|
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 6 - The As mother church is an integral part of EMDA the advocates of this theory constantly speak and write on the need of a mother church.[160] The mother church, as they use the term, is a church which gives birth to a daughter church by granting it authority to become a church. In their view a church must have this kind of a mother church or it cannot be a true church. Any church without such a mother is a false church. EMDA brethren will re-organize any church which does not have such a mother. Yet, not one of them, to my knowledge, has ever given the correct definition of mother, and then held to that definition in discussion of this subject. For example Bro Cockrell does give the definition of mother (the only definition he gives in his book). “The word ‘mother’ means ‘that which gives birth to something, is the origin and source of something.”[161] Webster’s 10th Collegiate Dictionary gives four senses of the term: “mother....1 a: a female parent b (1): a woman in authority...(2); an old or elderly woman 2: Source, origin...3 maternal tenderness or affection 4: ....[ vulgar ].” Now it must be admitted by all that the only proper use of the term mother in reference to a Baptist church is the second sense: “source, origin.” Origin means “the point at which something originates. Origin is the point at which something comes into existence.”[162] And this is the sense that most Baptists use mother church as we will later show. Yet, with this definition before them, these brethren, depart from the recognized meaning and jump to EMDA, as if somehow the word mother contained essential authority in it and all the tradition they have attached to the term! Bro Cockrell quotes An Appeal to the Mother of us All,[163] by Thomas Grantham who was a General Baptist. It is a mystery to me why Bro Cockrell would appeal to the General Baptists for proof of EMDA when it is a well known fact that General Baptists held to the theory that anyone could institute baptism de novo! Of course it is impossible to hold this view and EMDA at the same time. In verification of this Christian says: Thus far only the history of the General Baptists churches of John Smyth’s position on this is quite clear. He said: A true church has the covenant, the promises, and ministerial power given to it, not through a carnal line of succession, but directly and immediately, by Christ. The church receives these ‘from Christ’s hand out of heaven.’ This immediate authority is given, not to the pope, to the bishops, or to the presbytery, but to the body of the church. [165] It is utterly impossible to get EMDA out of Smyth! Furthermore, Armitage says Smyth ....renounced the figment of a historical, apostolic succession,
insisting that where two or three organize according to the teachings of the
New Testament, they form as true a As this was the General Baptist position they could under no circumstances mean the same thing by the term mother as EMDA advocates do. Thus any appeal to a General Baptist author to support EMDA is rather lame. Nevertheless, I will notice these citations given by Bro Cockrell. He said: In the 1600s Thomas Grantham wrote a book entitled Hear the
Church: or an Appeal to the Mother of us all. In ‘To the Reader’ he says:
‘When I call the Primitive Christian Church at What Bro Cockrell failed to do was ascertain the sense in which
Grantham used ‘ There is not one word in Grantham’s book which supports EMDA! The only reason it is quoted, I suppose, is because Grantham used the term mother church! But what did Grantham mean by the use of this term? He uses this term in its proper sense–not a mother church granting authority to a daughter church to constitute but as the origin without any idea of authority, latent or conveyed. The book has neither hint nor scent of this idea in it. Unfortunately for EMDA advocates, Grantham left his idea of the essentials of a Scriptural church in another work of his, Ancient Christian Religion, in which he says: For the definition of the Christian Church, we shall not much
vary from that which hath therein been done by the ancient or modern Writers.
Lactantius gives this brief definition of the Church.....’It is only the A little further on he says: “....the church is defined, A company of men called out of the World by the–[word is illegible] or Doctrine of Christ to worship one true God according to his will.”[169] Grantham says these definitions he mentions are according to those of earlier times. He mentions Lactantius, by name and then he quotes some Protestant writers of his own day. But he never even suggests that a mother church must give authority to form a new church. I doubt that he ever heard of such an idea except from Catholicism. The idea for which Bro Cockrell contends is not in Grantham’s book Hear the Church. Of course if that idea had been there it would have been quoted. Bro Cockrell also quoted Benjamin Keach in the effort to gain some
kind of historical validity for the mother church idea. Keach says: “By
Mother in these scriptures is meant the Keach also said in this same work: The true Church teacheth nothing for doctrine, but what she hath received from the mouth of Christ. She doth not, like the Mother of harlots, teach for doctrine cursed fopperies, idle, ridiculous, and superstitious ceremonies, which are a reproach to the Christian religion....[171] Alas! This which Keach has just described is the very stuff EMDA is made of! But why would Bro Cockrell quote Keach from Types & Metaphors, to prove one must have a mother church when Keach expressly tells how a church is constituted in his book Glory of True Church? We let Keach express it: A Church of Christ, according to the Gospel-Institution, is a Congregation of Godly Christians, who as a Stated-Assembly (being first baptized upon the Profession of Faith)do by mutual agreement and consent give themselves up to the Lord, and one to another, according to the Will of God: and do ordinarily meet together in one Place, for the Public Service and Worship of God: among whom the Word of God and Sacraments are duly administered, according to Christ’s Institution.[172] The EMDA advocates have jumped to the conclusion that any time a writer in history used the term mother church he meant EMDA! When they do so they are merely begging the question. For example. There are not a few cases where the old Landmark Baptists used the term mother church. It is only fair to ask what these writers meant when they used this term. A few examples will make the answer resound like a clap of thunder. ....and it is an established fact that a majority of the churches planted in America, from the year 1645–1730, were organized by Welsh Baptists, and constituted upon articles of faith, brought over with them from the mother churches.[173] What did Graves mean when he used the term mother church[es]?
We know he did not mean EMDA because he believed in Divine constitution.[174]
This is demonstrated over and over by Each particular Church is independent of every other body, civil or ecclesiastical, and receiving its authority directly from Christ, it is accountable to him alone.[175] Thus when EMDA supporters appeal to a writer’s use of the term mother church as proof he believed EMDA without any evidence other than this term they only manifest their bias. I emphasize this point because some have supposed the use of this term by an author was evidence he believed EMDA, when they know, or should know, this is not true![176] Numbers of quotes have been published in GPP proving the old Landmarkers did not believe this doctrine.[177] Not one time has any writer ever attempted to refute a single one of these quotes! The silence of their guns indicates the scarcity of ammunition. All the old Landmarkers taught the same thing Graves did on this subject and if these brethren cannot agree with Graves and the other old Landmarkers, they at least ought to be honest enough to admit these men did not believe in EMDA![178] When these old Landmarkers are quoted as if they believed in EMDA it does not change their real position of Divine constitution or self constitution but it is a misrepresentation! S.H. Ford, quoting And when Baptist history is better understood than it is at present, everyone, pointing to that venerable church which, on one of earth’s loveliest spots he established, will say, ‘This is the mother of us all!’[179] Of course, Ford could not mean that this church was organically
linked by EMDA to all the churches in To further verify this point I cite J.R. Graves whom Ford was quoting above. The quote is from The First Baptist Church in America: ....Baptists....will mention John Clarke as the real founder of
our denomination in So Graves also used the term mother but he did he did not mean this church granted authority, or that this church was even connected by any direct link with the succeeding Baptist churches of America, I quote him again: That but very few Baptist Churches in Graves says this church, the church of John Clarke, is the mother of us all but just a few pages later says “very few Baptist Churches... have any ecclesiastical connection with either” of these churches! Is EMDA not the very essence of “ecclesiastical connection”? But if the churches which look to Newport as the “mother of us all” i.e.,–the Baptist denomination in America–then it would seem to be conclusive that EMDA was not involved, and could not be involved, in Graves’ and Ford’s use of the term mother! EMDA advocates have clearly misread these old authors. They have assigned a meaning to the term mother church which these old writers clearly opposed! Is this proper? When a man thinks a proposition is true but someone corrects him
and demonstrates it is false, what are we to think if that man continues to
restate the very same thing again and again after he learns it is false? I
contend that these quotes of Graves, Pendleton, These quotes are irrefutable! And the EMDA advocates have silently admitted this because they never deal with them! Yet, these brethren continue to refer to the old Landmarkers as if they believed their position! Bro Cockrell’s second edition of SCO does not make a single concession concerning these quotes. Why not? Surely everyone recognizes the fact that preachers, historians and others use the term mother who never believed EMDA. Then it would have seemed prudent for these brethren to make sure the men they quoted were using this term in the same sense they were before haling them in as witnesses. But it is evident they have quoted these authors on the sound of a single word or phrase and not on the sense intended. They have assumed much and complain because we do not accept their assumptions! Another example is the It [Sandy Creek church of NC] become the mother, grandmother, and
great-grand mother of forty-two churches, from which 125 ministers were sent
out as licentiates or ordained clergymen. And in after-years the power that God
gave Shubal Stearns and his Sandy Creek church in its early years swept over
Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, and south Carolina with resistless force,
and brought immense throngs to Christ, and established multitudes of Baptist
churches. There are today probably thousands of churches that arose from the
efforts of Shubal Stearns and the Is this not EMDA? No! Nor can the EMDA advocates recognize this church as a Scriptural church! The fly in the ointment which makes this church stink for EMDA brethren is that it was self-constituted! As soon as they arrived, they built them a little meeting house, and these 16 persons formed themselves into a church, and chose Shubal Stearns for their pastor, who had, for his assailants at that time, Daniel Marshall and Joseph Breed, neither of whom were ordained.[186] It never was a scriptural church itself, nor are any of these thousands of churches which came from it, if EMDA is true! This account is quicksand to EMDA and the more they struggle the more desperate their situation! “This was the first Separate Baptist church in Another example is given by W.B. Johnson. He says: In these scriptures, we have as satisfactory account of the
formation of the mother church at Johnson very clearly teaches self constitution in the same context with mother church! This proves the use of mother or mother church did not mean EMDA to Baptists nor did they practice it in constitution of churches! Galatians 4:26, The mother of us all. It is amazing but this text has been appealed to prove EMDA.[189]
The reference here to Particular respect may be had to the first Gospel church at Jerusalem, which consisted of persons born from above, were blessed with a Gospel sprit, which is a spirit of liberty, out of which the Gospel went into all the world, and from among whom the apostles and first preachers of the word went forth everywhere, and were the means of the conversion of multitudes, both among the Jews and Gentiles, and so might be truly said to be the mother of us all.[192] Gill and these other writers see the church as a mother not because she granted EMDA to other churches but because she begot children by the preaching of the gospel! Gill also says: ....which is cited to prove, that the heavenly Calvin says: The heavenly The context has nothing to say of begetting daughter churches but the begetting of disciples, “....for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband. now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise....So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.”[195] Gill believed in self constitution: A church of saints thus essentially constituted, as to matter and form, have a power in this state to admit and reject members, as all societies have; and also to choose their own officers; which, when done, they become a complete organized church, as to order and power....[196] He also says of a gospel church: “It is this confederacy, consent, and agreement, that is the formal cause of a church...”[197] Also: All civil relations....are by consent and covenant; as that of magistrates and subjects, and of masters and servants, and of husband and wife; which latter, as it is by compact and agreement, my serve to illustrate the relation between a church and its members added to it, and the manner in which they be, by consent....[198] Thus the appeal to these writers in support of EMDA is ill-founded and their position, so plainly stated, cancels out any supposed support for EMDA. This is another case of quoting a writer to prove a point which the author did not believe! Gill in his Body of Divinity covers the subject of church constitution and expressly declares a church is formed by a covenant of those who compose it. Gill never believed in EMDA. His own church was self constituted as the minority of a church split without any kind of church authority![199] Nothing in his writings even suggests this idea. But the phrase mother church has an awesome attraction for EMDA advocates and they are drawn to it even if it does to them what a flame does to the moth! And there is no question but these quotes herein given have flamed their wings! Thus it is easy to see these men have been quoted to prove a proposition which they denied by voice and pen! It will not seem too much if we look at the use of the term mother in other applications. Because so much has been made of this term, I want to give several examples of the proper use of mother and place this beyond question. Mother Country Mother country means the country from which the people of a colony derive their origin. We are well weaned from the delicate milk of our mother country, and inured to the difficulties of a strange land.[200] Fox, at the publishing of the surrender of Cornwallis in Mother Association “From this Association[202],
