THE operations of the Spirit are, in scripture, inseparably connected with the person and work of Jesus. We cannot know Jesus but by the Holy Ghost; neither can we know the power of the life of the Spirit, but in knowing Jesus. On the other hand, we cannot hold wrong views of the person and work of Jesus without interfering, however upright our own minds may all the while be, with the energy and operations of the Holy Spirit; neither can we be in error as to the doctrine of the Spirit, and be right as to the doctrine of the Son. The enemy with whom we have to contend knows this; and he knows also how the portion given by the Father to the Church, is inseparably connected with the persons and works of these two most blessed Ones. The Holy Ghost indwelling and revealing the person and things of the risen Jesus, is the Church's portion and blessing. If Satan can succeed in leading us amiss here, his triumph is great. For the Father's love in giving such a portion, the Holy Ghost's blessed grace in revealing, and the person and glory of the Son, are thus brought into open contempt in the very house of God; sorrow and trial ensue upon the saints, and testimony to the world is put a stop to. We have seen one fearful instance of this in England; see " CHRISTIAN WITNESS," vol. 2. p. 111, and p. 154.
If I mistake not, there never was a more perfect instance than this, of the connection between error as to the doctrine of the Spirit, and error as to the doctrine of the Son. The plague began in Scotland with a question, whether the Holy Ghost really was among the saints? But the question-is God among us? very soon led THERE to erroneous views of the nature of our Lord. Contrasted with this was its progress in London, where the first sign of delusion that appeared, was error as to the person of the Lord. It is remarkable also, that, as to the person of the Son, it was not one and the same error which was held in London and Scotland, but two distinctly different forms of error. I can remember well when those at Port Glasgow, with whom the so called " gifts" originated (having no thought of the views they would, some of them at least, take up as to the person of Jesus), sent to Mr. Irving, and he (who even then held the views, afterward so fully promulgated by him, as to the humanity of our Lord), rejected the doctrine and claims of the Spirit displayed at Port Glasgow. But to his error as to our Lord, then held, he afterward added the error as to the Spirit; and they afterward added error as to the Lord, to the error then held by them as to the Spirit.
It is well to remind ourselves that nothing can sanctify a lie;- that that which is contrary to the truth, can gain no propriety from being connected in statement with blessed truth; but contrariwise, a lie is much more hateful, and error much more fearful when dressed up and garnished with the furniture of truth, than when presented nakedly and baldly by itself. There are few that would object to have arsenic in their houses, if it were carefully packed and labeled and locked up out of the way; and there are very few who would accredit arsenic, known to them to be in the bread placed before them, either by reason of the excellency of the flour, or the pure character of the water, or the goodness of the yeast wherewith the loaf was prepared. If He who knew what was in man, had not told us " that the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light," the folly of those who would, in the things of God, accredit falsehood by pointing out the excellency of the circumstances connected with it, might astonish us.
But so it always has been among men. And the apparent holiness of life, knowledge of scripture, and zeal and labors of the deluder, thus make way among the simple for the delusion. On the other hand, Satan knows how to use truth, neglected truth especially, against the soul. Have you rest in God? Have you the witness of the Spirit? Have you full fellowship with Jesus and the Father? were questions which a few years ago shook many a godly soul; and, in the consciousness of the lack of something which it ought to have had, laid it open to receive a something which it ought not to have had; whilst others, afraid of that which was proposed for their reception, delivered themselves by denying that such questions ought, to saints, to be through the indwelling of the Spirit, of easy answer.
These thoughts have passed before my mind in connection with Campbellism. Campbellism is making great progress in America, and has commenced its pestilential course in various parts of both England and Scotland. Though there are many points of grievous error to be noticed in the works connected with the Campbellites, I shall confine my attention to a tract entitled " An essay on the remission of sins," published in America, by A. Campbell, and reprinted by some of his friends at Nottingham. I prefer this course to one of more general observation, because the tract in question, presents THE question with which every Christian has to do; and error upon this question is fatal to acceptance before God. The other works present points affecting, it may be, the union of saints, or their service, or their joy and peace; but the " Essay on the remission of sins," presents THE point of the sinner's acceptance before God, and error here is, as I said, fatal.
