CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED.AND
RE -EXAM INED.
B Y
REV. JEREMIAH B. JETER, D.D.
OF RIOHMOND, VIRGINIA.
NEW YORK:
SHELDON AND COMPANY.
RICIlMOND: T. J. STARKE.
1860.




Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1854, by
JEREMIAH  B. JETER,
In the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the United States for the Sauther
District of New York.




TO THE
ESTEEMED BRETHREN,
AT WHOSE REQUEST, THIS WORK HAS BEEN PREPAREDI
IT IS RESPECTFULLY INSCRIBED'BY
THE AUTHOR,
WITH HIS EARNEST PRAYER TO THE
"FATHER  OF LIGHTS,"
THAT IT MAY PROMOTE THE CAUSE OF TRUTIH AND PIETY,




CONTENTS.
I  THE INTRODUCTION,.... 
II. CAMPBELLISMI IN ITS INCEPTION,..         13
III. CAMPBELLISM IN ITS CHAOS)..     23
IV. CAMPBELLISM IN ITS FORMATION,...    76
V. CAMPBELLISM IN ITS PRINCIPLES,... 114
VI. CAMPBELLISM IN ITS DISCIPLINE,..    292
VII. CAMPBELLISM IN ITS TENDENCIES,... 338
VIIL  CONCLUSION....   354




"REV   DR. J. B13. JETER,
DEAR SIR:THE undersigned ministers and members of
Baptist churches, have been deeply impressed with the importance to our churches of a succinct and popular treatise upon
the rise, progress, character, and influence of the sect of Christians called Disciples, or Campbellites. The knowledge which
your position has given you of this subject, and the clearness
of thought, justness of view, candor of spirit, which have
marked the passage on this subject contained in your memoirof the late Rev. Andrew Broaddus, have induced us respectfully
to request that you will at your earliest convenience prepare a
work of the character above described.
fhe undersigned believe that by complying with this request, you will do an essential service to the cause of truth,
and advance the glory of our Holy Redeemer.
ELISHA TUCKER,*              EDWARD LATHIROP,
MB. B. ANDERSON,              GEO. W. SAMSON,
HIEMAN LINCOLIN,             J. AM. LINNARD,
C. W. IIOUGHTON,             A. D. GILLETTE,
S. S. CUTTING,               J. C. STOCKBRIDGE,
W. B. JACOBS,                S. F. SMITH."
* Since the above request was signed, in May, 1852, Doctor Tucker, of
Chicago, Illinois, has been called from his labors to his reward. I know,
loved, and venerated him. He was a noble specimen of a Christian mi} is



vi                          MEMORIAL.
ter. ~With enlarged views, ripe experience, sound judgment, and a conservative spirit, he was eminently fitted to be, as he was, a leader in " the sacramental host of God's elect." By his expansive and generous sympathies,
he was allied to men of all parties, and. all sections; but by his devotion to
truth, he was identified with the advocates of evangelic Christianity. His
life was a beautiful commentary on the doctrine which he embraced, and
his death a happy termination of a life of toil and usefulness. I need not
say more of this excellent servant of Christ, and less in justice to my feelings, I could not say.                                      J. B  J.




INTRODUCTION
TrE term  Campbellism is used in "'this treatise,
not as a term of reproach, but of distinction. No
other word denotes the system which it is proposed
to examine. iMr. Alexander Campbell, of Bethany,
Virginia, and the party embracing his views, have
assumed several appellations. They have styled
themselves " Reformers," " Christians," and " Disciples."  Without discussing their exclusive claim
to these titles, it is clear that from neither of them
can any term be derived which will fairly distinguish
their system of doctrine. The word Reformation
has been appropriated, by common consent, to denote that great moral revolution, of which Luther
and Calvin were the prime agents. The term
Christianity can never be wrested from its univer



Viii            INTRODUCTION.
sally established import, to express the views of any
sect or party, however good, wise or great. From
the word Discipte, indefinite as an appellative, no
term can be derived to signify the views of those who
adopt the name. Mr. Campbell claims to have discovered the " Ancient Gospel."  Without at this
time conceding or denying the equity of his claim,
it may be observed that the inquiries now to be made
have reference not to the Ancient Gospel, recorded
in the writings of the evangelists and apostles, but
to the speculations of Mr. Campbell, contained in
his voluminous works, concerning this gospel, and
which have been received as true by the friends of
the " Current Reformation."  To call these speculations the Ancient Gospel, would be a manifest misnomer. I am then under the necessity of employing some indefinite term, a tedious circumlocution,
or the word Campbellism to denote the system under
discussion, and the last course seems preferable.
This system is with great propriety termed Campbellism. Systems of philosophy, science, and religion, have usually been designated after their discoverers, first promulgators, or most distinguished
advocates. Mr. Campbell is the author, and most
eminent proclaimer of the peculiar doctrines, which,




INTRODUCTION.
within the last thirty years, have spread in the
Southern and Western states, under the title of
" The Reformation."  No other man has added an
article to the system, subtracted one from it, or materially modified it. Many truths are taught by
Mr. Campbell in common with other Christians;
very few of the principles for which he pleads are
strictly new; but having revived, modified, and
placed in new combinations some antiquated sentiments, and added to them a few original speculations, he is fairly entitled to all the honor, and
obnoxious to all the censure which his system
merits.
It is not my purpose to write a history of Campbellism. I have neither the inclination, time, nor
means to do it. Nor do I design to confine myself
to a polemic discussion. Campbellism, like other
things earthly, has passed through various and important changes. To arrive at just views of it, we
must carefully notice its rise, progress, modifications, and influence, as well as its distinctive principles. It. must be viewed from  different standpoints, and under different phases, that its true
character may be understood.  My purpose is to
furnish a faithful delineation of the system —its prin



x               INTRODUCTION.
ciples, spirit and influence-to censure he evil, and
commend the good.
Various considerations have prevailed with me to
undertake this work. The subject to be examined
is important. It were vain to deny that Campbellism has exercised an extensive influence on the religious sentiment of the country. We are interested
not less as philosophers than as Christians to inquire into the causes of this success. The proposed
treatise is demanded by public curiosity. What is
Campbellism? This question, asked by many, is
not easily answered. Some perceive no distinction
between it and the views generally entertained by
the Baptists; and others consider it a dangerous
system of error. A calm, discriminating and faithful examination of it, cannot fail to profit both those
who embrace, and those who reject it. All these
considerations would probably have failed to induce
me to undertake the work, had not brethren, whose
judgment is worthy of respect, and with whose request it is a pleasure to comply, urged me to engage in it.
Of my fitness for the task the reader will judge
by the manner of its execution. I have enjoyed
very fair opportunities of forming correct opinions




INTRODUCTION.              Xi
of ]Mr. Campbell's system. I first saw him in the
year 1825. Since that time I have been a careful
observer of his course. I have watched the gradual
development of his principles, and marked their influence on the churches. I have read most that has
been published by him and his opponents on the various points in debate. I have conversed much with
persons embracing and zealously supporting the Reformation.
It is my purpose to conduct this investigation in
the spirit of candor and fairness, knowing that noth —
ing can be gained to the cause of truth and righteousness by sophistry, misrepresentation and detraction. No sentence incompatible with the claims of
justice, and christian courtesy shall intentionally
escape my pen; nor shall I withhold a frank and
faithful expression of my opinions on all points which
I deem important.
I do not hope to be able to meet the expectation,
and satisfy the wishes of all my readers. Some will
think me too lenient, and others too severe-some
will think that I concede too much, and others too
little. Truth generally lies between extremes. I
am more anxious, I trust, to please God than men
-to promote the cause of truth than to gain a vic



XII             INTRODUCTION0.
tory.  WVriting for no sect or party, but for all who
desire to know the truth, I ask nothing of my readers, except an unprejudiced consideration of the
facts and arguments presented in the work.'The
interests of the writer and reader are identical; and
the same law which requires him to publish, requires them to receive, the truth.




CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED.
CAMPBELLISM  IN  ITS INCEPTION.
CIRCUMSTANCES, it has been frequently affirmed,
make men. The remark is not true in an unqualified sense; but it cannot be questioned that circumstances exert a mighty influence in forming the
tastes, opinions, and characters, and guiding the
lives of most men. Mr. Campbell, much as he has
boasted of his independence of thought and conduct, has not risen above this common law of
humanity. He is, to a great extent, what his
peculiar circumstances-his early training and associations, and his subsequent relations, avocations,
and conflicts-have made him. He bears, most
clearly, the impress of the mould in which he was
cast. He was educated in the University of Glasgow, in Scotland. If he was not brought up among
the Seceders-as he probably was-he was early
connected with that most rigid of all the Presbyterian sects, adopted their views, and fully imbibed




14       CAMPBELLISM IN ITS INCEPTION.
their spirit.  " I have," said he, " tried the pharisaic plan, and the monastic. I was once so straight,
that, like the Indian's tree, I leaned a little the
other way. And however much I may be slandered
now as seeking' popularity,' or a popular course, I
have to rejoice to my own satisfaction, as well as
to others, I proved that truth, and not popularity
was my object; for I was once so strict a Separatist
that I would neither pray nor sing praises with any
one who was not as perfect as I supposed myself."
Chn. Bap., p. 238.  Had Mr. C. not passed his
early years in Scotland, his religious views and
career would have differed widely from what they
have been. MIany of his speculations have been
Scottish importations.  To which of the Seceder
sects he was attached, does not appear, but it is
presumed from his early phariseeism, to the straitest. It would be strange, if his education in the
school of bigotry and intolerance, had not given
complexion to his spirit, character to his opinions,
and direction to his labors, in after life.
In August, 1809, this young Seceder, with a certificate of church membership in his pocket, set
sail from the city of Greenock, in Scotland, for the
United States, and, after a narrow escape from shipwreck, landed safely in the city of New York, in
the ensuing September. He brought with him the
Reformation in embryo.  Before he left the fatherland, his faith " in creeds and confessions of human




CAMPBELLISM IN ITS INCEPTION.      15
device" was considerably shaken.  Whether the
iron rigor of his creed, by which he had been fettered, had any influence in unsettling his faith does
not appear. From New York, he immediately repaired to Washington, Penn., and commenced his
American career, with what he proclaimed as an
important discovery, "that nothing not as old as
the New Testament should be made an article of
faith, a rule of practice, or a term of communion
among Christians." This truth was the " polestar" to guide him in all subsequent researches and
labors. We cannot but congratulate him on his
discovery, while we confess our surprise that he
should have been so long in making it. It was the
doctrine-the main pillar of the great reformation
led on by Luther, Calvin, and other worthies, in the
sixteenth century.  It had never been called in
question by any respectable Protestant sect, or even
writer.  The most zealous advocates of human
creeds ascribed to them no authority, except what
they derived from the Scriptures. They might, by
a misinterpretation of the Scriptures, put unscriptural articles into their creeds, or they might
pervert the Scriptures to make them harmonize
with their inherited creeds; but not a creed-monger
could be found who maintained, or even dreamed,
that any thing " not as old as the New Testament
should be made an article of faith."
Guided by this " pole-star," Mr. C. soon began




16      CABPBELLISM IN ITS INCEPTION.
to make progress in  religioas knowledge. His
"C pole-star" proved to be "' the morning star of the
reformation." In July, 1810, he publicly avowed
his " convictions of the independency of the church
of Christ, and the excellency and authority of the
Scriptures." He now commenced a series of desultory, itinerating labor —" pronouncing," to use his
own style, " orations on the primary topics of the
Christian religion," in Western Pennsylvania, and
the. contiguous parts of Virginia and Ohio.  In
1811, he married, and became a resident, and, as
soon as the laws would permit, a citizen of Virginia.
About this time, he was led to question the divine
authority of infant sprinkling; and, after a long,
serious, and prayerful examination of all the sources
of infofrmation within his reach, to reject it, and to
solicit immersion on a profession of faith. He was
baptized by Elder Matthias Luse, in the presence of
Elder Henry Spears, in June, 1812, and soon after
was ordained one of the Elders of the church at
Brush Run. He did not, at first, design to connect
himself with the Baptist denomination, but forming
a better acquaintance with some of the members of
the Redstone Baptist Association, composed of
churches partly in Pennsylvanian and partly in Vir
ginia, he induced the church with which he was
connected, to sue. for admission into that body, and
presenting a written declaration of their faith, they
were received in the fall of 1813. From this period,




CAMPBELLISM IN ITS INCEPTION.      17
until 1823, Mr. C. continued his labors as a Christian
teacher, in North-Western Virginia, without any
very important results. But his mind was far from
being stationairy. Light dawned on it apace. He
was preparing, either with or without design, to
become the advocate of what he deemed a great
reformation, and the Corypheus of a large party.
Chn. Bap., p. 92.
Mr. Campbell, having burst the bonds imposed
on him by his early creed, pursued his religious investigations, without restraint, except such as was
laid on him by natural temperament, early impressions, and mental capacity. He had now ceased
to be a pharisee. He could sing and pray with his
fellow-Christians. But mingling with them, he
soon began to speculate on their manifold errors.
His penetrating eye perceived, or he thought that
it perceived, and he did not lack moral courage to
proclaim, that " the present popular exhibition of
the Christian religion is a compound of Judaism,
heathen philosophy, and Christianity." Chn. Bap.,
p. 9. The phrase " popular exhibition of the Christian religion" is somewhat equivocal; and yet there
can be no reasonable doubt as to the sense in which
he uses it. It could be nothing to his purpose to
affirm that the exhibitions of Christianity made by
Romanists, German Rationalists, or the advocates
of baptismal regeneration, are such a compound.
Anmong these classes of religionists he was not




18      CAMPBELLISM IN ITS INCEPTION.
laboring. He, doubtless, referred to the exhibition
of' Christianity usually made by the prevailing religious denominations of the country. These different Christian persuasions, mostly maintaining,
along with some errors, almost inseparable from
human imperfection, the vital, soul-saving truths
of the Gospel, were in his estimation, exhibitors of
a compound of "Judaism, heathen philosophy and
Christianity."
That there may be no mistake on this subject,
another quotation from the pen of Mlr. C. will be
furnished.
" If Christians were, and may be the happiest
people that ever lived, it is because they live under
the most gracious institution ever bestowed on men.
The meaning of this institution has been buried
under the rubbish of human traditions for hundreds
of years. It was lost in the dark ages, and has
never been, till recently, disinterred. Various efforts
have been made, and considerable progress attended
them; but since the Grand Apostacy was completed, till the present generation, the Gospel of
Jesus Christ has not been laid open to mankind in
its original plainness, simplicity and majesty. A
veil in reading the New Institution has been on the
hearts of Christians," &c. Chn. Sys., p. 180.
With the truth or falsehood of these opinions, we
have, at present, no concern. It is, however, desirable to take an accurate observation of Mr. Camp



C AMPBELLISM IN iTS d:CEPTION.     19
bell's position. The above language defines, quite
unambiguously, his own conceptions of the ground
which he occupied. The Christian institution-the
Gospel of salvation-had been buried, under a mass
of traditions, for ages. Various efforts had been
made, at different times, by men of great reputation
for learning, piety, zeal, and fidelity, to remove the
superincumbent mass, with small success. Then
the Reformer of Bethany arose, dug away the rubbish, and exposed, in the light of day, the long lost
Gospel, in all its beauty, simplicity and majesty.
These are, certainly, high pretensions. They may
be just, and if so, we should know it, that we may
render homage to our benefactor. We propose in
the progress of this work, to make strict inquiries
concerning the justice of these claims.
Mr. C. was now prepared to enter earnestly on
the prosecution of his mission. Having analyzed
the " popular exhibition of the Christian religion,"
and pointed out its primary elements, and having
made considerable progress in disinterring the
" ancient Gospel" from the deep grave in which
for centuries it had lain, he was naturally desirous
that the benefits of his discoveries and labors
should not be confined to an obscure corner of
Virginia. The candle was not lighted to be put
under a bushel. The morning star of the new
Reformation nmust shed its effulgence in a wider
sphere. That hle might have a channel for dissemi



20      CAMPBELLISM IN- ITS INCEPTION.
nating his newly formed opinions, Mr. C. commenced
publishing a small monthly pamphlet, entitled the
Christian Baptist. The first No. was issued from
Buffalo, afterwards called Bethany, Brooke County,
Va., July 4th, 1823. The day was aptly chosen
for the commencement of the enterprise. Consecrated to the celebration of American Independence,
it was thenceforth to be distinguished as the commencement of a struggle for the liberation of the
churches from priestly domination. The publication of the Christian Baptist marks an era in the
history of Campbellism. For seven years it was the
repository of the lucubrations of Mr. C. and of his
numerous correspondents, who rapidly sprang up
through the country. It was edited with ability.
As it will hereafterbe necessary to examine many articles in this work, it is sufficient now merely to express
the opinion that it contains some things worthy of
commendation, more that are entitled to no particular notice, and a great mass of rubbish. Mr. C.
has boasted much of the independent, generous, and
fearless manner in which his periodicals have been
conducted. He has professed to publish both sides
of every controversy. It may be remarked, that policy
frequently assumes the garb of liberality. HIe was
a skillful and popular debater-handled a ready
pen-was desirous to gain notoriety, and promote
the circulation of his paper-and controversy was
the pabulum on which he lived and thrived. It is




CAMPBELLISM IN ITS INCEPTION.       21
easy to perceive that under such circumstances,
sound policy as well as liberality, would court discussion. Liberality is envinced, not by an eagerness for disputation, but by a candid, fair, and
considerate treatment of our opponent. Few theologians were qualified to enter the lists with a
disputant so ready, adroit and sarcastic as he was,
and most of that small number, feeling but little
interest in his labors or speculations, deemed it
sound policy, if not liberality, to decline gratifying
his penchant for debate.
It does not appear to have been the purpose of
]Mr. C., at least in the commencement of his Reforma.
tion, to organize a new sect. That his labors tended
to that result was clear to every discerning, attentive, and impartial observer. Sectarianism was the
object of the most intense aversion-an aversion
probably heightened by the remembrance of his
previous Seceder intolerance. His favorite project
was to fuse the various Christian sects, not, it would
seem, by the fire of love, but of criticism and ridicule, and from the melted mass mould, in what he
termed, the " ancient Gospel," a new and glorious
body. Let us hear him on this point.
" I have no idea of adding to the catalogue of new
sects. This game has been played too long. I labor
to see sectarianism abolished, and all Christians of
every name united upon the one foundation on
which the Apostolic Church was founded. To




22      CAMPBELLISM IN ITS INCEPTION.
bring Baptists and Paedo-baptists to this, is my
supreme end." Chn. Bap., p. 217.
No intelligent Christian can object to the end
which lir. C. proposed to accomplish. The union
of all true Christians on the Apostolic foundation,
is an object most devoutly to be wished. All good
men pray for it. But we must carefully inquire,
whether the means by which he proposes to attain
this object, are Scriptural and efficacious. We are
now prepared to contemplate Campbellism under
another phase.




CAMPBELLISM  IN  ITS  -1:IAOS.
THE period of Campbellism which it is now proposed to examine, extends from the first appearance of the Christian Baptist to the time when Mr.
Campbell, and those persons who adopted his peculiar views, and entered into his spirit and aims,
were excluded from the Baptist denomination.
This period may with equal propriety be termed
its chaotic or its belligerent state. Belligerent it certainly was. The publication of the Christian Baptist was an open, formal declaration of war against
all the religious sects and parties in the country;
and most fearlessly, skillfully and furiously was it
waged. Criticism, logic, eloquence, sarcasm, ridicule, and especially caricature and sophistry were
the missiles employed in this warfare. Revelation,
history, and fiction were laid under contribution in
the conflict. At first, Mr. C. stood alone, battling
single handed, as he fancied, against the disciplined
hosts of sectarianism; but soon he was joined by
a band of volunteers, less learned strategic, and
cautious, but by no means less, valorous, confident




24        CAMPBELLIS3M IN ITS CHA.OS.
and aggressive, than himself. Almost all who came
over to his side were from the first warriors, of
dauntless spirt, panoplied from head to foot. So
great was their ardor, and so fierce their onslaught,
that, for a time, it seemed as if one could "chase a
thousand, and two put ten thousand to flight."
This was no less the chaotic than the belligerent
period of Campbellism. It would have puzzled the
most careful, discriminating and candid reader of
the Christian Baptist to form any clear conceptions
of Mr. Campbell's principles or aims. He eschewed
all the common and well defined terms of theology.
His teaching was almost entirely negative. He was
neither a Unitarian nor a Trinitarian, neither a
Calvinist nor an Arminian; but what he really was,
or desired to be, none could certainly affirm. It
was clear that he rejected " the popular exhibition
of the Christian religion;" but not clear what he
would substitute for it. MIany opinions and practices held sacred and dear by most Christians, were
by him openly and sarcastically denounced; but
his own views were concealed, or cautiously and obscurely revealed. The title of his monthly periodical —" The Christian Baptist" —might seem to
identify him with the Baptist denomination; but
the appearance was illusory. Agreeing with the
Baptists on the action and subjects of baptism, he
differed widely from them on the design of the ordinance, and on many other doctrinal, experimental




CAMPBELLISM IN ITS CHAOS.         25
and practical subjects; and in the sequel they received a full share of his censure and opposition.
True, he constantly and earnestly insisted that the
Scriptures are the only and sufficient rule of faith
and practice, but in this opinion there was nothing
distinctive. He held it in common, not only with
the evangelical Protestant sects, but with Unitarians, Universalists, and almost every class of religious fanatics and errorists.
Mr. Campbell aspired to the honor of being a
Reformer. The changes which he wrought in some
of the churches are styled by him and his admirers
the Reformation.  That a reformation was needed
by the Christian sects of that time none, who possess a tolerable acquaintance with their condition,
and the claims of the Gospel, will deny. Indeed,
what church, or member of a church, does not, in
some respects, and in some degree, need reformation? There was needed then, as at all times, an
increase of religious knowledge in the churches,
but, more than this, an increase of piety. The
reformation demanded by the times was in spirit
and practice, rather than doctrine. They were
then, as now, far too worldly, formal and inefficient. Among the Baptist churches there were some
sad evils. In parts of the country, the churches
were infected with an antinomian spirit, and blighted by a heartless, speculative, hair-splitting orthodoxy. These churches were mostly penurious, op2




26         CAMPBELLISM3 IN ITS' CHAOS.
posed to Christian missions, and all enlarged plans
and self-denying efforts, for promoting the cause of
Christ. In general, the careful study of the Scriptures, the religious education of children, the proper observance of the Lord's day, a wholesome,
scriptural discipline, the reasonable support of pastors, and, in fine, devotion to the Redeemer's cause,
were too much neglected. The pious and intelligent fathers, before Mr. C. was heard of, saw, confessed and lamented these evils; and sought, in a
kind and faithful manner, to correct them. But
they are not of easy correction. Having their root
in habit, or established opinions, or, worse still, in
depravity, they can be eradicated only by the divine
blessing on judicious and faithful efforts. Had he
labored, with discrimination, fairness and fidelity
for the correction of these, and similar evils, even
if his zeal had not always been tempered with discretion, nor his courage with moderation, he would
not have incurred the displeasure, or provoked the
opposition of the intelligent and candid in the Baptist denomination.  He attacked some of these
evils with ability, but in a spirit and manner far
better adapted to irritate than to convince; and
even those who were reformed by his arguments,
lost as much in spirit as they gained in knowledge,
and became fiery disputants rather than meek and
lowly Christians. But his plans of Reformation
were, by no means, limited to the evils which have




CAMPBELLISM IN ITS CHAOS.        27
been specified. His views on the subject were radical. He seemed to be commissioned to " pluck up,
to pull down, and to destroy." Scarcely anything
believed or practiced among Christians met his approbation. He gave himself up to the comparatively easy, and not very profitable task, of faultfinding. But to indulge no longer in general remarks, it is proper to descend to particulars.
The object of Mr. Campbell's first and most virulent attack was, what he styled, the " Kingdom of
the Clergy." The term clergy is not found in our
English version of the Scriptures. It was at the
beginning of this Reformation, as at present, used,
and well understood, to mean ministers of the gospel-men whose office it is to give religious instruction and conduct religious worship. It was rarely
found in the reports of ecclesiastical bodies, but was
commonly employed by secular writers to denote the
pastors and teachers in every Christian communion.
The clergy of this country were a numerous class,
invested in different Christian communions with
very different degrees of authority; but in all exercising only such as was cheerfully accorded to them
by the people among whom they labored. Entirely
destitute of civil power, they had no means of maintaining their spiritual authority but the sanctity of
their lives, the usefulness of their labors, the weight
of their arguments, and the consent of their flocks.
They were an important class; and they derived




28        CAMPBELLISMI IN ItiS CIhAOS.
their importance from their official station, their various toils, and their extended religious influence.
They were by no means faultless. Some of them
were ignorant, conceited and vain; others were
proud, haughty and imperious; others still, were
hypocritical, mercenary and base; and not a few
were worldly, selfish, and sycophantic. Against
these evils, no vigilance or fidelity on the part of
the churches, or their rulers, could perfectly provide.
Among the twelve apostles, one was a devil. But
as a body, the clergy of the evangelical denominations were intelligent, pious, self-denying, diligent,
and faithful in their vocation. Among them were
many men of shining abilities, and most exemplary devotion to the cause of Christ-the excellent of the
earth. Considering their talents, and their position
in society, no class of the community was so meagerly
rewarded for their toils and sacrifices. Many labored
for nothing, but the pleasure of doing good-a
larger number, perhaps, for a bare support-and
very few were able, after maintaining themselves
and their families, to lay by a surplus from their
salaries for a season of affliction or infirmity.
These statements will scarcely be called in question
by any person having information on this subject,
and possessing common candor. To discriminating
and just censures of the clergy, no reasonable objection can be offered. Their official rank should not
shield them from merited reproach, but, rather,




CAMPBELLISM IN ITS CHAOS.         29
subject their conduct to a more rigid scrutiny, and
their sins to a severer condemnation. But every
friend of religion, morality and good order, must revolt at seeing them rudely attacked, ridiculed, traduced, and held up to the scorn of the infidel and
blasphemer.  In all time, they have been subject to
the reproach and scoffing of sceptics and opposers
of the Gospel; but it was surely strange that a
Christian minister should vie with these, or even
exceed them, in their congenial work.
Mr. Campbell's first aim was to overthrow the
power and influence of the popular clergy.
"To see Christians," he wrote, "enjoy their
privileges, and to see sinners brought from darkness
to light, are the two great objects for which we desire to live, to labor, and to suffer reproach." This
was very well. But by what means did he propose
to secure these important objects? He shall answer. "In endeavoring to use our feeble effortb
for these glorious objects, we have found it necessary,
among other things, to attempt to dethrone the reigning popular clergy from their high and lofty seats,
which they have for ages been building for themselves..... In opposing and exposing them, and
their kingdom, it is not to join the infidel cry against
priest or priestcraft;" (certainly not!) " it is not
to gratify the avaricious or the licentious; buit it is
to pull down their Babel, and to emancipate those
whom they have enslaved, to free the people from




30         CAMPBELLISM IN ITS CHAOS.
their unrighteous dominion and unmerciful spolia-`sion." Chn. Bap., 32.
The clergy were informed, no little to their surprise, that their order had its origin, not merely in
the perversion of Christianity, but in the speculations of the most ancient pagan philosophers. Listen to his words.
"Little do many think, and indeed little do they
know, that the modern clergy are indebted to Pythagoras, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Zeno, Epicurus, and a thousand pagan philosophers, Jewish
and Christian theorists, for the order of things
which they found ready to their hand, as soon as they
put on the sacerdotal robes." Chn. Bap., 54.
It would be easy to fill a volume with quotations
resembling the above, but it is unnecessary-these
may serve as specimens.  Mr. C. employed all the
resources of his various learning and fertile genius
to subvert the influence of the clergy, and bring
them into popular contempt. They were stigmatized as "textuaries," "scrap-doctors," "theoretic
doctors," " populars,"' priests," "hirelings," and
"C goat-milkers." The Third Epistle of Peter is an
ingeniously written burlesque of the clergy, with
just truth enough to make it plausible and biting,
and divert attention from its gross exaggeration, and
merciless injustice. Chn. Bap. 166. They were,
in Mr. Campbell's estimation, a set of mercenary




CAMPBELLISM IN ITS CHAOS.         31
hirelings, actuated in their labors by no better
motive than the love of lucre.
" They have," said he, ".shut up every body's
mouth but their own; and theirs they will not open
unless they are paid for it."  " A hireling is one
who prepares himself for the office of a' preacher,'
or' minister,' as a mechanic learns a trade, and who
obtains a license from a congregation, convention,
presbytery, pope, or diocesan bishop, as a preacher
or minister, and agrees by the day or sermon, month
or year, for a stipulated reward."
According to this definition, the man who from
love to Christ and souls, prepares himself, by the
most earnest, attentive and prayerful study of the
Scriptures, for the Christian ministry, and receives
for his ministerial toils a stipulated reward, even
though that reward may be far less than he could
receive in some respectable, secular avocation, is a
hireling. Lest, however, a suspicion should arise
that Mr. Campbell's teaching on this subject has
been misunderstood, we must have another quotation from his pen.
" Upon the whole, I do not think we will err very
much in making it a general rule, that every man
who receives money for preaching the Gospel, or for
sermons, by the day, month, or year, is a hireling in
the language of truth and soberness."-Chn. Bap.,
71, 233.
It is due to Mr. C. to remark, that he admitted




32         CAMPBELLISM IN ITS CHAOS.
that there were some good men among the clergy —
a few, who differing from their class, were pure in
spite of the corrupting influence of their office. It
is proper, also, to state that in the commencement
of' his editorial labors, he specially excepted the
" Elders or Deacons of a Christian Assembly," from
all his censures of the " Christian Clergy." Chn.
Bap., 8. Who these " Elders and Deacons" were,
it is not easy to determine. At that time Mr. C.
was connected with the Baptist denomination, and
very few, if any congregations, had embraced his
peculiar views. It probably had reference to the
officers of Baptist churches bearing these titles; it
was not long, however, before he discovered that
there were clergy in these churches as well as in
others. He writes" There is one spirit in all the clergy, whether
they be Romanist or Protestant, Baptist or Pedobaptist, learned or unlearned, their own workmanship,
or the workmanship of others." Chn. Bap., 94.
It is fair to permit Mr. C. to define what he means
bya Baptist clergyman.  "I have known, he writes,'a young Baptist priest made and finished in Philadelphia, go to the State of New York, preach a
few times to a rich congregation, give in his letter,
and in two or three weeks be called out from among
the brethren to become their bishop; and that, too,
before he has got a wife, or a house, or a family to rule
well. Such teachers I must rank among the clergy,




CAMPBELLISM IN ITS CHAOS.         33
and, indeed, they soon prove themselves to have a
full portion, and sometimes a double portion of the
spirit of the priesthood." Chn. Bap., 94.
It is not quite clear what constituted the claim
of this "young priest" to rank among the clergy.
Was it the fact that he was educated in Philadelphia-that he became the bishop of a wealthy congregation-or that he had not " got a wife"-or
was it all these circumstances combined, that made
him one of the clergy? The Baptists, neither in
Philadelphia, nor elsewhere, deemed any man, either
young or old, fit to take upon himself the sacred
office of bishop, without furnishing evidence of sincere piety, and a desire to enter on the episcopal
work, and possessing suitable qualifications for the
service. They might entertain, as doubtless in
many cases they did, defective views of episcopal
qualifications, and they might be deceived in the
motives of candidates for the office, but in no instance did they knowingly induct any man into the
office without judging him to be holy, of good report, and possessed of gifts for performing its functions. The truth is, the term " clergy," in Mr.
Campbell's vocabulary, denoted all ministers of
every Christian denomination, who did not adopt his
peculiar views, enter into the spirit of his Reformation, and co-operate with him in the accomplishment of his plans.
Simultaneously with Mr. Campbell's attack on the
2*




34        CAMPBELLISM IN ITS CHAOS.
clergy, he denounced all Creeds or Confess'ons of
Faith, as the fruitful source of discord, schism, and
mischief.  The term  " Creed," in its ecclesiastic
sense, denotes a summary of Christian doctrine.
There is in Christendom a great variety of creeds,
from the so-called Apostle's Creed down to the
Christian System, composed by Mr. Campbell, as
an exhibition of the principles of his Reformation.
Some are in the main sound, and some are unsound;
some are evangelical, and some are anti-evangelical;
the worst contain some truth, and the best, perhaps,
some error. Of the lawfulness of writing a creed
there can be no reasonable doubt. Every intelligent
Christian has a creed, written or unwritten. There
are certain facts, truths and principles, which he
believes and maintains, and the belief of which he
deems essential to the existence of true holiness.
Hie may, or may not write these articles of his belief, but they are equally his creed; and equally
efficacious in controlling his conduct, whether they
be written or unwritten. The writing of them is
merely placing in a visible form what previously
existed in his mind; and doing so contravenes no
law of Christ, and violates no moral obligation.
But what is here affirmed of an individual, may,
with equal clearness and propriety, be affirmed of a
church of Christ. They have, and of necessity must
have, a creed —it may be latitudinous or rigid, may
comprehend many articles or few, may be written or




CAMPBELLISMI IN ITS CII LOS.      35
traditional —and this creed is their bond of union.
This remark is as true of the churches organized by
Mr. Campbell, as of any churches in Christendom.
They profess, indeed, to make the Bible their creed
-but to say nothing of the fact that they make this
profession in common with all Christian denominations, and with Mormons-there is a grand fallacy in
it. It is not the Scriptures objectively, but subjectively considered-in other words, not the Scriptures
as they exist in the original languages, but the Scriptures as they are understood, interpreted, and maintained by themselves-that form the basis of their
union. There are certain points of Scripture doctrine in which they agree, and by which they are
identified. These may be few, and may seem to
them to be unequivocally contained in the Biblebut the belief of these is indispensable to admission
into their fellowship. They do, it is true, insist
that their members shall speak of Bible things in
Bible terms. To restore a pure, or Scriptural
speech, is one of the main objects of the Reformation for which Mr. C. pleads. But in their boasted
purity of speech, there lurks another great fallacy.
They do not use Bible terms. The Bible, with a
few slight exceptions, was written in the Hebrew and
Greek tongues; and they derive their theological
terms from a translation of the Bible made by fallible men. Besides, Bible terms are of no significance
or value but as they are understood; and they may




36        CAMPBELLISM IN ITS CHAOS.
serve the purposes of ignorance, error, or hypocrisy,
as well as of knowledge. In fine, if men are united
by the adoption of certain terms, or phrases, even
though these may be Scriptural, apart from the
meaning attached to them, they are influenced by
sound rather than sense —by form rather than substance-by appearance rather than truth.
Creeds, like everything else, human and divine,
that comes within mortal reach, may be used for
good or evil purposes. To prevent or correct misrepresentations, to promote unity of faith, and to
secure the instruction of church members, and their
children, in the most important principles and
duties of the Christian system, are considerations
which, in the view of the intelligent and candid,
justify the drawing up and printing of a creed.
There are certain principles-such as the existence
of God-the inspiration of the Scriptures-the resurrection of Christ, &c. —the belief and admission
of which are deemed by every church, indispensable
to fellowship; and it may be wise and necessary for a
church in some cases, to avow and proclaim them.
When the Brush Run church, of which Mr. Campbell
was a member, sought to gain fellowship with the
Redstone Association, they presented " a written declaration of their belief," drawn up, no doubt, by the
Reformer himself. Chn. Bap., p. 92. And why was
this creed presented but for the purpose of satisfying the Redstone Association that the Brush Run




CAMPBELLISM IN ITS CHAOS.        37
church was worthy of Christian fellowship?  And
if it was lawful for this church to publish her " declaration of belief," to prove her title to fellowship,
it must have been equally lawful for the Redstone
Association, or any Christian church, to publish her
" declaration of belief," to show whom she thought
worthy of fellowship. Indeed, the Redstone Association in receiving the Brush Run church into her
fellowship, on her " written declaration of belief,"
did, in the most. solemn and authoritative manner,
adopt and avow that declaration as her creed. That
creeds have sometimes been employed for unlawful
and mischievous purposes, no one acquainted with
ecclesiastical history can question. They have too
frequently been used as a substitute for the Scriptures, to embalm error, and to bind the consciences
of men, and have, in many instances, engendered a
spirit of speculation, strife, and persecution, and
led to the most painful schisms.
Whether it is expedient for all churches, under
all circumstances, to publish a creed, is a question
which it is not proposed to discuss. My opinion is
that it is not. Churches have flourished without a
written creed-and by this is meant, that they have
adhered to divine truth, abounded in the fruits of
righteousness, and have, in a good degree, secured
the ends of their organization. On the other hand,
churches, having sound, evangelical creeds, have,




38        CAMPBELLISM IN ITS CHAOS.
in many instances, sunk into formality, error and
corruption.
Mr. C. was not alone in his opposition to creeds.
Many good and wise men doubted their expediency,
and others were convinced't'hat, on the whole, they
were of mischievous tendency: A majority of the
Baptist churches in the United States, had no written creed at all, and the few that did have, had only
a very brief summary of doctrine, practically of
no moment. but Mr. C. was from temperament
or habit essentially an ultraist. His onslaught
on creeds was fierce, and indiscriminate. It was
the boasted peculiarity of his Reformation that
it was hostile to all creeds, heterodox or orthodox, bad or good. " So far as this controversy resembles them," (he says, referring to other controversies concerning creeds,) "in its opposition to
creeds, it is to be distinguished from them in this
all-essential attribute, viz.:-that our opposition to
creeds arose from  a conviction that whether the
opinions in them were true or false, they were hostile to the union, peace, harmony, purity, and joy
of Christians; and adverse to the conversion of
the world to Jesus Christ."  Chn. Sys., 9. How
opinions in harmony with the Bible, embracing
fundamental, soul-saving truths, lucidly, concisely,
and systematically expressed-should produce such
direful effects, it would puzzle an ordinary man to
conceive; but so Mr. C. believed and maintained.




CAMPBELLISM'IN ITS CHAOS.       39
And I must, too, do him the justice to state, that
his course was in perfect harmony with this conviction. All creeds, Romanist and Protestant, Calvinistic and Arminian, rationalistic and evangelical,
voluminous confessions of-faith, and concise summaries of doctrine,. came in-for an equal share of his
denunciations.  If there was any difference, the
Westminster Confession of Faith, (Presbyterian,)
and the Philadelphia Confession of Faith, (Baptist,)
received the largest measure of his censure. All
churches having creeds were, according to his views,
involved in the same condemnation and corruption.
The purity, the wisdom, the intrinsic excellence of
their creed, could not preserve them from a blight.
That I may do no injustice, and save myself from
the suspicion of exaggeration, I will quote his own
language. "The worshipping establishments now
in operation throughout Christendom, increased and
cemented by-their respective voluminous confessions
of faith, and their ecclesiastical constitutions, are not
churches of Jesus Christ, but the legitimate daughters of'that mother of harlots, the Church of Rome."
Mill. Har., vol. 3, 362. " What of the apostacy-do
you place all the sects in the apostacy?  Yes; all
religious sects who have any human bond of union;
all who rally under any articles of confederation"that is, summary of doctrine, however Scriptural,
clear, and important —'" other than the Apostle's
doctrine'-that is, according to the Bethany voca



40        CAMPBELLISH IN ITS CHAOS.
bulary, the whole volume of revelation —" and who
refuse to yield all homage to the ancient order of
things" —that is, the long-lost Gospel, disinterred
by Mr. Campbell. Mill. Har., vol. 3, 362. From
these quotations, it appears, that according to the
" ancient Gospel," as understood at Bethany, any
body claiming to be Christian, adopting a summary
of doctrine, as fundamental articles of belief, though
the articles be true, and the belief of them indispensable to salvation, is no church of Christ-but a
sect -a harlot —and the daughter of a harlot.
The writer is reminded of a discourse, which, not
long since, he heard Mr. C. deliver-a discourse
whose doctrine was in striking harmony with the
above extracts. His text was, Eph. iv. 4-6. His
theme was chiefly the unity of the body of Christ.
The church, he insisted, was a body-not a mass,
but an organized, symmetrical, and beautiful body.
But Christ has only one body —a head with seven
bodies would be a monster. But if Christ has only
one body, what body is it?  Not the Roman
Catholic body —not the Episcopalian-not the Presbyterian-not the Lutheran —not the Methodist —
not the Baptist. He did not inform us, however,
what body is the body of Christ. He trusted in the
intelligence and candor of his hearers to infer that
the body of Christ is the body that embraces the
" ancient Gospel," and that has restored the " ancient order o' things." The sermon was eloquent,




CAMPBELLISM IN ITS CHAOS.        41
plausible, and sophistical. If a head with seven
bodies is a monster, a head without a body is useless.
It is natural to inquire, If the party adopting the
peculiar views of Mr. C., is really the body of Christ,
where was his body before the light shone from
Bethany, and while all the sects were in the smoke
and bondage of Babylon?
All this sophistry vanishes before Scriptural definitions of the term church. It is used in two distinct senses in the New Testament. In some places
it means an organized, visible body of believers,
assembling in one place for the worship of Christ.
In this sense of the term, we read of the " church
of God which is at Corinth," " the churches of
Galatia," "the churches of Judea," &c. The Apostolic churches were all built on the same foundation, governed by the same laws, animated by the
same spirit, and all co-operated in the same good
cause; but they did not constitute one great, organized hierarchy. If "the church," in this sense of
the term, was the body of Christ, then he had more
than one body —he had seven bodies in Asia, and
we know not how many in Judea, Galatia, and other
regions. In a few places the word church signifies
the whole body of believers in Christ. This is the
church for which he gave himself, Eph. v. 25. This
is the body of which he is the head, Eph. i. 22, 23.
To this body belong all in whcm dwells the Paraclete, whatever their name. oi visible connections,




42        CAMPBELLISM IN ITS CHAOS.
may be. Of this body, the true Christians, admitted by Mir. C. to be found among the sects, are living members. The churches of the Reformation do
not constitute this body, but the pious among them
are components of it. Now, the sophism of Mr. C.
consisted in substituting the former for the latter
sense of the term church in his text-a sense which
it does not fairly admit.
When Mr. Campbell commenced his Reformation,
he found various benevolent or religious associations
in existence, having for their object the diffusion
of Divine truth, and the extension of the kingdom
of the Messiah. Among these institutions we may
mention Mission, Bible, Tract, and Education Societies, and Sunday Schools, whose titles indicate,
with sufficient precision, to the common reader,
their respective spheres of operation. The objects
contemplated by these associations were of the highest importance, and appealed most powerfully to
the sympathies and liberality of the pious. It were
uncandid to deny that they originated with wise
and good men, in the love of truth, and in an earnest desire to promote the salvation of sinners, and
the glory of the Redeemer, that they were sustained
by the generous sacrifices, fervent prayers, and selfdenying, and, in some cases, heroic labors of their
friends; and that they had been successful in a
measure corresponding with these toils and sacrifices,
and adapted to inspire gratitude for the past, and




CAMPBELLISM IN ITS 3HAOS.        43
confidence in regard to the future. Whether the
best plans had been adopted to carry forward the
work of evangelization was certainly a debatable
question; and none were more solicitous for its
proper solution than those who were most prominently and actively engaged in the prosecution of
these various plans. To affirm that vanity, selfishness, and sectarian zeal had no part in the maintenance of these schemes, would be to affirm what
no person, the least acquainted with the imperfections of human nature, would believe. But it
may be safely affirmed, that since the days of primitive Christianity, no systematic efforts for the diffusion of truth and piety have involved so large an
amount of self-denial, privation, toil, sacrifice and
suffering, as modern missions to the heathen, with
their various kindred enterprises. The friends and
supporters of the different benevolent institutions
were entitled to the most candid and liberal treatment from those who, differing from them as to the
expediency of their plans, sympathized with them
in the sublime and glorious objects at which they
aimed.
Mr. Campbell commenced his editorial career with
pretty strong opposition to these religious enterprises.
Finding them identified with what he called the
popular Christianity of the day, he deemed it ne-esary to subvert their influence that his reforma



44        CAMPBELLISM IN ITS CHAOS.
tion might triumph. In his preface to the Christian Baptist, he thus wrote:
"There is another difficulty of which we are
aware, that, as some objects are manifestly good,
and the means attempted for their accomplishment
manifestly evil, speaking against the means employed we may be sometimes understood as opposing
the object abstractly, especially by those who do not
wish to understand, but rather to misrepresent.
For instance-that the conversion of the heathen
to the Christian religion is an object manifestly good
all Christians will acknowledge; yet every one acquainted with the means employed, and of the
success attendant on the means, must know that
these means have not been blessed; and every intelligent Christian must know that many of the
means employed have been manifestly evil. Besides,
to convert the heathen to the popular Christianity
of these times would be an object of no great consequence, as the popular Christians themselves, for
the most part, require to be converted to the Christianity of the New Testament." Chn. Bap., 4.
It is not surprising that the Reformer, convinced
that the sects did not preach the "ancient Gospel,"
and needed themselves to be converted to the Christianity of the New Testament, should have been
without sympathy for their missionary schemes.
They were, in his judgment, unauthorized by Christ,
and subversive of his throne and government. His




CAMPBELLISM IN ITS CHAOS.        45
plan for the conversion of the world, or what ne
supposed the Divine plan, was first to convert all
Christian sects to the Christianity of the New Testament. Till this desirable object could be attained, not an effort was to be put forth for the conversion of the heathen. "An attempt," said he, "to
convert Pagans and Mahometans to believe that
Jesus is the Son of God, and the sent of the Father,
is also an attempt to frustrate the prayer of the
Messiah, and to subvert his throne and government."
Chn. Bap., 135. But even after the conversion of
the Christian sects, and their union in one church,
no missionaries are to be sent forth for the conversion of the heathen. " The Bible," he says, " gives
us no idea of a missionary without the power of working miracles. Miracles and missionaries," and, he
might add, preaching the Gospel, "are inseparably
connected in the New Testament." Chn. Bap., 15.
Christians must "form themselves into societies
independent of hireling priests and ecclesiastical
courts, modelled after the forum, the parliament,
or national conventions," and "cast to the moles
and to the bats the Platonic speculations, the Pythagorean dreams, and Jewish fables they have written
in their creeds;" "return to the ancient model delineated in the New Testament;" "and keep the
ordinances as delivered to them by the apostles."
Then suppose a Christian church were to be placed
on the confines of a heathen land, as some of them




46        ~ AMPBELLISM IN ITS CHAOS.
must inevitably be, the darkness of paganism will
serve, as a shade in a picture, to exhibit the lustre
of Christianity. Then the heathen around them
will see their humility; their heavenly-mindedness,
their hatred of garments spotted with the flesh,
their purity, their chastity, their temperance, their
sobriety, their brotherly love; they will observe the
order of their worship, and will fall down in their
assemblies, as Paul affirms, and declare that God is
in them of a truth." Such was the Bethany plan
for evangelizing the world. But if the work of
evangelization on the " confines of heathen lands "
should progress slowly, and it should seem desirable
to adopt more active and aggressive measures for its
prosecution —then to avoid the necessity of sending
missionaries, for which there is no scripture authority, if there can "be found such a society," as that
above described, though it be "composed of but
twenty, willing to emigrate to some heathen land,
where they can support themselves like the natives,
wear the same garb, adopt the country as their own,
and profess nothing like a missionary project; should
such a society sit down and hold forth in word and
deed the saving truth, not deriding the gods nor
the religion of the natives, but allowing their own
works and example to speak for their religion, and
practicing as above hinted; we are persuaded that,
in process of time, a *ore solid foundation for the
conversion of the natives wc-ld be laid, and more




CAMPBELLISI IN ITS CHAOS.       47
actual success resulting, than from all the missionaries employed for twenty-five years. Such a course
would have some warrant from Scripture, but the
present has proved itself to be all human."  Chn.
Bap., 16-17.
It is not my purpose to discuss at large this
scheme for evangelizing the world, but I must
make a few remarks in passing. That churches
should be pure and conformed to the New Testament model; and that such churches, situated on
the borders of heathen lands, or elsewhere, would
exert a good influence, must be conceded. That
they would have full authority to emigrate to a
heathen country, and hold forth the word of life;
and that doing so, they might be useful, must also
be admitted. But what reason there is for claiming
for this scheme of propagating the Gospel peculiarly
the Divine sanction, I know not. As a plan for
converting the heathen it is sustained neither by
apostolic precept nor example. Aggressions on the
domain of heathenism bave always been made by
missionaries-who have gone forth, singly or in
small bands, with or without the power of working
miracles, with the truth of Christ on their lips, and
the love of Christ'in their hearts, to instruct, persuade and convert men, and to found churches amid
the surrounding darkness. This is God's plan-enforced by the command of Christ, and the example
of the apostles-and sanctioned by the experience




48        CAMPBELLISM IN ITS CHAOS.
of the Christian world. The substitute proposed
by Mr. C. is untried, impracticable, chimerical.
Had the Reformer confined himself to the advocacy
of his new scheme of converting the world to Christ,
or to candid, generous and faithful criticisms on the
missionary, and other benevolent schemes of the
time, his labors would probably have attracted but
little attention, or, at most, would have produced
no serious strife. But such a course did not accord
with the genius and spirit of the man. At first,
and for a short time, he wrote rather cautiously and
hesitatingly concerning Christian missions.  " It
may be worthy," said he, " of the serious consideration of many of the zealous advocates of the various
sectarian missions in our day, whether, in a few
years, the same things may not be said of their
various projects which they themselves affirm of the
Catholic missions, and missionaries." Chn. Bap.,
14. But this inquiring tone soon gave place to
that of dogmatism and denunciation. Upon the
benevolent associations, the vials of his unmitigated
wrath were soon poured out. All the resources of
his learning, wit, and ridicule, were employed to
undermine their influence, and bring them into contempt. Whatever was published in infidel, or semiinfidel papers in disparagement of missionaries, was
promptly transferred to the columns of the Christian
Baptist, without comment, or with approbation;
while allusions to the self-denials, toils, sufferings,




CAMPBELLISMI IN ITS CHA OS.        49
and successes of missionaries, were studiously omitted.  Mr. Campbell's chief instrument in opposing
Christian missions, and promoting his Reformation,
was caricaturing-an art for which his genius peculiarly fitted him. But, as his opposition to missions,
and cognate enterprises, had much influence in severing the Reformers from the Baptists, I will quote
copiously from the columns of his monthly pamphlet,
pretty much at random on these topics.
"The order of their assemblies (the primitive
churches,) was uniformly the same. It did not vary
with moons and seasons. It did not change as dress
nor fluctuate as the manners of the times. Their
devotion did not diversify itself into the endless
forms of modern times.  They had no monthly concerts for prayer; no solemn convocations, no great
fasts, nor preparation, nor thanksgiving days.
Their churches were not fractured into missionary
societies, Bible societies, education societies; nor
did they dream of organizing such in the world.
The head of a believing household was not in those
days a president or manager of a board of foreign
missions; his wife the president of some female education society; his eldest son, the recording secretary of some domestic Bible society; his eldest
daughter, the corresponding secretary of a mite
society; his servant-maid, the vice-president of a
rag society; and his Elttle daughter, a tutoress of a
Sundaysschool.  They knew nothing of the hotbies




50        CAMPBELLISM IN ITS CHAOS.
of' modern times. In their church capacity alone
they movel. They neither transformed themselves
into any other kind of association, nor did they fracture and sever themselves into divers societies.
They viewed the church of Jesus Christ as the
scheme of Heaven to ameliorate the world; as
members of it, they considered themselves bound
to do all they could for the glory of God and the
good of men. They dare not transfer to a missionary
society, or Bible society, or education society, a
cent or a prayer, lest in so doing they should rob
the church of its glory, and exalt the inventions of
men above the wisdom of God. In their church
capacity alone they moved." Chn. Bap., 6.
"'MISSIONARIES TO BuRMAH. —-On Wednesday,
the 11th of June, at Utica, New York, the Rev.
Jonathan Wade and his consort were set apart as
missionaries to the Burman empire, by a committee
of the board of managers of the Baptist General
Convention. An interesting sermon was delivered
on the occasion by the Rev. Nathaniel Kendrick,
from 2 Tim. ii. 10.'Therefore I endure all things
for the elects' sake, that'they also may obtain the
salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal
glory.' Rev. Alfred Bennet led in offering up the
consecrating prayer.  Rev. Daniel Hascall gave
Mr. Wade an appropriate charge, and the Rev. Joel
W. Clark gave him the right hand of fellowship,'that he should ga to the heathen;' Rev. John Peck




CAMPBELLISM IN ITS CHAOS.        51
addressed Mrs. Wade, and Rev. Elon Galusha gave
her the right hand of fellowship. Rev. Elijah F.
Willey offered the concluding prayer. The services
were performed in Rev. Mr. Atkins' meeting-house.
The day was fine, and the assemblage was very
large, and proved, by their fixed and silent attention to the services, how much they felt for the
world that lieth in wickedness; and by a collection
of $86.23 taken on the spot, they showed a willing.
ness to share in the pleasure and expense of spread
ing the Gospel in all the earth.'' Mr. Wade is a young man, and a native of the
state of New York. He received his classical and(
theological education in the theological seminary at
Hamilton. He appeared before the committee a
man of good sense, of ardent piety, and understandingly led by the Spirit of God to the work in which
he has now engaged. Mrs. Wade is from a respectable family in Hamilton, Madison County, daughter
of deacon Lapham. Her early piety and active zeal
in the cause of her Redeemer, has encouraged the
hope that she will be eminently useful in the cause
of missions with her htlsband,-Latter Day Luminary.'
" Note by the Editor.-How accordant is the language and spirit of the above to the following
passage from the 13th chapter of the Acts of the
Apostles: —'On Wednesday, the 11th of June, A.
D. 44, the Rev. Saulns Paulus and the Rev. Joses




52        CAMPBELLISM IN ITS CHAOS.
Barnabas were set apart as missionaries to the Gentiles dispersed throughout the world, by a committee of the board of managers of the Baptist General
Convention, met in the city of Antioch. An interesting sermon was delivered on the occasion by the
Rev. Simon Niger, from Isaiah xlii. 4:'The isles
shall wait for his law.' Rev. Lucius, of Cyrene, led
in offering up the consecrating prayer. Rev. Manaen gave Mr. Paulus and his companion (Mr.
Barnabas) an appropriate charge; and the Rev.
John Mark gave them the right hand of fellowship,'that they should go to the heathen.' The Rev.
Lucius, of Cyrene, offered up the concluding prayer.
The services were performed in the Rev. Mr. Simon
Niger's meeting-house. The day was fine, and the
assemblage was very large, and proved, by their
fixed and silent attention to the services, how much
they felt for the world that lieth in wickedness; and
by a collection of $86.25, they showed a willingness
to aid the Rev. Mr. Paulus, and the Rev. lMr. Barnabas in carrying the Gospel to the heathen.
" Mr. Paulus is a young man, and a native of the
city of Tarsus; he received his classical and theological education in the theological seminary in
Jerusalem. He appeared before the committee a
man of good sense, of ardent piety, and understandingly led by the spirit of God to the work in which
he has now engaged.
"'I is, then, plain that the above notification is




CAMPBELLISM IN ITS CHAOS.       53
just in the spirit and style of this passage from the
13th chaL;er of the Acts. But in the common
translation, the original loses much of its aptitude and beauty; for lo! it reads thus:'Now
there was in the church that was at Antioch, certain
prophets and teachers; as, Barnabas, and Simon
that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and
MIanaen, which had been brought up with Herod
the tetrarch, and Saul. As they ministered to the
Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me
Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have
called them. And when they had fasted and prayed,
and laid their hands on them, they sent them
away."' Chn. Bap., 17.
" Our objections to the missionary plan originated
from the conviction that it is unauthorized in the
New Testament; and that, in many instances, it is
a system of iniquitous peculation and speculation,
I feel perfectly able to maintain both the one and
the other of these positions..... Not questioning the piety and philanthropy of many of the originators, and present abettors of the missionary
plan, we must say that' the present scheme is not
authorized by our King. This, I think, we proved
some time ago; and no man that we have heard of,
has come forward to oppose our views. Indeed, I
think, we have few men of any information, who would
come forward openly to defend the plan of saving the
world by n eans of money and science; of converting




54        CAMPBELLISM IN ITS (TI &OS.
pagans by funds raised indirectly from  spinningwheels, fruit stalls, corn-fields, melon patches, potato
lots, rags, children's playthings, and religious newspapers, consecrated to missionary purposes; and
from funds raised directly by begging from every
body, of every creed, and of no creed whatever. By
sending out men to preach begging sermons, and to
tell the people of A.'s missionary patch of potatoes
producing twice as much per acre, as those destined
for himself and children; of B.'s uncommon crop of
missionary wheat, a part of which he covetously
alienated from the missionary to himself, and, as a
judgment upon him, his cow broke into his barn and
ate of it until she killed herself; of E.'s missionary
sheep having each yeaned two lambs a-piece, while
his own only yeaned him one a-piece, and a variety
of other miracles wrought in favor of the missionary
fund. I say, what man of good common sense and
of a reasonable mind would come forward to defend
a scheme of converting the world by such means,
and by the means of that very'vain philosophy'
and' science falsely so called,' condemned by the
apostles." Chn. Bap., 53, 54.
" Mr. Robert Cautious... You think that it was
rather going to an extreme to rank Bible societies
with other popular schemes. Perhaps a more intimate acquaintance with our views of Christianity
would induce you to think as we do upon this subject. We are convinced, fully convinced, that the




Z"AMPBELLIS3M IN ITS CIIA'OS.      55
whole head is sick, and the whole heart faint of
modern fashionable Christianity —that many of the
schemes of the populars resemble the delirium, the
wild fancies of a subject of fever, in its highest
paroxysms-and that these most fashionable projects
deserve no more regard from sober Christians, Christians intelligent in the New Testament, than the
vagaries, the febrile flights of patients in an inflammatory fever.  We admit that it is quite as difficult
to convince the populars of the folly of their projects, as it generally is to convince one in a febrile
reverie, that he is not in the possession of his
reason." Chn. Bap., 33.
" I honestly confess that the popular clergy and
their schemes appear to me fraught with mischief to
the temporal. and eternal interests of men, and
would anxiously wish to see them  converted into
useful members, or bishops, or deacons of the
Christian church. How has their influence spoiled
the best gifts of heaven to men! Civil liberty has
always fallen beneath their sway —the inalienable
rights of men have been wrested from their handsand even the very margin of the Bible polluted with
their inventions, their rabbinical dreams and whim,
sical nonsense.  The Bible cannot be disseminated
without their appendages) and if children are taught
to read in a Sunday school, their pockets must be
filled witl religious tracts, the object of which is
either directly or indirectly to bring them under the




56         CAMPBELLISM IN ITS CHAOS.
domination of some creeI or sect. Even the dis.
tribution of the Bible to the poor, must be followed
up with those tracts, as if the Bible dare not be
trusted in the hands of a layman, without a priest
or his representative at his elbow. It is on this account that I have, for some time, viewed both'Bible societies,' and' Sunday schools,' as a sort
of recruiting establishments, to fill up the ranks of
those sects which take the lead in them.  It is true
that we rejoice to see the Bible spread, and the poor
taught to read by those means; but notwithstanding this, we ought not, as we conceive, to suffer the
policy of many engaged therein to pass unnoticed,
or to refrain from putting those on their guard who
are likely to be caught by'the sleight of men and
cunning craftiness.'"  Chn. Bap., 80.
The foregoing extracts pretty clearly indicate the
spirit and manner of Mr. Campbell's warfare against
Christian missions, and similar enterprizes. Some
points in them, however, are entitled to special attention.
Notice, in the first place, a manifest fallacy in
argument. The argument is implied, not distinctly
expressed, by Mr. C. It is this —all religious institutions not existing in the days of the apostles are
unauthorized. There were no mission and Bible
societies in the days of the apostles. Therefore
these societies are unauthorized. The fallacy in the
argument lies'n not distinguishing between what is




CAMPBELLISM IN ITS CHAOS.         57
essential and what is circumstantial in Christianity
-a difference fiully admitted by Mir. C. Chn. Sys.,
p. 74. Christianity has its doctrine, facts, laws,
and promises; and these are settled and immutable;
but many things relating to the progress and establishment of Christianity were, of necessity, left to
be decided by time and circumstances-in short, by
expediency. In the days of the apostles, there
were no translations of the Scriptures, no houses,
so far as we are informed, erected for religious worship, no religious periodicals, no Christian editors,
and no alms-houses; but are all these unauthorized?  May not Christian churches, and individual
Christians, combine for any, and every good purpose,
in such manner as they may deem expedient, provided that in so doing they violate no law of Christ?
But what law-what moral obligation, is violated
by missionary societies?  They propose to convert
the world to Christ-is this right?  They propose
to accomplish the work by the promulgation of the
Gospel of Christ-is this authorized? They propose to diffuse the light of the Gospel by sustaining
and encouraging men who believe and love the
Gospel, and exemplify its excellence in their lives,
to proclaim it among the heathen-is this unauthorized? The truth is, if Christians are authorized to
do any thing, they are authorized, as churches or
individuals, to enter into any combinations, or employ any means, not interdicted by divine authority,




58        CAMPBELLISM IN ITS CHAOS.
to spread the knowledge of salvation. " Let him
that heareth say, Come."
In the next place, direct your attention to Mr.
Campbell's usual art of caricaturing, and aiming to
bring into derision, sacred and solemn things. One
among many instances of its exercise may be selected for illustration. The account furnished by the
Latter Day Luminary of the setting apart of Mr.
and Mrs. Wade as missionaries to Burmah is plain,
unostentatious, solemn, and in good taste. Mr. and
Mrs. Wade have proved themselves, by a long life,
to be eminently humble, self-denying, and devoted
servants of Christ. The ministers who participated
in the services of the occasion were among the best
men living-venerable for their age, their piety,
their wisdom, and their labors. The services were
most appropriate-consisting of prayer, preaching
the word, suitable addresses, and giving the right
hand of fellowship. The assembly was large, attentive, and deeply interested; and the scene was one
on which, no doubt, angels looked with delight, and
God with approbation.  Had such men, in such a
service, and under such circumstances, erred, their
error would have deserved to be treated with the
greatest candor and forbearance.  Yet this very
scene is, in a note by the Editor of the Christian
Baptist, caricatured, with heartless and revolting
levity; and that too at a period when the writer




CAMPBELLISMI IN ITS CIHAOS.       59
tould not plead in extenuation )f his course the indiscretion of youth.
The Christian Baptist, having attained a wide
circulation, exerted a potent influence against the
cause of Christian missions, and Christian benevolence generally.  The sentiments which it inculcated; and the spirit which it infused, on these
subjects, were too congenial to the indolence and
selfishness of human nature, not to meet a cordial
reception from  many.  Wherever the Christian
Baptist spread, the cause of missions declined.
" Your paper," wrote a Kentucky correspondent,
"Chas well nigh stopped missionary operations in
this State." Chn. Bap., 144. And what was true
of its blighting influence in Kentucky, was equally
true of its influence in Virginia, Ohio, and every
place, where its visits were welcomed.
" Christian Experience " is a phrase, not found in
the Scriptures, and not, perhaps, wisely chosen,
but it was, at the commencement of Mir. Campbell's
reformation, as it is now, in very common use, and
of well defined, and well understood meaning.
It related to a subject of great importance-one
held in the highest estimation by all evangelical
Christians. It denotes that series of conflicts, exercises and emotions, springing from a gradual knowledge of Divine truth, and the influence of the
Holy Spirit, which results in the conversion of the
soul to Christ, and accompanies this event  Much




60        CAMPBELLISM IN ITS CHAOS.
has improperly passed under the name of Christian
experienrce; and great mischief has arisen from
ignorance or misconception on the subject. Many
persons have mistaken excitements, fancies, dreams,
and other extravagances, for genuine conversion,
and not unfrequently amid much ignorance and
superstition have been found the marks of sincere
piety. Christian experience is greatly modified by
temperament, education, religious instruction, and
the circumstances under which conversion occurs.
Men of a phlegmatic temperament may embrace
the Gospel with comparatively little feeling. MAen
of ardent temperament and vivid imaginations, like
John Bunyan, and Colonel Gardiner, are likely to
receive the Gospel with intense and overwhelming
emotions, and these emotions are sometimes accompanied by fancied "visions and revelations." We
should carefully distinguish between what is circumstantial and what is essential in Christian experience.
We should separate the chaff from the wheat. All
that is superstitious, visionary, extravagant-in fine,
all that will not bear the test of Scripture, should
be rejected; but we should beware of condemning
the precious with the vile-the genuine with the
spurious. Conviction of sin, godly sorrow, faith in
Christ, an obedient spirit, love, peace, joy and hope,
are elements of genuine Christian experience. No
intelligent, evangelical Christian has ever placed
saving e- perience in any thing short of those im



~AMPBELLISM IN ITS CHAOS.        61
pressions, exercises and feelings which are essential
to a passage "from death unto life." Every godly
man clings with unyielding tenacity to the reality
of his Christian experience. He would no sooner
renounce it than his salvation. There may, indeed,
be religion-its name-its form-its pomp-its sacrifices-without it; but it is spiritless, heartless
and worthless.
Mr. Campbell's early writings on the subject of
experimental religion gave great pain to the friends
of spiritual Christianity. Some things which he
published on this subject were worthy of grave consideration. He exposed with clearness and severity
the illusions and extravagances which, among the
uncultivated and ignorant, especially the negroes,
was current as Christian experience. These evils
were seen, deplored, and opposed by all well informed Christians, long before he commenced his
Reformation. They are evils inseparable, perhaps,
from the progress of earnest piety among an illiterate and excitable people; but from which a speculative, heartless formalism is a certain preservative.
He condemned the practice common among Baptists
and some other evangelical Christians of requiring
from candidates for church membership a relation
of their experience. The practice he considered to
be, not only unauthorized, but injurious.  That it
has sometimes been abused by the ignorant, or misjudging, none will deny; but that churches should




082        CAMPBELLISM IN ITS CHAOS.
avail themselves of the best means in their powerimperfect, at best —to judge correctly of the sincerity, knowledge and piety of persons wishing to
enter into their fellowship, seems evident fror- the
nature of the connexion,  And a brief. cleur narrative of their religious exercises, or diret answers to
a few plain, pertinaent questions a"capted to elicit
information on this subject, wtil greatly facilitate
this object, Philip did. not baptize the Ethiopian
eunuch, who requested baptism, until he had catechised him.  Acts 8: 37. True, the evangelist
propounded but one question to the candidate-or,
at least, in the concise narrative furnished by Luke,
only one is recorded —-that, under the circumstances,
being deemed sufficient.  It should be borne in
mind that the Ethiopian was an intelligent man —s
reader of the Scriptures-had been to Jerusalemt t,
worship —ad had been receiving personal instruetion from Philip.  The evangelist asked the can4i:e
date the question which was most likely to elk'it tb  3
true state of his heart, and the answer was satistf;
tory. This example, so far from restricting patss/ irs
or churches, in the examination of candidate  for
baptism, to this brief and single question-sa, question never, so far as we are informed, ptroCp),F,ed to
any other applicant for the ordinance, in R,ostolic
times-fairly authorizes them  to make ~ ach inquiries as the intelligence known charp'  ers, and
circumstances, of the cawdidates may a,  lear to re



CAMPBELLISM IN ITS CHAOS.        63
quire. But whether the necessary information
shall be obtained by asking questions, or by the
connected narrative of the candidates for church
fellowship, is a point about which none but hairsplitting speculatists would stickle. Though Mr.
Campbell differed from the Baptists generally on
this subject, the difference would have caused no
serious strife between them. His views on this
point were not peculiar. Several evangelical denominations, held in high and deserved estimation
by the Baptists, received members into full communion without requiring a recital of their Christian experience. What the Baptists maintained
was, that persons were not entitled to church membership, without the various exercises, comprehended in conversion, or regeneration, which they
termed " Christian experience," and which are particularly pointed out in the commencement of this
article. On this point they have never wavered,
and, God grant, they never may. The propriety
of relating an experience before a church is one
thing —the indispensable necessity of an experience
-a " Christian experience" —in order to legitimate
church communion is another, and far more important matter.
Now, it was in regard to the latter, and not the,
former point, that the remarks of Mr. Campbell.
caused so much pain among considerate and earnest.
Christians. He treated the subject with a levity,.




