THE
concealments
of the
Bible are as Divine as its revelations.
Infinite wisdom was required as much to determine of
what man should
be ignorant as what man should know.
Indeed, since, in regard to all
matters connected with the unseen spiritual world,
man is entirely
dependent upon Divine revelation, the limits of
that revelation must
necessarily mark out also the domain of human
ignorance, as the
shores of a continent become the boundaries of a trackless and unfathomed ocean.
Hence it is, that
the silence of the
Bible is to be
reverenced equally with its teachings, and that to intrude
into things not
seen and not revealed, evinces
the
vanity of a fleshly mind as much as to
misinterpret and pervert the
express statements of the Scriptures.
Unfortunately, both of these
errors had
prevailed in religious society, which was not content with either
the reticence or the teachings of the Bible,
but had presumed to supply the
former by speculations upon the eternal decrees of God, the Trinity, the
Divine nature, the future destiny of mankind,
etc.;
and to substitute for the
latter, the
commentaries of party
leaders and the
decisions of councils
or other ecclesiastical tribunals.
Against this latter usurpation of Divine authority, where men had assumed to regulate
[351] the
faith and
practice of the Church, eminent reformers had, indeed, from
age to age,
remonstrated.
Unfortunately, however, while
endeavoring to
correct this error, and to reinstate the
Scripture in its
proper position as an
infallible and Divine revelation, too little
attention was paid to
the fact that
this revelation had its
appointed limits, and these reformers themselves presumed to transcend
these boundaries, and to superadd their own
opinions and
speculations about
questions of which
the Scriptures do not
treat.
There was, therefore, a necessity
for both the
specifications in the principle which Thomas Campbell
had adopted,
"where the Scriptures speak, we speak; where the
Scriptures are
silent, we are silent," as it was not
merely necessary to
take Divine
revelation as a guide, but equally so to prohibit the addition and
admixture of human opinions.
It was this last point
particularly, viz.: that the silence of
the Scriptures is
to be respected
equally with its teachings,
that was almost
peculiar to the reformation urged by Mr.
Campbell, and
continued to be one of its most important and
characteristic traits.
Unfortunately,
this is a
false view but nevertheless one of the principle
dogmas of the anti
church of Christ sectarians. The law of silence
is a clearly-taught
Biblical principle and was honored at least theoretically
down through the ages. Just as false is
the claim that
"commands, examples and inferences" was a
uniquely but ignorant dogma
of thomas Campbell and Alexander Campbell.
Click fo
evidence.
Clement of
Alexandria
Pedagogue I, Chapter III
- b. AD 150,
Athens
- d. between
211 and 215
But what is
loveable, and is
not also loved by Him? And man has been proved to
be loveable;
consequently man is loved by God. For how shall he
not be loved for
whose sake the only-begotten Son is sent from the
Father's bosom, the
Word of faith, the faith which is superabundant; the Lord Himself
distinctly confessing and saying,
"For the Father Himself loveth you, because ye
have loved Me; "
{ John
xvi. 27}
and again, "And
hast loved them as Thou hast loved Me? ( John xvii. 23.)
What, then,
the
Master desires
and declares, and
how He is
disposed in deed and word,
how He commands what is to be done,
and forbids the
opposite, has already
been shown.
Plainly, then,
the other kind
of discourse, the didactic, is powerful and
spiritual, observing precision,
occupied in the contemplation of mysteries.
But let it
stand
over for the present.
Now, it is
incumbent on us to
return His love, who
lovingly guides us to that life
which is best;
and to live in
accordance with the injunctions of
His will,
- not only
fulfilling what is commanded,
- or
guarding against what is forbidden,
but turning away from some examples, and imitating others as much as
we can, and thus to perform the
works of the Master according to His similitude,
and so
fulfil what
Scripture says as to our being made in His
image and likeness.
For, wandering
in life as in
deep darkness, we need a
guide that cannot
stumble or stray; and our guide is the best, not
blind, as the
Scripture says, "leading the
blind into pits." (Matt.
xv. 14)
But the Word is keen-sighted, and
scans the recesses of the
heart. As, then, that is not light which
enlightens not, nor motion
that moves not, nor loving which loves not, so
neither is that good
which profits not, nor guides to salvation.
Let us then aim
at the
fulfilment
of the
commandments by the
works of the Lord; for the Word Himself also, having openly
become
flesh, (John i.
14.)
exhibited the same virtue,
both practical and contemplative.
Wherefore let
us
regard the Word as law,
and His commands and counsels as the short and
straight paths to immortality; for
His precepts are full of
persuasion, not of fear.
