Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2014 
 
 https://archive.org/details/originofdiscipleOOIong 
 
OKIGIN 
 
 IB 9 1916 
 
 DISCIPLES OF CHRIST 
 
 A REVIEW OF PROF. W H. WHITSITT'S VOLUME ENTITLED 
 "ORIGIN OF THE DISCIPLES OF CHRIST." 
 
 A CONTRIBUTION TO THE CLEARER UNDERSTANDING OF THE ORIGIN 
 AND PRINCIPLES OF THE RELIGIOUS REFORMATION INAUGURATED 
 BY THOMAS AND ALEXANDER CAMPBELL, NEAR THE 
 BEGINNING OF THE PRESENT CENTURY. 
 
 
 
 By GEORGE W. LONGAN, 
 
 MINISTER OF THE CHURCH OF CHRIST. 
 
 to which is added an appendix containing extracts from 
 Keviews of Prof. Whitsitt's Book by Baptist Writers. 
 
 WITH AN INTRODUCTION BY J. H. GARRISON, 
 
 EDITOR CHRISTIAN-EVANGELIST. 
 
 ST. LOUIS: 
 CHRISTIAN PUBLISHING COMPANY. 
 
 1889. 
 
Copyrighted, 1889, 
 BY 
 
 CHRISTIAN PUBLISHING CO. 
 
TO THE MEMORY OP 
 
 Augustin Knight Longan 
 
 and 
 
 Martha Letchworth Longan , 
 
 MY HONORED FATHER AND MOTHER, 
 
 Who were Baptists without being bigots, and joyfully 
 received truth, as God gave them to see it, 
 in their day and generation, this 
 little volume is most affectionately inscribed by 
 THE AUTHOR. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 It has been said that a grain of wheat or barley, found in the 
 sarcophagus of an Egyptian mummy, where it had lain dor- 
 mant many long centuries, when placed in the earth, germi- 
 nated, grew, and multiplied itself many fold. Whether this 
 incident be true or not it is certain that many seeds are cov- 
 ered with a flinty case or envelop which protects them in a 
 dormant state for years, until they are surrounded by favora- 
 ble conditions, when they awaken to life and develop all their 
 germinal potentiality. The history of the world's progress 
 shows that this is pre-eminently true of those seed-thoughts 
 which, from age to age, have been sown in the minds of men, 
 and whose ultimate harvests have furnished bread for the 
 world's hunger. Truth is the most indestructible of all poten- 
 cies. The men who speak it may indeed pay the penalty of 
 their lives for its utterance, but the truth they utter lives on to 
 guide the course of history. 
 
 "Truth forever on the scaffold ; 
 
 Wrong forever on the throne ; 
 
 Yet that scaffold sways the future, 
 
 For behind the dim unknown 
 
 Standeth God within the shadow, 
 
 Keeping watch above his own." 
 "It was during the fiercest dogmatic controversies and the 
 horrors of the Thirty Years' War," says Dr. Philip Schaff, in his 
 Ecclesiastical History (Vol. VI., page 650), " that a prophetic 
 voice whispered to future generations the watchword of Chris- 
 tian peace-makers, which was unheeded in a century of intol- 
 erance, and forgotten in a century of indifference, but resounds 
 with increased force in a century of revival and reunion i ' In 
 Essentials Unity, in Non-essentials Liberty, in all things 
 Charity.' " 
 
 This famous saying, sometimes referred to St. Augustine, 
 
 (5) 
 
vi 
 
 IN l KODUCTION. 
 
 and oftener to Richard Baxter, who quotes it, is traced by Dr. 
 Schaff to Rupertus Meldenius, an otherwise unknown divine 
 and author of a remarkable tract, in which the sentence 
 occurs. This tract, it is believed, appeared in the year 1627 or 
 1628. Fifty years later, however, Baxter quotes it, from an- 
 other author in the preface to his work on 11 The True and only 
 way of Concord of all the Christian Churches. ' ' And now, in the 
 latter part of the 19th century, two hundred years later, I am 
 quoting this same great truth in the Introduction to afiother 
 work, which, I have no doubt, offers a far better solution of 
 "the true and only way of concord of all the Christian 
 churches ! " 
 
 Here, then, is an admirable illustration of the indestructible 
 vitality of an important truth, which not only persists in living 
 through centuries of opposition and neglect, but which mani- 
 fests increased power over each succeeding generation. How 
 few there were to recognize in this statement the germ of a 
 great religious reformation, when it was first formulated and 
 uttered by Meldenius ! In Baxter's day it attracted more 
 attention as offering relief from the interminable strifes and 
 divisions with which all pious, truth-loving souls were weary. 
 But it was not until more than a century later that it gained 
 practical recognition in an organized movement having for its 
 end the unity and peace of the church. 
 
 Indeed, it is quite certain that neither Meldenius nor Baxter 
 perceived all that was involved in this memorable motto. 
 What they did see, evidently, was an utter lack of discrimina- 
 tion, in the popular mind, between the things which are vital 
 and those which are incidental, and the consequent effort to 
 enforce uniformity at the expense of unity. As a remedy for 
 this state of things they proposed the foregoing statement which 
 had in it the seed of a reformation yet to be. But the seed 
 must wait for genial soil and favorable surroundings. If either 
 of the men named, or any of the theologians of that period 
 who accepted this motto, had been asked to state more spe- 
 cifically what were the "things essential," and what the 
 "things indifferent," their answer, doubtless, would have 
 borne the marks and the limitations of the religious thought of 
 their times. It was for another age to develop, more clearly 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 vii 
 
 than was possible at that time, the right application of this 
 principle to the religious problems upon which Christendom 
 had divided into hostile camps. 
 
 In the early part of the present century, Thomas Campbell, 
 looking at the same evils which Meldenius, Baxter and others 
 had seen and deplored, uttered a not less remarkable saying in 
 the memorable words which he made the battle cry of reform : 
 "Where the Scriptures speak, we speak, and where the Scrip- 
 tures are silent, we are silent." The clear import of this strik- 
 ing motto was, What is enjoined upon men by divine authority 
 we shall insist on being observed ; and where the word of God 
 has left men free, we shall not bind them. The phrase, "things 
 essential," had now been interpreted to mean, the things re- 
 quired by the Scriptures, and the "things indifferent" were 
 those where the silence of the Scriptures left men free to follow 
 their best judgment. In both these mottoes there is a clear 
 recognition of divine authority, and an equally distinct rejec- 
 tion of human authority in matters of religious faith and prac- 
 tice. In each of them there is a solemn emphasis of loyalty to 
 God, on the one hand, and of freedom from the tyranny of 
 opinion, on the other. But "where the Scriptures speak" is a 
 decided advance, in the direction of clearness and detiniteness, 
 beyond the " things essential." 
 
 In the progress of the Reformation as urged by the Camp- 
 bells and their co-laborers, another distinction of great value 
 came into vogue. The 11 things essential" of this 17th century 
 motto, and the things enjoined by the Scriptures, were called 
 matters of faith, while inferences on matters where the Scrip- 
 tures are "silent," — the "things indifferent "—were called 
 matters of opinion. This distinction between faith and opinion 
 — the one resting on divine authority, the other on men's falli- 
 ble judgment — served to clear away a good deal of fog from 
 the religious atmosphere, and to enable men to go forward in 
 the work of reform with a firmer step. It was now seen that 
 a great many things which properly belonged to the category 
 of inferential knowledge, and might be classified as such, rep- 
 resenting the results of Biblical investigation, could never be 
 classified as belonging to the things of faith, or have any legiti- 
 mate place in a creed or confession of faith. It Avas the clear 
 
viii 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 perception of this distinction that led our reformatory fathers 
 to reject, as bonds of union and communion, all human creeds 
 and confessions of faith. It was not that these creeds con- 
 tained errors, though doubtless they did, being the results of 
 fallible human thought, but that they contained matter which, 
 whether true or false, had no business in a creed or confession 
 of faith, to serve as a basis of fellowship among Christians. 
 If true, they belong to the category of inferential knowledge, 
 not of faith. If they suggested wise methods of organization, 
 work or worship, they belonged to the "things indifferent," 
 and not to " things essential. 1 ' 
 
 In the historical evolution of this reformatory principle, 
 there was yet another step taken, which was essential to the 
 application of this venerable motto to the religious questions 
 of the age, and necessary to bring the reformers clearly on to 
 New Testament ground. It was soon perceived in the light of 
 New Testament teaching, that the faith which the gospel re- 
 quires — the truly evangelical faith — was faith in Jesus of Naza- 
 reth, as the Christ, the Son of the living God. It was not 
 faith in dogmas, propositions, or ordinances, but in a Savior, 
 that constitutes saving faith. To believe in him, and to obey 
 his commandments because we believe in him — these, now, it 
 was seen, were the "essential things," in which there must be 
 "unit}*." Other matters, not contravening these, were the 
 "things indifferent," concerning which there must be "lib- 
 erty." How significant, now, the saying of Paul, "There is 
 one faith ! " Many opinions there may be, but there is only 
 one faith, having for its object the one Lord. Here, at last, was 
 perspicuity itself. The magnificent generalization, coined by 
 Meldenius and adopted by Baxter, when illumined thus by the 
 light of the New Testament, became an operative principle. 
 Only men were now needed with the courage of their convic- 
 tions, to test this principle in the practical work of reform. 
 The men were not wanting. They did test it; and with what 
 results the world knows. 
 
 The origin and development of a great religious movement, 
 which, in less than three quarters of a century has gathered 
 together in one body, from the world and from all the discord- 
 ant sects of Christendom, more than three quarters of a mil- 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 ix 
 
 lion of adherents, who, without other bond of union or basis 
 of fellowship than that possessed by the primitive church, 
 maintain unity in things essential without restricting liberty 
 in things indifferent, is a subject that might well engage the 
 careful thought and the impartial treatment of the student 
 of church history and of religious progress. The book of 
 which this volume is a review, seeks the origin of this move- 
 ment in certain accidental or incidental ecclesiastical re- 
 lations, or fortuitous contact of individuals by which strange 
 and peculiar notions and practices were transmitted through 
 the leaders of the movement and embodied in what is termed 
 the current reformation. This volume, on the contrary, with 
 a truer historic insight, sees in this religious movement the 
 orderly development and timely embodiment of great funda- 
 mental truths, which, taking their source in the very nature 
 and organic life of the Christian institution, have, after cen- 
 turies of slight and neglect, found more or less perfect ex- 
 pression in the utterances of men who lived ahead of their 
 time, until in the fulness of time, in a freer age and in a 
 freer land, they have found opportunity for manifesting their 
 divine potency. It is more than a reply to the warped opin- 
 ions and far-fetched inferences of Prof. Whitsitt. It is a 
 broad, scholarly, dignified discussion of the underlying pjrin- 
 ciples of our movement, which, without following in detail 
 the animadversions of the book it reviews, none the less 
 effectually removes the foundation from beneath it. The 
 author evidently feels that no mechanical theory about "ofl> 
 shoots" or imaginary similarities between our movement and 
 some supposed heresy of former times can harm us, so loug as 
 it can be shown that we build on the same foundation on 
 which the apostles built, and hold fast to those principles 
 which have made Christianity the conquering power that it 
 has been in the world. 
 
 That this volume will contribute to a clearer understanding 
 of the fundamental law — the raison d'etre— of our movement 
 on the part of all who read it thoughtfully, I cannot doubt. 
 That it may, also, serve to hasten that unity for which our 
 Lord prayed, I fain would hope and pray. 
 
 St. Louis, April 1, 1S89. J. H. Garrison. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 PACT. 
 
 Introduction - - - - 5 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 Preliminary - - - - - - 11 
 
 CHAPTER H. 
 A Brief Inquiry into the Nature of "Off -shoots" - 1/ 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 An Historical Sketch - - - - 33 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 The Simple Facts of the Case - - -66 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 A Most Fundamental Difference - 106 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 Certain Matters of Detail - - - -111* 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 The Baptists 148 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 The Relation of the Disciples of Christ to Alex- 
 ander Campbell and Other Leaders - - 166 
 
 Appendix ------ 183 
 
Origin of the Disciples of Christ. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 PRELIMINARY. 
 
 There are Baptists and Baptists. That is to say, 
 there are Baptists who are large-minded, Christian 
 men; there are others that are narrow, illiberal, 
 bigoted : genuine old time Pharisees, as it were, 
 only dipped and newly named. Those of the one 
 class are gratified to see differences disappearing, 
 old animosities gradually dying out, and more fra- 
 ternal relations growing up between themselves and 
 other disciples of the Lord. The rest are, appar- 
 ently, never quite so happy as when stirring up old 
 strifes, fanning the fires of party hate, and making- 
 men imagine themselves enemies who ought, long- 
 ago, to have seen clearly that they are brethren in 
 Christ. With those of the former class, it is our 
 duty and pleasure to cultivate brotherly love and 
 mutual respect ; as for the other sort, it is sufficient, 
 if we sincerely pray that their eyes may be opened, 
 and patiently bide the Lord's time for the answer 
 to our prayers. 
 
 ; ' The Origin of the Disciples ? " That should be 
 au interesting inquiry. Of course, the surface facts 
 
 en) 
 
12 
 
 ORIGIN of Tin: 
 
 are common property. Disciples and Baptists are 
 alike familiar with them. But there is a deeper 
 question, one which the philosophers of a later gen- 
 eration are certain to deal with, and which it is to 
 be hoped they will be better able to answer, than 
 are the jaundice-eyed sectarians of the present 
 time. This is a day win mi men are looking after 
 origins with an interest which was never felt be- 
 fore. The birth of worlds, the beginning of life, 
 the derivation of species, the differentiation of social 
 structures and functions, in the ever-increasing 
 complexity of civilized life, the evolutions of 
 thought, the castaway blunders, the survival of 
 tested hypotheses, which have marked the progress 
 of human knowledge from the dawn of the histori- 
 cal period, to the present year of grace, — these are 
 the questions concerning which the thinkers of 
 our time consider it worth while to employ their 
 highest powers. In such a period, the origin and 
 development of a movement which clearly con- 
 tains within it the " promise and potency" of most 
 wonderful achievements for God and our fellow-men 
 may well challenge the attention of honest inqui- 
 rers after enduring reality. This search after ori- 
 gins is a most fascinating pursuit. There is noth- 
 ing like it. And whether it relates to the process- 
 es by which the insignificant tadpole gets rid of 
 its tail and gills, and acquires legs and lungs, a 
 phenomenon occurring every year before our eyes, 
 or that more ancient transformation, in which the 
 
DISCIPLES OF CHRIST. 
 
 13 
 
 land-lubber whale of the elder aBons became — not 
 exactly a fish, for that he is not — but monarch of 
 the seas, for all the historical ages, it makes no 
 difference at all. It is in any case a question of 
 origin, and, as such, it has that nameless fascina- 
 tion, which you are not able to explain, but which, 
 nevertheless, excites an interest that nothing else 
 in the wide field of human investigation is able to 
 arouse within you. The origin of the Disciples ! 
 That is the question now. Prof. Whitsitt has been 
 rummaging the theological records of the eighteenth 
 century, and has found, or thinks he has found, in 
 those far awafy times, traces of an obscure sect, 
 which presents homologous characteristics with 
 those which he says distinguish the Disciples at 
 present, or did distinguish them a generation or 
 two ago, and, straightway, he springs to the con- 
 clusion that here is a clear case of genetic develop- 
 ment. "The Disciples are an oifshoot from the San- 
 demanians." This is their origin. This explains 
 why they are here, and also how they came to be 
 here!! Then the Sandemanians were adjudged 
 great heretics by some people in their day, and 
 therefore the Disciples of Christ must be heretics 
 too. So the case seems fairly made out, and, 
 doubtless, the achievement will be adjudged of suf- 
 ficient importance to warrant the addition of other 
 titular honors to those which our learned Professor 
 displays in connection with his name on the title- 
 page of his small, but somewhat pretentious book. 
 
14 
 
 ORIGIN OF THE 
 
 But really, now we come to think of it, what does 
 this matter of ancestral lineage amount to after all ? 
 Even if the case were confessedly clear that the 
 Disciples came from the Sandemanians, would that 
 fact make them either better or worse ? The ques- 
 tion of genetic descent is doubtless one of great 
 philosophic interest, but what has it to do with the 
 status of any man, or any community of men, now 
 living ? Should the Anglo-American of to-day con- 
 cern himself greatly in regard to the proportion of 
 Saxon, Angle or Jute blood that courses in his veins ? 
 Is he either better or worse for any possible com- 
 bination of these ancient elements I Or, consider- 
 ing the question from the ecclesiastical standpoint, 
 are any of us better or worse because our ancestors, 
 a few generations back, were Roman Catholics? 
 Or, if in making their way out of spiritual Babylon, 
 our forefathers have struggled along this or that 
 dimly lighted pathway, what does it signify ? A 
 man's grandfather was, let us say, a Presbyterian, 
 but he is, himself, a Baptist. His great grand-fath- 
 er was a Roman Catholic. The question of his de- 
 scent, genetically, either by blood or ecclesiastic 
 affiliation, is of no practical significance. The in- 
 terest which attaches to such a question is purely 
 scientific or philosophical. The important matter 
 is not that of descent, but of ascent. Have the gen- 
 erations through which he counts his lineage been 
 going up or down ? Does he represent, in his own 
 person, a lower or higher altitude? This is the 
 
DISCIPLES OF CHRIST. 
 
 15 
 
 only question worth a groat, when we are dealing 
 with the claims of a religious community. I may 
 be greatly interested in tracing the interactions of 
 the human mind with its social or ecclesiastical en- 
 vironment through many centuries, in noting how, 
 and when, it has disengaged itself from this false 
 speculation, or that rank superstition, and emerged 
 into a clearer and better intellectual atmosphere ; 
 or perchance I may note periods of decadence, of re- 
 actionary tendencies, when the wheels of progress 
 have been reversed, and the mind has gone back- 
 ward, instead of forward to its divinely predestined 
 goal. In point of fact I am greatly interested with 
 such studies. But I hope to be always able to dis- 
 tinguish between the scientific interest of such an 
 inquiry and that of the moral and spiritual signifi- 
 cance of its final outcome. What we are to-day, 
 is everything ; what our forefathers, in any sense, 
 were a hundred or five hundred years ago, is noth- 
 ing. How the race began, along what physiologi- 
 cal or biological lines it may be compelled to trace 
 its progress when science has uttered its final word, 
 does not affect at all the question of man's rank 
 and dignity at the present time. My thoughts 
 about Christ, about the gospel of Christ, are neith- 
 er sound or unsound on account of the traceable 
 interactions of a thousand generations through 
 which they have been shaping themselves into their 
 present form. The Disciples of Christ are to be 
 judged by their faith and life to-day, just as Bap- 
 
16 
 
 ORIGIN OJt THE 
 
 tists are, and not by any real or imaginary connec- 
 tion with generations dead and gone. And this I 
 say without conceding any value whatever to Prof. 
 Whitsitt's assumption of a genetic relationship be- 
 tween the Disciples and the Sandemanians of more 
 than a hundred years ago. If his case were made 
 out, it is nothing ; but it is not made out. 
 
 Why a Baptist, of all the men in the world, 
 should start this question of lineage is scarcely 
 clear. There is no denominational appellative 
 more indefinite than Baptist. Why, how many 
 sorts of Baptists are there, any way I Let us see. 
 There are, or there have been, Regular Baptists, 
 Separate Baptists, Calvinistic Baptists and Arme- 
 nian Baptists ; Seventh Day Baptists and Six Prin- 
 ciple Baptists ; Baptists that were for sending mis- 
 sionaries to the heathen, and Baptists that were 
 opposed to sending missionaries to anybody. I 
 need not further specify. Prof. Whiteitt knows 
 them all. I make no comment. Only I remark, 
 in passing, that, in view of these facts, I fail to see 
 why a Baptist Professor should concern himself 
 greatly about questions of ecclesiastic origin. 
 
DISCIPLES OF CHRIST. 
 
 17 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 A BRIEF INQUIRY INTO THE NATURE OF "OFFSHOOTS." 
 
 No great movement of any kind ever owed its 
 origin to a single individual. When we speak of 
 the beginning of the Reformation of the 16th cen- 
 tury, we designate it the Lutheran Reformation 
 on account of Luther's great prominence in its in- 
 ception and early progress. Bat when we say 
 " The Lutheran Reformation," if we are not lament- 
 ably ignorant of its history, we mean no more than 
 the assignment of due precedence to the most dis- 
 tinguished among a great number of able, and 
 equally faithful, men. And if we should imagine 
 that there were no influences at work, no deeply 
 felt dissatisfaction with the existing order of things, 
 no strong intellectual and moral tendencies slowly 
 shaping themselves for future effect, before Luther 
 appeared on the scene, we would betray very gross 
 ignorance of some of the most significant facts of 
 history. The seeds of Protestant truth were al- 
 ready germinating in many hearts, when the monk 
 of Erfurt began his remarkable career as a reform- 
 er. The Catholic Stawpitz, who said to Luther, 
 vainly seeking peace through the intercession of 
 saints, and the holy virgin, " You would be a paint- 
 ed sinner, and have a painted Christ as a Savior," 
 
 o 
 
18 
 
 ORIGIN OY THE 
 
 was already, though unconsciously, much more 
 than half a Protestant. And how much, for good 
 or ill, did Luther owe to Augustine, the greatest of 
 the Latin fathers ? It was Luther himself who said, 
 "Next after the Holy Scriptures, no teacher in the 
 church is to be compared with Augustine ; take the 
 entire body of the fathers together, there is not to 
 be found in them half that we find in Augustine 
 alone. " We may differ from him in this estimate. 
 The subtle but profound insight of the earlier 
 Grecian school at Alexandria was clearly under- 
 rated by him. But the point I press is Luther's in- 
 debtedness to others, and the fact of pre-existing 
 tendencies, which shaped his thought, and deter- 
 mined the mighty work of his life. The greatest 
 men that have ever lived have been made what 
 they were, in large part, at least, by the outward 
 conditions — providential, let us devoutly say — 
 which surrounded them in the youthful and plastic 
 period of their careers. It was, I believe, the 
 thoughtful and brilliant Frenchman, M. Taine, who 
 said that the "Protestant movement" (I quote the 
 meaning, not the precise words) " would have been 
 impossible at the time, in any other country of Eu- 
 rope than Germany. " A great movement in the 
 world's living tJiougM must have an adequate 
 preparation. Next to Germany, England was the 
 best field for Protestant missionary effort. Wy- 
 cliffe, " The Morning-star of the Reformation, " and 
 Tyndale, the translator anjl martyr, did not live 
 
BISCIPLES OF CHRIST. 
 
 19 
 
 and suffer in vain. M. Taine well say " that Eng- 
 land was more than half Protestant when Henry 
 ^ VIII. found himself driven to separation from 
 Rome." Not by any means the least interesting- 
 feature in Dr. Neander's great history of the church 
 is the scholarly and pains- taking minuteness with 
 which he traces the evolution of ideas, disclosing 
 thereby the hidden forces by which all important 
 changes in the exterior course of things had been 
 gradually wrought out. Uniformitarianism is the 
 law of human history, no less than that of the plan- 
 et on which we live. That there have been ex- 
 ceptional periods, periods of relatively great and 
 rapid changes, is in no sense contrary to the gener- 
 al fact. He has been a very superficial student of 
 mundane events who has not made this discovery, 
 and learned to apply it discriminatingly in dealing 
 with the history of particular periods, or tracing 
 the inception and progress of great and enduring 
 movements in the thought and lives of men. 
 
 If the 18th century was not marked by any great 
 original movement in theology, it was still a period 
 of very considerable intellectual activity along cer- 
 tain lines of doctrinal speculation. The ablest 
 minds, while fairly content with general results of 
 the earlier creative period of the Reformation, were 
 sedulously striving to systematize and reduce to 
 scholastic form the essential elements of the com- 
 mon Protestant outline ; but each one, of course, in 
 his own way, and from his own individual point of 
 
20 
 
 ORIGIN OF THE 
 
 view. This led to many minute inquiries and 
 hair-splitting distinctions, very much after the man- 
 ner of the older scholastics, which we are apt in 
 this more practical age to set aside as useless. 
 Among these nice and sometimes puzzling dis- 
 tinctions, must be reckoned much that was said and 
 written on the nature of faith, especially " saving- 
 faith, 99 and precisely how this faith is related to 
 justification, so that, although it must be conceded 
 to be, in some sense, the act of the creature, yet 
 the doctrine of grace is not impaired by making it 
 the sole human ground of divine acceptance. In 
 this special field, Glas and Sandeman, from our 
 distant point of view, appear to have been adven- 
 turous pioneers, leading bravely out into what 
 doubtless, seemed to them to be the most promis- 
 ing paths of inquiry which the researches of the 
 fathers of Protestantism had left open to their de- 
 scendants. They were keen thinkers, if not pro- 
 found, and their speculations, though often un- 
 fruitful, as judged by the standard of our times, 
 must be admitted to have been ingenious, and 
 sometimes absolutely convincing. They did more 
 than attract the attention of the best thinkers ; they 
 made a marked impression upon the thought of 
 their age. But Sandemanianism, as the system 
 came to be designated, was not limited to ingenious 
 speculations concerning the nature of faith and 
 justification, but embraced the more practical ques- 
 tions of the organization and order of the churches 
 
DISCIPLES OF CHRIST. 
 
 21 
 
 in the times of the apostles, and while yet under 
 their personal instruction and authoritative guid- 
 ance. 
 
 They saw that there had been no unbroken line 
 of continuity in the outward succession of history. 
 Comparing the organization and order of the church- 
 es of their own time with what they read plainly 
 in the New Testament, they saw that a very great 
 change had taken place. There were no state 
 churches in the beginning. And this was not sim- 
 ply that the secular administrations of the period 
 were unchristian, or anti-christian. They felt that 
 neither Christ nor the apostles would have toler- 
 ated for a moment the idea of an Established Church. 
 With Glas, this had been the original point of de- 
 parture from the beaten path of his fathers. But 
 the Bishops and clergy, the reverend ministers of 
 all the received orthodoxies, were quite distinct in 
 their order and official relations from the simple 
 and unostentatious Bishops and Evangelists of the 
 New Testament. They insisted, therefore, upon a 
 reconstruction in harmony with the New Testa- 
 ment Scriptures. In this contention the day of 
 judgment will undoubtedly vindicate their wisdom 
 and faithfulness, even though some men may think 
 they were misled by an overstrained "literalism" 
 in the attempts which they made to realize their 
 conception of the constitution of the original church- 
 es of Christ. Why should it be thought a vicious 
 " literalism " to adhere closely to primitive prece- 
 
22 
 
 ORIGIN" OF THE 
 
 dents in the matter of organization and order, as 
 well as in other things ! Especially, one is tempt- 
 ed to ask, why should Baptists urge such a view 
 as this I The Baptists, whose sole distinction al- 
 most relates to the ordinances ? Are the ordinances 
 everything, and the original order nothing ? "Why 
 then do Baptists talk about their* '-faith and order!" 
 Or is it so, that rigidness as to the subject and 
 "mode*' of Baptism must be maintained at all haz- 
 ards, but that the office, and relations to the 
 churches, of the divinely constituted Bishops, Dea- 
 cons and Evangelists is judged of no importance at 
 all { If this be so. why is it so ? On what ground 
 is rigidness demanded in one case, and any desir- 
 able laxity admitted in the other? What is the 
 exact limit, beyond which, " literalism" in follow- 
 ing the apostles ceases to be a virtue \ Or is this 
 the explanation — viz: that Prof. AVhitsitt thinks 
 the Baptists are in line with the apostles on the 
 ordinances, and knows that, on the questions of or- 
 ganization and worship, they are to some extent 
 out of harmony with them { This I suppose to be 
 the true reason in spite of the sneers at an unde- 
 fined ••literalism*' by means of which he seeks to 
 conceal the fact in the case. 
 
 But Glas and Sandemanran their course without 
 accomplishing anything which could be called 
 epoch-making in its character. They lived and 
 died Pedobaptists, and also rigid Calvinists. It is 
 
DISCIPLES OF CHRIST. 
 
 23 
 
 of the last importance that the reader should not 
 forget these facts for a single moment. He should 
 need nothing more to keep him from being misled 
 in the matter now under discussion. 
 
 Prof. Whitsitt will find it impossible to make 
 intelligent Disciples feel the least respect for his 
 attempt to trace their origin to such an unlikely 
 source. Nor will he be able to persuade well-in- 
 formed outsiders that there is even honest plausi- 
 bility in his partisan contention. What he may 
 succeed in impressing upon certain portions of his 
 Baptist constituency, is, indeed, another question, 
 but one of no very great importance. Only those 
 who have an u unction from the Holy One " are 
 proof against the wiles of partisans, and the follow- 
 ers of Christ should be prepared to " endure con- 
 tradiction " in the spirit of their divine Master. 
 
 After the Sandemanians, we are asked to find 
 our ecclesiastical lineage in the Scottish Baptists 
 — "so called." The order of progress is assumed 
 to be ; firstly, the Sandemanians ; secondly, the 
 Scotch Baptists ; thirdly, "the Disciples of Christ, 
 commonly called Cainpbellites." Indeed these 
 Scottish Baptists are not really Baptists at all, 
 but only " Sandemanians of the immersion observ- 
 ance." This is no doubt a very clever phrase, and 
 we should take pleasure in giving its inventor due 
 credit. Let us hope there is no one entitled to 
 contest Mr. Whitsitt's claim to originality in this 
 case. But then why not let us speak of the Bap- 
 
24 
 
 ORIGIN OF THE 
 
 tists in this country as " Congregationalists of the 
 immersion observance," while their New England 
 congeners are styled " Congregationalists of the 
 aspersion observance ? " Such a mode of designa- 
 tion would be quite as plausible, certainly, and not 
 a particle less worthy the respect of truth-loving 
 men. The points of agreement between Baptists 
 and Congregationalists are quite as numerous, 
 while those of difference are as few, as in the case 
 of the Sandemanians and Baptists of Scotland. 
 Nor are the differences more important in the one 
 case than in the other. With all fair-minded peo- 
 ple, this statement will be accepted without a 
 moment's hesitation. And, if the Scotch Baptists 
 were only "Sandemanians of the immersion obser- 
 vance, " then the American Baptists are no more 
 than Congregationalists, who have been dipped by 
 an administrator who had himself been duly 
 dipped by some one else ! How far the line of 
 dipped administrators extends backward towards 
 the apostles, neither Prof. Whitsitt nor any other 
 Baptist could tell, if his salvation depended upon 
 it. There are some things that one finds it hard 
 to treat with respectful consideration. And if any 
 dear Baptist brother, who loves Christ and the 
 truth more than he loves his party, should think 
 I have written any words here in style too flippant 
 for grave themes, let him remember that all such 
 words are to be strictly limited to the author of 
 this book and the bellicose class of Baptists to 
 
DISCIPLES OF CHRIST. 
 
 25 
 
 which he properly belongs. As regards the Scotch 
 Baptists, they agreed in a general sense with the 
 Sandemanians concerning the "nature of saving 
 faith," and they followed the New Testament, as 
 did also the Sandemanians, both in the matter of 
 church organization and in observing the Lord's 
 Supper, as part of the worship on the Lord's day. 
 If this made them Sandemanians, then I insist that 
 the Baptists of the United States are simply English 
 Puritans modified by local influences, and the per- 
 sonal idiosyncracies of their partisan leaders. If 
 the Scotch Baptists were narrow literalists in some 
 of their notions concerning the invariable order of 
 worship on the Lord's day, their American cousins 
 are quite as narrow, and scarcely less the slaves 
 of " the letter " in restricting the Lord's Supper in 
 their churches to those who belong to the Baptist 
 " order," or hold membership in distinctively Bap- 
 tist churches. The reproach of narrowness, or 
 servile literalism, comes with poor grace from 
 Baptists of the Graves and Hay school, to which 
 the author of this book seems properly to belong. 
 
 But, still, the Disciples are " an off-shoot of the 
 Sandemanian sect of Scotland," writes Prof. Wliit- 
 sitt, with imperturbable gravity. It seems neces- 
 sary to look at this affirmation more narrowly 
 than we have hitherto done. First of all, let us 
 ask, what, in such a connection, does the word 
 "offshoot?" imply? It may be well to let Noah 
 
26 
 
 ORIGIN OF THE 
 
 Webster answer this question. His definition is 
 exceedingly clear : 
 
 u Offshoot, n. (Prom off and shoot.) That which 
 shoots off or separates from a main stem or chan- 
 nel ; as the offshoots of a tree : 'The offshoots of 
 the Gulf stream.' J. D. Forbes." 
 
