WHAT ALEXANDER CAMPBELL WAS TRYING TO DO
By Leroy Garrett

What Alexander Campbell was trying to do made him a man of action as well as ideas. His activity was as diverse as it was effective. He was among the first to engage in scientific farming on the American frontier.¹ He conducted a publishing business that issued hundreds of thousands of tracts, magazines, books and hymnals for almost half a century. He was the editor of two religious magazines, and issued a number every month for 43 years without missing a single time. These journals circulated in every state in the Union, and reached across both the Atlantic and the Pacific, putting the editor in touch with readers in many countries of the world, including New Zealand and Australia.² This was a rare opportunity for his day, for these publication ventures began as early as 1823.

In our day when men are so conscious of communication, even as an educational philosophy, Alexander Campbell should be remembered as a pioneer in this aspect of our nation’s culture. Not only was he a voluminous letter-writer, corresponding with people around the world, but he also traveled throughout the expanding frontier, as well as abroad. A lecture tour that totaled 3,000 miles and lasted for months was nothing unusual for him.³

He was a minister as well as a lecturer, an educator as well as a business man. He built Buffalo Seminary in his own home and Bethany College on his own farm. He served with distinction in the Virginia Constitutional Convention and was a frequent lecturer in political philosophy.⁴

Alexander Campbell was all this: farmer, publisher, editor, educator, college president, lecturer, minister, debater, Bible translator, teacher, politician — and even more. There was a bearing about him that gave him command of any situation. When he was walking the streets of London one day, a man who did not know him was so impressed by his commanding presence and noble mien as to be heard to say: “There goes a man who has brains enough to govern all Europe.”⁵

On another occasion in Kentucky when the pioneer in broadcloth happened to be lecturing in a suit of Kentucky jeans, an admiring lady was asked how Mr. Campbell was dressed. She replied: “In a splendid suit of black, of course, but I did not notice.”⁶ Then there is the story of the widow, who was so enthralled when she heard Campbell in her native Scotland, that she followed him to America, resolving to dedicate her life to the cause he espoused.⁷

What was the cause espoused by this attractive and versatile man? What was he trying to do? Was there a specific mission in all his prolific activity or were his goals rather vague and general?

This study proposes to answer these questions. The goals will be found to be precise and definite, well articulated and consistently pursued. The aims set forth by Alexander Campbell were those of what has come to be known as the Restoration Movement, by such reformers who preceded him as Barton W. Stone and Raccoon John Smith, whose separate movements were conjoined with his, as well as by those who immediately succeeded him in his labors.

It is in what these pioneers envisioned that those of us who are heirs of the Movement discover our own continuity in history. While it is a travesty that the heirs of a movement for peace within Christendom should have so many inner tensions and divisions, our hope lies in our common heritage. True, ours is a torn and fractured brotherhood, but all our segments have the same historic rootage. If our heritage points to peace, our destiny can point to peace.”⁸

The Goal Stated

“One great bond of union”

Alexander Campbell stated his life ambition many times in clear, unequivocal language. The following extract from a letter to the editor of the Journal and Luminary is illustrative. The editor had accused Campbell of being heretical and schismatic, as well as mercenary in his motives. As for the debate on Roman Catholicism with Bishop Purcell, the editor had accused Campbell of staging “a war on Catholics.” And so he wrote to the editor:

Might I say that you do not understand my views and efforts? I have for many years been seeking to unite all Protestant Christians on one great bond of union, as Catholic as Protestant Christendom. Even on the subject of baptism, for which I have your sincere aversion, I am perfectly catholic. I contend only for that baptism which the Greek, Roman, and English Churches equally admit as apostolic and divine; and I regret only that which is sectarian, or held by a part of Christendom, because it alienates and divides as great and as good men as this or any Other age has produced.⁹

These are the references that Campbell repeatedly sets forth in his many writings. His aim was to unite all Christians in one great bond of union. He believed the basis for this plea to be invulnerable, for it was both catholic and apostolic. He avowed he was more truly catholic than either the Greek or Roman churches, for they were Greek or Roman catholic. He was also more apostolic, for he was content with the authority of Christ and his apostles, while they insisted upon more than this as the bond of union.

The quotation reveals a wholesome attitude toward his peers. They were, after all, “as great and as good men as this or any other age has produced,” but they were alienated and divided by what Alexander Campbell spent his life fighting — sectarianism. He never manifested hatred toward any man, but how he despised the partyism that divides men! He could even say after many years of controversy: “I have found it necessary never to contemplate an opponent in the light of an enemy, or of a rival; and therefore I have not in my mind the idea of a rival or an enemy in the person of any living man.”¹⁰ But his aversion for sectarian religion is clearly manifest.

The above extract reveals another point that he often made, and that is that Christian union can be realized when all sects return to that faith and practice which they all concede to be scriptural and apostolic. Baptism by immersion, which he defended for a lifetime, is conceded by all to be apostolic. It is the other forms of baptism that as questionable, and it is when men insist upon these opinions that sects arise.

There is the infallibly safe way, Campbell believed, and this is the only way to unity. It may appear to be an oversimplification in our time of ecumenical councils to suggest that the churches can be one if they will only accept as matters of faith those things that all concede to be scriptural, but this was his contention.

Let every sect give up its opinions as a bond of union, and what will remain in common? The gospel facts alone. Every sect, Catholic and Protestant, admits all the historic facts recorded in the five historical books of the New Testament. Their various interpretations, additions, and new modifications of opinions concerning these facts, and not the truth or falsehood of the narratives, create all the confusion, build the whole Babel, and set all the machinery of the contending interests in motion. Now, will not the slowest to apprehend see that, if, by any means, they could be induced to abandon their opinions, and retain the plain incontrovertible facts, the strife would be over?” ¹¹

This was an important aspect of the Campbell plea: no one is asked to give up any truth he holds. He surrenders only that which makes him unique —his opinions which are made the ground of fellowship. Unity can be achieved by making what all Christians believe in common as the basis of brotherhood.

