The Baptist Split Of 1832

Bro. Jeff,

We received that snow in about the same proportions beginning about 3.30 a.m. this morning and ending about 11.30 a.m. During the lull I embarked upon a reading adventure, beginning with the article posted by Hardsheller and including a perusal of 'the Trail of Blood' and then I visited my friendly local library and checked out a few books as well as made some notes from the "Kentucky Room" from which books are not loaned.

Here is what I wanted to post concerning J.M. Carroll's work I think it shows the depth of his writing as concerned with the topic at hand. Though I am Landmarker, I admit there are probably some in the closet which I wouldn't recognize if still around today. But, then again, I have found (just from today's research) that the question is often posted from the point of view of the writer, once you know a man's bias, you know his angle and then you know his story.

Carroll's excerpt is angled as well:

Here is a citation from the work of J.M. Carroll, though he doesn’t here deal with the split of 1832, he does address the idea of the ‘Primitive” Baptists being anti-missionary. Carroll’s work that I have does not go as far as 1832 in America. He was more concerned with the distinguishing marks of Baptists and not there divisions. Staying with the topic of this thread, I am concerned with the issues surrounding the 1832 Split, these stretch back, in KY at least to 1793.

Taken from the Fourth Lecture-17th, 18th and 19th Centuries. Point #11

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas

 

In writing for the Kentucky Baptist Convention in 1975, Leo Crismon, writing "Baptists in Kentucky 1776-1976: A Bicentennial Volume fundamentally agrees with you.

He states:

1) the many heresys of 'hell redemption' unitarianism, campbellism, Two-seedism,--which he says led to antimissions. The first major division was between the Separates and the Regulars. These had attempted to unite in 1785 at which time the Regulars, out numbering the Separatists, insisted upon acceptance and strict adherence to the Philadelpia Confession of Faith (1782), the Separatists refused. The Elkhorn Association was born as a Regular Baptist Association.

Later the same year the Salem Association, also Regular Baptist, was formed.

Finally, in 1787, the Separate Baptists form the South Kentucky Association of Separate Baptists.

They did not adopt the Philadelphia Confession, but organized on 'the Bible.' They also rejected interdependence and favored church autonomy, while concerning ministerial difficulties would be referred to the company of ministers, the calling of ministers and their dismissal as well as discipline was left to the church according to gospel discipline. p. 6-7

He also cites anti-slavery as a source of controversy, and later the antimissions movement.

He says prior to 1816, there was no apparent opposition to missions. He cites Campbellism as the most devestating.

The Encyclopedia of Southern Baptists lists, as does the article by Hardsheller, John Taylor as a staunch opposer to missions. The Encyclopedia contrasts this to the fact that it was Taylor's efforts that brought the first revival to Kentucky in 1784-85, and was the most vigorous leader in spreading Baptist views and organizing Baptist churches between 1785 and 1820.

His Thoughts on Missions reveals he had no opposition to mission works, revivals, etc. as they were produced spontaneously from the direction of the Holy Spirit, but that he was warey of the mission boards, societies, Sunday schools etc. whose main goals were in planning prolonged meetings, which would later erupt into the Great Awakening of 1800. Which had the result, not of such shakings among the Baptists, but of uniting the Regulars and Separatists. Until the revival waned in 1803 and by 1840, Missionary, Hardshell, or Primitive replaced the name of 'United.' While the Revival was strong between 1800 and finally dead in 1803, Baptists united, but as the offshoot heresies of this time appeared among the ranks, the union was weakened, and couldn't sustain the movement toward what the Separatists viewed as unscriptural practices begun in missions etc. Then the missionary churches began to popularly associate the antimissionary churches with the heresies such as campbellism, Campbell also opposed the societies, prolonged meetings, etc. This worked to 'label' the "Old-School" as antimission where many were not.

Bro. Dallas

 

First, I'd like to address the general context of the multiplicity of Baptist groups in the United States. Many outsiders find this quite overwhelming. IMO, it is a result of several factors that occurred in combination here perhaps more than any other place, and I think the main factors were religious liberty, Baptist freedom, and rugged frontier individualism. Add to that the fact that Baptists would become the majority denomination in many areas. So, not only freedom from persecution, but also being the dominant religious body, would diminish their need for connectedness, and free them to be able to major on minors that might not have previously concerned them. Perhaps this will illustrate - I am acquainted with several missionaries in foreign countries. When they are in those places with almost no Baptists to fellowship, they begin to realize how much they have in common with other Baptists, rather than emphasizing how much they differ.

