Chapter V.
[pages 64-95]
THE difficulty heretofore referred to in the Sugar Creek Church resulted in a permanent division of that body after 1824, though efforts were made to unite the two parties for some years after. The trouble extended to several other churches which complained of the action of the association in receiving the minority for the church, and these complaints were so warmly pressed that, in 1827, Middle Run and Mercer's Run Churches were excluded from the Miami Association. For several years the controversy ran high between Elders Thompson and Mason, but the former had great influence over the masses and in the associations, and always carried his point. Elder Mason, in 1826, moved within the bounds of the White Water Association, and preached there until his death, a few years
[p. 65]
after. The precise date of his death I do not know.
In 1824, the Dayton Church was first received by the association, yet, with the addition of that church, the membership had. been reduced in two years from 812 to 739. This was doubtless, the effect of the difficulties growing out of Elder Thompson's "SIMPLE TRUTH," followed as it was, shortly after, by another called "TRIUMPHS OF TRUTH," reaffirming and elaborating the doctrines inculcated by the first. The last work was provoked by several strictures upon "SIMIPLE TRUTH." Among these one was by Elder Clark and a Mr. Horniday, Baptists, then engaged in teaching at Oxford; and another by Elder John Mason.
In 1820, the Enon Church, of Cincinnati, was organized and united with the East Fork Association. A difficulty seems to have been created by its organization with the First church which came before both associations. The name of the First church does not appear in the minutes after 1829, but in 1831, the following entry is found on the records. "The First church in Cincinnati having united with the newly constituted church under the care of Elder S. W. LYND, the united church adopting the name of The Sixth Street Baptist Church, the name of First church is dropped from the minutes." It was at the session of the association this year, that that Sixth Street and
[p. 66]
Race Street church, also in Cincinnati, were first received into the association; the first with 70, and the second with 32 members. Enon Church, in 1837, was incorporated as the First church of Cincinnati. In 1829, the Hamilton Church, and, also, Ebenezer Chapel, had been received. The last seems to have existed but about three years. The former, in the division in 1836, united with the anti-mission association. The old church is called Hamilton and Rossville in the minutes from 1833.
The seeds of division having thus been sown by the two books of Elder Thompson, before named, and the answers and exceptions thereto, they soon began to show their fruits in opposition to Mission, Bible, Education, Sabbath-school and Temperance Societies. The Baptist State Convention was organized at Zanesville in 1826, and no exceptions to it had been manifested in the association up to 1832. At this association the records state that "a collection was taken on Lord's day to assist the Baptist convention in supplying the destitute in this State with the preached Gospel." But at the same session the following resolution was adopted, and, no doubt, was intended by the individual who offered it as a basis of that opposition which soon manifested itself:
"Resolved, That this association recommend to all the churches in her body to send a delegate to the Baptist convention for this State, to meet at
[p. 67]
Lebanon, Warren County, in May next, so that each church may become properly acquainted with the object and movements of the convention and board of managers."
In 1833, the circular letter adopted was mainly pointed, in rather obscure language, against all benevolent societies, too plainly, however, to be mistaken. The corresponding letter of the next year was still more pointed against all means. It was intended evidently to prepare the way for that open opposition which, at the next session was manifested. At the session of the association at Lebanon in 1835, a motion was made to admit a new church called "Mount Zion" which had declared non-fellowship with all the societies and institutions of the day, called benevolent societies, and objection, on account of this declaration of the church, was made to her reception. On the question of admitting this church the subject of Missions, Bible, Tract and other societies was so fully discussed as to show a separation inevitable. The question as to the reception of this church was, therefore, laid over from Saturday until Monday, and to bring the matter of division to a decision at once, the following preamble and resolution were offered: "Whereas there is great excitement and division of sentiment in the Baptist denomination relative to the subject of benevolent institutions of the day (so-called), such as Sunday-schools, Bible, Missionary,
[p. 68]
Tract, and Temperance Societies: Therefore, Resolved, that this association regards these said societies and institutions as having no authority, foundation, or support, in the sacred Scriptures; but we regard them as having had their origin in, and belonging exclusively to the world, and as such we have no fellowship for them, as being of a religious character." After this resolution had been debated some time, and many of its advocates and opponents had expressed their opinions that a separation of the two parties was essential to peace, it became evident, also, to the friends of missions, that such division was inevitable. The object of both parties then appeared to be to separate in a friendly way, and so as not to impose difficulties on members of churches holding sentiments on these subjects different from the majority of their churches. At the suggestion, therefore, of the c1erk for that year, Isaac T. Sanders, who espoused the anti-mission side, Elder Daniel Bryant, a friend of missions, offered the following amendment to be added to the foregoing resolution: "But we do not hereby declare non-fellowship with those churches and brethren who advocate them." With this amendment the resolution, after a warm debate lasting from 10 o'clock, A. M. until sundown, was adopted by a vote of 40 for, and 21 against it. Two other resolutions were, on Monday, afterward adopted - one granting
[p. 69]
churches friendly or opposed to missions, etc., the liberty to withdraw and form a new association and the other advising the churches to grant letters of dismission to such of their members as may be dissatisfied with the doctrine and practice of the church to which they belong on these subjects, and wish to go to other churches where they can be better suited.
