THE Baptists had many reasons for holding the new reformation in doubt. Its advocates were often intemperate in their use of language and inconsiderate in their use of means against what they believed were erroneous beliefs and customs in Baptist churches. They were indifferent to the consequences of changes they were seeking to bring about in the Baptist order. It was the privilege of every person to apply the principle, "Where the Scriptures speak, we speak; where they are silent, we are silent," and many of the Reformers seemed to vie with each other in the number of novel and absurd changes they could introduce.

      The principle had both a positive and a [154] negative application. It was with respect to the "order of things" in the primitive church that they were chiefly concerned. It was a simpler task to put into practice the ritual precepts and examples of the New Testament than its ethical and spiritual precepts and examples. They were not oblivious of the fact that the New Testament taught a "spirit of things" as well as an "order of things" but they joined issue upon the order. They found that the Scriptures not only spoke of the Lord's supper as being celebrated on the first day of the week, and of baptism as an immersion or burial in water, and of deacons and elders as constituting the official organization of the local church, and of reception of persons into the church upon a confession of their faith and baptism--all of which they put into practice; but they also found that the Scriptures spoke of the holy kiss, of feet washing, of mutual exhortation in public meetings, of the "amen" at the close of prayer, [155] of eating the Lord's supper in the evening, of baptism in streams of water, of kneeling in prayer, of a community of goods, of the silence of women in churches--all of which were tried in various churches in the beginning, but never with the approval of the leaders. These things were regarded as "the circumstantials of Christian worship," which should be treated with freedom and forbearance. The Baptists, however, could not tell where the principle would lead them, for it was capable of endless application and experiment. The churches had not found a common level of belief and practice. They were passing through the experimental stage. While each church was perfectly free and independent, yet there was one master mind, one controlling genius, who was leading them. He spoke through the pages of the Christian Baptist. The mind and personality of Alexander Campbell dominated the entire movement. After he had spoken there was no [156] use for any one else to speak. Through his writings and suggestions in the Christian Baptist he regulated and controlled the conduct of all the preachers and churches. He introduced the widely separated congregations of Reformers to each other, and was the connecting link that bound them together.

      But these Reformers respected the "silence of Scripture" quite as much as the "speech of Scripture." This plunged them into extravagances and extremes in the other direction, much to the annoyance and alarm of the Baptists. Where there was not a "Thus saith the Lord" for a Baptist belief or usage, there was ready a "Thus saith the Reformer" against it, and the Scriptures were made to speak quite as loudly against some things as for other things. One after another the cherished customs and institutions of the Baptist order were swept away, as having no sanction in the word of God, and there was no telling what would go next. There was no [157] precept or example in the New Testament for the use of creeds as bonds of fellowship, or for the examination of converts as to their Christian experience, or for ministerial calls, clerical authority, associations of churches, missionary societies, Bible societies, tract societies or Sunday-schools. Wherever the new reformation prevailed all these things were done away. No wonder it looked like disorganization and anarchy to a Baptist who was not captivated by it. What response but opposition could be expected on the part of a strong, established, and respectable body, such as the Baptist denomination, to the inroads of such lawlessness? Whether in the majority or the minority the faithful among the Baptists stood up in defense of their system. The leading Baptist papers of the country, such as the Western Luminary, the Western Recorder, the Pittsburg Recorder, Columbian Star, and the New York Baptist Register, entered the controversy against Campbell. [158]

      The appearance of his teachings in local churches was the signal for opposition and strife which usually ended in division. Such inquiries as the following began to come from the churches to the associations: "What must a church do with her preacher who has embraced Campbellism?" The association replied: "As we know not what Campbellism is, we cannot tell her what to do." There were many divisions in churches between the Reformers and Baptists from 1824 to 1828 as at Nelson, Ohio, in 1824, and at Salem, Ohio, in 1828; but these resulted in merely local estrangement between two parties, each of which established a church of its own. Such divisions were not long in finding their way into associations. Both parties usually claimed to be the original Baptist church of the place, and sent messengers to the association. The recognition of one party or the other was sure to divide the association. It was the beginning of the end of [159] relationship between Baptists and Reformers when associations began to divide, and pass resolutions against "Campbellism."

