History Of The Church
Lesson 14 Part 1: The Restoration Movement
The Latter Part Of The 18^th Century And The 19^th Century

Speaker: John Phillis
Date: December 15^th, 22^nd, 29^th, 2004 and January 5^th, 12^th, 19^th, 26^th, 2005, Wednesday Evening Adult Bible Class

We are continuing our look at the church, what has happened to the church throughout the ages. We are coming up to the point in time in the latter part of the 18^th Century and the 19^th Century, when we are going to be looking at attempts to restore New Testament Christianity, not to reform a broken church, not to restore some that has already apostatized, but, rather, to RESTORE Christianity, going back to the Bible.

In the last two lessons, we have spent some time sort of setting the stage for this period of time and for this activity that we’re going to be talking about. We have noticed that America, during the period of the 18^th and 19^th Centuries, was replete with many denominational groups, some of which have been exported from the old country, Europe, and some of which had begun here in America and were at that time unique to America. So, there was not a shortage of “churches,” so to speak.

Also, in our last lesson, we looked at sort of the social, the political, landscape during this period of time to remind ourselves of what people might have been thinking, what people might have been experiencing, in those days. We noticed that there were some ideologies that were afoot in those days, which affected the thinking of people, which affected the lives of the people. Some we might not think about, necessarily, associated with that period of time, but people of that age were affected by urbanization, the Industrial Revolution; they were affected by organic evolution—Darwin’s theory of organic evolution. Also, Biblical criticism was afoot in those days, people looking for ways to discredit, even to destroy, the Word of God. Secularism had come about, basically attempting to replace the values, the moral judgments, and so on, that people had lived by from the Bible for generations, with human thought and direction.

We also saw that there was the issue of slavery here in America. This, of course, would influence the thought and the actions of people, not only in the government, not only in the military, not only those who were slave owners, but there was also a profound effect among the people, religiously speaking.

But, there was also going on during that period of time something that was called “Revivalism.” There were attempts being made by a number of different people, clergymen, leaders in different denominational groups, to revive the spirit of enthusiasm, to get people to return. And, once again, thinking about the effects of some of the things that we have talked about—secularism, the Industrial Revolution, etc.—all of these kinds of things affected the behavior and the lives of people. And so, there were religious leaders trying to bring a reawakening of a more spiritual way of thinking. It is with that framework, then, that we see something begin to take place, something that would eventually be titled, referred to as, the Restoration Movement.

I want to be perfectly clear about this, as we look at this. To be honest with you, I’m not really sure right now how much detail we’re going to go into. We’re in a little bit of a crossroads here in this study that we’ve undertaken. We’ve engaged in this study since May of this year [of 2004]. That’s a long time to be looking at the same subject, although I think you’d agree with me, it has been a varied look. We haven’t been just concentrating on one thing. We’ve been looking at history, and many of you said that you’ve enjoyed this very much, but we could just do a fairly cursory look at the Restoration Movement, look at some of the key characters, and do that over the next couple of weeks or so, and then suspend this study maybe to a later time when we could take up a more detailed discussion, get into more detail about the lives and the actions of some of these ones who are associated with this Movement, and then carry it through to our day. We may do that. It may time for us to sort of shift gears and to move back into a textual study for a while in this class, and then pick this up some time in the future. Or, we could continue on with what we’re doing and take this more detailed look, even after the New Year. Tell me what you think about that, and we’ll see how that goes. [We continued in the study.]

But, what I wanted to say was this: Regardless of what we end up doing with the study and far we go with it, we are not, the church of Christ is not, the church of Alexander Campbell or of Thomas Campbell, or of Barton W. Stone. We are not Campbellites. They didn’t start the church of Christ. The church of Christ began on the Day of Pentecost in the city of Jerusalem. And so, those who have a misunderstanding, and those who are often critical, of the churches of Christ are just simply wrong about that. We have nothing to be ashamed about; we, of course, are sometimes put in the position of defending ourselves. But, I just want us to be clear upon that particular point. Yes, we have seen the church of our Lord go in to apostasy. We have seen His church changed beyond being able to be recognized as the church the Lord established, His church which was established on the Day of Pentecost, as read about on the pages of the New Testament.

But this doesn’t mean that the church went out of existence. It doesn’t mean that there have not always been faithful brethren. That’s the nature of the Lord’s church. I believe that is one of the reasons that He organized it, that He made it the way that He did. It is not dependent upon a line of succession. In other words, in order to establish our credibility as the Lord’s church, we don’t have to be able to establish a line of succession all the way back to Jerusalem and the Day of Pentecost. It isn’t necessary.

I think it was old Brother Marshall Keeble who made the point that, if you wanted to grow Texas watermelons in Tennessee, you didn’t have to stretch the watermelon vine all the way from Texas to Tennessee in order to grow Texas watermelons. All you had to do was plant the seed! You know, you take the seed from Texas, plant it over in Tennessee, or New Mexico, or wherever, and that’s what you’ve got—Texas watermelons!

And, that’s the way it is with the Lord’s church. And so, what we’re seeing here, what we’re looking at in the way of a Restoration Movement, are some individuals…. And I think that it’s very interesting to note that this was taking place in a variety of different places among men, among individuals, who were not connected. These simultaneous efforts that were underway in various locations, spread out geographically, are rather fascinating. After hundreds of years of denominationalism and apostasy, changing the doctrines of the Bible, changing the church that the Lord established that we read about in the New Testament, to be something that was not even able to be recognized, and then here we see in this latter part of the 18^th Century and into the 19^th Century that there are some individuals who are having some problems with that. And they begin, some of them in their own way and in their own areas, their own parts of this nation, at least, to make some changes. So, these thoughts, these ideas, this desire to go back to the Word of God, were something that was alive in the minds and the hearts and the spirits of several individuals in different places. And, wherever they were—this side of the ocean, or the other side of the ocean—whether in Ohio, or in West Virginia, or in Kentucky—it didn’t make any difference, because of the nature of the Lord’s church. And so, what we’re seeing here is not the, shall we say, the re-establishing of the church that had gone out of existence, not at all. We are seeing attempts to restore what was already established in the Day of Pentecost—restoring New Testament Christianity.

