For the present I turn from the work of Stone to that of the Campbells. Chiefly because of failing health, Thomas Campbell, an humble, but intellectually and spiritually-gifted minister of the Seceder Presbyterian Church in the parish of Ahory, Armaugh County, Ireland, determined to seek for himself and for his family a home in this country. He came alone, intending to send for his family as soon as he had established himself. He arrived in Philadelphia May 27, 1807. The Seceder Synod of North America was in session in that city when he landed. He at once presented his credentials to that body, was cordially received, and at once assigned to the Presbytery of Chartiers, in Southwestern Pennsylvania. As soon as he became settled in his new home he began in a very earnest way to exercise his ministry as a member of the presbytery, which embraced a number of counties. He had come to this country as a zealous missionary of the cross, filled with the love of souls. Already in Ireland, through various influences, he had learned to cherish a liberal religious spirit, to esteem as of little value the barriers that separate into sects.
The Seceders constitute one of the “straitest sects” of the Calvinistic faith, and even to this day they will not affiliate in full fraternal fellowship with other Presbyterians. It was in the matter of the communion that the severe test of fellowship was applied. Thomas Campbell had come to this country with his heart filled with a burning zeal to labor in the Lord’s vineyard, and in largest charity for all communions, while still maintaining sincerely and fully his relations to his particular communion. He believed that in this freest land men’s hearts would necessarily be emancipated from the unyielding sectarian prejudices and animosities of the Old World. While eminently prudent andpeace-loving, he was a man of heroic temper. He would not temporize nor bow to the tyrannous dictates of human traditions or human policy. “This grave spirit he had already shown in his early youth, when he decided from conviction not to follow the religion of his father, who was attached to the Church of England, and preferred, as he used to say, ‘to worship God according to act of Parliament.’ ‘The law of the Lord, in the word and spirit of the Gospel, which is ‘the law of liberty,’ was Thomas Campbell’s supreme rule of life.”
It is interesting to unfold the events which led to the final crisis that inaugurated actually and in a formal manner the restoration movement. The Seceders were not very numerous within the limits of the Chartiers Presbytery; the power of expansion was not in them. Mr. Campbell at once gained a wide and strong influence. His natural ability, his scholarship and literary culture, made him much superior to the preachers in that region; and his deep religious fervor and zeal and his rare courtesy of manner won the hearts of the people. He did not respect in his labors the narrow spirit and strict, illiberal rules and habits of the Seceder Church. Besides this, he had found near him a number of excellent people who had come over from Ireland, Presbyterians and Independents, some of whom had been his acquaintance and cherished friends in his native land. These gathered around him, and he promptly took them to his heart in his ministrations as brethren. This kind of freedom, however, was not in harmony with “the usages” of the Seceders. Later on he took a step which went even further than this, and thus in a very decided way transgressed the established custom of the Church.
He was sent on a missionary tour with a young preacher, a Mr. Wilson, up the Allegheny Valley, above Pittsburgh, “to hold a celebration of the sacrament among the scattered Seceders of that then sparsely-settled region. He found there many members of other Presbyterian bodies who had not for a long time enjoyed the privilege of these by them so highly-cherished occasions. His heart urged him to deplore in his introductory sermon the existing divisions amongChristians, and to invite all the pious among his hearers, who were prepared for it, to unite in the participation of this sacred feast of God’s people; and many accepted the invitation. This was a bold infraction of Seceder custom.” Campbell could have no fellowship with such bigotry. Mr. Wilson soon discovered that Campbell had no regard for sectarian differences and prejudices and that he was not sound in the Seceder faith. “His conduct of inviting those not of his Church to partake of the communion was an overt act of extreme transgression that could not be overlooked;” but he made no objection at the time this grave offense was committed. He felt it his duty, however, to bring the matter before the presbytery at its next meeting. The charge contained several complaints, but the principal one was this public act in regard to the communion. It recited, moreover, that “Campbell had expressed his disapprobation of things in the ‘Standards’ and of the practical application of them.”
The presbytery, already much dissatisfied with his liberal course, readily took up Wilson’s charges. But they had before them a man who, although ever remarkably inclined to peace and warmly attached to the Seceder Church, would, nevertheless, not yield to any human authority against his convictions in matters of serious import. The present was a decisive moment in his life, reaching in its effects far beyond what was then thought.
After an investigation, which called from him a most earnest plea in behalf of Christian liberty and fraternity, he was found deserving of censure. In vain did he protest the treatment he had received at the hands of his brethren. In vain did he appeal from the presbytery to the synod. Party spirit was unyielding. He had expressed sentiments, it insisted, which were “very different from sentiments held and professed by the Church.” This, it held, was an altogether sufficient ground of censure. From that time many of his fellow ministers became inimical to him and were disposed to inflict on him at every opportunity their petty persecutions.
Unjust as he felt the censure of the synod to be, yet sostrong was his love of peace and his desire to continue to live and labor with his brethren that he submitted to it; the condition, however, expressed in a written form to this tribunal “that his submission should be understood to mean no more, on his part, than an act of deference to the judgment of the court; that by so doing he might not give offense to his brethren by manifesting a refractory spirit.” After this concession he hoped that he would be permitted to continue his labors in peace; but, much to his regret, the hostility of his opponents continued. Misrepresentations, calumny, anything that would detract from his influence, were employed against him. Spies were employed to attend his meetings, that, if possible, they might find fresh ground of accusation in his utterances. At last, worn out with these efforts, and having satisfied himself that corruption, bigotry and tyranny were inherent in existing clerical organizations, he decided to sever his connection with the religious body to which he had given life-long support, renouncing the authority of the presbytery and synod. That this final decisive step caused him much grief can not for a moment be doubted; but it is certain, also, that the freedom which it gave him, as a servant of God, must have been to him a genuine joy and an impartation of a strength of soul he never knew before.
