N the analysis of the Declaration and Address, which we are now following, the introductory statement, styled by Thomas Campbell himself the "Declaration," may be considered as Part One of the completed document. This section we have already outlined and discussed in detail. We come now to Part Two which may be appropriately entitled "The Necessity for Christian Union." This division, the author himself styled "The Address. "In the edition of 1809, it is headed as follows:

Dearly Beloved Brethren,

      The "Dearly Beloved Brethren," above referred to, were the ministers in all churches and especially in the Presbyterian fold to whom Thomas Campbell thought his arguments would make special appeal. The author then proceeds with his main argument:

      Should we speak of competency, viewing the greatness of the object, and the manifold difficulties which lie in the way of its accomplishment; we would readily exclaim, with the apostle, Who is sufficient for these things? But, upon recollecting ourselves, neither would we be discouraged; persuaded with him, that, as the work in which we are engaged, so, likewise, our sufficiency is of God. But, after all, both the mighty and the many are with us. The Lord himself, and all that are truly his people, are declaredly on our side. The prayers of all the Churches, nay, the prayers of Christ himself (John 17:20, 23), and of all that have ascended to his heavenly kingdom, are with us. The blessing out of Zion is pronounced upon our undertaking. "Pray for the Peace of Jerusalem; they shall prosper that love Thee." With such encouragements as these, what should deter us from the heavenly enterprise, or render hopeless the attempt of accomplishing, in due time, an entire union of all the churches in faith and practice, according to the Word of God? Not that we judge ourselves competent to effect such a thing; we utterly disclaim the thought; but we judge it our bounden duty to make the attempt, by using all due means in our power to promote it; and also, that we have sufficient reason to rest assured that our humble and well-meant endeavors shall not be in vain in the Lord. [55]

E now begin the central portion of Thomas Campbell's argument. The "Declaration," as he styled it, was intended solely for introductory purposes and by way of apology for the main thesis. The author then turns to the full statement of his position and advances in of the arguments which he deems necessary to support his new departure.

      The first point which he makes is that unity with God and fellowship with each other is the "grand design" and "native tendency" of the Christian religion. There can be no question but that in this central proposition he strikes the highest possible level. Unity and love are the cardinal characteristics of the Gospel and when the Church fails to manifest them it proves recreant to its supreme trust. This fact is often forgotten in our consideration of the problem of Christian union. We are apt to be very conscientious with regard to subsidiary and subordinate items of the faith and not at all conscientious about the sin of schism which touches the very heart of our religion. Thomas Campbell is on sure ground in his emphasis upon the supreme place of unity in the scheme of redemption.

      Perhaps nowhere else in irenical literature do we find such a vivid impeachment of the exceeding sinfulness of sectarianism as is presented in the opening sections of the Declaration and Address. Even a treble exclamation point cannot satisfy the author in his desire to make clear the evils of division. One feels as he reads his words that the experience of Mr. Campbell must have been of such a character as to influence him most profoundly. There is nothing academic or theoretical about the language which he uses. He cites particular cases, "large tracts of country entirely destitute of a gospel ministry," "Churches so weakened" that they cannot send out missionaries and the laity so divided that they "will not receive" those who by chance may come to [56] them. Special reference is made to the Lord's Supper, which is characterized as pre-eminently the ordinance which symbolizes the unity of the Church of Christ. Thomas Campbell was not a sacramentarian and his special stress upon the eucharist must be understood as due to a simple desire to give the sacrament its rightful place in the scheme of formal religion.

      It is the moral aspect of disunion which impresses the author of the Declaration and Address most profoundly. There are "grievous scandals," "visitations of judgment," "the weak are caused to stumble," the graceless and profane "are hardened," "the mouths of infidels opened to blaspheme religion," and the gospel of Jesus is "reduced to contempt." Those who have had access to the early history of America at the beginning of the nineteenth century will readily understand that these are not exaggerated statements. Because of its sectarian divisions, the Church was becoming more and more enfeebled and unable to cope with the moral evils of the time. Following the War of Independence, a flood of skepticism swept over the country and brought with it a marked deterioration in the public morals. This period of moral and religious decline had reached its lowest level shortly before Mr. Campbell came to America. The condition of the Church pictured in the opening pages of the Declaration and Address is strikingly true of the facts narrated in the history of the time.

      While there is little direct reference, to the subject, there can be no question but that Thomas Campbell intended to give a distinctly premillenarian color to his appeal for Christian union. It is obvious that he does not accept the idea that things are to get worse until the end, for if this had been his view he would not have sent forth the Declaration and Address upon its mission of reconciliation. At the same time he appears, quite clearly to have identified the events of current history with the predictions of the Apocalypse. The [57] Declaration and Address, it will be recalled, dates from the year 1809. This was the time when Napoleon's power was at its height. He had become emperor in 1804, had overthrown the Austrians and Russians at Austerlitz in 1805 and had completely crushed Prussia at Jena in 1806. In 1807 the treaty of Tilset, which probably marked the highest point in his career was signed. The few years which followed saw Napoleon the undisputed lord of Europe. Intensely hated as he was by the peoples of other nations and especially by the English, the French emperor, in the eyes of many devout Christians, was clearly identified with the Beast spoken of in the book of Revelation. This is undoubtedly the meaning of the reference which Mr. Campbell makes in his argument to "the devoted nations that have given their strength and power unto the Beast." Evidently he looked for still greater convulsions on the continent in accordance with the word of the prophecy. "No adequate reformation can be accomplished," he says, "until the word of God be fulfilled and the vials of his wrath poured out upon them" (the nations).

      Along with this somewhat pessimistic interpretation of history, there is a striking note of optimism in the emphasis upon the possibilities of a rebirth of Christianity in the new world. Here there is no union of Church and State such as hampered religious freedom abroad, nor is there any entangling alliance with foreign nations which would be calculated to plunge the country into the maelstrom of old world politics. Thomas Campbell sees in all of these things an opportunity for a restoration of essential Christianity and for getting rid of the sectarian divisions which had become hopelessly crystallized across the seas. He seems to have dreamed of a united church here in America in much the same way that certain Christian leaders in the Orient are dreaming of a united Christian church in China at the present time. He is not blind to the difficulties in the way but he feels that his cause is just and [58] that there can be no excuse for hesitancy on his part in the matter of proclaiming it. There is a note of profound humility in his reference to his own "sufficiency" for the task which lies before him. "He utterly disclaims the thought" that he is competent to effect the union of the churches in faith and practice. Nevertheless he judges it to be his "bounden duty" to make the attempt, being assured that his humble endeavors will not be in vain in the Lord.

      Whatever way, then, it is to be effected, whether upon the solid basis of Divinely revealed truth, or the good-natured principle of Christian forbearance and gracious condescension, is it not equally practicable, equally eligible to us, as ever it can be to any; unless we should suppose ourselves destitute of that Christian temper and discernment which is essentially necessary to qualify us to do the will of our gracious Redeemer, whose express command to his people is, that there be "no divisions among them; but that they all walk by the same rule, speak the same thing, and be perfectly joined together in the same mind, and in the same judgment?" We believe then it is as practicable as it is eligible. Let us attempt it. "Up, and be doing, and the Lord will be with us."

HOMAS CAMPBELL was oppressed with the feeling that the movement which the Declaration and Address inaugurated might be regarded as a particular hobby of his own, or as something which did not involve Christians of all groups and classes. He therefore, takes great care to enunciate the universality of his plea for Christian union and again and again disclaims any desire to assume leadership in the work of reunion. He wishes it to be thoroughly understood that he is not seeking prominence or glory of any kind, but that he is simply trying to discharge, on his own score, an obligation which rests equally upon every other Christian. Few religious reformers have been more humble than was the author of the Declaration and Address. Although absolutely [62] fearless and courageous in the discharge of duty, he was self-effacing and possessed the New Testament spirit of meekness to an extraordinary degree.