      The first association to take definite action against the Reformers was the Redstone of Pennsylvania. A rule had been passed by the Association requiring the churches to mention the Philadelphia Confession in their letters, as a condition of representation in its meetings. In 1825 several churches failed to mention the Confession and their messengers were denied a seat. In 1826, by a reduction of representation in the Association, the opponents of the Reformers organized it out of ten churches and cut off thirteen other churches. These churches cut off from the Association met in November the same year and organized a new association under the name, "The Washington Association." This action was followed by the Beaver Association of Pennsylvania in 1829, and in a series of resolutions it disfellowshipped the Mahoning Association of [160] Ohio, for "disbelieving and denying many of the doctrines of the Holy Scriptures." This Association had come completely under the influence of Mr. Campbell and was going on under the leadership of Walter Scott, triumphantly "restoring the ancient order of things." The Beaver resolutions were as follows:

      "1. They, the Reformers, maintain that there is no promise of salvation without baptism.

      "2. That baptism should be administered to all who say they believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, without examination on any other point.

      "3. That there is no direct operation of the Holy Spirit on the mind prior to baptism.

      "4. That baptism procures the remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit.

      "5. That the Scriptures are the only evidence of interest in Christ.

      "6. That obedience places it in God's power to elect to salvation. [161]

      "7. That no creed is necessary for the church but the Scriptures as they stand. And

      "8. That all baptized persons have the right to administer the ordinance of baptism."

      These resolutions were scattered widely among other Baptist associations, and their boldness gave courage to many who had been waiting for the signal of attack. The Franklin Association of Kentucky passed them without change and warned all the churches against the errors of the Mahoning Association. In June, 1830, Tate's Creek Association excluded the Reformers, passed the Beaver resolutions, and added four more as follows:

      "9. That there is no special call to the ministry.

      "10. That the law given by God to Moses is abolished.

      "11. That experimental religion is enthusiasm. And [162]

      "12. That there is no mystery in the Scriptures."

      They named six preachers in the Association who were accused of these heresies, by which, they said, "We have seen associations thrown into commotion, churches divided, neighbor made to speak evil of neighbor, brother arrayed against brother, the father against the son, and the daughter against the mother." This action was taken by ten out of the twenty-six churches composing the Association, the other sixteen having introduced the reformation. Nearly all the associations of Kentucky took some action with reference to "Campbellism" before the close of 1830, so that the line was pretty sharply drawn between Baptists and Reformers. This was true of Elkhorn, Bracken, Boone's Creek, North District, Union, Campbell County, Russell Creek, South Concord, and others.

      The action against the Reformers spread to Virginia and was led there by two of the [163] most eminent Baptists of the time, Robert Semple and Andrew Broaddus. After passing the resolutions of the Beaver Association, the Appomattox Association at its meeting in 1830, passed the following recommendations:

      "1. Resolved, that it be recommended to all the churches composing this Association, to discountenance the writings of Alexander Campbell.

      "2. Resolved, etc., not to countenance the new translation of the New Testament.

      "3 Resolved, etc., not to invite into their pulpit any minister who holds the sentiments in the Beaver anathema."

      The most significant and influential action was taken by the Dover Association which included in its membership the churches of Richmond and vicinity, and such men as Semple and Broaddus. A very long list of the errors and heresies of Campbell was drawn up and passed by the Association in December, 1830. It was called out of the [164] regular time, the Reformers being omitted, for the purpose of initiating some action against persons in the Association who were preaching "Campbellism." After passing the Association the resolutions were referred to the churches. When they came before Semple's church they were defeated, though both Semple and Broaddus were present. In 1832 the Association withdrew fellowship from six ministers who had adopted the name of Reformers."

