|
Return to Table of Contents Return to Landmark Baptist Church Homepage
Landmarkism Under Fire
A Study of Landmark Baptist
by Elder J.C. Settlemoir
Chapter 15 - Samples of Church Constitution In this chapter I will give samples of Church constitution from records and representative writers. But, at length, the Baptists having been rendered uncomfortable in their communion, by some particular persons, they were obliged to separate, with Mr. William Wallis, their teacher, and soon formed themselves into a distinct church of the Particular Baptist denomination, over which the Rev. Andrew Fuller is now, [1800] and for many years has been, pastor.[506] These separations were frequently painful and usually could not obtain EMDA even if they had known of it and had desired it. Kiffin’s Church He had been five years a member of the Independent church, then
under the care of Mr. Lathorp, when, with many others, he withdrew, and joined
the Baptist church, the first in England of the Particular Baptist
order, of which Mr. Spilsbury was the pastor. Two years after that, in 1640, a
difference of opinion respecting the propriety of allowing ministers who had
not been immersed to preach to them (in which Mr. Kiffin took the negative
side), occasioned a separation. Mr. Kiffin and those who agreed with him
seceded, and formed another church, which met in Questions which arise when reading such quotes with EMDA glasses are: Did they get authority from another church? Which one? Who says they did? Where are such records found? How could they give such accounts without ever indicating this essential on the one hand and expressing their faith that the authority for constitution was directly from Christ on the other? Gill’s Church This was formed about ninety‑four years ago, in consequence
of a division that took place in an ancient society that met for many years in
Goat‑street, Horsleydown. Mr. Stinton, the pastor of that church, dying
in 1719, the late Dr. Gill was invited to preach as a candidate to succeed him
in the pastoral office; but a difference of opinion arising in the society as
to the propriety of electing him to that situation, a division ensued, when the
majority who were against him kept possession of the meeting‑house. (A)
Upon this, Mr. Gill’s friends withdrew, and assembled for a time in Let it be remembered that Gill’s side of this faction did not get
authority from any other church and could not obtain it from those they split
off from at Goat Yard! They could not “take the authority with them” because
they were in the minority! Hence, if EMDA is true, Gill’s church never was a
church![509] Some
of the sister churches in John SmythBTwo Can Make a Church Now for baptizing a man’s self, there is as good warrant as for a man’s churching himself; for two men are singly not a church; jointly they are a church, and they both of them put a church upon themselves: for as both these persons unchurched, yet have power to assume the church, each of them for himself and others in communion; so each of them unbaptized, hath power to assume baptism for himself with others in communion.[512] There is no question but that Smyth here defines and defends self constitution according to Mt 18:20. It appears this was then a recognized principle that a church could be constituted with two or more people and that baptized saints had this power. “...for two men are singly not a church ....yet have power to assume the church...” I would not readily quote a General Baptist but as SCO quotes Smyth, I have been compelled to include him.[513] Nor do I approve of Smyth’s application of this argument to baptism. But I quote this to show that General Baptists of this time believed Mt 18:20 pertained to church constitution and that two people could constitute themselves into a church. Carey and Harvey Lane Church In this church, the second that William Carey pastored, there was
trouble. So difficult was this trouble and so hardened were some of the members
that Carey proposed the church disband and then reconstitute on a stricter
covenant, so that those who refused to be reconciled would be left out. This
they did. There was no mother church sought to constitute them into a church,
nor to provide them with EMDA. They could not project EMDA into a non-existent
church state[514] (had
they ever heard of it or desired to do so) but they simply met and
reconstituted according to Baptist practice. Is this spontaneous generation? If
the advocates of EMDA try to slip their doctrine into this case they produce a
most remarkable anomaly–a church became its own mother![515]
Of course if Carey’s church was not a true church (and if EMDA is trueBit could not be a true church) then the
churches in This church, which is the oldest of the baptist denomination in As the whole company, in their own estimation, were unbaptized,
and they knew of no administrator in any of the infant settlements to whom they
could apply, they with much propriety hit on the following expedient: Ezekiel