Campbell’s students at Bethany College seemed to have had a clear concept of what he was trying to do. Upon the death of Mr. Campbell one of his students wrote as follows regarding his purpose in life:

Mr. Campbell labored for more than 40 years to accomplish one object. His aim was one. His purpose was single. He devoted his talents, strength, energies and life to the accomplishment of one great object, viz: the restoration of Primitive Christianity-the return of the Church to her apostolic and primitive unity on the basis of “One Lord, one faith, and one baptism.¹²

Mr. Campbell had a clear conception of his goal early in his journalistic career, for even in the first issues of the Christian Baptist, which he began in 1823, he speaks of “A Restoration of the Ancient Order of Things,” in the form of essays that extend through thirty installments. He explains in the first essay what he means by this: “to bring the Christianity and the church of the present day up to the New Testament standard.” But this meant to him more than a correct order of faith and practice, for it embraced human happiness and well-being: “A restoration of the ancient order of things is all that is necessary to the happiness and usefulness of Christians.”¹³

This aim involved Mr. Campbell in many tasks, negative as well as positive. He spoke of his writings as “devoted to the destruction of sectarianism,” and he declared war on “the kingdom of the clergy” and the “textuary divines.” At the outset of his career he was very aggressive in his opposition to splendid church edifices, fixed salaries for the clergy, and even the clergy system itself; and creeds, party names, sectarian vocabulary, and such presumptions as “being called” and “being baptized with the Holy Ghost,” along with mourner’s benches, seminaries, and “false miracles.” These were obstacles to a restoration of the ancient order.

An interesting illustration of his approach to such matters is his zeal to gain for all saints of God the title of Minister.

It is a haughty and arrogant assumption of the clergy to give them selves the title of “THE MINISTERS OF CHRIST,” and thereby to claim the honors and regards due to those properly so called . . .

The term minister, a general or unappropriated title, designates any servant, and belongs to every obedient disciple of Jesus Christ. In the general sense of the term, it belongs to sister Phoebe, as well as to any apostle or bishop. And, indeed, the widow who cast in her two mites, was a much greater minister or servant of God, than any of the West minister clergy, who were servant of God and the long parliament. To call the clergy the ministers of Christ, is therefore a pious robbery of the obedient disciples of Christ, who are ministers of God as well as they, to speak in the most humble terms.¹⁴

He was well aware that his editorials were likely to get him into trouble. He said of the Christian Baptist when it first appeared: “Its sale object shall be eviction of truth, and the exposure of error in doctrine and practice,” and then went on to say in the Preface of the first number:

It is a rarity, seldom to be witnessed, to see a person boldly opposing either the doctrinal errors or the unscriptural measures of a people with whom he has identified himself, and to whom he looks for approbation and support. If such a person appears in any party, he soon falls under the frowns of those who either think themselves wiser than the reprover, or would wish so to appear . . .

Hence it is generally presumed that a paper will soon fall onto disrepute if it dare to oppose the views or practices of the leaders of the people addressed. ¹⁵

He further observed that some had told him that any religious editor who opposed the errors of its readers could expect to starve to death, if he depended upon the paper for a living, or to be imprisoned or even beheaded. To which he replied: “We shall not, in the meantime, oppose nor assert the truth of this objection. We shall submit the principle to the test of experiences, and practically prove its truth or falsehood.”

He had an interesting attitude about this negative aspect of his work: “We still flatter ourselves that we shall have less occasion for the invective, and more room for the development of the renovating truth. It is always, however, difficult to remove the rubbish without raising the dust.”¹⁶

A few years later he had learned that the course he had chosen was not only unpopular, despite the fact that tens of thousands responded to his call, but also that it was unlikely that he would live to see his ideals realized.

Those who live in an age of great moral revolutions seldom see the progress of things, because they themselves are carried onward with the spirit of the age . . . So it is with those who live in an age like the present. Posterity will, indeed, see the change.¹⁷

He was talking about us!

The Harbinger of the Millennium

“Expectation is on tiptoe”

The Restoration Movement took on a new impetus when the Reformers and Christians united their churches in Lexington, Ky. in 1832. The combined forces of Raccoon John Smith and Barton Stone totaled upward of 20,000 in Kentucky alone.¹⁸ This unification, which was probably the first ecumenical achievement in American church history, enhanced the position of Alexander Campbell, for much of his earlier efforts were concentrated in Kentucky, and his influence upon both Smith and Stone, as well as upon John T. Johnson, “the evangelist of Kentucky,” was great. Stone, despite his own eminence, cheerfully conceded: “I am constrained, and willingly constrained to acknowledge him the greatest promoter of this reformation of any man living. The Lord reward him!”¹⁹

The movement was now one, with Campbell at the helm, and it was widely extended over the expanding frontier. The followers numbered upward of a quarter of a million.²⁰ Some of the leaders began to suppose that the millennium was imminent. Walter Scott, for instance, issued in 1827 the prospectus for a monthly paper to be called Millennial Herald, the theme of which was to be “the primitive gospel and the coming millennium.”²¹

In 1830 Campbell began the publication of the Millennial Harbinger, the prospectus of which indicated that it was to be devoted not only to “the destruction of sectarianism,” but also “the development and introduction of that political and religious order of society called THE MILLENNIUM.”²² But the millennium cannot come so long as Christianity is divided into sects, and so he admitted 25 years later that he began the Millennial Harbinger as a harbinger for the millennium.

The Millennial Harbinger was conceived and born under the conviction and influence of this view of dilapidated and prostrated Christendom. We have, therefore, been testifying against the doctrines, commandments, and institutions of discordant and belligerent seas and parties; these roots of bitterness, these apples of discord that have grievously sickened, paralized, and rendered inefficient the ministrations of the gospel of the reign of heaven in the hearts and lives of men.²³

When his reformatory efforts were at their peak of success he could write: “The apostacy is in its dotage and the Man of Sin tottering on the brink of the grave. The world is in travail; a new age is soon to be born; and the great regeneration is at hand . . . Expectation is on tiptoe.²⁴

Why was apostasy on the decline and the Man of Sin tottering? Why was a new age at hand, and why was expectation on tiptoe? He points to his own work of reformation as the answer: “The voice of reformation has been lifted up, and the banners of the ancient constitution of Messiah’s kingdom have been unfurled. The ancient standard has been dug up out of the ruins of the ages of delinquency.”

