Campbellism exposed : or, Strictures on the peculiar tenets of Alexander Campbell / by William Phillips

Front matter

?s

PRHSENTl-:i) IJY

C?

Chapter I

Introdaction of the subject — Mr. Campbell's doctrine of Baptism stated — Texts brought to support Gampbellism considered, viz. Acts ii. 38. Jo. iii. 5. &c. Mark xvi, 16. IPet. iii. 21. Titusiii. 21.

Ours is a fluctuating world. Its fashions pass away, and the opinions of communities and of men so frequently cliange, that old things sometimes become neiu. We Live in an age when some of the errors of antiquity have been revived and remodeled, and forced upon the world under the imposing name of "the ancient gospel ;" but more commonly, and appropriately called '' Gampbellism," after Mr. A. Campbell, their chief propagator. And as this system^ which is in reality '' another gospel,'^'' has made the west its principal theatre, where, though maimed and crippled, it is still struggling for existence, some notice of it may not, perhaps, be " labor in vain." The present is, therefore, designed as the first of a few essays upon this subject.

There seems a remarkable proneness in fallen man, to make " the kingdom of God meat and drink,^^ by substituting rites, ceremonies, and objects of sense, for spiritual things, and spiritual enjoyments. That man, after his expulsion from paradise, retained some knowledge of the true God, is a reasonable conclusion, and is clearly deducible from the 1st chapter of the epistle to the Romans. But " when they knew God, they glorified him not as God." The idea of a Spiritual Being, to whom they could have no access through the medium of external sense, did not suit their depraved minds. Hence, forgetting that God, whom they could not see, they adored the sun, moon, and stars, and creeping reptiles, and graven images, which they could see and feel. And thus it is probable that the propensity afiove mentioned, led the world into idolatry. At an early period of the christian church, some of the fathers, yielding to this propensity, endeavored to give their religion a degree of splendor, that it might make a powerful impression upon the senses ; but their efforts corrupted the pure stream of gospel truth, and marred the beauty and spirituality of divine v/orship. Witness, the invocation of saints, the veneration of relics, and the use of pictures and images — things unsanctioned by the Word of God, and tending to divert the mind from the true object of worship. Here we see man's disposition to substitute material things for spiritual ; and this disposition, aided, perhaps, by a too literal interpretation of a few passages of Scripture, has been a most fruitful source of error to the christian church, as facts developed in her history, abundantly prove.

The Roman Catholic church, receding from the simplicity and purity of worship, as taught in the Bible, arrived at a poiyat where the idea of feeding in a spiritual manner^ hy faith, upon the broken body and shed blood of our Lord, was too refined and mysterious for her votaries ; and, hence, seizing upon the Savior's words, " This is my body — this is my blood" '—and interpreting them to mean just what they say, they taught that the consecrated bread and wine, are converted into the real and literal body and blood of the Lord, so that the identical body which had been born of the Virgin Mary, is offered by the priest and eaten by the communicants. Thus originated transubstantiation in the 13th century-— a doctrine, which, though opposed by the common sense of every man, and the obvious import of Scripture, is still retained by that church.

But long before transubstantiation was heard of, another error, originating from the same fountain, had been brought into the church. Nicodemus could not comprehend how a man could be born of the Spirit, and this matter seems to have been equally dark and mysterious to some of the early christians ; who endeavoring to render the subject tangible, sought a substitute for this spiritual birth, and found it in water. A few elliptical phrases and sentences in the New Testament, such as, "be baptized for the remission of sins" — " be baptized and wash away thy sins"— afforded a pretext for this change. Thus the Scripture

b2 doctrine, of justification by faith, in the merits of the Redeemer, was set aside. This was one of the first departures of the church from the sacred truths of the gospel, and to this vital error may be traced much of that ignorance of spiritual things, and that intellectual gloom which covered the church in the dark ages of papal supremacy.

