HERE are certain outstanding political documents which have affected the whole course of human history. Such, for example, are the "Code of Hammurabi," the "Laws of Moses," the English "Magna Charta," and the "Declaration of Independence" of the thirteen American colonies, In the field of religion, the same situation obtains. There are a few epoch-making productions which have been responsible for the specific trend which church thought and activity have taken through the ages. It is characteristic of these works that, while they become antiquated in certain particulars, they never really lose their power to influence and fashion the lives of those who read them. The "Confessions of St. Augustine," for example, while absurdly out of date so far as science and philosophy are concerned, possesses a living and heart-searching appeal which will retain its freshness and power to all succeeding generations. The same things are true of a mediaeval document like "The Imitation of Christ" or the probably apocryphal, "Little Flowers of St. Francis." These books have an eternal quality about them which age cannot wither nor custom stale. The fact that there are certain extraneous inaccuracies present in all or them does not in the least affect their abiding value. There must be some alloy in almost all of the precious metals which the miner extracts from the earth. So it is, even with the greatest and most imperishable monument, both of literature and of art.

      The Declaration and Address of Thomas Campbell can fairly lay claim to being regarded as one of the [13] immortal documents of religious history. This is true, not only because of its influence upon the history of the Disciples of Christ but also because of its intrinsic merit. It touches upon the most important problems of the modern church, and until these problems are settled it will always possess a direct and searching appeal. The evils which the author deprecated are still with us and whatever view we may take of the solution which he suggests, no one can dispute the earnestness and acuteness of his appeal. In order to understand and appreciate what he has written, it is necessary that we should know something of the man himself and of the intellectual and spiritual background of the period in which he lived.

      In the Memoirs of Elder Thomas Campbell, written by his son Alexander, we find the statement that Thomas Campbell was descended from the Campbells of Argyle, Scotland. The duke of Argyle, so Alexander tells us, Sir Archibald Campbell, was the head of the clan. At one time, it is said, he commanded a regiment of men every one of which was named Campbell.

      Archibald Campbell, the father of Thomas, was the son of James Campbell who was born in the county of Down, near Dyerlake Wood, Ulster, Ireland. The Campbells were among the Scotch settlers who colonized Ulster and whose descendants have helped to make the Irish problem increasingly difficult because of their religious differences with their southern neighbors. James Campbell, according to the record, lived to be one hundred and five years of age. There is nothing of especial significance recorded concerning his life. He appears to have been a member of the Roman Catholic church, in which faith he brought up his son Archibald. The latter entered the British army while merely a boy and served under General Wolfe in his campaigns in the West Indies and in Canada. He was present at the battle of Quebec and there was a tradition preserved in the Campbell family to the effect that General Wolfe, [14] after his victory over Montcalm, died in the arms of Archibald Campbell. After the fall of Quebec, young Campbell came back to Ireland and spent the remainder of his life in his native land. At some time after his return, he gave up the Roman Catholic faith and became a strict member of the Church of England, in which communion he died at the age of eighty-eight. He had four sons, Thomas, James, Archibald and Enos. The last named died in 1804, three years before his father. The other three sons were all members of the Secession or Antiburgher Presbyterian Church, Archibald having been a ruling elder of this church for many years in his home town of Newry. Enos Campbell, before his death, held the position of head master of one of the most popular academics in the same town.

      Thomas Campbell emigrated to the United States in 1807, coming under the special direction of the General Associate Synod of the Antiburgher Presbyterian Church. When he arrived in Philadelphia, he found the synod of his church in session and upon the presentation of his testimonials, he was cordially received and was recommended to the Presbytery of Chartiers in western Pennsylvania. He journeyed to his new field by the slow and toilsome method of transportation then in vogue and it was some weeks before he reached his destination. As soon as he came upon the ground, he presented his credentials to the presbytery, was received into its communion, and at once had a field of labor assigned to him. It should be said that he came to his work with a degree of religious breadth which was entirely in advance of his local surroundings. Before he left Scotland, he had been prominent in a movement which looked toward the union of the Burghers and the Antiburghers at the Scotch General Assembly in Glasgow. He made a notable argument in favor of union, but his views did not prevail with the Assembly. Alexander Campbell, in commenting upon his part in the discussion, tells the following incident: [15]

      Some four years after this discussion, when a student in the University of Glasgow, while returning home from church one day, I was interrogated by a gentleman accompanying me as to my parentage. On naming my father, he said: "I listened to your father in our General Assembly in this city, pleading for a union between the Burghers and the Antiburghers. But, sir, while, in my opinion, he clearly out-argued them, they out-voted him."

      There may have been something in the ancestry of Thomas Campbell which predisposed him toward religious tolerance. His grandfather had lived and died a Roman Catholic. His father, throughout the years when Thomas could remember him, had been a rigid Episcopalian. He and his brothers were all Presbyterians of the straightest sect. Such an inheritance was calculated to beget tolerance and few men in the history of the church have maintained a more tolerant attitude than Thomas Campbell. The breadth of his religious sympathy extended far beyond the ranks of any particular communion and embraced "all who love the Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity." Tolerant and sympathetic as he was, there was no lack of loyalty or fervor about his religion. Speaking out of a personal knowledge of his work as a pastor in the County of Armagh, Ireland, his son and biographer says:

      We only express a prevailing public opinion, when we say that he was the most earnest, indefatigable, and devoted minister in the presbytery and synod to which he belonged. In preaching, teaching, and in visiting his charge, inculcating personal and family religion, he had certainly no superior; and, so far as we could ascertain no equal. His family training and discipline were peculiarly didactic, biblical, and strict. The Bible, with Brown's Catechism, was, during the minority of his family, a daily study and a daily recitation. He also instituted these customs in all the families of his congregation. His congregation at Ahorey, in the county of Armagh, was therefore regarded as the best educated community in the presbytery of Market Hill, to which he belonged. If not formally and professedly a reformer in this department in his own synod, he was virtually so. He also strongly remonstrated against the schisms in that large denomination called Presbyterians, under their respective armorials--Covenanters or Cameronians, Burghers and Antiburghers or Seceders.