When I’m talking to folks sometimes, I like to use the analogy of baseball (well, you could use whatever sport that you like in this analogy). Baseball is played using an Official Rule Book. And what makes baseball truly baseball is the fact that those rules are followed: the field is set up in a particular way; the bases are 90 feet apart; there’s a pitcher’s mound that is elevated to a certain height and is 60 feet from home plate; the field is a diamond shape; there are 9 players on the field; you use a ball of a certain circumference and it is made of certain materials; and you play the game with certain rules in effect.

When you play that game of baseball, and you play it according to those rules, then you’re playing baseball. But, if that were to be stopped, OR, if someone were to take that game and pollute it—change the shape of the ball to an oblong shape made out of pig skin; change the dimensions of the field; you know, whatever…change whatever—you would no longer be playing baseball, would you? You’d be playing, oh, maybe, a form of baseball, maybe something that you could identify, maybe a few things about the game that you could remember.

But, you know what I’m saying. What would happen, even if we went on for generations doing this perverted form of what used to be baseball—what would happen 50 years, or 100 years, or 1,000 years, in the future if you were to reinstitute that game following that rule book? You set those bases up 90 feet apart in the shape of a diamond, and the pitcher’s mount is 60 feet from home plate, and you change the ball back to that exact weight and diameter that’s called for in the Rule Book, and you had 3 outs, and you scored…..you know. What would happen? I submit to you that you’d have baseball—you’d have exactly what you had 50 years before, or 100 years before, or 1,000 years before—you’d have exactly the same game, you see, because it was set up as was originally intended—according to the Rule Book—according to the official “law” of baseball!

And so, what we see here are some individuals who are going back to the Rule Book—the Rule Book being the Bible, the Word of God. Hey!! I’ve not a novel idea: Let’s throw out all of the catechisms; let’s throw out all of the manuals that have been developed; let’s get rid of all of the titles and all of the organizations; and let’s just go back to the Rule Book. Well, what would we have? Who would you have? Would you have Campbellites? No, they didn’t invent it; they didn’t make it what it is. They just simply began looking back. And, O, by the way, if we do a more detailed study of the Restoration Movement, we’ll see that they didn’t just wake up one morning—Barton W. Stone, or Thomas, or Alexander, or “Raccoon” John Smith, or any other of these pioneers in the Restoration Movement—they just didn’t wake up one morning and have it all together, you know. They just didn’t wake up and have down [in their minds] a complete understanding from the Scriptures about the five steps for salvation, or that the music offered to God in worship is a capella singing, or what the organization of the church is to be, according to the Scriptures. No, restoring the New Testament pattern was something that took time, and took effort, in order to get from where they were to where we are now in the Lord’s church.

I just want for us to be clear on that—that we are looking here at restoring New Testament Christianity. And the way it is being restored is by going back TO the Scriptures. And that could have been done in any age, and in any place, as it continues to be done even today. I think that’s important for us to remember.

Along that line, there’s no better analogy—my baseball analogy is probably fairly lame, but there’s no better analogy than the analogy that we see in the Scriptures about the very nature of things, as God created them. All the way back to the book of Genesis—Genesis, chapter 1, verses 11 and 12—the things that God created, He created them in the way that they would produce one kind according to its kind [“Then God said, ‘Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in itself, on the earth’; and it was so. 12 And the earth brought forth grass, the herb that yields seed according to its kind, and the tree that yields fruit, whose seed is in itself according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.”].

And, we see in the New Testament that Jesus will frequently use parables, and He will talk about growing things. He will talk about the fact that the Word of God is the seed, and when the seed is properly planted—for example the parable of the sower/the parable of the seed there in Matthew, chapter 13—that when that seed is planted in fertile ground, then what is it going to produce? Well, it’s going to produce the same thing time, and time, and time again. It will produce in the 21^st Century exactly what it produced in the 1^st Century. And so, if the Word of God was being preached, was being taught, by faithful men, and it was being received into fertile hearts, it was producing Christians. If the Word of God is preached today, faithfully presented, and is received in fertile hearts, what does it produce? It produces Christians, just like it did in the 1^st Century, and just like it does in the 21^st Century.

And, the same thing is true of the church. The church was established, the church was planted, the church grows in accordance with the Word of God. And so, if you plant that seed in the 1^st Century, you get the church that belongs to Christ. When you plant that seed in the 21^st Century, you get the church that belongs to Christ. Or, as we are talking about here during this Restoration Movement in the latter part of the 18^th Century and the 19^th Century, when you plant that seed, you get the churchthat belongs to Christ. And, that’s what these men sought. That’s what they were attempting to do—this principle that God set forth in creation—the identification of His Word being seed, and that seed producing after its kind. Why would anybody believe that what God has ordained to be so [to be the same] in every other area of His creation—that is, one thing producing after its kind—would be any different with His Word, which is the seed?

Well, we see that around the end of the 18^th Century and the beginning of the 19^th Century, a group of men widely separated geographically came to recognize this principle as it related to the problem of religious division. I’ve read of some Restoration activity going on in Europe, specifically in England, in the latter part of the 17^th Century and into the 18^th Century. And so, these things were going on. The ground was fertile for these things to happen. We see that men were looking; they were searching. They saw the fruits of division and recognized that they were not in keeping with the seed that should be sown in the hearts of men.

