|
Return to Table of Contents Return to Landmark Baptist Church Homepage
Landmarkism Under Fire
A Study of Landmark Baptist
by Elder J.C. Settlemoir The view of church constitution as taught by Baptists is not difficult to ascertain. We need only look at their histories, their Confessions of Faith, their Church manuals, their church and associational records. If EMDA is taught in these records, then that was the teaching of Baptists. If it was, we will find it clearly enunciated in these sources. If it cannot be found explicitly stated in such Baptist records, then it could not have been an essential doctrine of Baptists. In the study of Baptist polity as to church constitution we seek to determine what Baptists considered essential in the constitution of churches. One of the best sources outside the Bible by which to determine essential Baptist polity is found in church manuals. The purpose of a manual is to convey instructions. In the discussion of the essentials of church constitution these manuals are significant because they contain what was considered by the authors as essential to gospel order. What they do not include, they did not believe to be essential. We will not quote from all of these available but will only consider a few as representatives of the whole. The first Baptist church manual of which I am aware is that
published by Benjamin Keach–The Glory of a Concerning a True and Orderly Gospel-Church. Before there can be any Orderly Discipline among a Christian Assembly, they must be orderly and regularly constituted into a Church-state, according to the Institution of Christ in the Gospel. 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.[319] This is Keach’s statement on how to constitute a church. He certainly does not say it is done with mother-church authority! It is not done with the sanction of a bishop. It is not done by some external authority of another church. The authority is directly from Christ.[320] He also says under this heading: What tends to the Glory and Beauty of a true He then gives the Scripture references Ex. 20:24 & Mt 18:20, which shows how he thought the glory came upon a church, that is, directly from Christ the great Head of the church.[321] There is not a word in this manual about EMDA! But here he expressly tells Baptists that: A This was one of the earliest and most influential Baptist church manuals and it describes how churches in those times were constituted. If Baptists in Keach’s day used his manual to constitute, they would have known nothing of EMDA for it is not found therein. Deweese gives the title of Keach’s book taken from a 1697 edition slightly different than that quoted here. He gives it as: “The Glory and Ornament of a True Gospel-Constituted Church,”[322] that is, constituted by the gospel. This seems to express his understanding of the authority and that it comes to Christ’s servants through the gospel. The next manual I will introduce is Ben M. Bogard’s The Baptist
Way-Book. Bogard’s Manual was not as famous as some other Baptist manuals
but it is significant because Bogard followed in the steps of J.R. Graves and
Landmark Baptists in general. The Way-Book was written in 1908.[323]
Bogard’s book was pervasive in the The first step necessary in the organization of a new congregation or church is for as many as three baptized disciples to agree to meet statedly for worship, for mutual edification and united effort for the evangelization of the world. The object of a church is two-fold, viz., that the membership may be mutually helpful to one another and to work for God’s glory in the evangelization of the world. The agreement to meet regularly for worship and work is commonly called a ‘Church Covenant.’ The word ‘covenant’ means agreement. This covenant should be in writing, lest some misunderstand the terms. When this covenant has been entered into the church is fully organized. This covenant is the organization.[324] Bogard knew nothing, said nothing and intended nothing of a mother
church for Another significant church manual was written at the request of the Philadelphia Baptist Association in 1796. This manual was prepared by Samuel Jones, D.D. He was “the most influential Baptist minister in the middle colonies, and probably in the whole country.”[327] Elder Jones says concerning his manual that he: ....availed himself of all the help he could derive from such writers on the subject as he had by him, or could find; and he hopes it will appear, he has bestowed some pains to render the work serviceable, both as to comprehensiveness of matter and plainness of manner, so far as the requisite brevity would admit.[328] Of course if EMDA was operational among Baptists at this time, Jones would have been aware of it. If it had been the practice of this Association, then this Manual would have spelled it out! How can we account for the fact that he does not even mention what EMDA writers claim is the great essential of church constitution? Furthermore, this work was actually sent home with a committee of one person from every church in this Association and they revised it and returned it and then the Association approved it and published it for their churches.