Backus Defends His Ecclesiology

       In my last post, we saw Isaac Backus had to defend his position on baptism but that wasn’t all this minister had to contend with.  There were also many from the “established” churches who had different views on the qualifications for ministers, for example, and these had great disdain for those they derisively called the “New Lights.”  Backus was not one to back down from any position he found to be entirely supported by Scripture.  In this post we see where he defends his position that the Church of Jesus Christ is comprised of those persons who have been regenerated by the Spirit of God.

       In 1764 he [Backus] published a letter to his former pastor, Mr. Benjamin Lord, of Norwich, who had put in print "some harsh things… against those who have dissented from his sentiments about the ministry, the church, and baptism."  Mr. Lord had declared, for example, that no just cause of withdrawment from the standing order could be produced by the New-Lights.  He had charged "those that imagine the fulness of the Spirit (or singular gifts which they think they possess) doth warrant their assuming the character and entering on the work of ministers of Christ," with coveting to be "above their Master."  And he had joined with six neighboring ministers in saying: "Do not the late separations, and one separation from another, already discover their nature by their fruits? In that some have by this time apostatized even from all religion; while some others are renouncing infant baptism, and going fast to the like dreadful apostasy.  It is hid from them that ‘evil men and seducers wax worse and worse'; it is hid from them, or rather they will not see, that they have fell into the way of Cain, and are in danger of perishing in the gainsaying of Core."

       In reply to these charges, Mr. Backus explained and vindicated his belief, and that of the New-Lights generally, respecting an internal call to preach the gospel.  He then proceeded to show that the right to ordain ministers is vested in the church and not in the clergy alone.  Finally, he defends the doctrine of believers' baptism as scriptural, and repudiates that of infant baptism as unscriptural.  We cite the following recapitulation of his argument:

       "Now, sir, since Christ's forerunner warned the Jews against thinking to come to baptism in Abraham's right, and told them they must bring forth fruits meet for repentance; since Christ himself called little children to come to him, but says not a word of their being brought to baptism before they do come to him; yea, instead of that, he, in the commission, orders that all nations be taught and believe before they are baptized; and since his ministers, in obedience thereto, baptized those that gladly received the Word at Jerusalem, those that believed Philip's preaching in Samaria, and such as heard and believed at Corinth, etc., but there is no account of their baptizing any but such; — and, on the other hand, since God declares that the new covenant is not according to that which he made with Israel when he brought them out of Egypt, and that one special difference is, that all who are in this covenant know him and have his law written in their hearts; and since no custom like circumcising children on their parents' account was to be observed among the believing Gentiles; — I dare not follow the multitude in bringing children to the initiating ordinance of the gospel church on their parents' faith, let there be as great or good men as there will that do it, knowing that I have but one Master in all these things, to whom I must give account.  And I believe his orders are, that none should be admitted into the ministry but "faithful men," or "men full of faith and the Holy Ghost;" and that none ought to be received into the church but real believers, that is, those that give credible evidence of saving faith."  ¹

       Lord willing in my next post we’ll begin to look at Backus’ efforts in defense of religious liberty.

Christ, not man, is King!

Dale

1)      Alvah Hovey, A Memoir of the Life and Times of the Rev. Isaac Backus, A.M. (Boston, MA: Gould and Lincoln, 1859), p. 146-7.

Isaac Backus Defends Believer's Baptism

       In my last post, we saw how the 18^th century minister Isaac Backus had struggled with his own questions about the proper application of the ordinance of baptism.  Having resolved the issue in his own mind by his own careful study of the Scriptures, he had come to carry out this truth within the context of his own church.  Not everyone was on his side, however.  Within the same church were others who still believed in infant baptism and this created no little tension.  In fact, after having excluded from fellowship a couple of the more contentious brethren from the church, a council of leaders from three other local congregations was assembled to “review” the matter.  This council ultimately found against Backus and in favor of the excommunicated, however it never offered Backus an opportunity to present his case for believer’s baptism.  Here is Backus’ response to those who differed with him on this ordinance.

