-6 
 
 ' Book, 
 
 I TIIECLCGICAL eEMlKAKY.I 
 
 I Prineetcii, N. J. | 
 
 I'j Case, Division ^ 
 
 SeCi.n '"""V 
 
DEBATE 
 
 CAMPBELLISM; 
 
 HELD AT NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE. 
 
 IN WHICH THE PRINCIPLES OF ALEXANDER CAMPBELL ARB 
 CONFUTED, AND HIS CONDUCT EXAMINED. 
 
 BY OBADIAH JENNINGS, D.D. 
 
 TO WHICH IS PREFIXED, 
 
 A MEMOIR OF THE AUTHOR, 
 BY REV. M. BROWN, D. D. 
 
 PITTSBURGH: 
 
 PRINTED BY D. AND M. MACLEAN. 
 
 1832. 
 
Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1832, 
 By Samuel C. Jennings, 
 the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the Western District of Pa. 
 
CONTENTS, 
 
 PART I, 
 
 Occasion of the debate explained, - - , - 32 
 
 The subject of faith introduced, - . . 34 
 
 Distinction between mysteries and mysticism, - . 37 
 
 Historical faith examined, - - - - - 38 
 
 Necessity of Divine influence, - • • - 43 
 
 The examination of faith, continued, ■• - - 60 
 
 Mr. C.'s explanation of the " natural man," - - - G9 
 
 His ignorance of the *' spiritual man," " - - 72 
 
 PART II. 
 
 Mr. C's visit to Franklin and Columbia, - - - . 77 
 His return, — resumes his lectures, — invites objections, - 78 
 The pretensions of the Reformer examined, . - 80 
 Defence of evangelical denominations, ... 84 
 Explanation of the terms schism and heresy, - . 91 
 War and bloodshed, ascribed to the true cause, - . 97 
 Mr. C. " a factionist," - - - . - 101 
 " shown to be ** a sectarian," . - . . 107 
 " the " head of a party," - - , - 108 
 Every true teacher of religion called of God, — ^the subject explained, 111 
 Ordination necessary, - - - . - 116 
 Mr. C shrinks from an examination of the " new version" — com- 
 plains of the multiplicity of objections, - - . 124 
 
 His qualifications and motives for undertaking a " new version," 126 
 
 His slanderous publication concerning the American Bible Society, 131 
 
 Tlie deception practised by the compiler of the new version, 132 
 The term ekklesia, or church, examined, vvith a notice of the 
 
 compiler's deception, - . . - . 136 
 The Bishop's imposition in translating baptismos and baptisma, 
 
 immersion; and baptizo, baptize, under cover of other names, 144 
 Mr. C. subtititutes " Thompson," for his Presbyterian Doctors, in 
 
 translatting the original vrord for "Godhead," - . , I49 
 Other interpolations from Thompson, to evade the doctrine of the 
 
 special operation of the Spirit of God, - . . 151 
 
 Follows "Wakefield," on the inquiry of the jailer, - - 157 
 
 The subject of being born again, introduced, - . 159 
 
 Mr. C- solicits, through friends, a proposition for discussion, 152 
 
IT 
 
 COKTEKTS. 
 
 PART III. 
 
 Mr. C. raises objections to the proposition at an unseasonable hoar, 1^2 
 Misrepresents, prevaricates, - - - . . 164 
 Either wished to withdraw, or to change the nature of the inquiry, 165 
 Mr. C. constrained to defend his doctrine, but asked an unreason- 
 able concession, which was granted, - - 168 
 Commencement of the discussion on the question, whether to be 
 born again and to be immersed, are the same — the uncharita- 
 bleness of tlie doctrine, - 1G9 
 The doctrine of predestination vindicated against the incorrect 
 statements of Mr. C. ... - - 172 
 
 Tlie proposition examined by various passages of the word of God, 173 
 Mr. C.'s arguments answered, by showing that parts of some pas- 
 sages are to be understood figuratively, and otheY parts literally, 185 
 The Bishop and Nicodemus, - - - - - 188 
 
 The proposition farther examined by the sacred scriptures, 190 
 His notices of the " ancient fathers," - - - 202 
 The " ancient gospel" partly a Popish delusion, - - 203 
 Ignorance of the nature of the Jewish sacrifices and purga- 
 tions, - - - - - - - 205 
 
 The Bishop's theory of regeneration, - . - - - 209 
 The passages on which he founds his theory, examined, - 221 
 The Bishop of Betliany more erroneous than the Bishop of Rome, 227 
 Evangelical Christians agreed that baptism is not absolutely es- 
 sential to salvation, - - - - . 229 
 
 CONCLUSION. 
 
 Mr. C.'s disinterestedness, ----- 234 
 
 A case supposed, ------ 235 
 
 Facts from the Rsformer's history, - - - , 237 
 
 His means and labors to acquire fame, influence, and wealth, - 238 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 Kote A. — Mr. C.'s " Christian experience," and advice to an in- 
 
 quirer, - - : - - - • 243 
 Note B. — Under obligations to Presbyterians, - - 246 
 Note C. — The doctrine, that faith is merely the belief of facts, ab- 
 surd, unscriptural, - - . - . 247 
 Note D. — Mr. C.'s doctrine of immersion " for tlie remission of sins," 249 
 Note E. — Campbellites and Christ-ians united — pay their preach- 
 ers — ai-e on some points Unitarians or Arians, - - 251 
 
MEMOIR. 
 
 The following Memoir has been prepared at the request of 
 the friends of the deceased, especially his bereaved partner, 
 it was expected that a variety of interesting facts and incidents 
 would have been furnished in due time. In this the writer has 
 been much disappointed. Neither has any aid been afforded 
 from private papei-s. Therefore, little of incident or adventure 
 is to be expected. Still, it is hoped, the narrative will be read 
 with interest, especially by friends snid acquaintances. It pre- 
 sents a bright example of Christian character, which may be 
 profitable for instruction and reproof, as well as for encourage- 
 ment and animation to the people of God, amidst the conflicts^ 
 of life, and the agonies of death. 
 
 Rev. Obadiah Jennings, D. D., was b<^)rn 13th Decem- 
 ber, 1778, near Baskingridge, in the stale of New-Jersey. He 
 was the fourth son of the Rev. Jacob Jennings, a minister of 
 the Presbyterian Church, \\ ho united the character of Clergy- 
 man and Physician. Not long after his birth, his father re- 
 moved to Virginia, and resided several years on the Potomac. 
 Thence he removed to Fayette county, in Pennsylvania. 
 
 Of the youthful years of Mr. Jennings little is known. The 
 followmg extract of a letter from his elder brother. Rev. Dr. 
 Samuel K. Jennings, of Baltimore, to his nephew, may not be 
 unmteresting, as exhibiting those elements of character which 
 were more fully developed in maturer years. " He was no 
 less amiable when a youth, than he was benevolent and de- - 
 serving of affection when a man. I shall never forget the 
 cheerfulness with which he was accustomed to divide his little 
 stores of fruits and nuts with his brothers, when he was at any 
 time better furnished than they, nor the complaisance wdth 
 which he would undertake the performance of services ex-/ 
 pected at their hands. He was remarkable for his unqualified 
 obedience to his parents — an unerring index of his subsequent 
 usefulness in life. He acquired his literary attainments with 
 great facility, yet appeared to be unconscious of any supericnty 
 of genius. He was naturally disposed to be facetious, and his 
 2 
 
Vf 
 
 retentive memor>', enabled him to collect an unusual stock 
 of anecdotas, in the selection and application of which he dis- 
 played uncommon skilU" 
 
 Having enjoyed a strictly religious education, under the care 
 SHid direction of eminently pious parents, impressions were 
 made on his mind which were never entirely obliterated, 
 and had an influence in forming correct moral habits, and re- 
 straining him from vicious excesses, while yet a stranger to 
 the renewing grace of the gospel. Having given early indica- 
 tions of genius, his father determined to afford him a liberal 
 education. He was accordingly sent to Canonsburg, at that 
 time the seat of a flourishing Academy, which was afterwards, 
 in 1802, organized into a College, called " Jeflferson College." 
 Here he pursued with diligence and success the study of the 
 classics, mathematics, and sciences. Having acquired the best 
 education which the Western Country could then afford, he 
 commenced the study of the law, with John Simonson, Esq., of 
 Washington, where he was first admitted to the bar in the fall 
 of 1800. He immediately removed to Steubenville, where he 
 commenced practice. His first speech was of so brilliant a 
 character, and gave such promise of future eminence, as to 
 place him at once in the first rank of his profession. He re- 
 remained at Steubenville, in the prosecution of his profession, 
 until 1811, when he removed to Washington, Pennsylvania, 
 though he still continued to practise to a considerable extent in 
 the courts of Ohio, until his introduction into the ministry. It 
 may here be noticed, that soon after his removal to Steu- 
 benville, he was united in marriage with Miss Becket, the 
 daughter of Col. Becket of Westmoreland county, Pa. This 
 amiable lady was early removed by death, leaving an only 
 daughter, now hopefully pious, and happily united in marriage 
 to a respectable physician. He was again married, to Miss 
 Ann Wilson, daughter of a respectable clergyman of the state of 
 Delaw8.re, whose cultivated mind and energy of character, 
 qualified her eminently for being a companion and counsellor 
 to her husband amidst the various anxieties and toils incident 
 to the ministerial office. 
 
 At the bar, he ever maintamed a high standing, and fully- 
 realized tiie expectations excited by his first efforts. He pos- 
 sessed that happy combination of talents which rendered him 
 an able and popular lawyer. With strong intellectual }>owers 
 for discrimmation and argument, were united a peculiar prompt- 
 
MEMOm. vu 
 
 itude in discevermg the strong points of a case, a facility arid 
 clearness of illustration, a sprightliness of wit, and a keenness 
 of satire, which he could employ with great effect, for the enter- 
 tainment of his audience and the annoyance of his antagonist. 
 In the language of one who knew him well, " his forte lay in 
 addressing a jury: in this he had no superior. In an argument 
 to the- court on a point of law, when the occasion called for 
 prepai-ation, and required him to put forth all his sti-ength, he 
 was surpassed by few.^' 
 
 He was much esteemed by his brethren of the bar, and 
 greatly confided in by the community at large. The amenity 
 of his general deportment, the urbanity of his manners, the 
 ardor with which he espoused the cause committed to his care, 
 with the candor and liberality exercised towards his clients, 
 greatly attached them to him as a man, while his well known 
 abilities and tried integrity, induced them entirely to confide in 
 liim as a counsellor. 
 
 His prospects for earthly emolument, honor, and distinction, 
 were as flattering as those of any of his associates, and never 
 more so than when he surrendered them all for the sake of 
 preaching the gospel of Christ. 
 
 Mr. Jennings, as already stated, received a pious education, 
 which had a controling influence on his principles and habits, 
 amidst all the seductive influences to which he was exposed. 
 But although he at all times maintained a respect for religion, 
 and sustained a character reputable and moral, in the estima- 
 tion of the world; it appears that he remained a stranger to the 
 transforming power of the gospel on his heart until 1809, when 
 he was constrained to make an unreserved dedication of him- 
 self to God.. For an account of that important change, which 
 gave a new direction to the whole current of his soul, we have 
 been happily favored with a copy of a letter from himself, to 
 his intimate friend, David Hoge, Esq., of Steubenville, at whose 
 request, and for whose benefit, the letter was written. 
 
 "Washington, Aphil 1^ 1812. 
 " Dear Sir, — You are pleased to intimate a desire to know 
 my experience, &c. As I shall have no leisure for some weeks, 
 I have concluded to write to you at the present, though in great 
 haste. 
 
 " My experience, my dear sir, is very small. It is not long, 
 as yau know, since I set out in the Christian race, and my 
 
viii 
 
 MEMOIR, 
 
 attention has been much, too much, diverted by the cares and 
 allurements of this world. Such, however, as it is, I will give 
 with cheerlulness; feelmg, as I do, something of that infinite 
 obhgation I am under to Him, who, I humbly hope, " has called 
 me from darkness to light." And here, my dear sir, sutler 
 me, once for all, to express my deep sense of my inabilit}^ to 
 write on this subject, and my earnest prayer, that nothing of 
 what I may say, may operate as a stumbling block in your 
 way. The ex})erience of one Christian, whatever may be his 
 attainments, can never be the proper rule for another,"^ though 
 it may serve to encourage, strengthen, and confirm. Did I not, 
 then, know something of the " terrors of the Lord," and of the 
 absolute necessity of a change of heart, in order to obtain 
 durable happiness, and did I not feel myself bound to give a 
 reason for my hope when requested, and thereby to bear a 
 testimony, however feeble, to the power, goodness, faithftilness, 
 mercy and truth of Him who came not to condemn, bin to 
 seek and save that which was lost, I should on this subject 
 be silent, 
 
 " I was educated religiously, and had convictions from time to 
 ane from my childhood, up to youth and manhood. I however, 
 till endeavored to obtain pea-^e of conscience by entertaining a 
 j-ind o'" h;If-way resolution, v.iit I would at some future time 
 -eek for religion, and it was not until a short time before I was 
 ■ivvakened seriously to inquire, what I should do, &c., that I 
 oegau deliberately to think of giving up all hopes of making 
 my peace with God. I had gone far in the paths of iniquity, 
 and I have reason to look back with shame and horror upon 
 my conduct. While I was in this state of mind, some lime in 
 the fall of 1809, while sitting in the most careless manner, 
 hearing Mr. Snodgrass preach, " Eternity," upon which he 
 was treating, was presented to my mind in such a M ay, as I 
 cannot possibly describe. It made such an impression on my 
 mmdjthat I Ix'gan, immediately, to form a resolution of amend- 
 ment. This impression was not wholly worn off, when the 
 bidden death of Mr. Siraonson was made tlie means of farther 
 alarm to me. I was, not long afler, led seriously to inquire. 
 What I should do to be saved ? I began to read the Bible, to 
 meditate, to pray. But all only served to prove my inability 
 to do any thing of myself. I found the Bible to be a sealed 
 book. I could not understand it. I found I was grossly igno- 
 rant, stupid, blind, hard hearted, and unbelieving. Our Saviour 
 
^appeared to be a " root out of dry ground, without form or 
 XJonieUness." I found I couid np more believe in him or trust 
 "to him for salvation, than I could lift a mountain. How oltcn 
 was I tempted in this state of mind to give up ail pursuit. Stiii, 
 however, I felt and secretly cherished an opinion or belief that 
 if I did but try, I could do something effectual. And eve r y 
 new trial, every struggle, every effort, only serve ^ further to 
 prove my real situation, my weakness, my miserable conditio n, 
 and to discover my secret enmity against God. What hard 
 thoughts did I entertain of tlmt Being who is infinite in good- 
 ness? What risings of heart against his sovereignty, and what 
 enmity of heart against himself I could not see the justice 
 and propriety of casting me off forever, provided I did all I 
 could. I had no proper conviction of my guilt for my past 
 horrid crimes, nor had I any proper knowledge, of the spiritu- 
 ality, the holy nature and inflexibility of that law of Goil which 
 is immutable in its nature, and by which I was justly con- 
 demned. However, tifter many painful struggles, vain efforts, 
 and ineffectual attempts to make myself fit to come to Christ.^ — 
 after passing many dark days and sorrowful nights, I was at 
 length, as I hope, convinced of my sin and misery, — that it { 
 ever received any help, it must be from God; that if ever I was 
 cured, it must be by the great Physician of souls. I was not 
 long in this situation, before God, who is love, " revealed (a?; [ 
 trust) his Son in me." My views of the Divine Character 
 were entirely changed. I could almost ssy, with Watts, 
 
 " My rapture seem'd a pleasing dream. 
 The grace appear'd so great." 
 
 My hard thoughts of God were gone. 1 could now rejcice 
 *' that the Lord God omnipotent reigneth." The mystery of 
 God manifest in the flesh appeared indeed great. Jesus appear- 
 ed altogether lovely, and the chief among ten thousand. Mv 
 heart was ravished with his love, (which passeth knowled^t.) 
 in assuming our nature, to pay that debt which we could nf vrr 
 pay, — in rendering that obedience to the divine law which we 
 could never render, — m giving himself a sacrifice to make an 
 atonement for our sms, whereby we may draw nigh unto God, 
 — in becoming the end of the law for righteousness to all that 
 believe. In short, my hard heart, which nothing could move, 
 was conquered by his love, his dying love. He appeared to be 
 the way, the truth, and the life: a hiding-place from the storm; 
 an ark of safety: a city of reOige, where my guilty soul fieri for 
 
MEMOIR. 
 
 shelter. I was constrained by his love, his kind invitations, 
 and his gi'ace, and in a highly tavored hour, I hope I was ena- 
 bled to give myself away to him in an everlasting coven- 
 ant, never to be forgotten, — to commence a friendship which I 
 liope will last to all eternity. 
 
 ** Yours, &c. 
 
 «0. JENNINGS." 
 
 In the year 1810, Mr. Jennings connected himself with the 
 Presbyterian church, by a profession of his faith, and not long 
 after, as already stated, removed to the town of Washington, 
 Pa. Here he was elected to the office of Ruling Elder, the 
 duties of which he continued to discharge until his licensure to 
 preach the gospel. In this capacity he was eminently useful, 
 not only as a member of the session, and congregation to 
 which he belonged, but also in the higher judicatories of the 
 churchj in the Presbytery and Synod, and once as a delegate 
 to tlie General Assembly. 
 
 Upon his first attaching himself to the church, and for some 
 time afterwards, it does not appear that he had any intention 
 of relinquishing the profession of the law. His first serious 
 thoughts on this subject, were occasioned by a visit from an 
 obscure Christian, who happened to tarry at his house all night. 
 The remarks of this humble messenger of Providence, accom- 
 panied with a request that the " parable of the talents" should 
 be the subject of special examination and prayer in reference 
 to his duty, awakened his inquiry, and left an impression on 
 his mmd which was never effaced. Anxious to know the path 
 of duty, dnd determined to pursue it as soon as it .was ascer- 
 tained, he was for some time in great doubt and uncertainty. 
 His friends whom he consulted, were divided in opinion. Ma- 
 ny believed that his prospects of usefulness would be greater 
 by abiding in his present calling. His high standing at the 
 bar — his talents and popular manners — his Christian example 
 in the courts where he practised, and among gentlemen of the 
 bar and others, afforded an opportunity of exerting a powerful 
 moral influence on many persons, in a great measure removed 
 from ministerial intercourse. Others were of opinion, that all 
 these advantages would be more than counterbalanced, by 
 bringing at once the whole weight of his character and tal- 
 ents into the ministerial office. 
 
 To himself, the practice of the bar had become, in many re- 
 
MEMOIR. 
 
 spects, irksome, and contrary to his renovated taste and habits. 
 Uf the -two professions, he had no difficulty in determining 
 which would best accord with his own taste and feelings. The 
 courts of God's house, he greatly preferred to the courts of earth- 
 ly litigation. Often was he observed, after being engaged in the 
 business of the court, to seek refreshment at the evening pray- 
 er meeting; and after pleading a cause at a human bar, would 
 gladly retire to unite in the devotions of the pious, in pleading 
 the cause of sinners before the tribunal of God. 
 
 While his mind was vibrating on the great question of his 
 duty, he was laid on a bed of sickness, and brought to a decis- 
 ion in the light of eternity. The disease with which he was at- 
 tacked was violent, and he was brought down to the very 
 verge of the grave. His recovery was considered by himself, 
 as well as his friends and physician, as almost hopeless. It 
 was, for several days, a time of intense anxiety to his family 
 and friends. The awful interest of the scene was increased by 
 the state of his own mind, which, for a time, was in great 
 darkness, and deprived of the cheering light of God's counte- 
 nance. Agonizing prayers were offered up in his behalf, 
 which were graciously answered. A physician of eminence, 
 from Steubenville, who attended him constantly, scarcely en- 
 tertained a hope of his recovery, and when he opened a vein to 
 bleed him, he remarked that it might possibly be favorable, but 
 that it was done more with a view of lessening the pains of 
 dying, than with a hope of restoring him. Soon afterwards a 
 change was visible, and he was restored in a manner almost 
 miraculous. He was also cheered with the returning light of 
 God's countenance. The cloud was dispelled," and he was 
 enabled to rejoice in God his Saviour. " The question," said 
 he, " is decided. If God spare my life, it shall be devoted to 
 his service in preaching the gospel of Christ." Soon after his 
 recovery, he began to prepare for the ministry, by a course of 
 study in theology; in the mean time closing his business at the 
 bar; and in the fall of 1816, he was licensed by the Presbytery 
 of Ohio to preach the gospel. Shortly after his licensure, he 
 received a unanimous and urgent call from the congregation 
 of Steubenville, where he had formerly resided. He received 
 solicitations from other places, and a unanimous call from the 
 congregation of Harrisburg, the seat of government of Penn- 
 sylvania. This station, though in many respects the most im- 
 portant, and presenting more flattering worldly prospects, he 
 
xii 
 
 declined, and, after much prayerful solicitude, agreed to accept 
 the call from Steubenville. To this it appears he was deter- 
 mined by a strong friendship for the people of that place, and 
 a modest diffidence in his own abilities. 
 
 The following extract of a letter, written on his return from 
 Harrisburg, will show the state of his mind, while deliberating 
 on this subject, as well as the characteristic modesty and hu» 
 mility of the man: 
 
 " Harrisburg is an important place, in many respects, as it 
 is related to the church; and I suppose it presents a more ex- 
 tensive field of usefulness than Steubenville can possibly do. 
 But the importance of the place seems, in some measure, to 
 deter me from undertaking it. I think it would require a per- 
 son of more talents, more acquirements, and more health than 
 I possess, to discharge the duties which would be incumbent on 
 a minister there; and presuming upon the personal attachment 
 and long standing friendship of the Steubenville people, I could 
 better hope they would bear with my infirmities, than a con- 
 gregation of strangers." 
 
 Having accepted of the call, he removed to Steubenville in 
 the spring of 1817, and was ordained and installed pastor. In 
 assuming the work of the ministry, he dedicated at once, to the 
 service of his Lord, all his thoughts, and all his talents. Zeal- 
 ously and exclusively devoted to the highly responsible duties 
 of his office, his great and constant ambition was, to subserve 
 by his labors, the eternal interests of the people of his charge, 
 and promote the general welfare of the church of Christ. 
 
 He continued pastor of the Steubenville congregation six 
 years. His labors, though not attended with any remarkable 
 or general revival of religion, were blessed to a considerable 
 extent in the conversion of sinners, and the edification of the 
 church. Of those who were added to the church under his 
 ministry, some are now preaching the gospel, and a number 
 active and useful members of the church. 
 
 The congregation of Washington, Pennsylvania, having 
 become vacant by the resignation of their former pastor. Rev. 
 M. Brown, who had been chosen President of Jefferson Col- 
 lege, the people of that congregation immediately directed 
 » their attention to Mr. Jennings, as their future pastor. A call 
 was accordingly prepared; and although the separation from 
 his beloved charge was deeply and mutually regretted, yet it 
 appeared to be duty to remove to Washington, as opening a 
 
MEMOIR. 
 
 field of more extensive usefulness. He accordingly accepted 
 of the call, and took charge of the congregation, in the spring 
 of 1823. 
 
 Having entered upon this new field of labor, he advanced 
 to the work with his usual fidelity and perseverance. Here he 
 continued, five years, and his labors of love will long be re- 
 membered by that people. Although no Yery special or exten- 
 sive influence appeared to attend his ministr}', which was to him 
 matter of painful regret, there were, however, many gradual 
 additions to the chwrch; and about the close of his ministry 
 here, and after he had determined to remove, he had the plea- 
 sure of seeing a " time of refreshing from the presence of the 
 Lord." This season of special seriousness continued for a 
 considerable time after his removal, and the result was a large 
 accession to the church. 
 
 Having received a call from Nashville, Tennessee, his 
 mind was again in great perplexity as to the path of duty. In 
 writing to a friend on this subject, he says, " I have not made 
 up my mind, and feel myself in a ver\- solemn, diflicult, and 
 trying situation. I hope my desire is to know the will of the 
 Lord, that I may do it. I just hear, there are very pleasing 
 indications, that the Lord is about to visit Cross-Roads congre- 
 gation, with a powerful work of grace. If such should be the 
 case here, it would reconcile me fully to remain." Before the 
 good work did commence at Washington, he had given a 
 pledge to accept the call from Nashville, and could not consist- 
 ently retract, otherwise he would have remained, and it was 
 not without a painful struggle that he tore himself away from 
 his pastoral charge, from numerous and endeared friends — the 
 companions of his youth — to spend the remainder of his days 
 among strangers. 
 
 In April, 1528, he removed to Nashville, where he remain- 
 ed until his decease. The writer has not been furnished with 
 much information respecting his labors in this place. His 
 health had been much impaired for several years previously, 
 and becoming still more precarious, his ministerial labors were 
 requently interrupted. Still he persevered in the arduous du- 
 es of his office, whenever health permitted — and often under 
 iie pressure of disease, and in circumstances which would have 
 -ubdued and appalled an ordinary mind. 
 
 He continued to grow in the estim.ation of the people of 
 Nashville. In his private letters, he speaks with great aliec- 
 
xiv 
 
 MEMOIR. 
 
 tion of their kindness and sympathy, whilst he mourned over 
 his own unprofitableness, and that his ministry was attended 
 with so little apparent success. The amount of a minister's 
 usefulness is not always to be estimated by its immediate and 
 visible effects. God often, for wise purposes, conceals from the 
 view of his most faithful servants, the effects of their labors, — 
 " One man soweth and another reapeth." 
 
 It is probable this servant of God, zealous as he was in his 
 master's service, and anxious for the conversion of sinners, was 
 mistaken in the estimate which he made of the success of his 
 labors in Nashville, and also in his former charges. Eternity 
 alone will disclose the amount of good to result, in successive 
 generations, from an able and faithful exhibition of divine 
 truth, enforced by so lovely an example, and accompanied by 
 so many fervent prayers. The congregation, during his last 
 illness, entertaining a hope that travelling, and a suspension of 
 labors, might restore him, requested him to take a journey, and 
 passed a unanimous resolution to employ a substitute at their 
 own expense. But his race was run. ^Vhen his strength was 
 greatly reduced, and his body wasted by the disease which had 
 so long preyed upon him, the prevalent influenza seized vio- 
 lently upon him and terminated his sufferings. 
 
 The closing scene was such as might have been anticipated 
 from a life so devoted to the service of the Redeemer. " Pre- 
 cious in the sight of God is the death of his saints." Precious 
 too, in the recollection of pious friends, is the " death-bed of the 
 just." With a mind calm and composed, in full view of death 
 and judgment, he called his family around him, to bid them a 
 final farewell. With his dying benediction and prayer, he 
 gave to each of his children that were present, his last counsel, 
 in a manner most tender, solemn, and beautifully appropriate. 
 He left his blessing, also, to those who were absent. Silver 
 and gold he had none to leave them. The riches of the world he 
 had renounced for the gospel's sake; but he had that to leave 
 them which was of more value than all the riches of the world. 
 In faith on the divine promises, he cheerfully committed his 
 family to God, expressing a strong confidence that He 
 would provide. When reminded of the promise made to the 
 fatherless and the widow; " that," said he, with emphasis and 
 animation, " is the legacy, that is the legacy." 
 
 W^hen his son Thomas, who had been his constant nurse 
 and physician, said to him, " Father you are dying" — he im- 
 mediately replied, " Bless the Lord, 0 my soul." 
 
MEMOIR. 
 
 In a moment of great suffering, he remarked with character- 
 istic energy of thought, " If this be the way to heaven, what 
 must be the way to hell?" His mind however was calm and 
 resigned, and even triumphant, in the near prospect of death. 
 As a draught of water was presented to his dying lips, he 
 said, " I shall soon drink from the river of Hfe, which issues 
 from the {hrone of God and the Lamb." 
 
 He asked his wife to repeat to him the answer to the question 
 in the Shorter Catechism, " What benefits do believers receive 
 from Christ at their death?" and several times afterwards re- 
 peated with great delight, " the souls of believers are at their 
 death made perfect in holiness, and do immediately pass into 
 glory." Thus while his mind was absorbed in the contempla- 
 tion of those glorious prospects which were opening upon him, 
 he sunk, with peaceful serenity, into the slumber of death — 
 resting, with unshaken confidence, in the merits of the Re- 
 4eemer, for an abundant entrance into the everlasting king' 
 dom of God — animated with a hope full of immortality." 
 
 " The chamber where the good man meets his fate, 
 
 Is privileged beyond the common walk 
 
 Of virtuous life, quite in the verge of heaven." 
 
 " Whatever farce the boastftil hero plays, 
 
 Virtue alone has majesty in death. 
 
 His God sustains him in his final hour — 
 
 His final hour brings glory to his God." 
 
 After his death, every suitable mark of respect was shown by 
 the people of Nashville. His funeral was one of the largest 
 ever seen in that place. His congregation went in mourning. 
 A funeral sermon was delivered by the Rev. Mr. Hume. Fu- 
 neral sermons were also delivered in each of the congregations 
 of ^vhich he had been pastor. At Steuben ville, by the Rev. 
 Charles C. Beatty, and at Washington, Pa. by the Rev. David 
 EUiot, pastors of said congregations. 
 
 In conclusion of this imperfect sketch of the life of this 
 excellent man, it may not be improper to add some remarks, 
 and delineate more in detail some traits of character, suggested 
 by the recollections of intimate acquaintance, as well as^by the 
 statements already made. 
 
 As to his private life, it may be truly said, he was exem- 
 plary in all its relations. Few men have passed through life 
 
xvi 
 
 more generally beloved and esteemed, and more completely 
 without reproach. Though often placed in trying situations 
 and in the midst of conflicting parties, it was his happiness to 
 secure the confidence and esteem of all. This did not arise 
 from a want of decision nor from a vacillating, trimming 
 policy; for no man was more decided, nor more prompt to ex- 
 press his opinion when the occasion called for it. But his 
 consistency of character, and an indescribable frankness and 
 cordiality of manner, carried conviction to every heart, of his 
 honesty and benevolence. 
 
 He was peculiarly interesting and engaging as a companion, 
 and in his social intercourse. Cheerful and sociable in his 
 disposition, and abounding in apposite and pleasing anecdotes, 
 which he related with inimitable simplicity, his approach to the 
 social circle was welcomed by every countenance. There 
 was a captivating urbanity of manners, which spread an irre- 
 sistible charm over all his intercourse with society. These 
 amiable qualities, which belonged to him as a man, became 
 doubly interesting, when consecrated by religion. In him 
 were combined the gentleman and the Christian. He ex- 
 hibited the practicability and importance of uniting the things 
 that are pure and honest, with those that arelovely and of good 
 report. He was cheerful without unbecoming levity, and 
 solemn without moroseness and gloom; this happy combina- 
 tion, not often possessed, and too little regarded, greatly enlarged 
 his usefulness in his social intercourse. 
 
 He took a deep and generous interest in the welfare of 
 others. His heart was the seat of benevolence, and the " law of 
 kindness ever dwelt on his tongue." Whilst he declined not to 
 share in the rational enjoyments of the social circle, a deeper 
 interest marked his visits to the house of mourning, the cham- 
 bers of the sick and the dying. Deeply afflicted himself, he 
 well knew how to speak a word in season to others, and to 
 point them to the only true source of consolation. 
 
 He was affable and accessible to persons of every rank, the 
 poor as well as the rich. His purse was ever open to the de- 
 mands of christian liberality and the calls of charity. 
 
 Another trait of character, which deserves particular notice, 
 was his deep and unaffected humility. His estimation of him- | 
 self in every respect, was far below the estimation which other- 
 were ready to form of him. His views of himself, especiall} 
 to his religious attainments, were exceedingly humbling ai.> i 
 
MEMOIR. 
 
 xvii 
 
 self-abasing. While others beheld in him a bright example of 
 the christian gi-aces, and he appeared laden with fruits of piety, 
 he was in his own view "a poor, wretched, sinful, unprofitable 
 servant, a barren shrub, deserving only to be cut down and 
 cast into the fire." These self-abasing views, increasing with 
 his progress in holiness, may appear strange and paradoxical 
 to those who are ignorant of God and of their own hearts. 
 But they are the views and exercises of the truly pious in every 
 age. They result from the increasing light of holiness, clearer 
 views of the divine perfections, the strictness, purity and extent 
 of the divine law, and a more acute sense of the evrl and 
 odiousness of sin, as contrasted with the law and the character 
 of God. 
 
 Taught by his own painful experience, in his first convic- 
 tions and subsequent exercises under the teachings of the 
 Sj)irit, he had an uncommonly deep sense of human depravity. 
 This was a subject on which he dwelt with great emphasis and 
 force. No language appeared strong enough to describe the 
 deceitfulncss .and pride, carnality, selfishness and desperate 
 wickedness of the carnal mind, which is enmity against God. 
 It seemed to give a character and tone to all his ministerial 
 sei-vices, his prayers, his exhortations and serm.ons. He sel- 
 dom closed a discourse without making an assault on this 
 citadel of depravity, and applying his subject with a view of 
 detecting and exposing its secret abominations. By his inti- 
 mate and deep knowledge of the heart, he was eminently 
 qualified to address anxious sinners, to destroy their delusive 
 hopes, detect their legality, and pursue them through every 
 refuge of lies, and to point them to a crucified Saviour as their 
 only safety. 
 
 Although his youthful advantages of education were more 
 limited at that early period in the western country, thai! 
 those which are enjoyed at present, yet his literary acquire- 
 ments were highly respectable. As a testimony of the estima- 
 tion in which he was held, it may be mentioned, that a short 
 time l>efore his decease, the college of New-Jersey conferred 
 on him the degree of Doctor of Divinity. During his practice 
 at the bar, accustomed to write only in haste and on business, 
 he had given little attention to style, and when he commenced 
 the composition of sermons, he labored under no small difficul- 
 ty, which, however, he was enabled to surmount, so as to write 
 3 
 
XX 
 
 MEMOIR. 
 
 tended to confine and restrict the energies of his mind: hence 
 he always was more acceptable when untrammelled with his 
 notes. It was then he appeared to put forth all his powers, and 
 infuse into his subject and his utterance, the whole ardor of 
 his soul. 
 
 On one occasion, when assisting a brother in the administra« 
 tion of the Lord's Supper, his notes, with some of his garments, 
 were accidently consumed by fire. He had to preach on Mon- 
 day, and with much reluctance and fear, proceeded without his 
 manuscript. The impression was powerful. His sermon was 
 much more interesting and acceptable than any he had deliver- 
 ed^ on the preceding days. A pious old elder, hearing the dis- 
 aster wliich had befallen liim, offered up a very sincere prayer 
 that all his " notes might share a similar fate." 
 
 His great object in preaching was to do good to the souls of 
 men, not by addressing them in the " enticing words of man's 
 wisdom," but in " demonstration of the Spirit, and with power." 
 His sermons were doctrinal, experimental, and practical. He 
 was far fi'om countenancing a sceptical indiflerence to religious 
 (^pinions: he attached an eternal importance to the belief of the 
 t£ut!i, and "earnestly contended for the faith." Whilst he 
 cherished kind and generous sentiments to other denominations, 
 who differed on some points, he was a decided and zealous 
 advocate of the doctrines of the Presbyterian Church, as set 
 forth in their public standards. His great aim in addressing 
 sinners, was to bring them to Christ. To effect this, he pressed 
 on their consciences the strictness and extent of the law, their 
 obligation, their guilt, their depravity, their dreadful condition, 
 and the necessity of immediate repentance towards God, and 
 faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. He taught the total and despe- 
 rate depravity, and the entire helplessness and inability of the 
 sinner, and the absolute necessity of almighty, sovereign grace, 
 to change the heart. At the same time, he so taught this doc- 
 trine, as to show the sinner that his inability, whatever it might 
 be called, did not exonerate from obligation or guilt; that it was 
 the inability of wickedness; the inability of a depraved heart: 
 and instead of being an excuse for his impenitence and unbe- 
 lief, was itself the essential crime. His sermons were peculiar- 
 ly calculated to destroy the delusive, self-righteous hopes of 
 sinners; to unmask the formalist and the hypocrite; to search 
 and try the people of God; as well as to pour the consolations of 
 the gospel into the wounded spirit. 
 
xxi 
 
 His style of preachings as has been justly described, " was 
 Ciharacterized by strength, rather than poUsh; by solid sense, 
 rather than elegance of language; by clearness of exposition, 
 rather than ornament; by force of argument, rather than beauty 
 of illustration." His eloquence was the eloquence of thought, 
 rather than deliv-ery. Few persons could sit under his ministry 
 with indifference. The serious and the pious heard him with 
 interest and delight, while the more careless could not fail to be 
 Impressed with the solemnity and force of his addresses, and 
 whatever opinion they formed of the sermon or the speaker, 
 retired with a less lavorable opinion of themselves. 
 
 We have been favored with a copy of several letters, addres- 
 sed to Doctor Samuel K. Jennings, of Baltimore, the eldest 
 brother, a highly respectable physician, and a minister of the 
 gospel of the Methodist church. They ai-e here added without 
 any apology or comment. They will be read, we doubt not, 
 with deep interest, especially by friends and acquaintances, 
 who will be glad to possess them as memorials of one so much 
 beloved. 
 
 Stei benville, Jan. 23, 1810. 
 
 Dear Brother: — Yours: of the 24th December, came duly to 
 hand, &c. Nothing could be more appropriate than the post- 
 script in reference to myself. Having become, in some mea- 
 sure, convinced of the vanity of this world, and the dissatis- 
 jying nature of all its enjoyments, I have within these three 
 months past, been led into a train of serious reflection, upon 
 the necessity of preparing for that which is to come. I felt 
 conscious I was not in the right way, that I was without God 
 and without hope, and that without a great change in my na- 
 ture and disposition, I could never enjoy peace here, nor hap- 
 piness hereafter. These impressions were probably rendered 
 more deep by the sudden death of our friend Simonson. 
 
 The day you wrote your letter, I spent with our father at 
 his house. He, with all his parental anxiety and pious solici- 
 tude for my eternal welfare, urged me, as he had frequently 
 done before, to begin the worship of God in my family. I did 
 not, at that time, com.ply. I thought I saw so many difficulties 
 in the way, it would be impossible for me to attempt it. Since . 
 my return home, however, and since the commencement of this 
 
 *.3 
 
MEMOm. 
 
 year, I have been enabled, after the most riolent struggle, 
 which you can better conceive than I can describe, to attempt 
 to acknowledge God in my family. My Ann is rejoiced, and 
 renders praise to God for bringing me to see, in some measui-e, 
 the necessity and importance of religion. But alas! I fear her 
 joy will be very short lived! My performances of all religious 
 duties which I attempt, especially family worship, is so wretch- 
 ed, I have been frequently ready to conclude I must give it up. 
 At one time I feel myself so ignorant, so blind, so stupid, and 
 so hard-hearted, that I am almost ready to despair of ever ar- 
 riving at the knowledge of God. At cmotlier, and more par- 
 'icularly after I have attended to some religious duty, I find all 
 concern removed from my mind, and a great disposition to rest 
 u]X)n my miserable and sinful performances. And all this 
 notwithstandinii; I am ccaiscious that whenever I attempt to 
 I ray, it is nothing better than a solemn mockery of God — that 
 all my prayers are cold, lifeless, formal and hyjxx^ritical. 
 
 I have not been filled with terror, nor had any very alarm- 
 ng fears of hell. ' I have no proper sense of my guilt, nor my 
 1 eed of a Saviour. I cannot see the e\il nature of sin, as I 
 ould wish. It does not api^ar to be that exceeding smful' 
 thing, described by the apostle. I am so stupid, and have so 
 much hardness of heart, that I can road or hear the " terrors of 
 he Lord," without being terrified, and his most gracious 
 ] remises -without being allui-ed. I frequently find myself call- 
 ing in question the sovereignty of God, and finding fault with 
 :he way of salvation as offered in the gospel. I am greatly 
 Veset with doubts and unbelief; frequently ready to say with 
 Nicodemus, " how can these things be?'' and with the unbe- 
 lieving Jews, " Is not this the Carpenter's son." Notwith- 
 standing the evidence of the death and sufferings, the resurrec- 
 tion, and glorious ascension of the Saviour, is infinitely more 
 ^"rong, than that upon which a thousand other things rest, 
 '.vhicli t firmly believe, yet I dare not say that I ever did in my 
 ' "^rXjirndy believe in their existence. My judgment tells me 
 ■ his must be the consequence of the utter depravity of rr y heart 
 — ^but of this depravity, I cannot feel sensible. Thus, my 
 dear b-other, I have endeavored to let you know something of 
 ihe state of my mind. \\ hat will be the event, God only 
 -nows. Whether these dry bones can five, "O Lord thou 
 f newest," Pray for me, my brother, pray without ceasing. 
 
 Yours, O. J. 
 
MEMOIR. 
 
 xxili 
 
 Steubenville, March 24, 1810. 
 
 Dear Brother: — Your letter in answer to mine, I have re- 
 ceived, and I sit down in great haste and distraction of mind, 
 being compelled to write to day, or to put it off for some weeks, 
 as the Circuit commences the first of next week, and I shall, 
 of course, be engaged. 
 
 Since- the date of my last, I have experienced various exer- 
 cises of mind, which I need not give in detail. I have reason, 
 however, to bless God, that I have not, as yet, been permitted 
 to return with the " dog to his vomit," though I have been 
 frequently very nearly overcome by the world, the flesh, and 
 the devil. I have for a long time been endeavoring to estab- 
 lish my own righteousness, not submitting to the righteousness 
 of God. I have labored to make myself better and fit, as I 
 supposed, to come to Christ. But Oh! how vain the attempt. 
 I have found my heart to be indeed d.xeitful, and desperately 
 wicked. My experience has taught me that the carnal mind 
 is enmity against God. I have thought I could find myself 
 taking some encouragement from the gracious promises of Gk>d, 
 but I have more frequently been in a state of despondency and 
 filled with hard thoughts of God, and his moral government. 
 I have discovered that I am, as it were, made up of darkness, 
 blindness, ignorance, stupidity, and hardness of heart. As I 
 mentioned to you in my last, I have been awfully beset with 
 doubts of the truth of the scriptures, the divinity our Saviour, 
 and even the existence of God. 
 
 I was lately, through the mercy of God, saved from a dan- 
 gerous delusion, which I can hardly describe to you. A hope 
 sprang up within me, that I had attained to some knowledge of 
 the true God, that my sins were pardoned, and that I really 
 loved God supremely. It was for some time attended with a 
 delight I never before experienced. For some days I felt at 
 particular times, as I thought, my affections drawn out after 
 God, and a desire to be with him, and dwell with him forever. 
 During this time I did not feel that working of sin within me, 
 which I experienced before and since. I was " alive without 
 the law, and thought my sins were dead." But after a few 
 days I began to examine the grounds of m}^ hope, and was led 
 to discern that it was without foundation, and I was, at length, 
 with some reluctance, foi:ced to give it up. But when my 
 hopes left me, " my sins revived." I thought I should be over- 
 come. I found such an opj)osition within me, to every thing 
 
xxiv 
 
 MEMOIR. 
 
 that was good, such risings of my heart against God, and such 
 a disposition to give up all further attempts to seek lor mercy, 
 that it was a mercy indeed I did not stop there. Since that 
 time, I am in some measure, (if not again deceived,) brought 
 to see, that " in me there is no help found." That I must look 
 to God lor the desired blessing, and I think I have been ena- 
 bled to look to the promises of God with a hope that he will, in 
 his own time and manner, bring me out of darkness into his 
 marvellous light — and I sometimes think I can see something 
 more in a crucified Redeemer, than I heretofore have done. 
 But I know little or nothing of the way of salvation. I am 
 grossly ignorant of the character of God. I fear I have never 
 had any proper views of the evil nature of sin, or any genuine 
 conviction thereof. I have been encouraged particularly by 
 the promise, " Then shall ye know, if ye follow on to know the 
 Lord." I need not request an interest in your prayers, know- 
 ing that you do not forget me. Yours, &c. O. J. 
 
 Steubenville, May 2, 1810. 
 Dear Brother: — Since the date of my last, I have been most 
 continually immersed in the affairs and business of my profes- 
 sion, although I have not, for any great length of time, been 
 destitute of serious exercises in relation to the concerns of my 
 soul; yet I have had but little leisure, and often less inclination, 
 to attend to the duties of religion. For some time past, how- 
 ever, I have entertained a hope — and Oh! if I am not mistaken, 
 the foundation of that hope is the Lord Jesus Christ and him 
 crucified. I have, at times, been able from my heart to say, in 
 the words of Dr. Watts: 
 
 " No more, my God, I'll boast no more 
 
 Of all the duties I have done, 
 I quit the hopes I held before, 
 
 To trust the merits of thy Son." 
 
 I do not know that I ever have been able to exercise any 
 acts of saving faith, but I have, at times, for a few moments, 
 experienced a joy, a consolation, a peace of mind which I never 
 before experienced, and which I am ready to conclude the 
 " world cannot give." I have sometimes thought I felt my 
 soul going out in longing desires after God, and could with joy 
 say, " The Lord God omnipotent reigneth." When I first be- 
 gan to feel. for the state of my soul, I was exceedingly selfish. 
 1 thought if I could only secure my own soul's salvation, it 
 
MEMOIR. 
 
 XXV 
 
 would be ail I should desire. But latterly, I have sometimes 
 felt a very anxious desire, that all the world should come to 
 the knowledge of the true God, and the fulness there is in 
 Jesus — and at times I have been led to pray with as much 
 earnestness, that " the will of God might be done on earth, as it is 
 in heaven," as I ever prayed for the salvation of my own soul. 
 
 This is the bright side, if I may so term it, of the picture. 
 Vi'hen I take a view of the reverse, it is all darkness. I fre- 
 quently feel such an opposition and reluctance to rehgious 
 duties — so much unbelief — such hardness of heart — such dead- 
 ness and stupidity — such Hfelessness in the service of God, that 
 niy hope in a great measure leaves me. I feel myself so igno- 
 rant of God, and to possess so httle, if any, knowledge of the 
 hidden mysteries of the gospel, that I am frequently very much 
 discouraged. I am also very fearful that I have not viewed 
 sin as it ought to be viewed — and that I have never been the 
 subject of true evangehcal repentance. I have had some 
 tlioughts of yielding myself up to God, in a solemn act of self- 
 dedication, and of mailing a public profession of my faith in 
 Christ, by coming forward to the table of the Lord. Whether 
 I shall be enabled to do it, is not for me to say. My proles- 
 sional business but ill accords with the practical duties of 
 Christianity. Were I now setting out in hfe, I do not think I 
 should ever practise law. But I suppose I must submit to the 
 drudgery of the profession, now rendered doubly irksome. 
 My dear brother, cease not to pray for me. 
 
 Yours, vkc. O. J. 
 
 Steubexville, June 6, ISIO. 
 
 Dear Brother: — Yours of the 22 d of April, has been receiv- 
 ed. I was not a little affected by your expressions of affection 
 for me as your brother in Christ, as well as by natural ties. 
 But Oh, this pleasing prospect which dehghts your soul, I feel 
 as though I dare not entertain. You express your satisfaction 
 that I descend into particulars, as it will enable you to judge of 
 my progress in the divine hfe. Alas! I fear my progress, if 
 any, will be scarcely discernible. 
 
 I lately joined in communion with the Presbyterian church, 
 and made a pubhc profession of my faith in Christ. I had for 
 some time previous, ex|)erienced a strong desire to commemo- 
 rate the dying love of the glorious fiiend of sinners. I hoped 
 I had something of that hungering and thirsting for the bread 
 of lile, which our Lord has promised to accompany with his 
 
xxvi 
 
 MEMOIR. 
 
 blessing. After consulting with some of my pious friends, and 
 putting up some poor |)etitions on the subject, 1 determined " to 
 go forward." But I fear there was an " Achan in the camp." 
 On approaching the table of the Lord, instead of findmg my 
 heart to " melt like wax in the midst of my bowels," as 1 had 
 supposed, it was harder than flint and colder than ice. In- 
 stead of drawing near to my Saviour and my (jod, by faith 
 and prayer, I could not even adopt the language of the publi- 
 can. I gave up all for lost, and concluded myself to be a devil 
 incarnate. I was, however, taught a useful lesson. I had not 
 before discovered my heart was so deceitful and desperately 
 wicked. You can better judge of my feehngs in this state of 
 mind than I can describe them. I was left some hours with- 
 out any evidence of grace that I could discern — and under 
 strong apprehension of having eaten and drunk damnation to my- 
 self. But Oh! my brother, if I am not mistaken, my gracious 
 Lord and Master was the same evening pleased to give me a look 
 as he did his disciple Peter, after he had denied him, and when 
 " thereon I wept," Oh, my brother, how delicious, how sweet, 
 how comforting, the penitential te-ar! 
 
 I have smce, again joined in communion, and have been 
 again in a great measure disappointed. On serious examination, 
 I am led to believe I have not that due and thorough preparation 
 of heart, which is necessary for the communicant. I fear I had 
 not forsaken all — ^that I had " kept back part of the price." 
 
 Although I am frequently in great darkness, and have been 
 greatly assaulted by the world, the flesh, and the devil, and 
 although I have frequently, for a time, given up all hope, yet 
 I cannot but say, that the evidences in my favor have, upon 
 the whole, . increased. I find that the Christian course is a 
 warfare — that the enemies to be encountered are numerous and 
 strong, and whenever I attempt to go in my own strength, I 
 am sure to be defeated. At different times, when I have drawn 
 the conclusion that I was destitute of gi-ace, I have labored at 
 the covenant of works; but, as might be exp€*cted, all in vain. 
 I can find no satisfaction, no hope, unless when I discern that 
 Jesus is my righteousness and strength. I am sometimes great- 
 ly oppressed with spiritual sloth; it seems as though I could not 
 make any exertion; and although I acknowledge my solemn and 
 awful obligations to use with diligence all the appointed means 
 of grace, and to work out my own salvation with fear and 
 trembling, yet I feel that it is indeed God that must work in me 
 both to will and to do. Yours, &c. O. J. 
 
MEMOIR. 
 
 xxvii 
 
 Steubenville, Dec. 18, 1810. 
 Dear Brother, — Do give me some detail of your exercises, 
 — let me know whether you have overcome the workings of 
 unbelief, — whether you never feel backwardness of duty, dead- 
 ness, lifelessness, and formality, in the service of God. Whether 
 you are no longer oppressed with blindness of mind, hardness 
 of heart, nvanderings of mind in public or secret prayer. For 
 my own part, 1 lind new enemies in addition to those with which 
 I have been conflicting. I find the pride of my heart to be one 
 of my most dangerous enemies; and it lately brought me into a 
 snare, of which I was not aware. I was foolish enough to think 
 I had become in a great degree insensible to the applause of the 
 world. There was lately a most horrid murder committed near 
 Union Town. The parents of the girl murdered are my neigh- 
 bors, and they insisted on my undertaking the prosecution of 
 the murderer. The murderer was defended by some ol' the 
 ablest advocates in Pennsylvania. The prosecution rested on 
 me alone. My father, who had business, was present. I 
 never was placed, in the business of my profession, in a more 
 trying situation. Instead of meeting with disgrace, as I very 
 much feared, I received so many compliments, (notwithstanding 
 the murderer was acquitted — the evidence was only presump- 
 tive,) that the subtle poison stole into my soul. For a consider- 
 able time, I thought myself something, when I was nothing. 
 And, to confess the truth, I still feel so much of the same prin- 
 ciple, that I am almost tempted to erase the line which contains 
 a relation of the incident. 
 
 Yours, &C. O. J. 
 
 Extracts from other letters, written in the subsequent part of 
 the life of the subject of the preceding memoir would be given, 
 if want of room did not necessarily preclude them. 
 
TO THE READER. 
 
 It may be necessary to say, that the subsequent exhibition 
 of the principles and meiisures of *Bisho]) Campbell, and the 
 reasoning on them, is the work of the deceased author, so far 
 as the " conclusion," which is added by the present writer. 
 The notes in the " Appendix," are likewise from the pen of 
 Dr. Jennings, excepting the two last ones. It will be seen, that 
 the subjects discussed in the debate, were sutficiently written 
 out during the life of the author. This, it is necessary to state, as 
 an impression has been attempted to be made, (and it may again 
 be attempted,) that I wrote out a debate, which I never heard. 
 The subject of Mr. C.'s disinterestedness, which he intro- 
 duced in the conclusion of his remarks, could be equally well 
 examined by one acquainted with the facts, whether he was 
 present or absent at the time of the discussion. In reviewing 
 the manuscripts, previous to sending them to the press, I have 
 made no alteration. 
 
 He considered the cause of truth, the welfare of men, and the 
 good of Mr. Campbell himself required, that in the debate, and 
 in the following pages, he should obey the apostolic direction 
 in such cases, and " rebuke sharply," though he was called to 
 do.it unexpectedly, and against his natural inclination. And I 
 am not conscious that in a single sentence in the volume, injus- 
 tice is done to the individual who occasioned the discussion. 
 The peculiar fgrce of the author's vmnner of speaking, could 
 not, of course, be conveyed to the pages of a book; but there is 
 so much useful instruction, faithful exhibition, acute, but just 
 severity, throughout, fhat the important objects which constrain- 
 ed him first to speak, and afterwards to write, will be in a good 
 degree accomplished, and public expectation be realized. 
 
 The part which the present writer performs in issuing this 
 book, is, in consequence of one of the last requests of his uncle; 
 and for the cause of evangelical truth. If there are proceeds 
 from the work, beyond what is necessary to defray the expenses 
 of publication, they will all go to the immediate family of the 
 deceased, who are entitled to some remuneration for the time 
 and labor, he spent during the last months of his declining life, 
 in writing that which is now printed. S. C. Jennings. 
 
 * This appellation, is given to Mr. Campbell in many places through- 
 out the book, apparently for the sake of conveniency. The origin of its 
 application to him by the public, was, I presume, the seeing the name, 
 *' Bishop Campbell," announced in the public papers, when he intended 
 to preach. 
 
DEBATE. 
 
 PART I. 
 
 OCCASION or THE DISCUSSION— A STATEMENT OF TBE 
 VIEWS, EXHIBITED IN THE FIRST DISCUSSION, &<t. 
 
 That the system of Mr. Alexander Campbell, of 
 Bethany, Brook County, Virginia, is calculated and de- 
 signed to exclude all true spirituality from the religion of 
 the Bible, must be apparent to ever}^ impartial and intel- 
 ligent inquirer for truth, who seriously examines it; that 
 it is in fact a system of infidehty somewhat disguised, it is 
 conceived, he himself has lately given, both in his wri- 
 tings and public harangues, the most decisive proof This 
 more plenary evidence of the true nature and design of his 
 religious sentiments, was not, however, necessary to fas- 
 ten upon the minds of a great majority of the pious com- 
 munity, the coni'iction. which has long been felt, that he is 
 one of the most dangerous " false teachers" that has ap- 
 peared in our country. 
 
 I had learned, since my removal to Tennessee, that in 
 this South \\'estern region, Mr. C. had, by some means, 
 acquired a reputation, as well for learning as for a superi- 
 ority of intellect, to which, it is believed, and now generally 
 acknowledged, (at least in Nashville and its vicinity,) he 
 w^as by no means justly entitled; w^hich, nevertheless, was 
 calculated to facilitate the propagation of his views, and 
 the accomplishment of his purposes. When, therefore, it 
 was publicly announced that he would visit and spend 
 some time in Nashville, and the vicinity, in December 
 last,* I was induced, as I trust were others also, to prav, 
 
 * Th«as pajes wore mitten during the summer and autumn of 1831. 
 4 
 
30 
 
 DEB A TIT OS 
 
 that when the enemy should come in as a flood>.theSpint 
 of the Lord would lift up a standard against his dangerous- 
 and destructive errors. With regard to the particular 
 character or mode of the standard which, it was hoped, the 
 Spirit of the Lord would lift up upon the approach of the- 
 enemy, I can, with truth, say, I had formed no opinion; 
 and consequently I entertained not the least expectation^ 
 that, in the providence of God, I should be called to be its 
 bearer. In short, I have never been, either in inclination 
 or by habit, a theological disputant, nor had I any inten- 
 tion, whatever, of encountering Mr. C. in a public debate. 
 Though we had resided near each other, for more than 
 twenty years, we had not the slightest personal acquaint- 
 ance, nor had I, before his arrival in Nashville, ever heard 
 one of his public harangues. When, therefore, he pub- 
 licly hold forth in the Baptist church,, on the evening of 
 Friday, the 10th of December, as stated by him in his 
 narrative, I was induced, with many others, to attend- 
 On that occasion,, he made a display of his learning by 
 speaking much about muster ion, the original of the w^ord 
 mystery, which is so frequently used in the New Testa- 
 ment. He was very liberal in denunciations of the several 
 sects of evangelical Christians, and described the preach- 
 ers of the gospel among them, as mere teachers of mys- 
 ticism. In short, both the manner and the matter of the 
 exhibition, seemed to be so calculated to excite disgust* 
 that I felt determined in my own mind, that as it was the 
 first, time I had ever heard'Mr. so also it should be the 
 last. Nor was my purpose altered by his proposing a 
 meeting, the next evening, to hear any thing that might 
 be objected against the principles he had advanced, in 
 what he was pleased to call his introductory to a course 
 of lectures, which he intended to deliver before he left 
 this region. Accordingly, I went the next evening to the 
 Lyceum, to hear a lecture on language. After having 
 arrived there, but not until it was quite dark, I was in- 
 formed, that one of our Methodist brethren expected that 
 evenincT to discuss with A. Campbell an important f>oint 
 141 theology. I thereupon felt so strong a desire to hear 
 
CAMPBELLISM, 
 
 ihe discussion, that I was induced to leave the Lyceum, 
 and repair to the Baptist church. When I arrived, the 
 meeting had been opened; and Mr. Campbell was on his 
 feet, but just concluding an address, of which I barely 
 heard sufficient to understand, that the way was then 
 prepared to hear any objections that might be offered. I 
 took a seat with no other intention than that of being a 
 silent spectator, and hearer of whatever might be done 
 and said whilst 1 remained in the chur<ih. 
 
 I have been thus particular^ in the foregoing statement 
 of facts, in themseives unimportant, because it has been 
 represented by some, and supposed or believed by many, 
 that I went to the Baptist church on Saturday evening, the 
 11th of December, prepared for, and desiring to provoke 
 a public debate with Mr. Campbell. And because he 
 himself in his narrative, after stating tho purpose of the 
 meeting that evening, to be, to give " a favorable oppor- 
 tunity for a familiar conversation to such as had any thing 
 to inquire, object, or propose relative to the principles as- 
 sumed in his introductory address," would seem to in- 
 sinuate, that I abruptly broke in upon the established order 
 of the meeting, by rising and speaking nearly an hour, 
 A^c. Whatever was the intended mode of proceeding at 
 that meeting, I certainly did not understand it as designed 
 -for a familiar conversation; and that Mr. C. him sell, xlid 
 not so understand it, or, at least, that he did not thus con- 
 duct it, will be evident from what follows, and which, it 
 is not supposed that any, even of his warmest friends or 
 -admirers, will venture to contradict. 
 
 When Mr. C. had thus prepared the way to hear ob- 
 jections, and taken his seat, a short interval of silence 
 ensued, during which I observed Mr. C. to whisper some- 
 thing m the ear of his " brother, (and coadjutor,) J. Creath, 
 who had accompanied him from Kentucky, who imme- 
 diately rose, and made a suggestion, as coming from 
 himself, although it must have been evident to all that 
 part of the audience who had noticed what had previously 
 taken place, that the ^ggestion was Mr. CampbelPs, 
 which was,— that as no one appeared to offer any objec- 
 
32 
 
 DEBATE Olf 
 
 tions, he had no doubt it would be gratifvin.j^ to the audi- 
 ence to hear liim (Mr. C.) discuss/mure' iullv, a subject, 
 which he had but very cursorily noticed the previous 
 evening, viz. " that mysterious faith;' about which so 
 much was said, adding at the "^sarne time, that it was 
 alleged by some there were many mvsteries in the gospel, 
 and gave as an instance what he called. " the mystery of 
 the five points," alluding to the points ot (l(Kirine concern- 
 ing wliich the Calvinistic and Arminiaii cliurches arc 
 divided in sentiment. Thus was the solemn farce intro- 
 duced and attempted to be played. Mr. C. himself, does 
 not say that objections were proposed bv, but " thrmigh 
 brother J. Crcath;" whilst he is <'iiretiil not to inform the 
 public by whom, what he calls objections, <fcc." were 
 thus proposed. Whilst he selected liis ov n subject, he 
 evidently, wished that it might appear, as though he had 
 been called upon to discuss a subject prop<xsed by 
 another. 
 
 After Mr. C. had thus suggested his own subject, and 
 throuc^h liis " brother J. ( 'n^ath," had called u]» himself to 
 di.cuss it, apparently, in obedience to the call, not how- 
 ever iii the manner of one about to enter u.])on a familiar 
 conversation but in the usual style of his public harangues, 
 he rose, and entered upon a discMission of the nature of 
 that faith which he alleged the g(»s})f^l required, and at- 
 tempted to show, how, or wherein, it diflered from that 
 " mysterious faith," to which he had, in the mannor before 
 mentioned, proposed objections. After having stated, 
 what indeed he truly alleges I did not deny, tfiat testimo- 
 ny, and faith, or as I would rather in the abstract, say, 
 beluf are correlative terms, he told us thnt his fundamen- 
 tal position in relation to the faitli which the gospel re« 
 quires, or that belief which is " to the sai'ins^ of the soui;^ 
 was, that, in its nature, it is purely historical, consisting 
 in the belief of a few simple facts, and not doctrines^ that 
 there neither was, nor could there possibly be, any differ- 
 ence between that belief of the gospf^l, which is requisite 
 to the salvation of the soul, and that credence which we 
 usually, with readiness, yield to any other well authentir 
 
cated history. Such Avas his leading posilicn; but 
 whence did he derive his illustrations and proof? From 
 the pure word of God, which ^very enlightened christian 
 will admit to be the only legitimate source of proof in re- 
 lation to such a subject? Not at all. Mr. C. in this, his 
 first speech, did not, according to my recollection, direct 
 the attention of his audience to a nvgh passage of scrip- 
 ture, with a view to confirm or establish what he advanced. 
 Whether he was prevented from appealing to the word 
 of God in support of his position, by the recollection that 
 it is therein written, " To the law and to the testimony: if 
 they speak not according to this word, it is because there 
 is no light in them," I shall not undertake to determine. 
 But certain it is, that he resorted to a resource for 
 illustration and proof of his position, which, if it be not as 
 j infallible as the oracles of divine truth, is at feast of very 
 high authority, in his own estimation, viz. Himself. It 
 cannot be denied that Egomei" " ipse,^ " Magna pars 
 fuU^ and his own experience, are very prominent in all 
 the writings and public exhibitions of Mr. C. Not his 
 7'eligious experience,* for of this he seems to know nothing; 
 nor does it ever engage his attention, except it be as the 
 subject of ridicule and contempt. 
 
 Do any ask, what other than religious experienx:e couM 
 be adduced in illustration of one of the most important 
 subjects connected with the Christian religion? I reply, 
 that I know of no distinctive appellation whereby Mr. 
 Campbell's experience, to which he alluded, may be 
 recognized; but I will endeavor to describe it, as nearly 
 as I can recollect, in his own language. In confirmation 
 of his doctrine he proceeded to state, that in his youth he 
 had read three histoties,^^ one of Asia, on« of Africa, 
 and one of these United States. That he believed th.em 
 all; of this he was assured. But his belief of the other 
 two, had not the same effect upon his mind, and did not 
 lead to the formation and execution of purposes, in any 
 degree, like his belief of the history of this country. Thai 
 his belief in this history, was fully equal to the faith of 
 
 ♦ See note A in Appendix. 
 *4 
 
34 
 
 PEBATE our 
 
 the gos}XiI which is connected with salvation, and was 
 productive of similar results. For he was thereby in- 
 duced to leave the country of his nativity, (Irelantf,) to 
 forego all the bright prospects and advantages which 
 were there presented to his view; in a word, to forsake 
 all, and risk the dangers of the miglity deep, to seek a 
 settlement in this country, with a view to the enjoyment 
 of the privileges and advantages which he believed it 
 was calculated to secure. And what better or higher 
 faith could the gospel require than this, which had exert- 
 ed such a powerful influence on his mind? Mr. C. next 
 proceeded to compare, or contrast this history, and ac- 
 cording to his views, the only true faith of the gospel, 
 with that " mysterious faith" which had been objected to 
 throicgh his ** brother J. Creath," and which he said was 
 represented by the preachers of the gospel among tlie 
 various sects, " as a saving grace wrought some way in 
 the heart by supernatural operations." In perfect ac- 
 cordance with the Unitarian belief, in relation to this 
 subject, he exploded all mysteries from the religion of the 
 Bible, and in substance, repeated a charge which he had 
 the preceding evening, in his public harangue, made 
 against the ministers of the gospel of diflerent denomina- 
 tions, by declaring that they denied the sufficiency of the 
 revelation, which God had given in his word, and taught 
 the people to believe, in direct contradiction to that word, 
 dial tw^o other, or additional revelations were necessary. 
 One of these revelations, and which he intimated they 
 assumed the power to make, was designed to remove the 
 veil or mystery in which they represented the word of 
 God to be involved. The other was internal, and by the 
 same teachers represented as necessaiy to remove " the 
 film from the mental eye," and without which the scrip- 
 tures could not be understood. 
 
