CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED; 
 
 STRICTURES ON THE PECULIAR TENETS 
 
 ALEXANDER CAMPBELL. 
 
 BY REV. WILLIAM PHILLIPS, 
 
 LATE ASSISTANT EDITOR OF THE WESTEBN CHBISTIAN 
 ADTOCATE. 
 
 TO WHICH IS PREFIXED 
 
 A MEMOIR OF THE AUTHOR. 
 
 CINCINNATI : 
 PUBLISHED BY J. F. WRIGHT & L. SWORMSTEDT, 
 
 FOR THE METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH. 
 
 Stereotyped by J, A. James & Co. 
 
 1837.
 
 Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1837, 
 
 By J. F. WRIGHT & L. SWORMSTEDT, 
 
 in the Clerk's Office for the District Court of Ohio. 
 
 Cincinnati : Methodist Book Room. 
 R. P. Thompson, Printer.
 
 LIBKAKY 
 
 jUNrv^ERsnr of cALTiOi r^x 
 
 SAxNTA BARBARA 
 
 ADVERTISEMENT. 
 
 The following chapters were first published in the 
 Western Christian Advocate, in twenty-six numbers. 
 The first number was dated, January 30th, 1835, the last 
 appeared in April 1836. In consequence of the estimation 
 in which they were held, many persons from different parts 
 of the West, requested to have them collected and pu-b- 
 lished in a volume. The Ohio Conference of the Metho- 
 dist Episcopal church, at its last session held in Chilicothe, 
 September 28th, 1836, unanimously requested our book 
 agents to pubUsh the strictures on Campbellism, as they 
 are presented in this volume, now before the reader. 
 
 That the work possesses real merit, every competent 
 person who peruses it, will freely acknowledge. It must 
 not, however, be forgotten, that it is a posthumous work 
 and of course has more defects than though it had issued 
 from under the author's own correcting hand. 
 
 Indeed the wrriter did notcontemplate; that what passed 
 from his pen, in the haste of the weekly press, would af- 
 terwards be collected and formed into a volume. Had he 
 lived, large editions would have been made, fewer inac- 
 curacies would appear, and a much more perfect work 
 would now be presented to the public. As it is, we are 
 fully of the opinion that it will serve as a timely and effi- 
 
 iii
 
 4 ADVERTISEMENT. 
 
 cient check on one of the most pernicious systems of the 
 present age, though couched under the imposing title of 
 the Ancient Gospel. 
 
 The editors have made no aherations in the following 
 pages from what they were when published in the Western 
 Christian Advocate, except a very few verbal amend- 
 ments, or the omission of those concluding or introduc- 
 tory clauses in the nimibers, by which they are reduced to 
 the form of chapters under appropriate heads. A table 
 of contents is also added which the reader will find very 
 convenient as an aid to reference. 
 
 C. ELLIOTT. 
 L. L. HAMLINE. 
 
 Book Room, Cincinnati, January, 1837.
 
 MEMOIR OF THE AUTHOR. 
 
 The Rev. William Phillips, author of the 
 following work, was born of pious parents, on 
 the 7th day of May, 1797, in Jessamine coun- 
 ty, state of Kentucky. He was religiously 
 educated, was frequently impressed with the 
 necessity of religion in early life, and often 
 thought he would become a christian. When 
 he was a youth, after laboring through the day, 
 he would spend the evening in writing the effu- 
 sions of his mind, both in poetry and prose. 
 Many pieces of these early productions are still 
 in possession of his family. When he arrived 
 at mature age, he turned his attention to politi- 
 cal affairs, resisted the divine impressions, and 
 abandoned his youthful employments. To free 
 himself from religious restraint, he read scepti- 
 cal books, till infidel sentiments made consid- 
 erable impression on his mind ; though he still 
 retained a high regard for morality. In this 
 state of mind he lived till he was settled in life, 
 and had the charge of a rising family. The 
 following account of his conviction for sin, was 
 related by himself at lovefeast, as a part of his 
 religious experience, and communicated to us 
 by one who heard him at the time. 
 
 "One morning," said he, "I returned home 
 in a melancholy state of feeling, after having 
 a2 5
 
 6 MEMOIR OF THE AUTHOR. 
 
 spent the night from home, engaged in some 
 political feats. I took my seat in a room by 
 myself. Very soon my eldest son, about eight 
 
 years old, came to me, and said, B. has 
 
 experienced religion ^ and then inquired, TVhat 
 is religion ? Here conviction seized my mind, 
 for I could not answer the questions of the 
 child. I said, — Is it possible, that I, who was 
 blessed with a religious education, have raised 
 a child to this age, who inquires of me what 
 religion is, and I cannot tell him ! I then re- 
 solved to reform my life, and examine the evi- 
 dences of Christianity." 
 
 He did not, like too many, delay this great 
 work, but set about it with his usual diligence. 
 He was soon thoroughly convinced of the divine 
 reality of religion, and joined the Methodist 
 Episcopal Church, as a seeker. He earnestly 
 sought the Lord with bitter sighs and tears ; but 
 his mourning was soon turned into joy. Five 
 days after he joined the church, he received 
 the evidence of his acceptance, at Old Fort 
 meeting house, in Montgomery county, Ky. 
 It was manifest to all, that he was the subject 
 of a great change. He shortly after felt intense- 
 ly the worth of souls, and believed that he was 
 moved by the Holy Ghost to preach the gos- 
 pel ; of which he afterwards gave ample testi- 
 mony. On the 27th of December, 1828, he 
 was licensed to preach as a local preacher, by 
 the quarterly meeting conference of Mount 
 Sterling circuit. In this capacity he labored 
 with success, till he found that liis field of labor
 
 MEMOIR OF THE AUTHOR. 7 
 
 was too circumscribed. He was duly recom- 
 mended and received into the Kentucky confer- 
 ence in the fall of 1831, at its session at Lou- 
 isville, after he had labored as a local preacher 
 for nearly three years. He was appointed suc- 
 cessively to Winchester and Lexington circuits, 
 and Newport and Covington station ; having 
 been reappointed to the two last places, so as to 
 serve each two years in succession, except the 
 time that elapsed between his appointm.ent by 
 the General conference and the termination of 
 his conference year, vvhich was still shortened 
 by his unexpected death. He received dea- 
 con's and elder's orders at the regular periods 
 in which these offices are usually conferred. 
 He performed the duties of assistant editor to 
 the Western Christian Advocate one year be- 
 fore he was appointed to that office by the suf- 
 frage of the General Conference in May, 1836. 
 He was selected by this body, under the con- 
 viction that his talents and attainments qualified 
 him for the duties of an editor, and in full ex- 
 pectation of much efficient editorial usefulness. 
 But alas ! hov/ uncertain are human expecta-f 
 tions. For tliree weeks and two days only, 
 after the adjournment of conference was he 
 perm.itted to serve the church. 
 
 On the 22d of June, 1836, he was confined 
 to bed by a violent attack of fever. For sever 
 ral days previous to this, he felt manifest indi- 
 cations of an approaching assault of severe 
 sickness. During his confinement of six weeks 
 and two days, he suffered much pain of body,
 
 8 MEMOIR OF THE AUTHOR. 
 
 which was borne with great patience. When 
 the fever was high, he was affected with deli- 
 rium, but when the fever abated, he was in the 
 full exercise of his mental faculties. Shortly- 
 after he was taken ill, he gave instructions to 
 his afflicted wife, respecting her concerns and 
 future residence, intimating to her, that the 
 present disease would prove fatal. He also 
 called his children to his bedside, and solemnly 
 and without tears, yet deeply affected, gave 
 them the charge and instructions of a parent 
 on the verge of eternity. In his moments of 
 self-possession, both when asked and unsoli- 
 cited, he expressed himself strongly, yet very 
 humbly, respecting his confidence in God and 
 the enjoyments of religion, which he evidently 
 possessed in a high degree. At one time, when 
 it was thought he was dying, he was asked, 
 *' If all was well ?" he calmly replied, " I feel 
 for me to live is Christ, and to die is gain." 
 He then spoke of the goodness and mercy that 
 had followed him all the days of his life. At 
 another time, when he complained of a pain in 
 his breast, it was said to him, " when we get 
 to heaven we shall then be done suifering. 
 Pain and affliction will be over, and God shall 
 wipe tears from every eye. Do you expect to 
 get there?" He replied, "Yes; my soul 
 sometimes exults at the prospect." And with 
 a faultering voice, he added, " Yes, glory to 
 God." At another time, he said to a friend, 
 *' My mind is entirely at peace. It is doubt- 
 ful whether I shall recover from this sickness ;
 
 MEMOIR OF THE AUTHOR. 9 
 
 but to me death has no terror, the grave no 
 gloom. If it were the Lord's will, I would 
 like to live, that I might make some better pro- 
 vision for the temporal and spiritual welfare of 
 my family. But why do I talk tlius ? The 
 Lord is sufiicient, I now wish to leave this 
 with you as my testimony, that my hope is in 
 Christ, through whose blood I shall conquer. 
 I now feel none but Jesus can do suffering sin- 
 ners good." Again he said, " In retrospecting 
 the past, contemplating the present, or looking 
 forward to the future, I have nothing to fear." 
 There is no doubt in the minds of any of his 
 friends concerning his triumphant entrance into 
 the paradise of God. He departed this life on 
 the night of the 4th of August, 1836, at a half 
 past twelve, in the city of Cincinnati. His 
 remains were carried to Wesley chapel on Sa- 
 turday the 6th, at 10 o'clock, A. M. where an 
 impressive sermon was delivered by the Rev. 
 J. F. Wright, from Psalms 46. 10. "Be still 
 and know that I am God." His body is de- 
 posited in the Methodist burying ground, till 
 the resurrection of the just. In his death, the 
 editorial corps has lost a valuable mem.ber, and 
 the church has been deprived of the services 
 of one of her most faithful and efficient sons. 
 
 As a christian, he is to be ranked among the 
 excellent. Entire reliance on the mercy of 
 God and the vicarious atonement of Jesus 
 Christ, v/as the strongest and most prominent 
 exercise of his mind, during his affliction ; and 
 indeed this was the settled disposition of his 
 1 *
 
 10 MEMOIR OF THE AUTHOR. 
 
 very soul, from the time he first embraced re- 
 ligion ; but which increased as he grew in 
 grace, so as to form an abiding firm exercise of 
 his mind. His reliance on the Redeemer was 
 such, that, 
 
 " His blood and righteousness 
 He made his only plea." 
 
 The expression. Lord have mercy, which he 
 repeated much during his sickness, indicated to 
 those who heard him, that reliance on Jesus 
 Christ was, with him, permanent and unwaver- 
 mg. In patience he possessed his soul to such 
 a degree, that the severest pains could not wrest 
 a murmur from his lips. 
 
 His ministerial gifts and qucdijications were 
 considered to be of the most useful kind. The 
 following extract of a letter from an aged and 
 experienced member of the church, will place 
 the ministerial chai-acter of brother Phillips in 
 a very amiable light : — 
 
 *' While we would cast in our mite in honor 
 of his christian character, and for the encour- 
 agement of others to follow his example, we 
 being intimately acquainted with him for the 
 two years he travelled Lexington circuit, Ky., 
 our house being almost his constant home once 
 in four weeks, as he traveled round his circuit, 
 and we who have been acquainted with Meth- ;: 
 odist preachers for near fifty years, and some * 
 of us strict observers of men and things for \ 
 more than forty years, are more than willing to ^ 
 give in our testimony to the christian and evan- ;■
 
 MEMOIR OF THE AUTHOR. 1 1 
 
 gelical or apostolical character of brother Phil- 
 lips. And first, a more pious, studious, grave, 
 cheerful, humble, loving, laborious and effec- 
 tive preacher we have never known. In a 
 word, he seemed all goodness, not only for a 
 short time, (as too many often are) but all the 
 time alike good. In the pulpit, whether the 
 congregations were large or small, he was like 
 a lamp to light up their intellects. His doc- 
 trines, so pure and evangelical; his reasoning 
 so profound, his language so appropriate, that 
 all acknowledged him much of a master work- 
 man. In company he was very social and 
 friendly ; in our family he was always instruc- 
 tive ; unto the aged he was reverential ; with 
 the young he was familiar, and acted much of 
 the philosopher ; while all his language and 
 deportment seemed seasoned with grace and 
 warm affection. We recognize him this mo- 
 ment, fresh in our memories. His almost con- 
 stant practice in the winter nights, was to in- 
 struct our daughters and sons in the rudiments 
 of singing, as also in the way of salvation, with 
 several other branches of useful instruction. He 
 often put us in mind of the old Methodist 
 preacher, that some of us knew nearly fifty 
 years ago in old Virginia, that used to preach 
 at my grandfather's. We were acquainted also 
 with the circuit preachers that preached at my 
 father's for several years in Kentucky, where 
 the preachers made their home. Among those 
 preachers were but few Phillipses to be found. 
 For twenty years or more, we have not known
 
 13 MEMOIR OF THE AUTHOR. 
 
 a more excellent and profitable man than brother 
 William Phillips. But he is gone to glory. 
 Is it possible that we are to hear from him no 
 more this side of heaven?" 
 
 To this unadorned and simple testimony 
 other accounts precisely correspond. 
 
 His attainments as a writer place him deser- 
 vedly, if not among the foremost writers, at 
 least in that respectable class which would raise 
 him several degrees above mediocrity. But as 
 he was called away at the early age of thirty- 
 nine, and therefore before he had opportunity 
 to come fairly before the public, it would be 
 difficult to present him in his real character be- 
 fore the world. His writings in the Western 
 Christian Advocate, over his proper signature, 
 have evident marks of accurate research, sound 
 judgment and respectable attainments. Had 
 he turned his attention to writing at an earlier 
 period of his life, or had Providence spared him 
 longer, he would probably have held a promi- 
 nent place among the writers of the present 
 age. 
 
 Brother Phillips was a little above the ordi- 
 nary height, and rather spare. His personal 
 appearance was not only agreeable, but might 
 be considered dignified. His manners were 
 courteous and pleasing, manifesting a disposi- 
 tion to be friendly to all ; so that even the 
 stranger was often prepossessed in his favor ; 
 but he was respected most by those who knew 
 him best. He was truly a son of peace ; and
 
 MEMOIR OF THE AUTHOR. 
 
 13 
 
 though he considered it his duty to contend 
 earnestly for the faith once delivered to the 
 saints, he delighted not in controversy. Yet 
 into this he was willing to enter sooner than 
 yield up any portion of truth. 
 
 B
 
 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 Introduction of the subject — Mr. Campbell's doctrine of 
 Baptism stated — Texts brought to support Campbellism 
 considered, viz. Acts ii. 38. Jo. iii, 5. &c. Mark xvi. 
 16. 1 Pet. iii. 31. Titus iii. 21. 
 
 Ours is a fluctuating world. Its fashions 
 pass away, and the opinions of communities 
 and of men so frequently change, that old things 
 sometimes become new. We live in an age 
 when some of the errors of antiquity have 
 been revived and remodeled, and forced upon 
 the Avorld under the imposing name of " the 
 ancient gospel ;" but more commonly, and ap- 
 propriately called " Campbellism," 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 strug- 
 gling for existence, some notice of it may not, 
 perhaps, be "labor in vain." The present is, 
 therefore, designed as the Jirst of a few essays 
 upon this subject. 
 
 There seems a remarkable proneness in fall- 
 en man, to make " the kingdom of God 7neat 
 and drink,'' by substituting rites, ceremonies, 
 and objects of sense, for spiritual tlmigs, and 
 
 15
 
 16 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 
 
 spiritual enjoyments. That man, after his ex- 
 pulsion from paradise, retained some knowl- 
 edge of the true God, is a reasonable conclu- 
 sion, and is clearly deducible from the 1st chap- 
 ter 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 
 above mentioned, led the world into idolatry. 
 At an early period of the christian church, some 
 of the fathers, yielding to this propensity, en- 
 deavored to give their religion a degree of splen- 
 dor, 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 worship. Wit- 
 ness, 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 tlie true object 
 of worship. Here we see man'i^ disposition 
 to substitute material tlmigs 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 his- 
 tory, abundantly prove.
 
 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 17 
 
 The Roman Catholic diurch, receding from 
 the simplicity and purity of worship, as taught 
 in the Bible, arrived at a point where the idea 
 of feeding in a spiritual manner, by faith, 
 upon the broken body and shed hlood 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 lite- 
 ral body and blood of the Lord, so that the 
 identical body which had been born of the Vir- 
 gin Mary, is offered by the priest and eaten by 
 the communicants. Thus originated transub- 
 stantiation in the 13th century — a doctrine, 
 which, though opposed by the common sense 
 of every man, and the obvious import of Scrip- 
 ture, 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 mysteri- 
 ous to some of the early christians ; who en- 
 deavoring to render the subject tangible, sought 
 a substitute for this sjnritual birth, and found 
 it in water. A few elliptical phrases and sen- 
 tences in the New Testament, such as, "be 
 baptized for the remission of sins" — " be bap- 
 tized and wash away thy sins" — afforded a 
 pretext for this change. Thus the Scripture 
 b2
 
 18 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSEP. 
 
 doctrine, of justification by faith, in the mer- 
 its of the Kedeemer, was set aside. This was 
 one of the first departures of the church from the 
 sacred truths of the gospel, and to this vital er- 
 ror may be traced much of that ignorance of 
 spiritual things, and that intellectual gloom 
 Avhich covered the church in the dark ages of 
 papal supremacy. 
 
 That the church of Rome, (after having con- 
 verted the sacraments into inatter, and taught 
 that " sensible material things, work by the A.1- 
 mighty power of God,") should receive this 
 view of the efl[icacy 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 surpris- 
 ing. But who could have dreamed that a Prot- 
 estant reformer, in the nineteenth century, 
 claiming exemption, alike, from Catholicism 
 and " sectarianism," would rake up water re- 
 generation from the dregs of papal rubbish, 
 and make it a leading feature of his reforma- 
 tion ? This Mr. Campbell has done. I do 
 not assert that his views on this subject are pre- 
 cisely those of the Catholic church, but they 
 are substantially the same. Each makes bap- 
 tism necessary to the remission of sins — a sine 
 qua non in the salvation of man. The follow- 
 ing quotations from Mr. Campbell's Millennial 
 Harbinger — extra. No. 1, will show that we do 
 not misrepresent him : "If we speak Scrip- 
 turally we must use these terms (immersion,
 
 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 19 
 
 regeneration, and conversion,) as all descriptive 
 of the same thing." "Remission of sins can- 
 not 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 ordi- 
 nance ; and I know not that any Papist ever 
 used stronger language in pointing out its im- 
 portance. And it is well known that these 
 views are received and promulged by his ad- 
 herents ; who, universally, urge " obedience''' 
 (by which they mean immersion,) as the 
 MEANS of obtaining remission of sins. Conse- 
 quently, Mr. C's " ancient gospel" is literally 
 a gospel of ivater, for upon its principles, with- 
 out 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 spir- 
 it 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 Papisti- 
 cal notion of the " opus operatum''' of the sac- 
 raments; but, to make "assurance doubly 
 sure," and for the information of those who
 
 20 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 
 
 may not have been favored with this new ver- 
 sion of Popery, the following additional quota- 
 tions, from his " Millennial Harbinger," are pre- 
 sented : " It is not our faith in God's promises 
 of remission, but our going down into the wa- 
 ter, that obtains the remission of sins. ^^ " Im- 
 mersion 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 jus- 
 tification 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 Camp- 
 bellism, 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 intentio)i 
 of the baptizer, or with teaching that baptism, 
 of itself, literally washes away sin, and cleanses 
 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 afl^ects 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. Soph- 
 istry, itself, cannot torture his language, in the 
 above quotations, into any thing lower than is 
 here stated; nor will the attempt be made;
 
 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 21 
 
 for it is well known that his followers uni- 
 formly 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 not- 
 withstanding 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 read- 
 er may see the extent of its claims, and be 
 the better prepared for its refutation, we pro- 
 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 remis- 
 sion of sins," it is argued that baptism is the 
 means 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 v/ords 
 are entitled to no ordinary degree of credit. Be 
 it so. We neither wish to detract from the im- 
 portance of the occasion, nor to question the 
 correctness of the instructions. But none of
 
 22 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 
 
 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 sen- 
 tences, taken literally, would convey a mean- 
 ing 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 : "Tlie 
 three baskets are three days," Gen, xl. 18. 
 " The ten horns are ten kings," Dan. vii. 24. 
 "The field is the v/orld," Matt. xiii. 38. 
 " The seven candlesticks are the seven church- 
 es," Rev. i. 20. " This is my body," and 
 " this is my blood," Matt. xxvi. 26. 27. Such 
 expressions, very common in both the Old and 
 New Testaments, cannot be undexstood in a 
 literal sense. The most ordinary reader, seeing 
 the folly of a literal interpretation, will under- 
 stand the substantive verbs according to the He- 
 brew idiom : " The three baskets signify three 
 days." " The field represents 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
 
 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 23 
 
 interpretation. Hence we may understand him 
 as saying, " be baptized to represent remission 
 of sins." Tliis 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 out 
 things to come. And these sacrifices, though 
 offered for the sins of the people, were not 
 intended to take away sin ; but only to repre- 
 sent a better sacrifice, and point out their de- 
 pendence on Him for remission. With this 
 knowledge, and under all these circumstances, 
 the multitude listen to Peter's discourse. He 
 is unfolding a new dispensation of the king- 
 dom of God, which, like the former, has its 
 appropriate rites and ordinances. He com- 
 mands baptism "for the remission of sins." 
 They know the meaning of the sin-offerings 
 of their religion ; they understand the emblem- 
 atical 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
 
 24 CAMPBELLISM EXP06ED. 
 
 to the above exposition to represent, or in ref- 
 erence 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 ivater regeneration ; but they 
 afford it no more support than the former, be- 
 ing 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 forbid- 
 den, 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 ex- 
 pression plainly implies that those who are bap- 
 tized 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 or- 
 der to receive the same blessing of pardon or 
 justification. And we have seen already that
 
 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 25 
 
 faith was presupposed. Christ, for wise rea- 
 sons in receiving baptism appointed this solemn 
 rite as a tolven 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 absur- 
 dity 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, Avhere justification 
 by faith will be established, and baptism itself 
 rescued from the perverting use to v/hich it is 
 employed in the New C4ospel proclaimed first 
 at Bethany. 
 
 The views we hav« given of Acts ii. 38, are 
 believed to be the primary meaning of the text. 
 To adopt the Campbellite assumption, that 
 " the Scriptures tnmn ivhat they say, and say 
 what they mean,'''' and hence, from the phrase, 
 " for the remission of sins," to argue that Pe- 
 ter 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 meth- 
 od of obtaining remission of sins, contradicts 
 2 C
 
 26 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 
 
 a large portion of the New Testament, and 
 thereby involves Christianity itself in inextrica- 
 ble 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, lite- 
 rally, " 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 all of them, but to look to a high- 
 er source, and through another means, for the 
 enjoyment of this greatest of present blessings. 
 Indeed, our justification does not depend so 
 much upon Mr. Campbell's institution for the 
 remission of sins, as upon either repentance or 
 prayer. 
 
 Religious truth is of all things the most im- 
 portant ; because it involves the concerns of 
 eternity. Campbellism claims to be the truth, 
 " the ancient gospel ;" and its devotees, pro- 
 fessing to take ''the Book" alone for their 
 guide, proclaim baptism, as the only appointed 
 means for obtaining remission of sins. This
 
 CAMPEELIJSM EXPOSED. 2 4 
 
 doctrine, if ti'tte, 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 be- 
 half; let us see if they will be more successful : 
 " Except a man be born of water 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 
 now save us," I Peter iii, 21. In the first 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 
 assumed in the premises, that baptism is indis- 
 pensable for the salvation of the soul, and in 
 order to its admission into the kingdom of glo- 
 ry, 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 hea- 
 ven, baptism, though necessary for that enjoy- 
 ment, might be designed for a different purpose. 
 But the premises and the inference are alike 
 inadmissible. To suppose that God has made
 
 28 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 
 
 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 con- 
 nects water with the Spirit as necessary to 
 entering " the kingdom of God," we must con- 
 sider that the phrase " kingdom of God" is 
 variously applied in the Scriptures. Camp- 
 belKtes Avill readily admit that it signifies the 
 church on earth ; and St. Paul, when he says, 
 " that flesh and blood cannot inherit the king- 
 dom of God,'''' 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 mean- 
 ing 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 char- 
 acter, as representing the washing away of sin, 
 and as the initiatory rite, conferring, so far as
 
 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 29 
 
 man can judge, the privilege of cliiirch mem- 
 bership. The church can only receive us 
 through baptism; and hence, this ordinance is 
 necessar}' 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 king- 
 dom 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 be- 
 ing "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 said, "except a man be 
 born of water he cannot enter into the kingdom 
 of God ;" and, also, that the necessity for this 
 birth would remain, though it were destitute 
 of a spiritual meaning, and in no sense a means 
 of grace. 
 
 Keeping these remarks before him, the read- 
 er Avill readily comprehend the other quota- 
 tions. " He that believeth and is baptized shall 
 be saved." Baptism here, cannot be under- 
 stood as being the means of spiritual regenera- 
 tion, because the aposde expressly declares, 
 " whosoever helieveih that Jesus is the Christ, 
 is born of God." Now men may certainly 
 believe this before they are baptized ; but "who- 
 soever believeth" it "is born of God;" of 
 course, baptism is not the means of this spirit- 
 c 2
 
 30 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 
 
 ual birth. " He that beUeveth" " with the 
 heart unto righteousness," is justified, and sa- 
 ved from the guiU of sin ; but he is not saved 
 externaliy — 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 un- - 
 necessary ; 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 " fig- 
 ure," the salvation it brings can only be figura- 
 tive, not real and literal. The figure of a man 
 cannot perform his work. 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 world, 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 signijied, 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,
 
 CAMPEELLISM EXPOSED. 31 
 
 iior do we exclude it. Our business, at pre- 
 sent, is not with the mode. We mean the ap- 
 plication of water, by pouring or otherwise, by 
 pji authorized minister, in the names of the sa- 
 cred Trinity. 
 
 Another passage relied upon in favor of ivater 
 regeneration, is Titus iii. 5 : " Not by works 
 of righteousness which we have done, but ac- 
 cording to his mercy he saved us, by the wash- 
 ing 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 asser- 
 tion, that " regeneration and immersion are two 
 names for the same thing ;" and hence the in- 
 ference 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 im- 
 mersion. We are aware, however, that Mr. 
 C. would have us confine the relative " which" 
 to the "renewing of the Holy Ghost;" but 
 there is no good reason for this. Indeed, ac- 
 cording to his own argument on another text, 
 and for a different purpose the relative "which" 
 must here be confined exclusively to the " wash- 
 ing of regeneration ;" and, consequently, the 
 notion of immersion is entirely excluded from 
 the passage. But there is not sufficient ground 
 for confining the relative to either of the pre-
 
 33 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 
 
 ceding clauses, to the exclusion of the other. 
 It most probably takes for its antecedents, both 
 " the v/ashing" and the " renewal," and hence, 
 the washing, b}^ which we are saved, is pour- 
 ed out upon us by the Holy >Spirit. 
 
 But granting the possibility that there is in 
 this passage an aluision to th^ application of 
 water in baptism, wliat 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 iv ashed ; and the act of 
 cleansing a garment is converted into the gar- 
 ment itself ! Truly such logic is as superla- 
 tively ridiculous and incomprehensible, as the 
 nonsensical jargon of a Mormonite's unknown 
 tongue. 
 
 The absurdity of the attempt to prove from 
 this text, the sameness of baptism and regene- 
 ration, is too glaring to require a serious refu- 
 tation ; and to take the phrase literally, and 
 suppose that the noun, "regeneration," re- 
 quires to be washed, would involve an equal
 
 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 33 
 
 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 ivashing in refer- 
 ence to regeneration; and hence, we arrive at 
 our former definition of the design of baptism ; 
 that it represents remission of sins "by the re- 
 newing of the Holy Spirit, shed on us through 
 Jesus Christ our Savior." 
 
 And now, reader, we have exam.ined the 
 principal texts, upon which the notion of re- 
 mission of sins, through baptism, depends for 
 its support. The examination has shown that 
 they liave very little of the appearance, and 
 nothing of the reality of that doctrine in them. 
 These Scriptures are its main dependence ; 
 they do not sustain it, nor can it be sustained 
 from the Bible, What, then, has given it cur- 
 rency, 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 no- 
 ticed, 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 new gospel, ^s to discover proofs 
 of water regeneration everywhere. For instance, 
 one of these knowing ones^ having read in the 
 2*
 
 34 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 
 
 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 pro- 
 claims 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 scliool tells 
 his hearers, that " ivater 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 leaving the reader to determine whether 
 these champions of reform have not got ahead 
 of their Master, we close for the present.
 
 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 35 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 FAITH. 
 
 Introduction — literal meaning — Baptism, prayer and con- 
 fession 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. 
 
 The reader will bear in mind that the con- 
 dition on which remission of sins is offered to 
 the human family, is still before us. It has 
 been shown that Campbell and his followers 
 proclaim immersion, as this condition ; and we 
 have said that they consider it the only means 
 of obtaining this blessing. But knowing that 
 he has published ministers who oppose his re- 
 formation, as " licensed slanderers,^'' and thathis 
 satellites are famous for endeavoring to excite 
 public sympathy, by crying out, " misrepre- 
 sentation and persecution," and above all, wish- 
 ing to do no man injustice, we pause to explain. 
 
 The views of Mr. Campbell, as we under- 
 stand them, do in reality exclude both repent- 
 ance and faith (such as the Scriptures require), 
 from having any thing to do with obtaining re- 
 mission of sins ; but we wish our readers to 
 understand that he speaks of something he calls 
 faithi and reformation^ as necessary to ac-
 
 36 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 
 
 ''company immersion. And further, we wouldjl 
 not be understood to insinuate that he considers ! 
 immersion as the procuring, or meritorious 
 cause of remission. On this subject, so far as 
 we know, his views are Scriptural. And though 
 we do not think with the Indian, that two truths 
 would palliate one falsehood, yet amid such a 
 mass of error, we rejoice to find one truth to 
 commend. The following quotation will show 
 his sentiments in his own words : " Immersion, 
 nor faith, procures remission. The blood of Je- 
 sus, through the favor of God, procures, faith ap- • 
 prebends, and baptism takes hold of the boon 
 of Heaven, or is the means of our enjoyment." 
 With this explanation we resume the subject. 
 Now, had Mr. Campbell been as wise as his 
 followers consider him great, and as well ac- 
 quainted with the scietice of salvation, as he 
 professes to be with classic lore, and with the 
 wisdom of theological schools, immersion as 
 the tneans of justification, would have formed 
 no part of his creed. This we say with con- 
 fidence, and appeal to the judgment of the in- 
 telligent, candid, and unprejudiced reader, who 
 may have perused what was written, in con- 
 firmation of what we say. He will at once 
 respond, that the Scriptures, there examined, 
 do not sustain the doctrine. And as these texts, 
 which are mainly relied upon to prove the doc- 
 trine in question, do not prove it, consequently, 
 that doctrine falls to the ground, and presents our 
 reformer to the world as another monument of the 
 folly of the attempt to improve the Word of God.
 
 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED, 87 
 
 That the literal reading of a few passages of 
 Scripture, seems to favor the doctrine we op- 
 pose, has been conceded. But what of this ? 
 Shall we adopt the Campbellite's mode of con- 
 struing Scripture, that "z7 means, literally, 
 what it says,'''' and hence, conclude the doctrine 
 true ? To do this, would drive us to surrender 
 the leading doctrine of Christianity, and to ad- 
 mit that the Bible teaches the most absolute 
 nonsense. Our Lord, when handing to his dis- 
 ciples the bread used at the "Last Supper," 
 said, " Take, eat ; this is my body." This, ac- 
 cording to the mle adopted, literally means 
 what it literally says. Then the bread was 
 literally transubstantiated into the real body of 
 the Savior, and eaten by his disciples. And as 
 he had but one body, Judas must have betrayed 
 a phantom, and Pilate crucified an imaginary 
 something, we cannot tell what, but certainly 
 not our Lord himself, not his body, for that had 
 been eaten by the eleven disciples a few hours 
 before. Thus we are driven to the conclusion, 
 that Christ was not crucified ; and hence, to 
 hope for "redemption through his blood," is 
 of all hopes the most forlorn and hopeless. 
 Again, the Savior said, " Let the dead bury 
 their dead ; and this, too, must mean what it 
 says. A neighbor dies ; we would be glad to 
 manifest our respect for him, by assisting at his 
 intennent; but this the Book has forbidden, 
 and, consequently, his burial is consigned to 
 those that had previously died. These are only 
 a few of the dangers and absurdities, involved 
 D
 
 38 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. | 
 
 in the application of this rule of interpreta- 
 tion. 
 
 ,, Perhaps Mr. Campbell may demur to this, 
 and deny that he ever intended to convey the 
 idea that the Word of God is always to be un- 
 derstood, as literally meaning ivhat it literally 
 says. But that he originally gave it currency, 
 and that his follov^^ers received it as an axiom," 
 and proclaimed it as the only safe rule for the 
 interpretation of Scripture, might be easily 
 proved. It is true, after having witnessed the 
 farcical attitude in which the position, as car- 
 ried out by his followers, was placing him, he 
 attempted a partial retreat ; and hence, when 
 hard pressed, his followers have learned to say, 
 that they only mean that the Scripture means 
 what its meaning says ; i. e. in plain English, 
 it 7neans what it does mean — a position which 
 no man in his senses will question ; but in the 
 nomenclature of this neiv gospel we must give 
 it the following interpretation : The Scripture 
 means what it says tvhen it seems to favor 
 Campbellism, but when its sayings do 7iot ac- 
 cord loitli this system, it 7n€ans what it does 
 not say. And thus, when preaching baptism 
 "for the remission of sins," they continue to 
 plead for the literal application of the principle 
 originally assumed — " the Scripture means 
 what it says.^^ Nor is this pertinacious ad- 
 herence at all surprising, for, to surrender this 
 principle would lead to the abandonment of 
 their favorite notions ; or, at least, it would 
 leave the leading feature of their system with
 
 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 39 
 
 about as much evidence and probability for its 
 support, as have the marvelous adventures of 
 Baron Munchauson. 
 
 We notice, in another point of light, the fol- 
 ly, and, also, the danger of the doctrine before 
 us. Upon the literal reading of some three or 
 four isolated texts, and upon an arbitrary con- 
 struction, and by an unnatural application of a 
 few passages of Scripture, Mr. Campbell has 
 founded a scheme for obtaining remission of 
 sins, which is directly opposed by more than 
 one hundred texts and circumstances recorded 
 in the Bible. This, to say the least of it, is a 
 dangerous precedent, and calculated to counte- 
 nance almost every absurdity that assumes the 
 garb of Christianity. What visionary sectary 
 might not on this ground, attempt to reform the 
 church, and introduce his 7iotio?is as the " an- 
 cient gospel?" Such efforts have often been 
 made. Look at the Socinian, the Sliciker, the 
 Universalist, the Mormonite, and the crazy 
 Live-for-ever ! Each of these has found a few 
 phrases, or sentences of Scripture, that seem 
 to favor his notions ; and setting them up as 
 the only standard of faith and practice, has 
 made proselytes. Nay, more, the attempt to 
 raise a sect, whose members should e«f, and 
 drinks and talk, and laugh, and scream, and 
 cry like little children, met with some encour- 
 agement ; and could plead in its behalf, the let- 
 ter of Scripture, in the words of the Savior, 
 with as much plausibility as this plea can be 
 urged for water regeneration.
 
 40 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 
 
 On the same ground, we could easily multi- 
 ply theories, and form systems, repugnant, alike, 
 to the tenor of Scripture, and the opinions of 
 Mr. Campbell. If half a dozen detached por- 
 tions of the New Testament, justify his theory 
 of baptism as the condition of remission of 
 sins, the same amount of testimony ^vill au- 
 thorize any other theory. And, hence, we 
 might exclude repentance, baptism, and faith 
 from the office of obtaining remission, because 
 a few texts promise this blessing consequent 
 upon prayer. Take the following : ^^Jlsk and 
 ye shall receive ;" " How much more shall 
 your Heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to 
 them that ask him ;" " Whosoever shall call 
 on the name of the Lord, shall be saved." 
 Again, the Publican prayed, and went down 
 from the temple ju^ified ; the thief upon the 
 cross prayed, was forgiven, and taken the 
 same day to paradise ; and Peter said to one 
 whom he pronounced " in the gall of bitterness, 
 and in the bond of iniquity," ^' pray God, if 
 perhaps the thought of thine heart may be for- 
 given thee." These precepts and circumstanc- 
 es, do certainly give as much countenance to 
 that theory which should make prayer the 
 means of justification, as can be produced in 
 favor of the ivater scheme. 
 
 Another plausible system might be predicated 
 upon confession. It is said, "If we confess 
 our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us 
 our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteous- 
 ness." — 1 John, i. 9. The apostle here prom-
 
 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 41 
 
 ises both pardon and sanctification, upon the 
 condition, that we " confess our sins;" and this 
 is more than is anywhere said of baptism. 
 With what seeming plausibility might some de- 
 signing sophist seize upon this passage, and tell 
 the people, that " the clergy of all denomina- 
 tions, are blind leaders of the blind ; and that 
 they are still in the fogs of mystic Babylon, 
 'unjustified, unadopted, and lost to all christian 
 life and enjoyment;' that neither prayer, nor 
 songs, nor repentance, nor faith, nor baptism, 
 is necessary ; that God only requires the sin- 
 ner to confess his sins ; and having done this, 
 he knows his sins are pardoned, because he 
 knows the Word of God cannot fail." That 
 this scheme would take with some, and that 
 these assertions would gain converts, must be 
 obvious to those who have marked the success 
 of Campbellism, founded on similar principles, 
 and sustained by similar arguments. 
 
 But though the doctrine in question, as well 
 as the theories we have supposed, seems to be 
 countenanced by a few texts of Scripture, the 
 Word of God is not inconsistent, the Bible does 
 not contradict itself. In the plan of salvation, 
 man's duties and his enjoyments are insepara- 
 bly connected. Various duties, and '• good 
 works," are required of him ; which in their 
 performance, become means of grace ; and 
 hence, God's blessing, and the promise of par- 
 don, are in some sense connected with prayer, 
 confession, baptism, and all other acts of obe- 
 dience. But still, the Scriptures uniformly 
 
 L-2
 
 42 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 
 
 teach, that remission of sins, in the sense of 
 accounting a sinner righteous before God, is 
 not to be obtained by "works of righteousness," 
 or by any thing elss that he hcifs done, or can 
 do, as ivorks^ but thai the grace of God is man- 
 ifested in presenting this blessing, solely upon 
 the condition of /«///?. " It is ol faith, that it 
 might be by grace." 
 
 We believe that the condition of justification, 
 on the part of the sinner, is faith alone ^ be- 
 cause Jesus Christ and his apostles uniformly 
 taught this doctrine; and neither the Campbell- 
 ite sneer, of '-faith-alonc-men,'" nor the charge 
 of ^^ inconsistency,^^ from the same source, 
 shall deter us from giving heed to their instruc- 
 tions. In a late number of the Millennial Har- 
 binger, those who preach with St. Paul, " that 
 a man is justified by faith, without the deeds 
 of the law," are charged by Mr. Campbell, and 
 one of his pets, with contradicting themselves, 
 and not believing what they preach. And 
 why ? Because they believe that repentance 
 must accompany y«i7 A. But is there any in- 
 consistency in this ? If so, wdiat an inconsis- 
 tent man is Mr. Alexander Campbell, who has 
 published to the world that "immersion alone 
 is the act of turning to God ;" and yet declares 
 ihai faith and reforrnation must precede that 
 act. Verily, " those that live in glass houses 
 should not throw stones." 
 
 When the Philippian jailor inquired, "What 
 must I do to be saved ?" the apostle answered, 
 '* Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou
 
 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 43 
 
 shall be saved, and thy house." When Peter 
 preached to Cornelius, and them that were with 
 him, he declared, that to Jesus Christ " gave 
 all the prophets witness, that through his name 
 whosoever beUeveth in him shall receive re- 
 mission of sins ;" and afterwards, when speak- 
 ing of this visit to the Gentiles, and pleading 
 their cause before the church at Jerusalem, he 
 said, that God had received them upon the 
 same condition he had received the Jews, "pu- 
 rifying their hearts by faith. ^'' In these texts, 
 salvation, remission cf sins, and purification 
 of heart, are offered upon the cgndition of b.e- 
 lief and declared to be " hy faith,'''' and they, 
 if the Scriptures said nothing more on the sub- 
 ject, would serve as a set-off against the plan 
 of Mr. Campbell, and afford some countenance 
 to the opinion, that " faith alone" is the condition 
 of salvation from sin. But the terms of pardon 
 are too important to guilty man, to be involved 
 in any uncertainty; and hence, they are so clear- 
 ly stated, and so frequently repeated in the 
 New Testament, as to exclude all possibility 
 of doubt. Pardon of sin, is therein positively 
 declared to be ''by faith," "through faith," 
 and " of faith ;" and salvation from sin, in its 
 various acceptations, is, in more than three 
 hundred passages, represented as depending 
 upon the condition of faith, without any allu- 
 sion to baptism, or to any other act of obedi- 
 ence. From which it is clear, ihdX faith, and 
 not works of any kind or qualit}^ is taught by 
 our Lord and his apostles, as the condition of
 
 44 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 
 
 justification, or remission of sins ; and hence, 
 the scheme which makes baptism that condi- 
 tion, or any part of it, did not originate from 
 the Bible. 
 
 God's plan of justifying the ungodly, as re- 
 vealed in his Word, we believe to be through 
 faith alone, and feel confident of our ability to 
 prove this to the satisfaction of the intelligent, 
 unprejudiced reader; but before we proceed 
 further, it may be proper to notice an attempted 
 evasion. It is said that baptism cannot inval- 
 idate faith ^ and, therefore, that the additioii 
 of baptism to faith as a iirerequisite for for- 
 giveness, can do no harm, though that prere- 
 quisite were faith alone. The fact that Mr. 
 Campbell has given this position currency, 
 through the " Millennial Harbinger," seems to 
 render some notice of it necessary, though its 
 absurdity must be obvious to the reader. That 
 the reward may be "reckoned of grace," and 
 not " of debt," God has promised remission of 
 sins " to him that worketh not, but belicteth;''^ 
 but man, considering the arrangement of Jeho- 
 vah defective, attempts to improve the plan by 
 adding vwrks to faith, and tells the world, that 
 *'it is not faith, but going doivn into the wa- 
 ter, that obtains remission of sins ;" and then 
 consoles himself by the reflection, that if the 
 condition should prove to be faith alone, the 
 addition of baptism must be harmless, inasmuch 
 ^s faith is retained as a part of the condition. 
 Bui, the most ordinary reader will see the dan- 
 ger of making that depart only, which God had
 
 CAMPEELLISM EXPOSED. 45 
 
 made the whole; and, also, that the uniting of 
 works with faith as the condition of pardon, en- 
 tirely changes the ground of the sinner's ac- 
 ceptance with God. St. Paul argued that the 
 pardon of sin upon the condition of faith alone, 
 tended to magnify the grace of God, and to ex- 
 clude boasting from the creature ; but if bap- 
 tism is that which obtains the blessing, it is no 
 longer of grace, but of debt, and the creature 
 has whereof to boast, and may say, " Come 
 hither all ye that fear the Lord, and I will tell 
 you what I have done for my soul. I have been 
 down into the water — I have washed away my 
 sins — I am happy, because I have done all 
 this." It is thus seen, that Mr. Campbell's 
 scheme neutralizes the grace of God in the par- 
 don of sin, if it does not entirely exclude it, 
 and offers remission upon principles contra- 
 ry to the teachings of the New Testament. 
 But further, this scheme, while it talks much 
 about faith, comes short of the faith required in 
 the gospel. And as this is a source of error, 
 and of manifest danger to those who embrace 
 the system, before we proceed to prove that 
 --justification is by faith, we shall endeavor to 
 ascertain the nature of that faith, which the 
 Scriptures connect with justification. 
 
 Mr. Campbell, we believe, admits of no high- 
 er degree of faith, than the assent of the mind, 
 produced by the force of evidence. The ground 
 assumed by his followers, is, " that man is not 
 so depraved as to require any divine agency to 
 induce, or to enable him to believe the gospel ;
 
 46 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 
 
 th3X faith and belief, strictly speaking, mean 
 the same thing, and are entirely predicated upon 
 evidence ; and that tlie faith required in order 
 to salvation is only a full persuasion of the 
 truth of the gospel facts," From whicji it is 
 clear, that a Campbellite's faith is only historic, 
 and nothing more than the assent of the mind 
 to the truth of any fact, sustained by credible 
 testimony. This view of faith is what we had 
 allusion to in a former number, when we said, 
 that Mr. Campbell rejects that faith which the 
 Scriptures require. And we are still of the 
 same opinion ; for though the Scriptures do re- 
 quire a belief of the facts therein contained, 
 this is not all they require, nor is this all that 
 faith in its fullest sense implies. 
 