As it was the distinguishing error of Romanism to presume to dictate
the faith and
regulate
the ordinances of the Church, irrespective of the
teaching of the
Scriptures;
so the chief mistake of
Protestantism consisted in substituting
for the silence of the Bible human opinions and
speculative
theories.
The great principle urged by
Thomas Campbell,
which demanded implicit faith in express
revelation alone and
an acknowledged or
explicit ignorance in regard to all untaught
questions, brought,
therefore, those who adopted it into direct
antagonism with the
entire religious world.
Accordingly, with perhaps the exception of the churches
established by the Haldanes and a few other
small [352] independent
bodies of
reformers, who had,
in various parts of
Europe and America,
been led to take the Bible
alone as a guide,
there was not any religious denomination
whatever,
known to them, with
which the reformers could consistently have
established a real and
fraternal union.
Whatever confidence they
might
have in the faith and piety of many of the
individuals composing a
party,
they could have none in the party
itself
or in the
system upon which it was maintained,
and could not therefore,
by uniting, give their sanction to those divisive principles
which it was their chief purpose to subvert.
On the other hand, it is obvious
that
no party desiring to
continue
such, and
comprehending the
sweeping character of the great fundamental principle
adopted by Thomas
Campbell,
could, consistently with its own
security, receive
the reformers into
religious fellowship. [That
included rejecting the trinity and the
continuing priesthood in
protestant churches.]
"Am I asked," said Alexander
Campbell about
this period (in an address after sermon at the house
of Mr.
Buchanan), in order to anticipate certain
objections,
"why I am not a party
man? or why I do not join some party?
I ask, in return, Which party would the
Apostle Paul join if now on earth? Or, in other
words, which party
would receive him?
I dare not be a party man for
these reasons:
"1. Because Christ has forbidden
me. He has
commanded us to keep the 'unity of the spirit;' to
be 'of one mind
and of one judgment;' to 'love each other with a
pure heart
fervently,' and to 'call no man master' on earth.
"2. Because no
party will receive into communion all whom God
would receive into
heaven.
God loves his children more
than
our creeds, and man was not made for the Bible,
but the Bible for
man.
But if I am [353] asked by a
partisan,
Could you not join us and let these things alone? I answer,
no,
because--
"3. The man that promotes the interests of a party stands next
in
guilt to the man that made it.
The man that puts the second stone on a building is as
instrumental in its erection
as the man that laid the first.
He that supports a party bids
the
party God speed; and he that bids them God speed
is a partaker of
their evil deeds.
"4. Because all
parties oppose reformation. They all
pray for it, but they will not work for it.
None of them dare return to the
original
standard. I speak not against any
denomination in
particular, but
against
all.
I speak not against any system
of truth,
but against all
except the Bible.
'Hold fast the form of
sound words' condemns them all.
It is a doleful truth, that the
very persons
who ought to have advocated reformation, always opposed it. See the
History of the
Christian
Church, and
Matthew xxiii.
When I consider what Paul and
thousands of others suffered for a good
conscience, I
would do so too. I desire
to fight for 'the faith once delivered to the
saints.' I like the
bold Christian hero."
Such, at this period, were the
noble and
decided utterances of Alexander Campbell in relation
to
partyism
and to his own convictions of religious duty; and
such were the
feelings which he and those associated with him then
entertained in
reference to these sad defections from primitive
precept and example.
Such. too, were the views which
they labored to
impress upon the religious community as opportunity
was afforded.
Memoirs of
Alexander
Campbell, Volume I. Robert Richardson
C H A P T E R
X X. (1811-1813)
Spirit of
Persecution--Sabbath-keeping--Union with
Baptists--Home-labors--Discussion on Religious
Fellowship.
Mr.
Campbell himself seems, during the winter of
1812, to have given some consideration to this question of religious
fellowship, and as he
was then carrying on the correspondence, already
spoken of, with his
father upon various topics,
he took
occasion to
introduce for discussion the position which believers occupy in relation
to unbelievers in social or public
religious
exercises. Under date
of February 26, 1812, he submits to his father
the following
queries:
"1. What is
prayer, and how
many kinds are there?
2. Is it
scriptural and lawful
for believers and
unbelievers formally to
join in prayer and praise as acts of religious
worship? The matter to
be ascertained is," he remarks,
"The
propriety of
social acts of religious worship in promiscuous
assemblies or in families where some are
unbelievers." [447]
After
expressing his desire
that this matter should be examined impartially,
and without paying
any respect to such "advantages or
disadvantages in a
temporal
sense as might accrue
from this or that
practice," he says:
"When I
survey the
religious world and read
the New Testament, the more clearly I am
convinced that
superstition, enthusiasm, formality and will-worship, prevail
to the ruin
and disgrace of scriptural and ancient
Christianity.
