BaptHist.txt


IMPORTANT NOTICE!

The following typescripts contain copyrighted material and may not be reproduced or distributed 
without the copyright holders' permission.

These typescripts are being posted at this web-site on a temporary basis, for research purposes; 
they will be removed within a short while.

===============================================================================================


The Chronicle 
A Baptist Historical Quarterly
Copyright (c) 1940 American Baptist Historical Society
610 Walnut Avenue,
Scottsdale Pennsylvania

Vol. III No. 1
Jan. 1940
[p.10]

The Trials and Triumphs of Western
Pennsylvania Baptists *

William R. Pankey
Pastor, Union Baptist Church, Pittsburgh, Pa.

American Baptist history falls into three periods which correspond with the three periods of our national history. 
First, the colonial period (1620-1776), which was marked by faithful witnessing and bitter persecution; second, the 
period of territorial and national expansion (1776-1865), which was marked by rapid growth through missionary activities; 
third, the period of industrial expansion, from 1865 to the present time, which has been marked by an intensive program 
of evangelism and education. The history of Western Pennsylvania Baptists is a continuous story datinu from the closing 
decade of the first period to this good hour.

In relating the thrilling story of "The Trials and Triumphs of Western Pennsylvania Baptists" this presentation will 
follow three general lines of thought; First, the story of Baptist beginnings in western Pennsylvania prior to 1776; 
second, the origin and history of the Redstone Baptist Association (1776-1832); third, the origin and history of the 
Pittsburgh Baptist Association (1839-1939).

Baptist Beginnings in Western Pennsylvania

Prior to 1692 the vast territory extending westward from the Allegheny mountains was inhabited only by the native 
Indians. In that year the first trader, Arnold Viele, made a journey across the head-waters of the Allegheny river 
from the upper Delaware and Hudson valley, and traveled down the Allegheny and Ohio rivers to the Shawnee Indian 
country, near the Mississippi valley. Upon his return he brought a group of Shawnee Indians who established themselves 
in a village on the upper Delaware river. About the year 1725 they became dissatisfied with the measurement of the 
"walking purchase" of the Penns, and migrated to the Forks of the Ohio where they established several towns.

__________
* Centennial address delivered before the Pittsburgh Baptist Association, First Baptist Church, Pittsburgh, Pa., 
June 7, 1939.


The Chronicle Jan. 1940
[p.11]

Traders from the east soon followed the Indians across the mountains. The winding trails soon became the highways for 
the pioneering settlers and the marching military forces.

The first religious foundations were laid by itinerant preachers who rode horse-back over rugged mountain trails, 
suffering many hardships, in order to minister to the spiritual needs of the new settlers on the frontier. Untold 
dangers lurked by the wayside. Heavy storms and swollen streams never discouraged them in their purpose to plant the 
banner of Christianity in the new settlements.

In an endless procession the oppressed people of the east, disgusted with the unfair Stamp Act of 1765 and the spirit 
of religious intolerance existing there, moved westward in ox-carts and wagons, settling for a while among the quiet 
hills and peaceful valleys of western Pennsvlvania, each family claiming as much land as a man could walk around in 
one day. Those with long legs obviously had a distinct advantage.

In 1768 William Penn made his famous purchase of the area west of Laurel Hill and south of the purchase line between 
Cherry Tree and Kittanning. This vast territory embraced what is today twenty-fotir counties, and was purchased for 
the sum of only $50,000 from the Indians. The way was immediately opened for legal settlements. Land was advertised at 
the rate of twenty-five dollars for one hundred acres. The response was immediate.

About the year 1768 there came into the Redstone country of western Pennsylvania the Reverend Henry Crosbye, pastor of 
the Mount Olive Branch Baptist Church, New Jersey, and the Reverend Isaac Sutton, also from New Jersey. They made their 
journey on horse-back across the mountains to Beesontown (Uniontown), founded bv John Beeson, a Virginia Quaker. Here 
they organized the Great Bethel Baptist Church, November 8, 1770. This was the first church of any denomination to be 
organized in western Pennsylvania. Henry Crosbye probably returned to New Jersey, as nothing more is heard of him in 
this section. The Suttons settled in Greene and Fayette counties, where many of their descendants reside today. There 
were five Sutton brothers, all of whom were Baptist preachers.

Prior to the organization of the Redstone Baptist Association in 1776, the Great Bethel Church was affiliated with 
the Ketocton Btptist Association in Virginia. The old records


The Chronicle Jan. 1940
[p.12]

indicate that the church was located in "Monongahela County Virginia" at the time of its organization. The strict 
discipline of the congregation is to be seen in an entry in the church minutes of October 3, 1829, charging Patrick 
Bradley with "being long absent from the church services, unchristian deportment in laying wagers, and rabbit hunting 
on Sunday."

The main stream of Baptist life in western Pennsylvania flowed down the Mononcraliela valley from Virginia. Numbered 
among these early Virginia pioneers was the distinguished John Corbly. He probably became affiliated with the Great 
Bethel Church upon his arrival on the frontier. In 1773 he assisted in the organization of the Goshen church (John Corbly 
Memorial), the North Ten Mile Church and the Peter's Creek Church. In 1775 he helped organize the Turkey Foot Baptist 
Church, Somerset county.

The story of John Corbly is one of sacrifice and heroisim. Born in Ireland in 1738, he came to America at the age of 
fourteen, settling first in eastern Pennsylvania, but later moving to Virginia, where he was soundly converted under 
the preaching of James Ireland. Shortly thereafter he became a Baptist preacher, and preached with such power that the 
Episcopal Establishment in Virginia considered him worthy of imprisonment, rewarding him shortly thereafter with a 
cell in the Culpeper jail. On the very site of that old jail there stands a thriving Baptist church today. When brought 
into court, John Corbly conducted his own defense, and was acquitted of all charges in 1768, although he suffered much 
abuse and physical violence later.

In 1769 he was a delegate from the Mount Run Baptist Church, Culpeper County, Virginia, to the Ketocton Baptist 
Association, and served as clerk. The next mention of his name in the Ketocton minutes represents him as being a 
delegate from the Redstone country.

About 1770 John Corbly and John Garard established their new homes near the present village of Whitley, Greene County, 
Pennsylvania. The strono, house erected by John Garard became known in history as Garard's Fort. It was here in 1773 
that Corbly assisted in the organization of the Goshen church, becoming its first pastor, and remaining in that capacity 
until his death in 1803, a pastorate of thirty years.

During the American Revolution John Corbly was loyal


The Chronicle Jan. 1940
[p.13]

to the cause of liberty. Being a justice of the peace, he frequently had the Tory traitors arrested and imprisoned. 
In 1777 he arrested sixteen Tories at one time and conducted them personally to Winchester, Virginia, for trial and 
imprisonment.

On Sunday morning, May 2, 1782, deep tragedy struck the Corbly family. While on their way to church services they were 
attacked by the Indians. The baby was snatched from its mother's arms and its brains beaten out against a tree. The 
terrified mother was hacked to pieces trying in vain to hold on to her baby, and was then shot down in cold blood. 
Three other children were also killed. Another daughter was scalped and left for dead, but she recovered and lived 
until she was twenty-one years of age. A son, John, escaped because of the protection of his faithful dog. He later 
became a Baptist preacher in Ohio, where he lived to be eighty years of age. Mr. Corbly's life was spared because the 
slaughter took place while he had returned to his house to get his Bible which had been forgotten.

Twelve years later John Corbly was unjustly accused of giving aid to the whiskey rebellion in western Pennsvlvania. He 
was taken to Pittsburgh and thrown into jail, and in the winter of 1794, with about twenty others, marched on foot 
through mud and snow, under a heavy guard of cavalry, across the mountains to Philadelphia. On the journey Corbly was 
elected chaplain of the group, and preached frequently to the prisoners and guards along the way. Upon their arrival 
in Philadelphia they were brought to trial and immediately acquitted.

John Corbly was known as the ablest preacher of his day. For thirty years he directed the planting of Baptist churches 
in western Pennsylvania. Imprisoned three times and married three times, these experiences of sunshine and shadow 
served only to deepen his spiritual life and magnify his usefulness. Active to the very end, he entered into rest 
June 9, 1803, his funeral sermon being preached by Elder Divid Phillips, pastor of the Peter's Creek Baptist church. 
His mortal remains lie buried in the cemetery within the shadow of the old Goshen church, Whitley, Pennsylvania.

The complete list of Baptist churches established in western Pennsylvania prior to 1776 is as follows: Great Bethel 


The Chronicle Jan. 1940
[p.14]

(1770), Goshen (1773), Ten Mile (1773), Peter's Creek (1773) Pike Run (now extinct, 1775), Turkey Foot (sometimes 
known as the Jersey church, 1775). All of these churches were affiliated with the Ketocton Baptist Association in 
Virginia prior to 1776.

The Redstone Baptist Association

The Redstone Baptist Association was organized at the Goshen church, Greene County, Pennsylvania, October 7, 1776 with 
the following constituent churches: Great Bethel, Goshen, Ten Mile, Peter's Creek, Turkey Foot and Pike Run. John Corbly 
was elected moderator and William Wood was made clerk.

The introductory sermon was preached by James Sutton, pastor of the Ten Mile church. Among the first items of business 
was the presentation and the granting of a request for assistance in the organization of a church at Cross Creek, Brook 
County, Virginia, and also another church at the Forks of the Cheat (now Stewardstown, W. Va.). The committee appointed 
to assist in this important work consisted of John Corbly, William Wood and James Sutton. Before adjournment, the body 
elected William Wood, pastor of the Pike Run church, to preach the introductory sermon at the next annual meeting of 
the Association, to be held at the Great Bethel Church, October 18, 1777.

The Redstone Association was the second to be organized in Pennsylvania, the first being the Philadelphia Association 
in 1707. For about twenty years the body was known as the "Annual Association of Baptists West of the Laurel Hill 
Mountains," and embraced the territory of western Virginia, western Pennsvlvania and eastern Ohio. By 1809 the 
Association had thirty-three churches with 1323 members. Numbered among its preachers the old Redstone Association could 
boast of such spiritual giants as John Corbly, Isaac Sutton, James Sutton, William Wood, Isaac Morris, David Phillips, 
James Estep, William Shadrach, William Brownfield, William Penny, Samuel Williams, Charles Wheeler and others.

The Redstone Association had a continuous history for a period of fifty-six years prior to its death in 1832. Three 
bitter controversies brought about its tragic collapse, and thereby almost destroyed the Baptist cause in western 
Pennsvlvania. The three sparks of heresy that touched off the mighty explosion 


The Chronicle Jan. 1940
[p.15]

concerned the teachings of Alexander Campbell, Sidney Rigdon and the anti-missloiiary Baptists. Let us look at them 
separately.

The Campbell Controversy: In the year 1809 Thomas Campbell organized a group of believers in Washington County, 
Pennsylvania, into what he called "The Christian Association of Washington." He and his son, Alexander, had been 
Presbyterian seceders in Ireland, but had withdrawn from that faith. In 1810 Thomas Campbell applied to the Synod of 
Pittsburgh for recognition of his Association, but the application was refused. The following year members of The 
Christian Association organized a church at Brush Run and on June 13, 1812, Thomas and Alexander Campbell and their 
wives with three other persons were immersed in Buffalo Creek by Elder Matthias Luce, a Baptist preacher of the 
Redstone Association. The following year, 1813, this Brush Run church was received into the Redstone Association. In 
1816 Alexander Campbell preached the annual sermon, -- his famous "Sermon on the Law," which gave grave offence to 
many Baptists and Thomas Campbell prepared the Circular Letter, a treatise on the Trinity which, in contrast to the 
Sermon, was most acceptable to all delegates, ministers and laymen alike.

For the next ten years, the annual meetings of the Redstone Association were torn with bitter dissensions and debates 
over the peculiar doctrines of the Campbells, especially those of Alexander. A climax was reached at the association 
meeting of 1824, held with the old Redstone church, Franklin township. There was a crowd both inside and outside the 
buildings The bitter oratory was pitched on a high key, and feelings ran strong. Finally Alexander Campbell picked up 
his hat and walked out, announcing as he left the meeting that he would continue his address, outside. Making his exit 
from the crowded room, he mounted a nearby stump and resumed his speech. The curious crowd gathered around to see and 
hear, as he declared his doctrine of the necessity of baptism for the remission of sins.

For a decade the Campbellite controversy raged at white heat in the churches of the Beaver Association (organized 1809), 
the Redstone Association and the Mahoning Associcition (Ohio), resulting in the withdrawal in 1826 of some of the 
churches favorable to Campbell. This caused the gradual


The Chronicle Jan. 1940
[p.16]

weakening of the Redstone Association until it ceased to be an active body in 1832, and out of its remnants were 
organized the Monongahela Baptist Association that same year, and the Pittsburgh Baptist Association seven years later, 
in 1839. Thus the Baptists of western Pennsylvania had to start all over again sixty years after the planting of the 
first churches in this area. This was a tremendous handicap from which we have never fully recovered.

