Campbellism revealed...

Preface

The ministry of the orthodox churches in general have deemed the doctrines and assumptions of Campbellism to be too absurd to need any serious refutation. The prevailing opinion seems to be that this system of error is so intrinsically weak that it will die of itself if it is totally disregarded. But under this treatment this church has greatly increased in numbers and power, until it is next to impossible to accomplish any spiritual work where it has secured a permanent foothold. We have been trusting altogether in the goodness of our cause; and, in the meantime, books and pamphlets advocating these errors have multipli.d, while scarcely anything has been written in defense of the truth. It was the great zeal in d'sseminating these views, and the iocreasing number of the publications on the one side, and the seeming indifference and almost dearth of literature on the other, that called forth these pages.

Having felt for some time the need of an inexpensive and unpretentious work exposing this doctrinal system, and not being able to find a book of this description, I finally determined to write one myself. I have not written, however, because 1 make any pretension to scholarship, or have any ambition for authorship; but because I desired to aid in offsetting the pernicious influence of this system of faith. It may be needless for me to say that I have written for the sincere inquirer after truth of ordinary ability, and not for the learned. And I will not be surprised if some should think it presumptuous for a writer of such inferior qualifications to offer an additional book to the public. But a work of inferior claims may find readers, in con-

PEEFACE.

sequence of local circumstances drawing attention to it, where a superior work would be overlooked. And this is an opportunity for doing good that ought not to be lost.

Quotations from the "Christian System" have been placed at the beginning of the most of the chapters, in order that the reader might have the privilege of examining for himself the teachings of Campbellism as set forth ia the language of its author, and that there might be no possibility of accusing me of misrepresentation. I do not wish to be misunderstood. I believe that there are some of these people who have risen above this system, and are Criristians in spite of the doctrines tliey hold; for these 1 have the utmost respect, but I have no respect, whatever, for the doctrines themselves.

Other books have been freely consulted in the preparation of these pages. All of those from which I have received aid can not be mentioned here, except in this general way, but I am especially indebted to the learned author of "Errors of Campbellism."

The writer hopes that the effort he has made to reveal this doctrinal scheme in its true light may not be labor spent in vain, but that this little volume, which is now sent forth on its mission, may be the means of establishing many more firmly in the truth; and that it may, at least, lead some earnest seekers after the way of life to embrace the evangelical doctrine of salvation by faith.

G. W. P.

Contents

CHAPTER. PAQB.

I. THE ORIGIN OF CAMPBELLISM, . - . 7

II. THE CREED OF CAMPBELLISM, - - - - 14

Chapter I. The Origin Of Campbellism

" Tired of new creeds and new parties in religion, and of the numerous abortive efforts to reform the reformation ; convinced from the Holy Scriptures, from observation and experience, that the union of the disciples of Christ is essential to the conversion of the world and that the correction and improvement of no creed, or partisan establishment in Christendom, could ever become the basis of such a union, communion, and co-operation as would restore peace to a church militant against itself, or triumph to the common salvation, a few individuals, about the commencement of the present century, began to reflect upon the ways and msaas to restore primitive Christianity,"

Christian System, page 5.

Before entering fully into the discussion of the doctrines held by this pseudo Christian Church, it will be well, in order that the reader may have a better understanding of the subject, to give a brief sketch of its rise and progress as a distinctive doctrinal system.

Its origin was on this wise : Thomas Campbell, a minister of the Presbyterian Church of Ireland, emigrated to America in the year 1807 ; and shortly after his arrival here, he identilied himself with the

O CAMPBELLISM EEVEALED.

Secession branch of the Presbyterian Church, in Western Pennsylvania. He had not, however, preached but a short time in this denomination until charges were preferred against him for the violation of the usages of the church, in regard to the sacrament of the Lord's Supper. He was tried, found guilty, and condemned ; but he appealed his case to the Synod, and was released from condemnation, on account of irregularities in the proceedings. But at the same time a committee was appointed to investigate the charges, and it brought in a report censuring him for his disregard of the usages of the Church, which caused him to withdraw from the Seceders.