. That the church of Rome, (after having converted the sacraments into matter, and taught that '* sensible material things, v/ork by the Almighty power of God,") should receive this vi^w of the efficacy of an ordinance, and teach that, '* baptism, when administered by a priest having a good intention, of itself applies the merits of Christ to the person baptized, and washes away all previous sins,'" is not surprising. But who could have dreamed that a Protestant reformer, in the nineteenth century, claiming exemption, alike^ from Catholicism and '' sectarianism," would rake up water regeneration from the dregs of papal rubbish, and make it a leading feature of his reformation ? This Mr. Campbell has done. I do not assert that his views on this subject are precisely those of the Catholic church, but they are substantially the same. Each makes baptism necessary to the remission of sins — a sine qua non in the salvation of man. The following quotations from Mr. Campbell's Millennial Harbinger-^ea?/r«, No. 1, will show that we do not misrepresent him : '* If we speak Scripturally we must use these terms (immersion, regeneration, and conversion,) as all descriptive of the same thing." "Remission of sins cannot in this life be received or enjoyed previous to immersion." " Immersion alone is the act of turning to God." " No man can enjoy the peace of God, or the hope of heaven, until he is immersed for the remission of sins." These assertions clearly make baptism a saving ordinance ; and I know not that any Papist ever used stronger language in pointing out its importance. And it is well known that these views are received and promulged by his adherents ; who, universally, urge " obedience*^ (by which they mean immersion,) as the MEANS of obtaining remission of sins. Consequently,- Mr. G's '' ancient gospeV^ is literally a gospel of water, for upon its principles, without water there could be no salvation ; and his reformation, taking a retrograde direction, goes back to embrace a radical error, which before the time of Luther, had almost driven the spirit of Christianity from the church ; and which, if now received, must reform us back to that gloomy period, and enshroud us in darkness, far worse than that which came upon Egypt.

The writings of Mr. Campbell form the creed of his followers. To ascertain his opinion upon any fundamental point, is to learn theirs. The quotations already made, show his views of baptism to be nearly related to the Papistical notion of the " opus operatum'^ of the sacraments ; but, to make " assurance doubly sure," and for the information of those who may not have been favored with this new version of Popery, the following additional quotations, from his " Millennial Harbinger," are presented : " It is not our faith in God's promises of remission, but our going down into the water, that obtains the remission of sins,^^ " Immersion is the means divinely appointed for our actual enjoyment of this first and greatest of blessings." The reader will understand that the great blessing mentioned here is justification or remission of sins. And this, we are told, is to be obtained by " going down into the water."

Now it is not intended in these essays to give a higher coloring to any feature of Campbellism, than his writings, and the practice of his adherents will warrant. Such an attempt would do them injustice, and could only result in the mortification and disgrace of the writer. Mr. Campbell is not, therefore, charged with placing the efficacy of baptism in the intention of the baptizer, or with teaching that baptism, of itself literally washes away sin, and clelnses the soul. These notions are not his ; and he has enough to answer for without bearing the sins and absurdities of others. He believes, or afifects to believe, that baptism is the means through which justification is extended to the sinner ; and that we are only authorized to expect pardon in this act of obedience. Sophistry, itself, cannot torture his language, in the above quotations, into any thing lower than is here stated ; nor will the attempt be made ;

for it is well known that his followers uniformly proclaim, remission of sins through baptism^ as the burden of their song*. And now, his belief on this point being settled, we join issue. He affirms , we deny. And notwithstanding the difficulties often attendant upon efforts for the establishment of a negative, we feel, in this case, fully competent to the task. But, in order that the mind of the reader may see the extent of its claims, and be the better prepared for its refutation, we pr(> pose, first of all, an examination of those texts of Scripture upon which his doctrine mainly depends for its establishment.

The point before us is the principal arch in the superstructure of Campbellism ; and the keystone of this arch is found in Acts, ii, 38. " Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." From the expression, " for'the remission of sins," it is argued that baptism is the *mean^ of obtaining this blessing. Much stress is, also, laid'on the circumstances and situation of Peter when he spoke these words. To him, it is said, the keys of the kingdom had been committed, that acting under the authority of the King, he was then opening its door for the world to enter in ; and hence, that his words are entitled to no ordinary degree of credit. Be it so. We neither wish to detract from the importance of the occasion, nor to question the correctness of the instructions. But none of these proves that Peter taught on the day of Pentecost, what Campbellites teach now ; nor is it at all probable that the Jews, familiar with the writings of Moses and the Prophets, would thus understand him.

An elliptical, or abbreviated form of speech, was common among the Jews, and abounds in the Scriptures ; so that many phrases and sentences, taken literally, would convey a meaning false and foolish, and never designed by those who used them. Some have supposed this mode of speech to have originated from the fact, that there is no term in the Hebrew language which expresses to signify or denote. But, be this as it may, the existence of this manner of speaking is unquestionable. Take, for example, the following Scriptures: "The three baskets are three days," Gen, xl. 18. '' The ten horns are ten kings," Dan, vii. 24. " The field is the world," Matt, xiiiv, 38. " The seven candlesticks are the seven chy^rches," Rev, i. 20. *' This is my body «." and " this is my blood," 3Iatt, xxvi. 26. 27.*Suchf expressions, very common in both,, the Old and New Testaments, cannot be understood in^^ literal sense. The most ordinary reader, seeing the folly of a literal interpretation, will understand the substantive verbs according to the Hebrew idiom : " The three baskets signify three days." " The field repPvEsents the world,"