      By temperament, education and inheritance, Thomas Campbell was predisposed to religious tolerance. He [16] had manifested a disposition toward Christian unity, during his nine years' pastorate in Ireland, far beyond the prevailing viewpoint of the age. At the Synod in Belfast, three years before he moved to America and again a year later, at the joint meeting in Lurgan, he had led the movement for uniting the two bodies of the Seceders. In 1806, a year before he came to America, he pleaded the same cause before the General Synod in Glasgow. It is worth noting in this connection that while the cause which he advocated was defeated in all of these gatherings, only fourteen years later, in 1820, it was triumphant. By this time, however, Thomas Campbell had advanced in his vision of union far beyond the circle of his own denomination, and was advocating with all the enthusiasm at his command the larger unity of the entire church of God.

      It is interesting to note that the immediate circumstance which sent Thomas Campbell to the new world was the desire to recuperate physically after his strenuous labors in his home field. His health was very delicate at this time and his physicians urged him to take a sea voyage as the most promising, if not, as his son puts it, "the only restorative of his enervated system." When he came to the United States, it was with the expectation of returning to Ireland as soon as his health would permit. He left his wife and family in the homeland to carry on his work. As the event proved, they came to him but he did not go back to them. One cannot avoid speculating upon the consequences of such a return had the original schedule been carried out. Doubtless the Campbells would have been influential in their homeland, but one cannot help feeling that it required the breadth and vigor of the new national life which was then awakening in America in order to fully develop their later plea. The Disciples of Christ are distinctly American in their group outlook and attitude and they remain today the most numerous and influential religious body which had its inception in America. [17]

      When Thomas Campbell began his work in western Pennsylvania, he was under the direction of the presbytery of Chartiers. From the first, he met with opposition. Doubtless most of this arose from his divergent views, especially in the matter of Christian tolerance, but there is a tradition to the effect that envious feelings, on the part of his brother ministers, were partially responsible for the opposition to his work. A personal letter of Elder James Foster, who crossed the Atlantic almost simultaneously with Thomas Campbell, contains the following interesting paragraph concerning the early work of Mr. Campbell:

      He commenced his labors in this country under the direction of the Chartiers presbytery. They viewed him with a jealous eye, being superior to them both as a scholar and a preacher. In the course of some time, they brought a charge against him before the presbytery for not preaching the gospel. He defended himself against this charge but they would not acquit him. He appealed to the Synod and they acquitted him from the charge.

      The immediate cause of his citation before the presbytery was his attitude toward the communion service while conducting his missionary work. He invited all members of the Presbyterian family to partake of the Lord's Supper and thus aroused the opposition of his co-worker, a young minister named Mr. Wilson. Wilson did not oppose the action of his companion when it took place, but having talked the matter over with Mr. Campbell afterward, he felt that his duty compelled him to bring the matter before the presbytery. He did this in the usual form of "libel," bringing sundry, formal and specified charges, the most important of which alleged that Mr. Campbell had not inculcated strict adherence to the church standards and had even expressed his disapproval of certain things which those standards contained. The upshot of the matter was that the presbytery held a church trial, resulting in the condemnation of the accused who was formally censured by the organization. As was his privilege under the laws of the church, Mr. Campbell appealed from the [18] decision of the presbytery to the Associate Synod of North America. The pronouncement of the Synod in the matter is somewhat interesting because of the momentous results which flowed from it. Alexander Campbell quotes the exact language of the decision to the following effect:

      Upon an examination of the reasons of Protest, and the presbytery's answer, it was the judgment of the Synod that there were such informalities in the proceedings of the Presbytery in the trial of said case as to afford sufficient reason to the Synod to set aside their judgment and decision, and to release the protestor from the censure inflicted by the Presbytery; which they accordingly did.

      Thomas Campbell was therefore technically acquitted upon his appeal to the higher court of his church. Had the matter remained there, the later history might have been written differently. Unfortunately, however, the subject was further referred to a committee who brought in the following report:

      Upon the whole, the committee is of the opinion that Mr. Campbell's answers to the two first articles of charge are so evasive and unsatisfactory, and highly equivocal upon great and important articles of revealed religion, as to give ground to conclude, that he has expressed sentiments very different upon these articles, and from sentiments held and professed by this church, and are sufficient ground to infer censure.

      A more insinuating and, in the best sense of the word, insulting decision than is contained in the report of this committee is hardly to be found in the pages of religious history. Had the members of the committee condemned the defendant because of heresy alone, the situation would have been different. Their language, however, involves not only an accusation of heresy but also one of hypocrisy and equivocation "upon great and important articles of revealed religion." From what they are pleased to style his "evasive" attitude, they conclude that at some time he must have expressed sentiments "very different upon these articles" and, having expressed such sentiments, he deserved censure. In commenting upon the situation at this point, Alexander Campbell [19] says: "At that time, and long after, Father Campbell was as sound a Calvinist as any man I then knew in Scotland or Ireland; as strong in that system as the most orthodox in the Presbyterian church." It was bad enough, under the circumstances, to be unjustly accused of heretical views but it was infinitely worse to be accused of hypocrisy. One can readily see that a high-spirited gentleman, like Thomas Campbell, could hardly accept such a decision and remain true to his own conceptions of personal independence and integrity. There is some question as to whether he did accept it. The general opinion has been that he acquiesced in the decision in the interest of Christian charity and forbearance. Robert Richardson in his "Memoirs of Alexander Campbell" says:

      Mr. Campbell fondly hoped that the amicable relations formerly existing between him and the Presbytery of Chartiers would be restored, and that he would be permitted to prosecute his labors in peace. In this, however, he soon found himself mistaken, and discovered with much regret that the hostility of his opponents had been only intensified by the issue of the trial and was more undisguised than ever. Misrepresentation and calumny were employed to detract from his influence; a constant watch was placed over his proceedings, and he discovered that even spies were employed to attend his meetings and take notes of his discourses, in order, if possible, to obtain fresh grounds of accusation against him. . . . He came, therefore, to the conclusion finally that it was his duty to separate himself from all connection with a people who seemed utterly unwilling to tolerate any overture for healing the religious dissensions of the time, and who seemed to regard their own particular "Testimony" as practically a more important rule of action than the Bible. He accordingly presented to the Synod a formal renunciation of its authority announcing that he abandoned all ministerial connection with it and would hold himself thenceforth utterly unaffected by its decisions.