By the way, if you want to read some of the best information that’s available on this particular subject—maybe some of you have read it; maybe some of you have the books of Earl West in your library called The Search for the Ancient Order. No finer work has been done on this subject than what Brother West has done.

But, we see that there is another principle at work here, as well, and that is what Jesus spoke about in Matthew, the 9^th chapter, about it being foolhardy to attempt to put a new patch on an old garment. And, perhaps, that’s what some of these men were seeing, as well—that it would not work. As we have seen, men like Luther and Wesley, and others, were disturbed about the direction things were going, about the things that were going on, about the way the church had been perverted, about the fact that the Bible was not being followed, and they were concerned about all of these things, and they made attempts, NOT at restoration, but they made attempts at reformation—in effect putting a new patch on an old garment. Well, it just will not work, as they found out.

There is no definite time, no specific date, that we can look to for the beginning of this Restoration Movement. But, there were a number of influences that would bring this about, and, again, individuals who were wanting to get back to the Bible. “The Bible Alone” was a common phrase that was being used.

One of the earliest attempts at restoration that we know about, at least, is the work of one named James O’Kelly. He was a leader in the Methodist Church at the time that Francis Asbury was appointed the Superintendent, and that was in about 1790. And remember, this is the Methodist Church here in America. Remember, we talked about the growth, the development, of the Methodist Church here in America and when Mr. Asbury was appointed as the Superintendent.

Well, they were having a general conference in Baltimore on November 1, 1792, and at this general conference of the Methodist Church, Mr. O’Kelly made a plea that ministers of the church be given the right to appeal to the conference if they didn’t like their ministerial appointment. Well, in those days—and it still is the practice of many denominational groups—there is a synod, or a conference, or a council of some sort, that makes the preaching appointments. The local congregation has little or nothing to say about who will come and “pastor” the church, and most often, the clergyman has nothing to say about that, as well. Well, this was one of the grievances that Mr. O’Kelly brought up—wanting to have the ability to appeal the decisions of the conference.

Well, they refused his plea. You know, it seems almost fairly innocuous, this particular request, but it just points just how stiff, and how steep in their tradition, these groups were. You did not cross them; you did not question. And so, Mr. O’Kelly was refused, and he and some followers withdrew from the Methodist Cconference. Well, following their withdrawal they set about establishing the “Christian Church”, that in August of 1794. Now, that is not the same Christian Church that we are familiar with today.

As they did this, they adopted what they called “Cardinal Principles of the Christian Church” by which they would henceforth be guided. I think that these five principles are quite instructive and give a great insight into what they were thinking, what was on their minds, the direction that they were attempting to go. Let’s just notice those:

1) The Lord Jesus Christ is the only Head of the Church.

Well, who among us would not say “Amen” to that?

2) The use of the name “Christian” to the exclusion of all party and sectarian names.

Amen.

3) The Holy Bible, or the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, the only creed and a sufficient rule of faith and practice.

Amen, again.

4) Christian character, or vital piety, the only test of church fellowship and membership.

Well, we would have to question that, but they were trying to think in the right direction, at least.

5) The right of private judgment and the liberty of conscience, the privilege and duty of all.

Well, again, we see where they are attempting to go. They’re attempting to make a break; they see the futility of the system that they’ve been a part of; and they see that there is a new direction that is needed.

Well, this particular effort on the part of James O’Kelly did not really have a close association with this Restoration Movement, but its basic philosophy and thinking really helped to pave the way for some of the others who would follow in their attempts to go back to the Bible.

The next earliest tendency toward restoration that we know about was that which was led by Dr. Abner Jones and Elias Smith. Mr. Smith was born on June 17^th, 1769, in Lyme, Connecticut. He began to prepare to preach at the tender age of ten years. By 1801 he began to doubt some of the Calvinistic teachings and ideas of the Baptist Church for which he preached. Hence, he and four others began meeting together separately in December of 1802. In 1803, Mr. Smith met Dr. Abner Jones. Dr. Jones was a medical doctor, and he was sympathetic toward the efforts of Mr. Smith. He was in agreement with the attempts to return to the Bible. And so, he assisted Mr. Smith in drawing up articles for a church at what was referred to as a “Christian Conference.” In 1805, they disbanded the Conference, and also the articles, as being useless.

Now, that is instructive; it’s interesting to note, because we will see something in our later studies that will similarly be done by Thomas Campbell. And, what they were doing were the struggling first steps in going from their denominational traditions and practices to follow the Bible only, and these efforts were fraught, often times, with attempts to sort of recreate what they already had, and had left. You see, they had left one organization that was organized with a hierarchy and with conferences, and with a creedal system, and that’s what they began with in their efforts to reform. So, they came to the realization that they were repeating themselves. But, to their credit, they would realize and say, “Wait a minute. We’ve been there and done that. We don’t need to do that again,” rather, simply turn to the New Testament as their source.

Smith issued a publication called The Herald of Gospel Liberty, with 274 subscribers, which is credited by some as being the first religious paper in the world.

Well, here’s a quote from Earl West’s book on this particular effort. He says, “This New England movement, as we have said, puts its primary significance to the fact that men and women were looking in the direction of the New Testament order of things, and away from sectarianism. That they did not go far enough is only to be expected when one considers the natural tendency. In those days, they were traveling in uncharted waters. They were thinking their way along.”

