',‘Vv ’ .S;.' •' 1 -. '^'. ’-'' -V ) ’ ' y ' ■•-, *,■ '?<> {.. '.V .V ., '■•• :: - ■ 'T'■■■. . V A- '• y.'v v.At, (Origin au& PrinriplpH of tijp OIljrtHltanH Kfuiapp Ebilion J. 3 . lurnplt Preface. In the early years of my ministry, I felt most keenly the need of some con¬ cise statement of the Origin and Principles of the Christians and search¬ ed as diligently and as widely as I could for such information, and was rewarded only by fragmentary state¬ ments. I have strongly and increasing¬ ly felt the need of such information, and determined several years ago if ever within my power so to do, to prepare such work for the information of those who like myself so sorely needed it. This little booklet contains the result of years of searching the oldest reliable publications the writer could secure, and consulting the best authorities known to him. The contents of the booklet have at various times and in many places been given in a fragmen¬ tary way in lectures and addresses, and the writer believes that God has blessed them, and that he will in some way use the booklet for his glory and the good of his cause. With the hope that at least some may he helped by it. I am, yours in service. Historical Facts James O’Kelly withdrew from the Methodist Church 1792. For about two years (until 1794) he and his followers were known as Re¬ publican Methodists. He and his followers met in the Leb¬ anon Church, Virginia, August, 1794, and took the name Christian to the ex¬ clusion of all other names. The Christians never accepted offi¬ cially nor generally the name Christian Connection nor New-Light. Abner Jones organized his first church, taking the name Christian in 1802. Elias Smith began publishing the Christian Magazine in 1805. Elias Smith founded the Herald of Gospel Liberty in 1808. Barton W. Stone withdrew (finally) from the Presbyterians 1804. The Springfield Presbytery was dis¬ solved June, 1804. Thomas Campbell reached America in May, 1807. The Christian Association of Wash¬ ington was organized 1809. 3 Alexander Campbell readied Amer¬ ica in 1809. Thomas Campbell- made application for membership in the Pittsbnrg Pres¬ bytery in 1810, and was refused mem¬ bership for himself and chnrches. First elinrcli organized by the Camp¬ bells was at Brush Run, Pa., 1811. Tliere was not an immersed person in it and not for two years afterward. Alexander Campliell was ordained at Brush Run, Pa., January 1, 1812. Thomas Campbell was baptized by a Baptist minister by the name of Luce, June 12, 1813. Alexander Campliell was baptized at the same time and by the same Baptist minister. They united with the Baptist Associ¬ ation 1815. Alexander Campbell contended that he was a Baptist in 1826, and in full fellowship with the Mahoning Baptist Association. Alexander Campbell established the Christian Baptist in 1823. Alexander Campbell made immersion in water a test of fellowship in the local congregation in 1825. The followers of Alexander Camp¬ bell were known as Baptists, Christian Baptists, Reformers, Baptist Reform- 4 ers, Eestorationers, Campbellites from 1813 to about 1832. Alexander Campbell and his follow¬ ers were disfellowshipped by the Bap¬ tists in 1829. '' Alexander Campbell and his follow¬ ers issued calls to the Baptist churches for public meetings in 1830. The Mahoning Baptist Association was dissolved in 1831. From 1813 to 1830 the whole move¬ ment led by the Campbells was a prop¬ aganda among the Baptist churches. The whole movement was eliminated from the Baptist Church by the year 1832. Alexander Campbell did not think seriously of a name for his followers until after they had been eliminated from the Baptist Church in 1832, at which time he expressed a preference for the name Christian but declined it because it had been “taken by the fol¬ lowers of Stone and was thought by Campbell to be a badge of sectarian¬ ism.” Alexander Campbell and Barton W. Stone did not meet until the year 1824. ' There was not the semblance of union between them until the year 1832. The union question was discussed for three years, 1832-1835, and then found many staunch opposers in both bodies. Barton W. Stone had been preach¬ ing and founding Christian Churches for full twenty years before he met Al¬ exander Campbell. 6 Origin and Principles of the Christians INTRODUCTORY. Many, even of our own people, know but little of our origin and principles, and are eagerly seeking information. Who are the Christians? Whence came they ? What is their mission, belief and strength, are questions often asked by those who really seek to know. Most of the Protestant sects trace their origin to some individual reformer, such as a Luther, a Calvin, a Fox, a Wesley, or a Campbell. The Christians never had any such leader, nor can they trace their origin and principles to the labors of any one man, or the wisdom and work of any one confer¬ ence, association or convention. They arose nearly simultaneously in the South, East and West, and that, too, in sections remote from each other, without any preconcerted plan, or even knowledge of each other’s movements. Some years later these three branches learned of each other’s existence,sought and obtained information concerning each other and found to their great 7 surprise and delight that all three had embraced the same principles and were engaged in doing the same work. There may have been different meth¬ ods, and a variety of opinions, hut there was an essential oneness of pur¬ pose, and they dwelt together in the unity of the spirit and the bond of peace, and this has been true of them throughout all their years. They may be lacking in uniformity, but they have lived, loved, and labored in harmony, as /perhaps no other people has ever done. I have often been asked to preach on the doctrines of this people called Christians. To all such requests I have invariably replied that the Christian church, as such, had no doctrine, and more, it had no right to a formulated doctrine which might exist by reason of a vote of the church. The doctrine is of God. ’ It is older than the church. It is written in the Book, and it is the duty of the church to believe and practice the doctrine as it finds it revealed of God. The doc¬ trine of God, of Christ, of the Holy Spirit, of repentance, of faitli, of bapr tism, of forgiveness, of justification, of sanctification, of prayer, of heaven, of immortality, of rewards and punish¬ ment, is written in the Book. It is of God, and is eternal in character and S duration, and no man or number of men lias any right to change one “jot or one tittle,” add to, or take from, under penalty of having their names taken out of the Book of Life. With a charity as broad as truth itself, the Christian church has stood, not for a formulated doctrine, hut for an honest belief of the doctrine as written and the faithful practice of that belief in home, church and state. The Christians learned very early in their career that in the thought and practice of sectarianism there was but little difference between doctrine and dogma, and sought to remain free that they might breathe God’s spirit and fellowship his children without refer¬ ence to theological opinions or eccles¬ iastical tests. Notwithstanding the Christians have not had a formulated statement of doctrine, they have had a few prin¬ ciples around which they have cluster¬ ed their thoughts and activities and for which they have stood for more than a hundred years. THE RIGHT OF THE INDIVIDUAL Prominent among these principles is the right of the individual to interpret God’s truth for himself. The question is often asked, AVhere did that prin- 9 ciple originate? What conference or assembly gave it existence ? Was it re¬ ported upon by a committee appointed and charged with the duty of defining the rights of man? Was that report when made discussed and adopted by a unanimous vote of any regularly con¬ stituted authority? To all these questions and similar ones I answer, No. The right of the individual is a God-given right and was simply rec¬ ognized and exercised by those who were first to declare in favor of the one against the many. It is a well-known fact that prior to the Eevolutionary war the Methodist Church in America was considered a branch of the Church of England, and was dependent upon English Episco¬ pacy for the regular administrations of the church ordinances. But as the Revolution had wrested the states from British rule, it also left the American Methodists free to transact their own affairs. After the close of the Revolu¬ tionary war, when the Methodist Church in America had separated itself from their brethren in England, the Rev. John Wesley wrote from Bristol, England, September 10, 1784, to Dr. Coke, Francis