service in Kentucky for over twenty years. Another union was brought about at Georgetown.

Union in the three places mentioned above-Lexington, Paris, and Georgetown-soon led to union throughout the state. This desire for unity was greatly furthered by the efforts of John Smith and John Rogers, the first formerly known as a "Reformer," and the latter as a "Christian," who had been appointed by the Lexington meeting to go to all the churches and convince them of their sincerity. These special messengers were to be equally supported by the united offerings of the interested churches, which were to leave their contributions with John T. Johnson, as treasurer and distributor." About 8000 "Christians" came into the union in Kentucky. Aside from their leaders mentioned earlier, who had prepared the way or furthered the movement of the Campbells, John Allen Gano, F. R. Palmer, H. D. Palmer, B. F. Hall, Tolbert Fanning, Elijah Goodwin, and Samuel Rogers were important. The latter traveled in Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and Missouri, and during a ministry which lasted past the eighty-fourth year of his life baptized over 7000 persons. Writers of the Christian Connection try to explain Stone's attitude on the union as only one of co-operation. This is an impossible position, however, for Stone defended

Richardson, R. Memoirs of Alexander Campbell, II., 883-885. 8 Gates, E. The Disciples of Christ, 204-208.

• Some of these writers are: J. F. Burnett, J. J. Summerbell, 0. B. Whitaker, and M. T. Morrill.

it as a union and distinctly stated: "This union I view as the noblest act of my life." " The union movement was more successful in Kentucky than elsewhere. Concerning the drawbacks in other places, Stone wrote:

"This union, I have no doubt, would have been as easily effected in other States as in Kentucky, had there not been a few ignorant, headstrong bigots on both sides, who were more influenced to retain and augment their party, than to save the world by uniting according to the prayer of Jesus. Some irresponsible zealots among the Reformers, so called, would publicly and zealously contend against sinners praying, or that professors should pray for them; they spurned the idea that preachers should pray that God would assist them in declaring his truth to the people; they rejected from Christianity all who were not baptized for the remission of sins, and who did not observe the weekly communion, and many such doctrines they preached. The old Christians, who were unacquainted with the preachers of information amongst us, would naturally conclude these to be the doctrines of us all; and they rose up in opposition to us all, representing our religion as a spiritless, prayerless religion, and dangerous to the souls of men. They ran to the opposite extreme in Ohio and in the Eastern States. I blame not the Christians for opposing such doctrines; but I do blame the more intelligent among them, that they did not labor to allay those prejudices of the people by teaching them the truth, and not to cherish them, as many of them did in their periodicals and public preaching. Nor were they only blamable; some of the Reformers are equally worthy of blame, by rejecting the name Christian, as a family name, because the old Christians had taken it before them. At

10 Rogers, Samuel. The Cane Ridge Meeting House, Autobiography, 204.

this posterity will wonder, when they know that the sentiment was published in one of our most popular periodicals, ["] and by one in the highest standing among us.'' 12

Stone felt very keenly his rejection by some of the "Christians," and the lack of confidence shown by many Disciples, but he held fast to his principles. In defence of and in explanation of his views, he penned the following noble words:

"It is not wonderful that the prejudices of the old Christian Church should be great against us, and that they should so unkindly upbraid me especially, and my brethren in Kentucky, for uniting with the Reformers. But what else could we do, the Bible being our directory? Should we command them to leave the foundation on which we stood the Bible alone-when they had come upon the same? By what authority could we command? Or should we have left this foundation to them and have built another? Or should we have remained and fought with them for the sole possession? They held the name Christian as sacred as we did, they were equally averse from making opinions the test of fellowship, and equally solicitous for the salvation of souls. This union I view as the noblest act of my life.

"In the fall of 1834, I moved my family to Jacksonville, Illinois. Here I found two churches-a .Christian and Reformers' church. They worshipped in separate places. I refused to unite with either until they united to-gether, and labored to effect it. It was effected. I never suffered myself to be so blinded by prejudice in favor of or against any that I could not see their excellencies or defects. I have seen wrongs in the Reformers, and in the old Christians,

11 The Millennial Harbinger.

13 Rogers, Samuel. The Cane Ridge Meeting House, Autobiog raphy, 203, 204.

and in candor have protested against them. posed me to the darts of both sides.'' 18

This has ex

Although union was not so easily brought about elsewhere as in Kentucky, thousands of "Christians" did join the Reformers. After referring to the union effected by Stone in Jacksonville, M. T. Morrill, the leading historian of the Christian Connection, made the following admission:

"Then followed a wave of 'Campbellism' that swept the Christians off their feet, and aggregated about eight thousand accessions to the Disciples. No Christian churches long survived in Tennessee, their cause was ruined in Kentucky and never has regained its former strength or prestige. Of the Southern Ohio Christians a majority of the preachers embraced Campbellism prior to 1837, and only about one thousand church members remained. A man named C. A. Eastman, traveling through Indiana about 1846, reported that, 'In many places they [the Christians] have amalgamated with the Disciples, and are known only as the same people.' Several years later it was reported that on Stone's account conferences of the Christians had been dissolved and churches disbanded, and the people had become amalgamated with the Disciples.” “

"

Since these two bodies-the Christians and the Disciples both exist now and are often confused, it may be worth while to note briefly their points of resemblance and of difference, many of which were apparent at first, all now. The main points of likeness are:

18

Rogers, Samuel. The Cane Ridge Meeting House, Autobiography, 204.

14

History of the Christian Denomination, 804.

1. Both acknowledge the term "Christian." 2. Both are opposed to a written creed. 3. Both preach frequently in favor of Christian union.

4. Both favor open communion by inviting to the Lord's table all followers of Christ.

5. Both have a congregational government derived from Bible acts and phrases.

6. Both give great prominence to the importance of conforming to Bible doctrines and commands.

7. Both receive into church fellowship those whom Christ has accepted without respect to what is usually termed "dogma." 16

Some of the main points of difference are:

1. The Christians accept only the one name. The Disciples accept the name "Church of Christ," or "Churches of Christ," "Christian," and "Disciples of Christ."

2. The Christians have no written creed except the Bible. The Disciples have a consensus of opinion, and thus will not receive a member unless he is immersed for the remission of sins. Christians teach immersion, but they accept church members on profession and character."

3. Christians acknowledge no leader but Jesus Christ. "But," says Summerbell,

"the Disciples are supposed to accept Alexander Campbell as the founder of their church; and because of this

15 Summerbell, J. J. The Christians and Disciples, 2, 8. 10 Ibid., 8-7.