I should judge after an attentive perusal of, the work, that Satan must be aware that there are many, it may be of God's dear people, who do not know whether their sins are forgiven them or not; and, of these, many, who if the question were pressed home upon them, would be shaken by it sadly; and some of them thus perhaps be prepared to receive any strange delusion as the medium of obtaining assurance of forgiveness; and others who conscious of their own want of assurance, and yet able to discern the falsity of the medium suggested, would, as their only mode of escape, deny that we ought to know that our sins are forgiven.
The tract opens with such statements as these:-
" Luther said that the doctrine of justification or forgiveness was the test of a standing, or falling Church. If right in this, she could not be very far wrong in anything else; but if wrong here, it was not easy to suppose her right in anything.... We agree with him in this, as well as in many other sentiments.
"The doctrine of remission, is the doctrine of salvation; for to talk of salvation without the knowledge of the remission of sins, is to talk without meaning.
"The perfection of the conscience of the worshippers of God, under Christ, is the grand distinguishing peculiarity in them, compared with those under Moses. They have not only clearer views of God, of His love, of His character, and of His immortality, but they have consciences which the Jewish and patriarchal ages could not produce."
And then we have the germ of the whole book briefly, and but for a moment presented to us.-
" Under the government of the Lord Jesus, there is an institution for the "forgiveness of sins, like which, there was no institution since the world began. " It was owing to this institution, that Christians were so much distinguished at first from the subjects of every former institution."
"Our political happiness in the United States, is not owing to any other cause than to our political institutions. If we are politically the happiest people in the world, it is because we have the happiest political institutions in the world. So it is in the Christian institution. If Christians were, and may be, the happiest people that ever lived, it is because they live under the most gracious institution ever bestowed on men. The meaning of this institution has been buried under the rubbish of human traditions for hundreds of years. It was lost in the dark ages, and has never been till recently, disinterred. Various efforts have been made, and considerable progress attended them; but since the grand apostasy was completed-till the present gene" ration, the gospel of Jesus Christ has not been laid open to mankind in its "original plainness, simplicity, and majesty. A vail in reading the new institution has been on the hearts of Christians, as Paul declares it was upon the "hearts of the Jews in reading the old institution towards the close of that " economy."
"The object of this essay is to open to the consideration of the reader, the Christian institution for the remission of sins, to show by what means a person may enjoy the assurance of a personal and plenary remission of all his " sins."
I shall not at present comment upon the fallacy of supposing that the means of blessing to the inhabitants of an earthly kingdom, must necessarily correspond with the means of blessing to those under the kingdom of heaven; but I would call attention to the evil likely to result from using the word "institution" in two different senses in the above citation. Many a mind would start from the idea of baptism as the " institution for the forgiveness of sins," and be led to expect error, whose suspicions would be lulled by finding a few lines further on the gospel called " the new institution," the more so where the writer thus proceeds.
" This we shall attempt to do by stating, illustrating, and proving, the following twelve propositions:-
Prop. 1.-" The Apostles taught their disciples, or converts, that their sins were forgiven, and uniformly addressed them as pardoned or justified persons."
Prop. 2.-" The Apostolic converts were addressed by their teachers, as justified persons."
Prop. 3.-"The ancient Christians were addressed by the Apostles as sanctified persons."
Prop. 4.-" The ancient Christians, the Apostolic converts, were addressed as 'reconciled to God.' "
Prop. 5.-" The first disciples were considered and addressed by the Apostles, as 'adopted into the family of God.' "
Prop. 6.-" My sixth proposition is, that the first Christians were taught by the inspired teachers to consider themselves assayed persons."