      It would appear from the above statement that Thomas Campbell accepted the decision of the Synod in good faith notwithstanding its insinuations of hypocrisy and continued his work with the Presbytery of Chartiers until the further actions of his opponents in the church made it impossible for him to remain in the Presbyterian communion. [20]

      Alexander Campbell in his memoirs of his father gives in detail the communication which Thomas sent to the Synod at the time when he withdrew from the church. The document is too long to quote here but it is interesting to note that there is nothing said in it concerning the later derelictions which Dr. Richardson gives as the final basis of withdrawal. The argument is based solely upon the lack of fairness, on the part of the Synod, in taking its official action. The following direct citations from the communication in question are of immediate interest:

      It is with sincere reluctance, and, at the same time, with all due respect and esteem for the brethren of this reverend Synod who have presided in the trial of my case, that I find myself in duty bound to refuse submission to their decision as unjust and partial, and also finally to decline the authority, while they continue thus to overlook the grievous and flagrant mal-administration of the Presbytery of Chartiers. And I hereby do decline all ministerial connection with, or subjection to, the Associate Synod of North America, on account of the aforesaid corruptions and grievances; and do henceforth hold myself altogether unaffected by their decisions. And, that I may be properly understood, I will distinctly state that, while especial reference is had to the corruptions of the Presbytery of Chartiers, which constitute only a part of this Synod, the corruptions of that Presbytery now become also the corruptions of the whole Synod; because when laid open to this Synod, and protested against, the Synod pass them over without due inquiry, and without animadversion.

THOMAS CAMPBELL.      

      It is characteristic of the integrity of Thomas Campbell that he immediately refunded to the treasurer of the Synod the sum of money which had been advanced to him for his work as a missionary. He does not appear to have had any definite means of support at this time and his action in cutting off all connection with his base of supplies, while upon a mission field, indicates his courage and devotion to principle. He had the Scotch loyalty to duty, regardless of consequences in his makeup and he had no hesitation about choosing his pathway when duty blazed the trail before him. [21]

LEXANDER CAMPBELL tells us in his Memoirs of Thomas Campbell, (page 23) that the Declaration and Address was in press when he arrived in America in the autumn of 1809. He says that he read its proof sheets with special attention as they came from the printer and that he remarked to his father, at the close, that he would have to abandon infant baptism if he adhered to the promises contained in the document. He says,

      I read to him the third proposition, page 48, expressed in the following words: "That in order (to church union and communion) 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 managements 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."

      On reading this, I asked him in what passage or portion of the inspired oracles could we find a precept or an express precedent for the baptism or sprinkling of infants in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit? His response in substance was "It was merely inferential."

      From the above statement, it is perfectly clear that when Thomas Campbell broke away from the Presbytery of Chartiers he had no thought of founding a new church or of withdrawing from the church of which he considered himself a member. His action, in voluntarily disassociating himself from the synod and presbytery with which he had been previously connected, did not amount to withdrawal from the larger fellowship of the Church of God. He must have felt that he was a Christian first and a Presbyterian second; and that any change in the status of his Presbyterianism did not necessarily carry with it his exclusion from the wider fellowship of the church in general. Upon the basis of past inheritance, as well as a thorough-going study of the Scriptures, he felt thoroughly convinced of the necessity for the unity of Christ's followers. [22]

      The denominational theory of the church, with its idea of variant branches all separate and yet all equal in value, made no appeal to him. The church about which he read in the New Testament was not split up into denominations and he saw no warrant for the sectarian divisions of his own day. He felt himself to be a brother to all who sincerely believed in and worshiped the Lord Jesus Christ in all the churches and he desired to have fellowship with them. It was this desire which prompted the writing and publication of the Declaration and Address. It seemed to Thomas Campbell that all who really wished to be followers of Christ would likewise long for fellowship with each other. Moreover, if all human obstacles could be brushed aside such a fellowship appeared inherently possible. In order to help in brushing these obstacles away the Declaration and Address was sent forth upon its mission. Although intended, primarily, for the ministers in the various churches, it was specifically addressed "To all that love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity throughout all the churches."

      The Declaration and Address grew out of a meeting held at Buffalo, August 17, 1809, which was attended by a number of persons of different religious denominations who were more or less perplexed in their views of religion. Doubtless, most of them were friends and followers of Thomas Campbell who had heard him express his convictions and who were disposed to share them with him. This countryside group meeting, which was destined to become historic, did not adjourn until it had organized the Christian Association or Washington, Pennsylvania, and had appointed a committee of twenty-one of its number "to confer with Elder Thomas Campbell to determine upon the proper means to carry into effect the important end of their association." This committee met in due time and as a result of its activities the Declaration and Address was written and published. There seems to be no question about the fact that Thomas Campbell was entirely responsible for the authorship of the document. [23]

      In a footnote to the version of the Declaration published in the Memoirs of Thomas Campbell, Alexander Campbell explains the purpose of the pamphlet after this fashion:

      This "Declaration and Address" was not the constitution of any church existing then or now, but a "Declaration" of a purpose to institute a society of "Voluntary Advocates for Church Reformation." Its sole purpose was to promote "simple Evangelical Christianity," and for this end resolved to countenance and support such ministers, and such only, as exhibited manifest conformity to the original standard, in conversation, doctrine, zeal, and diligence; such as practiced that simple, original form of Christianity expressly exhibited upon the sacred page; without inculcating anything of human authority, of private opinion, or of inventions of men, as having any place in the constitution, faith, or worship of the Christian Church; or anything as a matter of Christian faith or duty for which there cannot be expressly produced a "thus saith, the Lord, either in expressed terms, or by approved precedence."

      It may be safely inferred that Alexander Campbell, who wrote the above footnote many years after the original publication of the work to which it was attached, knew what his father had in mind when he prepared the work. Nevertheless, there exists a possibility that even he may have read into the original document something more than was intended by its author when it was written. Both of the Campbells had been led by later developments to go farther than Thomas intended when he separated from the Presbytery of Chartiers. The fundamental principles which guided the later development are all present in the Declaration and Address, but the ultimate consequences of these principles are certainly implicit rather than explicit in the document.