 Such were some of the most prominent sentiments and 
 assertions of Mr. C. which led to the discussion which 
 t'X>k place on that occasion. It was not until after Mr. 
 C. had spoken at some length, that I had any thought of 
 making any reply. As he proceeded in his observations. 
 
CAMPBELLISM. 
 
 35 
 
 it occurred to my mind, that considering the nature and 
 object of the meeting, if no one appeaj cd to contradict 
 his statements, so far as they were incorrect, and to de- 
 tect and expose his sophistry, that it would probably ap- 
 pear in the view of many, as though truth had " fallen in 
 the street" -Perceiving, moreover, that the Methodist 
 brother, who was expected to have entered into a discus- 
 sion with Mr. C. was not present, and believing that I, 
 who was providentially, and to myself unexpectedly, 
 present, was, by the sacred office which I endeavor to 
 fulfil, " set for the defence of the gospel," I resolved 
 that in dependence on promised grace, I would rise in 
 vindication of " the truth as it is in Jesus." 
 
 Accordingly, after Mr. C. had concluded his observa- 
 tions, it was alleged, in reply, that there was a well found- 
 ed distinction between mysteries and mysticism. That 
 whilst all enlightened, evangelical Christians, of every 
 denomination, reject the latter as unscriptural and absurd, 
 they do not explode the former, believing as they do, that 
 the scriptui'es speak so distinctly, not only of things in 
 their nature more or less mysterious, but of mysteries, 
 that none can mistake in this matter, who do not shut 
 their eyes against the clear light of revelation. 
 
 That neither do they believe, as do Unitarians, and as 
 does Mr. C, that the word mystery is used, in the New- 
 Testament, in no other sense than that of a thing kept 
 secret and hid from our understanding until it be reveal- 
 ed to us; but that they believe the mysteries spoken of in 
 the word of God to be of two kinds. One kind is such 
 as would never have been known without revelation; but 
 when revealed, may, in a good measure, be explained and 
 understood. Such is the doctrine of the forgiveness of 
 sins " for Christ's sake," the resurrection from the dead, 
 and of eternal life in a future world. Thus Paul, in the 
 coriClusion of his epistle to the Romans, speaks of " the 
 revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since 
 the world began, but now is made manifest, and by the 
 scriptures of the prophets, according to the command- 
 nr^ent of the everlasting God, made known to all nations 
 
36 
 
 DEBATE Off 
 
 for the obedience of faith." That the other sort of Jiiys- 
 teries are those, wliicli when reavealed to us, we know 
 the existence or reahty and certainty of them, but cannot 
 comprehend them, or the manner of their existence. JSuch 
 is the mystery of the incarnation of Christ, or the union 
 of the divine and human natiu'es in one person. Thus 
 the same apostle, in his first letter to Timothy, declares: 
 ** Without controversy great is the m3^stery of godliness; 
 God was manifest in the flesh," &c. In like manner, the 
 same inspired writer, in his epistle to the Ephesians, just- 
 ly calls the spiritual union between Christ and his church, 
 which he illustrates by the union between husband and 
 wife, " a great mystery^ Thus we know that the mys- 
 tery of godliness, or that of the Word made flesh, and the 
 mystery of the spiritual union between Christ and all his 
 true disciples, so that they are said to be " members of 
 his body and of his flesh and of his bones," not only exist, 
 but that they are, beyond all controversy, great; never- 
 theless, we cannot comprehend them, or explain how 
 they exist. 
 
 It was then urged that the term mysterious, as used by 
 Mr. C. and his " brother J. Creath," whether it was de- 
 signed to be understood in this latter sense, or whether it 
 was intended to be viewed as synonimous with the w^ord 
 mystical, had no just application to faith as held by evan- 
 gehcal christians of different denominations. That it was 
 true they all concurred in the utter rejection of the doc- 
 trine, that all the faith which the gospel, or its Author, re- 
 quired, is merely a historical belief of the facts recorded 
 in the New Testament. And for the obvious reason, that 
 they do not believe, according to the best view which 
 they can take of the scriptures, that this mere historical 
 belief constitutes that faith whereby a sinner is justified, 
 and finds "peace with God through our Lord Jesus 
 Christ." It is, indeed, a favorite position with Mr. C. that 
 there is but one kind of faith spoken of in the word of 
 God; and it is true, that as there is but " one Lord," so 
 there is but " one faith" that is genuine in its nature, or 
 saving in its character; but it is also true that the 
 
CAMPBELLISM. 
 
 apostle James speaks of a faith that is dead, that "will not 
 save being without works. " Thou believest, says the 
 apostle, there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also 
 beheve and tremble. But wilt thou know, O vain man, 
 tliat faith without works is dead?" It was further stated, 
 in the reply to Mr. C. that we read, in the 12th chap, of 
 John (ver. 42.) " among the chief rulers also many believed 
 on him, (Christ,) but because of the Pharisees they did 
 not confess him, lest they should be put out of the S5^na- 
 gogue: for they loved the praise of men more than the 
 praise of God." Here then we have two instances of a 
 faith or belief, spoken of in the word of God, in is nature 
 historical, or at least of equal character and value, and 
 yet it is presumed that even Mr. C. himself would not 
 contend, that it was productive of any real advantage to 
 the subjects of it. And such, it was further urged, was the 
 faith or historical belief, of the great mass of every chris- . 
 tian community, who felt a conviction that the word and 
 gospel of God are true, and that Jesus Christ therein re- 
 vealed, is the only Saviour of sinners. In confirmation 
 of this, it was further observed, that it had lately been 
 remarked by a worthy baptist minister, in preaching a 
 - discourse on the subject of faith: It is a difficult thing at 
 this time of day, when the truth of the gospel, in its nature 
 so full and so convincing, is so well understood, for a man 
 to maintain himself on the infidel ground, however strong 
 may be his desire so to do." Thus the great mass of the 
 population of our own country are, nominally or histori- 
 cally, believers on the Son of God, as the only Saviour of 
 sinners and of the world. But will this faith, which is not 
 accompanied or followed even by a confession with the 
 mouth, of the Lord Jesus, save them? Mr. C. himself, must 
 admit that it will not. What, then, becomes of his histor- 
 ical faith, or of those who, depending upon it, or resting 
 in a " form of godliness" whilst they deny its power, cry 
 to themselves " peace, peace," when God declares " there 
 is no peace?" 
 
 With regard to the illustration of the nature of faith, 
 drawn by Mr, C, from his own conduct and experience. 
 
DEBATE 0!^ 
 
 it was replied, tliat neither the appositeness nor force of k 
 was perceived. Besides, it was confidently believed, that, 
 in the estimation of the public at large, Mr. C. would not 
 be considered as having acted a very adventurous, mer- 
 itorious, or even disinterested part, in exchanging Ire- 
 land — a land groaning under the pressure of taxation, and 
 the heavy hand of oppression, where the poorer classes* 
 of society frequently «ufier for the actual necessaries of 
 life — for this fair land of plenty and freedom, which pre- 
 sents so many flattering prospects to the virtuous and the 
 enterprising from every country and every clime; and 
 where Mr* (X himself had, it was believed, more than 
 realized all his expectations, I would, nevertheless, add, 
 that the illustration of Mr. C. seems very aptly to eluci- 
 date the principles upon which, it is apprehended, too 
 many (whether Mr. is embraced among the number I 
 will leave every one to judge for himself,) make a pro- 
 fession of the religion of Christ, whilst they are historical 
 believers, but have not " obeyed from the heart that form 
 of doctrine," which God has given in his word and gos- 
 pel. Whether they be conscious of it or not, it is oft^n 
 too evident, that the real motive whereby they were in- 
 duced to confess with their mouth the Lord Jesus, was 
 the hope of temporal advantages, such as wealth, reputa- 
 tion or influence over their fellow men; whereas, had no 
 such prospects presented themselves to their view, their 
 historical faith, however sincere and perfect in its char- 
 acter it may have been, would no more have influenced 
 them publicly to profess Christ, than did Mr. Campbell's 
 belie f of the history of Africa induce him to take up his 
 residence among the Hottentots. This leads me to observe 
 that it was farther, in reply to Mr. C, urged as a decisive 
 objection to his view of faith, that, in thousands of in- 
 stances, it was evident it had no abiding practical influ- 
 ence upon the hearts or lives of such as historically be- 
 lieved the word of God and the gospel of his Son. And 
 therefore, it might be fairly argued or inferred that in no 
 
 See note B, 
 
CAMPBELLISM. 
 
 39 
 
 case, was a mere historical faith productive of a perma- 
 nent and universal change of the human character, simi- 
 lar to that produced by the " faith which worketh by 
 love." A change of character, such as was exemplified^ 
 m an eminent degree, in the case of Paul, who could say, 
 " I am. crucified with Christ, nevertheless I five, yet not 
 I, but Christ hveth in me, and the life which I live in the 
 flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me 
 and who gave himself for me." This objection was, 
 moreover, illustrated and confirmed by a case which ac- 
 tually occurred within the range of my own limited 
 acquaintance. A yo*ung, but intelligent, female, being 
 urged by a proselyting follower of Mr. C. to be immerse^ 
 objected, among other things, that she had not the faith 
 requisite to constitute her a disciple of Christ. By way 
 of answer to her objection, she was asked if she did not 
 hi stoically believe the gospel, or the history of our Lord 
 and Saviour Jesus Christ; and was, at the same time, 
 assured by him that this was all the faith required. To 
 this she made, in substance, the following reply. That she 
 could not doubt the reality or sincerity of her historical 
 belief of all that was contained in the Bible, because, of 
 the existence of this belief, she was as conscious as she 
 was of her own existence: but that she was no less cer- 
 tain, that this belief was different from that faith which is 
 the peculiar characteristic of all the true disciples of 
 Christ, because this historical belief did not exert any 
 suitable or lasting influence, either upon her heart or her 
 life. This judicious reply, it would seem, was found to 
 be unanswerable, and put an end to the attempt to pro- 
 selyte her to Campbellism. 
 
 It was still further urged in reply to Mr. C, on this 
 part of the subject in debate, that if it was thus charac- 
 teristic of historical faith to be unproductive of good and 
 lasting fruit, much more palpably would this be the case, 
 if it consisted, as Mr. Campbell asserted, in the historical 
 belief of the facts related in the New Testament, separa- 
 ted from the doctrines with which such facts stand con* 
 Docted. Thus, if it were possible to strip the facts oonr 
 
40 
 
 DEBATE OBT 
 
 tained in the gospel history of the doctrines with wliich 
 they are not only intimately, but inseparably, connecioJ, 
 so as simply to believe the facts, that Jesus Chrisi, of 
 Nazareth, was born under the reign of Augustus Ccesar, 
 and was crucified as a malefactor under Pontius Pilate, 
 upon Mount Calvary, near Jerusalem, — how would this 
 belief influence the heart of any man to the exercise of 
 right affections towards God and his neighbor; or his life, 
 so that it should be habitually conformed to the law of 
 God, any more than would the belief that Julius Csesar 
 was assassinated at Rome.* 
 
 In justice, however, to Mr. C, it must be admitted, that 
 w^hilst he contended that a simple historical belief of facts 
 constituted the true and only faith of the gospel, he, at 
 the same time, alleged that it was not a faith that was 
 wholly ino|>erative that would avail any thing; but such 
 as w^ould produce at least one supposed good work or act 
 of obedience, which he calls an act of faith. According 
 to the views of Mr. C, then, if a person be a true historic^ 
 believer, he will submit to be immersed, which he pro- 
 fessesf to believe to be all-important, and, as it would 
 seem, essential to salvation; inasmuch as it is, by thi^ 
 supposed act of faith, and by this alone, according to his 
 creed, a sinner is not only justified, but adopted, pardon- 
 ed, sanctified and saved: whilst all such as have not thus 
 submitted to immersion are by him pronounced to be in 
 a state of condemnation. But Mr. C. does not seem to 
 be aware of the inconsistency, not to say absurdity, of 
 his view of faith arising from the fact which I have 
 established, as well from the case of the Pharisees who 
 believed, but did not confess the Saviour, as from the 
 circumstance which cannot be controverted that there 
 are multitudes in every christian land who historically 
 believe but do not obey the gosp^, so that in a vast ma- 
 jority of cases this historical faith is unproductive even of 
 the semblance of that obedience of the heart which God 
 regards. Thus he makes the genuineness of faith to de- 
 pend, not upon its properties, but upon its supposed 
 
 » Soe nato C t S©« note D. 
 
CAMPBELLISM. 
 
 41 
 
 quality or strength. What would be the estimation of the 
 skill of the professed metallurgist, who should pretend to 
 assay gold upon a similar principle? As every particle of 
 gold, however small it may be, is intrinsically valuable, 
 and can be distinguished, not only from dross, but any 
 other metal, however it may happen to be mixed with 
 one or the other; so, it is not only evident from the word 
 of God, but in accordance with the enhghtened judgment 
 of every impartial man, that every degree of true or genu- 
 ine faith is, intrinsically, and, as it regards the cardinal 
 point of our justification in the sight of God, and our accep- 
 tance whh him, equally valuable. 
 
 Thus we are not only said by Paul, to be justified by 
 faith, (be it weak or strong,) whereby we have peace 
 with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, but the same 
 Apostle directs such as are weak in the faith to be re- 
 ceived, but not to doubtful disputations. As this seems 
 confessedly not to be the case with historical faith, it 
 follows that it cannot be the faith whereby Abraham was 
 justified, and the elders obtained a good report: or the 
 faith whereby Abel otTered unto God a more acceptable 
 sacrifice than Cain, who, it would seem, in the offering 
 which he made, was actuated by something very similar 
 to the historical faith of Mr. Campbell. 
 
 The unscriptural character, as well as absurdity of 
 Mr. C.'s view of faith will further and still more palpably 
 appear, from the position which he attempts to maintain 
 that a sinner is not justified by faith, or that exercise of the 
 heart whereby a sinner flees for refuge to lay hold of 
 Christ as the hope set before him, but by or through 
 immersion, which as has been seen, he calls an act of faith. 
 It would seem, from this view of justification taken by 
 Mr, C, as though he himself was doubtful of the sufliciency 
 of his historical faith, and therefore immersion is brought 
 in to aid its efficacy. But be that as it may, we not only 
 are clearly taught in the scriptures, that being justified 
 by faith (not by any supposed act of mere external obedi- 
 ence) we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus 
 Christ;" but that it is " with the heart man believeth unto 
 5 
 
42 
 
 DEBATE OS 
 
 righteousness. Can it then be doubted, that the inslar>t 
 a man thus believes " with the heart unto righteousness;"" 
 or that iin the same moment that he truly, by faith, re- 
 ceives or lays hold of the Lord Jesus, as the LORD, or 
 Jehovah his righteousness, he is justified freely, through 
 the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, according to tlie 
 riclies of his grace? 
 
 Now let us apply these remarks, or rather the clear 
 passages from the word therein cited, to the case of the 
 eunuch, whereby we shall be enabled to determine not 
 only the nature of his faith, and whether he was justified 
 before, or in consequence of his baptism, but also, and 
 that upon safe grounds, to pronounce a judgment upon the 
 whole subject of this historical faith of Mr. C. 
 
 It is then most clearly manifest that Philip did not 
 baptize the eunuch upon his profession of a mere histori- 
 cal faith, or such a profession as Mr. C. and his followers- 
 would deem sufficient; for if he and they be not grossly 
 misunderstood, they exclude all supposed exercises, at 
 least religious exercises of the heart, alleging that we 
 might as w^ell speak of the religion, not only of the head^ 
 but of the hand or the foot, as of tlie heart. But it evidently 
 appears that the eunuch rcceived baptism, in consequence 
 of the reason which Philip had to conclude, that he had 
 believed; . or,, at least, that he did then, before his baptism, 
 receive the Lord Jesus and did believe on him, not 
 merely historicaUy, but with his heart, nay, w^ith all his 
 heart. " See, here is water," said the eunuch, " what 
 doth hinder me to be baptized? If thou believest with all 
 thine heart thou mayest," was the evangelist's reply. But 
 if the eunuch believed with the heart, as Phihp had, and 
 as we have, just ground to conclude he did, then it is not 
 only evident that his faith was of a higher and nobler 
 character than that which is simply histor^ical, but that he 
 thereby was forthwith justified, or believed " unto righte- 
 ousness," even " the righteousness of faith;" and that too 
 before he received baptism, which he afterwards receiv- 
 ed, as the " s^eal of the righteousness of faith which he 
 had." w^hile as yet he was unbaptized. 
 
CAMPBELLISM. 
 
 43 
 
 The mefficacy of Mr. C.'s historical faith, as well as 
 the evident failure of baptism in consequence of such faith 
 to cleanse from the power or pollution of sin, can be 
 clearly demonstrated from the case of Simon the sorcer- 
 er. This case was cursorily adverted to in the course of 
 the debate with Mr. C, and I beg leave, in connection 
 with this part of the subject, to notice it more particular- 
 ly. The position, then, which I take in relation to this 
 case, is, That not only at the time he received baptism at 
 the hands of Philip, there was, in the judgment of charity, 
 good ground to conclude that Simon had believed " with 
 the heart," (for we cannot suppose Philip would require 
 of him less than he afterwards required of the eunuch,) 
 but that, in fact, he was sincerely, so far as a man whose 
 heart has not been renewed by the grace of God is sus- 
 ceptible of sincerity, a historical believer. He not only 
 heard from the mouth of Philip the histmy of " the things 
 concerning the kijigdom of God, and the name of Jesus 
 Christ," but he had a strong attestation of the truth of those 
 ^things in the miracles which Philip did, and wliich he in 
 common with the people heard and saw. 
 
 Now that Simon was a believer, he gave, according to 
 the views of Mr. C., the highest possible evidence that can 
 436 afforded to any, unless it be, perhaps, to God who tries 
 the hearts of men, — he was baptized, or as Mr. C. would 
 say, immersed. And if Simon did, in fact, believe, it must, 
 ■according to the views of Mr. G., have been with a his- 
 torical faith, for he admits the existence of none other. 
 Therefore, according to his system, as soon as he was 
 baptized, Simon ought to have been, and if the principles 
 or doctrines of Mr. C. were true, he would have been, 
 •''justified, pardoned, adopted, sanctified and saved." 
 Yet we shortly afterwards, hear the apostle Peter, who 
 evidently proceeded according to the rule of judgment 
 given by his and our common Master, " by their fruits ye 
 shall know them," declaring to this man, " Thou hast 
 neither part nor lot in this matter; for thy heart is not 
 right in the sight of God. For I perceive that thou art in 
 the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity." It is 
 
44 
 
 DEBATE ON 
 
 vain for Mr. C. to say, (and yet it was all he did, or could 
 say,) in answer to this view of the case of Simon, " that 
 he was not a believer, but acted the part of a hypocrite." 
 That he was not the subject of that faith whereby a sinner 
 is justified, and finds peace with God, is readily admitted; 
 but that he believed historically, he not only, as we have 
 already seen, furnished, according to Mr. C.'s own prin- 
 ciples, the highest evidence, but wiiat is still more, we are 
 expressly infonned by the pen and Spirit of inspiration, 
 that " Simon himself believed also," or in common with 
 many others. And that he was sincere, in the profession 
 of his faith, according to the explanation of the kind of 
 sincerity he was capable of exercising, is evinced, not 
 only from the fact, that " when he was baptized, he con- 
 tinued with Philip, and wondered, Ijeholdiiig the miracles 
 and signs which w^ere done:" but by the impressive and 
 very trying circumstance, that the open profession of the 
 religion of the Lord Jesus which he thus made, implied, 
 and, most likely, was accompanied with, a pubhc confes- 
 sion of the abominable imposture which he had practised, 
 and the diabohcal sorceries with which, for a long time, 
 he had bewitched the people of Samaria. Thus it is evi- 
 dent, not only that Simon was a histoncal believer, and 
 for aught that appears in the record of his case, as sin- 
 cere, at least for a time, in his belief, as Mr. C. or any of ^ 
 his followers who have no other and better faith, than j 
 that which is merely historical. But it also appears, that 
 the faith of Simon underwent, at least one trial, in its 
 nature more severe than Mr* C. ever endured in leaving 
 his native country; and that for any thing the public know 
 of his history, it would seem greater than any he has been 
 called to undergo, in consequence of his professed histori- 
 cal faith in the gospel. And yet the faith of Simon was 
 radically defective. Do any inquire wherein its defect 
 consisted? I answer, not in degree, but in kind. It was 
 not (and such is the defect of all mere historical faith) of . 
 the sort of belief, " which is to the saving of the soul.'* 
 It was not that faith whereby God, according to his own ; 
 word, purifies the heart It was not that faith wherein, i 
 
CAMl'BELLjSM. 
 
 45 
 
 and whereby alone, any man can overcome the world. 
 Hence, notwithstanding his faith and consequent baptism 
 or pubhc profession of religion, " his heart was not right 
 in the sight of God." His heart was still under the do- 
 minion of covetousness and ambition; and although }\\s 
 faith had withstood one trial, yet when a strong tempta- 
 tion was presented, his ruling passions, or those sins which, 
 especially, had the ascendancy in his heart prevailed, and 
 his faith could no longer withstand. His true characier 
 was then developed, ami it became evident that he was 
 destitute of that {'dith which alone can constitute the fallen 
 sons of Adam, the children of Abraham, the trial of which 
 ^* is more precious than of gold which p^risheth, and whicfi 
 though tried w^ith fire, will be found unto praise, and 
 honor, and glory, at the appearing of Jesus Christc'' 
 This faith which has ever distinguished the true saints of 
 God in every period of the worlds is in itself, clearly dis- 
 tinguishable from the faith for which Mr. C. contends, by 
 the vastly important circumstances, that in every case, 
 whether it be strong like that of " the father of the faith- 
 ful," or weak as in the case of those " babes in Christ." 
 of which the apostle of the Gentiles speaks, it is neverUie- 
 iess, " according to the measure of the gift of Chrisf/' 
 productive of the same fruits, and yields, in a degree 
 proportioned to its growth or strength, a ready, and um- 
 versal, and constant obedience to all the commands and 
 known will of God. Its uniform language is the same 
 that was long since chaunted by the sw^eet singer of 
 Israel, " Oh! that my ways were directed to keep thy 
 statutes, then shall I not be ashamed when I have respect 
 unto all thy commandments." 
 
 If it should now be objected by any, that I have con- 
 demned the faith for which Mr. C. contends in the gross-., 
 w{^t the lives and conversation of some of his followers 
 furnish, according to my own showing, satisfactory, or 
 at least comfortable evidence, that they are the subjects 
 of that faith " which worketh by love," and " are of the 
 circumcision which worship God in the spirit," who re- 
 joice in Christ Jesus and have no confidence in the fiesh;" 
 
 5* 
 
46 
 
 DEBATE ON 
 
 the reply is, that there is reason to beheve, that not a 
 few, of the character last described, have been carried 
 about by the dilferent winds of his ever-varying doctrine, 
 until they have become bewildered in the mazes of error. 
 But if we may credit the reports which we lately begin 
 to hear, we have also reason to believe, that many have 
 already recovered, and ground to hope that many more 
 will, through the grace of God, recover themselves out 
 of the snare — if not of the devil — at least, of Mr. Alex- 
 ander Campbell. 
 
 The grand or capital distinction, then, between the view 
 of faith as held by Mr. C, and that held by all evangel- 
 ical denominations of Christians, consists in this, that the 
 former is a mere natural faith, or the result of the exer- 
 cises of the mind, or of some, if not all, the powers of the 
 soul unrenewed and unassisted by divine grace; w^hilst 
 the latter (the very existence of which is denied and ridi- 
 culed by Mr. C.) is held to be the result of the exercises 
 of the mind or heart, influenced by divine or supernatural 
 operation. This was contended for as a cardinal point, 
 in the reply to Mr. C, and in opposition to his views, 
 which were Considered to be as dangerous in their ten- 
 dency, as they are unscriptural in their nature. And it 
 was moreover contended, that it furnished no solid ground 
 of objection to this view of faith, or any just reason for 
 charging those who hold it with mysticism, because they 
 cannot explain Ikav this di\dne or supernatural operation 
 is exerted upon the mind, so as to produce a new, a ru- 
 ling, and gracious principle in the soul. It is sufficient 
 that the testimony of God's word fully assures us of the 
 fact of such divine operation, and that we, by the change 
 t'aereby produced upon our character, may have good 
 ground to conclude that we have been its subjects. 
 
 If, for the reason alluded to, we are to brand this view 
 of faith with the epithet mysterioiis or mystical, and there- 
 fore to reject it as fallacious, upon the same ground we 
 m jst reject the existence of a thousand productions of na- 
 ture in opposition to the testimony of all our senses. The 
 wise man philosophized more soundly, "As thou knowest 
 
CAMPBELLISM. 
 
 47 
 
 not what is the way of the Spirit, nor how the bones do 
 grow in the womb of her that is with child; even so thou 
 knowest not the works of God who maketh all." 
 
 In confirmation of the doctrine that faith is " a savins 
 grace wrought in the heart by supernatural operations, 
 it was further contended in reply to Mr. C, that we are 
 clearly ta'ught in the scriptures, tliat faith " is the gift of 
 God;" and that whenever it exists in the hearts of men, 
 (for " all men have not faith,") it is the product of the pow- 
 er of God. Thus the apostle, in the second chapter of his 
 epistle to the Ephesians, after having declared that God 
 had quickened them as well as himself together with 
 Christ, when they were dead in sins, and had raised them 
 up together, and made them sit together in heavenly places 
 in Christ Jesus, adds: " For by grace are ye saved through 
 faith, and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of Gk)d.'' 
 And in the first chapter of the same epistle, the same 
 apostle informs the Ephesians, that he " ceased not to give 
 thanks for them, making mention of them in his prayers; 
 that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glorj", 
 might give unto them the Spirit of Wisdom and revelation 
 in the know^ledge of him: the eyes of their understanding 
 l)eing enlightened; that they might know what is the hope 
 of his calling, and what the riches of the glor}' of his inheri- 
 tance in the saints." " And what (adds the apostle) is the 
 p^vceedmg greatness of his pmcer to usward who belie\-e, 
 according to the irorJnvg of his mighty power, which he 
 wrought in Christ when he raised him from the dead." 
 The whole of this remarkable passage is altogether irre- 
 concilable with the system of Mr. C, so that either he or 
 the apostle must be in error. It w^as therefore cited upon 
 tlie occasion of the debate, as it is at present, to show that 
 faith is not only the product of divine power, but the effect 
 of the exertion of the exceeding greatness of the mighty 
 jx)wer of God. . It is evident that the desire and prayer 
 of the apostle, was, that the Ephesians might perceive 
 what exceeding greatness of divine power had been ex- 
 erted in his, as well as their, conversion to the faith. And, 
 in the language of a pious writer in relation to this pas- 
 
48 
 
 DF.PATE OH 
 
 sage, *• it is remarkable that the ai)ostle seems here, stu- 
 diously, to have exhausted the utmost vigor of the Greek 
 language to express, by a beautiful accumulation of ener- 
 getic words, the omnipotence vi' God, as etiecting the 
 believers conversion," to the faith. It would seem the 
 ingenuity of Mr. C. was unable to devise any plausible 
 method to evade the force of this language of the apostle. 
 For certain it is, that upon the occasion of the debate, 
 though it was fully presented for his consideration, he did 
 not notice it, at least whilst I was present, although he 
 once responded before I left the church, after his atten- 
 tion as well as that of the audience had been called to tlie 
 passage. And it is moreover worthy of particular notice, 
 that in his narrative he prudently preserves his silence in 
 relation to it. May we not, then, fairly conclude that if 
 Mr. G., by resorting to a criticism or even a hyjper criticism 
 upon the original, could have presented a plausible agree- 
 ment between the views of the apostle and his own, he 
 would have favored first his hearers and afterwards his 
 readers with a display of his knowledge of the Greek 
 language, as he is ever ready to do. 
 
 Inasmuch, then, as a mere historic faith, cannot be said 
 to be the gift of God, or be ascribed to the special exertion 
 of the mighty power of God, with any more propriety than 
 it could be said that Jesus was " the author and finisher" 
 of that faith, which induced Mr, C. to exchange his native 
 isle for this western continent, — is it not evident his faith 
 must stand " in the wisdom of men;" whilst that, of such 
 as believe, in consequence of this powerful divine opera- 
 tion upon their minds, stands " in the power of God." 
 
 In order to show not only that faith i? the gift of God," 
 but that the Holy Spirit is the Almighty and efficient 
 agent in its production, the fifth chapter of the epistle to 
 the Galatians was referred to in my reply to Mr. C., 
 where the apostle expressly enumerates faith among 
 " the fruits of the Spirit." 
 
 I must, however, here remark, that Mr. C.'s memory 
 seems to be dmibly treacherous. He seems to have for- 
 gotten much that was transacted, whilst he recollects 
 
CAMPBELLISM. 
 
 49 
 
 some things that never occurred. This remark is espe- 
 cially applicable to his mistaken or unfounded assertion, 
 that I alluded to the declaration of the apostle, (1 Cor. 12; 
 9.) " To one is given faith by the same Spirit." To have 
 alleged that the faith here spoken of, is that whereby a 
 sinner is justified, M^ould have evinced gross ignorance of 
 tlie scope of the passage with which it stands connected. 
 Whether Mr. C. misremembered, or has misrepresented, 
 with a view to make an impression upon the public mind 
 that I am grossly ignorant of the meaning and appHcation 
 of the Scriptures of truth, I shall not undertake positively 
 to determine. I must, how^ever, be permitted to observe, 
 that his numerous other misrepresentations, which I shall 
 be compelled to notice in the sequel, seem to forbid the 
 charitable conclusion, which, under diflerent circumstan- 
 ces, I should with pleasure, be disposed to adopt, that the 
 misstatement was the effect of mistake and not of design. 
 
 One of his misrepresentations just alluded to, and which, 
 it is conceived, every impartial and attentive hearer of 
 the discussion on the evening of the 11th of December, 
 must believe to be both wilful and perverse, and indica- 
 ting on the part of Mr. C. a great want, if not a total 
 destitution of candor and generosity, I am induced here 
 to notice, as it is connected with another part of the sub- 
 ject of that evening's discussion, which I propose now, as 
 briefly as possible to consider. I allude to the unfounded 
 and unwarrantable assertion of Mr. C, that I am the 
 
 zealous advocate of the increAihility of God's testimony 
 withofit supernatural assistance." This is not merely a 
 reckless assertion, without knowing w^hether it be in ac- 
 cordance with the fact or not, and such as Mr. C. has 
 long been in the habit of making, when he supposed that 
 he could thereby serve his purpose, but it is an assertion 
 in direct opposition to truth, of which Mr. C. was fully ap- 
 prised. He well know^s, for he cannot but remember, 
 that on the occasion alluded to, in reply to some observa- 
 tions of his, whereby he asserted or insinuated that the 
 doctrine advocated by me would imply the incredibility 
 of God's testimony without supernatural assistance, not 
 
.DEBATE ON 
 
 only was the alleged implication denied; but the fulness 
 and sufficiency and consequent perfect credibility of 
 God's testimony was earnestly contended for, and ex- 
 pressly asserted to be " worthy of all acceptation,"' and 
 justly to require the entire acquiescence of every heart 
 
 But in support of the views of faith which had been 
 presented, it was observed that notwithstanding the full- 
 ness and credibility of God's testimony, there is a necessity 
 for supernatural operation, or the exertion of divine pow- 
 er for the production, in the heart of man, of a gracious 
 principle, whereby he is both inclined and enabled, not 
 only to believe the word and testimonies of the LORD, 
 but also to receive " the love of the truth that he may be 
 saved." That this necessity is the result of human de- 
 pravity, that in consequence of this depravity, as we are 
 distinctly informed in the word of God, the understanding 
 of man is "darkened," his heart is "deceitful above all 
 things and desperately wicked," his mind " carnal" and j 
 " enmity against God." Hence notwithstanding the full- 
 ness and perfection of the record which God hath given 
 of his Son, the necessity of that " spirit of wisdom and 
 revelation in the knowledge of him," spoken of by the 
 apostle in the first chapter of his epistle to the Ephesians, 
 which revelation Mr. C. treats with profane contempt, 
 but which the apostle prayed that God would give to his 
 beloved brethren of Ephesus. And that the testimony of 
 God taught us to believe, as well in the existence of, as the 
 necessity for, such an internal revelation of the revealed 
 and written truth of God to the soul, by the power and 
 grace of the Holy Spirit, in order " to remove (if I may 
 use the language of Mr. C.) the film from the mental eye,^ 
 or according to the language of the apostle already quoted, 
 to enlighten the eyes of the understanding. I KOt only 
 referred Mr. C. to this second chapter of Ephesians, but 
 to several other passages of that sacred testimony. In 
 addition to what is contained in this chapter, some of the | 
 passages referred to, as warranting us to pray for and tp I 
 expect such an internal revelation of Christ and his gos-. | 
 pel to the soul, as will make it the power of God unto 
 
 I 
 
CAMPBELLISM. 
 
 51 
 
 salvation, as it is to all who with the heart believe unto 
 righteousness, were the following. First, the reply of 
 our Lord to Peter's confession of his faith, (Matth. 16:17.) 
 ** Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona, for flesh and blood 
 hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in 
 heaven." ' 
 
 The revelation here spoken of by our Lord, is certainly 
 distinct from, though of the same truth which had been 
 revealed in, and taught by the law and the prophets; and 
 wliich had been more fully explained and confirmed by 
 Christ himself in the instruction which he had, from time 
 to time, given to his disciples; and yet it is evident that 
 Peter, as well as the rest of the disciples, but very im- 
 perfectly understood the character and object of our 
 Lord's mission into the world, even after they had left 
 all and followed him. Hence it is evident, and especially 
 from this declaration of Christ to Peter, that just in so far 
 as he and his fellow disciples, " spiritually discerned" and 
 rightly understood these things, it was in consequence of 
 tlieir having been revealed to them by their Father in 
 heaven. This will also still more clearly appear by a 
 reference to the language of Christ: (Matth. 11:25.) "I 
 tliank thee, O Father, &c. because thou hast hid these 
 things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them 
 unto babes." By " the wise and prudent" here mentioned, 
 we are evidently to understand those who are such in 
 tlieir own sight, and against whom God by his prophet 
 Isaiah denounces a wo. From such the " things which 
 accompany salvation" are hid, not because none of this 
 character are favored with the word or revealed will of 
 God, but because they " having their understandine 
 darkened," are " alienated from the life of God through 
 the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of 
 their heart," (Eph. 4:18.) And whilst this disposition to 
 cherish an exalted opinion of our wisdom and prudence 
 continues, it will prevent that internal and effectual rewe- 
 lation of which our Lord speaks as being made to babes, 
 to such as are unlearned, or weak in intellect, as well as 
 foung in years, but who are humble, and docile, and 
 
52 
 
 DEBATE ON 
 
 meek, such as God has promised to "guide in judgment," 
 and to " teach his way." 
 
 Another passage referred to for the purpose above 
 mentioned, was that (Gal. 1:15,16,) in which the apostle 
 declares that " it pleased God, who separated him (or had 
 chosen him to be an apostle, and had, by his [»urpose, 
 set him apart for that service) from his mother's womb, 
 and called him by his grace, to reveal his Son in hir/u, 
 that he might preach him among the heathen," &c. The 
 revelation here mentioned was evidently internal, (" in 
 Tae," says the apostle.) A revelation of the glory of the 
 person and salvation of the Lord Jesus to his understand- 
 ing and heart. Such a revelation as eveiy one must 
 experience that would, in imitation of this apostle, preach 
 " the unsearchable riches of Christ." And in substance 
 the same revelation that is ex]:>erienced by all true chris- 
 tians, not excepting such as are " babes in Christ." To 
 these passages of Goal's testimony Mr. C. was wise and 
 prudent enough upon tlie occasion of this discussion (at 
 least whilst I was present,) to make no reply; and of them 
 he has made no mention in his narrative. 
 
 To shew further the necessity of this revelation, I re- 
 ferred not only to the prayer of the Psalmist that God would 
 open his eyes, (certainly not his natural eyes, but the eyes 
 of his understanding,) that he might read " wondrous 
 things out of his law," but to the declaration of the apos- 
 tle: (1 Cor. 2:14,) "That the natural man receiveth not the 
 things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto 
 him; neither can he know tliem, because they are spiritu- 
 ally discerned." 
 
 It is here proper to remark, that the assertion or alle- 
 gation of Mr. C, that the evangelical preachers of the 
 gospel, of the different denominations or reformed church- 
 es, represented the true meaning of the scriptures as being 
 hid from the view by a veil, which they had the power 
 to remove, and thus to reveal them to the understanding 
 of their hearers, was declared to be gratuitous, and with- 
 out the shadow of truth for its foundation. On the 
 contrary, it was asserted they made no such representa- 
 
CAMPBELLISM. 
 
 53 
 
 lion, they claimed no such power. And Mr. C. is 
 fearlessly challenged, not only for the truth's sake, but 
 for his own sake, and as he would regard his reputation 
 for veracity, to produce the proof even of one instance, 
 of an evangehcal preacher of any denomination, in good 
 standing, having made such a representation or claimed 
 such a power. It is true that they believe there are some 
 things in the word of God " hard to be understood," and 
 such of them as are sincerely engaged in the "good 
 work," to which they believe they have been called, study 
 to approve themselves unto God, that they may be work- 
 men who need not to be ashamed, " rightly dividing the 
 word of truth." And for this purpose, they meditate on 
 the things contained in the sacred volume, and so far as 
 it is in their power, they give themselves wholly to them, 
 that their " profiting may appear to all men," and that 
 they may be qualified to " expound the way of God more 
 perfectly." After all that Mr. C. has alleged upon this . 
 subject, there are none of the preachers of the gospel, gf \ 
 any evangelical denomination, that will compare with 
 himself as a teacher of mysticism, or for boldness in ex- 
 pounding, not to say wresting, the scriptures. There is 
 indeed one thing, in which it is hoped and believed, the 
 most of these preachers of the gospel differ widely from 
 Mr. C. in relation to this subject. Whilst he, it is believed, 
 consistently enough with the doctrines which he holds, 
 expects not, and asks not for the assistance, tlie gui- 
 dance, or the enlightening influence of the Holy Spirit, 
 they profess to believe, and it is hoped the most do be- 
 lieve, that " as many as are led by the Spirit of God, 
 they are the Sons of God." And such as do thus believe, 
 do also habitually feel their dependence upon this promised 
 Comforter; and their continual need of his enlightening 
 and quickening and sanctifying grace; and encouraged 
 by the assurance of our Lord, that his and our heavenly 
 Father will give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him, 
 they are led daily to pray for a supply of the Spirit, that 
 they may not only themselves be saved through " the 
 sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth," butth^t 
 
54 
 
 DEBATE ON 
 
 they may be so guided " into all truth," and so con- 
 tinue therein, whilst they preach the word," that they 
 may also be the instruments of saving " those w^ho hear 
 them." 
 
 Nor do these preachers of the gospel hold or teach, as^ 
 Mr. C. would represent, that the " natural man," spoken 
 of in the first epistle to the Corintiiians, (by which expres- 
 sion they understand every man that has not been " re- 
 newed in the spirit of his mind " — every one born of a 
 woman who has not been " born of God " — every person 
 " born of the flesh " but not of the Spirit,) cannot, in any 
 sense, understand the truths and doctrines of the bible.. 
 On the contraiy, they believe a " natural man," without 
 divine aid or the enlightening influences of the Holy Spir- 
 it> may attain to a very extensive, as well as accurate^ 
 intellectual knowledge of " the things of the'spirit of God,"" 
 as revealed in his word. Still they l>elieve and contend 
 "the natural man" does not receive, neither "can he 
 know these " things of the spirit of God," in the proper 
 sense of the text. The subject will admit of an apt illus- 
 tration from wdiat is said concerning our Lord in the 
 first chapter of the gospel by John. " He w^as in the 
 world, and the world w^as made by him, and the w^orld 
 knew him not. He came unto his own, and his own re- 
 ceived him not." There was, nevertheless, a remnant 
 of that generation of his own people, the Jews, as w^ell as 
 multitudes of Gentiles, after his crucifixion, resurrection 
 and ascension to the right hand of God, w^ho did receive- 
 him. Therefore the writer of the gospel adds: "But as 
 many as did receive him, to them gave he power [or the 
 privilege] to become the sons of God; eveyi to them that 
 l3elieve on his name." He next proceeds to state the rea- 
 son why any thus received or believed on the Saviour 
 " which w^ere born not of blood, &c. &c. but of God."" 
 And in the conclusion of the paragraph, after a distinct 
 recognition of " the mystery of godliness," "the word 
 was made flesh and dwelt among us," he states one of 
 the most distinguished privileges of such as are truly the 
 sons of God bv faith in Christ Jesus: " and we beheld his 
 
CAMPBELLISM. 
 
 55 
 
 'glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father^ 
 lull of grace and trutli." 
 
 Now, although many of his own people knew Jesu?, 
 not only as the son of Mary, and the rcpvtcd son of the 
 cai-penter, but ^ilso as a person who did many wonderful 
 works; , and although some of them had a conviction, 
 tliat he was tl^ promised and long expected Messiah, stiil 
 they did not know him, as did they who received him, 
 and with all their heart believed on him. These last had 
 the eyes of their understanding so enlightened, that they 
 beheld " his glory," (whi^h was veiled under his external 
 poverty and deep humilty from the view of the former,) 
 as the glory of the only begotten of the Father." God 
 who commanded the light to shine out of darkness," had 
 " shined" into the hearts of the latter, to give them " the 
 light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of 
 Jesus Christ;" whilst the former " were blinded by the 
 'God of this world, lest the light of the glorious gospel oT 
 Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto ihern.'" 
 So also, although "the natural man" may attain to some 
 intellectual knowledge of the things of the spirit of God, 
 or the truths contained in his word, still he cannot knew 
 them, as does the spiritual man, or he that is born of the 
 Spirit. Of spirtual discernment he is totally destitute, be- 
 cause " that which is born of the fiesh is flesh," whihvt 
 that, and only " that, which is born of the Spirit is spirit. ' 
 Wherefore it is said, " the natural jnan receiveth not the 
 things of the spirit of God" Ahhongh he may under^ 
 stand them in the same manner that he does natural 
 things, and may historically or speculatively believe 
 them, he does not receive or embrace these things, as 
 better than " thousands of gold and of silver." In a word, 
 whatever may be the extent of his knowledge of the 
 truth, he does not therewith " receive the love " of it, that 
 he " may be saved." The word in the original, or Greek 
 language, rendered '* receiveth,''' is a part of the same 
 verb that i4 similarly translated in Acts 8:14,11:1, and 
 17:11. as also in 1 Thess. 1:6, and in other passages of 
 die New Testament. Now if any inquirer for the truth 
 
S6 
 
 DEBATE Ojr 
 
 as it is in Jesus, will examine these passages with the 
 same spirit that actuated the Bereans, " wlio searched the 
 scriptures daily," he will soon discover, that the reception 
 of " the gospel," or " the word of God" therein described, 
 is very different, indeed, from t/iat produced by any mere 
 historical^ or Campbelliteish, belief of the truth. It was a 
 reception of the gospel that diffused joy throughout the 
 city of Samaria — a reception of " the word of God," as 
 preached by Peter, at the house of the centurion, that was 
 the effect of the baptism of the Holy Spirit, and accompa- 
 nied by the grant from God of " rej>entance unto life." 
 A reception " with all readiness of mind," and with joy 
 " of the Holy Ghost." What, I now ask, must be the 
 judgment of every candid mind, concerning Mr. C.'s as- 
 sertion, that I am a " zealous advocate of the incredibility 
 of God's testimony without supernatural assistance?" If 
 it was designed by him as a direct assertion, as a matter 
 of fact, that I advocated such doctrine, it is unqualifiedly 
 imtrue. And if he intended it as an inference from the 
 fact, that I did advocate the doctrine of the necessity of 
 divine influence upon the heart of man, for the production 
 of a lively as well as lici/to- faith, he ou^ht, in all honesty, 
 to have let his readers so understand him. But this would 
 not have answered his purpose, because he might with as 
 good reason infer, that I am an advocate of the insuffi- 
 ciency of the light of the sun, when I assert, that the man 
 born blind could not see any of the objects around him, 
 or any of the glories of creation, until Christ opened his 
 eyes. 
 
 But it was, in reply to Mr. C, still further urged, in sup- 
 port of the doctrine of divine influence upon the human 
 mind, that in consequence of the depravity of man, and 
 especially of that carnal mind which "is enmity against 
 God and not subject to his law," there is a prejudice 
 against, as well as an opposition to, the truth and testimony 
 of God, which must be removed before this truth and this 
 testimony can be cordially received as worthy of all ac- 
 ceptation; and before the sinner can be persuaded to set 
 his hope in God, or put his whole trust in the Lord Jesus 
 
CAMPBELLISM. 
 
 57 
 
 Christ. This was illustrated by cases which frequent iy 
 occur in such transactions, and especially judicial pro- 
 ceedings, among men, where testimony is indispensable, 
 and where it is all-important that it should be both given 
 and received by men whose minds are free from preju- 
 dice or h'lSLS of every kind. Hence, it was observed, that 
 a man was justly considered as ahogether disqualif. ed to 
 act as a juror in any particular cause, if it was ascertain- 
 ed that he entertained a strong prejudice, and especially 
 a high degree of enmity, against one of the panics. A 
 further illustration may be drawn from Mr. C.'s account 
 of his belief of the history of these United States, and the 
 etfect thereby produced upon him. If his mind had been 
 as much prepossessed against, as it is hkely it \^'as in fa- 
 vor of, this land of freedom, — if high tory principles had, 
 'rom his childhood, been instilled into his mind, in^ftead of 
 Jiose principles of civil lil:)erty, to wliich the religlmts sect 
 to which his father once belonged, have ever, and at all 
 hazards, adhered; had he been early taught to believe, 
 that under these repubhcan institutions, instead of equal 
 rights and protection of life, reputation, and property, 
 nothing could be expected, but anarchy and violence, 
 popular commotion and wild misrule, would be have 
 yielded to the history, or the accounts of this country 
 which he read, that credence which they justly deserved? 
 Would he, wUlingly, have emigrated? Certainly not, un- 
 less liis prejudices could have been removed, — even al- 
 though he might have believed many of Xhe facts contained 
 in the history which he read in his youth, especially such 
 as related to the fertility of the soil, the abundance and 
 variety of its productions, &c., &c. Thus, also, it is evi- 
 dent, that until the enmity of the carnal mind against God, 
 and the consequent carnal prejudice against his truth, 
 his gospel, his Christ, be removed, the sinner, although he 
 may historically believe the scriptures, will not so receive 
 the truth and testimony of God, as to induce him to re- 
 nounce all trust in himself, or his supposed righteousness, 
 and trust in the Lord alone as " Jehovah our Righteous- 
 ness," and rest his hope of eternal life sunply upon his 
 promises. 
 
 *6 
 
58 
 
 DEBATE ON 
 
 If, then, the scriptures be at all intelligible, and Avere, 
 indeed, written for our learning," that we through tiie 
 patience and comfort which they suggest and teacii, might 
 have hope, we seem to be evidently taught by the whole 
 tenor of the sacred volume, that the destruction of this 
 enmity against God, and the removal of this carnal preju- 
 dice, cannot be effected by any act which man can devise, 
 any persuasion w^hich he can use, or any " might or pow- 
 er'' which he can exert, but by the " Spirit of the Lord 
 of Hosts." Many passages of God's w^ord might, with 
 great propriety, be referred to in support of this position: 
 suffice it, however, just to observe, that God is declared 
 to be " in Christ reconciling the w^orld unto himself;" and 
 having made peace (or having provided a peace-offering) 
 through the blood of his cross, he actually reconciles such 
 as before were enemies in their minds by wicked works.* 
 The manner in which, as well as the efficient agent by 
 which this is effected, w^e are informed by Christ himself. 
 " When he (the Comforter or Spirit of truth) is come, he 
 will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of 
 judgment." And w^e are said to be chosen unto salvation 
 through " the sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the 
 truth," and to be " saved not by works of righteousness 
 which we have done, but by thew^ashing of regeneration 
 and the renewing of the Holy Ghost:" which is declared 
 to be shed on such as are thus renewed, " abundantly, 
 through Jesus Christ our Saviour." (Tit.3:5,6.) Thus the 
 same "apostle, in his first epistle to the Corinthians, 6:11, 
 after having declared what had been the character of 
 some of them, whilst in their unconverted state, adds: 
 "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." 
 
 Li responding to my reply, — after Mr. C. had expressed 
 his gratification that I had offered objections to his views 
 of the nature of faith, and especially as it furnished him 
 with an opportunity "of saying something more," upon that 
 
 « Col 1:20—22. 
 
CAMPBELLISM. 
 
 59 
 
 subject, — he spoke, among other thmgs, of the doctrine 
 of divine influence, or the alleged necessity of the inllu- 
 ence and grace of the Divine Spirit to work in, or operaie 
 upon, the hearts of men for the production of true faith — 
 even that which is not of ourselves, but is the gilt of God, 
 as implying " a physical operation" upon the soul, which 
 he not only denied, but treated as deserving of contempt. 
 What was the exact meaning which he wished to attach 
 to the word " fhysical^^ he did not inform us. For my 
 own part, I know of no meaning of this term in which it 
 could, with propriety, be used literally, in relation to tliis 
 subject. I therefore, as Mr. C. states in his narrative, 
 " also protested against physical influences," or opera- 
 tions upon the mind in the production of that faith where- 
 by a sinner is justified and finds peace with God. And I 
 further stated, that I considered the operation of the Spi- 
 rit, whereby that change was produced that caused old 
 things to pass away and all things to become new, to be, 
 that the subject of it is not only declared to be the w^ork- 
 manship of God, (Eph. 2:10,) " created in Christ Jesus 
 unto good works," but " a new creature," (2 Cor. 5:17,) 
 to be in its character and eflfects wholly and purely spir- 
 itual. That it could not, with any propriety, be com- 
 pared (unless it were figuratively, and simply by way of 
 illustration) to any physical, or natural operation perform- 
 ed upon any member, or organ of the body, whether it 
 were intended to restore sight to the blind, hearing to the 
 deaf, or muscular power to the paralytic. But that it is 
 to be \dewed as a mighty and glorious, as well as gra- 
 cious operation of Spirit upon spirit — of " the Eternal 
 Spirit" upon the spirit or soul of man, whose mind is 
 carnal, that he may thereby be renewed af er the image 
 of Him that created him, or restored to theimasre as well 
 favor of God, which were lost by the fall. The eflfect of 
 this operation is, that the subject of it is delivered from 
 the power of this carnal mind, which is death, and be- 
 comes spiritually minded, which is Hfe and peace. When, 
 forthwith, his soul, like that of Mary, " doth magnify the 
 Lord," and his spirit rejoices in God his Saviour. And 
 
60 
 
 DEBATE ON 
 
 the Lord Jesus, in whom he now belie ves, is made of God 
 unto him wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, 
 and redemption. (1 Cor. 1:30.) 
 
 If Mr. C, in his response to my reply, even referred 
 to any passage of scripture in support of his doctrine, it 
 is not recollected, and the impression on my mind is, that 
 he did not. It is true, he did endeavor, so to explain or 
 wrest some of the passages of God's word, referred to by 
 me, 5is to do away their force or application to the sub- 
 ject under discussion. Whilst, as it has already been 
 observed, he w^as prudent enough to make no remarks 
 upon the prayer of Paul for his beloved Ephesians, he 
 asserted, as he has done in his narrative, that " faith is 
 not said by the apostle (in the second chapter of the same 
 epistle) to be the gift of God," as the translators of the 
 Bible understood, and as all evangelical Christians have 
 ever understood him to say. And what is the weighty 
 reason assigned by the learned Bishop of Bethany for his 
 assertion? It is that pistis (in Eph. 2:8,) or rather piste- 
 os, (being in the genitive case,) the original of the word 
 rendered " faith," is feminine gender; whereas the word 
 TouTo, translated " that,^^ is neuter gender, and therefore 
 cannot refer io faith as the gift of God here spoken of. 
 
 According to this view of the meaning of the text, Mr. 
 C, in his version of the New Testament, has either made 
 or adopted a translation different from that to which that 
 portion of the Christian world who speak the English lan- 
 guage, have long been accustomed to appeal as the stan- 
 dard of revealed truth. In the version of Mr. C. it reads 
 thus: " For by favor you are saved through faith; and 
 this affair is not of yourselves — it is the gift of God." I 
 would here ask, what affair is alluded to? Certain it is, 
 the apostle speaks of no affair; and it is equally certain, 
 there is no word or expression in the original, to excuse, 
 much less to justify, the insertion of the word affair in the 
 translation. Nor is it inserted avowedly to supply what 
 the translator believed to be wanting to express the mean- 
 ing of the original text: if such had been the case, notice 
 of it ought by some means to have been given to the 
 
CAMPBELLISM. 
 
 61 
 
 reader, as it is invariably done in our standard version, by- 
 printing the word or words supplied by the translators 
 in italics. But in this, as in many other similar cases in 
 the version put forth by Mr. C., the common or unlearn- 
 ed reader, may read Mr. C.'s gloss, and suppose it to be 
 the very word of God. This, however, is but one, and 
 by no means the most atrocious of the many corruptions 
 of the word of God that are to be found in Mr. C.'s ver- 
 sion of the New Testament, some of which will be no- 
 ticed in the sequel of this narrative. 
 
 But it is said by Mr. C. that touto, in the text under 
 consideration, cannot refer to pisteos as its antecedent, 
 and that faith is not said by the apostle to be the gift of 
 God. I can hardly persuade myself that Mr. C. is so ig- 
 norant of the idiom of the Greek language, or of the 
 various passages in whicii this word touto evidently re- 
 fers to nouns, either in the masculine or feminine gender, 
 or in which pronouns in the masculine gender refer to 
 nouns in the neuter gender, as to admit the conclusion, 
 that he sincerely believes the apostle did not mean to 
 declare that " faith is the gift of God." 
 
 Before I proceed to compare this, with some other pas- 
 sages in the New Testament, in which the word touto is 
 similarly used, it may perhaps be gratifying to many to 
 know what was the judgment of Dr. Philip Doddridge — 
 one of the three translators, whose names Mr. C. has 
 given to the world, as the authors of the version of the 
 New Testament that he has published — concerning the 
 true meaning of this passage. " Some (says Dr. Dod- 
 dridge) explain the following clause, and that vot of ycmr^ 
 selves, as if it were only a repetition of what was said 
 Ixifore, that the const ituti mi that made faith the way to 
 salvation, was. not of their own appointment, but God's^ 
 But this is making the apostle guilty of a flat tautology, 
 for which there is no occasion. Taking the clause as we 
 explain it, that is, as asserting the agencij of Divine ^^raofl 
 in the production oi faith, as well as in the constitution of 
 the method of salvation hy it, the thought rises with great 
 spirit As for the apostle's using the word touto in the 
 
62 
 
 DEBATE OK 
 
 neuter gender, to signify /a/M, the lliivg he had just before 
 been speaking of, there are so many similar instances to 
 be found in scripture, that one would wonder how it were 
 possible for any judicious critics to have laid so much 
 stress on this as they do, in rejecting what seems beyond 
 all comparison the weightiest and most natural interpre- 
 tation." Thus we see Mr. C, and his translator, Dr. D., 
 are at issue concerning this touto, which the former 
 would fain use as a lever to overturn, that he may des- 
 troy, one of the most important doctrines of the gospel. 
 With a view to show not only that Dr. D. is on the side 
 of truth, in this issue which Mr. C. has joined concernhig 
 the meaning of the apostle, but also the fallacy of the con- 
 clusion that TOUTO cannot refer to faith, I shall now refer 
 to some other texts of scripture. The sa7ne a])os(le, in his 
 epistle to the Philip]jians, (Phil.l:28,) speaks thus: " And 
 in nothing terrified by your adversaries: which to them 
 is an evident token of perdition, but to you of salvation^ 
 and that of God." Here there can be no doubt about tlie 
 antecedent oi that. It can refer to nothing that precedes 
 in the text, except it be salvation. And yet the original 
 of the word rendered that, is this very touto, in the neu- 
 ter gender, referring to salvation, the original of which, 
 like that o( faith, in Eph.2:8, is in the feminine gender. 
 In the sixth chapter of this same epistle to the Ephesian.s 
 verse 18, the apostle uses the following language: Pray- 
 ing always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, 
 and watching thereunto with all perseverance," &c. Here 
 tlie word thereunto, evidently refers to " -prayer and sup- 
 plication,'' and indeed can refer to nothing else. Never- 
 theless, the original of the words rendered thrreunto, are 
 auto touto, both in the neuter gender, whilst the words 
 which signify prayer and supplication,'' are both femi- 
 nine. So also in his ejnstle to the Galatians, (Gal. 3:17,) 
 the same apostle writes thus: " And this (touto) I say, 
 that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in 
 Christ," &c. Here we have another instance of touto 
 referring to a word, (viz. " the covenant,") which, in the 
 original, is in the feminine gender. Lest it should bo 
 
CAMPBELLI5M. 
 
 63 
 
 thought that proofs are inuhi}jh'ed unnecessarily, I shall 
 only refer to one other text in relation to tliis touto, upon 
 the gender of which Mr. C. attempts to erect his new 
 theory of faith, or rather his battery to destroy, if possi* 
 ble, the faith once deHvered to the saints. The passage 
 to which I now allude, would, of itself, werethereno other 
 in which the word touto is used in like manner, Ije am- 
 ply sufficient to refute the argument of Mr. C. It is re- 
 corded in the first epistle to the (-orinthians, chapter 6. 
 After assuring them that "neither fornicators, nor idola- 
 terSy nor adulterers, &c., (fee, shall inherit the kingdom 
 of Gfxl: And such (adds the apostle, ver. 11) were sr)m0 
 of you," &c. Here also the w ord such (in the original 
 TAUTA, the plural number of touto, and in the neuter gen- 
 der) refers to the wicked characters before described^ 
 which, in the Greek, are in tlie masculine gender. 
 
 I shall conclude this examination of the grammatical con- 
 struction of the original language of the New Testament, 
 by referring to one text, in which a pronoun in the mascu- 
 hne gender evidently refers to a neuter noun as its ante- 
 cedent. The same apostle (Gal. 4:19,) says: " My littJe 
 children, of whom I travail in bii*th again, until Christ be 
 formed in you.'' Here the word vhcm (in the original 
 ous, a masculine pronoim.) refers to little children, which 
 in the original is expressed by one word (teknia) which 
 is in the neuter gender. I shall only add, that we have 
 the authority of the same Dr. D. for asserting, that this 
 construction is not confined to the original Greek of the 
 New Testament, but that the hke construction is found 
 in other Greek authors of undoubted credit. 
 
 But if the argument of Mr. C. were as sound and con- 
 clusive, as it is fallacious and worthless, it would avail 
 him but little, unless he could also have the ingenuity to 
 explain away the meaning, not •nly of those passages of 
 scripture -which teach us to believe' that faith " is the gift 
 of God," but those alsp which represent it to be the pro- 
 duct of his power and grace. I have already shown that 
 Mr. C. has made no attempt to do away the force of those 
 passages in the New Testament which represent faith as 
 
DEBATE ON 
 
 the effect of the power, and even the exceeding greatness of 
 the mighty power of God,(Ep]i. l:19,'-^0.) Now to shew that 
 such as are the subjects of true faith, beheve, not of them- 
 selves, but through grace, I rel'er to Acts 18:27: where it 
 will be seen that it is asserted concerning certain disciples, 
 that they had believed through grace.'' And if through 
 grace, it would seem to follow that faith is the gift of 
 God, or what is substantially the same thing, the product 
 of his power and good will to man. It is presumed that 
 Mr. C. would hardly venture to assert that he believed 
 the historical accounts of these United States, which in- 
 duced him to emigrate, " through grace.'' 
 
 With a view to confirm and fully establish the import- 
 ant doctrinal and scripture truth, that faith is the gift of 
 God, I must request the attention of the reader, while I 
 attempt to investigate one other saying of the great 
 apostle: " For unto you (Phil. 1:29,) it is given, in the 
 behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but to suffer 
 for his sake." This passage, both in the letter and 
 spirit of it, seems to correspond with that in the epistle 
 to the Ephesians, (Eph. 2:8.) And it is well worthy of 
 our particular notice, that the verb in the original, which 
 is here translated is given,'" comes from charis, (which 
 signifies grace or favor,) and that it means " to grani or 
 hest-oir freely^ as a favor or gift." Thus it is not only 
 used, but correctly translated in Rom. 8:32: " He that 
 spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, 
 how shall he not with him freely give us all things." In 
 the gospel of Luke (7:21,) we find the same verb not only 
 used in the same sense, but in such a connection as may 
 serve to illustrate the manner in which Jehovah " Jesus, 
 the auilior and finisher of our faith," confers this gift 
 through the exertion, not of his miraculous power as in 
 the case alluded to, but by the mighty power of his saving 
 and efficacious grace. " And the same hour he cured 
 many of their infirmities and plagues, (fee, and unto many 
 that were blind he gave sight." 
 
 In responding to my reply, Mr. C. also asserted, upon 
 the autliority, not of God's word, but of Dr. IMacknight, 
 
CAMP6£LLISM. 
 
 as he then informed his audience, (whilst in his narrative 
 the assertion stands naked and unsupported, except by 
 the weight of his own authority,) " that faith, ranked 
 amongst the fruits of the Spirit, was fidelity associated 
 with temperance and meekness." 
 
 In my .second reply to Mr. C. it was observed, in re- 
 futation of this assertion, that the apostle, (Gal. 5:19 — 25,) 
 after having given a catalogue of the works of the flesh, 
 enumerates, by way of contrast, not the virtues which 
 the heathen may possess, but such holy dispositions and 
 graces as are the essential characteristics of true chris- 
 tians; all of which are declared by the apostle to be " the 
 fruit of the Spirit." It is true, the original word, (pistis,) 
 here rendered/ai7//, does sometimes mea.nfideHty or faith- 
 fulness. Thus the apostle in his letter to Titus, (2:10,) 
 after having directed him to exhort servants to be obedi- 
 ent unto their own masters, &c., adds: Not purloining, 
 but shewing all good (pistin) fidelity, &c. So also the 
 apostle (Rom. 3:3.) inquires: " What if some did not be- 
 lieve? shall their unbelief make the faith (pistin) of God 
 without eflfect?" In this instance " the faith of God" 
 unquestionably means his faithfulness; for the apostle 
 adds, verse 4, •* God forbid: Yea, let God be true but 
 every man a liar," &c. The inquiry, then, arises, how 
 are we in each particular instance, or in the case now 
 under consideration, to determine in what sense this word 
 (piSTis) is to be understood? I answer, by the connection 
 in which it is found, and if any doubt still remain, by the 
 analogy which may exist, between the passage where 
 the meaning of the term, pistis, may seem to be doubtful, 
 and other passages where no such doubt can exist, — thus 
 ** comparing spiritual things with spiritual." 
 
