No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Common Sense Regeneration: Alexander Campbell on Regeneration, Conversion, and the Work of the Holy Spirit*
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 October 2016
Extract
Alexander Campbell (1788–1866), a controversialist and prolific writer, often addressed his theological opponents with an acid-tipped pen. Early in his career, few topics received as much attention as regeneration, conversion, and the role of the Holy Spirit. Campbell and his coreligionists on the frontier were hardly the only theologians who focused on these doctrines during the first half of the nineteenth century. Campbell's early polemics make it clear that he had substantially modified or rejected many of the major tenets of the Presbyterianism of his youth regarding these topics. His early writings find his literary resources arrayed against such doctrines as human inability and metaphysical regeneration that his Reformed opponents held. Campbell's biographer even tells us that Campbell's views of regeneration and conversion shifted. In this paper, I argue that one of the major factors driving Campbell's rejection of these widely held Reformed doctrines was his appropriation of the thought of John Locke and Scottish Common Sense Philosophy (SCSP). More specifically, I argue that Alexander Campbell's understanding of testimony, firmly rooted in the thought of Locke and SCSP, was the sine qua non of his conception of regeneration, conversion, and the work of the Holy Spirit.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © President and Fellows of Harvard College 2016
Footnotes
*
I am grateful for the suggestions and critique offered by Patrick Carey, Jim Benton, Andrew Harmon, Kathy Waers, Katie Waers, and the anonymous reviewers. My argument has been strengthened by their engagement. Whatever shortcomings remain are my own.
References
1 See Robert Richardson's account of Campbell's early engagements over these topics: Richardson, Robert, Memoirs of Alexander Campbell: Embracing a View of the Origin, Progress and Principles of the Religious Reformation Which He Advocated (2 vols. Cincinnati, OH: Standard Publishing Company, 1890) 2:349–361 Google Scholar. The fullest treatment of these issues in Campbell's thought to date is Williams, D. Newell, “The Gospel as the Power of God to Salvation: Alexander Campbell and Experimental Religion,” in Lectures in Honor of the Alexander Campbell Bicentennial, 1788–1988 (ed. Seale, James M.; Nashville: Disciples of Christ Historical Society, 1988) 127–48Google Scholar. Williams puts Campbell into a broad context by comparing his views to those of Edwards and Wesley. My work will focus on clarifying the philosophical influences that underwrote Campbell's views.
2 To be sure, these same doctrinal issues were often centerpieces of arguments in the schools of New England between Old School Presbyterians and New School theologians. Campbell shows little knowledge of the debates that were occurring between the theologians of the schools in New England. Although he was debating about the same things, his opponents were more proximate—the Baptists and Presbyterians in his direct orbit.
3 D. Newell Williams addresses many of these issues: Williams, “The Gospel as the Power of God to Salvation: Alexander Campbell and Experimental Religion.” Williams also treats many of the same themes in essays on Barton W. Stone, which are cited in following section on Stone.
4 Richardson, Memoirs of Alexander Campbell, 1:377.
5 My use of SCSP here is intentionally broad. In this broad usage, I understand SCSP to be the realist response to the skepticism of Hume and others. Although Thomas Reid is perhaps the best known of the Scottish Common Sense Philosophers, it was often popularizers of SCSP that were read in America. The influence of SCSP can be seen in two common emphases in nineteenth–century American theology: the championing of the inductive method and the confidence in the ability of the human mind to make right judgments about the exterior world.