       The proceedings of this council led to the exclusion of Mr. Backus from the church; though some few of the members seem to have adhered to him in the darkest hour.  The majority, however, with Alden and Washburn at their head, established a meeting by themselves, which was sustained for a short time and then died away.  On the 18th of November, Mr. Backus sent the following letter:

       "To the members of the Church in Bridgewater and Middleboro', who now profess to stand and act as the church:

       "Dear Brethren:  Since you expressed, last week, when I was with you, that you were willing to receive light, if any could communicate it, concerning this point which is so much controverted among us; viz., of believers being the only proper subjects of baptism; and as my soul has a desire that you may be brought to see things as they are, therefore I have thought it expedient to write to you a few lines upon the matter.   1. One great argument brought to prove that it is right to baptize infants, is this—that the covenant which believers stand in now is just the same as that which was given to Abraham, to which circumcision was a seal.  But it seems strange to me that any can hold it so.  For the covenant, in the seventeenth of Genesis, plainly includes a promise to Abraham of a numerous posterity, and that kings should come out of him, and that they should have the land of Canaan for an everlasting possession, as well as that the Lord would be a God to that people.  And circumcision was the seal of the covenant, which included all the ceremonial law, and the Jewish forms of worship.  And there is one prescription expressed plainly, in first mentioning the time when children should be circumcised; viz., at eight days old.  The reason for this was, that by the ceremonial law, they were not clean before, as is plainly expressed, Leviticus 12:3.  Now, to say that baptism seals just the same covenant, is most strange and absurd.

       "2. It is commonly said that the subjects are the same, only the seal is altered.  But I never yet saw the person who practised so.  The subjects then were all who would profess that religion, and their whole households, let them be old or young.  A foreigner, or hired servant, was not to be taken in, but all the males who were property were to be circumcised.  Observe here, God says expressly — 'Every man's servant who is bought with money (let him be as old as he may), when thou hast circumcised him, then shall he eat the passover.'  Now I never saw one yet who practised according to this in baptism, and I hope I never may.  There, the servant, let him be ever so old, was circumcised on his master's account; and it is plainly expressed that when they had circumcised him, he should eat the passover.  So that, did I believe the subjects of baptism remained the same, I should not dare to shut off one of the children or servants of believers from this ordinance or from the Lord's Supper either.

       "3. Another argument, which seems to be of great weight with many serious people, is, that our privileges are not less now than theirs were then.  But in this, there seems to be much of the spirit of those ancient fathers who came out of Babylon, who despised the day of small things, and wept when the foundation of the second temple was laid, because the outward glory of it, when compared with the first temple, appeared as nothing.  But God said,' The glory of the latter house should exceed the former.'  The glory of the Jewish church stood much in outward things; (as of circumcision, God says —' My covenant shall be in your flesh.')  Now, as to the outward glory, they exceeded all churches which have existed in gospel times in many things.  The prosperity and blessing in temporal things, which they enjoyed at times, I suppose, went greatly beyond what any church of Christ has had since he suffered; and the temple of Solomon was undoubtedly more magnificent than any house of worship on earth.  But shall we say, therefore, that our privileges are less?  No, surely.  Again, they had three yearly public feasts, at which all their males were to appear before the Lord; but there is only one stated ordinance in the New Testament church; viz.: the Lord's Supper.  But is it right to say that our privileges are cut short on that account?  Once more, the gospel ministry as really comes in the place of the priesthood, as baptism does in that of circumcision; and the priesthood was confined to Aaron and his descendants.  Now, is it good reasoning to say that gospel ministers have not so great privileges as the priests had, because they have no right to bring their children into the ministry?  I believe no serious person will say so.  Not a whit more of reason is there for saying, that the privileges of believers are now less, because they are not now allowed to partake of the ordinances of Christ's house until the Lord converts them and prepares them for it.  The truth is, those things were types and shadows of heavenly things; and we have a more clear and glorious revelation of divine things; and our children have vastly greater advantages of being taught in the things of salvation by Jesus Christ.  And it highly concerns every saint to use all gospel means and methods to bring his family as well as others to believe in Christ; so that they may have a right to all the privileges of the sons of God.  And I wish I could see all those who are pleading so earnestly for infant baptism more engaged to train up their children in the ways of God.

       "Thus, my brethren, I have hinted to you some things which were upon my mind concerning these matters.  And I desire that you may be as noble as the Bereans were, and search the Scriptures daily, to see if these things are not so.  And now, as to the line you are going on in, in admonishing all, as covenant breakers, who hold that none are the proper subjects of baptism but saints; I verily believe that in this you are striking against divine truth; though I hope it is ignorantly; and therefore, though I am not much concerned what you will do to me, yet I must say, Do yourselves no harm. 

       So I remain your souls' well-wisher,

       Isaac Backus.”

 

       We have found no record of the manner in which this letter was received or of the effect, if any, which it produced. The excluded pastor, however, continued his ministry with such as still approved his course; and after a few weeks it was deemed expedient to call another council. ¹

       Lord willing we shall continue to examine the ministry of Backus in my next post.