 This can not be improved upon by lexicographic 
 skill. It is perfect on the very surface. But in 
 the light of it, let us look at Prof. Whitsitt's his- 
 torical dictum. Were the Disciples ever con- 
 nected with the Sandemanian sect, or any branch 
 of such sect ? Never, never ! Thomas and Alex- 
 ander Campbell were in the beginning, Presby- 
 terians of the very strictest persuasion, nor had 
 they departed widely from their ancestral tradi- 
 tions up to the day of their immersion by a regu- 
 larly ordained Baptist preacher. Some time after 
 that event, the church of which they were mem- 
 bers was formally received into the fellowship of 
 the Redstone association of Baptists, within the 
 geographical limits of which it was located. As 
 a simple matter of historical fact, they remained 
 in connection with the Baptist peoj^le as long as 
 they were permitted to do so. Touching the cause 
 of their separation, I need say nothing here. But 
 I may be allowed to say, in passing, that the 
 founding of a distinct people was no part of their 
 plan. They did not judge it desirable, however 
 calmly they accepted the inevitable, when it came. 
 They wanted no new order. There were divisions 
 
DISCIPLES OF CHRIST. 
 
 27 
 
 enough already. They deprecated what might 
 seem to the world like the formation of a new sect. 
 Their whole end and purpose was anti-sectarian 
 from the very beginning. They may not have 
 been always wise, for that is not given to men in 
 the flesh. But of their general soundness of judg- 
 ment on New Testament questions, and their hon- 
 est intent to serve the great interests of truth and 
 righteousness, there is no reason to doubt. If men 
 will be just, not partisan, to this conclusion must 
 they come at last. There have indeed been large- 
 minded Baptists, in later times (perhaps not 
 many, but still some), who have thought that a 
 satisfactory modus Vivendi was not impossible, 
 and that with a more generous toleration on the 
 part of the Baptists than was common in those 
 days, there need have been no division at all. 
 Upon these questions I need not enter. They matter 
 nothing, here or there, in the present investigation. 
 Nor do the Disciples make any complaint to-day, 
 however it may have been when the ties of love 
 and fellowship were being rudely sundered by 
 what they then regarded as a most unchristian in- 
 tolerance. Our fathers accepted the situation, be- 
 cause they could not help themselves, albeit un- 
 willingly, and we now regard it as having been 
 Providential. AVe shall perform our much- needed 
 work in the world, under God, far more effectively 
 than we could have done, in tTie face of obstructive 
 tactics, in any ecclesiastical connection with the 
 
28 
 
 ORIGIN OF THE 
 
 Baptists. The day is sure to come when it will 
 be otherwise; but it is scarcely here yet. God 
 grant it may not be far distant. But if the chron- 
 icles of those tumultuous times have correctly 
 reached us, our fathers, as I have said, did not go 
 out of their own accord. They would fain have 
 suffered much, rather than cut loose from dear fel- 
 lowships in Christ, and set adrift from their old 
 ecclesiastical moorings. They did not shoot off at 
 all ; they were driven off. True, the Mahoning 
 association, to which the Campbells belonged, 
 when the separation was actually taking place, 
 may be said to have gone bodily into the reform 
 movement. But it had been a regular Baptist as- 
 sociation. This is not disputed. Nor was any 
 considerable section of the Disciples ever in con- 
 nection with the Sandemanians. Individuals 
 doubtless came into the movement from Sande- 
 manian congregations, as there were those who 
 came into it from all denominations, Catholic and 
 Protestant. Leaders among the Scotch Baptists, 
 and Scotch Baptist churches, whether in the old 
 world or new, would more naturally seek fellow- 
 ship and association with the Disciples than with 
 their American cousins of the Baptist name, when- 
 ever they could be persuaded to surrender the 
 straight-laced Calvinism in which they had been 
 reared, because, in the matter of organization and 
 worship, they were 'sure of a more sympathetic re- 
 ception. Doubtless such affiliations took place, not 
 
DISCIPLES OF CHRIST. 
 
 29 
 
 unfrequently, in the earlier years of our history as 
 a distinct people. But as a mere matter of fact, the 
 Disciples were never in ecclesiastic connection 
 with any Sandemanian party, and could not possi- 
 bly, therefore, have shot off from "the Sande- 
 manian sect." 
 
 The truth is, we are not an offshoot at all. As 
 a people in mutual fellowship, we have been gath- 
 ered from all quarters of the great Babel of mod- 
 ern sect-dom by the acceptance of the most catho- 
 lic and Christian basis of fellowship that the 
 world has known since the rise of the original 
 apostasy. We feel ourselves able to make this 
 affirmation good in any forum, and in the face of 
 any foe. But of this even we do not boast. We 
 have nothing that we have not received from God, 
 and to him we give the glory. Paul is nothing, 
 Apollos is nothing , God, the giver of all good, is 
 alone entitled to the praise. We are not an " off- 
 shoot " from any sect. The Campbells came to 
 our present ground from the Presbyterians, by 
 way of the Baptists. B. W. Stone, and hosts of 
 others, came from the Presbyterians, through the 
 " old Christian " movement. John T. Johnson, 
 John Smith, (and there has only been one John 
 Smith after all), the Mortons. Crearhs, and multi- 
 tudes of others, great and small, came out, or were 
 cast out, from the Associated Baptists, because 
 they could not rest content with the fellowship of 
 a narrow sect, when they felt the uplifting power 
 
30 ORIGIN OF THE 
 
 of Christ's prayer for the unity of his people in 
 the holy communion of a universal Christian 
 brotherhood. God have mercy on those who could 
 so rest content ! It is to be told to the eternal 
 honor of the men I have named, that they belonged 
 not to that class. There is no people on earth to- 
 day, who are so clearly no "offshoot," as Webster 
 defines the word, from any sect that ever existed, 
 as the Disciples of Christ — according to Prof. 
 Whitsitt, "more commonly called Campbellites !" 
 There had been, as in every other movement of 
 great magnitude and enduring character, a long- 
 period of preparation. The souls of men had been 
 anxiously studying the most vital problems of the 
 common faith, and the current teaching had no 
 solution to offer which could be accepted as satis- 
 factory. The usual presentations of the way of 
 life and salvation were far removed from the sim- 
 plicity and tangibility of the New Testament 
 period. The ready appropriation of Christ as 
 Savior, which was so marked a feature of the apos- 
 tolic era, had been lost utterly. Men were grop- 
 ing their ways in darkness, where at first all had 
 been light and blessedness. They found them- 
 selves bewildered by subtle distinctions impossi- 
 ble to minds untrained in religious metaphysics. 
 On one side of them was the bane of formalism, 
 and on the other the upas of mysticism. For the 
 basis of their personal assurance of salvation, 
 they had been compelled to fall back on emotional 
 
DISCIPLES OF CHRIST. 
 
 31 
 
 experiences, which sober common sense — when- 
 ever they gave it free and honest play — told them 
 were quite as untrustworthy as the fantastic stuff 
 of which dreams are made. No wonder they felt 
 themselves impelled to seek after the " old paths," 
 that they might find once more the peace which in 
 the hearts of the first Christians, had been an 
 everfiowing river. If Glas and Sandeman and 
 M'Leau were among the leaders who sought re- 
 lief from current perplexities in speculation, and 
 current phantasms of experience, by a thorough 
 study, de novo, of the apostolic gospel, and the 
 spiritual life of the first Christians, then there is no 
 higher title to enduring honor in the kingdom of 
 heaven than that to which they may lay humble, 
 but honest claim. It is to be frankly conceded 
 that, to some extent at least, this honor is due to 
 them. And in so far as they may have con- 
 tributed, however indirectly, to shape the most 
 fruitful movement of our modern period, the day of 
 eternity will decree them full reward. Heaven 
 forbid that we should claim for the Campbells, 
 and Stones, and Johnsons, and Smiths, of our own 
 day, the honor which rightfully belongs to others. 
 If Alexander Campbell built upon a foundation 
 which other men had laid, let him have simply the 
 credit which is his due. But truth is no more 
 divine, no less effectual to salvation, whether 
 M'Lean or Campbell first brought it to the light 
 again, in these ends of the ages. If Sandeman 
 
32 
 
 ORIGIN OF THE 
 
 and M'Lean saw what truth they did see but 
 dimly, it should not be thought strange. If Camp- 
 bell saw more truth, and saw it more clearly, it 
 does not make him greater or better than they. 
 Truth has always made its way through difficul- 
 ties, and its celestial shape has never greeted the 
 eyes of men, save through the mists and fogs 
 which evermore enwrap our nether world. If 
 Sandeman or M'Lean is the real leader to whom 
 our divine movement owes its origin, be it so. 
 Who cares? This is not especially a question of 
 whom, but of what ? Not who began the work, 
 humanly speaking, but, is it of God? Save for 
 this single question, we care not a farthing. If 
 our origin could really be traced in fairness to 
 Robert Sandeman, it would not give us a moment's 
 concern. Who is Sandeman? Who is Campbell? 
 All truth is of God ; and whether Sandeman or 
 Campbell proclaim it, God's truth shall stand for- 
 ever. This is simply a question of priority in dis- 
 covery. It has, at most, that value, and not a 
 scruple more. Please let all the Whitsitt's in the 
 world understand how little the issue they have 
 raised affects our confidence in the truth we plead. 
 We hold it, and plead it, not because it is from 
 Campbell, or is supposed by some partisan to 
 have been advocated by Sandeman, but because it 
 is from God, and shall stand the ordeal of the last 
 day! 
 
DISCIPLES OF CUEIST 
 
 33 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 AN HISTORICAL SKETCH. 
 
 It is not proposed to follow our author into the 
 minute, and, for the most part, insignificant matters 
 of detail, into which he has seen fit to enter at great 
 length ; in the first place, because a discussion of 
 these details is not needed, and, in the second 
 place, because the purpose I have in view may be 
 better accomplished in another way. An inde- 
 pendent statement of the chief historical points 
 preliminary to our discussion will be more satis- 
 factory to seekers after truth than an examination, 
 seriatim, of statements, often unimportant, and, 
 generally irrelevant to the main issue. 
 
 " No man," says Paul, " liveth or dieth to him- 
 self. " We are inseparable parts of a total hu- 
 manity, in spite of individual self-assertion within 
 narrow limits. No man has ever lived whose char- 
 acter and achievements were not determined, to a 
 great extent, by the conditions in the midst of 
 which his individual lot was cast. We can not 
 wholly escape our environment, though we exert 
 ourselves ever so strenuously. The cultivated man 
 of to-day is indeed the heir of all the ages. The 
 great tides of life and thought come rushing in up- 
 on us from the past, and we cannot shut them off, 
 
 if we would. Even that which is peculiar to us as 
 3 
 
34 
 
 ORIGIN OF THE 
 
 individuals, that which we bring with us into the 
 world, has been shaping itself through centuries of 
 varied experience, along the almost infinitely ex- 
 tended lines of our personal ancestry. Apart from 
 all possible inferences, these facts are simply un- 
 deniable. Luther, Calvin, Wesley, Campbell and 
 all the world's great leaders, have been as much 
 under the moulding influence of this great divine 
 law as the men supposed to have been made of 
 more common clay. 
 
 We go, therefore, to the prevailing tendencies, 
 to the great controlling drifts of religious thought 
 among the dissenting Protestants of Great Britain, 
 in the latter half of the eighteenth century, that 
 we may discover what were the influences in the 
 midst of which Alexander Campbell was born and 
 educated, and determine how far his individual de- 
 velopment was moulded by these influences, and 
 also to what extent they contributed to give shape 
 and character to the movement which was the in- 
 spiration of his remarkable life. I have said "dis- 
 senting Protestants," because the intellectual cur- 
 rents in the established church were somewhat dif- 
 ferent, and, in any event, have little to do with the 
 subject before us. 
 
 Among dissenters, especially those known, in a 
 general way, as Independents, whether Baptist 
 or Pedo-baptist, the period I have indicated was 
 eminently formative. There were sharp discus- 
 sions, tinged sometimes with bitterness, but the 
 
DISCIPLES OF CHRIST. 
 
 35 
 
 various influences and counter-influences were at 
 work, which ultimately imparted to them the theo- 
 logical trend and ecclesiastical forms that charac- 
 terize, in the main, their descendants at the present 
 time. In this period, Sandeman, Booth, Fuller and 
 M'Lean, touched the high-water mark of their in- 
 tellectual activity. At the same time, also, John 
 Wesley was at the height of his wonderful career. 
 And although his influence lay, for the most part, 
 rather outside tlie lines of progress which mainly 
 concern our inquiry, yet, indirectly, the religious 
 thought of all sections of the Island, and all types 
 of thinkers, were more or less affected. We can- 
 not afford, therefore, to leave him wholly out of 
 this brief survey. 
 
 Among the questions of special significance in 
 this period, the most important, theologically, as I 
 have already intimated, was that concerning the 
 nature of "saving faith." But closely related to 
 this, and scarcely less important to our present in- 
 vestigation, was a question as to the theological 
 ground on which faith becomes the principle of 
 justification under the gospel. Let us seek briefly 
 to get at the very pith of these old-time controver- 
 sies. Let us lose sight, if we can, of any bearing 
 which our historical facts may have on present 
 issues, or the theological standing of parties to 
 present issues, for only thus shall we attain to that 
 judicial impartiality which this investigation im- 
 
36 ORIGIN OF THE 
 
 peratively demands. Truth is everything, party is 
 nothing. 
 
 To begin with John Wesley. He was, as the 
 reader is presumed to know, a member of the Es- 
 tablished Church of England. Early in life, he was 
 greatly exercised over the indifference and impiety, 
 not only of the laity of the Establishment, but of 
 the very ministers of the sanctuary itself. He was 
 thus led to organize, at Oxford, a little society, 
 having for its object the promotion of godliness. 
 This society soon came to be spoken of among the 
 irreligious as "Wesley's godly club,'' and Prof. 
 Whitsitt lends his sanction to this sneer — let us 
 hope unintentionally — in referring to it by that 
 designation. Afterwards Wesley went as a mis- 
 sionary to Georgia along with Gen. Oglethorpe, the 
 founder of that colony. On the voyage out the 
 vessel in which he sailed encountered a terrible 
 storm, and Wesley, though an ordained priest in 
 the Established Church, became greatly frightened. 
 In the same company were some Moravian mission- 
 aries, whose superior calmnness greatly impressed 
 him. Naturally, he was led to suspect some defect 
 in his religious life, though it does not appear that 
 any change took place in his religious views or ex- 
 periences until after he had returned to England. 
 Meantime, however, he had laid the foundation of 
 his great life-work in America. Among his ac- 
 quaintances at Oxford at this period was Peter 
 Bohler, a Moravian preacher. Charles Wesley had 
 
DISCIPLES OF CHRIST. 
 
 37 
 
 undertaken to teach Bohler the English language, 
 and Peter, to repay one favor with another, straight- 
 way proceeded to teach Charles the Moravian the- 
 ology. This was about the 20th of February, 1738. 
 On the 21st day of May, Whitsunday, Charles 
 Wesley ''obtained the sense of adoption," whatever 
 that may mean (for the New Testament furnishes 
 no equivalent expression), and "just one week 
 later," as a trustworthy chronicler tells us, "his 
 brother John obtained the same blessing. " We 
 are farther informed that " Bohler, aided by the 
 testimony of several living witnesses, convinced 
 him that to gain peace of mind he must renounce 
 that dependence upon his own works which had 
 hitherto been the bane of his experience, and re- 
 place it with a full reliance on the blood of Christ 
 shed for Mm" At a Moravian society meeting in 
 Aldersgate street, while one was reading Luther's 
 statement of the change which God works in the 
 heart through faith, Wesley himself says, " I felt 
 my heart strangely warmed. I felt I did trust in 
 Christ alone for salvation ; and an assurance was 
 given me, that he had taken away my sin, even 
 mine, and saved me from the law of sin and death." 
 
 These words deserve especial attention. They 
 show us that the notion of a sensuous revelation of 
 pardon, considered as an element of saving faith, 
 came to John Wesley, and through him to Method- 
 ism, from the Moravian mystics. One can not 
 help wondering what would have been the effect 
 
•1< 
 
 OfelGW 0* THE 
 
 upon the movement we now call Methodism, if 
 Wesley's course had (••-••n wrought out free from 
 contact with these excellent, bat highly imagina- 
 tive people. To Wesley himself, this Aldersgate 
 street experience was conversion to Christ. Before 
 that time he had not known Christ as his Savior. 
 From this conviction. I presume, lie never wavered. 
 It would be interesting to know how many Method- 
 ist preach i -rs so understand it do-day. Had John 
 Wesley died before that notable event in his life, 
 what would have been his fate ? Ah ! well ! Let 
 us hope that everyone sees things more clearly 
 now. God grant it may be so ! 
 
 It was a member of Mr. Wesley's Oxford Society, 
 James Heivey, as Prof. Whitsitt correctly informs 
 us, that wrote the i; Dialogues between Theron and 
 Aspasio." The leading feature of this work was 
 the setting forth of the Methodist-Moravian concep- 
 tion of saving faith, and the experimental processes 
 through which "the sense of adoption "' is obtain- 
 ed. To this work of Hervey, Robert Sandeman re- 
 plied. He took the ground of the Westminster 
 divines, but went further, bravely insisting not 
 only that "assurance is not inseparable from sav- 
 ing faith," but that it is really no part of saving 
 faith, in any case. That is, the faith which saves, 
 and the assurance of salvation, are distinct in con- 
 sciousne>s, and that the latter necessarily depends 
 on the former. Or, in other words, the conscious- 
 ness of faith in Christ is the prior condition of con- 
 
DISCIPLES OF CHRIST. 
 
 39 
 
 scions salvation. This I give as the substance, 
 without caring to quote words. To the extent here 
 stated, Abraham Booth, apparently, and Andrew 
 Puller, certainly, agreed with him. It is necessary 
 to bear this in mind, for Prof. Whitsitt, seemingly, 
 would make the impression that while the Scotch 
 Baptists, whom he treats as Sandemanians pure 
 and simple, agreed with Sandeman regarding the 
 natuvi of faith, other Baptists did not. But Fuller 
 and Sandeman did not differ on the nature of faith. 
 On this question they agreed perfectly. They dif- 
 fered of course about other matters, but the agree- 
 ment concerning the nature of faith must not be 
 lost sight of, if we would have a clear view of the 
 historic situation. 
 
 Now, among Baptists of the eighteenth century 
 no name is more justly held in veneration than that 
 of Andrew Fuller. To this all Baptists agree. He 
 was in fact the leader of progressive Baptists in 
 England, just as M'Lean was easily leader of the 
 Baptists of Scotland. The exact differences be- 
 tween these distinguished men, as representing dif- 
 ferences between two sections of the Baptist church 
 militant, in their day, become important to us here, 
 on account of their relation to the chief question 
 which Prof. Whitsitt has raised. And as M'Lean 
 confessedly agreed with Sandeman in the contro- 
 versies regarding faith, I shall draw on him for 
 what information is needed on that side of the 
 question. Prof. Whitsitt will not object to this. 
 
40 
 
 OFJUIN OF THE 
 
 Our comparison, therefore, will be between M'- 
 Lean and Fuller. In the lirst place, we shall hear 
 Fuller, the Baptist par excellence, as he is regard- 
 ed among American Baptists to-day. 
 
 In his preface to his " Gospel worthy of all Ac- 
 ceptation," Mr. Fuller tells us that "he had for- 
 merly held different sentiments " from those advo- 
 cated in that book. For years, however, he had 
 been in doubt. These doubts had arisen chiefly 
 from thinking upon certain passages of Scripture 
 which seemed clearly to imply that repentance and 
 fa i tii are the "immediate duty" of all men to 
 whom the gospel offer of salvation comes. This is 
 the main thesis of his book, and his statement, on 
 its very face, shows the Antinomian tendencies 
 which he had formerly cherished. But besides the 
 Scripture texts, the reading of the labors of Elliot, 
 Brainerd, and others, who had been eminently suc- 
 cessful among the American Indians, had greatly 
 impressed him. Like the apostles, the work of 
 these men seemed to be plain before them. In 
 " their addresses to these benighted heathen, they 
 seemed to have none of the difficulties with which 
 he felt himself encumbered. " That is to say, he 
 had been a very narrow Calvinist, and his theories 
 of inability, passive regeneration, limited atone- 
 ment, etc., had been in his way. Besides, he had 
 regarded appropriation as being of the very es- 
 sence of saving faith, so that, without a s"ort of 
 special revelation, no one could be a true believer ; 
 
DISCIPLES 01 CHRIST. 
 
 41 
 
 or indeed had a warrant to believe. But slowly lie 
 was beginning to see light. For four years lie 
 wrestled with his doubts, disclosing them to no one. 
 " Once in company with a minister, whom he great- 
 ly respected (could he have been a Sandemanian 
 minister?), "it was thrown out as a matter of in- 
 quiry, Whether we had generally entertained just 
 notions concerning unbelief. It was common to 
 speak of unbelief as a calling in question the truth 
 of our personal religion ; whereas, he remarked, 
 'It was the calling in question the truth of what 
 God had said.' "This remark," Fuller says, 
 " seemed to carry in ijt its own evidence." Pend- 
 ing questions of "origins" and "offshoots," we can 
 not but regret that the name of this sensible minis- 
 ter has been withheld from us. Alexander Camp- 
 bell once intimated a suspicion that Fuller had 
 learned the best things he knew from the Sande- 
 manian s, and though Fuller tells us that at this 
 time he had not read Sandeman's writings, it is not 
 at all impossible that the excellent minister in 
 question had both read them, and profited by them. 
 In any event, the incident here recorded let the first 
 glimmer of the new light into Fuller's soul. From 
 the point of view thus attained, "his thoughts," he 
 tells us, "began to enlarge." He preached upon 
 the subject "more than once." Finally, he began 
 "to consider faith as a persuasion of the truth of 
 what God hath said." He was " aware that the 
 generality of Christians with whom he was ac- 
 
42 
 
 ORIGIN OF THE 
 
 cjuainted viewed the belief of the gospel as some- 
 thing pre-supposed in faith, rather than as being 
 of the essence of it ; and considered the contrary 
 as the opinion of Mr. Robert Sandeman, which 
 they were agreed in regarding as favorable to a 
 dead or inoperative kind of faith.'' At this time, 
 as I said a moment since, Mr. Fuller assures us he 
 had read none of Sandeman's works. Afterwards 
 he read both Sandeman and M'Lean, and says ex- 
 pressly that he was in ' ; accord with them in con- 
 sidering the belief of the gosjjel as saving faith," 
 but that he and they attached different ideas to 
 " believing." Concerning these differences, we 
 shall see clearly before Ave are through this exami 
 nation. It is sufficient here, if the reader notes 
 distinctly, that as regards the nature of faith, Ful- 
 ler says plainly that he was in accord with Sande- 
 man and M'Lean. (See preface to Fuller's Gosj^el, 
 passim, and also appendix to sixth American edi- 
 tion, Page 168, where he says in so many words : 
 "I have the pleasure to agree with Mr. M'Lean in 
 considering the belief of the gospel as saving faith. 
 Our disagreement on this subject is confined to the 
 question, What the belief of the gospel includes.'") 
 It is clear therefore, that Fuller, Sandeman and 
 M'Lean, were in entire accord on the nature of 
 faith, and we may proceed at once to other items 
 of interest. It is worth while, however, to note 
 briefly, in passing, the steps by which Mr. Fuller 
 seems to have reached his conclusion, ' ; that faith 
 
DISCIPLES OF CHRIST. 
 
 43 
 
 is the persuasion of the truth of what God hath 
 said." He expressly tells us he had "felt himself 
 encumbered with difficulties" while holding an- 
 other view. This statement surely ought to sur- 
 prise no one, and can surprise no one who has 
 thoughtfully considered what it involves. It 
 seems to lie on the surface of the New Testament, 
 that repentance and faith are the immediate duty 
 of all men on hearing the gospel. But the duty to 
 believe implies, of course, a divine warrant, and 
 also that there is nothing in the nature of faith to 
 make the performance of the duty impossible. A 
 warrant to believe means the universality of the 
 atonement, and the natural ability of the sinner to 
 accept it. Fuller still held the doctrine of the sin- 
 ner's moral inability to re]3ent and believe, but his 
 theological scheme took slight account of it. The 
 ground of such inability was in man's sinful nat- 
 ure, in the obliquity of his will, and the aversion 
 of his heart to God, and hence his unbelief was 
 his own fault. If there is natural ability — that is, 
 if there are the natural faculties which make faith 
 possible, after the sinful disposition has been re- 
 moved by divine grace — it is a sufficient basis for 
 the obligation to believe. It does not matter that 
 this sinful disposition comes from inherited de- 
 pravity, and that it reaches back to the fall of 
 Adam, for though the sinner may have lost his 
 ability to obey, God has not lost his right to com- 
 mand. But Fuller saw clearly enough, that, if 
 
44 
 
 ORIGIN OF THE 
 
 faith contains in its own essence the assurance of 
 a personal interest in Christ, it cannot be the sin- 
 ner's duty to believe, until the knowledge of sal- 
 vation has been bestowed. So he rejected the doc- 
 tine of Hervey and " the generality of Christians 
 with whom lie was acquainted," and accepted the 
 only view of faith which seemed to him to be con- 
 sistent with the sinner's obligation to believe. In 
 this final outcome of his reasoning, he was unques- 
 tionably right, however cloudy his speculations in 
 regard to the difference between natural and moral 
 ability may seem to us, in the clearer light of our 
 own time. 
 
 Fuller, Sandeman and M'Lean, were also in 
 complete accord regarding the necessity of a 
 s])ecial divine influence in order to enable the sin- 
 ner to believe. The differences among them con- 
 cerning "what is included in believing " did not 
 affect this particular at all. The proof here is 
 ample, and, I presume, will not be denied. I 
 therefore pass on. 
 
 The differences which we have to note begin at 
 this point. Sandeman and M'Lean held that 
 faith, in its last analysis, is the mind's acceptance 
 of " God's testimony concerning his Son," and that 
 holiness of disposition is the effect of faith. Ful- 
 ler, on his part, unable to escape entirely from the 
 influence of his earlier view, maintained, that the 
 implantation of " a principle of holiness" is ante- 
 cedent to faith, and thus included in it, as a part 
 
DISCIPLES OF CHRIST. 
 
 45 
 
 of its essence. Briefly, the difference in our style 
 of speaking, is this : According to Fuller, change 
 of heart takes place before faith — is, indeed, the 
 one condition without which faith is impossible 
 — while Sandeman and M'Lean insisted strenu- 
 ously that holiness of heart is secured only 
 through faith. In other words, the difference is 
 that between antecedent and consequent ; between 
 cause, in a certain sense, and effect. It is not to 
 be maintained that these distinctions amount to 
 nothing, or that general unanimity has, even now, 
 been attained in regard to them. It may be 
 thought that they are of little practical account, 
 and plain Christians, devoted mainly to questions 
 of organization and work, will be inclined, no 
 doubt, to pass them by as unimportant ; but as 
 long as the human mind insists on having a 
 rational and symmetrical representation of the 
 truth it holds, all the more thoughtful disciples of 
 the Lord will see the necessity of giving to such 
 questions due importance in their scheme of relig- 
 ious thought. 
 
 If regeneration be the same thing as a change of 
 heart (which has been generally held by the so- 
 styled Evangelical denominations), then Fuller's 
 theology places regeneration before faith ; while, 
 according to Sandeman and M'Lean, regeneration 
 is 'through faith, and therefore, after it. Baptists, 
 to-day, for the most part, stand on Fuller's ground, 
 but the Disciples, without exception reject it as 
 
46 
 
 0KIGIX OF THE 
 
 anti-scriptural and irrational. Of this there is no 
 pretense of denial, whatever inferences men like 
 Mr. Whitsitt may see lit to draw from it. But 
 while the "generality" of Baptists adopt Fuller's 
 doctrine of the necessity of " a holy principle in 
 order to believing," few of them, I am persuaded, 
 will accept, without great qualification, his defini- 
 tion of saving faith. The fact is, our modern Bap- 
 tists are still with Hervey and the Methodists in 
 their view of that question. The logically impos- 
 sible theory which Fuller gave up for what Dr. 
 Clifford has recently styled a better " working the- 
 ology," is still maintained among them with essen- 
 tial unanimity. What Baptist preacher now 
 speaks of faith as " the persuasion of the truth of 
 what God has revealed?" Or who among them 
 has been known to define it as " the belief of the 
 gospel ? " And yet among the English Baptists of 
 the latter half of the last century, this was Fuller's 
 most characteristic contention. He boldly took 
 this ground when " the generality of Christians 
 with whom he was acquainted" rejected it as the 
 doctrine of Robert Sandeman. On this question 
 our modern Baptists are not Fullerites. The fact 
 is, they hold with remarkable unanimity that " the 
 sense of adoption," save in very rare cases, is the 
 real test of saving faith. It is to this test that the 
 applicant for church membership is, in the first 
 place, invariably subjected. Failing here, he may 
 not be positively rejected, but his " experience " is 
 
DISCIPLES OF CHRIST. 
 
 47 
 
 certain to be regarded as defective at the most 
 vital point. Oh ! for another Fuller to lead them 
 quite out of the wilderness in whose depths they 
 are still wandering! 
 
 But besides the matter here considered, there 
 were certain differences concerning the ground 
 upon which faith justifies, which seem to demand 
 some notice in our present survey. In any possi- 
 ble view of the matter, faith is, so to say, the act 
 — if one may call it an act — of the creature. It is 
 the sinner that believes, not God. And no view of 
 enabling grace that one may hold in the least 
 affects this conclusion. Say, if the reader chooses, 
 that faith is the gift of God — a position which was 
 not in debate among the men whose views we are 
 looking into — and it still remains true, that the 
 sinner, being divinely enabled, "believes the gos- 
 pel," or "accepts the testimony of God concerning 
 Christ." Now this faith, which is undeniably the 
 sinner's own act, either has in it, or has not, the 
 element of holiness; it contains, or does not con- 
 tain, in itself, intrinsic moral or spiritual value. 
 But if faith contain in itself holiness, how is justi- 
 fication by faith a gracious justification? For in 
 such case, a holy princijjle in the sinner is made 
 the basis of his justification. So reasoned 
 M'Lean, and Fuller replied as best he could. 
 M'Lean pressed the difficulty upon him with great 
 vigor and effect. I take no side in their contro- 
 versy. They were able men. but they were both 
 
48 
 
 ORIGIN ()F THE 
 
 in the fog. That my readers may have a clear 
 view of this old-time discussion, I beg leave to 
 offer a few extracts for their consideration. As a 
 specimen of theological dialectics, a hundred years 
 ago, it cannot fail to interest them. 
 
 "This knowledge and belief of the truth as it is 
 in Jesus, although a duty incumbent on all who 
 hear the gos]3el, is nevertheless the special gift of 
 God, being the effect of divine teaching by means 
 of the Word, and peculiar to the elect ; so that 
 whatever appearances there may be of it in false 
 professors, they have not at bottom the same per- 
 ception of truth, nor that persuasion of it upon its 
 proper evidence which real believers have. But 
 as we can not discern the difference by the confes- 
 sion of the mouth, when that confession accords 
 with the form of sound words, it is therefore neces- 
 sary that true faith should be distinguished by its 
 general effects upon the heart and life. 
 
 " As to its effects upon the heart, such is the im- 
 portant, interesting and salutary nature of the 
 truth testified in the gospel, with its suitableness 
 and freeness for the chief of sinners, that it is no 
 sooner perceived and believed, than it takes pos 
 session of the will and affections, and becomes in 
 the soul the ground of its hope, trust and reliance ; 
 the object of its desire, acceptance, esteem and 
 joy; and the principle of every holy, active and 
 gracious disposition of the heart. 
 
 u But these effects of faith, or which is the same, 
 
DISCIPLES OF CHRIST. 
 
 49 
 
 of the truth believed, ought not to be confounded 
 with faith itself, as is commonly done. Though 
 faith is the confidence of things hoped for, and 
 also worketh by love ; yet it is neither hope nor 
 love, for the apostle distinguisheth it from both. 
 And now abideth faith, hope and love — these 
 three. The same may be said of its other effects 
 upon the heart, for whatever is more than belief is 
 more than faith, and ought to go by another 
 name. 
 
 "It will, perhaps be asked, why so nice in dis- 
 tinguishing here \ What harm can arise from in- 
 cluding in the nature of faith such holy disposi- 
 tions, affections and exercises of heart, as are con- 
 fessedly inseparable from it \ In answer to this, 
 let it be considered. 
 
