The Philadelphia Baptist Association

Its history, influence, and present day application


by Gary W. Long
Sovereign Grace Baptist Church
Springfield, Missouri

Presented to Sovereign Grace Pastor's Fellowship

March 9, 2000

Volume 2 Number 7

History & Growth

Cathcart's Baptist Encyclopedia tells us that the Philadelphia Baptist Association "was formed on the `twenty-seventh day of the seventh month, on the seventh day of the week,' in the year 1707."(1) This association will, then, observe its 300th anniversary in just seven years.

Both Pennsylvania and New Jersey had religious liberty in the early 1700's, so that those Baptists coming from England and Wales would naturally migrate to the liberated and populated area around Philadelphia. In 1707 five Baptist churches organized the Philadelphia Baptist Association. Those churches were:

1. Lower Dublin (Pennepeck), the first Baptist church in Pennsylvania
2. Piscataqua (Piscataway) in New Jersey
3. Middletown in New Jersey
4. Cohansey in New Jersey
5 Welsh Tract in Delaware

There was general agreement in theology, however, the Welsh Tract church was a proponent of 'laying on of hands' and `Psalm singing' and was instrumental in other churches adopting, but not necessarily practicing these two articles that were, eventually, added to the Philadelphia Confession of Faith. Each of the five churches was a distinct body, but had more in common than just their Calvinistic, Baptist beliefs. They were all knowledgeable of religious persecution against Baptists both in England and now, in most of the inhabitable areas of America, therefore the strength and bond of associating together were not so much, could these independent churches exist and function with each other? Rather, how could they exist and function without each other?

From five churches in 1707, the association grew to fifty-three churches in eighty-four years(1791) covering an area from as far south as Virginia to New York in the north, a distance of about 400 miles.(2) The importance of the Philadelphia Association's growth and influence will lead to other associations being started and patterned after the Philadelphia Association. First to form out of the Philadelphia was the Charleston in South Carolina in 1751. Other churches seeing the benefit of smaller and closer associations would seek permission from the Philadelphia to withdraw and form their own. Sandy Creek in North Carolina then formed and was followed by the Kehukee Association in Virginia, the Ketockton also in Virginia, then the Warren Association in Rhode Island, the Stonington in Connecticut and the Shaftsbury in Vermont etc.

In its beginning, the purpose in forming the association was that representatives from the five churches would meet for consulting about things, `wanting in the churches and to set them in order' - and so the first recorded business transacted was to recommend to the churches, a policy of caution concerning any unknown ministers who came among them, that bore no `letter' or recommendation. The other point of discussion, at this first meeting involved churches and members that were at a variance, to which the Association requested churches and individual members to `fully acquiesce' to the decision of the Association's appointed committee.(3)

As the Association grew, so did its involvement and importance in many issues. Robert Torbet quotes both, Samuel Jones in 1798 and John P. Gates in 1943 in his excellent summary:

The Philadelphia Association, like its sister organizations in Britain, was loose in structure, without power or authority to bind the churches composing it. From the very first, it was regarded simply as an advisory council. While it was therefore as democratic as the spirit of the English tradition of `Dissent.' it was looked to for decision and guidance in matters both trivial and important. A reading of the minutes from year to year indicates that the various churches relied upon the Association for advice and even for the settlement of disputes. At times, it acted in the capacity of an ordaining council, To its discretion was left the disciplining of ministers. The Association was particularly careful to examine the credentials of itinerant preachers and to warn the churches of such as were impostors. Indeed, it played an important part in helping Baptists to adjust themselves to changing conditions and new surroundings. In addition to queries concerning communion, baptism. church membership, ordination, the place of women in the church, of the propriety of using musical instruments in the service, questions pertaining to the relations of a member to Free Masonry, to other Protestant groups, to gambling, to slavery, etc. were presented for consideration. Usually, the matter was the subject for counsel and advice, but the decision was left to the discretion of the local church. The Association was a guiding force in a fluid polity which tended to make relatively easy the necessary adjustment to changing circumstances. As the Association grew in size and influence, it began involvement with projects that were impossible to a single church. Fellowship and edification became less important as the Association now saw the benefit of a united effort. In 1731 solicitations was made among the churches for financial help in the Philadelphia church building program,(5) and later other churches with financial difficulties and building needs, were helped.

The Association also saw the importance of the printed page and in 1738 published a catechism, but the most important publication decision by the Association was in 1742, when the project of the Philadelphia Confession of Faith was under taken(6) and printed by Benjamin Franklin the following year.

Another important function was securing supplies for destitute churches and those without pastors. Stronger and more stable churches would often share their ministers with the struggling and poorer churches.

