A few months ago, this writer was given an interesting volume whose title is quite descriptive of its contents: A History of the Rise and Progress of the Baptists in Virginia, which was originally written by Robert B. Semple and revised by G. W. Beale. It was originally published in 1894 but recently (June 11, 2008) republished by Wipf and Stock (Eugene, Oregon). It is not a book that most would find interesting. Much of the 535 pages is repetitive Most of the charts contain information such as the year a Baptist Church was established, who its first “pastor” was (along with successors), the number of members, and its current membership. The book provides a thorough history of every region in the state of Virginia.
The original preface of the book states that the author “has faithfully recorded the foibles and failures, as well as the virtues and praises, of his own people,” (vii), and anyone who has read the book would agree with this assessment of the author’s efforts to be accurate, as subsequent examples will demonstrate.
The Origin of the Baptists
The origin of the Baptist Church in general is not covered in this book—only the state of Virginia is. According to Wikipedia, “Historians trace the earliest church labeled ‘Baptist’ back to 1609 in Amsterdam, with English Separatist John Smyth as its pastor.” This name and ideology soon “spread to England.” Then, in “1638, Roger Williams established the first Baptist congregation in the North American colonies.” About 100 years later the Baptist Churches began to grow rapidly in New England and in the south. It is at this point that Semples’s history begins:
The Baptists of Virginia originated from three sources. The first were emigrants from England, who, about the year 1714, settled in the southeastern parts of the state.
About 1743 another party came from Maryland and formed a settlement in the northwest (11).
The third group came from New England in the 1750s and ‘60s and eventually reached into Virginia after having settled first in North Carolina (12-14).
One thing must be considered admirable about the Baptists of this time period. Two of their doctrines went totally against the prevailing thought of the religious world at that time. At the time of the Reformation in Europe, Roman Catholicism practiced the sprinkling of infants. Neither Martin Luther nor John Calvin corrected those practices as they gained ascendancy during the first half of the 16th century. By the 1600s sprinkling was still being called baptism, and infants were still the recipients of it. The Baptists challenged both of these teachings.
They taught that only those who are old enough to believe are proper subjects for baptism, which is true. Babies have neither the mental capacity nor the communication skills to comprehend the subjects of sin and salvation. Only those who have that capability of understanding sin are required to do something about it.
Second, they realized that baptism as taught in the New Testament was immersion. Imagine what it might have been like to be the only ones to teach that baptism was only for those who were old enough to understand that they had sinned and then insist that they be immersed instead of sprinkled. When virtually 100% of the religious world thinks otherwise, those who disagree were probably regarded as fanatics or kooks—even though they were teaching what the Bible taught on those subjects! The majority never feels as though it needs to defend itself or analyze its position because nearly everyone accepts the same view. Most people procured “godparents,” sprinkled their infants, and called it baptism. The majority is usually right, isn’t it?
Persecution
At first many of the Baptists were held in contempt and ignored. They were considered outcasts that would soon come to nothing, but when they began to grow in number, they began to be looked upon as “disturbers of the peace” (29). Three leaders were arrested and tried for that very “crime.” The court offered to release them upon the condition that “they would promise to preach no more in the county for a year and a day.” They refused and were sent to jail (29-30).
After 28 days, one of the three was released. He immediately went to the deputy governor to try and secure the release of the other two. John Blair pleaded for religious tolerance and sent it to the King’s attorney (remember, this is 1768, eight years before the Declaration of Independence was signed). That individual did absolutely nothing (not unlike our current Attorney General, in several instances). After being in jail 43 days, the other two were released with no conditions attached. During the time of their incarceration, they had spoken to anyone who wanted to listen on the outside through the grates of the prison wall (30-32).
These events were repeated in several communities, but eventually, Patrick Henry became their friend and defended them (41). Generally speaking (a few exceptions will be noted later), the Baptist preachers exhibited a high level of morality, while the “Established clergy” (from the Church of England, which became the Episcopal Church in America) were known to be men “of the loosest morals” (43). One of the ways the established religion sought control over the Baptists was through God’s institution of marriage.
