After arguing the matter for years, a General Convention was called, to meet at Cincinnati, O., in October, 1849. David S. Burnet was the leader of leaders in the work of organization for co-operation. C. L. Loos writes:

      The conviction had been for some time ripening in the minds of our most thoughtful men, that the necessity had come for such a national meeting representative of our people. The wisdom and propriety of calling such a Convention were for the months preceding very fully and freely discussed in our press, and our ablest men participated in this discussion.

      A. Campbell, in an article strongly advocating the measure, said: "The purposes of such a primary Convention are already indicated by the general demand for a more efficient and Scriptural organization--for a more general and efficient co-operation in the Bible cause, in the missionary cause, in the education cause." These words will show to the reader of today what were the questions of chief concern among our churches at that day, and which, it was desired and hoped, such a general and closer interchange of mind as the occasion of the meeting contemplated, would aid in bringing to a better solution.

      The question of proper church organization was at that time very prominent in the churches, especially with the more thoughtful men among us--much more so, I hesitate not to say, than at present. It was generally felt that the conflict of years through which we had passed, had left but little time or attention for the weighty matters of efficient congregational and general organization for permanent, enduring future life, power, and prosperity. This was loudly expressed on all sides. "We have gone through the war period, battling for life and existence; now we must turn our attention to the more difficult, but most vital questions of permanent organization for lasting [396] existence and strong action in our life and mission as representatives of Apostolic Christianity," was the language of our wise men in the churches.

      A. Campbell, early in the year 1849, in obedience to a widely expressed desire, suggested the calling of a convention of the representatives of the churches generally, in his own words, to devise methods "for the setting in order the things wanting among us to perfect the church and convert the world." This suggestion met a cordial response.

      No one took a stronger or an earlier interest in this matter than A. Campbell, and no one had clearer or more decided convictions of the propriety of such an assembly than he. The deep earnestness, moreover, with which he plead for general consultation, to bring about a more perfect organization and co-operation in the great enterprises of the church for the preaching of the gospel over the entire world, should not be unknown and lost to our people of to-day. He felt that the time had come for the church to enter, in full co-operation, on such enterprises as were necessary to execute its great mission of extending the kingdom of the Master. A. Campbell's articles on this subject, of the year 1849, deserve special attention as revealing his own mind on this matter--not only at that period, but always with him of vital importance. The following quotation is characteristic of his largeness of mind on all great questions:

      "The public interests of the aggregate Christian community in every one nation, province or empire, as much require public agents, whether called evangelists, messengers, delegates, or classified under one all-comprehending designation and denomination--missionaries or "messengers of the churches," as do private interests of every particular community require its own special and particular agents or officers.

      "These are points no longer debatable amongst us, or any other Christian people known to me on the map of Christendom. We may aim at more simplicity, but we can not dispense with the agents and agencies above enumerated, any more than we could dispense with books and school-masters in the great work of illuminating and civilizing mankind. To ask for a positive precept for everything in the details of duties growing out of the various and numerous exigencies of the Christian church and the world, would be quite as irrational and unscriptural as to ask for an immutable wardrobe or a uniform standard of apparel for all persons and ages in the Christian church . . . We must make a broad, a clear, and an indelible distinction between the elements of faith, piety, and morality, and matters of temporal expediency. The former are wholly and exclusively of divine authority . . . They are forever fixed by the Messiah in person, and by his inspired and divinely commissioned lawgivers, apostles and prophets . . . In all things pertaining to public interest, not of Christian faith, piety, or morality, the church of Jesus Christ in its aggregate character is left free and unshackled by any apostolic authority. This is the great point which I assert as of capital importance in any great conventional movement or co-operation in advancing the public interests of a common salvation . . . Matters of prudential arrangement for the evangelizing of the world, for the better application of our means and resources, according to the exigencies of society and the [397] ever varying complexion of things around us, are left without a single law, statute, ordinance or enactment in all the New Testament. For my own part, I see no necessity for any positive divine statutes in such matters."

      A. Campbell always expressed a strong preference for the Baptist form of free association, "divested," as he said, "of those appendages against which we remonstrated twenty-five years ago." He declares:

      "I was present on the occasion of the dissolution of the 'Mahoning Baptist Association' in 1828, on the Western Reserve, State of Ohio. With the exception of one obsolete preacher, the whole association, preachers and people, embraced the current reformation."

Source:

Charles Louis Loos. No source has been found in vols. 21-41 of The Millennial Harbinger (1850-1870) after an exhaustive search. Since the text by C. L. Loos is set off as an extended quotation in the book and no hint of a source is given by Benjamin Lyon Smith, perhaps this is from a letter to the editor?

[MHA2 396-398]