6 A number of scholars of the Stone-Campbell Movement have studied the philosophical influences on Alexander Campbell. Some of these studies are summary in nature while others focus on specific aspects of his thought. The present essay adds to this body of scholarship by suggesting specific ways that Campbell's philosophical heritage informed key parts of his theology. The following are some of the major works on the Campbell's philosophy: Clanton, J. Caleb, The Philosophy of Religion of Alexander Campbell (Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee Press, 2013)Google Scholar; Nugent, John C., “Was Alexander Campbell Enslaved to Scottish Baconianism?,” Stone-Campbell Journal 12 (2009) 15–30 Google Scholar; Casey, Michael W., “The Origins of the Hermeneutics of the Churches of Christ, Part One: The Reformed Tradition,” Restoration Quarterly 31 (1989) 75–91 Google Scholar; Casey, Michael W., “The Origins of the Hermeneutics of the Churches of Christ, Part Two: The Philosophical Background,” Restoration Quarterly 31 (1989) 193–206 Google Scholar; Allen, Crawford Leonard, “Baconianism and the Bible in the Disciples of Christ: James S. Lamar and ‘The Organon of Scripture,’” Church History 55 (1986) 65–80 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Edward H. Madden and Dennis W. Madden, “The Great Debate: Alexander Campbell vs Robert Owen,” Charles S. Peirce Society Transactions 18 (1982) 207–26; Billy Doyce Bowen, “Knowledge, the Existence of God, and Faith: John Locke's Influence on Alexander Campbell's Theology” (PhD diss., Michigan State University, 1978); Olbricht, Thomas H., “The Rationalism of the Restoration,” Restoration Quarterly 11 (1968) 77–88 Google Scholar; Eames, S. Morris, The Philosophy of Alexander Campbell (Bethany, WV: Bethany College, 1966)Google Scholar; Leslie Lyall Kingsbury, “The Philosophical Influences Bearing on Alexander Campbell and the Beginnings of the Disciples of Christ Movement” (PhD diss., University of Edinburgh, 1954); West, Robert Frederick, Alexander Campbell and Natural Religion (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1948)Google Scholar; Kershner, Frederick D., The Philosophical Background of Alexander Campbell (Indianapolis, IN: Butler University, 1947)Google Scholar; Edward Scribner Ames, “The Lockian Influence on Campbell,” Christian-Evangelist, September 1938, 974–76.
7 The realism of Reid and others held that the judgments of the mind regarding the external world were trustworthy because the mind had been endowed with all of the necessary faculties by the creator. Campbell's conception of testimony falls squarely within this framework. See Brookes, Derek R., “Introduction,” in Reid, Thomas, An Inquiry into the Human Mind on the Principles of Common Sense (ed. Brookes, Derek R.; The Edinburgh Edition of Thomas Reid; Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1997) xi–xxvi, at xxiGoogle Scholar.
8 It should be noted here that Campbell often inveighed against the use of any theories, philosophical or otherwise, when interpreting scripture. Campbell did not seem to lump his use of SCSP into this category of theorization. For him, the SCSP understanding of the human mind was self-evident and therefore not theoretical or speculative. Perhaps we could say that he was unable to see beyond its horizons. Campbell thought that Francis Bacon corrected the fanciful speculations into which philosophy had declined prior to his time. Because Bacon's inductive method was so important to SCSP, it is likely that Campbell saw his adoption of SCSP as combatting speculation and theorization. See Campbell, Alexander, Introductory Addresses Delivered at the Organization of Bethany College (Bethany, VA: Printed by A. Campbell, 1841) 62–63 Google Scholar.
9 Holifield, E. Brooks, Theology in America: Christian Thought from the Age of the Puritans to the Civil War (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003) 175 Google Scholar.
10 Ahlstrom, Sydney E., A Religious History of the American People (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1972) 274–75Google Scholar; Ahlstrom, Sydney E., “The Scottish Philosophy and American Theology,” Church History 24 (1955) 257–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 261–62; Corrigan, J., “The Enlightenment,” Encyclopedia of the American Religious Experience: Studies of Traditions and Movements (ed. Lippy, Charles H. and Williams, Peter W.; New York: Scribner, 1988) 1089–102Google Scholar, at 1095; Noll, Mark A., “Common Sense Traditions and American Evangelical Thought,” American Quarterly 37 (1985) 216–38, at 222, 227CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
11 Bozeman, Theodore Dwight, Protestants in an Age of Science: The Baconian Ideal and Ante-Bellum American Religious Thought (Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 1977)Google Scholar. Holifield argues that “Bacon was more a symbol than a carefully studied resource for theologians. What he symbolized for them was the conviction that theology should be a science grounded in the same inductive methods that marked the other sciences” (Holifield, Theology in America, 174). This accords well with Bozeman's contention that Bacon was mediated to American theologians largely by means of SCSP.