Later on, associations would be built upon the importance of foreign missions, but in the early 1700's, the concept of `foreign missionaries' had not developed. The domestic concern, however, was great indeed. In 1766 the Association voted to take offerings quarterly to be deposited by trustees; the interest only to be used for the `support of ministerial traveling on the errand of the churches.' Morgan Edwards was the first minister sent forth by the Association(7) and then in1773, John Gano became the second elected minister sent forth by the Association to preach in the Colonies(8) and who was highly successful. It appears that the political unrest in the Colonies at that time played a role in the discontinuance of this mission endeavor. In 1772 David Jones made his intentions known to the Association that he wanted to visit the western tribes of Indians and so the following year he set out, at his own expense, to preach Christ among the Indians east of the Mississippi River. It appears that his interpreter was paid for by the Association.(9) Baptists in New England were subjected to much greater difficulty than those Baptists in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. Some New England Baptists were still being taxed to support state religions. The Warren Association of Rhode Island appointed the notable Isaac Backus to plead the New England Baptist's grievances before the first Continental Congress held at Philadelphia. The Warren Association appealed to the Philadelphia Association for support and assistance, to which request, the Philadelphia Association enthusiastically complied. Isaac Backus did not represent his one lone church, he represented the Warren Association of Baptist churches. It was observed that Baptist Associations could have greater influence for their strong beliefs in liberty of conscience,' than individual, independent churches. Another important project undertaken by the Philadelphia Association was education. All of the Association's early ministers were from England and Wales, thus, where would their new ministers come from? In 1748 Isaac Eaton established the first Baptist institution for higher learning in America, which was a Latin grammar school at Hopewell, New Jersey.(1O) This school gave Baptists some of the most competent leaders of that period. In 1764 a charter was passed by the Rhode Island General Assembly for a new college to be located in Providence and called Rhode Island College, later renamed Brown University. This college was made possible with the financial help and promotion of the Philadelphia Association. In 1775 John Gano attended the Charleston Association as a messenger from the Philadelphia Association to promote `augmenting the friends of Rhode Island College'... again in 1774 John Gano and William Rogers were appointed by the Association to receive the money from the churches and forward it to the treasurer of the college. Lest the impression is, that this college came about without great difficulty, it is important to remember that many Baptists would oppose its establishment. Morgan Edwards called this opposition "an unhappy prejudice against learning."(11) Most of the opposition was diminished by the success of the Hopewell Academy in New Jersey.

Doctrine

The Philadelphia Association was `Particular Baptist' which designates their beliefs in `Particular Redemption,' as opposed to the `General Baptists' who held to a `General Atonement' and were Arminian in theology. Particular Baptists were known as Regular Baptists. John Leland, in his, The Virginia Chronicle, says that Regular Baptists, `adhered to a confession of faith first published in London, 1689, and afterwards adopted by the Baptist Association of Philadelphia in 1742. (12) They built the Philadelphia Association upon sound doctrine and not upon cultural reaction. Though Americans were going through cultural changes, from a monarchy to a government of the people, they remained steadfast in the doctrine of their forebears. The Philadelphia Association did not waver from their solid, historic Calvinism, until the 1800's. How can this unwavering doctrinal position, which lasted for more than a hundred years, be explained? There are a number of factors. most important of which is their Confession of Faith. The London 1689 Confession had been molded after the Presbyterian Westminster Confession of Faith, as much for political unity as doctrinal. Earlier the 1644 London Confession had been published and was the first Calvinistic Baptist Confession. These early confessions of faith, became the basis of the Particular Baptist interdependency, and the Philadelphia Baptist Confession of Faith. It is an established fact that historic, Calvinistic Baptists were Confessional. Baptist confessions have always been a stabilizing force in Baptist life. The Philadelphia Confession was so definitive and clear that it eventually became too much to bear for some in a fast changing society. By the time the New Hampshire Confession was compiled by J. Newton Brown in 1833, the statements on the sovereignty of God in salvation, had been shortened and made less offensive. Brown and other weaker Confessions probably felt the need to counter the extreme emphasis of the `anti-mission Baptists' who were making a serious division among the Regular Baptists. Not only was the Association solidly confessional but each year, starting in 1744, a doctrinal circular letter, was agreed on and sent to all the churches. The original plan of the circular letter was:

I. The contents of the general letter shall consist of observations and improvements of some particular article of faith, contained in our Confession, beginning with the first, and so on in order, unless occasion requires the contrary....

