N the month of October of 1809, at some place on the National Pike in Pennsylvania, there was a happy reunion of the Campbell family. Thomas and his son, Alexander, met after a separation of nearly two years. Both had changed during that time, very materially in religious outlook, and surprised each other by confessions on the way. Father Campbell related his experiences with Chartiers Presbytery and the Associate Synod, and read to the son from the proof sheets of the "Declaration and Address." The younger man was delighted with what he heard, and expressed himself as ready to enter heartily into maintaining its positions before the world. It will be seen that the son had no share in shaping the document, but we are informed that he did press upon his father some of the things, which he felt were logical conclusions from "Where the Scriptures speak, we speak; and where the Scriptures are silent, we are silent," and the propositions of the "Declaration and Address." The chief of these matters was in respect of infant baptism and immersion or the act of baptism.

      Even though there was but one group meeting and one meeting-house, Thomas Campbell looked for the growth of the Christian Association and the [125] need of a trained ministry. Therefore he began to train his own son in ministerial studies, and also set lessons for two other persons who showed some promise. Richardson relates (Memoirs of Alexander Campbell, Vol. I., p. 325ff.) that in the year 1810, some regular Presbyterians, ministers among them, urged upon Thomas Campbell that he make overtures to the Synod of Pittsburgh and try to make an "ecclesiastical union" with it. He agreed to an effort, and on October 14 he made his presentations. The petitioners spoke, at length and answered some questions, but the Synod unanimously resolved not to receive him and his association. It also criticized the plan as one that would promote divisions, degrade ministerial character, provide for the free admission to any errors in doctrine and to any corruptions in discipline. Under the phrase which the, Synod used in connection with its rejection, "Many other important reasons," lurked something that stirred Mr. Campbell. He understood that his character was in question, and so on the following day he appeared and asked the Synod the import of the phrase. He was furnished with the assurance that no question of immorality was involved, but matters about the confession of faith, and the impossibility, according to Presbyterian Church rules, of Synod's forming connection with any ministers, churches or associations. There were two other reasons that they assigned which are of particular interest. The first was, the Synod pointed out, the petitioner's inconsistency in declaring that the [126] baptism of infants is not authorized by Scripture, precept or example, and is a matter of indifference, yet administering that ordinance while holding such opinion; and again, his temerity in encouraging or countenancing his son to preach the gospel without any regular authority (Richardson's Memoirs, Vol. I., p. 328).

      What an unhappy lot was Thomas Campbell's at that time! A vision secured of a better state of the church, that it should have no divisions, and that creeds, main producers and perpetuators of divisions, should be relegated to an unauthoritative place! Yet with such vision his own original church refused to retain him. With such vision the Presbyterian Church refused to receive him. It was not in his heart to establish another sect or party. Existing parties would make no place for him, unless he smother his vision and begin to speak again the party shibboleths. The adherents of the Christian Association increased in number, and the building of a second meeting-house was called for. The reading of the "Declaration and Address" had not produced the results that its framer had hoped for. Instead of moving churches more toward unity and fellowship with others, it seemed to set them more fixedly in their disunity. That his plea for unity, brotherhood and tolerance was scriptural and of Christ, Mr. Campbell was thoroughly convinced. He could not renounce it except by beginning to walk in the darkness; nor could he be silent about it and be a good prophet of God. Consequently the way was not backward, but [127] forward in hope. He was to learn that the uprooting of religious prejudices and the changing of religious bodies was not the task of a few months. It has been claimed by some students of the Restoration movement that if the son, Alexander, had not come upon the scene of activity at this time, the cause would have withered and died. Possibly so. Yet who knows? The course of the father up to this time had been one, of energy and courage. He had stood without quailing before the princes of the church. He was in the prime of life. Why think that he would have changed and retired, just another disappointed soul? It is not to the father's discredit that he had a son of outstanding talent and of boundless energy who came to his aid in a great task, and who assumed, in a large degree, the direction of the effort at Christian union.

      In 1811, Thomas Campbell left the, town of Washington in which he had located his family, and established himself and them on a farm not far from Mt. Pleasant, where the second meeting-house had been erected. On March 12 (before the removal from the town) he had lost from the family circle by marriage, his son Alexander, who had gone to live with his father-in-law on a farm near West Liberty, Va. As the time for the May meeting of the Christian Association drew on, a step that was undesirable, but seemingly inevitable, was prepared for. Paragraph IV. of the plans for that organization declared

"That this society by no means considers itself a church, nor does at all assume to itself the powers peculiar to such [128] a society. . . . but merely as voluntary advocates for church reformation."