 But Mr. C., with seeming disregard of every rational 
 method of ascertaining in what sense the apostle, in this 
 instance, used the word pistis, whilst he is compelled to 
 acknowledge, that it is " ranked amongst the fruits of the 
 Spirit, — boldly, but without assigning a reason, or refer- 
 ring to one scripture authority, asserts, that faith, in the 
 text under consideration, means fidelity, associated witii 
 
66 
 
 DEBATE OSr 
 
 meekness and temperance." Doe.^ Mr. C. rnean to assert 
 there is no difference between christian fidility and kea- 
 iJien fidelity, in the same manner that he asserts there is 
 no difference between historical faith and that faith to- 
 wards the Lord Jesus Christ/' which " accompanies sal- 
 vation?" It is, I think, fairly to be presumed, that as he 
 contends there is but one kind of faith, so also, he holds 
 there is but one kind of fidehty. Will Mr. C, then, main- 
 tain, that the fidelity which the heathen have evinced, — 
 the fidelity, for instance, of Roman patriots, and Roman 
 matrons, who lived before the hght of the gospel dawned 
 upon their country, — was " the fruit of the Spirit?" Let 
 ii be remembered, that Mr. C. admits that the word " fis- 
 Tis," whether its true meaning be /<r//7A or fidelity, is "rank- 
 'jd amoD^ the fruits of the Spirit." If, then, it meaas 
 fidelity, as he asserts, and not faith, it follows of necessity 
 that he must, either draw a distinction between christian 
 n iid hesiiheii fidelity, or assert that the latter is in the same 
 sense a fruit of the Spirit as the former. If this be his 
 belief, it w^ould be not only gratifying, but edifying to the 
 christian community, if Mr. C. would give to the public 
 his creed in relatic>n to the Holy Spirit, as he has, at 
 length, and especially in his late inten iew and altercation 
 with Rev. Mr. Jamieson, at Mount Holly, Kentucky, been 
 compelled, as it would seem, to do, in relation to the doc- 
 trine of the Trinity and absolute Divinity of that Saviour, 
 " in Avhom dwells the fulness of the Godhead bodily." 
 
 On the other hand, if Mr. C, should attempt to distin- 
 gLiish christian, from heathen fidelity, it is not perceived 
 that he would gain any thing by his assertion, if it even 
 were correct, pra\-ided the fonner be rightly understood. 
 Whilst it is not intended to touch upon, much less to de- 
 cide, the question, whether a heathen, in the fullest sease 
 of the word, may not, in the sovereign mercy of God, and 
 without the liglit of revelation, be endued with the fruits or 
 graces of the vSpirit; be brought into a state of favor or 
 acceptance with God; and be made meet for the inheri- 
 tance of the saints in light, it must be evident, after a 
 careful examination of the word of God, to all who wili 
 
CAMPBELLISM. 67 
 
 seriously reflect upon the subjectj-that there is a wide and 
 well founded distinction between the fidelity of a true 
 disciple of Christ, and that of w^hich the most distinguish- 
 ed of the heathen world have been the subjects. The 
 former ditiers from the latter especially in its origin, its 
 operation, and the end it has in \iew. While the latter 
 must originate in some principle that is natural to fallen 
 man, the former springs from, and is inseparably con- 
 nected with, " faith in God,'' and our Saviour the Lord 
 Jesus Christ,*' and a sacred regard to his authority and 
 all his commands, If ye love me, (John 14:15,) keep my 
 commandments." While the latter has ever been but 
 partial in its operation, and regardless of many, if not 
 the most of the precepts of the moral law, with which 
 the most enlightened of the heathen have ever been very 
 imj^rt'ectly acquainted, the former, where genuine, must 
 ever have an universal influence upon- both the heart and 
 life of its subject, inducing a sacred respect to, and sincere, 
 though it may be, (through the remaining imperfection of 
 human nature, even when renewed " after tiie image of 
 God,") imperfect obedience of all the commandments of 
 God- Thus says Christ again, (Jolm 15:14,) Ye are 
 my friends if ye do whatsoever I command you.^' 
 While the latter induces men, according to the declara- 
 tion of the apostle, (PhiL 1:21.) to " seek their own. not 
 the things which are Jesus Christ's," the former leads thern 
 to appro \=e themselves unto God, and habitually to aim at 
 the promotion of his glorv^; so that w^hether they eat or 
 drink, or whatever they do, they desire to do ail to the 
 glory of God. Thus the apostle assigns as the reason for 
 the exhortation which he directed Titus to give to ser-' 
 vants, to show " all good fidelity," iliat thereby they might 
 •* adorn the doctrine of God our Saviour in all things.'* If 
 Mr. C.'s views of christian //^/e//??/ accord with those just 
 expressed, and which, it is belived, strictly accord with 
 the word of God, what, I repeat, is he to gain by his as- 
 sertion concerning the true meaning of the word* transla- 
 ted /a/YA, in the passage under consideration^ If fidelity, 
 
68 
 
 DEBATE Olf 
 
 thus explained, be a special fruit of the Spirit, how much 
 more ihdiX faith from which it springs? 
 
 There is still another view of this subject, deserving of 
 serious consideration. Mr. C, as we have seen, admits 
 tliat faith, in this this passage, is ranked amongst the 
 fruits of the Spirit, and that it is associated with meek- 
 ness and temperance. And why did he not also state, 
 tiiat it is equally associated with " love, joy, peace, long- 
 suffering, gentleness, goodness," all of which, as well as 
 " faith, meekness, and temperance," are enumerated as 
 the fruit of the Spirit?" 
 
 But if we are not in this passage to understand by the 
 word piSTis, that faith " which works by love" and where- 
 by God purifies the heart; or that faith whereby we are 
 justified and have peace with God, but something inferior 
 to it, why may not Mr. C. as well contend, that by 
 " love," here spoken of, we are not to understand that 
 supreme love of God, which is invariably the effect of his 
 love shed abroad in tlic heart, by the Holy Spirit, Rom. 
 5:5. but that natural affection of love or good will of 
 wliich all men are more or less susceptible; or, that by 
 the " peace," of which the apostle speaks, we are not to 
 understand that peace which Christ gives to such, and 
 such only, as truly believe on him, which is called the 
 peace of God, and said to pass all understanding; or, 
 that by the joy which is mentioned in connection with 
 tliis love and peace, &c., is not intended that " joy in the 
 Holy Ghost," wliich, according to the apostle, (Rom. 14: 
 7,) constitutes an essential part of that kingdom of God 
 which is begun in the heart of every one that is born of 
 the Spirit. 
 
 Thus, were it necessary, h might, on the one hand, be 
 demonstrated by the strong analogy which exists between 
 this interesting passage of God's word, and many other 
 parts of the same unerring testimony, that the various 
 graces, dispositions, or affections therein mentioned, are 
 in their nature truly gracious or saving, as well as the 
 special fruit of the Spirit; and, on the other, that it would 
 
CAMPBELtlSJff. 
 
 69 
 
 not be more inconsistent for Mr. C. lo assert the contra* 
 ry, than it is for liim to deny, as he does, tJiat pistis, in 
 this passage, means faith, even that wliich is the gift o4" 
 God, and the fruit of his Spirit. I wiil only add, upon 
 this particuJar, that if faith be " the gilt of God,'" or " the 
 fruit of the Spirit," as the great mass of the christian 
 world have ever understood the aposile to assert, then 
 not only is the assertion of Mr. C. to the contrary* as 
 " is the chaft'to the wheat," but his whole system of his- 
 torical faith is proved to be false and deceptive. And 
 when we reflect that his only argument to prove that 
 faith is not the gift of God, is derived from the gender of 
 TOUTO, — whilst to prove that faith is not the fruit of the 
 Spirit, he rehes upon the authority of his own naked as- 
 sertion, — who, but such' as shut their eyes against the 
 light of truth, can fail to discover, that his foundation is 
 rottenness, and his system, " a refuge of liesV 
 
 To evade the force of the argument for the necessity 
 of the saving illumination of the Holy Spirit, drawn, as 
 I have already shown, from 1 Cor. 2: 14, Mr.C, in his 
 response to my first reply, asserted, as stated by him in 
 his narrative, that the natural man there spoken of by 
 Paul, " was a Pagan, with only his five senses to guide 
 him." Or, " a mere animal man, destitute of any oral or 
 written revelation from God," and therefore " could not 
 have spiritual ideas." In his narrative, Mr. C. adds, " but 
 that the natural man of the schools, was the sam.e with 
 that of Paul, was not only denied but evinced.'^ I do not 
 certainly know what is intended by this statem.ent of Mr 
 C, or to what schools he alludes. But upon the supposi- 
 tion that he means to be imderstood that in that debate it 
 was by his reasoning evinced, that no one who had the 
 jht of revelation could be considered a natural man, in 
 iie sense of that term as used by the apostle. I ask why 
 iid not Mr. C. give his readers at least a hint how a poirit 
 so important to his system or rehgious views was estab- . 
 lished? Does he expect his readers to be guided, in ma- 
 ters of the first importance, solely by his assei-tion. and 
 without exercising their own judizments? Whether Mr, 
 
 ♦7 
 
70 
 
 DEKATE OJf 
 
 C. did evince this position, or whether he even advanced 
 one plausible argument in its support, are questions which 
 are cheerfully referred to the impartial part of the audi- 
 ence that were present upon that occasion. It is true he 
 did, as usual, confidently assert the position, which he at- 
 tempted to support by another assertion^ — which well 
 accords with his views of spiritual things and spintual 
 men, — ^that there was not a natural man, according to 
 the sense in which the apostle used the word, in the church 
 that evening. 
 
 Mr. C, in his narrative, states, moreover, that I " did 
 not appear to have apprehended that the natural man 
 spoken of by Paul was contrasted with the spiritual man.^"" 
 In this he is certainly much mistaken, for on this very 
 contrast, in connection with several plain declarations of 
 the word of God, was founded one of the principal ar- 
 guments that were advanced to show that the position of 
 Mr. C. was as absurd as it was unscriptural. It was 
 contended that every man that is born into the world, 
 whether he be a Pagan, or infidel, or a mere histatncal 
 believer of the holy scriptures, but has not been " born of 
 God," or " born of the Spirit," is the very natural man 
 spoken of by the apostle. That this is fully supported by 
 the declaration of our Lord himself, in his conversation 
 with Nicodemus, (John 3.) " Marvel not that I said unto 
 thee, ye must be born again. That which is born of the 
 flesh, is flesh, but that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." 
 From which declarations, as well as many other passages 
 of the word of God, these propositions are clearly dedu- 
 cible. No man can be said to be in any degree spiritualy 
 (and therefore must remain a natural man, or in the same 
 state in which he was born, " a child of wrath, even as 
 others,") until he is born of the Spirit. Nor can a man 
 who has been born of God, and consequently through 
 grace attained to a degree of true spirituality, any longer 
 be denominated a " natural man," but has been brought 
 out of nature's " darkness into God's marvellous light." 
 Spiritual persons no doubt differ greatly as it regards th^ 
 attainments which they respectively make in spirituality'^ 
 
CAMPBELLISM. 
 
 71 
 
 or in other v/ords, the divine life. Thus we hear the aposlle, 
 in the comnriencement of the next chapter of liis letter 
 to the Corinthians, reproving them by reason of their low 
 attainments and their remaining carnahty, and in so do- 
 ing he speaks as though they were not spiritual but car* 
 nal; yet he acknowledges, them to be babes in Christ. 
 But as it regards a state or condition , the scrii)tures do 
 not warrant us to expect any, more desirable or exalted, 
 than that which is designated by (he term spiritual Thus 
 it is said, (Rom. 8:6,) " To be carnally minded is death; 
 but to be spiritually minded is life and peaceJ' " He that 
 is spiritual judgeth all things." (1 Cor. 2:15.) The apos- 
 tle describes his believing brethren, (Gal. 6:1,) as spir- 
 itual The blessings also bestowed upon such as are 
 thus born of God and truly believe, are said (Eph. 1:3.) to 
 be " all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ." 
 
 How different from all this is Mr. (J.'s idea of a spir- 
 itual man? Every one, however earthly, or sensual or 
 devilish he may be, who has received " an oral or written 
 revelation from God," is, in his view a spiritual man. I 
 ask, then, whether it be not evident, that his system is cal- 
 culated and designed to exclude all true spirituality from 
 the religion of the bible? 
 
 There was, moreover, another argument urged, which 
 fully shows the palpable absurdity of Mr. C.'s explanation 
 of " the natural man," to which he was, as he still is, pru- 
 dent enough not to attempt any repty. It is not only said 
 by the apostle that " the natural man receiveth not the 
 things of the Spirit of God," but he assigns the reason: 
 " for they are foolishness unto him." Now, says Mr. C, 
 " the natural man is a Pagan, with only his five senses to 
 guide him, — a mere animal man, destitute of any oral or 
 written revelation from God." A man, then, who has 
 never heard or read any thing concerning these " things 
 of the Spirit of God:" and yet in estimation, or judg- 
 ment concerning these things, of which he has never heard 
 and consequently has formed no idea whatever, " they 
 ore foolishness." What consummate absurdity! Many, 
 it is believed, are ready to pronounce Mr. C.'s explana- 
 
72 
 
 DEBATE ON 
 
 tion of " the natural man," spoken of by Paul, as well as 
 all the leading points or doctrines of his system, accord- 
 ing to their apprehension of them, to he foolishness — even 
 the consummation of the most dangerons folly; but could 
 they, consistently with common sense, be said to be pre- 
 pared to do this, (be their judgment right or wrong,) if 
 they had never heard of Mr. C. or any of his religious 
 opinions? Thus, I conclude, it is abundantly clear, that, 
 though the Pagan, who is "destitute of any oral or writ- 
 ten revelation from God," may justly be considered a 
 " natural man," because it is apparent from the language 
 of the apostle, that if " the things of the Spirit of God,^' 
 were made known to him, without the saving illumina- 
 tion of that Spirit, he would not receive them, inasmuch 
 as he could not perceive their wisdom and excellence, 
 " because they are spiritually discerned:" — yet the phrase 
 ** natural man," as used by the apostle, plainly and par- 
 ticularly applies to the person, who is not destitute of the 
 light and information which God's word affords, but who, 
 destitute of that saving illumination whereby the things 
 of the Spirit are discerned, pronounces them, according 
 to his judgment, to be foolishness. 
 
 When we consider the apparent ignorance of Mr. C. 
 of all that is necessary to constitute a spiritual man, 
 we cannot be surprised that he should be of opinion that 
 the prayer of David, (Ps. 119:18,) can have no appHca- 
 tion to himself, or any person under the dispensation of 
 the gospel. Upon the same principle, Mr. C. never has 
 offered, and never can, with propriety, offer any of the 
 petitions contained in this psalm, which has been the 
 source of so much help, and comfort, and edification to 
 the pious in all ages; and especially those in which the 
 man after God's own heart repeatedly breathed forth 
 the desires of his soul that God would " teach him his 
 statutes " — that his ways might be directed to keep them 
 — that his heart might be sound in them. But if it should 
 please God to give Mr. C. "repentance to the ack- 
 nowledging the truth," and to open his eyes to see that 
 " the commandment " of God " is exceeding broad," or 
 
CAMPBELLISM. 
 
 73 
 
 so to enlighten his understanding, as to give him to per- 
 ceive that all our own supposed light within us, relating 
 to spiritual things, is darkness, then he would begin to be 
 sensible of the spiritual ignorance, and blindness of heart, 
 which characterises every son and daughter of Adam, 
 and would, be often led, and especially when about to 
 look into the sacred volume, which contains the law of 
 liberty, to lift up his heart to God, in the words of David, 
 "open thou mine eyes, that I may behold wondrous 
 things out of thy law." 
 
 Notwithstanding all that has been already exhibited in 
 this narrative, concerning the method of expounding, or 
 rather wresting, the scriptures, adopted by Mr. C; and 
 notwithstanding also the numerous corruptions of the sa- 
 cred text, contained in his version of the New Testa- 
 ment, some of which will be noticed in the sequel: he had, 
 upon this occasion, and w^hilst responding to my first re- 
 ply, the modesty to assert, that whilst the leaders of the 
 various religious sects, taught the people to believe in 
 their several glosses, and false expositions of the bible, — 
 in all his public exhibitions, he presented to the view of 
 his audience, nothing but the pure word of God — *nd 
 that if there was any thing wrong, or incorrect, in what 
 he held forth, as worthy of their belief; the bible, and not 
 himself, was to be blamed. This was a declaration 
 which I was not prepared to expect even from Mr. C, 
 and of all that he uttered at the different times of the de- 
 bate, it is believed he advanced nothing, that, for arro- 
 gance, and a bold disregard of truth, could be said to 
 equal this assertion. In both these respects, the assertion 
 was so palpable, it was not deemed ner.essary, in my se- 
 cond reply, to spend much time in its refutation. It was, 
 however, briefly remarked, that if, instead of giving to 
 his audience, in his public harangues, his own expositions, 
 so different from the plain meaning of the scriptures — 
 and if, in addition to this, instead of using his corrupi 
 ' version of the New Testament, he would forbear the use 
 of any translation of the bible, and in his attempts to en- 
 lighten and instruct the people, he would read, or other- 
 
74 
 
 DEBATE ON 
 
 wise exliibit the word of God alone, in the original lan- 
 guages in W'hich it was written, and that too, without 
 comment, or explanation, then, his assemion might be 
 true, but not othenvise. And it may also be-added, that 
 in such case, his pubhc instructions, if they did no good 
 — w^ould at least, have one recommendation, w'hich it is 
 to be feared they now too often want — they would do 
 no harm. 
 
 While I was making my first reply to Mr. C, I ob- 
 served some, one, if not more, of his brethren, engaged 
 in taking notes; and while Mr. C. w%as responding, they 
 seemed careful to refresh his memory, that nothing ad- 
 vanced by me, deemed worthy of notice might pass 
 without animadversion. After Mr. C. however had, 
 through the aid thus afforded, nearly concluded his re- 
 marks upon my reply, one of his friends and followers 
 rose and observed, that there were some present who 
 wished to hear him say somethmg upon the " mystery of 
 the five points," to which his brotiier J. Creath, as before 
 obsen-ed, had alluded. To which Mr. C. replied, they 
 should be gratified: and, after repeating or enumerating 
 them upon the ends of his fingers, entered upon the discus- 
 sion of one of the five points. After a few moments re- 
 flection upon the course, it would be proper to pursue, I 
 rose and requested to be infr»rmed whether Mr. C. intend- 
 ed, upon that occasion, to discuss the five points; at the 
 same time stating, if such were his intention, I should 
 certainly forthwith retire, as it was not only introducing 
 new subjects into the discussion, but such, as it was not 
 my intention, upon that occasion to discuss, if even time 
 and circumstances permitted, which they certainly did 
 not. To this suggestion Mr. C. very promptly replied, 
 that if I wished to say any thing further, he would forbear, 
 and immediately gave an opportunity for a second reply 
 on my part The substance of this second reply, which 
 Mr. C. is pleased to call a repetition of the first, has 
 already been incidentally given in noticing his attempt to 
 do away the force or application of the various passages 
 of the word of God which were urged in my first reply. 
 
CAMPBELLISM. 
 
 75 
 
 in refutation of his views of faith. I shall not therefore 
 trouble my readers with any thing further in relation to 
 it, excepting only to state, (and that for a particular 
 purpose which will appear in the sequel,) that when I 
 rose the second time, it was observed, by way of preface, 
 I would efideavor, as briefly as possible, to notice what 
 had been advanced by Mr. C. in his second speech. 
 But that in so doing, I should be under the necessity of 
 relying exclusively on my memory, as I neither had any 
 notes, nor yet, like my opponent, an Aaron and a Hur, to 
 hold up my hands, if they should become wearied or 
 f feeble. 
 
 When I had concluded my second reply, I observed 
 that the state of my health and other circumstances, (it 
 being then 10 o'clock on Saturday night, and I having 
 the usual labors of the Sabbath to perform the next day,) 
 required me to retire. I accordingly did retire, not much 
 regretting that I did not hear Mr. C.'s concluding speech, 
 especially as I could not have entertained the expecta- 
 tion of having an opportunity to make a further reply, 
 had I remained longer, which indeed a sense of duty 
 would not permit. 
 
 Nevertheless Mr. C, with his usual regard to consist- 
 ency, whilst he admits " the lateness of the hour," to 
 which the discussion was protracted, and insinuates that 
 there was, on my part, an undue appropriation of the 
 time that was occupied in debate, (which 1 do not believe 
 to be correct, though of this I cannot speak positively,) 
 talks about my ''precipitate retreat from the house." 
 Whether my retreat was precipitate, or whether Mr. C.'s 
 assertion is unfounded, let the reader judge. 
 
 I have been induced to enlarge more than I had in- 
 tended upon this first discussion, or that part of the 
 debate which took place on the evening of the 11th 
 December, by the consideration of the importance of the 
 subject to which it related. It is to be feared there are 
 too many, who, whilst they cannot be persuaded of the 
 efficacy of immersion in water to ivash away their sins, 
 are, nevertheless, too readily inchned to adopt Mr. C.'s 
 
76 
 
 DEBATE on 
 
 views of faith, and to draw the conclusion that they are 
 christians; and consequently will, somehow, be saved 
 from punishment in a future world, because they enter- 
 tain an historical belief that Jesus Christ is the Saviour of 
 men; whilst they never, in any degree, realize the 
 truth or receive the doctrine that " he gave himself for 
 us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify 
 unto himself a pec uhar people zealous of good works," 
 by faith and by their obedience of the truth through the 
 Spirit, (1 Pet. 1:22.) If it shall please God to bless what 
 has been written for the conviction of one soul of the 
 danger of resting in this faith, in such manner that he 
 may be induced so to receive " the love of the truth," 
 that he " may be saved," my labor will be amply reward- 
 ed; and the end which I hope I have principally in view 
 in this publication, will, at least in some degree, be 
 accompHshed. 
 
CAMPBELLISM. 
 
 77 
 
 PART II. 
 
 THE PI?ETENSIONS OF THE REFORMER EXAMINEIV— 
 EVANGELICAL DENOMINATIONS VINDICATED— MR. C. 
 SHOWN TO BE A SECTARIAN— HIS PRINCIPLES AND 
 HIS NEW VERSION TESTED. 
 
 In the early part of the ensuing week, Mr. C. left 
 Nashville, to visit (as he informs us in his narrative) 
 Franklin and Columbia. Upon his narrative of this visit, 
 i shall trouble my readers with but few remarks. The 
 insinuations of Mr. C. against the Rev. Garner McConni- 
 co, who has long been esteemed a faithful laborer in the 
 Lord's vineyard, I have good grounds to believe to be as 
 unfounded, as they are base and unmanly, and such as 
 no magnanimous and generous opponent would make, 
 however little he mJght be sensible of religious obligations. 
 Whilst the Presbyterian and Episcopal churches in 
 Franklin seem to be well repaid in his narrative, for 
 their liberality in affording to Mr. C. the use of their re- 
 spective houses or places of worship; I am well assured 
 of ihe incorrectness of his assertion, that it was " much 
 to the dissatisfaction" of the people of the Presbyterian 
 church in Columbia that he was prevented from occupy- 
 ing their meeting house. It is true, there may havo been 
 a few individuals, (not, as I am informed, exceeding three 
 or four in number,) who expressed some dissatiivfaction. 
 This however in Mr. C.'s view, was sufficient to warrant 
 the broad and reckless assertion, which iry calcub/ed as 
 it must have been designed, to make the impression that 
 a decided majority of the people, who usuallv attend the 
 Presbyterian church in Columbia, were much dissatisfied 
 that he was not permitted to occupy their meeting house. 
 According to the information which I have received, and 
 which, it is believed, may be relied upon, this is fo far 
 from being the fact, that it must be considered as one of 
 the faisp- assf^iarfs with which his narrative abounds. 
 Whilst Mr, C. was gone on his visit, it evidently appeared 
 
7B 
 
 »EBATE &rf 
 
 that the public feehng had been not a little excited" m 
 consequence of the discussion that had unexpectedly taken 
 place as before related; and that not a few were really 
 desirous that a further aiid fuller discussion should be had, 
 and especially with a view^ to obtain an ai:iswer to the 
 question — what is truth?" It was nfK)reover intimated 
 to me that it was, at least, very probable, that Mr. C.^ 
 on his return to Nashville, would again invite objections 
 to the principles he had advanced; or, in othei' words>. 
 give a pubhc challenge for a further debate; and that, in 
 tliat event, it was thought, especially after what had taken 
 place, I could not decline to meet him widiout leaving: 
 tl)'3 cause of truth to sutler injury. After mature and 
 prayerful reflection, I came to the determination not to 
 decline an in\dtation or challenge for a further discussion,, 
 should it be given. Accordingly when ]\ir. after his 
 return from the south, held forth in the Baptist church on 
 Friday evening, the 24th of December, I again attended,- 
 as well to hear what he might allege, as to ascertain 
 whether he would im-ite to a further public discussion. 
 It is true, that uyjon this occasion, for the first time, I took 
 a few notes with a pencil, and consequently the assertion 
 ef Mr. C. that I took Rotes before this time, is not true.. 
 And whilst it is both my wish and intention to indulge 
 and to exercise towards Mr., C, every proper degree of 
 ca!^dor and forbearance, I cannot persuade myself that 
 the incorrectness of his assertion, in this particular, 
 originated merely in mistake. The reason for this wilf 
 at once appear to the reader, by his recollection of what 
 has already been stated in the preceding part of this 
 narrative. I had never before heard him deliver one of his 
 public haranscues, except on the evening of the 10th of 
 December, w^hen there existed not a shadow of a reason 
 or fact from which to infer that I took notes. And when 
 the debate took place on the next evening, it was mani- 
 fest to ^Ir. C. and all the congregation that I was a? desti- 
 tute of notes, as he seems to be of a regard to truth, when 
 a point (whether of great or small importance) is to be 
 gained bv a round assertion. I am aware it has been: 
 
tIAMPBELLlSM. 
 
 79 
 
 alleged that I have, in my propKisals for thd? publication, 
 evinced not only a \\;mt of christian charity., but of a 
 -due regard to decorum, by the allegation that the narra- 
 tive of Mr, C. abounds with false assertions. And if 
 such be not the fact, it is distinctly admitted that in making 
 such a charge, I am justly reprehensible, and that in no 
 slight degree. But my only apology or defence is, that 
 the allegation is true. And for the truth of it, so far as it 
 regards not only the assertion of Mr. C. ju^t noticed, but 
 others which I shall in the sequel hav€ occasion to notice, 
 1 can confidently api eal to the whole of the congrega- 
 tions who attended tl:ve discussion; and notwithstanding 
 in his assertions, w^hich are alleged to be false, Mr. C 
 holds the affirmative, and consequently the burden of 
 proof lies \i\)cm him, yet posiiix^ proof of the incorrectness 
 of some of them at feast can. if required, be adduced. 
 
 After Mr. C. had concluded what he calls his lecture, 
 he repeated (as stated by him in his narrative) the invita- 
 tion formerly gix'en, and proposed t)ie next day, being 
 Christmas, to hear objections. On that day at 10 o'clc-ck 
 A. M., I accordingly repaired to the Baptist churcb- 
 Mr. C. made his ow^n' arrangements as stated by him m 
 his narrative, and called upon Dr. F. Robinson to offici- 
 txXo as 'chsirmrvR, f«.nd Ftipultvted that not more them 
 twenty minutes should be occupied at one time by any 
 one speaker. 
 
 In the conclusion of his narrative, Mr. C, has urderta- 
 lien to state what was " unquestionahly" my " object m 
 avaihng" myself of the opportunity thus tendered to 
 make objections to his principles. This statement, how- 
 ever, like many others made by him, has but a very slight 
 connection with truth or fact Among other things, he 
 asserts it was my object " to prejudice the community 
 ragainst the reformatioTC To expose to the view of an 
 enlightened community the deception of his pretended 
 reformation, I admit w^as my leading object in thus avail- 
 ing myself of the opportunity afforded for a further 
 public discussion. 
 
80 
 
 DEBATE ON 
 
 As my chief object, in availing myself of the opportu- 
 nity thus tendered for a further puhUc discussion, was 
 not, as Mr. C. in the conchision of his narrative alleges, 
 to prejudice the community against his pretended refor- 
 mation, but to expose its true features, in their odious 
 deformity, as well as the trickery and presumption of 
 its author, to the view of an enlightened public, I deter- 
 mined to begin with an examination of his claim to be 
 the reformer of the present age. As, however, the ac- 
 complishment of my main design required that several 
 subjects should be brought under discussion, that I might 
 bo enabled the better to shape my course, and to deter- 
 mine as to the degree of attention which could with pro- 
 priety be bestowed upon any one topic, I inquired of 
 Mr. C, through the chairman, what length of time it was 
 proposed to devote to the hearing of any objections that 
 might be offered. To this inquiry he replied, that such 
 were his engagements, that he would be under the ne- 
 cessity of leaving Nashville the next Monday morning; 
 and consequently that Jay alone could be devoted to the 
 Ql»ject for which we had i!;en met. 
 
 This reply did not meet my expectation, inasmuch as 
 it was my desire, if the (iebate were renewed, to have 
 time sumcien: for an arn}»io nisci??5Jir,n of The preiensions- 
 and principles of Mr. C. But as the whole proceeding 
 was gratuitous on his part, I made no objection or com- 
 plaint, but began the discussion by a brief notice of his- 
 arrogance in claiming to be the rrformer of the present 
 age, and in giving to his rotten system of disguised infi- 
 deUty, the title of " The refnrmation:' It was alleged 
 that the term reforTnatiort,''' when used in relation to a 
 church, or ecclesiastical C(»mmnnity, had a special re- 
 ference, to errors in doctrine and in practice. Thus the 
 change of religion, from the corruptions of Popery to, at 
 least, a measure of its primitive purity, as begun by Lu- 
 ther, A. D. 1517, is byway of eminence, justly styled 
 the reformat ion, throughout the Protestant world. The 
 corruptions of the church of Rome, both in doctrine and 
 
CAHPBELLiSMc 
 
 pTactice, at the period alluded to, were great, palpable, 
 and destructive of all true religion, as well as the best 
 interests of mankind. At this period, God was pleased 
 to raise up Luther, as the instrument in his hand, of a 
 great and glorious reformation, which, we have reason 
 to believe, will never become wholly extinct, but con- 
 tinue until the millenial reign of the King, whom God has 
 placed upon his holy hill of Zion. Yet Mr. C., while he 
 seems to admit that Luther commenced the great work 
 of reformation, would evidently be considered as a more 
 distinguished, and important personage than the father oT 
 the reformation. His pretensions are predicated upon 
 the bold and false assumption, that eitbsr the principles 
 of the reformation w-ere unsound, or that they have 
 again been lost sight of, by the Protestant churches, 
 which have become as corrupt as w^as the church of 
 Home, when the reformation was comirienced by Luther. 
 Hence Mr. C., in his public harangues, talks of Protes- 
 tant, as w^ell as Catholic Popery. He designates the 
 Protestant churches, without exception, as the mystical 
 Babylon, spoken of in the apocal\-pse, and calls upon all 
 that would save themselves from the pollution of the 
 evangelical churches, to come out from their fellowship 
 and communion. While he alleges the w hole evangel- 
 ical Protestant church, of every denomination, not only 
 to be in a condition similar to that of the Jewish church, 
 when God by his prophet declared there was "no sound- 
 ness in it,*' but also as enveloped in gross darkness, he 
 does not hesitate to assert there is nothing in the Chris- 
 tian w^orld that is good, praiseworthy, or deserving re- 
 gard or imitation, except what is found among his few 
 followers, such as have fully embraced, or are, at least 
 m some degree, well affected towards his pretended re- 
 formation. Among this latter class I asserted, and still 
 do assert, without fear of contradiction, are found not 
 only avowed Arians, but most of the infidels and semi- 
 infidels or free-thinkers of our country. Hence it was 
 alleged, that whilst Mr. C. levelled alf his shafts against 
 the evangelical churches, and chrit'tians of the preset 
 
 *8 
 
S2 
 
 DEBATE O.V 
 
 day, with the classes of society just discribed, he could 
 fraternize, and with that particular class who had assum- 
 ed the semblance of an ecclesiastical community, he and 
 his followers could, and did actually, hold fellowship in 
 religious worship and ordinances.* Whilst Mr. C. did 
 not, because he could not, deny tliis fact without contra- 
 dicting some of his own statements, and especially as 
 contained in his incidents on his " tour to Nashville," he 
 loudly complained in his reply to my observations, of the 
 injustice done him, by what he asserted to be a calumni- 
 ous charge that he was an Arian. To which it was re- 
 plied, that I had not ej-prrssly charged him with being an 
 Arian, but only adverted to the fact, that whilst he de- 
 nounced the evangelical churches as wholly corrupt, and 
 unworthy of confidence, he and his followers did frater- 
 nize witli the only avowed sect of Arians in our country. 
 Indeed I was not then sufhciently acquainted either with 
 the writings or opinions of Mr. C, in relation to the 
 doctrines of the Trinty, or the divinity of our Lord and 
 Saviour Jesus (.'hrist, to enable me to make any poshive 
 declaration, as to what were his views in relation to these 
 important subjects. I would however observe, that the 
 thanks of the christian community are justly due to the 
 Rev. Mr. Jamicson, of the Methodist E[)iscopal Church, 
 by whom Mr. C. was met in pursuance of a general 
 and public challenge, at Mount Holly, Ky. Though 
 Mr. C. evidently declined a contest, after he himself, or 
 at least one of his followers with his approbation, had 
 cast the gauntlet; \'et in the altercation upon that occa- 
 sion, he could not but acknowledge his Arian princi- 
 ples — or that he did not believe Jesus Christ to be the 
 Supreme God. The christian public will hereafter be 
 better qualified to judge of Mr. C.'s pretensions, as a re- 
 f«3rmer, when they understand that the great object of 
 his reformation is not to suppress vice, reprove wicked- 
 ness, correct abuses of that which is good, or warn sin- 
 ners to repent, and flee from the wrath to conae, but to 
 
 * See note E. 
 
CAMPBELLI9M. 
 
 83 
 
 explode the most important doctrines, as well as insti- 
 tutions of the gospel. 
 
 This leads to the remark, that it was further alleged in 
 the examination of Mr. C.'s pretensions as a reformer, 
 that the grand and leading design of Luther, in the re- 
 formatioh which he commenced, was, nf)t only to ex- 
 pose the corrupt and vicious practices of the Romish 
 church and clergy, but also to bring to view, as worthy 
 of all acceptation, the fundamental doctrines of the gospel 
 which had been long hid under the rubbish of their mum- 
 meries and worthless ceremonies. This great reformer, 
 no doubt, well knew, that how^ever the pubHc indignation 
 might, for a time, be excited by the exposure of the frauds, 
 and imposition, and corrupt practices of the Romish 
 church and clergy, there would be no genuine and last- 
 ing reformation produced among the people, unless they 
 could be brought to know, and obey from the heart, that 
 form of doctrine which God has delivered to mankind in 
 his word. Of this form of doctrine, the grand or capital 
 article, was, the justification of a sinner by faith alone, — 
 faith towards the Lord Jesus Christ. In connection with 
 this, was the doctrine of the saving influence of the Eter- 
 nal Spirit of God upon the souls of men, whereby they 
 are sweetly drawn and enabled to obey the truth, or that 
 f@rm of doctrine already spoken of, and whereby this 
 truth is made effectual for the purification or sanctifica- 
 tion of their souls, according to the declaration of the 
 apostle Peter, (1 Pet.. 1:22,) " Seeing ye have purified your 
 souls in obeying the truth through the SpiritJ^ These 
 doctrines accordingly have been cordially received, and 
 maintained by all the evangelical reformed churches, 
 however they may have differed or may still differ in 
 opinion on other and less important points. 
 
 With a view, therefore, to show how wTjrthless and 
 unfounded were the pretensions of Mr. C. to be a reform- 
 er, it was observed, that he, as well as the Romish church, 
 (to which his reformation would, in these, as well as in 
 other respects, bring us back,) virtually, if not openly, 
 exploded these fundamental articles of the " faith once 
 
84 
 
 DEBATE ON 
 
 delivered to the saints." That the doctrine of the saving 
 intiuence of the Spirit of God upon the minds of men, was 
 by him not only denied, but held up to ridicule and con- 
 tempt, and th(jugh he talked much about, and seemed to 
 lay much stress on, historic faith, it was evident that he 
 made vorks the instrumental, if not the meritorious cause 
 of justification. That, in periect accordance with one of 
 the most unscriptural, and absurd tenets of the church of 
 Rome, he made justification to consist in, or at least to 
 be attainable, only through baptism, (immersion.) He en- 
 deavored to maintain some semblance of adherence to the 
 doctrines of the gospel, by alleging that we are not to 
 believe, as the apostle to the Gentiles teaches us, (Rom. .5: 
 1,) that we are " justified by faith," — or a reliance of the 
 heart upon the Saviour of sinners, — but by one, and only 
 one, (outward,) act: and this (which he calls an act of 
 faith) ho asserts to be immersion. 
 
 It is true, Mr. C. would have us to believe, that he is 
 the restorer of the ancient gospel, and the primitive order 
 of things in the church; but, as was observed in examin- 
 ing his claims to be a reformer, he appeared rather to 
 resemble some of the characters which the apostle, in his 
 second letter to Timothy, (chap. 3:1 — 6,) declared should 
 come in the last days; especially, such as he describes 
 as " boasters, false acc2isers, despisers of those that are 
 good, headtj, high minded^ having the form of g('dline?s 
 but denying the power thereof." 
 
 After having thus briefly noticed the claims of Mr. C, 
 as the pretended reformer of what he calls " this sectari- 
 an age," I began, as he states in his narrative, " a defence 
 of the sects, (of evangelical christians,) from [against] the 
 severe condemnation" he had, in his public harangues, 
 previously delivered in Nashville, pronounced upon them. 
 And truly it was a condemnation as severe, as it was pre- 
 sumptuous and unwarranted by the word of God. It 
 was nothing less than " the vengeance of eternal fire," 
 against every one who was guilty, or at least should con- 
 tinue to be guilty, of the dreadfid crimes of knowingly or 
 wilfully connecting himself as a church member with 
 
CAMPBELLISM. 
 
 85 
 
 any of the sects of evangelical christians. This bold de- 
 nunciation was, upon the occasion of the debate, repeat- 
 ed by Mr. C, in the most unqualified manner, and it is in 
 substance repeated in his narrative, wherein these vari- 
 ous sects are described " as the daughters of the Mother 
 of Harlots," against whom, he asserts, the anathemas of 
 heaven are denounced, "and that the plagues of God are 
 threatened to them who will not come out of this secta- 
 rian Babylon;" — or, in other words, as J understand him, 
 such as do not become CampbeUites, or, at least, such as 
 do not renounce all connection with tlie church, and be- 
 come infidels or freethinkers by profession. If Mr. C. 
 manifested as much zeal in warning sinners -to flee from 
 the wrath to come, as he does in denouncing the ven- 
 geance of heaven (as though vengeance belonged unto 
 himself and not to God) against the great mass of the 
 ciiristian community, he might, perhaps, in some limited 
 degree, be entitled to the appellation of a reformer; and 
 througii the blessing of God, might, for aught we know, 
 be the instrument of as much good, as he, unquestionably 
 now is, of injury to the souls of men. 
 
 In so far as Mr. C. seems to consider that I vicM' it as 
 a desirable thing, rrVa* the church of God snould consist 
 of YD.riL)Lf, zcc.Vi rlciiOrTiiiiaiions, he is mistaken. The 
 true church, consisting of all of ev^ery name or sect, who 
 build on Jesus Christ, the sure and only foundation, con- 
 stitutes, in the view of the various sects of evangelical 
 christians, the one " house of the living God." Though 
 this is the house of God, the peculiar object of his care 
 and gracious regard, where he dwells and where his 
 people enjoy a measure of his presence, as from time to 
 time he manifests himself to them as he does not unto tlie 
 world, he has, nevertheless, hitherto permitted this one 
 house to be divided, into several and separate apartments, 
 by walls of separation, which his people have erected. 
 Why this has been permitted, it would most likely be as 
 useless for us to inquire, as it would be to ask wherefore 
 go sharp a contention was permitted to take place between 
 Paul and Barnabas, as to catise them to separate. Sure- 
 
86 
 
 DEBATE ON 
 
 ly it will be admitted that the contention and subsequent 
 separation of these eminent servants of God, were not 
 things, abstractly considered, to be desired, but rather to 
 be deprecated; and yet it was evidently overruled for the 
 furtherance of the gospel. Upon the same principle, it 
 was alleged, in defence of the several sects, that although 
 the division of the church into various denominations, 
 might, when viewed abstractl}-, be considered an evil, 
 and in some instances may hav^e been productive of evil, 
 yet that all w^ho adhered to these diflerent sects, were 
 not, on that account, guilty, and especially so culpable as 
 to be the subjects of the anathemas of God, is evident from 
 the consideration, that God has also overruled these divi- 
 sions of his church for the furtherance of the gospel, and 
 the salvation of souls. Thus, for instance, can any pre- 
 tend to allege, that the cause of truth and the knowledge 
 of the gospel, have not been promoted, in consequence of 
 the existence of the sect of the Moravians, and that too, 
 to an extent far beyond what it would have been if such 
 a sect had never existed? Again, if the Llethodist Epis- 
 copal church had never been established, will any pretend 
 to assert that so large a portion, even of our own popula- 
 tion, could hd^e been in the enjoymeVit of the privileges 
 and hopes of the blessed goaj:>el, as is now the case? 
 
 It was, moreover, alleged, by w-ay of defence or apolo- 
 gy for the various sects, that whenever the minds of men 
 are freed from the shackles of ignorance and sujierstition, 
 and they are permitted freely to investigate the impor- 
 tant subject of religion, and the system of truth which we 
 must believe is contained in the bible, provided it is re- 
 ceived as the word of God, this division of the church 
 into various families or religious communities, could not, 
 perhaps, have been prevented, unless by the continued 
 miraculous interposition of its great Head. 
 
 It is true, we have reason to believe, the time is ap- 
 proaching when that measure of divine light and gracious 
 influence of the Holy Spirit, which has been shed upon a 
 benighted world, and w^hich is at present evidently in- 
 creasing, shall be so greatly and abuntantly enlarged, that 
 
CAMPBELLISM. 
 
 87 
 
 the views of Christians will so harmonize as to remove 
 all necessity or pretence for those walls of separation, 
 which now exist, when they will either be removed or 
 permitted to moulder into dust. And it may be noticed 
 as a decisive evidence, not only of the increase, but of 
 the consequence of the increase of this light and influence, 
 communicated to the church through the operation of the 
 Spirit of God, that the same degree of zeal and industry 
 to build up these walls of separation, does not now exist 
 as did formerly, even within the recollection of many 
 living witnesses. That Christians, of various denomina- 
 tions, are evidently drawing nearer together, and whilst 
 
 enlarge the house of God by various benevolent societies 
 and exertions, the walls of separation are, at l^afet in a 
 measure, overlooked and left to decay. 
 
 It was further alleged, that man is so constituted that 
 there never has been a subject, whether it related to re- 
 ligion or to any of the various branches of science, about 
 
 views. Hence, in all ages there have been different sects 
 amongst Philosophers, as well as amongst Jews and Chris- 
 tians; and such, it was apprehended would, at least for a 
 time, continue to be the case, even on the supposition 
 that all who profess to be Christians, were honest and 
 sincere in their inquiries after truth. And who but Mr. 
 C, and such as are the subjects of his bigotry and delu- 
 sion, can believe that the various sects of Christians in 
 our land, will fall under everlasting condemnation for an 
 honest difference of views with regard to church govern- 
 ment; or even with regard to some doctrines which do 
 not lie at the foundation of the gospel? I am however 
 aware that Mr. C. will say, the condemnation is not on 
 account of the difference of sentiment, but the consequent 
 separation into sects. To this I reply " how shall two 
 walk together except they be agreed?" Surely if peace and 
 unity cannot otherwise be obtained or preserved, it is bet- 
 ter they should say to each other, as Abraham did to Lot; 
 
 they are engaged in strengi 
 
 ;thening each other's hands to 
 
 among men a diversity of 
 
88 
 
 DEBATE ON 
 
 " let there I pray thee be no strife between me and thee, 
 separate thyseh' I pray thee from me." 
 
 Indeed, 1 know but of tw^o expedients, whereby this 
 division of the christian world into numerous secis, can 
 be prevented; both of w-hich I trust will ever be rejected, 
 with abhorrence, by all evangehcal Christians. The 
 first of these expedients strikes at the root of this alleged 
 grPMt evil, and has long been practised by the Romish 
 church, with great success. This remedy consists in 
 keeping the people, as far as possible, in gross ignorance 
 of the true doctrines of the bible, and authoritatively 
 requiring them to believe whatever the church declares, 
 to be infallibly true. The other expedient, is designed 
 to prevent a division of the Christian world into various 
 sects, however wide may be the diversities of opinion 
 upon the subject of doctrine; or, where such division does 
 already exist, to persuade these sects to lay aside their 
 pecuharities, to sacrifice their own opinions and views of 
 religious truth and the doctrines of God's word, or at 
 least, to hold them " as private property," and unite in- 
 one enlarged and numerous sect, or ecclesiastical body. 
 And this, in order that all, including not only the evangeli- 
 cal denominations, who are agreed in the essential 
 doctrines of the gospel, but rehgionists of every name, 
 who -profess the bible to be the word of God, whether 
 they be Arians, or Unitarians, or Universalists, or Sha- 
 kers, or Swedenborgians, or Campbellites, or those of 
 the new reformation (called Mormonites, part of w^hom, it 
 would seem, lately sprung from the hot bed of Campbell- 
 ism, as the mushroom from the dunghill,) may be mutu- 
 ally acknowledged as brethren and members of Christ's 
 bodv. This expedient, which for years past has been 
 practised by Mr. Campbell, consists in exploding the 
 leading and fundamental doctrines of the gospel, either 
 as having no existence, or being altogether unimportant, 
 so that it is a matter of no moment whether they be be- 
 heved or not. And instead of making a solemn prefes- 
 sion of having " obeyed from the heart, that form of 
 
CAMPBELLISM. 
 
 89 
 
 doctrine which God has deUvered" us, the bond of union 
 among Christians, to substitute in its place a historical 
 hdief of facts, and not doctrines, together with an atten- 
 dance upon the outward ceremony of immersion in water, 
 with a view^ thereby to wash away sin. 
 
 What would be the effect of Mr. C.'s scheme upon the 
 church of God and the interests of true religion, if it 
 were generally adopted, it was further alleged, might, 
 in some measure, be shewn from a review of the Jewish 
 church, before and at the time of the advent of the 
 Messiah. In that church there existed different sects, the 
 principal of which were the Pharisees and Sadducees. 
 These sects were so widely different in their religious 
 sentiments, that the latter, like some of the avowed sects, 
 and others who pretend to be no sectanans, in our own 
 land and in our own day, w^ere no better than infidels, 
 " For the Sadducees said, (Acts 23:8,) that there is no 
 resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit." Still they w^ere 
 Jews " outwardly" as the disguised infidels above alluded 
 to have assumed the name of Christians, and attend 
 upon, at least some, of the ordinances of the gospel. 
 Yet among these Jewish sects there were no separate 
 communities erected. " The same temple (says Dr. 
 George Campbell) and the same synagogues, were at- 
 tended alike by Pharisees and by Sadducees. Nay, there 
 were often of both denominations in the Sanhedrim, and 
 even in the Priesthood." Here then was a faint resem- 
 blance, a feeble illustration, of the kind of religious com- 
 munity, or church communion, which Mr. C. would fain 
 establish in these days, (provided always he may have 
 the supreme direction of it,) the members of which shall 
 be bound together simply by immersion in water, without 
 any regard to the religious opinions which they may re- 
 spectively hold, how^ever unsound, or contrary to the 
 faith once delivered to the saints they may evidently ap- 
 pear to be, provided they only make such opinions theii- 
 oiLm private property," and require " no person on pain of 
 excommunication to adopt them."* Had this state of thing^ 
 
 » See Mr. C.'s Millenial Harbinger, Vol. 2, No. 3, page 114. 
 9 
 
90 
 
 BE3ATE ait 
 
 among the Jews, the effect to prevent divisions and (fis- 
 sensions among the members of the church? So far trum 
 iU that, as might naturally be expected, tiiese were the 
 natural, if not the necessary consequence of the attempt 
 to an>algamate sucli discordant materials.* So far 
 was this state of the church fix>m being favorable to 
 godliness, that we know fixmi the language of Christ, as 
 werl as of his messenger, who was sent toprepare the way 
 before him, that the most, even of the straitest (or strictest) 
 sect of the Jewish church (the Pharisees) were but as- 
 whited sepulchres, — men who could make long prayers, 
 kaving the form of godliness, but who, like Nicodemus^ 
 when he came to Christ for instruction, were ignorant of 
 its life or power. 
 
 But Mr. C. in his public harangues, as well as in his 
 narrative, first assm^ies, (as he did also in the debate,) 
 that the va,rioiis sects of evangelical Christians ar^ to be 
 viewed as the daughters of the mother of harlots, and 
 then asserts that the anathemas of heaven are denounced 
 upon both. Let us hear what are the grounds of this 
 daring and unchristian assertion. In his narrative, he 
 gives a summary of what he alleged in the debate, in 
 support of this charge, which he calls /acfs, viz. That 
 Paul had represented divisions among Christians as 
 equivalent to a literal di\'iding of Christ; and the assum- 
 ing the name of a factionist as equivalent to represent- 
 ing that factionist as cinjcified for his followei's, and his 
 followers as immersed into his name; that sects were 
 ranked by the same Paul amongst the works of the fiesh, 
 and classed with murder and adultery, and that most of 
 the wars and bloodshed of modern Europe, and a great 
 majority of all the envies, jealousies, and bickerings in 
 families and neighborhoods, arose from this cause." 
 
 In the remarks w^hich I shall make upon this extract 
 from the narrative of Mr, C, as has already in several 
 instances, and as in the sequel of this work will in still 
 more numerous instances, be the ca«e, I will not, (and 
 
 ,* See ActSv chapter 23^ before referred to- 
 
CAMPBELUSM^ 
 
 01 
 
 'chiefly "because through imperfect recollection, I cannot,) 
 distinguish between what was urged by me upon the 
 occasion of the debate, and any new matter that may 
 now be added, nor is it deemed at all material that I 
 should. One thing however I have endeavored, and 
 shall still endeavor carefully to avoid, that is, not to p«t 
 into the mouth of Mr. Campbell, as he has attempted to 
 put into mine in more instances than one, pretended ar- 
 guments, that were never uttered. And further, as my 
 ■object is a candid examination of Mr. C.'s principles, I 
 shall not fail, so far as my recollection wilJ serve, to no- 
 tice all his leading arguments. 
 
 In the foregoing extract, Mr. C. evidently alludes to 
 the first chapter of Paul's first epistle to the Corinthian 
 church, which, as I conceive, manifestly has no applica- 
 tion to any of the sects of evangelical Christians as they 
 exist at this day, except in so far as division? or conten- 
 tions similar to those which existed in the church at 
 Corinth, may be found to exist amongst them, or in any 
 ■individuai church beiongmg to any of these Christian 
 sects. In order to give this portion of scripture, however, 
 •a forced application to each one, and all of the evangeli- 
 cal sects in our country, and that too without any regard 
 to their character, or spiritual condition, it would evidently 
 seem that Mr. C. has xmlfully confounded what the 
 apostle in that chapter calls schisms, but which in our 
 standard version of the New Testament is translated 
 *' divisions,''^ with the Greek word which sometimes is 
 translated heresies and sometimes sects. 
 
 The true nature of the divisions spoken of by the 
 apostle, he himself explains in the 11th verse, where he 
 informs them it had been declared unto him. that there were 
 ** contentions^ among them. This word is derived from 
 •a Hebrew term, which signifies to he hot icith anger, and 
 is the same that is translated in Rom. 1:29, by the word 
 ''debate,'' and in Rom, 13:13, by the word ''strife:' 
 Whoever, then, will examine these passages, as well as 
 crrany others that might be referred to, in connection with 
 2 Cor. chapter 1, cannot but perceive, that the Corinthian 
 
92 
 
 DEBATE ON 
 
 church wa§ indulging that which was sinful, and there- 
 fore needed, as well as deserved, the solemn rebuke and 
 exhortation of the apostle. Whereas " the Greek word 
 AiRESis, which properly imports no more than election 
 or choice^ was commonly emijloyed by the Helenist 
 Jews, in our Saviour's time, when the people were 
 much divided in their religious sentiments, to denote any 
 branch of the division, and was nearly equivalent to the 
 English words, class, party, sect. The word was not, in 
 its earliest acceptation, conceived to convey any reproach 
 in it, since it was indifferently used, either* of a party a}> 
 proved, or of one disapproved by the writer." That this 
 is a correct explanation of the word translated sect, could 
 be clearly proved by a comparison or examination of 
 various passages, which, upon the present occasion, is not 
 deemed necessary, as it can be shown to be the view 
 which Mr. C. himself has adopted. In the forty-eighth 
 appendix to his version of the New Testament,* will be 
 fjund an extract from Dr. George Campbell's Prelimina- 
 ry Dissertations, from which the above quotation is ta- 
 ken; and in his A})pcndix No. 68, Mr. C. informs us, that 
 " of the words heresy and schis7?i" he adopts Dr. Camp- 
 bell's interpretation, in preference to any other. 
 
 If, therefore, the reader can conveniently refer to the 
 observations, at length, of Dr. George Campbell upon the 
 words schism and heresy^ as contained in his ninth Pre- 
 liminary Dissertation, parts three and four, he will per- 
 ceive, as before stated, that Mr. C. wilfully confounds the 
 schisms or divisions spoken of by the apostle in the first 
 chapter of his first epistle to the Corinthians, which ex- 
 isted in that church, not on account of any difference of 
 sentiments in regard to doctrines, either more less impor- 
 tant, but in consequence of " an undue attachment to 
 particular persons," thus " classing themselves under 
 different heads, to the manifest prejudice of the common 
 bond of charity," with the word sect, which, according to 
 Dr. George C, (and which opinion is unqualifiedly adopt- 
 ed by the Bishop of Bethany, in his appendix No. 48, be- 
 fore alluded to,) " has always something relativ e in it; and 
 
93 
 
 therefore in different applications, though the general inn- 
 port of the term be the same, it Avill convey a favorable 
 idea, or unfavorable, according to the particular relation 
 it bears.". I do not wish to be understood as asserting 
 the various sects of evangelical Christians, or any of them, 
 to be faultless, or that the observ ations of the apostle, in 
 the first chapter of his first letter to the Corintliians has 
 never had, or may not now have an application to some, 
 or even to all of them; or to some of the indivi<lual 
 churches or congregations of which these sects consist: 
 but I do affirm, and that upon the authority of God's word, 
 and according to an explanation of that word, which 
 Mr, C. has himself adopted, that where, or in so far as it 
 has an application, it is not mei-ely because they -exist as 
 distinct sects, but because of the existence of those divi- 
 sions, or schisms, and angry contentions, which have a 
 direct tendency to alienate Christians, whose hearts ought 
 to be " knit together in low." 
 
 I still further remark, that if the reader has not access 
 to the dissertations of Dr. George C, yet he will find 
 enough contained in the extract which constitutes Mr. 
 C.*s appendix, No. 48, to satisfy him, as well of the false 
 accusations of the various sects, made by him, as of his 
 evident want of candor in making, and so loudly and 
 repeatedly proclaiming them in his pubhc harangues. 
 
 Although, tlierefore, it is admitted, that in so far as the 
 fonnation of the diflercnt sects into which the Christian 
 world is nov.' divided, has been the effect of a schisma- 
 tical or heretical spirit, indulged by any churches or indi- 
 viduals, such churches or individuals, were certainlv to 
 blame, using the term heretical, as it is sometimes 
 employed in the New Testament, as nearly allied to 
 schismatical : yet it is e\4dent, that the mere conscien- 
 tious adherence, in the spirit of candor and charity, to 
 any one of these sects, as they now^ exist, because such 
 sect is believed to be right, or at feast, nearer the truth in 
 doctrine, discipline, forms of worship and church govern- 
 ment, than any other: even though tlie person thus 
 beheving, and thus adhering to any particular sect, should 
 
 * 9 
 
94 
 
 DEBATE ON 
 
 be honestly mistaken, is not — cannot be criminal in the 
 sight of God. Hence, it is evident, it is not the righte- 
 ous, yet gracious and all-powerful God, who remembers 
 our frailties, and " pities those who fear him, as a father 
 pitieth his children," that is denouncing his anathemas 
 against his own church, merely because, through their 
 weakness of spiritual discernment, they cannot, as yet, 
 see eye to eye; or because through the remaining imperfec- 
 tion, and even corruption of their nature, they have raised 
 up walls of separation in the house of God, so that his 
 children, who ought indeed to be of one heart, and of 
 one mind, and to dwell together in love, live in separate 
 families, among whom, there is, indeed, oftentimes too ht- 
 tle Christian intercourse and afiection. But it is the 
 self-styled refw^mer of Virginia, who is vainly endeavor- 
 ing, in humble imitation of liim, who has long opposed 
 and exahed " himself above all that is called God, or 
 that is worshipped," to wield the thunderbolts of heaven 
 against these poor devoted heretical sects of reformed 
 Christians. The conclusion of Dr. George C.'s explana- 
 tion of the words schism and heresy, (which conclusion 
 it did not suit the views of Mr. C. to quote,) fully accords, 
 not only with the sentiments just advanced, but with the 
 tenor of the scriptures, as well as the dictates of reason 
 and common sense. " I shall conclude (says Dr. C.) 
 with adding to the observations on the words schism and 
 heresy, that how much soever a schismatical or here- 
 tical spirit, in the apostolic sense of the terms, may have 
 contributed to the formation of the different sects into 
 which the Christian world is at present divided, no per- 
 son who, in the spirit of candor and charity, adheres to 
 that which, to the best of his judgment, is right, though, 
 in his opinion, he should be mistaken, is, in the scriptural 
 sense, either a schismatic or heretic ; and that he, on the 
 contrary, whatever sect he belong to," (and I would add, 
 even although he professes, as does Mr. C, to belong to 
 no sect,) " is more entitled to these odious appellations, 
 who is most apt to throw the imputation upon others." 
 Let the reader, remember, that Dr. C. is the writer, 
 
CAMPBELLISM. 
 
 95 
 
 whose translation of the gospels, as well as his intei^re- 
 tation of the words schism and heresy, Mr. C. professes 
 to adopt in preference to all others, and then let him form 
 a deliberate and candid judgment of his denunciations of 
 all the sects of evangelical Christians, (which, with all 
 tlaeir imperfections, it is confidently behoved, constitute 
 the true church of God, if there exists any such church 
 at this day on the earth,) without any respect to their 
 doctrines or practice. In plain language, I ask, is it not 
 evident that Mr. C. is one of the " false accusers," fore- 
 told by the apostle to the gentiles? 
 
 But upon the supposition, that all the sects of evange- 
 Ucal Christians, as well as the individual churches of 
 which they are composed, deserved the solemn rebuke 
 given by Paul to the Corinthian church, in all its extent, 
 would this justify the bold denunciations of the Bishop of 
 Bethany ? Did the apostle thus denounce the Corinthian 
 church ? Did he describe it as a " Sectarian Babylon?" 
 and did he declare " that the plagues of God were threat- 
 ened" to such as would not come out of this corrupt 
 church, where schisms and contentions existed, where 
 one said, I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and another, I 
 am of Cephas, and another, (even as does Mr. C, and as 
 do his followers,) I am of Christ ? Nothing of such de- 
 nunciation is to be found in the solemn rebuke of the 
 apostle. He had evidently been made to drink too 
 deeply into that one Spirit, of which these w^eak and 
 erring brethren of the Corinthian church had, notwith- 
 standing all their faults, in some measure partaken, to 
 permit him thus to denounce any one of the members of 
 Christ's mystical body. He therefore addressed them 
 in the spirit of meekness, while he plainly and faithfully 
 pointed out to that church wherein they had erred. In- 
 stead of hurling against them the thunderbolts of heaven, 
 as Mr. C. endeavors to do, against all the sects of evange- 
 Hcal Christians, he addressed to them the following 
 tender and affecting, yet solemn exhortation ; which we 
 learn from his second letter, had the desired effect to 
 bring them to the exercise of a godly sorrow, and pro- 
 
DEBATE OxV 
 
 duced in them repentance unto salvation. " Now (said 
 this affectionate apostie) I beseech you, brethren, by the 
 name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same 
 thing, and that there be no divisions (schisms) among 
 you, but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same 
 mind, and in the same judgment." 
 
 With regard to the charges of Mr. C. against the 
 several sects, contained in the extract from his narra- 
 tive, which yet remain to be noticed, I would observe, 
 that while persons, even such as may be congregated 
 with the outward forms of a church, may to ail intents 
 and purposes be the followers of a factionist, and fully 
 
 Eartake of his spirit, without assuming his name, it would 
 y no means necessarily follow, that such sect assumed 
 the name of a factionist. That such is the case, will 
 appear from the sentiments adopted by Mr. C. himself, 
 in his App. No. 48, to which I have had occasion so fre- 
 quently to advert. " The word secU (according to Mr. 
 C.'s adopted interpretation,) may be used along with the 
 proper name, purely by way of distinction from another 
 party of a different name, in which case the word is not 
 understood to convey either praise or blame: of these (it 
 is added) we have examples in the phrases above quoted, 
 the sect of the Pharisees, the sect of the Sadducees, the 
 sect of the Nazarenes. In this way, we speak of a 
 strict sect, or a lax sect, or even of a good sect, or a 
 bad sect." Out of Mr C.'s own mouth then, let him be 
 judged. Thus it is that several sects of evangelical 
 Christians are called Calvinists — this is not the peculiar 
 or distinctive appellation assumed by any one of them, 
 merely to distinguish them from such other sects, as are 
 termed Arminians — but does it follow^ as a matter of 
 course, or is it in any sense a fact, that either Arminius 
 or Calvin was a factionist ? And if such were ev^en the 
 fact, does it follow that these sects have assumed the 
 names of one and the other, or that they are themselves 
 universally (as the allegation of Mr. C. evidently imports) 
 factionists ? Again, as Mr. C. evidently in this part of 
 his charge, alludes to the Corinthian church, some of 
 
CAMPBELLISM. 
 
 97 
 
 whom said, I am of Paul, &c. &c., does he mean (as his 
 language clearly imports) that Paul, and Appollos, and 
 Cephas, whose names were thus assumed, were facticni' 
 uts ? Th^t sects, or as more properly, in this instance, 
 translated heresies, and which are ranked by the apostle 
 Paul among the works of the flesh, have a just application 
 to Mr. C. and his followers, and not to the evangehcal 
 sects, I shall endeavor to show hereafter. 
 
 As to Mr. C.'s assertion, concerning the wars and 
 bloodshed of modern Europe, as well as concerning the 
 great majority of all the envies, jealousies, &:c., which he 
 makes to ha\ e arisen, and siill to arise, j urely from the 
 existence of sects, it is suflicient to say, that hs truth is 
 utterly denied. 1 cannot, nor is it necessary that I should, 
 here enter into detail; it is sufficient just to demand of 
 Mr. C. if the necessary consequence.-- of tlie existence of 
 sects are war and bloodshed, why have not these conse- 
 quence been witnessed ? Why are no-: iliese evils now 
 seen in our country? Where is ihe country upon the 
 face of the earth, where sects are not only not so fully tole- 
 rated, but where each stand on so eqi al ground 1 I am 
 aware that Mr. C. will reply by referr r.g to the history 
 of the Puritans, not only of Old but "New England, and 
 tlie Blue Laws of Connecticut;" to " the groans and 
 sighs of the whipped and gibbeted Quakers, and Bap- 
 tists, &c." I shall not here stay to male any remarks 
 upon the great tenderness and symj athy which Mr. C, 
 when it suits his purpose, can express for those sects, 
 which he usually denounces as unwcirihy of any thing, 
 but the vengeance of heaven; but jnst remark, that I can 
 hardly believe Mr. C. so ignorant of the true cause of the 
 wars, and fightings, and persecutions, w hich have at any 
 time existed in the world, and even io some limited extent 
 in our country, in an early }^eriod of its history, (and 
 which must ever be de})l<^red, and the recurrence of the 
 like, ever be deprecateci by all frond men.) as not to 
 know that these originated, not frcm the circumstance 
 that the church was divided into sects, but in conse- 
 quence of that dark cloud of ignoi a nee of the true princi- 
 
98 
 
 DEBATE Or( 
 
 pies of toleration, which continued to overspread the 
 Christian world, notwithstanding the dawning light of 
 the reformation, in connection with that source of all 
 ** wars and fightings," mentioned by the apostle James, 
 " even the lusts which war in the members." That this 
 was the true cause, is evident from the undeniable fact, 
 that wherever, and so soon as these principles were 
 understood, there persecution has, as it regards the sects 
 of evangelical Christians, ceased; and it is hoped, ceased 
 forever. So remarkable is this fact, that we may fear- 
 lessly challenge Mr. C, and all the host of such as hate 
 and vilify the various sects alx)ve mentioned, to point 
 out a single instance, as existing in the present, or as 
 having existed in the last generation, where any sect or 
 church of evangelical Christians have had any hand, 
 directly, or indirectly, in promoting, aiding, or giving 
 countenance to any religious persecution. Whilst on 
 the other hand, it is a fact, that thei/ have ever continued 
 to be persecuted, to a greater or less extent, not only by 
 Roman Catholic influence and power, but even, (aiid 
 especially in Switzerland, as is the case at present, in 
 no small degree) by Protestants — such as assume to be 
 liberal Christians, whose views, in many respects, sym- 
 bolize with those of Mr. C, and who manifest their 
 burning zeal, not only in the abuse of the evangelical 
 sects, as he does, but having the strong arm of power 
 on their side in their persecution, by fines, imprisonment, 
 and exile. 
 
