ward

Vol. 2 No. 2 (1958): 73-91

The Nineteenth Century Restoration Movement

and the Plea for Unity

Roy B. Ward

INTRODUCTION:

“The first pronounced appeal for Christian unity in the United States came from Barton W. Stone, a Presbyterian minister of Kentucky, in 1804, and from Thomas Campbell and his son, Alexander, of the Seceder Presbyterian Church in Western Pennsylvania, in 1809.”¹

Stone and the Campbells were not, to be sure, the first men ever to take seriously the prayer of Jesus, “that they may be one,” (John 17:21). Paul attempted to heal the Corinthian schism. The earliest councils, while condemning heretics, also tried to bring back into the one fold those who wandered astray. Roman popes and Byzantine patriarchs tried to heal the East-west divisions. And when Protestantism was breaking off from the Roman Catholic Church, a man like Peter Melanchthon was ever trying to avert that eventual schism.

It was, indeed, the Protestant Reformation which has made the prayer of Jesus prick the hearts of many Christians. While attempting to purify the catholic church, this movement resulted in various parties and divisions; while attempting to uncover the “truth” for which Jesus prayed (John 17:17), it moved further from his prayer “that they may be one.” Less than a century after Luther nailed his 95 thesis on the door of the Castle Church in Wittenberg, men were appealing for unity among Protestants and Catholics. George Callixtus (1586-1656) led one of the first efforts for unity. His basis for unity was to be found in the early creeds of the first five centuries. In the same era Wilhelm, Leibnitz, Molanus, and others worked for unity much on the same basis. In England in 1657 John Owen published a tract. On Schisme The True Nature of It Discovered and Considered, and there followed a number of tracts reviewing and criticizing his views. Not long after Richard Baxter displayed his eagerness for the unity of Christians, publishing in 1680 his True and Only Way of Concord of All Christian Churches.

It is in this tract of Baxter that we find a convenient place from which to move to the movement of Stone, and the Campbells. In the course of his arguments, Baxter states:

“Were there no more said of all this subject but that of Rupertus Meldenius cited by Conradus Bergins, it might end all schisms if well understood and used, Si in NECESSARIIS

______________

¹Ainslie, Peter, “Christian Unity,” Encyclopaedia Britanica (1945), vol. 5, p. 639.

sit UNITAS, in NON-NECESSARIIS LIBERTAS, in UTRISQUE CHARITAS . . . would do all our work.”²

Thomas Campbell rejected this maxim in so far as it used the terms “essential” and “non-essential, in matters of revealed truth and duty. . .”³

But underlying: the great monument associated with his name, The Declaration and Address, was this maxim of Meldenius, as amended by Campbell. He substituted the words “faith” and “opinion,” so that the spirit of Campbell and of the nineteenth century restoration movement is properly coined, “In matters of faith, unity; in matters of opinion, liberty, in all things, love.” And, as Baxter had said over a century before, this spirit would lead to an end of schisms and a unity of the church.

I. HISTORICAL ANALYSIS

A. Early movements of Restoration.

In 1794 a group of Methodist preachers under the leadership of James O’Kelley met at Old Lebanon in Surry County, Virginia. These men had been at variance with the General Conference and especially with the new American Methodist bishop, Francis Asbury. The preceding year they had several relations with the Methodist Episcopal Church, taking the name, “Republican Methodists.” At the Old Lebanon meeting Rice Haggard suggested that they be known simply as Christians. A North Carolina minister, Hafferty, further proposed that the Bible itself should be their only creed. From their motions a statement was issued which became known as the “Five Cardinal Principles of the Christian Church.” Jesus Christ was affirmed as the only head of the Church, the name Christian was to be worn, the Scriptures were to be the only creed and sufficient rule of faith and practice, Christian character was to be the test of membership and fellowship, and the right of private judgment and liberty of conscience was affirmed to be the privilege and duty of all.⁴ In these principles can be detected a certain ecumenical outlook, if not explicit, then certainly implicit. Each one of the five propositions was basic to later movements which were explicitly ecumenical in outlook. However, in practice the O’Kelley movement did not basically stress the doctrine of the oneness of the body. Garrison comments, “A careful reading of the records does not discover evidence that the concept of the essential oneness of the Church entered into the thinking of them in any significant way.⁵

Meanwhile, at the turn of the century, a similar movement was beginning among the Baptists in Vermont and New Hampshire. In

______________

²Baxter, Richard, True and Only Way of Concord of All Christian Churches, p. 25.

³Campbell, Thomas, “Declaration and Address,” Historical Documents Advocating Christian Union, p. 95.

⁴See West, E. I., The Search for the Ancient Order, vol. 1, p. 10.

⁵ Christian Unity and Disciples of Christ, p. 63.

1801 a Baptist preacher, Elias Smith, was perturbed over the doctrines of Universalism, Calvinism, and Deism. Writing 14 years later, Smith stated:

While meditating upon their doctrines and my own situation, and saying, what shall I do? there was a gentle whisper to my understanding in these words: ‘Drop them both, and search the scriptures.’ . . . From that moment, my mind was delivered from calmnism, universalism, and deism, three doctrines of men, which people love, who do not love holiness . . . for fourteen years, I have believed them to be contrary to the doctrine of Christ, and so I consider them now, (Jan. 30, 1816) and so must, unless I reject the doctrine of Christ.”⁶

