FROM

THE

MILLENNIAL HARBINGER.

Number V.-----Volume VI.

---

A. CAMPBELL, EDITOR.

---

Bethany, Va. May, 1835.

BETHANY Brooke Co. Va May, 1835.      

J. R. HOWARD,

      Respected Brother--Your letters of the 18th and 20th February, have been put into my hands, as containing some matter's for publication, which I have arranged in the following order, upon which I shall, in my son's absence, offer a few responsive remarks; not intended, however, to supersede any thing that he may think proper to add, at his return, after their publication.

      I feel the rather disposed, in the mean time, to use this discretionary power, seeing you refer to my sentiments upon the vicarious nature of the sufferings of Christ, published in the 4th volume of the Millennial Harbinger, which, it seems, have induced you to suppose, that I consider them intended to appease the Father's wrath against sinners;--a mistake which I most earnestly desire to obviate, as nothing appears to me a more direct and express contradiction of the fundamental principle,--yea, of the very first and moving cause of man's salvation; namely, "the great love of God, wherewith he loved us, even when we were dead in sins." Eph. ii. 4, 5. How such a mistake could have originated from any thing contained in the pieces referred to, I cannot easily imagine. But of this in its proper place. I now proceed to the arrangement.

      In the former of the above letters, you express a wish to see an essay in the Millennial Harbinger upon the sacrifice of Christ and baptism, showing the connexion between them; and quote various passages of scripture as relevant to said purpose, to which I shall attend in the proper place. Moreover, you desire that said essay should exhibit the "philosophy and necessity" of such a connexion in the divine procedure, for governmental purposes. In the latter--you propose the following queries: viz:

      1st. Are the sufferings of Christ vicarious?
      2d. If so, how, or in what sense, are they vicarious?
      3d. Were they to appease the wrath of the Father against sinners?
      4th. How are his sufferings and death to affect sinners?
      5th. As our Saviour is the end of the law, has he not, in taking that law out of the way by his death, conferred a great temporal benefit upon sinners, none of whom could enjoy the present life under it?

      Are not all sinners enjoying his temporal favor in this way?--Is not this the way he suffered for them?--Or, is it the way opened by his sacrifice alone, which is to draw them? You allege that "clear and correct views upon the subject of the above queries, are much wanted among the disciples." I shall only add,--I am sorry to hear it; and hope it is the case with but a few, who have not duly attended to the Apostles' doctrine. In the last place you suggest grounds for a query concerning baptism--viz. Whether or not it is a church ordinance?--Assigning as a reason, the allegation of some that it is so, for the purpose of opposing it as an ordinance of divine appointment for the remission of sins. To each of the above queries I shall attend with all convenient brevity, after a few brief remarks upon the subject of the proposed essay.

      Most of the scriptures you have quoted to evince a constitutional connexion between the sacrifice of Christ and baptism, are express to the purpose; others strongly imply it. The first of these--John iii. 5. expressive of the indispensable necessity of a second birth, is, no doubt, intimately connected with verse 14th of the same context, which strongly affirms the indispensable necessity of the lifting up of the Son of Man, in order to the salvation of sinners; without the belief of which no one ever was, or can be, born of water and Spirit; for it is only he that believes this, that is qualified for baptism--for such alone it is appointed: see Mark xvi. 16. with 1 Cor. xv. 1--4. Hence we infer the intimate and indispensable connexion between the sacrifice of Christ and baptism. And as it is faith in the lifting up, or crucifixion of the Son of Man, that qualifies and disposes for baptism--so the Apostles principally insist upon this all-important theme; compare 1 Corinthians ii. 2. with xv. 4, and 11, which "many of the Corinthians hearing, believed and were baptized;" see Acts xviii. 8. Hearing what?--Why,--the Apostles' doctrine; viz.--that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures. For the Apostle from his first coming to Corinth, had "determined to know," i. e. to make known, as gospel "among them, nothing but Christ, and him crucified;" by the belief of which he declared them saved, provided they retained it, and did not apostatize. Also, that in his manner of preaching he was not singular; for so preached all the Apostles: see verse 11. above quoted. These things being so, there can be no doubt about the intimate connexion of baptism with the sacrifice of Christ.