II. Let diligent care be used to caution the churches against innovations in doctrine and practice, and to watch against errors and avoid them whenever they rise and by whomsoever they may be propagated.(13)

This practice of writing circular letters was so important, that most succeeding associations followed the Philadelphia Association's lead. These circular letters were designed to indoctrinate, and to confirm the churches in the faith, and to this day are still a marvelous instructive source of truth. Another means of indoctrination was by receiving written questions from church members, to be answered by the Association. Churches were also encouraged to use the catechisms, especially with children.( 14) When the Association was made aware of lax and weak Baptist churches in North Carolina (most were Arminian, and would receive members without requiring an experience of grace),(15) John Gano was sent by the Philadelphia Association at the request of the Charleston Association to help establish these churches.(16) Gano, with Benjamin Miller of New Jersey and Peter Peterson Van Horn of Pennsylvania, were able to re-organize the North Carolina churches along the lines of Regular Baptist doctrine and discipline(17) adopting the Philadelphia Confession of Faith. Thus, the Philadelphia Association was established solidly in the Calvinistic faith and as long as doctrine and understanding God's Word was their point of unity, they prospered and remained doctrinally pure. When new associations were formed in the north or south, those associations would adopt either the Philadelphia Confession or the London 1689 Confession and would follow the lead of the Philadelphia Association as to the sending circular letters, annual doctrinal messages at their Association meetings, receiving written questions and the use of catechisms. One important means of indoctrination among early Baptists, yet to be addressed by historians, is hymnody. It is true the Philadelphia Association approved early of congregational singing, but it was not until the 19th century that the hymn book took its place along side of the Bible. The further we go back in time, in hymnals, the stronger the doctrinal emphasis, so that early Associations and Baptists in general saw the importance of teaching through hymns. No one can dispute the important role that the Philadelphia Association had doctrinally upon Regular Baptists throughout America for a hundred plus years. If there was no unity in doctrine, then there was no unity. But, when doctrinal unity prevailed, innovations and inventions were confronted and put to flight.

Leaders

The Association was never greater than it's leaders. For Baptist historians, a list of leaders in this one association, for over a hundred years, reads like a `hall of fame' list. Most of the names have passed into forgotten dusty shelves, but in their day, they were men of renown. They were men of character and conviction. Many were first rate scholars but all were firm in their doctrinal convictions. They accomplished so much with very little of what we have available to us today. They had no computers. no easy means of travel or communications, little medical benefits and usually died younger. They were greater in faith, greater in suffering, greater in self denial and greater in vision They were pastors of small churches and large, and when called on, they served their generation well. God raised up three or four generations of men of superior ability. These are men who should still be heard and heeded. Who, today, knows of:

Benjamin Stelle Isaac Eaton John Gano Ebenezer Smith Samuel Morgan

Thomas Ustick John Clarkson Benjamin Miller David Jones Elisha Thomas

Peter Van Horn Oliver Hart Jenkin Jones Thomas Jones Wm. Staughton

Simon Butler Griffith Owen Wm. Rogers Abel Morgan Morgan Edwards

Horatio Jones Elias Keach Benjamin Griffiths Thomas Baldwin

and host more of early American Baptist history makers.

How we should be thankful for those who blazed the trail and eased our burden. These names forbid any condescension and haughtiness by modern scholars. We honor them for the honor that is due them. They are indeed a noble company.