In May of 1802 Smith preached in Epping, N. H., on the text, Acts 11:26. “I ventured for the first time, softly to tell the people, that the name CHRISTIAN was enough for the followers of Christ, without the addition of the word baptist, methodist, etc.”⁷ In the summer of that year 11 baptist ministers met in what was called “The Christian Conference.” “The design of these men was understood to be this; to leave behind everything in name, doctrine, or practice, not found in the new-testament.” Smith comments that some turned back. He further comments, “I was confident at first, that if we attended to our proposition, it would end in a final separation from the baptist denomination. So it proved in the end.”⁸ In June 1803 Smith met Abner Jones of Vermont, “the first free man I had ever seen.”9 The two were then to work together in the common principle that guided them. However, this principle basically was one more of liberty or freedom than of unity. The “cause” which Jones encouraged in Smith was “the cause of freedom.”¹⁰

Smith’s publication, beginning in September 1808, was fittingly called the Herald of Gospel Liberty. Both men preached, lectured, and wrote on liberty and freedom. Their position on names and creeds was one that was possible of ecumenical implications, but in the history of the movement these implications were not found.¹¹

In 1796 Barton Warren Stone appeared in Kentucky after preaching a short time in Virginia and North Carolina. He was but a licentiate, and in 1798 he came up for ordination by the Transylvania Presbytery of the Presbyterian Church. Stone was asked, “Do you receive and adopt the confession of Faith, as containing the system of doctrine as taught in the Bible”? He replied, “I do, as far as I see it consistent with the Word of God.”¹² Stone’s

______________

⁶ The Life, Conversion . . . of Elias Smith, pp. 292, 3.

⁷ Ibid, p. 298.

⁸ Ibid., pp. 300, 301.

⁹ Ibid., p. 321.

^l0 Ibid., p. 322.

¹¹It should be noted that this emphasis on liberty was also characteristic of the neighboring and contemporary movement which resulted in Unitarianism. At their inception both movements were very similar, though they developed in different directions. Cf. Wright, C. C., The Beginnings of Unitarianism.

¹²As quoted by West, E. I., op cit., p. 22.

reserved answer was indicative of the changes taking place in his thought. He and others in the area were turning away from the orthodox Calvinistic views, and in 1803 Stone and four others broke from the Presbyterian Church. These in turn formed the Springfield Presbytery. They issued a document, known as the “Apology of the Springfield Presbytery,” in which was expressed total abandonment of all authoritative creeds except the Bible. Then, in June of 1804, the organization was dissolved, and “The Last Will and Testament of the Springfield Presbytery” was issued.

It is significant that the first item of the “Will” acknowledged the oneness of the church. “We will, that this body die, be dissolved, and sink into union with the Body of Christ at large; for there is but one Body and one Spirit, even as we are called in one hope of our calling.”¹³ The succeeding items struck at those things judged to be unscriptural and the invention of men. The seventh item stated: “We will, that the people henceforth take the Bible as the only sure guide to heaven. . .”¹⁴ That Stone and his associates had as a motive Christian Unity is demonstrated in the Witnesses’ Address.

Their reasons for dissolving that body were the following: With deep concern they viewed the divisions, and party spirit among professing Christians, principally owing to the adoption of human creeds and forms of government. While they were united under the name of a Presbytery, they endeavored to cultivate a spirit of love and unity with all Christians; but found it extremely difficult to suppress the idea that they themselves were a party separate from other. . . . Therefore, from a principle of love to Christians of every name, the precious cause of Jesus, and dying sinners who are kept from the Lord by the existence of sects and parties in the church, they have cheerfully consented to retire from the din and fury of conflicting parties. . . .¹⁵

The address ends:

We heartily unite with our Christian brethren of every name, in thanksgiving to God for the display of his goodness in the glorious work he is carrying on in our Western country, which we hope will terminate in the universal spread of the gospel, and the unity of the church,^l6

This document marked the first clear statement of ecumenicity in the movement which was starting over the nation. It began with the doctrine of “one body.” It breathed of that Spirit in its “Address.” Six men signed this document, but the author is unknown. One of the signers was Stone, and it was actually he who truly made this document a spring-board for movement of restoration and unity.

______________

¹³Marshall, R. et al., “Last Will and Testament of the Springfield Presbytery,” Historical Documents Advocating Christian Union, p. 20.

¹⁴ Ibid., p. 21.

¹⁵ Ibid., pp. 24, 25.

¹⁶ Ibid., p. 26.

In 1808 Thomas Campbell, a seceder Presbyterian recently of Ireland, was suspended from the Chartiers Presbytery of Pennsylvania. The basis for the suspension was made the preceding year when John Anderson charged that Campbell was a teacher of a false doctrine in that he had heard him say that there was nothing but human authority for creeds and confessions of faith. Campbell continued to preach in the houses of friends near Washington, Pennsylvania. It was here that he concluded a speech with the motto, “Where the Bible speaks, we speak; where the Bible is silent, we are silent.”

In 1809 the “Christian Association of Washington” was organized not as a church, but as a society for the promotion of Christian Unity. It was from this society in September 1809 that there appeared the “Declaration and Address,” a document written by Thomas Campbell and accepted by the Association. In the first of three parts, the “Declaration,” the desire of the association, was expressed:

Our desire, therefore, for ourselves and our brethren would be, that, rejecting human opinions and the inventions of men as of any authority, or as having any place in the Church of God, we might forever cease from further contentions abouL such things; returning to and holding fast by the original standard; taking the Divine word alone for our rule; the Holy Spirit for our teacher and guide, to lead us into all truth; and Christ alone, is exhibited in the word, for our salvation that, by so doing, we may be at peace among ourselves, follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord.”¹⁷