Christ, not man, is King!

Dale

1)      Alvah Hovey, A Memoir of the Life and Times of the Rev. Isaac Backus, A.M. (Boston, MA: Gould and Lincoln, 1859), p. 102-5.

Paedo or Credo? Isaac Backus and the Doctrine of Baptism

       In my last post, we examined the call of the 18^th century Baptist preacher Isaac Backus to the ministry.  But his life in the ministry was not without its share of trouble and turmoil, as we shall see in this post.  

   …According to his own testimony, sad tokens of a decline in vital piety began to appear in his parish soon after the beginning of 1749. Whispering and backbiting prevailed to a fearful extent, especially among the young people; and warnings from the servant of Christ did not avail to arrest the evil.  Gospel discipline was also greatly neglected, and a melancholy change in the state of religion was but too evident.  This was a severe affliction to the young and zealous pastor.

       But this was not all. The Separates had embraced substantially Baptist views of the Christian church.  They affirmed with great unanimity that only those who give satisfactory evidence of piety are entitled to the privilege of membership in the church, and that only those who are regenerated by the Spirit of God are "Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise."  Some of them, it cannot be doubted, saw more or less clearly the inconsistency of these declarations with the practice of infant baptism.  In the Articles of the Mansfield church there is one which reads: "Though most of us agree in the Article of infant baptism, yet a difference in that particular doth not break the spiritual communion of saints; therefore it is no just bar to our covenanting and partaking of the ordinances together wherein we are agreed."  Others perceived more distinctly than the New-Lights themselves whither their doctrine of a "spiritual church" was likely to conduct them.  As early as May 17, 1743, Rev. A. Croswell, of Groton, Conn., thus writes to Rev. Mr. Prince, of Boston: "I may hereafter print something about the times, showing wherein I have seen reason to alter my judgment, particularly with reference to exhorters.  For though I was the first in New England that set them up, I now see, too late, that the tendency of their ways is to drive learning out of the world, and to sow it thick with the dreadful errors of Anabaptism, Quakerism, and Antinomianism!"  And in 1741, the Consociation of Windham County, Conn., objected to the article cited above, because it tends "to let in Anabaptists, and seems more agreeable to the inclination of parties than the Word of God."  We will now proceed to give, from the papers of Mr. Backus, and nearly in his own words, written from time to time as the events took place, an account of his change of views in respect to the ordinance and subjects of baptism.

       At a church meeting, August 7, 1749, Ebenezer Hinds and Dea[con] Jonathan Woods declared that they had embraced the Baptist principle.  This led to much discourse on the subject, and sundry of the brethren were ready to follow their example.  They advocated the opinion that plunging is the right way of baptizing, and that infants are not qualified for this ordinance.  The question thus introduced became a very prominent topic of thought and of debate.  Those who had adopted Baptist sentiments were persuaded that they could convince the rest of the church, and therefore improved every opportunity to discuss the matter.  Bitter clashing and contention followed, by which the remaining life of religion was destroyed.  All the evil was traced by one party to the Baptist principle, and by the other, to fear and resistance of the truth.  In reality, however, it sprang chiefly from the unchristian temper which these brethren displayed toward one another.

       For a time Mr. Backus strove not to meddle with the new doctrine.  From the ill behavior charged upon Baptists of former and later times, he was led to fear that some mischief lurked in their principles, and that these were now sent as a delusion in judgment upon them.  But he could not exclude the topic utterly from his thoughts.  About the 20th of August, he began to give it close attention; but he was dreadfully perplexed, and his mind was tossed this way and that.  When he carefully searched the Scriptures, light seemed to be clearest for the Baptist doctrines; but when he looked at his own guilt and that of his people, the fear returned that these things were sent in judgment upon them.  On Saturday night, August 26th, while crying to God for help and direction, he found there were many things very dear to him which yet he could freely give up into the hands of God, but that in this case he felt a sensible pulling back.  At length this conclusion suddenly came into his mind: namely, the Baptist principles are certainly right, because nature fights so against them.  The next day he felt a secret hurrying on to preach upon this subject; which he did in the afternoon, taking for his text, Romans 6:4, and maintaining that none have any right to baptism except believers, and that immersion seems to be the only correct mode.

