by Rev. Donald MacLean, Glasgow
John MacLeod Campbell was born in the year 1800 at Armaddy House, near Kilninver in the Presbytery of Lorne where his father was the parish minister. After a course of study he was ordained and inducted into the parish of Rhu on the Gareloch in 1825. Although he was a minister in the Church of Scotland and had consequently subscribed to the Confession of Faith as the confession of his faith, he was at heart at enmity with the Cross of Christ, and during the five years he served in this parish, he spread abroad a pernicious doctrine on the subject of predestination and election, on the nature of the assurance of faith, and in particular a view of the atonement of Christ which was at variance both with the Word of God and the Confession he had signed. He was ultimately deposed by the church for his heresy. For the next twenty-five years he preached to a congregation in Blackfriars Street, Glasgow, in a building obtained for him by a group of his friends. During these years until the date of his death in 1872, he preached and wrote propagating the errors which clearly marked him out as a heretic from the church of God.
His friends claimed that his writings and preaching had a profound effect on theological thought in Scotland. When he was awarded the degree in divinity of the University of Glasgow in 1868 it was said that the granting of such a degree to a heretic certainly indicated the tremendous change in the theological thought of Scotland during these years. It had been held, and is still propagated, that MacLeod Campbell ultimately won through to a position of respect and of renown in places where theology was not to be equated with the dry bones of Calvinism, or true faith with convictions about predestination.
It is indicative of the present position of the Church of Scotland that this heretic, Rev. John MacLeod Campbell D.D., should be specially honoured by a lecture delivered in Rhu Church on Thursday, 24th February, 1972 to commemorate the centenary of his death. The person who delivered this lecture was none less than Professor John MacIntyre, D.D., D.Litt., Principal, New College, Edinburgh, and the lecture has been published on behalf of the kirk-session of Rhu and Shandon Parish Church by the St. Andrew Press, and given the title, Prophet of Penitence—Our Contemporary Ancestor.
The notion with which this lecture deals in particular, and which it attempts to apply to the present state of the generation, is called The Theory of Vicarious Repentance. While the conception of universal pardon and his view of the Divine Fatherhood as over against the doctrines of predestination and election were the more immediate cause of his deposition in 1831, the germ of his outlook really lay in this conception of Christ’s atonement being of the nature of vicarious repentance. This error proceeds from the conception that all that is required for the atonement of sin is repentance, and since man was not capable of an adequate repentance, Christ offered to God on behalf of humanity the requisite repentance and by so doing fulfilled the conditions for forgiveness. By His suffering and death, Christ entered sympathetically into the Father’s condemnation of sin, brought out the heinous nature of sin, and condemned sin, and this was viewed by the Father as a perfect confession of our sin (Berkhof). This idea, of course, dispenses with the view that sin renders the soul guilty in the sight of God and therefore liable to punishment. It evacuates from the atonement of the Saviour the great principle of His having paid the ransom price for the sins of many by His death upon the cross. Further it is evident from the very nature of repentance itself that it is a personal matter. It is impossible for one to repent on behalf of another. Further it is impossible for a person to repent unless that person has himself been guilty of sin. Since the Saviour was sinless He could not repent. Since repentance is personal and involves a confession of sin, a hatred of sin and a resolution to new obedience, the idea of Christ doing this on behalf of humanity is not only unscriptural but absurd.
Professor MacIntyre takes the view that MacLeod Campbell has “a word to say to this generation,” from the point of view of the so-called vicarious repentance. To the astonishment of all who have any understanding of the spiritual condition of the present generation Professor MacIntyre states: “I doubt if there has ever been a generation quite like our own in the excesses of penitence which it demands of itself and which its members demand of one another.” To illustrate this remarkable discovery he begins with the church and the churches. He claims that there is a heightened sense of shame and penitence over the divisions among the churches, which have, according to him, so tragically marred the unity of the churches. He thinks therefore that the burden of these divisions requires and leads the generation to “one single massive act of penitence to end all our schisms and sects.” There is of course no word of the necessity for repentance for the heresies such as MacLeod Campbell himself was guilty of, which in themselves are the real source of the divisions existing among the churches. Until the church gets repentance over its forsaking of the truth there can never be true unity, and of course this would be a true repentance and not the type of repentance advocated by Professor MacIntyre. He further maintains that another area of penitence is in the field of race relationships. He maintains that many people are ashamed of the British Empire and peddles the usual left-wing, liberal conception that the method by which the Empire reached its greatness is a matter for shame and disgrace. He ignores, of course, the fact that the Christian Gospel was spread abroad in connection with advance of the British Empire. While there may have been many failings of many descriptions and kinds in connection with the activities of individuals, the fact remains that the British Empire did have true greatness springing from its carrying the true Gospel of the grace of God to places that had never heard of it before. Professor MacIntyre also thinks that the penitential frame of mind which he imagines exists in the generation makes us more sensitive to social injustices. He thinks that whereas in former generations the solidarity of man in “sin” was taught, that the present generation has come to declare its solidarity in “penitence” for the general condition of the world today.