Asbury and Others, giv¬ ing them detailed instructions regard¬ ing the future life and work of the 10 Methodist Church in their country. Dr. Coke, Francis Asbury and others desired to establish an Episcopal form of government. They wanted to Episcopize the church to the extent of preventing any appeal from the decision of the Bishop. They were determined in spirit, sanguine in hope, and unceasing in their efforts to accomplish their purpose. They made public their intention of clothing the Bishop with Episcopal power. Their proposed form of government became a subject of spirited and constant dis¬ cussion in several conferences imme¬ diately preceding the general confer¬ ence, where the question of government was to be settled, for it was for the settlement of this question more than for any other reason that the first Gen¬ eral Conference of the Methodist Church was held. This conference met in the city of Baltimore, Maryland, in November, 1792. From the Compen¬ dium of Methodism by James Porter, D. D., I take the following: “This General Conference properly enough called the first, was held in Bal¬ timore, November, 1792. Here the whole economy of the church was re¬ viewed, and such alterations made as the experience of previous years sug¬ gested. But one man especially had it 11 in his heart to produce a radical change in the government. We refer to Rev. James O’Kelly, a very popular preach¬ er and an old presiding elder from Virginia. His plan provided that, after his reading of the aprjointments of the preachers by the bishop, if any one thought himself injured he might ap¬ peal to the conference, and state his objections, when if the conference thought them sufficient, the bishop should change his appointment. It was discussed about three days with great interest, and then rejected by a large majority. This gave Mr. O’Kelly great offense, and the next morning he resigned his seat. Everything was done by the conference to appease him, except to adopt his plan, but to no pur¬ pose. He withdrew from the church, and formed a separate party, raising a hue and cry against the church he had left, and denouncing the minis¬ ters, and especially Bishop Asbury. The excitement was great, and many seceded and joined the new party. To make some gain of the political fever which raged in those times, they took the name of “Republican Methodist.” This brought the spirit of the world to their aid, and many of the people, some whole societies in Virginia, withdrew and took their meeting houses with 12 them, while otliers were embittered, divided and destroyed. In the course of the four years immediately succeed¬ ing this outbreak, the church decreased in her membership nmre than 12,000. But, after all, the enterprise did not succeed. The traveling preachers found that there was more popery in the new concern than in the old, not¬ withstanding its titles and pretensions, and all but one returned to the church, bringing large numbers of the people with them. Those who remained strug¬ gled on but with little encouragement. In 1801 they sought to help a sinking cause by a new name and came out un¬ der the imposing cognomen of the Christian Church.” It will be seen from facts given later on, that the distinguished author was mistaken in the time of adopting the name and we may reasonably conclude that he was mistaken as to the number returning to the original fold, but it is a fact that the conference did try to induce Mr. O’Kelly to return for they sent a committee to treat with him. He says of this meeting with the committee that they “conversed Freely and loving¬ ly; although they could not defend the government, nor the conduct of the president yet they thought it advisable to submit.” This James O’Kelly was a mighty man. He was a classmate of Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry and being well versed in Methodism and imbued with the spirit of religious liberty it was “Greek meeting Greek” when he op¬ posed the Episcopacy proposed and de¬ fended by Ashury and Coke. In this first General conference he introduced a resolution to the effect that should any one be appointed to a circuit and thought himself injured by the appoint¬ ment, that he should have the right to appeal to the conference and state his objection, and should the conference approve his objection the Bishop should appoint him to another circuit, and he made a speech in favor of the “injured preacher” but was given to understand that individuals had no rights that bish¬ ops were hound to respect. Then it was that Mr. O’Kelly left the confer¬ ence and was followed by about twen¬ ty other ministers. Among them was a man by the name of McKendria, who afterward returned to the conference and was subsequently made a bishop. Very few preachers nowadays know anything about an injured preacher, but I happen to know. It was then, and is now, a preacher who has a large circuit and a small salary. 14 In Mr. 0’Kelly’s defense of the in¬ dividual was born that principle, “The Right of the Individual,” for which we stand. It was not legislated into ex¬ istence. It was born. It was not wrought out of the brain of a commit¬ tee, conference, or convention. It was born of a man’s interest in his fellow- man, his love for the right and his rec¬ ognition of the individual. It was not intended at the first to mean anything more than the right of the individual to be heard in matters pertaining to conference membership and ministerial service. In other words, it was not doc¬ trinal, but governmental matters which interested and moved Mr. O’Kelly to speak and act, but it soon came to mean the right of the individual to interpret God’s word for himself as well. In other words the individual was to read for himself, think for himself, in¬ terpret, for himself, act for him¬ self, as well as give an account for himself. This principle has been the crowning glory of the Christians for all these years. We should keep in mind that in the south we were born of Meth¬ odist parents; that we breathed into our lives the fervor, zeal, customs and doctrines of the Methodist church; that we grew up among the strongest, as well as the most pious men, homes and 15 churches, of that great body of believ¬ ers; and that this fact accounts for customs, metliods and practices in the Southland which may to some extent he unlike the metliods of other sections of the country. Mr. O’Kelly made a heroic effort to harmonize the discord¬ ant condition so that he might remain in the fellowship of the church of his early years. In preparing the history of the American (’hristian Convention I sought information from Mr. W. E. MacClenny, of Suffolk, Va., who has since prepared and published “The Life of James O’Kelly,” who wrote me as follows: “Two conferences were held at Reece’s Chapel, in Charlotte County, Va., one in 1792, and the other late in 1792 or early in 1793. At one of these meetings they sent John Chapel arid E. Almonds over the mountains with a petition for union with Rev. Francis Asbury. Their efforts were in vain. “The next conference was held on August 2, 1793, at Piney Crove church in Chesterfield County. Virginia. There they condemned the Episcopal form of government, but they still de¬ sired union with the IMetliodist breth¬ ren. They prepared an address to the Bishop, and asked that the Methodist form of government might be exam- IG ined and tried by the Scriptures, and amended according to the Holy Word. That request was denied by the Meth¬ odist brethren. Mr. 0 ’Kelly has this to say in re¬ gard to the fourth conference. “And it came to pass on the twelfth month (of 1793) about the 25th day of the month, we met pursuant to adjourn¬ ment at Manakintown to receive the ansAver from Francis Asbury. Our friends made report that his ansAver to us was, H have no power to call such a meeting as you Avish; therefore, if five hundred preachers should come on their knees before me, I would not do it.’ We formed our ministers on an equal¬ ity ; gave the lay members the balance of power in the legislature ; and left the executive business in the church collec¬ tively. ’ ’ He was a strong believer in sprink¬ ling as the Bible mode of baptism, and as late as 1809 taught that baptism by sprinkling should be the rule of the neAv church to the exclusion of all other modes. CHRISTIAN CHARACTER THE TEST OF FELLOWSHIP. Christian character as the test of fel¬ lowship is another fundamental princi¬ ple of the people known as Christians, 17 which was horn not of flesh and blood, nor of the will of man, hut of God. Near the close of the eighteenth cen¬ tury, Dr. Ahner Jones, of Hartland, Vermont, then a member of the regular Baptist church, had a peculiar travail of mind concerning sectarian names and human creeds. He had seen the baleful influence of these for many years, had witnessed the divisive force of those wolves in sheep’s clothing as they entered into the flock of God to steal and kill, had heard the bitter anathemas of their defenders until his mind reeled, his heart grew faint and in hope of better tilings he turned away. He was especially averse to hu¬ man creeds. He regarded them as so many fines or walls of separation, by which the followers of Christ were kept apart. He conceived the idea that it was not so much what a man believed, as what he was, that entitled him to the favor of God and the fellowship of the saints. In those early days, (and in¬ deed at the present time) when a man got a new idea, he had to get a new church to put it in. The new wine would burst the old bottle, so that Dr. Jones was compelled to organize a new society in order to teach his honest, conscientious convictions. He com¬ menced propagating his sentiments 18 with zeal, though at that time he did not know of another individual in all the world who thought like himself. In September, 1802, he organized a church at Lynden, Vt., with a mem¬ bership of twenty-five. During 1802 he organized another church at Hanover, N. H., and in March, 1803, another in Pierpont, N. H. About this time Elias Smith, then a Baptist minister, was preaching with great success in Ports¬ mouth, N. H. Falling in with Dr. Jones’ views the church under his care was led to adopt the same principles. In 1805 Kev. Mr. Smith began a publi¬ cation called The Christian Magazine. This publication was discontinued in 1808 when its founder established and began publishing The Herald of Gospel Liberty, the first number of which bears the date of September 1, 1808. This paper has continued (though in differ¬ ent forms and at times under different names) until now, 1911, and is publish¬ ed at Dayton, Ohio, by the Christian Publishing Association, of which Hon. O. W. Whitelock is president, the Rev. J. Pressley Barrett, D. D., editor, and J. N. Hess publishing agent, Netum Rathbun being chosen agent January, 1911. No committee appointed by any con¬ ference, association or convention ever 19 took under consideration the advisabil¬ ity of making Christian character the test of fellowship. It was born out of the heart of a man who loved God and wanted to see all the believers united in one visible fold. All men cannot be Presbyterians, nor Baptists, nor Episco¬ palians, nor Congregationalists, nor Friends, but each individual may be a Christian. The radical unit is the one man, the individual. Paul recognized this selfhood when he said: “For me to live is Christ.” Dr. Jones well knew that individualism could be abused and debased, a fact we liave experienced many times in our history. But he knew and we know that there is an individualism that means personal thinking, personal conscience, personal obedience, personal faith, personal serv¬ ice ; and through this personal fellow¬ ship one with another, we are learning that uniformity is a false standard of judgment, and that only by bringing all the individualities together do we get the right conception of the church. It seems that God has taken some pains to individualize us, giving to each a personality all his own; and he seems to say to us, “Now you are all differ¬ ent, yet you may all be one; I mean for you to be united. Find the common measure, find the uniting line; and 20 whilst retaining each your individual¬ ity enter into one another’s feelings, sympathies, and activities, and, while you enter into and become parts of communities, societies and church or¬ ganizations, never forget your individ¬ uality, for I meant the individual when I said. ‘Ye are the branches, and every one of you shall give an account of hint self unto God.’ ” We called attention to our Method¬ ist parentage in the South, and with equal satisfaction point to our Baptist ancestry of New England. It is some¬ thing to be born well and most certain¬ ly we have been, for our test of fellow¬ ship has for its earthly home a Baptist church and the heart of a devoted Bap¬ tist preacher. Should we build our meeting houses on the river banks of all New England, and insist upon all our applicants for membership going down into the water and coming up out of the water, it would be a most natur¬ al consequence of our childhood home and teaching. And, I presume that throughout all New England the sub¬ ject of immersion is given more em¬ phasis and made more prominent among our people than in any other section of the country 21 THE NAME, CHRISTIAN. The name Christian was given by di¬ vine authority to the followers of Je¬ sus Christ, and was adopted as our only name on August 4, 1794. Those who had withdrawn from the Methodist church in 1792 together with the num¬ ber that had been added to them during the two years, met in conference in Lebanon church, Surrey County, Va., the first of August, 1794. They were then Republican Methodists. Rev. Rice Haggard, standing with a copy of the New Testament scriptures in his hand, said: “Brethren, this is a sufficient rule of faith and practice, and by it we are told that the disciples were called Christians, and I move that henceforth and forever the followers of Christ be known as Christians simply.” The mo¬ tion was unanimously adopted, since which time we have had no other name. In some localities we have been called “New Lights.” It has always been an¬ noying to me to be called a “New Light.” A lady once said to me, “You belong to the New Light church, don’t you ? ” I said, ‘ ‘ To what church ! ’ ’ “Why, to the New Light.” I replied that I had never heard of such a church. “Why,” said she, “You are sometimes called New Lights, aren’t 22 you?” I said, “We may be, and you might sometimes be called handsome, but that wouldn’t make you so.” One thing is sure, we never adopted, accepted or recognized the name New Light, as the name of our people. The first use of the word New Light, as far as known to me was by the Presbyter¬ ians with whom it seems to have origi¬ nated., I quote verbatim from page 617 of Buck’s Theological Dictionary, published by J. and J. Woodward in 1847: “In 1716 the Presbytery resolved to divide its members into four subordi¬ nate bodies, to be called the Presby¬ teries of Philadelphia, Snowhill, New¬ castle, and Long Island ; and to meet annually as the Presbytery of the whole, under the appellation of the synod of Philadelphia. “In 1741 this synod was divided by an unliappy controversy, which origi¬ nated in the ministry of the Rev. George Whitefield, info two independ¬ ent and rival synods. The new body was called the Synod of New York, and its members were styled in derision New Lights, and the New Side, while those who remained in the Synod of Philadelphia, with no better spirit, were stigmatized as the Old Side and Old Lights. 23 “The root of bitterness undoubtedly subsisted in the Synod before Mr. Whitefield’s arrival in this country; hut the fruits of discord did not appear until the Old Lights contended that it was disorderly to admit that eloquent man into the pulpits of the Presby¬ terian churches. They regarded him as a zealous but imprudent man; as a dis¬ orderly Episcopalian; as a disturber of the peace of ministers and congrega¬ tions, whose revival measures were of questionable propriety. “The New Lights thought the Pres¬ byterian churches in great need of re¬ vivals and that the preaching of Mr. AA^hitefield was well calculated to pro¬ duce them, by alarming formalists, stirring up the people of God and con¬ vincing the impenitent.” I have been told by the older minis¬ ters of the Christians, that when Rev. Barton W. Stone announced his inten¬ tion of withdrawing from the Presby¬ terian church, and told his reasons therefor, he was called a “New-Light.” This' would be perfectly natural; for the Presbyterians of Cane Ridge, Ky., would be familiar with the facts aboye cited, and would at once associate Rev. Mr. Stone with the Rev. Mr. Whitefield and class him with the “New Lights” of 1741. 