 1. That unless we carefully distinguish faith 
 from its effects, particularly on the point of a sin- 
 ner's acceptance with God, the important doctrine 
 of free justification by faith alone, will be 
 materially affected. The Scriptures pointedly de- 
 clare that God 'justifies freely by his grace, 
 through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,' 
 and that this justification is ' received through 
 faith in Christ's blood.' Faith in this case is 
 always distinguished from, and opposed to, the 
 works of the law ; not merely of the ceremonial 
 law which was peculiar to the Jews, but of that 
 law by which is the knowledge of sin, which says- 
 'Thou shalt not covet,' and which requires not 
 
 4 
 
50 
 
 ORIGIN OF THE 
 
 only outward good actions, but love, and every 
 good disposition of heart, both towards God and 
 our neighbor; so that the works of the law respect 
 the heart as well as life. The distinction, there- 
 fore, between faith and works, on this subject, is 
 not that which is between inward and outward 
 conformity to the law ; for if faith is not in this 
 case, distinguished from and opposed to our con- 
 formity to the law, both outwardly and inwardly, 
 it can not be said that we are 'justified by faith 
 without the deeds of the law,' or that God ' justi- 
 fieth the ungodly.' Faith indeed, as a principle 
 of action, ' worketh by love ; ' but it is not as thus 
 working that it is " imputed for righteousness ; " 
 for it is expressly declared that 'righteousness is 
 imputed to him that worketh not, but believeth on 
 him that justifieth the ungodly. ' 'It is of faith' 
 that it might be by grace ; and grace and works 
 are represented as being imcompatible with each 
 other ; for to him that worketh the reward is not 
 reckoned of grace, but of debt.' 
 
 Now when men include in the very nature of 
 justifying faith, such good dispositions, holy affec- 
 tions, and pious exercises of heart as the moral 
 law requires, and so make them necessary (no 
 matter under what consideration) to a sinner's ac- 
 ceptance with God, it perverts the gospel doctrine 
 on this important subject, and makes justification 
 to be at least, as it were, by the works of the law." 
 
DISCIPLES OF CHRIST. 
 
 51 
 
 — M'Lean on The Commission. Cincinnati, 1S71, 
 Pages 72, 74. 
 
 The reader will easily note the points' here . 
 made, (a) Faith is the special gift of God. (b) 
 It is peculiar to the elect, (c) It is distinguished 
 by its genuine effects upon the heart and life, (d) 
 But these effects are, in point of fact, inseparable 
 from it — i.e.. they always follow it immediately, 
 (e) They must not, however, be confounded with 
 it, as is commonly done. " Whatever is more than 
 belief, is more than faith, and ought to go by an- 
 other name/' (f) Especially is faith to be distin- 
 guished from its effects in the matter of justifica- 
 tion, for if faith is held to include in its nature, 
 holiness of disposition, the sinner is accepted on 
 the ground of such holiness, and justification by 
 faith is no longer justification by grace, but to all 
 intents and purposes, justification by law, or by 
 works, (g) Further, it could not be said in that 
 case that ,k He justifieth the ungodly," for faith is 
 supposed to include a godly state of the heart. 
 These points are, of course, keenly made, but it is 
 easy to see how much, and how little, such specu- 
 lations had to do with the " origin of the Disciples 
 of Christ." 
 
 Andrew Fuller, as has been said, took a very 
 different ground. We must also allow him to 
 speak for himself. 
 
 " I have the pleasure.'' says Fuller, " to agree 
 with Mr. M'Lean in considering the belief of the 
 
52 
 
 ORIGIN OF THE 
 
 gospel as saving faith. Our disagreement on this 
 subject, is confined to the question: " What the 
 belief of the gospel includes." Mr. M. so ex- 
 plains it. as to carefully exclude every exercise of 
 the heart or will, as either included in it, or hav- 
 ing any influence upon it. Whatever of this exists 
 in a believer, he considers as belonging to the 
 effects of faith, rather than to faith itself. If I 
 understand him, he pleads for such a belief of the 
 gospel, as has nothing in it of a holy nature, noth- 
 ing of conformity to the moral law ' in heart or 
 life;'' a passive reception of truth, in which the 
 will has no concern ; and this, because it is op- 
 posed to the works of the law in the article of jus- 
 tification. On this ground, he accounts for the 
 apostle's language in Rom. 4:5: 'To him that 
 worketh not, but believeth on Him that justifieth 
 the ungodly;' understanding by the terms, ' he 
 that worketh not,' one who has done nothing yet 
 which is pleasing to God ; and by the term 1 un- 
 godly,' 'one that is actually an enemy to God.' 
 (It must be remembered that Mr. Fuller is here 
 saying how he understands M'Lean. Whether 
 he understood him correctly, or not, the reader 
 will judge from the words of M., himself, as quoted 
 above.) * * * * * 
 
 "If Mr. M. had only affirmed that faith is op- 
 posed to works, even to every good disposition of 
 the heart, as the ground of acceptance with God; 
 that we are not justified by it as a work ; or that 
 
DISCIPLES OF CHRIST. 
 
 53 
 
 whatever moral goodness it may possess, it is not 
 as sucli that it is imputed to us for righteousness, 
 there had been no dispute between us. But this 
 distinction he rejects." " He is not contented with 
 faith being opposed to works in point of justifica- 
 tion ; it must also be opposed to them in its own 
 nature. In short, if there be any possibility of 
 drawing a certain conclusion from what a writer, 
 in almost every form of speech, has advanced, it 
 must be concluded that he means to deny that 
 there is anything holy in the nature of faith ; and 
 that could it be separated from its effects, as he 
 supposes it is in justification, it would leave the 
 person who possessed it, among the enemies of 
 God." " Mr. M. allows faith to be a duty — it is 
 ' the command of God,' and a ' part of obedience 
 to God,' — that to believe what God says is right, 
 and that unbelief, which is its opposite, is a great 
 and heinous sin.' But how can these things 
 agree ? If there be nothing of the exercise of a 
 holy disposition in what is commanded of God, in 
 what is right, and in what is an exercise of obe- 
 dience; by what rule are we to judge of what is 
 holy and what is not ? I can scarcely conceive of 
 a truth more self-evident than this, ' That God's 
 commands extend only to that which comes under 
 the influence of the will.' Knowledge can be no 
 further a duty, nor ignorance a sin, than each is 
 influenced by the moral state of the heart ; and 
 the same is true of faith and unbelief. To receive 
 
54 
 
 ORIGIxY OF THE 
 
 truth into the heart, indeed, is duty ; for this is 
 voluntary acquiescence in it; but that in which 
 the will lias no concern, can not possibly be so." 
 Fuller's Gospel, Sixth American edition, Cin., 
 1832. Appendix. Pages 168-170. 
 
 I can not afford space for further extracts ; nor 
 is it necessary. The gist of the debate, and the 
 main positions of the disputants, are apparent 
 enough from what I have given. I hope no reader 
 has felt a weariness stealing over him, as he has 
 sought to follow these champions in their conflict 
 over issues, which, in their 18th century form, are 
 not now heard of at all. They are not without in- 
 terest, however, as showing important points of 
 connection in the continuous development of relig- 
 ious thought. 
 
 It is important to our inquiry that the precise 
 position of the parties to these old issues shall be 
 distinctly understood. How far Fuller and 
 M'Lean agreed, and precisely wherein they dif- 
 fered, may not be entitled to the least weight in 
 determining what is true or false, in our discussion 
 of doctrines at the present time, but, if the ques- 
 tion relate to an influence exerted, or said to have 
 been exerted, upon the mind of Mr. Campbell, and 
 through him upon the Disciples of Christ, by these 
 half-forgotten conflicts, they straightway become 
 interesting to us. It is on this account, solely, 
 that I have asked the attention of my readers to 
 the details which have been thus far presented; 
 
DISCIPLES OF CHRIST. 
 
 55 
 
 and for the same reason I must solicit their indul- 
 gence while I seek to throw still more light upon 
 the subject. I prefer to risk the charge of tedious - 
 ness, rather than that of obscurity, on any vital 
 point. 
 
 It can not be without interest to us to note the 
 fact that when Fuller speaks of repentance and 
 faith, he uniformly places the words in this order, 
 while M'Clean adopts the contrary order of faith 
 and repentance. It would doubtless be a great 
 mistake to suppose that the naked question of the 
 order in which faith and repentance take place in 
 the sinner's return to God was regarded by either 
 of these distinguished men as a matter of special 
 importance. There is no reason why it should 
 have been so considered. The truth is, that the 
 way of speaking which we here observe has a 
 much deeper significance. It goes, indeed, to the 
 very roots of rival theologies. With Fuller, as we 
 have seen, faith was always the act of a regenerate 
 soul. For while he insisted that it was the sin- 
 ner's immediate duty to believe, he, at the same 
 time, firmly maintained that it was impossible for 
 him to do so, until the obstructing hindrance of 
 native depravity had been removed. This is the 
 sole meaning of his contention for the necessity of 
 a principle of holiness in order to believing. 
 Faith is only possible to a renewed heart. The 
 implantation of a holy disposition precedes it in 
 every case. Naturally, he thought repentance 
 
56 
 
 ORIGIN" OF THE 
 
 would be the first expression of this new principle 
 of holiness, even though the subject might; not 
 himself be conscious of its priority. In " The 
 G-ospel Worthy of all Acceptation " — Sixth Amer- 
 ican edition, Cincinnati, 1832 — we have the follow- 
 ing statement and illustration : " That the bias of 
 the heart requires to be turned to God, antecedent 
 to believing, has been admitted, because the nat- 
 ure of believing is such that it can not be exer- 
 cised while the soul is under the dominion of wil- 
 ful blindness, hardness and aversion. These dis- 
 positions are represented in the Scriptures as a 
 bar in the way of faith, as being inconsistent with 
 it; and which, consequently, require to be taken 
 out of the way. But whatever necessity there 
 may be for a change of heart in order to believing, 
 it is neither necessary nor possible that the party 
 should be conscious of it till he has believed. It 
 is necessary that the eyes of a blind man should 
 be opened before he can see, but it is neither 
 necessary nor possible for him to know that his 
 eyes are open till he doth see. It is only by sur- 
 rounding objects appearing to his view, that he 
 knows the obstructing film to be removed.'' This 
 is in reply to a Mr. Brine, who, while agreeing 
 with Fuller, that regeneration or change of heart 
 precedes faith, argues therefrom that only the re- 
 generate have a warrant to believe. To set this 
 aside, Fuller says in effect, that though it be in- 
 deed true that regeneration precedes faith, it is no 
 
DISCIPLES OF CHRIST. 
 
 57 
 
 more possible for the party to be conscious of his 
 regeneration till he believes, than for a blind man 
 to know that his eyes have been opened before he 
 is conscious of seeing. Faith is the soul's seeing, 
 and regeneration is the removal of the film from 
 the souTs eyes. 
 
 Again: (Appendix pp. 214,215) "All I contend 
 for is, ' that it is not by means of a spiritual per- 
 ception, or belief of the gospel, that the heart is, 
 for the first time, effectually influenced towards 
 God : for spiritual perception and belief are repre- 
 sented as the effects, and not as the causes of such 
 influence." 
 
 " A spiritual perception of the glory of divine 
 things appears to be the first sensation of which 
 the mind is conscious; but it is not the first oper- 
 ation of God upon it" 
 
 It is clear, therefore, that in the strict theologi- 
 cal sense, Fuller placed regeneration before faith ; 
 as the removal of the film from a blind man's eyes 
 necessarily precedes the act of seeing. But as 
 regards repentance and faith, he says expressly, 
 that " saving faith implies repentance ; " i. e., re- 
 pentance, in the order of Christian experience, 
 comes before faith. Appendix, p. 179. 
 
 So his theology stood thus: (1) Regeneration; 
 (2) Repentance ; (3) Faith. This may seem 
 strange when we remember that he defined faith 
 as " the belief of the gospel ; " or as "the persua- 
 sion of the truth of what God hath said." But 
 
58 
 
 OKIGIN OF THE 
 
 there can be no doubt that such was his view, 
 though we may totally fail to see how he could 
 obviate, in his own mind, the difficulties which it 
 involves. Great men are not always consistent, 
 with themselves, to say nothing of their want of 
 consistency with truth seen clearly by other peo- 
 ple. 
 
 While, therefore, there can be no debate as to 
 the view maintained by Fuller, it is quite as cer- 
 tain that M ' Lean held the directly opposite posi- 
 tion. With the former, a change of heart was 
 thought to precede any real " belief of the gospel;" 
 while the latter strenuously insisted, that repent- 
 ance, and all Italy dispositions, were to be re- 
 garded as the effects of such belief. It is this sin- 
 gle feature of their protracted debates, which has 
 descended, as a living issue, to the Christian 
 thinkers of to-day. The sharp controversy be- 
 tween these men, and the schools to which they 
 belonged, concerning the ground on which faith is 
 acounted for righteouness, whether holy disposi- 
 tions were to be excluded from the nature of faith 
 in order that justification might be an act of sov- 
 ereign grace, and all kindred contentions, are no 
 longer in debate anywhere. To all well informed 
 people, this goes with the saying. Argument is 
 unnecessary. But Fuller's opponents met him 
 with the objection that regeneration before faith, 
 implies the contradiction of a godly unbeliever. 
 "A spiritual perception of the glory of divine 
 
DISCIPLES OF CHRIST. 
 
 59 
 
 things,'' says Fuller, " is the first sensation of 
 which the mind is conscious, but it is not the first 
 operation of God upon it." Of this first operation, 
 regeneration is the immediate effect, and faith is 
 the effect of regeneration. The consciousness of 
 faith, so to say, reveals the fact of regeneration, 
 as a prior work of the Spirit. But, if this be the 
 order of experience, it is impossible to say cer- 
 tainly that regeneration may not be separated 
 from faith by an interval of time. In any event, 
 if a holy disposition precedes faith, godliness 
 comes first, and faith afterwards. On the other 
 hand, the retort was ready, that, if all holy dispo- 
 sitions must be excluded from faith, as not of its 
 essence, and, in point of fact, not co-existent with 
 it, at the moment of justification, then, this theory 
 gives the equal absurdity of an ungodly believer. 
 M'Lean insisted most strenuouly that the justifi- 
 cation of the ungodly (which Paul expressly 
 teaches,) implies that the act of justification at- 
 taches to faith in advance of the holy dispositions 
 which follow it. In this case, who can say that 
 the theory is not open to the charge brought 
 against it \ Does it not involve the contradiction, 
 momentarily, at least, of an ungodly believer f 
 Looking back at this discussion, from our present 
 point of view, it seems safe to say that each of 
 these theologians succeeded in overturning, in 
 part, his opponent's theory. Both were right, and 
 both were wrung ; but in a different way. Fuller 
 
60 
 
 ORIGIN OF THE 
 
 was wrong in maintaining the priority of regen- 
 eration to faith, and M'Lean was equally wrong 
 in arguing that a gracious justification excludes 
 all holy dispositions from the soul, at the moment 
 when God justifies. It is strange that so acute a 
 thinker should have been bewildered by the mere 
 logic of the letter, in a matter which now seems so 
 clear. To do equal justice, it must be said that 
 Fuller did not admit that, in ordinary cases, faith 
 is separated from regeneration in time, nor did 
 M'Lean teach, that the holy dispositions which 
 proceed from faith, are separated from it in con- 
 sciousness. " The priority contended for," says 
 Fuller, "is rather in the order of nature than of 
 time." " And if there be a priority in the order of 
 time, owing to the want of opportunity of know- 
 ing the truth, yet when a person embraces Christ 
 so far as he has the means of knowing him, he is 
 in effect a believer." On the other hand M ' Lean 
 says expressly, that " the saving truth testified in 
 the gospel, is no sooner perceived and believed 
 than it takes possession of the will and affections, 
 and becomes in the soul the ground of its hope 
 ami reliance, and the principle of every holy, ac- 
 tive and gracious disposition of the hearty 
 
 It must be admitted, I think, that Fuller's doc- 
 trine of regeneration before faith is inconsistent 
 with his definition of faith. For if faith be "the 
 persuasion of the truth of what God hath said," 
 it is the necessary condition of all saving influ- 
 
DISCIPLES OF CHRIST. 
 
 61 
 
 ences exerted by means of the gospel. Whatever 
 precedes the "belief of the gospel," is accom- 
 plished without the gospel. If regeneration pre- 
 cedes "the belief of the gospel," then the gospel 
 is not the means of regeneration, and all those 
 passages of Scripture which teach the instrumen- 
 tality of God's word in regeneration, are rendered 
 void and unmeaning. It seems clear that most 
 Baptists now perceive Fuller's inconsistency at 
 this point, for they have given up his view of the 
 nature of faith. They do not teach that faith is 
 " the persuasion of the truth of what God hath 
 said ; " nor do they define faith as " the belief of 
 the gospel." They are not satisfied to regard 
 faith as the root of good dispositions, and the 
 mainspring of all holy and gracious activities, nor 
 do they recognize the dominant element of intel- 
 lectual conviction, which the Scriptures everywhere 
 give to it, but, on the contrary, resolve it, in effect, 
 into a mere emotional experience, from which, the 
 scriptural idea of belief has been well nigh elimi- 
 nated. Besides this, as I intimated above, they 
 have practically gone back to the doctrine of faith 
 against which all Fuller's writings were an earnest 
 and vehement protest. Like Wesley, they regard 
 an emotional consciousness of pardon as the very 
 essence of true faith. The point evermore insisted 
 upon, in judging of conversion, is the feeling testi- 
 mony of the forgiveness of sins. "Do you, my 
 brother or sister, feel that God, for Christ's sake, 
 
&2 
 
 ORIGIN OF THE 
 
 has pardoned you I " is a question never omitted. 
 It is not the consciousness of faith so much as the 
 mystic sense of salvation, which is the uniform 
 criterion of judgment, when the church with open 
 doors sits for reception of converts into its pale. 
 This is consistent with Wesleyanism, and Morav- 
 ianism, or even with the Antinomianism from 
 which Fuller vainly sought to deliver them, but it 
 is inconsistent with Fuller's most characteristic 
 contention, and utterly inconsistent with the plain- 
 est teaching of the New Testament. 
 
 It may be well, in this connection, to note 
 another feature of Fuller's teaching, which our 
 American Baptists have quite lost sight of. Fi>ller 
 insisted with all the might he possessed, that faith 
 is the sinner's immediate duty; that there was no 
 duty before " repentance and faith/' not even 
 prayer. Nothing is enjoined irpon a sinner that 
 does not imply repentance and faith. "It is the 
 duty of ministers not only to exhort their carnal 
 auditors to believe in Jesus Christ for the salva- 
 tion of their souls, but it is at our peril to exltort 
 them to anything short of it, or wliieli does not 
 involve, or imply it." The italics here are Mr. 
 Fuller's own, and show the importance he attached 
 to what he was saying. But to shut out all mis- 
 take, listen to the following, leveled at some of the 
 preaching of his time : " Repentance towards God, 
 and faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ are al- 
 lowed to be duties; but nut immediate duties. 
 
DISCIPLES OF CHRIST. 
 
 63 
 
 The sinner is considered as unable to comply with 
 them, and, therefore, they are not urged upon him; 
 but instead of them he is directed to pray for the 
 Holy Spirit to enable him to repent and believe, 
 and this it seems he can do notwithstanding the 
 aversion of his heart to everything of the kind. 
 But if any man be required to pray for the Holy 
 Spirit, it must be either sincerely, and in the name 
 of Jesus, or insincerely, and in some other way. 
 The latter I suppose will be allowed to be an 
 abomination in the sight of God ; he can not there- 
 fore be required to do this ; and as to the former, 
 it is just as difficult, and as opposite to the carnal 
 heart as repentance and faith themselves. Indeed, 
 it amounts to the same thing ; for a sincere desire 
 after a spiritual blessing, presented in the name 
 of Jesus, is no other than the "prayer of faith." 
 If I knew how to emphasize these words, so that 
 all Baptists in this land would be constrained to 
 take note of them, and prayerfully study them, I 
 would gladly do it. There is just one emphatic 
 point to be made ; namely, there is no duty en- 
 joined in the gospel, which does not imply faith 
 and repentance in order to its acceptable perform- 
 ance. It may be doubted if Fuller himself saw 
 the far-reaching significance of his own words, but 
 he did see the simple fact which he states so 
 clearly, otherwise, he could never have put it into 
 phraseology so terse, and so unmistakable as re- 
 gards, at least, its primary meaning. I cordially 
 
64 
 
 ORIGIN OF THE 
 
 commend to all Baptists this significant deliver- 
 ance of their great leader. And if they shall see, 
 in the light of it, the necessity of changing some- 
 what their teaching, and reconstructing thoroughly 
 some of their practices, I shall be fully repaid for 
 my labor of love in calling their attention to it. 
 
 Meantime, I need only say now, that Fuller and 
 M'Lean both blundered as to "what is included in 
 believing." Fuller was mistaken as to its includ- 
 ing regeneration, or change of heart, as a prior 
 condition, and M'Lean, as to the necessity of ex- 
 cluding from its essence the change of heart, which 
 he admitted to be its immediate effect. Faith, as 
 the ground of justification, is a comprehensive 
 conception. In the last analysis, it is indeed the 
 mind's conviction " of the truth of what God hath 
 said;" the "belief of the gospel;" but not that 
 to the exclusion of any of its divine effects in the 
 soul or in the life. On the contrary, as the prin- 
 ciple of justification, it is taken as inclusive of all 
 these effects, and never, for a moment, thought of 
 in the divine mind, as apart from them. It is in- 
 deed faith which is accounted for righteousness, 
 and not hope, or love, or any other effect of faith, 
 but it is because it is viewed as the root, and 
 ground of all these things, and because they are 
 comprehended in it, as an effect is always in- 
 cluded in its cause, that God accepts it for "right- 
 eousness," (which, in point of fact, it is not,) and 
 so justifies the obedient believer "freely by his 
 
DISCIPLES OF CHRIST. 65 
 
 grace." If a man does not see these things clearly 
 in the dry light of to-day, it is surely his own 
 fault. 
 5 
 
66 
 
 ORIGIN OF THE 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 THE SIMPLE FACTS OF THE CASE. 
 
 We are now ready to estimate the influence of 
 these various parties upon the mind of Mr. Camp- 
 bell, and to decide how far the representations of 
 Mr. Whitsitt are entitled to the credence of candid 
 men. It is true that Mr. Campbell read Hervey, 
 Wesley, and Fuller and Gale, Sandeman, M'Lean, 
 and the Haldanes, and that he was quite familiar 
 with the positions of all these gentlemen, and 
 their arguments in support of them. That their 
 discussions had no influence on the formation of 
 his views, it would be foolish to assert. But, that 
 he followed no one-sided representation is certain, 
 for he carefully read and weighed the arguments 
 of all. If his own statements are entitled to the 
 least credit, he was, more than anything else, a 
 devoted student of the New Testament, and was 
 accustomed to bring all theories and suggestions 
 of theories to the touch-stone of revelation, before 
 receiving or rejecting them. If he was indebted to 
 any one, to Sandeman or M'Lean, to Wesley or 
 Fuller, for views that he finally held, it was in 
 precisely the same way thot every independent 
 and conscientious investigator is indebted to some 
 one else, either directly or indirectly, for the 
 greater part of the truth which he knows. This is 
 
DISCIPLES OF CHRIST. 
 
 67 
 
 as certain as anything human can be. At the 
 same time, it is only fair to say that, in certain of 
 their features, Mr. Campbell's views were kindred 
 to those of M ' Lean and the Haldanes, rather than 
 to those of Fuller and the school of which he was 
 practically the founder. Regarding the nature of 
 faith, as then debated, he agreed with Sandeman, 
 M ' Lean and Fuller, as they, confessedly, agreed 
 with each other. Concerning the priority of re- 
 generation or faith, he was with M ' Lean and the 
 Scotch Baptists, and opposed to Fuller and his 
 followers, whether in England or America. He 
 never sympathized with the view that justification 
 by faith implies the exclusion of all the holy dis- 
 positions which follow faith, and the imputation 
 of " the bare belief of the bare truth" for right- 
 eousness. On this point he was distinctly anti- 
 Sandemanian. His view of the design of baptism 
 was the product of honest and patient study of the 
 New Testament. He borrowed it from no one, nor 
 is it identical with that held by any party since 
 the days of the apostles, and their immediate suc- 
 cessors. It is no more the baptismal regeneration 
 of the Greek and Latin fathers, or of Catholics 
 and Anglicans, than it is the notion of a mere out- 
 ward sign or symbol of an inward grace, now held 
 by Baptists, and, for the most part, Pedo-baptists, 
 alike. It is not baptismal regeneration as it has 
 been held, at any time, by any party. Much less 
 is it the view which represents baptism as a mere 
 
68 
 
 ORIGIN OF THE 
 
 symbolical representation of that with which the 
 Xew Testament has connected it conditionally. 
 To say that he borrowed it from M ' Lean, whose 
 theory required the imputation of faith for right- 
 eousness, not only before obedience to any ordi- 
 nance, but even antecedent to that holiness of 
 heart which he robustly held to be an immediate 
 effect of faith, is to talk at random, or to be inca- 
 pable of making the simplest distinctions of doc- 
 trine known to theology. In maintaining the 
 necessity of a plurality of elders, or bishops, in 
 each local church, as well as the observance of the 
 Lord's Supper on every Lord's day, Mr. Campbell 
 agreed substantially with the Sandemanians and 
 Scotch Baptists, because he found them in line 
 with the precedents of the New Testament. Their 
 observance of foot-washing and love-feasts, as or- 
 dinances, he rejected, as being destitute of apos- 
 tolic or inspired support. To this test he brought 
 everything. That he made no mistakes, need not 
 be said, for he was a man, fallible like the rest of 
 us. His greatest admirers have never felt them- 
 selves bound to any position he held, unless he 
 was able to show his authority for it in the Word 
 of God. This was his test, and it is theirs like- 
 wise. He was no mere theological eclectic, select- 
 ing from the great babel about him whatever 
 might happen to strike his own fancy ; but a rev- 
 erent and thoughtful Christian, seeking for the 
 faith and ordinances of the church in the teaching 
 
DISCIPLES OF CHRIST. 
 
 69 
 
 of the inspired apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ. 
 If he felt a certain admiration for the English and 
 Scotch Independents, Baptist or Pedo-baptist, it 
 was mainly because they refused to be bound by 
 human creeds, and bravely asserted their right to 
 the freedom wherewith Christ had made them free. 
 That traces of the influence of Sandeman and the 
 Haldanes may be found in his writings, is unques- 
 tionable. There are traces of Alexandrian influ- 
 ence in John's Grospel, as every scholar knows — 
 whether he chooses to say so or not — and yet that 
 fact counts nothing against John's originality as a 
 writer, or the genuineness of the book which bears 
 his name. A work free from any influence from 
 without would be a strange literary product in- 
 deed. A theologian whose views should betray 
 no contact with the work of other thinkers, might 
 indeed be considered original, but it is not likely 
 that he would be able to say anything worthy of 
 the world's attention. 
 
 In this perfectly legitimate way, and in no 
 other, did Mr. Campbell profit by the labors of 
 other men. The sources of authority which he 
 recognized were in the Scriptures, and he neither 
 received nor rejected anything without reference 
 to scriptural teaching. As regards his real in- 
 debtedness to Sandeman and the Scotch Baptist 
 leaders, there has been no pretence of conceal- 
 ment. Prof. Whitsitt naively confesses, even 
 while making a show of original discovery, his de- 
 
70 
 
 OliTOIN OF THE 
 
 pendence upon Mr. C.'s biographer for the facts 
 which explain the coincidences he had otherwise 
 noted. This should have taught him that his 
 imaginary contributions to history are only glean- 
 ings from fields which have been duly harvested 
 by others. 
 
 Mr. Campbell's absolute independence, as a 
 Biblical student, of all uninspired authority, is 
 nowhere seen more clearly than in the comparison 
 of his views with those of the men from whom it is 
 pretended he borrowed them. He was a Sande- 
 manian, says Prof. Whitsitt ; and yet Sandeman 
 was a Calvinist, a Pedo-baptist, and practiced 
 foot- washing, and observed love-feasts^while Mr. 
 Campbell was neither a Calvinist nor Pedo-bap- 
 tist, and held not at all to the Sandemanian cus- 
 toms here mentioned. He had no sympathy with 
 the notion that justification by faith means the 
 imputation of " the bare belief of the bare truth," 
 for righteousness, exclusive of those holy disposi- 
 tions which are the invariable effects of a sincere 
 belief. On the contrary, he always held that faith 
 justifies and saves, only because it does include — 
 as a cause includes its effects — both change of 
 heart and obedience of life. He never held that 
 faith is purely intellectual, as Prof. W. insinuates. 
 I suspect, if he had undertaken to be closely ana- 
 lytical (a thing he seldom attempted), he would 
 have said that in its ultimate ground, faith is that 
 "act of the mind by which the sinner accepts 
 
DISCIPLES OF CHRIST 
 
 71 
 
 Jesus as the Christ, the Son of God," or " faith is 
 the belief of the gospel ; " or it is the receiving of 
 " the testimony of God concerning his Son.'' He 
 did say expressly : u Faith is the belief of the gos- 
 pel." " You can make nothing else out of it, un- 
 less you tarn it into confidence" He might have 
 said, if pressed for strict accuracy, that u confi- 
 dence is faith by metonomy ;" but with him faith 
 and confidence were always held to be practically 
 identical, however he might have distinguished 
 between them as a matter of precise definition. 
 He did not share at all, therefore, in that barren 
 intellectualism. which is charged — whether justly 
 or otherwise — against Sandeman. What he really 
 lipid, was this: faith is the sincere and intelligent 
 belief of the gospel ; and such belief always car- 
 ries in it, by implication, a hearty personal confi- 
 dence, or trust, in Christ as Redeemer and Savior 
 of men. He never conceived of belief as exclusive 
 of trust, any more than of pious and godly aspira- 
 tions and volitions as exclusive of belief. If San- 
 demanianism may be described as " intellect ual- 
 ism" Mr. Campbell was no Sandemanian. Faith 
 which did not include in it implicitly both holi- 
 ness of heart and life, was of no account at all, as 
 he understood the Scriptures. As a matter of fact, 
 from the Baptist point of view, he was more open 
 to the charge of including too much in faith than 
 too little. He never practically separated faith, 
 in justification and salvation, from those godly 
 
72 
 
 ORIGIN OF THE 
 
 emotions and activities which are superinduced * 
 by means of it. As he looked at the work of re- 
 demption, the gospel is the power of God to save 
 only believers, because there is no other way in 
 which gospel power can be conveyed to the hearts 
 and lives of men than by faith. It is not what 
 faith is, as a mere correct verbal definition, that 
 God cares for, but what it means as a source or 
 instrument of divine power in a human soul and 
 life. It is chiefly the grand possibility of a trans- 
 formed hitman life that Quakes faith valuable in 
 the sight of God. As Mr. Campbell looked at it, 
 nay, as all the Disciples of Christ see it, if it were 
 not for this wonderful possibility of making sinful 
 men grand and god-like in thought and will and 
 action, we should never have had a word of justifi- 
 cation by faith from the lips or pens of inspired 
 men. God counts faith to the believer only for 
 that which he knows is made possible to him by 
 means of it ! It is on this principle that faith is 
 " imputed for righteousness," as an act of grace, 
 and through the blood of Christ. And this is the 
 opposite pole of doctrine from that of Sandeman 
 and the Scotch Baptists, as even Prof. Whitsitt 
 would be able to see if he could only get the Bap- 
 tist film removed from his eyes. No partisan ever 
 sees truth otherwise than from a single angle of 
 vision, and therefore imperfectly. 
 
 But, as already stated, Mr. Campbell saw clearly 
 the fact that as regards priority of regeneration 
 
DISCIPLES OF CHRIST. 
 
 73 
 
 (or change of heart) to faith, Andrew Fuller was 
 wrong, while Sandenian and M'Lean, who placed 
 it among the effects of faith, were certainly right. 
 If he really owed this view to those men, his in- 
 debtedness was indeed great. It was the most 
 fundamental conception of what may be called his 
 theology. It determined his view of divine influ- 
 ence in conversion and sane tinea tion, as he himself 
 defined those terms, beyond any manner of doubt. 
 Not that it led him to deny the active presence of 
 the Holy Spirit, either in regeneration or in the 
 struggles and conflicts of the Christian life. He 
 made no such denial in either case. What he did 
 do was to explain the influences of the Holy Spirit, 
 as mediated by the Word of God, i. <?., as exerted 
 through the Word of God believed. The Scrip- 
 tures represent the saving power as reaching the 
 heart by faith. But whatever is done before faith, 
 is done without faith, and independently of divine 
 truth, as the means. Nothing could be plainer. 
 Hence, Mr. Campbell did not accept Fuller's doc- 
 trine of a change of heart in order to faith. On 
 the contrary, he steadfastly held that all saving- 
 power reaches the heart through faith. The ever 
 present Spirit of God moves upon the human soul 
 in, and by, and through, truth believed, and not in 
 a way which dispenses*, at any step in the saving- 
 process, either with the truth, as it is in Christ, or 
 with the sincere and intelligent belief of it. This 
 is the teaching of the Word of God beyond any 
 
74 
 
 ORIGIN OF THE 
 
 sort of doubt. If Sandeman and M ' Lean saw it 
 (which I think they did not, unless very dimly), 
 then the world owes them a great debt, certainly. 
 That Mr. Campbell saw it, admits no denial. And 
 when we shall all see things in the bright light of 
 the Eternal Throne, the fact that he not only saw 
 it, but that he helped the world to see it, and so to 
 disengage itself from many superstitions, will be 
 regarded as one of the mightiest achievements of 
 his long and useful life. 
 