      When Thomas Campbell prepared the book, he was not yet ready to abandon infant baptism, or affusion, although it appears that his son was ready to do so, or, at least, was inclined in this direction. Undoubtedly, the position which both Thomas and Alexander came to take later upon these and other questions was directly derived from the principles laid down in the Magna Charta of their movement. It is only fair to say, [24] however, that these later conclusions had no place in the thought of Thomas Campbell when he began his independent work. At that time, he was still a Presbyterian in all important particulars and he would have dreaded originating any innovations which might have had a tendency to separate him from his Presbyterian brethren. He appears to have felt that there were no doctrinal questions of any importance which could possibly stand in the way of Christian union if the unscriptural and un-Christian accretions of the ages could be removed. It must have saddened his heart greatly in later years when he realized that the problem of disunion was much more formidable than it had previously appeared to him.

S it is our purpose to allow the Declaration and Address to speak for itself wherever possible, we shall reserve any extended analysis of its principles until we have the text itself to deal with. It is important, however, that we should have a reasonably clear idea of the essential principles which underlie the document before we begin its perusal. The work itself lays down thirteen propositions and consists, for the most part, in an introduction to these propositions and a commentary upon them. Unfortunately, most modern readers are so far removed from the setting of the book that the commentary which it strove to supply itself is of little use. It is for this reason that the Declaration and Address receives such slight attention from the average reader of today. It has become a religious classic and, like most other classics, it has been embalmed in the veneration produced by its own sanctity. As a result, it possesses little value for the public at large. At a time when its principles are more needed than ever before in the history of the church, it is unavailable for general use. The chief object which the present study has in mind [25] is to bring it back once more to the field of living religious literature. If this can be done, we feel assured that its influence will prove both inspiring and wholesome.

      The principles enunciated in the thirteen propositions of the Declaration may be summed up in the following statements:

      First, the essential unity of the Church of Christ.
      Second, the supreme authority of the Scriptures.
      Third, the special authority of the New Testament.
      Fourth, the fallacy of human creeds.
      Fifth, the essential brotherhood of all who love Christ and try to follow him.
      Sixth, that if human innovations can be removed from the church, the followers of Christ will unite upon the scriptural platform.

      Beyond any question, Thomas Campbell believed all of these propositions to be true and also believed that if properly presented they would win the acceptance of Christendom. Whether they have been properly presented or not, may be a question for debate, but it is certainly true that they have not yet won the acceptance of Christendom as a whole. It would not seem out of place at this juncture to briefly analyze the present-day status of Thomas Campbell's propositions.

      With regard to the first and most essential of his principles, the one which underlies all the others and which motived the preparation of the Declaration and Address, the basic ideal of Christian unity, there can be no question but that present-day religious forces are more and more drifting in the direction of Thomas Campbell. The theory of denominationalism is no longer held by the thought leaders of the Christian world. The eloquent appeals in behalf of union and the vigorous criticisms of sectarianism contained in the Declaration and Address are now being re-echoed throughout the pulpits of evangelical Christendom. It is safe to say that a large portion of the language found in the pages prepared by Thomas Campbell could be quoted verbatim and with approval by [26] the majority of present day Protestant ministers. Thus far, at least, Thomas Campbell has "arrived."

      The second and third principles are also widely accepted by the Christian forces of today. Very few religious bodies stress the Old Testament as in any way authoritative so far as the Church of Christ is concerned. Tacitly, or otherwise, most Christians agree that the essential principles of the gospel are to be found in the New Testament, and that if we live by the New Testament ideal this will be quite sufficient to prove our Christianity. Most of the accretions of which Thomas Campbell complained have already been swept away. People are quite willing to ask for no more than the New Testament contains. The difficulty now seems to be that there is a disposition not to ask for that much. Since Thomas Campbell's day, the progress of biblical criticism has led to somewhat radical developments in the thinking of many Christians. Of course, the large majority believe in the substantial authority of the New Testament text, but it is extremely questionable whether the Christian ministry at large views the sacred documents with anything like the reverence which is implicit throughout the Declaration and Address.

      Thomas Campbell was looked upon as a radical in his own day but he would be regarded as exceedingly conservative if he were alive now. Whether he accepted the prevailing theory of verbal inspiration or not, there can be no question but that he fully believed in the substantial infallibility of the text. It is just at this point that the principles which he advocated appear to be most directly imperiled. His only platform for Christian union was the Now Testament and he believed this platform to be infallible. If the infallibility of the New Testament, at least in all essential particulars, can be destroyed, it is difficult to see how his plea can avoid being destroyed with it. It may not be necessary for the modern mind to interpret the Scriptures in precisely the same way as they were interpreted in the Declaration, but [27] if the document is to be worth anything as a proposal for Christian unity, it certainly is necessary that the New Testament should be regarded as authoritative.

      Modern progress has declared quite as decisively in favor of Thomas Campbell's position upon human creeds as it has with regard to his attitude upon Christian union. It is true that most churches retain their time-worn confessions of faith but very few of them require an acceptance of these standards or even an understanding of them for admission to the church. A confession of personal faith in Christ is accepted as an adequate theological equipment for church membership in almost all evangelical bodies. It is only fair to say that most Protestant denominations adhere to their creedal pronouncements for the benefit of the clergy only, and even the clergy are apt to take many of the propositions contained in the creed with a good deal of allowance. The disposition now with the most strenuous creedal advocates is to go back to the ecumenical symbols and especially the Nicene formula as their last bulwark. These were the first human creeds produced in the church and apparently they will be the last to be discarded. Nevertheless, the logic which sweeps away the Westminster confession and the Thirty-nine Articles will in the long run accomplish the same result for the creed of Nicea. The author of the Declaration and Address is still ahead of his age upon the question of creedal reform, but the age is rapidly catching up with him. At this point again, Thomas Campbell surely scores and scores heavily.

      The fifth principle on the list is doubtless modern enough to meet with the approval of all. Certainly the trend of present day thought is in favor of eliminating the non-essential and accidental characteristics of all communions in an effort to bring together those who are genuine followers of Christ. Few people will dispute the fact that there are true Christians in all the churches. Few people, also, will question the fact that the test of Christianity in these cases is internal rather than [28] external. It seems tragic that these disciples of the Master should be kept apart by unimportant and in many cases trivial considerations; and yet when any effort is made to bring them together, the most insuperable obstacles block the way. Thomas Campbell undoubtedly believed that a return to the New Testament order in the matter of church forms and organization would bring together all who were trying to follow the New Testament ideal of life. Experience, however, seems to prove that this solution will not accomplish the end desired. There are good Christians today, from the standpoint of the Christian life, who do not want to return to the New Testament conception of the church. There are still others who claim that we cannot tell what the New Testament conception of the church is. These people cannot be brought together on the New Testament platform. It is uncertain as to just how many there are of them but whatever number there may be, there is no provision for them in the unity platform of the Declaration and Address.

