The Travel Letters of Alexander Campbell . . .

THE GREAT THEMES OF CAMPBELL’S TEACHING

In our last installment we told of Campbell’s visit to Nashville in 1827 with his sick wife and of her subsequent death that same year. This was his first extended journey away from Bethany, his earlier visits in to Kentucky and Ohio being in connection with his debates with McCalla and Walker. In this essay we shall deal with one of our main concerns in the series, which is to learn more about what Campbell taught out in the field in his efforts to restore the primitive order of things.

It was out in the field among those who read his publications that he was asked the questions, that he was confronted by irate clergyman, that he met the small and the great in hundreds of frontier communities, and it was here that he gave the best of what he had to offer. While it was the same Campbell who was editor back in the quiet hills of Virginia, his responses were different due to the urgency of the unique circumstances of his situation as a reformer on a new frontier.

We told of Campbell’s second marriage to Selina Bakewell, a close friend to his first wife, who urged her husband to select Selina if indeed he chose to remarry. He remained at home for the next few years, save for short excursions among the Baptists in the area and a trip to Cincinnati to debate Robert Owen in 1829. He was editing the Christian Baptist, preparing a hymnal that included several of his own hymns, running his farm, and getting ready for his new journal, Millennial Harbinger, which began in 1830.

It was that same year, 1830, that he made his second journey to Nashville, taking a long, circuitous route through Ohio and Kentucky. It was out of this trip that came his first series of travel letters, published in volumes 1 and 2 of the Harbinger and entitled “Incidents on a Tour to Nashville, Tennessee.” This became his general practice, writing at length about his travels, including notes on his discourses, and thereby creating a depository of valuable Americana as well as significant data on his own movement. It is to these travel letters that we now turn in presenting this unique and neglected area of Campbell’s work.

Leaving Bethany on October 29 with Samuel Parmley as his traveling companion, he spent a day in Wheeling taking care of business affairs. He went on to Cambridge, Ohio the next day, discussing the education of youth with Mr. Parmley along the way. In this travel letter he includes a synopsis of his educational philosophy as he presented it to his friend, the essence of which is that only the right kind of education can stop the crime that was rampant on the frontier and that this can be achieved only by people being willing to pay for it through a public education system. Campbell, along with Jefferson earlier, was among the first advocates of public education for all children in the United States. Education was one of his great themes wherever he traveled.

When he arrived in Zanesville, Ohio he hired a lad to serve as a herald among the citizenry, announcing that Alexander Campbell would speak in the courthouse that evening, the sheriff having already given permission for its use. He also sent a note to a Mr. Sedwick, editor of a Baptist paper, who had been vigorously opposing Campbell’s efforts, informing him that he was in town and inviting him to the meeting. The editor called at Alexander’s quarters and accompanied him to the meeting.

That night he discoursed on the last paragraph of Matthew 28, explaining the nature of the gospel, how nations are to be converted to God, and how the apostles were to have no successors. Wherever he went he had much to say about the adequacy of the Bible as an intelligent revelation of God, thus discrediting the clerical claims for human creeds and a divine call. That night he also reviewed Acts 2, emphasizing verse 38, showing the import of immersion for remission of sins.

Alexander reports that his friend Sedwick had difficulty during the discourse, turning and twisting all the way, and at the end hurried away without even saying goodnight.

Throughout all these letters one will not find Campbell ever preaching to an audience. I have yet to find the first instance where he used the term in reference to his work as a reformer. He lectures, speaks, addresses, and even descants. He even “pronounced an address” and “delivered a lecture,” but he never preaches. There is an important reason for his careful avoidance of the term. He did not consider himself a preacher or an evangelist, but a teacher and a reformer. Preaching was the message to the lost, designed to enroll men into Christ’s school; teaching was the curriculum they are taught once in that school. Campbell was most particular in the language he chose in describing his work, so he did not “preach sermons.” He delivered discourses. He saw his work as being to the church in an effort to restore things that are lacking. It was not the work of an evangelist in the field working with the uninitiated.

Yet one might conclude that Campbell was unnecessarily cautious in this regard, for he most certainly proclaimed the ancient gospel in his travels, and it was not uncommon for scores to be immersed in his meetings. But if he was too cautious we are not cautious enough, for we’ll call a “sermon on giving” or a report on the budget the preaching of the gospel.

