What The Lovers Of The Heathen Thought Of Their Old School Brethren

 

Many say that the Primitive or Old School Baptists are an unwelcoming lot.  History presents them as separating themselves from the New School Missionary Baptists.  One of the several Baptist magazines was the World.  Samuel Trott quoted some of the things they said about Old School Baptists. Some might think these issues are irrelevant for today, but that same kind kind of thinking views the events that happened in Palestine over 2,000 years ago, equally irrelevant.- ed.

Brother Beebe: As I was taking a peep a short time since at the paper entitled the "World as it Is," I discovered some

tings worthy of being noticed in the Signs of the Times.  In the World of October 6th, is an article taken from the Pioneer, of which I will give a part as it there stands:

"Ant-Mission Baptists"

"Persecution - The anti-mission Baptists are resolved to persecute, and do persecute, those who are active in works of charity is becoming every day more evident.  The sooner the line of distinction is drawn, the better will it be for religion and interests of the denomination."

"Proof - In a church in Alabama, Loun Creek, a member by name Baker, was excluded on the two following charges: 1st For persisting in keeping a Sabbath School when the church said not. 2nd For going into the mithe orders of this church, is mission system contrary to the orders of the church."

"Remarks - The church said not! Has a church any right to make such a law over its members?  The spirit has dictated the orders of the church, is precisely the same as that which formerly tortured and burn its victims because they would not do as the church said."  Two other instances are also given as proofs of this position; one of a church in Indiana, the other of a church in Ohio, excluding persons for joining Temperance Societies.  As the writer has been careful to speak in such general terms concerning the location of those churches as to prevent an inquiry into the correctness of his statement.  I will let this part of his proof pass, and call attention of your readers to the quotation made above.

1st This mission Baptist says - "The sooner the line of distinction is drawn the better it will be for religion," &c.  But who is to draw this line?  The mission Baptists it seems only.  It is an act of vile persecution in anti-mission Baptists to attempt to draw the line, and to seek a separation from such as adhere to the mission system.  It is not persecution, I suppose, to deny the anti-mission Baptists the right of withholding fellowship from such as walk not according to the word of God!

2d. The editor remarks, - " The church says not!  Has a church any right to make such laws over it members? I remark that all the wickedness with which the anti-mission Baptists as such are charged by those mission Baptists as such charged by those mission editors, may be traced to these two heinous crimes; 1st They will not submit to laws enacted by churches, associations, or any other ecclesiastical bodies; 2nd They will not suffer those laws to be loosed from them which He whom they delight to honor as their only proper Lawgiver, has given them.  But, whoever may reproach them, they do claim the right, as given to them of God both as churches and as individuals to judge for themselves what doctrines and what institutions are of God and whare of men; to adhere to the one and reject the other; to fellowship those who as they judge, walk orderly according to the divine rule, and to withdraw their fellowship from such as walk not according to the divine rule, and to withdraw their fellowship from such as walk not according to the traditions of the Apostles.  From the exercise of this right they will not easily be drive by the cry of persecution, or by persecution itself.

It is possible these gentlemen may doubt this being a parallel case to the one they have denounced as persecution.  I will therefore say to them, that if they will allow it to be correct in a church to exclude any of its members for persisting in open communion, that by the same arguments they would prove the correctness of this, I will prove the correctness of the transaction of the Lound Creek Church, which they have so heavily denounced.  Would they say that baptism is an institution positively appointed by the King of Zion?  I shall have the occasion before I am done with the "World,:" to show that the ministration of he gospel is equally so.  Should they say that the sprinkling is a manifest departure from the ordinance as appointed by Christ.  I will say and prove that too, that Sabbath schools and the Missionary system is as palpable a departure from the command as given by Christ to his disciples to go teach all the nations, and as exemplified in the Acts of the Apostles.  And proving this, I shall of course prove these two editors to have given for the government of his church, on a footing with that spirit which tortured and burned its victims.  In the World of OCt. 13, the editor, Mr. Dennison, upon his own responsibility, offers some remarks relative to certain anti-mission brethren, whom it seems he has found in the Philadelphia Association.  After giving a very flattering sketch of the proceedings of the Association at its late sitting, and of the state of religion in the churches comprising it, he adds, 

"There are some things in a few of our churches which are not altogether as they should be.  It is a source of regret to us and to a majority of our venerable Association, that a few of our ministering brethren should have arrayed their influence and efforts against some of the charitable institutions of the age."