In the second part, the “Address,” this desire was expanded, basically according to Campbell’s re-statement of Meldinus’ maxim. Campbell notes that most all are agreed upon “the great doctrines of faith and holiness,” as also upon “the positive ordinances of the Gospel institution.” The differences are about “matters of private opinion or human invention.” Therefore, Campbell asks, “Who, then, would not be the first among us to give up human inventions in the worship of God, and to cease from imposing his private opinions upon his brethren, that our breaches might thus be healed?”¹⁸ Within the “Address” are presented thirteen propositions designed to promote unity, Proposition one asserts:

That the Church of Christ upon earth is essentially, intentionally, and constitutionally one; consisting of all those in every place that profess their faith in Christ and obedience to him in all things according to the Scriptures, and that manifest the same by their tempers and conduct, and of none else; as none else can be truly and properly called Christians.”¹⁹

______________

¹⁷Campbell, T., et al, “Declaration and Address,” Historical Documents Advocating Christian Union, pp. 73, 74.

¹⁸ Ibid., p. 93.

¹⁹ Ibid. pp. 107, 108.

Proposition Three asserts:

‘. . . nothing ought to be inculcated upon Christians as articles of faith; nor required of them as terms of communion, but what is expressly taught and enjoined upon them in the Word of God. Nor ought anything to be admitted, as of Divine obligation, in their Church Constitution and managements, but what is expressly enjoined by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ and his apostles upon the New Testament Church; either in express terms or by approved precedent.’²⁰

The final proposition asserts:

That if any circumstantials indispensably necessary to the observance of Divine ordinances be not found upon the page of express revelation, such, and such only, as are absolutely necessary for this purpose should be adopted under the title of human expedients, without any pretense to a more sacred origin, so that any subsequent alteration or difference in the observance of these things might produce no contention nor division in the church.²¹

Said Campbell, “‘Union in Truth’ is our motto.” He elaborated on this motto in the third part of the document, the “Appendix.” “Union in truth among all the manifest subjects of grace and truth, is what we advocate. We carry our views or union no further than this, nor do we presume to recommend it upon any other principle than truth alone.” Campbell adds, “Now, surely, truth is something certain and definite.”²² The Declaration and Address proved to be a classic for the movement which followed it. It was the product of Thomas Campbell, and it was described by his son, Alexander Campbell, as containing “what may be called the embryo or the rudiments of a great and rapidly increasing community. It virtually contains the elements of a great movement of vital interest to every citizen of Christ’s kingdom.”²³ The document expressed the restoration ideal found also in the O’Kelley movement and the Smith-Jones movement, but here the context was an urgent plea for the oneness of the church. Garrison has commented: “The ‘Address’ is a ringing pronunciamento for a united church. As such it had no comparable predecessor in modern times.”²⁴

B. Movement Crystallizes

In the first decade of the 19th century four separate movements in four different areas had begun along similar lines. The common element among the four was a plea for “restoration.” It is with

______________

²⁰ Ibid., pp. 108, 109.

^2l Ibid., p. 114.

²² Ibid., p. 186.

²³As quoted by Young, Historical Documents Advocating Christian Union, p. 34.

²⁴ Op. cit., p. 78.

the movements centered around Stone and the Campbells that we are particularly interested, for these not only assumed greater prominence, but they also expressed the greatest concern for Christian Unity.

Alexander Campbell arrived from Scotland shortly after the issuing of the Declaration and Address in 1809. He soon subscribed to the principles of this document and began preaching in Western Pennsylvania. In 1823 he published his first issue of the Christian Baptist. In the Prospectus he stated: “‘Christian Baptist’ shall espouse the cause of no religious sect, excepting the ancient sect called ‘CHRISTIAN FIRST AT ANTIOCH.’”²⁵ The following year Campbell met with Barton W. Stone for the first time. In 1826 Stone began his publication, the Christian Messenger; its motto was: “Let the Unity of Christians Be Our Polar Star.”

By 1831 the Stone and Campbell movements were merging in form as well as Spirit. Stone and Campbell were vigorous workers in those years, and the plea for unity continued to be made. However, the ecumenical emphasis did differ in the views of these men. For Campbell the dominant motif was restoration; for Stone it was Christian Unity.

Stone’s plan for union was this: “There is but one effectual plan, which is, that all be united with Christ and walk in him.”²⁶ Stone refused to define this much further, though he held essentially the same restoration views as Campbell. Stone’s recent biographer has emphasized that “Unity was the dominating passion of his life.”²⁷ Stone looked for a practical means for it; he felt that Christian love and trust were its essential bases. The Christian Messenger was ever true to its motto as Stone continually pleaded for unity, which he called “the most important subject that ever engaged the attention of man.”²⁸ Late in his life, in 1841, Stone even reveled in an imaginary convention of all denominations in the United States.

But Campbell was not deaf to the plea for unity. He was heir to the formulations of the “Declaration and Address,” and his publications, the Christian Baptist and the Millennial Harbinger, proclaimed the ecumenical plea. In a book published in 1835²⁹ Campbell brought together material from these publications in a section entitled “Christian Union.” The central theme of this section is a passage from the 1824 Christian Baptist:

But the grandeur, sublimity, and beauty of the foundation of hope and ecclesiastical or social union, established by the author

______________

²⁵Campbell, A., Christian Baptist, vol. 1.

²⁶As quoted by West, W. G., Barton Warren Stone. . . ., p. 127.

²⁷ Ibid., p. 110.

²⁸As quoted by Ibid., p. 130.