Another way of putting this in perspective is to look at it statistically - from Baptists Around the World by Albert Wardin (1995). There are over 28,000,000 Baptists in America in a little over 50 different groups. This averages one group for about every 500,000 Baptists. In England there are over 150,000 Baptists in about 6 groups. This averages one group for about 25,000 Baptists. In Canada there are a little over 230,000 Baptists in about 5 indigenous groups (some others spill over from the U.S.). That would be one group for about 45,000 Baptists. There are types of Baptists in the U. S. that do not have much in the way of counterparts elsewhere, but I would assert that the main reason there are many more Baptist divisions in the United States is simply because there are many more Baptists in the United States. I suppose someone could assert the opposite - there are more Baptists because there are more groups - and that is at least partly true, because the motivation for outreach sometimes is certainly not to plant a Baptist church, but to plant a Baptist church affiliated with one's own group. This statistical presentation is a little simplistic, but I hope it does give a little different view upon which to think. So much for divisions in general. In my next post I will try to address the topic specifically.

 

I appreciate this forum, like Bro. Glen said it has forced me to 'burn the midnight oil'.

I have found reading in 'Religions of America' Edited by Leo Rosten, Simon & Schuster, that "...until 1845, practically all Baptists belonged to the Triennial Convention." (37).

I also note the work 'Kentucky Baptists 1776-1976: A Bicentennial Volume reports that the Separate Baptists resulted from a split in the Congregationalists.

One thing is for sure, in Barren Co. KY, there are represented about 50 different kinds of Baptists.

I have a Geography course at WKU this semester the text reports that United Methodist is the biggest Protestant group in the south. We discussed this in class and most people thought the Baptists would be the largest group, I suggested this is reported because of the Landmark position among Baptists. That due to this, most, or at least a significant number do not report themselves as Baptist. This surprised the class.

Then, I do agree with the statement that most Baptists adhere to their particular affiliation.

What has been interesting to me is the fact that all Baptist groups did support missionary work prior to 1832 and when the split did occur it did not because one group didn't support missions, but they rejected the methods. Even Leo Crismon, though writing from the 'missionary' perspective says the primary difference in the revivals across our land in the 1700's and again in the 11800's were not prolonged 'planned' meetings. Instead, these were spontaneously erupted, for the most part from small prayer and Bible study groups and then spilled into the churches. But it is from the Great Awakening that these revivals resulted in the many different denominations.

Bro. Dallas

 

There are a number of important factors that build the foundation for understanding the Baptist split of 1832.

1. The background of American Baptists. Early American Baptists came in mostly two forms - General and Particular. There were also fairly early on Six-Principle & Seventh Day Baptists, but I don't think they factor much into the split of 1832. In the Carolinas the General Baptists originally outnumbered the Particulars (or Regulars as they became known). Because of lack of ministers, proselyting by the Regular Baptists and several other factors, these Generals would be absorbed into the Regular Baptist movement and become nearly extinct. It could easily be asserted that the General Baptists really don't figure in either. But I have a idea that some of the General Baptist principles may have been dormant in certain areas where they were once strong, and were perhaps revived by later stirrings among the Separates. Just a theory based on general knowledge of Baptist history and experiential knowledge that many Baptist church members don't fully subscribe to the official teachings of their church. I suspect that would have been true of some of these General Baptists, but have no proof of the theory. Just something to consider.

2. The Rise of the Separate Baptists and the Great Awakenings. The Separate Baptists were birthed in the First Great Awakening (circa 1740) and united with the Regular Baptists during the Second Great Awakening (circa 1800). The peculiar origins of the Separate Baptists (coming to the Baptists out of paedo-baptism and a revival) gave them a motivation to recreate the New Testament church to a more intensive degree to those Regulars who had already existed some 100 years on the American scene. This created some differences in doctrinal and practical theology. The refusal of the Separates to endorse the Philadelphia Confession of Faith was possibly the greatest source of continuing the separation between the two groups. By 1800, when these groups as a whole became "United" Baptists, they were two very strong strains of Baptists. The Separates held that preaching "that Christ tasted death for every man" should be no bar to fellowship. So you can see they had a more liberal approach to the atonement question. The background of the Separates and Regulars would, in my opinion, lay much groundwork for the division. But it would be an incorrect conclusion to think the two groups that came out of the 1832 division were simply a reflection and re-division of Separates & Regulars. Both the missions and anti-missions Baptists reflect traits of the Separate Baptists.

