|
COLONIAL
LANDMARKISM By
Curtis
Pugh of Bocsa,
Romania Our neighbors tell us to our faces that we Landmarkers are
a “cult” or a “sect” and some probably cry out behind our backs that we are
worse than that. They say we are some new aberration having an origin only in
the 1800’s with J.R. Graves, etc. From time to time, some of our own depart to
another camp, saying that ours cannot be true Baptist Churches because our
Churches have been organized by “mother Churches,” and that it is wrong to
require letters of dismission and permission from previously existing Churches
of which we were members in order to constitute a new Church. Some may read the
title of this present article and immediately say that no such thing as
Landmarkism existed in the colonial days of North America. But I submit that
this present article will demonstrate beyond a doubt to the candid reader that
The Earliest Baptist Churches in America were Independent Sovereign Grace
Landmark Missionary Baptist Churches.
The first Baptist Churches in Colonial America were indeed practicing
Landmarkers, although of course they had no knowledge of that term as it had not
been coined at that early date. This present article will also indicate to the thoughtful
reader that the Welsh Churches – from whence these Colonial Baptist Churches
immediately succeeded – had practiced Landmarkism in their Churches in that
island nation prior to the coming of the Welsh Baptists to North America. And
those who know Welsh Baptist history will be aware of the fact that these Welsh
Baptist Churches must have learned these practices from the apostle to Wales,
for they have a valid claim to having been planted by no less personage than
Paul himself when he made his visit to Britain in
connection with Claudia and Pudens (mentioned in 2 Tim. 4:21). Thus Landmarkism
may with historical evidence logically be seen to be the Scriptural practice of
early Welsh Churches planted by Paul and we dare suggest that these Churches
must have imbibed Landmark principles from that apostle who first taught them
the Word of God.
Before going further let these things be noted: (1) Quotations will be
from the book titled, MINUTES OF THE PHILADELPHIA BAPTIST
ASSOCIATION FROM A.D. 1707 TO A.D. 1807 BEING THE FIRST ONE HUNDRED YEARS OF ITS
EXISTENCE1 I have with diligence copied these several quotations
and published book of minutes without any changes made to them except that I
have highlighted some things for emphasis. (2) This writer does not approve of
the formation of any kind of supra-church or para-church organization whether it
is called an association or something else. (3) It is with the early days of the
Colonial Baptists of North America that we concern ourselves in this article and
not with what this association may have become at a later date – in fact there
is evidence that during the second fifty years of the association’s existence
compromise and a rejection of their earlier principles took place. (4) The
Churches making up this earliest Baptist association in North America were, I
believe, inconsistent in some of their practices: They practiced denominational
communion and they believed in the laying on of hands after baptism as a
requisite for Church membership. There may have been other idiosyncrasies
practiced by them as well. But I believe that it will be demonstrated that these
earliest of Baptists in North America were not only practicing Landmarkers, but
that they were independent, sovereign grace, missionary Baptists as well and
worthy ancestors of independent, sovereign grace, Landmark, missionary Baptist
Churches that exist today both in North America and around the world and that
have descended from them.
INTRODUCTORY CONSIDERATIONS: First of all, let us consider some
interesting and revealing information given about these earliest Baptist
Churches in North America as found in excerpts from the “PREFACE” to the
“MINUTES...” by H. G. Jones. “The
Philadelphia Association originated with churches planted by members from Wales.
Attracted by the freedom of religious opinion established by Penn, they
purchased and settled large tracts of land as early as 1683. ...It” (i.e. the
association – CAP ) “has been favored with the services of many
distinguished ministers – men of eminent piety, solid judgment and finished
education. Among these are found the names of Morgan Edwards, Abel Morgan, John
Gano, Samuel Jones, David Jones, Keach, Griffith, Rogers, Ustic, Holcombe,
Staughton, Brantly and others, who have gloriously fought the good fight” (pp.
3, 4). Notice that those who were organized into these Churches had been members
of Baptist Churches in Wales prior to their coming to North America. Attracted
by the freedom of religion in William Penn’s colony, able and educated ordained
ministers journeyed with non-ordained members to this wilderness region and
settled themselves and were organized into Baptist Churches. In at least one
instance a Baptist Church was organized in Wales for the express purpose of
immigrating to North America together as a Church.