These painful experiences soon led to important consequences. By his forced withdrawal from the presbytery he found himself without church affiliations. But this only quickened his zeal in the efforts to extend Christ’s kingdom. He had gained a wide and strong influence in the region in which he lived. No meeting houses were at his command; but he held his assemblies, after the pioneer fashion, in private dwellings, barns, schoolhouses and under green trees. In these labors it was no part of his plan to organize a separate religious party. Such parties were already too numerous. At first it seems that he had no definite plan of action. He had simply determined to use his strength in such ways as Providence should open to him, in putting an end to partyism, by inducing the different denominations to unite together on the Bible. In this purpose many of hisneighbors heartily sympathized with him, though shrinking from the conclusions to which they were being irresistably driven.
At last the time seemed ripe for some forward movement. He therefore determined to adopt what he believed to be the best course to promote the interest of his Master’s cause. He saw that many of his hearers sincerely, some ardently, had accepted the principles he was advocating and were constant in attendance on his ministry. He consequently proposed to them that they meet together and consult on the best method to give more order, definiteness and permanency to their efforts. This met with ready and general approbation. A day was named and at the appointed hour a large company assembled in an old farmhouse in the neighborhood. The company was composed of thoughtful men and women, deeply conscious of the importance of the occasion. They were plain, hard-working pioneers, but they were men and women of faith, whose hearts were pained at the division into warring sects and parties. Though belonging to different religious parties, they had met to seek a pathway of closer fellowship.
A feeling of deep solemnity pervaded the entire assembly, when at length Mr. Campbell arose to address them. The theme of the occasion had grown to be the burden of his heart. He gave a clear exposition of the situation and of the object of the assembly. The events that had led to the calling of this meeting, well understood by all, had made a deep impression upon them. The discourse was a strong argument against sectarian divisions and in behalf of Christian unity on the Bible as the only infallible standard of doctrine and practice, to the rejection of all human traditions. He concluded this remarkable discourse by urging with great earnestness the adoption of the following principles as the rule of their future action and life as Christians: “Where the Scriptures speak, we speak; where the Scriptures are silent, we are silent.” This bold maxim was so just that no one of the audience, prepared as they were by previous teaching, could for a moment hesitate to accept it as right. These people could not help seeing the effect ofthis law on some of the most familiar practices of the denominations to which most of them belonged.
This discourse to which reference has been made, closed with: “Where the Scriptures speak, we speak; where the Scriptures are silent, we are silent,” and produced a profound impression on the audience. The majority of the audience were ready, unhesitatingly, to give a hearty assent to this great declaration. But the troublesome question arose, “Where will it lead us?”
When Mr. Campbell had concluded, opportunity was given for free expression of views, whereupon Andrew Munro, a shrewd Scotch Seceder, arose and said: “Mr. Campbell, if we adopt that as a basis, then there is an end of infant baptism.” This remark and the manifest conviction that it carried with it, produced a great sensation, for the whole audience was composed of pedobaptists who cherish infant baptism as one of their cardinal doctrines. “Of course,” said Mr. Campbell, in reply, “if infant baptism is not found in Scripture we can have nothing to do with it.” This bold declaration came like a new revelation to the audience. Thomas Acheson, one of Mr. Campbell’s closest friends, in a very excited manner arose and said: “I hope I may never see the day when my heart will renounce that blessed saying of the Scripture, ‘Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not, for of such is the kingdom of heaven!’” Upon saying this he burst into tears, and was about to retire to the adjoining room when James Foster, well informed in the Scriptures, called out, “Mr. Acheson, I would remark that in the portion of Scripture you have quoted there is no reference to infant baptism.” Without offering a reply Mr. Acheson passed into the adjoining room to weep alone.
This new turn of things, so unexpected to them, did not lessen their confidence in the position they had taken, or in the man who was leading them onward. At the end of the conference the great principle was adopted without any real opposition. It would have been difficult for them to objectto a profession so manifestly loyal to God and so impregnably founded in the Holy Scriptures. The principle, so universal in its application, and its controlling authority in all things that concern the faith and practice of the followers of the Lord Jesus Christ, became henceforth the watchword and directive law of action of those endeavoring to restore apostolic Christianity. Some of those who started out in this great movement, when they saw more clearly the inevitable, logical result of the great principle now adopted, one after another broke off all connection with this work.
They now began to feel that in order to carry out with successful effect this noble purpose they must organize themselves into a well-ordered, permanent association. At a meeting held August 17, 1809, it was decided that they would formally unite themselves into a regular body, under the name of “The Christian Association of Washington.” They then appointed twenty-one of their number to meet and confer together, and, with the assistance of Thomas Campbell, to determine upon the proper means to carry into effect their purposes. As it was found to be very inconvenient to hold meetings in private houses, it was deemed advisable to provide some regular place of meeting. The neighbors, as was customary in those days, all moved by good will for the excellent man and his purposes, assembled and erected a log building three miles from Mount Pleasant, Washington County, Pa. This building was designed, also, for the purpose of a common school, which was much needed in that neighborhood. No ecclesiastical aspirations, no sectarian ambition, no party purpose or name, entered into the erection of this humble building. The name and cause of Christ alone prompted and sanctified the act of these honest souls.
Near by, in the house of Mr. Welch, a worthy farmer who was friendly to the association, Mr. Campbell had a home. A little chamber upstairs was assigned to him as his apartment. Here he spent his leisure time in quiet study, for he felt that he needed these days of undisturbed retirement to prepare himself to meet, in wisdom and the fearof God, the crisis through which he and those united with him were passing. The writing with which he was at this time engaged was designed to set forth to the public at large, in a clear and definite manner, the character and purposes of the association. In the “prophet’s chamber” Thomas Campbell wrote the “Declaration and Address” which became so famous in the early history of the effort to restore apostolic Christianity. When it was finished he called a special meeting of the chief members and read it to them for their approval and adoption. This meeting unanimously approved it and ordered its publication September 7, 1809.