He hails therefore MacLeod Campbell as our contemporary ancestor. According to his teaching, “in the death of Christ there is no question of any attempt to vindicate the justice and majesty of God; on the contrary, the atonement made to God is moral and spiritual, Christ in His work makes an adequate confession and an equivalent repentance for the sins of man.” This being the case, Professor MacIntyre imagines that the burden of penitence which the generation is carrying on its shoulders for all the depressing problems and injustices of our time is too much for the generation. Instead of the generation bearing its burdens, it should look to Christ’s offer in the Gospel, which offer is supposed to mean that Christ offers his penitence in love and compassion to souls in place of the penitence of the generation towards God. The teaching of Scripture is “Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.” (Luke, xiii, 3). Further, this repentance is wrought in the soul through faith looking to the One Who was wounded for the transgressions of a number that no man can number; looking by faith to the One Who died as the Lamb of God a sacrificial death for the salvation of His people. It is only as a sinner convinced of his sin by the power and unction of the Holy Spirit thus views the love of Christ revealed in His sacrifice unto death, that genuine repentance is wrought in the soul, who now desires to depart from iniquity.
Professor MacIntyre raises another view set forth by MacLeod Campbell on the question of Christ’s identification with the human family. This identification is not only bound up with him as the Son of God becoming Man, but also with him involving Himself in the situations in which sinners find themselves to be. This He has done without being guilty of sin Himself and in particular has identified “with our humanity in His confession of our sins and repentance over them with a measure of sorrow we could not match.” There is no mention made here, of course, of the nature of Christ’s true identity with His people springing from the covenant of grace, in which He was constituted the Head of His people, the election of grace. Neither is mention made of Christ’s identification with His people in bearing their sins in His own body upon the tree. No explanation is given as to how this identifying of Christ as outlined by Professor MacIntyre has any real effect on the soul of man. Professor MacIntyre thinks that the church must follow Christ in the way understood by MacLeod Campbell and become identified with sinners in their particular positions. He does not however explain how even if this is done it will lead to the salvation of souls. In dealing with the humanity of Christ, Professor MacIntyre thinks that MacLeod Campbell in his teaching on the humanity of Christ pulls us back to some kind of sanity and to a much desired degree of self-confidence in the “recognition of the great capacity of good in man which has been brought out by Jesus Christ—what he called also an inestimable preciousness of what was hidden in humanity, hidden from the heritors of humanity but not hidden from God.” This of course is a complete denial of the Scriptural doctrine of total depravity concerning which Professor MacIntyre says “nor do we always enhance God’s good name by denigrating His creatures.”
Professor MacIntyre holds that MacLeod Campbell has clarified the character of God based upon his conception of the foundation of the incarnation and the atonement. When MacLeod Campbell rejects those theories of the death of Christ which speaks of penal sacrifices and substitutionary sufferings, he rejects them because of the wrong understanding of the nature of God which they represent. God is not like that, he is saying. On the contrary, MacLeod Campbell holds, according to Professor MacIntyre, that “the Father is waiting to forgive them their sins when in the name of Christ they come to Him; His love has made itself abundantly clear in that He sent His Son to make the confession of repentance which sinful men could not make; even when the anger of man breaks about His head He still by His quiet faith in God demonstrates to them that nothing can ever separate Him—or them—from the Father.” The Scripture has a very different description of the love of the Father in the words: “But God commendeth His love toward us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us.” (Romans v, 8). Professor MacIntyre feels that in these days of considerable doubt as to the nature of God that MacLeod Campbell supplies the solution by getting us to look to Christ, and to the nature of God as revealed in the work which He has done. This of course could be laudable were the view of God presented in Christ the view which the Scripture gives, but as this is not so, men are only treated to a false view of the God of eternity.
