Stone-Campbell Research Tools

May 18, 2013

I have two good friends who have invested time, money and effort in making some valuable texts and tools available to researchers and those who are interested in reading original texts of significant Stone-Campbell works.

Barry Jones has made available the following texts for PDF searching. You can find them here.

  • Bible Banner
  • Christian Baptist
  • Millennial Harbinger
  • Gospel Guardian
  • Lard’s Quarterly
  • Millennial Harbinger

I have used his PDF files in recent weeks.  I have found them extremely helpful and could quickly find material that otherwise would have taken me weeks to discover through reading hard copies or microfilm.  The state of the scanning is quite good and searchable though with the usual problems of searching these kinds of files.  Nevertheless I have found the PDF files  invaluable.

Bob Lewis is another longtime friend who has been publishing Stone-Campbell original texts through the Web or on Kindle for several years now.  His Stone-Campbell e-Print Library provides Kindle access for several significant works (such as Ketcherside, Leroy Garrett, Richardson’s Memoirs of Alexander Campbell and W. T. Moore’s Comprehensive History of the Disciples of Christ).

Bod has links to significant journals and works on his Stone-Campbell.org website (including Stone’s Christian Messenger).

I recommend supporting and patronizing both of Dr. Jones and Dr. Lewis. They are providing a wonderful service for researchers and those who love reading in Stone-Campbell history and theology.

Blessings on both their efforts!


J. D. Tant on the Firm Foundation and Rebaptism

March 11, 2013

While reading parts of the Firm Foundation for a research project, I rediscovered the following article by J. D. Tant (“Looking Back Fifty Years,” Firm Foundation 50.3 [17 January 1933] 2).

In this article he highlights how the Firm Foundation had served the church over the past fifty years. In his view, the periodical saved the church from extremes–the extreme of the “digressives” and also “sect baptism” as well as the extreme of those who oppose Sunday schools and multiple cups for the Lord’s Supper. He stresses opposition to digressives and sect baptism as the origins of the polemical advocacy of the Firm Foundation.

In his estimation, “[Austin] McGary was to Texas what D[avid] Lipscomb was to Tennessee when the society tried to capture Tennessee.”

It is an interesting brief analysis from one who lived through those first fifty years of the Firm Foundation. Here is the article:

I notice last issue of the Firm Foundation shows fifty years on the firing line.

Few of our gospel preachers today have any conception of the work and battles the pioneer preachers had fifty years ago.

I remember well the first issue of the Foundation. It was brought out in pamphlet form–five hundred copies by A. McGary, and after mailing out copies to all he cold think of he pushed the rest under his bed as he had no one to send them to.

The doctrine of one Lord, one faith, and one baptism created as much stir among my brethren as Campbell did among the denominations when he began to argue to drop all creeds and come back to the Bible.

For years and years my brethren had been teaching in Texas that man instead of God must be the judge of man’s baptism, and all who had been baptized by immersion and were satisfied were fit subjects for the kingdom of heaven.

When McGarvy began to teach that all laws, human or devine [sic], are predicated upon design, and for man to change the design God had placed upon his laws caused said law to cease to be a law of God, a cannon seemed turned loose.

About this time I. C. Stone of Indiana, A. J. MCarty, John S. Durst, J. W. Strode, “Weeping Joe” Harding, E. Hansbroough, Jack Larimore, J. W. Jackson, Brice Wilmeth, J. R.Will,A. J. Clark, William McIntire, D. Pennington, J. W. Denton and a host of other strong preachers took up the battle cry, and none on the side of sect baptism were able to meet their arguments. Later on, among the younger set, Joe S. Warlick (the ablest debater we ever had in the South) H. G. Oliver, J. W. Chism, W. L. Swiney, Will Stafford, U. G. Wilkerson, J. F. Grubbs, W. F. Ledlow, anda large number of younger men saw the consistancy [sic] of McGary’s position and fell into line. None of these the world could meet in debate.

As I had come into the church of Christ (as I thought) on my Methodist baptism I lined up with T. R. Burnett, D. Lipscomb, J. A. Harding, A. J. Bush, W. K. Homan and others to fight on the other side, trying to show that McGary was wrong.

