Words from Alexander Campbell by Dudley Marvin Canright

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Sep 17, 1872

Words from Alexander Campbell.

By Dudley Marvin Canright

That Mr. Campbell was a learned, able man, and said many good things, none will deny, though not believing all his theory. With some, his words have great weight. His arguments against sprinkling and infant baptism are strong and well put. The same argument applied to Sunday-keeping would demolish that also. Hear him on the

INSTITUTION OF INFANT BAPTISM.

“If, then, it be a divine institution, it must be a Christian institution; and if a Christian institution, it must have been instituted by Jesus Christ. Of course, then, the proof necessarily lies upon him that affirms Jesus Christ ordained it. We ask for such evidence. Those who have it must, then, produce it. It is not incumbent on us to prove that the Messiah did not institute or claim infant baptism. It is incumbent on them who inculcate and practice it to show the Christian authority under which they act. A positive institution requires positive precept—a positive and express authority. No positive institution has ever been established upon mere inference. To attempt to found a positive Christian ordinance upon an inference, or upon a series of inferences, is, in spirit and effect, to stultify and make void its pretensions. When was there in the history of the Bible a positive institution or a divine ordinance erected, enforced and practiced, upon a mere inference? We ask for a parallel case. It never has been given. It never can be given. We have called upon its advocates times without number for such precept—for such a positive injunction; but hitherto we have asked in vain.” (Christian Baptism, B. 3, Ch. 1, pp. 217, 218.

Apply this test to the fabulous institution of the first-day Sabbath and where would it be? Just where infant baptism is—nowhere.

POWER OF TRADITION.

“The plea of ancient tradition is the strength of popery, and the weakness of Protestantism. We advocate, not ancient, but original, Christianity. The plea of high antiquity or tradition has long been the bulwark of error. It cleaves to its beloved mother, TRADITION, hoary tradition, with an affection that increases as she becomes old and feeble. Errorists of all schools are exceedingly devout and dutiful so far as the precept, ‘Honor thy father and thy mother,’ is concerned.” Id., Book 2, Ch. 2, p. 233.

Tradition is the stronghold of Sunday-keeping, as all know. Indeed, it is about the only argument the followers of Mr. Campbell rely on for their practice in this thing. Wish they would be as consistent in this, as in their arguments for baptism.

Again, on the same point, Mr. Campbell says: “No one need ask, Why then so early introduced and so long in practice, and why believed by so many great, and learned, and excellent men? Ah, me! what profane tenets, what profane aberrations from the Sacred Scriptures may not be maintained and defended in this way! How ancient the alleged saving virtue of celibacy—the fasts, the feasts, the penances, and works of supererogation of papal superstition! Nay, how many excellent Roman worshipers of the Virgin Mary! What Fenelons, and Rollins, and Pascals, and St. Pierres, adorn the annals of, and fill the niches of, papal fame! If great, and learned, and revered names can authenticate tradition, silence demurs, and satisfy weak consciences, there is not an error in popery, nor an imagination in the ramblings of monkish fanaticism and religious buffoonery that may not be favorably regarded, and cherished with a profound and worshipful respect. But we have not so learned Christ.”—Christian Baptism, B. 3, Ch. 3, p. 246.

Good! That is sound Protestantism, and we wish they would all abide by it, not only in regard to baptism, but the whole truth.

PERPETUITY OF THE LAW.

On this Mr. Campbell has said some good things. Listen: “Salvation, in the aggregate, is all of grace; and all the parts of it are, consequently, gracious. Nor do we, in truth, in obeying the gospel, or in being buried in baptism, make void either law or gospel, but establish and confirm both.”—Christian Baptism, B. 5, Ch. 2, p. 285.

INFLUENCE OF THE SPIRIT.

“On the subject of spiritual influence, there are two extremes of doctrine. There is the Word-alone system, and there is the Spirit-alone system. I believe in neither. The former is the parent of a cold, lifeless rationalism and formality. The latter is, in some temperaments, the cause of a wild, irrepressible enthusiasm; and, in other cases, of a dark, melancholy despondency.”—Christian Baptism, B. 5, Ch. 3, p. 286.

It is sad that his own followers have fallen into one of these extremes, that of the “word-alone system.” The fruit is just what he described.

WILL-WORSHIP.

“And, indeed, every religious practice which is not founded upon an explicit revelation of the will of Heaven, is will-worship. The language of it is this: ‘Thou shouldst have appointed this, and we are supplying a defect in thy wisdom or goodness.’ Such is the spirit of every innovation in divine worship.”—Christian Baptism, B. 6, Ch. 8, p. 406.

Good! Bro. Campbell. Now try this rule on Sunday-keeping. Is this explicitly revealed? No one claims that it is; yet they universally practice it, and thereby virtually say that they are left to supply out of their own wisdom an important practice which God’s wisdom omitted to ordain. Hence it is nothing but will-worship.

D. M. Canright.

Glencoe, Minn.