64        CAMPBELLISM IN ITS CHAOS.
sarcasm, and disregard of the feelings of holy men,
which can be fairly characterized by no term less
offensive than shocking. Good men stood aghast
at the freedom and severity with which he treated
a subject that they had been accustomed to regard
with feelings of awe, not, perhaps, unmingled with
superstition. It is just to him to say that, so far as
I can perceive, he did not deny the reality or the
necessity of what others termed " Christian experience," but he wrote equivocally on the subject.
He knew that he was accused of rejecting Christian
experience-spiritual religion —and that his peculiar
views of faith and repentance were supposed to lead
to this result —and yet the frank and full avowal on
these points, requisite to quiet the fears, not of the
captious, but of the intelligent, pious and candid,
who looked with favor on some portions of his Reformation, was studiously withheld. Some paragraphs, considered alone, would appear to establish
the soundness of his views on experimental religion;
but others would throw a doubt over his meaning.
To satisfy those who called in question the correctness of his opinions on this subject, he wrote —" It
is said that we have taught that there is no necessity of being born again by the Spirit of God; and
that we have denied that Christians are new creatures, and that we have confined all divine grace to
the apostolic age. Now we must confess that we
did not intend to communicate sucl ideas; nor do




CAMPBELLISM IN ITS CHAOS.        65
we think that such can be fairly gathered from oui
words."  But s )on he added-" We have discovered
that something under the name of "experimental
religion" is the very soul of the popular system "and the reader has seen the estimate in which he
held that system. Chn. Bap., 64. See also pp.
48-49.
A few quotations must suffice to exhibit the views
of Mr. Campbell on the subject of experimental religion, and his spirit and manner in discussing it.
"It is, perhaps, chiefly owing to the religious
theories imbibed in early life from creeds, catechisms, and priests, that so few comparatively enjoy
the grace of God which brings salvation. The grace
of God, exhibited in the record concerning Jesus of
Nazareth, affords no consolation. The hopes and
joys of many spring from a good conceit of themselves. If this good conceit vanishes, which sometimes happens, despondency and distress are the
consequences. While they can, as they conceit,
thank God that they are not like other men, they
are very happy; but when this fancied excellency
disappears, the glad tidings afford no consolation:
anguish and distress have come upon them. This,
with some of the spiritual doctors, is a good symptom too: for, say they,'if you do not doubt we
will doubt for you.' When they have worked then
into despondency, they minister a few opiates, and
assure them that they are now in a safe and happy




66        (CAMPBELLISM IN ITS CHAOS
state.  Now they are to rejoice, because they are
sorrowful; now they are to feel very good, because
they feel so very bad. This is the orthodox'Christian experience.' This is the genuine work of the
Holy Spirit I" Chn. Bap., 138.
Did Mr. Campbell really believe that this caricature, which he drew, was " the orthodox Christian
experience" —'" the genuine work of the Holy Spoirit"
-for which the evangelical Christians of that time
pleaded?  It is charitable to think so.  But how
a man of Mr. Campbell's intelligence, erudition,
general information, and accurate observation, could
have reached such a conclusion, it is not easy to
comprehend. It will not be denied that the evil
which Mr. Campbell portrayed was real, and deserved correction. In all religious denominations
there may be ignorant, enthusiastic and misguided
teachers. He will concede that there are such in
the churches enrolled under the banner of his own
Reformation —or if he should not, the means of his
conviction are at hand. But is it fair to charge the
crudities and errors of such teachers to orthodoxy?
No evangelical Christian denomination, has ever endorsed such an experience as Mr. Campbell has delineated in this paragraph, either from his prolific
imagination, or the teachings and doings of ignorant
enthusiasts. HIe may be safely challenged to furnish
from any creed, document, accredited writer, or respect.able journal? of any Christian persuasion, the




CAMPBELLIS-I IN ITS CHAOS.        67
outline of an approved experience, so defective and
unscriptural as this "orthodox Christian experience." I have been in the Christian ministry
more than thirty years, and I have no recollection of
having read in any book, or heard from the lips of
any teacher, approved by any orthodox Christian
denomination, the description of a saving experience,
which did not include Godly sorrow, the renunciation of sins, and trust in Christ for salvation. To
represent an experience, having no allusion to conviction of sin, sorrow for it, hatred of it, the abandonment of it, faith in Christ, love to him, and an
obedient disposition-in short, a change of heartnot as the experience of a few ignorant and excited
enthusiasts-but as " the orthodox Christian experience"-" the genuine work of the Holy Spirit,"
is to misrepresent-it may be, ignorantly, or carelessly, or in the heat of party zeal-but nevertheless
to misrepresent, most grossly, the class of men
among whom is to be found most of the intelligent
piety which the world contains.
It is proper to furnish another extract on this
subject, of later date, but of similar spirit. Chn.
Sys., p. 244, 245.
"EFFECTS OF MODERN CHRISTIANITY.-Our greatest objection to the systems which we oppose, is
their impotency on the heart. Alas! what multitudes of prayerless, saintless, Christless, joyless
hearts, have crowded Christianity out of the congre.




68        CAMPBELLISM IN ITS CHAOS.
gations by their experiences before baptism! They
seem to have had all their religion before they professed it. They can relate no experience since
baptism, comparable to that professed before the
"' mutual pledge" was tendered and received. It
was the indubitable proofs of the superabundance
of this fruit, which caused me to suspect the far.
famed tree of evangelical orthodoxy. That coldheartedness-that stiff and mercenary formalitythat tithing of mint, anise, and dill —that negligence
of mercy, justice, truth, and the love of God, which
stalked through the communions of sectarian altars
-that apathy and indifference about'thus saith
the Lord'-that zeal for human prescriptions, and
above all, that willing ignorance of the sayings and
doings of Jesus Christ and his apostles, which so
generally appeared, first of all created, fostered, and
matured my distrust in the reformed systems of
evangelical sectaries."
When Mr. Campbell commenced his labors, the
state of Protestant Christendom was not such as
the pious heart might desire. In all communions
there were obvious, acknowledged, and grievous
evils. The comparative inefficacy of all the means
employed for the moral renovation of men was but
too manifest. All good men united with the devout
Psalmist in the desire, " Oh, let the wickedness of
the wicked come to an end!"  But did these evils
in the churches spring from  "experiences before




CAMPBELLISM IN ITS CHAOS.         69
baptism?"  Did the requiring of experiences preparatory to baptism and church fellowship crowd
Christianity out of the churches, by introducing
" multitudes of prayerless, saintless, Christless, joy-!ess hearts?" Or did these evils originate in the
moral corruption of human nature, and the deteriorating tendencies of a world enslaved by sin? A
large majority of the evangelical churches did not
require "experiences before baptism;" what " crowded Christianity" out of them? There were great
and deplorable evils in the churches gathered and
instructed by the apostles-and that too before they
closed their ministry-did " experiences before baptism" produce them? The truth is, nothing could
be more unfair, unphilosophical, and deceptive, than
to reason as Mr. Campbell did. He had, in some
respects, an easy task before him. It demanded
but little research or labor to detect, publish, and
magnify the evils in the various Christian communions. All these evils Mr. Campbell boldly and
confidently ascribed, without discrimination, fairness,
or qualification, to " sectarian bigotry," " popular
Christianity," "evangelical orthodoxy," or " experiences before baptism."  With  equal zeal and
assurance, he proclaimed; that the sovereign remedy
for all these evils, was a return to the " Ancient
Gospel,"-not as it had been received and practised
by the wise and good of every land, but as it was
understood and interpreted at Bethany. Many saw




70        CAMPBELLISM IN ITS CHAOS.
and deplored these evils, earnestly desired their cor.rection, and embraced the Bethany exposition of the
Gospel that their wishes might be realized. Churches
were organized according to the " ancient order of
things," from which there is no danger that Christianity will be crowded out by " experiences before
baptism."  The public have had an opportunity of
comparing the fruits of the Reformation with the
fruits of " the far-famed tree of evangelical orthodoxy." It is not proper to anticipate what it is proposed to state in another part of this work; but I
will mention a single fact. A few years ago, one
of the earliest, most intelligent, and devoted of the
friends of the " ancient order of things," said candidly, that the Reformation had not proved as perfect in practise as it was in theory.
Some extracts having been given from the writings
of Mr. Campbell, as specimens of his manner of
treating experimental religion, it is proper that he
should have the benefit of his apology for tle sevei
ity of his style.
"The reader," he says, "may perhaps think
that we speak too irreverently of the practice and
of the experience of many Christians.  We have no
such intention. But there are many things when
told or represented just as they are, which appear
so strange, and, indeed, fanciful, that the mere relation of them assu:les an air c f irony." Chn. Bap.,
141., Note.




CAMPBELLISM IN ITS CHAOS.        71
Whether the defense mends the mats'er, the
reader must judge for himself. Another, if not a
better, apology for Mr. Campbell's course may be
suggested. If he was really convinced that " orthodox Christian experiences" were, as he represented them, Christless, graceless and senseless-an
artificial despondencycured by noxious opiatesthen, perhaps, no apology was necessary. We can
only lament that a man of his conceded abilities
should have had his judgment so sadly pervertedby no matter what baleful influence.
As it is proposed, in another part of this volume,
to examine particularly the principles of Campbellism, I shall in this chapter merely glance at those
which distinguished this period of the Refornzation.
It has been already observed, that the teaching of
Mr. Campbell, through the columns of the Christian
Baptist, was negative rather than positive-was intended to overthrow, and bring into disrepute the
popular theology, rather than to develope any peculiar religious principles. The current teachings of
all the prevailing Christian sects, whether oral, or
written, whether in creeds, sermons, expositions of
the Scriptures, or any other form, were deemed by
him, and his admirers, vain speculations, philosophical subtleties, or orthodox nonsense.  Gradually,
and slowly, however, his doctrinal peculiarities
began to be Svolved. Having referred to the period



72        CAMPBELLISM IN ITS CHAOS.
icals and other works, which advocated his peculiar
principles, he wrote" The CHRISTIAN BAPTIST in seven annual volumes, being the first of these publications, and
affording such a gradual development of these
principles as the state of the public mind and the
opposition would permit, is, in the judgment of
many of our brethren, who have expressed themselves on the subject, better adapted to the whole
community as it now exists, than our other writings." Chn. Sys., p. 10.
Whether Mr. Campbell did not express his doctrinal views clearly, or with uniformity; or whether
his opponents were unable, or unwilling to comprehend his meaning, need not now to be decided. I
certainly have never known a religious teacher
whose views were involved in so much mist and uncertainty. From his writings might be culled passages, which would satisfy the most strenuous advocates of orthodoxy in respect to his soundness in
the faith; and from the same pages, other passages
which seemed to threaten the very foundation of
evangelical Christianity. By some he was charged
with holding the most pestilential errors; and by
others he was considered the ablest uninspired expounder of the Christian faith. It began to be apparent, however, that there were serious discordances between his doctrinal views and those entertained by evangelical Christians, and especially the




CAMPBELLISM IN ITS CHAOS.        73
Baptists, with whom he was particularly connected.
These differences had reference to faith, repentance,
regeneration, the remission of sins, the influence of
the Holy Spirit, and other points of minor importance. He was understood to teach and maintain
that faith is a simple persuasion that Jesus is the
Messiah, which demands no influence of the Holy
Spirit to incline the mind to its exercise-that repentance is a reformation of life-that regeneration
is identical with baptism-that the remission of
sins is enjoyed only through baptism-and that the
Holy Spirit is bestowed only on the baptized. On
no point, perhaps, did his teaching give such general
dissatisfaction as in regard to the influence of the
Holy Spirit in the moral renovation of man. The
Baptists, in common with other orthodox Christians, held this doctrine to be of vital importance.
His teaching on the subject was, or to many it
seemed to be evasive, contradictory, unsound, and
of pernicious tendency. The reader will perceive
in the following quotation the spirit and influence
of his writings on this solemn and important subject.
" I read, some time since, of a revival in the
state of New York, in which the Spirit of God was
represented as being abundantly poured out on
Presbyterians, Methodists, and Baptists. I think
the converts in the order of the names were about
three hundred Presbyterians, three hundred Metho4




74        CAMPBELLISM IN ITS CHAO0.
dists, and two hundred and eighty Baptist.s. OL
the principles of Bellamy, Hopkins, and Fuller,
these being all regenerated without any knowledge
of the Gospel, there is no difficulty in accounting
for their joining different sects. The spirit did not
teach the Presbyterians to believe that'God had
foreordained whatsoever comes to pass;' nor the
Methodists to deny it. HIe did not teach the Presbyterians and the Methodists that infants were
members of the church, and to be baptized; noi
the Baptists to deny it. But on the hypothesis of
the Apostle James, viz:'Of his own will begat
he us by the word of truth.' I think it would be
difficult to prove that the Spirit of God had any
thing to do with the aforesaid revival." Chn. Bap.,
50.
By some persons Mr. Campbell -was suspected,
and charged with leaning toward Unitarianism.
For this impression I have never found any good
ground. In his zeal to introduce what he termed
C a pure speech," he rejected the words " Trinity,"
and " Trinitarianism," and also some notions, more
or less prevalent, concerning the Trinity; but so
far as I can discover, he clearly and uniformly maintained the doctrine of Christ's Godhead, and the
vicarious and expiatory nature of his sufferings.
It is unnecessary to pursue this subject much
farther. It is not my purpose to point out all the
sentiments and practices among evangelical Chris



CAMPBELLISM IN ITS CHAOS.         75
tians which incurred his displeasure, and provoked
his animadversions. The war was as general as it
was fierce and relentless. Nothing was so venerable, so sacred, and so important, in the estimation
of others, or so strongly entrenched in popular favor,
as to shield it from his attacks.  Objects, in themselves confessedly good, were denounced because
they were pursued with sectarian zeal, and for sectarian purposes. In all the pages of the Christian
Baptist it will be difficult to find a sentence commendatory of any institution, plan, custom, labor
or interest of Christendom, apart from his own
cher ished Reformation.




CAMPBELLISM  IN ITS FORMATION.
Various causes contributed to augment the in.
fluence of Mr. Campbell, to diffuse his peculiar notions, and to facilitate the progress of his Reformation. His information, self-command, boldness, and
indomitable ardor, eminently fitted him to lead a
party. His temperament, intellectual habits, and
aspirations were all adapted to impel him to abandon the beaten track of thought and labor, and to
impart to his writings and preaching the charm of
novelty. His views might not be scriptural, or
wise, or important; but they were, at least, uncommon-and this was sufficient to render them
acceptable to a certain class of minds. By his
fearless and forcible defense of the distinctive sentiments of the Baptists, in his debates with Messrs.
Walker and McCalla, he secured extensively the
confidence and esteem of the denomination. They
were proud to acknowledge him as the bold and
puissant champion of their cause-and they made
the acknowledgment with more pleasure, because
he had risen up suddenly, and in a Duarter least ex2




CAMPBELLISM IN ITS FORMATION.      77
pected. They were, therefore, ready to pay not
only a candid but a confiding regard to anything he
might publish. His ability and prowess as a public
extempore debater, had given him a prestige most
favorable to his influence and success. His opponents too, with few exceptions, unwittingly promoted the Reformation. Instead of an open, manly
and resolute discussion of the objectionable points
in his scheme; they carried on a petty warfare, censuring frequently without discrimination, wasting
their resources in the discussion of trifles, and always
ready to retreat at the first appearance of serious
danger. I do not intend to reflect on the motives,
or abilities, of the excellent fathers who early participated in the discussion of Campbellism-they
pursued the course to which their judgment or their
circumstances led them-but Mr. Campbell was too
adroit an opponent not to interpret their guerrilla
warfare as a proof of his invincibility, and the soundness of the cause which he had espoused.
His opposition to sectarianism has been already
mentioned; and from this opposition, he not only
brought on himself much reproach, but derived a
large measure of his strength and influence. On
the subject of sectarianism, his logic was precisely
that which every quack employs to bring his nostrums into use. He expatiates earnestly on the
inefficiency of the regular medical practice. There
are some diseases for which physicians have no




78      CAMPBELLISM IN ITS FORMATION.
remedy; for many others their prescriptions are
sadly and confessedly unsuccessful; and, in not a
few cases, their drugs have proved pernicious. Physicians of the greatest wisdom and experience have
lamented the imperfection of medical science, and the
uncertainty of the healing art. These evils and admissions are paraded and duly magnified before the
public, by the empiric, who proclaims his certified sovereign panacea, while the credulous, and those who
have despaired of aid from science, are caught by the
specious artifice. The evils of sectarianism were obvious and confessed. The division of Protestant Christendom into numerous rival sects, spending their
time, wasting their energies, embittering their spirits,
and affording sport for their adversaries, by their subtle and profitless controversies, has long been its reproach, its curse, and its blight. It is an evil second
in magnitude only to the religious uniformity, which,
resembling the quiet of the cemetery, is the offspring of bigoted and intolerant despotism. Of
course, in these remarks, reference is had to the
evils growing out of the condition of the Christian
world. The mischiefs of sectarianism were delineated by Mr. Campbell, certainly, with no fear of exaggeration. All its legitimate evils were charged
upon it; and many which with equal plausibility
might have been ascribed to other caulcs. From
all these evils he promised a certain and speedy deliverance.  The "ancient Gospel," or the Gospel




(A iiPBELLISAM IN ITS FORMATION.    79
as expounded at Bethany, was a remedy for all
these disorders. The plan of relief was perfectly
simple. Nothing was necessary to abolish sectarianism, and its bitter fruits, and so secure the perfect
union of all Christians, but the belief of one fact —
that Jesus is the Messiah; submission to one institution-immersion, for the remission of sins; and a
steady conformity to the apostles' doctrine. The
scheme was defective, visionary, and utterly inefficacious; but it was plausible-it promised relief
from evils seen, felt and lamented-it seemed to be
the only prospect for relief presented-and many,
cheated by the illusion, gladly embraced it.
Another cause which favored the progress of the
reformation was the prevalence of hyper-Calvinistic,
or antinomian views in many Baptist churches.
Having adopted, in its main points, the Calvinian
theology, they were led by their system into speculations as unpopular as they were sterile. To free
them from objections and render them acceptable
to their auditors, the pastors spent a large portion
of the time devoted to pulpit labors in their discussion; and what occupied so much of their thought
grew into most exaggerated importance in their estimation. They seemed to think that they were
called to the ministry for no other purpose than to
proclaim and vindicate a few abstruse and barren
points of the Calvinistic creed; but their ministry,
excepting to a few indoctrinated zealots, was not




80      CAMPBELLISM IN ITS FORMkT1ON.
pleasing. The people generally becoming disgusted
with such dry, and unsatisfying speculations, were
ready to attend on any ministry which promised
them a more palatable, if not a more nutritious diet.
In churches of this sort Mr. Campbell found his way
prepared before him.
His opposition to Christian missions, and other
benevolent enterprizes, gained him many friends.
The antinomian Baptists were, almost without exception, hostile to all combined and self-denying
efforts among Christians for spreading the knowledge of the Gospel —a hostility derived, in part,
from their peculiar doctrinal opinions, and, it seems
not uncharitable to judge, in part, from their
covetousness. They were delighted to find that
they had in Mr. Campbell, a champion in their
cause, so zealous and distinguished; and, though
their doctrinal sentiments were antipodal to his, yet
this agreement on a very important point, as they
deemed it, disposed them to pass the most favorable judgment on him, and his system. Nor was
this pleasure limited to antinomian Baptists. Mr.
Campbell's ridicule of missions, and kindred efforts,
was too much in harmony with the selfishness of
human nature, and the money-loving propensity of
the age, not to awaken sympathy, and call forth admiration.  An intelligent correspondent of the
Christian Baptist thus addressed him: " My dear
sir, yc l have begun wrong, if your object is reform



CAMPBELLISM IN ITS FORMATION.      81
ation. Never attack the principle which multiplies
the number of Bibles, or which promotes the
preaching of the Gospel, or the support of it, if
you desire Christianity to prevail. As I informed
you when here, I repeat it again, your opposition to
a preached Gospel, to the preachers and Bible societies, secures to you the concurrence of the covetous, the ignorant, the prayerless and Christless
Christians. Should they have had any religion,
they cease to enjoy it as soon as they embrace youi
views." Chn. Bap., 70.
Mr. Campbell's opposition to the clergy had much
to do with the progress of the Reformation. Ministers of the Gospel have in all ages and countries, and under all the names by which they have
been distinguished, had to bear a large share of the
"reproach of Christ."  Whoever ridicules them,
throws suspicion on their motives, or, in any way,
undermines their influence, with whatever pretence,
is sure to win the smiles, and receive the plaudits
of a certain class of persons, among whom, it is sad
to say, may be found professing Christians. ]Mr.
Campbell was decidedly politic in his attacks on the
clergy. While he denounced them, he flattered
the people. They did not need to hire priests for
their instruction —they could read and expound the
Scriptures for themselves-every church had within
itself the means of its own edification. These sentiments were too congenial to the independence and
4*




82      CAMPBELLISM IN ITS FORMATION.
pride of human nature not to find a cordial reception. Many who had been content to be learners,
after reading a few numbers of the Christian Baptist, were elated with the prospect of becoming
teachers. A Reformation which promised to sink
the aristocratic populars and to elevate the masses
far above their former teachers, could not fail to secure the approval and support of those who confided in its professions.
I know not how much influence Mr. Campbell's
teaching derived from its Scotch peculiarities, but I
know it derived some. The Scotch are remarkable
for the tenacity with which they adhere to their religious opinions. A Scotchman of my acquaintance, an intelligent and worthy man-finding that
Mr. Campbell agreed with him in certain unimportant, but cherished opinions, in regard to which
he differed from his brethren generally, was induced
to pay a favorable attention to the " ancient Gospel," and finally to become its earnest advocate.
The chief means of spreading the peculiar views
of the Bethany Reformer was the Christian Baptist,
-a small, cheap periodical, whose circulation was
constantly increasing. To their development and
defense its pages were exclusively devoted. Almost
all who read it were either disgusted with its spirit
and sentiments, and spurned it from them, or being
gradually brought under its influence, at length,
enlisted under th~ banner of the Reformation  Mr:




CAMPBELLISM IN ITS FORMATION.        83
Campbell, in addition to his editorial, and other
literary labors, frequently made long tours in Virginia, Kentucky and Ohio, every where proclaiming
to crowded assemblies the principles of his Reformation.  His sermons, or " orations," as he styled
them, long, and sometimes tedious, were heard by
some with disapprobation, by others with serious
doubts as to their usefulness, and by others still
with indifference; yet, on the whole, they contributed much to diffuse the knowledge of his principles, promote the circulation of his periodical, and
multiply the number of his friends.
Nor must it be forgotten in enumerating the
causes which facilitated the progress of theReformation, that Mr. Campbell taught many important
truths; exposed some serious evils; furnished some
striking expositions of Scripture passages, which,
if not original, were new to his hearers; and labored
diligently to awaken an interest in the study of the
Scriptures.
It has been already stated that it was not Mr.
Campbell's purpose —certainly not his avowed purpose-to form a new sect, but to abolish all sects.
If he did not perceive, he was the only intelligent
observer of his course who did not perceive, its direct
and inevitable tendency to produce that result.
His spirit was eminently sectarian.  What is sectarianism, but an undue confidence in the soundness
of oui views of Scripture truth, an excessive partial



84      CAMPBELLISM IN ITS FORMATION.
ity for the party concurring with us in these views,
and the lack of candor, tenderness, and forbearance
towards those who dissent from them? When tried
by this standard, no enlightened and unbiased
reader of the Chzristian Baptist can doubt that Mr.
Campbell's sectarianism was unmitigated. Within
the wide range of Christian literature there cannot
be found a work more intolerant, proscriptive, and
caustic. Love is the very soul of piety, and the
moving principle in every well-directed effort at
reformation; and this principle will develop itself
in gentle words, candid admissions, and a due
regard to the feelings and motives of opponents, as
well as in a faithful, earnest exhibition of divine
truth. If Mr. Campbell's object was to avoid the
formation of a new sect, his course was most impolitic. Instead of commending what was good,
enduring minor evils, and kindly seeking to correct
the serious errors in the different Christian sects; he
censured their views and practices with little discrimination, and unsparing causticity, proclaiming that
they were all in Babylon, and their religion not much
better than paganism; and justified his severity by
the example of Luther in contending against the
Papists, and of Christ in condemning the Scribes
and Pharisees. Never did any leader more perfectly succeed in infusing his own spirit into his
followers, than did Mr. Campbell. With not a tithe
of his genius, 1 arning, or information, they did not




CAMPBELLISM IN ITS FORMATION.       85
yield to him a hair-breadth, in the strength of their
conviction, that their new religious views were
Scriptural. Many of them were almost in an
ecstacy that having been so long in the darkness
of Babylon, a light, so effulgent and vivifying,
should have suddenly shined upon them. A shadow
of suspicion that, after all, they might misinterpret
the Scriptures seemed never to have darkened their
minds. A fact may serve to illustrate their spirit.
A girl of my acquaintance, still in her teens, quite
illiterate, and possessing no uncommon genius, had
been immersed for the remission of sins. On meeting her, I found that she had entered fully into the
spirit of the Reformation. I inquired of her, whether
she was satisfied that her new views were correct.
She replied, " I can't be wrong-I follow the Book."
I answered, "I acknowledge that the Bible is an
infallible guide; but I am not quite certain that you
are an infallible interpreter of it."  Our conversation was continued for some time, and I could not,
by any argument or appeal, extort from her the
confession that she might possibly misinterpret the
Scriptures.  "I follow the Book, and can't be
deceived," was her unchanged reply. I remember
a similar case. A Reformer invited me to his house
for the ostensible purpose of seeing his sick wife,
but for the real purpose, as it appeared, of affording
me an opportunity of learning the principles of the
Reformation. Ho could not read, but had a young




86      CAMPBELLISM IN ITS FORMATION.
daughter, who entered fully into his spirit and views,
that was more fortunate in this respect, than her
father. The Reformer called on his daughter to
read certain portions of Scripture which had been
selected for the occasion, and she complied with an
air and manner which indicated how deeply she
thought I was indebted for her kindness. He then
commenced an oration, to which I listened without
reply, and without a smile, though I found it difficult to maintain my gravity, until, my edification
having ceased, I abruptly took my leave. I should
not deem it proper to mention these particular cases,
were I not satisfied that all acquainted with the.early history of Campbellism will perceive in them
fife-like portraitures of many, not all-for some
were modest, courteous, and dignified —of the primitive Reformers. I greatly misjudge if the early
disciples of Mr. Campbell, (I do not use the phrase
opprobriously,) were not, for the most part, restive,
contentious, and factious. How could they be otherwise? They read the Christian Baptist, had strong
confidence in the wisdom and piety of its editor,
imbibed its spirit, adopted its principles, clothed
themselves with the armor which it furnished, entered
heartily into all the schemes which it advocated foI
the destruction of creeds, the overthrow of the clergy,
the arrest of benevolent operations, and, in short,
the " restoration of the ancient order of things" set
up, or brought to light at Bethany; and aimed to




CAMPBELLISM:N ITS ]FORMATION.     87
a, prove themselves worthy followers of an illustrious
and undaunted leader.
The Baptists, at least in Virginia, were unprepared for the conflict which came upon them. Their
pastors, mostly plain men, with limited education,
and earnest piety, had restricted their public instructions to the fundamental principles of Christianity,
and were unfitted by their lack of early training,
and by their confirmed habits, for polemic discussions. The members of the churches had inherited
their religious opinions from the fathers of an earlier
period, and held them sincerely without a suspicion
that they could be controverted. They received the
Bible in the common version, as their creed, and
read it, mainly to be comforted by its promises, and
guided by its precepts, not doubting that all their
doctrinal views were clearly contained in it. It were
useless to maintain that the Baptists were faultless
in the controversy. They sinned far less than they
were sinned against, but they were not without sin.
They sometimes judged when they should have
investigated, condemned when they should have
debated, resorted to the exercise of authority when
they should have used kind persuasion, and failed
to distinguish between the factious and the misled.
In the year 1832, events were drawing to a crisis
in the Baptist denomination in Virginia and some
of the Western States. A party had been formed
in the churiches, respectable for their number, and




88      CA3BPBELLISM IN ITS ] ORMATION.
quite formidable by the aggressive spirit which
actuated them. They adopted the peculiar sentiments and practices advocated by Mr. Campbell in
the Christian Baptist, and its successor, the Millennial Harbinger. They styled themselves Reformers,
but by their opponents, they were styled Campbellites. They were exceedingly active in making converts, and in numbering and marshalling their
forces. In this state of things it was impossible but
that strife, irritations, alienations, and divisions must
ensue. Mr. Campbell had for several years been
sowing the seed of sectarianism, and now he was
about to reap the harvest.
What was to be done in this crisis?  The Reformers, with Mr. Campbell at their head, were
violently opposed to separation from the Baptists,
and were ready, to a man, to fight for peace. It
can hardly be doubted that this desire of union
sprang from policy rather than love. They were
willing to remain for a time in Babylon, that they
might extricate others from its smoke, vassalage,
and degradation. Knowing themselves to be in a
hopeless minority, they were desirous to be permitted
to avail themselves of Baptist pulpits and presses
for the propagation of their principles. But a
division was inevitable. It existed in fact-a division in sentiment, affection, interest, and aim-and
it only remained to be carried out in form.
Had the churches a right to expel the Reformers?




CAMPBELLISM IN ITS FORMATION.      89
The power of expelling factious and disorderly members seems to be indispensable to the purity, peace,
and prosperity of the churches, and this power is
distinctly conferred in the Scriptures. " Now, I
beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye
have learned; and avoid them." Rom xvi. 27. It
is true, the Reformers maintained that their teachings and efforts were in harmony with the apostolic
doctrine-indeed, that their chief object was to
restore that long-lost doctrine-but Christ had
solemnly devolved on the churches to which the
innovators belonged, the duty of deciding these
points. Their decision might be wise or unwisemight be dictated by sectarian bigotry, or an honest
and enlightened regard to truth-but on them devolved, by divine appointment, the duty and responsibility of making it; and from their decision there
was, according to their established polity —a polity
approved by the Reformers-no appeal. That
there are occasions which call for the exercise of
this right on the part of churches, none can deny.
Members may adopt principles so utterly at war
with the Gospel, evince a spirit so repugnant to the
spirit of Christ, and pursue a course so manifestly
factious and schismatic, as to leave no doubt of the
propriety of their expulsion from church fellowship.
Whether the churches should exercise their authority in putting the Reforme-s out of their commu



90      CAMPBELLISM IN ITS FORMATION.
nion, was a question environed with difficulties-a
question involving alike the rights of individuals
and of churches-the maintenance of truth and
order-and the prosperity of the Redeemer's cause.
There were grave and weighty reasons against the
separation. A schism in the churches was greatly
to be deprecated. Many of the Reformers were good
men —converted and trained up among the Baptists
-adopting Mr. Campbell's views only in part, and
imbibing his spirit in widely different measuresfrom whom it was painful to separate. A division
could not take place without giving rise to perplexing questions concerning the right of property, and
greatly increasing the strife and irritation already
prevailing, to the mortification of the godly, and the
reproach of Christianity. To these considerations
must be added, that however sound the reasons for
their exclusion, the Reformers would not fail, by the
cry of persecution, to enlist the sympathies of a party
in their favor, and to bring odium on their opposers.
On the other hand, the reasons for a separation were
overwhelming. In many churches, the parties had
taken their grounds, and in the constant, earnest,
and painful strife about the Reformation, the true
ends of church fellowship were almost forgotten
TheReformedministers were zealous in disseminating
their principles in all the churches to which they
could gain access, and baptizing into their new faith
such converts as they could find or make, not only




CAMPBELLISM IN ITS FORMATION.      91
in their own congregations, but in those of nonReforming pastors. Meetings of the Reformers were
called and held to promote the interests of the
Reformation. W'ith this Reformation the Baptists
had no sympathy, believing it to be pugnacious in
spirit, unsound in theory, and barren in the fruits
of piety. It was utterly impossible that parties, so
discordant in views, so alienated in affection, and of
such opposite aims, should dwell together in unity.
To perpetuate the union, under such circumstances,
was to perpetuate strife, and heart-burnings, and
entail on the churches inefficiency and ruin. Moreover, the principles advocated by the Reformers,
were deemed by the Baptists to be, not only erroneous, but of pernicious influence, and such as they
could not countenance without recreancy to the
cause of Christ.
It is not proposed to furnish a history of the
painful separation which took place between the
Reformers and Baptists in several of the Southern,
and most of the Western States. The details of
the event would fill a large volume. Every association and every church infected with Campbellism
has its peculiar history. The conflict was, in many
respects, everywhere the same-maintained with the
same spirit, carried on with the same weapons, and
producing the same results, differing, however,
widely in degree-its details being in no two places
the same. Here she hottest contest was in the




92      CAMPBELLISM IN ITS FORMATION.
association —-there in the churches; here the Bap.
tists were in the majority, ejecting the Reformers,
and retaining possession of the property —there the
Reformers were in the ascendant, and the Baptists
under the necessity of relinquishing their interest in
the property, and withdrawing from the communion
of the Reformers; here the battle was fierce, and
the separation was attended with painful exasperation-there mild counsel prevailed, and the division
occurred in a gentler and more forbearing spirit.
As a specimen of the course pursued by other
bodies, I will give a sketch of the action of the
Dover Association-then the largest association of
Baptists in the world-in regard to Campbellism;
and I select this because I happen to be best
acquainted with it. In the autumn of 1832, this
body convened at Four-Mile Creek meeting-house,
in Henrico County, Va., not far from the city of
Richmond. The Reformation excitement had reached its height. Several of the churches belonging to
the body had been split asunder, and others were
in a distracted and unhappy condition. All eyes
were turned to the Association for advice in this
time of trial. The judicious and venerable R. B.
Semple, so long the Moderator of the Association,
was absent, having recently been called to his reward.
The subject which had caused such painful anxiety,
was referred to a select committee, consisting of
Elders John Kerr, James B. Taylor, Peter Ainslie,




CAMPBELLISM IN ITS FCRMATION.     93
J. B. Jeter, and Philip Montague. The committee
in due time made the following report:
" The select committee appointed to consider and
report'what ought to be done in reference to the
tew doctrines and practices which have disturbed
she peace and harmony of some of the churches
composing this association,' met at the house of
Elder Miles Turpin, and having invited and
obtained the aid and counsel of Elders Andrew
Broaddus, Eli Ball, John Micou, William  Hill,
Miles Turpin, and brother Erastus T. Montague,
after due deliberation, respectfully report the following preamble and resolution for the consideration and adoption of the association.
" This association having been from its origin,
blessed with uninterrupted harmony, and a high
degree of religious prosperity, has seen with unspeakable regret, within a few years past, the spirit
of speculation, controversy and strife, growing up
among some of the ministers and churches within
its bounds. This unhappy state of things has evidently been produced by the preaching, and writings of Alexander Campbell, and his adherents.
After having deliberately and prayerfully examined
the doctrines held, and propagated by them, and
waited long to witness their practical influence on
the churches, and upon society in general, we are
thoroughly convinced that they are doctrines not according to godliness, but subversive of the true




94      CAMPBELLISM iN tTS FORMATION.
spirit of the Gospel of Jesus Christ-disorganizing
and demoralizing in their tendency; and, therefore,
ought to be disavowed and resisted, by all the
lovers of truth and sound piety.
"It is needless to specify, and refute the errors
held and taught by them; this has been often done,
and as often have the doctrines, quoted from their
writings, been denied, with the declaration that they
have been misrepresented or misunderstood. If
after more than seven years' investigation, the most
pious and intelligent men in the land are unable to
understand what they speak and write, it surely is
an evidence of some radical defect in the things
taught, or in the mode of teaching them. Their
views of sin, faith, repentance, regeneration, baptism, the agency of the Holy Spirit, church government, the Christian ministry, and the whole scheme
of Christian benevolence, are, we believe, contrary
to the plain letter and spirit of the New Testament
of our Lord and Saviour.
" By their practical influence, churches long blessed with peace and prosperity, have been thrown into
wrangling and discord-principles long held sacred
by the best and most enlightened men that ever
lived or died, are villified and ridiculed as'school
divinity,''sectarian dogmas,' &c. Ministers, who
have counted all things but loss, for the excellency
of the knowledge of Christ Jesus, are reprobated,
and denounced as'visionary dreamers,''mysti



CAMPBELLISM IN ITS FORMATION.      95
fiers,''blind  leaders of the blind,''hireling
priests,' &c., &c. The church in which many of
them live, and from which they call it persecution
to be separated, is held up to public scorn as' Babylon the mother of harlots, and abominations
of the earth.' The most opprobrious epithets are
unsparingly applied to principles which we think
clearly taught in the Word of God, and which we
hold dear to our hearts. While they arrogate to
themselves the title of' Reformers,' it is lamentably evident, that no sect in Christendom needs reformation more than they do.
" While they boast of superior light and knowledge, we cannot but lament, in their life and conversation, the absence of that'wisdom that is from
above, which is first pure, then peaceable, gentle,
and easy to be entreated, full of mercy and good
fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy.'
In fine, the writings of Alexander Campbell, and
the spirit and manner of those who profess to
admire his writings and sentiments, appear to us
remarkably destitute of'the mind that was in
Christ Jesus,' of that divine love'which suffereth
long, and is kind, envieth not, vaunteth not itself,
is not puffed up, doth not behave itself unseemly,
seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil.' Wherever these writings and sentiments have to any extent, been introduced into our
churches, the spirit of hypercriticism,'vain jang



96      CAMPBELLISM IN ITS FORMATION.
lings and strife about words to no profit, but to the
subverting of the hearers,' have chilled the spirit
of true devotion, and put an end to Christian benevolence and harmony.
" If the opprobrious epithets, and bitter denunci
ations, so liberally heaped upon us by Mr. Campbell and his followers, are deserved, they as pious
and honorable men can not desire to live in communion with us; and if they are undeserved, and designedly slanderous, this of itself would forbid our
holding them in Christian fellowship. If, indeed,
they have found the long lost key of knowledge,
and are the only persons, since the days of the
apostles, who have entered and explored the divine
arcanum, it is due to themselves-to purblind
Christendom-to the world —to truth-to God, that
they should, in obedience to the divine command,
clothed in the shining garments of truth and rightiousness, walk out of'Babylon,' and concentrating
their light, exhibit a true sample of the'ancient
order of things;' and diffuse around them a blaze
of'love, joy, peace, long-suffering, gentleness,
goodness, faith, meekness, temperance.'  Until
they do this, grave and thinking men will doubt
their high pretentions, for'by their fruits ye
shall know them.' It would seem that conscientious,
unobtrusive, holy men, whose hearts are sickened
with the depravity of the times, and who mourn a
sad and general departure from truth and holiness,




CAMPBELLIS3M IN ITS FORMIATIC N.    97
would voluntarily come out from' the present corrupt order of things,' and holding sweet communion with one another, and with their God, let their
light so shine that others seeing their good works,
might be induced to glorify their Father in heaven;
but, alas! they appear to be a strange anti-sectarian, dogmatical sect, who live only in the fire of
strife and controversy, and seek to remain in connexion with the existing churches, that they may
with the greater facility obtain materials for feeding
the disastrous flame.
"In every aspect of the case then, a separation is
indispensably necessary. The cause of truth and
righteousness requires it-the best interests of all
the parties concerned demand it.
" We, therefore, the assembled ministers, and delegates of the Dover Association, after much prayerful deliberation, do hereby affectionately recommend
to the churches in our connection, to separate from
their communion all such persons as are promoting
controversy and discord, under the specious uame
of' Reformers.' That the line of distinction may
be clearly drawn, so that all who are concerned may
understand it, we feel it our duty to declare, that
whereas Peter Ainslie, John Du Val, Mathew W.
Webber, Thos. M. Henley, John Richards, and
Dudley Atkinson, ministers within the bounds of
this Association, have voluntarily assumed the name
of'Reformers,' in its party application, by attend



98      CAMPBELLISMI IN ITS FORMATION.
ing a meeting publicly advertised for that party;
and by communing with, and otherwise promoting
the views of the members of that party, who have
been separated from the fellowship and communion
of regular Baptist churches-therefore
" Biesolved, That this Association cannot consistently, and conscientiously receive them, nor any
other ministers maintaining their views, as members
of their body; nor can they in future act in concert
with any church, or churches, that may encourage
or countenance their ministrations."
This preamble and resolution, prepared by Elder
John Kerr, pastor of the First Baptist church in
the city of Richmond, was approved by all the members of the committee, excepting Mr. Ainslie, who
was a Reformed preacher, and named among those.
whose excision was proposed by the report, and
also by all the brethren whose counsel was sought
by the committee. The report was adopted by the
association, without discussion, and with few dissentients. The delegates had been selected and
sent to the meeting for the purpose of adopting, if
practicable, effective measures for allaying the pernicious excitement in the churches and were prepared to act promptly and decidedly  Their action,
whether wise or unwise, was adopted after careful
deliberation, earnest prayer for divine guidance, and
with much anxiety for its result, and it received the
cordial approbation of the churches.




CAMPBELLISM IN ITS FORMATION.       99
It was not to be expected that the decision of the
association would be acceptable to Mr. Campbell,
and the Reformers. They viewed themselves as the
objects of a most unchristian and cruel persecution.
Mr. Campbell stigmatized the report, adopted by
the association, as the " Dover Decree," and thus
discoursed of it in the Millennial Harbinger, Vol.
3, page 573.
"What a dangerous matter it has become, to
think differently from Messrs. Kerr, Ball, Broaddus,
and Erastus Montague! How perilous to view sin,
faith, baptism, &c., differently from these' keepers
of the faith' of Virginia. This alone exposes a person to the greatest anathema in the power of Virginia Baptists. They can do no more in Virginia,
as yet, than treat a dissentient as they would a
murderer, or a vile adulterer. The committee or
managers of the bull of excommunication, can neither
banish, burn, nor imprison those who differ from
their views of sin, faith, and baptism. There is no
Patmos, jail, or.pillory known in Virginia law, for
those who think differently from John Kerr or Eli
Ball. But they can place Peter Ainslie, John Du
Val, M. B. Webber, T. M. Henley, John Richards,
and Dudley Atkinson in the same society, as respects the Lord's table, with all the inmates of the
penitentiary, now under the care of my friend Col.
C. S. Morgan; yes, they can tell all the sects in
Virginia, that thby view these virtuous and exem



100    CAMPBELLISM IN ITS FORMATION.
plary men as unfit for the communion of Eli Ball
and John Kerr, as were the infamous actors in the
Southampton insurrection. We ask what difference
have they made?  What more could they do than
exclude such from the kingdom of heaven? and do
they not teach that the kingdom of heaven is theirs?
If they think that what they have bound on earth
is bound in heaven, where stand these anathematized preachers? Are they blotted out of the book
of life? But perhaps they will say, that what they
have loosed on earth in the house of Miles Turpin,
is not loosed in heaven! Nor can they pray to the
Lord to ratify in heaven what they have done on
earth! What a farce this is! And how will they
answer to the Lord for casting out of his church on
earth (as they call the Dover Association) those
whom they have every reason to think are esteemed
as much the children of God as themselves?"
Many other things of like spirit and quality did
Mr. Campbell pen and publish; and his adherents
echoed and re-echoed his denunciations of the Dover
Association, with most vehement zeal. Had they been
fined, imprisoned, scourged, outlawed, branded, and
exposed to a terrible martyrdom, they could not have
made a greater outcry against their shameless and
cruel persecutions, than they did for being put out of
the communion of churches, which, in the ardor of
their zeal forReformstion,they had often pronounced
to be priest-ridden, corrupt, and in Babylon. They




CAMPBELLISM IN ITS FORMATION.    101
gloried in being, as they supposed, martyrs in the
cause of truth and righteousness. Thus writes one
of the excinded preachers" The long agony is over. The Dover Association
has assumed the awful responsibility of producing a
faction; consequently, a sect. We feel much relieved as respects ourselves. Only three or four of
the Reformers attended the Association, as we had
no objection to being a separate people, if the Baptists were resolved on taking to themselves this act
of rebellion against Jesus Christ our Lord. I venture to say, no intelligent friend of Reform is displeased with it. For myself, I feel highly honored
in being made the first martyr in old Virginia in
the present Reformation.  My Christian character
has been gibbeted (though yet I live) for adhering
to the sayings and doings of Jesus Christ and his
apostles. Philip Montague has conferred this honor
upon me. It is the highest I ever expect to enjoy
in time-worth all the D.D.'s that ever were issued
from all the seminaries in the world."  Mill. Har.,
vol. 4, p. 13.
More than twenty years have passed since the
Dover Association adopted the report of its committee condemning Campbellism. Let us now
endeavor to take a calm and candid review of the
measure. The report contained some unguarded
and unnecessarily harsh expressions. Its author,
whose temperament was naturally ardent, had been




102     CAMPBI2LLISM IN ITS FORMATION.
greatly annoyed and excited by the prevalence of
Mr. Campbell's Peculiar views in the church of
which he was pas "or, and the secession of a large
and respectable party adopting them, from the main
body. The report was evidently written under the
influence of this excitement; and the committee
and the Association partook too much of the same
feeling, to scan the document with severity. The
doctrines taught by Mr. Campbell were declared to
be " demoralizing in their tendency;" and of the
party embracing them, it was affirmed that " no sect
in Christendom ne eded reformation more than they."
On calm reflectioil, these expressions were generally
admitted to be u-ajust. Whatever may be the ultimate influence ~f Campbellism on piety and morals,
it must be con 3eded, that it gives no countenance
to immorality. And while it can hardly be denied
that the party embracing the system needed reformation, it is but fair to admit that there are Christian
sects which need it " more than they." These expressions were subsequently expunged or modified
by the Association. The amiable and clear-headed
Moderator of the Association, the Rev. A. Broaddus,
who undertook the vindication of the report from
what he deemed the " unfair representation" of it
by Mr. Campbell, made the following admission" In the report of the committee, (drafted by the
chairman) there are some few expressions which, in
my view, might have been advantageously omitted1




CAMIPBELLISM IN ITS FOR]IMATION.   103
or exchanged for others; the instrument might thus
have retained all its force, without any tinge of
acrimony or harshness."
Let us now examine the other side of the case.
Mr. Campbell and his friends maintained that the
Association in its action not only transgressed the
law of Christ, infringed the religious liberty of individuals, and were guilty of flagrant persecution, but
plainly transcended its constitutional authority. It
had no right, it must be conceded, to interfere in
the government or discipline of the churches. It
was simply an advisory council. It possessed the
unquestioned and unquestionable right of advising
the churches in all matters pertaining to their peace
and prosperity. This right the members of the
Association exercised, in an important matter, to
the best of their judgment, and at the earnest request of the churches. They did not counsel hastily,
nor without deliberation, nor without a deep sense
of their responsibility to Christ, nor without prayer
for divine guidance.  Their advice was in the following words-" We, therefore, the assembled ministers and delegates, of the Dover Association, after
much prayerful deliberation, do hereby affectionately
recommend to the churches in our connection, to
separate from their communion, all such persons as
are promoting controversy and discord, under the
specious name of Reformers." They might err in
the counsel which they gave, but so might their




104     CAMPBELLISM IN ITS FORMATION.
opponents in judging of it. The churches might
receive or reject their advice at pleasure. The
Association had no power to enforce its counsel,
except moral power. Thus far its action certainly
did not exceed the limit of its admitted authority.
But the ministers and delegates of the Association
declared that they could not " consistently and conscientiously receive" certain individuals named, " or
any other ministers maintaining their views, as members of their body." The Association had the admitted authority, for such reasons as they deemed valid,
to expel a church from the body. In naming certain
ministers, with whom in future they could not consent to co-operate, they did not exclude them from the
churches of which they were respectively members,
nor interfere with the discipline of those churches;
but simply announced to the churches, that believing these ministers to be unsound in doctrine, and
their labors and influence subversive of the harmony
and prosperity of the churches, they would exercise
their constitutional authority in excluding from their
fellowship such churches as should continue to
" countenance their ministrations." The design of
the Association was to draw clearly "a line of distinction" between themselves and the Reformers;
and the measure adopted was admirably suited to
secure the object. In a very short time, and with
less irritation than for several years had been existing, the parties were clearly separated.




CAMPBELLISM IN ITS FORMATION.    105
It is proper to permit Rev. A. Broaddus, the
most logical and formidable of Mr. Campbell's opponents, and one of the mildest and most courteous
of controversialists, to vindicate the action of the
Association, from the unfair representations, and
severe animadversions contained in the Millennial
Harbinger.
" But to the more particular object of this communication-the light in which Mr. Campbell has
endeavored to place the conduct of the Association,
in adopting this measure. Let us hear him.' They
can do nothing more in Virginia, as yet, than treat
a dissentient as they would a murderer or a vile
adulterer. The committee, or managers of the bull
of excommunication, can neither banish, burn, nor
imprison those who differ from their views of sin,
faith, and baptism. There is no Patmos, jail, or
pillory, known in Virginia law, for those who think
differently,' &c.
" Now, I really should wonder, if it were not that
something similar had been intimated at other
times-I really should wonder —yea, and still I
cannot help wondering-that Mr. Campbell did not
think this beneath him! this politic resort-this
most unfair and injurious attempt to enlist the
prejudices of his readers against the Association, by
charging them, as he obviously does, by implication,
with a disposition to persecute those who differ from
them; —to persecute them even to imprisonment,




106     CAMPBELLISM IN ITS FORMATION.
to exile, and to death;-restrained only by the want
of power from inflicting these punishments! Such
is the construction which every candid and intelligent reader must put on his expressions; and on
every candid and intelligent reader, I now call, to
judge of the force and validity of this charge.
" WVhat is the ground of this charge? Why, the
Association has cut off' these virtuous and exemplary men' from fellowship in our body: ergo, the
Association would imprison, banish, or burn them,
if the power were not wanting! This then is the
position which arises from such reasoning:-A declaration of non-fellowship is sufficient proof of a
disposition to imprison, banish or kill! This, I say,
is the position resulting from a charge established on
such ground; and on the same ground, no ingenuity
of man can fairly make out, how the act of exclusion
can be performed by a church, without incurring
the same charge. The principle assumed is the
same in every case, and thus, when we exclude
from fellowship, we do of course give evidence of a
disposition to imprison, to banish, to burn; and
then, to sanction exclusion from fellowship, is, in
effect, to sanction the popish excommunication,where the thunders of the Vatican are hurled at the
head of the devoted victim, and temporal pains and
punishments are inflicted on him.
" But I have one more argument on this case-the




CAMPBELLISM 1i ITS FORMAT..ON.    107
argumentum ad hominem —or an argument applying
to the assailant's own views. Reader, attend!
"Let us view the charge against the Association.
They have gone as far as they could go. What
then? Why, they would go much farther, it seems,
if they had power.'The committee, or managers
of the bull of excommunication, can neither banish,
burn, nor imprison those who differ from their views
of sin, faith, and baptism:' which amounts to this:
The Dover Association has passed a resolution of
non-fellowship with the people called'Reformers;'
and therefore would imprison, banish or burn them,
if they had the power. Now, mark well, I beseech
you, reader, and see if the argument does not come
home to Mr. Campbell in all its force. Mr. Campbell
(be it remembered) is not an open communionist.
Well; Mr. Campbell passed a resolution of nonfellowship with all Peado-baptists: he has gone as
far as he can; and therefore-what shall I say?he has given evidence that he would imprison,
banish, or burn them, if he had the power.'But
I don't believe it,' you say. Neither do I; —far
from it! But is not the argumentum ad hominem
fairly applied? What a pity it is that my friend
could not have had charity enough to believe the
committee, or the Association, might declare nonfellowship with peol)le, whom they would neither
burn, banish, nor imprison; nor indeed injure in
%ny way whatever."




108     CAMIPBELLISM IN ITS FORMATION.
It is but justice to Mr. Campbell to note that in
replying to this spirited vindication of the Exscinding act of the Association, (of which only a part has
been quoted,) he felt constrained to disavow the
consequence so logically deduced by Mr. Broaddus
from the expressions in the Millennial Harbinger.' In one word," said he, "I do not think that any
9f the Virginia Baptists would burn myself or brethren; but unless they would burn, or banish, or
otherwise inflict civil penalties upon us, what more
can they do than what they have done?" And, it
may be asked, with equal pertinency, believing that
the peace and prosperity of the churches demanded
the exclusion of the Reformers from their fellowship,
what less could they have done than they did do?
They condemned the principles, and deplored the
mischievous effects of the so-called " Reformation," and aimed, with as little irritation as possible,
to produce the desired separation; but carefully
abstained from any imputation on the moral character of the Reformers. If a few unguarded and
acrimonious expressions escaped them, they might
surely find an apology, if not a justification, in "the
spirit that breathes, and words that burn" in the
pages of the Christian Baptist and Millennial Harbinger.
Not long since a member was excluded from a
Baptist church. He was a man of irreproachable
moral character, but, having become a Spiritualist,




OAMPBELLISM IN ITS FORMATION.       109
as the believers in spirit rappings are called, he denied tile inspiration of the Scriptures, human depravity, the divinity and atonement of Christ-in
fine, all the distinctive principles of the Gospel.
He claimed to be judged not by his opinions, but his
works. " Not opinions, but deeds," he insisted,
"should be the great test of character."  Yet, he
was expelled, and most righteously, from the fellowship of the church. Now, on the principle adopted
by Mr. Campbell, this was rank persecution.
"C What a dangerous matter," the Spiritualist might
plausibly, and in the language of Mr. Campbell,
say, it is " to think differently from" the church.
" Liberty, religious liberty, that liberty which alone
deserves the name,... has expired in" it. " They
can do no more.. as yet than treat a dissentient as
they would a murderer or a vile adulterer. They
can place'me' in the same society, as respects the
Lord's table, with all the inmates of the penitentiary;.... yes, they can tell all the sects... that
they view" me, though " virtuous and exemplary,. as unfit for" their " communion as the infamous
actors in the Southampton insurrection."  Mill.
IHar., Vol. 3, p. 573.
The separation, though painful at first, afterwards tended to diminish the evils which had
sprung from the controversy and strife produced by
the Reformation.  The parted combatants, finding
fewer causes of exacerbation, soon began to lose the




110     OAMPBELLISM IN ITS FORMATION.
heat and violence created by the conflict. The
Dover Association, though she lost several churches,
and many respectable church members, continued
her almost unimpeded course of prosperity and usefulness. Her losses were soon repaired; and even
in congregations where the Reformation seemed to
have acquired the greatest influence, her success
was not long delayed. Meantime the Reformers
enjoyed a privilege which without the separation
they could not have enjoyed-the privilege of illustrating, by the loveliness of their spirit, the fervor
of their devotion, the sanctity of their lives, their
elevation above the world, and the success of their
ministrations, the superiority of the " ancient Gospel" over sectarian dogmas and mystic theologyof the " ancient order of things" over the corruptions of Babylon-in short, the real value of that
Reformation, whose pretensions were so lofty, whose
spirit was so warlike, and whose influence among
the sects was so exciting and painful.
Mr. Campbell now found himself at the head of
a sect-yes, of a sect.  The Reformers were a
Sect according to the definition of Noah Webster:
-" SECT-A body or number of persons united in
tenets, chiefly in philosophy and religion, but con
stituting a distinct party by holding sentiments
different from those of other men; a denomination." Did not the Reformers unite in maintaining
certain religious tenets? and were they not dis



CAMIPBELLISM IN ITS FORMATION.     111
tinguished by these sentiments from every other
party? They were a sect in the Scripture sense
of the term. The word " sect," or "heresy" as the
Greek term  " [pEapl," is rendered in the  Iew
Testament, signifies a 1earty, or persons choosing
and maintaining peculiar opinions. It was among
the Jews, not a term of reproach, but of distinction. They called Christians a " sect," or party;
and this sect they knew was every where spoken
against. Acts 28: 22. It must be added that the
Reformers were a " sect" in the sense in which Mr.
Campbell so frequently employed the term. They
had all the attributes, and, eminently, the spirit of
a sect. Their claim to be considered " The Church,"
and by eminence " The Christian Clhurch," was as
baseless, and far more preposterous, than the same
claim vauntingly set forth by some older and more
venerable, if not more worthy, sects. Did Christ
have no church on earth from the commencement
of the Romish apostacy till the beginning of the
"a current Reformation?"
Of this sect Mr. Campbell was the head —not by
appointment, nor in form, but in fact, and by merit.
His learning, zeal, energy and influence clearly
tarked him out for the position; and it was accorded to him without dissent, without envy, heartily,
and almost unconsciously. The sect was the prodluot of his own labor. It bore strikingly the impl-ss of his own character. Not one among the




I12     CAMPBELLISH IN ITS FORMATION.
Reformers could encounter him in debate, nor resist
the weight of his authority, nor add a beam to the
light which he shed. His word was the law of the
Reformation; and it derived its force from the unwavering conviction among all the Reformers that
it was in perfect harmony with the Word of God,
From Maine to Georgia, and from the Atlantic
coast to the Far West, the same words and phrases
— "a pure speech"-" the language of Canaan"were current among them; and every portion of the
circulating medium bore the unmistakable impress
of the Bethany mint. Meet a Reformer, where you
might, or under whatever circumstances, he would
soon utter some peculiar word or phrase which would
reveal to you, without doubt, his religious opinions,
and party preference.
The churches organized, under the influence, and
by the direction of Mr. Campbell, did not differ
materially in form and discipline from the Baptist
churches. Of course, the Babylonish practice of
hearing experiences before baptism was repudiated;
and all persons applying for membership in these
churches, or who could be persuaded to accept the
privilege, were received promptly, on professing
their belief that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah,
and on being immersed for the remission of sins.
Every church had a plurality of bishops, or elders,
chosen from its own body; and its government soon
passed from the hands of the brotherhood to those




CAMIPBELLISM IN ITS FORMATION.    113
of the eldership, with limitations, into which I need
not stop to inquire. The churches met for worship
and edification every Lord's day, even in the most
sparsely peopled neighborhoods-a practice worthy
of commendation-and broke bread, or partook of
the Lord's supper, as a part of the instituted worship of Christ, at every meeting-a practice,
which, though neither commanded, nor enforced by
any clear apostolic example, contravenes no law of
Christ, and should excite no opposition.




CAMPBELLISM  IN ITS PRINCIPLES.
It would seem to be impossible for any person
admitting the inspiration and authority of the Scriptures, and drawing his principles from them, not to
agree with other Christians in many tenets. It is a
redeeming quality in Campbellism that it uniformly
professes a profound respect for the teaching of the
Bible. MIr. Campbell holds many, and most important principles, in common with all Christians.
Nobly did he vindicate the authenticity and inspiration of the Scriptures, and the vital principles of
Christianity, in his debate with Robert Owen, of
Scotland, the champion of infidelity; and by that
service entitled himself to the gratitude and commendation of the friends of morality and social order.
Mr. Campbell holds many truths in common with
all Protestants; and in his discussion with Bishop
Purcell, of the Romish communion, maintained
them with signal ability, and fully justified his ciaim
to be classed among the able defenders of Protestantism. The " Debate on the Roman Catholic Beligion"-a small volume-has not received at the




CAMPBELLISM IN ITS PRINCIPLES.    115
hands of the Protestant public the favor which it
justly merits. Mr. Campbell embraces some views
in common with Baptists. Whatever evils he may
have done them, directly and indirectly-and they
have been neither few nor small -he should have
due praise for his indefatigable efforts to restore the
apostolic baptism, or the immersion of believers, to
expose the traditionary origin of infant baptism, and
to show that the primitive churches were composed
exclusively of baptized believers. He gave great
prominence in his teaching to a few principles and
practices which were deemed important, but not
particularly insisted on by the ministers of the Baptist denomination. Several points in regard to
which he differed from them are of very little moment, and would have attracted but slight attention,
had they not been parts of a system fraught with
agitation and mischief. Some of the principles embraced by him, and laid at the foundation of his
Reformation, were not only different from those entertained by the Baptists, and evangelical Christians
generally, but were without Scriptural authority.
Some of these it is proposed particularly to examine. No intentional injustice will be done to him
or his principles. His opponents and reviewers
have, with perhaps no exception, been accused of
misrepresenting lhis views; and I fear that I may
subject myself to the same accusation. But, I am
anxious to diminish rather than widen the breach




116     CAMPBELLISM IN ITS PRINCIPLES.
between the Baptists and the Reformers. And
this must be effected, if effected at all, neither by
exaggeration nor concealing their differences, but
by a fair, kind, faithful and logical examination of
them. I design, therefore, to discuss with as much
care and fullness as the prescribed limits of my treatise may permit, a few of the distinctive, and most
objectionable Princijples of Campbellism.
THE INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SP1R1T IN CONVERSION.
This subject is one of vital importance in the
Christian system. The admission or denial of the
reality and efficiency of this influence constitutes
the main difference between evangelical and rationalistic theology —between intelligent living piety,
and heartless, self-sufficient formalism.  Almost
every Christian sect, holding grossly erroneous principles, has included among its errors the denial or
perversion of the doctrine of the spirit's influence.
Mr. Campbell in his debate with Rev. N. L. Rice, admitted that the subject is "of transcendent importance to the Christian"-page 611. I would, therefore, enter on its investigation, profoundly conscious
of my liability to err, and earnestly seeking wisdom
"of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not."
On no subject have the opponents of Mr. Campbell,
and the Christian public generally, found it so dificult to understand anC represent his views as on ti




CAMPBELLISM IN ITS PRINCIPLES.    117
Important point. That Mr. Campbell may have full
justice, I will make copious extracts on this subject
from his voluminous works, especially from a " Dialogue on the Holy Spirit," between " Timothy,"
representing the doctrine of the Reformation, and
" Austin," a very docile inquirer, on the point of
embracing the new doctrine, contained in a work
entitled " Christianity Restored," issued from the
Bethany press, in the year 1835.
" It is a moral revolution, a moral reformation, a
moral change, which is essential to the salvation of
men. The means therefore must be moral, unless
we can think that physical causes can produce moral
effects." p. 346.
" We have two sorts of power, physical and moral.
By the former we operate on matter-by the latter
upon mind. To put matter in motion we use
physical power, whether we call it animal or scientific power; to put minds in motion we use arguments, or motives addressed to the reason and nature of man."
" Motives are arguments; and the strength of an
argument is its power to move. Arguments are
said to be strong or weak, according to their power
to move."
" Because arguments are addressed to the understanding, will, and affections of men, they are called
moral, inasmuch as their tendency is to form or
change the habits, manners, or actions of men.




