RIGHTS OF CHURCHES AND LEGITIMATE SPHERE OF ASSOCIATIONS

Associations among Baptists, have become too powerful, and have lost their purpose.  Elder Beebe gives his opinion - ed.

In replying to the inquiry of Brother Bell concerning the rights of churches and the sphere of associations. We do not intend to revive any former discussion of those subjects, but simply to offer a few general remarks without designating any disrespect to the views of any of our brethren who may differ from us on the subject.

On the rights of the churches. It is generally conceded that every regular Church of our Redeemer has an undisputed right to regulate all her own affairs, so far as order, discipline, and church government are concerned. By what she understands to be the divine rule laid down by authority of the head of the church in the New Testament, without the interference of any other church or religious body of any kind whatever. It is true. Neither churches nor individuals have any right to do that which is not in itself right. But each church must be, in her own case, most competent to judge what the divine standard recognizes as a right. The Baptists in all past ages, so far as we know, have contended that each church is to a certain extent an independent body. By independence, however. They simply mean to deny that they stand amenable to any other ecclesiastical body or power on Earth. But it is not claimed that any church has a right to act independently of the laws of the Kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ. Whilst each church stands as an independent community in itself. The duty and privilege of maintaining an intercourse with all sister churches of the same faith and order has been duly acknowledged, and in order to keep up such correspondence, it has been found necessary for each church to give such expressions of her faith in order as to satisfy sister churches that there is. Unanimity and faith in order which is indispensable to the general fellowship. Each church is, of course, to judge for herself in what manner the divine rule requires her to exhibit. Her faith in order. And her sister churches, on hearing of her affairs or on beholding her order, had the right to judge of it and extend or withhold from her the expressions of their fellowship according to their judgment. In addition to the exhibition made from their pulpits and their public administration of ordinances, it has been common to write a summary of their faith. Or of what their faith apprehends to be taught in the scriptures as grand and fundamental doctrine of the gospel, and in the order which they believed to be essential to the Church of God. With brother Trott. We are fully aware of the evils sometimes attending. What are called articles of faith? And when they are placed between the disciples in the Bible, we with him repudiate them as involving principles of idolatry. But we see no necessity for making a written statement of what we, as churches or as individuals hold to be the doctrine or order to stand between us and the scripture as the only inspired and infallible rule. We have witnessed many of the evils of to which our brother Trott has made allusion with him. We deplore them. But it really seems to us that written articles when simply to set forth the sentiments which distinguished the churches of our fellowship from all other professed churches are not chargeable for the bad use. Which some misguided persons make of them. For instance, we are known as Old School Baptists. Well, what kind of Baptists are they? The term Old School Baptist is used to distinguish those churches and individuals who are so-called from the New School Campbellite. Free will or Seventh-day Baptist? And to distinguish them as holding certain definite views of doctrine and religious order. And when it is demanded of us, we hesitate not to publish to the world what doctrinal sentiments and gospel practice distinguish us from all other kind of Baptists or other professors of religion.

If the articles of faith are, however, used to supply what is supposed to be a deficiency in the Bible. Or are to be clung to when we perceive that they are not in harmony with the scriptures. Their tendency cannot fail to be evil. For all that we can see, what we may publish in the Signs or what we preach from the pulpit is liable to the same abuse. If the decision of the editor or any other brother Rick, writing in this paper, should come to be regarded as a standard for the faith or practice of all the readers, the consequence would be a departure from the infallible and an adoption of a fallible guide. And the same would be in our estimation, be the case where our views expressed in a pulpit or elsewhere. We have never been any stickler for what are called creeds, and have been and still are decidedly opposed to formulas to be taught as theories of religion whereby unregenerated persons are aided into a religious profession. But we should not know how to decide in favor or against the reception of a member into the church. Who only professed. to believe the scriptures, unless we, with the church to which we belong, had some definite understanding of the distinguishing doctrine and order of the gospel. Whether such distinguishing understanding? Were written on paper or only distinctly understood by all the members would not change the nature of it. The sentiments of the church being written or unwritten is not what constitutes them, the faith or belief of the church. Great care should be observed by all Christians and churches to guard against an unjustifiable reliance on written expressions of faith and all other uninspired writing, lest we should by them be swerved from the scriptures as our only infallible guide and standard.

If we regard associations, as many good brethren do. To be the creatures of the churches. Still, l they have no powers except such as the churches have given them as messengers or delegates. If brethren are sent only. As messengers to meet and associate with messengers sent in like manner from other churches of the order. Then they have the power to carry the messages which are sent by them and to make a fair report to their churches of the manner in which they have discharged their duty. With us, the term delicate is very objectionable when applied to brethren sent by the churches, because we know of no power the church has to delegate to any of her members. And because that term implies a representative, whereas none can represent the Church of the Living God in that sense. This term is not used among the churches in this section of the country. Because our messengers are not empowered to act as delegates or to use the power of the church for any purpose, only as messengers to act in obedience to the authority of the churches to which they severely belong. Associations deriving all the authority they have from their churches can have no authority to Lord it over the churches, as the churches have no such power to delegate to them and as they have no power from any other source. Yet it is certain that many associations, especially those of the New School, have virtually converted themselves into ecclesiastical councils, legislative bodies, and at their sessions, gravely discussed questions of expediency. Past decrees levy taxes. Concoct measures, employ agencies, and assume a general supervision of the churches. And any church refusing to be bound by their decisions is branded as heterodox and disorderly. The associations in this vicinity disclaim being even advisory councils. They simply hold their annual meetings for the worship of God and to cultivate an acquaintance with each other by intercommunication and Christian correspondence. But there are very many others in various parts of the United States, which profess to be advisory councils. Where they are so their sphere, of course, embraces the duty of giving advice to the churches when called on to do so.

We know of no good reason why any Christian should not give advice to his fellow Christians on all proper occasions, especially when asked for it. But the formation of an ecclesiastical council. For that or any other purposes of more doubtful propriety or utility. Churches and Christians generally, if they lack wisdom, should ask it of him who gives liberally and upbraids not. And if any unusually trying case, a church desires to be favored with the wisdom of sister churches. It has the undoubted right to invite such members to send faithful brethren to sit with, not over them in regular church meetings where they can have full opportunity. To let their light shine.