scandals of all sorts
disturb those communities ruled by a democracy of
the whole — where everything is to be judged in pub-
lic and full assembly. Such is not the Christian sys-
tem. It ordains that certain persons shall judge and
rule, and that ' all things shall be done decently and
in order.' "

I have italicized to call attention to the recogni-
tion of mere novitiates in the Church and the limita-
tions put on them. Limitations, the exact counter-

25

290

ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM.

part of those put upon probationers in the Meth-
odist Church. But Methodists never regarded it a
matter of Divine injunction, but only (^f Church ex-
pediency.

Mr. Wesley laid down at the head (►f the " Gen-
eral Rules'' of the societies formed l)y him, the only
true basis of Christian unity; namely, ''A desire to
flee the wrath to come and to })o saved from their
sins, and an evidencing of such desire by an avoid-
ance of all manner of evil, and doing good in every
possible way." The General Rules he wrote out are
rules of Christian morality. He laid down no doc-
trinal test, as did Alexander Campbell; much less did
he require conformity to a mere ordinance, in one
special form, as a condition to Christian fellowship
and also a condition to salvation. Mr. Wesley's
"General Rules" could unite all Christians in one,
through seeking after righteousness, until they come
to unity in knowledge of the truth. Mr. Campbell's
scheme would exclude, by a mere ritualistic perform-
ance, the vast majority of the Christian world, and
keep them a})art until they could see eye to eye in the
mode of the observance of an ordinance. When their
attention is called to this fact, with sublime innocency
they tell us they require this because the Bible re-
quires it; at once, by an inevitable implication, in the
face of the honest convietions of a majority of Chris-
tians, claiming that their interpretation of the Scrip-
tures is infallible.

ON CREEDS AND DISCIPLINE. 291

Again, they are continually descanting upon union
and Christian liberty, while, at the same time, they in-
sist upon union in their own terms, and refuse to in-
telligent, conscientious, free, moral agents the deter-
mination of the mode in which, and the end for which,
they shall receive a mere ritualistic ordinance. For
centuries the Christian world has been contending
about the mode, design, aud import of w^ater baptism ;
the best of Christians have been enlisted upon all
sides of this question. The grace of God, in its effect
on Christian character, life, and spirituality, has made
no distinction among the disputants. Affusionists —
pa^dobaptists — have manifested just as much faith, de-
votion, self-sacrificing, and have had just as much
success, have died just as triumphant, as have those
who fought for exclusive immersion and adult bap-
tism alone. And yet, despite these indisputable facts,
in this nineteenth century, there springs up a denom-
ination that maintains that the only bond of Christian
unity is immersion as a necessary condition to the re-
mission of sins. In other words, that very ritualistic
symbolism that has been the cause of more discussion,
and about which there has been more honest division
of oj)inion in the Church of all ages, is at once
definitely settled by them in one mode, for one
design, and to one import; and the Christian world
are called upon to stop their disputing and come
forward and acce})t the final settlement of this ques-
tion. It is doubtful if it is possible to find

292

ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM.

another example of more audacious dogmatism, of
more profound confidence in their theories, and,
necessarily because of these, uncharitableness to-
wards other Christians, than this. And this is
Campbellism !

Date Due

OC 1854

— ^

1

1