The spiritual side of our plea

Contents

PAGE

I. Authority in Matters of

Religion . . . . 17

Introduction

A FKW introductory words may help the reader to a better understanding of this book. It is a rare thing for a man to speak or write for the public without subserviency to party interest or popular favor in some measure. Really independent thought and unbiased utterance on topics of public concern, and on which issues have been formed and partisan feeling awakened, are uncommon commodities in social, political or religious life. The very claim of having attained to such a condition is calculated to provoke doubt and criticism. And yet there are sometimes circumstances which of themselves tend to superinduce that state of mind. The author of this volume has been a semi-invalid for fifteen years, wholly incapable of regular active labor of any kind. This enforced retirement from all public official relations to society has placed him in a position of immunity from the influences of popular clamor, partisan prejudice and sectarian bias, and has brought to him a rest from the usual conflicts of society, and given him a season for reflection and meditation. The result has been a careful (7)

review of Christianity as set forth in the New- Testament Scriptures, and as advocated by Alexander Campbell and those associated with him in his effort to restore to the world a pure apostolic religion. And the result of these investigations and studies is, in a large measure, expressed in this book, concerning which it is proper to make the following further explanations:

In the preparation of this volume there has been no aim whatever at literary excellence. That thought, if present at all, has been so unconsciously. Perspicuity and strength have been the chief objects, in so far as the thought of style has entered into the work. To be understood, and to carry conviction to the reader in the matters whereof he has spoken, have been the dominant influences with the writer. We have written, too, with reference to the general, average reader, rather than the elect few; for the people, and not the critics.

Beyond and above all other things, this book is written and published in the interest of truth, and, as it appears to the author, very important truth. It was written to encourage and foster truth, the love of truth, and the spirit of seeking truth — truth as revealed in history and as contained in the Holy Scriptures — truth as related to the Christian world in general, and especially with reference to my own brethren, the Disciples of Christ.

The author has held the conviction for many years that there was a necessity for a review and a restatement of some of the prominent points of Christian doctrine, as held and advocated by Alexander Campbell and those associated with him, in their efforts at a reformatory movement and a restoration of primitive Christianity. This necessity grows out of the fact, as the writer of this volume believes, that there exists in the minds of many people a gross misapprehension of the real position of Mr. Campbell with regard to these vital doctrines of Christianity. No man ever assailed established institutions without incurring opposition, misapprehension and misrepresentation. There is still a necessity existing to-day for explanations of the teachings of Luther, of Calvin, and of Wesley. They are still quoted on both sides of some questions. The different phases of truth which to their minds were consistent and harmonious appear to some minds inconsistent and contradictory. The same thing is true in the case of Alexander Campbell. This is particularly so in regard to his teachings on the design of baptism and the work of the Holy Spirit. Two capital points with Mr. Campbell, on which he placed great stress, were, first, the value and importance of the Word of God as revealed in the Holy Scriptures; second, the value and importance of the ordinances of Christianity — baptism and the Lord's Supper. He believed in the divine personality of the Holy Spirit as the agent in the conversion, sanctification and salvation of men.

But he held that the Holy Spirit operates on the minds and hearts of men, not without light and truth and love, intelligence and thought and feeling, but through these, and along with these. And, in order that this light of intelligence, this thought of truth, and this feeling of love, may be brought to the mind, and planted there for the Spirit's use and opportunity to carry on his work, Mr. Campbell held that the Word of truth, as contained in the Gospel of Christ, should be preached and believed. And that this Gospel, as revealed in the Word of truth, may be successfully preached and believed to the saving of souls, the Holy Spirit is ever present, operating and co-operating with this Word in the conversion of men — operating and co-operating, as Mr. Campbell himself expresses it, by "the ministry of men," "the ministry of angels," "special providences," "suggestions," "impressions," "direct communication of original ideas," "bringing things to remembrance long since forgotten," "bringing men's minds to consider these matters," "removing difficulties," etc. But Mr. Campbell contended that however and wherever souls are converted to Christ, "it is the light and love of God in the Gospel that finally converts them." Hence his earnest contention for the value and importance of the Word of God in the scheme of human redemption, and his aversion to and repudiation of any system of theology that rejects the power and efficiency of the preached Gospel, and which maintains that the Holy Spirit converts men without the light of truth. Speaking of the ministry of Christ on earth, his working of miracles to attract attention and create interest, and his preaching the truth along with the miracle, and the accompanying presence of the Holy Spirit along with both, Mr. Campbell says, in his debate with Mr. Rice, page 622: "The miracle opened the heart, the testimony of the Iyord entered, and the Spirit of God with it; and the work of conversion was finished." But it was his contention that without that "testimony of the Lord" — the light of divine truth, the Spirit never converted men. It is not difficult to see how this contention, this demand for the Word of God as indispensable to conversion, declared, proclaimed and emphasized before the world, by tongue and pen, grew in its proportions until it grew in some minds out of proportion, and men began to think and to proclaim that Alexander Campbell rejected the Holy Spirit, and believed in the "Word alone."

