THE plan of Christian union founded upon a uniform interpretation of the Scriptures, as set forth in the Declaration and Address and as held and taught by the Reformers, did not insure or effect unity among those who held it. The possibilities of disagreement lay in the great watchword of the movement: "Where the Scriptures speak, we speak; where they are silent, we are silent." Between the authority of Scripture and the Scriptures themselves, always lies the interpretation of them. In the last analysis, the authority of Scripture is the authority of the interpretation. There being no authoritative interpretation of Scripture among Protestants who accept the principle of private or free interpretation, there are bound to be differences of interpretation [235] upon many fundamental teachings of Scripture. Freedom of interpretation was carried to its fullest extent among the followers of the Campbells, and each person was encouraged and trusted to make application of the rule, a "Thus saith the Lord" for every item of religious faith and practice. This very freedom developed differences all through the early period between the extremely literal interpreters and the more spiritual. We found that in the earliest interpretation or definition of primitive Christianity among the Reformers the literal method prevailed and resulted in an emphasis upon the "order of things" in the primitive church. "The restoration of the ancient order of things" became the formula of development. But while Alexander Campbell was writing that famous series of articles in the Christian Baptist under the above title, he turned aside in a separate article on "The Spirit of the Ancient Christians" to say: "To have an ancient order [236] of things restored in due form without the spirit or power of that order, would be mere mimicry, which we would rather, and we are assured the primitive saints would rather, never see." "If the spirit of the ancient Christians and of their individual and social conduct was more inquired after, and more cultivated, we would find but little trouble in understanding and displaying the ancient order of things." He found this spirit in the words: "Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?"

      It began to be evident to the Disciples that primitive Christianity was something more than an order of things in public worship and church organization. The zeal which consumed the primitive Christians was not directed to forms of public worship. The form and order which their new life assumed were taken up unconsciously from the customs with which they were most familiar as Jews. Their Master's consuming interest had been in the saving of lost men [237] and women, and he communicated his passion to his followers. The principal business of the primitive church was the missionary enterprise. Campbell said in an address in 1851 that "the spirit of Christianity is essentially a missionary spirit." It began to be felt by the Disciples that as a people claiming the distinction of restoring primitive Christianity they could not consistently neglect that which was the essential spirit and distinguishing mark of the primitive Christians--the seeking and the saving of the lost in all lands and among all peoples. The conversion of the heathen world had already become an enthusiasm in several denominations. Before 1840 the Congregationalists, Baptists, Methodists, Episcopalians, and Presbyterians had organized societies for the proclamation of the gospel in foreign lands.

      Stimulated by the example of other denominations, as well as by the precept of [238] Christ and the example of the primitive church, the Disciples began to see that they were in need of a more effective form of cooperation, if they were to develop and properly use the spiritual and material forces represented in the rapidly increasing numbers of members in their churches. It was this sense of an increasing responsibility growing out of an increasing membership which led to the formation of the American Christian Missionary Society in 1849. Since 1844 Alexander Campbell had been urging his brethren to unite in some more effective form of cooperation. There had been for many years local and limited forms of cooperation between churches in the same states for purposes of denominational evangelization and education. The example of a wider cooperation for unsectarian purposes had been set in the organization of the "American Christian Bible Society" in 1845 at Cincinnati, Ohio, under the leadership of D. S. Burnet, for [239] the publication and distribution of Bibles. The organization of this society stirred the Disciples to action. Cooperation of the entire body in the great enterprises of Christian education, Christian missions, and Bible circulation, began to be urged in every quarter. But cooperation meant organization, and organization meant a society.

      The first serious internal controversy arose on account of the organization of this first missionary society. The society was opposed on the ground that there was neither precept nor example in the New Testament for the organization of societies for the spread of the gospel. Some of the bitterest satire in the columns of the Christian Baptist had been directed against the "mercenary schemes" of the missionary, tract and Bible societies of the various denominations. Campbell's approval of the organization of the new society did not save it from the assaults of many of his [240] brethren. The enemies of the society went back to the Christian Baptist for their most effective epithets against the new scheme, and Alexander Campbell of 1823 was arrayed against Alexander Campbell of 1849. While he distinguished between the missionary purpose and the missionary plan in his early diatribes, and aimed them at the latter, the enemies of all missionary work applied them to both alike. His support of the new society was frank, open, and positive, and he did not hesitate to accept the office and honor of first president imposed upon him in his absence by his brethren in the convention at Cincinnati which created it.