Holliman, a man of gifts and piety, by the suffrages of the little company was
appointed to baptize Mt. Williams, who in return, baptized Holliman and the
other ten. Some of our writers have taken no little pains to apologize for this unusual transaction, but in my opinion it was just such a course as all companies of believers who wish to form a church in such extraordinary circumstances should pursue. Any company of Christians may commence a church in gospel order, by their own mutual agreement, without any reference to any other body; and this church has all the power to appoint any one of their number, whether minister or layman, to commence anew the administration of gospel institutions. This is the baptist doctrine of apostolical succession, which they prefer to receive from good men rather than through the polluted channels of papal power.[516] While I do not agree with Benedict and his appraisal of this account, I quote this to show that as a representative Baptist writer, Benedict held to self-constitution without any kind of mother church. J.R. Graves also disagreed with Benedict on Roger Williams. He discusses
Williams and his church constitution in detail.[517]
Of course, that Williams got no authority from any other church goes without
saying.[518] If
EMDA was a doctrine of Baptists, then how is it that neither John Clarke ...The first thing whereof, as touching order, was to be added or joined one to another in the fellowship of the gospel, by a mutual professed subjection to the scepter of Christ, and being a company thus called out of the world, from worldly vanities and worldly worships, after Christ Jesus the Lord, (which is the proper English of these words, and the Church of Christ is in other terms called the household of faith), should steadfastly continue together in the apostle’s doctrine.... [520] But here we have Clarke giving the essence of church constitution
and while there is not a trace of EMDA therein he clearly defines a
church as being joined one to another which is most likely an allusion
to Mt 18:20. Backus on John Owen Isaac Backus gives this remarkable statement by John Owen and he quotes this with approval. Therefore, Dr. Owen published a book in 1681, wherein he observes, that all the reformation that has taken place since the rise of Antichrist, was produced entirely by these three principles, viz., taking the Holy Scriptures as their only perfect rule in all religious matters; allowing each rational person to judge of their meaning for himself; and holding that all the power of office and government in the church of Christ is derived from him, by his word and Spirit, to each particular church and not by a local succession from any other power in the world.[522] But if this was not the position of Baptists why did Backus quote
it? Here the EMDA advocates side with This church was formed in 1743 of seven individuals who were
members of the Bro Baron Stow says this: No minister was present to cheer them by a word of encouragement; no council was convened to extend the hand of fraternal fellowship. They stood alone in the presence of the Head of the church, and pledged themselves to him and to each other, that they would maintain unshrinkingly, and to the last, the standard around which they had rallied–the standard of evangelical truth and holiness.[524] There was no mother church there! There were no church
letters transferring paper authority there! They were probably excluded from
the Another Because of Seventh Day sentiments among the membership of this church in 1671 a group of them split off. Their covenant says: After serious consideration and seeking God’s face among ourselves for the Lord to direct us and our children, so as might be for God’s glory and our souls’ good, we ..... Entered into covenant with the Lord and with one another, and gave up ourselves to God and one to another, to walk together in all God’s holy commandments and holy ordinances according to what the Lord had discovered to us or should discover to be his mind for us to be obedient unto; with sense upon our hearts of great need to be watchful over one another, did promise so to do, and edifying and building up one another in our most holy faith; this 7th day of December, 1671.[525] Again we do not find EMDA. Nor do the historians who give these accounts ever censor those who formed churches without it, so far as I have seen. How could EMDA have been the stated doctrine of Baptists through the ages (as some claim)[526] without ever being mentioned in such accounts? Were these noted historians always ignorant, always silent, always writing about these false constitutions (in EMDA eyes) unaware of the real situation? John T. Christian The footsteps of the Baptists of the ages can more easily be traced by blood than by baptism. It is a lineage of suffering rather than a succession of bishops; a martyrdom of principle, rather than a dogmatic decree of councils; a golden chord of love, rather than an iron chain of succession, which, while attempting to rattle its links back to the apostles, has been of more service in chaining some protesting Baptist to the stake than in proclaiming the truth of the New Testament. It is, nevertheless, a right royal succession, that in every age the Baptists have been advocates of liberty for all, and have held that the gospel of the Son of God makes every man a free man in Christ Jesus.