24 Our right to the name Christian is beyond controversy even though there is another body of believers laying claim to it. It is a beautiful name, around which there is more glory than has ever adorned any human name and it is not a surprise that it is coveted. With reference to this people and their right to the name I quote from a re¬ ported speech of Alexander Campbell as published in the Millennial Har¬ binger in 1839. Let it be remembered that Mr. Campbell was the editor of this paper at the time above mentioned. “Our Name—Into what, or into whom have we been immersed? Into Calvin, Luther, Wesley, Campbell or Reformation? If not then why nick¬ name us, or we nickname ourselves, when we assume or choose such desig¬ nation? Shall we be called Disciples of Christ, or Christians ? Why not call. ourselves Christians? Not because we have another leader than Christ, for He is our teacher. We believe in Him, were immersed into His death, and have thus put on Christ. But we have been anticipated. The term Christian in New England and in some other sec¬ tions of this land is a name chosen and appropriated by a party who boast that they are Unitarians—disbelieve in bap¬ tism for the remission of sins, and re- 25 fuse to celebrate the Lord’s death as often as they celebrate his resurrection, etc., etc. “Were I or any brother to traverse much of New York, New England and some other sections, and call ourselves Christians, as a party name, we should be admitted by all Unitarians and re¬ jected by all of a different belief. One party would fraternize with us, while others would repudiate us, and un¬ church us, because of our Unitarianism, Arianism, etc., etc. For this reason we prefer an unappropriated name, which is indeed neither more nor less than the scriptural equivalent of Christian; for who were called Christians first at An¬ tioch? They had a prior, a more an¬ cient name. They wore called Disci¬ ples. Disciples of whom? Of Christ. Disciples of Christ is then a more ancient title than Christian, while it fully includes the whole idea. It is then as divine, as authoritative as the name Christian and more ancient. Be¬ sides it is more descriptive, and, better still, it is unappropriated. It claims our preference for four reasons: “First—It is more incient. “Second—It is more descriptive. ‘ ‘ Third—It is more scriptural. “Fourth—It is more unappropriated. “First—Our first reason is indis- 26 putable, for the Disciples of Christ were called Christians first at Antioch. Those who from the day of Pentecost were known throughout Judea, Galilee, Samaria and among the Gentiles as Dis¬ ciples of Christ, were at Antioch many years afterward called for the first time, Christians. “Second—It is more deserif)tive, be¬ cause many people are named after their country or their political leaders, and sometimes after their religious leaders, who would feel it an insult to be called the pupils or the disciples of the persons whose name they bear. Germans, Franks, Greeks, Americans, .Columbians, Jeffersonians, etc., do not describe the persons who bear their names, for they are not supposed to be the pupils of such men. Might not a stranger, an alien, imagine that Chris¬ tian, like American or Roman, had some reference to country or some benefac¬ tor, or some particular circumstance, rather than scholarship? Disciple of Christ is then a more descriptive and definite designation than Christian. “Third—It is more scriptural. Luke wrote his acts some thirty years after the ascension. Now in his writings, which give at least thirty years’ history of the primitive church, the word Christian occurs but twice—used only 27 by Antiochans and by King Agrippa; but no disciple as far as Tjuke relates, ever spoke of himself or brethren under that designation. More than thirty times they are called disciples in the Acts of the Apostles. Luke and other intelligent men call them often Breth¬ ren and Disciples,, but never Christians. Again we have the word Christian but once in all the epistles, and then in cir¬ cumstances which make it pretty evi¬ dent it was used rather by the enemies than by the friends of the brotherhood. Our proposition is, then, abundantly proved that it was a more scriptural and consequently a more authoritative and divine designation than Christian • “Fourth—It is more unappropriated at the present time. Unitarians, Arians and sundry other newly risen sects abroad are zealous for the name Chris¬ tian, while we are the only people on earth fairly and undisputably in the use of the title. Disciples of Christ. “For these four reasons I prefer this designation to any other which has been offered. Can any one offer better reasons for a better name?” There was a time when Alexander Campbell was opposed to using the name Christian as a denominational name. 2S In tlie Christian Messenger of Octo¬ ber, 1843, appears an article in defense of the name Disciple and yet favoring the name Christian. The article is sign¬ ed A. S. The editor. Rev. B. AV. Stone, in commenting upon the article, says: “On .this article we wish to suggest % a few remarks: “First.—AA^e are pleased to find that Brother A. Campbell so highly approves these sentiments. He will no longer contend for Disciples as our family name, in future; no longer will he re¬ ject the name Christian because others had taken it before us.” But why should we desire to be call¬ ed Christians? Are there not many other names just as good? Is not one name as good as another? Some even go so far as to say, “There is nothing in a name.” But evidently God thought there was something in a name when he changed the names of certain individ¬ uals that their names might correspond to their new life and character. Gen. 17:5. Gen. 35:10. John 1:42. Rev. 3:12. I am quite sure that bankers think there is something in a name, and if you think they do not, you try to bor¬ row money. Suppose you go to a bank and ask for $100 for thirty days. You date your note correctly and write the 29 amount on the right line and fill out all the blanks properly. You hand it to the banker, he looks it over and hands it back to you, saying thad he cannot lend you money on that paper. You say, “A¥hy not?” “Because, sir, there IS no name signed to it. You see, sir, that names are important things with bankers.” “Oh! if that is all, I can quickly fix that,” and you write a name, for names are important things with bankers. Again the banker ex¬ amines the note and returns it, saying that he cannot comply with your re¬ quest. “Why, there is a name to it, is there not?” Yes, but banks do not legard all names with equal favor and the one you have written cannot be ac¬ cepted here, for names mean something with bankers, you see. If you think there is nothing in a name, you try signing some other name than your own to a check, or note, or deed, or mort¬ gage, or even a letter, and you will find out that the law regards names as very important and significant things. Sup¬ pose an estate is willed to a man by the name of Garrard. The name Garrard then becomes important with reference to that particular estate. Miller, or Nelson, or Peck or Steck may be as good a man, but their names bar them 80 4 f't from possessing that property. Sup¬ pose it is to be willed to Jeremiah Gar¬ rard, then the name Jeremiah becomes important and no other Garrard could lay rightful claim to the estate. Sup¬ pose it is to be willed to James Jere¬ miah Garrard, then the name James be¬ comes important and John Jeremiah Garrard could’ not possess said estate under the will. In law names mean something," and why not in religion? Names mean much in home life. Your name is Smith. Would you he willing for your wife to he called Jones? Jones may be a handsomer man than you; he may have more money than you; he may live in a finer house and ride in a more elegant automobile than you; hut if your wife should persist in being called Mrs. Jones, there would be a do¬ mestic difficulty and no one would blame you for it. Why? Because it is the law of both heaven and earth that the wife shall wear the name of her husband, and the wife who is not will¬ ing to wear her husband’s name to the absolute exclusion of all other names is not worthy of her husband, and as such has no rights that he is hound to re¬ spect. Jesus Christ is the “husband of whom the whole family, both in heaven and earth, is named.” The church is 31 the bride, the Lamb’s wife. Has not the husband an unquestioned right to demand that his name shall be hers? Has she any right whatever to wear any other name? AVill it please the di¬ vine husband any more than it will tlie human husband, for his wife to prefer another name to his? AVe accept the name Christian as the w’ife accepts the name of her husband, or the child takes the name of its parents. The name is the birth-right of every child of God. God named his children. They were first called Christians at Antioch, or as the clear sense of the passage is, “They were by divine appointment, first called Christians at Antioch.” The name Christian beautifully designates a fol¬ lower of Christ. It means nothing less and should never be made to mean any¬ thing more. And more; no church with a.test of fellowship that excludes some of the followers of Christ, has any right to the name that includes all the followers of Christ; as our test of fellowship ex¬ cludes none of the