Prior to coming to the actual minutes of the association meetings, some
histories of the Churches are given: some in detail, others are not so specific,
but the information about the Welsh Tract Church is most interesting. “THE
CHURCH AT THE WELSH TRACT, in the County of Newcastle Upon Delaware. This church
was constituted in Pembrokeshire, in South Wales, in the year 1701, at which
time the first members of this church were about to come over into Pennsylvania;
they then, by the advice and counsel of the churches they came from, in
Pembrokeshire and Camathenshire, entered into a church covenant, and state their
number was sixteen persons; and among them was the Rev. Mr. Thomas Griffith, to
be their minister.”
(p.15). So here we have a congregation of Baptists along with
their pastor moving together in Church capacity to Penn’s colony. Other Churches
were organized among these Welsh emigrants after their arrival in the colony.
1. THESE CHURCHES WERE INDEPENDENT BAPTIST CHURCHES: We doubt that any
association can long exist without eventually growing into a monster that uses
political machinations to exercise unscriptural influence or outright control
over the Churches that make up the association, but at least in the first
several years of this association it was clear that these Baptist Churches were
independent and proclaimed this in both word and deed. In an “Essay” written for
the Churches we read: “That an Association is not a superior judicature,
having such superior power over the churches concerned; but that each particular
church hath a complete power and authority from Jesus Christ, to administer all
gospel ordinances, provided they have a sufficiency of officers duly qualified,
or that they be supplied by the officers of another sister church or churches,
as baptism , and the Lord’s supper , &c.; and to receive in and cast out, and
also to try and ordain their own officers, and to exercise every part of gospel
discipline and church government, independent of any other church or assembly
whatever...” (pp. 60, 61). Again they state in the minutes of “1768” the following:
“Some jealousy arising on account of an appeal to the Association,
mentioned pages 100 and 101, it was agreed that the word appeal was not quite
proper, as the Association claims no jurisdiction, nor a power to repeal any
thing settled by any church; but if, before settlement, parties agree to refer
matters to the Association, then to give their advice”
(p.
105).
This independence is further seen in the entry for “1771” where we read:
“3.
The church of Newtown desired the Association to appoint time and ministers to
ordain Mr. Nicholas Cox; the Association reply, that the appointment of both
properly belongs to his church.” (p. 119). Both the selection of ordained men to
help the Church in the work of ordination – i.e. to serve as a presbytery – and
the other details of the proposed ordination were within the authority of the
Church meeting in that place. The association had no authority or right to do
this for the Church! Awful Landmarkism! Surely it shall be sufficient to quote
one more example to show that in “1775” they still maintained
individual Church independence and autonomy. We read as follows: “In
consequence of two letters received from the church at Coram: the first
lamenting their loss of a worthy pastor, Rev. Noah Hammond, requested our
assistance and prayers: the second was expressive of their great satisfaction in
Brother Ebenezer Ward’s visits, and edification under his ministry, which
concludes by desiring this Association to ordain him as an itinerant. Agreed,
That this Association claim no such
right, and therefore, resolved to encourage Mr. Ward to assist said church in
all that he consistently can, until either the church, whereof he is a member,
chooses to have him ordained, or he first becoming a member at Coram, and they
should continue in the same mind, which, if they do, and write for assistance,
we make no doubt our brethren will duly attend to it.” Ordination was the right
of the Churches and not the association. The polity of these Churches
consistently shows them to be independent Baptist Churches!
2. THESE CHURCHES WERE SOVEREIGN GRACE BAPTIST CHURCHES: It should also
be noted that these Baptists stood strongly for the doctrines of sovereign grace
and in that connection regarded themselves to be doctrinally in agreement with
Baptists of earlier times and diverse locations. H.G. Jones testifies to this
fact as follows: “To let the world know how we understand the teachings of the
Holy Ghost in these inspired books, the Association published, in 1742, its
Confession of faith and discipline. This is in substance the same as that of the
ancient Baptists in Poland and Bohemia; and of the Mennonites in Holland, and
the early English and Welsh churches.”
(p.4). Again he writes: “In
every period of its existence the Association has firmly maintained the soundest
form of Scripture doctrine; nor could any church have been admitted, at any
period, which denied or concealed any of the doctrines of grace”
(p.