 Faith is presented in Scripture under two 
 leading views. The first embraces the assent 
 of the mind; the second, the confidence, reli- 
 ance, and trust, of the will and the affections. 
 The former may exist without the latter (and 
 here is where Campbellites make shipwreck of 
 their faith,) but the latter cannot exist without 
 the former. That all faith is not the same, is 
 clearly taught in the Scriptures. The Savior 
 commends the greatness of the faith of some, 
 while he condemns the " little faith" of others. 
 A dead, inoperative faith is mentioned by St. 
 James ; and faith in the sense of intellectual as- 
 sent to truth, is allovv'edtobe possessed even by 
 devils. But neither this " little faith," nor this 
 '*dead faith," can be what the Scriptures require 
 in order to salvation ; for those who possess it are
 
 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 1 I 
 
 condemned. It is, therefore, certain, that the 
 faith of the christian includes more than a be- 
 lief of the general truths of revelation. It 
 combines with the belief of those truths, a C07i- 
 Jidence in, and a reliance upon the merits of 
 Christ alone. In other words, it unites assent 
 with reliance, belief with trust. Of Christ it 
 was said, " in his name shall the Gentiles 
 trust. ^'' He is proclaimed as the only true 
 sacrifice for sin, and both Jews and Gentiles are 
 required to renounce their own righteousness, 
 and confide solely in his death and mediation. 
 He is set forth as a propitiation, " through faith 
 in his blood ;" which faith can neither mean 
 mere assent to the historical fact that his blood 
 was shed upon Calvary ; nor a mere belief of 
 the doctrine that his blood has an atoning vir- 
 tue ; but as he has made "a sin oflering for 
 us," " faith in his blood," implies a confident 
 reliance on him for pardon. A further illustra- 
 tion of this view of faith is seen in the address 
 of our Lord to his disciples upon the withering 
 away of the fig tree. " Have faith in God ; 
 for verily I say unto you, that M^hosoever shall 
 say unto this mountain. Be thou removed, and 
 be thou cast into the sea, and shall not doubt 
 in his hearty but shall believe [trust] that these 
 things which he saith shall come to pass, he 
 shall have whatsoever he saith." Now, when 
 he exhorted his disciples to " have faith in 
 God," he certainly did not mean to question 
 their belief of the existence of God. Thus 
 faith in this sense was not doubted. But he
 
 48 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 
 
 exhorted them to exercise a higher degree of 
 faith, i. e., a confidence, or trust in the prom- 
 ises of God, when called by him to contend 
 with mountainous difficulties. Under the idea 
 of confidence^ St. Paul, also, refers to faith, 
 when he says, Heh. x. 35 : " Cast not away, 
 therefore, your confidence, which hath great 
 recompense of reward;" for he adds in the 
 38th verse, " Now the just shall live hy faith; 
 but if any man draw back, my soul shall have 
 no pleasure in him." Here it is obvious, that 
 the apostle contrasts, living by faith, with 
 drawing back and casting confidence away ; 
 and hence, confidence and faith, are used as 
 synonymous terms. 
 
 It is thus clearly seen, that that faith which 
 the Scriptures make the condition of justifica- 
 tion, combines with the belief of truth, a trust 
 in, a reliance upon, and a confident taking hold 
 of the merits of Christ's death as a sacrifice for 
 our sins. Did faith in the former sense, neces- 
 sarily include the latter, the Campbellite notion 
 concerning faith, would be harmless. But this 
 it does not. The former may exist, without 
 one particle of the latter. Twenty-five years 
 ago, I believed that there was such a man as 
 Napoleon Bonaparte, whose arms seemed in- 
 vincible, and who bid fair to overturn the dy- 
 nasties of Europe; but I did not admire his 
 character, had no confidence in his pretensions, 
 ^nd never desired to trust him for any thing. 
 This may illustrate the point before us : Wick- 
 ed men read the Bible, and hear it expounded,
 
 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 49 
 
 till they become convinced of its truth, give the 
 full assent of their minds to the facts it devel- 
 ops, and have all the faith that a Campbellite 
 requires ; but their hearts being at enmity with 
 God, they do not confide or trust in the gift of 
 his Son, for salvation ; and hence, they remain 
 unrenewed in their spirit and conduct. 
 
 The most unlettered christian will see the 
 difference between the faith of assent, and that 
 of reliance, or trust, and that true and saving 
 faith must include both. Indeed, to confide or 
 trust in Christ, constitutes the principal essence 
 of faith, and is the condition of justification. 
 " But," to use the words of Watson, " this is 
 not a blind and superstitious trust in the sacri- 
 fice of Christ, like that of the heathen in their 
 sacrifices ; nor the presumptuous trust of wick- 
 ed and impenitent men, who depend on Christ 
 to save them in their sins ; but such a trust as 
 is exercised according to the authority and di- 
 rection of the Word of God ; so that to know 
 the gospel in its leading principles, and to have 
 a cordial belief in it, is necessary to that more 
 specific act of faith which is called reliance^ 
 or in systematic language, fiducial assent.''^ 
 " With the heart man believeth unto righteous- 
 ness." 
 
 Having defined and illustrated the nature of 
 that faith, which the Scriptures connect with 
 salvation, and found it to combine reliance and 
 trust, with assent, we proceed to show that this 
 is that qualifying condition to which the prom- 
 ise of God annexes justification. 
 3 E
 
 50 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 
 
 It will not be necessary to prove, that justi- 
 fication, pardon and remission of sins, forgive- 
 ness oi' sins, the non-imputation of sin, and the 
 imputation of righteousness, are different New 
 Testament terms and plirases of tlie same im- 
 port. Believing that our opponents will con- 
 cede this, we shall only adduce one quotation. 
 St. Paul clearly uses justification and forgive- 
 ness as synonymous terms, when he says, " Be 
 it known unto you, therefore, men and brethren, 
 that through this Man is preached unto you the 
 forgiveness of sins : and by tiini all that be- 
 lieve are justified from all things, from which 
 ye could not be justified by the law of Moses." 
 — Acts, xiii. 38, 39. In this passage, to be 
 forgiven, and to be justified, are represented as 
 the same state, and as implying the same act 
 of divine mercy by which sin is remitted, and- 
 the sinner accounted righteous before God. 
 Keeping this in mind, the reader will be pre- 
 pared to attend us, while we demonstrate that 
 faith, and not baptism, is the condition upon 
 which the Scriptures offer the pardon of sin. 
 
 That justification by faith alone was the 
 grand doctrine of the Reformation, brought 
 forth from the Scriptures by Luther, Melanc- 
 thon, and others, and by them successfully 
 urged against the corruptions of the church of 
 Rome, will not be questioned. And that this 
 doctrine has been a leading feature in the creeds 
 of most of the reformed churches, Arminian 
 as well as Calvinistic, from that time to the pres- 
 ent, is also undeniable. It is not pretended i|
 
 C\MPEELL1SM EXPOSED. 51 
 
 that these facts prove the truth of this doctrine, 
 but they certainly liave an important bearing, 
 and are entitled to some deference. That chris- 
 tians of different parties and opinions, under the 
 influence of conflicting interests, and, too fre- 
 quently, dividedby sectarian prejudices, should, 
 for several hundred years, unite in receiving 
 and defending justification by faith alone, is 
 strong presumptive evidence of its truth. We 
 cannot easily account for the unanimity of sen- 
 timent upon this point, among Protestant chris- 
 tian, s but upon the ground that the doctrine is 
 taught in the Scriptures. And certainly the at- 
 tempt to condemn the Protestant christian world, 
 and to overturn the principles of the Reforma- 
 tion from Popery, by the introduction of works, 
 as the condition of justification, comes in " a 
 questionable shape," from a Protestant Refor- 
 mer. 
 
 But we neither rely upon the above facts, nor 
 upon any other human authority to prove the 
 point in issue. The Word of God is our only 
 dependence. To the Scriptures we turn ; and 
 if justification by faith, without works, be not 
 therein taught and defended, we shall abandon 
 it, and take shelter with the Campbellites, or 
 the Catholics. But if there be any thing clear- 
 ly taught by our Lord and his aposdes, it is the 
 ■doctrine for which we contend. In the above 
 quotation from Acts xiii. St. Paul declares "all 
 that believe are justified." This language is 
 pointed and clear, and as obviously opposed to 
 the doctrine of Mr. Campbell, as day to night.
 
 52 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 
 
 According to his teachings, men must believe 
 before they are baptized, but their belief does 
 not justify, nor can they be pardoned until they 
 go down into the water ; but the apostle teaches 
 a different doctrine, and without any allusion to 
 baptism, plainly declares, that " all that believe 
 are justified." 
 
 The Saviour in person, on various occasions, 
 inculcated this important truth. In his conver- 
 sation with Nicodemus he uses the following 
 language : " As Moses lifted up the serpent in 
 the wilderness, even so must the Son of man 
 be lifted up ; that whosoever believeth in him 
 should not perish, but have eternal life." 
 Though pardon of sin is not here mentioned, 
 it is evidently implied; for " eternal life" can 
 only be enjoyed by them whose sins are for- 
 given. But eternal life is promised in this text 
 to those that believe; therefore, the Saviour 
 clearly teaches remission and salvation, upon 
 the condition of faith alone. That this is the 
 doctrine of the text, will be obvious to those 
 who consider the circumstance adverted to by 
 way of illustration. When the Israelitish camp 
 in the wilderness was infested by poisonous 
 serpents, Moses lifted up the brazen serpent, 
 as an antidote to the poison. But they that 
 were bitten, were not required to touch the 
 brazen serpent, nor to look upon it, and then to 
 plunge themselves in the water, as the condition 
 ojf their restoration. They were only required 
 to look. And although the poison was rapidly 
 approaching the citadel of life, and its victim
 
 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 53 
 
 was at the point of death, so soon as he opened 
 his eyes and looked upon the brazen serpent he 
 was healed. Now this look by the natural 
 eye, upon the serpent that Moses lifted up, for- 
 cibly illustrates that look by the eye of faith, 
 upon a crucified Savior, which is required of 
 the sinner. And as in the former case, life 
 was promised, solely, upon the condition that 
 they should look upon the serpent of brass, so, 
 also, in the latter, remission of sins and eternal 
 life, are offered upon the condition of faith 
 alone. 
 
 That this is the doctrine taught by the ex- 
 press letter of Scripture, no one can deny ; and 
 so numerous are the passages that bear upon 
 this point, that to give them to the reader, 
 would subject us to the necessity of transcrib- 
 ing a considerable part of the New Testament. 
 Take the following: " Abraham 6c/zeue{/ God 
 and it was counted unto him for righteousness." 
 ^-Roni. iv. 3. "To him that worketh not, 
 but believeth on him that justifieth the ungod- 
 ly, his faith is counted for righteousness" — 
 verse 5. '* We say that faith was reckoned to 
 him for righteousness" — verse 9. " Now it 
 was not written for his sake alone, that it was 
 imputed to him ; but for us to whom it shall be 
 imputed, if we believe in him who raised up 
 Jesus our Lord from the dead" — verse 23, 24. 
 In t?iese quotations, taken promiscuously from 
 one chapter, faith is seven times declared to be 
 the condition upon which man receives re- 
 mission of sins and is accounted righteous. 
 e2
 
 54 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 
 
 In these texts it should be noted, that ''faith'' 
 is plainly said to be " imputed for righteous- 
 ness ;" an expression which is no where used 
 of baptism, or of any other kind of works ; 
 and in this we see the excellency of faith, and 
 the propriety of making it the condition of par- 
 don. 
 
 The tenor of Scripture, where justification 
 is the theme, accords with the above passages. 
 Faith is frequently said to be accounted to the 
 sinner for righteousness, and his justification 
 is often declared to be "by faith," "through 
 faith," and " of faith." Now if baptism occu- 
 pied the place of faith in these expressions, or 
 was connected with it, there would be no diffi- 
 culty in making it the condition of remission 
 of sins. But the case is difi"erent ; there is no 
 allusion to baptism, or to any other work, ei- 
 ther moral, ceremonial, or evangelical ; and the 
 only satisfactory reason that can be given for 
 the apostle's failure to connect baptism with 
 faith as the condition of pardon, is, that it was 
 not designed to form any part of that condition. 
 
 Justification by faith, is so frequently and 
 positively taught in the unequivocal language 
 of the New Testament, that Mr. Campbell, and 
 his adherents, have found it necessary to evade 
 the force of that language, by departing from 
 what the apostles say, and supplying what they 
 suppose them to mean ; and hence, we are told 
 that " being justified by faith," means, " by an 
 act of faith, or a believing immersion in the 
 Lord Jesus Christ." To say nothing of the
 
 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 55 
 
 inconsistency of this gloss as comiiig from 
 those who profess to bow to the authority of 
 Scripture, and to believe that it means what it 
 says, its entire lack of evidence, and its palpa- 
 ble absurdity, furnish its own refutation. 
 
 That the New Testament writers, by the 
 word " faith," mean faith, and not works, is 
 obvious : 1. From the plain distinction which 
 they draw between them, when they tell us, 
 that "faith works by love," "is shown forth 
 by our works," and exhort us " to add to our 
 faith, virtue ; to virtue, knowledge ; and, 2. 
 Because it is unreasonable to suppose that 
 Christ and his apostles would use a word which 
 had a known and fixed import, and mean by 
 this word a thing directly the reverse of itself, 
 which they must have done if they intended to 
 include baptism in the term faith. When the 
 apostles preached justification by faith, we can- 
 not by any reasonable construction, understand 
 them to mean any thing more than belief and 
 trust ; and hence faith is clearly set forth as the 
 sole condition of remission of sins. 
 
 But let us examine this Campbellite gloss a 
 little further. It tells us, that the apostles, by 
 faith, intend a " believing immersion," an act 
 springing from faith. If so, it will do no vio- 
 lence to the Scriptures to omit the word " faith," 
 and to supply its place by that which it is said 
 to mean. Then let us try a few texts. Our 
 Lord says, " O woman, great is thy faith" (great 
 is thy believing immersion.) St. Paul says, 
 ^* With the heart man believeth unto righteous-
 
 56 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 
 
 ness" (with the heart man is immersed unto 
 righteousness.) Again, " By grace are ye saved 
 through faith ; and that not of yourselves, it is 
 the gift of God ; not of works, lest any man 
 should boast" (by grace are ye saved through 
 a believing immersion in the Lord Jesus Christ; 
 and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 
 not of works, lest any man should boast.) In 
 this last quoted text, the apostle tells us that 
 salvation is the gift of God, through faith, and 
 that works, as a condition, are excluded, so that 
 boasting might be excluded from the sinner ; 
 but Campbell's interpretation declares that we 
 are saved by works, for baptism is works in 
 the proper sense of that word, and it cannot be 
 any thing but works. Hence, the apostle is 
 made to say in the same sentence, that we are 
 saved by works, and that we are not saved by 
 works. It is thus shown, that man, to support 
 an unscriptural system, would make an inspired 
 apostle contradict himself, and convert the plain 
 truths and sober reasonings of the Word of God, 
 into absurdity and nonsense. 
 
 The foregoing remarks were offered to show 
 the absurdity of the idea that faith, when con- 
 nected with remission of sins in the New Tes- 
 tament, includes baptism, or other works of 
 obedience. This point claims a few additional 
 remarks. 
 
 In every discourse of St. Paul, when treating 
 on the method of justification, faith and works 
 so far from being united, are plainly opposed 
 to each other. In the 3d and 4th chapters of
 
 OAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 57 
 
 Romans, he treats on this subject professedly, 
 states it clearly, reasons cogently, and con- 
 cludes emphatically, " That a man is justified 
 by faith, without the deeds of the laAV." Now 
 Campbellites tell us that " the law" here means 
 the Jewish ritual, and we admit that the apos- 
 tle does exclude this law from the office of jus- 
 tifying ; but he certainly, in the above expres- 
 sion,' had some other law in view. He proceeds 
 directly to ask the following question : '* Do 
 we make void the law through faith ? God 
 forbid; yea, we establish the law." All will 
 admit that the apostle does, " through faith," 
 *'make void" the ceremonial law. But he is 
 now speaking of a law which he does not make 
 void, of course this cannot be the rites of the 
 Mosaic economy. The conclusion is, there- 
 fore, unavoidable, that that law which faith does 
 not make void, is the law of moral and evan- 
 gelical works ; and as St. Paul argues that a 
 man is justified without the deeds of this law, 
 it follows that works do not enter into the con- 
 dition of justification. 
 
 Indeed, the apostle's argument necessarily 
 excludes from the office of justifying, works 
 of evangelical obedience, as well as works of 
 the ceremonial law. The scope of his reason- 
 ing is against works, not for their kind or qual- 
 ity, or the dispensation under which they ori- 
 ginated, but on account of their nature as works. 
 He is laboring to extol the grace and goodness 
 of God, by showing that the pardon of our sins 
 is not obtained by our act« of obedience to law, 
 3*
 
 58 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 
 
 but that it is of his unmerited favor. Hence 
 he says, "Now to him that worketh, is the 
 reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But 
 to him that worketh not, but believeth on Him 
 that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted 
 for righteousness. Even as David also descri- 
 beth the blessedness of the man unto whom 
 the Lordimputeth righteousness v>dthout works, 
 saying, blessed are they whose iniquities are 
 forgiven, and whose sins are covered" — Bom. 
 iv. 4 — 7. Now we cannot suppose the apos- 
 tle here, by " him that worketh," to mean the 
 Jew only, seeking justification by the deeds of 
 the ceremonial law, because, 1. He speaks of 
 '* works," without any restricting adjunct or 
 inference ; and if rites and ceremonies under 
 the Jev/ish economy are ivorks, rites and cer- 
 emonies under the christian economy are also 
 works; and 2. This supposition would destroy 
 his argument ; for, coming dovv-n to the 16th 
 verse, he says, " Therefore it is oi faith that 
 it might be by grace.^^ The argument amounts 
 to this : Pardon of sin is of the grace of God 
 alone, but a condition is required of the sinner ; 
 if that condition were ivorks of obedience to 
 any law, the " reward would be reckoned of 
 debt," for having performed the work he might 
 claim the reward as his right, as having earned 
 it ; and hence, that the sinner might have noth- 
 ing " whereof to glory" in himself, but be con- 
 strained to " glory in the Lord," his sins are 
 remitted upon the condition of faith " without 
 works."
 
 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 59 
 
 If this is not a necessary inference from St. 
 Paul's reasonings, and if he did not mean, there- 
 by, to reject baptism and all other works, as the 
 means of obtaining pardon, and place our jus-- 
 tification upon the condition of faith alone, it 
 will be difficult to show that he came to any 
 conclusion. 
 
 We now proceed to the consideration of our 
 main argument in defence of justification by 
 faith. That facts are stubborn arguments, 
 though a trite saying, is unquestionably true. 
 We give the fact of Abraham's justification in 
 proof of the doctrine for which we contend, 
 and do not fear to risk the issue upon his case 
 alone. It is true we are under no necessity to 
 do this ; for independent of his case, the doc- 
 trine stands as conspicuous in the Scriptures, 
 as the unclouded sun in the firmament of heav- 
 en, but the manner of his justification is so di- 
 rectly in point, that those who will not be, there- 
 by, convinced of the fallacy of trusting in bap- 
 tism, Avould scarcely be convinced " though one 
 rose from the dead" for their benefit. 
 
 In presenting the case of Abraham, we shall 
 prove, 1. That his justification is the pattern of 
 the justification of sinful men in all ages ; and, 
 2. That he was justified by faith alone. If we 
 succeed in establishing these points, our " nega- 
 tive" will be sustained, and baptism, as the 
 means of obtaining remission of sins, will be 
 proved to be an unscriptural assumption. 
 
 1. That the mode in which Abraham was 
 justified, points out the method which God has
 
 60 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 
 
 revealed for the forgiveness of sin, is clearly se't 
 forth in two of St. Paul's epistles. In that to 
 the Galatians we have the following language : 
 '*'Know ye therefore, that they which are of 
 faith, the same are the children of Abraham. 
 And the Scriptures, foreseeing that God would 
 justify the heathen through faith, preached be- 
 fore the gospel unto Abraham, saying. In thee 
 shall all nations be blessed. So then they 
 which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abra- 
 ham. And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abra- 
 ham's seed, and heirs according to promise." 
 Here christians are said to be " blessed with 
 faithful Abraham," and to be his " seed" and 
 his " children ;" from which it is clear that they 
 become " heirs" by walking in his footsteps. 
 
 But this point is settled beyond controversy 
 in the 4th chapter of Romans, which the rea- 
 der is requested to examine for himself. It will 
 be seen that the apostle in this part of the epis- 
 tle, is laboring to show God's method of justi- 
 fying the ungodly ; and for this purpose he re- 
 fers to the case of Abraham by way of proof 
 and illustration. But this case would be entire- 
 ly irrelevant, and prove nothing, unless Abra- 
 ham's justification be a pattern of the justifi- 
 cation of his children. And further, the apos- 
 tle here says, that Abraham " received the sign 
 of circumcision ; a seal of the righteousness of 
 the faith which he had, yet being uncircumcis- 
 ed : that he might be the father of all them that 
 believe — who also walked in the steps of that 
 faith of our father Mrahamy Rom. iv. 11,
 
 CAMPEELLISM EXPOSED. 61 
 
 12. In this passage Abraham is declared to be 
 " the father of all that believe," and they are 
 said to ivalk in the steps of his faith. From 
 which it follows that the manner in which he 
 was justified, is^ the manner in which all his 
 children are justified. If he were justified by 
 faith and works, so are they ; but if the condi- 
 tion of his justification was " faith without 
 works," then the condition of their justification 
 is the same. 
 
 2. It only remains for us to ascertain how 
 Abraham was justified, and then the question 
 will be settled. On this, as on all other points, 
 we appeal " to the law and testimony," to the 
 teachings of the Scriptures, and the recorded 
 facts of the case, which, in the present instance, 
 we believe to be so clear and decisive as to bid 
 defiance, alike, to sophistry and scepticism. — 
 The following Scriptures are in point : " If Abra- 
 ham were justified by works, he hath whereof 
 to glory ; but not before God. ¥ox what saith 
 the Scriptures ? Abraham believed God and it 
 [his faith] was counted unto him for righteous- 
 ness" — Rom. iv, 2, 3. " We say that faith 
 was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness. 
 How was it then reckoned, when he was in 
 circumcision, or in uncircumcision ? Not in 
 circumcision, but in uncircumcision" — (verse 
 9, 10). "Even as Abraham believed God, 
 and it was accounted to him for righteousness" 
 — Gal. iii, 6. In making these assertions St. 
 Paul had the authority of Moses, who, in giv- 
 ing an account of this transaction, adds, *' and 
 F
 
 62 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 
 
 he believed in the Lord, and he counted it to 
 him for righteousness" — Gen. xv, 6. The 
 quotations might be muhiplied, but these are 
 decisive. To add more would seem like trifling 
 with the reader. 
 
 Now, though the Scriptures cannot be always 
 understood according to their literal reading, 
 yet they are generally to be received in this 
 sense ; nor can we with safety depart from it, 
 unless the context presents the language as 
 figurative and metaphorical, or a different con- 
 struction be required in order that the passage 
 may harmonize with the general voice, and ob- 
 vious import of Scripture. But certainly there 
 is nothing in Abraham's case or in the above 
 quotations, to justify the idea that the language 
 is used figuratively or metonymically ; nor does 
 the harmony of Scripture require that we should 
 understand the term "faith" in these passages, 
 otherwise than in its proper and literal sense. 
 On the contrary, to understand it in any other 
 sense, would imply a manifest contradiction in 
 the Scriptures, and involve Christianity in diffi- 
 culties from which the most subtil ingenuity 
 could not extricate it. But these Scriptures 
 declare explicitly, that Abraham's faith " was 
 counted," " imputed" and " reckoned to him 
 for righteousness," and that he was justified by 
 faith " without works." It is therefore cer- 
 tain, that faith was the sole condition of his 
 pardon. 
 
 This conclusion is confirmed and its correct- 
 ness established by the circumstances connected
 
 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 63 
 
 with his justification, to which we now appeal. 
 Moses in the 15th chapter of Genesis, informs 
 us, that Abraham was justified when he believed 
 the promise of God, that he should have a son 
 m his old age ; St. Paul refers to the same fact, 
 and in the following quotation, testifies to its 
 iruth. Abraham " against hope believed in 
 iiope, that he might become the father of many 
 nations ; according to that which was spoken, 
 ' So shall thy seed be.' And being not weak 
 in faith, he considered irot his own body now 
 dead, when he was about an hundred years old, 
 neither 5^et the deadness of Sarah's womb : he 
 staggered not at the promise of God through 
 unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory 
 to God ; and being fully persuaded, that what 
 he had promised, he was able also to perform. 
 And therefore it was imputed to him for right- 
 eousness" — 'Bom. iv. 18-22. If then the testi- 
 mony of two inspired writers is to be credited, 
 it is clear, that Abraham was justified before 
 Isaac was born, and at the time he believed the 
 promise of God relative to his birth. And this 
 circumstance entirely excludes the notion that 
 any act of obedience in the shape of works, 
 was connected with his justification. No such 
 act was required ; neither offering, nor ceremo- 
 ny, was at that time demanded. God had pro- 
 mised him a son in his old age ; the probabili- 
 ties of nature were entirely against the fulfill- 
 ment of the promise, but considering the abili- 
 ty and fidelity of Him who had promised, he 
 believed, trusted ^.n^ confided in his word ; and
 
 64 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 
 
 by this act of faith, which at the time was unac- 
 companied by works of any kind or quality, 
 he was justified. 
 
 We repeat, that the circumstances of the case 
 utterly forbid the idea that works of obedience 
 had any thing to do with Abraham's justification. 
 " It was of faith, that it might be by grace." 
 God demanded no works at his hands, either 
 as a part or the whole of the condition of par- 
 don, and, consequently, his performances, 
 whatever they might have been, could not have 
 been acts of obedience. But, indeed, he at- 
 tempted nothing of the kind ; or if he did, the 
 Scriptures tell us nothing about it. But if our 
 opponents still insist, that some act of obedi- 
 ence must have accompanied his faith or he 
 could not have been justified, we inquire, what 
 was that act ? Not baptism, for it at that time 
 had no existence as a religious ordinance ; not 
 circumcision, for Abraham was not circumcised 
 till several years after his justification, nor was 
 it the offering of Isaac, for he was not then 
 born. But the inquiry is vain, and the search 
 fruitless. The Scriptures give no information 
 of any act of obedience in Abraham's case, 
 when he believed God concerning the promised 
 seed, and was justified; the circumstances, as 
 recorded, entirely exclude the idea of works, 
 and the Scriptures declare that he was justified 
 " by faith, without works." 
 
 From all which we consider our points as 
 proved, our negative sustained, and justification 
 by faith alone, unquestionably established. And
 
 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 65 
 
 planting ourself on these facts and arguments, 
 clad with the panoply of gospel truth, we shall 
 neither regard the puny missiles of sneers and 
 sarcasms, nor fear the arguments of more sen- 
 sible and manly opponents. 
 
 We have now presented the substance of what 
 we designed in proof of justification by faith. 
 Much more might be adduced, but it is not 
 considered necessary. The case of Abraham 
 is decisive. It will scarcely be questioned, that 
 his justification is given by the apostle as the 
 pattern of the justification of sinners in all 
 ages ; of course our pardon is obtained on the 
 same qualifying principle that his was. If this 
 is not St. Paul's meaning, he means nothing, 
 and proves nothing, by his reference to the 
 patriarch. But the Scriptures clearly teach that 
 *' faith without works, was accounted to him 
 for righteousness," and the circumstances and 
 time of his justification render it morally im- 
 possible for works of obedience to have formed 
 any part of the condition of his pardon. It is 
 therefore certain, that all who " walk in the 
 steps of the faith of Abraham," and become 
 his children, receive remission of sins as he 
 did, by faith alone ; that man is not, and never 
 was in any age, justified in the sense of being 
 pardoned and accounted righteous, by works of 
 any kind, whether moral, ceremonial, or evan- 
 gelical ; and that baptism as the means of par- 
 don, is man's invention, unauthorized and un- 
 sanctioned by the Oracles of truth. 
 
 We proceed now to notice some objections 
 f2
 
 66 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 
 
 against the doctrine o^ faith, as the condition of 
 justification. The positions we have established 
 in the case of Abraham, and the doctrine dedu- 
 ced therefrom, are objected to, 
 
 I. Because St. James teils us, that Abraham 
 was "justified by works when he ofiered Isaac 
 his son upon the altar." 
 
 On this subject we have v/itnessed the dis- 
 play of much zeal in the pulpit, and heard 
 many " great swelling words" from the teachers 
 of Campbellism, in laboring to reconcile St. 
 Paul's account of Abraham's justification to the 
 incidental remark of St. James. And believ- 
 ing them sincere, we have often lamented the 
 ignorance they manifested on this important 
 subject. Taking it for granted, that justifica- 
 tion is always to be understood in the same 
 sense, they conclude the two apostles to treat 
 of the same thing ; but a better knowledge of 
 the Bible would show them the propriety of 
 using the term under four different views, and 
 they would at once discover that these apos- 
 tles do not speak of justification in the same 
 sense. v.- 
 
 In meeting the above objection, we shall 
 avail ourself, in part, of the arguments of Mr. 
 Watson in his " Institutes," using our own 
 language, or abbreviating his, as may seem ex- 
 pedient ; and unless we are much too sanguine, 
 it will be made to appear, that Campbellites, 
 on this subject, have as greatly mistaken St. 
 James as they have mistaken St. Paul. Let it 
 be remembered, that they, supposing the two
 
 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 67 
 
 apostles to speak of justification in the same 
 sense, and that St. James tells the whole truth, 
 and St. Paul only a part, endeavor to reconcile 
 . the latter to the former. 
 
 We observe then, 1. That the attempt to in- 
 terpret St. Paul by St. James involves a mani- 
 fest absurdity. The former treats professedlj^ , 
 and in a set discourse, on the subject in ques- 
 tion, the justification of sinful man before God ; 
 but the latter, if he could be allowed to treat on 
 that subject with the same design, does it but 
 incidentally. The former enters into the sub- 
 ject by copious argument, the latter barely 
 touches it, and passes on. From which it is 
 evident, that the whole truth must first be 
 sought for, and can only be expected, in the 
 writer who enters professedly and fully into 
 the inquiry. The absurdity of a contrary 
 course, will be obvious to every reader. 
 
 But, 3. The two apostles do not engage in 
 the same argument, because they are not ad- 
 dressing themselves to persons in the same cir- 
 cumstances. St. Paul, addressing the unbe- 
 lieving Jews, who sought justification by 
 obedience to the moral and ceremonial law, 
 proves, that neither Jew nor Gentile can be 
 justified by works of obedience to any law, and 
 that therefore justification, in the sense of par- 
 don, must be by faith alone. But St. James, 
 addressing such as professed Christianity, but 
 had imbibed dangerous views of the nature of 
 faith, supposing that faith, in the sense of opin- 
 ion or mere belief of doctrine, would save them,
 
 68 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 
 
 while they remained destitute of a real change 
 of heart, and holiness of life, pleads for the re- 
 novation of man's nature, and evangelical obe- 
 dience, as the necessary fruits of real or living 
 faith. St. Paul proves, that works, in whole 
 or in part, would not Jusiify ; St. James proves, 
 that a dead faith, the mere faith of assent, 
 would not save. 
 
 3. St. Paul and St. James do not use the 
 term justification in the same sense. It was 
 shown in a former number, that St. Paul uses 
 it to express the pardon of sin. But, that St. 
 James does not speak of this kind of justifica- 
 tion is evident from his reference to the case 
 of Abraham, in which we are told that the jus- 
 tification of which he speaks took place at the 
 time that Isaac was off'ered upon the altar. He 
 cannot mean that Abraham was then justified 
 in the sense of being pardoned, for St. Paul, 
 on the authority of Moses, fixes that event 
 many years previously, even before Isaac was 
 born, at the time that he believed C4od relative 
 to the promised seed, and his faith was impu- 
 ted for righteousness. It is obvious then, that 
 the justification of Abraham, mentioned by St. 
 James, does not mean the forgiveness of his 
 sins, and that he uses the term in a difi'erent 
 sense to St. Paul. And yet, Campbellites will 
 understand them as using the term in the same 
 sense, and therefore assert that Abraham was 
 not forgiven until he had offered his son upon 
 the altar ; by which, instead of reconciling the 
 two apostles, they plainly declare that the as-
 
 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 69 
 
 sertions of Moses and St. Paul are not true. — 
 Verily, this is reformation with a vengeance ! 
 4. The only sense in which St. James can 
 take the term justification, wlien he says that 
 A-braham was "justified by works, when he 
 had offered Isaac," is, that his works manifest- 
 ed or proved that he was justified, proved that 
 he was really justified by faith, or, in other 
 words, that the faith by which he was justified 
 was not dead and inoperative, but living and 
 active. If this is not his meaning — if he in- 
 tends to say that Abraham was then justified 
 in the sense of being pardoned, he direcdy 
 contradicts St. Paul, who places that event 
 twenty-five years before the offering of Isaac. 
 But, so far is St. James from contradicting St. 
 Paul's account of the time and manner of Abra- 
 ham's justification, that he clearly admits and 
 confirms it, by quoting the passage from Gen- 
 esis, in which this is said to have taken place 
 years before ; and he makes use of his works 
 when he obeyed God in offering his son upon 
 the altar, to prove that the faith, by which he 
 was originally justified, was not dead^ but liv- 
 ing and obedient. " Seest thou how faith 
 wrought with his works, and by works was 
 his faith made perfect, and the Scripture was 
 fidjilled, v/hich saith, ' Abraham believed God' 
 (in a transaction twenty-five years previous), 
 ' and it was imputed to him for righteousness,' 
 and he was called the friend of God" — James 
 ii, 22, 23. Observe here, that St. James 
 quotas the same passage, Gen. xv, 6, which St.
 
 70 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 
 
 Paul had quoted, and adds, ** and the Scripture 
 was fulfilled." — The Scripture here said to be 
 fulfilled, is the above passage from Genesis, 
 quoted by St. Paul, to prove that Abraham 
 was justified, alone, by the imputation of faith 
 for righteousness. And this Scripture, says 
 St. James, " was fulfilled," v/hen Isaac was 
 ofl'ered upon the altar. But how was it fulfill- 
 ed ? Not in the sense of being accomplished, 
 for the passage is neither typical nor prophetic, 
 but the simple narrative of a fact which trans- 
 pired twenty-five years before the fulfillment 
 spoken of. The only sense then in which the 
 term "fulfill" can be taken in this passage, is, 
 that of illustration and establishment. — -When 
 Abraham obeyed God by ofi'ering his son upon 
 the altar, he illustrated and confirmed the truth 
 of the Scripture which declared him to have 
 been justified by faith many years prior to this 
 act of obedience, and proved that the faith by 
 which he was pardoned was living and opera- 
 tive. It is thus clearly seen, that St. James 
 confirms St. Paul's position, that Abraham was 
 pardoned by faith " without works," and that 
 the justification which he mentions, is not the 
 pardon of sin, but the manifes'tation or proof 
 of being in a justified state. 
 
 5. And as St. James does not use the term 
 justification to express the forgiveness of sin, 
 when he speaks of the justification of Abraham 
 by works, it follows, that he cannot use it in 
 this sense in the general conclusion : " ye see, 
 then, how that by works a man is justified,
 
 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 71 
 
 and not by faith only." The ground on which 
 he rests this general inference is the declara- 
 tive justification of Abraham, which resulted 
 from his act of obedience in the case of Isaac ; 
 the justification of which he speaks in the con- 
 clusion of the argument, must, therefore, be 
 taken in the same sense. He is not speaking 
 of the act of being justified, or the means of 
 obtaining pardon ; but of being proved to be in 
 a manifest and Scripturally approved state of 
 justification. His argument is, that " by works" 
 a man is shown to be in a justified states that 
 his profession of being in the Divine favor is 
 justified and confirmed by his works, and not 
 only by the faith of intellectual assent which is 
 dead, and unproductive of good works." 
 
 It is now seen, that the two apostles perfectly 
 agree, in teaching justification, in the sense of 
 pardon hy faith alone; and justification, in the 
 sense of proof and confirmation, by works of 
 obedient faith. St. James declares that no man 
 can be saved by mere faith. But that he does 
 not mean the same kind and degree of faith, 
 to which St. Paul attributes a saving efficacy, 
 his argument sufiiciently proves. He speaks 
 of a faith which is '^ alone" and "dead," St. 
 Paul of the faith which is never alone, though 
 it alone justifieth ; the faith of an humbled pen- 
 itent, who not only yields speculative assent to 
 the gospel facts, but flies with confidence to the 
 atonement of Christ, for pardon of sin and de- 
 liverance from it ; the faith, in short, which is 
 the fruit of the Spirit, and which in after life,
 
 72 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 
 
 manifests itself by yielding "the peaceable fruits 
 of righteousness." 
 
 There is then no foundation for the objection; 
 the epistle of St. James gives no countenance 
 to the propagators of the doctrine of remission 
 of sins through baptism, but confirms and es- 
 tablishes St. Paul's theory of " faith without 
 works " 
 
 II. A second objection is, that justification 
 "without works," is unfavorable to morality, 
 and leads to Antinomianism. 
 
 This objection is as old as the days of St. 
 Paul. When he preached forgiveness of sins 
 "by grace," "through faith," "without 
 works," the Pharisaic Jew objected to the doc- 
 trine on the ground that it gave a license to 
 " continue in sin that grace might abound ;" 
 and the Gampbellite now, objects to it on the 
 same ground. As the answer has, in part, been 
 already given, we hope to dismiss the objec- 
 tion with a few brief remarks. 
 
 The doctrine of justification by faith alone, 
 cannot lead to licentiousness, because the faith 
 by which we are justified, is not alone in the 
 heart that exercises it. In receiving Christ, as 
 our old divines say, " faith is sola, yet not soli- 
 tariay Faith though it is the sole condition of 
 pardon, necessarily includes a " godly sorrow" 
 for sin. It is not the trust of a careless im- 
 penitent sinner, but the trust of one who sees 
 his sinfulness, and feels his danger ; of one who 
 being "slain" by the convincing power of the 
 word and spirit of God, comes to him humbly
 
 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 73 
 
 lamenting his past disobedience, and confident- 
 ly relying upon the sacrifice and mediation of 
 Christ for pardon. This being the state of 
 mind in which justifying faith is exercised ; and 
 as justification does not terminate our probation 
 and unconditionally guaranty the enjoyment of 
 eternal life, but knowing that we can only re- 
 tain our justified state, by continuing the exer- 
 cise of that faith which " works by love" and 
 produces the fruits of holy obedience, it follows, 
 that faith, as the sole condition of justification, 
 furnishes not the shadow of a pretext for con- 
 tinuing in sin. On the contrary, as it is by 
 faith alone that we apprehend and lay hold of 
 the atonement of Christ for pardon of sin, and 
 deliverance from it, this doctrine becomes ex- 
 clusively the doctrine of holiness and good 
 works. 
 
 III. But here a charge of " inconsistency" 
 is presented, as a third objection. "If repen- 
 tance," says the Campbellite, "goes before 
 pardon, it must be a part of the condition, and 
 consequently it cannot be by faith alone." 
 
 Adverting to this objection formerly we pro- 
 mised, in noticing it, to exonerate the Bible 
 method of justification from this charge of 
 " inconsistency." This pledge shall now be 
 redeemed. 
 
 Repentance necessarily precedes justification 
 — so, also, does prayer. The humble penitent 
 ought to pray, and will pray. Mr. Campbell, 
 it is true, would deprive him of this privilege, 
 but the Scriptures grant it to him, and make 
 4 G
 
 74 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 
 
 it his duty. Repentance and prayer, then, 
 necessarily go before pardon ; but they are 
 not necessary, as forming a part of the 
 condition on which God remits sin, but as pre- 
 paratory to the exercise of that condition. No 
 man can believe "with the heart unto righ- 
 teousness," until he has repented and prayed. 
 To use figurative language, repentance, though 
 not the condition of justification, is the road 
 the sinner must travel in order to arrive at that 
 condition. The following supposed case, will 
 clearly illustrate our meaning. The congress 
 of the United States pass a law requiring every 
 revolutionary soldier to sign his name, or make 
 his m_ark on the pension list, in the city of 
 Washington as the condition on which he shall 
 receive his pension. Yonder is a veteran of 
 '76, who resides 500 miles from said city, 
 which he must travel before he can perform the 
 condition. He starts and arrives at the seat of 
 government, but this does not entitle him to the 
 pension, nor is it any part of the terms on 
 which he is to receive it. His pension depends 
 on his signature alone. Thus the journey, 
 though necessary to bring him to the point 
 where he can fulfill the required condition of 
 the law, does not itself constitute any part of 
 that requirement. 
 
 Now apply this to*the case before us, and 
 the objection will disappear. God requires 
 faith, only, as the condition of pardon. But 
 the sinner is so entirely alienated, and has 
 wandered so far astray, that he cannot comply
 
 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 75 
 
 with this requirement until he return by the 
 road of repentance. But though he repent till 
 his eyes weep blood, it does not obtain his par- 
 don. It only brings him to that state of mind, 
 and to that sense of his helpless condition, 
 which prepares him for the exercise of that trust 
 in, and reliance upon the merits of a crucified 
 Savior, which justifying faith implies. No 
 man is forgiven until he believes " v/ith the 
 heart;" and no man who thus believes, can re- 
 main unforgiven. Hence, repentance, though 
 it precede justification, is only necessary to 
 prepare the mind for the exercise of the faith, 
 which alone is the condition of pardon. 
 
 Lastly, we are told that "to speak of the 
 ^existence of repentance before faith, involves the 
 absurdity of making the knowledge of sin pre- 
 cede the knowledge of law." The difficulty 
 here, is only imaginary, being predicated upon 
 a mistaken notion of the nature of that faith 
 which the Scriptures connect with justification. 
 If faith in this sense was nothing more than 
 the assent of the mind to the truth of the gospel 
 facts, as our opponents teach, then indeed, to 
 speak of repentance before faith, would be ab- 
 surd. But it was shown in a former number 
 that this view of faith is defective, and falls 
 short of the Scriptural definition. Let it suf- 
 fice for the present to observe, that the faith of 
 assent, a cordial belief of the testimony of 
 God, under the influence of divine grace, is 
 sufficient to produce serious consideration of 
 our ways, and sorrowful conviction of the evil
 
 76 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 
 
 and danger of sin ; we then turn to God with 
 contrite hearts, and earnest prayers for mercy. 
 This is called " repentance toward God ;" and 
 this prepares us for the exercise of that " faith in 
 the Lord Jesus Christ," which combines with 
 the assent of the mind, the consent of the will, 
 and the reliance of the affections, and which 
 in the economy of Heaven, is made the sole 
 condition of our pardon.
 
 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 77 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 DIVINE AGENCY— THE SPIRIT. 
 
 Campbellism rejects Divine Agency on the heart — in 
 connecting Remission with Baptism, like Roman 
 Catholicism, it contradicts Paul — it enjoins an impossi- 
 ble term of Salvation — Campbellite doctrine of Assu- 
 rance — fallacy of inferring our Acceptance from our 
 Baptism — cases Exemplifying the foregoing — Mr. C 
 quoted — Irreverent and Blasphemous language of 
 Campbellites respecting the Spirit — Scripture evidence 
 of his direct influence on the heart — assurance of God's 
 favor by the Spirit — evangelical Protestants are sub- 
 stantially agreed, on this point. 
 
 The principles previously established prove, 
 that Mr. Campbell's " ancient gospel" is not 
 quite so "ancient" as the New Testament; and 
 we did not originally design to pursue the sub- 
 ject any farther. But the dangerous tendency 
 of this theory will justify, if indeed it does not 
 require, something more ; and having many ar- 
 guments and objections in reserve, we proceed 
 to state a few of them. 
 