      The sixth proposition has been discussed already in connection with the one which immediately precedes it on the list. It seemed unthinkable to Thomas Campbell that any real Christian should deny the absolute authority of the New Testament. This being the case, he could not understand why all Christians could not come together on the New Testament platform. The very fact that they were so widely separated simply proved that they had diverged from the common basis of the faith. If they could be brought back to this common basis, it appeared only logical that their differences should disappear. What is not taken into account in this argument is the immense influence of two thousand years of church history and development. Even when the causes which were originally responsible for schism are removed, the habits of mind and thought which the schism has engendered still remain. In order to overcome the inertia of past prejudices and beliefs, it will doubtless, require many [29] years, possibly even centuries, of definite effort. Christian unity is not as easy a proposition as it appeared to Thomas Campbell.

N the original draft of the document, the Declaration and Address is divided into three sections. The first constitutes what was styled the "Declaration," the second the "Address," and the third the "Appendix." The Appendix contains about three-fifths of the brochure, as originally published, the Address about one-third, and the Declaration about one-sixteenth. Aside from those three main divisions, the book is singularly devoid of headings, topical arrangement, or any other devices for its interpretation. The paragraph structure is, moreover, far from ideal. Indeed, the whole work is presented in a form calculated to involve it in that obscurity which has largely surrounded it from the date of its publication.

      It may appear like laying hands on the ark for any one of the spiritual descendants of the author to presume to make additions, explanatory or otherwise, in order to supply the original deficiency. Nevertheless from the viewpoint of the writer, it is better to take some liberties with an ancient document in order that the truths which it contains may be made more intelligible than it is to allow those truths to remain useless by reason of a misplaced reverence. Thomas Campbell wrote the Declaration and Address in order to mold the thinking and life of the religious communities about him. He did not care how the document was treated so long as the principles which it contained were disseminated. We pay the greatest reverence to his name when we help to extend the influence of his ideas. We shall not, therefore, apologize for the decidedly free handling which his masterpiece will receive at our hands. With the text itself we shall not take any special liberties, but we shall feel free to [30] arrange the material in such a way as to exhibit its meaning more clearly and we shall add such comment as in our judgment will assist the reader in laying hold of the great truths which the book proclaims.

      In the original edition of the work, the following prefatory note under date of Sept. 7, 1809, preceded the opening sentences of the Declaration:

      At a meeting held at Buffalo, August 17, 1809, consisting of persons of different religious denominations, most of them in an unsettled state as to a fixed Gospel ministry, it was unanimously agreed, upon the considerations, and for the purposes hereinafter declared, to form themselves into a religious association, designated as above, which they accordingly did, and appointed twenty-one of their number to meet and confer together, and, with the assistance of Elder Thomas Campbell, minister of the Gospel, to determine upon the proper means to carry into effect the important ends of their Association; the result of which conference was the following Declaration and Address, agreed upon and ordered to be printed, at the expense, and for the benefit of the society.

      Immediately following this note, the reader plunges into the main body of the document In its original form the only heading, or introductory guidance afforded by the author is contained in the caption: "Declaration, etc."

      Alexander Campbell, in the edition of the work which he re-published later, appears to have felt the desirability of some explanatory material at this point for he appended the introductory footnote on the, first page: which we have already quoted in detail. Upon two or three other occasions, he included similar comments, without, however, adding in any great degree to the popularization of the document.

      We shall now proceed with the original text with the addition of such explanatory apparatus as in our judgment is demanded in order to make it thoroughly intelligible at the present time. [31]

      The Only Way to Union.--This desirable rest, however, we utterly despair either to find for ourselves, or to be able to recommend to our brethren, by continuing amid the diversity and rancor of party contentions, the veering uncertainty and clashings of human opinions: nor, indeed, can we reasonably expect to find it anywhere but in Christ and his simple word, which is the same yesterday, today, and forever. Our desire, therefore, for [32] 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; 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. Impressed with these sentiments, we have resolved as follows:

      Appeal for Financial Support.--That this Society, relying upon the all-sufficiency of the Church's Head; and, through his grace, looking with an eye of confidence to the generous liberality of the sincere friends of genuine Christianity; holds itself engaged to afford a competent support to such ministers as the Lord may graciously dispose to assist, at the request, and by invitation of the Society, in promoting a pure evangelical reformation, by the simple preaching of the everlasting Gospel, and the administration of its ordinances in an exact conformity to the Divine standard as aforesaid; and that, therefore, whatever the friends of the institution shall please to contribute toward the support of ministers in connection with this Society, who may be sent forth to preach at considerable distances, the same shall be gratefully received and acknowledged as a donation to its funds. [34]

HE Declaration furnishes an interesting illustration of the impossibility of realizing an ideal without resorting to practical means of achievement. Thomas Campbell did not want to found a church for he felt that there were too many churches already. If any one had told him that within a hundred years his followers would number over a million and would stand fifth on the roll of Protestant bodies in America, he would have shrunk back in horror. He did not want to found a new denomination even though he had been assured that this denomination would become the most powerful and numerous of all Christian bodies. Such a consummation, to his mind, would simply have seemed like adding fuel to the sectarian fires.

      It was for the above reason that the Christian Association of Washington, Pennsylvania, was organized. Its constitution, as given above, expressly disclaims any thought of church organization. It was to work among the churches but was not itself to assume the name or functions of a church. The author of the Declaration was very explicit upon this point and held to it tenaciously until the logic of events forced him to revise his views. Just precisely what he thought he could accomplish through such an organization as the Association is difficult to say. Perhaps he never stopped to analyze the situation closely enough to think it through to its real practical details.