Well, this particular movement, perhaps, didn’t get all that far, and it is not that well-known, but it was significant in that they refused to use any name, any title, except Christian, and they contended for the use of the Bible as their only authority.

That brings us, then, to Barton W. Stone. He was born on December 24^th, 1772, in a place called Port Tobacco, Maryland. (Hummm, I wonder what they did there? Probably grew cotton, do you suppose? No, probably not.) He, of course, would eventually become a very prominent figure in the restoration of New Testament Christianity. Looking at the time frame there, 1772, he was born before the Revolution. Thus, the Church of England, as we have pointed out, was the “mother” church, was the established church, the accepted church, in many of the colonies here in America. And so, Barton W. Stone would be christened, would be sprinkled, as an infant, in the Church of England.

Growing up during the Revolutionary War, he was anti-war. That was caused because of his experience. After his father’s death, his mother moved from Port Tobacco, Maryland, to near the border of North Carolina, which was the site of several major battles. And so, he heard the gun fire; he saw the results of battles, and of war, and, thus, throughout the remainder of his life he was affected by that.

But, actually, in his early life, he became somewhat un-infatuated, uninterested, in religious things. What brought that about, primarily, was because, as a youth, he had opportunity to listen to, to hear, a number of discussions—not really debates—but discussions and disagreements over religion. And, of course, he would have grown up during the time of the Revolutionary War. And, you remember what happened just a very short time after we won our independence from England—the Church of England was eliminated, and the Anglican Church took its place here in America. When the clergy of the Church of England left America, there was sort of a vacuum there, and Stone saw people sort of wandering around, not knowing what to do, and Sunday, the Lord’s Day, became sort of a common day. And then, he saw the influence of other denominational groups, as they would come in, and there would be bickering and fighting, and he just didn’t really want any part of that. And so, he was not really involved in those discussions and disagreements, but he heard many of them, and they left him rather cold, actually, toward religion.

But, his father died when he was just a young man, and with his portion of the inheritance, he decided that he would go to school, that he would pursue his education. He went to a Presbyterian school called “David Caldwell’s School” in North Carolina, although he was not aware that it was Presbyterian when he went. Now, don’t ask me how he didn’t know before he went that a great deal of religion was part of the curriculum. I’ve not uncovered that information yet. He had in his mind that he would rather be a statesman. He was influenced for his interest in life, even in vocation, that he would be a statesman, by such individuals as Patrick Henry, who was not really a neighbor of Barton W. Stone, but he knew of him, and he lived nearby.

David Caldwell’s School was the place where he had the opportunity to hear a well-known, fairly renowned Presbyterian minister named James McGready. Now, there’s an interesting story behind that: After hearing James McGready and being impressed with him, young Barton’s interest in spiritual things, the Bible, etc. was rekindled. What had gone cold was able to be rekindled. BUT, here is the interesting part of it. After being at David Caldwell’s School in North Carolina for a period of time, he realized that it was centered on, based on, religious instruction. He was not too happy about that. He, really, wasn’t too interested in the course of study, and so, he made up his mind that he was going to leave that school and go to another school where he felt as though he could better pursue his desire to be a “statesman.” He had his bags packed; he had already made that decision; had apparently already made the announcement, etc. that this was what he was going to do. But, the day he was going to leave, there came a huge downpour. He didn’t want to travel in such conditions. And so, he decided he would stay over another day. Well, it was at the insistence of one of his classmates that he went that very night and heard this very powerful Presbyterian preacher named James McGready. That really changed his life. He decided, after all, to stay there at David Caldwell’s School, and he would eventually become a Presbyterian minister. Now, providence of God? I don’t know, but had he left that day and gone to another school where the curriculum was centered on secular things, we may have lost one of the real leaders in the Restoration Movement. Well, I thought that was an interesting sidelight there.

In our last lesson, we had left Barton at Cane Ridge at the Cane Ridge Meeting in Cane Ridge, Kentucky, where he would get himself in trouble with the leaders of the Presbyterian Church. We want to talk a little bit more about that and the establishing of what was called the Springfield Presbytery, and so on.

Barton would have problems with the Presbyterian doctrine. There were a couple of influential periods in his life, both during his schooling, as well as during the time following the end of his schooling and his waiting to be “ordained”—there was an ordination process that was part of the Presbyterian denomination—that he would struggle with the things that he had learned, things that were presented as Presbyterian doctrine and their creedal system, and the Bible. He spent a lot of time reading and studying the Bible. One of the things that gave him the most difficulty was the Presbyterian doctrine, based upon Calvinism, of “total depravity.” That, of course, basically is a doctrine that says that man is born in sin; man has a sinful nature; and there’s virtually nothing that man can do to overcome that; and it’s only through the grace of God, the call of God, that one can overcome that. And his problem was fairly obvious, and one would have to wonder why more people don’t come to the same conclusion, or have the problem that he did, and that is: Why preach a Gospel of repentance when the doctrine says a person can’t help themselves? And so, Stone struggles with that, as well as a number of other things.

It would be at the Cane Ridge Meeting near Paris, Kentucky, in August of 1801, when he would actually preach a sermon and taught that the Gospel was universal, and that faith in it would save. Well, that got him crossways with [in trouble with] the Washington Presbytery, and he would, along with several colleagues—by the way, there were a number of his associates and colleagues who would join with him—leave the Washington Presbytery and they would begin their own. It was called the Springfield Presbytery.

Now, interestingly enough, Stone did not have, if you will, “restoration” on his mind. He had reform on his mind, to reform the Presbyterian Church—not unlike Luther and others whom we have studied along the way, trying to reform and not trying to restore. And so, they formed the Springfield Presbytery to work within the Presbyterian “system,” so to speak, to make some changes.