 Campbellism teaches that men believe the 
 gospel, "by their own efforts," "after the same 
 manner that they believe Rome to be situated 
 on the Tiber," and that " that is saving faith, 
 which purifies the heart ;" then they " reform," 
 also by their own efforts ; then they are im- 
 mersed by the efforts of another person, and 
 g2
 
 78 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 
 
 thus they become *' new creatures." This is 
 the Alpha and the Omega of the process of re- 
 generation, according to Mr. Campbell's gospel. 
 But as this system rejects all divine agency 
 upon the heart, in exciting and aiding the sin- 
 ner to turn to God, and in- the production of 
 faith, it is obviously unscriptural. " No man 
 can come unto me except the Father draw 
 him," says the Savior ; and the Scriptures tell 
 us, that " the Lord opened the heart of Lydia 
 to attend to the " things which were spoken 
 by Paul." Now, the things which Paul spoke 
 were the gospel and its requirements ; and 
 these, according to Campbellism, are all that 
 men need to induce and enable them to believe 
 and obey ; but in Lydia's case another agency 
 was necessary, the Lord had to open and influ- 
 ence her heart to attend to those things. The 
 command to pray for sinners, necessarily, pre- 
 supposes the exercise of a divine influence upon 
 their hearts ; and this influence is clearly taught 
 by St. Paul in the 3d chapter of 1st Corinthi- 
 ans : " Who then is Paul, and who is Apol- 
 los, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as 
 the Lord gave to every man." Here, the suc- 
 cess of their ministry is not ascribed to the 
 natural tendency of the words spoken, but to 
 another cause — "even as the Lord gave to eve- 
 ry man." For, continues the Apostle, *' I have 
 planted, Apollos watered ; but God gave the in- 
 crease." But how did God give the increase, 
 if all the converting power was in the Word ? 
 Paul was certainly a strong preacher, and pro-
 
 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 79 
 
 claimed the gospel with an ability not surpassed 
 by Mr. Campbell, or any of his followers. He 
 also possessed miraculous gifts and powers. 
 But neither his preaching, nor his miracles were 
 . efficacious in saving souls, and increasing the 
 church, till God sent his spirit to convince of 
 sin, and bring the sinner to the cross of the Sa- 
 vior for pardon. Thus the great Apostle of the 
 Gentiles, in his efforts to reform the world, more 
 modest than the aposdes of Campbellism, in 
 their reformation, repelled the idea that the 
 conversion of his hearers was the effect of his 
 preaching, irrespective of the influence of the 
 Holy Spirit. 
 
 In this passage a divine influence not con- 
 tained in the word preached, is represented as 
 accompanying and rendering it productive ; and 
 our Apostle in a few words, on another occa- 
 sion, demolished the notion, that saving faith is 
 exercised solely by our own efforts. In Col. ii. 
 12, the sinner is represented as being brought 
 from the condemnation of sin, "through the faith 
 of the operation of God." That faith, then, by 
 which " our old man is crucified," and through 
 which we are raised to "newness of life," 
 is " of the operation of God," and not of our 
 own unaided efforts. 
 
 But do not understand us, that God believes 
 for the sinner, or that He compels him to be- 
 lieve. Such absurdities do not disgrace our 
 creed. Man is so "far gone from original 
 righteousness" that he has not the ability of 
 himself, by his own efforts, to exercise that re-
 
 80 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 
 
 liame upon a crucified Savior, which is impli- 
 ed in believing "with the heart unto righteous- 
 ness." Hence the necessity for a divine agen- 
 cy to grant him the power to repent and believe. 
 The power to exercise faith is, therefore, the 
 "gift" and "operation of God." But the 
 grace or ability to believe, does not necessitate 
 the exercise of that ability. God gives the 
 former and holds the sinner accountable for the 
 latter. And thus, saving faith is both the gift 
 of God, and the act of the creature. 
 
 Another objection to the doctrine which in- 
 separably connects immersion with remission 
 of sins, is, that like the Catholic system, it 
 contradicts the Apostle, who says, " It is God 
 that justifieth." 
 
 The Catholic, while he nominally concedes 
 that God only can forgive sins, declares that 
 sins can only be forgiven through the agency of 
 the priest who baptizes the penitent, or the 
 priest who receives his confessions ; and the 
 Campbellite, while he disclaims all design of 
 robbing God of the glory of remitting sins, 
 proclaims that remission of sins is inseparably 
 connected with the performance of an ordi- 
 nance, a work which man has to do. But, un- 
 fortunately for their propagators, neither of 
 these schemes can be reconciled to the declara- 
 tion of the Apostle. For the confessor and the 
 baptizer, being free agents, may refuse to act, 
 in which case there could be no forgiveness, 
 and, dying in that situation, the penitent must 
 be lost in spite of the willingness of a merci-
 
 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 81 
 
 ful God to save him. Thus the Catholic priest, 
 and the Campbellite are beheld standing on the 
 same ground, teaching the traditions of men in- 
 stead of the commandments of God, and sub- 
 stantially claiming a greater agency in the jus- 
 tification of the sinner, than they concede to 
 their Maker. But St. Paul tells us plainly, 
 *' It is one God who shall justify the circum- 
 cision 5?/ /ai^A, and the uncircumcision through 
 faith.^' We prefer his opinion to both of 
 these. 
 
 Again, we object to the immersion theory 
 for pardon, on the ground that it charges Him, 
 in whom " were hid the treasures of wis- 
 dom," with the folly of having failed to suit 
 his religion to the circumstances of many for 
 whom it was intended. 
 
 Every believer in the Bible will admit that 
 Christianity is designed to be universal, and that 
 it will prevail wherever man is found. The 
 requirements of this religion must, therefore, 
 be practicable in all countries, and attainable 
 under all circumstances. Now we do not 
 question the adaptation of Christianity to all the 
 countries, and states, and conditions of men ; 
 but Mr. Campbell's views of Christianity are 
 very different. No man can be a christian with- 
 out remission of sins, and remission, according 
 to Mr. Campbell, can only be had through 
 immersion ; but immersion is neither attaina- 
 ble in all countries, nor practicable under all 
 circumstances. 
 
 In the Arctic regions, where, during two 
 4*
 
 82 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 
 
 thirds of the year, the water is all frozen, and 
 in the torrid plains of Africa and Asia where 
 the supplies of water are barely sufficient to 
 sustain life, immersion is impossible. In our 
 own land, the cold is sometimes so severe that 
 immersion is impracticable and dangerous ; and 
 sometimes, the drought prevails till the pools and 
 streams have disappeared in many parts of the 
 country, and it is rendered extremely difficult, 
 if not impossible, to find water for this cere- 
 mony. Add to this, that immersion is fre- 
 quently forbidden by the situation of the peni- 
 tent. Numerous cases of persons in delicate 
 and declining health, might be adduced. Let 
 one suffice. See that lady in the last stage of 
 consumption. Reduced to a skeleton, her 
 strength is gone, her days are numbered. Know- 
 ing that she must shortly appear before her 
 Creator, in a world of spirits, and feeling her- 
 self a sinner, every power of thought and de- 
 sire of soul is directed to Him for mercy. But 
 she has never been immersed, and now she 
 cannot be ; hence, she must die unforgiven, and 
 be eternally excluded from heaven. 
 
 We are aware, that Campbellism attempts to 
 evade this result, by supposing it possible, as 
 immersion in her case is out of the question, 
 for her to be saved without it. But this misera- 
 ble evasion amounts to a surrender of the cause 
 which it is designed to sustain. God has re- 
 vealed but one method of pardoning sin. Wher- 
 ever the gospel is preached, its terms must be 
 complied with, or there can be no remission.
 
 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 83 
 
 The case of this lady is in some sense, the 
 case of all sinners. Though she cannot be 
 immersed now she is dying, she has neglected 
 many opportunities of attending to this while in 
 health. Other sinners do no more, and incur 
 no more guilt by their neglect than she has 
 done. Therefore, to admit that she may be 
 saved without immersion, is to admit the truth, 
 that all may be saved without it. 
 
 Indeed, we cannot conceive of a greater ab- 
 surdity, than to suppose salvation possible with- 
 out immersion, and yet believe Campbellism to 
 be true. It involves the absurdity of imagining 
 the salvation of one who is " unjustilied, unad- 
 opted, unsanctified, unconverted, unregenerated, 
 not born of God," " lost to all christian life 
 and enjoyment," and destitute of " the peace 
 of God, and the hope of heaven." For this, 
 according to Mr. Campbell, is the wretched sit- 
 . nation of the unimmersed. 
 
 This system then amounts to the declaration, 
 "no immersion — no salvation." And as the 
 lady above mentioned, cannot be immersed, she 
 cannot be saved. And so with all who die in 
 those countries, at those times, and under cir- 
 
 ■ cumstances that render a resort to this mode of 
 baptism inexpedient or impossible. Let it also 
 be observed that the neglect of the baptizer, or 
 the postponement of his work for a day, or a 
 
 ■ single hour, must endanger the soul of the ap- 
 plicant, and may occasion its final ruin. A fit 
 of apoplexy or something else calls him sudden- 
 ly away ; and however deep his penitence, fer-
 
 84 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 
 
 vent his prayers, and strong his faith, he is lost, 
 because the baptizer neglected his duty. 
 
 Such are the unavoidable consequences of 
 that system which we oppose. It charges the 
 " only wise God" with the folly of having es- 
 tablished a religion, intended for universal ap- 
 plication, which can never be practiced in many 
 parts of the earth, and which is unsuited to the 
 wants and conditions of helpless man ; and it 
 involves the absurdity of making the soul's sal- 
 vation to depend upon the will of the baptizer, 
 instead of the faith of the penitent, and the 
 mercy of God. Could such a system ema- 
 nate from the Fountain of wisdom ; or is it 
 the offspring of some bewildered visionary, 
 " ignorant of the righteousness of God," and 
 laboring to " establish his own righteous- 
 ness ?" 
 
 Let us now, in contrast with Mr. Campbell's 
 substitute, look at God's plan for remission, as 
 revealed in the Scriptures, and defended in these 
 essays. 
 
 Men are sinners. The gospel finds them in 
 this condition, and the Holy Spirit convinces 
 them of it, by visiting every heart, and con- 
 necting His secret influences with the external 
 means of grace, to awaken the sinner to a sense 
 of his danger, and win his heart to God. By 
 this operation of the "good Spirit," in con- 
 junction with the Word, read or expounded, 
 conviction of the fact of sin is produced. 
 Yielding to this conviction, the sinner is brought 
 to apprehend the penalty of the law, and pain-
 
 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 85 
 
 ful anticipations of the consequences of sin fol- 
 low ; and thus he is moved by a sense of his 
 danger to look out for a remedy ; and this be- 
 ing disclosed in the same revelation, and unfold- 
 ed by the same Spirit from whose secret in- 
 fluences he has received this sense of his dan- 
 ger, he confesses his sins before God, and like 
 the publican in the temple, exclaims, " God be 
 merciful to me a sinner." And thus, as was 
 shown in our last, his penitence and prayers, 
 though not the condition of pardon, prepare his 
 mind for the exercise of that act of faith, which 
 the apostle calls believing *' with the heart f^ 
 in which he at once acknowledges his own un- 
 worthiness and helplessness, and flies with con- 
 fidence to the mercy of his offended God, pro- 
 claimed "through the redemption that is in 
 Christ Jesus." 
 
 Now, though as depraved beings, we have 
 not the natural ability thus to come to Christ 
 and believe, yet this is compensated in the fact 
 that the grace of the Holy Spirit imparts the 
 I ability to all who desire and seek it ; and hence 
 j if we are not saved the fault is wholly our own. 
 ' All who improve the grace that is given, and 
 I yield to the drawings of the Spirit, are aided 
 I and graciously excited, confidently to rely upon 
 ' the promises of God, and with a believing heart 
 j to " lay hold on the hope set before them." And 
 ! he who thus believes is not dependent on " an 
 ; arm of flesh" to take him " down into the water" 
 and obtain his pardon ; he has already obtain- 
 ed it " by grace, through faith," without bap- 
 H
 
 86 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 
 
 tism, or any other " works* of righteousness." 
 This is God's plan of justifying the ungodly; 
 a plan which manifests his grace and goodness 
 to fallen man by placing the conditions of par- 
 don within the reach of every one who hears 
 the gospel, so that no external circumstance can 
 prevent a compliance. " Whosoever Vv'ill" may 
 " come, and partake of the waters of life freely." 
 Though he be perishing amid the perpetual 
 
 * We were recently favored v.'ith the perusal of a let- 
 ter from a Campbellite teacher, in wliich it is denied that 
 the New Testament speaks of " repentance, baptism, the 
 Lord's Supper, or prayer, or praise, or preaching, or other 
 christian duties, as being works ;" and asserted that, 
 " wherever tvorks are mentioned, it is in reference to 
 something else than the gospel." Really this is something 
 we did not previously understand. We had been so igno- 
 rant as to suppose that St. Paul, when he exhorted the Co- 
 rinthians to be " always abounding in the -ivork of the 
 Lord," intended to enjoin the duties of the gospel; and that 
 the command to the church at Ephesus, "Remember, there- 
 fore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do thy' 
 first -works," did mean that they should repent or pray, 
 or perform " other christian duties." These were our 
 opinions ; and under the influence of a "purblind theolo- 
 gy," this state of ignorance might have remained, but for 
 the labors of this sapient reformer, who has discovered 
 that " to r-ork out our own salvation" does not require the 
 performance of " christian duties," but works of Jewish 
 or Turkish or Pagan requirement, for wherever the apos- 
 tles " mention works, it is in reference to something else 
 than the gospel." 
 
 To be serious: that system which for its support re- 
 quires its advocates thus to climb to the pinnacle of the 
 superlative degree of nonsense, cannot be of God. If it 
 can survive the present generation, we are much mistaken.
 
 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 87 
 
 snows of the north, or scorched by the verticnl 
 rays of an African sun, where there is no water, 
 or sick and at the point of death, 
 
 " In every condition, in sickness or health, 
 In poverty's vale, or abounding in wealth," 
 
 the penitent may comply with God's terms, be- 
 lieve with the heart, receive remission of sins, 
 and go home to glory. 
 
 It is thus seen, that the Scripture scheme of 
 justification by faith alone, displays the good- 
 ness and wisdom of God, in its admirable ad- 
 aptation to the wants and conditions of man, 
 and that it is every way worthy of its Divine 
 Author; while the immersion scheme, involves 
 so many difficulties and absurdities, and is so 
 entirely defective in meeting the wants of the 
 human family, that it is with difficulty we can 
 assign it so respectable an origin, as the imagi- 
 nations of men possessing common sense and 
 sound judgment. 
 
 An assurance, or comfortable persuasion of 
 ' regeneration and adoption is, in the New Testa- 
 ment, promised to those who receive remission 
 of sins. " Being justified by faith we have peace 
 with God." Though the blessings of regenera- 
 tion and adoption are different from each other, 
 and from justification, yet they are not to be 
 separated, because they take place at the same 
 time, and they all enter into the experience of 
 the same individual ; so that no man is justified 
 without being regenerated and adopted, and no 
 man is regenerated and made a son of God, 
 * who is not justified. And he who thus becomes
 
 88 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 
 
 " a new creature" is lurnislied with the evi- 
 dence that he is freed from condemnation. I'hus 
 " the peace of God" is inseparably connected 
 with remission of sins. A similar connection 
 obtains in Mr. Campbell's system. But as his 
 method of obtaining pardon is unauthorized by 
 Scripture, so, also, is his method of arriving at 
 a knowledge of sins forgiven. 
 
 His followers are taught to predicate an assu- 
 rance of their adoption upon the fact that they 
 have been immersed, and thereby to make im- 
 mersion the means of obtaining pardon, and the 
 principal evidence that they are pardoned. — 
 They reason thus : " If a good and solvent man 
 were to promise me a sum of money, upon the 
 condition that I performed a certain work, hav- 
 ing confidence in his honesty and ability, and 
 knowing that I had complied with the condition, 
 I would be sure of tlie reward ; and as God, 
 whose word cannot fail, has promised remission 
 of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit consequent 
 upon baptism, I know that my obedience has 
 secured my pardon and my adoption." This 
 kind of logic is in perfect cliaracter v,dth the 
 system they have embraced, and by it they at- 
 tempt to reason themselves into the belief that 
 *'all is well." Having previously shown that 
 the Scriptures do not promise remission of sins, 
 in the sense it is here understood, upon the 
 condition of baptism, we proceed to prove the 
 reasoning here adopted to be fallacious, and that 
 the conclusion drawn from it is dangerous. 
 If the above argument will hold good in the
 
 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 89 
 
 case to which it is applied, it must be equally- 
 valid in all similar cases ; consequently, as God 
 has promised '' the Holy Spirit to them that 
 asA;," and salvation to such as "c«Z/upon the 
 name of the Lord," he who has prayed is au- 
 thorized to infer, that he has the Holy Spirit 
 and is saved. But this conclusion is no where 
 warranted by the Word of God, nor can it be 
 reconciled to the experiences of christians ; for 
 though we may receive the "Holy Spirit" and 
 salvation from sin, in the act of prayer, it is 
 not true that these blessings are always receiv- 
 ed in the performance of that duty ; and hence, 
 to conclude ourselves pardoned and adopted be- 
 cause we have prayed, is wholly unjustifiable. 
 And yet, this process has more to support it, 
 than that upon which the Campbellite predi- 
 cates his confidence ; for the Scriptures present 
 prayer as having a connection with remission 
 of sins, which they no where ascribe to baptism. 
 They inform us of some, at least, who were 
 pardoned and saved without being baptized, but 
 we have yet to learn that any one ever was par- 
 doned without previous repentance and prayer. 
 The fallacy of the attempt to infer our accep- 
 tance with God from a knowledge of our bap- 
 tism, is further seen in the fact, that every bap- 
 tized individual has the same kind of evidence, 
 and on the same ground may prove himself a 
 a child of God ; a position so entirely untenable 
 that it carries its own refutation. Mr. Camp- 
 bell, indeed, is aware of this difficulty ; but in 
 attempting to guard against it, he has left the 
 h2
 
 90 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 
 
 point sufficiently vulnerable to sustain our 
 charge. After having asserted concerning the 
 apostolic age, that " no person was said to be 
 converted until he was 'immersed ; and [[that] 
 all persons who were immersed, were said to 
 be converted," and assured his followers, that 
 " when they were led down into the water, and 
 concealed in its womb," that "there their con- 
 sciences were released, and their old sins purg- 
 ed away," he anticipates the objection that his 
 doctrine would lead to the conclusion that every 
 immersed person is born of God, and tries to 
 evade it by saying, "If the immersed person 
 do not believe the gospel, he is, to speak after 
 the manner of men, still-born ; but if he believe 
 the gospel he is born of God, whenever he 
 is born of water."* Now, bear in mind, that 
 Mr. Campbell admits no higher degree of faith 
 than a historical belief of the gospel facts, just 
 as we " believe Rome to be situated on the 
 Tiber," and all who thus believe, he asserts, 
 to be " born of God when they are born of 
 water." And as every sinner in Christendom, 
 except he be a sheer infidel, believes the gospel 
 facts, it follows according to Mr. Campbell's 
 own showing, that every immersed individual, 
 unless he contemn the Bible, and for some sin- 
 ister design act the part of a base and consci- 
 ous hypocrite, has evidence that he is born of 
 
 * These quotations, made from memory from Mr. C/s 
 " Millennial Harbinger," may not be verbatim, but they 
 are substantially correct.
 
 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 91 
 
 God, and adopted into his family. Such is the 
 conclusion. 
 
 But this is equally repugnant to gospel facts, 
 and to facts of every day occurrence. Simon, 
 the sorcerer, " believed (the gospel facts no 
 doubt) and was baptized," but remained " in 
 the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of in- 
 iquity ;" and, alas ! had he lived to the present 
 day, how many might he have found to keep 
 him in countenance ! It is painful to reflect that 
 numbers with a historic belief (which Simon 
 certainly had) have been led down into the 
 water, and " intelligently" and with the " full 
 faith" of A. Campbell, immersed for remission 
 of sins, who came out of the water, as they 
 went into it, unpardoned sinners, and whose 
 works have, ever since, declared them to be 
 destitute of the "washing of regeneration" and 
 the " renewing of the Holy Ghost." 
 
 In presenting this difficulty we were once ad- 
 monished by an opponent, to look at home, and 
 remember that the members of our own denom- 
 ination sometimes fail to yield the fruits of the 
 Spirit. This is a lamentable truth; and one 
 which we neither deny, nor attempt to extenu- 
 ate ; but the cases are entirely dissimilar. We 
 have no " institution" which enables us to pro- 
 nounce to a certainty that the sins of our mem- 
 bers " are purged away." Content to stand 
 on gospel principles, we tell men " to examine 
 themselves," and then we judge of them " by 
 their fruits ;" but Mr. Campbell has assumed a 
 different ground. He has "discovered" among
 
 92 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 
 
 " the rubbish of human traditions, an institution 
 inseparably connected with remission of sins, 
 like which there was no institution since the 
 world began ;" and this, he tells us, " is chris- 
 tian immersion, sometimes called conversion." 
 In this, then, he claims an infallible rule, which 
 enables him to pronounce all his members (hy- 
 pocritical infidels excepted) really converted ; 
 and by which every immersed person may know 
 of a truth, that he is an adopted child of God. 
 But Campbellites and the world do know, that 
 multitudes, who, in all probability, cordially 
 believed the gospel facts, and were immersed 
 for remission, have no more of Christianity than 
 the name. Therefore, this rule will not apply 
 to all ; and of course it is good for nothing. 
 
 Some of our opponents here make another ef- 
 fort to escape, by asserting that they, like us, 
 believe in the possibility of apostatizing from 
 the favor of God. But this effort, is, also, abor- 
 tive. " If any man have not the spirit of Christ," 
 he cannot lose it ; and he who has that spirit 
 will manifest it by its fruits, as pointed out by 
 the apostle. But many of the immersed, so far 
 from having shown any of the fruits of the 
 Spirit, by a pious walk, have ever continued a 
 notorious indulgence in the " works of the 
 flesh ;" and hence, as they never possessed the 
 grace or favor of God, in the sense of pardon, 
 they could not have lost it. By way of con 
 iirmation, take the following statements : 
 
 During the prevalence of cholera in Kentucky, I o( 
 when the water mania was at its zenith, the I ii
 
 CAMtBELLISM EXPOSED. 93 
 
 Campbellite teachers labored to convince the 
 people that the Almighty was angry with them 
 because they were disobedient, and that he 
 would speedily destroy them, unless they sub- 
 mitted to be immersed. Tliese assertions were 
 received and believed, and hence hundreds of 
 poor deluded sinners, instead of humbling them- 
 selves before God, " with fasting, and with 
 weeping, and with mourning," fled for refuge 
 to the water, and there, by making " one low 
 bow," expected to obtain salvation. This act 
 sufficiently proved their sincerity. But how 
 few of them have since manifested more of the 
 "fruits of the Spirit," than are seen in the char- 
 acter of the unbaptized Mussulman ? A case 
 in point. A young man, who during that time 
 was immersed for remission, was guilty of pro- 
 fane swearing a few hours after his baptism ; 
 the same week, was seen in a state of intoxica- 
 tion, and continued a course of intemperance 
 till it sent his soul to eternity. Now it is next 
 to an impossibility to believe, that any one in 
 his situation, expecting every day to be called 
 to a world of spirits by the dreaded epidemic, 
 could be immersed from hypocritical or dis- 
 honest motives. He certainly believed the gospel 
 facts as developed by his teacher, had all the 
 faith Mr. Campbell requires ; and if immersion 
 is, to any man, proof of his being a child of 
 God, it was this to him ; but he continued to 
 " live after the flesh," and showed the spirit 
 of " the wicked one," even from the hour of 
 his baptism. 
 
 m.
 
 94 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 
 
 Another case. In the county of B— , in 
 
 this state, two men, whom we will call A and 
 B, conversing about Mr. Campbell and his ibl- 
 lowei-s, A declared that he would join them the 
 next Sabbath. This was questioned by B, and 
 finally the sum of five dollars was staked upon 
 the issue. Sabbath came, and A presented him- 
 self as a candidate for the saving ordinance. 
 B was also present, and informed the baptizer 
 of the pending wager. But as A averred his 
 belief of the gospel facts, and demanded bap- 
 tism for remission of sins, the ceremony pro- 
 ceeded, and B lost his money.* This man, 
 though he honestly believed the gospel facts, 
 could not have been pardoned ; for he not only 
 regarded "iniquity in his heart," but was im- 
 mersed with the design of putting the " wages 
 of sin" into his pocket: and yet he can plead 
 his baptism in evidence of his pardon, Vv^ith as 
 much confidence as any other Campbellite. 
 
 It is presumable that all, who, upon being 
 sincerely awakened by the spirit of C4od, fly to 
 the water for relief, learn by sad experience the 
 folio v/ing truth : 
 
 " Nor running brook, nor flood, nor sea, 
 Can wash the dismal stain away." 
 
 At any rate, we have had information of some, 
 who after their baptism declared in the plainest 
 
 * Neither this, nor the case before named came under 
 the immediate notice of the writer ; but he received both 
 from sources which he considers unquestionable.
 
 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 95 
 
 manner that they had been duped, and wofuUy 
 disappomted. 
 
 The following circumstance, of which we 
 were recently informed, is in point. A gentle- 
 man not far from Cincinnati, who was deeply 
 penitent, upon hearing a proclamation of Mr. 
 Campbell's gospel, believed the report, and re- 
 joicing to find so easy a road to heaven, was 
 immersed, with full confidence of obtaining re- 
 lief from a guilty conscience. But, alas ! instead 
 of the anticipated " peace and joy," he felt, 
 as one on a similar occasion expressed himself, 
 nothing but the cold water. Being sadly de- 
 ceived in the effects of the operation, he did not 
 conceal it from his brethren ; and they, suppos- 
 ing, perhaps, that there had been something 
 defective in the work, advised liim to try it 
 again ; but not relishing the proposal, and being 
 disgusted with such mummery, he concluded 
 Christianity to be a mere cheat, and by turning 
 infidel, succeeded for a time in stifling his con- 
 victions. In this condition he went to a camp 
 meeting, where the word preached, again reach- 
 ing his heart, he sought the Lord according to 
 his Word, by repentance and prayer, and 
 learned by joyful experience, that God has 
 power to forgive sins, " by grace" " through 
 faith," wdthout one drop of water. 
 
 Other circumstances and cases, in character 
 similar to those above mentioned, might be ad- 
 duced ; but we forbear. The observant reader, 
 familiar with the practical operations of Camp- 
 bellism, needs neither arguments nor facts to
 
 96 CAPJPBELLISM EXPOSED. 
 
 convince him of the absurdity of the attempt to 
 prove that an individual is regenerated because 
 he is baptized. Having seen the entire faihire 
 of a burial in water to produce holiness of life, 
 he is prepared to smile at the delusion, and to 
 pity the condition of all who rely upon it. 
 
 But lest some should suppose our coloring 
 too high, and imagine that Mr. Campbell does 
 not make baptism so important as we represent, 
 we give another quotation from his writings. 
 In the " Debate with M'Calla," as published 
 by Mr. Campbell, he tells us that God " ap- 
 pointed baptism to be to everyone that believed 
 the record he has given of his Son, a formal 
 pledge on his part of that believer's personal 
 acquittal or pardon ; so significant and so ex- 
 pressive, that when the baptized believer rises 
 out of the water, is born oftcaie'-, enters the 
 world the second time, he enters it as innocenty 
 as clean, as unspotted as an angel. His con- 
 science is purged from guilt, his body is wash- 
 ed with pure water, even the "washing of re- 
 generation." Here the Campbellite is taught 
 by his leader, that baptism is a formal pledge 
 of his pardon, and that he rose from the water 
 as holy as an angel. And certainly, from 
 such a beginning, we are authorized to expect a 
 life of corresponding holiness. But many who 
 thus "entered the world from the womb of 
 waters," " as innocent, as clean, as unspotted 
 as angels," really appear the " worse for mend- 
 ing." Alas, for Christianity ! 
 
 The cases mentioned of the entire failure of
 
 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 97 
 
 the " regenerating bath" to make practical 
 christians, were not adduced to wound the feel- 
 ings of our opponents. To sport with the feel- 
 ings of any man, or wantonly to oiTend one of 
 the " little ones" of God's family, forms no part 
 of our design in writing these essays. That 
 some whose heads have been bewildered by 
 Campbell's dogmas, are sincere christians, we 
 neither doubt, nor wish to doubt; but we, ne- 
 vertheless, firmly believe that those dogmas 
 never did make a christian, and never can make 
 one. And, hence, without the least desire to 
 reproach the pious of that sect, by charging 
 them with the sins of tlieir brethren, we felt it 
 our duty, in opposing a dangerous departure 
 from " the faith once delivered to the saints," to 
 test its truth by inspecting its practical effects. 
 This course seemed the more justifiable from 
 the consideration that the system we oppose 
 teaches men to consider themselves justified and 
 sanctified because they have been baptized. To 
 show the insufficiency of this kind of evidence, 
 the circumstances referred to above, were intro- 
 duced, and we still look upon them as proof of 
 the strongest character. For certainly, if one 
 individual who with Mr. Campbell's " full 
 faith" received baptism for remission of sins, 
 has manifested himself to be still in the " gall 
 of bitterness," it shows to ocular demonstra- 
 tion that baptism does not afford evidence of a 
 justified state ; and if one case is proof so deci- 
 sive, who can resist the accumulated testimony 
 of the fact, that numbers, perhaps a large ma- 
 5 I
 
 98 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 
 
 jority, who were thus " washed" have, by 
 continuing ''to wallow in the mire of sin,'* 
 manifested a total destitution of the christian 
 graces ? 
 
 That Mr. Campbell authorizes his followers 
 to consider themselves the adopted sons of God 
 because they have been baptized, was shown al- 
 ready; and that they take him at his word, and re- 
 ly upon his instructions, is clearly seen in their 
 words and actions. When one of their teachers 
 was asked for his experience, he replied, " I 
 believed and was immersed, and this is all the 
 experience I have, or desire to have." Another 
 informed his hearers, that if they believed the 
 Bible and would let him immerse them, he 
 would ensure them the enjoyment of heaven ; 
 that he would plead their cause in the day of 
 judgment, by stating that they had believed and 
 obeyed, and therefore must be admitted ; and 
 from the pulpit we have frequently heard the fol- 
 lowing argument, if argument it may be called : 
 "Men may be happy and have good feelings 
 in imagining their sins forgiven, but it is all 
 delusion ; the immersed, and they only, have a 
 knowledge of forgiveness, satisfactory and cer- 
 tain. Suppose a criminal under sentence of 
 death, sues for a reprieve, which is granted upon 
 condition that he depart from the state within 
 ten days ; he may have the reprieve in his pos- 
 session, with the governor's signature, and 
 might therefore imagine himself secure, but it 
 is certain he is not pardoned until he pass the 
 boundary of the state. So it is with the sinner,
 
 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 99 
 
 who is promised a pardon upon the condition 
 of a ' believing immersion.' As soon as he is 
 immersed, he has evidence of forgiveness ; and 
 until then, whatever may be his feelings, or 
 his hopes, they are delusive, and he is under 
 condemnation. But when he has obeyed, he is 
 assured of his pardon — not a doubt remains — 
 he may rejoice evermore." 
 
 Now from the above it is clear, that the 
 Campbellite is taught to view his baptism as 
 evidence of his regeneration and pardon ; a doc- 
 trine wholly unknown to the New Testament, 
 and as dangerous as it is unscriptural.^ It is true, 
 the Scriptures teach that the christian need not 
 walk in darkness, or remain destitute of a 
 knowledge of sins forgiven ; but their method 
 of obtaining this knowledge, and their revela- 
 tions of its nature, are as far removed from the 
 teachings of A. Campbell, as light from dark- 
 ness. For while he would predicate this know- 
 ledge upon the evidence of our baptism, the 
 Scriptures refer it to the witness of the Spirit, 
 " sent forth into our hearts crving, Abba, Fa- 
 ther." 
 
 But here we touch a key whose sound is pro- 
 bably as grating to the feelings of our oppo- 
 nents as the most horrid jargon to the refined 
 and sensitive musician ; for though Mr. Camp- 
 bell admits that the christian must possess " the 
 spirit of Christ," it is much doubted whether 
 he or his followers believe the Holy Spirit to 
 have any such influence upon the souls of men 
 as christians consider the Bible to teach. In
 
 100 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 
 
 the Campbeilite vocabulary, the Spmt, as con- 
 cerned in our salvation, means either the writ- 
 ten Word, or a disposition of mind consistent 
 with the christian profession. From the earli- 
 est dawnings of this yiew gospel, its propagators 
 have manifested a disposition to play off their 
 irony and ridicule against the idea of the love 
 of God being shed abroad in the heart "by the 
 Holy Ghost which is given unto us." One of 
 their most popular leaders in this state, was 
 formerly in the habit, in his public harangues, 
 of classing this doctrine v/ith the ghost and witch 
 stories of a credulous and superstitious age, and 
 of inquiring with a satirical sneer, of those who 
 profess to have received the Holy Spirit, " How 
 did you get it ? Where did it enter into you ? 
 At the head, or the feet, or under tiic fifth rib, 
 or where V Another of the same school, and 
 in the same strain, has been heard to ask, 
 " Granting that you are possessed of a Spirit, 
 iiow do you know but that it is the spirit of the 
 devil ?" And others with equal recklessness 
 of consequences and disregard of the teachings 
 of Scripture, have said, " While the orthodox 
 talk of having the Spirit in their hearts, we are 
 content to carry it in our pockets.''^ 
 
 That the above, or similar irreverent and 
 blasphemous expressions, have been used by 
 the popular teachers of Campbellisra, is sus- 
 ceptible of abundant proof; and though Mr. 
 Campbell may never have used them, they arc 
 certainly the natural consequences of his sys- 
 tem. The positions assumed in his system,
 
 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 101 
 
 and some of the arguments advanced for its sup- 
 port, are so much like those resorted to by the 
 opposers of revealed religion, that the utmost 
 we can expect as a general result, of those who 
 embrace it is, that they have a " form of godli- 
 ness," while they deny " the power." 
 
 The influence of the Holy Spirit upon the 
 heart, is one of the doctrines of Christianity 
 against which deism, under the names of natu- 
 ral and rational religion, has urged its niost 
 strenuous objections; and the teachings of Mr. 
 Campbell and his followers, on this subject, are 
 well calculated to keep these objections in 
 countenance. In addition to the assumption, 
 stated formerly, that man does not need the as- 
 sistance of the Spirit, to induce, or to enable 
 him to turn to God, Campbellism tells us, that 
 such an influence is impossible ; that we can 
 receive no ideas or impressions except through 
 the medium of the senses ; and as the eye can- 
 not see nor the ear hear the influence which the 
 Spirit is said to exercise, it is, therefore, argued 
 that the idea of such an intercourse is only a 
 whim of the imagination. It is true, this ar- 
 gument is adduced to oppose the doctrine that 
 .sinners are aided and excited by the Spirit, to 
 repent and believe the gospel ; but it is equally 
 opposed to the doctrine of the witness of the 
 Spirit with the spirit of the believer, and, also, 
 as Mr. Waterman has shown, to the fact of the 
 miraculous gift of tongues on the day of Pente- 
 cost. Indeed, to admit the above argument, 
 and carry it out to its legitimate results, would 
 I 2
 
 102 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 
 
 be to reduce Christianity to a mere system of 
 ethics, differing but little from the moral codes 
 of heathen philosophy, except in its external 
 rites and ceremonies. 
 
 But we do not admit it. It is assertion, and 
 not proof. It never has been proved, nor can 
 it ever be, that there is any thing impossible in 
 the intercourse of the Spirit of God with the 
 spirits of men. Cannot that Being who made 
 us, who is himself a pure spirit, have immedi- 
 ate access to our spirits, so as to influence our 
 thoughts, affections, and wills, without either 
 words or signs ? To admit the possibility of 
 this, is certainly far more reasonable, than to 
 deny it. Before such an influence can be proved 
 to be impossible, the objector must thoroughly 
 understand the laws of perception, memory^ 
 and association, which is more, we believe, 
 than any philosopher, however deep his re- 
 searches into the causes of the phenomena of 
 mind, ever pretended to know. It is readily 
 admitted that when men suggest thoughts, or 
 influence the minds of other men, they must 
 do it through the medim of words or signs. But 
 to suppose these the only means by which this 
 can be effected, is to found an objection wholly 
 upon our ignorance. To argue, because we 
 cannot do this, that, therefore, God cannot, and 
 to deny with the Campbellite the possibility of 
 this divine intercourse and influence with our 
 spirits and upon our hearts, is to reduce the 
 Almighty down to our finite minds and limited 
 understandings ; to imagine him " altogether
 
 CAMPBELLI3M EXPOSED. 103 
 
 such a one as ourselves;" and to reject some 
 of the most positive declarations and comforting 
 promises of the gospel. 
 
 Some remarks were introduced in the last 
 paragraph to show that an intercourse of the 
 Spirit of God vv'ith our spirits, is not impossible. 
 But why contend for the possibility of that which 
 is clearly taught in that book, which our op- 
 ponents profess to receive as the Word of God ? 
 In the Scriptures, which form the only sufficient 
 rule both of our faith and practice, and become 
 the arbiter in all controversies involving chris- 
 tian principles, the whole work of salvation in 
 the soul is represented as being wrought by the 
 Holy Spirit. We understand the Bible in this 
 light, and believe that common sense and fair 
 criticism can view it in no other. Few things 
 seem more plainly taught in the Scriptures, than 
 the doctrine of the operations of the Spirit, in 
 convincing the sinner of sin, and in comforting 
 the believer. 
 
 Before the flood, the Holy Spirit is represent- 
 ed as striving with the antediluvians, to bring 
 them to repentance, of whom the Almighty de- 
 clared, " My Spirit shall not always strive with 
 man." To sustain his system, Mr. Campbell 
 tells us that the " Spirit," here, only means 
 the preaching of Noah. But this, again, is as- 
 sertion without proof. God says it was his 
 Spirit ; Mr. Campbell says, it was Noah's 
 preaching. The reader will be at no loss which 
 to believe. 
 
 Under the law the wicked are said to "grieve,'*
 
 104 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 
 
 and to " resist the Holy Ghost," which certain- 
 ly implies that it then strove with them. Here 
 we are again told, that to resist the Spirit means 
 only to resist the JVord. But once for all, we 
 remark, that this assertion in the absence of all 
 proof, and contrary to the plain letter of Scrip- 
 ture, comes witli very ill grace from those who 
 so frequently tell us, that " the Scriptures mean 
 what they say." 
 
 In reference to the gospel dispensation, we 
 are taught in the New Testament, that the 
 work of the Spirit is to reprove the sinner and 
 bring him back to God, as well as to comfort 
 and sustain the christian. That the Spirit con- 
 vinces of sin, is obvious from numerous pas- 
 sages and arguments in the discourses of our 
 Lord, and in the writings of the apostles. Be- 
 fore his crucifixion, the Savior promised to send 
 " the Comforter, even the Spirit of truth," to 
 abide with his followers for ever, and to " re- 
 prove the world of sin." On this passage we 
 observe, 1st. This cannot mean the Spirit in 
 its miraculous gifts, for that was given for a 
 time only, but the Spirit here promised is to 
 *' abide for ever;" and, 2nd. The work and 
 influences of the Spirit as here pointed out, can- 
 not be restricted to the christian, because a part 
 of that work is to " reprove the world of sin, 
 because they believe not;" and as "he that be- 
 lieveth not is condemned already," consequent- 
 ly the person thus reproved is no christian. It 
 is true that the Savior declared the world could 
 not receive the Comforter, and this is urged by
 
 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 105 
 
 Campbellites in proof of their notion that the 
 Spirit has nothing to do with the sinner. But 
 the effort is certainly a failure. We readily 
 concede, that a worldly minded sinner cannot 
 receive the Spirit as a comforter, for it is " be- 
 cause ye are sons" that " God hath sent forth 
 the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, 
 Abba, Father ;" but this by no means proves that 
 the sinner cannot be reproved by the Spirit. 
 Indeed, one of his offices, developed in the text 
 before us, is to " reprove the world of sin." In 
 doing which he must operate upon the hearts 
 of sinners ; and when they open the door and 
 let him in, they being no longer of " the world," 
 receive him as a comforter. 
 
 We are wandering from our main object by 
 enlarging upon a point v/hich we intended bare- 
 ly to touch, but having engaged in it we shall 
 take the liberty to introduce another argument. 
 The Savior is represented in Scripture, as " the 
 Sun of Righteousness," the illuminator of man. 
 This may be said, chiefly with reference to the 
 gospel as published to the Vv^orld ; but the idea 
 is sometimes used in a sense so comprehensive, 
 thaLwe must travel beyond the circulation of 
 the gospel. to find its application. St. John 
 speaks of Christ as "the true light, which 
 ligkteth every man that cometh into the world." 
 Now, a large portion that come "into the world" 
 are not only sinners, but pagans and barbarians, 
 destitute of the knov/ledge contained in the 
 written Word; but still Christ "lighteththem," 
 which he must do by his Spirit, convincing 
 5*
 
 108 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 
 
 them of sin, and giving them some knowledge 
 of good and evil. Under whatever restrictions 
 and limitations the phrase " all men" may at 
 times be used, they cannot, according to the 
 genius of language, apply to the phrase before 
 us, " every man." By saying every man in 
 Kentucky, we necessarily include the whole of 
 the inhabitants of the state ; and so " every 
 man that cometh into the world" must mean 
 all, without exception, that ever did, or ever 
 will inhabit the world. Hence, in order to find 
 one man who is and ever has been destitute of 
 the reproofs and strivings of the Spirit of Christ, 
 we must go to some other planet. He never 
 came into the world, and consequently, cannot 
 be found among the children of men on the 
 earth. 
 
 Having now seen that the doctrine of the 
 operation of the Spirit upon the heart of the 
 sinner, is authenticated by the Word of infal- 
 lible inspiration, we resume the consideration 
 of the believer's evidence, that he is freed from 
 *' condemnation." 
 
 That it is the privilege of the child of God 
 to have an assurance of his favor, sufficient to 
 impart substantial comfort, few christians will 
 deny. If then, being "by nature children of 
 wrath," it is possible for us to become " new 
 creatures," and to enjoy satisfactory evidence 
 that " we have passed from death unto life," 
 it deeply concerns us to know what that evi- 
 dence is, and upon what it is predicated. And 
 having seen that the Campbellite's evidence,
 
 GAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 107 
 
 immersion, will not suffice, even to hang a hope 
 upon, we turn to the New Testament, and ex- 
 amine the case by the principles we may there 
 find. 
 
 In addition to the Savior's promise of " the 
 Comforter" to abide with his followers, the 
 New Testament informs us that God *' dwells 
 in them," that they are " born of the Spirit," 
 "ledby the Spirit," "justified and sanctified by 
 the Spirit," and " sealed" by the same Spirit, 
 "unto the day of redemption." If then, the 
 situation of the christian be such as to warrant 
 the application of the above phrases to him, it 
 is certainly reasonable to suppose that he does 
 not remain ignorant of the fact, that he has 
 passed " from darkness to light ;" and what we 
 here suppose reasonable, is abundantly estab- 
 lished by Scripture testimony. " There is now 
 no condemnation to them that are in Christ 
 Jesus." " Examine yourselves, whether ye be 
 in the faith." " If we say v/e have fellowship 
 with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do 
 not the truth." " He that belie veth on the Son 
 of God hath the witness in himself." So says 
 the Book. And when we inquire, what is the 
 " witness" which the believer has " in him- 
 self?" the same volume furnishes a definite 
 answer. " As many as are led by the Spirit 
 of God, they are the sons of God. For ye 
 have not received the spirit of bondage again 
 to fear, but the Spirit of adoption, whereby we 
 cry Abba, Father. The Spirit itself beareth 
 witness with our spirit, that we are the child-
 
 108 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 
 
 ren of God." Rom. viii, 14, 16. In this pas- 
 sage it is clear, that, " the Spirit of God," men- 
 tioned in the 14th verse, and " the Spirit" 
 which *'beareth witness," in the 16th, are the 
 same ; consequently, " the witness" which the 
 believer has " in himself," is " the Spirit of 
 God." 
 
 If there remain a doubt relative to the cor- 
 rectness of this conclusion, the qualifying term 
 "zY.se//*," seems sufficient to remove it. " The 
 Spirit ITSELF beareth witness with our spirit." 
 This language is so emphatic and unequivocal, 
 that it would be difficult to find anything more 
 clear and definite. Suppose the apostle had 
 said, " The water of baptism itself bears wit- 
 ness of our son-ship." Would any Campbel- 
 lite doubt his meaning ? No. The text would 
 then be urged, and very properly too, as proof 
 decisive, in his favor. But as it stands, it is 
 equally decisive against him. The Holy Ghost 
 himself, and neither our baptism nor our pray- 
 ers, is declared to witness our adoption. How 
 the honest, intelligent Campbellite, with this, 
 and numerous corroborating passages before 
 him, can sneer at this kind of evidence, and as- 
 sert that he has in his baptism an evidence of 
 his pardon that would be taken in any court of 
 justice, forms a problem we are not able to 
 solve. 
 