      The darkness of the time for Baptist churches in the regions touched by the propaganda was voiced in many sets of resolutions and gloomy reports. The Dover Association at the close of its resolutions recommended to the churches "the observation of a day of solemn humiliation, with fasting and prayer, with reference to the state of religion, and the distress which had given rise to the meeting." The circular letter of the Bracken Association in Kentucky in 1830, begins as follows: "Dear [165] Brethren:--In addressing you at this time, we lament to have to say that a dark and gloomy cloud overspreads our horizon unequalled since the establishment of the Baptist society in Kentucky. Associations and churches are dividing and of course peace and harmony have departed." A very comprehensive account of the state of affairs in Tennessee, from the pen of Mr. McConnico, appeared in 1830. It reads as follows: "My beloved brethren:--Campbellism has carried away many whom I thought firm. These wandering stars and clouds without water ever learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth, make proselytes much more the children of the devil than they were before. O Lord! hear the cries and see the tears of the Baptists; for Alexander hath done them much harm. The Lord reward him according to his works. Look at the Creaths of Kentucky. Look at Anderson, Craig, and Hopwood, of Tennessee. See them [166] dividing churches and spreading discord, and constituting churches out of excommunicated members. Such shuffling--such lying--such slandering--such evil speaking--such dissembling--such downright hypocrisy--and all under the false name of reformation." "They have made divisions in Cool Spring church." "The Association pronounced the old party the church, and excluded Anderson, Craig, and all who had gone off with them." "These were a large minority--they say the majority." "At Lepres Fork church a small party have gone over to Campbellism." "At Big Harpeth church, where I lived and served thirty-two years, ten or twelve members have left us." "At Nashville, P. S. Fall, native of England, and Campbell's best friend, has led off most of that church which was a member of Cumberland Association." "On Saturday before the first Lord's day in September, Willis Hopwood, as is expected, will be excluded and [167] perhaps most of Liberty church will follow him." "Robertson's Fork church, Giles county, will divide, and probably a number will follow Hopwood." "Zion church, Bedford County, I fear, will suffer much from the same new ancient gospel." "Other churches may have some partial sifting." "The calf, too, is set up in Alabama."

      A similar account could be written of the majority of Baptist churches in Western Pennsylvania, Ohio, Kentucky, and Virginia. Very few escaped the influences of the reformation in these districts. As soon as the Baptists had made up their minds that no good would come to their order from the toleration of this new system, that it meant the overturning of customs and beliefs which had made them what they were, a definite policy of resistance towards the Reformers was adopted. They were given no choice between rejection of "Campbellism" and separation from their Baptist [168] brethren. The reformation took them by surprise at first. There were many unmistakably true things in it, and if it could only be restrained within proper bounds, the Baptists thought they could tolerate it. But under success the Reformers grew bold and confident, and under restraint they grew defiant. They felt that they had the truth and that the Baptists needed it; and like a child refusing bitter medicine for its malady, so the Baptists were resisting the truth of the Reformers--the less they liked it, the more they needed it.

      At the bottom of the conflict lay two classes of differences, doctrinal and practical. The doctrinal differences consisted of disagreement as to (1) the relative authority of the Old Covenant and the New. Campbell denied that the Old had any binding obligation on the Christian. Its abrogation seemed to the Baptist a form of antinomianism, if not irreverence. They differed in their (2) doctrine of baptism. [169] Campbell taught that baptism was in some way connected with the remission of sins; and that as far as he could understand New Testament teaching and apostolic practice, baptism should precede entrance into the church or the fellowship of Christian people. He did not give baptism alone regenerating efficacy, but in connection with faith and repentance, it constituted the process of regeneration or conversion. To the Baptists this view made too much of baptism and constituted it a direct means of salvation. In practice both Baptists and Reformers insisted upon it, but in theory they held it differently. They also differed in their view of (3) the operation of the Holy Spirit in conversion. Campbell taught that he operated on the sinner indirectly through the Word of God, the testimony of the Spirit; the Baptists believed that he operated directly upon the sinner, through a direct, physical impact upon his heart and conscience while he was still dead in trespasses [170] and in sins. Both held that the Spirit dwelt in the heart of the believer as his personal guide and comforter. They differed as to his method in constituting one a believer. The Baptists taught that the sinner had need of the Spirit in producing faith and quickening the spiritual life, while the Reformers taught that faith was a faculty already possessed by the human mind, and was awakened towards Jesus Christ by the submission of testimony to his messiahship out of the Scriptures.