4). I note that either denying or “concealing” the doctrines of grace would equally
disqualify a Church from this association – would to God that some of our
Brethren who “believe the doctrines” but who do not openly preach and teach them
were so inclined as these old Brothers were! I include next a question sent to
the association for their opinion regarding whether or not an Arminian could be
admitted to the fellowship of a Baptist Church along with the pertinent parts of
the answer given. These are not the words of some biographer, but minutes of
their own meeting and thus the strongest of testimony. “1752- Query from the church at Kingwood: Whether a person
denying unconditional election, the doctrine of original sin, and the final
perseverance of the saints, and striving to affect as many as he can, may have
full communion with the church? Answer: That the very consequence of it opposeth
the absolute sovereignty of God... ...Upon which fundamental doctrines of
Christianity, next to the belief of an eternal God, our faith must rest; and we
adopt, and would that all the churches belonging to the Baptist Association be
well grounded in accordance to our Confession of faith and catechism, and cannot
allow that any are true members of our churches who deny the said principles, be
their conversation outward what it will.” (pp. 68, 69).
3. THESE CHURCHES WERE LANDMARK BAPTIST CHURCHES: The polity of these
Churches was the same as that of today’s Landmarkers as follows: First of all,
in order to form themselves into a Church they required letters of dismission
from the Churches where their membership lay. (They did not believe that a
member could dismiss himself from a Church in order to form a new Church!) In
the section titled, “Important Excerpts from ‘A BRIEF NARRATIVE OF THE CHURCHES
HOLDING BELIEVERS BAPTISM, IN PENNSYLVANIA AND THE JERSEYS,’” we read regarding
“THE CHURCH AT LOWER DUBLIN, in the County of Philadelphia, Province of
Pennsylvania. Mr. Jenkin Jones... was unanimously chosen to be their pastor, and
so continued until the year 1746, when the brethren residing in Philadelphia
requested a dismission from the church at Pennepek, in order to incorporate a
distinct church; which being granted, Mr. Jones was dismissed with the other
city members...” (p. 12). Regarding “THE
CHURCH AT HOPEWELL. Several persons of the denomination of Baptists settled in
and about Hopewell in Jersey; some of them members of the Baptist church of
Middletown, and others members at Philadelphia and Pennepek; and being remote
from those churches, it was thought more for their benefit to be settled in a
church-state by themselves, and accordingly they obtained dismission from the
said churches, and the assistance of their ministers and elders, by the name Mr.
Abel Morgan, Mr. John Burrows, Mr. Griffith Miles, Mr. Joseph Todd and Mr.
William Kinnersly; and on the 22d day of April, 1715, being a day appointed by
fasting and prayer, they entered into a church covenant, and were owned a sister
church, the number of persons being
fifteen or sixteen, as appears by Pennepek Church Book, page 55” (p.17). Awful
Landmarkers these! They went to their respective Churches that had authority
over them as members and obtained “dismission” – read “permission” and
“authority” – and then called upon the ordained ministers and elders of these
previously existing Churches to organize them into a new and distinct Church.
That’s what Landmarkers insist upon today!
To show that this was no single occurrence but the regular practice of
these Baptists we include information regarding “THE CHURCH NEAR BRANDYWINE
...these, on the 14th day of June, Anno Domini
1715, at a meeting for the purpose appointed at the dwelling-house of John
Powell, in Providence aforesaid, in the county of Chester, in the province of
Pennsylvania, having for their assistance and direction the Rev. Mr. Abel
Morgan, of Philadelphia, and some brethren from the church at the Welsh Tract,
were constituted and settled in Gospel church, ordered, and owned, and declared
as a sister church;...” (p.18). And
again we see Landmarkism in the way they started
“THE
CHURCH AT BEHTLEHEM. Several members of the Baptist church at Hopewell having
removed and settled in and about Bethlehem, they the said members, and others
added there, requested a dismission from the church at Hopewell; which, being
obtained, they appointed the 31st day
of July, Anno Domini 1742, to be constituted a distinct church of Jesus Christ,
Mr. Joseph Eaton and others assisting.” (p.20). If further proof of their
Landmarkism is needed, consider the
“1761 MEMORIAL” regarding the Church
near Dividing Creek and how it was constituted: “Whereas,
a number of persons resided near Dividing Creek, in the county of Cumberland, in
the western division of the province of New Jersey, some of whom, members of
Cohansie church, some of Cape May church, and some not of any particular church;
and whereas these lived at a great distance from the said churches, and at the
same time our Rev. brother Samuel Heaton providentially settled at the said
creek; Therefore, the above said persons made applications to their respective
churches for dismission, and leave to form themselves into a distinct church,
both which they obtained. Accordingly, we whose names are under written, being
sent by the church of Cohansie, did meet the said people at their meeting house
on the day above mentioned; and after sermon, laid hands on such persons as had
been baptized, but had not joined themselves to any church: then all gave
themselves to the Lord and to each other by a solemn covenant which they signed;
and were declared by us to be a regular gospel church; and as such we recommend
them to our Association...” (pp. 81, 82). Again, they requested from the
Churches of which they were members “dismission” and “leave” (permission) to form themselves into a distinct Church, having
been previously considered a “branch Church” or what we would today call a
“mission.” Some would argue against Landmarkism saying that they formed
themselves into a distinct church. To any thinking person, understanding that a
Baptist Church is a voluntary organization, it cannot be than another would do
for them what they must do for themselves –
and that is voluntarily agree
together to walk together as a scriptural Church. But first they showed that
they believed in Church authority by each applying to their respective Churches
and obtaining permission and authority to do so – and under the direction of
those “whose names are under written being sent by the church of Cohansie” even
went so far as to sign their Church covenant! Landmarkism in the first degree!