118     CAMPBELLISM IN ITS PRINCIPLES.
Every spirit puts forth its moral power in words;
that is, all the power it has over the views, habits,
manners, or actions of men, is in the meaning and
arrangement of its ideas expressed in words; or
in significant signs addressed to the eye or ear."
pp. 347, 348.
" The argument is the _power of the spirit of man,
and the only power which one spirit can exert over
another is its arguments. How often do we see awhole
congregation roused into certain actions, expressions
of joy or sorrow, by the spirit of one man. Yet no
person supposes that his spirit has literally deserted
his body and ente-red into every man and woman in
the house, although it is often said he has filled them
with his spirit.  But how does that spirit located
in the head of yonder little man, fill all the thoussands around him with joy or sadness, with fear and
trembling, with zeal or indignation, as the case may
be?  How has it displayed such power over so many
minds? By words uttered by the tongue; by ideas
communicated to the minds of the hearers.  In this
way only can moral power be displayed.
" From such premises we may say, that all the
moral'power which can be exerted on human beings,
is, and of necessity must be, in the arguments
addressed to them. No other power than moral
power can operate on minds; and this power must
always be clothed in words addressed to the eye or
ear. Thus we reason when revelation is altogether




CAMPBELLISM IN ITS PRINCIPLES.     119
out of view. And when we think of the power of
the Spirit of God exerted upon minds or human
spirits, it is impossible for us to imagine, that that
power can consist in anything else but words or
arguments. Thus in the nature of things we are
prepared to expect verbal communications from the
Spirit of God, if that Spirit operates at all on our
spirits. As the moral power of man is in his arguments, so is the moral power of the Spirit of God in
his arguments." p. 349.
" As the spirit of man puts forth all its moral
power in the words which it fills with its ideas; so
the Spirit of God puts forth all its converting and
sanctifying power, in the words which it fills with
its ideas.... If the Spirit of God has spoken all
its arguments; or, if the New and Old Testament
contain all the arguments which can be offered to
reconcile man to God, and to purify them who are
reconciled, then all the power of the Holy Spirit
which can operate on the human mind, is spent;
and he that is not sanctified and saved by these,
cannot be saved by angels or spirits, human or
divine." p. 350.'We plead that all the converting power of the
Holy Spirit is exhibited in the Divine Record."
p. 351.
" Hence it follows, that to befilled with the Spirit,
and to have the Word of Christ dwelling richly in
one, are of the same import in Paul's mind; and as




120     CAMPBELLISM IN ITS PRINCIPLES.
a means to this end, Christians were to abound in
singing psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs." p. 360.
"All the power of God or man is exhibited in
the truth which they propose. Therefore, we may
say, that if the light, or the truth, contain all the
moral power of God, then truth alone is all that is
necessary to the conversion of men, for we have
before argued and proved, that the converting
power is moral power." p. 362.
"Assistance to believe! This is a metaphysical
dream. How can a person be assisted to believe?
What sort of help? and how much is wanting?
Assistance to believe must be either to create a
power in man, which he had not before, or to repair
a broken power..... The Holy Spirit was not
given until the day of Pentecost. Hence if the
Holy Spirit aided men to believe in Jesus Christ, it
must have been subsequent to that date." pp.
364, 365.
" Can men just as they are found when they hear
the Gospel, believe?  I answer boldly, yes-just as
easily as I can believe the well-attested facts concerning the person and achievements of General
George Washington. I must hear the facts clearly
stated, and well authenticated, before I am able to
believe them. The man who can believe one fact
well attested, can believe any other fact equally well
attested."  Chn. Bap., 529.
" Paul acts the philosopher fully once, and, if we




CAMPBELLISM IN ITS PRINCIPLES.    121
recollevc right, but once, in all his writings upon
this subject. It has been for many years a favorite
topic with me. It is in his first epistle to Timothy,'Now the end of the commandment (or Gospel) is
love out of a pure heart-out of a good consciencecut of faith unfeigned.' Faith unfeigned brings a
person to remission, or to a good conscience; a good
conscience precedes, in the order of nature, a pure
heart; and this is the only soil in which love, a
plant of celestial origin, can grow. This is our
philosophy of Christianity-of the Gospel. And
thus it is the wisdom and power of God unto salvation. We proceed upon these as our axiomata in
all our reasonings, preachings, writings-ist, unfeigned faith; 2d, a good conscience; 3d, a pure
heart; 4th, love. The testimony of God apprehended, produces unfeigned or genuine faith; faith
obeyed, produces a good conscience. This Peter
defines to be the use of baptism, the answer of a
good conscience. This produces a pure heart, and
then the consummation is love-love to God and
man." Christian System, 246. -
It would be easy to multiply quotations of this
kind; but the above will suffice to give clear and
just views of Mr. Campbell's theory of the influence of the Holy Spirit in the conversion and sanctification of men. There can be no mistake in reducing the system to the following propositions.
A moral change is essential to the salvation of




122     CAMPBELLISM IN ITS PRINCiPLES.
men-This change can be effected only by moral
power-All moral p)wer is in arguments, or truth,
addressed to the mind by words, or other signs,
equivalent to words-All the converting power of
the Holy Spirit is in the words which he addressee
to men in the Scriptures-Men need no divine oi
supernatural aid to exercise saving faith in Christ;
but can believe in him as easily as they can believe
the well attested history of General Washington.
This faith does not imply the existence of love, but
brings a person to remission, or a good conscience,
through baptism; to a good conscience succeeds a
pure heart; and from a pure heart flows love-And,
finally, to be filled with the Spirit is equivalent to
being filled with the word.
Of several positions in this scheme I disapprove 
but shall, for the present, confine my remarks to
its principal error —viz., that all the converting
power of the Holy Sp2irit is in the written word.
which he has indited and confirmed.
It is desirable to divest this subject of all extraneous matter. I fully concur with Mr. Campbell
in the opinion that a moral change is necessary to
the salvation of men. With all that he has written
of the inspiration and importance of the Scriptures:
and of their adaptation to promote the salvation ot
men, I heartily agree. I do not think, more than
he, that any new faculty is given, or any old faculty
(understanding by the term  physical, not moral




CAMPEELL SM IN ITS PRINC1PL ES.    123
powei,) is repaired in conversion. It is freely admitted that the Spirit operates through the word
in the conversion and sanctification of men. But I
understand Mr Campbell to maintain that the influence of the Spirit in the work of conversion is
limited, and of necessity, to the simple presentation of arguments, motives, truth, to the minds of
men, by means of words, and other signs-that all
the power of the Spirit in the conversion of men is
in moral suasion. This he does explicitly teach, if
words have any definite import. By physical power
we operate on matter-by moral power on mind.
" All the moral power which can be exerted on
human beings, is, and of necessity must be, in the
arguments addressed to them." The illustration
employed by Mr. Campbell would seem to preclude
the possibility of misunderstanding his views. The
influence of an orator over his hearers is not exerted,
by the entrance of his spirit into them, but " by
words uttered by the tongue; by ideas communicated to" their minds. Of precisely the same
nature is the influence ascribed by Mr. Campbell to
the Spirit in the conversion of men. "As the
moral power of mvan is in his arguments, so is the
moral power of the Spirit of God in his arguments."
~he Spirit of God exerts a moral influence in conversion exactly like that which men exert in controlling the actions or emotions of one another, but
stronger in proportion as his arguments are clearer,




124     CAMPBELLISM I.S ITS PRINCIPLES.
fuller, weightier, and more pertinently expressed.
But the Spirit can do no more than reason, expostulate, and present motives.
" If the New and Old Testament contain all the
arguments which can be offered to reconcile man to
God, and to purify them who are reconciled, then
all the power of the Holy Spirit which can operate
on the human mind is spent; and he that is not
sanctified and saved by these, cannot be saved by
angels or spirits, human or divine."
I should deem it needless to labor this point so
carefully, did I not know that Mr. Campbell and
his friends have almost constantly charged his opponents with falsely stating his views on this very
subject. These were the views of " the agency of
the Holy Spirit" against which the " Dover Decree"
was levelled. Elder A. Broaddus in the " Appendix"
to the " Extra Examined," published in 1831, thus
wrote:-" In few words, then, Mr. Campbell's
view, in regard to Divine influence, appears to me
to be in substance as follows-The canon of Scripture being closed, the actual work of the Spirit is
done; but the word of truth being dictated by the
Holy Spirit-the influence of that word may be
termed the influence of the Spirit: and this is all
the Divine influence that is exerted. And then,
God's Spirit, which is a Holy Spirit, being in his
word, as my spirit (for example) is in my writings
-in receiving the word we receive a holy spirit:




CAMPBELL1SMI IN ITS PR1NCIPLES.   125
and this is all the Holy Spirit that is received.' p.
48. Such were the views entertained by this astute
and ingenuous writer, of Mr. Campbell's doctrine
on the influence of the Spirit. This "Appendix"
was noticed by the Editor of the Harbinger in
several Nos. of the Dialogue on the Holy Spirit,
between Timothy and Austin; and, for a wonder,
Mr. B.'s statement of the doctrine was not called in
question.
Mr. Campbell maintains, or did maintain, that
all the converting power of the Holy Spirit is in the
arguments or motives which he presents to the mind
in the written Word. On this point I take issue
with him. I maintain that there is an influence of
the Spirit, internal, mighty, and efficacious, differing from  moral suasion, but ordinarily exerted
through the inspired Word, in the conversion of
sinners. Whether this influence shall be called
moral, from the effect which it produces, physical,
from the energy which is put forth in it; or spiritual, from the nature of the agent who exerts it, I
have no wish to decide. It is for the reality and
importance of this influence, not for its name, that
I contend.
The principal argument adduced by Mr. Campbell in support of his theory of conversion, is purely
metaphysical. All power, he says, is either physical or moral-by physical power we operate on
matter, and by moral power on mind A physical




126     ZAMP3ELLISM IN ITS PRINCIPLES.
power cannot produce a moral effect. " And wLen
we think of the power of the Spirit of God exerted
upon minds or human spirits, it is impossible for us
to imagine, that that power can consist in any thing
else but words or arguments."  The gist of Mr
Campbell's logic seems to be this-We cannot comprehend any power of the Spirit of God in conversion, except that consisting in words or arguments:
therefore, it does not exist. What is this, but to
deduce a most unwarrantable conclusion from his
own ignorance?  It were a sufficient reply to this
reasoning, to quote the words of the Saviour-" The
wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the
sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh,
nor whither it goeth, so is every one that is born of
the Spirit." John 3: S. But we have more to say
on this subject. To affirm, as Mr. Campbell does,
"that if the Holy Spirit has spoken, all its arguzments,... then all the power of the Holy Spirit
which can operate upon the human mind is spent,"
is a bold assumption. When a man has uttered all
his arguments and persuasions to influence his fellow, his power may be exhausted; but when the
Infinite Spirit has spoken all his arguments and
persuasions for reconciling proud, perverse and
stupid men to Christ, is his power spent? Is there
nothing more that he can do?  Are his resources
exhausted? Has he thus limited himself? Has
Mir. Campbell any authority for prescribing this




CAMPBELLISM IN ITS PR1N, IPLES.    127
limit to his power? The truth is, this assumption
is as unphilosop7hical as it is unscriptural.  God
created the human spirit-has access to it-is perfectly acquainted with all its springs of emotion and
of action-and can, in ways unknown to us, and
without contravening the laws of its being, influence,
impress, and guide it. He that made, can certainly
renew the spirit of man, with means, or without
them, as he pleases. It is no less the dictate of
reason than of revelation, that " the king's heart,"
and consequently the heart of every other man, " is
in the hand of the Lord, as the rivers of water; he
turneth it whithersoever he will."
The assumption that the Spirit can operate on
the soul of man in conversion only by arguments, or
words, is, not only unphilosophical, but contrary to
divinely recordedfacts.  It is not true that physical power cannot produce a moral effect. God
created man, not by arguments or words, but by the
direct exercise of physical power, in his " own image"
— which image comprehended "righteousness and
true holiness." Was not this a moral effect produced by a physical cause? Christ was created
holy. " The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee,"
said the angel to Mary, "and the power of the
Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore that holy
thing which shall be born of thee, shall be called the
Son of God."  Luke 4: 35. Was not the holiness
of the infant Redeemer a moral quality? And was




128     CAMPBELLISM IN ITS PRINC1PLES.
not this effect produced, not by arguments, persuasion, or words, but by the " power," the physical
"power of the Highest?"
The assumption under consideration is incompatible with the salvation of infants. They enter into
the world, as Mr. Campbell admits, with depraved
hearts. Dying before they attain to years of intelligence, they must enter heaven with their moral
natures unchanged, which is impossible; they must
be renovated by death, which is a mere figment;
they must be renewed by the Holy Spirit without
the Word, the possibility of which Mr. Campbell
cannot conceive; or, they must be lost. I do not
charge him with admitting this consequence; but it
appears to be logically deduced from the position
which he assumes, and all his ingenuity has not
enabled him to escape from it.
Mr. Campbell's assumption is wholly at war with
the Scripture doctrine of Satanic influence.  Satan
and other evil spirits are represented in the Bible
as exerting a mighty moral influence for the destruction of men. They tempt, deceive, enslave, and
degrade mankind.  Satan is a mighty prince, and
at the head of a great, spreading empire.  But how
do the evil spirits exert an influence over the minds
of men? By arguments, or motives, addressed to
them  by words, oral or written?  Certainly not!
But by a direct, internal, and efficient influence.
Can Mr. Campbell comprehend it? Will he reject




cAMPBELL sM IN LTS PRiNCIPLES.     129
the doctrine because he cannot? Or will he concede to Satan and his angels, a power which he
denies to the Spirit of God?
Before quitting this subject, another point demands notice. No writer has so bitterly denounced
metaphysical speculations, and mystic theology as
Mr. Campbell.  One great object of hisReformation
was to rescue the Scriptures from the glosses of sectarian theorizers. I must say, that I have met with no
writer on the agency of the Spirit in conversion, who
has indulged so much in metaphysical disquisition,
labored so hard to establish a theory, or drawn such
momentous consequences from his own fine-spun
speculations. In his writings on this delicate and
vital subject, he is far from confining himself to "a
pure speech," of " speaking of Bible things in Bible
terms," and shows no peculiar desire to be guided
by the plain and obvious import of Scripture language; but taxes his psychological lore, and dialectic skill, to establish an ingenious theory drawn
from, no matter what source-but not from revelation. True, he apologizes for his seeming inconsistency. He only opposes his enemies with their
own weapons. He plunges into metaphysics to extricate others from their labyrinth. The apology
does not seem to me to be satisfactory. If Mr.
Campbell uses the "speech of Ashdod," why may
not others?  How are we ever to be rescued from




130     CAMPBELLISM IN ITS PRINCiPLES.
metaphysical subtleties, if those who profess to re.
form the abuse are most guilty of it?
I have endeavored to show, and, I think, have
shown, that the doctrine that the Holy Spirit can
operate on the mind in conversion only by argument
or persuasion is a mere assumption, unphilosophical
in itself, contrary to divinely attested facts, and
pregnant with a most serious consequence. I would
not, however, press this argument to an illegitimate
extent. It does not follow that because the Spirit
can operate on the mind, in other ways than by
moral suasion, that he does so operate. This point
must be established by other considerations.
I will now proceed to offer direct arguments
against Mr. Camjpbell's theory of conversion.
1. It overlooks, or at least, under-estimates, the
inveteracy of h7uman depravity.
The Spirit of inspiration has drawn the picture of
man s moral corruption in gloomy colors. He is
utterly depraved-fleshly, sensual and impure.
" That which is born of the flesh is flesh." John
3: 6. He is without spiritual life, without holiness,
without moral worth-" dead in trespasses and
sins."  Eph. 2: 1. He is alienated from God) and
opposed to his law, and consequently to truth and
righteousness. "Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law
of God, neither indeed can be." Rom. 8: 7. This
depravity pervades, and controls the whole man



CAMPBELLISM IN ITS PRINCIPLES.    131
blinding the mind, perverting the affections, stupifying the conscience, making rebellious and obstinate the will, and prostituting the members of the
body as the instruments of sin. And this moral
corruption of human nature is universal. " For all
have sinned and come short of the glory of God."
Rom. 3: 23.
It is proposed to make man, thus corrupt, obstinate and debased, a friend of God, humble, obedient,
and meet for heaven-in short, "a new creature,"
from whom " old things have passed away," and to
whom "all things have become new."  2. Cor. 5:
17. I do not charge Mr. Campbell with denying
the doctrine of human depravity; but his theory of
conversion does not provide for the accomplishment
of a moral renovation, at once so difficult, and so
important.
How, according to his scheme, is this great moral
change to be effected? Simply by the presentation
of arguments, truth, and persuasion, to the mind by
words, or other signs. When the Spirit has presented all his arguments, he has spent all his power.
Of this scheme several things may be observed.
First. It is oblivious of the chief difficulty in conversion. IMr. Campbell maintains that " the arguments which are written in the New Testament"
must be " understood" in order to exert their influence on the human mind. Chn'ty. Restored, p.
350  To understand these arguments requires at



A32     CAMPBELLISM IN ITS FP INC1PLES.
tention, candor, and a spiritual discernment. MAen
attend readily to what they delight in, and believe
easily what is congenial with their tastes; but the
"natural man," the unrenewed, sinful man-has a
deep-rooted aversion to divine truth. This aversion
is an element and a proof of his depravity. He
may hear or read the arguments contained in the
Scriptures, through curiosity, politeness, or a captious spirit; but to expect of him a candid, serious,
docile and obedient attention to them, is to expect
to "gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles."
"'For every one that doeth evil hateth the light,
neither corneth to the light, lest his deeds should be
reproved." If divine truth must be understood in
order to be efficacious; and if it must be candidly
examined, before it can be understood; and if every
evil doer, hating the light, or divine truth, refuses
to come to it, or consider it, how, on Mr. Campbell's theory, can any soul of man be saved? But
the scheme which I advocate-the Scriptural scheme
-makes provision for overcoming this difficulty.
God, by the gracious, inward, efficacious influence
of his Spirit, prepares the heart for the reception of
the Gospel.  "Whose heart," that is, Lydia's heart,
" the Lord opened, that she attended unto the
things which were spoken of Paul." Acts. 16: 14.
This woman " worshipped God," as did all the Jews,
and Jewish proselytes; but there is not the slightest proof that she was pious. The very reverse is




CAMPBELLISM IN ITS PRIN ClPLES.    133
clear. Her heart was closed against the Gospel,
else there had been no need for God to open it.
She hated the light, neither would come to it.
" The Lord opened," or inclined, her " heart" to attend "to the things which were spoken of Paul."
Mr. Campbell is of opinion that the Lord opened
Lydia's heart by the miracles which were wrought
in confirmation of the Gospel. Chn'ty Restored, p.
354. Of this there is neither proof nor probability.
There was no miracle wrought on the occasion.
Miracles were utterly insufficient to awaken an obedient and saving attention, like that which Lydia
gave, to the Gospel. John 11: 47. The Lord
opened the heart of this woman of Thyatira-really
and effectively opened her heart, by a process which
is not explained. As the result of this process she
attended, promptly, honestly, and obediently to
Paul's Gospel; and but for this process, the apostle,
though he had spoken as an angel, had spoken
without success.
Secondly. Suppose this great difficulty obviated,
the sinner's attention arrested, and truth brought
clearly before his mind, would knowledge of divine
truth, without the special influence of the Spirit,
secure his conversion?  If ignorance is the only
evil with which the Gospel has to contend, then
obviously the illumination of the mind is all that is
necessary for its removal. But ignorance, though
it may be in itself criminal, is rather the effect than




134     CAMIPBELLISM IN ITS PRINC1PLED.
the cause of man's depravity. There is a corrupt
disposition which blinds the understanding. " This
is the condemnation, that light is come into the
world, and men loved darkness rather than light,
because their deeds were evil." John 3: 19. The
love of darkness —which signifies ignorance or erroris the very root of man's depravity.  This love implies an aversion to light, truth, and holiness, and
is the cause of the prevalent ignorance of divine
things in the world.  Conversion includes a cordial
approbation of divine truth. 2 Thess. 2: 10. Now,
can arguments, however clear and weighty-persuasion, however earnest and tender-and words, however fitly chosen and expressive, change the tastes
and dispositions of the soul? Man hates Christ,
not because he is ignorant of his character, but
because of the contrariety in their tastes and dispositions; and it is proposed to change this hatred into
love, simply by giving man clearer views of the
qualities which excite his aversion. Man is opposed
to the divine law, because it is pure, spiritual, and
inflexible; and it is proposed to overcome this
opposition by revealing to him more fully its hated
qualities. Man is averse to the light; and it is
proposed to subdue this aversion by increasing its
splendor. I cannot but suspect the inefficacy of
this scheme of conversion. Sinful man needs something more than light-more than arguments, persuasion, words —for his moral renovation. " The




CAMPBELLISM IN ITS PRIN( PLES.      135
wicked. will not listen to the voice of charmers,
charming never so wisely.' Ps. 58: 5.
Thirdly. The theory unzder discussion is contradicted by numerous well authenticated facts. If all
the converting power of the Spirit is in the arguments addressed by him in words to the mind; then
it follows that every minister of the Word must be
successful in converting souls to Christ, in proportion to the distinctness with which he presents the
arguments of the Spirit to the minds of his hearers.
The same measure of power must, under similar
circumstances, produce similar results. But does
this conclusion agree with the experience and observation of Christian ministers?  But I need not
appeal in this argument to questionable evidence.
Christ was an unrivalled preacher of the Gospel.
Mark 1: 1. Never man spake as he did. For the
weight of his arguments, the clearness of his illustrations, the simplicity and force of his style, the
fervency of his spirit, the dignity of his manner, the
adaptation of his discourses to the circumstances and
necessities of his hearers, indeed, for every excellence which could render his ministry attractive,
luminous, and successful, he stands alone. Prophets and apostles gave him homage as the "Light
of the world." If all the converting power of the
Spirit is in moral suasion, we might certainly infer
that such a teacher as Christ would be eminently
successful in winning souls. But what was the




136     CAMPBELLISM IN ITS PRIN C1PiJES.
result of his ministry? It was unsuccessful-not
wholly so —but it produced no such results, as from
his preeminent qualifications might have been expected-no great moral revolution, and no extensive
revival of true religion. His ministry seems to have
been less effective than that of John the Baptist.
Matt. 3: 5, 6. More persons were probably converted by the preaching of Peter and the other
apostles, on the day of Pentecost, than by the ministry of Jesus during its whole period. The Apostle
Paul quotes from Isa. 65: 2, a prediction of the manner in which the Messiah's ministry would be treated
among the Jews.  "But to Israel he saith, All day
long I have stretched forth my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people." Rom. 10: 21.
This prophecy was strikingly fulfilled in the history
of Jesus. He was earnest and diligent in teaching.
" All day long I have stretched forth my hands."
He uttered such arguments as should have convinced,
and such entreaties as should have moved, his hearers; but they were " disobedient and gainsaying."
The arguments, motives, and words of the Saviour,
were eminently suited for their conversion; but the
converting power of the Spirit was not presentwas withheld in wisdom and righteous judgment.
2. KIr. Carnpbell's theory of the Spirit's influence
is incompatible with prayer for the conversion of
sinners.
I do not charge him with denying, or questioning,




CAMPBELLISMI IN ITS PRINCIPLES.    137
the propriety of such prayer. On the corntrary, he
insists that it is obligatory, and practices it.  Still
his theory and his practise are inconsistent. If all
the converting power of the Spirit is in the written
Word, then all that can be done for the conversion
of sinners is to place the Word before their minds.
The Spirit indited and confirmed the Word, and in
that Word put forth all his'moral or converting
power. On Christians now devolves the duty of presenting the arguments, truths, and motives, contained
in the written Word, to the minds of sinners.
When all the arguments contained in the Old and
New Testaments are brought before their minds,
" then all the power of the Holy Spirit which can
operate upon" them " is spent," and if they are
CC not sanctified and saved by these," they' cannot
be saved by angels or spirits, human or divine."
Why then pray for the conversion of sinners? Will
the Spirit reveal the Word to their minds? or incline their hearts to receive it? Can any thing be
added by the Spirit to its power and efficiency?
Prayer for any blessing implies the power of God
to bestow it. When we pray for our daily bread,
it is implied that God so governs the seasons as to
send rain or drclught, fruitfulness or famine. When
we pray that the sick may be healed, it is implied
that God has such a control over man's physical
nature, that he can, without a miracle, cure his
diseases.  So when we pray for the conversion of




138     CAMPBELLISM IN ITS PRINC1PLES.
sinners, if we pray intelligently, we ascribe to the
Holy Spirit the power to convert them. And this
power is not inherent in the Word, any more than
the power that wields a sword, is inherent in the
sword. The Word is the instrument, but the
Spirit is the agent of conversion.  The Spirit gives
efficiency to the Word, opening the mind to receive
it, impressing it on the heart, and developing its
excellence in the life.
3. Mr. Campbell's theory of conversion is inconsistent with the introduction of the Millennium.
I will permit him to define what I mean by the
Millennium.  "There is reason, clear, full, and
abundant, to justify the expectation that the reign
of favor, or the government of Jesus Christ, shall
embrace, under its most salutary influences, the
whole human race; or that there are plain, literal,
and unfigurative, as well as figurative and symbolic
representations, in both Testaments, which authorize us to expect a very general, if not a universal spread of evangelical influences, so that the
whole race of men, for a long period of time, shall
bask in the rays, and rejoice in the vivifying power
of the Sun of Righteousness." Mill. Har. vol 1, p.
54. This consummation, described in the glowing
language of prophecy, has been the grand object of
the hopes, prayers, and labors of the saints in all
ages. Whatever contributes to hasten this glorious
period must, if its tendency is perceived, awaken




CAMPBELL1SM IN ITS PRlNCIPLES.     139
universal delight among the lovers of Christ.
Every principle, theory, or practice, which is inharmonious with its introduction is erroneous.  So
Mr. Campbell very properly teaches. " In detecting the false Gospels, nothing will aid us so
much as an examination of their tendencies, and a
comparison of their effects with what the Millennium proposes. The gospel of no sect can convert
the world. This is with us a very plain proposition; and if so the sectarian gospels are defective,
or redundant, or mixed." Mill. Har. vol. 1, p. 7
With the sectarian gospels I have now no concern:
I wish to inquire whether the L"ancient Gospel,"
furnishes any ground to hope for the introduction
of the Millennial glory. I propose to try it by the
rule which Mr. Campbell himself has prescribed.
The Scriptural canon was completed nearly
eighteen centuries ago.  Christianity was clearly
revealed, perfect in all its parts, and confirmed by
indubitable testimonies.  The inspired record, according to the teaching of the Bethany Reformer,
contains all the arguments of the Holy Spirit for
reconciling men to God; in this all his moral, or
converting power is exhibited. Christ commissioned
his apostles to go into all the world, and proclaim
the Gospel to every creature. From the apostolic
times to the present day, the servants of Christ,
with the Old and New Testaments in their hands,




140     CAMPBELLISM IN ITS PRINCIPLES.
have been laboring to convert the world to Christ
What has been the success of their efforts?
Three-fifths of the world are still shrouded in the
gloom of paganism. Mohammedanism sways its
hundred millions of intelligent, immortal beings.
The ignorance, superstition, and spiritual domination of Popery overspread the half of Christendom.
The Greek church, little less corrupt and intolerant
than the Romish, divides the remaining half with
Protestantism. The various sects of Protestants,
in the estimation of Mr. Campbell, stand in not
much less need of conversion than the heathen.
Such was the moral condition of the world when the
"current reformation" began. Then Mr. Campbell and his associates, disinterred the "ancient
Gospel" from the accumulated rubbish of past
ages. " About the commencement of this century,"
this is his account of the matter, "finding that
notes and comments, that glosses and traditions,
were making the word of God of little or no effect
-I say, the pious of several of the great phalanxes
of the rival Christian interests did agree to unmanacle and unfetter the testimony of God, and
send it forth without the bolsters and crutches furnished by the schools; and this, with the spirit of
inquiry which it created and fostered, has contributed much to break the yoke of clerical oppression,
which so long oppressed the people,-I say clerical
oppression; for this has been, and yet is, though




CAMPBELLISM IN ITS PRINCIPLES.    141
much circumscribed, the worst of all sorts of oppression."  Mill. Har., vol. 1, p. 4. Well, does the
disinterred Gospel, or the unmanacled and unfettered testimony of God, furnish any more cheering
indications of the Millennial dawn than the secta
rian Gospels?  Its most sanguine advocates wil..
hardly claim that it does; or if they should, the
futility of the claim must be apparent to all the
world. I shall, in another place, examine more
particularly the tendency and influence of Campbellism. I will merely affirm, what I suppose none
acquainted with its progress will deny, that the proclaimers of the " ancient Gospel" have found from
experience that all the arguments which they can
adduce from the inspired word-all the moral
suasion which they can bring to bear on the minds
of men-prove deplorably inefficient in their conversion. Churches organized according to the
"C ancient order of things," enjoying all the light
that emanates from Bethany, blessed with the unmanacled testimony of God, without "bolsters or
crutches," free from " clerical oppression," and
favored with the ministrations of reformed pastors,
of their own selection, have, in many cases, become
sold, worldly, and inefficient; in others, have fallen
into strife, and been weakened by divisions; in
some, have nourished in their bosoms the most
deadly errors; in not a few, have withered and
perished; and, if any of them have enjoyed unin



142     CAMPBELLISM IN ITS PRINL IPLES,
terrupted, Millennial prosperity, their history is yet
to be made known to the world. I do not write
these things to disparage the Reformers. I intend
no invidious comparison between the fruits of the
C ancient Gospel" and of the " sectarian Gospels."
I am sorry that the history of the Reformation
should bear so close a resemblance, in its dark and
unpromising features, to the history of the numerous
Christian sects. The above facts have been stated
simply because they are essential in the prosecution
of the argument.
How, in view of the above facts, is the Millennium to be introduced?  Not by the "sectarian
Gospels," says Mr. Campbell. Not by the slow,
imperfect and feeble progress of the Bethany Reformation. He that hopes for such a result from it
does not need to be reasoned with. It is most
manifest that the Millennium cannot shed its blessings on the world without some new agency, or influence, or some great increase of existing influences.
We need expect no new revelations for our instruction-no new powers to be imparted to the human
mind-and no new means of spreading the Gospel,
and enlisting attention to it. How then is the Millennium to be introduced?  By an increased efficiency of the divine word. At this point the weakness of Campbellism is revealed. It admits no provision for an increased efficiency of the divine word.
Its theory of conversion is opposed to any such in



CAMPBELLISM IN ITS FORMATION.    143
crease. The Holy Spirit, in the presentation of its
arguments, has exhibited and sopent all its converting
power. All that can be done, according to this
system, by men, angels, or the Holy Spirit, for the
introduction of the Millennium, is to exhibit arguments or truth to the minds of men; or, in other
words, persuade them to be holy. What is this, but
precisely what has been done by true ministers
from the apostolic age down to the present time?
And what ground is there, according to this system,
to conclude, hope or conjecture, that moral suasion
will, in time to come, be more efficacious than it has
been in time past? The same facts and arguments
must be proclaimed, in similar language, by men
of like passions and infirmities, and to the same
depraved, stupid and perverse race of beings, as in
past ages; and there is nothing in the theory under
discussion, or the nature of the case, to justify the
expectation that the fruits will materially differ in
quality or quantity.  It is true, the Scriptures predict a great increase of knowledge and piety in the
latter days; and Christ will certainly fulfill the prediction; and it is because Mr. Campbell's theory of
the Holy Spirit's influence in conversion, not oLly
does not contain any provision for its fulfillment, but
is clearly inconsistent with it, that it ought to be rejected. But the view of the Spirit's agency which I
maintain falls in most harmoniously with the Scripture promises of a Millennium.  His power is in



144     CAM3PBELLISM IN ITS FORMATION.
finite. He executes the purposes of Messiah. He
can impart an unction to the ministers of Christ,
and increase indefinitely their zeal, diligence, fidelity and efficiency. He can dwell richly in all the
saints, filling their understandings with light, their
hearts with love, and their lives with his fruits. He
can incline men to hear, embrace, and adorn the
Gospel of Jesus Christ. In short, he possesses all
the grace and energy which are requisite to secure
the universal spread and triumph of the Gospel.
The Millennium is to be introduced not merely by
moral suasion, and providential dispensations, but
by copious, general and powerful effusions of the
Holy Spirit. The same Spirit which on the day of
Pentecost gave signal success to the labors of Peter,
and his co-laborers, will by a mighty, pervasive, and
gracious agency-an agency in harmony with his
own perfections, and the freedom of the human
will-prepare men to receive, and spread abroad
the Gospel, and thus fill the earth with the knowledge of the glory of the Lord.
" The palaces," predicted the evangelical prophet, " shall be forsaken; the multitude of the city
shall be left; the forts and towers shall be for dens
forever, a joy of wild asses, a pasture of flocks;
until the Spirit be poured eupon us fronm  on higl,
and the wilderness be a fruitful field, and the fruitful field be counted for a forest. Then judgment
shall dwell in the wilderness, and righteousness re



CAMPBELLISM IN ITS PRINCIPLES.    145
main in the fruitful field. And the work of righteousness shall be peace; and the effect of righteousness, quietness, and assurance forever.  Isa. 3:
14-17.
The direct, Scriptural proofs of the reality of this
effective agency of the Holy Spirit, I shall now attempt to furnish.
4. The theory of conversion by moral suasion is
contradicted by the plain teaching of the Scriptures.
The question under discussion is not one of metaphysics but of revelation-it is to be decided not by
an appeal to philosophy, but to philology. Of the
nature and operations of spirits, and of the laws
which govern them, we know, and can know, but
little. Profoundly convinced of our ignorance, and
liability to err, on the important but abstruse subject
under consideration, we should earnestly inquire,
what saith the Lord? and endeavor, with childlike
docility, to comprehend the import of his words.
The inspired teachers have employed the strongest
terms to denote that agency, or influence of the
Spirit, by which fallen man is morally renewed. If
their language does not express a real, effective
agency of the Spirit, more powerful than persuasion,
or the mere presentation of arguments to the mind,
it is difficult to conceive how such an agency could be
described. They inform us simply what the Spirit
does, without attempting to explain the methods
of his operation —an explanation which we should




146     CAMPBELLISM IN ITS PRINC1PLLES,
probably be unable to comprehend, and which would
be unprofitable even if we could. I will adduce a
few passages of Scripture which teach the direct, per:sonal agency of the Holy Spirit in conversion. These
may not, in the judgment of other advocates of the
doctrine, be the most pertinent or conclusive; and
I readily admit that they are not better suited to
my purpose than many from which I have selected
them.
Conversion is, in the New Testament, described:-; a birth-a new birth —a birth of the Spirit.
{' That which is born of the Spirit is spirit." John
3: 6. " We know that whosoever is born of God
sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth,
himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not."  1
John 5: 18. I shall here take for granted, what
ought to be universally conceded, that the phrases
"born of the Spirit," and " born of God," denote
conversion, or the moral renovation of man-in another place I propose to examine this subject more
particularly. There is a resemblance between generation, or the natural birth, and conversion. The
Spirit of inspiration has employed this resemblance
to elucidate the subject of man's moral renovation.
In physical generation the nature and qualities of
the parent are conveyed to the child. "Adam
begat a son in his own likeness."  " That which is
born of the flesh is flesh"-that is, not merely corporeal, but depraved, corrupt, partaking of man's




CAMPBELLISM IN IIS PRINC1PLES.     147
fallen nature, as the term flesh frequently means.
So in the new birth, the nature-the moral nature
-of the Spirit-of God-is conveyed to his offspring. "That which is born of the Spirit is
spirit"-resembles the Spirit-partakes of his holiness-is spiritual.  " Love is of God; and every
one that loveth is born of God." I John 4: 7.
This mighty moral change is effected by the Gospel.
" Of his own will begat he us with the word of
truth." James 1: 18. " The word of truth" was
the instrument of regeneration-the efficiency was
of God. God begat-communicated his own nature,
or moral qualities, to the begotten-begat " of his
own will," according to his own choice or purpose —
and the Gospel was the means which he effectively
used in producing the change. To ascribe this
spiritual birth to the power in the word-to the
force of moral suasion-rather than to the influence
and efficiency of the Holy Spirit, that operates by
and through the word-is as if the axe should
boast itself against him that heweth therewith, or
the saw magnify itself against him that shaketh it."
Isaiah 10: 15. The argument, in brief, in thisthat the new, or moral birth-implying a communication of the divine nature —is effected not merely
by the written word, but is ascribed to a voluntary
and efficient agency of the Holy Spirit.
Conversion is tcrmed in the Scriptures a creation,
and described in a variety of language of similar




148     CAMPBELLISM1 IN ITS PRINCIPLES.
import. " A new heart also will I give you, aOi
a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take
away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will
give you an heart of flesh."  Ezekiel 36: 26. God
promised the Israelites, his chosen people, that he
would gather them out of all countries, and bring
them into their own land; and having done this,
he would bestow on them a far richer blessing —would do in them a work, which neither men nor
angels could perform. He would "take away the
stony heart out of their flesh."  The "stony
heart" is a hard, insensible, corrupt, impenitent
heart; and this God promised to take away from
them. He would do more. He would bestow on
them a "heart of flesh," a " new heart," a " new
spirit," —and this language certainly imports that
he would give them a tender, holy, and obedient
heart. We have passages of corresponding significance in the New Testament. " For we are his
workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good
works, which God hath before ordained that we
should walk in them." Eph. 2: 10. This language
is exceedingly strong. The conversion of a sinner
is termed a creation. A convert is a new creature.
The word employed in this text to denote this renovation-" created," (Kfri') is employed to express
that exercise of power by which the universe was
brought into existence. Eph. 3: 9. Col. 1: 16.
No energy short of that which brought order out of




CAMPBELLISM IN ITS PI. NCIPLES.    149
chaos, can renew the soul of man. That soul is,
in its natural state, a moral chaos-daik, void,
formless; and nothing but Almighty power, and
infinite grace, can restore it to life, light and
beauty. " God who commanded the light to shine
out of darkness" must shine into the heart " to
give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God
in the face of Jesus Christ."  Now, I will ask any
considerate and candid man, whether such language
as this, which we have been examining, could have
been used to denote moral suasion, without the certainty of deceiving mankind?  When God takes
away a " stony heart," does he merely present
arguments to display the evil and danger of sin, and
persuade the offender to abandon it?  When he
gives a " new heart"-a " heart of flesh"-does he
only use arguments to induce the sinner to be penitent, holy and obedient?  When he creates a man
in Christ Jesus-makes him "a new creature"does he simply address words to the eye or ear of
the transgressor? As well might it be affirmed
that God created the world by arguments-that he
ruled chaos by persuasion. It is true, " God said,
Let there be light: and there was light." But let
no one suppose that light was the product of the
words spoken.
If language is not ascribed to God in the act of
creation, as the mere drapery of the narrative, it
was uttered by him as the signal for the exercise of




150     CAMPBELLISMI IN ITS PRINCIPLES.
his creative energy. Christ, while on earth, spake
to those whom he healed; but they were healed, not
by his words, but by his power. " The power of
the Lord was present to heal them.' Luke 5: 17.
" He —the Lord-hath made the earth by his power
he hath established the world by his wisdom, and
hath stretched out the heavens by his discretion."
Jer. 10: 12.
Conversion is described as a resurrection from the
dead.  "But God, who is rich in mercy, for his
great love wherewith he loved us, even when we were
dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ.
(by grace are ye saved)." Eph. 2: 4, 5. The
Ephesians " were by nature the children of wrath,
even as others." v. 3. Their moral condition is described by the phrase "dead in sins"-a most
expressive phrase, which can mean nothing less than
that they were destitute of spiritual life or holiness,
and were morally corrupt and helpless. From themselves there was no hope. Their deliverance was
from God. It originated in his " rich mercy," and
"great love."  In executing the gracious scheme
of their salvation, he " quickened" them, raised
them from their death in sin, or infused into them
spiritual life. This he did not merely by arguments
or persuasion, but by the energy which raised Christ
from the dead. They were quickened " together
with Christ." He was raised from the dead to secure
salvation to all who should believe in him. Rom.,




CAMPBELLISM IN ITS PRINCIPLES     151
4: 25. As he was raised from a natural death, so
they, in virtue of his resurrection, were raised from
a moral death, or a death in sin. And that the
Ephesians were quickened by the same power that
raised Christ from the dead, is clear from the context. The Apostle prayed " the Father of glory"
for them, that they might know, "what is the
exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who
believe, according to the working of his mighty
power, which he wrought in Christ, when he raised
him from the dead," &c. 1: 19, 20. Here it is
plainly affirmed that they believed "according to
the working of his (God's) mighty power which he
wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the
dead." The passage is thus paraphrased by Dr.
McKnight, who cannot be justly suspected of an
improper bias towards spiritual influence. That ye
may know " what is the exceeding greatness of his
power, with relation to tus, Jews and Gentiles who
believe, in making us alive from our trespasses and
sins, (chap. 2: 5) and in raising us at the last day
from the dead, to enjoy the glories of his inheritance,
by an exertion similar to the inworking of the strength
of his force, which he exerted in C~hrist, when he
raised him from the dead," &c. If the power that
raised up Christ from  the dead was exerted in
quickening the Ephesians, then it is obvious that
they were not converted by the mere power of
words.




152     CAMPBELLISM IN ITS PRIN'IPLES.
Before I proceed, I must meet an objection to
the direct proofs which I have offered in support
of the efficient agency of the Holy Spirit in conversion. It will not be denied by those who advocate
the theory which I am combating, that believers are
"born of the Spirit," "quickened," "'created in
Christ Jesus," at least after baptism. But they
maintain that the Holy Spirit having indited the
Word, and confirmed it by signs and miracles —and
having put forth all its converting power in the
arguments which it contains-that now whatsoever
is done by the Word is done by the Spirit. Men
are regenerated, created anew, quickened, by the
arguments or motives presented to their minds in
the written Word, precisely as a congregation are
convinced, agitated, and put into motion by the
words of an orator, and whatever is ascribed to the
Word is justly ascribed to the Spirit. The Spirit
has completed the instrument of conversion-the
recorded Word-put it into the hands of his church
to be employed by them for its destined purpose;
and for all the good which they accomplish by it, he
is entitled to the glory. This objection is plausible,
and worthy of a careful consideration.
It is neither common nor just to ascribe to the
manufacturer of an instrument the work effected by
it. The instrument may be good-perfect in its
kind-admirably suited to its purpose; and its
maker may deserve high commendation; but nobody




CAMPBELLISM.N ITS PRINCIPLES.    153
would deem it proper to give him the honor of the
work done by it. Let me illustrate-The architect
purchases tools of a manufacturer: they are of the
best metal, keenest edge, and most approved patterns-he erects a tasteful house-Would any man
in his senses affirm that the tool-manufacturer built
the house? A daguerreotypist obtains from a factory a camera obscura, and all the appliances necessary for practising his art, and succeeds in obtaining an accurate likeness of the President of the
United States. What would you think of the fidelity of a reporter who should affirm that Daguerre
had taken a very exact likeness of the President?
Or, would you be more favorably impressed with
his discrimination and truthfulness, if he should
publish that the maker of the camera obscura had
succeeded in taking the picture?  But if the manufacturer of an instrument is the agent who uses it,
then he is, in the fullest sense, the author of all the
effects produced by it. Whatsoever is done by the
instrument, he does; and he is justly entitled to the
credit of it.
Let me now apply the illustration.-The written
Word is the instrument, divinely fitted and appointed for the conversion of sinners. This instrument,
completed in the apostolic age, has been committed
to the hands of the church to be by them employed
for its appropriate purpose. It is their duty to
translate the Word, print, circulate, expound, and




154     CAMPBELLISM IN 1 rS PRINCIPLES.
enforce it, call the attention of men to it, and exemplify in their lives its efficiency and loveliness. If
the Spirit is the Agent-the all-pervading and
mighty Agent-who uses the Word, and the ministers of it, as suitable instruments for the conversion and salvation of sinners —or, in other
words, if he, through these means, puts forth a
special and efficient influence for their moral
renovation —then, in the fullest sense, and with the
strictest propriety, he may be said to beget-newcreate-quicken-the subjects of his grace; and he
is entitled to all the praise of their salvation. But
if, on the other hand, he has merely furnished
the means of conversion-arguments to persuade
men to  turn  to  God-and  these  means have
been successfully employed by his servants, I
do not perceive with what pertinency the strong
language under consideration can be applied to his
agency. Let us recur to the illustration used above.
The minister of Christ is an architect.  "I have
laid the foundation," says Paul, " and another
buildeth thereon." The arguments, facts, motives,
furnished by the written Word are, to follow out
the figure, the tools by which the builder carries
forward his work. Now, if the Spirit merely furnishes the tools, and exerts no effective agency in
rearing the edifice, can it properly be termed his
"workmanship?" Mr. Campbell's theory of conversion amounts to this-God furnishes the tools



CAMPBELLISMI IN ITS i RINCIPI,ES.    155
we do the work.  The Spirit of God, having, in the
Old and New Testaments, spoken " all the arguments which can be offered to reconcile man to
God," all his power "which can operate on the
human mind is spent," and it now remains for the
disciples, unaided by the Spirit, to carry on the
work of human salvation.  But orthodox Christians
believe and maintain, that the written Word, ordinances, churches, ministers of the Word, and providences, prosperous or adverse, are so many means
through which the Holy Spirit, infinite in grace and
power, exerts a personal and efficacious infiueace
for the conversion and sanctification of men.
" Ihave planted, Apollos watered; but God gave
the increase. So then, neither is he that planteth
anything, neither he that watereth; but God that
giveth the increase." 1 Cor. 3: 6, 7. The church
of Corinth is compared to a field —" Ye are my
husbandry," or "field," according to McKnight's
rendering. In this field the ministers of Christ
were laborers together with God." v. 9. In it Paul
planted.  He was an apostle, eminent alike for piety,
gifts, diligence, and fidelity in his ministrations.
He was an evangelical pioneer in Corinth. Acts
18: 8. Here he sowed or planted the seed, which
"is the Word of God." Luke 8: 11. Or, dropping
the figure, he preached the Gospel with great plainness, pungency, and fervor. In the same field,'" Apollos watered."  He was a preacher distin



156     CAMPBELLISM IN ITS PRIN CIPLES.
guished for his thorough knowledge of the Jewish
Scriptures, the fervency of his spirit, the eloquence
of his address, and the cogency of his reasoning.
He entered into the labors of Paul and others; and
endeavored to irrigate and culture the plants which
they had set. But Paul, who planted, and Apollos,
who watered, were nothing, entitled to no glory, as
" God gave the increase."  The text teaches that
the success of Gospel ministers-even the most
eminent-whether in the conversion of sinners, or
the improvement of saints, is of divine influence.
The doctrine is according to analogy. In the vegetable kingdom, God gives the increase. The best
seed, sown in the best soil, and in the best manner,
will prove unfruitful, except God send sunshine,
and rains, and dews, and a suitable temperature, to
give the increase. The most skillful husbandman
on earth, cannot make a blade of grass grow without
divine aid. " That which thou sowest, thou sowest
not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may
chance of wheat, or of some other grain. But God
givetl it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every
seed his own body." 1 Cor. 15: 37, 38. It would
be easy to show that the same principle pervades
the animal kingdom. We might reasonably infer
that this principle extends into the kingdom of
grace. But on this subject we are not left to the
uncertain deduction of reason. All increase in the
evangelic field is of God. The piety and ability of




CAMPBELLISM IN ITS PRINCIPLES.    157
the ministry-the truth proclaimed —the manner
of publishing it-and the character of the people
among whom it is preached, can furnish no guarantee of success. If Paul and Apollos were dependent on the Divine blessing and efficiency for " the
increase," no minister can reasonably hope to rise
above this dependence. And if the success of Gospel ministers is from God, then it follows that the
inspired facts and arguments which they are authorized to proclaim are insufficient to secure it. Planting and watering, figurative terms, comprehend
within their legitimate import, all the uses that can
be made of the Divine word-all the methods of
instructing, warning, and persuading-all that can
be said and done to give efficiency to the Gospeland yet something more is demanded to secure the
increase-even the Divine blessing and energy. Indeed, so powerless is the most luminous and faithful
exhibition of Divine truth, without God's cooperation,
(v. 9.) that " neither is he that planteth any thing,
neither he that watereth." To God be all glory!
"Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying
the truth through the Sjpirit, unto unfeigned love of
the brethren, see that ye love one another, with a
pure heart fervently." I Peter 1: 22. In this
text the influence of the Word and of the Spirit
are clearly distinguished. By nature our souls are
impure, or sinful. All moral excellence lies in
obeying the truth, or Gospel. (v. 25.) Cnnversion




158     CAMPBELLISM IN ITS PRINCiPLES.
is obedience to the truth; and sanctification is a
growing conformity to it. These positions will not,
it is presumed, be disputed. The Gospel alone is
not sufficient to secure this obedience, though its
facts are confirmed, its arguments are weighty, and
the motives by which its claims are urged are high
as heaven, deep as hell, and vast as eternity. An
influence distinct from, and above the truth is indispensable to the production of this obedience.
The Holy Spirit exerts this influence not in revealing new truth, or creating new faculties; but in
disposing the heart to receive and be guided by the
Gospel. This influence is particularly described by
the word of the Lord in Ezekiel-" And I will put
my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my
statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do
them."  36: 27.
" For this is the covenant that I will make with
the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord;
I will put my laws into their mind, and write them
in their hearts; and I will be to them a God, and
they shall be to me a people."  Heb. 8: 10. The
apostle is demonstrating the superiority of the new
or Gospel covenant over the old or Sinaitic. Under
the old covenant God inscribed his laws on tables
of stone-under the new he writes them "on the
fleshly tables of the heart." God's laws are excellent-a transcript of his own character.  Between
the law and the Gospel there is perfect harmony.




CAMPBELL1SM IN ITS PniNCIPLES.    159
The Gospel is designed to sustain, illustrate, and
enforce the divine laws. These laws, recorded first
on tables of stone, and afterwards in the volume of
inspiration, are worthy to be loved, and obeyed by
men. But in order to receive a due appreciation
of them, and a cordial submission to their authority, a new and peculiar process is necessary. They
must be put " into their mind," and written " in
their hearts."  It cannot be doubted that the result
of this process is a knowledge of the Divine laws,
delight in them, and a willingness to obey them.
This process is above the power and skill of men or
angels. It is God's prerogative, and one of the
privileges secured by the new covenant, that he
puts his laws into the minds, and writes them on
the hearts of his people. The law is the stamp
which, with his own hand, he impresses on the renewed soul-the soul renewed by the very act of
impressing it. It is pleasing to find that on this
point my views are in harmony with those of Mr.
Campbell. In his Christian System, describing the
Subjects of the Kingdom, he writes, p. 156,
" They all know the Lord." " All thy children
shall be taught of God."  The Holy Spirit of God,
writes the law of God upon their hearts, and inscribes it upon their understanding; so that they
need not teach every one his fellow citizen to know
the Lord, " for they all know him from the least to
the greatest." Now whether this process of writing




160     CAMPBELLISM IN ITS FR1NCIPLES.
the law upon the heart, and inscribing it upon the
understanding is physical or moral, I am not concerned to decide. All I maintain is, that it is not
owing exclusively to the force of argument in the
Divine Law, or Word, that this deep, abiding, renovating impression is made upon the heart; but to
the inward, and effective agency of the Holy Spirit.
Before I close this argument on the direct testimony of the Scriptures, I must make a single remark
to prevent misconception. All those portions of
the inspired volume in which conversion or sanctification, in whatever terms expressed, is ascribed to
God, have reference to the Holy Spirit. He is the
sanctifier. In the economy of man's redemption it
is his prerogative to reveal and confirm the truth,
and make it efficacious in man's moral renovation.
This point needs no proof.
5. The theory of conversion advocated by Mr.
Campbell, is inconsistent with the plainly revealed,
and fairly conceded influence of the Holy Spirit in
believers after baptism.
That the Spirit of God dwells in the saints, or
believers, as in a temple, to refresh and invigorate
them, to quicken their devotions, and to make them
fruitful in good works, is a truth so clearly taught
in the Scriptures, and so generally admitted among
Christians, that it is unnecessary to attempt to
prove it. I will merely refer the reader to a few
out of many Scripture proofs of it. Lev. 11, 13. —




CAMPBELLISM IN ITS PRINCIPLES.    161
Rom. 8: 9. —1 Cor. 6: 19.-Eph, 5: 5.-Phil. 2:
13.-Gal. 5: 22-23.
Mr. Campbell admits, and maintains the efficacious influence of the Holy Spirit in believers-an
influence differing not in degree, but kind, from
that by which a sinner is converted. As this is a
very important point, I will permit MIr. Campbell to
present his views regarding it fully.
" In the kingdom into which we are born of water,
the Holy Spirit is as the atmosphere in the kingdom
of nature-we mean that the influences of the Holy
Spirit are as necessary to the new life, as the atmos.
phere is to our animal life, in the kingdom of nature,
All that is done in us before regeneration, God ouI
Father effects by the Word, or the Gospel as dictated
and confirmed by his Holy Spirit. But after we
are thus begotten and born by the Spirit of Godafter our new birth, the Holy Spirit is shed on us
richly through Jesus Christ our Saviour; of which
the peace of mind, the love, the joy, and the hope
of the regenerate is full proof; for these are amongst
the fruits of that Holy Spirit of promise of which
we speak." Chn. Sys., p. 267.
I do not, I trust, misunderstand Mr. Campbell on
this vital subject. He teaches that all that is done
in us before regeneration-which in the Bethany
dialect means " born of water," or immersion" God our Father," not the Holy Spirit, " effects
by the Word;"-but after our new birth, " the Holy




162     CA1IPBELLISM IN ITS PRINCIPLES.
Spirit is shed on us richly through Jesus Christ our
Saviour; of which the peace of mind, the love, the
joy, and the hope of the regenerate is the proof."
The illustration employed by Mr. Campbell seems
to preclude the possibility of misunderstanding his
views. What the atmosphere is to animal life, the
influences of the Holy Spirit are to the new life.
As the animal, after its birth, is sustained by respiration; so after we are "born of water," or immersed, we live-our new life is maintained-by' the influences of the Holy Spirit."
But to show that my interpretation of his language is in perfect harmony with what he calls the
" ancient Gospel," I will furnish another extract
from his writings.
" Where there is a guilty conscience there is an
impure heart.  So teaches Paul:'To the unbelieving there is nothing pure; for even their mind
and conscience is defiled.' In such a heart the
Holy Spirit cannot dwell. When God symbolically
dwelt in the camp of Israel, every speck of filth
must be removed even from the earth's surface.
Before the Holy Spirit can be received, the heart
must be purified; before the heart can be purified,
guilt must be removed from  the conscience; and
before guilt can be removed from the conscience,
there must be a sense, a feeling, or an assurance
that sin is pardoned and transgression covered.
For obtaining this there must be some appointed




CAMPBELLISM IN ITS PRINCIPLES.    163
way —and that means or way is immersion into the
name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.  So that,
according to this order, it is incompatible, and therefore impossible, that the Holy Spirit can be received,
or can dwell in any heart not purified from a guilty
conscience. Hence it came to pass, that Peter said,'Be immersed for the remission of your sins, and
you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.'" Chn.
Bap., 439.
According to the " ancient Gospel," if Mr. Campbell is a safe expounder of it, im~mersion —which in
the " pure speech" of the Reformation, is " the regenerating act itself" —is necessary for the remission
of sins; " a sense, feeling, or assurance that sin is
pardoned is necessary for the removal of guilt from
the conscience; the removal of guilt from the conscience is indispensable for the purification of the
heart; and the purification of the heart is an essential prerequisite of the reception of the Holy Spirit.
Immersion-the remission of sins-the removal of
guilt-a pure heart-the influence of the Holy
Spirit-and then love, meekness and humility, the
fruits of the Spirit —is the established order in the
" ancient Gospel," promulged from Bethany. I
might notice many things in this order, from which
I utterly dissent, but I must limit my remarks to
the point in hand. Mr. Campbell does teach that
there is an influence of the Spirit, after baptism,
and the purification of the heart. When a man is




164     CAMPBELLISM IN ITS PRINCIPLES.
"born of water," and his heart is purified, then
the Holy Spirit dwells in him, and love, joy, and
other graces attest his presence and agency. All
that is done in the believer before he receives the
Spirit, God his Father " effects by the Word."
To do Mr. Campbell ample justice, I will permit
him to explain and vindicate his views on this point.' But the Spirit is not promised to any persons
out of Christ. It is promised only to them that believe in and obey him. These it actually and
powerfully assists in the mighty struggle for eternal life. Some, indeed, ask,' Do Christians need
more aid to gain eternal life —than sinners do to
become Christians? Is not the work of conversion
a more difficult work than the work of sanctification? Hence, they contend more for the work of
the Spirit in conversion, than for the work of the
Spirit in sanctification.  This, indeed, is a mistaken
view of the matter, if we reason either from analogy
or from Divine testimony. Is it not more easy
to plant, than to cultivate the corn, the vine, the
olive? Is it not more easy to enlist in the army,
than to be a good soldier, and fight the battles of
the Lord; to start in the race, than to reach the
goal; to enter the ship than cross the ocean;
to be naturalized, than to become a good citizen;
to enter into the matrimonial compact, than to be
an exemplary husband; to enter into life, than to
retain and sustain it for three score years and ten?




CAMPBELLISM IN ITS PRINCIPLES.    165
And while the commands,'believe,''repent,' and'be baptized,' are never accompanied with any intimation of peculiar difficulty; the commands to the
use of the means of spiritual health and life; to
form the Christian character; to attain to the resurrection of the just; to lay hold on eternal life;
to make our calling and election sure, &c., are accompanied with such exhortations, admonitions,
cautions, as to make it a difficult and critical affair,
requiring all the aids of the Spirit of our God, to
all the means of grace and untiring assiduity and
perseverance on our part; for it seems,'the called,'
who enter the stadium are many, while' the chosen'
and approved'are few;' and many, says Jesus,'shall seek to enter into the heavenly city, and shall
not be able;''Let us labor, therefore, to inter into
that rest lest any man fall after the same example
of unbelief."'
What religious teachers those are who " contend
more for the work of the Spirit in conversion, than
for the work of the Spirit in sanctification," I do
not know. I do not think that Mr. Campbell can
name a single orthodox divine, of reputation, who
does not believe that the influence of the Spirit is
equally and indispensably necessary in conversion
and sanctification. The question whether that influence is more needed in the one process or the
other, could have originated only from such meta



166     CAMPBELLISM IN. rS PRINCIPLES.
physical, vague and barren speculations as abound
in the writings of Mr. Campbell.
But let us attend to the main point in our argument. I understand Mr. Campbell to admit the
influence of the Holy Spirit after baptism. " These"
-them that believe in and obey Christ-" it"-the
Spirit-" actually and powerfully assists in the
mighty struggle for eternal life."  This language is
quite orthodox-scarcely distinguishable from the
dialect of the populars. Whether this influence of
the Spirit in believers, by which they are actually
and powerfully assisted, is physical, moral, or indefinable, he does not inform us. He not only admits
the reality of this influence, but clearly states the
ground of its necessity. Conversion, he teaches, is
comparatively easy; but sanctification is very difficult.  " Is it not more easy to plant, than to
cultivate the corn, the vine, the olive?" "The
commands' believe,'' repent,' and' be baptized,'
are never accompanied with any intimation of peculiar difficulty." " We rejoice to know that it is
just as easy to believe and be saved, as it is to hear
or see." Chn. Bap., vol. 5, p. 221. It is quite
clear that for a work so easily accomplished as conversion, no assistance of the Spirit is needed.'" Assistance to believe! This is a metaphysical dream.
How can a person be assisted to believe?" " All
that is done in us before regeneration, (baptism)
God our Father effects by the Word."  But when




CAMPBELLISM IN ITS PRINCIPLES.       167
the sinner believes, repents, is baptized, has a feeling that sin is pardoned, has guilt removed from his
conscience, and his heart purified, then " in the
mighty struggle for eternal life," he will need and
receive the actual and powerful assistance of the
Holy Spirit. " The commands to the use of spiritual health and life; to form the Christian character;
to attain to the resurrection of the just; to lay hold
on eternal life; to make our calling and election
sure, &c., are accompanied with such exhortations,
admonitions, cautions, as to make it a difficult and
critical affair, requiring all the aids of the Spirit
of our God, to all the means of grace and untiring
assiduity and perseverence on our part." According, then, to the " ancient Gospel," conversion is
easy, and is by the Word, without any assistance
from the Holy Spirit; but sanctification, or the
Christian life, is difficult, and very critical, and can
be carried on only by his indwelling, actual, and
powerful assistance. From these views I utterly
dissent.  I maintain that conversion is a work no
less difficult than sanctification-that the same
influence which is requisite to nourish the new life,
was requisite to originate it-that a man can no
more repent and believe without the influence of
the Spirit than he can love, rejoice, and continue to
obey. I go farther, and insist that the influence
of the Spirit in sanctification being admitted, it
follows, as a logical sequence, that the same influ



168     CAMPBELLISM IN ITS PRINCIPLES.
ence is exerted in conversion, which is but the commencement of the work of which sanctification is
the progress.
Before I proceed to offer direct proofs in support
of my position, I must briefly notice what MIr.
Campbell has alleged in support of his views. This
may be comprehended under three headsFirst. "' The Holy Spirit," he affirms, " is not
promised to anypersons out of Christ."  This position I do not controvert. The Spirit is bestowed
on believers, in answer to prayer, to comfort, refresh,
strengthen, and guide them —in fine, to carry on
within them the process of sanctification. This
privilege is peculiar to Christians.  But I do most
widely dissent from the inference which Mr. Campbell
seeks to draw from this position. His reasoning is
this: The Spirit is promised only to believers; therefore, the influence of the Spirit is limited to believers.
This reasoning is illogical. It is based on the assumption that God bestows no blessing which he does not
promise. But this is not true. God's promises are all
made to believers-to the obedient-to the holy. So
far as I know, there is not a promise in the Bible to
the ungodly, except on condition of their repentance
and faith. But the Divine blessings are bestowed
profusely on the bad as well as the good-the disobedient as well as the righteous. Matt. 6: 45.
God has promised the Spirit of consolation and
encouragement to believers; but this truth is in




CAMPBELLISM IN ITS PRINCIPLES.      169
perfect harmony with the doctrine that God's unpromised, free, gracious, and sovereign Spirit exerts
a real, powerful, and creative influence in changing
carnal, ungodly men, into humble believers.
Secondly.  Mr. Campbell's next argument in
support of his views, is derived from analogy. " Is
it not more easy," he inquires, " to enlist in the
army, than to be a good soldier, and fight the
battles of the Lord; to start in the race, than to
reach the goal; to enter the ship, than to cross the
ocean; to be naturalized, than to become a good
citizen; to enter into the matrimonial compact, than
to be an exemplary husband; to enter into life,
than to retain and sustain it for three-score years
and ten?"  Analogies prove nothing.  It is easy
for Mr. Campbell to furnish examples in which it is
more difficult to prosecute than to commence an
enterprise; but these examples are far from proving
that it is more difficult to continue than to begin a
life of piety.  Moreover, the Scriptural analogies
are against Mr. Campbell's views. Conversion is a
resurrection. Is it easier to raise a man from the
dead, than to nourish him after he is made alive?
Conversion is a creation. Is it easier to create than
to preserve that which is created?  Conversion is
reconciliation. Is it easier to reconcile an enemy,
than to retain a friend? It requires the same
power, and certainly no less an exertion of that
power, to quicken a soul dead in trespasses and sins,




170     CAMPBELLISM IN ITS PRINCIPLES.
than to support and nourish the new life. So analogy and reason decide; and nothing but unbridled
speculation would doubt.
Thirdly. Mr. Campbell derives another argument
in support of his opinions from the difficulty of a
life of piety.  "The commands to the use of the
means of spiritual life and health; to form the
Christian character, etc., are accompanied with such
exhortations, admonitions, cautions, as to make it
a diflcult and critical affair."  I admit the difficulty of a life of piety; but assuredly the difficulty
includes the obstacles at the commencement, as well
as those in its progress. Take for illustration the
text which Mr. Campbell has misquoted in the
extract above as an illustration.  " Strive to enter
in at the strait gate; for many, I say unto you,
will seek to enter in, and shall not be able." Luke
13: 24. The entrance through the strait, or difficult gate, the necessity of which we are here taught,
includes conversion, if it does not primarily refer to
it. The exhortation was addressed to captious,
unbelieving Jews, who needed to commence, before
they could pursue a life of piety.
I am now prepared to offer direct proofs in support of my position.
My first argument respects the power of the Holy
Spirit.  It is this-if the Spirit can and does dwell
in believers,   actually and powerfully" assisting
them " in the mighty struggle for eternal life" —




CAMPBELLISM IN ITS PRINCIPLES.    171
then he can exert a similar influence in enlightening,
quickening and renewing the ungodly. Call it
moral, physical, or any other kind of power, the
energy by which he assists Christians in their
struggles may be exercised in giving sinners " repentance to the acknowledging of the truth." 2.
Tim. 2: 25.
My second proof is derived from the nature of
sanctification.  It is progressive holiness.  It is
beautifully described by the wise man-" The path
of the just is as the shining light, that shineth more
and more unto the perfect day." Prov. 4: 18.
Regeneration is the commencement of holiness.
Regeneration and sanctification do not denote different processes, but the same process in different
stages. They resemble each other as the child resembles the man, or the dawn resembles the day.
I will not now stop to defend these definitions,
partly, because I presume the advocates of the
Reformation will admit their correctness, and
partly, because I purpose in another place to examine more particularly Mr. Campbell's use of
these terms. Now to maintain that regeneration or
conversion, and sanctification are the result of different influences, or processes, is about as discriminating and wise as to maintain that the dawn of
day and the brightness of noon spring from different
orbs. Conversion is holiness begun; sanctification
is holiness progressing; but in both cases the holi



172     CAMPBELLISM IN ITS PRINCIPLES.
ness is of the same nature, tendency and origin.
To ascribe the commencement and the progress of
this renovating process to different influences, or
authors, is as unphilosophical as it is unscripturalis to adopt a visionary theory, without proof, without plausibility, and without advantage.
BMy third proof is drawn from the direct testimony
of revelation. The Scriptures, I may remark, in
general terms, ascribe conversion to Divine agency
in language as clear, strong and varied as they do
sanctification. The Spirit that nourishes is the
Spirit that begets: the Power that preserves is the
Power that creates. But on this point revelation
bears explicit testimony. " Being confident of this
very thing, that he which hath begun a good work
in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ."
Phil. 1: 6. This "good work" is the work of
grace in the soul-that process of moral purification by which it is fitted for communion with God.
The same Agent who begins this work, in conversion, " will perform it," or " be completing it," in
sanctification, " until the day of Jesus Christ." As
Mr. Campbell admits that the Spirit carries on
this good work, and as Paul teaches that he who
carries it on also began it, it follows that the Spirit
began it. By "good work," in this passage, Mr.
Campbell understands the liberality of the Philippian Christians to the apostle Paul. To favor this
interpretation, he has in his New Testament




CAMPBELLISM IN ITS PRINCIPLES.    173
abandoned the well established translation  of
McKnight, which he professes to follow, and
adopted that of Thompson, in the preceding
verse. Instead of " fellowship in the Gospel," as
McKnight has it, or "your participation in the
Gospel," as Doddridge renders it, he has printed,
on Thompson's authority, "your contribution for
the Gospel." All the commentaries, within my
reach, both Calvinistic and Arminian, are opposed
to his interpretation of the sixth verse. " Some
sectaries," he says, have converted this good work,
into God's work, upon them, and have made the
apostle invalidate his own exhortation to them, to
work out their salvation with fear and trembling."
New Trans. Appendix 32. The quotation by which
Mr. Campbell aims to confirm his interpretation is
singularly infelicitous. The Philippians are exhorted by the apostle to work out their salvation,
for this very reason, that " it is God which worketh
in them to will and to do of his good pleasure.'
Phil. 2: 12-13, or as the passage is more strongly
rendered in Mr. Campbell's New Testament, " Fo2
it is God who inwardly wor7keth in you, from  be
nevolence, both to will and to work egectually.
Now it is precisely this inward, effectual workinp
of God in the Philippians, both to will and to work,.
which the apostle styles " a Vood work," and which,
he is fully persuaded God will perform until the
day of Jesus Christ.




174      CAMPBELLISM IN ITS PRINCIPLES.
My last remark, concerns the honor of the Holy
Spirit. The theory which I am opposing represents the infinite Spirit as condescending to carry
on, and complete a work, which was commenced,
and passed through its most difficult stage, without
his influence. Man without any agency except the
force of argument, contained in the written Word,
is converted. He attends to the Word, is enlightened by it, sorrows for his sins, abandons them,
believes in Christ, or heartily receives him as a
Saviour, devotes himself with delight to the service
of Christ, confesses him before men, braves scorn,
persecution and death in his cause, and is baptized
in his name; and then, this easy part of the work,
as Mr. Campbell deems it, but most difficult according to the Scriptures, having been performed, the
Holy Spirit actually and powerfully assists him in
his mighty struggles for eternal life. What is this
but to wrest from the Spirit the chief glory of his
work?
Mr. Campbell, in his great zeal to steer clear of
all speculative theology, maintains that all theories
of the Spirit's influence in conversion are equally
inefficacious and worthless. He thus writes-" But
who can live on essential oils? Or will the art of
speculating or inferring; or will the inferences when
drawn-that the Spirit without the Word, or the
Word without the Spirit, or the Spirit and Word
in conjunction, regenerates the human soul; I ask,




CAMPBELLISM IN ITS PRINCIPLES.    175
will the act of drawing these inferences, or these
inferences when drawn, save the soul? If they
will not, why make them essential to Christianity,
beneficial to be taught?" Chn. Bap., p. 269. I am
no more an advocate of mere speculation and empty
theory, than Mr. Campbell. The subject of the
Spirit's influence has been a fruitful source of profitless theorizing and vain jangling. I fully concur with
him in the opinion that preaching the influence of
the Spirit, is not preaching the Gospel; and that
much mischief has arisen from insisting on this influence to the neglect of the duty of repentance and
faith. But whether men are converted by the
Spirit without the Word, or the Word without the
Spirit, or the Word and Spirit in conjunction, are
not questions of mere speculation, but grave,
weighty, and practical. Whatsoever is legitimately
inferred from the Scriptures is a part of Divine revelation, and profitable for instruction. The belief of
it may not be essential to salvation; and yet it may
contribute to the growth, happiness, and efficiency
of the disciples of Christ. The influence of the
Holy Spirit in the conversion of sinners is not a
mere theory, but a revealed truth, the belief of
which is intimately connected with the progress ot
the Redeemer's kingdom.  The doctrine of the
Spirit's efficient agency in the salvation of men,
teaches us our entire dependence on God for the
success of our efforts-even the most vigorous and




176     CAMPBELLISM IN ITS PRINCIPLES.
best directed-for the promotion of his cause. It is
well fitted to impress upon the heart the word of the
Lord unto Zerubbabel, " Not by might, nor by power,
but bymy Spirit, saith the Lord of hosts." Zec. 4: 6.
This Scriptural doctrine clearly understood and
heartily embraced, must lead Christians to humble,
earnest, and persevering prayer for the salvation of
sinners. It shows them where all their strength
lies, and whence all their help must come. It disposes them to give the honor of their success to its
real author, inspiring them with the devout sentiment of the Psalmist, " Not unto us, 0 Lord, not
unto us, but unto thy name give glory, for thy
mercy, and for thy truth's sake." In all ages, and
in all countries, the truly pious, though differing
widely on other subjects, have cordially united in
the belief and maintenance of the doctrine of a
supernatural agency in the conversion of sinners.
Under the influence of this truth they have lived,
their characters have been moulded, their labors
have been performed, their prayers have been presented to God, and their successes have been
achieved.
Much as Mr. Campbell was opposed, in the commencement of his Reformation, to religious speculations, it was not a great while before he adopted,
or elaborated, an abstruse, metaphysical theory of
conversion. I will not affirm that he taught regeneration by the W -rd-by the force of argluments —




CAMPBELLISM IN ITS PRINCIPLES      177
without the Spirit. But if he did not so teach, in
his Christianity Restored, then it has not been
taught by any writer within the compass of my
knowledge, and I seriously question whether it has
ever been taught in the English tongue. Indeed, I
do not perceive how the clearest, and most discriminating author, who admits the inspiration of the Scriptures, can teach it, if Mr. Campbell has not. Now, this
" inference," or theory, I am very far from deeming
"essential to Christianity, beneficial to be taught."
Nay, it is an illegitimate inference, a false theory,
not " essential to Christianity," but subversive of it,
not "beneficial to be taught," but most pernicious.
It cuts off all hope of divine aid, and all motives to
pray for it. It greatly weakens a sense of obligation to the author of salvation, if, indeed, salvation
is compatible with the " inference," and leads to a
cold and heartless rationalism.
I have not yet entirely disposed of the subject of
the Holy Spirit's influence in the work of conversion. I have already referred to the difficulty which
Mr. Campbell's opponents have found in comprehending his views on this vital point. It seems
thus to have arisen. While he has denounced the
poplllar teaching on the subject, as mystical and
pernicious, and has seemed most obviously to maintain a new and peculiar theory of conversion, he has
sometimes published sentences on this point to which
the rAost rigid advocates of orthodoxy could find no




178     CAMPBELLISM IN ITS PRINCIPLES.
objection. As early as the year 1826, Rev. A.
Broaddus, over the signature of Paulinus, thus addressed him-" There are some among us possessed
of strong apprehension that you are disposed to
deny the existence of the regenerating and sanctifying operations of the Holy Spirit on the spirit or
heart of man; and that you would ascribe all the
religious effects produced in us, solely to the influence of the written Word, or the external revelation
of God..... For myself, I have said to others, as
I now say to you, that I cannot think this of you.
I have seen many things in your writings which
appear inconsistent with such a sentiment."  Chn.
Bap., p. 266. We have already seen in an extract
from the Appendix to the Extra Examined, published in 1831, that Mr. Broaddus had changed his
opinion on this point.
That I may do MIr. Campbell full justice, I will
quote from his writings a few passages in which he
appears to maintain evangelical views on the agency
of the Holy Spirit.
" But if any man accustomed to speculate on religion as a science, should infer from any thing which
I have said on these theories, that I contend for a
religion in which the Holy Spirit has nothing to do;
in which there is no need of prayer for the Holy
Spirit; in which there is no communion of the
Holy Sl]irit; in which there is n) peace and joy in




CAMPBELLISM IN ITS PRINCIPLES.    179
the Holy Spirit, he does me -the greatest injustice."
Chn. Bap., 269.
" If any man ask me how the influence and aid
of the Holy Spirit is obtained, I answer, By prayer
and the Word of God." p. 329.
" From the answer above given to query first, I
am authorized to say, that' saving faith' is wrought
in the heart by the Holy Spirit, and that no man
can believe to the saving of his soul, but by the
Holy Spirit."  p. 353.
Paulinus, in an article on the influence of the
Spirit, thus summed up his argument —" The substance of the leading sentiment maintained in these
two essays is, that we are dependent on the influence of the Holy Spirit to render the Word effectual
to our conversion and final salvation."' To this the
editor of the Christian Baptist replied-" Although
it might appear that some of the sentences extracted from different parts of the sacred volume were not
originally intended to prove the position which was
before the mind of Paulinus, yet still the conclusions
to which he has come will be very generally embraced as declarative of sentiments styled evangelical. If this language does not endorse the doctrine
of Paulinus, it is evasive, and unworthy of a candid
wrriter." p. 437.
" On the subject of spiritual influence, there are
two extremes of doctrine. There is the Word alone
system, and there is the Spirit alon- system. I




180     CAMPBELL1SM IN ITS PRINCIPLES.
believe in neither. The former is the parent of a
cold, lifeless rationalism and formality. The latter
is, in some temperaments, the cause of a wild, irrepressible enthusiasm; and, in other cases, of a dark,
melancholy despondency. X:: There yet remains
another school, which never speculatively separates
the Word and Spirit, which in every case of conversion contemplates them  as cQ-operating; or,
which is the same thing, conceives of the Spirit of
God as clothed with the Gospel motives and arguments-enlightening, convincing, persuading sinners, and thus enabling them to flee from the wrath
to come." Debate with Rice, p. 614.
" I would not, sir, value at the price of a single
mill, the religion of any man, as respects the grand
affair of eternal life, whose religion is not begun,
carried on, and completed by the personal agency
of the Holy Spirit." p. 614.
" I believe the Spirit accompanies the Word, is
always present with the Word, and actually and
personally works through it upon the moral nature
of man, but not without it." p. 745.
I have selected these quotations partly from the
early, and partly from the later writings of Mr.
Campbell, taking the liberty of italicising a few
terms. I could easily increase the list of pertinent
quotations-but it is unnecessary.
Concerning these extracts, one of three conclusions is certain.  Either, jfrst, they contradict the




CAMPBELLISM IN ITS PRINCIPLES.    181
quotations furnished in the commencement of this
chapter-or, secondly, they must be interpreted in
harmony with the theory of conversion by moral
suasion, which I have already discussed-or, thirdly,
they must be understood as agreeing substantially
with the popular, evangelical doctrine of conversion by Divine influence. And these several conclusions are entitled to particular attention.
First.-Are the statements of Mr. Campbell concerning the in fluence of the Holy Spirit contradictory? In my judgment they are. Whether his
views on the subject were confused, or differed at
different times, or were carelessly and vaguely expressed, I will not say; but they appear to me to
be inconsistent.  " The only power," says Mr.
Campbell, " which one spirit can exert over another
is in its arguments."  If this is not the " word
alone system," I would gladly be informed what
that system is. I repeat, I must be permitted to
doubt whether any man ever has taught, or ever can
teach the system, if Mr. Campbell did not inculcate
it in his Christianity Restored. And yet he affirms
in his Debate with Rice, " There is the Word alone
system, and there is the Spirit alone system. I
believe in neither." In one place he says, " Before
the Holy Spirit. can be received, the heart must be
purified." In another place he writes, " I would
not value at the price of a single mill, the religion
of any man,-whose religion is not begun, carried




182     CAMPBELLISM IN ITS PRINCIPLES.
on, and completed by the personal agency of the
Holy Spirit."  In one he represents that all that is
lone in us before regeneration, that is baptism,
" God our Father effects by the Word;" in another
he maintains, that in every case of conversion the
Spirit and Word co-operate, " enlightening, convincing, persuading sinners, and thus enabling
them to flee from the wrath to come;" and that the
Spirit " actually and personally works through"
the Word, " upon the moral nature of man." I will
not affirm these various statements are contradictory; but I do not perceive their harmony. For
the sake of the argument, however, I will admit
their agreement. And now I must inquire,
Secondly, Are the last recited extracts from the
writings of Mr. Campbell to be interpreted in harmony with the theory of conversion by moral
suasion? Are we to understand all that he has
said of the co-operation of the Spirit and Word —
of religion " begun, carried on, and completed by
the personal agency of the Holy Spirit" —of his
"actually and personally" working throug~h the
Word on " man's moral nature"-as meaning nothing
more than that the Spirit addresses arguments,
through the written Word, to sinners, to persuade
them to be converted; and that having done this
his resources are exhausted, his power is spent? In
other words, is the actual, personal agency of the
Spirit, pleaded fo, by Mr. Campbell, to be resolved




CAMPBELLISM IN ITS PRINCIPLES.    183
into mere moral suasion? If so, the system has
been already examined, and the reader must decide
whether it has been satisfactorily refuted. But if
Mr. Campbell rejects the doctrine of conversion by
moral suasion, or by the mere presentation of the
arguments of the Holy Spirit to the mind, then I
remark,
Thirdly —Thzat Mr. Campbell's teaching is in
substantial agreement with the poTular evangelical
doctrine of conversion through Divine infjluence.
There is no middle ground between the " Word
alone," or moral suasion system, and that which ascribes conversion to the personal agency of the
Spirit through the Word. This latter system is
the popular evangelical system-the system universally taught, when Mr. Campbell commenced
his Reformation, except by a few ultra-Calvinists,
and low Arminians and formalists-the system
which permeated almost all our Biblical and theological literature; our commentaries, Bible dictionaries, bodies of divinity, and popular sermons-in
fine, the system which maintained a quiet, undisputed, and controlling influence in all the orthodox
churches of the land. I must confirm these statements by a few quotations from popular, evangelical
writers, whose reputation preceded the Bethany
Reformation, and has not declined from its influence.
" The instrument of this renovation (regeneration)
is'the word of truth.' In infusing the principle




184     CAMPBELLISM IN ITS PRINCIPLES.
of divine life into the soul, God is wont to employ
the Gospel as the instrument." R. Hall, vol. 3.
p. 66.
" The change which God produces in men's dispositions and actions, by the truths of the Gospel
impressed on their minds, is so great that it may be
called a begetting, or creating them anew."  McKnight. Note on Jas. 1: 18.
" But though this Word (the Gospel) cannot beget
without him (God), yet it is by this Word that he
begets, and ordinarily not without it." Leighton's
Works, p. 120.
" The Word, or doctrine of truth, what St. Paul
calls the Word of the truth of the Gospel, Col. 1: 5,
is the means which God uses to convert souls." A.
Clarke's Com., Jas. 1: 18.
"In this passage St. Peter declares, that Christians are born, or regenerated, nca xoyov, by means
of the Word of God. Of course he declares, that they
were not regenerated without the instrumentality
of the Word of God. What is true, with respect to
this subject, of the Christians to whom St. Peter
wrote, will not be denied to be true of Christians
universally."  Dwight's Theol., vol. 4, p. 40-41.
" The means (of regeneration) are pointed out;
the Word of truth, i. e., the Gospel; as Paul expresses it more plainly, 1 Cor. 4: 15. This Gospel
is indeed a Word of truth,; else it 3ould never pro



CAMPBELLISM IN ITS PRINCIPLES.    185
duce such real, such lasting, such great and noble
effects." M. Henry's Corn., Jas. 1: 18.
" No regeneration, no quickening grace, no faith
nor holiness, come this way (through the law,) but
through the preaching of the Gospel; in and
through which, as a vehicle, the Spirit of God conveys himself into the heart, as a Spirit of regeneration and faith." Gill's Com., 1 Cor. 4: 15.
" Here is a plain evidence, that the Word of God
is the ordinary means of our regeneration, it being'the word preached,' the word we are to hear,
(v. 19, 22,) and'receive with meekness,' by which
the new birth is by God wrought in us, and which,
saith the apostle, is able to save the soul." Dr.
Whitby's Com., Jas. 1: 18.
Even Andrew Fuller, who maintained a Divine
influence in regeneration, " which is immediate, or
without any instrument whatever," and in which
sentiment, so far as I have observed, he stood alone,
did not consider this influence as producing the
whole of that change denoted by the term regeneration. " I admit regeneration," he says, "to be by
the Word of God, and that this truth is taught by
the passage in question, (1 Pet. 1: 23,) and also
in Jas.: 18; nor does this concession appear to
clash with the position above." Fuller's Works,
vol. 1, p. 666.
Quotations of this kind might be indefinitely
multiplied, from the most enlightened, pious and




186     CAMPBELLISM IN ITS PRINCIPLES.
approved authors, showing conclusively that the
doctrine in question was generally, almost universally, held by evangelical Christians, before the first
number of the Christian Ba~ptist saw the light. In
all the " vain janglings," to which the speculations
of Mr. Campbell have unfortunately given birth, I
do not remember to have heard but a single individual maintain the Fullerian theory, that regeneration is commenced by a Divine influence, " without
any instrument," and he was an earnest and faithful
minister of the Gospel, whose success was, in no
degree, impeded by his peculiar theory.
Now if Mr. Campbell rejects the theory of conversion by moral suasion, and holds that conversion
is effected by the personal agency of the Spirit,
through the written Word, then on this great, vital,
distinctive principle of evangelical Christianty, he
is found in company with our Halls, our Leightons,
our Henrys, and a host of such Protestant worthies;
nor does he need to be ashamed of his company.
On one merely speculative point, he differs from
most, or all of his brethren. They believe that this
is God's ordinary, or usual way of converting sinners; the only way in which we should hope, labor
and pray for their conversion; but that he is not
limited to this way. In the case of dying infants,
or idiots, they believe that a moral change, equivalent to regeneration, is effected by the direct, personal agency of the Holy Spirit, without the Word.