This production is, in its substance and spirit, as well as in its vigorous and scholarly style, the most notable historical production of the initiatory period of the effort to restore the apostolic church in its doctrine and practice, and is worthy of diligent and thoughtful study at the present day. It is proper, therefore, that I should note the essential principles therein set forth. The admirable introduction setting forth and deploring the divided state among the professed followers of the Savior concluded as follows:
Our desire, therefore, for ourselves and our brethren would be that, rejecting human opinions and the inventions of men as of any authority, or as having any place in the Church of God, we might forever cease from further contentions about such things, returning to and holding fast by the original standard, taking the divine Word alone for our rule, the Holy Spirit for our teacher and guide to lead us into all truth, and Christ alone as exhibited in the Word for our salvation; and that by so doing we may be at peace among ourselves, follow peace with all men and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord.
Our desire, therefore, for ourselves and our brethren would be that, rejecting human opinions and the inventions of men as of any authority, or as having any place in the Church of God, we might forever cease from further contentions about such things, returning to and holding fast by the original standard, taking the divine Word alone for our rule, the Holy Spirit for our teacher and guide to lead us into all truth, and Christ alone as exhibited in the Word for our salvation; and that by so doing we may be at peace among ourselves, follow peace with all men and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord.
Then follows a statement of the purpose and program of the association: To form a religious association for promoting simple and evangelical Christianity, under the name of the “Christian Association of Washington”; to contribute a certain sum to support a pure Gospel ministry and supply the poor with the Scriptures; to encourage the formation of similar associations; to consider itself not a church, but as a church reformation society; to countenance only such ministers as adhere closely to the example and preceptof Scripture in conduct and teaching; to entrust the management of the association to a standing committee of twenty-one; to hold two meetings a year; to open each meeting with a sermon; and to look to the friends of genuine Christianity for the support of their work.
This is followed by the address, with the following dedicatory heading: “To all that love our Lord Jesus Christ, in sincerity, throughout all the churches, the following address is most respectfully submitted.” After an arraignment of the evils of divisions and an indictment of sectarianism, he pleads with his “dearly beloved brethren” of “all the churches” “to unite in the bonds of an entire Christian unity—Christ alone being the head, the center, his word the rule; and explicit belief of and manifest conformity to it in all things—the terms.” Thus to “come firmly and fairly to original ground, and take up things just as the apostles left them.” In this way they could become “disentangled from the accruing embarrassments of intervening ages,” and stand “upon the same ground on which the church stood at the beginning.” “Here, indeed, was the startling proposition to begin anew—to begin at the beginning; to ascend at once to the pure fountain of truth, and to neglect and disregard, as though they had never been, the decrees of popes, cardinals, synods and assemblies, and all the traditions and corruptions of an apostate church. Here was an effort not so much for the reformation of the church as was that of Luther and of Calvin and of Haldanes, but for its complete restoration at once to its pristine purity and perfection. By coming at once to the primitive model and rejecting all human imaginations; by submitting implicitly to the divine authority as plainly expressed in the Scriptures, and by disregarding all the assumptions and dictations of fallible men, it was proposed to form a union upon a basis to which no valid objection could possibly be offered. By this summary method the church was to be at once released from the controversies of eighteen centuries, and from conflicting claims of all pretenders to apostolic thrones, and the primitive Gospel of salvation was to be disentangledand disembarrassed from all those corruptions and perversions which had heretofore delayed or arrested its progress.”
There were certain “fundamental truths” of the nature of “first principles,” “truths demonstrably evident in the light of Scripture and right reason,” whichunderlythe proposal for a union of the professed followers of Christ. These are so interesting and important that I deem it wise to give them, for they need to be diligently and profoundly studied by the present generation. They are summed up in the following propositions:
1. That the Church of Christ upon earth is essentially, intentionally and constitutionally one; consisting of all those in every place that profess their faith in Christ and obedience to him in all things according to the Scriptures, and that manifest the same by their tempers and conduct, and of none else; as none else can be truly and properly called Christians.2. That although the Church of Christ upon earth must necessarily exist in particular and distinct societies, locally separate one from another, yet there ought to be no schisms, no uncharitable divisions among them. They ought to receive each other as Christ Jesus hath also received them, to the glory of God. And for this purpose they ought all to walk by the same rule, to mind and speak the same thing, and to be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.3. That in order to this nothing ought to be inculcated upon Christians as articles of faith, nor required of them as terms of communion, but what is expressly taught and enjoined upon them in the Word of God. Nor ought anything to be admitted as of divine obligation, in their church constitution and management, but what is expressly enjoined by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ and his apostles upon the New Testament Church, either in express terms or by approved precedent.4. That although the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are inseparably connected, making together but one perfect and entire revelation of the divine will, for the edification and salvation of the Church, and therefore in that respect can not be separated, yet as to what directly and properly belongs to their immediate object, the New Testament is as perfect a constitution for the worship, discipline and government of the New Testament Church, and as perfect a rule for the particular duties of its members, as the Old Testament was for the worship, discipline and government of the Old Testament Church, and the particular duties of its members.5. That with respect to the commands and ordinances of our Lord Jesus Christ, where the Scriptures are silent as to the express time or manner of performance, if any such there be, no human authority has power to interfere, in order to supply deficiency by making laws for the Church; nor can anything more be required of Christians in such cases, but only that they so observe these commands and ordinances as will evidently answer the declared and obvious end of their institution. Much less have any human authority power to impose new commands or ordinances upon the Church, which our Lord Jesus Christ has not enjoined. Nothing ought to be received into the faith or worship of the Church, or be made a term of communion among Christians, that is not as old as the New Testament.6. That although inferences and deductions