The Sidney Rigdon Controversy: Sidney Rigdon was born on a farm twelve miles south of Pittsburgh, near Library, 
Pennsylvania, Februarv 19, 1793. He was baptized by the Reverend David Phillips at the Peter's Creek Baptist Church in 
1817. It is said that some time later David Phillips remarked to a friend "as long as Sidney Rigdon lives he will be a 
curse to the church of Christ."

Through the influence of Alexander Campbell, Sidney Rlgdon secured a call to the First Baptist Church, Pittsburgh, in 
1822. He was a printer by trade, but had obtained irregular ordination in Ohio, and had at one time served as Pastor of 
the Baptist Church at Sharon, Pennsylvania. At the beginning of Rigdon's pastorate at the First Church, Pittsburgh, 
the membership was 113, but a year later it had dwindled to twenty-two,

Before Rigdon had been pastor of the First Church for twelve months he had used his influence in bringing about the 
excommunication of fifteen members because they had protested some of his strange doctrines. These excommunicated members 
soon organized themselves into a group and conducted worship services under the guidance of the Reverend John Winter in 
a small room over a harness shop on Wood street during the winter of 1822-23. Under the skillful guidance of John Winter 
this minority group wrote a carefully prepared letter in which they protested against their exclusion, claiming to be 
the real First Baptist Church of Pittsburgh, and asserted that the majority of the members had departed from the 
principles and doctrines of Baptists, and were no longer a Baptist church, and therefore had neither legal nor moral right 
to the church property. The protest charged Rigdon with teaching (1) that the moral law was abolished by Christ, (2) that 
change of heart consists merely in change of views and baptism, (3) that there is no such thing as a religious experience, 
(4) that preachers should not be paid salaries, but instead


The Chronicle Jan. 1940
[p.17]

the members should bring their possessions and lay them at his feet. He accused the salaried preachers of "milching the 
goats," His reference to members being "goats" instead of "sheep" seemed to irritate the brethren greatly, and they 
declared that Rigdon "took the goats, hide, horns, tail and all."

On October 11, 1823, the church council decided that the minority was right, and were entitled to the church property. 
Rigdon was found guilty of preaching baptismal regeneration and other abominable heresies, and was immediately excluded 
from the church and deposed from the Baptist ministry. His surrender of the church property was without further 
resistance. Had it not been for the courage of a few loyal Baptists who were willing to fight for their faith the mighty 
First Baptist church of Pittsburgh would have been lost to our denomination more than one hundred years ago.

The Anti-Missionary Controversy: About the year 1832 there arose a serious contention in the churches over the question 
of missions. Luther Rice had delivered a strong missionary sermon at the annual meeting of the Redstone Association, at 
the Turkey Foot church, in 1828. Many of the preachers and laymen opposed the movement as being unscriptural. Once again 
the Baptist churches of western Pennsylvania were split asunder, resulting in tremendous spiritual and numerical losses. 
All Baptist progress was stopped for at least a generation while some of the anti-missionary pastors cooled off.

The anti-missionary controversy was so great in the Great Bethel church that both groups claimed the right to the 
property, insisting upon the exclusion of the opposing group. The question was finally settled in court, when the 
missionary group was given the right of the property, and the anti-missionary group was restrained. This is the only 
case I have ever known where a court ruled that a Baptist church must be missionary.

These three controversies did much to weaken the Baptist cause in western Pennsylvania prior to 1839.

The Pittsburgh Baptist Association

The Pittsburgh Baptist Association consisting of six churches with a combined membership of 612 was formed in the First 
Baptist Church, Pittsburgh, October 19, 1839. The constituent churches were Peter's Creek with 95 members,


The Chronicle Jan. 1940
[p.18]

First (Pittsburgh) with 283 members, Forks of Yough (Salem) with 119 members, Deer Creek (now extinct) with twenty-four 
members, Mount Hope (now extinct) with nine members and Second (Pittsburgh) with 82 members. All of these churches were 
in Allegheny County with the exception of Forks of Yough. The only other Baptist church in Allegheny County at that time 
was the church in Allegheny (Sandusky Street church), which had a membership of one hundred and fifty-five.

One hundred years ago the population of Allegheny County was approximately eighty thousand, which meant that one out of 
every 125 persons in the county was a Baptist. Fifty years ago the ratio was one Baptist for every ninety persons in 
the county. At the present time the ratio is approximately one Baptist for every fifty persons in the county, which 
includes the negro Baptists as well.

The first moderator of the Pittsburgh Association was James Estep, pastor of the Forks of Yough church (Salem). The first 
clerk was Zebeon Packard, a member of the First church, Pittsburgh. The opening prayer was offered by Levi Severance, 
pastor of the Mount Hope church (now extinct).

The historical highlights of the past one hundred years can best be evaluated by dividing the century into four periods 
of twenty-five years each. Such a comparative method will give us a true perspective of the important developments in 
each of the four periods.

The First Period (1839-1864): During the first quarter of the century twenty-five new churches became members of the 
Pittsburgh Association, which together with the six original churches, brought the total to thirty-one. During the same 
period ten of the churches were closed or merged, leaving a net gain of fifteen churches, with a total membership of 
2,314, at the end of the first twenty-five years.

The Associational minutes for the first quarter of the century consisted largely of Circular Letters written in the form 
of essays, and dealt largely with questions of doctrine, discipline and temperance. In 1860 a resolution was adopted 
authorizing the clerk to purchase a trunk with a strong lock on it for the safe keeping of the associational records. 
No trace of that historic trunk has ever been found.


The Chronicle Jan. 1940
[p.19]

In 1850 the first negro church, with twenty members, was admitted to membership in the Pittsburgh Association. Eight 
more negro churches later became affiliated with the Association and remained members of the body until 1891 when the 
first negro Association was formed. Three of the negro churches, however, remained in the Pittsburoh, Association 
until 1903.

In 1852 the Association met at McKeesport. At that meeting a joke was circulated among the delegates concerning the 
dignified Samuel Williams, pastor of the First Church, Pittsburgh. It appears that Mr. Williams was a noted 
controversialist on the subject of infant baptism, denouncing it whenever he could in severe terms. In view of the fact 
that the Associational meeting was held on Sunday, the visiting pastors were invited to occupy the pulpits of the 
McKeesport churches that morning. Mr. Williams accepted the invitation to preach at the First M. E. Church. After he 
had taken his seat in the pulpit the Methodist pastor announced that he had a special service to perform prior to the 
sermon, and, upon invitation, twenty-three babies, in their parents' arms, were ranged in front of the pulpit, and the 
rite of sprinkling administered.

In 1856 the delegates to the Association unleashed a great deal of high sounding oratory in behalf of the new Western 
Seminary at McKeesport. This was the first attempt to establish a Baptist Academy for higher culture west of the 
Allegheny mountains. Lack of financial support soon made it necessary for the school to close its doors.

In 1862 a special committee on Sunday school work was appointed, and the following year the Sunday School Convention 
became a reality. The same year witnessed the beginning of a definite movement in behalf of local missions. The first 
twenty-five years was therefore a period when permanent foundations were being laid.

The Second Period (1864-1889): During the second quarter of the century forty-five new churches were admitted to 
membership in the Association, while twenty-one were closed or merged, leaving a net gain of twenty-four churches for 
the period, with a total membership of 5,838, which was slightly more than double the membership at the close of the 
first quarter.


The Chronicle Jan. 1940
[p.20]

In 1865 the Association passed a resolution authorizing the establishment of a Baptist Book Store in Pittsburgh. Shortly 
thereafter such a store was opened at 11 Fifth Avenue Pittsburgh, with F. G. Reineman in charge. Within a few years the 
store was closed because of inadequate financial support.

In 1866 the day of the annual meeting of the Association was changed from Sunday to Tuesday because of criticism coming 
from the churches that pastors should not be away from their own pulpits on the Sabbath.

In 1868 there was a heated debate over the question of distributing uniform statistical blanks to the churches for their 
convenience in sendino, in their annual reports. Some thought that this proposal was an infringement on the independence 
of the local church. The resolution was passed however by a substantial majority.

Again in 1868 the constitution of the Association was revised. The old one was pronounced defective. The new one has 
proved equally as defective inasmuch as we have been revising it ever since. It ought to be nearly perfect by now.

In 1871 the Association adopted some very flattering resolutions in praise of "The Mount Pleasant Institute." This was 
the second attempt to establish a permanent Baptist school in western Pennsylvania.

In 1873 the First and Union churches, Pittsburgh, entered into an agreement of merger, and in the property settlement 
the Association came into possession of $10,000.00, which was the beginning of its Permanent Fund. This Fund has been 
increased by substantial gifts from time to time.

In 1874 the Association adopted resolutions recommending the formation of Women's Missionary Circles in all the churches. 
This plan has produced fruitful results throughout the years.

Beginning about 1875 a religious journal was published in Pittsburgh called "The Baptist Witness." Lack of financial 
support brought about the early collapse of this noble experiment.

On June 4-5, 1889, the second quarter of the century was brought to a close with a special program in observance of the 
fiftieth anniversary of the Association. This celebration took place in the Fourth Avenue church, Pittsburgh. 
James K. Cramer 


The Chronicle Jan. 1940
[p.21]

preached the annual sermon. The Hon. A. B. Campbell was moderator.

The Third Period (1889-1914): During the third quarter of the centurv sixty-three new churches were organized, while 
twenty-five were closed or merged, leaving a net gain of thirty-eight churches with a total membership of 15,979, which 
was about triple the membership at the beginning of the quarter.

The two outstanding achievements of the third quarter of the century were the developments along the lines of evangelism 
and foreign speaking organization. No similar period in the entire history of the Association has shown greater expansion 
and growth. A growing spirit of evangelistic passion and missionary vision characterized the churches.

Shortly after 1890 there was considerable agitation in favor of dividing the state of Pennsylvania into two bodies, east 
and west, for missionary purposes. On October 1, 1891, there was held in Pittsburgh a conference of western Pennsylvania 
Baptist Churches to consider the wisdom of such action. No practical results cai-ne from the conference however.

In 1893 a resolution was adopted by the Association authorizing the young people to proceed with plans to organize 
themselves into a B. Y. P. U. of the Pittsburgh Association. This was the beginning of their organized work.

In 1897 the Pittsburgh and Allegheny Baptist Union extended an invitation to Northern Baptists to hold their annual May 
Meeting in Pittsburgh. The invitation was accepted.

In 1900 a resolution was adopted requesting all future preachers of the annual sermon before the Association to discuss 
some of the practical phases of Christianity along with their discussions of doctrinal questions. Some of the delegates 
had evidently been seen sleeping during that part of the program.

In 1904 the four missionary and trust societies of the Association were merged into one body, under the name "The 
Pittsburgh Baptist Association."

Beginning about 1900 a great number of foreign-speaking people began to move into the Pittsburgh district. The Pittsburgh 
Association was quick in its response to this new challenge. Mission stations and chapels were erected to minister to 
their religious needs. Some of these missions have since


The Chronicle Jan. 1940
[p.22]

developed into strong churches. Others have been closed because of the shifting currents of population.

From 1900 to 1907 the Reverend W. E. Pritchard served the Association as the Superintendent of Missions. In 1908 the 
Reverend Henry G. Gleiss began his leadership of the Association as Corresponding and Financial Secretary, serving until 
1917. During the first year of his administration more than two thousand new members were added to the churches, the 
majority of whom were received by baptism. It soon became necessary to employ an Associational evangelist to assist in 
this evangelistic crusade. Many of the strongest churches in the Association today were organized under the administration 
of Mr. Gleiss.

In 1909, upon the recommendation of the Pittsburgh Baptist Ministers Conference, the Association organized a Permanent 
Council to examine and recommend for ordination to the Christian ministry all candidates who were deemed worthy. In 
recent years the Association has co-operated with the Northern Baptist Convention in establishing definite and uniform 
standards of ordination.

Also in 1909 we witness the beginning of the Daily Vacation Bible School movement in the Association, organized under the 
leadership of the Reverend E. A. Harrar, who was at that time pastor of the Homewood church, now of the First Church, 
Camden, New Jersey.

The Fourth Period (1914-1939): The fourth quarter of the century embraces the past twenty-five years. It is difficult to 
evaluate the events of this period because we have been a part of it ourselves. The Reverend John A. Erbe is the only 
active pastor in the Association who was listed twenty-five years ago. All the other Pastors in the Association began 
their pastorates since that date. It has been a period of moral collapse, spiritual depression, false prosperity, social 
upheavals, economic reverses and devastating pessimism.

During the past twenty-five years there have been only three new churches organized in the Association, while at the 
same time twelve have been closed or merged, which is a net loss of nine churches. If we continue at that rate there will 
be only thirty-eight churches left in the Association one hundred years from now, and none left two hundred and 
twenty-five years from now.


The Chronicle Jan. 1940
[p.23]

During the past one hundred years a total of 142 churches have been affiliated with the Pittsburgh Association, of which 
number sixty-eight have been closed or merged or dropped from membership, leaving seventy-four, with a combined 
membership of approximately twenty thousand, with which to begin the second century.

