p. 101 | Words from Alexander Campbell

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Sep 10, 1872

Words from Alexander Campbell.

By Dudley Marvin Canright

Mr. Campbell gives no quarter to the modern doctrine that it makes no difference what a man believes if he is only sincere. No doubt the devil is well pleased when he hears this doctrine advocated. According to this, his lies are as good as God's truths. Says Campbell: “But the power and efficacy of faith depend not so much upon the act or manner of believing, nor upon the certainty of the evidence, nor even upon our assurance of its truth, as upon the nature and value of the thing that is believed. THE POWER OF FAITH IS IN THE TRUTH BELIEVED. The power of faith is in the power of truth. It is not eating that sustains or destroys human life. It is what is eaten. Some eat and live—others eat and die. Some believe and are saved—others believe and are damned. Both characters truly and sincerely believed. But the former believe the truth and are saved; the latter believe a lie and are damned. So true it is, that it is not the manner of believing that saves or destroys, nor the sincerity of believing; but the meaning or nature of that which is believed. ‘God,’ says Paul, sends to some ‘a strong delusion;’ or allows them to receive a strong delusion, so ‘that they may believe a lie’ and be condemned; while to others he sends the truth with power, that they may believe and be saved. Some believe fatally, yet sincerely—indeed all, who believe an error or a falsehood. Some, indeed, prefer to believe a pleasing or agreeable falsehood rather than an unsavory or disagreeable truth. Hence some really love darkness, while others love the light and the truth.”—Christian Baptism, B. 1, Ch. 4, p. 71.

PERSECUTION OF THE QUAKERS AND BAPTISTS.

Mr. C. furnishes an interesting sketch of the persecutions which these people have once suffered in this country. It illustrates the fact that the spirit of the dragon is in Protestantism when it has the power, and that in this country too, as well as elsewhere.

“Anno Domini 1659, 1662, 1663, several acts of the Assembly of this State (Virginia) made it penal in parents to refuse to have their children baptized; and prohibited the Quakers from assembling; and made it penal for any master of a ship to bring a Quaker into the State.”

“James Ireland, a Baptist, was imprisoned in Culpepper jail, and treated very ill in other respects, for his tenets. A Mr. Thomas also, an active and useful minister, was much persecuted. The object of the above laws and persecutions was to protect the Episcopal church.” “In the good State of Massachusetts (which I select not as the only State in which persecution raged, but as eminent for the exercise of this zeal), the Baptists suffered much for many years. In this State, in the year 1644, we are informed by Mr. Hubbard that a poor man, by the name of Painter, suddenly became a Baptist, and having a child born, would not suffer his wife to carry it to be baptized. He was complained of to the court, and was enjoined by it to suffer his child to be baptized. He had the impudence to tell them that infant baptism was an Antichristian ordinance; for which, he was tied up and whipped!” Again: “All letters and remonstrances proved ineffectual with the New England divines. They held fast their integrity, and in 1651 the Baptists were unmercifully whipped, and, not long after, the Quakers were murderously hung.” —Christian Baptism, B. 6, Ch. 8, pp. 410–413.

THE LAW NOT ABOLISHED.

In his debate with the Roman Catholic bishop, Purcell, Mr. C. says: “I was sorry to hear the gentleman defending ‘white lies,’ and ‘little sins.’ When I think of the nature of sin, and the holy and immutable laws of God, against whom it is committed, I see no difference between one sin and another. There may be great and little sins, as to their temporal relations and consequences; but when He, against whom every sin is committed, and that divine and holy law, which is violated in the least offense, is considered, we must say with the apostle James, ‘He that offendeth in one point is guilty of all.’ It may be the veriest peccadillo on earth; but in Heaven’s account one sin would ruin a world, as it has done, for he that keeps the whole law and yet offends in the least point, is guilty of all. He that said not a jot or tittle of his law should fall to the ground, he that magnified his law and made it honorable, will suffer no person to add to, to subtract from, to change or to violate a single point with impunity.” p. 204.

“The single fact that the four archbishops of Ireland and the Roman Catholic college of Maynooth should have impiously dared to strike one commandment from the ten, which God wrote on two tables with his own finger, and should have changed and divided the tenth into two, speaks volumes in proof of my allegation against the Romanist rule of faith.” “It is a poor apology for this expurgation of the decalogue, that it is not so done in the Douay Bible; for when these catechisms were introduced, and even yet in most Catholic countries, not one man in a thousand ever read that Bible; the catechism intended for universal consumption, contained all his knowledge of God’s law. What myriads, then, through this fraud, must have lived and died in the belief that the second commandment was no part of God’s law!”

“It is clearly proved that the pastors of the church have struck out one of God’s ten WORDS; which, not only in the Old Testament, but in all revelation, are the most emphatically regarded as the synopsis of all religion and morality. They have also made a ninth commandment out of the tenth, and their ninth, in that independent position, becomes identical with the seventh commandment, and makes God use tautology in the only instrument in the universe that he wrote with his own hand! But why this annulling of the second commandment? Because it is a positive prohibition of the practice of bowing down to images, and doing them homage; a custom dearer to the Romish church than both the second and seventh commandments!” Debate with Purcell, pp. 214, 215.

Would that Mr. Campbell’s followers would treat the law of God the same as he did. Instead of this, they have gone farther than he accused the Romish church of doing; for they now abolish all “God’s ten words” and speak of them in the most contemptible manner. They need to go back and sit at the feet of their father again and learn wisdom and reverence from him.

MAJORITIES.

On the subject of majorities, Mr. C. has the following good words:—

“Next comes the doctrines of majorities; and these are everything with a Romanist. They are the root, and reason, and illustration, and proof of infallibility. The man who seeks the truth by the tests of sincerity, majority, and antiquity, will never find it on the earth. This is amply true of the present and all past ages. There are sincere Turks, Jews, Pagans, Infidels. There are very ancient errors, heresies, and sects. And, as for majorities from Enoch till now, they have generally, if not always, been wrong in religion. Where was the majority when Noah was building his ark? when Abraham forsook Ur of the Chaldees? when Lot abandoned Sodom? when Moses forsook Egypt? when Elijah witnessed against Ahab? when Daniel and his companions were captives in Babylon? when Malachi wrote? when the Baptist preached? when Christ was crucified? when the apostles, and many of the first Christians, were persecuted?” Debate with Purcell, p. 294.

Strange it is that many of his followers will now take up and use against the Sabbath the very arguments which Mr. Campbell utterly demolished years ago! The reason is obvious: When men are defending the truth, they can reason soundly and repudiate false arguments; but when trying to prop up an error, they will use the very arguments they before condemned.

D. M. CANRIGHT.