²⁹ Principles and Rules . . . .

and founder of Christianity, consisted in this, that THE BELIEF OF ONE FACT, and that upon the best evidence in the world, is all that is requisite, as far as faith goes to salvation. The belief of this ONE FACT, and submission to ONE INSTITUTION expressive of it, is all that is required of Heaven to admission into the church. . . . . The one fact is that Jesus the Nazarene is the Messiah. The evidence upon which it is to be believed is the testimony of twelve men. . . . The one institution is baptism into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Every such person is a Christian in the fullest sense of the word. . . ³⁰

II. BASIS FOR UNITY

If we say that the emphasis of Stone was “Union” and that the emphasis of Campbell was “restoration,” we have not actually pitted these two leaders against each other. To be sure. Stone and Campbell opposed each other on various occasions. But they were much alike, because “union” and “restoration” were but two sides of the same coin. The Declaration and Address had expressed this view at the beginning of the movement. Speaking in the context of unity, the “Address” states:

Were we, then, in our Church constitution and managements, to exhibit a complete conformity to the apostolic church, would we not be, in that respect, as perfect as Christ intended we should be?³¹

Both Stone and Campbell believed that the unity necessary for the church of their day was that unity which characterized the primitive church. Restore that church, and you restore unity.

The “Restorers” were one in the opinion that the basis of the unity of the primitive church was not organizational. Scripture was silent as to any over-arching organization which would of itself secure and maintain unity. Not only that, they noted that when “organization” was used to produce unity, it invariably failed, in that not all would accept the uniting rule. In the Last Will and Testament and the Springfield Presbytery the witnesses asserted that they “found that there was neither precept nor example in the New Testament for such confederacies as modern Church Sessions, Presbyteries, Synods, General Assemblies, etc.”³² This attitude prevailed, especially in the writings of Campbell. Early in the restoration movement he wrote:

We will say, that the government of the church is an absolute monarchy, and that the Lord Jesus Christ is the absolute monarch . . . every society or assembly meeting once every week in one place, according to this law, or the command-

______________

³⁰vol. 1, no. 9.

³¹Campbell, T., et al., “Declaration and Address,” Historical Documents Advocating Christian Union;” p. 93.

³²aMarshall, R., et al., “Last Will and Testament of the Springfield Presbytery,” Historical Documents Advocating Christian Union; p. 24.

ments of the king, requires no other head, king, lawgiver, ruler or lord than this Mighty One. . . . In fact there is no other authority recognized, allowed, or regarded, by a society of Christians meeting in one place as a church of Jesus Christ, than the authority of its king or head.³³

Thus the movement proceeded along congregational lines, which was believed to be both a restoring of the primitive church pattern and a polity not dangerous to the essential basis of unity. Stone warned, “Every attempt at a more perfect consolidation is a departure from the simplicity that is in Christ, and will ultimate in disunion and slavery.”³⁴ They did not believe that the primitive church found its unity in organization. The Restorers were even more emphatic in declaring that the unity of the primitive church was not based on the doctrines or opinions of any man or group of men, no matter how excellent. Stone stated “During the days of the apostles, the Christians lived in union and harmony among themselves; not altogether in a union of opinions; for this is unattainable, if desirable in the present imperfect state of man. . . .”³⁵

The essential unity was not found in an opinion; indeed, opinions could and did produce disunity. From the beginning of the movement this view was cardinal:

Opinions were not condemned as such; it was the use of them that was questioned. Campbell argued, “We do not ask them to give up their opinions; we ask them only not to impose them upon others.”³⁷ Here was the key: “in opinions, liberty.” It was the presumptuous use of opinions which lay at the basis of division. Let a man have his opinion—and Stone and Campbell had their own—but do not let him impose that opinion on others. To have liberty in opinions would pave the way to unity.

Let every sect give up its opinions as a bond of union, and what will remain in common? The gospel facts alone. . . . Their various interpretations, additions, subtractions, and new modifications of opinions concerning these facts, and not the truth or falsehood of the narratives, create all the confusion . . . if, by any means, they could be induced to abandon their

______________

³³ Christian Baptist, vol. 1 (1823), no. 4.

³⁴ S tone, B. W., “Church Government,” Work of Elder B. W. Stone, pp. 327, 8.

³⁵Stone, B. W., “Unity,” Work of Elder B. W. Stone, p. 345.

³⁶Campbell, T., et al, “Declaration and Address,” Historical Documents Advocating Unity, p. 73.

³⁷Campbell, A., Principles and Rules . . . , p. 121.

opinions, and retain the plain incontrovertible facts, the strife would be over.³⁸

Expressly, this view of the Restorers meant that unity could not be based upon such creedal formulations as the Westminster Confession of Faith, and the Thirty-Nine Articles. Going even further, they denied that unity could be achieved on the basis of the revered Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, or the works of the Fathers. Stone dated the apostasy of the Church from the day that authoritative creeds were introduced. He pointed to contemporary divisions among Presbyterians, Methodists, and Baptists over creedal differences. He called a creed a “paper pope” and pictured it as the “vicar of the Bible.” Campbell, expressing the same sentiment, said: “No human creed in Protestant Christendom can be found, that has not made a division for every generation of its existence.”³⁹

The attitude toward creedal statements was illustrated early in the movement. In 1810, when the Stone movement had been in existence six years, a number of ministers were assigned to draft certain doctrinal statements. But the following year it was the almost unanimous opinion of the group that no authoritative doctrinal standard, regardless of its merit, would be as the freedom of thought which they would surrender by adopting it.⁴⁰ The Restorers consistently refused the temptation to formulate a creed. They were also on guard against unwritten creeds. Stone condemned such, saying: “Whether these opinions be embodied in a creed book or not, the effect is the same, they will divide Christians.”⁴¹ Campbell agreed, stating that it is better to have a written standard if men will not be rid of sets of opinions and human symbols in their mind.⁴²

In what, then, did the unity of the primitive church consist? There was but one answer: Jesus Christ. The Restorers asserted that “church” meant people, or rather, a “peculiar people.” They were peculiar because they were “in Christ.” Those “in Christ” constituted the body of Christ, the church. The church was one simply because its constituents were one with Christ and Christ was one with them. “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:28). “Here there cannot be Greek and Jew, circumcized, and uncircumcized, barbarian, Sythian, slave, free man, but Christ is all, and in all” (Col. 3:11). The unity was more than theoretical, because being “in Christ” is more than theoretical. Being “in Christ” meant a dynamic relationship with Christ which was strong enough, in and of itself, to provide the identity and unity of a one-church.”