Page 10.-" These six propositions being each, and every one of them, "clearly sustained by the unequivocal testimony of God, now adduced; and as "is well known to the intelligent disciple, by many more passages, equally "plain and forcible, not adduced; we shall now engross them into one leading "proposition, which we shall in this essay consider as not to be questioned" as irrefragably proved."
" The converts made to Jesus Christ by the Apostles, were taught to consider "themselves pardoned, justified, sanctified, reconciled, adopted, and saved; and "were addressed as pardoned, justified, sanctified, reconciled, adopted, and "saved persons, by all who first preached the gospel of Christ." (Page 11.)
The simple mind is thus led on under the banner of truth, with ample quotation from scripture, and for the most part correct application of scripture-but what is the issue? Let us for a moment pass over the pages which gradually introduce the error, and state the results broadly.
Page 26.-" To call the receiving of any spirit, or any influence, or energy, or any operation upon the heart of man, regeneration, is an abuse of all " speech, as well as a departure from the diction of the Holy Spirit, who calls "nothing personal regeneration, except the act of immersion."
Page 31.-" Regeneration, or immersion-the former referring to the import of the act, and the latter term to the act itself-denote only the act of being born."
Page 32.-" And the great argument, pertinent to our object, in this long examination of conversion and regeneration, is that which we conceive to be the most apparent of all other conclusions, viz. that remission of sins, or coming into a state of acceptance, being one of the present immunities of the kingdom of heaven, cannot be enjoyed by any person before immersion."
Page 32.-" Remission of sins, cannot in this life be received or enjoyed previous to immersion; if there be any proposition, regarding any item of "the Christian institution, which admits of clearer proof, or fuller illustration than this one, I have yet to learn where it may be found."
Page 32.-" I beg leave to make a remark or two on the propriety of considering the term immersion,' as equivalent to the term conversion.' "
Page 33.-" If it were not to treat this subject as one of doubtful disputation, I would say, that, had there not been some act, such as immersion, agreed on all hands, to be the medium of remission, and the act of conversion and regeneration, the Apostles could not, with any regard to truth or consistency, have addressed the disciples as pardoned, justified, sanctified, "reconciled, adopted, and saved persons."
Such doctrine is directly from Satan: alas! that Satan should be able to lead any one calling himself a Christian, to put the Lord's ordinance of baptism into a place in which no intelligent disciple can recognize it; the very placing it in which is putting of the Lord to shame. Any one that has studied the 14th, 15th, and 16th chapters of John's gospel, and the 8th, 9th, and 10th chapters of Hebrews, will know that the basis laid for our privilege is very different from any outward ordinance, howsoever important; even 1st, the indwelling of the PERSON of the Holy Ghost, in the believer separately and in the Church collectively; and 2ndly, the presenting to faith the finished and accepted sacrifice of Jesus; the way of access to God no longer presented in types and symbols or emblems, but in living substance; the Lamb (who was the Son of God from eternity to eternity), slain for our sins and alive again for evermore. These are the constituent elements of our peculiar privilege; the Son with unveiled face, seen amid the glory of the Father, as the OBJECT presented to faith; and the Holy Ghost quickening into life known as THE SUBJECTIVE Power of appropriating the blessing. It seems impossible to read such statements as those quoted above, without remembering the fearful requirement of the Apostle Paul to the Galatians, " Though we or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you, than that we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed." (Gal. 1)
Let us now briefly examine the links between the scriptural conclusion deduced from the six first propositions, and these so unscriptural assertions.
After engrossing the six first propositions into one leading proposition, that " the converts made to Jesus Christ by the Apostles, were taught to consider themselves, pardoned, justified, sanctified, reconciled, adopted, and saved," &c. the essay proceeds to prove that of these terms " each of them represents, and all of them together represent, a state or condition," p. 11. This is clearly correct, and so in the mind of the writer may be the contrast which follows between " state" and "character." On this I would pause for a moment merely to state, that if by character the manifestation of grace be meant, then certainly the remark is correct; but if as the context and many other passages in the essay seem to indicate, by character is meant not that which shows itself outwardly, but something inward, then the statement would be open to objection. The whole essay indeed entirely overlooks the communication of a new nature to the believer, the implantation in him of the divine nature, and this is a very grievous evil; for the soul of every saint should know that while " Christ for the Church" is alone the basis of its salvation, the knowledge of "Christ for the Church" by any of us, proves beyond a question that Christ is in us.