[527] R.B.H. Howell Touching the validity of the ordinances administered by our clergy, it is wholly unimportant whether we can trace a regular succession of bishops up to the apostles. It is sufficient for us to know that we are organized according to the established laws of Christ, support the true doctrines of the gospel, that our constitution and practice agree with the rule prescribed by him, and which were strictly obeyed and enjoined by his apostles and that we keep the ordinances as they were delivered unto the saints. Such a church is Christ’s representative on earth, and, according to his word, possesses all the requisite authority to create and ordain ministers, whenever the cause of Christ shall demand such a measure. [528] Howell defines a church as those: A....who have united with each other for the worship of God, after giving satisfactory evidence of a change of heart.” [529] Robert Semple Mr Leland [John Leland, the pastor] and others adhered to the
customs of If EMDA was the usual Baptist practice, as some contend,[531] how do we account for such cases? How is it that Semple records this without a disclaimer and that the Association received this church which had no EMDA? Again Semple records this: We are not to look for regularity and method among a people whose
only study was the prosperity of vital godliness. No church had been regularly
constituted in W.B. Johnson Now, as far as I can understand the New Testament, I see no
authority given to a With the pattern thus clearly given, and the scripture record of numerous churches in different places, we are taught, that wherever a sufficient number of believers in Christ, baptized upon a profession of faith in him, live sufficiently contiguous to each other for the purposes of church relation, they should unite together in such relation on the principle of ONE ACCORD, mutual consent in the truth. The Bible is their only standard of doctrine and duty.[534] Church in We met as a society for more than a year, and then we thought that there were enough agreed to embody into a church; and in February, 1766, we embodied, to the number of fifteen, and had the ordinance of the Supper administered, and God’s blessing attended it.[535] J.B. Cranfill A church is properly defined as ‘a congregation of Christ’s baptized disciples, acknowledging Him as their Head, relying on His atoning sacrifice for justification before God, depending on the Holy Spirit for sanctification, united in the belief of the Gospel, agreeing to maintain its ordinances and obey its precepts, meeting together for worship, and cooperating for the extension of Christ’s kingdom in the world.’ [536] Churches Formed with Assistance from Another Church We find many examples in Church History where churches are formed with assistance from another church. Sometimes these assisting churches are called mother churches. EMDA advocates leap upon such cases with an air of triumph as if these examples prove their proposition! Unfortunately for their position this is another misconception. The proof of this is not far away. Take for example this case: Mr. Ebenezer Farris, of Surely, EMDA advocates exclaim, this is all the proof anyone needs to substantiate our theory! Assistance must be church authority essential for constitution, they remind us with glee! But this same assistance is also extended to ordinations, church trouble and the like, which turns their glee into grief. They like mother churches granting authority to constitute churches but they can’t swallow a mother church giving another church authority to ordain, or to settle church trouble authoritatively. But one is just as viable and just as scriptural as the other. If you take one, you can deny none! If you let the camel put his head in, you had better get ready to have both humps in the tent! The visible church is defined as a ‘congregation of faithful persons, who have gained Christian fellowship with each other, and have given themselves up to the Lord, and to one another and have agreed to keep up a Godly discipline, agreeably to the rules of the gospel. [538] Goadby That in case the minor part of any church break off their communion from that church, the church state is to be accounted to remain with the major part. And in case the major part of any church be fundamentally corrupted with heresy and immorality, the minor part may and ought to separate from such a degenerate society; and either join themselves to some regular church or churches, or else, if they are a competent number, constitute a church state by a solemn covenant among themselves.