      The struggle for organized missionary work among the Disciples was begun, and progress was contested at every step by a bitter and relentless opposition, which became a party within the ranks with its leaders and newspapers. The first leader of the anti-missionary element was Jacob [241] Creath, Jr. Scattered throughout the ranks of the denomination were many individuals and churches which joined in the cry against "human innovations." The society with its "money basis" and delegated membership was feared as the beginning of apostasy from a pure New Testament congregationalism. The convention which met to create the society was taxed to the utmost in its ingenuity to avoid the various rocks of offense in the course before it. It found it impossible to please everybody, no matter how hard it might try. Even the friends of organized cooperation were not pleased with some articles in the constitution, though they offered no objection to the society as such. The one article which gave more offense than any other, and continued to give trouble down to 1881, was "Article III," which read as follows: "The society shall be composed of annual delegates, life members and life directors. Any church may appoint a delegate for an annual [242] contribution of ten dollars. Twenty dollars paid at one time shall be requisite to constitute a member for life; and one hundred dollars paid at one time, or a sum which in addition to any previous contributions shall amount to one hundred dollars, shall be required to constitute a director for life." This was the "money basis" of the society and created "the moneyed aristocracy" so much feared in the missionary work of the church. Each church was invited to become an auxiliary to the society by making a contribution and sending a delegate to the annual convention. When this invitation came to the church in Connellsville, Pennsylvania, it drew up a series of resolutions against the society, embodying its objections. While favoring the purpose of the society to carry the gospel to all men, it was opposed to the society and its plan. The second resolution stated its position as follows: "That we consider the church of Jesus Christ, in virtue of the commission [243] given her by our blessed Lord, the only scriptural organization on earth for the conversion of sinners and the sanctification of believers." These resolutions became the model and voiced the sentiments of all other churches opposed to the society.

      All the officers of the society served without salary until 1857, when Benjamin Franklin, as secretary, was the first to be paid a salary. In his report to the board he said: "There has been strong prejudice against the missionary society. This we have labored to counteract, and I think, to a considerable extent it has abated." After holding the office one year he was succeeded by Isaac Errett. From the time he severed his relation with the society he began to oppose it, and opposition in one point broadened to include every point, until he stood opposed to the very idea of organized missionary work. He became the leader of the anti-missionary forces, and by voice and pen, as editor of the American Christian [244] Review, he menaced and cramped the work of the society until 1870. His paper became the most influential next to the Millennial Harbinger. He succeeded in creating a party among the Disciples which consistently opposed every agency and expediency in the church, from the missionary society to organs and tuning forks, for which there was not express scriptural precept or example. This party was the logical outgrowth of the literal principle of interpretation and dated back to the first definition of primitive Christianity as an order of things. The opponents of the society forced it to change its constitution from time to time until 1869, when it was forced to adopt "The Louisville Plan" to conciliate the opposition. Instead of bringing "harmony and peace to the brotherhood" it brought poverty and helplessness to the society, and in 1881, it was superseded by the present plan which was a return to the original money basis of control. It was [245] felt that there was no longer use of trying to harmonize the elements, as had been done at the expense of the missionary cause for thirty years, since the anti-missionary party had taken up a position of irreconcilable opposition and was practically out of fellowship with the larger missionary party. It could now afford to ignore it, which it has steadily done to the present time, with an ever increasing fund in the treasury.

