A LETTER FROM ELDER SAMUEL TROTT 1835 (TROTT)

 FOR THE SIGNS OF THE TIMES.

Fairfax, C. H. Va. June 12, 1835.

BROTHER BEEBE, I have again to ask a place in the Signs, on a subject which some of us wish brought before those Churches that stand on Old School ground.

The subject relates to Associations. In order if possible to present the subject to your readers in a fair light, I will first, state what I find in Associations which I think strictly scriptural. This I have noticed in former communications, but I will again speak of it.

The keeping up of a correspondence of the churches one with another, appears to have been the primary object of the churches in forming Associations. For this correspondence among the Churches, I think we have abundant authority in the usage of the Apostolic churches, and as much occasion for keeping up the practice, at this time as ever, that the churches in their afflictions and trials may be acquainted from time to time with each others standing, with their difficulties &c. may be mutual helps and comfort one to the other, and many have their hands mutually supported; and that they may keep bright the chain of christian fellowship among them. There is no set form laid down in the New Testament, for continuing the correspondence of the churches, neither did the primitive churches observe any. The mode seems to be left in a measure as indifferent, providing always there be no departure from nor infringement of the spirit and order of the New Testament as established in relation to other points. We read of letters from churches (Acts xv. 2, 22; Cor. viii. 23,) of their sending relief one to another &c. But all was done in the simplest form; no blending of the authority nor infringing of the independency of the churches.

I now pass to notice our Associations, and to enquire whether they are conformed to the pattern laid down in the New Testament, as to carrying on a correspondence among the churches. I said on a former occasion, (Withdraw Circular, Signs, Vol. 2, No. 21, page 323,) The present mode of keeping up a correspondence by the associating of churches for that purpose, is perhaps, as good a mode as can be adopted under existing circumstances, &c.; yet, certainly my expression—the present mode is too broad. The simple plan of the churches associating together for keeping up a correspondence, was what I had in view; whereas the expression used, would seem to convey the idea that the mode of associating as existing among us, was what I approved. But I shall now state some objections to our present form of Associations. I do not take it to the account alone, as associations which have been incorporated by law, as religious bodies, for holding property &c. nor those which professedly assume the prerogatives of a religious body, meeting together to devise ways and means, for the spread of the gospel and the conversion of sinners &c., nor such as assume a superintendency over the churches; for such associations, no consistent Old School Baptist can on reflection sanction. My objections will be intended for those earlier and simpler forms of the churches associating together, in which unions they professedly maintain the independency of the churches, and modestly assume only to be an advisory council.

I object to these Associations 1st, Because that in forming their constitutions the churches of the same Association pledge themselves to each other, so that they consider themselves as standing in a relation one to the other such as they do not stand in toward other churches of the same faith and order. Many represent this relation to be similar to that of the members of an individual church, and would prescribe a similar discipline to be exercised by the Association toward the churches as the church exercises towards its members. Hence churches thus associated are not at liberty to correspond in the same way with other churches of the same faith, without having first obtained a letter or vote of dismission from the Association. We read of nothing like this in the New Testament—of no such dividing and arranging of the churches into distinct clans or confederacies. And this thing too evidently forms a genre, from whence springs spontaneously horns to scatter the churches, and occasions the need of Carpenters to fray them, Zach. i. 21.

2nd. My next objection is, that the unscriptural arrangements of these Associations are too complicated, occasioning too much business to be transacted, to consist with the simplicity of the primitive intercourse of the churches, or with the profitable coming together of the brethren.

3rd. I object again, to the idea of marking the limits of each Association by local boundaries, because it has naturally produced the notion that all baptist churches within such limits must belong to the same Association, whether these churches are so united in doctrine and practice as to keep up a friendly and affectionate intercourse with each other or not. Hence a want of union among the churches, has occasioned dissension in their councils, and a strife to gain the ascendency in the Association by each distinct party; and has resulted in much contention and in an increase of jealousies and party-feelings.