 It is perhaps true that Mr. Campbell and the 
 Discijues have made no great original contribution 
 to what is properly known as theology. Our mis- 
 sion under God has not lain in that particular 
 direction. The apostles of Jesus Christ were 
 scarcely theologians in our modern aecej)tance of 
 the term, though their teaching contains the germs 
 of all the true theology which the world has ever 
 had. They did not trouble themselves over the 
 nice distinctions, which theology seeks, often 
 vainly to settle. They thought in concrete rather 
 than abstract forms. They were concerned not 
 so much about establishing " doctrines," as 
 about saving the souls of men. They were 
 preachers of Christ's gospel to a lost world, not 
 theological professors, working in a realm of ab- 
 stractions. I do not underestimate the work of 
 the theologian ; I magnify that of the preacher. 
 God sends the preacher; the theologian too 
 often sends himself. The gospel was before the- 
 
DISCIPLES OF CHRIST. 
 
 75 
 
 ology, and it is better than theology. The teacher 
 of " doctrines " may sometimes help us ; but 
 oftener, perhaps, he misleads and confuses us. 
 What the sinner needs, above all things, is to 
 have Christ brought intelligently to his heart. 
 The highest knowledge in divine things is to know 
 how to bring saving truth to the understandings 
 and consciences of men. In this direction, mainly, 
 have we found our work. There is no egotism 
 whatever in saying that the popular gospel procla- 
 mation has been vastly clarified through our in- 
 strumentality. Our influence extends very far 
 outside the bounds of our personal labors, and has 
 reacted upon every orthodox sect in Christendom. 
 This is no idle boast, though men like Mr. W. 
 may scoff at it. More than any other people 
 known to me, the Baptists have profited by our 
 labors. They may not choose to acknowledge the 
 fact, but it is none the less a fact on that account. 
 The Baptist pulpit is not what it was fifty years 
 ago. It is scarcely necessary to say this to those 
 who are able to recall the days when more than 
 half the Associated Baptists in the West were 
 anti-missionaries, if not thorough antinomians. I 
 know what I am talking about, and the Whitsitts 
 may just as well listen patiently. The change is 
 undeniable. The entire credit of it, of course, is 
 not to be given to the Disciples ; neither do they 
 claim it. But Baptist " experiences " are not what 
 they used te be ; and for whatever good effects have 
 
76 
 
 ORIGIN OF THE 
 
 been wrought at this particular point, they are 
 largely indebted to the Disciples. Certainly we 
 allow somewhat of the change to the general 
 growth of intelligence in their own ministry and 
 people, but even here the Disciples have helped 
 them far more than the}" are willing to confess. 
 
 But to get back to theology. The question 
 whether regeneration — meaning thereby change of 
 heart — is before faith, or through faith, is the chief 
 theological issue we make with the denominations 
 of our time. Other questions are subordinate to 
 this, or are involved in this. The order of the Cal- 
 vinist is : 
 
 (1) Regeneration ; (2) Repentance ; (3) Faith ; 
 (4) Turning to the Lord. 
 
 The order of the Armenian is : 
 
 (1) Prevenient, or enabling grace; (2) Repent- 
 ance and seeking the Lord ; (3) Faith and regen- 
 eration ; (4) Turning to the Lord. 
 
 The order of the New Testament is : 
 
 (1) The intelligent and hearty belief of the gos- 
 pel ; (2) Repentance upon (epi) the name of Jesus 
 Christ; (3) The actual turning to God; (/. e., In 
 confession of Christ and baptism, and thereafter 
 in obedience to all our Lord's commandments.) 
 
 In this last arrangement, repentance is given as 
 equivalent to change of heart, as it is indeed the 
 Xew Testament designation of it. Such a recon- 
 struction as is here implied, when it has been 
 firmly accomplished in the popular mind, will put 
 
DISCIPLES OF CHRIST. 
 
 77 
 
 the gospel message into harmony with the entire 
 New Testament representation, and also into ac- 
 cord with right reason, as disclosed in the inexora- 
 ble laws of human thought and experience. A 
 reformation of the Fullerism and Baptism of our 
 time must take place, or its days are as certainly 
 numbered (whether many or few) as truth and 
 rationality are destined to triumph over an obsti- 
 nate adherence to antiquated errors and supersti- 
 tions. The question returns therefore : 
 
 Is regeneration (change of heart) before faith, 
 or tlirough faith 3 Does grace win men to God 
 through the truth belie wed '? Or, is ' ; a holy prin- 
 ciple implanted " before faith, and without the in- 
 strumentality of the Gospel ? What do you say ? 
 
 Mr. Whitsitt is not the first Baptist scribe who 
 has imagined that he discovered a connection be- 
 tween the views of A. Campbell and those of San- 
 deman and the Haldanes. If no more than this 
 had been asserted, the matter need have attracted 
 little notice, or none at all. I have already said 
 that traces of such an influence are observable ; 
 and I add here, chiefly in the earlier stages of Mr. 
 Campbell's career, though it is not intended to 
 deny that he received some permanent impressions 
 from such sources. The point, however is this : 
 whatever real indebtedness there was in the case, 
 has always been an open fact among the Disciples, 
 and there was never on Mr. Campbell's part, or on 
 theirs, the least effort, or even wish, to conceal it. 
 
78 
 
 ORIGIN OF THE 
 
 Ml. Whiteitt has discovered nothing. He has re- 
 vived a campaign trick which originated in the 
 days of the Christian Baptist, and received from 
 Mr. C. himself such attention as he thought it de- 
 served. The only strange thing in the matter is 
 that our doughty professor should have known so 
 little of our history as to imagine that the resemb- 
 lances in some minor matters which have come to 
 his knowledge in the course of his historical stud- 
 ies, had never attracted the attention of any one 
 else. In the third volume of the Christian Baptist, 
 page 227 (Burnett's edition) may be found a letter 
 to Mr. Campbell from Rev. R. B. Semple, a distin- 
 guished Baptist of that day, and immediately fol- 
 lowing it Mr. Campbell's reply. It suits our pur- 
 pose here to make some extracts from these rather 
 ancient documents. 
 
 Dr. Semple begins with a personal compliment 
 to Mr. Campbell. u Your preaching/' he says, 
 "reminds me of Apollos, who displayed, as we 
 moderns say, great talents, or as the Scripture 
 says, was an eloquent man, and mighty in the 
 Scriptures.'' But even Apollos submitted to be 
 taught in the way of God more perfectly, and so 
 Dr. S. hojDes he may be able to do a like service 
 for Mr. Campbell. 44 So far as I can judge," he 
 continues, " by your writings or preachings, you 
 are substantially a Sandemanian or Haldanian. I 
 know you differ from them in some points, but in 
 substance you occupy their ground. Now I am 
 
DISCIPLES OF CHRIST. 
 
 79 
 
 not about to fall out with them as heretics of the 
 black sort. I think they have many excellent 
 things among them, things I would gladly see 
 more prevalent among us. But in some respects 
 they are far from pure Christianity." He then 
 proceeds to state the counts in his indictment. 
 " Forbearance," he tells us, " is certainly a Chris- 
 tian grace strongly recommended both by precept 
 and example, in the word of God." But in this 
 Christian grace of forbearance, Dr. S. found the 
 Haldanians greatly deficient. He did not regard 
 them as altogether destitute of it, but " they limit- 
 ed its exercise to too narrow bounds." In all 
 church decisions they demanded unanimity ; all 
 must think alike. This, Mr. S. regarded as impos- 
 sible. Men will differ in opinion, and forbearance 
 becomes a necessity. " Among the Haldanians, 
 judging," he says, "from their writings, a gentle 
 spirit is rarely to be found." He considered Mr. 
 Campbell also as conspicuously faulty in this re- 
 spect. He distinguishes between his writings and 
 his personal bearing in private circles. In such 
 circles he found him, "as a man, mild, pleasant 
 and affectionate ; " but his writings " were rigid 
 and satirical beyond all the bounds of Scripture 
 allowance." He regards the Christian Baptist as 
 strikingly deficient in a New Testament spirit. 
 
 Touching Mr. Campbell's views, he says, "On 
 some other points, I think they are dangerous, un- 
 less you are misunderstood; such as casting off 
 
80 
 
 ORIGIN OF THE 
 
 the Old Testament, exploding experimental reli- 
 gion in its common acceptation, denying the exist- 
 ence of gifts in the present day, commonly believ- 
 ed to exist among all spiritual Christians, such as 
 preaching, etc. Some other of your opinions, 
 though true, are pushed to extremes, such as those 
 upon the use of creeds, confessions, etc., etc." 
 
 u In short," he presently adds, "your views are 
 generally so contrary to those of the Baptists in 
 general, that if a party were to go fully into the 
 practice of your principles, I should say a new 
 sect had sprung up, radically different from the 
 Baptists as they now are." 
 
 It is not necessary that I should stop to point out 
 the crudeness of Dr. Semple's representation of 
 Mr. Campbell's spirit and aims. It is the fate of 
 every new movement to be misunderstood, and 
 often to be intentionally misrepresented. Of the 
 latter, Dr. S. must be wholly acquitted. Mr. C. al- 
 ways entertained the highest personal regard for 
 him. But he apprehended the new plea imperfect- 
 ly. This, perhaps, was inevitable, and no one is 
 less disposed than the writer of this review to fight 
 over again the battles of the past, wherever it is 
 clear that they grew out of mere mistakes of the 
 understanding. But touching the question of de- 
 pendence upon Sandeman and the Haldanes, we 
 shall hear Mr. Campbell himself. I must be al- 
 lowed to quote at some length : 
 
 " You say : ' So far as I can judge by your writ- 
 
DISCIPLES OF CHKIST. 
 
 81 
 
 ings and preaching, you are substantially a Sande- 
 manian or Haldanian.' This is substantially af- 
 firmed of me by many who have never seen nor 
 read one volume of the writings of Sandeman or 
 Haldane; and with the majority it has great 
 weight, who attach to these names something as 
 heretical and damnable as the tenets of Cerinthus 
 and the Mcolaitans. I have not myself ever read 
 all the works of these men, but I have read more 
 of them than I approve, and more of them than 
 they who impute to me their opinions as heresy." 
 . . . " Concerning Sandeman and Haldane, how 
 they can be associated under one species, is to me 
 a matter of surprise. The former a Pedo-Baptist, 
 the latter a Baptist ; the former as keen, as sharp, 
 as censorious, as acrimonious as Juvenal ; the lat- 
 ter as mild, as charitable, as condescending as 
 any man this age has produced. As authors I 
 know them well. The one is like a mountain- 
 storm that roars among the cliffs ; the other like 
 the balmy zephyrs that breathe upon banks of 
 violets. That their views were the same on some 
 points is as true as that Luther, Calvin and Wes- 
 ley agreed in many points. 
 
 "I was once puzzled on the subject of Hervey's 
 dialogues ; I mean his Theron and Aspasio. I ap- 
 propriated one winter season for examining this 
 subject. I assembled all the leading writers of 
 that day on these subjects. I laid before me Rob- 
 ert Sandeman, Hervey, Marshall, Bellamy, Glass, 
 
 6 
 
82 
 
 ORIGIN OF THE 
 
 Cudworth, and others of minor fame in this con- 
 troversy. I not only read, but studied and wrote 
 off in miniature their respective views. I had 
 Paul and Peter, James and John, on the same 
 table ; I took nothing upon trust. I do not care 
 for the authority, reputation, or standing of one of 
 the systems, a grain of sand. I never weighed the 
 consequences of embracing any one of the systems 
 as affecting my standing or reputation in the 
 world. Truth — not who says so — was my sole ob- 
 ject. I found much entertainment in the investi- 
 gation. And I will not blush, nor do I fear, to 
 say, that in the controversy, Sandeman was like a 
 giant among dwarfs. He was like Samson with 
 the gates and posts of Gaza upon his shoulders. 
 I was the most prejudiced against him, and the 
 most in favor of Hervey, when I commenced this 
 course of reading. Yet I now believe that not one 
 of them was exactly on the track of the apostles. 
 I have also read Fuller's strictures on Sandeman- 
 ianism, which I suppose to be the medium of most 
 of the information possessed on that subject in 
 this country. This is the poorest performance 
 
 Andrew Fuller ever gave the world." " And the 
 
 fact is (which he indirectly acknowledges) that 
 Andrew Fuller was indebted more to John Glass 
 and Robert Sandeman than to any two men in 
 Britain for the best part of his views. I will not 
 pause to inquire whether he wrote those strictures 
 to save himself from the obloquy of being called a 
 
DISCIPLES OF CHRIST. 
 
 83 
 
 Sandemanian, as some conjecture, or whether he 
 wrote them to give a blow to Archibald M ' Lean 
 of Edinburg, who had driven him from the arena 
 some years before ; but I will say it is a very poor 
 production, and proves nothing that either Robert 
 Sandeman or Archibald M ' Lean felt any concern 
 in opposing." 
 
 Mr. C. further says, " that while he was well 
 acquainted with all this controversy, and while he 
 acknowledged himself debtor to Glass, Sandeman, 
 Hervey, Cudworth, Fuller and M'Lean, as much 
 as to Luther, Calvin and John Wesley, he can- 
 didly and unequivocally avowed that he did not 
 believe any one of them had a clear and consistent 
 view of the Christian religion as a whole." 
 
 Still further, he continues : " While I thus ac- 
 knowledge myself a debtor to those persons, I 
 must say that the debt, in most instances, is a 
 very small one. I am indebted, upon the whole, 
 as much to their errors as to their virtues, for 
 these have been to me as beacons to the mariner, 
 who might otherwise have run upon the rocks and 
 shoals. * * * For the last ten years I have 
 not looked into the works of any of these men, 
 and have lost the taste which I once had for con- 
 troversial reading of this sort. And during this 
 period my inquiries into the Christian religion 
 have been almost exclusively confined to the Scrip- 
 tures. * * * I call no man master upon the 
 earth; and although my own father has been a 
 
84 
 
 OKIGIN OF THE 
 
 diligent student and teacher of the Christian relig- 
 ion since his youth, and, in my opinion, under- 
 stands this book as well as any person with whom 
 I am acquainted, yet there is no man with whom 
 I have debated more, and reasoned more than he. 
 I have been so long disciplined in the school of 
 free inquiry, that if I know my own mind, there is 
 not a man upon the earth whose authority can in- 
 fluence me any further than he comes with the au- 
 thority of evidence, reason and truth." 
 
 The ring of these sentences is very clear. There 
 is no affectation, not the least, of concealment. 
 Indebtedness — such as really existed — is frankly 
 acknowledged ; yet the narrow limitations of such 
 indebtedness — a fact which is as certain as the 
 other — is distinctly affirmed. 
 
 In the Christian Baptist (Vol. V. Page 398-400), 
 may be found another letter from Dr. Semple, with 
 another rej^ly from Mr. Campbell. It seems that 
 some one writing in the Baptist Recorder over the 
 signature of Querens, desired to see Dr. S. enter 
 the lists as a debater against Mr. Campbell's 
 teaching. To this, the good doctor replied that 
 there was no need of such a discussion. He says: 
 "Mr. Campbell's views are not new, at least not 
 many of them — Sandeman, Glass, the Haldanes 
 were master spirits upon this system many years 
 ago. And they were effectually answered by Ful- 
 ler and others. * * * If I am called upon, 
 then, to establish my assertions as to Mr. Camp- 
 
DISCIPLES OF CHRIST. 
 
 85 
 
 bell's views, I refer Querens, and all such, to Ful- 
 ler's work against Sandeman, &c. I do not know 
 a word in it that I would alter." To this, Mr. 
 Campbell responds as follows : 
 
 "Nor will it do to say that my views, or the 
 cause which I advocate, has been already refuted 
 by any other person. For this will not be satis- 
 factory. To call me a Sandemanian or Haldanian, 
 a G-lassite, an Arian, or a Unitarian, and to tell 
 the world that the Sandemanians, Haldanians, etc., 
 etc., have done so and so, and have been refuted 
 by such and such a person, is too cheap a method 
 of maintaining human traditions, and too weak to 
 oppose reason and revelation. You might as well 
 nickname me a Sabellian, an Anthropomorphist, a 
 Gnostic, a Nicolaitan, or an Anabaptist, as to 
 palm upon me any of the above systems. I do 
 most unequivocally and sincerely renounce each 
 and every one of these systems. He that imputes 
 any of these systems to me, and ranks me amongst 
 the supporters of them, reproaches me. I do not 
 by this mean to say that there are not in each and 
 all these systems 6 many excellent things,' as 
 Bishop Semple himself once said of them." " Any 
 one that is well read in these systems, must know 
 that the Christian Baptist advocates a cause, and 
 an order of things which not one of them em- 
 braced. I repeat, you have only to apply the 
 golden rule to yourself in this instance, and ask 
 yourself how you would like an opponent to call 
 
86 
 
 ORIGIN OF THE 
 
 you a Fullerite, a Hopkinsian, an Anabaptist, or 
 something worse, in order to refute your senti- 
 ments, when you cordially renounce the systems 
 laid to your charge." 
 
 In the above extract I have italicized, as the 
 reader will notice, this one sentence: "I do most 
 unequivocally and sincerely renounce each and 
 every one of these systems." That this declara- 
 tion was not only sincere on Mr. Campbell's part, 
 but that it expressed the simple fact of his rela- 
 tion to these systems, will not be denied by any 
 one who understands either the systems in ques- 
 tion or the aims and principles of Mr. Campbell. 
 And this in spite of any similarity in the use of 
 phrases, such as " the ancient gospel," " the an- 
 cient order," etc., or any agreement in certain doc- 
 trinal aspects of these systems, which neither Mr. 
 Campbell nor the Disciples have ever denied. 
 The most fundamental conception in our move- 
 ment, that which gave the mould and form to the 
 whole of it, lies entirely outside, as we shall see 
 presently, of all these systems. But meantime we 
 need to pursue the present phase of our investiga- 
 tion a little further, before dismissing it entirely. 
 Elder William Jones, of London, England, a name 
 not unknown to fame, was a zealous Baptist of the 
 Scotch, or Haldanian school. Between this gentle- 
 man and Mr. Campbell there occurred a note- 
 worthy correspondence, parts of which bear im- 
 mediately upon the subject now before us. Mr. 
 
DISCIPLES OF CHRIST. 
 
 87 
 
 Jones seemed, for a time, to be greatly impressed 
 with Mr. Campbell's work in America, and notic- 
 ing certain features of it, did not hesitate to 
 identify it, in essentials, with the system which lie 
 himself advocated. He speaks of the " Scotch 
 Baptist churches" — addressing Mr. Campbell — 
 u out of which yours in America took their origin, 
 as I think you will not deny." He seems to feel 
 that Mr. C. was scarcely willing to do justice to 
 these Scotch Baptists, or to acknowledge the real 
 extent of his indebtedness to them. He more than 
 intimates the existence of some sort of vainglory, 
 in the desire to appear more original than he 
 really was. This desire, he thought, had led him 
 to undervalue the work of Archibald M ' Lean and 
 his coadjutors, Braidwood, Ingles, Peddie, etc., 
 etc., in the Scotch Baptist connexion. In this vein 
 he wrote a long letter, which will be found in the 
 Millennial Harbinger, for 1835, page 295. I need 
 make no extracts from this letter. It is a spirited 
 vindication of the Scotch Baptists, but betrays an 
 utter inability to distinguish between them and 
 the movement Mr. Campbell was leading in xlnier- 
 ica. This, perhaps, should not be thought strange, 
 since mere incidental resemblances in detail are 
 often mistaken by thoughtless persons for identity 
 in essential principles. Besides, Elder Jones' ac- 
 quaintance with Mr. Campbell's writings was at 
 this time very imperfect, and he was not nearly so 
 anxious to claim kinship with him when he dis- 
 
88 
 
 ORIGIN OF THE 
 
 covered a disposition on Mr. C.'s part to treat 
 somewhat irreverently the strict Calvinism of the 
 communities whose cause lie plead so earnestly. 
 True, he repudiates " hyper-Calvinism,'' and says, 
 "My recollection does not at this moment furnish 
 me with the names of three individuals who are 
 tinctured" with it. But, at the same time, Mr. 
 Jones, if not a k * hyper-Calvinist," was really a 
 Calvinist of a very " strait" fashion, as the event 
 clearly showed. This, however, would have made 
 no difference with Mr. Campbell, as regards the 
 matter of fellowship. The difference in this case 
 came from the other side. And this single fact 
 discloses, partially at least, the wide difference 
 between the two systems. But I wish to quote 
 briefly from Mr. Campbell's reply to Elder Jones' 
 letter. I begin near the close of the 103d page : 
 
 " How much the reformation for which we plead 
 is indebted to the labors of those revered fathers 
 of the Scotch Baptist churches, I am not able to 
 say. For my own part, I am greatly indebted to 
 all the reformers, from Martin Luther down to 
 John Wesley. I could not enumerate or particu- 
 larize the individuals, living and dead, who have 
 assisted in forming my mind. I am in some way 
 indebted to some person or other for every idea I 
 have on every subject. Dilworth and McCrae, 
 with their spelling-books — Euclid, Locke, Bacon 
 and Newton, and ten thousand others, cast an eye 
 upon me." — "How many have, in the way of 
 
DISCIPLES OF CHRIST. 
 
 89 
 
 moral causation, excited my mind to this train of 
 reasoning, or to the examination of this fact or 
 that incident, I am now, and will be while life 
 lasts, wholly unable to say." * * * "I may 
 therefore be indirectly indebted to Archibald 
 M ' Lean, for example, more than I am aware. 
 A few years after my immersion, I read one vol- 
 ume of his tracts, and I don't know that I have 
 ever read but his review of Wardlaw's Lectures, 
 his Reply to Fuller, a Defense of Believer's Bap- 
 tism, The Substance of two discourses on Faith, 
 preached at Kingston-on-Hull, and a treatise on 
 the Commission." * * " But while on this sub- 
 ject of originality, and the acknowledgment of 
 literary and moral debts of thought, I soon found 
 that our worthy friend M ' Lean and the Edinburg 
 school had drawn largely and liberally from the 
 writings and labors of Robert Ferrier, Jas. Smith, 
 John Glass, etc., that school which began its oper- 
 ations in 1728, about 40 years before the date of 
 the Scotch Baptist churches." * * "This 
 egotistic narrative is due to my Scotch and English 
 brethren. I would have them know that we 
 are in possession of all their knowledge, and 
 thankfully acknowledge our debts to the great and 
 wise and good men who have gone before us. I 
 thank my Heavenly Father that I was born at the 
 proper time, and on the best spot on the earth, 
 and surrounded with the best set of circumstances 
 to afford me the best religious education which the 
 
90 
 
 ORIGIN OF THE 
 
 19th century could furnish." And yet after all 
 these acknowledgments, Mr. C. goes on to insist 
 that he had " views of the Christian Institution 
 wholly new as far as the works of all the schools 
 to which he had alluded were concerned.' 1 It is 
 scarcely worth while to say that these things 
 wholly new, as regards these schools, were consid- 
 ered by Mr. C, and are now considered by all the 
 Disciples, as the most fundamental and far-reach- 
 ing features of his attempt to restore the apostolic 
 gospel aiid institutions to the world. Nor can any 
 well-informed man question this fact, unless his 
 prejudices have gotten the better of his judgment. 
 The resemblance to the Scotch Baptists is merely a 
 coincidence in certain features, while the inform- 
 ing principle, the moulding and fashioning idea of 
 the later movement is altogether different. We do 
 not care to insist upon this fact, except to vindi- 
 cate the truth of history and give honor to whom 
 honor is due. We would just as soon trace our 
 origin to the Scoth Baptists, or the Sandemanians, 
 as to any other human source, if such were the 
 case. Why should we care ? The only question 
 we ask is, What is truth? What is from God? 
 We are concerned not a farthing as to who said a 
 thing, or who before us has taught as we teach, 
 till we get back to Christ and his apostles. The 
 authority of Alexander Campbell sits as lightly 
 upon our consciences as that of Fuller, or Gill, or 
 Sandeman, when we find him contending against 
 
DISCIPLES OF CHRIST/ 
 
 91 
 
 right reason, or the word of God. " Sworn to no 
 master, of no sect am I," is true of every man who 
 clearly understands himself, as a Disciple of Jesus 
 Christ. Nothing is truth to him, till he finds it in 
 the oracles of God, so far as his religion is con 
 cerned. He may respect and love the great and 
 good men who have gone before him, but he be- 
 lieves in Jesus only. 
 
 It is due to the memory of Mr. Campbell, that 
 his personal testimony, concerning the matters 
 treated of in this chapter, should be fairly and 
 fully stated. It so happens that there is no lack 
 of material for this purpose. In the Millennial 
 Harbinger for 1848, will be found a series of arti- 
 cles devoted to these very questions. The first 
 number of this series begins on page 279. I quote 
 the following from page 280 : 
 
 " The question has often been propounded to me 
 — how came you by your present views of the 
 Christian religion ? Are they original or derived \ 
 If original, by what process of reason ? If derived, 
 from what authority or source? These are ques- 
 tions of but little consequence to any individual. 
 The capital question is, are they well founded?" 
 
 To this, Mr. C. presently adds : " There are no 
 new discoveries in Christianity. Our whole relig- 
 ion^ objectively and doctrinally considered, is 
 found in a book. Whatever in Christianity is 
 new, is not true. Whatever is true, is contained 
 in the commonly received and acknowledged books 
 
92 
 
 ORIGIN OF THE 
 
 of the Old and New Testaments, or Covenants." 
 The whole question, he urges, k 'is one of interpre- 
 tation." It has respect to what is written in these 
 books. But still the question recurs : 
 
 " How were you led to interpret the Scriptures 
 differently, and to teach and practice differently 
 from what you once thought, and believed and 
 practiced? Well, as these may be useful to 
 others, I will answer the question by the narration 
 of a few incidents, anecdotes and facts, some of 
 which, never before published, may be of use to 
 others, and lead them to a new mode of thinking 
 and acting, as well as of enjoying the Christian 
 religion." 
 
 It will be seen that the very question which fur- 
 nishes the thesis for Prof. AVhitsitt's book, is that 
 which Mr. Campbell here sets himself to answer. 
 He begins, of course, with what he regards as the 
 essential starting point of his investigations, the 
 point of his departure from the views in which he had 
 been trained by his honored father, and the church 
 of which he had been a member from his infancy. 
 He does not deny his intellectual indebtedness to 
 any one, orthodox or heterodox, Catholic or Prot- 
 estant. His task is to give faithfully the lines 
 along which his mind, as he devoutly believed, 
 had been providentially led from first to last. 
 This would answer the question which men were 
 asking him ; the very question, as I have said, 
 which Mr. AVhitsitt attempts to answer in his pre- 
 
DISCIPLES OF CHRIST. 
 
 98 
 
 tentious little book. Where, then, does he place 
 the initial movement of this whole process of study 
 and development, which issued in the formation of 
 the views, to the advocacy of which he gave the 
 maturest and most fruitful years of his life ? If a 
 man wished to know the real answer to Prof. 
 Whitsitt's question, here is the place to obtain it. 
 All the essential facts are here given in a most 
 straightforward and lucid way. There can be no 
 excuse for ignorance in the matter at all. It is 
 not said that no impression had been made upon 
 his mind by Greville Ewing, or John Walker, or 
 any one else, but as the real point of departure, 
 as the initial impulse of all that he himself re 
 garded as most characteristic in his conception of 
 the Christian religion, he refers us to certain words 
 which deeply impressed him, and set his mind to 
 work in an entirely new direction. I still quote 
 from the Harbinger, as above, page 280 : 
 
 "The first proof-sheet that I ever read was a 
 form of my father's Declaration" and Address 
 in press in Washington, Pennsylvania, on my ar- 
 rival there in October, 1809. There were in it the 
 following sentences: 6 Nothing ought to be re- 
 ceived into the faith or worship of the church, or 
 be made a term of communion amongst Christians, 
 that is not as old as the New Testament. Nor 
 ought anything to be admitted as of divine obliga- 
 tion, in the church constitution and management, 
 but what is expressly enjoined by the authority 
 
94 
 
 ORIGIN OF THE 
 
 of our Lord Jesus Christ and his apostles upon the 
 Xew Testament church ; either in" express terms 
 
 OR BY APPROVED PRECEDENT.' " 
 
 . These words, be it noted, relate to the constitu- 
 tion of the church of Christ, to its principle of af- 
 filiation and bond of brotherhood. If they mean 
 anything — and the man is queerly constituted who 
 does not perceive their far-reaching import — they 
 relate to what is fundamental in the church as a 
 divine institution, and are, therefore, of the high- 
 est importance. These last words, Mr. Campbell 
 says, "made a deep impression" on his mind. 
 The attempt of Prof. Whitsitt to connect Alexan- 
 der Campbell with the preparation of this address 
 is entirely gratuitous, not to say impertinent. It 
 is puerile if gravely held; as the device of an ad- 
 vocate, it is scarcely less than contemptible. Mr. 
 Campbell speaks of these words as the words of 
 his father. He expressly says, " They made a 
 deep impression on my mind." You must dis- 
 credit utterly his own testimony before you can 
 believe that lie had anything to do with the put- 
 ting of these words into the address. Mr. C. says 
 there was " ambiguity about the * approved prece- 
 dent,' but none about 4 express terms.'" These 
 words became a study to him. He " reasoned with 
 himself and others" on the matters involved in 
 them. Like any man who sees for the first time 
 the force of a great and fruitful generalization, his 
 whole intellectual nature was quickened and 
 
DISCIPLES OF CHRIST. 
 
 95 
 
 aroused. He "reasoned with himself and with 
 others/' This expression well indicates his ab- 
 sorption with the theme, and shows at the same 
 time its causal relation to the whole development 
 which followed. While these studies, these "rea- 
 sonings with himself and others," were going on, 
 he met with Rev. Mr. Riddle of the Presbyterian 
 church, and introduced the matter to him. But 
 Mr. Riddle, admitting the words in question to be 
 plausible, pronounced them unsound. "If you 
 follow them out," said he, " you must become a 
 Baptist." This was well said. Bat there was 
 more in these words than mere Baptistism, as distin- 
 guished from Presbyterianism. And it was this 
 excess of meaning beyond the baptismal question 
 which was the secret of their absorbing interest to 
 Mr. C, for it appears that he had not yet weighed 
 their bearing on that particular controversy. His 
 father, who had written the address, had not sus- 
 pected the conclusion wrapped up in his own 
 formula. Like many another man, he was provi- 
 dentially " building wiser than he knew," as the 
 sequel clearly proved. "What," said Mr. C, in 
 response to Mr. Riddle, "is there no express pre- 
 cept for, nor precedent of, infant baptism in the 
 Scriptures?" Doctor Riddle said, "Not one." 
 Mr. Campbell says, "I was startled." "Turning 
 to Mr. Andrew Monroe, the principal bookseller of 
 Jefferson College, Cannonsburg, Pa., I said, ' send 
 me, if you please, forthwith, all the treatises you 
 
96 
 
 ORIGIN OF THE 
 
 have in favor of infant baptism.'" The treatises 
 were sent. And here began, unexpectedly, as the 
 circumstances show, the studies which ended in 
 the immersion of the Campbells, and the forma- 
 tion of the church at Brush Run, Pennsylvania, on 
 the foundation divinely ordained by our Lord 
 Jesus Christ. The account of this matter given in 
 Prof. Whitsitt's book, (ch. viii) is a miserable per- 
 version of the facts. A careful manipulation of 
 extracts from Dr. Richardson's Life of Campbell, 
 skillfully interwoven with suggestive inventions 
 from his own brain, imparts an appearance of 
 plausibility to a story which wrongs the Campbells, 
 and leaves our author without the slightest claim 
 to the character of an impartial historian. It is a 
 conspicuous example of what is, alas! too common 
 — viz: perversion of history to serve the purpose 
 of a party. Fair-minded Baptists have affirmed 
 as much, and it is greatly to their credit that they 
 have done so.* 
 
 Mr. Campbell says he never inquired for any- 
 thing on the Baptist side. He was impressed with 
 the idea that they were an ignorant people, and 
 had no thought of deriving assistance from such a 
 source. He had read John Bunyan's Pilgrim's 
 Progress, but knew not that he was a Baptist. It 
 is not strange that Mr. C. should have had such 
 an impression regarding the Baptists of that day. 
 It is doubtful whether one young man in a hun- 
 
 *See Appendix. 
 
DISCIPLES OF CHRIST. 
 