      Mr. Campbell refers frequently in this section of the Declaration to "our brethren of all denominations." This oft repeated phrase should be sufficient answer to the accusation, sometimes made, that the Campbells did not regard the members of denominational churches as Christians and brethren. Nothing could be more foreign to the whole spirit of the Declaration and Address than such a statement. There is no assumption of superiority, no "holier than thou" attitude anywhere in the document. The author recognizes the essential Christianity of all the followers of Jesus and desires to unite them that this Christianity may have full expression for the redemption of the world. The idea that the members of denominational churches are not Christians is exactly contradictory to the whole thesis of Thomas Campbell. His fundamental presupposition is that they are Christians and because they are Christians they ought to be together. If he had not regarded them as Christians, he would not have been interested in seeing them united. No Church in christendom gives more complete and adequate expression to its belief in the catholicity of Christianity than the churches belonging to the religious movement inaugurated by the Campbells.

      It is true that the Disciples of Christ, from the beginning, have always opposed the sectarian ideal and have insisted that denominationalism, both in theory and practice, is wrong. They have never, however, disputed the essential Christianity of those who still adhere to the denominational order. They believe that these brethren are Christians in spite of denominationalism and not because of it.

      Doubtless some one is ready to remark, at this point, that the Disciple practice of requiring immersion of all who become members of their churches is not in harmony [63] with their theoretical attitude toward other Christians. Such an impression is due to a failure to understand the genius of their position. That position involves the presentation to the world of an ideal platform for Christian union. If this platform is to be worth anything at all, it must be faithfully followed. To make exceptions or to deviate from the ideal would inevitably destroy the whole plea for which they stand. That plea includes among other things the practice of a catholic ideal of baptism. Now it is conceded with substantial unanimity that immersion was not only the form of baptism which is portrayed in the New Testament and which prevailed in the Apostolic era, but it is also the only form of baptism which is universally accepted as valid by Christians of all groups and classes.

      It is through no desire to impeach the essential Christianity of those who have not been immersed, nor is it through any assumption of superiority on their own part that the Disciples of Christ adhere to the uniform practice of immersion as the form of baptism. It is simply because they feel assured that to destroy the ideality of their plea in any particular could only mean in the end the destruction of their program. for Christian union. It is quite true that the anomalous situation which results from loyalty to their principles is at times unfortunate and embarrassing. So long, however, as sectarianism prevails in the world, Christians can scarcely hope to avoid embarrassment. The way to escape from such unfortunate and unpleasant conditions, is not by compromise or by deflection from principle, but only by the ultimate and complete abolition. of the sectarian order.

      The basis of union which is indicated throughout the Declaration and Address in no wise differs from the plea which the followers of Thomas Campbell still present to the Christian world. In the language of the Declaration, the original unity, peace and purity of the Church of Christ can be secured only by conformity to the model and the adoption of the practice of the primitive church [64] as expressly exhibited in the New Testament. Any alterations which might be produced in the churches by conformity to this program, the author thinks should "neither be deemed inadmissible nor ineligible," and he adds by way of supporting his position that whatever alterations might have to be made would be in every way for the better, and not for the worse, "unless we should suppose the divinely inspired rule to be faulty or defective." So sure is Thomas Campbell that the Restoration of the New Testament Church and of the Apostolic order in general will solve the problem of union that he adds: "Were we, then, in our Church constitution and managements, to exhibit a complete conformity to the Apostolic church, would we not be in that respect, as perfect as Christ intended we should be? And should not this suffice us?"

      It has been asserted at times that the elder Campbell did not advocate the basis for unity which was later advocated by his son and by the vast majority of those who have adhered to the program of the Disciples. Thomas Campbell, it is said, believed in Christian union but was not especially interested in the restoration of the New Testament Church. It was Alexander who laid special stress upon the restoration program and thus deflected the movement inaugurated by his father from its original pathway and purpose. It is difficult to see how any one can hold such a position if he is familiar with the language and spirit of the Declaration and Address. Not only in the passages quoted above, but indeed throughout the document, the plain assumption is made that the only real and substantial hope for union lies in the restoration of the Apostolic order.

      The underlying thesis of the Declaration and Address is the belief that Christians of all parties are separated by non-essentials and that they are in reality at one, as the author said, "in the great doctrines of faith and holiness," and also with regard "to the positive ordinances [65] of Gospel institution." "Private opinion" or "human invention, Mr. Campbell regards as the chief contributing cause of disunion. Essential things, he is convinced, cannot be a matter of difference since the universal reason must secure harmonious agreement with regard to them. This is a remarkable anticipation of modern scientific analysis in the frank admission "our dear brethren of all denominations will please to consider that we have our educational prejudices and particular customs to struggle with as well as they." It is only upon the basis of the truth containing in this quotation that Christian unity can be hoped for. So long as each individual considers himself infallibly inspired and is unwilling to concede that his views, like that of others, are for the most part the product of inherited prejudices, local environment, and educational processes in general, there is not much hope for union. When we all get ready to admit that there is at least a possibility that each of us may be mistaken, the outlook will be much better for agreement.

      With regard to Mr. Campbell's contention that the chief ground of separation which divides Christians into different groups and parties has to do with non-essentials, Christian history will, no doubt, largely substantiate his position. The causes of disunion have been usually of the most trivial character. Moreover, the less significant the reasons for separation, the more intense and bitter has been the sectarian feeling which these causes have aroused. The divisions within the different Protestant denominations of America, which arose at the time of the Civil War period, furnish a case in point. Slavery has been abolished for over a half century and the overwhelming majority or people have forgotten the underlying issues of the conflict between the states, but the churches which originally separated over the war question are still apart.

      The Disciples of Christ have sometimes congratulated themselves because they did not allow the war to divide them. Lest they should become puffed up over the [66] matter, however, they have been given a thorn in the flesh--a veritable messenger of satan to buffet them. What the war could not do, the organ and the missionary society have accomplished in abundant measure. The followers of Thomas Campbell, who have done such violence to his memory as to break fellowship over such trivial nonessentials as have just been indicated, should give attention to his words in the Declaration and Address: "What a pity that the Kingdom of God should be divided about such things!" It must be obvious to any unprejudiced mind that people who could destroy the brotherhood of the faithful the ideal of unity because of a difference of opinion concerning the use of a musical instrument in worship have entirely failed to appreciate the meaning of the Declaration and Address. This is not the first nor the last time in the course of history, however, when disciples have remained true to the name while at the same time entirely repudiating the principles of their master.

      Mr. Campbell expresses his idea of Christian unity at its lowest terms in the following statement:

      With you all we desire to unite in the bonds of an entire Christian unity--Christ alone being the head, the center, his word the rule--an explicit belief of, and manifest conformity to it, in all things--the terms. More than this, you will not require of us; and less we cannot require of you.

      It seems perfectly obvious that these words preclude any scheme of union which could not claim divine authority as interpreted by the common reason of intelligent Christians. The author assumes that it is possible to know God's will in all vital particulars and that it is also possible for this knowledge to be universally recognized for what it is. In other words, God has spoken to man and has spoken so clearly that right minded people should be able to agree with regard to his message. When they do agree, it would seem to be axiomatic that they should carry out the basis of agreement. So sure is Mr. Campbell, in the main, of the substantial infallibility of his [67] platform for unity that he discusses only incidentally the possibility of its being erroneous. He is thoroughly convinced that if Christian unity cannot be secured by this means, the situation is well nigh hopeless. To use his own language:

      If no such divine and adequate basis of union can be fairly exhibited as will meet the approbation of every upright and intelligent Christian: nor such mode of procedure adopted in favor of the weak, as will not oppress their consciences, then the accomplishment of this grand object upon principle, must be forever impossible.

      It seems clear from these and other similar expressions that the restoration of the apostolic order was so appealing to the author of the Declaration and Address that he is willing to stake his entire case for union upon this platform. One sometimes wonders what he would think upon this question if he could come back to earth at the present time.