       In the evening, after this premature discourse, occasioned by a hasty decision, darkness began to fill his mind, and on the forenoon of Monday this darkness became well nigh total.  A little light, however, seemed to dawn upon him in the afternoon, and the next morning he was enabled to cast his burdens on the Lord.  He now saw in the dreadful gloom we have noticed, an indication that the doctrine maintained in his sermon must be wrong; he remembered also how the Bible everywhere represents the Lord as granting many favors and blessings to the children of saints for their fathers' sakes; he thought of God's covenant with Abraham and the tenor of his promise: "I will be a God to thee and to thy seed after thee," and found this to be the covenant with Christians still; and he concluded in the light of these considerations that the children of believers have a right to baptism.  These reflections appeared to satisfy his mind, and he set out cheerfully on his way to Norwich.

       Making a flying call upon his friends in Rehoboth, he went into Providence on Thursday, August 31st, and there met with three of his flock at the house of Rev. Joseph Snow.  They had started from home with the purpose of being plunged; but Mr. Snow spoke so clearly upon Infant Baptism that one of them without further delay turned his steps homeward.  Mr. Backus proceeded to Norwich, and after spending some weeks in preaching, visiting, and attending to secular affairs, returned to his parish on the 23d of September.

       Meanwhile, he had become, as he thought, fully settled in his former opinion, that only believers and their infant Seed are entitled to baptism, and that as to the mode, every one must be fully persuaded in his own mind and act accordingly.  His intercourse with ministers of the Separate order during this journey may have aided in bringing him to such a conclusion.  Yet he was sometimes sorely puzzled to fix the line beyond which one had no right to baptism; for he knew that Abraham circumcised not only children under age, but also his three hundred servants.  From this difficulty, however, he took refuge in the plea of ignorance, confessing, as Paul does, that "now we see through a glass darkly."

       Arriving in Titicut, he soon learned that in his absence Elder E. Moulton, of South Brimfield, now Wales, had come to Bridgewater by invitation, and had plunged, Sept. 17th and 18th, nine members of his church, with one other person.  Here then, was a new trial; but it does not seem to have modified his own course.  At a meeting of the church, Tuesday, September 26th, he made a full confession, and retracted the sentiments expressed in his sermon upon baptism.  Those who had been immersed were disappointed and offended at this recantation; and on the next Lord's day they met by themselves for religious worship.  But Mr. Backus was ready to make his relapse into the common belief still more public and practical.  In the afternoon of the following Sabbath, Oct. 8th, he discoursed upon the submission of David: "Here am I, let Him do with me as seemeth good unto Him," and then spoke of his sorrow for preaching against infant baptism, going so far even as to declare that he was willing to venture into eternity on that practice; and proceeding thereafter "to baptize a child of sister Richmond."

       But in the present case also he was guilty of rashness; and he afterwards, (in 1752) made this record: "Though I really thought that way to be right, yet those expressions which I delivered publicly, concerning venturing into eternity on that practice, did carry in them a much greater certainty than I really had at the time in my own soul, which has often since caused me to mourn before the Lord."

       Soon after the events which we have recited took place, Mr. Backus resolved to dismiss all anxiety and inquiry on the subject, and to treat infant baptism as an ordinance of the gospel.  But it had been determined otherwise; and before many weeks were passed he was brought to a stand in his course by the question: Where, and in what relation to the church of God do those stand who have been baptized and yet are not believers?  The question was proposed to him by no one, — unless by the Spirit of God, — and he could not exclude it from his mind.  But he now moved slowly, and only after two years of painful suspense and study did he reach a satisfactory conclusion.  It will be profitable to know some of his feelings during this period.

Lord's day, Dec. 31, 1749. "My unsettled state about baptism wounds and weakens my soul; but this day I was favored with considerable tenderness and clearness in preaching."

Feb. 4, 1750. "For some time in the evening I felt such guilt and distress that I was ready to cry: 'A wounded spirit who can bear?' The promised joys of sin were turned into pain, and my soul was in agony. Lord, when thou hidest thy face, who can behold thee?"

Feb. 17th. "This day I feel much as I have done for a long time. There is a constant load upon my mind. Yet at times I am intensely engaged in study; though I have scarce any strength or heart to act for God."

April 8th. "I find considerable strugglings in my heart against declaring the whole truth, because I practise no more of it myself.  O Lord, deliver me from the power of this temptation!"

July 15th. "I have worried along now for some months, sometimes feeling so guilty and ashamed in viewing my past conduct and present case that I hardly wanted to see anybody. * * * But in the midst of all this various turning of things within and without, I find my soul is held, as a ship by the anchor is held in the boisterous waves, either from dashing on the rocks or driving off into the wild ocean."

