An Historical Examination of the Doctrine of the Church Among Baptists With Special Reference to Southern Baptists and Church Purity - Chapter 4.2

Influences and Changes in the Baptist Doctrine of the Church
in the Eighteenth Century

Part Two
The Rise of the Separates and Their Influence on Baptists

The years and even decades following the Great Awakening can best be described as years of deep and divisive conflict in the established churches. Goen says it brought to New England not peace, but a sword.103 The real issue of dispute (though just the revival, its techniques and practices were hotly debated) came to be the matter of regenerate church membership. Remember, we are not speaking of Baptist churches yet, but of the older institutional churches. The new converts and newly revived persons desired to limit church membership to the regenerate only.104 Their reasoning is traced by McLoughlin as follows.105 As the new converts experienced the joy of salvation, they were bound to ask several questions. Why hadn't they been saved sooner? Why were others still lost? Why were the churches so dead? The answer put the blame on the preachers, yet it had to be understood that the people had put the preachers in office. How could the people have been so blind? It was only because unconverted preachers had accepted lost people into the churches, abandoning the strict discipline and membership standards of the past. After all, had they not cast aside oral profession and the examination of a candidate for membership, while adding such corruptive practices as Half-way membership and Stoddardeanism? The answer seemed to be to call an awakened preacher, but the ministerial association had some control of the local churches and ordination, making this close to impossible. So it seemed almost beyond hope to reform a church from within. The only other choice for these New Lights, as they were called, was to separate or withdraw from the established churches, which they did. Thus they became known as Separates.

To give a general description of these Separates, we would note that they were Calvinistic and revivalistic, with a pietistic stress on the immediacy of the Holy Spirit's leadership and illumination,106 and a demand that the local church have only regenerate membership.107 Goen says the Separates, " . . . considered that they were the real descendants of the Puritans and were now seeking to repurify churches which had apostatized from their original ideals.108 However, the Separates' distrust of the established clergy, and their view of immediate illumination by the Holy Spirit led to the ignoring of the ancient Puritan insistence on a qualified and trained ministry.109

Because of the aforementioned, multitudes of new converts eagerly hastened to give their testimonies and even preach; and the common people heard them gladly. Goen notes again that though these new converts were rather rough and unskillful in the word of righteousness, they still did not hesitate to speak boldly; and they were preferred to those they called the letter-learned Pharisees and unconverted ministers.110 Thus itinerant preaching by laymen became one of the chief novelties of the Great Awakening and especially of the Separates; and the method was quickly established as an evangelistic tool.111 McLoughlin says they were convinced that ". . . a layman who had experienced conversion was better equipped to get to the heart of spiritual matters than was a professionally trained minister blinded by scholastic logic, academic traditions and abstract theories.112 For the Separates, then, it was close to an either/or proposition and not a both/and matter. One was either uneducated and illuminated by the Spirit, or one was trained and yet spiritually blind. One could not be trained and Spirit-filled.

It was inevitable and understandable that eventually the Separates came out of the old established churches and set up societies of their own. Lumpkin says, "By 1744 the informal societies of New Lights were assuming the status of churches in actual practice."113 Concerning their Calvinism, Mode includes in his book the confession of faith of a Separate church organized at Mansfield in 1745, noting it may be taken as typical of the separate churches.114 Article 15 states:

We believe we are of that number elected of God to eternal life, and that Christ did live on earth, die and rise again for us in particular . . .115

Article 22 speaks regarding their emphasis on regenerate membership:

That at times the doors of the church should be carefully kept against such as cannot give a satisfying evidence of the work of God upon their souls, whereby they were united to Christ.116

As these Separates came out of the established churches, calling them corrupt, they broke the law and were legally open to punishment. Often their pastors were imprisoned and their members fined for not attending the established churches. Worst of all, Separates were forced to support established churches through the payment of their taxes---the support of these pastors, and practices that they detested and criticized so often in severity.117

In summary we would stress that there was much to commend about the Separate movement. More specifically, their Calvinism, their evangelistic zeal, their enthusiasm, their sacrificial spirit, their willingness to suffer for their convictions, their desire to use laymen in the work of the Lord, their stress upon a pure church in the emphasis of regenerate membership. These were all traits worthy of commendation.

But, on the other hand, the Separates were not without their faults. In that category this writer would include their naive attitudes about education and training for the ministry, their sometimes unbridled individualism which allowed novices and untrained laymen to go forth preaching without supervision, assuming the illumination of the Holy Spirit was sufficient to enable them to perform such a task, and the beginning of a definite shift away from the staunch Calvinism of the Puritans. Perhaps some would argue this shift from Calvinism was necessary to allow for their revivalism and pietism. This author does not agree with that thought, but it is not necessarily our point of contention. Our point of contention is that there was a subtle shift in emphasis with the Great Awakening. Brauer states it this way:

Formerly the Puritans had emphasized God's covenant---what he had done. This was found in Scripture and in doctrine, and a correct understanding of both was essential This was taught and made real in the church. But revivalism tended to
stress, not so much what God had done, but how man responded. Earlier revivalists such as Edwards and Whitefield did not make this error, but later men did.118

Brauer continues:

The really important thing was not what man believed but what he did. So the emphasis was placed on man's activity, with less and less regard for doctrine, theology or the Church as the chosen instrument of God.119

Smith describes the shift away from Calvinism by acknowledging that though revivalism was the heir of the Puritan emphasis of the new birth and sanctification, yet it was conspicuously lacking the Puritan self-discipline.120 Smith says further that this emphasis and lack, " . . . prepared for the ignoring of theoretical questions in favor of direct experience and practical results that was to become so popular in America. But during the Great Awakening only a start was made in this direction."121

Therefore, though the Great Awakening resulted in many converts, and though it made Christianity a religion of the people, and though it revived many persons and churches, and though it bore other commendable fruit, there was a subtle shift of emphasis from a God-centered framework of theology and church service to a man-centered one. The shift was not full and complete, and much of the Awakening is commendable and worthy of praise. But, nonetheless, the seeds were sown for a further shift, which was to come later in history.