3. The general religious fervor and ferment of the early 1800's. Many religious revolutions occurred in this same time frame - Joseph Smith and Mormonism; Alexander Campbell, Barton Stone, and Restorationism; William Miller and Adventism (1830-ish); the Stinson General atonement controversy among Regular Baptists (1820's); and many more. Though all are not necessarily directly related to the split of 1832, most all of them had some effect on Baptists, and form part of the historical context of the 1832 split.

4. The influence of the Jeffersonian & Jacksonian political ideals. I think we should tread cautiously here, because improper understanding of this could lead someone to conclude that the division was not based on the theological understandings of the people involved. But a proper understanding is that almost all of us are "men of our time." Byron Lambert, in his Rise of the Anti-Mission Baptists, points out that the anti-missionism of the period was not exclusively Baptist. He points out several other important anti-missionaries: Elias Smith of the Christian-Connexion, Quaker followers of Elias Hicks, Boston Unitarians, many Universalists, Deist Anne Royal, Millennialist Theophilus Gates, Methodists Lorenzo Dow and Peter Cartwright, and some "Old school" Presbyterians - even congressmen feared the expansion of the missionary societies. Lambert asserts that "Anti-Missionism is one expression of the American doctrine of freedom as it prevailed in the years between the Revolution and the Civil War...anti-Missionists...endorsed the political ideals of Thomas Jefferson, and the greater part of them became ardent Jacksonians. They disliked things that were large, abstract, or impersonal...they preferred...their government simple and inexpensive, their religious life informal." (pp. v, vi). To use this to take away the religious nature of the struggle would be wrong, but it should help us understand the times.

5. The rapid growth of many innovations previously unknown to or unused by Baptists; including Sunday Schools, Theological Seminaries, Mite Societies, Temperance Societies, Tract Societies, Women's Auxiliaries, and perhaps most importantly, the organization of the General Missionary Convention of the Baptist Denomination in the United States for Foreign Missions (Triennial Convention). Mr. Crimson says, "...prior to 1816, there was no apparent opposition to missions." There is a large degree of truth in that statement, though what he doesn't state is that the Triennial Convention wasn't organized until 1814. That is two years after it was organized and one year before it would meet again. Considering that they didn't have telephones or the internet, and that people would have to formulate their thoughts on the matter, that's probably not a bad response time to mobilize opposition to an organization purported to represent the entire Baptist denomination in the United States. If one accepts the 4th propostion I give above, the fact that the Triennial Convention (at least in name) purported to represent the entire Baptist denomination in the United States would have been an important factor in rejecting it.

IMO, all of these factors cannot be separated from underlying the Baptist split of 1832.

BTW - anybody have a better name to put forward for this division? Bro. Glen, I'm not criticizing you, because you are using a general trend of thought that we all recognize. But I'm just wondering what other terms have been used and what you all might think would be the best one. The split did not literally occur in 1832 (though that was the year of the Black Rock address), but over a period of years. Also using the term missions/anti-missions split seems intent on putting one party or the other in a bad light, and probably does as much to confuse as enlighten. Missionary/Primitive split is not really a good term because those names were really came into common use later.

 

Brother Squire, the geographic point you made was a good one that I failed to consider. Also you hinted at the ethnic issue. In addition to the presence of Black bodies, immigration to the U.S. from various countries has often contributed to linguistic and cultural barriers (at least initially). Two major bodies - Baptist General Conference and North American Baptist Conference - owe their origins to their ethnic/linguistic background.

Brother Dallas, unfortunately I had time to put together that long post because I'm burning the "noon" oil. I say unfortunately not because I didn't enjoy it, but because at home sick. Sorry about the length, but I couldn't figure how to break it up.