 With a view, as it would seem, in some measure to 
 qualify his sweeping denunciations of the various sects of 
 evangelical Christians, as well as to increase the preju- 
 dice which he would especially excite against all such as 
 exercise the office of the ministry of the gospel among 
 them, Mr. C. tells in his narrative, that in the debate, he 
 admitted a difference between those who are leaders, 
 and those who are led." " The leaders (he adds) were 
 shown to be factionists, and the led, frequently, without 
 suspecting, their aiders and abettors." And yet the three 
 translators of the various books of the New Testament, 
 
CAMPBELLISM. 
 
 99 
 
 upon whose authority he professes chiefly to have relied 
 in preparing a version of that part of the Sacred Oracles 
 which he would fain have the whole church and the 
 world receive as the standard of truth, were leaders 
 among these hated sects. Such is the consistency of Mr. 
 C. And in reply to some observations of mine, which 
 were designed to show that the writings and commenta- 
 ry of one of his translators, Dr. Macknight, (who, al- 
 though a learned, was not considered a spiritual man,) 
 were not held in high esteem even by the sect to which 
 he belonged, Mr. C. declared, with much emphasis, he 
 would stand up for Dr. Macknight." Upon his being 
 reminded, however, that he had already denounced 
 against him in common with many others, the vengeance 
 of heaven, he had too much prudence to attempt even to 
 palliate his inconsistency, which was too palpable not to 
 be generally observed. 
 
 In connection with this part of the subject, Mr. C. fur- 
 ther states in his narrative, that with a view " to show 
 that differences of opinion might exist amongst Christians, 
 while they are one body and one faith," he urged the 
 admonition of Paul to tlie Romans to " receive one ano- 
 ther without regard to differences of opinion^ If Mr. C. 
 intends to apply these " differences of opinioTi/^ to things, 
 in their nature indifferenty unimportant, or of doubtful 
 import, his position will not be denied by any of the sects 
 against the propriety of whose existence, as such, it is 
 intended as argument. It indeed implies a principle, 
 which is practically recognized in a greater or less de- 
 gree by them all. But in what part of the epistle to the 
 Romans does Mr. C. find the alleged precept, " receive 
 one another without regard to differences of ojrinion,^^ which 
 phrase, he would have his readers to believe is literally 
 quoted? In vain will it be sought, and the circumstance 
 shows the liberty which Mr. C. feels himself warranted 
 to take with the word of God. It will be at once acknow- 
 ledged, by all who have any just reverence for the au- 
 thority of the oracles of God, that when a writer under- 
 takes to quote from these sacred writings, it ought to be 
 
100 
 
 DEBATE OX 
 
 done with accuracy and truth. But the above quotation 
 is not literal, even according to the version which he 
 himself has put forth. The passage, which it is presumed 
 he intended should be considered as having been literally 
 quoted, has been so altered as, at least, to obscure tlie 
 apostle's meaning, and apparently to render the precept 
 subservient to iiis views. The passage alluded to, is be- 
 heved to be Rom. 14:1, which I do not hesitate to affirm 
 to be (if not perlectly, yet) far more truly translated in 
 our standard version of the New TcvStament, than in the 
 patched version of Mr. C. " Him that is weak in the faith 
 receive ye, hut not to doubtful disputations.'^ The apostle 
 here evidently intended to exhort " the pastors and mem- 
 bers of the church at Rome, to receive among them, as a 
 brother, the weak believer; and not to pei'plex him with 
 disputations about such things as might appear doubtful 
 to conscientious persons, but to leave him under the gen- 
 eral use of means and loving instructions, to grow^ stonger 
 in faith and riper in judgment, by the inward teaching of 
 the Holy Spirit." And in so doing, the apostle gave a 
 general rule of vast importance to the peace and unity of 
 the church of God, as it regards doctrine, and worship, 
 and practice. But it is also evident, from the apostle's 
 own exemplification of the rule, as contained in this chap- 
 ter, it only applies to things in their nature indifferent, or 
 of doubtful import, about which, there may be, as there 
 often is, an honest and conscientious difference of opinion. 
 Such was the distinction of meats and dai/s spoken of by 
 the apostle. 
 
 The reader cannot fail to notice the important differ- 
 ence between this, which is confidently asserted to be the 
 true meaning of the apostle, and those unqualified, or un- 
 limited " differences of opinion,^' which are substituted for 
 " doubtful disputations," which substitution or aUeration 
 is unwaiTanted by the original. 
 
 This alteration, however, of the sacred text, fully ac- 
 cords with the views of Mr. C, as it regards the most 
 important doctrines of the gospel, which he holds to be 
 no part of " the faith once delivered to the saints." And 
 
CAMPBELLISM. 
 
 101 
 
 while on the one hand, I would contend that all such 
 persons as Mr. C, as well as such of his followers, as 
 *' do not profess repentance, and a believing dependence,** 
 as lost sinners, on the merits and atonement of Christ, 
 *^God manifest in the flesh,^' and a reliance on the Holy 
 Spirit for teaching and sanctification, cannot properly be 
 regarded as believers, or as being "in the faith" at all, or 
 admitted into the communion of saints. On the other 
 hand, I give it franhly^ as my own opinion, that had the 
 general rule, given by the apostle in this part of his 
 epistle to the Romans, been at all times fully understood, 
 and duly regarded by the church of God, it would not 
 have been divided into such numerous sects as it is now.* 
 It is true, as Mr. C. complains, or at least alleges, 
 that I charged him wath being " a factionist," and whilst 
 I admit ** the identity between the factionist, and the 
 heretic whom. Paul denounces," to which he tells us he 
 alluded in the course of his remarks during the debate, 
 I contend, and shall endeavor to prove, that the true 
 definition of these terms is justly descriptive of his char- 
 acter and conduct, ever since he assumed the office of a 
 public teacher, declaimer, or proclaimer. " A man that 
 \s a heretic," says the apostle in his epistle to Titus, 
 (3:10,11.) " after the first and second admonition, reject, 
 knowing that he that is such, is subverted and sinneth, 
 being condemned of himself." Let us now see what is 
 the interpretation of this passage, as given by Dr. George 
 C., which the Bishop of Bethany adopts in preference to 
 all others. It is plain (says this writer) from the char- 
 acter here given, as well as from the genius of the lan- 
 guage, that the word airetikos, in this place, does not 
 mean a member of an airesis, or sect, who may be 
 unconscious of any fault, and so is not equivalent to our 
 word sectary; much less does it answer to the English 
 word heretic, which always implies one who eiitertains 
 opinions in religion, not only erroneous, but pernicious ; 
 whereas (he adds) we have shown that the word airesis, 
 
 * See Prelim. Disc. 108. 
 10 
 
102 
 
 I>KBATE ON 
 
 in scriptural use, has no necessary connection with 
 opinion at all. Its immediate connection is with division, 
 or dissention, as it is thereby sects and parties are form- 
 ed. AiRETiKos ANTHROPos (the hcrctical man) must 
 therefore mean one who is the founder of a sect, or at 
 least has the disposition to create aireseis, or sects, in the 
 community, and may properly be rendered a factious 
 man,'' The same writer adds, " The admonition here 
 given to Titus, is the same, though differently expressed, 
 with what he had given to the Romans," (16:17,) to 
 which, in the debate, I alluded as applicable, according 
 to my judgment, to Mr. C. in its fullest extent. "Now, 
 I beseech you, brethren, (said the apostle,) mark them 
 which cause divisions and offences, contrary to the doc- 
 tnna which ye have learned ; and avoid them, for they 
 tiiat are such, serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their 
 own belly; and by good words B,ndfair speeches deceive 
 the hearts of the simple.'* 
 
 According to the same authority, it is in a sense simi- 
 lar to that of the word heretic, we are to understand the 
 heresies spoken of by the apostle in his epistle to the 
 Galatians, (5:20.) which he ranks among the wori^s of 
 the flesh — as also the hei^esies of which the apostle speaks 
 in his first epistle to the Corinthians. (11:19.) Both of 
 which passages I conceive to be much more justly appli- 
 cable to Mr. C, than to any member or public teacher 
 of any of the existing sects of evangelical Christians. If 
 therefore I alluded to the passage in the epistle to the 
 Romans, in the course of the debate, (but whether I did 
 or did not, I cannot certainly recollect,) it was not by 
 way of apology for any of the existing sects of evangeli- 
 cal Christians, but with a Anew to show the continued 
 fulfilment of the apostle's prediction, in the case of Mr. 
 
 and the divisions caused by him in the church of 
 God, when the apostle declared, "There must be also 
 heresies among you, that they wliich are approved may 
 be ^lade manifest among you." That I ever used, or 
 alluded to this declaration of the apostle, in the course 
 
CAMPBELLISMo 
 
 of the debate, according to the representation of Mr. C% 
 is utterly denied. 
 
 Now that the word heretic, or factionist, does not 
 mean, in a scriptural sense, a member of a sect who may 
 be unconscious of any fault, nay, who may be such from 
 a deep conviction of duty, as well as a grateful sense of 
 the privilege of being thus <ionnected with the church of 
 God, I have endeavored to show^, not only from a just 
 view of the word of God, but from the authority of a dis- 
 tinguished writer, approved of by Mr. C. himself ; and 
 on the other hand, that these words, heretic or factimisU 
 are justly applicable to Mr, C, I contend is abundantly 
 evident from the numerous and very injurious divisions, 
 or schisms, which he, as well by his public harangues* 
 as by his writings, has caused among the churches in 
 the Baptist connection. That these numerous churches of 
 regular Baptists in these United States, were generally, at 
 least, " endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the 
 bond of peace," and were for the most part, "walking in 
 the comfort of the Holy Ghost, and were edified," by 
 sound doctrine," through the labors and preaching of 
 faithful ministers of the New Testament, until the unau- 
 spicious hour when Mr. C. (who has been many things 
 by turn, and nothing long,) was admitted among them, 
 are facts of general notoriety that need no proof Equal- 
 ly so are the facts, that in many, if not almost all the 
 Baptist churches which have been afflicted by the visits 
 of Mr. C., or the circulation of his books and pamphlets, 
 there, instead of the members being " perfectly joined in 
 the same mind and in the same judgment," are found 
 contentions, heart burnings, divisions; and in many cases 
 these churches have been rent in pieces, and their unity 
 destroyed. That such divisions exist among the Baptists, 
 Mr. C. himself admits. That he, or his pretended refor- 
 mation, has been the immediate cause of them, cannot be 
 doubted; and indeed, I do not know that he has ever 
 denied it. 
 
 Now let us see whether Mr. C. can possibly have any 
 plausible, much less adequate excuse, for causing such 
 
104 
 
 DEBATE our 
 
 numerous, distressing, and injurious divisions in a branch 
 of the church of God, into which he had unsohcited 
 sought, and found admission. Was it because he had 
 discovered that the regular Baptists held, or inculcated 
 some false doctrine that was of dangerous tendency, or 
 destructive to the souls of men? If such had been the 
 case, or if he had even sincerel\' believed that such w'as 
 the fact, though in this he had been mistaken, it would 
 have gone far to excuse his conduct. But he himself 
 gives us to understand, that doctrines, in his view, are 
 of no importance ; — that fact&, and not doctrines, are 
 the proper objects or constituent parts of the faith once 
 delivered to the saints. It will not, I presume, be said 
 that any difference, at least such as is at all material, exists 
 between him and the regular Baptists concerning the 
 facts recorded in the scripture history. Nor will it be 
 contended by Mr. C, that the members of the regular 
 Baptist churches, generally, do not maintain a walk and 
 conversation, such as becomes the gospel of Christ, at 
 least to a degree that will bear a comparison with such 
 as have embraced his pretended reformation. 
 
 If therefore nothing w^as to be gained, and no change 
 for the better has been effected by this reformation,, 
 either as it regards doctrine or practice, why did he 
 introduce it ? Why alienate hearts and affections of so 
 many who professed_to have put on the bond of perfect- 
 ness? Will Mr. C. plead the great differences of opinion^ 
 which exist between himself and the regular Baptists? 
 I ask why, according to his own principles, he did not 
 hold his own opinions "<25 private property" and not 
 promulgate them, and thereby disturb the peace of the 
 churches. According to his own showing, the regular 
 Baptists hold all that he contends is essential to salvation, 
 though true it is also, they hold more. Thus they histo* 
 rically believe the facts contained, not only in the New, 
 but the Old Testament also; although they in common 
 with other evangelical sects, reject the doctrine that this 
 species of belief is the same with that which is to the 
 saving of the soul. They maintain that the latter con- 
 
CASa*BELLlSa. 
 
 105 
 
 «lsts in a gracious exercise of the heart, which is pro- 
 ductive of, and evinced by good works, and a blameless 
 life indicative of a pure heart 
 
 They also, as well as Mr, C, administer and receive 
 baptism by immersion; though they do not believe that 
 this is the means, much less the only means, of obtaining 
 the forgiveness of transgression, or of washing away sin. 
 But then, if in this they are even mistaken, it can be de- 
 monstrated from the conduct of Mr. C, that he himself 
 does not esteem it necessary that a person should thus 
 expect the remission of his sins through immersion, at 
 the time he is immersed, in order to obtain that great 
 blessing. Why, then, I repeat, did he trouble these 
 churches, as did some the church at Galatia, if it were 
 not with a view to create a faction or schism? And in 
 so doing, was his object to serve our Lord Jesus Christ, 
 or his own interests'? It is thought that all who take 
 a candid view of the case, will answer it was — it must 
 have been the latter. Had it been the former, inasmuch 
 as he lays no stress upon the belief of doctrines, and 
 inasmuch as these churches do practise immersion, 
 (which he holds to be indispensably necessary for the 
 remission of sins,) he would have regarded the differences 
 of opinion between the regular Baptists and himself, as 
 did the apostle (Rom. 14.) the distinction of meats and 
 days, and would have exercised at least a measure of tiie 
 same lorl:)earance, as did Paul And while he held his 
 peculiar views, " as private property,^'' he woiild not have 
 distuibed the peace and harmony of those churches, by 
 obtruding them upon their attention in the way he has 
 done. 
 
 If Mr. C. should reply, why not require that those 
 churches should exercise the same forbearance towards 
 him, that is considered to have been reasonably expected 
 on his part? I reply that these, in common with other evan- 
 gelical Christians, do not profess to believe, as he does, that 
 facts, and not doctrines, are the proper objects of faith. 
 Whether they be mistaken or not, they believe that itis 
 -al^importanl to the peace and purity of any Christian 
 
 *10 
 
106 
 
 DEBATE .ON 
 
 church — to the success of the gospel among them, in the 
 sound conversion of sinners unto God — to the com- 
 fort and edification of saints, as well as their growth in 
 grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ, 
 that such church, according to the precept of an apostle, 
 not only to " hold fast the form of sound words," but 
 that they also from the heart, obey and feed upon that 
 form of sound doctrine which is according to godhness, 
 and through the instrumentality of which, they believe 
 true godliness or sanctifi cation to be promoted in the 
 souls of all who truly " believe with the heart unto righte- 
 ousness." They therefore cannot but view Mr. C, not 
 only as a man w^ho has made divisions among them ; 
 4^^but as one of those false teachers foretold by the apostle 
 Peter. (2 Pet. 2:1.) As there were false prophets among 
 the people of old, so the apostle w^arns the church, 
 " There shall be false teachers among you, who privily 
 shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord 
 that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift de- 
 struction." They therefore consider, that they are 
 troubled as was the Galatian church, by one who per- 
 verts the gospel of Christ. As therefore they conscientious- 
 ly believe, that the object of Mr. Campbell is to remove 
 them from him that called them " into the grace of Christ 
 unto another gospel," they cannot receive him as one 
 " that abideth in the doctrine of Christ," " neither bid 
 him God speed," lest they be partakers " of his evil 
 deeds." 
 
 Moreover, if the object of Mr. C. was not to create a 
 faction or schism in the Baptist church, and that with a 
 view to promote, in some w^ay, his ow^n personal interest, 
 and eventually to raise up a sect; I ask why did he con- 
 nect himself at all with this Christian community? Mr. 
 C. will not (because it is presumed he dare not) deny, 
 that for several years, or at least from the time he began 
 to hold forth by way of public harangues, until the time 
 he joined the Baptist church, the great burden of his pro- 
 tended testimony was to declaim against these hated 
 sects; as well as the creeds or confessions of faith which 
 
CAMPBELLISM. 
 
 107 
 
 had been adopted, and are still held by the most of them; 
 and to urge the propriety or necessity of casting all these 
 things to the moles and the bats, and of all of every sect 
 uniting in one Christian community, with no other creed 
 than the bible. 
 
 Why then, I repeat, (if it were not for the purpose of 
 causing a faction, or division among the members,) did 
 he unite himself with one of these sects, against which 
 he had so long declaimed ? In so doing, did not his vol- 
 untary act, at least impliedly, amount to a profession, 
 not only that he had changed his views in relation to 
 sects and religious creeds, but that he also adopted the 
 creed of that particular sect as his own? And such, it 
 seems would, nay must have been the case, if in uniting 
 with this sect, he had acted with good faith, or from 
 principles consistent with candor. 
 
 It is moreover true, that in the debate I charged Mr. 
 C. (though he has not in his narrative thought proper to 
 notice it.) with being himself a sectarian, a rank secta- 
 rian; or in other words, with indulging a sectarian 
 spirit to an extent almost, if not quite, unknown among 
 the various denominations of evanglical Christians, and 
 such as is condemned by most of them. For while they 
 are of opinion, that it is right and proper, that every 
 Christian should unite with the church of God, by con- 
 necting himself with that particular sect, which, after 
 careful examination, he believes comes nearest to the 
 truth; yet, as they know and acknowledge themselves to 
 be fallible, they will, so far as they act upon the princi- 
 ples of the gospel, be careful to avcHd the spirit indulged 
 by Mr. C, which leads him to condemn the whole Pro- 
 testant church as a sectarian Babylon; and they w^illingly 
 leave his Holiness and Mr. C. to contend their respective 
 claims to infallibility. I do not therefore deem it at all 
 necessary, that a man should professedly belong to some 
 Christian sect, before he can justly be termed a sectarian, 
 according to the common acceptation of that word. On 
 the contrary, it is evident, that a man may belong to a re- 
 ligious sect, and yet manifest and maintain a truly 
 
109 
 
 DEBATE 015 
 
 , Catholic or Christian spirit; on the other hand, he may 
 renounce every Christian sect, as does Mr. C, and yet 
 indulge that hateful and injurious spirit of sectarism, 
 which leads him, as it does the Bishop of Bethany and 
 the Bishop of Rome, to contend that he, and he only, 
 and those who think and act with him, are right, while all 
 others of every name are wrong, and to be viewed as 
 deceivers or deceived. That such is the spirit indulged 
 by Mr. C. upon all occasions, needs no proof. Yet he 
 complained loudly that I should charge him with being 
 a sectarian, when he was opposed to all sects. He 
 moreover considered the charge uncourteous, as it 
 seemed to imply a doubt of his veracity, when he pub- 
 licly declared he was no sectarian. It was replied, that 
 the loud complaint of Mr. C. reminded me of an anec- 
 dote, related by Dr. Isaac Watts in his writings, of a 
 certain learned divine in England, who gravely published 
 to the world, that notwithstanding he had descended in 
 common with the rest of mankind from fallen Adam, 
 and had consequently inherited much of the imperfection 
 and corruption of human nature, yet he could with truth 
 say, that he was entirely free from that odious sin of 
 pride. Methinks, (adds Dr. W.) this man did not dwell 
 much at home." Thus it is alleged that if Mr. C. 
 dwelt much at home, and was more intimately acquaint- 
 ed with his own heart, he would be sensible, as is every 
 truly humble and good Christian, of a corrupt disposition of 
 his nature to indulge a spirit of sectarianism, as well as a 
 spirit ofpride, to which it is nearly allied, and would conse- 
 quently be led to watch, and to contend against it, and 
 especially by cultivating a charitable frame of spirit 
 towards all others of every name, so far as the same is 
 not forbidden by the plain precepts of the gospel. 
 
 It is also true, as Mr. C. states, that I was bold and 
 presumptuous enough even to charge him with " being 
 the head of a party." And does not the whole commu- 
 nity know this to be true? Nor indeed do I consider this 
 aE, This party has at least l^egun to assume the fonn 
 of a sect, or ecclesiastical body, and though with affected 
 
CAMPBELLISM. 
 
 109 
 
 humility they call themselves Christians, (as do the Arians> 
 in most places, who are the followers of Mr. Stone,) in 
 order to repel the charge of being a sect, they are usually 
 designated by the public at large as Campbellites. Thus 
 I consider Mr. C. as standing at the head of a sect, and 
 as having accomplished, through his union with the Bap- 
 tist churches and the imposition which I consider he 
 practised upon them, the object which he had in view 
 from his first appearance as a public teacher, and which 
 there is good reason to believe, he never could have ac- 
 complished by any other means in his powder to employ. 
 It is true that Mr. C. endeavors in his narrative to shield 
 himself and his followers from the charge of being secta^ 
 rians, by the allegation that they "exclude from the 
 idngdom of Jesus only those who will not acknowledge 
 him to be Lord, by doing the things which he command- 
 ed." That they make their own opinions private property y 
 and require " no person, on pain of excommunication, to 
 adopt them." The plain meaning of all which is, that the 
 leading doctrines of the gospel, which have ever been all- 
 important in the reformed churches, these pretended 
 reformers disregard, or do not receive. In the place of 
 them, they have substituted a set of notions, which, how- 
 ever, they hold as private property. But all who do not 
 hold that historic faith is the only faith of the gospel, and do 
 not evince the sincerity of this faith, by being immersed, 
 they exclude from the kingdom of Jesus. But I ask, 
 whether, in defining the things which they allege Christ 
 commanded to be done, they have not, as w^ell as other 
 sects, formed a creed? And does not that creed contain 
 article or articles, that are not held by some other religious 
 sects? Can it moreover materially affect the case, or 
 change the nature of the thing, whether the creed be 
 written or unwritten, long or short, consisting of one 
 article or of twenty, or one hundred articles? If so, 
 then the unwritten laws of England, as well as of our own 
 country, which have long been recognized in courts of 
 justice, have no existence; and such acts of Congress as 
 consist of but one section, have no force. 
 
no 
 
 DEBATE OJT 
 
 Mr. C, in his narrative, alleges that " MrJennings next 
 attempted to sustain his pretensions to being one of God's 
 called and sent ministers, by urging the necessity of a 
 special call and alleging that the apostles taught the neces- 
 sity of both ' the call to preach^^ and ordination to qualify 
 for administering ordinances." The reader of Mr. C.'s 
 narrative would, from what I have thus quoted, be led to 
 suppose that my observations upon the subjects of a call 
 and ordination to the ministry, were made in special, if 
 not exclusive reference to myself Such, however, was 
 not the /act I trust, that in exchanging a lucrative pro- 
 fession for the sacred office of the ministry of the gospel, 
 I furnished evidence of sincerity and disinterestedness, 
 (whether I be one of God's called and sent servants or 
 not,) at least as strong as any that Mr. C. has ever given 
 of his sincerity and disinterestedness, in vilifying those 
 who believe that God has called or inclined them to the 
 work of the ministry. My observations, therefore, on 
 these subjects, were not prompted by any sohcitude in 
 relation to my own pretensions. As, however, it had 
 evidently been one object of Mr. C, in some of the public 
 harangues which he had previously delivered in Nash- 
 ville, to bring the ministry of the gospel into disrepute, if 
 not contempt, by asserting, or endeavoring to show, that 
 the office of a minister of the gospel, as w^ell as the or- 
 dination to that office, were of mere human device; I 
 thought the interests of truth and religion required me on 
 that occasion, briejly to notice the subject, which was con- 
 sidered important, especially when it is considered that 
 by (what Mr. C, in common with many enemies of the 
 truth as it is in Jesus, esteems) " the foolishness of preach- 
 ing, it pleased God to save those that believe." I had 
 before given Mr. C., as well as the audience, distinctly to 
 understand, that in pursuance of the invitation (or chal- 
 lenge) given, I had appeared to object to his principles, 
 or to what he had publicly advanced; and that in so do- 
 ing, it was my fixed determination not to discuss with 
 him any point w^hatever, that merely constituted a differ- 
 ence of opinion or practice, (in relation to the external 
 
CAMPBELLISM. 
 
 order or discipline of the church,) among the various 
 sects of' evangelical Christians whom I regarded as 
 members of the same family. That these family differ- 
 ences had better not be agitated, but suffered to sleep» 
 as far as possible; and where that cannot be, they had 
 much better be adjusted in some way among them- 
 selves, than by referring them to, or discussing them 
 with, such men as Mr. C, who, whatever might be 
 his views or decision, I consider to be equally the enemy 
 of all the members of God's family as he is of his truth. 
 My observations, therefore, were confined to the call, or 
 that inclination of the heart, to the work of the ministry, 
 as well as that setting apart, or ordination to the sacred 
 office, both of which are believed to be of God, whilst I 
 purposely avoided the long disputed questions concerning 
 " uninterrupted succession" as well as that which relates 
 to the particular manner in which and the persons by 
 whom such ordination ought to be performed. My object 
 was, to show from the word, that the office of a minister 
 of the gospel, whether he be an evangelist, pastor, or 
 teacher^ is of God's appointment; that such as assume, or 
 enter upon it in a right manner, are called or have their 
 hearts inclined by Him to the work; and that it is his re^ 
 vealed will, that such as furnish good grounds to conclude 
 that they are thus called, should be solemnly set apart by 
 ordination or the imposition of hands. Notwithstanding 
 my previous declaration concerning the course I intend- 
 ed to pursue, Mr. C. endeavored to draw me into the dis* 
 cussion of these disputed questions, but did not succeed. 
 Hence he speaks of propositions that I would not discuss. 
 
 It is true, that I principally relied upon the fourth chap- 
 ter of Ephesians, to prove that the ministry of peace and 
 reconciliation was the gift of the Lord Jesus Christ to his 
 church, when he ascended to the right hand of God. 
 While it was admitted that the extraordinary officers 
 therein mentioned, such as apostles, &c., were designed to 
 be of temporary duration, it was contended to be equally 
 clear, that other officers, such as pastors and teachers, 
 were designed to be as perpetual as the church in its 
 
lift 
 
 DEBATE 0!r 
 
 militant state. The same position is fully supported by 
 the apostle, in his first espistle to the Corinthians, (chap- 
 ter 12:27 — 22.) Mr. C. has not thought proper to inform 
 us in his narrative, how he attempted to evade the force 
 of these passages. Of the explanation on which he then 
 insisted, perhaps he is become ashamed, and if so, it is 
 thought not without just reason. It was this: that the 
 gift of Christ, spoken of by the apostle, was only designed 
 to continue while the primitive or apostolic church waa 
 in an infantile state; and that all the various officers of 
 apostles, &c., as well as pastors and teachers, were given 
 at once, and the offices which they thus held, were de- 
 signed to cease at their death. And this, too, notwith- 
 standing the apostle declares, (ver. 12.) that the design of 
 this gift was " for the perfecting of the saints, for the work 
 of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ*" 
 For all which objects this gift is as much needed now, as 
 when it was first made. I cannot, nor is it necessary 
 that I should, give a full detail of all that was urged to 
 show the absurdity of this exposition of Mr. C, which, so 
 far as I can recollect, was all he offered in answer to the 
 irrefutable arguments which it is considered these pas- 
 sages afford, of a divinely instituted ministry of the gos- 
 pel, which was intended to be perpetual in the church, 
 and consequently of the unscriptural system which is 
 adopted in the Campbellitisli churches, that all have an 
 equal right, and all are under equal obligations to preach, 
 provided they can only persuade themselves that they are 
 qualified. It is only necessary to observe, that it was 
 shown, from the history of the " Acts of the Apostles," 
 and from the epistles, that the assumption of Mr. C, that 
 all the pastors and teachers which existed in the apostolic 
 churches, were given at once, and immediately upon the 
 ascension of Christ, was not true in point of fact. That 
 all the bishops or overseers, and at least such of the elders 
 as labored in word or doctrine, were teachers in the 
 church, as well as the evangelists and the apostles them- 
 selves, is a position which cannot be denied. Thus the 
 apostles sustained two offices: one extraordinary, the 
 
CAMPBELLISM. 
 
 113 
 
 other, that of teacher or elder, in common with others 
 engaged in the work of the ministry. Thus the apostle 
 (1 Cor. 4:17.) speaks of the manner of his teaching " in 
 every church." And in describing the qualifications of 
 a bishop, he says, (1 Tim. 3:2.) A bishop must be " apt 
 to teach." So also the apostle Peter in one of his letters, 
 declares him to be an elder. 
 
 Again, it clearly appears, and especially from the 
 apostle Paul's charge to the elders of the Ephesian 
 church, (x\cts 20.) that bishops, elders, and pastors, were 
 different designations of the same office. He required 
 these bishops, or overseers, or elders, io feed the flock of 
 God, &c. And it need not be shown that the meaning of a 
 pastor is a feeder, and consequently that the great duty 
 of a pastor in the church, is thus to feed the flock of the 
 Shepherd of Israel. Will Mr. C. then contend there 
 were no persons set apart to the office of a bishop, or 
 elder, or pastor, or teacher, after the ascension of Christ? 
 Either he must thus contend, or give up his scheme of a 
 gospel church, or show that the apostle was mistaken, 
 when he, in conjunction with the presbytery, laid his 
 hands on Timothy, and w^hen he directed Titus to ordain 
 elders in every city — and when he declared to the elders 
 or pastors of the Ephesian church, that the Holy Ghost 
 had made them overseers, or, as it is in the original, 
 bishops. 
 
 It may further be observed, that if this office was de- 
 signed to have beein but temporary, and especially if 
 there were to be no more introduced into it, would the 
 apostle have been so full, as well as particular in his in- 
 
 Timothy and Titus,) both concerning the requisite quali- 
 fications of a pastor or pubhc teacher, and the caution 
 that ought to be observed in introducing, or admitting 
 tiny into the sacred office. 
 
 In support of the position, that such as rightly under- 
 t?ike this oflice, are in a certain sense called of God, 
 several passages of the word of God were referred to. 
 and indeed it miglit well be contended, that as all the 
 
 structions, (especially 
 
 11 
 
114 
 
 DEBATE CW 
 
 true prophets, as well as priests, under a former dispen- 
 sation, were called of God to their resjiective oiiices, so 
 that "no man taketh this honor unto himself, but he 
 that is called of God, as was Aaron;" so it woukl also 
 seem reasonable to conclude, that God would in some 
 way designate such as he designed to be teachers and 
 rulers in the church, under the dispensation of the gospel. 
 It was therefore observed, that Christ has given direction 
 to tlie chm'ch, in relation to this imp<:>rtant subject, to 
 pray the Lord of the harvest to send forth laborers into his 
 harvest. If tliere were no special divine influence upon 
 the minds of men, or special intei-positions of divine pro- 
 vidence, whereby they were incHned to seek this sacred 
 office, and directed in the path of duty, there could be no 
 encouragement or ground for offering the prayer which 
 Christ clirected: and consequently we may conclude he 
 w*ould not have reiiuired his disciples thus to pray. So 
 also, the declaration of the apostle to the elders of the 
 church of Ephesus, already alluded to, clearly shows the 
 divine call of those men, and consequently of all others 
 who properly undertake tl\e sacred office, to be bishops 
 or pastors in the church of God, " of which (church) tJie 
 Holy Ghost hath made you overseers." Thus also, it is said 
 by the snme apostle, (Rom. 10:15,) " How shall they 
 preach except they be sent?" Who shaU send them? 
 Certainly none but the great God, even our Saviour him- 
 self, the same whose voice the prophet heard saying-^ 
 " Whom shall I send, and who will go for its?" Tms 
 emphatic declaration of the apostle, is entirely subver- 
 sive of this part of Mr. C.*s scheme. It amounts to a 
 most positive declaration, that none can preach with 
 God's approbation, unless they be sent by him, or in other 
 words, are made teachers by the Holy Spirit. Declaim, 
 or proclaim, or harangue the people, as does Mr. C, 
 they may; but preach Christ Jesus the Lord, as do those 
 laborers whom he has sent forth into the harvest, it is 
 declared, upon apostolic authority, they cannot. But 
 then this special call is, by Mr. C, alleged to be incredi- 
 ble, because of the contradictory messages delivered by 
 
CAMPBELLISH. 
 
 115 
 
 men, who equally pretend to it, and because no one of 
 all such as believe, or profess themselves to be the sub- 
 jects of it, can prove himself to have been thus called or 
 sent of God. That the ministers of the gospel belonging 
 to the evangelical denominations of Christians, at least 
 such as may be said so be sound in the faith, do deliver 
 contradietoiy messages, so far as they relate to the only 
 foundation of the gospel, I affirm to be a false assump- 
 tion, nearly allied to another of Mr. C, that the preach- 
 ers of the" various sects preach different gospels. la 
 truth they preach in substance the same gospel, whilst 
 Mr. C.,it is believed, preaches ^'another gospel" than that 
 taught by Christ and his apostles. And th^ir difierence 
 of views upon points that do not affect the sure founda- 
 tion, furnishes no more e\'idence that they cannot all be 
 sent of God, tlian do the differences wliich existed among 
 tlie apostles, prove they were not all insfdred. 
 
 Nor was it designed, nor is it deemed at all necessary, 
 that such as profess to believe themselves thus called to 
 the work of the ministry, should be able to prove the 
 fact, by any positive or miraculous evidence. " The 
 only call, (says Mr. C. in his narrative,) which any man 
 could urge, \vith either scripture or reason on his side,*' 
 is ** his competency to instruct, and the need for it." I 
 <io not certainly know whether he intended this compe- 
 Uncy to instnict,^^ to include true godliness, or piety of 
 heart and soundness in the faith, as well as intellectual pow- 
 ers and acquirements, together with an aptness to teach. 
 If he did, then I would say that this " competency to in- 
 struct, and the need for it," together widi " a desire for 
 the office of a bishop," constitutes the e\idence which 
 ought usually to be deemed sufficient, to lead the mind 
 to a charitable conclusion, that a person possessed of 
 such qualifications is called to the work of the ministry. 
 It is God alone who can thus qualify men for, and inchne 
 them to this work. " But the competency of that qualifi- 
 cation, and the sincerity of that inclination, (says the 
 good Matthew Henry, as Mr. C. himself, if I mistake 
 not, calls him,) must not be left to the judgment of every 
 
116 
 
 DEBATE OR^ 
 
 man for himself : the nature of the thing will by no 
 means admit that; but for the preservation of due order 
 in the church, this must needs be referred and submitted 
 to the judgment of others; who, as in all other calHngs, 
 are presumed the most able judges; and who are em- 
 pow'ered to set apart such as they find thus quahfied, and 
 iaclined to the work of the ministry. Does a man then 
 profess to desire the work of the ministry — and is he at 
 the same time found, (as I would without hesitation say 
 is the case of Mr. C.,) to be unsound in the faith — or is 
 he defective as it regards aptness to teach — or has he 
 not the character and qualifications described by the 
 apostle in his letters to Timothy and Titus'? In any of 
 these cases, it would sufficiently appear, that he is a de- 
 ceiver, or that he is deceived, or at least mistaken. But 
 where the reverse of this appears to be the case, and the 
 tenor of the life and conversation of the person profes- 
 sing this desire, shows that this sacred office is sought 
 with a view to God's glory and the salvation of souls, it 
 is, it is believed, in accordance with scriptural exam- 
 ples, as well as precepts, that such person be set apart 
 to the work of the ministry by the imposition of hands; 
 even though he himself, or they who thus set him apart, 
 may be mistaken with regard to his supposed qualifica- 
 tions for, and call to the ministry. The}' have, it is sup- 
 posed, duly regarded and conscientiously observed, in 
 relation to the solemn transaction, the directions of the 
 great Head of the church, so far as they have been en- 
 abled to understand them. That persons who are believed 
 to have been thus called, are to be set apart by the lay- 
 ing on of hands, it would seem is clearly evident, both 
 from apostolic precept and example. The single direc- 
 tion to " Jay hands suddenly on no ?nonj" would seem of 
 itself, sufficient to estabhsh the position, unless Mr. C. 
 can give it such an interpretation, as will prove that it 
 has no application, whatever, to the setting apart men 
 to the ministry of the gospel. 
 
 Mr. C. seems, in relation to this subject of ordination, 
 to lay great stress on the fact, which he states was urged 
 
CAMPBlBLLISko 
 
 117 
 
 m\ ills part, without an effort on mine to adiduee an ex- 
 caption, " that no man was ever ordained by the apostles, 
 to break or consecrate the loaf, (in other words to ad- 
 minister the Lord's Supper.) or to immerse or sprinkle.*' 
 In opposition to this, another fact may be urged, that it 
 does not appear from the sacred record, that any man 
 was ever ordained by the apostles, expressly to preach 
 the gospel. Yet we know from facts recorded, as well 
 as from the apostolic directions, that this was a chief 
 part of the commission. If therefore \\% lenm from 
 tlie sacred history, that such as had been thus pre\'iously 
 ordained, did baptize such as professed to believe en the 
 Lord Jesus Christ, and especially, if we fiitd no satisfac- 
 tory evidence that any person, not thus ordained, and 
 not acting on an extraordinary or special comniission 
 from the Head of the church, ever did baptize or bi e<.k 
 the bread, or bless the cup, that was used in the celebra- 
 tion of the Lord's Supper, then it will clearly follow, 
 that to perform these services, or to administer these 
 ordinances, appertains to the work of the ministry, as 
 w^ell as the preaching of the gospel. In proof, as well as 
 by way of illustration of the fact, opposed to the fact 
 urged by Mr. C, it is worthy of notice, that when Barna- 
 bas and Saul, (afterward called Paul,) were separated, 
 set apart, or ordained, by fasting and prayer and imposi- 
 tion of hands, at Antioch, by the special command of the 
 Holy Ghost, " for the work ichereuntd'^ he had called 
 them, we are not informed by the history of that ordina- 
 tion, what was the particular nature of that work. By 
 the subsequent part of that history, we learn, however, 
 that they went forth in consequence of such ordination, 
 and " preached the word of God," first to the Jews, 
 (Acts 13:1 — 5,) but when they put it from them, and 
 judged tliemseives " unworthy of everlasting life," (ver. 
 46,) they turned to the Gentile?. We further learn, 
 (chap. 14:23,) that another part of their work was to or- 
 dain elders, for they did thus set men apart in every 
 church. It was, then, in pursuance of this special com- 
 mission, that Paul first became the apostle of the Gen- 
 
 ♦ U 
 
118 
 
 DEBATE 01? 
 
 tiles; and we learn that the labors of himself and his 
 companion Barnabas, were not in vain. Their preach- 
 ing was in the demonstration of the Spirit, in conse- 
 quence of which " the Gentiles were glad, and glorified 
 tiic word of the Lord." (ver. 43.) As the fruit of their 
 labors, sinners were converted to the faith, churches 
 were established, and elders ordained in them. Now, I 
 a.sk who baptized such as professed their faith? Not Paul, 
 or at least if he did baptize, it must have been very few, 
 for he himself declares, (1 Cor. 1:14 — 16,) that he bap- 
 tized none but Crispus, and Gaius, and the household of 
 Stephanus; and it moreover appears, by the history of 
 tiie Acts of the Apostles, that Crispus was not converted 
 until after the fulfilment of this special commission. 
 Nor can we conclude that Paul directed the converts to 
 baptize one another, according to the principle advocated 
 by Mr. C, for as they preached the gospel to Gentiles, 
 where no church, or church members existed, it follows 
 that they must have been baptized by Barnabas, who 
 was not an apostle, but an ordained minister of Christ. 
 
 What thus appears clear as a matter of inference, in 
 this instance, is put beyond all possible doubt, by the fact 
 that Philip not only baptized the Eunuch, but the num- 
 bers who professed their faith under his preaching at 
 Samaria. But the baptism of the Eunuch, is adduced by 
 Mr. C. as an instance of that ordinance having been ad- 
 ministered by a layman. Can it be possible that Mr. C. 
 is so ignorant of the history of the Acts of the Apostles, 
 about which he writes and harangues so much, as not to 
 know, that notwithstanding Philip was one of the seven 
 v/ho were first chosen by the people, in pursuance of the 
 direction of the apostles, and ajfterwards by them set apart 
 to "serve tables," &c. he was also an evangelist. (Acts 2 1:8.) 
 ^vVhen therefore we consider that the apostle enumerates 
 'v/angehsts, among the various grades of the servants and 
 ministers of Christ, the case of the Eunuch's baptism by 
 Philip, proves my position, but disproves that of Mr. C 
 He also refers to the baptism of Paul by Ananias, as 
 another instance of a layman having administered the 
 
CAMPBELLISM. 
 
 119 
 
 ordinance. It seems to me there are answers to the argu- 
 ment drawn from this case, neither of which can be re- 
 sisted. The first is, that the fact that Ananias was a 
 mere layman, is not, and cannot be estabHshed. The 
 contrary, it would seem from the nature of the service 
 he was called to perform, would be a reasonable inference. 
 But be that as it may, Ananias had a special commission 
 from the head of the church, and if any CampbelHte is 
 able to produce a similar authority, I shall no longer 
 object to his administering the ordinance, though he be 
 in other respects a layman. The only remaining case, 
 referred to by Mr. C, is the command given by Peter, 
 (Acts 10,) that the Centurion and his household should 
 be baptized. Here again Mr. C. rests his argument upon 
 two presumptions — that there were no disciples, except 
 the brethren which accompanied Peter from Joppa, and 
 that all these brethren were laymen. If we were to ad- 
 mit the first presiAiiption to be a reasmahle one, the last, 
 it is considered, is the reverse; at best it leads the mind 
 to no certain conclusion, that baptism in the apostolic 
 church, w^as ever administered by a layman. And when 
 it is considered that we know with certainty the opposite 
 practice existed, and was continued till the darkness and 
 superstition of Popery introduced the doctrine, which is 
 now revived by Mr. 'C, as a part of the ancient gospel, 
 that baptism was essential to salvation, (which led to the 
 introduction 6{ lay baptism, that in cases of necessity the 
 soul might not be lost for the want of the outward appli- 
 cation of water,) we may safely conclude, that the idea 
 of baptism being administered by mere laymen, in the 
 apostoHc church, is a figment of Mr. C.'s imagination. 
 
 With regard to the celebration of the Lord's supper, 
 it is alleged by Mr. C, that the coming together of the 
 disciples to break the loaf at Troas, was adduced to 
 show, that " no official hands or consecrated heads," were 
 required to celebrate this ordinance. Here, again, the 
 argument rests altogether upon presumption. It is pre- 
 sumed, either that there were no pastors or elders in the 
 church at Troas, or if there were, they did not officiate 
 
120 
 
 DEBATE ON 
 
 as such in the celebration of the Lord's supper. Suffice 
 it to say, that the contrary presumptions are, at least in 
 my apprehension, by far the most reasonable, especially 
 when we consider the declaration of Paul, (1 Cor. 10:16.) 
 " The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the commu^ 
 nion of the blood of Christ? the bread which we break, 
 is it not the communion of the body of Christ?" Mr. C. 
 alleges, that in the debate, I did not attempt to sustain 
 this text, as spoken of the apostle's breaking the loaf. If 
 he means that I did not attempt to sliow Irom this pas- 
 sage that the apostles alone, or exclusively of othej^ elders, 
 or pastors or teachers, administered or celebrated the or- 
 dinance of the supper, he is correct. I considered, and 
 still consider, that Paul, in this passage, included all the 
 ordained ministers of Christ, as well as the apostles. For 
 these last, as well as the former, were but servants of 
 Christ who acknowledged themselves to be elders, in 
 common with their brethren, who had been ordained or 
 set apart to the work of the ministry, though at the same 
 time they had an extraordinary commission as apostles, 
 and were endued for special purposes, with the Spirit of 
 inspiration. 
 
 My denying, therefore, that I considered myself as a 
 successor of the apostles, as such, neither touched the 
 question of a succession of a regular ministry, nor yet 
 had any bearing upon that under discussion. I would 
 further observe, that, if Mr. C. means to contend, that in 
 the passage just quoted, the apostle has no allusion to the 
 Lord's supper, it shows, according to my judgment, the 
 weakness of his cause. I therefore, upon a review of the 
 whole matter, assume this pjosition, which I am ready to 
 think every candid and impartial reader will think to be 
 sufficiently supported, that nothing less than precept or 
 example, drawn from the New Testament, not by doubt- 
 ful presumptions, or vague inferences, but by the express 
 declaration of the sacred writer or historian, ought to be 
 considered as a sufficient warrant for the administration 
 of either the ordinance of baptism, or the Lord's supper 
 by laymen. Whether such precept or example, has been. 
 
CAMPBELLiSM. 
 
 121 
 
 or can be shown, by Mr. C, let the candid reader de» 
 termine. 
 
 That part of Mr. C.'s narrative which has already come 
 under consideration, does assume something of the form 
 of a history of the debate, though partial, garbled and 
 containing much misrepresentation. An instance of 
 which is found on page 114 of his Harbinger, containing 
 his narrative, where he asserts that I " put to sea, and 
 only touched upon the coast of foreign countries, never 
 entering a single harbor." Another instance of misrepre- 
 sentation, as well as a false assertion, are found on the 
 next page, where Mr. C. represents me as " having first 
 plead [pleaded] that a man's desire for the office of a 
 bishop, was a special call to the work," and afterwards 
 having abandoned " that point." 
 
 The direct false assertion to which I have alluded, is, 
 that with the alleged abandonment of Uiat point " ended 
 any thing lihe discussion on Saturday.''^ It seems to have 
 suited Mr. C.'s views to suppress, as far as possible, all 
 account of what I considered the most important parts 
 of the discussion on Saturday. He has therefore thought 
 proper to despatch his account of the remainder of that 
 day's debate in two short paragraphs, which, besides his 
 allusion to the wounded Parthian, and his briUiant at- 
 tempt at wit in misrepresenting me as flying from point 
 to point — from Point Look-out, to Point Look-in, &c., 
 contains two other direct assertions that are positively 
 false, and which I shall notice in due time. The simple 
 and naked truth is, that instead of touching only upon the 
 coasts of foreign countries, with an array of facts clad in 
 the bright robe of truth, and supported by the sharp and 
 two edged sword of the Spirit, I not only invaded the 
 coast, but I trust was enabled to make a breach upon the 
 enchanted castle of this giant of error, which it is hoped 
 he will not be able to repair. In this conflict, whether 
 he or myself was wounded, let the impartial part of the 
 audience decide; for if I was the wounded person, I was 
 not conscious of it. And instead of flying from paint 
 to point" I was under the strong impression, that under 
 
122 
 
 DBBATE ON' 
 
 the attacks that were made on Saturday, (and especially 
 after the time when Mr. C. represents every thing like 
 discussion had ended,) as well upon his integrity as a 
 compiler of a new version of the New Testament, as u}> 
 on his principles, he was so pressed by the sharp point of 
 the weapon of truth, that he rather resembled a wounded 
 Parthian, who, notwithstanding all his boasted dexterity 
 and prowess was compelled to " look out," as well as to 
 " look in." In other words, to put in requisition all his re- 
 sources, as well to discover a way of escape, as to main- 
 tain an affected composure, that did but very imperfectly 
 conceal the torture under which he writhed. Mr. C. 
 may misunderstand or misrepresent what I have here 
 said, as he did my allusion, in the commencement of the 
 debate on Saturday, to the case of David meeting the 
 giant of Gath with a sling and stone, and represent me 
 in this instance, as he seems to have in that, as boasting 
 of what I at least supposed I had done. Such, however, 
 in the instance alluded to, was not, as I trust in this case 
 it is not» the fact. I knew that in the opinion not only of 
 all his followers, but also of many others, Mr. C. possess- 
 ed, and especially in public debate, besides a giant's 
 strength, more than Parthian dexterity; and that the con- 
 fident expectation of all these, was, that such a pigmy aa 
 myself must be speedily, if not instantly, overthrown. My 
 allusion, therefore, to the conflict between Jesse's son, 
 and Gath's boasted giant, was intended as an apology for 
 my apparent presumption, in having accepted, under an 
 imperious sense of duty, the challenge of this champion of 
 error, who had long been in the habit of defying the ar- 
 mies (not of Calvinism, as Mr. C. has falsely represented, 
 but) of evangelical Christians of every name, who were 
 considered as belonging to the armies of the Hving God. 
 As I trust I was in some measure conscious of my own 
 weakness, and therefore entered into the contest with 
 some degree of the same sensible dependence upon, and 
 trust in, " the Lord Jehovah, in whom there is everlasting 
 strength," which so pre-eminently was exhibited by the 
 beardless shepherd youth, v hen advancing to meet the 
 
CAMPBELLISSr. 
 
 12S 
 
 Philistine, confident and boasting in his own strength; so 
 I believed, and still believe, (and this belief is certainly ia 
 accordance with that of a vast majority of all that part 
 oi' the audience that could be said to be in any degree im- 
 partial, or whose minds were at all open to conviction,) 
 the result was in some measure the same, I am not, 
 therefore, boasting of my strength or skill, and if in that 
 conflict, I was enabled in any degree to exhibit the one, 
 or to exert the other, all the glory is due to " Jehovah 
 my strength," who himself declares his strength to be 
 perfected in weakness, and " who teacheth" the hands 
 of his servants " to war," and their " fingers to fight." 
 
 After " any thing like discussion on Saturday" had 
 ended, according to the fa/se assertion of Mr. C, he adds, 
 " 'Tis true he read and commented on some extracts 
 from his manuscript sermons on Divine operations," &c. 
 This, also, so far from being true is false, absolutely 
 false. I had not then, or at any time during the debate, 
 in my immediate possession, any of my " manuscript ser* 
 mons," or any extracts from them. Nor did I look at, 
 or make the least use of any manuscript sermons, during 
 the discussion with any reference thereto. It is true, ne- 
 vertheless, that before the return of Mr. C. from Colum- 
 bia, and when it began to be generally expected that a 
 further discussion would take place, I noted some of tli« 
 most exceptionable points advanced by him in the dis- 
 course I had heard him deliver, as well as a number of 
 passages of scripture upon which he professed, as well 
 as others, and upon which, I intended in case of a further 
 debate, to rely. As also, a number of passages in the 
 New Testament, which I considered to be materially al- 
 tered or corrupted in his version, together with some 
 brief memoranda of the result of such a critical examin- 
 ation of the same, as time and circumstances permitted 
 me to make. And the circumstance of my using these 
 brief notes, during the debate, was fully sufficient in the 
 view of Mr. C. to warrant hini in making the false and 
 reckless assertion, which, as will be seen in the sequel of 
 his narrative, he in substance not only repeats, but aggra- 
 
124 
 
 DEBATE OK 
 
 vates, by the insinuation, that in order to get a fresh 
 supply, I, Hke himself, dealt in dissimulation and false- 
 hood, and that I read and commented on extracts from 
 my manuscript sermons. 
 
 Mr. C. further states, that I " even professed to criticise 
 some phrases in the new version, and represented Dr. 
 Macknight as a formalist, because a dry })reacher." In 
 this statement there is some faint resemblance, or slight 
 approximation to, a true repre>entation of what was, at 
 least, attempted to be done. As I considered the " neio 
 version" one of the greatest and most dangerous imposi- 
 tions which has been attempted to be practised upon the 
 public, by any pretended religionist of the present day, I 
 next entered upon a brief examination of Mr. C.'s qualifi- 
 cations, as well as pretensions to integrity and impartial- 
 ity, as a compiler of " the new version;" and also of the 
 merits or truth and accuracy of the version itself. To 
 enter upon the discussion of this subject, Mr. C. evidently 
 manifested great reluctance. He loudly complained, that 
 I would not stick to any one subject, but kept flying from 
 one point, or subject, to another. He moreover alleged, 
 that that was neither the time nor place to discuss the 
 merits of the new version. He professed his readiness, at 
 any time, to vindicate it against any, and all attacks that 
 could be made upon it, provided there could be a proper, 
 or competent tribunal constituted or erected, that would 
 be well acquainted vnth the original (or Greek language) 
 in which the New Testament was w^ritten; but insisted it 
 would be useless, if not absurd, to enter into the discus- 
 sion of this subject before such an audience, as was then 
 present. 
 
 To me it seemed inconsistent, and absurd, that Mr. C, 
 who had challenged objections to his views, should after- 
 wards complain when objections were made, that they 
 were multiplied too fast upon his hands; or, in other 
 words, that I w^ould not confine myself to one subject. 
 It was, however, replied, that I would have no objection 
 to gratify Mr. C. so far, at least, as to dwell upon each 
 topic I advanced, as long as it could with any propriety 
 
CAMPBELLISM. 
 
 125 
 
 be desired, were I not so straitened for time. But as I 
 had an extensive field before me, which I wished to tra- 
 verse in company with Mr. C, I was under the necessity 
 of moving with as much celerity as the nature of the 
 case would admit. That his objections to entering upon 
 the examination of the merits of the new version, were 
 predicated upon the gratuitous assumption, which was 
 contrary to the fact, that there were no persons present 
 acquainted with the original language of the New Tes- 
 tament, or quahfied to judge the question then to be 
 discussed. 
 
 The objection, moreover, came with a very bad grace 
 from Mr. C, who, with an affected display of his learn- 
 ing, so frequently, in his public harangues, resorts to, and 
 criticises upon the original Greek of the New Testament; 
 and especially when he wishes to make it speak a lan- 
 guage different from our long approved version; or, 
 when that cannot be done, to wrest its true meaning in 
 support of his religious infidelity, as in the case before 
 alluded to, where he talked so much about musterion. 
 That he had not been backward in our first debate to 
 recur to the Greek, for the first of the purposes just 
 mentioned, is also evident from his criticism upon the 
 word TouTO, (Eph. 2:8.) It evidently seemed therefore 
 that Mr. C. was himself conscious, there was " something 
 rotten in the state of Denmark;" or, in plain language, 
 that this subject of the new version, with the facts^ and 
 circumstances therewith connected, could not bear ex- 
 amination, without furnishing sufficient cause for " shame 
 and confusion of face" on his part. And it is due to Mr. 
 C. to say, that, unless many w^ere greatly mistaken, the 
 progress of the discussion of this particular subject, evin- 
 ced, that he can yet blush, notwithstanding any opinions 
 that may have been entertained to the contrary. 
 
 Notwithstanding the great reluctance of Mr. C. to 
 enter upon the discussion of this subject, it was observed 
 in continuation of the debate, that of all men in our coun- 
 try, it was conceived that he was the most unqualified to 
 undertake, even the compilation of a new version of any 
 12 
 
DEBATE OJf 
 
 part of the sacred scriptures. To say nofhmg of tlie 
 various acquirements, and ecspeciaily of that deep and 
 unaffected spirit of iiumbie piety, winch the undertaker 
 of such a work ought to possess, — ihe fact that he was^ 
 as lie still is, at the head of a party, and that he had 
 evidently been long laboring to become the founder of a 
 sect, ought to have been, and had he been possessed of 
 a usual share of modesty, would have heeuy sufficient to 
 pre vent him from attempting to put forth a new version 
 of tlie New Testament; and the manner in which he has 
 executed his pretejided compilation, shows clearly, it is 
 conceived, not only his arrogance^, but want of moral in- 
 tegrity. 
 
 That wdth a view to give currency and publicity to fii» 
 own peculiar sentiments, as well as the appearance of 
 then' being supported by the word of God; and also, as. 
 it would evidently seem, with a view to make vioiieyy Mr. 
 C. has attempted to practise a deception upon the public 
 by the publication of his new version, was a position not 
 only assumed, but established, in the discussion; so far at 
 least, as to render his situation and feelings, in the view 
 of a large portion of the audience, far from bemg envia- 
 ble. The facts and circumstances chiefly reUed upon in 
 support of this position, it is now proposed to give in de- 
 tail, with a view that my readers may for themselves 
 determine w^hether it was sufficiently established. That 
 Mr. C.'s motives were such as have been suggested, may 
 be inferred from the circumstance, that for the purposes 
 of the advancement of the cause of tmth, and the promo- 
 tion of pure and undefiled religion, a new version, (much 
 less such a version as that of the Bishop of Bethany,) 
 was not needed. I am aware that it may be alleged, 
 tha^ in assuming this position, there is a begging of the 
 question, or what logicians call a petitio principiL It is- 
 conceived, nevertheless, that such is not the fact. The posi- 
 tion rests upon the undem'able fact, that our standard ver- 
 sion of the scriptures, has, for several generations, received 
 the decided approbation of all sects, that can with any 
 proprietv be said to belong to the Christian world — nos 
 
CAflPBELLlSM, 127 
 
 I 
 
 •OYily of such as were comparatively igrxorant and un- 
 learned, but a] so, and especially of such as have been 
 most distinguished for their learning, among whom have 
 been found Uniuirians, whose candor compelled them to 
 unite in bearing testimony to the superior excellence and 
 accuracy of our English translation of the Bible. If then 
 it would not be considered as involving the petitio prin- 
 cipii, to argue from the established character of the 
 Father of his and our country, for patriotism, skill in the 
 art of war, or pohtical wisdom, (as it is humbly conceived 
 it would not,) much less, can it justly be alleged, that the 
 assertion is a sopliism, that a new version of the New 
 Testament is not needed, unless it be for some sinister 
 design. 
 
 If, indeed, we are to give lieed to Mr. C, and credit 
 his testimony, in opposiiion to that of the Protestant 
 Christian world united, and continued from one centiiry 
 to another, we should be led, as are some of his deluded 
 followers, to a very difterent conclusion. lii the defence 
 of his new version, which he attempted to make in ihfc 
 public discussion, he asserted our standard translation tc 
 be very defective and erroneous; and that in some in- 
 stances, (of which he attempted to specify two,) it had 
 been made to read, as it now does, with a view to have 
 a bearing against the sentiments of the Remonstrants or 
 Arminians, and to support those of Calvin. It is net 
 thought necessary to specify or comment upon those 
 passages in the New Testament to which Mr, C. referred. 
 It is deemed fully sufficient to refute his allegation, to 
 observe that Arminians and Calvinists, at least equally 
 as learned and as well informed upon the subject of our 
 standard translation of the Bible, as Mr. C. himself, have 
 ever most heartily united in bearing theh testimony in 
 favor of its excellence and faithful exhibition of divine 
 revelation, in our own tongue. 
 
 But it may be alleged, as it was, and has frequently, 
 in substance at least, by Mr. C. in defence of his new 
 version, that whatever degree of excellence may be 
 claimed for our standard version of the Eible, it cannot 
 
128 
 
 DEBATE Oi\ 
 
 be asserted that it is like the original, perfect, or unsus- 
 ceptible of any amendment, and to call in question his 
 motives in undertakincr to jrive the ]Xew Testament in a 
 new dress, is virtually passing a censure upon every 
 individual, who, since the reign of James I., has given 
 to the world a translation of the scriptures, different from 
 that which was made by tlie numerous, learned, and 
 pious men, selected by him for that purpose. 
 
 Without undertaking to determine on the undertaking 
 of any one of the individual translators referred to, 
 whether deserving praise or blame, suffice it to observer 
 that however the labors of some of the translators 
 alluded to, have been, or may be found useful, especially 
 to biblical scholars and critics, by shedding additional 
 light upon some passages of the sacred oracles, it is be- 
 lieved that Mr. C. is the first translator, or pretended 
 compiler of a new version, that has ever been so devoid 
 '>f modesty, as to urge the substitution of his oirn work, 
 ia place of that which has been so long approved. Much 
 less is it supposed, that any individual translator, since 
 the general adoption of ilic standard version, has ever 
 been found so full of self-sufficiency and arrogance, as 
 to stand up in a public assembly, under the assumed 
 character of a pubUc teacher, and say to his audience, 
 (as it is the constant habit of Mr. C, with his own version 
 before him,) " let us attend to the word of God." With a 
 view, it is presumed, to exercise their talents and ac- 
 quirements, as well as to edify Christians, and especially 
 such as would desire to search the scriptures thoroughly, 
 the most of the translators alluded to, were induced to 
 undertake the work, and publish the resuh of their labors^ 
 to the church and to the world. At the same time they 
 had no desire, or intention to lessen the estimation in 
 which the old version has so long been deservedly held: 
 much less to supersede its general use, as that standard 
 of truth to which the Christian world at large, who speak 
 the English language, ought to continue, as they have 
 done for centuries, to make their ultimate appeal. But 
 if any of the individual translators of the scripfTires, al- 
 
129 
 
 ready alluded to, were so presumptuous as to publish 
 their respective versions of the scriptures, or any portion 
 of them, with a view or expectation, (such as was evi- 
 dently entertained by Mr. C, in giving his new version 
 to the world,) thereby to supersede that which has been, 
 and continues to be, in general use, the result has proved 
 how greatly they were mistaken in their calcijation?. 
 Still, Mr. C., although pofcssrclly a mere -compiler, has 
 not been disappointed in his expectations, at least, to the 
 same extent. How is this to be accounted for? The 
 translators alluded to, for the most part, at least, were 
 persons of candor, piety, and impartiahty, w^ho had no 
 sectarian or party views to ac-complish — no selfish or 
 ambitious schemes in view. They did not, therefore, 
 strive to make the scriptures speak a language difierent 
 from their true m.eaning, and such as would seem to dis- 
 cover some easier way to heaven. They were willing 
 to rest the claims of their respective translations to the 
 patronage of the Christian public, upon their intrinsic 
 value. And the consequence has been, that however 
 highly some of these translations may have been esteem- 
 ed as a valuable acquisition to a library, no attempt has 
 ever been made to adopt them, or any one of them, 
 instead of that version which has been so long approved. 
 
 But Mr. C. has wisely^ (as it regards his ow^n interest 
 and the promotion of his sinister designs,) identified the 
 claims of his patched version, with his system of divinity, 
 or rather his system of errors, which may well be com- 
 pared to a coat of many colors, and made up of many 
 patches, some of which are indeed very old, and long 
 since were considered to have been worn out, and others 
 are of a more recent fabrication, which, by a bold mis- 
 nomer, he calls the "ancient gospel." The consequence 
 has been, that w^hilst the great body, not only of profess- 
 ing Christians of every evangelical sect, but* also of men 
 of intelligence and candor in our country, who make no 
 profession of religion, have set their seal of decided re- 
 probation upon the new version, of the " Bishop of 
 jBethany," all his converts or proselvtes, as a matter of 
 
 *12 
 
 I 
 
130 
 
 DEBATE OJf 
 
 course, receive it as containing the lively oracles of 
 Gad. And when it is considered that he boasts of his 
 150,000 followers, (the most, if not all of whom, we may 
 conclude, have become pmxhasers of his New Testa- 
 ment,) and the increasing progress of what he calls the 
 cause of reform, it cannot but be perceived what a strong 
 temptation was presented to his cupidity, in undertaking 
 to furnish a new version. The facts and circumstances 
 from which it was, and still is inferred, that he yielded 
 to the temptation, and that a desire to make money was 
 one of his gOA'erning motives in giving to the world his 
 New Testament, I shall now distinctly present to view. 
 Whether they will prove as convincing to my readers, 
 as they evidently did to a great majority of the hearers, 
 yet remains to be seen. The principal, or leading fact, 
 from which the inference just stated was drawn, was, 
 that whilst in defence of his new version, and in justifi- 
 cation of his own conduct in reference to its publication, 
 he labored to produce a conviction in the minds of the 
 audience, that the old version was very defective and 
 erroneous; and that the cause of truth and the salvation 
 of perishing men, called loudly for a new version, such 
 as his. He had been careful to secure " the copy right" 
 to himself according to the provisions of an act of Con- 
 gress, in that case made and provided. And further, 
 that not consent with the profits of his first, he had con- 
 tinued to hold on to the same right in the publication of 
 his second edition. From which it evidently appeared, 
 that however important to the cause of truth, and the 
 salvation of souls, he deemed his version of the New 
 Testament to be, still he would rather that trath should 
 su^er injury, and souls perish " for lack of knowledge," 
 than that he should lose his profits upon the work. What 
 would have been thought, and what would not have been 
 said, and that too by Mr. C. himself, had the translators 
 of the Bible, under the reign of king James, used similar 
 means to fine their pockets as a reward for their labors? 
 This strong fact, which w^as brought out in full relief to 
 public \dew, seemed to be quite unexpected by the 
 
CAMPBELLISM. 
 
 131 
 
 Bishop, as well as productive of some perturbation on 
 his part. Prudence prevented him I'rom attempting any 
 justification or apology, for this part of his conduct. In 
 connection with this, there was another fact, of which I 
 was not then in possession; had it then been disclosed, I 
 cannot undertake to say what might have been the con- 
 sequence in reference to the Bishop's composure of mind, 
 or his nervous system. 
 
 Whilst Mr. C. lends the whole weight of his authority 
 and influence in circulating the slanders fabricated by 
 the enemies of truth, against the American Bible Society, 
 and particularly on the occasion of the debate, stated, 
 that he had seen in some periodical, (the name and pub- 
 lisher of which he was careful to withhold,) a statement 
 by some writer of intelligence, who seemed to be well 
 acquainted with the proceedings of the Society, that the 
 actual cost of every Bible distributed, or put gratuitously 
 into circulation by that institution, was seven dollars. 
 And while the American Bible Society sell the whole 
 Bible, neatly printed and well bound, as low as fifty or 
 fifty five cents; and while, in consequence of their bene- 
 volent operations, the New Testament can be purchased 
 from twenty-two down to twelve cents a copy, it is a 
 fad., that in Nashville, at least, the new version of the 
 second edition, of the smallest size and cheapest mate- 
 rials, is retailed at one hundred and twenty cents a copy* 
 When we see the enormous profits arising from the pub- 
 lication of this work, all flpwing into the pockets of the 
 Bishop of Bethany, can any one resist the conviction, 
 that his principal object was to realize, (as he must al- 
 ready have done from this and his other pubKcations,) 
 an estate of no trifling magnitude? As corroborative of 
 the inference drawn from the facts above stated, I would 
 advert not only to the circumstances already stated, of Mr. 
 C. lending the influence of his pen and his tongue*, to give 
 currency to the vile slanders that are from time to time 
 
 * It is retailed in Pittsburgh at one dollar and twenty-Jive cents p^r 
 copy, according to Mr. C.'s directions. — Ed. 
 
132 
 
 DEBATE ON 
 
 propagated against the American Bible Society, as well 
 as the otiier benevolent institutions which exist in our 
 country; but also to the fact, that he, as well as many of 
 his followers, seize with greediness every occasion that 
 is presented, to disparage and bring into disrepute, th.e 
 old version; and especially by alhxing thereto the apj el- 
 lation of " the king's translation," and to the learned and 
 pious men, who executed the work with such unparalleled 
 fidehty and abihty, that of the " knig's translators." He 
 well knows how to take advantage of the prejudice wh^'ch 
 exists in the minds of the free-born sons of the United 
 States, against that which savors of monarchy, and es- 
 pecially that of Great Britain, by which we, or our 
 fathers, were once oppressed. But however well founded 
 or commendable this prejudice, in regard to politics or 
 government, Mr. C. cannot but be well a^vare, that no 
 substantial objection can be raised against the old version, 
 because it was prepared, not only under the reign, but 
 the immediate direction of a king. If this were indeed a 
 just cause for such objection, it might with equal force 
 be alleged against the Septuagint translation of the Old 
 Testament into Greek, (which was made some two cen- 
 turies before the birth of our Saviour, and which appears 
 to have been the version of the Old Testament scriptures, 
 that was uniformly quoted by him, as well as his apostles,) 
 for this translation was made by seventy learned Jews, 
 in pursuance of the direction or command of one of the 
 kings of Egypt. What then, it is asked, can be the mo- 
 tive of Mr. C. in thus laboring to lessen the estimation in 
 which the old version is held, by the people of these 
 United States, if it be not to promote the sale of his own 
 wares, and thereby to increase his stores? 
 
 In detailing the series of proof, relied upon to show the 
 deception practised upon the pubHc by ]\Ir. C, in the 
 publication of his new version, the reader is, in the first 
 place, referred to the title page of the work. This may 
 w^ell be compared to a false sign hung out at the door 
 of a house of entertainment, with a view to draw in cus- 
 tomers. It is well known that the great mass of such as 
 
CAMPBELLISM. 
 
 133 
 
 would be most likely to purchase this new version, belong 
 to that class of readers, who are guided in forming a 
 judgment concerning the books they purchase, by the 
 title they bear. Of this Mr. C. could not but be well 
 aware, and he knew as well how to turn it to his advan- 
 tage. The title page, therefore, of his version, informs 
 his readers, that it was "translated from the original 
 Greek, by George Campbell, James M'Knight, and 
 Philip Doddridge, Doctors of the Church of Scotland;'* 
 when in fact Dr. D. was an English Dissenter and a 
 Congregationalist, or Independent, in principle, and in 
 all his ecclesiastical connection. Here we are at once 
 met with a misrepresentation, which thousands of the 
 readers of the new version, would not be possessed of 
 sufficient information to correct. And the only excuse 
 offered by Mr. C, (found under the head of Errata, or 
 mistakes, in his 2d edition at the close of the volume,) is, 
 that " since the publication' of the first edition, he had 
 learned that P. Doddridge, D. D., was not a Presbyte- 
 rian, but a Congregationalist, or a Doctor amongst the 
 English Independents." Upon this pitiful excuse for a 
 misrepresentation of a fact, which when properly con- 
 sidered, will, it is behoved, justly affix disgrace to the 
 author of the new version, it is very obvious to remark, 
 that the Bishop of Bethany finds himself in a dilemma. That 
 his veracity and integrity may not be impugned, he is will- 
 ing, nay desirous, that his readers should beheve him to be 
 very ignorant, notwithstanding his high pretensions. But 
 admitting that Mr. C.'s knowledge of men and things, 
 is not so extensive or so accurate as many would sup- 
 pose, and his loud sounding pretensions would imply, — 
 can it after all be believed, that he really did not know, 
 when he pubhshed his first edition, that Phihp Doddridge 
 never was a Doctor of the church of Scotland? The 
 Bishop of Bethany, a native of Ireland, and educated at 
 one of the colleges or universities of Scotland, and corb- 
 versant with the writings of Philip Doddridge, and yet 
 not know that he was neither a Scotsman, nor a Doctor ^ 
 of the Church of Scotland! The question will arise in 
 
134 
 
 DEBATE Off 
 
 the mind of every reader, how could he remain ignorant 
 of the fact? Was he, it is again asked, ignorant of iii 
 Credat Judmis Apelles! But if Mr. C. did not know 
 that Philip Doddridge was not a Doctor of the church of 
 Scotland, before he published his first edition, ought he 
 not, and had he been actuated by that regard for candor 
 and truth, which ought to characterize every author, and 
 especially an author of a version of the scriptures, would 
 he not have taken care to know that he was a Doctor of 
 the church of Scotland, before he made the formal asser- 
 tion, as contained in the title page? It would require a 
 casuist, such as the Bishop himself, to estimate, in point 
 of morality, the difference between a wilful assertion of 
 that which is false, and a formal and solemn assertion of 
 a thing as a fact, without knowing the same to be true. 
 Nor is this all; if it were a mere mistake into which the 
 Bishop had inadvertently and through ignorance, fallen, 
 why did he not openly and candidly correct the mistake 
 in the 2d edition of his version? Why did he still retain 
 the assertion in the title page, where it must meet the 
 eye of every reader, after he, by his own admission, 
 knew it to be false, whilst he attempts to save apjiear- 
 ances, by inserting his excuse in a note, that by hundreds 
 of his readers may never be observed ? But Mr. C, in 
 the conclusion of the note alluded to, has given his own 
 reason for this procedure. " But, (he adds,) as the Pres- 
 byterians and Congregationalists in this country do 
 amalgamate to a certain extent, the differences are more 
 nominal than real." How this matter stands, will be 
 seen in the sequel; at present, it would seem that his ex- 
 planation amounts to this, that although, in the first edi- 
 tion, he made a reckless assertion in violation of the 
 truth, yet upon the whole, it was in relation to a point 
 which he deems too unimportant to require correction. 
 
 But still it may be asked, what advantage could Mr, 
 C. hope to derive from the alleged misrepresentation? 
 That the inquiry is worthy of attention, is frankly ad- 
 mitted; for it cannot reasonably be supposed, that he 
 would wilfully make the misrepresentation, or retain it 
 
CAMPBELLISM, 
 
 135 
 
 after hnoiinng it to be incorrect, unless he supposed there 
 might be at least something gained. If therefore the title 
 page, in its present form, is calculated to help the sale of 
 his book, (and who can say it is not,) there is at once a 
 reason that will suggest itself to the mind of every one, 
 why the misrepresentation has been retained by Mr. C. 
 in his 2d edition. But there is, perhaps, a still more im- 
 portant reason. It has been alleged that, notwithstand- 
 his strong asseverations to the contrary, one leading ob- 
 ject of Mr. C, in his version, is to support his own sec- 
 tarian or party views, and to give them the appearance 
 of being supported by the word of God. Now one of 
 the positions assumed by him, in support of his views is, 
 that the Greek word, ekklesia, translated church, in our 
 old version, ought invariably to be rendered congi^ega- 
 tion; and as he cites Dr. Doddridge as one of his pre- 
 tended authorities, in support of his view of the meaning 
 of this word, he well knew how much seeming strength 
 his testimony would derive, if it had the appearance of 
 being given by a Presbyterian, instead of a Congrega- 
 tionaUst. It is well known to all who are acquainted 
 with the sentiments of the Independents, or Congrega- 
 tionahsts, and those of Mr. C, that however widely they 
 may difter on other, and more important points, (and that, 
 notwithstanding between the good Dr. D. and Mr. C, 
 there is, in many respects, a difference as great as that 
 between light and darkness, or truth and falsehood,) still, 
 with regard to the abstract point now under considera- 
 tion, there is at least, to some extent, a similarity of 
 views. The opinion, therefore, of Dr. D., as a Congre- 
 gationalist, would not be received with that deference, 
 to which it would be entitled, upon the supposition that 
 he was a Presbyterian in sentiment; as in that case it 
 might be inferred, he had been guided in forming his: 
 judgment by the force of truth alone, in opposition to pre- 
 conceived opinion, or sectarian prejudice. And this was 
 the more important, inasmuch as Mr. C. seems not to 
 have had it in his power to derive even the show of as- 
 sistance in this particular, from his friend Dr. M' Knight, 
 
136 
 
 DEBATE Olf 
 
 and therefore had to place his reliance on wliat he would 
 wish to be considered, (not indeed a three-fold,) but at 
 least, a two-fold cord. But to effect even this, Mr. C. was 
 under the necessity of giving an unfair and garbled re- 
 presentation of the sentiments of Dr. George Campbell, 
 in relation to this subject. The fact is, that Dr. C. takes 
 a distinction between those cases where the word 
 EKKLESiA, is uscd to signify all, without exception, to the 
 end of the world, who have believed, or shall believe on 
 Jesus Christ to the saving of the soul; as for instance, 
 where it is said, " Christ loved the church and gave him- 
 self for it." And such, where the same word is used to 
 denote a single assembly, or congregation of professed 
 worshippers; as where, (Matt. 18:17,) it is said, "if he 
 shall neglect to hear them, tell it to the church.''* In the 
 former cases he w-ould retain the translation, as it is in 
 the old version, in the latter, he is of opinion, that it 
 would be more correctly rendered " congregation.''* 
 
 The discussion of the merits of the question is here 
 purposely avoided, and more especially as they were 
 not discussed in the debate. It is only intended to con- 
 sider the subject, so far as is deemed necessary to expose 
 the deception of the author of the new version, in im- 
 posing that work upon the public, under the authority of 
 names whose sentiments he has garbled and misrepre- 
 sented, to promote his own views. 
 
 If the reader should entertain any doubts concerning 
 what is here alleged concerning the conduct of the 
 Bishop, he is requested to refer to the appendix Na 10, 
 of the new version; and in connection therewith to the 
 note of Dr. George C, upon Matth. 18:17, (a part only 
 of which it suited the purposes of Mr. C. to quote,) and 
 he will have his doubts removed. In the commence- 
 ment of this appendix No. 10, Mr. C. informs his readers 
 that " wherever the word Church is found in the common 
 version, congregation will be found in" the new version. 
 " We shall (he adds) let Drs. Campbell and Doddridge 
 defend this preference. For although they have not al- 
 ways so rendered it, they give the best of reasons why 
 
CAMPBELLISM. 
 
 137 
 
 it should be always so translated." He next proceeds to 
 favor his readers with an extract from a note by Dr. D., 
 and another from the note of Dr. C, not upon the pas- 
 sage (Matth. 16:18,) to which his appendix No. 10 refers, 
 and where the whole body of Christ is spoken of — but 
 on Matt. 18:17, which evidently has an exclusive rela- 
 tion or reference to a single church or congregation of 
 professed worshippers. The concluding part of the note 
 of Dr. C, (which it did not suit the purpose of the Bishop 
 to quote,) not only shows how the views of the former in 
 relation to the translation of the word ekklesia, have 
 been garbled and misrepresented by the latter; but also 
 that, contrary to what every reader of the appendix No. 
 10, who was not informed particularly of the truth of 
 the case, would conclude, Dr. C. in the very passage to 
 which the appendix refers, has retained the word church. 
 In addition to what Mr. C. saw proper to quote, Dr. C. 
 adds: "but in ch. 16:18, where our Lord manifestly speaks 
 of all without exception, who, to the end of the world, 
 should receive him as the Messiah, the Son of the living 
 God; I have retained the word churchy as being there 
 perfectly unequivocal." This observation would seem 
 to commend itself to the understanding of every person 
 of candor, and is more than can be said of the Bishop's 
 translation of the same passage, — On this rock I will 
 build my congregation," — the question arises wdiat con- 
 gregation? The term, to say the least of it, is undefined and 
 equivocal. Not the translation in our standard version, 
 ** On this rock I will build my church." Every one who 
 has any knowledge of the New Testament, at once un- 
 derstands with Dr. C, what is intended here by the 
 term church, even the whole body of Christ purchased 
 by his blood. 
 
 Notwithstanding Mr. C. has the modest assurance to 
 assert, in the conclusion of the appendix No. 10, " there 
 is no good reason given, nor can there be any produced, 
 for departing in any instance, irom (what he modestly 
 calls) tlie acknowledged meaning of a word of such fre- 
 quent occurrence, and more especially when it is contetKl- 
 13 
 
138 
 
 DEBATE O!^ 
 
 ed that this tenn fitly represents the original one. Th-s 
 term church or kirk (he adds) is aa abbreviation of the 
 word [words] kuriou oikos, the house of the Lord, and 
 does not translate the term ekklesia.*' 
 
 If the Bishop means that the word churchy as au abbre- 
 viation of the Greek words which signify " the house of 
 the Lord," does not liter alhj translate the word ekklesia^ 
 he says that which is correct; but if he means, as it would 
 seem he does, that it does not (and especially in reference 
 CO Matth. 16:18, as well as many other passages which 
 refer to the church which Christ loved, and purchased with 
 his owQ blood.) give the true meaning of the original, he 
 is most manifestly, not to say perversely, incorrect. His 
 position is indeed so directly in opjposition to the truth,, 
 that it is fearlessly affirmed (for it is as wall be seeo 
 presently.) upon divine authority, that it is this very 
 Li-anslation, which removes all uncertainty as to the 
 meaning of the term^ which at least in many instances, 
 must attach to the w^ord congregation. " But if I tarry 
 long, (said the apostle in his first letter to Timothy,) that 
 tiiou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself 
 in the house of God (en cmko theou), which is the church. 
 (L:Kklesia.) of the living God." Thus it appears, that 
 the translators of the standard version, had better an- 
 thiority than that of the Bishop of Bethany for transla- 
 ting the tenn eki^lesia, and especially in the passage in 
 Matth> 16:18, as well as in all other passages, which re- 
 fer to the possessions of Christ, by a word which signi- 
 fies the house of God. 
 
 Tiie deception thus practised by the author of the new 
 version, which has, it is conceived, been made clearly to 
 apDear,.is nevertheless of smaH importance compared with 
 what yet remains to be exposed to view. When we 
 consider the strong asseverations of the author, contained 
 ]fr hif> preface, that in putting forth his version he had no 
 'o(\"/arian object in view, in connection with the humble 
 T^relensions of the title page,, which professes to be the 
 tr-^i'sl^tiiovf not of the Bishop of Bethany, but of three 
 " Doctors of the Church of Scotland," it could not have 
 
C'AMPBELLISM, 
 
 139 
 
 Been supposed that their authority was in any instance 
 to be superseded by that of the compiler, or that his 
 translation was to be substituted for theirs; and especially 
 as he gives no intimation of any such procedure even in 
 his preface. Yet this he has done in numerous instances. 
 If it be alleged that he has a right so to do, this will not 
 excuse, much less justify, the deception practised in repre- 
 senting the whole, as the translation of others and not hjs 
 own. If it should be further alleged that he has given 
 his readers notice of the alterations made in the transla- 
 tion in the numerous appendices attached to the work, it 
 is asked why he did not also give some intimation of it m 
 the title page? He there indeed gives notice of " an ap- 
 pendix," but it is such a notice as is calculated still fur- 
 ther to deceive the unwary in relation to this very sub- 
 ject. He describes the appendix as " containing critical 
 notes and various translations of difficult passages/' but 
 not the least hint is given, that any of these various (or 
 any other) translations of difficult passages are transferred 
 to the text, and substituted for the translation of any of 
 his three authors. And who does not believe, or rather 
 feel assured, that hundreds, if not thousands, have read 
 this version, without ever having adverted to the appert- 
 dices, in such manner as to have distinguished between 
 what belongs to the three translators, whose names hold 
 so conspicuous a place in the title page, and that which 
 has been introduced upon the Bishop's own authority, or 
 foisted into the text from other translators, and which 
 will be noticed in the sequel. 
 
 In addition to the numerous alterations already noticed, 
 not only of our standard version, but of the versions of 
 his own translators, made by Mr. C. upon his own autho- 
 rity, I shall notice one other, of still more importance, as 
 well as of very frequent occurrence in the new version. 
 The alteration alluded to, seems to be so well calculated 
 to expose, not only the deception, but the arrogance of 
 the Bishop, that the bare recital of the facts and circum- 
 stances, connected therewith upon the occasion of the 
 4ebate, seemed not only to make a deep impression upon 
 
140 
 
 DEBATE OK 
 
 the audience, but even, for a short time, at least, to make 
 the author himself restless. In order that the alteration, 
 which is now to be noticed, may be viewed in a proper 
 light, let it be remembered that the Christian world has for 
 centuries been divided, and no doubt honestly and sin- 
 cerely divided in sentiment, with regard to what was the 
 THode of baptism originally ordained or appointed by the 
 great Head of the church, and that this diversity of senti- 
 ment, has arisen chiefly from a difference of opinion, or 
 judgment, concerning the meaning of two or three Idn- 
 dred words in the original language of the New Testa- 
 ment. And let it be further recollected, that there have 
 ever been many men, on both sides of this disputed 
 question, equally learned and pious, and who, in these 
 particulars, have certainly not been excelled by the 
 Bishop of Bethany. 
 
 In such case, what was, and still continues to be the 
 duty required of Christians, whatever may be their pecu- 
 liar sentiments upon this subject, and however well they 
 may be persuaded in their own minds, (as they certainly 
 ought to be,) that their own opinions are correct? There 
 would seem to be but one answer to this inquir)^ that 
 could be suggested to the candid and huinbled mind. 
 The duty required is mutual forbearance. And although 
 it has happened, as it ever will, among imperfect men, 
 that in the discussion of this subject, as well as of others 
 connected with religion, that angry disputations have 
 sometimes arisen, still the two great bodies of the Chris* 
 tian world, who have been thus long divided, have never- 
 theless exercised towards each other a good degree of 
 forbearance and candor, and regarded each other as 
 brethren in Christ, engaged in the same great and glori- 
 ous cause, and journeying to the same heavenly country* 
 Again, it is asked, in view of this diversity of sentiment 
 aunong Christians, what was the duty required of the 
 translators of the Bible, that produced the standard ver- 
 sion, to which all sects who speak the English language, 
 have so long appealed? Could it have been considered 
 expedient, or even justifiable ia them, whatever may have 
 
CAMPBELLISM. 
 
 141 
 
 been their own private opinions, to have so translated the 
 words in the original, already alluded to, as thereby to 
 decide the doubtful and long disputed question? Would 
 such a translation have been the result of candor, impar- 
 tiality, or forbearance; or would it, as has the present 
 version, served as the g^ce staridard, to which all sects or 
 denominations could with confidence appeal? On the 
 contrary, would it not have been considered, and justly 
 too, even by the candid of all parties, as a sectarian 
 translation, made with a view not so much to promote 
 the cause of truth and pure religion, as the view^s and 
 interests of some predominant party? 
 
 It is evident that such were the views entertained by 
 the translatoi*s of our excellent version, and therefore 
 they adopted the plan, equally wise and prudent, of mere- 
 ly changing the Greek terms into English, leaving it to 
 every individual Christian, to determine for himself= 
 what is the true meaning of the original terms, and what 
 the true, or most scriptural mode of baptism. The wisdom 
 and prudence of this measure, have jong been evinced,, 
 not only by the fact, that ail that part of the Protesta-nt 
 Christian world who speak the EngHsh tongue, have a})- 
 proved of it, but also by the fact, well worthy of parti- 
 cular notice, that no translator of the Bible, or New 
 Testament, or compiler of any new version of either, 
 since the completion of the common version, and before the 
 bold Bishop of Bethany appeared, has ventured so far to 
 brave the public opinion on this point; or, as it is believed, 
 has thought it right to change our translation in tbis paricu- 
 lar, whatever his own sentiments may have been, or how- 
 ever confirmed he may have been in the rectitude of hjs 
 opinions. This bold step, it well became the Bishop of Beth- 
 any to take; it is not the only instance in which, like his 
 brother of Rome, he has assumed infallibility to himself. 
 Can any thing be even conceived of, more arrogant? A man, 
 who, as an author, 'professes to be no more than an hun. bie 
 compiler of a version of the New Testament, from the works 
 of three translators, yet, in opposition to their authority, 
 and by his own individual authority, hesitates not to make 
 
 * 13 
 
142 
 
 DEIBATE ON 
 
 an alteration, invohing a decision of a question, for the 
 whole of that part of Protestant Christendom who speak 
 EngUsh, upon which they have long been divided, and 
 for a satisfactory decision of which, the united wisdom 
 of Christians could neither devise any method, nor erect 
 any tribunal. And yet this is not all, nor have we yet 
 arrived at the summit of this man's arrogance. If the 
 views of Mr. C. concerning the nature and effect of bap- 
 tism, accorded with those of the various sects of evange^ 
 lical Christians, the alteration made by him, in his ver- 
 sion of the New Testament, so as to make baptism cor>- 
 clusively to mean, and to be vahd only when performed 
 by irnmersion, would still have been bold, unprecedented, 
 and unwarrantable, but still it would not have so high a 
 degree of presumption and bigotry, as it now has, when 
 it is considered, that according to his creed, there is no 
 forgiveness for such as have not been immersed, and 
 that immersion is the only means of washing away our 
 sins. It is then fearlessly asked, if the Bishop of Bethany 
 could have acted more in the style of a Pope? First he 
 decides, without hesitation, a question that has for many 
 ages divided the Christian world, and then suspends the 
 salvation of the soul, or, which is the same thing in sub- 
 stance, the forgiveness of sins and acceptance with God, 
 upon an implicit acquiescence in his decision. Mr. C 
 seems to have been in some measure aware of the bold- 
 ness of the step he was about to take, or at least that it 
 would justly be thus deemed by the community at large, 
 and that some apoIog\' or justification of his conduct 
 would be needed. He therefore, in his app. Na 4, makes 
 a declaration, (whether the reader may believe it or not,) 
 in the presence of Him who searches the heart, (in plain 
 lang^uasre, he takes a solemn and voluntary oath,) " that 
 no interest, inducement, or consideration, could, in an 
 undertaking^ so solemn and responsible, as that in which** 
 he was eii^aixed, cause him " to depart in the least re- 
 spect from^what" he believed '* to be the meaning of the 
 sacred penmen." 
 Upon this, it is very obvious, in the first place^ to re- 
 
CAMPBELLISM. 
 
 143 
 
 mark, that it must afford a strong ground to suspect the 
 honesty of any man, if he begins to excuse, and especially 
 il' he attempts to purge himself upon oath, before he 19 
 accused of any cnnie. What would have been thought, 
 and whai would not the Bishop himself have said of the 
 king's translators, had they pursued a similar course, 
 instead of honestly and conscientiously performing the 
 work assigned them, and leaving the result of their la- 
 bors to commend itself to every man's judgment and con- 
 science, as in the sight of God." 
 
 But the inquiry very naturally arises, was Mr. C. under 
 any necessity to make tliis alteration in the translatioD 
 of the New Testament, to avoid a departure " in the least 
 respect, from what he professed to believe to be the 
 meaning of the sacred penmenf" If so, he is not with- 
 out excuse. But such was evidently not the case. Al- 
 though the words baptize and baptism, adopted by the 
 translators of our version, do not explain, they certainly 
 do not " depart in the least respect," from " the meaning 
 of the sacred penmen." That is purposely left to he 
 sought after by eveiy serious inquirer for the truth; but 
 tliis did not suit the views of Mr. C, who, according to 
 his own showing, began, about the time he prepared his 
 new version, to feel the importance, and to practise upon 
 the tendencies of the doctrine of immersion for the re- 
 mission of sins, or the only means of obtaining a " change 
 from the state of condemnation to the state of favor" 
 with God; and therefore it became necessary, or at least 
 expedient, in his view, to estabhsh by his decree, what 
 should thenceforth be held as the true signification of 
 words, whose meaning had so long been a matter of 
 doubtful disputation. That the reader may see that this 
 is according to Mr. C.'s ow^n showing, he is referred to 
 the M. Harbinger, Extra, No. 1, p. .50,51. "We can 
 sympathise, (says the Editor,) wdth those who have this 
 doctrine, (i. e. the doctrine above described,) in their 
 own creeds, unregarded and unheeded in its import and 
 utility, for we exhibited it fully in our debate witJi Mr. 
 M'Calla, 1823, without feeling its great importance, and 
 
144 
 
 DEBATE OTH 
 
 without beginning to practise upon its tendencies, for 
 some time afterwards. But since it lias been fully 
 preached and practised upon, it has proved itself to he 
 all divine." This statement or confession, is deemed to 
 be quite important in more respects than one, in relation 
 to the present discussion, and the reader is requested so 
 to notice it, that he may not only fully comprehend its 
 bearing, but that it may without difficulty be referred to 
 when occasion shall require. At present, it is only 
 necessary farther to remark, that a comparison of the 
 date of Mr. C.'s controversy with Mr. M'Calla, with 
 that of the preface to his first edition of the new version, 
 will establish what has been advanced concerning tlie 
 coincidence of the adoption of the new-fangled doctrine 
 nick-named " the ancient gospel," and the preparation 
 of the patched version, evidently, as it would seem, with 
 a view to support it. 
 
 But Mr. C. pleads the authority of tw^o of his " Pres- 
 b3.1;erian Doctors," in justification of this alteration of 
 the old version. " Drs. Campbell and M'Knight, have not 
 only occasionally translated baptismos and baptisma, by 
 the word immersion, but have contended in their notes 
 that such is its [their] meaning."* 
 
 What judgment will the reader form, not merely of 
 the candor, but of the veracity of Mr. C, when he is in- 
 formed, that after a careful examination of every pas- 
 sage in the epistles, (the books of the New Testament 
 translated by Dr. M'Knight.) there is not found one in- 
 stance of a translation of either of the Greek words con- 
 tained in the foregoing quotation, by the word immersion, 
 nor one instance in which the Greek verb baptizo, or 
 any of its variations, is translated by the word immeise. 
 
 The only ground which the Bishop seems to have had 
 for the above assertion, so far as it relates to the transla- 
 tion by Dr. M'Knight, of the words baptismos and bap- 
 tisma, by the word immersion, is his commentary upon 
 1 Cor. 15:29. Both the translation and commentary are 
 
 • See app. to the new version. No. 4 
 
CAMPBELLISM. 
 
 145 
 
 here given, that the reader may see upon what slender 
 grounds Mr. C. can make a round assertion, when it 
 suits his purpose. The translation reads thus : " Other- 
 wise what shall they do who are baptized (uper ton 
 ffEKRON, supply ANASTASEOs,) for the resurrection of the 
 dead, if the dead rise not at all? and why are they bap- 
 tized (uper ton nekron,) for the resurrection of the 
 dead?" The commentary upon this verse is as follows : 
 — I told you, ver. 22, That by Christ all shall be made 
 alive : and ver. 25,26, That he must reign till death, the 
 last enemy, is destroyed by the resurrection, otherwise 
 what shall they do to repair their loss, who are immersed 
 in. sufferings for testifying the resurrection of the dead, if 
 tJie dead rise not at all 1 And what inducement can they 
 have to suffer death for believing the resurrection of the 
 dead V* Further remarks upon this part of the Bishop's 
 assertion, or plea in justification of his conduct, are 
 deemed unnecessary. A discerning public cannot but 
 see that here is a clear development of a part of thai 
 system of deception which he has, by means of his 
 tjersumy practised upon the pubHc. Nor is that part of 
 his assertion, which relates to the translation of Dr. 
 George Campbell, less calculated to deceive, than th^i 
 which has already been considered, notwsthstanding it 
 is literally true, that he has " in some instanccs,^^ translat- 
 ed the Greek words above mentioned, by the word im- 
 .mersion. This part of the Bishop's assertion, is like the 
 testimony of a witness who tells the truth, but not the 
 tDhole truth. The deception practised by this part of tlie 
 • assertion consists in this, that it is evidently designed to 
 make tlie impression upon the minds of the readers, that 
 Dr. George C. has occasionally translated the words al- 
 luded to, by the word immersion, when they were used 
 by the sacred writers, literally to denote the ordinance of 
 baptism. Now such is not the fact — it is only w^hen 
 they are used fguratively, as where our Saviour declares, 
 (Luke 12:50,) "I have a baptism to be baptized with," 
 that Dr. George C. translates the Greek words bap- 
 TiSMos or baptisma, by the word immersion, or the Greek 
 
DEBATE ON 
 
 verb of a kindred meaning, by the English verb immer^, 
 I wish it to be distinctly understood, that it is not intend- 
 ed here, or in any part of this work, to discuss the ques- 
 tion, what is the true or most scriptural mode of baptism? 
 TJiis is a family dispute between the evangelical pcedo 
 baptists and anti-pcedo baptists, which I do not wish to 
 agitate. The object at present, as before stated, is to ex- 
 pose the deception practised by him, in giving his own 
 views in his new version, under the imposing authority of i 
 other names. And if in quoting from the dissertations of | 
 Dr. George Campbell, vol. 2, p 23, he had not given in 
 his App. (No. 4,) to the new version, a garbled extract, 
 his readers must have discovered, that it is a wilful mis- 
 representation of the views of the author of the transla- 
 tion of the gospels, to plead him as an authority for 
 translating the words baptismos and baptism a, by the word 
 immersion, in any instance where either of them is used 
 by any of the sacred writers to denote literally the ordi- 
 nance of baptism. In addition to, and immediate^ fol- 
 lowing that part of the dissertation quoted by the Bishop, 
 it is added, " But we are not." that is, we are not now, at 
 liberty to make a choice of the word immersion, in pre- 
 ference to baptism. ** The latter term, (i. e. baptism, 
 continues Dr. George C.,) has been introduced, and luis 
 obtained the universal suffrage ; and though to us, not so 
 expressive of the action, yet, as it contains nothing /fl&e, 
 or unsuitable to the' primitive idea, it has acquired a 
 right by prescription, and consequently is entitled to the 
 preference." This part of the dissertation, though in- 
 timately connected with the subject of which the Bishop 
 was treating, he did not see proper to quote, although he 
 could not but have seen that by withholding it from his 
 readers, he w^as doing injustice to Dr. George C, and at 
 tlie same time deceiving them with regard to what were 
 his views in relation to the propriety of translating the 
 Greek words before mentioned, by the word immei^ixm., m 
 instead of the word baptism. ^ 
 
 If any should inquire why Dr. George C. translates 
 tbe Greek words alluded to,\vhen used figuratively, by 
 
CAMPBELLISM. 
 
 147 
 
 the word immersion^ they are referred to the reason as- 
 signed by himself, vol. 4, p. 128, and quoted by Mr. 
 in his app. No. 4, already referred to. Whether his 
 c^)inion be correct or incorref;t, it is not intended now to 
 inquire. " The primitive signification, (says Dr. C.,) of 
 BAPTiSxMA, is immersion; of baptizein, to immerse, jplunge^ 
 or overu helm. The noun ought never to be rendered 
 baptism, nor the verb to baptize, but when employed in 
 relation to a religious ceremony." The only part then 
 of the Bishop's assertion, relating to the authority of two 
 of his Presbyterian Doctors, is that which alleges that 
 they have contended that the meaning of the Greek 
 words, so frequently alluded to, is immersion. Had he 
 contented himself with making the most of their authori- 
 ty, in relation to the point of the true meaning of the 
 original words, (as he certainly had a right to do,) he 
 would certainly have had a better, or at least, a mom 
 plausible claim, to an honesty of purpose, than can by 
 any ingenuity be urged under existing circumstances. 
 
 It cannot be expected that all the rottenness of the 
 new version, should he exposed in a publication such as 
 this, but there is one other part of the system of decep- 
 tion practised by its author, which must yet be noticed. 
 What is here alluded to, is the fact that in very numer- 
 ous instances, Mr. C. has foisted into the text, the tran- 
 slation by others, of many important passages, and to the 
 manifest perversion of the truth of God, instead of the 
 rendering of the three translators, from the result of 
 whose labors, it pui'jwrts to be a compilation. Although 
 this was brought out fully to view, and distinctly pre- 
 sented for the consideration of the Bishop, as well as the 
 audience, upon the occasion of the debate, and notwith- 
 standing it evidently made no slight impression upon 
 the minds of a majority of the numerous assembly then 
 present, his ingenuity did not seem to furnish him with 
 any apology or justification, for this part of his proce- 
 dure. Indeed, it would seem to have been impossible for 
 him to have given any other explanation of the motives 
 by which he was actuated, than that contained in the 
 
148 
 
 DEBATE Oir 
 
 obscure intimation which he gives his readers of the 
 fact, in his pretace. " All (says Mr. C.) that we can l>e 
 praised or blamed for, is this one circumstance, that we 
 have given the most conspicuous place, (i. e. in the text,) 
 to that version which appeared to deserve it."* True. 
 And whilst this is no doubt the very thing, or at least 
 one of the many things, for which the schismatics, hero- 
 tics, Arians and freethinkers, of our country, laud tie 
 pew version, it is, in the view, not only of all ^ofess- 
 ing evangelical Christians, but also of the great mass of 
 the population of our country who reverence divine 
 truth, one of the things for which he deserves reprehen- 
 sion. Mr. C. indeed endeavors to shield himself, by add- 
 in^ to w^hat has been quoted above, " But as the reader 
 will have both (versions) we have not judged for him, 
 but left him to judge for himself." 
 
 If so, why did he not give his readers the versions of 
 others (if he thought there must needs be a collation of 
 different translations) in his notes or appendices instead 
 of foisting them into the text, to the falsification of his 
 title page and the deception of all that numerous class of 
 his readers, who, he must have been well aware, would 
 look no further than the text. Nor is this all. If he did not 
 wish to judge for his readers, why did he not give them 
 some information concerning these other translators, 
 whose renderings of important passages he had intro- 
 duced into the text. Of the ^'Presbyterian Doctors" las 
 speaks much, but concerning the other translators, whose 
 versions he frequently prefers, he is silent — as the grave- 
 These remarks are made especially in allusion to one of 
 his Extra translators, (Thompson,) of whose labors he 
 has made the more frequent and liberal ase. Whatever 
 may have been his professed or private sentiments, or his 
 supposed qualifications as a translator, it must be evident 
 to every one that carefully examines interpolations from 
 his renderings that are found in the new version, that 
 Thompson's translation of the Bible is calculated, if not 
 
 ■ See the preface to the new version, pag^e 13. 
 
CAMPBELLISM. 
 
 140 
 
 expressly designed, to favor the Arian and Unitarian 
 schemes of doctrine. And in further illustration and 
 proof of the position already assumed, that one leading 
 design of Mr. C. in giving to the public his new version, 
 evidently was to give his own new-fangled scheme of 
 salvation, the appearance of being supported by the word 
 of God, some of the interpolations alluded to, I shall now 
 notice more particularly. 
 
 As has already been observed in a former part of tins 
 work, the sentiments of the Bishop of Bethany in relation 
 to the doctrine of the Trinity, and the supreme and abso- 
 lute divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ as the second of 
 the three persons in the Godhead, which constitutes the 
 One living and true Jehovah, have become, and especially 
 since his altercation with the Rev. Mr. Jamieson of the 
 Methodist Episcopal church, too well known to admit 
 any longer of any doubt. The passages therefore intro- 
 duced by Mr. C. into the text of his new version from 
 Thompson's translation, which I shall first notice, are 
 such as were evidently designed to favor his views in 
 relation to that most important doctrine. There are, it 
 is believed, but three instances in the old version of the 
 New Testament, where the word Godhead occurs. The 
 first is Acts 17:29, and the original word thus translated, 
 is THEioy, which Dr. Macknight translates " the DeityJ''' 
 His rendering is retained by Mr. C. The second in- 
 stance in which the word Godhead occurs in our standard 
 version is Rom. 1:20. The original term is theiotes, 
 which Dr. Macknight has with the ti»anslators of the old 
 version rendered Godhead, which term the Bishop has 
 superseded in his version by the word Divinity,''^ taker* 
 from Thompson. The third instance alluded to is in 
 Col. 2:9. " For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the 
 Godhead bodily," which accords with the translations of 
 Macknight and Doddridge, as also the Vulgate. The 
 original word here translated Godhead, is theotes, the 
 meEining is so nearly related to, or rather so identical 
 with the original word, similarly rendered in Rom. 1:20, 
 that it would be difficuh to assign any sufficient reason 
 14 
 
no 
 
 I>SBUTK Off 
 
 for giving one a different rendering from the other, or 
 for substituting in either, another translation, in place of 
 that found in the old version. Mr, C. nevertheless has^ 
 ia this instance, as well as in that last mentioned, givea 
 tke preference to Thompson, and made the text read 
 thus: " Because all the fulness of the deiti/ resides substan^ 
 tially in him." According, then, to his view of these pas- 
 sages, he has given the most conspicuous place to the 
 li'anslation of Thompson* 8,s being most deserving of it. 
 But why, let it be asked, does Mr. manifest such dislike 
 to the word Godhead? Why does he altogether exclude 
 it from his version? Why, in opposition to the authority ot 
 two of his Pi^shiiterian Doctors^ does he prefer the 
 rendering of Thompson? It is left to the candid reader 
 to judge, whether it be not because the term Godhead is 
 too emphatic and unequivocal, and savors too niuch of 
 orthodoxy; because it evidently has an allusion to, and 
 embraces the " three that bear record in heavenJ* In 
 plain language, it too clearly refers to the doctrine of the 
 trinity, or that of tlie triune Jehovah,, to suit the views of 
 Mr. C. And what is still more, it too clearly aiid fully 
 asserts (!n CoL 2:9,) the doctrine of the supreme divinity 
 of our Lord Jesus Christ, to be retained in the riew ver&ioju 
 If it should be alleged by Mr. C, tliat the words " 
 fy" and " deity,^^ are synonymous with Godhead; the ob- 
 vious reply would be, why then was not this word, which 
 had so long been sanctioned by usage as well as the best 
 authorities, retained? The truth is, that although the word 
 Godhead, expresses all that is contained in the words 
 divinity and Deity, it expresses more, and is also more 
 unequivocal in its meaning, at least in the view of a hfgh 
 Arian, as well as a modern Unitarian. These ascribe 
 some kind of inferior deity to the Saviour; and admit 
 that he is in some sense Divine. But to admit that he is 
 equal to and one with the Father, — that he is one of three 
 persons in the one Godhead, and that in him dwelleth all 
 the fulness of the Godhead bodily'' \\. e. fully as well as 
 tr!ilv) and consequently that he " is over all God blessed 
 forever," would be to honor tJhe Son" as we honor the 
 
CAMPBELLI&M* 
 
 161 
 
 Father, — this they are unwilHng to <io; and hence, it is 
 believed, may be discovered the true reason of the pre- 
 ference given by Mr. C. to Thompson, in the instances 
 already described. 
 
 There yet remains to be noticed, another class of inter- 
 polations, from Thompson, found in the neio version, per- 
 haps more evidently in opposition to the mind of the 
 Spirit of God, as revealed in the Nev^ Testament, tham 
 those already remarked upon. It is well known that thp 
 Bishop, not only denies, but ridicules the doctrine of 
 divine influence, or the special operation of the Spirit of 
 God upon the mind or heart of man, in the great work 
 of the regeneration and sanctification of a sinner. His 
 new-fangled scheme, made up of the shreds of errors, 
 old and new, together with some patches of Popish mys- 
 ticism, teaches men to believe that the Spirit of God, is 
 in the word, and that thus, and thus only, was the Holy 
 Spirit sent into the world. That consequently the word 
 of God has in itself the inherent power, wlien historically 
 believed, provided it is rendered efiectual by immersion, 
 of regenerating and sanctifying the soul, so that the sub- 
 ject of this historic belief, and consequent immersion, is 
 thereby " pardoned, adopted, justified, sanctified and 
 saved." 
 
 The interpolations now to be noticed, seem clearly to 
 have been intended by the author of the new version, to 
 support his delusive scheme, and to oppose the doctrine 
 of divine influence, as held by the churches of evangeli- 
 cal Christians, and as they believe, revealed and taught 
 in the word of God. Thus it is distinctly declared by 
 two apostles, (2 Thess. 2:13, and 1 Pet. 1:2,) that such as 
 be saints, are chosen unto salvation " through sanctifica- 
 tion of the Spirit," &c. But Mr. C, w^ho is determined 
 to exclude all special agency, or operation of the Spirit 
 of God, in this matter, has substituted the renderings of 
 Thompson in both these passages, so that they read thus : 
 " thro7igh a sanctification of the spirit." The alteration 
 may seem of little importance to the inattentive reader, 
 but it nevertheless strikes at the vitals of tlie religion of 
 
152 
 
 DEBATE ON 
 
 Christ. It excludes, or at least, is designed to exclude 
 the agency of the Holy Spirit in the great work of sanc- 
 tification, and to lead men to rest upon the efficacy of 
 water to wash away their sin. According to the render- 
 ing of Thompson, as thus preferred by Mr. C, we are 
 clearly to understand by the word sph'it, the soul of the 
 person sanctified, instead of the Holy Spirit, by whom 
 this good work is begun and performed, until the day of 
 Jesus Christ. Another interpolation, constituting a still 
 more palpable perversion of the sacred text, is found in the 
 epistle of Jude, (ver. 20,) where the rendering of the 
 translators of our standard version, " praying in the Holy 
 Ghost" and that of Dr. Macknight, *' praying by the Holy 
 Spirit/' are superseded by Mr. C, to make room for the 
 translation of Thompson, which reads thus : " Praying 
 with a holy spirit.^^ According to this rendering, we are 
 not to understand the apostle as directing the saints to 
 pray in or by the Holy Spirit, who, it is declared, helps 
 ttieir infirmities, but as instructing them to pray with a 
 sanctified heart. I am aware that it is pleaded by the 
 author of the new version, as well as others, who, like 
 him, wish as much as possible, to exclude the special 
 agency of the Holy Spirit in bringing a sinner into favor 
 with God, and preparing him for heaven, that in the pas- 
 sages cited, as well as others of a similar character, the 
 Greek article is not prefixed to the word translated spirit^ 
 as is the case in Rom. 8:26, and other passages where 
 the Holy Spirit is clearly referred to; and therefore it is 
 said, that inasmuch as the original word (pneuma,) has 
 various significations, we are to understand it in those 
 passages where the article is omitted, as referring, not 
 to the Spirit of God, but to the soul of man, the air, or 
 wind, as the case may be. However plausible this argu- 
 ment may appear, it is apprehended to be utterly falla- 
 cious. Learned critics, (among whom is Dr. George 
 Campbell, the Magnus Apollo of the Bishop of Bethany,) 
 have shown that this pretended rule of distinction, in re- 
 lation to the meaning of the word pjjeuma, will not, in 
 many cases, hold or apply. And Dr. Campbell, more- 
 
CAMPBi2LL!SM> 
 
 153 
 
 over, contends, and that too with a force that will carry- 
 conviction to the mind of every serious and candid in- 
 quirer for truth, that especially in those instances where 
 the word agio (holy) is prehxed to the word pneuma, as 
 is the case in Jude, (ver. 20,) it is a much more clear de- 
 signation of the S})irit of God, than is, in any instance, 
 the prefixed article. Nor need we go further than the 
 next preceding (19th) verse of this same epistle, to de- 
 monstrate the futility of the alleged, and every argument 
 that has been attempted therefrom to be deduced. In 
 ver. 18, the apostle speaks of mockers that should appear 
 in the last time. " These, (he adds ver, 19,) be they who 
 separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit." In 
 this passage the article, in the original Greek, is not pre- 
 fixed, and yet it is so evident that the sacred penman 
 alludes not to the soul, but to the Spirit of God; that 
 Thompson was compelled to translate the word pneuma, 
 the Spirit,^^ and not merely " spirit" or " the spirit," 
 or " a spirit" as we have seen he does in the next verse, 
 and that too notwithstanding the word holy (the special 
 designation of the Spirit of God,) is prefixed. And that 
 which renders the departure from tlie meaning of the 
 apostle, in the 20th verse, by Thompson and his copyist 
 Mr. C., the more palpable and unjustifiable, is the con- 
 trast which is here evidently designed to be exhibited, 
 between the saints and the mockers there described. 
 These hav^e not the Spirit; they are a constituent part of 
 the world which " cannot receive the Spirit of truth," 
 because " it seeth him not, neither knoweth him." Not 
 so the saints, " They know" him, for he dwelleth with 
 " them," and shall be in " them."* Hence the apostle 
 adds, (ver. 20,21,) "But ye beloved, (seeing that God 
 hath sent forth the spirit of his Son into your hearts, 
 crying Abba Father, and you have received him as the 
 Spirit of truth,) building up yourselves in your most holy- 
 faith, praying in (or by) the Holy Ghost,iieep yourselves 
 in the love of God," &c. It is supposed that nothing 
 
 •John 14:17, 
 
 *14 
 
154 
 
 DEBATE ON 
 
 further need be added, to demonstrate what would seem 
 to be a wilful and wicked perversion of the revealed truth 
 of God, with a view to support a false system of religion. 
 
 As it cannot be expected, that in a work hke this, 
 there should be even an attempt to detect and expose all 
 the rottenness of the new version, I shall notice, and that 
 briefly, but one other part of that extensive system of 
 deception practised by its author, which consists in a 
 misrepresentation of the sentiments and translation of 
 Dr. Macknight. 
 
 If we form a judgment of the sentiments of this WTiter, 
 from his translation of various passages of the Epistles, 
 as given or stated, in the new version, and detached as 
 they are from his commentary and notes upon them, we 
 shall certainly be led to the conclusion, that he was 
 tainted, and that in no slight degree, with the Unitarian 
 heresy, which pervaded the established church of Scot- 
 land in his day. 
 
 Thus if we judge of his views of the doctrine of divine 
 influence from what (according to the new version*) 
 purports to be his translation of two important passages 
 m the writings of the apostle of the Gentiles, (Rom. 8:15, 
 and Gal. 4:6,) we shall be led into a mistake of no small 
 importance. In both these passages, where the apostle 
 speaks of the Spirit of adoption, which all saints receive. 
 Dr. Macknight so translates the w^ord pneuma, as to leave 
 no doubt that he understood it to refer to the Spirit of 
 God. But in both instances, Mr. C, without giving to 
 his readers any intimation of the alteration, has changed 
 the renderings of his translator from " the Spirit of adop- 
 tion" and " the Spirit of his Son" to " the spirit of adop 
 tion" and " the spirit of his Son," evidently with a view 
 to avoid the conclusion that the apostle in these passages - 
 had a reference to the Holy Spirit. The alteration is 
 apparently small, and, to many, may seem of no great 
 importance. But herein lies the art of the Bishop. To 
 the intelligent and attentive reader of the New Testa* 
 
 * See 3d edition, (duodecimo), of the new Tersioo. 
 
CAMPBELLISM. 
 
 155 
 
 ment, it is well known, that whenever tlie word Spirit is 
 used to designate the Spirit of God, the first letter is, as 
 it ought ever to be, a capital; and on the other hand, when 
 it is used in any other sense, it is otherwise — a capital 
 letter is not employed. Nor is the author of the new ver- 
 sion inattentive to this rule. He invariably, it is believed, 
 adheres to it, according to his own views of the passages 
 where, in the original, the word pneuma occurs. And 
 tJiat there was a sufficient inducement to make the aher- 
 ation, will be evident, when it is considered that the pas- 
 sages last cited, in their evident and true meaning, have 
 an important bearing upon, or rather, are subversive of, 
 an important part of the system of Mr. C* 
 
 It is true, that Dr. Macknight, (all whose views and 
 renderings of the sacred text I should be very unwilling 
 to defend,) in some instances, does seem by his transla- 
 tion to favor the xiews of the Bishop. Thus Eph. 6:18, 
 which the translators of our version have rendered "Pray- 
 ing always with all prayer and supplication in the Spir- 
 it," &c., the Doctor translates as follows, " With all sup- 
 plication and deprecation, pray at all seasons in spirit,^ 
 6z;c. He nevertheless explains his views of this passage 
 in a note, in the following language: " This they were to 
 do in the Spirit, that is, either with the heart and sincere- 
 ly and fervently, or according as the. Spirit of God should 
 excite and move them." 
 
 Other instances of unfair representation of the render- 
 ings of Dr. Macknight, by the Bishop, consist in his giv- 
 ing in his version, no intimation to his readers of w^ords 
 which the Doctor thought it necessary to supply, not- 
 withstanding the words thus supplied, are in his transla- 
 tion printed in capitals. A glaring instance of this is 
 found in Eph. 5:26, the consequence of which, is, that the 
 new version is made to speak a language very different 
 from the original. Our version, which is in strict ae- 
 cordance with the original, reads thus: " That he might 
 
 * Other instances of similar misrepresentation migfht be giren, hut It 
 is deemed unneceasary. 
 
156 
 
 DEBATE ON* 
 
 sanctify and cleanse it (i. e. the church) with the washing 
 of water by the word." In the new version it reads as 
 follows: " That he might sanctify her, having cleansed 
 her with the bath of water, and with the word." The words 
 her and and, are, in Dr. Mac knight's translation printed 
 in capital letters, to apprize the reader that there are Jio 
 corresponding words in the original, but that they have 
 been supplied, as necessary, according to his view of the 
 passage, to make clear its meaning. It suited the views 
 of Mr. C, however, to withhold this from his readers, and 
 to represent the whole as a just translation of the origin- 
 al. The inducement which he had for this and the bear- 
 ing which this passage, as thus wrested from its true 
 meaning, is made to have upon his uatery system, will 
 be shown in a subsequent part of this work. 
 
 A few more remarks will conclude the strictures which 
 it was designed to make at present upon the new version, 
 in which, Mr. C. very modestly to be sure, but with what 
 degree of propriety, the candid reader will judge, asserts, 
 ** the ideas communicated by the apostles and evangelists 
 of Jesus Christ, are incomparably better expressed, than 
 in any volume ever presented in our mother tongue." 
 
 Whilst he professed to be a decided advocate for the 
 general distribution of the scriptures, without note or 
 comment; and whilst he publicly asserts, as he did in one of 
 his harangues in Nashville, (and which he could not but 
 have known at the time to be most incorrect,) that it was 
 not until the year 1800, that Protestants in England, were 
 generally permitted to read the Bible without the gloss 
 or intei-pretations of the clergy; yet, as was observed 
 upon the occasion of the debate, he had given a volume 
 which did not profess to be a commentary, but a version 
 of the New Testament, and that too " incomparably bet- 
 ter" than any other " in our mother tongue," and was 
 not willing that the text should speak for itself, or that 
 his readers should judge for themseves without the help 
 of more than one hundred appendices, besides numerous 
 prefaces, prefatory hints, introductions, hints to readers. 
 
CAMPBELLISM. 
 
 157 
 
 I am aware that it is asserted by Mr. C. that none of 
 these are intended to give his gloss or interpretation of 
 the sacred text. But how is the fact? By reference to 
 his appendix No. 46, will be found a note upon the 
 inquiry made by the jailer of Paul and Silas, as related 
 in Acts 16, which purports to be taken from a translator 
 of the name of Wakefield, which must evidently appear 
 to be a gloss upon the text very much in accordance 
 with the views of the author of the new version: " The 
 jailer (it is said) meant no more than what shall I do to 
 be safe from punishment, for what had befallen the 
 prisoners and the prison. This is beyond doubt the 
 sense of the passage, though Paul in his reply, uses the 
 words in a more extensive signification, a practice com- 
 mon in these waitings.^' If this be not an interpretation, 
 and that too in a high tone of assumed authority, it W' ould 
 be difficult to tell what amounts to an interpretation; and 
 moreover, if it be not a genuine Unitarian gloss, I shall 
 be willing when made sensible of it, to acknowledge 
 the mistake. This interpretation of the passage seems 
 so well to accord with the views of Mr. C., that he has 
 given the translation of the inquiry of the jailer by 
 vVakefield, the preference, not only to our standard ver- 
 sion, but to the translation of Dr. Doddridge, which in 
 this instance, is more literal than the former, w^hilst that 
 of the translator Wakefield, agrees neither with the letter 
 nor spirit of the original. The three translations of the 
 inquiry of the jailer, (Acts 16:30,) are as follows: old 
 version, " what shall I do to be saved?" Doddridge, 
 " what shall I do that I may be saved?" Wakefield, as 
 adopted by Mr. C, " what shall I do that I may be safe?** 
 Whilst the first evidently expresses the meaning of the 
 text, the second is exactly a literal rendering of the ori- 
 ginal, but the third is a departure from both. 
 
 Again, by reference to Phil. 1:5, it will be perceived 
 that the author of the new version, has substituted from 
 Thompson, the word contribution, for the word fellow* 
 ship, which is not only found in our standard version, 
 but in the translation of Dr. Macknight; and in his ap- 
 
158 
 
 DEBATE ON 
 
 pendix No. 82, he adds the following note, " the Philip- 
 pians were much commended by the apostle for their 
 liberality to him. It is the first thing mentioned in the 
 epistle. This the apostle calls, verse 6, the good work 
 begun among them, or in them, which he had no doubt 
 would be continued and completed until the day of re- 
 wards." " Some secretaries" [sectaries] it is added, "have 
 converted this good work into God's work upon them, 
 and have made the apostle invahdate his own exhorta- 
 tion to them, to w^ork out their salvation with fear and 
 trembling." 
 
 Will it be alleged by the Bishop, that he has not in this 
 instance, assumed the office not only of an interpreter 
 but of a censor, instead of confining himself to the duty 
 of an humble compiler? What would we have said, if the 
 ** king's translators," had appended a note to any passage 
 of the sacred text, explanatory according to their veiws 
 of its meaning, and bearing as hard upon Arians or 
 Unitarians, as does the foregoing upon the various sects 
 of evangelical Christians? Would not the fact have occu- 
 pied a conspicuous place in his writings, and would it 
 not have been trumpeted a thousand times over in his 
 public harangues? And yet the Bishop (modest and un^ 
 assuming man!) has made no attempt (if we are to be- 
 lieve his word in opposition to what he himself has 
 written,) to put a gloss upon any passage of the New 
 Testament! 
 
 But perhaps he may, in this instance, plead in justifica- 
 tion, his zeal against the sectaries who hold and maintain 
 that by the " good work" which the apostle declares 
 ** be" (i. e. God) had " begun in''' the believing Philippir 
 ans, is to be understood something very different from 
 their liberality in contributing to his necessities, even 
 " God's work upon them," or in the language of the 
 apostle, " in them^'' whereby they were quickened who 
 were dead in trespasses and sins; and whereby a work 
 of sanctification was begun, which the apostle was con- 
 fident, would be performed until the day of Jesus Christ. 
 And these sectaries moreover maintain, that the same 
 
CAMPBELLISM. 
 
 grace of God is as necessary now to begin a good work 
 m a sinner, and to perform it until the day spoken of by 
 the apostle, as it was in the time and in the case of the 
 Fhilippians. If this view of the passage under considera- 
 tion, and of the good work therein mentioned as begun 
 in all that are saints, makes " the apostle invalidate his 
 own exhortation" to the Philippians, " to work out their 
 own salvation with fear and trembhng," as Mr. C. as- 
 serts, it would have been gratifying to know, what is his 
 gloss upon that which immediately follows and is con- 
 nected with this exhortation; and which indeed seems to 
 have been assigned as a reason or motive to excite them 
 to diligence in the great work which they had to do. 
 " For (adds the apostle, Phil. 2:13) it is God\vhich work- 
 eih in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure." 
 Why did the Bishop garble the exhortation of the apos- 
 tle, leaving out of view that, which furnishes to the saints 
 the only sufficient encouragement to engage and continue 
 in the great work which they are required to accomplish? 
 Must it not have been because it appeared to him that 
 die apostle thereby invalidated his own exhortation? It 
 would indeed seem there is a secret here with which he 
 is unacquainted, — even " the secret of the Lord which is 
 with those who fear him;'* and that if there be such ** a 
 good work," as the apostle speaks of, begun in all such 
 as are " called to be saints," the learned Bishop of Betha- 
 ny is a stranger to it. 
 
 It would be no difficult task, to refer to other passages 
 or remarks, in the numerous appendices to the new ver- 
 sion, the evident design and tendency of which, are to 
 advocate his own views, or disparage those held by the 
 various sects of evangelical Christians, but it is thought 
 to be unnecessary. 
 
 I now proceed to give a brief statement of the last 
 topic that was brought under discussion, during the de- 
 bate on Saturday, 25th December. As Mr. C. had a short 
 time previous to his visit to Nashville, issued his M. Har- 
 binger, Extra, No. 1, wherein it is not only contended 
 that " regeneration and immersion are two names for the 
 
160^ 
 
 DEBATE OJf 
 
 same thing," but that " being born again, and being im- 
 mersed, are (also) the same thing."* And as in one of hii» 
 pubhc harangues, or discourses upon a part of the 3d chap- 
 ter of John, dehvered in NashviUe, he had endeavored lo 
 inculcate the same doctrine, it was thought advisable, 
 after having, to some extent, exposed the rottenness of* 
 the new version, to proceed to the examination of his 
 views of the new birth, or what is to be understood by 
 being " born again." With this view, I proposed for dis- 
 cussion the following topic, " To be born again — wluit 
 is it?" 
 
 When this topic w^as introduced, Mr. C. expressed 
 much satisfaction that a subject was at length brought 
 into notice, the discussion of which he alleged might 
 prove edifying to the audience; and he moreover inti- 
 mated what he would do, provided I would only dwell 
 upon it a sufficient length of time. The discussion of 
 this topic, was accordingly entered upon, and continued 
 till nearly, if not quite, 10 o'clock at night; but of th'm 
 part of the debate on Saturday, he takes no notice in his 
 narrative. I am here compelled to notice one of the 
 very incorrect statements with which his account of tlie 
 debate abounds. He states that at the hour alreadv 
 mentioned, " the wortJiy gentleman, (meaning mysell,) 
 let us know that he had much more to say,, and was 
 sorry that my appointments, (i. e. the appointments of 
 the Bishop,) forwarded through Kentucky, prevented a 
 continuance of the conference the next week." This 
 statement does not accord with truth. The fact is, I 
 knew nothing concerning his appointments through Ken- 
 tucky, and consequently neither felt nor expressed any 
 sorrow on account of them or their supposed prevention 
 of " a continuance of the conference the next week." 
 After what had fallen from Mr. C. in the morning, con- 
 cerning his engagements J and the consequent impossibility 
 that he could remain longer than the next Monday morn- 
 ing, I had no expectation whatever that the discussion 
 
 M . Harbinger, Extra, No. 1, p. 28. 
 
CAMPBELLISM. 
 
 161 
 
 would be continued the next week. Nor did I, at any 
 time during the day or evening, make any observation 
 in relation to the Umited time assigned for the discussion, 
 except by way of reply to his loud and frequent com- 
 plaints, that I so frequently changed the subject of dis- 
 cussion, or so rapidly passed from one thing to another, 
 which from a consideration of the course I had deter- 
 mined to pursue, and the want of more ample time for 
 the discussion of the various topics introduced, I was 
 compelled to do. Being therefore, (I certainly was at 
 the time,) under a full conviction tliat the debaie was 
 just about to be finally concluded, I was not a little sur- 
 prised, but not displeased, with the proposition which, it 
 is affirmed, was gratuitously made by Mr. C, to continue 
 the conference on the next Monday, provided I would 
 select some one subject for discussion. The proposition 
 was to me a matter of surprise, because I had supposed 
 him to be serious and candid in his declaration, made in 
 the morning, that he could not remain, and I am much 
 mistaken if the impression thereby made upon the minds 
 of the audience, or at least a great majority of them, 
 was not, that he found it would not so well answer his 
 purpose, as he had expected, then to put an end to the 
 debate. Nor is it difficult to perceive the strong induce- 
 ment which the Bishop had, in writing his narrative, to 
 represent the continuance of the debate on Monday, as 
 the result of a compliance with my wishes, and not of a 
 gratuitous proposition coming from himself. In acced- 
 ing to his proposition, I certainly did not understand, as 
 will evidently appear from the sequel, that his proposal 
 to remain, was made upon the condition that I would 
 furnish for discussion, a logical proposition. We had not 
 been engaged in the discussion of logical propositions, 
 but as he states, in the contents of the 3d number of his 
 Mill. Harbinger, vol. 2, (which contains his narrative of 
 the debate,) of "sundry topics." He had moreover made 
 no complaints, (of which I have the least recollection.) 
 that the topics introduced by myself, did not assume the 
 form of logical propositions, but only that the subject of 
 
162 
 
 BERATE OX 
 
 discussion was too frequently changed to accord with 
 his convenience, or his views of propriety. And indeed 
 the unreasonableness of such complaints, had they bceii 
 made, would at once have been apparent. It is evidciit 
 I could not have introduced a logical proposition, a! 
 least of the affirmative kind, unless by assuming some 
 principle, or doctrine, or fact, which 1 believed to be 
 true, and of course, instead of endeavoring to show ihe 
 unsoundness of his religious views and sentiments, which 
 wai' the avowed and only object of the meeting, I should 
 have been compelled to defend my own. 
 
 A more particular account of the discussion of the 
 topic last introduced, on Saturday, is not here attempted 
 to be given, because it was substantially, though not in 
 form, renewed on ^Monday, when all the leading points 
 and arguments, prc\'iously adduced , so far as they are- 
 now recollected, were recapitulated. 
 
 Supposing that Mr. C, fi/t himself at all times prejjar« 
 ed, without any previous notice of the point of attack, to 
 defend his system of " the ancient gosjpely^ I was again, 
 somewhat surprised, when two of his friends, at his iiK 
 stance, called upon me the next (the Lord's day) Enorn- 
 ing, with a request that I w^ould furnish a statement in 
 writing, of the subject proposed for the next day's discus- 
 sion. The application was to me wholly unexpected, nor 
 was I determinately fixed upon a subject. After a little 
 reflection, however, I determined to offer the same topic,, 
 (with a slight addition.) that had been last introduced 
 and partially discussed on Saturday. My mind was 
 brought to this conclusion, partly by the consideration of 
 the importance of the subject, and partly from a desire 
 to avoid difficulty, or misunderstanding, concerning the 
 topic proposed. Recollecting the gratification expressed 
 by Mr. C, when this topic was introduced on Saturday,. 
 I certainly had not the least expectation that he would" 
 hesitate, much less object to resume the discussion of it 
 on Monday. Accordingly I heard nothing more fron> 
 him, until we again met at the Baptist church, on Mon- 
 day morning, at the hour appointed. 
 
163 
 
 PART ra. 
 
 MR. C.'s UNREASONABLE PREVARICATION— HIS THEORY 
 OF REGENERATION BY IMMERSION— HIS DISINTER- 
 ESTEDNESS. 
 