The leaders on the two sides in this debate, as far as I can state, were Dr. S. W. Lynd, then of Sixth Street Church, Cincinnati, and Elder Daniel Bryant, then of Middletown, now of King's Creek Church, on the side of missions, and Elder Stephen Gard of Elk Creek, and Elder T. Childers, then of Mount Pleasant Church, on the side of the anti-mission party. Other ministers may have taken part, but Elder Thompson had before this moved to White Water, and my impression is that these were all the ministers who took much part in the debate. What lay messengers engaged in it I cannot state.
The next year, 1836, the association met with the Dry Fork of White Water Church, Hamilton County. In the letters of several of the churches, the association was requested to drop from their minutes all the churches in their body which "advocate or support as religious institutions any of the societies for which the association declared non-fellowship at her last session." Thereupon, Sixth Street, Cincinnati, Middletown,
[p. 70]
Lebanon, and Dayton churches were dropped from their minutes, and directly in the face of the amendment of the resolution adopted the year before, by the approbation of both parties, the following resolution was at this session carried:
"Resolved, That the association advise such of the brethren in the churches which were dropped, yesterday, from our minutes, as are not advocating or supporting any of the societies which were denounced by this association at her last session, as being unauthorized by the Scriptures, to embody themselves together and exclude from their fellowship all such as they cannot retain by Gospel discipline, and at our next session to report the result of their labors to the association." This resolution was not acted upon, it is believed, in any of the four excluded churches, unless at Midd1etown, and Hamilton. At Lebanon, the church, by mutual consent, was dissolved, and the clerk directed to give letters to any of the members on either side to form new church connections as they might wish. The anti-mission party formed a new church, and called it "West Lebanon." The mission party formed one, and called it "East Lebanon." The division as to members was nearly equal. The property of the church was divided, both retaining a joint use of their burial ground, and with a very few exceptions, the best spirit, was manifested on both sides. In the Sixth Street,
[p. 71]
Cincinnati, there was great unanimity in favor of Missions, and for Sunday-schools, Tract and Temperance Societies. It was soon after called, and is now, Ninth Street Church, and has ever been one of the most active and liberal churches in the West in sustaining, by their efforts and purses, every object calculated to do good and bless the world. For many years after, this church was under the care of Dr. Lynd, since of Dr. E. L. Magoon, now of Albany, New York; then, for a time, of Dr. Robinson, now of Rochester University; and for several years past, of Elder W. F. Hansell. Under all these pastors its course has been onward and marked with great usefulness at home and abroad. The Dayton Church, too, were very generally united on these questions, which were the immediate cause of separation; the friends of missions being greatly in the majority they gave letters to such as sided with the anti-mission party, and this church, too, has been greatly blessed. Left few and feeble some ten years before by the withdrawal of their pastor with a majority of the members who united with the Campbellites, and deprived of their meeting-house by this schism, they were then indeed weak. But, first, by the aid of the State Convention, they were supplied by the labors of Elder Samuel L. Clark, and, after his decease, of Elder John L. Moore, and the church
[p. 72]
rapidly grew; and out of it a second church, the Wayne Street, sprung up, and both are doing a good work in the city of Dayton.