______________

³⁸ Idem.

³⁹ Ibid., p. 105.

⁴⁰See Garrison, W. E Christian Union and the Disciples of Christ, p. 73.

⁴¹As quoted by West, W. G., Barton Warren Stone . . . , p. 106.

⁴²See Campbell, A., loc. cit.

The Declaration and Address declared, “the first and foundation truth of our Christianity is union with him. . . .”⁴³ Stone wrote, “The members of the body cannot live unless by union with the head, nor can the members of the church live united, unless first united with Christ, the living head. His spirit is the bond of union.”⁴⁴ And for Alexander Campbell Christian union was based on the one fact: “that Jesus the Nazarene is the Messiah.”⁴⁵ The Restorers had not uncovered some new truth in asserting that unity must be essentially “in Christ,” but they challenged a more vital realization of it.

From the beginning it was felt that there existed an essential unity of those “in Christ,” but too many other things competed for the loyalty of these individuals. Individuals might be related to Christ, but find their identity and unity in an organization or a creed. With such divided loyalties these individuals could not be united. Therefore the cry went out, “. . . we must come out from among them, and be separate.”⁴⁶ And yet this call for separation was an ecumenical call. It was a call intended to unite all those “in Christ.” Those “in Christ” constituted the church, not a party. The believers within parties must separate from the things that compete with Christ (party names, creeds, etc.). To separate from these would allow the simple, yet dynamic, unity in Christ to be effective.

Since the church was the sum of those “in Christ” and since the unity of the church was by reason of being “in Christ,” the basis of getting “into Christ” became important to the thought of the Restorers. Looking again to the primitive church, the Restorers asserted that the basis for getting into Christ was faith. But in the days of the Restorers “faith” could mean many things. The Restorers, therefore, were interested in restoring the primitive meaning and use of the term.

For faith to be one, it had to be in the one fact. The term “fact” was significant. Christianity was not deemed to be based on a system of thought nor in subjective feelings. What was important was a fact—something happened! And fact was the object of faith. Campbell spoke of the gospel facts as the objects of faith: “. . . all that is recorded of the sayings and doings of Jesus Christ, from his birth to his coronation in the heavens.”⁴⁷ But he spoke also of the one factwhich was the basis of unity: “Jesus the Nazarene is the Messiah.”⁴⁸ This could be believed by all because it was something which happened. And it alone was necessary to be believed—not

______________

⁴³“Campbell, T., et al., op. cit., p. 124.

⁴⁴As quoted by West, W. G., op. cit., p. 127.

⁴⁵Campbell, A., op. cit., p. 119.

⁴⁶Stone, B. W., “Unity,” Work of Elder B. W. Stone, p. 355.

⁴⁷Campbell, A., op. cit., p. 108.

⁴⁸ Ibid., p. 119.

whether Jesus was homoousios with the Father, whether he had one or two wills, etc. And because the fact was one, the faith was one. Furthermore, faith rested on testimony, for the fact could be known only on the basis of testimony.

Furthermore, faith rested on testimony, for the fact could be known only on the basis of testimony.

The love of God in the death of the Messiah, never drew a tear of gratitude or joy from any eye, or excited a grateful emotion in any heart among the nations of our race to whom the testimony never came. No fact in the history of six thousands years, no work of God in creation, providence, or redemption, has ever influenced the heart of man or woman, to whom it has not been testified.”⁴⁹

To put it more directly, “Who ever believed in Jesus Christ, without hearing the history of him? ‘How shall they believe in him whom they have not heard?’”⁵⁰ Testimony to the one fact meant the Scriptures. Systems of thought could not testify to Him, except as interpretations of Scripturesand these are but opinions. Stone asserted that faith rested on the testimony of Scripture, thus denying the idea of faith as a gift of the Spirit, as was prevalent in the minds of many then.⁵¹ The Scriptures testified to the one fact; hence there could be one faith. And only the confession of this one faith was ever required of an individual. This simplicity and Christ-centeredness of the Confession was believed to be one which all who were truly loyal to Christ would make. To require more would disunite.

As the restoration movement got under way the Restorers noted that one thing more was particularly associated with the primitive church and her unity; namely, baptism. Paul had said, “For in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. . . . You are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:26-28). As faith was the principle by which one got “in Christ,” so baptism was the action.

Stone was immersed in 1804 and through continued study became convinced that immersion was for the remission of sins and should be administered to the penitent believer. Alexander Campbell, after serious study, was immersed in 1811, and in succeeding years he also became convinced that its purpose was for the remission of sins.

In practice Stone and Campbell differed in their emphasis on baptism in regard to unity. After Campbell became convinced of the necessity of baptism, he could not conceive of a unity which included unbaptized persons (which include those who had received infant baptism). Stone, on the other hand, would not exclude the unbaptized.