from Scripture premises, when fairly inferred, may be truly called the doctrine of God’s holy Word, yet are they not formally binding upon the consciences of Christians farther than they perceive the connection, and evidently see that they are so; for their faith must not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power and veracity of God. Therefore no such deductions can be made the terms of communion, but do properly belong to the after and progressive edification of the Church. Hence, it is evident that no such deductions or inferential truth ought to have any place in the Church’s confession.7. That although doctrinal exhibitions of the great system of divine truths and defensive testimonies in opposition to prevailing errors be highly expedient, and the more full and explicit they be for those purposes the better; yet, as these must be in a great measure the effect of human reasoning, and of course must contain many inferential truths, they ought not to be made terms of Christian communion, unless we suppose, what is contrary to fact, that none have a right to the communion of the Church, but such as possess a very clear and decisive judgment, or are come to a very high degree of doctrinal information; whereas the Church from the beginning did, and ever will, consist of little children and young men, as well as fathers.8. That as it is not necessary that persons should have a particular knowledge or distinct apprehension of all divinely-revealed truths in order to entitle them to a place in the Church, neither should they, for this purpose, be required to make a profession more extensive than their knowledge; but that, on the contrary, their having a due measure of scriptural self-knowledge respecting their lost and perishing condition by nature and practice, and of the way of salvation through Jesus Christ, accompanied with a profession of their faith in the obedience to him, in all things, according to his Word, isall that is absolutely necessary to qualify them for admission into his Church.9. That all who are able through grace to make such a profession, and to manifest the reality of it in their tempers and conduct, should consider each other as the precious saints of God, should love each other as brethren, children of the same family and Father, temples of the same Spirit, members of the same body, subjects of the same grace, objects of the same divine love, bought with the same price, and joint-heirs of the same inheritance. Whom God hath thus joined together no man should dare put asunder.10. That divisions among the Christians is a horrid evil, fraught with many evils. It is anti-Christian, as it destroys the visible unity of the body of Christ; as if he were divided against himself, excluding and excommunicating a part of himself. It is anti-scriptural, as being strictly prohibited by his sovereign authority, a direct violation of his express command. It is anti-natural, as it excites Christians to condemn, to hate and oppose one another, where bound by the highest and most endearing obligation to love each other as brethren, even as Christ has loved them. In a word, it is productive of confusion and of every evil work.11. That (in some instances) a partial neglect of the expressly revealed will of God, and (in others) an assumed authority for making the approbation of human opinions and of human inventions a term of communion, by introducing them into the constitution, faith or worship of the Church, are, and have been, the immediate, obvious and universally acknowledged causes of all corruptions and divisions that ever have taken place in the Church of God.12. That all that is necessary to the highest state of perfection and purity of the Church upon earth is, first, that none be received as members, but such as, having that due measure of scriptural self-knowledge described above, do profess their faith in Christ and obedience to him in all things according to the Scriptures; nor, secondly, that any be retained in her communion longer than they continue to manifest the reality of their profession by their temper and conduct. Thirdly, that her ministers, duly and scripturally qualified, inculcate none other things than those very articles of faith and holiness expressly revealed and enjoined in the Word of God. Lastly, that in all their administrations they keep close by the observance of all divine ordinances, after the example of the primitive Church, exhibited in the New Testament, without any additions whatever of human opinions or inventions of men.13. Lastly, that if any circumstantials indispensably necessary to the observance of divine ordinances be not foundupon the pages of express revelation, such, and such only, as are absolutely necessary for this purpose should be adopted under the title of human expedients, without any pretense to a more sacred origin, so that any subsequent alteration or difference in the observance of these things might produce no contention nor division in the Church. (“Memoirs of Thomas Campbell,” pages 48-52.)
1. That the Church of Christ upon earth is essentially, intentionally and constitutionally one; consisting of all those in every place that profess their faith in Christ and obedience to him in all things according to the Scriptures, and that manifest the same by their tempers and conduct, and of none else; as none else can be truly and properly called Christians.
2. That although the Church of Christ upon earth must necessarily exist in particular and distinct societies, locally separate one from another, yet there ought to be no schisms, no uncharitable divisions among them. They ought to receive each other as Christ Jesus hath also received them, to the glory of God. And for this purpose they ought all to walk by the same rule, to mind and speak the same thing, and to be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.
3. That in order to this nothing ought to be inculcated upon Christians as articles of faith, nor required of them as terms of communion, but what is expressly taught and enjoined upon them in the Word of God. Nor ought anything to be admitted as of divine obligation, in their church constitution and management, but what is expressly enjoined by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ and his apostles upon the New Testament Church, either in express terms or by approved precedent.
4. That although the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are inseparably connected, making together but one perfect and entire revelation of the divine will, for the edification and salvation of the Church, and therefore in that respect can not be separated, yet as to what directly and properly belongs to their immediate object, the New Testament is as perfect a constitution for the worship, discipline and government of the New Testament Church, and as perfect a rule for the particular duties of its members, as the Old Testament was for the worship, discipline and government of the Old Testament Church, and the particular duties of its members.
5. That with respect to the commands and ordinances of our Lord Jesus Christ, where the Scriptures are silent as to the express time or manner of performance, if any such there be, no human authority has power to interfere, in order to supply deficiency by making laws for the Church; nor can anything more be required of Christians in such cases, but only that they so observe these commands and ordinances as will evidently answer the declared and obvious end of their institution. Much less have any human authority power to impose new commands or ordinances upon the Church, which our Lord Jesus Christ has not enjoined. Nothing ought to be received into the faith or worship of the Church, or be made a term of communion among Christians, that is not as old as the New Testament.