The two greatest achievements of the past quarter of the century have been along the lines of Christian education and 
social service. In 1919 the Association employed the Reverend A. J. R. Schumaker as Director of Christian Education, who 
served until 1928, arousing the churches to see the great importance of Sunday school work. In 1925 Miss Helen Darby was 
put in charge of Christian Americanization work, which had been started so auspiciously by Miss Meta A. Stephens. Under 
Miss Darby's able leadership this work has been expanded so that it now embraces Morals Court work as well.

Also in 1919 the Reverend W. C. Chappell became Executive Secretary of the Association. serving until 1932. During his 
administration the churches were urged to erect parsonages for the pastors. A survey in 1923 disclosed the fact that of 
the eighty-two churches, only thirty-four of them had a parsonage. Of the seventy-four churches in the Association today, 
forty of them have a parsonage.

In 1922 the Association authorized the establishment of a Christian Center at Rankin, Pennsvlvania. Dr. Chappell took a 
great interest in the developing of this worthy home mission project.

The years from 1924 to 1930 witnessed an extensive church building program. Many of the churches erected new houses of 
worship and were left "holding the bag" following the financial panic of 1929. Within the past two years some of these 
congregations have emerged with a sense of victory.

In 1930 the Reverend David W. Witte became Director of Christian Education, which position lie has filled until the 
present time. Shortly after he took office the Sunday school enrollment reached the highest peak of the century. Under 
his direction a vital program of leadership education has likewise been projected. For the past several years Pittsburgh 
has consistently led all the cities of the Northern Baptist Convention in the number of Leadership Training Certificates 
awarded 
   

The Chronicle Jan. 1940
[p.24]

each year. This excellent program will bear fruit in the churches for many years to come.

In 1932 the Reverend Lester W. Bumpus became Executive Secretary on a half-time basis, devoting the other half of his 
time to the Baptist Orphanage and Home Society of Western Pennsylvania. He has served in this dual capacity until the 
present time. This arrangement has made it necessary for him to devote the greater part of his time to the routine duties 
in the Association office. Consequently very little time is available for field work among the churches. This situation 
isobviously not his fault, but rather that of the schedule bywhich he is employed. The time seems to be near at hand when 
the Association will again see the wisdom of employing a full-time Executive Secretary to promote and advance the Baptist 
cause in this area. We cannot hope to move forward until that has been done.

Within the past seven years we have come to look upon our multiplied Associational activities as a united program of 
work. To that end the Board of Directors has been reorganized with official representation from every department of the 
Association. The confusion and overlapping of programs has thereby been avoided.

Another important advance of the past several years has been the formation of a Committee on Pastoral Changes, which has 
sought to co-operate with all pastorless churches in the calling of new pastors. The committee does not in any way 
interfere with the independence of the local church in the calling of a pastor, but is often in a position to make 
helpful suggestions, thereby saving the church much heartache in the future. In my judgment this committee should consist 
of not less than five of our ablest and wisest pastors, together with the Executive Secretary and the Director of 
Christian Education.

Still another important development during the past several years has been the monthly Baptist broadcast over station 
KDKA. In spite of the fact that some individuals have attempted to minimize the importance of these broadcasts, they yet 
afford an excellent opportunity for inspirational messages and music, the o-ood results of which can never be fully known
or estimated. One indication of their value is the fact that following the recent centennial broadcast I received 118 
letters,


The Chronicle Jan. 1940
[p.25]

cards and telephone calls, exclusive of those from my own congregation. I am also informed that one of the listeners to 
that program was a Methodist preacher who was so favorably impressed and stirred that he immediately expressed his desire 
and intention of seeking ordination papers in the Baptist denomination. I hope the broadcast may be continued next fall.

During the past twenty-five years the churches of this Association had a grand total of 568 pastors, which means that 
the average pastorate has lasted only about four years. This indicates a spirit of restlessness among the preachers and 
the congregations. Such a schedule of short and sometimes stormy pastorates is suicidal to the churches and the Kingdom 
of God. The hope of the future lies largely in long and stable pastorates.

Another distressing fact emerges from the records of the past twenty-five years. Between 1914 and 1939 the churches 
reported 20,289 baptisms and 15,838 erasures and exclusions from their memberships. This means that out of every one 
hundred members we have baptized we have lost seventy-eight by erasure or exclusion. As we have opened the front doors 
of our churches we have at the same time forgotten to close the back doors. We have been successful evangelists but we 
have utterly failed as pastors and teachers. We have played the role of cowboys rather than shepherds. The Deacons and 
Sunday School teachers have been equally as guilty as the pastors in this respect. They have become afflicted with a 
deadly spiritual paralysis. Our greatest need as we enter the new century is the rekindling of the fires of a mighty 
spiritual revival in every church.

As we stand tonight at the portal of this new century of Associational activity let us gird ourselves with the armor of 
faith and the breastplate of righteousness! The challenge of the hour is upon us. We have the message that the world 
needs, and the Saviour that it wants. "Let us not become weary in well-doing", but "look unto the hills from whence 
cometh our strength," for "the harvest truly is great and the labourers are few."

-----

"It is a law in the spiritual realm as well as in the natural that added responsibility is given to the faithful." 
Rev. F. Robinson, Australia.



=========================



The Chronicle 
A Baptist Historical Quarterly
Copyright (c) 1940 American Baptist Historical Society
610 Walnut Avenue,
Scottsdale Pennsylvania

Vol. V. No. 3
July 1942
[p.133]


The Redstone Baptist Association of
Western Pennsylvania


James A. Davidson, Ph.D.

The strongest and most influential religious body west of the Allegheny Mountains in the last quarter of the 
eighteenth century and the early part of the nineteenth was the Redstone Baptist Association. For thirty years 
it was the only Baptist Association west of the mountains, and included the territory now covered by the Monongahela, 
Ten Mile, Pittsburgh, and Beaver Association in Pennsylvania, and the Goshen and Panhandle Associations in 
West Virginia, and reached as far west as parts of Eastern Ohio. The Philadelphia Association was organized in 1707. 
Redstone, therefore, was the second Association organized in Pennsylvania, and it far outstripped the older body 
in numbers and in the ability of its ministers, [1] until a premature and abnormal decline in its activities and 
influence brought what might have been a glorious chapter of American Baptist history to a dismal close. After nearly 
seventy years of history, this great body ceased to exist, and the center of Baptist work gradually shifted from 
Uniontown to Pittsburgh. Out of the Redstone Association the following Associations were organized: Beaver (1809), 
Monongahela (1832), and Pittsburgh (1839).

The Redstone Association was constituted October 7th, 1776, at the Goshen Baptist Church in Greene County, six years 
after the first church west of the mountains was organized. Six churches were charter members of the Association, 
namely: Great Bethel (1770), Gosben (1773), Tenmile (1774), Turkeyfoot (1774), Pikerun (1774), and Yough (1774). 
Many of the representatives at the first meeting were pioneers who were moving west from New Jersey and Virginia with 
their families (occasionally with slaves), who settled in the fertile valleys of Greene County. After a time many of 
them moved farther west into Kentucky and Ohio, taking their church letters with them. The Redstone churches therefore 
did not grow out of the evangelistic efforts of the early ministers alone, but were composed chiefly of Baptists who 
migrated from the east. The leaders at Redstone who had taken part in association meetings east of the mountains 
directed the first meetings in the customary way. Reverend John Corbly, who had been the clerk of the Ketocton 
Association in Virginia, was elected the first moderator, and William Wood, clerk. The organizational meeting proceeded 

__________
[1] O. J. Sturgis, Early BaptiSt Churches in Southwestern Pennsylvania, p. 25.


The Chronicle July 1942
[p.134]

with an introductory sermon delivered by Rev. James Sutton, who had migrated from New Jersey. A business session 
followed. Problems of mutual concern among the churches were discussed, and special issues were presented in the form 
of "Queries," such as, "In what state did Adam stand in Paradise, whether be partook of the Divine nature or not?" 
and "Did Christ die spiritually?" [2]

The first constitution mentioned was adopted in 1809, and it is reasonable to assume that a similar one was adopted 
at the first meeting. It had sixteen characteristic Baptist declarations.

It was voted at the first meeting to hold the annual meetings at Goshen, but the 1777 meeting was gathered at 
"Great Bethel, Monongalia County, Virginia." [3] Thereafter the annual meetings rotated among the constituent churches. 
Ten churches were represented at the second meeting of the Association; The Forks of the Cheat, Simpson's Creek, 
George's Creek, and Cross Creek churches were added to the list.

At the end of five years the Association had grown from six to thirteen churches, which represented a total membership 
of one hundred and ninety-five. Only fourteen delegates attended the fifth meeting of the body. Each church presented 
for the first time a letter indicating the number of persons baptized, received by letter dismissed, excluded, deceased, 
and the total membership. The custom continued thereafter. By the year 1794 there were twenty-four churches in the body 
which represented three hundred and forty-five members. The minutes of the meeting in 1800 show a total of over five 
hundred members divided among thirty-four churches. After the turn of the century, the Baptists of this area began to 
grow more rapidly and in 1808 there were seventy churches with over fifteen hundred members. Theological disputes began 
to appear among the ministers at about this time, which divided the churches and hindered the progress of the work until 
the membership had fallen to one thousand and thirty-nine by 1813.

The Beaver Association was organized in northwestern Pennsylvania and Ohio in 1809 with churches which were too far 
awayfrom the Redstone Association to maintain fellowship. The new association did not affect the other body in any 
appreciable manner

Several outstanding controversies swept through the churches

__________
[2] 2 Minutes of the Redstone Baptist Association, 1776.
[3[ For several years the settlers did not know whether they lived in Pennsylvania or Virginia, The extension of 
the Mason and Dixon Line settled the question.


The Chronicle July 1942
[p.135]


with devastating force after 1813. These included the Mormon movement, of which Sidney Rigdon of the First Baptist 
Church of Pittsburgh was a leading figure; the Disciples' schism, headed by Thomas and Alexander Campbell, and the 
Missionary controversy. The Association was finally divided, and its energies dissipated. After the Disciples' schism, 
which came to a climax in 1827, and the Missionary dispute out of which the Washington Association grew in 1826, 
the Baptist cause continued to lose ground within the bounds of the Association until 1836, the last year the minutes 
were published. Only twelve churches sent delegates to this meeting, which represented a total constituency of four 
hundred and twelve persons. The Brush Run Baptist Church, with which the Campbells were connected, had been admitted 
into the Association in 1815, and was excluded in 1824. Other exclusions followed as the churches began to doubt the 
theological soundness of sister churches.

The activities of the Association were numerous and varied. Its chief duty was to act in an advisory capacity in 
helping the individual churches deal with certain routine problems. In the minutes of 1780 the following example of 
helpful admonition is found:

Resolved by the association for to recommend to the serious consideration of the 
several churches to which we stand connected the following few, but necessary, 
things to be put in practice, Viz: (1) That there be men chosen and appointed to 
the office of elders and deacons among you that they may take the several charges 
upon them that do devolve upon such according to the order of the gospel church, 
that those who labor in the word and doctrine be somewhat freed from the incumbrances 
and disadvantages which without their assistance they must necessarily labor under.... 
(2) We would recommend to you the necessity of appointing stated times as may seem 
convenient to the state and circumstances of the church to have the ordinances of 
the gospel administered unto them.... (3) We further exhort you to examine well 
all those you receive in the fundamental doctrines of our holy profession, that 
none be suffered to creep into our churches... that are enemies to any of the previous 
truths which we hold and endeavor to maintain. (4) We would have you give diligent 
heed to the exhortation of the great apostle, that those who are weak in the faith,
 you are to receive.... that they may become perfectly acquainted with those things 
that tend to the Christian comfort and consolation while in this howling wilderness.... 
These few hints we leave with you, and the blessing of God for Christ's sake. Amen.

The churches were advised by the Association that children should be instructed in the principles of religion, and 
that children


The Chronicle July 1942
[p.136]

might be prayed for in public worship services. [4] Days were often set aside for "Humiliation, fasting and prayer" to 
be observed by members of the churches. After the close of the War of 1812, "a day of Thanksgiving for the restoration 
of peace to our land," and for "the bountiful production of the earth" was set aside. [5] Disciplinary problems of 
individual churches were presented often to the Association for solution. The churches were advised upon "The necessity 
of Discipline to the Growth and prosperity of the churches." [6] The circular letter for the year 1819 further stated 
that "By the term (discipline) we intend the proper exercise of all those duties which Christ the great shepherd of his 
flock requires of them for their comfort and edification in the truth."

When the local church was split by dissensions the Association was often ca4led upon to arbitrate, as in the case of 
Sidney Rigdon, the Mormon leader who for several years was pastor of the First Baptist Church, [7] Pittsburgh, and 
the schism which occurred in the Great Bethel Church over theological issues. In the latter instance, the Association 
sought to determine which division of the church was entitled to the church property. The case was brought finally 
before the civil courts for settlement. [8] The Campbell controversy was a matter of associational concern and the 
schism actually occurred at the annual meeting of that body in 1827.

