RESPECTED SIR,--IN your number of October last, we have the third and fourth, and we suppose the last, of Philip's Essays on Election, the first of which appeared in the March number, wherein you inform your readers, "that in some of the previous volumes of this work, you promised them a disquisition upon Election." This promise the writer does not remember to have met with, though a constant reader of your monthly publication; if he had, he thinks, from the deep felt interest he takes in the grand object of the work, he would have challenged it. But why promise your numerous readers a disquisition on Election only? Many of them, no doubt, would be equally gratified with a disquisition on Reprobation, on Eternal Justification, on Original Sin, on Imputed Righteousness, on the Extent of the Atonement, on Consubstantiation, on the Spirits in Prison, &c. &c. and on many other such interesting topics; for, it may well be presumed, that a goodly number of your numerous readers feel much interested in the above, and such like subjects. But what then? Shall we--&c.&c. We acknowledge, however, the force of the old adage: "It is hard to live in Rome, and strive with the Pope." Perhaps not much easier to leave Rome, and bring nothing of the Pope along with us. Indeed, it appears rather wonderful, that in so many volumes of a living work, a work of an almost universal controversy, expositive of the various and manifold corruptions of the antichristian world, there should be so little notice taken of those distinguishing sectarian topics, that have inflamed and distracted the professing people for the last three hundred years. Yet, considering the scope and intention of the work, we regret to see any notice taken of those topics, at all, except to denounce them as antiscriptural, antichristian, unprofitable, and vain, having no other tendency than to gender strifes. The restoration of pure primitive christianity in principle and practice, can never be accomplished by disquisitions, however learned and scriptural, upon those controversial subjects.

      The christian religion, properly so called, is holy and divine, pure and heavenly, altogether of God, nothing human in it. It was introduced and established by a ministry that spoke and acted under the immediate influence and direction of the Holy Spirit. The belief and obedience required on the part of the teachers, and yielded on the part of the disciples, were to the dictates of the Holy Spirit; not to the dictates or decisions of men. Consequently it is of no importance to the christian how men decide upon any scriptural topic, or to what conclusion they may come; except it be so declared, and can be so read, upon the sacred page, it cannot enter into the christian religion;--can constitute no article of the christian faith or obedience, for the Lord not having taught or enjoined it by the ministry of his attested servants, it, therefore, cannot be inculcated with a "Thus saith the Lord."

