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 still unbaptized. “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 his convictions 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 had fully 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.
THE REDSTONE ASSOCIATION
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 ministers or 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.