Just two years later at a moment when he could be more realistic he spoke of the Man of Sin, which he of course equated with the Roman Catholic system, in a much different way: “Some years since, when I expressed, on sundry occasions, my convictions that in less than a half a century the Catholic religion would be established in the United States by law, I was stared at and laughed at as one that dreamed.”²⁵

But even amidst such a cry of woe as Roman Catholicism becoming the state church of America, he could have millennial hope based upon the primitive gospel: if the ancient gospel prevails over sectarian systems the tragedy can be averted. He adds:

Had it not been for Martin Luther, Paschal wisely observes, Peter Loyola, the founder of the Jesuits, would have governed the world; and now it appears again, that unless the gospel preached on Pentecost triumphs, Peter Loyola will yet govern the world in despite of Martin Luther.²⁶

It is evident, therefore, that Campbell believed that his Restoration Movement was to usher in the millennium. His hopes were brighter at some times than other times, but at no time did his expectations get the best of him. In 1843, at a time when things could hardly have been going better for his Movement, he wrote: “I expect a Millennium — a thousand years of a triumphant Christianity, and at no very distant day. I have never been, and am yearly less disposed to be, dogmatical in affirming how, or by what means and instruments this glorious period is to be ushered in.”²⁷

He appears here to be a little less sure as to what role his Movement will play in bringing in the new age, but he continues to suggest that the work he had begun would do the trick: “We are so sanguine — perhaps, many will say, so visionary, as to imagine that a nucleus has been formed, around which may one day congregate all the children of God”²⁸

His millennial views were what theologians would describe as Post-millennial, that the thousand years of glorious success for the kingdom will precede the coming of Christ. This new age would include such things as: great prosperity, exaltation of the Lord in the hearts of men, conditions of society greatly improved, wars will cease, climate more salubrious, health more vigorous, soil more fertile, less labor, and genuine Christianity diffused throughout the nations.²⁹

Dr. Richardson, Campbell’s biographer, confirms the view that the pioneers believed their Restoration Movement would bring the millennium, but he assures us that Campbell’s views did not get out of hand:

The wonderful success which everywhere attended the primitive gospel thus presented by its advocates filled them with the most ardent hopes that the perplexed and erroneous religious systems of the day would be speedily overthrown, and that happy millennial period be ushered in when the gospel would triumph and Christ’s people united.

These fond expectations were especially cherished by Walter Scott and some others of a like excitable and ardent temperament. Mr. Campbell, however, while he shared in them to some extent, was too well aware of the nature of the obstacles in the way to anticipate easy victory.³⁰

Pattern for Reformation

“The wheel within its wheel”

By 1850, when he was 62 years old and in his 28th year as an editor, Campbell was able to state in precise terms what “this great and mighty movement” could contribute to the Christian world. He dared to put his finger on the one idea, which he called “the prolific and sublime conception,” that gave meaning to the Restoration Movement. He observed that just as Ezekiel’s vision had “a wheel within a wheel” the great principle of his Movement was “the wheel” within the wheel of Protestantism, as if to suggest, as he does often, that his mission was to take up where the Protestant Reformation left off.

He identified the central idea of Protestantism as “The Bible, the whole Bible, and nothing but the Bible as the only rule of faith and manners.” His people cordially accepted this truth, he said, but the wheel he placed within this wheel is what made movement possible.

That, as when God had, in the old creation, ceased to speak, the universe was perfect and complete; so, when the Messiah and his Apostles ceased to speak, Christianity was fully and perfectly developed; consequently, that every new institution, custom, law, or ceremony annexed there unto, was only and wholly human, and unwarranted.

This was a greater central idea than the Protestant conception. It was a wheel within its wheel, directing its every movement. So the work began, and has progressed unto this day. ³¹

Thus he spoke of building only upon “the foundation of Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone.” The great central truth of Christianity is that Jesus is Lord! Baptism, the Lord’s Supper, and fellowship are based upon this grand proposition. When men make their creeds and opinions the prerequisites for fellowship they render Christianity sectarian.

This is the wheel within its wheel. He insisted that Christian fellowship be based upon the grand affirmation: “Other foundation can no man lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.”

We call not upon, nor evoke from the dead, a St. Barnabas to aid a St. Paul, nor a St. Clement to aid a St. Peter. We ask nothing from an eastern Patriarch nor a western Pope, to perfect or adapt what the Apostles and Evangelists of Jesus Christ began. When John, in his Apostolic Visions, said amen, we also say amen; yea, even so let it be.³²

He could also speak of “the essential attributes of the proposed reformation.” In an exchange with one of his more prominent antagonists, Andrew Broaddus, a Baptist theologian, Campbell refers to those “principle articles of reformation for which we contend, and have contended for many years.” One point he wanted to make was that in opposing the Movement Mr. Broaddus was opposing these principles.

1. A more intimate, general, and special acquaintance with the holy oracles of both Testaments, to which we regard the text and textuary mode of preaching, as essentially, directly and positively opposed; as also the present mode of receiving members into the church upon experience, rather than upon faith and knowledge; the daily reading of these oracles in all Christian families, and the daily teaching them to children and domestics; as well as a more copious reading of them in all worshiping assemblies upon the Lord’s day, are indispensable to better times in the church and in society at large.

2. The weekly meeting of all Christian churches on the Lord’s day in honor of the resurrection of the Lord, to keep all the ordinances of Christian worship instituted in the primitive church by the authority of Jesus Christ — amongst which the Lord’s supper is the most cardinal and essential part; together with all the other acts and ordinances of social worship, instead of the monthly meeting to hear a sermon, as was at our commencement the common custom amongst the Baptists in Virginia, Kentucky, and very generally throughout the United States.

3. A more strict and scriptural discipline in the church, a greater vigilance on the part of overseers, and a greater attention to good order and good behavior amongst all its members.

4. A more Christian morality in keeping covenants, fulfilling promises, in doing justly to all men, in loving mercy, in visiting and relieving the poor, the afflicted, and in being always ready for every good word and work.

5. More gravity, temperance, and moderation, even in the use of things lawful; more self-denial, and strict self-government on the part of all who profess to follow the New Testament.