      I We know it is urged, and will be readily granted, that there may be, and really are, many logical deductions, or inferential truths, upon moral and religious subjects, not expressly declared in the sacred volume. But what then? they cannot be binding upon disciples as such; first, because the Lord has not expressly declared and enjoined them; therefore, has not rendered the belief or obedience of these truths necessary to constitute an accepted disciple; second, because he has express declared and enjoined other propositions or truths, the belief and obedience of which render the person an approved and accepted disciple; see Rom. xiv. 16-19. Such is the facility, the simplicity, and excellence of the christian religion, blessed be the gracious Author! that the belief of a few fundamental propositions, virtually includes, and practically infers, a pious, virtuous, christian "character, acceptable to God, and approved of men;" Rom. xiv. 17, 18. Nay, so clear, so full and explicit is the exhibition of the christian religion in the New Testament, that the belief and obedience of certain distinct propositions, precisely specified, perfects the conscience and character, or justifies and sanctifies the believing and obedient, independent of every thing that may be thenceforth acquired. So complete is this exhibition, in clear, distinct, formal propositions, that a religious property or privilege, or a moral virtue cannot be named, that the believing and obedient do not possess. This is demonstrable. Only let all the attributes, absolute and relative, be ascribed to God, to Christ, to the Spirit, that are distinctly ascribed to each in the holy scriptures, and all that love, worship, and [611] obedience duly rendered, which we find therein expressly required and ascribed: and then say, what will be wanting to complete the character; to render it, in this life, more happy in itself, more pleasing to God, or more acceptable to men? We are sure you cannot. That item or attribute of piety or virtue, not expressly contained in the holy scriptures, is yet without name. Take, for instance, only the brief account of the church of Jerusalem, which we have in the first six chapters of the Acts; from the day of Pentecost till the martyrdom of Stephen;--a space, we may reasonably suppose, not exceeding two years--the first two years of the christian dispensation or economy. Paul was not yet converted, the gospel was not yet preached to the Gentiles--no dispute yet about election--the term is not so much as to be found in the portion alluded to; nor any thing yet occurring that should tend to introduce it; yet, most assuredly, the gospel was fully preached and enjoyed, and its blissful effects abundantly manifested. Can the fondest partisan, the most zealous stickler, either for the Calvinistic or Arminian hypothesis, point to a society of his connexion, even the best instructed, the most privileged, that can compare with the primitive church above mentioned,--that can equal it in the fruits of righteousness. Its creed was Christ the Messiah, the Son of God, the Lord of all; Christ and him crucified, and highly exalted, a Prince and Saviour, to give forth repentance to Israel, and remission of sins through faith in his blood, by baptism, with the promised gift of the Holy Spirit and eternal life. Its law was gratitude, piety, and love, the law of the New Covenant in the heart; and its fruits were fruits of beneficence, liberal and abundant. Say, what were the deficiencies of this church in piety, temperance, justice, charity, benevolence, or beneficence? Yet neither the Epistle to the Romans, nor the disputes that occasioned it, were in existence; nor indeed any other part of the New Testament. The church of Jerusalem, during this period of its history, was only in possession of that exhibition of the gospel, with the concomitant events recorded in the portion referred to: yet even this, duly considered, will be found to contain doctrine sufficient to produce all the effects above specified; and if so, how much more abundantly are we provided for, who have not only their portion, but the respective portions of all the churches under heaven, addressed by the apostles in their epistles, and in their other subsequent writings, Thus superabundantly furnished with all the documents of faith and obedience, divinely provided for the whole christian community under heaven, we cannot surely be deficient, in any respect, either for our present or future happiness; and, if not fully satisfied, as well provided for, we must, indeed be hard to satisfy. These things being so, and having as reformers, nay, more, as restorers, assumed these premises, what have we to do with the results of theological controversies? Have we yet to wait for the discoveries of the 29th year of the 19th century, to perfect our creed? Or have we to go farther than the record itself, to know what we should believe concerning the divine election, more than any other item of revealed truth? Surely no. And if we have nothing to do with the results of such controversies, what can we have to do with the controversies themselves? The ground that we have assumed, the stand that we have taken, blessed be God? puts us beyond the reach of all such controversies. The principles or propositions of our faith and obedience were established beyond contradiction, 1800 years ago. The christian community, then existing, was put in complete possession of every item of faith and obedience that the Lord required; the authentic documents of which have come down to us. The whole of our duty, then, as christians, now is, to hold fast in profession, and reduce to practice, what is therein declared and enjoined, after the goodly example of the primitive churches. Thus contending earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints, and conforming to the apostolic injunctions, after their approved example, we also shall stand approved. But for the achievement of all this, we have only to look into the New Testament, and not to any later production; no, not even though it bore date in the first year of the second century.

      Some however may allege, as we know they do, that, although all things necessary to faith and holiness are fully recorded, yet we are liable to mistake the meaning, to differ about the sense of some things in the sacred writings. Grant this, and what follows--that the scriptures are not a certain, sufficient, and infallible guide in matters of faith and holiness? What then shall we do? Who is authorized to supply the deficiency? Where is the infallible expositor? None, none. Our concession, then, must be limited to things not affecting faith and holiness; we mean, the belief and obedience of the gospel and law of Christ; or if it respect any item of the revealed salvation, or the knowledge of any thing intimately connected with it, it must be further limited to mere verbal ignorance, to matters of grammatical exposition; but what has this to do with theological exposition, or with the well known subjects of sectarian controversy? Certainly nothing definitive; though such controversialists sometimes seek to avail themselves of verbal criticism., Nevertheless, doing common justice to the sacred diction, according to the established rules of grammatic exposition, no undue advantage can be taken unfavorable to truth, otherwise the language of the holy scripture has no certain meaning; consequently, we have no revelation at all. Upon the whole, this indefinite allegation is a mere cavil, a mere scarecrow, one of the last shifts of a desperate and dying cause. The faith and obedience of the christians of the second century, were not paralyzed with it, who willingly and joyfully suffered all things for the truth's sake.