12 While Hatch's landmark work does well to highlight the importance of these populist streams of American Christianity, including the Campbellites, he does not focus much of his attention on Campbell's philosophical background. At one point, he states, “Insurgent religious leaders were not so much anti-intellectual as intent on destroying the monopoly of classically educated and university-trained clergymen. The insurgents considered people's common sense more reliable, even in theology, than the judgement of an educated few” ( Hatch, Nathan O., The Democratization of American Christianity [New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989] 162)Google Scholar. Hatch here does not seem to be using “common sense” in a technical manner.
13 Holifield, Theology in America, 175.
14 Noll, “Common Sense Traditions and American Evangelical Thought,” 233–34. Italics in original.
15 Holifield, Theology in America, 268–69.
16 See especially articles XI-XII under heads of doctrine 3-4. These two articles concisely lay out all of the major terms and the contours of the debate that continued well into the nineteenth century.
17 Westminster Confession, VI.2.
18 Ibid., IX.3-4.
19 Ibid., X.2.
20 For an introduction to Puritan covenantal theology, see Ahlstrom, A Religious History of the American People, 130–32; Holifield, Theology in America, 39–42.
21 Leonard, Bill J., “Getting Saved in America: Conversion Event in a Pluralistic Culture,” Review & Expositor 82 (1985) 111–27, at 114CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
22 Brauer, Jerald C., “Conversion: From Puritanism to Revivalism,” Journal of Religion 58 (1978) 227–43, at 230CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
23 Ahlstrom, A Religious History of the American People, 158–60; Holifield, Theology in America, 53–55; Handy, Robert T., A History of the Churches in the United States and Canada (Oxford History of the Christian Church; New York: Oxford University Press, 1977) 49 Google Scholar.
24 See, for example, the influence of Robert Sandeman and Andrew Fuller. A text that was quite influential, and to which Alexander Campbell had access, was Fuller, Andrew, The Gospel Worthy of All Acceptation; or, the Duty of Sinners to Believe in Jesus Christ (Philadelphia: Printed by Charles Cist, 1805)Google Scholar.
25 Campbell was certainly the leader of a populist movement on the frontier, but his portrayal as a populist leader often obscures the fact that he had received a substantial education at the University of Glasgow. The fact that Campbell was a populist leader does not mean that he was unsophisticated. Clanton has recently argued that Campbell was a notable philosopher of religion in his own right and that he made some novel arguments for the existence of God. Clanton, The Philosophy of Religion of Alexander Campbell.
26 For a detailed discussion of this period in Stone's life, see Williams, D. Newell, Barton Stone: A Spiritual Biography (St. Louis, MO: Chalice Press, 2000) 17–28 Google Scholar; The Stone-Campbell Movement: A Global History (ed. D. Newell Williams, Douglas A. Foster, and Paul M. Blowers; St. Louis, MO: Chalice Press, 2013) 9–16.
27 Stone, Barton W., The Biography of Eld. Barton Warren Stone (ed. Rogers, John; Cincinnati, OH: Published for the author by J. A. & U. P. James, 1847) 9 Google Scholar.
28 D. Newell Williams has treated this aspect of Stone's life extensively. See, Williams, D. Newell, “Barton Stone in 1804: From Port Tobacco to Cane Ridge,” Stone-Campbell Journal 7 (2004) 189–209 Google Scholar; idem, “Barton W. Stone's Calvinist Piety,” Encounter 42 (1981) 409–17; idem, “The Separation of the Springfield Presbytery from the Synod of Kentucky: Predestination or the Revival?” Discipliana 63 (2003) 67–79.