The Middletown Church too, has prospered, and continues to exert great influence in all that section of the country. While the Lebanon Church, called now East Lebanon though at first rendered feeble by the withdrawal of one-half of her members, has gradually increased, and still retains a commanding position among the churches of the Miami Association. The four churches thus dropped from the association, in 1836, have all been evidently blessed, and, in point of members and strength, long since have gone ahead of the whole Miami Association of 1836.
Immediately after the action of the association on the subject of missions, etc., the messenger from Wolf Creek Church requested the letter which he had handed in from that church to be returned to him, but this was refused until the church should express the desire to withdraw from this new body. The messengers also from Mad Liver Association, Elders John L. Moore and Thomas J. Price, refused to deliver their corresponding letter, and for that reason, and because said association, the minutes say, "has opened a correspondence with the Oxford Association composed of churches not in fellowship with this association," therefore, correspondence with Mad River Association was dropped.
[p. 73]
The messenger also from East Fork Association, Elder J. B. Cook, refusing to deliver the corresponding letter of his association, the question whether said association would approve of their messenger's course was referred to it. It did concur with the course pursued by the messenger and was afterward dropped from correspondence.
A separation thus made directly in opposition to the sentiments expressed by the association of 1835, and against all the early practice of the association in supporting, encouraging and promoting the spread of the Gospel through the aid of Mission and Bible Societies, and against, as was contended, the original platform adopted by the association at its organization, the messengers from the churches thus dropped, and some of these from Fairfield and Muddy Creek Churches met together at the village of New Haven near by, and organized as "The Miami Association," electing Elder S. W. Lynd, Moderator, and Daniel Bryant, Clerk. After thus organizing, they adjourned to meet at Middletown on Saturday, October 29, 1836. Had the messengers from the churches thus dropped been permitted to vote, the resolution to drop them would not have been carried, but this not being permitted, the majority had it their own way. In the discussion which preceded the vote on the above resolution of exclusion, it was not only shown
[p. 74]
that the proposed movement was in direct opposition to the practice of the association, approved by many of the then messengers, in supporting Mission and Bible Societies, but it was also contended that the action of the association was in direct opposition to the uniform principles of Baptists on the subject of the independence of churches, and in violation of the constitution of the association, by the 13th rule of which "no vote or advice is to affect the independence of churches," and by the 14th, which provides that "Churches are to be received or excluded at the option of two-thirds of a majority." To evade the last rule, the messengers of the churches intended to be dropped were first prohibited from voting, on the resolution of exclusion, so that in effect the last rule was abrogated by the action of a part of the association. That this movement was in direct opposition to the early and long established practice of the association, the preceding pages will amply prove - and whether not in violation of the constitution of the association, by which it had been governed then for forty years, each must judge for himself.
When the Mission Association met at Middletown, 29th October succeeding messengers from the following churches were received. It will be seen that in addition to the four churches so dropped, Muddy Creek and Fairfield are represented. These churches as well as the Lebanon
[p. 75]
Church, had divided, under the resolution providing therefor[e], as adopted in 1835, and therefore represent but part of those churches. At Dayton and Middletown also, in pursuance of said resolution of 1835, letters had been given to such members as sided with the anti-mission movement. The minutes of this year in the Mission Association report the following churches and members:
MIAMI ASSOCIATION, (MISSION,) 1836.
MIAMI ASSOCIATION, (MISSION,) 1836. Sixth Street, Cin., total members, 249 Middletown, 77 Dayton, 38 Fairfield, 16 Muddy Creek, 17 East Lebanon, 44Total, 441
=======
MIAMI ASSOCIATION, (ANTI-MISSION,) 1836.
The following is the abstract of this Association for the same year, as shown by their minutes. Elder Stephen Gard was chosen Moderator, and Isaac T. Sanders, Clerk:
Elk Creek, total members, 113 Pleasant Run, 25 Muddy Creek, 44 Mill Creek, 37 Bethel, 47 Tod's Fork, 31
[p. 76]
Tapscott, M. H. 44 Wolf Creek, 51 Mount Pleasant, 16 Springfield, 57 Providence, 10 Dry Fork, of Whitewater, 28 Mount Bethel, 23 Hamilton and Rossville, 47 Sugar Creek, 47 Clear Creek, 24 Fairfield, 39 Winchester, formerly Bethlehem, 10 Mount Zion, 13Total 706
=======
The minutes for 1856, just twenty years after these proceedings, show in the Miami Association (Mission) a total membership of 1964. These churches are as follows : Ninth (formerly Sixth) Street Cincinnati; Middletown; First Church, Dayton; East Lebanon; Lockland; Mount Carmel; Muddy Creek; First Church, Cincinnati; Freeman Street, Cincinnati ; Franklin; Hamilton ; Welsh Church, Cincinnati; High Street, Cincinnati; Wayne Street, Dayton; Miami Church; and German Church. Dayton. Three churches, Sugar Creek, Wilmington, and Xenia, had been
[p. 77]
dismissed, to unite with a new association called Caesar's Creek.
The Anti-Mission Association for the same year, (1856,) consists of the following churches: Elk Creek; Bethel; Tod's Fork; Tapscott, M. H.; Mount Pleasant; Sugar Creek; Winchester; West Lebanon; Mount Bethel; and Middle Run -- 10 churches and 343 members reported.
Thus ended a controversy, arising out of the relation of the church to the world, which had been insidiously growing up in the West for more than ten years. The publication of Elder Thompson's "SIMPLE TRUTH," and the split in the Sugar Creek Church, consequent thereon, were only the occasions which developed this difference of views in relation to the duty of Christians to send the Gospel to all the world, and to unite in every effort to inculcate a knowledge of God's Word, whether by circulating the Bible through societies established for that purpose, or teaching the youth everywhere in Sabbath-schools. The primary cause of this division, however, lay far back of these and may be found in a tendency to extremes in all ages. Ultra Anti-nomianism and Arminianism have ever been the forms assumed on both sides. Some minds are constitutionally inclined to one or the other of these extremes. The one side looks at God's sovereignty alone, and not being able to comprehend how God can be sovereign and man free and accountable
[p. 78]
they conclude this to be impossible and settle down in Antinomian security. Man, they say, can do nothing, and it is vain, if not presumptuous, to make the effort. The other side looking principally at man's duty as prescribed by the Word of God, and the many exhortations to him to cease from evil and learn to do well, reject the doctrine of God's sovereignty in man's salvation, as wholly inconsistent with these duties and exhortations, and consider man as possessing within himself all the powers necessary for his salvation. These are the extremes, and between them, in all ages, have men oscillated and struggled, on one side or the other, to demonstrate problems and remove difficulties, which lie beyond their comprehension. From causes which can never be fully understood, at times, one or the other of these views has seemed to pass over the religious world, like a mighty wave, sweeping away in its course almost every seeming barrier. But so great a change from one extreme to the other, lays the foundation for reaction in the other direction. So in individuals. The strongest Arminian, when he changes, almost uniformly runs into extreme Antinoinianism; and Antinomianism, if it ever changes, runs into similar extremes, most generally Universalism. One of these floods of extreme Arminianism had swept over the western country, in the great Kentucky Revival, as it was called, commencing at the beginning
[p. 79]
of the nineteenth century, but widening and extending onward for some ten years after. Though it more particularly affected the Presbyterian churches, yet it everywhere brought up the question of Calvinism and Arminianism. Baptist preachers, and such Presbyterian clergymen as still stood firm in their ancient faith, were compelled to combat what they considered the dangerous and unscriptural doctrines taught so generally among the New Lights. This doubtless led early in the Baptist churches to the common practice of preaching so much and so generally, the stronger doctrines of Calvinism, and though these were strictly scriptural, it was an error to preach these alone, almost to the exclusion of man's duty and responsibility, equally as clearly taught in God's Word. Added to these, and probably the result of them, about 1828, as near as I recollect, one Elder Parker issued a monthly paper entitled "Church Advocate," in which was openly advanced the Two Seed Doctrine, viz. that one part of mankind, the elect, are the work and children of God - while all the rest are the children of the Devil, and forever must remain without the possibility of salvation. This paper was extensively circulated, and being ingeniously written, carried away many weak minds; some few permanently, but most of them, only until sober second thoughts corrected the error. Missions, at home and among the Indian Tribes, had, from
[p. 80]
the organization of the Miami Association, engaged their attention, and were without exception, so far as the records show, approved, until a few years before the division in the association, as above noticed. About 1814, the subject of Foreign Missions generally was presented to the Baptist churches in the West, in connection with Dr. Judson's Mission in Burmah. It then met universal favor, as far as the records show, in the Miami Association; and for about ten years after, I have no recollection of hearing even intimations of doubt, as to the duty of the churches in sending the Gospel to heathen lands. But the frequent, urgent, and, as many began to think, the heavy calls made upon the churches for money to support the Burmah Mission, gradually excited these feelings of covetousness so universal among men, and especially those who had never been educated to devise liberal things. If missions were to be thus supported they could see no end to the demands upon their pockets. These had not yet learned that their property as well as themselves belonged to Christ. Objections naturally sprung up under these feelings. Boards were too costly and missionaries were extravagant. In the very beginning of this opposition, Mrs. Judson returned from Burmah, wearing an expensive -- some said $500 -- shawl, and though known to be a present, this fact was seized upon, first in private circles, and then spoken of in the pulpit, by those who
[p. 81]
could not see why missionaries required more support in India than their own pastors here. Soon this growing opposition, fostered by the various causes referred to, began to show itself in the association, and resulted in the separation in the Miami Association, as detailed in the previous pages.
It may be well here in the close of this review of the progress of the Miami Association, to notice the introduction of Campbellism into some of the churches. About 1823, Alexander Campbell visited Wilmington, Clinton County, and preached there a few times. His views were cordially received by most of the members of that church, not thinking there was anything in his preaching at all different from Baptist sentiments. All that time Mr. Campbell, I believe, was in union with the Red Stone Association, Pa., and had not fully divulged, probably had not in his own mind framed, the peculiar doctrine since known as Campbellism. In 1826, he visited Lebanon and Cincinnati, and preached at both places. At Lebanon he made no converts, with perhaps one exception, but at Cincinnati, the Sycamore Street Church, then but recently formed, but in a most flourishing condition, under the pastoral charge of Elder James Challen, now of Philadelphia, nearly all embraced Mr. Campbell's views, as also did a large majority of the church at Dayton, then under the pastoral care of Elder
[p. 82]
D. S. Burnet. The Sycamore Street Church still exists in the same connection. The Dayton Campbellite Church has become quite a feeble body, though they still maintain a church organization and have recently purchased a new and commodious place of worship. These, with the Wilmington Church, already mentioned, are the only instances in the Miami Association where Campbellites materially interfered with Baptist churches. There were two preachers besides, who adopted Campbellite views -- Elder A. Crichfield, then pastor of Beulah Church near the line between Greene and Clinton counties, and Elder Corbly Martin, living in the bounds of, and perhaps a member of the Lebanon Church, at the time, though not preaching to any particular church. The latter had also been connected for some rears before with Elder Isaac McCoy's Mission among the Indians.
So far as I am aware, this is the extent of Dr. Campbell's inroad upon Baptist Churches in the Miami Valley; though in other churches, more particularly the New Light, within the same bounds, there have been many who have adopted his views.
I have now given a short history of the Miami Association, from its organization in 1797 to the unhappy division in it on the missionary question in 1836, a period of forty years. Though this was the first Christian organization, beyond a church,
[p. 83]
in the Northwestern Territory, it grew from a single church of about nine members, in a few years afterward, to include so many as to make it necessary, for convenience to form out of it new associations East, West and North, and from which again other associations have been formed. To pursue the history further would be coming so near the present time as to make it uninteresting now, and, therefore, I prefer to stop here, merely adding the names of all the pastors who, up to 1836, were connected with the churches in this association and of such of these as were best known to me, and of others where I could obtain the requisite information. I have added short biographical sketches. These biographical sketches, are, however, limited to such as have departed this life.
Before concluding, however, it may be well to give a statement of all the troubles which occurred in the Miami Association up to the division in 1836, and to add a few words as to church
GOVERNMENT AND DISCIPLINE
Having now reviewed the progress of the Miami Association -- the first -- yet a large body of Christians in the Northwestern Territory, governed by no other laws (except of mere order in the transaction of business) than those furnished by the New Testament, it may be well to look to
[p. 84]
their sufficiency as exemplified in this association, and the churches of which it was composed. The efficiency of discipline in Congregational churches has been frequently called in question ; and though a direct comparison between these and other Christian churches, with different forms of government, may not be often made, yet we occasionally see allusions to the evil results of Congregational government.
This history of the Miami Association, covering a period of forty years, and including in its union, for the greater part of the time, from twenty to thirty churches, spread over the whole Miami Valley, may throw some light on this subject. The records of their proceedings for this whole period are complete, and I have examined them particularly in reference to this question. These records show that in all this period, and among so many churches, there were no difficulties, which did not arise out of such questions as removals of places of worship, and such like disagreements, that in any serious way affected the harmony of the churches, and even these were all settled by councils. The difficulties which finally, in 1836, divided the Association, were of a doctrinal nature, however they may have put on the form of missions and antimissions, and were such as churches have been liable to in all periods -- difficulties which are beyond the reach of any form of Government, or Confession of faith, having
[p. 85]
their foundation in man's imperfect nature, ever liable to err, and strangely prone to extremes in every system.
The records of the Miami Association show a difficulty in the Columbia Church in 1804. Though the minutes do not state the nature of this, as it was just after the erection of a meeting-house at Duck Creek, and when the removal of the Columbia Church to that place was agitated, it no doubt originated in that movement. It was amicably settled by a council before the meeting of the association the next year. One more is shown by the records in the same year, between Elk Creek and Little Prairie churches. These two early churches were within four miles of each other, and of course occupied, in part, the same field, and out of their close proximity this difficulty no doubt originated. This, too, though presented to the association in their annual letter for 1804, was peaceably settled by themselves soon after. In 1809, the church at Mount Bethel asked advice of the association as to the arrangement of some difficulties among themselves. The church was advised to call aid from sister churches in the vicinity for that purpose; and there appears the end of that matter. In 1816, a dispute, the nature of which is not shown by the records, but which, from the mode of its adjustment, I cannot doubt also grew out of a difference of opinion as to the best site for their house of worship,
[p. 86]
occurred in the Cincinnati Church. This seems to have resulted in the separation of the church for a time, six members with their pastor, Alex. Denniston, on the one side, and all the other members on the other. Both claimed for a time to be The First Church. But the association, having, by a committee, examined the matter, re-organized the majority as the church. The seceders for a time adhered together, calling themselves the First, but afterward, the Enon Church. Under this last name they united with, or asked to be received by, the East Fork Association. In 1825, Miami and East Fork Associations each advised the two bodies to call a council to settle their difficulties. In 1831, this seems to have been effected at last by the union of both parties in the organization of the Sixth Street Baptist Church. Afterward, in 1837, a number of Baptists re-assumed the name of First Church, and as such were incorporated and still exist, a large and flourishing body.
With the exception of the secession to Campbellism, in three churches herein before mentioned, the above paragraph presents all the difficulties which existed in this association up to the time when the seeds of that doctrinal disagreement in relation to missions, etc., began to develop their fruits, and which resulted in the division in 1836. This assumed the form of objections to missions, etc., but it was really no more nor less than the
[p. 87]
difference between higher and lower Calvinistic views. A like division, from similar causes, took place in the Presbyterian churches about the same time, into the Old and New School.
In the churches of other Christian denominations, in the Miami Valley, during the same period covered by the history of the Miami Association, there have been more difficulties than among an equal number of Baptist churches. With one of these; the second Presbyterian Church organized within the limits of the Northwestern Territory, and called the Turtle Creek Presbyterian Church, in Warren County, I have been intimately acquainted almost from its constitution, and know that in it alone more and greater difficulties have occurred than in all the Miami Association during the same period, from 1798 to 1836. In that church, three times were pastor and people separated by difficulties -- once almost every member was carried off by the New Light excitement, and the church for a time broken up -- and afterward, in 1835, about the same time with the division of the Baptist churches, on the question of missions, this church was separated by internal disputes, a large number of its members seceding and combining to form a Cumberland Presbyterian Church at Lebanon. In the same place, the Methodist Episcopal Church, though younger in date than either the Miami Association or said Presbyterian church
[p. 88]
by some twelve years, has been frequently rent with disputes of long standing among members which could not be allayed by any rules of discipline in that community. On account of these, it, too, has long since been divided into two bodies of nearly equal size, the seceders [sic] withdrawing. and forming a Methodist Protestant Church.
On the whole, therefore, it is evident that the Baptist congregational government and especially their principle of the independence of churches, is not attended with the evils which other Christian churches have supposed. Though Baptists have no book of discipline but the New Testament, they have found this sufficient for all cases. They have not been compelled, from year to year, and from century to century, to legislate for the better government of the church. They regard Christ Jesus, and his inspired apostles under his guidance and direction, as the only legislators for the church and they believe, that in all matters necessary for its government and discipline, the New Testament contains ample and explicit provision. They do not recognize the right of any uninspired men - whether popes, cardinals, bishops, councils, conferences, or general assemblies - to legislate for them. These church dignitaries, in their variously constituted councils, have been 1egislating for the church for nearly fifteen hundred years, and yet the ecclesiastical code requires, in their judgment, from time to time, new
[p. 89]
laws and new rules for its government. At this rate, a Baptist asks, when will the church be supplied with a perfect code?
"At the general conference of the M. E. Church at Indianapolis, in 1856, a member of that body made a motion which is thus stated in the proceedings as published in the daily reports of their doings:
"S. W. Coggeshall offered a resolution, which, after reciting that the law of the Bible, on the subject of divorce, was not recognized by all Christian States, and that there was no law in the discipline by which church members violating it could be tried, asks that the Committee on Revisals be instructed to frame a section to be inserted in the discipline, embodying the law of our Savior, as set forth in Matthew, v. 31, 32, so that persons living in violation of the seventh commandment can be properly dealt with. Laid on the table by 99 to 75."
One would suppose that in so important a matter as adultery, no law but the plain declaration of Christ would be necessary to cut off the offender. But it seems not, in the opinion of nearly one-half of that great church judicatory, composed of bishops and ministers from all the Northern States. Does this vote amount to a tacit acknowledgment that only so much of the New Testament as has been formally indorsed by conference is of force in the M. E. Church? Or can we
[p. 90]
account for the tabling of this resolution from a disposition of the majority of the conference to truckle to the South, where the strict doctrine of the New Testament, on the subject of divorce and adultery, would have a very inconvenient application?
The assumption to legislate for the church, as if Christ had left his work imperfect, is the very error out of which all the Papal abominations have originated. The Pope of Rome has, from the days of the first Pontiff, Boniface, A. D. 606, claimed to be the Vicar of Christ, and head of the church universal, and, as such, to possess the right, not only of making laws for the church, but of dispensing with those already given in the New Testament. Other denominations of any antiquity, except Baptists, being all seceders from the Roman church, while they do not go so far as their Roman mother, in claiming legislative power over the church still insist that, on different points they can legislate in addition, though not contrary to, the precepts of the New Testament. Thus has canon been added to canon, in a part of the Protestant church, until the ecclesiastical code has become almost as intricate and voluminous as the civil. These canons, too, are changeable. Those of one year are superseded, repealed and altered by those of another, so that nothing is ever settled by them, and at the middle of the 19th century there is as much need of new canons as at any
[p. 91]
other period. Is it any wonder, in this view of the church, as the creature of ever-varying laws, framed by men at all times imperfect, and often very bad, that so many, in all communities, have adopted the opinion that religion is a mere system of forms and ceremonies, without any vitality or power and have either rejected its claims altogether, or become mere formalists, for the sake of subserving worldly interests?
Nothing but the acceptance of the New Testament as a perfect, sufficient and inviolable rule of faith and practice for the Christian church, can save it from these injurious and oppressive encroachments of human authority. Every candid student of church history knows how many things were thus introduced into the church that had no other authority than men's notions of improving the church, or mistaken apprehensions of the system of revelation. Thus came sprinkling for baptism, and thus infants, as well as believers, were constituted by men, members of the household -- not of faith -- but of the church; and many erroneous dogmas were imposed on the world as religious truth, under the anathemas of self-constituted councils.
But Baptists have ever rejected these canons of men, under whatever name, as unscriptural and mere usurpations, and have suffered martyrdom in every country and in every age since Constantine, rather than submit to human authority in
[p. 92]
matters of conscience. They have ever made the Bible their only standard of doctrine, and the New Testament their rule of practice and discipline. Recognizing in each individual the right of private judgment, and the church in its isolated capacity as the highest ecclesiastical judicatory known to the New Testament, they have yet held a faith more uniform, and have lived in more harmony, as a body, than any other denomination not even excepting Roman Catholics. This may be questioned by some, but on a full and fair investigation it will be found correct. Baptists have the example of the primitive church, and follow it as their guide. The first council at Jerusalem was formed by apostles, elders, and the whole church. The whole church united in the advice or opinion which was given in relation to the difficulties which had sprung up at Antioch -- and while Romanists and Episcopalians call this the first Council, Presbyterians the first General Assembly, and the Methodists the first General Conference -- it was simply the application of one church to another for advice, precisely as is now and has ever been practiced in Baptist churches; nothing more. If any difficulty arise -- whether of doctrine or discipline -- which from its importance or other circumstance cannot be safely and harmoniously settled by the judgment of a majority of the church, it is the regular practice to ask counsel from one or more sister churches. Their
[p. 93]
decision though in no way authoritative, gives greater weight than if they acted alone.
This independence of churches and the scriptures -- particularly the New Testament -- as the only rule of faith and practice, are the characteristic traits of Baptist congregational government, and this is the only church government which can long be in use without invading the divine prerogative, and trampling on the liberty of conscience. This independence renders it impossible to involve more than the single church in any case of discipline or question of doctrine. Many churches may raise the same or similar questions about the same time, but the same case can affect directly but the same individual church in which it originated. Hence Baptists have ever had more quietness in their churches than any other denomination; more perfect unity of faith and practice it is believed, with perfect church independence.
But, as there are other churches which agree substantially with us on church government and discipline, the most distinguishing feature of Baptists is the tenacity with which they have adhered to the primitive rite of baptism, in its original purity, as to mode and subject. It was from this strict adherence that they were first called Baptists; and this very fact, to an unprejudiced mind, would go far to prove that they alone baptized, in the original meaning of that term. Others sprinkle, asperse and pour water on their disciples,
[p. 94]
and call it baptism. But the untaught masses will call this but sprinkling and pouring. The word baptize, too, in the original, never means to pour or sprinkle, as all learned men agree, and the great results of conversion -- the washing of regeneration, the death to sin, burial and resurrection to newness of life here, and everlasting life hereafter -- of which baptism is everywhere in the Scriptures the figure, are only answered by simple baptism -- by immersing the whole body in water, and raising it out of the water. So Baptists believe, and act accordingly.
Baptists have been charged with want of charity and liberality in thus rejecting all other baptism but that of willing believers, and that alone by immersion. But it is not either want of liberality or charity which induces them thus to exclude themselves in some measure from Christians of other denominations. With them it is a sense of duty and obligation alone. They dare not touch the ordinances of the church of Christ in any way to modify them to suit present times, particular places, or charge of customs. They recognize Christ as the sole King and Lawgiver in Zion, and what he hath done by himself, and through his inspired apostles, in laying down laws for his church on earth, they consider unalterable by any other power. With them, therefore, expediency, convenience, popularity, difficulty or disgrace, as attached to this or any other ordinance
[p. 95]
or law established by Christ, have no place in their ecclesiastical vocabulary. They are wholly bound by the law and the testimony, as given in the New Testament, and they believe they have no more right to change than to abrogate them. It is on this account that Baptists cannot receive into the church or at their communion table, those who have not obeyed Christ by being baptized as he commanded. If they could overlook this evidence of simple obedience, they might countenance any other departure from the directions of the Scriptures, until we know not the extent of such departures. It is purely on this ground, and because they feel bound by allegiance to Christ to obey him implicitly, that they reject all who do not submit to the ordinance as established and enjoined in the household of faith.=============== [Transcribed and formatted by Jim Duvall.]
More Miami Baptist History, Chapter 6
Return to Miami Baptist Histories
Baptist History Homepage