It seems that he now conceived the idea of restoring primitive Christianity by destroying all the creeds, and uniting all denominations on a scriptural bond of union. And in 1809, he and a few others of similar views met and organized the Christian Association of Washington. The purpose of this organization, according to its " Declaration and Address," was to perfect the project of uniting all sects upon the proposition that they should have, "either in express terms or in approved precedent, a ' thus saith the Lord,' for every article of faith and item of religious practice." In the fall of this year, Thomas Campbell was joined in this country by his eldest son, Alexander, who, by his decided character, his

THE ORIGIN OF CAMPBELLISM. 9

liberal education, and his ability as a polemic theologian, was destined, more especially, to be the founder of this new system of faith. He at once espoused the peculiar views of his father, and in 1810 began to preach, it seems without the proper authority ; for, about this time, Thomas Campbell made application to unite with the Pittsburgh Synod of the Presbyterian Church, and was refused admission, because, among other reasons, Alexander Campbell had been permitted to exercise his gifts of public speaking without ordination.

This failure to gain admittance into the Eegular Presbyterian Church led to the organization of the Christian Association of Brush Kun, in Washington county, Pennsylvania. At the first session of this Association, Alexander Campbell was licensed to preach, and was ordained by his father. Soon after its organization, a member of the Brush Run Church asked the question : '' Is infant baptism scriptural? " The question was discussed by the father and son, and not being able to find a "thus saith the Lord" for the practice, it was discarded. And while they were investigating this subject, they were led to consider carefully the grounds for baptism by affusion, and they became convinced that immersion alone was the scriptural mode of baptism. And on the twelfth day of June, 1812, Alexander Campbell, his father, and their adherents were immersed by Elder Luce of the Baptist Church.

In the latter part of the following year, the Brush Kun organization formed a union with the Ked-Stone Association of the Baptist Church. But they were never in perfect accord with the Baptists — these differences, Alexander Campbell insisted upon — and, in 1823, he was compelled to withdraw from them to escape expulsion for heresy. ISTear the close of this year, in a public debate with Mr. Calla, according to his own statement, he preached, for the first time, that water baptism was a necessary condition to the pardon of sins. It was eleven years from his immersion to the time he arrived at the point where he taught, that the design of baptism was for the remission of sins. In the spring of this same year, he had begun the pubhcation of the Christian Baptist, which finally gave place to the Millennial Harhinger. In these papers, he developed his doctrinal scheme of salvation by water. He so gradually changed his views, and so greatly were the people infatuated with him, that they accepted this doctrine as gospel truth as soon as he proclaimed it.

Campbellism now enters the field of controversy with a baptismal shiboleth by which it decapitates the members of all other churches without reocard, either to their doctrines, or to their Christian integrity. Mr. Campbell had great ability as a public

THE ORIGIN OF CAMPBELLISM. 11

debater, and gloried in theological discussions as a means of disseminating his doctrines. And at first he was very successful, owing to the fact that his opponents were not acquainted with his doctrines, or his method of defending them, while he had access to their theological works, therefore was able to meet and offset their arguments. They sought to overthrow his doctrine of baptismal remission by showing that justification was by faith, while he destroyed the force of their arguments by sophistry, and, at the same time, declared baptism to be the only necessary condition to salvation. His followers always believed that he was victorious ; and so great was their zeal in spreading the doctrinal views of their leader that the growth of this new sect was phenomenal. ]^o sooner had a person embraced this faith and emerged from the water, than he was ready to dispute on the subject of religion with the first man he met. And as they claimed to take the Bible as their only creed, they drew largely from those Churches which held kindred doctrines. Its doctrines being regarded by evangelical Christians as too absurd to need refutation, it was left to flourish without opposition ; and it has increased in numbers and influence until it has become a large, strong and vigorous system of religious formalism.

This system of faith is justly called Campbellism, and its advocates are appropriately designated as

Campbellites. But they regard it as a grave insult to their dignity, and a reproach upon their character to be thus distinguished. They profess to be guided by the Bible alone, and will neither acknowledge any man as their founder, nor consent to be known by any name except " The Christian Church." They hold that all the Churches that have a distinctive denominational name are followers of men, while they alone are the followers of Christ. By making the exclusive claim that they are " The Christians," and charging all those who have had the modesty to take a distinctive name with being the followers of men, they unchristianize the members of all other Churches. It is nonsense to assert that we can in no sense be followers of the opinions of men, and at the same time be followers of Christ. If other denominations received the opinions of men as substitutes for, or in opposition to, the Word of God, they might have some grounds for opposing the use of distinctive appellations,but this they do not do. The opinions of men are received, not because they are contrary to the Bible, but because they are believed to be the true interpretations of its teachings.