Under the old ecclesiastical establishment no person could celebrate the rites of matrimony but a minister of the Church of England, and, according to the ceremony described in the Book of Common Prayer; cases, however, frequently occurred, especially during the war, where the marriage ceremony was performed by others. This gave rise to an act of October, 1780, which declared all former marriages celebrated by dissenting ministers good and valid in law; and authorized the county courts to license dissenting ministers…not exceeding four…to celebrate the rites of matrimony within their counties only. It was not until…1784 that the dissenters were put on the same footing as all other persons with respect to…matrimony (53).
Early Revivals
Perhaps the earliest revival began in 1783; this idea was that God caused a great many people to turn to Him. One wonders how modern-day Baptists might relate to some of the occurrences in those days. Mod-ern Pentecostalism had not yet been invented, but some of the actions were similar—even though they were not attributed to the Holy Spirit back then. They thought these actions arose out of deep conviction.
The manner of conducting the general revival was somewhat extraordinary. It was not unusual to have a large proportion of a congregation prostrate on the floor; and, in some instances, they…lost the use of their limbs. No distinct articulation could be heard unless from those immediately by. Screams, cries, groans, songs, shouts, and hosannas, notes of grief and notes of joy, all heard at the same time, made a heavenly confusion, a sort of indescribable concert. Even the wicked and the unenlightened were astonished and said, the Lord hath done great things for this people (57).
Two verses seem pertinent: Paul said that visitors to the assembly watching brethren speaking in tongues would think they were out of their minds (1 Cor. 14:23). Those visiting such a “revival” might well conclude the same thing. Paul also said, “Let all things be done decently and in order” (1 Cor. 14:40). The author of the book attributes those events to God, although he does comment that their “piety became more rational” (59).
Alexander Campbell
It is not surprising to see the name of Alexander Campbell in a book about Virginia. West Virginia did not come into existence until a century later, during the Civil War, in 1863. Bethany, where Campbell lived, is on the northwest side of the state. Two of his early and quite critical debates were with Baptists—Walker in 1820 and McCalla in 1823. Most of this book focuses attention on the last portion of the 1700s, but it frequently ventures into the first half of the 1800s. All but one of the mentions of Campbell is in footnotes at the bottom of the page. These are listed below in order.
The first footnote mentions that a Baptist church was “rent in twain by the Campbellite controversy” (156). The next gives the name of a Baptist preacher who “adopted the views of Alexander Campbell and was excluded” (161). The only line not part of a footnote is from the text on page 165. Speaking of a Baptist pastor, Semple writes: “He, having adopted the views of Alexander Campbell, was dismissed….” Of another Baptist it is said: “His adoption of the views of Alexander Campbell led to serious divisions in the church during the latter years of his pastorate” (172). Jacob Creath is referenced as having led two churches into “Campbellism” (183). Of still another man it is written: “Towards the close of his life he joined the “Reformers” under the lead of A. Campbell…” (214).
The final reference comes in chronicling the life of a man who served as a Baptist “pastor” for a number of years before serving in Congress from 1813-17. He became a “pastor” again in Richmond for eight years. “He was in 1832 chairman of the committee of the Dover Association that drafted the report against ‘Alexander Campbell and his adherents, afterward widely denominated the Dover Decrees’” (329). Not a single reference mentions one word about what Campbell taught that was different from the Baptists.
Of course, Campbell was in agreement with the Baptists that immersion is the only Biblical means of baptism—and that it is only for those who are old enough to have faith to believe. But he also pointed out that the reason one is baptized is in order to obtain the forgiveness of sins (as taught in Acts 2:38). This teaching they denied then and are just as vehemently opposed to it today. The Book of Acts makes it clear that baptism is part of every conversion and not an optional matter. The book does not spend any time discussing this vital issue, but then that was not its pur-pose. Still, since some obviously left the Baptists to follow that teaching, one would think a few pages might have been spared to deal with the subject.
