|
ARTICLES
OF INTEREST
(click on the Article Number to view article)
Article I ,
"Hampton Court Conference"
Article
II , "Origin
of the State Association of Arkansas"
Article
III , "Tennessee
Baptist Paper"
Article
IV , "Did
they Dip?"
(Article IV is a downloadable PDF file - 100
pages)
You will need the Adobe Acrobat Reader to view this document.
CLICK
HERE if you don't already have the reader installed.
-
Article I -
Hampton
Court Conference
This
account of the Hampton Court Conference, at which the idea of what became
known as the King James Translation was first suggested, was included
in the March, 1852, Christian Repository, in conjunction with
other articles in a special section titled, "The English Scriptures,
Their Revision and Correction." These articles were featured in the
early months of the year, leading up to a Bible Convention that was
held in Memphis, Tennessee, beginning April 2, 1852.
The entire transcript of the Hampton
Court Conference is given to indicate the context in which the new translation
was proposed, and to see the other issues discussed during the two-day
meeting. It should be noted that Dr. John Reynolds, the only Puritan
allowed to speak, was not permitted to attend the first day's session.
Also, he was rather rudely treated by some of the other participants,
particularly the Bishop of London.
Queen Elizabeth, “by the grace
of God,” head of the Church of England, after a reign of more than
forty years, died March 24, 1602. She designated as successor, her relative
James VI of Scotland, whose mother, Mary Queen of Scots, Elizabeth had
cruelly and pusilanimously pursued unto death. In James, the royal houses
of the Tudors and the Stuarts became blended, and the kingdoms of Scotland
and England united. As the first of the Stuarts on the English throne,
he was crowned with the title of James the First, King of Great Britain,
Ireland and France, Defender of the Faith, and Supreme Head of the Church
of England.
James was a Papist by birth, a Presbyterian
by education, and an Episcopalian by royal succession. While on the
Scottish throne, he was reckoned among the most sturdy defenders of
the Genevan theology, which was, indeed, the most important ingredient
in the civil and religious polity of his kingdom. His sceptre and crown
might then have been depen-dent on his adherence to Presbyterianism.
His whole life shows, that he regarded religion merely as a convenient
and useful portion of kingcraft; and, therefore, the peculiarities of
his creed, at any particular period of his life, can be a matter of
no conse-quence except to illustrate his policy as the civil and ghostly
head of a great nation.
Puritanism had obtained great strength
during the latter part of Elizabeth's reign (she died March 2, 1602).
Many of the best and ablest men in the English church itself were disgusted
with the miserable mimicry of the Papal rites and ceremonies by law
established in England. The majority of the people sympathized with
those who urged a more thorough reform in religion.
But every attempt for such an end
had been repressed by the imperious Elizabeth. The Puritans were everywhere
oppressed, or else forced into rigid conformity to the letter and spirit
of the established liturgy. Upon her death, great hopes were entertained
that her successor would grant the desired reformation. But the English
hierarchy were determined to hinder any further reforms if possible.
Each party, therefore, eagerly sought
to obtain the favor of the new King. No sooner, however, had James touched
English soil and breathed English air, than he became an earnest and
zealous Episcopalian. But to save appearances, he appointed the 4th
of January, 1604, when he would confer with the principle men of both
parties respecting church affairs. This was the famous Hampton Court
Conference. This conference is important, as in it the promise of the
King was obtained for a revised and corrected version of the English
Scriptures, and which resulted in our present version. That our readers
may understand the spirit of the times, as well as learn something of
the men of the times, we extract from Fuller's Church History of Britan,
an extended notice of that celebrated Conference. It will repay the
perusal.
The
King was moderator. The first day the only Puritans invited, four in
number, were excluded from the room of consultation. Omitting all gratulatory
preambles, as necessary when spoken, and needless if now repeated, Fuller
proceeds to relate the substance of the first day's Conference.
King
James thus beginning it:
"It is no moral device, but according
to the example of all Christian princes for Kings to take the first
counsel for the establishment of the church both on doctrine and policy.
"For, blessed be God's gracious
goodness, who hath brought me into the promised land, where religion
is purely professed, where I sit amongst great, learned and reverend
men, not as before, elsewhere, A king without state, without honor,
without order, where beardless boys would brave us the face. ...because
we have received many disorders and much disobedience to the laws, with
a great falling away to popery; our purpose therefore is, like a good
physician, to examine and try the complaints, and fully to remove the
occasion thereof; if scandalous, cure them of dangerous, and take knowledge
of them if but frivolous...
"For the course we have called you
bishops and deans, in severally by yourselves not to be confronted by
the contrary opponent; that if anything shall be found meet to be rendered,
it might be done without any visible alteration.
"Particularly there be some special
points wherein I desire to be satisfied, and which may be reduced to
three heads:
1. Concerning the Book of Common
Prayer and divine service used in the church.
2. Excommunication in Ecclesiastical
cants.
3. The providing of fit and able
ministers for Ireland.
"In
the Common Prayer Book, I require satisfaction about three things"
"First about Confirmation. For the
very name thereof if arguing a confirming of baptism, as if this sacrament
without it were of no validity, is plainly blasphemous. For though at
the first use thereof in the church it was thought necessary that baptized
infants who formerly had answered by their patrini should, when
come to years of discretion, after their profession made by themselves
be confirmed with the blessing of the bishop. I abhor the abuse wherein
it is made a sacrament, a corroboration to baptism.
"Second, as for Absolution I know
not how it is used in our church but have heard it likened to the popes
pardons. There be indeed two kinds thereof from God: One general;
all prayers and preaching imputing an absolution: The other particular,
to general parties having committed a scandal, and repenting. Otherwise
where excom-munication precedes not, in my judgement there needs no
absolution.
"Third, Private Baptism is the third
thing wherein I would be satisfied, in the Common Prayer. If called
private from the place, I think it agreeable with the use of the primitive
church; but if termed private, that any beside a lawful minister
may baptize, I utterly dislike it."
And here his majesty grew somewhat
earnest in his expressions, against the baptizing by women and laics.
"In the second head of Excommunication,
I offer two things to be considered of: First, the matter; Secondly,
the persons.
"For the first I would
be satisfied whether it be executed (as it is complained of to me) in
light causes, and that too commonly which causeth the undervaluing thereof.
"For the persons I would be
resolved why chancellors and commissaries being laymen, should do it,
and not rather the bishops themselves, or some minister of gravity and
account, deputed by them for the mere dignity to so high and weighty
a censure. As for providing ministers for Ireland I shall refer to it
in the last day's Conference, to a consultation."
Archbishop of Canterbury
[kneeling while he addressed the King]
Confirmation hath been used in the
Catholic church ever since the Apostles; and it is a very untrue suggestion
[if any have informed your Highness] that the Church of England holds
baptism imperfect without it as adding to the virtue and strength thereof.
Bishop of London-- The authority
of confirmation depends not only on antiquity and the practice of the
primitive church, but is an apostolic institution named in express words
Heb. vi. 2; and so did Mr. Calvin expound the very place, earnestly
wishing the restitution thereof in the Reformed churches.
The bishop of Carlisle is said gravely
and learnedly to have urged the same, and the bishop of Durham noted
something out of St. Matthew for the imposition of hands on children.
The conclusion was this: "For
the fuller explanation that we make Confirmation neither a sacrament
nor a corroboration thereof, their lordships should consider whether
it might not without alteration [whereof his Majesty was still very
wary] be entitled an Examination with a Confirmation.
Archbishop of Canterbury--
As for the point of Absolution, wherein your majesty desires satisfaction:
it is clear from all abuse or superstition, and it is used in our church
of England, as will appear on the reading both of the Confession and
Absolution following it, in the beginning of the Communion Book.
Here the King perused both and returned.
His Majesty-- I like and
approve them, finding it to be very true what you say.
Bishop of London-- It becometh
us to deal plainly with your majesty. There is also in the book a more
particular and personal Absolution in the visitation of the sick.
Here the dean of the chapel turned
unto it and read it.
Bishop of London-- Not only
the confessions of Augusta, Bohema and Saxon, retain and allow it, but
Mr. Calvin also doth approve both, such a general and such a private
[for so he terms it] Confession and Absolution.
His Majesty-- I exceedingly
well approve it, being an apostolical and godly ordinance, given in
the name of Christ, to one that desireth it upon the clearing of his
conscience.
The conclusion was this,--that the
bishops should consult, whether unto the Rubric of the General Absolution,
these words, ÒRemission of sins, might not be added for explanation-sake.