CAMPBELLISM IN ITS PRINCIPLES.    187
They found their belief on what seems to them to
be a legitimate inference from clearly revealed truth.
From this inference Mr. Campbell dissents; and
maintains not only that the Spirit does not, and
needs not, but cannot operate except through its
arguments. As this point, however, is purely speculative, and as Mr. Campbell admits the salvation of
dying infants, and idiots, it cannot be deemed of
great importance.
Is he then to be classed among the orthodox
teachers of a Divine influence in the conversion of
sinners? It will, doubtless, seem as strange to
many as it was of old to find Saul among the prophets. For thirty years it has been his chosen employment to denounce, by the tongue and the pen,
in no measured terms, the " mystic theology," and
"theoretic doctors," and to expose the pernicious
effects of the popular teaching on the influence of
the Holy Spirit. He claimed to have made discoveries on this subject of great importance to the
world. His admirers fancied that he had shed fresh,
and most satisfactory light on it. They certainly
received new views of this delicate and profound
subject from their erudite instructor. One of them
felt impelled to reflect the light which he had received " about the Holy Spirit's operations in this
metaphysical day," in the following unequivocal
language, which was published in the Christian
Baptist, " without note or comment."  " We must




188     CAMFBELLISM IN ITS PRINCIPLES.
first hear, then believe and reform; then obey, that
is, be immersed; then receive the regenerating
Spirit, with all its heavenly blessings promised to
the believing sons and daughters of Adam. This
appears to be so plainly inculcated in the New Testament, that I am astonished that I so long remained ignorant of the Gospel, when at the same
time I professed to be a teacher of it. And for this
discovery I am indebted to you, brother Editor."
p. 544.  Another coadjutor, and an accredited
leader in the Reformation, thus wrote-" If they
(the Samaritans) were converted before baptism,
they were converted without the Holy Spirit, for
they had been baptized, and yet'the Spirit had
fallen on none of them.'... This passage (Gal. 2:
2,) ought alone to decide this controversy about
the work of the Spirit. The passages are abundant
which teach the nature of the Spirit's work, and all
are like the above, conclusive as to the fact, that
the Holy Spirit dwells in the saints, and that he
does not come to sinners to convert them." Scriptural Reformation by Jas. Henshall, p. 23. But
this confidence that new light had appeared was, it
seems, illusory. Mr. Campbell believes as the great
body of evangelical ministers in all the Christian
sects, believes, that sinners are converted by the
personal agency of the Holy Spirit, through the
Gospel. But, surely, since the world began, have
there never been so mans labored arguments, so




CAMPBELLISM IN ITS PRINCIPLES.    189
much learned criticism, so much toil, debate and
strife, such a waste of ink and paper, and such a
multiplication of essays, pamphlets and books, to
prove what scarcely any body doubted. The public
mind was excited, the Christian world was agitated,
the Baptist denomination, in several states, was
thrown into confusion, many of the churches were
rent asunder, a new sect was formed, and the aid
of earth and heaven was invoked in the contest;
and for what? Why, simply because Mr. Campbell
taught, what was almost universally admitted, that
the Spirit in conversion operates through the Word.
But what then becomes of the boasted Reformation,
of which the peculiar teaching on the influence of
the Spirit constituted so important an article? It
turns out, if the supposition under discussion is
true, that the Reformation, on this important point,
is no Reformation at all. We cannot avoid being
reminded of a well known fable. Surely, there
were never in any previous case, such sore travail,
such mighty heavings, such piteous moanings, and
such swelling expectations, in a simple case of abortion.
Before I conclude my remarks on this subject, I
must venture on a conjecture, which will, I fear,
not prove very acceptable to Mr. Campbell and his
admirers. It is this-When he commenced his
career as a Reformer, his religious views were undefined and crule. His first object was to bring into




190     CAMPBELLISM IN ITS PRINCIPLES.
disrepute the " mystic theology" of the " populars," or " clergy."  He found it necessary, for the
accomplishment of his purpose, to publish some
theory at variance with the popular doctrine of the
Spirit's influence in conversion. This new theory
began to be developed about the year 1826, and was
consummated, and fully revealed, in the year
1831, when Austin taught the docile Timothy, that
" every Spirit puts forth its moral power in words;
that is, all the power it has over the views, habits,
manners, or actions of men, is in the meaning and
arrangement of its ideas expressed in words; or
in significant signs addressed to the eye or ear."
Christianity Restored, p. 348. But after the Reformation resulted in an organized party, Mr.
Campbell, to avoid the odium of his peculiar notions of the Spirit's influence, or because he found
it easier to defend the popular doctrine, began
gradually to modify his views, and to glide out of
the theory of conversion by moral suasion, into the
doctrine that conversion is by the actual, personal
agency of- the Holy Spirit. This modification of
his views began to appear in a discussion of the
subject with the Rev. J. M. Peck, and was still
more apparent in his Debate with the Rev. N. L.
Rice. But for Mr. Campbell to acknowledge that
he had erred in the fundamental principle of his
Reformation, and that after all his wanderings, and
denunciations of the "?opular clergy," he had




CAMPBELLISM IN ITS PRINCIPLES.    191
been compelled to admit the truth of their teaching on this vital point, would have demanded a
degree of humility and moral heroism, which the
high-spirited Reformer did not possess.
I do not intend to impeach the motives of Mr.
Campbell. With their moral qualities I have
nothing to do. Men are influenced by considerations of which they have little knowledge. Mr.
Campbell has quite a fair share of human nature in
him. He does not rise above the laws which govern
other frail mortals. I have simply, and, I trust,
kindly sketched what appears to me to have been
his course in regard to the agency of the Spirit in
conversion, and the motives that probably shaped
it, and the intelligent and candid reader must form
his own judgment.
THE IDENTITY OF REGENERATION, CONVERSION,
AND BAPTISM.
The subject of Regeneration, or Conversion, is of
vital importance in the Christian System.  On
other points ignorance may be harmless, but on this
it may be fatal. These terms, the former figurative,
and the latter literal, are almost universally employed by theologians to denote that moral renovation, by which fallen man is fitted for the service of
Christ on earth, and the enjoyment of his presence
in heaven. On this subject Mr. Campbell has put




192     CAMPBELLISM IN ITS PRINCIPLES.
forth new and peculiar views. He has written on
it largely. It occupies a conspicuous place in the
Reformation which he has so zealously advocated.
His thoughts on this topic, scattered through his
numerous periodicals, extras, and larger works,
would fill a ponderous octavo. I have endeavored.
sincerely and diligently, to comprehend his views on
the subject, but have found it very difficult to do
so. If they have not been obscure, variable, and
contradictory, I confess to a want of perspicacity,
which he, no doubt, will be very ready to admit.
That the reader may judge for himself on this
point, I will present in contrast a few quotations
from the accredited works of the Reformer.
1. " No man believes more cordially, or teaches
more fully, the necessity of a spiritual change of
our affections-a change of heart —than I do. I
have said a thousand times, that if a person were to
be immersed twice seven times in the Jordan for the
remission of his sins, or for the reception of the
Holy Spirit, it would avail nothing more than wetting the face of a babe, unless his heart is changed
by the Word and Spirit of God."  Debate with
Rice, p. 544.
Now this is quite orthodox. No " mystic doctor"
in the land could have discoursed on the subject in
a more evangelical strain. But let the reader turn
to the Mill. Har., vol. 1, p. 136, and he will find
the following language:




CAMPBELLISM IN ITS PRINCIPLES.    193
"The sprinkling of a speechless and faithless
babe never moved it one inch in the way to heaven,
and never did change its heart, character, or relation to God and the kingdom of heaven. But not
so a believer, immersed as a volunteer in obedience
of the Gospel. He has put on Christ."
" The sprinkling of a speechless and faithless
babe-never did change its heart;" but what is true
of the sprinkling of an infant is not true of the voluntary immersion of a believer. So Mr. Campbell
seems to teach. But do I not misunderstand him.
He shall have the benefit of another quotation.
" There are three births, three kingdoms, and
three salvations. One from the womb of our first
mother, one from the water, and one from the grave.
We enter a new world on, and not before each
birth. The present animal life, at the first birth;
the spiritual, or the life of God in our souls, at the
second birth; and the life eternal in the presence
of God, at the third birth. And he who dreams of
entering the second kingdom, or coming under the
dominion of Jesus without the second birth, may,
to complete his error, dream of entering the kingdom of glory without a resurrection from the dead."
Chn. Sys., p. 233.
Whether Mr. Campbell does here teach that we
enter " the spiritual life, or the life of God in our
souls, at," not before, " the second birth," or birth
- from the water,' which in the terminology of the




194     CAMPBELLISM  liF ITS PRINCIPLES.
Bethany Reformation, means simply baptism; and
whether this teaching is compatible with what he
has previously admitted of the inefficacy of baptism
without a change of heart, the reader must decide.
2. "And will not every Christian say, that when
a personfeels and acts according to the faith, or the
testimony of God, he is a new creature-regenerate
-truly converted to God?"  Chn. Sys., p. 259.
Certainly-I know no one that disputes this point.
But iffeeling and acting according to the testimony
or Word of God, constitute regeneration or conversion, why does Mr. Campbell affirm, as he does in
this very volume, that " the Holy Spirit calls nothing personal regeneration except the act of immersion?"  p. 202. And if baptism be the only Scriptural regeneration, as he maintains in this language,
how can he reconcile this position with what he
teaches in his late work on Baptism?
Among the Questions on Infant Baptism, we find
the following-Ques. 103. Is baptism compared to
any thing else in the Scriptures?  A. Yes; to the
regenerating influences and operation of the Holy
Spirit.. Hence we read of'the washing of regeneration,' and of the'baptism of the Holy Spirit.'
Camp. on Bap., p. 431.  But if the " Holy Spirit
calls nothing personal regeneration, except the act
of immersion," how can the Scriptures, the only
medium  through which the Spirit communicates
with us, compare baptism to "the regenerating in



CAMPBELLISM IN ITS PRINCIPLES.    195
fluences and operation of the S2irit of God?"  Is
immersion in water an emblem of itself?
3. " Now, as soon as, and not before, a disciple,
who has been begotten of God, is born of water, he
is born of God, or of the Spirit." Ch'nty Restored,
p. 206. " Begotten of God he may be; but born
of God he cannot be, until born of water."  Mill.
Har. Extra, p. 30. I have noticed this strange conceit merely to show how flatly Mr. Campbell contradicts it. Hear him-" We are not baptized because of our fleshly descent from members of any
church, but because' born from above-born of the
Spirit.'"  Camp. on Bap., 390. But if we are
baptized because we are " born of the Spirit," then
clearly we are not only " begotten of God," but born
of God," before we are "born of water."  Again, the
distinction which Mr. Campbell sought to establish,
in the above citations, between the phrases " begotten of God," and " born of God," he, in another
place, thus earnestly repudiates.-" I would not
say that Mr. Rice has been sporting with the credulity of the audience in his dissertations on begotten
and born. Far be it. Yet really it looks more like
an attempt of that sort, than at any grave argument.
Whether we shall read.,'He that believeth that
Jesus is the Christ, is born of God,' or is begotten
of God, must depend on the taste and discrimination
of the translator, as the word is the same in the
original text.'  Debate with Rice, p. 457.




196     CAMPBELLISM IN ITS PMINCIPLES.
I should find it easy to increase the list of seem.
ing contradictions on this subject from the writings
of Mr. Campbell; but the above may suffice to convince the reader that it is difficult distinctly to comprehend what he does aim to teach in regard to it.
His views seem to be unsettled. What he affirms
at one time, he denies at another. What he insists
on in the Millennial Harbinger Extra, as of great
importance, he summarily dismisses in his Debate
with Dr. Rice, as mere trifling. But amid the mass
of confusion and contradictions, one point is clear.
Mr. Campbell insists, frequently, and in a variety
of language, on the perfect Identity of Regeneration,
Conversion, and Baptism.  It is, or it was, an im.
portant article in the creed of the Reformers.
The substance of the Reformation, on this point,
as developed in the Millennial Harbinger Extra, and
perpetuated in the Christian System, is this-Converts made to Jesus Christ by the apostles were
taught to consider themselves pardoned, justified,
sanctified, reconciled, adopted, and saved. —These
terms are expressive, not of any moral quality, but
of a state or condition.-This change of state is
efected, not by any change of views or of feelings,
nor by faith, but by an act res:'tting from faithand this act is IMMERSION, called with equal ipropriety, CONVERSION or REGENERATION. But let us
listen to the highest authority on this point. " Whatever the act of fak;h may be, it necessarily becomes




CAMPBELLISM IN ITS PRINCIPLES.    197
the line of discrimination between the two states
before described. On this side, and on that, mankind are in quite different states. On the one side,
they are pardoned, justified, sanctified, reconciled,
adopted, and saved: on the other, they are in a
state of condemnation. This act is sometimes called
immersion, regeneration, conversion." Chn. Sys.,
p. 193. " These expressions," (immersed, converted, regenerated,) " in the apostle's style, denote
the same act," p. 203. " For if immersion be equivalent to regeneration, and regeneration be of the
same import with being born again, then being born
again and being immersed, are the same thing." p.
200.
I may have occasion under another head to examine the above system-I shall, in this place,
confine my discussion to the identity of baptism;
regeneration, and conversion.
Before I enter on my task, I must submit a few
remarks to prevent misconception.
Mr. Campbell has been frequently, but, I think,
unfairly charged with teaching baptismal regeneration. As popularly understood, baptismal regeneration denotes a moral change, effected through the
influence of Christian baptism. Some things which
Mr. Campbell has written, as we have seen, seem
to imply this doctrine; and he has exposed himself
to the suspicion of holding it, by quoting its advocates in support of his peculiar views; but certainly




198     CAMPBELL1SM IN ITS PRlNC1PLES.
he has not formally proclaimed it —he earnestly
advocates principles at war with it. What he
clearly maintains is, not that we are regenerated by
baptism, but that baptism is itself regeneration, and
the only "personal regeneration."
I do not charge Mr. Campbell with denying the
necessity of a moral change preparatory to baptism.
He has written equivocally, perhaps it would be
better to say, obscurely, on the subject. His love
of novelty, the immaturity of his views, or the
blinding influence of his theory, or all these causes
combined, have impelled him to record many sentences, which ingenuity, less pregnant than his own,
finds it difficult to reconcile with my admission. A
pity it is, that an author, destined to exert so widespread and moulding an influence in the world,
should have written so carelessly and confusedly on
so vital a subject.
It is also due to Mr. Campbell to admit, that in
the passages under discussion, he professes to use
the terms Regeneration and Conversion, not in their
popular, but Scriptural sense. "It is not," he
modestly says, " the regeneration of the schools,
in which Christianity has been lowered, misapprehended, obscured, and adulterated, of which we are
to write; but that regeneration of which Jesus
spoke, and the apostles wrote." Chn'ty Restored,
p. 257. It is to displace the " jargon of the schools,"
by a " pure speech," that Mr. Campbell would




CAMPBELLISM IN ITS PRINCIPLES.     199
have us to confound regeneration, baptism and conversion.
Having made these preliminary remarks, I now
take issue with the Bethany Reformer on the Identity of Baptism, Regeneration, and Conversion. I
maintain that neither the term regeneration, nor
conversion, nor any equivalent term, nor the Greek
words which they properly represent, nor any of
their cognates, are ever used in the Scriptures to
denote baptism.
REGENERATION.-This term as it has been already
remarked, which is usually employed by theologians
to denote that moral change by which man is fitted
for the enjoyment of the kingdom of heaven, occurs
but twice in the common version of the Scriptures.
In the Greelk it is xratyyevcaita, which literally signifies a new birth, or creation. It is first found
Mat. 19: 28. Whatever may be its import in this
passage, it is agreed, on both sides, that it refers
neither to a personal renovation, nor to baptism.
This text has no bearing on the controversy. Its
last occurrence is Tit. 3: 5. "Not according to
works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing
of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost."
The phrase the " washing of regeneration," or according to McKnight's rendering, which 3Mr. Campbell prefers, " the bath of regeneration," is understoMd by him to mean immersion.  "Washing of




200     CAMPBELLISM IN ITS PRINCIPLES.
regeneration," he says, " and immersion are therefore only two names for thle same thing." Chn.
Sys., p. 200. The phrase does not elsewhere occur
in the Scriptures.  That it means baptism  is a
mere assumption. The weight of authority is in
favor of this opinion, and there is no motive, so far
as this discussion is concerned, to controvert it.
The assumption is, however, subversive of the position that immersion and regeneration are identical.
According to the assumption it is not regeneration,
but " the washing of regeneration" that means baptism. Baptism is a washing, or, if Mr. Campbell
prefers it, a bath, emblematic of regenerationalluding, as some suppose, to the cleansing of a
new born infant. I need not farther discuss this
point. I can adduce authority to settle this matter,
of the greatest weight with the Reformers, and to
which Mr. Campbell will not demur. In his Debate
with Rice, he thus discoursed-" I believe that
almost all, if not absolutely all, the fathers, Greek
and Latin, used regeneration and baptism as representatives of the same action and event. I do not,
however, approve the phraseology used by them on
this subject. I call baptism'the washing of the
new birth,' rather than the new birth itself. So I
think Paul most learnedly denominates it." p. 544.
This point is settled. The term regeneration is
never used in the Scriptures to denote baptism.
Here we might drop this subject, were it not that




CAMPBELLISM IN ITS PRINCIPLES.    201
kindred phrases, such as " born of God," " born of
the Spirit," " born of water," &c., have been drawn
into the controversy. It is necessary to dispel the
mist that Mr. Campbell has spread over them.
The Greek term, yevva, means to beget or generate. Its derivatives in the New Testament are
generally passive, and mean to be begotten. It
occurs in the writings of the apostle John fifteen
times relative to a moral change. The following
are the passages in which it is found-John 1: 13.
-3: 3, 6, 7, 8.-1 John 2: 29-3: 9-4: 7-5:
1, 4, 18. Twelve times it is rendered born-eight
times it is found in the phrase " born of God," or
its equivalent-twice in the phrase " born of the
Spirit," and twice in the phrase " born again."
Three times it is rendered begotten-and every time
it is contained in the phrase " begotten of God."
It is once rendered born in connexion with water" born of water."  John 3: 5. Twice the term is
employed by the apostle Paul to denote the influence which he exerted in conversion; but this
sense of the term does not affect the controversy.
1 Cor. 4: 15.-Philera. 10.
The phrases "born again," "born of God," &c.,
have been universally considered by evangelical
Christian writers as equivalent to a new birth, or
regeneration. If men are born of God they must
be re-generated. Even Mlr. Campbell, when his
system  is out of view, admits the soundness of




202      CAMPBELLISM IN ITS PRINCIPLES.
this position. "To the fruits of his labors," he
writes, " such a preacher with Paul may say, to
Jesus Christ, through the Gospel, I have regenerated, or begotten you." Chn. Sys., p. 300. Now
that these phrases (not including " born of water"),
all denote not baptism, or a change of state, but a
personal, moral renovation, is clear and indisputable.
To ascribe to immersion what is ascribed to this
divine birth would be not only false, but ridiculous.
" Except a man be born again he cannot see the
kingdom of God." Does baptism open a man's
eyes? " That which is born of the Spirit is spirit"
— spiritual, holy. Can such an effect be ascribed
to baptism?  " Whosoever is born of God doth not
commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and
he cannot sin because he is born of God."  Will
Mr. Campbell venture to ascribe this efficacy t'o
baptism?  "He that is begotten of God keepeth
himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not." I
need not say more to prove that these phrases denote a moral change; and the pertinency and force
of the language for this purpose every intelligent
mind must perceive.
The phrase " born of water," John 3: 5, whatever may be its import-and I do not think it refers
to baptism-cannot by any reasonable construction,
or inference, justify the confounding of regeneration
and baptism. Admitting that it means baptism, it
is clearly distinguished from the new birth, or being




CAMPBELLISM IN ITS PRINCIPLES.    203
"C born of the Spirit," and to confound them is not to
interpret, but to pervert the word of God, and that
too on a most vital subject.
I have been greatly surprised to find on examination with how little caution and discrimination Mr.
Campbell has discussed the subject of the new birth.
Take the following passage as a specimen —" Persons are begotten by the Spirit of God, impregnated
by the Word, and born of the water. In one sense
a person is born of his father, but not until he is
first born of his mother.'So in every place where
water and the Spirit, or water and the Word, are
spoken of, the water stands first. Every child is
born of its father, when it is born of its mother.
Hence the Savioutr put the mother first, and the
apostles follow him..... Now, as soon as, and
not before, a disciple, who has been begotten of
God, is born of water, he is born of God, or of the
Spirit. Regeneration is, therefore, the act of being
born."  Ch'nty Restored, p. 206. Had Mr. Campbell not proclaimed so frequently that his mission is
to " restore a pure speech," it might easily be supposed that it is to introduce an unintelligible jargon.
A person is begotten of God, and born of waterGod is his father, and the vwater his mother-and
this same person is impregnated by the Word. The
work is begun in the Spirit, and ended, not in the
flesh, but in water. "How can these things be?"
"Now, as soon as, and not before, a disciple, who




204     CAMPBELLISM IN ITS PRINCIPLES.
has been begotten of God, is born of water, he is
born of God." WVith equal clearness, taste and
truth, might he affirm, That "as soon as, and
not before, a disciple, who has been" begotten of
water, is born of God, he is born of water. Nay,
the language would seem to be more in harmony
with his system. " In every place where the water
and the Spirit are spoken of;, the water stands first."
It is not easy to say whether this jargon partakes
more of the ridiculous or of the blasphemous; yet,
doubtless, its author meant it for sound theology.
Now, the slightest attention to his Greek Testament,
would have preserved him from this confusion of
speech. He would have seen, as he subsequently saw,
and confessed, that the same term is rendered in the
common version, according to the taste of the translators, begotten or born; and that all arguments and
deductions grounded on this distinction in the common version would be merely trifling with the
ignorance or credulity of his readers. And yet, a
large portion of the sophistry and crudities with
which the Millennial Harbinger Extra abounds, is
drawn from this shallow conceit.
Before I abandon this subject, I must submit
another remark. The Greek word,,vayevvao which
properly means to beget again, or to regenerate, is
found twice in the New Testament. Once it is
found in 1 Peter 1: 3, and is rendered begotten
again. " Blessed be the God and Father of our




CAMPBELLISM IN I1S PRINCIPLES.    205
Lord Jesus Christ, which, according to his abuld.
ant mercy, hath begotten us again unto a lively
hope," &c. It occurs again in the 23d verse of the
same chapter, and is rendered in the common version born again, and by Doctors Doddridge and
McKnight, with the sanction of Mr. Campbell, in
his New Testament, regenerated.  "Being born
again," or " regenerated, not of corruptible seed,
but of incorruptible, by the word of God," &c.
Now, it is clear and unquestioned that both these
texts have reference, not to baptism, but to a personal and moral renovation.
I have now shown that there is not the shadow
of authority in the language of Christ, or his apostles, for confounding regeneration and baptism.
They are totally distinct in their nature, design, and
effects, as can be easily demonstrated.
CONVERSION.-The Greek word, EtarTp~06, which
means simply to turn, occurs with its variations, in
the New Testament, thirty-nine times, and nineteen
times, if I mistake not, it refers to a moral change,
total or partial, or to what theologians term conversion; but never to immersion. That the leader
may form his own judgment on this subject, I will
cite the passages in which the term is found. Mat.
13: 15 —Mar. 4: 12-Luke 1: 16, 17; 22: 32John 12: 40 —Acts 3: 19; 9: 35; 11: 21; 14:
15; 15: 19; 26: 18, 20; 28: 27-2 Cor. 3: 161 Thess. 1: 9-Jas. 5: 19, 20-1 Pet. 2: 25,




206     CAMPBELLISM IN ITS PRINCIPLES.
The noun, eLtarpoWj, is used but once, (Acts 15: 3)
and is properly rendered conversion. That these
terms denote a moral renovation-the turning of a
man, soul and body, to God —the evidence seems
complete. " When thou art converted, strengthen
thy brethren." " A great number believed and
turned unto the Lord."  " Brethren, if any of you
do err from the truth, and one convert him; let him
know, that he which converteth a sinner from the error
of his way, shall save a soul from death," &c. That
the word in these passages denotes, not the act of
immersion, but a hearty turning from sin to God, or
from error to rectitude, the intelligent reader needs
no proof. And what the term means in these texts,
it uniformly means in the places where it refers to
man's moral change. Yet, read what Mr. Campbell pens in the face of these truths.  "Conversion
is on all sides, understood to be a turning to God."
Very well!... "Here it is worthy of notice, that
the apostles, in all their speeches and replies to in.
terrogatories, never commanded an inquirer to pray,
read, or sing, as preliminary to his coming, but
always commanded and proclaimed immersion as
the first duty, or the first thing to be done, after a
belief of testimony." The sincere "belief of testi
mony," or faith in Christ, necessarily implies conversion, or "CC coming to God." It is essential to the
act, and inseparable from it. So an apostle teaches,
" Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ, is




CAMPBELLISM IN ITS PRINIIPLES     207
bcorn of God," and consequently converted. Now,
it would have been strange, indeed, if the apostles
had commanded an inquirer to " pray, read, or sing,
as preliminary" to that which had been already done.
If when Mr. Campbell affirms that the apostles proclaimed " immersion as thefirst duty, after a belief of
testimony," he means that baptism is the first institution in which the believer is required to make a
public confession of Christ, I agree with him. It
does not follow, however, from this position, that
there may not be other, and important duties incumbent on a believer previously to baptism. " Hence,"
continues the Reformer, "neither praying, singing,
reading, repenting, sorrowing, resolving, nor waiting
to be better, was the converting act." Perhaps not!
Conversion, or turning to God, is necessarily a complex exercise, comprehending that series of inward
conflicts usually termed experience.  Mr. Campbell
continues-" Immersion alone was that act of turning to God." A more gratuitous assumption was
never penned. It sets at naught the laws of philology
and the teaching of revelation. Neither godly sorrow,
repentance unto salvation, faith that works by love,
nor a readiness to suffer martyrdom for Christ, nor
all these together constitute conversion; but immersion alone, (I give his own emphasis) is the act
of turning to God. Let us hear him again....
"From the day of Pentecost, to the final Amen in
the revela'ion of Jesus Christ, no person was said




208     CAMPBELLISM IN ITS PRINCIPLES.
to be converted, or to turn to God, until he was
buried in, and raised up out of the water." Chn.
Sys., p. 209. Suppose I admit this position, is it
possible that the astute Reformer does not perceive
that his reasoning is illogical? Thus he reasonsNone were said to be converted who were not immersed-ergo, immersion-immersion alone, is the
converting act. Let us try the force of this reasoning in another case. "From the day of Pentecost
to the final Amen in the revelation of Jesus Christ,
no person was said to be" holy "until he was buried
in and raised out of the water," ergo, immersion and
holiness are identical. But I will furnish a more
carefully fortified illustration of this argument.
" From the day of Pentecost to the final Amen in
the revelation of Jesus Christ, no person was said
to" believe in Christ, who had not been immersed.
So Mr. Campbell testifies.  " The apostle —never
supposes such a case as is often before our mindsa believing unbaptized man. Such a being could
not have been found in the whole apostolic age."
Debate with Rice, p. 509.-Ergo, " immersion
alone" is the act of believing. The conclusion follows irresistibly, according to the principles of Mr.
Campbell's logic.
It is no part of my purpose to reconcile the assertion that " a believirng unbaptized man" " could
not have been found in the whole apostolic age,"
with the acknowledged tri 1h that faith was a pre



CAMPBELL1SM IN ITS PRINCIPLES.    209
requisite to baptism, that the Ethiopian treasurer
confessed his faith in Christ, previously to his baptism, and that " many of the Corinthians, hearing,
believed, and were baptized." I will leave this for
Mr. Campbell to do-a task for which his ingenuity
eminently fits him.
I will now notice Mr. Campbell's chief argument
in support of his position.
"The commission for converting the world
teaches that immersion was necessary to discipleship; for Jesus said, " Convert the nations, immersing them into the name," &c., and " teaching
them to observe," &c. The construction of the
sentence fairly indicates that no person can be a
disciple, according to the commission, who has not
been immersed: for the active participle in connection with an imperative. either declares the manner in which the imperative, shall be obeyed, or explains the meaning of the command.
" To this I have not found an exception: —for example-' Cleanse the house, sweeping it.'' Cleanse
the garment, washing it,' shows the manner in
which the command is to be obeyed, or explains the
meaning of it. Thus,' Convert (or disciple) the
Iations, immersing them, ard teaching them to observe,' &c., expresses the manner in which the
command is to be obeyed.
If the Apostles had only preached and not immersed, they would not have converted the hearers




210     CAMPBELLISM IN ITS PRINCIPLES.
according to the commission: and if they had immersed, and not taught them to observe the commands of the Saviour, they would have been transgressors. A disciple, then, according to the commission, is one that has heard the Gospel, believed
it, and been immersed. A disciple, indeed, is one
that continues in keeping the commandments of
Jesus."
The principle of construction, so warmly advocated by Mr. Campbell, is simply this-Active participles, when united with a command, invariably
express the meaning of the command, or the manner of obeying it.
Let us observe the influence of this principle in
the interpretation of the commission. C Go —teach
all nations," —or convert all nations, as Mr. Campbell renders it-this is the command: " immersing
them," &c. The active participle immersing expresses the manner of converting the nations.
This principle or rule is assumed by Mr. Campbell to be correct. He adduces the authority of no
critic in its support. His only argument in its
favor is a string of sentences so constructed as to
agree with the rule. It is quite as easy, however,
to form sentences at variance with it; and it is
purely a question of taste whether in such sentences the imperative mood, or the participle should
be employed. It is worthy of remark, too, that his
examples in support of the rule are all in the




CAMPBELLISM IN ITS PRINCIPLES.      211
English language; and his numerous criticisms, and
extended discussions, furnish not the slightest
evidence that the rule was based on a critical investigation of the genius of the Greek tongue, or even
the slightest acquaintance with it.
I will not follow him in his labored discussions on
this point-I need not-I am greatly deceived, if I
cannot demonstrate by a shorter process the absurdity of the rule as applied to the commission.
There are two Greek words in this solemn charge
rendered teach. The first, with which we have
chiefly to do, is yoan7reiaa7e from   aO,17TVe6) which in
Donnegan's Lexicon is defined, (" act, with an accusative in N. T.,) to instruct."  It may be well to
examine briefly its use in the New Testament. It
occurs in various forms in this volume four times.
Its first occurrence is Mat. 13: 52-" Therefore
every scribe which is iaOn7evOeri, instructed, unto the
kingdom of heaven, is like unto a householder, whicl
bringeth forth out of his treasure things new and
old." Dr. G. Campbell, following the common version, renders it instructed; and Doddridge translates it disciplined.  There can be no reasonable
doubt but that the word here means instructed,
taught, well informed. It is found again 5Mat. 27:
57, where Doctors Campbell and Doddridge concur
with king James' translators in rendering it disciple.
Joseph of Arimathea was " Jesus' kuatfjrevae, disciple.
Joseph was, according to the usus loquendi of Christ,




212     CAMPBELLISM IN ITS PRINCIPLES.
and of the times, a disciple of Jesus, without baptism, for he was one " secretly for fear of the Jews."
The word occurs, also, Acts 14: 21-" And when
they had preached the Gospel to that city, and had
paftreGcavrec taught many," or, according to the rendering of Doddridge, " made a considerable number of
disciples, they returned again to Lystra," &c. The
apostles, according to their custom, proclaimed the
Gospel, and taught, instructed the people,-made
disciples, or learners of them-but whether they
baptized them does not appear. The word occurs no
where else but in the commission, where in the common version it is translated teach, by Dr. Campbell convert, and by Dr. Doddridge proselyte.  " I
render the word laOn7re'6aare proselyte," he says, " that
it may be duly distinguished from dtd6oKov7re teaching,
(in the next verse,) with which our version confounds
it. The former seems to import instruction in the
essentials of religion, which it was necessary adult
persons should know and submit to, before they
could regularly be admitted to baptism; the latter
may relate to those more particular admonitions in
regard to Christian faith and practice, which were to
be built upon that foundation." Fam. Expos. in
loco. The sum of the matter is, that Christ in the
command employed a term, whose obviouspimport is
to instruct, to make a disciple, or learner, precisely
such as was Joseph of Arimathea. But I can furnish in support of this view high authority for the




CAMPBELLISM IN ITS PRINCIPLES.    213
learned, and paramount authority for the Reformers.
In his Debate with Rice, p. 367, Mr. Campbell
says-" The great Grotius, in his simplicity, distinguished matheteuo, the first word in the commission, as distinguished from didasco the last;
both translated ieach in this common version, thus:
Matheteuo, says he, "means to communicate the
first, or elementary principles; then after baptizing
those who receive these rudimental views, teach or
introduce them as persons initiated into the higher
branches of Christian doctrine."  " This," continues Mr. Campbell, " is my view of the passage;
and, certainly, it is the etymological and well received meaning of the word, all the world over."
I am now prepared to apply the rule under discussion to the commission. " Go, matheteusate,
communicate the first or elementary principles," of
religion, to "all nations."  How?  The connected
active partici2le, says Mr. Campbell, points out the
manner of obeying the command-" immersing
them into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy
Spirit." Communicate elementary religious instruction, by immersing the body in water. Is it not
absurd? But I have not yet reached the climax
of this absurdity. The second, as well as the first,
subjoined participle prescribes the mode of performing the command. Let us follow the rule. " Gocommunicate the first or elementary principles" of
the Gospel to a!l nations. How? Mirabile dictu!




214     CAMPBELLISM IN ITS PRINCIPLES.
By teaching, or introducing them, "as persons
initiated, into the higher branches of Christian doctrine." Communicate the elementary principles by
teaching the higher branches! Is it necessary to
say more to expose the fallacy of the rule?  How
incontrovertible then is the conclusion of that profound scholar, and eminent critic, Dr. G. Campbell,
concerning the commission, Mat. 28: 19-20." There are manifestly three things which our Lord
here distinctly enjoins his apostles to execute with
regard to the nations, to wit: matheteuein, baptizien,
disdaskein; that is, to convert them to the faithto initiate the converts into the church by baptism
-and to instruct the baptized in all the duties of
the Christian life."
I must furnish another testimony on this subject,
though pointedly at variance with the testimony of
the same witness elsewhere given. " In the commission which Messiah gave to his apostles for converting the nations, he commanded three things to
be done, indicated by three very distinct and intelligible terms, viz: matheteusate, balptizontes, didaskontes." Camp. on Bap., p. 116. This point is
now settled.
I must briefly notice one more argument in support of the identity of conversion and baptism. It
is founded on Acts 3: 19. "Re2pent ye, therefore,
and be converted," &c. The argument is briefly
this-Peter on tl:e day of Pentecost preached re



CAMPBELLISM IN ITS PRINCIPLES.    215
pentance-immersion-ancd remission of sins-and
in Solomon's portico, repentance-conversion-and
the blotting out of sins. Mr. Campbell maintains
that the latter was the same proclamation as the
former, conversion being substituted for immersion
This is a mere assumption. It is contrary to the
plain and well understood import of the language
used. The argument, if argument it may be called,
is based on a fallacy. It is this-that the apostles
in their addresses to sinners proclaimed, uniformly,
the same truths, and duties, and in the same order.
Nothing can be farther from the truth. We have
but a brief outline of their discourses in the Acts
of the Apostles; but they exhibit the greatest variety of topics and arrangement. Their addresses are
all in harmony-all substantially containing the
Gospel-but no two of them are precisely alike in
language, method, or matter. To infer then that
Peter preached baptism in Solomon's porch, contrary to the plain import of his language, because
he did on the day of Pentecost, is not merely illogical, and opposed to the history of the apostolic
preaching, but is to indulge in a license in biblical
interpretation which may lead to the most pernicious
consequences.
Before I quit this subject, I must offer a few remarks on another point.  Mr. Campbel labors
earnestly to prove that the early Christian Fathers
called bauptisnm regeneration.  I shall not dispute




216     CAMPBELLISM IN ITS PRINCIPLES.
this position. Their testimony seems to be entitled
to but little credit. Their writings abound in
peurile conceits, gross mistakes, and pernicious errors. None pays less deference to their testimony
than Mr. Campbell, when it is not in harmony with
his views. Baptism was early confounded with regeneration, of which it is, as he teaches us, the
"emblem." Camp. on Bap., p. 430. The sign
was mistaken for the thing signified. To this mischievous mistake there is among mankind a strong
tendency. We see it in the monstrous doctrine of
transubstantiation, and in the idolatrous worship of
the host. It is displayed no less clearly in the unscriptural practice of infant baptism, the absurd
dogma of baptismal regeneration, and many other
errors with which the Christian world has been
deluged. I only wonder that Mr. Campbell, the
Reformer, the restorer of a "pure speech," should
oe found following this evil tendency.
PRAYER NOT A DUTY OF THE UNBAPTIZED.
We have the doctrine of Campbellism on this
point in the following extract:" No man can have a holy spirit otherwise than
as he possesses a spirit of love, of meekness, of
humility; but this he cannot have unless he feel
himself pardoned and accepted. Therefore the promise of such a gift wisely makes the reception of it
posterior to the forgiveness of sins. Hence in the




CAMPBELLISM IN ITS PRINCIPLES.    217
moral fitness of things in the evangelical economy,
baptism or immersion is made the first act of a
Christian's life, or rather the regenerating act itself;
in which the person is properly born again — born
of water and spirit'-without which into the kingdonz of Jesus he cannot enter.  No prayers, songs
of praise, no acts of devotion in the new economy,
are enjoined on the unbalptized." Chn. Bap., p. 439.
This passage abounds in errors; but I shall limit
my remarks to one-a serious one-that the unbaptized are not required to pray, or perform other acts
of devotion.
This is not a chief, nor a prominent, but, certainly,
not an unimportant item in the " current Reformation."  It is not directly expressed, but clearly implied in the language used.  "No prayers, songs of
praise, no acts of devotion in the new economy, are
enjoined on the unbaptized."  But if they are not
enjoined, either by express command, authoritative
example, or fair implication, they are not obligatory.' Where no law is there is no transgression," and,
consequently, no obligation. Error is prolific, and
always brings forth after its kind. The error under
consideration was the natural offspring of Mr. Campbell's false views of regeneration. Conceiving, most
erroneously, that immersion was " the first act of a
Christian's life, or rather the fegenerating act itself,"
he readily concluded that neither prayer, nor any
other act which implied spiritual life, could be de



218     CAMPBELLISM IN ITS PRINCIPLES.
manded of the unirnmersed.  This was an article of
the primitive Campbellism, often and variously expressed. It has not, so far as I have observed, been
repeated in the later writings of Mr. Campbell, nor
has it been repudiated. It stands among the recorded and stereotyped items which compose the
" ancient Gospel."  It may have, it probably has,
sunk into comparative forgetfulness; but I well remember that many of the primitive Reformers
heartily embraced it, and deemed prayer before imIersion as an invention of the " mystic doctors," a
relic of the dark ages, and a grievous innovation on
the "ancient order of things;" an error, in short,
closely allied to " experience before baptism."
I do not know that Mr. Campbell would now
maintain, or that any of the Reformers now embrace, the doctrine clearly inculcated in the above
extract; but I must, in justice to the system under
examination, briefly expose its fallacy.
Prayer has been the duty of man under every dispensation of religion. The obligation to this service springs from the relation between the infinitely
merciful God, and fallen, guilty, and dependent
man, in a probationary state. It is an essential
element in true piety. It is the very breath of spiritual life-a life which, I have already shown, does
not depend on the act of immersion, but, in the
evangelical order of things, precedes that act. It
implies repentance fai-h. and Scriptural regenera



CAMPBELLISM IN ITS PRINCIPLES     219
tion. No man can pray acceptably to God without
renouncing his sins, believing in Christ, and having
a new heart. And no man was ever a proper subject for Christian baptism who had not been taught
to pray, sincerely, and fervently.
What say the Scriptures on this point?  " And
Jesus spake a parable unto them, (the disciples,) to
this end, that men ought always to pray, and not to
faint." Christ taught that men —not baptized men
merely —but men, irrespective of their character, relations, or professions-allmen, ought, are under obligation, to pray. Though the term man is not found in
the Greek, and the language may be fairly rendered,
It is proper to pray always, yet it is obvious that
the common version gives its true sense. Prayer is
proper for all men, at all times. Nay, but, says
Mr. Campbell, " no prayers in the new economy are
enjoined on the unbaptized." The publican prayed
in the temple, and returned home justified, without
baptism. The dying thief prayed on the cross, and
was admitted into Paradise, without baptism. There
is but one method, that even the ingenuity of Mr.
Campbell can employ to evade the force of these
Scriptures. It may be said, that Christ spake the
parable of the unjust judge, and that the examples
of the publican and of the thief occurred, before the
new economy was fully set up. Well, I will furnish another, and unexceptionable example. When
Saul of Tarsus was converted, the Lord directed




220     CAMPBELLISM IN ITS PRINCILLES.
Ananias to go to him, " for, behold," said the Lord,
"he prayeth."  Acts 9: 11. It is clear from this
Scripture, beyond a question, not only that Saul
prayed before his baptism, but that his prayer was
acceptable to the Lord, and that Ananias was sent
to instruct and baptize him in consequence of its
acceptableness; and this example of acceptable
prayer has all the weight, authority, and efficacy of
an explicit command to the unbaptized to pray.
Baptism is the first positive rite in the new economy to which the believer is required to submit;
and every believer should yield to it a submission as
prompt -as his circumstances will properly allow.
But baptism is not the unconditional duty of a believer. His obligation to be baptized may depend
on a thousand circumstances beyond his control.
No properly authorized administrator may be willing to baptize him-he may be beyond the reach of
one-the state of his health, or his want of personal
freedom-and numerous other causes, may preclude
the possibility of his baptism; and, consequently,
the obligation to be baptized.  But is he not
required to pray, and engage in other acts of devotion, until he finds an opportunity of performing
what Mr. Campbell calls " the regenerating act?"
To ask the question, is to answer it. God has not
made the duty of prayer or praise to depend on the
act of baptism. The connection is wholly imaginary.
It has no ex;istence; and, sc far as I am informed,




CAMPBELLISM IN ITS PR1ICIPLES.    221
never had an existence, except in the brain, whose
fecundity has supplied such a variety and exuberance of speculations for the pages of the Christian
Baptist, and Millennial Harbinger, and in the minds
of those, whether many or few, who have, with unquestioning docility, derived their theological notions
from these sources.
THE REMISSION OF SINS IN BAPTISM.
"Remission of sins" is equivalent to pardon or
forgiveness, and does not differ essentially from
justification. The phrase signifies deliverance from
the obligation to suffer the punishment due to sins.
The subject is one of manifest and transcendent importance. Its claims to our careful and devout
attention are commensurate with the value of the
soul, the malignity of sin, the preciousness of the
blood of Christ, the depth of perdition, the height
of glory, and the vastness of eternity. Our knowledge on this subject must be derived solely from
Divine revelation. Whether God will forgive sins,
and if he will, through what medium, and on what
conditions, are questions which only He can decide,
and of his decisions we can have no knowledge, except as he reveals them to us.
What do the Scriptures teach on this vital subject?  The orthodox belief is-that, in virtue of
the atonement of Christ, God, freely and fully,
remits the sins of all those who heartily repent, and




222     CAMPBELLISM IN ITS PRINCIPLES.
cordially believe in Christ. In no article of faith
are those Christians, usually termed evangelical,
more generally and firmly united than in this. It
is the distinguishing tenet of Protestant Christendom. Mr. Campbell, on the other hand, maintains
that penitent believers are forgiven, not before, but
in the act of immersion. " Peter," he says, " to
whom was committed the keys, opened the kingdom
of heaven in this manner, and made repentance, or
reformation, and immersion, equally necessary to
forgiveness..... When a person is immersed for
the remission of sins, it is just the same as if expressed, in order to obtain the remission of sins...
I am bold, therefore, to affirm, that every one of
them who, in the belief of what the apostle spoke,
was immersed, did, in the very instant in which he
was put under water, receive the forgiveness of his
sins, and the gift of the Holy Spirit."  Chn. Bap.,
p. 416, 417. I have italicised some clauses in the
above sentences to draw particular attention to their
meaning. The believer in Christ, however sincere,
and whatever may be his moral state, is condemned,
exposed to all the dreadful consequences of disobedience, until the very instant when he is put under
water. Mr. Campbell teaches that baptism is perfectly useless, " as empty as a blasted nut," to all
who are pardoned. " If men," he says, " are conscious that their sins are forgiven, and that they are
pardoned before they are immersed; I advise them




CAMPBELLISM IN ITS PRINCIPLES.     223
not to go into the water, for they have no -need of
it."  Chn. Bap., unexpurgated edition, vol. 6,
p. 160.
The doctrine of Baptismal Remission is the main
pillar of Campbellism. It was slowly and gradually
developed in the writings of Mr. Campbell, as it
was, or was supposed to be, disinterred from the
accumulated rubbish of past ages. It was, at length,
fully revealed, strongly stated, and defended, at large,
with all the learning, dialectic skill, and unwavering
confidence of the redoubtable Reformer, in the famous
Millennial Harbinger Extra. This precious relic was
afterwards substantially embalmed in Christianity
Restored, and in the Christian System.  The Extra
for a time spread dismay in the ranks of the " regulars." Such an array of learning, logic, and authority, few were bold enough to encounter. But time
tries all things. We have grown familiar with the
Extra. We have seen many of its positions successfully assailed. We have seen the Reformer
himself modifying, or abandoning some of his points.
The most timid have recovered from their alarms.
The system of Baptismal Remission, developed
in the Extra, I now propose to examine, with as
much particularity as my plan will allow.
Mr. Campbell, after some preliminary remarks,
presents and discusses his views of " the Christian
institution for the remission of sins,"' under twelve
propositions.




224     CAMPBELLISM IN ITS PRINCIPLES.
The- first six propositions he engrosses into one
leading proposition, in the following words, viz.:
" The converts made to Jesus Christ by the apostles
were taught to consider themselves pardoned, justified, sanctified, reconciled, adopted, and saved;
and were addressed as 2ardoned, justified, sanctified,
reconciled, adopted, and saved persons, by all who
first preached the Gospel of Christ."  Chn'ty
Restored, p. 191.
To this engrossed proposition, I have no objection. I am only surprised that Mr. Campbell should
have deemed it necessary to encumber his argument
with an elaborate discussion, of seven pages, to
prove what no respectable writer, Protestant or
Romanist, orthodox or heterodox, so far as I have
observed, has ever denied.  Let the proposition
then stand " as irrefragably proved."
But while I concur with the writer as to the truth
of his proposition, I can by no means agree with
him in his definition of its terms. " These terms,"
he says, " are expressive, not of any quality of mind,
-not of any personal attribute of body, soul, or
spirit —but each of them represents, and all of them
together represent a state, or condition." Does not
the word " sanctiJied" denote an attribute of the
soul or spirit? Is it not expressive of moral quality? It is generally so understood by Christian
writers. When Christ prayed for his disciples,
" Sanctify them through thy truth," he desired that




CAMPPELLISM IN ITS PRINCIPLES.    225
an effect might be produced on them, or in them,
by divine influence, through the truth, and this
could have been no other than a moral effect-the
imparting or increasing of some quality of the soul
or spirit. Does not Paul clearly distinguish it from
justified, which means a legal state?  "But ye are
sanctified, ye are justifled, in the name of the Lord
Jesus," &c. 1 Cor. 6: 11. I drop this subject. I
readily concede that the term " pardoned," though
not found in the common version of the New Testament, and the term justified, denote a state, and
that the term saved refers to a state, as well as to
moral character; and these are the only terms of
importance in this discussion.
I pass over all that Mr. Campbell has advanced.
concerning his engrossed proposition, as having no
material bearing on the question at issue, and proceed to notice" Prop. 7. A change of views, though it necessarily precedes, is in no case equivalent to, and
never to be identified with, a change of state."
p. 194.
Very well! I concur in this proposition. I know
no one who dissents from it. I dismiss the two or
three pages devoted to its illustration without farther considelation, and proceed to record" Prop. 8. Thlat the Gospel has in it a command,
aid as such must be obeyed."  p. 196.
Here the author falls into a grand fallacy. "The




226     CAMPBELLISM IN ITS PRINCIPLES.
Gospel," he says, " has in it a command."  Where
did he learn this? It is not so said in the Scriptures. Nor is any thing recorded from which it
may be legitimately, or even plausibly inferred. The
texts quoted by Mr. Campbell are far from sustaining his proposition. The Gospel is, in some sense, a
law. It is called by the Apostle James, " the perfect law of liberty."  Jas. 1: 25. Wherever the
Gospel comes it imposes on those who hear it an
obligation to obey it. But his conceptions of obedience to the Gospel must be extremely contracted
who supposes that it consists in a single act. To'" obey the Gospel" is more than to be immersed.
This act, though right in its proper place, is not
obedience to the Gospel. Repentance, faith, love,
baptism, prayer, praise, watchfulness, participation
in the Lord's Supper, and perseverance in every
good work, are all required by the Gospel, and comprehended in obeying it. It is most illogical to
infer, that because the apostles speak of obedience
to the Gospel, that it has in it a command that
must be obeyed.
" The obedience of the Gospel is called the obedience of faith, compared with the obedience -of
law" —says Mir. Campbell.  Very good! I endorse
the sentence. But, by what authority, divine, or
human, or according to what rule of logic, does he
call the " cbedience of the Gospel," an " act of obe



CAM3PBELLISM IN ITS PRINCIF LES.    227
dience," and the " obedience of faith," " the aot of
faith?" Let us hear him" Whatever the act of faith may be, it necessarily becomes the line of discrimination between the
two states before described. On this side, and on
that, mankind are in quite different states.  On the
one side, they are pardoned, justified, sanctified,
reconciled, adopted, and saved: on the other they
are in a state of condemnation.  This act is sometimes called immersion, regeneration, conversion."
If the " obedience of faith" is an act, it is a mere
assumption that that act is immersion. I will cut
this matter short.  I will prove by testimony, which
in this discussion is next in authority to that of
Holy Writ, that the phrase " obedience of faith,"
or " obey the Gospel," does not mean " a single
act," and, consequently, does not mean immersion.
I will quote Mr. Campbell against MIr. Campbell;
or the matured and subtle opponent of Mr. Rice
against the ardent and impetuous author of the
Extra, resolved on establishing a favorite system.
Hear the deponent" We neither believe nor teach that the phrase'obedience of faith' means one single act,; or that
obeying the Gospel is one solitary deed. Certainly
they do not' obey the Gospel,' who do not obey
the first precept, any more than they who obey the
first, and afterwards apostatize.  The Gospel calls
for perpetual obedience, or a life of conformity to




228     CAMPBELLISM IN ITS PRINCIPLES
its pure and elevated piety and humanity." Debate
with Rice, p. 534.
Having, through the puissant aid of Mr. Campbell, demolished the eighth proposition, I will now
proceed to examine" Prop. 9. That it is not faith, but an act resulting from faith, which changes our state, we shall
now attempt to prove."  p. 198.
This proposition brings up the real question at
issue. The previous propositions, with the sixteen
pages devoted to their illustration, and proof, are
of very little consequence in its decision. We are
at last brought to the simple question, What do
the Scriptures teach concerning the means by which
forgiveness, or justification must be obtained.2 On
this question I take issue with Mr. Campbell, and
maintain that it is faith, and not an act resulting
from faith, that changes our state, or secures our
justification.
Let us endeavor to free from all encumbrance the
question under discussion. Men are by nature sinful, alienated from God by wicked works, and are,
consequently, condemned, or obnoxious to punishment. Between a state of condemnation and justification-a state of pardon and of guilt, there is no
medium. The transition from the one state to the
other must be instantaneous. I maintain, in common with evangelical Christians of every name,
that the sinner passes from a state of condemnation




CAMPBELL1SM IN ITS PR1NC1PLES.       229
to a state of justification at the precise moment
when he truly believes in Christ, or, which is the
same thing, receives him as a Deliverer. John 1:
12. This justifying faith is not the " bare belief
of the bare truth."   I will gladly permit Mr.
Campbell to define it for me.  " It is," he says, " a
belief of testimony.  It is a persuasion that God is
true; that the Gospel is divine; that God is love;
and that Christ's death is the sinner's life.  It is
trust in God. It is a reliance upon his truth, his
faithfulness, his power. It is not merely a cold assent to truth, to testimony; but a cordial, joyful
consent to it, and reception of it." Debate with
Rice, p. 618. If this definition of faith does not
harmonize with the views of faith elsewhere recorded
by the same writer, that is no concern of mine.
Now, this faith is the principle of a new, or spiritual
life, involving reconciliation with God, and unfeigned submission to the authority of Christ.  He
who thus believes is, in the Scripture sense of the
terms, converted, regenerated, a new creature. He
was a rebel, but he is now a child, or, as Mr.
Campbell says, " With it (faith) a man is a son of
Abraham, a son of God; an heir apparent to eternal
life-an everlasting kingdom."  p. 618.  This joyful convert now obediently inquires, "Lord, what
wilt thou have me to do?" God sees the change,
approves it, and freely and instantly forgives the
penitent believer for Christ's sake.  But, according




230     CAMPBELLISM 1N ITS PF.1NC1PLES.
to Mr. Campbell's thecry, this believer, who has
given his " cordial, joyful consent to the" truth,
this "'son  of God" is condemned-exposed to
"C everlasting destruction from the presence of the
Lord," until he performs the " act of faith," or
until "the very instant when he is pput under the
water."
If Christ and the apostles (lo not teach that the
remission of sins, or justification, is suspended om
faith, and not any act resulting from faith, I do not
comprehend in what terms this instruction could be
conveyed. But " to the law, and to the testimony"
-What saith the Scripture?
I answer,
1. That throughout the New Testament, the remission of sins, or justification, is unequivocally
and unconditionally, connected with faith, or with
exercises which imply its existence.
In confirmation of this position, I can furnish
only specimens of the apposite declarations with
which the Scriptures abound.
Listen then, in the first place, to the testimony
of the " Teacher sent from God."  In his memorable nocturnal conversation with the Jewish Rabbi,
Nicodemus, he employed this significant language.
" He that believeth on him (the Son of God) is not
condemned, but he that believeth not, is condemned
already, because he hath not believed in the name
of the only begotten Son of God."  John 3: 18.




CAMPBELL1SM IN ITS PRINCIPLES.    231'I he Saviour here points out two opposite conditions
— a state of condemnation or guilt, and a state of
freedom from condemnation, or justification. He
testifies, and we are bound to receive his testimony,
that the believer is in a state of justification, and
the unbeliever in a state of condemnation.
Let us now turn to the " Acts of the Apostles,"
and examine the sermons dictated by the spirit of
inspiration, and addressed both to the Jews and the
Gentiles.
Peter shall be heard first. He healed a cripple
at the gate of the Temple, called Beautiful. A
multitude was quickly drawn together, in Solomon's
porch, by the report of the miracle. Thus Peter
addressed the assembly: " Repent ye therefore, and
be converted, that your sins may be blotted out."
Acts 3: 19. They were a company of sinners,
needing to have their sins blotted out, or remitted.
An inspired apostle stood before them, to guide
them to the enjoyment of the ineffable blessing.
"Repent," said he, change your minds, " and be
converted," reform your lives, (and these exercises
clearly imply faith,) " that your sins may be blotted
out." I cannot for a moment suppose that if they
had complied with Peter's exhortation they would
have remained " unpardoned."
We will hear this witness again. Instructed by
a vision from Heaven, the Apostle went from Joppa
to Cesarea, tq' preach the Gospel to the Gentiles,




232     CAMPBELLISM IN ITS PRINCIPLES.
Arriving, he found Cornelius, the Centurian, with
his kinsmen and near friends, convened to listen to
his instructions. He preached to them  Jesus —
his resurrection, and his appointment to be "the
Judge of quick and dead." " To him," said Peter,
"give all the Prophets witness, that through
his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive
remission of sins."  Acts x: 43.  Name is frequently put in the Scriptures for person.  " The
name of the God of Jacob defend thee."  Ps. xx:
1. " Thou hast a few names (persons) in Sardis
which have not defiled their garments." Rev. iii:
4. By the " name of Christ" we are to understand
the person of Christ, with his character, sufferings,
and works. That the virtue of the name of Christ,
to procure the remission of sins, is limited by baptism, is a mere conceit. Peter said to the cripple,
" In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, rise up
and walk; and he leaping up, stood and walked."
And to the multitude, who were astonished at the
miracle of healing, he said, "And his name, through
faith in his name, hath made this man strong,
whom ye see."  Acts iii: 6 and 12. If " whosoever believeth in him" (Christ) does not receive remission of sins, I do not perceive how " the Prophets" can be vindicated from the charge of bearing
false witness. But they did not testify falsely.' WHOSOEVER," without regard to rank, character,




CAMPBELLISM IN ITS PRINCIPLES.      233
clime, or outward condition, believeth in Christ,
" SHALL RECEIVE remission of sins."
It is now time that we should listen to the testimony of the " Apostle of the Gentiles." Paul was
invited to address the Jews of Antioch in Pisidia,
assembled in the Synagogue. " Christ crucified" was,
of course, his theme. " Be it known unto you therefore," said the infallible teacher, " men and brethren,
that through this man," the Holy One whom God
had raised again, " is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins: and by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be
justified by the law of Moses." Acts xiii: 38, 39.
Never was testimony more explicit. It seems designed to answer every inquiry, and solve every
difficulty on the momentous subject of justification.
If the inquiry is, Through what channel do we receive the remission of sins? the Apostle answers,
" Through this man (Christ) is preached unto you
the forgiveness of sins." Is the question, How is
the privilege of justification enjoyed? the reply
is, " They that believe are justified."  Do we ask,
Are all believers justified, or only such as change
their state by an overt act? Paul answers emphatically, all. " By him ALL that believe are justified."
We will now direct our attention to the Apostolic epistles. Let us first open the letter " to all
that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be Saints."
The chief design of Paul ir writing this epistle was




234     CAMPBELLISM IN ITS PRINCIPLES.
to elucidate and establish the evangelic doctrine
of justification by faith, without the deeds of the
law. Here, if any where, we may expect to find an
explicit and satisfactory exposition of this subject.
The writer could not, I should think, guided as he
was by the spirit of inspiration, have omitted to
mention, in the discussion, baptism, if its performance were indispensable to justification. Such an
omission would be unaccountable, if not unfaithful.
The Apostle, having demonstrated that all men,
both Jews and Gentiles, are guilty in the sight of
God-that by the deeds of the law no flesh could
be justified, proceeded to unfold, with great clearness and precision, the Gospel method of justification.  "For if Abraham," these are Paul's words,
" were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory;
but not before God. For what saith the Scripture?
Abraham believed God, and it," Abraham's faith,
C" was counted unto him for righteousness," or justification. "Now to him that worketh is the reward not
reckoned of grace, but of debt,  But to him that
worketh not," with a view to justification, " but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith,"
not his baptism, "is counted for righteousness."
Rom. iv: 2, 5. I know of no passage of Scripture which, in so small a compass, developes, so
clearly, God's plan of making sinners righteous, or
of justifying the ungodly. Paul says to men, in
effect, you are guilty —you deserve to perish in your




CAMPBELLISM IN ITS PRINCIPLES.    235
sins-you cannot be justified by your own worksyou cannot in any measure, expiate your guilt —but
God has graciously devised and revealed a scheme
for the salvation of men. If they believe in Christ
— cordially embrace him as their Saviour-their
faith shall be counted, or imputed to them for righteousness-they shall be treated as if they were righteous —not because their faith merits this privilege
for them, but because God justifies them freely by
his grace, " through the redemption that is in Christ
Jesus."
Throughout this elaborate discussion of the subject of justification, the apostle does not pen a single
syllable on the influence of the " act of faith," or
immersion, in securing this privilege. The best
proof of this omission is furnished by the fact that
Mr. Campbell, ingenious as he is in the selection of
proof texts, does not venture to quote one from this
epistle in support of his theory. And the omission
is utterly at war with the doctrine that faith and
baptism are equally necessary to obtain remission of
sins or justification.
I have barely time to cite a text from the epistle
to the " churches of Galatia," in which the truth
contended for is distinctly and emphatically stated.' We who are Jews by nature and not sinners of
the Gentiles, knowing that a man is not justified by
the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus
Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that




236     CAMPBELLISM IN ITS PRINCIPLES.
we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not
by the works of the law." ii: 16. It would be easy
to multiply quotations to prove that men are brought
into a state of justification by faith in Christ; but
these specimens from the epistles must suffice.
Perhaps it may be objected against the position
under discussion, that the Apostle James affirms,
"that by works a man is justified, and not by faith
only." ii: 24. To this objection I reply, the
Apostle Paul no less pointedly declares, "that a
man is justified by faith, without the deeds of the
law." Rom. iii: 28. If the language of these
writers is to be understood without limitation, they,
it seems to me, flatly contradict each other. But
we must not charge the spirit of inspiration with
folly. Paul manifestly writes of the evangelic scheme
of justification.  Works of every kind are excluded
wholly from the merit of justification. Men are
justified by faith, through the redemption which is
in Christ, by free grace, without the meritorious influence of works. The design of James is, to show
that men are justified not by a dead, but living and
fruitful faith. " What does it profit, my brethren,
though a man say he hath faith, and have not works?
Can faith (such a faith) save him?" Certainly not
" Faith, if it hath not works, is dead, (incapable of
justifying,) being alone." It is no better than the
faith of devils. " Was not Abraham, our father,
justified by works when he had offered Isaac, his




CAMPBELLISM IN ITS PRINCIPLES.    237
son, upon the altar?"  But how did works justify
Abraham? Why, " faith wrought with his works,
and by works was faith made perfect"-exhibited
as a living, fruitful faith.  "And the Scripture was
fulfilled, (verified) which saith, Abraham believed
God, and (mark this,) it was imputed unto himfor
righteousness."
Whether this be the correct solution of the difficulty, is not material in this discussion. The objection cannot avail the advocates of baptismal remission.  "A man," says James, "is justified by
works"-not by baptism, but by works-an obedient
life. In whatever sense the language be understood,
it effectually explodes the notion that the remission
of sins, or justification, is obtained " in and through
immersion."
II. That in many places in the New Testament
spiritual blessings, which imply the remission of
sins, are positively promised to faith.
In support of this position, I observe,
1. I'hat salvation is promised to faith.  The remission of sins is comprehended in salvation. Christ
saves his people from their sins-from their guilt as
well as their practice. A sinner saved and unpardoned is a manifest impossibility. If then salvation
is enjoyed by faith, so is pardon. Hear what Paul
says: " I am not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ:
for it is the power of God unto salvation, to every
one that believeth, to'he Jew first, and also to the




238      CAMPBELLISM IN ITS PRINCIPLES.
Greek." Rom. 1: 16. The Gospel is the powerful and efficient means which God employs for saving men. But to whom does its saving efficacy
reach?    To every one that believeth."  Does its
saving power extend to all nations? Yes, " to the
Jew first, and also to the Greek."
Paul and Silas were committed to prison in the
city of Philippi, for preaching the Gospel of Christ.
God graciously and miraculously interposed for their
rescue. A great earthquake shook the foundations
of the prison, and all the doors were opened, and
every one's bands were loosed. The jailor, seized
with a conviction of his guilt and danger, fell down
before Paul and Silas, and said, "Sirs, what must
I do to be saved?"  Never was a more important
question propounded. Never was a more direct,
explicit, and satisfactory answer given. " Believe
on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved."
And is it possible that these inspired men directed
the anxious prison keeper to do that which, being
performed, would have left him still in an unpardoned, unsaved state? Did they promise salvation
to an exercise with which it is not essentially connected?  Surely not.
2. Adoption into the family of God is the privilege of believers. Tfat the remission of sins is inseparably united with this honor, I need hardly
attempt to prove. To suppose that the sons of God
are still rnpardoned is a gross absurdity. That be



CAMPBELLISM IN ITS PRlNCIPLES.    239
lievers enjoy this high honor the evangelist John
testifies. " He (the Word) came unto his own, and
his own received him not. But as many as received
him, to them gave he power (right or privilege) to
become the sons of God, even to them that believe
on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of
the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of
God." 1: 11, 13. Or, as the passage is rendered
by Dr. Campbell, " But to as many as received him,
believing in his name, he granted the privilege of
being children of God, who derive their birth not
from blood," &c. If God has graciously conferred
on believers the privilege of being sons of God, who
can disannul it?
3. Eternal life is distinctly promised to faith.
To bestow eternal life on men " dead in trespasses
and sins," is the prime end of Messiah's mission on
earth. "I am come," said he, "that they might
have life, and that they might have it more abundantly." Every spiritual blessing is conferred in
subservience to this benevolent design. Now listen
to the teaching of Him who cannot lie. "As Moses
lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must
the Son of man be lifted up; that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have eternal
life." Jno. 3: 14, 15. Now just as certainly as the
Israelites, bitten by the fiery serpents, were healed
by looking at the brazen serpent, on the pole, will
"whosoever believeth" in Christ, gain eternal life.