 I HAVE here again to remark, that the account given 
 by Mr. C, of the proceedings of the forenoon of Monday, 
 is nothing better than a garbled and mutilated misrepre- 
 sentation of facts. It is indeed, true, that I chose Mr. 
 Hays as one of the moderators who presided on that 
 occasion, but from the account given by the Bishop, his 
 readers, it is thought, w^ould be ready to conclude that 
 the substitution of moderators, in the place of the chair- 
 man vi^ho had presided on Saturday, w^as a measure 
 adopted at my suggestion. Such was not the fact. The 
 ■chairman declined to act on Monday, and it was Mr. C. 
 that proposed the choice of moderators. To this I made 
 no objection; ail this w^hile I neither heard of, nor antici- 
 pated any objection from my opponent, to the topic pro- 
 posed for that day's discussion, which was, as he has 
 truly stated in his narrative, " To he horn again — what is 
 it ? And what the effects thereof?" And that which ren- 
 ders this circumstance the more worthy of notice, is, that 
 while the moderators which we had respectively chosen, 
 were employed in selecting a third person, a private and 
 personal conversafion of several minutes continuance, 
 took place between Mr, C. and myself, when a conveni- 
 ent and fit opportunity presented itself for him to make 
 his objections, if any he had, to the statement of the sub- 
 ject proposed for debate, if his real object had been the 
 correction of any supposed misapprehension or mistake, 
 or the removal of any difficulty in the way of entering 
 upon the discussion, the expectation of which had excited 
 great interest, and collected a crowded audience. And 
 this will be more evident, when it is considered that any 
 question or difference of opinion, concerning the state- 
 
164 
 
 DEBATE ON 
 
 ment of the subject of debate, could only be settled or 
 removed by an amicable adjustment or understanding 
 between ourselves. It was not a question of order, such 
 as the moderators were at all competent to decide. Mr. 
 C, nevertheless, left me for 24 hours under the impres- 
 sion, (and that too, notwithstanding the private conversa- 
 tion above alluded to,) that the subject proposed was al- 
 together agreeable to him; nor was it until alter the mode- 
 rators selected by us, had appointed the Rev. Mr. Paine, 
 of the Methodist Episcopal church, as the third man, and 
 they had taken their seats, that I had the least intimation 
 of any difficulty in the way of entering upon the debate. 
 Then he made his appeal or complaint to the moderators, 
 informing them, as he states, that he had not received a 
 (logical) proposition from me, but only the statement of a 
 topic for discussion, or in his own language, as contained in 
 his narrative, " only the subject of a proposition, without 
 a predicate." " Mr. Jennings, (he adds,) at first demurred 
 against giving me any thing save the topic already men- 
 tioned, but being reminded of the pledge he had given 
 on Saiui'day evening, he attempted to draft one. But so 
 it came to pass, that w^e could not get any definite propo- 
 sition from Mr. J., till one o'clock." With a small mix- 
 ture of truth, this statement is declared to be a gross 
 misrepresentation, and calculated, as it was no doubt 
 designed, to make a false impression uyjon the public 
 mind. ]\Ir. C. needs to be " reminded," and the pub- 
 lic to be informed of the truth. His statement would 
 lead his readers to conclude, that I not only " demurred 
 against giving" him " any thing save the topic already 
 mentioned," which is true, but that upon "being reminded 
 of the pledge" previously given, which it would say, that 
 I at least tafcitly acknowledged had not been redeemed, I 
 forthwith attempted to draft a proposition, and yet that 
 nothing definite could be obtained from me before one 
 o'clock. It is true that I demurred, as he has stated, but 
 for the reason, as I contended, that I had fully complied 
 with mv stipulation on Saturday evening. It was further 
 alleged,' that whatever had been the understanding or 
 
€A3tPBELtTSM* 
 
 165 
 
 expectation of Mr, C, it certainly was not understood by 
 myself, that a logical proposition should be furnished as 
 the subject of tliat day's discussion. It was, moreover, 
 shown to be unreasonable and unfair, to m.ake such a 
 demand, inasmuch as such a proposition, at least, of 
 an affirmative character, could not be given with- 
 out affirming something which I myself beheved, and 
 which must have the effect of totally changing the 
 nature and subject of the debate. It was further alleged 
 that the object of the meeting, and that too in pursuance 
 of an invitation or challenge puWicly given by himself, 
 was to hear and discuss objections to his religious sys- 
 tem, and not mine. That 1 had accordingly attended 
 with a view to discuss, noi Presbyterianism or Calvm- 
 ism, but Campbellism" Mr. C was also reminded that 
 his complaint on Saturday, of my course of proceeding, 
 was not because I did not introduce logical propositions 
 for discussion, but because the topic or subject of debate 
 was so frequently changed, and that I had then selected 
 one topic, which alone I expected to be the subject of 
 that day's conference, which was substantially the same 
 that had already been partially discussed, and with 
 which he had expressed himself to be well satisfied. But 
 after an altercation or desultory debate of, perhaps, two 
 hours' continuance, Mr. C. still persisted in refusing to 
 enter upon, or resume the discussion of a topic with which 
 he had been so well pleased the preceding Saturday: and 
 that too, as will be clearly perceived by the seqiK^-l, 
 notwithstanding the debate which at last did take place 
 in the afternoon, Avas, in fact and in substance, nothrr/g 
 more nor less, than a discussion of " the topic already 
 mentioned." At lensfth it became apparent that Mr. C. 
 in persisting in his refusal to discuss the topic proposed, 
 had one of two object? in view. Either he wished to 
 decline any further discussion, or he intended, if possible, 
 to exchange positions, by putting me on the defence of my 
 own religious sentiments, with a view^ to prevent any 
 further attack upon his. My own impression was, that' 
 the latter was his real object; although it is belie\ ed 
 
 * 15 
 
166 
 
 DEBATE ON 
 
 that a majority of the audience were of opinion, that he 
 had a strong disinclination to renew the contest. I was 
 confirmed in my own opinion of his real object, from the 
 fact, that on Saturday, he had made attempts to turn me 
 aside from my a vow^ecT purpose in meeting this champion 
 of error and false doctrine, in debate, by endeavoring to 
 provoke me incidentally to discuss the subject of infant 
 baptism, and other doctrines held by the sect to which I 
 belong. 
 
 As I had met Mr. C, in pursuance of his own invita- 
 tion, with a view to attack his system, and not to defend 
 mine, it w^as my determination not to permit him to 
 change sides. Still, with a view that it would more 
 clearly appear to the audience that Mr. C, (to use a 
 homely, but expressive phrase,) really wished to " back 
 Old" if he still persisted to decline entering upon further 
 discussion, I at length proposed, to endeavor, if possible, 
 to remove all objections, by furnishing him with a pro- 
 position. A proposition, of a negative form, w^ as accord- 
 ingly prepared, denying the truth of what is asserted 
 in the following paragraph of his Extra, No. 1, (page 12,) 
 " Whatever this act of faith may be, it necessarily be- 
 comes the line of discrimination between the two states 
 before described. On this side, and on that, mankind 
 are in quite different states. On the one side they are 
 pardoned, justified, reconciled, adopted and saved: on 
 the other, they are. in a state of condemnation. This act 
 (of faith) is sometime? called immersion, regeneration, 
 conversion; and that this may appear obvious to all, we 
 shall be at some pains to confirm and illustrate it." This 
 paragraph, w^hich brings out "Me avcient gosper^ in bold 
 relief, evidently contains the affinxjative proposition, that 
 such, and such only, as submit to be imn ersed, with a 
 belief that they shall thereby obtain " the remission of 
 sins," are pardoned, justified, sanctified, &c., while all 
 the rest of mankind, whatever may be the state of their 
 heart, or whatever may be their character, not only in 
 the opinion of their fellow men, but in the sight of God, 
 " are in a state of condemnation." The proposition 
 
CAMPBELLISM. 
 
 167 
 
 paced, and proposed for discussion, instead of" the topic 
 already mentioned," was the negative of the foregoing, 
 which, it seemed evident, Mr. C. was bound to defend 
 or acknowledge his error. Still the proposition was not 
 accepted. Let it, however, be particularly noticed, that 
 the objection first raised, was not that the proposition was 
 too multifarious, but because it was a negative proposi- 
 tion. In making this objection, he indeed observed, that 
 he did not urge it so much on his own account, as mine, 
 for he inquired, could I undeitake to support a negative 
 proposition? To which it was rephed, that he need not 
 indulge in any uneasiness or concern, on my account- 
 
 I would here call the attention of the reader to the 
 evident want of consistency in part of Mr. C.'s narrative. 
 He informs his readers he was " determined not to tarry 
 on Monday, unless a proposition of some sort, affirmative 
 or negative was presented;" and yet when a proposition 
 was presented, the first objection made was that it was of a 
 negative character. But this was not all. His determi- 
 nation not to remain but upon the condition already 
 stated, is by him assigned as the reason why he " request- 
 ed through some of the brethren who waited on" me 
 ** next (or Lord's day) morning, a proposition." And 
 yet notwithstanding his determination, although he " had 
 not got a proposition," but a topic, he remained the next 
 day until nearly 11 o'clock, inihont givivg jne a hint of 
 his dissatisfaction with the topic which had been furnish- 
 ed, or of his determination not to remain unless a proposi* 
 tion was presented. 
 
 It is true that Mr. C. did afterwards object to tlie 
 proposition offered as being multifarious and proposed to 
 engross it, which I agreed he might attempt to do, re- 
 serving to myself the right to reject it, if I thought proper. 
 He accordingly engrossed it in a manner to suit or please 
 himself; but after some examination it was rejected, and 
 particularly because, like most of his productions, it con., 
 tained some small mixture of truth with much error, and 
 tlierefore it could not be accepted without laying myself 
 under the necessity of denying the part that was true. 
 
168 
 
 DEBATE OTS 
 
 as well as that which was erroneous. Determined on 
 my part to leave him without the shadow of a pretext for 
 dechning any further debate, I next proposed another 
 proposition, which Mr. C. has, as is usual with him, first 
 stated incorrectly, and then pronounced it to be awkward. 
 The proposition was not as he states it to have been: 
 To be horn again and to be immersed is not the same 
 thing:^^ but it was in the following words: " To say that 
 to be born again and to be immersed is the same thing, 
 is false, and cannot be supported by the word of God." 
 The Bishop, in his narrative, states that he " was con- 
 strained to accept this awkward proposition, or to have 
 no discussion." If the reader will refer to his Extra, Na 
 1, page 28, he will at once perceive that he had so une- 
 quivocally advocated the doctrine or position which the 
 proposition last presented affirms to he false, that he could 
 not unqualifiedly object to it without making it glaringly 
 manifest either that he was determined to have no further 
 discussion, or that he was unwilling to defend what he 
 had deliberately published. Nevertheless he evinced a 
 desire to avoid the discussion even of this proposition, 
 which, in his view, or according to his feelings at the 
 time, it is believed, was indeed " awhcard''' enough. In- 
 stead of frankly and without hesitation accepting of the 
 proposition, as a man who had confidence in the truth of 
 what he had published to the Avorld would do, he re- 
 quired, as a condition precedent to his acceptance of it, 
 that I should make a concession. In the abstract, and 
 according to every sound principle, he had no more right 
 or just reason to demand this than he had to demand 
 one of my garments, or than the robber on the high 
 way has to demand the traveller's money. If he 
 had in his Extra advanced nothing except the truth fairly 
 deduced from the word of God, what need of a conces- 
 sion from me? Could not the champion of Bethany, who 
 could boast of having foiled or totally defeated powerful 
 foes, defend himself in liis own intrenchments, if indeed 
 they were fortified " by the word of truth," and he hin> 
 aalf clad with the " armor of righteousness on the righl 
 
CAMPBELLISM. 
 
 169 
 
 hand and on the left?" It seems to be evident that the 
 object of Mr. C. in demanding the concession, was not 
 merely, as he would have his readers believe, to save 
 debate, but that he might have some plausible pretence 
 for declining a further discussion if his demand were not 
 complied with, or in case of a compliance, that he might 
 gain what he supposed would be an important advantage 
 m the discussion of the proposition. And in confirmation 
 of this view of his real object, let it be observed, that no 
 sooner was the concession made according to his de- 
 mand, than there were evident indications of exultation 
 among his followers, some of whom, immediately after 
 the adjournment until the afternoon, and before the dis- 
 cussion of the proposition commenced, were heard to say 
 there could be no doubt about the issuse of the debate, 
 inasmuch as they considered the concession decisive of 
 the question. The concession required by Mr. C. and 
 made by me, was, as he has iruly stated, that the term 
 regeneration, in Titus 3:5, was equivalent lo " being born 
 again," according to the sense in which I understood the 
 phrELse. Believing as I did the concession required to be 
 in accordance with the truth, it was made with a view 
 of removing even the shadow of a pretence for avoiding 
 any further discussion, and the Bishop may well say ha 
 was constrained to accept the ^' awkward proposition*" 
 
 After an adjournment till 3 o'clock, we again met, and 
 the discussion commenced. As I held not the negative, 
 as Mr. C. in his narrative has represented, but the affir- 
 mative of the proposition, as I had therein affirmed one 
 of his leading doctrines to he false, it is true that I " arose 
 without ceremony," and opened the debate by speaking 
 twenty minutes. The first argument in the series of proof 
 advanced to show the unsoundness of the position that 
 " to be born again and to be immersed is the same thing,** 
 was drawn from the apparent uncharitableness of the 
 doctrine thereby implied. For if it be true, as our Sa- 
 viour declares to Nicodemus, that except a man be born 
 again he cannot see the kingdom of God; and if by this 
 expression we are to understand that unless a man ba 
 
170 
 
 DEBATE ON 
 
 immersed he cannot obtain the forgiveness of his sins, ot 
 the favor of God, as Mr. C. in his Extra (page 12) con- 
 tends, then it follows, as it is also alleged by him, that all 
 who are not immersed are in a state of condemnation. 
 It matters not, however upright they may be in their in- 
 tention, — or however truly disposed in heart to obey all 
 the commands of God, or however desirous to know the 
 will of God that they may do it,' — it matters not how 
 penitent they be for their sins, and contrite and humble 
 in their spirit, and holy in their Hfe and conversation, — 
 it matters not how conscientious they may be in refrain- 
 ing from being immersed, influenced by a belief, and that 
 too after a careful examination of the word of God, that 
 he does not require it at their hands, — still, if the Bishop's 
 doctrine be true, they must be and remain in a state of 
 condemnation, until they receive the law at his mouth, 
 and be immersed, at the same time believing that he 
 " that made the washing of clay from the eyes, the wash- 
 ing away of blindness," has made " the immersion of the 
 body in w^ater" (of him who historically heWexes the gos- 
 pel) " efficacious for the washing away mnfrom iJie am- 
 science^* 
 
 It is true, as Mr. C. states in his narrative, thai he in 
 reply made his appeal to the audience, " whether his 
 charitableness or uncharitableness was any proof of the 
 proposition," and he loudly complained that I was endea- 
 voring " to incapacitate them for examining coolly and 
 dispassionately the question, by an attempt to inflame 
 their passions and arouse their prejudices." The Bishop 
 seemed, both in his own view and in fact, to be so iden* 
 tified with his favorite doctrine, as to render him incapa- 
 ble of distinguishing between that convenient method of 
 washing away sin, and himself; and was led to consider 
 any attack upon the former, as leveWed person aJIy against 
 its author. It was admitted that his " charitableness or 
 uncharitableness" had nothing to do with the question. 
 But not so with regard to the true nature or character 
 of his doctrine which he was endeavoring to defend, and 
 
 * See Mr. Campbell's Extra, No. 1, page 40, 
 
CAMPBELLISM. 
 
 171 
 
 which I had undertaken to show to be false and unsup- 
 ported by the word of God. It was contended, that if 
 any supposed religious doctrine or sentiment, after a seri- 
 ous and candid examination appears to be uncharitable 
 in its nature and tendency, it furnishes a strong pre sump- 
 tivCf though not a conclusive argument, that it is not 
 sound; and that if we had any means of ascertaining its 
 uncharitableness beyond all doubt, its falsehood would 
 thereby be conclusively established. But as the best and 
 most enlightened men are liable to err in judgment, and 
 perhaps from various causes may be more especially Ha- 
 ble to mistake in forming a judgment concerning the tnie 
 character and tendency of any religious doctrine which 
 their minds do not receive, it would not be safe, nor was 
 it pretended in the discussion, to rely upon any argument 
 drawn from this source as conclusive, or as furnishing of 
 itself sufficient grounds to reject the doctrine in question- 
 But it was contended, that the spirit and tendency of the 
 Bishop's (}.K)pish) doctrine, did so palpably appear to be 
 in direct collision, not only with the spirit of the benign 
 gospel of the " blessed God," but with many of its gra- 
 clous declarations, as to furnish a strong presumption, that 
 it could not be true, and ought therefore to put all upon 
 their guard against a hasty reception of it, and especially 
 to excite such as felt any inclination to embrace it, first 
 to search the scriptures to see whether these things be so. 
 
 We have not only seen that the tendency of the doo 
 trine of Mr. C. is to anathematize «//, who do not receive 
 and obey it, but that he himself declares all such to be 
 in " a state of condemnation." Now the word of God 
 declares that he dwells with and saves such as are con- 
 trite in spirit. Hence the doctrine in question, if true, 
 must lead to one of two conclusions, either that among 
 all that portion of the Christian world, w^ho do not prac- 
 tise immersion, (and that too under a belief that it is the 
 only method of obtaning pardon of sin, as well as de- 
 liverance from its defilement,) there never has been, one 
 truly humble and contrite person, or if there have been, 
 as few will doubt, many of this character, who have ne- 
 
172 
 
 DEBATE OPT 
 
 ver been immersed, then the numerous declarations of 
 the word of God in relation to the special favor with 
 which he is said to regard such, are not true. 
 
 It was therefore left with the audience, as it is now 
 with the reader, to judge, whether the Bishop's doctrine ., 
 does appear to partake more of the spirit of Popery, than 
 of the charitable spirit of the gospel, and whether a strong 
 presumption does not hence arise, that it is not true, 
 
 Mr. C., in his reply to this presumptive proof, did not ' 
 deny, that the consequences of his doctrine in its bearing 
 upon the state or condition of all who did not receive it, 
 had been truly stated; and for the plain reason, that they 
 had been stated in his own words. Nor did he un- 
 dertake to vindicate it against the charge of uncharita- 
 bleness, so far as his observations can now be recollect- 
 ed; nor does he in his narrative give any hint that he 
 made any attempt of the kind. But with a view of mar- 
 king the best show of defence he was able, or with a view 
 to excite the prejudice of the audience against myself as 
 a reputed high-toned predestinarian or fatalist, or with an 
 intention to divert me from my purpose, and to change 
 the subject under discussion, he resorted to recrimination 
 instead of argument, by making some statement concern^ 
 ing the doctrine of predestination, to show, as he informs 
 the readers of his narrative, " how illy [ill] it became" . 
 me " to talk about the charitableness of systems:" Mr. C. 
 seemed anxious to conceal from the view of the audience 
 the fact that he was called in consequence of his own 
 invitation to defend ms system, and that however " illy" 
 it became me to raise objections, it certainly " became^ 
 him to vindicate it, if in his power. He also lost sight of 
 another thing which made a wide difference between 
 him and myself, as well as the doctrine we respectively 
 hold, even upon the supposition that I had embraced the 
 most odious and frightful caricature of predestination, 
 that ever was drawn even by the Bishop himself. It 
 had never been held or inculcated, by myself or any 
 consistent Calvinist, that all who did not believe in the 
 doctrine of predestination, were " in a state of condemna- 
 
CAMPBELLISM. 
 
 173 
 
 t20R " as had been frequently asserted by him, both m 
 his public addresses and writings, concerning all that 
 were not immersed. On the contrary, it is believed by 
 us Calvinists, and we rejoice in the belief, that there are 
 thousands of the " excellent of the earth," who do not, 
 and who cannot, with the views which they take of the 
 word of God, embrace this doctrine. 
 
 By way of a passing reply to the observations of Mr. 
 C, upon this subject, it was simply remarked to the au- 
 dience, that the views of Calvinists, or at least of Pres- 
 byterians, in relation to this doctrine, w^ere greatly mis- 
 understood l)y some, and principally through the misre- 
 presentations of others. That they, in common with all 
 other evangelical Christians, rejected the dogma that any 
 of the decrees of God stood in the way of man's salva- 
 tion. And for the true extent of the charity, not only of 
 the body of Christians to which I belong, but of all the 
 evangelical reformed churches^ my opponent, as well as 
 the audience, were referred to the declaration of an 
 apostle, (Acts 34:3.5,) " Of a truth I perceive that God is 
 no respecter of persons: but in every nation, he that 
 feareth him and worketh righteousness, is accepted with 
 him." In reply, Mr. C. read a detached paragraph from 
 our Confession of Faith, and therewith ended his attempt 
 to digress from the subject under discussion. 
 
 I next proceeded to prove the falsehood of the doc- 
 trine, that " to he * horn again, and to he immersed art 
 the same thing,''^ from the word of God. The first pas- 
 sage adduced for this purpose, was the conversation of 
 our Lord with Nicodemus, as contained in the 3d chapter 
 of John; although it was well known that Mr. C. pretend- 
 ed to deduce from the same conversation, one of hk< 
 chief arguments in support of the position which brJ 
 been affirmed to be false. This, as has been stated al- 
 ready, he shortly before attempted in a public harangue, 
 delivered in the same house. On that occasion, appa- 
 rently with a view to avoid the appearance of texivmv 
 preaching, against which he so repeatedly raises a loud 
 outcry, he affected to take a view of the whole conversa- 
 16 
 
174 
 
 DEliATE G2f 
 
 tion; but when he had reached the 5th verse he proceeded 
 no fun her iii his pretended lecture. But at great length cri- 
 deavored trom that text, to show that tube born of water,, 
 meant immersion, w^hile that part of the text which 
 speaks /* of the Spirit," seemed to be regarded, if regard- 
 ed at all, as a matter of minor importance. With a 
 view, therefore, as well to counteract any iiiipression 
 that might have been made by that discourse upon the 
 minds of any tlien present, as to prove the unsoundness 
 of Iiis doctrine, it was contended that whatever was the 
 true meaning of the phrase " born of water," it was de- 
 m.)ii5trablc from the tenor of the wJutle conversation of 
 our Lord with Nicodemus, that when Jesus assured him 
 that " except a man be born again he cannot see the 
 kingd.>m of God," lie did not mean that this ruler of the 
 Jews should understand that the meaning of the words, 
 " horn again*' was iminirs'on in water. No sooner did 
 Jesus propose this important doctrine to the Pharisee 
 who had come to him for instruction upon the most im- 
 portant of all subjects, and too under a just conviction 
 that he was a teacher come from God, than he began to 
 raise objections, " How can a man be born when he is 
 oW can he enter the second time into his mother's 
 womh and be born'" The Divine teacher perceiving 
 that he was altogether misunderstood, proceeded as well 
 to exnlain, as to reiterate and enforce his doctrine. Giv- 
 ing^ Nicodemus clearly to understand that it was not a 
 natural, but a spiritual birth that was insisted on, as es- 
 sentially necessary to qualify a man for the kingdom of 
 God. Jesus an Ave red, verily, verily, I say unto thee, 
 exceot a man be born of water, and of the Spirit, he 
 cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is 
 born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is bom of the 
 Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, ye 
 mus^ be born acrain. The wind bloweth where it listeth, 
 and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell 
 whence it come:h, and whither it goeth, so is every one 
 that is born of the Spirit." 
 
 Thus the " Teacher sent from God," either gave to this 
 
CABTPBELLISH. 
 
 175 
 
 inquirer for the truth, all the jexplanation and illus rajkm 
 of which the proposed doctrine was susceptible, or all 
 that infinite Wisdom and Goodness thought proper upon 
 that occasion to afford. Surely, then, we would be 
 ready to conclude, that he was not only now fully under- 
 stood by Nicodemus, but that all his difficulties and all 
 his objections were removed. But so far was all this frona 
 the fact, that his perplexity of mind seemed only to be 
 increased. Instead of accepting the explanation given, 
 instead of acknowledging the importance of the doc- 
 trine, or ceasing to marvel that Jesus said, and had said 
 again : " Ye must be born again," he replied, " How can 
 these things be?" Now^ it is asked, whether any person 
 w^hose mind is free from the delusions of Campbellisni, 
 can believe, that if our Saviour had intended to teach 
 Nicodemus the doctrine contended for by the Bishop, 
 he would hav« left his mind to labor under per- 
 plexity and doubt, especially as he could hnd no- 
 thing in the law, or the prophets, or the Old Testa- 
 ment scriptures, to lead him to the conclusion, ihat by 
 being " horri again,'^ he was to understand immersion in 
 \vater? Would not the compassionate Jesus have replied 
 to this effecf: Be not so filled wiih surprise, Nicodemus, 
 nor indulge the supposition that it is impossible for a man 
 to be borfif even when he is old, in the sense in which I 
 use the word; all that is intended thereby, is immersion. 
 You say that I am * a teacher come from God,' and you 
 say well, for so I am. But I am still more, — your long 
 expected Messiah. Read the prophecies, compare dates, 
 examine my pretensions, and ascertain for yourself a 
 knowledge of the fact, that I am the Son of God; and if 
 vou can historically believe that fact, and thereupon be 
 immersed, (by whom it matters not, so that it be another 
 historical believer of the same sect,) you will then be 
 born again, both of the water and of the spirit, and you 
 will forthwith be ' pardoned, adopted, justified, sanctified 
 and saved,' whereas, until you be thus immersed, you 
 must remain in ' a state of condemnation.' " Now, it is 
 asked again, if this be not the doctrine of Mr. C, fairly 
 
176 
 
 DEBATE OiT 
 
 Stated? and whether if this explanation had been given 
 to Nicodemus, he could any longer have mistaken the 
 meaning of his teacher, or any further indulged his 
 doubts concerning the practicabihty of what was i^equired 
 to qualify a man for the kingdom* of God? Would he 
 not have said, is this all? I have indeed my doubts, 
 whether this teacher, notwithstanding the miracles he 
 does, be indeed the Messiah, the child that was long 
 since foretold should be born of a virgin, the Son that 
 should be given, upon whose shoulders the government 
 should be, and whose name should " be called Wonder- 
 ful, Counsellor, the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, 
 tiie Prince of Peace." But as this teacher "seems to 
 make the way into the kingdom of heaven, not only so 
 plain, but so easy and so cheap, it certainly desen-es a 
 serious inquiry whether his pretensions be just, and if I 
 can but satisfy my mind as to the truth of the fact, that 
 he is the Son of God, I shall have no difficulty in com- 
 }>iying with what he requires. Thus, we may safely 
 conclude, Nicodemus would have reasoned, for thus would 
 any man of common sense have reasoned, who had tiie 
 lea3t desire to know the truth and save his soul alive. 
 
 And the only difference, let it just be remarked, between 
 the situation of an anxious inquirer for truth, seeking 
 knowledge at the lips, or from the writings of the Bishop, 
 and that which would have been the situation of Nicode- 
 mus, had the above, or a similar explanation, been given 
 him by the teacher come from God, consists in this, the 
 latter would probably still have had his doubts concern- 
 ing the fact, that Jesus was the Son of God, while the 
 former, as well he might, would be slow to believe that 
 the Bishop of Bethany was a true faithful interpreter 
 of His doctrine. 
 
 But returning from this digression, let us see what was 
 llie reply of the Saviour to the inquiry of Nicodemus, 
 ijidicating so much distressing doubt and perplexity. 
 " Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these 
 things?" This, certainly, implies that Jesus brought no- 
 Be\T thing, or any doctrine that had not been revealed in 
 
CAMPBELLIS«, 
 
 the Old Testament scriptures, to his ears. Tliat he did 
 not require oi him any qualification for the kingdom of 
 God, of which his saints in all ages had not been the sub- 
 jects. That it was but reas< .nab'.o, especially consideriBg 
 his special advantages, and the o;iice he held among isi^ 
 own people, to expect that he understood the impcriaut 
 subject about which our Lord had been conversing, evea 
 as had all the Old Testament saints. And this fully 
 answers the inquiry that may arise in the minds of soEUje, 
 why our Lord did not give Nicodemus a more full and 
 satisfactory explanation of his doctrine? It was not ne- 
 cessary: God had already declared by his servant David, 
 and caused it to be recorded in the 25th Psalm, that 
 ** the meek he will guide in judgment, and the meek he 
 will teach his way." Had Nicodemus, tliereforc, ifi- 
 quired for the truth vviih the same mt^ekness and earnesl* 
 ness, that David did, when, in the language of this sam^ 
 psalm, he prayed: " S1k)W me thy ways, O Lord; teach 
 me thy paths. I^ad me in thy truth and teach me : fcr 
 thou art the God of my salvation; on thee do I wait ali 
 the day;" and with the sa ue sense of his dependency 
 upon, and his need of the Holy Spirit, not only to guide 
 and teach, but to quicken and sanctify his soul, that this 
 humble Psalmist felt, when in the language of the 51st 
 Psalm, he prayed: Take not away thy Holy Spirit 
 from me?" — there can be no doubt, he would have 
 known by a happy experience, the things about whic^ 
 his Divine teacher condescended to converse with him. 
 Thus he would have understood the Saviour to have 
 spoken, not of a natural, but of a spiritual birth, implying 
 a change of condition, not less, but mere important than 
 Viat of being brought from the darkness and continement 
 of the mother's womb, to the light and varied enjoyments 
 of this natural world. For he would then, like David, 
 have lieea taui^^ht by the word and Holy Spirit, that 
 while God desired *' truth in tlie inward parts, he was 
 shapen in iniquity, and in did his mother conceive 
 him;" and this would have led him to pray, as did David, 
 ^ Create in nae a clean heart, and renew a right -spirit 
 
 *16 
 
178 
 
 DEBATE OX 
 
 within me," and as God had promised by his sen-ants 
 \}ie prophets, to give to such of the house of Israel as 
 would seek the blessing at his liands, a new lieari and a 
 new spirit, and to put his own Spirit witliin them, &c., 
 there can be no doubt but that his prayer would have 
 been answered, and that he would have understood his ^ 
 divine teacher as speaking of the work of the Spirit of 
 God, renewing and cleansing the heart, when he explain- 
 ed the expression, "bom again," by being "born of water 
 and of tlie Spirit." He would have understood that by 
 being " born again," nothing more or less was intended, 
 than that great and astonishing change, which can only 
 be eiiected by the power and quickening grace of the 
 Spirit of God, the eiibct of which is the })roduction of a 
 jiew heart — a clean heart, in which the law of God is 
 written, upon which the image of God is renewed, and 
 in which the Spirit himself makes his abode; a change, 
 which both in the Old and New Testaments, is repre- 
 sented by a creation, a new creation of that which had 
 been destro}'ed. And in the New Testament, by a pass- 
 ing from a state of darkness into God's marvellous light; 
 by a deliverance from the power of darkness, and a tran- 
 slation into the kingrdom of God's dear Son; by a quick- 
 ening to a state of life, fi-om a state of death in trespasses 
 ani sins, &c. 
 
 Nor would the mind of Nicodemus, had he thus 
 been taucrht of God, as was David and as were all the 
 Old Testament saints, have been perplexed by the allu- 
 sion made by Jesus to w^ater, when it is recollected how 
 many allusions to that element we find in the Old 
 Testament, which cannot be understood literally, as well 
 a<? the ii^ashirio-s therein enjoined and even prayed for. 
 WashincTS not of the body only, but of the heart. " Wash 
 mo thorouirhlv from mine inicjuity and cleanse me from 
 my sin. Wash me and I shall be whiter than snow,'^ 
 wa> the prayer of David when opj)ressed with a sens:^ of 
 sin and moral pollution. " O Jerusalem, wash thy heart 
 from wickedness, that thou mayest be saved," was the 
 command of God, (Jeren^iah 4:1 1.) This could be effect- 
 
CAMPBELLISM. 
 
 179 
 
 ed by no outward ablutions. This David well knew, as 
 appears from his prayer that God would wash him, vS:c, 
 It was e(]Lially understood by Job, when h.e declared, 
 (chap. 9:30,81.) " If I wash myself with snow water, and 
 make my hands never so clean: yet shalt thou plunge 
 me in the ditch, and my own clothes shall abhor me," 
 TJie same is still more emphatically declared by God 
 himself to the Jews, by his prophet Jeremiah, (chap. 2:22,) 
 " For though thou wash thee with nitre and take ihee 
 much soap, yet thine iniquity is marked before me, saith 
 tJie Lord God." The question then arises, how was this 
 great object to be effected, and this indispensable recjuire- 
 ment of God to be performed? The only answer is, tliat 
 with regard to such as acknowledged that they had sinned 
 and destroyed themselves, and that in God alone was their 
 help, and who cried to him, as did David, for deliverance 
 from their sin, God was pleased to promise to do it for 
 them. The manner in which he would do this, is declared 
 by the mouth of another prophet, (Ezek. 36:25,26,) " 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. A new heart also will I give you, 
 and a new spirit will I put within you; and I wnll take 
 away the stony heart out of your flesfi, and I will gi\'e 
 you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within 
 you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall 
 k'eep my judgments, and do them." Here then is not 
 only tlie gracious promise of God, but an account or de- 
 scription of the process whereby he would wash or 
 cleanse the hearts, or in other words, whereby he would 
 G^ve a new heart. And, it is presumed, Mr. C. himself, 
 would not, in this instance, understand the declaration 
 that God would " sprinkle clean water," &c. lileralty, 
 then the heart of every man, wdiether Jew or Gen- 
 tile, is alike — equally " stony," " deceitful above all things 
 and desperately wicked;" for " as in water face nn- 
 st^reth to face, so the heart of man to man;"* it folloavs 
 
 • ProT. 27:19. 
 
DEBATE ON 
 
 that, every one that ever has obtained this new heart, or 
 has been born of the Spirit, has been the subject of the 
 same gracious work, or process above described. Ac- 
 cordingly such as truly received the Saviour upon his 
 advent into the world, or such as believed on his naiiic, 
 are described by John, (chap. 1:13,) as having been 
 ** born, not of blood, nor of the will of the fiesh, nor of 
 the will of man, but of God." This declaration by a 
 writer of the gospel, as well as that by the prophet, leads 
 to the conclusion that the allegation that the literal inter- 
 vention of water is indispensably necessary to effect this 
 birth, which is of, and from God, and God alone, is not 
 truth, but a fable, " cminingly devised,''' to deceive unsta- 
 ble souls, and calculated to induce them to rest U})on the 
 mere external attendance of the ordinances of God, or, 
 in other words, to be content with " a form of godhness," 
 ■while they deny its powder. 
 
 It was still further observed, upon this conversation of 
 Jesus with Nicodemus, that if Mr. C.'s doctrines were 
 true, it would be strange that the only illustration which 
 the Saviour gave of his doctrine, was drawn not from the 
 water, but the vind. " The wind bloweth where it listeth 
 and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell 
 whence it cometh, and whither it goeth, so is every one 
 that is born of the Spirit." This declaration certainly 
 was designed to teach Nicodemus, and to teach us, that 
 though there was no more reason to doubt the reahty of 
 this new birth, than to doubt the existence of the wind, 
 still there was something in its nature, and the manner 
 whereby it was effected, that could not be fully under- 
 stood even by the subject of it; although he may be assur- 
 ed of its having taken place, by the effects produced upon 
 his heart, and consequently, upon his whole character 
 and conduct. But if to be born again and immersion be 
 the same thing, the illustration would seem to admit of 
 no application to the subject. Surely there is nothing in 
 the act and attending circumstances of immersion, that 
 cannot be fully understood. The doctrine which was, 
 and is now contended to be false, makes all the cbaoge 
 
CAMPBELLISM. 
 
 181 
 
 produced by the new birth to be outward — the object of 
 the senses — and certainly it may, in that case, be known 
 to the senses of men, as well such as are the subjects 
 of it, as those who are spectators, " whence it cometk" 
 And this seems to be the view which the Bishop himself 
 takes of this subject. In his Millenial Harbinger, Extra, 
 No. 1, he represents the change as a matter of senses 
 leaving no doubt upon the mind of the person immersed, 
 that he is born of God. He consequently, and no doubt 
 truly, describes his converts as being free from thos6 
 doubts about their being in favor with God, with which 
 evangehcal Christians, through weakness of faith, or in 
 limes of temptation and spiritual desertion, are often 
 harassed. If a Campbellite convert be inquired of con- 
 cerning the reason of the hope that is in him, his bishop 
 informs us, he is ready to answer, I believed historically 
 the fact, that Jesus is the Son of God, and I was there- 
 upon immersed, and therefore I can no more doubt that 
 I am born of God, than I can doubt the fact of my im- 
 mersion. And Mr. C, moreover, illustrates the cliange 
 as being the object of the senses, by the supposed case of a 
 man, who, in the act of changing his residence by removing 
 from Pennsylvania to Virginia, by crossing an arbitrary 
 and ideal boundary, is not sensible of the transition, as 
 contrasted with that of a man making a similar change 
 from Virginia to Ohio, by swimming the river which 
 forms the natural boundary between the States last 
 mentioned. The person last supposed, he informs his 
 readers, " immediately realizes the change."* This sup- 
 posed change from a state of condemnation to the favor 
 of God, may suit the views of such as wish to find an 
 <^sy way to heaven; but if it be true, the declaration of 
 our Saviour that " strait is the gate and narrow is the 
 way which leadeth to life, and few there be that find it," 
 is made void. 
 
 It was thus attempted to be shown, that this conversa- 
 tion of our Lord with Nicodemus, (upon a detached pas- 
 
 • See Millenial Harbinger. 
 
182 
 
 DEBATE ON 
 
 sage, on which, with a few other texts, Mr. C. attempts 
 to build his watery system.) when properly viewed, 
 proved the unsoundness and utter worthlessness of the 
 doctrine, that would make baptism or immersion identical 
 with being born of God, and that it would lead the mind 
 to the satisfactory conclusion, that the birth there spoken 
 of, is of a higher and nobler and more spiritual nature, 
 tlian Mr. C. seems to have formed any conception ol". 
 And that by the expression of our Saviour, " bo?ii of 
 n ater^^- if it have aiiy allusion to baptism, (which it may, 
 or may not, for any thing we know,) it is merely, as 
 water in that ordinance is, emblematical, or the outward 
 sign of the inward seal and grace of the Holy Spirit, 
 which the subject of this ordinance, when baptized in 
 adult age, is supposed already to have received. Thus 
 we know, and especially from the declaration of our 
 Lord himself, that water is the emblem of the Spirit^ 
 (John 7:38,39.) " He that believeth on me, out of his 
 belly shall flow rivers of hving water. But this spake 
 he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him sliould 
 receive," &c. In the same way we must understand 
 our Lord in his con^^ersa^ion with the woman of Sama- 
 ria. (John 4.) Water then being the divinely appointed 
 emblem of the Holy Spirit, and his saving influences, 
 we may see not only how beautiful and appropriate it is, 
 in general, but especially as it is used according to the 
 divine command in baptism. There are, especially, two 
 great or principal uses to which it is applied, for support- 
 ing our natural life and promoting its comfort — to quench 
 thirst, and to' cleanse from natural pollution. Corres- 
 ponding to these, water is used as well to represent those 
 mfluences of the Spirit, which satisfy the soul that thirsts 
 for God, " Ho every one that thirsteth come ye to tlie 
 waters," &c., as that grace of the same Spirit, whero- 
 hy a sinner is quickened and sanctified, " I will sprinkle 
 clean water upon you," &c. In the former case it is 
 represented as being drunk by the thirsty, in the latter 
 case, as being applied to cleanse away the filth of such 
 )as are polluted, And such is evidently the emblematical 
 
CAMPBELLISM. 
 
 ^89 
 
 use of water in the ordinance of baptism. The apphca- 
 tion, or use ot" water, changes not the actual moral or 
 spiritual condition of its subject. It is received or at- 
 tended upon, when done intelUgently and in adult years, 
 even as Abraham received the sign of circumcision, " a 
 seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet 
 being uncircuiricised." It is not, however, intended to 
 be denied, but that an attendance upon this ordinance 
 does produce an outward change upon the condition of 
 its subject, inasmuch as it is the only method of gaining 
 admittance into the visible church or kingdom of God in 
 this world; but I now only o})pose the doctrine of Mr. 
 C, that it is in addition to this, the only converting ordi- 
 nance, as well as means or way of passing out of a state 
 of condemnation, into that of favor with God. 
 
 In opposition to this view or explanation of the con- 
 versation of Jesus with Nicodemus, it was contended by 
 Mr. C. that the expression, " horn of water in connection 
 with other passages of the New Testament, (which will 
 be noticed in the sequel,) fully supported his doctrine, 
 that the expression must be understood literally. And 
 in proof of this, he contended that the whole of the (5th) 
 verse, must be understood in the same way, or be inter- 
 preted upon the same principle. That is, it must either 
 be literal or figurative throughout. Thus if to be " born 
 of water," be a figurative expression, so must that of be- 
 ing born of the Spirit, with which it is connected. He 
 further contended, it would be an unwarrantable use to 
 make of the scriptures, to interpret one part of the same 
 passage figuratively and another literally. He further 
 contended that by the expression " born of water j'^ we 
 were to understand our Saviour to mean immersion. In 
 proof of this position, although he professed to derive 
 some collateral support from Titus 3:5. Eph. 5:26, and a 
 few other passages which will be examined hereafter, his 
 main reliance, contrary to his repeated declarations, evi- 
 dently was not upon the s(5riptures, but human authority. 
 And it may here be remarked, as a matter justly to be 
 doubted, whether another instance can readily be pro- 
 
184 
 
 DEBATE OS 
 
 duced of a man making such frequent and loud professfona 
 of his sole rehance on the word of God; yet at the same 
 time making such a sj^aring use of the scriptures, and 
 such a frequent exhibition of human autliorities, an did 
 Mr. C. upon that occasion. 
 
 Thus he contended, again and again, that all antiqui* 
 ty considered Titus 3:5, and John 3:5, as referring to 
 immersio/i. lie moreover attempted to show that bo- 
 cause I would not uni]ualifiodly admit that these passages 
 referred to baptism, I was op}:)osing my own creed, inas- 
 much as they are referred to in our Confession of Faith, 
 in proof of that view of the nature of baptism which is 
 hold by the Presbyterian church. Having thus, in his 
 own view, established that being " born of water," had 
 an exclusive reference to immersion, he contended that 
 no person can be " born again," until he be immersed. 
 That a person could not be said to be born of watCF, 
 until first having been buried or immersed in that ele- 
 ment, he was raised or brought forth out of it. By way 
 of illustration, or proof of this, he referred to that passage 
 in tlie New Testament, which describes our Saviour as 
 " tlio first born from the dead." 
 
 But inasmuch as Jesus, by way of explanation or cd-. 
 forcement of the doctrine, that " Except a man be born 
 again, he cannot see the kingdom of God," had declare^l 
 in reply to the objection of Nicodemus, " Except a man 
 be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into 
 the kingdom of God." And inasmuch as it had been 
 observed, that the principal illustration given by our Sa- 
 viour of his doctrine, had been taken, not from water, 
 but the wind, Mr. C., so far as he could be understood upon 
 this part of the subject, seemed to contend that it would, 
 as a matter of course, if not necessarily follow, that a 
 person thus immersed or " born of water," would also bo 
 born of the Spirit. He remarked, (and his remark was 
 true,) that the same Greek word which is used to desig- 
 nate the Spirit of Go'A, also means the wind. Hence lie 
 contended, that as a child, as soon as it is naturally born, 
 breathes the atmosphere or common air, which in sub- 
 
CAMPBELLI5M. 
 
 185 
 
 siance is the same with tlie w ind, so as soon as a per>-oR 
 i« " born of water," he is introduced kito a spiritual ar- 
 rnosphere, and is to all intents and purposes born again. 
 While he contended that a person cannot be born again, 
 or born of God, or obtain his favor or the forgiveness of 
 sins, until he be immersed; yet he not only admitted, but 
 contended, that before, or without immersion, he may be 
 begotten of God, arid his mind impregnated by the vi ord 
 of truth, and for this purpose, he descanted, as lie informs 
 us in his narrat ve, " upon the use of the term begotten, 
 in the epistles of John and Peter; and ' on the fact that 
 water always preceded, in ajxjstohc style, the uord and 
 the Spirit, when they occurred in the same passages.' 
 
 In reply to Mr. C., it was contended that it was no 
 unwavrantable or unusual method of expounding the 
 scriptures, to understand one part of the same |>assage 
 jii^uratively, and another, /?Yera%. And in proof of this, 
 a number of passages were referred to, which Mr. C, it 
 was alleged, could not himself expound upon any other 
 principle. Thus the passage already referred to, (John 
 7:37,39,) furnishes a striking instance of what is here 
 alleged, " He that believeth on me, out of his belly shall 
 flow rivers of living water." That the expre^:sion. *• he 
 that believeth on me," must be understood liierally, can- 
 not be denied, and yet that we are to understand the re- 
 maining part of the passage figuratimly, we have the 
 authority of the inspired writer of the gospel liimself 
 What then becomes of Mr. C.'s preteiideii reverence for 
 the scriptures, and his assertion about their unw^arranta- 
 ble use? Is it not all a mere feint to cover his attempt 
 to wrest these sacred oracles in support of his all- water 
 system. In like manner Mr. C. was referred to the pas- 
 sage in Ezekiel, already cited at length, " I will sprinkle 
 clean water upon you," &c. Here it was obser ved, it 
 was very evident he could not understand this expres- 
 sion literally, without overturning his whole system, and 
 yet it was equally evident that other parts of the same 
 passage, must be understood literally. Other passacres 
 were also referred to, or were intended so to be, \>\^^ 
 17 
 
DEBATE Oir 
 
 were passed over, either through inadvertence or wani 
 ot time. Indeed many more passages might, were it ut;- 
 ce>sary, be referred to, in refutation of tliis posiiion ui 
 the Bishop, which seems to be one of {he main pillars 
 \i}>o:\ which his worthless la brie is attempted to be 
 erected; I shall, however, trouble my readers by reli&r- 
 rrng to two only, whicli are considered as having' a very 
 particular bearing, not only upon this position of Mr. C, 
 but upon the principal question discussed. The first is 
 found in Isa. 44:3, " For I will pour water upon him that 
 i:i thirsty, and floods upon the dry ground: I will pour 
 my Spirit upon th}- seed, and my blessing upon thine 
 offspring," &:c. Here the former part of the passage is 
 evidently figurative, and contains substantially a pro- 
 mise of the same blessings, or at Jeast,. blessings of the 
 iidmc nature with those promised in the falter part And" 
 what is more, it not only establishes the position that the 
 term water is very frequent}}- used in the scriptures to 
 denote the Holy Spirit, and his reviving, or quickening^ 
 or sanctifying grace, but it shows that the same subject 
 is represented, or similar blessings of this spiritual nature 
 are promised, in the same passage, both UttraJly and f(gu- 
 ratimly; as well, therefore, might the Bishop object to- 
 this passage being considered as partly literal and partly 
 figurative, or contend that the expression, " I will pour 
 water upon him that is thirsty," <fec., did not denote the 
 Spirit of God, as to object to a like consideration of John 
 3:5, and a similar exposition of that part of the passage,, 
 which speaks of being " horn of water."' 
 
 The second passage alluded to is Matt. 3:11, " I indeed 
 baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh 
 after me, is mightier than I, &c., he shall baptize you 
 with the Holy Ghost, and with fire." This passage alone 
 seems fully sufficient, not only to refute the Bishop^s rule, 
 by which alone he would have the 5th verse of the 3d 
 chapter of John expounded, but, when brought into con- 
 tact with his system of the new birth by water, to cause 
 ii to evaporate and disappear as the rising mist before 
 the beams of the sun. It would seem that Mr. C. had 
 
CAUPBELLISM. 
 
 the same view of the bearing of this passage upon hxs 
 scheme. Indeed the force of it could not be resisted, 
 and therefore it must be evaded by wresting it from t^>€ 
 plain and usual acceptation in which it had been held by 
 all parties, and rendered in all versions of the New Tes- 
 tament, not excepting his own. After substituting the 
 word immerse for baptize, (which was the rendering of 
 Dr. George Campbell,) the Bishop in his new version 
 gives the following translation of the same passage, " I 
 indeed immerse you in water that you may reform; but 
 he who comes after me is mightier than I, whose shoes 
 I am not worthy to carry. He will immerse you in the 
 Holy Spirit and fire." Of this passage the Bishop hae 
 given in his Millennial Harbinger, a gloss, which must 
 have been a heavy tax upon his ingenuity, if not upon 
 his conscience, and evinces a determination at all hazards 
 to deprive it of its bearing upon his system- With a 
 view that both parts of the passage may be expounded 
 literally, and more especially as it would seem, with a 
 ^iew to prevent the same thing, viz. the Holy Spirit in 
 his purifying influences, from having the appearance of 
 being represented both iiguratively and literally \n tht3 
 same passage, (as is evidently the case, as well in th*s 
 text, as in John 3:5,) he makes John the Baptist to say, 
 or at least to mean, that he that was coming after, (i. e. 
 Jesus Christ,) would immerse (baptize) them in (with) 
 die Holy vSpirit; and provided they did not reform (re- 
 pent) he would immerse them in hell-fire. Whether this 
 be not merely wresting, hut altering and adding to the 
 sacred record, let not only the learned who are acquaint- 
 ed with the origin;il Greek, but every one of comman 
 sense, judge. And let the Bishop himself hereafter blu^li 
 when he undertakes to declaim against that order of men„ 
 whom he most unjustly represents as claiming to have 
 the power to remove the veil of mystery, in which he 
 pretends they assert the word of God to be involved, arsd 
 without which the hidden meaning cannot be discovered. 
 
 It is only necessary to say that our version gives a 
 literal translation, with the exception of the word "i/^M^ 
 
168 
 
 DEBATE Ojr 
 
 printed in italics, as is uniformly the case where any 
 words have been supplied by the translators. Let us 
 now for a moment attend to the language of the Baptist, 
 " I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance," or 
 a5 the Bishop, upon the authority of Dr. Campbell, gives 
 it, that you may reform," not outwardly alone, but in 
 heart and* in Hfe. " As though he had said" this, all that I 
 a poor sinful man, (although none greater had ever gone 
 before him.) can do; hoping that your profession of your 
 purpose to return unto the Lord, from whom you have 
 deeply revolted, is sincere, I administer this divinely ap- 
 pointed ordinance by the apphcation of water to your 
 bodies, which is only an emblem or sign of tlie thing sig- 
 nified, the blessing of the Spirit of God, which he has 
 promised to give you. But he that cometh after me, 
 that is your promised and long expected Messiah, is 
 nightier than I; he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit 
 and fire. Who then, it is asked, was it declared the 
 Saviour would bapti:;e: ihe very same persons that John 
 baptized unto repentance, or at least, such of them as 
 were sincere, and not h\-pocritical in their profession. 
 In what manner, it is further asked, would he baptize 
 them? " With the Holy Ghost and fire" ISow let tlie 
 reader judge whether the foregoing paraphrase does not 
 speak the evident and undeniable meaning of this solemn 
 passage of the word of God, and whether Mr. C. does 
 not stand convicted of having wilfully wrested the scrip- 
 tures? Let Christians pray that he may be brought to 
 repentance, and that this, or any other of his numerous 
 perversions of these sacred records, may not be to hi* 
 own destruction, or that of others. 
 
 With regard to the Bishop's views of the nature of the 
 new birth, and his assertion that it could only be eft'ected 
 through the medium of inunersion, which, according to 
 his exposition, was intended by the phrase. " born of 
 water;" it was remarked in the discussion, that his ideas 
 appeared not only to be confused, but gross, and almost 
 as inadequate as those of Xicodemus. Indeed, it may be 
 here observed, once for all, that when Mr. C^ undertook 
 
CXaPBELLlSH. 
 
 lo speak of spiritual things, he was as unintelligible a? 
 we may suppose a man blind from his birth would tie, 
 should he undertake to lecture upon colors. He seemed 
 to be a perfect exeinplification of the " natural mar..'* 
 spoken of by the great apostle, who receives not lite 
 things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness unto 
 him; neidier can he know them, because they are spiritu- 
 ally discerned." In confirmation of this, it may he 
 added, that it was a general impression upon the minds 
 of the audience, (his own particular friends and followers 
 excepted,) that he appeared to be as igiiorant, as desti- 
 tute Oi the essentials of religion or true spirituality. 
 
 Thus it seemed, for instance, that Mr. C, in iormiVig 
 his views of the new birth, could not divest his mii.d, 
 (provided he really believed what he advanced in rela- 
 tion to the subject,) of the idea of an outward, visible, or 
 sensible analogy betvreen this and a natural birth. As 
 the birth of an infant has respect to the body, as well as 
 the soul, so he referred the new birth to the one, as well 
 as the other, but as it would seem, principally to the 
 former. As the infant's body, when it is born, comes 
 forth from its mother's womb, so, according to his view, 
 a person cannot be born again until he is first bo: ri of 
 water," that is, until his body is first immersed and then 
 brought forth from the vo:nb of water. In all this sup- 
 posed mighty ciiange, no divine agency is admitted or 
 required. It is not (and that is true enous:h,) in any 
 sense the work of the Spirit of God — it is all man's work. 
 And in support of these views, he asked with an air of seerw- 
 ing triumph, how ** a man could be bom of that which he 
 received?" alluding to the doctrine of the orthodox, that 
 they v/ho are b<)rn again are not only born of the Spirit, 
 but receive the earnest of that Spirit in their hearts. I: 
 was therefore contended that all this, as v.ell as hl^ 
 notion about a spiritual atmosphere, into which a perse n 
 " born of water,'* according to his view of that expres- 
 sion, is said to be introduced, was as far beneath the 
 dignity of the subject, as it evidently was foreign fi om 
 the meaning of our Saviour's language. The analogies 
 
 * 17 ^ 
 \ 
 
190 
 
 DEBATE OX 
 
 indeed between a natural and new or spiritual birth, it 
 was furLQer alleged, are indeed forcible, beautiful, ap[iro- 
 priate, but in so far as they regard the latter, or new 
 birth, have no relation to the body, but to the soul. That 
 the new birth, according to the evident sense of the scrip- 
 tures, and especially of the language of our Saviour in his 
 conversation wi h Nicodemus, plainly implied the com- 
 mencement of a new life, — a spiritual life, — a life of which 
 we are ail by nature destitute, " That which is born of 
 the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is 
 spirit." Therefore, " Marvel not that I said unto thee, 
 ye must be born again." As though the Divine teacher 
 had said, *• Seeing it is so that all this fallen race, for 
 w^hose salvation I have come into the world, are born of 
 the flesh, and are nought but flesh, or of ' a fleshly mind;* 
 and seeing that ' to be carnally minded is death, but to 
 be spiritually minded is life and peace:' therefore mar- 
 vel not that I say unto you, ye must be born again; born 
 of the Spirit, without which you must remain in the flesh, 
 in which state yoU cannot please God, — in which state 
 you must remain under the power of this carnal mind, 
 which is death, and destitute of that spirituality, or 
 spiritual life, which is tlie result of being ' a partaker of 
 the divine nature.'" 
 
 And this, it was further contended, evidently implied a 
 quickening or spiritual vivification of the soul, such as 
 none but God could etiect. Thus v» e are represented by 
 nature as lx?ing "dead in trespasses and sins," (Eph. 
 
 and the apostle, (verses 4,5.6,) addressing such as 
 he believed to be saints, declares concerning them, in 
 C'>mm:)n with himself, "But God who is rich in mercy, 
 vScc. Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened 
 us together with Chris'; (by grace ye are sa^ ed:) and 
 iiath raised us up tocrether, and made us sit together in 
 i:eayenly places in Christ Jesus." 
 
 The same thing is elsewhere in the scriptures, both of 
 the Old and New Testaments, represented under the idea 
 of a creation, — a veir creation, a creation to holiness, 
 to good works. Thus the apostle declares, (Eph. '2:10,) 
 
CAMPBELLISM. 
 
 191 
 
 •* For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus 
 unto good works," 6oC. Again, the same apostle, {2 Lor> 
 5:17,) " Therefore if any man be in Christ Jesus, he is 
 a new creature: old things are passed away; beliold all 
 tilings are become new." And again, in his epistle to iha 
 Ephesians, (4:22,24,) he exiiorts ihem to " put oti^, con- 
 cerning the former conversation, tlie old man, which is 
 corrupt according to the deceitiul lusts; and be renewed, 
 (adds tlie apostle,) in the spirit of your minds. And 
 that ye put on the new man, which after God, (or ao- 
 cording to his image,) is created in righteousness and 
 U'ue holiness." 
 
 Thus it appears that this new birth is tlie work of God, 
 whereby a sinner is " quickened" created (anew) in 
 Christ Jesus. So that he becomes " a new creature;" 
 * old things having passed away, ail things are becomo 
 new." in these, as well as in other respects, there is a 
 striking analogy between a natural and spiritual, or new 
 birth. As the change produced in the state of the infant, 
 so no less, but greater, is the change in the state of a sin- 
 ner that is born again. As the new born infont imme- 
 diately begins, in some feeble measure, to use its various 
 senses, and to discern surrounding objects, so the person 
 that is born again, immediately begins to receive ti>e 
 tilings of the Spirit of God, which once were foolishness 
 in his view, because they are now, at least in some faint 
 degree, spiritually discerned." As the feelings, desires 
 and mode of subsistence of the new born are entirely 
 new, so the person that is born again, becomes the sub- 
 ject of feelings, desires and enjoyments, entirely new. 
 He is, moreover, expressly styled a babe in Christ; and 
 tJie apostle Peter exhorted such as were young in tliQ 
 divine life, " as new born babes," to " desire the sincere 
 milk of the w^ord," that they might " grow^ thereby.^ 
 
 Now that this great change is eftected through ih.Q 
 agency or special operation of the Holy Sj^irit, is equally 
 evident from the word of God. The \vork is indeed as- 
 cribed to each of the persons in the Godhead, but the 
 person born again, is emphatically said to be " born of 
 
192 
 
 DEBATE ON 
 
 the Spirit." Thus our Lord declares, (John 5:21,) " For 
 as the Father raiseth up the dead and quickeneth Ihefn; 
 even so the Son quickenc-h whom he will." That this 
 has reference, as well to the quickening of such as be 
 dead in trespasses and sins, as to the quickening of im 
 dead in the last dciy, is evident from what follows. Jesus 
 further declares, (verse 25,) " Verily, I say unto you \\m 
 hour is coming and now is, when the dead shall hear the 
 voice of the Son of God, and they that hear, shall live.** 
 This evidently alludes to the quickening and spiritual re- 
 surrection or new birth, of such as be dead in sin ; for 
 it is further declared, (verse 28,29,) "Marvel not at this:" 
 as though the Savior had said, as I declared to Nico- 
 demus, so now say J unto you, marvel not at this: be not 
 astonished at this declaration of my purpose to quicken 
 such as are spiritually dead, " For, (he added,) the hour 
 is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall 
 hear his voice, and shall come forth: they that have done 
 good, unto the resurrection of hfe; and they that have 
 done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation." Although 
 therefore such as are born again, are said to be quicken- 
 ed by God together with Christ, and although Jesus de- 
 clares that the Son quickeneth whom he will, he never- 
 theless expressly informs us, (John 6:63,) " It is ti»€ 
 Spirit that quickeneth." Nor can there be any doubt 
 that it is for this special purpose, as w^ell as for that sanc- 
 tification of the Spirit, w^iereby, together with the belief 
 of the truth, we are said to be saved, that we are so 
 particularly and kindly encouraged by the Saviour lo 
 pray for the Holy Spirit. If ye being evil know how 
 to give good gifts unto yoin- children, how^ much more 
 shall your Father who is in neaven give good things to 
 them that ask him?" 
 
 As to the particular manner or mode of the o^-eration 
 of the Spirit, in the production of this great change or 
 new creation, our Saviour, as we have already seen, 
 clearly intimates by the illustration frorn the blowing of 
 the wind, that we cannot comprehend it. We kiK»w, 
 however, that the wind is a powerful agent, that it son^ 
 
CAMPBELLISM. 
 
 193 
 
 times produces astonishing effects, although it is at the 
 same time invisible to us. So also we know from the 
 word of truth, that this work of the Spirit is the effect of 
 the mighty power of God. Eph. 1:17 — 20. The word of 
 God is expressly called " the sword of the Spirit." Now 
 we know that a sword, whatever may be its materials, 
 or however skilfully it may be constructed, can do no 
 execution until it be wielded by a powerful and dexterous 
 arm: thus it is with the word of God. Yet it is said to 
 be quick and powerful, sharper than any two edged 
 sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and 
 spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of 
 tlie thoughts and intents of the heart." I am well aware 
 tliat the Campbellitish doctrine teaches that the word of 
 God has in itself this inherent power. But the whole 
 tenor of the scriptures, as well as daily observation, 
 teaches us it is only in consequence of the agency or pow- 
 er of the Spirit, when he is pleased to take it into his 
 own nand, as his own sword wliereby lie pierces the 
 enemies of the King of Zion. Thus the apostle declares 
 to the Thessalonians, (1 Thess. 1:5,) '* Our gospel came 
 not to you in word only, but also in power and in the 
 Holy Ghost, and in much assurance," (fee. 
 
 As we can, moreover, perceive the effects of the wind, 
 so also the effects of this work of the Spirit may be known. 
 The first of which is to convict the sinner of his guilt and 
 rebellion against God, and to bring him to the feet of the 
 8aviour with cries for mercy and salvation. Thus our 
 Lord declared that when the Spirit of truth should come, 
 he would " reprove [or convince] the world of sin and of 
 righteousness and of judgment." 
 
 The manner of this divine operation, as well as its 
 blessed effects upon the mind, the heart, or soul of man, 
 are, moreover, in some measure beautifully indicated by 
 tiie figurative language of the Baptist, which Mr, Cl 
 strives to wrest from its plain meaning, as well as that of 
 our Lord, upon which, as one of his chief pillars, he at- 
 tempts to erect his fabric of salvation by water. Accord- 
 ing to the language of John, they who are baptized witl^ 
 
D£BAT£ 
 
 the Holy Ghost are said to be baptized also with fire* 
 
 * Is fire (says that excellent commentator Henry) enlight- 
 ening? So the Spirit is a Spirit of illumination. Is it 
 warming? And do not their hearts burn within them? Is 
 it consuming? And does not the Spirit of Judgment, as a 
 Spirit of burning, consume the dross of their corruptions? 
 Does fire make all it seizes like itself? And does it move 
 upwards? So does the Spirit make the soul holy like it- 
 self, and its tendency is heavenward." And it might yet 
 further be asked, has fire the power not only to melt ice 
 but even the hardest metals? So the Spirit can cause the 
 most icy, stony, flinty heart to melt into the deepest con- 
 trition, so thai the sinner, lately obdurate and unfeeling, ia 
 made to pour it out like water, not only in humble confes- 
 sion, but in prayer and in praise; whilst his soul, no longer 
 cleaving to the dust, ascends like the burning flame on 
 high, and his aflections are elevated and set on things 
 above, where Jesus sitteth at the right hand of God. 
 
 Again, — according to the declaration of Jesus, to*' be 
 born again,^' is to-be horn of mater, and of the Spirit," 
 
 that is, (according to the same commentator,) of the Spi- 
 rit working like water. First, that which is primarily in- 
 tended here, is to show that the Spirit in sanctifying a 
 soul, first cleanses and purifies it as water; takes away 
 its filth, by which it was unfit for the kingdom of Goi 
 It is the washing of regeneration. Titus 3:5. Secondly, the 
 Spirit cools and refreshes the soul, as water doth the 
 hunted hart and the weary traveller." Whether this be 
 not the true exposition of the text, let the candid reader 
 judge, after having well considered in connection there- 
 with, Ezek. 36:25, which has already been noticed, and 
 1 Cor. 6:11, which will be more particularly examined 
 in the sequel. 
 