The question is then mooted " When then is a change of state affected, and by what means?" p. 12.... Ere answering this we have
Page 14, Prop. 7.-" A. change of views, though it necessarily precedes, is in no case equivalent to, and never to be identified with, a change of state."
Perhaps a better specimen of error from the wrong use of analogy could not be adduced than the argument which follows, the substance of which is thus expressed.
" In all the relations of this life, in all states or conditions of men, we feel the truth of this; and I would to heaven that our readers could see as plainly what is of infinitely more importance to them, that no change of heart is equivalent to, or can be substituted for, a change of state!"
Three or four examples are then adduced in the relationships of this life, in which it is shown that the thoughts of the mind, and the affections of the heart, may all be engaged in a new direction, without changing the state of relationship between two parties (two slaves, for instance, may both have their affections drawn forth toward a hard master whom they did hate; but this does not make either a wife, marriage alone can effect that); and then it is argued that so it is in the things of God.
Page 15.-" A. thousand analogies might be adduced to show that a change of state does not necessarily follow, and is sometimes quite different from, and cannot be identified with, a change of heart. So in religion; a man may change his views of Jesus, and his heart may also be changed toward Him; but, unless a change of state ensues, he is still unpardoned, unjustified, unsanctified, unreconciled, unadopted, and lost to all Christian life and enjoyment."
But it is not only the folly of comparing spiritual things with carnal which should here be noticed, there is surely a still greater and more fearful evil manifest. The writer seems to see no difference between "faith, which is the substance of things hoped for, and the evidence of things not seen," and the mere " notions" of the natural mind; and entirely to overlook the communication of the divine nature, through the exceeding great and precious promises laid hold of by faith. As to divine things, a man's stale and condition are not as often in the things of men merely conventional, but depend upon reality. The knowledge of the Son of God, in the Spirit, constitutes in any poor sinner an essential eternal change, as much as the sight of the brazen serpent gave health and a cure to the bitten Israelite, and health was the immediate result of sight. To state therefore as the writer immediately does, page 15, that " Some act, then, constitutional, by stipulation proposed, sensible and manifest, must be performed by one or both the parties, before such a change can be accomplished," I judge to be subversive of the very first principles of truth.-Surely if any man knowing himself to be pardoned, justified, sanctified, reconciled, adopted, and saved, can so write, he must be bewitched.-How bewildered must one be (if indeed he has known the eternal God quickening himself into life by the Spirit through faith in Jesus-translating him out of the kingdom of darkness, into the kingdom of God's dear Son, making him a new creature; old things passed away, and behold all things become. new), to look at water baptism as the act able to effect such a change of state.
Shortly after page 16, we have this statement in confirmation of what we have just referred to.
" This brings us to ' the obedience of faith.'....a message or proclamation, which has not a command in it, cannot be obeyed. But the gospel can "be obeyed, or disobeyed; and therefore, in it, is a command
To this argument as set forth in
Prop. 8.-" That the gospel has in it a command, and as such must be " obeyed."
I would say that the Greek words ύπακοη ύπακδω &c., mean " hear," " hearing," i.e. the attentive reception of the word spoken, and not the results of this in action: and I need hardly say to any one who knows what " grace" means, that the " obedience of faith" is not of works of any kind in the creature, but " the just shall live by faith." " To him that worketh not, but believeth on Him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness: even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, saying " Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered." " Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin." To admit that a single deed, thought, or desire of our own, yea or even of the blessed Spirit, wrought in us, enters into the ground of our rest and trust before God, is to deny the faith. All important as works are to the saint, he must rest as a sinner, naked as to all good, and laden as to all evil, upon Christ ere he can begin as a saint to bear any fruit.