Finally, I want to add that I agree with what some of you have already posted - neither side is blameless in the split of 1832.

Something else I want to consider - For example, if you could have visited east Texas Missionary Baptist churches and east Texas Primitive Baptist churches around 30 or 40 years after the split of 1832, you would have seen very little recognizable difference in what took place in the two kinds of churches. I'm not saying they weren't different, just that it would have taken a close investigation to figure out what their differences were. Today many differences are generally quite obvious to even the casual observer. An east Texas Missionary Baptist church of 1870 would resemble a Primitive Baptist Church (of 1870 & 2003) more than it would resemble a 2003 missionary Baptist church. That can be explained on several levels; I only intend to point out the obvious and lead up to something else. In the 1870's some Primitive and Missionary Baptist associations (at least in Texas & Arkansas) were electing committees to see if they could work out their differences. They evidently didn't work them out, but committees of the Mt. Zion Baptist Association and the Little Hope Primitive Baptist Association came to this agreement (1869): "We the subcommittee appointed by the committee of the whole, to confer with each other and endeavor to come to some understanding whereby we as Missionary and Anti Missionary Baptists might live together in peace, reports as follows, viz.: That we unanimously believe and agree that a Gospel Church is the highest ecclesiastical authority on earth; That each church is an independent body and not amenable to Associations, conventions, conferences, Presbyteries, Synods, General Assemblies, Elders, Bishops, Popes, Kings or to any or all the institutions, organizations or combinations of men upon earth, but is subject only to Christ, who alone is the Lawgiver in Zion and that its members are equals and all contributions for the maintenance of the church or for the support of the ministry must be voluntary as each member purposeth in his own heart."

 

And a common thread among them was a belief in restoration, the reclaiming of the authentic New Testament church. </font>[/QUOTE]As a landmarker, and not knowing any of your thoughts on that topic, I would say the evidence of history is that this restoration was able to gain a degree of hold and in the case of Campbellism 'devastate' the Baptists because people did not know the history of the church.

Granted, this history would not have been on the forefront as would preaching, establishing and pastoring the churches. Nevertheless, failure to know and understand the history can easily result in acceptance of these 'restoration' movements.

It is also significant to note during 1810-1811 the vast amount of earthquake activity may have operated on the psyche of many individuals and perhaps produced an environment conducive to those preaching restoration type doctrines.

I don't know, just thinking in type from the things I have been reading. I do agree it is perhaps impossible to point to a specific issue which caused the split.

Wouldn't [it] stand to reason that any group acknowledging Christ as the only head of the church would be difficult to convince them of the need to restore the church. Seems there must have been at the very least a leaning upon the leaders of the various churches.

Then this results from the fact that, at least in the early years, most pioneers were illiterate, which would produce another issue adding to the eruption.

Bro. Dallas

[ February 26, 2003, 09:22 PM: Message edited by: Frogman ]

 

Bro. Vaughn,

I may have related this before, but in relation to similarities and differences between past and current congregations and the degree of knowledge of history I would add:

A couple moved from our area in the last two years and relocated to Texas, not sure where. The job the husband had taken in the area didn't work out, so they returned after about 6 mos. The husband testified in church shortly after returning that most of the churches they had visited (unsure of persuasion) did not have a 'mourner's bench.'

And no place was designated as an altar.

I can guess the affiliation of the church, but the point is this couple did not know the origination of the 'mourner's bench' which if I am not mistaken was with the Methodists. Isn't that correct? Again, shows the importance of the need to teach and study our history.

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas

 

Bro. Dallas, in thinking over Rosten's remarks, I have concluded that his statement is misleading. I'm not sure what his point may have been - perhaps that until the formation of the SBC in 1845, most missionary Baptists were nominally in with the Triennial Convention. The way the constitution of the TC was set up, Baptist churches were not members in the same way as when we think of a convention such as the SBC. According to the Constitution, it consisted of delegates, "not exceeding two in number, from each of the several Missionary Societies, and other religious bodies in the Baptist Denomination, now existing, or which may hereafter be formed in the United States, and which shall each regularly contribute to the general Missionary Fund, a sum, amounting, at least, to one hundred Dollars, per annum." If representation required contributing one hundred dollars annually, I would expect that most missionary Baptist churches and individuals were not technically a part of it. But they probably felt some connection due to their association or state convention contributing, or through some church member being a part of a Missionary Society, or other possible scenarios.