 In reply to the observations of Mr. C. upon the term 
 
 * begotten,'' as used in the epistles of Peter and John, and 
 the arguments which he attempted to derive from that 
 source to support his doctrine, it was shown that the dis- 
 tinction which he pretended to draw between a person 
 begotten of God, and one born of God or born again, if 
 
CAMPBELLISM. 
 
 it existed at all, was in fact so slight that by conceding, 
 as he had gratuitously done, that a person may be begot^ 
 ten of God, without immersion or baptism, he had, it was 
 conceived, yielded the point in dispute. To be begotten 
 of God, and to be born of God or born again, was and 
 still is asserted to be substantially the same thing. The 
 distinction, it is supposed, would never have been sug- 
 gested to the mind of Mr. C. had he not been at a loss to 
 find support for his tottering system, and had he not been 
 led, through a want of just ideas of the new birth, to 
 seek for the analogies between this and a natural birt^i, 
 in those circumstances v/hich have a peculiar reference 
 to the body as distinct from the soul. Although, there- 
 fore, " a child is begotten and made alive before it is 
 born," as he states in his narrative, it is equally unscri}>- 
 tural and absurd to suppose that a man may be begotten 
 of God, and made spiritually alive unto God, before fio 
 is born of God, and which last he cannot be until he be 
 immersed. On the contrary, it is conceived, the scrip- 
 tures teach us to believe that the person who is begotten 
 of God, is born again; or, which is the same thing, the 
 person that is quickened from a state of death in tre^ 
 passes and sins, and is thus made spiritually alive, is bom 
 of the Spirit; and the person thus begotten of God or 
 born of the Spirit, is, it is apprehended, in the true mean- 
 ing of the phrase, " horn of water" although he may not, 
 as yet, be baptized, or although he should be prevented, 
 either by accident, or mistake with regard to his duty ia 
 this particular, from ever being baptized. 
 
 In support of what is here alleged, besides what has 
 already been observed, the reader is first referred to 1 
 Pe'^er 1:3 — 5, as one of the passages especially relied 
 upon in the debate. " Blessed be the God and Father of 
 our Lord Jesus Christ, 6z:c., who, &c., hath begotten us 
 again unto a lively hope, &c. To an inheritance incor- 
 ruptible," &c. Here the apostle speaks of himself in 
 common with other believers to whom he addressed his 
 epistle, as having been by God, begotten again, &c., &c. 
 Now the question occurs, were none of these born of 
 
1D6 
 
 DEBATE 05 
 
 God or born atrain? If not, it is a thin^ vcrv iinniaterial 
 whether a sinner that is begotten of God be thus born or 
 not. They were begotten again to a Hvely YiO\>e — to an 
 incorruptible inheritance — and were to be kept by tije 
 power of God through faith unto salvation. And what 
 more could have been obtained by the supjxjsed addition- 
 al birth of the Bishop? But this is not all. Whilst ii is 
 admitted that the original words translated in the passa^;Q 
 (1 Peter 1:3) last cited, " begoitev^'' and that in John 3:.3, 
 translated " born,''^ are not exactly the same, yet they 
 are, and especially when they relate to " spiritual things,'* 
 of such a kindred meaning that the translators of our 
 standard version, wlio consisted of a large number of 
 men equally as learned, and equally as yjious too, as tl^io 
 Bishop, translated them both begotten and born. Thus hi 
 1 Peter 1:3, the word translated begotten, is in composition 
 with another sii^nifying again, and therefore it is transla- 
 ted, " begotten again." In verse 23, the same word com- 
 pounded as before stated, is translated, " Being bom 
 again." Thus, also, in 1 John 5:1, the same word is thrico 
 used uncompounded, and is translated both born and be- 
 gotten: " Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ, is 
 born of God: and every one that loveth him that hegaU 
 loveth him also that is begotten of him." Tlius we sec 
 what were the views of our learned and able translators 
 in relation to this subject; and let the reader judge whic- 
 ther more reliance ought to be placed upon the hy[)ercrit- 
 icisms of the Bishop, than upon their united wisdom and 
 knowledge. And let him also further judge, whether a 
 system built upon such hair-breadth distinctions be wo i thy 
 of his confidence or regard. 
 
 But the word (in 1 Pet.l:3) translated ''begotten tigain" 
 suggests another thought, well worthy of attention- Mr. 
 C. contends that there is a distinction between being be- 
 gotten of God and born of God, or born again, corres- 
 ponding to that which exists in nature, between the 
 begetting and birth of a child. But h';re the apostle 
 rpeaks of those who were not only " b>'goUen" of Go^J, 
 but " begotten again to a lively hope," &c. Now let Mr. 
 
CAMPBELLISM. 
 
 19T 
 
 C.show the analogy, if any exist, between this and the 
 natural be^jeuing of a child. It is indeed once begotten 
 of its natural father, but in no sense can it be said to he 
 begotten again. Man, in his original state, was begotten 
 of G«xl, or created by him in his own image, and to a 
 lively and glorious hope, but he lost all by his defection 
 and apostacy from God, so that in his natm-al state and 
 before he returns to and is born of God, he is said to have 
 " no hope, and to be without God in the world." Hence 
 the sinner that is quickened from a state of death in siiks, 
 and restored to the image and favor of God, obtains the 
 lorgiveness of his sins, and a lot among those who are 
 ?"anctified by the faith that is in Jesus, rnay well be said 
 to have been of God "begotten again to a lively hope/' <fcc. 
 
 Thus we see that in the passage last cited, the supposed 
 analogy of Mr. C. utterly fails him, and consequently the 
 distinction, at least in this case, between being " begotten 
 again (of God) to a lively hope," &:c., and being " born 
 again," disappears. Indeed the original word, com- 
 pounded as it is in this passage, might with propriety be 
 translated " regenerated'^ which^ as has been seen, was 
 in the debate conceded, and which in the sequel will be 
 shown to be equivalent to. or the same with being " born 
 again." For this rendering of the word translated be- 
 ^oiten again,'" we have the authority of Mr. C. himself, 
 :n whose version we find the participle of the same verb, 
 which is translated in our version, " being born again." 
 rendered kcivlng been regenerated.'- Hence, after all, 
 the argument attempted to be drawn by Mr. C., in sup- 
 port of his doctrine, from the distinction taken by him 
 between " h^.gottsn again" and " bom again J' seems to 
 resolve itself into the question, what is the true meaning 
 of Titus 3:5? This will be duly considered in the sequ? L 
 It is nevertheless proper to remark yet further upon this 
 part of the subject, that it was contended by Mr. C, in 
 support of the above distinction, as well as with a view 
 to sustain the position, that God never owns a sinner at. 
 a son or daughter " of the Lord Almighty," until he ci 
 she be ifi^imersed; that he did not own or acknowledge 
 
10^ 
 
 DEBATE 0!r 
 
 Jesus Christ to be his Son, until he was baptized of Jolm, 
 when }.e bore testimony Irom heaven, saying, " This is 
 my beloved Son in whom I am well plea'sed." This is 
 indeed a bold assertion, and well calculated to give, in 
 the view of many, an air of plausibility to the Bishop's 
 doctrine, especially as Jesus is expressly styled, the 
 tirst begot len," as well as " the only begotten" Son of 
 (iod. But is this assertion true? So far from it, that it 
 IS as unfounded as it is bold. It is indeed true, that (he 
 Kternal Father was }ileased to bear testimony from 
 lieaven, and that in an audible voice, when Jesus was 
 ba])tize 1, and about to enter u}H)n the work which had 
 been given him to do, that h.e was his beloved Son; but 
 tho question is, did he never before own him as his Son; 
 It doubtless comports with the views and doctrines of 
 Mr. C, to make the Sonship of Christ coeval, and o?i/u 
 (X>eval, with his baptism. Thereby an argument woiild 
 be furnished against the doctrine of the supreme and 
 absolute divinity of the Son of God, which may be said 
 to be the Rock on which God has built his church. But 
 the question is, not what does the Bishop declare, but 
 what doth the scriptures teach in i*elation to this point? 
 
 It is not my intention to discuss this question at length, 
 it seems to be sufficiently answered, at least for our pre- 
 sent purpose, in the 2d Psalm. There we learn from the 
 publication of the decree of Jehovah, that he was solemn- 
 ly owned as the Son of God, in the day that he was 
 begotten of the Father. " Tliou art my Son: this day 
 have T begotten thee." Whether " this daif spoken of, 
 refers to any period in time, or whether the Son was be- 
 gotten from all eternity, I do not now stop to inquire. 
 The question of the eternal generation of the Son of 
 God, is not the issue which T have joined with the Bishop 
 unon this subject, but whether he was ever owned or 
 aclmowiedged by God as his Son, until he was baptized? 
 That he was not only thus owned, but established in his 
 kinglv authority upon God's holy hill of Zion, long before 
 his advent into the world, it it is conceived, is fully esta- 
 blished by Uiis Psalm, wliich is not merely a prophetic 
 
CAMPBELLISH. 
 
 declaration of a Saviour to come, but a eolemn reropM- 
 tion of him as a king, who was justly entitled to the ser- 
 vice, and homage, and supreme aftection of all orders uf 
 men, and who was invested with full authority and urn- 
 pie power to destroy all such as should obstinately per- 
 sist in refusing to submit to his rightful authority, (verse 
 S — 12.) That this Psalm has a direct reference to tlie 
 Saviour, it is presumed will not be denied, especially as 
 w^e have clear evidence of that fact, in the prayer offered 
 by his disciples, (Acts 4,) after his ascension to the right 
 hand of God It may be proper further to observe, that 
 we find this same Psalm referred to, and the same ctecret 
 of God repeated, in the 1st chapter of Hebrews; and it i? 
 further declared, (verse 6,) " When he bringeth in the 
 first begotten (Son) into the world, lie saith, and let all 
 the angels of God worship him." Does this furnish no 
 additional evidence that the Saviour was owned of God 
 as his Son, before his baptism? I shall only further add. 
 that the annunciation of his birth to the shepherds, by 
 those heavenly messengers who were req?iired to wot 
 ship him upon his entrance into the world, would furnish 
 evidence sufficient, were it necessary, to overturn this 
 poshion of the Bishop, which it is presumed will now 
 clearly appear to be, like many other of his positions. <: 
 mere figment of his imagination, devised I'br the spectai 
 purpose of supporting his system. 
 
 It was further alleged in the discussion, that the conse- 
 quences of the doctrine of Mr. C., as stated and contended 
 for by himself, when compared with the clear declara- 
 tions of God's word, proved that doctrine to be fahe. 
 Thus, as a consequence of his doctrine, it was conteriCe*i 
 by him that until a man be immersed he cannot be jug ri- 
 fted, or obtain the forgiveness of his sins, but, even n'h 
 though begotten of God, (and consequently according to 
 the language of the Ap )stle Peter, to a lively hope — to an 
 inheritance incorruptible, &c.) he remains in a state of 
 condemnation. In opposition to the false view of tiie 
 way of salvation, it was not only observed that we art 
 clearly taught in the scriptures, that we are justified by 
 
200 
 
 DEBATE ON 
 
 faith, and not by any one supposed outward act of faiih, 
 (as Mr. C. makes immersiony whereby alone he holds a 
 sinner can be justified, to be, and which in efl'ect is no- 
 thing less than justification by w orks,) but it w as contended 
 that ihe meritorious cause, as well as the condition of 
 forgiveness of sins, has ever been the same in all ages 
 and under all dispensations of the covenant of God. That 
 90 far as we can view the subject, it could not indeed be other- 
 wise, without casting a reproach upon the moral govern- 
 menl of God. That the meritorious cause, is, and ever 
 has been, the mediation or blood-shedding of the Son of 
 God, who is styled the Lamb slain from the foundation 
 of tire world. The only condition is, that stale of heart,, 
 that broken and contrite spirit, which leads a sinner, with 
 true, godly sorrow, and an humbio apprehension of tlie 
 mercy of God through the mediation of the Saviour, tocoi - 
 fcss and turn away from all his iniquity, with a full purpose 
 ■o live soberly, righteously, and godly in this evil world, 
 during the rest of his life. The word of God clearly 
 leaches us, that the per?(jn, whatever may have been 
 the nature and number of his ofiences, wlio, with this 
 disposition and purpose of heart, asks for pardon, invaria- 
 hly receives the forgiveness of his sins, and a lot among 
 such as are sanctified by the faith that is in .Tesus. Thus 
 It is declared: (1 John 1.-9,) " If we confess our sins, he 
 (God) is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to 
 cleanse us from all unrighteousness." And (ver. 7.) it is 
 further declared, that " the blood of Jesus Christ his Son 
 cleanseth us from all sin." Here we find no requirement 
 (such as Mr. C. interposes) of the literal intervention of 
 water in this great matter of pardon and consequent 
 cleansing from all sin, nor any allusion to baptism or 
 immersion as a condition precedent, or the only means of 
 obtaining those great blessings. Other passages, and not 
 a few, might be citetl in support of this position, which, if it 
 be true, subverts the whole system of the Bishop: but it 
 is not necessary. Let it be observed, that it was further 
 contended, that if immersion or baptism be necessary to 
 the obtaining of pardon, there could, upon his ownprinci- 
 
CAMPBELLI^Mo 
 
 201 
 
 |)les, have been no forgiveness under t!ie Jewish and 
 former dispensations of God's mercy, as no such ordi- 
 nance or institui ion then existed; whereas we are assured 
 the contrary is tiie fact. Thus in the case of David, 
 when he had so greatly sinned in the matter of Uricii. 
 No sooner was he brought, through the instrumentality of 
 Nathan, humbly to confess his sin, than that servant of 
 God assured him that it was put away. Accordingly 
 we hear the penifent himself declare, (Psal. 32:5,) T 
 acknov/Iedgcd my sin unto thee, and mine iniquity have 
 I not hid. I said I will confess my transgressions unto 
 the Lord; and thou forgavest the iniquity of my s n." 
 if then there is no forgi veness of sins, at least in this life, 
 wit^hout immersion, as Mr, C. contends, in vain did the 
 Old Testament saints make their humble confession, in 
 vain did they so earnestly plead with God for pardcn: 
 and the record of tho blotting out of their sins as a clf ud 
 and a thick cloud, is not true. 
 
 It was ftu'ther observed, that the force of the argurnciit 
 which the Bishop attempted from the passage (Rev. 
 wherein Jesus Christ is described as " the jfirst-])egotteri 
 of the dead," could not be perceived. It is indeed ad- 
 mitted, that the original w^ord here rendered f\'rsl-lcg^ci- 
 ien" in our translation, means also First-born, and is tht^? 
 translated in our version in the epistle to the Colossians, 
 (1:15,) where our Lord is called " the First-born (or as 
 it is conceived ir v/ould in this instance have been letter 
 rendered, the First-begotten) of evejij axature" or of 
 the whole creation, " because he was (eternally) begotrefi 
 to be Heir and Lord of all things, or over all persons, 
 to have the pre-eminence, and because all things w^ere 
 created /or him as well as by him." So also he is called 
 the First-begotten (or the First-hmii) of the dead," in 
 conse quence of his being the first that rose from the dead, 
 no more to die. Hence" says the apostle: " Now is Thrij^t 
 risen from the d^?.d, and become the first fruits of them 
 that slept." And hence He declares himself to be, (Rev. 
 1:1S,) " He that liveth and was dead; and behold, I arn 
 alive forever more, Amen: and have the keys of heli aiui 
 
 *18 
 
202 
 
 DEBATE 0!f 
 
 of death." Stili it was not, nor is I't yet perceived how 
 tliis phrase, or description of a risen Saviour, aflbrds 
 any support to the system of Mr C, more than the pas- 
 sage, (Heh. 1:6,) wherein it is said concerning the Mes- 
 siah, " Wiien he bringeth in the Firsi-hegoUen (or first- 
 born) into the world, he saith, let all the angels of G(xi 
 worship him." 
 
 With regard to the human authority* cited by Mr. C, 
 
 ♦ T?ie following statements.of Mr. Campbell are here mserted by ihe 
 Editor of this book, that the reader may see how Ktlle dependence can 
 be placed on tiie declarationa of a rnan, who at one time entirely rt-pu- 
 diatPH the opinions of the ancient fathers, afid at another, 'brintrs 
 them forward with confidence — who at one time sta*es a certain doc- 
 trine Wits not common among a class of men, and then, again, repre- 
 sents all of them aa harmonioua about the same thing. His statements 
 maj be presented very properly as 
 
 CAnrBEix t>er«u« CaSpbtll, 
 
 " Many of those fathers of whom "AD the apostolical fatliera, aii 
 you have heard, are produced by they are called; all the pupils of the 
 tJie Catholic?!, in proof of the doc- apostles; and alt the ecclefiasticuJ 
 Xrin« of purs^atory, and as evidences writers of note, of the first four 
 of Iho antiquity of praying to saints Christian centuries, whose writings 
 and angels — they were all fufl of ! hare come down to us; allude to^ 
 whimsie?. Irenaeus, Justin, Ter-; and speak of. Christian immersion. 
 tuHian,Origen, Jerorno, Angastine, i as the regeneration and reraipsion 
 
 held and taught wild and extrava- 
 gant opinions. Some of theee con- 
 tended that Paul's epistle to Seneca, 
 and Seneca's epietle to Paul, were 
 genuine. Some of them cuoled the 
 Shepherd of Hern: as, a? a part ofholy 
 6cci;: ture. Some ot them taught, &,c^ 
 &.C., euricular con'esf-ion, and the 
 fundamental dogmas of Popery.** 
 Soe Campbell's debate with M'Ca'Ua, 
 p. 36.5 and 3G8. 
 
 Again, that the ancients some- 
 Hmea used the word regenerate for 
 
 of sins, spoken of in the New Testa- 
 ment." Millennial Harbinger, extra, 
 on remission of sins, &.C. Prop<»*i 
 tion 11, p. 42, 
 
 All the apostolical father*, — 
 all Lhe pupils of the apostles; and 
 
 hap'Jro, I admit: but this was /cr . the ecclesiastical writers of note, 
 ft>?n fcrtrjo- conimoa or general J" See; ^fec. &c., &c., allude to, cind speak 
 the debate, p. 367. of Cliristian immersion, as tiie re- 
 
 generation and remission of sins 
 spoken of in the New I'eetaHxenL" 
 See as above. 
 
 7*>ie testimony of the ancieni fathers of the first four o? frr» 
 oentoriea of the Christian church ia, generally, to be accrodited wLea 
 
CAMPBELLISM, 
 
 203 
 
 and of which he affects to make a great display in his 
 Extra, No. 1, while at the same time proftssing to place 
 no reliance upon it, it was admitted that most evange- 
 lical churches, as well as writers, admitted there is a 
 probabiliii/, that both in John 3:5, and Titus 3:5, there is 
 an allusion to baptism, as the visible sign of that spiritual 
 grace which is communicated by the Holy Spirit in the 
 work of regeneration, which they contend can be per- 
 formed or accompHshed by him alone; but it was, as it 
 stilt is, contended, that it was not until darkness began to 
 overspread the church, that baptism began to be held 
 equivalent to regeneration, and not until popish darkness 
 and superstition had begun to brood over the Christian 
 world, that baptism was viewed essential to salvation; 
 and further, that in every part and portion of the world, 
 this doctrine was more or less exploded, in proportion to 
 the degree in which the genuine principles and light of 
 the Rdbrmation, together with true godliness, had pre- 
 vailed. Hence it was contended, that the pretended 
 ancient gospel of Mr. C. was nothing more than a new- 
 fangled system of popish delusion and superstition, (in 
 one sense, ancient or old enough,) which, like its proto- 
 type, was calculated to lead men to rest in mere outw^ard 
 ceremonies, while destitute of that " new heart and new 
 spirit," without which they must die forever. 
 
 It was further admitted, that the passages above cited 
 are referred to by the persons who were appointed to 
 superintend the publication of our Confession of Faith, 
 a? authorities, in their estimation, of the nature and do- 
 sign of the ordinance of baptism, as held by the Presby- 
 terian church, but that those passages form a part of the 
 Confession itself, is denied. The object of such a Con- 
 fession is not to select any portions of the word of God. 
 
 it relates to occurrences or the practices of the church in those ages;' but 
 their own opinions, and especially after the first and second centuriei^ 
 were sometimes srrievoush' erroneous. Some of these Fathers* did, in 
 the lanjTunge of Mr. Campbell, espouse some of the " doofmas of Popery" 
 in embryo; but it was left for darker atres to bring- them to perfection, 
 and for, the Restorer of the " ancient gospel" to hold that regen^raiion 
 vad immersion are the same thing. 
 
204 
 
 DEBATE ON 
 
 as worthy of belief, for every part is held to be " worthy 
 of all acceptation;" but hoiie^^tly and candidly to give a 
 summary of such doctrines, as we conscientiously r.e- 
 lieve to be taught in that re\elation from heaven, with 
 which we are so highly favored. The assertion, there- 
 fore, of Mr. C, that 1 o}jposed my own creed, was iiKe 
 many more of his assertions, without foundation. 
 
 But if it were, and ever had been, admitted by all the 
 Christian world, that in John y:5, and Titus 3.5, there 
 was a direct allusion to baptism, still the inquiry woidd 
 arise, can this certainly be shown to be the case from 
 the scriptures theinseUes? And what is still more, can 
 it thus be shown that imrnersimi was intended, and it so, 
 that it is identical with being " born again," or "born of 
 the wSpirit?" The question, therefore, would still remain 
 the same. And here, let it l>e carefully remarked, that 
 the gross absurdity, as well as unscriptural character <»f 
 the position, that "to be horn again, and iinmersiif, are 
 the same thing," are so evident, especially when we con- 
 sider that the former, according to the declaration of 
 Christ hitnself, implies not only a being " born of water," 
 (whatever that expression may mean,) but also " of the 
 Spirit," that Mr. C, himself, in his narrative, endeavors 
 to escape from it, as will be seen and more pariicularly 
 noticed in the sequel. 
 
 To the most of my arguments in reply to Mr. C., and 
 especially in refutation of his position, that both parts of 
 the passage, (John 3:5,) must be interpreted either ntrr- 
 aUy or fjgnratively. and that to adopt any other mode af 
 expounding this or any other particular passage of the 
 .ccriptures, would be an unwarrantable use of them. — al- 
 though the subject was again and again presented dis- 
 tinctly for his crmsideration — he gave kg answer. This 
 fact made no slight impression upon the minds of an in- 
 telligent audience, and it seemed his silence could only 
 be accounted for by another fact, that he had no ansirer 
 to ^ive. To mv argument proving the falsehood of his 
 doctrine, especially in relation to the remission of sin? 
 onlv througli immersion, drawn from the fact, that t hid 
 
CAMPBELLISM. 
 
 205 
 
 Old Testament saints were certainly forgiven, if at aH, 
 without baptism; he did, nevertheless, respond, by assert- 
 ing, that as under the gospel dispensation immersion was 
 the only means of remission of sins, so under the former 
 dispensation, sacrifices were the means whereby alone < 
 this blessing could be obtained. 
 
 And in proof that this was no hasty or unadvised de- 
 claration of the Bishop, the reader is referred to his 
 Extra, No. 1, p. 41. " Some ask, (says his Reverence,) 
 how can water, which penetrates not the skin, reach the 
 conscience? But little do they think, that in so talking, 
 they laugh at, and mock the whole divine economy, 
 under the Old and New Testament institutions: for, I 
 ask, did not the sacrifices, and Jewish purgations, some 
 way reach the conscience of that people ! ! If they did 
 not, it was all mere frivolity throughout." And, I ask, 
 can it be possible that the learned Bishop of Bethany is 
 really so ignorant of the true nature and design of " the 
 sacrifices and Jewish purgations," appointed under the 
 law? And, I ask, again, can it be that he had never 
 read, with attention, the epistle to the Hebrews, and 
 especially the 9ih and 10th chapters of that unparalleled 
 production, before writing the paragraph above quoted? 
 Had he done so, must he not have learned, however dull 
 of apprehension in relation to spiritual things he may be, 
 that these sacrifices " could not make him that did the 
 service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience," — that 
 the utmost these " sacrifices and Jewish purgations" 
 could, in this respect, accomplish, was to sanctify " to 
 the purifying of the flesh," or the removal of ceremonial 
 uncleanness; — which were designed to convince and re- 
 mind them of that moral pollution, that defilement, as 
 well as guilt of conscience, from which no sinner was 
 ever purged and prepared, either to serve or enjoy the 
 living God, unless by " the blood of Christ, who, through 
 the Eternal Spirit, offered himself without spot to God;" 
 and which, under the Jewish dispensation, and until 
 Christ had actually appeared, and thus offered himself 
 once for all, was typified by " those sacrifices, which 
 
206 
 
 DEBATE ON 
 
 were offered year by year continually," although ihey 
 could not " make the comers thereunto perfect." Had 
 he thus read this part of the word of God, would he not, 
 as it were, have heard the apostle declare, " It is not 
 possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take 
 away sins? Wherefore, when he, (Jesus Christ,) cometh 
 into the world, he saith, sacrifice and offering thou 
 wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me. In 
 burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin, thou hast had no 
 pleasure: then said I, Lo, I come, (in the volume of the 
 book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God." To 
 the confident inquiry tlien of Bethany's Bishop, " did not 
 the sacrifices and Jewish purgations some way reach 
 the conscience of that people?" the answer is, no, not at 
 all; provided he means, as it is presumed he certainly 
 does, that they in " some iray,^^ so reached the conscience 
 as to purge it from dead works, and to render it " pure'^ 
 and " good." Does it then indeed follow that the ritual 
 service of the Jews, with all its sacrifices and offerings, 
 was, as alleged by the Bishop, " frivolity throughout?" 
 So it may appear in his view, but not in that of the 
 w^riter of the letter to the Hebrews. He informs us, 
 that " in those sacrifices there was a remembrance again 
 made of sins every year," whereby the offerers were 
 taught the absolute need of a more effectual sacrifice for 
 sin. Nor was this all, the same writer gives us clearly 
 to understand, that although the law could never with 
 those sacrifices which the worshippers under the Jewish 
 dispensation, offered year by ye^r continually, " make the 
 comers thereunto perfect," still it had a shadow of {or 
 shadowed forth or represented typically) good things to 
 come, whereby they were led, or so many of them as 
 were taught of God, by faith, to rest their hope of ac- 
 ceptance with him, upon the offering of the body of .Jesus 
 Christ, the Lamb slain (in the purpose of God) from the 
 foundation of the world, which, in due time, was to be, 
 it has since been, offered once for all. Instead, there- 
 fore, of the ritual service being " frivolity throughout,** 
 we may conclude that great multitudes, who are now 
 
CAMPBELLISM. 
 
 207 
 
 engaged in singing praises to God and the Lamb, were 
 thereby, as the appointed means, taught, as was Moses, 
 to esteem " the reproach of Christ greater riches than 
 the treasures of Egypt." And Hke him, too, they " died 
 in faith; not liaving received the promises, (which we 
 are told are all in Christ Jesus,) but having seen them 
 afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced 
 them, and confessed that they were strangers and pil- 
 grims on the earth." I shall only add, upon this part of 
 the subject, that among other things it was rephed to the 
 answer of Mr. C, to my argument drawn from the fact 
 of the forgiveness of sins under the Old Testament dis- 
 pensation, and belbre the institution of baptism, that if 
 his position, that under that dispensation there was no 
 forgiveness of sins without the actual offering of sacri- 
 fice, be indeed true, the inspired king of Israel must have 
 labored under a mistake, no less dangerous than palpa- 
 ble; when, oppressed with a painful sense of his sin in the 
 matter of Uriah, he pleaded so earnestly with God, not 
 only to blot out" his transgressions, but to wash him 
 thoroughly from his iniquity, and to cleanse him from 
 his sin." Instead of orfering sacrifices, and placing 
 his reliance upon them for forgiveness, even as the Bishop 
 would teach sinners to rely upon immersion for the same 
 blessing, we hear him declaring, "Thou desirest not 
 sacrifice, else would I give it: thou delightest not in burnt- 
 oflfering. The sacrifices of God, (or those in which he 
 takes delight,) are a broken spirit, a broken and con- 
 trite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise." We see, then, 
 that although sacrifices were of divine institution, under 
 the Old Testament dispensation, as is baptism under that 
 of the gospel, neither the one nor the other were designed 
 to be, as in the nature of things it is evident they could 
 not be, the meritorious, nor yet in any sense or degree, 
 the efficacious cause of the forgiveness of sins, or the 
 cleansing of the soul from moral pollution. 
 
 Whilst Mr. C. did not think proper to attempt to give 
 any answer to the most of the arguments and proofs 
 urged against his doctrine, he did not cease frequently 
 
208 
 
 DEBATE Oir 
 
 and roundly to assert, that littk or nothing was ad- 
 vanced thai had any bearing upon, or relation to !l>o 
 question under discussion; and he alleged, that unt:! 
 something was said to the pc»int in issue, he would feel 
 himself under no obligation to notice it. Indeed it seem- 
 ed, not only to mysell' but to others, that he resorted to 
 this subterfuge whenever he was at a loss for an answer 
 or reply to the arguments which bore most directly 
 upon the point in dispute, and especially such as apf>ear- 
 ed to be subversive of his whole scheme. Instead of 
 answering my arguments, or attempting to show they had 
 no bearing upon the question in dispute, he contended, a3 
 he states in his narrative, ** that the discussion was bv 
 stipulation, to be confined to the mere question, whether 
 the term regeneration, was used in the scriptures as 
 equivalent to the term immersion. Though this was an 
 incorrect" representation of the concession made at the 
 instance of Mr. C, (which was " the waishing of regene- 
 ration," spoken of in Titus 3:5, is equivalent to " being 
 born again,*') it made it very apparent, that in obtaining 
 that concession, he supposed he had gained an important 
 advantage, and that his principal aim in the discussion, 
 was not to elicit truth, but by any means, if possible, to 
 gain a triumph over his opponent This was evident, 
 as well from the fact- that he wished to avoid a full and 
 free discussion by confining the debate " to the mere 
 question, whether the term regeneration was used in the 
 scriptures equivalent to the term immersion, as from the 
 fact, that he frequently referred to, and laid great stress 
 upon the concession, stating that if his " opponent under- 
 stood and regarded the import of his concession on Titus 
 3d, he must feel that he had dc^jided the cause against 
 liimself Whilst I did believe, as I still do, that I well 
 understood the import of the concession, I by no means 
 felt that thereby I had decided the cause against myself, 
 or that my opponent had thereby, in fact, gained any 
 advantage in the discussion. His observations, never- 
 theless, led to the consideration of Titus 3:5, an account 
 of which will develop more fully wherein Mr. C. seern- 
 
CAMP BULL ISM. 
 
 209 
 
 ed to think, that in consequence of his skill as a theok>- 
 gicai polemic, he had obtained an advantage against his 
 antagonist. 
 
 In iiis observations upon, or arguments in favor of his 
 system, atteinpted to be drawn from this passage, [Titus 
 3:5,] Mr. C. opened more fully than he had before done, 
 his theory of regeneration, or being born of ^vater. He 
 observed, as stated in his narrative, that ** regeneration 
 (rather the washing of regeneration,) having been agreed 
 to be equivalent to being born again, it was immaterial 
 in the discussion which term" he used. He next asi-eri- 
 ed that in the popular acceptation of the term, regenera- 
 tion included the quickening, the receiving of the Spirit, 
 a change of heart, and being borji.^' Whereas, in the 
 scriptural import, he contended, " it denotes only the act 
 of being born;" for the washing of regeneration, he further 
 alleged, " is contrasted with, or, at least, distinguished 
 from, the renewal of the Holy Spirit." He then sjroke vi 
 " the begetter," (viz: God,) ** the impregnation of 
 mind by the word of truth, and of the act of being born 
 of water and of spirit, as distinct matters." He also no- 
 ticed " the deception," which he alleged was '* practised 
 by" his opponents, '* in representing" him as including 
 in" his " usage of tlie term all their ideas of regeneration, 
 and then in representing" him *' as including all their 
 '< views" in his " sense of the act of immersion:" whereas 
 I he contended, that as ** a child is begotten and made 
 j alive before it is born," so " regeneration, in scripture ac- 
 ceptation, meant neither inore nor less, than the act of 
 being born of water," which his opponent, he alleged, 
 " had already conceded, inasmuch as he had admitted 
 J that regeneration, (" the washing of regeneration" he 
 j ought to have said,) '* meant being born again." And in 
 connection with this he asserted *' that Paul had associated 
 the idea o{ water with regeneration, inasmuch as he spoke 
 of the \vashing or bath of regeneration." 
 
 That the reader may have a full and connected view 
 of the Bishop's theory of regeneration, or new birth bv 
 water, together with his arguments in support of i;. l 
 19 
 
220 
 
 ©EBATE OHf 
 
 would further rernark, that again he asked: " What dnes 
 tJie term regeneration import !" I had said that 1 w as no 
 advocate lor what he called the ''physical operations of 
 the Spirit;*' he theretbre contended, the Spirit (wliich he 
 designated by the word it,) must " operate morally, and if 
 morally, then water and the word must be the instruments: 
 and accordingly (he added) Paul had taught that the 
 churchwas cleansed bya bath or washing of waierand the 
 word. But although different views of previous changes 
 and their causes might be entertained, still (he further 
 alleged) it mattered not: the question was not what pre- 
 ceded regeneration, but n hat is regeneration?" Again 
 he contended ii was " the act of being born;" for if the 
 VHishing of j'egene.ratio?i^' was equivalent to being bom 
 again, (which I had indeed conceded,) and if the w ash- 
 ing of regeneration was different from the renewal of the 
 Holy Spirit, then, unless" his opponent "could show 
 some other use of water than the baptismal, it must (he 
 concluded) follow that the only time the term regenera- 
 tion occurs in the New Testament, applied to a person, it 
 is used as convertible with or equivalent to immersion,** 
 which w^as the only question,, according to him, in 
 dispute. 
 
 That the foregoing is a correct statement of Mr. C.*s 
 theory of regeneration, the reader may satisfy himself by 
 referring to his narrative of the debate, contained in his 
 Harbinger, Vol. 2, Xo. 3, pp. 1 18, 1 19. The first remark 
 I would make upon the foregoing statement, is, that the 
 Bishop seems to labor hard, either to conceal or escape 
 from the glaring absurdity of the position which I had 
 assumed, and undertaken to prove to be false, and which 
 he had undertaken to defend, in that discussion. To be 
 born again and immersion is the same thing, is the 
 doctrine of the Bishop, and as it would seem, the leading 
 nrticlc in his creed, \\niat are we to undei*stand by 
 boing " born again?" Can a man, said Nicodemus,. 
 be born w-hen he is old? " Verily," said Jesus in reply* 
 '* except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he 
 can»iot enter into the kingdom of God." But what is it 
 
CSLHPBELLISII. 
 
 211 
 
 ta be " bom of water?" According to Mr. it is im- 
 mersion, and nothing else. For he contended in the de- 
 bate, and he states the same in his writings, (See Extra 
 ISTo. 1, p. 30,) that he who has never been buried in water, 
 •never has been raised out of it. He that has never been 
 in the womb of waters, never has been born of water. 
 Begotten of God lie may be, but born of God he cannot 
 be, until born of water." But tlien the question arises, if 
 to be " born of water," in the sense in which the phrase 
 is used by our Saviour, be the same thing with immer- 
 sion, and the latter implies notliing mc/re, can it be that 
 immersiGa is the same thing with being " bom again,''' 
 "which is expressly declared to imply as well the being 
 bom of the Spii'h,'' as of water? Hence the glaring in- 
 consistency of the Bishop's doctrine. When stripped of 
 Its covering, and brought forth naked to the view, it 
 evidently makes the water all, and the Spirit nothing. 
 To conceal, as it would seem, this appalling feature of 
 his system from view, or at least to prevent it from ap- 
 ,pearing in all its deformity, he set himself to weave 
 tlie spider's web," or to devise what in the debate was 
 termed, and it is still thought justly termed, his cobtneb 
 theory, the outlines of which are given above, and which 
 the reader, if he has sufficient curiosity, may find to some 
 •extent filled up in the Bishop's Extra. It is called a 
 cobweb theor}% because like the web of the spider spun 
 from its o^vn bowels, which, while it hides its venomous 
 author from view, serves to ensnare the unwary insect. 
 The Bishop's scheme, the offspring of his own brain, while 
 "it serves to conceal, or at least to cast into the shade, 
 the poison of his doctrine, serves to beguile and entanirle 
 unstable souls. Whilst there is death in the pot it is not 
 perceived, but its contents, consisting of a small mixture 
 of truth, with a portion of the poison error, sufficient to 
 destroy the soul, are received by too many, as the only 
 means of procuring health to the soul as well as marrow 
 to the bones. Hence the introduction into his system, as 
 it relates to the new or second birth spoken of by Christ, 
 i©f all the steps or circumstances which according to the 
 
213 DEBATE Olf 
 
 order of nature, precede and accompany the bringing 
 forth of an infant into the world. Hence he speaks of 
 " the begetter, the impregnation of the mind by the word 
 of truth, and of the act of being born of water and of 
 spirit, as distinct matters." 
 
 The sinner's mind is impregnated or prepared by an 
 historic belief of the gospel for immersion in water, 
 whereby he alone can be born of God, or in other and 
 his own words, " born of watisr and of spirit." By this 
 latter expression of sjpirit, we cannot suppose he means 
 the Holy Spirit, for he is represented as the begetter in 
 this ideal process, and this the Bishop expressly declares 
 is a distinct matter from being " born of water and of 
 spirit" We are not therefore by any means to under- 
 stand, that according to this cobweb theory of the Bishop, 
 there is any special agency or influence of the Holy 
 Spirit exerted at the time, or in what he calls " the act** 
 of a sinner's bein^^ born of God, or born of water,, or m 
 other words, of his being immersed. So far as any 
 agency of the Spirit is required or admitted in his system, 
 it is ail employed in the impregnation of the mind, which 
 may have taken place years before the act of being born 
 of God, or of water, w^hich it is equally evident, as well 
 from the nature of things as from the Bishop's own 
 words, must exclusively depend upon the will and the act 
 of the person, whose mind is impregnated by the word 
 of truth, or who, in other wT)rds, historically believes the 
 gospel. " One thing (says the Bishop in his Extra, No. 1, 
 p. 30) w^e know, that it is not a difficult matter for be- 
 lievers to be bom of water," (i. e. to be immersed in 
 water and again raised out of it,) " and if any of thenr> 
 wilfully neglect, or disdain it, we cannot hope for their 
 eternal salvation." Ao:ain he says, (p. 31,) " Those who 
 are thus begotten, and born of God, are children of God. 
 It would be a monstrous supposition, that such persons are 
 not freed from their sins. To he horn of God, and hyrn 
 in sin, is inconceivable. Remission of sins is as certainly 
 granted to " the horn of God:' (i. e. to all who historically 
 believe the gospel and* have been immersed,) as life eter- 
 
215 
 
 Tial, and deliverance from corruption, will be granled to 
 the children of the resuiTection, wiien born irorn the 
 grave." Strange and inconsistent indeed must be 
 conduct of aJJ such as behex e in the soundness of the 
 Bishop's system, yet neglect the performance of a task 
 so easy as that of immersion in water, (which he truly 
 declares to be '* no difficult matter,") or that they shoui-d 
 refuse to make, what he, in the solemn style of his pubKc 
 harangues, sometimes calls *' one low bow," when then * 
 by they would, if his doctrine be true, (but that is iVte 
 query,) infallibly secure the pardon of their sins, and a 
 title to all the privileges of the " sons and daughters of 
 the Lord Almighty." 
 
 But it will very naturally be asked, if by being *• born 
 of spirit," Mr. C. does not mean of the Holy Spirit, what 
 does he mean? Although he has not explained his mean- 
 ing in this particular, it is p-esumed he thereby means the 
 introduction of a person, upon being immersed, into that 
 supposed spiritual atmosphere^ of which mention hs« 
 already been made, like as a child upon he'ng torn '\t 
 introduced into, and begins to breathe, our atmospheric 
 air. Indeed, according to his system, so far as it was 
 developed in the discussion, or is exhibited in his wfi- 
 tings, it wo!»!d be difficult even to conceive what else can 
 be intended by the phrase " born of spirit,''' as it is v^rit- 
 ten and used by him. The manner in which it is written 
 forbids the idea that the Holy Spirit is intended, and he 
 himself, as we have seen, tells ire it is a distinct rn-iWier 
 from the begetter, or the Holy Spirit, Hence must be 
 something that, like the remission of sins, ensues upon 
 immersion, as a matter of course — and such he declared, 
 in the public discussion, was the introduction of a person, 
 upon being immersed in^o this spiritual atmosphere, like 
 as a cliild, upon being born, is. as a matter of course, or 
 according to the established order of nature, introduced 
 into and begins to breathe our atmospheric air: and thus 
 it would seem, that according ^o the Bishop's views, a 
 person that is immersed, is " born of water and of 
 spirit," 
 
 * 19 
 
214 
 
 DEBATE Olf 
 
 But Still, it maybe said, tlie system of Mr. C. does not 
 exclude the agency of the Holy Spirit in the second or 
 new birth, inasmuch as he is expressly recognized as the 
 begetter, by whom the mind is impregnated by the word 
 of truth. This is true, and yet, herein it is, 'that what, 
 perhaps, may justly be considered the grand deception 
 of his system, consists. Hence it is that Mr. C, as well 
 as his followers, will often talk and harangue much about 
 the Holy Spirit, and in such a manner too, as to lead the 
 unwary to conclude there is no great or material difler- 
 ence, in this respect, between their ^^ews, and those 
 eiiterrained by evangelical Christians; and to induce 
 them also to think the latter wanting in charity and 
 w'hristian afiection, because they cannot give a Camp- 
 bellite the right hand of fellowship, nor " bid him God 
 s-peed," as one that " abideth in the doctrine of Christ.** 
 But what, let it be asked, is their view, or the doctrine 
 which they hold concerning the Holy Spirit? Do they 
 believe in the promised Comforter, as being the Eternal 
 Spirit — God the Holy Spirit, equal to and one with the 
 Father and the Son? As it has before been observed, 
 although it is supposed the Bishop and his followers pur- 
 >>)3ely avoid being expiich in their declarations on this 
 iiiiportant point of Christian doctrine, yet tl.ere is good 
 reason to believe they do not, but that there is a corres- 
 I^Midence, in this respect, in their views, as they relate 
 both to the Son of God and his Holy Spirit, as is the 
 case with Arian? and modern Unitarians, v.ho hold both 
 the one and the other to be inferior to the Father. And 
 with regard to what is said by the Bishop concerning 
 the Holy Spirit being " the begetter," while the mind i.s 
 impregnated by the " word of truth," his menninsr, so far 
 as it has l>een ferreted out, seems to be as fol'ows: — 
 " The Holy Spirit, by hLs inspiration, dictated the New 
 [but not the Old] Testament, which is Mlie word of 
 truth,' that God * sent hi? Spirit into the world with this his 
 word,* and who is, some how, or in some way, which can 
 neither be expressed nor understood, in the word, and not 
 dfiewhere, in consecjuencc of which tiio word of truth 
 
CAMPBELLISM. 
 
 215 
 
 has in itself the inherent power sufficient to im|)reg* 
 nate the mind of every one who liistorically believes it, 
 in such manner, that u))on his being immei sed he is born 
 of God, becomes a child of C^od, and receives the remis- 
 sjon of his sins, as certainly ' as life eternal, &c., will be 
 granted to the children of the resurrection when boru 
 from the grave.' " 
 
 That the view which has thus been taken, or the expo- 
 sition which has thus been given, of the Bishop's scheme 
 of the renovation of a sinner, and his restoration to the 
 favor of God, is correct, would seem pretty clearly to 
 appear from his answer to "objection 1, [Extra No. 1, 
 p. 29,] raised by himself against liis views in the follow- 
 ing words — " You tlien make every immersed person ft 
 child of God, by the very act of immersion; and you rep- 
 resent every person as born of God, who is born of wa- 
 ter, or immersed." He answers the objection thus: 
 " Provided always, that he has been begotten of God; or, 
 that he has been impregnated by the gospel. If quick- 
 ened by the Spirit of God before he is buried in the water, 
 he is born of God, whenever he is born of water; just as 
 every other child is born of its father, wi)en born of its 
 mother. But if he do not believe the gospel, or, in other 
 words, if he be not quickened by the Word, he is not 
 born of God, when he is born of water; he is, to speak after 
 the manner of men, still horny This, in connection with 
 what precedes in relation to the same subject, it issu})po- 
 sed, will furnish a view of the scheme of Mr. C. sufficient 
 to enable the reader to form a proper estimate of its 
 worth. It will be perceived, in his answer to the objec- 
 tion above stated, he likens God, or the Spirit of God, to 
 the natural father, and water to the mother of a child — 
 that as a child cannot be said to be born of (or rather 
 unto) its father, until first born of its mother, so he con- 
 tends that a person cannot be born of God until born of 
 water, or in other words immersed. But if a person \hm 
 immers(*d do not l)elieve the gospel, (with an histc/rdc 
 faith,) he is not born of God. when born of water, or 
 when immersed, but he is still born." How mucli, if 
 
216 
 
 DEBATE OS 
 
 any of ihis, is deduced from or supported by the word 
 of God, and how much is mere stujf^ihe intelhgent read- 
 er will be enabled, without much dihicuity, to determine^ 
 It would, however, be somewhat gratifying to know whc», 
 upon the Bishop's principles, could be immersed and nc»t 
 believe tiie gospel, unless it be a sheer infidel, acting the 
 part of a base and conscious h) jjocrite, with a view to 
 accomplish some sinister design. If a man believe the 
 g«jspel at all, can it be with a lower degree of faith than 
 that which is merely historic? And if he thus believes, is 
 not his mind, according to Mr. C, impregnated by tlie 
 word of truth? and is he not begotten of God? And how 
 then shall we account for the numerous cases wherein il 
 is evident, from their subsequent life and conduct, as it 
 was with regard to Simon the sorcerer, that they are not 
 born of God, or forgiven of God, though they have like 
 him been baptized; but remain, as he did, " in the gall of 
 bitterness and the bonds of iniquity," though there may 
 be good reason to conclude they historically believed the 
 gospel, as we are assured by the sacred record he did? 
 There is another difficulty attending this scheme of idr, 
 C, of which he has not. so far as I know, attempted to 
 furnish any solution. What shall be done whh the " still 
 born,-^ provided they should at any time thereafter be- 
 come impregnated by the word, or make a second, or a 
 third, or ev^en a fourth, profession of a historic belief of the 
 gospel? Shall they be immersed, and reimmersed, and 
 immersed yet again and again, until there shall be some 
 evidence that they are not merely stillborn," but hving 
 children of God? It was my wish and intention to have 
 presented this difficult}^ or objection, with others not a 
 few, to Mr. C. during the discussion, for his considera- 
 tion and solution, but I was prevented by the want of 
 time. 
 
 But what I intended chiefly to remark upon this ex- 
 tract, was, in the first place, we see a confirmation of 
 what W'as before alleged, concerning the manner in which 
 Mr. C, as well as his followers, speak of the Holy Spirit. 
 He here speaks of the necessity of a person being 
 
CAMPBELLISM. 
 
 217 
 
 ** quickened by the Spirit of God before he is buried in 
 the water," in order to his being born of God," when 
 ** he is born of water," or when he is immersed. How 
 many upon reading this would be ready to conclude that 
 his views, so far as they relate to the author and efficient 
 cause of all spiritual life in the soul of man, accord with 
 those of evangelical Christians? And on the other hand, 
 how few of such as had by other means acquired some 
 knowledge of his principles, would, from this paragraph, 
 learn any thing concerning his real sentiments in relation 
 to this subject? Let it then be carefully observed, that 
 though he speaks of a person being quickened by the 
 Spirit of God, he afterwards alleges that "if he do not 
 believe the gospel, or in other words, if he be not quickened 
 by the Word," &c.; and thus it would seem evident that, 
 according to his system, the Spirit of God and the word 
 of God are identified; that however they may be spoken 
 of by different names, or however we may conceive of 
 them as separate one from the other, they have not, never- 
 theless, at least as regards this world, any separate exist- 
 ence whatever, more than have the soul and body of man 
 in his present state of being, so that what is predicated 
 of one may be, at least for the most part, predicated of 
 the other also. Nor let it be supposed that when he 
 speaks of a person not being quickened by the Word, that 
 he alludes to the word of God as the instrument 
 or sword in the hand of the Spirit of God, or that he re- 
 gards the Spirit as the great and only efficient cause of 
 the quickening of the soul naturally dead in sins. His 
 sentiments, so far as they are known, together with the 
 manner in which he has written the term " Word," for- 
 bids the indulgence of this supposition. When he speaks 
 of being born of water and of the Spirit, he does not use 
 the latter phrase, " born of the Spirit," nor yet the word 
 Spirit, as it is in our version, and as he ever does him- 
 self when he would designate Holy Spirit, but he writes 
 it thus, " born of spirit'' On the other hand, in the par- 
 agraph quoted, when he speaks of a person not being 
 quickened by the wore/, he does not write the term as 
 
218 
 
 DEBATE (XK 
 
 would they, who designed simply to designate the writ- 
 ten word, but as would such as wished to describe a per- 
 son. Hence he writes not word, but Word. Nor does 
 the tenor of his language, so far as it relates to " the 
 word," comport with that dictated by the Spirit of God 
 when " the word" is spoken of as the instrument whereby 
 a soul is quickened and made alive unto God. The scrip- 
 tures invariably ascribe this quickening to God, through 
 the work or operation of his Spirit, whereas " the word" i 
 when spoken of in connection with the same subject, is 
 intended merely as an instrument, or as it is emphatically 
 called " the sword of the Spirit." Thus the apostle, in his 
 letter to the Ephesians, (chap. 2:1.) declares, " You hath 
 he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins." 
 And although the words, " hath he quickened" have in ; 
 this passage been supplied by our translators, yet the se- 
 quel of the chapter clearly shows they were warranted 
 in so doing. It is added (ver. 4 — 6,) " But God, who is 
 rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, J 
 even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us to- 
 gether with Christ; (by grace ye are saved;) and ha^ 
 raised us up together, and made us sit together in heav- 
 enly places, in Christ Jesus." The same truth is sub- 
 stantially repeated in the epistle of the same apostle to 
 the Colossians, (chap. 2:13.) Thus we see this quicken- 
 ing is expressly ascribed to God — the Holy Spirit is truly 
 God; and as we have before seen, it is expressly de- 
 clared, " It is the Spirit that quickeneth." On the other 
 hand, as has been already stated, we find " the word" 
 spoken of as the instrument whereby the Spirit produces 
 this great change upon the character and state of a sin- ' 
 ner. Thus the apostle James, (chap. 1:18,) " Of his own 
 will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should 
 be a kind of first fruits of his creatures." In like man- 
 ner Peter, (1 Pet. 1:2.3,) describes the saints as " being 
 born again, not of corruptible seed but of incorruptible, 
 by the word of God which liveth and abideth forever." 
 The reader of these passages can be at no loss to under- 
 stand the nature of the agency of " the word" in the 
 
CAMPBELLISM. 
 
 2ia 
 
 quickening of a sinner. He cannot but perceive that it 
 is merely instrumental, (though, as might well be suppo- 
 sed, exactly adapted to the desired end,) while the effi- 
 ciency is ascribed to God alune. For although God is 
 not mentioned in the latter passage, yet the saint is de- 
 scribed as being born again, of the word, not as the 
 efficient cause, but as the incorruptible seed, &c. INow 
 we know that however carefully natural seeds may be 
 sown in the earth, and although they may be possessed 
 of a germinating principle, still, without the genial influ- 
 ence of light, heat, and moisture, they cannot begin to 
 vegetate, much less to grow and thrive; and we know 
 further, that these are only second causes, all of which 
 are dependent upon the great First Cause, not only for 
 their existence, but for all their efficacious agency, in the 
 production of the fruits of the earth. 
 
 Now the view which Mr. C. gives of this important 
 sutjject, does not accord with that in the scriptures, 
 especially as he seems evidently to consider " the Spirit" 
 and " the Word," at least so far as they relate to this 
 quickening, to be the same. Nor is it indeed to be supposed 
 that he holds either the one or the other, to be the (miy 
 efficient cause of the quickening of a person dead in 
 sins; for he evidently represents this quickening of a sin- 
 ner to be the same wath his belie^-ing the gospel. *' But, 
 (says the Bishop,) if he do not believe the gospel, or in 
 other words, if he he not quickened by the Word,*' &c. It 
 is well known that he contends there is no other or higlier 
 belief of the gospel than that which is purely historic, 
 and that he farther contends, (and that with truth on his 
 side,) that no special divine influence, or help from on 
 high, is necessary to enable or prepare a person of com- 
 mon understanding, who hears the gospel, to exercise 
 this faith. The evident and legitimate result, then, of 
 this inquiry into Mr. C.'s view of the quickening of a 
 sinner by " the Spirit of God," or by " the Word," when 
 it is analysed, is this, — that in his view it amounts to 
 nothing more than the exercise of his natural powers in 
 reading and (historically) believing the gospel 
 
220 
 
 DEBATB ON 
 
 But I would again remark upon this extract from tli6 
 Bishop's Extra, that while he speaks of the quickeniiig 
 of a person by the Spirit, he either confounds it, or 
 understands it to be the same, with his having been be- 
 gotten of God, as well as with his having been im])rcg- 
 nated by the gospel. " Provided always that he hag 
 been begotten of God ; or, that he has been impregnated 
 by the gospel. If quickened (he adds) by the Spirit of 
 God before he is buried in the water, he is born of God,** 
 &c. Here he seems to strive hard to maintain his suf>- 
 posed analogies between the production and birth of a 
 living intant, and that of a {person born of God, as he 
 contends, through immersion, i knows indeed, that the 
 mind of a sinner, previous to his being born again, is 
 usually arrested by the Spirit of God, through the means 
 of his word or providential dispensations, and his atten- 
 tion, with intense interest, is turned, not only to his own 
 situation and character as a sinner, (for the Spirit of 
 truth convinces him " of sin, of righteousness, and of 
 judgment,") but also to the scriptures, to which sure 
 word of prophecy he gives earnest heed, as to " light 
 shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the day 
 star arises in his heart," with which he also arises from 
 a state of death and darkness, to that of life and light, 
 and passes from a state of condemnation, to that of favor 
 and acceptance with God, through faith in Jesus Christ. 
 But this is not what Mr. C. means by " the impregnation 
 of the mind." This work of the conviction of sin by the 
 Spirit of God, and consequent solemn concern which 
 leads a sinner to inquire, as did the jailer, " What shaO 
 I do to be saved?" is denied, ridiculed and scouted at, by 
 the Bishop of Bethany, who seems to consider the deliv- 
 erance of a sinner from the powder of sin and darkness, 
 and his translation into the kingdom of God, in other 
 words, his passing " from death unto hfe," as a mere 
 natural process, entirely within the compass of his own 
 power, and consisting in a succession of acts, which he 
 can perform with as much ease, as are the various parts 
 of the labor of a skilful mechanic, in the production of 
 
CAMPBELUSM. 
 
 221 
 
 a fabric, or a machine, however corapHcated the ore or 
 the other may be. 
 
 Let us now recur to consider more particularly the 
 foundation of this cobweb theory of the new birth. It 
 has, I trust, been made sufficiently to appear, that even 
 according to his own principles, the position " that to be 
 born again and to be immersed is the same thing," is 
 untrue, unless he makes, as he seems to do, the water 
 every thing, and the Spirit nothing. Because, if by the 
 single expression, ''horn of water,' we are, as he fre- 
 quently asserts, to understand immersion and nothing 
 else; and if, as it not only follows from this, but as he 
 contends, immersion implies nothing more than the simple 
 act of being born of water, or being buried in and again 
 raised out of that element; then it is clear from the de- 
 claration of Christ, that immersion is not equivalent to, 
 or the same thing with being born again, for in order to 
 this, a person must be born not only of water, but of the 
 Spirit. According to the views of Mr. C, he mii!?t 
 make these two distinct things, if he makes the being 
 *' born of the Spirit," to mean any thing; whereas im- 
 mersion, upon his principles, implies only the former, but 
 excludes the latter. Nor can it be with any truth alleged, 
 that the views of evangeHcal Christians involve the same 
 absurdity. They hold that the same truth is represented 
 by both expressions, first figuratively, or by the emblem 
 of water, and again, literally, by reference to the only 
 and great efficient cause of this new birth, or new crea- 
 tion. This absurdity, into which Mr. C. seems, notwith- 
 standing all his acumen, to have been betrayed in weav- 
 ing his web, (probably by the distraction of his thoughts 
 in consequence of his great hurry of business,) he must 
 have discovered after the publication of his Extra, and 
 before the discussion at Nashville; and hence, it is sup- 
 posed, that when the proposition which I have been con- 
 sidering, was offered for discussion, he saw it necessan^ 
 to require the concession that was made, concerning the 
 import of "the washing of regeneration," (Titus 3:5,) 
 whereby it would seem clearly to appear, he supposed h« 
 
would be eiiabred lo sustain his position, by substitatirg-, 
 as he did, the term regeneration for the expression 
 borjt againy Having, by concession, gained the point 
 tiiat " the washing of regeneration," and being born 
 again, are the same, he next labored hard to show, not 
 so much from other parts of the word of God, as by a 
 reference To alleged human authorities, (of which a great 
 display is made also in his Extra,) that the apostle in 
 using the expression, " The washing of regeneration," 
 had a direct reference to baptism; and in this part of his 
 argument, he laid great stress, (as he hkewise does in 
 his Extra, p. 28^,) upon the circumstance that many 
 writers who had the character of being evangelical, sup- 
 posed, or admitted it to be probable, that in this expres- 
 sion there is an allusion to the water of baptism; (as the 
 visible or outward sign of the invisible or spiritual grace^ 
 communicated by the baptism of the Holy Ghost,) and 
 hence he contended that, his opponents themselves being 
 judges, he had gained another point, viz. that the only 
 time the word regeneration occurs in the New Testa- 
 ment, with a reference to a personal change, it means^ 
 or is equivalent to immersion;" and, therefore, he con- 
 tended, it was a matter established, that " regeneration 
 and immerswn are two names for the same thing,^^ He 
 then dwelt upon what he calls " the popular acceptation" 
 of the term regejitrationy as distinguished from what lie 
 considered its " biblical import." According to the 
 former, he alleged it included the quickening, the receiv- 
 ing of the Spirit, a change of heart, and being born; 
 but " in the scriptural import, it denotes only the act of 
 being bortiJ'^ From these premises he d"ew the conclu- 
 sion, which he wished to be considered as logical and 
 just, and which, probably, appeared to be so in the view 
 of his followers, that " being born again," and " being 
 immersed," are the same thing. For having, as he con- 
 tended, established the point that immersion is equivalent 
 to regeneration, and it having been conceded that " the 
 washing of regeneration," is of the same import with 
 being " horn again," then he contended it followed, and 
 
CAMPBELUSM, 
 
 1123 
 
 th&l for the plain reason, that things which are equal 
 to the same thing, are equal to one another," that " being 
 born again and being immersed, are the same thing." 
 
 On the otlier iiand, it was contended, that his argument 
 was nothing better than a sophism; that its chief fallacy 
 consisted in two particulars; first, in having untruly re- 
 presented the scriptural import of the term regeneration, 
 to denote ''only tlie act of being born:' Second, in having, 
 contrary to the truth, assumed it as a point established, 
 that by " the washing^' spoken of by the apostle, in con- 
 'nection with regeneration, is meant immersion. 
 
 In determining the scriptural import of the term rege- 
 neration, as used by the apostle, (Titus 3:5,) the Bishop, 
 notwithstanding all his pretensions to learning, did not, 
 -as he frequently does, enter upon a critical examination 
 of the original term. This he carefully forbears to do, 
 and no doubt for the plain reason, that the import of the 
 original word is too obvious, to admit of its being wrest- 
 ed from its true meaning, in such manner as to answer 
 his purpose. The original, (paliggenesia,) is a conf^- 
 pounded word; it comes from palin, again^ and gewesis, 
 a birth, or a being born. And according to Parkhurst, a 
 lexicographer, cited by the Bishop himself, as an autho- 
 rity in relation to another word in the same passage, 
 and indeed according to the evident import of its roots, 
 jt means, not as he has untruly represented, the mere 
 " act (or circumstance) of being born," but " a being 
 born again,^' not merely a birth, " but a new birth," or 
 regeneration, which, from its root and formation, is evi- 
 dently in its application to this subject, the same thing, 
 if the word generation, as it is found in this compounded 
 term, means production, as it certainly does, then rege- 
 neration as certainly means a reproduction. Thus the 
 term is sometimes technically used to denote the restora^ 
 tion of metals to their primitive state, after having been 
 decomposed and apparently destroyed, by a chemical 
 process. Thus the term regeneration, as applied (Titus 
 3:.5,) to spiritual things, and " with a reference to a per- 
 sonal change," in the true spirit or meaning of the origi- 
 
DEBATE Oir 
 
 nal word it is designed to translate, denotes the com- 
 mencement of that spiritual renovation of human nature^ 
 whereby man is in due time perfectly restored to his 
 primitive state, as it regards the image of God, in which 
 he was at first created, and which was really destroyed 
 or lost by the fall, or in other words, to that " holiness 
 without which no man shall see the Lord." Yet, Mr. 
 C, contrary to the evident meaning, as well of the term 
 regeneration, as of the original w^ords, of which it is a 
 true translation, would have it believed that its scriptural 
 meaning is simply what he calls " the act of being born."^ 
 Whether this be the resuh oi ignorance or design, let the 
 candid and intelligent reader judge; for to every such 
 reader, it is supposed, it must evidently appear, that as 
 in fixing the meaning of the phrase, " born again," he 
 overlooks that most important part of the explanation 
 given by Christ, i. e. " born of the Spirit," so, in defining 
 the term regeneration, he rejects that part of the com- 
 pounded word which signifies " again,''' and which 
 renders it exactly equivalent, not to " the (mere) act of 
 being born," but to being " born again," But says, Mr, 
 0., ^'^Paul has associated the idea of water with regene- 
 tion," inasmuch as he speaks " of the washing of regene- 
 ration," and he alleges that it is conceded by the most 
 learned Pedobaptists and Baptists," that this phrase 
 ** refers to (baptism) immersion." In reply, I observe, in 
 the first place, upon the supposition that in this pass2[ge 
 there is an allusion to the application of w^ater in baptism, 
 as is conceded, according to the array of human autho- 
 rities exhibited by the Bishop, (Extra, p. 28,) by Dr. 
 Macknight, Parkhurst, in his lexicon, and even Matthew 
 Henry and others, what does the concession amount to? 
 That it is only by the water of baptism that a person can 
 be born of God, or wash away his sins, or obtain forgive- 
 ness, (St-c? No. But (and that even according to his chief 
 Presbyterian authority. Dr. Macknight J the allusion is 
 to the water of baptism as " an ernblem of the purifica- 
 tion of the soul from sin." But let the point contended 
 for be conceded by whom it may, it furnishes no con- 
 
CAMPBELLISM, 
 
 ^elusive reason why any should believe that in this y-hs- 
 «age, or in thai in John," (chapter 3:5,) there is any allusion 
 to baptism, unless it can be shown from the word of 
 God. The direction of our Master in heaven, is to call 
 no man master on earth. While, as has already been 
 intimated, it is not my intention to speak positively, in 
 relation to this point, as perhaps there is no method of 
 arriving at absolute certainty concerning it, — I shall only 
 assign a reason or two, why I incline to think, the opin- 
 ion of others to the contrary notwithstanding, there is 
 no allusion to baptism in either of the foregoing passages. 
 When our Lord held his conversation with Nicodemu?, 
 the ordinance of Christian baptism had not been insti- 
 tuted, and, it is presumed, Mr. C himself will not con- 
 tend that by the expression, " born again," he had any 
 reference to John's baptism, which ceased when the gos- 
 pel dispensation had been fully introduced. As well, there- 
 fore, might it be contended that David had an allusion to 
 baptism, when, under the inspiration of the Spirit, he 
 prayed, " Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity, and 
 cleanse me from my sin," as that Christ alluded to this 
 ordinance when he declared, that "except a man be born 
 ■of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kinqr- 
 4om of God." Besides, do we not know that after he 
 made this declaration, and during the period of his min- 
 istry on earth, he exercised the power of forgiving sins 
 with which he was invested, in instances not a few, 
 where W3 have not the least intimation that the persons 
 were at the time, or any time thereafter, baptized? And 
 did he not, when on the cross, in answer to the prayer 
 of the penitent thief, virtually declare the forgiveness* of 
 his sins, in the promise that he should the same day be 
 with himself in paradise? And, surely, it cannot be pre- 
 tended, that in this case, it was in any sense through the 
 literal intervention of water, that this malefactor was 
 prepared to enter into the kingdom of God. 
 