 97 
 
 dred of Presbyterian raising had a different view. 
 Besides, the Baptists were not then the educated 
 people they are now. They had had men of dis- 
 tinction among themselves, but even their ablest 
 men had won little recognition among the Pedo- 
 Baptist sects. All the members of "the Washing- 
 ton Christian Association" were Presbyterians, and 
 hostile to Baptist views. Mr. C. says expressly 
 that he " was better pleased with Presby terianisni 
 than anything else, and desired, if possible, to 
 maintain it.'' (Har. p. 281). His study of the 
 books sent him did not impress him at all favora- 
 bly. Indignant at their assumptions and falla- 
 cious reasonings,"' he threw them aside in disgust, 
 and lied to his Greek Xew Testament with a hope 
 of finding something more satisfactory. But here 
 he found no resting-place for the sole of his foot. 
 He went to his father for help. It was a question 
 of "precept and precedent," of course. It was 
 from this point of view his inquiries had begun, 
 and his investigations had undoubtedly taken 
 that direction throughout. His father conceded 
 the whole ground as to the precept or precedent 
 for infant baptism, but, " strange to tell," says the 
 son, " took the ground that once in the church, 
 and participants of the Lord's Supper, we could 
 not ' unchurch or paganize ourselves ' — and com- 
 mence again as would a heathen man and a publi- 
 can." (H. p. 281). They went into discussion. 
 The father admitted that they ought not to teach 
 
98 
 
 ORIGIN OF THE 
 
 or practice infant baptism without divine author- 
 ity, that they ought to practice only the apostolic 
 baptism, but insisted that they ought not to un- 
 christianize themselves after having professed and 
 preached the Christian faith, and participated in 
 its most solemn ordinances. This and kindred 
 questions were discussed for " many months." 
 Finally the end came. Alexander told his father 
 — he says '-with great reluctance" — that he dis- 
 sented from all his reasonings upon the subject, 
 and that he must be baptized. He was now fully 
 satisfied, as he expressly tells us, that he had 
 never been baptized, and to have hesitated, would 
 have been to be untrue to his deliberate convic- 
 tions. It was doubtless a great struggle, but 
 Alexander Campbell was not the sort of a man 
 that hesitates long, when Scripture and conscience 
 demand a forward movement, at whatever cost of 
 cherished memories and affections. What his 
 father might do, what other dear friends might do, 
 he knew not. The decision made was by him- 
 self, and for* himself alone. The baptism accord- 
 ingly took place, but " greatly to his gratifica- 
 tion," his father and sister, his wife, and several 
 others went with him. He had stipulated with 
 Elder Luce, the administrator, that he should be 
 baptized upon the New Testament confession of 
 Jesus as the Christ, the Son of God. Perhaps 
 Prof. Whitsitt would regard this scrupulous ad- 
 herence to the scriptural formula of profession as 
 
DISCIPLES OF CHRIST. 
 
 99 
 
 a specimen of Sandemanian " literalism," but he 
 does not intimate that it was a slavish following 
 of Sandemanian precedent. He says indeed that 
 it was stipulated that the baptism " should be 
 performed into the name of the Father, etc., and 
 not in the name, as was then, and now is usual 
 among the Regular Barjtists." This, he tells us, 
 was "in due subjection to the authority of Archi- 
 bald M ' Lean." Does Prof. Whitsitt intend to be 
 understood as taking position against this render- 
 ing of the commission ? Of course he does not. 
 What then can save his statement from classifica- 
 tion with the characteristic devices of all dema- 
 gogues? Verily, the wily and unscrupulous 
 leaders of our partisan politics are not the only 
 demagogues in the world. 
 
 The baptism of the Campbells took place on 
 the 12th day of June, 1812. In his usual sneering 
 manner, Mr. Whitsitt says that " during the 
 period between the year 1812 and 1820, Alexander 
 relapsed into a condition of mere vegetation." 
 Vegetation, forsooth ! There is every reason to be- 
 lieve that this was one of the most important periods 
 of his life, the period pre-eminently in which the 
 great germinal principles that shaped the thought 
 and work of his whole life were becoming dis- 
 tinctly formed in his mind. Concerning this very 
 period, Mr. C. writes — Harbinger 1848 P. 344 — 
 u The position of baptism itself to the other insti- 
 tutions of Christ became a new subject of examin- 
 
100 
 
 ORIGIN OF THE 
 
 ation, and a very absorbing one. A change of 
 any one's views in any radical matter in all its 
 practical bearings and effects upon all his views, 
 not only in reference to that simple result, but 
 also in reference to all its connections with the 
 whole system of which it is a part, is not to be 
 computed a priori, by himself or any one else.*' 
 The change of his views on baptism, according to 
 Mr. C. himself, was the beginning of a most care- 
 ful study of the whole Christian religion from the 
 standpoint of the advance already made. <; I must 
 know now two things about everything — its cause 
 and its relations. Hence my mind was for a time 
 set loose from all its moorings. It was not a sim- 
 ple change of views on baptism, which happens a 
 thousand times without anything more, but a new 
 commencement. I was placed on a new eminence 
 — a new peak of the mountain of God, from which 
 the whole landscape of Christianty presented it- 
 self to my mind in a new attitude and position. " 
 " Mere vegetation,'' indeed! Did Paul "relapse 
 into a condition of mere vegetation" during that 
 mysterious sojourn in Arabia after his conversion? 
 Perhaps Prof. Whitsitt thinks so ; and if he were 
 writing a caricature of the apostle's life, instead of 
 Alexander Campbell's, it would be exactly like 
 him to say so. Paul has nowhere given in detail 
 the processes of elaboration and adjustment 
 through which his mind had struggled into the 
 full light of the gospel, but that he had such an 
 
DISCIPLES OF CHRIST. 
 
 101 
 
 experience of the gradual opening up of the truth 
 to his soul cannot be doubted. A great intellect 
 like Paul's must have time to take its bearings, 
 and shape the outline of its activities in the new 
 field of sacrifice and toil, which now lay before 
 him. Paul did not "vegetate;" nor did Alex- 
 ander Campbell. Neither of them was that sort 
 of man. 
 
 Prof. Whitsitt speaks very slightingly of Mr. 
 Campbell's sermon on The Law, delivered in 1S1G, 
 in the very midst of the period designated as one 
 of "mere vegetation" — doubtless because there is 
 nothing in it (although he more than insinuates 
 the contrary) which tends to strengthen the thesis 
 which he has undertaken to prove. If he had 
 really wished to follow Mr. Campbell along the 
 lines of his actual growth in divine knowledge, he 
 would not have passed over this memorable dis- 
 course so lightly. The fact is, that, more than 
 anything else in our possession, this sermon indi- 
 cates the true nature of the revolution which was 
 going on in his mind. The germs indeed of very 
 much of the most characteristic teaching of his 
 life are contained in it. The clear, comprehensive 
 and fruitful distinction between the old and new 
 Covenants, between Christianity and Judaism, be- 
 tween the law and the gospel, which did so much 
 to shape the whole movement of the Disciples, is 
 here fully propounded and convincingly argued. 
 And so far away is the general tenor of the dis- 
 
102 
 
 ORIGIN OF THE 
 
 course from the fixed grooves of Sandemanian the- 
 ology, that so distinguished a leader of the Scotch 
 Baptists as Elder William Jones of London — a 
 Sandemanian, as Prof. Whitsitt would say, of the 
 Immersion observance — boldly rejected it as down- 
 right Antinomianism. Criticising an article in 
 The Christian Baptist of exactly the same pur- 
 port, he says : 
 
 "Here is a strange affair indeed; Mr. Campbell, 
 who exhibits the Scotch Baptists " (Sandemanians, 
 according to Prof. Whitsitt, of the immersion ob- 
 servance) " of this country as being c fettered and 
 manacled and paralyzed by the stays of Hyper- 
 Calvinism,' is himself found chiming in with the 
 Hyper-Calvinists, the only party on this side the 
 Atlantic that has the least hesitation in admitting 
 the perpetual obligation of the Decalogue, and on 
 a point too in which the Scotch Baptist churches 
 are firmly agreed in opposing both. On this point 
 you are quite out of our camp, and we find you in 
 that of our enemies." — Harbinger — 1835. Page 
 540. 
 
 This extract, as I have said, is part of Elder 
 Jones' comment upon an article to the same effect 
 as the sermon on The Law to which our Professor 
 refers in a semi-contemptuous vein. But as a 
 matter of fact this sermon demonstrates that Mr. 
 Campbell's mind was not only moving in direc- 
 tions wholly unsuggested by those teachers whom 
 Prof. Whitsitt represents him as slavishly fol- 
 
DISCIPLES OF CHRIST. 
 
 103 
 
 lowing, but oftentimes reaching conclusions ut- 
 terly opposed to their most fundamental ideas. 
 This will not be questioned, I believe, by any can- 
 did person acquainted with all the facts. That 
 my readers may see clearly what fruitful germs 
 are contained in this sermon, I give the following 
 extracts: "Now, is it not most obvious that this 
 text (Gal. iii : 24) and context, instead of counte- 
 nancing law-preaching, condemn it \ The scope 
 of it is to show that whatever use the law served 
 as a schoolmaster previous to Christ, it no longer 
 serves that use. And now that Christ has come, 
 we are no longer under it.'' * * * "Some, not- 
 withstanding the plainness of this doctrine, may 
 urge their own experience as contrary to it. It 
 would, however, be as safe for Christians to make 
 divine truth a test of their experience, and not 
 their experience a test of divine truth. Some in- 
 dividuals have been awakened by the appearance 
 of the Aurora Borealis, by an earthquake, by a 
 thunder-storm, by a dream, by sickness, etc. How 
 inconsistent for one of these to affirm from his own 
 experience that others must be awakened in the 
 same way ! How incompatible with truth for 
 others to preach such occurrences as preliminary 
 to saving conversion!" . . . u A fourth conclu- 
 sion which is deducible from the above premises 
 is, that all arguments and motives, drawn from 
 the law, or Old Testament, to urge the disciples of 
 Christ to baptize their infants; to pay tithes to 
 
104 
 
 ORIGIN OF THE 
 
 their teachers ; to observe holy days or religious 
 fasts, as preparatory to the observance of the 
 Lord's supper; to sanctify the seventh day; to 
 enter into national covenants ; to establish any 
 form of religion by civil law ; — and all reasons and 
 motives borrowed from the Jewish law to excite 
 the disciples of Christ to a compliance with, or 
 imitation of, Jewish customs, are inconclusive, re- 
 pugnant to Christianity, and fall ineffectual to the 
 ground ; not being enjoined or countenanced by 
 the Lord Jesus Christ." 
 
 This last sentence is the key-note to the entire 
 sermon. The authority of Moses has been super- 
 seded. Everything stands or falls accordingly as 
 it is supported or unsupported by Christ's author- 
 ity. Nothing is binding now because Moses com- 
 manded it. Only the things of Moses which have 
 been " repromulged " by Jesus Christ are binding 
 on his disciples. Prof. Whitsitt may not think 
 very highly of the doctrine of this sermon, but he 
 can find no vestige of Sandemanianism in it. For 
 all that, however, it follows very closely, if not 
 >; slavishly," one of Mr. Campbell's great leaders 
 — the apostle to the Gentiles. 
 
 The year 1820, which is fixed by our Professor 
 as the later limit of this assumed vegetation 
 period, brings us to the debate with Mr. Walker, 
 the Presbyterian, and to the beginning of Mr. 
 Campbell's career as an author. The M'Calla de- 
 bate and the Christian Baptist came in 1823, and 
 
DISCIPLES OF CHRIST. 
 
 105 
 
 from that time on his whole public life was before 
 the eyes of the world. Much that he wrote in the 
 earlier years of his editorial activity must be 
 taken as tentative rather than final. His mind 
 was in the growing stage even yet, and the conclu- 
 sions then reached often failed, no doubt, to com- 
 mand the assent of his judgment at a later period. 
 It is always so in great mental revolutions. And 
 the religious reformer must therefore be studied in 
 the light of this inexorable law which shapes our 
 progress in every sort of knowledge. To its oper- 
 ation there has been thus far no exception in 
 human history. 
 
106 
 
 ORIGIN OF THE 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 A MOST FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCE. 
 
 Compared with the varieties of the Scottish In- 
 dependent, whether Baptist or Pedo-Baptist, the 
 history of the Disciples exhibits from the com- 
 mencement a most striking difference. From the 
 first step taken, the Campbells looked to the union 
 of Christians as one special object of their labors. 
 If they rejected human creeds, it was beause they 
 were essentially schismatic in their tendencies. 
 If they repudiated the jargon of scholasticism, it 
 was that hindrances to Christian unity might be 
 gotten out of the way. If they emphasized the 
 simple features of the apostolic gospel, and church 
 order, it was because they were firmly persuaded 
 that the catholicity of our Lord's prayer (Jno. 17) 
 could never be attained upon any complex doc- 
 trinal basis of human contrivance. If they would 
 have no term of fellowship not enjoined by our 
 Lord Jesus Christ, either in express precept, or by 
 good, sound precedent, the reason was still the 
 same. The restoration of the New Testament 
 faith and polity was no doubt a thing to be sought 
 on its own account, but the necessity of seeking it 
 first became clear to them, when engaged in study- 
 ing the conditions of spiritual and ecclesiastical 
 fellowship. Abraham Lincoln once said, in sub- 
 
DISCIPLES OF CHRIST. 
 
 107 
 
 stance: "My business is to preserve the Union. 
 Whatever I do has reference to this one thing es- 
 pecially. If I set the slaves free, it will be to save 
 the Union ; if I can save the Union better without 
 setting them free, then I shall not set them free. 
 The one thing to be done is to save the Union." 
 It was very much so with the Campbells. They 
 had seen the evil of division. Sectism was to them 
 a sin of no common magnitude. From this great 
 sin they felt that our common Protestantism 
 should be saved. It was at this point our move- 
 ment began, and this end has never been lost sight 
 of for a moment, in our whole history. It is im- 
 possible now that we should lose sight of it at any 
 future period. We must ever pray in the words 
 of our Lord; "that they may all be one, as the 
 Father and the Son are one, to the end that the 
 world may believe." We have always empha- 
 sized the importance of unity as no other Protes- 
 tant community has done. And to-day, when it is 
 fashionable to plead that Evangelical Protestant- 
 ism has all the unity the Lord ever contemplated, 
 our voice is still heard above the din and clamor 
 of sects pleading in the Master's name for a union 
 of disciples of which the only adequate measure is 
 the oneness of God and his Son, Jesus Christ; a 
 union which shall be outward and actual, so that 
 the world may be constrained to believe in God's 
 love, manifest through his Son, to our whole sin- 
 ning and dying race. To urge this plea for Chris- 
 
108 
 
 OKIGIN OF THE 
 
 tian unity, as no other people is urging it, is one 
 of the reasons of our existence ; one of the reasons 
 which shall justify our presence among the active 
 forces of Christendom, in the day when God shall 
 judge the world. Of this, we can no more doubt, 
 than we can call in question the words of the Mas- 
 ter upon which our faith is built. 
 
 The whole Scotch school of Independents, whether 
 headed by Glass and Sandeman, or M'Lean 
 and the Haldanes, overlooked this great ques- 
 tion almost entirely. They sought doctrinal truth, 
 as the one paramount object of all their investiga- 
 tions and discussions. I do not say that they lost 
 sight of everything else absolutely, but I do say 
 that their chief distinction was doctrinal and spec- 
 ulative. Of the scriptural basis of ecclesiastical 
 fellowship and co-operation, they seem to have 
 had no clear conception at all. To differ doctrin- 
 ally on some hair-splitting abstraction, was to in- 
 sure division and the formation of a new party. 
 The sect-making tendency, which has been the 
 bane of Protestantism from the days of Luther and 
 Calvin, was pre-eminently the bane of Scotch In- 
 dependency. They were born separatists, one and 
 all. In the light of eternity, this will be the chief 
 thing to be said against them. The Sandemanian 
 errors regarding faith, for which they have had 
 many hard things written about them in our time, 
 will then appear to be venial blunders, compared 
 with this more serious mistake. Separation r with- 
 
DISCIPLES OF CHRIST. 
 
 109 
 
 out a justifying necessity* in the sight of God, is 
 a great sin. 
 
 From the inception of their work, the Campbells 
 seem to have caught the true scriptural idea of 
 ecclesiastical fellowship. They soon learned to 
 distinguish broadly between the faith which saves 
 men, and doctrinal beliefs which neither save nor 
 condemn them. Between the belief with the heart 
 that Jesus is the Christ, God's only begotten Son, 
 and all the theological opinions which make up 
 our various Protestant orthodoxies, they drew a 
 broad, bold line, and made it ever thereafter in- 
 effaceable. The faith that saves the soul, they 
 said, is the faith which unites to God, and which 
 should unite God's children to one another. The 
 faith which God accepts, his church should accept 
 also. If God cares not for our theological abstrac- 
 tions, however necessary they may seem to the 
 symmetry of the doctrine of redemption, then we 
 should not care for them. It is a sin to require 
 men to agree with us in matters wherein God does 
 not require agreement with him. With this clear- 
 cut, comprehensive, divine deliverance, the Camp- 
 bells began. They saw many things, no doubt, as 
 in a mirror, very obscurely, but this they saw with 
 a clearness and distinctness, which, under the cir- 
 cumstances, was absolutely marvelous. No doubt 
 others had denounced human creeds before they 
 denounced them, and had talked about the Bible, 
 as a sufficient rule in all matters of faith and life, 
 
110 
 
 ORIGIN OF THE 
 
 before tliey began their distinctive work as re- 
 formers. But the Campbells saw a reason for the 
 repudiation of creeds which others had not seen. 
 They perceived clearly that when used as bonds 
 of fellowship, they rendered the unity of the 
 church an absolute impossibility. There is not a 
 denominational creed in Christendom that does 
 not contain in it dogmatic utterances which lie 
 outside the limits of the common faith — the faith 
 which a man must have, or it is written against 
 him : "He that believe th not shall be condemned." 
 This common faith which all Christians have — 
 which a man must have before he can become a 
 Christian — was the faith-basis of the whole church 
 of God, in the New Testament times. In those 
 days, the one common formula of Christian pro- 
 fession was that which had been divinely ordained 
 — " I believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of 
 God." Arianism and Athanasianism were yet un- 
 known. Augustinianism and Pelagianism had 
 not been heard of. Calvinism and Arminianism 
 lay concealed in the womb of the far-away cen- 
 turies. Mind, we do not object to the formulation 
 of individual beliefs. And if a company of Chris- 
 tian believers should wish to give expression to 
 their theological ideas for general information, we 
 do not say there would be any harm in it. From 
 the days of the Campbells the distinction between 
 such expressions of opinion and the creed-made 
 tests of ecclesiastical fellowship in use throughout 
 
DISCIPLES OF CHRIST. 
 
 Ill 
 
 our modern Christendom, lias been clearly and 
 distinctly drawn. The publication of my individ- 
 ual opinions, simply as my opinions, can harm no 
 one, but the dogmatic proclamation of such opin- 
 ions as a basis of fellowship and church co-opera- 
 tion, is an impertinence in the eyes of God and 
 all thoroughly instructed Christian men. The dif- 
 ference here is open and palpable, and any pie- 
 tended failure to see it is without excuse. A the- 
 ological development, more or less elaborate, from 
 the great germinal ideas of the New Testament 
 was to be expected — was, indeed, according to the 
 fixed laws of human thought, inevitable. It is not 
 against theology, as such, that our movement is a 
 protest. Theology in itself is well enough. Of 
 course, where there are contradictions in theology 
 there must be error, as well as truth. But all the- 
 ology is not error. Our point is this : The unity 
 of believers in one spiritual organism, or fellow- 
 ship was, beyond doubt or denial, the archetypal 
 conception of the church in the mind of the Re- 
 deemer. No man uncommitted to the advocacy of 
 a sect, it is perfectly safe to say, can object to this 
 statement. 
 
 But is this divine ideal of the dear Lord a prac- 
 tical one ? Or is it purely visionary, never to be 
 realized in the church's history ? Everything de- 
 pends on the answer to this question. Mind, I do 
 not ask whether, under the ordinary laws of 
 human thought and association, it has been a 
 
112 
 
 ORIGIN OF THE 
 
 practical ideal in the times which are gone, but is 
 it an ideal that we may expect to see historically 
 realized under God's gracious administration, at 
 any time this side the jugdment day ? Oar move- 
 ment implies the possibility, under God, of a 
 united cnurch. Na}% more ; it implies the hope, 
 the confident persuasion, grounded in Scripture, 
 that the prayer of the Lord Jesus will be realized 
 before the church's mission is accomplished; be- 
 fore the world shall have been converted to Christ. 
 The Papacy maintains, after a sort, an outward 
 unity which the whole world recognizes. But the 
 Papacy is a spiritual despotism. The individual 
 is lost in the collective organization. The Hier- 
 archy controls everything. Free, honest investi- 
 gation for truth's sake, for salvation's sake even, 
 is not to be thought of. The church — that is, the 
 priesthood — does all the thinking which is needed. 
 The individual, even though he be a priest, is 
 mentally a serf. But Protestantism affirms man's 
 spiritual birthright, in Christ. It sets before us 
 an open Bible, and bids us seek truth for our- 
 selves. This is its crown of glory for all the ages. 
 But is division the price of this freedom ? Is our 
 modern denominationalism the best that is possi- 
 ble on the Protestant principle of the right of pri- 
 vate judgment? If such be the case, I do not say 
 we are purchasing our spiritual enfranchisement 
 at too great a cost — for what equivalent is there * 
 for the soul's freedom — but this I say, I do not be. 
 
DISCIPLES OF CHRIST. 
 
 113 
 
 lieve that such is the fact in the case. It is im- 
 possible that such can be the case. If Protestant- 
 ism, in its fundamental idea, be of God, then it 
 does not make our Lord's intercessory prayer an 
 impossibility. But where then is the seat of the 
 trouble, whose existence it were madness to deny ? 
 I answer : In the mistake made by the sixteenth 
 century reformers touching the law of affiliation, 
 or bond of fellowship, in the church of God. The 
 New Testament faith-basis has been rejected, and 
 in its place has been substituted, everywhere, a 
 body more or less complete, of theological opinion. 
 Every Protestant denomination on earth is an ex- 
 ample of such rejection and substitution. The 
 theological articles of faith — so called — differenti- 
 ate the parties, and measure the extent of theolog- 
 ical divergence between them. But is there not, it 
 may be asked, beneath all this diversity of the 
 evangelical denominations, a deeper and most real 
 unity? the unity for which the Lord prayed? 
 To the first question we answer, yes. To the sec- 
 ond question, no. There is a real, vital union, 
 certainly, between all Christians, but any union 
 which is not actual, historical, and therefore out- 
 ward, is not an adequate fulfillment of the Lord's 
 prayer. Remember, Jesus says, " I pray that they 
 may all be one, as we are one, that the world may 
 believe that thou hast sent me." Now, sect-strife, 
 more than anything else, hinders the world's con- 
 version to Christ. It is so here at home. It is 
 
 8 
 
114 
 
 ORIGIN OF THE 
 
 doubly so in heathen lands abroad. This ques- 
 tion is coming home to us more and more. We 
 must face it, whether we wish to do so or not. 
 What our missionaries among the heathen are 
 learning to-day, the Lord Jesus saw, through the 
 vistas of twenty centuries, from the very begin- 
 ning. No ; the Lord's people are not one in the 
 sense of his prayer. This is absolutely certain. 
 They will never be one in that sense until " the 
 rock*' upon which he built his church is restored 
 to its proper place. But this is objected to. Our 
 Lord's idea, we are told, was that of unity in di- 
 versity. Now it must be admitted that " unity in 
 diversity " is a happy phrase, and that it may be 
 used to express a great truth. Only let us beware 
 that we do not employ it to conceal a great false- 
 hood ! It must be plain to every man of sense, 
 that no unity of Christians other than one which 
 is consistent with a certain sort of diversity is at 
 all possible. In theological tenets, Christian men 
 need never expect absolute agreement. It was not 
 so in the beginning, and it is safe to say it never 
 will be. But in faith, saving faith, by universal 
 consent, Christians are, and must ever be, one. 
 Nothing is plainer, therefore, than the fact, that so 
 far as faith is concerned, here is a sufficient basis 
 for a unity both spiritual and ecclesiastical. It 
 will be sufficient, if we require, as a condition of 
 fellowship with us, precisely the same faith which 
 God requires as a condition of fellowship with 
 
DISCIPLES OF CHRIST. 
 
 115 
 
 him. Nay, more ; is it not at our peril that we 
 require anything else? I judge no one; but cer- 
 tainly there is a day of reckoning to come. Judg- 
 ment is to begin at the house of God. 
 
 Now, of these things, the Campbells seem to 
 have had an unusually clear understanding from 
 a very early period in their work. Something like 
 this discloses itself in the first tentative begin- 
 nings in the " Christian Association." It grows 
 clearer at each successive step. Along this line 
 God was leading them. Slowly the wide field is 
 opened up before them, and the progress, upon the 
 whole, is steady in the direction of the first for- 
 ward outlook. The final expression of this great 
 feature in our history is, perhaps, nowhere better 
 put than by Mr. Campbell in his debate with Dr. 
 ~N. L. Rice, at Lexington, Ky. : 
 
 " So is it in our most holy faith. There are but 
 two grand principles in Christianity, two laws re- 
 vealed and developed, whose combination produces 
 similar harmony, beauty, and loveliness in the 
 world of mind as (the centripetal and centrifugal 
 forces) in the world of matter. I must at once de- 
 clare the simplicity of this divine constitution of 
 remedial mercy. It has but three grand ideas 
 peculiar to itself ; and these all concern the King. 
 I am sorry that this mysterious and sublime sim- 
 plicity does not appear to those who set about 
 making constitutions for Christ's kingdom. This 
 confession of omnipotent moral power, because the 
 
116 ORIGIN OF THE 
 
 offspring of infinite wisdom and benevolence, must 
 be learned from one passage, Matt. 16, "Who do 
 men say that I am ?" We must advance one step 
 further — who say you that I am ? Peter in one 
 momentous period expressed the whole affair — 
 ' Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living 
 God.' The two ideas expressed, concern the per- 
 son of the Messiah and his office. The one im- 
 plied concerns his character; for it was through 
 his character, as developed, that Peter recognized 
 his person and his Messiahship. Now, let us take 
 the shoes from off our feet, for we stand on holy 
 ground. ' Blessed art thou, Simon, son of Jonas ; 
 flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but 
 my Father, who is in heaven. And I say unto 
 thee, thou art Peter (a stone) and on this rock I 
 will build my church, and the gates of hell 
 (hades) shall not prevail against it.' It will stand 
 forever. ' I will give unto thee (thyself alone, 
 Peter,) the keys of the kingdom of heaven (my 
 church), and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, 
 shall be bound in heaven ; and whatsoever thou 
 shalt loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven.' 
 Here, then, is the whole revelation of the mystery 
 of the Christian constitution. The full confession 
 of the Christian faith. All that is peculiar to 
 Christianity, is found in these words ; not merely 
 in embryo, but in a clearly expressed outline. A 
 clear perception, and a cordial belief of these two 
 facts will make any man a Christian. 
 
DTSCIPLES OF CHRIST. 
 
 117 
 
 He may carry them out in their vast dimensions 
 and glorious developments, to all eternity. He 
 may ponder upon them until his spirit is trans- 
 formed into the image of God ; until he shines in 
 more than angelic brightness, in all the purity 
 and "beauty of heavenly love. Man glorified in 
 heaven, gifted with immortality, and rapt in the 
 ecstacies of eternal blessedness, is but the mere 
 result of a proper apprehension of, and conformity 
 to, this confession. I am always overwhelmed 
 with astonishment in observing how this document 
 has been disparaged and set at naught by our 
 builders of churches. Yet Jesus calls it the rod'. 
 It is in a figure of a church or a temple, the foun- 
 dation, the rock. When all societies build on this 
 one foundation, and on it only, then there shall be 
 unity of faith, of affection, and of co-operation ; 
 but never till then. Every other foundation is 
 sand. Hence they have all wasted away. Innum- 
 erable parties have perished from the earth ; and 
 so will all the present, built on any other founda- 
 tion than this rock. * * * Their doom is 
 written, ' Dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou 
 return.' " (C. and R. Debate, page 422). 
 
 From this masterly statement I would gladly 
 quote more ; but space forbids. Whoever con- 
 fesses Jesus, as above described, receiving him in 
 his heart as Messiah and Savior, and then, be- 
 cause he has so received him, is baptized into the 
 name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, becomes 
 
118 
 
 ORIGIN OF THE 
 
 thereby a member of the church of God, and is so 
 owned and approved in heaven ; not only so, is 
 thereby entitled to be so owned and approved in 
 every congregation or local church of God on 
 earth. This is the beginning. A life so begun, 
 and continued in faithful conformity to Christ's 
 life, till the end comes, is sure to be approved of 
 God in the judgment. This faith and life consti- 
 tute the Xew Testament law of affiliation, the one 
 divine bond of Christian and church fellowship, 
 ordained by Jesus Christ, till he comes to judge 
 the world. Of some things a man may not feel 
 sure. Of this we are as sure as we are that the 
 only name in which men can be saved is the name 
 of Jesus. Every deviation from this law of divine 
 brotherhood and co-operation is outside the divine 
 charter, and is doomed to failure in the future, as 
 it has failed in the past. This the Campbells 
 clearly saw, and this the Sandemanians and 
 Scotch Baptists, like all other parties, utterly 
 failed to see. If there were nothing else to be 
 said to their honor, there is enough in this single 
 restoration of the primitive ideal to insure to them 
 the reverent regard of true men in all the ages to 
 come. 
 
DISCIPLES OF CHRIST. 
 
 119 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 CERTAIN MATTERS OF DETAIL. 
 
 j?rof. Whitsitt, without a word of authority from 
 any source, seeks to make the impression that the 
 course of Thomas Campbell in America, was really 
 inspired by Alexander, while he was yet in Glas- 
 gow, Scotland. I call attention to the following 
 extract, as a specimen : 
 
 "From the letter of protest that was addressed 
 by Mr. Camj)bell to that body, (the Associate 
 Synod of North America), it may be gathered that 
 the objections urged against him related to the 
 usual Sandemanian scruples concerning the im- 
 propriety of any human standards of belief, and 
 to his advocacy of the customary Sandemanian 
 position that the Scriptures are the only admissi- 
 ble standard, to the exclusion of all kinds of 
 creeds and confessions of faith. Here was the 
 earliest, if not the most brilliant, conquest which 
 Alexander was enabled to make on behalf of San- 
 demanianism." Page 65, 6. 
 
 This intimation of an influence exerted, first 
 upon Alexander Campbell by Greville Ewing, and 
 then upon Thomas Campbell through his son, need 
 not be noticed here, further than to say that there 
 is no shadow of foundation for it anywhere out- 
 side Prof. W.'s own imagination. Not only is it 
 
120 
 
 ORIGIN OF THE 
 
 without authority, the facts are against it. The 
 younger Campbell was in Glasgow, busily pursu- 
 ing his studies in the University, being at the 
 same time charged with the care of his father's 
 family. How should he find time to communicate 
 a programme of reformation to his father in Amer- 
 ica \ It is an idle conceit, unworthy of a Professor 
 in a Baptist Theological School, and incredible to 
 any body but mere partisans. But Thomas Camp- 
 bell, it seems, was following in the track of the 
 Sandemanians, however we may account for it. 
 Prof. AYhitsittt is determined to have it so. This 
 is not true. Were the Sandemanians the only 
 people, who about that time, began to speak 
 words of protest against the despotism of creeds ? 
 By no means. The Baptists in England, not less 
 than their brethren in Scotland, were no advocates 
 of creeds. To this day, they refuse to be bound 
 by them; in spite,, too, of the great influence of 
 their greatest preacher. The roof under which 
 English Baptists assemble for co-operative work 
 must be broad enough to shelter the different 
 schools of doctrine into which the Baptists of the 
 United Kingdom are divided. It has always been 
 so, as we shall see further along. But will our 
 Professor himself contend for a any standards of 
 belief" other than the Scriptures ? Have Ameri- 
 can Baptists any such ''standard!" Standard is 
 our Professor's own word. To have scruples about 
 the use of "human standards" of belief, he regards 
 
DISCIPLES OF CHRIST. 
 
 121 
 
 as proof of Sandemanian heresy ! If this is so, let 
 our Baptist brethren cease prating about their 
 fidelity to the Bible as " the only standard." 
 
 But Thomas Campbell's position, as against 
 creeds, was no mere vague war-cry, or "glittering 
 generality/' He clearly defined what he meant 
 by taking the Bible as the only " standard." 
 Sandemanians and Scotch Baptists inveighed 
 against creeds, but themselves followed the creed- 
 principle. Prof. Whitsitt knows full well that a 
 creed does not need to be written. These parties 
 made their unwritten articles a test of church fel- 
 lowship, no less exactingiy than other sects their 
 written creeds. This can not be denied. It is this 
 which explains their separatists fecundity. But 
 Thomas Campbell began by guarding against sep- 
 aratism, as far as anything can be guarded against 
 in this imperfect human world. Nothing ought to 
 be made a test of fellowship, said he, which is 
 not enjoined by our Lord Jesus Christ; either in 
 express precept or by good and valid precedent. 
 This is what taking the Bible as the only " stan- 
 dard" meant to him. This is not Sandemanian- 
 ism, but apostolical Christianity. It came not 
 from Greville Ewing or the Scotch Baptists, but 
 from the New Testament. The first attempt to 
 build on this foundation, thus clearly outlined, 
 since the days of the early church, was made in 
 this new world by Thomas and Alexander Camp- 
 bell. Let him that denies, show his authority. 
 