      The Declaration calls upon ministers in all the churches to discard their man-made creeds and customs and to come together upon the simple New Testament platform. Did Mr. Campbell think that if they were to do this they could remain in the denominations to which they belonged? If so, as Robert Richardson in his biography of Alexander Campbell, said afterward, he displayed an extraordinary degree of credulity. If, on the other hand, these ministers came out of their denominations, [35] where were they to go? Doubtless Thomas Campbell would have answered this inquiry by saying that they should go into the Church of Christ without any denominational qualification. No church answering precisely to this description, however, existed at this time. The Christian Association did not even furnish such a church. It will be seen, therefore, that the Declaration was calculated to call men and women out of the denominational churches, while at the same time expressly stipulating that it furnished no church for them to enter. A condition so anomalous could not and did not exist for long.

      The life of the Christian Association was indeed remarkedly brief and uneventful. Alexander Campbell says that upon the basis embodied in the Declaration his father succeeded in constituting two Christian congregations in the year 1810. Both of these congregations were located in Washington County, Pennsylvania. For some five years, Thomas Campbell labored as minister in charge of the two churches, being assisted in his pastoral work by Elder James Foster. Archibald Campbell, the brother of Alexander, in writing of this period in his father's history says that the greater portion of the members of the two congregations mentioned, "had been in communion with different branches of the Presbyterian denomination, from which they thought proper to secede and plant themselves upon more scriptural basis of prophets and apostles, Jesus the Christ being the chief cornerstone." The status of such a work must have been exceedingly indefinite. It was to clarify the situation that, at the close of the year 1810, Thomas Campbell made application to the Synod of Pittsburg for admission "into Christian and ministerial communion." The answer to his petition is contained in the following quotation from the minutes of the Synod for the afternoon session of October fourth, 1810:

      After hearing Mr. Campbell at length, and his answers to various questions proposed to him, the Synod unanimously resolved, that however specious the plan of the Christian Association and [36] however seducing its professions, as experience of the effects of similar projects in other parts has evinced their baleful tendency and destructive operations on the whole interests of religion by promoting divisions instead of union, by degrading the ministerial character, by providing free admission to any errors in doctrine, and to any corruptions in discipline, whilst a nominal approbation of the Scriptures as the only standard of truth may be professed, the Synod are constrained to disapprove the plan and its native effects.

      And further, for the above and many other important reasons, it was resolved, that Mr. Campbell's request to be received into ministerial and Christian communion cannot be granted.

      The comment of Dr. Richardson upon this decision is decidedly to the point. "For a party to have admitted into his bosom those who were avowedly bent on the destruction of partyism would, of course, have been perfectly suicidal." Thomas Campbell's fear of founding another denomination kept him from seeing that no existing denomination could possibly shelter him or his followers. Doubtless the alternatives before him were hard enough as they still are today, but there was only one choice possible. The fear of becoming a denomination which obsessed Father Campbell and his early associates still clings, in a measure, to their followers. They even, at times, do violence to the laws of language in order to escape from the sectarian demon which pursues them. The simple method of lower casing a capital D has been used to achieve the end desired with apparently no consideration of the fact that such linguistic antics hardly serve to disguise, to say nothing of changing, the actual situation.

      It seems paradoxical to talk of an undenominational denomination and yet that is precisely the solution which was forced upon the Campbells and which is still forced upon their successors. Lack of clearness, at this point, in the thinking of certain leaders among the Disciples has more than once been responsible for cutting the sinews of their work. For fear of being regarded as a denomination, these well intending brethren have diffused their energies into a species of amiable interdenominational fog. As a result, the [37] undenominational plea which depends for its success upon vigorous denominational activity has lost ground in their hands. If the experience of Thomas Campbell, at the very beginning of our history, proves anything, it proves that without a definite and persistent program of practical church organization there is no hope of realizing the ideal which we have placed before us.

      In the autumn of 1813, Thomas Campbell moved to Guernsey County, Ohio, where he engaged in farming and, at the same time conducted "an English mercantile academy. " While thus engaged, he delivered a series of weekly addresses upon "The Christian Institution" to such audiences as could be induced to listen to them. It is the testimony of his son that "the religious mind of the community was so strongly attached to their respective church establishments" that his father labored with "but little apparent success." Discouraged by the failure of his efforts, in the autumn of 1815 the elder Campbell moved to the city of Pittsburg where he again attempted "to constitute a worshiping congregation upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets." It was here also that he opened another "mercantile academy," in which building his parishioners met on the first day of the week to break the loaf. Here again he was doomed to failure so far as any extensive influence upon the community was concerned. The little group which he gathered around him was unable to support his work and feeling that he might be more useful in another field, in the fall of 1817 be moved to Kentucky. Here he came in contact with the Baptist churches and was received with very considerable cordiality. The chief obstacle to his teaching which presented itself was the almost universal belief in the mystical plan of conversion which existed not only in one but in almost all the orthodox denominations. While Mr. Campbell gave full value to the mystical element in religion, he looked upon conversion as essentially an ethical and rational process dependent [38] upon a change of will on the part of the convert. He gained some adherents in Kentucky but accomplished nothing permanent. As a result, in the autumn of 1819 he moved back to Washington County, Pennsylvania, and located in the vicinity of the two congregations which he had planted some ten years before.

      After the lapse of a decade, Thomas Campbell was surprised to find that the principles, which he had so fondly hoped would be received with joy by the Christian world at large, had secured the acceptance of only six small congregations, numbering in all not more than two hundred souls. Moreover these six churches, in 1815, had united with the Redstone Baptist Association and were regarded by their contemporaries as members of that denomination. It is true that the terms upon which the union was constituted left the little group, under the direction of the Campbells, free to practice their own religion in their own way, but even with this stipulation they found their position uncomfortable. The situation reached a climax when Alexander Campbell delivered his celebrated "Sermon on the Law" in the early fall of 1816. Such was the opposition to this discourse among the Baptist leaders that the Campbells only escaped excommunication by withdrawing prematurely from the Redstone Association and uniting with the Mahoning Baptist Association on the Ohio Western Reserve. In the course of another decade, under the fiery evangelistic preaching of Walter Scott, the churches belonging to this group definitely launched the independent propaganda of the Disciples of Christ. With their convictions, they could no more have remained in the Baptist fellowship than their leaders had been able to remain in the Presbyterian fellowship. Occasionally certain well intending brethren who are not conversant with the facts express their regrets because of the failure of our fathers to stay with the Presbyterians or the Baptists. Those who have read the history of this early period with care know only too well how [39] utterly impossible was any such consummation of the Campbells' program.