Now the language of Peter on the day of Pentecost, is somewhat in character with the above passages, and is susceptible of a similar interpretation. Hence we may understand him as saying, " be baptized to represent remission of sins." This interpretation cannot be called unreasonable. The character of the speaker and the hearers, and the nature of the discourse, combine to prove its correctness. He and they were Jews. It was natural for him to adopt this short, elliptical phraseology of his nation ; and equally natural for them to hear by the same rule. Moreover, they had been reared in the observance of a religion burdened with rites and ceremonies, some of which, looking back, represented events that were past, while others, taking a prospective view, pointed cut things to come. And these sacrifices, though offered for the sins of the people, were not intended to take away sin ; but only to represent a better sacrifice, and point out their dependence on Him for remission. With this knowledge, and under all these circumstances, the^multitude listen to Peter's discourse. He is ^folding a new dispensation of the kingdom of Gpd, which, like the former, has its appropriate rites and ordinances. He commands baptism "for the remission of sins." They know the meaning of the sin-offerings of their religion ; they understand the emblematical import of its rites and sacrifices; and, above all, they are Hebrews, familiar with the idiom of their nation, and know the true sense and force of its expressions. From all which, it is clear that they received baptism according to the above exposition to represent^ or in reference to the '^remission of sins."

The words of Ananias to Saul, " Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord," are, also, appealed to in support of water regeneration / but they afford it no more support than the former, being subject to the same rules of interpretation. Further evidence might be adduced in favor of the construction we have given to these texts. It would be easy to show that it is not forbidden, even by the genius of our own language. But brevity is our object.

Furthermore, whatever may be the force and value of the foregoing interpretation, one thing is certain, that faith is represented in scripture as the great means of justification. And this is plainly implied in the text and expressed in the context. It is embraced in the words^ in the name of Jesus Christ ^ because this expression plainly implies that those who are baptized in or into his name, are believers in Christ. The thing is clearly expressed. " Then they that gladly received i. e. believed his word were baptized." verse 41. And they are spoken of after their baptism as persons who believed^ verse 44. For though on their repenting and believing, they were according to the tenor of the gospel covenant, entitled to the forgiveness of their sins ; they are here called on to repent and submit to the ordinance of baptism in order to receive the same blessing of pardon or jiistification. And we have seen already that faith was presupposed. Christ, for wise reasons in receiving baptism appointed this solemn rite as a token of their taking up the christian profession in a public manner, and there could not be any sufficient evidence of the truth of their repentance and faith, if this precept of Christ had not been obeyed. But the absurdity of Mr. Campbell's interpretation of this passage, by which faith and true repentance are substantially rejected, will appear in the future treatment of this subject, where justification by faith will be established, and baptism itself rescued from the perverting use to which it is employed in the New Gospel proclaimed 'first at Bethany.

The views we have given of Acts ii. 38, are believed to be the primary meaning of the text. To adopt the Campbellite assumption, that " the Scriptures mean what they say, and say what they mean,^^ and hence, from the phrase, " for the remission of sins," to argue that Pe- |er taught that pardon could only be had through baptism, would drive us, at once, into the absurd fiction of transubstantiation. That they stand pretty much upon the same ground ; that the Romanist has as much authority for the " real presence,^' as Mr. Campbell has for his notions of baptism, and that the mode of interpretation resorted to for the establishment of the latter, would prove equally formidable in behalf of the former, are all unquestionable. And further, we remark, that Campbell's method of obtaining remission of sins, contradicts 2 C a large portion of the New Testament, and thereby involves Christianity itself in inextricable difficulties. This will be shown in the progress of these strictures.

But though the first and principal design of baptism, as the initiatory rite, is to denote or represent the washing away of sin, "by the Spirit of our God ;" yet, this is not its only design. It is, also, a means of grace ; and in a subordinate sense, may be administered, literally, " for the remission of sins.'' It is in the performance of duty, and not in neglect of it, that we are authorized to expect the favor of God. Hence, we repent, pray, confess to God, are baptized, and receive the sacrament of the Lord's supper " for the remission of sins ;" and perform every other known duty in reference to the same object. But having obeyed in all these, we are taught not to trust in any one of them, nor in sW of them, but to look to a higher source, and through another means, for the enjoyment of this greatest of present blessings. Indeed, our justification does not depend so i?iuch upon Mr. Campbell's institution for the remission of sins, as upon either repentance or prayer.