6. More piety and devotion — more prayer and praise — more private meditation and communion with God, than appear to obtain amongst the great mass of those called Christians.

7. More enterprise, concert, and cooperation amongst all Christians and Christian churches in the work of converting the world, according to the means and opportunities which God has vouchsafed to us; and for this purpose especially, much, very much more love among all the brethren.³³

Campbell is here less doctrinal and more ethical and devotional than we might suppose he would be in stating the essential attributes of his reformation. This may be because Broaddus had for years criticized Campbell for making religion a matter of outward acts rather than the exercises of the heart. He replies further by assuring Broaddus that “we regard all true piety and morality as beginning in the heart, but not as continuing there.”

Elsewhere he is more careful to include both doctrinal and ethical imperatives when he attempts to summarize what he is trying to do. In 1837 he drew up “a synopsis of the grand items of the reformation for which we have contended and still contend,” and these he placed under appropriate chapter headings. A general outline follows:

Chap. I: For the Healing of Divisions among Christians

1. The restoration of pure speech, or the calling of Bible things by Bible names.

2. The Bible must be proposed as a book of facts, not of doctrines, nor opinions; it must be understood and regarded as arranged upon the principle of cause and effect, or that action is to produce corresponding action.

3. The Bible alone, instead of any human creed, as the only rational and solid foundation of Christian union and communion.

4. The reading and expounding of the sacred scriptures in public assemblies instead of text preaching, sermonizing, and philosophizing.

5. The right of private opinion in all matters not revealed in contradistinction from the common faith, without the forfeiture of Christian character or Christian privilege.

Chap. II: Principles and Objects of Church Reform

1. The church of Jesus Christ is constitutionally composed of those who have confessed their faith in the celestial proposition that JESUS OF NAZARETH IS THE MESSIAH, THE SON OF GOD, and the only Saviour of the world, and have put him on by a baptism into his death.

2. The administration of the internal and external affairs of the church is placed in the hands of bishops, deacons, and messengers extraordinary.

3. The sanctification of the Lord’s day by meeting in honor of the resurrection of the Saviour, and especially with a reference to the celebration of the Lord’s supper, is essential to the edification, to the spirituality, holiness, usefulness, and happiness of the Christian community.

4. The church not being of this world, cannot levy any contribution on those without for any religious or political purpose, neither ought she to go a begging to the world for aid to support or extend Christianity.

Chap. III: Principles Essential to the Proper Dispensation of the Gospel

1. The gospel is not a theory, a doctrine, a system of moral or spiritual philosophy; not even the theory of faith, repentance, baptism, remission of sins, adoption, the Holy Spirit, and eternal life. The gospel is the proclamation in the name of God of remission of sins and eternal life through the sacrifice and mediation of Jesus Christ to everyone that obeys him in the instituted way.

2. Three things are essential to a Christian-a peculiar disposition, state, and character. These must be changed from a preternatural or fleshly state to that which is spiritual and heavenly.

3. The resurrection of the just, the coming of the Lord Jesus in his own proper glorified person, and eternal life, constitute the grand objects of the Christian’s hope.

4. No theory of spiritual influence in conversion is the influence of the Spirit. Therefore, to deny any theory is not to deny the influence of the Spirit.

Chap. IV: Personal and Family Reformation

1. As personal intelligence, purity, and happiness is the end of all public or private, theoretic or practical reformation, the present standard of personal knowledge, faith, piety, and morality being too low, must be greatly elevated.

2. Family education and domestic religion must be, I need not say, greatly advanced, but begun. We have nominal Christian parents with almost Pagan families in all churches in the land. There are many professed Christian parents who almost wholly neglect their families, and suffer them to grow up without religious and moral culture. . . We want and must have a radical and thorough reformation in family religion and family education. ³⁴

Notice that he places “the restoration of pure speech” first on the list. This is because he sees “pure speech” as essential to the unity of disciples: “There is nothing more essential to the union of the disciples of Christ than purity of speech. So long as the earth was of one speech, the human family was united. Had they been then of a pure speech as well as of one speech, they would not have been separated.”³⁵

“Pure speech” is what the Bible says; the “language of Ashdod” is from “the mint of speculative theology.” And so, Campbell charges, our divisions are over ideas not even in the Bible to start with. He says further with some persuasion:

We choose to speak of Bible things by Bible words, because we are always suspicious that if the word is not in the Bible, the idea which it represents is not there; and always confident that the things taught by God are better taught in the words, and under the names which the Holy Spirit has chosen and appropriated, than in the words which man’s wisdom teaches. ³⁶

What He Most Opposed: Opinionism and Sectarianism

“They’ll never make a sect of us”

Alexander Campbell had as many opinions about religion and the Bible, or even about farming, politics, and phrenology, as most any person of his time. He would not have been such an interesting and colorful figure were it not for his speculative and philosophical turn of mind. He certainly would not be the one to issue any objections to opinions as such, whether in religion or elsewhere.

We may even say that he encouraged a diversity of opinions in religious thought. He certainly recognized it as a psychological fact that men will have opinions — opinions that they are not likely to give up. And it is in this context that he makes himself perfectly clear.

But men cannot give up their opinions, and, therefore, they never can unite, says one. We do not ask them to give up their opinions. We ask them only nor to impose them upon others. Let them hold their opinions; but let them hold them as private property. The faith is public property: opinions are, and always have been, private property. Men have foolishly attempted to make the deductions of some great minds the common measure of all Christians.³⁷

He revealed further psychological insight respecting opinion when he observed in his debate with Mr. Rice that if you want an opinion to die a natural death, leave it alone! He pointed to Arius and his famous heresy: “I reaffirm the conviction, that had Arius been treated as a man — as a human being — and his opinions left to find their own level, we should have never heard of him or them.”

But if you want an opinion to live, gain power, make a party, and descend to after times, call a council, get up a debate, assemble the orators, and keep it for a few years before the public mind, and then you secure a party. ³⁸

And this is what he means by opinionism, and this was among the things he hated most. Opinions when imposed upon others make parties; opinions when made tests of fellowship make sects. It is from this standpoint that he declared war on opinions in religion — opinions and that which they always produce: creeds. We can say also of creeds that Campbell did not object to them per se, but only as they are made the basis of Christian fellowship, which of course they nearly always were.