The name " Christian Church " is no more a divinely appointed name than any other appellation that is used to distinguish the followers of Christ. It is true that the " disciples were called Christians first at Antioch," and that the word Church fre-

THE ORIGIN OF CAMPBELLISM. 13

quently occurs in the New Testament, but never do they appear together. A man is still a citizen of the United States, though he may be known by the name of the State in which he resides. Because he is a Virginian or a Missourian, it does not make him a foreigner. The name Christian belongs to the universal Church of Christ, and because a person belongs to one of the many branches of the Christian Church, and is called by the name of Baptist, Methodist, or Presbyterian, he does not forfeit his Christian character. Chrysostrom, while preaching to the Antiochians, once told them, with a stroke of his Greek wit, that though they had invented the Christian name, they left others to practice the Christian virtues. And it is equally true with these people, though they contend for the Christian name, they let those who distinguish themselves by a distinctive denominational n^me practice the Christian virtues. In taking the name " Christian Church," and refusing to be otherwise designated, they show an arrogance which, it is doubtful, if it ever has been excelled. And from thus designating, them, and thereby unchristianizing all those, who by their Christ-like lives, have so much better right to the title: " I pray thee have me excused."

14 CAMPBELLISM EETEALED.

CHAPTEK II.

THE CREED OF CAMPBELLISM.

"Every party in Christendom, without respect to any of its tenets, opinions or practices, is a heresy, a schism — unless there be suchapartyasstandsexactly upon the Apostles' ground. Then, in that case, it is a sect just in the sense of the old sect of the Nazarenes, afterward called Christians, and all others are guilty before the Lord, and must be condemned for their opposition to Christ's own part^* ; whose party we are, provided we hold fast all, and only all, the apostolic traditions, and build upon the Bible, the whole Bible, and nothing but the Bible."

The advocates of Campbellism violently oppose all printed creeds as being pernicious in their influence and productive only of sectarian divisions. Hence no opportunity is permitted to pass to denounce their sinfulness, and the enthralling character of all disciplinary requirements. This doubtless is the result of a misapprehension of the true nature and design of creeds. When they associate with creeds what does not properly belong to them, and assign to them a purpose which they are not intended to serve, it is not surprising that these persons have developed such an unjust prejudice against them.

In order that we may have a proper understanding of this subject, it will be well for us to first inquire

What is a creed ? The word is derived from credo, I believe. It is declarative and not imperative. I believe, and not thou shalt believe. Every man has a right to think for himself and to form his own belief, and under proper circumstances he has the right to express his belief. And every man that has a belief, no matter what it is, has a creed. And the belief, or creed, of any individual may become the belief or creed of any number of individuals; therefore men of similar belief, of the same creed, in science, politics, and religion, unite in order to accomplish the same end. And they welcome to their society, party, or sect, men of similar views, who will co-operate harmoniously with them in their work ; but men of conflicting views, who would create discord and hinder their work, they wisel\^ exclude. A Church creed is a declaration of the belief of the members of a particular Church, or an association of Churches, with regard to the fundamental doctrines of Christianity.

The question is, has a Church the right to formulate a creed, setting forth ^its views of these doctrines, in a general, or more minute form? Jn answer to this question we will ask another, has any individual the right, in the exercise of his private judgment, to form and express his belief in regard to the teachings of the Word of God? It must be conceded that every man has a right to do this. But if one man has this right, two men, a score of men, an}" number of men either individually or unitedly, have the same right. Because men unite in Church fellowship for mutual assistance and co-operation in religious work, they do not thereby lose their individual right to think for themselves, and to declare their belief in regard to the teachings of the Scriptures. If each member of the Church possesses this right, and their views harmonize, the declaration of belief, or creed of one, is the declaration of belief, or creed of all ; for the right that inheres in each one separately, inheres in all unitedly. The truth of this is too obvious to be denied. Therefore there can be no question as to the right of a Church to declare its belief in the form of a written creed. And if a single individual, who, in the exercise of his right of private judgment, forms his belief of the doctrines taught in the Bible, is not "guilty before the Lord." then no guilt attaches to a number of individuals associated together as a Church, who, in the exercise of this same right, form and express their belief of these doctrines.