6. That although inferences and deductions from Scripture premises, when fairly inferred, may be truly called the doctrine of God’s holy Word, yet are they not formally binding upon the consciences of Christians farther than they perceive the connection, and evidently see that they are so; for their faith must not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power and veracity of God. Therefore no such deductions can be made the terms of communion, but do properly belong to the after and progressive edification of the Church. Hence, it is evident that no such deductions or inferential truth ought to have any place in the Church’s confession.
7. That although doctrinal exhibitions of the great system of divine truths and defensive testimonies in opposition to prevailing errors be highly expedient, and the more full and explicit they be for those purposes the better; yet, as these must be in a great measure the effect of human reasoning, and of course must contain many inferential truths, they ought not to be made terms of Christian communion, unless we suppose, what is contrary to fact, that none have a right to the communion of the Church, but such as possess a very clear and decisive judgment, or are come to a very high degree of doctrinal information; whereas the Church from the beginning did, and ever will, consist of little children and young men, as well as fathers.
8. That as it is not necessary that persons should have a particular knowledge or distinct apprehension of all divinely-revealed truths in order to entitle them to a place in the Church, neither should they, for this purpose, be required to make a profession more extensive than their knowledge; but that, on the contrary, their having a due measure of scriptural self-knowledge respecting their lost and perishing condition by nature and practice, and of the way of salvation through Jesus Christ, accompanied with a profession of their faith in the obedience to him, in all things, according to his Word, isall that is absolutely necessary to qualify them for admission into his Church.
9. That all who are able through grace to make such a profession, and to manifest the reality of it in their tempers and conduct, should consider each other as the precious saints of God, should love each other as brethren, children of the same family and Father, temples of the same Spirit, members of the same body, subjects of the same grace, objects of the same divine love, bought with the same price, and joint-heirs of the same inheritance. Whom God hath thus joined together no man should dare put asunder.
10. That divisions among the Christians is a horrid evil, fraught with many evils. It is anti-Christian, as it destroys the visible unity of the body of Christ; as if he were divided against himself, excluding and excommunicating a part of himself. It is anti-scriptural, as being strictly prohibited by his sovereign authority, a direct violation of his express command. It is anti-natural, as it excites Christians to condemn, to hate and oppose one another, where bound by the highest and most endearing obligation to love each other as brethren, even as Christ has loved them. In a word, it is productive of confusion and of every evil work.
11. That (in some instances) a partial neglect of the expressly revealed will of God, and (in others) an assumed authority for making the approbation of human opinions and of human inventions a term of communion, by introducing them into the constitution, faith or worship of the Church, are, and have been, the immediate, obvious and universally acknowledged causes of all corruptions and divisions that ever have taken place in the Church of God.
12. That all that is necessary to the highest state of perfection and purity of the Church upon earth is, first, that none be received as members, but such as, having that due measure of scriptural self-knowledge described above, do profess their faith in Christ and obedience to him in all things according to the Scriptures; nor, secondly, that any be retained in her communion longer than they continue to manifest the reality of their profession by their temper and conduct. Thirdly, that her ministers, duly and scripturally qualified, inculcate none other things than those very articles of faith and holiness expressly revealed and enjoined in the Word of God. Lastly, that in all their administrations they keep close by the observance of all divine ordinances, after the example of the primitive Church, exhibited in the New Testament, without any additions whatever of human opinions or inventions of men.
13. Lastly, that if any circumstantials indispensably necessary to the observance of divine ordinances be not foundupon the pages of express revelation, such, and such only, as are absolutely necessary for this purpose should be adopted under the title of human expedients, without any pretense to a more sacred origin, so that any subsequent alteration or difference in the observance of these things might produce no contention nor division in the Church. (“Memoirs of Thomas Campbell,” pages 48-52.)
Alexander Campbell, the son, arrived in this country September 29, 1809, just as the proof sheets of the Declaration and Address were coming from the press, and as a matter of the first concern with him, Thomas Campbell gave a full detail of the events already related to his son, and desired especially that he should read and consider the Declaration and Address. This Alexander did, and fell in heartily with the action of his father and the principles set forth therein. A new world of thought and life was now opened to him. He had spent one of the two years of separation in study at the University of Glasgow, where his father had formerly studied, and while there came more intimately under the influence of the new ideas and movements of the country. There he had met Greville Ewing, the Haldanes, and other religious leaders of the time who were pressing for larger liberty of religious service under the rule of a stricter conformity to the Scriptures, and had in a large measure imbibed these principles. He had not had the courage to write to his father of his change of convictions from the old church, and now feared that his changed course would bring him deep pain. In this attitude of mind the meeting between father and son took place. Happy was the surprise when each learned that the other no longer adhered to the old religious party in which they had been reared.
While reading the proof sheets of the Declaration and Address, Alexander Campbell had a conversation on the principles set forth therein with a Mr. Riddle, of the Presbyterian Church, whom he accidentally met. When the proposition that “nothing should be required as a matter of faith or duty for which a ‘Thus saith the Lord’ could not be produced either in express terms or by approved precedent,”was introduced, Mr. Riddle very promptly replied that the words, however plausible in appearance, were not sound; for if that were followed it would be necessary to abandon infant baptism. To which he replied, “Why, sir, is there in the Scriptures no express precept nor precedent for infant baptism?” “Not one, sir,” was the prompt reply.