      And yet it is, after all, not quite true to the situation to say that Thomas Campbell had no misgivings about his program. Hypothetically, at least, he admits the possibility of failure. In the sentence immediately following the one which has been quoted, he says: "There would upon this supposition remain no other way of accomplishing it (Christian union) but merely by voluntary compromise and good natured accommodation." Just what the exact content of the terms "voluntary compromise" and "good natured accommodation" was, in Mr. Campbell's mind, it is of course impossible for us to say. One can hardly believe that he meant them to cover things which he regarded as essential to the gospel message. The definition of "essentials," however, is not altogether easy--would Thomas Campbell, for example, have regarded the action of baptism as essential? Here, as is true occasionally of other places in the Declaration, the author does not appear to be entirely clear in his own mind. This is not due to any special haziness of thinking but simply because he does not regard the question as sufficiently [68] important to claim much of his thought. He is so sure that all right minded Christians will unite upon the New Testament platform, if they have a fair chance to do so, that he considers it entirely futile and academic to discuss the possibility of their refusal to unite upon such a basis.

      The alternative which seemed so improbable in 1809 looms much larger after the passing of a hundred years. Thomas Campbell's platform for union has been before the Christian world for over a century and it has not yet brought about Christian union. It has no doubt had great influence in developing union sentiment and it has gathered an extremely respectable group of followers who thoroughly believe in its efficacy. Nevertheless, the end itself is not here. Union has not yet come upon "principle," as Mr. Campbell puts it. Are we then to try the other alternative of seeking union by "voluntary compromise" or "good natured accommodation"? Mr. Campbell does not definitely answer this question in the Declaration doubtless for reasons already indicated. One cannot help wishing that he had given it a little more serious thought. The natural trend of his position makes any sort of compromise impossible. He himself says that his platform affords an opportunity for union upon "the solid basis of divinely revealed truth," but he also says there is at least a speculative possibility of union upon "the good natured principle of Christian forbearance and gracious condescension." Beyond any question he regarded the former basis as far more desirable than the other, but it seems a little dogmatic to say that in the event of the former proving unsuccessful he would have given no countenance to the latter. He seems assured that however unity may come, its coming cannot be forever postponed. The Lord's people must at some time do the will of their gracious Redeemer "whose expressed command to his people is that there be no division among [69] them; but that they all walk by the same rule, speak the same things, and be perfectly joined together in the same mind, and in the same judgment."

      Not a New Creed. Let none imagine that the subjoined propositions are at all intended as an overture toward a new creed or standard for the Church, or as in any wise designed to be made a term of communion; nothing can be further from our intention. They are merely designed for opening up the way, that we may come fairly and firmly to original ground upon clear and certain premises, and take up things just as the apostles left them; that thus disentangled from the accruing embarrassments of intervening ages, we may stand with evidence upon the same ground on which the Church stood at the beginning.

HE thorough-going intellectualism of Thomas Campbell and his freedom from any sort of superstitious mysticism are illustrated in his appeal to his brother ministers not to rely simply upon prayers for union but to put forth direct effort to achieve the goal desired. It is useless, he says, "to pray for a thing and not strive [73] to attain it." Moreover he quotes from the Old Testament to prove that God commanded his people to help him to answer their own prayers. Much of the strength which the Disciples of Christ have possessed with the American public, especially in sections like the great middle west where the typical American is, perhaps, most often found, has been due to the practical character of their message. It is not without significance that the plea of the Disciples has never succeeded as well when proclaimed to races or peoples of more emotional and less practical turn of mind. Thomas Campbell himself was by no means lacking in a certain mystical appreciation, but his prevailing bent was toward the intellectual and practical interpretation of religion. On the whole, he was a pre-Ritschlian rather than a follower of Schleiermacher. He was more a disciple of Abelard than of Anselm or of Bernard. Moreover, his followers have in the main agreed with him in his theological ancestry.

      In making his appeal to the clergy, the author of the Declaration and Address failed to foresee and to take into account the greatest opposition to the reunion of the church. While the principles of Christian union have been zealously championed by ministers and church leaders, it also holds good that the stronghold of sectarianism has always been in the ranks of the clergy. Laymen in all churches today are anxious to get together, but their clerical advisers at the top keep up the denominational fences. Thomas Campbell seems to have realized the possibility of some such situation in his reference to the second chapter of Malachi. Perhaps also the very fervor of his appeal bears witness to his appreciation of the clerical bias.

      The references to "the firm ground of obvious truth" and to "the pure wheat of primary and authentic revelation" indicate the essential faith of the author in his program for Christian union. As we have seen elsewhere? his confidence upon one or two occasions appears [74] to have faltered just a little, but in the main it was thorough-going and sincere. Doubtless the rapid growth of the movement which he started helped to confirm Thomas Campbell in this faith during his later years. Whether his confidence in the triumph of his program for union would be as great if he were living today is not so clear. In any event, he would doubtless stake the success of his cause upon the question of continued belief in the authority of the New Testament scriptures.

      There is something quite modern in the appeal to unity upon earth because of the certain fact of unity beyond the grave. Nothing seems more absurd than the idea of separate heavens for the representatives of different denominational bodies. If one heaven is enough on the other side of the great divide, why should not one church be enough on this side? And, moreover, if people are good enough to go to heaven, why ought they not be good enough to belong to the same ecclesiastical fellowship here? There is perhaps no more telling or forceful plea against sectarianism than is involved in the consideration just mentioned. Nevertheless, its practical value as all argument has never been great. It is too much of a reductio ad absurdum for the average man to square his practice with it. "Of course," he says, "I suppose we shall all have to stay together in heaven, but earth isn't heaven and we are still living on earth."

      In his emphasis upon the value of conference and Christian association as a means to union, Mr. Campbell was in advance of his age. Nothing, however, could have been truer than his statement "until you associate, consult and advise together; and in friendly and Christian manner explore the subject, nothing can be done." Modern movements toward unity practically all agree that the only way to make progress is by friendly association and conference. People never understand each other until they meet and discuss their differences in the spirit of fraternity. A policy of isolation is the only [75] policy for individuals or churches to follow if they wish to perpetuate their grievances against others. Very few prejudices, whether theological or otherwise, will survive the test of good-spirited fellowship. The most sectarian churches have discovered that the only way to keep their spirit of separatism unimpaired is by having absolutely nothing to do with their neighbors.

UST how far the Campbells adhered to the pre-millenarian position is somewhat difficult to determine. Beyond any question, both of them accepted the chiliastic viewpoint to a very considerable degree. Their emphasis upon a return to the New Testament order necessarily involved such an attitude for there is a good deal concerning the imminent Second Coming to be found in its pages. From the days of Montanus, it has been characteristic of reform movements in religion that they have tended toward the catastrophic interpretation of Christianity. Neither of the Campbells was disposed, however, to over-stress this phase of New Testament teaching and the Scotch common sense which characterized both of them prevented any descent into the abyss of absurdities with which modern pre-millenarianism has been so often associated.

      To attempt any infallible exegesis of Thomas Campbell's references to the fulfillment of the prophecy contained in Revelation 11 seems rather hazardous. Undoubtedly he refers to well-known political changes in contemporary history, but just which events he has in mind one hesitates to say. Somewhat lengthy experience with the ingenuity which modern pre-millenarians are capable of exhibiting in the interpretation of current history leads one to assume an attitude of caution, in this particular field. Nevertheless it may be worth [76] while to make one or two suggestions. The "two witnesses" who have arisen "from their state of political death from under the long proscription of ages" would seem to refer to two of the nations liberated by the Napoleonic conquests of the early part of the century. Just which two Thomas Campbell was thinking of is a more difficult problem. Poland, Egypt, and various other principalities might be included in the list of available interpretations. The "great earthquake" may have reference to the earthquake of Lisbon or to some other seismic disturbance of lesser significance. The "tenth part of the great city" which was thrown down will of course have to be harmonized with the interpretation of the earthquake. The anger of the nations requires no further elucidation as this was the time when the continent of Europe was convulsed by the warlike operations of the great Napoleon. Beyond any question, the obvious nearness of the Messianic age, as revealed by his interpretation of prophecy, in the light of current history had much to do with the author's optimism throughout the pages or the Declaration and Address.