[539] In this account EMDA is excluded because “a competent number” which “broke off” could “constitute a church by a solemn covenant among themselves.” It is easy to see that this Bye-Path in Baptist History does to EMDA what the sun does to frost! Nantmeal Baptist 1841 Whereas a number of the members of Vincent, Windsor, and Bethesda Baptist Churches residing in East Nantmeal Township, being inconvenient to the Meeting Houses of said churches, and believing that forming themselves into a church, and building a meeting house at a place hereafter selected in said township, would tend to the furtherance of the Gospel of Christ, made application to the churches above mentioned for letters of dismission, whereupon they granted the same, stating that so soon as they formed themselves into a church capacity, they would be considered as regularly dismissed from them.[540] It is cases like this which give EMDA advocates so much trouble. For they cannot fit these facts into their system any more than you can put a tiger in a cracker box. There was no EMDA expected, none intended and none given. You can have only one mother but here we have three churches granting lettersBnot as authority to constitute but what letters always areBletters of dismission. B.H. Carroll says: And the New Testament says, ‘Where two or three of you are gathered together in my name, I will be with you.’ Wherever a number of God’s people covenant themselves into a congregation, each several building groweth up into a holy temple for the habitation of God through the Holy Spirit.[541] J.T. Christian on Williams Williams strictly followed the Baptist program laid down by the foremost Baptists of his day. ‘Neither Pedobaptists nor Baptists,’ says Dr. Babcock, ‘can, with any propriety, object to this procedure. Not the former, for on their principles Mr. Williams was already an authorized administrator of the ordinances of Christ’s house, and his acts strictly valid. Not the latter, for they have ever rejected as of no avail a claim to apostolic succession through the corruption and suicidal perversions of the papacy. Nor, indeed, has any prelatical hierarchy of any kind ever found favor in their eyes; since each body of believers meeting in any place for the worship of Christ, and the discipline which his institution requires, they believe to be the highest source of Christian authority on earth and when acting and deciding according to the Scriptures, they doubt not, has the approval of the only Head of the Church.’ [542] Christian gives the distinctives of a N.T. church: The distinctive characteristics of this church are clearly marked in the New Testament. Such a church was a voluntary association and was independent of all other churches. It might be, and probably was, affiliated with other churches in brotherly relations; but it remained independent of all outward control, and was responsible to Christ alone, who was the supreme lawgiver and the source of all authority.[543] The source of authority cannot come from two places at the same time. Christian is careful to tell us the authority is from Christ alone. The terms he uses are the death knell to EMDA. “We find in the scriptures that Jesus Christ organizes his churches. That they were all formed after one model, with equal prerogatives, and all subject to him.”[544] William Williams Our Saviour intended that his disciples could form themselves into a church; and when in Matthew 18:17, he says, ‘Tell it unto the church,’ he has in view the societies or churches, soon to be formed, and speaks by way of anticipation....For such reasons as these, our Lord has taught us that his disciples in any place should form themselves into fraternal societies.[545] Hiscox on the Source of Church Authority Its [a church’s] chief authority is given by Christ alone.[546] All rightful authority, therefore, is conferred by Christ, the
king in Again he says: 3. The Authority of Churches.–the authority of a church is limited to is own members, and applies to all matter of Christian character, and whatever involves the welfare of religion. It is designed to secure in all its members a conduct and conversation ‘becoming godliness.’ This authority is derived directly from God; not from states, nor princes, nor people; not from its own officers, nor its members, not from any other source of ecclesiastical or civil power or right. But Christ ‘is head over all things to the church,’ and also as of right, ‘the church is subject to Christ.’ But the authority of the church does not extend to its own members even, in matters merely personal and temporal, and which do not affect their character or duties as Christians.” [548] One cannot misunderstand this statement of Hiscox: This authority is derived directly from God! Does this sound like EMDA? Do they ever make such statements? But is it not possible that Hiscox means this authority is directly from God yet given through another church, the mother church? No. It is impossible to make Hiscox mean this when he expressly says not only that This authority is derived directly from God but this authority is not from states, nor princes, nor people; not from its own officers, nor its members, not from any other source of ecclesiastical or civil power or right! I cannot conceive of how he could have more clearly expressed Christ’s direct constitution of a church on the one hand or more fully refuted EMDA than he has. In the light of these statements by Hiscox, I cannot explain how he is quoted as believing EMDA![549] There can be no question, however, that Hiscox has been misread and misquoted as if he believed what he is careful to tell us he did not believe. Hiscox reiterates his position throughout his books. For example: Churches Constituted. When a number of Christians, members of the same or of different churches believe that their own spiritual improvement, or the religious welfare of the community so requires, they organize a new church. This is done by uniting in mutual covenant, to sustain the relations and obligations prescribed by the Gospel, to be governed by the laws of Christ’s house, and to maintain public worship and the preaching of the Gospel. Articles of faith are usually adopted, as also a name by which the church shall be known, and its officers elected.[550] Again: III.–Churches Recognized. It is customary for them to call a council, to meet at the same, or at a subsequent time, to recognize them; that is, to examine their doctrines, inquire into the circumstances and reasons of their organization, and express, on behalf of the churches they represent for their course, and fellowship for them, as a regularly constituted church of the same denomination. The calling of a council is, however, entirely optional with the church; it is a prudential measure merely, to secure the sympathy and approbation of sister churches, but it in no sense necessary. The council usually hear their articles of faith and covenant; listen to a statement of the causes which led to their organization; examine the letters held by the constituent members; carefully consider the whole subject, and then vote their approval, if they so approve, or advise them to the contrary, if they disapprove. It is customary to hold some appropriate religious service on the occasion, when a discourse is preached, a charge given to the church, the hand of fellowship extended by the council to the church, through some one chosen by each for the service.[551] But is not this recognition council the same thing as EMDA? Is this not really EMDA in action? We will let Hiscox tell us: Note 3.–If a council should refuse to recognize a newly constituted church, still that church would have the right to maintain their organization, and continue the forms of worship, and would as really be a church without , as with the sanction of the council. It would seldom, however, be expedient to do this, against the convictions of churches and pastors expressed in the decisions of a council. [552] Of course this exemplifies Hiscox’s teaching that a church is given direct authority and depends on nothing on earth for its authority. These several accounts from representative writers and records make it abundantly clear the EMDA theory was not in operation among Baptists. What sometimes sounded like EMDA in Baptist historical records was not EMDA at all. It is believed these few accounts[553] demonstrate the regular practice of self constitution. Footnotes
[506] John Rippon.
Life and Writings of Dr. John Gill, p.
2. This church is also mentioned by S. Pearce Carey in
William Carey, p. 74, 81. It was the church of John Gill’s parents.
Gill was baptized by this church.
[507]
J.M. Cramp,
Baptist
History, p. 393.
[508] Walter
Wilson. The History and Antiquities of
Dissenting Churches and Meeting Houses in London, Westminster, and Southwark;
Including the Lives of Their Ministers from the Rise of Nonconformity to the
Present Time, Volume IV, 1814, Pp. 212-213.
[509]
Cf. George Ella,
John Gill And the Cause of God and Truth, pp. 46-54. Gill’s church
is the same church later pastored by C.H. Spurgeon. Of course if EMDA is true
Spurgeon’s church goes down with all that implies! This is not only unthinkable
from a practical point of view, but the Baptists of that day knew nothing of
such an idea and, so far as the records go, the question never came up.
[510]
This letter was sent to the “Elders of the
Baptized Churches”. Six men signed this letter: viz. Thomas Crosby, William
Deall, William Allen, Thomas Cutteford and John Thompson,
Op.Cit., p. 48.
[511]
Bro Cockrell in
SCO, p. 89, admits there have been “liberal elements of Baptists”
who have not practiced EMDA, but if EMDA was in practice in Gill’s time, who
were the contenders of it? Where were they found? What pastor contended for it?
What confession stressed it? What covenant expressed it? What history mentions
it? Let those who contend EMDA is the path the saints trod give us this
information!
[512]
John Smyth.