122 
 
 ORIGIN OF THE 
 
 The Professor several times intimates that the 
 Sandemanians (including of course the Scotch 
 Baptists) denied any divine influence, outside the 
 gospel testimony, in the production of faith. This 
 is not true. It is a stale charge and ought not to 
 be repeated by any writer who desires the respect 
 of truth-loving men. . 
 
 Touching this question, Robert Sandeman him- 
 self shall speak first. He is quoted as follows, by 
 A. Campbell, in the Harbinger for 1835, p. 356. 
 
 " Two men may be employed with equal dili- 
 gence in studying the Scriptures, and with equal 
 seriousness in praying for divine assistance ; the 
 one may come to know, the truth, and the other 
 may grope in the dark all his life-time." Now if 
 we admit this, why is it so ? Here is the answer : 
 " Faith comes not by any human endeavor, or the 
 use of any means, even under the greatest advan- 
 tages that men can enjoy: but of that same sov- 
 ereign good 'pleasure which provided the grand 
 thing to be believed?'' Vol. 2, London, 1768, p. 
 191. 
 
 This is plain enough. Indeed it could not be 
 otherwise, for Sandeman was a Calvinist, and Cal- 
 vinism means the production of faith by the di- 
 vine sovereignty. 
 
 Let Archibald M'Lean speak for the Scotch 
 Baptists : 
 
 "This knowledge and belief of the truth as it is 
 in Jesus, though a duty incumbent on all who 
 
DISCIPLES OF CHRIST. 
 
 123 
 
 hear the gospel, is nevertheless the special gift 
 of God, being the effect of divine teaching by 
 means of the word, and peculiar to the elect." 
 Commission p. 72. 
 
 " The power of Jesus in giving sight to the blind 
 man, made him instantly sensible that he saw, 
 and left no room for reasoning on the subject ; 
 even so, when the import and evidence of the truth 
 
 SHIXE3 IXTO THE HEART BY THE ENLIGHTENING 
 
 spiPwIT, it has at once the double effect of produc- 
 ing belief, and the consciousness of it." Ibid. p. 
 82. 
 
 " The testimony of conscience will be more or 
 .less explicit, according to the degree of faith 
 which is the subject of it; even as faith itself is 
 weak or strong in proportion to the degree of light 
 and evidence with which the gospel by the Spirit 
 shines into the mind, which is the foundation of 
 both. Ibid. p. 85. 
 
 Andrew Fuller himself testifies that these men 
 believed in divine influence in order to faith. In 
 his review of M ' Lean, (Appendix to his Gospel 
 Worthy, etc. p. 208) he writes as follows : 
 
 "That there is a divine influence on the soul, 
 which is necessary to spiritual perception and be- 
 lief, as being the cause of them, those with whom 
 I am now reasoning will admit. The only ques- 
 tion is, in ichat order these things are caused ? 
 Whether the Holy Spirit causes the mind, while 
 carnal, to discern and believe spiritual things, and 
 
124 
 
 ORIGIN OF THE 
 
 thereby renders it spiritual ; (the position of San- 
 deman and M'Lean); or whether he imparts a 
 holy susceptibility, and relish for the truth, in 
 consequence of which we discern its glory, and 
 embrace it." "The latter," continues Fuller ''ap- 
 pears to me to be the truth." 
 
 It is hard to have patience with those Baptist 
 scribes, who not only misrepresent Sandeman, 
 M ' Lean and all the Scotch Baptists, but who are 
 so ignorant of the writings of their own Fuller, as 
 not to know that he concedes the truth which they 
 are making bold to deny. Sandeman, M'Lean 
 and Fuller were all Calvinists, and agreed that 
 faith is possible only to the elect. They agreed 
 further, as every man knows who knows anything 
 about it, that saving or justifying faith is the be- 
 lief of the gospel; or, to put it in Fuller's own 
 words, " the persuasion of the truth of what God 
 hath said." They agreed also that this belief or 
 persuasion of the truth implies a spiritual percep- 
 tion of its relations to the soul's needs, and an ac- 
 ceptance of it, as free and full and adequate for 
 the soul's salvation. They differed, as Fuller ex- 
 pressly says, about the order in which faith and 
 regeneration are caused. Fuller thought faith 
 was the effect of prior regeneration, and Sande- 
 man, M ' Lean and all that school, held that regen- 
 eration is the effect of faith. This was the gist of 
 the whole controversy. To pretend to any thing 
 else, is either to confess ignorance of the facts, or 
 
DISCIPLES OF CHMST. 
 
 125 
 
 to disregard tliem entirely. When Sandeman spoke 
 of faith in connection with justification as " the bare 
 belief of the bare truth," he only # affirmed that 
 justification is grounded, not upon a holiness of 
 heart implied in believing, but upon the believing 
 itself, as separated from that holiness which is the 
 immediate effect of it. The same position has al- 
 ready been noticed in M' Lean's treatise on the 
 Commission. Neither Sandeman or M'Lean 
 thought of faith otherwise than as the " special 
 gift of God," and dependent upon an exercise of 
 divine sovereignty. 
 
 The general want of fairness which pervades 
 Mr. Whitsitt's book may be indicated by a sin- 
 gle quotation : 
 
 u In the year 1816, he was able to excite a small 
 controversy by a discourse on " The Law," before 
 the Redstone Association, where, in keeping with 
 his Sandemanian principles, he thought the 
 preaching of the gospel was sufficient to produce 
 " the bare belief of the bare truth," and therefore 
 maintained that it was unnecessary and reprehen- 
 sible to persuade men by the terrors of the Lord." 
 
 Now, as a matter of fact, the phrase ' bare belief 
 of the bare truth,' is not in the sermon on "The 
 Law" referred to. Nor is anything said about faith, 
 which implies such a conception of it. Besides, 
 this sermon shows that Mr. Campbell's view of 
 divine influence was then what is generally called 
 
126 
 
 ORIGIN OF THE 
 
 the orthodox view. A single quotation will prove 
 this : 
 
 " The Christian dispensation is called ' the min- 
 istration of the Spirit,' and accordingly every 
 thing in the salvation of the church is accom- 
 plished by the immediate energy of the Spirit." 
 " He was to convince the world of sin, of right- 
 eousness, and judgment; Not by applying the law 
 of Moses, but the facts concerning Christ, to the 
 consciences of the people." * * * " The Spirit 
 accompanying the words which the apostles 
 preached," (most orthodox phrase,) " would con- 
 vince the world of sin, etc., * * * so that 
 Christ, and not the law, was the Alpha and 
 Omega of their sermons ; and this the Spirit made 
 effectual to the salvation of thousands." 
 
 The intimation that Mr. C, in this, discourse, 
 regarded the preaching of " the terrors of the 
 Lord" as a reprehensible procedure, is also with- 
 out a particle of foundation. The " terrors of the 
 Lord" are far more clearly exhibited in the gos- 
 pel, than they were under the law of Moses. And 
 it is the preaching of " the law," instead of the 
 gospel, as a means of conversion, that is specially 
 reprobated in this sermon. How a Baptist editor 
 — I do not now remember of what paper — could 
 speak of the Professor's book as without a blun- 
 der in historical statement, must seem passing 
 strange to all who have cared to acquaint them- 
 selves with the real history. 
 
DISCIPLES OF CHRIST. 
 
 127 
 
 On page 76, Mr. W. quotes Dr. Richardson as 
 saying that " before the family departed from 
 Rich Hill, he had been much pleased with the 
 works of Archibald M ' Lean, especially his work 
 on ' the commission ' of which he was wont ever 
 after to speak in the highest terms." " This inci- 
 dent," he says, " is important to the student of his 
 life and changes." But, if " this incident " turns 
 out to be spurious, then a link in the Professor's 
 fantastic chain of historical caricature is lost for- 
 ever. What Prof. Richardson really says, is this : 
 "He seems, in addition, about this time to have 
 read, and to have been much pleased with the 
 works of Archibald M ' Lean, especially his work 
 on the commission, &c, &c." Dr. R. says he 
 seems to have read. This, of course, is an expres- 
 sion of uncertainty ; but it suits Mr. W's. whim 
 to speak of it as absolute history. Now, there is 
 the very best authority for saying that Dr. Rich- 
 ardson was, in this instance, mistaken. In a let- 
 ter to Elder W. Jones, Scotch Baptist, of London, 
 Mr. Campbell himself speaks of his first acquaint- 
 ance with M ' Lean's writings as follows : 
 
 " I may, therefore, indirectly be indebted to 
 Archibald M ' Lean, for example, much more than 
 I am aware. *A few years after my immersion, I 
 read one volume of his tracts, and I do not know 
 that I have ever read but his Review of Wardlaw's 
 Lectures, his Reply to Fuller, a Defense of Be- 
 liever's Baptism, The Substance of two Discourses 
 
128 
 
 ORIGIN OF THE 
 
 preached on Faith, at Kingston upon-Hull, and a 
 Treatise on the Commission. Sometime after my 
 separation from the Presbyterian connection and 
 my immersion into the ancient faith, a Mr. Jno. 
 Boyle, of Ireland, with whom I formed a slight ac- 
 quaintance in Scotland, once an Episcopal parson, 
 but then converted by Jno. Walker, of Dublin, to 
 Separatism, made me a visit, and presented to me 
 a volume of the above tracts, and thus introduced 
 me to a knowledge of the name of Jf' Lean." 
 (M. H. 1835. P. 304). 
 
 From this, it is perfectly clear that, at the time 
 of writing this letter to Eld. Jones, Mr. Campbell 
 had no recollection of having read any thing from 
 M ' Lean at an earlier date than the one here men- 
 tioned. Dr. Richardson was therefore mistaken 
 in his hypothetical conclusion referred to by Mr. 
 Whitsitt; and the significant "incident," of which 
 the latter makes so much, vanishes from history. 
 
 The following characteristic paragraph may ex- 
 cite a smile, or a frown, according to the momen- 
 tary mood in which the reader shall chance to find 
 himself : 
 
 "In case the representations made by Prof. 
 Richardson are complete, the revolution which 
 took place in Alexander's mind, by which he be- 
 came a subject of Sandeman in the matter of faith, 
 began in the month of October, 1811 (Vol. 1. P. 
 113), and was completed in the month of March, 
 1812 (Vol. 1, P. 422). In connection with it, he 
 
DISCIPLES OF CHRIST. 
 
 129 
 
 carried forward a correspondence with his father, 
 perhaps chiefly for the purpose of showing him 
 deference. The harmless old gentleman was inca- 
 pable of rendering him any assistance in his en- 
 terprises, but it was in his power to offer a deal of 
 resistance in case he was not duly coddled and 
 conciliated; As on every other occasion, Thomas 
 Campbell played the role of a convenient echo. 
 It is surprising to witness the readiness with 
 which he could repeat at first blush such Sande- 
 manian watch-words as 'the bare belief of the 
 naked truth,' and affirm, against the convictions 
 of a life-time, that this involuntary, unavoidable 
 faith was sufficient to procure salvation." (Page 
 88). 
 
 The estimate here offered of the character and 
 intellectual qualifications of the elder Campbell 
 need cause no surprise to any one. It is not the 
 judgment of a student of the facts, sincerely ex- 
 pressed, but the careless deliverance of an un- 
 friendly critic, utterly misled by his sectarian prej- 
 udices. In the quotations made from Thomas 
 Campbell by Dr. Richardson, to which Prof. W. 
 has here referred us, he expresses very definitely 
 his conception of faith in the following words : 
 
 " The full and firm persuasion, then, or hearty 
 
 belief of the Divine testimony concerning Jesus, 
 
 comprehensively considered as above defined, is 
 
 that faith, in its proper and primary acceptation, 
 
 to which the promises and privileges of salvation 
 9 
 
130 
 
 ORIGIN OF THE 
 
 are annexed. See Peter's confession and the rec- 
 ognitions of John in his first epistle. " Thou art 
 the Christ the Son of the Living God." * * * 
 ' AVhosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is 
 born of God ; ' ' Who is he that overcome th the 
 world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son 
 of God I ' 
 
 We are content to stand by this definition of 
 faith to-day, however men may choose to speak of 
 it as Sandemanianism, or to scoff at it as heresy. 
 It would have been perfectly satisfactory, as a 
 definition, to Andrew Fuller, though it may not 
 satisfy such modern Baptists as are more in sym- 
 pathy with Methodists and " Salvationists " than 
 with their own greatest denominational leader. 
 The expression, " bare belief of the naked truth," 
 which Prof. W. quotes, is put by Thomas Camp- 
 bell into the mouth of an objector, and not given 
 as his own conception of the subject. His state- 
 ment of his own position, I have given above, in 
 his own words. As to the question whether faith 
 is voluntary, or involuntary, little need be said 
 here. It is manifestly one or the other, according 
 to the point of view from which the question is 
 put ; and that without regard to any particular 
 theological system. A man can not believe at 
 will, as everyone knows. And yet a man's beliefs 
 are not independent of his will. A man, let us 
 say, wants to know truth, wills to know it, and 
 bends all his energies of mind and heart to the 
 
DISCIPLES OF CHRIST. 
 
 131 
 
 task of finding it. This whole process is in the 
 highest degree voluntary ; but in the act of believ- 
 ing, in deciding what truth is, the final step is de- 
 termined by the testimony, and may, therefore, be 
 described as involuntary. To men like our pro- 
 fessor, this may seem to make the wliole matter of 
 believing an intellectual process. Well, is the 
 primary element of faith an act of the mind? Or 
 is it a mere sentiment ? An unexplained impulse of 
 the emotions ? Which ? The scriptural use of the 
 word belief stamps upon faith indelibly the nature 
 of the intellect, rather than that of the sensibili- 
 ties. Not but that, in the larger meaning of the 
 term, as I have already explained, much more 
 than this is included, but that the primary act of 
 saving faith is the mind's acceptance of the testi- 
 mony concerning Christ ; and, consequently, Christ 
 himself, as Savior and Lord. The New Testament 
 writers do not employ words with the cast-iron 
 fixedness of theologians, but with the flexibility 
 and freedom characteristic of common men, in the 
 full exercise of their common sense. So, while the 
 primary element in faith is intellectual, in its 
 larger meaning, and wider scope, it includes also 
 the heart and the life. I may quote a few words 
 here from a sermon preached in the Fourth Baptist 
 Church, St. Louis, Mo., by Rev. L. S. Piker. The 
 text was Hebrews XL 6. I quote from the Globe- 
 Democrat of Sept. 10th, 1888. 
 
 " Faith" he said, k> is founded upon evidence. 
 
132 
 
 ORIGIN OF THE 
 
 The intelligent, thinking Christian has, for his 
 faith in God, abiding internal and abounding ex- 
 ternal evidence. Faith has never been unobjec- 
 tionally defined. Definition, according to the 
 scholarly Broadus, teaches of what elements an 
 idea, as a whole, is composed." * * * " To 
 define faith is no easy matter, as it is too simple 
 to admit of simplifying. " The primary part of 
 faith, according to the text, is to believe that God 
 is * * * Thus far, a person might believe and 
 still not exercise saving faith. To believe that 
 God is, meets a scriptural demand, but not the en- 
 tire demand for salvation/' I have quoted these 
 words simply to show that when a Baptist 
 preacher undertakes to expound faith, he is com 
 pelled to admit the intellectual ground of it, and 
 to bear witness to the fact that it ''is founded 
 upon evidence." It is only when they want to 
 inveigh against Sandemanianism, that Baptist 
 preachers and Professors transfer faith quite away 
 from the realm of the intellect to that of the emo- 
 tions. The simple fact is that, at the ground of 
 all emotional experiences and moral determina- 
 tions embraced in faith, is the decision of the intel- 
 lect. In its narrower and more elementary sense, 
 it is the mind's " persuasion of the truth of what 
 God hath said," while in the more comprehensive 
 sense, it embraces trust in Christ, and that solemn 
 commitment of the soul to him, which can only be 
 superinduced by means of it. 
 
DISCIPLES OF CHRIST. 
 
 133 
 
 The entire representation contained in the sev- 
 enth and eighth chapters of Prof. Whitsitt's book 
 invites sharp criticism. Even Baptist reviewers 
 have not hesitated to express the opinion that 
 there are insinuations here which are not war- 
 ranted by a candid survey of the facts. *The 
 eighth chapter bears the sub-title, " Mr. Camp- 
 bell's Perversion to Sandemanianism," but it 
 would have more exactly expressed its real char- 
 acter to have named it "Prof. Whitsitt's perver- 
 sion of History to partisan purposes." He tells 
 us truly (P. 67) that Thomas Campbell proposed 
 to his followers (?) " as a basis for action," the fol- 
 lowing motto: ''Where the Scriptures speak, we 
 speak: where they are silent, we are silent." He 
 is kind enough to admit that this was an excellent 
 ideal. Indeed he says (P. 68) it was "a neat and 
 popular expression of the fundamental principle 
 of Mr. Greville Ewing." But strangely enough, 
 he immediately adds that "it is nothing more 
 than what is professed in fact, if not in form, by 
 every sect of religious worshipers in Christendom. " 
 However, he is careful to say that, "in the mouth 
 of Thomas Campbell, it probably signified nothing 
 more important than 'When Mr. Ewing speaks, 
 we speak; and when he is silent, we are silent.'" 
 But whether '* the father or the son should be 
 awarded the credit of this taking expression of 
 the leading principle of Ewing" — yet " only what 
 
 * See Appendix. 
 
134 
 
 ORIGIN OF THE 
 
 is professed by every sect of worshipers in Christ- 
 endom" — he thinks, may not be easily deter- 
 mined. True, the son was in Scotland, when the 
 father first employed it, but, then, it is naively 
 suggested that he ' ; may have had knowledge of 
 the whole business," and may have mapped out, 
 under E wing's direction, perhaps — who knows ? — 
 the order in which each successive step should be 
 taken in the far away regions of the new World! 
 Of course, the object of this is to minimize the 
 work of the elder Campbell, but more especially 
 to suggest a possible connection of his movements 
 here with the Sandemanian tenets of Greville Ew- 
 ing on the other side of the sea. But even Alex- 
 ander Campbell, it seems, was not destined to 
 lead, uninterruptedly, the movement which he is 
 supposed to have, in a sense, originated. Both 
 the Campbells, Prof. Whitsitt is anxious to have 
 us believe, were perfectly content with the " asper- 
 sion" they had received in infancy. The drift 
 towards immersion in the little church at Brush 
 Run was due to others ; the Campbells were car- 
 ried forward by a current which they were power- 
 less to control. Let us see how it was done. 
 
 Mr. Campbell, in his reminiscenses, which I 
 have freely quoted, speaks of his investigation of 
 the baptismal question in such a way as to make 
 the impression that it followed immediately his 
 talk with Dr. Riddle concerning certain words in 
 his father's Declaration and Address, and that he 
 
DISCIPLES OF CHRIST. 
 
 135 
 
 continued it without intermission, until lie reached 
 the conviction, not only that infant baptism was 
 unauthorized, but that the only admissible form 
 of the ordinance was immersion. This, however, 
 does not appear to have been quite the case. He 
 seems indeed to have thrown aside, after having 
 read them, the works in favor of infant baptism, 
 which had been sent him, disgusted with their 
 fallacious reasonings, and utterly dissatisfied with 
 the Pedo-baptist position. But the final investi- 
 gation, in which he decided the whole question in 
 the light of the Greek Testament, took place at a 
 somewhat later date. During this interval, his 
 mind seems to have remained in a state of relative 
 indecision. Nothing was more natural. The 
 things pressing upon him chiefly were the emanci- 
 pation of men's minds from the bondage of creeds, 
 and the tyranny of church establishments not au- 
 thorized in the word of God, and also the de- 
 velopment of a true and trustworthy basis for 
 Christian fellowship and co-operation in the 
 Lord's work. Baptism was a mooted question, 
 and the agitation of it seemed to promise strife 
 rather than the unity which he had at heart. 
 Naturally, he moved slowly in a matter so fraught 
 with danger. Meantime, there was constant 
 study of the Scriptures, and inevitably more or 
 less discussion in the little community now em- 
 barked in a career of reformation. At the first 
 communion service after the organization of the 
 
136 
 
 ORIGIN OF THE 
 
 church, it was noticed that three members — 
 Joseph Bryant, Margaret Fullerton, and Abraham 
 Altars — did not partake of the emblems. On in- 
 quiry, it appeared that they had none of them 
 been baptized ; as Dr. Richardson expresses it, 
 k, none of them had received baptism at all in any 
 of its so-called forms." (Memoirs, page 372). 
 After interviews, resulting in a common under- 
 standing, Thomas Campbell immersed them. But, 
 of course, the question once fairly before the little 
 church, discussion was not to be avoided. Nor 
 was it desirable that it should be. Dr. Richard- 
 son casually mentions that these discussions, con- 
 tinued to be kept up during the absence of Alex- 
 ander Campbell on a preaching tour of some 
 weeks. Prof. WMtsitt lays hold of these circum- 
 stances to concoct a tale which no one is likely to 
 believe, and of which he himself should be thor- 
 oughly ashamed. He represents Joseph Bryant 
 and James Foster as having been very active in 
 urging the immersionist view. Joseph Bryant 
 especially, needed to be concilliated. He was a 
 very important personage. Indeed, Prof. Whit 1 
 sitt conjectures that he " was already recognized 
 as an elegible match for Miss Dorothea Campbell, 
 to whom he was united in marriage about twenty 
 months later.'' Under such circumstances it was 
 not easy to resist him. It began to look as if the 
 church at Brush Run was "going to pieces." 
 
DISCIPLES OF CHRIST. 
 
 137 
 
 " Alexander now perceived that speedy action 
 must be had, else their cause was lost." 
 
 "If Bryant and the majority of the little com- 
 munity at Brush Run " — so Prof. Whitsitt gravely 
 writes — "could have been induced to tolerate as- 
 persion, it is probable that the Campbells would 
 never have found it convenient to leave the side of 
 the sprinkling Sandemanians." Page 79. 
 
 And this — shall we believe it ? — is what passes 
 with some Baptists for history ! A more unwar- 
 ranted imputation of unworthy motives, it is safe 
 to say, has never been uttered. Suppose that the 
 discussion which occurred under the circumstances 
 here mentioned did have something to do with the 
 thorough investigation of the subject by Alexan- 
 der Campbell which unmistakably followed, what 
 of that ? As to the agitation in the church, and 
 the signs of a general disintegration here inti- 
 mated, nothing apparently could be farther from 
 the fact. Concerning the state of the -church at 
 this very time, Dr. Richardson writes as follows": 
 " These religious meetings were sources of great 
 enjoyment. Warmly attached to one another for 
 the truth's sake, and sympathizing with each 
 other in their trials and religious experiences, 
 they semed to be of one heart and of one soul. 
 The Bible was their daily study, and they came to 
 the assembly, like bees to a hive, laden with the 
 s^veet lessons of instruction it afforded, and ready 
 
138 
 
 OKTOTX OF THE 
 
 to say ill the language of the Psalm they hart 
 sung at their organization : 
 
 1 God is the Lord, who, unto us 
 Hath made light to arise.' " 
 
 But Prof. Whitsitt, full of his own absurd fan- 
 tasies, passes all this unnoticed. His role is that 
 of the small pettifogger, and, it must be confessed, 
 he has played it not unskillfully. A man may be 
 forgiven much, who writes or speaks in the heat of 
 theological debate, but Prof. Whitsitt has no such 
 excuse. He has written deliberately, " with 
 malice," it may be said, " and aforethought." To 
 seriously ask us to receive, as history, the things 
 which he has here written, must be regarded as 
 the climax of effrontery. Mr. Campbell's long 
 and faithful Christian life places his memory be- 
 yond the reach of such petty, partisan attempts 
 to darken it with dishonor. And yet, it is to be 
 regretted that the rancor and bigotry, which as- 
 sailed him with all sorts of detraction during his 
 life, could not, now that he has gone, reverently 
 leave his character to the final decision of Him 
 who is the Judge both of the living and the dead. 
 In this work of detraction, Prof. Whitsitt is in- 
 genious, after a sort, but he is far from ingenuous. 
 The facts given by Dr. Richardson are explained 
 out of his own perverse fancy in such way as to 
 give plausible coloring to a picture which is too 
 unlike the reality to be even a good caricature. 
 It is needless to follow him, item by item, in this 
 
DISCIPLES OF CHRIST. 
 
 139 
 
 part of his work. It would be ungrateful toil, 
 and, happily, there is not the least reason for its 
 performance. As a single example, however, of 
 this character of work, the following is offered. 
 
 On page 74, it is said : " Alexander rejected for 
 awhile the conceit of Ewing and the Sandeman- 
 ians, that faith is nothing other than mere belief, 
 which is produced by testimony alone, without 
 reference to the regenerating grace of God" 
 And further down on the same page, we find this : 
 u The 7th of April 1811, is the latest date on 
 which, according to his biographer, he was willing 
 to affirm that faith is of the operation of God, and 
 an effect of almighty power and regenerating 
 grace." 
 
 Now the untheological reader will utterly fail to 
 appreciate, or even to perceive, the exquisite touch 
 of our historian's art, as here exhibited. His con- 
 clusion will be prompt, and free from any misgiv- 
 ing, that, according to Dr. Richardson, Mr. Camp- 
 bell's chosen biographer, the latter denied, from 
 the date here mentioned, all divine agency in the 
 production of faith, and rejected outright the 
 grace of God in regeneration. But such a conclu- 
 sion is far from the truth. Mr. Campbell always 
 believed that regeneration, or change of heart, is 
 of the grace of God, through faith. But the thing 
 which Mr. C. never believed after the afore-men- 
 tioned date, is the unscriptural and irrational as- 
 sumption that " faith is the effect of almighty 
 
140 
 
 ORIGIN OF THE 
 
 power and. regenerating grace." Notice the two 
 predicates : (1) faith is the effect of omnipotent 
 power, (2) it is the effect of regeneration, or follows 
 regeneration. Of course, Alexander Campbell, 
 through his long life, rejected both these unrea- 
 sonable and nnbiblical assumptions. But Dr. 
 Richardson, in the very connection referred to by 
 Mr. W-j is careful to say that he always " retained 
 the idea of a divine interposition* out came to re- 
 gard it as a providential agency, rather than as a 
 direct operation of the Spirit, as held by popular 
 parties." Thus the velvet touch of the accom- 
 plished caricaturist is exposed to vulgar eyes! 
 Pity that manly and candid Baptists, who love 
 truth and adore the Savior, should be in danger of 
 "perversion" from one who seems to imagine he 
 is doing God service by offering insult to the liv- 
 ing, and defaming the memory of the dead. 
 
 But, touching the relation of testimon}' to faith 
 as here referred to, and as held by Mr. Campbell, 
 a few words may not be out of place. It is true 
 that Mr. Campbell always maintained the neces- 
 sity of testimony in order to faith. He saw 
 clearly, or at least thought he saw clearly, that, 
 between the divine testimony concerning Jesus, 
 and the faith in him. which saves the soul, there 
 is a certain fixed and definite connection, grounded, 
 evermore, in the very nature of the soul itself. To 
 give the passages in the New Testament in which 
 this connection is positively taught, or fairly indi- 
 
DISCIPLES OF CHRIST. 
 
 141 
 
 cated, would be to transcribe no small portion of 
 the book. This conception, which is biblically 
 true, by a hundred unmistakable passages, is be- 
 yond all doubt a demand of reason as well. The 
 faith which saves, if Paul may be believed, 
 "Comes by hearing the word of God." If John 
 understood himself at all, it is the product of the 
 divine testimony. Listen to his words : "It is the 
 Spirit that bears witness, because the Spirit is the 
 truth. For there are three who bear witness, the 
 Spirit, and the water, and the blood; and the 
 three agree in one. If we receive the witness of men, 
 the witness of God is greater ; for the witness of 
 God is this, that he hath borne witness concerning 
 his Son. He that believeth on the Son of God 
 hath the witness in him ; he that believeth not 
 God hath made him a liar ; because he hath not 
 believed in the witness God hath borne concerning 
 his Son;' (1 Jno. 5: 7-11, R. V.) 
 
 Does Prof. Whitsitt imagine that the recogni- 
 tion of the necessary relation between testimony 
 and faith is a denial of God's providence, or the 
 Spirit's agency I He writes, indeed, as if he were 
 disturbed by some such fantasy. But it is not to 
 be thought this disturbance is real. He knows 
 better. He only seeks to mislead, concerning Mr. 
 Campbell aad the Disciples, those who do not 
 know better; namely, a great many Baptists, and. 
 perhaps, some who are not Baptists, but who are 
 only too willing to believe an evil report against 
 
142 
 
 ORIGIN OF THE 
 
 those who are not in ecclesiastical affiliation with 
 themselves. AY ill Prof. Whitsitt undertake to 
 say that any one has ever believed in Christ with- 
 out having heard the gospel ? Will he assert that, 
 where the gospel is preached, faith is "of the al- 
 mighty power, and regenerating grace of God," 
 independent of divine testimony, through the 
 word? He will assert no such thing. It is too 
 late in the day for college professors to stultify 
 themselves by affirming such an absurdity. If 
 there is one thing more than another which this age 
 demands of its religious teachers, it is that no insult 
 shall be offered to the most certain judgments of 
 a trained and reverent intellect. It was otherwise 
 when Alexander Campbell began his great work, 
 but it shall not be otherwise any more until the 
 Lord comes to judge the world. The spirit of 
 mysticism and fetichism is well nigh exorcised 
 now, in Christian lands, from all human souls. 
 And it is well that such is the case. It has had 
 sway quite long enough. Intelligent Christians 
 will maintain the fact of divine agency, and the 
 necessity of divine truth and testimony, in order 
 to faith and regeneration, henceforth to the end of 
 the world. 
 
 Prof. Whitsitt is unwilling to give the least 
 credit of originality to the Canrpbells. They al- 
 ways copied from some one else. They were only 
 slavish followers of Greville Ewing, at one time, 
 and of Archibald M'Lean at another. In the 
 
DISCIPLES OF CHRIST. 
 
 143 
 
 matter of "baptism for remission of sins " the im- 
 pression is at first sought to be made that it was 
 derived from M ' Lean. But nothing can be more 
 absurd. M 5 Lean positively taught, as was here- 
 tofore stated, that justification follows immedi- 
 ately the act of believing so as to antedate not 
 only all obedience to ordinances, but even the 
 holy disposition of the soul itself, which he re- 
 garded as the first effect of faith. Otherwise, says 
 M'Lean, it conld not be said: " He justifieth the 
 ungodly." But M'Lean has " so guarded his 
 utterances, " says Prof. Whitsitt, " that it might 
 be in the power of an opponent to afhrrti that he 
 was not a thorough-paced advocate of the theory 
 of baptismal remission." (P. 93). No doubt, 
 M'Lean guarded very carefully his utterances, to 
 the end that no one should have grounds to mis- 
 represent him. But, alas ! what watchfulness can 
 thoroughly anticipate and shut off the malign dis- 
 tortions of theological partisans! Men like our 
 Professor defy the most conscientious attempts to 
 guard against the perversion of their utterances. 
 But while M'Lean guarded his utterances care- 
 fully, if we may credit Prof. Whitsitt, it was not 
 so with a certain " Scotch Baptist Church " in the 
 city of New York. This church sent out, it seems, 
 a sort of circular letter, which is supposed to have 
 been " forwarded to all the Sandemanian churches 
 of the immersion observance in America." Tin's 
 letter, it is contended, boldy avowed kk the same 
 
144 
 
 ORIGIN OF THE 
 
 view regarding the design of baptism to which the 
 Campbells later gave their adhesion." " The 
 same texts, which the sect of Disciples (or Camp- 
 bellites) are in the habit of setting forward, are 
 produced in this pamphlet, and handled in much 
 the same way, in order to support the conclusion 
 that baptism was designed for the remission of 
 sins." 
 
 This is only a half truth ; indeed, it is scarcely 
 that. The texts of Scripture, which speak of "the 
 uses and purposes for which baptism was ap- 
 pointed," are indeed carefully given, and their im- 
 portance is duly insisted upon ; but the conclu- 
 sion that ''baptism is for remission of sins" is 
 conspicuous only by its entire absence. If Bro. 
 Baxter, in his life of Scott, has intimated the con- 
 trary, then he was mistaken. There is no bap- 
 tism for remission of sins in tliis New Yor~k letter. 
 What was Professor Whitsitt thinking about, 
 when he read — or did he read ?-^-the following 
 paragraph in said letter ? 
 