      It was true of those most familiar with the facts during the Napoleonic period, as it has been true of our own contemporaries during the days of the Great War, that America in both instances came to be regarded as a peculiarly fortunate land. Thomas Campbell rejoices in the Providence which has "graciously placed us at so great a distance from the awful convulsions and revolutions that have dashed and are dashing to pieces the nations like a potter's vessel." He sympathized fully with George Washington's policy of avoiding foreign entanglements and maintaining a splendid isolation with the protecting distance of the Atlantic Ocean to safeguard our national life. There is no note of sympathy with, or interest in, the European struggles. Evidently the author considers them as simply the fulfillment of prophecy and solely as notes of warning to the rest of [77] the world. Europe furnishes a dire example by which we should profit, but we should have no further concern in the matter. This was doubtless the prevailing and typical attitude of mind of American citizenship during the early years of the nineteenth century.

      The message of the Declaration and Address is not only one of unity but also one of freedom. The author exhorts his readers to stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ has made his people free and not to be entangled again with the yoke of bondage. Here the Protestant note is struck along with the Catholic note of unity. The breaking down of sectarian barriers is not to be secured by the surrender of the dearly bought freedom of the reformation. Mr. Campbell wants unity but not unity at any price. He is willing to pay well for it but not too well. He will give up almost everything except liberty, but he stops short when the limit is reached. He sees clearly that the essential principle of Protestantism, the right of private judgment, must enter into any true or lasting program for Christian union.

      The platform which is suggested in the Declaration and Address and which will be discussed in detail later, it will be observed, is essentially tentative. Thomas Campbell was sensitive in the extreme with regard to the assumption of leadership in a matter of such significance. Over and over again, he emphasizes his own unwillingness to be regarded as the leader of the new movement. "We by no means pretend to dictate," he says, and then goes on to call attention to the necessity for the contribution of the united talent of the church in order that the great project which be suggests may be carried out. All through the philosophy of the Campbells, there is a fundamental denial of Carlyle's doctrine that history is made up of the biographies of a few great personalities. It is the common voice of the collective reason which carries authority with it rather than the strident note of a single individual. Of course the Campbells believed in the value [78] of personality and the necessity for leadership, but there was nothing autocratic in their conception of either term. They had immense faith in democracy, in the rationality of the average mind and they believed that progress is made best by the slower movement which is involved in the consensus of many minds, than by the flashlight program of individual genius. As we have mentioned previously, this supreme confidence in the practical infallibility of the universal mind is the distinguishing characteristic of Thomas Campbell's philosophy. It is impossible to understand the logic of his position without recognizing this underlying principle.

      It is both interesting and striking to note that the belief of the Campbells in the authority of the common mind is in reality the Protestant doctrine of infallibility as opposed to the Catholic doctrine of the inerrancy of the Vatican. Catholic Modernists, like Loisy and Tyrrell, claim that the Roman dogma means the same at bottom as the Protestant. In other words, the Vatican ought to represent the collective mind of the Church as a whole instead of the views of a small coterie or of a single individual, the Pope. Father Tyrrell, in his recently published Letters, expresses this interpretation again and again. The Pope, he says, is simply the spokesman of the united sentiment of the Church. Since this sentiment speaks the voice of the common mind of Catholic Christendom, it is as nearly infallible as is possible for human beings. We can ask for no greater degree of inerrancy. Tyrrell's view, it will be observed, is substantially the same as that of Thomas Campbell with the exception that the latter would not have approved of the Catholic form of expression. Still if the Vatican actually embodied the common mind of Christendom as a whole, the Campbells, no doubt, would have accepted its interpretations. Of course as Tyrrell is regretfully forced to admit, the Vatican does not even reflect the common mind of Catholic Christendom. The best proof of this fact is found in the excommunication [79] of the Modernists by papal decree. Tyrrell himself was not allowed to be buried in consecrated ground and his doctrines were put on the Index. Nevertheless, the striking confirmation of the underlying philosophy of the Campbells by the brilliant protagonists of Roman Catholic Modernism is exceedingly significant. If the Vatican should ever approach the doctrine of infallibility urged by Tyrrell and Loisy, it will come desperately close to furnishing a basis for union upon which all Christians can stand. Until it is willing to do this, there appears to the writer to be absolutely no hope for agreement.

      If the Catholics have not yet accepted the doctrine of infallibility put forth in the Declaration and Address, the same thing may be said of the vast majority of Protestants. It is true that the real significance of the Campbells' position has, perhaps, never been understood by the overwhelming majority of those whom they hoped to reach. It is questionable, indeed, whether the full implications of these principles have been understood by the majority of those who have been their nominal advocates. Nevertheless, truth is truth, and nothing is more certain than the fact that the basic principle of the Declaration will some day become the acknowledged standard of a united Christendom. Only in this way can science and religion march hand in hand, something which must be true of the future history of both of them. The days of superstitious and autocratic authority are past. The days of the divinely rational authority are yet to come. Here and there, a few people, like Tyrrell and Loisy, recognize the significance of these things even in the very presence of the most autocratic imperialism. Others, under more favor the circumstances, are rapidly coming to see the same thing. When the vision becomes more perfect and more universal the barriers of sectarianism will fall, and the goal which the Declaration and Address proposes will be achieved. [80]

      PROPOSITION 1. That the Church of Christ upon earth is essentially, intentionally, and constitutionally one; consisting of all those in every place that profess their faith in Christ and obedience to him in all things according to the Scriptures, and that manifest the same by their tempers and conduct, and of none else; as none else can be truly and properly called Christians.

      Proposition One of the Declaration contains its most important statement and may be regarded as the keynote of the position taken by its author. It asserts the necessary unity of the Church of Christ and also defines who are and who are not Christians.

      There is perhaps no statement in the whole round of Christian union literature which is more justly famous than the declaration of Thomas Campbell, "that the Church of Christ upon earth is essentially, intentionally, and constitutionally one." It ranks along with Chillingworth's maxim, "the Bible and the Bible alone is the religion of Protestants," and the still more famous word of Meldenius, "in things essential, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity." The emphatic and comprehensive character of Mr. Campbell's definition is indicated by the three adverbs which he uses. The word "essentially" carries with it the idea that unity is no extraneous or insignificant feature of the Church but that it belongs to the very essence, as the Scholastics used to put it, of the concept. In other words, a divided Church is a contradiction in itself. The only true Church of Christ must be a united Church. The very structure, the underlying substance, as it were, of the whole Church idea requires unity. The denominational theory of the Church is therefore erroneous and without foundation. At this point, Thomas Campbell is at one with the High Church interpretation which makes unity, [81] along with catholicity, holiness, and apostolicity, one of the essential marks of the Christian ecclesia.

      In asserting the "intentional" feature in the unity of the Church, Thomas Campbell brings in the element of purpose quite in harmony with his Presbyterian forbears. Church unity did not grow up of itself nor is it to be regarded as a product of natural selection in the religious world. The Church, in other words, possesses a divine norm, or standard, which was deliberately given it by its Author and which, for this very reason, cannot be improved upon. Unity is one of the distinguishing characteristics of the divine plan for the Church. Schism is a sin and doubtless one of the greatest sins which a follower of Christ can commit. To destroy the unity of the Church means to destroy its essential program and plan for the salvation of the world. Any one who does this deliberately is using his energies to thwart the very purpose for which Jesus came into the world and for which he gave up his life on the cross. Christian unity, because it is "intentional" and not accidental or casual, places a supreme obligation for its realization upon Christians of all parties and classes.

      The idea involved in the word "constitutionally" is structural or political rather than metaphysical or mystical. The underlying philosophy involved in Christian union is brought out in the word "essentially." The mystical and sacramental feature is embodied in the word "intentional," and the political and organizational elements in the word "constitutional." The Church of Christ has a constitution, a definite structure, an organization which it must maintain in the world. It belongs to the very warp and woof of the organization that it should be unitary. The ideal of a federation of churches, for example, violates the "constitutional" unity of the body of Christ. There is no place in the political framework of the ecclesia for separate [82] denominations or sects. The Church is a seamless robe and not a Joseph's coat of many colored patches.