This reply startled and mortified Mr. Campbell, and shortly afterward he mentioned the suggested difficulty to his father, who replied, “We make our appeal to the law and the testimony. Whatever is not found therein must of course be abandoned.” Not willing to remain in uncertainty on the subject, he procured all the books and tracts he could favorable to the practice. On reading them he was disgusted with the assumptions and fallacious reasonings to sustain the practice, and threw them aside with the faint hope of finding something more convincing in the Greek New Testament. “This, however, only made the matter worse, and upon again entering into a conversation with his father on the subject he found him entirely willing to admit that there were neither ‘express terms’ nor ‘precedent’ to authorize the practice. ‘But,’ said he, ‘as for those who are already members of the church and participants of the Lord’s Supper, I can see no propriety, even if the scriptural evidence for infant baptism be found deficient, in their unchurching or paganizing themselves, or in putting off Christ, merely for the sake of making a new profession; thus going out of the church merely for the sake of coming in again.’”
From this it seems that he was disposed only to concede that they ought not to teach nor practice infant baptism without divine authority, and that they should preach and practice scriptural baptism in regard to all who were to make, for the first time, a profession of faith. In deference to his views, the son dismissed the subject for the time, “seemingly satisfied with the fallacious reasoning imposed by circumstances, which prevented his father from seeing then the real position which baptism occupied in the Christian economy, and consequently from making, in regard to it, a practical application of his own principles.” With thisAlexander Campbell seems to have suspended his investigation of the subject, and to have foreborne giving to it that impartial and continued attention necessary to the discovery of truth. In a discourse delivered June 5, 1811, on Christ’s commission to his apostles (Mark 16:15,16), he said, in reference to baptism: “As I am sure it is unscriptural to make this matter [baptism] a term of communion, I let it slip. I wish to think and let think on these matters.”
But circumstances came up later which compelled him to give it a most painstaking examination. He was married March 12, 1811, and on March 13, 1812, his first child was born. Soon after this event a great change took place in his views in regard to baptism. His wife, with her father and mother, was still a member of the Presbyterian Church, and, as the child grew, it was natural that the subject of infant baptism should become one of immediate practical interest. As viewed from the viewpoint of his early education, infant baptism was a rite justified, inferentially at least, and not to be neglected; but viewed from the principles set forth in the Declaration and Address it possessed no divine authority, yet as an ancient and venerated practice, and for the sake of peace, it seemed to his father and to himself expedient to allow its continuance in the case of such members as conscientiously believed it proper. Most of the members of the church, furthermore, supposed themselves to have been baptized into the church in their infancy. From the occasional discussions of the subject among the members of the Brush Run Church, there was an increasing conviction on the part of many that baptism was a matter of much more importance than had been generally supposed, and now his changed relationship caused him to share in this conviction. Admitting that infant baptism is without divine warrant assumed a very different aspect, and was no longer, “May we safely reject infant baptism as a mere human invention?” but, “May we omit believers’ baptism, which all admit to be divinely commanded?” In other words, if infant baptism is without divine warrant, it is invalid, and they who receive it are as a matter of fact stillunbaptized. “When they come to know this in after years, will God accept the credulity of the parent for the faith of the child?” “Men may be pleased to omit faith on the part of the person baptized, but will God sanction the omission of baptism on the part of the believer, on the ground that in his infancy he had been the subject of a ceremony which had not been enjoined?” “On the other hand, if the practice of infant baptism can be justified by inferential reasoning on any sufficient evidence, why should it not be adopted or continued by common consent, without further discussion?”
Such were some of the thoughts which at this time passed through the mind of Alexander Campbell. Desiring to maintain “a conscience void of offense toward God and men,” and sensible of the responsibilities resting upon him in the new relationship which he sustained as a father, he was led to think more earnestly and seriously upon the whole subject, so that he might not come short in any duty that God had placed upon him. At this point he parted company with all uninspired authorities and turned to the Greek New Testament and diligently applied himself to the meaning of the words translated into the English by the words “baptize” and “baptism,” and soon became thoroughly satisfied that the act indicated by them could not be performed short of a burial of the subject in water. By further investigations he was led to the strong conviction that believers, and believers only, were the scriptural subjects of the ordinance. “He now fully perceived that the rite of sprinkling to which he had been subjected in infancy was wholly unauthorized, and that he was, consequently, in point of fact, an unbaptized person, and hence could not consistently preach a baptism to others of which he had never been a subject himself.” The subject was of such serious and anxious inquiry that he frequently conversed with his wife on the subject; she also became interested in it, and finally reached the same conclusion.
Having now reached such a definite conclusion in regard to the matter, he could not long refrain from putting hisconvictions into practice, so he resolved to obey what he now found to be a positive, divine command. Some time prior to this he had formed an acquaintance with Matthias Luce, a Baptist preacher, who lived some thirty miles distant, to whom he now decided to apply to perform the rite. On his way to see him he called to see his father and the family. Soon after his arrival his sister, Dorothea, took him aside and told him that she had been in great trouble for some time in regard to the validity of her baptism, as she could find no authority whatever in the New Testament for infant baptism, and as she had received nothing else, could not resist the conviction that she had never been baptized, and requested him to lay her difficulties before her father. To this unexpected announcement he responded that he also had reached the same conclusion and was then on his way to arrange with Mr. Luce to immerse him, and that he would lay the whole matter before their father. Accordingly he sought and obtained an interview with him; discussed the subject at some length, and concluded with these words: “I now fully and conscientiously believe that I have never been baptized, and consequently I am, in point of fact, an unbaptized person; and hence can not consistently preach baptism to others, as I have never submitted to it myself.” To this his father responded, “I have, then, nothing further to add. You must please yourself.”