Religious truth is of all things the most important ; because it involves the concerns of eternity. Campbellism claims to be the truth, " the ancient gospel ;" and its devotees, professing to take "the Book" alone for their guide, proclaim baptism, as the only appointed means for obtaining remission of sins. This m doctrine, if true, ought to be known ; and if false^ it ought to be exposed, for the salvation of immortal souls is connected with it. We wish to learn its true character, and, therefore, continue the investigation of its claims to the sanctions of Scripture.

Two of the main props of this doctrine were formerly considered, and found not to sustain it. The following are, also, pleaded in its behalf; let us see if they will be more successful : " Except a man be born of w^ater and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God," John iii. 5. " He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved," Mark xvi. 16. "The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also nowsaveus," \Peter\\\,2\, In the firs t-of these quotations a birth of water is made necessary in order to our entering *' the kingdom of God," and in the last two, a saving virtue seems to be attached to baptism ; and hence, Campbellites infer, that '' remission of sinS" can only be had through immersion. But were we to admit, as a^sum^d in the premises, that baptism is indispensable for the salvation of the soul, and in order to its admission into the kingdom of glory, it certainly could not lead necessarily to the conclusion, that it is the means of justification; for as justification, or remission of sins is not the only prerequisite to the enjoyment of heaven, baptism, though necessary for that enjoyment, might be designed for a different purpose. But the premises and the inference are alike inadmissible. To suppose that God has made the eternal happiness of man so precarious, that it depends upon an ordinance, the performance of which is often inexpedient, and sometimes impossible, is repugnant to Scripture facts, and derogatory to the wisdom and goodness of the Divine Being.

But if salvation can be had without baptism, how are we to understand the above texts ? To understand the Savior's meaning, when he connects ivater with the Spirit as necessary to entering " the kingdom of God," we must consider that the phrase '' kingdom of God" is variously applied in the Scriptures. Campbellites will readily admit that it signifies the church on earth ; and St. Paul, when he says, " that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of Godj'' clearly applies it to the church in heaven. And as the apostle tells us in the third chapter of Ephesians, that the church in heaven and that on earth make hut one family, we are authorized to conclude, that the Savior embraces both of these imports in the phrase, " kingdom of God." This premised, his meaning is obvious. The church needs a badge of discipleship, a visible line, or mark to separate her members from the world. This she has in baptism ; and consequently, baptism becomes necessary in order to exhibit to others our faith in Christ, and externally to entitle us to the immunities of the church. This ordinance is, therefore, important, both in its symbolic character, as representing the washing away of sin, and as the initiatory rite, conferring, so far as man can judge, the privilege of church membership. The church can only receive us through baptism ; and hence, this ordinance is necessary to our entering '' the kingdom of God," the visible church. But this institution and the privileges it confers, are external ; and though necessary for the church on earth, do not regenerate the soul, or prepare it for the kingdom in heaven. This is the work of the Holy Spirit, not of water ; therefore, in the verses that follow the text, the Savior, dropping all allusion to the water, urges the necessity of being "born of the Spirit," and illustrates the nature of this birth. Thus, '^ the kingdom," in one sense, implying the church below, and baptism being the visible sign of entrance, we see why the Savior t^aid, " except a man he born of water he cannot enter into the kingdom of God ;" and, also, that the necessity for this bnth would remain, though it were destitute of a spiritual meaning, .and in ko sense a means of grace.

Keeping these remarks before him, the reader will readily comprehend the other quotations. ^'?He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved." Baptism here, cannot be understood as being the means of spiritual regeneration, because the apostle expressly declares, " whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ, is born of God." Now men may certainly believe this before they are baptized ; but "whosoever believeth" it "is born of God;" of course, baptism is not the means of this spiritual birth. " He that belie veth" '« with the heart unto righteousness," is justified, and saved from the guilt of sin ; but he is not saved externally — he lacks the seal, and neither the church nor the world can recognize him as a member of the kingdom, till he enters by the door of baptism.

These observations, applying with equal force to the often quoted passage from Peter, may be thought to render further remarks unnecessary ; but here we wish to be a little more definite. When Peter says, '' the like figure whereunto baptism doth now save us," he calls baptism a figure or emblem. If it be a ''figure," the salvation it brings can only be figurative, not real and literal. The figure of a man cannot perform his v/ork. All that it can do, is to represent his appearance and actions. Consequently, baptism, as a figure, can only *' save us" in a figurative, or emblematic sense, by separating us from the \^orld, and pointing out remission of sins by the baptism of the Holy Spirit. The baptism of water, then, bears the same relation to the visible church, that the baptism of the Spirit does to the invisible. Without the former, the sign and figure, no person can be received as a legitimate subject of the visible kingdom ; so, also, without the latter, the thing signified, no person can belong to the invisible, or spiritual kingdom.