      Thomas Campbell's definition of a Christian will hardly be contested even by those who may refuse to accept its practical implications. It stresses the ethical note and makes character a test of faith. There is some ambiguity in the expression "obedience to him in all things according to the Scriptures," but it should be remembered that it is the "tempers and conduct" of the individuals in question which determine the reality of their obedience. It is interesting, in this connection, to note that the author of the Declaration does not, along with Augustine and Calvin, make the criterion of election fundamental in defining the Church, nor does he, along with Cyprian or Aquinas, make baptism the dividing mark, but rather assigns to character and conduct the place which so many theologians have given to election and baptism. At this point he is more of a Socinian than he is a Catholic or a Calvinist. At the same time, it is to be noted, that he makes a profession of faith in Christ and open obedience to him essentials. This means, of course, church membership of some kind or other. To belong to the Church is, therefore, necessary in order to be a Christian, but even if you are a church member and fail to manifest your faith by your temper and conduct, you cannot be truly and properly called a Christian. There is in all this the stern moral background which was characteristic of so many of the independent churches of the Reformation.

      PROPOSITION 2. That although the Church of Christ upon earth must necessarily exist in particular and distinct societies, locally separate one from another, yet there ought to be no schisms, no uncharitable divisions among them. They ought to receive each other as Christ Jesus hath also received them, to the glory of God. And for this purpose they ought all to walk by the [83] same rule, to mind and speak the same thing; and to be perfectly joined together in the same mind, and in the same judgment.

      This proposition must be understood in connection with Proposition One. Although there is only one Church of Christ, there are of necessity many local churches or congregations. These groups are to be united, not through any ecclesiastical overlordship but in the common bond of brotherhood and love. The congregations are "to receive each other as Christ Jesus has received them, to the glory of God." This, of course, involves a great deal more fraternity than exists today in the nominally Christian world. The fact that Thomas Campbell did not contemplate a mere unity of sentiment or of practical co-operation is clearly indicated by his reference "to minding and speaking the same thing," and to the necessity "for being perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment." When Christian union comes, it will have a definite basis of rational agreement upon essentials and will not be a mere co-operation in various forms of service.

      PROPOSITION 3. That in order to this nothing ought to be inculcated upon Christians as articles of faith; nor required of them as terms of communion, but what is expressly taught and enjoined upon them in the word of God. Nor ought anything to be admitted, as of divine obligation, in their church constitution and 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.

      In this famous passage, Mr. Campbell lays down his fundamental doctrine that the Scriptures as the Word of God constitute the only authority for the Church. This was of course the fundamental Protestant position, from Luther's time on down, but it was modified by creedal statements, in almost all Protestant churches, to such an extent as to be practically nullified. Lutherans looked toward the Augsburg Confession and Luther's [84] Shorter Catechism for practical guidance in religious matters more than they did toward the Bible itself. The same thing was true of the Calvinists and the Westminster formulation. Every denomination had its own creed, its own catechism, and usually its own prayer book or other devotional literature. All of these "rules of faith" claimed to be based upon the Scriptures and yet all of them disagreed in such fashion as hopelessly to divide their adherents. Thomas Campbell wished to brush away all of these man-made causes of schism believing that if Protestants, at least, could all get back to the Bible and the Bible alone they would once more be united. We recognize today that this belief was perhaps too sanguine. Nevertheless, it is quite true that there can be no hope of unity so long as denominations hold fast to their confessions, creeds, and rituals which date after the post-apostolic period. We may not be able to get together on the New Testament, but it is quite certain that we shall never get together on any creed or confession of purely human formula.

      PROPOSITION 4. That although the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are inseparably connected, making together but one perfect and entire revelation of the Divine will, for the edification and salvation of the church; and therefore in that respect cannot be separated; yet as to what directly and properly belongs to their immediate object, the New Testament is as perfect a constitution for the worship, discipline, and government of the New Testament church, and as perfect a rule for the particular duties of its members, as the Old Testament was for the worship, discipline and government of the Old Testament church and the particular duties of its members.

      The doctrine of the complete authority and inspiration of both the Old and the New Testament is quite definitely asserted in this proposition. Nevertheless the author clearly indicates that the Old Testament has nothing whatever to do with the worship, discipline and [85] government of the Church of Christ. Alexander Campbell emphasized this distinction still more fully in his famous Sermon on the Law. Both father and son were in advance of their age and the heresy of the latter at this point practically led to his excommunication by the Redstone Baptist Association of which he was at that time a member. It seems peculiar today that a century ago Protestant Christians should almost universally have regarded the Old Testament as verbally authoritative for Christians, but such was the case. Of course the progress of modern criticism has made the Campbells' position thoroughly conservative in the light of present day knowledge. It should not be forgotten, however, that it was anything but conservative at the time when it, was promulgated.

      PROPOSITION 5. That with respect to the commands and ordinances of our Lord Jesus Christ, where the Scriptures are silent as to the express time or manner of performance, if any such there be; no human authority has power to interfere, in order to supply the supposed deficiency, by making laws for the church; nor can anything more be required of Christians in such cases, but only that they so observe these commands and ordinances, as will evidently answer the declared and obvious end of their institution. Much less has any human authority power to impose new commands or ordinances upon the church, which our Lord Jesus Christ has not enjoined. Nothing ought to be received into the faith or worship of the church; or be made a term of communion among Christians, that is not as old as the New Testament.

      This section is somewhat awkwardly constructed and may seem, at first sight, to be an attempt to limit the power of the Holy Spirit in the interest of a narrow legalism. The purpose of the author, however, is not one of constraint but of freedom. He is trying to emphasize the fact that where there is no express word of authority in the New Testament for church forms or ordinances, the individual Christian is left free to observe them as he may deem proper. Any attempt to curb his freedom in this particular is a violation of the [86] spirit of the New Testament and should be condemned. The real point to the paragraph is found in the last sentence which asserts that nothing should be made a matter of faith or a test of communion amongst Christians which is not as old as the New Testament. Here again Mr. Campbell sweeps away, at one stroke, the whole structure of post apostolic dogma.

      PROPOSITION 6. That although inferences and deductions from Scripture premises, when fairly inferred, may be truly called the doctrine of God's holy word: yet are they not formally binding upon the consciences of Christians farther than they perceive the connection, and evidently see that they are so; for their faith must not stand in the wisdom of men; but in the power and veracity of God--therefore no such deductions can be made terms of communion, but do properly belong to the after and progressive edification of the church. Hence it is evident that no such deductions or inferential truths ought to have any place in the church's confession.

      This is one of the most important sections of the Declaration. It teaches the place and value of theology in the Christian economy and also emphasizes the progressive character of the Church. Theology, as Mr. Campbell sees clearly, can never be made authoritative for the reason that it is progressive in its nature and by the very law of its growth must be constantly getting out of date. Nevertheless theology is useful because it involves progress in thought and in the higher intellectual life of the Christian. Thomas Campbell was too much of a scholar to decry the value of scholastic investigation. He believed in theology but he did not believe in making its conclusions a test of fellowship among Christians. He believed in the progressive nature and character of the Church, but also believed that in the New Testament Scriptures we have an ideal which can never be outgrown. [87]

      PROPOSITION 7. That although doctrinal exhibitions of the great system of divine truths, and defensive testimonies in opposition to prevailing errors, be highly expedient; and the more full and explicit they be, for those purposes, the better; yet as these must be in a great measure the effect of human reasoning, and of course must contain many inferential truths, they ought not to be made terms of Christian communion; unless we suppose, what is contrary to fact, that none have a right to the communion of the church, but such as possess a very clear and decisive judgment; or are come to a very high degree of doctrinal information; whereas the church from the beginning did, and ever will, consist of little children and young men, as well as fathers.

      Proposition Seven is only a continuation and extension of the principal idea contained in Proposition Six. It emphasizes the uselessness of creedal standards as tests of fellowship by calling attention to the fact that the Church has always been made up of people who could not understand highly technical statements and therefore could not be included in the group if such standards were set up. Of course this consideration is acknowledged today by the churches which possess elaborate doctrinal symbols in their distinction between the ministry and the laity. In other words, the minister alone is supposed to understand and subscribe to the creed. A much simpler statement of faith is sufficient for church membership. Bishop Gore, in his advocacy of the Nicene formula as the creedal basis for the United Church, at the Geneva meeting of 1920, made this distinction very clear. He wanted all of the ministry to pledge allegiance to the Athanasian view of the Trinity, but did not wish to require such a pledge from the church membership as a whole. The justification of this position lies in the belief that if you can control the thought leaders of a movement it is easy to control their followers. Nevertheless there is a certain absurdity in permitting one class of people to become Christians upon a thought basis differing from that of another class. It is nowhere said in the New Testament that [88] the apostles should believe anything not required of their followers. There is one creed for all Christians alike so far as the apostolic order is concerned.