240     CAMPBELLISM IN ITS PRINCIPLES.
But you shall have testimony more explicit than
this, if more explicit testimony can be. " Verily,
verily, I say unto you," these are the words of Christ
to the captious Jews, "he that believeth on me
hath everlasting life"-not he may have, nor he
shall have-but he HATH everlasting life-he has
within him the embryo of immortal life-" being
born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruiptible, by the word of God which liveth and abideth
forever."  Jno. 6: 47-1 Pet. 1: 23.
III. That privileges which are inseparable from
the remission of sins are frequently promised, in
the New Testament, to exercises or graces that imply
the existence of faith.
I will proceed at once to confirm this proposition.
1. The kingdom of Heaven, (which doubtless includes all the blessings of the kingdom-the remission of sins, among the rest,) is promised to humility.
" Blessed," said Jesus, in his inimitable sermon on
the mount, " are the poor in spirit: for theirs is"
-not may be or shall be, but is already, " the kingdom of Heaven."  Mat. 5: -3-see also to v. 11.
2. Salvation is promised to prayer.  " For whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be
saved." Rom. 10: 13. Salvation includes, as has
been already stated, the remission of sins. It is
promised to him who "' shall call on the name of the
Lord." This promise is not made to a heartless,
hypocritical calling on the Lord.  " This people,"




CAMPBELLISMI IN ITS PRINCIPLES.    241
said the Son of God, " draweth nigh to me with their
mouth, and honoreth me with their lips; but their
neart is far from me." But the promise is made
to sincere, believing prayer-to such as " call on the
Lord out of a pure heart" —to such as pray, " lifting
up holy hands, without wrath and doubting." 1
Tim. 2: 8. " For without faith it is impossible to
please God." IHeb. 11: 6. " How then shall they
call on him in whom they have not believed?"
3. Adoption, which supposes the remission of
sins, is declared to be the privilege of such persons
as follow the guidance of the Spirit. " For as many.
*,s are led by the Spirit of God," (and if those who
repent and believe the Gospel are not led by the
Spirit of God, by what spirit are they led?) " they
are the sons of God." Rom. 8: 14. Perhaps it may
be replied that the Spirit of the Lord will lead men
to an observance of the Christian ordinances. I
grant it. And he will lead those persons under his
influence "all the length of the celestial road."
But when do they become the sons of God? Not
till they reach the end -of their journey, or at the
middle of it-or in the commencement of it? At
the beginning surely. Otherwise it would not be
true that " as many as are led by the Spirit of
God,"-but such only as have traveled the prescribed distance —" are the sons of God."
IV. That the remission of sins was, in variout




242     CAMPBELLISM IN ITS PRINCIPLES.
cases, possessed and enjoyed by faith, without, or
before baptism. This we can clearly show.
Jesus was crucified between two malefactors.
One of them railed on him. The other, touched with
compunction at the remembrance of his crimes, said
unto Jesus, (and this prayer implied faith,) " Lord,
remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom."
Jesus replied to him, long after he had said to
Nicodemus, " Except a man be born of water and
of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of
God," " To-day shalt thou be with me in Paradise;"
and he certainly did not go to Paradise in his sins.
Luke 23: 39, 43. Perhaps it may be said that this
was an extraordinary case. Then, let us examine
another instance.
The publican went up to the temple to pray, and
" standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his
eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, (conscious of his guilt,) saying, (and this prayer evidently was the " prayer of faith,") God be merciful
to me a sinner." And did God hear the prayer of
this penitent believer and remit his sins? Yes!
" This man went down to his house (not baptized,
but) justified rather than the other." Luke 18: 10,
14. So true it is, that "a broken and contrite
heart" God will not despise. Possibly it may be
objected (though the objection is, in my view, of no
validity,) that these cases occurred before the giving
of the apostolic commission. Well, then. to silence




CAMPBELL1SM 1N ITS PRlNCIPLES.    243
the last objection, let us select another and an
apposite case.
I have. already adverted to the conversion of Cornelius and his friends; but I must again recur to
the interesting subject. While Peter was uttering
these memorable words, " To him (Jesus) give all
the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of
sins,"' the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard
the words;" and they began to " speak with tongues
and to magnify God." It is not affirmed by
the historian that these Gentile converts were forgiven before their baptism; but consider carefully
the facts of the case. Peter affirmed that whosoever
believeth in Christ (the Gentile as well as the Jew,)
shall receive remission of sins. In attestation of this
truth the Holy Ghost was poured on all the hearers; that is, they were copiously endowed with the
miraculous gifts of the Spirit. Now, I ask, can any
man in his sober senses, and whose mind is not
warped by theory, believe that these Gentile converts were " baptized with the Holy Ghost," Acts
11: 16, while they were yet in their sins, with the
wrath of God abiding on them?  The Jewish converts censured Peter because he went in to men
uncircumcised, and did eat with them. The apostle
triumphantly vindicated  his conduct.  "Forasmuch," said he, "as God gave unto them the like
gift as he did unto us who believed on the Lord




244     CAMPBELLISM IN ITS PhINCIPLES.
Jesus Christ, what was I, that I could withstand
God?"  Acts 11: 17. When he saw that God had
received the Gentiles to his favor, his Jewish prejudices were slain, and he inquired, " Can any man
forbid water, that these should not be baptized,"
not in order to receive, either the remission of their
sins, or the gift of the Holy Ghost, but who " have
received the Holy Ghost," and by fair inference the
forgiveness of their sins? Acts 10: 43, 48. I
know not what impression this case may make on
other minds; but to my own mind it furnishes a
conclusive refutation of the dogma, that we have
the remission of " sins in and through immersion."
" Many blessings," says the Reformer, " are
metonymically ascribed to faith, in the sacred writings." Metonymy is " a trope in which one word
is put for another." But for what word is faith put?
We know not, and he has not informed us. He
continues-" MTe are said to be justified, sanctified,
and purified by faith-to walk by faith, and to live
by faith, &c., &c. But these sayings, as qualified
by the apostles, mean no more than by believing
the truth of God, we have access into all these blessings." Chn'ty Restored, p. 198. Is this all?
When Christ asserts that, " He that believeth on
the Son hath everlasting life," does he mean, not
that he has the germ, or assurance of life, but merely
access to it?  When he affirms, that the believer
" is not condemned." does he mea-l simply to teach,




CAMPBELLISM IN ITS PRINCIPLES.    245
that he is condemned, but has access to a state of
justification? When Paul declares that " faith is
counted for righteousness," does he mean that faith
is not counted for righteousness, but the believer is
in a condition, in which, by performing an " overt
act," he may have access to this blessing? Mr.
Campbell asserts, but does not prove his position.
I must notice what he considers a conclusive refutation of all the arguments of his opponents in
support of the doctrine of justification by faith, previously to baptism. " When they find," he says,
"C where remission of sins is mentioned without immersion, it is weak, it is unfair, in the extreme, to
argue from that, that forgiveness can be enjoyed
without immersion. If their logic be worth any
thing, it will prove, that a man may be forgiven
without grace, the blood of Jesus, and without faith;
for we canfind passages, many passages, where
remission, or justification, sanctification, or some
similar term occurs, and no mention of either grace,
faith, or the blood of Jesus." Chn'ty Restored,
p. 217.
The italicised sentence above, on account of its
supposed importance, is printed by its author in
bold capitals. A few remarks will suffice to showr
the feebleness of this objection. Faith is indis.
solubly united with grace and the blood of Christ
The blood of Christ is the object of saving faith
" Whom (Christ) God halh set forth to be a propi




246     CAMPBELLISI IN ITS PRINCIPLES.
tiation through faith in his blood, to declare his
righteousness for tl.e remission of sins," &c. Rom.
3: 25. Faith is the product of grace, and through
grace faith is imputed for righteousness. Rom. 4:
3-5. Faith implies-is inseparable from-repentance, conversion, holiness. Now, suppose remission, or justification is, in many passages, promised,
where no mention is made of " either grace, faith,
or the blood of Jesus;" the blessing is promised to
some holy exercise or quality which implies the existence of faith, and is inseparably united to grace
and the blood of Christ. But, mark this! baptism
is not essentially connected with faith, nor with any
of the exercises which suppose the existence of faith.
A man must be a believer, in the full, Scriptural
sense of the term, before he is a fit subject of baptism. A period longer or shorter, must elapse between the moment of believing and the moment of
immersion. Nay, there is no certainty, there can
be none, that immersion will ever follow the act of
believing. The sum of the matter is this, when remission or justification is promised to faith, then repentance, conversion, the new birth, holiness, the
spirit of obedience, the grace of God, and the blood
of Christ, are implied-are all indissolubly united.
But neither baptism, nor a participation in the
Lord's su2pper, is supposed in the promise, nor essentially connected with the blessing.
The wisdom and grace of God are eminently




CAMPBELLISMI IN ITS PRINCIPLES.     247
manifested in making faith, and not immersion, the
line of discrimination between the states of condemnation and justification. It is a line invisible
to us, but not to God. It -marks the precise point
at which the rebel becomes a child-It is the commencement of spiritual life-and is the source of
all true obedience.  " Indeed, true faith necessarily
works; therefore, a working faith is the only true,
real, and proper faith in Divine or human esteem."
Campbell on Baptism, p. 282. It is inseparable
from conversion, or regeneration, and an exercise
acceptable to God. Let us hear the opinion of the
Reformer on this point.  "Now as faith in God is
the first principle-the soul-renewing principle of
religion; as it is the regenerating, justifying, sanctifying principle; without it, it is impossible to
please God. With it," I must repeat this sentence,
"Ca nan is a son of Abraham, a son of God; an
heir apparent to eternal life."  But on this subject
I can furnish higher authority than that of Mr.
Campbell. The Apostle John says, "' Whosoever
believeth that Jesus is the Christ, is born of God."
1 John 5: 1. Now, in view of the excellent nature,
and momentous relations of faith, does it not seem
most worthy of God, and most suitable to man,
that it should be the exercise to which the remission of sins, and eternal life are promised? Can
C a son of Abraham, a son of God," be still in a
state )f condemnation?  Even Mir. Campbell, who




248     CAMPBELLISM IN ITS PRINCIPLES.
once maintained so strenuously, that a man cannot
be born of God, until he is born of water, is constrained to admit, " that to be born of God, and
born in sin, is inconceivable.  Remission of sins,"
he says, " is as certainly granted to the born of
God, as life eternal, and deliverance from corruption, will be granted to the children of the resurrection, when born from the grave."  Christianity Restored, p. 208. If then the believer is " a son of
God," as Mr. Campbell in one place testifies, and
as the Scriptures distinctly teach, it is a monstrous
supposition, at war alike with our conceptions of
the, evangelical scheme of justification, and the character of the Supreme Ruler, that he is in his sins,
until he can perform " an overt act," which he may
never be able to do.
It must, however, be conceded that there is a
connexion between baptism  and the remission of
sins.  In some sense baptism  washes away sins.
I purpose to inquire what this connexion is?
Baptism must either be the means, or the condition of obtaining the remission of sins; or it is the
means of declaring, or confessing, the remission of
sins, previously obtained by faith. Either it sustains a relation to forgiveness like that which
repentance and faith sustain; or its relation to forgiveness is that of a sign to the thing signified.
There is no medium between these schemes. The
Rev. Mr. Meredith, the late estimable editor of the




CAMPBELL1SMI IN ITS PRINCIPLES.     249
Biblical Recorder, lal)ored hard, ingeniously, but
unsuccessfully, to establish an intermediate scheme.
But in spite of the most subtle distinctions, we are
forced to the conclusion, either that baptism is an
act upon the proper performance of which God has
promised that forgiveness shall ensue, and without
such performance there is no promise of forgiveness;
or that baptism is a sign or declaration of forgiveness actually received and enjoyed by faith in Christ.
Mr. Campbell without dispute embraces the
former scheme. Baptism, according to the " ancient
Gospel," is not the figure or formal acknowledgment
of the remission of sins, but the indispensable, and,
it would seem, the only condition of obtaining it.
"I assert," he says, and truly, it is mere assertion,
" that there is but one action ordained or commanded in the  New  Testament, to which God has
promised, or testified, that he will forgive our sins.
This action is Christian immersion." Chn. Bap.,
p. 520.
Is this scheme of forgiveness Scriptural? Is
baptism, like repentance and faith, an indisjpensable
condition of the remission of sins?
Let the reader notice-First. That this scheme
of remission flatly contradicts plain and numerous
Scripture testimonies. These testimonies, or specimens of them, I have already aJ4duced. Now, it is
a sound and admitted principle of Biblical interpretation, thatt the Scriptures should be construed in




250     CAMPBELLISM IN ITS PRINCIPLES
harmony with themselves. The obscure must be
elucidated by the clear, and the figurative by the
literal. It is impossible for words to express more
clearly, pointedly, and emphatically, than do the
Scriptures, that God has suspended the forgiveness
of sins on the exercise of faith. Take for an illustration the words of Christ to the Jewish Rabbi —
"He that believeth on him (the Son) is not corademned," and is consequently, pardoned, or justified.
Now, "baptism for the remission of sins," a phrase
susceptible of different interpretations, must be construed in harmony with this unambiguous language
of the great Teacher. And the remark is true of
all the texts under consideration.
Secondly. That the Scriptures manifestly make
a distinction between the relation which faith, and
that which baptism bears to the remission of sins.
We read in the Scriptures, and many such passages
may be found, "'He that believeth not shall be
damned." " Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise
perish." " If any man love not the Lord Jesus
Christ, let him be anathema maran-atha." Now,
we do not read, nor is it intimated, nor is any thing
recorded, from which it may be fairly inferred, that
if a man is not immersed, he is condemned, doomed
to perish —and to be anathematized at the coming
of our Lord. But if Christ has made, as Mr. Campbell contends, repentance, faith, and immersion
" equally necedsscry to forgiveness," how can it be




CAMPBELLISM IN ITS PRINCIPLES.      251
accounted for, that neither Christ nor his apostles
ever uttered a malediction against the unbaptized?
How can their silence on this point be reconciled
with their love and fidelity to the souls of men, and
at the same time with the doctrine that the penitent believer, glowing with love to Jesus, is under
the curse, until he is immersed?
Thirdly. There are consequences involved in the
theory of baptismal remission which may well make
us hesitate to adopt it. God has a, perfect right to
prescribe the conditions of forgiveness; and we are
bound to receive, with readiness and gratitude, such
as he may prescribe. But when any interpretation
of the divinely prescribed terms of forgiveness leads
to conclusions, absurd in themselves, at variance
with the genius of the Gospel, and seemingly derogatory to God, we certainly should hesitate long, and
examine carefully, before we adopt it. The conclusions, logically deducible from the doctrine of baptismal remission, are such as to make me believe
that it is based on a misinterpreta,ton of the Scriptures.
Let us now seriously notice some of the legitimate
consequences ef the dogma -which I am combating.
If the remission of sins is enjoyed only through
immersion; or, in otlher words, if " baptism is the
only medium divinely appointed, through which the
efficacy of the blood of Christ is communicated to
thi Conscience," then, I remark,




252     CAMPBELLISH IN ITS PRINCIPLES.
1. That the salvation of men, even of peniter t
believers, is in the hands of the authorized baptizers.
Popish priests have claimed the power of remitting
sins; but Protestants have ever considered the claim
an arrogant assumption. I freely concede that those
who maintain the sentiment which I am opposing
may not have examined its bearing and consequences.
I speak not of them, but of their doctrine. It is,
however, as clear as that two and two make four,
that the remission of the believer's sins, according
to this theory, depends, not on the will of God, but
on the will of man. He cannot baptize himself;
and if the qualified administrator does not choose,
under no matter what plea, to baptize, (or regenerate) him, he must either be pardoned without immersion, be saved without pardon, or be lost. No
sophistry can evade this consequence.
2. That salvation may be entirely beyond the
reach of the most humble, obedient and faithful servants of Christ. Let me suppose a case. Fidelis,
after a careful examination of the subject, became a
convert to Christianity. Deeply conscious of his
guilt and unworthiness, he cordially embraced Christ,
as his prophet, priest, and king; consecrating to
him, in the unfeigned purpose of his heart, his body,
soul, and spirit; with all his time, and all his possessions. Enraptured with the Saviour's charms,
he rejoiced in his word and worship from day to day.
Having settled his views on the subject of baptism,




CAMPBELLISM IN ITS PRINCIPLES.    253
he designed, at the earliest opportunity, to take on
him the badge of discipleship in baptism. But, by
order of Tyrannus, an inveterate enemy to Christ,
he was arrested and cast into prison, for his ardent
zeal, and dauntless testimony in the Redeemer's
cause. To him baptism is now impossible. And
poor Fidelis cannot enjoy the remission of his sins.
Perhaps, it may be replied, " That God is merciful
-that he does not require impossibilities-and that
he may accept the will for the deed." These are
the very considerations which make me suspect that
God has not suspended the remission of sins on that
which to a good man may be impracticable-on
something extraneous to the new creature. Besides
the persecuted Fidelis needs something more solid
than a " perhaps," a " may be," or a conjecture, to
support him in his dark and solitary confinement;
God has not withheld the stable ground of comfort,
as I have clearly evinced.
3. That the enlightened and tender conscience
can never be fully satisfied. Questions as to the
validity, and sin-cleansing efficacy of baptism must
arise. I can easily know when I have passed from
Virginia into Ohio, because they are separated by
water. I may certainly know that I have been immersed; but whether I have received valid, regenerating baptism, is another matter. Does its
efficacy depend on the qualifications of the administrator? on his piety? on his baptism? on his church




254     CAMPBELLISM IN ITS PRINCIPLES.
connexion? on his ordination? on his intention?
Is apostolical succession, either in the line of baptism or of ordination, essential to its validity? Is
its sin pardoning virtue connected with the views
entertained of it by the subject? If " baptism is
the only medium divinely appointed, through which
the efficacy of the blood of Christ is communicated
to the conscience," then, it would seem to me, that
the believer, tremblingly alive to his own salvation,
must be filled with intense and ceaseless dread, lest
the channel, through some defect, or leak, should
permit the grace of pardon to escape before it
reaches his sin-smitten conscience.  Indeed, some
have been goaded by this very apprehension to a
repetition of the ordinance.
4. That repentance, the most sincere and lasting
-faith, the most vigorous-love, the most selfsacrificing-the sanctifying influence of the Holy
Spirit-the atoning blood of Christ-his intercession
before the throne-and the abounding grace of the
Father, are all, without baptism, unavailing for salvation. I do not affirm that all who adopt the
sentiment which I am combating, push it to this
extent, but I fearlessly aver that this is its plain,
legitimate, and inevitable consequence. This gives
to baptism an unscriptural prominence in the Christian system. It must tend, as the kindred dogma
of transubstantiation has tended among Papists, to
engender superstition. At first the water of bap



CAMPBELLISM IN ITS PRINCIPLES.    255
tism is deemed of equal moment in the scheme of
salvation with the cleansing blood of the Redeemer;
and by degrees the sign will come to be substituted
for the thing signified-the ceremonial to be pre..
ferred to the vital. What has occurred may occur
again. Strange as it may appear, the error which
I have been exposing, is the root of infant baptism.
We learn from Salmasius, a learned historian and
critic, quoted by Booth in his Padobaptism Examined, that among the ancients, " an opinion prevailed that no one could be saved without being
baptized; and for that reason, the custom arose of
baptizing infants." This error had its origin,
according to the testimony of Suiceras, a learned
divine and professor of Greek and Hebrew at Zurich,
(quoted by the same indefatigable inquirer after
truth,) in a " wrong understanding of our Lord's
words, except a man be born of water and of the
Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven."
" It (infant baptism) arose from false views of original sin, and of the magical power of consecrated
water." Prof. Hahn's Theology, p. 556.
" The immediate occasion of infant baptism, it
cannot be denied, was extravagant ideas of its necessity to salvation." Dressler's Doctrine of the Sacrament of Baptism, p. 152. Chris. Review, June,
1838, p. 198, 199.
I can easily conceive the influence of this error on
ignoran' and superstitious people. If baptism be




256     CAMPBELLISM IN ITS PRINCIPLES.
deemed essential to salvation, the motive to extend
its efficacy to every individual who might, by possibility, be qualified to receive it, is irresistible. It
would be administered first to the sick-then to
persons of very tender age-then to children, whose
capacity for the exercise of faith is very doubtfuland finally to unconscious infants. The consideration that none could be saved without baptism, and
that its performance could do no serious injury,
would lead from step to step in the path of error,
till the design and spirit of the ordinance would be
lost and forgotten. I inquire5. What will be the condition of a believer dying
without baptism? I have already shown conclusively that the believer is " born of God"-that he
possesses " everlasting life," and that he is a child.
of God; and yet, agreeably to the theory under consideration, "unpardoned, unjustified, unsaved," &c.
In this condition he may unquestionably die. What
would become of him? He could not be received
into heaven without pardon, and consequently in
his sins; nor would he be sent to perdition, with a
regenerate heart, and possessing eternal life. There
would be no place for him but purgatory. And yet,
in the opinion of Protestants, there is no such place
as purgatory. I leave him to be extricated from
his dilemma by those whose unscriptural, I had
almost said absrrd, dogma has placed him in it.
Lastly. Mr Campbell recoils from the conse



CAMPBELLISM IN ITS PRINCIPLES.    257
quences of his own doctrine. If, as he maintains,
Peter "made repentance, or reformation, and immersion equally necessary toforgiveness," then it is
as clear as the noon-day sun, that no man can be a
Christian, and no man who hears, or has an opportunity of hearing the Gospel, can be saved, in time
or eternity, without immersion. Can a man be a
Christian without repentance? Can a man, under
the light of the Gospel, be saved without repentance? MIr. Campbell will hardly answer these
questions in the affirmative. But if -immersion and
repentance are equally necessary to forgiveness, then
no man can be a Christian, or be saved, without
immersion, except, indeed, a man may be a Christian or be saved, without forgiveness. Mr. Campbell seems sometimes half inclined to look this
consequence full in the face. " Infants," he says,
" idiots, deaf and dumb persons, innocent Pagans,
wherever they can be found, with all the pious
Pcedobaptists, we commend to the mercy of God."
Chn. Sys., 233. As there is no promise of their
salvation, he turns over all pious Paedobaptists,
and, of course, all other unimmersed believers, with
infants, idiots, &c., to the " uncovenanted mercies
of God."  At another time, when a milder spirit
rules him, or, more probably, when his system is
out of view, he writes, in a measure, like an unreformed Christian minister. "Amongst them all,'
he says, alluding to the Christian sects, " we than)




258     CAMPBELLISM IN ITS PRINCIPLES.
the grace of God, that there are many who believe
in, and love the Saviour, and that, though we may
not have Christian churches, we have many Christians." Camp. on Baptism, p. 16. Yes! thanks
to " the grace of God," we have " many Christians,"
without immersion, without conversion, without regeneration, and without the remission of sins!! It
is exceedingly difficult for error to be consistent with
itself. Mr. Campbell shows in this admission that
he does not fully believe his own doctrine. He is
forced, in spite of his system, to concede that repentance and immersion, are not equally necessary to
secure the remission of sins.
If baptism, as I have endeavored to show, is not
a condition, or means of obtaining the remission of
sin, then it follows that it is a symbolic declaration
of the remission of sins already obtained through
faith in Christ. In support of this conclusion, I
remark,
First-That it is in perfect harmony with the
teaching of the Scriptures. This point has been
sufficiently elucidated, and the reader must judge
of it for himself.
Secondly-That it is according to analogy. There
are two New Testament institutions-baptism and
the Lord's supper. The latter is unquestionably a
symbolic ordinance. Bread and wine are used to
symbolize the broken body, and sin-atoning blood of
Jesus.  May we not reas)nably infer that both ordi



CAMPBELLISM IN ITS PRINCIPLES.    259
nances are of the same general nature-that as one
is symbolic so is the other? If we do not literally,
but only in a figure eat the Lord's body, and drink
his blood, in the supper, does it not ~eem probable
that our sins are not literally, but only in a figure,
washed away in baptism? As we do not derogate
from the importance of the Lord's supper, but assign to it its true position in the Christian system,
as a means of promoting the edification and piety
of believers, by insisting on its symbolic character;
so neither do we derogate from the scriptural importance of baptism, by maintaining that sins are
not literally but only in a figure remitted by it.
The Papists interpret the language relating to tho
Christian ordinances with perfect consistency.
They carry out the principle of a literal exposition.
They maintain that in the eucharist the body of
Christ is literally eaten, and his blood literally
drunk, and that in baptism sins are literally washed
away. But are they consistent expositors of Scripture who teach that in the eucharist we eat the
body, and drink the blood of Christ in a figure, but
that in baptism our sins are literally, really washed
away? I think not. In the same sense in which
the broken loaf in the Lord's supper is a sign of the
crucified body of Jesus, is the water of baptism a
sign of the cleansing efficacy of the blood, or
atonemert of Christ. In like manner as we eat the




260     CAMPBELLISH IN ITS PRINCIPLES.
body of Christ in the supper, do we wash away our
sins in baptism.
Thirdly-That it is in harmony with what Paul
affirms of himself. 1 Cor. 1: 17. " Christ sent
me not to baptize, but to preach the Gospel."  The
apostle did not mean that he was unauthorized to
perform the rite of baptism; for he baptized
Crispus and Gaius, and the household of Stephanus,
and perhaps some others; and he would not have
baptized them without authority. The commission
to preach is co-extensive with the commission to
baptize. The apostle clearly meant, " Christ sent
me not (mainly) to baptize, but to preach the Gospel."  Baptism  was not unimportant-it was a
solemn duty-an impressive ordinance-a symbolic
rite; but preaching the Gospel was the great, supreme business of Paul, as it should be of every
Christian minister. If, however, baptism is the regenerating act, and as essential to forgiveness as repentance, I ask any candid and discerning man,
whether Paul could have used such language? " I
thank God," said he, "I baptized (regenerated)
none of you but Crispus and Gaius."  Thank God
I did not do the very thing without which my
preaching is vain-your faith is vain-and your sins
cannot be forgiven! His language is most discordant with the theory of baptismal remission;
but strikingly harmonizes with the conclusion I am
aiming to establish. The blood of Christ-the




CAMPBELLISM IN ITS PRINCIPLES,    261
publication of the Gospel-the influence of the
Holy Spirit-repentance-faith-regeneration-are
indispensable to salvation; and baptism is an open,
solemn acknowledgment, or declaration that salvation is received and enjoyed, through the blood of
Christ, by repentance and faith, produced through
the agency of the Holy Spirit.
I will now endeavor briefly to show that the passages of Scripture principally relied on by Mr.
Campbell for the support of his doctrine, utterly
fail of establishing it, and are in agreement with the
theory of symbolic remission maintained in this
chapter.
To begin with the commission, Mark 16: 16.
The assurance that " He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved," does by no means warrant the
conclusion that the remission of sins does not precede baptism. There is perfect accordance between
this promise and the plain, literal declaration of
Jesus, that " He that believeth on the Son is not
condemned." Certainly, if he that believes on the
Son is not condemned, he who not only believes in
the Son, but, in submission to his authority, is baptized, is not condemned.
Let us next notice the famous passage in this controversy, Acts 2: 38. " Repent and be baptized
every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ,fior
the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift
of the Holy Ghost."  That baptism is for the re



'262    CAMPBELLISM IN ITS PRINCIPLES.
mission of sins none will deny. But the import of
the passage turns on the force of the term "for."
In the Greek the prepos;tion elf is used. Every
scholar knows, and every intelligent reader may
learn from unquestionable authority, that it bears
in the New Testament various meanings. It is
sometimes, but rarely, rendered for, in the sense of,
"in order to." Its usual rendering is into. A
regard to the context, the sense of the passage, and
other considerations, must determine its import in
any particular place. It is only necessary to show
that on sound principles of hermeneutics, it may be
fairly understood in harmony with what I have endeavored to prove is the plain doctrine of the
Scriptures, and this can easily be done. In Mat.
3: 11, we have these words-"-I indeed baptize
you with water unto (ec~) repentance."  Here the
term cannot without gross impropriety be rendered
for, or in order to. We know that John did not
baptize his disciples in order that they might repent. He demanded of them not only repentance,
but fruits meet for repentance, before he admitted
them to baptism. He baptized them, not that they
might obtain repentance, but as a sign, or acknowledgment that they had repented. Mat. 3: 8-9.
Now, in the very sense in which the Harbinger baptized his disciples (cir) unto, for, into repentance,
did Peter command his pentecostal hearers to be
baptized (a{e) for, entc, into the remission of sins —




CAMPBELL1SM IN ITS PRINCIPLES.     263
that is, not to procure, but as a sign, or acknowledgment of, this privilege, which God has graciously
and inseparably united with repentance and faith.
I could produce many similar examples, but this
will suffice to show how fairly the passage harmonizes with the symbolic theory of baptism.
On Acts 22: 16, it is needless to add any thing
to the remarks which I have already made on the
figurative import of the ordinance.
" Jesus answered, verily, verily, I say unto thee,
Except a man be born of water, and of the Spirit, he
cannot enter into the kingdom of God."  John 3: 5.
The Reformers quote this text with great confidence in support of their views. Let us candidly
examine  it.   The phrase yevvOq.fV ~ a7oS-" born
of water," does not elsewhere occur in the Scriptures. Its import must be learned from the language itself, the context, and the current teaching
of revelation. What is its meaning? Mr. Campbell maintains that it means baptism, and founds
his argument for baptismal remission wholly on this
interpretation.  Concerning this opinion, I have
several remarks to offerFirst. It is perfectly gratuitous.  No argument
has been presented, and none, it is presumed, can
be, in its support. All that can be plausibly said
in favor of it is, that if the phrase does not mean
baptism, it is not eas) to perceive what it does mean.




264     CAMIBELLISM iN ITS PRINCIPLES.
Now I protest against building so important a theory
as baptismal remission on a mere assumption.
Secondly. Mr. Campbell relies on authority for
the confirmation of his opinion. " This," he says,
"is neither an interpretation of my own, nor of
modern times; but if ever there was a Catholic interpretation-not Roman Catholic or Greek Catholic
-but if ever there was a Catholic interpretation, it
is the interpretation which I have given; for all
agree to it, both ancient and modern." Debate with
Rice, p. 481. It must be conceded that the preponderance of authority is in favor of this interpretation. This, however, is only a part of the truth.
A majority of "ancient and modern" writers, especially of the "Greek and Latin Fathers," on whose
concurrent judgment Mr. C. relies for the support
of his interpretation, cast the weight of their authority not only in favor of baptismal remission,
which he believes, but of baptismal regeneration,
which he rejects. This text is the stronghold of the
doctrine. A misconception of its meaning was the
root of that most prevalent error, infant baptism.
Besides, no man has less respect for human authority than Mr. Campbell, when it is in conflict with
his own views.
Thirdly. It makes Christ's answer to Nicodemus
irrelevant. The Saviour said to the Rabbi, "Verily,
verily, I say unto thee, except a man be born again,
he cannot see the kingdom of God."  The Jewish




CA.MPBELLISM IN ITS PRINCIPLES.    265
ruler did not understand the language-attached a
gross, sensual meaning to it —and demanded an explanation of it.  " How," said he, " can these
things be?"  According to the popular interpretation, Christ, instead of answering the question,
merely combined with the obscure proposition, another, which must have been perfectly unintelligible
to Nicodemus. If the great Teacher employed a
figurative phrase, well understood among the intelligent Jewish rulers, to elucidate the nature of the
spiritual birth, his answer was in harmony with the
question of Nicodemus, and the whole context; but
if he used a phrase never before nor afterwards employed, by an inspired teacher, to denote baptism.
his language was adapted to confound rather than
instruct the neophyte.
Fourthly. It fully justifies the ignorance of the
Jewish ruler. I take it for granted, that Christ intended to be understood by Nicodemus, and used
such language as a suitably qualified ruler of the
Jews could have comprehended. Christ reproved
his pupil for his inexcusable ignorance-" Art thou
a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?"
But how could a teacher in Israel be censurable for
not understanding phrases peculiar to Christianity
— nay, a doctrine which had never before been enunciated?  If Christ meant to teach Nicodemus that
he must be baptized before he could enter into the
kingdom of God, hM  employed language which it




266     CAMPBELLISM IN ITS PRINCIPLES.
was impossible for the ruler to comprehend, and
then reproved him for his official ignorance. But
Christ did not reprove the master unjustly. He
ought as a Jewish teacher, and as a student of the
Scriptures, and of Rabbinical writings, to have understood the language used by the Redeemer for
illustrating the nature of the new birth.
Fifthly. It makes the answer of Christ to Nicodemusfalse. The " kingdom of God" must mean
the church of Christ-on earth, or the state of
heavenly glory. This position, it is presumed, will
not be called in question. Now it is not true that
none enter into the visible church on earth, who are
not born of the Spirit. In the purest churches
there are members who are not regenerated. In
the apostolic churches, there were some who were
not properly of them. " They went out from us,"
said John, " but, they were not of us; for if they
had been of us, they would have continued with us."
1 Jno. 2: 19. The kingdom of heaven is like a net,
which gathers both good and bad. Mat. 13: 47-48.
Nor is it true, that none enter into the heavenly
glory who are not baptized. Frcm this conclusion,
though it follows legitimately from his doctrine, Mr.
Campbell himself recoils. The Saviour's declaration then, as interpreted by the Reformers, and
many others, is not true. There is but one method
of evading this conclusion. It is sometimes affirmed,
for the purpose of avoiding it, that a man cannot




CAMPBELLISM IN ITS PRINCIPLES.    267
constitutionally enter into the kingdom of God, except he is baptized, and born of the Spirit. But,
by what authority is this long word foisted in the
passage? There is nothing in the context to justify its insertion. Christ affirms positively, and
without limitation, "'Except a man be born of
water, and of the Spirit, he, cannot enter into the
kingdom of God."
Lastly.-If the phrase "born of water" means
immersion, the passage in which it is found yields
nzo support to the doctrine of baptismal remission.
If the " kingdom of God " means, as Mr. Campbell
understands it to mean, the reign of Messiah on
earth-the visible church-then the text proves
merely that a man cannot enter the church without
baptism, and leaves the subject of the remission of
sins, wholly untouched. So far as this passage
teaches us, a man may be pardoned before, or after,
as well as in the act of immersion. It has no relevancy to the subject under discussion.
But what does the text under discussion mean?
It is not incumbent on me to show its meaning. I have
proved that it does not refer to baptism, and that if
it does, it fails to support the doctrine of baptismal
remission-this is sufficient for my purpose. I will,
however, perform a work of supererogation. I will
quote on this sub'ect a passage from a sermon of
the Rev. James Saurin, formerly pastor of the
French church at the Hague, celebrated alike for




268     CAMPBELLISM IN ITS PRINCIPLES.
his learning, eloquence and piety. " The phrase,'
says this incomparable writer, " to be born of water
and of the Spirit, is a Hebraical phraseology, importing to be born of spiritual water. By a similar
expression, it is said in the 3d chapter of St. Matthew,' I indeed (says John the Baptist) baptize you
with water unto repentance, but there cometh after
me one mightier than I; he shall baptize you with
the Holy Ghost and with fire;' that is, with spiritual life"-(fire, I presume, is meant.)... "The
Jews call the change which they presume their
proselytes had experienced, a spiritual birth; a new
birth; a regeneration. It was one of their maxims
that the moment a man became a proselyte, he was
regarded as a child, once born in sin, but now born
in holiness.... Though it be not necessary to
prove by numerous authorities the first remark we
shall make on the words of Chiris',' Toble'born of
spiritual water,' and to be'born again,' it is proper
at least to propose it; otherwise it would be difficult to account for our Saviour's reproving Nicodemus as being' a master in Ismel, and not knowing
these things.' For a doctor in the law does not
seem reprehensible for not understanding a language
peculiar to Jesus Christ, and till then unheard of;
whereas the blame naturally devolved on this Jew
for exclaiming at expressions familiar to the Rabbins."
Saurin's Sermons, tranrlated from the French, by




~(AMPBELLISM IN ITS PRINCIPLES.    269
Rev. Robert Robinson, and others. Vol. 2, pp.
419, 420.
" Christ also loved the church, and gave himself
for it; that he might sanctify and cleanse it with
the washing of water by the word." Eph. 5: 25, 26.
This text is adduced by Mr. Campbell with great
confidence in support of his cherished theory, that
sins are remitted in the very act of immersion. Let
us patiently examine it. Several remarks made in
the investigation of John 3: 5, are equally applicable to the passage in hand. That the phrase,
KcaOapitaa n' 2ovrpp'roi U6arog, that he might " cleanse
it by the washing of water," which occurs nowhere
else in the New Testament, means baptism, is simply
an assumption, and cannot be proved. The weight
of authority is in favor of this interpretation, but a
large m'easure of it, both Romanist and Protestant,
presses the text into the service of baptismal regeneration. But admitting, for the sake of argument,
that the phrase means baptism, the passage cannot,
with any fairness, be offered in support of baptismal
remission. The reader must keep his eye on the
question at issue, Are sins forgiven in baptism?
Christ gave himself for the church that he might
sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of waterbaptism by the word. Christ does two things for the
church, sanctifies and cleanses it, with the washing
of water. Now, the first of these terms, in the usus
loqzuendi of the New Testament, never refers to a




270      C MPBELL1SM   1N ITS PRINCIPLES.
change of state, or the remission of sins, but invariably to a moral change.  The term aylaai, from
dy!ci{  to separate, consecrate, purify, " sanctify,"
is never used by any inspired writer to denote
pardon or'justification. It is, as has already been
shown, distinguished from justification. 1 Cor. 6:
11. It means to make holy.  "The very God of
peace sanctify you wholly." 1 Thess. 5: 23.  " He
that is holy, let him be holy still." Rev. 22: 11. If
there is a respectable author in the English tongue,
except those who use the Bethany dialect, who gives
it any other meaning, I have yet to learn who he
is.  The word KaOapLaa:, from  KaOapio, to cleanse,
render pure, to free from the influence of error and
sin, is nearly as unfavorable to the argument of MIr.
Campbell. It is used to denote the healing of the
leper: "Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me
clean." Matt. 8: 2. It is employed to signify the
process of moral purification in the redeemed:
" Let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the
flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of
God." 2 Cor. 7: 1. " Who gave himself for us,
that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and
purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of
good works." Tit. 2: 14. In one place, the word
probably refers to the removal of guilt from the conscience by the blood of Christ. Hlob. 9: 14. In
every other passage, where it relates to the redemption of men, it denotes a moral renovation.  That




CAMIPBELLISM IN ITS PRINCIPLES,    271
both sanctify and cleanse, have, in the text under
consideration. reference to a moral purification,
seems to be beyond reasonable dispute. The Apostle
tells us distinctly for what purpose Christ sanctifies
and cleanses the church, with the washing of water,
by the word. It is that he may present it to himself " a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle,
or any such thing, but that it should be holy, and
without blemish." These are clearly moral effects —
effects in harmony with the universal meaning of
the word sanctify, and almost universal meaning
of the word cleanse.  Christ proposes to purify,
adorn, and perfect his church " with the washing
of water by the word." If the phrase " washing of
water" means baptism, then the text teaches, not the
remission of sins in the act of baptism, but rather
baptismal regeneration and sanctification. At any
rate it will be the business of those who contend for
that meaning of the phrase, to free the passage from
a consequence which is exceedingly plausible, if it
is not legitimate.  But are such moral effects as the
Apostle so graphically describes attributable to baptism? This moral cleansing is ascribed to faith" Purifying their hearts by faith." Acts 15: 9; to
the word of God-" Seeing ye have purfied your
souls in obeying the truth, through the Spirit;" 1
Peter 1: 22, and to the blood of Chlrist-" The
blond of Jesus Christ his Son, cleanseth us from all
si  " I1 Jno.: 7, but never, unless it be in the text




272       CAMPBELLISMI IN ITS PRINCIPLES.
under examination, to baptism. There is, indeed,
a  Xovrp6v, or bath, which cleanses the soul, as the
washing of water cleanses the body; but this bath
is not baptism.  "In  that day, there shall be a
fountain opened to the house of David, and to the
inhabitants of Jerusalem, for sin and for uncleanness." Zec. 13: 1. He has a poor conception of
this sin-cleansing fountain, who supposes that it is
baptism.  Multitudes have been-baptized who have
not been cleansed from sin and uncleanness; and as
many have been cleansed who have not been baptized. This soul-cleansing fountain is beautifully
described by England's evangelic bard:"There is a fountain filled with blood,
Drawn from Immanuel's veins;
And sinners, plunged beneath that flood,
Lose all their guilty stains."
The same wondrous fountain is portrayed, with
different imagery, by one less gifted in song, but
not less fervent in spirit, or learned in the Scriptures, than was the gentle Cowper.
" Here at Bethesda's pool, the poor,
The withered, halt, and blind,
With waiting hearts expect a cure,
And free admittance find.
Here streams of wondrous virtue flow,
To heal a sin-sick soul;
To wash the filthy white as snow,
And makh  the wounded whole."




CAMPBELLISM IN ITS PRINCIPLES.    273
Whether the blood of Christ, or the Gospel
which reveals the efficacy of that blood, be considered the fountain, is not material-for these
things are inseparable-this is the true loutron —
the soul-purifying bath. In this the church is sanctified and cleansed, and made " a glorious church,
not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing."
I see but one method of attempting to evade the
force of the above reasoning. It may be said that
" Christ loved the church and gave himself for it,"
to deliver it from the guilt as well as the pollution
of sin-to secure for it the remission of sins, as well,as sanctification. This is readily granted. Some
passages of Scripture, however, display the grace
of God, and the efficacy of Christ's blood, in the
remission of sins, without any allusion to sanctification. " Being justified freely by his grace through
the redemption that is in Christ Jesus." Rom. 3:
24. In other passages the purifying efficacy of
Christ's blood is exhibited without any reference to
justification-" Jesus also that he might sanctify
the people with his own blood, suffered without the
gate." Heb. 13: 12. The text we are discussing
belongs to the latter class of Scriptures. Christ
gave himself for the church that he might sanctify
and cleanse it —and by so doing make it holy,
faultless and glorious-worthy of himself. Remission of sins is a blessing which believers derive from
Christ —and this truth is plainly taught in many




274     CAMPBELLISM IN ITS PRINCIPLES.
portions of the Bible; but this Scripture has no
reference to the remission of sins, and consequently
cannot prove that they are remitted in the moment
of baptism.
"According to his mercy he saved uts, by the
washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy
Ghost."  Titus 3: 5.
" The like figure whereunto even baptismn  doth
also now save us (not the putting away of the filth
of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience
toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ."
1 Peter 3: 21.
These two passages may be conveniently examined together.
The phrase " washing of regeneration" is found
no where in the Scriptures but in the text cited
from the epistle to Titus. It is generally, not
universally supposed to signify baptism. That it
does cannot be proved. My own opinion is, that it
is exegetical of the following words, " renewing of
the Holy Ghost."  Regeneration is called a washing, because it is a moral cleansing; and this washing is precisely equivalent to the " renewing of the
iHoly Ghost." The text may be rendered "the
washing of regeneration even (Kal) the renewing of
the Holy Ghost." The Greek participle catZ is frequently renvlered even- in the New Testament,
Mat. 8: 27  25: 29. Mark 6: 12, &c. But, so far




CAMPBELLISM IN ITS PRINCIPLES.    275
as this argument is concerned; I will admit that the
words " washing of regeneration" mean baptism.
The text above cited from Peter is one of the
most obscure in the apostolic epistles. Commentators have been greatly perplexed and divided concerning its import. As it is not necessary for my
purpose, I shall not attempt to expound it.
Do these Scriptures teach that the sins of a believer are remitted in the act of baptism? This is
the question under discussion. God saves us, " by
the washing of regeneration (baptism) and renewing
of the Holy Ghost."  "Baptism doth also now save
US."
The term salvation is of comprehensive import.
It denotes the whole process by which we are delivered from  sin, and fitted for the enjoyment of
heaven. It includes a thorough moral renovation,
the remission of sins, adoption into the family of
God, and perseverance unto death in the way of
holiness. It is commenced in repentance, carried
forward in sanctification, and will be completed by
the resurrection from the dead. The sincere believer in Christ, even before baptism, is in a state
of salvation, but his salvation is incomplete. Now,
God saves us by all the means which he employs to
instruct, impress, purify, and preserve us. The
written word, the ministry of the word, meditation,
prayer, baptism, the Lord's Supper, afflictions, are
all means by which God sqves us. We are said to




276     CAMPBELLISM IN ITS PRIN CIPLES.
be saved by faith-saved by hope-to save ourselves
and others, 1 Tim. 4: 10-to work out ouI own salvation, Phil. 2: 12. Salvation is promised to him
that endureth to the end. Matt. 16: 22. Christ is
the author of eternal salvation to all them that obey
him. Heb. 5: 9. And we are saved by baptism.
All these things have an influence in securing our
salvation-are among the means by which God, in
his mercy, carries on and completes the work. Baptism, which symbolizes the regenerating influence
of the Spirit of God, and is a public and solemn
acknowledgment of the remission of sins through
faith in Christ, is designed and fitted to separate us
from the world, impress on us our obligations to
Christ, and aid us in the pathway to heaven. It
certainly, however, does not follow from this position that the remission of sins is suspended on the
act of baptism. This conclusion is drawn from the
assumption, that whatever promotes our salvation
is essential to the forgiveness of sins-an assumption
manifestly false. " He that endureth to the end
shall be saved"-but is the believer unpardoned
until he finishes his race? or, is he not pardoned at
the commencement of it? Christians are exhorted
to work out their own salvation -but aie not their
sins forgiven before the completion of the work?
We are saved by baptism-not as a condition of
obtaining the remission of sins, but as one of the
means which God employs to perfect the work of




,2AMPBELLISM IN ITS PRINCIPLES.    277
our salvation; a means not indispensable to that
result.
The remaining propositions of the Extra, I will
very briefly dispose of.
The tenth sets forth that "immersion and washing of regeneration are two Bible names for the
same act." Chn'ty Restored, p. 223. Mr. Campbell's views on regeneration, having a very loose
connexion with the subject of the remission of sins,
I have pretty fully discussed in another place, and
will dismiss without farther remarks.
Under the eleventh proposition, Mr. Campbell
furnishes a long list of authorities to prove that the
early Christian Fathers considered immersion as the
"C regeneration" and " remission of sins," spoken of
in the New Testament. If this was the testimony
of the Fathers, it differs very widely, on one point,
from  Mr. Campbell's system.  "All the Apostolic
Fathers," says the Extra, " allude to, and speak of"
Christian immersion as the "remission of sins."
Now, according to the Bethany Reformation, immersion is not the "remission of sins," but the
means of obtaining it. Which is right, the Apostolic Fathers, or the father of the  "current
Reformation?"
I deem these Fathers of very little importance in
the  controversy.  That they early attached an
undue importance to Christian ordinances is very
clear  That they called baptism  "regeneration,"




278      CAMIPBELLISM IN ITS PRINCIPLES.
confounding the symbol with the thing symbolized,
and ascribed to the act a sin-cleansing efficacy, is
quite as evident, and entitled to as much consideration, as that they employed in regard to the
eucharist strong language which is confidently cited
by the Papists in support of the dogma of transubstantiation. If Mr. Campbell can prove the identity of baptism and regeneration, if he can establish
the doctrine of baptismal remission by the authority
of the Fathers, the Romanists can by testimonies
equally clear, pointed, and unexceptionable, support
the doctrine of the real presence in the mass. That
the early converts to Christianity from heathenism
should have had a strong tendency to attach an excessive and superstitious importance to the ceremonials of religion, will surprise no one who carefully
considers the character of their idolatrous training,
and the natural bias of imperfectly educated minds.
To this tendency, and the seemingly trivial mistakes
that early sprang from it, we trace that stream of
superstition, error and impiety, which has so long
overflowed and desolated the larger portion of the
so-called Christian world. We should be careful
how we follow a leader, who, to overwhelm the opposers of a favorite. theory, would open afresh this
copious fountain of pollution and mischief.
Mr. Campbell's twelfth and last proposition in
support of baptismal remission, maintains that
"the reformed creeds, Episcop,zlian, Presbyterian,




CAMPBELLISM IN ITS PRINJIPLES.    279
Methodist and Baptist, substantially avow the same
views of immersion, (as those developed in the
Extra,) though apparently afraid to carry them out
in practice." Chn'ty Restored, p. 231.
I will leave the other denominations to vindicate
their own creeds, if they deem it proper to do so.
Some of them employ language on the subject of
baptism which I do not approve, any more than I
do that of Mr. Campbell on the same subject.  But
on behalf of the Baptists, I affirm that they have
never taught, and never held any views substantially
agreeing, or that could by any ingenuity be tortured
into an agreement with, Mr. Campbell's notions on
the identity of immersion and regeneration, and on
the remission of sins in the very instant of being
put under water. The assertion is a gross misrepresentation of the Baptist denomination and of every
member of it; and Mr. Campbell himself furnishes
the proof of this misrepresentation. He quotes the
Baptist creed as follows" Chap. XXX.  Section 1. Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus
Christ, to be unto the party baptized a sign of his
fellowship with him in his death and resurrection;
and of his being engrafted into him.; of remission
of sins, and of his giving up himself unto God,
through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness
of life." Chn'ty Restored, p. 234.
The Baptists have always maintained that bap.




280     CAMPBELLISM IN ITS PRINCIPLES.
tism is a sign of the remission of sins; nor have
they been ashamed, as Mr. Campbell insinuates, to
carry out this view, so far as it could be, in practice.
But is it possible that Mr. Campbell can think that
the teaching of the Baptist creed is " substantially"
the same as his theory of baptismal remission? If
so, he is the most unfortunate writer that has ever
put pen to paper. We might as well endeavor to
understand the ravings of a bedlamite as the stereotyped writings of the Bethany Reformer. But let
us read his remarks on the creed" The Baptist follows the Presbyterian church as
servilely as the Methodist church follows the English
hierarchy." We are willing to follow the Presbyterians, so far as they follow the Bible; and if this
be servility, it were a pity but that the Reformer
had possessed a good measure of it. It might have
saved him from many profitless speculations, unseemly contradictions, and pernicious errors, and
the world from a " Reformation," which, to speak
charitably, has been of very questionable benefit.
But let us hear more of the commentary. " But
she (the Baptist church) avows her faith that immersion is a sign of remission." And then, as if to
obscure the subject, he continues-" A sign of the
past, the present, or the future! A sign accompanying I" Now, he knew perfectly that the Baptists, without a dissentient, understood baptism to
be a sign, as the terms of their creed plainly import,




CAMPBELLISM IN ITS PRINCIPLES.    281
of the remission of sins already received and enjoyed
by faith in Christ; but whether it be " a sign of
the past, the present, or the future," it differs as
widely from Mr. Campbell's notions of the identity
of immersion and regeneration, and of remission
through the act of immersion, as the Lord's Supper of the New Testament differs from the Papal
Mass.
WEEKLY COMMUNION.
One article of the Bethany Reformation is, that
all the churches of Christ are required to commune
at the Lord's table every Lord's-day. Mr. Campbell's views on this subject are expressed in the following condensed proposition, in his Millennial Harbinger Extra, No. II, p. 69.
"The breaking of the one loaf, and the joint participation of the Lord, in commemoration of the
Lord's death, usually called the'Lord's Supper,'
is an instituted part of the worship and edif cation
of all Christian congregations in all their stated
meetings."
The practice of weekly communion was not peculiar to the Reformers. It prevailed among several
Christian sects in Scotland, where Mr. Campbell
received his collegiate education, and early religious
impressions. It was not seriously opposed among
the Baptists, except as it was a part of a system,
containing many objectionable principles, and usu



282     CAMPBELL1SM IN ITS PR1NCIPLES.
ally advocated as the harbinger of other reforms, or
changes, of far more questionable propriety.
It is not my purpose to follow the circuitous and
prolix train of propositions and arguments by which
the extra aims to establish the divine authority of
weekly communion. What I have to say on the
subject may be comprehended in a few plain positions, in the brief discussion of which the most important of these arguments will be noticed.
1. Weekly communion is not commanded in the
Scriptures, either by Christ or his apostles. This
point is conceded. Every commemorative institution, except the Lord's Supper, ordained by divine
authority, had a fixed time for its observance. I ]Mr.
Campbell infers from analogy that the Lord's Supper-a commemorative institution-must have a
stated time for its observance, and that time is every
Lord's-day. Extra, No. II, p. 73. This reasoning
is not legitimate. In every commemorative rite,
except the Lord's Supper, divinely ordained, the
time of'its observance is a part of the law of the institution. The law of the Passover prescribes definitely the time, as well as the manner of keeping it.
But the Saviour in the law of the Lord's Supper
does not prescribe the times of its observance, bu
uses most indefinite language on the subject.
" This do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance
of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink
this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come."




CAMPBELL1SM IN ITS PR1NC1PLEB.    283
1 Cor. 11: 25-26.  Why was the Lord's Supper
made an exception to this rule? Does not a difference in the form of the law establishing this rite,
imply a difference in the rite itself?
The Lord's Supper is not, however, wholly anomalous. Fasting and prayer, the former, at least, a
positive institution, are Christian duties, the times
of whose observance are not divinely prescribed, but
left to be decided by the circumstances and desires of
the worshippers. Why may not the Lord's Supper
belong to the same class of religious duties?
2. It does not clearly appearfrom the Scriptures
that weekly communion was practised by any of the
apostolic churches.
Three passages of Scripture are chiefly relied on
by the advocates of the practice for its support.
The first text is Acts 2: 42. " And they continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine, and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, (partaking of the
Lord's Supper,) and in prayers."  From  this language Mr. Campbell infers that the first Christian
congregation, which met in Jerusalem, " did as
statedly attend upon the breaking of the loaf in their
public meetings, as they did upon any other part of
the Christian worship." Mill. Har. Extra, No. II,
1p. 69. All that can be logically deduced from this
text is, that " breaking of bread" was a part of the
instituted worship, steadily observed, by the first
Christian church; but whether it was observed




284     CAMPBELLISM IN ITS PRINCIPLES.
daily, weekly, or monthly, before or after prayer, or
more or less frequently than prayer, does not appear. It may be affirmed of a church that communes monthly, as truly as of one that communes
weekly, or daily, that it continues steadfastly " in
breaking of bread."
The second passage relied on in support of the
practice is Acts 20: 7. "And upon the first day
of the week when the disciples came together to
break bread," &c. From this passage it is inferred
that it was the custom of the disciples to meet on
the first day of the week, and that the primary
object of their meeting was to break bread. The
premises do not justify the conclusion. It is not
logical to derive a general conclusion from a particular fact. The fact stated in the text is particular.
When Paul, the founder of the church, was in
Troas, the disciples came together to break bread.
Suppose it had been a special appointment for communion, in view of the presence of the distinguished
apostle, or the stated monthly communion of the
church, might not the historian have said, nay,
would he not have been compelled to say, in recording the event, " On the first day of the week wheu
the disciples came together to break bread?"  On
that particular day the disciples in Troas came together to break bread, but whether they invariably
came together on the first day of the week for the
same purpose cannot be learnd from the text, or




CAMPBELLISM IN ITS PRINCIPLES.    285
its context. All that can be fairly affirmed is that
the text is in harmony with weekly communion, and
contributes, with other testimonies, to show the
probability of its prevalence in the apostolic
churches. See Mill. Har. Extra, No. 2, p. 70.
Another text quoted in proof of weekly communion is 1 Cor. 11: 20. " When ye come together
therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's
Supper."  " To act thus," says Mr. Campbell, " is
unworthy of the object of your meeting. To act
thus is not to eat the Lord's Supper. It is not to
show forth the Lord's death. Thereby declaring
that this is the chief object of meeting." Mill.
Har. Extra, No. 2, p. 72. As the Corinthians met
weekly, and as eating the Lord's Supper was the
chief object of their meeting, it is inferred that
they communed weekly. From  this reasoning I
dissent. The Corinthian church sadly profaned the
Lord's supper. They changed it into a bacchanalian feast, perverting it from its true design. The
apostle reproved them for their impiety. "When
ye come together therefore into one place," for receiving the communion, whether daily, weekly or
monthly, "this is not to eat the Lord's Supper,"
but to desecrate it. Whether they came together
for other purposes than to eat the Lord's Supper it
was not the design of Paul to consider. Of thehi
communion seasons, and only of their communion
seasons, does he discourse; and when they as




286     CAMPBELLISM IN ITS PRINCIPLES.
sembled to " break bread" they profaned the institution. Of this text I must say, as of the preceding, it accords with the practice of weekly communion, but can only be logically urged in support of
the probability of its observance in the primitive
churches.
3. Some of the arguments used in support of
weekly, may with equal propriety be used in support
of daily communion.  "Spiritual health as well as
corporeal health, is dependent on food. It is
requisite for corporeal health that food not only be
salutary in its nature, and sufficient in its quantity,
but that it be received at proper intervals, and
these regular and fixed. Is it otherwise with moral
health?" So reasons the Mill. Har. Extra, No. 2,
p. 73. The writer might, quite as logically, have
carried his analogy a little farther. As daily food
is requisite for the health of the body, so daily
communion is requisite for the health of the soul.
Doctor Doddridge says-" We have great reason to
believe that the eucharist was often celebrated
among these primitive converts, perhaps much
oftener than every Lord's day." Note on Acts 2:
42. It would seem then that the probable practice
of the first Christian church concurs with the logic
of the Extra to lead the churches back, not to
weekly, but to daily, or semi-weekly communion.
4. Admittingthat weekly communion was observed
by the apostolic churches, d ~es itfollow that the prac



CAMPBELLISM IN ITS PRINCIPLES.      287
tice is obligatory on all churches?  The soundness
of this conclusion does not appear. If the law instituting the Lord's Supper, has left the times of
its observance to be decided by the discretion of the
churches, then the practice of the early churches,
in the exercise of this discretion, is not obligatory
on other churches. Let me illustrate this point by
a similar case. The duty of Christians to contribute
of their worldly substance for the support and
spread of the Gospel is plainly revealed in the Scriptures; but the measure and manner of the contribution are to be determined by them in view of their
resources, circumstances, and the exigency of the
Redeemer's cause. Now, the first Christian church
in Jerusalem " sold their possessions and their
goods," "' and had all things common."  The law
of Christ required that they should contribute, and
they in their discretion and liberality contributed
all they possessed. But is their example obligatory
on churches in the present day? The advocates
of weekly communion will scarcely maintain the
affirmative. But if the example of the first church,
under one indefinite law, is not obligatory on other
churches, why should its example under another
law, equally indefinite, be obligatory?
5. Conceding, as Mr. Campbell maintains, that
the Lord's Supper " is an instituted part of the worship and edification of all Christian congregations
in all their stated meetings," it is grievously neg



288     CAMPBELLISM IN ITS PRINCIPLES.
lected not only by the religious sects generally, but
by the churches of the current Reformation.  These
churches meet, particularly those in cities, twice
every Lord's day, once on some week-day evening,
and sometimes for many days and nights consecutively, and yet they break bread only once a week.
If the Lord's Supper is an instituted part of the
worship of all Christian churches in all their stated
meetings, by what authority, in heaven or on earth,
do the Reformed churches assemble, statedly and repeatedly, without breaking the loaf?  If their
principles are correct, they need another and an
important reformation.
6. There is no objection to weekly communion,
provided it is not imposed on the churches as a term
of communion. The practise is not binding on the
churches. But it is admitted that among the
early churches, it is highly probable, that it did
generally, if it did not universally prevail. I do not
perceive any solid objection against returning to the
practice. It may be well for the churches seriously
and candidly to inquire, whether a more frequent
celebration of the Lord's Supper —a rite so pregnant with instruction, and so eminently impressivewould not contribute to increase their piety and
usefulness.
I cannot, perhaps, more appropriately, than at
this point, introduce a few remarks on Mr. Campbell's views of what is usually termed " Close Com



CAMPBELLISM IN ITS PRINCIPLES.    289
munion," No man was ever more clearly shut up
by his principles to the necessity of insisting on restricted communion, than Mr. Campbell. Maintaining, as he does, that without immersion, there
is neither regeneration, conversion, nor the remission of sins, he cannot, without gross inconsistency,
receive the unbaptized to the Lord's table. Surely,
those who are not "pardoned, justified, sanctified,
reconciled, adopted and saved," as according to Mr.
Campbell's theory, all unimmersed persons are not,
are without Scriptural qualifications for communing
at the Lord's table. The legitimate consequence
of his principles he has very fully admitted.
In the year 1835, Mr. Campbell had a correspondence with William  Jones, a distinguished
Baptist minister of London. Mr. Jones proposed
the following (Question. "D o any of your churches
admit unbacptized persons to communion; a practice that is lexoming very prevalent in this country?"
To this query Mr. Campbell replied-" Not one,
as far as known to me. I am at a loss to understand
on what principles-by what law, precedent, or
license, any congregation founded upon the Apostles
and Prophets, Jesus Christ being the chief cornerstone, could dispense with the practice of the Primktive church-with the commandment of the Lord,
and the authority of his Apostles. Does not this
look like making void the word or commandment of
God, by human tradition?  I know not how I could




290     CAMPBELLISM IN ITS PRINCIPLZS.
exhort one professor to'arise and be baptized,' as
Ananias commanded Saul, and at the same time
receive another into the congregation without it.
Nay, why not dispense with it altogether, and be
consistent?"  Mill. Har., vol. 6, p. 18.
In 1843, in his debate with Rev. N. L. Rice, Mr.
Campbell, to prove the liberality of the Reformers,
spoke thus-" We, indeed, receive to our communion persons of other denominations, who will take
upon them the responsibility of their participating
with us. We do, indeed, in our affections, and in
our practice, receive all Christians, all who give evidence of their faith in the Messiah, and of their
attachment to his person, character, and will."
Deb. with Rice, p. 785.
Mr. Campbell, in his debate with Rice, labored
to show the perfect agreement of the above extracts;
but labored unsuccessfully. If the passages are not
contradictory, it will be hard to find a contradiction
in the English language.  To Mr. Jones he says,
We admit no unbaptized person to communionthere is neither "law, precedent, nor license" for it.
To Mr. Rice, he says, " We receive to our communion persons of other denominations," unbaptized
persons, "who will take upon them the responsibility of participating with us."
Every man has a right to change his opinions;
and for an honest and frank avowal of the change
he deserves nc censure. Every man ].as a perfect




CAMPBELLISM AN ITS PRINCIPLES.    291
right to explain the terms in which he expresses his
opinions.  But when, from  inadvertence, obscurity
of thought, or incorrectness of diction, he perpetrates a plain and palpable contradiction, he owes
it to himself, to fairness, and to truth to acknowledge and correct the error.