[329] Thus we know this Treatise expresses what those churches believed and practiced. There are fifteen articles under the chapter entitled Of a Gospel Church. We need not quote all of these but five through eight are here given: 5. A number of believers are united together into a particular church, by an act of mutual confederation. “Gave their own selves to the Lord, and unto us by the will of God.” 2 Cor. viii:5. 6. Whether the requisite number should be twelve or thirteen, because our blessed Lord and his disciples, at the first celebration of the Lord’s supper, made that number, or whether three will be sufficient, because of the promise in Matt. xviii:20, may be doubtful: but there ought to be so many, as to answer the end of that holy institution. 7. When such a number is found in any place, they ought to propose among themselves, or others may propose it to them to be constituted a church. 8. For this purpose it will be necessary to appoint a time and place, when they are to meet fasting. One minister or more should be present to assist, and to preach on the occasion. Acts viii:14. xi.22.[330] Now there can be no question that if the Philadelphia Association had believed in EMDA they would have spelled it out in this document–but it is not there in any form! But we learn that disciples can and should constitute themselves into a church. But nowhere in this Treatise of twelve chapters will one find EMDA. How can this be? It is inexplicable if the Philadelphia Association believed and practiced EMDA! Pendleton’s Church Manual Pendleton was a Landmark Baptist and his Church Manual is said to be one of the most extensively used among Baptist churches since 1867.[331] Certainly, it is the most popular manual among Landmark Baptists of the present day. We may be sure that whatever Pendleton and Landmark Baptists conceived to be the scriptural essentials of constitution will be clearly enunciated in his treatment. He first discusses the materials and the definition of a church: And as churches in all ages must be formed after the apostolic model, it follows that where penitent, regenerate, baptized believers in Christ are found, there are scriptural materials for a church.[332] Pendleton then tells his readers what a church is: Such persons having first given themselves to the Lord, and then to one another, in solemn covenant, agreeing to make the will of Christ as expressed in his word their rule of action, are, in the New Testament sense of the term, a church. Whether they are many or few in number, they are a church.[333] Next, Pendleton goes on to discuss the act of church constitution itself: Constitution of Churches When the interests of Christ’s kingdom require the formation of a new church the customary mode of procedure is about this: Brethren and sisters obtain letters of dismission from the church or churches to which they belong, for the purpose of entering into the new organization. It is well for this purpose to be stated in the letters. When they meet together at the appointed time, a Moderator and Clerk pro tem are appointed. The meeting is opened with devotional exercises. Sometimes a sermon is preached, especially when it is not intended to have recognition services at some future day. Reading the Scriptures and prayer should be considered indispensable. This being done, the letters of dismission are read, and the parties concerned resolve by solemn vote to consider themselves an independent church.[334] Now here we have everything included which is essential to constitute a church and yet not a word about EMDA! While it may be injected into this Manual,[335] it cannot be extracted from it! Some have actually maintained that the letters granted by the various churches from which these members came did in fact signify EMDA! Note Pendleton has these letters coming from “church or churches.” This countermands the EMDA theory that this request for letters was granted to get EMDA. We know this is the case because Pendleton does not say these members should all unite with the mother church and then be lettered out and then be constituted with her authority. As it is here described, these members can, and often did, come from several “churches.” But according to EMDA a church can have only one mother. Pendleton was not writing about EMDA granted from some other church. Can anyone think that if Pendleton was trying to teach this idea he would have left this essential unstated? If one does not have EMDA in his mind when he consults this Manual, he will read the whole book and know nothing of it when he finishes! Hiscox’s Directories Next we will turn to Hiscox’s New Directory, another extremely popular work which has been used by Baptists for over a century. Hiscox gives the essentials for a true church and he tells how churches are constituted. Thousands of churches have been constituted using his directions. Did Hiscox teach EMDA as some have suggested?