29 Stone, The Biography of Eld. Barton Warren Stone, 30. See also Williams, Barton Stone: A Spiritual Biography, 44–45.
30 Williams, “The Separation of the Springfield Presbytery from the Synod of Kentucky.” See also Douglas Foster's account of the separation: Foster, Douglas A., “The Springfield and Cumberland Presbyteries: Conflict and Secession in the Old Southwest,” Restoration Quarterly 32 (1990) 165–78Google Scholar.
31 Williams, “Barton W. Stone's Calvinist Piety.”
32 See Williams's discussion of this: Williams, Barton Stone: A Spiritual Biography, 49–63.
33 Williams, D. Newell, “Barton W. Stone's Revivalist Theology,” in Cane Ridge in Context: Perspectives on Barton W. Stone and the Revival (ed. Dunnavant, Anthony L.; Nashville, TN: Disciples of Christ Historical Society, 1992) 73–92, at 80Google Scholar.
34 As I commented above, Williams has treated many of these issues at length. Furthermore, because this paper is not properly about Stone, I must limit my engagement with his thinking on these issues.
35 Stone, Barton W., “A Compendious View of the Gospel,” in The Biography of Eld. Barton Warren Stone, (ed. Rogers, John; Cincinnati, OH: Published for the author by J. A. & U. P. James, 1847) 191–221 Google Scholar. John Rogers, the editor of Stone's autobiography, states that the Apology and Stone's “Compendious View” were published in 1803 or 1804, when Stone and his colleagues were withdrawing from the Synod of Kentucky. Thus, Stone's views in the “Compendious View” are probably some of his earliest published on the topics under consideration.
36 Note that this supports Williams's thesis that Stone was still considerably shaped by his New Light Presbyterian heritage. Williams, “Barton W. Stone's Calvinist Piety.”
37 Stone, “A Compendious View of the Gospel,” 192.
38 One of the important passages for Stone is 2 Cor. 3:18 because it focuses on a vision of the glory of God. Williams notes that this view of the glory of God was central to the New Light conception of conversion. Williams, “Barton W. Stone's Calvinist Piety,” 411.
39 Stone, “A Compendious View of the Gospel,” 200.
40 Ibid., 203.
41 Ibid., 204.
42 Ibid., 206.
43 Ibid., 208.
44 Ibid., 209. See also Stone, Barton W., An Address to the Christian Churches in Kentucky, Tennessee & Ohio on Several Important Doctrines of Religion (Lexington, KY: I. T. Cavins & Co., 1821) 84 Google Scholar.
45 Stone elsewhere stresses this point. See especially Stone, An Address to the Christian Churches, 81.
46 Stone, Barton W., “A Dialogue between a Preacher and an Uncoverted Man, Whom We Shall Call Anomos,” The Christian Messenger 4 (1830) 63–68 Google Scholar; idem, “A Dialogue between a Preacher and Anomos, Continued,” 79–82; idem, “A Dialogue between a Preacher and Anomos, Continued,” 97–101; idem, “A Dialogue between a Preacher and Anomos, Continued,” 131–34.
47 Stone, “A Dialogue between a Preacher and an Uncoverted Man, Whom We Shall Call Anomos,” 65.
48 Ibid., 66–67.
49 Ibid., 79–80.
50 Ibid., 98.
51 Stone, Barton W., “Of the Operations of the Spirit in Salvation from Sin,” The Christian Messenger 5 (1831) 205–8Google Scholar.
52 Ibid., 205.
53 Ibid., 207.
54 Stone clearly lays out this ordo salutis here, and he elaborates on various aspects of it in other places. Ibid., 208.
55 Williams observes that Stone's aversion to paradoxical formulations was probably due to the influence of enlightenment philosophy. Williams, “Barton W. Stone's Calvinist Piety,” 411. Note also that Stone was influenced by the thought of Locke, even if he was not as explicit about it as Campbell: The Stone-Campbell Movement: A Global History, 11.
56 For an overview of the union of the two movements, see The Stone-Campbell Movement: A Global History, 25–29.
57 See, for example, their negotiation of the question of the influences of the Spirit. Stone, The Biography of Eld. Barton Warren Stone, 76–77.