4th. I object to the custom of numbering and publishing so particularly, by the Associations, the number of members &c. belonging to the several churches. I know the idea of objecting to the numbering of Israel, has been laughed at in this country ever since the time of Morgan Edwards writing his history of the Baptists. But I also know that David committed a grievous sin in requiring national Israel to be numbered. But I do not suppose that the sin consisted in merely counting Israel; it was probably in the pride of David’s heart. I cannot think it any less sin to take occasion from the additions the Lord may make to his spiritual Israel, to glory on account of the increase of a denomination. And we certainly do see such self-glorying and a consequent emulation among the churches faster than the Lord renews their hearts, growing out of his practice of numbering the members on additions &c. We have seen for instance even before the protracted meetings system came into vogue, many preachers grabbing their importance, and having their popularity increased according to the numbers they baptized. Hence their great solicitude to baptize, manifested in getting every thing they could into the water. Churches catching the same ambitious fire, wishing to increase in numbers above others, have opened their doors to receive all that offered. Associations also have boasted of the numbers added to their churches, as affording clear evidence of the Lord’s special favour to them, on account of their zeal, plans, systems, &c. If David sinned; these sin. I would therefore rise to see the occasion for this sin cut off from our Old School Churches and preachers.

The enquiry is, I suppose, at hand, either from curiosity or a desire to examine the subject, to know what I would substitute in the place of the present form of Associations. I will briefly give the outlines of what I would wish to be substituted as the medium of social intercourse among the churches. In the first place, as the term Association has become so identified with a certain organized form of meetings, I would recommend its being dropt, and our meetings for maintaining a correspondence among the churches, have a more significant title. For instance that they be called meetings for correspondence, or Corresponding Meetings. 2nd. Although I would desire these meetings kept up convenient to the churches in the different sections of our country, and of course as our churches are local, there must be some general local limits to each corresponding connexion of churches; yet the boundaries of such meetings I would have to consist—not of localities—but of certain defined lines of doctrine, order, practice, &c. And these I would wish very special, so as to admit such as come voluntarily within the limits lest their local situation be what it may; and none others.

3rd. For the sake of brethren at a distance who may occasionally wish to visit a particular Meeting, I would think it advisable to have fixed times for holding each several meeting. But instead of one meeting adjourning to meet again, I would prefer that where a particular church invites the next meeting, it be published in the Minutes as the invitation of such church, to all churches, so and so defined, by their doctrine and practice, to unite by their Messengers, or letters or both in a Corresponding Meeting at such time and place &c. Thus leaving it free with every church of such order to unite in the meeting or not. And instead of each church being confined in their correspondence to the churches uniting in any particular meeting, I would think it desirable so far as convenient that they should correspond with different meetings, as thereby the intercourse among the churches will be made free and extensive. 4th, I would have the business part of those meetings confined exclusively to the correspondence of churches and other Corresponding Meetings, and the meetings occupied in the preaching of the word and in the free intercourse of the Messengers together.

I have thus sketched my views on this subject. I sincerely desire that this thing may be so presented before our Old School Brethren as to arrest their attention. In order to do this it is necessary that more than one brother should call their attention to it; as every notion without a second falls to the ground. There are other ministering brethren, I know, who have had the subject under consideration, let them come forward in the Signs, so far as they think my views correct confirm them, so far as they differ from me, state the views they entertain on the subject. And I hope that those brethren if such there be, who on scriptural grounds object to the whole proposed change, will come forward and freely state their objections. In this way the subject may be fairly and deliberately canvassed and so presented before the churches as to lead them to act upon it understandingly.

I would like to have your Virginia subscribers, who think well of the proposed change, bring the subject before their respective churches for their consideration.

A separation must take place in such of our Associations as have Old School churches in them, or we must submit to the new schemes and popular doctrine being established over our heads. To me it would be much pleasanter to retire, and I think more congenial with the spirit of the gospel, than to continue in those mixed bodies and by our silence sanction that which we know is contrary to the word of God, or to keep up a contest with the advocates of those new things. In such contests the passions are liable to be excited; and bitter feelings to be engendered towards the persons, as well as the sentiments of our opponents. I will go further and say, a division will take place. The churches may some of them, still be disposed to hobble along in the lame-footed way we have done, but the Lord will not suffer his children to go much farther in bidding God-speed to those delusive errors which are among us. The longer the division is procrastinated the more difficult it will be; for churches as well as Associations will have to be divided. The art of the New School leaders is known; and their exertions are unwearied to gain an influence and if possible the ascendency in all the churches. Hence so far as they succeed in those churches having sound members, so far a division of churches must take place.

In retiring quietly from this mixture and confusion, it would be well to have our place of retreat, such as can be well sustained on scriptural grounds. Hence the importance of having the subject well examined.

The wise man says, “A prudent man foreseeth the evil and hideth himself, but the simple pass on and are punished,” Pro. xxii. 3.

S. TROTT.