      In the midst of the missionary controversy, the slavery question loomed large upon the horizon and disturbed the councils of the Disciples. The body was distributed over both the North and the South, probably with a larger element in those states committed to slaveholding or which were divided over the question. Few of the denominations escaped the influence of the question; several suffered division on account of it. There had been unity and cooperation between the churches of both North and South so long as the slavery [246] question was not forced upon them for decisive action. When the Civil War broke out, all eyes turned towards Bethany, Virginia, to know which side Alexander Campbell would take in the struggle. He had defined his position on the slavery question as early as 1846, and held that the relation of master and slave was sanctioned by the New Testament, but not the institution as existing in America or any other country. He said: "I have always been anti-slavery, but never an abolitionist"--a position which many persons in the South held, but which was felt to be inconsistent by the extreme anti-slavery men of the North. He was opposed to the Civil War and all war as unchristian, and thought the question at issue ought to be settled by arbitration. The attitude of neutrality which he assumed towards the conflict between North and South did much to moderate the spirit among the Disciples and save them from the division which was threatening. [247]

      The preachers among the Disciples in Missouri took formal action with respect to the conflict by issuing a circular, "Concerning the Duties of Christians in this Conflict," in which they declared that Christians ought not to go to war. Among those who signed the document were B. H. Smith, J. W. McGarvey, T. M. Allen and T. P. Haley. There were three questions under discussion in religious circles at the time: first, as to whether a Christian should go to war; second, as to whether the southern states had a right to secede; and third, as to whether slavery should be abolished. It was possible for many Christian people to take refuge behind the first, and remain non-committal with respect to the others. The question found its way into the convention of the missionary society in 1861, at Cincinnati, Ohio, in a resolution by J. P. Robinson of Ohio, calling upon "the brethren everywhere to do all in their power to sustain the proper and constitutional [248] authority of the Union." The resolution was lost. Reports began to be circulated that the Disciples and the missionary society in particular were "to a certain degree disloyal to the government of the United States." At the meeting of the society in 1863 resolutions were adopted declaring allegiance to the government and tendering sympathies to the soldiers in the field who were defending the country from the attempt of armed traitors to overthrow the government. This action cut off from the society the support of the southern churches, and rendered it comparatively bankrupt. When President Lincoln proclaimed the emancipation of the slaves in 1862 the bond which bound the northern and southern churches together was strained almost to the breaking point. But it did not break, and the war closed with the denomination in the North and South united in the bonds of Christian love and service. It was cause for unfeigned rejoicing, and was due in [249] large measure to the Christian wisdom of the members in the two sections, the moderation of the leaders, but more to the congregational form of government which prevented any action in the body as a whole.

      The organ controversy was the missionary controversy in a new form, for both grew out of the opposition to human innovations in the work and worship of the church. Most churches were without musical instruments in their public worship down to the middle of the century. The controversy broke out in 1860 through the introduction of a melodeon into the services of the church at Midway, Kentucky, then in charge of Dr. L. L. Pinkerton. Benjamin Franklin as editor of the American Christian Review, led in the attack upon the innovation. He was opposed to it as ministering to the pride and worldliness of the churches, as without the sanction of New Testament precept or example, and consequently as [250] unscriptural and sinful. Franklin and those who shared his view refused to worship or hold membership in a church that used an organ. Through his influence the old enemies of the missionary society were lined up against the organ. The thing that intensified the warfare was the element of conscience which entered into it. The organ party treated it as a question of expediency on which there should be forbearance and liberty. The anti-party treated it as a matter of principle. With the gradual improvement in the music of the churches through the use of an organ in leading, and the introduction of choirs, the older congregational method began to appear rude and old-fashioned, and offended the cultivated and modern tastes of the younger members. As the churches introduced the organ more widely, the greater need there seemed to be for it, and the progressive, modern elements grew impatient of the objections of the more conservative and forced [251] it into the worship against their consent. There were many divisions in churches, and it was not uncommon to see two churches in a community--the one using the organ, the other without it--but alike in all other respects.