Nor is it strange and unaccountable that a class of men, preachers with a legalistic and a materialistic turn of mind, even among his own brethren — men not given to spiritual modes of conception, of thinking, and of living, good men albeit, and, in some instances, strong men intellectually — should drift into this false notion of Mr. Campbell 1 s teaching.

The same things are to be observed with reference to Alexander Campbell's teachings concerning the design of baptism. He held that baptism was for the remission of sins, "in a sense " as he was wont to express it. He did not believe the transition from the world into the church was complete without baptism. He did not believe the remission of sins was complete without this complete transition from the world into the kingdom of God. But he did believe and did teach that there is a moral, a spiritual transition from darkness to light, from unbelief to belief, from condemnation to acceptance and favor with God, before and without baptism, but not to the neglect of baptism. He did believe and teach that sins are remitted, "in a sense," before baptism, and upon the grounds of the sinner's trust in the blood of Christ. The distinction and difference between moral states and legal states were clear in his mind — clear as a sunbeam. He held that "baptism is for the remission of sins," and that no man is legally remitted or legally enfranchised in the kingdom of God on earth until his baptism. That on the grounds of his penitent trust in the Lamb of God, and on the grounds of his obedience in baptism he is completely remitted, and completely enfranchised in the kingdom, the Church of Christ; and that until both the moral and legal provisions of the Gospel are complied with, the remission and the enfranchisement are incomplete. This was Alexander Campbell's position on this subject.

Now, it is not difficult to understand that, holding this view, he felt it necessary to emphasize the value and importance of baptism; that he felt it his duty to declare that no man was remitted, that no man was enfranchised completely until he was baptized. And it is not difficult to see how, declaring, proclaiming and emphasizing this with tongue and pen, at home and abroad, far and near, privately and publicly, some people came to think that Alexander Campbell held to baptism for the remission of sins in an unqualified sense — held that sins are never remitted in any "sense" until a man is baptized. Nor is it difficult to perceive how some of his own brethren, given, as we have said, to legalistic and materialistic ways of thinking, should believe and preach this view as in accordance with Mr. Campbell's ideas.

With a view to setting forth all these facts in their true historical and scriptural light the author of this volume has labored in its preparation — labored through physical infirmities of years' standing. There has ever been present with him a consciousness of his own inadequacy to present this subject, in its details and in its outlines, in the full measure of its importance, and of his own laudable ambition in the matter. His highest hope has been to contribute something in the direction of a more spiritual conception of Christianity, and a more spiritual life on the part of his brethren.

That our movement for a restoration and a realization of original Christianity has been, through misconception of the subject, hindered and in some sections diverted from its true mission in the religious world, the writer does not hesitate to believe.

This book, then, is an effort to set before the world the views and the teachings of Alexander Campbell and his colaborers in their full-orbed light, and to show that these views are in harmony with the Word of God as revealed in the Holy Scriptures. To accomplish this extensive references are made to the writings of Mr. Campbell; extensive quotations have been made from his writings. It has become necessary in some instances to employ the same quotation more than once. The different phases of the discussions as we have pursued the various lines of investigation, have rendered this necessary. In the effort to be understood and to make the subjects treated clear, there may appear at times some redundancy and superfluity. For this no apology is made. "Line upon line, and precept upon precept," is the method by which the understanding of the average man is reached.

Another incentive to the publication of this book is the hope that the young preachers may be benefited. One of the strongest preachers that ever occupied a pulpit among the Disciples, or among any other people for that matter, an educated man, and a writer and speaker of distinguished ability and irresistible power, said to the writer of these lines a few years ago, just before his death, "I doubt whether the first half of my ministry did more harm or good." He had grown up and had begun his ministry with gross, superficial views of Christianity.

At the time of our conversation he was nearing his threescore and ten years. He was then preaching a series of sermons for the church of which the writer was pastor. We had heard him preach in his younger days. There was a striking contrast in the manner and matter of his former and his latter preaching. In his early preaching he was severely legalistic and literalistic; in his later preaching he was intensely spiritual and religious. It is an immense saving to a young preacher if he can begin his ministerial life with correct views of Christianity. That some assistance might be given in this direction has been a strong incentive with the author in the preparation of this volume. And were he to formally dedicate the book to any one, it would be to his young brethren of the ministry.