When J. F. Grubbs showed me that I could not make a Bible argument in favor of sect baptism I then deserted those brethren who held to it and rode a Texas pony one hundred and twenty-seven miles to get John Durst to baptize me.

About this time the church of Christ was divided in Texas by the digressives pulling off at the state meeting in Austin in 1886. and starting to build up a sister church among other human churches where they could have hired pastors, missionary societies, instrumental music, and other human devices to pull disciples after them.

About that time Brother W. J. Rice, who had been excluded from the church at Covington, Indiana, so I heard, came to Texas and stared his “order of worship,” and pulled off many disciples.

Later on Brother J. P. Nall and Brother Ament started their “formal confession” faction which operated for a while, killed a few churches and then died.

N. L. Clark, one of the ablest Bible teachers in Texas, and Brother J. N. Cowen started their hobby about anti-Sunday school, and anti-class and anti-literature foolishness, divided many churches, did much harm, and no good.  But they have divided into the one cup and the two-cup, the grape juice, and the fermented-wine worshippers, and are kept so busy trying to straighten out the kinks in each other that it will be a few years until they will be forgotten and their baleful influence will be in the past.

Fifty years ago we had fewer than fifty preachers in Texas, including all the digressive preachers, and fewer than twenty thousand members, and not a located preacher among the loyal members. Many predicted that the Bible principles as advocated by these godly men would soon cease. When the digressive thought they would capture all the churches in Texas and pull them over to the society McGary and the other loyal preachers met them on all parts of the battle field [sic]. McGary was to Texas what D. Lipscomb was to Tennessee when the society tried to capture Tennessee.

But McGary, Jackson, Durst, McCarty, Dr. Herndon, and Handsborough have all crossed the divide and gone on, yet I am glad their work continues. With fifteen hundred churches of Christ in Texas today and almost a thousand loyal preachers I am impressed that their labors were not in vain and that God is on their side.

While I have been on the firing line fifty-one years, and am perhaps the only old-time preacher now living who fought side by side with those godly men, I do not think it amiss to remind the young men many of whom are hunting for located jobs, that you know nothing of hardships to be a gospel preacher as we “old timers” do. Many, many nights I have slept on the ground by the side of A. McGary, or Jack McCarty going to or from our appointments. I have had to swim the creek as many as seven times in order to reach my appointment to preach. I have traveled horseback forty miles a night, laid down my saddle blanket, slept two or three hours and wold get up and go on.

The first three years of my preaching life I was not paid one cent. The fourth year was paid $9.75, the fifty year $92.00 and the sixth year 0235 [sic], yet I continued to preach. Have held a number of meetings and pick as much as three hundred pounds of cotton every day, preach every night cut out cotton picking on Saturday afternoon to baptize all who had made the confession.Had to pick cotton and do all kinds of work to support my father and mother and sister. Yet I continued to preach. Have walked fifty miles to meet my appointment because I had nothing to ride, and gone hungry many times because I did not have twenty-five cents to buy my dinner. But through all these things God has preserved me wonderfully, and my physical health and my mental powers are a [sic] good as thirty years ago.

I hope my experience will be an inspiration to some young preacher, and help him to keep on against obstacles, knowing for whom he is laboring. Also hope our job hunting preachers many see that much good can be accomplished without a “located job.”


Daniel Sommer on Rebaptism

March 3, 2013

Daniel Sommer, the leader of northern conservatives within the Stone-Campbell Movement in the late 19th century and early 20th century, shared his mentor’s (Benjamin Franklin) perspective on the rebaptism questin within the Restoration Movement. He regarded the rebaptists as divisive and sectarian, and their position he judges as “unscriptural” and “inconsistent.” In 1904 he wrote that he began openly opposing this “extreme” view in 1887 (“Bro. Hutson’s Wonder,” Octographic Review 47.9 [1 March 1904] 1).

As early as 1891 Sommer published a tract defending the following proposition:  “Single immersion performed in the name of the Godhead even by a sectarian and even in connection with certain sectarian errors is valid baptism when rendered for the purpose of obeying Christ.” He published it because the FF was intent on “working division in the brotherhood” and consequently he permitted “no discussion of the rebaptism question” in Octographic Review (“Let Patience Have Her Perfect Work,” Octographic Review 40 (29 June 1897) 1, 8.