Apostates
One of the evidences of honesty in the book is the fact that when the Baptists being spoken of left their doctrine or the morality they had taught, the author reports it in a factual manner. Very early on, in a footnote, he speaks of a man who “fell into immorality and adopted erroneous views of doctrine” (28). Often, the author specifies what the problem was. One man “had been a preacher of some celebrity, but was now convicted and sent to the penitentiary for horse-stealing” (132). The author later presents a fuller report of the man, saying that before his arrest for that crime, he had been detected telling lies. Having been rebuked in one area of Virginia, he traveled elsewhere where he became very popular. “He was fluent in his delivery…. His memory was exceeding retentive, and he had, after becoming a preacher, read a good deal.” He possessed a good deal of wit, “but in point of judgment, he was probably as deficient as ever man was” (203-204). He remained in the penitentiary.
Now most of these comments are not the part of the central theme or purpose of the book, which is to show how many Baptist Churches there were in Virginia, when they were established, and how they grew. When many additions occurred, the author rejoices in telling it, when nothing was happening, he is frank to say that letters revealed a “languor and lukewarmness among the churches” (135). In 1803, letters from 16 churches showed that there was a “spirit of universal love and harmony,” but that they also complained of “coldness” (195).
Often one finds geographical descriptions of where the meeting houses were, which probably would mean something to only the inhabitants of the state of Virginia. And one often finds glowing reports of “pastors” who served 30 or 40 years in one locale and established various congregations nearby, but in the course of trying to be thorough, those who were less noble are occasionally mentioned. One preacher “put an end to his own existence by shooting himself.” It was thought that due to some previously strange actions, he was suffering from “some degree of melancholy insanity” (199). One “pastor” caused a great deal of controversy and was written in an Association’s notes as having the spirit of Diotrephes (193).
The author also relates some who practiced various immoralities and then comments on the harm that was done. Below are five independent episodes.
A good preacher is one of the best gifts of heaven to a pious people, but if he unfortunately forgets his sacred character, and neglects to keep his body under, and thereby becomes a castaway, the affliction is then more than commensurate with the former blessing (344).
Shay was a preacher of popular talents; but after raising himself to considerable distinction, he sold his birthright for a mess of pottage. He became a drunkard and was excluded from the church (368).
…he [Goodwin] was excluded for intemperate drinking. Until that time he had borne a most amiable character for piety and integrity, and was esteemed an excellent preacher, and very active and useful. Gracious heaven! how many thousands of the professed sons of Zion are overturned by this deadly evil! (356-57).
He proved to be the greatest stumbling-block of all. Goodall was a man of some talents as a preacher; but devoid of something more valuable than talents, he blackened the Baptists in Norfolk more than all his preaching could wipe off if he were to live an hundred years. He fell into the sin of polygamy and was put out from among them.
He [Flood] had married a wife in early life, with whom he lived peaceably. She dying, he married a second, who proved a heavy curse. He left her and employed his time altogether in preaching, For this he was not much blamed by those who knew all the circumstances. But he would not stop there. He came down into Accomac and actually persuaded a young woman of respectable connections…to be married to him…. He has since… occasionally preached, but not as a Baptist (373).
The point of listing these immoralities is not to fault the Baptists but to demonstrate that all religious groups incur problems of this nature. Even Jesus had one traitor in the midst of His apostles. To their credit, however, the Baptists in Virginia at this time refused to allow such immoralities to characterize them. Are they this zealous for the truth today in Lynchburg, or do they accept members who are unscripturally divorced and remarried because they are big givers?
What we usually refer to as withdrawing fellowship from someone they practiced—but referred to it as “excluding” someone from the church or being “put out from among them.” Just as much harm occurs today as did 200 years ago. Many churches of Christ have had scan-dals that set back the cause of Christ for a generation or more. In order to be pleasing to God we must have the right doctrine (especially as it pertains to salvation), the right worship and the right morality. And if those among us (preachers or members) fail in morality and refuse to repent, withdrawal is the only course of action left.