[336] We shall see. In 1859 Hiscox wrote The Baptist Church Directory. In 1893 he wrote a completely new volume called The New Directory for Baptist Churches. This latter volume, he is careful to tell us “is entirely in harmony with previous manuals, as to Baptist polity, and neither abrogates nor antagonizes any of the fundamental principles announced or advocated in those previous issues.”[337] In the chapter, of the New Directory, on the Christian Church there are twelve sections. Section 10 [x] is entitled “Churches Constituted.” In his very first paragraph on this subject Hiscox writes: “Churches are constituted by voluntary covenant on the part of those who wish to become members.” He then goes on to say: “The process by which new churches are constituted is very simple. The necessity for, and the practicability of, organizing one, must be decided by those who are to constitute it, and who are to bear the expense and responsibility of its support.”[338] Then on the next page he says: The ‘Constituting act’ would properly and appropriately be the unanimously voting–perhaps by rising–a resolution like this: ‘Resolved, That, guided as we believe by the Holy Spirit, and relying on the blessing of God, we do, here and now, by this act, constitute ourselves a Church of Jesus Christ to perform His service, and be governed by His will, as revealed in the New Testament....Such an act makes such a company of disciples, ipso facto, a Church of Christ with all the rights, powers and privileges of any New Testament Church’.[339] Let me emphasize some of the author’s points. Hiscox is here telling us what the “Constituting act” of a new church is. It is not the authority of a mother church, formally or informally given. It is not granting letters for the purpose of organizing a church which gives authority to constitute a new church. It is not the delegated authority from another church whether in the hands of a pastor, elder, or elders which constitutes a church.[340] It is not the power or authority of a presbytery which constitutes a church. It is not the declaration or recommendation of sister churches, pastors, associations or any other voice which constitutes a church. It is not the combined efforts of the mother church and the now- to- be- formed church. That is, it was not EMDA in combination with the action of the church being formed which constitutes a church. Not at all! Nor does he leave his readers in doubt as to what does constitute a church. He says, the “Constituting act” is unanimously voting a
resolution–that is by the new group themselves–not that of a
mother-church! Not by an elder! Not by some other officer! Then he gives a
sample of such a resolution and there is no authority derived in that
resolution from any other church on earth. But just to make sure no one
misunderstands his words he restates his concept in other words, thus: “Such
an act makes such a company of disciples, ipso facto, a What makes a group a church? The act of unanimously voting a resolution! This voting is not that of a mother-church as in EMDA but it is that of those “covenanting together” to which Baptist history so often refers and it is simply the outgrowth of their faith in that promise of the Lord Himself in Mt. 18:20: “For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.” Who does this? Who unanimously votes? Who makes this resolution? Who covenants? Who gathers together? Who constitutes this group a church? The group themselves. And this act makes such a company of disciples a church in fact! This is self constitution from the position of those who gather together and it is Divine Constitution from the position of Him who promises to honor such a gathering with His presence. Christ pledges His authority for and promises His presence to every church so constituted and I believe this is the essence of Mt. 18:20. I am a loss to understand how Bro Cockrell, with these facts before him, could write: There is no doubt in my mind that most Baptist churches in Hiscox says concerning the authority of churches: This authority is derived directly from God; not from states, nor princes, nor people; not from its own officers, nor its members, nor from any other source of ecclesiastical or civil power or right. [343] Of course this excludes EMDA! Every trace, every vestige of it is expunged! He does not leave this doctrine a shadow of support! And let it be clearly understood. Bro Cockrell did not follow Hiscox’s Manual in the constitution of his church, or these other churches, for Hiscox insisted the “authority is derived directly from God,” and this idea is by Bro Cockrell repudiated in terms which admit of no exception! But this is not all. Hiscox could not be describing or defending EMDA in his books for another very compelling reason–he denied any kind of organic church succession! Here are his words: Perpetuity. This has reference, not to a continuance of official