July 23d. "Felt as if I were laid aside by God and man; could find scarce anything to do; yet the Lord gave me instruction out of all this.  At night a few of us had a meeting at brother Alden's, and near the close of it I had by such glimpses of the heavenly glory and such drawings of divine love as I haven't felt before these many weeks.  Oh, one taste of love is infinitely sweeter than all that earth can afford."

Sept. 5th. "Labored with my hands most of the day; dull and stupid; but in the evening the Lord gave me sweet enlargement in secret prayer.  I was enabled to come as a child to a father, tell him all my wants, and lay open my very heart to him."

Sept. 9th. "Enjoyed considerable freedom in preaching, and some of the hearers were refreshed. We then partook of the ford's supper.  Two offered themselves for communion with us, and told their experiences.  One was the wife of Isaac Pierce, of Beech Woods, who was received; the other was my dear wife, who had blessed clearness in describing the dealings of God with her soul, and the whole church seemed to be affected thereby.  We then attended to the ordinance itself, which by reason of the difficulties among us had not been observed for more than a twelvemonth.  Sundry of the saints were divinely refreshed while partaking of the supper."

Nov. 11th. "This forenoon I had no remarkable assistance, but in the afternoon I was led to treat of the hope and comfort of the saints, and to lay open the horrid falseness of the notion entertained by carnal hearts, that a life of holiness is an uncomfortable life.  There is no true happiness here or hereafter but in being conformed to God in heart and conduct."

Dec. 19th. "Was much depressed in the morning by a sense of my vileness and by a view of the miserable case of this people. The waters came into my soul."

Dec. 31st. "Spent much of the day in reading. In the evening I preached to a little number at brother Alden's.  Alas, I had but a poor ending of the year.  Almost the whole of this year, 1750, has been a season of heavy trial to my soul.  If any one had told me a twelvemonth ago that I should meet with all which I have gone through since, I should have thought it insupportable.  Hence the reasonableness of Christ's word: "Take no thought for the morrow, for sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof."

Feb. 13, 1751. "Was called in the afternoon to visit a sick woman, and found some assistance in praying and conversing with her. But in the evening I felt horrid temptations even to Atheism and Infidelity, which taught me the danger we are still in, if left of God."

April 5th, (Harwich.) "My soul was brought to such a view of the discipline of God's house and the want of it among our people, that I could not but solemnly engage before God to be faithful in that work, and I called all the saints to witness against me if I was not; and I felt such a salvation as I had not for a year or two before."

Aug. 13th. "Had a short conference with some of our brethren concerning our church affairs; our case appears exceedingly difficult still." ¹

      It is easy to understand, for anyone who has been a Christian for some time, to feel for Backus in his struggle for clarity regarding this biblical doctrine.  Perhaps every believer in the Lord Jesus Christ has wrestled with understanding this or that particular doctrine.  What made his situation much more difficult was the turmoil that very question was generating not only within his church but also within the larger New England community.  As the pastor of a particular flock of believers, it was Backus’ duty to lay before them the whole counsel of God and yet even he was having some difficulty in perceiving which way to turn.  But it is exactly this means of “wrestling with the Lord” in prayer and Bible study which the Lord often uses to bless His children with dispensations of grace, wisdom, and knowledge.

       And, long after, Mr. Backus thus refers to his reluctant and protracted inquiries at this time in respect to baptism: "No man, who has not experienced the like, can form a proper idea of the distress I endured for two years."  We are now in some measure prepared to trace the mental and moral process by which his views on this subject were changed, to draw near and sympathize with this servant of God, while, by "agonizing prayer" and "intense study," he slowly emerges from darkness into light, from painful suspense into assured belief.

       When the question, "where, and in what relation to the church of God, do those persons stand, who have been baptized and yet are not believers?" presented itself to the mind of Mr. Backus, he was unable to find a satisfactory answer.  He perceived that during the former dispensation, all who had been circumcised were in the church, which was national.  He also saw, and had clearly seen for many years, that under the new dispensation, none are in the church, but saints who are built up as lively stones, etc.  He found no gospel standing-place for half-way members.  In spite of all he could do, he felt constrained to omit the practice of infant baptism, and for upwards of a year his mind continued in nearly the same posture of indecision, "suffering trials which no tongue can express."  On the fifth of April, 1751, he made a solemn promise to the Lord to attempt the restoration of faithful discipline in the church.  He succeeded at first in leading his brethren to engage in this work; but after a time some of them said they could go no further in disciplinary labor, till they knew how the case would turn with him as to baptism.  Discouraged by this obstacle, he felt himself compelled to let the work drop.