The most important function of the Association was the Annual meeting, held usually on the Saturday before the first 
Sabbath in October. Each church was allowed to send three voting delegates with a written report from the church. The 
first three meetings were of one day duration. The 1780 meeting covered three days opening in the afternoon on Friday 
before the first Lord's Day is October. After 1796 the Annual Meeting usually, covered three days. The purpose of the 
meetings was stated in 1825 in the following resolution:

Resolved, that meeting of the churches by their delegates is of special use. 
1st. To gain acquaintance with, and knowledge of one another. 2nd. To preserve 
uniformity in faith and practice. 3rd. To detect and discountenance heresies. 
4th. To afford assistance and advice in all difficult cases. 5th. To contribute 
pecuniary aid when necessary. 6th. To afford supplies for destitute 

__________
[4] Minutes of the Association, 1781, p. 13.
[5] Ibid., 1781, p. 14.
[6] Ibid., 1819.
[7] Ibid., 1823, p. 3.
[8] Ibid., 1836, p. 4,


The Chronicle July 1942
[p.137]

churches, & every way advance & secure the interest of religion, and strengthen 
and draw closer the bonds of union and fellowship.

The meetings were workers' conferences to which were brought problems and suggestions. It was customary for certain 
ministers to be selected to go outside of the church in which the meetings were held and preach to the people who 
gathered. A note in the minutes of 1810 indicated that "While the representatives transacted the business, the preachers 
went outside and preached to the people. Sermons delivered in the vicinity by the ministering brethren in a number 
of places this evening."

The individual congregations were informed of the activities of the Annual Meeting by the delegates, and by circular 
letters sent from church to church. After 1800, the minutes were printed and distributed. The Circular Letter took 
many forms. Often it was an evangelistic sermon, or a warning against entanglement with the evils of the day, or a 
scathing denunciation of certain unworthy ministers, or doctrinally unsound persons in their midst, or a call to 
greater seriousness in the work. The form depended upon the particular need of the time.

After the Association was organized each new church applying for membership was examined, as to seriousness and doctrine, 
and admitted into the body by vote. No church or delegate not a member of the body was allowed to have a part in the 
business meetings without special permission from the body. When the Campbell controversy came to a climax, it became 
the duty of the Association to exclude from its fellowship churches which were found to bold spurious doctrines. In 1826, 
the Washington and Pigeon Creek churches were excluded, together with Brush Run, the principal Campbell church. In the 
same year, Big Whitely (or Goshen), having had a schism among its members, was excluded, as both wings of the division 
were unorthodox. The most extreme use of power by the Association is found in the minutes of 1826 when Big Whitely was 
declared extinct. During this period of controversy, each church was required to declare its faith in the annual letter 
to the Association, and the annual letters of churches refusing to comply to this demand were not published in the 
minutes.

At practically every associational meeting, requests came for ministerial supply from some struggling congregation. 
At the very first meeting in 1776 "A Request from the Forks of the Cheet for ministerial supply was granted, and 
Reverend Brother James Sutton appointed to attend there the third sabbath in this instant." These


The Chronicle July 1942
[p.138]

small congregations became mission stations, the responsibility for which was shared by the local Baptists and the 
Association until the churches grew sufficiently strong to support themselves. The first six churches were constituted 
by ministers who came from the east and Virginia. After the formation of the Redstone Association, new churches were 
organized under the supervision of the Association. A typical example is found in the minutes of the first meeting. 
"A request from Cross Creek for the constitution of a church. Granted. And our brethren John Corbly and William Wood 
appointed to officiate in constituting the said church." These new churches continued to function under the care of the 
Association until they were able to proceed alone. Many of the small churches were not able to support a minister on 
the field and requested ministerial supplies from the other churches. This usualy was granted. In 1802 it was thought 
wise to send ministers to visit successively the constituent churches of the Association in order to aid the weaker 
ones. It was resolved at that meeting that any minister free to do so might visit the churches. A plan was then 
adopted to provide financial support for "a missionary or two within certain limits to be agreed upon by the churches 
and people in connection."

The plan was enthusiastically welcomed by the churches and the Association recommended that the churches make 
contribution "to defray the expenses of travelling abroad to preach the gospel in destitute places within the bound 
of this association." This small beginning led the Association into enthusiastic home and foreign missions enterprises 
as the years passed.

The Association aided the local churches in ordaining, educating, and conferring with the ministry. When a young man 
desired to "exercise his gifts" his own church examined him, heard him present an exhortation, and if he were considered 
worthy and promising, he would be given a license to preach by vote of the church The Association, after due trial of 
the candidate proceeded with his ordination. Typical examples are found early in the records of the Association.

A request from the church at Cross Creek for the ordination of William Taylor over that church as pastor was read. 
4th. Resolved that our brethren William Wood, John Corbly and John Whittaker be appointed to consider his talents, 
and to act agreeable to their results, and the said church to appoint the time for performing their resolution, and 
to give notice to the messengers.


The Chronicle July 1942
[p.139]

The duties and privileges of the preacher often were specified in resolutions passed in the business meetings. Queries 
concerning the relationship of the minister to his church, community, and state were answered as in the following 
cases from the minutes of 1777:

Query 9th. What is the relationship of a minister to his church. 
Ans. Brotherhood.

Query 3. What rule shall our i-ninisterial brethren observe in 
marrying. Either by publication or not? 
Ans. By legal publishing.

Query 4th. Is it rioht for a minister of the gospel to take part 
in state affairs? 
Ans. No.

Query 6th. Has a minister or ministers any right to ordain a minister 
over a Church before he first becomes a member of that church? 
Ans. In the negative.

Query 7th. Is it agreeable to order for an elder (minister) to accept 
a military commission? 
Ans. Yes.

Query 8th. Should a candidate for the ministry accept a call from a 
church, his wife (a professor) being not willing? 
Not ansd.

Irregularities among ministers concerned the Association. A minister who persisted in procedures pronounced unlawful 
by the Association was excluded from its fellowship. A query was presented in the 1781 meeting: "Is it lawful for 
a minister to marry a man or woman in his wife's or husband's life time? Ans. No." "Ought such ministers to be held 
in fellowship without giving satisfaction? Ansrd. No." Another query asks, "What shall be done to a minister, a member 
of this Association that does not observe regularity in marriage? Ans. The several churches are enjoined not to wink 
or connive at their minister's irregularity in respect of marriage."

The Association sought to caution the churches regarding ministers of doubtful standing who came through the country 
preaching wherever they could secure a hearing. Such a warning was sent to the churches in 1797:

Whereas of late sundry persons pretending to be Baptist ministers have 
taken upon themselves to travel into this part of the country and preach 
where they could get admittance and whose characters are a reproach to the 
religion we profess, we therefore earnestly recommend the several churches 
to be very cautious in admitting strangers to preach among them, except 
they come well recommended, or have satisfactory credentials.

The difficulty continued and in 1803 the Association "Being sensible that the churches are liable to be imposed upon 
by designing men" requested the churches to require of travelling preachers


The Chronicle July 1942
[p.140]

satisfactory credentials. It also requested the churches to give their ministers proper credentials.

When necessity arose, impostors were named, described and condemned as in the following case:

On information relative to the character of John Johnson calling himself 
a Baptist minister, about 5 ft. 5 inches high, somewhat fleshy, light hair 
and complexion, (his language partakes of the Welsh and Scotch dialect) 
Resolved, that the churches in our connexion, do esteem him an impostor.

Although the Redstone Association was an entirely independent body, it maintained the position that it was a part of 
a great denomination which labored in many lands. Early it felt the necessity of contacting regularly and reporting 
progress of work to other associations in America and abroad. At the end of the first year of its existence, the 
Association sent messengers to the "Virginia Association," presumably the Ketocton Association, from which many of 
the Baptists had come. In 1778, at the second annual meeting messengers from the Ketocton Association were received. 
The churches were asked to provide one dollar each to send John Corbly as messenger to the Virginia Association in 1788. 
The custom of personal contact among the associations through visiting delegates continued through the years, and was 
the most direct and satisfactory means of communication between the Baptists of different sections of the country. In 
1829 the Redstone Association sent two official messengers to the meeting of the Baptist General Association of 
Pennsylvania held at Milesburg, Center County.

Another method of contact with outside bodies was the corresponding letter which was sent to distant associations when 
it was impossible to send a messenger. Record of the corresponding letter is first found in the minutes of the 
Association for 1803, when Benjamin Jones, M.A. was appointed to prepare such a letter to the Philadelphia Association, 
"to request the Philadelphia Association to correspond with us." So pleasant and valuable was such a contact with other 
Baptist bodies that they would have been glad "were it practicable, to extend our correspondence to all the Associations 
in the United States, and throughout the world." Letters and Associational minutes from various associations were 
received often with visiting messengers.

The Association had relations with other denominations only through the individual churches, and it was a matter of 
doctrine or church polity that such should be the case.



=========================



The Chronicle 
A Baptist Historical Quarterly
Copyright (c) 1940 American Baptist Historical Society
610 Walnut Avenue,
Scottsdale Pennsylvania


Vol. XIV. No. 4
Oct. 1951
[p.147]

The Anti-Missionary Controversy Among Baptists

Ira Durwood Hudgins

The ideal of congregational independence as the basis of denominational unity is not without its price. The lack of an 
authority to resolve differences between the churches is an invitation to schism and division. The Baptists learned that 
lesson in the second quarter of the nineteenth century. Between the years 1813 and 1845 missionary-minded leaders set 
into operation a central society for the promotion of foreign missions. That organization was soon augmented by missionary 
publications, a tract society, some mission organizations, and theological seminaries. Opposition to these innovations 
soon manifested itself and in time became so vehement that churches and associations were helplessly divided.

The reactionary conservative group withdrew into a shell of exclusiveness and proceeded to organize its own churches 
and associations. They were known by such various names as Anti-Means, Anti-Effort, and Hard Shell Baptists.  Assuming 
to maintain the true Baptist tradition the conservatives preferred the names Old School, Primitive, Predestinarian, 
and Regular Baptists. [1]

From the first skirmish to the final division there occurred endless debate in which each side endeavored to prove it 
was the true descendant of the primitive Baptists. "We ask the community to contrast the course of those Apostles and 
pioneers with that of the advocates for the modern inventions of men to evangelize the world and determine who are Old 
School Baptists," wrote Elder Thomas P. Dubley [2] The missionary-minded were too enthusiastically engaged in foreign 
missions to await history's verdict on that question. The opposition was too adamant to tolerate their further 
fellowship. There was no balm in Gilead to heal the disaffection; no pope to legislate. Division was the final answer.

Standing behind the breastworks of theological purity and firing shots of Biblical authority, the opposition waged an 
effective warfare against the new program and its agencies. On this ground it has been assumed that the controversy was 
anti-missionary in nature and theological in source. There is reason to believe, however, that the differences between 
the two were not basically anti-missions 


The Chronicle Oct. 1951
[p.148]

nor the source primarily theological. It is the purpose of this paper to delve into the controversial materials and 
seek out the primary causes and motives of the opposition.

BACKGROUND OF THE CONTROVERSY

The first quarter of the nineteenth century was a period of feverish missionary activity among the Protestant churches 
of America. Stimulated by the work of the English Baptist Missionary Society and the dramatic accounts of William Carey's 
successful. work at Serampore, American Protestants began to organize mission societies and found missionary publications 
with the intent of arousing every Christian in America to the cause.

Numerous societies were formed in the New England and Middle States by the Baptists, Congregationalists, Presbyterians, 
and Dutch Reformed. They were local in scope and primarily concerned, originally, with the conversion of the Indians and 
the promotion of Christian knowledge in the new settlements in the western areas. A growing interest in foreign missions 
gradually manifested itself and contributions were forwarded to English missionaries who had already established their 
stations in India and China. [3]

The natural connection between the English and American Baptists early led the latter into the movement. Many of the 
American Baptist churches had within their membership those who came from the Mother Country. Prominent ministers on 
both sides of the Atlantic shared their enthusiasm for the cause. Andrew Fuller,  the gifted pastor of Kettering, 
England, one of the constituent organizers of the Baptist Mission Society, 1792, exerted a profound influence through 
his pamphlets which circulated freely in this country. The Gospel Worthy of all Acceptation was widely read, and 
promised to become a classic in the realm of theological thought.

Perhaps the greatest single influence was the firsthand witness of Dr. William Staughton who had been present at 
Kettering when the British movement was inaugurated. His removal to America served as an invaluable connecting link 
between the two groups, while his own magnetic personality and proved ability lent strength and favor to the new cause.

Correspondence was naturally carried on between Staughton and his friend Carey which grew in porportions with the years 
and as other friends in the two countries became acquainted and interested in the enterprise. Many of these letters 
found their way into such religious publications as the Massachusetts Missionary Magazine and other periodicals of 
missionary intelligence, and spread the


The Chronicle Oct. 1951
[p.149]

knowledge of the progress of the Gospel among the "heathen" to the scattered churches of the land.