Well, it would not be too long—it was actually less than a year’s time—when he, along with four of his associates, would come to the realization that forming another association, forming another Presbytery, was not the answer to the problem. And so, they would write and issue in June of 1804 what is called the Last Will and Testament of Springfield Presbytery. When they issued that, then that was, in effect, the end of any kind of association with the Presbyterian Church by Stone.

Well, at a subsequent meeting that these men would have together, they all agreed that they would, in effect, do away with all of the sectarian names and titles, all of the trappings, of the denomination, and they would refer to things in Bible ways. Namely, they would call themselves “Christians.” As they began to organize churches, they insisted not only that these churches refer to themselves as Christians, and not adopt sectarian titles, and so on, but also that each church be independent.

Now, it would be a period of time before they would accept and begin to teach the Scriptural form and purpose of baptism. I’ve mentioned before that unlike what some folks think, none of these men, whether it’s Barton W. Stone or the Campbells, none of these men woke up one morning and had it all together. This was a process that they were going through, a process that saw them first sever connections, sever ties, with a denomination, but then a process of study, of investigation, in come cases maybe even of trial and error, in developing and arriving at the Truth of God’s Word. And so, it wouldn’t be until, actually, 1807, when one of the four—it was not Stone—a man named Robert Marshall, who was one of the original five, would convince the others of the Scriptural mode of baptism being immersion, and that baptism was for the remission of sins. So, in June of 1807, Barton Stone and the other four were immersed. They would not, for a number of years, make this a test of fellowship.

Well, all of this is taking place in the area of Kentucky, of Southern Ohio. Simultaneously, there are some others who are doing similar work. I’m referring specifically to Thomas and Alexander Campbell. It would not be until the year 1824 when Barton Stone and the Campbells would actually meet. At that first meeting, they were really quite astonished, as they compared their views, to see how similar their thinking had become. And then, on April 24^th, 1831, the two groups—the effort that was being led by the Campbells and the effort that was being led by Barton W. Stone—would actually merge their efforts together to restore New Testament Christianity.

Barton Stone is well-known for having edited a paper, the Christian Messenger, for a number of years. He died on November 9, 1844, in Hannibal, Missouri, where his daughter and son-in-law were living. He was initially interred in Hannibal, Missouri, but he would later be moved to Cane Ridge, Kentucky. In recent years, there has been a monument erected there to honor Barton W. Stone.

We move on, then, and want to talk about the Campbells. Thomas Campbell was born on February 1, 1763, in County Downs, Ireland. He is described as a severe critic, a kind disciplinarian, and a devoted scholar. These attributes that he had would contribute, of course, to his own efforts, which we will discuss briefly, but would also contribute to the upbringing of his son, Alexander.

Thomas was a school teacher, but, of course, he was best-known, even as he continued to live in Ireland, as a preacher in the Anti-Burgher Seceeder Presbyterian Church. That bears a little bit of explanation, and the reason for that is two-fold, none the least of which is, “What in the world is an Anti-Burgher Seceeder Presbyterian Church??” The second reason is that he was associated with church division, and what divisiveness did to a “church,” and of course, we’re speaking here of a denominational group.

First, the Seceeder was brought about because of some liberal direction of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland in the latter part of the 18^th Century. There would be a group that would secede, would remove themselves from the main body of Presbyterians, becoming the Seceeder Presbyterian Church. Well, then, there was an issue that arose about “oath taking.” It was necessary, it was part of the legal and social structure there, that one was required to take an oath occasionally. It was in the Burg where this took place, and so there was a further division among the Seceeder Presbyterian Church about “oath taking,” and they split into the Anti-Burghers and the Burghers. Well, Thomas Campbell was an Anti-Burgher; he did not agree with “oath taking.” This doesn’t come into the actual title, but there was a further division even beyond that. There was a division of the Seceeder group into the New Lights and the Old Lights. Well, as you can see, they had split apart, divided, changed names, added names, etc. Thomas was very familiar with all of that. He was an Old Light Anti-Burgher in the Seceeder Presbyterian Church.

Well, due to his poor health, Thomas Campbell’s doctors advised him to travel to the New World. He was reluctant to do that, of course. He couldn’t afford to take his family, but at the insistence of his doctors and of his son, Alexander, he did come to America with the understanding that the family would later follow him.

He arrived in America in the early spring of 1807, and he would apply for a preaching license with the Presbyterian Synod of North America. He received his license and was assigned to the Chartiers Presbyterian Synod in the area of western Pennsylvania.

The same thing was going on in Thomas Campbell’s mind that was going on in Barton Stone’s mind. This came about because of his study of the Bible. He studied the Bible a great deal, and he began to have problems reconciling the doctrines of the Presbyterian Church with the doctrines of the Bible. And so, he began to preach more and more Bible, which conflicted with Presbyterian doctrine, and in less than a year, on September 13, 1808, he was discharged from the Presbytery that he was working for.

At this time, he would send for his family to come to America. Well, there is a very interesting story associated with their attempts to come to America. The first attempt that they made, they would actually end up shipwrecked, and all of them would survive, but they would be sort of stranded in Scotland. And it was during this period of time, while they were trying to rearrange their affairs to be able to once again attempt this trip to America, that Alexander would attend the University there in Glasgow—Glasgow University—and he would undertake studies in Greek and Logic and other liberal arts disciplines. His days while a student at Glasgow University would very much influence his thinking and development, not only in the near term, but in the long term, as well.

Finally, on July the 31^st, 1809, Alexander and his mother and the remaining part of their family left Glasgow. Four months later, they would arrive in America, arriving in New York in November of 1809. By the time they arrived in America, Thomas had formulated a document, which is called the Declaration and Address of the Christian Association of Washington, issued September 7, 1809. Proof copies had just come off the press when he showed them to his son, Alexander. Again, one of the little side stories here is that both Thomas, the father, and Alexander, the son, were concerned about sharing their present thinking with the other. Alexander, having a great deal of respect for his father, knowing that he was a preacher in the Presbyterian Church, was reluctant to share his thinking, which was moving away from denominationalism, with his father, whom he was thinking was still very steeped in it. Likewise, Thomas, the father, was reluctant to share his thinking with his son, because it was during the time that his son had spent at the University of Glasgow that Alexander had made up his mind that he was going to preach. So, Thomas was concerned about what his son, Alexander, would think about the direction that he, Thomas, was now going. One account that I read talked about how that after this sort of gut-wrenching anticipation and worry that both of them went through about what the other would think, they were just overwhelmed and overjoyed when they finally had that conversation to find out that they were both thinking the same thing and going in the same direction. Well, after reading the Declaration and Address, Alexander told his father of his intentions to spend his life not just preaching as a Presbyterian preacher, but in also seeking the Truth. The Declaration and Address also addressed the issue of the unity of believers on the basis of Biblical authority, and not upon some creedal system.

It was during this time that, not being licensed, not being allowed to preach in established congregations of the Presbyterian Church or any other denomination, Thomas was preaching in homes. He was sharing his way of thinking, and he was sharing the Scriptures with others, and there were some who were agreeing with him and were interested to hear more of what he had to say. It would be at the home of Abraham Alters near Washington, Pennsylvania, that Thomas would meet together with a group of some who were like-minded, and at the end of the speech that he made on this occasion he would coin the now famous phrase, “Where the Bible speaks, we speak; where the Bible is silent, we are silent.” And it would be, then, this statement which would become the marching orders of those who would follow in this Restoration Movement.

The son of Thomas, Alexander’s date of birth is unrecorded, but is assumed to be June, 1786, in northern Ireland. He studied Greek, Logic and other liberal arts studies at the Glasgow University.

He followed his father to America in 1809. As we noted before, strikingly enough, Alexander had come to the same conclusions in Ireland as his father had reached in America. By 1809, the Campbells were beginning to take steps which were to have profound effects upon the Restoration Movement. As we mentioned, Alexander arrived here in America in November of 1809. He and his father would share their beliefs, the changes that they had arrived at in their own thinking about Bible topics, and so on, and they were quite amazed that each one of them had more or less come to the same conclusions without having corroborated in that prior to that time.

Alexander preached his first sermon on September 16, 1810, at a place called Brush Run. His father, Thomas, had settled in a place called Washington, Pennsylvania, which was in the southwestern part of Pennsylvania, and Brush Run was somewhere between Washington, Pennsylvania, and Bethany, Virginia, which would eventually become Bethany, West Virginia. On March 12, 1811, Alexander married Margaret Brown. Their first child, a daughter, was born March 13, 1812. The reason that I mention this, and the reason that is important is because at the birth of his daughter, when it came time for this daughter to be sprinkled, which was, of course, the custom, the tradition, of the Presbyterian Church, this began a theological discussion on the part of Alexander, as well as Thomas, and they both concluded from their study of the matter that baptism was to be by immersion, and not by sprinkling, and that baptism was to be an immersion by believers. This, of course, would disqualify the infant daughter.

A little more discussion on the above: Previously, we talked about the fact that Thomas Campbell had come for health reasons to America from his native Ireland and had left his family behind. While he was here in America, even though it was relatively a brief period of time, he had already begun to question, to be concerned, about some of the doctrinal stands that the Presbyterian Church had on various matters, none the least of which was some of the Calvinistic doctrine that they taught. As we mentioned, he would eventually become a part of the Chartiers Presbytery in western Pennsylvania. Because of his teaching counter to Presbyterian doctrine, he got into trouble with the Presbytery.

But, one of the other issues that got him crossways with the leadership of the Presbyterian Church here was that he would not refuse communion to anybody. The practice of the Presbyterian Church was a closed communion. You recall that we noted that Thomas Campbell was a Seceeder Presbyterian, and if you weren’t a faithful, acknowledged member of the Seceeder branch of the Presbyterian Church, then you couldn’t take communion. Being on sort of the western edge of frontier, Thomas was preaching in various Presbyterian congregations where many people were coming together; and some of them weren’t even necessarily Presbyterians. But they didn’t have a lot of choices in that time and in that frontier condition. Again, he got in trouble with the leadership of the Presbyterian Church—that Presbytery—over the issue of communion.

You remember that we talked about the fact that it was during this period of time, from about 1807 to 1809, from the time Thomas came to America to the time that Alexander and the rest of the family arrived in 1809, that both of them had really had a change of heart, had a change of thinking. Both of them, in effect, had left the Presbyterian Church. It was during the time that Alexander was in Glasgow, Scotland—you recall that their first attempt to come to America resulted in a shipwreck, and the family was saved, but they went back to Glasgow where they could raise more funds and make another attempt to come to America; and during that time Alexander was in the University of Glasgow where he was undertaking various studies including Logic and Greek and so on—and it was during that time that he wrote several papers.

He did a considerable amount of study on the matter of the eldership. Now, the practice, the belief, of the Presbyterian Church was that an elder, or a group of elders, could oversee a number of churches. Well, Alexander did a Biblical study (and, by the way, this would be very much a benefit to him in latter years, as he would be involved in the implementing of the Scriptural, the doctrinal, organization of the church). But, nevertheless, he ended up in a discussion with some leaders of the Presbyterian Church there in Glasgow over this issue of the closed communion, because in his study of the Bible on the matter of both communion, as well as the work of elders, of presbyters [another word for elders], that really, this was something that they had wrong. And, as a matter of fact, the practice of the Presbyterian Church was, as I understand it, that the elders, the presbyters, would interview each person desiring to have communion, and they would determine from that interview whether you were worthy to have communion.