       Having thus borne for almost two years the tortures of doubt respecting the subjects and mode of baptism, he set apart Saturday, July 20, 1751, as a day of secret fasting and prayer, to seek once more the direction of God.  After confessing his sins, and earnestly imploring divine help, he took Wilson's Scripture Manual, and seriously examined every particular passage of God's Word which relates to baptism, and was forced to "give in" that the sentiments of Mr. Wilson appeared to be according to the mind of Christ.  Then, still looking to the Most High for direction, he went on to examine several portions of the Sacred Record, which speak of God's blessing his people and their seed with them.  He carefully reviewed the account of Noah's preservation with his family, the promises made to Abraham and his seed, to David and his posterity, and the descriptions given in the Old Testament of the Messiah's reign; and he concluded in view of all these, that God had promised to manifest himself to his people in the latter days, and to pour out his Spirit upon them in a very extraordinary and glorious manner; also, that he had given to believers great encouragement to bring their offspring to him, praying and hoping for large blessings upon them; for they shall all know him, from the least to the greatest.  But he was led at the same time by this comprehensive and prayerful survey to conclude that none ought to be baptized, and thus have the outward mark of Christ's disciples put upon them, except those who give evidence of having believed in him.  This settlement of the question gave him some degree of peace.  "But yet, alas!" he says, "I feel like a weak creature still, having but little strength and boldness to come forth in the truth in this evil day.  Lord, I commit my all to thee."

       At a meeting of the church, July 25th, he made known to his brethren the character and result of his inquiries, declaring his full conviction that there is no scripture warrant for infant baptism.  Much discourse followed.  On the 29th he writes: "I have had some distressing views of my case, and of the danger of being left as a stumbling block to others, or as a barren useless creature.  I went to pour out my soul to God, and I was enabled to confess my sins, and with earnestness to plead, that he would either bring my soul forth to act for him, or take me out of the world.  For I had rather be hid in the grave, than to live a burden to his creation."  He also spent the 30th of this month in fasting, humiliation and prayer, and closes his record of it with these words: "O Lord, bow down thine ear and hear; for I am poor and needy.  We are made a strife to our neighbors, and our enemies laugh among themselves.  Turn us again, O Lord of hosts, and cause thy face to shine upon us, and we shall be saved."

       Mr. Backus was now fully satisfied in respect to his duty.  He therefore sent for Elder Benjamin Pierce of Warwick, Rode Island, to administer the ordinance of baptism; and on the 22d of August, 1751, he was baptized with six members of his church, on profession of faith in Christ.²

       By God’s grace Backus had been brought from the obscurity in which he had been dwelling to the clarity of what he had found to be Scripture truth.  In siding with the Baptists he was sure to bring upon himself much discredit.   Lord willing we shall see how the Lord was pleased to work through the ministry of Backus in my next post.

Christ, not man, is King!

Dale

1)      Alvah Hovey, A Memoir of the Life and Times of the Rev. Isaac Backus, A.M. (Boston, MA: Gould and Lincoln, 1859), p. 82-90. 
2)      Ibid., p.90-3.

Unconverted Ministers and Backus' Call To The Ministry

       In a previous post, we examined the effects of the Great Awakening in New England.  In this post, we will examine the problem of unconverted ministers in Backus’ day as well as his own call to the ministry.

       It is well known that both [George] Whitefield and [Gilbert] Tennant insisted upon personal piety as an essential qualification for the work of preaching the Gospel, and that they had no confidence in the religious character of large numbers who then held the pastoral office.  At the close of his first visit to New England, Whitefield wrote in his journal: "Many, perhaps most, that preach, I fear, do not experimentally know Christ."  This remark has been condemned as uncharitable and imprudent, yet there was too much reason for him to doubt the piety of not a few.  Certainly it is no more sweeping than the language of Gilbert Tennant: "It is true some of the modern Pharisees have learned to prate a little more orthodoxy about the new birth than their predecessor Nicodemus, who are in the meantime as great strangers to the feeling experience of it as he.  They are blind who see not this to be the case of the body of the clergy of this generation.”   Nor is it severer than the words of Mr. Porter of Bridgewater, who says of many graduates from college: "Alas, for the encouragement they meet with!  No sooner do these light, airy, fashionable young men, who evidently deny, oppose, and banter, both publicly and privately, the great soul-humbling and Christ-exacting doctrines of the Gospel, and ridicule experimental religion as enthusiasm, and resolve christian experiences into an over-heated imagination and disordered brain, if not fanatical delusion; I say, no sooner do these young men come forth from the feet of Gamaliel into the world, and begin to exercise their gifts, but they are at once invited to preach and settle in the ministry; and there are ministers and churches enough that will ordain them, notwithstanding the testimony which the serious, and such as are concerned for the doctrines and interest of Christ, bear against it.  This is too much the case at this day.  We have frequent and flagrant instances of it; he that runs may read it, and he is wilfully blind that does not see it.  And, alas, how dark the aspect on these churches!  'These things are a lamentation, and shall be for a lamentation.'"