 The view we have taken of the above pas- 
 sages, in connection with the spirit and letter 
 of other parts of the Sacred Volume, has been 
 received by most divines of eminence, fronii
 
 CA5IPBELL1SM EXPOSED. lOd 
 
 Luther and Calvin, down to John Wesley, and 
 to the pres-ent day. Indeed we cannot see how 
 any man with proper views of the Scriptures, 
 of protestantism, and of experimental and prac- 
 tical religion, can question the doctrine of as- 
 surance, by the witness of the Spirit. We are 
 aware, hov/ever, that some difference of opin- 
 ion has obtained among evangelical divines, re- 
 lative to the method of arriving at this assur- 
 ance ; some having concluded that we obtain it 
 by inference, others, by the direct testimony 
 of the Holy Spirit to the mind. But this dif- 
 ference exists in appearance, more than in real- 
 ity ; neither of the opinions militates against 
 the doctrine itself, and when carried out, they 
 result substantially, in the same conclusion. 
 Those who contend for the direct testimony 
 of the Spirit, include the corroborating evidence 
 of itiference ; and those who plead for the in- 
 ferential testimony, reasoning from effect to 
 cause, cannot but admit the direct witness of 
 the Spirit. None of the divines of this latter 
 class^ conceive a bare reformation of conduct to 
 be sufficient ground for the inference that we 
 are justified ; they all contend for a change of 
 heart, concomitant wdth justification, for a re- 
 newal of mind, and the existence of the hallow- 
 ed affections of love, peace and joy ^ and that 
 this change, in all its parts, is eifected by the 
 direct agency of the Holy Spirit. We there- 
 fore conclude, that so far as our present inquiry 
 is concerned, there is no essential difference 
 between the two opinions ; each involves th$ 
 K
 
 1 10 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 
 
 witness of the Spirit ; and hence we repeat, that 
 the leading divines of the reformed churches, 
 have ever considered the Scriptures as teaching, 
 that the believer is assured by the Spirit of God, 
 of his adoption. And shall we reject the con- 
 curring opinions of so many great and good men 
 of different ages and sects, founded upon the 
 principles and declarations of the New Testa- 
 ment, for the ijise dixit of the self-styled Re- 
 former of Bethany ? Shall we at his command, 
 surrender the witness of the Spirit, as taught 
 in the Scriptures, for the soul-destroying, papal 
 notion of baptismal regeneration and adoption ? 
 God forbid. 
 
 The believer's evidence of his pardon is still 
 before us. The conclusion at which we arrived, 
 though evidently taught by the letter of the tes- 
 timony of God, and commonly received among 
 christians, is rejected by the Campbellite, upon 
 the ground, that to expect a knowledge of the 
 forgiveness of sins by the witness of the Spirit, 
 subjects us to the charge of mysticism and en- 
 thusiasm. If by this we are to understand that 
 the mode of operation by which the Divine 
 Spirit communicates this knowledge to our 
 spirits, is mysterious and incomprehensible, we 
 plead guilty, and take shelter behind the Savior, 
 who, in his conversation with Nicodemus, il- 
 lustrated this subject, by alluding to the myste- 
 rious operation of the wind ; but if this is in- 
 tended to brand us with trusting to feelings and 
 impressions, unauthorised by the Word of God, 
 or with relying upon an evidence that, from its
 
 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. Ill 
 
 mysterious nature, is uncertain and unsatisfac- 
 tory to him who has it, we deny the charge, and 
 stand prepared to detect its fallacy. 
 
 " But how do you know," says the Camp- 
 bellite, *' that the Spirit which persuades you 
 that you are a child of God, is not the spirit of 
 the devil ?" To this question, Mr. Wesley has 
 furnished an appropriate answer. " Even by 
 the testimony of my own spirit, ' by the answer 
 of a good conscience toward God.' Hereby 
 you may know that you are in no delusion, that 
 you have not deceived your own soul. The 
 immediate fruits of the Spirit, ruling in the 
 heart, are love, joy, peace, bowels of mercies, 
 humbleness of mind, meekness, gentleness, 
 long-suffering. And the outward fruits are, the 
 doing good to all men, and a uniform obedience 
 to all the commands of God." Thus, the cor- 
 roborating testimony of our own spirit, with 
 which the Spirit of God bears witness, proves 
 that the Spirit which assures us of our adoption, 
 is the "good Spirit," for he alone can fill the 
 heart with love to God^ peace in the Lord Jesus 
 Christ, mid joy in the Holy Ghost ; and hence, 
 we have two witnesses to the sam.e fact, produ- 
 cing a consciousness of pardon, which, to the in- 
 dividual himself, is the strongest kind of evidence. 
 "But in this," continues the objector, "you 
 make your feelings the evidence of your pardon ; 
 and they are too fluctuating, and under the 
 influence of too many external circumstances, 
 to be a safe criterion." It is admitted, that we 
 do, in part, resort to our feelings to determine
 
 112 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 
 
 this matter ; and we expect to do so as long as 
 we can find such respectable authority as the 
 infallible oracles of God to justify us. No man 
 on Scriptural principles, nor even the Camp- 
 belUte on his ov/n unscriptural principles, can 
 persuade himself of the remission of his sins, 
 without recourse to his feelings ; for after all his 
 parade about immersion, as being evidence of 
 pardon, that would be received by any judge or 
 jury, he does not pretend that it will be of any 
 avail, unless received in faith. But how does 
 he know that he has faith, but by his feelings, 
 his consciousness ? It is thus seen, that a resort 
 to our feelings is unavoidable, even on Mr. 
 Campbell's scheme. Still he professes to discard 
 this kind of evidence, and hfs followers are ever 
 ready to make themselves merry at the expense 
 of those who receive it ; we therefore repeat, 
 that no man can have an assurance that God has 
 pardoned him, without appealing to his feelings. 
 If the Scriptures do not bring us to this conclu- 
 sion, and warrant such an appeal, they teach 
 nothing, they prove nothing. "We know,'* 
 Bays St. John, " that we have passed from death 
 unto life, because we love the brethren." Can 
 love exist where there is no feeling ? Are not 
 our feelings the only means by which we become 
 conscious of its existence ? Again, St. Paul says, 
 that *' the kingdom of God is righteousness, and 
 peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost." Can the - 
 "peace of God" abide in us, and we remain 
 imconscious of it? Can we have "joy in the 
 Holy Ghost," and be destitute of feeling ? Cer-
 
 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 113 
 
 tainly not. Joy cannot exist in the absence of 
 feeling. And as the kingdom of God consists 
 of " peace and joy," it follows that the religion 
 of Christ manifests itself to our feelings ; and 
 hence, if our opponents have discovered a reli- 
 gion, or a kingdom, from which these holy af- 
 fections are excluded, it is a misnomer to call 
 it the religion of the Bible, or the kingdom of 
 God. They may, as suits their fancy, call it 
 the religion of A. Campbell, or the kingdom of 
 water, and locate it on some island ; we shall 
 neither give it a "local habitation nor a name," 
 but rest contentwith entreating them not to insult 
 the Majesty of heaven, so far as to call a thing by 
 his name, which is directly opposed to his Word. 
 It is admitted that our feelings could not be 
 relied upon in determining this matter, if we 
 had no authority to appeal to them, and no 
 standard to try them by. But the Scriptures 
 furnish both the authority and the standard. 
 The fruits of the Spirit, mentioned by the 
 apostle, are, " love, joy, peace, gentleness, good- 
 ness, meekness, faith, temperance." Among 
 the fruits here enumerated, we find affections, 
 as well as principles and morals ; love, joy and 
 peace, as well as gentleyiess, goodness, and 
 temperance. And while the latter are mani- 
 fested to others in our conduct, the former are 
 made known to ourselves in our feelings. To 
 be more definite. The question at issue is, 
 ** Am I a child of God ?" The Scriptures pro- 
 nounce, " as many as are led by the Spirit of 
 God," to be " the sons of God." My next in- 
 k2
 
 114 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 
 
 quiry then is, " Have I the Spirit of God ?" 
 To determine this, I examine for the "fiiiits of 
 the Spirit," as pointed out in the Scriptures, 
 and find among them, " love, joy, and peace." 
 My next object, is, to determine whether I have 
 these affections ; and in order to this, I must 
 have recourse to my feelings ; for by them alone 
 can I decide. They tell me that I "love the 
 brethren," have " peace with God," and possess 
 "joy in the Holy Ghost;" and the Bible tells 
 me that this love, peace, and joy, are the fruits 
 of the Spirit's agency, as the Comforter, the 
 Spirit of adoption, and that they spring alone 
 from that source. Thus it is clear, that irre- 
 spective of my feelings, I can have no knowl- 
 edge of the forgiveness of sins ; and that they, 
 when brought to the standard of Scripture, fur- 
 nish the most conclusive evidence, that the 
 Spirit which bears witness with my spirit, is 
 the " Spirit of God." Any evidence short of 
 this, whether predicated upon immersion or 
 confession, the Scriptures do not sanction. 
 That peace of which we are insensible, cannot 
 be possessed ; love and joy unknown to our 
 feelings, can have no existence. 
 
 And yet every Campbellite is taught not only 
 to reject, but to ridicule the idea of a feeling 
 sense of the pardoning love of God by the luit- 
 ness of the Spirit. It is one of their most 
 popular topics, one on which they seem to dvreil 
 with great delight. In ridiculing those who 
 rely on this kind of evidence, and in setting 
 forth the excellency of their immersion evi-
 
 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED 115 
 
 dence, some of their leaders have reiterated the 
 following strains, till they have grown familiar to 
 most of their hearers. " He who relies on his 
 baptism as evidence, can never doubt ; his par- 
 don is as sure as the truth of God. But how 
 different the situation of the bewildered enthu- 
 siast, who talks about his feelings ? He is like 
 a criminal under sentence of death, chained and 
 imprisoned, who concludes himself at liberty, 
 and free from danger, because his feelings tell 
 him so. But what good will his feelings do 
 him? They will neither retard the day of death, 
 nor procure him a reprieve. And just so with 
 the unimmersed. He may imagine himself 
 pardoned ; his feelings may tell him he is safe ; 
 but it is all delusion." Upon this choice mor- 
 sel of Campbellite preaching, we observe, 1 . The 
 illustration is inadmissible, because it supposes 
 a case tliat can never happen. No man of sound 
 mind could feel himself free and safe, while in 
 prison under sentence of death ; and, 2. The 
 case to which the illustration is applied, is not 
 fairly stated. He who has the witness of the 
 Spirit does not imagine himself pardoned ; he 
 is assured of it by the only evidence which the 
 Scriptures have authorized him to receive. As 
 "it is God that justiHeth," the justification of 
 the sinner is at first known only to God ; but 
 in mercy to the troubled soul, he sends the 
 Spirit into his heart, communicating feelings of 
 " love, and joy, and peace," and thus assuring 
 him that God is reconciled. This may be fur- 
 ther illustrated. You are angry with your
 
 116 CAMPBELLISM ^EXPOSED. 
 
 neighbor ; you know it by your feelings. Ex- 
 planation follows, and your anger subsides ; 
 you are immediately conscious of it, your feel- 
 ings testify that your anger is gone. Apply 
 this to the case before us. Convinced by tha 
 Word and Spirit of God, the sinner feels the 
 enmity and wickedness of his heart, becomes 
 conscious of his danger, and flies by repentance 
 and faith, pleading the merits of the Savior, 
 that he may obtain forgiveness. He believes 
 with all his heart, and his pardon is sealed. 
 Jesus speaks, "Son, thy sins are forgiven," 
 and sends the Spirit to communicate the joyful 
 intelligence to the spirit of the penitent ; and the 
 consequence is, he becomes conscious that 
 " old things have passed away, and all things 
 become new." 
 
 Nor does this evidence, from its nature, leave 
 him in doubt or uncertainty. It is, indeed, the 
 most satisfactory evidence we can have on such 
 a subject. The nature of the subject does not 
 admit of mathematical demonstration, but it ad- 
 mits of proof equally satisfactory to our own 
 minds, and this we have in the consciousness 
 produced by the witness of the Spirit. The 
 strongest evidence we can have of a diseased 
 body, is a consciousness of pain ; and the most 
 conclusive testimony we can have of our fellow- 
 ship with God, is that consciousness of tlie fact, 
 which results from the witness of the Spirit, 
 upon comparing our feelings and experience 
 with the standard of Scripture. And this wit- 
 ness, though denounced by the Campbellite as
 
 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 117 
 
 being metaphysical and nonsensical, is in its 
 nature so simple and plain, that the " way- 
 faring man, though a fool, need not err." He 
 who has it may be ignorant of the laws and 
 operations of mind, and not able to reason logi- 
 cally or philosophically upon any subject, con- 
 sequently, sophistry may silence him, but it 
 will never be able to shake his faith, while con- 
 scious of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. 
 While the formalist endeavors to "hope against 
 hope," that he has "a hope," and the Camp- 
 bellite vainly strives to predicate an assurance 
 of pardon upon his baptism, the man who pos- 
 sesses the witness of the Spirit has an evidence 
 entirely satisfactory, and one which comes 
 within the grasp of the most ordinary capacity. 
 Not long since, a native African, whose hu- 
 mility and piety are proverbial where he is 
 known, observed to a minister, that he was 
 baptized in Africa, and that he loved God in 
 Africa. The minister inquired, "how do you 
 know you love God ? Do you infer this from 
 your baptism ? The reply was, " O no ! Me 
 know me love God. Me feel me love God." 
 We do not mention this to prove the truth of 
 our doctrine, but to illustrate the nature and 
 character of that evidence, which God has 
 given to establish our adoption, and impart 
 substantial peace and comfort to the mind ; an 
 evidence so simple, and yet so comprehensive, 
 that while it meets the case of the ignorant 
 savage, it is equally adapted to the soaring in- 
 tellect of a Newton, a Locke, or a Bacon.
 
 118 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 
 
 From the whole, we feel satisfied with the 
 doctrine of assurance, as taught in the Scriptures, 
 and received by the great and good of past ages, 
 and the present day ; and if, for this, we con- 
 tinue to be charged with fanaticism and enthu- 
 siasm, we are in too much good company to be 
 put out of countenance. The witness of the 
 Spirit M'ith our own spirit, forms the only tri- 
 ])unal established in the Scriptures to assure us 
 of pardon. They have never authorized us to 
 infer this, by referring to the time and place of 
 our baptism ; but their language is, " If any man 
 have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his." 
 " As many as are led by the Spirit of God, are 
 the sons of God." " Because ye are sons, God 
 hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your 
 hearts, crying, Abba, Father." " The Spirit 
 itself beareth witness with our spirit that we are 
 the children of God." "He that believeth on 
 the Son of God, hath the witness in himself." 
 This host of testimony will surely be sufficient 
 for the candid, unbiased reader. Let him who 
 rejects it, take care lest he wrest the Scriptures 
 to his oAvn destruction. 
 
 In taking leave of the present topic, we 
 would say, that fairness and candor with our 
 opponents, have been our aim, so that we are 
 not conscious of having written one sentence, 
 " v/hich dying, we would wish to blot." In 
 stating their views, recourse has been had to 
 the writings of Mr. Campbell, and to the teach- 
 ings and practice of the accredited leaders of his 
 party ; from which we karn that they consider
 
 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 119 
 
 immersion the " one thing needful," the means 
 of obtaining pardon, and the evidence of pardon. 
 From this caricature of Christianity, our feelings 
 and judgments revolt. Observation upon its 
 practical effects, long ago, convinced us, that it 
 is deleterious to the existence of personal piety, 
 and practical godliness, engendering strife, and 
 pride, and vain glory. If so, it is destructive of 
 souls, and every good man ought to oppose it. 
 A religion that " plays round the head, but 
 comes not to the heart," an experience that 
 begins in the water, and ends by coming out of 
 it, may answer while we are in health, but will 
 fail in the hour of death. If they would baptize 
 the penitent "for remission of sins," and then 
 tell him to " ask," " seek," and "strive," till he 
 obtains the witness of the Spirit, all would be 
 well. But no, this would be too humiliating to 
 the pride of man. An easier plan, one that wilt 
 take with those who will not submit to so much 
 humility and self-denial, must be substituted. 
 And hence, seeking is pronounced unscriptural ; 
 praying for remission of sins, and for the Holy 
 Spirit, is made a theme for mirth ; and striving 
 " to enter in at the strait gate," (especially in 
 coming to the mourner's seat,) is almost as bad 
 as pagan idolatry ; and immersion is made the 
 sine qua non, the indispensable every thing. 
 The result of which is, that in the minds of 
 many, the blood of the Redeemer, the witness 
 and operations of the Spirit, the duty of prayer, 
 and holiness of heart and life, are virtually 
 washed away in the water.
 
 120 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 Import of the Greek word Baptizo — import of the 
 phrases In Jordan, going vp out of the -watery — Bap- 
 tism at ^non — Consideration of Rom. 6. 3-6. and CoL 
 2. 12 — reasons for baptism by sprinkling — those bap- 
 tized on the day of Pentecost — the jailor — St. Paul — 
 CorneUus — Reasons against immersion — Baptism of 
 the Spirit — concluding remarks on the mode. 
 
 In opposing Mr. Campbell's views of the na- 
 ture and design of baptism, we have said nothing 
 about the mode. Our object has been to show, 
 that the saving virtue he attaches to the ordi- 
 nance is unscriptural, without seeming to ques- 
 tion the correctness of his assumption, that im- 
 mersion is indispensable to the performance of 
 that ordinance. Leaving it for our readers to 
 determine how far we have succeeded, we shall 
 now invite their attention to a difierent view of 
 the subject, by endeavoring to demonstrate that 
 the claims he sets up for the immersed on the 
 ground that they only are baptized, are about as 
 modest and as well founded as those of the 
 grand Turk, who assumes to be lord of the 
 whole earth, while destitute of the power to save 
 his own person from the hand of the assassin. 
 
 That the mode of baptism has been a fruitful 
 source of controversy among christians, is 
 known to us and to most of our readers. Upon 
 
 'I 
 
 I
 
 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 121 
 
 it SO much has been said, and so many volumes 
 written, that we have not the vanity to suppose 
 we shall be able to travel an unbeaten road, or 
 to claim originality for our arguments. Indeed, 
 we should have said nothing on the subject, but 
 for the " great swelling words" of Mr. Camp- 
 bell and his followers, and the fear that our si- 
 lence might be construed into a tacit acknow- 
 ledgment of the justice of their assertions. To 
 avoid this imputation, and with the hope of 
 benefiting those who may not have time or in- 
 clination to peruse works in which this subject 
 is thoroughly investigated, we propose to take 
 a brief survey of the ground of the ultra immer- 
 sionist, and offer some reasons for dissenting 
 from his conclusions. 
 
 The first argument commonly resorted to in 
 support of immersion, and in opposition to 
 every other mode, is predicated on the meaning 
 of the original Avord. And here it is well 
 known, that Mr. Campbell has assumed the re- 
 sponsibility of settling the question, by the sum- 
 mary method of translating the term in accord- 
 ance with his own notions. In his garbled and 
 deformed Testament, palmed upon the public 
 as the production of Dr. Doddridge, and others, 
 BAPTO, and its derivatives are uniformly trans- 
 lated in the sense of immersion ; and in justifi- 
 cation of this daring procedure, he asserts in a 
 note in the same book, concerning the word 
 BAPTizo, that ** all lexicographers translate it 
 by the word immerse, dip or plunge ; not one 
 by sprinkle or pour." All this, we are aware, 
 6 L
 
 122 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 
 
 can do no harm to the intelligent, who will be 
 at the pains of examining the matter for them- 
 selves, for they will at once see that the asser- 
 tion is untrue, and that the translation, at least, 
 is questionable ; but others who have not the 
 means of detecting the fallacy of this course, 
 may be deceived by it, as doubtless many have 
 been. Those who are ignorant of the original, 
 and of the opinions of the learned, and have 
 confidence in Mr. Campbell's ability and inte- 
 grity, will be naturally led by his translation 
 and bold assertions, to conclude that the origi- 
 nal word means immersion, and nothing else. 
 But neither this conclusion nor the assertion, 
 that all lexicographers have so understood it, is 
 founded in truth. It may be true, that all lexi- 
 cographers and all linguists, have considered 
 immersion as one meaning of the original term, 
 but it is not true that all, or that many of them 
 have viewed it in this sense only. Parkhurst, 
 says, it means " to immerse in, or wash with 
 water, in token of purification from sin." Ac- 
 cording to Ainsworth, " to baptize, is to wash 
 any one in the sacred baptismal font, or to 
 sprinkle on him the consecrated water." And 
 with this opinion Ewing's Greek and English 
 Lexicon, Calmet's Dictionary, and most persons 
 of reputable attainments in Greek literature 
 agree. With these facts before him, the reader' 
 will place a proper estimate upon the sayings 
 and doings of him, who can deliberately avei 
 that all the learned have so translated the origi- 
 nal as to confine it to immersion. 

 
 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 123 
 
 Every man v/ho lias an acquaintance with tlie 
 Greek language, sufficient to enable him to learn 
 the meaning of a word by the use of a lexicon, 
 may know if he will take the trouble to exam- 
 ine, that BAPTizo, with its kindred terms, is so 
 variously applied, that no one word, to the ex- 
 clusion of all others, can explain its meaning. 
 Perhaps it was originally used to express ting- 
 ing or colouring ; and hence Homer, long be- 
 fore the Savior appeared in the world, speaks 
 of a lake being baptized with the blood of a 
 frog. In this sense it was not used to designate 
 the manner or mode of the process, but the act 
 of coloring, or the condition of the object acted 
 upon. When this term came to be applied to 
 other purposes, Vv^e find the Greeks using it to 
 denote all kinds of washing, and every mode of 
 purifying with water, and this is the sense in 
 which it is uniformly used by the New Testa- 
 ment writers. Even if it were true that bapto 
 means nothing but immersion, it would not fol- 
 low that the New Testament term, baptizo, a 
 derivative of the former, signifies the same. De- 
 rivatives of this class imply less than their pri- 
 mitives, and in many cases materially change 
 the sense. But it is not true that bapto in all 
 insto^ices implies immersion. In the book of 
 Daniel, iv, 33, we read that Nebuchadnezzar 
 "was driven from men, and did eat grass as 
 oxen, and his body was wet with the dew of 
 heaven." The word wet in the Greek of the 
 LXX is bapto: "His body was baptized with 
 the dew of heaven." Here then, according to
 
 124 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 
 
 the original import of the term, a man is bapti- 
 zed by the sprinkling of dew upon his body ; 
 and hence, if it means the application of water 
 in one mode, and only one, we have the most 
 positive proof that that mode is not immersion, 
 but sprinkling. But we place no reliance upon 
 this in determining the manner of administer- 
 ing baptism as a religious ordinance, and have 
 only adduced it to show the folly of attempting 
 to confine the word, in its original import, to 
 immersion. 
 
 As already remarked, baptizo and its deriva- 
 tives in the New Testament, are used to denote 
 all kinds of washings, also the various ceremo- 
 nial purifications practiced by the Jews, some 
 of which are well known to have been mere 
 sprinklings. Some people seem wholly unable 
 to comprehend how pouring and immersion can 
 both be baptism ; but St. Paul, Heb. ix, 10, 
 speaks of " divers washings" (in the original 
 baptisms,) as existing among the Jews, which, 
 by reference to Numbers xix, 7-19, are shown 
 to have been performed both by dipping and 
 sprinkling. We read, Mark vii, 4, that the 
 Pharisees held to " the washing (in the Greek, 
 baptizing) of cups and pots, brazen vessels, and 
 of tables," or " beds" as it stands in the mar- 
 gin. As all persons hold to the baptizing or 
 washing of such utensils for the purpose of 
 cleansing them, it is quite probable from the 
 nature of the charge, that the practice of the 
 Pharisees originated in superstitious notions of 
 purification ; but be this as it may, it is certain
 
 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED 125 
 
 that these things were not all baptized by im- 
 mersion. The '* cups and pots" may have been 
 dipt in the water, but who can imagine this of 
 their " tables or beds?" These were construct- 
 ed of sufficient size to accommodate them at 
 their meals, which they ate in a reclining pos- 
 ture, and for from three to five persons to lie 
 down upon at their ease. Surely no person 
 can be so extravagant as to suppose it was the 
 custom of the Pharisees, to carry these out and 
 immerse them in the water before their meals, 
 or on any other occasion. But the couches 
 were baptized as well as the cups and pots ; 
 and while it is by no means certain that the 
 latter were immersed, it is quite certain that the 
 former were not. 
 
 Many other examples might be adduced, but 
 these are in point, and amply sufficient to show 
 that the attempt to substitute immersioyi for 
 baptism is not authorized by the original. In- 
 deed, the meanings of the original are so nume- 
 rous, that nothing from thence can be proved 
 concerning the primitive mode of baptism; and 
 though the controversy on this ground has been 
 carried on to weariness, it has been, and always 
 will be pretty much in character with the poet's 
 picture of the three men, who quarrelled about 
 the color of the chamelion. In proof, take the 
 following summary, embracing only a portion 
 of the meanings of this accommodating word. 
 The verb bapto with its derivatives, signifies to 
 dip the hand into a dish, Matt, xxvi, 23 ; to 
 stain a vesture with blood, Rev. xix, 13; to wet 
 L 2
 
 126 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 
 
 the body with dew, Dan. iv, 33 ; to suffer and 
 die, Mark x, 38; to paint or smear the face with 
 colors; to stain the hand by pressing a coloring 
 substance ; to pour water upon the hands ; to 
 be drunken with wine ; to sprinkle with water; 
 and to immerse wholly or partially in water. 
 Its application in some of these cases we have 
 previously shown, and are prepared to produce 
 examples of its use in all the others, and many 
 more, whenever it shall be necessary. A word 
 then of such extensive application, affords as 
 strong proof for sprinkling or pouring, as for 
 immersion, and to say that the former is not 
 baptism is as unjustifiable, as to say that the 
 latter is not, Mr. Campbell's translations and 
 assertions to the contrary notwithstanding. 
 
 The truth is, the term immersion, is not found 
 in the Bible ; nor is there any word in the ori- 
 ginal Scriptures having any connection with 
 baptism, that would authorize, exclusively, the 
 word immersion as its translation. We do not 
 expect Campbellites, who know nothing of the 
 matter, to believe this assertion ; and some of 
 them who have the means of learning its truth 
 within their reach, we fear, have too much faith 
 in the ipse dixit of their leader, to receive any 
 thing that would cross his track, though pro- 
 claimed by an angel from heaven. Many of his 
 followers, so soon as they have read his New 
 Testament and Millennial Harbinger, become in 
 their own estimation, linguists and critics ; and 
 some, while destitute even of a knowledge of 
 the Greek alphabet, do not scruple to assert in
 
 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 127 
 
 the presence of hundreds, not only that baptizo 
 means immersion, and should always be so ren- 
 dered, but that it is the only word in the Greek 
 language that can be used in this sense. We 
 do not know^ that Mr. Campbell has ever au- 
 thorized the latter part of this assertion, but we 
 do know that that, as well as the former, has 
 not the authority of truth. The Greek words 
 DUNO and dupto may be properly confined in 
 their translation to the idea of immersion ; but 
 they, so far from being used to define the mode 
 of baptism, do not occur in the New Testament; 
 while BAPTIZO, as already shown, cannot with 
 any propriety be restricted to that meaning. 
 
 Indeed it is doubted whether this word in 
 any case, where the rite of baptism is designa- 
 ted, necessarily means immersion ; because the 
 various purposes to which it is applied, render 
 it evident that it does not express the manner 
 of doing a thing, whether by immersion or 
 pouring, but only the thing done ; that is, wash- 
 ing, or the application of water in some form 
 or other. And here we have sufficient ground 
 for considering baptism as valid, v/hether per- 
 formed by affusion or immersion ; and good 
 reason for rejecting any effort to translate the 
 word so as to determine the mode. Should it 
 ever be translated by a competent individual, 
 free from sectarian bigotry and selfish partyism, 
 the rendering will probably be, to ivash or ivet 
 with water ; but this v/ould leave the question 
 cf the mode, where it is at present, and where 
 we believe the Almighty designed it to remain,
 
 128 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 
 
 to be determined by circumstances, and the 
 consciences of those concerned. It has been 
 geen that the rendering we here suppose is used 
 in the case of Nebuchadnezzar — baptized, wet, 
 with the dew of heaven — and we are confident 
 it comes much nearer the original than Mr. 
 Campbell's, and probably as near as any that 
 could be given. For illustration : The mistress 
 of a family commands her servant to washy or 
 wel her hands, as preparatory to the discharge 
 of some duty. Whether the servant immerse 
 her hands, or pour water upon them, is an un- 
 important circumstance — the command is obey- 
 ed whenever they are brought into the condition 
 required. Again, I observe, 7ny handkerchief 
 is wet. Does this language tell you whether 
 it has been dipt in the water, or left in the rain? 
 Certainly not. It simply declares the condition 
 of the article, and makes no allusion to the 
 manner of producing it. Now let the original 
 term be understood in this light, and the mode 
 of applying the water of baptism, so far as the 
 force or meaning of the word is concerned, will 
 no longer be a bone of contention among intel- 
 ligent christians. Had the Savior intended to 
 enjoin either immersion or affusion exclusively, 
 and in all cases, it would have been easy to use 
 terms that could not have been misapprehended; 
 but as he chose to employ words of a different 
 character and designed the adaptation of the 
 institution to every climate, and to all circum- 
 stances, it is reasonable to suppose he had no 
 wish to make the mode of applying the water
 
 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED 129 
 
 an important consideration. This much, at any 
 rate, is certain, the force of the original language 
 does not fix the mode; and consequently, any 
 effort to settle this matter by a new translation, 
 whether it be the offspring of ignorance or 
 vanity, or originate in a desperate resolve to 
 found a sect, ought to be discountenanced. 
 
 Having shown, that the import of the word in 
 the original, gives no authority for the exclusive 
 immersion translation, we proceed to notice 
 another class of arguments adduced in support 
 of the same cause. As baptizo may be, and 
 sometimes is, used in the sense of immersion, 
 we readily admit that it might be so connected 
 with circumstances and qualifying terms, as to 
 confine its use, in a religious ordinance, to that 
 sense. And as it has been contended that the 
 circumstances recorded in the New Testament, 
 as connected with the performance of baptism, 
 are of this character, and do thus determine the 
 mode, we ask the reader to accompany us while 
 we inspect those cases. They are neither nu- 
 merous nor difficult of examination. If they 
 contain evidence of immersion, we shall soon 
 find it. 
 
 In the third chapter of Matthew we read that 
 John baptized " in Jordan ;" and this has, by 
 some, been thought to be conclusive proof that 
 he immersed. But it is more likely that " in," 
 is here used to denote the place where he bap- 
 tized, or the water with which he administered, 
 than to point out the manner or modes of the 
 ordinance. The same Greek word here ren- 
 6*
 
 130 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 
 
 dered in, is translated " af in more than one 
 hundred places in the New Testament, and 
 " witK'' in a hundred and fifty others.* There- 
 fore, in this passage it may only mean, that 
 .John baptized at Jordan, or rvith the water of 
 Jordan. 
 
 Further evidence is claimed from the same 
 chapter, in the declaration that Jesus v/hen he 
 was baptized " went up out of the water." 
 But it is easy to show that this, so far from 
 proving immersion in his case, does not even 
 prove that he was in the water. . Apo, the ori- 
 ginal word here rendered "out of," frequently 
 means from, and is so translated in this chap- 
 ter. John says to those who came to him, 
 " who hath v/arned you to flee (apo) from the 
 wrath to come." This translation is here un- 
 questionably correct ; for as the " wrath" spo- 
 ken of had not then come, they were not in it, 
 and consequently could not ilee " out of" it. 
 But it was coming, therefore they could flee 
 from it. In this case, then, it is clear that apo 
 means from ; and in the other case we do no 
 violence to the word, or to any thing in the con- 
 text, by reading that " Jesus when he was bap- 
 tized, went up from the water." And ss he 
 could do this without so much as wetting his 
 feet, it furnishes no evidence that he was im- 
 mersed. 
 
 Another case of very common resort, and of 
 
 • See Watson's and Martindale's Dictionaries on the 
 word baptize.
 
 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 131 
 
 much reliance, is the baptism of the eunuch, 
 mentioned Acts, viii ; where it is said, " they 
 went down both into the water, both Philip and 
 the eunuch, and he baptized him." This going 
 down into the water is supposed to be positive 
 proof that the Ethiopian eunuch was immersed. 
 But when it is known that the preposition here 
 rendered " into," often means Only to., or unto, 
 and is so translated in the Scriptures, every can- 
 did person will at once see, that the passage 
 proves nothing to the pomt. 
 
 We pause here to notice the very disingenu- 
 ous manner by which Mr. Campbell, and others 
 before him, have endeavored to escape this dif- 
 ficulty relative to the original word just advert- 
 ed to. They tell us if eis signifies to, that the 
 righteous will get to heaven, but not into it. 
 This miserable evasion will be properly appre- 
 ciated by those who are aware that the pedo- 
 baptists have not contended that the original 
 should never be rendered "into." All that we 
 insist upon is, that it means to, as well as into. 
 And he who denies this, is either too ignorant, 
 , or too reckless of truth, to merit even a passing 
 ^notice as a controversialist. 
 \ Great stress has been placed upon the phrases, 
 ** in Jordan," " into the water," and " out of 
 the water," in this controversy ; and some have 
 even supposed that the man who can read them, 
 and not be converted to the immersion theory, 
 is either dishonest, or destitute of a mind for 
 the investigation of such subjects. But while 
 we know that the original terms, are so trans-
 
 133 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 
 
 lated in other passages, as to authorize us in 
 these to read, "John baptized at Jordan," 
 *' Jesus went up fro7n the water," " both Philip 
 and the eunuch went down to the water," we 
 shall continue to believe, and to assert, that 
 there is here no more proof of immersion, than 
 of sprinkling or pouring. 
 
 But. to waive all this, and to take these pas- 
 sages just as they stand, and allow them all 
 the force to which they are entitled, either in 
 classical or ordinary use, and what do they 
 prove ? Certainly not that John immersed the 
 Savior, or that Philip immersed the eunuch. 
 But they do prove that there is no proof of im- 
 mersion in either case. In the case of the eunuch, 
 the going *' down into the water," is often re- 
 ferred to as evidence that he was immersed — 
 as incontrovertible proof of the fact ; and yet 
 that very passage demonstrates that going " down 
 into the water," and being baptized are different 
 things ; for, after they had gone down, it is ad- 
 ded that " Philip baptized him." Therefore, as 
 these things are separate, and the going down 
 irdo the water, was previous to the baptism, it 
 follows that the preposition *' into," gives no 
 information as to the mode of his baptism. 
 
 Previous impressions are often a great diffi- 
 culty to our arriving at the truth ; hence it ia a 
 settled principle in jurisprudence that the man 
 who has prejudged the case, is incompetent to 
 try the accused. Many who are sincere inquirers 
 after truth, are convinced before they have at- 
 tended to the evidence, that baptism and plung-
 
 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 133 
 
 ing are inseparable, and consequently, however 
 disposed, they are not prepared to give the case 
 an impartial hearing. This deep-rooted impres- 
 sion is probably the eftect of the circumstance, 
 that the largest and most respectable denomina- 
 tion among the sects that practice immersion 
 exclusively, is known by the name Baptist. 
 This circumstance, seeing those who are called 
 Baptists, uniformly putting their converts under 
 the water, has a natural tendency to produce 
 upon the minds of the multitude, the impres- 
 sion that to baptize means to immerse. With 
 this notion they read the passages we have been 
 considering, and are satisfied, not by any evi- 
 dence they contain as to the mode, but because 
 they find in them nothing to contradict their 
 previous views. Now, could they divest them- 
 selves of the preconceived and erroneous opin- 
 ion, that to baptize necessarily means to im- 
 merse ; and understand it in its more proper 
 signification, to wash, or to ivet with water^ 
 every candid inquirer, would at once see that 
 these passages contain not one particle of evi- 
 dence that dipping was the primitive mode of 
 baptism. It is true we may go down into the 
 water and then be dipt under it ; but it is equal- 
 ly true, that we may go down into the water, 
 be baptized by pouring, or sprinkling, and then 
 come up out of the water, and all without hav- 
 ing been immersed ankle deep. 
 
 What we have said, with regard to the phra- 
 ses *' into" and " out of the water," we consider 
 so plain and conclusive that no unbiased mind 
 M
 
 134 campb'ellism exposed. 
 
 can fail to admit that they do not sustain the 
 immersion cause ; but they are so commonly 
 adduced !n its support, and considered of such 
 force and virtue in the controversy, that we offer 
 an additional remark. The common use of 
 these phrases, in the every day occurrences of 
 life, shows the absurdity of supposing them to 
 prove immersion. From many examples that 
 might be given, we select the following : The 
 mother accuses her child of having been ^n the 
 water, when she only means that it has been at 
 or hy the water, wetting its hands or its clothes ; 
 and again, we hear her say, " Come out of that 
 water." But this command never leads us to 
 suppose that the child is under the water ; we 
 know she only intends to call it away from it. 
 It is thus seen, that the common application of 
 these terms conveys no idea of immersion ; and 
 why such an idea should be attached to them, 
 when used by the sacred writers, is more than 
 we can comprehend, and a procedure for which 
 "we have never seen a sufficient reason. Indeed, 
 one of the passages from which the preposition 
 *' into" is brought to prove a case of immersion, 
 makes it clear that it proves nothing. We read, 
 " they v/ent down both into the water, both 
 Philip and the eunuch." Now, if into means 
 under, with regard to the eunuch, it can imply 
 nothing less of Philip ; for it is applied equally 
 to both. But neither Campbellites nor Baptists 
 will admit that the latter was immersed ; and 
 in this they concede that the passage contain*
 
 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 136 
 
 no evidence of the immersion of the former ; 
 which is all we contend for. 
 
 The next proof resorted to in favor of im- 
 mersion, is John, iii, 23, where it is stated that 
 "John also was baptizing in ^non, near to 
 Salim, because there was much water there." 
 This is one of the immersionist's strong holds. 
 He can see no reason why John should baptize 
 where there was much water, or why he should 
 convene the multitudes at Jordan, except for 
 the purpose of plunging his converts. But the 
 truth is, we shall find no difficulty in assigning 
 a plausible and sufficient reason, without sup- 
 posing immersion in either case. In Judea, it 
 is a well known fact, that springs were rare, 
 and water scarce. That which was needed for 
 domestic purposes, had daily to be brought from 
 the nearest rivers and fountains, in pitchers, by 
 the women ; v/hich rendered the supply scanty, 
 and entirely insufficient to quench the thirst of a 
 multitude. John's preaching roused the country. 
 The inhabitants of "Jerusalem and Judea, and 
 all the region round about Jordan," came to his 
 baptism. Where could such multitudes as- 
 semble ? Certainly not in a house, for no house 
 would contain them. They must, then, resort 
 to the fields or woods ; and as they would need 
 water, not only for baptism, even if administer- 
 ed by aspersion, but for the purpose of drinking, 
 it was natural for them to assemble in the neigh- 
 borhood of some river or fountain. This is ex- 
 emplified in the location of our camp meetings, 
 and other large popular meetings of the present
 
 130 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 
 
 day. Though they are not designed for immer- 
 sion, nor especially for baptism by any other 
 mode, it is found necessary to select a situation 
 contiguous to " much water," and after all, we 
 sometimes find numbers there suffering for want 
 of it. In this view of the subject, we see a 
 good reason, and very probably the true one, 
 why John baptized in ^non, and at Jordan. 
 They were the most convenient places, in view 
 of the wants of the multitudes, either with or 
 without reference to baptism, and whether the 
 mode of that ordinance was sprinkling or other- 
 wise. But be this as it may, the conclusion 
 drawn from this passage in favor of immersion, 
 is an unauthorized assumption — a mere supposi' 
 tion ; and a thousand such suppositions do not 
 prove one truth. The " much water" of -^non, 
 never has proved, nor can it ever prove that one 
 of John's disciples was immersed in it ; or that 
 there was there a stream or fountain of water 
 of sufficient depth to admit the immersion of 
 even the child. We are aware that immer- 
 sionists have magnified iEnon into a place of 
 "great waters;" but unfortunately for their cause, 
 no such powerful stream, or fountain fit for the 
 plunging of multitudes, is described in the geo- 
 graphy of the country, or has ever been dis- 
 covered by travelers. The supposition of the 
 existence of such a reason is as gratuitous, as 
 the proof of immersion from the passage is 
 impossible. 
 
 We find then, that this instance, as well as 
 those previously examined, entirely fails to serve
 
 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 137 
 
 the cause of immersion. And these, as to the 
 historical evidence of the New Testament, are 
 the main dependence of that cause. In reality, 
 they are the only passages in which tlie said 
 history seems to make any approach to immer- 
 sion. John's baptizing in Jordan, and in ^Enon, 
 and the baptism of the eunuch by Philip, are 
 the only circumstances mentioned in the New 
 Testament, of tlie performance of baptism at a 
 river or fountain of water ; they are, therefore, 
 the only cases that present any thing like the 
 appearance of immersion; and no sooner are they 
 brought to the test of fair criticism, and sober 
 investigation, than even this appearance is en- 
 tirely dissipated. Where, then, are the facts to 
 justify Mr. Campbell's translation, or his as- 
 sertion, that in the days of the apostles, " no 
 person was said to be converted to God, until 
 he was buried in, and raised out of the water ?" 
 It is certain they are not found in the Scriptures ; 
 and hence, this assertion is worth no more than 
 one that should wholly contradict it. Neither 
 Mr. Campbell, nor any one else, can produce 
 one clear case of immersion among all the per- 
 sons baptized, from the beginning of John's 
 baptism, to the close of the apocalypse. 
 
 We have now gone through an examination 
 of the facts recorded in the New Testament 
 history of baptism. And so far from sustaining 
 the immersion theory, we found them utterly 
 fail to prove the immersion of a single individ- 
 ual. It remains for us now to examine the 
 supposed doctrinal allusions, found inborn., vi, 
 m2
 
 138 CAMPBELLTSM EXPOSED. 
 
 and Col. ii, where we are said to be buried 
 with Christ, " by baptism," and " in baptism." 
 These passages, it is true, record no fact of 
 the baptism of any individual ; nor does it ap- 
 pear from the context, that the apostle in wri- 
 ting them was giving any directions concerning 
 the mode of baptism ; but still, as our oppo- 
 nents assume that allusion is made to the ordi- 
 nance, and insist that the " burial" mentioned, 
 is unquestionable proof that baptism implies a 
 burial in water, our inquiry would be incomplete 
 without them. Now, if we shall find upon in- 
 vestigation that these passages have no refer- 
 ence to water baptism, and that they are whol- 
 ly misapplied when brought into this contro- 
 versy, the possibility of proving immersion from 
 the Scriptures will be rendered entirely hope- 
 less. 
 
 We notice first the passage ivova Romans, vi. 
 3 — 6 : " Know ye not, that so many of us as 
 were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized 
 into his death ? Therefore, v/e are buried with 
 him by baptism into death ; that like as Christ 
 was raised up from the dead by the glory of 
 the Father, even so we also should walk in new- 
 ness of life. For if we have been planted to- 
 gether in the likeness of his death, we shall be 
 also in the likeness of his resurrection : Knowing 
 this, that our old man is crucified with him, 
 that the body of sin might be destroyed, that 
 henceforth we should not serve sin." In a few 
 remarks upon this paragraph, we hope to be 
 able to satisfy the unprejudiced reader that ev-
 
 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 139 
 
 ery argument drawn from it in favor of immer- 
 sion is inapplicable, and only proves the weak- 
 ness of the cause it is called up to sustain. The 
 most ordinary reader \vill discover that the 
 above passage, in some respects, is highly fig- 
 urative. The apostle had just established, by 
 unanswerable arguments, a fundamental princi- 
 ple of the christian religion — the justification 
 of the sinner by faith alone ^ and he is now 
 proving that this doctrine gives no license for 
 committing sin, and cannot lead to licentious- 
 ness of life. Hence, he anticipates the legalist, 
 whether Jew or Campbellite, objecting to the 
 doctrine of justification "by faith, without 
 works," on the ground that if it be true, we 
 may go on to sin, and the more we sin, the 
 more the grace of God will be manifested in 
 our forgiveness. In view of this objection, he 
 asks the question, " Shall we continue in sin 
 that grace may abound?" and then emphatical- 
 ly answers, " God forbid ; how shall we that 
 are dead to sin, live any longer therein?" 
 Now, the reason the apostle here gives why 
 true believers cannot continue in sin, is, that 
 they " are dead to sin." This death is un- 
 questionably to be understood figuratively, for 
 none will suppose him to mean the extinction 
 of natural life ; and having mentioned, in this 
 sense, our being " dead to sin," he proceeds, 
 in the same figurative strain, to speak of a bur- 
 ial, and a resurrection. Nor is this all, for 
 enlarging the figure in the 5th and 6th verses, 
 he represents us as being ^^ planted''' and ^^cru-
 
 140 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 
 
 cified with him, that the body of sin might be 
 destroyed ;" and this planting and crucifixion, 
 are effected by baptism, just as the burial is. 
 These latter verses are so inseparably connec' 
 ted with the former, that the sense of the par- 
 ragraph is incomplete without them. Why 
 then do not the advocates for immersion, in 
 quoting the passage, go forward to these, and 
 show us a resemblance, not only between bap- 
 tism by immersion, and the burial of Christ, but 
 also between immersion, and being " planted 
 and crucified" with Christ? There is, indeed, 
 no resemblance between a dip, or plunge in the 
 water, and the burial of Christ in the sepulchre ; 
 and hence some intelligent Baptist writers, 
 among whom are Mr. Robinson, the historian, 
 and the Rev. Mr. Judson, missionary in the 
 East Indies, have conceded from the entire lack 
 of similarity in the two cases, that this text 
 proves nothing concerning water baptism. But 
 if it were otherwise, and the resemblance be- 
 tween an immersion in water, and the mode of 
 the Savior's burial was obvious to all, before 
 this passage can be made to bear on the mode 
 of administering baptism, a similar resemblance 
 must be found between immersion and the plant- 
 ing of trees, and between immersion and the 
 crucifixion of our Savior ; for all these are rep- 
 resented as being accomplished by baptism. 
 
 But no such resemblance can be shown ; it 
 is, therefore, vain to predicate an argument up- 
 on this passage in favor of immersion. 
 
 To make the subject more clear, let it be ob-
 
 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 141 
 
 served that the text before us represents four 
 things as being done to and for believers " by 
 baptism," viz. they are said to be planted, cm- 
 ci/iecl, dead, and buried. The immersionist, 
 seizing upon the latter in support of his theory, 
 insists that the burial is to be understood 'in a 
 literal sense ; and hence concludes that baptism 
 necessarily implies immersion. But neither the 
 planting, the crucifixion, nor the death, which 
 we are said to experience, can be taken in this 
 literal sense. No man who has not taken leave 
 of his wits, will for a moment imagine that the 
 believer is literally planted in the earth, or that 
 he dies by crucijixion, as did the Savior. It 
 will be universally conceded that these are to 
 be understood figuratively. The case, then, 
 resolves itself into this; of four things, inse- 
 parably connected by the apostle, and perform- 
 ed by the same agent, upon the same individu- 
 al, and at the same time, three are clearly and 
 manifestly spoken by way of figure, and can 
 only be accomplished in a spiritual manner. 
 And hence, it is certainly reasonable to suppose 
 that the other is subject to the same interpre- 
 tation. He who refuses to admit this, and still 
 contends that the burial must imply a literal 
 burial of the body in water, outrages fair crit- 
 icism and common sense, and recklessly fighta 
 with the fearful odds of three to one against 
 him. 
 
 The absurdity of the idea that the burial here 
 mentioned signifies immersion, appears further, 
 from the consideration that every burial implies
 
 142 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 
 
 three things ; namely, an agent, an action, and 
 an object acted upon ; but on the present sup- 
 position we find in this case but two of these 
 things, the agent and the action being the same, 
 and making but one. Baptism we arc told is 
 a btlrial, and yet the apostle says we are " bu- 
 ried by baptism." Hence, the burial, which 
 is the action performed, becomes the agent by 
 which it is performed ; and thus the advocates 
 of this view of the subject are involved in the 
 nonsense of saying, " we are buried by a bti- 
 rialJ" 
 
 Should what we have said fail to convince 
 the reader that this passage cannot be made to 
 subserve the cause of immersion, we have 
 another thought to present. The literal reading 
 of the text, without a word of comment, is 
 sufficient to confute the idea our opponents at- 
 tach to it. They assume that baptism is an im- 
 mersion in water : and hence conclude the bu- 
 rial in the text to be water baptism. But in- 
 stead of sanctioning this, the apostle wholly 
 excludes water from the subject, by declaring 
 the burial to be made in something of an en- 
 tirely different nature. " Therefore, we are 
 buried with him by baptism into death.*' 
 Now, if he had said, "we are buried into the 
 water," there could be no controversy on the 
 subject, all would at once perceive the correct- 
 ness of the immersionist's theory. But since 
 this is not the case, and finding it written that 
 "we are buried," not in the water, but " into 
 death," can any clear-headed, unbiased man,
 
 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 143 
 
 imagine this passage to afford any countenance 
 to immersion ? We think not. For however 
 hard St. Paul may be to be understood, he cer- 
 tainly did not write " death'''' when he meant 
 water. 
 
 It is now obvious that this important text 
 cannot be explained by an imaginary resem- 
 blance betv/een immersion and the burial of 
 Christ ; for no such resemblance exists, and this 
 interpretation involves difficulties and absurdities 
 of the most glaring and inexplicable nature. But 
 what then shall we conclude ? That its mean- 
 ing is incomprehensible ? Certainly not. For 
 though the language is figurative, the meaning 
 is plain, and the interpretation sure. Let it be 
 first, remarked, that the baptism mentioned in 
 the text, is that by which believers are initia- 
 ted into Christ, and become new creatures : 
 " Know ye not, that so many of us as were 
 baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into 
 his death ?" It is clear then, that the baptism 
 by which we are said to be buried, is that 
 which puts us in Christ. And, now, we have only 
 to ascertain what this is, and every difficulty 
 will be removed. And fortunately, the apostle 
 on this point, in another part of his writings, 
 fully explains himself. In 1 Cor. xii. 13, we 
 read ; " By one Spirit are we all baptized into 
 one bodyy The body here mentioned, is evi- 
 dently Christ, or rather his mystical body — the 
 church, of which he is the head. He is the 
 vine — we are the branches. But we are here 
 taught, that it is not by the baptism of water.
 
 144 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 
 
 but by that of the Spirit, that we are properly 
 initiated into this body, and put on Christ. The 
 whole passage is now clear. The baptism 
 which the apostle connects with a burial, is that 
 which places us in Christ; but it is " by one 
 SjnriV that we are baptized into him ; therefore, 
 the baptism mentioned, is the baptism of the 
 Spirit, producing a death and bitrial to sin, and 
 a 7'esurrection to newness of life. 
 
 It only remains for us to notice a parallel 
 text in Col. ii. 12 : " Buried with him in bap- 
 tism, wherein also you are risen with him, 
 through the faith of the operation of God, who 
 hath raised him from the dead." The para- 
 graph from which this is taken, is similar to the 
 one we have just considered, and requires the 
 same method of interpretation. In the preced- 
 ing verse the apostle had mentioned the mysti- 
 cal death of christians, by the phrase, " putting 
 off the body of the sins of the flesh ;" then, as 
 in his epistle to the Romans, he adds our mys- 
 tical burial with Christ, and also our rising 
 again with him. But this death is figuratively 
 to be understood ; and hence the burial and 
 resurrection must be taken in the same sense. 
 
 On this passage v/e offer one additional re- 
 mark, which cuts up, root and branch, the no- 
 tion that it contains any allusion to a literal bu- 
 rial in water. The immersionist who contends 
 for a literal burial, contends also for a literal 
 resurrection, and in both cases, the agent is the 
 baptizer. By his arm alone the subject is put 
 under the water, and by the same means is he
 
 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 145 
 
 raised from it. But the resurrection mention- 
 ed by the apostle, is performed by faith. 
 " Wherein, also, ye are risen with him, through 
 the FAITH of the ojieration of God.^^ The 
 Campbellite, then, understanding the Scriptures 
 as always meaning what they say, and taking 
 the burial here to be immersion, may with 
 consistency put the subject under water, but 
 further he cannot go. He must leave him there 
 to be raised by faith, or to remain immersed 
 till the resurrection of the last day. 
 
 Such is the revolting absurdity of the assump- 
 tion we oppose, that its practical effects would 
 result in the drowning of every individual bap- 
 tized. Let its advocates act consistently, and 
 carry it out in practice, and their converts, like 
 angel's visits, will be " few and far between." 
 But all these difficulties and absurdities are dis- 
 sipated, when we take a proper view of the sub- 
 ject, and understand it to signify a death and 
 burial to sin, and a resurrection to the enjoy- 
 ment of spiritual life, not performed by ivater^ 
 but by the Holy Spirit. 
 
 And now, reader, we have given you the whole 
 of those plain facts and Scripture assertions, 
 upon which the ultra immersionist relies to sus- 
 tain his doctrine. If the passages we have ex- 
 amined do not prove immersion, it cannot be 
 proved from the Scriptures. And where is the 
 evidence in these ? Is it in the fact that John 
 baptized in Jordan ? No. For this he might 
 have done by pouring, as well as by immersion. 
 Is it found in the " much water" of iEnon ? 
 7 N
 
 146 CAMFBELLISM EXPOSED. 
 
 No. For the multitudes would have needed 
 much water, though not one of them had been 
 baptized. Nor do we find it in the declaration 
 that " both Philip and the eunuch went down 
 into the water." For this involves the absur- 
 dity of supposing Philip also to have been im- 
 mersed. Nor yet do we find it in the words, 
 *' buried with him by baptism into death ;" be- 
 cause death is woi water. Nor in the passage 
 from Colossians ; for if that implies a burial in 
 water, nothing but a miracle could save every 
 baptized person from being drowned. But the 
 search becomes hopeless. Not one of these 
 passages, nor all of them together, aflfords any 
 proof that immersion was the primitive mode 
 of baptism ; nor does the New Testament give 
 us any warrant to conclude, with certainty, that 
 the apostles, or John the Baptist, ever immers- 
 ed one of their converts. 
 
 In prosecuting this subject, we have now ar- 
 rived at the point where it seems expedient to 
 notice the other side of the question. Our in- 
 quiry in the preceding numbers, has been for 
 proofs in favor of immersion. But after hav- 
 ing traveled over all the ground, and examined 
 with candor and impartiality, every passage in 
 the New Testament that seems to have a favor- 
 able bearing on that view of the subject, to- 
 gether with the original meaning of the word, 
 we find the question still involved in doubt and 
 uncertainty. Not one ray of light has been 
 discovered to offer a gleam of hope that the 
 immersionist will ever be able to demonstrate
 
 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 147 
 
 his system to accord with the practice of the 
 apostles and primitive christians. If such was 
 their practice, the Holy Spirit has left us in the 
 dark — the Scriptures make no mention of the 
 fact. This, being the case, we turn to the oth- 
 er side, and offer some reasons why we believe 
 in and practice a different mode. 
 
 In the remaining cases of the administration 
 of baptism, mentioned in the New Testament, 
 we have, at least, some strong presumptions 
 against the doctrine that immersion was the 
 primitive practice. The first persons baptized 
 after the apostles received their commission to 
 teach and disciple the nations, were the three 
 thousand upon the day of Pentecost. It was 
 the third, or according to our method of com- 
 putation, the ninth hour of the day, when Pe- 
 ter began to preach ; and after he had preached, 
 and heard the cry of the convicted multitude, 
 and responded to their inquiry, he then exhorted 
 them " with many other words." Now, all 
 this probably brought twelve or one o'clock ; 
 and during the five or six hours that remained 
 of the day, three thousand persons were bap- 
 tized by twelve men, making two hundred and 
 fifty to each. To suppose that one man, in so 
 short a time, could go through the ordinary 
 forms, and immerse this number of persons, is 
 to suppose a moral, and we believe, a physical 
 impossibility. To avoid this insuperable diffi- 
 culty, some have imagined that the seventy dis- 
 ciples were present, and took part in the work 
 of baptizing ; and in addition to this, the Camp-
 
 148 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 
 
 bellite would tell us that the converts them- 
 selves, so soon as they were baptized, were 
 prepared to become baptizers, and thus to re- 
 lieve the apostles of their burden. But we 
 might fancy fifty other things on as good au- 
 thority, and with as much probability as either 
 of these. The account mentions Peter and 
 *' the eleven," but says not one word about the 
 seventy ; and as to the notion that every man 
 who is initiated into the church by baptism, is 
 authorized to administer the ordinance, it has, 
 like most of the other peculiarities of Camp- 
 bellism, no more countenance in the Word of 
 God, than the flimsy impostures of Joe Smith, 
 or the idolatrous pretensions of Ann Lee. We 
 have, then, no reason to believe that any but 
 the twelve were employed in baptizing on that 
 occasion. But they could not have gone in 
 search of water and immersed three thousand 
 persons in that part of the day that remained 
 after Peter's sermon and exhortation ; it is 
 therefore extremely improbable that there was 
 any immersion on that occasion. 
 
 An examination of the circumstances con- 
 nected with the baptism of the jailor and his 
 family, will result in a similar conclusion. Af- 
 ter Paul and Silas had been beaten with many 
 stripes, they were "cast into prison;" when 
 the jailor, being charged " to keep them safe- 
 ly," of his own accord, " thrust them into the 
 inner prison, and made their feet fast in the 
 stocks." Here, let it be observed, two apart- 
 ments are mentioned. The magistrates cast
 
 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 149 
 
 them into prison, but the jailor thrust them 
 into the inner prison. While here, Jehovah 
 undertook their cause, and at midnight sent an 
 earthquake that shook the prison to its founda- 
 tions, opened its doors, loosed the fetters of the 
 prisoners, and waked the keeper ; who seeing 
 the doors open, concluded the prisoners had 
 escaped, and was about to kill himself. But 
 when Paul cried out, " Do thyself no harm, for 
 we are all here," the jailor called for a light, 
 sprang in, fell down before Paul and Silas, 
 brought them out, and inquired, " What must 
 I do to be saved ?" And the same hour, he 
 and his, were baptized ; and he brought the pris- 
 oners into his house, and " set meat before 
 them." These are the material incidents re- 
 corded of this transaction, and if they do not 
 forbid the supposition that the jailor and his 
 family were immersed, we are greatly mistaken. 
 We are aware it is assumed by the immer- 
 sionist, that the mention made of the jail- 
 or's bringing Paul and his companion out, 
 and taking them into his house, is proof that 
 they went out of the prison in search of water; 
 but this is a supposition destitute of proof, 
 and utterly opposed to the recorded facts and 
 rational probabilities of the case. It has been 
 already observed that the prison had two apart- 
 ments — for Paul and Silas, after they were in 
 prison, were thrown into the inner prison. It 
 is also clear that the jailor's house was so 
 connected with the prison as to form a part of 
 the same building — because the first thing he 
 n2
 
 150 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 
 
 saw on awaking out of his sleep, was the pris- 
 on doors open, which he could not have seen 
 had he lodged in a different house. Nor could 
 he have sprung into the inner prison^ as rep- 
 resented, unless he liad occupied an adjoining 
 apartment. Having premised this, we are pre- 
 pared, without leaving the prison, to follow the 
 apostle when " brought out" and conducted into 
 the house of the keeper. He was brought out 
 of the inner prison into that apartment in which 
 he had at first been cast, and from thence into 
 the keeper's house, which was under the same 
 roof, and a part of the prison. Add to this, 
 that after the events of the night are detailed, 
 the history leaves Paul and Silas in the house 
 of the jailor, where in all probability they re- 
 mained the balance of the night with their new 
 converts ; but in the morning we find them still 
 in prison, refusing to leave it until the magis- 
 trates shall come and take them out as openly 
 as they had cast them in. The obvious conclu- 
 sion from this, is, that the keeper's house and 
 the prison were synonymous. 
 
 But further — the jailor by virtue of his of- 
 fice might assign the prisoners any part of the 
 prison whicli he considered most suitable ; but 
 out of it he could not take them, without be- 
 traying his trust, and violating the authority 
 under which he acted. And certainly we can- 
 not suppose this of a public functionary, in en- 
 tering upon the duties of that religion which 
 teaches subjection to " the powers that be." 
 Nor is this all. The supposition that he had
 
 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 151 
 
 gone out to baptize the jailor and his family 
 during the night, is wholly irreconcilable with 
 the apostle's reply to the magistrates in the 
 morning. When they sent word to the jailor 
 to let the men go, Paul replied, substantially, 
 we are here in jyrison, where they cast us 
 openly, though we had committed no fault, 
 " and do they now thrust us out privily ? Nay, 
 verily," we will not go out thus, " but let them 
 come themselves 2.\\& fetch us out.'''' Thus he 
 manifested a consciousness of the rectitude of 
 his own conduct, and an acute sense of fitness 
 and propriety. " They cast us in prison with- 
 out sufficient cause, and in prison will we re- 
 main until they come and take us out." But 
 how does this noble daring, in refusing to leave 
 the prison till brought out by those who had 
 cast him in, comport with the idea that he had 
 previously been out to immerse the jailor ? 
 Just about as well as light agrees with dark- 
 ness, or the Bible with Campbellism. Such a 
 supposition charges St. Paul with a duplicity 
 unworthy his character — a hypocrisy entirely 
 repugnant to the principles of that religion for 
 which he laid down his life. The apostle, 
 then, did not leave the prison during the night. 
 Hence, the jailor and his family were baptized 
 in the prison; and, consequently, they loere 
 not baptized by immersion. V^-q can come to 
 to no other conclusion, unless we charge the 
 apostle with sheer hypocrisy, and imagine an 
 event that has not even the most improbable 
 of probabilities for its support.
 
 152 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 
 
 Another example, and perhaps the last one 
 we shall adduce, is the baptism of St. Paul. 
 The history of his case makes it clear that he 
 was baptized in a house, and in an erect, or 
 standing position ; and if so, he could not have 
 been immersed. But let us look at the facts. 
 
 In his journey to Damascus, Saul of Tarsus 
 was arrested by the power of God, deprived of 
 his sight, and in that condition conducted into 
 the city, to the house of one Judas, where he 
 continued three days without seeing any thing, 
 or tasting food. In the mean time the Lord 
 commanded Ananias to go to him, who, " went 
 his way, entered into the house," laid his hands 
 upon Saul, and addressed him in the name of 
 the Lord Jesus ; " and immediately there fell 
 from his eyes as if it had been scales, and he 
 received sight forthwith, and arose and was 
 baptized." These are the facts narrated by the 
 inspired writer ; and so far from holding out 
 the idea of his leaving the house to be immersed, 
 they plainly teach the contrary. Every un- 
 prejudiced mind, upon reading the account, will 
 conclude that Paul was baptized in the house 
 where he received his sight. In confirmation 
 of this, let it be observed, that through the 
 whole narrative, when it was necessary for the 
 persons concerned to travel, or pass from one 
 place to another, the fact of their doing so is 
 mentioned. For instance, it is said that Paul 
 '■^journeyed'''' to Damascus, and when he was 
 struck down by the way, that the voice said to 
 him, *' Arise and g*©;" and that he arose, and
 
 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 153 
 
 •* they led him by the hand, and brought him 
 into Damascus." Then the Lord said to Ana- 
 nias, " Arise and go into the street that is called 
 Straight," and he ^^ivent his way, and entered 
 into the house." But when he came, he did 
 not say to Saul, arise and go to the water, as 
 in the other cases, and which in all probability 
 he would have said, if such a movement had 
 been necessary. His language was, " Arise 
 and be baptized ;" and the account adds that 
 Saul " arose and was baptized." If all these 
 circumstances do not establish beyond reasona- 
 ble doubt, that Saul did not leave the house till 
 after his baptism, we can scarcely conceive it 
 possible that any fact can be established by cir- 
 cumstantial evidence. 
 
 But in addition to his being in a house, we 
 have conclusive proof that the apostle was 
 baptized standing on his feet. In an able criti- 
 cism on this passage, by Dr. Cleland of Ken- 
 tucky, it is clearly demonstrated that the verb 
 ANA.STAS, used to denote Paul's rising up, in 
 order to be baptized, could do no more than 
 place him on his feet, and that it properly sig- 
 nifies, he stood up. Every scholar knows that 
 the New Testament uses it in this sense; or, at 
 least, he may know it if he will examine. We 
 give one example. It is written, Mark, xiv. 
 60: " And the high priest stood up [anastas] 
 in the midst, and asked Jesus," &c. Now, if 
 anastas signifies that the high priest " stood 
 up," it must signify the same of Saul ; and 
 hence we have indubitable evidence that he was 
 7 *
 
 154 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 
 
 baptized standing on his feet, in an erect pos- 
 ture. Add to this, that he was baptized in a 
 private house — for no person from reading the 
 history of the case, can come to any other con- 
 clusion ; and he who still imagines he was im- 
 mersed, must be more anxious to sustain a fa- 
 vorite theory, than to submit to the testimony 
 of the Bible. To talk of immersion performed 
 in a private house, is, indeed, sufficiently ri- 
 diculous ; but to add to this, that the subject 
 was immersed while standing on his feet, caps 
 the climax of absurdity and impossibility. 
 
 We have now examined three cases of bap- 
 tism taken from the New Testament, in which 
 the presumption against immersion is so strong 
 as to amount almost to an absolute certainty. 
 The case of Cornelius and his friends, is simi- 
 lar in its character. It contains nothing favora- 
 ble to immersion. Its probabilities lie entirely 
 against that practice. It is not pretended that 
 these circumstances prove what the primitive 
 mode of baptism was ; but they certainly prove 
 that it was not immersion. In the absence, 
 then, of any proof that either John the Baptist, 
 or the apostles, immersed one of their converts, 
 and with the certain knowledge that some of 
 them were baptized under circumstances tliat 
 rendered their immersion impossible, we can- 
 not resist the belief that the primitive christians 
 were baptized by j)Oiiring or sprinMiiig. 
 
 Before we close the present number, we will 
 briefly touch a few other considerations that stand 
 opposed to the exclusive immersion practice.
 
 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 155 
 
 1. If God had intended that immersion, and 
 it alone, should be the mode of baptism for his 
 church, it is sm-ely probable he would have 
 commanded it, and in terms so explicit that 
 none could doubt. But this is not the case. 
 The Scriptures nowhere command it, nor do 
 they give us any assurance that the apostles 
 practiced it in one single instance. 
 
 2. If the persons baptized by the apostles 
 were immersed, it is quite likely that the in- 
 spired writers in detailing the circumstances, 
 would have added something about their ad- 
 journing to some river or pond in search of 
 water. Indeed, upon the immersion theory, 
 we can scarcely conceive it possible that among 
 all the cases of baptism recorded in the Acts 
 of the Apostles, no mention should be made 
 of their going to, or being at some stream or 
 fountain. But the accounts give no intimation 
 of any thing of this nature. Among all the 
 persons therein mentioned, the eunuch is the 
 only one said to have been baptized at a stream 
 or spring, and this was a mere casual circum- 
 stance. While pursuing his journey, he heard 
 the sermon under which he was converted, and 
 was then baptized with the first water he found 
 on the way. He did not go there in search of 
 a suitable place to receive the ordinance ; nor 
 is there the least hint of such a procedure in 
 any other case. Wherever the meeting was 
 held, and in whatever place sinners professed 
 faith in Christ, there, and immediately, were 
 they baptized. No delay, in order to prepare
 
 156 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 
 
 suitable apparel — no retiring from the place 
 where converts were made, in search of suita- 
 ble and sufficient water is mentioned ; but on 
 the contrary, the facts, as given to us, convey 
 no other idea, than that each was baptized forth- 
 with, and in the very house where he heard and 
 believed the gospel. 
 
 3. If the efficacy of baptism depends more 
 upon the frame or state of mind in which it is 
 received, than upon any external circumstance, 
 it is not probable that a mode unfavorable to de- 
 votional exercises would be required. That 
 baptism does require this state of mind, is ad- 
 mitted, even by Mr. Campbell ; for he insists 
 that the subject must have failh, or his baptism 
 will not avail. "If he believe not the gospel, 
 he is, to speak after the manner of men, still- 
 born." So says the oracle of Bethany ; and 
 in this he concedes that baptism in order to be 
 effectual, must be received when the mind is 
 properly exercised. But immersion, in its 
 practice, is wholly unfavorable to the exercise 
 of that faith which takes hold upon the Savior. 
 It often produces shivering, sobbing, and other 
 unpleasant sensations, that must distract the 
 thoughts, and entirely unfit the mind for a col- 
 lected performance of a solemn act of devotion. 
 4. It is not probable that a religion designed 
 to be universal, would require any thing that is 
 not practicable in all countrj- .s, and under all 
 circumstances. But immersion is neither. In 
 the higher latitudes, and at times in the tem- 
 perate, the cold is so intense that it cannot be
 
 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 157 
 
 performed ; and often in the case of sick and 
 delicate persons, its practice is wholly inadmis- 
 sible. Indeed, with all the caution that is used, 
 the loss both of health, and of life, has some- 
 times occurred. 
 
 And, finally, it is extremely improbable that 
 a religion whose nature is purity and holiness, 
 should have enjoined the performance of any 
 thing indelicate. But the immersion of wo- 
 men by men, and in the presence of crowds of 
 men, is, to say the least of it, of questionable 
 propriety. With all the arrangements of mod- 
 ern times, in providing changes of dress, and 
 suitable apparel, so as to give the least possi- 
 ble offence to delicacy, immersion is not a de- 
 cent practice. We have no recollection ever 
 to have witnessed the performance of it, where 
 females were concerned, without having ocu- 
 lar demonstration of the truth of what we as- 
 sert ; and it is doubted whether, with all the 
 advantages of fit apparel and modern regula- 
 tions, any female submits to it who has not a 
 previous struggle with her delicacy. To sup- 
 pose, then, that the apostles, at a time when no 
 such accommodations could be had, were con- 
 stantly, wherever they went, immersing men 
 and women, in pools and rivers, in the pres- 
 ence of many spectators, and they, sometimes, 
 unbelievers, is more than rational credulity can 
 submit to. 
 
 From all which, we conclude, and it is our 
 firm belief, that immersion was neither com- 
 manded by the Savior, nor practiced by the 
 O
 
 158 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 
 
 apostles ; but originated in the efforts of men, 
 who vainly thought they could improve the or- 
 dinances, and mend the institutions of the 
 church. 
 
 In addition to the presumptions and strong 
 probabilities against the immersion theory pre- 
 sented in our last, we would now offer an argu- 
 ment of a different character, and one which in 
 our judgment is conclusive in favor of asper- 
 sion or pouring. We refer to the mode of bap- 
 tizing when Jesus Christ was the administrator. 
 It is true he did not administer the baptism of 
 water ; but there is another baptism recognized 
 in the Scriptures, and which, though ejected 
 by the deformed and spurious Christianity of 
 Mr. Campbell's creed, is far more essential 
 than any outward ordinance. When this bap- 
 tism is to be performed, the Savior himself be- 
 comes the administrator, by pouring out, or 
 shedding forth his Spirit upon the subject ; and 
 thus, by example, instructing his ambassadors 
 how to proceed in administering the baptism 
 of water. We do not suppose that this fact 
 will have the same effect upon the minds of all 
 others that it has upon ours ; nor are we dis- 
 posed to censure either the head or heart of 
 him who shall still adhere to immersion. But 
 to us, the circumstance mentioned is entirely 
 conclusive, and seems sufficient to put this long 
 disputed subject for ever at rest. The New 
 Testament contains no evidence that baptism, 
 in any instance, was administered by immer- 
 sion ; but it records many cases of baptism by
 
 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 159 
 
 pouring. The baptism of the Holy Ghost, 
 which every christian must receive, is uniform- 
 ly represented as being performed in this man- 
 ner ; and believing this circumstance to throw 
 more light on the primitive mode of baptism than 
 any thing else found in the tScriptures, we will 
 devote particular attention to its examination. 
 
 But that the argument about to be presented 
 may be understood in its full force, it will be 
 necessary, first, to consider the object or design 
 of baptism, so far as its representative or sym- 
 bolic character is concerned. 
 
 As a religious ordinance, baptism is a sign 
 of regeneration, pointing out the cleansing of 
 the soul from the pollution of sin, by the bap- 
 tism of the Holy Spirit. In proof that this 
 work in the soul is ascribed to the Spirit, the 
 Scriptures are clear and decisive. Let one pas- 
 sage suffice. Paul says to the Corinthians, 
 " But ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but 
 ye are justified, in the name of the Lord Jesus, 
 and by the Spirit of our Gociy — 1 Cor. vi, 11. 
 Here the justification and sanctification of the 
 believer are unequivocally declared to be effect- 
 ed "by the Spirit of our God ;" and it is equal- 
 ly clear that the same Divine authority, deno- 
 minates this work a baptism ; "for by one 
 Spirit," says the apostle in the same epistle, 
 " are we all baptized into one body.'' This is 
 the baptism which constitutes us strictly and 
 properly the disciples of Christ ; and the bap- 
 tism of water, by which we are externally and 
 nominally set apart for his service, is the sym-
 
 160 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 
 
 bol of the other — representing the baptism of 
 the Holy Ghost, by which we are made, in re- 
 ality, " new creatures." In the natural world, 
 water is used to purify or cleanse from external 
 defilement ; and hence the propriety of using 
 it, in baptism, to signify the work of the Spirit, 
 which cleanses the soul from the pollution 
 of sin. 
 
 This natural meaning of the ordinance is ob- 
 viously to he inferred from the Word of God. 
 The baptism of John had special reference to 
 that of the Holy Spirit, which was to be admin- 
 istered by Christ, who should come after him ; 
 hence, while he was baptizi?ig with water, he 
 directed them to believe in the Messiah, who 
 should baptize them " with the IIoli/ Ghost 
 and with fire." For this reason, we find the 
 apostles frequently mentioning baptism in con- 
 nection with the " gift" and influences of the 
 Spirit ; and, hence, also, the language of the 
 Savior to Nicodemus : " Except a man be born 
 of ivafer and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into 
 the kingdom of God." Here we have the bap- 
 tism of water so connected with the Spirit, in 
 relation to the kingdom of God, as fully to 
 warrant the conclusion that the former is 
 intended to represent the latter. To be bap- 
 tized with water, is to enter formally into 
 God's visible kingdom ; to be baptized with ' 
 the Spirit, is to enter into his spiritual or ' 
 invisible kingdom. And as circumcision, under • 
 the old dispensation, was a sign of the cir- 
 cumcision of the heart; so baptism, under *
 
 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 161 
 
 the new, is significant of the baptism of the 
 Holy Spirit. 
 
 Other and stronger arguments might be ad- 
 duced ; but to enter fully into this subject was 
 not our design, nor would it comport with our 
 limks. The considerations already presented 
 must, therefore, suffice. But before we proceed, 
 it may be necessary to notice another opinion 
 in relation to this subject. 
 
 It is generally believed by the advocates of 
 immersion, that baptism represents the death, 
 burial, and resurrection of the Lord Jesus 
 Christ. This opinion, in addition to its total 
 jack of Scripture for its support, is liable to 
 other serious objections. The New Testament 
 recognizes but two rites or sacraments, baptism 
 and the Lord's supper, as binding upon chris- 
 tians. The Lord's supper is a memorial of the 
 sufferings and death of Christ, in the work of 
 redemption. " As oft as ye eat this bread, and 
 drink this cup, ye do show the Lord''s death 
 till he come." It is certainly not reasonable 
 to suppose that baptism is significant of the 
 same thing. We can see no use in having two 
 rites to represent the same transaction, even if 
 they were somewhat similar in character ; but 
 when we consider the vast dissimilarity be- 
 tween baptism and the Lord's supper — that the 
 elements of the one is water, and of the other 
 bread and wine — that the former is to be ad- 
 ministered but once to the same individual, and 
 the latter to be frequently repeated — it is the 
 height of absurdity to imagine that both are 
 02
 
 162 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 
 
 emblematic of the same event. As one of these 
 ordinances certainly points out what Christ did 
 for us, in dying for our sins, and rising for our 
 justification, it is quite reasonable to conclude 
 that the other represents what he does in us, 
 by his Spirit, in purifying to himself a peculiar 
 people. To suppose both sacraments to be 
 significant of the former, while the latter has 
 no representative, involves a manifest absurdity. 
 From all these considerations, it is obvious that 
 the great use of the baptism of water, is to re- 
 present the baptism of the Holy Ghost ; and 
 as the celebration of the Lord's supper to signi- 
 fy the work of regeneration, would be a plain 
 perversion of that ordinance, it follows that bap- 
 tism, when administered to represent the death 
 of Christ, is also a perversion. 
 
 And, now, having seen that water baptism is 
 an emblem of spiritual baptism, we proceed to 
 present the argument mentioned in the first par- 
 agraph of this number, drawn from the fact that 
 the baptism of the Spirit was always administer- 
 ed by pouring. The poun'ng out of the Spirit 
 is, in the language of Scripture, uniformly call- 
 ed baptism ; the inference is, therefore, irresisti- 
 ble, that the pouring of water, is also baptism ; 
 and this inference assumes the form of certain- 
 ty, when we consider that the ordinance of bap- 
 tism is an emblem of the baptism of the Spirit. 
 
 To evade the force of this argument, some 
 have assumed that the Scriptures only mention 
 the baptism of the Spirit in a figurative sense, 
 and hence they conclude that it can prove noth-
 
 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 163 
 
 ing concerning the mode. We once heard a 
 teacher, who is considered a modern Hercules, 
 on account of his zeal for the destruction of 
 those serpents — creeds and sectarianism — and 
 his labors to spread the gospel of A. Campbell, 
 descant nearly an hour on this point. He stat- 
 ed that our language was necessarily figurative ; 
 because we have more ideas than words. This 
 discovery of the numerical preponderance of 
 ideas over words, whether original with him, 
 or learned from Mr. Campbell, was entirely new 
 to us; and as the English language contains 
 about seventy thousand words, we were quite 
 puzzled to conjecture how the discovery had 
 been made, that English men possess more than 
 that number of ideas. The truth of the dis- 
 covery, however, seemed somewhat problem- 
 atical, especially in relation to the speaker 
 himself; for though he appeared to have plenty 
 of words, and even to understand the art of 
 manufacturing new ones when necessary, his 
 ideas were neither numerous nor brilliant. But 
 whether true or false, it answered his purpose, 
 which was to show, what no one doubts, that 
 there is such a thing as a figurative use of lan- 
 guage ; and hence he took occasion to assert 
 that when the pouring out of the Spirit is call- 
 ed a baptism, the term is used in a figurative 
 sense, and consequently can have no weight in 
 determining the mode of administering the bap- 
 tism of water. 
 
 But this was a mistake. The conclusion is 
 not warranted by the premises assumed. When
 
 164 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 
 
 figures are introduced they must have some re- 
 semblance to the thing signified. Figuratively, 
 we say a man is immersed in debt. This 
 does not mean, it is true, that he is literally 
 covered with debts ; but it does mean that his 
 debts are so numerous as to cover the val- 
 ue of his property ; and hence immersion is a 
 fit representation of his situation. Again; a 
 painter draws the figure of a house, and though 
 he does not intend it to be literally a house, he 
 intends it to be as much like one as possible. 
 And so of all figures, and figurative language. 
 Unless the figure bears some resemblance to 
 the thing signified, it can in no proper sense 
 be said to be its figure ; and, therefore, the fig- 
 ure of baptism, whatever it may be, must re- 
 semble baptism. 
 
 Now it matters not for our present purpose, 
 whether the descent of the Holy Ghost be de- 
 nominated baptism, in a figurative sense, or 
 whether the baptism of water be designed to 
 represent that circumstance. In either case, the 
 conclusion is the same ; for the figure must 
 have some similarity to the thing signified. 
 Every Bible reader knows that the pouring out, 
 or falling of the Holy Spirit upon the people, 
 is called baptism. If the term here be used 
 only figuratively, it follows that the action to 
 which it is applied, resembles the ordinance 
 from which the figure is derived ; and if the 
 rite of baptism be considered as a symbol of 
 the descent of the Holy Ghost, it will not vary 
 the result. Either way the resemblance must
 
 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 165 
 
 exist. But where is the resemblance between 
 immersion and the baptism, or pouring out of 
 the Spirit ? It cannot be found, for it has no 
 existence. Immersion, therefore, in this res- 
 pect, wholly destroys the significancy of bap- 
 tism, and renders it an unmeaning ceremony ; 
 while pouring retains the analogy between the 
 sign and the thing signified, and is clearly em- 
 blematic of the washing away of the guilt and 
 pollution of sin by the pouring out of the Holy 
 Spirit — the only thing of which the Scriptures 
 make baptism an emblem. 
 
 We will now present the argument more in 
 detail, by noticing a few passages of Scripture 
 that are directly in point. When John was 
 baptizing in Jordan he said, " I indeed baptize 
 you with water ; but he that cometh after me 
 shall baptize you ivith the Holy Ghost and 
 with fire." Similar to this is the language of 
 the Savior to his disciples, recorded, Acts, i. 5 : 
 *' John truly baptized with water, but ye shall 
 be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many 
 days hence." In both of these passages the 
 term baptism is applied to the giving of the 
 Spirit, as clearly as it is applied to the ordi- 
 nance which John administered ; and as these 
 two pass under the same name, the best method 
 of determining the proper mode of administer- 
 ing the ordinance, is to ascertain in what man- 
 ner the baptism of the Holy Spirit is described 
 in Scripture. This is certainly a correct course. 
 Two actions are called by the same name — we 
 have no certain knowledge of the manner of
 
 166 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 
 
 the performance of the first ; if therefore, we 
 can discover how the second was done, it must 
 be decisive in determining the mode of the 
 other. 
 
 And here we are not left in the dark. The 
 Scriptures tell us in the most positive manner 
 that the baptism of the Spirit was administered 
 by pouring out., or falling upon. In the his- 
 tory of the fulfillment of the prophecy, that 
 Jesus should "baptize with the Holy Ghost 
 and with fire," we have not only the fact that 
 he did baptize his disciples, but, also, the most 
 unquestionable proof that that baptism was by 
 pouring. This event is recorded in the 2d 
 chapter of Acts, where it is said, " And there 
 appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of 
 fire, and it sat upon each of them ; and they 
 were all filled with the Holy Ghost.'''' And 
 Peter stood up in the midst and said, " This is 
 that which was spoken by the prophet Joel, and 
 it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, 
 I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh." 
 That this was the fulfillment of the prophecy 
 of John the Baptist, and of the promise of the 
 Savior, concerning the baptism of the Holy 
 Ghost, is rendered entirely certain by the lan- 
 guage of Peter on another occasion. When 
 giving an account of his visit to Cornelius, he 
 says, " And as I began to speak, the Holy 
 Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning. 
 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how 
 he said, John indeed baptized with water; but 
 ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost."
 
 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 167 
 
 Acts, xi. 15, 16. Two things are plainly taught 
 in this passage. 1. When the Holy Ghost fell 
 on Peter's hearers, he considered it baptism ; 
 for it caused him to remember the word of the 
 Lord, " Ye shall be baptized with the Holy 
 Ghost." 2. When he says that the Spirit 
 "/eZZ on them, as on us at the beginning,^' 
 he evidently refers back to Pentecost ; and by 
 alluding to the promise the Savior had given, to 
 baptize them with the Holy Ghost, proves that 
 that promise was then fulfilled. This, then, 
 by the Savior, and by his forerunner John, was 
 called baptism. But Joel prophesied that it 
 should be administered by pouring, and Peter 
 tells us it was administered in this mode. It 
 is, therefore, a settled point, that the baptism 
 of the Spirit was b. pouring out — 3. descent upon, 
 and not an iminersion into. But the same 
 word that here implies pouring, is used to de- 
 note the ordinance ; and hence it is certain that 
 baptism is correctly administered by pouring. 
 "For if baptism," says Mr. Watson, "neces- 
 sarily means immersion, and John baptized 
 by immersion, then did not Jesus baptize his 
 disciples with the Holy Ghost. He might 
 bestow it upon them, but he did not baptize 
 them with it, according to the immersionists, 
 since he only ^poured it upon them,' ^ shed it 
 upon them,' and caused it ' to fall upon them ;' 
 none of which, according to them, is baptism. 
 It follows, therefore, that the prediction of John 
 was never fulfilled, in their sense of baptizing; 
 because, none of the disciples of Jesus men-
 
 168 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 
 
 tioned in the Acts of the Apostles ever received 
 the Holy Ghost but by affusion. This is the 
 dilemma into which they put themselves. They 
 must allow that baptism is not in this passage 
 used for immersion, or they must deny that 
 Jesus ever did baptize with the Holy Ghost." 
 All the other accounts of the baptism of the 
 Spirit agree as to the mode, with that which 
 was administered by the Savior on the day of 
 Pentecost. They all represent the Spirit as com- 
 ing from above, like the pouring of water upon 
 the head. When our Lord received this bap- 
 tism, the Spirit of God descended like a dove, 
 and lighted upon him. When Cornelius and 
 those that were with him received the same 
 gift, it is said, " the Holy Ghost fell on them ;" 
 " and they of the circumcision that believed, 
 were astonished, because that on the Gentiles, 
 also, was poured out the gift of the Holy 
 Ghost ;" and when St. Paul connects the two 
 baptisms in a manner somewhat similar to the 
 words of John the Baptist, and our Lord, in 
 the passages above quoted, he expresses the 
 mode of the baptism of the Spirit in the same 
 manner: "which he shed on us abundantly 
 through Jesus Christ our Lord." Thus it is 
 seen that that baptism which the Savior ad- 
 ministers, is uniformly administered by pouring ; 
 and as the baptism which we are commanded 
 to administer is a symbol of the other^' and 
 should be as much like it as possible, it neces- 
 sarily follows, that the pouring of water upon 
 the subject is the correct mode of baptism.
 
 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 1G9 
 
 The argument is now before our readers. 
 The circumstances under which we have writ- 
 ten, have caused us to present it in a crude and 
 rather desultory manner; we will, therefore, 
 repeat and sum up the whole in a few words. 
 
 1. Two things pertaining to Christianity, and 
 intimately connected in the Scriptures, are call- 
 ed by the same name — the hapiUim of water, 
 and the bcqitism of the Holy Ghost. The 
 Scriptures do not, either by example or precept, 
 inform us how the former was administered ; 
 but they tell us as plainly as language can, that 
 the latter was always administered by being 
 poured out, or shed forth on the subject; it 
 is therefore plain that the water, in baptism, 
 should be poured w^ow the person baptized. 
 
 2. It has been shown that water baptism is a 
 symbol or sign of the baptism of the Spirit ; con- 
 sequently, there must be some resemblance be- 
 tween them. But the baptism of the Spirit is al- 
 ways by affusion ; it is, therefore, certain that 
 water baptism should be administered in the 
 same way. 
 
 3. And, finally, as there is no proof that in 
 any instance found in the New Testament, bap- 
 tism was performed by immersion ; as there 
 are so many presumptions and strong proba- 
 bilities against that practice, as have been sta- 
 ted ; and as we have decisive evidence of a de- 
 signed correspondence between tlie baptism, 
 the pouring out of the Holy Spirit and the 
 baptism, the pouring out of water, we may 
 conclude with confidence, that the latter was the 
 
 8 P
 
 170 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 
 
 apostolic mode of administering that ordinance. 
 
 This is the conclusion at which we have arriv- 
 ed ; and this we believe to be a true and necessa- 
 ry conclusion from the facts we have laid before 
 the reader. Not that we suppose that all who 
 may read our remarks will be led to think as we 
 do. We know human nature too well to harbor 
 such a thought. But we do most firmly believe, 
 if men could and would lay aside their precon- 
 ceived notions in favor of immersion, and come 
 to the Bible to learn the truth, " as they that must 
 give an account" forwhat they believe, as well as 
 for what they do, that the facts presented in this 
 number, are sufficient to settle forever this ve- 
 ry exciting and unprofitable controversy. 
 
 Before we said any thing in these strictures 
 concerning the mode of baptism, we had prov- 
 ed that the importance Mr. Campbell attaches 
 to the ordinance, and the object for which he 
 administers it, are anti-scriptural, nearly allied 
 to Popery, and dangerous to the souls of his 
 adherents ; and now, when it is seen that his 
 system is buLlt, not upon the ordinance, pro- 
 perly, but upon a certain mode of administer- 
 ing it, which never can be proved to accord 
 with the primitive practice, both he and his 
 reformation are placed in an attitude by no 
 means enviable. Indeed, when, in addition to 
 this, we consider the violence with which he 
 assails the christian world, the impudence with 
 which he disclaims sectarianism, and the arro- 
 gance he manifests in claiming for himself and 
 his followers the appellation of the only true
 
 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 171 
 
 church, our risible powers would be excited, 
 were it not for the superior claims^upon our pi- 
 ty and our prayers. 
 