      With the launching of the independent movement, so ably directed by Walter Scott and his associates, the Christian Association of Washington County, Pennsylvania, came to an end. Although for some years before its existence had been purely nominal, it had nevertheless served Its purpose. It proved as clearly as experience can prove anything that the new wine cannot be put in old bottles and that the finest idealism, in order to achieve results, must be reduced to a practical basis. It would be well for those who believe in the program of Thomas Campbell to profit by his experience. Doubtless conditions in the religious world today are different from what they were at the beginning of the nineteenth century. Nevertheless, the same general principles which were applicable to the field of religion at that time are still worthy of consideration. There is nothing so far as the writer can see, in the developments of the past hundred years to invalidate the lessons taught by the early history of the Declaration and Address.

HE Declaration, from the note which it strikes in its first sentence down to the last word in the last section of the document, is definitely and distinctively Protestant. It begins its argument by an assertion of the right of private judgment which Luther fought for so staunchly in the sixteenth century and which has been the heart of the Protestant gospel ever since. The statement of this fundamental principle by Thomas Campbell not only includes the right but also the duty of personal judgment and action. He stakes his whole case upon this vital principle. The situation in the Christian world at large, and especially "in this western country," emphasizes the responsibility which is laid upon all Christians "not only to think but also to act."

      The stern Puritanical background of Thomas Campbell's theology comes out clearly in this [40] pronouncement. It is as though he feels himself, in the spirit of the old prophets, divinely commissioned to go about his new work. There is something about the opening sentences of the Declaration which makes one unconsciously recall that oft repeated expression of the Old Testament "and the word of the Lord came" to this or the other prophet. No doubt Mr. Campbell would have been the last man to assert any inspiration of this character as characterizing his own activities. Nevertheless, the prophetic note clings to his words and history will afford him a place among the latter day prophets in the annals of the church.

      Not only does the Declaration assert the essentially Protestant principle of the right of private judgment, but it also emphasizes what has been called the formal principle of the Reformation; that is, the supreme authority of the Scriptures. Campbell was a disciple of Chillingworth in that he asserted that the Bible and the Bible alone is the religion of Protestantism. The Bible, interpreted freely in accordance with the individual or rational conscience and judgment, furnishes the religious standard of the Declaration. The Bible is authoritative for Thomas Campbell in the fullest sense of the word, but he will not be bound by "any human interpretation" of the text. Critics of Mr. Campbell, at this point, have urged that his one principle contradicts the other, that is to say that both the Scripture text and the personal judgment of the individual cannot be authoritative. If we make the latter supreme, it reduces the other to unimportance and vice versa. This is the favorite argument of what are sometimes called the "inner consciousness advocates." Their position is that there can be no authority beyond individual conscience and judgment inasmuch as these must determine the meaning of Scripture and therefore possess the ultimate and final word. It is quite trivial, they say, to speak of the Bible as the only authority when by that expression you mean always the Bible as [41] interpreted by this or the other person. Where there is no common standard of interpretation there is no common standard of authority. To talk, therefore, of the Scriptures as supreme, and private judgment as also supreme is to talk nonsense. The Scriptures are authoritative only as you and I interpret them for ourselves, and since I am not bound by your interpretation nor are you bound by mine nor either of us by any other man's, there is no such thing as any common Scripture. I have a Bible and you have a Bible and the other man has a Bible and our Bibles are all different because they are the result of the play of separate intellectual processes upon the text. This being true, we must either give up one thing or the other. We must affirm the authority of the text as interpreted by some definite common principle (the method of Roman Catholicism) or we must assert the right of private judgment as absolute and independent of any other consideration.

      We have stated the argument against Mr. Campbell's position somewhat in detail because it appears to be a matter of perennial importance. Protestantism has indeed sought to escape from the dilemma in various ways. The earliest method is what may be called the symbolical; that is, the attempt to unify scriptural interpretation by means of creedal documents. The period of the Reformation, as is well known, was the great creed-making epoch in the history of the world. The reason for this universal desire to write creeds on the part of the revolutionary forces of Christendom is not difficult to find. They had taken the Scriptures as their only authority in opposition to the Catholic dogma of the supremacy of the church. In addition they had asserted the primacy of the right of private, judgment. Both doctrines made excellent shibboleths but displayed a tendency, as we have seen, to contradict each other. In order to reconcile them, the Protestant churches resorted with new enthusiasm to the old Greco-Christian panacea of formulating a creed. This creed was supposed to represent the consensus of the private [42] judgments, concerning the essential truths of Scripture, of those who accepted it. Hence, the creed, in the shape of a written constitution for the church, took the place of the Roman Catholic dogma. Theoretically there can be no question but that the Protestant solution was inferior to the Catholic. Crystallized dogma, in the shape of a static and absolutely authoritative creed, is less efficient and workable than the ever shifting and adaptable infallibility of the Vatican. The latter theory makes provision for the changing content of the age while the former theory does not. Hence Catholicism, as a working method, has a superior principle of authority when contrasted with the Protestant dogma of the Bible as interpreted by a static creed.

      Of course Protestantism escaped from the dilemma by repudiating in practice what is asserted in theory. Its numerous creeds in no way interfered with the practice of private judgment on the part of their adherents. People accepted the creed and interpreted it as they pleased. What therefore was intended to serve as a universal method of interpretation and in this way to guarantee authority to the text of Scripture proved to be quite worthless. The Scriptures and the creed alike were interpreted by each individual to suit himself and there was no one who could say nay, Hence, the net result of the creedal experiment was to bring thoughtful Protestants back to the point from whence they started, that is the absolute authority of the individual judgment independent of any external consideration whatever.

      What solution of the Protestant enigma are we to gather from the platform put forth by Thomas Campbell. It is quite obvious that he rejects in toto the creedal method which he saw clearly enough had been definitely discredited by past experience and history. On the other hand, he is a thorough-going Protestant and certainly manifests no sympathy with the Roman Catholic idea of centering authority in the Church. [43] Still further, he indicates no disposition to surrender either private judgment or the authority of the Scriptures. How, then does he reconcile the two? The answer to this question lies at the very heart of the religious movement which arose, in large measure, as a result of his teachings.