The events since October, 1809, and the attitude of church members to whose attention the thoughts and plans of the Christian Association were brought, convinced Thomas Campbell that the, Association must resolve itself into a church. Accordingly this was done at the May meeting. The congregational type of organization was followed. Thomas Campbell was designated as elder, and four deacons were approved. The church issued to Alexander Campbell a license to preach. The elder at first betrayed his habit and training by seeking to use as a test of the faith and fitness of the members, this question, "What is the meritorious cause of a sinner's acceptance with God?" This did not survive long. Weekly observance of the Lord's Supper began to be practiced. The failure of three persons who had been thought of as regular members, to partake brought to light the fact that they had not been baptized, and they were desirous of being immersed. After due consideration, Mr. Campbell agreed to do the immersing. On July 4, 1811, he plunged under the water two men and one woman, but not in the usual way The, pool was deep and overhung by a large tree. Upon the roots thereof Mr. Campbell stood as he said the words of the formula, and then submerged the heads of the candidates, for they were already immersed to their shoulders. Just as the Synod of Pittsburgh had charged him with inconsistency in performing infant baptisms in his present state of mind and teaching, so [129] some members of the Brush Run Church charged him with failing in consistency when he immersed although not immersed. And in addition, his style of baptizing was the unaccustomed. This ordinance became the subject of more and more study in the church. It came home with inescapable force to the young traveling preacher, for so we must term Alexander at that time. He, had been married on March 12, 1811, and on March 13, 1812, his wife had brought forth a daughter. What should he, they, do with respect to the infant--have her baptized or refrain from it? As never before, he took up the study of the question. The result was that he was entirely convinced that the right and permissibility of infant baptism were without authority in the Scripture, and, in addition, gained the sure conviction that scriptural baptism meant immersion only. This latter knowledge drove him to secure as soon as possible a baptism that would stand the test of the Scriptures. We must conclude that conversation and study about baptism had been going on in his father's home also. A sister, on the day when Alexander had come to inform his father and family about his newly gained conviction, spoke about her own dissatisfied mind, and feeling that she had never obeyed the Lord in baptism. He told his father and others that he was on the way to secure the Rev. Matthias Luce to baptize him. The father made no effort to intervene in the subject, only calling attention to what had been the attitude of the fellowship up to that time, and [130] saying at the close, "You must please yourself." He did suggest that the son and the baptizing minister should call by on the day that they should set (Richardson's Memoirs, Vol. I., p. 395ff.). Was that the moment when the father capitulated in the matter of baptism? He never alluded to the day and hour so far as we have record, unless it was in the long sermon that he preached on the occasion of his baptism. The set day was June 12, 1812, and the place that which Thomas. Campbell had already used as a baptistery. The greatest surprise of the day was that the father and his wife came with suitable changes of clothing. And the father took the lead in justifying his act in accepting what was new and had been up to that time a matter of indifference. It was a seven-hour service, and seven persons were immersed. It was novel also in that Alexander Campbell had stipulated that Mr. Luce should use the preposition "into" instead of the customary "in" in the formula, and that nothing but a simple confession of faith should precede. It was further well understood that they were not being baptized into the Baptist Church. A large concourse of people witnessed the baptisms and heard the sermons. The next Lord's Day thirteen other members of the Brush Run Church requested believers' baptism. In a short time that church became one of immersed believers, for those who did not receive immersion concluded that they belonged elsewhere. So baptism met those reformers as it had been meeting reformers from the first days of deviation from the scriptural declarations. [131] Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, Wesley, each and all had to face the subject of baptism. While they declared their beliefs as to the scriptural teaching, they made their decision so as to practice in conformity with existing creeds and current practice. The Campbells faced baptism and decided contrary to their old creed and current use. Without the Scriptures we might think that baptism was a device of the evil one to plague the church, to cause discussion and division among Christians, to turn thought from the inner things of the spirit to an external rite. Some believers have so treated it. But since baptism stands buttressed by language, the example of the apostles and the unmistakable command of the. Head of the church, why should it not be looked upon as His device for union and spiritual blessing? It seems quite apparent to the writer that the Campbells, having taken the Scriptures as their sole rule of faith and practice, could not have done otherwise with respect to baptism. [132]

[TCSCUA 125-132]