followers of Christ we have a right to the name that in¬ cludes all the followers of Christ. THE BIBLE OUR RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. The Bible “Our rule of Faith and 32 Practice” was born of a most extraor¬ dinary revival of religion,. beginning with the Presbyterians of Tennessee and Kentucky as early as 1799 and con¬ tinuing until about the close of 1801. That the reader may have some idea of the birth throes of that great awaken¬ ing I venture to give a brief history of it, as gathered from “The Story of a Country Church, by Charles W. Hoff¬ man. ’ ’ “In the summer of 1799 at Red River, Kentucky—religious services had been held in the church from Friday until Monday. After the sermon on the last day, an elderly lady uttered a loud shout. The congregation suddenly be¬ came exceedingly quiet. William Mc¬ Gee and his brother, John, were pres¬ ent ; the former sat down upon the floor, and the latter began to tremble. John McGee attempted to preach; the people were eager to hear; he became so agitated that his effort failed; he exclaimed that there was a greater than he preaching and exhorted the people to “let the Lord reign in their hearts;” immediately the awful silence was broken by mingled cries for mercy and shouts of ecstasy. The congrega¬ tion swayed as trees in the wind. The excitement became intense, the aisles 33 filled with exliorters; some prayed, oth¬ ers sang, while the proprieties of relig-! p ions worship were disregarded. Ip their agitation men, women and chil¬ dren “fell” until the floor was covered. The news of this remarkable manifes tation of what the Rev. McGready andl| the McGees were pleased to call “God’sl| Spirit” spread like wildfire. A relig-| ious fervor seized the whole commun¬ ity. On the Green river and the Cum-j berland, the Licking, the Miamis and the Ohio the populace flocked to the meetings. The capacity of the churches' was inadequate to accommodate thef^- multitudes. Services were held in thep forests and “camp meetings” were troduced. Through the forests for hun-|| dreds of miles came the worshipers in^|!;i their wagons, with provisions sufficient to maintain them for weeks. All labor M was suspended; the farmer left the har-^ vest in the fields and hastened to par-' | take of the “Bread of Life;” the hunt- | er ceased his wanderings in quest of the | deer; the blasphemer praised God, and g the inebriate practiced sobriety. ,a Camp meetings held in every locality | of Kentucky and southern Ohio follow¬ ed each other in rapid succession. At | every gathering hundreds, and some- | times thousands would “fall” and re- I 34 main in a state of stupor for hours. Their breathing became slow, and all the physical faculties were apparently suspended. As the enthusiasm became more intense those who fell would be¬ gin to roll. One bodily exercise follow¬ ed another; the. rolls were succeeded by the “jerks.” The “jerks” consisted of throwing the head and upper half of the body backward and forward. There seemed to be no limit to these excesses. Congregations would begin to laugh, and at times the “holy laugh” became so vociferous that it could be heard for miles. When the revival was at its height the “jerks” were accom¬ panied by the “barks.” “Forced, as the victims claimed to be, to imperson¬ ate a dog, they fell on all fours and barked and snapped and showed their teeth in such a manner as to fill the spectators with horror. ’ ’ As irrational as all these excesses may appear they are inexplicable. No one was exempt; the scholar, the poor ignorant backwoodsman,^ the saint and the sinner ‘ ‘ fell. ’ ’ In their stupor they saw bright visions and dreamed of realms of bliss. They awoke either in deep despondency because of their sins, or in a state of ecstasy, rejoicing in their salvation. Children, after pass- 35 ing through these experiences, became possessed of remarkable gifts of prayer and exhortation, and their petitions to Almighty God couched in language so clear in expression and pertinent in its application, have never been explained except on the ground that “their heads were lifted np in the ways of the Lord,” and their minds “cpiickened by the divine spirit.” Many preachers ad¬ vised their congregations to stay away from these meetings and endeavored to explain to them that it was the wildest fantasy of an overheated imagination. Other ministers, as pominent and learned, claimed that it was a direct visitation of God. AVhen the “falling” of five hundred persons, as though east down by a cannon ball, had been wit¬ nesses, who could disbelieve ? At the close of this great revival Bar¬ ton W. Stone, a learned and eloquent minister, with Richard McNemar, John Thompson, John Diinlevy and Robert Marshall, withdrew from the Synod of Kentucky. As early as 1803 or 1804 Rev. Rice Haggard who had been a colaborer with James 0 ’Kelly and one of the min¬ isters who went out with him, and who had proposed the name Christian as the only name for the followers of Christ 36 had settled in Kentucky and was pres¬ ent at the meeting of the Springfield Presbytery in 1804, and Elder Samuel Rodgers says it was Haggard first who suggested to Stone the propriety of taking the name “Christian” as that divinely given at Antioch. As well might he expected, a large mimher of Presbyterian members with most of the converts of this great re¬ vival, rallied around these men who had labored so faithfully and had been so signally blessed in their labors. As they had already felt the scourge of a human creed, the churches then under their control, with such others as they organized, agreed to take the Holy Scriptures as their only written rule of faith and practice. David Purvianee was the first as far as known to be ordained to the work of the Gospel ministry by the new-born church in the west. For a while after their withdrawal, they continued the Presbyterian form of government and formed themselves into an independent organization which they eallecf the “Springfield Presbytery.” Even this, they thought savored too much of ec- clesiasticism and on June 28, 1804, they concluded to dissolve this Presbytery, to allow each church to be entirely in- 37 dependent, each member thereof to teach and believe those principles which from a careful and candid exam¬ ination of the scriptures, they conceiv¬ ed to be true, and to be known as Chris¬ tians only. In other words they exalted the Bible above creed and conscience above priestly dictation. The final act in the withdrawal was expressed in what was known as the last will and testament of Springfield Presbytery, a copy of which is herein given. . Elder Stone says of this (Springfield) Presbytery: “Under the name of Springfield Presbytery we went forward preach¬ ing, and constituting churches; but we had not worn our name more than one year, before we saw it savored of a party spirit. AVith the man-made creeds we threw it overboard, and took the name Christian—the name given to the disciples by divine appointment first at Antioch. AVe published a pamphlet on this name, written by Elder Rice Haggard, who had lately united with us.”* THE LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT OF THE SPRINGFIELD PRES¬ BYTERY. For whete a testament is, there must of necessity be the death of the testa- 38 tor; for a testament is of force after men are dead, otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth. Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die. Verily, verily, I say unto you, except a corn of wheat fall in the ground, and die, it abidetli alone; but if it die, it hringeth forth fruit. Whose voice then shook the earth; but now he has promised, saying, yet once more I shake not the earth only, but also heaven. And this word yet once more, signifies the re¬ moving of those things that are shaken as of things that are made, that those things which cannot be shaken may re¬ main—Scripture. LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT. \ The Presbytery of Springfield, sit¬ ting at Caneridge, in the county of Bourbon, being through a gracious Providence, in more than ordinary health, growing in strength and size daily; and in perfect soundness and composure of mind; but knowing it is appointed for all delegated bodies once to die, and considering that the life of every such body is very uncertain, do make and ordain this, our last Will and Testament, in manner and form follow¬ ing, viz.: 39 Imprimis. We will, that this body be dissolved, and sink into union with the Bodj^ of Christ at large; for there is but one body and one spirit, even as we are called in one hope of our calling. Item. We will, that our name of dis¬ tinction, with its Eeverend title, be for¬ gotten, that there be one Lord