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 precept of 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 disentangled and 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,” which underly the 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, is all 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 found upon 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.)
CHAPTER IV.
ALEXANDER CAMPBELL
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.
SUBJECT AND ACT OF BAPTISM SETTLED
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 this Alexander 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.”