58 Richardson, Memoirs of Alexander Campbell, 1:204. In what follows, I rely heavily on Richardson's account. Richardson (1806–1876) was a close colleague of Alexander Campbell and had both permission to write the Memoirs and access to many of the family's documents and records. The tone of the Memoirs is, at times, quite explicitly laudatory of Campbell. Indeed, Richardson was not merely a disinterested third party. Despite the obvious bias of this work, it remains one of the most important extant sources for reconstructing the life and thought of Alexander Campbell. The documents and records to which Richardson had access, as well as his personal contact with Alexander Campbell, make this an indispensable, albeit biased, reference. For further information, see Duke, James, “Memoirs of Alexander Campbell,” The Encyclopedia of the Stone-Campbell Movement: Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), Christian Churches/Churches of Christ, Churches of Christ (ed. Foster, Douglas A. et al.; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2004) 513–14Google Scholar. For a concise summary of the early period of Alexander's career, see The Stone-Campbell Movement: A Global History, 16–25.
59 Richardson, Memoirs of Alexander Campbell, 1:19–27; Leroy Garrett, “Campbell, Alexander,” The Encyclopedia of the Stone-Campbell Movement, 112–134, at 116.
60 Richardson, Memoirs of Alexander Campbell, 1:28–45.
61 Ibid., 1:33–34. Locke's Essay seems to have been influential for Campbell's followers as well. Indeed, an over-emphasis on Locke's teaching led Campbell's followers to problems later. See ibid., 2:355–356.
62 Ibid., 1:48–49. Italics in original.
63 Ibid., 2:111–13.
64 Campbell, Alexander, “Reply to Robert B. Semple,” Millennial Harbinger (1830) 135–39 Google Scholar, at 137–38. Campbell's study included a close reading of scripture as well as the works of the major theologians of his time. Semple's initial letter to Campbell was concerned mainly with the role of the Spirit in salvation. Note Campbell's reiteration of his early desire for the standard assurances of the Holy Spirit: Campbell, Alexander, “Letter II. To Bishop Semple,” Millennial Harbinger (1830) 178–81, at 179Google Scholar. I am using the 1976 reprint of the entire series: The Millennial Harbinger (ed. Alexander Campbell, W. K. Pendleton, and Charles Louis Loos; 41 vols.; Joplin, MO: College Press, 1976). Henceforth, I will use the abbreviation MH to denote The Millennial Harbinger. The MH went through more than one series. With each new series, the volume numbering was restarted. In order to avoid confusion in my citations, I only use the year when referring to the MH.
65 Alexander Campbell, “Reply to Robert B. Semple,” 138.
66 Alexander Campbell, “Letter II. To Bishop Semple,” 179.
67 Richardson, Memoirs of Alexander Campbell, 1:98–102.
68 Ibid., 1:148.
69 Ibid., 1:131.
70 Broadie, Alexander, A History of Scottish Philosophy (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2009) 241, 296 n. 12Google Scholar.
71 For transcriptions of some of Campbell's class notes while at Glasgow, see Campbell, Alexander and McAllister, Lester G., Alexander Campbell at Glasgow University, 1808–1809 (Nashville: Disciples of Christ Historical Society, 1971)Google Scholar.
72 Richardson, Memoirs of Alexander Campbell, 1:390–91.
73 Ibid., 2:50–51.
74 Ibid., 1:377.
75 Campbell's positions regarding regeneration, conversion, and the work of the Spirit are remarkably consistent throughout his literary career. Richardson alerts us to the fact that Campbell's views on these topics shifted sometime after 1811.
76 Campbell, Alexander, “Essays on Man in His Primitive State, and under the Patriarchal, Jewish and Christian Dispensations.—No. I,” The Christian Baptist VI (1828) 3–4, at 3Google Scholar.