       "Mr. Ruggles," says Trumbull, "was a scholar and a wise man; his morals were not impeachable; but he was a dull, unanimating preacher; had a great talent of hiding his real sentiments, never coming fully out, either as to doctrinal or experimental religion;" and there appear to have been at that time not a few in the pastoral office to whom this description of the Guilford minister was applicable.

       When Whitefield proposed the question: "Are not unconverted ministers the bane of the Christian church?"  Dr. Chauncey replied: "If, by unconverted ministers, you mean, those who appear to be so by a faith or life visibly contradictory to the Gospel, I entirely agree with you.  But if you intend, by unconverted ministers, those whom God knows to be so, though from what outwardly appears they ought to be well thought of, I doubt not but you are under a great mistake."  And in his "Seasonable Thoughts on the State of Religion in New England," he offers this remark: "Conversion does not appear to be alike necessary for ministers in their public capacity as officers of the church, as it is in their private capacity."  This view of the matter seems to have been quite prevalent before the great awakening.  It is not, therefore, surprising that educated men, "if orthodox in doctrine and regular in their lives" were admitted without hesitation to the sacred office.

       In 1712, the ministers of Connecticut at their general association, recommended that a candidate for the ministry should be required to give satisfaction to the association examining him, of his skill in the Hebrew, Greek, and Latin tongues, in Logic and Philosophy; of his acquaintance with the main grounds or principles of the christian religion and his assent to the confession of faith publicly owned by the united churches of the colony; and of his sober and religious conversation.

       It will be observed, that "sober and religious conversation" is a very indefinite expression, by no means equivalent to "experimental religion," and that no allusion whatever is made to an internal or spiritual call to enter the ministry.  Indeed, we do not find that such a call had ever been esteemed necessary by churches of the standing order in New England; and there is reason to believe, that from 1712, until the great revival, candidates for the ministry were not generally expected to give an account of their religious experience.

       But when the "set time to favor Zion had come," and genuine converts to the faith were multiplied, better views of the new birth began to prevail, and the labors of spiritual men were anxiously desired.  Yet many churches of the established order remained under the care of those who were strangers to vital piety.  In many instances their people were for the most part content with such instruction as they gave; yet, had it been less satisfactory, a supply of educated and devout men could not have been found to take their places.  For it must be remembered that no one was thought to be qualified for the ministerial office without a liberal education.

       Even Jonathan Edwards wrote in opposition to the opinion, that the office of the gospel ministry need not be limited to persons of a liberal education. He remarks that "some of late have been for having others that they have supposed to be persons of eminent experience, publicly licensed to preach, yea, and ordained to the work of the ministry; and some ministers have seemed to favor such a thing; but how little do they seem to look forward, and consider the unavoidable consequences of opening such a door!" "Not but that there may probably be some persons in the land that have had no education at college, that are in themselves better qualified for the work of the ministry than some others that have taken their degrees and are now ordained. But yet I believe that the breaking over those bounds that have hitherto been set, in ordaining such persons, would in its consequences be a greater calamity than the missing such persons in the work of the ministry."

       If one who knew the importance of religious experience to the minister of Christ could use this language, it is easy to imagine the bitterness and contempt with which less charitable and less spiritual men would speak of uneducated preachers.  Yet we are by no means surprised that clergymen of the standing order in New England were resolved to welcome none but men of classical learning into their ranks.  For they were convinced on the one hand that such learning is exceedingly desirable for religious teachers, and they were doubtless reluctant on the other hand to surrender a weapon — namely, the reproach of ignorance — which had done them good service against the Baptists.  Several of the first Baptist preachers in New England, were, it is true, men of liberal culture; but this was not the case with all.  The churches did not esteem an acquaintance with the dead languages necessary to qualify one for the ministerial office.  Nor did they believe it right to close the approaches to this office against all who were unable to produce a diploma.  It had therefore been found in many cases easier to abridge the influence of Baptist ministers by sneering at their ignorance than by replying fairly to their arguments from the Word of God; and hence, even christian men were disinclined to relinquish the advantage of using such a weapon.  Nor is it strange, all things considered, that the Legislature of Connecticut made the following law in 1742: "And be it further enacted, that no person that has not been educated or graduated in Yale College, or Harvard College in Cambridge, or some other allowed foreign protestant College or University, shall take the benefit of the laws of this government respecting the settlement and support of ministers."