One remark to prevent misunderstanding. In speaking of baptism as necessary to induct us into the church, we do not mean immersion, nor do we exclude it. Our business, at present, is not with the mode. We mean the application of water, by pouring or otherwise, by an authorized minister, in the names of the sacred Trinity.

Another passage relied upon in favor of water regeneration^ is Titus iii. 5 : " Not by 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 ; which he shed on us abundantly, through Jesus Christ our Savior." This text is adduced in proof of Mr. Campbell's assertion, that " regeneration and immersion are two names for the same thing ;" and hence the inference that we are saved by immersion. But it is by no means certain that this passage has any allusion to immersion, or to water baptism in any other mode. The latter clause of the quotation, '' which he shed on us," teaches that we are saved by something " shed," or poured out upon us ; and this cannot be immersion. We are aware, however, that Mr. C. would have us confine the relative " which" to the i' renewing of the Holy Ghost;" but there is" no good reason for this. Indeed, according to his own argument on another text, and fof a different purpose the relative ''which" must here be confined exclusively to the " washing of regeneration ;" and, consequently, the notion of immersion is entirely excluded from the passage. But there is not sujQScient ground for confining the relative to either of the preceding clauses, to the exclusion of the other. It most probably takes for its antecedents, both " the washing" and the " renewal," and hence, the ivaskiiig, by vrhicli we are saved, is poured out upon us by the Holy Spirit.

But granting the possibility that there is in this passage an allusion to the application of water in baptism, what is the conclusion ? That "baptism is inseparably connected with remission of sins," and that it is another term for regeneration ? Certainly not. No man in his senses, whose mind was uninfluenced by the dogmas of the Pope of Rome, could arrive at such, a conclusion. The allusion to baptism, if there be any in the text, is found in the word "washing." Let it be conceded that this means baptism. It is called "the washing of regeneration ;" therefore, Campbellites would 'have us believe, that baptism and regeneration mean the same thing. And thus, by a process unknown to all but themselves, the ivashing becomes the thing washed; and the act of cleansing a garment is converted into the garment itself ! Truly such logic is as superlatively ridiculous and incomprehensible, as the nonsensical jargon of a Mormoiiite's unknown tongue.

The absurdity of the attempt to prove from this text, the sameness of baptism and regeneration, is too glaring to require a serious refutation \ and to take the phrase literally, and suppose that the noun, "regeneration," requires to be washed, would involve an equal absurdity. Upon the supposition, then, that the passage has any reference to baptism, the only rational conclusion is, that the " washing of regeneration," implies a washing in refer- 67206 to regeneration ^ and hence, we arrive at our former definition of the design of baptism ; that it represents remission of sins '' by the renewing of the Holy Spirit, shed on us through Jesus Christ our Savior."

And now, reader, we have examined the principal texts, upon which the notion of remission of sins, through baptism, depends for its support. The examination has shown that they have very little of the appearance^ and nothing of the reality of that doctrine in tlaem. These Scriptures are its main dependence ; they do not sustain it, nor can it be sustained from the Bible. What, then, has given,it currency, and kept it alive thus far ? Let those who are familiar with the cunning sophistry of A. Campbell, and the bold dogmatism of his coadjutors, answer the question.

Having said that the Scriptures we have noticed, are the principal props of this doctrine, it may be necessary to observe that they are not all. We, it is true, have been able to discern nothing else that seems to bear any resemblance to it, nor do we recollect that Mr. Campbell claims more ; but some of his followers have had their mental optics so strengthened by the light of this neiv gospel, as to discover proofs of water regeneration everywhere. For instance, one of these knowing ones, having read in the 2 * first cnapter of Genesis, that " the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters," finds it an irresistible proof of this doctrine, and proclaims that '' the Spirit which moved on the face of the waters in the beginning, has never left them, and that those who rise from ' the womb of waters,' instantaneously inhale that Spirit." And another of the same school tells his hearers, that " laaier was not included in the curse pronounced by the Creator at man's expulsion from paradise ; and this is clear proof that water was designed to be the means of our restoration to the image and favor of God." But teaving the reader to determine whether these champions of reform have not got ahead of their Master, we close for the present.

Chapter II. Faith

Introduction— literal meaning — Baptism, prayer and confession as conditions of justification — justification by faith alone — justifying faith as combining reliance and trust with assent — faith as connected with pardon does not include Baptism or other works — faith of Abraham considered — objections against the doctrine of faith as tho condition of justification.