      But if the supposed connexion be evidently implied in John iii. 5, 14. as appears by the above quotations, it is most explicitly evident in those that follow: see Rom. vi. 1--10. Col. ii. 10--13. Heb. x. 22. 1 Pet. iii. 18--22. 1 John v. 6--12. In these scriptures, baptism is expressly connected with the sufferings of Christ--with his bloodshedding, death, burial, and resurrection; and with it--the remission of sins--a resurrection with Christ to a new life--the consequent obligation to a continued course of holy self denying obedience--and, ultimately, the blissful certainty of eternal life. In the last of the above, viz. I John v. 6. "the water and the blood" are in juxta-position, as being the two great comprehensive means, efficient of the grand and all-important design of Christ's coming; namely, "to save his people from their sins;" these being the only typical abluents of moral pollution from Adam to Christ:--the former, viz. "the water," for the purification of the character; that is, of the disposition and practice, from the defilement of sin; the latter, viz. "the blood," to purify the conscience from its guilt--this, being emblematic of the efficient cause of our justification--that, of the efficient cause of our sanctification, as these terms are generally understood; and which, taken together, amount to a complete salvation from the immediate effects of sin; namely, guilt and depravity. See Col. ii. 10--13. as above; and from which, in this life, Christ came to save his people. Wherefore, in coming for this purpose, he is said to come by, or in the exhibition and use of, the divinely appointed means of water and blood; the latter, he shed to redeem us;--the former, he afterwards appointed for the believing subject with the promise of this salvation, in order to his enjoyment of it;--to the truth of which the Holy Spirit is the attested witness, as being the truth or substance of the promised blessing--in, and to, the believer; for he that believes has the witness in himself; that is, the truth or thing witnessed; namely, that "being washed, sanctified, and justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of God; 1 Cor. vi. 11. he is become a saved character--"a habitation of God through [207] the Spirit;" having in himself the good seed and principle of eternal life--the Word and the Spirit. Now that the Apostle is here speaking exclusively of the power of the Christian faith, and not at all of the evidence or certainty of it, of which he had so conclusively spoken at the opening of the Epistle, is demonstrable from the scope and tenor of the whole passage under consideration, from the 4th to, end of the 12th verse.--"This is the victory that overcomes the world, even our faith. Who is he that overcomes the world, but he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God? This is he who came by water and blood--Jesus the Christ;--not by water only, but also by blood; and it is the Spirit that bears witness, because the Spirit is the truth.--He that believes on the Son of God, has the witness in himself:"--namely, "that God has given to us eternal life, and that this life is in his Son;" of which the inhabitation of the Spirit is the principle, as well as the pledge and evidence; see John iv. 14. and vii. 39. with Eph. iv. 13, 14.