Archbishop of Canterbury--
To the point of Private Baptism; the administration thereof by women
and lay persons is not allowed in the practice of the church, but inquired
of, and censured by bishops in their visitations.
His Majesty-- The words of
the book cannot but intend a permission of women and private persons
to baptize.
Bishop of Worcester-- The
doubtful words may be pressed to that meaning; yet the compilers of
the book did not so intend them, as appeareth by their contrary practice.
But they propounded them ambigiously, because otherwise [perhaps] the
book would not [then] have passed parliament.
To this he cited the testimony of
the archbishop of York.
Bishop of London-- Those
reverend men intended not by ambiguous terms to deceive any, but thereby
intended a permission of private persons to baptize, in case of necessity.
{Here he produced the letters of some of those first compilers.] This
is agreeable to the practice of the ancient church, when three thousand
being baptized in a day, Acts 4:41, (which for the apostles alone to
do, was at the least improbable,) some, being neither priests nor bishops,
must be presumed employed therein, and some Fathers are of the same
opinion.
Here he spake much, and earnestly
about the necessity of baptism.
His Majesty-- That in the
Acts was an act extraordinary, and done before a church was settled
and grounded; wherefore no sound reasoning thence to a church stablished
and flourishing. I maintain the necessity of baptism, and always thought
the place, John iii. 5, "Except one be born again of water," &c. was
meant thereof. It may seem strange to you, my lords, that I think you
in England give too much to baptism, seeing fourteen months ago, in
Scotland, I argued with my divines there for attributing too little
to it; inasmuch that a pert minister asked me, if I thought baptism
so necessary, that, if omitted the child should be damned. I answered,
"No: but if you, called to baptize a child, though privately, refuse
to come, I think you shall be damned."
But this necessity of baptism I
so understand, that it is necessary to be had, if lawful to be had;
that is, ministered by lawful ministers, by whom alone, and no private
person in any case, it may be administered: though I utterly dislike
all rebaptization on those whom women or laics have baptized.
Bishop
of Winchester--To
deny private persons to baptize in case of necessity, were to cross
all antiquity and the common practice of the church; it being a rule
agreed amongst divines, that the minister is not of the essence of the
sacrament.
His Majesty-- Though he be
not of the essence of the sacrament, yet is he of the essence of the
right and lawful ministry thereof, according to Christ's commission
to his disciples, "Go preach, and baptize," Matt. 28:19.
The result was this--to consult,
whether in the Rubric of Private Baptism, which leaves it indifferently
to all, these words, "Curate of lawful minister," may not
be inserted.
For the point of Excommunication,
his majesty propounded, whether in causes of lesser moment the name
might not be altered, and the same censure retained? Secondly, Whether,
in place thereof, another coercion, equivalent thereunto, might not
be invented. Which all sides easily yielded unto, as long and often
desired; and so was the end of the first day's conference.
Second
Day
On
Monday, January 16, they all met in the same place, with all the deans
and doctors above-mentioned...
The king made a pithy speech to
the same purpose which he made the first day, differing only in the
conclusion thereof, being an address to the four opposers of conformity,
there present, whom he understood the most grave, learned, and modest
of the aggrieved sort, professing himself ready to hear at large what
they could object, and willed them to begin.
Dr. Reynolds-- All things
disliked or questioned may be reduced to these four heads:
1. That the doctrine of the church
might be preserved in purity, according to God's Word.
2. That good pastors might be planted
in all churches to preach the same.
3. That the church government might
be sincerely ministered according to God's word.
4. That the Book of Common-Prayer
might be fitted to more increase of piety.
For
the First: May your majesty be pleased, that the Book of Articles of
Religion, concluded in 1562, may be explained where obscure, enlarged
where defective; namely, whereas it is said, article XVI. "After
we have received the Holy Ghost, we may depart from grace;" those
words may be explained with this or the like addition, "Yet neither
totally or finally." To which end it would do very well, if the
nine orthodox assertions concluded on at Lambeth might be inserted into
the Book of Articles.
Secondly. Whereas it is said in
article XXIII that it is not lawful for any in the congregation to preach,
before he be lawfully called; these words ought to be altered, because
implying one out of the congregation may preach, though not lawfully
called.
Thirdly. In article XXV there seemeth
a contradiction, one passage therein confessing Confirmation to be a
depraved imitation of the apostles, and another grounding it on their
example.
Bishop of London-- May your
majesty be pleased, that the ancient canon may be remembered: Schismatici
contra episcopos non sunt audiendi. And, there is another decree
of a very ancient council,--that no man should be admitted to speak
against that whereunto he hath formerly subscribed. As for you, Dr.
Reynolds, and your sociates [Puritans], how much are ye bound to his
majesty's clemency, permitting you, contrary to the statue primo
Elizabethae, so freely to speak against the Liturgy and discipline
established! Fain would I know the end you aim at, and whether you be
not of Mr. Cartwright's mind, who affirmed, that we ought in ceremonies
rather to conform to the Turks than to the papists. I doubt you approve
this position, because here appearing before his majesty in Turkey-gowns,
not in your scholastic habits, according to the order of the universi-ties.
His Majesty-- My lord bishop,
something in your passion I may excuse, and something I must mislike.
I may excuse you thus far,--that I think you have just cause to be moved,
in respect that they traduce the well-settled government, and also proceed
in so indirect a course, contrary to their own pretense, and the intent
of this meeting. I mislike your sudden interruption of Dr. Reynolds,
whom you should have suffered to have taken his liberty; for, there
is no order, nor can any effectual issue of disputation, if each party
be not suffered, without chopping , to speak at large. Wherefore, either
let the Doctor proceed, or frame your answer to his motions already
made, although some of them are very needless.
Bishop of London-- Upon the
first motion concerning falling from grace, may your majesty be pleased
to consider how many in these days neglect holiness of life, presuming
on persisting in grace upon predestination: "If I shall be saved,
I shall be saved." A desperate doctrine, contrary to good divinity,
wherein we should reason rather ascendendo than desceudeudo,
from our obedience to God and love to our neighbor, to our election
and predestination; it is in the very next paragraph, namely, "We
must receive GodÕs promises in such wise as they generally be set forth
to us in Holy Scripture, and in our doings the will of God is to be
followed which we have expressly declared unto us in the word of God."
His Majesty-- I approve it
very well, as consonant with the place of Paul, "Work out your own salvation
with fear and trembling." Yet let it be considered of, whether
anything were meet to be added for clearing of the doctor's doubt, by
putting in the word "often," or the like. Meantime, I wish
that the doctrine of predestination may be tenderly handled, lest on
one side God's omnipotency be questioned by impeaching the doctrine
of his eternal predestination, or on the other side a desperate pre-sumption
arreared, by inferring the necessary certainty of persisting in grace.
Bishop of London-- The second
objection of the doctor is vain; it being the doctrine and practice
of the church of England, that none but a licensed minister may preach,
nor administer the Lord's Supper.
His Majesty-- As for Private
Baptism, I have already with the bishops taken order for the same.
Then came they to the second point
of Confirmation: and upon the perusal of the words of the article, his
majesty concluded the pretended contradiction a cavil.
Bishop of London-- Conformation
is not so much founded on the place in the Acts of the Apostles, but
upon Heb. 6:2; which was the opinion (beside the judgement of the Fathers)
of Mr. Calvin, on Heb. 6:2; and Dr. Fulk, on Acts 8:17; neither needeth
there any father proof, seeing (as I suppose) he that objected thus
holds not Confirmation unlawful; but he and his party are vexed that
the use thereof is not in their own hands, for every pastor to confirm
his own parish; for then it would be accounted an apostolic institution,
if Dr. Reynolds were pleased but to speak his thoughts therein.
Dr. Reynolds-- Indeed, seeing
some diocese of a bishop hath therein six hundred parishes, it is a
thing very inconvenient to permit Confirmation to the bishop alone;
and I suppose it impossible that he can take due examination of them
all which come to be confirmed. Here the bishop of London thought himself
touched, because about six-hundred and nine in his diocese.
Bishop of London-- To the
matter of fact, I answer, that bishops in their visitations appoint
either their chaplains, or some other ministers, to examine them which
are to be confirmed, and lightly confirm none but by the testimony of
the parsons and curates, where the children are bred and brought up.
To the opinion I answer, that none of all the Fathers ever admitted
any to confirm but bishops alone. Yes, even St. Jerome himself (otherwise
no friend to bishops) confesseth the execution thereof was restrained
to bishops only.
Bishop of Winchester-- Dr.
Reynolds, I would fain have you, with all your learning, show where
ever Confirmation was used in ancient times by any other but bishops.
These used it, partly to examine children, and, after examination, by
imposition of hands, (the Jewish ceremony of blessing) to bless and
pray over them; and partly to try whether they had been baptized in
the right form or no. For in former ages some baptized (as they ought)
"in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost." Some (as
the Arians) "in the name of the Father" as the greater, "and
the Son" as the less. Some "in the name of the Father, by
the Son, in the Holy Ghost." Some not in the name of the Trinity,
but only "In the death of Christ." Whereupon catholic bishops
were constrained to examine them who were baptized in remotis,
concerning their baptism, if right, to confirm them,--if amiss, to instruct
them.
His Majesty-- I dissent from
the judgement of St. Jerome in his assertion, that bishops are not of
divine ordination.
Bishop of London-- Unless
I could prove my ordination lawful out of the Scriptures, I would not
be a bishop four hours longer.
His Majesty-- I approve the
calling and use of bishops in the church; and it is my opinion, "no
bishop, no king," nor intend I to take Confirmation from the bishops,
which they have so long enjoyed; seeing as great reason that none should
confirm, as that none should preach without the bishop's licence. But
let it be referred, whethere the word "examination" ought
not to be added to the Rubric in the title of Confiramtion in the Communion
Book. And now, Dr. Reynolds, you may proceed.
Dr. Reynolds-- I protest
I meant not to gall any man, though I perceive some took personal exceptionsat
my words, and desire the imputation of schism may not be charged upon
me. To proceed in article XXXVII, wherein are these words, "The
bishop of Rome hath no authority in this land;" these are nopt
sufficient,unless it were added, "nor ought to have any."
His Majesty-- Habemus
jure quod habemus; and, there-fore, inasmuch as it is said "he
hath not," it is plain enough that he ought not to have.
Here passed some pleasant discourse
betwixt the king and lords about Puritans, till, returning to seriousness,
there began the
Bishop of London-- May it
please your majesty to remember the speech of the French ambassador,
Monsieur Rognee, upon the view of our solemn service and ceremony; namely,
that if the Reformed churches in France had kept the same order, there
would have been thousands of protestants more than there are.
Dr. Reynolds-- It were well
if this proposition might be added to the Book of Articles, "The
intention of the minister is not of the essence of the sacrament;"
the rather, because somein Enbgland have preached it to be essential;
and here again I could desire that the nine "Orthodoxal Assertions,"
concluded at Lambeth, may be generally received.
His Majesty-- I utterly dislike
the first part of your motion, thinking it unfit to thrust into the
Book of Articles every position negative; which would swell the book
into a vol-ume as bag as the Bible, and confound the reader.Thus one
Mr. Craig in Scotland, with his "I renounce and abhor," his
multiplied destations and abrenuciations, so amazed simple people; that,
not able to conceive all their things, they fell back to popery, or
remained in their former ignorance. If boudn to this form, the confession
of my faith must be in my tablebook not in my head.
Because you speak of intention,
I will apply it thus: If you coem hither with a good intention to be
informed, the whole work will sort to the better effect; but if your
intention be to go as you came, (whatsoever shall be said), it will
prove the intention as very material and essential to the end of thius
present action.
As for the nine "Assertions"
you speak of, I cannot suddenly answer, not knowing what those propositions
of Lambeth be.
Bishop of London-- May it
please your majesty, this was the occasion of them: By reason of some
controversies arising in Cambridge about certain points of divinity,
my lord's grace assembled some divines of special not to set down their
opinions, which they drew into nine "Assertions," and so sent
them to the university for the appeasing of those quarrels.
His Majesty-- When such questions
arise amongst scholars, the quietest proceedings were to determine them
in the university, and not to stuff the Book of Articles with all conclu-sions
theological.
Secondly, The better course would
be to punish the broachers of false doctrine, than to multiply Articles;
which, if never so many, cannot prevent the contrary opinions of men
till they be heard.
Dean of St. Paul's-- May
it please your majesty, I am nearly concerned in this matter, by reason
of a controversy betwixt me and some other in Cambridge, upon a proposition,
which I there delivered, namely, that "whosoever (though before
justified) did commit any grievous sin, as adultery, murder, do become
ipso facto, subject to God's wrath and guilty of damnation, quoad
proesentum stsatus, until he repent; yet so that those who are justified
according to the purpose of God's election, (though they might fall
into grievous sin, and thereby into the present estate of damnation),
yet never totally nor finally from justification; but were in time renewed
by GodÕs Spirit unto a lively faith and repentance." Against this
doctrine some did oppose, teaching that persons once truly justified,
though falling into grievous sins, remained still in the state of justification,
before they actually repented of these sins; yea, and, though they never
repented of them through forgetfulness or sudden death, they nevertheless
were justified and saved.
His Majesty-- I dislike this
doctrine, there being a necesity of conjoining repentance and holiness
of life with true faith; and that is hypocrisy, and not justifying faith,
which is severed from them. For although predestination and election
depend not on any qualities, actions, or works of man which are mutable,
but on God's eternal decree; yet such is the necessity of repentance,
after known sins committed, that without it no reconciliation with God,
or remission of sins.
Dr. Reynolds-- The Catechism
in the Common-Prayer Book is too brief, and that by Mr. Nowell, (late
dean of Paul's) too long for novices to learn by heart. I request, therefore,
that one uniform Catechism may be made, and none other generally received.
His Majesty-- I think the
doctor's request very reasonable; yet so, that the Catechism may be
made in the fewest and plainest affirmative terms that may be, not like
the many ignorant Catechisms in Scotland, set out by every one who was
the son of a good man; insomuch that what was Catechism doctrine in
one congregation was scarcely received as orthodox in another, And herein
I would have two rules observed: First, That curious and deep questions
be avoided in the fundamental instruction of a people. Secondly, That
there should not be so general a departure from the papists, that everything
should be accounted an error wherein we agree with them.
Dr. Reynolds-- Great is the
profanation of the sabbath day, and contempt of your majesty's proclamation;
which I earnestly desire may be reformed.
This motion found an unanimous consent.
Dr. Reynolds-- May your Majesty
be pleased that the Bible be new translated, such as are extant not
answering the original. And he instanced in three particulars: Galatians
4:25, in the original sutoichei is ill translated, "Bordereth."
Psalms 105:28, in the original "They were not disobedient,"
is ill translated, "They were not obedient." Psalm 106:30
in the original, "Phinehas executed judgement," is ill translated,
"Phinehas prayed.".
Bishop of London-- If every
man's humor might be fol-lowed, there would be no end of translating.
His Majesty-- I profess I
could never yet see a Bible well translated in English; but I think,
that, of all, that of Geneva is the worst. I wish some special pains
were taken for a uniform translation, which should be done by the best
learned in both universities, then reviewed by the bishops, presented
to the Privy Council, lastly, ratified by royal authority, to be read
in the whole church, and no other.
Bishop of London-- But it
is fit that no marginal notes should be added thereunto.
His Majesty-- That caveat
is well put in; for in the Geneva translation some notes are partial,
untrue, seditious, and savoring of traitorous conceits: "As, when from
Exodus i, 19, disobedience to kings is allowed in a marginal note; and
2 Chron. xv. 16, king Asa taxed in the note for only deposing
his mother for idolatry, and not killing her. To conclude this:
let errors in the matter of faith be amended, and in different things
be interpreted, and a gloss added unto them. For as Bartolus de Regno
saith, that "a king with some weakness is better than still a change;"
so, rather a church with some faults than an innovation. And surely,
if these were the greatest matters that grieved you, I need not have
been troubled with such importunate complaints."
[Note: The actual marginal note
objected to by the King in Ex. 1:19 read: "Their disobedience here was
lawful, but their dissembling evil.
"When tyrants cannot prevail by
crafte, they braft [break] forth into open rage."]
Dr. Reynolds-- May it please
your majesty, that unlawful and seditious books be suppressed, such
as Ficlerus, a papist, De Jure Magistratus in Subditos, applied
against the late queen for the pope.
Bishop of London-- There
is no such licentious divulging of those books; and none have liberty,
by authority, to buy them, except such as Dr. Reynolds, who was supposed
would confute them. And if such books come into the realm by secret
conveyances, perfect notice cannot be had of their importation. Besides,
Ficlerus was a great disciplinarian: whereby it appears what advantage
that sort gave unto the papists, who mutatis personis, apply
their own arguments against princes of their religion, though for my
part I detest both the author and applier alike.
The Lord Cecil-- Indeed,
the unlimited liberty of dispersing Popish and seditious pamphlets in
Paul's Church-yard, and both the Universities, hath done much mischief;
but especially one called Speculum Tragicum.
His Majesty-- That is a dangerous
book, indeed.
Lord H. Howard-- Both for
matter and intention.
Lord Chancellor-- Of such
books, some are Latin, some are English; but the last dispersed do most
harm.
Secretary Cecil-- But my
Lord of London (and no man else) hath done what he could to suppress
them.
His Majesty-- Dr. Reynolds,
you are a better college man than a statesman, if meaning to tax the
bishop of London for suffering those books, between the Secular priests
and Jesuits, to be published; which he did by warrant from the Council,
to nourish a schism betwixt them.
Lord Cecil-- Such books were
tolerated, because by them the title of Spain was confuted.
Lord Treasurer-- And because
therein it appears, by the testimony of the priests themselves, that
no papists are put to death for conscience only, but for treason.
Dr. Reynolds-- Indeed, I
meant not such books as were printed in England, but only such as came
from beyond the seas. And now, to proceed to the second general point,
concerning the planting of learned ministers: I desire they be in every
parish.
His Majesty-- I have consulted
with my bishops about it, whom I have found willing and ready herein.
But as subita evaciatio is periculosa; so subita mutatio.
It cannot presently be performed, the Universities not affording them.
And yet they afford more learned men than the realm doth maintenance;
which must first be provided. In the meantime, ignorant ministers, if
young, are to be removed, if there be no hope of amendment; if old,
their death must be expected, because Jerusalem cannot be built up in
a day.
Bishop of Winchester-- Lay-patrons
much cause the insufficiency of the clergy, presenting mean clerks to
their cures; (the law admitting of such sufficiency;) and, if the bishop
refuseth them, presently a quare impedit is sent out against
them.
Bishop of London-- Because
this, I see, is a time of moving petitions [this he spake kneeling],
may I humbly present two or three to your majesty? First, That there
may be amongst us a praying ministry, it being now come to pass, that
men think it is the only duty of ministers to spend their time in the
pulpit. I confess, in a church newly to be planted, preaching is most
necessary, not so, in one long established, that prayer should be neglected.
His Majesty-- I like your
motion exceedingly well, and dislike the hypocrisy of our time, who
place all their religion in the ear, whilst prayer (so requisite and
acceptable, if duly performed) is accounted and used as the least part
of religion.
Bishop of London-- My second
motion is, that, until learned men may be planted in every congregation,
godly Homilies may be read.
His Majesty-- I approve your
motion, especially where the living is not sufficient for the maintenance
of a leaned preacher. Also, where there be multitudes of sermons, there
I would have Homilies read divers times. [Here the king asked the assent
of the plaintiffs, and they confessed it.] A preaching ministry is best;
but, where it may not be had, godly prayers and exhortations do much
good.
Lord Chancellor-- Livings
rather want learned men, than learned men livings; many in the universities
pining for want of places. I wish, therefore, some may have single coats
[one living] before others have doublets [pluralities]. And this method,
I have observed in bestowing the kingÕs benefices.
Bishop of London-- I commend
your honorable care that way; but a doublet is necessary in cold weather.
Lord Chancellor-- I dislike
not the liberty of our church, in granting to one man two benefices,
but speak out of mine own purpose and practice, grounded on the aforesaid
reason.
Bishop of London-- My last
motion is, that pulpits may not be made pasquils, wherein every discontented
fellow may traduce his superiors.
His Majesty-- I accept what
you offer; for the pulpit is no place of personal reproof. Let them
complain to me, if injured.
Bishop of London-- If your
majesty shall leave yourself open to admit of all complaints, your Highness
shall never be quiet, nor your under officers regarded; whom every delinquent,
will threaten to complain of.
His Majesty-- I mean, they
shall complain to me by degrees. First, to the ordinary; from him to
the archbishop; from him to the lords of the Council; and, if in all
these no remedy be found, then to myself.
Dr. Reynolds-- I come now
to subscription, as a great impeachment to a learned ministry; and therefore
entreat it may not be exacted as heretofore; for which many good men
are kept out, though otherwise willing to subscribe to the statutes
of the realm, Articles of Religion, and the king's supremacy. The reason
of their backwardness to subscribe, is, because the Common Prayer Book
enjoineth the Apocrypha books to be read in the church, although some
chapters therein contain manifest errors repugnant to Scripture. For
instance Ecclesiasticus 48:10, Elias in person is said to come before
Christ, contrary to what is in the New Testament of Elias in resemblance,
that is, John the Baptist, Matt. 11:14; Luke 1:17.
Bishop of London-- Most of
the objections against those books are the old cavils of the Jews, renewed
by St. Jerome, who first called them Apocrypha; which opinion, upon
Rufinus's challenge, he, after a sort, disclaimed.
Bishop of Winchester-- Indeed,
St. Jerome saith, Canonici sunt ad informandos mores, non ad confirmandam
fidem.
His Majesty-- To take an
even order betwixt both: I would not have all canonical books read in
the church: nor any chapter out of the Apocrypha, wherein any error
is contained. Wherefore, let Dr. Reynolds note those chapters in the
Apocrypha books wherein those offenses are, and bring them to the Archbishop
of Canterbury against Wednesday next. And now, doctor, proceed.
Dr. Reynolds-- The next scruple
against subscription, is, because it is twice set down in the Common
Prayer Book, "Jesus said to his disciples," when by the text
of the original, it is plain, that he spake to the pharisees.
His Majesty-- Let the word
"disciples" be omitted, and the words, "Jesus said,"
be printed in a different letter.
Mr. Knewstubs-- I take exceptions
at the Cross in baptism; whereat the weak brethren are offended, contrary
to the counsel of the Apostle, Romans 14:1, I Cor. 8.
His Majesty-- Distingue
tempora, et concordunt Scripturae, great the difference betwixt
those times and ours. Then, a church not fully settled; now, ours long
established. How long will such brethren be weak? Are not forty five
years sufficient for them to grow strong in? Besides, who pretends this
weakness? We require not subscriptions, of laics and idiots, but of
preachers and ministers, who are not still (I trow) to be fed with milk,
being enabled to feed others. Some of them are strong enough, if not
headstrong; conceiving themselves able enough to teach him who last
spake for them, and all the bishops in the land.
Mr. Knewstubs-- It is questionable
whether the church hath power to institute an outward significant sign.
Bishop of London-- The Cross
in baptism is not used oth-erwise than a ceremony.
Bishop of Winchester-- Kneeling,
lifting up of the hands, knocking of the breast, are significant ceremonies,
and these may be lawfully used.
Dean of the Chapel-- The
Rabbins write, that the Jews added both signs and words at the institution
of the passover; namely, when they ate sour herbs, they said, "Take
and eat these in remembrance," when they drank wine, they said,
"Drink this in remembrance." Upon which addition and tradition,
our Saviour instituted the sacrament of his last supper, thereby approving,
a church may institute and retain a sign significant.
His Majesty-- I am exceedingly
well satisfied in this point, but would be acquainted about the antiquity
of the use of the Cross.
Dr. Reynolds-- It hath been
used ever since the apostles' time. But the question is, How ancient
the use thereof hath been in baptism?
Dean of Winchester-- It appears
out of Tertullian, Cyprian, and Origen, that it was used in immortali
lavacro.
Bishop of Winchester--In
ConstantineÕs time it was used in baptism.
His Majesty-- If so, I see
no reason but that we may continue it.
Mr. Knewstubs-- Put the case,
the church hath power to add significant signs, it may not add them
where Christ hath already ordained them; which is as derogatory to Christ's
institution, as if one should add to the Great Seal of England.
His Majesty--The case is
not alike; seeing, the sacrament is fully finished, before any mention
of the cross is made therein.
Mr. Knewstubs--If the church
hath such a power, the greatest scruple is, how far the ordinance of
the church bindeth, without impeaching Christian liberty.
His Majesty-- I will not
argue that point with you but answer as kings in parliament, Le Roy
s'avisera. This is like Mr. John Black, a beardless boy, who told
me the last Confer-ence in Scotland, that he would hold conformity with
his majesty in matters of doctrine; but every man, for ceremonies, was
to be left to his own liberty. But I will have none of that; I will
have one doctrine, one discipline, one religion, in sub-stance and in
ceremony. Never speak more to that point,--how far are you bound to
obey.
Dr. Reynolds-- Would that
the Cross (being superstitiously abused in popery) were abandoned, as
the brazen serpent was stamped to powder by Hezekiah, because abused
to idolatry.
His Majesty-- Inasmuch as
the Cross was abused to superstition in time of popery, it doth plainly
imply that it was well used before. I detest their courses who peremptorily
disallow of all things which have been abused in popery; and know not
how to answer the objections of the papist, when they charge us with
novelties, and only forsake their novel corruptions. Secondly. No resemblance
betwixt the brazen serpent, (a material, visible thing) and the sign
of the Cross, made in the air. Thirdly. Papist, as I am informed, did
never ascribe any spiritual grace to the Cross in baptism. Lastly. Material
Crosses, to which people fell down in time of popery, (as the idolatrous
Jews to the brazen serpent) are already demolished, as you desire.
Mr. Knewstubs-- I take exception
at the wearing of the Surplice, a kind of garment used by the priests
of Isis.
His Majesty-- I did not think,
till of late, it had been borrowed from the Heathen, because commonly
called "a rag of Popery." Seeing now we border not upon Heathens,
neither are any of them conversant with or commorant amongst us, thereby
to be confirmed in Paganism; I see no reason but for comeliness sake
it may be continued.
Dr. Reynolds-- I take exception
at these words in the marriage, "With my body I thee worship."
His Majesty-- I was made
to believe, the phrase imported no less than Divine adoration, but find
it an unusual English term; as when we say "a gentleman of worship;"
and it agreeth with the Scriptures, "giving honor to the wife."
As for you, Dr. Reynolds, [this the king spoke smiling], many men speak
of Robin Hood, who never shot in his bow: If you had a good wife yourself,
you would think all worship and honor you could do her were well bestowed
on her.
Dean of Sarum-- Some take
exception at the ring in marriage.
Dr. Reynolds-- I approve
it well enough.
His Majesty-- I was married
with a ring, and think others scarce well-married without it.
Dr. Reynolds-- Some take
exceptions at the churching of women, by the name of "purification."
His Majesty-- I allow it
very well. Women being loathe of themselves to come to church, I like
this or any other occasion to draw them thither.
Dr. Reynolds-- My last exception
is against committing ecclesiastical censures to lay chancellors, the
rather, because it was ordered, anno 1571, that lay chancellors, in
matters of cor-rection, and, anno 1589, in matters of instance, should
not excommunicate any, but be done only by them who had power of the
keys, though the contrary is commonly practiced.
His Majesty-- I have conferred
with my bishops about this point, and such order shall be taken therein
as is convenient. Meantime, go on to some other matter.
Dr. Reynolds-- I desire,
that, according to certain provincial constitutions, the clergy may
have meetings every three weeks:
1. First, in rural deaneries,
therein to have prophesying, as archbishop Grindal and other bishops
desired of her late majesty.
2. That such things as could
not be resolved there, might be referred to the archdeacons' visitations.
3. And so to the episcopal
synod, to determine such points before not decided.
His Majesty-- If you aim
at a Scottish presbytery, it agreeth as well with monarchy, as God and
the devil. Then Jack, and Tom, and Will, and Dick shall meet and censure
me and my Council. Therefore I reiterate my former speech, Le RoysÕ
avisera. Stay, I pray, for one seven years, before you demand; and
then if you find me grow pursy and fat, I may, perchance, hearken unto
you; for that government will keep me in breath, and give me work enough.
I shall speak of one matter more, somewhat out of order, but it skilleth
not. Dr. Reynolds, you have often spoken for my supremacy, and it is
well. But know you any here or elsewhere who like of the present government
ecclesiastical, and dislike my supremacy?
Dr. Reynolds-- I know none.
His Majesty-- Why then I
will tell you a tale: After that the religions restored by King Edward
VI was soon overthrown by Queen Mary here in England, we in Scotland
felt the effect of it. For, therefore, Mr. Knox writes to the queen
regent, a virtuous and moderate lady; telling her that she was the supreme
head of the church, and charged her as she would answer it to God's
tribunal, to take care of Christ's Evangel in suppressing the Popish
prelates who withstood the same. But how long, trow you, did this continue?
Even till, by her authority, the popish bishops were repressed, and
Knox, with her adherents, being brought in, made strong enough. Then
began they to make small account of her supremacy, when, according to
that more light, wherewith they were illuminated, they made a further
reformation of themselves. How they used the poor lady, my mother, is
not known, or how they dealt with me in my minority. I thus apply it:
my lords the bishops, (this he said, putting his hand to his hat) I
may think you that these men plead thus for my supremacy. They think
they cannot make their party good against you but by appealing unto
it. But if once you were out and they in, I know what would become of
my supremacy; for "No bishop, no king!" I have learned of
what cut they have been, who, preaching before me since my coming into
England, passed over in silence my being supreme governor in causes
ecclesiastical. Well, doctor, have you anything else to say?
Dr. Reynolds-- No more, if
it please your majesty.
His Majesty-- If this be
all your party hath to say, I will make them conform themselves, or
else I will harry them out of the land, or, else do worse.
Thus ended the second day's
conference.
>back
to top of page<
-
Article II -
Factors
Leading to the Organization of the State Association of Arkansas
One
question frequently asked is, "If the State Association was organized
in 1901, how did the churches and local associations associate on a
state-wide basis until that time?" The answer is that they were
a part of the Arkansas Baptist State Convention. However, the convention
until 1877 operated in basically the same way as our state association.
It was not until after the Landmark churches split off in 1901 and the
convention developed the co-operative program in 1924 that the convention
assumed the centralized program that Landmarkers opposed.
As an example, the Saline Association,
the oldest continuous association in the state, was organized on October
1, 1836. Until 1848 this was the only association south of the Arkansas
River. The organizational meet-ing of the Arkansas Baptist State Convention
preceded the regular meeting of the Saline Association on Sep. 21, 1848.
The Saline Association immediately followed this organizational meeting.
Although some effort was made to
show the Convention as an immediate success, it should be noted that
the 1850 session at Mt. Bethel Church, in Clark County, near Arkadelphia,
was attended by 15 churches and representatives from three associations:
Saline, Red River, and Liberty. Six of the 15 churches were in the organization.
None of the churches represented at the 1850 session are now Landmark
churches.
In his history of Arkansas Baptists,
J. S. Rogers admitted the lack of participation under the caption, "The
Answer to a Question in a Thousand Minds." He continued, "Nearly every
Baptist, as soon as he or she knows that only 23 churches and two or
three associations were represented in the organization of the ... Convention
in 1848, asks the question, Why were there so few churches and associations
represented in so important a Baptist movement?" Among the four reasons
given were, "Churches in that day were a bit conservative in joining
a new venture." The truth of the matter is that many of the Landmarkers
never actually participated in the activities of the Convention. However,
those favoring the Convention charged that the Landmark movement was
led by out of state "interlopers."1
At the 1854 session the same three
associations were represented. At this meeting the Convention heard
"the suggestion of the Red River Association to suspend operations for
the present, and also that of the Saline Association, to dissolve for
the purpose of uniting in a new organization, was fully discussed, which
manifested warm and devoted attachment to the Convention by nearly all
the delegates present and seemed to inspire them with unswerving confidence
in its future success." J. S. Rogers stated the delegates "discussed
the matter of dissolving the Convention! Saline and Red River had passed
resolutions to that effect! They were failing to secure cooperation."
The report continued, "They came to the conclusion to go on with their
work!"2
However, it should be noted that
the Red River and Saline Associations were both absent from the 1856
session, and in fact the Saline Association does not appear as a representative
again until the 1868 session, when Dr. J. R. Graves "was present...and
accepted a seat in the body." The Pine Bluff Association was also represented
at this meeting. Dr. Graves was asked to preach the introductory sermon
for the 1869 meeting, scheduled for Helena.3 Many may not realize that
J. R. Graves led his opposition to convention methods even though he
continued affiliation until his death. Ben M. Bogard and the churches
he pastored were also part of the SBC until the 1901 split.
As further evidence of general dissatisfaction
with the State Convention, the 1856 session decided to "drop all enterprises
except the Denominational College and newspaper..."4 Their decision
was to allow the local associations to establish new churches and help
the existing churches. This should clearly show the churches favored
doing mission work through their local associations.
E. Glenn Hinson5 stated the work
of the Convention "may have threatened the associations." The truth
of the matter is the churches and local associations were not willing
to commit this work to a State Convention until after about 1920.
From the outset of the State Convention,
the resistance toward centralization of authority reflected the concerns
of Landmarkism. As Hinson explained,6 the early Constitution of the
State Convention provided "for an Executive Committee composed of a
president, a recording secretary, two vicepresidents, a corresponding
secretary, a treasurer, and ten or more 'managers'. They were expected
to 'transact all business during the recess of the Convention and disburse
funds,' 'fill all vacancies of its own body,' and submit an annual report."
At the 1859 meeting, which met at
Little Rock, just prior to the Civil War, only six churches and four
associations were represented. The initial lack of cooperation with
the State Convention is sometimes attributed to the devastating effect
of the Civil War. The effect of the Civil War on local churches and
associations cannot be denied.7 However, the fact that only six churches
and seven associations [out of a total of 22 or 23] were present at
the 1859 meeting indicates a lack of enthusiasm for the program of the
State Convention, even before the Civil War.
After the Civil War, a preliminary
meeting was held in 1867. J. S. Rogers reported: "The attendance was
small. You would expect that under the circumstances. Most churches
had met only occasionally during the war and associations met very irregularly,
if at all. Travel was still very difficult. All progress of every kind
had been sent into eclipse during the war."8
Hinson characterized the period
after the Civil War, "Only a few churches and associations rallied to
the initial meeting to reorganize in 1867. Through the next thirteen
years the Convention wrestled with numerous tensions carried over from
the War and from its own prewar days....In its brief history up to the
war this organization had experienced considerable ambivalence and strife
as to its major purpose."9
By contrast 20 churches were represented
in the Saline Association in 1868.
In noting the damage done by the
Civil War and the subsequent return to normalcy, Rogers quoted a summary
made by J. B. Searcy. Searcy wrote, "Then as the State Convention took
up mission work more vigorously in 1867, it was confronted by non-progressive
groups in scores and scores of our Baptist churches. These groups were
severely critical of Boards and other agencies and produced a strong
under current of opposition that was vexing to the last degree. This
element did not get out of the churches and would not 'get in' to help
the missionary program."10
We should note what constituted
being nonprogressive, and that this sentiment was evidenced in "scores
and scores of our Baptist churches." The lack of real support for the
State Convention, and this admission by an official representative as
early as 1867, should indicate that the opposition to the "boards" and
other denominational machinery was in place well before Drs. W. A. Clark,
Ben. M. Bogard, and others led in their opposition which resulted in
the formation of a new State Association in 1902.
Influence
of Dr. J. R. Graves and Landmarkism
The
1868 meeting of the State Convention was held with First Baptist Church
in Little Rock. Messengers were enrolled from the Pine Bluff, Saline,
and Rocky Bayou Associations. The report stated, "Dr. J. R. Graves was
present at this meeting and accepted a seat in the body." Dr. Graves
was asked to preach the introductory sermon for 1869.
The Convention met at Helena in
1869. Dr. J. R. Graves was enrolled as a visitor. The Report on Publications
included, "...we recommend the adoption of 'The Baptist,' edited by
Dr. J. R. Graves, Memphis, Tennessee, as our 'State Paper'. And further
that we make definite arrangements with the editor respecting what number
of columns we may use each week for the publication of Arkansas matter."
On Sunday Morning, November 14, 1869, "After singing by the choir...the
Convention sermon was preached by Dr. J. R. Graves. Text I Timothy 3:15,
"The House of God which is the Church of the Living God, the Pillar
and Ground of the Truth." Dr. Graves preached again at the evening service.11
The 1870 meeting was at Arkadelphia.
Dr. Graves was again present, representing the Southern Baptist Publication
Society, Memphis, TN. Dr. Graves had developed a series of six or seven
lectures that were titled "The Ministers Institute.Ó These lectures
were presented at the 1870 meeting."12 Some associations would
dispense with the regular preaching schedule to allow Dr. Graves to
present "The Ministers Institute."
The 1871 Convention met at Monticello.
Apparently, Dr. Graves was again a visitor. The report states that Dr.
Graves spoke at 8 p. m. on Sunday at the Baptist Church.13 The 1872
Convention met with the Baptist Church in Austin, Lonoke Co. Dr. Graves
was again a visitor. The report reads, "At 11 a. m. Dr. J. R. Graves
preached at the Baptist Church. Text: 'The veil of the Temple was rent
in twain from the top to the bottom.' Matthew 27:51. He spoke three
hours, and held his audience spellbound. It was one of the greatest
sermons to which this scribe ever listened."14 The presence of Dr. Graves,
and the attention given him, should indicate that the principles of
Landmarkism were prevalent among the Baptists of Arkansas during this
period.
The 1875 session was held at Arkadelphia.
Evidence of continued internal conflict on the matter of missions was
evidenced in this report: "The State Mission Board had been discontinued
at the previous session at Dardanelle, and the work turned over to two
General Missionary-Secretaries...These brethren had not entered upon
the work of their appointment during the year under the auspices of
the State Convention, and consequently the Convention at this session
had no mission work before it, as had been true of the Convention at
its session in 1856."
The report continued, "The session
of the Convention was devoted almost entirely to the Ministers' Institute.
The attendance was large and Dr. J. R. Graves was at his best in his
lecture and filled and thrilled the brethren with delight."15
Implementation
of the Convention System and Methods
The
1877 Convention met at Forrest City. A total of thirty churches and
three associations--Judson, General Association of South East Arkansas,
and Mt. Zion--were represented. The report on State Missions stated:
"...we learn with pleasure that by cooperation with the Board of
the Southern Baptist Convention, we are assured of help. We would therefore
recommend that this body appoint one or more missionaries to labor in
destitute places, subject to the direction of the Executive Board of
this Association. Said Board is to do its work through the Corresponding
Secretary of the Southern Baptist Convention." J. B. Searcy, who
was one of the committee members, added the following comment: "Thus
was the Mission work again resumed on the old time line of cooperation
with the Home Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention and the
State Board. The State Mission Secretary was to direct the work."16
Developments during the next few sessions clearly indicate a definite
dependence on the "board" system and the "corresponding secretary",
which about twenty-four years later led to the division.
Incidentally, the note was made
that "Dr. W. A. Clark, who figured so largely in Arkansas Baptist
affairs for a quarter of a century appears first in this 1877 Convention."17
The 1878 Convention was held at
Monticello. The State Mission report referred back to the actions of
the previous year, and then stated, "Active measures then were adopted
to raise the necessary funds and employ W. A. Clark as Missionary who
entered upon the work as such January 1,..."
The report by J. B. Searcy commented
on the actions of a special committee on Constitutional Amendments:
"This Amendment to the Constitution put membership in the Convention
on 'the money basis'...The 'money basis' was never enforced, although
it was in the Constitution, and was soon repealed.
Under those Constitutional Amendments,
Article II was changed to read, "The Baptist State Convention shall
be composed of delegates or messengers from Baptist Churches and Associations
on presentation of proper credentials or vouchers of their appointment,
and the payment to the Treasurer of the Convention for constitutional
purposes, the sum of $2 or more for each delegate or messenger."18
However, Article III went further,
"That any Baptist not delegated shall be entitled to a vote on the payment
of $2.50 into the treasury." Thus, the "money representation" was officially
adopted by the State Convention.
The State Convention met at Russellville
in 1880 and James P. Eagle was elected as president. He held this position
for 21 of the next 24 sessions, including the 1901 meeting at Paragould.
The report stated, "He made a great leader...He had wonderful power
to encourage and inspire the brotherhood in the laying of foundations
and launching institutions in those uphill days."
Hinson wrote concerning James P.
Eagle, who was Governor of Arkansas from 1888 to 1893, "His immense
leadership gifts led to his election as President of the ABSC 21 times
(1880-1904) and president of the SBC thrice (1901-1904).19 The general
consensus is that Gov. Eagle, possibly more than any other man, was
responsible for the success of the Convention forces and the defeat
of the Landmark forces. Bro. Leroy Polk remembers Dr. Ben. M. Bogard
making that statement.20
Under the caption, "Some Forward
Steps at this Convention," we may note the following:
1. The Constitution was amended
to give the Convention a larger official staff and an Executive Board
of 20 or more members.
2. All associations were invited
and urged to become auxiliary to and cooperate with the Convention in
mission work and oth-erwise.
4. Provision was made for a permanent
Baptist paper in the state, the "Arkansas Baptist Evangel."
6. The report for State Missions
was rather meager but the Convention is to have a Superintendent of
Missions in most of the years hereafter--tragic loss when it did not!
The Convention met in Jonesboro
in 1888. In the report of the meeting, we note the following: "There
was some discord in this meeting. It was the first open note of opposition
to a paid Corresponding Secretary of State Missions. The opposition
was mainly by new brethren in the Convention and was not strong. There
had been minor notes of discord here and there since about 1880 but
"none to speak of."21
In the report of the 1892 Convention
at Ft. Smith, the following comment was made:
"There was 'under-cover' opposition
to having a Secretary of Missions and this opposition will increase
somewhat until the division comes at Paragould in 1901. It is not strong
now. However, no Secretary was employed for the next year. There is
no explanation of these 'no secretary years' in the Convention's work
except 'opposition'."22
These comments are interesting,
especially if one surveys the list of churches present, and notes that
most of the churches that eventually sided with the State Association
of Missionary Baptist Churches were not representing at these meetings.
The 1895 meeting of the Convention
was at Monticello with 134 messengers representing 57 churches and 23
associations. Dr. Rogers commented, "The Minutes show that the Convention
was very unsettled as to plans of work. It advises against a paid Secretary...No
figures on state contributions to Home and Foreign Missions are given.
Arkansas was evidently doing comparatively little for these great causes.
The antimission element had most of the wheels locked except that they
would roll backwards. How the alarm bell did need to ring!"23
It was also during this period that
the controversy over Dr. W. H. Whitsett was being played out. Whitsett
attended the 1889 Convention in Little Rock.24 In reporting on the 1896
Convention meeting at Hot Springs, Dr. Rogers wrote, "Again and again
resolutions have been passed asking that Dr. Whitsett, President of
the Southern Baptist Seminary, be let out for teaching and publishing
doctrine on baptism contrary to sound Baptist views and to true history."25
It would almost sound as though
Dr. Rogers agreed with the resolutions. But it should be noted that
the "Whitsett Controversy" and the issues were corollary to, and actually
emphasized the Landmark position on church authority, and also church
perpetuity. These statements correctly focus when juxtaposed with the
comments of E. Glenn Hinson, who championed the view that Whitsett was
expousing.
In commenting on the 1900 Convention
at Hope, Dr. Rogers wrote:"There was opposition to the State Mission
program and some harsh criticism of men and methods was expressed, and
more was under cover. The rising encircling clouds are black as night!
The storm will break at Paragould in 1901!...Dr. W. A. Clark was editor
of the "Arkansas Baptist," (sic.) had wanted to be Secretary and was
severely criticizing the program and the workers including Dr. Barton.
Tragedy ahead! Disaster around the corner! However, blessed days afterward!"26
A Necessary Division
To
be quite candid, the Landmarkers and most of the local associations
were never comfortable with the State Convention, which was determined
to follow denominational patterns, and seek centralization in missions.
After the resolution was presented in 1854, most of the churches and
associations that eventually lined up with the General Association or
Landmark movement only gave token support to the State Convention. As
for that matter, until the machinery became fully organized about 1920,
and the resulting indebtedness was overcome during the 1930's and early
1940's, the program of the State Convention received only limited support
from local associations and churches in the state officially identified
with the Convention system.
It was only after World War II,
and the resulting urbanization and industrial development, and the implementation
of the "cooperative program" that the work of the State Convention became
fully operational. As a Òscape goat,Ó leaders of the Convention sought
to blame the lack of cooperation on the Landmarkers. However, as J.
S. Rogers tacitly admitted, most of the blame was from the fact that
the churches and pastors of the state were reluctant to accept the Convention
"system" and its resulting "programs."27
E. Glenn Hinson sought to give proper
perspective: "The rapid evolution of Baptists ended in a severe trauma
as this era ended. Many Baptists of modest means, poorly educated, and
of rural background and outlook were ill-prepared to understand and
to accept the changes necessarily taking place as Baptists expanded
and institutionalized their efforts28. ...In an effort to find Baptist
identity over against the "reform" of Alexander Campbell, moreover,
they readily fell under the spell of J. R. Graves and his Baptist high
churchism. Although not strongly anti-organizational at the outset,
the Landmark movement veered more and more in that direction as its
leaders sought to answer critics.29 The net result was a rending of
the Arkansas Baptist State Convention and its associations and churches
to form a competing Baptist denomination."
In reading statements such as these,
we can well understand the sentiment of leaders within the SBC to develop
the institutions and SBC Corporation, and why even some SBC leaders
are fearful of such a move.
Later in the same chapter, Hinson
summarized the reluctance, and sometimes opposition to the Convention
program: "One hindrance was the everpresent resistance to organized
effort beyond the congregational or associational level. Prior to the
split of 1901, this resistance made itself felt time and again in reluctance
to support, either financially or practically, the various offices needed
to pull together the missionary or evangelistic work of the state...
Such opposition was often registered openly. In 1881, for instance,
the Superintendent of Missions, B. W. Harmon, reported 'a feeling that
the churches were imposed upon when called to contribute for any general
work'. Harmon went on to explain that 'they thought they should give
only to their own Associations.' He recommended a change of name on
the grounds that 'some regard it as indicating undue authority over
ministers and churches'."30
Hinson continued, "The sensitive
issue of jurisdiction in mission work was never resolved during this
period, but it was defused somewhat by avoiding certain titles and by
strong efforts of the State Mission Board to pursue its work in cooperation
with the churches and associations.
"The fear which underlay all of
this was that control over mission work might be exercised from above...
State Convention leaders tried to assuage anxieties by making careful
cooperative arrangements, but they never succeeded fully, for the fears
grew strong enough to lead to the division of the Convention. Some doubtless
underestimated the strength of resistance to the burgeoning business
model on which they operated.
"By 1899 anxieties over the development
of organizations to promote missions work throughout the state had reached
a fever pitch."
"At this point Arkansas Baptists
could not have perceived what was happening to them in a subtle way.
The business or corporation model which was becoming so much a dominating
factor in American society and culture was subtly imposing itself on
the churches and the way they carried on their work... The business
model... was creating a radically different model by which the churches
carried on their work and, in doing so, was generating an explosive
situation for Arkansas Baptists."
Hinson concluded by stating, "The
people and churches were overwhelmingly rural still. A majority of the
churches still operated on a quarter or half-time schedule, for, as
late as 1916, three-fourths of all Southern Baptist churches were still
quarter time."31
"Forks
of the Road"
In
introducing the period of division, Dr. J. S. Rogers titled the chapter
"Arkansas Baptists at the Forks of the Road." He reiterated that since
the early eighties the State Convention "changed its plans, programs
and policies again and again. For example at times it authorized the
Board to elect a paid State Mission Secretary but about half the time
it did not up to 1900...This was all because of opposition on the part
of some brethren to such policies...These opposition brethren objected
to the Board helping weak churches pay their pastors...By 1900 and 1901
this opposition objected to Boards and Conventions and cooperation with
the Southern Baptist Convention a well as to State Secretaries, etc.
The opposition brethren even insisted that the terms 'Association' and
'Committee' are Scriptural and orthodox but that the terms 'Convention'
and 'Board' were unscriptural and malignantly heretical!.. All that
was the big issue at the Paragould Convention in 1901. It was a grave
hour. Arkansas Baptists were at the forks of the road!
J. S. Rogers editorialized, "The
Paragould Convention in 1901 demonstrated the truth that Baptists with
their eternal emphasis on freedom are very vulnerable in the fact that
unwise leaders with ambition for power and leadership, if they can't
control the Convention, can overemphasize some minor matters and split
off a minority they can control.32 Disturbing and distressing as the
fight at Paragould was, the Convention there settled a lot of matters
and the year 1901 began a New Era with the rank and file of Arkansas
Baptists in cohesion, cooperation, contributions and conquests."33
E. Glenn Hinson outlined the report
of the Executive Board which presented a "Statement of Baptist Principles"
that stressed "the time-honored and fundamental doctrine of the absolute
autonomy of the churches" as "one point that must ever be jealously
guarded." The report continued, "there is no antagonism between this
doctrine and that other sublime and almost equally important doctrine,
the cooperation of the churches."
Then Hinson reported, "Impressive
as it sounded, however, the report of the State Board did not meet the
approval of a majority at the Convention. Opponents of the plan for
coordinating the work through a Corresponding Secretary assembled sufficient
votes to send it back to the Executive Committee for revision. Resubmitted,
it argued continuity with twenty or more years of history in maintaining
the office and that the plan had produced good results."
Hinson then added, "Although this
amended report passed, largely because of the personal influence of
James P. Eagle, the issues of a paid 'Corresponding Secretary' or 'State
Missionary' and of the connection between Arkansas Baptists and the
Southern Baptist Convention smoldered still. Ben M. Bogard,34 a newcomer
to Arkansas, led the attack on the system."35
J. S. Rogers stated the report on
State Missions was given at 1:30 PM on Saturday, and was discussed until
midnight. Discussion began anew Monday morning and continued into the
afternoon "when a majority voted to receive it."
It should be noted this majority
was razor-thin, and was after the new rule of representation which was
weighted in favor of the larger citry churches was implemented.
Rogers continued by stating, "The
report on publications was a divisive issue. The report recommended
that the Convention withdraw its approval and recommendation of the
'Arkansas Baptist' because, the resolution said, the editor had promised
at the previous Convention at Hope not to attack the plans and employees
of the Convention and had not kept the promise. This report and recommendation
were adopted by a majority vote. Dr. W. A. Clark was editor of the 'Arkansas
Baptist.' That vote was the straw that broke the camel's back. It meant
division."36
The language of the report stated
specifically,
"Resolution: Whereas, at the last
session of this Convention we recommended the 'Arkansas Baptist' as
our State paper, and whereas the same was procured by a solemn and deliberate
promise on the part of Dr. Clark that the said paper would neither in
editorial nor in correspondence permit any attack upon the plans or
employees of the Board until this session of the Convention, and whereas
said promise has been wholly unkept and violated and the same has been
further conducted as an organ of his personal views and those agreeing
with him, and in an antagonism to the plan of the said Convention. Therefore,
Be it resolved that the said recommendation of the 'Arkansas Baptist'
be withdrawn."
Rogers commented: "This resolution
was adopted. There had been decided antagonism by the 'Arkansas Baptist'
to the progressive policy of the Executive Board and the conduct of
the Mission work, but this vote on publications was 'the feather that
broke the camel's back'. From this time forth it was manifest that
an open rupture would follow. The next ten years of our history
will show the full development of this rupture and what came of it."37
Hinson also called attention to
another situation which led to the split, "In 1900 the Committee
on Publications issued a severe reprimand for Clark's failure to support
the Convention and its programs. Clark agreed to stop his attacks, but
then reneged on his promise. The result was a still more explicit reprimand
in 1901 which, more than any other factor, triggered the split, with
Clark as one of the key Landmark leaders."38
The General Association
Hinson
also reported (p. 176) on the organization of the General Association:
"The pro-Board group led by James P. Eagle won a victory of sorts at
Paragould in 1901, but they did not have long to savor it. As they had
threatened at this convention, the disaffected anti-Secretary faction
gathered in Little Rock on April 10-11, 1902, to form the 'General Association
of Arkansas Baptists'."
In his own words Hinson admitted,
"This new organization attracted strong support among the district
associations of the state, where the issue had been churning for a long
time. Almost half of them voted to cooperate with the General Association
in mission work. About a fourth voted to continue cooperation with the
State Convention. The remaining fourth, chiefly the larger associations,
voted to remain neutral as a result of sharply divided opinion within
their own ranks."39
The preliminary meeting was held
with Antioch Missionary Baptist Church. Twenty churches and one association
were represented at that meeting. A "Statement of Principles"
was adopted that provides the basis by which our churches have continued
a state-wide work since that time. Article III stated, "The General
Association, being nothing more than a company of equally independent
Baptist churches, associating together for mutual edification and counsel,
shall have no ecclesiastical authority..." After the Statement
of Principles was adopted, Eld. M. A. Pillars moved the body declar
itself to be organized.
Eld. William H. Paslay from Forrest
City was elected moderator, Eld. J. A. Smith was chosen as secretary,
and W. C. Dorough, an attorney from Sheridan, was chosen as treasurer.
Foreign missionaries in Cuba and Lebanon were endorsed for support.
The first annual session was held
in Searcy on October 31, 1902, hosted by the Garrett Memorial Baptist
Church, pastored by Eld. Ben M. Bogard, with over 150 churches represented
by messengers.
______________________________________
1 J. S. Rogers, History of Arkansas Baptists, p. 438. Rogers
had access to, and freely used the material collected by J. B. Searcy,
an early leader in South-central Arkansas.
2 J. S. Rogers, pp. 473-474.
3 J. S. Rogers, pp. 511-513.
4 J. S. Rogers, p. 482.
5 E. Glenn Hinson, A History of Baptists in Arkansas, 1979. Dr.
Hinson was a Professor of Church History at the SBTS, Louisville. His
work was com-missioned by the History Committee of the ABSC.
6 E. Glenn Hinson, p. 34.
7 The Pine Bluff Association did not meet in 1863-64 and the Saline
Association did not meet from 1863 through 1867.
8 J. S. Rogers, p. 504.
9 E. Glenn Hinson, p. 81-82. By contrast twenty churches were represented
in the Saline Association in 1868.
10 J. S. Rogers, p. 507.
11 J. S. Rogers, pp. 514-517.
12 J. S. Rogers, p. 520.
13 J. S. Rogers, p. 524.
14 J. S. Rogers, pp. 530-531.
15 J. S. Rogers, p. 541.
16 J. S. Rogers, p. 544.
17 J. S. Rogers, pp. 543-546.
18 J. S. Rogers, pp. 548-549.
19 E. Glenn Hinson, pp. 67-68.
20 Bro. Leroy Polk remembers Dr. Ben. M. Bogard making the statement.
Also see the article written by Dr. W. A. Clark, first printed in the
April 14 and July 28, 1920 editions of the Baptist and Commoner.
21 J. S. Rogers, p. 565-566.
22 J. S. Rogers, pp. 569-570.
23 J. S. Rogers, p. 571.
24 J. S. Rogers, p. 566.
25 J. S. Rogers, p. 572.
26 J. S. Rogers, pp. 574-575.
27 J. S.Rogers, pp. 637-651.
28 E. Glenn Henson, p. 112. In reading statements such as these, we
can well understand the sentiment of leaders within the SBC to develop
the institutions and SBC Corporation, and why even some SBC leaders
are fearful of such a move.
29 It was not the Landmarkers who "veered" but rather the SBC and ABSC
programs that developed the institutionalized concept, resulting in
removing the work from the churches and centralizing it in committees
and boards that created the opposition.
30 E. Glen Hinson, pp. 126-129.
31 E. Glenn Hinson, pp. 128-129.
32 This remark was referring primarily to Ben M. Bogard, who became
pastor at Searcy, AR in 1899. Although Ben M. Bogard became spokesman
for the Landmark cause, opposition to the convention system was expressed,
as the record will indicate, from its beginning.
33 J. S. Rogers, pp. 578-579.
34 This is the first specific mention of Ben M. Bogard by either Hinson
or Rogers.
35 E. Glenn Henson, pp. 174-175.
36 J. S. Rogers, p. 580.
37 J. S. Rogers, p. 584.
38 E. Glenn Hinson, pp. 175-176.
39 E. Glenn Hinson, p. 176.
>back
to top of page<
-
Article III -
Tennessee
Baptist Paper
THE
TENNESSEE BAPTIST paper, published by J.R. Graves, had stopped its printing
because of the occupation of Federal troops in Nashville. On March 26,
1862, the FLORENCE GAZETTE newspaper printed an article by Brother Graves,
explaining what had happened. It reads as follows:
TO
THE PATRON OF THE TENNESSEE BAPTIST
So sudden and unexpected was the
fall of Nashville that I had no time to issue a paper or even a slip,
to apprise my subscribers of my fate or purpose.
I left Edgefield (now a part of
Nashville), the place of my residence, early on the Monday morning previous
to the destruction of the bridges, and it becoming impossible to obtain
conveyance by either railroad leading south, made the journey to Huntsville,
with my family, in my family carriage, from whence I reached this place,
the residence of my father-in-law.
Owing to the sudden evacuation of
Nashville, it was impossible to remove any part of the office, books,
types or presses, and consequently the paper will remain suspended for
the present, and doubtless until the city is retaken.
My business destroyed, my home in
the possession of the enemy, and myself a refugee, I feel it my duty
to offer my services to my country in this hour of her eminent peril.
I have been urged by several prominent citizens of my own State to raise
a regiment, battalion or legion of true and tried men willing to bear
a pile to thrust the vandal foe from our hearth stones. -Believing it
to be a most formidable weapon in the hands of men determined to be
free. I am willing by both word and deed to encourage our people to
seize it with promptness and rush to the conflict.
Tis Caesar's right, in a crisis
like this to call to the field every man able to bear arms, nor has
Christ absolved his ministers from this tribute to Caesar. So soon as
it is ascertained that President Davis will accept a regiment, battalion,
or even a company of Lancers, for service in the West, I shall offer
my services to assist in raising it, to lead on to follow it upon the
field.
I have said this much to appraise
my patrons through out the South that I did not "passively submit" in
the fall of Nashville, and have by no means despaired of the Confederacy.
It is not our power to be free if we only prove ourselves worthy of
freedom.
J.R. Graves
Editor of the TENNESSEE BAPTIST
Magnolia, Mississippi, Feb. 12. 1862
P.S. - Will the Southern press confer a favor that will be appreciated
by copying this card, as my patrons are in every Southern State.
>back
to top of page<
|