 " No one who has been in the habit of consider- 
 ing it (baptism) merely as an ordinance (or rite, 
 G. W. L.) can read these passages with attention 
 without being surprised at the wonderful powers, 
 and qualities, and effects, and uses, which are 
 there apparently " — please notice this word — ' as- 
 cribed to it.' "If the language employed respect- 
 ing it, in many of the passages were " to be taken 
 literally" — please note this — it would import that 
 
DISCIPLES OF CHRIST. 
 
 145 
 
 remission of sins is to be obtained by baptism, 
 that escape from the wrath to come is effected in 
 baptism, that men are born children of God by 
 baptism, etc., etc.'' "All these things, if all the 
 passages before us were construed literally would 
 be ascribed to baptism. And it was a literal con 
 struction of these passages which led professed 
 Christians in the early ages to believe that bap- 
 tism was necessary to salvation. Hence arose in- 
 fant baptism, and other customs equally unau- 
 thorized. And, from a like literal construction of 
 the words of the Lord Jesus, at the last supper, 
 arose the awful notion of transubstantiation." 
 
 Now the careful reader has not failed to see (1), 
 that certain things are here said to be taught con- 
 cerning baptism, provided, that the words of the 
 texts referred to are to be construed literally: but, 
 (2), that the literal construction is clearly repudi- 
 ated as untenable. How the authors did construe 
 these passages, will appear from their own words, 
 as follows : 
 
 " It is for the churches of God, therefore, to con- 
 sider well, whether it does not clearly and forcibly 
 appear from what is said of baptism in the passages 
 before us, taken each in its proper connection, 
 that baptism was appointed as an institution 
 strikingly significant of several of the most im- 
 portant things relating to the kingdom of God ; 
 whether it was not in baptism that men professed 
 by deed, as they had already done by word, to 
 
 10 
 
146 
 
 ORIGIN OF THE 
 
 have the remission of sins through the death of 
 Jesus Christ, and to have a firm persuasion of 
 being raised from the dead through him and after 
 his example; whether it was not in baptism that they 
 put off the ungodly character and its lusts, and 
 put on the new life of righteousness ; whether it 
 was not in baptism that they professed to have 
 their sins washed away, through the blood of the 
 Lord and Savior, etc." 
 
 I need not quote more fully. It is absolutely 
 clear that the church which sent forth this letter 
 entertained precisely the same view of the design 
 of baptism which is held by the Associated Bap- 
 tists throughout this country, at the present time. 
 Baptism, on the part of the recipient, was a pro- 
 fession in act, of having received already the re- 
 mission of sins ; as respects the divine purpose in 
 requiring it, it was intended to set forth symbol- 
 ically the cleansing of the soul from sin through 
 the blood of Christ. This, and only this, was in 
 it. If they dwelt with more emphasis upon its 
 importance than Baptists are now expected to do, 
 the fact may be explained by considering that 
 they were not under the same necessity of guard- 
 ing their words to keep off suspicion of sympathy 
 with the heresies of the Disciples and New Testa- 
 ment Christians. This whole matter is conspicu- 
 ously plain and simple. 
 
 Concerning Prof. Whitsitt's insistent efforts to 
 depreciate and belittle the Campbells as men of 
 
DISCIPLES OF CHRIST. 
 
 147 
 
 intellectual power, nothing more than a word of 
 reference is here necessary. Thomas Campbell, 
 he tell us, was only a '* convenient echo ; " and if 
 ever Alexander " had an original idea, he took 
 pains to avoid giving expression to it in such of 
 his writings as have been submitted to the inspec- 
 tion of the public." 
 
 No doubt our Professor needed to let off the gall 
 which was in him, and if such words as these an- 
 swered that purpose, we need make no complaint. 
 If, in face of the intelligence of the age, he can 
 choose to express himself in this fashion, it is his 
 affair, not ours. No friend of the Campbells need 
 care to say one word in reply. 
 
 It might be well to have a thoughtful compari- 
 son of the views of the Disciples and Baptists. 
 Perhaps, some day, we shall have it. But Prof. 
 Whitsitt's book adds nothing valuable to the lit- 
 erature of this long, and too often bitter, contro- 
 versy. 
 
148 
 
 ORIGIN OF THE 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 THE BAPTISTS. 
 
 Against the Baptist people, as such, I have no 
 hard words to utter ; I recall no personal griev- 
 ances, leaving bitter memories, which might 
 justify, even on the world's principle of retalia- 
 tion, any harsh or unkind criticism. I owe them 
 nothing but love. There is not a man of them all, 
 who follows sincerely and reverently the Lord 
 Jesus, albeit, like the rest of us, oftentimes, at a 
 distance, and with unsteady step, that I do not 
 unfeignedly love for Jesus' sake. 
 
 There is not a single such follower of Christ 
 among them that I do not habitually recognize 
 and treat as a brother in the common faith. He 
 may cling to much u foolishness " in theology, or 
 dwell with fond delight on certain pietistic super- 
 stitions connected with his " experience " of God's 
 grace in his soul — a thing he is quite sure to do — 
 and it makes no difference at all. If he bear the 
 " image and superscription " of the Lord- Jesus, 
 God has received him, with all his imperfections 
 of knowledge and life, and who am I, that I should 
 reject one of these " little ones " for whom Christ 
 died? Upon this principle the Disciples have 
 always acted. A letter from a Baptist church has 
 always been a sufficient passport to our fellow- 
 
DISCIPLES OF CHRIST. 
 
 149 
 
 ship. It has mattered nothing at all that there 
 has been no reciprocity in our relations with them. 
 We have remained true to our divine law of affili- 
 ation throughout all the keen controversies and 
 unfraternal imputations of evil heresies, in the 
 seventy-five years (speaking in round numbers) 
 which have passed away since our movement first 
 began to assume definite shape. To this principle 
 we shall be true hereafter, as we have been here- 
 tofore, whatever the coming years may have in 
 store for us. 
 
 But why should our Baptist brethren — any of 
 them — put on airs in talking about us I Why 
 write articles in their papers, or books even, whose 
 chief characteristic is the partisan's bitter sneer ? 
 Are we not every whit their equals in whatever 
 gives prestige and power to a body of Christian 
 believers ? Nay, taking into account our briefer 
 history as a distinct people, are we not rapidly 
 gaining upon them in all the elements of ; * denom- 
 inational " greatness i If I may speak foolishly, 
 ''in this confidence of boasting,'' as it were, I 
 would say that it concerns us not at all — save for 
 the honor of our common Christianity — what tha 
 narrow-minded zealots of any sect in Christendom 
 may choose to say about us. The time has gone 
 by when the odium theologicum could be used suc- 
 cessfully as a weapon against us. Save for the 
 honor of the Lord's cause, so often put to shame 
 by his professed friends, there is no reason why 
 
150 
 
 ORTGIN OF THE 
 
 we should give ourselves a moment's anxiety over 
 any of these things. But for this, we could listen 
 patiently to Prof. Whitsitt, and all the rest, as long 
 as they find comfort in pouring out the bitterness 
 that is in them. For the harm it does us we are 
 not greatly concerned. 
 
 But who are these Baptist people, from whose 
 ranks some one arises ever and anon, " speaking 
 great swelling words of vanity ? " What is tlieir 
 " origin ? " What their history ? Was John the 
 Baptizer their founder? Have they had a contin- 
 uous existence through all the centuries since? 
 There are indeed some partisans among them who 
 would fain have men think so. Their real schol- 
 ars do not pretend to any such thing. They know 
 better, and are candid enough to tell what they 
 know. 
 
 But, really, now, how shall we define a Baptist ? 
 How shall we differentiate him ? In point of fact 
 he is a vague specimen. There are General Bap- 
 tists, Particular Baptists, and " Scottish Baptists," 
 in the mother country ; there are Missionary Bap- 
 tists and Anti-missionary Baptists ; Baptists that 
 are Calvinists, and Baptists that believe in the 
 freedom of the human will; to say nothing of 
 Seventh Day Baptists, of Six Principle Baptists, 
 and of German Baptists, or Tunkers, all here in 
 our own America. The reader sees the difficulty. 
 To which of these half dozen sects, all claiming to 
 be " Baptists " par excellence, shall we accord the 
 
DISCIPLES OF CHRIST. 
 
 151 
 
 honor of calling it the Baptist Church ? And 
 what are the relations of these Baptist sects to 
 each other? Do they mutually give and receive 
 letters of commendation? Do they break bread 
 with each other in the Lord's Supper ? Not to any 
 great extent, certainly. But our special anxiety 
 is to find the Baptist Church. Can Prof. Whit- 
 sitt locate it ? Will he he give us its metes and 
 bounds, so that we can speak advisedly in regard 
 to it ? He will scarcely undertake so hopeless a 
 task. Or, if he should see that no aggregation of 
 Baptist local communities can be called a church, 
 in the New Testament sense of the term, and so 
 prefer to speak of Baptist churches, and of the 
 "Baptist denomination," would he be so kind as 
 to indicate clearly the latter's exact comprehen- 
 sion ? How many of these sects, popularly called 
 Baptists, are outside of the Baptist denomination, 
 as Prof. Whitsitt would employ that expression ? 
 If a member of Spurgeon's Baptist church of the 
 free communion "observance, " for instance, should 
 offer a letter to a Baptist church of the close com- 
 munion " observance," here in America, would it 
 be received at par value in such church ? Or, if a 
 Free Will Baptist should bring a letter from his 
 church in New England to the Baptist church in 
 Louisville, in which Prof. Whitsitt has his mem- 
 bership, how would he be received ? Would his 
 letter be received as coming from " a sister church 
 of the same faith and order?" Do " Primitive " 
 
152 
 
 ORIGIN OF THE 
 
 Baptists and Missionary BajDtists mutually recog- 
 nize each other's baptism and sound Baptistic 
 order and orthodoxy i Do they give letters to, . 
 and receive letters from, each other, as of the 
 same faith and order \ Of course, an outsider can 
 not know all about the " usage" in such cases, 
 but he need not wholly repress his curiosity. It 
 is laudable to desire information upon doubtful 
 points, when circumstances give importance to 
 them. Now of course the ''Scottish Baptists" 
 are not Baptists at all, but only ' ; Sandemanians 
 of the immersion observance." And of course we 
 are to suppose that Prof Whiteitt would not think 
 of receiving into fellowship a Scotch Baptist with- 
 out a formal renunciation of his Sandemanianism. 
 He might, perhaps, go behind his letter, and ex- 
 amine him on his " experience." But that would 
 amount to nothing. A genuine Scotch Baptist 
 can tell quite as good a Baptistic experience as 
 Prof. Whiteitt himself ; and this our learned pro- 
 fessor very well knows. He is as sound on de- 
 pravity, on divine sovereignty, on the influence of 
 the Spirit, on personal election, as the soundest 
 professor in any Baptist Seminary in America. 
 He can not be shut out by any of these tests. 
 Call him "a Sandemanian of the immersion ob- 
 servance," and refuse him fellowship on that 
 ground. You must do that, or receive him. 
 
 But what then? If you receive him you recog- 
 nize his Sandemanian heresy, or at least account 
 
DISCIPLES OF CHRIST. 
 
 153 
 
 it no bar to fellowship (which is indeed the only 
 sensible thing to be done in such a case), and if 
 yon do not receive him, 3 ou violate what is said to 
 be a fundamental usage of the Baptist people, 
 which has obtained among them, with more or 
 less uniformity, from time immemorial, namely, 
 not to make speculative differences — such differ- 
 ences as affect not " a true experience of God's 
 grace in the soul" — a bar to fellowship. Is a 
 man less a Baptist because he is a Calvinist or an 
 anti-Calvinist? Is he less or more a Baptist be- 
 cause he doubts the divine origin, or sound expe- 
 diency of Missionary Societies? Baptists were 
 not wont in the old days to regard these questions 
 as presenting an insurmountable bar to fellow- 
 ship. At the time of the division between mis- 
 sionary, and anti- missionary Baptists here in the 
 great West, the position of the missionary party 
 gave them an advantage which served them a 
 most excellent purpose while the work of separa- 
 tion was going on. They said, " Let us have no 
 quarrel over this matter. Let our churches be free 
 to follow their convictions. Let the individual 
 members in every church have the same freedom." 
 This was sound and scriptural. It was common 
 prudence as well. Nay', it was more ; it was the 
 shrewdest sort of strategy. That the missionary 
 leaven would finally leaven pretty much the whole 
 Baptist lump, was clear to the far-seeing leaders, 
 provided it could only have time to diffuse itself. 
 
154 
 
 ORIGIN OF THE 
 
 If the churches could be held together, while the 
 leavening process was going on, the end was sure. 
 But clearly, in the event of separation, the burden 
 of responsibility would rest with the separatists. 
 The wisdom of these missionary leaders is appar- 
 ent to every one now. Call it conscience or strat- 
 egy, the effect was the same. Multitudes remained 
 in the churches, and finally became good mis- 
 sionary Baptists, who would have gone out so fast 
 that you could not have counted them, if the issue 
 had been too hotly pressed. Indeed, in not a few 
 cases, the majority would have been on the anti- 
 missionary side. But the point in all this, which 
 concerns the present argument, is the manifest dif- 
 ficulty of ascertaining the conditions which deter- 
 mine a true Baptistic status, in relation both to 
 individuals and churches. Perhaps Professor 
 Whitsitt was not thinking about this difficulty, 
 when he so unceremoniously thrust the whole 
 Scottish Baptist fraternity outside the pale of gen- 
 uine Baptistism. They do not even belong, in his 
 classification, to what some Baptists are wont, on 
 occasion, to call " the Baptist family." They are 
 only " Sandemanians of the immersion observ- 
 ance." For shame, Prof. Whitsitt! Are not 
 Scotch Baptists as good Christians as Prof. Whit- 
 sitt himself? And have they not as much right, 
 if they choose to do so, to call themselves Bap- 
 tists ? There can be no doubt of it, at all. Now 
 the truth we are seeking seems to be this : While 
 
DISOIPLES OF CHRIST. 
 
 155 
 
 Baptists have not been outspoken in denying to 
 speculative differences of the sort we have here 
 referred to the importance which "belongs only to 
 questions of fellowship, there has been, neverthe- 
 less, to a certain extent, a sort of tacit recognition 
 among them of that great principle. They might, 
 indeed, separate into sects over such differences, 
 but they still remained Baptistic sects. They 
 belonged in common to the great " Baptist fam- 
 ily," and when the Baptist Israel was to be num- 
 bered, they were entitled to be counted. So, like- 
 wise, when Baptist histories were to be written, 
 their claim to a true Baptistic character was duly 
 recognized. Thus, there are different " orders " of 
 Baptists, but — shall we put it in that way ? — only 
 one true Baptistic test ; namely, the faith in 
 Christ, and that one faith expressed in immersion, 
 as the one divine form of baptism. Is it this 
 faith, expressed in the one baptism, which is to be 
 regarded as the true and only test of Baptistic 
 status? If so, the " Baptist family" is indeed a 
 large family, or rather a tribe, including several 
 families, as the one Israel of old included the 
 twelve tribes. But is it indeed true that faith in 
 Christ expressed in Christian baptism (immer- 
 sion), constitutes the one condition of church and 
 Christian fellowship among Baptists ? We should 
 hesitate to accept this statement, and yet it is 
 supported by very high Baptist authority. I give 
 for the reader's consideration the following para- 
 
156 
 
 ORIGIN OF THE 
 
 graph from the introduction to Orchard's History 
 of the Baptists (Tenth Edition, Nashville, Tenn., 
 1855). 
 
 "The ground of unity and denominational 
 claim to the people whose Christian characters 
 are detailed, is not the harmony of their creeds or 
 views ; this was not visible or essential in the first 
 age ; but the bond of union, among our denomi- 
 nation in all ages, has been faith in christ ; and 
 that faith publicly expressed by a voluntary 
 submission to his authority and doctrine in bap- 
 tism." Introduction, p. 14. 
 
 I give this extract with capitals and italics, just 
 as I find it in the book. The words are those of 
 Mr. Orchard, quoted in an introductory essay, 
 signed with the initials J. R. G., i. e., J. R. Graves, 
 then of Nashville, Tenn. Of course Mr. Graves is 
 presumed to have given his endorsement to the 
 extract by quoting it without objection. But 
 surely he must have hesitated to do this. The 
 canon here laid down is one that reaches very far 
 indeed, and a Baptist of Mr. Graves' school could 
 hardly accept it, ex animo, as a statement of fact, if 
 he had, at the time, a clear understanding of the 
 question. But Mr. Orchard doubtless meant what 
 he said. He saw clearly that any plausible at- 
 tempt to make out a Baptistic succession would 
 depend upon the adoption of a very liberal test of 
 Baptist character; and in the freer and larger 
 spirit of the English Baptists, was satisfied with 
 
DISCIPLES OF CHRIST. 
 
 157 
 
 the rule, as he here gives it. Can we hope to get 
 our American Baptists to see and acknowledge 
 what Mr. Orchard's rule really means, and then to 
 cordially accept it as a sound test of Baptist 
 orthodoxy 3 If so, it is certain that a great point 
 will have been gained. 
 
 But, in point of fact, we should say it is not true 
 that the bond of union among Baptists has al- 
 ways, or ever, been what Mr. Orchard represents 
 it to have been. In his desire to make out some 
 sort of Baptistic succession from the days of the 
 apostles, he gives up the Baptist bond of union, 
 as utterly untenable for his purpose, and adopts, 
 outright, that of the Disciples of Christ. "The 
 bond of union among our denomination," he says, 
 "has always been faith in Christ, and that faith 
 publicly expressed by a voluntary submission 
 to Ms authority and doctrine in baptism" It is 
 simply impossible to express in words more deii- 
 nitely the view of this subject maintained by the 
 Disciples from the very beginning, only, with us, 
 this bond of union is held to be the test of fellow- 
 ship for all Christian churches, instead of a de- 
 nominational, or party test. Mr. Orchard's canon 
 of ecclesiastical fellowship is catholic or Chris- 
 tian, and in no true sense Baptistic. But, as 
 was said a moment since, there seems to have 
 been a sort of under-current of conviction that 
 some such rule was demanded by the claim Bap- 
 tists were constantly setting up to some sort of 
 
158 
 
 OKIGIN OF THE 
 
 denominational continuity in history. On any 
 other principle than the broad one here laid down, 
 it was clear that no shadow even of plausibility 
 could be imparted to such a claim. Hence, for 
 the purpose of tracing Baptistic succession, a law 
 of affiliation is laid down as denominational, 
 while, as a matter of fact, the practice among 
 Baptists has always been very different. Are all 
 the sects of Baptists which do positively maintain 
 a separate existence to be counted together as the 
 Baptist denomination, as Orchard's rule implies ? 
 If so, why not go a step further, and abolish alto- 
 gether the principle of sect-fellowship on agree- 
 ment in doctrinal beliefs, and merge all these dis- 
 tinct factions into one single Baptist fraternity, 
 upon the larger and more catholic basis here laid 
 down ? It is certain that these Baptist sects are 
 kept apart by their " doctrinal differences," which 
 constitute, therefore, the real bonds of union in 
 Baptist practice, while Mr. Orchard's bond of 
 union is a purely theoretical one, devised for the 
 purpose of giving a sort of logical basis to the 
 plea of Baptistic succession. So the question re- 
 turns, Who are the Baptists ? By what rule shall 
 we know them ? Is the larger faction to be taken 
 as the denomination, and the rest to be regarded 
 as heretical, or, at least, disorderly "offshoots" 
 from the true stock ? How is this ? And upon the 
 offshoot theory, may it not appear that the " Reg- 
 ulars," who are anti-missionary, are the true 
 
DISCIPLES OF CHRIST. 
 
 159 
 
 Baptists, and that our missionary brethren are 
 only offshoots \ I care not to press these questions 
 further. I am sure we shall not be able to decide 
 them. And I am equally sure that Orchard's 
 bond of union, which is that of the Disciples, and 
 not Baptistic at all, will continue to be repudiated 
 in practice by all these Baptist sects, for many 
 years to come. But, in any event, it behooves 
 such Baptists as Prof. Whitsitt to say whom he 
 acknowledges as Baptists, and whom he repudi- 
 ates as heretics, or disorderly " offshoots." And, 
 especially, it behooves him to show why the reg- 
 ular, or Primitive Baptists, should not be regarded 
 as in the true line of succession from the Baptist 
 fathers, and himself and brethren as " offshoots " 
 from the one original Baptistic stem. There was 
 a time, it is safe to say, when three-fourths of the 
 Baptists in America were decidedly opposed to 
 missionary societies, and possibly, to all that is 
 now regarded as distinctively missionary work. 
 This must not be forgotten. 
 
 But, if the question of origin and history is to 
 be brought to the front, then the Baptist scribes 
 will have their hands full without stopping to 
 utter naughty gibes at any of their neighbors. 
 Prof. Whitsitt expresses the opinion that the Dis- 
 ciples have never succeeded as Biblical exegetes. 
 ^Yhat truth there is in this opinion we need not 
 stop here to determine. But how many Baptists 
 are known as exegetes of distinction in the great 
 
160 
 
 ORIGIN OF THE 
 
 world of Christian scholarship to-day ? It will be 
 time enough to taunt us with deficiency in this re- 
 spect, when we shall have had the length of time 
 they have had, and shall show no better results. 
 Old-fashioned Baptist text-preaching is hardly to 
 be taken as a phase of exegetics, but certainly it 
 furnishes a sort of test of Baptist aptitude for 
 exegetical work, in days long past. The writer of 
 this review has heard some strange sermons from 
 Baptist pulpits in his time. One preacher took as 
 a text this verse of Solomon's Song : " My beloved 
 is gone down in Ms garden, to tlie beds o£ spices 
 to feed in the gardens, and to gather lilies" 6:2. 
 There was little of exegesis in this case, but the 
 preacher found a stirring, and, for those days, a 
 thoroughly characteristic Baptist sermon in his 
 text. There are Baptist communities to-day, 
 which would be transported into ecstasies by such 
 a sermon. Another took this text : " And they 
 called Rebecca, and said unto her, Wilt thou go 
 with this man? And she answered and said, I 
 will go." Gen. 24 : 58. Into this simple text — 
 which was a favorite one with Baptists in those 
 days — the preacher read his whole theory of re- 
 demption. Abraham's servant was the preacher 
 of the gospel ; Rebecca was the sinner ; the camel 
 on which Rebecca rode was the law ; when Re- 
 becca veiled herself, and dismounted, at the end 
 of the journey, the preacher saw a most impres- 
 sive type of a sinner's surrender to Christ, after 
 
DISCIPLES OF CHRIST. 
 
 161 
 
 the law has done its work in his heart ! Oh, no ! 
 It was not exegesis, certainly ; but it was genuine 
 Baptist preaching, of the most popular type, at 
 the time when Alexander Campbell preached his 
 sermon on the law before the Redstone Associa- 
 tion. And the fact that the sermon dealt a death- 
 blow to such preaching was doubtless the reason 
 why the Redstone leaders saw heresy in it! The 
 Baptist scribe who knows Baptist history, will be 
 a little chary of reproaches which may provoke 
 even the most good-natured retort along these 
 lines. There never has been a time in the history 
 of the Disciples when their ministry would not 
 compare favorably, in every respect, with that of 
 any Baptist party. This is not boasting, but a 
 simple fact of history ; which, however, would not 
 have been mentioned, if the case had not seemed 
 to require it. 
 
 But the " origin" of the Baptists ! What spec- 
 ial cause of gratulation can Baptists find in it? 
 Of course our American Baptists are sprung, for 
 the most part, from English sources. What, then, 
 was the origin of the English Baptists ? In a 
 brilliant article on Baptist Theology, printed first 
 in the Contemporary Review, and afterwards 
 copied into the Library Magazine for June, 1888. 
 Dr. Clifford of England informs us that the first 
 church of General Baptists in England was 
 founded in, or about, 1611, by John Smyth and 
 Thomas Helwyss. "Besides the idea of the spir- 
 
162 
 
 OEIGIN OF THE 
 
 itual life, they also preached the doctrine of gen- 
 eral redemption." " Twenty years afterward," 
 continues Br. Clifford, " and on the 12th of Sep- 
 tember, 1633, another Baptist Church of a differ- 
 ent type was created at Wopping by secession 
 from the Independent Church, dating back to 1616. 
 Its pastor was John Spillsbury, and its theology 
 was fashioned on the model of that marvelous 
 piece of doctrinal literature, the Institutes of John 
 Calvin." From these beginnings have sprung, 
 directly, or indirectly, all the Baptists of Great 
 Britain and the United States. But did John 
 Smyth baptize himself? I can not tell. His 
 Pedobaptist opponents said that he did, but that 
 may have been prejudice and persecution. The 
 Lord knows what the truth is. Perhaps the world 
 will never know. And the Particular Baptist 
 church of which Spillsbury was pastor — whence 
 did that derive the scriptural baptism ? The ques- 
 tion can not be certainly answered. Benedict 
 (History of the Baptists, P. 337) admits that much 
 obscurity hangs over the whole matter. He says : 
 " It must be admitted that there is some obscurity 
 respecting the manner in which the ancient im- 
 mersion of adults, which appears to have been 
 discontinued, was restored, when, after the long 
 night of anti-Christian apostasy, persons were at 
 first baptized on a profession of faith." This 
 remark is made in connection with the Particular 
 Baptists. But concerning the Smyth-Helwyss 
 
DISCIPLES OF CHRIST. 
 
 163 
 
 foundation of General Baptists, he confesses the 
 same uncertainty. Smyth, after embracing Bap- 
 tist sentiments, had fled to Holland to escape per- 
 secution. Now, there were Baptist churches in 
 Holland, but they were as "fantastic-' a set of 
 people as any seeker after queer social and relig- 
 ious phenomena could wish to see. " The foreign 
 anabaptists," says Crosby, " were such as denied 
 Christ's having taken the flesh of the Virgin 
 Mary, the lawfulness of magistracy, and such 
 like, which Mr. Smyth and his followers looked on 
 as great errors ; so that they could not be thought 
 by him proper administrators of baptism." 
 
 Upon the whole, Benedict thinks that Smyth 
 and his followers "first formed themselves into a 
 church, and then appointed two of their number 
 (perhaps Mr. Smyth and Mr. Helwyss) to baptize 
 the rest." He adds, with evident feeling, that 
 "this subject caused considerable uneasiness and 
 reproach to the first Baptists after the Reforma- 
 toin, both general and particular." The rise of 
 the whole Baptist denomination in England and 
 America, in this irregular way, seems to be pretty 
 well assured, and if " origin " is the question, then 
 they are the last people in this country who ought 
 to begin throwing stones at others. Of course, 
 the case of Roger Williams and his Rhode Island 
 Baptist church is well known. The Baptists 
 ought not to press questions of "origin" too zeal- 
 ously, if they do not wish to hear these things re- 
 
164 
 
 OEIGIN OF THE 
 
 ferred to as a part of their ecclesiastical inherit- 
 ance. 
 
 But the Scottish- Baptists, so zealously traduced 
 by Mr. Whitsitt, were a theologically respectable 
 people, on any showing, compared with the 
 English Baptists before Fuller's day. Listen to 
 this Baptist witness : " The prevailing system of 
 doctrine among the Baptist churches at this period 
 was ultra Calvinism — a system which denies true 
 faith to be the duty of every one to whom the gos- 
 pel comes ; which consequently must paralyze the 
 efforts of ministers ' to go into all the world, and 
 preach the gospel to every creature'; commanding 
 all men everywhere to repent, at the peril of their 
 souls." Fuller's first, if not his greatest work, 
 was to demolish this prevalent and mischievous 
 anti-nomianism, as Dr. Clifford styles it. Here 
 Fuller and the Scotch Baptists were one, though 
 they reached the same goal by different routes. 
 If one takes the history of the numerous Baptist 
 sects, and traces them carefully through all 
 changes and metamorphoses, he will find no great 
 reason for the indulgence of that spirit of self-suf- 
 ficiency and exclusivism, which so markedly char- 
 acterizes certain Baptist leaders of our time. To 
 barely hint at these things, is all that is possible 
 in this review. One may well hesitate to disa- 
 gree with Dr. Jno. Duncan, who says, as quoted 
 by Dr. Clifford: ''There is only one real heresy. 
 Antinomianism." The reproach of this heresy, 
 
DISCIPLES OF CHRIST. 
 
 165 
 
 "both in England and America, the Baptists must 
 be content to bear, beyond any other people. If 
 they are now happily freed from its blighting in- 
 fluence, they are to be sincerely congratulated by 
 all good men. It is only admissible to remind 
 them of these things in order to keep them hum- 
 ble, and prevent them from putting on airs which 
 make them ridiculous. If they will behave them- 
 selves hereafter, we do not care to reproach them 
 with the past. May the dear Lord lead them into 
 all truth, in his own time, and in his own way! 
 
166 
 
 ORIGIN OF THE 
 
 CHAPTER Vm. 
 
 THE RELATION OF THE DISCIPLES OF CHRIST TO 
 ALEXANDER CAMPBELL AND OTHER 
 LEADERS. 
 
 The Disciples cheerfully acknowledge a debt of 
 gratitude to the Campbells, and other able and 
 excellent men, who led in the work of reformation 
 in the earlier years of this century. Nor do they 
 deny their indebtedness to all the reformers, Bap- 
 tists and Pedobaptists, of whatever schools of 
 thought. Scarcely a great man has lived, and 
 wrought for God, whose labors have not shed light 
 on some of the questions which interest all 
 thoughtful men. The true disciple is thankful for 
 such help, let it come from what source it may. 
 All the men who have sought and found truth we 
 reckon among our spiritual ancestors, although we 
 may reject many of their formulas. The progress 
 from the great apostasy has been slow and toil- 
 some. Those who, from time to time, have at- 
 tained, under God, to the largest measures of di- 
 vine reality, have been our greatest benefactors, 
 and constitute the true succession of reformers, 
 from Wyckliffe down to our own day. We agree 
 heartily with Dr. Clifford, when he states the 
 progress of reformation as follows : 
 
 "The all-absorbing question of the 16th century 
 
DISCIPLES OF CHRIST. 
 
 167 
 
 was this — what is the church of the Lord Jesus 
 Christ, and of what persons ought it to consist? 
 Protestantism was the bold rejection of the estab- 
 lished and orthodox answer supplied by Roman- 
 ism to this inquiry ; Puritanism qualified and 
 cleansed the answer of Protestantism; Separatism 
 went further, and gave increased sharpness to the 
 answer urged by the Puritans ; the Brownists, or 
 Independents, still on the forward march, elim- 
 inated the parochial element from church member- 
 ship, and insisted on the possession of spiritual 
 life. Then came the Baptists and added the obli- 
 gation of developing the spiritual life into avoioed 
 consciousness before admission into the church. 
 And inasmuch as the only mode of conscientious 
 speech known in those days was that of separa- 
 tion from those with whom they differed, away 
 they went, carrying whatever theology they had 
 inherited to their new ecclesiastical home." 
 
 To complete this statement, and bring down the 
 succession to the present day, it remains to be 
 said, that the Disciples have added to whatever of 
 truth the above named parties had found, the 
 scriptural basis of fellowship and ecclesiastical 
 unity, and also given an answer to the question of 
 personal salvation surpassing in clearness and 
 fullness, both of biblical proof and rational expo- 
 sition, anything known in history since the apos- 
 tles of our Lord Jesus Christ went home to glory. 
 
 And for myself, I may be permitted to say, that 
 
168 
 
 OKIGTN OF THE 
 
 of this final advance. I think, there is no reasona- 
 ble doubt, and that the step thus taken by the 
 Disciples is the longest and best single step since 
 Luther, in the whole series of reformation move- 
 ments. The true law of ecclesiastic affiliation — 
 namely, the faith in Christ and obedience to his 
 commandments — and the great question of per 
 sonal salvation — ' ; what shall I do to be saved?' 
 — cleared of all irrelevant and unscriptural issues^ 
 and alike of all mystic and superstitious fantasies 
 — this is the claim of the Disciples before the 
 world of our day, a claim for which, if just, we 
 can afford to toil, and, if need be, to suffer, till 
 the Lord shall come. We seek not to disparage 
 the work of others, but with our own mission we 
 are quite content. If the Lord shall enable us to 
 be faithful to it, in our day and generation, what 
 more need we desire ? Let us be satisfied and 
 thankful. 
 
 But what is our true relation to the great and 
 good men to whom we so cheerfully acknowledge 
 our special indebtedness ? This is a question of 
 no mean significance in estimating the value of 
 our distinctive plea. It is a question, too, the 
 right answer to which it seems very hard to make 
 clear to our brethren in the various denomina- 
 tional folds. They will pardon us, I trust, for 
 holding very emphatically that the fault is not on 
 our side, or in the cause we plead. When Luther 
 completed his work, he had not only succeeded in 
 
DISCIPLES OF CHRIST. 
 