      There can be no question but that the attitude assumed toward human creeds in the Declaration and Address is somewhat more generous and tolerant than was the later position of Alexander Campbell. In the superb polemic against man-made standards of faith contained in the debate with Rice, the younger Campbell is much more vigorous in his opposition than was true of his father four decades earlier. Doubtless controversy had helped to steel the convictions of both the reformers and especially of the one in the forefront of the conflict. The fact remains, however, that there is no position in the entire program of the Restoration which is more rapidly gaining in popular favor than its attitude upon dogmatic creeds.

      PROPOSITION 8. That as it is not necessary that persons should have a particular knowledge or distinct apprehension of all divinely revealed truths in order to entitle them to a place in the Church; neither should they, for this purpose, be required to make a profession more extensive than their knowledge; but that, on the contrary, their having a due measure of Scriptural self-knowledge respecting their lost and perishing condition by nature and practice, and of the way of salvation through Jesus Christ, accompanied with a profession of their faith in and obedience to him, in all things, according to his word, is all that is absolutely necessary to qualify them for admission into his Church.

      If it is not necessary for one to know everything about religion in order to become a member of the Church, it is obviously clear that he ought not to be required, as Thomas Campbell says, "to make a profession more extensive than his knowledge." The essential things involved in the idea of church fellowship are:

      (1) The consciousness of sin.
      (2) The acceptance of salvation through Jesus Christ.
      (3) Willing obedience and open profession of faith in harmony with the teaching of God's word. [89]

      These three considerations have always been accepted as basic and fundamental by church leaders of all parties. Repentance, faith, and obedience represent salvation at its lowest terms. Upon this question, the author of the Declaration and Address is at one with the universal judgment of Christendom.

      There is one statement in proposition eight which indicates the adherence of Thomas Campbell to a dogma which he afterwards gave up. We refer to the doctrine of original sin. He speaks of the "lost and perishing condition" of those who are sinners "by nature and practice." The words "nature" and "practice" can hardly be understood otherwise than in the usual theological distinction between "original" and "positive" sin. Later on, Thomas Campbell was brought to see that "original sin" involved a moral contradiction and, therefore, surrendered it along with the practice of infant baptism.

      PROPOSITION 9. That all that are enabled through grace to make such a profession, and to manifest the reality of it in their tempers and conduct, should consider each other as the precious saints of God, should love each other as brethren, children of the same family and Father, temples of the same Spirit, members of the same body, subjects of the same grace, objects of the same Divine love, bought with the same price, and joint-heirs of the same inheritance. Whom God hath thus joined together no man should dare to put asunder.

      The essential brotherhood of the church or, as the old reformers put it, of "the elect" has always been very orthodox in theory if not in practical observance. As to the apostolicity of the doctrine, there can be no question. If the Early Church was anything, at all, it was a brotherhood. The supreme test of loyalty in the martyr days was the embodiment of this principle. Tertullian says that the heathen could not understand the single hearted devotion of Christians to each other and kept exclaiming in amazement "See how these [90] Christians love one another!" Of course the apostolic injunction, "By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples if ye have love one to another" lay back of this practice. There was nothing about the anarchic and discordant situation, in which Thomas Campbell saw the Christians about him plunged, which so disturbed him as the universal disregard of this fundamental principle. He rightly saw that the very heart of the Christian religion is involved in the problem. Christians who do not love each other are not Christians in the true sense of the word, and any system of church relations which fails to foster the spirit of brotherhood must have something radically wrong about it. The followers of Christ constitute the great family of the faithful. This family must be held together by the ties of love and devotion. Assuredly, this is the most elementary consideration in any true view of the nature and character of the Church of Christ.

      In proposition nine, again, we have an echo of the Calvinistic theology to which Mr. Campbell adhered. It is only those "that are enabled through grace" to make a profession of their faith who have a place in the company of the elect. It is true that the test of their calling is to be found "in their tempers and conduct," but this fact does not interfere with the predestinarian dogma. No doubt, the author's consciousness of the evil of disunion was all the more poignant because he believed in the doctrine of election. It seemed inconceivable to him that those who had been foreordained by the grace of God to eternal salvation should be so unappreciative of this grace and of their own high calling as to be unwilling to live on terms of brotherhood with each other.

      PROPOSITION 10. That division among the Christians is a horrid evil, fraught with many evils. It is antiChristian, as it destroys the visible unity of the body of Christ; as if he were [91] divided against himself, excluding and excommunicating a part of himself. It is antiscriptural, as being strictly prohibited by his sovereign authority; a direct violation of his express command. It is antinatural, as it excites Christians to contemn, to hate, and oppose one another, who are bound by the highest and most endearing obligations to love each other as brethren, even as Christ has loved them. In a word, it is productive of confusion and of every evil work.

      The curse of schism. has never been emphasized in stronger or more emphatic language than it is in the above paragraph. It is denounced (1) as anti-Christian, (2) as antiscriptural, and (3) as antinatural. It is anti-Christian because the Church, in itself, constitutes the body of Christ. Division in the Church, therefore, means division in Christ's own body, something which seemed peculiarly abhorrent to the reverential temper of Thomas Campbell. The Hegelian Absolute had not yet been proclaimed when the Declaration and Address was written. Moreover, it is doubtful whether either of the Campbells took much interest in it when it was finally launched upon the philosophical world. Those who accepted the idea, however, would not have felt disturbed over the schism in the body of the Church. If God, or the Absolute, includes everything there is within himself, he surely includes all kinds of schisms. If this is true of the Absolute, in a smaller way it may be true of the second person of the Trinity. Of course to those who, like the writer, do not accept the Absolute position in any form, Thomas Campbell's arguments still hold good. A church made up of warring fragments is as useless and as contradictory as is a deity molded after the same fashion.

      The antiscriptural nature of this union is easily made out. Aside from the direct reference in the seventeenth chapter of the Gospel of John, the universal tenor of Christ's teaching is against schism. There is no scriptural authority for church divisions on the basis of any sound critical exegesis. It is true that in the older days extreme denominationalists occasionally sought out [92] isolated texts which might be twisted into an endorsement of separatism. Even this unfortunate practice has now largely fallen into disuse. There are few principles more widely or universally accepted nowadays by Christians of all classes than the fact that the scriptures teach the fundamental unity of the church.

      The antinatural character of disunion appears as the climax of the argument. Church divisions cause Christians to sink lower in the scale than those who are deprived of the privileges of religion. It is unfortunately true that hatred, jealousy, and strife are often manifested in their most extreme forms by professing Christians. The lack of unity which characterizes the followers of Jesus is largely responsible for this situation. Thomas Campbell is not guilty of exaggeration when he speaks of disunion as "a horrid evil" and accuses it of being "productive of confusion and of every evil work."

      PROPOSITION 11. That (in some instances) a partial neglect of the expressly revealed will of God, and (in others) an assumed authority for making the approbation of human opinions and human inventions a term of communion, by introducing them into the constitution, faith, or worship of the Church, are, and have been, the immediate, obvious, and universally acknowledged causes, of all the corruptions and divisions that ever have taken place in the Church of God.

      It may be questioned whether the language used in proposition eleven is entirely free from exaggeration. No doubt to Thomas Campbell's mind the chief and, in fact so far as he could see, the only real causes of division are as he has scheduled them. In the light of the past hundred years' history, however, we are coming to see that disunion is a much more complex affair than would at first sight appear. Beyond any question, the reasons assigned by the author of the Declaration and Address for the prevailing lack of unity in the Church largely hold good today. Nevertheless, it would seem [93] that they are not sufficiently inclusive to explain the entire situation. Let us note briefly what these causes are as they are given in proposition eleven.