CAMPBELLISM IN ITS DISCIPLINE.
One of the avowed objects, as has already been
stated, of Mr. Campbell's Reformation was the
union of all Christians on the apostolic foundation.
Of the desirableness of the object there is no difference of opinion among the intelligent friends of the
Redeemer. It is an end devoutly wished and
prayed for by all who love Jesus Christ in sincerity
The union so worthy to be sought by Christians, is
not, however, a mere ecclesiastical union, cemented
by worldly policy, and maintained by the ignorance,
apathy and subservience of the laity, and the
ghostly intolerance of the clergy; nor a mere nominal unity, in which men of all principles and all
practices are held together by the utterance of a
common " Shibboleth;" but a unity in faith and
knowledge, cemented by love, and resulting in harmonious, cordial and effective exertions for the promotion of the Redeemer's kingdom.
What is the proper foundation of Christian
Union? This is a very important question —a
question which is clearly answered in the Scriptures




CAMPBELLISM IN ITS DISCIPLINE.     293
This foundation is "the truth"-that system of
divine truth styled in the New Testament "the
Gospel," "the faith," "the doctrine of Christ,"
&c. This truth, not merely as it is recorded in the
Scriptures, but as it is understood, believed, loved
and obeyed, becomes a bond of union among Christians. When Christ ascended up on high, "he
gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and
some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the
ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
Till we all come to the unity of the faith, and of the
knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man,"
&c. Eph. 4: 8-14. The ascended Redeemer bestowed on his saints supernaturally qualified instructors, to secure their unity in "' the faith," the
C" one faith" mentioned v. 5 —the system of evangelical truth —and "' the knowledge of the Son of
God," —of his person, character, work and offices —
whom to know is life eternal. And one end which
Christ proposed to secure by this enlightened union
of the saints is their steadfast adherence to the
truth. " That we henceforth be no more children,
tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind
of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning
craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;"
&c., verses 14-15. Christians are exhorted in the
Scriptures to " continue in the faith grounded and
settled," Col. 1: 23; to strive " together for the




294     CAMPBELLISI IN ITS DISCIPLINE.
faith of the Gospel," Phil. 1: 27; and " earnestly
to contend for the faith once delivered to the saints."
Jude 3. They are said to have "fellowship in the
Gospel," Phil. 1: 5. Christians love one another
in the truth. " The elder unto the elect lady and
her children, whom I love in the truth; and not I
only, but also all they that have known the truth;
for the truth's sake, which dwelleth in us, and shall
be with us forever " 2 John, verses 1-2. If Christians " walk in the light," that is, in the knowledge
of the truth, they " have fellowship one with another." 1 John 1: 7. They are required to reject
from their fellowship all who do not bring the " doctrine of Christ."  " He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the
Son. If there come any unto you, and bring not
this doctrine, receive himn not into your house,
neither bid him God speed."  2 John, v. 10. The
church in Pergamos were sharply reproved because
they retained in their fellowship some who held the
" doctrine of Balaam," and also some who held
" the doctrine of the Iicolaitanes," which Christ
hated. Rev. 2: 14-15. From these Scriptures it
is manifest that divine truth, or the Gospel, as it is
believed, understood and loved, is the basis of Christian union.  The saints love one another in the
truth, and for the truth —in obeying the truth they
have fellowship one with another-they are required
to hold fast the truth, to contend earnestly for it,




CAMPBELLISM IN ITS DISC P1iINE.    295
and to reject from their communion th )se who do
not embrace it. Any union which is not founded
on the knowledge and love of Divine truth is a
union of ignorance, interest, policy or coercion; but
not the union for which Christ prayed, and for
w'.ich his people should labor.
It is by no means easy to define the measure of
Ignorance and unbelief compatible with the existence of genuine piety, and sincere Christian fellowship. There are, however, certain facts, doctrines
and duties, fundamental to the Christian system;
and the willful rejection of these, or any one of them,
from whatever obliquity of intellect or of heart, precludes the possibility of enlightened, Scriptural,
Christian union. The Gospel assumes the existence, and moral government of God-the depravity
and guilt of man-and to deny either of these truths
is to subvert the foundation of Christianity. The
Gospel reveals the Divinity of Christ, the expiatory
nature of his sufferings and death, his resurrection
from the dead, and his investiture with regal authority at the right hand of the Father; and he that
rejects either of these truths, rejects the Gospel
itself. Repentance, faith, and a holy life, are
plainly inculcated on men in the Gospel; and he
that denies their necessity, perverts and destroys the
system. The Gospel teaches a future state of rewards and punishments, from which it derives its
strongest motives to piety; and he that denies or




296     CAMPBELLISI I IN ITJ DISG.PLZNE,
perverts this doctrine makes war upon, if he does
not overthrow " the faith." It is not my purpose
to furnish a summary of Christian doctrine, bur only
to point out some of the principles which are essential to the system, and the knowledge and admission
of which are indispensable to the Scriptural union
of Christians. I do not affirm that a perfect knowledge of all these principles is essential to Christian
fellowship; but I do most earnestly maintain that
the persistent rejection of any one of them, under
whatever plausible pretence, and with whatever
show of argument, precludes the possibility of "fellowship in the Gospel." Fellowship, indeed, there
may be, but it is the fellowship of error, pseudo
charity, and worldly policy —a fellowship founded
on a principle, which bids " God-speed" to him
that brings not " the doctrine of Christ," and which
retains in communion " them which hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes," that Christ hates.
On the subject of Christian Union, Mr. Campbell
has written many things which deserve consideration. It is my purpose, however, to restrict my
remarks at present, to the foundation on which he
proposes to establish this union. It is laid down
in his Cliristianity Restored, pp. 118, 119.
" But the grandcur, sublimity, and beauty of the
foundation of hope, and of ecclesiastical or social
union, established by the author and founder of
Christianity, consisted in this, that THE BELIEF OF




CAMPBELLISM IN ITS DISCIPLINE.    297
ONE FACT, and that upon the best evidence in the
world, is all that is requisite, as far as faith goes,
to salvation.  The belief of this ONE FACT, and
subrmission to ONE INSTITUTION, expressive of it, is
all that is required of heaven to admission into the
church. A Christian, as defined, not by Dr. Johnson, nor any creed-maker, but by one taught from
heaven, is one that believes this one fact, and has
submitted to one institution, and whose deportment
accords with the morality and virtue of the great
Prophet. The one fact is expressed in a single proposition, that Jesus, the Nazarene, is the Messiah.
The evidence upon which it is to be believed, is
the testimony of twelve men, confirmed by prophecy,
miracles, and spiritual gifts. The one institution is
baptism into the name of the Father, and of the
Son, and of the Holy Spirit."
The reader has now a full view of the platform,
established, not by "the author and founder of
Christianity," but by M3r. Alexander Campbell of
Bethany, Virginia, for the joyful union of all the
sects and parties in Christendom. Before we venture upon it, however, we must subject it to a careful examination.
" The belief of onefact," and " submission to one
institution," constitute " the foundation of hope,
and of ecclesiastital, or social union." So teaches
Mr. Campbell.
" With us," these are his words, " Revelation has




298     CAMPBELLISM IN ITS DISCIPLINE.
nothing to do with opinions, or abstract reason. ngs; for
it is founded wholly and entirely uponfacts." Chn'ty
Restored, p. 106 "All revealed religionis based upon
facts." p. 113. I should suppose that Mlr. Campbell
uses the term "fact" in its secondary sense, as equivalent to " truth," if his own definition did not preclude
that supposition. " Fact," he says, " means something
done. That God exists is a truth, but not a fact;
that he created the heavens and the earth is a fact
and a truth." pp. 106, 107. I approve the definition. That facts occupy an important place in
the evangelic economy must be conceded; but that
the truths connected with them, and from which
they derive their significance, are less important,
must be denied. That God exists is a truth which
lies at the foundation of all genuine religion, natural
and revealed. "For he that cometh to God must
believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them
that diligently seek him." IHeb. 11: 6. That Jesus
is the Son of God is a truth-that he wrought miracles is a fact; that he was put to death by Pontius Pilate, is a fact-that he died for our sins is a
truth; that he rose from the dead, is a factthat he rose "for our justification," is a truth;
that he ascended up to heaven, is a fact-that
he ever lives " to make intercession for us," is
a truth; and it will scarcely bb maintained that
these facts are more important than the truths connected with them. Indeed, the Gospel facts, won



CAMPBELLISM IN ITS DISCIPLe NE.    299
derful as they are, possess no value apart from the
doctrine or truth, in which they had their origin,
and by which their nature and uses are explained.
The death of Jesus would be of no greater consequence to the world, than that of the two thieves
who were crucified with him, were it not that the
event is a part of a great system of truths, facts and
duties, extending backwards to the creation of the
world, and forwards through the ages of eternity.
From the proposition, then, that " all revealed religion is based on facts," I must beg leave to dissent.
But Mr. Campbell goes farther still. He narrows
greatly the ground which he at first occupied. He
sets aside all facts, as fundamental in religion, except one. " The belief of one fact-is all that is requisite, so far asfaith goes, to salvation."  " This
one fact," we are told, "is expressed in a single
proposition-that Jesus the Nazarene is the Messiah.
Now, according to Mr. Campbell's own definition,
this proposition is clearly not a fact, but a truth.
It is expressive not of something done, but of something that exists. In a note, Mr. Campbell writes
— " The fundamental proposition is-that Jesus is
the Christ. The fact, however, contained in this
proposition is-that God has anointed Jesus of
Nazareth as the only Saviour of sinners." p. 118.
Now, I deny that the fact, as he terms it, is ccntained in the proposition. To affirm, as Mr. Campbell does, that the simple proposition, " that Jesus




300     CAMPBELLISM IN ITS DISCIPLINE.
is the Christ," contains the fact, "that God anointed
Jesus of Nazareth, the only Saviour of sinners," is
to evince a strange obscurity of perception, or to
presume very far on the credulity of his readers.
And even if it were admitted, contrary to Mr. Campbell's own definition, that the proposition is expressive of fact rather than truth, why does he affirm
that it expresses one fact, when it manifestly expresses two? That Jesus is the Nazarene, is one
fact; and that this Nazarene is the Christ, is another,
and totally different fact.  "The evidence," Mr.
Campbell continues, " upon which it (the'fact,'
or, more properly the truth) is to be believed is the
testimony of twelve men, confirmed by prophecy,
miracles, and spiritual gifts." But why does he
say on the testimony of twelve men? The apostles
were divinely appointed, and important, but not
the only oral witnesses of this truth. But we must
believe it, if we believe it at all, not on oral but
written testimony; and in the New Testament we
have but eight witnesses, three of whom did not belong to the " twelve men," the apostles. Thus
loosely did this Reformer write on subjects fundamental in his system, and demanding the greatest
clearness of thought, and accuracy of expression.
" Jesus the Nazarene is the Messiah."  This is
an important proposition. But by what authority
does Mr. Campbell make the belief of it " the foundation" of " ecclesiastical or social union?" There




CAMPBELLISM IN ITS DISCIPLINE.     301
are other propositions contained in the Scriptures,
expressing both facts and truths, equally fundamental in the evangelic system, and the belief of
which is equally necessary to  salvation.  That
" Christ died for our sins," along with other important facts, is declared by Paul to be the Gospel
which he preached to the Corinthians, and by which
they were to be saved, if they would keep it " in
memory." I Cor. 15: 1-3. It is throughfaith in
the blood of Christ, that God declares " his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past."
Rom. 3: 25. That Jesus rose from the dead is a
fact of primary importance in the Christian system,
and the belief of it is requisite to salvation. " If
thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus,
and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath
raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved."
Rom. 10: 9. The "one fact," which is not a fact,
seems to have been arbitrarily selected, by the Reformer, from many facts and truths equally important, and made the basis of " ecclesiastical union."
But, we must examine this foundation still more
carefully. Does Mr. Campbell, by the proposition
that " Jesus the Nazarene is the Messiah," design
to include those truths and facts, which are essentially connected with it, and which constitute the
Gospel?  I grant that a sincere and an intelligent
belief that Jesus is the Messiah, supposes a belief
in the whole system of which this truth is an im



302     CAMPBELLISM IN ITS DISCIPLINE.
portant part. Salvation is promised to faith in the
blood of Christ-in the resurrection of Christ-and
in the Gospel of Christ, as well as to the belief of
the " one fact" that " Jesus is the Messiah;" and
this variety of language is accounted for by the simple, and well understood principle that the belief
of one fact or truth is used to denote a belief in the
system of which it is an essential part. Now, if by
the belief of one fact, Mr. Campbell means the belief of all the truths and facts inseparably connected
with it-in fine, the Gospel of Christ, I have, on
this point, no controversy with him. But, then, it
follows that Mr. Campbell has made no discovery
on this subject-has proposed no new basis of ecclesiastical union. It is precisely that for which evangelical Christians have always contended. They
maintain that the Gospel-the system of truth pertaining to human salvation-is the proper foundation for Christian union; and in this judgment Mr.
Campbell concurs. Whether, in this aspect of the
case, he can be vindicated from having made a great
ado about nothing, and having written very vaguely
and obscurely on a subject which called for clearness
and precision, others may decide.
It can hardly be supposed, however, that the
above is the proper interpretation of the language
under discussion. It does not fairly admit of this
construction.  " The belief of ONE FACT-is ALL
THAT IS REQUISITE, as far cs faith goes, to salvation.




CAMPBELLISM IN ITS DISCIPLINE.      303
If a man believes the proposition, styled in the
Bethany terminology "one fact," " that Jesus the
Nazarene is the Messiah," it is not requisite to his
salvation that he should believe anything else,
whether fact or truth, in the universe. This is his
simple, sole, all-comprehending creed, "I believe
that Jesus the Nazarene is the Messiah."  In all the
creeds, of all the sects, and in all the revelations of
God, there is not a fact, truth or principle necessary
to be believed in order to salvation, except this
" one fact," which is to be believed on the " testimony of twelve men."
On this subject I join issue with Mr. Campbell.
I cannot admit that the belief of one fact is all that
is requisite, as far as faith goes, to salvation.
But let us hear the arguments in support of the
position under discussion.  "It is again and again
asserted," says the writer, "in the clearest language, by the Lord himself, the apostles, Peter,
Paul and John, that he that believes the testimony
that Jesus is the Christ, is begotten of God," &c.,
p. 119. By this process of reasoning it can be
proved with equal clearness, that the proposition
that Jesus is the Son of God, or that Jesus was
raised from the dead, is the " one fact," or truth,
the belief of which " is all that is requisite, as far
as faith goes, to salvation;" for to the belief of
these propositions salvation is promised. The true
principle of interpreting these passages has been




304     CAMPBELLISM IN IT  DISCIPLINE.
already explained. But where, permit me to ask,
is it stated, or intimated, or implied, in the Scriptures, that the " belief of one fact," "is all that
is requisite, as far as faith goes?"  To affirm that
"whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ, is
born of God," on the well understood principle,
that he who believes that truth, also believes the
facts and truths essentially connected with it, is
widely different from affirming that the belief of
one fact is all the faith requisite to salvation.  But
hear the Reformer again.  "The Saviour expressly
declared to Peter, that upon this fact, that he was
the Messiah, the Son of God, he would build his
church." p. 119. Now, I must affirm that the
Saviour expressly declared no such thing. Neither
the word "fact," nor any term of corresponding
import appears in the passage referred to. Mat.
16: 18. The text is one, as to the proper interpretation of which, the most learned, pious, and
distinguished Biblical critics have been greatly
divided; and to assume its meaning, and to employ
that assumed meaning in support of a doubtful
proposition, proves nothing so much as the paucity
of the writer's arguments. But let us listen again.
"And Paul has expressly declared that'other
foundation can no man lay (for ecclesiastical union)
than that JESUS IS THE CHRIST.' "  I do not remember ever to have met with a more glaring perversion of the Word of God than this  Panl has




CAMPBELLISH IN ITS DISCIPLINE.    305
expressly declared no such proposition. The passage has quotation marks, and yet no such passage
is found in all the writings of Paul. The garbled
text is recorded, 1 Cor. 3: 11. It reads thus" Other foundation can no man lay than that is
laid, which is Jesus Christ." The foundation, expressly declared by the apostle to be laid, is, not
the " one fact," as the passage misquoted by Mr.
Campbell would seem to import, that Jesus is the
Christ, but Jesus Christ, himself. This apostolic
declaration is in perfect harmony with other portions of Scripture. See Isaiah 28: 16. Eph. 2:
20. And, moreover, for Mr. Campbell's construction of the passage there is no authority in the common version, the New Translation, published by
himself, nor the Greek text. On what ground he
has made this most unwarrantable change in the
text, I know not. He surely ought not to expect
that it will be admitted on his mere declaration, in
opposition to the plain import of the original, and
its well established translation.
In consideration of the flimsy arguments which
have been noticed, the writer proceeds to remark" The pointL is proved that we have assumed; and
this proved, every thing is established requisite to
the union of all Christians upon a proper basis."
pp. 119-120. It is a striking peculiarity of Mr.
Campbell's controversial writings that they abound
in arg'uments to prove what nobody denies, aid take




306     CAMPBELLISM IN ITS DISCIPLINE.
for granted, or furnish very slight evidence of the
main points at issue.  Of the twenty-eight pages
devoted to the discussion of the Foundation of
Christian Union, not more than a page is occupied
by the proofs, such as they are, that "the belief of
one fact, is all that is requisite, so far as faith goes,
to salvation." Whether these proofs are sufficient
to establish the point, the intelligent reader must
judge.
But I am not yet done with this foundation. It
is quite too broad and comprehensive. It sustains,
on its ample surface, not only all Christians, as
defined " by one taught from heaven," but errorists
of almost every class and grade. Arians, Socinians,
Universalists, Materialists, Shakers, Mormons, together with many who are ignorant and superstitious, profess as firmly and consistently, as Mr.
Campbell, himself to believe that Jesus the Nazarene
is the Messiah. They put their own interpretation
on the language, and conform their religious creed
to that interpretation. If they submit to the " one
institution," and their "deportment accords with
the morality and virtue of the great Prophet,"
they are in the judgment of the Reformer, Christians, "as defined, not by Dr. Johnson, nor any
creed-maker, but by one taught from heaven."
Just at this point the differene between the
views held by the Reformers, and " Regulars," is
clearly revealed   We maintain that the belief of




CAMPBELLISM IN ITS DISCIPLINE.      307
"one fact" is not all the faith that is requisite to
salvation; but that saving faith embraces the whole
system of facts, truths, and duties, essentially connected with this " one fact." If, then, any person
professing to believe that Jesus, the Nazarene, is the
Mlessiah, is ignorant of the import of the proposition, or rejects any doctrine or fact, vitally connected
with it, we consider it prima-facie evidence that he
does not savingly believe the " one fact."  He that
denies the doctrine of human depravity and guiltof the Divinity of Christ-of the vicarious and expiatory nature of his sufferings —or of a future state
of rewards and punishments, furnishes decisive
proof that he does not savingly believe the proposition that Jesus is the Messiah; or, at any rate, that
he does not bring the " doctrine of Christ," and
should not be received into Christian fellowship.
Such an errorist, whether baptized or unbaptized,
our churches would promptly refuse to receive, and
hold in fellowship. To do otherwise, would be to
" bid him God-speed," and to efface the distinction
between truth and error.
But the creed of the Reformation has but one
article, viz.: I believe that Jesus, the Nazarene, is
the Messiah.  The belief of this proposition "is all
that is requisite, as far as faith goes, to salvation."
II that believes this " one fact," and submits to
" one institution expressive of it," and whose morals
are correct, is, according to the doctrine of the




308     CAMPBELLIS.. I: ITS DISCIPLINE.
Reformation, " a Christian," fit for " admission into
the church." He is not required to believe any
other fact or truth, contained within the whole compass of revelation. He may, along with the Rationalists, deny the inspiration of the Scriptures; he
may, in company with the Pelagians, deny the
doctrine of man's innate depravity; he may, in
agreement with the various classes of Unitarians,
pronounce " Jesus, the Nazarene," a creature —a
man-a mere man-a fallible man; he may maintain, as do the Universalists, there is no punishment
of sin, except in this life; he may, with the philosophic Priestley, insist that the soul of man is
material, and perishes with his body; he may
believe that Joe Smith was a prophet, and that the
Book of Mormon is a new revelation from God; or
he may be deplorably ignorant of the first principles
of Christianity; but according to the fundamental
doctrine of the Reformation, he is entitled to a
place in the church of Christ. Let there be no
evasion among the Reformers. This consequence is
fairly and logically deduced from their boasted
creed. And startling as it may seem to be, they
may well be reconciled to it, as it establishes, what
else it might be difficult to confirm, their claim to
unusual liberality. A more liberal foundation for
the union of all Christians, "as far as faith goes,"
without a total abandonment of evangelic truth, it
would be difficult for human ingenuity to devise




CAMPBELLISM IN ITS D SCIPLINE.      309
But this boasted foundation is as inconsistent with
itself, as it is with the Scriptures. It contains the
elements of its own destruction. He who believes' one fact," is to submit to " one institution expressive of it." Now, is a man to be baptized without believing that Christ has commanded believers
to be baptized? Why then is he to be baptized,
and upon whose authority? But if he is to believe this, then something more is requisite, "as
far as faith goes," even according to the Bethany
platform, in order to the enjoyment of Christian
Union.
These remarks on the foundation of Christian
Union, might have been introduced with equal propriety under the head of Campbellism in its organization; but as I desired to discuss the doctrine in
connexion with its practical results, I reserved the
discussion for this place.
I now propose to examine the actual working of
this scheme of Christian Union. Experience is a
great teacher. Time tries all things. Many a fine
theory has vanished at the touch of experiment.
When Mr. Campbell's chief business was fault-finding, he had an easy, if not a grateful task. All
churches, sects and parties, and all the instructions
and labors of uninspired men, had their imperfectians; and no great ability or research was required
to discover, publish, and caricature them.  We
have now an opportunity of learning from observa



310     CAMPBELLISM IN ITS DISCIPLINE.
tion, in a measure, the fruits of the Reformation.
Mr. Campbell cannot reasonably object that churches
built upon the Apostolic foundation, of " belief in
one fact," and " submission to one institution,"
modeled after the "ancient order of things," and
commended to the world by such confident and lofty
pretensions of superior light, purity, and freedom,
should be scrutinized with a careful and candid eye.
What are the results of the Discipline adopted by
the Reformers?
It is discouraging to learn, as we do at the outset,
" that the theory of the Reformation is far in advance of the practice." Mill. iHar., vol. 4, p. 4. We
have examined the theory, somewhat carefully, and
have found it consistent neither with itself, nor
the Scriptures; and if " the theory is far in advance
of the practice," the practice must be very unsatisfactory. It is due, however, to Mr. Campbell to
observe, that his depreciation of the practice of the
Reformation in comparison with its theory, was
based on his views of the theory, and not on mine.
It has been shown that according to the fundamental principle of church organization maintained
by the Reformers, no errorist, of correct morals, can
be excluded from the church, provided he professes
to believe that Jesus, the Nazarene, is the Messiah.
and is immersed as an expression of this belief. I
shall now proceed to show that the grossest errorists
have been, knowingly and deliberately, received and




CAMPBELLISM IN ITS DISCIPLINE.      311
retained in the churches of the so-called Reformation.
Of the withering influence of Universalisln I need
say nothing. In the year 1828, the Rev. Aylett
Rains, a Universalist preacher, was baptized, in the
Western Reserve, Ohio, for the remission of sins.
In the same year he appeared at the Mahoning
Association, with which Mr. Campbell was connected.
Some of the brethren became alarmed at the introduction of a preacher among them holding such pernicious error. He publicly avowed that his peculiar views were unchanged; in other words, that he
was still a Universalist. At the suggestion of Mr.
Campbell, it was agreed, "that if these peculiar
opinions were held as PRIVATE opinions, and not
taught by this brother, he might be, and constitutionally ought to be retained." Mr. Rains declared
that his views were, " in his judgment, matters of
opinion, and not matters of faith," and " that he
would not teach them," and was by " a majority of
the brethren" sanctioned as a proclaimer of the
Reformation. Mill. Har., vol. 1, 148.
Unitarianismn, in all its phases, from high Arianism to low Socinianism, is, in the judgment of the
Christian world, a far more serious error than Universalism. It divests the Gospel of its distinctive
glory, and converts it into a lifeless, cold, and inefficient code of ethics. The atonement of Christ,
deriving its efficacy from the essential and infinite




312     CAMPBELLISM IN ITS DISCIPLINE.
dignity of his person, is the only foundation of a
sinner's hope and consolation.  The Reformers
received Unitarians into their fellowship, and sanctioned their ministrations with a full knowledge of
their errors. In the early part of the present century, a party of New Lights, headed by the Rev.
Barton W. Stone, in the State of Kentucky,
became Arians. In a letter to the Christian Baptist, published in the year 1827, he used this
language: "If these observations be true, will it
not follow undeniably, that the Word (di' hou) by
whom all things were made, was not the only true
God, but a person that existed with the only true
God before creation began, not from eternity, else
he must be the only true God; but long before the
reign of Augustus Coesar." p. 37. 3Mr. Stone's
views of the atonement were in harmony with his
conceptions of the person of Christ. He entirely
rejected the vicarious and expiatory nature of Christ's
sufferings; and maintained that they contributed
to the salvation of men only as illustrating the
Divine goodness, they constituted a strong motive
to repentance and piety. The efficacy of Christ's
death was resolved by him entirely into the power
of moral suasion.  Mill. Hlar., New Series, vol. 5,
pp. 63, 64. The peculiar views of Mr. Stone were
cordially embraced by the sect of which he was the
leader. This party, without any change in their
religious tenets, coalesced with the Reformers in




CAMIPBELLISM3 IN ITS DISCIPLINE.   313
the West. Mlr. Campbell and M[r. Stone, the principal leaders of the Reformation, had a discussion
on the points on which they so widely differed, and
in his concluding article the former used the following language-" The discussion, on my part, was
undertaken with a reference to two points: The
first, the transcendent importance of the question
itself-For what did Christ die? The second, a
very general misconception, and consequent misrepresentation of our views of it. I did, I confess,
expect that brother Stone would have more fully
and satisfactorily relieved himself and the cause of
the Reformation from the imputation of some of
our opponents on the subject of Unitarianism in its
sectarian acceptation." p. 538.
Of the extent to which the Arian notions of Mr.
Stone did formerly, or do now, prevail among the
Reformers, I have no means of ascertaining. In
the year 1844, I made a tour in the West, of which
notes were published on my return in the Religious
Herald. From the notes I extract substantially the
following paragraph, the statements in which, so
far as I have seen, have never been called in question, and which, I presume, cannot be successfully
contradicted.
"In the town of Columbia, Missouri, and its
vicinity, the Disciples, better known as Campbellites, are somewhat numerous. They were formerly
professedl) Arians, but some years since they united




314      CAMPBELLIS3I I  1irS DISCIPLINE,
with the followers of 3Mr. Alexander Campbell. I
took much pains to learn whether their views of t ae
divinity of Christ had undergone a satisfactory
change. All, with whom I conversed on the subject, concurred in testifying that they reject the
doctrine of Christ's divinity, and of his substitutional and piacular sufferings. One of the Professors of the University of Mo., (situated at this
place,) informed me that in a conversation which
he held with Mr. A., a distinguished preacher of the
denomination in this State, he most distinctly repudiated these vital principles of the evangelic
system. One thing is certain-the Disciples are
not ignorant of the fact that they are generally believed to be Arians; and under this imputation
they patiently lie. Unless there is a strange and
prevalent misconception in the community, these
Disciples stand in most urgent need of a thorough
doctrinal reformation."
Mr. Campbell inquires, " Have they (creeds) not
been the fruitful cause or occasion," not of some, or
of most, but " of all the discords, schisms, and
parties now existing in Christendom?" Chn.
Sys., p. 108. I presume, he would now cheerfully
retract this assertion-for, though in the interrogatory form, it was intended to be an emphatic assertion. Certainly, some pretty well defined and
serious errors have sprung up in the bosom of the
Reformation, and have given rise to no little liscord




CAMPBELL1SM IN ITS DISCIPLINE.    315
and party spirit. John Thomas, M. D., an Englishman, early, and with marked zeal, enlisted under
the banner of the Reformation. He was the first
Disciple who manifested any disposition to do his
own thinking. All doctrines bearing the Bethany
stamp were current among the Reformers, and were
received, I will not say, without examination, but
certainly with great readiness and cordiality. Dr.
Thomas aspired to be, not a subordinate, but a coordinate Reformer. He admired, and extolled Mr.
Campbell, approved of the Reformation, so far as
it had been carried, but he was desirous to see it
advanced to perfection, and he engaged with commendable ardor, in the effort to increase the light of
the Reformation. New light he soon thought he
discovered. He proposed to introduce new principles and practices into the Reformation. He
maintained, with perfect consistency, that persons
who had been baptized without proper views of the
nature and design of baptism-ignorant of the new,
or, as he deemed it, the old theory of baptismal remission-should be re-immersed, according to the
true intent and spirit of the ordinance. Mr.
Campbell agreed theoretically with the new Reformer on this point; for in his debate with Rice,
he said, " Now if our baptism is for any other end
or purpose than was that to which Paul submitted,
it is another baptism, as much as bathing for health
*i different from a Jewish ablution for legal un



316     CAMIPBELLISMI IN ITS DISCIPLINE.
cleanness or impurity. The action has a ameaaing
and a design; and it amust be received in that mean~ng, and for that design, else it is another baptism."
p. 439. Mr. Campbell and many of his disciples
were baptized without any knowledge of the true
Import and design of the ordinance; but whether
they did not perceive the logical consequence of
their doctrine, or were unwilling to follow the
guidance of the rising Reformer, is not apparentbut certainly they refused to receive baptism according to the meaning and design which they ascribed to it. Many, however, embraced Dr. T.'s
doctrine, and with new light and fresh joy, were
re-immersed into the name of the Father, Son, and
Holy Spirit. I have not access to any authorized
standard, if such there is, of Dr. Thomas' religious
faith and opinions. Rev. N. L. Rice, in his Debate
with Mr. Campbell, spoke of him and his doctrines,
as follows, p. 793. " Dr. Thomas, of Virginia, a
prominent preacher in the gentleman's church, contended that men have no souls-that they are constituted of body, blood, and breath-that the word
soul, in the Scripture, means breath-and that infants, idiots, pagans, and Pmedobaptists, are annihilated. My friend opposed his doctrines; but the
Doctor insisted that he had received his training
in Ireland and Scotland, twhere the people believe
in ghosts and witches, and that, although a great
reformer, he was n-t quite reformed. Mr, Camp



CAMPBELLISM IN ITS DISCIPLINE    317
bell at length refused to hold Christian fellowship
with him, and called on the church of which he was
a member, to excommunicate him,"
The fulminations of Bethany were not heeded by
the Doctor's church. They had been initiated into
the mysteries of a higher and more glorious Reformation; and they would not consent to sacrifice
their new and gifted guide to appease the wrath of
their early, and once honored, but now forsaken
teacher. Owing to the intractable spirit of the
new Reformers, Mr. Campbell found it necessary to
change the voice of denunciation into that of argument, and finally of conciliation and compromise.
The leaders met in Amelia County, Virginia, and
after discussing the points at issue between them
three days, without any change in the views of
either, they, through the influence of common
friends, became reconciled, and consented to cooperate in promoting the Reformation. The terms
of their reconciliation, taken from Dr. Thomas'
paper, are recorded in the Mill. Har., New Series,
vol. 3, pp. 74, 75.
" We, the undersigned brethren, in free consultation, met at the house of brother John Tinsley
Jeter, at Paineville; and after frankly comparing
our views, unanimously agreed upon the resolution
subjoined, and submitted the same for the consideration of brethren Campbell and Thomas; and brother Thomas agreeing to abide the same, all difficul



318     CAMPBELLISM IN ITS DISCIPI:NE.
ties were adjusted, and perfect harmony and cooperation mutually agreed upon between them.
" Resolved, That whereas certain things believed
and propagated by Dr. Thomas, in relation to the
mortality of man, the resurrection of the dead, and
the final destiny of the wicked, having given offence
to many brethren, and being likely to produce a
division amongst us; and believing the said views
to be of no practical benefit, we recommend to
brother Thomas to discontinue the discussion of the
same, unless in his defense when misrepresented.
" Signed by-Wm. A. Stone, Thomas E. Jeter,
et als. The resolution being agreed upon by the
brethren, brother Campbell and myself were requested to appear before them. The result of their
deliberations was reported to us; we acquiesced in
the recommendation after a few words of mutual explanation; and having recognized our Christian
fraternity, the brethren gave in their names to
brother Stone to be appended in the order affixed.
Paineville, Amelia, Va., Nov. 15th, 1838."
Dr. Thomas, whose monstrous errors had induced
Mr. Campbell, in violation of his own principles of
church organization, to denounce him as unworthy
of Christian fellowship, was, as it appears from the
above articles of agreement, not only retained in
" Christian fraternity," but sanctioned as a co-operator in the Reformation; on condition that he
should abstain fiom the discussion of his peculiar




CAMPBELLISM IN MTS DISCIPLINE.     319
articles of belief, "unless in his defense when misrepresented."
It certainly can surprise no man acquainted with
the condition and tendencies of the world, to learn
that a community, rejecting and ridiculing " experience before baptism," and whose creed consisted
in the simple and single article, " I believe that
Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ," should gather into
its capacious bosom a heterogeneous multitude of
persons of almost every variety of creed. The unity
which distinguished the early Reformers after a few
years began to be broken. The language of Ashdod
began to be mingled with the pure speech of Canaan.
One principle of the Reformation is that every
church member is an authorized preacher of the
Gospel. " He may," says Mr. Campbell, " of right
preach, baptize, and dispense the supper, as well as
pray for all men, when circumstances demand it."
Chu. Sys., p. 82. Under the stimulating influence
of the Reformation ministers of the word were multiplied rather too rapidly, in the judgment of the
Reformer. Some had the "vanity, self-esteem, or
boldness to assume an office, and a character, which
neither the church on earth nor in heaven" awarded
to them. In his efforts to correct this growing evil,
Mr. Campbell made the following frank, and, no
doubt, truthful acknowledgment. Mill. Har., vol.
6, No. 2, y 64.
" The cause of Reformation has suffered more




320      CAMPBELLISM IN ITS DISCIPLINE.
from this portion of its pretended friends than from
all its enemies put together. This state of things
is indeed generally attendant on the incipiency of
all public and social institutions" (A very proper
apology for the bitter fruits of the Ancient Gospel).
" But we have had a very large portion of this unhappy and mischievous influence to contend with.
Every sort of doctrine has been proclaimed by almost
all sorts of preachers, under the broad banners and
with the supposed sanction of the begun Reformation.
We are glad to follow, rather than to lead public
opinion amongst ourselves on this subject. Experience teaches with effect, what theory could not
accomplish."
" Every sort of doctrine has been proclaimed, by
almost all sorts of preachers" —these are precisely
the effects which I should, a priori, expect to flow
from the fundamental principle of church organization adopted by the Reformers; and to the existence
of which Mr. Campbell has borne an incidental and
reluctant, but most explicit testimony. Persons,
holding gross and mischievous errors, have crept
into the purest and best governed churches of Christ;
but they enter them in violation of the principles of
their organization, and remain in them, so long as
they do remain, in spite of their system of discipline.
Into the Reformed churches they enter constitutionally, and from them they cannot be excluded
without an abandonment of their basis of union.




CAMPBELLISM IN ITS DISCIPLINE.    321
As the point under discussion.s of great importance, it is proper that we should attend to what
Mr. Campbell has to say on it. I quote from his
Christianity Restored, pp. 122, 123.
" I will now show how they cannot make a sect of
us. We will acknowledge all as Christians who
acknowledge the Gospel facts, and obey Jesus Christ.
But, says one, will you receive a Unitarian?  No;
nor a Trinitarian.'We will have neither Unitarians
nor Trinitarians.  How  can this be!  Systems
make Unitarians and Trinitarians. Renounce the
system, and you renounce its creatures.
" But the creatures of other systems now exist,
and some of them will come in your way. How will
you dispose of them?  I answer, We will unmake
them. Again I am asked, How will you unmake
them? I answer, By laying no emphasis upon their
opinions.
"What is a Unitarian?  One who contends that
Jesus Christ is not the Son of God. Such a one
has denied the faith, and therefore we reject him.
But, says a Trinitarian, many Unitarians acknowledge that Jesus Christ is the Son of God in a sense
of their own. Admit it. Then I ask, How do'you
know they have a sense of their own? Intuitively,
or by their words? Not intuitively, but by their
words, And what are these words? Are they
Bible words? If they are, we cannot object to
them-if they are not, Bee will X t hear them; or,




322     CAMPBELLISM IN ITS DISCIPFINE.
what is the same thing, we will not discuss them at
all. If he will ascribe to Jesus all Bible attributes,
name,, works, and worship, we will not fight with
him about scholastic words: but if he will not
ascribe to him every thing that the first Christians
ascribed, and worship and adore him as the first
Christians did, we will reject him, not because of
his private opinions, but because he refuses to honor
Jesus as the first converts did, and withholds from
him the titles and honors which God and his apostles
have bestowed upon him.
" In like manner we will deal with a Trinitarian.
If he will ascribe to the Father, Son, and Holy
Spirit, all that the first believers ascribed, and nothing more, we will receive him-but we will not
allow him to apply scholastic and barbarous epithets to the Father, the Son, or the Holy Spirit.
If he will dogmatize and become a factionist, we reject him-not because of his opinions, but because
of his attempting to make a faction, or to lord it
over God's heritage.
"And will you receive a Universalist too? No;
not as a Universalist. If a man, professing Universalist opinions, should apply for admission, we
will receive him, if he will consent to use and apply
all the Bible phrases in their plain reference to the
future state of men and angels.  We will not
hearken to tnose questions which gender strife, nor
discuss them  at all  If a person say such is his




CAMPBELLISM IN ITS DISCIPLINE.    323
private opinion, let him have it as his private opinion; but lay no stress upon it: and if it be a wrong
private opinion, it will die a natural death much
sooner than if you attempt to kill it."
As this quotation contains the gist of the Campbellite discipline, I must be permitted to subject i
to a careful examination.
Mr. Campbell teaches, in the above extract, that
Unitarians and Universalists are to be received
into the church, provided they will consent to hold
their peculiar views as " private opinions." However erroneous and unscriptural may be their opinions, they have the full right to hold them in the
church, if they will forbear to obtrude them on
others. " We do not ask them," he says, " to give
up their opinions; we ask them only not to impose
them on others." Chn'ty Restored, p. 121
It may seem strange to some that the Bethany
Reformer, who is so zealous an advocate for the use
of a "pure speech," and furnishes in the context of
the extract under discussion, a long catalogue of
words and phrases, condemned simply on the ground
that they are not found in the Scriptures, should
have made such frequent and important use of the
term  opinions —a term  never employed by the
writers of the New Testament. There is no valid
objection to the use of this, or any other dignified
term, in religious discussions, provided it is clearly
defined, or well understood. What does he mean




324     CAMPBELLISM IN ITS DISCIPLIN E.
by this word?  He has not made any attempt tc
explain it-to inform us where faith ends and opinion begins.
Does he use the term opinion to denote speculations on subjects confessedly not included within the
scope of revelation? This can hardly be the sense
in which he uses it; for there is no person in
Christendom who maintains that an agreement in
such opinions is essential to church fellowship.
Does he by the term opinion mean the views
which men entertain concerning the import of the
Scriptures? I understand him to maintain that
the persuasion of the Univeisalist, that the Bible
teaches the final salvation of all men, and of the
Unitarian, that Christ is not a divine being, but
merely an exalted man, are opinions, which they are
at liberty to hold privately.
This unscriptural and artificial distinction can be
of no avail to the cause of the Reformer. Whatever
he may call the peculiar views of the Unitarians
and Universalists, they are clearly and avowedly
matters of faith. The Unitarian believes that the
Scriptures do most unequivocally teach, that Jesus,
the Christ, the Son of God, is not the true God, but
a creature. If this persuasion is with the Unitarian,
not an article of faith, but a mere opinion; then it
follows, that the persuasion of Mr. Campbell, that
Christ is a divine being, is not a matter of faith, but
a mere opinion. The Universalist believes that




CAMPBELLISM IN ITS DISCIOPLINE.    325
God has clearly revealed the final salvation of all
men-he receives the doctrine on what he deems
divine testimony —and if this persuasion is not faith,
it may be reasonably questioned whether there is
any faith on earth. Now, allowing that unity of
opinion is not necessary in order to church fellowship, the admission cannot help Mr. Campbell out
of his difficulty. For the differences between Trinitarians and Unitarians are not mere differences of
opinion-but are differences in faith-on fundamental principles of faith, if there be any such.
But call, if you please, the peculiar views of Unitarians, Universalists, &c., opinions, and not faith.
I utterly object to Mr. Campbell's sweeping exclusion of all opinions from  the basis of Christian
Union. There are some opinions which entirely
contravene the essential doctrine of the Bible. For
example-it is a doctrine of the Bible, that
Jesus of Nazareth is the Son of God. The Unitarian admits this doctrine, but entertains the opinion that the phrase " Son of God," imports, not his
divinity, or essential Godhead, but his great elevation among creatures. Now, here the opinion of
the Unitarian, and the doctrine of the Bible are at
issue. Let us now see the effect of the great solvent
by which Mr. Campbell proposes to melt into one
all the discordant elements of Christendom. The
Unitarian and Mr. Campbell use precisely the same
words-" a pure speech," " Bible terms,"-but they




326     CAMPBELLISM IN ITS DISCIPLINE.
attach widely different meanings to them-a.nd know
that they do; and yet, because they use the same
words, they profess to have unity of faith. They
speak the same terms, with meanings as wide apart
as the poles, and then boast of their harmony.
What is this but sheer Jesuitism?
But Mr. Campbell imposes a wholesome restriction on his Unitarian or Universalist brother. " If
any person say such is his private opinion, let him
have it as his private opinion."  Whence did Mr.
Campbell derive this rule?  Why did he not furnish
the chapter and verse, where it is recorded? It is
an important law: I should be glad to know its
author. As MSr. Campbell does not pretend to
claim for it divine authority, I must enquire into
its propriety. If these private opinions are innoxious-do not unfit their holders for church fellowship-why may they not be propagated? What
evil can arise from the diffusion of such harmless
opinions?  " If he (the Trinitarian) will dogmatize
and become a factionist, we reject him," —says Mr.
Campbell. But suppose the Unitarian does not
dogmatize, or become factious, but seeks, "not as
lording it over God's heritage," but by kind and
persuasive arguments to convince men that Christ
is not God, and that his death was not vicarious,
will he be tolerated? It would seem not, from the
quotation under consideration. But this conclusion
draws after it another consequence. Mr. Campbell,




CAMPBELLISM IN ITS DISCIPLINE.    327
af course, claims no preeminence over his Unitarian
brother. Then, as the Unitarian must not proclaim
his peculiar opinions of the person and work of
Christ, so neither must Mr. Campbell. But what
then is the moral value of the stereotyped proposition, Jesus, the Nazarene, is the Messiah?  It
means everything, and it means nothing; and what
it does mean no man may say!
But Mr. Campbell has prepared a way of escape
from this logical sequence. He has been careful
not to doom himself and his brethren, Unitarians
and Universalists, to absolute silence as to Scripture
doctrine. They may use Scripture terms in a Scriptural sense. " If he (the Unitarian) will ascribe to
Jesus all Bible attributes, names, works, and worship, we will not fight with him about scholastic
words." " If a man professing Universalist opinions, should apply for admission, we will receive
him, if he will consent to use and apply all the Bible
phrases in their plain reference to the future state
of men and angels." The law of Christian fellowship, prescribed by the Reformation, is that all shall
use Bible terms, in the Bible sense, in speaking of
Bible things. This is quite specious. I do not
know who made this law, but I know who has
broken it. Mr. Campbell has been a most flagrant
transgressor of it. In his voluminous works, he has
discussed almost every fact, doctrine, and duty of
the Christian revelation, in a copious variety of un



328      CAMPBELLISM IN ITS DISCIPLINE.
scriptural, and not unfrequently, most unwarrant.
able terms. But who is to decide what is the
" plain reference" of " all the Bible phrases," and
when a man ascribes to Jesus " every thing that
the first Christians ascribed?" Is the professor
himself? Then there is no restriction on church
fellowship, except what each person may choose to
impose on himself. Is Mr. Campbell, of Bethany?
Then he is a pope, and ought to be infallible. Is
the church to decide?  Then an agreement, not
merely in the belief of facts, or, properly of " one
fact," but in opinions as to the meaning of the words
and phrases in which the important facts and doctrines of revelation are expressed, is by implication
clearly admitted as necessary to church union; and
consequently there must be in every such decision,
an expression, clearly indicated, of this agreement.
I am not yet done with this remarkable system
of church discipline. The Trinitarian fares no better than the Unitarian or Universalist in the " current Reformation." " If he will ascribe," says Mr.
Campbell, " to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit,
all that the first believers ascribed, and nothing
more, we will receive him-but we will not allow
him to apply scholastic, and barbarous epithets to
the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit."  I have
searched the lively oracles in vain for this restrictive law. It is not found in the creeds of the sects,
the decrees of councils, nor the bulls of popes. It




CAMPBELLISM IN ITS DISCIPLINE.     329
bears unmistakable marks of its Bethany origin.
It hath "the image and superscription" of Mr.
Alexander Campbell.  But let us scrutinize it.
"Scholastic" means pertaining to a scholar, or
scholar like. A "'scholastic epithet" is a term by
which a scholar would express the quality of a person or thing. "Barbarous" is synonymous with
unlettered, uncultivated. A "barbarous epithet"
is such a word as an illiterate man would employ to
denote the quality of a person or thing. The proscriptive rule is exceedingly comprehensive and rigorous. It permits neither learned nor unlearned
terms to be applied to the Father, the Son, or the
Holy Spirit. And the Reformer speaks, if not with
pontifical, certainly with no hesitating authority —
" We will not allow him to apply scholastic and barbarous epithets," &c. Having considered the import and authority of the law, let us inquire into its
reasonableness. A  Unitarian who believes that
Christ was a mere man, or an imperfect man, and
that he died only as a witness of the truth, if he will
consent to call his belief an opinion, and keep it
private, or use only Scriptural terms, which he
knows are understood by those who hear him  in a
sense entirely opposite to that in which he employs
them, must be received into Christian fellowship.
Hie is worthy of all confidence, and fraternal love,
though, according to Mr. Campbell's judgment, he
errs on a fundamental point of the Christian system.




330     CAMPBELLISM IN ITS DISCIPLINE.
But if a Trinitarians, with sound views of the Gospel,
and a heart glowing with its spirit, in his learning,
applies an erudite, or, in his simplicity, applies at
unrefined epithet " to the Father, the Son, or the
Holy Spirit," to illustrate his perfections, or exalk
his glory, he must be rejected. And what is this
but to exalt words above truth, and to sacrifice
" unity in the faith, and in the knowledge of the
Son of God," on the altar of a barren, heartless, senseless agreement in words and phrases? And what,
permit me farther to inquire, must be the moral
influence of that church which virtually abolishes
the distinction between truth and error? Nay, worse
still, which gives to covert Unitarianism a marked
preference over Trinitarianism, expressed, in epithets either " barbarous," or " scholastic?"  And
who is to execute this new and inflexible law?
Every Reformed church. We will not allow the
use of scholastic or barbarous epithets. No Trinitarian, who understands his duties or his rights, could
consent to belong to a church claiming a power so
unauthorized by revelation, and so abhorrent to
reason.
I have not yet descended to the bottom of this pit.
Every man who knows the truth is bound to publish it to others. This is a truth for the early and
vigorous advocacy of which Mr. Campbell deserves
praise. I honor the man who honestly, boldly and
earnestly propagates the views, call them faith or




CAMPBELLISM IN ITS DISCIPLINE.    331,pinions, which he deems true and important. I
prefer a candid, out-spoken Unitarian, or Universalist, to a concealed one. Now, what does the Camp-bellite discipline do, but offer a reward for hypocrisy? It says to the candidate for church membership, if you honestly hold, and frankly proclaim,
what we deem error, we cannot receive you; but if
you will conceal your errors, we will embrace you
with fraternal confidence and love. We have no
objection to your errors-they  are opinionsopinions are private property-" we do not ask"
you "to give up" your " opinions"-but, whatever
may be your sense of duty, you must hold'your
opinions " as private property," or if you express
them at all, it must be in " Bible phrases, in plain
reference" to these matters of opinion. Now, let
any discerning man say, whether the hypocritical
and unscrupulous errorist is not treated with a consideration and affection which are withheld from the
honest and conscientious errorist, or even the orthodox Christian who expresses truth concerning
the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, in interdicted epithets.
I must notice another point in this remarkable
extract. "If a person," observes the Reformer,
"say such (Universalism) is his private opinion, let
him have it as his private opinion; but lay no stress
upon it: and if it be a wrong private opinion, it
will dui a natural death much sooner than if you




332     CAMPBELLISM IN ITS DISCIPLINE.
attempt to kill it," Whether Mr. Campbell intends
this as a general or particular rule, I do not know.
Whether this specified error, or all error, will die
soonest by being let alone, Mr. Campbell does not
inform us. Paul did not think the errors of the
Judaizing teachers would perish sooner by neglect.
Christ did not judge that the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes would die the sooner if there was no attempt
to oppose it. The whole of Divine revelation is a
vigorous combat with every system and species of
error. What a pity it is that Mr. Campbell did not
make an earlier discovery that error of opinion will
die a natural death sooner than it can be killed.
What a vast saving of ink, and paper, and toil, and
anxiety, and exasperation, and alienation, it might
have proved. But Mr. Campbell does not quite let
error alone. He closes its mouth, or limits it to the
use of Bible phrases, and gives it a home and countenance, and respectability in the church-that " it
may die a natural death."
At this point, so far as the present discussion is
concerned, the notable extract might be dropped.
But for the purpose of showing the loose and inaccurate style in which Mr. Campbell treats the most
important subjects, another sentence must be noticed. " What is a Unitarian?" To this question,
he replies, " One who contends that Jesus Christ is
NOT the SonZ of God."  Now,.it may be safely
affirmed, that n< Unitarian has ever denied that




CAMPBELLISM IN ITS DISCIPLINE.    333
Jesus Christ is the Son of God. The Unitarians
not only believe that Jesus is the Son of God, but
maintain that they receive him as the Son of God,
according to the scriptural and rational import of
the phrase. To charge them, as Mr. Campbell has
done, with denying that Jesus is the Son of God, is
to do them gross injustice-springing, it is presumed, so far as he is concerned, not from malice
aforethought but a culpable carelessness in the use
of language.
True, in the same extract, he represents the
Trinitarian as admitting, that " many Unitarians
acknowledge that Jesus Christ is the Son of God in
a sense of their own." But this can furnish no
apology for the statement he makes that a Unitarian is one who contends that Jesus Christ is not the
Son of God."
If verbal criticism were composed of flesh and
blood, it might grow fat on the food furnished for
its nourishment in the obscurities, inaccuracies and
mistakes, abounding on the pages of the Reformer.
We have seen that Universalists may be retained
in the Reformed churches on the not very intelligible condition, that they will " consent to use
and apply all the Bible phrases in their plain
reference to the future state of men and angels;"
or, as it appears from the compromise with Dr.
Thomas, " to discontinue the discussion of the same,
unless ii tAeir defense when misrepresented."  But




334     CAMPBELLISM IN ITS DISCIPLINE.
suppose they should deem it incompatible with their
duty and independence, to keep silent, or act merely
on the defensive, regarding their peculiar doctrines
or points of faith?  What then?  Does the
Reformation make any provision for the correction
of the evil? A case calling for correction has
recently presented itself. The " current Reformation" has been quite fruitful of heresies. First,
Dr. Thomas led off a sect of JMaterialists; and
lately Mr. J. B. Ferguson, pastor of the Reformed
church in Nashville, having embraced Universalist
views, is sustained by a majority of his church. The
Millennial Harbinger, of January, copies from the
Christian Age of December 22, as follows: p. 55.
" Mr. Clapp, of New Orleans, wrote to Mr. Gutley, of Cincinnati, alleging that Mr. Ferguson'was
with them fully;' that is, that he was a thorough
Universalist, and that he would change the'Campbellite church in the South.' I do not aim to give
the exact words —I give the exact meaning."
On this subject Mr. Campbell says:
" That Mr. Ferguson should seek to retain any
position among us, is irreconcilable with any other
view than that he intends to create a party in favor'f Universalism. This is most unquestionably his
design, if there be any truth in the documents,'
copied, in part, from the Christian Age, above.
" Now, we award to every man what we claim for
ourselves-liberty to preach and teach his own con



CAMPBELLISM IN ITS DISCIPLINE.    335
victions. But we must hold it incompatible with
candor and honesty, guilefully to hold a place
amongst us, when he is no more of us than Messrs.
Gurley and Quinby, whom he endorses and commends as worthy of the most ample success, in propagating bald and deformed Universalism; and how
any church amongst us can choose him as its pastor,
unless they, too, are ultra-Universalists, demands
an explanation, which is alike due to itself and to
the Christian brotherhood."
Concerning the above statements and remarks,
several things deserve to be noted —
1. The " current Reformation" seems likely to
produce more than one schism for every generation,
the number ascribed by Mr. Campbell to every
CC sectarian creed."
2. It is proper to recommend to the Reformers,
a patient endurance of the evils for the removal of
which their system has made no adequate provision.
Mr. Ferguson occupies the foundation of Christian
fellowship on which he was built. He believes one
fact-has submitted to one institution-and his
" deportment accords with the morality and virttue
of the great Prophet," and is, therefore, " a Christian, as defined, not by Dr. Johnson, nor any creedmaker, but by one taught from heaven."  He has
violated no covenant. Surely the Reformers will
not excommunicate and anathematize him! Then
he m'ght write " What a dangerous matter it bas




336     CAMPBELLISM IN ITS DISCIPLINE.
become, to think differently from" Mr. Campbell
and his friends! " How  perilous to view" the
future state "'differently from the' keepers of the
faith' of Tennessee! This alone exposes a person to
the greatest anathema in the power of Reformeirs.
They can do no more in Tennessee, as yet, than treat
a dissentient as they would a murderer, or a vile
adulterer!" It cannot be that the Disciples will
knowingly subject themselves to such dreadful imputations.
3. Should Mr. Campbell succeed in persuading
or shaming Mr. Ferguson and his party into an
abandonment of their position in the ranks of the
Disciples, he will be far more successful than the
Baptists were in their early struggles with Mr.
Campbell and his party. It was more than suspected that they intended "'to create a party in
favor of" the Reformation.  The Baptists were
willing to award to them what they claimed for
themselves-liberty to  preach  and teach their
own convictions-but they thought it incompatible
" with candor and honesty," for men whose aim was
to revolutionize the Baptist churches-who pronouhced them a part of Babylon the Great-and
whose labors were spreading discord and unhappiness among them-to hold a place in their churches.
They would gladly have avoided the necessity of
excluding the Reformers-of provoking tile cry of
persecution-but they could not. The Reformers




CAMPBELLISM IN ITS DISCIPLINE.    337
did not deem it proper to retire from a position
which gave them a favorable opportunity for propagating their sentiments, and strengthening their
party. The cup which they pressed to the lips of
the Baptists, is now pressed to their own lips. It
is bitter, but they must drink it. It may prove
medicinal. If they retain the errorists, they cherish
in their own bosom a faction whose aim is to " change
the Campbellite church in the South," and if they
exclude them, they sit in judgment on their religious faith, follow the spirit and example of the
creed-making sects, and utterly repudiate their
boasted foundation of church union. They are in a
dilemma.




CAMPBELLISM  IN  ITS TENDENCIES.
When Mr. Campbell commenced his public career,
serious apprehensions were entertained, by the most
judicious observers, that it would terminate in wild
speculations, fatal error, or, perhaps, downright infidelity. Several causes contributed to create and
strengthen this apprehension. His religious views
underwent early, various, and rapid changes. From
ultra-Calvinism  he quickly passed, through all the
doctrinal stages, to low Arminianism-from being a
Psedobaptist he became a Baptist, and soon left all
his new brethren behind in his zeal for the ordinance
of baptism. Other important changes were frequently occurring in his religious creed. No wonder
that considerate Christians were prepared to see
greater, and almost any, changes taking place in
his views. It was supposed by many that he had a
pretty strong leaning to Unitarianism. His rejection of the terms Trinity, and Trinitarian, some
incautious and obscure remarks which he penned
on this profound subject, and the early coalition of
his party with Mr. Stone, and his Arian followers,




CAMPBELLISM IN ITS TENDENCIES.    339
gave birth and vigor to the supposition. Others,
again, suspected tihat the tendency of the Reformation was towards the renunciation of all spiritual
religion, and the adoption of a heartless formalism.
This fear originated from the irreverent and sarcastic manner in which he treated religious experiences, and, indeed, tile whole subject of earnest piety.
These apprehensions of the evil tendencies of the
Reformation were not confined to its opposers, but
prevailed with many who viewed the labors of Mr.
Campbell with more or less favor and interest. But
Campbellism. was not destined to realize, at any
rate, in the first age of its existence, and to the full
extent, these fears.
Several conservative influences conspired to check
the evil tendencies of the system, if they really existed. It was a redeeming trait of the Reformation
that it professed great reverence for the holy Scriptures. In common with other Protestant Christians, the Reformers maintained the supreme authority of revelation in matters of faith; but they
gave marked and unusual prominence to this point
in their teaching. An unwillingness to tread the
beaten track, and a desire to furnish original, striking and systematic expositions of the Scriptures,
made them very unsafe religious guides; yet the
custom-of referring all questions concerning faith
and practice to the arbitrament of the Scriptures
proved to be the sheet anchor of their preservation




340     CAMPBELLISM IN ITS TENDENI'.ES.
from the maelstrom of error into which they were
drifting. They were mostly diligent and careful
readers of the Bible; but they read it, with the
glosses it received at Bethany.  Their unavcidable
association and intercourse with the Christian sects
around them insensibly exerted over them a conservative influence. It was not easy, perhaps, not
possible for them, to rise superior to the influences
which by books, newspapers, sermons, and conversations, were constantly, though, for the most part,
unintentionally, exerted to restrain their wanderings, correct their errors, modify their views, and
assimilate them to the surrounding Christian denominations. The glory of being a discoverer of
truth, and a reformer, may impel a man to endure,
and even to glory in, reproach; but others, who do
not aspire after this glory, will gradually seek, at
any rate, as far as the love of trulth will permit, to
soften the asperities of an unpopular system, and
conform it to the prevailing taste. He has been a
careless observer of Campbellism who has not perceived its effort to get rid of the odium theologicum
vy conforming its teachings, more and more, to the
popular views.  The reader may find a striking exemplification of this remark in Mr. Campbell's debate with Rev. N. L. Rice. It was perfectly obvious
throughout the discussion, that he was desirous of
being accounted orthodox in his religious principles, and nothing so much annoyed him as the quo



CAMPBELLISM IN ITS TENDENCIES.    341
tation of heterodox sentiments from his early writings.
Another cause, however, contributed more than
both the above, to restrain the erring tendency of
the Reformation, and, in a measure, to turn it into
the paths of sobriety and moderation. This cause
was Thomnasism.  The reader has already seen that
ir. Thomas embraced the principles of the Reformation, and proposed to follow them out to their
legitimate results. His views and labors rendered
him very unpopular, and brought upon the Reformation great reproach. Mr. Campbell, in opposing
this new Reformation, was compelled to employ, in
part, the very weapons which the Baptists, and
other evangelical Christians, had used in their contests with him. In combating the errors of Dr.
Thomas, he naturally sought sympathy and coun.
tenance; and where could these be found except
among the evangelical sects? But if these were to
be conciliated, they must be won, not by derision
and contempt, but by candid and kind words, a return to evangelical principles, and the exemplification of the true Christian spirit. From the rise of
Thomasism may be dated the decline of the vaunting, pugnacious spirit of the Reformation. Internal
discussions and conflicts made the Reformers less
intent on foreign conquests; and the bitter fruits
of the Reformation, so early developed and matured,
made them less confident of its excellence. Thus




342    CAMPBELLISM IN ITS TENDENCIES.
the tendencies of the system were checked, and its
advocates were brought to reflection, under circumstances favorable to a correction of their early mistakes.
The means necessary for building are very different from those employed in tearing down. Mr.
Campbell, in the commencement of his Reformation, was occupied in demolishing the " kingdom of
the clergy," and all sectarian combinations. Every
institution and every means, therefore, used in supporting and spreading the prevalent Christian organizations, was condemned as evil. But when he
found himself at the head of a sect, he felt the
necessity of resorting to the use of these condemned measures for the purpose of consolidating and
increasing it. On this subject it will be proper to
enter into details.
The reader has seen the utter contempt in which
Mr. Campbell held the " hireling clergy."  "' Every
man, who receives money for preaching the Gospel,
or for sermons, by the day, month, or year, is a hireling in the language of truth and soberness."  Such
was the doctrine of the early, but it is not the doctrine of the current Reformation. Now, the Reformed churches have settled pastors, not reared up
among them, but called from abroad to officiate in
them, supported by regular salaries, and differing;
in no material respect, from the ministers of other
Christian denominations.  They are "clergy," or




CAMPBELLISM IN ITS TENDENCIES.    343
"hirelings," according to the Bethany definition of
these terms.
The extravagance, show, and pomp of city congregations was a popular theme for declamation
with the Reformer of Brooke. Many simple minded and pious Christians wished him success in his
efforts to correct the evil. Unfortunately, the Reformed churches are, in this respect, following in the
wake of the sects. The writer was, not long since,
in a large, beautiful and prosperous city, in the
West, where the " Disciples' Meeting House"
rose, in grand proportions, and towering turrets,
above all the temples of the " Babylonians." Nor
is this a solitary case. Every where the advocates
of the " ancient Gospel," are vieing with the devotees of a so-called spurious Christianity, in the
cost and adornment of their houses of worship.
Baptist Associations-the messengers of the
churches met together for the purposes of fraternal
consultation and advice-were pronounced by Mr.
Campbell to be unauthorized of God. There was
no " Thus saith the Lord" for them. Chn. Bap., p.
26. "I hope," said an early Reformer, who had
fully imbibed the spirit of his master, " your paper
will destroy associations, State conventions,-all of
which are as assumed and as anti-scriptural as the
infallibility and pontificate of the Pope of Rome."
p. 144. But the Reformed churches soon felt the
need of mutual intercourse and concert in efforts.




344    CAMPBELLISM IN ITS TENDENC IES.
And Mr. Campbell, who could find no Scripture
authority for Associations, thus lays down the law of
Christian cooperation. " Whether the churches in
a given district shall, by letter, messengers, or stated
meetings, once or twice per annum, or oftener, communicate with one another; whether they shall
send one, two, or twenty persons, or all go and communicate face to face, or send a letter; and whether
they shall annually print, write, or publish their
statistics, &c., &c., &c., are the mere circumstantials of the Christian institution. *::- *  Cooperation, as much as the intercommunion of Christians,
is a part of the Christian institution." Chn. Sys.,
pp. 74-75.  Associations, it seems, are unscriptural, but Cooperation meetings are " a part of the
Christian institution." It amounts to this brief
proposition, What you do is wrong-if toe do the
same thing, and call it by another name, it is right.
Bible Societies and Sunday-Schools-schemes of
the clergy-were, in Mr. Campbell's early judgment,
" fraught with mischief to the temporal and eternal
interests of men."  "I have for some time," said he,
"viewed both Bible Societies and Sunday-Schools, as
a sort of recruiting establishments, to fill up the ranks
of those sects which take the lead in them." Chn.
Bap., p. 80. No sooner, however, were the Reformed churches organized, than they found it
necessary to resort to these "recruiting establishments" for the purpose of filling up their ranks;




CAMPBELLISM3 IN ITS TENDENCIES.    345
and schemes of most pernicious tendency when
cherished by the sects, became not only innoxious,
but useful in the hands of their new advocates.
Colleges were, in the early period of the Reformation, placed among the marks of the beast. " The
Baptists, too," he said, "have got their schools,
their colleges, and their Gamaliels too-and by the
magic of these marks of the beast, they claim homage and respect, and dispute the high places with
those very Rabbis whose fathers were wont to grin
at their fathers."  Mill. Har., vol. 1, p. 15. In a
few years after this passage was penned, we see its
venerable author placed at the head of Bethany
College, in Virginia, with the high-sounding title
of President. And did he, by the magic of this mark
of the beast, claim homage and respect, and dispute
the high places with the Rabbis, who descended from
the grinning fathers? Certainly not. He has no
affinity with the beast. The seeming inconsistency
is explained by this simple consideration. To overthrow the clergy and the sects, it was necessary to
undermine the influence of colleges; the most
effectual way of destroying their influence was to
produce the impression that they were marks of
the beast —appendages of the Romish hierarchybut to give respect and influence to the Reformation, it was important to have a college, free, of
course, from priestly rule, and who so worthy to
preside over it as the father of the Reformation, to




346    CAMPBELLISM IN ITS TENDENCIES.
whom belonged the honor of the exhumatior of the
ancient Gospel?
To the education of the rising ministry, the
Reformation, in its early stage, was most decidedly
hostile. In reviewing a " Sermon on the duty of
the church to prepare pious youth in her bosom, for
the Gospel ministry," in the year 1826, the editor
of the Christian Baptist wrote as follows: p. 221.
The " sermon is intended to proclaim that it is
the duty of the church to prepare in her bosom pious
youth for the Gospel ministry. Now, this is really
a new message from the skies, for there is not one
word, from Genesis to John, which says that it is
the duty of the church to prepare pious youth for
the Gospel ministry.  This point could not be
proved from the words of any previous ambassador,
and it is unnecessary for any ambassador to prove
his own communications to be true."
At what precise time it is not known, but before
the beginning of the year 1854, the "new message
from the skies" had been duly received and authenticated. The " Christian church" needed an educated ministry, and authority to raise up one was
easily obtained. In the January No. of the Mill.
Harbinger, of the present year, (1854) Mr. Campbell in a letter addressed to his wife, says: p. 40.
" Since I last wrote to you, I have been almost constantly on the wing, pleading the cause of man's redemption in the department of an educated ministry.




CAMPBELLISM IN ITS TENDENCIES.    347
That this is one of the Lord's ordinances, cannot
rationally be doubted by any student of nature and
of the Bible.... We want not higher authority to
teach or to constrain us to raise up-to educate and
train men in human and Christian science, that they
may be able to teach others also.... We are
pleased to see that every form of Protestantism,
Quakerism alone excepted, is intent on the proper
education of its itinerant ministry."
Now, this is refreshing. It sounds so unlike the
censorious, sterile, and hostile Campbellism with
which our Noells, and Cloptons, and Semples, had
to deal. It shows, conclusively, that reformatory,
conservative influences have been modifying and
improving the system. Every such indication of
genuine refoirmation should be hailed with delight
by the friends of evangelical piety.
The reader has already been informed, through
the extracts transferred from the writings of Mr.
Campbell to these pages, of his views on the subject
of Christian missions; and will, doubtless, be surprised to learn that the Reformers, with Mr. Campbell at their head, have engaged in the missionary
enterprise. Soon after their separate organization,
they sent out, not missionaries, but evangelists
— paid preachers-to proclaim the " ancient Gospel."  For the appointment of missionaries, not
endowed withl miraculous power, there could, at
that tinme, be found in the Scriptures, neither pre



3~48    CAMPBELLISM IN ITS TENDENCIES.
cept, example, or inferential authority; but the
appointment and support of evangelists to itinerate
and proclaim the " ancient Gospel," was plainly
sanctioned by the " Living Oracles." But recently
they have organized a Foreign Nlission Board-and
have sent forth, not a church, according to the original Bethany plan for evangelizing the world, but
individual missionaries, "without the power of working miracles," of which, said Mr. Campbell, "the
Bible gives us no idea." Chn. Bap., p. 15.
The above facts will suffice to show the favorable
changes which have taken place among the Reformers.  The Reformation has been gradually and
greatly reformed. The present Millennial Harbinger is a far more respectable and dignified monthly
than the old Christian Baptist.  Though, it must
be conceded, that its pages occasionally furnish
proof that its veteran editor has not forgotten the
art of vituperation. The Disciples generally are less
opiniated, less eager for battle, and far more courteous and conciliatory, in their intercourse with
other Christians, than they formerly were. In short,
they seem to have taken the road back to Babylon,
and have nearly completed their journey.
There is manifestly a growing desire among the
Reformers to be accounted " evangelical," " orthodox," and " regular." A striking proof of this
remark, was furnished, not long since, in the city
of St. Louis, Mo. There was a Christian Associa



CAMPBELLISM IN ITS TENDENCIES.    349
tion formed in that city. The members of the
Association were required to be members of some
" evangelical church." Applicants for admission
from the Christian, or Reformed church, were rejected on the ground that they furnished no evidence of being " evangelical." To obviate the
difficulty, a prominent member of the church, with,
as it is stated, the concurrence of the pastor, and
other leading members, drew up and presented a
statement of the doctrines held by the church.
Here follows the creed:
"The independent existence of one absolutely
perfect Being, the Creator, Preserver, and Governor of all things: The divine inspiration, the
authority, and sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures:
The existence of three persons in the Godhead, the
Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit: the incarnation and Atonement of the Son for human salvation: The justification of the sinner by faith, without
the deeds of the law, or meritorious works of righteousness, of any kind whatever, and the necessity
of the Spirit's influence to regenerate the souls of
men."  Western Watchman, vol. 6, p. 126.
Concerning the above article several remarks are
worthy to be made.
1. It is a creed. It is a brief summary of the
doctrine in the belief of which the church is united.
Though not formally sanctioned by the church, it




350     CAMPBELLISM IN ITS TENDENCIES.
may be presumed to contain the truths deemed by
them fundamental.
2. It is a sound creed.  Its ortbcodoxy, so far as
it goes, will be readily admitted by all evangelical
Christians. It contains, expressed in plain, and
well understood, but not exclusively  scriptural
terms, the truths which are, by the Spirit of inspiration, placed as the principal parts of the Gospel
system. It is the " far famed tree of evangelical
orthodoxy," whose bitter fruits Mr. Campbell so
eloquently described. It was drawn up and presented for a worthy purpose-to furnish proof that
those who were united in the belief and maintenance of its doctrines-were entitled to Christian
confidence and affection.
3. Its adoption is a virtual renunciation of Campbellism.  This will appear from several considerations. It applies certain " scholastic" terms, as
" three persons," and " incarnation" to the Father,
the Son, and the Holy Spirit, contrary to the express and imperative law of the Reformation. " We
will not allow him, (the Trinitarian,) to apply
scholastic epithets to the Father," &c. It sets at
naught the foundation of Christian union laid by
Mr. Campbell, and the Reformed builders generally
-that the belief of one fact, and submission to
one institution expressive of it, " is all that is required of Heaven to admission into the church."
And, lastly, it is a concession, in the fate of all Mr




CAMPBELLISM IN ITS TENDENCIES.    351
Campbell's teaching, that a profession of belief in
the Scriptures is insufficient to indicate a man's
faith.
4. It is a matter of just and sincere gratulation
that these St. Louis Christians have given a clear
and manly exhibition of their religious belief. They
owed it to themselves, to the Christian Association,
to the public, and, above all, to the truth, and to
the God of truth, not to conceal their faith under
loose and indefinite expressions, but to give it a
free and honest utterance. If in doing so they have
renounced the distinctive principles of the Bethany
Reformation, they may have the consolation to reflect that they have followed the oracles of God.
5. If the Reformers generally are prepared to
adopt this creed, with a few additions, to which, it
is presumed, they have no serious objection, to complete the system, there seems to be no good reason
why they should keep themselves, or be kept by
others, in estrangement from their brethren of the
evangelical sects. True, their Reformation would
utterly vanish, except in dim and shadowy remembrance. But what of that? It was commenced,
and prosecuted, most unsuccessfully, to promote
Christian union-let it perish, with a fairer prospect of securing the same glorious result.
We have seen the vaunting pretensions of Camp-..
bellism to be the " ancient Gospel." All the worldliness, contentions, schisms and apostasies among




352    CAMPBELLISM IN ITS TENDENCIES.
the sects were ascribed by its advocates to creeds,
evangedical orthodoxy, metaphysical speculations,
&c. It was confidently predicted that the fruits of
the ancient Gospel would be as far superior to the
fruits of the popular exhibitions of Christianity, as
the grapes of Eshcol were to the apples of Sodom.
The experiment has been made on a somewhat extended scale. What is the result?
The most enthusiastic admirer of the system
must admit that its fair promises have not been fulfilled. The Reformation has proved a failure. Its
converts have been considerably increased; but according to Mr. Campbell's concession, they are a
heterogenious multitude, among whom " every sort
of doctrine has been proclaimed, by almost all sorts
of preachers." It will hardly be maintained that
the rapid increase of the Reformers is a proof of
the truth of their system. Campbellism has been
far outstripped in its conquests by Mormonism. If
success in winning converts is the test of truth, the
Bethany Reformer must confess the inspiration of
the prophet of Nauvoo. But what has been the
moral influence of Campbellism? Have the converts made by the "ancient Gospel" been preeminent for modesty, humility, disinterestedness, sobriety of deportment, good works, stability, and
usefulness?  Comparisons are invidious.  They
would not now be made, if they were not necessary
to expose she fallacy of the liberal professions of the




CAMPBELLISM IN ITS TENDENCIES.    353
early Reformation. It may be confidently affirmed,
that experience has falsified them. The fruits of
Campbellism are not better than were the fruits of
the Gospel preached by Noell and Semple, and their
worthy compeers.
If the Reformation has accomplished any good,
it is attributable, not to its peculiarities, but the
great principles which it has inculcated, sometimes
with strange inconsistency, in common with " evangelical orthodoxy." Just in proportion as it becomes assimilated to evangelical Christianity, and
renounces, or ignores, its distinctive principles, we
may hope for an increase of its usefulness.