Neither did they believe that a member might capriciously move his
membership to a more distant Church while maintaining his residence in the
vicinity of another Baptist Church. This is clearly seen in the year “1728”
as follows: “2. A query from the church at Montgomery: Whether a church is
bound to grant a letter of dismission to any member to go to another church,
while his residence is not removed? Answered in the negative, we having neither
precept nor precedent for such a practice in Scripture. See Discipline.” (p.
29). My point here is this: it took a letter of dismission for a member to leave
one Baptist Church and be joined to another! Landmarkism!
Secondly these Churches show forth their Landmark colors in that they
rejected non-ordained men and refused to recognize them or their baptisms, etc.,
as valid. In the minutes for the year “1732” we are given the following information: “In the
year 1732, a question was moved: Whether a person, not being baptized himself,
and presuming, in private, to baptize another; whether such pretended baptism be
valid or no, or whether it might not be adjudged a nullity? Resolved. We judge
such baptism as invalid, and no better than if it had never been done.”
(p.33). This is just the thing that makes modern Landmarkers so objectionable to
their religious neighbors! We are called narrow and bigoted and proud and worse
for taking the very same stand that the first Baptist Churches in North America
took – and doubt not that this was the same stand the Welsh Churches learned
from their apostle. That position is that the administrations of men not
ordained by a scriptural Baptist Church are null and void!
Again in “1744” a similar question was put to the association for their advice:
“The
Association convened September 22d, 1744. Query from the church of Bethelehem:
Suppose a person baptized by a man who takes upon him to preach the gospel, and
proceeds to administer the ordinances without a regular call or ordination from
any church; whether the person so baptized may be admitted into any orderly
church. Yea or nay? Resolved: We cannot encourage such irregular proceedings;
because it hath ill consequences every way attending it; it is also opposite to
our discipline. We therefore give our sentiments that such administrations are
irregular, invalid, and of no effect.” (p.49). Here we see that a person
baptized by an un-ordained man was not to be received into one of their
Churches. Awful, awful, bigoted Landmarkers!
Five years later in “1749” a similar question was put to the association with the
same answer. “A query from the church at the Scotch Plains: Whether a
person baptized by one that was not ordained, shall be received into the church,
on the baptism already received; or whether he shall be baptized again, or shall
such abide without the church’s privileges all their days? In answer, we refer
to the solution of the like query, in the year 1744.” (p. 60). Being plagued by
free-lance, bogus “ministers,” in the year “1756”
the association decided to take action against such un-ordained men as follows:
“Concluded,
to publish in a public print, a certain William Leaton, for his irregular
proceedings, in going about under the name of a Baptist minister, when he
neither is, nor ever was, a member in any of our churches, if upon warning given
him, he does not desist.” (p. 74).
In the third place: they believed in and practiced the ordination of
those whom they believed were called to the ministry. This is seen clearly for,
“In
the year of our Lord 1747, the church at Pennepek made choice of the above named
Peter Peterson Vanhorn to officiate among them in the work of the ministry;
and accordingly appointed a day of fasting and prayer, being the 18th
of June, in the year aforesaid.