To assert that none but such as have been immersed for the

______________

⁴⁹ Ibid., p. 109.

⁵⁰ Ibid., p. 111.

⁵¹“See Stone, B. W., “An Address to the Churches,” Work of Elder B. W. Stone, p. 149.

remission of sins, are members of the Church of Christ, is to assert that Christ has had no church on earth for many centuries back: for but a few years ago had the old apostolic doctrine of baptism for remission been received.⁵²

Stone became inconsistent at this point due to his tremendous desire for unity. Seeing the obstacle which this “old Apostolic doctrine” placed to unity, he set it asidethough he felt that the unity of the church must be the unity of the primitive church.

Baptism was, for the Restorers in general, significant for unity because it was significant for getting “in Christ.” Campbell, Stone, and others repeatedly denied that baptism was significant in and of itself. The significance of this action lay only in its relation to Christ and on the basis of a faith in Him.

A special importance was seen in baptism as an act in time. “Then it is that the spirit, soul, and body of man become one with the Lord. Then it is that the power of the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, come upon us. Then it is that we are enrolled among the children of God. . .”⁵³ As an act of faith it becomes a milestone in the life of the individual. It becomes the line of discrimination between two states, to which the individual may ever look back. Baptism for Campbell enabled man to have assurance of his being in Christ; as such it was also a testimony to others. This was significant for unity “in Christ.” Vagueness as to one’s being “in Christ” would seriously hinder any kind of real unity. The primitive church could have real unity because it was generally known who was “in Christ,” i.e., baptized believers in every place.”⁵⁴ Also significant to unity was the fact this act was a voluntary one. In the primitive church no one was a member who did not want to be. The unity of such a group was truly a dynamic onemore so than if the church were co-terminous with the population or included any except believers. When a person was baptized, it was because he chose by this act to be “in Christ,” and the action itself was inseparably tied to Him. This was the view of the Restorers, and they believed it led to a vital, dynamic union “in Christ.” Campbell wrote, “Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Christ, and is baptized should be received into the church . . . everything is established requisite to the union of all Christians upon a proper basis.”⁵⁵

III. THE RESTORERS AND THE ECUMENICAL MOVEMENT

Today, in the light of the present ecumenical movement, the Restorers have much to say. First, they would highly commend the current trends of thought about the essential basis of unity. This

______________

⁵²As quoted by West, W. G. op. cit., p. 16.

⁵³Campbell, A., op. cit., pp. 253, 4.

⁵⁴See Ibid, pp. 185ff.

⁵⁵ Christian Baptist, vol. 1 (1823), no. 4.

trend involves the connecting of ecclesiology with Christology, thereby making the importance of the unity of the church lie in Christ Himself. This trend is only a current one in so far as the modern era is concerned. The doctrine of the church had suffered persecution from all sidesfrom individualistic revivalism, from the critical interpretation that the historical Jesus never built a church, from the Social Gospel, from a complacently divided Protestantism which argued away the church as a “necessary evil.” Today the doctrine of the church is being brushed off and patched up. Its importance is not being viewed from an exclusive point of view; its importance is being seen as it relates to Christ Himself. And in this are ecumenical implication. A long as the church remained aloof from Christ, she was relatively unimportant, and the unity of this “necessary evil” was also unimportant. But when the church was seen in vital connection with Christ, her unity became as important as Christ Himself.

Bishop Anders Nygren has taken a leading position in pointing out this fact and its consequences. Early efforts in this century to unite the denominations took the different views of the denominations as the point of departure. Nygren sees that since the ecumenical conference in Edinburgh, 1937, a new approach has had rising acceptance: “The way to the center is the way to unity.”⁵⁶ The center was seen to be Christ, and it is He who is the unity of the church. Nygren’s lectures at Knox College in Toronto, 1954. were based upon this thesis: “to show how the Church has its ground in Christ and how this and nothing else is the basis for the unity of the Church.”⁵⁷ In the course of his treatment of this thesis Nygren argues: “Just as the Church is nothing without Christ, so also Christ is nothing without his Church.”⁵⁸ The import of this lies in the fact that if Christ had had no relation to his Church, he would not have been the Christ; and even more, “The body of Christ is Christ himself.”⁵⁹ Nygren does not mean that the body of Christ is a universal, spiritual church, that hovers, so to speak, over the world; “it is a concrete reality that exists within the world.”⁶⁰ It is expressed in its fulness in every congregation. Its essence lies in its participation in Christ. Therefore, Nygren concludes, “Since Christ is one, there is but one body of Christ. And because the Church is the body of Christ, there is, and there can be, but one Church.”⁶¹

The Bishop of Lund is not alone in this emphasis. K. L. Schmidt, from the point of view of New Testament studies, argues that Christ

______________

⁵⁶Nygren, A., Christ and His Church, p. 10.

⁵⁷ Ibid., p. 111.

⁵⁸ Ibid., p. 90.

⁵⁹ Ibid., p. 96.

⁶⁰ Ibid., p. 98.