The present is seized by us to present to these good members of Zion a few queries, for their prayerful consideration.

Brethren, You declare your belief that Mission, Bible, Tract, Temperance, and Sunday School Societies, with their legitimate kindred associations, are contrary to the spirit of the word of God - Now allow us ask you, under the influence of the most sincere emotions of brotherly regard have you any Scripture warrant, as Particular Baptists, or formularies of faith - for plans of decorum - for a medium of record attached to each Church?  Nay, more we ask, where is your Bible authority for choosing moderators and clerks?  Where that for singing and praying before preaching?  Where that of partaking of the Lord's Supper in a sitting instead of a reclining posture?  Where that for omitting to administer that holy ordinance always in an upper chamber?  Where even that for the erection of meeting houses with their cushioned pews and baptisteries?  Until you satisfactorily answer these questions brethren, which are based on those put to all Christendom on this subject by the spirit of our religion, which have begun to be efficiently answered on the ground of authorized implication, if not of direct scripture warrant; we for one shall be satisfied to go on as we have commenced desiring to labor with all our might in the broad field of benevolent effort."

Mr. Dennison has avoided in these remarks, that opprobrious language which appears to be so familiar with his brethren of Repository and Pioneer, ad which he can quote, it seems notwithstanding his "sincere emotions of brotherly regard".  He appears to  be sincere, and therefore ought to receiv e a candid answer.  It is however, I confess, past my powers of mind ro reconcile his manner of treating the subject, with a sincere and intelligent regard for the word of God.  Those brethren whom he addresses, according to his own statement, "Declare their sincere belief that Missionary, Tract, and the like societies, are contrary to the spirit of the word of God."  What is the course he takes with them to prevail upon them to engage in these plans?Does he attempt to bring to their view any scripture authority for them?  No, he tacitly acknowledges there is none.  What it the amount of his argument, if there is any argument in his queries?  It is this,"You, brethren, have already departed from the word of God, that it is now in vain to seek a conformity to it; you may therefore as well give yourselves up to be led altogether by the impulse of public opinion."  From what spirit, Mr. Dennison, did this reasoning arise?  Not from the Spirit of God; but there is another spirit frequently takes a similar course with awakened sinners, to prevail with them to go on in sin.  Consider this if you please.  But what crowns Mr. Dennison's course of contempt for the word of God as a perfect rule of practice, is his prefacing his enquiries with a request that kind of prayer does he with them to offer while reflecting on the many things they have done, for which, according to his insinuations, they have no authority in the scriptures?  Would he with them to pray thus: "Lord, we confess with shame that in these things we have treated they blessed word with contempt, in presuming to take our own vain imaginations as our guide in what pertains to thy service.  Pardon our sin in this thing, and enable us by thy grace to be henceforth more observant of those directions which thou hast been pleased to give us in the Scriptures, which are sufficient thoroughly in furnish us unto every good work?"  No, this prayer would not suit Mr. Dennison's views.  The following is the kind of prayer he would approve:  "Lord as we have been doing so many things which thou has not commanded in thy word, now give us boldness to neglect thy word as a rule of practice just to suit the times, and to substitute for it the plans of men."  Mr. Dennison must pardon me, but I do not know how otherwise to understand him.

But even admitting that keeping a church record, and the like enumerated by Mr. Dennison, are things for which we have no scripture authority, is there any comparison between them and the institutions which are objected to by  "Old School" or Anti-mission Baptists, on the ground of their being inventions of men substituted authority for those circumstances which are the subject of his enquiries?  These are two important queries which must be examined before we can be convinced by Mr. Dennison's argument; as unanswerable as he appears to consider it.  However, as this communication has already become, lengthy, I must defer any further remarks till another opportunity, and subscribe myself.

A. Waldensis
Valley of Achor, Oct. 24th 1832
Signs of the Times, Vol. 1 No. 2 December 18, 1832