 Our remarks on the mode of baptism are now 
 closed. We should have said nothing on the 
 subject, but for the arrogance and presumption 
 of Mr. Campbell and his partisans. He at the 
 outset had palmed upon the public a spurious 
 translation of the New Testament, which was 
 designed to fix the mode, by giving the original 
 a translation that should confine it to immersion; 
 then to sustain the unwarrantable position he 
 had indulged in assertions equally unwarranta- 
 ble, and wantonly assailed the good and wise of 
 every name, who refused to submit to his dic- 
 tation, till many of the ignorant and unstable 
 had really concluded immersion to be necessary 
 to salvation. This reckless course gave birth to 
 a system by which the most abandoned sinners, 
 by a sudden pop under the water, and without 
 any Divine influence, are not only transformed 
 into angels of light, but have their mental facul- 
 ties so illuminated that they know all about the 
 Scriptures, and immediately become teachers 
 and expounders. Hence it is no uncommon oc- 
 currence to see those who so far from under- 
 standing the original, do not know enough of 
 their mother tongue to distinguish between the 
 nominative case and the verb, in the plainest 
 sentence, going about with the New Testament 
 and the Millennial Harbinger, endeavoring to 
 make proselytes, asserting that baptizo always 
 means immersion, and with the most unblush-
 
 172 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 
 
 ing temerity, sending to perdition all who do 
 not follow them under the water. Such con- 
 duct merits little but contempt ; and should have 
 received no notice from us, but for the fact that 
 their "great swelling words,"' and arrogant as- 
 sumptions, are calculated to mislead a portion of 
 the community, and thereby to endanger im- 
 mortal souls. To contribute our mite in coun- 
 teracting those evils, was our motive in writing ; 
 and for this purpose only have we concerned 
 with the mode of baptism. We close by re- 
 peating, that neither the import of baptizo, nor 
 the Word of God, warrants the conclusion that 
 immersion only is baptism ; and hence the man 
 who says to his neighbor, " you must be im- 
 mersed or you cannot be a disciple of Christ," 
 is insincere or ignorant, or bigoted, or influenc- 
 ed by the fell spirit of despotic intolerance 
 which established the inquisition, and incarce- 
 rated aud burnt the martyrs in the dark ages of 
 papal Rome.
 
 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 173 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 CREEDS. 
 
 CampbellitCK profess to reject all creeds — creeds do not 
 produce sects — those who use creeds do not equal them 
 to scripture — uses of creeds — they shew in what sense 
 scripture is received — they promote peace and harmony 
 — do not prevent the free useof opinion — Campbellite* 
 have a creed. 
 
 Ever since Campbellism began to develop it- 
 self, many christians have looked upon some of 
 its doctrines and assumptions, as too absurd to 
 require a serious refutation. Those points to 
 which we now invite attention, have been con- 
 sidered of this description; but though we have 
 truth on our side, we may err, by placing too 
 much dependence upon the goodness of cur 
 cause. Some one has said, " Let not the advo- 
 cates of truth trust every thing to their cause 
 and do nothing themselves, lest the vigilance of 
 error should triumph." Believing this advice 
 to be founded in wisdom, and applicable to the 
 present case, v/e intend to profit by the sugges- 
 tion. 
 
 Mr. Campbell professes to reject all human 
 creeds, and claims for himself and his followers 
 exemption from sectarianism. To adduce from 
 his writings proof of the con*ectness of this 
 statement, is unnecessary. All who have pe- 
 rused the " Christian Baptist," or the "Millen- 
 nial Harbinger," have discoversd that these 
 p2
 
 174 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 
 
 assumptions form a leading feature of his boast- 
 ed reformation; and all who have listened to 
 the harangues of any of his teachers, proclaim- 
 ers, or evangelists, are aware that the "hue and 
 cry" against creeds and sectarianism, as man's 
 work and priestcraft, are so necessary to the 
 existence of the system that no man can be a 
 legitimate reformer who does not chime in and 
 dance to the same measure. To the existence 
 of creeds and confessions of faith, they attribute 
 all that dissension and controversy that are 
 found among christians ; and professing them- 
 selves to have no creed but the NewTestament, 
 they modestly claim to be, not a sect but the 
 WHOLE CHURCH, and invite us to abandon our 
 creeds, and unite with them in restoring peace 
 to the world, and in bringing in the latter-day 
 glory. Now, all this, to an intelligent, investi- 
 gating mind, acquainted with the facts of the 
 case, is sufficiently ridiculous to furnish its own 
 refutation. But all men are not intelligent, or 
 at least are not disposed to close investigation 
 where matters of religious controversy are con- 
 cerned. Many take things on trust, and be- 
 lieve them because others say they are true ; 
 and hence the reckless and seeming confident 
 assertions of Mr. Campbell's proclaimers, when 
 not met and refuted, have frequently had!a fa- 
 vorable reception, and induced some to believe 
 that Campbellites do, in reality, reject all hu- 
 man opinions, and that they have less sectari- 
 anism than their neighbors. It is therefore 
 certain, that an investiffation of their claims
 
 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 175 
 
 in reference to these points, may not be labor 
 in vain. 
 
 We have already intimated, that Mr. Camp- 
 bell attributes the difi'erent opinions and parties 
 that are found in the christian world, to the ex- 
 istence of creeds ; and hence, he infers that 
 their annihilation would unite tiie various de- 
 nominations, and harmonize the whole church. 
 Now it is admitted that this inference is logical, 
 and would necessarily follow, if the truth of the 
 premises could be established. But this can 
 never be done. In order to see the absurdity 
 of the above position, it is only necessary for 
 us to ascertain the cause that originated differ- 
 ent creeds. No effect can exist uncaused. — 
 But different creeds do exist ; therefore some 
 cause has produced them. What was that 
 cause? Certainly, not unity of sentiment, or 
 opinion of the church. If there ever was a 
 time when the views of the church were of a 
 oneness, when all its members were of the 
 same mind, and entertained the same opinions 
 with regard to the import of the Word of God, 
 it is certain that that time could not have given 
 birth to different creeds ; for so long as a unity 
 of faith continued, such creeds could not have 
 been produced. Members of the Church must 
 have differed in opinion before they could have 
 expressed discordant views upon parchment or 
 paper ; and hence we discover that differing 
 creeds originated from the previous existence of 
 conflicting opinions in the church. To sup- 
 pose, therefore, that our creeds make men to
 
 176 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 
 
 differ, and have caused all the divisions found 
 among christians, involves the absurdity of 
 supposing the effect to be older and more pow- 
 erful than the cause that produced it. It is 
 thus seen that the position assumed cannot be 
 maintained, because it has not truth for its basis ; 
 and it follows of course that the inference drawn 
 from it must necessarily perish. Indeed, the 
 supposition that the destruction of creeds would 
 annihilate party spirit, and unite the various 
 denominations of christians, argues so little 
 knowledge of human nature and of the history 
 of the world, that we are wholly at a loss to see 
 ho\v men of the intelligence of Mr. Campbell and 
 some of his proclaimers, can believe it. Man 
 is a fallen being — his judgment is impaired, and 
 his understanding darkened. In this state of 
 things, the minds of men are so constituted that 
 they must necessarily differ in opinion. They 
 never have beheld all things through the same 
 medium, and in the same light, nor can they 
 ever thus see them. Now suppose this cru- 
 sade against creeds, confessions, and comment- 
 aries to be successful; imagine every thing in 
 the shape of a creed destroyed, every book, 
 manuscript, and pamphlet, from the writings of 
 the ancient fathers, down to the last number of 
 Mr. Campbell's Millennial Harbinger, com- 
 mitted to the flames, and all the party names of 
 all the christian sects forgotten : imagine, we 
 say, all this effected, and the Bible to be the 
 only religious book remaining in the world. — 
 And what, after all, would be the result ? Why,
 
 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 177 
 
 wc would have to begin anew to study the Scrip- 
 tures ; and in the investigation, some would 
 arrive at one conclusion, and some at another. 
 Some would consider them to teach that the Sa- 
 vior is the self-existent, unoriginated Jehovah; 
 others, that he is an inferior created being ; 
 some would settle down in the belief of uncon- 
 ditional, universal salvation ; others would find 
 salvation suspended upon conditions ; some 
 would conclude that Christ died in the same 
 sense for every man ; others that the merits of 
 his death were only designed for the elect ; some 
 would find the condition of the pardon of sin 
 to be faith ^ others weald consider it ivorks ^ 
 and some would find regeneration by the Holy 
 Spirit clearly taught in the vScriptures ; while 
 others, like Mr. Campbell and the Catholics, 
 would refer this work to the water of Baptism. 
 Now ail these being equally sincere, and as 
 each considers his own views both tnie and of 
 vital importance, he is anxious for others to em- 
 brace them, and v\''onders why any one should 
 hesitate. Here then is the beginning of strife ; 
 and a scene of contention follows far more af- 
 flictive and disastrous than any that could arise 
 between the different sects as they now exist, 
 and the only way of restoring peace is to sep- 
 arate, and suffer the advocates of each system 
 of doctrines to unite to preach Christ as they 
 understand him, and worship him in that man- 
 ner which they consider the Scriptures to autho- 
 rize. Hence the whole v/ould result in the for- 
 mation of different creeds, and of as many sects. 
 8 *
 
 178 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 
 
 In conversation with a Campbellite bishop, a 
 few years ago, we met his suggestion that Me- 
 thodists should throw aside their Discipline, 
 with the above views, to which he only an- 
 swered, " This is your opinion." We replied, 
 very true, but it is an opinion so well founded 
 and reasonable, that it is morally impossible the 
 result should be otherwise ; for that which has 
 been would be again under similar circumstan- 
 ces. And as conflicting opinions originally di- 
 vided the church into sects, and induced the for- 
 mation of creeds, it is obvious that the cause 
 must be removed before a second experiment 
 could produce a different result. But the cause 
 is not removed, nor can it be. Men are the 
 same imperfect, erring creatures now, that they 
 were in the second and third centuries. They 
 differ in opinion and judgment, and without a 
 miracle, must for ever differ. Until all men 
 can be fiirnished with the same amount of intel- 
 lect, and be placed upon entire equality in eve- 
 ry other respect, it is impossible to bring them 
 to think alike. It is, therefore, unquestionable, 
 that the destruction of all our creeds and confes- 
 sions, and the rejection of all party names and 
 distinctions, would lead to much strife, and end 
 in the formation of sects and parties, similar to 
 the present, if not worse. 
 
 But we must notice another position assumec] 
 by these would-be creed exterminators ; which 
 is, that creeds and confessions are, by those tha 
 adhere to them, considered paramount to th( 
 Word of God. Here they concentrate theii 

 
 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 179 
 
 Strength, and exhaust their powers of declamation 
 and assertion. We have heard them declare with 
 the most unblushing impudence in the presence 
 of hundreds, that Methodists, Presbyterians, 
 Baptists, and all other sectarians, substitute their 
 creeds and confessions of faith, for the Bible, and 
 place greater dependence upon the former than 
 the latter ! And these assertions passing for truth 
 with the " unthinking crowd," have doubtless 
 left the impression upon many minds, that Camp- 
 bellites only believe and receive the Bible, while 
 all others have substituted in its stead, the works 
 of uninspired men. But are those who make 
 these assertions sincere ? Do they believe what 
 they say ? In charity we are bound to suppose 
 they do ; but this admission can only be made at 
 the expense of the presumption that they under- 
 stand what they are talking about. If they will 
 examine the Methodist Discipline, they will find 
 it declared that " The Holy Scriptures contain all 
 things necessary to salvation," and are " the on- 
 ly rule, and the sufficient rule, both of our faith 
 and practice." And in this we are not singu- 
 lar; our sister churches hold essentially tha 
 same views. The sufficiency of the Scriptures, 
 as a rule of faith and practice, forms a promi- 
 nent feature in the character of Protestant Chris- 
 tendom ; and she acknowledges throughout all 
 her ranks and divisions, " that whatsoever is not 
 read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not 
 to be required of any man as an article of faith." 
 What then are we to think of those, who tell us 
 they take the book, and make the Bible their
 
 180 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 
 
 guide, while they denounce all others and 
 charge them with laying more stress upon the 
 opinions of men than upon the word of God? 
 We have already admitted that they may be sin- 
 cere ; but we did not make this admission to 
 forestall the judgment of the reader. We leave 
 him to determine at his leisure, whether such 
 assertions be the fruits of dishonesty or of ig- 
 norance. 
 
 But to the mind of one who has not consid- 
 ered this subject in all its bearings, a difficulty 
 may here arise : he is ready to inquire, " If the 
 Scriptures be the only rule of faith and prac- 
 tice, where then is the necessity for creeds ?" 
 This question is, in part, answered already in 
 the paragraph preceding the last ; but it may 
 be necessary to notice it further. Creeds are 
 not intended to teach, or make known new doc- 
 trines ; and consequently they do not lay claim 
 to inspiration. They are necessary, 1st. To 
 let the world know what those who adopt them, 
 consider the Scriptures to teach. All v/ho read 
 the Bible may agree as to what it says, but its 
 meaning is not so clear. We need not again 
 remark that mankind cannot " see eye to eye'* 
 —that they must necessarily have different 
 views of the same truth ; and hence in reading 
 the Bible they will receive different, and some- 
 times opposite impressions from the same words. 
 The truth of this is abundantly proved by facts; 
 for the most heterodox and absurd parties in 
 Christendom profess to derive their notions from 
 the Bible. Look at the Unitarian, the Socini-
 
 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 181 
 
 an, the Universalist, the Shaker and the Mor- 
 monite — all professing to believe the Bible as 
 firmly as does Mr. Campbell ; and yet contend- 
 ing for foolish vagaries, and semi-infidel theo- 
 ries, differing as widely from each other as Mr. 
 Campbell's Testament differs from the Word of 
 God. Now while men, sincerely inquiring af- 
 ter truth, continue to arrive at such various con- 
 clusions, it is obvious that the Bible, though it 
 contains every thing needful for salvation, and 
 is the only rule of faith and practice, is not a 
 sufficient expose of our belief. We must re- 
 ceive nothing as an article of faith, that is not 
 taught therein ; but still the Bible does not show 
 to the world what our faith is, because men un- 
 derstand it difl^erently. We say we believe the 
 Bible, and so say a thousand others, whose 
 opinions are wholly unlike ours ; and hence our 
 doctrines are unknown, and the world knows 
 not whether to rank us among Unitarians, or 
 Trinitarians, Socinians, Universalists, or Camp- 
 bellites. In proof, we might refer to the Uni- 
 tarians of our country who reject all human 
 creeds, and profess to take the Bible alone. To 
 ascertain what they do believe is impossible ; 
 for we can scarcely find two of them that be- 
 lieve alike. Is it not clear from all this, that 
 creeds are necessary to let others know what 
 we understand to be the doctrines of the Bible, 
 and that we are neither ashamed nor afraid to 
 declare those doctrines to the world ? It seems 
 so to us. And so long, at least, as Universal- 
 ists and Campbellites tell us they believe t]je 
 Q
 
 182 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED 
 
 Bible, we shall consider it our duty to subscribe 
 to a written creed, lest we be identified with the 
 one or the other and thereby give countenance 
 to their dangerous absurdities. 
 
 A second reason for adopting creeds and 
 confessions is, that the peace and harmony of 
 the general church may be the better preserved. 
 This will, no doubt, appear paradoxical to Uni- 
 tarians or Campbellites, who consider creeds to 
 be the promoters of discord and strife ; but we 
 have previously shown that their assumptions 
 here are erroneous,- and there is no reason to doubt 
 that the christian world enjoys more quietness, 
 as now divided into sects and ranged under their 
 several creeds, than it would do if all its paper 
 walls were broken down, and all the discordant 
 materials of which it is composed jumbled to- 
 gether. We admit that the destruction of creeds 
 and the rejection of party names, might be pro- 
 ductive of good, if the views of all could be 
 broiight to harmonize. But can this be done ? 
 No ; we might as well expect to find all men 
 with the same features, and of the same stature. 
 Human nature must be remodeled, before we 
 can rationally look for either. Seeing then, that 
 mankind must necessarily have different views 
 of the truths of the Bible, and that it is utterly 
 impossible to bring them to understand it alike, 
 is it not superlatively ridiculous to talk of pro- 
 moting peace, by destroying those creeds, un- 
 der which those, whose opinions are in the 
 main, similar, are united, and by which they 
 are partially separated from their neighbors of
 
 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 183 
 
 opposite views, and tlirov/ them all together 
 in a heterogeneous mass ? Not even those de- 
 nominations whose articles of faithhave so much 
 sameness, that they receive the appellation of 
 orthodox, would be likely to harmonize and 
 work well together. What then would be the 
 result if these were compelled to unite with 
 Roman Catholics, Unitarians, Universalists, 
 Shakers, and Campbellites, and all others who 
 profess to believe the Bible, no matter how ab- 
 surd their notions may be ? Who does not see 
 that such a union, would be no union — that such 
 discordant materials coming in contact would 
 be productive of anything rather than peace and 
 harmony ? Contention and controversy would 
 certainly follow ; and experience proves that 
 contentions are never more bitterly carried on 
 than when they exist in the same family. "A 
 house divided against itself cannot stand," nor 
 can "two walk together except they be agreed." 
 It is obvious, then, that creeds are necessary, 
 and that the existence of sectional divisions is 
 the most effectual method of securing the peace 
 of the whole church. 
 
 It has been just stated, as an argument for 
 the use of creeds, that men in reading the Bible 
 cannot fail to arrive at different conclusions. 
 This, though an obvious truth, is declared by 
 those who war with creeds and sects, to be 
 derogatory to the character of the Scriptures ; 
 which, they tell us, always " mean what they 
 say," and say their meaning so plainly that " a 
 child of ten years old may understand them."
 
 184 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 
 
 How astonishing is it, then, that these same men 
 were in the dark, and could not understand the 
 Scriptures, till Mr. Campbell came over the 
 great waters to enlighten them. But the truth 
 is, such assertions are contradicted by the expe- 
 rience of the world. The fact that all men 
 cannot understand the Scriptures alike, is no 
 evidence that the Almighty failed in communi- 
 cating his will to the human family. It only 
 proves the ignorance and depravity of those to 
 whom it was communicated. Many facts re- 
 corded in the New Testament go to prove that 
 the disciples of our Lord, who were favored 
 with his personal instructions, frequently failed 
 to understand him. But are we to infer from 
 this, that Jesus Christ was not a competent 
 teacher? By no means. He possessed "all 
 the treasures of wisdom ;" and consequently 
 knew perfectly what instructions to give, and 
 the best manner of giving them. But still, 
 those who heard his words, did not always un- 
 derstand him, nor always agree in their opinions. 
 And further, Paul and Peter could not agree in 
 all things. Paul contended that Peter was to 
 blame ; and no doubt Peter thought the same 
 of the other. At any rate they separated, and 
 yet they continued to be apostles ; and while 
 each went his own way, they both proclaimed 
 the same Lord and Savior. Seeing then, that 
 men are so constituted that entire unity of opin- 
 ion, with regard to the doctrines of Christ, is 
 impossible, is it not better for them, like Abra- 
 ham and Lot, to separate under different creeds,
 
 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 185 
 
 and preserve peace, than to continue together, 
 and foment discord and strife ? 
 
 But we are told that creeds are uncharitable 
 and arbitrary — that they are intended to bind 
 men's consciences, and control their opinions. 
 This, however, is a mistake. Protestant creeds 
 are not designed to coerce either credence or 
 obedience. For instance, the articles of faith, 
 received by the Methodist Episcopal church, do 
 not compel any man to adopt them. They man- 
 ifest to the world, what we consider to be the 
 leading doctrines of the gospel, and thus serve 
 as a rallying point where those who believe with 
 us may meet and unite. These we cordially 
 receive, and admit into fellowship ; but those 
 who understand the Scriptures differently, have 
 no inducement, nor compulsion to unite with us ; 
 and we rejoice that they may find some other 
 denomination, whose views they may adopt, 
 and with whom they may conscientiously wor- 
 ship God in their own way. The same may 
 be said of the creeds and economy of our sis- 
 ter churches. Thus men are not bound to pin 
 their faith to this or that creed, any further than 
 they may believe it compatible with the Word 
 of God. That alone is the test of all creeds. 
 Nor are they bound, after they have adopted a 
 certain creed, always to adhere to it. They 
 still have liberty of conscience, and enjoy the 
 privilege of changing their opinions and their 
 creed, when they choose. Hence, it is obvi- 
 ous, that there is nothing unreasonable or arbi- 
 trary in the existence of creeds and sects ; and 
 q2
 
 186 CAMPBELLiSM EXPOSED. 
 
 that they do not necessarily cause strife, or hin- 
 der the progress of the gospel. It is admitted 
 that between the different families of the house- 
 hold of faith, unnecessary and hurtful conten- 
 tion does sometimes exist ; but it is denied that 
 this is the legitimate and unavoidable result of 
 their party establishments. Its origiu may be 
 traced to the erring judgments, the discordant 
 materials, and the unholy passions that enter 
 into the composition of fallen human nature ; 
 and as these would be the same, the strife would 
 be far more bitter, and the consequences more 
 disastrous, if the contending parties were more 
 intimately connected. Sectional divisions, we 
 repeat, do not necessarily produce contention; 
 or retard the progress of the gospel. While 
 under this regulation, we have the privilege of 
 enjoying our opinions, and of worshipping God 
 according to the dictates of our consciences, and 
 our understanding of the Scriptures, we may, 
 and should rejoice, that others have the same 
 privilege. My Presbyterian and Baptist neigh- 
 bors do not see as I do ; but this is no good rea- 
 son for our quarrelling. We are all children 
 of the same Parent, members of the same gene- 
 ral family, contending against the same common 
 foes, and aiming for the same heaven, and there 
 fore have no cause to " fall out by the way." 
 On the contrary, our party distinctions may 
 be the means of provoking and stimulating each 
 denomination to "love and good works ;" and 
 there is little doubt, that this very circumstance 
 causes more sermons to be preached than other-
 
 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 187 
 
 wise would be, and that it is subservieni to the 
 " furtherance of the gospel." 
 
 But after all, theCampbellite, glorying in his 
 imaginary adherence to the New Testament 
 alone, will sneeringly remark : " Ail your creeds, 
 disciplines, and confessions of faith, are man's 
 ^vork, and nothing more than human opinions." 
 And this point we shall certainly not dispute 
 about. They are human opinions ; they claim 
 to be nothing more. But they are the honest 
 opinions of those who adopt them, founded, as 
 they believe, upon the Wo^xl of God — -an ex- 
 pression of their views of the Scripture, or the 
 manner in which they understand the Bible. 
 And have not all men opinions of their own ? 
 Is it possible for any man to read the Bible, or 
 to bear it read, and form no opinions as to its 
 contents ? Can any one have no sentiments, or 
 understand the Bible in no v»'ay ? If so, he must 
 be a queer genius — a perfect unique : and, con- 
 sequently, not a very suitable person for others 
 to pattern after. Bu I we do no i bring this charge 
 (gainst Mr. Campbell. We intend just now to 
 prove that his brain is as rife with opinions and 
 notions as most men's ; and that he is not at all 
 scrupulous about communicating them to others, 
 fo as to gain proselytes ; and that he an«l his 
 followers adhere as tenaciously to their opinions 
 as those who adopt written creeds. So long 
 then, as all men must necessarily have their 
 opinions, where is the difference between a 
 ,'ritten and verbal creed? As it respects a 
 man's sentiments, they are certainly the same ;
 
 188 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 
 
 but the former in openly declaring their senti- 
 ments to the world, manifest far more honesty 
 and consistency, than the latter, who, under 
 the garb of catholicity of spirit, profess to re- 
 ject all human opinions, while they retain as 
 much bigotry and intolerance as the most bitter 
 sectarians. 
 
 It is now time for us to examine more particu- 
 larly this Campbellite cant, which tells us, they 
 adhere only to the Bible, and have no opinions 
 of their own. That such are their claims, no 
 one who has any knowledge of them will ques- 
 tion. Who ever listened to the harangues of 
 one of their proclaimers, or conversed with a 
 Campbellite for half an hour upon the subject 
 of religion, that did not hear him rail out against 
 creeds and sects, while he assumed that he and 
 his brethren of the reformation, were not sec- 
 tarian, had rejected all human opinions, and re- 
 ceived nothing but what they derived immediate- 
 ly from the New Testament ? To convince the 
 public of the soundness of these claims, has been'' 
 one of their leading objects, from the beginning. 
 We recollect an instance of one of their bishops 
 soliciting the members of other churches to as- 
 sist them, in preparing for an approaching pop- ^ 
 ular meeting at which the presence of Mr. 
 Campbell was expected, and the ground of his 
 plea was that all should aid them, because there 
 was nothing sectarian in their meetings or do- 
 ings. We have often heard it iterated, as a 
 proof of their anti-sectarian character, that they 
 do not embrace the views of any critic, com-
 
 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 189 
 
 mentator, divine, or creed-maker, but follow the 
 apostles, and believe in, and are governed by 
 the New Testament alone. 
 
 Now whether we be ignorant and blind by 
 reason of sectarian prejudice, others must deter- 
 mine ; but in truth, from some cause or other, 
 we are wholly unable to see the force of this 
 last argument, or to admit the truth of the as- 
 sumptions it is intended to sustain. Granting, 
 for argument sake, that the Campbellites follow 
 in the steps of no creed-maker, commentator, or 
 expounder, does this prove them to be no sect ? 
 Have they not their own views and opinions ? 
 Do they not teach doctrines, establish rules, and 
 follow practices of their own ? And do not these 
 views and practices, which distinguish them 
 from other denominations, stamp them with the 
 essential features of sectarianism ? " O no — not 
 at all," say they, " for our doctrines, govern- 
 ment, and practice, are all derived from the New 
 Testament." And now the whole secret is out. 
 Campbellites receive their opinions from the 
 New Testament, or at least they say they do, of 
 course every thing they think to be true must 
 be so, and every opinion that comes in contact 
 Avith their notions must be man's opinion ; and 
 therefore they have not one particle of sectarian- 
 ism about them, while all who refuse to join them 
 are sectarians and man-worshippers. Now all 
 this would be plain enough, but for a difficulty 
 that is so ill-natured as to obtrude. Unfortu- 
 nately for this anti-sectarian establishment, she 
 is not alone in claiming to derive her doctrines
 
 190 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 
 
 and usages from the Scriptures ; for it so hap- 
 pens, that Baptists, Presbyterians, Methodists, 
 and all others, from the High Church of Eng- 
 land, down to the lov/est and most insignificant 
 sect that has attained a name in the Cl>ristian 
 world, set up the same claim. All profess and 
 believe their doctrmes to accord with the Scrip- 
 tures, as confidently as do Campbellites. Who 
 then is to decide tlie question that arises ? 
 Campbellites of course claim this privilege ; and 
 have already decided it in their own favor, and 
 thereby passed sentence of condemnation upon 
 every man and woman in the world who cannot 
 read the Scriptures through their spectacles. 
 And still, we inust not suppose that there is any 
 self, sectarianism, bigotry or intolerance in this 
 decision. Really there is something so prepos- 
 terous in all this, that we find it no easy matter 
 to treat it with becoming gravity. To see a 
 little party, occupying the dimensions of a mere 
 point upon the map of Protestant Christendom, 
 strutting in all the pride of imaginary greatness, 
 assuming airs, exclaiming, " We are the men — 
 wisdom will die with us — we are Christ's, you 
 belong to anti-Christ — we have the true faith 
 and are the true church, you are deluded secta- 
 rians, following the opinions of men instead of 
 the commandments of God." We say, gentle 
 reader, to see all this, is it not enough to excite 
 the risibility of the most phlegmatic ? But we 
 must check our mirth ; for the picture presents 
 another aspect, upon beholding which we can-
 
 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 191 
 
 iiot but exclaim, poor human nature, alas, how 
 art thou fallen ! 
 
 But in the last paragraph, we have rather di- 
 gressed from our present object, and partially 
 anticipated the subject. We will now return 
 and notice some of Mr. Campbell's opinions, 
 and endeavor to ascertain how far they have 
 the force of a creed with his follov/ers. We 
 are aware that a full and explicit creed, setting 
 forth the opinions of Mr. Campbell, might 
 be collected from his writings, in his own 
 words ; but we have not leisure at present for 
 this course, nor is it indeed, necessary. The fol- 
 lowing items of belief, stated, however, in our 
 own language, are found in the writings and ac- 
 tions of Mr. Campbell, and so far as we know 
 or believe, universally adopted by I^s followers. 
 
 1. Creeds and confessions are useless and 
 mischievous — we will have none. 
 
 2. God calls no man to preach the gospel — 
 we will believe no man who says he is " called 
 and sent." 
 
 3. The Holy Spirit has nothhig to do with sin- 
 ners — the Word and Spirit are synonymous. 
 
 4. There can be no christian experience be- 
 fore inmiersion — immersion alone is the act of 
 turning to God. 
 
 5. Immersion is an institution divinely ap- 
 pointed for the remission of sins — no man can 
 enjoy the peace of God or the hope of heaven, 
 till he goes down into the water. 
 
 6. It is folly to pray for the pardon of sin — 
 ■^0 immersed
 
 192 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 
 
 7. Immersion, regeneration, and conversion 
 are convertible terms, and mean the same thing 
 — immersion is conversion. 
 
 8. The common version of the New Testa- 
 ment is not to be trusted — we will have a Tes- 
 tament of our own, that shall agree with our 
 opinions. 
 
 It would be no difficult matter to swell the 
 number of these articles of faith ; but we have 
 given a few of the prominent features of the re- 
 formation, and a sufficiency for our present 
 purpose. Now we shall not stop to inquire, 
 whether there is nothing of mere opinion in the 
 above positions. Some of them we have ex- 
 amined in our preceding numbers, and found 
 to be based entirely upon human opinion ; and 
 the others we are willing to submit to the judg- 
 ment of the intelligent reader, who will be fully 
 competent to detect the absurdity of the attempt 
 to palm such dogmas upon the Word of God. 
 But we would inquire, whether those who adopt 
 the above or any thing similar, do not thereby, , 
 essentially and substantially, subscribe to a 
 creed. We admit, that they do not, in so ma- 
 ny words, do this — i. e. they have no instru- 
 ment in writing, or in print, which they ac- 
 knowledge as their creed. But what of this ? 
 So long as they receive the notions of Mr. 
 Campbell, and look up to him as an oracle, are 
 they not as much creed-bound as any of us ? 
 "No," say they, "for we are not obliged to 
 believe what Mr. Campbell writes, unless it 
 agree with Scripture." And so say Presbyte-
 
 CAMPEELLISM EXPOSED. 193 
 
 rians and Methodists, in relation to their creeds 
 and standard writings. They are not bound to 
 receive any thing except it be consistent with 
 the Word of God. And if they should become 
 so far bewildered as to reject the Bible for the 
 reformation and Mr. Campbell's deformed Tes- 
 tament, they are entirely free to do so at any 
 moment. Where then is the difference between 
 Campbellites and others, in relation to this mat- 
 ter ? It is this — the latter have the candor to 
 avow their sentiments, and publish them to the 
 world as such ; the former adopt their own no- 
 tions, or rather those of their leader, and hang 
 to them with a tenacity very much like obstina- 
 cy, and still have the inconsistency to tell the 
 world, " We have no creed, no sectarianism, no 
 opinions of our own." Perhaps there is some 
 truth in this latter assertion. They may have 
 no opinions of their own ; but then it is certain 
 they have adopted those that Mr. Campbell has 
 manufactured for them. 
 
 R
 
 194 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 SECTS— SECTARIANISM. 
 
 Mr. Campbell imitates the Pope — Campbellism peculiar- 
 ly sectarian — a dialogue — Campbellites excel in big- 
 otry and intolerance — They idolize their leader — as- 
 sume the name Reformers — are properly Campbellites. 
 
 We hope the reader will not understand any 
 thing we have said as an apology for conten- 
 tion, uncharitableness or bigotry among chris- 
 tians. We lament the existence of these things 
 as sincerely as does any Campbellite, and will 
 cheerfully co-operate with him in any measure 
 that is likely to remove them ; but till he shall 
 devise something more feasible than his denun- 
 ciation of creeds and sects, we must beg to be ex- 
 cused. Indeed, the clamor against sectarianism, 
 to which Mr. Campbell has given currency, sa- 
 vors too much of the arrogant and selfish pre- 
 tensions of the Papal See, and it is too much 
 like the cant of the avowed enemies of Christi- 
 anity, to be entitled to much respect. When 
 he assumes that his party are not a sect, but the 
 true and only church, and condemns all who do 
 not subscribe to his views, as the followers of 
 anti-Christ, he does that which the Popa of 
 Rome did long before he was born ; and when 
 he harps upon the term sectarian, for the pur- 
 pose of bringing the religious denominations in- 
 to contempt, he is only walking in the footsteps
 
 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 195 
 
 of those whose labors have been devoted to the 
 extirpation of Christianity. 
 
 With Mr. Campbell and his followers, the 
 terms sect, and sectarian, are uniformly used in 
 a bad sense by way of stigma and reproach. 
 They are designed to set a mark upon those to 
 whom they are applied, and to stamp their works 
 with infamy. Let a man belong to any denom- 
 ination except Mr. Campbell's, and his theolo- 
 gical works, though written with the greatest 
 ability, and manifesting every reasonable liber- 
 ality of sentiment, will, by them, be denounced 
 as worthless or suspicious. Such is their theory 
 at least, and such their general practice. We 
 were present, a few years ago, where several 
 persons were conversing about Buck's Theolo- 
 oical Dictionary. All spoke of it in terms of 
 approbation, except a Campbellite bishop, who 
 formed one of the company, and who, after 
 hearing the opinions of the rest, observed with 
 a sneer, " Buck was a sectarian, and the M'rit- 
 ings of all such are entitled to little confidence." 
 Now if those who thus stamp with the seal of 
 reprobation whatever obtains the name of sec- 
 tarian, were themselves free from that which 
 they condemn in others, their conduct would be 
 less reprehensible ; but even then we should 
 object to that sense in which they use the term 
 in question. It is a misapplication. The word 
 sect signifies nothing more than a number of in- 
 dividuals associated in the belief of some com- 
 mon doctrines. Am.ong the ancient philoso- 
 phers we read of the Academic, Stoic, and Ec-
 
 196 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 
 
 lectic sects, and among the Jews, of the sects 
 of the Pharisees and Sadducees. But to none 
 of these does the term sect huply a reproach, nor 
 should it be so used in its apphcation to christians. 
 
 But suppose we waive this, and admit that a 
 sectarian is a man worshiper, and that sectari- 
 anism is worse than heathenism, and what then ? 
 Will it follow that A. Campbell is the proper 
 person to point the finger of scorn — to " cry- 
 havoc, and let slip the dogs of war," upon all 
 whom he may choose to stigmatize as sectari- 
 ans ? Not at all, unless we invert the rule of 
 our Savior, " Let him who is without sin, cast 
 the first stone." Reformation, like charity, 
 should begin at home. AVe must cast the beam 
 out of our own eye, before we can see clearly 
 to remove the mote from our neighbor's. And 
 we much doubt whether any man in America is 
 plagued with a greater sectarian beam, than is 
 Alexander Campbell; and if so, he is the last 
 man who should condemn this in others. But 
 his sectarianism is not the worst. A man may be 
 a strict sectarian, and still manifest mildness, for- 
 bearance, and liberality of feeling and judgment 
 toward others. But this is not the course of Mr. 
 Campbell ; for while he denounces creeds and 
 sects as the promoters of an intolerant and per- 
 secuting spirit, he manifests in himself, at least, 
 as much of that spirit, as ought to fall to the lot of 
 any good man, and much more than can be charg- 
 ed upon those whom he so freely condemns. 
 
 But in these remarks we may be presuming 
 too much upon the reader's knowledge of facts;
 
 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 197 
 
 and he, in the absence of that knowledge, will, 
 probably, charge us with judging harshly, and 
 with arriving at an unwarrantable conclusion. 
 In order, therefore, that he may judge for himself 
 whether Mr. Campbell and his adherents, are, or 
 are not infected with the worst kind of sectarian- 
 ism, we deem it expedient to extend our remarks. 
 Our Lord and Savior has authorized us to 
 judge of men by their fruits ; and if the fruits 
 of A. Campbell's reformation do not warrant 
 the conclusion that he is an illiberal and uncom- 
 promising sectarian, we are much mistaken. 
 This opinion has been formed, and is now ex- 
 pressed, with a perfect knowledge of the fact 
 that he pleads " not guilty." We know that 
 his professed object has been to break down the 
 partition walls that separate christians, and to 
 drive bigotry and intolerance from the earth ; 
 and that some visionaries have really fancied 
 him in a fair way to accomplish this, and bring 
 all to see eye to eye. But have these hopes 
 and promises been realized ? Have his labors 
 diminished the number of sects, checked party 
 strife, or increased the spirit of love and for- 
 bearance among christians ? Just the reverse ; 
 for he has, in his own followers, formed an ad- 
 ditional sect, whose bigotry and intolerance are 
 in a fair way to become proverbial ; and instead 
 of peacti he has deluged many towns andneigh- 
 Dorhoods with the bitter waters of strife. — 
 These are the well known fruits of the refor- 
 mation s and if the mischief has been compa- 
 ratively small, we owe it not to the forbearance 
 r2
 
 198 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 
 
 or mercy of its propagators. " Divide and con- 
 quer" has been their motto ; and the universal 
 extermination of their opponents, their object. 
 When an individual has been so weak as to 
 leave some orthodox church and join them, they 
 have considered it an achievement worth pub- 
 lishing in capitals throughout the land ; and 
 when they have succeeded in distracting and di- 
 viding a church, it has been a subject of no lit- 
 tle rejoicing. They have been heard to boast 
 that they had destroyed the Baptist church in 
 Kentucky,* and to declare their determination to 
 effect the same in the Methodist and Presbyterian 
 churches. Thus, instead of promoting the peace 
 of Zion, and establishing " good will" upon the 
 ruins of sectarianism, Mr. Campbell's labors have 
 resulted in the production of a new sect, so intol- 
 erant that their hand is against every man, and 
 who, Nero like, glory in their works of desola- 
 tion. 
 
 It is, however, admitted, that a man's failure 
 to accomplish what he proposes, is not always 
 sufficient evidence that he desired such failure ; 
 and hence, though a self styled reformer should 
 not succeed in driving bigotry from the earth, 
 we must not, from this circumstance, infer that 
 
 * We are gratified to discover that this boast concern- 
 ing the Baptist church was founded in mistake. For 
 that church, though in some places for a time, apparently 
 trammeled and divided by the spread of Campbellism, 
 has since risen with increased strength, as we are inform- 
 ed, and it is confidently believed that the Campbell fever 
 will eventuate in her good%
 
 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 199 
 
 he is, himself, a bigot. But we maintain that 
 the intolerant and selfish spirit of Mr. Camp- 
 bell's party is the legitimate result of his prin- 
 ciples and practice. From the time his system 
 of operations began to assume an intelligible 
 form, it has embodied some ingredients, as fo- 
 reign from the spirit of toleration as were the 
 principles that originated the Spanish Inquisi- 
 tion. This may seem a hard saying, but we 
 are fully convinced of its truth, and hope also 
 to convince the reader, if he will only have pa- 
 tience to hear us out. And yet, in some respects, 
 Mr. Campbell has appeared even " fierce for 
 moderation," and liberality toward the opinions 
 of others. We recollect to have read several 
 of his articles in the Millennial Harbinger, some 
 four or five years ago, professedly designed to 
 point out a way for the union of all the sects. 
 This plan, according to present recollection, 
 proposed that christians should cease to attach 
 any importance to doctrines, and unite upon a 
 belief of the facts of the New Testament. On 
 this ground he announced his willingness to 
 harmonize with Unitarians and Trinitarians, 
 Arm,inians, Calvinists, Socinians, and Uni- 
 versalists. "■ Let them," said he, " hold their 
 opinions, but let them hold them as private pro- 
 perty, and all will be well." Now this, indeed, 
 appears liberal enough, and doubtless some will 
 consider it as going a little beyond the mark ; 
 but with this we shall not, at present, concern, 
 though we have no desire to amalgamate with 
 Socinians or Universalists. Nor shall we dis-
 
 200 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 
 
 pute about the importance of believing the doc- 
 trines as well as the facts of the gospel. The 
 apostles speak of " good doctrine," of" sound 
 doctrine," and of "the doctrine that is accord- 
 ing to godliness," while they warn us against 
 being "carried about by every wind of doctrine." 
 Here, then, Mr. Campbell seems at issue with 
 the apostles, and we leave him to adjust the 
 matter in the best manner he can. But we 
 would ascertain how far the above proposition 
 justifies him in his anti-sectarian pretensions, 
 and professed liberality of sentiment. It says, 
 it is true, that he considers some doctrines that 
 have occasioned much controversy, not to be 
 worth disputing about, and that they should be 
 no bar to christian union and fellowship ) but 
 does he extend the same liberality to all other 
 doctrines contested among christians ? To 
 test this matter we will suppose a case. Let 
 the reader bear in mind that Mr. Campbell avows 
 his willingness to unite with all who t)elieve the 
 gospel facts, whatever their opinions may be, 
 provided they hold them as private property ; 
 and in view of this declaration, we will sup- 
 pose that a pious Presbyterian, tired of contro- 
 versy, applies for admission into his commu- 
 nion, or for the privilege of meeting him at the 
 table of the Lord. The following dialogue, or 
 something like it, would ensue : 
 
 Campbell. Do you believe that Jesus Christ 
 is the Son of God ? 
 
 Applicant, I do. 
 
 i
 
 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 201 
 
 C. Do you believe that he died for our sins, 
 and rose again for our justification ? 
 
 Jl. I do. 
 
 C. Have you been immersed for remission 
 of sins 1 
 
 A. No : I was baptized in infancy. 
 
 C. That is of no vahie ; you must be im- 
 mersed, or we cannot receive you. 
 
 Ji. Indeed ! Why, sir, you astonish me. 
 I believe the facts of the New Testament as 
 firmly as any man in your communion ; and I 
 am so well convinced of the validity of my bap- 
 tism, that I could not be immersed without do- 
 ing violence to my conscience. But I hold my 
 views of baptism as private property, having 
 no wish to make them a condition of commu- 
 nion, or to require others to adopt them. Sure- 
 ly then, to be consistent with your avowed 
 principles, you must receive me. 
 
 C. No sir. That matter has been already 
 decided. You must stand aside, for until you 
 are immersed, you cannot be a christian ; nor 
 can we give you the least countenance as 
 one. 
 
 The consequence here is, that the applicant 
 is unchristianized, and repulsed from what they 
 term the Lord's table ; and for no other reason 
 than his inability to think as does Mr. Camp- 
 bell. And this intolerant principle lies at the 
 very foundation of the system, and is carried 
 out through all its operations, and hence some of 
 its adherents have gone so far as to refuse to 
 unite in prayer with those families that would 
 9 *
 
 202 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 
 
 not be immersed for remission of sins. Per- 
 haps, though, Mr. Campbell considers immer- 
 sion one of the gospel facts ; but a vast majority 
 of the christian world think differently, and are 
 warranted so to do, by the fact that the word is 
 not to be found in the Bible. We have ever 
 been ready to admit the sincerity of those who 
 adhere to immersion as the only mode of bap- 
 tism ; but after all, it is only their opinion, for 
 the Scriptures do not inform us how the apos- 
 tles baptized. They administered the ordinance 
 "with water," but whether by sprinkling, pour- 
 ing, or dipping, is at present unknown, and 
 must forever remain so, unless the world should 
 be favored with a new revelation. Therefore, 
 when Mr. Campbell assumes immersion to be 
 an unquestionable fact, recorded in the New 
 Testament, he goes a little further than a mod- 
 est man would be willing to venture ; and when 
 he denounces those who cannot believe with" 
 him on this point, as vipers, hypocrites, and 
 man-worshipers, and refuses to acknowledge 
 them as the followers of Christ, he evinces the 
 very same spirit of intolerance that established 
 the Inquisition. " You must surrender your 
 judgment and opinions into our hands," says 
 the church of Rome, and so says Mr. Camp- 
 bell. It is true, he cares not whether we are 
 Arians, Socinians, or Universalists ; in this lie 
 is very liberal in his commands ; but then, we 
 must adopt his notions of the efficacy of bap- 
 tism, and receive it according to his ij^se dixit, 
 or he pronounces us " unpardoned, and lost to
 
 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 203 
 
 all christian life and enjoyment." Very mod- 
 erate indeed ! With much justice has an anon- 
 ymous satirist represented him as saying", 
 
 " I little care what men believe, 
 
 Provided they my faith receive, 
 
 And come to me, with me unite, 
 
 And think my views and plans are right ; 
 
 And swear allegiance to the water — 
 
 As for the rest, 'tis little matter." 
 