 With regard to the passage more iinmediately under 
 consideration, (Titus 3:5,) although the ordinance of 
 baptism had been instituted and fully acted upon before 
 
 *2d 
 
DKBATE ON 
 
 it was penned by The apostle, yet I can see no more j 
 snfficierit reason to conclude that therein is literal allii- j 
 sion to any water, whetlier of baptism or not, than that 
 the Psahnist had any literal allusion to water, \Ahen he 
 prayed that God would wash him from his iniquity, &c., 
 or that there is any literal allusion to water in the })as- 
 8age ill Ezekiel, before referred to, wherein it is declared, 
 •* I will sprinkle clean water upon you," &c. If the 
 passage contained an allusion to baptism, as plain as is 
 the allusion of the Psalmist, in another part of his prayer, 
 (Psalms 51:7,) to the Jewish ritual, then, indeed, the 
 point might be conceded : " Purge me with hyssop, and 
 I shall be clean; wash me, and I shall be whiter than 
 snow.*' Here is a plain allusion to the purgation that 
 was appointed (Numbers chapter 19,) for removing 
 ceremonial undeanness; but in the passage under consi- 
 deration, there is no similar allusion to baptism, nor can 
 it be shown from any parallel or other passage of scrip- 
 ture, so far as T know, that it contains any ///era/ allusion 
 to water of any kind. But there is another argument, 
 which would seem to be conclusive, against the supposi- 
 tion that there is in this passage any allusion whatever to 
 imma'sion: " He saved us, (says the apostle,) by the 
 washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy 
 (•rhost: which, (he adds in verse 6,) he shed on us 
 abundan;]v, through Jesus ('hrist our Saviour." The 
 word here rendered " shed" comes from a root which 
 signifies " to pour," or j)our forth, and is in composition 
 with a preposition which signifies " out''' so that here is 
 an evidcTit allusion to, as well as evidence of the fulfil- 
 ment, at least, in part, of those prophecies or promises 
 of God, that he would " pour out" his Spirit, not only { 
 VTXjn the seed, and his blessing upon the oftspring of his 
 people, but that he would " pour out" his Spirit upon all 
 tlesn. This not only shows that here is no allusion to 
 i/mnsrsioTJ, but that the quickening and sanctifying 
 inPmences or saving grace of the Spirit, are intended by 
 the apostle, when he speaks of " the w ashing of regene- 
 ration, and the renewing of the Holy Ghost." If Mr. 
 
CAMPBELLISBT. 
 
 21>7 
 
 r. sliojild attempf, as it is quite lil^ely be may, to confine 
 the reference made in verse 6, to " the renewing of '.i;e 
 Holy Ghost/' and to the exclusion of the washing of 
 regeneration," it may, in the first place, be replied, by the 
 way of argiimerftum ad hominewy thai according to his 
 mode of construing the Greek language, and the positicsn 
 for which he strongly contended in the first debate, in 
 relation to the word " touto,'" (Ei)hesians 2:8,) with a 
 view to show that faith is not, according \o his view, the 
 gift of God: the reference in this case, (Titus 6,) must 
 be confined exclusively to the washing of regeneration. 
 The word " loutrou" (washing,) is jieiUer gender, and 
 so is the relative in verse 8, translated which,'- while 
 the word which is translated revem'ngy^* (or renova- 
 tion,) is feminine. Hence, according to the philology 
 of the learned Bishop, the neuter relative cannot refer to 
 a feminine antecedent^ but must relate alone to the word 
 translated washing, v/hich is of the same gender. But 
 upon this circumstance alone, I ])lace no reliance in de- 
 termining to what the relative which, in this case 
 refers; it is mentioned more with a view" to show w'hat 
 the biblical criticisms of the Bishop are really w^orth. I 
 shall only add, that so far as known, no solid reason can 
 be ofi^ered for confining the reference of the relative 
 which, in the 6th verse, to either part of the verse pre- 
 ceding, and much less for excluding tliat part with 
 which, alone, the relative is in syntactical concord. 
 
 But it is not, as stated in the discussion, deemed mate- 
 rial to a just explanation of this passage, whether if is, 
 or is not, considered as containing an allusion to baptism? 
 Suppose it to be conceded that it does, and what then? 
 Are we conclude that we cannot be saved unless by the 
 literal washing, or wa'er of baptism? So says his holiness 
 the Bishop of Rome, and so says his reverence the 
 Bishop of Bethany, who seems to extend the saving efl^- 
 cacy of this outward washing, much farther than his 
 brother of Rome has ever done. But if his view of this 
 passage be correct, must we not then understand David 
 literally, when he prayed that the Lord would purge 
 
228 
 
 DEBATE ON 
 
 him with hyssop, that he might be clean? And besides 
 the gross absurdity of expeciiDg guilt to be purged from 
 tlie conscience and pollution from the soul by an outward 
 ceremonial purgation, would it not make this humble 
 penitent guilty of presumption in praying that God would 
 do that for him, which it was his duty to do for himself, 
 in reliance upon God for his blessing? 
 
 Is it asked, what then is to be understood by " the trash- 
 ing of regeneration," and especially as connected with 
 " the renewing of the Holy Ghost?" An answer to this 
 question will very naturally connect itself with a brief in- 
 vestigation of the only reason, (so far as I can now 
 recollect,) offered by Mr. C. in the discussion, and the 
 only one contained in his narrative, for the position that 
 in the scriptural import of the term, regeMeration " de- 
 notes only the act of being born," viz: " the washing of 
 regeneration is contrasted with, or, at least distinguished 
 from, the renewal of the Holy Spirit." Now in opposi- 
 tion to the Bishop, I must contend, as it was contended 
 in the discussion, that there is no contrast, nor yet any 
 substantial difference between the two parts of this pas- 
 sage. But that both contain a description of the same 
 thing, although the language of the first is figurative, in 
 the same manner that the blessing of the removal of sin 
 is twice sought by David in the same prayer: " Purge 
 me with hyssop and I shall be clean, wash me and I shall 
 be whiter than snow." Or rather that the first is a des- 
 cription of the commencement, and the last of the continu- 
 ation of thatgood work which is begun and performed, in 
 every one that is finally saved, " until the day of Jesus 
 Christ." My meaning will, perhaps, be more distinctly 
 expressed upon this subject in the language of Dr. Scott, 
 according to " hom, and upon the supposition that in this 
 passage is contained an allusion to baptism, we are to 
 understand by " the washing of regeneration, that ne\T 
 birth of the Spirit, of which the laver of baptism was the 
 sacramental sign, but nothing more. Thiis was not onl^ 
 a washing of the heart from the prevailing love and pol- 
 lution of sin, but made way for the renewal of L:e soultoth« 
 
CAMPBSLLISM. 
 
 229 
 
 divine image by the power of the Holy Spirit." This 
 surely accords with the tenor of parts of the scriptures 
 which clearly teach us that the person thus regenerated, 
 or born of God, is not so completely or perfectly restored 
 to the image of God, or that holiness which is necessary 
 to prepare him for heaven, as not daily and continually 
 to need the " renewing of the Holy Ghost." Thus the 
 apostle urges such as he believed to be partakers of this 
 ** washing of regeneration," to put off the old man with 
 his deeds, and to put on the new man," &:c. And again he 
 exiiorts others of the same character to " be renewed in 
 the spirit of their mind." And we moreover hear him 
 declare concerning himself, that though his outward man 
 was perishing, his " inward man" was " renewed day by 
 day." In what manner? By his own exertions? He 
 tells us he was not sufficient of himself for any thing, but 
 tiiat all his sufficiency was of God. It was then no doubt 
 by the renewing, or the sanctification of the Spirit; for 
 regeneration in one point of view is but the work of 
 sanctification begun. 
 
 But it was in the discussion yet further contended, 
 that Mr. C's. view of the meaning of this passage involv- 
 ed a direct contradiction, both of its Hteral meaning and 
 the leading doctrine or truth it contained. The leading 
 doctrine it contains is obviously this, that we are not 
 saved by, or on account of, any works or deeds of right- 
 eousness which we have done or can do; but only 
 through the mercy of God, exercised or extended to the 
 
 fuilty, through the mediation of the Lord Jesus Christ, 
 y whose grace alone we are justified, that we may be 
 made heirs according to the hope of eternal Hfe. 
 
 Now, however evangelical Christians may differ with 
 regard to the proper mode and subjects of baptism, they 
 are all agreed as to its nature and design. No one of 
 the sects of which this class is composed, hold baptism to 
 be at all essential to salvation, much less do they view the 
 attendance upon this ordinance as a work of righteous- 
 ness upon which any reliance can be placed, in the great 
 matter of justification in the sight of God, and their ac« 
 
230 
 
 DEBATE OK 
 
 ceptance with him. Whereas, in the system of Mr. C. 
 this is evidently not only a work of righteousness, but the 
 very workj (although he calls it an act of faith,) whereby 
 alone, according to his teaching, we can be born of God, 
 justified, pardoned, adopted, sanctified and saved. That 
 it is in his system, notwithstanding his calling it an act of 
 faith, a work of justifying righteousness, is evident from 
 the circumstance, that it exclusively depends upon the 
 will and the act of the person who v/ould thereby seek 
 justification, whether he obtained the desired blessing. It 
 is all the result of his ow^n act, and hence Mr. C. uniform- 
 ly speaks of " the act of being born," &c., though with a 
 view to avoid the evident consequence of his doctrine, he 
 informs us that the person who is thus born of water, or 
 born of God, is passive at the moment of his immersion, 
 having resigned himself into the hands of the administra- 
 tor of the ordinance. What I have said is still more evi- 
 dent from the language of the Bishop, as already quoted 
 from his Extra, where he asserts, (and, according to his 
 principles, with truth,) that " it is no difficult matter for 
 believers to be born of God," or, in other words, immer- 
 sed, whereby, if his system be true, they will forthwith 
 be justified, &c. Need there, then, any thing more be 
 said, to prove that his exegesis of the passage flatiy con- 
 tradicts the leading truth contained in it? And can it, 
 therefore, be a just explanation? 
 
 But Mr. C. contends, as we have seen, that the scrip- 
 tural import of the term regeneration, is " only the act 
 of being born." Let us then inquire, how this will com- 
 port with some plain passages of the word of God, re- 
 lating to this subject. The first to which the reader is 
 now referred, is one that has been already cited for a 
 different purpose. (1 Pet. 1:2,) " Being born again, not 
 of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of 
 God, which Hveth and abideth forever." The original 
 word here translated " being bom again comes, as we 
 have seen, from a verb which sometimes means, 
 especially in the active voice, to beget, and sometimes to 
 bring forth, and which Mr. C. contended, ought invaria- 
 
CAMPBELLISM. 
 
 bly, as used in the epistle of Peter to John, to have been 
 translated to beget,'' or " to be begotten^' but which our 
 translators (as it is believed with the strictest accuracy 
 wlien found in the passive voice, or when a passive 
 participle, as it is in this passage) have rendered " to be 
 born," or " being born." It is not however my intention 
 here to resume the discussion of this question, nor is it 
 necessary. Mr. C. and myself are sufficiently agreed 
 concerning this plain and important passage, for our 
 present purpose, which is to show, that according to his 
 own version and exposition of its meaning, it sweeps 
 away his cobweb theory of the new birth. 
 
 By the inqorruptible seed, then, Mr, C. understands the 
 word of God, (Extra, p. 29.) And ahhough we disa- 
 gj-eed concerning the correctness of our version, with 
 regard to the original word translated " being born again,'' 
 we are both agreed that it means, or is equivalent to, 
 " having been regenerated," for it is thus rendered in his 
 own version. Taking the passage then according to 
 that rendering which he has adopted and approved 
 in his new version, it reads thus: " Having been re- 
 generated, not of corruptible seed, but incorruptible, 
 through the word of the living God, which remains /or- 
 ever.'" Between this rendering, and that contained in 
 our standard version, there is no material or important 
 difference, and if the Bishop's version had throughout 
 been as correct as is this passage, he would not have been, 
 as he is now conceived justly to be, chargeable with 
 having corrupted the word of God. 
 
 Now let the reader be especially reminded, that Mr. 
 C. contends, that the scriptural import of the term, is 
 " only the act of being born;" that a person only be born 
 of God by water, or through immersion; that in order 
 to his being born of God, and becoming his living (and 
 not a still-born) child, he must have at some time pre- 
 viously been begotten of God, or, which according 
 to his system is the same thing, his mind must be " im- 
 pregnated by the Word." Thus we see, that according 
 to the Bishop's theory, " the Word" is the cause (ana 
 
DEBATE OS 
 
 it seems not merely the instrumental, but the efficient 
 cause) of begetting a sinner, or impregnating his mind; 
 but not in any sense is it either the cause or the means 
 of his regeneration, or " the act of his being born;" this 
 can only be accomplished by water, or be performed 
 through immersion, whereupon, and not until then, he is 
 born of God, or born again. Now let us inquire if this 
 theory is not swept away, by this passage of Peter's 
 epistle, taking its plain meaning from the new version of 
 Mr. C. itself. Here the apostle speaks of such as had 
 been " regenerated," (according to the new version,) or 
 " born again," (according to our standard version,) the 
 scriptural import of which, Mr. C. contends, is simply 
 *' the act of being born," not by water or through im- 
 mersion, whereby alone according to his theory, a sinner 
 can become the subject of regeneration, but " through 
 the word of the living God, which remains forever " 
 
 A passage in the epistle of James, in like manner 
 proves that God alone is the efficient cause of the great 
 change, both in the state and character of a sinner, when 
 quickened from a state of spiritual death, and that " the 
 word of truth," and not water, is the instrument whereby 
 he ordinarily, at least, effects such a change. " Of his 
 own will, (chap. 1:18,) begat he us with the word of 
 truth, that we should be a kind of first-fruits of his crea- 
 tures." The original word here translated " hegat^' is 
 not precisely the same wdth that rendered in a similar 
 instance, (1 John 5:1,) but it is susceptible of the same 
 meaning, and there can be no doubt of the correctness of 
 our version. It moreover corresponds with the transla- 
 tion of Dr. Macknight, but the Bishop has, in this in- 
 stance, thought proper to use the word " impregnated** 
 for " begotten," although, as has been shown, and as it 
 will presently further appear, he considers and uses these 
 terms in reference to the new birth, as synonimous. He 
 is not so blear-sighted as not to perceive the bearing of 
 these passages upon his theory, and therefore in his Ex- 
 tra, (p. 29,) he labors not only to evade their force, but 
 to press them into his service. " In being born natural- 
 
CAMPBELLISM. 
 
 233 
 
 ly, (says Mr. C.,) there is the begetter, and that which is 
 begotten. These are not tJie same. The act of being 
 born, is different from that which is born. Now, (he 
 adds,) the scriptures carry this figure through every 
 prominent point of coincidence. There is the begetter. 
 Of his own will he has begotten, or impregnated ns, 
 says James the apostle. By the word of timth, as the 
 incorruptible seed; or as Peter says. We are bofn 
 again, not from, coiTuptible, but from incorruptible seed, 
 the word of which endureth fm ever. But (he continues) 
 when the act of being born is spoken of, then the w ater 
 is introduced. Hence, before we come into the king- 
 dom, we are 'born of water." 
 
 The above is a just specimen of the Bishop's logic, as 
 well as his candor and regard to accuracy in quoting 
 from the sacred oracles. Let the reader understand that 
 the part of the above extract in italics, purports to be 
 literally quoted from the epistles of James and Peter. 
 Yet it will not only be perceived that both quotations are 
 incorrect, but that the latter so changes the language as 
 to keep out of view that divine agency in tlie work of re- 
 generation, which the passage evidently implies; and 
 represents a person that is brought into tlie kingdom of 
 the grace of God, as born ^\from an incorruptible seed, 
 the word of truth," &c. even as a plant spiings from a 
 seed possessed of the germinating principle, according 
 to an estabhshed law of nature. Whereas, it is evident 
 from our version, which in this respect is in strict ac- 
 cordance with the original, that although the saints ad- 
 dressed by the apostle, were born again of incorruptible 
 seed, it was " by the ward of truth," and this was the in- 
 strument or instrumental cause. The original word 
 translated " by," comes from a Hebrew word which sii?- 
 nifies to drive or impel, and in its connection as here 
 used, must lead us to the conclusion that " the word of 
 truth," and not water, was eitlier the efficient or instru- 
 mental cause of their having been regenerated, or born 
 again. But as it would be equally as contradictory to 
 other plain passages of Cod's word, as to the dictates of 
 21 
 
234 
 
 CAMPBEtLISH. 
 
 sound reason, to conclude the word of God, or the gospel 
 alone, when not accompanied by " the Holy Ghost sent 
 down from heaven," to be the efficient cause of this 
 great change, therefore we cannot be at a loss to deter- 
 mine ^vhat is the true meaning of this part of the pas* 
 sage. 
 
 When the writer of the preceding narrative had near- 
 ly completed his design, he was summoned by the voice 
 of disease to prepare for the conflict with death, that he 
 might forever rest from his labors. The tongue w^hieh 
 had so eloquentl}- defended the cause of justice, and last- 
 ly the sacred cause of divine truth, was now about to be 
 silent. — and the hand which had sketched the previous 
 account of tlie discussion with the champion of error^ 
 was now about to rest in the gi'ave, " till the resurrec- 
 tion." But it is evident, that Divine Providence had 
 preserved the mortal part of Dr. Jennings from dissolu- 
 tion, during the last year of his life, so long, that he would 
 be enabled to write out all the essential parts of the de- 
 bate, which exhibits in its trae features, a dangerous sys- 
 tem of delusion, which had spread throughout many parts 
 of the land, and bid fair to extend its blighting, dividing 
 influence, through many branches of the church, exhaust- 
 ing their spirituality, and leaving an external gospel, cal- 
 fed ancient, as useless, as it is contrary to the sacred 
 oracles. 
 
 CONCLUSION, 
 
 MR. C'S WSINTERESTEDJTESS^ 
 
 From a long letter, addressed to the present writer, 
 by his uncle, dated Dec. 31, 1830, a few days after the 
 discussion, the reader can obtain some idea of the points 
 
CAMPBELLISM. 
 
 which were the subjects of Mr. Camphell's concluding re- 
 marks. 
 
 " The Moderators adjudged the conclusion to belong 
 of right to Mr, C, who exhausted the greater part of his 
 last twenty minutes, not in reply to what I had advanced 
 from sundry important parts of the word of God, but in 
 reading his own book — his Millenial Harbinger, Extra, 
 No. L And knowing that my lips would be sealed, and 
 that no reply could be made to what he might say, the 
 most of the little that he did advance, besides, related to 
 his own great disinterestedness,'^ &c. 
 
 Says the writer of the letter, as to the effect of this 
 discussion, it does not become me to speaL I trust that 
 my motive in entering into this contest, was not to seek 
 my own things, but the things of Jesus Christ — not to 
 promote my own interest, or honor, or fame; but the 
 glory of God and the cause of truth, even as it is in Jesus. 
 Suffice it therefore to say, that, with the exception of the 
 deluded followers of Mr. C, the voice of the pubhc, 
 including not only the great mass of the several Christian 
 denominations, but such as belong to no church, (of these 
 a number that were either admirers of Mr. CampbelPs 
 talents, or strongly inclined to embrace his sentiments,) 
 is, that truth has triumphed." 
 
 It will be learned from the above extract, that Mr. 
 Campbell made the matter of his own ^ great disinterest- 
 edness," one worthy of the attention of the assembly in 
 his concluding address. The pecuniary concerns, or 
 personal efforts of a disputant, were not only a poor shift 
 for arguments to defend the ancient gospel," pretended to 
 be based on the foundation of the apostles; but rather 
 delicate subjects for a modest rnan to introduce, when 
 they pertained to himself. Since he has made an exhi- 
 bition of his disinterestedness in one public assembly, if 
 not in twany, tViP subject maybe considered as fairly be- 
 fore the public, for examination. 
 
 Let us suppose the case of an ambitious ecclesiastic, 
 anxious to acquire fam.e, influence, and " filthy lucre," in 
 this country, in the present state of our civil and reli^ioais 
 
236 
 
 CAMPBELLISM. 
 
 institutions. And in what way would he most likely 
 succeed in his purposes? It is manifest, at once, that if 
 he remained, during life, in communion with one of the 
 evangelical branches of the Church, he could only with 
 an uncommon degree of talents, united to great industry 
 and management, even secure himself much fame or in- 
 fluence. For, his want of piety, and much more the 
 principle of parity, or equal rights, usually maintained, 
 would ever be obstacles in his way to the attainment of 
 the two first objects. And the greatest sum given by 
 any congregation as a compensation for ministering in 
 the pastoral office, would never satisf}' the desire of one 
 in pursuit of the riches of this world. By such a man, 
 bent on the attainment of the objects specified, some 
 other plan would necessarily have been adopted, than the 
 adhering to the great fundamental doctrines common to 
 Christian denominations — some other plan, than that of 
 remaining during life in communion with an}^ one of 
 them. To one possessing a knowledge of the prejudices 
 of the great mass of the pcpleof this country, and of the 
 aversion to the humbling, and, (to the natural man,) dif- 
 ficult terms of the gospel, it would appear necessary to 
 strike out some new scheme, giving a hope of salvation, 
 or unite parts of different systems, so as to make one plau- 
 sible, easy to the recipient, and not running counter to 
 the views which natural men entertain of divine subjects. 
 In order to secure success with the people, who are only 
 partially settled in their opinions, or entirely unsettled, (and 
 the mass of the community are in one or the other of 
 these states,) it would be necessary that this new scheme, 
 or old one modified, should have the appearance of being 
 derived directly from the Bible, and as being the belief 
 of the apostles. Any one in the pursuit of fame, influence, 
 and wealth, would most probably meet with success, t>o 
 declaim and publish much asrainst crt^^^^ and oonfc^- 
 ^n^, profcas freedom from sectarianism; for, in 
 
 consequence of the improper light in which the former of 
 these things is viewed, there is much prejudice in the 
 niinds of thousands, of which advantage could be easily 
 
237 
 
 taken, for the accomplishment of selfish purposes. 
 At ail age like this, the Press, which may be usefully em- 
 ployed in promoting evangelical truth, held in common 
 by various denominations, would be absolutely necessary 
 for such an innovator, as is supposed, in order that he 
 might be successful. Efforts to give him notoriety, such 
 as public disputations, opposition to the religious usages 
 against which prejudice can be easily excited, — ^ha- 
 rangues, gasconading, challenging any and every one 
 to raise objections to his -views, would aid in obtaining 
 these objects. If these steps were taken by a fluent, au- 
 dacious man, they would make an impression of superi- 
 ority, and of being in possession of the truth, on persons 
 of ordinary discernment, very favorable to the promotion 
 •of self-interest. If any reader knows of a course, ab- 
 stractly considered, more likely to be successful to an 
 ambitious man, it is more than the writer does. / 
 speak as unto wise men, judge ye what I say. 
 
 Some facts from the history of Mr, Campbell, con* 
 nected with his manner of speaking and writing, wiM 
 enable the reader to know how far, the case supposed, is 
 Mr. C.'s — how far he is entitled to his claims of disinter- 
 estedness. 
 
 After Mr. C. had been aided by congregations in con- 
 nection with branches of the Presbyterian church, he was 
 discovered to be a young man of so much self-impor- 
 tance, that he was not encouraged in his efforts. He was 
 licensed by his father, and eventually became connected 
 with the Regular Baptist church, as a preacher of the 
 gospel. That respectable body, perhaps not then fully 
 acquainted with him, supposed that Presbyterians had 
 paid the passage over the Atlantic of a prodigy of great- 
 ness, whom they would cherish, but which they soon 
 found to be a being containing the 'poison of error, and 
 the disposition to hiss at long established and scriptural 
 usages; such as the obligation of obedience to the mc/ral 
 law, or ten commandments, under the New Testament 
 dispensation. It will enable us to arrive at some know- 
 
 ♦ 21 
 
CAMPBELLISM. 
 
 ledge of Mr. Ca'Tipbell's disinteredness, to quote a few 
 sentences from a late Baptist wriier, who remarks, 
 
 " It was soon perceived by some, that he not only ap- 
 probated those things which well instructed Baptists re^ 
 garded as evils, but that an attack was to be made upon 
 some of the vital principles of the society. It has proved 
 in tlie end, that nol reformation h\i\. revolution, is what he 
 aims at The whole system heretofore maintained by 
 Baptists, must give place to an entire new order of 
 things." 
 
 Daring part, or the whole of the time in which j\fr. C. 
 was in connection with the Regular Baptists, he publish- 
 ed the Christian Baptist." In that work, he began to 
 divulge his reforming sentiments, as well as occasionally 
 in newspapers, conversations, and sermons — to turn the 
 minds of some from the truth, and to lay the foundation 
 for a new sect. In it he began to reprint the slanderous 
 stories, tending to check the efforts to evangelize the 
 heathen, and to stigmatize the character of those engaged 
 in them. Amongst other things taken from semi-infidel, 
 and Universalist publications, he inserted the tale, which 
 proved to be utterly false, concerning that truly Chris- 
 tian Baptist missionary, and heroine in her Master's 
 cause, Mrs. Judson. 
 
 He likewise commenced his attacks in his publication, 
 as well as in his harangues, on Presbyterians, without 
 any provocation from tiiem, who had been his benefac- 
 tors, and to turn his hand against every man who did not 
 enter into his views; which statements, will be confiniied 
 by an examination of the page? of the " Baptist." When 
 he appeared to have obtained the applause of a considera- 
 ble part of the Baptist, as well as some of other denomin- 
 ations, and some of every class, he became bolder and 
 ]>older in proclaiming his " ancient gospel," which has 
 Droved itself to be, but a compound of parts of Arianism, 
 i.'niiarianism, Popery, and SaudornAnism, with other 
 ipi^r^'Aientsh.^Ymg an afmity to these ancient nostrums, 
 all of which are labeled. Gospel This course eventua- 
 
CAMPBELLLISM. 
 
 230 
 
 ted, not in a disinterested separation from the Regular 
 Baptists, for Mr. C. having prepared the way, carried 
 with him a portion of that body, as the spoils of his fac- 
 tious conduct. He rent many churches in the west, and 
 southwest, set at variance many ministers and people that 
 had formerly lived in harmony, and all, as he would have 
 us believe, for the disinterested purpose of propagating 
 the " ancient gospel." But having no doubt reaped a re- 
 ward from his " Christian Baptist," from the sale of hig 
 pretended triumphant debates, with Mr. Walker, and 
 subsequently with Mr. M'Calla, he set his snares for 
 more game, and turned his " Christian Baptist" into a 
 Millennial Harbinger," endeavoring to claim for it 
 greater patronage as the precursor of the Millenium. 
 He issued a new edition of his per-version of the New 
 Testament, for which he had helped to obtain a demand, 
 by publishing fabrications, similar to the one exposed in 
 the former part of this book, relative to the American 
 Bible Society. He issued supplies of his Hymn Book, in 
 the preface to which he condemns all collections of 
 Hymns but his own, — and all from similar disinterested- 
 ness. He undertook new journeys, with something, no 
 doubt, of the disinterestedness of a Pharisee, who will 
 travel " over land and sea, to make one proselyte." His 
 arrival, in some instances, was announced by hand-bills 
 or advertisements, so that the curiosity of the people 
 might be aroused to hear lectures, adapted to the feel- 
 ings of human nature, and in many particulars, to the 
 views of human reason. In these harangues, an easy 
 way to be saved w^as prescribed to men, nearly all of 
 whom are willing to quiet their fears about futurity, by 
 some profession of Christianity. — To repent, (according 
 to Mr. C.) is to reform; to have faith unto salvation, is to 
 believe the historical facts of the Bible; to be born again, 
 is to be immersed. In other words, to secure heaven, is 
 to be a Campbellite, in spirit and in belief, and to be- 
 • come one of the most exclusive sectarians. To seems 
 more certain attention to his public exhibitions, by giv- 
 ing them the appearance of novelty, and to bring iaat© 
 
CAMPBELLISM. 
 
 disrepute the common mode of textuary preaching, or 
 sermonizing, the Reformer calls his addresses o/y/^/ows or 
 lectures. This distinction between his discourses, and 
 those of other religious teachers, is one without any ma- 
 terial difterence, and is evidently made, to enable him, 
 with some apparent consistency, to teach the sentiment 
 found in his monthly publication, that al/ the preaching 
 that is necessary since the days of the apostles^ is to undo 
 V'hat has been done. And also, to give himself all op- 
 portunity to endeavor to undo, by what he calls orations 
 or lectures, without being chargeable with preaching. 
 Those who have heard his lectures, know, that he enters 
 into an examination of the Sacred Scriptures, and en- 
 forces, by sophistical arguments, his tieics on his audi- 
 tors, even more than, those who have received regular 
 ordination, do the truth. If there is a difference be- 
 tween his orations and the sermons of other men, it is 
 chiefly in this, that Mr. C. endeavors to present the views 
 of other denominations in a disgusting light, and treats 
 sacred truth sometimes with shocking irreverence, 
 and is destitute of that solemnity which usually attends 
 a minister of the gospel, laboring merely to do good to 
 his fellow creatures, and to glorify God. 
 
 The fluency and boldness which Mr. C. exhibits in 
 his pubhc harangues, has acquired for him a reputation 
 for smartness, which is scarcely his due, especially when 
 it is known to be the fact, that he repeats his lectures on 
 the same topics at difierent places, until he has obtained 
 a readiness of speech which is not usual, except in cases 
 where frequency of repetition, gives the speaker the op- 
 portunity of impressing the less discerning part of his 
 audience, with the idea of his great superiority. Wheth- 
 er to this practice of repeating the same discourse, as 
 well as to other schemes, which have been and will be 
 mentioned, is to be attributed the fact, that Mr. C. has 
 acquired fame and influence, I leave the reader to judge. 
 
 Thousands who have heard him, know with what ve- 
 hemency of manner, and venom of matter, he is accus- 
 tomed to assail the ministry, the doctrines and usages of 
 
CAMPBELLISM. 
 
 241 
 
 other denominations. He represents their nainisters as 
 hirelings, the people as deceived and fleeced by them, 
 and himself as receiving little or no reward for his 
 services. By pursuing this course, he takes advantage 
 of the avaricious feelings of men, and excites a dislike to 
 the humbling doctrines of the gospel of Jesus Christ, and 
 conceals the truth, that he is rewarded; though it may 
 not be directly, it is done indirectly, and vastly more 
 abundantly than the reward of regularly ordained cler- 
 gAinen. By going through the country, casting rcf" 
 proach upon ministers, whose forefathers assisted in 
 laying the foundation of liberty and free toleration in 
 religion in this country, and who, themselves, have been 
 the ujiiform patrons of learning, lil)erty, and rights of 
 conscience, as well as promoters of true religion, he 
 prepares the minds of his deluded followers, to acknow- 
 ledge himself, as ordy worthy of patronage. By traveling 
 to and fro, throwing stones at the vessels in all the regu- 
 lar sanctuaries, he obtains a sale for his n ares — for his 
 enormously dear, and dangerously bought works, and 
 publications. The more he can persuade people to 
 forsake their former ministers and churches, the 
 more profit results to him, which is alread}^ so great, 
 that he need^ no salary as a hireling in his destruc- 
 tive work. He nov/ possesses more wealth, than ten, or 
 perhaps twenty, of some of the Presbyterian ministers, 
 whom he makes the chief butt of his rough satire. Hav- 
 ing the advantage of zealous agents, who disseminate 
 his writings with the utmosi diligence, not onl}' amongst 
 their own sect, (as other denominations do amongst 
 theirs,) but amongst all classes, some of whom, we are 
 credibly informed, are of every grade in scepticism: 
 besides, being Postmaster, and having a Post Office at 
 his own dwelling, in a retired part of the country, he 
 can embrace ihe franh'jig privilege, and can, with great 
 facility and success, send abroad his communications, 
 and propagate his *' ancient gospel" for the sake of 
 '* filthy lucre." 
 
342 
 
 CAMPBELLISM. 
 
 It is also worthy of remark, as part of the Bishop's 
 disinterested course, that though accustomed to censure 
 other individuals with the utmost severity, when they, 
 after much forbearance, and injury received at his 
 hands, attempt, in self-defence, and for future security, 
 an exposure of him and his d octrines, he, like an adroit 
 actor who plays upon the sympathies of his auditors, com- 
 mences the cry of persfcation and proscription. And 
 thus, by various arts, he has retained in many places his 
 hold, and increased his supporters; but other persons 
 have seen, and are discovering the real man, through 
 the veil of his pretensions, and are determined not to be 
 beguiled to ruin, nor aid in promoting the prevalence of 
 sentiments, dangerous to immortal beings. I would 
 indulge the hope, that even Mr. Campbell, learning by 
 experience that the road to fame, influence, and wealth, 
 upon the ruins of other denominations, is filled with 
 thorns — that feeling remorse of conscience — and wit- 
 nessing the blasting and dividing influence of his plans 
 on the churches, may yet think of retracing his steps, 
 and coming to true repentance, and to a saving know- 
 ledge of Jesus Christ, and have, as " he that believeth 
 hath, the witness in himeelf* of forgiveness. 
 
 EDITOR. 
 
APPENDIX, 
 
 Note A. — page 33. 
 
 H&. C.'a CHRISHAN EJtPERIENCE — HIS ADVICE TO AN ANX10U9 :iNaUIltES 
 
 ON RELIGION. 
 
 After having written tlie account of the first envening*s debate with 
 Mr. C. I discovered that he has favored the world with a publication 
 of what he is pleased to call his "Christian experience." In his dis- 
 sertation on conscience, No. 7, contained in the 3d vol. of his Christian 
 Baptist, he informs his readers, that he well remembers " what pains 
 and conflicts" he endured under fearful apprehension that his convic- 
 tions and his sorrows for sin were not deep enough. And if we may 
 form a judgment from his own statement, it would seem that Mr. C. 
 was, at least in some measure, convinced of the sinfulness, as well as 
 helplessness of his nature ; and that he then " did wish" for the opera- 
 tion of the Spirit of God upon his soul, though like others in the same 
 situation with himself, destitute of spiritual discernment, he seems to 
 'have entertained very unjust and unscriptural notions of that " good 
 work" which God not only begins in all his people, but performs until 
 tlie day of Jesus Christ. He ftirther informs his readers that although 
 he feared that he had not sufficiently found the depravity of his heart, 
 and had not yet proved that he was utterly witliout strength, yet he 
 sometimes thought that he felt as sensibly as he felt the ground under 
 his feet, that he had gone just as far as human nature could go without 
 supernatural aid, and that one step more would place him safe among 
 the regenerated of the tord; and yet heaven refused its aid. That he 
 found no comfort in all the declarations of the gospel, because he want, 
 ed one thing to enable him to appropriate them to himself. Lacking 
 this, he could only envy the happy favorites of heaven who enjoyed it« 
 and all his refuge was in a faint hope that he one day might receive that 
 aid, which would place his " feet upon the Rock." Having proceeded 
 thus far in the dissertation before alluded to, Mr. C. abruptly terminated 
 tlie narrative of his " Christian experience" without having informed 
 his readers how he made his escape from " the slough of despond," 
 into which he had fallen. In consequence of which, a person who 
 seems to have been deeply concerned about the state of his soul— one who 
 viewed " himself out of the ark of safety;" but " whose supreme de- 
 sire," according to his own language, was " to know the truth as it is in 
 Jesus," addressed " to the Editor of the Christian Baptist," a very in- 
 teresting letter. In this letter, he informed Mr. C, that he regarded 
 him " as a teacher in Israel," in whom it is but too evident he placed 
 the most implicit confidence; he requested his aid in his researches' 
 after truth; and he moreover declared, that he made the application 
 with the strongest assurance of being satisfactorily answered, as the 
 subject upon which he solicited information once operated upon the 
 mind of Mr. C. precisely as it then did on that of the writer of the letter. 
 
 In giving the sequel of his Christian experience, (as Mr. C. professes 
 to do,) by way of reply to a letter requesting information relating to a 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 subject of stick absorbing interest, we may reasonably conclude, that a 
 true and faithful " teacher in Israel," who had himself been taug-ht of 
 God, would have said to his anxious correspondent, as did the Psalmist 
 to all those that feared the Lord : " Come and hear, and I will declare 
 what he hath done for my soul." The one thing which I once fell 
 myself so much in need of, I humbly hope I have obtained. When tho 
 sorrows of death compassed me, and the pains of hell got hold upon m&, 
 and I found trouble and sorrow; then called I upon the name of tho 
 Lord. O Lord, I beseech thee, deliver my soul. Thus I was brought 
 low, but the Lord helped me. For I waited patiently, (but with strong 
 desires, and earnest cries, and flowing tears,) for the Lord, and he in- 
 clined unto me and heard my cry. He brought me up, also, out of a 
 horrible pit, out of the miry clay, and set my feet upon a Rock. And 
 he hath put a new song in my mouth, even praise unto our God. Ma^ 
 ny shall see it, and fear, and trust in the Lord. For God, who com- 
 manded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined into my heart, 
 to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of 
 Jesus Christ. Thus the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of 
 glory, has, (as I humbly trust,) given unto me the spirit of wisdom and 
 revelation in the knowledge of him: the eyes of my understanding 
 having been enlightened; that I might know what is the hopeofhia 
 calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints? 
 and what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who be- 
 lieve, according to the working of his mighty power which he wrought 
 in Christ, when he raised him from the dead; therefore I have believed 
 the word which God has given of his Son, not merely " hy my own ef- 
 forts'''' — not merely by reading and reflection as you have learned, and 
 believe that Rome is situated on the Tiber, (a belief that will produce 
 no change in your moral or spiritual condition,) but I have " believed 
 through grace" — believed with the heart unto righteousness, and I hope 
 to the saving of the soul. For after that I thus through grace believed, 
 I was sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, which is the earnest of ray 
 inlieritance until the redemption of my purchased possession, unto tha 
 praise of his glory. So that now having the Spirit of God to bear wit- 
 ness with my own Spirit that I am a child of God, I am habitually dis- 
 posed, in shewing forth the praises of him who hath brought me out of 
 darkness into his marvellous light, having delivered me from the powex 
 of darkness, and translated me into the kingdom of his dear Son, to 
 adopt the language of the great and highly favored apostle of the Gen- 
 tiles: " Now unto him that is able to do exceeding abundantly above all 
 that we ask or think, according to the power that worketh in us — unto 
 him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus, throughout all ages, world 
 without end. Amen." 
 
 Such, it is believed, would have been truly a Christian experieiKse, 
 corresponding with the experience of the saints of God as recorded in 
 his word — and such a Christian experience given by way of reply to 
 the letter of his anxious correspondent, might, through the blessing of 
 God, and probably would have been, the means of convincing him that 
 the " one thing which he lacked" in order to his becoming a Christian, 
 not merely in name, but in truth, must be sought for, and could only 
 be obtained, not through the aid or instruction of Mr. C., but from God 
 who alone can place the sliding feet of a poor sinner, in danger of falling 
 into hell, " upon the Rock" of ages. 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 245 
 
 Instead of giving such an experience as the foreg^nng, of which it is 
 deemed no breach of charaity to conchide Mr. C. to have been destitute, 
 in his reply to his correspondent, he informs him that though to him it 
 might appear that " his experience broke off too abrubtly," lor the case 
 of his correspondent, still, " for his object at that time, which was to 
 show, that every man'' s experience corresponded withhis religions ednca- 
 Hon, it was conducted sufficiently far to demonstrate the point in 
 hand." But in compliance with the request of the anxious inquirer 
 after truth," he proceeds to give the sequel of his religious experience, 
 in the progress of which he informs his corrcspondeVit that lie " rested 
 for a while on the bare probability, or possibility, that divine aid would 
 come to" his relief. But he afterwards declares he " was all the while 
 looking for an aid which was never promised, and expecting an inter- 
 position, without which" he was taught he could derive no assurance of 
 the favor of God. Notwithstanding Mr. C. afterwjwrds speaks of divine 
 aid having been vouchsafed, but in a way which he had not expected. 
 He "had looked for it, (he says,) independent of all the grace revealed 
 in the gospel, but found it inseparably connected therewith." That is, if 
 he he not greatly misunderstood, he found it exclusively in the written 
 word, or revelation of the gospel, without any inward revelation of the 
 Spirit of God, without having, when dead in sins, been quickened to- 
 gether with Christ, by his Spirit. I say by his Spirit, for he himself 
 informs us, (John 6: 63,) " It is the Spirit that quickeneth." That no 
 injustice is done to Mr. C. by this construction or explanation of the 
 " divine aid" which he supposed was vouchsafed in his case, will be 
 evident from the bold, not to say impious assertion contained in the 
 sequel of his reply to his correspondent : " It is one of Ihe monstrous 
 abortions of a purblind theology, for any human being to be wishing for 
 spiritual aid to be born again. Transier such an idea to the first birth, 
 and to what an absurdity are we reducedl" This article of Mr. Camp- 
 bell's creed, not only shows how inadequate, or rather unscriptural and 
 absurd are his views of the new or second birth, but that he entirely 
 excludes the wwk of the Spirit of God, whereby this great ciiange in the 
 character and condition of a sinner is effected, so that he is said to be » 
 new creature, having been created in Christ Jesus unto good works. 
 And that too notwithstanding it is evident from the language of God's 
 word, that to be born again, to be born of God, and to he horn of the 
 Spirit, is the same thing. 
 
 But what may seem strange, and even to involve a contradiction in 
 the view of some, is, that Mr. C. in the narrative of his supposed Chris- 
 tian experience, nevertheless informs his correspondent, that his " peace 
 and hope and joy arises from a firm persuasion that in the Lord Jesus, 
 through the love of God, and the grace of the Holy Spirit," he " has ac- 
 ceptance," and is " adopted into the family of God" — and that of this he 
 has " assurance from the Spirit of adoption" winch he has received, and 
 from his " love to all the saints." If he lia d said no more than tiiis upon 
 the subject of his religious experience, some niight have been ready to 
 conclude that in relation to that important matter, there is, or at least 
 was not, (A. D. 1827, when he penned his oxporiencc, whatever chan- 
 ges of sentiment he may since have undergone,) any substantial differ- 
 ence between Mr. C. and any evangelical or orthotlox C'hristian. Such, 
 however, it is believed, is far from being the fact. What are his ideas 
 22 
 
APPENDIX, 
 
 or opinions concev sing the Holy Spirit, I cannot certainly telT, tts heftx? 
 never condescended to favor the vi orld with the article of his creed in 
 relation to tliis important subject; but holds his sentiments in this par- 
 ticular, to all intents and purposes, as private jjroperty. But that Mr. C. 
 admits among the articles of his creed, (held as prirate property) the 
 divinity of the Holy Spirit, or liis coequality and unity with the Father 
 and his only begotten Son — or, in other words that he believes this third 
 person of the Godhead, to be that " eternal Spirit" tlnough whom Christ 
 " offered himself once for all \vithout spot unto God," it is supposed is 
 more than doubtful; inasmuch as Arians and Unitarians, and indeed all^ 
 by whatever name they Miay choose to be distinguished, who deny the 
 divinity or coequality of the Son of God with the Father, (as does Mr. 
 C.,) also deny the divinity and coequality of the Holy Spirit- 
 But be that as it may, it is evident from the whole tenor of his reply- 
 to his correspondent, that, (in A. D. 1827,) hy the gracb of the Holy 
 Spirit, he meant no more tlian that inspiration whereby we are favored 
 with the written tcord, or revealed will of God; and by the spirit of adop- 
 tion, v/hich he believes he has received, he does not me-an the' Holy Spirit 
 of God, but a filial disposition of mind, whereby he is inclined to cry 
 Abba, Father. This will more clearly appear in that part of this ac- 
 count of the debate, v/hich notices his version of the New Testament. 
 The Spirit of adoption, then^ which Mr.C. has received, is very different 
 from that spoken of by the apostle, as having been received by the be- 
 lieving Romans, (Rom. 8:15,) and also by the Galatians, (Gal. 10:6,) to 
 whom he declares: '"And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the 
 Spirit of his Son into your hearts^ crying, Ahha, Father " 
 
 After having given to his correspondent a " disclosure of * his '* expe- 
 rience," he adds, among other things, the following opinions concerning 
 faith, which would seem evidently a deduction from such experience :. 
 " If by your '^ ozcn efforts^ yea can believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the 
 Son of God — by your '^own efforts'' you can believe in him to the saving 
 ^f your soul. That is ' saving fmth,'' (for there is but ' one faith,') 
 wJiich purifies tlie heart and works by love." That is, if his corres- 
 pondent could, by his own efforts, believe that Jesus is the Messiah,. 
 &.C., after the same manner that he believed that Rome was situated on 
 the Tiber, that is saving faith, y^hich purifies the heart!!* May God. 
 of his infinite mercy and goodness, deliver an anxious inquirer after 
 truth, from the dangerous influence of such ghostly advisers as Mr. A. 
 Campbell I 
 
 Note B. — page 38. 
 That Mr. C. belonged to this class in Ireland, I will not undertake 
 to say. It is nevertheless a fact susceptible of proof, if it should be 
 denied, that his family, or to speak with more precision, his father's 
 family, when they emigrated, or at least, when they came to West- 
 ern Pennsylvania were in circumstances so straitened, that contri- 
 butions were mads by congregations belonging to different Branches 
 of the Presbyterian chm-ch, for their relief. This fact, however, is 
 not^ mentioned by way of casting any reproach upon I\Ir. C. or his 
 
 ■ * If thit doctrine be true, a sinner, however he may feel oppressed 
 imder a sense ox'the moral pollution and obliquity of his nature, has no 
 need to pray, as did David: "Create in me a clean hearty. and renew 
 a right Spirit within me." 
 
ATPEN^DIX, 
 
 247 
 
 family, because he or they were poor. Far from it. Whilst a rich 
 man is not to be accounted a sinner, simply because he is in pos- 
 session of riches, so a man is not the less worthy of respect and es- 
 teem, merely because he is poor. Besides, we are informed by the 
 most undoubted authority, that it is for the most part among this 
 class, that we are to expect to jfind the true people of God. The 
 father of Mr. C. was at the time of emigration from Ireland, a Pres. 
 byterian minister, and wo know, notwithstanding all the outcry 
 which ills son has, through a series of years, raised against the min- 
 isters of the gospel belonging to this denomination, that but few of 
 them indeed, at least in these United States, are rich, — as he is said 
 and believed now to be. The great majority of them have but the 
 means, with great frugality, of obtaining the common comforts of 
 life, and of maintaining a decency of apparel, corresponding to the 
 nature of their office, and to enable them to have access to persons 
 of wealth to do them good. 
 
 But the object of mentioning the fact stated above, is with a view 
 to expose the arrogance, as well as ingratitude of Mr. C. He would 
 fain have it believed that in emigrating to this country, he turned 
 his back upon bright and attracting prospects, and voluntarily re- 
 linquished many advantages wliich he could not here enjoy. And 
 notwithstanding a debt of gratitude, at least, is due from him to a 
 portion of the Presbyterian church, there is no sect that has, per- 
 haps, shared so hbcrally in the abuse and slander with which his 
 writings and public harangues abound- 
 
 NoTE C. — page rs. 
 
 The gross absurdity as well as unscriptural character of Mr. Camp- 
 -fceli's position, (upon which he frequently harps, both in his writings 
 and pubhc addresses.) tliat faith consists in the belief of facts, and not 
 doctrines, was farther, in this part of the debate attempted to be shown, 
 from the utter impossibility of separating the latter from the former. 
 It indeed must be evident to every reflecting mind, that if a person even 
 historically believes the facts narrated in the New Testament, he will, 
 •or, to speak more definitely, he must therewith receive or imbibe cer- 
 tain doctrines or sentiments, concerning the nature and design of the 
 Christian religion, as also concerning the nature and true character of 
 its great Author. It does not, however, necessarily follow, that every 
 historical believer will receive or embrace, even speculatively^ the sys. 
 tern of trutli or form of doctrine" contained in the New Testament. 
 For as it was in tlie days of the Apostles, so it is yet, "there be some 
 tliat trouble" the church of God, " and would pervert the gospel of 
 Christ." Hence tliose holy and inspired men, in their writings, speak 
 of " good doctrine," of" sound doctrine," and of " the doctrine that is 
 according to godliness." On the other hand, they speak of those who 
 hold " the doctrine of Balaam;" of others who maintained '* the doc- 
 trines of the Nicolaitans;" and of those also, who, in the latter times, 
 should " depart from the faith giving heed to seducing spirits, (or false 
 teachers,) and doctrines of devils." 
 
 We may therefore see how fallacious, as well as destructive, is the 
 £»tion, tliat it is a matter of small moment what may be the system of 
 
248 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 doctrines which a man may adopt or receive, provided, only, he is sin. 
 cere in his belief of them, as being true and taken or deduced (as he 
 supposes) from the w^ord of God. On the contrary, it is of vital impor- 
 tance, that with the belief of the gospel facts, we cordially receive, and 
 from the heart, not only obey, but abide in the true doctrine of Christ; 
 and be not " carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the slight of 
 men and cunning craftiness whereby they lie in wait to deceive." It is 
 of vital importance, because it is " the form of doctrine" which any one 
 receives and obeys " from the heart," rather than the belief of the gos- 
 pel history, that constitutes such a person a true follower of Christ. If 
 a man truly receives and obeys his doctrine, it will, through the power 
 ajid grace of his Spirit, which works in all true believers (as in the 
 Apostle to the Gentiles) mightily, have a purifying and saving effect 
 upon the soul. Thus a sinner, through obedience of the truth, receives, 
 in a measure, the same mind that was in Christ; and his Spirit, without 
 which he could be none of his. We accordingly hear the apostle Peter 
 addressing true believers, as those who had purified their " souls ia 
 obeying the truth, through the Spirit, unto unfeigned love of the 
 brethren." 
 
 Whilst it is . the peculiar characteristic of every true Christian, — 
 whereby he is especially distinguished, not only from the sceptic and 
 the infidel; but also from the nominal, or, which is substantially the 
 same, the historical believer, — that he obeys " from the heart that form 
 of doctrine" contained in the word of God; it is not intended here to 
 assert that every, or indeed that any such true Cinistian, receives or 
 embraces every tittle of that system of truth which the scriptures con- 
 tain. This, however, does rot nvise from the want of a disposition to 
 embrace tlic whole system: but ili rough remaining infirmity, he may 
 not u yet be able to discover that system in all its parts, or by reason 
 of the imperfection of that spiritual discernment with which he is en- 
 dued, r!« a consequence of havijig passed from a state of spiritual death 
 to that of spiritual life, lie is not <ihie perfectly, in all things, to discriin- 
 inate between truth and error. But if a person be a Christian, not 
 merely in name but in^^'d and in truth, it follows of necessity that he 
 must have, cordially, ana with his whole heart, received tlie great and 
 leading doctrines of the gospel as the precious trutli of God. For such 
 as are indeed saints, are chosen to salvation, (2 Thess. 2:13,) not only 
 "through sanctification of the Spirit," but "the belief of the truth." 
 
 It is, then, evident, that tliis part of the sclienie of Mr. C. is not only 
 as absurd as it is unscriptural, but that the belief simply of the facts of 
 the gospel, were it possible to separate them from the precious doctrines 
 with which they are connected, would be )io more calculated to sustain 
 a principle of spiritual life in the soul, or to nourish the church of God,* 
 than would the bones of the paschal lamb, stripped of all their flesh, 
 have been calculated to satisfy the hunger or increase the strength of 
 the Israeiitish families who by divine command, and at stated seasons, 
 
 * The Apostle assures Timothy, (1 Tim. 13: 6,) that if he put the 
 brethren in mind of certain things concerning which he had given him 
 charge, he should be not only " a good minister of Jesus Christ," but be 
 also " nourished up in the words of fnith and of good doctrine," where- 
 unto he had attained. 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 249 
 
 partook of the feast of the passover. And indeed it may, with empha- 
 sis, be asked whether the whole system of Mr. Campbell's theology, so 
 far as he has thoug-lit proper to disclose it, is not to the soul that really 
 hungers for the bread of hfe, what a mess of bones would be to a man 
 ready to die for the want of food? — a mere mockery I 
 
 Note D. — page 40. 
 
 Mr. C. professes to believe immersion for the remission of sins to be 
 all-important, not only as he holds this to be the only mode of obtaining 
 pardon, but that " the blood of Jesus Christ" doth not " cleanse us from 
 all sin," as the apostle John has taught us, (1 John 1: 7,) imless it be 
 washed away in water by immersion. 
 
 As this note, by the deceased author, was not completed, some 
 extracts from the pamphlet of the Rev. Andrew Broaddus, of the Baptist 
 denomination, in which he replies to "Mr. A. CamphelVs Millennial 
 Harbinger, Extra, on the remission of sins" are added, as suitably fill- 
 ing up this note, and clearly refuting the interpretation which Mr. C. 
 gives to certain passages of the sacred Scriptures to prove that what he 
 calls " an act of faith,'''' (viz. immersion,) " and not faith itself, changes 
 our state." Though we cannot extract all of Mr. Broaddus' remarks on 
 the passages adduced by Mr.C, we hope we shall do his able production 
 no injustice by the following extracts. Mr. B. says: " The first passage 
 brought forward for this purpose," (to prove that remission of sins is by 
 immersion) " is the answer of Peter to his convicted hearers, on the 
 day of Pentecost. ' Tlicy v/ere informed (says ^Ir. Campbell) that 
 though they now believed and repented, they were not pardoned; but 
 must reform and be immersed for the remission of sins.^ And ' this 
 tesiimony, when the speaker, the occasion, and the congregation, are 
 all taken into view, is itself, (Mr. C. thinks,) alone sufficient to establish 
 the point:' p. 14. We think not. 
 
 " Now, as respecting the testimony that faith is the instrument of 
 justification, it appears (we must think) not only direct and explicit, 
 but, withal, incapable of being made to yield to 3Ir. C.'s interpretation. 
 Review some of this evidence. ' Verily, verily, I say unto you, he that 
 believeth on me ?mth everlasting life.' This divine blessing is coetane- 
 ous, coexistent with faith; and no medium, no bodily act is interposed. — 
 ' By him all that believe are justified from all things.' It is not said 
 they shall be, or may bojustifli^d through some other medium. — ' Abra- 
 ham believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness.' Is 
 tliis example produced by the Apostle, to show that there was some 
 bodily act interposed as the medium? Rather, toehowthat there was 
 not: See Rom. 4:1 — 10. In these testimonies all bodily acts, considered 
 as media between faith and the blessing of justification, are not only 
 omitted, but excluded: nor can any person find room to interpose any 
 such act, as a medium through which the blessing is conveyed. 
 
 " With respect to the passages of Scripture brought forward by Mr. 
 C, whatever favorable aspect some of them may seem to wear towards 
 his theory, we are well persuaded that they are capable of a fair and 
 rational interpretation, in perfect consistence with the actual justifica- 
 tion of the soul by faith. 0° And be it observed, that where a point 
 has been established by explicit testimony, — testimony that cannot be 
 made to yield to a different construction; in such a case, no apparently 
 
250 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 contravening- matter, capable of a rational construction consistent with 
 such testimony, ought to be brought forward, for the purpose of estab- 
 lishing a contrary fact. This is a canon of interpretation, the soimdness 
 of whicli, I think neither Mr. C. nor any person exercising candor, will 
 attempt to controvert. 
 
 "For a more full elucidation of this matter, (says Mr. Broaddus,) I 
 offer the following remarks; which though rather of a more critical 
 character than the general tenor of this work, will be found, it is hoped, 
 sufficiently plain for the comprehension of most readers. 
 
 "John did — preach the baptism of repentance /or the remission of 
 sins." — "Be baptized/or the remission of sins.''' 
 
 " Mr. Campbell knows (and every G:eek scholar knows) that the pre- 
 position Eis, here rendered /or, might, with equal propriety be rendered 
 into, in several places where a different English word occurs in tlie 
 translation; — into being, indeed, its primary signification. Thus, to 
 mention only a few instances: Matth. 3:11. " I indeed baptize you (en 
 UDATi) in water, (eis metanoian) into repentance." 1 Cor. 10: 2. "And 
 were all baptized (eis ton Mosen) into Moses,' &c. In Romans 6.3. 
 the preposition, in a similar connection, is rendered into : ' Know ye 
 not that so many of us as were baptized (eis Christon Iesoun) into Je- 
 sus Christ,' Sec. Mark 1:4. ' John did— preach the baptism of re- 
 pentance (eis) into the remission of sins.' And lastly, this passage, 
 where the same expression occurs : Acts 2:38. ' Repent, and be bap- 
 tized,' &c. (eis) ' into the remission of sins.' Now these expressions 
 give rise to a few remarks. 
 
 " When it is said, ' I baptize j'ou into repentance;' we do not vmde»- 
 stand that repentance was actually produced or brought about by bap- 
 tism; but that the people were baptized into the doctrine and profession 
 of repentance So, when the expression occurs, 'be baptized into the 
 remission of sins:' let us not understand th.atthe disciples realhj ohtainrA 
 the blessing of pardon by this act; but that they were baptized into tlie 
 profession of this glorious truth. 
 
 " Our author's second appeal for evidence (p. 14.) is to Peter's second 
 discourse — ' pronounced in Solomon's portico; Acts 3: 19. ' Repent and 
 be converted, that your sins may blotted out,' ' &c. Much ingenuity is 
 here displaj-ed, in accommodating these expressions of Peter to the idea 
 which we have been considering; and the tact of the writer (as our poli- 
 ticians say) certainly cannot be denied. He considers immersion and 
 conversion to be t)ie same tiling: consequently, that when Peter enjoined 
 on his hearerfe to he converted, he meant, that they should be baptized; 
 and so the blessing is attached, as on the day of Pentecost; there it 
 was "for the remission ofsins:" here, " that your sins may be blotted out," 
 That baptism was considered as attached to the character of the convert- 
 ed, we do not deny; but that conversion is to be identified with baptism, 
 we cannot allow; and we think it will presently appeal-, from one of Mr. 
 C's own testimonies, that this is not the case. 
 
 " In the next quotation (p. 15.) produced in favor of this point, it would 
 puzzle the reader, metliinks, without the help of Mr. C. to find the seixk- 
 blance of evidence; though he thinks (and what may a man not think, 
 when his heart is set for it?) — he thinks it " a very strong expression, 
 declarative of the same gracious connection between immersion and 
 remission." It is found in the close of the same discourse; and hepe it 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 251 
 
 is! •* Hnto yon fir.st, God having raised up his son Jesus, sent Mm to 
 bless you, in turning- away every one of you from his iniquities." Mr. 
 C. renders it — " sent him to bless you, every one of you, in the act of 
 turning from your iniquities;" and adds, "or, as we would say, in the act 
 of conversion." Well! (not to be tedious :) " turning from iniquities," 
 or "tJie act of conversion," it seems, is baptism; and thus they were 
 to be blessed in tiie act ofimmersion! The Jews " knew that the disci- 
 ples called the immersed converted;^^^' and of course, itseems, understood 
 them as meaning immersion, whenever they spoke of turning from ini- 
 quity — turning to the Lord, or being converted. 
 
 " The fourth testimony brought forward by our author, (p. 15.) proves, 
 I think, to be truly unfortunate for his cause. Acts 26: 17,18. " I send 
 thee, Paul, to the Gentiles, to open their eyes, and to turn (or convert) 
 them from darkness to light, and Irom the power of Satan to God, that 
 they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them that 
 are sanctified." Here again we find an ingenious accommodation. 
 ** First, faith or illumination; then, conversion;" (meaning baptism) 
 ** then, remission of sins; then, the inheritance." But alas! it happens, 
 in the main point, not to agree with Paul's own view of the case. " To 
 turn or convert them from darkness to light," &c. that is (it seems) to 
 baptize them. And so Paul was sent to baptize the Gentiles. But did 
 the Apostle himself so understand the matter? Let us hear him, 1 Cor. 
 1: 17. "Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel." Paul 
 was sent, then, to turn the Gentiles from darkness to light, by preaching 
 the gospel. It is thus they were to be converted, and then baptism fol- 
 lows. And this (as we shall see presently) accords with the tenor of 
 the commission. Conversion then, is not the same thing with baptism. 
 
 "We now come (p. 16.) to the commission. Matt. 28:19,20. "Go yo 
 tliei-efore, and teach all nations — or disciple all nations — or conr>ert all 
 nations — baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and 
 of tlic Holy Spirit; teaching them to observe all things," &.c. This 
 passage having been of late so canvassed, with criticism upon critieisHi, 
 I shall here tax the reader's patience very slightly. 
 
 " Mr. C. is almost willing, I think, to admit, that the grammatical con- 
 struction of the sentence does not really require that we should consider 
 baptism as the act by which the nations were to be discipled or converted; 
 •* convert the nations by baptizing them;" and to me, I must say, there 
 appears to be no evidence in favor of such a construction or interpreta- 
 tion. Dr. George Campbell's view of the grammatical meaning of 
 the passage, appears to commend itself to the understanding. In sub- 
 stance it is this: — that there are here tln-ee things distinctly enjoined, 
 viz : to convert the nations — to baptize the converted — and to insiruct 
 the baptized. My friend's attempt to make Dr. Campbell speak bis 
 language, (see p. 25,26.) is . an instance of disingenuousnesa which I 
 was sorry to see." 
 
 Note E. — page 82. 
 The Editor of this book adds the concluding note on the subject of 
 the late connection of Mr. C.'s sect with the sect who have assumed the 
 *itle of Christians. They deny the trinity of persons in the Godhead, 
 and the divinity and coequality of the Son of God, with the Father, or 
 hold them in such a light, that they arc similar to Unitarians, and in 
 some instances more resemble Arians. 
 
 * Tins might be; and yet conversion and immersion nut identical. 
 
252 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 " Christians," (says Mr. Bush, in his article in the new edition of 
 Buck's Theological Dictionary, when there was no bias inclining to 
 injustice, is) " a name assumed by a religious sect foj med in diflerent 
 parts of the United States, though not in great numbers, nor of a uniibrm 
 faith, differing but little from the general body of Unitarians. They 
 deny in the main the doctrine of the Trinity, and that of a vicarious 
 atonement." 
 
 In the 3d volume, 3d number of tlie "Millennial Harbinger," Mr. 
 Campbell makes the following extract from the " Christian Messenger," 
 edited by his " Christian" brethren, Barton W. Stone, and J. T.John- 
 ston. Say these Editors, " We are happy to announce to our brethren, 
 and to tlie world, the union of Christians in factin our own country. A 
 few months ago the reforming Baptists, (known invidiously by the name 
 of Campbellites,) and the Christians, in Georgetown and the neighbor- 
 hood, agreed to meet and worship together. We soon found that we 
 •were indeed in the same spirit, on the same foundation, the New Testa- 
 ment, and wore the same name, Christian. We saw no reason why we 
 should not be the same family ^ 
 
 " To increase and consolidate this union, and to convince all of our 
 sincerity, we, the elders and brethren, have separated two elders, John 
 Smith and John Rodgers, the first known, formerly, by the name of 
 Reformer, the latter by the name Christian. These brethren are to ride 
 together through all the churches, and to be equally supported by the 
 united contributions of the churches of both descriptions." 
 
 Thus said the editors, who were, when they found they were " on the 
 same foundation" with the Campbellites, Christians, of the Unitarian or 
 Arian stamp. But a union being formed, John Smith, one of the Bi- 
 shop's Reformers, and John Rodgers a " Christian," are sent out " to 
 ride together through all the churches," "to increase and consolidate this 
 union, and to convince all of our [their] sincerity." This is quite a re- 
 forming business of these united Arians, to ride through all the churches, 
 declaiming, (as is the custom of each of these sects,) against salaries, 
 and missionary contributions, with virulence, while each of them is 
 " to be equally supported by the united Contributions of the churches." 
 This is similar to the Reformer, Mr. Scott, in this section of the coun- 
 try, who has made himself famous for his foaming against " the hire- 
 lings;" while at the same time, as a speaker of the sect informed the 
 writer, he was paid by an association. 
 
 But there is no doubt about the union spoken of above. The Bishop 
 expresses his gratification at it in the same number of iiis Harbinger. 
 He says, " From numerous letters received from Kentucky, we are 
 pleased to learn that brethren Smith, Stone, Rodgers, and others .... now 
 go for the apostolic institutions," alias, his " ancient gospel." Tlie con- 
 clusion, therefore, from the preceding is irresitible, that as Unitarians 
 and Anti-Trinitarians, is the defuiition of the sect called Christians; and 
 since tlie Reformers, (Campbellites,) are on " the same foundation" with 
 the " Christians,''^ that they are both Unitarians or Anti-Trinitarians. 
 Some of whom are properly called Arians. The conclusion is as plain, 
 as that two things that are each equal to the same thing, are equal to 
 one another. Thus, too, Herod and Pontius Pilate, Campbellites and 
 Christians are "gathered togetbar," and degrade the exalted Saviour, 
 Vw'ho has said, referring to his divinity, " /, and my Father are one," 
 who, also, is " God ovkr all, blessed Jfor ever. 
 
DATE DUE 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 DEMCO 38-297