The great, the radical error in all the creeds now in use, is that they substitute speculative views, mental abstractions, opinions, philosophies, or theories, for facts, precepts and promises. To this view of the subject we now have the testimony of full forty years’ experience. In all our readings, we have not found the record of one human being converted to Christ, or regenerated by any creed in Christendom. They are, indeed, naked, deformed, lifeless, heartless skeletons. ³⁹

And yet on the same page he quotes the Apostles’ Creed from memory (“faithfully committed to my memory more than a half a century ago”) and says of it: “This is a bonafide creed; and in every word true. We only need to modernize the words Ghost and Hell.”

The difference is that most creeds are mere theoretic opinions about the Bible, while the so-called Apostles’ Creed is composed of facts from the Bible. The one therefore would be divisive, while the other would not. He says: “No human creed in Protestant Christendom can be found that has not made a division for every generation of its existence.”⁴⁰

If Campbell were talking to Methodists, Presbyterians, and Episcopalians when he criticized written creeds, he speaks to us who are within his heritage when he warns against unwritten creeds, which he deems the more dangerous.

But the Bible will do no better (than a creed), if men approach it with a set of opinions, or a human symbol in their minds. For then it is not the Bible, but the opinions in the mind, that form the bond of union. Men, indeed, had better have a written than an unwritten standard of orthodoxy, if they will not abandon speculation and abstract notions, as any part of Christian faith or duty. ⁴¹

How guilty are we, the heirs of the Restoration Movement, of making our own opinions the bond of union? The unwritten creed is the more dangerous because we can deceive ourselves into believing that ours is a “creedless Christianity” while indeed we separate ourselves from each other over opinions about the Bible. In this same context Campbell observes that those who make an unwritten creed out of their opinions about the Bible have more debates and more schisms. He certainly described us his successors! We argue, fight, debate, and divide over organs, Sunday Schools, the proper way to serve the Lord’s Supper, Bible colleges, open membership, millennial theories, church cooperation, and on and on. While our “denominational” neighbors, who have the written creeds, pay little enough attention to them that they have themselves a fairly effective ecumenical movement underway!

Christian Union was his principal subject for many years on many lecture tours. The subject of Unity, however, called for an examination of those things that obstructed unity, especially sectarianism, creeds, opinions. He pointed to the Bible as the answer, insisting that if people would only believe the facts of the Bible, and thus make facts, not opinions, the basis of brotherhood, sectarianism would die. It is regrettable that we have almost none of these thousands of lectures he gave in court houses, lecture halls, school houses, and borrowed churches (and finally of course his own churches) across the land. They were delivered extemporaneously, and they reflect the longings of his heart perhaps even more than his writings, for it was in this context that he was closest to the people. Nearly always the most prominent citizens of the community were in his audience, including the clergy, some friendly, some unfriendly, but almost none was indifferent.

If we could see and hear Mr. Campbell in one of his typical meetings in a midwestern city, where a few hundreds crowded into the court house or a borrowed church to hear him for the first time, we might better understand what he was trying to do, not only by what he said, but the way he said it.

While Mr. Campbell himself did little to preserve these historic occasions, we do have a few rare descriptions from responsible clergymen who passed along their impressions in some journal or newspaper. One such account comes from an anonymous Unitarian minister, who hailed from the East, but who heard Campbell in a Unitarian meetinghouse in Louisville. Not only does he give us a reliable account of his message (which conforms remarkably with his many writings), but also an interesting description of Campbell’s style and manner of speaking. The year was 1836. Campbell was 48 years old and at the apex of his career.

After describing him as “a distinguished man, possessing great influence in the western states; claiming to be a reformer; and without doubt, an intelligent, bold, and powerful preacher of rational and liberal views of religion,” the Unitarian goes on to say:

He stands upright, his head a little back, his right hand leaning on a cane, with which he occasionally gives an emphatic rap on the floor; but most of his gestures are made with his left hand. The great excellence however of Campbell’s delivery, consists in the feeling which it inspires, of his manly independence, entire conviction of the truth of what he says, and entire understanding of his whole subject. He is plain, forcible, and self-possessed; he is not hurried away by his words or by his thought, but has command of both. ⁴²

The minister gives a rather extensive account of what Campbell had to say that Sunday morning in Louisville on the subject of Christian Union. Ephesians 4 was his point of departure. He spoke of the evils of disunion and party spirit, referring to the Saviour’s statement that a house divided against itself cannot stand. The only reason a divided church can endure at all is because it is built on a rock; but being divided it is shorn of its power and it can never convert the world. “Your divisions, your sectarianism, said he, are producing infidelity in a swelling flood. You must stop this warfare.”

If I rightly understood him, he then went on to show the grounds of Christian Union, in the following manner. All Christians who have one Lord, one faith, one baptism, should be united in spirit and fellowship. Now they all have one Lord, one faith, and one baptism; for even the Quakers have a spiritual baptism of immersion. (These were his words.) And all Christians have the same faith. For what is faith? A belief of facts. The Bible is all facts, from beginning to end; there are no speculations or opinions in it.

The creeds begin: “There is one God, immutable, infinite, without parts,” etc. This no one can understand. But the Bible begins: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” And so it goes through, all facts. And I think it is proof that the creed which goes by the name of the Apostle’s creed, is an ancient one, that it contains only facts, in which all Christians agree. ⁴³

Campbell had considerable to say about opinionism as a barrier to unity in this lecture, according to the minister’s report. “Opinion is not knowledge; opinion is not faith; but merely speculation about facts not shown or believed. I know I am standing here. I believe there is such a place as St. Petersburg. I do not know it. I believe it on the testimony of others.” Campbell goes on to explain it is his opinion that Saturn is inhabited. Opinion drawn from speculation is far different from faith drawn from facts. Opinions can never therefore be the basis of union.