CONCLUSION.
The rise, progress and variations-the principles,
discipline and tendencies of Campbellism have been,
somewhat carefully, examined. Many important
points have been passed without notice. To attempt the correction of all the errors into which Mr.
Campbell has fallen, would involve the necessity of
a minute review of all the ponderous volumes which
he has written. Scarcely a page of his writings is
free from false logic, false philosophy, or false theology, to say nothing of philological, grammatical and
rhetorical blemishes. But the writer has deemed
it proper, so far as he has discussed the evils of
Campbellism, to confine his remarks to its graver
errors.. It is suitable, in conclusion, to offer a few
general remarks on the whole system.
The examination of the subject must tend greatly
to strengthen the conviction that the system of
truth, generally designated among Protestant Christians, tle " evangelical)" or " orthodox faith," is
Scriptural. When Mr. Campbell was attacking it,
with so much learning: ingenuity, and diligence,




CONCLUSION.              355
many feared that it would be overthrown. The fear
was idle. To suppose that the essential principles
of the Gospel had been for ages concealed, until
they were brought to light, " in the year of grace,
one thousand eight hundred and twenty-three,"
was a grand absurdity. Under a spiritual despotism, where wealth, learning, ambition, and interest
are enlisted to maintain the existing hierarchy, and
to repress and crush the spirit of inquiry and innovation, ignorance and error may be perpetuated.
This remark explains the uniformity of error prevailing under the unbroken reign of " the man of
sin." But where men enjoy freedom to read and
study, to teach and practice, the Word of God, with
ample means to investigate its import, it seems incredible that its fundamental principles should remain unknown. That the Protestant Reformation,
in a good degree, freed the human mind from spiritual bondage, and stimulated it to vigorous and persevering efforts after truth, will scarcely be denied.
Though some Protestant governments have imposed
needless and injurious restrictions on religious inquiry, others have tolerated, protected and encouraged it. Many men, eminent for their piety, genius,
learning, candor, and industry-men as good, and
as great as the world has seen, or is likely to seeavailing themselves of this liberty, have devoted
their lives, u lder circumstances favorable to success,
to the study )f the Bible, and have been willing to




356              CONCLUSION.
peril and sacrifice all worldly advantages in the
maintenance of its truths. That not one of them
should have discovered the essential principles of
the Gospel, until it was disinterred by Mlr. Campbell of Bethany, is preposterous. Whence arose
the difficulty of understanding the system? From
its obscurity? This will scarcely be pretended.
From want of candor, learning and industry in the
inquirers? This, surely, will not be affirmed by
one who has been so deeply indebted as Mr. Campbell, to his predecessors for his parade of learning
and criticisms. It is pleasing to the pious mind to
reflect, how the good and great, in every age and
land, who have made the Scriptures their study and
guide, have harmonized in their views of the essential facts, doctrines, and duties of Christianity.
Divided they have been concerning ordinances,
church polity, and various speculations, but united
in all that pertains to the vital principles-the soulsaving truths-of the system. That any man should
imagine, after so many gifted minds had carefully,
laboriously, and with much prayer, studied the
Bible, that le should be the first, in many generations, to discern its hidden import, and open it, in
all its beauty, fulness and glory, to the admiring
gaze of mankliind, savors more of vanity than of a
sound judgment-resembles more the hallucination
of a distempered mind, than the dictate of sound
Christian philosophy. The system of faith. held by




CONCLuSIoN.              357
evangelical Christians, is impregnable. It has withstood, and it is destined to withstand, the assaults
of the most powerful, and the machinations of the
most subtle, minds. All hope of any new and important discoveries in the system is visionary. Christianity does not belong to the progressive sciences.
Its primary facts, principles, and duties were plainly
revealed, and fully confirmed in the beginning; and
could be understood just as easily and clearly before
the first number of the Christian Baptist appeared,
as they can be now. It would be difficult for the
most devoted admirer of Mr. Campbell to point to
a single essential principle or duty of the Christian
system, which he has disinterred, or on which he has
shed any fresh light. If all his criticisms, arguments, illustrations, and declamations were struck
from existence, there would not be one particle less
of religious light in the world. The Bible would
shine with undiminished lustre. The host of evangelical authors, who shone in the religious firmament, before the dawn of the Bethany Reformation,
have retained their places, and their brilliance.
After having pronounced the fruits of the " far
famed tree of evangelical orthodoxy" to be spurious
and pernicious, and having labored, with all his
powers, and with untiring diligence, for almost
thirty years, to uproot and destroy it, Mr. Campbell
is, at length, constrained to come forward and claim
the honor o- being orthodox. He has become, it




358              CONCLUSION.
seems, a "' regular." The history of this Reformation furnishes a most illustrious proof of the truth,
stability and excellence of " evangelical orthodoxy."
It has undergone a fiery ordeal. Learning, ingenuity, wit and zeal, with all the weapons that proud
rationalism, and scoffing infidelity, could furnish,
have been employed for its overthrow, and employed
with a signal want of success. Every distinctive
principle of the popular evangelical system, as maintained by the Presbyterian, Methodist, Baptist and
other orthodox Christian denominations, has been
unscathed. The doctrines of hereditary human depravity-(denied by some of the Reformers)-of the
necessity of the influence of the Spirit to renovate
the soul of man-and of justification by faith, without any necessary connexion with the act of baptism
-(which have been denied, or understood to be denied, by all the Reformers)- have firmly maintained their ground. Like some tall and hoary cliff,
against which the mighty waves of the ocean have
dashed, and foamed, and raged for a time, and to
whose strength they have at last rendered homage,
by subsiding into a comparative calm at its base,
the evangelical faith, "the popular exhibition of
Christianity," has received and resisted the threatening surges of the " current Reformation," until
their force is spent, and their receding fury proclaims its stability. Commencing its assaults on all
Christian denominations with dauntless intrepidity,




CONCLUSION.               359
and giving strong assurances of their eaily overthrow,
and the speedy dawn of the Millennium, the Reformation has been frittered away to nothing, or has
ended in a huge mass of inconsistencies and contradictions.
The course which the Baptists should pursue relative to the Reformers, is worthy of the gravest
and most candid consideration. The propriety of
their action in separating the Campbellites from
their communion has been already discussed. IMuch
as the necessity of the measure was deplored, by the
conservative portion of the Baptist churches, time
has clearly demonstrated its wisdom. There is now
far greater harmony of views, and far less alienation
of feeling, between the Baptists and Reformers, than
there was previously to their separation. But still
the question comes up, with augmented interest
and importance, How shall we act towards the Reformers?
The union of all Christians, so far as it can be
secured without sacrificing the claims of an enlightened conscience, or giving countenance to pernicious
error, is greatly to be desired. It is the duty of
every believer in Christ, not only to pray for this
consummation, but by the cultivation of a candid,
kind and forbearing spirit, to endeavor to promote
it. The Reformers belong to the Baptist family,
though, in our view, they are an erring branch of it.
They agree with us on the action and subjects of




360              CONCLUSION.
Christian baptism, however widely they may differ
from us on other points; and it is to be regretted
that those who substantially concur in regard to
church organization and ordinances should be divided
in their affections and efforts. The principles which
we hold in common have sufficient opposition to encounter from without, to make it exceedingly important not to weaken their influence, and retard
their progress by discord and strife among ourselves.
Union, however, valuable as it is, may be purchased
at too high a price. A professional union, founded
on a common use of words and phrases, to which
we attach no meaning, or widely different meanings,
or on a mutual agreement to conceal the truth, is
neither Scriptural, reasonable, nor desirable. Fellowship in the Gospel —the only intelligent, hearty
and efficient union of Christians-implies an agreement in the essential facts, principles and duties of
the system. And this fellowship cannot be secured
by unscrupulous compromises, and Jesuitical professions, but only by unity of views concerning
Christian doctrine.
How far error may be tolerated by a church of
Christ for the sake of union, it is not easy to decide.
The Bible furnishes no direct and explicit answer
to the question. Error may be so palpable and
gross, call it faith or opinion, as to preclude the
possibility of its toleration by a church, without a
dereliction o" duty, and a virtual abandonment of




CONCLUSION.              361
the cause of truth.  Whether the Refoimers hold
religious views incompatible with their reception
into evangelical Baptist churches, is the practical
question.  So far as the Disciples are affiliated
with the Stonites, or Arians of the West, their reception into the fellowship of our churches would
be, on our part, base unfaithfulness to the cause of
Christ, and of truth. Nor would the evil be, ill
any degree, mitigated by their hypocritical consent
to conceal their errors, or express them in Scriptural
phrases, to which they have attached, and are understood to attach a false meaning.  Without condemning and renouncing their error, they can have
no Scriptural fellowship with those who understand
and love the Gospel. How far this heterodoxy now
prevails among the Reformers, the writer does not
possess the means of deciding.
It would not be difficult from the writings of Mr.
Campbell to draw up a creed, which in all essential
points would be acceptable to evangelical Christendom. In this chiefly lies the danger of Campbellism.
Thousands of persots have been seduced into the
belief that the Reformers differ nothing from the
Baptists, except in weekly communion, and othei
unimportant points.
But the reader has seen that Campbellism has
two sides-an orthodox and a heterodox-an evangelical, and, for lack of a better term, it must be
said, a Reformed side. It would be quite easy to




362               CONCLUSION.
select from Mr. Campbell's books, without any perversion of the quotations, a system of doctrine so
utterly at variance with the Scriptures, and so
repugnant to the feelings of pious people, that it
would receive the undivided condemnation of every
evangelical denomination.
Now, if the Reformers would secure the confidence and affection of orthodox Christians, it will
not be sufficient that they should proclaim their
own orthodoxy-as Mr. Campbell has recently proclaimed his-nor even to put forth, in some intelligible form, the orthodox articles of their belief; but
they must explicitly repudiate the doctrines which
they have been supposed to hold, at variance with
the evangelical syetem. They may have been misunderstood, or misrepresented, or partly misunderstood, and partly misrepresented; but the effect in
preventing Christian union is precisely the same, as
if they had been rightly understood, and rightly
represented. But while it may be conceded, that
their views and intentions may have been misconceived, it must be maintained that their language
has been candidly and fairly Interpreted. But if
they have been misunderstood or misrepresented,
from no matter what motives, they owe it to themselves, their Christian brethren, and their Redeemer,
to place themselves rectus in curia; and this cannot
be done, either to the confusion of their foes, or the
satisfaction of intelligent, inquiring Christians, but




CONCLUSION.              363
by a distinct and formal repudiation of the heterodox sentiments which they are charged with having
published.
It is proper to descend to particulars. If the
Reformers would secure for themselves the confidence and affection of the great evangelical family
of Christians, let them explicitly disavowFirst. That all the converting power of the Spirit
is in the Word —in the sense in which ninety-nine
persons out of every one hundred understand the
language, and, indeed, in the only sense of which it
is fairly susceptible.
Secondly. That regeneration, the new birth, and
conversion,are identical with baptism,in the language
of Scripture, or common sense, or any other except
that of superstition. And let them unequivocally
maintainThirdly. That prayer is the plain and imperative
duty of believers, whether baptized or not.
Fourthly. That repentance, faith, and baptism,
are not equally essential to the remission of sins;
but that this blessing is virtually, really obtained
by faith in Christ, and only formally and declaratively in baptism. And,
Fifthly. That the belief of one fact, and perform
ance of one act, with a moral life, is not a sufficient
foundation for Christian union; but that this union,
to be Scriptural and valuable, must be based on the




364               CONCLUSION.
belief of the fundamental facts and doctrines of' the
Gospel.
It may be necessary for the Reformers to disavow
other sentiments which they have maintained,
or which, from their associations, they have been
suspected of holding; but the above principles having been clearly and repeatedly proclaimed, and
made the very ground-work of the Reformation,
must be repudiated, before they can reasonably hope
to be admitted into the evangelical family.
This renunciation of the errors of Campbellism,
in order to secure the proposed end, must be made,
not in a fugitive essay, nor in equivocal terms, nor
on individual responsibility, but in some explicit,
formal, solemn, and authorized manner-like the
" declaration of belief" presented by the Brush Run
church to the Redstone Association, or the summary
of doctrine drawn up by the Christian church, in
St. Louis, to convince the Christian Association of
the validity of their claim to be considered " evangelical."
For his indiscriminate, violent, and bitter attack
on their cherished principles, on their institutions
for diffusing the light of the Gospel, and on their
well-meant efforts to meliorate the condition of
men, and display the glory of Christ, Mir. Campbell
owes an apology to the Christian world. Especially
is this due, as he found it expedient, in building up
the " C.ristian church," that is. his own party, to




CONCLUSION.              365
employ the same institutions, and the same means,
for the use of which he so freely censured them.
Though this apology may not be essential to the
restoration of harmony between the Baptists and
Reformers, it is indispensable to the restoration of
Christian confidence in the leader of the Reformation.
Some concessions, too, may be due on the part of
the Baptists, to secure the desired union. They
have occasionally evinced, in their contests with
the Reformers, an acrimony, seeming to spring from
personal dislike, rather than zeal for the truth and
honor of God, which they should readily admit, and,
in future, carefully avoid.
The regular meeting of all the churches, in their
respective places of worship, on every Lord's-day,
which the Baptists have never opposed, they should
more earnestly insist on, and more faithfully practice.
Weekly communion they should not contend about,
but let it be introduced into the churches wherever,
and whenever it is deemed obligatory or expedient.
They should not yield to the Reformers, as in truth
they do not, in their reverence for, their submission
to, and their diligent study of, the holy Scriptures.
As to the name by which they shall be called,
neither the Baptists nor the Reformers should be
much concerned. The Disciples of Christ were not
called Christians until eleven years after his ascension; and then, whether the name was given by tho
Spirit of inspiration, assumed by them in honor of




366               CONCLUSION.
their MIaster, as a matter of expediency, or adopted
by ti eir enemies as a term of reproach, the sacred
historian has not informed us, and we can only conjecture.  We should be solicitous about truth and
piety, not names. The name Baptist, it is presumed,
was not assumed by those who bear it, after deliberation, and of choice, nor would it be practicable for
them, at their option, to lay it aside. The appellation ChGristian, can never, in the present divided
state of the religious world, be employed to designate, without a qualifying epithet, any particular
party of Christians.  But if we see eye to eye, speak
the same things, and are animated by the same
spirit, whether we are called Baptists, Reformers,
or Christians, or are distinguished by some other
name, is of little consequence.  The  primitive
Christians were equally pious, happy, and useful,
whether they were called Galileans, Disciples, or
Christians. Our fathers ecclesiastic, were not less
worthy when they were known as " Ana-baptists,"
than their descendants to whom has been accorded
the name of Baptists.
Is there any prospect of the consummation of
such a union as has been briefly sketched? None,
it is to be feared, during the life-time of 5Mr. Campbell. The frequent changes of his religious views,
have induced a general lack of confidence in his
stability. His manifold inconsistencies, and contradicticns, have -awakened, in many minds, a suspicion




CONCLUSION.              367
as to the integrity of his purposes. In the co a-se of
the thirty years' conflict between the Reformers and
Baptists, many distinguished combatants, whether
justly or unjustly, is not material, have deemed
themselves unfairly, unkindly, or rudely treated by
Mr. Campbell; while he, doubtless, has against
them a list of grievances, equally long and grave, to
be redressed. Beside all these things, having for
more than a quarter of a century, been the man
of his party, it is not reasonable to expect that
he would consent to unite himself with a denomination in which, though he might occupy a prominent place, he could not occupy the position of
leader. In addition to these obstacles, it will require
no small measure of humility and moral heroism in
him, to acknowledge that his Reformation has proved
a failure, and that his views are in substantial agreement with those of the sects against whom he has
so long and fiercely warred. All these matters
considered, there is very little ground to hope that,
in the life-time of the RPeformer, and with his
approbation, such a union between the Reformers
and Baptists will be effected, as truth, piety, and
Christian cooperation demand.
Still there is ground to hope for the ultimate
scriptural and cordial union of these parties. The
work of assimilation between them is going on, and
it will go on, with increasing rapidity, as the original




368              CONCLUSION.
causes of irritation are left behind and forgotten,
and the veterans in the strife, gradually quit the
battle-field. In many places Campbellism has lost
its pugnacity, and is fast losing its distinctive
elements, and receiving a new impression from the
religious principles with which it is ceaselessly
coming in contact. The Baptists, too, it must be
admitted, are not precisely what they would have
been, had there been no Reformation. They have
not been uninterested spectators of the religious
convulsions and changes around them. While they
have seen no cause to abandon any of their distinctive principles, or practices, they have corrected
many of their mistakes, burnished their armor, and
learning wisdom alike from the successes and failures of their opponents, have prepared themselves
for concerted, vigorous and determined efforts in
support of what they deem the cause of truth, and
of Christ. Let the process of assimilation go on.
Good men should earnestly pray for its progress.
All should aim to promote it by an honest, earnest
adherence to the teaching of the Scriptures, by
diffusing the light of truth, and, above all, by cultivating the spirit of the Redeemer-the spirit of
love, gentleness, meekness, and candor.
But until this union can be scripturally, and with
the concurrence of the churches, consummated, it
becomes the Baptists to pursue a firm, straight



;O0NCL USION,             369
forivard, blut conciliating course, receiving no Refortmer into their fellowship without a distinct renunciation on his part of the peculiar principles of
C(ampbellism, and a clear assent to the fundamental doctrines of the evangelical system, for which
we have so long and faithfully contended.








CAMPBELLISM RE-EXAMINED.
SooN after my work, Campbellismn Examined, was
published, Mir. Campbell commenced a review of it
in the Millennial Harbinger. He was thankful to
the " ten worthy brethren," who had called me out
to examine " something nicknamed Campbellism,"
as it would afford him an opportunity of extending
the empire of this something " over myriads of new
readers, thinkers and actors, in the grand ecclesiastic drama of the nineteenth century." But thankful as he was to them, he could be thankful to
them no more, if, after reading his review of the
book, they should " yet sanction or commend it, or
print and circulate it through this community."
Such was the boasting with which he began his review. Soon, however, seemingly dissatisfied with
the results of his labor, he proposed to engage, in
an oral or newspaper discussion, of the points at
issue between us. As I declined this proposal, he
resolved, with increased earnestness, to concentrate
his attention on my book, and to continue his " expositions of its errors and misrepresentations," until
he should do me "' ample justice."




4         CAMPBELLISMI RE-EXAMINED.
It is now time to inquire in what manner Mr. C.
has redeemed his pledge. He has published nine
pretty long numbers of the review, with other articles designed, either directly or indirectly, to expose
the alleged errors of Campbellism Examined. These
pieces are made up of a few petty, verbal criticisms,
many offensive personalities, a huge mass of irrelevant matter, much empty declamation, frequent
repetitions, and a most desultory discussion of some
of the positions maintained in my book. No statement has been invalidated, no quotation shown to
be unfair, and no largument manfully and logically
met. The work remains intact.  Allowing all the
reviewer's arguments to be valid, which I am very
far from doing, the force and importance of the
volume would be but little diminished, the greater
portion of it having received little or no attention.
The most devoted friends of the reformation, and
the warmest admirers of Mr. C., must admit that
the review, and its kindred articles, are not a satisfactory reply to mybook. They furnish its conclusive defence. MIr. C. himself must have a painful
consciousness that he has utterly failed to meet its
statements and reasonings.  His conviction finds
utterance in the last number of the review.  " But
the half of the sophistry and of the ad captandlum
rhetoric of this ill-fated book, has not yet been developed. Indeed, the broken and desultory manper in wjhich we blaye hitherto noticed it, inter



CAMPBELLISM RE-EXAMINED.         5
rk ted, as we always are, and have been, in making
provision for numerous and various topics, (always
on hand for a monthly periodical,) to say nothing
of all the other duties of life incumbent upon us in
our various relations to society, is by no means propitious to a luminous, connected, compact, and vigorous exposition of its leading perversions, misconceptions, and consequent misrepresentations of not
only the special subjects on which it treats, but of
all related to them. We cannot do the subject
justice in our present method of reviewing it."Page 553. A pretty candid confession this, that
the review, begun with such high hopes and vaunting promises, has proved a failure. For aught that
has yet appeared, the "ten worthy brethren" at
whose request the book was written, should not
forfeit all claim to MIr. Campbell's gratitude, if they
still continue to " sanction or commend it, or print
and circulate it through this community."
WVhat will Mr. C. next do?  With the laurels,
won in many a well-contested field, still fresh on
his brow, he cannot be expected to retire thus from
the combat. Something must be done to meet the
exigency. In the eighth number of the review, he
writes-" But I cannot waste time in reasoning
against positions so palpably false and so suicidal,
as not a few of my friend Jeter's assumptions and
positions are. Some are demanding of me a book
on the subject, but really I do not think it worthy




6         CAMPBELLISM RE-EXAMINED.
of a book."-p. 456. This was the deliberate and
recorded judgment of Mr. C. In the next No.,
he says, " I purpose to suspend my review for some
two or three months, and, in pursuance of the requests on hand, I will give a book for a book, and
a line for a line; at the same price at which Dr.
Jeter's book is sold and circulated by the anti-revisionist Baptists."-pp 553-4.  So it seems that
my work, though unworthy of such an honor, is to
have a reply from the pen of Mr. C., in the form
of a book, corresponding with itself in cost and
size.
I should postpone any notice of the review until
the appearance of the promised book, but for two
reasons: First-I much doubt whether it will ever
be published. As my work is unworthy of an extended reply, Mr. C. is not likely, amid his multiplied and important engagements, to find time to
prepare it.  Secondly-If he should write a book,
I am desirous that it may be as free as possible
from errors; and I wish, by pointing out some of
the mistakes of the review, to afford him an opportunity of correcting them. I shall do little more
than furnish hints for his guidance.
PERSON ALITIES.
It is a great pity that religious controversy, in
itself adapted to promote the interests of truth and
righteousness, should so frequently degenerate into




CAMPBELLISM RE-EXAMINED.           7
bittei personal invective. MIr. C. commenced his
review with the seeming intention of treating me
courti3usly. " We shall," he says, " with all candor, and with all attention, concentrate our mind
upon the efforts of our respectable, and I presume
to say, very estimable friend, Elder J. B. Jeter."
He had not, however, proceeded far before he began
to depreciate my abilities and my book.  "There
are not a few things," he says, " in science, in learning, and in religion, which Mr. Jetex will not understand till he get another head or heart.  We
are, indeed, sorry for his sake, that we cannot create the one or the other."  " He has too recklessly
dealt in assertions, and even criticisms, for which
he is not qualified, either by nature, by grace, or
by education." The review, in every part, contains
intimations that Campbellism Examined is a very
feeble production, and unworthy, except for its endorsement, of a serious reply.
With me it is a small matter that my abilities
should be disparaged by Mr. Campbell. If I entertained a high estimate of his judgment, I should
know that in this instance it is exercised under circumstances not propitious to a correct decision.
It demands a rare measure of candor and selfcontrol to do full justice to the abilities of an opponent; and these are qualities in which the intelligent readers of Mr. Campbell's works will perceive
that he does not abound. One, however, of two




8         CAMPBELLISH RE-EXAMINED.
conclusions is perfectly clear. Either Mr. C. has
a consciousness that my work is not so feeble as he
represents it, or, he has a painful conviction of the
weakness of the cause which he advocates. Why
so labored a defence against so feeble an attack?
Why a long review, many other extended articles,
and then a book, to counteract the influence of mere
" assumptions and presumptions," however respectably endorsed? Actions speak more loudly, and
I may add, more truly than words. How tottering
must be that cause which needs to be so carefully
and strongly propped under so slight a pressure. It
would seem that the taunt of Tobiah, the Ammonite, however unjust in its original application, is
appropriate in the present case. "Were a jackal,"
according to Mr. Campbell's version —a feeble
assailant-" to go against the stone walls which
they are building"-the incongruous, unconnected
doctrines of the reformation" he would break
them down."-p. 264.
Not confining himself to the disparagement of
my intellect and labors, Mr. C. distinctly charges
me with misrepresentation, garbling, slander, calumny, and such practices. I will furnish the reader with specimens of his accusations-" garbled and
distorted quotations"-" in this calumny, Mr. Jeter
is a false accuser, unintentional, we hope, in charity;
but unquestionably a false accuser" —" Having been,
and now being misrepresented by Elder Jeter of




CAMPBELLIS1 RE-EXAMINED.          9
Rlichmond"-" None of my traducers, not even
Elder Jeter himself" —-' judge of the fidelity, honesty, or capacity of Mr. Jeter"-" Mr. Jeter is,
knowingly or unknowingly, willing it or not willing
it, one of the most disingenuous and sophistical
writers or reasoners that I have noticed in the
Baptist church" —" We are much slandered in this
book." Such are some of the epithets by which I
am honored in Mr. Campbell's review. These are
very grave charges; and by what code of morals
the reviewer judges, who can pronounce the author,
against whom they are all justly preferred, his
" very estimable friend," (p. 65,) and " brother,"
(p. 71,) I know not. It may be jesuitical or pagan, it certainly is not Christian. To these accusations, I plead, Not guilty. I honestly and carefully endeavored to furnish in Campbellism Examined a fair and faithful representation of Mr. Campbell's peculiar views. That I may have mistaken
nis meaning on some points is possible; but no
misconceptions have been pointed out. In making quotations from  his works, I extracted only
what was pertinent to my purpose, and, by the
rules of discussion, I was required to do nothing
more. I now affirm, that not one quotation in my
book bears a different meaning from what the passage does in his works. If his positions and arguments are contradictory, it is no fault of mine; nor
should I be blamed for placing ungarbled and fair




IC        CAMPBELLISM RE-EXAMINED.
extracts from  his writings in juxtaposition.  In
Campbellism Examined, p. 45, at, the end of the
8th line from the top, the clause, " until Christians
are united," was omithted, whether by myself in
transcribing, or the compositor in type-setting, I
cannot tell. This omission has been held up, not
by MIr. C.. but by a writer in the Ch'n Intelligencer,
as a specimen of the accuracy of my quotations.
The slightest glance at the passage must satisfy the
discerning reader that the omission does 3Mr. C. no
injustice, but weakens my own argument.  It is the
very clause that I should have italicised.
The charges of the reviewer are mostly vague
and general. I have slandered him, but in what
he is not careful to show.  There is, however, one
exception to this remark.-pp. 182, 183.
" Mr. Jeter is not, perhaps, altogether a responsible writer."  Perhaps not! I am very reluctant
to be held responsible for Mr. Campbell's definitions
of my words.  "I would prefer to inculpate his
head rather than his heart." This is very kind in
Mr. C.  "To explain myself: While condemning
my opposition to creeds, he uses the following language-' The term creed, in its ecclesiastic sense,
denotes a summary of Christian doctrine. There is
in Christendom a great variety of creeds, from the
so-called "Apostles' creed," down to the " Christian system," composed by Mr. Campbell as an e —.
hibition of the principles of his Reformation.'"




CAMPBELLISM RE-EXAMINED.           11
The term  " creed," from  the Latin " credo," I
believe is of very general signification.  We have
political and philosophical, as well as religious
creeds. I defined its ecclesiastic sense to be' a
summary of Christian doctrine." It is defined by
Webster-" A brief summary of the articles of
Christian faith-a symbol."  With this definition
agrees that of the Ency. of Rel. Knowledge-" A
form of words in which the articles of faith are comprehended." Right or wrong, and whether I am
responsible or irresponsible, this was my definition
of the word " creed." And to preclude the possibility of mistake, I affirmed, that " every intelligent
Christian has a creed, written or unwritten." In
this clearly, and, I think, correctly defined sense of
the term, creed, I affirmed that the Christian system is Mr. Campbell's creed, composed, not for
adoption in order to church fellowship, but as " an
exhibition of the principles of his Reformation."
But, continues 3Mr. C., " It is not a historic fact,
that a summary of Christian doctrine is, in the ecclesiastic sense, a'creed.' *:: To make any summary of doctrine a creed, in the ecclesiastic sense,
it must be submitted to a person, or to a community, for adoption, in order to church fellowship, or
church organization."   Mr. C. deliberately sets
aside my definition of the word " creed," and dogmatically substitutes his own, and holds me responsible for it. " "Ve never wrote, published, printed,




12        CAMPBELLISM RE-EXAMINED.
or proposed for adoption, such a book written by
myself or by any one else." And who affirmed, or.insinuated, that he did? I asserted that the Christian System is Mr. Campbell's creed, composed as
an, exhibition of the principles of his Reformation;
and I use the term creed in a sense which I defined
-a sense in which it is clearly used by, at least, one
respectable ecclesiastical writer, the editor of the
Ency, of Religious Knowledge. And says the Reviewer,' In this calumny Mr. Jeter is a false accuser, unintentional, (unintentionally,) we hope, in
charity; but unquestionably a false accuser." —
Calumny is a strong word. It means "false accusation of a crime, or offences maliciously made or
reported." True, Mr. C. softens the accusation by
the charitable hope that my sin was unintentional
-as if calumny could be unintentional —and by the
insinuation that, perhaps, my stupidity renders me
irresponsible. Allowing that M3r. Campbell's definition is right, and mine is wrong, candor could
find in the passage nothing but the misapplication
of a term-and one so carefully explained as to preclude the slightest possibility of injury to him, or
his cause. His readiness to employ one of the
harshest terms of the language in censure of my
statement, proves quite clearly that he needs somethincg more than fair criticism and sound argument
to arrest the influence of my book. I am sorry for
Mr. Campbell's sake that he has deemed it neces



CAMPBELLISM RE-EXAMIINED.         13
sary to resort to such epithets in his review. My
book speaks for itself.  Dr. Lynd, whom  Mr. C.
thanks for his brief review of it, says-" The writer
has treated the whole subject with great candor,
and in a truly Christian spirit."
VERBAL cRITICISM.
The criticism of words, which is very proper in a
merely literary production, seems to be entirely out
of place in a grave theological discussion, except so
far as it may be required to elucidate the points in
debate; but as Mr. C. has deemed it necessary tc
criticise my style in several places, for no other ap
parent purpose than to display the superiority of
his philological knowledge, I must, reluctantly, re
ply to him.
I stated that the " religious education of children, the proper observance of the Lord's day, &c.,
were too much neglected."  On which passage the
critic renmarks —" There is but one word in this exhibition that is of doubtful expediency, and that is
the word'too,' prefixed to'much.'  He would
seem to indicate that these duties might be much
neglected with impunity, but they were too much
neglected. This is a grammatical and logical inference.  But in all candor, I do not think that Elder
Jeter intended to say what his words indicate. He
did not mean that these six sacred duties might,
znith impunity, be much neglected, and in this case




14         CAMPBELLISM RE-EXAMINED.
they were only' too much' neglected."-p. 71. So
important did this criticism appear to the reviewer
that he recurred to it frequently. This use of the
word too is sanctioned by very respectable writers.
I recently saw it used in this manner in an article
copied from the London Times. Coleridge, one of
the profoundest thinkers, and most polished writers
of' the present century, says, " I must concede to
you that too many of the Pedobaptists have erred."
Does he mean that error is harmless in many, and
only hurtful when embraced by too many? But
on this point I can introduce authority that must
have weight with Mr. C.  A writer of some distinction, whose critical acumen he will readily
admit, has furnished examples of this use of the
term, as if for the very purpose of neutralizing the
above criticism.  Let the reader turn over two
leaves in the review, and read, p. 75-"He (Mr.
Jeter) is, however, a very estimable man.  But he
has, perhaps, too recklessly, at the instigation of
some over-excited mere Baptists, undertaken a work
for which lie is by no means pre-eminently qualified; and, too willing to do them  service, has too
recklessly dealt in assertions, and even criticisms,
for which he is not qualified, either by nature, by
grace, or by education."  I have italicised the word(
too in this extract.  The reviewer "'would seem to
indicate that" Mr. Jeter might have "recklessly
dealt in assertions. and even criticismis, for which he




ZAMPBELLISM RE-EXAMINED.          15
was not qualified either by nature, by grace, or by
education,"  with propriety; but unfortunately,
"'instigated by over-excited mere Baptists," he
dealt in these things " too recklessly."  " This a
grammatical and logical inference.  But in all candor, I do not think that Elder" Campbell " intended to say what his words indicate;" though my
candor does not, forbid me to think that he was
more intent to correct errors in my style, than to
avoid them in his own.
The reviewer quotes from Campbellism Examined.  " The reformation demanded by the times
was in spirit and practice, rather than doctrine."
" In doctrine, I presume he means," adds the critic.  Yes, in doctrine-the sentence is elliptical
-any well-taught school boy would readily supply
the ellipsis. —p. 71.
We shall now notice a more important criticism,
Pp. 550, 551.
" There are some sentences in Mr.-Jeter's book,
and not a few of them, of such ambiguity, that lest
I should offend against propriety, I will merely
quote them, or pass them; such as,
"' SMr. Campbell and his friends maintained the
Association, in its action, not only transgressed the
law of Christ, infringed the religious liberty of individuals, and were guilty of flagrant persecution,
but plainly transcended its constitutional authority.;
— p. 103.




16        CAMPBELLISM RE-EXAMINED.' This sentence," continues the critic, "not be,
ing English, nor any living or dead tongue known
to me, I pass without criticism. It is one of Mr.
Jeter's solecisms. Who these'its' and'were' nmay
indicate, I presume not to affirm."
I admit the fault of the sentence, but not the
justice of the criticism. Association is a noun of
multitude, and may, according to the rules of grammar, have verbs and pronouns agreeing with it, in
the singular or plural number.  But the number
having been decided on should be retained throughout the sentence.  I admit the error-either its
should have been they, or were should have been
was. It is a trivial mistake —a mere over-sight —
not affecting, in the view of sound criticism, the
perspicuity or the force of the sentence. When the
reviewer affirms that the sentence is not " English,
nor any living tongue" known to him, he excites the
suspicion that something has disturbed the equilibrium of his mind, and hurried him beyond the
bounds of fair criticism.  Let me quote a passage
from  high authority, Review, p. 65.' But we
shall, with all candor and with all attention, concentrate our mind upon the efforts of our respectable, and, I presume to say, very estimable friend,
Elder J. B. Jeter." I have ventured to italicise
the important words in the above sentence. Who
are indicated by " we," " our" and "I" in it-?
According to editorial license, the reviewer nlight




CAMPBELLISM RE-EXAMINED.          17
write in the singular or plural number —might say
either we or I-but having selected his number it
was inaccurate to depart from it in the sentence —
yet, he did depart from it, speaking of himself first
in the plural, and next in the singular number.
Now, I will not, in the extravagance of criticism,
affirm, that the sentence is not English —every
child would know better —but I do affirm that it
is clearly obnoxious to the same criticism with the
sentence so unfairly censured by Mr. C. Still, I
thank the critic for his slight correction; and receive his petty verbal criticisms as an illustrious
proof of the general accuracy of my style.
I am sorry I cannot reciprocate the favor which
Mr. Campbell has conferred on me in criticising my
book.  The task of correcting the diction of his review would be entirely too onerous, as he will be
convinced by a brief specimen of the labor. I will
examine, with some care, the first eleven lines.
"We thank Elder Jeter, and the ten worthy
brethren that called him out to examine something
nicknamed'Campbellism,' for the opportunity afforded us to extend its empire over myriads of new
readers, thinkers and actors, in the grand ecclesiastic drama of the 19th century." MThy does the reviewer say "ten worthy brethren?"  There were
twelve, and their names are printed in the front of
the book. This is, however, a small mistake, indicating merely the carelessness of the writer. Was




18        CAMPBELLISM RE-EXAMINED.
the " something, nicknamed Calnpbellism," which
Elder Jeter was called out to examine, the genuine
Bethany Reformation, or not? I cannot decide.
I should conclude from the contemptuous manner
in which the reviewer speaks of it, that it is notbut from his desire to extend its empire, that it is.
Perhaps, he means that my examination of the
spurious article will increase the spread of the genuine. Hear the critic again-" But we cannot
thank him for the uncandid and partial examination
of the matter which he has given; nor could we
thank them if they, after reading our review of it,
will yet sustain or commend it, or print and circulate
it through this community." Of circulating a book
through a community, I have a distinct conception;
but how it can be printed through a community I
do not comprehend. And the learned reviewer informs us that he shall have no respect for the ten
brethren, if they, after reading his review, should
continue to " print it (my book) through this community."  HIe means, doubtless: print it, and circulate it through the community —the community,
and not "this community."  Attend to the reviewer once more-" If I were not reluctant to utter a surmize, I should suppose and affirm the hypothesis, that the call for this review grows, directly
or indirectly, from opposition to the Bible Union."
Was there ever such a jumble of incoherent words
from the pen of a renowned critic! What autho



CAMPBELLISM RE-EXAMINED.          19
rity has Mr. C. for his orthography of the word
" surmize?"  There is none in its derivation, nor,
so far as I know, in respectable usage. It is not
so spelt by Webster, nor Richardson, nor any of
the writers quoted by the latter.  I should conclude that the error was typographical, if it had
not been repeated on p. 185. Let us now notice
the structure of the sentence. We may conceive,
assume, or state a "hypothesis;" but to suppose a
hypothesis is precisely equivalent to supposing a
supposition.  The expression " affirm  a hypothesis," is a solecism. What is hypothetical cannot
be affirmed —and what is affirmed is not hypothetical. And yet the learned reviewer says, " I should
suppose and affirm the hypothesis."  He does not
do either; and he tells us why-" If I were not
reluctant to utter a surmize, (then) I should (both)
suppose and affirm the hypothesis."  How his reluctance to utter a surmise could prevent him from
affrming anything which he might have to affirm,
I cannot explain, but, perhaps, he can.
Mr. Campbell will perceive that an attempt to
criticise the lancguage of his extended review would
involve very serious labor. He may, by this time,
be reminded of the old adage, A man who lives in
a glass house should be careful not to throw stones
at his neighbor's windows.  I cannot close my remarkls on this topic, withlout expressing the firm
persuasion that the critical a-cumen of the reviewer




20        CAMPBELLISM RE-EXAMINED.
may be very profitabl) employed in 1revising his own
works.
THE REVISION OF THE ENGTLISH SCRIPTURES.
Mir. Camlpbell has been exceedingly anxious to
trace "Campbellisml Examined" to the anti-revision
influence. We have already seen that, but for reluctance " to utter a surmize," he would have supposed and affirmed "the hypothesis that the call
for this (my) review grows, directly or indirectly,
from opposition to the Bible Union." This hypothesis, and truly it is nothing but a hypothesis,
obtrudes itself into almost every No. of Mir. Campbell's Review. It is, however, quite at variance
with another hypothesis published in the Christian
Intelligencer, that I had been thirty years in preparing Campbellism Examined —a period that carries
us back far beyond the revision movement. But,
why is Mr. C. so solicitous to identify my book with
the anti-revision movement? If it had its origin
in this influence, is it the less true, the less important, or the less entitled to consideration?  I
understand clearly the policy of the reviewer. His
aim is, by attributing the book to anti-revision influence, to enlist in his favor that large, and highly
respectable portion of the Baptists who are zealously seeking to procure a corrected version of the English Scriptures.  But he will be disappointed: they
perceive the artifice.




CA MPBELTIS3M RE-EXAMINED.       21
Of the designs of the respected brethren, at whose
request I wrote Campbellism Examined, I know
nothing, except what I have learned from their
note to me, published in the work.  Most of them
are anti-Bible Union men; but whether their opposition to this society had any influence in dictating their request, I know not. One thing I do
know-I was not influenced by opposition to revision in complying with the request. I am in principle a revisionist —have been made so by the
arguments of those whose measures I have disapproved. Though I do not co-operate with the
Bible Union, I am not prevented from doing so by
the connexion of the Reformers with the Society.
Mr. Campbell ought certainly to feel gratified, that
if the "worthy brethren," who requested me to
write the book, were actuated by hostility to the
revision enterprise, they were so utterly defeated in
their scheme. In composing the book, I most sedulously endeavored to keep clear of that subject.
There is no mention of it, no allusion to it, nothing
to remind one of it, in the whole work. It may,
indeed, lead some to call in question the thoroughness of Mr. Campbell's scholarship —his fitness for
revising the common version of the Scriptures —but
what has this doubt to do with the merits of the
revision cause?  One may surely believe, most honestly, that the Scriptures should be revised, and
that he is not qualified, by the ripeness of his




22        CAMPBELL1SSM RE-EXAMINED.
scholarship, and the soundness of his judgment to
revise them.
I have not quite disposed of this matter. The
May No. of the Mill. Har. copies from the Religious Herald, the publishers' notice of Campbellism Examined. After some remarks on the notice,
which I pass, Mr. Campbell says:
" There is but one thing wanting, and that is the
names and standing, moral and religious, of the'several brethren' of Mr. Jeter,'at whose request'
it was written.
It is said that this is the most prudential act in
the whole affair —the concealment of their names."
p. 279.
WThy should the names of those brethren be concealed? They are all intelligent, respectable Christian gentlemen —most of them are ministers, filling
prominent and important positions —and some of
them are distinguished for their learning, abilities
and influence. No cause needs to blush at having
such friends.  Their "standing, moral and religious," will compare favorably with that of any
men, in any denomination of Christians, or enlisted
in any cause.  But what does Mr. Campbell mean
by the concealment of their names. Does he intend
to affirm that the mere omission of Sheldon, Lamport & Co., to publish their names in this advertisement, was a concealment of them?  As reasonably
might the President be charged with concealing the




CAMPBELLISM RE-EXAMINED.         23
names of his cabinet because he failed to mention
them in his late message to Congress. Mr. C. is
too well acquainted with the meaning of words not
to know that the mere neglect to publish is not concealment. Besides, the passage seems clearly to
import that their names and standing, moral and
religious, are prudently withheld from the public.
Those whose information on this subject is derived
wholly from the pages of the Mill. Harbinger, no
doubt, believe, not only that their names are concealed, but that a revelation of their moral and religious standing would greatly weaken the influence
of the book written at their request. And now
what will they, and what will the reader think,
when informed that their names are published, in
capitals, in the most conspicuous position, in the
front of the book?  And yet, " it is said that this
is the most prudential act in the whole affair-the
concealment of their names." By whom this was
said, Mr. C. does not inform  us. Perhaps, it was
deemed "'most prudential" to conceal their names.
If their "standing, moral and religious," were
known, it might weaken the influence of their suspicion. I am not surprised that men should have
been found weak enough, and bad enough, to say
that the names of the worthy brethren had been
concealed from " prudential" motives; by why Mr.
Campbell should have publised their surmise, I
cannot tell. He certainly knew that their names




24         CAMPBELLISM RE-EXAMINED.
had not been concealed —though he miscounted
them —and that the book composed at their request
could receive no injury from a full revelation of
their " standing, moral and religious"
THE BAPTIST MINISTERS OF THE PAST GENERATION
VINDICATED.
It seems to have been the aim of Mr. Campbell,
from the commencement of his Reformation, to depreciate the talents, labors and usefulness of the
Baptist ministers of the past age.  Of the continuance of this aim his review furnishes abundant evidence. On p. 72, we read" There were not a few laymen that knew more
than their good old orthodox preachers.  These
preachers disparaged the more learned ministry of
the Presbyterians and Episcopalians, and claimed
a species of inspiration and a special descent upon
them, or an immediate influence of the Holy Spirit,
and abstract from, independent of, and paramount
to, the written word. They did not go for' book religion,' but for'Holy Ghost religion,' as they were
wont to say. Servants uneducated and in the corn
fields, and their masters in their carriages, with
their diplomas in their secretaries, were equally the
subjects of special visits, special grace, and special
conversion. Thqy went to church once a month,
and told their experience at some big meeting. It
was voted to be orthodox; they were immersed,




CAMPBELLISM RE-EXAMINED.          25
and had a joyful season for a few days. Is this exaggeration, a fancy sketch, or a solemn reality?
Deny it who can! So I found them in Kentucky
in 1823, and in Virginia in 1825." The review contains much more in the same strain.
What motive can Mr. C. have in thus seeking to
derogate from the reputation of the early Baptist
preachers? The cause of truth and piety does not
demand such invidious labor.  Does he suppose
that the more darkly he can paint the back ground,
the more bright, beautiful and prominent will be
the picture of his Reformation? Does he desire to
exhibit by contrast with the old Baptist preachers
the superior attainments and efficiency of the proclaimers of the " ancient gospel?"  These Baptist
worthies have, with few exceptions, descended to
the tomb. Their voices, once so earnest and'effective in beseeching sinners to be reconciled to God,
they cannot now employ in vindicating their principles, labors and reputation.
It is not easy to refute such loose generalities as
those contained in the above extract. Nothing is
more common, and, I may add, more unfair, than
to censure classes for the defects or errors of individuals belonging to them.  The practice is, unfortunately, not confined to M3r. Campbell; but is to
be the more deplored on this account. That there
were faults among the early Baptist ministers no
candid man acquainted with their history will deny.




26        CAMPBELLISM RE-EXAMINED.
They were mostly uneducated, in the technical
sense of the word; some of them were, doubtless,
enthusiastic and visionary; and others entertained
very imperfect views of the system of divine truth.
But the great majority of them were intelligent,
evangelical preachers. They were men of faith,
prayer and righteousness-plain, earnest, faithful,
fearless ministers of the gospel —whose labors God
delighted to honor —and who left a blessed impression on their generation. Many of them I knew,
loved and venerated.  Ministers more learned, and
of higher pretensions, I have known; but ministers, more self-sacrificing, laborious, devout and
useful, I do not hope to see. Now, I do, in the
name of these departed worthies, most solemnly
protest against the indiscriminate censure of Mr.
C. found in the foregoing quotation.  Had he affirmed that there were some Baptist ministers of
that time obnoxious to these censures, though I
should have deemed them  extravagant, I should,
perhaps, have remained silent; but when he charges
these evils on the "good old orthodox preachers,"
without exception, or discrimination, I must deny
the correctness of the accusations. A.s applied to
the prominent ministers of the Dover Association,
and of the Baptist denomination generally, they
are an exaggeration-a caricature —I will not say a
" slander," for that is an odious term, and, I trust,
Mr. C. did not intend to do them injustice. They




2AMPBELTISM RE-EXAMIfINED.      27
did not disparage learned ministers; but were
making liberal contributions for the establishment
of the Columbian College, and other Institutions,
for the education of young preachers. Their views
of the nature of religion, and of spiritual influence, were those which now prevail among the Baptists.  "Holy Ghost religion" is a phrase which I
do not remember ever to have heard. For the correctness of these remarks, I appeal to the writings
of Elder A. Broaddus, contained in the Christian
Baptist, to t he early pages of the Religious Herald,
and other publications of that time.
The preaching of Elder John Kerr is singled out
by Mr. Campbell as a special subject of animadversion. I quote from p. 130.
" Just at this point, I congratulate myself, that
Elder Jeter will remember, with me, what an excitement and tumult of feeling Elder Carr (Kerr)
got up at the Dover Association, to which he has alluded in the commencement of our acquaintance, after
I had set down from a calm and deliberate address
on the first principles of the gospel. It is only thirty years since on the 7th of October next, (1855.)
It was equal to Wesleyan Methodism in its palmiest
days. What a shaking there was in the camp!
What a hugging of men with men! What weeping of females i What screaming of negroes!  I
thought. I had got into a Methodist Camp-meeting,
and began to apprehend that it would find its way




28         CAMPBELLISM RE-EXAMINED.
into the preacher's tent. *:'   But apart from
the action, the vociferation, and the intonations of
he ascending and descending climax of passion, I
iould not hear one word, or appreciate one idea, as
the worthy parent of what I saw and heard in the
great congregation. I confess it awakened mrore
painful than pleasurable associations, because indicating a condition of the pulpit, and of the public
taste, that depressed my spirit, and saddened my
heart with many a painful association and anticipation as likely to arise from my new connexion."
I then heard Elder Kerr preach for the first time,
and was somewhat disappointed in his sermon. It
was more declamatory, and less instructive than I
had expected.  Of its effects my recollections are
less vivid than are those of 3Ir. C. I had afterwards
frequently the opportunity of hearing Kerr preach,
and I deem it due to his memory, in view of the
above disparaging extract, to state my impressions
of his abilities and influence. God has endowed his
ministers with a diversity of gifts.  On Elder Kerr
was bestowed the gift of exhortation. His doctrinal views were evangelical, and his piety sincere
and ardent. He taught the way of salvation clearly.
I have heard many preachers, of different denominations, and many distinguished public speakers,
of various kinds; but I must say that for beautiful,
impassioned, and effective declamation, I have neyer heard him eqplalled. He was one of the mnost




CAMPBELLISM RE-EXAMINED.          29
powerful of natural orators. Thousands now living
can bear testimony to the efficiency of his labors
Had he been as highly gifted in the instruction of
the disciples as he was in the conversion of sinners,
the history of the Bethany Reformation in Eastern
Virginia would be widely different fromn what
it is.
On page 69, we read-" In the year 1825, the
Virginia Baptists immersed the candidates into
their -own experience. Yes, their Christian experience!! Thousands of them had as much Christiaz experience before baptism  as after it.  A
few added that they had the additional experience
of'having obeyed a command'! I saw some strange
sights, and heard some strange utterances, at the
Baptist Camp-meetings in Old Virginia, in those
days."
I do not comprehend what Mr. Campbell means
by baptizing c" candidates into their own experience."
The Baptists have always required an experience
in order to baptism-an experience comprehending
the various exercises which result in conversion.
No man is fit for baptism who has not an experience
of the depravity of his heart, the sinfulness of sin,
his guilt in the sight of God, sorrow for sin, a sense
of his own insufficiency, trust in Christ, love to
him, and his people, in fine, all those convictions,
conflicts, sorrows and joys which attend the new
birth; and this may be called Christian expe



30        CAMPBELLISM RE-EXAMINED.
rience-because it is the experience, not of a pagan
or infidel, but of a young convert —an unbaptized
Christian. If this is what Mr. C. means by being
baptized inzto experience, then the Baptists, not only
in the year 1825, but in all times have baptized the
"candidates into their own experience," as John
baptized his disciples into repentance, Mat. 3: 11.
If this is not what he means, what does he mean?
But says Mr. C., "I saw some strange sights,
and heard some strange utterances, at the Baptist
Camp-meetings in Old Virginia, in those days""in the year 1825," as the context shows. I confess this language surprises me.  By "Old Virginia," he must mean Eastern Va.; for, not only is
that the usual import of the appellation, but the
Baptists in Western Va., so far as I am informed,
have never held camp-meetings.  Now, from all
that I can learn, and I think my information is
accurate, the Baptists of Old Virginia had no campmeetings " in those days." The first Baptist campmeetings of Old Va., within the present century,
except a few feeble attempts, the dates of which I
do not recollect, at a point which Mir. C. I presume has not visited, occurred in the year 1831.
Since that time they have had but few. And can
I be mistaken in supposing that, if Mr. C. attended
any of them, he did so incognito?  My curiosity is
much excited. Is it possible that in disguise, he
has been attending Baptist camrp-mectings in Old




CAMPBELLIS3I RE-EXAMINED.        31
Virginia, and seeing "strange sights," and hearing
"strange utterances?"  Or does he draw upon his
imagination, or the dim recollections of a departed
dream, for these wonderful statements?  I hope
that in his promised book, he will not only reveal
these strange sights and utterances, but also the
times and places of the " Baptist Camp-meetings,"
at which his knowledge was obtained.  He may
thus dispel the mystery which otherwise must forever rest upon his astounding disclosures.
TRUE AND SPURIOUS REFORMATION.
I admitted in Campbellism Examined, the necessity of a reformation among the Baptists at the
time Mr. Campbell first appeared in Eastern Virginia. It required no great stretch of candor to
make the concession. They have made some progress since that time in knowledge and efficiency,
but, unfortunately, they still need reformation. In
nothing are they perfect; in many things their defects are obvious. But of what sect, or church, or
class of Christians, are not these admissions true?
The Disciples, Mr. Campbell himself being judge,
stand in need of farther reformation. The reviser
seized hold of these concessions to justify the reformation for which he pleaded. Referring to an extract from Campbellism Examined, he says, " This
concedes all we ask, and all that our position before
the living age requires." p. 67. "That a reforma



32        CAMPBELLISM  RE-EXAMINED.
tion was needed," he says in another place, quoting
from the same work, "by the Christian sects of
that time, none who possess a tolerable acquaintance with the (their) condition, and the claims of
the gospel, will deny." p. 25. To which he adds,
" Well, have we not done the work? If so, why
complain?" p. 144.
Now, this reasoning seems to be very plausible —
a reformation was admitted to be necessary-we
wrought a reformation-" and this is all that our
position before the living age requires "-but it is
merely plausible. The argument resembles that
of a surgeon who justifies the amputation of a limb
on the ground that the patient had a diseased eye.
I concede the necessity of a reformation in the Baptist churches-a reformation "in spirit and practice, rather than doctrine," or in doctrine, as Mr. C.
would express it. But, having disinterred what he
termed the "ancient gospel," he engaged zealously
in the propagation of certain speculations —such as
-" truth alone is all that is necessary to the conversion of men "-that men are justified by an act
of faith-" and this act is sometimes called immersion, regeneration, conversion "-that Peter has
" made repentance, or reformation, and immersion,
equally necessary to forgiveness " —  The belief of
this one fact" —that Jesus is the Messiah-"and
submission to one institution, expressive of it, is all
that is required of heaven to admission into the




CAMPBELLISM RE-EXAMIINED.
church."  With equal zeal he opposed certain
measures and practices deemed by the Baptists
important for the prosperity of the churches and
the extension of the Redeemer's kingdom. But
this subject demands a more careful examination.
One of the concessions by which Mr. Campbell
seeks to justify his reformation is the following:
" Among the Baptist churches there were some
sad evils. In parts of the country, the churches were
infected with an antinomian spirit, and blighted by
a heartless, speculative, hair-splitting orthodoxy.
These churches were mostly penurious, opposed to
Christian missions, and all enlarged plans and selfdenying efforts, for promoting the cause of Christ."
Camp. Ex. pp. 25, 26.
The class of Baptists described in the above extract, were called in some places " Old School," and
in others, from the name of the place at which they
held their seceding Convention, " Black-rock" Baptists. They separated themselves from the regular
Baptists about the time of the rise of Mr. Campbell's reformation. This class of Baptists prevailed
considerably in the region of Bethany. That the
reviewer should have adduced the conceded evils
among this small fragment of Baptists to vindicate
his efforts at reformation fills me with surprise. I
wonder that when he did so his cheeks had not been
tinged with a blush.
Now, it is fully conceded that these antinomian




34        CAMPBELLISM RE-EXAMINED.
Baptists greatly needed reformation; but, unfortunately, Mr. C. has done little, or nothing, to
eradicate the evils among them. A few of them
adopted his doctrinal peculiarities, because he concurred with them in certain cherished opinions;
but the mass of them are as ignorant, bigoted and
fruitless, as they were at the dawn of the Bethany
Reformation. But this is not all. Mr. Campbell,
far from endeavoring to correct the evils prevalent
among them, catered to their corrupt taste, defended
their erroneous views, and confirmed them in their
opposition to "all enlarged plans and self-denying
efforts for promoting the cause of Christ." But, I
must notice particulars.
" Th1ese churches were mostly penurious."Their covetousness was a great evil, and much
needed correction. How did Mr. Campbell propose
to remove it?  Let any one read the pages of the
Christian Baptist, and he will learn. By insinnating that the clergy-ministers of Christ, not enlisted under the banner of his reformation- not
some of them merely, but the cla s-were selfish
and mercenary; and that all benevolent schemes
for promoting the interests of religion were ingenious priestly devices to fleece the flock of Christ.'Look," said he, "again at the sums of money
squandered at home and abroad under the pretext
of converting the world; and again, wherein is the




CAM3PBELLTSM RE-EXAMINED.         35
heathen world benefited by such conversions?"Chris. Bap., p. 72.
These antinomian Baptist churches "were o0)posed to Christian missions."  This was a sore
evil, which many of our brethren lamented, and elldeavored by their faithful instruction, and by their
consistent example, to correct. But by what method
did Mr. Campbell aim to remove it?  By proclaiming that Christian missions-which distinguished the
age-were unauthorized-sectarian-rebellion against
the throne and government of Messiah-like the
Catholic missions —and in many instances "a system of iniquitous peculation and speculation." For
condensed proof on these points the reader may consult Campbellism Examined, pp. 42-59.  The success of this method 3Mr. Campbell triumphantly
published from a Kentucky correspondent, in the
Christian Baptist, p. 144. "Your paper has well
nigh stopped missionary operations in this state."
These hair-splitting Baptist churches, self-styled
"orthodox," were opposed to "all enlarged plans
and self-denying efforts for promoting the cause of
Christ."
They were opposed to all plans for the education
of young ministers. They looked upon them as
tending to corrupt the ministry, to destroy the best
interests of souls, and to dishonor Christ. This evil,
though not confined to antinornian Baptists, was,
hrough the faithful labors, and benign influence of




36        CAMPBELLISM RE-EXAMINED.
our fathers, beginning, at the period of Mr. Campbell's coming among us, to disappear in the regular
Baptist churches. How did the reformer propose to
aid in the correction of the evil? Not by condemning the education of ungodly young men for the Christian ministry-as he now would have the world to
believe —a practice which has never received the
slightest countenance among Baptists —but by publishing concerning a discourse by the Rev. Gideon
Blackburn, D. D., as follows —" His sermon is intended to proclaim that it is the duty of the church
to prepare in her bosom pious youth" —note this,
pious youth —" for the gospel ministry. Now this
is really a new message fiom the skies, for there is
not one word from Genesis to John, which says that
it is the duty of the church to prepare pious youth
for the gospel ministry." —-Christian Baptist, p. 221.
By such instruction did Mr. C. endeavor to reform
the antinomian Baptists; and, truly, it was most
refreshing to their spirits, and, deeply averse as
they were to progress, it was the means of bringing a few of them to embrace the "ancient gospel."
These churches were opposed to the "reasonable
support of pastors." This evil was not confined to
this class of Baptists, but was " too much neglected"
in all the churches. Before Mr. Campbell made
his debut in Eastern Virginia, many Baptist ministers had perceived the evil, and made vigorous
efforts to arrest it  The Rev. Abner W. Clopton




CAMPBELLISM RE-EXAMINED.          37
is worthy of a monument for his fearless, earnest,
and successful labors in correcting it. Then the
Bethany Reformer, learned, eloqueLt and distinguished, came to his aid, not proclaiming with
Christ, "the workman is worthy of his hire"-but
in his own peculiar style," that every man who receives money for preaching the gospel, or for sermons, by the day, month, or year, is a hireling in
the language of truth and soberness." —-Chn. Bap.
p. 233. And then he urged on the churches the
duty of supporting their pastors, in the following
manner:  "The modern clergy say they do not
preach for money. Very well; let the people pay
them none, and they will have as much of their
preaching still." —-Chn. Bap. p. 43.
By such efforts did Mr. Campbell seek to promote the reformation, the necessity of which I conceded, and which concession, he says, is " all that
we ask, and all that our position before the living
age requires."  He is welcome to the concession!
THE INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT IN CONVERSION.
The larger part of Mr. Campbell's review is devoted to the discussion of this important topic. Begin where he might, he was sure to glide into this
subject. It is no easy matter to answer his arguments, because they are without arrangement, frequently on collateral issues, and not always perspicuous. Confusion, which in an army makes defeat,




38        CAMPBELLISM RE-EXAMINED.
easy, in an argument renders it difficult, I will
briefly notice the most important points in the discussion.
In Campbe'lism Examined, I attempted to show
that Mr. Campbell's teaching on the subject of the
Spirit's agency, in the conversion of sinners, is inconsistent and contradictory. I admitted that he
had put forth orthodox views on this subject-that
he had maintained the popular doctrine that the
Spirit and the Word co-operate in conversion. I
also stated that, he taught, with equal clearness.
that the Spirit in conversion does nothing more
than persuade the sinner, by words or other signs,
addressed to the understanding, to turn to God.
Numerous quotations were furnished from his writings to confirm these statements. I was not alone
in this interpretation of his language.  It was so
understood by the Rev. A. Broaddus, distinguished
for his intelligence and candor. Dr. Lynd, whose
"scholar-like epistle" reminds Mr. Campbell " so
much in matter, manner and spirit, of the learned,
and liberal, and gentlemanly Dr. Staughton," says,
in his brief notice of Campbellism Examined, " It is
clearly shown by the quotations that Mr. Campbell's
views certainly destroyed the agency of the Holy
Spirit in regeneration." —-Mill. Itar. 141. Indeed,
I do not remember to have found an intelligent
Christian, not a Reformer, who has paid attention
to the subject, that does not concur in this view;




CAMIPBELLISM RE-EXAMINED.        39
and many of the Reformers not only admit beat it
was taught by Mr. Campbell, but most heartily embrace and defend it. As I regarded this doctrine
as erroneous and of injurious tendency, it was discussed at considerable length.
I had no wish to convict Mr. Campbell of heterodoxy; but sincerely hoped that he would endeavor
to set himself right on this vital principle of Christianity. If his views on this point are in harmony
with those of evangelical Christians generally, nothing can be easier than to make it appear. He
owes it to himself, and the cause of truth, to say
nothing of those who have been perplexed by his
apparently conflicting positions, not merely to state
his views on this momentous subject without ambiguity, but to show, if it can be shown, how these
views can be harmonized with teaching, which in
the estimation of everybody, except Mr. Campbell,
and his peculiar friends, is flatly contradictory; and
if this cannot be shown, to acknowledge that he has
put forth indefensible statements.  How easy it
would be for him to evince that he holds substantially the views that have been generally entertained
on this subject by intelligent, evangelical Christians,
such as those recorded in Campbellism Examined,
pp. 183-185,-and that he repudiates whatever
he may have written not in agreement with this
teaching.
I will now fully illustrate my meaning. In the




40         IAMPBELLISM RE-EX  MIINED.
Debate with Mr. Rice, Mr. Campbell says, " There
is the Word alone system, and there is the Spirit
alone system. I believe in neither."  In Christianity Restored, he says, " All the power of God
or man is exhibited in the truth which they propose.
Therefore, we may say, that if the light, or the truth,
contain all the moral power of God, then truth alone
is all that is necessary to the conversion of men, for
we have before argued and proved, that the converting power is moral power." —-p. 362. Now, Mr.
Campbell may blame my head or my heart, but I
am not alone in my infirmity; there are many who
are convinced that when he says, in one place, I do
not believe in "the Word alone system," and, in
another place, that " truth alone is all that is necessary to the conversion of men," he puts forth contradictory statements. I cannot reconcile them;
if MIr. Campbell can, does he not owe it to the Reformation for which he pleads, and to the weakness,
or prejudice of its opponents, to do so? But if he
cannot, does he not owe it to the cause of truth
and piety, to confess his error, and to inform the
world by which position he is resolved to abide?
"There lies the rub," It may be unpleasant and
humiliating to him to admit that he has contradicted
himself; but in no other way, can he so highly
elevate himself in the estimation of the Christian
public, as by a frank and manly confession of his
error.




CAMPBELLISM RE-EXAMINED.          41
Mr. Campbell has his own methbd of treating
this subject, and I must attend to it,  He has observed no order in the discussion, but I will reduce
it to the best form I can.
First, then, Mr. C. substantially concurs with me
in my main position on this subject. He writes,' He (I) propose to prove' that there is an influence of the Spirit, internal, mighty, and efficacious,
differing from  moral suasion, but ordinarily exerted through the inspired Word in the conversion
qf sinners.' Ordinarily, yes, ordinarily. We say
always; he (I) says ordinarily; therefore the controversy is narrowed down to the extraordinary
cases." —-pp. 131, 132.
These extraordinary cases shall be considered in
due time. I understand Mr. Campbell as agreeing
with me that the conversion of sinners is effected
not by moral suasion alone —not merely by arguments addressed to the eye or ear-but by an internal, mighty, efficacious influence of the Spirit through
the written Word. This is the orthodox belief. But
it was not for maintaining this truth that Mr. Campbell was censured and opposed by the Baptists.
They did not call in question this doctrine. He
cannot find in all their controversies with him, a
single sentence in condemnation of it. But he, and
his adherents were condemned for teaching that
nothing but truth addressed to the understanding
is necessary in conversion-indeed, that there is no




42        CAMPBELLISM /.E-EXAMINED.
influence of the Holy Spirit until after baptism.
When Mr. Campbell establishes his orthodoxy on
this point, he abandons his Reformation. All that
he has written against the speculations, theories
and mysticism of the " populars"-and he has written volumes on these subjects-must be understood
as directed against the crudities of a few visionaries,
the extravagancies of a still smaller number of ultraCalvinists, or men of straw of his own creation.
But he does not stop at the admission that my chief
proposition, with the exception of a single word, is
sound, and I must follow his devious course.
Secondly-Mr. Campbell utterly misconceives the
design of my argument on the influence of the Spirit.
He says, " To gather out of one hundred and fifty
pages of his work any issue at all, it must be expressed
in this formula-The Holy Spirit works upon the
human spirit, by actual contact, or impact, without
and independent of either law or gospel. I repeat
it, if there be either sense or reason, argument or
point, in his book, it is this." —-pp. 258, 259.
This may do well enough for those whose information on this subject is derived solely from the
pages of the Millennial Harbinger; but I am quite
persuaded that of all the readers of my book he is
the only one who has fallen into this strange misapprehension. Nothing can be more explicit than
my statements on this subject. " It is fully admitted," I say, "Cthat the Spirit operates through the




CAMP]BELLISM RE-EXAMINED.         43
Word in the conversion and sanctification of men.
But I understand Mr. Campbell to maintain that
the influence of the Spirit in the work of conversion
is limited, and of necessity, to the simple presentation of arguments, motives, truth, to the minds of
men, by means of words, and other signs-that all
the power of the Spirit in the conversion of men is
moral suasion." —-Camp. Ex., p. 123.  On the
position above ascribed to Mr. Campbell-a position which he did maintain, if language can express
it-I took issue; and I do not think that he can
find a sentence in the seventy-seven pages devoted
to the discussion inconsistent with my chief aim.
True, I did maintain that the Spirit operates in
conversion ordinarily through the Word; but as
the exceptional cases were not material in the discussion, I did not dwell on them. To preclude any
misconception of my views on this subject, however,
I penned the following passage-" On one merely
speculative point" —supposing that Mr. Campbell
admitted'that conversion is effected by the personal agency of the Spirit'-"-' he differs from most
or all of his brethren. They believe that this is
God's ordinary, or usual way of converting sinners;
the only way in which we should hope, labor and
prayfor their conversion; but that He is not limited to this way." Now, mark the extraordinary
instances contended for. " In the case of dying infaqnts or idiots, they believe that a mooral change,




44         CAMPBELLISM BRE-EXAMINED.
equivalent to regeneration, is effected by the direct,
personal agency of the Holy Spirit, without the
Word." —Camp. Ex. p. 186. How M3r. Campbell
could have so egregiously misapprehended my aim
and argument, I cannot comprehend.
Thirdly-Mr. Campbell, not only misstates my
position in the discussion, but insists that I offered
no argument in support of my true position.  He
quotes from Campbellism Examined, " MIr. Campbell maintains, or did maintain, that all the converting power of the Holy Spirit is in the arguments
or motives which he presents to the mind in the
written Word, On this point I take issue with him.
I maintain that there is an influence of the Spirit,
internal, mighty, and efficacious, differing, from
moral suasion, but ordinarily exerted through the
inspired Word, in the conversion of sinners." —-p.
125. Mr. Campbell having furnished this extract,
proceeds to remark, "Now, with what argument
does he (M[r. Jeter) assail or refute what he assumes
and affirms I did, or I do maintain, concerning the
converting power?  He makes an issue, but what
does he prove? What arguments? What is the
first, the second, the third?  I ask what is the
first? I cannot find it, unless it be the quotation
of " the wind bloweth where it pleases;" and " so is
every one that is born of the Spirit."  So what?
Like the wind blowing?-!  I again ask-How is
evqry one so like the wind blowing? &c. If Mr.




CAMPBELLISM RE-EXAMINED.         45
Jeter's salvation depended on it, I question if he
could explain the word so in this case. How is he
so as the wind?-! He had better send this question to Boston." —-Jliill. Har. p. 131.
The above passage from the pen of Mr. Campbell
is an enigma, explicable only on the supposition
that he had not read my book. He fairly states
the issues which I made with him.  Having endeavored to show that his chief argument against my
position-the inability of the Spirit to do more in
conversion than present arguments to the mindwas fallacious; I proceeded to present at considerable length, five arguments against Mr. Campbell's
theory ot conversion.  Concerning this theory, I
endeavored to prove1. That it overlooks, or at least, under-estimates
the inveteracy of human depravity.  2. That it is
incompatible with prayerfor the conversion of sinners.  3. That it is inconsistent with the introduction of the Millennium. 4. That it is contradicted
by the plain teaching of the Scriptures.  And 5.
That it is inconsistent with the plainly revealed,
and, by Mr. Campbell, fairly conceded influence of
the Holy Spirit in believers after baptism. These
positions the reader will, I think, find fully confirmed in my book. —pp. 125-174. Now, That the
reviewer should have pronounced these arguments
illogical, inconclusive, weak, absurd, or obscure would
not have surprised me-such an estimate of my




46        CAMPBELLISM RE-EXAMINED.
labors I was prepared to expect from him-but I
confess, that, after all the strange things which he
has affirmed in this discussion, I was surprised to
read this language, " He (Mr. Jeter) makes an issue, but what does he prove?  What arguments?
What is the first, the second, the third? I ask
what is thefirst? I cannotfilnd it, unless it be the
quotation of'the wind bloweth where it pleases,'
and' so is every one that is born of the Spirit.' " The
reader will perceive by referring to Campbellism
Examined, p. 126, that the quotation, which Mr.
Campbell considers my only argument, was incidentally introduced, without comment, in reply to
an assumption of his. And yet he can find no
argument but this in favor of my position. I will
only say, the arguments are visible. A well taught
school boy may be convinced of their existence.
But lMr. Campobell cannot see them. I will not
affirm of him as he does of me, " There are not a
few things in science, in learning, and in religion,
which Mr. Jeter will not understand till he get
another head or heart.  We are, indeed, sorry for
his sake, that we cannot create the one or the
other."-pp. 73, 74.  But I will affirm that some
influence has obscured the mental vision of the reviewer. He does not display in this matter his
asual perspicacity.  And, I will also state that
multitudes have seen the arguments, invisible to;im, and have the full conviction that they have not




CAMPBELLISMI RE-EXAMINED.         47
been answered. It is to be hoped that b fore Mr.
Campbell shall write his promised book, he will put
on his spectacles, and make diligent search for them,
that he may not only find, but refute them, if they
are fallacious, lest some suspicious persons should
surmise that the difficulty of finding a reply to the
arguments was the real cause of their obscuration.
But suppose I offered no argument to sustain my
position —" that there is an influence of the SSpirit,
internal, mighty, and efficacious, differing from,moral suasion, but ordinarily exerted through the inspired Word, in the conversion of sinners —does not
Mr. Campbell concur with me in it, except as to
the extraordinary cases, which I deemed of little
importance in the controversy? Why, then, does
he seek to conceal or disparage the arguments by
which I aimed to establish, not the exceptional
cases about which we differ, but the main proposition in which he asserts that we agree? True, he
has ignored, rather than refuted these arguments;
but by censuring a sentence here and there —by
carrying on a mere logomachy —he has betrayed a
willingness to refute them, though that refutation
would be, as he concedes, at the expense of a vital
doctrine of Christianity.
Fourthly.-I will now notice the extraordinary
cases of conversion to which Mr. Campbell takes exception. He agrees with me that there is an influence of the Spirit, internal, mighty, and efficacious,




48         CAM3PBELLIS3I RE-EXAMINED.
exerted throutgh the inspired WYord, in the conversion
of sinners. I maintain, however, that the Spirit
ordinarily, and MIr. Campbell that the Spirit atways operates in this manner.
Before I enter on the discussion of this point, I
will premise two things1. The exceptions to God's usual method of conversion are distinctly stated in my book.  " In the
case of dying infants, or idiots, they (evangelical
Christians,) believe that a moral change, equivalent to regeneration, is effected by the direct, personal agency of the Holy Spirit, without the Word."
Camp. Ex., p. 186. This point I did not discuss,
deeming it of no practical importance, as we are
called to labor and pray for the conversion of sinners only in the ordinary way. A more careful consideration of the matter, however, has convinced me
that it is more important than I formerly thought.
Truth is a unit. Speculative, may readily lead to
practical error. A mistake on this point under examination must tend to Pelagianism  on the one
hand, or the denial of spiritual influence on the
other; and both these extremes are subversive of
Christianity.
2. Mr. Campbell, who was anxious to turn to
his advantage my position that the Spirit ordinarily converts sinners through the inspired Word, was
very careful to keep out of sight that the plainly
stated exceptions were "dying infants or idiots."