      We, then, as advocates for a genuine radical reform, even for the restoration of the ancient gospel, and order of things established by the apostles, insist upon it, that we have nothing to do with sectarian controversies; with the theological contentions of the present or former ages; with any thing of the kind that happened since the apostles' days. They have settled all the theological, not, indeed, all the verbal controversies, that we are concerned with: and have assured us, that, if what they heard, and saw, and handled, and contemplated, and from the beginning delivered to the churches concerning the eternal life, which from the Father was manifested to them; yea, that if that which we have heard from them from the beginning, shall remain in us, we also shall continue in the Son, and in the Father, and have the promise of eternal life. So John the apostle, in his first epistle general, informs all the christians under heaven; and surely this should satisfy us. It is, then, nowise incumbent upon us to intermeddle with the contending brethren, neither for their sakes nor ours, for it can neither do them nor us any good. [612] It can be of no service to them, for they will not allow us a decisive umpirage to bring their tedious, improfitable, perplexing disputes to a final issue: nor can it be of any service to us to investigate their matters, in order to ascertain who is in the right; for if their conclusions, whether right or wrong, be not found in our premises, be not contained in that which was heard from the beginning, "even as they delivered them to us, who were eye witnesses and ministers of the word;" we say, if their conclusions be not found in these our premises, we know nothing about them. They enter not into our christianity; they affect not our faith nor obedience. All that we have to do with the multiplied and multiplying contentions of a sectarian age, is, for our own part, to avoid them, as subversive of the benign and blissful intention of the gospel, which is godly edification in faith, love, and peace; whereas the end of these controversies is contention, strife, envy, evil surmisings, backbitings, persecutions, and every evil work, as the scriptures and woful experience amply testify. In addition to this cautious and conscientious avoidance of those hurtful and divisive controversies, our incumbent duty is to bear a faithful scriptural testimony against them; not, indeed, distinctively, or as belonging to this or the other sect, but in cumulo, as constituting sectarianism, without any respect to their intrinsic or comparative merit or demerit. Thus proceeds the Apostle in his epistles to Timothy and Titus. In brief, then, and in simplicity, let us testify against sectarianism itself, without condescending to notice in particular any of the isms that compose it. The very moment we depart from this rule, we become a sect. I might also add, the very moment we preach or teach our own opinions, as matters of christian faith or duty, that moment we become sectarians; for this is the very essence, the sine qua non of sectarianism, without which there could be no sect. The writer of this most seriously declares, for his own part, that were not the all-sufficiency of the holy scriptures, without comment or paraphrase, clearly demonstrable; so that the inculcation of their express and explicit declarations were alone sufficient to make the christian wise to salvation, thoroughly furnished to all good works; he would have either continued with his quondam brethren, of the Westminster school, or joined with some of the modern creed-reforming parties: for, by no means would he have committed himself to the capricious and whimsical extemporaneous effusions of every one, who might have confidence enough to open his mouth in public. If we are to be entertained and edified with human opinions of divine truth, let us, by all means, have the opinions of the learned, of the deep thinking, and judicious; among these also let us have our choice. All have certainly a right to choose where there is a variety, and that we may always expect to find in the religious world, while the fashionable opinion is indulged that every man has a right to entertain the public with his own opinions upon religious subjects. I dont mean a civil, but a religious right; for civil society, as such, can take no cognizance of religious matters. However, while this assumed right is conceded by the religious world, we shall never want a variety of religions; for what is it, but granting to every one that pleases, the right of making a religion out of the Bible to suit his own fancy, and of teaching it to as many as will receive it, and thus becoming the head of a new party? While, then, the religious world justify this mode of proceeding, sects cannot fail to increase: for, as before observed, this is the productive principle of sectarianism. But I perceive I have exceeded all due bounds. My apology is the prodigious extent, and ruinous tendency of the sectarian evil here opposed; and especially as affecting the desired reformation in the hands of many, who, while they profess to advocate the all-sufficiency and alone-sufficiency of the holy scriptures, to the rejection of every thing of human invention or authority, are but making a new start, to run the old race over again, by preaching every man his own opinions, reviving the old controversies, or producing new ones; thus sowing the seeds of new parties, and hardening the old, they prevent the success of those that are honestly and consistently contending for the truth, and zealously laboring to promote it. Let such remember, that, in thus really building again, the things they have professedly destroyed, they make themselves transgressors; and, like the people in the days of Nehemiah, who would be thought to be builders in the Lord's house, they are enemies in disguise, and will be considered as such by the true builders. Farewell.