Though this may not be exactly to what you are referring, poverty/illiteracy could be an issue that played a part in the schism, and is an underlying reason posited by some. Personally, I think the missionary side has somewhat tainted this by playing the card that the anti-missionaries were ignorant backwoodsmen. Daniel Parker helped contribute to the myth (perhaps deliberately), but an honest reading of his Public Address to the Missionary Society shows he wasn't all that ignorant. Several prominent anti-missions preachers and leaders on the eastern coast certainly do not fit the caricature. But it would not have been unusual that the less literate would have followed their more literate sectional leaders, or that the poorer classes would have had little interest in a society whose membership was based on contributions. Hassell's comments on some of the marks of the true church (ch. 9) may suggest how many 1830-ish anti-missions Baptists viewed themselves, (even when not necessarily the case) - "We believe in the general poverty, illiteracy, obscurity and afflicted and persecuted condition of the members of the apostolic church."

ON BOOKS
Some of the books mentioned in this thread are still available:
Primitive Baptist Library in Carthage, Illinois has Daniel Parker's A Public Address ($9 hb) and John Taylor's Thoughts on Missions ($3, ring binding) - look on page for "New Items Now Available."

Baptist Standard Bearer has Lambert's The Rise Of The Anti-Mission Baptists.

The Black Rock Address and Hassell's History of the Church of God can be purchased, but are also readily available on-line:
www.pb.org/pbdocs/blakrock.html
www.primitivebaptist.org/writers/hassell/history/default.asp

I would also recommend The Genesis of American Anti-Missionism B. H. Carroll. It probably can only be found in libraries. A Baptist Source Book by Robert A. Baker, provides some source material, as does A Sourcebook for Baptist Heritage by Leon McBeth. The thoughts of Francis Wayland are interesting (and found in McBeth's book). He came to the position that churches should not be involved in missionary societies (or educational, benevolent, etc.) at all, but that interested individuals, as individuals, could form them. There is a new book about Daniel Parker - Frontier Religion: Elder Daniel Parker, His Religious and Political Life by Dan Wimberly [Eakin Press, 2002]. And finally, I would recommend comparing the later missions split circa 1890-1910 by reading Missions Versus Anti-Missions by J. B. Moody. The book is of a polemic nature; Moody was both a landmarker and a SBC mission system advocate. He attempted to drive a stake in the heart of the gospel missions landmarkers with the rhetorical question, "Now brethren, don't you see yourselves in that Hardshell mirror?" But in my opinion, we need to take a good long look in that mirror; we might even like part of what we see!

 

I will note, my local library is predominantly loaded with SBC writings, which provide the history from that slant.

Of the four books I found relevant to this topic there I note each lead to the SBC imo declaring the (for lack of better words) superiority of the mission movement and the language does seek to put anti-missions movements in a disfavorable light.

I will be at the WKU campus in the morning and will check that library. Not sure if this will help, I have found only one of Pink's works here and he pastored in Scottsville and Bowling Green for a while. The majority seems to suppress the minority. Quotes such as 'early associations died in the hands of antimissionaries, while the missionary remnant would organize another' (paraphrased from my readings), are not masking this bias imo.

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas

 

Frogman,

I have discovered the same thing in my reading and study. There seems to be a negative slant in SBC writing against the Anti-missions movement and here's the fallacy of that slant - It wasn't an anti-missions position at all as many of the writings suggest, it was an anti-missions societies position!

Most of the Anti-Mission personalities that I have studied were not opposed to missions they were opposed to the NEW methods being considered.

 

I do agree Hardsheller. I am an ITV facilitator at the WKU Glasgow campus and while working tonight the class I facilitate had an exam, I knew this and took some of my reading along, I ran across this testimony to the ministry work of John Taylor, considered as the epitome as 'anti-missionary' note the truth that is in the text, but not emphasized.

This work is concerned with Early Baptists in KY, ch. vi deals with the early revivals, specifically the causes.