Summary

We have been asked to make a present day application of the history and influence of the Philadelphia Baptist Association and so the following observations are the author's alone. All early Baptists were associational and `Independent Baptists,' as we know them today, were unheard of, therefore, there is a tremendous difference between the early Philadelphia Association and our present day situation. In the past, the Philadelphia Association was united in keeping error out, where today, associations and conventions unite on toleration of error. Discipline over doctrinal error was an important part of the Philadelphia Association, whereas modern Baptists glory in toleration and often consider doctrinal error part of the burden of benefits derived from our modern America. The Philadelphia Association saw truth as the rallying standard, never numerical growth, entertainment, fulfillment, education, or even property. A serious and slow change began to take place in the Associations in the mid to late 1800's in that there was a subtle shift away from doctrinal importance to a `cultural importance.' Today, as far as we have found, there are no churches in the Philadelphia Baptist Association, that follow the Philadelphia Confession of Faith. Most are now, non-confessional and are motivated by cultural needs and influence. They are today, for the most part, `politically correct' but doctrinally lost in a maze of compromise. They try to find fulfillment horizontally rather than in the vertical. Some find this shift away from strong doctrine starting as a reaction to the anti-mission Baptist movement in the early 1800's, as many of those churches gave in, to what is termed `hyper- Calvinism.' Others see this abandonment of a confessional theology because of Baptists who, in hatred of the Philadelphia Confession, declared they had `no confession but the Bible.' Baptists were assailed by a handful of renegade Baptists for exalting the Philadelphia Confession, `above the Word of God,' and called for Baptists to get away from their `man made creeds,' and get back to the `Bible alone.' Such statements may have an orthodox ring, but the leader of that movement was Alexander Campbell, and many a Baptist church succumbed to his `restoration' ranting and followed him into the muddy waters of Campbellism. Both, the anti-mission movement and the Campbellite error had a negative impact on much of Baptist life in the early 1800's, and on the Philadelphia Association. As a result the New Hampshire Confession was torn in 1833 and tried to ease away from the strong Calvinism of previous Baptist Confessions. It was still a Calvinistic confession, only less dogmatic on the doctrine of Grace. Every major Baptist confession, or articles of faith since 1833, have continued this trend of `watering down the hard doctrine of sovereign grace.' We could illustrate it with the camel and the tent. Even though the general atonement camel wanted into the tent of truth, the early confessions of faith barred the entrance. In 1833, J. Newton Brown would not let the camel in the entrance, but did allow the camel's nose only, in under the side of the tent. We all know what happened after the nose was in, for today most Baptist confessions have the general atonement camel inside the tent and quite at home. There has been such a radical change in doctrinal life among Baptists, that we can hardly be identified with our historic Baptist ancestors. It is true that doctrine divides, but it is also true that true doctrine unites. So what unites Baptists today? I suggest it certainly is not doctrine, for most Baptists no longer know the difference between truth and error, and as a result, the only thing that seems to matter is avoiding all controversy in the search for the best and quickest road to numerical growth and `doctrineless unity.' What comparison can be made between the Philadelphia Association of years gone by with Baptists today? And, what can we learn from the past? Those early Baptists were grounded in the Word and were more than willing to pay whatever was required for adhering to truth. Culture did not dictate how and what to believe. However, the doctrine determined how to deal with a changing culture and that from the fixed truth of an unchanging God. Our current American culture is not right or wrong, black or white, it is all gray. Everything now has two or more sides to consider. Hymnody takes in everything from contemporary rock to sacred hymns. There is no doctrinal standard, rather the invasion of our modern, youth-oriented culture. Hymnals are approaching obsolescence, as the overhead flashes catchy, moving choruses and `praise music' that was birthed in the charismatic rock generation. Bible versions have taken us into such a fog, we no longer know if the Bible we preach from, contains God's Word, is God's Word, might be God's Word, or the problem that much of what we use to believe, is no longer found in the oldest and best manuscripts! God's Word is no longer the determining, singular authority it once was, for now we see culture as the driving factor for the publication of our Bibles. American religious ignorance, demands we `dummy down' the only true standard of righteousness we ever had, which has led to a plethora of versions so that every man, woman and child, might have that which is easier reading in their own eyes. Feminism has Baptists reconsidering the role of women in the church. Women now control a large share of the offering plate and so are to be appeased rather than instructed in the Pauline 'negative of silence and submission.' in many a Baptist church, the women are in the role of church leaders, for our culture demands that they be there. Today we seek to see our Christian women `fulfilled' rather than obedient. The early associations were not afraid to speak out against Free Masonry, yet today the Masonic Lodge is a silent guest in many Baptist churches, not to be offended, and in some cases hoodwinks from Baptist pulpits. The early Baptists prayed for conversions, today's Baptist works for decisions. Most of the gimmicks, programs and fund raising that modern Baptists engage in, would have brought immediate discipline from the old associations. Modern pastors are too often CEO fund raisers, who marry, bury and excel in 'sermonettes' and altar calls. Even Calvinistic Baptist pastors find it difficult to stand up and be counted because of the comfort and pleasure of our plush cultural environment. We do have it easy and we love to have it so. We have nigh abandoned our doctrinal heritage and have reverted to the non standard ethic of the Old Testament judges, when every man does that which is right in his own eyes. There is a unity but it is ashes. Yet, for all our unity in the cultural, we are more divided than ever before. Baptists today are caught in the tension between the historic faith and contemporary society. Too many have succumbed to the pressure and demands of modern society and have churches full of religious worldlings. The Philadelphia Association churches were committed to purity, today we are committed to size, sports, suppers and statistics. Early associations also used statistics, but when they reported on additions and baptisms, they also listed how many false professions had been excluded. Today's statistics never mention `exclusions' for they are a rarity, no longer the normality they once were. There may never be another Philadelphia Baptist Association in America, unless the cold wind of persecution would arise to separate the wheat from the chaff in our churches. Persecution has a way of quickly dividing Christian church members from worldly church members. I am convinced that one main reason Baptist pastors and people are no longer interested in their purity is because they have lost touch with their history, (from which we derive teaching, encouragement and direction). History is too convicting. Today we have nothing to relate to in history, nothing in common with our ancestors. The early Baptist's associated together out of necessity, never from ego, convenience or novelty, of which we make so much today. There was doctrinal unity and thus ethical unity. it was not just to make good Calvinists of the membership rather to apply Calvinistic doctrine, so as to reap consistent godly members in conformity to Christ. Calvinistic Baptist pastors today have learned satisfaction with nominal Christianity, and we are the weaker for it. Our religious culture constantly pressures us to be `successful,' in numbers, salaries, community prestige, fund raising, leadership etc. We are no longer men of the Word but men of the world. We have exchanged preaching for officiating, prayer for activity, study for Internet access, contending for befriending, reproof for appeasement, teaching for story telling and the faith of our fathers for the vote of our sisters. We are all in great need of revival. There is a need today for Calvinistic Baptists to work together as the early associations did. Those association churches were as jealous of their autonomy and independence as any of us today, yet they saw the need of doctrinally like minded churches uniting to attack culture with the gospel and to draw out of it, God's elect. In our fellowship together, we must again encourage each other toward the regenerate church membership, that is a body of committed, Christ honoring saints. If that means we have to reconsider what we have been doing, in trying to fill our churches with worldings and then working on ways to pacify them while we pass the offering plate in front of them, then let us joyfully reconsider, reconstruct, revise, and praise the Lord for it. Church discipline needs to be reintroduced and churches work to regain their status as temple's of honest Christian purity. The `numbers game' must yield to this gospel purity. If then God blesses with numbers, let us honor and praise Him. What is needed are leaders who have vision for our times yet with the character of yesterday. We need leaders among Calvinistic Baptists whose motives and actions are governed by principle, not providence. Men who are unmovable in the Word, yet the most gracious men possible. Men who can build through cultural fences who will embrace, pray for, encourage and help others. We need men with a single devotion to God and his truth. Alliances, affiliations and pandering of error, must not be supported or condoned. We need leaders who are men after God, not men after men. Men who can open honest dialogue with others as to how we can best fellowship and function in an appropriate and effective, Biblical manner. All Calvinistic Baptists should want to see godly Calvinistic Baptist churches established everywhere. We should work together to promote doctrinally sound books and literature. Audio and video are one of our cultural benefits that can be converted to advance truth. We must be effective within the realm of our ability, financial resources and learning. We must above all, be spiritual men. May our gracious Lord be pleased to bless His own Word and work between us and to fix our hearts on Him, our eyes on the future and fill our memory with appreciation for our noble Baptist forebears who await us on the other side.