And as
truth can never be
injured by being examined, to
call all
doctrines and religious practices, in this
generation, in
question,
appears an immediate and indispensable
duty."
After
speaking
then of the corruptions of Christianity in
the perversion of the ordinances of
baptism, the Lord's Supper, the Lord's day, preaching, etc.,
he inquires if
it
is not probable that the ordinances of prayer
and praise
have likewise been perverted.
"How many
disciples
of
Moses," he exclaims,
"are yet to be found in the professed school
of Jesus Christ!
and how few among the teachers of the
New
Testament seem to know
that Christ's ministers are
not able ministers
of the Old Testament, but of the New!
Do they not,
like scholars to
their teacher, run to
Moses to
prove
forms of
worship, ordinances.
discipline, and government in the Christian
Church, when asked to
account for their practice?
On this
subject, I
think we may rest satisfied, that since the great Prophet
has come, whom to refuse
or disobey is death, who is a
faithful son over his own
house, that all worship and forms of worship,
ordinances, discipline,
and government
belonging
to the
Christian
Church, must be learned
exclusively from the New
Testament.
And every appeal made
to
Moses or the prophets
to confirm any form of
worship, ordinance, or
any part of Christian discipline or government
is
sending Christ
the Son to Moses the
servant to be
instructed.
It is a
perverse
impeachment of
the wisdom, goodness and care of the Church's
head."
Passing,
afterward, to the
subject of family-worship, he submits to his
father the question whether there
is [448] scriptural authority for making this
observance,
as some had
done,
a
term of
communion, and whether
it is proper in a family composed in part of
unbelievers?
To these
inquiries his father
replies at considerable length in two letters,
dated the 2d and 12th
of March, in which he considers particularly this
question of
religious fellowship:
"That
Christianity," he remarks, "in the present
profession and practice, is greatly corrupted, is a plain matter
of fact.
Whoever will
seriously consider
the present state of things in the professing
world and compare it
with the spirit and tenor of the apostolic
writings, and with the
state of things there exhibited, will plainly
perceive, nay, will
sensibly feel, a remarkable and
striking difference."
Dwelling then
upon the
gospel as it was first
introduced, and as
designed to replace all other religions, he
continues:
"As the object
of
this
new
religion, if I may so
call it, which
superseded all others,
and made them null and
void upon its
appearance, was the one God and Father of our Lord
Jesus Christ, who
was thus distinguished (see 1 Cor. viii. 5, 6),
and only rightly
worshiped in and through
him
who was indeed
one
with him and with the Holy Spirit in Divinity,
but distinct
from
him and Lorded by him as
to his relation to humanity, or as the Word
made flesh, Acts ii. 36;
so with
respect to
religious
fellowship or
relationship, the
subjects of this new
religion had their respects or religious regards
entirely
turned
to and solely
confined to each other,
considering
none
but themselves as fellow-subjects of the grace
of God, or as brethren
in religion.
Hence their religious esteem
and intercourse in all
religious acts and
exercises were precisely and necessarily limited
to each other,
and of course
must
of necessity still be the same,
for there is still but one
body, one Spirit,
one Lord, one faith,
one baptism, one God and
Father of all, and of course but one
law of love pervading and uniting all within the
manifold limits of this unity and
under its manifest
influences.
Now every pretence to
extend [449]
communion in the acts and
exercises of religion beyond the
limits of this special unity,
as well as
every
attempt to set it
aside, wheresoever
manifest by separating or causing to
separate those whom God has thus united in
himself by his Son
Jesus Christ through the Spirit,
in the one
baptismal profession of faith and holiness, is no less
absurd than anti-scriptural.
These, and these
alone,
constitute the one
visible professing body of our Lord Jesus Christ upon earth, and are
the special
subjects of all-saving grace and of fellowship in
all gospel
ordinances, in and by which that grace is manifested,
maintained and promoted.
"Now all are,
in
the first instance, manifested and distinguished
by the one faith, of
which the one baptism or
submersion in water in
the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy
Ghost, is the proper,
instituted and expressive symbol,
and also the
first
formal and
comprehensive
act of the
obedience of faith.
But this faith
may be manifested without
this baptism, and where
it is received must always be manifested (I mean by a
scriptural and intelligent profession)
before
it.