At the inn that night Alexander was sitting in the lobby near the fireplace writing a letter. Two gentlemen entered, talking about Alexander Campbell.” Did you hear Campbell this evening?,” asked one.” No, I had not time to go; and if I had, I don’t know that I should go to hear such a man. He preaches down all preaching, and yet preaches himself. And I am told he holds to a perfect equality among all Christians. I have heard that some private disciples, who say they agree with Campbell in his views of religion, meet every Sunday to celebrate the sacrament without any preacher.”

Once through with his letter, Alexander steps up to the fire and joins the men in conversation. Apologetic for having criticized Mr. Campbell in his presence, the kindly man, who was a Presbyterian, went on to question him until midnight. They talked about the meaning of preaching, the supposed “divine call,” the spiritual meaning of the Bible, and even the Owen debate, which by that time was well publicized. The man found time to hear Mr. Campbell that night after all, and he left in substantial agreement with the visitor from Virginia.

Traveling by gig, Parmley and Campbell moved on toward Kentucky, with Campbell often reading and writing while his friend drove the two-wheeled, one-horse carriage. One Lord’s day found them without a place to meet for public worship, being in the wilderness near New Lancaster, Ohio, so they took turns reading Matthew and conversing upon it. During the day’s travel they covered the first twenty chapters! Then that night before retiring Campbell wrote an installment of his series on meta-physical regeneration. Much of the material that he wrote for the Harbinger he prepared on these long journeys, indicating again and again that he was a man of unbelievable endurance.

Campbell would attend other churches if there was no congregation of his own persuasion. On one occasion at least he visited an Episcopal church, for he was desirous of hearing its respected pastor. But one thing is noteworthy about the instances when he could meet with no congregation. He did not break bread alone or with his companion. This must be because he saw the Lord’s supper as a corporate act of a congregation in assembly. If one is unable to be at such assembly, then of course it would not be required of him.

Advancing to Wilmington, Ohio, where he was to meet such future heroes of the movement as Samuel Rogers and Aylett Rains, he found an entire Baptist congregation, excepting one woman, that had “embraced the ancient gospel,” a term he often uses. He speaks of their having immersed 197 in the last few months, which was beside the Baptists themselves, for in those days our folk did not rebaptize Baptists.

It is here that Campbell addresses himself to a problem that they had then that is not so common today. In those days congregations were few and far between, and yet the disciples were scattered throughout the wilderness. Should a brother join himself to a congregation when he lives too far from its place of meeting to be able to attend? Campbell said no. And it is this that should determine to which congregation he belongs: the one he can attend each Lord’s day. If there is none that he can attend with regularity, then he should belong to none, with it being recognized of course that he nonetheless belongs to the Lord.

Out of this problem came Campbell’s preference for small congregations. Not only does this make for the simplicity of the primitive order and spare them of the temptation to build pretentious houses, but it diffuses the light over a much larger area, thus providing for more assemblies for a scattered people. Too, Campbell saw the small church as more conducive to learning. Believing as he did in the mutual ministry of an assembly, he passed up no chance to criticize “an assembly of carnal worshipers, in all the pomp and pageantry of the lusts of the eye, and the pride of life,’ waiting upon a Parson, all of whom, save one consecrated tongue, are dumb in the Christian worship.”

He did allow for a large church when it is convenient for all of them to meet in one place. But even here he suggests that this one large church should have numerous house churches as part of its program, with the elders of the city overseeing them all.

Campbell describes with some detail the addresses he delivered on this extended trip, In Wilmington, Ohio he once used Acts 3 as the basis of his remarks on remission of sins and the seasons of refreshment. In Cincinnati he addressed the disobedient on 1 Sam. 15 and Rom. 2, showing that, as in Saul’s sin of doing part of what God said, partial obedience is equivalent to total rejection of the message. The next time around he spoke to the obedient from Col. 3, dealing with the Christian’s concern for “the things which are above.” In the evening he would sometimes take up where he had left off in his morning’s message.

At a country congregation near Cincinnati he spoke on 1 John 4, in which he identified the Antichrist with mysticism, which he believed effected all the sects on the frontier. At Covington, Kentucky he spoke on sin and its cure, and at Leesburg, Kentucky he spoke on 2 Thess. 1, in which he argued that the gospel must contain a command or it could not be disobeyed as verse 8 indicates. At Georgetown, Kentucky he addressed a large gathering in a Methodist church on faith, reformation and remission of sins, drawing mostly from Acts 2 and 3.

At Georgetown, Kentucky he again based his remarks upon Rom. 2, one of the great chapters of the Bible in Campbell’s thinking, especially verse 7 which speaks of “glory, honor and immortality,” one of the great themes in his teaching. In Frankfort, Kentucky, the capital of the state, the churches all closed their doors to him, but not to be outdone he accepted an invitation from no less than the governor, holding conversations in his home. An academy was finally secured that accommodated several hundreds, allowing Campbell to speak upwards of three hours on 2 Tim. 3, which deals with the signs of the perilous age.

Alexander had a way of opening his meetings to anyone who might care to stand and register an objection. Sometimes a clergyman would speak for an hour in listing his grievances, with Campbell taking still another hour for a rejoiner. The meetings began early in the evening and would run for hours. Often there were morning and afternoon sessions as well, and extended conversations in between. Folk seemed to have had the time for such back in those days. An hour’s speech was hardly an introduction for Campbell, with two to three hours the usual length of his discourses. He was quite an exhorter, urging the lost to obey the Christ, and everywhere he went he immersed people, oftentimes with his own hands.

The subjects referred to thus far suggest the wide sweep of his thought, as well as their Bible-centeredness. It helps to explain his antagonism to what he called “textuary preaching,” the main cause, he thought, for the ignorance in the churches. Rather than taking a text and embarking on theological speculation, Campbell dealt with the depth and breadth of the great biblical themes, which kept him close to a rather large section of scripture, such as an entire chapter. Dealing with biblical ideas in their context, he would reach out almost endlessly to many of their ramifications, which moved him on and on into more and more scripture. He was always explaining, showing connections and interconnections, and yet always relating his findings to the sordid conditions in divided Christendom.

His discourse on John 3 in Lexington illustrates the broad sweep of his themes. Jesus’ interview with Nicodemus was the basis for his treatment of the kingdoms of nature, grace and glory, drawn from the usual characteristics of any literal kingdom. Each kingdom was created by a word of God; each produces that which is consistent with its nature or constitution — natural beings, gracious beings, glorious beings; each has its own means of producing the desired end — natural life, spiritual life, eternal life; each kingdom has its own birth or mode of introduction — natural birth, birth of grace, glorious birth. The first kingdom is entered by birth of the flesh, the second by birth of water and the Spirit, the third of and from the grave.

Each kingdom has its own salvation: the first from natural dangers, God being the savior of all men; in the kingdom of grace the soul is saved from guilt and sin; in the kingdom of glory one is saved from the grave and both body and soul are glorified. But one cannot belong to any of the three kingdoms without being born into it, the kingdom of grace being entered only by being born of water and the Spirit, which is the meaning of regeneration.

All this he would further illustrate by reference to the tabernacle with its outer court (kingdom of nature), holy place (kingdom of grace) and the most holy place (kingdom of glory).

Other topics he treated on this trip to Nashville, along with the hunk of scripture that always served as his points of departure were: the mystery of iniquity (2 Thess. 2, Rev. 17-18), faith (Heb. 11), the seven one’s (Eph. 4), the nature of obedience (1 Sam. 15), the constitution of the kingdom of heaven (Heb. 8), the conversion of the eunuch (Acts 8). Wherever he went Campbell had much to say about how the Christian faith leads to intelligence, purity and grace. It was beneath him to spend time with light and superficial themes.

Once in Nashville he spent much time with the congregation of reformers there and in adjacent communities. He immersed upwards of 30 people in the Cumberland river while he was there, and he had an extended controversy with Obadiah Jennings, pastor of Nashville’s Presbyterian church. This took the form of a debate, with. moderators and all, and set the stage for further confrontations with Jennings in later years.

At one point in the exchange with Jennings he was accused of being a factionist, which brought a response that serves well to illustrate what Campbell considered to be the ground of unity. He insisted that he and his people could not be justly accused of being sectarian “so long as we exclude from the kingdom of Jesus only those who will not acknowledge him to be Lord by doing the things which he commanded; so long as we make our own opinions private property, and require no person on pain of excommunication to adopt them.”

That makes for a valid guideline for us who are heirs of the movement begun by our pioneers. Had we been true to that formula set forth by Campbell in Nashville, we would not have divided at least one time for each decade since that grand day. We have divided because we have made our opinions tests of fellowship and have not held them as private property. — the Editor

Next installment: Campbell goes to New York

If a man does not keep pace with his companions, perhaps it is because he hears a different drummer. Let him step by the music which he hears, however measured or far away. — Thoreau