Footnotes

1. William Cathcart, The Baptist Encyclopedia: 1881 edition, Volume 2, p. 916.

2. David Benedict, A General History of the Baptist Denomination in America and Other Parts of the World (1848 edition), p. 607.

3. Minutes of The Philadelphia Association, p.25

4. Robert G. Torbet, A Social History of the Philadelphia Baptist Association 1707-1940, (Philadelphia, PA., 1944),pp. 16,17.

5. Minutes, p. 32.

6. Ibid, p. 46,

7. Morgan Edwards, Materials Towards a History of the American Baptists, Vol 1 Pennsylvania, reprint by Regular Baptist Publishing, Enid, OK 1998, p. ii.

8. Minutes, p. 135.

9. lbid,p. 124.

10. Isaac Backus, A History of New England with Particular Reference to the Denomination of Christians Called Baptists (Newton, Massachusetts: Published by the Backus Historical Society, 1871), Vol II, p. 346.

11. William R. Staples, Annals of the Town of Providence, From its First Settlement, to the Organization of the City Government, in June 1832 (Providence, Rhode Island: Printed by Knowles and Vose, 1843), p 519.

12. The Writings of the Late Elder John Leland, Including Some Events in His Life, Written by Himself With Additional Sketches. edited by Miss L. F. Greene (New York: G. W. Wood, 1845), p. 105. The Virginia Chronicle was first published in Virginia in 1790, in book form.

13. Minutes', p. 136.

14. Ibid, p. 297.

15. Lemuel Burkitt and Jesse Read, A Concise History of the Kehukee Baptist Association, From its Original Rise to the Present Time (Halifax, North Carolina: A. Hodge, 1803), p,28.

16. Terry Wolever, The Life and Ministy of John Gano, Vol 1, (Springfield, Missouri, Particular Baptist Press, 1998) p. 313.

17. David Benedict, p. 682.