And now that the
world has for
a long time been misled
about this baptism, and
in the way of administering it to children, which
are utterly
incapable and always unqualified subjects--the one
faith,
manifested by
an
intelligent and consistent profession, is the immediate,
proper, and formal reason of
religious communion in
all the instituted ordinances of gospel worship,
beyond
which it cannot be
lawfully or profitably extended;
and this
instituted worship can
be nowhere performed upon the Lord's day,
where the
Lord's
Supper is not administered. Wherever this is
neglected, there
New
Testament
Church-worship ceases.
*
"Now as all private and particular meetings of
Christians for particular purposes, naturally and
properly include only such as are concerned in
the proper and specified cause
of such meetings,
therefore none
but
they can have any proper or assignable cause of
access to such
meetings,
and as the public meetings of
the
Church for
edification are open to all (see 1 Cor. xiv. 23,
24, 25),
there can be,
therefore, no
[450] prostitution of religious
exercises by the accidental presence of
unbelievers, [they do not by their presence
invalidate the
worship]
seeing
they
are not
intentionally as members, or as the
proper and qualified subjects of such
exercises, although they may happen
to be present, and also to be convinced and
converted by the appointed means of public
edification.
And, as for the
Lord's
Supper, which only respects disciples, and to which none
else have right of
access but only such, it belongs so peculiarly to
the church and to
it alone, that it would appear that none else but
disciples had
access to the meetings which were held for this
particular purpose;
so that there
was
no
need for tokens to
distinguish church members from strangers who belong not to
the church; and,
indeed, it would be hard to conceive under what
pretence such could
be admitted. * *
*
*
"Upon the whole, it appears that the
Christians had
their public,
their special
and their private or
particular
meetings--their public meetings for public edification, their special
meetings for special edification, and their more
private or
particular meetings pro
re nata. *
* * *
But all the
while, it is as
obvious as the light that shines, that professed
believers,
acknowledged Christians, and none but they, are
the proper, intended
and specified subjects of all religious
communion and
fellowship in all the
ordinances of gospel worship,
nor can they
scripturally intend, much less extend,
that communion beyond themselves or those of
their own
number. See 2 Cor. vi.
14-18.
Though they may and
will
consult and intend the
conversion and salvation of their perishing
fellow-creatures by the
means appointed for that purpose in their
public meetings. See 1 Cor.
xiv. 23-25. Thus far concerns the order,
intention and proper
subjects of the ordinances of gospel worship,
public, special and
particular.
"The next
question that occurs
upon this interesting and important subject, is
like that of the Pharisee of old:
'Who is
my
neighbor, my brother in
religion, the qualified object of my regard,
my
fellow-Christian?'
"In
attempting to answer this,
I would cautiously avoid
the Pharisaic self-preferring disposition, and therefore
would reply, [451]
in the
first instance, any
fellow-sinner of the
human race, how vile soever he may have
been, who makes an
intelligent
profession of the truth
as it is in Jesus, as comprehensively
specified in the eighth
proposition of the overture in our Address;
and so
long as he continues to
manifest the reality of his profession by
his temper and conduct,
still to consider him in
the same light.
Than the
above, I know no other
distinction between mankind with respect to
salvation, and this,
while
I
believe the Scriptures,
I must
believe to be the only
and all-sufficient ground for Christian love,
and therefore I must
heartily acquiesce in what is declared in the
ninth proposition.
This,
however, may be thought
at first view to be a very
generalizing principle;
I could wish with all my
heart that it was, that it would embrace
the whole Christian--I mean
professing--world;
but upon
a close
inspection and strict application, I fear
it will be found to embrace
but comparatively few--yea, very few--of the
great majority of the religious
professors.
Do they, or
can they all,
indeed, upon a close examination, manifest a
conviction by the word
and truth of God that they are originally and
actually in the awful,
woeful, lost and perishing condition in which
the word and truth of
God declares them to be?
And in
connection with this,
such a scriptural view of the person and
mediation of Jesus Christ as
both satisfies God and the convinced
conscience, gives rest and peace
to the heart from the just apprehension of
impending wrath, and
disposes the soul to the holy obedience of
faith and love?
Do they or
can they profess
such faith, such hope and such love upon the
good, assignable
scriptural reasons with which a true knowledge
and belief of the
Divine testimony furnishes every mind that
truly understands and
believes it? I fear not;
and I
would say
that, without this clearly and scripturally
ascertained in connection
with a corresponding practice (in so far as
practice can be taken
into consideration Under the various
circumstances in which the
various applicants may be found), there is
no just scriptural ground
of religious fellowship. *
*
*
"In order,
then, to direct and
determine our practice in [452] existing
circumstances, when all
the world are called Christians, and the great
majority seem to persuade themselves that they are so
in some sense, and therefore are in
a condition with respect to Christ and salvation
vastly
different from the heathen world, both as to
persons and circumstances,
we believe,
as we
have a right to
hope, that there are
Christians in all the denominations of
professors where the great
fundamental truths of the gospel are
acknowledged,
although we
have no reason to
believe that the majority of professors are
such.