 169 
 
 impressing his personal modes of thought and ex- 
 perience upon his contemporaries, who followed 
 immediately in his movement, but he had taken 
 care that these modes of thought, this mould of 
 religious experience, should be perpetuated indefi- 
 nitely, if possible, to the very end of time. He 
 had bravely rejected the Papal traditions, but he 
 seemed not at all averse to imposing upon his suc- 
 cessors, in all the time to come, his own traditions. 
 Grant that he thought his theological ideas identi- 
 cal, for substance, with the original gospel, and 
 that does not at all change the fact. He left an 
 ecclesiastical organism pledged to the mainte- 
 nance of these theological ideas, and fully 
 equipped for the perpetuation of its own existence 
 without limit as to duration. Nothing short of an 
 ecclesiastical revolution, similar to that which he 
 had led against Rome, could ever make the church 
 which he may be said to have founded, anything 
 more or better than " The Lutheran Church." Its 
 symbolism was Lutheran throughout, and Luther's 
 articles were bound upon the consciences of his 
 followers, if not in secula seculorum, at least to 
 the end of this present world. Luther, it is clear, 
 intended to found a church to perpetuate his own 
 ideas. Doubtless he believed these ideas to be, 
 only in another shape, the gospel of Jesus Christ, 
 but, as was said a moment ago, that does not alter 
 the fact. Luther's church was intended to reflect 
 forever Luther's conception of the Christian relig- 
 
170 
 
 ORIGIN OF THE 
 
 ion. The Lutheran articles are bound upon its 
 conscience to-day. 
 
 Now what is here said of Luther is manifestly 
 just as true of Calvin and Wesley. Calvinian 
 articles constitute the doctrinal basis, the ecclesi- 
 astical organic law and bond of union, of every 
 Calvinistic church on earth — Presbyterian. Puritan 
 and Baptist, alike. As for Wesle}-, there is no 
 power in the church he founded to make the 
 slightest change in the " articles of religion" 
 which he fastened irrevocably upon it. Changes 
 of an " economical " character may be made by a 
 general conference, but it has no right to — it dare 
 not — touch a single article of the TTesleyan faith. 
 These facts sjjeak volumes on the question for the 
 moment before us. Let no reader stop till he sees 
 clearly their whole meaning; otherwise, the dif- 
 ferentiation we are seeking to effect will not 
 clearly appear. But concerning Baptists and 
 other congregational communities, it is proper to 
 say that there has ever been a measure of relaxa- 
 tion from the bondage of confessional authority, 
 and yet not that genuine freedom in Christ which 
 suffices to take them out of the general category 
 to which I have here assigned them. In the 
 briefer and less rigid epitomes of doctrine adorjted 
 by Baptist churches and associations, the distinc- 
 tive ideas and traditions of the Baptist fathers of 
 different schools are still more or less faithfully 
 perpetuated. 
 
DISCIPLES OF CTlklST. 
 
 171 
 
 As respects the Disciples, however, the case is 
 very different. The first thing in onr movement 
 was to secure freedom, for all time, from the 
 tyranny of mere confessional authority. The first 
 number of The Christian Baptist bore at the 
 front the flag of Christian freedom. At the head 
 of its first page was inscribed this motto : 
 "Style no man on earth your Father ; for he 
 alone is your Fattier who is in heaven; and all ye 
 are brethren. Assume not the title of Rabbi ; 
 for you have only one Teacher ; neither assume 
 the title of Leader; for you have only one Leader, 
 the Messiah" 
 
 This motto sounded the key-note of our reforma- 
 tion. In the mouth of Mr. Campbell these words 
 were not the expression of an aggressive and de- 
 fiant individualism. Mr. C. was indeed, from the 
 beginning of his public career, an independent 
 thinker and a fearless proclaimer of his assured 
 convictions. But no man felt more profoundly 
 than he the need of mutual toleration and respect, 
 in order to the maintenance of spiritual unity, 
 and a catholic fellowship in the congregations of 
 the living God. What he asserted for himself he 
 accorded freely and unhesitatingly to the hum- 
 blest disciple in the ranks. The chosen motto was 
 not for himself only, but for all. "Where the 
 Bible speaks he would speak, where the Bible was 
 silent he would be silent," as to authoritative ut- 
 terance. Nothing should be made a test of fel- 
 
172 
 
 ORIGIN OF TTIK 
 
 lowship or membership which could not be sup- 
 ported "by exi^ress precept or approved prece- 
 dent," taken from the word of God, and applied 
 in its proper contextual limitations. The follower 
 of the dear Lord was not to be judged on account 
 of his opinions on questions of " doubtful disputa- 
 tion." He recognized the right of untrammelled 
 inquiry, but maintained a broad difference be- 
 tween the gospel of Jesus Christ, having for its 
 content the way of salvation, and the uncertain 
 deductions which constitute the formulas of sys- 
 tematic theology in all the widely conflicting 
 schools. What Christ has bound upon the human 
 soul, in order to its salvation, must be loosed by 
 no human hand. But this binding is either in ex- 
 press precept or good and valid precedent. A 
 condition of salvation is never an inference. The 
 facts about Christ, the faith in Christ, the obedi- 
 ence to Christ, the blessings and franchises en- 
 joyed through Christ — these are the topics of the 
 gospel of redemption. He allowed to theory its 
 proper place, as the attempt of the human mind 
 to explain rationally the facts and commandments 
 of the gospel, but he sternly denied the right of 
 any disciple to force his personal explanation on 
 the conscience of another. It was a characteristic 
 utterance, when he once affirmed, " God never 
 saved a man for believing a theory, or damned a 
 man for disbelieving one." In the field of relig- 
 ious philosophy the soul is free, but this Christian 
 
DISCIPLES OF CHRIST, 
 
 173 
 
 freedom is not to run into license in speculation, 
 any more than in the corresponding department of 
 conduct or life. It is easy to darken counsel by 
 words without knowledge. Unbridled speculation 
 is, and always has been, an evil of great magni- 
 tude in the church of God. We are indeed free to 
 think, but wisdom in the expression of our 
 thought is a true test of usefulness in a disciple 
 of Jesus Christ. So one may theorize — for how 
 can a thinking man keep quite clear of theory ? — 
 but his theories are mainly for himself, and must 
 not be bound on other people as a test of fellow- 
 ship, or membership in a Christian church. These 
 fundamental distinctions were made clear in the 
 early years of our reformatory movement, and its 
 whole subsequent history has been shaped by 
 their influence. 
 
 It is plain, then, that Mr. Campbell never 
 thought of founding a community to reflect and 
 perpetuate his own theological opinions. He fast- 
 ened his opinions upon no one, in any way. In 
 the department of opinion, of theology, he left 
 even' man as free as Christ had left him, and 
 bravely insisted that none should be permitted to 
 destroy or abridge that freedom. When he rested 
 from his labors, there was not a single individual, 
 or church, on earth, in any wise pledged to any 
 theory or interpretation which he had held and 
 promulgated by word or pen. The Disciples, his 
 brethren, acknowledged and do acknowledge no 
 
174 
 
 ORIGIN OF THE 
 
 leader, in the sense of the above-quoted motto, 
 but the Lord Messiah. They have never been 
 pledged to anything but the revealed truth of God, 
 as each single soul finds it for himself, through 
 whatever helping instrumentalities, in the Scrip- 
 tures of the Old and New Testaments. Truth 
 only has authority. Truth is eternal reality, as 
 God sees it, in the kingdom of the Spirit. The 
 soul of man is bound to this truth, and to nought 
 besides. It is bound to the Holy Scriptures be- 
 cause they contain this truth. It is bound to 
 Christ, who is the truth, and to his word, whether 
 spoken by himself or others as the expression of 
 that truth for the authoritative direction of human 
 life. That which is the substance and essence of 
 Christianity, the facts concerning Christ, the sin- 
 cere and intelligent belief of these facts, the rev- 
 erent trust in Christ superinduced through this 
 belief, the new life of the soul divinely inbreathed 
 by means of this belief and trust, the expression 
 of this life in all piety Godward, and in all phil- 
 anthropy man ward — these are the things to which 
 we are committed as a religious community, be- 
 cause these are the things bound upon us by the 
 Head of the church, our Savior and Lord. To de- 
 mand more than this, is to become a sect ; to de- 
 mand less, is to cease to be Christian. So under- 
 stand the matter all the Disciples of Christ, and 
 so have they ever understood it from Alexander 
 Campbell down to him whose pen traces these 
 
DISCIPLES OF CHRIST. 
 
 175 
 
 words. In these things, our indebtedness to Mr. 
 Campbell, under God, is very great, and is most 
 cheerfully acknowledged. Further than these 
 things we are not bound. 
 
 Mr. Campbell was a voluminous writer, but as 
 editor of a religious periodical, rather than a 
 maker of books. He became an editor early in 
 his public career. His conception of the Chris- 
 tian religion was a growth. Like every other re- 
 former, in cutting loose from the prescriptions of 
 accepted creeds, he had to trace anew the great 
 lines of Christian truth for himself. He says of his 
 progress, that it "was gradual as the dawn." The 
 great outlines, once distinctly grasped, had to be 
 wrought out in detail patiently. What he 
 thought and said at one time was not always 
 strictly consistent with what he said at another. 
 It is not a pleasant thing to confess one's mistakes, 
 and though Mr. Campbell never, so far as the 
 writer knows, said of any particular sentence he 
 had written; "This was a mistake;" yet here- 
 vised his work so often, and surveyed the ques- 
 tions concerning which he wrote, from so many 
 different points of view, that it is easy enough 
 now to separate his mature and final utterances 
 from those which were tentative, and intended to 
 be accepted as provisional in their character. 
 For instance, Mr. C. said some things in the Chris- 
 tian Baptist against Missionary, and even Bible 
 Societies, which, at a later period, we positively 
 
176 
 
 ORIGIN OF THE 
 
 know lie would not have said. In his celebrated 
 Extras on remission and regeneration, he ex- 
 pressed his views incautiously, and so as to do 
 himself injustice, even if we grant that the posi- 
 tion he intended to maintain was, for substance, 
 the true one. So, also, in the dialogue of Timothy 
 and Austin on the work of the Holy Spirit, he 
 exposed himself not only to misrepresentation but 
 even to honest misapprehension upon the part of 
 many persons by whom he sincerely desired to be 
 correctly understood. It seems only the part of 
 candor to say these things now, when the battle is 
 over, and the smoke of the conflict passing away. 
 
 But one can have little patience with the whole- 
 sale misrepresentations which, in certain quarters, 
 arose over these matters, and the obstinate unwill- 
 ingness to be set right in regard to them, which 
 was long persisted in by many fairly good men. 
 If it can not be set down to the account of inevita- 
 ble human weakness, then no excuse can be made 
 for it. 
 
 But the point is this : No man among the Dis- 
 ciples is in any wise bound to defend any position 
 of Mr. Campbell's which he may honestly regard 
 as untenable. Nor are our children trained in 
 catechisms which imply their correctness, and so 
 forestall the honest, independent judgment, to 
 which their own investigations might lead them in 
 their maturer years. We have no articles of faith 
 shaped for us by Mr. Campbell, or any other unin- 
 
DISCIPLES OF CHRIST. 
 
 177 
 
 spired man. And as a matter of fact, there is not 
 one of us who does not exercise the freedom, 
 which is our heritage, to the fullest extent which 
 sincere and reverent personal investigation may 
 seem to demand. Our relation to Mr. Campbell, 
 and our other great men, is not at all that of the 
 Lutheran Church to Luther, of the Calvinian 
 churches to Calvin, or of the Methodist churches 
 to John Wesley. This fact is now plain beyond 
 honest — shall I say ? — denial. Hence, it concerns 
 us not in the least to know from whom Mr. Camp- 
 bell may have learned this or that item in his the- 
 ological system, or whether Sandeman and 
 M ' Lean were the real founders of the movement, 
 which, in this country, has been generally con- 
 nected with his name by those who oppose it. 
 Our only concern is to know if it is, primarily, 
 from God. If so we are satisfied. Short of this 
 there is no resting-place to us ; beyond this we 
 have not the least wish to go. 
 
 And yet, as we understand it, our obligations to 
 Mr. Campbell are such that his good name is a 
 matter of some concern to us. We owe him, un- 
 der God, as we feel, a great debt, and we should 
 not be true to our manhood, if we failed to repel 
 the unfounded assertions of any one who seeks to 
 darken with dishonor his grand life. Some one 
 once said, " How can you reply to a sneer ? " Ah ! 
 indeed ! that has been my only difficuly in this 
 review. Prof. Whitsitt's words of criticism and 
 
178 
 
 OEIGIN OF THE 
 
 argument have been easily met. But there is 
 more in his book — or I am much mistaken — than 
 the words which convey his strictures upon Mr. 
 Campbell and the Disciples. There is the out- 
 breathing of a spirit, the effluence of a personality 
 — not an " aureole," for that is from without, and 
 suggests saintly sanctity, but an efflux, an emana- 
 tion, which comes from within, and reveals the 
 moods of the soul which sends it forth ; and this 
 is what has been hard to reply to in a way to 
 realize my ideal of what a review should be. I 
 have sincerely desired to be just. I should scorn 
 to impute motives, in any case, less worthy than 
 the rea' ones. But I have been unable in reading 
 Prof. Whitsitt's little volume to escape this 
 malodorous presence for many moments together. 
 The bitter curl of the author's lip, the sardonic 
 smile, the alternating scowl, "the slow-moving" 
 index finger — these have kept themselves con- 
 stantly before my mind's eye. If I have spoken 
 any word " unadvisedly," if any expression 
 stronger than truth required has at any time es- 
 caped me, then this sinister, impalpable " geist," 
 which has constantly confronted me with its pres- 
 ence, is altogether to blame for it. 
 
 But I must repeat the fact that the Disciples are 
 in no wise bound to any of Mr. Campbell's opin- 
 ions, interpretations, or reasonings. Neither does 
 our respect for him sensibly influence us in our 
 search for truth in the Word of God. Our only 
 
DISCIPLES OF OHRIST. 
 
 179 
 
 quest is truth. Our practical aim is the glory of 
 God. In the spirit of true disciples of the Master, 
 we would seek the enlightenment and salvation of 
 men. In all these things we are precisely as free 
 as we should have been if Mr. Campbell had 
 never lived. In a sense, Mr. Campbell was a great 
 leader in our movement, but he has done what no 
 other reformer ever did, he has left us our whole 
 freedom in Christ, nay, he has eloquently and 
 earnestly besought us to maintain this freedom, 
 steadfast to the end. Our fealty is due to Christ. 
 And if, in the progress of knowledge, the pursuit 
 of truth should lead us quite away from some of 
 the chief land-marks of our early historji, there is 
 nothing under heaven to hold us back. We are 
 pledged only to the faith in Christ which saves 
 the soul, and that expression of this faith in the 
 life, which makes salvation an assured possession, 
 according to the word of our God. We can not 
 forsake this and be Christian ; we can not add to 
 this, as a test of membership, without making 
 ourselves another sect, among sects, and so forfeit- 
 ing our birthright, as restorers of the original gos- 
 pel. 
 
 With our Baptist brethren we have no unchris- 
 tian quarrel. If they fail to see the ineffable dig- 
 nity of our distinctive position, we are sorry 
 enough that it is so, but we shall not, I trust, fool- 
 ishly abuse them for it. They will see it in the 
 Lord's own good time. It is as true now as it ever 
 
180 
 
 ORIGIN OF THE 
 
 was, that only they can come to Christ, or to 
 larger measures of the truth of Christ, who are 
 drawn by the Father, and come because they are 
 drawn. We earnestly desire to live in kindliest 
 relations with the Baptists of all schools, and will 
 so live, if they will only let us. But let them not 
 delude themselves as to the reason that impels us 
 to seek pleasant relations with them. We care as 
 little for their indorsement as they can possibly 
 care for ours. We know that we have the advan- 
 tage of them before earth and heaven. We have 
 moved on before them, in the grand march of 
 human souls away from the superstitions and fan- 
 tasies which yet survive the long spiritual night 
 of the world, in which they had their birth. As 
 men disengage themselves, more and more, from 
 these unhappy survivals, the growth and power of 
 our movement is bound to increase. If God so 
 wills, we can afford to wait for the better day 
 which is sure to come. And we can do without 
 anybody's recognition, meantime, that gives it not 
 at all, or only grudgingly. But our broad, divine 
 plea compels us to hold our arms open for brother- 
 hood and fellowship with those who sincerely love 
 and serve our Lord, whether they see very clearly 
 the genius of the common faith or not. It is not 
 for us, who providentially occupy the vanguard of 
 the Lord's moving hosts, to withhold our love from 
 those who would fall into line with us, if they 
 only saw clearly that they ought to do it. To 
 
DISCIPLES OF CHRIST. 181 
 
 speak boldly the truth which God has given us in 
 charge, and to lovingly and patiently wait for its 
 final triumph is our bounden duty. The blessing 
 of the Lord God Almighty upon every soul that 
 sincerely loves Jesus and seeks to follow in his 
 footsteps. 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 NOTE A. 
 
 The following extracts from an article by Dr. 
 Henry C. Vedder, published in the number for 
 July, 1888, of the Baptist Quarterly Review, will 
 be a read with interest, as an expression of Bap- 
 tist opinion : 
 
 "Dr. Whitsitt begins by stating his thesis as 
 follows : ' The Disciples of Christ, commonly 
 called Campbellites from the name of their 
 founder, Mr. Alexander Campbell, of Bethany, 
 West Virginia, are an offshoot of the Sandeman- 
 ian sect of Scotland.' The value of this study of 
 the sources from which the peculiar tenets and 
 customs of the Disciples were drawn, so far as 
 they were drawn mediately from other Christians 
 and not immediately from the Scriptures, does not 
 depend in the least upon the establishment of this 
 proposition. This is fortunate, for it does not 
 seem that the author has proved his thesis." 
 
 "In the first place, the term 'offshoot' in Dr. 
 Whitsitt's thesis does not seem to be very fortu- 
 nately chosen. It seems to imply" (does it not 
 unqualifiedly and absolutely imply?) "that there 
 
 (183) 
 
184 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 was an organic connection between the Sandeman- 
 ian sect and the Disciples. This is by no means 
 the case." 
 
 "Thomas Campbell ^ame to this country in 
 1807, a minister of the Seceders' Church, in full 
 fellowship. Alexander Campbell, up to the time 
 of his leaving Scotland, was also in full fellowship 
 with this body, although in heart he had ceased 
 to hold its doctrines, or to sympathize with its 
 practice. He had spent some time, while a stud- 
 ent at the University of Glasgow, in the society 
 of Greville Ewing, one of the leaders of the San- 
 demanian sect, and had been strongly influenced 
 by the peculiar notions of this able and eccentric 
 divine. Many of these notions were afterwards 
 worked out in the Reformation. His obligations 
 to Ewing, and to the writings of Glas and San- 
 deman, Alexander Campbell never denied or con- 
 cealed. He did not profess that his teachings 
 were original. He only claimed that they were 
 true. 'I am,' said he, ' greatly indebted to all 
 the reformers, from Martin Luther down to John 
 Wesley. I could not enumerate or particularize 
 the individuals, living and dead, who have as- 
 sisted in forming my mind. If all the Hebrew, 
 Greek, Roman, Persian, French, English, Irish, 
 Scotch, and American teachers and authors were 
 to demand their own from me, I do not know 
 that I would have two mites to buy incense to 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 185 
 
 offer upon the altar to my genius of originality for 
 
 the honors vouchsafed me.' 
 
 ********* 
 
 " This brief outline of facts is sufficient to show 
 that, so far from being an 'offshoot' of the San- 
 demanian sect of Scotland, the Disciples are so 
 far as any organic connection is concerned, an off 
 shoot of the Baptist denomination of the United 
 States. It might easily be shown, of course, that 
 Alexander Campbell and his followers were noth- 
 ing more than nominal Baptists. From the begin- 
 ning they were never in sympathy with the views 
 of truth that prevail among Baptist churches, but 
 the fact is indisputable that they were in organic 
 union with the Baptists until that union was dis- 
 solved by the Baptist associations and Baptist 
 churches withdrawing fellowship from them. 
 
 "The utmost, then, that Dr. Whitsitt's thesis can* 
 mean is, that in spirit, in doctrine and in church 
 order the Disciples have drawn more largely from 
 the Sandemanians than from any other body of 
 Christians. 
 
 ********* 
 
 "In Chapter II, of his little book he gives fif- 
 teen particulars of Sandemanian doctrines and 
 practices, as follows : 
 
 "1. A plurality of elders in each church. 
 
 "2. A weekly observance of the LoroVs Sup- 
 per. 
 
 "3. The supporting of themselves by the 
 
186 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 elders in some trade or profession outside of the 
 ministry. 
 
 "4. The observance of love feasts such as pre- 
 vailed in the early Christian Church. 
 
 "5. The kiss of charity as enjoined in the 
 apostolic letters. 
 
 "6. Feet-washing as a church ordinance. 
 
 "7. Abstinence from eating blood. 
 
 "8. The necessity of absolute unanimity on 
 the part of the various members in every transac- 
 tion by an individual church. 
 
 "9. A modified communism, the personal es- 
 tate of each communicant being always subject to 
 the demand of the necessitous, especially those of 
 the household of faith. 
 
 "10. The calling of the weekly collection the 
 fell oic ship. 
 
 "11. The custom of mutual exhortation as 
 a regular part of religious worship. 
 
 "12. Non-practice of family worship. 
 
 "13. The absence of scruples against going to 
 the theatre, or joining in the dance, or other 
 social amusements with any, even with irreligious 
 people. 
 
 "14. The exclusion of all but communi- 
 cants FROM THE PUBLIC SERVICES OF THE CnURCH. 
 
 "15. The refused to regard the first day of 
 the week as a Sabbath, or to even ccdl it by that 
 name. 
 
 "Dr. Whitsitt compares those peculiarities with 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 187 
 
 the teachings of Mr. Campbell and the practice of 
 the Disciples at the present time, with this curious 
 result : Of the fifteen particulars enumerated, the 
 Disciples agree with the Sandemanians in the four 
 printed in italics, viz., numbers 1, 2, 10 and 15. 
 The Disciples absolutely disagree with the Sande- 
 manians in the nine particulars printed in ordi- 
 nary type, viz., numbers 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12 and 
 13; and two cases printed in small capitals (11 
 and 14) are doubtful. JErgo, the Disciples are an 
 
 'offshoot' of the Sandemanians! 
 
 **** * * % * 
 
 "But Dr. Whitsitt, in spite of his own confes- 
 sions to the contrary, and in spite of facts that 
 cannot be denied, persists in calling the Scotch 
 Baptists, Sandemanians — ' the immersed wing of 
 the Sandemanian fraternity,' and again, ' the im- 
 mersed Sandemanians,' and similar titles. The 
 more reasonable ground would seem to be that, 
 after he severed his relations with the Sandeman- 
 ian church at Glasgow, Archibald M ' Lean was no 
 more a Sandemanian than Adoniram Judson con- 
 tinued to be a Congregationalist, after he was 
 baptized at Calcutta. It is necessary, however, 
 for Dr. Whitsitt to maintain his views of M'Lean's 
 continued connection with the Sandemanians, be- 
 cause otherwise his thesis utterly falls to the 
 ground. The main ideas in Alexander Campbell's 
 Reformation were, as he believes, borrowed from 
 M'Lean, especially the distinctive and peculiar 
 
188 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 doctrine of baptism for the remission of sins ; but 
 M ' Lean was, it seems plain, a Baptist when he 
 wrote his Commission of Christ. Dr. Whitsitt's 
 thesis as to the origin of the Disciples is in the 
 predicament of Humpty Dumpty." 
 
 '•What Dr. WMtsitt calls the second stage of 
 Mr. Campbell's perversion to Sandemanianism 
 was the adoption of the views afterward advo- 
 cated by him with regard to baptism. It seems 
 that in the church at Brush Run, one of the most 
 influential members, Joseph Bryant, was in favor 
 of immersion. It became necessary, says Dr. 
 Whitsitt, in order to secure his support and to 
 prevent the church from going to pieces, that this 
 question should be definitely decided : 
 
 " 'He therefore resolved to take the step which it 
 was becoming evident the larger portion of the 
 church demanded at the hands of himself and his 
 father. Accordingly he made preparations to pro- 
 cure his own immersion. When he went to com- 
 municate his intention to his father, an ally was 
 found in the house in the person of his sister 
 Dorothea. Naturally concerned to avoid an ex- 
 plosion in the church, by means of which she 
 might be required to decide between the affection 
 she bore her parents and her affection for the man 
 to whom she was, perhaps, already betrothed, she 
 had become, like Mr. Bryant, a decided advocate 
 of immersion. If Mr. Bryant, and the majority 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 189 
 
 of the little church at Brush Run, could have been 
 induced to tolerate aspersion, it is probable that 
 the Campbells would never have found it conven- 
 ient to leave the side of the sprinkling Sandeman- 
 ians.' 
 
 " This is our author's account of a change, by 
 all means the most important that ever occurred 
 in the belief and practice of Alexander Campbell 
 — a change that he always insisted was due to his 
 conscientious convictions, growing out of an inde- 
 pendent study of the Scriptures. Two of the least 
 creditable motives that could possibly actuate a 
 man in the matter of a religious conversion, are 
 attributed in this account to Mr. Campbell : That 
 he professed a change of convictions with refer- 
 ence to baptism, first, in order to retain the sup- 
 port of influential members of his church, and, 
 second, to make sure of an eligible suitor for his 
 sister's hand. To justify such accusations against 
 the motives of any reputable Christian man, the 
 strongest evidence ought to be produced. In favor 
 of the first, Dr. Whitsitt produces only the fact 
 that some members of the church strongly favored 
 immersion. In favor of the second he has nothing 
 better than a " perhaps." There is no evidence 
 that Mr. Bryant was a suitor for Dorothea Camp- 
 bell's hand before her baptism, and certainly none 
 that, if he was a suitor, either of the Campbells 
 was influenced by that fact. 
 
190 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 '•But this is not all. Dr. \Yhitsitt gives us also 
 an account, entirely original with him, of Alex- 
 ander Campbell's change of views with regard to 
 the subjects of baptism. It has already been dis- 
 proved by the summary given from Mr. Richard- 
 son's narrative ; but it is worth while to quote it, 
 to show how completely the facts have been mis- 
 interpreted : 
 
 " 'On the 13th of March, 1812. his first child was 
 born. The question of infant baptism, therefore, 
 became to him a topic of special interest. Doubt- 
 less with reference to the scruples of James Fos- 
 ter, lie had formerly urged that this point should 
 be treated as a matter of forbearance. That was 
 the utmost limit to which he might safely advance 
 if he desired to obtain the sympathy and support 
 of so important a personage. It does not appear 
 that he ventured as far as that since the 5th of 
 June, 1811, possibly abstaining through fear of 
 promoting an undesirable conflict. If now he had 
 dared to baptize his child, after its birth in March, 
 1812, he must have done so with the conviction 
 that the act would cost him the affections and 
 countenance of most of the communicants at 
 Brush Run. At any rate, he could not make up 
 his mind to provoke the church in that way ; and 
 contrary to the position of Greville Ewing, his 
 child was compelled to dispense with baptism.' 
 
 "The mention of James Foster's scruples is en- 
 tirely gratuitous, for it was the fundamental posi- 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 191 
 
 tion of the church at Brush Run from its organ- 
 ization, that the question of infant baptism was a 
 ' matter of indifference.' There is not a circum- 
 stance in the whole of Alexander Campbell's life 
 that gives the slightest warrant for the imputation 
 against his courage. It would be difficult to name 
 the other man in the history of modern Christian- 
 ity who has shown a greater intrepidity, a more 
 utter disregard of the opinions and prejudices of 
 other men, a more unflinching determination to 
 follow whithersoever his convictions pointed the 
 way, than Alexander Campbell. Baptists believe 
 that he was often in the wrong, but he was never 
 a coward. 
 
 "Dr. Jeter, one of his most active contemporary 
 opponents, does him justice, Avhen he says, 
 'About this time (1811), he was led to question 
 the divine authority of infant sprinkling, and, 
 after a long, serious, and prayerful examination of 
 all the sources of information within his reach, to 
 reject it and to solicit immersion on a profession 
 of faith.' This is doubtless the exact truth, and 
 the testimony is of the higher value, as it came 
 from one who was, through most of his life, a 
 vigorous opponent of Mr. Campbell's teachings. 
 
 "It is with the utmost regret that these strictures 
 are made upon Dr. Whitsitt's book. All of the 
 present writer's prepossessions were in its favor, 
 and it would have been a much more pleasant 
 task to commend without qualification, than to 
 
192 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 dispute the statements of so eminent a scholar of 
 our denomination. But the accomplished author 
 would be the first to assert that truth is the high- 
 est of all considerations, and solely to help estab- 
 lish the truth these criticisms are made. 
 New York. Hexby C. Vedder." 
 
 NOTE B. 
 
 The following paragraphs are taken from a Re- 
 view in the New York Examiner (Baptist paper), 
 of May 17, 1888. The writer shows clearly his 
 Baptist sympathies, but evidently means to do 
 justice. From a Baptist, this review is very sig- 
 nificant: 
 
 " Neither Alexander Campbell nor Thomas 
 Campbell was ever a member of the Sandemanian 
 sect. Both were, ujy to the time of their leaving 
 Scotland, members of the Seceder Church, now 
 known as the United Presbyterian Church. It is 
 true that while at Glasgow University Alexander 
 Campbell had been brought in contact with the 
 Sandemanians, and had even imbibed some of 
 their peculiar notions, which were worked out in 
 his 'Reformation,' but a Sandemanian he never 
 was. The Disciples are not an ' offshoot ' of the 
 Sandemanians in any such sense as the Methodists 
 may be called an offshoot of the Church of Eng- 
 land. The connection between them, such as it 
 is, is limited to spirit and doctrine. So far as out- 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 193 
 
 ward and organic connection is concerned, the 
 Disciples might much more plausibly be held to 
 be an offshoot of the Baptist denomination." 
 
 This reviewer then proceeds to state what he re- 
 gards as the extent of Mr. Campbell's indebted- 
 ness to Sandeman. Concerning the points men- 
 tioned he adds the following : 
 
 "These are the principal items that Mr. Camp- 
 bell derived from the Sandemanians. None of 
 them, excepting perhaps the first, is fundamental, 
 as will readily be seen. The fundamental princi- 
 ples of the Disciple faith and practice, so far as 
 they were borrowed, were derived from another 
 source." 
 
 Then he proceeds to administer a merited .re- 
 buke to Dr. W. for his illiberal and unjust treat- 
 ment of the Scotch Baptists, as follows: 
 
 " These he persists, in spite of proofs furnished 
 in his own pages to the contrary, in calling ' the 
 immersed wing of the Sandemanian fraternity,' 
 'the immersed Sandemanians,' and the like. 
 Now it is quite true that at one time Robert Car- 
 michael and Archibald M'Lean, the leaders of 
 the Scotch Baptists, were connected with the San- 
 demanian persuasion. But both left the sect, Mr. 
 Carmichael resigning the pastorate of the Sande- 
 manian church in Glasgow, and Mr. M ' Lean re- 
 tiring from membership at the same time. ' After 
 this pair of friends had fallen into a condition of 
 separation from the Sandemanians,' to use Dr. 
 
 13 
 
194 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 Whitsitt's own words, he continues to call them 
 Sandemanians ; and this, too, after they had come 
 to adopt believers' baptism, and had been them- 
 selves immersed on profession of their faith. 
 That they no longer regarded themselves as San- 
 demanians, that the Sandemanians denounced 
 them as Anabaptists, is no barrier to our author's 
 fixed purpose that they shall be Sandemanians ; 
 and Sandemanians he calls them to the end. In 
 our judgment this is not historical criticism, it is 
 not fair treatment of the facts." 
 
 The following extract is specially noteworthy, 
 but only what simple honesty required at the re- 
 viewer's hands: 
 
 " The account given in chapter VIII. of Mr. Camp- 
 bell's adoption of immersion as baptism and 
 rejection of infant baptism is greatly to be re- 
 gretted. There is no good reason — certainly Dr. 
 Whitsitt produces none — to doubt the statement 
 of Mr. Campbell's biographer that this step was 
 taken after protracted study of the Scriptures, and 
 much heart-searching on the part of both the 
 Campbells. Professor Richardson gives a long 
 and circumstantial narrative of the causes that 
 led to this action, and unless that narrative is an 
 entire fabrication, the imputations of unworthy 
 motives made by Dr. Whitsitt have no foundation 
 of fact, and should be expunged from his book." 
 
 It was natural that a Baptist reviewer should 
 find in a book like Dr. Whitsitt's some things to 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 195 
 
 be commended. These are duly noted, and at 
 least as much credit given as is deserved. It is 
 enough that this distinguished Baptist says that 
 Prof. Whitsitt has not proved his main thesis — 
 that which his book was meant to prove ; and that 
 an important section of it ought injustice to the 
 truth of history to be expunged. The Disciples 
 need ask no more. 
 
Date Due 
 
 
 | 8 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 FF 17 
 
 53 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 • 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 1