In The Master's Service

Print this page

THE OLD BAPTIST TEST

Section 10

Application of Proof to the Subject - Part 2

Elder John M. Watson

I have now to deal with the Achillean heel of our order of Baptists: hitherto we have been invulnerable at all other points in our outward agreement with the "one fold" under consideration. The word association cannot be found in the evangelical history of the "other sheep" which Christ brought into the "one fold." The best synonyms may be found in the words "the unity of the Spirit," "the unity of the faith." As associations are formed to maintain a communion of the kind expressed by these synonyms, they, when managed according to the, word of God, seem to receive sanction therefrom. An association, therefore, is not an institution, but a communion arising out of a general union on gospel truths and principles. With this definition of Baptist Associations, I will proceed to defend them, but not according to any other will I do so. For I am fully aware that they are liable to great abuses. Christ may loose his authority in them just as in other institutions! evangelical procedures may be disregarded by them, and they may aspire to control the Churches. Besides, they may devise plans, and expedients on human authority, and become institutions, so strong in themselves, that the Churches will have either to submit to their requisitions or withdraw from them. We had better dispense with them, than to submit to the like; there is a great difference between communion and institution, especially if we say Christian communion, and human institution. Oh! Lord, deliver us from the latter. It is not uncommon to meet with great efforts at lording it over them; but to the great credit of the Old Order of Baptists, they have more completely suppressed everything of this kind than any other people now in the world! What a great institution, with the name of General Association, have our Missionary Baptists gotten up; for which they can find neither name nor precedent in the New Testament. So that, their "unity of the faith" must be maintained in their communion according to the things which they have devised on human authority.

I again repeat that an association based on the word of God is a communion, and not an institution; and even viewed in this favorable light, there is, notwithstanding, a great contrariety of opinions about associations; some are disaffected towards them, some condemn them, while others approve of them. Their advocates think they see an example of them in Acts 15:1-41. The Church at Antioch sent messengers to the Church at Jerusalem in regard to certain particulars, about which a general understanding was necessary. We send messengers to one Church from an indefinite number of Churches, and in conference adopt such measures as seem best to preserve the general union- "the unity of the faith," taking great care to observe the plain teachings of the New Testament. This is more particularly necessary, from the fact that the one fold under the one Shepherd exists in many separate bodies, termed assemblies or Churches. Though divided into distinct bodies, they belong to the one fold; the gospel union of which can only be preserved according to the regulations prescribed by the KING OF ZION. Of what avail would it be, in a gospel sense, to maintain a general union in regard to human institutions? One chief aim is to correct every thing by the word of God already revealed, which may disturb the union of our Churches. The example in (Acts 15:1-41) the fifteenth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles is aimed at in our associations; and everything which does not conform to it, we endeavor to suppress. It is true that we have no inspired Apostles, unto whom we may appeal in our cases of difficulty, but we have their revelations unto which we may with great confidence, appeal. If it be asked who is now to interpret the word of God, and decide its meaning in regard to our difficulties in associations, I will reply, not preachers only, nor particular members, but the Churches themselves. Thus, in view of annual difficulties, or things which may disturb our oneness in faith and practice, we send messengers from several Churches to meet at a particular Church, where we get intelligence of the affairs of these Churches. If any matter of difficulty is communicated, and if, in the judgment of these messengers, it is likely to disturb the general union, it should be referred, in all of its details, to the Churches composing such an association, and let them by their next messengers and letters give their views, judgment, and discussions about it; or, if the affair be grievous and weighty, a call might be made on the Churches to meet earlier. But, says one, suppose the Churches cannot agree, what can then be done? Let as many as can harmonize on the word of God unite; no other kind of union will answer. Besides, the Churches which preserve their union on gospel principles will be sustained by other associations. Hence, we see the importance of the union of associations, as well as that of Churches. Thus our general union extends beyond an association to all the associations in our correspondence. So a union of correspondence must also be maintained. For this, one association sends messengers and letters to others, which are either received or rejected, according to circumstances, without infringing on its rights further than a preservation of the union of the associations may require.

Thus, all the while, associations are mere instruments of the Churches, and not the Churches those of associations. Churches only can act in associations, and then only about the things pertaining to the general union; preachers nor particular members cannot; and when the personal leadings of such, exceed those of the word of God, they become dangerous members thereof; for, through their ambition, errors, and lording, great mischief may be done in associations, as the history of the past proves most grievously!