The Separates Join the Baptists

Having traced the events prior to and during the Great Awakening, we are now ready to consider how these events related to the Baptists of this period. The Baptists' status prior to the Awakening is noted by many writers. Burr says the Baptists ". . . were a small minority, and were considered by the established churches as a schismatic sect."122 McLoughlin also terms Baptists prior to the Awakening as " . . . an obscure, ignored, and ignoble small sect . . ."123 Lumpkin agrees using much the same language calling them " . . . an insignificant and generally despised sect . . ."124

These statements strongly imply that Baptists were changed greatly by the Awakening. Such an inference is correct, for the Encyclopedia of Southern Baptists notes, "Baptists have been called the 'true heirs' of the Great Awakening."125 Yet other writers point out that when the thrust of the Great Awakening began, the Baptists either ignored it or opposed it.126 The question is, then, if Baptists were not involved in the Great Awakening, then how did they happen to be so influenced by it?

To answer this question we must turn once again to the Separates, having already noted their withdrawal from the established churches in dispute over purity and regenerate membership. This emphasis inevitably led them to wrestle with the matter of infant baptism, which had been practiced by the churches from which they came. Goen says, " . . . an uneasy conscience regarding infant baptism was part of the separatist ferment almost from the very beginning."127 He also traces their thinking to conclude that the rite of admission into the local church should be restricted to confessed believers, if they were to hope to to achieve their goal of regenerate membership.128 As Lumpkin says, "The logic of events pushed Separates more and more in the direction of the Baptists . . . "129

Thus the phrase "gone to the Baptists" became a very frequent entry into the Separate churches' record books, as they adopted the principle of believer's baptism and went to join Baptist churches.130 Goen further notes as a result the Separate churches were tagged with the label "nurseries of baptists."131 So we see that the Great Awakening became immensely important in moving Baptists from the realm of a small, insignificant sect to a strong, dissenting voice and denomination as the Separates invaded and swelled the Baptist membership. As Wamble summarizes for us he says, "During the generation following 1750, Baptists grew rapidly from the Great Awakening converts, who gradually adopted Baptist views."132

The point we are making is that as these bold and convinced Separates entered the Baptist churches, they carried an influence, good or bad, whatever the case may have been. They brought to the Baptists characteristics we noted in the proceeding section of this paper.133 We shall reiterate and further discuss these points regarding the characteristics of the Separates, as we shall mention those who came to be known as Separate Baptists. Before doing so, we must point out that at first not all Baptists went the way of the Separates. McLoughlin indicates that during the 1740's and 1750's there were two Baptist movements in New England, the Old and New Baptists, with the new being the Separates134 In the south it was the Separate Baptists and the Regular Baptists, with eventually a union of the two. Baker writes that these two groups united in Virginia in 1787, in North Carolina in 1788, and in Kentucky in 1801.135

Thus the influence of these Separates on the Baptists is undeniable. Smith says they brought to the Baptists, especially in the south, an emotional warmth and an evangelistic fervor.136 McLoughlin confesses the influence they brought to Baptists was impossible to measure, but nevertheless they had a very profound effect on the vigor and temper of the denomination.137 We make special note of Baker's statement that " . . . the effect of the Awakening on Southern Baptists occurred principally in the Separate Baptist movement.138 We now seek to discover further their influence on Baptist life and thought.

Notes:

103 Goen, Revivalism, p. VII.
104 Lumpkin, Baptist Foundations, p. 13.
105 McLoughlin, New England Dissent, Volume I, pp. 342-343.
106 Smith, American Christianity, Volume I, p. 361.
107 Lumpkin, Baptist Foundations, p. 7.
108 Goen, Revivalism, p. 159.
109 Ibid., p. 28.
110 Ibid., p. 29.
111 Ibid., p. 54.
112 McLoughlin, New England Dissent, Volume I, p. 351.
113 Lumpkin, Baptist Foundations, p. 8
114 Peter G. Mode, Source Book and Bibliographical Guide for American Church History (Boston: J. S. Canner and Company, Inc., 1964), p. 226.
115 Ibid.
116 Ibid., p. 227.
117 McLoughlin, New England Dissent, Volume I, p. 366.
118 Jerald C. Brauer, Protestantism in America (London: SCM Press LTD, 1966), p. 61.
119 Ibid.
120 Smith, American Christianity, Volume I, p. 310.
121 Ibid., p. 314.
122 Burr, Critical Bibliography, 285.
123 McLoughlin, New England Dissent, Volume I, p. 438.
124 Lumpkin, Baptist Foundations, p. vi.
125 Encyclopedia of Southern Baptists, Volume II, p. 1191.
126 McLoughlin, New England Dissent, Volume I, p. 421.
127 Goen, Revivalism, p. 213.
128 Ibid., p. 208.
129 Lumpkin, Baptist Foundations, p. 15.
130 Goen, Revivalism, p. 208.
131 Ibid.
132 G. Hugh Wamble, "Baptists in America before 1814," Baptist Advance, the Achievements of Baptists of North America for a Century and a Half, Edited by Davis Collier Wooley (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1964), p. 19.
133 Supra, pp. 50-55.
134 McLoughlin, New England Dissent, Volume I, p. 422.
135 Robert A. Baker, A Baptist Sourcebook (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1966), pp. 22-24.
136 Smith, American Christianity, Volume I, p. 361-362.
137 McLoughlin, New England Dissent, Volume I, p. 438.
138 Baker, A Baptist Sourcebook, p. 16.