CAMPBELLIS' I RE-EXAMINED.       49
I do not charge Mr. Campbell with intentional misrepresentation; but no reader of the Harbinger could
learn my views on this subject. He would certainly
suppose, contrary to the explicit statements of my
book, that I teach that adults in a probationary
state, are converted by the Spirit, sometimes through
the Word, and sometimes without the WVord. If
the reviewer had informed his readers of the exceptional cases for which I pleaded, much that he wrote
of "a purely physical, or metaphysical regeneration" would have appeared to be worse than useless.
I shall now proceed to show that in the case of
dying infants and idiots, regeneration takes place
by the agency of the Spirit without the Word.
I use the term "regeneration;'" in its well understood moral sense-as equivalent to conversion-or
a. spiritual renovation-that change by which the
depraved soul of man is fitted for the heavenly kingdonm.
In support of my position, I remark1. That whatever may be legitimately inferred
from the Scriptures is a part of divine revelation,
and worthy of our belief. For illustration-We are
expressly informed that when the angel announced
the birth of John the Baptist to Zacharias, he was
struck dumb; Lu. 1: 20; we infer from the fact
that at the birth of the promised child, the family
made signs to the father " how he would have him
called," that Zacharias was deaf-Lu. 1: 62; and his




50        CAMPBELLISM RE-EXAMINED.
deafness and dumbness are equally matters of revelation, and equally entitled to our credence. If, therefore, it can be fairly inferred from the teaching of the
Scriptures that dying infants and idiots need a moral
change to fit them for heaven, and that this change
is effected by the Holy Spirit, without the Word,
these truths are a part of revelation, and worthy of
our belief.
2. That infants are born with depraved natures.
This is the orthodox belief; and on this point 3Mr.
Campbell is orthodox. In the Christian System,
we read, " True, indeed, it is; our nature was corrupted by the fall of Adam before it was transmitted to us; and hence that hereditary imbecility to do
good, and that proneness to do evil, so universally apparent in all human beings.::' All inherit a
fallen, consequently a sinful nature, though all are
not equally depraved." —-pp. 28, 29. Every child
of Adam enters the world with a nature, fallen —
sinful-impotent to do good, and prone to do evil.
3. That dying infants and idiots are saved.
This is the popular doctrine; and, whether true or
false, is held by Mr. Campbell. I quote from the
Christian System, p. 29. "Condemned to natural
death, and greatly fallen and depraved in our whole
moral constitution though we certainly are, in consequence of the sin of Adam; still, because of the
interposition of the second Adam, none are punished with everlasting destruction from the presence




CAMPBELLISM RE-EXAMINED.          51
of the Lord, but those who actually and voluntarily
sin against a dispensation of mercy under which
they are placed."
Take another quotation from the Debate with
Rice, p. 655. " The atonement of the Messiah has
made it compatible with God, with the honor of
his throne and government, to save all those infants
who die in Adam. He has made an ample provision for extending salvation from all the consequences of Adam's sin to whomsoever be will."  I
have italicized the important clause in the extract.
These passages, though they do not directly affirm, plainly imply the salvation of infants, dying
in infancy; an inference, to which, if I understand
Mr. Campbell, he will fully assent.
4. That the salvation of dying infants, and by
a parity of reason, of dying idiots, implies regeneration or a spiritual change.  The salvation by
Christ is deliverance from sin. In the case of an
adult, it is deliverance from liability to punishment,
by the remission of sins; and from moral corruption, by regeneration, and sanctification. In the
case of an infant, dying before the commission of
sin, it is deliverance from depravity, or what Mr.
Campbell terms'"fallen-sinful nature."  Less than
this it cannot imply. Heaven is a holy place, and
none but the holy are admitted to its enjoyments,
or can appreciate them. Without holiness "no
man shall see the Lord." Infants, dying in infancy,




52         CAMPBELLISM RE-EXAMIN ED.
must by some process, known or unknown, be freed
from  depravity-morally renewed-regenerated, or
they can never be saved-never participate in the
joys of heaven. This point is so generally admitted-so clear-so accordant with all that is revealed
of the heavenly state, and the moral condition of
humanity, that, I presume, Mr. Campbell will not
dispute it. If, however, he does, the proof of it is
at hand. Jesus said to Nicodemus, " Verily, verily,
I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he
cannot see the kingdom of God."  John 3: 3.  The
term  "man," in this place, is used in its generic
sense, to denote any one possessing human natureany man, woman, or child. NTo human being, of
any sex, age, or condition, can discern the nature,
or enjoy the blessings of lMessiah's reign, without
this new, or divine birth; and this is true of his
future as well as of his present reign-true of his celestial as well as of his earthly reign. A spiritual
change —a holy nature —is indispensable to our entrance into the kingdom of God. If any doubt existed as to the correctness of the interpretation, it
would vanish on a careful examination of the sixth
verse, " That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and
that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." Jesus
here explains the nature of that change, which he
had affirmed was a pre-requisite to admission into
the kingdom of God. It is not afleshly birth. " That
which is born of the flesh is flesh" —is carnal, de



CAMPBELLISM RE-EXAMINED.          53
praved, sinful. This sense of the text is so obvious
that it will not, I am sure, be denied. Every child
that has been born, except the adorable Jesus, has
inherited, and every child that shall hereafter be
born will inherit this fleshly, depraved nature; and
this corrupt nature cannot, without a spiritual renovation, participate in the blessings of Messiah's
reign. Are infants, idiots, or any other class of human beings exempt from this necessity-a necessity
which has its foundation, not in,an arbitrary appointment, but in the depravity of human nature,
and the essential principles of the divine government? Let the intelligent and candid answer.
Having shown that the salvation of infants clearly implies their regeneration, or moral renovation,
I remark,   *
5. That this change is effected in the case of dying infants and idiots by the agency of the Holy
Spirit without the Word. If these classes of human beings are saved, which Mr. Campbell admits,
they are converted-morally renovated. If they
are renewed, it is neither by human nor angelic
agency. The atonement of Christ, though it may
procure, is not the agency which effects this change.
In the scheme of human salvation revealed in the
Scriptures, the Spirit is the agent, through whose
power and grace, depraved man is renewed-made
meet for the inheritance of the saints in light. There
is a "renewing of the Holy Ghost," by which men




54        CAMPBELLISM RE-EXAMINED.
are saved, but I know of no other renewing agency
adequate to such a result. This saving renewal, in
the case of dying infants and idiots, must take place
without the influence of the written Word, for of
this Word they are ignorant. Of the process of this
renewal, I know nothing; but its reality seems to
be plainly inferable from the acknowledged and
fundamental doctrines of Christianity; and so have
reasoned and taught the enlightened guides of the
church. Mr. Campbell will, I presume, admit that
if the class of persons under consideration are regenerated, they are regenerated by the Spirit,
without the Word.
I will now furnish an instance of the regeneration of an infant. It was predicted, by the angel,
of John the Baptist, that he should " be filled with
the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb."Lu. 1: 15. To "be filled with the Spirit" is a
high Christian privilege, (Ep. 5: 18.) implying,
among other things, a pure heart. " The infant Baptist was filled with the HEoly Ghost." For what
purpose was the Spirit richly bestowed on him?
Obviously, to fit him for his mission; and this fitness included moral purity, and this moral purity
supposed regeneration.  It cannot be imagined,
without irreverence, that the Holy Spirit dwelt in
an unregenerate, sinful heart. Where he dwells
there must be holiness. The influence of the Spirit
on the infant, John the Baptist, was not, in all re



CAMPBELLISM RE-EXAMINED.         55
spects, what it is on believers. On believers, the
Spirit operates through the Word; on the infant
harbinger, He operated without the Word; but in
both cases the result was the same —moral purity.
Will Mr. Campbell deny that the Baptist was made
holy from his birth?  Will he maintain that he
was filled with the Spirit by means of the written
Word?  The fact that this unconscious babe was
richly imbued with the Holy Spirit, scatters to the
winds a whole volume of Mr. Campbell's sophistries
on spiritual influence. The Spirit, that by an extraordinary method, fitted the infant John for his
mission, can, in the same manner, fit dying infants
for heaven.
On the subject of infant regeneration Mr. Campbell holds peculiar views-they constitute an important part of the "Ancient Gospel" disinterred
at Bethany-and they shall receive special attention.
I quote from the Review, p. 123. " Regeneration without knowledge, faith or repentance," in
the case of infants, dying in infancy, he should, in
fairness have said, "is the confessed doctrine of the
Baptist Confession of Faith, and of all the' orthodox Baptists' in the United States.''':~ To
such a purely p7zysical or metaphysical regeneration, we do, indeed, object." ": ~:'CIt amounts to
neither more nor less than the impact of Spirit upon
spirit-of the naked Spirit of God upon the naked




56          CAMPBELLISM RE-EXAMINED.
spirit of man, without argument, reason, or motive."
Such are Mr. Campbell's views of the Baptist doctrine of the regeneration of infants, dying in infancy.
Let us now attend to his arguments against infant regeneration. I continue the extract from the
Review-" Need we assume, that whatever constitutes regeneration in any case-infant or adult, Jew
or Gentile-constitutes it in all cases?  Are not
conception and birth the same in all ages of the
world, and in all cases?"  I will give him a fuller
statement of the argument from the Debate with
Rice -— p. 620.'"Whatever is essential to regeneration in any case, is essential to it in all cases.
The change, called regeneration, is a specific change.
It consists of certain elements, and is effected by a
specific agency. If it be a new heart given, a new
life communicated, it is accomplished in all cases,
as generation is, by the same agency and instrumentality. If, then, the Spirit of God, without
faith, without the knowledge of the Gospel, in any
case regenerates an individual, he does so in all
cases."
As Mr. Campbell frequently introduces this argument, and lays great stress on it, it is proper to
test its strength.  There is a manifest sophism
lurking in the language of the argument.  "C Whatever is essential to regeneration in any case, is essential to it in all cases."  This is a mere truism



CAMPBELLISM RE=EXAMINED.          57
equivalent to saying, " Wh.tever is essential to regeneration, is essential to it. Now, nothing is essential to regeneration, except that, without which,
if there be any such thing, God cannot effect it.
We must distinguish between an ordinary and an
essential instrumentality.  The products of the
earth are the ordinary, the almost universal means
of human sustenance; but God, when it suited
him to do so, fed the Israelites with manna from
heaven. A human father is the ordinary, and so
far as we know, with a single exception, the universal, but not the essential means of generationMr. Campbell's assumption to the contrary notwithstanding-for that holy thing which was born of the
virgin Mary was conceived of the Holy Ghost. Lu.
1: 35. Generation is the universal means of rearing up a family; but God is able of the'stones to
raise up children unto Abraham."' Mat. 3: 9. The
argument under consideration assumes the very
point in debate-that the Word is essential to regeneration. That the Word-the preaching of the
Word-the ordinances of Christ-the example and
prayers of Christians-and the providences of God,
both merciful and severe, are the ordinary, and, so
far as we can judge, the only means of regeneration,
except in the case of dying infants, and individuals
in a similar condition, I concede and fully teach;
-but that these important means are indispensable to
conversion, I denyt and Mr. Campbell cannot prove.




58        CAMPBELLISM RE-EXAMINED.
The fallacy of the reasoning under consideration
may be shown by the application of the argurmenturn ad hominem.  Mr. Campbell maintains the
doctrine of the salvation of infants, dying in infancy-if he does not, let him say so, and I will suspend him on the other horn of the dilemma. To
this doctrine we will apply his logic.  "Whatever
is essential to" salvation "in any case, is essential
to it in all cases." But faith, repentance, and baptism, as he teaches, are essential to salvation in some
cases.  Therefore, faith, repentance and baptism
are essential to it in every case. Now, it is clear
that Mr. Campbell must renounce, either his argument, or the salvation of infants. As infants can
neither believe, repent, nor properly be baptized,
and if these are essential to salvation, they cannot
possibly be saved. Clearly, he should relinquish
his reasoning. To affirm that because faith, repentance and baptism are essential to the salvation of
an intelligent, moral agent, to whom the Gospel is
preached, it is essential to the salvation of unconscious infants, is new sophistry —but sophistry of
precisely the kind by which the reviewer opposes
infant regeneration.
Mr. Campbell maintains that God does nothing
without means; and concludes, therefore, that he
does not regenerate dying infants. In Campbellism
Examined, I stated incidentally that God can work
with means or without them.  This is a favorite




CAMPBELLISM RE-EXAMINED.         59
text with the reviewer, and he expatiates on it,
frequently, largely, and eloquently. I quote from
pp. 132, 133.  " I will charge myself and credit
Mr. Jeter for a proof, even one proof, of the proposition, that'God works without means,' in creation,
providence or redemption! Moses forgot to name
any of those things which God created without
means!!  But my friend, Mr. Jeter, is the man
to set him right, or at least, to fill up that chasm
in the account of creation.  Paul says that'by
faith we understand that the worlds were framed by
the word of God.' This statement is fatal to Eld.
Jeter's speculation.  If God did not, for reasons
good and valid, create anything without his word,
or without means, what shall we say of the wisdom
or the presumption of the affirmation, that'God
who made man without means, can renew him with.
out means!'
"I knew that creatures, even the mightiest,
could do nothing without means; but I had supposed, in my simplicity, or, perhaps, in my "presumption," that God, greater than creatures, can,
and sometimes, does work without means.  I had
never doubted but that he created the world —that
he inspired holy men to write the scriptures-that
Christ wrought miracles —that God will raise the
dead, without means; and, if I had been convinced
that all these things have been done, or will be
done, by means, I should still have thought, that




60        CAMPBELLISM RE-EXAMINED.
he formed by mere power the means, or instrument,
whatever it may be, by which he did, or will accomplish these things.  But it appears that I was entirely mistaken.  "Paul says that by faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word
of God." And this statement, it seems, is fatal to
my speculation. I am surprised that Mr. Campbell should so bewilder himself on this subject. I
do not charge him with quibbling, but it is not
easy to see how quibbling could be more futile than
his reasoning. I can easily comprehend that words
may be a means of good or evil, when there are ears
to hear, and hearts to understand them.  The
scriptures are called the word of God, not because
they are words which he uttered, but human words
employed by the Spirit of inspiration for the instruction of mankind.  They are appropriately
called the means of conversion.  They are adapted
to enlighten, awaken, and purify the hearts of men.
Words are, literally, significant sounds, formed by
the human voice.  It is obvious that words are ascribed to God only in a figurative sense. As words
are indicative of man's will or purpose; God is said
to do that by his word, which he does by his will,
or the direct exercise of his power. So the language
is understood, as far as I have seen, by all commentators and critics, except Mr. Campbell; and this
interpretation is in harmony with God's incorporeal
nature. But suppose, for the sake of the argument,




CAMPBELLISM RE-EXAMINED.         61
that the infinite Spirit did, before language was
formed, without organs of speech, and without air
to modulate, utter words in empty space; to call
them the means of creation is to ignore the import
of the word. Means signifies an instrument fitted
to accomplish an end. What fitness was there in
words to effect the creation of the world?  There
were no ears to listen to them, no hearts to be impresed by them, and on inert matter, had it existed, they were not suited to act. But suppose,
for the sake of the argument, that God did utter,
in no matter what language, in the infinitude of
space, words as a means of creation.  I would inquire, Were these words uttered by means, or without them? Man utters words by means of his
vocal organs. But has the infinite Spirit vocal organs?  If he spake, it must have been by the
mere force of his will-without organs of speech, or
any means whatever. Mr. Campbell's exposition
of the language of Paul is as abhorrent to sound
philosophy, as it is to just principles of philology.
The word of God, employed in creation, can mean
nothing more than his fiat, or almighty power, as
Mr. Campbell, fated to contradict himself on every
important point, plainly affirms.  " We know," he
says, " that God is spirit and not matter-yet he
created matter, and moulded and animated portions
of it, by mere volition"-yes, "by mere volition" —
and, consequently, not by instrumentality. —p. 123.




62        CAMPBELLISM RE-EXAMINED.
After all, when the mist is dispersed from the subject, the reviewer will be found to agree with me.
I cheerfully admit that infants dying in infancy,
are regenerated by the word of God —not the written
word, nor any word spoken by the human voice-but
the very word by which the worlds were framed-the
almighty fiat —the word of God's power. Heb. I: 3.
But says Mr. Canmpbell, " How spirit acts on
spirit, or mind upon mind, otherwise than by argu
ments, reasons, or motives, we have never met witL
the man or book that could explain or demonstrate
by any species of argument, analogy, or proof."
p. 123. This may be true. I do not understand,
much less can I explain, how God " created matter,
and moulded and animated portions of it, by mere
volition." That he should act on mind, " by mere
volition," is certainly as plain and philosophical as
that he should thus act on matter.  I cannot
abandon the truth because of Mr. Campbell's inability to comprehend it; nor will I insinuate-as he
does, in another case, with reference to myself, that
because " there are not a few things in science, in
learning and in religion," which he cannot understand, that his inability indicates a peculiar defect in
his " head or heart."
I freely admit that the regeneration of an infant,
at death, does not imply all that is comprehended
in the regeneration of an adult. The enlightenment
of the mind, repentance, and faith in Christ are of




CAMPBELLISM RE-EXAMINED.          63
necessity excluded from infantile regeneration; but
in this change a new, holy nature is imparted, by
which the infant soul is fitted for the heavenly felicity. The salvation of an infant and of an adult,
though differing in some respects, is substantially
the same. Redeemed by the same blood, sanctified
by the same spirit, and made partakers of the same
inheritance, they will unite their voices in the same
doxology, " Unto him that hath loved us, and
washed us from our sins in his own blood, and made
us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to
him be glory and dominion for ever and ever.
Amen."
I close this part of the discussion with a reasonable request-that Mr. Campbell, in his forth-coming bo.ok, will distinctly inform his readers that I
believe and maintain that the regeneration of sinners is ordinarily effected by the Spirit through the
Word, and that the only exceptions for which I contend are dying infants, and persons in a similar
moral condition, and that they are regenerated not
before, but in " the article of death."  I make this
request, because I am quite sure that the review
is calculated to mislead as to my opinions on these
points those of his readers who have not examined
my book.




64        CAMPBELLISM RE-EXAMINED.
MR. CAMIPBELL'S NEW PLAN OF INFANT SALVATION.
The Reformer, having repudiated the popular
doctrine, that dying infants are, by a direct influ.
ence of the Holy Spirit, renewed, and fitted foi
heaven, found it necessary to adopt another method
of explaining the process of their salvation. This
process is more fully developed in the Debate with
Dr. Rice than anywhere else. I will permit Mr.
Campbell to furnish, in his own language, a full
statement of it:
" What then, let me ask, is the philosophy of regeneration according to Mr. Rice?  It is a change
of heart. There we agree again.  What sort of
change? —not of the flesh, but of the spirit-a
change of the affections, of the feelings and sympathies of the soul. Agreed!-a change so great that
we love our former hates, and hate our former loves.
We love God and our Saviour supremely, and our
brethren fervently. We hate Satan, falsehood, and
sin. Hence comes the annihilation of his hypothesis-can an infant love or hate, without previous
knowledge, faith or apprehension of things amiable
and hateful!! No, says every man; where there
is no light, no understanding, no intelligence, there
can be no disposition at all, no moral feeling, no
change of affections, no change of heart; consequently no infant moral or spiritual regeneration.
It is impossible-it is inconceivable! No man can
demonstrate, illustrate, or prove it." —-p. 654.




CAMPBELLISM RE-EXAMINED.         65
" If moral disposition be a part of regeneration,
and if moral disposition be to love God and hate
Satan; to love righteousness and hate iniquityQuery-Can an infant then be regenerated? Can it
love or hate a being or a thing, concerning which it
knows nothing more than a rock?  MIr. R. cannot
explain this difficulty, and it is fatal to his theory.
If a child be regenerate, it must love holiness and
hate iniquity; but this cannot be without knowledge-because in religion, as in everything else, intellect pioneers the way, while the affections and
the heart follow. We must see beauty before we
can love it. We must see deformity before we can
hate it. And, therefore,'the love of holiness and
the hatred of sin' are impossible to an infant."p. 668.
" But now with regard to our physical regeneration of infants, my faith is in the Lamb of God, who
hath taken away the sin of the world. The atonement of the Messiah has made it compatible with
God, with the honor of his throne and government,
to save all those infants who die in Adam. He has
made an ample provision for extending salvation
from all the consequences of Adam's sin tc whomsoever he will. Ever blessed be his adorable name!
THE LAMB OF GOD HAS BORNE AWAY THE SIN OF
THE WORLD. Infants then need that same kind of
regeneration that Paul, and Peter, and James, and
John, and all saints need —the entire destruction




66         CAMPBELLISM RE-EXAMINED.
of this body of sin and death. The most perfect
Christian that I have ever seen, needs a regeneration to fit him for the immediate presence of God.
The infant that falls asleep in its mother's bosom,
and after a few short days breathes out its spirit
gently there, needs no more change to fit it for
Abraham's bosom, than that which the Spirit of God
will effect in the resurrection of the dead, or in the
transformation of the living saints at the time of
his coming. Philosophy, reason, and faith, are alike
silent on the subject of any infant regeneration before death.  It is all theory —idle, empty, suicidal
theory. Experience lifts her ten thousand voices
against it. Whoever saw a child regenerated growing up from birth a pure and exemplary Christian!
Persons have been sanctified, that is, set apart to
the Lord from their birth; but that any one was,
in our sense of regeneration, changed in heart from
birth, reason, revelation, experience, observation depose not; on this subject they are all as silent as
death. While, then, I believe in the physical regeneration of infants after death, I repudiate their
spiritual or moral regeneration in life, because unscriptural, irrational, and absurd." —-p. 655.
" Man, with me, when contemplated in his whole
person is a plural unit.  He is one man, having a
body, a soul, and a spirit. So both my philosophy
and my Bible teach. Paul prayed for the Thessa-'onians that God would sanctity them wholly (holo



CAMPBELLISM RE-EXAMINED.          67
teleis) their body, soul, and spirit.  Their pneuma,
psuche, soma. Not only have the Greeks these
three names, but the Latins also. They had their
animus, their anima, and their corpus.  So had the
Hebrews. So have the moderns, as we have-body,
soul, spirit.  The body is a mere organized material machine-the soul is the seat of all the passions
and instincts of our nature, and is intimately connected with the blood. It is the animal life. The
spirit is a purely intellectual principle, as intimately connected with the soul, as the soul with the
blood, and the vital principle. Now the spirit, or
intellectual principle in man, is not the seat of corruption, or of depravity abstractly, any more than
the mere materials of human flesh. The understanding or intellect is indeed weakened, and sometimes perverted by the passions, the animal instincts and impulses. But the soul is the great
seat of all those corrupting and debasing propensities and affections that involve the whole man in
sin and misery. Man was not condemned for reasoning illogically; nor was he condemned because
he was either hungry or thirsty, or had these appetites, but because captivated by his passions,
he was led into actual rebellion. This is still the
depravity of man. His spirit is enslaved to his passions and appetites.  Its approvings and disapprovings are all more or less contaminated, biassed,
and tinged by these rebellious elements, this'law




68        CAMPBELLISM RE-EXAMINED.
of sin which is in his members,' warring against
the law of his mind, reason and conscience. Now
these not being developed in infancy, any more
than reason or conscience, places them under quite
a different dispensation and destiny. Dying in that
undeveloped state, they are not the subjects of condemnation eternal, never having disobeyed God,
nor refused the Gospel. They need not those operations of the Spirit of which the theory of Mr.
Rice so often speaks, and with which it is so replete,
all of which originated too in the brain of one Saint
Augustine.
" Hours might be consumed in the development
of these principles; and without a full development,
perhaps they ought not to be introduced. I have,
indeed, spoken thus far, merely to show, that we
have reason to repudiate the notion of the abstract,
undefinable metaphysical regeneration of an infant,
as essential to its salvation.  It only needs, as before
observed, a physical regeneration; a destruction of
that body in which those seeds of passion and sinful
appetites art so thickly sown, in consequence of the
animal and sensitive having triumphed over the intellectual and moral man, and so entailing upon
our race this natural proneness to evil. Hence the
necessity of physical regeneration. The adult saint
needs it as much as the infant.'That law (or
power) of sin,' in the members, of which Paul complained-that'body of sin and death,' under which




CAMPBELLISM RE-EXAMINED.          69
lie groaned, and which made him, in his own esteem,
a'wretched man,' must be destroyed.  While'the
inward man delighted in the law of God, he saw
another law in his members, warring against that
law of his mind, and bringing him into captivity to
the law of sin, which was in his members.' This
will be destroyed in the saint before admission into
heaven-and that is what I mean by physical regeneration; and this is destroyed before development in the dying infant, and, therefore, through the
Lord Messiah; the RESURRECTION and the LIFE;
the sin-atoning Lamb of God;-the SECOND ADAM
-it slumbers in the bosom of its Father and God,
till the great regeneration of heaven and earth."pp. 675, 676.
The above extracts contain a pretty full statement of Mr. Campbell's views on the subject of infant salvation; and they are entitled to careful examination.  The subject is abstruce, and, in the
absence of direct revelation to guide me, I shall
aim to write with becoming modesty.
The first point that strikes my attention in Mr.
Campbell's scheme of infant salvation is, that it is
a mere assumption.  He speciously objects to the
doctrine of infant regeneration, that it is not taught
in the Scriptures.  Its advocates admit that the
Scripture proof of it is not direct but inferential.
They deem it, however, clear and decisive. He rejects their doctrine, as a vain speculation, and sets up




70         CAMPBELLISM3 RE-EXAMINED.
in opposition to it a plan of infant salvation, for
which the word of God furnishes neither direct nor
inferential evidence; and which, so far as I can
perceive, has nothing to recommend it but novelty.
Let us, however, examine it in detail.
I have already remarked that the denial of the
regeneration of dying infants tends to Pelagianismn,
or a rejection of the doctrine of inherent depravity.
That tendency is, if I mistake not, clearly involved in
the above quotations. I do not charge Mr. Campbell
with holding the doctrine of Pelagius. In passages
already cited from the Christian System, he distinctly
and fully endorses the popular doctrine of man's innate moral corruption. I exculpate him, therefore,
from the charge of teaching Pelagianism; but shall
be able, nevertheless, to show that the seeds of
this pernicious system  are wrapped up  in  his
scheme. He may not, I presume, he does not perceive the consequences of his positions; but still
they are of Pelagian tendency; and it may be well
to point out this tendency that he may have an
opportunity of counteracting it in his promised
book.
In the foregoing extracts, Mr. Campbell, if I understand him, teaches that man has a body, a soul
and a spirit-that the body is a mere organized
material machine —that the soul is the seat of the passions and instincts of our nature, and is intimately
connected with the blood-that the spirit is a pure.




CAMPBELLISM RE-EXAMINED.          71
ly intellectual principle-that depravity exists primarily in the soul, and not in the spirit, any more
than in the mere materials of human flesh-that
the spirit, or higher nature of man, can be defiled
only through the passions and appetites of the
soul-that these, not being developed in infancy,
the spirit escapes conception-and that the infant,
dying before the contamination of the spirit, is
placed under " quite a different destiny" —needs no
moral renovation —-but will be saved " a physical
regeneration," or the resurrection from the dead,
just as the saints will be saved.  " The spirit-is
not the seat of correuption or depravity abstractly,
any more than the mere materials of human flesh."
" But the soul is the great seat of all those corrupting and debasing propensities and affections which
involve the whole man in sin and misery." It would
seem then that the spirit is not corrupt abstractly,
or by itself, but only through the impure affections
of the soul; and these " not being developed in infancy, any more than reason or conscience, places
them," (infants, I presume, though the pronoun
has no antecedent,) "under quite a different dispensation and destiny." " Dying in that undeveloped state-they need not the operations of the Spirit."
An inspired apostle distinguishes between " spirit, and soul, and body;" but the precise distinction between rvs;va% spirit, and  uX', soul, which
he intended, it is not easy to perceive. The terms




72         ZAMPBELLISM RE-EXAMINED.
seem to be used frequently in the New Testament,
as their corresponding terms are among us, in the
same sense.   We cannot, perhaps, better define
them than by saying that spirit denotes the intellectual, and soul the emotional nature of man:
but these are not separate, or separable parts.
but the same part contemplated under different
aspects. Be this as it may, the spirit of man is,
undoubtedly, his highest nature.  Spirit is placed
by the apostle Paul before soul and body. Thess.
5: 23. It is the inward eye of man. " For what
man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit
of man which is in him?"   Mr. Campbell assigns
to the spirit a pre-eminence over the soul and the
body. The spirit is the responsible, and controlling agent —the seat of the understanding, memory,
will and conscience. It does not act independently
of the soul, nor of the body, while it is incarnate,
but is appointed to govern them. If there is depravity in man, it is in his spirit.  We are taught
that bodiless spirits may be corrupt.  We read of'"seducing spirits," " a foul spirit," and "'lying
spirits." Satan is a depraved spirit. I can see no
reason why embodied spirits may not be corrupt.
The Bible informs us that there is afilthiness of tlhe
spirit, as well as of the flesh. 2 Cor. 7: 1. Into
some sins man is seduced by the solicitations of the
flesh —-the animal nature-but others have their
)riin in the spirit.  Pride, ambition, envy, malice,




CAMPBELLISM RE-EXAMINED.          73
and such things, are the filthiness of the spirit.
Satan infuses his evil dispositions into the spirit
of men.  " Ye are of your father, the devil," said
Jesus, to the wicked Jews, " and the lusts of your
father ye will do." What I maintain is, that man's
spirit —his highest nature —the indestructible inner
man —is, at birth, and undoubtedly to the development of the " passions and appetites" depraved. By
what authority, of revelation or of reason, Mr. C.
maintains that the spirit is free from sin until it is
perverted by the propensities of the soul, he has not
informed us.  He will, perhaps, do so in his expected volume. It may be well for him to consider the
import of the Saviour's words, " That which is
born of the flesh is flesh."  Is not the whole man
body, soul and spirit, born of the flesh? and are
not all involved in a common corruption and ruin?
I have not yet disposed of this matter —Mr.
Campbell assumes a principle which, if carried to
its legitimate result, is utterly subversive of the
doctrine of infant depravity.  " Where there is no
light," he says, " no understanding, no intelligence,
there can be no disposition at all, no moral feeling,
no change of affections, no change of heart; consequently no infant moral or spiritual regeneration."
Again, he writes, "We must see beauty before we can
love it. We must see deformity before we can hate it.
And, therefore,' the love of holiness and the hatred
of sin' are impossible to an infant." According to




74        CAMPBELLISM RE-EXAMINED.
this theory,'knowledge must precede all dispositions,
good or bad, all moral bias, right or wrong.  " In
religion, as in every thing else, intellect pioneers
the way, while the affections and the heart follow."
These statements are incompatible with the doctrine of inherent corruption. What is depravity
but an evil disposition or tendency of the heart?
Some moral quality of the inner man —of the soul
and spirit-which inclines it to do evil? In the
infant the moral quality, or disposition, is latent,
undeveloped, but real and innate, depending not on
knowledge, education, or circumstances. Just as
certainly as the young mind is developed, it will,
impelled by this evil disposition, hate holiness and
love sin. We find in the history of the primeval
father of mankind the illustration and proof of this
position. God created man in his own image, and
that image consisted in "righteousness and true
holiness." Or, as Mr. Campbell expresses it, " 5Man,
then, in his natural state, was not merely an animal, but an intellectual, moral, pure, and holy
being."-Christian System, p. 26. If man was
created holy, then it follows that knowledge is not
indispensable to the existence of holiness. Adam
was holy in the very moment of his creation. His
moral constitution was sound. His dispositions were
all turned in the right direction.  When light
dawned on his mind, he rejoiced in truth, loved what
was lovely, chose what was good, and did what




CAMPBELLISM RE-EXAMINED.           75
was right.  It is true, that the conscious, joyous
exercise of t'he affections was consequent on the
acquisition of knowledge; but it was the readiness,
or tendency of the affections to flow in the right
direction that constituted his holiness. Now, it is
the opposite disposition-the readiness of the affections to pursue the wrong direction-that constitutes depravity; and this disposition, dormant in
infants, is certain, if their faculties are unfolded, to
be aroused into active exercise.  Now, I readily
grant that by Mr. Campbell's theory, he fairly precludes the necessity, and, indeed, the possibility of
"infant moral or spiritual regeneration;" but in
evading this necessity, he aims a serious.blow at
the foundation of Christianity.  This reasoning
when fairly carried out, runs thus-Where there
is no knowledge, there is no disposition, or moral
character-where there is no disposition, there is no
depravity-where there is no depravity, there is
no need of spiritual regeneration-and, what is
equally clear, no need of an atonement.  Infants
have no knowledge, consequently no disposition-no
depravity-no need of regeneration-or of an atonement. Where then, so far as infants are concerned, is
the necessity of Christianity? I know Mr. Campbell will repudiate these consequences, but they are
bound to his principles by hooks of steel.
It is now time that we should examine more
closely Mr. Campbell's theory of infant salvation



76        CAMPBELLISM RE-EXAMINED.
a theory that seems to have been adopted, from no
reverence for the teaching of revelation, but merely
to evade the necessity of admitting the regeneration
of dying infants.
Having shown, as he supposes, that the soul,
which is " intimately connected with the blood," is
primarily the seat of depravity, and that the Spirit,
"'a purely intellectual principle," is free from sin,
until the "corrupting and debasing propensities and
affections" of the soul are developed, which development cannot occur in infancy-he thus unfolds
his schenre of infant salvation.'" We have reason
to repudiate the notion of the abstract, undefinable,
metaphysical regeneration, of an infant as essential
to its salvation. It only needs a _physical regeneration; a destruction of that body in which those
seeds of passion and sinful appetites are so thickly
sown. —The adult saint needs it as much as the
infant." "'Infants then need that same kind of
regeneration that Paul, and Peter, and James, and
John, and all saints need —the entire destruction
of this body of sin and death."  What Mr. Campbell means by "physical regeneration" —a phrase
which I am surprised to see used by one whose
avowed mission is the restoration of a pure speech —
he explains in the following language. —" The infant that falls asleep in its mother's bosom, and
after a few short days breathes out its spirit gently
there, needs no more change to fit it for Abraham's




CAMPBELLISM RE-EXAMINED.          77
bosom than that which the Spirit of God will effect
in the resurrection of the dead, or in the transformation of the living saints at the time of His coming "-Christ's coming, I suppose he means, though
the " Spirit of God" is the grammatical antecedent
of the pronoun.
For this scheme of infant salvation, the reader
hardly needs to be informed, Mr. Campbell is indebted solely to human invention. It is as much a
work of imagination as any tale of fiction. From
the Scriptures it receives no support, either direct
or inferential. It has no basis in sound philosophy. The doctrine that man is at birth depraved
in his spiritual nature, and that he needs a spiritual
renovation, is the dictate of philosophy as well as of
revelation. Mr. Campbell does, indeed, furnish a
comparison, but a most unfortunate one, in support
of his scheme. " Infants need the same kind of regeneration that Paul, and Peter, and James, and
John, &c., need." The Scriptures teach that the
saints at death, freed from bodily appetites and
passions, will enter into Paradise. For them  "to
be absent from the body (is) to be present with the
Lord." There is, however, an essential and most
important difference between dying saints and dying infants. The saints have in them a principle
of life-of spiritual, divine, eternal life.  "Whosoever," says Jesus, " drinketh of the water that I
shall give him shall never thirst; but the water




78        CAMPBELLISM RE-EXAMINED.
that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water
springing up into everlasting life."  When the
saints die they find, in heaven, society, occupation,
and enjoyments for which they have been fitted by
regeneration, and a course of moral discipline.Freed from the encumbrance of their bodies, and
the temptations arising from their connexion with
them, their spiritual life is fully developed and matured. But what agreement is there between the
condition of dying, regenerated men, and dying, unregenerated infants. Surely, the dying infant needs
a regeneration different from that of the dying
saint —not merely of physical, or bodily, but a moral,
or spiritual regeneration. The infant has, as Mr.
Campbell teaches, in one place, a sinful nature, and
it cannot, without a moral renovation, be otherwise
than corrupt, either before or after death.
To one of two conclusions, Mr. Campbell is, by
his theory, fairly driven.
First-Infants are not sinful, in their higher,
immortal nature, previous to the development of the
corrupt propensities of their inferior, mortal nature;
and consequently, they need, in the evangelical sense,
no salvation. This conclusion is irresistible. Where
there is no sin, there can be salvation. Christ
came to save sinners, and only sinners. If infants
are not sinners, they may, indeed, be, as Mr. Campbell calls it, physically regenerated, but they cannot be saved by the blood of Christ.




CAMPBELLISM RE-EXAMINED.           79
Secondly —If sinful infants are, in any case, fittedfor heaven by physical regeneration, sinful adults
may be prepared for it by the same process.  If
the resurrection of the dead can cure the spiritual
maladies of an infant, why may not the spiritual
maladies of an adult be cured by the same process?
If this reasoning is false, Mr. Campbell cannot object to it. I will refresh his. memory by recalling
his own method of reasoning.  " Whatever is essential to regeneration in any case, is essential in all
cases.': A If it be a new heart given, a new life
communicated, it is accomplished in all cases, as
generation is, by the same agency and instrumentality." Now, according to the theory under discussion, sinful infants, dying in infancy, are fitted
for "Abraham's bosom," by a physical regeneration;
and as whatever is necessary to produce this fitness,
in any case, is necessary in every case; it follows,
with logical certainty, that all who are fitted for
"Abraham's bosom," are fitted for it, as dying infants are, by a physical regeneration. Mr. Campbell is welcome to either horn of the dilemma. Take
which he may, he will find himself involved in serious difficulties; from  which, however, he is well
fitted to extricate himself.




80         CAMPBELLISM RE-EXAMINED,
THE IDENTITY OF BAPTISM, REGENERATION AND
CONVERSION.
In his various works, Mr. Campbell has earnestly,
and unequivocally insisted that, in Scriptural use,
the above words have precisely the same import.
In Campbellism Examined, pp. 191-216, I endeavored, after acquitting him of the charge of holding,
in its popular sense, the doctrine of baptismal
regeneration, to prove " that neither the term regeneration, nor conversion, nor any equivalent term,
nor the Greek words which they properly represent,
nor any of their cognates, are ever used in the Scriptures to denote baptism." —-p. 199. I have the
most; unwavering conviction that this position was
sustained by incontrovertible arguments. On this
point, at least, I did sincerely hope that Mr. Campbell would confess his error, and return to the Scriptural use of terms; but I was disappointed. Having taken his position, he is exceedingly reluctant
to abandon it. Well, what has he done?  He has
not so much as made an attempt to answer the arguments by which I sustained my position, and
showed that his use of these terms is incorrect. Let,
us hear what he says. "We will proceed to notice
his (Mr. Jeter's) declarations on Christian Baptism.
We say his declarations, for on this subject he has
not adduced the Christian doctrine " —certainly, not
the doctrine of the Christian System-" but his
own conceptions of it, and speculations upon it.




CAMI BELLISM RE-EXAMINED.        81
Prior to any analysis of his dogmata, we must
claim the right to complain of his garbled quotations, from' Christianity Restored,' and his calling
my, quotations' unintelligible jargon.' That is, to
be sure, quite complimentary to me, and quite as
much so to the diction of the Holy Spirit, whose
language we have employed."-Mill. Har., p. 438.
There are three counts in this indictmentFirst —That I made " garbled quotations from
Christianity Restored." Mr. Campbell furnishes an
extract of two pages from that work as " an exposition alike of his (my) taste, and of his (my) understanding." He might with equal propriety have
printed a dozen pages for the purpose. Let the intelligent reader compare the quotations in my book,
p. 203, with the context given in the review, and
satisfy himself of the correctness of my "taste,"
and the soundness of my " understanding," in making my selections. I ask nothing more. Will Mr.
Campbell pretend that the passages as in my book
do not bear precisely the same meaning which they
bear in his?2 Having disposed of the charge of
garbling in another place, I will not dwell on it
here.
Secondly —That I called Mr. Campbell's language
"unintelligble jargon."  To this count I must plead
Guilty. I ought, perhaps, in view of his age, learning and reputation, to apologize for the use of such
an epithet. But "great men are not always wise."




82        CAMPBELLISM RE-EXAMINED.
If the terms, however, are libelous, I may be permitted to plead their truthfulness in abatement of
damages.  Let us re-examine the passages pronounced to be " unintelligible jargon."  "Persons
are begotten by the Spirit of God, impregnated
with the Word, and born of water." It is admitted that physiologically there is a distinction between
begotten and born; but Mr. Campbell, and every
tryo in Greek, know that these terms in the New
Testament represent precisely the same word.Whether believers are said to be "begotten of God,"
or "born of God," depends merely on the taste of
the translators. Whosoever, in Scripture phraseology, is "begotten of God," is "born of God."
When a person, according to Mr. Campbell's theory,
is "begotten," or, which is precisely the same thing,
born of God, he is next impregnated by the Word.
Conformably to physiological laws the mother and
not the foetus is impregnated. But Mr. Campbell
inverts the order of nature, and insists that " persons begotten of God (are) impregnated by the
Word;" and they are begotten, and become pregnant, before they are " born of water."  "Now, as
soon as, and not before," he affirms, "a disciple,
who has been begotten," that is, born of God, "is
born of water" —immersed —" he is born of God, or
of the Spirit." Who has ever noted a greater confusion of metaphors, or a greater obscurity of conception. If this is not jargon, I have misconceived




',AMPBELLISM  RE-EXAMiNED.      83
the meaning of the term, and how the extended context, quoted by Mr. Campbell, mends the matter,
I do not perceive. I am constrained to admit that
it is to me " yet unintelligible jargon." —-p. 438.
Thirdly —That I was quite complimentary, in an
ironical sense, "to the diction of the Holy Spirit."
To this count I plead, Not guilty. For the "diction of the Holy Spirit," I would cherish the most
profound reverence.  If Mr. Campbell will only
point to the chapter and verse in which the language is recorded, I will promptly retract all that
I have written on the subject. It is bad for him to
use unintelligible language himself, but to make
the Holy Spirit responsible for it is far worse.
Mr. Campbell having made a quotation "from
the Book of Common prayer of the Church of England, showing," as he conceived, " unequivocally
that the learned Doctors of that church used the
words regeneration and baptism  as synonymous,"
adds-" This'unintelligible jargon' belongs to
the Church of England, the Protestant Episcopal
Church of the United States, and to the Presbyterian formulas, confessions of faith, and catechisms."
The extract from the Book of Common Prayer,
seems to me to teach the doctrine of baptismal
regeneration —of a spiritual renovation through
the influence of baptism-which I understand Mr.
Campbell to repudiate; but, certainly, not the
identity of baptism and regeneration, much less




84        CAMPBELLISM RE-EXAMINED.
that a disciple who is begotten, or born of God,
is not born of God, until he is baptized; and
if it is taught in any  "formulas, confessions of
faith, or catechisms of the Presbyterian," or any
other church, orthodox, or hetorodox, Latin, Greek,
or Protestant, I have not seen it.
"These extracts," says Mr. Campbell, referring
to the quotations by which I showed that he taught
the identity of baptism, regeneration, and conversion, "are true and faithful; and in their contextual import I do not, I would not, change one word.
And yet they are made to do me the greatest injustice-just as much as if, while maintaining that the
Scriptures teach that' a man is justified by faith,'
some envious, querulous, discontent, to say nothing
of his pride of opinion, or vanity of mind, should
quote,'was not Abraham our father justified by
works'"!!  Yes, the Father of all believers was
j;ustjfied by works!!  James 11: 3. Again: Paul
says,' the doers of the law shall be justified. Rom.
11: 3. Again: Paul says,'Being now justified by
his blood, we shall be saved.' Rom. 7: 9.  Once
more, we are said to be'justified freely by his
grace.'  Tit. 3: 7.  What can we think-what
could we think of the man that would quote any of
these passages as conflicting with justification by
faith? And need we add, what can we think, or
what need we say, of Mr. Jeter and his New York
encomiasts?"-p. 455.




CAMPBELLISM RE-EXAMINED.           85
The above is a favorite line of defence with Mr.
Campbell-he frequently resorts to it.  It amounts
to this-In the Scriptures, and in my writings,
there are seeming contradictions, but they may all
be reconciled. It is conceded that the Scriptures,
written by different penmen, at different times, under different circumstances, and for different purposes, contain some statements which are apparently
inconsistent, but which are easily harmonized by
sound  principles of interpretation.  They have
been satisfactorily reconciled by the labors of the
learned. But it does not follow that because the
contradictions of the Scriptures are seeming, those
of Mr. Campbell are not real. For my own part, I
have far greater confidence in the intelligence, discrimination and stability of the inspired writers than
I have in those of the Bethany reviewer. Besides,
the cases are not parallel.  The different statements of the apostles concerning justification are
apparently, but not really contradictory-they have
been reconciled —butthe contradictions in Mr. Campbell's books are real, not imaginary-in no contextual light, and by no just laws of interpretation, can
human ingenuity harmonize them, either with themselves, or the teaching of Revelation. Had Paul, in
the same epistle, affirmed, in one place, that we are
justified by faith, and, in another place, that we are
not justified by faith —-a supposition wholly incompatible with his plenary inspiration —-the contradiction




86         CAMPBELLISM RE- EXAMINED.
would have been of the kind with which Mr. Campbell's writings abound. Take a proof of this remark
from the review under consideration. He writes,
p. 185, " Regeneration is found but twice in the
whole Bible —-Old Testament and New.. Once it
indicates the resurrection epoch, or the announcement of the reign of Christ, and once Christian
baptism."   Reader, mark  this-" Regeneration
indicates once Christian baptism."   He refers to
Titus 3: 5. Now turn over to p. 308, and read
-" Baptism is once called in the epistles, not regeneration, but'the washing of the new birth,' or
of regeneration.  It was not by Paul presented as
the new birth, but only the washing of those
already born by the Spirit."  " Regeneration indicates  Christian baptism,"  says Mr. Campbell:
"' baptism is not regeneration," says Mr. Campbell.
I may, surely, be excused from any farther examination of this subject.
PROGRESSIVE SANCTIFICATION.
"I am  really sorry," says Mr. Campbell, " to
have to expose a second radical error in his (Mr.
Jeter's) second proof, more serious, though less palpable, than the first. His words are:' My second
proof is derived from  the nature of sanctiflcation.
It is progressive holiness.::: Elder Jeter needs
to pray save me from my friends!! Sanctification,
progressive holiness!!! Why, my dear doctor, did




CAMPBELLISM RE-EXAMINED.           87
you not consult your Greek Concordance!  We
have the word sanctification but five times in the
New Testament, and the word holiness also but five
times, and one and the same word, hagiasmos, represents them both. * *: No state in the universe —-,
paternal, maternal, filial, conjugal, political, ecclesiastic —-changes.  They terminate.  A child of one
day and of one hundred years, are equally children.
There is no progression in relations. *:: Sanctification is, therefore, no more than justification, a
work of progression. Whenever a believer is baptized, he is-sanctified."
The intelligent reader, by turning back to pp.
260, 261, will find that the above extract is almost
a verbatim repetition of the note recorded there.
It would seem from this repetition of his remarks
and the batallions of exclamatory notes with which
they are escorted, that Mr. Campbell deems them
exceedingly important. Well, I acknowledge myself indebted to him for the information that the
Greek word hagiasmos is rendered sometimes holiness, and sometimes sanctification.  Overlooking
this obvious truth, I adopted a slightly inaccurate
definition of the term sanctification. I stated that
sanctification is progressive holiness.  It is, indeed,
progressive, and is, of course, progressive holiness,
but the last word is redundant. It is sufficient to
gay that sanctification is progressive.  So much in
deference to the criticism of the reviewer. Now, let




88        CA3IPBELLISM RE-EXAMINED.
us examine his theology. He teaches that sanctification denotes a state, by which he means a relation.
" There is no progression in relations." I may not
clearly understand what he means by state or relation; but it is, I think, clear that hagiasmos, and
its cognates, have reference, not to any legal state or
relation, but to moral qualities. The word signifies " separated, consecrated." The believer is separated, consecrated to God.  This consecration
involves moral purity. The Saviour says, " Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God;"
and Paul does but repeat this truth when he
writes, "Follow holiness-without which no man
shall see the Lord."  Consecration to God may be
partial or entire-and, consequently, may progress
from one measure to another. This has certainly
been the prevailing, almost universal, doctrine of
theologians.  But, says the reviewer, "Sanctification is, no more than justification, a work of progression."  It always affords me sincere pleasure to
be able to adduce in support of my teaching the
authority of some renowned Biblicist, whose name
will secure for him an influence to which I can lay no
claim. That pleasure I now enjoy. I quote the
words of Mr. Alexa-nder Camibell, the Bethany
Reformer. in opposition to the position of the reviewer.  "Sanctification in one point of view, is
unquestionably a progressive work. To sanctify is
to set apart; this may be done in a moment, and




CAMPBELLISM RE-EXAMINED.           89
so far as state or relation is concerned, it is as instantaneous as baptism.  But there is the formation of a holy character as well as a holy state. The
formation of such a character is the work of means;
Holy Father," said Jesus, " sanctify them, (my disciples,) through the truth; thy word is truth."  Of
the sanctification of state, I know nothing, and believe nothing.  It was of that sanctification which
ponsists in moral purity-the proper ordering of the
affections and conduct towards God —the only sanctification, so far as I can perceive, revealed in the
Bible-that I affirmed progression; and on this
point Mr. Campbell fully concurs with me. This
being established, my argument in the premises remains, intact. See Camp. Examined, p. 171.
MIISCELLANIES.
It would be easy to pass over all the Nos. of the
review, and point out mistakes, and sophistries,
which abound on almost every page, but the labor
would be bootless.  I will, however, notice very
briefly a few more of them.
A4 false quotation. —Mr. Campbell maintained
that the church of Christ, described Eph. 4: 6, is a
body —not a mass, but an organized, beautiful and
visible body —that he has but one body-and that
this body is not the Romish, Episcopalian, Presbyterian, Methodist, or Baptist body —but, he would
have us to infei'hat it is the body embracing tho




90         CAMPBELLISM RE-EXAMIINED.
" ancient Gospel," or the " Disciples."  In the examination of this high claim, I inquired, "If the
party adopting the peculiar views of Mr. C., is
really the body of Christ, where was his body before
the light shone from Bethany?" —-Camp. Ex. p.
41. The question was important and respectful.
Believing, as I did, that the body of Christ is spiritual and invisible, I was under no necessity of attempting the solution of the question. But Mr.
Campbell maintaining that the body is organized
and visible, was under pressing obligation to show
that Christ, the Head, was not without a body, foi
centuries before the " light shone from Bethany."
In the absence of information on this point, the intelligent reader would be apt to conclude that the
Reformer had misconceived the meaning of the text
in the epistle to the Ephesians.  WVhere was Christ's
body before the light shone from Bethany?  That
was the question, and no man could answer it better than he from whom that light emanated. Let
us read his reply. —-p. 72.
" There is another argument against our position, and with the notice of it we shall conclude our
present article in review of'Campbellism Examined,'
by Elder Jeter.'Where was Christianity before
the light shone from Bethany?'"  These questions
are, by means, identical; but MIr. Campbell, quoting, I presume, from memory, unintentionally subPtitutecd "Christianity," which  could always be




CAMPBELLISM RE-EXAMINED.         9]
found in the Scriptures, for the " body of Christ,"
which, according to his definition of it, could be
found nowhere. But let us hear his reply to this
isolated and perverted question, which he terms my
C" grand argument" against his position. Here it
follows —" It is only necessary to put a'fool's cap'
on any head, however wise, to create a fool's grin.
So Mr. Jeter might ask a question about the man
in the moon, which no astronomer, star-gazer, or
moon-gazer, could at all answer to Mr. Jeter's satisfaction. But what of that? If, as Solomon has
said,'that which is wanting cannot be numbered,'
where good sense, or genius, or even common sense
is wanting, there is no one can give it or create it.
There are not a few things in science, in learning,
and in religion, which Mr. Jeter will not understand until he get another head or heart."  I
acknowledge myself fairly confounded, but not convinced. "I will lay mine hand upon my mouth.
Once have I spoken; but I will not answer: yea,
twice; but I will proceed no further."
A slight mr'taake. —Mr. Campbell says, p. 372,
"Being refuted line for line in the Religious Herald,
we tender to Elder Jeremiah B. Jeter page for page
with us in the Harbinger, with this motto,'He that
doeth truth comes to the light, that his deeds may
be made manifest that they are wrought in God.' "
The truth is that the Editor of the Religious Herald
expressed a willingness that the controversy should




92       C1OAMPBELLI-SM RE-.EXAMINED.
be published in his paper, and that fact had been
printed in the preceding No. of the Harbinger, p.
339; but having chosen my method of bringing my
views of Mr. Campbell's system before the public,
I did not deem it expedient to change it, for his
convenience.
An insinuation.-Speaking of my book, the reviewer says, " It is, indeed, mechanically viewed, a
merchantable duodecimo of 369 leaded pica pages;
the whole of which we could, in quite a legible type,
print in two numbers of the Harbinger. But it
was made to sell for one dollar; and being endorsed
by anti-revisionist Baptists, will have quite a broad
circulation. But this, by the way, only proves that
there is, even yet, some policy in ecclesiastic war."
— p. 549. The insinuation seems to be that the
book was published from a mercenary motive. It
comes, however, with ill grace from one who has
spent his life in writing books, and publishing them
under the protection of copy-rights. It is a pity
that Mr. C. should have resorted to such an insinua-.i.on for the support of his cause; but necessity has
no law, and taste cannot be opposed by argument.
My refoirmation --- We read on page 144 of the
review, as follows —" But has not Mr. Jeter himself become a reformer, in the fair import of the
term?" It is a great repro)ach to me, if I have
made no progress in knowledge and piety, within
the last thirty years; but I certainly have not become a relformer in the Bethanv sense of the term,
v




CAMPBELLISM.RE-EXMINED.         9-3
-" Does he now baptize upon or into an experience?" —I have already confessed my ignorance of
what Mr. Campbell means by baptizing into an experience.-" DIoes he require every candidate to
relate his Christian experience before he will dispense to him the ordinance?" —Certainly —I either
require a connected relation of the Christian experience of the applicant, or propound to him such
questions as will elicit the best evidence the case
will admit of, that he is acquainted with the fundamental principles of the Gospel, and is a true penitent. —'"Does he bring him before the Church, and
take a vote upon his experience before he baptizes
himn?" —By all means —"Does he immerse him into a
faith, or into an experience?" —-Mr. Campbell must
explain his terminology before I can answer. —-I
fear by this time, he will be ready to conclude that
I am not quite so much reformed as he had hoped
I was, and to repeat the inquiry, printed p. 550.
"Is Dr. Jeter yet standing where I first saw him,
at the Dover Association, in 1825, gazing at some
spasmodic negroes, displaying experimental religion
by muscular twitches and embraces! Is he yet an
advocate for such fearful delusions!"  I proceed
with the first extract —-" Does he immerse into the
name, or' in the name of the Father?' &c." —-This
is an important point, in speculation, with Mr. C.
He dwells on it frequently, learnedly, and earnestly.
In the use of the formula in baptism, I am not reformed. His criticism on this subject is probably




94         CAMPBELLISM RE-EXAMINED.
correct. I am unwilling, however, to chauge,my
practice on my own imperfect knowledge of the
Greek; and the learned have not yet spoken on this
point with such distinctness and harmony as to dis.
sipate all my doubts. And I have no respect for
the authority of a critic who asserts, as Mr. Campblell does, that regeneration, conversion and. baptism, all mean, in Scripture usage, the same act —that active participles, in Greek, when united with a
(command, invariably express the meaning of the
command, or the manner of obeying it; and who
supports the criticism by a long string of English
sentences, coined by himself in harmony with the
rule —-and who bases an important doctrine on the
distinction between " begotten of God," and "born
of God," though both phrases represent the same
terms of the original; and persists in sending forth
these stereotyped criticisms, without correction or
retraction, in spite of unanswered and unanswerable
refutations of them spread before his own eyes, and
the eyes of the world. And especially does all the
learned ado about substituting "' into the name,"
for, " in the name," in the formula of Christian
baptism, seem unimportant, when the critic himself,
baptized, as I doubt not he was, " in the name,"
&c. does not repeat the ordinance.  He must, following the example of his quondam co-adjutor, DI.
Thomas, be re-immersed, before I can be convinced
that even he attaches any serious importance to his
labored criticisms on this point.




BOOKS PUBLISHED
BY
S H E L D O N  &  C O M P A N Y,
115 NASSAU STREET, NEW YORK.
Now Complete.
COMMENTARIES ON THE NEW TESTAMENT.
By Prof. HERmANN  OLSHAUSEN, D. D., late Professor of Theology
in the University of Erlangen.
First American Edition, revised after the Fourth German Edition.
By A. C. KENDRICK, D. D., Professor of Greek in the University of Rochester.
Six volumes, octavo. Price, in Cloth, $12; Library Sheep, $13 50;
Half Calf, $18.
The clergy, the professors in our theological seminaries, and the best biblical critics in our country, have now rendered their verdict, and by common
consent this commentary is pronounced worthy of universal attention by students of the Holy Scriptures. The religious press of all denominations, and of
el schools in theology, bear testimony to the learning, the ability, the orthodoxy, and the eminently evangelical spirit that pervades this great work.
UNIFORM WITH OLSHAUSEN'S COMMENTARY,
COMM.MENVTARIES BY BEV. AUiGUSTUS
NEAND.ER, D.D.
The First Epistle to John, the Epistle to the Philippians, and the Epistle of
James Practically Explained by Dr. AUGUSTUS NEANDER.  Translated
from the German by Mrs. H. C. CONANT.
In 1 vol. 8vo. cloth. Price $1 75.
"Neander was learned in philosophy, and in the history of the Church, beyond any
man of his age, perhaps of any age. Take up now his Commentary on John's First
Epistle-the best of his works of this character with which I am acquainted. The excellence of this exposition is not at all owing to his marvelous learning, but to the childlike
and loving temper which places him in so delightful harmony of spirit with the beloved
Apostle."-Francis Wayland.




BOOKS PUBtISHED BY SHELDON & CO,
THE ANO TA TED PARA GRAPH BIBLE
According to the authorized Versions, arranged in Paragraphs and Parallel.
isms, with Explanatory Notes, Prefaces to the several Books, and an entirely new selection of References to parallel and illustrative passages: an
issue of the London Religious Tract Society, republished.
THE OLD TESTAMENT
is now ready in one large octavo volume of 1050 pages. Price, in Muslin, $3. Library
sheep, $3 50. Morocco, full gilt, $5.
BLI.ND BA R T MitE US;
Or, The Story of a Sightless Sinner and his Great Physician.
By Rev. W=LIAM J. 1OGE, Professor in the Union Theological Seminary,
Prince Edwards, Virginia.
1 vol. large 18mo. 257 pages. 75 cents.
"A most excellent book, full of sound instruction and the very spirit of the Gospel."Boston Recorder.
" We wish it could be placed, this winter, in the hands of thousands of sightless sin.
ners."-Gincinnati Christian Herald.
DAIL Y THO UGItTS FORB A CHILD.
By Mrs THOMAS GELDART, author of " Truth is Every Thing," " Emilie the
Peacemaker," etc., etc.
1 vol. 18mo. Price 50 cents.
" In exquisite simplicity of style, beauty of illustration and religious power, this book
baa few superiors in juvenile literature."-'Era, Boston.
TRUTH IS -EVER Y TH ING.
By Mrs. THOMAS GELDART.'
1 vol. 18mo. Price 50 cents.
THE BAIPTIST CHUR CiH DIRECTOR Y:
A Guide to the Doctrines, Discipline, Officers, Ordinances, and Customs of
Baptist Churches, embracing the questions of Baptism and Communion.
By EDWARD T. Hiscox, D.D.
1 vol. 18mo. Red edges. 60 cent, plain 50 cents.




BOOKS PUBLISHED BY SEELDON & CO.
SEBRJONS TO T THE CtHUB CHE$TS.
By FRA-NCIS WAYLAND, D. D.  1 vol. 12mo.  Price 85 cents.
CO N  TENt TS.
I. The Apostolic Ministry.               V. Slavery to Public Opinion.
IL The Church, a Society for the Conver-   VI. The Perils of Riches.
sion of the World.                 VII. Prevalent Prayer.
IIL Christian Worship.                  VIII. Responsibility for the Moral Condi.
IV. A Consistent Piety, the Demand of the      tion of Others.
Age.
Prom the Christical Intelligencer.
"Dr. Wayland is a clear thinker, and a strong and elegant writer. TIis Sermons are
models worthy of study."
MEIMOIB OF DA VID TAPPAN STODDARD,
Missionary to the Nestorians.
BY JOSEPH P. THOMPSON, D.D.,
Pastor of the Broadway Tabernacle Church, New York.
Illustrated with a beautiful Steel Portrait of Mr. Stoddard, a View of his
Birthplace, and several Scenes in and around Oroomiah.
1 vol. 12mo. Price $1.
Dr. Thompson was a classmate and intimate friend of Mr. Stoddard. The Memoir is
framed almost entirely from material furnished by Mr. Stoddard's correspondence, in
which his rare excellence as a Christian was always conspicuous.
THfE " PRECIO US STONrES OF THE HEA VEXL Y _O U2VDA TIONS."
By AUGUSTA BROWN GARRETT, author of "Hamilton, the Young Artist,"
etc., etc. 1 vol. 12mo. Price $1.
This volume is entirely novel, both in conception and execution. It treats of the beatitudes, the glories and the beauties of the Heavenly Home, as figured forth in the Inspired
Volume. The Gems are classed under separate heads, beginning with the Great Corner
Stone. Each head embraces-the most characteristic phrase recorded of the Apostle to
whom the Gem appertains, taken as a motto-some account of the Gem itself; occasional
allusion to the tribe which was represented by the corresponding stone on Aaron's Priestly
Breastplate, and an application of the subject.
THEE LOSING AND TAIlING OF MASNSO UIL;
Or, Lectures on the Holy War.
By Rev. A. S. PATTON, A.M.
1 vol. 12mo. Illustrated with eight spirited engravings. Price $1.
"Bold, striking, and original in its handling of the subject, it is a book that can not
fail to arrest the attention and make a deep impression on the reader. It brings out the
great work of salvation by the various steps of trial, suffering and joy, so that a whole
body of practical theology is here discussed, and important truth presented, so as to in.
struct while it deeply interests the religious mind. It is a book for saint and suiner-fowall who have souls to be lost or saved." — wo York Observer




B00OS PUBLISHED BY SHELDON & COMPANY.
THE NEW  Y ORK P UJL PIT,
IN THE REVIVAL OF 1858,
SERMONS PREACHED IN NEW YORK AND BROOKLYN,
By the following Clergymen:
Rev. Dr. ATmxANDOER.   Rev. Dr. HAGUE.       Rev. Dr. PARdEi
"   ADAMS.            "   HATFIELD.          "   PECK.
"   BETHUNE.           "   HISCOx.           "   POTTS.
BUDINGTON.       "I  HITCHCOCIL           "   SMITH.
cBURCHARD.           "   HUTTON.            4'  STORRS
"   CLARK.             "   KENNADY.          "   THOMPSON.
"   CUTLER.            "   KREBS.            "   VERMILYE.
CUYIaeR.          "   LATHROP.           "   WILLIAMS.
M"'CLINTOCL
1 vol, 12mo. Price $1.
The publishers believe this volume will have an immediate and permanoer
interest and a large sale throughout the land.
SELECT D IS CO UR SES.
Translated from the French and German.
Embracing some Twenty-five of the choicest Discourses of Adolphe Monoa,
Krummacher; Tholuck, and Julius Miiller.
With Dr. Monod's celebrated Lecture on the Delivery of Sermons,
and a fine Steel Portrait of the Author.
By Rev. H. C. FISH, and D. W. Poop., D. D.
1 voL, 12mo, about 400 pages. Price $1.
THE LIFE ANID MISSION OF WOMEN.
By ADOLPHE MONOD, D.D.
franslated from  the French.  In one handsome volume, 12mo, 82 pages.
With a Portrait from Steel. Price 50 cents.
We are here presented with the ablest and most practical discussion of this
great subject which it has ever received. It is a book for the times, and
should be in the hands of every mother and daughter.
GLIMPSES OF JESUS, EEXALTED IX THE
AFFECTIONS OF HIS PEOP2LE.
By Rev. W. P. BALFERN, of England.
18mo. 267 pages. Price 60 cents.
This will be an excellent book for young converts and inquiring minds.
TH-E LI VING _EPIS TLE;
Or, The Moral Power of a Religious Life.
By Rev. CORNELIUS TYREE, of Powhatan, N. C. With an Introduction, by
Rev. Dr. FULLER, of Baltimore.
1 vol. 18mo. 185 pages, 60 cents.




BOOKS PUBLISHED BY SHELDON & COMPANY.
THE PASTOR'S HANDBOOK.
Comprising Selections of Scripture, arranged for various occasions of Official
Duty; Select Formulas for the Marriage Ceremony, etc.; Rules
of Order for Churches, Ecclesiastical and other Deliberate
Assemblies, and Tables for Statistical Record.
By W. W. EVARTS, D. D.
Price 50 cents.
THE  BIB LE MANUAL.
Comprising Selections of Scriptures, arranged for various occasions of Private
and Public Worship, both Special and Ordinary, together with
Scripture Expressions of Prayer, from MATTHEW HIERMY.
With an Appendix, consisting of a copious Classification of Scripture
Texts, presenting a Systematic View of the Doctrines and
Duties of Revelation.
By W. W. EVARTS, D. D.
12mo. Price $1 50.
" It is hardly possible to conceive of an arrangement unuder which can be shown the
teachings of Scripture on a greater number of subjects."-New Englansd Puritan.
THE SCRIPTURE TEXT-BOOK AND TREASURY.
Forming a complete Index to the Doctrines, Duties, and Instructions of
the Sacred Volume.
By W. W. EVARTS, D.D.
12mo. Price 75 cents.
A21A HO O  D:
Its Duties and Responsibilities.  By Rev. W. W. EVERTS, D.D.
1 vol. 12mo., with Steel Portrait of Author.
Price $1.
" He wields a graceful pen, and throws about his allegorical style so much real truth as
to carry conviction to the minds of his readers."-M-ilwaukie Paper.
DOMESTIC SLAVERY CONSIDERED AS A
SCRIPTURAL INSTITUTION.
In a Correspondence between the Rev. RICHARD FULLER, D. D., of Beaufort,
S. C., and the Rev. FRANCIS WAYLAND, D. D., of Providence, R. I.
18mo. 40 cents.
"In this book meet two great minds, each tried long, known well, clear, calm, and
strong. It cheers the heart, when there is so much strife, and so free a use of harsh
words, to see men like those whose names are at the head of this piece, write in a tone so
kind, and so apt to turn the edge of strife. But, though its tone be kind and calm, its
style is not the less strong. Each brings to bear all that a clear head and a sound mind
can call forth. When two so strong minds meet, there is no room for weak words. Each
word tells-each line bears with weight on the main point-each small page has in it more
of thought than weak men crowd into a large book."-Correspondent of National Inwg/gaencer.




BOOKS PULISHED BY SHELDON & CO.
THE L;IFE AND TIMES OF CAREY,  MARSH.
MAN AND WARD.
Including the History of the Serampore Mission.
By JOHN CLARK MARSHEAN.  2 volS. 8vo. Price $5.
HOME LIFE.
Twelve brilliant Lectures on the Duties and Relations of the Family Circle
By Rev. Wmr. HAGuE, D. D. 1 vol., 12mo. $1; Gilt, $1 25.
THE LIFE OF THOMA S COLE, N.A
With Selections from his Letters and Miscellaneous Writings
By Rev. Louis L. NOBLE.
415 pages. 12mo. Price $1 00.
MEMOIR OF THE REV. THIOMAS SPENCER.
By THos. RAFFLES, D. D., LL. D., his Successor in the Pastoral Office.
With an Introduction and a Steel Portrait.
1 vol., 12mo. Cloth, 63 cents.
THE MEMOIR OF MRS. HELEN M. MASON,
Seventeen Years a Missionary in Burmah.
By her Husband, Rev. FRANCIS MASON.
16mo. With a Portrait and several beautiful Engravings. Price 60 cents.
MEMOIR OF SARAH B. J U/D S ON.
By Mrs. E. C. JUDsos.
Ferty Thousand sold. 1 vol., 18mo. 300 pages. Cloth, 60 cents;
Cloth, gilt edge, $1 00.
"Rarely have we read a more beautiful sketch of female loveliness, devoted piety, mis-onary zeal, fortitude, sacrifice, and success, than is here drawn by a pen that is well
known to the reading world. We trust its wide perusal will awaken the mission spirit
in the hearts of thousands." —ewo Yori Obserser.
THE J UD S 0N OFFERING:.
Intended as a Token of Christian Sympathy with the Living, and a Memento
of Christian Affection for the Dead.
By Rev. JOHN DOWLING, D. D., Author of " History of Romanism," etc.
Twentieth edition. 18mo. 60 cents.
LIFE OF SPENCER H. CONE, D. D.
With a fine Steel Plate Portrait.
1 vol., 12mo. Price $1 25.
"'America has produced but few so popular preachers; his personal interest was unbounded; he was indeed a man of talent, of large attainment in the school of Christ, a
brilliant preacher, a noble-hearted, zealous Christian phllanthropist." —CiAstiass OCrW
Eel PMtczda&pkia.