The assertion p. 17, " and this act is sometimes called immersion, regeneration, conversion," is purely an assumption and contains in it grievous delusion.
At page 19, when attempting to prove
Prop. 9.-" That it is not faith, but an act resulting from faith, which changes "our state."
We have words put into the mouth of the Apostles. The portion of scripture under consideration is Acts 2 The Jews having heard Peter preaching, pricked at the heart, cried out " what shall we do?" Peter replies, " Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins," &c. Thus it is written, but the tract says when then inquired " what they ought to do to obtain remission. They were informed, that though they now believed and repented, they were not pardoned; but must " reform and be immersed for the remission of sins." Immersion for the forgiveness of sins, was the command addressed to these believers....as that act....by which alone they could be pardoned." I find nothing in the Bible about Peter's telling them that though they now believed and repented, they were not pardoned. It is a statement contrary to the truth and subversive of grace. 1 may say the same of the following, p. 19, " they who gladly received this word were that day immersed, or in other words, that same day were converted, or regenerated, or obeyed the gospel." These are statements worthy of the pen of a Romanist.
The next thing the writer does, is to confound Peter's address to the hardened, impenitent Jews in Acts 3, with his address to those who were pricked in heart as recorded in chap. ii.
Page 19, 20.-" Peter, in substituting other terms in this proclamation, for those used on Pentecost, does not preach a new gospel, but the same gospel in terms equally strong. He uses the same word in the first part of the command, which he used on Pentecost. Instead of ` be immersed,' he has here be converted' or 'turn to God;' instead of 'for the remission of your sins,' here it is, that your sins may be blotted out;' and instead of 'you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit,' here it is, 'that seasons of refreshment from the pre-Bence of the Lord may come.' On Pentecost it was, 1st, 'Reform;' 2nd, Be immersed;' 3rd, For the remission of sins;' and 4th, You shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.' In Solomon's Portico, it was, 1st, Reform;' 2nd, 'Be converted;' 3rd, That your sins may be blotted out;' and 4th, That seasons of refreshment from the presence of the Lord may come;' that 'you may have righteousness, peace and joy in a holy spirit.' So read the different clauses in those two discourses to the Jews, expressive of the same acts."
We have here a sample and a fair one, of the character of the argument throughout the book: insisting that the words of a speaker, addressed at two different times to two audiences of two opposite characters, must be convertible; as though because he said at one time to a poor distracted soul, "fear not, do thyself no harm;" and at another time to a gainsaying worldling-" Oh, full of all subtlety.... wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways." Any one should argue that " fear not, do thy self no harm," is of the same force and meaning as " wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways."
Let any one read the 2nd and 3rd chapters of the Acts, and they will see at once that the first quotation was addressed to "the pricked in heart;" the second, to " the stiff-necked nation."
The word baptism was never used by an Apostle as convertible with conversion, remission, forgiveness, &c. and to affirm it, is to preach another gospel, and so this " very important fact," p. 21, is no fact at all.
One of the most perfect fallacies I ever saw, is found p. when endeavoring to establish the 10th proposition.
Evidence is advanced on which this conclusion is based.
" Washing of regeneration and immersion, are, therefore, two names for the same thing As regeneration is taught to be equivalent to being born again, and understood to be of the same import with a new birth, we shall examine it under this metaphor. For, if immersion be equivalent to regeneration, and regeneration be of the same import with being born again; then being born again, and being immersed, is the same thing; for this plain reason, that things that are equal to the same, are equal to one another."
Observe, he proves (rightly or wrongly) that " WASHING of regeneration," is equal to " immersion;"-then that " regeneration" [OBSERVE, not the " washing of regeneration," but " regeneration itself,"] is equal to " the new birth," and then exchanges the new birth with immersion.
Herein I see no application of the argument "that things that are equal to the same are equal to one another."
" Immersion" is equal to "the washing of regeneration." " The new birth" is equal to " regeneration."