This becomes evident when Professor MacIntyre goes on to speak of “another aspect of his teaching for which he is so justly famous.” This is his rejection of the doctrine of election and of limited atonement. This rejection was outspoken, since MacLeod Campbell believed that to limit salvation was to reduce the freedom of the Gospel and of God’s grace given in it. Professor MacIntyre is of course in full agreement with these positions. He calls predestination a shibboleth, and states that these doctrines “belong we feel to a world that is gone, with paddle-steamers, penny post, boy chimney-sweeps and the rest.” This attempt to identify Calvinism with Victorianism appears rather futile when it is a well-known and demonstrable fact that these great doctrines belong to the Word of God throughout all its sacred records. Professor MacIntyre in adapting these ideas to the present situation says “to draw the line of predestination between the have and the havenots we have failed in our day to discover how to communicate from a position of wealth with those who have not even the means of sustenance. We do not know what to say to a brother who starves at this very moment in the streets of Dacca.” We fail to see what the preaching of the Gospel has to do with communications between rich and poor or different sections of society. The Gospel is for sinners as such, whatever section of society they are in—whether they are in Edinburgh or in Dacca. Similarly, the hippies, the vandals and the layabouts for whom Professor MacIntyre professes such concern need exactly the same Gospel of the grace of God as do the students in the New College.
Professor MacIntyre then deals with MacLeod Campbell’s view of assurance, which of course is based on the universal love of God to all, and consists in their fixing their attention upon this love of God revealed in Christ. “The natural consequence” says Professor MacIntyre, “of such knowledge of the love of God, is harmony and peace with God.” Professor MacIntyre seems to feel that the doctrine of election is one which affects the assurance of faith, because he poses a question in the form, “How shall I know if I am one of the elect?” The Scripture teaches us to seek to make our calling and election sure. Therefore in order for there to be a personal assurance of salvation there must be a degree of assurance about one’s effectual calling and union to Christ. Where the sinner enlightened by the Spirit of God sees evidences of this calling, then he tastes in some measure of the assurance of salvation. On the other hand, to assume that God loves all, and that by fixing the mind on this view of the love of God in Christ, assurance of God’s love can be obtained, is the mere fruit of self-delusion. The peace thus enjoyed is destined to be broken at death.
Professor MacIntyre insists that MacLeod Campbell’s view of the atonement of Christ involves us in a present experience of it. He avers that this cannot be said of the other theories such as that of penal substitution. The fact of the matter is, of course, that the soul in whom true repentance is wrought by the Spirit of God, views by faith the Christ of God as the One Who died and Who rose again. Consequently, the sinner embraces Christ with a living faith as He is revealed in the Word of God, and enjoys His presence and favour through the Holy Spirit Who has glorified Christ in his spiritual experience. Professor MacIntyre really is talking sheer nonsense on this point.
In his concluding remarks Professor MacIntyre praises MacLeod Campbell for giving his people what he calls “plain doctrine.” He states that MacLeod Campbell did not draw the plain doctrines which he taught from textbooks or from the confessions of the church. He preached, he says, purely from the Scriptures, finding his message there and not in the commentaries. He was condemned not because his preaching contradicted Scripture, but because in the two main aspects of election and assurance of faith he was held to contradict the Westminster Confession. Professor MacIntyre goes on to say “that he was right. Where Scripture and Confession disagree, the Scripture must be allowed the last word.” This is of course begging the question altogether. The fact of the matter is that Scripture and the Confession do agree, and this idea that MacLeod Campbell was preaching from Scripture and not from the Confession, and therefore was right in doing so, would only apply if Scripture and the Confession disagreed, but that is not the case. Professor MacIntyre goes on to say that it surprises him that at the end of one hundred and forty years after MacLeod Campbell made his protest against the Westminster Confession, people are still in doubt as to whether this Confession should be dismissed. He says that they do not seem to have grasped the point that if MacLeod Campbell’s view of God is accepted, the view of God presented in the Westminster Confession is radically altered. Here we see the real reason why men wish to remove the Westminster Confession away from the constitution of the present Church of Scotland. They do not believe in the God Who is revealed in that Confession. This is the core of the whole matter, and it is absolutely essential that it should be realised.
We made these comments on this lecture, not because we consider that the lecture is in any way edifying, but because it states in a clear way the religion which is practised in the Church of Scotland and advocated here by the Principal of New College, Edinburgh. This religion is not Christianity, because it is not based on a full-orbed understanding of the Word of God which liveth and abideth for ever. Even from the theological point of view it is weak and puerile, and certainly is not the message which this generation stands in the greatest need of. Professor MacIntyre acknowledges the resurgence of religions such as Buddhism, Islam and Hinduism, which have even invaded Scotland, but this pallid substitute formed in the imagination of MacLeod Campbell is no antidote to the advancement of these false and idolatrous religions. What is needed is a return to the glorious Gospel of the blessed God through which Scotland became the true vineyard of the Lord, yielding the pleasant fruits of holiness and righteousness.