Every Church has a creed, either written or unwritten, and the church founded by Alexander Campbell is no exception to this general rule. Though it is not expressed in articles of religion, or definite formulas of doctrine, yet it is a creed as really commanding the assent of every one seeking admission into this church as any creed in existence. While they earnestly protest against creeds and sectarianism, it is doubtful that if among all other denominations there can be found a Church with a more exclusive creed than this so-called Christian Church. It is surprising how these people have ever deceived themselves into the belief that their system of doctrines is anything more than any other creed of human origin. In the first place, they have an oral creed consisting of only three articles, yet it is so exceedingly narrow that it excludes a large majority of the most holy and devout Christians in the world from the Church. And, as unreasonable as it may seem, there is not in the whole Bible a " thus saith the Lord " for a single article of it. The first article, to which those seeking fellowship with this church must subscribe verbally, is the confession, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." The second article of this faith is the belief that immersion alone is baptism. And the third article of their creed is the belief that baptism is a necessary condition to the remission of sins. The only passage of Scripture that gives any grounds for requiring the confession that Christ was the Son of God is the reply of the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts viii., 37 ; but it is regarded as spurious by the ablest critics, and is not found in the Kevised Version. A person may accept the first and last article of this creed, but if he holds that affusion is baptism, it is impossible for him to gain admission into their Church, He might accept the first two, but unless he subscribed to the last one also, he would not be received. They will not receive a person on his letter from another Church, except perhaps from the Baptist Church they will sometimes recognize a letter, but it is done in order to proselyte. For they rejoice more over the aquisition of a member from another church than over that of ninety-and-nine sinners that need repentance.

But this is not all their creed, with them, like other denominations, a large part of their belief is set forth in the general consensus of their doctrinal writers. The founder of this system of faith presents the doctrinal views and polity of his Church in the work entitled ''The Christian System." And this book is as complete a doctrinal and disciplinary guide for the people of this faith as the discipline or confession of faith of any other church. It is true that their societies have never formally adopted it as their book of discipline, because, according to the teachings of their founder, every particular society is independent of all others. Hence it is always possible for them to deny that they have any authoritive discipline such as other Churches have. But notwithstanding this fact, there is not a society among them which does not receive the doctrines just as they are taught in this book, and is not gov-

THE CEEED OF CAMPBELLISM. 19

erned by the disciplinary rules laid down by their great leader in it from page 85-90.

Mr. Campbell completely stamped his peculiar doctrinal views, their mode of inculcation, and even their method of defense, upon his followers. And while other Churches may change their creeds by their legislative bodies, this Church can never change its creed, for the founder of the S3'stem has been its sole legislator. And as its doctrines and polity were evolved from the 'New Testament by him, they must be held sacred by them for all time.

The advocates of this system claim that creeds have been the cause of all the schisms in the Church, and have given rise to the many different sects that are now found in the Christian world. Hence they hold that a union between these various sects can never be consummated, except by destroying all their creeds, and taking the Bible alone as their creed. But are creeds the cause of the divisions and strife in the Church ? There are many different creeds in existence, but what was it that led to their adoption ? If there ever was a time when the views of the church were in perfect oneness, when all of its members held the same belief in regard to the teaching of the Scriptures, it is certain that such a unit}^ of sentiment could not give birth to different creeds; for as long as a unity of faith continued only one creed was possible. It was by the exercise of the right of private judgment, that members of the church came to have divergent views of the doctrines of Christianity. They must necessarily have held these views before they expressed them, or any one else either accepted or rejected them; therefore, creeds were only made possible by the previous existence of dissordant views in the church. To assume that creeds have caused men to differ iu their belief, and brought about all the schism.s in th^ church is to suppose that an effect has produced its cause. These conflicting views were first conceived, then expressed, and finally became the creed of those who accepted them. And if these teachers could accomplish their designs and annihilate every creed in Christendom, it would not bring about permanent christian union, unless at the same time they took away men's power to think and act for themselves. History would simply repeat itself, men would form different opinions of what the Bible teaches, those of similar views would unite and formulate a creed, and it would not be long until there would be as many denominations as there are at the present.

But creeds instead of producing discord and schism are essential to secure peace and harmony within the Church ; for without them there would be friction, conflict, and disruption. The word sect is not a name of ignominy ; it means nothing more than a number of individuals associated in the belief of some common doctrines. And no matter how heretical the doctrines which it holds may be, they are all claimed to be based upon the teaching of God's Word. There is not a denomination in the land that could not honestly say : " The Bible is our creed ; its precepts our guide ; and its doctrines our theology." Hence it becomes necessary, in order that the world may know what doctrines a Church holds, for it to make a declaration of its belief in the form of a creed. If there are no doctrines in Christianity that can be formulated into articles of religion, no fundamental principles, no confessed beliefs, it is equivalent to the admission that there is no Christian faith. And as antagonistic elements can not be made to unite and harmonize, therefore it becomes the duty of Christian men associated together as a Church to exclude from their fellowship men of discordant views, whose presence among them would produce division and strife. And in doing this they neither invade any man's rights, nor bind his conscience. No denomination demands of a man that he shall accept her faith. He can either accept it or reject it as he pleases. But a Church has a right to say to every one seeking her fellowship ; " This is what we believe, and if your views are in accord with ours we will gladly

22 OAMPBELLISM EEVEALED.

receive you, but if they are not we cannot receive you." Tills does not involve ttie person's salvation, or even his membership in some other Church of similar views with himself. It leaves every man free to think and act for himself, while at the same time it preserves the peace and harmony of the Church.