Well, the bottom line was that this, along with a few other things, caused Alexander, on the other side of the ocean from his father, Thomas, to denounce the Presbyterian Church, to leave the Presbyterian Church. So, not only were Thomas in America and Alexander in Scotland having these changes take place while they were separated by such a distance, but isn’t it interesting that one of the very issues that cause them both to eventually leave the Presbyterian Church was virtually the same issue—the matter of this closed communion? I found that to be quite interesting that these two good men, father and son, would have such a similar experience.

And so it was, then, that on June the 12^th, 1812, Alexander, his father, Thomas, along with both of their entire believing families, were immersed for the remission of their sins by a Baptist preacher named Mathias Luce. They were baptized in Buffalo Creek, which was near the home place. They didn’t necessarily understand the purpose of baptism. This would actually come at a later time, but they were convinced by their study of the Scripture that they needed to be immersed. [“On June 12, 1812, Alexander Campbell and his father, together with other members of his family, were immersed in Buffalo Creek by Mr. Mathias Luce of the Baptist Church. However, it was thoroughly understood and agreed by Mr. Luce and those who were to be baptized that they were not to be required to give a ‘religious experience’ as was practiced by the Baptists and that the only confession they were to make was the one made by Peter at Caesarea Philippi, that Jesus is ‘the Christ, the Son of the Living God.’” (John D. Cox, Church History, pg. 86.]

In 1816, Alexander and Thomas and their families would be taken in by the Redstone Baptist Association, and they would begin (Alexander particularly) preaching in Baptist churches. As a matter of fact, it was in 1816 that Alexander would preach one of his best-known sermons, “The Sermon on the Law.” In this sermon, he made differentiation between the Old and the New Testament. Heretofore, it had been preached and understood, then as well as now, by many denominations that both the Old and New Testaments had equal authority in terms of our Christian living and that kind of thing. But, Alexander made it clear that there was, indeed, a difference—that Moses’ Law had been done away with; that while the Old Testament, of course, should not be just cast off, should not be thrown away; that as Paul said in Romans 15, verse 4, that it was good for our understanding, for our learning, and as it says in 1 Corinthians, that it is there for our example [see 1 Corinthians 10:6-11], and so on. But, Alexander made it clear that there was a New Will, a New Testament, to be followed. And this sermon left the Baptists in something of a turmoil, causing them to realize that there was something different about the Campbells.

We will discuss more of this in the future, but, of course, Alexander would become more prominent than his father in these efforts. That was, in part, because he was, of course, a younger man, but he was also very much a scholar and writer. In documents that have been written about him and his practices, he would arise every morning at four o’clock, and he would work steadily until ten o’clock at night. He was a successful debater; he would engage in a number of different debates over the years. He was also an excellent writer and editor; he wrote a number of books which dealt with the principles of the Restoration Movement. He would also write religious papers. The first one was called The Christian Baptist, and he would write and publish that from about 1823 to 1829, but he wanted to not be associated with the Baptists, and so he would eventually change the name to Millennial Harbinger, and he would write and edit and publish that from 1830 to 1866. He also became the president of a college, Bethany College [still existing in the town of Bethany, West Virginia], and he would make that a well-established and well-known school. It is now operated by the Disciples of Christ.

Of course, this was well before the Internet, well before all of the modern things that we have today in the way of passing information. Travel was very difficult, and so on. But, it would be through three means that preaching would be done. Of course, there would be preaching that would be done in association with the worship on Sunday; there were, of course, meetings which were held (and, oh, by the way, they weren’t the four-day meetings, or the weekend sessions that we have; they were meetings that were weeks and weeks long); and there were also debates. We’re going to mention some of the debates that Alexander Campbell had. Those were taken very, very seriously, and attracted a great deal of attention. But, moreover, it was the written word which was a very powerful tool that was used in that day; this was recognized early on by Alexander Campbell. Of course, Barton W. Stone published a paper, as well. As we have stated before, he was in the northern Kentucky/southern Ohio area.

But, Alexander Campbell, in particular, recognized the value, the power, of the written page. So, in his publication, The Christian Baptist, he spent a great deal of time attacking the so-called “clergy” system and attacking some of the doctrines of not only the Baptist Church, but other denominational doctrines, as well. He wrote at length about establishing, or reestablishing New Testament principles. He used the paper to actually pass this word, and it would be very effective in leading many to this concept, to this idea, of the Restoration.

Interestingly enough, the Baptists also realized the power of the written word. In 1830, they began to publish a paper in that area called Anathamus. It was a paper primarily directed toward Alexander Campbell, warning the Baptists about the “Campbellites,” how to recognize a Campbellite; and about that “water salvation” should be avoided at all costs.

Well, Alexander had already severed his ties before this time with the Baptist Church, but it would be decided, though, that because of the association of the name “Baptist,” The Christian Baptist, many would continue to associate him with the Baptist Church, and he changed the name of his paper to The Millennial Harbinger. That took place in about 1830.