The Unitarian minister seemed especially impressed with this next point, for he reports that afterward Campbell asked him whether he had gone too far for him. He told Mr. Campbell that he had not gone too far for him, for he agreed with his whole heart, and it was the very thing Unitarians believed and prayed for.⁴⁴

Now we must, all of us, if we wish for union, give up our opinions and traditions. We must give up our episcopalianism, and our presbyterianism, and our methodism, our trinitarianism, our unitarianism, our baptistism too. (I understood him to say this, which is intelligible enough.) I am willing to compromise all my opinions and speculations, and demand the same of others. But some things I cannot compromise. I cannot compromise the seven unities mentioned by St. Paul in the text. Something is due to peace, something also to truth.

Campbell had a rather simple definition of a sect: it is a religious system that makes opinions tests of fellowship. He could say of himself: “I never did, at anytime exclude a man from the kingdom of God for mere imbecility of intellect; or, in other words, because he could not assent to my opinions.” He added: “All sects are doing, or have done this.” It was in this context that he insisted that “They will never make a sect of us!” He explains why: “I will now show how they cannot make a sect of us. We will acknowledge all as Christians who acknowledge the gospel facts, and obey Jesus Christ.”⁴⁵

It is here that we have so much to learn from our history. The Restoration Movement is today fractured and weakened by multiple sects (if we accept Campbell’s simple definition) which exclude each other over opinions. We reject each other as brothers because of different interpretations over such matters as cooperative projects, agencies, instrumental music, and millennial theories. We all need to ask ourselves if we can say as did Campbell: “They will never make a sect of us!” Indeed, we make ourselves into a sect when we set up as conditions of fellowship our own interpretations of doctrinal questions. When we return to the position of recognizing everyone as a Christian brother who believes the gospel facts and obeys the Christ, we will then be ready to take up the good work which. Alexander Campbell began.

Campbell further revealed the catholicity of his views in his debate with Mr. Rice:

We send none to perdition but those who disbelieve and reject the gospel. . . No good, religious, moral, or virtuous man can perish through our views or principles. Our theory thunders terrors to none but the self-condemned. Human responsibility, in my views and doctrines, always depends upon, and is measured by, human ability. It is so, certainly, under the gospel. The man born blind will not be condemned for not seeing, not the deaf for not hearing.

The man who never heard the gospel cannot disobey it; and he who, through any physical impossibility, is prevented from any ordinance, is no transgressor. Ir is only he who knows, and has power to do, his Master’s will, that shall be punished for disobedience. None suffer, in our views, but those who are wilfully ignorant or negligent of their duty.⁴⁶

Since he was adamant in his views on immersion for the remission of sins, the question came up as to what disposition would be made of the pious unimmersed. It came up in the Rice debate:

I am willing to say that I do sincerely rejoice that simple, honest mistakes, where they are not the result of corruption of heart, will not, in my opinion, preclude any Pedo-baptist from heaven, although on earth he should, through his mistakes, never enjoy the full reign of heaven in his soul. The Judge of all the earth will do right. I circumscribe not the Divine philanthropy — the divine grace. I dare not say that there is no salvation in the church of Rome, or in that of Constantinople . . .

My soul rejoices in the assurance that there are very many excellent spirits groaning under the weight of human tradition and error, who are looking for redemption from these misfortunes before a long time. I do not believe that pagans or infants will be condemned for not believing the gospel . . .

Still, I must say, that, in my full conviction, and assurance of faith, it is only the man who believes and obeys the original gospel, who repents of his sins, and is immersed for the remission of them, that can enter into the full and true enjoyment of the reign of God within his heart.⁴⁷

This conforms with his well-known reply to the woman in Lunenburg, Va., who wrote and asked him what he meant by saying there were Christians among the Protestant parties:

But who is a Christian? I answer, Everyone that believes in his heart that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah, the Son of God; repents of his sins, and obeys him in all things according to his measure of knowledge of his will.⁴⁸

It would be a mistake to interpret these references as indicating that Campbell changed his mind about the place of immersion in the scheme of redemption. It was simply an effort on his part to place proper emphasis upon the internal aspect of obedience. The person who honestly mistakes the function of baptism, but who truly loves the Christ and obeys him in heart, is different from the person who rejects the commands of the Lord.

That he remained convinced of his position on baptism to the very end of his career is indicated not only by his writing, which never suggests anything otherwise, but also by the testimony of a Baptist minister who talked with him near the close of his life about immersion. J. B. Jeter was an antagonist of Mr. Campbell for a quarter of a century. He published at least two books in criticism of Campbell and the Campbellites. He associated with him at various times through the years, including the time that Mr. Campbell served in the State Convention in 1829.

Mr. Jeter visited Campbell during one of the Disciple gatherings in Richmond. He describes how his antagonist of many years “bore the unmistakable marks of old age and growing infirmities,” and then says:

I had resolved that I would not refer to our past controversies, or to points concerning which we differed, but that, if he should introduce them, I would not plead on the defensive. He very soon alluded to these matters. His views, he said, had been misunderstood and misrepresented; he had been treated with great injustice. To these complaints I made no reply, but proceeded at once to say that he had propagated one doctrine which he owed it to himself, to his friends, and to the Christian world, to correct — it is that baptism and regeneration in the Scriptures mean the same thing.

On this subject our conversation turned. He did not retract the statement, but offered such explanation of it as may be found in his voluminous writings. It is, in substance, that baptism is not the whole, but the finishing act of regeneration; that there can be no regeneration without baptism. His explanation was as unsatisfactory to me as my criticisms were to him. With this discussion we closed our interview, with due courtesy without cordiality.⁴⁹

Education: Handmaid to Reform

“No person is well educated that is not a Christian”

When the author wrote his thesis for a master’s degree on The Philosophy of Education of Alexander Campbell⁵⁰ the examining committee was impressed with the fact that Campbell was well ahead of his time in several particulars. One was his emphasis on health education, which almost no one in his day said much about. He lamented the condition in which “multitudes are daily languishing and dying through ignorance of their own organization and of the laws of physical nature,”⁵¹ and he believed that a study of anatomy would fill the child’s soul with admiration for the Creator.

Another unique feature of his educational philosophy was a plan whereby the child receives supervised training in four different institutions, extending from the cradle to the grave, which was eventually put into operation on the campus of Bethany College. Once the child spends the first few years with his own family, he enters (1) the Family School, ages 7-14, whose teachers would be as solicitous as parents; (2) the Primary School, which like our high school would be college preparatory; ( 3) College, which found fruition in the establishment of Bethany College; and ( 4) the Church, which Campbell viewed as the school of Christ and which implied a lifetime of study.

Like Herbert Spencer, a British contemporary, and like John Dewey who came after him, Campbell had much to say about educational systems that put “the ornamental before the useful,” to use Spencer’s phrase. He complained that young men can go through schools and academies, and even colleges, and yet know so little about how to live, and that girls can spend years in boarding-schools without learning how to be good mothers.⁵²

But more than all these, however advanced they were for his time, the point that he stressed most of all was that moraliy is the chief end of education, ⁵³ He could not emphasize enough that the heart must be cultivated as well as the head, He saw men as more active by nature than contemplative, and he therefore saw more reason for educating a young man to behave properly in society than in making a Solomon of him. Like Charles Wesley, who spoke of our “uniting the two so long divided: knowledge and vital piety,” Campbell took pleasure in addressing teachers on “the importance of uniting the moral with the intellectual culture of the mind.⁵⁴ He observed that books without number have been composed for improving the mind, but few for cultivating the affections.

Just as we in our time speak of educating “the whole man,” Campbell referred to the “full orbed development” of man, by which he meant the physical, intellectual, moral and religious aspects of education. “The whole world within him, as well as the whole world without him, should not only be defined and developed, but cultivated, matured and perfected in full harmony with his origin and destiny, not only as far as appertains to the present world, but also as relates to the future and the eternal world.”⁵⁵

Man is not destined only for this world, he would insist, but for a heavenly world. Man is to be “a peer of the highest circles of the highest sphere of God’s universe.” And so he could insist that:

No irreligious man is, therefore, a well educated man. His head may be large and crowded with ideas; but his heart dwarfed and cold to God and man. His conscience is callous, if not seared with guilt; and his moral sensibilities morbid, if not paralyzed to death.

When we affirm the conviction that every well educated person must be a genuine Christian, we would not be understood as holding or expressing the idea that a Christian is the mere fruit of a good literary, moral or religious education. Still, without education, in some measure of it, no man can be a Christian. ⁵⁶

Campbell wanted to bring about a reformation in education as well as in religion. Not only was education the most important thing in the world, except the gospel itself, it was the handmaid of religious reform. He came to realize that his reformatory efforts in religion were obstructed by a lack of educational reform:

The time has come when a thorough reformation in education must be generally adopted . . . One item of that reformation, for which we will always contend, is that religious and moral culture must be first, last, midst, and without end, in every school in which man is moulded for the high ends of destiny. ⁵⁷

The more Campbell’s religious reformation succeeded the more evident it became that an educational reformation was needed, especially in reference to his own Movement. Many of those who came to his support were uneducated men from the farms and shops, who by their narrow and superficial conception of Christianity often did more harm than good. Thomas W. Grafton, one of his biographers, observes how this condition led to the founding of Bethany College:

Though always the friend of education, he became convinced, as at no former period of his life that if his cause were to continue to prosper and commend itself to thinking people, it must be supported by an educated ministry. He, therefore, began seriously to consider the establishment of an institution where young men could secure training which would make them efficient advocates to the cause of primitive Christianity, now so widely spread and whose talent, culture, and acquaintance with the Word would command the respect, attention, and acceptance of the world. ⁵⁸

That he really believed in what he was doing is evident by facts that would convince anyone: he gave part of his farm for the campus and put $10,000 of his own money into it!

But of course he put far more than money and property into Bethany College. He was soon saying: “Bethany College has paramount claims on me,”⁵⁹ and by the time the college was ten years old he was describing it as “a perpetual incubus and trouble.”⁶⁰ We would remind the reader that an incubus is “an evil spirit that oppresses or burdens” - a description of being a college president that would probably gain the approval of all college presidents, including the successors of Alexander Campbell at Bethany College!

Yet there was no doubt in his mind but that Bethany College was worth all the trouble. After calling it an incubus he hastened to add:

But as a public interest to the cause of education, literature, science and religion — an alliance never to be broken — it was in its conception, is now in its existence, and will ever be in its fortunes, identified with the cause of the Reformation, and essential to its progress and prosperity.⁶¹

Dr. Richardson assures us that Bethany College succeeded in being what Campbell intended, a handmaid to reform:

There soon began to be developed beneficial results to the cause of Reformation, which fully equaled Mr. Campbell’s highest expectations. Many talented and well-educated young men were annually sent forth, who at once began to distinguish themselves by their enlarged views, their knowledge of the Bible, and the practical skill and energy which they displayed on their various fields of operation. The churches, which in many places had long suffered for want of an efficient ministry and competent teachers, began to be supplied, and a new impulse was given to the cause of the primitive gospel. ⁶²

Even Campbell himself expressed satisfaction about the effectiveness of the college in terms of religious reform:

To further it abroad and build it up at home, in raising up men for the field when I shall be absent from this planet, seems to me a paramount duty. We have already in the field some of its first fruits, and they are an offering most acceptable to the aggregate of all who hear them. We want a thousand men in the field of the world, and another thousand in the vineyards of the Lord . . . ⁶³

A rather imposing list could be drawn up of those men who went out from Bethany College in behalf of the Restoration Movement. Only a partial list from the earliest years would have to include the names of J. M. Barnes, who evangelized so successfully in Alabama; Moses E. Lard, a valedictorian at Bethany who went on to become an author and editor in the Movement (Campbell called on him to answer the attacks of J. B. Jeter, referred to earlier in this paper); John F. Rowe, who graduated with honors in 1854 and went on to become one of the Movement’s outstanding editors and authors; J. W. McGarvey, who was not a Christian when he entered Bethany, but was immersed in Buffalo Creek, and at graduation delivered the valedictory in Greek, and eventually became one of the greatest of our Biblical scholars.

Even when we add such names as O. A. Burgess, J. L. Lamar, John Shackleford, Charles Carlton, Robert Graham, Alexander Proctor, F. D. Power, William Baxter, C. L. Loos, and W. H. Woolery the list is far too incomplete. And this is not to mention the statesmen, such as George T. Oliver, who became United States Senator from Pennsylvania; Champ Clark, who served as Speaker of the House, and Joseph L. Lamar, who served as Supreme Court justice. While James A. Garfield got as far as the village of Bethany in a visit with Campbell, he never became a student, though he later served as a trustee of the college. Bethany College is so well represented by its graduates in the professions as to give it high rank among American colleges in this respect, as well as in respect to academic excellence.

This is apparently what Campbell had in mind when he wrote the following, which gives us more than a hint as to what he was trying to do:

Men, and not brick and mortar, make colleges, and these colleges make men. These men make books, and these books make the living world in which we individually live, and move, and have our being. How important then, that our colleges should understand and teach the true philosophy of man!

They create the men that furnish the teachers of men — the men that fill the pulpit, the legislative halls, the senators, the judges and the governors of the earth. Do we expect to fill these high stations by merely voting or praying for men? Or shall we choose empirics, charlatans, mountebanks, and every pretender to eminent claims upon the suffrages of the people? Forbid it, reason, conscience and Heaven! ⁶⁴

His Life a Testimony

“Although I cannot do much anywhere, I must attempt a little in many places”

We conclude this study by showing that the life Alexander Campbell lived was a testimony to his mission. This is reflected in the many, less significant aspects of his life, those unguarded moments when he writes to a loved one, says a prayer or composes a hymn. An instance of this is two letters he sent to his sister Alicia during her long illness while he was on an extended journey, one of which he composed after she was already dead. His assistants back home published the letters during his absence and without his knowledge. It is here that he makes the statement that tells a lot about him: “I have some thousands of miles before me; and, although I cannot do much anywhere, I must attempt a little in many places.”⁶⁵ He had no illusions about the magnitude of his task. He appeared content to do what he could, believing, as did another man of God, that if he could sow the seed, God would give the increase.

To his dying sister he wrote as only a man of depth could:

To triumph over the fear of death and to be resigned to it from principle are victories which earth’s mightiest sons have never yet attained. This is the fruit of faith; for who is he that overcomes the world, but he that believes that Jesus is the Christ of God?

O! what it is to have such a Saviour! — one so wise, so powerful, so kind, so gracious, so condescending, so attentive to our every want — one who has trod the valley of affliction — who was, in all points, made like to us — afflicted, oppressed, and tempted in a thousand ways: one who entered the dark and dreary chambers of the dead, that he might take away the sting from death and victory from the grave. He has bowels of compassions and sympathies unknown to mortals. He loves us more than we love ourselves, and has done for us more than we either could or would do for ourselves. ⁶⁶

“When our wills are absorbed and lost in the will of our heavenly Father,” he wrote to Alicia, “all is well. This resignation throws a bright light over the darkest cloud that appears in our horizon, and calms every tempest that arise in our hearts. ‘Not my will, but thine be done.’”

We gain further insight into the man when we see him taking a little Indian boy into his home in order to provide him an education. Even though Campbell was then nearing his mid-60’s and burdened with many responsibilities, he arranged to take the lad of the Iowa tribe while on a trip into Missouri, and proceed to care for him and educate him for nine years. Dr. Richardson tells how the boy returned to his tribe after becoming a young man, and “by his letters seems still to cherish in grateful remembrance the benefits he received from Mr. Campbell.”⁶⁷

Any glimpse into the Campbell home would but enhance one’s respect for him who was its head. W. K. Pendleton says that Mr. Campbell was the most persistent man in the religious instruction of his family that he ever knew, that regardless of how busy and tired he was, he took time to teach his children.⁶⁸ Dr. Richardson was also impressed with Campbell as a family man: “No husband, no father could be more affectionate, no neighbor more sympathizing or more kind.” Richardson goes on to describe a trait in Campbell that tells more than a volume might:

There is, however, one trait in his personal character which I must briefly mention as one truly worthy of admiration. I mean his condescension to his inferiors. Possessed himself of the most splendid abilities; the peer of earth’s highest and noblest ones, he was ever wont to receive and address the lowest and most ignorant in a manner most courteous and respectful.

Realizing as he did the innate dignity of that human nature of which the Son of God took part, he slighted and repulsed no one, however humble his sphere in life, however rude and uncultivated his mind or manners. He had for all a pleasing word, a kindly greeting, and in all a sincere and heartfelt interest. ⁶⁹

The tributes to Campbell are both numerous and impressive, all the way from Gen. Robert E. Lee’s statement that if he should choose one from this earth to represent the human race on another planet it would be Alexander Campbell, to the remark by President Madison that he was “the ablest and most original and powerful expounder of the Scriptures I have ever heard.” But the one we like best is given by D. S. Burnett: “He was as familiar with God in his word as Moses was with God on the Mount.”⁷⁰

One of the most touching and meaningful incidents was when, during his last years, he was told that the Disciples and Baptists in various parts of the country were trying to unite. He was overjoyed and wept, saying: “This is one of the happiest moments of my life.”⁷¹ This conforms with a judgment given by W. K. Pendleton: “Of one thing we are sure — that during the riper years of his life, Alexander Campbell often thought earnestly and fondly of a restoration of fellowship between the Disciples and the Baptists. But he could not see the way.”⁷² Pendleton also insisted that it was never Campbell’s intention to start a new party or sect, but to reform the existing churches. Campbell often referred to being “forced out” even when he was willing to work within the framework of the established churches.⁷³

This should help to clarify one misconception in regards to his life’s work: he did not believe that the Movement he called Restoration or Reformation ⁷⁴ was the church of Christ. He understood that the church already existed. It was his mission to reform some deficiencies of it, or to restore some aspects to it. He believed, therefore, that his work was a unity movement within the church, divided and decadent as it was. Let us then resume the work that he began.

It is fitting to close with a verse from one of Alexander Campbell’s own hymns:⁷⁵

Then let us keep the end in view,

And ever on our way pursue,

The crown is yet before:

A few short days the conflict’s done,

The battle’s fought, the prize is won,

And we shall toil no more.

NOTES