      Yours very respectfully,

T. W.      

      November 14.

      P. S.--It appears, sir, by our number of September last, that you intend a series of sermons to young preachers, of which, in said number, you have favored us with the first. According to custom you begin at the outside, which, for humanity's sake, appears to need the dressing you have given it. We hope your labor may not be in vain; and that, as you proceed, at least before you finish, you will pay a justly apportionate attention to the inside; for it would appear lost labor, if not ridiculous, to be at much pains and cost to fit out vessels for sea which were to carry nothing but sails and ballast. Perhaps a solid and judicious answer to the following queries might be of some service to the good cause in which you labor, as well as to those whom you professedly intend to serve by the proposed sermons:--

      Quere 1. When should a young person think himself qualified to become a preacher? At what age? With what attainments?

      2. Should he be able to read his Bible grammatically--that is, distinctly and intelligibly, with proper emphasis, and without miscalling?

      3. Should he know the names and order of the books in the Old and New Testaments, and to which volume they respectively belong?

      4. Should he have carefully and devoutly read both volumes of the holy scriptures, so as to apprehend the precise design of each, and their respective bearings upon the christian community?

      5. flow many weeks or months should pass, after his having publicly made a scriptural profession of christianity, before he begins to prophesy? And is such a profession previously necessary?

      6. Should he be an approved member of a christian church, and have its approbation, both as to his age and talents; as a person of considerable standing, of established character, of sound comprehensive scriptural knowledge, duly acquainted with the actual condition and character of the religious world? &c.

      7. Or may every person whose zeal, or self-conceit may prompt him, become a prophet, without any respect to the qualifications above specified, or any at all; and say what he pleases in the name of the Lord, without respect to any authority, divine or human? And have the churches of the saints no cognizance of such characters--no defence against them? [613]

[The Christian Baptist, December 7, 1829, pp. 611-613.]

      The identity of T. W. is revealed in the signature line ("T. W., alias THOS. CAMPBELL") to his "Reply" to a Constant Reader in The Christian Baptist (Vol. 7, No. 4, November 2, 1829). See College Press reprint (1983) of the Burnet edition (1835) of Alexander Campbell's The Christian Baptist, p. 598.

      Thomas Campbell's "To the Editor of the Christian Baptist" was first published in The Christian Baptist, Vol. VII, No. 5, December 7, 1829. The electronic version of the letter has been produced from the College Press (1983) reprint of The Christian Baptist, ed. Alexander Campbell (Cincinnati: D. S. Burnet, 1835), pp. 611-613.

      Pagination in the electronic version has been represented by placing the page number in brackets following the last complete word on the printed page. I have let stand variations and inconsistencies in the author's (or editor's) use of italics, capitalization, punctuation, and spelling in the letter.

      Addenda and corrigenda are earnestly solicited.

Ernie Stefanik
Derry, PA

Created 12 January 1998.
Updated 7 July 2003.