      The first cause of disunion, we are told, is "a partial neglect of the expressly revealed will of God." Of course, this statement, doubtless, holds good in certain instances. We think it only fair to say, however, that disagreements between Christians frequently arise when all parties concerned are trying to obey the will of God as they see it. For reasons which Mr. Campbell himself has mentioned, even good people do not always interpret "the revealed will of God" in the same way. So long as there are different interpretations, there will be divisions. These can only be removed when all those who are involved in them come to recognize the fallibility of their own judgments and the possibility of error on the part of any or all of them.

      The second reason for division is the introduction "into the constitution, faith, or worship of the church" of "human opinions and human inventions." No doubt this cause is and has been largely operative throughout the course of church history. It seems rather extreme, however, to speak of this item in conjunction with the one mentioned above as constituting "the immediate, obvious and universally acknowledged causes of all the corruptions and divisions that ever have taken place in the church of God." We question whether Mr. Campbell, if he were alive today and were rewriting his platform, would use precisely the same language in Proposition Eleven which he used in 1809.

      PROPOSITION 12. That all that is necessary to the highest state of perfection and purity of the Church upon earth is, first, that none be received as members but such as having that due measure of scriptural self-knowledge described above, do profess their faith in Christ and obedience to him in all things according to the Scriptures; nor, secondly, that any be retained in her communion longer than they continue to manifest the reality of their [94] profession by their temper and conduct. Thirdly, that her ministers, duly and scripturally qualified, inculcate none other things than those very articles of faith and holiness expressly revealed and enjoined in the word of God. Lastly, that in all their administrations they keep close by the observance of all divine ordinances, after the example of the primitive Church, exhibited in the New Testament; without any additions whatsoever of human opinions or inventions of men.

      Proposition twelve contains the summary of the church program outlined in the Declaration and Address. It will be observed that there are four features mentioned in the outline.

      (1) That only professed believers who acknowledge the authority of the Scriptures should be received into church membership.
      (2) That only those who live a Christian life shall be retained in the church fellowship.
      (3) That the ministry which is to be scripturally qualified is to preach nothing except that which is expressly enjoined in the word of God.
      (4) That the Church ordinances and ritual shall be observed as in the apostolic days.

      Of these four considerations, only the first and the last were retained in the practice of the Restoration Movement, at least in the sense in which they are here used. The second consideration, in modified form, has force today but certainly not in the rigid sense in which Thomas Campbell intended it. As for the third item, there are no limits imposed upon the ministers who preach for the Disciples of Christ aside from such considerations of honesty and decency as may be necessary in order to secure a hearing.

      PROPOSITION 13. Lastly. That if any circumstantials indispensably necessary to the observance of divine ordinances be not found upon the page of express revelation, such, and such only, as are absolutely necessary for this purpose should be adopted under the title of human expedients, without any pretense to a more sacred origin, so that any subsequent alteration or difference in the observance of these things might produce no contention nor division in the Church. [95]

      Proposition thirteen opens the way for human expedients in promoting the work of the Church. It will be observed that Mr. Campbell is decidedly hesitant about the admissions which he makes. He is so conscious of the part which purely human considerations have played in promoting church divisions that he does not wish to open the door to further dangers. Nevertheless, he is not quite ready to admit that every demand of the modern age in the field of religion is specifically met in the sacred writings. He safeguards his doctrine of expedients, it will, be observed, by a full recognition of their fallible origin and by permitting full opportunity for amendment or alteration if such should be, needed.

      Alas! then, what reasonable prospect can we have of being delivered from those sad calamities, which have so long afflicted the Church of God; while a party spirit, instead of bewailing, is everywhere justifying, the bitter principle of these pernicious evils; by insisting upon the right of rejecting those, however unexceptionable in other respects, who cannot see with them in matters of private opinion, of human inference, that are nowhere expressly revealed or enjoined in the word of God. Thus associated, will the friends of peace, the advocates for Christian unity, be in a capacity to connect in larger circles, where several of those smaller societies may meet semi-annually at a convenient centre; and thus avail themselves of their combined exertions for promoting the interests of the common cause. We hope that many of the Lord's ministers in all places will volunteer in this service, forasmuch as they know it is his favorite work, the very desire of his soul.

HE Declaration and Address was not regarded by its author as a fixed or infallible platform for Christian Union. On the contrary, it was primarily intended to clear the way for some more hopeful program than the religious outlook presented when it was written, Mr. Campbell says that the sincere intention of his propositions is simply "to prepare the way for a permanent scriptural unity amongst Christians by calling up to their consideration fundamental truths, directing their attention to first principles, clearing the way before them by removing the stumbling blocks--the rubbish of ages which has been thrown upon it."

      There is nothing in all this to indicate that the author wished to assume any air of infallibility of inerrancy. He makes his appeal simply to the common sense, or as he calls it "the right reason," of Christians everywhere and asserts his entire willingness to adopt some other program if his own tentative suggestions should not be able to stand the test. At best, he regards his platform as only "preliminary" and covets discussion and [99] criticism. He says that if his work is defective either from the point of view of its adequacy or its complete rationality that it should be "corrected and amended" until it becomes "sufficiently evident, adequate and unexceptionable." In all this there is the manifestation of that scientific temper which has always characterized the Disciple movement at its best.

      Restoration advocates have doubtless understressed the mystical element in religion, but there is no Church in Christendom which in its fundamental genius and character is more closely allied to the scientific spirit. It is this fact which, in the judgment of the writer, gives the greatest promise for its future. The scientific materialists, on the one side, and the dogmatic traditionalists, on the other, both have their faces set toward destruction. The religion which both the present and the future demands must be one which in the spirit of the real scientist seeks the truth hand in hand with honest investigation, to the end that humanity may find the perfect freedom of the sons of God. Thomas Campbell manifests precisely this spirit when he asks that his program shall be examined with rigor, "with all the rigor that justice, candor and charity will admit."

      The question of authority comes up again in the rather ironical reference to the idea that his propositions should not be discounted because "they have not proceeded from a General Council." According to the old Catholic view, infallibility rested with the decisions of the General Councils. Later this doctrine was somewhat modified, at least in practice, by the inclusion of the Pope as a sharer in the burden of infallibility. By the decrees of the Vatican council of the last century, infallibility was vested in the Pope alone so that there would appear to be no more necessity for the Roman Church to call a General Council, unless such action should be taken as a matter of expediency on the part of the Vatican itself. [100]

      Thomas Campbell, in the spirit of the Reformation, appeals from the ecclesiastical decisions of popes and cardinals to what he considers the more certain infallibility of the common mind as the latter is found embodied in the Christian thought of the church membership as a whole. Truth is truth with him whether it proceeds from a council or from a parish priest. Moreover, the only test of truth is its universal acceptance by right thinking people everywhere. In taking this position, he is not asserting the infallibility of numbers. He says very distinctly "it is not the voice of the multitude, but the voice of truth that can produce rational conviction and acceptable obedience." The common mind, the universal reason, is not always incarnate in the prejudiced and turbulent mass of humanity. It is, however, always present in the thoughtful consensus of the majority of intelligent, candid, and honest seekers after truth. These are the people whom Mr. Campbell styles "real Christians of every denomination." He is perfectly willing to submit his case to this sort of jury. He submits it with all the more confidence because he feels assured that truth has no ground for fearing such a test and it is truth alone which he seeks.

      At bottom, it may be said that there is not, after all, very much difference between this idea of authority and the theory which vests infallibility in a General Council. A General Council ought to be made up of just the type of people to whom Thomas Campbell is making his appeal. Were this the truth, no objection could be taken to the Council. Unfortunately, however, as so many honest Catholics themselves have admitted, candid seekers after truth are the last people who gain admission to the ecclesiastical tribunals. The voice of "right reason" must be sought for elsewhere. It is this voice to which the author of the Declaration and Address appeals. "Union in Truth," he says, is his motto. Moreover, he broadcasts this motto "In the Lord's Name." This attitude is far removed from the idea of [101] compromise which, as we have noted elsewhere, is vaguely hinted as a possible ground of union in an earlier section of The Declaration.