'Early revivals in Kentucky were all unplanned and unscheduled. They were outbreaks of the Spirit of God, beginning with deep contrition for sin and heart-rending concern for the lost members of the family and the whole community." (118)

Chapter six opens in this way and continues to tie John Taylor to this early revival in Kentucky during the winter of 1784-85.

'nothing like a revival occurred in Ky. before the winter of 1784-85--even then they occurred in the homes of the pioneers on clear creek, what is now Woodford County.' [paraphrased].

John Taylor moved his family from Va. in the fall of 1783 after enduring the rugged travel in the cold winter and sleeping outdoors only one night but trusting in the safety of the Lord and not his rifle, he arrived with his pregnant wife at Craig's Station just before Christmas 1783 and his wife gave birth to their son Ben in January...'Perhaps in the month of August 1784...I became a member of South Elkhorn Church where I was brought under the pastoral care of Lewis Craig...Taylor summarized the substance and character of Craig's preaching:

'This man's orthodoxy mainly lay in salvation through Christ by unmerited grace, with urging repentance on all to whom he preached, he had the most striking gift of exhortation, that was perhaps ever in use in Kentucky...'

Taylor lived eight miles from the church and continued in his labor to establish his lands for farming, at this time the movement of the Lord was felt among the people. They gathered here for prayer and Bible readings and it became evident the Lord was working to melt the hearts of the people in attendance.

note how in the opening of the chapter we read of the order of the Lord in calling revival and engaging his people in missionary endeavors.

1) 'beginning with deep contrition for sin and;
2) heart rending concern for the lost members of the family and the whole community'

Crismon does concede that for 'God to work' among Baptists today (1975-76 reference), 'He has to fit into the time alotted in the program and within the structures which we provide.' He says "We are 'running the show' and we can get along quite nicely with our own plans whether God chooses to manifest Himself or not,...without realizing it, we are actually demanding that God come to us on our schedule and on our terms!"

This is his comment, and not, I think reflects that he agrees with this method himself. Don't think I am trying to represent him, nor the SBC as openly holding these specific views, I just feel this is the result of the events of the era in question.

Taylor was also instrumental during the revival of 1800-1803. These originally erupted in the same manner as the earlier ones, but quickly fell into the emotionalism that I believe gave rise to such 'isms and schisms.'

Brethren, I have exams the remainder of the week at WKU, I may check in from time to time, but probably won't take time to post anything, need to study!!!

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas

[ February 26, 2003, 10:47 PM: Message edited by: Frogman ]

 

Frogman & Hardsheller, I must say that I agree. Regardless of which position is correct, the missionary side has tried to take the high ground by calling the opposition anti-missionary. Maybe the missionaries did excel in the area of foreign missions, but initially the anti-missionaries we often the forefront of "home missions." Take a look at John Taylor and his labors in Kentucky, Wilson Thompson in Missouri, et al. Even missionary Baptist J. M. Carroll was willing to concede that none of the early missionary Baptists in Texas had a record of travels in preaching and organizing churches equal to that of Daniel Parker. Many early Texas Baptist churches were organized by those whom Z. N. Morrell would label anti-missionary in his Flowers and Fruits. The labors of countless other anti-missionaries go unnoticed because they weren't sent by a board or societies, weren't paid as a missionary, weren't documented by correspondence and other record-keeping etc. This doesn't diminish their contributions, especially on the frontier. I must add, though, that many of these anti-mission descendants may not seem to show the same zeal as their forefathers. The flip side of that is that very many of their ministers travel mostly at their own expense and over a wide geographical area in preaching the gospel. Whatever the factors, their numbers have been diminishing.

The Encyclopedia of Southern Baptists is a fair resource (and voluminous), but one which reinforces this idea of "superiority" time after time by listing non-SBC associations as extinct - even though they are alive and well. John F. Cady, in his Origin of the Missionary Baptist Church in Indiana lays Abe Lincoln's lack of interest in the family church squarely at Daniel Parker's feet, with no more evidence given than the fact that there was a following of Parker's (and anti-missions') views held in the Little Pigeon Association and Tom Lincoln's church. Another consistent jab has been to charge the anti-mission side with "sowing discord." These kinds of polemic approaches impede the prospector from mining the best historical nuggets. To be fair, similar attacks have been made by the anti-missionaries, but generally their writings on the subject have not been sowed as prolifically as those of the missionaries.