As Alexander was leaving the next morning, his father said: “When, where, and by whom do you intend to be immersed?” To which Alexander replied: “As to the place, I prefer to be baptized near home, among those who are accustomed to hear my preaching; as to the time, just as soon as I can make arrangements with a suitable Baptist preacher. I will let you know as soon as I make the necessary arrangements.” The interview with Mr. Luce was satisfactory and everything was satisfactorily arranged. Mr. Richardson gives the following interesting account of the baptism:
Wednesday, June 12, 1812, having been selected, Elder Luce, in company with Elder Henry Spears, called at Thomas Campbell’s on their way to the place chosen for the immersion,which was the deep pool in Buffalo Creek, where three members of the Association had formerly been baptized. Next morning, as they were setting out, Thomas Campbell simply remarked that Mrs. Campbell had put up a change of raiment for herself and him, which was the first intimation that they also intended to be immersed. Upon arriving at the place, as the greater part of the Brush Run Church, with a large concourse of others, attracted by the novelty of the occasion, were assembled at David Bryant’s house, near the place, Thomas Campbell thought it proper to present, in full, the reasons which had determined his course. In a long address he reviewed the entire ground which he had occupied, and the struggles that he had undergone in reference to the particular subject of baptism, which he had earnestly desired to dispose of, in such a manner that it might be no hindrance in the attainment of that Christian unity which he had labored to establish on the Bible alone. In endeavoring to do this he admitted that he had been led to overlook its importance, and the very many plain and obvious teachings of the Scriptures on the subject; but having at length attained a clearer view of duty, he felt it incumbent upon him to submit to what he now saw an important Divine institution. Alexander afterwards followed with an extended defense of their proceedings, urging the necessity of submitting implicitly to all God’s commandments, and showing that the baptism of believers only was authorized by the Word of God.In his remarks, he had quoted, among other scriptures, the command of Peter to the believers on the day of Pentecost: “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit;” and had dwelt at length upon the gracious promises of God to all who should obey him. When he had concluded, James Hanan, who, with his wife, had also concluded to be baptized, took his child from its mother’s arms and requested her to walk aside, asked her what she thought of the declaration of Peter, “You shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit,” and how she understood it. Mrs. Hanan, being well acquainted with the Scriptures, soon gave a satisfactory reply, and both were accordingly baptized along with the rest, consisting of Alexander Campbell and his wife, his father and mother, and his sister—in all, seven persons. Alexander had stipulated with Elder Luce that the ceremony should be performed precisely according to the pattern given in the New Testament, and that, as there was no account of any of the first converts being called upon to give what is called “a religious experience,” this modern custom should be omitted, and that the candidates should be admitted on the simple confession that “Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” These points he hadfully discussed with Luce during the evening spent at his house when he first went up to request his attendance, and they had been arranged as he desired. Elder Luce had, indeed, at first objected to these changes, as being contrary to Baptist usage, but finally consented, remarking that he believed they were right, and he would run the risk of censure. There were not, therefore, upon this occasion, any of the usual forms of receiving persons into the Church upon a detailed account of religious feelings and impressions.... All were, therefore, admitted to immersion upon making the simple confession of Christ required of the converts in the apostolic times. The meeting, it is related, continued seven hours. (Memoirs of A. Campbell, Vol. I, pages 396-398.)
Wednesday, June 12, 1812, having been selected, Elder Luce, in company with Elder Henry Spears, called at Thomas Campbell’s on their way to the place chosen for the immersion,which was the deep pool in Buffalo Creek, where three members of the Association had formerly been baptized. Next morning, as they were setting out, Thomas Campbell simply remarked that Mrs. Campbell had put up a change of raiment for herself and him, which was the first intimation that they also intended to be immersed. Upon arriving at the place, as the greater part of the Brush Run Church, with a large concourse of others, attracted by the novelty of the occasion, were assembled at David Bryant’s house, near the place, Thomas Campbell thought it proper to present, in full, the reasons which had determined his course. In a long address he reviewed the entire ground which he had occupied, and the struggles that he had undergone in reference to the particular subject of baptism, which he had earnestly desired to dispose of, in such a manner that it might be no hindrance in the attainment of that Christian unity which he had labored to establish on the Bible alone. In endeavoring to do this he admitted that he had been led to overlook its importance, and the very many plain and obvious teachings of the Scriptures on the subject; but having at length attained a clearer view of duty, he felt it incumbent upon him to submit to what he now saw an important Divine institution. Alexander afterwards followed with an extended defense of their proceedings, urging the necessity of submitting implicitly to all God’s commandments, and showing that the baptism of believers only was authorized by the Word of God.
In his remarks, he had quoted, among other scriptures, the command of Peter to the believers on the day of Pentecost: “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit;” and had dwelt at length upon the gracious promises of God to all who should obey him. When he had concluded, James Hanan, who, with his wife, had also concluded to be baptized, took his child from its mother’s arms and requested her to walk aside, asked her what she thought of the declaration of Peter, “You shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit,” and how she understood it. Mrs. Hanan, being well acquainted with the Scriptures, soon gave a satisfactory reply, and both were accordingly baptized along with the rest, consisting of Alexander Campbell and his wife, his father and mother, and his sister—in all, seven persons. Alexander had stipulated with Elder Luce that the ceremony should be performed precisely according to the pattern given in the New Testament, and that, as there was no account of any of the first converts being called upon to give what is called “a religious experience,” this modern custom should be omitted, and that the candidates should be admitted on the simple confession that “Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” These points he hadfully discussed with Luce during the evening spent at his house when he first went up to request his attendance, and they had been arranged as he desired. Elder Luce had, indeed, at first objected to these changes, as being contrary to Baptist usage, but finally consented, remarking that he believed they were right, and he would run the risk of censure. There were not, therefore, upon this occasion, any of the usual forms of receiving persons into the Church upon a detailed account of religious feelings and impressions.... All were, therefore, admitted to immersion upon making the simple confession of Christ required of the converts in the apostolic times. The meeting, it is related, continued seven hours. (Memoirs of A. Campbell, Vol. I, pages 396-398.)