With these forewords of explanation this volume is committed to its errand while the author invokes the blessing of God upon the book and upon its readers.

A. B. J.

i.

AUTHORITY IN MATTERS OF RELIGION.

In what court are the matters of religious faith to be adjudicated and determined? By what authority are the affairs of my spiritual life to be settled and accepted? What is authority? The Standard Dictionary gives, as its first and most essential definition of authority, this: "The right to command and enforce obedience." That is clear, comprehensive and satisfactory. But where does this "right to command and enforce obedience" rest? The question of infallibility obtrudes itself into this investigation. This authority, it is thought, ought to be infallible, as a necessary qualification "to command and enforce obedience."

The Roman Catholic Church, in ecumenical council, in 1870, decided that this infallibility was lodged in the Pope. But how are we to know that that decision was correct — infallibly

correct? Must not the council itself be infallible in order to settle that article of faith? Whence its authority, its infallible authority, to determine the infallibility of the Pope? Did this council find this great truth in the Bible? Why, then, cannot the rest of us find it there as well? Did God guide their minds into the discovery of that truth in the Bible? Then why does he not so guide the minds of all other earnest seekers after truth, and lead them to see the same important doctrine in the Bible?

With Protestants, generally, infallibility is assigned to the Word of God as revealed in the Bible. But in what sense is the Bible infallible? Who wrote the Bible? Men. Are men infallible? The world has known but one infallible man — the man Christ Jesus, the God-man. How, then, can fallible men produce an infallible Bible? Is not this similar to the question the Catholics have to face — how can a fallible council produce an infallible Pope? But it is agreed on all hands, by believers, that the men who wrote the Bible were inspired. But does inspiration imply infallibility? Certainly not, in a general sense, else the writers of the Bible were infallible men. This they were not, by general consent. They did not claim to be infallible men. But inspiration means inerrancy, infallible certainty in the writing down of that wherein they were inspired. The

Holy Spirit illuminated their minds to understand unmistakably and to write down unerringly the matters wherein they were inspired. Within this limit they were made inerrant, infallible; without this limit they were like other men. They were not, then, absolutely infallible. But, by general consent, there are many other things in the Bible than those "matters wherein they were inspired." Now how are we to infallibly draw the line between the "matters wherein they were inspired" and the matters wherein they were not inspired? This is certainly important. But even in the "matters wherein they were inspired," that were originally written down with infallible accuracy, how have they been transmitted to us? Through transcription after transcription, and translation after translation, from one language to another. Who made these transcriptions and these translations? Uninspired men, fallible men, like ourselves. Then, even if "the matters wherein they were inspired" were infallibly written down at first, how can they come to us, through the handling of fallible transcribers and fallible translators, and through intervening centuries, as the infallible Word of God, the inerrant Bible? Evidently not at all, in any absolute sense — only in an approximate sense. But again, even if the original, inspired and infallibly written Word bad come down to us, tbrougb an infallible handling, bow can fallible men like ourselves read and understand that Word with infallible certainty? Language is mercurial; words have different meanings. Figurative speech abounds in the Bible. The plain and the ornate shade into and out of each other imperceptibly. Without an infallible interpreter, how are we to know that we have the true sense of the infallible Word? And this introduces us again to the Pope, and to the old question, How shall we know that the Pope is infallible?

There is no absolute infallibility but with God, the immaculate, infinite God. All other infallibility is but approximate — an ideal.

But we crave a standard whereby we may settle our difficulties and bring contentment to our hearts. Where is it to be found?

Protestants claim the Bible as that standard. But what means all this contention among Protestants; this diversity of views; this alienation of feeling; this denominationalism? A perfect standard, yet an imperfect measurement; an infallible standard, yet a fallible use of it. How is this?

"The Bible is for the people, and the right of private interpretation is theirs," cried Luther in the sixteenth centurv. "The Bible and the

Bible alone is the religion of Protestants, " cried Chillingworth in the seventeenth centnry. "Where the Bible speaks we speak; where the Bible is silent we are silent," cried the Campbells in the nineteenth century.

At a conference of ministers, held in Lexington, Ky., in 1841, at which Alexander Campbell was present, the following resolution was adopted, indited, doubtless, by his presiding genius:

"Resolved, That the Bible, and the Bible alone, is a sufficient foundation on which all Christians may unite and build together; and that we most affectionately invite all the religious parties to an investigation of this truth."