      They differed also in many practices. As to the (1) value and use of creeds. The Reformers believed that they were both unnecessary and unscriptural, and the cause of strife and division among Christians. The Baptists used them and believed that they were necessary to keep error out of the church and as convenient summaries of the essential doctrines of the Christian faith. They differed in the (2) method of receiving persons into the church. The Reformers [171] baptized a person upon the confession of his faith in the messiahship of Jesus, and received him without further test into the church. The Baptists required an examination of the person before the officers or the entire church, the relation of an experience which should be acceptable as evidence of a change of heart, and by vote of the congregation admitted him to baptism. The Reformer's haste seemed loose and dangerous to the Baptists, who by inheritance from the past were careful to guard the church from unregenerate persons. They differed in the (3) administration of baptism. The Reformers held that baptism could be validly administered by any believing Christian; the Baptists required the offices of an ordained minister. In (4) the observance of the Lord's supper, the Reformers celebrated it every Sunday, the Baptists only monthly or quarterly. The Reformers held that, in (5) the call to the ministry, the fitness of the person, both morally and intellectually, [172] constituted the call; while the Baptists insisted upon a supernatural summons attested by some spiritual or physical sign. Other differences existed, but these are the ones that were the chief causes of conflict, and made their appearance the most frequently.

      In spite of the differences with the Baptists the Reformers were determined to stay with them, partly because of old associations, and partly because they were conscientiously opposed to divisions. Alexander Campbell had said in 1826: "I and the church with which I am connected are in full communion with the Mahoning Baptist Association of Ohio; and through them with the whole Baptist society in the United States; and I do intend to continue in connection with this people so long as they will permit me to say what I believe, to teach what I am assured of, and to censure what is amiss in their views and practices. I have no idea of adding to the catalogue of new sects. This game has been played too [173] long." He looked upon separation from the Baptists as equivalent to the formation of a new sect. A Baptist said to John Smith: "Why is it that you Reformers do not leave us? Go off quietly now and let us alone." "We love you too well for that," replied Smith. "My brother Jonathan once tried to swap horses with an Irishman, but put, perhaps, too great a price on his horse. The Irishman declined to trade, and by way of apology said: 'It would be a great pity, Mr. Smith, to part you and your horse, for you do seem to think so very much of him.' So we feel towards you Baptist brethren." Each party accused the other of being the cause of the divisions and distresses, but each felt justified in maintaining its position against the other unchanged. The Baptists were sure that so old, well tried, and successful a system as theirs, could not be far wrong; while the Reformers were sure that their system was just a little older, for it went back to [174] the very beginning, and "started where the apostles left off." To the degree that the Reformers urged the Baptists to give up their creeds, their doctrines, and human inventions, to that degree they held on to them and discovered new reasons for holding on. In this controversy as in most controversies, where there is truth and honesty on both sides, and error and prejudice on both sides, it is difficult, if not impossible, to say which side should surrender. In this, as always, it was fought out to the bitter end. Since that time the Baptists have given up their creeds, have modified their Calvinism, their requirements of an examination and experience for membership in the church, and have reduced the authority of associations; while the Reformers as "Disciples of Christ" have given up their opposition to missionary, Bible, and tract societies, salaried clergy, association of churches, have recoiled from the literalism of the authority of primitive [175] precept and example, and above all have sweetened in spirit towards those that differ from them. Such modifications and moderations did not seem possible to the parties in the midst of the conflict. [176]

[TDOC 154-176]