Since a reader has requested more about Sommer’s position, here are some representative statements.

Daniel Sommer, “Items of Interest,” Octographic Review 40 (23 March 1897) 1.

“Why I am Not an Apologist for Sect Baptism” is the title of a tract now on our table. Such a title assumes that such a something as ‘sect baptism’ exists. But neither the author of that title nor any one else on that side of the question, so far as we have learned, has ever had the courage to define that so-called “sect baptism” and affirm his definition for debate. Those who denounce what they call “sect baptism” and assume that to be validly baptized one must understand what they call “the design of baptism” have been fully tested, and we have not found one of them who will affirm his position and meet a well informed opponent in debate. After having fully tested them we have offered on e of their champions this proposition: “Those who preach that single immersion received in the name of the God-head, and in connection with certain sectarian errors is ‘sect baptism,’ and who preach that valid baptism requires that each person when baptized shall understand ‘the design of baptism’ and yet who refuse thus to affirm in debate occupy a position which is illogical, unscriptural, inconsistent and cowardly.” But this proposition was refused by the author of the tract now before us when it was offered to him in private correspondence. In refusing to affirm for debate what he preaches, and in refusing to deny a proposition which charges him with occupying a position which is “illogical, unscriptural, inconsistent and cowardly” the author of the mentioned tract shows himself less honorable than many of the sectarians whom he denounces. As for the mentioned trace, its foundation statement is that the expression “for the remission of sins” in  Acts 2:38 “is part of THE COMMAND.” If this could be so then “for the remission of sins” is no longer a promise, of it cannot be both a command and a promise at the same time and in the same sentence. Moreover, then the expression “that your sins may be blotted out” in Acts 3:19, is “a part” of the command, “Repent ye therefore and be converted.” But the absurity [sic] of this is evident as soon as stated to every one except those who oppose sectism so extremely and unreasonably that they place themselves in the position of sectarians. As the fundamental proposition of the tract before us is an absurdity it follows that the trat itself is a blunder.”

Daniel Sommer, “Nineteenth Century Efforts to Restore the Bible to Mankind,” Octographic Review 44 (10 September 1901) 1.

“But all rebaptism hobbyists, wherever found among disciples show more or less of his disposition. In their zeal against sectism they become sectarians, and in principle take the identical position of those Baptists who insist on rebaptism of those baptized believers who wish to unite with them after having been immersed by others than preachers of that particular Baptist society [see my blog on this point, JMH]….on account of their valid baptism ideas they are, to say the least, a very disturbing element in the disciple brotherhood. They have done much toward dividing and destroying churches, but have seldom been known to build up a church.”

Daniel Sommer, “A Letter with Comments,” Octographic Review 47 (2 Feb 1904) 1-2.

“I further say, if rebaptism extremists were right in every other particular, nevertheless they do enough false reasoning in behalf of that one extreme to endanger themselves in the judgment, unless I have misread my Bible in regard to truth and honesty. I also state this: I have yet to find a rebaptism extremist who does not hate what he regards as error more than he loves truth. Again, I have yet to find one of that class who does not hate what he calls “sect baptism” more than he loves the oneness of those who profess to be apostolic disciples….Finally, all rebaptism extremists adopt the sectarian plan of sitting in judgment on the fitness of persons for baptism. The only difference between them and genuine sectarians is that a sectarian sits in judgment on fitness for baptism BEFORE candidates are baptized, while the hater of what he calls “sect baptism” sits in judgment on their fitness for baptism AFTER they have been baptized!!”


Benjamin Franklin: On Rebaptism…Again

March 1, 2013

One of the more common “gotcha questions” in the late 19th century discussion of rebaptism in the Stone-Campbell Movement was something like this:

Is baptism administered to a person scripturally valid when he claims he is in Christ before he was baptized, and will contend that his sins were all forgiven him before he submitted to the institution of baptism, and will still further affirm that baptism is not essential in order to remission of sins of any person.