77 Campbell, Alexander, “Essays on Man in His Primitive State, and under the Patriarchal, Jewish and Christian Dispensations.—No. II,” The Christian Baptist VI (1828) 10–11, at 10Google Scholar.
78 Ibid. He states: “Man fell through the triumph of passion. His reason was dethroned by the usurpation of passion and the harmony and the subordination before existing within were now destroyed.”
79 Ibid., 11.
80 Campbell, Alexander, “Essays on Man in His Primitive State, and under the Patriarchal, Jewish and Christian Dispensations—No. III,” The Christian Baptist VI (1828) 24–25, at 24Google Scholar.
81 Campbell, Alexander, “Essays on Man in His Primitive State, and under the Patriarchal, Jewish and Christian Dispensations.—No. IV,” The Christian Baptist VI (1828) 34–35, at 35Google Scholar. Campbell also employs Locke's theory of ideas in his debate with Robert Owen. Campbell quotes a lengthy section from Locke on simple and complex ideas. Campbell, Alexander and Owen, Robert, Debate on the Evidences of Christianity: Containing an Examination of the Social System, and of All the Systems of Scepticism of Ancient and Modern Times, Held in the City of Cincinnati, for Eight Days Successively (London: R. Groombridge, 1839) 116–17Google Scholar. See Locke's discussion of simple and complex ideas in book two of his Essay.
82 Clanton's discussion of Campbell's “Revealed-Idea” argument highlights this as well. See Clanton, The Philosophy of Religion of Alexander Campbell, 25–58.
83 Campbell, Alexander, “A Restoration of the Ancient Order of Things. No. VI,” The Christian Baptist III (1825) 4–6 Google Scholar, at 4. Other scholars have noted the importance of testimony in Campbell's thought. See Casey, “The Origins of the Hermeneutics of the Churches of Christ, Part Two: The Philosophical Background,” 194–95; Williams, “The Gospel as the Power of God to Salvation: Alexander Campbell and Experimental Religion,” 134–36; Olbricht, “The Rationalism of the Restoration,” 83; Eames, The Philosophy of Alexander Campbell, 20–50.
84 Campbell focused heavily on testimony in his debate with Robert Owen. For analysis of this debate, see Madden and Madden, “The Great Debate.”
85 Campbell, Alexander, “Essays on the Work of the Holy Spirit in the Salvation of Men—No. I,” The Christian Baptist II (1824) 4–6, at 5Google Scholar.
86 Ibid.
87 Ibid., 5–6.
88 Campbell, Alexander, “Essays on the Work of the Holy Spirit in the Salvation of Men.—No. IV,” The Christian Baptist II (1824) 23–26, at 25Google Scholar.
89 Stone, The Biography of Eld. Barton Warren Stone, 76–77.
90 Although Campbell does not cite Thomas Reid often, he uses language that makes it virtually certain that he was dependent on Reid for at least some of his thinking. Also important to note is that Campbell does not delve into the more technical aspects of the philosophical thought that he employs. Thus, Campbell seems unaware of the critique of Locke levelled by SCSP, and especially Reid, for his failure to free himself from idealism. See, for example Reid's treatment of Des Cartes, Malebranche, and Locke: Reid, Thomas, An Inquiry into the Human Mind on the Principles of Common Sense (ed. Brookes, Derek R.; The Edinburgh Edition of Thomas Reid; Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1997), chap. 1.3 (Brookes, 16–19)Google Scholar. Campbell does cite Reid explicitly in his debate with Robert Owen. See Campbell and Owen, Debate on the Evidences of Christianity, 47. Here, however, Campbell refers to Reid's Inquiry as “Essay on the Human Mind.” Although Campbell rarely names his philosophical sources, there are a few places where the breadth of his philosophical knowledge is on display. Especially important is his Introductory Addresses Delivered at the Organization of Bethany College. In this address, he shows knowledge of the major figures of SCSP and cites Reid by name. See also Alexander Campbell, “A Good Library,” MH (1834) 490–93. Casey notes that Campbell was self-admittedly an eclectic philosophically. This might explain why he does not bother with Reid's critique of Locke. Casey, “The Origins of the Hermeneutics of the Churches of Christ, Part Two: The Philosophical Background,” 193.
91 Holifield does well to note that Campbell especially had “philosophical and religious roots in Britain and Europe” and was not merely a product of the frontier. Holifield, Theology in America, 293.
92 Bozeman, Protestants in an Age of Science, 24.
93 See especially book IV, chapters XV–XIX.
94 John Locke, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, IV. 16.4–6: “Secondly, the testimony of others, is to be considered, 1. the number. 2. the integrity. 3. the skill of the witnesses. 4. the design of the author, where it is a testimony out of a book cited. 5. the consistency of the parts, and the circumstances of the relation. 6. Contrary testimonies” (Nidditch, 656). When I quote Locke, I will use Nidditch's edition and give his page number. Locke, John, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding (ed. Nidditch, P. H.; The Clarendon Edition of the Works of John Locke; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1975)Google Scholar.
95 Locke, Essay, IV. 16.13 (Nidditch, 667).
96 See also Campbell, Alexander, A Connected View (Bethany, VA: M'Vay and Ewing, 1835) 116–17Google Scholar. Also important is Alexander Campbell, “Confirmation of Testimony,” MH (1830) 8–14. For further analysis of Campbell's thought on miracles, see Clanton, The Philosophy of Religion of Alexander Campbell, 59–88.
97 Campbell and Owen, Debate on the Evidences of Christianity, 161. Italics in original.
98 Reid, An Inquiry into the Human Mind on the Principles of Common Sense, chap. 6.24 (Brookes, 194). Italics in original.
99 Ibid.
100 See Brookes, “Introduction,” xxi.
101 Campbell, George, A Dissertation on Miracles Containing an Examination of the Principles Advanced by David Hume, Esq; in an Essay on Miracles (Edinburgh: printed for A. Kincaid & J. Bell, 1762)Google Scholar.
102 See Clanton's appraisal of Campbell's defense against Hume: Clanton, The Philosophy of Religion of Alexander Campbell, 77–88.
103 Campbell, “Essays on the Work of the Holy Spirit in the Salvation of Men.—No. IV,” 26.
104 Campbell, Alexander, “Essays on the Work of the Holy Spirit in the Salvation of Men.—No. VIII,” The Christian Baptist II (1824) 53–55, at 53Google Scholar. Italics in original.
105 See West's discussion of revelation and natural theology in Campbell. West, Alexander Campbell and Natural Religion, 92–104.
106 See his strong statement of this: Campbell, A Connected View, 266–67.
107 Ibid., 108–9.
108 Ibid., 109.
109 Campbell, Alexander, “Confirmation of Testimony,” MH (1830) 8–14 Google Scholar.
110 Campbell, Alexander and Rice, N. L., A Debate between Rev. A. Campbell and Rev. N. L. Rice (ed. Gould, M. T. C. and Drapier, Ariel E.; Lexington, KY: A. T. Skillman, 1844) 684 Google Scholar.
111 Campbell, “Essays on the Work of the Holy Spirit in the Salvation of Men.—No. VIII,” 54. See also Stone, “A Dialogue between a Preacher and an Uncoverted Man, Whom We Shall Call Anomos,” 65.
112 It is not surprising that Campbell chose to address the views of Andrew Fuller at this point in his career. Indeed, the movement of which he and his father were leading figures had been part of a slow and protracted separation from the Baptist churches to which they had been conjoined. Campbell's choice to address polemically the views of an important Baptist work at this time is illuminated by this context. Furthermore, since the mid-1820s Campbell had been involved in a series of exchanges with Robert Semple and Andrew Broaddus. Both were prominent Baptists, and the exchange often returned to the topics of experimental religion and conversion/regeneration. See Richardson, Memoirs of Alexander Campbell, 2:150–63. See also Williams, “The Gospel as the Power of God to Salvation: Alexander Campbell and Experimental Religion.”
113 Campbell, Alexander, “Metaphysical Regeneration; or, Fullerism Exposed—No. I,” MH (1830) 545–56, at 454Google Scholar.
114 Campbell, “Metaphysical Regeneration; or, Fullerism Exposed—No. III,” MH (1830) 536–40, at 539.
115 Campbell repeats the same criticism when he accuses Rice of making regeneration prior to faith. This criticism is present throughout his whole debate with Rice. See, for example, Campbell and Rice, A Debate between Rev. A. Campbell and Rev. N. L. Rice, 695. Note that Campbell's ordo salutis matches Stone's.
116 Campbell, “Metaphysical Regeneration; or, Fullerism Exposed—No. IV,” MH (1830) 568–71, at 570. Italics in original.
117 Campbell, “Extra No. 1,” MH I (1830) 1–88, at 9. This extra comes at the end of the 1830 volume of the MH. The “Extra” begins new pagination. He also explicitly states that “Regeneration and immersion are, therefore, two names for the same thing” (ibid., 28).
118 Ibid., 16.
119 Campbell, “Dialogue on the Holy Spirit—Part 1,” MH (1831) 287–97, at 291.
120 Ibid., 292.
121 Ibid., 294–95. Italics in original.
122 Ibid., 291. Italics in original.
123 Ibid., 295. Note again the passages above concerning miracles from Campbell and Locke.
124 Campbell, “Dialogue on the Holy Spirit—Part 2d,” MH (1831) 363–69, at 364.
125 Ibid., 367.
126 Campbell, “Dialogue on the Holy Spirit—Part 3d,” MH (1831) 396–403, at 398.
127 Campbell, Alexander, The Christian System: In Reference to the Union of Christians, and a Restoration of Primitive Christianity, as Plead in the Current Reformation (2nd ed.; St. Louis, MO: Christian Board of Publication, 1839) 68–69 Google Scholar.
128 Kingsbury discusses this aspect of Campbell's thought and suggests that it might be dependent on Locke: Kingsbury, “The Philosophical Influences Bearing on Alexander Campbell and the Beginnings of the Disciples of Christ Movement,” 177.
129 Compare Westminster Confession, I.V with Campbell, “Essays on the Work of the Holy Spirit in the Salvation of Men.—No. I,” 5–6. Casey also notes that despite their divergence from Presbyterianism, the theology of both Campbells was still heavily influenced by the concerns of Presbyterianism. See Casey, “The Origins of the Hermeneutics of the Churches of Christ, Part One: The Reformed Tradition.”
130 Campbell, “Tracts for the People No. XXXIV: Conversion and Sanctification by the Holy Spirit—No. I,” MH (1849) 361–73, at 365.
131 Ibid., 368. Campbell here is recycling his quotation from his earlier debate with Rice. See Campbell and Rice, A Debate between Rev. A. Campbell and Rev. N. L. Rice, 619.
132 Ibid., 371. See also, Campbell, “Tracts for The People No. XXXV: Conversion and Sanctification by the Holy Spirit, No. II,” MH (1849) 421–32, at 427.
133 Campbell, “Tracts for the People No. XXXIV: Conversion and Sanctification by the Holy Spirit—No. I,” MH (1849) 372.
134 See, for example, Reid, An Inquiry into the Human Mind, chap. 1.7 (Brookes, 24).
135 Campbell was at least aware of the growing conflict between New School and Old School Presbyterianism. See Campbell, Alexander, “New School Divinity,” MH (1837) 433–39Google Scholar.
136 Alexander Campbell, “Dialogue on the Holy Spirit—Concluded—,” MH (1831) 554.
137 Landis, B. W., “Campbellism,” The American Biblical Repository 1 (1839) 94–130 Google Scholar, at 102. In this summary of Campbell's views, Landis devotes the majority of his space to dealing with Campbell's views of regeneration.
138 See Williams's discussion of this: Williams, “The Gospel as the Power of God to Salvation: Alexander Campbell and Experimental Religion,” 138.
139 See Campbell, A Connected View, 303.