      After all, Thomas Campbell's motto remains about the last word on the subject. Any union not founded upon truth must obviously come to naught. Moreover, the only way to discover truth is by that frank and candid to the common reason which theologians, like Mr. Campbell, and scientists, like Newton and Kelvin, have always regarded as the ultimate touchstone. In a somewhat blundering sort of fashion, the ecclesiastical leaders of the world are slowly heading toward the same position. The proposed World Conference on Faith and Order and other similar gatherings represent efforts in this direction. The value of such gatherings lies in their educational emphasis. The only way to bring the common mind of Christians to bear directly upon the great issues involved in the problem of Christian union is by gradual educational enlightenment. The process is slow and laborious but it is the only course which promises permanent results. The unity of the Scriptures and the unity which Thomas Campbell advocated is one based upon the bedrock of truth as discerned and recognized by the right reason of Christians of all lands and in all parties.

      The latter part of The Declaration reads a great deal like a sermon. We usually think of the Campbells as reserved and without especial emotional appeal. Alexander Campbell himself rarely made a gesture while speaking and depended almost entirely upon his superb command of language and thought in order to secure the results he desired. The concluding sections of the Declaration and Address, however, possess the quality of an exhortation. Thomas Campbell appeals, exhorts, quotes Scripture, beseeches, does in fact everything that Wesley or Whitefield might have been supposed to do under similar circumstances. He invites those who are near to join the Washington County Association and [102] those who are farther off to organize similar associations of their own. These organizations are to meet monthly in order to pray and to plan for Christian union.

      Looking at the situation today, after the lapse of a century, we are constrained to say that these invitations and exhortations deserved better success than they achieved. Very few people joined the Washington County Association and practically no other associations were ever organized. Far-reaching as the Declaration and Address has proved in its later influence, it fell almost unheeded upon the religious life of its day. People did not take the trouble to criticize it or oppose it for the simple reason that nobody read it. This, however, has been the lot of some of the greatest books in the world, Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, the Magna Charta of modern philosophy, among the rest of them. Works which are ephemerally popular are soon forgotten. Works that are too thoughtful and significant to catch the popular eye live on. The Declaration and Address still lives.

      One wonders whether the plan suggested in the Declaration and Address might not still be a worth while suggestion for the Christian world. If "our brethren of all denominations would meet at least once a month to beseech the Lord to put an end to our lamentable divisions, to heal and unite his people, that his church may resume her original constitutional unity and purity" it might be a good thing. Such meetings would probably do more good than a host of ecclesiastical conferences on the part of the "higher ups." Christian union, when it comes, must come from the bottom and not from the top. Thomas Campbell proposed to start in the right way, that is with the local group. It has long been the opinion of the writer that the rank and file of most of the Protestant denominations would welcome this sort of getting together if their leaders would consent to them. Such simplicity, however, does not appeal to the [103] ecclesiastical mind. Only "duly accredited" officers of distinction, bishops, or other dignitaries dare meet together to confer about unity. If the common folk were to get together, something might happen. There is no danger that anything will ever happen with the ecclesiastics. There are too many fences to be kept intact, too many offices to be safeguarded, too many jealousies and prejudices that dare not be dropped. The common people would think of none of these things and would, therefore, be in a position to unite, but the common people never get together. Thomas Campbell appealed to the clergy. He knew that be had to reach the lay mind through them. We know that, too, as the result of much experience, and we also know that Thomas Campbell's appeal has been largely in vain.

      All through the Declaration and Address there is a splendid commingling of the two principles of freedom and unity which represent the two hemispheres of a real catholic Christianity. The author pleads for freedom "in matters of private opinion" and "of human inference" at all times. He does emphasize the absolute authority of the divine word but he also admits the principle of human reason as its only interpreter. In all matters where the universal reason does not agree and thereby secure unanimity, he is sure that freedom is required and must be given. Upon this platform there would seem to be no reason why unity should not be achieved. Upon essentials, right reason will always give unanimity. Where such reason fails to secure agreement, it is obvious that we are dealing with non-essentials. In the nature of the case, therefore, there ought to be no insuperable obstacle in the way to union. Theoretically, there is none. Practically, as we have discovered by sad experience, the obstacles are innumerable. Satan hindered Paul when he wanted to visit the Church at Thessalonica in order to unify and encourage their work. Satan still hinders the process of unification and encouragement. [104]

      There is something about the very insistency of Thomas Campbell's appeal to the clergy which causes one to feel that he was not altogether sure of his confidence in them. Some of the expressions are so strong as almost to appear ironical. Of course there is not the slightest ground for believing that there is even a touch of sarcasm in the words. Certainly there could have been no such thing in the mind of the author. It is a peculiar commentary upon the failure of Christ's ministers in the all-important matter of promoting union that we can scarcely read these words today without giving them an ironical emphasis.

      Peace be with all them that love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity. Amen.

HE concluding section of The Declaration and Address presents no new note of argument but does intensify the plea for a fair hearing, urged earlier in the document. The author pleads earnestly with his brethren for an impartial attitude on the part of those who cannot immediately agree with him. He is again careful to claim no personal superiority for himself, resting his case entirely, as before, upon an appeal to the "right reason" of his brethren. He has no fear but that his message will prevail unless "through inattention or prejudice" his words "fail to produce their proper effect." He has supreme confidence in the substantial unanimity of the decisions of reason when the voice of the latter can be fairly invoked. If for any reason his conclusions should fail to stand the test, he wants it understood that he is perfectly willing to give them up. His attitude here, and elsewhere throughout The Declaration, is precisely that of the honest seeker for truth in any department of science. Huxley himself could have asked for nothing fairer than such a proposition. Doubtless the followers of Thomas Campbell have not always understood or [108] observed this underlying principle of his plea. Nevertheless the writer believes it is fair to say that the genius of their movement has, at all times, embodied this ideal and still embodies it to a degree not often appreciated.

      The new platform for unity appears to its author to be infinitely more hopeful than any other proposition before the Christian world. It is well to remember that at this time there was no other proposition available aside from the invitation to complete surrender and submission held out by all the competing parties. Any or all of these invitations look quite as hopeless today as they did a century ago. If we must wait for unity until some one of the present denominations or parties in Christendom swallows all of the others, we shall doubtless wait a long time. It was the fear of adding another party to the already too numerous parties which held back the Campbells from any definite attempt at organizational propaganda for two decades.

      The parallel between the divided Church and the warfare of the nations during the Napoleonic period was evidently as appealing when The Declaration and Address was written as is a similar parallel with the World of 1914 today. Probably the conclusion drawn by Mr. Campbell holds good for the present also. World peace, like religious peace, can never be secured by partisan struggle. Only in the ordered and harmonious adjustment of relations as a whole can the goal be achieved. Nationalism in politics and denominationalism in religion were born together and must die together before unity arrives in the world field.

      In the very last section of The Declaration, the author touches upon the historic incident which was the occasion of the document's production: "How to love and receive our brother; as we believe and hope Christ has received both him and us, and yet refuse to hold communion with him, is we confess a mystery too deep for us." The argument in these words is conclusive. If the [109] communion table, which is above every other ordinance in the Christian religion, the symbol and embodiment of the ideal of unity and brotherhood, is to be made a means of perpetuating division, surely the gospel is perverted at its very source. It was the criticism of his practicing open communion which led Thomas Campbell to take his stand in behalf of Christian union. Whether he would have taken this position had conditions been less aggravating, one cannot say. Beyond any question, upon the basis of Presbyterian practice at the present time, he might have lived and died within the fold of that church. Like many another reform movement, the plea of the Campbells gathered momentum and its outlook became enlarged as its independent career developed. Denominationalism is infinitely less bitter today than it was a hundred years ago, but the ideal of Christian union is still far away. Were the elder Campbell to come back, we feel sure that he would regard our present situation as one which calls for the proclamation of the divine program for unity quite as urgently as was true in his own day.

      The last words of The Declaration and Address are climactic in their appropriateness and in their enduring value. The ultimate test of discipleship is unity through love. The ultimate guarantee of power for the church is the same type of unity. Whatever we may think of the validity of Thomas Campbell's program, we dare not impeach the underlying principles which dictated its proclamation and which still give power to its message. [110]

[TCUO 51-110]