over God’s heritage, and his name one. Item. We will, that our power of making laws for the government of the church, and executing them by delegat¬ ed authority, forever cease; that the people may have free course to the Bi¬ ble, and adopt the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus. Item. We will, that candidates for the Gospel ministry henceforth study the Holy scriptures with fervent pray¬ er, and obtain license from God to preach the simple Gospel, with the Holy Ghost sent down, from heaven, without any mixture of philosophy, vain deceit, traditions of men, or the rudiments of the world. And let none henceforth take this honor to himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron. Item. We will, that the church of Christ assume her native right of in¬ ternal government—try her candidates for the ministry, as to their soundness 40 in the faith, acquaintance with experi¬ mental religion, grayity and aptness to teach and admit no other proof of their authority but Christ speaking in them. We will, that the Church of Christ look up to the Lord of the harvest to send forth laborers into the harvest; and that she resume her primitive right of trying those who say they are Apostles, and are not. Item. We will, that each particular church, as a body, actuated by the same spirit, choose her own preacher, and support him by a free-will offering, without written call or subscription— admit members—remove offenses—and never henceforth delegate her right of government to any man or set of men whatever. Item. We will, that the people henceforth take the Bible as the only sure guide to heaven; and as many as are offended with other books which stand in competition with it, may cast them into the fire if they choose; for it is better to enter into life, having one book, than having many to be cast into hell. Item. We will, that preachers and people cultivate a spirit of mutual for bearance; pray more and dispute less; 41 and while they behold signs of the times look up, and confidently expect that re¬ demption draweth nigh. Item. We will, that our weak breth¬ ren, who may have been wishing to make the Presbytery of Springfield their king, and wot not what is now be¬ come of it, betake themselves to the Rock of Ages, and follow Jesus for the future. Item. We will, that the Synod of Kentucky examine every member who may be suspected of having departed from the Confession of Faith, and sus¬ pend every such suspected heretic im¬ mediately in order that the oppressed may go free, and taste the sweets of gospel liberty. Item. We will, tliat Ja-, the au¬ thor of two letters lately published in Lexington, be encouraged in his zeal to destroy partyism—we will, moreover, tliat our })ast conduct be examined into by all who may have correct informa¬ tion ; but let foreigners beware of speaking evil things which they know not. Item. Finally, we will, that our sis¬ ter ])odies read their Bibles carefully, that they may see their fate there de- 42 termined, and prepare for death before it is too late. Springfield Presbytery. June 28, 1804. Robert Marshall, John Dunlevy, Richard McNemar, B. W. Stone, John Thompson, David Purviance, Witnesses. It is a remarkable item in the history of our movement that the five who first withdrew from the Presbyterian church in the west, were lost to the church they helped to start, Marshall and Thompson returned to the Presby¬ terians, McNemar and Dunlevy united with the Shakers, and Stone was lost to us in his affiliation with the Disciples, with which people he never united ex¬ cept in co-operation. Rev. J. J. Sum- merhell, D. D., and Rev. 0. B. Whit¬ aker, D. D., both of whom have careful¬ ly investigated the matter, declare that Mr. Stone never connected himself with the Disciple movement—that at the most he only co-operated with them for the sake of the union idea. It is certain that Mr. Stone did not meet Mr. Campbell until 1824, and that no union of any character whatsoever 43 was formed earlier than 1832 and then none that bound any except those who were present and parties to it, and it originally meant no more than co-oper¬ ation in evangelization, but it resulted in great loss to the Christians, both in numbers and influence. Elder Stone had been wearing the name Christian to the exclusion of all others, and preaching the gospel with the Bible as the only rule of faith and practice for full twenty years before he met Mr. Campbell, and there is small reason for believing that he ever turned away from his original purpose except to co¬ operate with the Disciples of Christ in what promised to him a fruitful fleld of evangelization. The Bible our rule of faith and prac¬ tice like the other three came into ex¬ istence not by legislation, but by birth, born of God, born of the times and conditions of men, and it is worthy of note that by a strange coincidence un¬ explainable except from the direct in¬ terposition of God, the Christians of the west came out from their so-called or¬ thodox friends, about the same time as those of the south and east; and what adds to the beauty of the coincidence is that they adopted precisely the same name, asserted the same right, estab- 44 lished the same test, and added the much needed rule of faith and practice, and that, too, when they were entirely un¬ acquainted with the iact that others in the different parts of the United States had l)een moved by the same spirit and engaged in the same work. It seems now tliat God intended by this to leave not even the possibility of a doubt but that the Christians were to finally over¬ throw all creeds, all divisions, harmon¬ ize all .sects, put to shame all human names, and lead the way to the oneness of God’s people. The time when these principles were first made known was most opportune indeed. It was soon after the Declaration of Independence and when the peculiar spirit of the times seems not only to have demanded political freedom, but religious liberty as well. Keligion and politics for once seem to have united'in one great effort to lift man from political oppression and religious bondage into political and religious freedom. To give him the rights of a free man in body and soul as God had planned for him. Of the peculiar situation of the times and our origin and principles J. It. Freese, M. D., has this to say: ‘ ‘ The situation, being that of a coun¬ try which had only of late assumed the form of a Republic, and hence, needed 43 cl religious co-worker, in order to strengthen her in her onward march to fame, to glory and renown! In almost any other country the Christian relig¬ ion would have been opposed to the po¬ litical form of government; but, in this, it was synonymous with it. The unity of their rise in different parts of the Union, although at the time, entirely unknown to each other, would seem strangely to prove that it was through the direct interposition of Divine Providence, and that this remark-’ able incident was ever to stand as a memento of the fact. The unanimity of sentiment and government adopted by each, although entirely unbeknown to the other. The Presbyterians have had their Calvin, the Lutherans their Luther, the Methodists their Wesley, the Disciples their Campbell, etc., etc., but a simultaneous rising of men and sentiment, as was the Christian Church, never before was known since the crea¬ tion of man. The causes that induced separation from the other churches, al¬ though differing in themselves, yet all had the same great object in view, viz.; the breaking down of assumed super¬ iority in the church, the doing away with the mere custonis and traditions of men, the right of private judgment 46 in matters of thought and action, and the correction of many heinous tradi¬ tional errors that had crept into the churches, and which, if not exposed, might have finally caused their eternal ruin. ’ ’ These principles have stood the test of the most critical investigation and severest trial, and have steadily come to the front until to-day they shine with a glory all divine, and when all human authority, human tests, human names, man-made creeds and man-made unions have failed, the principles of which the Christians are the conservators and for which they have stood and stand to¬ day will be approved of God and ac¬ cepted by men. If the Calvinist and the Universalist had equal rights and equal power, the Calvinist would obliterate Universal- ism, and the Universalist would wipe out Calvinism, but neither of them would lay hands on a single principle of the Christians. If the Trinitarians and the Unitarians had equal rights and equal power, would not the Trini¬ tarian destroy Unitarianism. and would not the Unitarian destroy Trinitarian- ism ? But neither the^ Trinitarian nor the Unitarian would lay hands on a single principle of the Christians. 