This is the question Benjamin Franklin is asked in the 1872 American Christian Review (15.26 [25 June 1872] 204). For those who advocate “rebaptizing” those who have previously been immersed without the knowledge that baptism was for the remission of sins this is the ultimate question. One who answers this question in the affirmative demonstrates that they don’t really believe baptism is for the remission of sins. It is the question that many advocates of rebaptism believe will sufficiently illuminate the discussion that no honest person could deny that rebaptism was necessary in this instance. That this was the point of the question is evident when one reads the literature of the controversy in the 1890s-1910s (including the 1914 McQuiddy-Durst Debate).

Benjamin Franklin (1812-1878), the great defender of Campbell’s agenda in the Christian Baptist, responds in a surprising way. At least it would alarm many rebaptists.

A man is “scripturally baptized” when he is baptized according to the Scriptures. A man who believes in Christ, repents and is immersed, is scripturally baptized. His misunderstanding about something else could not invalidate his baptism. The Lord says: “He who believes and is immersed shall be save.” Suppose the man misunderstood: thought he was in Christ before he was immersed; or that he was pardoned, would that make void the promise of God?  Surely not. He believed with all his heart and was immersed, and thus came to the promise of God, that he should be saved or pardoned. That promise can not fail because he did not understand when he was in Christ or pardoned. The work to do for that man is not enough to convince him that what he had done, and done rightly, is to be discarded and repudiated, but teach him “the way of the Lord more perfectly,” or, in other words, correct his understanding in the things  wherein he does not understand, and leave what he had done rightly unmolested. There are evils connected with an ultra course in the above matter that many brethren do not see.

Franklin is quite willing to accept the obedience of this person who, in his opinion, thoroughly misunderstands the timing of pardon. He obeyed. That is sufficient. God does the rest.

But the most interesting point to me is the last sentence. He warns the church that to do otherwise is to proceed down a path that leads to some severe consequences. I think Franklin recognized the sectarianism that was in play with rebaptists. This is something David Lipscomb, James A. Harding, and Daniel Sommer would also recognize.  It was a dire warning that eventually came true.

McGary thought it was a reason to divide or might lead to division since some recognize and accept people as Christians who are not really Christians.


Benjamin Franklin on Rebaptism

February 14, 2013

In the years prior to the Firm Foundation (begun in 1884) there was practical unanimity on the question of whether one who had been previously immersed to obey God but without the knowledge of its saving import should be rebaptized. The answer was an unequivocal “No.” The only significant part of the Stone-Campbell Movement that answered “Yes” was the Virginians who followed John Thomas in the mid-1830s.  Alexander Campbell opposed their understanding of the rebaptism and regarded it as rank sectarianism.  Anyone immersed upon a confession of faith in Jesus as the Christ, thought Campbell, was legitimately baptized and needed no further “re-d0″ when they later learned that baptism was for the remission of sins.

Benjamin Franklin (1812-1878), a northern right-wing leader within the Stone-Campbell Movement in the mid-19th century, agreed with Campbell and the vast majority of “his brethren.”  A correspondent to his American Christian Review asked that since “some twenty years ago [he] was immersed and united with the  Baptist Church,” whether it was now “requisite for [him] to be immersed again, in understanding more fully  what is meant by immersion and what it is for?” He recognized that the Baptists believe baptism to be “the door into the church,” while “we hold it as being a positive command and for the remission of sins.”

Franklin’s response counsels against rebaptism (ACR 2 [1860] 26):

We do not think you ought to be immersed again. While it is certainly desirable to understand as far as we can any appointment we submit to, the want of a full understanding does not invalidate the ordinance….You believed in the Lord, loved him and aimed to obey and understood sufficiently to do what he commanded. As a matter of course, in reading and practicing for many years, you will understand more clearly and fully. We presume this is the case generally; but this does not prove, the necessity of taking incipient steps again that have long since been honestly taken.

Later northern conservatives followed Franklin’s lead on this point. Daniel Sommer, for example, regard the Firm Foundation’s  rebaptism agenda as a divisive and sectarian hobby. Nevertheless, despite the support of David Lipscomb and James A. Harding in the south as well as other luminaries from the Gospel Advocate, the Firm Foundation perspective ultimately became the majority view within Churches of Christ by the 1940s.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 938 other followers

%d bloggers like this: