Return to Table of Contents                                                                          Return to Landmark Baptist Church Homepage

 

Landmarkism Under Fire 

A Study of Landmark Baptist Polity on Church Constitution

by Elder J.C. Settlemoir 

 

Chapter 7 - A Challenge Issued

In the book Scriptural Church Organization the author issued this challenge:

What they need to prove the new hypothesis is to show that three baptized members constituted themselves into a church with no connection to another church and without a missionary.[217]

The Challenge Accepted

This is quite a challenge. He requires us to find a case where a church was organized without connection to another church (he means EMDA) and without a missionary. While we do not argue that churches do not have connections with other churches nor that preachers or missionaries have no part in constitution, yet, we can supply this request and gladly do so. But before I do, let me emphasize two points. First, if I can supply just one case of a church constituted without EMDA, then that answers the challenge. For if a preacher was present at a constitution but EMDA was not given, that is a false constitution according to EMDA defenders. And if a historian records such a constitution, without a disclaimer, that indicates EMDA was not considered an essential by that historian. Secondly, even if a preacher was present at the constitution of a church, that does not prove it was constituted with EMDA. EMDA cannot be assumed but must be proved to be the essential method of constitution among Baptists. This cardinal point has eluded EMDA advocates. Now for the gauntlet.

In Christian’s History he quotes Bond’s History of Mississippi Baptists concerning the Salem Baptist church:

This community was called the Salem Baptist Church; but it was constituted, not only without a presbytery of ministers, but without the presence of a single ordained minister. ‘They simply agreed to meet together statedly,’ says Bond, ‘and worship God according to his Word, and to exercise good discipline over one another, and called Elder Curtis to preach to them...’[218]

This is the position for which we contend. Let the reader bear in mind that Elder John Bond, the author of this History, referred to by Christian was a noted Baptist and a co-laborer with J.R. Graves and other leading men of that day.[219] And this opinion of Bond was not an isolated opinion. In spite of the constant animadverting about our position not being Landmarkism but “neo Landmarkism,” “apostate Landmarkism” “liberal Landmarkism” or a “new hypothesis”[220] we learn from this noted Baptist that our position was the same thing these old Baptists contended for! It is the same thing Jarrel, Graves, Pendleton, Dayton, Ray, Ford, Cole and Bogard, to name only a few, have plainly proclaimed with tongue and pen. It seems strange but we have to keep re-stating this fact and giving quote after quote to prove this fact.

Now here is the dilemma for those who contend for EMDA. Neither Bond nor Christian say a word about Salem church being an unscriptural church for lack of EMDA or the lack of elders. EMDA demands both (and more)! This church had neither! Yet it is counted a true church by these noted Baptist historians. This account excludes the theory of EMDA and this is proved by these two Baptist historians recording this case as given above without any disclaimer. They recognized Salem Church as a true church organized without any authority, without any ordained man present, without any link, except baptism, to any other church on earth and counted it a scriptural church from the time they first started meeting together! According to EMDA Salem could not be a Scriptural church–and if EMDA is true–then that conclusion is inescapable! But as these two noted Baptist historians both recognized the scripturality of this church and as they included it in their books, publishing this account before the world, proves more than enough for our purpose. This challenge was accepted and the reader will be able to determine if it met the criteria stipulated or not.

It is also interesting that Bro Cockrell in SCO quoted this very account of the constitution of the First Baptist church in Mississippi but from a book by Leavell & Bailey[221] and they do not give this quote by Bond.

Let me give another example. This from a church constituted in Oregon in the 1800s.

Oregon City, the terminus, was reached November 26, 1843. In the following winter they located on the beautiful prairie of the West Tualatin Plain, and true to genuine Baptist instinct, in February, 1844, at the house of Brother David T. Lenox, established a prayer meeting which finally resulted in the organization of the church, May 25, 1844.

COVENANT

“Whereas: In the providence of God, a few names of us, the professed followers of Christ, who hold to one Faith, one Lord, and one Baptism, having been thrown together in these wilds of the West, and being members of churches in the United States, desirous of keeping the worship of God in our neighborhood, and in our families, -- We agree that we hereby constitute and come into union, first giving ourselves unto the Lord. and then unto each other, we do covenant and agree that we will meet together to worship God and keep the commandments and ordinances of God’s house, and are hereby constituted into a church.[222]

We note here they did not have any authority from any church. They did not even have church letters![223] There was no preacher among them! Yet they constituted themselves into a church according to good Baptist practice. Were they a true church? Christ’s Word says they were! Do these cases meet the challenge as given?

Here is another example.

First Boston Church

Of the formation of the Baptist church and the reasons for it Gould himself gives an account. A small section of his narrative is here transcribed as follows:

Now after this, considering with myself what the Lord would have me to do; not likely to join with any of the churches of New England, and so to be without the ordinance of Christ; in the meantime God sent out of Old England some who were Baptists; we, consulting together what to do, sought the Lord to direct us, and taking counsel of other friends who dwelt among us, who were able and godly, they gave us counsel to congregate ourselves together; and so we did, being nine of us, to walk in the order of the gospel according to the rule of Christ....after we had been called into two courts, the church [protestant church at Cambridge] understanding that we were gathered into church order.....

‘The organization of this Baptist church caused a great noise throughout New England.’[224]

Please consider. This group did not have authority from any church. They did not have an ordained man among them. They did not have authority from the churches in England even though two of the men were Baptists before they came to America, neither of them were preachers.[225] Remember EMDA advocates maintain you can’t organize a church without an ordained man! When this group determines to organize into a Baptist church, they do not send to England for EMDA. They do not send to Rhode Island to Roger Williams or John Clarke for it. They do not send to Swansea for authority from the church there. Why not? They follow exactly what the Bible says. They congregate themselves together “according to the rule of Christ.”

Benedict discusses the constitution of this church also. He says:

But about this time, says this afflicted man [Gould], some Baptist friends from England desired to hold a meeting at his house. They well understood how to manage cases of this kind, from their own experience at home. The meeting was accordingly commenced, and on the 28th of May, 1665, the church was formed, consisting of Thomas Gould, Thomas Osbourne, Edward Drinker, John George, Richard Goodall, William Turner, Robert Lambert, Mary Goodall, and Mary Newall.[226]

Now what was wrong with this church? The principle thing was that it did not have authority, as Benedict, quoting others, tells us, but it was not EMDA but the authority from the Protestants!

It would take a volume, says Morgan Edwards, to contain an account of all their suffering for ten or twelve years.

The burden of all their complaints were that they had formed a church without the approbation of the ruling powers.

‘This principle,’ says Mr. Neale, ‘condemns all the dissenting congregations which have been formed in England since the Act of Uniformity, in the year 1602.’[227]

They did not obtain authority from the “ruling powers” that is, the powers of the political system. But this is not all. Neither did they obtain any kind of authority from any Baptist church!

It is also essential to consider that not one of the Baptist historians who mention this account censure them for what they did nor for the way they did it. This speaks volumes for the method of self constitution of churches among Baptists but it dooms the idea of EMDA. This idea is not mentioned because not even thought of by these writers.[228] Why not?

But I venture to give other examples of a churches constituted without connection to another church and without an ordained man present and this from the NT! The church at Antioch was so constituted. There was no connection with the Jerusalem church because they only received “tidings” about Antioch which proves they had not given EMDA to the disciples there. But the case is even more revealing. There were no ordained men present in this constitution so far as we know. Even the advocates of EMDA must admit this position because they claim the church there was not a church but only a mission of baptized saints meeting together until Barnabas got there and he constituted them a church! But the catch-22 in this scenario is discovered when they take up Acts 13:1-4, and claim that was an ordination service in which the church ordained Paul and Barnabas! Thus, according to their own reasoning, Barnabas could not have been ordained when sent to Antioch by Jerusalem! Thus this church was constituted without an ordained man present according to their own word! Of course, the truth of the matter is that, Antioch church was already constituted when Barnabas got there and Jerusalem, to say the least, could not have been the mother, in the sense of EMDA, because she knew nothing of its existence until after the fact!

The Church at Caesarea

Is it not interesting that EMDA advocates never mention the church at Caesarea as a case of EMDA constitution? We know little about this church but it seems likely that it was formed with those Gentiles of the household of Cornelius as recorded in Acts 10 who believed. But EMDA does not like to mention this account because they know for a fact that Peter was not sent there under the specific direction of the Jerusalem church simply because they did not even know he went there until after the fact! And when the church did hear about it they of the circumcision contended with him–not because he did not have authority but because he went in to men uncircumcised,[229] When Peter rehearsed this before them they did not vote to give him retro-active authority![230]

The Scripture says:

When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life. Acts 11:18.

Now here is an account of a church which did not get EMDA and was scripturally formed without it. They did not have mother-church authority but the authority they did have came directly from Christ just as Christ Himself taught that it would![231] The church did not send Peter but the Spirit said “Arise therefore, and get thee down, and go with them, doubting nothing: for I have sent them.”[232] Then when Peter got to the house of Cornelius as he preached unto him and his house the Holy Spirit fell on this group exactly as it did on the Jerusalem church on Pentecost (vs. 17) even before they were baptized! And there seems to be no question that this was the beginning of the church at Caesarea.[233] Where was EMDA?

We carefully note that the Holy Spirit is not tied to EMDA as its advocates claim! For the church in Jerusalem is expressly said to be in ignorance of this act by Peter, hence the authority could not have come through EMDA! The Holy Spirit fell on this group before they were baptized which destroys the idea that the Holy Spirit can only be given through an existing church via EMDA![234] Thus, what EMDA demands, this NT account excludes! These are simple facts plainly revealed.

In fact, I will go even further. There is not a church mentioned in the NT which had EMDA as far as the biblical record is concerned. If they did, the Bible says nothing about it! The NT does not record a single instance of EMDA! Not one! The churches of Judea were constituted but nothing is said about EMDA.[235] The churches which Paul and Barnabas and the others helped to establish were not formed with EMDA as far as Scripture tells us. The churches of Asia, seven of them mentioned by name in Revelation, and we know they were true churches, because Christ addressed each one of them specifically and personally tended their lamps, yet not one of them was constituted with EMDA as far as we know. The idea that these churches (and others in the New Testament) were formed with EMDA is hearsay and therefore inadmissible! Those who say such things do not have facts or testimony for support but only theory. They cannot give a “thus saith the Lord” but they forever trot out thus saith this theory!

In the Philadelphia Associational Minutes for October 5th, 1791 we have another account:

The new constituted church at Sideling Hill, Belfast township, Bedford county, made application for admittance into this Association; but an objection arising, in consequence of a letter sent by Brother Powell, their admission was postponed until next meeting of Association, when the objectors will have opportunity to show their reason, why the request of said church should not be granted.[236]

Again the next year the Association took up this matter:

An application was again made by the newly constituted church at Sideling Hill to be admitted into connection with this Association. After examining the objections which had been made, and not thinking them sufficient to ground a rejection upon, the said church was admitted. Nevertheless the Association disapprove of multiplying churches by dividing those already established, without evident necessity; and also of any one minister by himself undertaking to constitute a church.[237]

Here was a church division in which one section (probably excluded by the majority pastored by Powell) had formed themselves into another church. At any rate, there is no question of any authority by a mother church and had such been counted necessary by this body, it would certainly have been brought forward by the objectors. The Association opposes “multiplying churches by dividing those already established” “and of any one minister by himself undertaking to constitute a church.” But they recognize it as a church which eliminates EMDA as a doctrine of this Association!

John Spilsbury’s Church is another example:

The church, considering that they were now grown very numerous, and so more than could in those times of persecution conveniently meet together, and believing also that those persons acted from a principle of conscience and not from obstinacy, agreed to all them the liberty they desired, and that they should be constituted a distinct church; which was performed Sept. 12, 1633. And as they believed that baptism was not rightly administered to infants, so they looked upon the baptism they had received at that age as invalid, whereupon most or all of them received a new baptism. Their minister was a Mr. John Spilsbury.[238]

This account sounds like EMDA and would be claimed by them as an example of their position but for one thing. What is that? This was a Protestant church! Those who had become Baptists in principle, who wished to leave because they had come to see the essential nature of immersion for baptism, requested of the church they were then members of—the mother church(!)–authority to constitute a new church. But it is impossible, that they thought this was essential to constitute, but only they wanted to leave that church under good terms! This demonstrates how asking permission for a constitution has been misunderstood by EMDA advocates.

Have I met the challenge set forth?

In the next chapter we will take up Baptist testimony on the subject of church constitution.

 Footnotes

[217] Milburn Cockrell. SCO, p. 84.

[218] John T. Christian, History of the Baptists. Vol. II, 333.

[219] J.J. Burnett, Tennessee’s Pioneer Baptist Preachers, p. 62. It is surprising that Bond is not mentioned in The Baptist Encyclopedia.

[220] Milburn Cockrell, SCO, p. 7, 42, 44, 45, 49, 50, 53, 62,79, 86, 89.

[221] Z.T. Leavell & T.J. Bailey. A Complete History of Mississippi Baptists, Vol. I, p. 24; Quoted in SCO, p. 88.

[222] C.H. Mattoon. Baptist Annals of Oregon, 1905, p. 2. (via James Duvall).

[223] Ibid. At first, none had letters, but were to get them as soon as practicable.

[224] John T. Christian. History of Baptists, vol 2, p. 74.

[225] Goodall came from Kiffin’s church; Turner and Lambert were members of a church in Dartmouth, England.

[226] David Benedict. History of The Baptists, p. 383.                      

[227] Ibid. 383. Italics are Benedict’s.

[228] Cf. Isaac Backus, History of the Baptists of New England, Vol. 1, p.288; David Benedict, History of the Baptists, Vol. I, p. 383-384.

[229] Acts 11:1-2.

[230] Baptist churches are now pretending they can do this as well as rescind what they have done years before! One church in the south rescinded the call of a pastor who had been pastoring the church for about three years. Why? Because he did not believe in EMDA! Amazingly, they then called a man as pastor who had been baptized by the pastor whose call they rescinded! They failed to recognize, that even if a church could scripturally do such a thing Band I do not believe it can–their action made null and void every thing the pastor had done.They rescinded all the ordinances, acts of worship, and every official act of the church while this man was pastor! Popery pleads for no more. It is just a step to rescind things which took place 1000 years ago!

[231] Matt. 18:20.

[232] Cf. also Acts 11:12.

[233] “And when he had landed at Caesarea, and gone up, and saluted the church, he went down to Antioch.” Acts 18:22.

[234] Milburn Cockrell, SCO, p. 81; 7 Questions on Church Authority. “If one establishes a church without authority from another church, he acts without Scriptural authority. Thus he works in vain for the Holy Spirit is only given to a church on the consent of another church, as it was in Samaria.” p. 28.

[235] Acts 9:31.

[236] Minutes of the Philadelphia Baptist Association, P.270

[237] Op. Cit., p. 281.

[238] David Benedict. History of the Baptists, p. 337. Cf. Ivimey, Hist. Of Eng. Baptists, vol. I, p. 138.