Well, I mentioned debates. I’m not really sure how many debates that Alexander Campbell undertook. I have mentioned just how capable he was, what a great scholar he was. He was capable not only with the pen, the written word, but he was also very capable in this area of debating. Over a period of about 12 or 15 years, he would conduct a number of debates; there are about five or six that are fairly well-known. In 1820, he debated with Mr. John Walker, who was a Seceeder Presbyterian, over the mode of baptism, namely infant baptism versus believers’ baptism, and sprinkling versus immersion. In 1823, he had a debate with another member of the Presbyterian clergy, W. L. McCalla. This, once again, was over the issue of immersion versus sprinkling. By the way, it was during this time, this debate in 1823, that Thomas Campbell, Alexander, as well as some others who were associated with the Restoration Movement, namely Walter Scott, agreed that they would begin to teach that baptism was for the remission of sins. And so, you see, there was a period of about ten years or so from the time that they became convinced that immersion of believers was the Biblical form of baptism before they would begin to preach that it was for the remission of sins.

In 1829, Alexander debated a well-known agnostic of the day named Robert Owen, and they said that on the last day of this debate an estimated 1200 people were present. This debate was conducted in Cincinnati, Ohio. He would also debate an official of the Catholic Church, a Bishop John Baptiste Purcell, also in Cincinnati. This took place in 1837.

In November of 1843, he debated another Presbyterian in Lexington, Kentucky, and interestingly enough, the moderator of this debate was the well-known statesman and politician, Henry Clay. Henry Clay, of course, is known—he was not a member of the church, but he was well-known as a senator of several terms from Kentucky, and also an unsuccessful presidential candidate—he ran for president on more than one occasion.

There was a book that was published from this debate, and the book was over 900 pages! More than 500 of those 900 pages was actually the debate script. What were the other 400 pages? Well, you know, the ancillary things—index, table of contents, bibliography, instructions, comments by the moderator, etc.

And then, Alexander debated with one named Obediah Jennings, also a Presbyterian, in 1832. This debate took place in Nashville, Tennessee.

Just a few more things about Alexander Campbell that I thought would be interesting to you. Of course, he was very, very well-known. He was the friend of statesmen; he was the friend of presidents. He was not only a well-known debater and preacher, but he was the President of a college, Bethany College, which is in Bethany, West Virginia. He was a very, very successful businessman. He never took any remuneration for his preaching; he was self-supporting; not that he had anything against preachers being paid, but he was able to support himself and his family quite well. He was also visited with tragedy. He would end up having two wives die, as well as a couple of children in childbirth. But, the death that affected him most was the death of a son, Wickliff. This would happen while Alexander was on a trip to Scotland in 1847 or so. The boy was swimming in the creek near the home, this Buffalo Creek where the family had been baptized back in 1812, and he would drown in the creek. Alexander, of course, received word of that while he was on this trip to the British Isles. Friends and acquaintances say that he never really recovered from that; that he would grieve for the rest of his life and change visibly in some ways that his friends and his associates could see.

There were a couple of other things that would transpire during that period, as well, that would affect his health. It would be on this trip to the British Isles, when he was in Scotland, that he would actually be imprisoned for a brief period of time. He was accused of slander by someone. It turned out that he would eventually be exonerated, but he was accused of slander; he was imprisoned; and during his brief stay in prison he would become quite ill—he would develop cold and fever. That would begin a decline in his overall health.

But, during that time in Scotland he preached to a gathering of over 7,000 on one occasion in Edinburgh, Scotland. That was in August of 1847. He preached for three hours. Somebody said, “Whew!” [Laughter] Thomas Chalmers, who was a commentator and who wrote some about this trip to Scotland, said that “Campbell was one of the greatest orators to come and speak in the British Isles.”

Well, in addition, Alexander would be faced with some difficult things that would come about in the late 1840’s and early 1850’s. One of the things that came along during that period of time in the middle part of the 1800’s was the question of Missionary Societies. We will be discussing this further. While, in the beginning, Alexander Campbell taught that Societies outside of the church were manmade, therefore were unscriptural, he would eventually be named as the first President of the American Christian Missionary Society in 1849. He was never active; he never really took it, they say, all that seriously, but this would affect his credibility in the eyes of some—the fact that he would be a part of that movement.

By the way, there was another issue that came along during this same period of time of the middle 1800’s, and that was the matter of instrumental music. Alexander never would, never did, support the use of the instrument of music. As a matter of fact, he is quoted as saying that “an instrument of music in the worship would be like having a cow bell at a concert.” In other words, it just didn’t belong there.

Alexander Campbell died on March 4, 1866. I would just mention briefly that the Millennial Harbinger, which was, of course, his paper that he had written and published for those many years, was taken over by his son-in-law, W. K. Pendleton. Oftentimes, you see the name of W. K. Pendleton as being associated with the Restoration Movement. But, Pendleton would be guilty, really, of revising the Declaration and Address of Thomas Campbell. He would write in the Millennial Harbinger that what Thomas had really intended when he made the statement about “speaking where the Bible speaks; and being silent where the Bible is silent,” was that, yes, one should speak where the Bible speaks, but where the Bible is silent there is liberty. This is how Pendleton “interpreted” what Thomas Campbell had said, stating that this is what Thomas really meant by his statement of “being silent where the Bible is silent.” In other words, if the Bible doesn’t condemn it specifically, then it is acceptable…according to Pendleton’s “interpretation” of Thomas Campbell’s statement. Does that sound familiar? You know, there are many in our day who are advocating that same thing. And so, this, of course, would fuel some of the fires that were going on at that time, like the Missionary Society, the question of instrumental music; also “higher criticism.” You know, we spoke a number of weeks ago about what was going on in the 19^th Century, and that one of the things that affected the thinking was “lower criticism” and “higher criticism.” Well, this fueled the fires of those who were involved in “higher criticism.” And, of course, it would begin to open the doors of apostasy for this Restoration Movement.