47 If the Baptist and the Pedo Baptist had equal rights would not the Baptist put a pool in every Pedo Baptist church, and would not the Pedo Baptist close up all the baptistries of the Bap¬ tists ? Most certainly they would. But would either of them lay hands on the Right of Private Judgment, Character as a sufficient test of fellowship, the name Christian, or the Bible a sufficient rule of faith and practice? I cannot close this brief sketch more appropriately than in the words of the great and good N. Summerbell, D. D., who wrote but a short time prior to his death all the following on a postal card: The Christians believe— In the Bible as making a man perfect for all good works. In Jesus Christ, the Son of the living God. In the Holy Spirit of God, the Re¬ prover and Comforter. In the new birth, the forgiveness of sins and life everlasting. In salvation through the blood of Jesus. In repentance, conversion, confession, prayer, baptism, communion, holiness and good Avorks. In all that Jesus taught, the apostles 48 preached, the first Christians believed, or is believed in heaven. Christians think that more of God’s children in the world are of their faith than any other, and that it is the only faith generally believed, or that ever can be. That they are most ortliodox, most evangelical and biblical, most Catholic and liberal. Their name is most general, their creed (the Bible) most acceptable, that God is the father of all in every age. They first restored the Christian name, started the first religions news¬ paper, opened the first college with equal privileges for the sexes, and were the first to restore open communion. They hold the Bible without human creeds, baptism without close commun¬ ion, true faith without bigotry. Theirs is the oldest denomination, the most scriptural name, the most charitable spirit, the most pure religion, the most rational conversion. Nobody can find a better name than Christian; a better creed than the Bi¬ ble ; a better fellowship for all saints. There is not an article of their faith that requires any change of the scrip¬ ture statement; nor any other denom- 49 ination that can compare with them in scripture conformity. Their name covers all the followers of Jesus; their charity is over all whom God loves; their church was organized at Jerusalem; added to at Pentecost, and has the promise that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. Christ was their first teacher; the apostles their preachers; the converted Jews their first members, and all the saved are their brethren. They have unity with diversity, truth with tolera¬ tion, obedience without boasting, and, while liberal, are conservative. Theirs is the only name which of it¬ self signifies Christianity, the only church named in the Bible, the only creed that will cross Jordan, and there is no reason why all Christians should not adopt the same Biblical and evan¬ gelical principles, except human consid¬ erations. It is the representative church of the Christian world; its name needs no changing; its creed needs no mending; its fellowship needs no extending; its charity needs no expanding. We ask not union for we are on our part in union with all; nor fellowship, for we are on our part in fellowship with all; and though we cannot go to them, we know they will come to us, for we hold to the only form of religion which will pass into heaven. 60 THE QUESTION SETTLED \ V \ A Note of Explanation The Rev. Charles Clayton Morrison, one of the editors of The Christian Century, a Dis¬ ciple paper of Chicago, in the early part of this year (1911) addressed a letter to the Rev. J. Pressley Barrett, D. D., editor of The Herald of Gospel Liberty, in which he asked Dr. Barrett three questions, hearing upon the matter of the Christian Church and the Disciple Church not being one and the same people. Dr. Barrett answered the three questions in a way which shows clearly and unmistakably the facts in the case, and then he asked The Christian Century to publish his answers to the questions asked by its beloved editor, but The Century refused to publish the facts for which its editor had asked, giving as his reason for not publishing the answers this statement: “It does not seem to me that there is any difference between you and us wiiich needs to occupy newspaper space.The matter in your letter to me is not germane to the controversy. Our people are not afraid of the facts as you intimate, nor is The Christian Century afraid of the facts. 1 simply do not see that there are any facts to write about.” It may be that our Disciple brethren are not afraid of the facts, but they invariably refuse to allow the facts to be given to their people. Mr. Morrison says “there are no facts to write about”. On this point there may be a difference of opinion—at any rate the reader may judge for himself as he reads Dr. Barrett’s answers to the questions 53 asked by the Editor of The Christian Century, as given below. As indicating the effect of Dr. Barrett’s answers to Mr. Morrison’s questions, the next issue of The Christian Century after its editor had received Dr. Barrett’s answers to his questions, in discussing the matters in¬ volved, said this: “It is equally a waste of words and temper to be denying that there ever has been any organic connection between the Christian Church, in which James O’Kelly was a lead¬ er, and the Disciple Church in which Alex¬ ander Campbell was a leader.’ No one ever said there was such connection—no one ever dreamed there was”. That is enough. At last they give it up and admit that the two bodies never were organ¬ ically connected. We hazard nothing in say¬ ing it is the first time a Disciple editor has made such an admission. But read Dr. Barrett’s answers, and you will see why it is admitted—it is because there is no way to deny it truthfully. J. F. BURNETT. 54 A Disciple Editor Gives Up the Contention Dayton, 0., Feb., 1, 1911. Rev. Charles Clayton Morrison, Editor Christian Century My Dear Brother: Your letter of Jan. 25th has been re¬ ceived, and it gives me pleasure to an¬ swer the three questions you submit, as follows: Question One. “Do you and your people object to the title ‘Christian Connection’ ? If not now, has this title ever been acceptable to your people?” Answer. We have never accepted the name Christian Connection as a people, nor do we now accept it as such. Some years ago the officials of the United States Government used that name in the Census in an effort to make a dis¬ tinction between our people and the Disciples. This was an act of the Gov¬ ernment, and not an act of the Chris¬ tian Church, but it led many people, outsiders, to apply the term to us. The Church, however, has never given rec¬ ognition to the word “Connection” as any part of our name. 55 Question Two. “Do I understand you to claim James O'Kelly as tlie founder of your organized denomination, or do you look to him simply as one who held the same principles of which your communion is the exponent? In other words, is the Christian Church the continuation of the movement origi¬ nated hy Mr. O'Kelly?’’ Answer. , In the larger sense we regard Christ as the Founder of the Church, hut speaking from a human standpoint and referring to the organization of our particular branch of the Church, we re¬ gard James O’Kelly as the founder of our organization. He not only held the same principles, hut he was personally the leader of the movement. It is therefore a continuation of the organi¬ zation originated hy Mr. 0 ’Kelly. This fact in itself is a sufficient basis for our objection to the claim of the Disci¬ ples that O’Kelly was a leader in the “Restoration Movement.” O’Kelly knew absolutely nothing of tlie Disci¬ ple movement, having passed away be¬ fore the Disciple Church, as such, had any existence. James O’Kelly never heard of the Disciple Church unless he has heard of it since he has been in Heaven. It is therefore utterly out of the question to attempt to defend the statement that O’Kelly was a leader in 56 the movement which culminated in the establishment of the Disciple Church. Question Three. “IIow do you connect Barton W. Stone and his movement with your denomination? Do you re¬ gard stone and his followers as members of an already existing denomination founded by O’Kelly, or as hims.elf the originator of a movement? If the latter, in which line does the Christian Church belong, that of O'Kelly or Stone? If in the line of both O'Kelly and Stone, when and how did the coalition take place between the O'Kelly and Stone movements ?” Answer. As is well known Barton W. Stone did not sever his connection with the