The American Baptist Foreign Mission work really began, however, as is well known, with the conversion of two 
Congregational missionaries to the Baptist principle of believer's baptism by immersion. Adoniram Judson and Luther Rice 
were sent by the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions in 1813 to establish a mission station in India. 
The story need not be repeated here. When they became Baptists it was necessary to adjust their relations with the 
Congregational Board and enter into fellowship with the Baptists.

Luther Rice returned to America to accomplish this but he found a lack of organization among his new friends. The 
Baptist ideal of congregational independence offered no effective bond of unity for the 2,000 or more Baptist churches 
in the country. The district associations held no authority to bind constituent churches to any program or policy. No 
systematic effort had been made, further than the abortive attempt of Morgan Edwards in the late eighteenth century to 
co-ordinate associations.  There was only one state foreign society in the country and only a few small societies in 
the larger urban centers of the East. Rice's immediate task, therefore, was twofold: to continue the organization of 
local societies and to co-ordinate their activities. Efforts to achieve the latter led to the controversy out of which 
emerged the Old School Baptists.

Opposition to the foreign mission cause did not manifest itself during the first few years of intensive organization. 
Toward the end of 1813, and in the first months of 1814, Rice made a historic journey through the South and West. 
Amazing results attended his labors. His indefatigable energy and unsurpassed zeal resulted in a general awakening of 
the Baptists to the cause and their opporunities. Society after society was formed, taking as their pattern the one 
organized previously in Boston. In October, 1813, largely as a result of his inspiration, a society was formed in 
Richmond, Virginia. By February of 1814 others had been established in Philadelphia, New York, Baltimore, Washington, 
and Fredericksburg.

During the course of this journey Rice had occasion to write his friend Judson of the rapid formation of foreign mission 
societies and of a general plan to co-ordinate the activities of these scattered groups. "While passing from Richmond 
to Petersburg in a stage," he said, "an enlarged view of the business opened upon my contemplations. The plan which 
suggested itself to my mind, was that of forming one principal society in each state, bearing the name of the


The Chronicle Oct. 1951
[p.150]

state, and others in the same state, auxiliary to that; and by these large, or state societies, delegates be appointed 
to form one general society."

It was this plan he presented to the "General Convention of the Baptist Denomination in the United States for Foreign 
Missions" held in Philadelphia in May, 1814. Thirty-three delegates were present from all over the country. Missionary 
societies and individual churches constituted the original representation. A president and general board were elected to 
transact business. It was decided to hold a general convention once every three years and to organize a foreign mission 
board to carry out the main purpose of the Convention. Judson and Rice were appointed the first foreign missionaries. 
It was resolved, however,

"That Mr. Rice be appointed, under the patronage of this Board, as their missionary to continue his itinerant services 
in these United States for a reasonable time; with a view to excite the public mind more generally, to engage in 
missionary exertions, and to assist in originating Societies or Institutions, for Carrying the missionary design into 
execution." [4]

His heroic labors in the accomplishment of this assignment are without parallel in the annals of Baptist history. The 
banner was carried to the field; from house to house, church to church, and association to association. The response to 
his campaign was little short of amazing. From the beginning of this undertaking until his death in 1836, he was 
instrumental in organizing some seventy societies and raising large sums of money for missionary and educational work.

According to a report made by Rice to Dr. Staughton in 1815, practically all the Baptist associations, 115 in number, 
were favorable to the foreign mission enterprise. Even in the South where he had expected to encounter opposition, a 
generous response had been the rule. That of the Georgia Association may be taken as typical of the entire country:

Received from the Baptist Board of Foreign Missions for 
the United States, through its agent, Rev. Luther Rice, 
the report of the Board, accompanied by letters desiring 
the aid of this Body in their laudable exertions, to spread 
the Gospel of Christ among the heathen in idolatrous lands. 
The Association unanimously agreeing to co-operate in the 
grand design, and the more effectually to do so, resolved 
itself into a body for missionary purposes. [5] 

True, certain associations did not respond but Rice was inclined to attribute this failure to general carelessness 
or indifference


The Chronicle Oct. 1951
[p.151]

in the conduct of their affairs rather than to actual anti-mission sentiment. Little serious opposition was met in 
the West. When he visited Kentucky and Tennessee and presented the cause he received larger contributions than in 
any other state.

Around the year 1818, however, the first shadows of discontent began to cloud the bright prospects of the future. 
Social conditions and personal attitudes had been present from the beginning to give rise to criticism and objection 
should any particular disaffection give occasion for it. The first public manifestation of a lack of harmony appeared 
in the West, where evangelical ministerial work of a missionary kind had been carried on for some time among the new 
settlers of the frontier. Spreading rapidly it soon found adherents throughout the country. Many churches and 
associations which formerly had expressed support for the foreign mission program reversed their position to the extent 
of vehemently declaring their opposition to the Foreign Society and its agencies. Scarcely an association in the country 
escaped the neccessity of coming to grips with the problem.

The first agitation was of a mild, interrogative type. A query sent to the Wabash Association (Indiana) in 1818 will 
illustrate the trend. "Are the principles and practices of the Baptist Board of Foreign Missions, in its present 
operations, justifiable and agreeable to gospel order?" The following year the Association answred: "It is not agreeable 
to gospel order." In 1820 the Maria Creeck Church asked that the Association "point out to us the wickedness of the 
Baptist Board of Foreign Missions, and it will be our happiness to avoid everything that we conceive contrary to the 
mind and will of Christ." Five years later this same church was expelled from the Wabash Association "for holding and 
justifying the principles and practices of the Baptist Board of Foreign of Missions and failing to give satisfaction to 
their aggrieved brethren." [6]

By 1820 the agitation had become more pronounced. Agents for the Foreign Mission Board and its friends met with 
resistance on every hand. Anti-mission sentiment had become so strong in Tennessee that no one dared to champion the 
foreign cause. One contemporary wrote :

Not a man ventured to open his mouth in favor of any benevolent 
enterprise or action. The missionary societies were dissolved, 
and the associations rescinded all their resolutions by which they 
were in any way connected with these


The Chronicle Oct. 1951
[p.152]

measures, and, in this respect, the spirit of death rested upon the 
whole people. [7]

Although opposition in the older Southern states was not as widespread as it was in such frontier states as Tennessee, 
Kentucky, Illinois, and Indiana, it was just as real. Many of the associations in Virginia, North Carolina, and Georgia 
withdrew from the schemes of the day. Likewise some of the older churches in New York, Pennsylvania, and Maryland were 
numbered among those carried away by this opposition to "the works of man." By 1840 the schism seems to have been fairly 
complete. In 1844 the Almanac and Baptist Register, published by the American Baptist Publication Society, reported 401 
mission- and 184 (evidently a misprint for 134) anti-associations. The 1845 issue lists 391 and 149 respectively.

With this general picture of the background of the controversy we turn to consider the nature of the opposition. It has 
generally been presented as a crusade against missions themselves. However, if that be the case, it is strange that prior 
to 1813 they gave enthusiastic support to home missions and even after that date, for a time, favorably responded to the 
appeal of missions in foreign lands. It would seem, therefore, that, originally at least, the opposition was directed 
against something other than the spread of the Gospel by missionary means.

NATURE OF THE OPPOSITION

A thorough study of the movement would seem to indicate that the term "anti-missions" is really a misnomer. In the natal 
stage of the foreign work the Old School was not opposed to missions, per se, but before long did object to the methods 
used is carrying out the missionary impulse. Basically the opposition was aimed at the new organizations. Effective 
argument to support this position was easily found in a hyper-Calvinistic theology. For hyper-Calvinism, with its 
emphasis on Scripture patterns, led inevitably to antagonism of the missionary organization Luther Rice had been 
instrumental in establishing.

This thesis finds substantiation in the larger facts of our history. From the time of their origin Baptists have been 
missionary minded. How other can be explained the phenomenal growth of the denomination from a mere handful in the 
mid-seventeenth century to some 200,000 by the beginning of the nineteenth?  Ministers, churches, and associations 
considered it their sacred duty to carry the Gospel of free salvation to the steadily growing communities in the new 
land of America. Most ministers thought of themselves


The Chronicle Oct. 1951
[p.153]

as missionaries in the generally accepted meaning of that term.

Elder John Leland, the famous and familiar figure so intimiately associated for many years with the Baptists of Virginia 
and in Massachusetts in the Revolutionary and early National periods, was Old School in all his sympathies, emphatically 
declared:

Without any aid from missionary boards or funds, I have 
followed the missionary work fifty-seven years; in which 
time I have traveled a distance that would girdle the globe 
four times, and still have health and spirit to persevere. [8]

Many of the leading churches of such obdurate Old School associations as the Kehukee of North Carolina and the Ketockton 
of virginia owed their existence to the zealous activities of such preachers as Leland. These churches, in turn, assisted 
in the establishment of new preaching stations and in the sending of itinerant preachers to destitute regions. In those 
early days missionaries were sent to the Indians and collections were taken for the education of young men who aspired to 
the ministry. In fact, few indeed among these early Baptists could be found who did not think of missions as their 
imperative duty.

In the light of this historical background it is not surprising that the first overtures of the foreign mission program 
were received with enthusiasm. In 1816, for example, the Ketockton Association considered the important subject of its 
relationship to the cause. This item of business appears in the Minutes:

The mission business being taken up, Association are 
of opinion that the work is laudable and resolve to use their 
influence to promote it by recommending it to the churches 
to raise funds within the several districts, and forward 
them on to the next association by their messengers, to be 
appropriated to foreign or domestic missions as they 
themselves may think proper, or if they please, to leave it 
to the discretion of the Association to be appropriated as 
their better information shall direct. [9]

The initial response of the Kehukee Association was also entirely favorable. An active correspondence was held with the 
Board of Foreign Missions and contributions were faithfully forwarded to augment its program. Evidence is abundant that 
the County Line Association (North Carolina) was also a missionary body up to 1832. When Rice visited the Baltimore 
Association (Maryland) in 1821 he was most cordially received and invited to a seat in the Association. Previous to that 
year the Association had taken


The Chronicle Oct. 1951
[p.154]

notice of foreign missions in the most commendatory language and had invoked the blessing of Jacob's God upon every 
effort thus to promote the interests of the kingdom.

Before many years, however, these same associations were set in violent opposition to the Board and its subsidiary 
agencies.  For this reason they were accused of being anti-mission minded. This they vehemently denied. "Because we do 
not co-operate with the Missionary Baptists in their measures and methods of sending out missionaries," declared Elder 
P. D. Gold, "they say we are opposed to preaching the gospel to the heathen." This he asserted was a false accusation. 
"When the Lord sends one to preach to the heathen, and by the Holy Ghost says, Separate me Paul and Barnabas for the 
work whereunto I have called them, then we can encourage such to go, and help them on their journey of a godly sort, by 
ministering to their necessities, and praying the Lord to bless and prosper their journey." [10] Gabriel Conklin 
expressed similar sentiments in rebuttal to a missionary tract accusing the Old School of this opposition. "I know the 
pamphlet before us, and those engaged with it, charge us with opposing the spread of the gospel because we oppose 
Missionary and other societies. Not so," he asserted, "it is exactly because we are in favor of the spread of the gospel; 
and they, instead of being the means of spreading the gospel, are the means of spreading another gospel, which is not 
another, but a perversion of the gospel of Christ."

Daniel Parker, eloquent and dominant defender of the ancient landmarks in Indiana, when accused of his hostility to the 
cause, stated, "We are pleased with the spread and growth of Immanuel's kingdom throughout the world. But we wish it 
under his direction  and government, and crown him with glory which we believe is not the case in the mission plan."

A group of disaffected ministers and laymen from churches in Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and New York, met at 
the Black Rock Meetinghouse, Baltimore, in 1832, for the purpose of affirming their protest to all the societies and 
institutions which has been formed since 1813. This significant statement appears in the Minutes of that meeting:

We will now call your attention to the subject of Missions. 
Previous to stating our objections to the mission plans, we 
will meet some of the false charges brought against us 
relative to this subject, by a simple and unequivocal declaration, 
that we do regard as of the first importance the command given of 
Christ, primarily to his apostles, and through


The Chronicle Oct. 1951
[p.155]

them to his ministers in every age, to "Go into all the world, 
and preach the gospel to every creature" and do feel an 
earnest desire to be found acting in obedience thereunto, 
as the providence of God directs our way, and opens a door 
of utterance for us. [11]

Elder Coffey, an authority among the Old School men in the West, in his protest said, "I wish to be understood to mean 
the modern system of missions, or man-made institutions, and not Bible missionaries." And D. J. B. Link, tracing the 
course of the opposition in Texas, wrote:

There have been probably seven or eight of these Associations 
formed in the State, but there are perhaps not half as many now. 
Their churches are mostly small, and far apart. They were not 
anti-missionary, and denied being so, on their first separation 
from the Missionary Baptists, but claimed that it was the 
organizations outside of the churches they objected to, such as 
conventions, boards, Sunday Schools, societies, etc. [12]

Elder William Beebe, editor of The Signs of the Times, an Old School publication which circulated extensively 
throughout the East, voiced the general sentiment of this group in both the North and the South. "In short," reads one 
of his editorials, "if by the term Missionary, we are to understand, one who is sent of God, to preach the Gospel; we 
are in favor of Missionaries. But we must protest loudly against all Missionary Societies, except 'the Church of God, 
which he has purchased with his own blood.'"

It was not long before such objections were made to include the related agencies of the foreign program and ultimately 
extended to such nondenominational organizations as the Bible, Temperance, and Sunday School Societies. Gabriel Conklin 
was quite insistent that he did not object to the term "missionary" when applied to a minister sent out by Christ but 
he did object to "Missionary Society operations, including all the links in the chain, from the British or American, 
Foreign or Domestic Missionary, Bible, Tract or Sunday School Union Society, down to the most trifling (mite) Society 
in Europe or America." An article in the constitution of the White Oak Association (North Carolina), organized as an 
anti-mission association in 1842, illustrates the attitude :

We, as an Association, declare a non-fellowship with Masonry, 
Missionary, Bible, and Tract Societies, Campbellism, State 
Conventions, Theological Seminaries, and all other 


The Chronicle Oct. 1951
[p.156]

new institutions that have the appearance of a speculation 
on the gospel; we know of but two societies, viz; Civil and 
Religious. [13]

The controversy is to be seen, therefore, as a conflict between those who favored organization and those who opposed 
it. Nor were the Baptists alone in this respect. The Disciples of Christ experienced great difficulty over the question 
of a centralized mission project. Jacob Creath, one of their strong leaders, consistently pposed both the organization 
of a mission society and a convention. A schism occurred among the Presbyterians in 1837-38 largely because of the 
objections on the part of some to the Plan of Union and the activities of the American Home Mission Society. These 
Old School Presbyterians were not primarily concerned about doctrine but about the dangerous trend of the new 
organizations in the Christian framework.

REASONS FOR THE OPPOSITION

In seeking to explain this anti-mission movement, which at times was bitter and angrily hostile, it is easy to emphasize 
some one factor as the reason. But a thorough study of all the facts proves that there were many reasons, some less 
obvious than others, but perhaps, much more real as motives than those generally expressed. Some historians, for 
instance, enamored with the appeal of a novel and captivating thesis, have characterized this as a frontier movement -- 
an omniscriptive explanation of all American historical phenomena. But evidence goes to prove that the pioneer areas 
simply set the stage on which all motives, as actors, might play their part.

The first reason for the opposition on the part of the Baptists was doubtless due to their fear that the security of 
their time-honored, and to some, the peculiarly Baptistic principle of the freedom of the individual and the independence 
of the local church was endangered. Impassioned sermons and published articles warned that these missionary leaders were 
establishing an ecclesiastical hierarchy which would ultimately rob the local congregation of this cherished right. The 
General Convention was not insensitive to this criticism and at its 1826 meeting sought to allay the danger.

As fears have existed to some extent in the Western States, 
and elsewhere, that at some future day, this body might 
attempt to interfere with the independence of the churches -- 
therefore

Resolved, in accordance with its former views, and with well 
known and long established Baptist principles, this Convention


The Chronicle Oct. 1951
[p.157]

cannot exercise the least authority over the government of the churches. [14]

Such pronouncements, however, had little effect. "I consider these great menu wrote John Taylor, "as verging close on 
an aristocracy, with an object to sap the foundation of Baptist Republican government."

It will be readily apparent that these arguments had all the more effectiveness because of the Baptist insistence upon 
separation of State and Church -- and Baptists were still suffering discrimination in this respect in Massachusetts. 
The oppression their ministers had experienced in Virginia was yet fresh in their minds, and it was no difficult matter 
for the pulpit orator to arouse his hearers to the danger that these old evils might again be forced upon them should 
centralized authority become established in their own midst. Elder Theodorick Boulware, who had migrated from Virginia 
to Missouri, spared no effort in exciting and intensifying the opposition to the movement. He did not hesitate to make 
inflammatory appeals to local politicians, warning them "that the Providence [Missouri] Baptists did not propose to 
stop short of union and state and the taxation of the people for ecclesiastical support." [15] John Leland wrote to Elder 
Samuel Trott of Virginia, that "if the modern scheme does not call in the civil arm to enforce its dogmas and punish 
non-conformists, it will be better than my fears."

Since it is difficult, if not quite impossible, for a person to separate his political views from his religious 
sentiments it is not unlikely that these leaders were conditioned in their latter convictions by equally firm opinions 
in civil affairs. John Taylor was, for instance, a Jacksonian Democrat as were other Old School die-hards such as 
Daniel Parker, John Vawter, and Thomas Lincoln. In the East the Democratic viewpoint was well represented by such men 
as Gilbert Beebe and John Leland.  Against the Whig theory of "national religion" they set up their principle of 
completely free and voluntary religion. So wrote a correspondent from Ohio to the Western Predestinarian Baptist: 
"In my humble opinion, every individual who contributes to the missionary operations is ignorantly contributing to the 
downfall of the American Republic."

Moreover, the Foreign Mission Society had arisen in the North and the concentration of all related agencies in that 
section "money-power" to betray the democratic liberties of the people. The various Boards had their headquarters in 
the cities of the [sic] could readily be represented as an attempt of the ambitious

The Chronicle Oct. 1951
[p.158]

North and East. When, in 1825, Columbia College failed in Washington, Newton Theological Institute was founded in 
Massachusetts. The Baptist Tract Society was moved from Washington to Philadelphia in 1826. By 1832 the Home Mission 
Society was located in New York and the Foreign Society was in Boston.

In the second place, then, the opposition found strength in the money phase of the new movement. John Leland, tireless 
messenger of the good news, and Baptistic to the core, declared in his characteristic trenchant and picturesque style, 
"This machine is propelled by steam (money) and does not sail by the wind of heaven. Immense donations and contributions 
have already been cast into the treasury; and we see no end to it, for the solicitors and mendicants are constantly 
crying 'give, give,' with a blushing audacity that makes humble saints hold down their heads." Those phrases of the old 
Gospel warrior gave rise to such favorite exprsions of contempt as, "the gospel going on silver wheels" "money begging 
missionaries." And the spicy pen of Gabriel Conklin gave wings to the attack:

They pursue a worldly policy in that, silver and gold is 
positively necessary, in order to the accomplishment of their 
object, viz: The conversion of the world. Hence it is very 
common to hear them complain that the pressure of 
times has blocked the wheels, and to some considerable 
extent retarded the motion of the machinery, we carry out 
their own doctrine on this point, and the irresistible 
conclusion is, that in proportion to the money given, 
sinners will be converted, consequently, if there is no 
money given, there will be no converts made. [16]

When it is remembered that old veterans had given lifetime service to the Christian cause with little -- at least, no 
adequate -- compensation it is not strange that they resented the assured salaries of the missionaries of the Society, 
especially when some of that compensation came from people who may not have contributed largely to them as their pastors. 
One writer of an associational letter stresses this very point:

Brethren, there is another matter that is detrimental to the 
feelings of your preacher. He has been laboring for you, 
for years, perhaps, and you have paid little or no attention, 
to him -- but there comes along a preacher from a distance, 
perhaps an agent from some board, and your hearts, purses, 
and all are open to him, throwing in your five, ten or twenty 
dollars for himself or some society. [17]


The Chronicle Oct. 1951
[p.159]

It is impossible not to feel a large measure of sympathy for these men who had borne the burden and heat of the day in 
the more primitive conditions of the new land. And emphasis may again be placed on the evidence that there was no lack 
of a benevolent spirit. Once more Leland was the spokesman: "To honor the Lord with their substance -- to contribute for 
the relief of the poor and widows -- to administer to the saints, and communicate all good things to those who teach the 
word, are sacrifices, with which the Lord is well pleased." No, these men had not tied their purse strings!

But, since even these old saints of the Cross were human, the appeals for missionary funds and the generous response of 
the people naturally gave rise to resentment, at times extreme and ungracious. Luther Rice, than whom no man labored 
more sacrificially among the Baptists of the day, was stigmatized as a "modern Tetzel, and the Pope's old orator was 
equally innocent with Luther Rice and his motives about the same." [18] And missionaries were sometimes likened to Judas 
"who was a lover of money."

The extent to which wild rumors in this respect spread is recorded by Justin A. Smith on page 129 of A History of 
Baptists in the Western States. In certain communities where "ignorance and intolerance" were to be found, he says, 
one man

sees in the benevolent societies of the time the last plagues 
of the Apocalypse; another believes, that Luther Rice is 
living somewhere in luxury and splendor, as he "raised funds 
all through the country, then mysteriously disappeared, and 
has never been heard of since"; while a third has reason to 
believe that a gentleman rode on horseback to Burma, and 
saw Dr. Judson at the head of a bank established with 
money swindled out of the ignorant by lying agents. 

It may also be justifiable to link the "money" phase of the opposition to the financial conditions of the country at 
certain periods. Is it merely a coincidence that the first faint hostility to effort rose in the early twenties when 
an economic depression prevailed following the panic of 1819? Trade became stagnant and prices of farm produce were 
ruinously low. Nor is it without significance that the greatest increase in Old School numbers came around 1837 which 
ushered in one of America's severest depressions, which gave rise to the Millerite doctrine of the end of the world. 
Again, their membership doubled during the three years following the Civil War and another increase was recorded after 
the Spanish-American War. This close relationship of increase 


The Chronicle Oct. 1951
[p.160]

in numbers and periods of economic austerity cannot be neglected in seeking reasons for the opposition.

A third reason for the criticism of the new organizations lay in the field of education. At the beginning of the second 
decade of the nineteenth century -- when Rice's work began -- few Baptist ministers had received a formal theological 
education. And Rice forwarded that cause coextensively with missions. Between 1819 and 184S no less than ten institutions 
of higher education were founded by the Baptists in the country and in most of these institutions theological education 
was given prominence, and protests against the course were soon voiced.

In these objections to theological training may be found, as perhaps not elsewhere, the personal prejudices of the 
provincial-minded and unlettered preachers. They felt that they had successfully carried the banner of the Christ to 
the field without formal education, and the self-made men resented the implication that only those of the schools were 
efficient for missionary labor. In defense they argued that only divine appointment was a necessary prerequisite for 
the pursuit of the Christian ministry. One association was so assured of this that it affirmed:

We view theological schools unwarranted in the word of 
God and dangerous to religious liberty. And where they 
have been organized, whether Jewish, Pagan, Heathen, 
Roman Catholic, or Christian, they have been a source of 
persecution and bloodshed on the church of Christ. [19]

This personal jealousy and resentment was heightened on occasions by the assumption of some bright-eyed young men, 
fresh from the schools, that little in the way of evangelization had been accomplished prior to their coming on the 
field. Their reports of a general moral and spiritual impoverishment, especially in the West, brought forth a storm 
of indignant protest from those who had given a lifetime to the spread of religious truth in these areas. Such an 
attitude roused the ire of John Taylor: "To hear or read their reports," he said, "it would seem as if the whole 
country was almost a blank as to religion," Local ministers in rural districts were unwilling to admit that their 
communities were in any way inferior to the more settled centers, or that they stood in any particular need of 
missionary assistance.

This resentment was particularly virulent when the man of culture" gave evidence of expecting deference and esteem. 
Such men were properly an affront to the self-taught and consecrated servants of the church. The frontierman, in 
particular, could not


The Chronicle Oct. 1951
[p.161]

be "patronized or high-hatted." One such preacher is quoted as giving vent to his feelings in these words:

I am a poor, humble man -- and I doesn't know a single letter in the A.B.C.'s, 
and couldn't read a chapter in the Bible no how you could fix it, bless the 
Lord! -- I jist preach like Old Peter and Poll, by the sperit. Yes we don't 
ax pay in cash or trade nither for the Gospel, and aren't no hirelings like 
them high-flow'd college-larned sheepskins.... [20]

And many a rural pastor reacted similarly.

The vituperation, it may be hoped, reached its extreme in this vile and ugly jargon by a preacher of the Gospel of 
good will:

Do not forget the enemy (the missionaries); bear them in mind: 
the howling, destructive wolves, the ravenous dogs, and the filthy 
and their numerous whelps. By a minute observation and the consultation 
of the sacred, never-failing descriptive chart, even their physiognomy 
in dress, mien, and carriage, and many other indented, indelible, 
descriptive marks, too tedious at present to write. The wolfish smell 
is enough to alarm, to create suspicion, and to ascertain; the dogs' 
teeth are noted, and the wolves for their peculiar and distinct howl.... [21]

Basically and humanly the untrained preacher feared the loss of his prestige and his ultimate replacement in the pulpit 
by his educated brother. There is a delightful little story which came out of the West. At an association a preacher 
arose and expressed his feelings about the Society's missionaries:

"We don't care anything about them missionaries that's
gone amongst them heathens 'way off yonder. But what do
they want to come among us for? We don't want them here
in Illinois." When the moderator urged him to give his
full reasons, he replied: "Well, if you must know, Brother
Moderator, you know the big trees in the woods overshadow 
the little ones; and these missionaries will be all great, 
learned men, and the people will all go to hear them preach, 
and we shall all be put down. That's the objection." [22]

He must, at least, be given credit for frankness and honesty -- under pressure!

John Mason Peck, first of the Society's missionaries in the Mississippi Valley, was intimately acquainted with the 
attitudes of


Oct. 1951
[162]

the opposition, which his biographer, Rufus Babcock, thus describes:

It is vain to pretend that these ministers and churches were 
only opposing some (to them) objectionable methods of 
complying with the risen Saviour's commission, for they 
did not prosecute any other method. Jealousy, least they in 
their ignorance should be cast into the shade -- prejudice 
which shuts itself in and will not come to the light -- and 
the covetousness which grudges any expense for educational 
or evangelizing purposes, were probably the main elements 
of this opposition. [23]

David Benedict, authoritative Baptist historian, and a contemporary of this period, agrees with Peck but is not 
quite so harsh in his censure:


The fact is, that personal altercations, rivalships, and jealousies, 
and local contests for influence and control, have done much to set 
brethren at variance with each other. The mission question is the 
ostensible, rather than the real cause of the trouble, in many places. 
New men and new measures have run faster than the old travelers were 
accustomed to go, and they have been disturbed at being left behind. [24]

CONCLUSION

The conclusion to be drawn from  this study is, as is usually the case in such human affairs, that there were mixed 
motives in this Old School attitude toward the Foreign Mission Society. Undoubtedly it had its origin in the 
hyper-Calvinism prevalent among the Baptists of the time which looked with suspicion upon any Christian doctrine, 
principle, or organization which did not have a Scripture pattern or sanction. The church and the church alone finds 
mention in the Word of God. It is presumption, then, for men to establish any other organization in connection with 
Gospel work,

Nevertheless, and once again, human nature being what it is, as the activities of the Society spread and its associated 
agencies more and more affected the status of the older and less privileged ministers, more personal sentiments and 
interests entered into the differences of opinions and methods, resulting in bitter rancor and implacable animosities.

So, this historical episode has its lesson, as all such should have Whatever is new is not thereby necessarily bad 
nor is it necessarily good.  It is good or bad -- it is of God -- as it helps to create character


Oct. 1951
[163]

to lead folk into the likeness of Christ, as it builds the kingdom of God upon earth.

Above all, "Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock 
or an occasion to fall in his brother's way."


1 The term "Old School" is used throughout this paper in reference to the Anti-Mission group.

2 Cushing BiggsHassell, History of the Church of God, p. 557.

3 Oliver Wendel Elsbree, The Rise of the Missionary Spirit in America, 1790-1815.

4 Proceedings of the Baptist Convention for Missionary Purposes Held in Philadelphia, May, 1814, p. 13.

5 Jesse Mercer, A History of the Georgia Baptist 4ssociation, 1815, p. 55.

6 Wm. T. Stott, Indiana Baptist History, 1798-1908, p. 57f.

7 Albert H. Newman, A History of Baptist Churches in the United States, p. 437f.

8 The Writings of the late Elder John Leland (Greene's Edition), p. 616.

9 Minutes of the Ketockten Baptist Association, 1816, p. 6.

10 Hassell, op. cit., p. 354.

11 "'Minutes of the Proceedings, and Resolutions Drafted, by the Particular Baptists, Convened at Black Rock, Md., 
September 28th, 1832,' at which time the division ('or split') took between the Old School, and the New School 
Baptists." Published in The Feast of Good Things," G. Beebe's Son.

12 Elder Henry Sheets, A History of the Liberty Baptist 4ssociation, North Carolina (1907), p. 240. Citing, 
Texas Historical and Biographical Magazine, Vol. 2, p. 672.

13 David Benedict, A General History of the Baptist Denomination in America, p. 692,

14 Proceedings of the Fifth Triennial Convention, 1826, p. 20.

15 William Pope Yeaman, History of the Missouri Baptist General Association, p. 48.

16 Gabriel Conklin, Examination of a Pamphlet, Titled, Truth as It Is, p. 15.

17 John F. Cady, The Baptist Church in Indiana, p. 44.

18 John Taylor, Thoughts on Missions, p. 10.

19 Benjamin F. Riley, History of the Baptists in the Southern States, p, 170.

20 Merle Curti, Growth of American Thought, p. 269,

21 B. F. Riley, op. cit., p. 935.

22 Rufus Babcock, Memoir of John Mason Peck, p. 111.

23 Ibid., p. 229.

24 David Benedict, op. cit., p. 935.



=========================
Foundations 
A Baptist Journal of History and Theology
Vol IV No. 4


Foundations Oct. 1961
[p.321]

The Discipline of Ministers
An Historical Survey

By ROBERT G. TORBET *

The purpose of this study is to discover to what extent Baptist churches have disciplined ministers for failure to 
conform to the standards of faith and life called for by the churches and what procedures have been followed in the 
exercise of this discipline. Sources of information have included church manuals, church and association records 
dating back to the seventeenth century, and biographical materials. Since the survey has been perforce a sampling 
rather than an exhaustive examination, generalizations have been drawn with care and with considerable trepidation.

This article will first summarize the basic principles which seem to have been followed as guide lines by the churches 
in the exercise of ministerial discipline. The second step will be to provide an examination of selected examples of 
disciplinary cases which will illustrate the types of action taken and the occasions for such action. It should be 
remembered that the past can never be reproduced. Circumstances change, and the mores of each generation vary. It 
would therefore be the better part of wisdom to avoid drawing too close parallels to the present and seek only general 
directions as to what to do and what not to do, rather than to seek to follow in detail the practices of previous 
generations of Christians.  With such caution and an understanding of its limitations, this study may be useful,


Principles Followed in the Discipline of Ministers

Fundamentally, the concern of the churches for an adequate discipline of its ministry has been the protection of 
the community of faith from unworthy or heretical leadership which might T)ervert and mislead its members and embarrass 
their witness before the world. Thus, the motives have been: 1.) to safeguard the church from the shame of scandal, 
and 2.) to protect the gospel from error.

The Baptists of London provide an early example. From, the early seventeenth century the tenure of office of ministers 
was governed by good behavior, There were a few instances in the eighteenth century, however, when churches were 
obliged to expel the minister for disgraceful conduct. When, in 1810, the Calvinistic Baptists of

__________
* ROBERT G. TORBET, dean and professor of church history at Central Baptist Theological Seminary, conducted research 
on the subject of this article for the Commission on the Ministry.


Foundations Oct. 1961
[p.322]

the city founded an academy at Stepney (now Regent's Park College, Oxford) for the training of their ministry, the 
character of London ministers began to change. Prior to that time the leadership of the churches had been more of a 
drag than a help because of the illiteracy of many, the, rigid conservatism of most and the low moral standards of 
some. [1]

In the American colonies during the same period, the Philadelphia Baptist Association performed a valuable contribution 
by maintaining standards for the ministry, by Refining the faith and by educating a leadership for the churches. From 
its organization in 1707 this Association set the pattern for Baptist standards and practice in the Colonial period. 
Because the need to improve standards for the ministry was so urgent, these early Baptists were willing to grant a larger 
measure of authority to the Association in this area of responsibility than perhaps in any other. At the very first 
meeting of the Association it was agreed that only those men who could produce credentials of church membership and a 
licence to preach would be allowed to occupy pulpits in the associated churches. [2] In 1723 the Philadelphia Association 
took the authority to examine "all gifted brethren and ministers that came in... from other places." In 1753 the 
Association recommended that "any brother called by any of our churches to exercise his gift, when approved of at home, 
should, before his ordination, visit other churches, and preach among them, and obtain from these churches concerning  
evidence of their approbation, that it is proper and convenient that such may be ordained."[3] In 1791 the Vermont 
Association advised the churches in a circular letter that it was the duty of the Association "to give information of 
apostates and corrupt their in the ministry, that the churches may not be imposed upon by them." The power of 
discipline was reserved, however, to the churches. But if a church failed to maintain a pure ministry, the Association 
reserved to itself the right to exclude the church from membership. [4]

Ordination very naturally was the point at which the churches needed to protect themselves. The Strawberry Association 
in southern Virginia described in 1791 a uniform procedure by which the church should "call the Presbytery of ministers 
to exarnine him, and, if found qualified, to ordain him by fasting and imposition of hands." Ordination of itinerant 
preachers was universally rejected as unscriptural by Baptists in the colonies. In this vein, the Sandy Creek 
Association of North Carolina concluded in 1809 that a man must be


Foundations Oct. 1961
[p.323]

ordained to a church, except "it shall be clearly manifest that a preacher is about to go to a place where he might 
be useful, and cannot be conveniently ordained at the place to which he is going." In 1841 this Association, while 
recognizing the right of the local church to ordain, agreed that "the common good of the churches would be realized 
by each church agreeing to send up their candidates for the ministry to the association for examination, to be licensed 
and ordained by that body." [5]

Although not every association went this far, the early Baptist tradition in America was clearly in support of 
ministerial authority's coming from Christ through the community of faith rather than by self-authentication. 
A statement of the Kehukee Association of North Carolina issued in 1785 entitled "A Minister's Call and Ordination" 
may be cited in support of this observation. It was common practice in the churches as late as 1840 to control and         supervise the gifts     of
ministerial candidates within their membership.

The discovery of gifts was sought in prayer meetings and at other informal services.... 
As the gifts were improved, license was given to preach in neighboring churches, 
usually within an association as opportunity was offered.... The candidate's activities 
were carefully observed by his church, who never ordained a member without first 
testing his gifts over a long period.  As the need for ministers became acute, however, 
after 1840, the process of testing was accelerated and becameless thorough. [6]

The Dover Association in Virginia advised early in the nineteenth century:

...that ministers should not baptize within the bounds of another pastor's 
church. that a church might silence a minister and yet retain him in membership; 
that more than one minister was necessary in the ordination of elders or deacons;... 
that excluded ministers might be restored to membership, but not to the ministry; 
that ordination ought to be repeated when a minister comes from another 
denomination; ... that a church ought to follow the advice of an Association or 
show the reason why not. [7]

Among the General or Arminian Baptists, with their English background of greater centralization than allowed by the 
Particular or Calvinistic Baptists, ordination was lodged with the quarterly meeting. In 1834, for instance, the 
Liberty Association in Indiana advised the churches to refer the licensing and ordaining of ministers to the quarterly 
meetings, which had arisen as a home mission project but which were developing at the time into something of a 
presbytery.

The unique character of this institution among Baptists is emphasized by an historian of the General Baptists in the 
following statement -

Obviously, the principle of the Presbytery is that of the old English doctrine 


Foundations Oct. 1961
[p.324]

that one shall be governed by his equals. The minister is not reponsible to 
the laity, but to his ordained brethren --  both as to securing official 
position, and to being degraded therefrom.... The Calvinistic Baptists and 
Congregationalists assume that the authority for ordination, as well as for 
everything else, is in the local church, and regard all officials as servants 
of the local congregation. [8]

That this practice was not entirely unknown among Calvinstic Baptists is indicited by a record of the Dover Association 
in Virginia for 1786:

A presbytery of ministers are fully empowered to ordain any faithful man properly 
recommended, whom they shall judge to be able to teach others; and that ministers 
shall be subject to ministers with regard to their call to the ministry and the 
doctrines they preach. The church where the minister is a member shall take cognizance 
of his moral character. [9]

The laying on of hands administered to a candidate for ordination by his peers, the ministers of the association, is 
still practiced today to signify the authority of the larger church of which the local congregation which ordains is 
a part.

This reliance upon a council of ministers or presbytery, to control ordination and acts of ministers seems to have 
been a natural expression of the laity's confidence in the leadership of the clergy to protect the standards of 
the ministry set by the gospel. In 1822, for example, the Sandy Creek Association in North Carolina responded to 
a query concerning the validity of the acts of minister and the control of ordination with the following Statement

If a minister acts without church authority his ministerial acts are invalid. 
If he be clothed with valid church authority, his acts are valid, though he 
may be a bad man; that is, the validity of his official acts depends upon his 
being a member of the church, and clothed with ministerial authority. If he 
has no church membership, and is without ordination, his acts are invalid...

Resolved, That, for the purpose of preventing the ordination of persons who 
are not sound in the faith to the ministry, and the constituting of churches 
built upon any other than the plan which we conceive to be scriptural, that 
the association annually appoint one or more presbyteries to perform those 
functions, and that no ordinations or constitution will be deemed valid, 
unless performed by the presbyteries thus appointed. The churches are to call 
upon these presbyteries when wanted, and no other. [10]

In Indiana special councils were called on occasion "to confirm the action taken by a church in dropping a man from 
the ministry for un-Christian conduct or heterodox opinions." [11]

Hiscox's manual for Baptist churches, widely used in the United States since its publication in 1859, summarizes the 
practices which had come into general use during the second half of the nineteenth century with respect to the 
discipline of ministers. He advised 


Foundations Oct. 1961
[p.325]

special consideration in administering such action to pastors and other officers of the church because of their 
prominent position. It was common practice to require two or three witnesses to validate a charge. The church of which 
the accused was a member was then to appoint a council of persons to assist them in determining what course of action 
to follow. The council was invested with no ecclesiastical authority to try the minister or to depose him. Judicial 
action belonged alone to the church of which he was a member. The minister was not obliged to appear before the 
council; his responsibility was to the church alone. Nor was the church obliged to follow the advice of the council. 
Thus, it was plain that a council had no power to expel a man from the ministry; this authority belonged only to the 
church of which he was a member. The action of the church might be acquittal, admonition, "withdrawal of fellowship 
from him as a minister of the Gospel, with a declaration, that in their opinion he is unworthy of, and unfit to 
continue in, the ministerial office," or "withdrawal of fellowship from him as a Church member  thus excluding him from 
the body." The last two actions constituted the utmost act of the church's disciplinary power. [12]

This pattern of testing complete authority within the local church is still generally accepted among Baptist churches. 
It is the logical corollary of the conviction that the local church alone can ordain. It should be observed, however, 
that the resort to a council parallels in disciplinary actions the reliance upon a similar type of assistance in taking 
action to ordain a minister. Thus, the local church recognizes its need of the larger church without abdicating its 
prerogatives and authority. It should be admitted, however, that Hiscox went beyond the traditional viewpoint of 
Baptists in this respect by insisting that "the claim that the action of a Council or a Presbytery can accredit a 
minister to the whole denomination is to be emphatically denied." [13] It is with reference to this point of difference 
that Baptists today need to restudy the implications of early English and American Baptist practice prior to the period 
of extreme emphasis upon local autonomy which developed in the earlv nineteenth century and which became normative in 
Hiscox's manual.

Examples of the Discipline of Ministers

Examples of ministerial discipline fall into three categories: infringements of ministerial authority, deviations 
from accepted theological views and violations of moral standards. The illustrations selected are sufficiently far 
removed from current readers to avoid


Foundations Oct. 1961
[p.326]

embarrassment to persons still living. Moreover, they are presented only to indicate the procedures followed and not 
to indulge in the spread of information concerning instances better forgotten.

The Kiokee Baptist Church in Georgia affords an instance in which a local minister, James Sanders, was dealt with on 
June 20, 1795 "for disorder in administering the ordinance of baptism." it appears that he was a licentiate who had 
gone beyond his privilege of preaching by administering baptism. The action of the church proved to be effective, for 
several months later he gave the church satisfaction that he had been wrong. The method followed by the church was to 
cite the erring member to the next conference of the church for disciplinary action. This was done either by an 
individual or a committee appointed for that purpose. [14]

In the prevailing theological climate of the late eighteenth century, deviations from accepted doctrinal views were 
occasion for grave concern. One of the major issues troubling the churches of that period was universalism, the belief 
that everyone will be saved. Perhaps the best known instance of this kind concerned Elhanan Winchester, pastor of the 
First Baptist Church in Philadelphia. Less than a year from the time he had accepted a call to this pastorate, he was 
accused on March 5, 1781 by ninety-seven persons of holding the doctrine of the "final restoration of bad men and 
angels from hell." So seriously was the charge taken that he was forbidden to preach and the meeting house was actually 
locked against him and his adherents. He and his followers did not take this action kindly, and on March 6 they broke 
into the church, where he preached that evening and administered the Lord's Supper the following Sunday. On Monday, 
April 21, the church invited six neighboring clergymen to advise them. The council thus appointed met with 
representatives of both sides, and then "gave it as their opinion that the doctrine of universal restoration was a 
deviation from the Philadelphia Confession of Faith, and that those of the church who had pronounced against the 
doctrine constituted the rightful church." Upon the council's recommendation, Winchester was dismissed and his 
followers were excluded from membership. Not to be outdone, the Winchester party initiated a lawsuit in which they 
sought to obtain possession of the church property. In this they were defeated, for on July 9, 1784 the court decided 
against their claim. [15]

The Philadelphia Association became involved in the matter when several churches brought queries concerning the doctrine 
of "universal 


Foundations Oct. 1961
[p.327]

restoration." A committee was appointed to report the facts concerning the proceedings of the First Baptist Church 
against its pastor. The Association approved the committee's report which advised "all the churches to beware of 
Elhanan Winchester, and not adniit him, or any who advocate 'universal salvation,' to the office of public teaching, 
or suffer any who avow the same to continue in their cominunion." [16] In 1788 the Association declared universalism 
to be a heresy and defined it as the erroneous belief "that Christ died for all mankind, and that every individual 
of the human race will finally be saved." [17]

A second notable example of a charge of heresy levelled against a Baptist minister occurred in Boston in 1743. Seven 
members of the First Baptist Church became dissatisfied with the preaching of the pastor, Jeremiah Condy, on the 
grounds that he denied the doctrines of election and predestination. Although no formal disciplinary action was taken 
by the church, the opposition withdrew to form the Second Baptist Church, which was later renamed the Baldwin Place 
Baptist Church. [18]

A third example is the Shaftsbury Baptist Church in Vermont, which became concerned about the wavering doctrinal 
beliefs of one of its members, John Millington, who was seeking ordination. The objections were so pronounced that the 
church refused to ordain him. In May 1773, Millington's open denial of the doctrine of "God's election and the 
perseverance of saints" brought further censure. About a year later he retracted his views and was restored. But the 
next year he made public withdrawal from the church. Then, in November 1775, he made public confession of his wrong in 
withdrawing from the church and rededicated himself, whereupon he was restored to fellowship. In the presence of a 
council and with its approval, the church voted their satisfaction with his qualifications to become pastor of the 
church. Accordingly, he was ordained on Saturday, November 23, 1782, although not without opposition from several 
members who withdrew  to form the Third Baptist Church in Shaftsbury. Five years after his ordination, Millington was 
again in trouble. He "was summoned before a council and admonished, on account of neglect of the duties of his office, 
and for having changed his doctrinal sentiments from that of particular election to that of belief in universal 
salvation of all the human rice, and on account of personal conduct Having the appearance of evil." [19] In view of such 
evident instability, our sympathies in this instance can be clearly with the church which exercised


Foundations Oct. 1961
[p.328]

extraordinary patience with Millington over a period of years.

Sometinies the theological issue became involved in a larger context. This was the case in the Cedar Spring Church in 
South Carolina, which not only charged its minister, John Williams, with careless handling of the doctrine of election 
but with the offense of joining the Freemasons In a formal trial before a council of ministers representing Williams 
and the opposition, he was excluded from his church. [20]

A fourth instance of discipline for heretical teaching occurred in the Second Hopewell Church in New Jersey in 1823, 
when the pastor, a Mr. Boswell, began to preach a Swedenborgian doctrine of universalism. The church called a council 
of ministers from neighboring churches to confer with him. When he refused to meet with them, the council reported to 
the church:

We the undersigned having heard, are of the opinion that he Mr. Boswell has 
departed from the faith of the particular Baptist churches, and demand that 
he be immediately notified that until he renounces his errors he cannot have 
our fellowship as a regular Gospel minister. 

The church adopted the report of the council and excluded the pastor. By the end of the year sixty-three members of 
the church had also  been excluded for their sympathy with and acceptance of Boswell's views. Under his leadership 
they formed a second Baptist church. Following Boswell's death in 1833, his church building was sold to all evangelical 
congregation, thus ending his influence. [21]

The Canipbellite controversy between the followers of Alexander Campbell and the Baptists was very divisive in western 
Pennsylvania in the 1820's. In 1822-23 the pastor of the First Baptist Church of Pittsburgh was Sidney Rigdon, who had 
come under the influence of Campbell and whose teachings were "strange" to the members. Accordingly, the membership 
dwindled from 113 to 22 within a year. When fifteen members protested against his teachings, Rigdon used his influence 
to bring about their excommunication. The excommunicated members then organized themselves into a group for worship under 
the ministerial guidance of John Winter. They drew up a formal protest against their exclusion, claiming to be 
the real First Baptist Church of Pittsburgh. They asserted that the majority of the members were no longer a Baptist 
church because they had departed from  the principles and doctrines of Baptists, and accordingly had no legal or moral 
right to the church property. On October 11, 1823, a church council decided that the minority was right and was entitled 
to the church property, Rigdon was found guiltyty of preaching baptismal regeneration and other heresies. He was 
excluded from the church


Foundations Oct. 1961
[p.329]

and deposed from the Baptist ministry. The case was ultimately settled in the civil courts in 1836. [22]

The most troublesome and scandalous cases of discipline concerned laxity in moral standards. Shortly after the 
organization of the Philadelphia Association, its peace was disturbed by Thomas Selby, who created a rupture in the 
church at Philadelphia and Pennepek. When the situation was laid before the Association in 1712, eleven persons were 
nominated to arbitrate the differences between the factions aroused by Selby's actions. Under the committee's 
recommendation, the church paid Selby the money subscribed to him and discharged him from any further work in the 
ministry. Because of his general reputation, he was also banned from communion. [23]

One of the saddest cases of church discipline concerned the illustrious Morgan Edwards, pastor of the First Baptist 
Church in Philadelphia from 1761 to 1771 and first historian of Baptists in America. During the American Revolution his 
Tory background caused him to come tinder suspicion. In August 1775 he was obliged to make a public declaration of his 
loyalty to the American cause in order to quiet the opposition. Whether because of these trying circumstances or for 
some other reason, he yielded to intoxicants, and was brought under church discipline. The charges was "inatention [sic] 
to publick worship, joining yourselfe with Drunkards, Frequenting Taverns, Being often Intoxicated." After a lapse of 
four years, he was restored to good standing in 1788. He died in 1795. [24]

Associations in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries frequently warned the churches against persons who 
pretended to be Baptist ministers in order to exploit the members. An example of this kind of waarning may be found 
in the records of the Redstone Baptist Association of western Pennsylvania:

On information relative to the character of John Johnson calling himself a 
Baptist minister, about 5 ft. 5 inches high, somewhat fleshy, light hair and 
complexion, (his language partakes of the Welsh and Scotch dialect) Resolved, 
that the churches in our connexion, do esteem him an impostor [SiC]. [25]

In Indiana the Baptist church at Rome found Elder George F. Mayer, a retired minister, guilty of "deliberate falsehood 
and unchristian conduct." He was excluded from membership in the church and his license as a minister of the gospel 
was revoked."

When the Liberty Baptist Church in Altoona, Pennsylvaiiia failed 


Foundations Oct. 1961
[p.330]

to accept the recommendation of a council appointed by the Centre Baptist Association to investigate charges against 
the pastor, it was excluded from the association in 1904. In this instance, the council had voted "to withdrew the 
hand of Christian fellowship from [him], to depose him from the Baptist ministry; and to recommend the Liberty Church 
to exclude him from membership. [26] 

A second instance in which a church was disfellowshipped by its Association so long as it retained a pastor ",Iiicli 
a council found to be unworthy was in connection with the Cohansie Baptist Church in New Jersey in 1894. For two years 
the church stood by its pastor, accepting ostracism until it became convinced that the charges made against him were 
correct. Whereupon the church excluded him and reported its action to the Association and was warmly reinstated. [27]

Summary

From these scattered examples of church discipline of ministers, a pattern may be seen. It consisted of several steps, 
the first of which was the issuance of complaints or charge, by an individual or individuals. The second step was 
appointment of a committee or council of the peers of the accused minister, usually representing both sides of the 
issue, to bear evidence and make a recommendation to the church. Sometimes the council was appointed at the instigation 
of the church: at other times, by the association. If a church failed to accept the recommendation of the council for 
the exclusion of a minister who was believed to be unworthy of his position, the association withdrew fellowship from 
the church. In this way the larger fellowship exerted pressure on the local congregation on behalf of standards for 
the ministry which were important to the witliess of the whole church.


1. W. T. The Baptists of London, 1612-1928 (London: The Kingsgate Press, n.d.), p. 23.               

2. Raymond J. Bean, "The Philadelphia Baptist Association," The Chronicle, vol. xx, no. 2 (April 1967), pp. 54f.

3. A. D. Gillette, ed., Minutes of the Philadelphia Baptist Association from 1707 to 1807 (Philadelphia: American 
Baptist Publication Society, 1851), pp. 27, 70.

4. Henry Crockur. History of the Baptists in Vermont (Bellow Falls, Vt., 1913), pp. 37f., 72.

5. E. E. Harkness. "Some Early Practices of  Baptists in America," The Chronicle, vol. vii, no. 1 (January 1944), p. 21.

6. William L. Lumpkin, "The Baptist Doctrine of the Ministry," The Review and  Expositor, vol. lv, no. 3 
(July 1958), pp. 25f.

7.  J. L. Burrows, "Centennial Discourse: Dover Baptist Association, 1783-1883," The Chronicle, vol. iii, no. 2 
(April 1940), pp. 73f.

8. Ollie Latch, History of the General Baptists (Poplar Bluff, Mo.: The General Baptist Press, 1954), p. 139.


Foundations Oct. 1961
[p.331]


9. William Warren Sweet, ed., Religion on the American Frontier: th