administration, as in the previous note, but to visible and corporate Church
life. And, strange -to say, some Baptists have been courageous enough, and
indiscreet enough to assert that an unbroken succession of visible,
organized congregations of believers similar to their own, and therefore substantially
like the primitive churches, can be proved to have existed from the Apostles,
until now. Such claims may well be left to papal audacity. For those who learn
from that storehouse of sacred truthBthe
New TestamentBwhat are
the spirit, doctrine, ordinances, and polity of a Of course, if you do not believe in any kind of organic church succession, you certainly cannot believe in EMDA! Even Houdini couldn’t pull off that kind of a trick. Thus we must recognize a considerable mistake has been made. These brethren have completely misunderstood Hiscox and Pendleton on church constitution! C.D. Cole We also have the statement of C.D. Cole. He says: “It seems evident from the New Testament that Jesus gave no formal prescription for the organization of any church...”[345] This is an absolute anathema to EMDA advocates but Cole is even more specific. He says: Baptist churches come into being today somewhat after this manner. A group of believers in a community wish to become a church. The members in conference will make this wish known to other churches, and these churches send messengers to counsel them in accomplishing their desire. For the sake of order and recognition these messengers will inquire into their belief, and if is thought wise, the visitors endorse their articles of faith and recommend their constitution as an independent church. These visiting brethren do not organize the church. Since the church is to be self governing, it must of necessity and logically be self constituted. And so those wishing to become a church enter into a covenant to that effect; and another church is born. The help from the outside is for the sake of order and fellowship and is not absolutely essential.[346] No outside help is essential for the constitution of a church according to Bro Cole. The Bryan Station Baptist Church of Lexington, Ky, prints this book by Bro Cole but with a reservation concerning in particular this statement on the constitution of churches.[347] Imagine if you can, an issue in Baptist church polity so essential
that no true church can be constituted without it and yet of the scores of Church manuals have no authority. They do not pretend to have authority. They are not written to make churches conform, but to help them do things in gospel order. When a manual describes how to constitute a church, it is understood that the author is giving what he believes is a Scriptural method of constituting a church. We may be certain that a manual written at any given time in Baptist History will not suggest a method of constituting a church which is totally out of sync with the practices of that time unless the author goes to some length to defend his position. In the next chapter we will focus on Baptist Confessions.
[319]
Benjamin Keach. The Glory of a
[320] Op. cit. Keach says: “....For hath not one regular Church as great Authority from Christ as another.” Quoted in Church Polity by Dever, p. 81. [321] Op. cit. 85.
[322]
C.W. Deweese.
[323] Foreman-Payne. Life and Works of Bogard, vol. I, p. 420. [324] Ben M. Bogard. The Baptist Way-Book, p. 69. [325] Foreman-Payne. Life & Works of Bogard, vol. III, p. 208. [326] Milburn Cockrell. CSO, p. 74; Robert Ashcraft. Landmarkism Revisited, p.265; Cf. Bob Ross. Old Landmarkism and The Baptists, p. 43. Bro Bob Ross opposes Landmarkism. [327] William Cathcart. The Baptist Encyclopedia, p. 619. [328] Samuel Jones. Treatise of Church Discipline and a Directory. Quoted in Dever’s Church Polity, p. 139. [329] Mark Dever. Church Polity, p. 139. These revisions were chiefly verbal. [330] Mark Dever. Church Polity, p. 140-141. [331] Milburn Cockrell. SOC, p. 17.
[332]
J.M. Pendleton.
[333] Op.cit. p. 14-15. [334] Ibid. [335] This is exactly what Bro Milburn Cockrell does. Cf. SCO, p. 17. [336] Milburn Cockrell. SCO, p. 18-19. [337] Edward Hiscox. New Directory for Baptist Churches, p. 8. [338] Op. cit. p. 53. [339] Op. cit. p. 54. [340] In SCO the author says: “....I, acting by the authority of my church, constituted them into separate churches.” p. 37. The difference between Hiscox and Bro Cockrell are significant. [341] The emphasis is mine. [342]Milburn Cockrell. SCO, p. 19. [343] Edward Hiscox. The New Directory for Baptist Churches, p. 16 My emphasis. [344] Op. cit. p. 34.
[345]
C.D. Cole. The New
[346] Op. cit. pp. 7,8. [347] Op. cit. Bro Gormley’s Introduction. No page number; Cf. SCO, p. 15. |