After solemn prayers to God, and a sermon suitable to the occasion, preached by
Mr. Jenkin Jones, they proceeded to the ordination of the said person, having
called to their assistance their former minister, Mr. Jenkin Jones, and Benjamin
Griffith, John Davis, and Joshua Potts, who, by solemn prayer to God, laid their
hands upon him and afterwards gave him the right hand of fellowship as a
minister of the gospel of Jesus Christ.” (p. 12). Notice that the Church chose
Bro. Vanhorn to be their minister – not the association or the board of deacons
or the pulpit committee or anybody else! Notice also that they fasted and prayed
in connection with this ordination. Today, I fear, many Baptists do not fast and
pray but proceed with their ordinations in connection with feasting and
presumption. But the point is they ordained pastors in the Landmark way with a
presbytery of ordained men called to assist the Church in this work!
In the fourth place, they believed that baptized groups should remain in
mission status when they were too small to be organized into Churches. They did
not use the term “mission” to denote such groups of baptized persons, but called
them “branch Churches,” but the intent was obvious. Consider what they did in
“1772
The people at Woolwich, in Glouchester, requesting to be constituted into a
church, and the ordination of Mr. Locke, were advised from the smallness of
their number, as appears by their letter, to join themselves as a branch to a
neighboring church, until it shall please the Lord to add to their number.” (pp.
124, 125). Several other instances where “branch Churches” are spoken of could
be supplied, but surely one is enough on this point.
In the fifth place, they believed that when a person was baptized, they
were baptized into the membership of the Church authorizing the baptism. This is
seen in that they did not believe in baptizing a person apart from that
person becoming a member of the Church doing the baptizing. We read about this
in the minutes from “1740” where we read as follows: “Query
2 from Piscataqua: Whether it is regular to baptize persons proposing for
baptism, upon the plea that they may be at liberty to communicate where they
please? Answered in the negative. Neimine contra dicente, for these reasons:-
...” and they proceeded to give three reasons for their advice, citing pertinent
Scriptures to back up their views. Awful, awful, awful Landmarkism!
The quotations cited, if read carefully and understood are sufficient to
prove that these people believed and practiced what modern Landmarkers believe
and practice.
4. THESE CHURCHES WERE MISSIONARY BAPTIST CHURCHES: I understand that the
Welsh Tract Baptist Church is now numbered among those who call themselves
Primitive or Old School Baptists who are
really anti-mission Baptists, but she did not start out that way, for the
Churches in this association of which she was a member were properly
evangelistic and mission minded as shall be shown by the following quotes, which
surely require no comment from me. “By the formation of new churches,
this Association extended over Virginia and New York, embracing a distance of
about 400 miles...” (p. 4). “It will be seen also that, from the first, it has been an effective missionary
body. Hundreds of churches have been gathered by the able and self-denying men,
sent out at its expense to regions where no religious privileges had before been
enjoyed.” (p. 5). “This was the first Baptist Association formed in the United
States. From its earliest history it has been forward in the work of Domestic
Missions. The pastors were requested and the churches urged, to be liberal in
aiding them to visit destitute churches and settlements. Morgan Edwards, in
1771, and John Gano, afterwards, were appointed ‘EVANGELISTS
’
and sent into remote regions, especially South, to preach the
gospel, and counsel the feeble churches, and instruct the scattered disciples of
Christ.” (p.6). “With the growth of the body, evangelical efforts have
correspondingly increased, till the world has become its field...” (p.8).
Surely this article has set forth sufficient evidence to prove that the
first Baptists in North America were independent, sovereign grace, Landmark,
missionary Baptists properly organized into New Testament Churches. That being
the case, we ask that those who have left our position and those who disagree
with our position at least be honest enough to admit that today’s independent,
sovereign grace, Landmark, missionary Baptist Churches are only following in the
footsteps of their spiritual forefathers who lived both in North America and in
Wales. Hate and despise us if you will: argue against our position all you wish:
but admit it – Today’s independent, sovereign grace, Landmark, missionary
Baptist Churches continue the faith and practice of their colonial Baptist
forefathers. But more importantly, we believe that we are following biblical
principles, examples and instructions as we walk in the old paths of our Welsh
Baptist forefathers. We think we can do no better than that and that we must so
walk according to the New Testament. |