Therefore,
when any number of
persons assemble on the Lord's day for the
avowed purpose of
public
worship, there we may
reasonably
hope that there are
some believers, and
however this be, the
persons thus assembling, in so far avow
themselves to be voluntary
subjects of the gospel dispensation;
nor is it
our
place to determine,
what in many cases we
cannot,
who of
them are or are not
Christians, or whether
or not they may not be all so, seeing that in
the point of view in
which they present themselves to our
considerations, as also in the
course of the service,
they
manifest
themselves to partake with us in the acts of
religious worship.
There can be
no doubt, then, in
such a case, but we are to consider and address
them as the
professed
worshipers of the true
God through Jesus Christ.
I do not say
as
unfeigned
and believing
worshipers, for, even
in the most perfect Church, we would scarcely
be justifiable in
considering all as such.
This
conclusion proceeds upon
the supposition that Christ has a
people amongst the visible professors of
his name, and that
these may be expected to be found where the great fundamental
truths of the gospel are publicly
professed; nay, that wheresoever this is the
case, there the professors, if sincere, of
course must be his people.
But this, as
I said
above, is scarcely to be expected in the most
perfect Church that ever did or shall
exist.
See the seven
Epistles to the
seven Asiatic Churches. Moreover, every
irregularity, error or
mistake does not unpeople a professing people.
Therefore I
conclude that
where
we bear an open
faithful testimony against the existing evils
of a professing
people who acknowledge
the [453] great fundamental truths of the
gospel,
we are
warranted
to join in all
public acts of religious worship with such of
them as voluntarily attend upon our
ministrations,
and thus
countenance our
instructions both by their voluntary
attendance and manifest concurrence with
us in
those religious acts." *
* *
*
Such were the
sentiments of
Thomas Campbell upon the subject of religious
fellowship in March, 1811, and in these his
son Alexander
substantially agreed. When, about three months
after the above
correspondence,
the church
at Brush
Run became a body of immersed believers,
these views
became more clearly
and sharply defined,
no one
being
afterward recognized as duly prepared
to partake in religious
services,
except those who had
professed to put on
Christ in baptism.
From his
lively sense of the
prevalent corruptions of the gospel and its
institutions, and his
conscientious
scruples in regard to
yielding to these any countenance or toleration,
Mr. Campbell,
even
down to his later
years, would
occasionally, amongst private friends, contend
strenuously for
principles almost as exclusive and rigid
as those of Walker.
His benevolent
feelings, however; his Christian courtesy
and
his sympathy for those whom he regarded as sincere but
mistaken, did not permit him to carry out
such
principles.
Both he and
his father had
great consideration for the unintentional
mistakes and errors in which religious
society had become
involved, and in this feeling, the members of
the church at Brush
Run, for the most part, participated.
However clear
their convictions
had become as to the primitive method of
confessing Christ, and the
primitive faith and order of the Church, they had too fresh a recollection of
their
own struggles and difficulties in attaining to
the
views they held,
and too deep
a
[454] sympathy with the pious but priest-ridden members of other
communities,
to refuse
to
recognize them as being
intentionally at least,
followers of Christ.
As they could not, however, make any
compromise with the corrupt
systems and practices of the day,
and were prevented
by their
principles from
recognizing
fraternally any one who
had not publicly complied with the
requisitions of the gospel,
they were necessarily
inhibited from inviting any except the actual members of the church to
take
a part in religious exercises.
This was
specially true with
regard to the Lord's
Supper, which they
continued to celebrate weekly, and of which none but baptized
believers were invited to partake.
It was not,
however, the custom of the church, nor has it
ever been that of any
of the Churches of the Reformation, to "fence
the
tables,"
as sectarians express
and practice it;
or to
withhold the symbols from
any pious person who might be present and
feel disposed to unite in
commemorating the death of Christ. [455]
When people
tell you that
Thomas and Alexander Campbell would participate
with those who
increasingly substitute Moses of David for
Christ they are mistaken.
Restoration Movement
Index
Musical Worship
Index
Home
Page
<a
href="https://www.hitwebcounter.com"
target="_blank">
<img
src="https://hitwebcounter.com/counter/counter.php?page=7972496&style=0032&nbdigits=5&type=ip&initCount=0"
title="Free Counter" Alt="web
counter" border="0"
/></a>