Luther fought for his principle of "private interpretation" against the usurpations of the priesthood of the Catholic Church. The Campbells fought for their principle of an open Bible for all the people against the "hireling clergy" of Protestantism. "What is the great difference," asked Thomas Campbell, "between withholding the Scriptures from the laity, as the Romanists do, and rendering them unintelligible by arbitrary interpretation, forced criticisms and fanciful explanations, as many Protestants do; or by making the people believe that they are nearly unintelligible by urging the necessity of what is called a learned clergy to explain them?"

But let us not lose sight of the question before us — How is the infallible Bible to receive an infallible interpretation? or rather, How is the approximately infallible Bible to receive an approximately infallible interpretation? Every man is to read and interpret the Bible for himself. This is liberty; this is responsibility; this is Protestantism; this is Christianity. But, in this view, where is the "authority" — "the right to command and enforce obedience?" As there is no absolute infallibility but with God, so there is no absolute authority but with God. But, if the Bible contains the revealed will of God to man, then it is, in some sense, vested with authority over man, and it becomes his duty to recognize that authority to the full extent of its significance. But why do we accept the Bible as of Divine authority?

We accept the Bible as the inspired Word of God, as containing the revealed will and, in some sense, the authority of God, not because some council has so decided (many reverent, religious people do not know that a council ever did so decide), not because the Pope so decides (many godly people do not care a snap for the Pope); but because there is something

AUTHORITY IN MATTERS OF RFJJGION 23

within us that tells us that the Bible is God's Word, God's will, God's authority. But what is that something within? Man was created in the image of God. In spite of his weaknesses and infirmities, he is still an intellectual, moral and spiritual being. He has something within that responds to thought, to moral ideas and to spiritual conceptions. The acorn planted in the soil responds to the conditions and grows. A marble so planted does not respond and grow. "The Word of God is the seed." Human consciousness is the soil. The authority of human consciousness in matters of religion is a subject that needs to be more carefully studied. The authority, did I say? Yes, the Bible is submitted to every man to examine and determine its claims and its merits. On his own personal responsibility he is to consider it, to accept or to reject it. Then he is vested with the authority of a judge over the fate of the Bible so far as he himself is concerned.

But what has consciousness to do in this matter? The word "consciousness" is here used instead of the word "reason," which is generally employed in such discussions. It is used in preference because it is more comprehensive and because it has the appearance of placing the judgment-seat deeper in the human soul. Religion appeals not only to man's rational nature to excite thought and to exercise reason, but to his heart, to arouse his emotions, his feelings, his affections; and to his intuitional nature, his spiritual intuitions. That these are distinct powers or capacities, if not distinct faculties of the soul, is conceded. There are some subjects that address themselves to our intellectual perceptions exclusively, and leave the heart unmoved.

Problems in mathematics, for example, while they provoke thought, frequently most intense thought, yet do not touch our sympathetic and affectional nature. The heart is dormant during all the hours of our mental activity in considering and settling questions of geometry aud trieonometrv. Pure thought determines such matters. But there are other questions that pure thought cannot determine and settle — how to deal with your children, for example, with your parents, or with your wufe. People who never had children can easily tell us how to govern and raise our bovs and girls. Thev have no feelings, no heart in the matter. They simply reason on the subject. But parents both reason and feel, they think and love. The parental consciousness is a compound of these two factors. And it is plain to be seen that this consciousness is more comprehensive than reason, since it is composed of reason and affection combined. These two elements are blended together in our decisions, our judgments.

But intuition is still another distinct faculty or power of the soul. There are some things we know without reasoning about them, since they are primary truths that shine by their own light. They are the initial points of all reasoning. We cannot reason without using them as the means of reasoning. Such are the axioms in mathematics — things which are equal to the same thing are equal to each other, etc. On this foundation the whole science of mathematics is constructed. So, then, even in mathematics, both intuition and reason are involved and co-operate. But they both move together in the cold realm of intellectuality.

In the same way moral science, the science of right living, is conceived and established. The idea of right versus wrong is intuitional. It is a primary truth. While men may err in judgment as to what is right and what is wrong, they clearly understand and agree that there is such a distinction and such a difference. Without this we could no more teach morals to children than to animals.

Now religion is a science, the highest and grandest of sciences. The Bible comes to man as an authority on this subject, and invites man to sit as a judge, his own judge, his own authority, in considering its claims to be God's Word. In exercising his right of private judgment in a general way, and of private interpretation in detail, his profoundest consciousness is awakened. His mental, moral and spiritual powers are all laid under contribution. Thought finds its noblest sphere of activity, the heart its amplest field of delightful employment, the intuition its arena of highest effort and attainment.