 This is the true state of the case. Profes- 
 sing great deference to the opinions of others 
 and an anxious desire for union, Campbellites, 
 by their conduct, say to all the world, " You 
 must come to us, believe with us, and let us 
 immerse you ; and then we'll unite, and peace 
 and love shall be the order of the day." This 
 certainly is an astonishing display of magna- 
 nimity ! Just let us all turn Campbellites, and 
 adopt their notions and usages, and they will 
 graciously receive us, and admit us to partici- 
 pate in their exalted privileges. Then, indeed, 
 there would be no sects, for all would be con- 
 solidated into one sect. But after all, unless 
 we are much mistaken, any of us sectarians 
 would be quite willing to destroy sectarianism 
 on precisely the same principle. 
 
 It is useless to pursue this view of the sub- 
 ject much further. A child may see the gross 
 absurdity involved in the anti-sectarian claims 
 of Campbell and his followers. Indeed, they 
 have more bigotry and less toleration, than in 
 general pertain to those whom they condemn. 
 For the latter, while they choose to worship God
 
 204 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 
 
 in their own way, are ready to acknowledge that 
 they may be mistaken in their views ; and not 
 having the vanity to suppose that Christianity 
 can subsist in no form but that which precisely 
 accords with their notions, they extend the 
 hand of fellowship to their brethren of other 
 denominations ; but the former will admit no 
 possible error upon their part, and will have no 
 fellowship with those who cannot, in consci- 
 ence, submit to their arrogant claims and non- 
 sensical absurdities. And these are the reno- 
 vators of the age, the exclusive christians of the 
 19th century ; without one particle of bigotry, 
 intolerance, or sectarianism ; making loud pro- 
 fessions of love, forbearance, and disinterested- 
 ness, and yet denouncing all who do not believe 
 with them, and virtually saying, " We are the 
 whole and only church of Christ ; there is no 
 salvation out of our communion !" Monstrous 
 presumption ! As well might the prince of 
 darkness and father of lies claim to be the 
 fountain of light, and the author of truth and 
 goodness. 
 
 The followers of Mr. Campbell professing to 
 be guided by the New Testament alone, will 
 not acknowledge any man as their leader, nor 
 consent to be called Campbellites. And strange 
 as it may appear, their disclaimers in relation 
 to these matters, form no inconsiderable part of 
 the " reformation." " Others," say they, " are 
 the followers of men. Methodists follow Wes- 
 ley, Presbyterians, Calvin, and so of all secta- 
 rians ; therefore, they are not the followers of 
 
 ^
 
 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 205 
 
 Christ. But we receive no man's opinions, 
 call no man master ; Paul and Peter are our 
 teachers, and Christ alone our guide." — And 
 hence to be called the followers of A. Campbell, 
 they consider a reproach upon their character, 
 and an insult to their dignity. But why this 
 sensitiveness ? If Mr. Campbell be, as they 
 seem to believe, not only the prodigy of the 
 age, but " the greatest and best" among all the 
 men who have visited the earth since the apos- 
 tles left it, is it either sinful or discreditable to 
 receive his instructions, and be called his fol- 
 lowers ? — Certainly not, provided his instruc- 
 tions comport with the precepts and spirit of 
 the gospel. As professors of Christianity, it 
 would undoubtedly be criminal for us to follow 
 any man in doctrines or in practices, which we 
 considered contrary to the Scriptures ; but not 
 so, if after a careful examination we are con- 
 vinced of their entire agreement with the letter 
 and spirit of the Bible. If for fear of being call- 
 ed the followers of John Wesley, we are bound 
 to reject those views of the doctrines of Christ 
 which he taught, though fully persuaded of 
 their correctness, we have no alternative, but 
 the most downright hypocrisy. For then must 
 we reject what we believe, and receive what 
 we do not believe. In many instances, then, 
 candor and honesty compel us to adopt the 
 opinions of some uninspired man ; not, how- 
 ever, as inspiration, but as expressing our own 
 understanding of the doctrines of the Bible. 
 And so far as we receive his opinions, we be- 
 S
 
 206 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 
 
 come his followers. And where is the sin or 
 shame of this ? Is it sinfnl to believe with great 
 and good men — or disreputable to confess our- 
 selves their followers ? If so, sin consists in the 
 belief of the truth, and reproach in calling things 
 by their right names. 
 
 There is, hov/ever, but little difficulty in as- 
 certaining the motives that induce the "reform- 
 ers" to deny their proper name ; and while they 
 almost idolize their leader, to refuse to acknowl- 
 edge him as such. And we are sorry to say, 
 that ambition and selfishness, seem to have 
 more to do in this matter, than either moral or 
 religious principles. We have no intention to 
 "bring a railing accusation" againstthem. Mr. 
 Campbell and his followers may be entirely 
 sincere. We hope they are. But it cannot be 
 admitted that all who are sincere and honest in 
 their professions, are as truly simple in their 
 motives. Some very sincere men are under 
 the influence both of vanity and of ambition. 
 It is difficult for even honest men always to un- 
 derstand the motives that govern their actions, 
 " for the heart is deceitful." But whatever the 
 motives that induce Campbellites to deny their 
 name and their leader, the obvious tendency 
 of these denials has been to dupe the unwary, 
 and thereby to form a new party in religion, 
 of which Mr. Campbell is the head ; and by 
 which his teachers and evangelists, as subalterns 
 under him, have obtained a little factitious no- 
 toriety. When claiming to have no leader but 
 our Lord and Savior, and charging Methodists,
 
 CABIPBELLISM EXPOSED. 207 
 
 and others, v/ith being the followers of men, 
 they wish to make, and do make the impression 
 upon ignorant minds, that those who follow 
 men, and receive their opinions, cannot be the 
 followers of Christ ; and that there is an essen- 
 tial difference between Campbeilites and those 
 whom they denounce as man-worshipers, in re- 
 ference to the confidence they place upon the 
 opinions of uninspired men. And just so far 
 as these impressions are produced, does dupli- 
 city prevail over truth and candor. There is 
 no discrepancy between receiving the opinions 
 of men in their expositions of Scripture, and 
 following Christ as our teacher and guide. Did 
 those men set up their opinions as a substitute 
 for, or in opposition to the Word of God, the 
 case would, indeed, be different. But protes- 
 tant commentators have not done this. After 
 devoting years to the study of the Scriptures, 
 the commentator has only told us what he con- 
 siders them to teach ; and after we have studied 
 them carefully, and are convinced that his opi- 
 nions are correct, honesty compels us to adopt 
 them, and thus to follow him " who through 
 faith and patience inherits the promises," while 
 he and v/e follow Christ, ^vho " is all in all.'' 
 But still we shall be asked, " How can you be 
 followers of Christ, and of uninspired men at 
 the same time ? V/e would answer this ques- 
 tion by another :— How can I be a citizen of 
 the United States and of Kentucky at the same 
 time? Do you say there is no difficulty in this, 
 because the principles of the state government
 
 208 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 
 
 are recognized in the federal constitution, upon 
 which the union is based. Agreed ; and this 
 may serve as an answer to the first question. 
 There is no more difficulty in the one case, 
 than in the other. 
 
 But why should Campbellites be so anxious 
 to unchristianize those who adopt the opinions 
 of men, and become their followers ? In so do- 
 ing, do they not condemn themselves ? Are 
 they not as deeply involved in what they pro- 
 nounce man-worship, as any of us ? Let us ex- 
 amine the testimony of facts — they are stubborn 
 things, and sometimes stand very much in the 
 way of some men's professions. Mr. Camp- 
 bell was once a Baptist ; and when he com- 
 menced his " reformation," not only stood high 
 among them as a man of talent, but to a con- 
 siderable extent had their confidence. This 
 circumstance accounts for the fact that most of 
 his early converts, whether teachers or private 
 members, were proselytes from that church. 
 And consequently, they had not only professed 
 their belief in the doctrines of the church, but 
 according to her requirements, had given in 
 their experiences, and professed to be regener- 
 ated by the Holy Spirit, before they were bap- 
 tized. Before these could embrace the "re- 
 formation," they had to change their opinions 
 and discard their religious experiences. But 
 how were these changes effected ? By the New 
 Testament? Nay ; but by the " Christian Bap- 
 tist," and the " Millennial Harbinger," in which 
 Mr. Campbell's views were gradually develop-
 
 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 209 
 
 ed. Here they were taught to question, and 
 then to deny a Divine call to the ministry ; to 
 reject tlie influence of the Spirit in turning sin- 
 ners to God ; to denounce and renounce creeds 
 and sectarianism ; to believe that the Word and 
 Spirit are synonymous ; to discard all christian 
 experience previous to baptism ; and to teach 
 that sins can only be pardoned through immer- 
 sion. These, with many other absurdities, in 
 direct opposition to their previously avowed 
 sentiments, they readily received, and pronounc- 
 ed the " ancient gospel !" It will never do to 
 say they gathered all this from the New Tes- 
 tament ; because many of them had been mi- 
 nisters of the Baptist church for years, of course 
 they were familiar with the Scriptures, which 
 they tell us are so plain that a child of ten years 
 old may understand them. But during all that 
 time they had made none of these discoveries. 
 On the contrary, up to the moment that Mr. 
 Campbell discovered his new light, and invent- 
 ed "another gospel," they had contended for 
 a call to the ministry, and for regeneration by 
 the Holy Spirit, as necessarily preceding bap- 
 tism, and often recited their own experiences in 
 proof or confirmation of these doctrines. But 
 \no sooner did they find, that Mr. Campbell had 
 no fellowship for such doctrines, tlian they re- 
 nounced them too, and even renounced their 
 own experiences — some of them marvelous 
 enough in all conscience — which they had been 
 in the habit of detailing for years, giving the 
 time, place, and manner of their conversion ; 
 s2
 
 210 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 
 
 but now they discovered all this to be mysti- 
 cism, enthusiasm, and nonsense. And yet 
 these men tell us, they place no dependence on 
 men's opinions — they are not the followers of 
 Mr, Campbell. We doubt whether a more pal- 
 pable absurdity has been attempted to be palm- 
 ed upon the world, since the fable of transub- 
 stantiation was invented. 
 
 It is well known, that for the last eight or 
 nine years Mr. Campbell has had a party of 
 followers in the west, who have sat at his feet, 
 and read his periodicals, till they have adopted 
 his opinions as thoroughly as ever one man did 
 those of another. His proclaimers have been 
 the constant endorsers and regular reporters of 
 his opinions. What he taught in his pamphlets, 
 they conned over, and handed out to their hear- 
 ers as the " ancient gospel ;" and thus every 
 article of their creed has been derived from him. 
 It is true, that some of them have occasionally 
 missed the track. Whether this was owing to 
 their inability to comprehend him, or to his 
 having been favored with some new light vary- 
 ing from the revelation of the preceding month, 
 we know not ; but in such cases, we believe, 
 they have manifested every reasonable respect 
 for their master, by tacking about, and pursu- 
 ing the right course so soon as he has pointed 
 it out. After having witnessed their servility 
 in copying the sayings and doings of their lea- 
 der, some have imagined that he could write 
 nothing too absurd for them to swallow. An 
 old gentleman once remarked, " If Mr. Camp-
 
 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 211 
 
 bell were to declare that eating rye straw would 
 take men to heaven, his followers would try to 
 do it." We shall not endorse this opinion ; we 
 think it somewhat doubtful. But if there be a 
 sect in America that follow their leader more 
 closely than Mr. Campbell's party endeavor to 
 follow him, we have yet to make the discovery. 
 This we do know, that many have evinced a de- 
 votedness to his opinions, almost justifying the 
 conclusion that they consider him infallible ; for 
 whatever he has written, they have appeared 
 ready to receive and pronounce gospel truth, 
 though in direct opposition to their previously 
 avowed sentiments. In confirmation of this, 
 we could relate a number of circumstances, 
 some of which came under our own notice. 
 Take the following as a specimen : When the 
 first extra number of the Millennial Harbinger, 
 developing fully Mr. Campbell's method of re- 
 mitting sins through immersion, was published, 
 a somewhat humorous gentleman, in a village 
 in this state, got hold of it and read it before 
 it had been circulated among his Campbellite 
 neighbors. Resolving to try an experiment, he 
 put the pamphlet in his pocket, and walked to 
 a shop, where the " reformers" of the village 
 were in the habit of meeting to enlighten each 
 other ; and finding several of them together, he 
 listened awhile to their conversation, and then 
 with seeming carelessness, remarked, "I un- 
 derstand that Mr. Campbell has come out plain- 
 ly and declared immersion alone to be the act 
 of turning to God." They at once replied,
 
 212 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 
 
 *' This is another sectarian misrepresentation — 
 Mr. Campbell says no such thing." " But," 
 said the gentleman, " suppose he should say 
 this, would you still adhere to him ?" " No," 
 said they, " if he were to take this ground, we 
 could not go with him ; for the New Testament 
 teaches no such doctrine." The way being 
 thus prepared, the extra was produced, and se- 
 veral sentences read, the last of which was, 
 " Immersion alone was that act of turning to 
 God." The " reformers" were silent for a 
 moment ; they took the pamphlet, turned to the 
 title page, it was really the Millennial Harbin- 
 ger, published by A. Campbell ; they turned 
 back to the passage that had been read, re-read 
 it, mused a while longer, and at last one re- 
 marked, " Why, this is just what I always be- 
 lieved," and so said they all. Now let not the 
 reader be startled at this inconsistency, and 
 charge them with falsehood. They were, we 
 verily believe, honest men ; but so blindly in- 
 fatuated with their leader, that he conducted 
 them whithersoever he chose, without their be- 
 ing aware of their mental servitude, or of the 
 ridiculous attitudes in which it was placing 
 them. And although we do not suppose that 
 every Campbellite has manifested the same 
 blind obedience, we do believe the above is a 
 pretty fair specimen of the general devotion of 
 that party, to the views of their leader. The 
 Alpha and the Omega of their creed came from 
 his pen. With some truths which they might 
 have learned from the Bible, he has taught
 
 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 213 
 
 them many errors which they never did, and 
 never could have gathered from that source. 
 And while they have hesitated to express an 
 opinion upon doctrines in dispute upon which 
 he had not pronounced, we have generally found 
 them ready to receive his opinions, so soon as 
 they were made known, and incorporate them 
 as a part of the " ancient gospel." With these 
 facts before him, the reader may determine 
 whether they are, or are not the followers of 
 A. Campbell. 
 
 Connected with this view of the subject is 
 the use of party names. We have previously 
 {remarked that the "reformers" refuse to be 
 j called Campbellites, and consider the name a 
 reproach ; but since they adopt his peculiar 
 I views, and arrange themselves under the ban- 
 ner he has set up, is it not clear that this is their 
 legitimate name? "No," says Barton W. 
 Stone, " for this would argue that the parties 
 j in the Corinthian church should have been call- 
 ed Paulites and Peterites, which the apostle 
 I condemned." But really, we must protest a- 
 j gainst placing Mr. Campbell, or any other un- 
 I inspired man, with Paul and Peter. We had 
 j suspected, even before we learned, that one of 
 tthe " reformers" had prayed the Lord to bless 
 iMr. Campbell, "the second Redeemer f^ that 
 j some of them considered him a little superior 
 jto the aposries ; but with due deference to their 
 partialities we must demur to crowning him 
 ivith any such honors. Paul and Peter did not 
 breach to explain what they considered the
 
 214 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 
 
 New Testament to teach. They were mspir- 
 ed, and as to doctrines, spoke the same things, 
 being moved by the Holy Ghost. Their doc- 
 trines could not have raised difterent parties, 
 because their doctrines did not differ ; conse- 
 quently, parties taking their names, must have 
 based their existence upon personal partialities, 
 which would, indeed, have been a species of 
 man- worship. Their business was to establish 
 Christianity, and furnish the church with the 
 doctrines of Christ for future generations. But 
 now the case is altered. Christianity is estab- 
 lished, the New Testament completed, and the 
 name of Christ, so well known in the earth, 
 that all his followers are called christians as a 
 matter of course. Christian teachers do not 
 now come, as did the apostles, to make known 
 the will of God to man ; but, according to their 
 understanding of it, to expound that will as pre- 
 viously given. In doing which, they arrive at 
 conclusions somewhat different ; and hence dif- 
 ferent sects and names. And then, here comes 
 Mr. Campbell, differing, not m-ore from other 
 sectarians, than from Jesus Christ and the 
 apostles ; and his followers refuse to be called 
 Carapbellites, because there were no Paulites 
 and Cephasites in the Corinthian church. Be- 
 fore this argument can have any weight, they 
 must prove that their leader sustains the same 
 relation to the church and the world, that the 
 apostles did. When this is done we shall ad- 
 mit that the position may be tenable. 
 
 After all, we expect to hear it said, "'Your 
 
 'i
 
 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 215 
 
 party names show that you are not Christ's ; 
 for how can you be christians, while you are 
 called Methodists, Baptists, and Presbyterians '' 
 This kind of stuff' we have frequently heard, 
 and are aware that it has had some influence in 
 making proselytes to Campbellism, though we 
 can scarcely conceive it possible thai it could 
 affect any but weak minds. " I'll prove," 
 said a certain notorious " reformer," " that you 
 are not a christian." " Indeed," said the per- 
 son addressed, " where is your proof?" " Why, 
 you are a Methodist, and can have no claims to 
 the name of christian." " Very well," replied 
 the other, " but by the same argument I will 
 prove that your leader is not a man. Is not 
 his name Campbell ?" " Well, what of that ?" 
 " Only, sir, that as your own position will al- 
 low him but one name, he can have no right to 
 the appellation of Campbell, and to that of man 
 at the same time." The " reformer" was silent, 
 and well he might be, for unquestionably the 
 argument was as good in the latter case as in 
 the former. As men multiplied, it became ne- 
 cessary, for the sake of distinction, to give 
 them family names ; and the same cause produc- 
 ed a like result in the church of Christ. But 
 while the whole human family are known by 
 the general name of man, there is no inconsis- 
 tency in distinguishing them by the appellations 
 of their nations or families ; nor does it involve 
 the least difficulty to apply to each christian 
 sect that name by which custom has designated
 
 216 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 
 
 it, while all are known by the universal name 
 of christian. 
 
 But is it possible that those who make all 
 this noise about names, can be so ignorant as 
 not to see their inconsistency ? If they called 
 themselves Christians, and nothing else, their 
 position, though still untenable, would appear 
 much more graceful. But the truth is, they 
 are not agreed among themselves, upon this 
 point ; and hence we find them giving currency 
 to different names, some of which areas foreign 
 from the sanctions of Scripture, as those of any 
 other sectarians. No doubt the reason of this 
 is, that Mr. Campbell has been rather at a loss 
 to ascertain what name would please him best. 
 Some years ago, he informed them that het 
 would prefer the name of Christian, but for the 
 fact that it had been prostituted to sectarian 
 purposes. We believe he then hinted some- 
 thing about their taking the name of Disciples, 
 also that of " Reformers ;" but did not come 
 out fully, or determine upon either. However 
 this may be, we do know that his followers 
 have had some difficulty in finding out their 
 own name ; that some have decided to be called 
 Reformers, and others. Disciples ; while that 
 portion that had been inducted into the " reform- 
 ation" from the old stock of Newlightism, have 
 generally preferred the name of Christians. But 
 amid all this the common consent of surround- 
 ing spectators has dubbed them with the cog- 
 nomen of their founder and leader, their iegi-
 
 CAMPEELLISM EXPOSED. 217 
 
 timate and proper name, and from this decision 
 there is no appeal. 
 
 We can by no means submit to the task of 
 pursuing this topic further. What other names 
 beside those mentioned above may be cui-rent 
 among them, we know not, nor is it important. 
 Upon this subject, as well as upon all those 
 points of doctrine, upon which the Bishop of 
 Bethany has not come out, nothing is settled — 
 nothing is tangible. Nor, indeed, have we any 
 assurance that a solitary article of the Bishop's 
 creed is permanently fixed. His course here- 
 tofore, has been the antipodes of consistency. 
 That man who has veered round through every 
 point of the compass, from frigid Antinomian- 
 ism to semi-pelagianism, may certainly be sus- 
 pected of a liability to change again ; and espe- 
 cially when he professes to have no written 
 creed. But the party that is headed by such a 
 leader have one advantage. They can fly where 
 they please, and thus evade responsibility. We 
 never know where to find them. It is true, if 
 we should have read the last number of the 
 Millennial Harbinger, we may know how to 
 take them to-day, but we can have no assurance 
 of finding them in the same attitude a month 
 hence ; inasmuch as it is more than probable, 
 that the next number will come surcharged with 
 some new light, diverse from that which pre- 
 ceded. And these are the persons who point 
 the finger of scorn at their brethren, and cry 
 out creeds, sectarianism, man-worship ; who 
 inichristianize the world, and make their boast 
 10 T
 
 218 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 
 
 of an exclusive knowledge of the gospel. With 
 little hesitation, we venture to prognosticate, 
 that not a few of them will hold on their way 
 until they have cast away the last tattered rem- 
 nant of the " faith delivered to the saints." — 
 No distant day may see them enrolled upon the 
 annals of infidelity, as beacons of warning to 
 all who are beginning to worship the fond con- 
 ceits of their own minds, or those of their 
 leader's. This is what we fear ; not what we 
 desire. "We would fain hope — nay, we do hope 
 better things of many of them. Some we be- 
 lieve are simple hearted, sincere, and not des- 
 titute of piety. Such we sincerely pity. They 
 have been bewildered and led astray ; and may 
 we not indulge the hope that they are not des- 
 tined to " wax worse and worse ;" but to be^ 
 brought to think upon their ways, and to turn * 
 their feet again to the path of the Divine Tes 
 timonies ? 
 
 
 h
 
 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 219 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 CALL TO THE MINISTRY. 
 
 Unchristian sneers of Mr. Campbell on this subject — a 
 call defined— evangelical christians substantially agreed 
 on this point — the true call lays no claims to inspi- 
 ration or miraculous gifts — such a call possible — ne- 
 cessarj'- — prevailed in the primitive church — and has 
 not ceased — objections answered — mischievous ten- 
 dency of Mr. Campbell's doctrine. 
 
 We have commenced a new subject, but de- 
 sign to despatch it in less time than has been de- 
 voted to either of the preceding topics. Inde- 
 pendent of the pending controversy, the subject 
 'Of the ministerial call is one of deep, absorbing 
 interest to thousands, if not to christians univer- 
 j sally ; and we hope that some remarks upon it 
 may be profitable in more ways than one. 
 
 In reference to this matter, we believe that 
 Mr. Campbell has done much injury to the cause 
 of Christianity. Upon the call to the ministry, 
 we read various articles from his pen, some 
 years ago, but made no extracts ; and having at 
 present, no access to his writings, we shall not 
 be able to state his views in his own words. It 
 is known, however, that here he, professedly 
 stands in opposition to the christian world. Of 
 his, there can be no doubt, upon the mind of 
 my one who has been conversant with the wril- 
 ngs of Mr. Campbell, the harangues of his pro-
 
 220 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED 
 
 claimers, or the operations of his "reformation." 
 The sneering manner in which they have uni- 
 formly treated this subject, and their constant 
 and reckless denunciation of the " called and 
 sent," cannot but have convinced every attentive 
 observer, that they profess to stand in direct op- 
 position to those who claim a Divine call to the 
 ministry. The truth of this statement-^their 
 professing to occupy an opposite position to the 
 "called and sent"-Campbellites themselves, will 
 not deny. Indeed they cannot ; for it forms one 
 article of their creed, was issued from their 
 head quarters, and the world knows, they havef 
 universally practiced upon it. This being suffi- 
 cient for our present purpose, we proceed. 
 
 Upon this subject, as well as upon many oth- 
 ers, there may be some diversity of opinioi^^ 
 among evangelical christians ; but they are gen 
 erally, and perhaps entirely agreed, that the pre 
 rogative of selecting the ministers of the church 
 belongs to God. That this was the case under 
 the former dispensation, none will question. 
 Aaron, his sons, and the whole tribe of Levi, 
 were, by Divine appointment, consecrated to the 
 priestly office ; and Moses, David, and all the 
 prophets derived their authority to declare the 
 counsels of the Almighty from the same source. 
 We discover the same principle in operation at ;l 
 the opening of the gospel dispensation. The 
 first disciples were called by our Lord in person, 
 and by himself commissioned to preach the gos- 
 pel, first to the Jews, and then to the whole 
 world. And subsequently, St. Paul, though in ji 
 
 Ml 
 
 1'
 
 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 221 
 
 a different manner, was called and sent by the 
 same authority. With regard to this, we have 
 no controversy, even with Campbellites. The 
 point at issue is, whether the Almighty exercises 
 the same prerogative in calling men to tlie min- 
 istry now, that he did in the days of the apostles. 
 We believe he does ; but before we enter upon 
 the proof, it may be necessary to state what we 
 mean by said call. 
 
 This may be simply de-fined as a conviction 
 of duty. The subject of it beholds the world 
 lying in wickedness, sees sinners carelessly 
 pursuing the road to ruin, and becomes anxious- 
 ly desirous of their salvation. And if to this be 
 added, a firm persuasion that duty requires him 
 to warn them of their danger, and invite them 
 gj^o the Savior of sinners ; and if this impression 
 l^e such as to create restlessness and a sense of 
 guilt, when pursuing any ordinary occupation, 
 to the exclusion of the work of the ministry, it 
 is presumable he is called to this work. All 
 this, however, is evidence only to himself. 
 Something further is necessary to satisfy the 
 church of the reality of his call, and thus to 
 open the way for his engaging in the work. 
 It would certainly be dangerous to the welfare 
 of any church, for her to give indiscriminate 
 license for all to preach who profess to consid- 
 er it their duty ; for some of these may be labor- 
 ing under a delusion of their own imaginations, 
 and totally disqualified for the work ; while oth- 
 ers may be hypocrites, and fit only to become 
 ministers of Satan. Hence, all churches have 
 T 2
 
 222 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 
 
 some method of proving those who claim to be 
 called to the ministry. The evidence that satis- 
 fies the Methodist Episcopal church of the reali- 
 ty of this call is the existence of three marks, 
 viz : " grace," "gifts," and "fruit," or useful- 
 ness. Whether these do, or do not exist, the 
 church, and those vvliose province it is to license 
 him, may, to a good degree, determine. " And 
 so long as these three marks concur in any one, 
 we believe he is called of God to preach." But 
 if these are not found, he is not received ; and 
 this circumstance, if he is humble and conside- 
 rate, will lead him to conclude either that he ^ 
 has mistaken his caUing, or that the time has 
 not arrived for him to enter upon the work; for 
 the Providence of God will surely prepare the 
 way before him whom he has selected to labo^|M||| 
 in his vineyard. But if the above mentioneflBH 
 three marks are found to concur in the applicant, ^' 
 the church authorities do not hesitate to autho- 
 rize him to preach ; and thus his convictions 
 concerning the path of duty are confirmed ; and 
 in after life, the fruit of his labor tends to 
 strengthen and establish him in the work. 
 
 These are the views of our own denomination, 
 in reference to the ministerial call ; and so far 
 as we know, our brethren of other denomina- 
 tions, entertain, substantially, the same senti- 
 ments. But the question arises, how is this 
 conviction of duty produced ? Who, or what 
 is its author ? We have already expressed the 
 belief that God exercises the same prerogative 
 now, in calling men to the ministry, that he did
 
 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 233 
 
 in the days of the apostles ; and we will add our 
 hearty concurrence in the views of the church 
 to which we belong, that every true minister of 
 Jesus Christ " is moved by the Holy Ghost" 
 to preach the gospel. But it is not contended 
 by us, nor by any orthodox church, that the 
 modes by which the will of the Almighty is 
 made known to the selected individual, are the 
 same now that they w^ere in former ages. That 
 there is, in some respects, a difference between 
 them, cannot, for a moment, be doubted. But 
 this concession does not in the least, militate 
 against the opinion that the call is still Divine ; 
 for in the age of miracles, men were not always 
 called to the sacred office in the same manner. 
 While the will of God, in setting apart Aaron 
 and the tribe of Levi, was made known through 
 Moses, that will in relation to the work assign- 
 ed to Moses, Samuel, and the prophets, was 
 communicated immediately to themselves ; and 
 while Peter and John, and the rest of the 
 eleven, received their commission from the lips 
 of the Savior before his ascension, Saul of Tarsus 
 was afterwards called in a different manner, 
 though none the less effectual. The fact, there- 
 fore, that a change in the manner of calling 
 men to the ministry has taken place since the 
 days of the apostles, is no argument against the 
 reality of the call. It is no longer miraculous, 
 but it is still Divine. 
 
 The ministerial call, as believed in, and un- 
 derstood by Protestant christians, lays no claim 
 to an influence of ths Spirit amounting to inspi-
 
 224 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 
 
 ration, in its primsry sense, nor to the gift of 
 tongues, or the power of working miracles. 
 These belonged exclusively to former times, 
 and are not at present called for. Dreams and 
 visions, extraordinary and unaccountable impres- 
 sions, and the hearing of voices, constitute no 
 part of that call for which w^e contend. It is 
 admitted, however, that some modern enthusi- 
 asts, such as the Irvingites of England, and the 
 Mormonites of this country, have pretended to 
 possess these extraordinary powers ; and it may 
 be that some sincere and pious persons among 
 the regular churches, have imagined themselves 
 called to engage in the ministry, by visions and 
 by audible, supernatural voices. But these 
 imaginings, the offspring of weak or unsteady 
 minds, can no more be charged upon the church- 
 es where they may have occurred, than can 
 Bishop Rigdon's folUes, who left the " reforma- 
 tion" for Mormonism, be charged upon Bishop 
 Campbell. Certain it is, that the sects in this 
 country, against which Mr. Campbell's philip- 
 ics have been directed, do not give counte- 
 nance to these fables, or lay claim to any such 
 extraordinary powers. We have mentioned 
 these things because " reformers" have been in 
 the habit of misrepresenting our views upon this 
 subject. Whether from ignorance or otherwise, 
 we know not, but it is certain their usual prac- 
 tice has been to represent the gift of tongues 
 and the power of working miracles as insepara- 
 ble from the ministerial call; and because we 
 believe in the latter, they have charged us with
 
 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 225 
 
 the absurdity and folly of laying claim to the 
 former. And after having thus reared an imagi- 
 nary something, which no sober minded, intelli- 
 gent christian in modern times, ever thought of 
 admitting into his creed, we have beheld theni 
 gravely set about the work of demolishing it. 
 But the folly with which they brand us is the 
 creature of their own brain. It has never dis- 
 graced our creeds, and we trust never will. 
 And their conduct in this respect may be well 
 likened to that of the juggler, who professes to 
 conjure up an evil spirit that he may have 
 the honor and the profit of sending it back to 
 its own place, and thus excite the astonishment 
 of his credulous auditory. 
 
 We defined above this ministerial call as be- 
 ing a conviction of duty, wrought by the Holy 
 Ghost in the heart of him who is selected for 
 the work, so as to render it dangerous and sin- 
 ful for Imn to refuse to engage in it ; but not 
 so as to suppose him inspired, in the ordinary 
 sense of that term, or endowed with miraculous 
 gifts. 
 
 The possibility of men being thus called, 
 will scarcely be questioned by any one who be- 
 lieves the Bible, and seriously considers the 
 tendency of such a position. We are aware 
 that Mr. Campbell's ultraism in reference to the 
 influence of the Spirit, assuming that men can 
 only be operated upon through the media of 
 words or signs, would render that call to the 
 ministry for which we contend, an impossibili- 
 ty ; for grant this position, and it will certainly 
 10*
 
 226 GAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 
 
 follow, that the Almighty, without the inter- 
 vention of a preternatural voice, or something 
 else of that character, could call no man to 
 preach. But this assumption we have pre- 
 viously examined and found it to be both un- 
 scriptural and unreasonable ; and we are not 
 prepared to believe that Mr. Campbell would 
 have adopted it, had he been fully aware of its 
 tendency. If it can be carried out, without 
 landing him in materialism, we are much mis- 
 taken. To suppose it impossible for that pure 
 and omnipotent Spirit who gave man his being, 
 to have immediate intercourse with the spirits of 
 his creatures, is not only to limit his power 
 and reject his Word, which plainly teaches 
 such an intercourse, but virtually to deny the 
 possibility of the existence of spirit separate 
 from matter, a consequence so entirely hostile 
 to Christianity that every sober minded, sincere 
 Campbellite, must refuse to give it his sanction. 
 But to attempt proof here is not necessary. 
 Our readers will at once see, that it is possible 
 for the Almighty by his Spirit to impress upon 
 the minds of those whom he designs to make 
 his ambassadors, the conviction that it is their 
 duty to preach the Gospel, while by his provi- 
 dence he opens the way for them to engage in 
 this important work. 
 
 That there is now as great a necessity for 
 preaching the gospel, as there was at any for- 
 mer period of the church, will not, perhaps, be 
 doubted. At any rate, all will admit that the 
 gospel should be preached. But who are to
 
 CAMPBELLI3M EXPOSED. 237 
 
 preach it ? Men who are called, or men who 
 are not called ? Those who consider it their 
 duty, or those who do not consider it their du- 
 ty ? Unquestionably the former ; for if Camp- 
 bellites or others, engage in preaching or pro- 
 claiming, who do not esteem it their duty to do 
 so, they are acting the part of dishonest hypo- 
 crites ; and consequently, doing the service of 
 Satan, The gospel then must be preached by 
 men who consider it their duty to engage in 
 this work. And here the question of the apos- 
 tle is forcible, " How shall they preach except 
 they be sent." But it may be said the church 
 is to send them, and that'this is all the call that 
 is required. We do not know, indeed, that 
 Campbellites will admit of even this ; for we 
 believe it to be a part of their economy to allow 
 the whole fraternity, male and female, to teach 
 and administer the ordinances, just as seemeth 
 good in their own eyes. It may be, however, 
 that in certain cases they consider an appoint- 
 ment by the church to be necessary. And here 
 we shall not disagree ; for we formerly ac- 
 knowledged it to be the duty of the church to 
 sanction, and showed the importance of minis- 
 ters receiving her authority. But this does not 
 supercede the necessity of a higher call. For 
 the church can only license such as are con- 
 vinced that duty requires them to preach ; and 
 the question to be settled is. How did they re- 
 ceive this conviction ? St. Paul tells us, that 
 *'he who desires the office of a bishop, desires 
 a good work f^^ and another inspired writer as-
 
 228 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 
 
 sures us that " every good and perfect gift 
 Cometh down from the Father of lights." Now 
 put these together, and we have the irresistible 
 conclusion that the minister of Christ receives 
 his convictions of duty, and his desires for the 
 work, from above ; and consequently, his call 
 is divine. In confirmation of this, let it be re- 
 membered that the Lord, in allusion to the pre- 
 sent dispensation, promised, by Jeremiah, to 
 give the church " pastors according to his own 
 heart,'" in which he undoubtedly claimed the 
 privilege of selecting his own ministers. And 
 in perfect agreement with the above, is the di- 
 rection of our Lord to his followers. " Pray 
 ye the Lord of the harvest that he would send 
 forth laborers into his harvest." Now such a 
 prayer as this upon Campbellite principles, 
 would certainly amount to a solemn mockery. 
 What ! pray to the Lord to do that which he will 
 have no hand in doing ? which he has left to the 
 discretion of the church, or to the whim of each 
 individual member ? No indeed ; such a prayer 
 would be too much like that of the fabled wag- 
 oner, and no consistent Campbellite would pre- 
 sume to offer it. His plan would be to advise 
 the church to make such selections from among 
 the members as she should see fit, and send 
 them out into the field, or to leave the harvest 
 for every novice to thrust in his sickle, and 
 spoil and destroy the grain at his pleasure. 
 But this method of making ministers is of mod- 
 ern invention ; not dating so far back as the days 
 of Jesus Christ, or his apostles. The " J^ord
 
 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 229 
 
 of the harvest" did not advise his followers to 
 select such young men as they should consider 
 pious, and send thein to college that they might 
 learn to preach, nor to select and send out such 
 as they might consider already to have a suita- 
 ble education ; but to pray to Him, whose pro- 
 vince it is to select his own ambassadors, that 
 He would send them forth into his vineyard. 
 And if such a command does not necessarily 
 imply that every true minister of Christ is 
 called of God, and " moved by the Holy 
 Ghost," to preach the gospel, it will, we pre- 
 sume, be extremely difficult to find that it means 
 any thing. 
 
 But Mr. Campbell will tell us, that the im- 
 pression as to the path of duty, of which we 
 have spoken, may be produced by various nat- 
 ural means, without supposing any divine agen- 
 cy, that reading, conversation, attending the 
 preaching of the Word, or the casual remarks 
 of a parent, may serve to fix the notion of 
 preaching upon the mind of his youthful son, 
 which in process of time ripens in the firm con- 
 viction that he is called to the work. That 
 any, or all these may be used as secondary 
 causes in effecting the object under considera- 
 tion, we have no disposition to question ; for 
 this is in perfect accordance with the idea of a 
 call from above. God ordinarily works by 
 means, he alone it is, that justifies and sancti- 
 fies the sinner, and yet he has ordained the 
 preaching of the gospel, and various other 
 means to promote the salvation of souls. The 
 U
 
 230 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 
 
 Lord Jesus could have given the blind man 
 sight by a word, but he chose to make use of 
 clay and spittle, and then to send him to the 
 pool of Siloam that he might wash and see. 
 But the use of these means did not render the 
 cure any the less the effect of Divine power ; 
 nor does the intervention of means, in fixing 
 upon the mind an impression of the duty of 
 preaching the gospel, militate in the least 
 against the idea that the Holy Ghost is the 
 prime mover and instigator to that work. 
 
 And is there not, in the very nature of things, 
 a necessity for the appointment of the ministers 
 of the church, by Divine authority ? This ne- 
 cessity certainly did exist in former times, and 
 appointments were made accordingly. Hence, 
 the Levites were consecrated to the duties of 
 the sanctuary, under the Mosaic dispensation ; 
 and hence, the apostles were commissioned to 
 preach the gospel and administer the ordinan- 
 ces at the opening of the christian era. These 
 appointments were all by Divine authority. 
 And is the church of God of less consequence 
 under the christian dispensation, than it was 
 under the Jewish ? Does it not require as 
 much of his fostering care now as it did in the 
 days of Paul and Peter ? Men are still requir- 
 ed, whose business it shall be to preach the 
 gospel and administer the sacraments — work to 
 which the apostles were specially appointed by 
 the Head of the church — and surely we are au- 
 thorized to infer that the same wisdom and au- 
 thority are still necessary in selecting and ap-
 
 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 231 
 
 pointing those who are to discharge these im- 
 portant duties. 
 
 That this principle prevailed in the church 
 during the time that the inspired writers have 
 furnished us with its history, will not admit of 
 a doubt. Subsequently to the commissioning 
 of the eleven, Paul and Barnabas received au- 
 thority from the same source, and the Holy 
 Ghost required them to be separated for the 
 work whereunto he had called them. The el- 
 ders of Ephesus received their commissions in 
 like manner ; for St. Paul commanded them 
 " to feed the church of God," over which the 
 Holy Ghost had made them overseers. And 
 we may safely infer that all the early preachers, 
 whether apostles, elders, deacons, or teachers, 
 derived their authority from the same Almighty 
 power. This, indeed, cannot be disputed. 
 Even Campbellites admit the Divine authority 
 of the apostles ; but tell us that that authority 
 was not extended beyond the first age of Chris- 
 tianity. But this remains to be proved, and if 
 it were established, it would prove too much ; 
 for the authority to administer baptism, being 
 inseparably connected with the call to the min- 
 istry, the latter cannot be disannulled, without 
 abrogating the former. The Savior after his 
 resurrection, said to his disciples, " Go ye, 
 therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them 
 in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and 
 of the Holy Ghost ;" and in thus commission- 
 ing them to preach his gospel, he instituted the 
 ordinance of christian baptism, and authorised
 
 233 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 
 
 and commanded them to administer it. It is, 
 therefore, clear that the call to the ministry and 
 the right to baptize, are so united that they 
 jnust stand or fall together ; and hence that ar- 
 gument which goes to confine the ministerial 
 call to the apostolic age, will have the same ef- 
 fect upon the authority to administer baptism, 
 and prove that the world has had neither 
 preachers nor ordinances for the last seventeen 
 centuries. 
 
 We are aware that Campbellism proceeds 
 upon the supposition that every convert made 
 by the apostles, was permitted to turn baptizer. 
 But this is assumption, and not proof. Mr. 
 C^npbell, indeed, has labored hard to prove it: 
 but with all the tortures to which his ingenuity 
 has subjected the subtilties of sophistry, he has 
 not been able to adduce from the 'New Testa- 
 ment, either precept or example in favor of ' 
 baptism by laymen. Nor is this at all aston- . 
 isHing, for that book contains no evidence that 
 any individual, not called of God to the work 
 of the ministry, ever did administer baptism. 
 Mr. Campbell may presume and suppose what 
 he pleases, and his followers may assist him 
 with their own imaginings for aught we care ; 
 but a thousand of their suppositions will not 
 make one Bible truth. The proof is what we 
 require ; and that can never be given. But on 
 the contrary, we have certain knowledge, not 
 only that the authority to preach and baptize, 
 was originally given by the great Head of the 
 church to the same individuals, but that this
 
 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 233 
 
 practice continued down to the close of the New 
 Testament history of the church ; and that we 
 have no conclusive evidence of baptism having 
 been performed by laymen, till that darkness and 
 superstition began to overspread the church, 
 which gave birth to Mr. Campbell's fundamen- 
 tal error that baptism is essential to salvation. 
 We, may, therefore, safely infer that the notion 
 that all christians have equal authority to 
 administer the ordinances, has no other founda- 
 tion than mere human opinion. And hence, 
 we repeat, that any argument which shall prove 
 the call to the ministry to have ceased with the 
 apostles, will prove that all authority to bap- 
 tize shared the same fate ; and as baptism is 
 the initiating rite, it must follow that there is at 
 present, no visible church upon earth. 
 
 The limits assigned to the investigation of 
 the present topic, admonish us that further re- 
 marks in proof of the perpetuation of a Divine- 
 ly constituted ministry to preach the Gospel, 
 and administer the ordinances of the church, 
 must be suspended. And indeed, we consid- 
 er the proof already given, as abundantly suffi- 
 cient ; for though we occupy the affirmative of 
 the question, the circumstances of the case are 
 such as to throw the necessity of furnishing 
 proof entirely upon our opponents. We have 
 seen that a divinely constituted ministry did 
 once exist — that the original apostles and after 
 them Paul and Barnabas, Silas and Philip, and 
 the elders of Ephesus, and in short, all the 
 preachers and teachers of the apostolic age, 
 u2
 
 234 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 
 
 were called of God, and by him appointed to 
 the work ; and in the absence of all proof to the 
 contrary, we are bound to infer that such a 
 ministry is still continued in the church. It 
 remains, then for Mr. Campbell to prove the 
 negative of this ; to show from Scripture that 
 the Almighty has ceased to appoint his minis- 
 ters, and surrendered that prerogative which he 
 exercised in the first age of the church. And 
 until this is done, we shall consider the raillery 
 and satire with which he and his satellites are 
 in the habit of honoring the " called and sent ;'* 
 and all their assertions and presumings that the 
 Holy Ghost has called no man to preach, since 
 the apostles left the world, as abortive and in- 
 significant, in view of the question at issue, as 
 was the weight of the conceited gnat upon the 
 horn of the ox. 
 
 It only remains now for us to examine a few 
 objections or arguments that have been urged 
 against a Divine call to the ministry. 
 
 1. Such a call is said to be unreasonable, be- 
 cause those who profess to be the subjects of it, 
 are not only destitute of the means of convinc- 
 ing others, but sometimes are in doubts them- 
 selves, whether in reality they have received it. 
 
 The first member of this objection can have 
 no bearing upon the question, because the fact 
 assumed is not true. He who possesses grace, 
 gifts, and talents for usefulness, who lives a 
 blameless, holy life, and is " apt to teach," 
 who " desires" the " good work" of a minis- 
 ter, and in whose hands " the sword of the
 
 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 235 
 
 Spirit*' is made *' the power of God unto sal- 
 vation," is not destitute of the means of con- 
 vincing others of the Divine reality of his call. 
 For these signs and qualifications necessarily 
 appertain to the ministerial character as set 
 forth in the Scriptures, and can only attend 
 upon him whom God has qualified for the 
 work. Nor are we warranted to believe that 
 any man can thus preach the gospel without 
 this Divine authority. Lecture and harangue 
 the people, as do Mr. Campbell's proclaimers, 
 he may ; but to preach " Christ Jesus, and him 
 crucified," " in demonstration of the Spirit, 
 and with power," so that sinners are pierced 
 to the heart, and brought to experience the 
 power of saving grace, is wholly beyond his 
 ability, and belongs to him only who has re- 
 ceived " power from on high." And he whose 
 life and labors manifest the presence of this 
 *' holy unction," will ever carry conviction to 
 the minds of at least a part of his hearers, that 
 his authority is Divine. 
 