as from a fruitful mother, have originated most of the present Associations in This mother church idea is current among Catholics, Christian
Science and other such groups. The “ Mother States We also find reference to Mother States. But now another difficulty, and one that assumed much larger proportions, began to afflict the young churches. This also came with the pioneers from the Mother States, or followed them to their new home in the western wilderness. [205] Perhaps some of the EMDA brethren would like to take the position that no state can be formed without the authority of a mother state! Here Is the Mother but Where Is the Father The illogical and inconsistent view concerning “mother church” is demonstrated when we ask , “Where is the Father?” For it is quite evident, that if you have a mother you have a father. Of course EMDA brethren do not like for this question to be asked and immediately protest that this is taking things too far,[206] failing to recognize it is they who have run too far. Father of a Church It is just as scriptural to have a father church as it is to have a mother church! This proves EMDA has been run up to seed. Benedict writes: Thomas Nelson, formerly a member of the first church in Swansea, removed to this place , then called Assawamset, forty years before the church [Second Church, Middleborough] was formed, his being the first English family which had ventured in this then uncultivated wilderness. He set up a meeting at his house, and must be considered the father of the church, although he died at the age of 80, a short time before it was founded.[207] The idea intended here can be grasped by a child. I am at a loss why those mature in years can’t understand. J.R. Graves said of Roger Williams: It is greatly to be regretted that any one was ever so mislead as to proclaim to the world that Roger Williams was the first man to conceive and advocate the idea of religious liberty, and that he was the father and founder of the American Baptist Churches.[208] The Idea of a Churches are societies. Societies are not conceived! Societies are not born! They are constituted! Thus the idea of “like begetting like,” “begetting”, “birthing” “bringing forth” and other such terms, can only be used in a figurative sense in reference to churches. The term “mother church” is as unscriptural as is the term “catholic church” in the sense used by EMDA advocates. Give the verse that speaks of a “mother church” and right next to it you will find the “catholic church.” Only in modern times has this term “mother” been pressed to these absurd lengths! Only Christ can constitute a church and this is the teaching of Scripture and History corroborates this was clear to Baptists. Bro Cockrell goes so far as to say that Christ and the church have a new baby whenever a new church is properly constituted! “In fact when one church gives birth to another church, Christ and his wife have given birth to a baby girl.” [209] Christ is not yet married to the church but only espoused to be married. We all know what people are who have children before marriage. In their zeal for EMDA these brethren have unwittingly gone further than they intended! Error always comes back like a boomerang on its perpetrators. We see this reflected in the following quote: But the organic Catholic Church itself arose out of the ambitious scheme to sap the foundations of Congregational liberty, and to crush heretics. We read such folly as this from the pen of Cyprian: ‘That man cannot have God for his Father, who has not the Church for his mother. . . . Where there is no Church, sins cannot be put away.[210] No A mother who gives birth to a daughter without a husband is an adulteress! Virgins do not have daughters! Some EMDA churches have mothered many daughters–but are not yet married! What kind of teaching is this? Scriptural churches cannot have daughter churches because they are not married but only espoused to Christ, For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.[211] Thus any church which is a mother in the sense of EMDA is an adulteress! H. Boyce Taylor said: No church that has been married, whether a widow or not, has no part [ “is no part”?–JCS] of the Bride of Christ; Rev. 18:7. Christ is not yet married, but only betrothed, II Cor. 11:2.[212] So this whole idea of “mother” and “daughter” in the sense used by EMDA is not only unscriptural and illogical but it has pulled more off the shelf than they can carry! Who Was Your Mother? When Paul was passing through the region of Nor can this question be found in Baptist History! Rather this idea is a modern sprout! If EMDA had been the practice of Baptists, Baptist History would be replete with it. But the silence here is a profound mystery for EMDA advocates because they admit there were “liberal churches” teaching self-constitution along side the orthodox EMDA churches. Bro Cockrell says: I do not deny there have been liberal elements of Baptists who may have practiced otherwise. But let it be remembered that there has always been this Landmark element as well. It is wrong to merely present the liberal element and to give the impression that all Baptists agreed with the liberal element. Liberal Baptists, Reformed Baptists, and apostate Landmarkers delight in doing just that. They don’t tell the whole truth.[216] But where is there any statement by any standard Baptist document of EMDA in history? This is a question EMDA advocates have striven to answer but it has proved as illusive to them as the Fountain of Youth did to Ponce de Leon. In the next chapter we will consider a challenge of EMDA.