Man's intuitional nature responds to the idea of God. The reality of his being is both a conception and a perception of man's spiritual insight. It is a primary truth on which all religion is founded. Without this, religion would be an impossibility. With this solid rock on which to stand, reason begins her constructive work, and to every effort of reason to use the facts and truths of the Scriptures in the framework of religion the heart brings its reinforcement. Nothing stirs the emotional nature like the idea of the eternal, immortal, infinite God.

But in this process, intuition, reason and emotion conspire together. There is a blending of forces, a combination of powers, a co-operation of agencies and a unity of energies, in the general make-up of consciousness. And consciousness is invested with a responsibility and royalty as never before.

Human consciousness, then, as the resultant of intuition, reason and emotion, is the supreme court to which the Bible makes its appeal. In the use of it every man sits as the arbiter of his own spiritual fortune and destiny. He must decide on the claims of the Bible for himself. Man has authority, then, to sit in judgment on this divine authority of the Scriptures. When his authority concedes the authority of the Bible, then his authority yields and submits to the authority of the Word of God; or his will and the divine will unite and blend together in one stream of sympathy and fellowship where all thought of authority is lost. " Search the Scriptures, for in them ye think ye have eternal life," said the Savior. And in a public address, in 1820, Alexander Campbell said to the people: "Read your Bibles; examine the testimonies of those holy oracles; judge for yourselves and be not implicit followers of the clergy." And again he said: "We cordially wish to take the New Testament out of the abuses of the clergy and put it into the hands of the people."

When Luther maintained the right of the people to read and interpret the Scriptures for themselves, and when the Campbells contended for the same principle, did they concede the ability of the masses to successfully exercise this right? Are the masses competent to sit in judgment on the august claims of the Bible to be an inspired record, to contain a revelation from heaven, and to be clothed with the delegated authority of the Eternal God? Are they competent to interpret the Living Oracles, to understand the life-giving Word? These great men knew, as we all know, that the masses are uneducated, unlearned. To enter the great field of evidences for and against the claims of the Bible, to ply the arts of textual and contextual criticism, to follow the stately steppings of conservative and destructive critics, to be exegetesand interpreters of difficult and doubtful passages of Scripture — for all such feats and exploits the common people, the great masses, are wholly unprepared and disabled. But is it necessary that this whole field of investigation should all be learned, these tasks mastered, before the heart can repose its confidence in the Word of Life; before the soul that is hungering and thirsting after righteousness can be filled? If so, then indeed "there are few that shall be saved."

Humanity is painfully conscious of its weaknesses and its burdens, of its own limitations and inadequacy. The Infinite One has established a throne of authority in this human consciousness, and a throne of authority in the

Word of eternal truth and promise. And these thrones are not rivals, but allies. "God is not the author of confusion, but of peace." The light greets the eye and the eye greets the light. The ear revels in sound and sound revels in the ear. The stricken, aching heart cries aloud for help; and the Word of God says: "My peace I give unto you, not as the world giveth. Let not your heart be troubled." We bury our dead, and fall down upon the grave in despair. And the Word says: "He that believeth on me, though he were dead, yet shall he live again; and he that liveth and believeth on me shall never die."

The path of life becomes obstructed, and the way of duty is not clear. We call for light. And the Word says: "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, who giveth to all men liberally and upbraideth not." The great moral and spiritual lessons of the Bible, the essential and fundamental principles of righteous and holy living, lie plainly written upon the surface of Divine Truth. The necessary facts and precepts for moral intelligence and godly discernment, the wisdom needed to produce and to sustain "faith, hope and charity," are not hidden away in the obscure, doubtful and difficult portions of the Divine Record; but they stand out in bold relief, and always of easy access and understanding to ordinary intelligence. The authority of human consciousness, in its universal application, is adequate, fully adequate, to receive, appropriate and enjoy these essentials of divine revelation.

Some fifteen or twenty years ago there was published in one of our American magazines a symposium by several of the leading minds of England and America. The question discussed was substantially this: "Which is the safer guide in all political issues involving moral principles, the leaders or the people?" The names of the contributors to that article have all faded from my memory save that of the great commoner, Gladstone. He argued that the people were the safer, for the reason that they simply followed their instincts of right ^ while the leaders were liable to be swayed by the influences of self-interest, ambition, rivalry, etc. His noble thought and eloquent words were such as to leave an imperishable impression on the mind, and to carry conviction to the heart.