The
Character of the Beast or the false Constitution of the church discovered in
certain passages.... 1609. Q. in Ivimey.
Hist. of Eng. Baptists, vol. I, p. 117, 118, 119.
[513]
Milburn Cockrell.
SCO, p. 27. 2nd edition, p. 24.
[514]
But in case some advocates of this position so
argue, they will please furnish us with an explanation of why a church can
project this authority to a non-church group of saintsBthat is those
who disbanded–but Christ cannot give His authority to His baptized disciples to
form a church! Do the churches have more authority than Christ?
[515]
S. Pearce Carey.
William Carey, p 56.
[516]
David Benedict.
History of the Baptists, p. 450. 1848 Edition.
[517]
Graves & Adlam.
First Baptist Church in America, p.29.
[518]Williams was
unbaptized and the unbaptized Holliman baptized him and he in turn baptized
Holliman.
[519] Op. cit., p. 46.
[520]
Graves & Adlam.
First Baptist Church in America, p. 170.
[521]
Op.
cit., p. 171-2. [522] Isaac Backus. The History of New England Baptists. vol. 2, p. 35,36. Quoted from John Owen. Original of Evangelical Churches, pp. 291B297.
[523]
David Benedict.
History of the Baptists, P. 393.
[524]
Ibid.
[525]
Isaac Backus.
History of the Baptists in New England, vol. I. p. 325.
[526]
Milburn Cockrell.
SCO, p. 89.
[527]
John T. Christian.
History of The Baptists, vol. I, p. 22-23.
[528] R B C Howell,
Terms of Communion, p. 249.
[529]
L.B. Hogue.
Antecedents
of Landmarkism, p. 262.
[530]
Robert Semple.
History of Virginia Baptists, p. 234.
[531]
Milburn Cockrell.
SCO, p. 19, 89.
[532]
Robert Simple.
History of Virginia Baptists, P. 65.
[533]
W.B. Johnson.
Gospel Developed, 1846, Q. By Ever, p. 173. [534] W.B. Johnson. Gospel Developed, 1846, Q. By Dever, Polity, p. 187.
[535]
Isaac Backus. History of the Baptist in
[536]J.B. Cranfill, Re-Thinking Baptist Doctrines, p. 140.
[537]
Isaac Backus. History of The Baptists in
[538]
L.B. Hogue,
Antecedents
of Landmarkism, p. 222.
[539]
J.J. Goadby,
Bye-Paths in Baptist History, p. 215.
[540]
http://www.worldlynx.net/enbc/
[541]
B.H. Carroll.
Interpretation of the English Bible, vol. 2, p. 243.
[542] J.T.
Christian. History of the Baptists,
vol. II, p. 39.
[543]
J.T. Christian.
History of the Baptists, vol. I, p. 13.
[544]
Minutes
of the Twenty Seventh Annual Session of West Union Association,
p. 6.
1860.
[545]
William Williams,
Apostolical Church Polity, quoted by Dever. Polity, p. 544.
[546]
Edward T. Hiscox.
The New Directory For Baptist Churches, p. 48.
[547]
Edward T. Hiscox.
The New Directory For Baptist Churches, p. 49.
[548]Edward T.
Hiscox. The Baptist Church Directory,
1859, p. 16-17. Note: this is distinct from
The
New Directory For Baptist Churches, first issued in 1894, but Hiscox tells
us
The New
Directory “...is entirely in harmony with previous
manuals, as to Baptist, polity, and neither abrogates not antagonizes any of
the fundamental principles announced or advocated in those previous issues.”
The New Directory For
Baptist Churches, p. 8.
[549]
Milburn
Cockrell. SCO, p. 18-19.
[550]
Edward T. Hiscox. The Baptist Church Directory,
1859, p. 17.
[551]
Edward T. Hiscox. The Baptist Church Directory,
p. 17-18.
[552]
Edward T. Hiscox. The Baptist Church Directory,
p. 19.
[553]
These quotes could have easily been multiplied
many fold. The original of draft of this chapter would have run to 38 pages! |