How were the errors which originated in the seven Churches of Asia exposed and corrected? By the word of the Lord revealed to them. How may the errors of seven modern Churches be detected and rectified? By the word of the Lord already revealed. Who shall explain and apply this correction? The Churches themselves. How? By means of an association; not, however, to be instituted as an ecclesiastical tribunal, but merely to be put in requisition as a medium by which the Churches can confer by letters and delegates with each other, after having previously investigated prayerfully and carefully, the existing deviations. Wherein Pastors are not to rule as lordlings, nor particular members as dictators. But the whole affair must be most explicitly referred to The Shepherd of the one fold. How? To His revealed word. If that governs, the King in Zion will rule; if not, errors through men will prevail. Things in the latter instance would rest on human authority, and a human tribunal would be necessary. Just as many of the kind, have been established, and are now appealed to in all matters of difficulty over which they have jurisdiction. About which the Church of Christ, in its pure scriptural organization, takes no cognizance; hence, both the things and laws to govern them have been instituted on human authority-an authority which all true Baptists have ever abjured. This authority is engendered, maintained and exercised mainly by human organizations added to or engrafted on the Church. They then gave free scope to human pride, ambition, and lording. Look, for instance, at an Episcopal Arch-Bishop, or Methodist Bishop, and I may add, even a President of a General Association- another name for a great missionary institution-and do we not see that their powers are earthly, and their laws are human, while they affect to discharge greater duties than the ones required of Paul himself? And if our associations ever partake of this spirit or conduct, I will most heartily renounce them, believing, that although when properly managed, they may subserve the interests of the general union, they are nevertheless so very liable to abuses, that I am sometimes almost ready to give them up.

But to return: Before the errors of the seven Churches of Asia were corrected by the revealed word of God, they could not have united in an association, in Christian communion, but after these corrections they might have done so. And may not seven Churches, now, by means of the word of the Lord, with the mind and spirit of Christ, come together, with an expression of their views, by letters and delegates; the former having been made out by faithful Pastors and brethren in the Churches, and come to a general agreement about modern departures? If not, what shall be done? Let as many as can, unite on the revealed word of the Lord, and appeal to the general correspondence. Our associational correspondence is jealous of all innovations; hence, any association that may depart from ancient Baptist usages will be rejected. Shall we contend for a union of the members of a Church, and for a union of the Churches of an association in another way? This we shall be guilty of whenever we convert an associational union or communion into an institution of any kind. Still plainer: we had just as well presume to enact human rules and regulations for a Church, as for an association. If we endeavor to maintain the authority of the King in Zion in one, we must also in the other. We cannot, therefore, go in fellowship with a modern order of Baptists who have instituted on human authority, an assembly, governed by enactments of their own, and called a general association. Through this assembly modern missionary operations are performed in a manner which Primitive Baptists never practiced. To this departure from primitive missionism I rejoice to know there is one exception.

At the present day are there any of the "other sheep" which have been brought in, and are guided and governed by the "hidden wisdom" which God ordained for their glory? If so, they belong to the "one fold," and to the government of the "one Shepherd." Let this principle be once violated, and a common Baptist association at first designed merely for a manifestation of a general union, may be converted into a modern missionary society, into a general association for the executing of human plans and devices of any kind. Besides, on the same authority an association may resolve itself into an institution of any kind; for instance, it might do the work of a Methodist Conference, of an abolition society, or even a Romish council! There is no setting bounds to this human authority- if not in conduct, in theory at least, it goes the whole length, breadth, height and depth of anti-Christ! Tell me, pious reader, how much human authority we may admit? What shall be added or subtracted from the word of the Lord by it? What things shall be thereby changed, and what things allowed to remain as they are? Shall we alter only a few as the Missionary Baptists have done? or shall we change them as the Methodists have? or as the Presbyterians, the Episcopalians or Catholics? No. Let there be one exception. When the great question shall come up in the future, who were the people in this day of human expedients that made the word of God their only rule of faith and practice, the candid Church historian will be bound to record-probably then as much to our credit, as it is now to our disparagement-that they were the Old Order of Baptists.

No historian outside of the Waldensian communities would scarcely have dared to write favorably of them in their day; but many did so in after times. Thus brethren, our true history belongs to the future, just as theirs did. But let us be careful rather to maintain the way of the Lord than be over solicitous about our history.

Having concluded my remarks on associations, I will now close the subject with the following suppositions: As fancy knows no impediments, and can ignore the past as well as shape the future, I will compromise many centuries and their events, and fancy that, after having spent much pleasant and profitable time among the primitive Churches, where I had often heard Paul, Barnabas, Silas, and Timothy preach, I had come directly to my own city. Here I gladly learned there were many Christians; but to my great surprise, that there were many varieties of them? Hearing this, I inquired for those who were like those I had just left. I soon learned that there were great differences among them, and that I would have to go among them all and see and hear for myself. Having performed this duty, I will give the results in my next, which I hope will be interesting to the Christian reader.