The assumed rejection of all human creeds by the advocates of this system greatly aids them to impress their doctrinal ideas upon the people as the very essence of the gospel. Perhaps they honestly believe that they, in their system, are entirely free from all human leadership, and that the Bible alone is their creed. But who are the interpreters of God's Word ? They of course claim this privilege for themselves, and pass sentence of condemnation on all that can not understand the Scriptures as they do. Therefore their doctrines must be infallible deductions from the Word of God, or else their claim to take the Bible as their sole guide is groundless; and they only take their interpretation of it for their creed, which is just what all other denominations do, and nothing more.

It is truly amazing with what assurance these teachers will present their doctrinal scheme as the one of divine institution, and offer it as the onl}'' basis upon which the Christian world can unite. They deliberately chose the rite of baptism, about which there has been more controversy and honest division of opinion in the Church than any other question ; and declare that it is by one mode — immersion — for one purpose — the remission of sin. Then they invite the people to leave or avoid the sects, stop all their disputing, and come forward and accept the final settlement of this vexed question by joining the Christian Church. In other words, they say to all other Christians, " Give up your creeds and accept our faith, and we will receive you into our fellowship, and then we will have union." It is doubtful if there can be found among all other denominations a Church that shows so much arrogance in its claims, is so exclusive in its creed, and that has such profound confidence in its theories as the one that professes to build ''upon the Bible, the whole Bible, and nothing but the Bible." It is implicit in credulity, and insolent in assertion. It regards the very existence of other denominations as a crime, and calls upon the people to rally around the standard of absolute freedom from creeds, while it has a creed itself that is so narrow that it will exclude nine-tenths of the Christian world from the Church. It claims to be free from sectarianism, but it is full of coarse intolerance. It is an inquisition with such tortures as the spirit of the times still renders possible,

Chapter III. The Doctkines Of Campbellism

"The Christian party is built on the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, and on Jesus the Messiah, himself the chief corner stone, and therefore on the Christian Scriptures alone. Now all other parties that are in any way diverse from the Christian party are built upon some alloy-some creed, formula, or human institution supplementary to the apostolic laws and customs. This alloy is what makes the party. So many items of the Apostles, doctrine and so many notions of Calvin combined produce the combine called Calvinism. So many items of Luther's opinions, compounded with the Apostles' teaching, make Lutheranism. and so many portions of Wesley's speculations compounded ; with certain portions of the New Testament, make the compound called Methodism."

Carapbellism and Komanism are twin sisters. These systems have one common aim, namel}^ to procure salvation at the least possible cost. They differ greatly in non-essentials, but their fundamental doctrines are identically the same. Peter was the first Pope of the Church of Kome, and he is also claimed to be the great head of the Campbellite Church. To him, according to this system, were delivered the keys of the kingdom, and by him were the doors opened and its constitution laid down. Mr. Campbell says : *' With Peter we began our proof of this position, and with Peter we shall end our proof of it. He first proclaimed reformation for the remission of sins ; and in his last and farewell letters to the Christian communities he reminds them of that puri-

THE DOCTEIXES OF CAMPBELLISM. 25

fication from sin, received in and through immersion." * They both assume that they are commanded to go and remit sins, and quote the same texts to prove their position. And they both claim to remit sins by water baptism, the only difference is that the one continues to exercise this function after baptism, while the other does not go beyond this rite.

Kome teaches that baptism is a necessary condition to salvation, that sins are pardoned by the act performed, and that the consequents of baptism ai'e pardon, regeneration, adoption, and a character that can never be effaced from the soul. And these are the great central doctrines of Campbellism. The Catholic Church holds that her interpretations of the sacred Scriptures are infallible, and, at least by implication, the Carapbellite Church makes the same claim for her deductions from the JS'ew Testament. While they profess to proclaim the " ancient gospel*' and make great assumptions to be the leaders in a movement to emancipate dogma-manacled Christendom from the thraldom of creeds, these pseudo reformers have in reality gone back to the exploded theories of Romanism and the darkness of the Middle Ages.