[160]Cf.
Ronnie Wolfe. “The Need For a Mother Church”;
First Baptist Church P. O. Box 201 Harrison, OH 45030-0201; Milburn Cockrell, SCO,
p.83; 53; 44, 49, 50, 51, 52,53;Tom Ross. Resetting an Old Landmark;
p.9-10. Bro. Tom Ross does not use the term mother church, but his idea
is the same.
[161] Milburn Cockrell, SCO, p. 50. [162] American Heritage Dictionary. [163] Milburn Cockrell. SCO, p. 51. [164] Christian. History of the Baptists. Vol. II, p. 249. [165] Tull. Shapers of Baptist Thought. p.23. [166] Armitage. History of the Baptists, p. 453. [167] Milburn Cockrell. SCO, p. 51. [168] Thomas Grantham. Ancient Christian Religion, Second Part, p. 2. [169] Ibid. [170] Benjamin Keach. Types & Metaphors, p. 695. [171] Benjamin Keach. Types & Metaphors, p. 696. [172] Mark Dever. Polity p. 64-64. [173] J.R. Graves. Intro. Essay to Orchard’s Concise History Of Baptists, p. xxi. [174] See chapters 3 and 13. [175] J.R.Graves. Great Carrollton Debate, p. 995, my emphasis. [176] Milburn Cockrell. SCO, p. 84, par 3.
[177]
See GPP articles for several quotes
by
[178] Milburn Cockrell, SCO, p 84. [179] S.H. Ford. Origin of the Baptists, p. 11.
[180]W.A.
Jarrel.
[181]
J.R. Graves.
[182] Op. cit. p. 180. [183]Milburn Cockrell. SCO, p. 89. “They don’t tell the whole truth.” [184]Milburn Cockrell. SCO, 2nd edition, p. 91. “But brethren, do not twist and turn the words of our old Baptist brethren to justify your departure from the faith.” [185] William Cathcart. Baptist Encyclopedia, p. 1099. [186] David Benedict. History of The Baptists. II, p. 384.
[187]
Robert Semple, History of
[188] W.B. Johnson. The Gospel Developed. 1846. Quoted in Dever’s Polity, p. 187. [189] Milburn Cockrell. SCO, p. 50-52. [190] e.g., pro, Calvin, Gill, Trapp, Alford, Barnes, Lenski, Bengel, et al; con BHC, Gal. p. 54-56, Broadman. [191]Milburn Cockrell. SCO, p. 51-52. [192] John Gill. Commentary, loco. [193] Op.cit. vs. 27. [194] John Calvin. Commentary, loco. [195] Gal. 4:26, 27, 31. [196] John Gill. Body of Divinity, Bk. II, chap. I, 6. p. 625. [197] Op. cit., Bk. II, ch. I, 6. p. 624. [198] Op. cit., Bk. II, ch. I, 3. p. 624. [199] George Ella. John Gill and The Cause of God and Truth, pp.46-53. [200] Isaac Backus. Your Baptist Heritage, From a letter of Mr. Robinson and Elder Brewster. p. 21. [201] John Christian. History of the Baptists, vol. 1, p. 386. [202] General Association of Separate Baptists. [203] David Benedict. General History of the Baptist Denomination, vol. II, p. 33. [204] J.R. Graves. Old Landmarkism, p. 205.
[205]
J.H. Spencer. History of
[206] Milburn Cockrell. SCO, p. 50. [207] David Benedict. History of the Baptists, p. 412.
[208]J.R.
Graves.
[209] Milburn Cockrell. SCO p.52 . [210] Thomas Armitage. History of The Baptists, p. 101. [211] 2 Cor. 11:2.
[212]
The Pioneer Baptist.
[213] Acts 19:3. [214] Acts 19:7. [215] E.g., Acts 10:11; 28:15, etc. [216] Milburn Cockrell. SCO, p. 89. |