⁶¹ Ibid., p. 108.

did found the church. In his treatment of the Pauline use of ekklesia he writes:

. . . the ekklesia as the soma Christou is not a mere association of men . . . . Definitive is the communion with Christ. To sharpen this point one could say: A single man can and must be the ekklesia, if he has communion with Christ. . . . it must be noted that with Paul, the followers of Paul, and then with the Fourth Evangelist, ecclesiology is nothing other than Christology and conversely. Paul speaks with a strong accent on this, that among Christians, thus in the ekklesia as the soma Christou, all human differences are abolished: Col. 3:11; Gal. 3:28.⁶²

Daniel Jenkins, in his recent contribution to the Christian Faith Series, writes:

The work of Christ in the incarnation, the cross, the resurrection, and the ascension is inseparably bound up with the descent of the Spirit and the founding of the apostolic Church. So far is it from being the case that there is doubt as to whether Jesus founded a Church that it has to be said that the work of Christ is meaningless without the Church and the Church is unintelligible without reference to that work. . . . Men cannot claim to belong to the Church until they know that Christ in the Spirit whom He has sent to represent Him and who gives to them that unity which binds them to Him and to one another.⁶³

And at the recent North American Conference on Faith and Order at Oberlin, Ohio, Section One reported: “The Church is one as Christ is one . . . It is by one Spirit that men are incorporated into the one body. . . . the imperative to manifest our unity concretely and visibly in the world is based on the truth that God has made us one in Christ.”⁶⁴

This emphasis of Nygren, Schmidt, Jenkins, the Oberlin conference, and others is the same emphasis which dominated the work and writings of Stone, Campbell, and the other Restorers. In the midst of seeming indifference to not only the divided state of Christendom, but to the doctrine of the Church itself, these men gave new—or rather, the old—meaning to this doctrine, grounding it basically and fundamentally in Jesus Christ.

But while the Restorers would applaud this emphasis in Christ as the basis of unity, they would at the same time be severe critics of several trends in the ecumenical movement.

The first probable criticism would lie in the area of organization. Division II of the recent Faith and Order Conference at Oberlin considered the question of organization in its relation to unity. The report of this division first defined the church as “an ordered community whose Head is Christ, and it is the Body of Christ.”⁶⁵ The

______________

⁶²Schmidt, K. L., "Kaleo . . . ," Theologisches Woerterbuch zum Neun Testament, vol. 3, p. 515.

⁶³Jenkins, D., The Strangeness of the Church, p. 47.

⁶⁴Minear (ed.), The Nature of the Unity We Seek, p. 178.

⁶⁵ Ibid., p. 206.

Division further noted the necessity of organization to carry out the mission given to the church, and it asserted, “The unity of the Church is both visible and invisible,”66 To these findings the Restorers could give hearty consent. But the report continues,

Churches of episcopal, presbyterial, and congregational polity, with combinations of these elements, are represented in this conference. We recognize that all of these forms of polity have deep rootage both in historical tradition and in the faith of their adherents. We point out (1) that there can be no large measure of organic union without a resolution of these differences in a more inclusive whole.”⁶⁷

Here lies the criticism: Such an attitude will lead in practice to a unity in organization rather than unity in Christ.

The present trends in ecumenical organization involve either a synthesis of the three types of polity, or the parallel maintaining of each type in a system, such as the Greenwich plan.⁶⁸ In case of the former, an example of which can be seen in the Church of South India, the diocesan bishops is maintained, along with elements of presbyterial and congregational forms. But this diocesan bishop, whether he be called a bishop or not, represents a potential competitor to Christ as the basis of identity and unity. If the churches are brought together under a group of men, the situation is still the same. The churches in an area can—and will in practice—rely upon the decisions of this bishop or council to make them alike in faith and practice. Competent studies in church history reveal that the rise of monepiscopacy and the diocesan system were connected with the attempt to find unity in persecution and heresy.⁶⁹ Ignatius, the first witness to monespiscopacy, said “. . . for where the bishop is, there is the Catholic Church” (Smyrneans 8:1). In this theory, obedience to the bishop was obedience to Christ (Trallians 2:1), yet in practice the church found its identity and unity in the bishop. Throughout the history of Christendom the episcopacy and constituted councils have served as unifying factors. There is no reason to believe that it would be otherwise in an ecumenical church of today. That Christ alone is the head of the body become too theoretical when a man or group of men a”:e actually exercising headship, even though as vicar of Christ.

In the case of the Greenwich plan congregational, presbyterial, and episcopal polities are maintained side by side, and yet the problem is not solved. Some may seek their identity and unity in Christ, while others seek these in a man or group of men. Dr. E. E. Garrison would seem to favor the Greenwich plan when he writes, “If

______________

⁶⁶ Ibid., p. 207.

⁶⁷ 1bid., pp. 207, 8.

⁶⁸See pamphlet, “A Plan for a United Church in the United States,” proposed by Greenwich Conference on Church Union.

⁶⁹See Knox, “Ministry in Primitive Church,” Ministry in Historical Perspective, pp. 24, 25; see also Williams’ article.

there cannot be room in a united church for those who are wedded to episcopacy with unbroken apostolic succession and those who are as firmly wedded to freedom from that limitation of the ministry, then there can not be a united church.”⁷⁰ But Dr. Garrison overlooks the fact that one “wedded” to an organization cannot be “wedded” to Christ. And, course, neither can a person “wedded” to “freedom from that limitation” (which I take to be congregational polity).

The report of Division II was correct in saying that the church must have organization, but this organization must not compete with Christ for the identity and unity of Christians. Congregational polity is not freed from dangerous tendencies: exclusiveness of individual congregations, the pre-eminence of a man or group within a congregation, possible “idolatry” of the system itself, etc. Yet the potential of misplaced identity and unity is not inherent in this polity. No one man or group is interposed between congregations and Christ, and if various congregations are to feel a connection, it must be by Christ.⁷¹ Apart from the usual arguments as to which polity is “scriptural,” congregational polity provides the best kind of organization for that unity which is basically and dynamically in Christ.