I find here no middle term-for " the washing of regeneration" is one thing, and " regeneration" is another: to affirm they are one and the same, is simply assumption. The argument page 25, stated upon its being taken for granted, that the 3rd of John refers to baptism, appears to me faulty, because I do not admit what is taken for granted. Its object is to establish Christian baptism as the only mode of entering into the better things of the heavenly kingdom. But if any one will read the chapter, he will see-1st, that the scene took place three years and a half before the opening of the heavenly things. Secondly, that whatever our Lord referred to, it was something which Nicodemus as a Jew ought to have understood:-" Art thou a master in Israel and knowest not these things?" Thirdly, that in the connection in which they were then discoursed of, they were earthly, NOT heavenly:-" If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe if I tell you of heavenly things?"
The assumption also that a man is begotten of the Spirit, and born of water, in the same page, is false; for the verb " is born," verse 5, stands in one and the same connection to the two substantives "Spirit" and " water"..except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." Nicodemus, and every student of the prophets, ought to have known the connection of both the " Spirit" and " water," with the kingdom of God still to be set up; yet in no one passage is immersion there spoken of.
Having previously quoted from p. p. 26, 31, 32, 33, I shall not do more than refer again to the fearful errors in these statements, which in the order of the book occur here.
As to Prop. 11, I shall say nothing, being willing to leave, for the benefit of those that choose to claim it, the support of" the Apostolic Fathers"....Barnabas, Clement, and Hermes; Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Origen, &c. &c. &c.
Whether or not the list of ecclesiastical writers quoted, and the catalog of confessions cited, really speak of immersion (as stated page 42), as the "regeneration" and " remission of sins," spoken of in the New Testament, I know not.-If they do, their doctrine is unsound, if they do not, then are they misquoted.
And the same may be said as to Prop. 12, in which the same thing is affirmed of " the reformed creed."
There are many arguments in the tract which would be weighty, if the question at issue was, " did the Lord give to His Church such an ordinance as baptism?"-but which seem to have no legitimate connection with the question, " is baptism identical with the remission of sins?"-And it does seem a very fearful thing, that in an essay on the remission of sins-the blood of the Lord Jesus should never be brought forward prominently at all; and where referred to at all, then, but disparagingly. I might quote some instances of this, they are before me, but I forbear: it would grieve my own soul to do it; and it seems to me enough, and more than enough, that in an essay on forgiveness, baptism of water should hold the prominent place, and not the blood of Jesus.
These things show an erroneous view of the doctrine of the cross, and sadly irepare the mind to find error as to the doctrine of the Spirit, as I judge.
In conclusion I would remark, that again and again does the tract speak of " immersion for the remission of sins," as though it were a phrase in constant use in Apostolic days, and only in disuse now through sin: I have only to say it never once occurs in the New Testament; for the statement there, is not "be baptized for the remission of sins," but always "repent and be baptized for the remission of sins." Baptism is a commemorative sign of a past grace-the figure of grace discovered; and to administer it save on the belief of grace received, is contrary to the divine mind. By the gospel is preached unto us " Jesus and the resurrection." Well may the soul, conscious of its union by nature with the world around, which crucified the Lord of glory, cry out, on its first discovering Him to be upon the Father's throne, able to take vengeance, what shall I do? Then comes the gracious word.-
It is God who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, who hath shined into your hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus; that is, the gospel is its own witness; the power of seeing Jesus is the proof you are God's, marked off by Him-one with Christ. When Jesus was crucified and died and was buried, God's Church was crucified died and was buried in Him; and when He was quickened arose and ascended, she was quickened arose and ascended in Him: if you see Him you are of His Church. Oh! what joy must this word have created in the hearts of the poor trembling ones! how gladly it must have prepared them to arise and be baptized! how consistent this service and every other, to those whose minds have laid aside the terror and are joying in the grace!
May God grant that they who are vainly thinking of "reformation and immersion" as the means and seal of pardon for all previous offenses, may know the joyful sound of grace, full, free, finished grace.