      Thus the connexion between the sacrifice of Christ and Christian immersion being evidently established, both by the implicit and express testimony of the Holy Scriptures, what more is necessary to instruct and establish our faith, and direct our practice? And, as faith and practice comprehend the whole of christianity, and are the proper and immediate result of law and testimony, upon which alone they can and must be founded, what need of a philosophic display of the necessity of their order and connexion, to evince their consistency with the governmental purposes of God? Such knowledge may, perhaps, be too high for us; or, if attainable, might possibly puff us up: for "knowledge puffs up;" but faith, by love, builds up. Besides, our faith and obedience must not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the authority and veracity of God. Wherefore, the Apostles did not deal in speculating and theorizing, but rather in dictating and dogmatizing; for their object was to teach duty,--not science. Hence, Paul, in addressing the fastidious Grecians, did not avail himself of an eloquent display of philosophic wisdom, in declaring the testimony of God; but, with great plainness of speech, contented himself with declaring the things of the Spirit, in the words of the Spirit; being divinely instructed so to do, lest his success should be ascribed to his eloquence, and so the cross be robbed of its glory--see 1 Cor. 1st and 2d chapters. Nor, indeed, does he ever mention philosophic science in his epistles, but in terms of high disapprobation and disgust, warning the churches against it.--Nay, truly, if we would defecate christianity from the impurities of vain imaginations, and scientific speculations, we must content ourselves with criticizing and scripturizing our style, our sentiments, and our manners, till we modify and reduce the whole to the original purity of the divine standard, in thought, word, and deed. Thus we shall have done with the many ignorant and impertinent questions, and strifes of words; from which proceed envy, contention, railings evil surmisings, perverse disputings, &c. &c. "But thou, O man of God, avoid these things; and follow after righteousness, godliness, faith, love, patience, meekness;--fight the good fight of faith, lay hold on eternal life," &c. 1 Tim. vi. 4, 11, 12. Now, all this, blessed be God, we can do without any human aid, by the simple study and practice of the pure word of life. And if we will not be directed and influenced by this, we would not be persuaded, though one arose from the dead. So much for the first item; we now proceed to the queries:

      Query 1. Are the sufferings of Christ vicarious?--That is, were they endured in the stead, and for the sake, of sinners? For answer to this, we refer the querist to the 4th volume of the Millennial Harbinger, No. 10, pages 503--509, and No. 11, pages 548-553. We do this the rather, because he refers to these communications in the letter containing this query. And also because, that since the publication of said communications in confirmation of the vicarious sufferings of the Saviour, no disciple of the present reformation, nor, indeed, of any party known to the writer, has suggested a doubt or objection relative to the scriptural truth and propriety, of the sentiments they exhibit. And still, more especially, do we make this reference, because the [208] numbers referred to, are yet in the hands of the readers of this work, by the reperusal of which they will be in complete possession of our views upon this all-important subject, with the scripture documents upon which they are founded!

      Query 2. If the sufferings of Christ be vicarious, how, or in what sense, are they so? We answer, they are so in the proper and established acceptation of the term; that is, by special agreement, in the room and behalf of others, for special purposes. For thus did Christ suffer by the special appointment of the Father; that, through his sufferings, believing penitent sinners might, in a consistency with the divine justice, truth, and holiness, be exempted from sufferings. This position, we think, we have scripturally illustrated and confirmed, in the above cited communications, to which we would again refer the querist.

      Query 3. Were they to appease the wrath of the Father against sinners? We answer in the negative--They were not:--but were, indeed, the fruit of the Father's love, to a guilty perishing world.--For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son to be lifted up--that whosoever believes in him, might not perish, but have eternal life. John iii. 14, 15, 16. This declaration of the Saviour determine, for ever, the negative of the proposition contained in the above query. Besides, the affirmative would imply an absurdity; for how, in the nature of things, is it possible to conceive. that vicarious sufferings could reconcile a virtuous mind to malefactors? Could such sufferings change their character, or mitigate their crimes? Surely, no. And if we should even consider them as penitent, it could not alter the case; for, still, such sufferings could neither affect their character, nor their conduct. But what farther need for argument, after the aforesaid declaration of the Son of God? If his testimony does not settle this point, we would not be persuaded, though one arose from the dead. And so we say of all matters of moral and religious obligation. What a pity!--to find the Methodist Episcopal Church, asserting, in the second article of its creed, such a shocking, anti-scriptural absurdity, so derogatory to the divine character, and in direct contradiction to the divine testimony; viz. that "Christ truly suffered, was crucified, dead, and buried, to reconcile his Father to us," &c. Instead of saying amen to this blasphemous position, we say God forbid that we should impute such a thing to our immutably holy and benevolent heavenly Father, with whom there is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.