Within a week of the immersion of the Campbells and their group, thirteen other members of the Brush Run Church asked to be immersed, and it was done by Thomas Campbell, upon a simple confession of their faith in Jesus Christ as the Son of God. It was not long before the entire church of thirty or more members were immersed, for those who did not accept immersion withdrew from the church and united with some of the denominations in the community. Immersion became a condition of union and communion with the Brush Run Church. Its conversion into a company of immersed believers did not bring them any favor from the pedobaptist churches of the community.
The Brush Run Church had come to its position under the guidance of primitive apostolic example and its application to every item of faith and practice which is adopted in its order. It was not seeking agreement with any religious body, but “the old paths,” agreement with the “original standard,” “that it might come fairly and firmly to original ground upon clear and certain premises, and take up things just as the apostles left them.” It was feeling its way and making sure of its ground as it went. It knew of no religious body that stood upon original ground; none that dared to return to the original standard. The sense of freedom which it enjoyed in being bound only by the New Testament with respect to all doctrines and practices, was equaled only by the sense of certainty it enjoyed in being infallibly guided by the New Testament to the true conditions of unity and communion.
As was to be expected, the attitude of the Brush Run Church in becoming a body of immersed believers awakened a storm of opposition from the pedobaptist ranks, and its members became the subjects of no little persecution. Misrepresentations of all kinds, were freely circulated among the people. Family and friendship ties were broken, and the common civilities of society were denied to this new order of “heretics.” It is related that Alexander Campbell, returning after nightfall from one of his appointments about this time, was overtaken by a violent storm. Calling at the house of a member of the Seceder Church, he asked for shelter from the violence of the storm. Before granting his request she desired to know his name. On being informed she promptly refused him admittance, giving as her reason her hostility to his religious views. So he was forced to continue his journey through an almost trackless forest, until he reached his home. These trials, so far from discouraging this feeble band of earnest searchers for the truth, served rather to strengthen their faith and zeal. Convinced of the correctness of their course, they were drawn more closely to each other by the petty persecutions which they were now called upon to suffer. “They often visited each other’s houses, frequently spending the greater portion of the night in social prayer, in searching the Scriptures, asking and answering questions, and singing hymns of praise.” Thus was laid, in obscurity and adversity, the foundation of the great work of returning to the “example of the primitive Christians exhibited in the New Testament; without any addition whatever of human opinions or inventions of men.”
A new situation now confronted them. When the Baptists heard of the action of the Brush Run Church in submitting to immersion and adopting it in their practice, they were highly elated and began to urge the church to join the Redstone Association, which embraced all the Baptist churches of that region. Alexander Campbell had not been favorably impressed with the Baptists, either as ministersor people, and had no idea of uniting with them. He, however, liked the people better, and the preachers less, the more he became acquainted with them. He did not press himself upon their attention, but they knew his power as a preacher and often sent for him to preach for them. He visited their association which convened at Uniontown, Pa., in the autumn of 1812. He went as a spectator, and returned more disgusted than when he went. He was invited to preach, but he declined, except one evening in a private family, “to a dozen preachers and twice as many laymen.” He returned home not intending ever to visit another association. Later on he learned that the Baptists themselves did not appreciate the preaching or the preachers of that association. They regarded the speakers as worse than usual, and their discourses as not at all edifying. Then they pressed on Mr. Campbell from every quarter to visit their churches, and preach for them. He often spoke to Baptist congregations for sixty miles around.
The matter of joining the Redstone Association was laid before the Brush Run Church in the fall of 1813. They discussed the propriety of the measure. After much discussion and earnest desire to be directed by the wisdom that cometh down from above, they finally concluded to make an overture to that effect, and to write out a full view of their sentiments, wishes and determinations on the subject. They did so, exhibiting their remonstrance against all human creeds as bonds of communion and union among Christians, and expressing a willingness, upon certain conditions, to co-operate or unite with that association, provided always that they should be allowed to teach and preach whatever they learned from the Holy Scriptures, regardless of any creed or formula in Christendom.
The proposition was discussed at the association, and, after much debate, was decided by a good majority in favor of their being received. Thus a union was formed. But the party opposed, though small, began early to work, and continued with a perseverance worthy of a better cause. But for three years they could do nothing. The situation inwhich Mr. Campbell found himself, soon after his connection with the Redstone Association of the Baptist churches, was not at all inviting. The originality of his method in dealing with the Scriptures, and his utter disregard for customs, however time-honored, which were not sanctioned by primitive precept or example, awakened the suspicion of the more narrow-minded of the Baptist preachers, who were not slow in manifesting their disapproval. His popularity among the churches of the association no doubt added to their displeasure, and at every opportunity he was made to feel the sting of their resentment. This hostility, which at first manifested itself in slights and little annoyances, at last led to an open attack upon his teachings.
When the association met at Cross Creek in August, 1816, in spite of the intrigues of his enemies he was appointed as one of the speakers, on which occasion he preached his great “Sermon on the Law.” In that discourse he sharply discriminated between the law of Moses and the Gospel, showing that the former had served its purpose, and that its authority had passed away when the kingdom of the Messiah was established. This marked another important advance in the progress of the efforts to return to apostolic Christianity. The distinction between the law and the Gospel, the old covenant and the new, the letter and the spirit, the Jewish commonwealth and the kingdom, had been greatly obscured in popular thought. It was claimed that the law was still alive, and that Christians come under its provisions as such, with the exception of its strictly ceremonial parts, and that the church under the Christian dispensation is the same that existed under the Jewish dispensation. The sermon, though containing but plain Scripture teaching, was such a bold assault upon the theology and style of preaching current among the Baptists that it created a great sensation in the association, and raised a storm of persecution. The common people were, for the most part, pleased with his simple, natural presentation of the truth, but this only added fuel to the flame of bitterness which some of the preachers cherished against him. “This will never do,” they said, “this is not our doctrine.”