      The first consideration which it is necessary to keep in mind in order to understand the doctrine of authority embodied in the Declaration and Address is the belief of its author in the substantial infallibility of what may be called "the common mind." Both Thomas and Alexander Campbell believed in a universal reason which makes possible unity of thought on the part of individuals. This common reason or common mind, when applied to the Scriptures, would necessarily yield the same interpretation and in this way guarantee unity of thought and action. Both of the Campbells rejected the idea that any individual judgment with regard to the Scriptures should be considered authoritative, but they were assured that the judgment of the common mind or the universal reason could not be mistaken. Hence the Scriptures, interpreted as above indicated, constituted for them an infallible and universal authority.

      Doubtless some one is asking at this point how the common mind is to be detected, and what guarantee we can have in any given ease that our individual private judgment coincides with the universal reason. Mr. Campbell would unquestionably have answered the question by an appeal to the intellectual majority. Whatever the great bulk of thoughtful men agree upon as touching the interpretation of Scripture is doubtless an expression of the common mind upon the subject. Alexander Campbell was rather addicted to quoting the expression vox populi vox dei in his debates and public addresses. What he meant by this quotation was simply that the voice of human intelligence as a whole [44] expresses the voice of universal reason and, therefore, the voice of God. It was to this common mind that the Campbells always made their appeal with regard to the various theological positions which they occupied.

T all comes back to this: Reason when given a fair play and a free field, is from God and expresses the divine nature, if not in the highest, certainly in one of its highest forms. Now the Scriptures which are God's word given to man by direct revelation can only be interpreted aright by the divine reason which is God's gift to man for guidance in all the varied activities of life. Of course this divine reason in some cases, and doubtless to a certain extent in all cases, is distorted and obscured by individual passions and prejudices. Herein lies the failure of anarchistic private judgment as a standard of truth. The individual mind is apt to be circumscribed and hemmed in by petty and local considerations which do not permit the universal reason to have full sway. When a large number of minds are taken into account, however, the petty particularities of the individuals who constitute the larger group drop out of sight or negate each other and the conclusions of the common mind stand out with clear unanimity. These conclusions are, therefore, the voice of the universal reason and represent the highest standard of accuracy possible for man.

      That the above analysis correctly interprets the Campbells' idea of authority in religion is abundantly confirmed by an appeal to the concrete historical facts in their experience. For example, the question of baptism was decided by them entirely upon the basis of what they believed to be the verdict of the common mind in the matter. Careful study of the subject convinced Alexander Campbell, and later his father, that the overwhelming consensus of the thoughtful scholarship of the world is in favor of the idea that immersion [45] was the New Testament form of baptism. This being the case, the universal reason had spoken upon the subject and there was nothing to do but to accept its conclusions. It was not because Thomas Campbell, as an individual, or Alexander, as an individual, reached his own separate and individual conclusion upon the matter, but rather because they saw their conclusions harmonizing with the great body of scholarship of the world that they proclaimed what has been styled the "immersion dogma." It was only because they felt that the universal mind had spoken at this point that they committed themselves so unreservedly to the position in question. It should always be remembered that there is not today, and has not been since the time of the Campbells, any real dispute on the part of the world's scholars with regard to the above question.

      What is true of baptism is true of every other point in the program of the Campbells. They were not willing to stress any consideration which did not clearly have the voice of the common mind behind it. They practiced the weekly observance of the Lord's Supper because they believed that New Testament precedent was in favor of it, and also because the practice was of great utility in holding together the congregations, especially when they were weak and unable to secure a regular minister. Inasmuch as the common mind had not spoken upon this question with any degree of definiteness, however, they did not make it in any respect a "dogma." The same thing was true of the congregational polity which they adhered to as preferable to any other, though not as absolutely authoritative. Upon the question of human creeds their position was the same. The common mind, as represented in the practically unanimous voice of scholarship, has agreed that a simple confession of faith in Christ as the Messiah and Redeemer of the world was the only creed known [46] to the New Testament era. Hence the Campbells rejected all human creeds.

      If the doctrine of the universal reason is accepted, there is no reason why the Scriptures, as interpreted by this principle, should not be regarded as the ultimate authority in religion. Such a viewpoint means something far more than simply the assertion of the infallibility of private judgment. It rises from the separateness and particularity of the "inner consciousness" theory to the broad field of prophetic revelation interpreted and made clear from age to age by the ever living and universal reason which guarantees all civilization and progress. That reason itself is indeed not the last word. The last word is revelation interpreted by reason. It is this sort of interpretation to which Thomas Campbell makes his appeal in the Declaration and Address.

      It is scarcely necessary to emphasize the vital connection which the above theory of authority involves in dealing with the matter of Christian union. The Campbells, while fully alive to both the folly and the sin of sectarianism, as so many pages in the Declaration and Address bear witness, were discriminating enough to see the uselessness of talking about Christian union without proposing any definite plan for Such union. There is not the slightest scintilla of evidence that either of them was ever guilty of the logical fallacy of advocating an end without at least suggesting a possible means of achieving it. The supreme merit of their contribution to the Christian union problem lies precisely in the fact that they furnished a definite and concrete proposal by which unity could be obtained. Of course, they recognized the fact that the only hope for securing the common sentiment which is indispensable for any real unity depends upon the possession of the common mind by Christians of all groups and parties. If the scattered partisans of Christendom can be brought to [47] recognize and accept the dictates of the universal reason, there is no adequate ground for separatism. Any sort of unity which does not involve the thinking together, presupposed in the possession of the common reason, the Campbells saw was hopeless. With patchwork compromises in matters of faith or lowest common denominators which pare down truth until it becomes invisible, they had no patience. Religion demands not the minimum but the maximum of truth made available by the strenuous application, of the divine reason to the data of inspiration furnished in the Scriptures. When people think together in the broader intellectual fellowship of the universal reason, they will be ready to unite effectively in all the varied fields of Christian activity. Until this intellectual fellowship can be secured, it is useless to talk about Christian union.

      The Christian world at large, a hundred years after the time of Thomas Campbell, still debates the problem of church unity.

      We believe that if the Christian forces ever get together, it will be upon the broad lines involved in the philosophical background of the Declaration and Address. [48]

[TCUO 13-48]