      Query 4. How are his sufferings and death to affect sinners? Ans. They are to redeem and reconcile them to God. "For God commends his love to us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." Thus,--"When we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death, of his Son." For God was in, or by Christ, reconciling the world to himself--making him, who knew no sin,--a sin-offering for us; that we might be made" (partakers of) "the righteousness of God in, or by him"--"who has redeemed us to God by his blood"--having borne "our sins in his own body on the tree--by whose stripes we were healed," &c. See Rom. v. 8--10. 2 Cor. v. 19--11. Rev. v. 9. 1 Pet. ii. 24.

      Query 5. This query, predicated upon "Christ's being the end of the law," contains four specifications; see page 1st of this communication. To these we shall attend in their order--Specification 1. "As our Saviour is the end of the law, has he not, in taking that law out of the way, by his death, conferred a great temporal benefit on sinners, none of whom could enjoy the present life under it?" To this we answer in the negative. Christ is not so the end of the law, as to put an end to its authority; for in so doing he would be the end of the law for unrighteousness: whereas, he is the "end of the law for righteousness;" for he came not to destroy the law and the prophets, but to establish them, by fulfilling the typical prefigurations of the former, and the verbal predictions of the latter, respecting himself: and so to make atonement for the transgressions of the moral and religious dictates of both. It was in this way, and by his so doing, that he is become the end of the law for [209] righteousness, or justification to every believer. He has, therefore, only so far taken the law out of the way by his death, that its penalty shall not so affect any believing penitent sinner, as to detain for ever under it him, who, in order to escape the impending vengeance, flies for refuge to lay hold on the hope of the gospel, by taking the benefit of the act of salvation, for the remission of sins, passed in favor of all such characters. See Mark xvi. 16. with Acts ii. 38. It is in this sense, and for this blissful and holy purpose, that Christ has become the end of the law to every one who believes; and not that sinners might live without law, sin with impunity, and so continue to enjoy the blessings of the present life. No. He came to save sinners from their sins, not in their sins. But what are we saying? Is it not absurd to talk of sinners without law? Indeed, where there is no law, there can be no transgression. It was not this way, however, that Christ came to finish transgression, to make an end of sin; i. e. by putting an "end to law;" but by the "'sacrifice of himself." "We do not, then, make void the law through faith. Nay, we establish the law."--Specification 2. "And are not all sinners enjoying his temporal favor in this way?" That is, in not being under the law in consequence, or by virtue of the death of Christ. We have just observed 'that it would be absurd to talk of sinners where there is no law;' and would it not be quite as absurd to talk of sinners enjoying the divine favor by being left to live and die peaceably in their sins? Better for them they had never been born.--Specification 3. "Is not this the way in which he suffered for them?" That is, was it not to this effect--for this purpose? We answer, No. For men lived longer and stronger before the flood, and for a thousand years afterwards, than they have done since the death of the Saviour. Moreover, to suppose that Christ died for sinners, that they might live in sin with impunity, would be superlative blasphemy against both the Father and the Son.--Specification 4. "Or is it the way opened by his sacrifice,--by his blood alone, which is to draw them?" Ans. There is but one end of Christ's sufferings---that is, the glory of God in the salvation of sinners; and but one way of coming to the enjoyment of that salvation; that is, "the obedience of faith."' Rom. xvi. 25, 26. Upon the whole, be it observed--and with all respect to the querist--that had he quoted the whole verse, Rom. x. 4., we should have never heard of his 5th query--"For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believes."