This may seem to violate the maxim of the Restorers, “. . . in matters of opinions, liberty.” To them, this was not a matter of opinion. That Christ was the only head of the church was involved in the one fact to be believed by all. Men could hold their opinions, but not those which rejected or impaired the one fact. For them, episcopacy and the presbyterial system negated this fact. For Christ to be the head of the Church in a real sense, only congregational polity could be employed.

A second criticism concerns the subject of baptism. Section 3 of the Oberlin conference discussed the subject, Baptism into Christ. In the opening of the report the Section stated:

In faithfulness to the eternal Gospel, churches have from the beginning obeyed the Lord’s command to baptize. In this obedience they have found a mark of their oneness. . . . When we probe together into the apathy that exists in every church, and into the widespread ignorance and superficial conceptions of the sacrament, we discover a common need not only to remove obstacles to unity but also to recover the oneness and truth of this event.⁷²

At the conclusion of the report, the section states: “Christians are

______________

⁷⁰Garrison, W. E. Christian Unity and Disciples of Christ, p. 247.

⁷¹Of course, other factors could bind congregational churches, such as creeds, (written or unwritten), social factors, etc. These, however, did not unite the churches of the first century, and need not now. See Niebuhr. H. R., The Social Sources of Denominationalism.

⁷²Minear (ed.), op. cit., pp. 194, 5.

one in our baptism into Christ.⁷³ To this statement and attitude the Restorers would give hearty agreement, but not to the fact that in this report “baptism” means both believers and infant baptism.⁷⁴

The importance of believers’ baptism to any ecumenical understanding of the church lies first in the fact its connection to Christ and secondly in the fact that it is a voluntary response to Christ. This was acknowledged in the Oberlin report under a Statement of Differences: “Those who affirm only believers’ baptism emphasize the necessity of personal faith and decision as conditions of God’s activity in bringing the new man into existence.”⁷⁵ But what must be realized by all is that real unity in Christ cannot be achieved unless “decision” is made by each member. When the church is conceived as containing those not committed to Christ by their own decision, the result is not only lack of unity in Christ, but also lack of the dynamic element that is in Christ. This has been so when political or social pressures made the church co-extensive with the country or society. Infant baptism makes the church co-extensive with the sum of a number of families.

It is true that in practice adult baptism has not always been equal to believers’ baptism. When this is so, the same arguments hold true against it as against infant baptism. Of real significance in the act of baptism is its voluntary nature. Without this element baptism at any age is less than the primitive practice; infant baptism always falls under this judgment.

It may be argued by those who practice infant baptism that they have an act to correspond to believers’ baptism, namely, confirmation. But this involves an increasing complexity of problems. How can confirmation provide unity when its origin lies out of the primitive church? How can this conform to the “one baptism” of Eph. 4, since it actually acknowledges two? How are those who are baptized and not confirmed to be classified and treated? If those who baptize infants see a need for a decisive act based on faith, why not baptism, which re-enacts the death and resurrection of Jesus (Rom. 6)?

To be sure, the children must not be forgotten. The Oberlin section raised this question of the churches which practice only believers’ baptism: “What is the responsibility of the Church to the unbaptized child of Christian parents?”⁷⁶ This question is important, yet it is highly improbable that any real difference exists between the baptized and unbaptized children of Christian parents in regard to

______________

⁷³ Ibid., p. 198.

⁷⁴Of course, the committee that discussed this subject was composed of both those who practice believers’ baptism and those who practice infant baptism, and it was natural that both types would have their place in the report.

⁷⁵Minear (ed.), op. cit., p. 197.

⁷⁶ Ibid., p. 199.

whether they grow up to make a personal commitment to Christ or not.

Again, it may be argued that this view seems to violate the Restorers’ maxim, “. . . in matters of opinion, liberty.” But again, this was no matter of opinion for them. The Oberlin report itself acknowledged baptism to be “grounded in Scripture and the command of our Lord . . . .”⁷⁷ This fact made it a part of faith. But it wasn’t just the term “baptism” that was a part of faith; it was what baptism essentially was. Stone, Campbell, and others saw it as an act of faith, intimately associated with getting into Christ. Infant baptism they could nowhere find in the primitive church. And, indeed, it would not lead to that dynamic unity which they believed to be in Christ.

CONCLUSION

“In matters of faith, unity; in matters of opinion, liberty; in all things, love.” In this maxim the Restorers combined a plea for the ancient order of things and a plea for unity. The problem then and today lies in what are matters of faith. The Restorers did not see this as an impasse too great to overcome. They believed that the Bible is the testimony to the faith and that it can be understood by all as far as response to Christ is concerned.

This brief survey of the nineteenth century Restoration Movement and its relationship to the current ecumenical movement leaves many questions unanswered, for the scope of both restoration and ecumenicity is large. Yet two things should be said in closing:

To the ecumenical movement: Remember the ideal of restoration. This was not invented by Stone or Campbell. It is as old as the Letter to the Seven Churches of Asia in the Apocalypse of John. It was the ideal of the sixteenth century reformers. It has always been present, though often suppressed by other ideals. The Declaration and Address called for “Union in Truth.” Alexander Campbell later wrote, “. . . truth and union, combined, are omnipotent.”⁷⁸

To those who stand in the tradition of restoration: Remember the ideal of unity. A real restoration of the primitive church must necessarily restore unity. But no restoration is complete unless the Spirit of Christ is restored. This Spirit longs for unity today. It is not partisan, even under a banner of restoration. It is alert to every opportunity to effect a real unity in Christ. It prays one prayer—a prayer for all who are to believe on Christ—”they they may be one.”

______________

⁷⁷ Ibid., p. 195.

⁷⁸Campbell, A., Principles and Rules. . . , p. 103.

Printer Friendly Version