Presbyterian Church till the year 1803. See Biography of Stone, written by himself and published in 1847, page 171. Stone did not meet with Alexan¬ der Campbell till 1824. See Gates’ ‘'Stovij of the Churches, the Disei-ples of Christ,” page 78. Now between Stone’s separation from the Presby¬ terian Church and the date of the first meeting he had with Mr. Campbell there is a space of 21 years. lie was not in the Presbyterian Church, and he was certainly not in the Disciple Church, for the meeting for the union of Stone’s followers and those of Mr. Campbell was not held till 1832. Now where and what were Mr. Stone and his people from 1803 till 1832? The clear facts of history show that he was f 57 not with Mr. Campbell. The truth is Mr. Stone was busy preaching the Gos¬ pel for his followers in the Christian Church and winning men to Christ for salvation. He led in the great work of the Cane Ridge revival. It was there the great deeps of sectarianism were broken up in that country, and the peo¬ ple coming out from the bondage of sectarian fetters were following Mr. Stone as a leader. In the year 1804 we find Rice Haggard of Virginia locating in Kentucky, and in that year we find him in a meeting with Mr. Stone and his associates. Mr. Haggard had been closely allied with Mr. O’Kelly in the work of the Christian Church in Vir¬ ginia and North Carolina. Mr. Stone himself tells what took place when they got well acquainted one with the other and understood the ideas each held as to church matters, theological views, etc. Hear him: “Under the name of the Springfield Presbytery we went forward preach¬ ing, and constituting churches; but we had not worn our name more than one year, before we saw it savored of party spirit. With the man-made creeds we threw it overboard, and took the name Christian —the name given to the Dis¬ ciples by divine appointment first at Antioch. We published a pamphlet on this name, written by Eld. Rice Hag¬ gard, who had lately united with us.” 58 That shows very conclusively how the coalition took place. Besides Eld. Samuel Rogers in his Autobiography (page 101) says it was Rice Haggard who first suggested to Stone the pro¬ priety of taking the name “Christian” as the divinely given name at Antioch. This occurred in the year 1804, and therefore can have no possible connec¬ tion with the Disciple movement, for the finest fringes of their history have never been traced farther back than to the year 1809, even according to the figuring of the Disciples themselves. Now who was it that Rice Haggard united with in 1804 in Kentucky? Was it Alexander Campbell? He was not even in America at that time, nor had the Disciple movement been even dreamed of as early as 1804. From the coming of Rice Haggard from the Christian Church in Virginia to Ken¬ tucky and making known to Mr. Stone the character of the work of Mr. O’Kel¬ ly and his associates, of the taking of the Bible as their only creed, Christian their only name, and Chris'tian charac¬ ter as the test of fellowship, together with the right of individual interpreta¬ tion of the Scriptures, Mr. Stone and his followers were of the Christian Church and from it he did not with¬ draw to the day of his death. 59 Meeting Alexander Campbell for the first time in 1824, they became fast friends, uniting as far as possible in the spread of the Gospel and in winning souls to Christ. As the years passed the ties of friendship and brotherhood were strengthened, till the year 1832, when a meeting was called to consider the matter of the union of the two bod¬ ies—the followers of Stone and those of Campbell. This fact is plainly stated by Eld. John Kogers in Stone’s Biog¬ raphy. See page 342. Now, if Mr. Stone and his followers were Disciples, why was this meeting called to unite these two branches of the Church Mili¬ tant? Who can give a reason for the effort? This meeting for the consideration of the union of the two bodies simply re¬ sulted, so far as official action was con¬ cerned, m a closer relationship of the two bodies, not organically, but for co¬ operative purposes. As proof of this fact I quote the words of Elder Rogers, who was present in the meeting wlien the union was effected. He said; “No one ever thought that the Re¬ formers, so-called, had come over to us, or that we had gone over to them; that they were required to relinquish their opinions, or we ours.” 60 Thus it is as clear as language can make it that the two bodies were dis¬ tinct then, even after the co-operative iinion had been formed. kir. Stom- and his followers were certainly not of the Campbell people, else they would not have been trying to unite. In view of this fact the adoption by Mr. Stone and his followers of the principles of O’Kelly and his associates, the pres¬ ence of Rice Haggard as an adviser and member, and the further testimony of Elder Samuel Rogers that it was Hag¬ gard who suggested to Mr. Stone the propriety of taking the name Christian, the name divinely given at Antioch, seems to put beyond question the possi¬ bility of Mr. Stone having been of the Disciple Church. AAA have further testimony as to the bodies being distinct in the words of Air. Campbell himself, bearing upon the choice of a name for his people, when he declared that the name Chris¬ tian was his first choice, but as it had been appropriated by another people, he declined to take it, and after mature consideration he concluded that he lik¬ ed the name Disciple better, and so he chose that as the great family name for his people. If Air. Campbell had con¬ sidered them all one he could have had no such difficulty in choosing a name. 61 The truth is there were two distinct bodies then as now. You say on the face of the discussion there is nothing important involved. My brother, are not the facts of history important? And is it not important to have the facts correctly recorded? To the Christian Church these facts are important, and for two .reasons: 1. Be¬ cause the incorrect statement of these facts of history places us with a people with whom we have little in common, theologically speaking. We belong es¬ sentially to a different school of theo¬ logical thought, and the misstatement of the facts of history greatly confuses the truth as it pertains to us as a peo¬ ple. 2. Because right demands that history should be correctly recorded. The Christian Church, as founded by James O’Kelly, takes a widely different view of many theological questions from the Disciples. To illustrate—The Christian Church does not observe the Lord’s Supper weekly, but the Disciples do; the Chris¬ tian Church does not require immer¬ sion in water as essential to baptism, but the Disciples do; the Christian Church does not teach that in the act of baptism in water the sinner is for¬ given his sins, as is charged against the Disciples; the Christian Church holds 62 that the new birth is the work of the Spirit, and not of water; the Christian Church repudiates all man-made creeds and claims the Bible as the only and all-sufficient rule of faith and practice, and standing upon that basis it makes bold to extend Christian and church fellowship to every child of God with¬ out regard to mere differences of opin¬ ion in the interpretation of the Word, whereas, as we understand the Disci¬ ples, they also accept the Scriptures as an all-sufficient creed, but whoever would have fellowship with them must accept the peculiar views^and interpre¬ tations commonly held among the Disci¬ ples, or they cannot he fellowshipped at all. Here we find the great barrier between the union of these two bodies —where they are so unlike. I am not seeking to discuss here the merits of the positions held by the two bodies. I only wish to show that hold¬ ing such divergent views it is practi¬ cally impossible for us to be the same people, theologically. In view of these facts I think you cannot longer be sur¬ prised that we are unwilling to go be¬ fore the world as followers of Alexan¬ der Campbell, not that he is not worthy of high appreciation and love, not that at all, but because we are essentially of 63 a different school of theological thought. I am not writing with any desire for controversy. Both of us ought to have too much good work in the Master’s service for that. ]\Iy purpose is in an¬ other direction altogether. I am writ¬ ing at your request, seeking to clear up the confusion between us historic¬ ally, and therein to show why the Chris¬ tian Church is unwilling to go before the world as the followers of Alexan¬ der Campbell, and this I have tried to do, true to the truth, in the fear of God, and in fairness to all concerned, and with it all in the spirit of brotherly kindness. Cordially and Fraternally yours, J. PRESSLEY BARRETT.