      Query 6. Is baptism a church ordinance? This query, we understand, was elicited by the opposition of some of the Baptists, to the administration of immersion for the remission of sins; alleging that immersion is a church ordinance; and of course, that the unregenerate, or persons whose sins are not remitted, have no right to it.--In order to a correct scriptural answer to the above query, we would wish to know what the alleged opponents mean by a church ordinance. Do they mean an ordinance ordained for the church's sake? If so, we might answer extensively in the words of the Apostle,--"All things are for your sakes." And again, "All things are yours." 1 Cor. iii. 21--23. and 2 Cor. iv. 15. In some sense, therefore, baptism belongs to the church--is for the church's sake;--as the divine ordinance of natural birth belongs to families, and is for their sakes; for there could be no families without it. But it would be strange logic hence to infer, that no one had a right to be born, who was not a member of a family! Were this the case, there would soon be no families. Nay, rather, we should never have heard of any. If, however, by a church ordinance, is meant one appointed for the observance and edification of the members:--we challenge christendom to show us in the New Testament a single instance of a church attending upon, or being exhorted to attend to, the ordinance of baptism--Or so much as one unbaptized individual saluted as a disciple, a christian; or as belonging to a christian church. Till this can be done, all human say-so is of no more account, than the pretensions of Mahomet. On the contrary, instead of baptism's being appointed for the saved, the pardoned, it is appointed for, and recommended to, such as would be saved--as felt their need of pardon. Compare Mark xvi. 16. with Acts ii.38. and xxii. 16. with Col. ii. 11-13. In order to a correct [210] understanding of any divine ordinance, there are four things we should strictly observe concerning it; viz--the intention, import, effects, and consequences, divinely ascribed to it;--in short, whatever the scripture declares concerning it. If we do this in relation to the ordinance of immersion as exhibited in the New Testament, whether by the ministry of John, or afterwards by the Apostles of Jesus, we shall find it exhibited--

      1st. By both, for the purpose or intention of the remission of sins, Mark i. 4. Acts ii. 33. and xxii. 16.

      2d. And afterwards, by the appointment of the Saviour for salvation. Mark xvi. 16. 1 Pet. iii. 21.

      3. It is subjoined to faith and repentance, Mark xvi. 16. Acts ii. 38. as the immediate duty and privilege of the believing penitent sinner--for the enjoyment of salvation through the remission of his sins, Luke i. 77. and the reception of the Holy Spirit, Acts ii. 38, 39.

      4. There is ascribed to it purification from moral pravity or pollution. 1 Cor. vi. 11. Eph. v. 25-27.

      5. Insertion into the body of Christ. 1 Cor. xii. 13.

      6. The assumption of his name or character. Gal. iii. 27.

      7. An implantation into his death, burial, and resurrection. Rom. vi. 3--7.

      Hence, it evidently imports, that the proper subjects of it are guilty, polluted, dead, without Christ--not in him:--and also supposes that they are divinely aroused to a sense of their desperate condition, through the exhibition of the gospel, and so brought to faith and repentance, which qualifies and disposes them for the reception of baptism, in order to the enjoyment of the proposed salvation, through the blood and spirit of Christ. The happy and blissful effect and consequence of which is, that thus, "having their hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience and their bodies washed with pure (that is, purifying) water, they can draw near to God with a true heart, in full assurance of faith, through their great High Priest, by the new and living way, which he has consecrated for them. Thus are they brought into a safe and happy condition through baptism, with its scriptural adjuncts--faith, repentance, &c. &c. Now if these opposing Baptists, who claim baptism as a church ordinance, be in the predicament supposed and implied in the above scriptural exhibition of the intention and import of this ordinance previous to the reception of it; or consider it their duty and privilege to salute, as brethren, those that are so, their case is truly pitiable; for they are nothing better than poor, guilty, miserable, perishing sinners.----Yours, respectfully,

T. C.      

[The Millennial Harbinger (May 1835): 206-211.]

      Thomas Campbell's Letter to J. R. Howard was first published in The Millennial Harbinger, Vol. 6, No. 5, May 1835. The electronic version of the letter has been produced from the College Press reprint (1976) of The Millennial Harbinger, ed. Alexander Campbell (Bethany, VA: A. Campbell, 1835), pp. 206-211.

      Pagination 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. Emendations are as follows:

            Printed Text [ Electronic Text
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------
 p. 208:    eternal lite," [ eternal life,"
 p. 210:    died for sinnrs, [ died for sinners,
            If so. [ If so,
 p. 211:    and also suppese [ and also supposes
 

      Addenda and corrigenda are earnestly solicited.

Ernie Stefanik
Derry, PA

Created 9 December 1997.
Updated 9 July 2003.