      Isaac Errett became the leader of the progressive party, and through the pages of the Christian Standard, after its establishment in 1866, favored and promoted every helpful expedient in the work of the church. It was he who fought the battle of the missionary society, and reminded his brethren in 1867 that the Standard was the only weekly paper advocating missionary societies. Against him were the Gospel Advocate and the American Christian Review, and to them was added in 1869 the Apostolic Times under the editorship of Moses E. Lard, L. B. Wilkes, Robert Graham, W. H. Hopson, and J. W. McGarvey, established with the avowed purpose of resisting the tide setting in favor of modern methods and or [252] organizations in church work. The new paper opened its batteries at once upon the Christian Standard to which Errett replied: "Our editorial brethren of the Times are, with us, guilty of a great innovation in publishing a weekly religious newspaper; and if they do this as children of God, they are doing what they well know has neither a divine command nor an approved precedent to support it. When they preach they go into a meeting house, which is an innovation, and give out a hymn, which is an innovation, and this hymn is sung to a tune, which is an innovation, by the aid of a tune-book and a tune-fork, which are innovations."

      As a result of these differences, divisions and separations took place in churches between 1860 and 1880 which formed a separate party, that has gone on establishing papers and schools and churches. They regard the Disciples as corrupt and apostate and will have no fellowship with them. [253] They insist upon the abandonment of all missionary organizations and expedients in church work, as a condition of fellowship and cooperation with them. They submitted a "Memorial" to the Convention of the Disciples which met in Nashville in 1892, calling upon them to "abandon their organizations that found no necessity or recognition in apostolic times, for the sake of union and cooperation." Their strength lies principally in Indiana, Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas, and Texas. They have planted missions among the Indians, and in Turkey and Japan, which they support by voluntary contributions without the mediation of a "human society."

      In these controversies the scheme of Christian union as advocated by the Disciples received its second critical test, and met with its second failure. Unity was wrecked in both cases upon the same rock--a literal application of the principle, "Where the Scriptures speak, we speak; where they are [254] silent, we are silent," to the interpretation of primitive Christianity. The failure to preserve unity within their own ranks was a serious blow to the Disciples, but it did not shake their confidence in the principle of Christian union. They went on preaching union upon the Bible alone while their churches were dividing over the interpretation of the Bible. They still believed that the separation of matters of faith from matters of opinion was a true principle of unity, although they were unable to make a separation satisfactory to both parties. The anti-organ party said the use of an organ in public worship was a matter of faith, the organ party said it was a matter of opinion and expediency. They could not agree and separated.

      At this juncture Isaac Errett appeared upon the stage of action, full of wisdom and experience, with a timely message to the confused and distracted body. He had been for several years one of the trusted [255] and honored leaders among his brethren; and as preacher, writer and thinker, as secretary of the missionary society in its most critical period, as teacher in Hiram College, as co-editor of the Harbinger, he had demonstrated that he possessed the essential elements of leadership. He had already held every position of trust and honor among the Disciples, before he was made first editor of the Christian Standard in 1866. The year that the Standard was established was the year in which the great leader, Alexander Campbell, died; and by common consent of his brethren, after they had recovered from the first shock of the loss, Isaac Errett took his place of leadership. He sounded a new note when he announced his purposes as editor to be: "(1) the turning of the world to Christ; (2) the union of believers in the fellowship of the gospel; (3) the education of Christians into a nobler spiritual life."

      The Disciples had been progressively [256] restoring primitive Christianity as they progressively grasped it as an order of things, then as a missionary enterprise; but it was left for Isaac Errett to propose to restore primitive Christianity as a spirit of things. He began to emphasize the spirit over against the letter. Unity based on the letter of the New Testament had failed; he saw new hope for a unity based on the spirit of the New Testament. He saw that the Disciples could go no further in their emphasis upon the letter of Christianity than the anti-organ party had gone. As literalists they were more consistent, but not perfectly consistent, for they also used many innovations in public worship. The extravagances of this party produced a reaction in the direction of a more spiritual definition of Christianity, and gave the principle of union a new meaning. He signalized the change of emphasis that was called for by the experiences of the past by [257] saying in 1868: "Let the bond of union among the baptized be Christian character in place of orthodoxy--right doing in place of exact thinking." [258]

[TDOC 235-258]