 Of the truth of the second part of the objec- 
 tion, we have no doubt. Gospel ministers may 
 sometimes be in doubt as to the reality of their 
 call. But we shall not admit that this is any 
 argument against a Divinely constituted minis- 
 try ; for on the contrary, it appears in perfect 
 accordance with man's probationary state, in 
 which it may at times be needful for him to be 
 " in heaviness through manifold temptations,'* 
 and in which God may lead him " by a way 
 that he knows not." That the child of God,
 
 236 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 
 
 in some dark moment, may seriously question 
 his acceptance, cannot admit of a rational doubt. 
 To this, we are aware Mr. Campbell demurs, 
 and assumes that christians may know they are 
 washed from their sins so long as they remem- 
 ber their immersion ; but as this method of 
 proving our adoption is man's work — being 
 wholly unknown to the New Testament — it 
 only shows the folly of that system of which 
 it forms a conspicuous part. We therefore re- 
 peat that the christian may, at times, be led to 
 question whether he has been "born again;" 
 but does this fact prove that there is no such 
 thing as the new birth ? Not at all. And yet 
 it might be urged in proof of this, with as much 
 plausibility, as can the fact that ministers may 
 have doubts of the reality of their call, to prove 
 that God has never called them. The truth is, 
 that in either case the evidence of its reality, 
 may, in some instances, be attained by slow 
 degrees, and in point of clearness, may not on- 
 ly differ in different individuals, but owing to 
 constitutional temperament, and other causes, it 
 may at different times vary in the same indi- 
 vidual. But still the work is of God. It is 
 his Spirit that witnesses to the believer, that he 
 is born from above, and it is the Holy Ghost 
 that moves the christian minister to preach the 
 gospel. And whatever doubts may arise in ei- 
 ther case, they will generally be removed by 
 searching the Scriptures, self-examination, and 
 fervent prayer. In proportion as the christian 
 walks worthy of his vocation, and advances in
 
 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 237 
 
 holiness, will his doubts and fears decrease ; 
 and just so with the minister of the gospel in 
 reference to his call to the work of an evan- 
 gelist. 
 
 2. But in the next place we are told, that it 
 is absurd to suppose that God would call such 
 ignorant and illiterate men, a« are many of the 
 professedly " called and sent," to teach others 
 the way of salvation. We shall by no means 
 contend that all who profess a Divine call to the 
 ministry, are in reality thus called. There 
 were false teachers even in the apostles' days, 
 and there are such still. Some, from sinister 
 motives may have been led to a.ssume the live- 
 ry of heaven, while others, in engaging in the 
 work, may be honestly mistaken; but in both 
 cases, they lack the most essential qualification, 
 and their deficiencies will ultimately be discov- 
 ered by others, if not by themselves. And 
 whether such be ignorant or learned in refer- 
 ence to literary attainments, the result is the 
 same. Nor shall we offer any apology for ig- 
 norance in the christian minister, by supposing 
 that the Almiglity consecrates stupidity and 
 blindness of mind to his service. In the first 
 age of Christianity, we are aware that he 
 "chose the weak things of this world to con- 
 found the mighty," but this was in the day of 
 miracles ; and though he may still, in some in- 
 stances, act upon the same principle, we have 
 no reason to believe that this principle prevails 
 in the present day, to the extent that it did in 
 the infancy of Christianity. Ignorance and
 
 238 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 
 
 blindness of mind are the effects of sin ; and 
 as the minister wars with sin, he should espe- 
 cially labor to free his own mind from its para- 
 lyzing effects. In short, he should, he must 
 have a theological education. But on this sub- 
 ject we must needs explain. By the education 
 spoken of, we do not mean an academic initia- 
 tion into scientific theology ; nor will we admit 
 that the real usefulness of ministers bears a 
 general sort of proportion to their classical at- 
 tainments, or to the external advantages they 
 may have enjoyed ; though such attainments, 
 so far from being disreputable, or unworthy the 
 attention of the minister, may greatly assist him 
 in his work. The education to which we re- 
 fer, is nothing else than a comprehensive 
 knowledge of the Bible — a thorough acquaint- 
 ance with the scheme of salvation through a 
 crucified Savior, as set forth in the Scriptures. 
 In addition, we care not how much literary and 
 scientific knowledge may be possessed. The 
 more, the better, if judiciously used to advance 
 the great object of preaching — but still with- 
 out these, the minister may be extensively use- 
 ful in his vocation. Let him be taught in the 
 school of Christ, and by industry and intense 
 application, by " watchings, fastings, and tribu- 
 lations," by faith and spirituality, and indiffer- 
 ence to the world, and above all, by fervent, 
 effectual prayer, have acquired a deep and ex- 
 tensive knowledge of Revealed Truth ; and 
 this is all the theological education which we 
 consider absolutely indispensable. But is there
 
 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 239 
 
 any justice in designating such a one as an ig- 
 norant man?" By no means. It is true his 
 literary acquirements may extend but Uttle be- 
 yond the bare competency to read the EngUsh 
 Bible ; and yet on theological questions, and 
 on experimental and practical religion, he may 
 be fully competent to instruct even Alexander 
 Campbell. 
 
 The objection now under consideration, haB 
 been very current among the teachers of Mr. 
 Campbell's gospel. Nor is this at all marvel- 
 ous, for their leader set the example by ridi- 
 culing the idea that men so destitute of literary 
 attainments as to have no theoretical knowl- 
 edge of their mother tongue, should profess to 
 be called of God to preach, and his followers 
 of course had to echo the same sentiment. We 
 once heard a proclaimer laboring upon this 
 point, who took occasion to observe that he 
 pitied the ignorant enthusiast, who could stand 
 in the pulpit and say, " Wo is me if I preach 
 not the gospel ;" and we recollected to have 
 seen the same proclaimer some years before, in 
 the pulpit as a Baptist preacher, and to have 
 heard him say, " Necessity is laid upon me; 
 yea, wo is me if I preach not the gospel." 
 And we could but think that he had taken an 
 excellent method to convince the public of his 
 want of consistency. Formerly he averred in 
 the most positive manner, that God had called 
 him to preach, and now he as positively declar- 
 ed that he never received any such call ; and 
 surely the man who could thus contradict him-
 
 240 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 
 
 self, should not be astonished if an intelligent 
 community should consider him as either de- 
 fective in understanding", or in point of moral 
 honesty. Nor is this the only inconsistency 
 involved in the objection before us ; for even if 
 it was plausible, it comes with very ill grace 
 from those who urge it. However deficient in 
 point of intelligence some of the professedly 
 " called and sent" may be, they have certainly 
 not monopolized all the ignorance of the day. 
 The teachers of Campbellism, numbers con- 
 sidered, have at least an equal proportion of this 
 commodity. On this point we have been an 
 attentive observer some years, and should it 
 ever be found expedient to immortalize that de- 
 nomination of professed christians, whose teach- 
 ers possess the lowest amount of literary and 
 theological information, we hazard nothing in 
 saying that Campbellites will stand a good 
 chance to live for ever. If then, tliat want of 
 intelligence which they charge upon the minis- 
 ters of Christ, be such as to disqualify them 
 for preaching, and thus to render their call 
 questionable, must not the teachers of the " an- 
 cient gospel," with the same amount of igno- 
 rance, be equally incompetent ? Or does it re- 
 quire a less amount of information to qualify a 
 man to become a teacher of religion, without a 
 Divine call, than with one ? Let the reader 
 judge. 
 
 3. In the third place, a special call to the 
 ministry is declared to be incredible, because
 
 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 241 
 
 of the contradictory doctrines of those who 
 equally profess to have received it. 
 
 This objection is pretty much of a piece with 
 another statement from the same source. Mr. 
 Caflipbell has said, and no doubt all of his pro- 
 claimers have reiterated it, that the preachers 
 of the various sects preach different gospels. 
 But neither this assertion, nor the above objec- 
 tion, can be received without considerable 
 abatement. Arminicusand Calvinists, Church- 
 men and Dissenters, with all the various de- 
 nominations that are considered evangelical, not 
 only preach the same gospel, but so far as its 
 essential features are concerned they preach 
 the same doctrines. While they differ con- 
 cerning church government, external ceremo- 
 nies, the extent of the atonement, and other 
 things of less importance, so far as to justi- 
 fy their sectional divisions, they all unite in 
 proclaiming the same Lord and Savior, " God 
 manifest in the flesh," and the merits of his 
 death, as the only ground for the sinner's hope 
 of pardon, and justification by faith, and regen- 
 eration and sanctification by the Holy Spirit, 
 and in ascribing all the glory of man's salva- 
 tion alone to God. Hence the different sects so 
 much abused by Mr. Campbell, preach substan- 
 tially the same fundamental doctrines, and en- 
 tirely the same gospel, while he it is that stands 
 aloof, differing from them all, and proclaiming 
 *' another gospel." And thus Mr. Campbell 
 and his little party are found arrayed upon one 
 side, and against them the fearful odds of the 
 
 11 V
 
 242 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 
 
 Bible, and all the evangelical sects of Protest- 
 ant Christendom. 
 
 But still the above objection is urged, and 
 we are asked, " If men are called to preach, 
 why do they not speak the same language, and 
 hold forth precisely the same doctrines V The 
 reason is obvious — they are not inspired. If 
 they were inspired to inform the world of doc- 
 trines not previously revealed, we might ex- 
 pect an entire unity, so far as those doctrines 
 were concerned ; but even then they might dif- 
 fer in reference to other matters. Such differ- 
 ences in reality obtained among the apostles. 
 Paul withstood Peter to the face, insisting that 
 he was to blame ; and Paul and Barnabas dif- 
 fered in judgment and separated. And though 
 they preached " one Lord, one faith, and one 
 baptism," they expressed themselves in lan- 
 guage and manner so different, that we will 
 venture to say, the most absurd tenet that has 
 been countenanced by any respectable denomi- 
 nation of christians in modern times, may find 
 as much apparent support in some isolated 
 texts of their writings, as can the leading fea- 
 tures of Mr. Campbell's system in any portion 
 of the Scriptures. But neither the various 
 methods used by the apostles in detailing those 
 doctrines in which they were perfectly agreed, 
 nor those differences in judgment that actually 
 existed among them, furnish any reason to 
 question their inspiration ; and certainly the 
 difference of views among ministers of the 
 present day, upon points of minor importance,
 
 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 243 
 
 not aftecting the sure foundation, can be no evi- 
 dence that they are not sent of God. 
 
 4. Another objection to a Divinely consti- 
 tuted ministry, is the absence of miraculous 
 gifts. — " You say that God has called you to 
 preach," says Mr. Campbell, " work a mira- 
 cle, and we will believe you." 
 
 This objection, in some sense, forms the ba- 
 sis of all the others ; and, no doubt, is the prin- 
 cipal source of error in leading to a rejection 
 of the ministerial call. To confound the work 
 of the minister with the v/orking of miracles, 
 or to suppose that the preaching of the gospel, 
 and miraculous gifts and powers, were neces- 
 sarily united, and always appertained to the 
 same individuals, even in the days of the apos- 
 tles, is assuming what cannot be proved from 
 the New Testament ; for on the contrary, that 
 book obviously leads to a different conclusion. 
 Both women and men, ordinary members of 
 the church, in some instances, prophesied and 
 were favored with miraculous, spiritual gifts, 
 though never called or s-et apart to the work of 
 the ministry. These visible and extraordinary 
 manifestations of the power of God, were, it is 
 true, first imparted to the apostles, but did not 
 necessarily constitute a part of their call to 
 preach, being given to convince the world of 
 the truth of that system which they were in- 
 spired to make known. And as this object 
 could be advanced wherever those " signs and 
 wonders" were seen in the converts to that sys- 
 tem, it is not only reasonable that they should
 
 244 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 
 
 be imparted to others than the apostles, but 
 clear, from some parts of St. Paul's epistles, 
 that spiritual gifts, including the power of work- 
 ing miracles, were actually conferred on many 
 of the primitive christians. Seeing, then, that 
 these extraordinary gifts, while they continued 
 in the church, were not confined to the apos- 
 tles and preachers, and did not exclusively ap- 
 pertain to the ministerial character, it is certain- 
 ly very unreasonable to argue that the want of 
 such powers, in preachers of the present day, 
 is evidence that they are not called to the work. 
 The same argument, if we are not much mis- 
 taken, would be equally as successful in prov- 
 ing that there is not at present, one on earth, 
 who believes in Christ ; for he expressly de- 
 clared that " these signs" — casting out devils, • 
 speaking with new tongues, and healing the 
 sick — " should follow them that believe.^'' 
 
 At the first propagation of the gospel, mira- 
 cles were necessary ; not to qualify the minis- 
 ter to deliver his message, but to convince his 
 hearers of its truth. But there was no neces- 
 sity for their continuance beyond that period 
 which saw the Revelation of Jesus Christ com- 
 pleted, and his religion established by evidence 
 that rendered it unreasonable to doubt. Hence, 
 St. Paul, in the 13th chapter of 1st Corinthi- 
 ans, plainly declared that the time should come, 
 when the gift of tongues and of prophesying 
 should " cease and vanish away," and when 
 this period arrived, those extraordinary means 
 of spreading the gospel were taken from the
 
 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 245 
 
 church ; hence, the necessity for miracles ceased 
 with the establishment of Christianity ; but the 
 necessity of evangelizing the world by the or- 
 dinary means of preaching the gospel, did not 
 then cease, nor can it while there remains an 
 impenitent sinner upon earth. It is, therefore, 
 certain that the calling of men to the ministry 
 has been, and must be perpetuated. 
 
 5. The last objection or argument we shall 
 notice, is of a character somewhat different 
 from the preceding ; being nothing more than 
 the declaration of those who oppose the idea 
 of the existence of a Divinely constituted min- 
 istry, that they themselves are not called. 
 
 This argument has been much in vogue a- 
 mong the proclaimers of Campbellism. One 
 of them, some years ago in a public harangue, 
 capt the climax of a number of anti-call argu- 
 ments, by assuring his hearers, that he was 
 neither " called nor sent to preach !" Upon 
 which a drunk man in the congregation instant- 
 ly responded, " Then, sir, I think you had bet- 
 ter sit down." Had this man been sober, we 
 doubt whether he could have spoken more to 
 the point ; for certainly it argues a little temeri- 
 ty, for any man to be constantly endeavoring 
 to do that which he declares he has no authori- 
 ty to do. But to return to the argument. We 
 have not the least disposition to attempt to de- 
 tract from its merits, or to weaken its force. 
 That man who tells me he is not called to 
 preach, I am bound to believe in this matter; 
 but to infer from this that all others are as dee- 
 v2
 
 246 CAJtfPBELLISM EXPOSED. 
 
 titute of a call as he is, would be strange logic. 
 We have heard of an honest German who 
 thought himself fully competent to prove that 
 there was no such city as London, because he 
 had crossed the ocean and never seen it. But 
 this argument instead of showing the non ex- 
 istence of the place, only proved the ignorance 
 of the man. And so it ia with the case before 
 us. The proclaimer, who declares that God 
 has never called him to minister in holy things, 
 leaves entirely untouched the question of the 
 reality of such a call in other cases, while he 
 furnishes pretty conclusive evidence of his own 
 incapacity and lack of authority for the work 
 in which he is engaged. We pray that all 
 such may see their folly, and turn from the er- 
 ror of their ways, lest in the day of retribution, 
 God should say to them as to the wicked, 
 "What hadst thou to do to declare my statutes, 
 or to take my covenant in thy mouth ?" 
 
 Having despatched these objections, we shall 
 close the present topic. At its commencement 
 we expressed the conviction that Mr. Camp- 
 bell's opposition to the ministerial call had done 
 much injury to Christianity. We are still of 
 the same opinion. Whatever tends to subvert 
 the established order of the church, and to di- 
 minish that respect and regard which are just- 
 ly due to its officers and their work, must in a 
 ratio proportionate to its prevalence, operate to 
 the disadvantage of true godliness. And who 
 but a " reformer," will question that Campbell- 
 ism has had this tendency ? That God has set
 
 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 247 
 
 in the church pastors and ministers, selected 
 by him, and set apart "by prayer and the lay- 
 ing on of hands," for preaching the Word and 
 administering the ordinances, cannot be ration- 
 ally doubted by any one who believes the Bi- 
 ble, and carefully and impartially examines its 
 contents. But the " restorer of the ancient or- 
 der," has impiously cast all these aside, de- 
 claring that God does not specially call any 
 man to this work, that all men have equal au- 
 thority to preach, to baptize, and to consecrate 
 the elements of the Lord's supper ; and has 
 thus to the utmost of his ability, not only sub- 
 verted all "rule and authority" in the church, 
 but greatly detracted from that sanctity and so- 
 lemnity that appertain to the institutions of the 
 Lord ; and even joined with the infidel in pour- 
 ing contempt upon his ministers and people. 
 We have noticed for some years the striking 
 similarity between Mr. Campbell and the avow- 
 ed enemies of Christianity, in regard to the a- 
 buse and ridicule with which they honor the 
 ministers and people of the different sects of 
 christians. This similarity has been observed 
 by others ; and in one case, at least, it came 
 near placing a devoted "reformer" in rather 
 an unpleasant attitude. A gentleman of our 
 acquaintance who had been more than once 
 honored with a seat in the legislature of Ken- 
 tucky, became a convert to Campbellism while 
 it was yet in its infancy. After some years, 
 he was, without knowing its character, induced 
 to subscribe for one of those liberal publics-
 
 248 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 
 
 tions, that advocate the most barefaced atheism, 
 and blaspheme the sacred principles of virtue 
 and religion. When the paper came to hand,' 
 he was greatly delighted in reading its columns ; 
 and showed it to som.e of his brethren, assu- 
 ring them that it was an excellent auxiliary in 
 the cause of the "reformation." But they, 
 having more knowledge on such subjects, dis- 
 covered its true chai-acter, and informed him 
 that the editor was an avowed infidel. " An 
 infidel," said he, "it is not possible ! Why, 
 he ridicules the sects, and preachers, and 
 priests, and priest-craft, just like Mr. Camp- 
 bell." And indeed, so it was. The champi- 
 on of this modern " reformation," the digger 
 up of the '• ancient gospel" from beneath the 
 accumulated rubbish of centuries, and the im- 
 pious atheist, were found using the same weap- 
 ons against the benevolent institutions of the 
 day, and in opposition to the piety and wisdom 
 of the age. We do not mean, however, to 
 charge Mr. Campbell with atheism. Where 
 he may land in future, we know not, nor is it 
 our province even to guess ; but at present, we 
 see no reason to suspect him of any bias in that 
 direction. And yet the fact above stated, cannot 
 be denied, and we do believe that his principles 
 and practice, in reference to this subject alone, 
 have greatly tended " to strengthen the hands of 
 evil doers," and subvert the Scriptural order and e- 
 conomy of God's church, and thereby, done mors 
 injury to the cause of Christianity, than every re- 
 deeming feature of his "reformation," and all his 
 talents and acquirements are likely to atone for.
 
 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 249 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 CONCLUSION. 
 
 Mr. Campbell's dilemma considered respecting the opera- 
 tion of the Spirit — bad effects of Mr. C.'s doctrine on 
 this topic — recapitulation of the foregoing chapters — 
 concluding remarks. 
 
 The Millennial Harbinger for August 1835, 
 contains a communication in relation to some of 
 our remarks that seems to require a passing no- 
 tice, before we make our exit. It was written 
 from James Town, Ohio, by one who appears 
 to be as thoroughly Campbellized as any other 
 reformer. We do not notice it, either because 
 we have any desire to engage the chivalrous 
 writer, or because we consider the merit of his 
 production, to require any attention ; but for the 
 purpose of stating distinctly one consequence of 
 Mr. Campbell's system, to which we do not re- 
 collect to have adverted. The article referred 
 to contains the following sentences ; — 
 
 " Now, friend Phillips, answer the following 
 question, and I will engage to place you be- 
 tween the horns of a dilemma, from which you 
 cannot extricate yourself: — 
 
 Is the belief of an abstract, or direct opera- 
 tion of the Holy Spirit, necessary in order to 
 said operation 9 
 
 If you answer in the affirmative, then away 
 goes your position ; for that would make the op- 
 eration throughfaith, and not direct or abstract, 
 11*
 
 250 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 
 
 If you answer in the negative, then why 
 preach the necessity of believing it, seeing that 
 the Spirit operates to the saving of men without 
 the belief. 
 
 You have wasted, and are still wasthig, much 
 time in preaching and writing to men about 
 that which will do them no good ; for the belief 
 or unbelief of the thing, does not alter the mat- 
 ter. 
 
 ICP" Now get out from between these horns, 
 if you can." 
 
 The writer of the above has only copied and 
 echoed the argument, if argument it may be 
 called, of his file leader, Mr. Campbell had 
 previously assumed the same ground, and his 
 correspondent, of course, considered himself in 
 an impregnable fortress, while repeating it. 
 But let us look at the question. " Is the belief 
 of a direct operation of the Hol)^ Spirit, neces- 
 sary in order to that operation ?" We answer, 
 no. So far as said operation is necessary to 
 convince the sinner of sin, the work will be 
 done, even though he should disbelieve the ex- 
 istence of the Holy Spirit ; for one object for 
 which the Spirit was given, was to "reprove 
 the world of sin, because they believe not ;'* 
 from which declaration of the Savior, it is clear 
 that his Spirit operates not only through faith, 
 but upon those who are in unbelief. But though 
 men are irresistibly convicted, it does not fol- 
 low that they are converted in the same man- 
 ner ; nor does the admission, that sinners are 
 reproved by the Spirit in the absence of their
 
 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 251 
 
 belief in the reality of his operations, drive us 
 to the necessity of supposing them regenerated 
 and sanctified without that belief. The former 
 is plainly taught in the Scriptures ; the latter 
 we have no authority for. The first operations 
 of the Spirit are given, to arouse the sinner and 
 show him his danger , and this is effected, 
 either with or without the existence of even 
 the faith of a devil — and if he attend the call, 
 and improve the grace thus imparted, the same 
 Spirit excites and aids him to repent, and to 
 exercise that faith — reliance upon a crucified 
 Savior — through which he receives pardon, and 
 is restored to the favor of God. But he has 
 power to "resist the Holy Ghost," as did the 
 Jews of old, and while he does this, either by 
 hardening his heart, or by blasphemously deny- 
 ing the existence or the operations of the Spirit, 
 we are assured that there is no hope of his sal- 
 vation. Where then are the horns of the above 
 dilemma? They have lost their potency ; and 
 indeed, they have no existence, except in the 
 imaginations of the writer, and of those who, 
 like him, have become "wise above that which 
 is written." We have no difficulty, however, 
 in accounting for his mistake in this matter. 
 Every thing considered, it was perfectly natural 
 for him to suppose, he had placed us between 
 the horns of an inextricable dilemma. All his 
 notions of religion had been derived from Mr. 
 Campbell, who had repeatedly told him that the 
 views of the ultra Calvinist, in regard to the 
 work of the Spirit, and those of the Arminian,
 
 252 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 
 
 resulted in the same conclusion; and as the 
 former consider the work of regeneration to be 
 effected by an irresistible operation of the Spirit, 
 the latter, of course, must end in a similar con- 
 clusion. All this, we say, Mr. Campbell had 
 told him — he was bound to consider it as true as 
 the ^'ancient gospel," and hence the origin of his 
 imaginary dilemma. But if he will study the Bi- 
 ble, place less dependence upon the opinions of 
 his leader, and make himself acquainted Avith the 
 doctrines of the Methodist church, we venture 
 to guess, that he will not, in future, attempt to 
 involve an Arminian in any such dilemmas. 
 
 But we have yet another reason, and one of 
 no ordinary weight, for endeavoring to teach 
 and defend the doctrine of Spiritual influence. 
 Connected, as it is, with other doctrines and 
 duties of vital importance, we are convinced 
 that its rejection cannot but lead to the most 
 direful of consequences. Let Mr, Campbell's 
 views upon this subject prevail — let it be a con- 
 ceded point among christians, that the Holy 
 Spirit only operates through the Word, just as 
 the thoughts and ideas of a Locke or a Newton 
 are conveyed to us through their writings, and 
 if it does not render prayer an unmeaning cere- 
 mony, and ultimately banish it from the earth, 
 we are very much mistaken. The apostle 
 taught, that prayers should be made for all men, 
 because God would have all men to be saved. 
 But what connection can exist between our 
 prayers and the salvation of sinners, unless in 
 answer to them, the Holy Spirit convicts, and 
 
 jl
 
 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 253 
 
 brings them to the knowledge of the truth? 
 None in the world. Strike this doctrine from 
 the christian system, and we shall be doomed 
 to see our unconverted friends perish in their 
 sins, without the privilege of entreating the Al- 
 mighty in mercy to turn them from the error 
 of their ways. And another unavoidable con- 
 clusion will be, that prayer for Spiritual blessings 
 of any description, is wholly useless and unne- 
 cessary to the christian character. It will, 
 therefore, follow, that men instead of praying 
 *' without ceasing," will cease to pray ; and 
 thus the most important of christian duties, be 
 driven from the world. Here we must land, 
 if we surrender the teachings of the Spirit, 
 or consider its influence as synonymous with 
 moral effects of the written Word. All, it is 
 true, who make this surrender, may not immedi- 
 ately be led to look on prayer as a vain thing, and 
 to abandon its performance ; for the opinions and 
 practice of some are happily inconsistent ; but 
 the prevalence of such principles must tend to 
 weaken our hold on prayer, and to produce an 
 imaginary independence of the Divine Being. 
 
 These are the natural, and to some extent, 
 the unavoidable fruits of Mr. Campbell's doc- 
 trines ; and, as such, are already visible among 
 his followers. Some of his teachers ridicule 
 prayer in many of their discourses, and occa- 
 sionally, if not uniformly, dispense with it in 
 Jtheir public congregations ; and all of them, so 
 lar as we have information, teach the penitent 
 that it would be not only useless, but blasphe- 
 W
 
 264 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 
 
 mous for him to pray for pardon — that he has 
 nothing to do but be immersed ; and the result 
 of such teachings have made professed chris- 
 tians — zealous Campbellites — who acknowl- 
 edge they have no practical acquaintance with 
 the duty under consideration — who confess they 
 have never prayed on any occasion, public or 
 private ; and who seem to glory in having 
 found a religion that does not require the cross 
 bearing of any such burdensome ceremonies. 
 Now it is not contended that every Campbellite 
 has gone to this extreme, but it is confidently 
 asserted that some have, and firmly believed, 
 that in so doing they have only carried out their 
 system of doctrines to its legitimate results. In 
 regard to the duty of prayer, Antinomianism 
 and Campbellism after starting at points as far 
 asunder as the north from the south pole, meet 
 upon a common level. The former, by teach- 
 ing that God saves men irresistibly, and even 
 against their wills, forbids the penitent to ask 
 that he may receive mercy, and renders prayer 
 under any circumstances wholly useless ; and 
 the latter by assuming, that the Lord Jesus, af- 
 ter finishing the work of redemption, left his 
 Spirit in his Word, and has nothing farther to 
 do in converting sinners, arrives at the same 
 conclusion. And here each has exalted itself 
 against the truth — and that too upon a point 
 of the most vital importance. The Scrip- 
 tures, both by precept and example, abundantly 
 teach the pardon of sin in answer to prayer, as 
 well as persevering in that duty in order to eter-
 
 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 255 
 
 nal salvation, while they give us no reason to 
 believe that ever a prayerless sinner was 
 pardoned or saved; but Campbellism open- 
 ly proclaims that sinners are pardoned with- 
 out one word of prayer, and by necessary 
 consequence from the principles assumed, 
 that their final salvation is, in no sense, de- 
 pendent upon the performance of this duty. 
 And this is the legitimate fruit of that notion 
 concerning spiritual influence, against which 
 our labors have been directed. Such a doctrine 
 is God dishonoring and soul destroying in its^' 
 tendency. It is calculated to make " blind lea-''^ 
 ders of the blind," and to induce whoever re- 
 ceives it to cry " peace, peace," while there is 
 no peace, and to expect salvation in a way that 
 God has never ordained. And yet, in oppos- 
 ing this doctrine, we are gravely told, that we 
 are "preaching and writing to men about that 
 which will do them no good — -that the belief, 
 or unbelief of the thing does not alter the mat- 
 ter." Mr. Campbell and his correspondent, 
 may think to involve us in dilemmas, such as 
 the above, and talk of the inutility of correctly 
 understanding the doctrine of Divine influence, 
 as taught in the Bible, as much as they please. 
 Such things may pass very well with those who 
 look upon the bishop of Bethany as an oracle ; 
 but we have little fear that they will be much 
 lauded by men of sound judgment, and correct 
 Bible information. 
 
 We now proceed to sum up and present in a 
 condensed form the positions and arguments of
 
 256 CAMPEELLISM EXPOSED. 
 
 the foregoing essays. A very brief recapitula- 
 tion is all that can be given. 
 
 In the progress of these essays we have exam 
 ined the principal features in the superstructure 
 of the Campbellite reformation, commencing^ 
 with its foundation stone, baptismal regenera 
 tion, which we found among the rubbish of the-' 
 papal apostasy, and after testing its claims by 
 the Word of God, discovered it to have no other 
 authority than the erroneous interpretation of 
 some four or five isolated texts ; while some 
 hundreds of passages were found to teach a di- 
 rectly contrary doctrine — remission not by wa- 
 ter, but hj faith. And knowing that Mr. Camp- 
 bell does not extend this blessing to those who 
 have received baptism, according to the ordina- 
 ry understanding of the import of that ordi- 
 nance, but confines it to those who have been 
 immersed, we patiently investigated every pas- 
 sage of Scripture that seems to have any bearing 
 upon the mode of baptism, and found no proof 
 that Jesus Christ ever commanded immersion, 
 or that the apostles practiced it in one solitary 
 instance. The conclusion, therefore, at which 
 we have arrived, is, that Mr. Campbell has 
 made the soul's salvation, to depend upon the 
 performance of an ordinance in a mode that is, 
 at least, of questionable authority. But how- 
 ever this be, we have proved, that the object 
 for which he administers baptism, and the effect 
 he ascribes to it, are contrary to the views of 
 every christian denomination among us, wheth- 
 er Baptist or otherwise ; that with him immer- 
 
 I
 
 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 257 
 
 sion and regeneration are synonymous terms, 
 so that no one can be bom of God until he is 
 immersed ; and that these views are opposed in 
 common by Baptists, Methodists and Presbyte- 
 rians, and have no more authority from Scrip- 
 
 ure than the fable of transubstantiation. 
 
 We have, in the next place, inquired for the 
 evidence to which Campbellites resort as proof 
 of their being in a state of favor with God, and 
 discvoered it not to vary materially from the 
 means by which they profess to have obtained 
 that favor. We had previously found immer- 
 sion, with them, to be the act of turning to 
 God, and now we discovered them referring to 
 their immersion as evidence that they had turn- 
 ed to God ; and contending that any man, who, 
 historically, believes the gospel facts and goes 
 dov/n into the water, is regenerated, and may 
 always refer to that circumstance, as proof of 
 his justified state. We then looked around up- 
 on those who had passed through Mr. Camp- 
 bell's "regenerating bath," and found scores 
 and hundreds, not only continuing to " wallow 
 in the mire," but whose last state really appear- 
 ed worse than the first. It therefore appeared 
 clear, that this kind of evidence was not to be 
 trusted ; for if immersion proves one man to be 
 a child of God, it proves every immersed per- 
 son to be the same ; but many of these are still 
 in the " gall of bitterness ;" and hence, the cir- 
 cumstance of having been buried in the water, 
 proves no man to be a christian. And upon 
 opening the Bible, we found it fully to sustain 
 w2
 
 258 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 
 
 this conclusion ; for the only evidence in proof 
 of our son-ship, we are there authorized to re- 
 ly upon, we have shown to be, not water, but 
 the witness of that Spirit which " beareth wit- 
 ness with our spirit that we are the children of 
 God." And as Mr. Campbell's creed, rejects 
 this kind of testimony, and substitutes anoth- 
 er, wholly unknown to the Scriptures, and that 
 can, in no case, be depended upon, we found 
 here another strong reason for rejecting his sys- 
 tem. 
 
 The next feature of the " reformation" that 
 has passed in review, is that rejection and con- 
 demnation of creeds, universal among Campbel- 
 lites, and their professed exemption from secta- 
 rianism and party spirit. And here we proved 
 that the circumstances of the case render creeds 
 and confessions of faith, expedient, if not abso- 
 lutely indispensable ; and that their existence, 
 instead of necessarily engendering strife, is the 
 most likely method of preserving peace ; and 
 that' it cannot be otherwise until human nature 
 is remodeled, and the children of men brought 
 to see " eye to eye." On this subject, it was 
 also shown, that while Mr. Campbell glories in 
 having no creed, he gives evidence in his own 
 person, that " great men are not always wise ;" 
 because he has a creed as much as any Metho- 
 dist, Presbyterian, or Baptist ; the only differ- 
 ence, being, that theirs is printed, and may be 
 known as their religious belief, while his, though 
 scattered through his writings, and proclaimed 
 by all his teachers, has never been printed in a
 
 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 259 
 
 separate form. Here too his anti-sectarian pre- 
 tensions were examined, and found to be so ut- 
 terly groundless, that while he professes to aim 
 at the destruction of sectarianism, it would be 
 difficult to find more bigoted and furious secta- 
 rians than he and his party ; and that his terms 
 of union require all christians to receive his 
 yemi-papal notions, instead of the pure doctrines 
 of the gospel ; and thys he would destroy secta- 
 rianism, by building up one great sect under his 
 own banners, and by substituting Campbellism 
 for Christianity. This we found to be the ten- 
 dency, and we honestly believe it to be the de- 
 sign, of all his labors and professions to promote 
 a union among christians. 
 
 The last article of the system, to which our 
 attention has been directed, is its rejection of a 
 Divine call to the ministry. On this point, in 
 addition to explaining what is meant by such a 
 call, and meeting the principal objections urged 
 against it, we fully proved that a ministry di- 
 vinely appointed did once exist in the church, 
 and was continued down to the close of the 
 New Testament. And upon these facts we 
 rested the controversy ; for in the absence of 
 all proof that this ministry has been taken away, 
 we are bound to infer that it still exists. But 
 this proof has never been given, nor can it be. 
 We have, therefore, been conducted to the con- 
 clusion, that every true minister of Christ is 
 still " called of God as was Aaron ;" and that 
 every professed proclaimer of the gospel, who 
 acknowledges he never received this call, fur-
 
 260 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 
 
 nishes proof, not only of a heretical creed, but' 
 of his total lack of authority for what he profes- 
 ses to do. 
 
 We have now taken a rapid survey of the i 
 leading topics to which our essays have been 
 devoted, and these include the prominent fea- 
 tures and pretensions of Mr, Campbell's system. 
 Such a system, we consider a gross caricature 
 of Christianity, and of a tendency so deleterious, 
 that every good man ought to oppose it. For 
 though we are constrained to hope that these 
 doctrines exist only as a deteriorating ingredient, 
 in the minds of many whose lives manifest the 
 presence of true piety ; we find it, at times, ex- 
 tremely difficult to believe that Campbellism, 
 in its full and perfected form, can be otherwise 
 than wholly incompatible with experimental re- 
 ligion, and genuine Christianity. Be this as it 
 may, it is unquestionably of evil tendency, cal- 
 culated to lull sinners to sleep, and induce them 
 to rest in the form of godliness, while they 
 deny, and are wholly destitute of the power. 
 
 Since these essays have been in progress, 
 we understand that Mr. Campbell has paid 
 some attention to them through the Harbinger. 
 What his strictures have been, we know not. 
 For though, in the habit of arrogating to him- 
 self a great deal of fairness and fearlessness in 
 regard to his opponents, in this instance he did 
 not choose to favor us with any number, or ' 
 numbers of his Harbinger in which our remarks 
 were noticed. We do not mention this, how- 
 ever, by way of complaint, but only to let the
 
 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 261 
 
 world know that when Mr. Campbell censures 
 those who oppose his water system, for failing 
 to furnish him with copies of their productions, 
 that he condemns in others what he practices 
 himself. Perhaps if his remarks had fallen in 
 our way, we might consider it necessary to ex- 
 tend our essays a little further ; but having nev- 
 er seen them, we have not the power of a reply ; 
 nor do we much regret it. For in this case, 
 we presume, he has not departed from his usual 
 course, as a controversialist, which we consider 
 to savor of any thing else, as much as it does of 
 candor and fair reasoning. His ordinary course 
 has been to evade the force of that reasoning 
 which he was wholly unable to refute, either 
 by a sweeping contempt of those who use it, or 
 by charging them with misrepresentation, and 
 endeavoring, by seizing upon some incidental 
 point, to call off the mind of the reader from 
 the question at issue ; and we have no reason to 
 suppose that our strictures have shared a diffe- 
 rent fate. Be this as it may, we feel very little 
 anxiety on the subject. To enter the arena of 
 controversy with the great champion of the 
 " ancient order," or with any of his little cham- 
 pions, is entirely beyond our ambition. Had 
 this been our object, it might, long since, have 
 been effected. Even during the publication of 
 these numbers, we have had several opportuni- 
 ties of " changing shots," with some of the ex- 
 clusive gospel teachers of the day, who appeared 
 to be full of fight, and anxious for the conflict ; 
 and had we been desirous to expose them, as
 
 262 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 
 
 individuals, to the scorn and pity of an intelli- 
 gent community, we had, and still have ample 
 means at command. But to engage them seem- 
 ed not the most likely method of eliciting truth ; 
 and as it would, virtually, have called us off 
 from that examination of Mr. Campbell's doc- 
 trines which was our object, we have let them 
 pass, and kept on the " even tenor of our way." 
 Our object is now accomplished. What we 
 have written is before the reader, who will, 
 we hope, be competent to judge for himself, 
 whether Campbellism be of God or of men. 
 As to what Mr. Campbell or his adherents may 
 think, or say, in relation to our feeble efforts, 
 we feel very little solicitude. Among them are 
 individuals whom we esteem and love. To 
 obtain their ill will, is by no means desirable ; 
 but to court their favor at the expense of the 
 truths of the Bible, would render .us guilty in 
 the sight of God, and contemptible in the esti- 
 mation of all good men. We have written 
 from a sense of duty, and in the fear of God ; 
 and let them speak or write about us as they 
 may, we feel a clear conscience, and so far as 
 personal or party ambition and vanity are con- 
 cerned, are not aware of the least anxiety of 
 mind. 
 
 We are now about to take leave of the sub- 
 ject. In the present form, we shall not resume 
 it ; and its further prosecution, under any other 
 form is, at present, a matter of entire uncertain- 
 ty. We take no delight in what is called reli- 
 gious controversy ; and have never engaged in
 
 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 263 
 
 it except when convinced that the cause of 
 truth required it. Such have been our convic- 
 tions on the present occasion. We had beheld 
 doctrines which we beheved to be of the most 
 dangerous character, taking root among the 
 people. These, rendered doubly seductive by 
 the confident manner and acknowledged talents 
 of some of their propagators, had spread into 
 diiferent sections of the west, deluded many 
 souls, and were leading them to inevitable ruin. 
 This system, we were satisfied, could not bear 
 the test of sober, Scriptural investigation ; and 
 we considered it our duty to aid in setting it 
 before the world in its true colors. A sense of 
 duty, therefore, induced us to commence these 
 strictures ; and numerous assurances that our 
 labor was not in vain, from various individuals 
 in the surrounding states, have encouraged us 
 to prosecute the subject thus far. Throughout 
 the whole, we have aimed at candor and fair- 
 ness with our opponents. That we have, in no 
 instance, given a slight erroneous coloring to 
 any of their sentiments, is more than we dare 
 affirm ; but we are confident that this has been 
 done in no material point, and know that we 
 have not intended it in any matter, however 
 small. And if through ignorance, or hastiness, 
 our statements should, in any respect, be charge- 
 able with misrepresentation, we are sorry for it ; 
 and shall be ready to correct the error, whenev- 
 er we are satisfied of its existence. But in 
 truth, we are not conscious of having written 
 any thing under the influence of that sort of ag-
 
 264 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 
 
 gravation of spirit, that would be likely to pro- 
 duce exaggerated statements. With Mr. Camp- 
 bell and his partisans, as individuals, we have 
 no quarrel. We bear them no malice, and wish 
 them no evil, but all possible good. We do 
 not, however, expect their friendship. Experi- 
 ence, long ago, taught us that many of them do 
 not soon forgive those who expose their doc- 
 trine ; and that they are ever ready to cry out, 
 '< persecution, and misrepresentation." To such 
 a charge, we shall plead, not guilty ; but hope 
 to bear it unmoved. With us, it is a small 
 thing to be judged of men. We are conscious 
 of our approach to the judgment seat of Christ, 
 and under this consciousness have we written. 
 A few years more, and all controversy with us, 
 and our opponents, will be lost in the grave. 
 The light of eternity will unfold the truth. And 
 whatever the result may be, we have, so far as 
 honesty of purpose is concerned, no fear of the 
 scrutiny of that Day, in regard to one thought 
 or sentence we have written, concerning Mr. 
 Campbell, his doctrines or his followers. Our 
 prayer is that we, our opponents, and all our 
 readers, may know the truth and do it, and be 
 prepared for spending an eternity free from er- 
 ror, sin and suffering. 
 
 THlfe END.
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 Introduction of the subject — Mr. Campbell's doctrine of 
 Baptism stated — Texts brought to support Campbell- 
 ism considered, viz. Acts ii. 38. Jo. iiL 5. &c. Mark 
 xvi. 16. 1 Pet. iii. 21. Titus iii. 21 Page 15 
 
 CHAPTER n. 
 
 FAITH. 
 
 Introduction — literal meaning — Baptism, prayer and con- 
 fession as conditions of justification — ^justification by 
 faith alone — ^justifying faith as combining rehance and 
 trust with assent — faith as connected with pardon does 
 not include Baptism or other works — faith of Abraha- 
 ham considered — objections against the doctrine of 
 faith as the condition of justification 35 
 
 CHAPTER HI. 
 
 DIVINE AGENCY— THE SPIRIT. 
 
 Campbellism rejects Divine Agency on the heart — in 
 connecting Remission with Baptism, like Roman 
 Catholicism, it contradicts Paul — it enjoins an impossi- 
 ble term of Salvation — Campbellite doctrine of Assu- 
 17 X 265
 
 266 CONTENTS. 
 
 ranee — fallacy of inferring our Acceptance from our 
 , . Baptism — cases Exemplifying the foregoing — Mr. C. 
 quoted — Irreverent and Blasphemous language of 
 Campbellites respecting the Spirit — Scripture evidence 
 of his direct influence on the heart — assurance of God's 
 favor by the Spirit — evangelical Protestants are sub- 
 stantially agreed, on this point 77 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 Import of the Greek word, Baptizo — import of the 
 phrases In Jordan, going np out of the ivater, — 
 Baptism at ^^non — consideration of Rom. vi, 3-6. and 
 Col. ii. 12 — reasons for baptism by sprinkling — those 
 baptized on the day of Pentecost — the jailor — St. Paul 
 — Cornelius — Reasons against immersion — Baptism of 
 the Spirit — concluding remarks on the mode. ... 120 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 CREEDS. 
 
 Campbellites profess to reject all creeds — creeds do not 
 produce sects — those w^ho use creeds do not equal them 
 to scripture — uses of creeds — they shew in what sense 
 scripture is received — they promote peace and harmo- 
 ny — do not prevent the free use of opinion — Camp- 
 bellites have a creed 173 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 SECTS— SECTARIANISM. 
 
 Mr. Campbell imitates the Pope — Campbellism peculiarly 
 sectarian — a dialogue — Campbellites exceed in bigot- 
 ry and intolerance — They idolize their leader — assume 
 the name Refor?nevs — are properly Campbellites. 194
 
 CONTENTS. 267 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 CALL TO THE MINISTRY. 
 
 Unchristian sneers of Mr. Campbell on this subject — a 
 call defined — evangelical christians substantially agreed 
 on this point — the true call lays no claims to inspiration 
 or miraculous gifts — such a call possible — necessary — 
 prevailed in the primitive church — and has not ceased 
 — objections ansvpered — mischievous tendency of Mr. 
 Campbell's doctrine 219 
 
 CHAPTER VHI. 
 
 CONCLUSION. 
 
 Mr. Campbell's dilemma considered respecting the opera- 
 tion of the Spirit — bad effects of Mr. C's. doctrine on 
 this topic — recapitulation of the foregoing chapters — 
 concluding remarks 349
 
 THE LIBRARY 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALI 
 
 Santa Barbara 
 
 THIS BOOK IS DUE ON TH 
 STAMPED BELO 
 
 SBa
 
 UC SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY 
 
 B 000 010 693