       Those, however, who separated from churches of the established order were stanch advocates of "lowly preaching."  They rated spiritual discernment far higher than classical learning.  They held "that every brother that is qualified by God for the same, has a right to preach according to the measure of faith, and that the essential qualification for preaching is wrought by the Spirit of God;  and that * * * the tongues and liberal sciences are not absolutely necessary; yet they are convenient, and will doubtless be profitable if rightly used; but if brought in to supply the want of the Spirit of God, they prove a snare to those that use them and all that follow them."  They also believed "that all the gifts and graces that are bestowed upon any of the members, are to be improved by them for the good of the whole; in order to which there ought to be such a gospel freedom, whereby the church may know where every particular gift is, that it may be improved in its proper place and to its right end, for the glory of God and the good of the church."

       Mr. Backus heartily embraced these views; and soon after the Separate Church was organized in Norwich, he was led to devote himself to the ministry of reconciliation.  We submit an account of his call to this holy work in his own language.  "Hitherto a private life had been my choice and delight; but a new scene was before me, which I had no idea of, till I was led into it in the following manner.  Being at a certain house where a number of the saints were met, the command, 'pray ye the Lord of the harvest that He will send forth laborers into his harvest,' was read and spoken upon.  A conviction seized my mind that God had given me abilities which his church had a right to the use of, and which I could not withhold with a clear conscience.  Soon after, a spirit of prayer for divine teaching was given me in a remarkable manner, and eternal things were brought into a near view, with a clear sight of the truth and harmony of the Holy Scriptures; also these words were impressed on my mind: "Son of man, eat this roll." Never did I more sensibly eat natural food than did my soul feast upon the solid truths of God's Word.  Yet I did not then conclude that I should ever preach the Gospel in public.

"A few days after, our minister invited me to go with him to Colchester and Lyme, where there was a revival of religion.  I went accordingly, and on the journey two souls were hopefully converted.  I returned home with rejoicing, and much life in toy soul.  The next day, September 27, 1746, new views were given me beyond those which I had before received. My business led me out to work alone in the woods, where, with none to interrupt me, I had such converse with my God as I never had before.  His former teachings now came to this point, that He called me to preach his Gospel.  And I was then led to count the cost of obedience to the will of God in this work, as distinctly as ever to cast up any particular sum.  Many and great enemies appeared in my way, reproaches, losses, imprisonment, and death; but God showed me that He could make them all fly from my path as chaff flies before the wind.  I thought of my own ignorance and weakness; but He gave me to see that He had knowledge and strength for me.  I urged the plea that I was slow of speech and very bashful; but the answer came: cannot He who formed man's mouth, cause him to speak?  I said if I should go and preach the Gospel with success, I might be lifted up with pride and fall as many others have done.  This difficulty seemed to me like a great mountain, rising far above all the rest; but God said: My grace is sufficient for thee; the mountain was taken away and every excuse gone, so that it appeared like trifling with Divine majesty to make another objection.  And though I looked upon the work as too great for an angel to go through with in his own strength, yet I saw it was easy for God to carry such a poor worm through it, make him faithful unto death, and give him at last a crown of life.  So I was enabled then to give up my soul and body afresh to God, with all my interest, to serve Him in preaching his Gospel.  He then gave me a particular message from the fifty-third psalm, to lay open the universal corruption of mankind.  And as our church allowed each brother free liberty to improve his gift in teaching, I delivered that message the next day (Lord's day, September 28, 1746) with special clearness, and with acceptance to the church.  And as I was then free from all worldly engagements, I devoted my whole time to that great work."

       It may be well to notice in this place, a "Discourse on the Nature and Necessity of an Internal Call to preach the everlasting Gospel," published by Mr. Backus in 1753.  In this Discourse he undertakes to show that "all true ministers of the Gospel are called into that work by the special influences of the Holy Spirit," and in the Preface he makes the following remark: "Much of what I have here written I knew experimentally before I did doctrinally."  He puts it down as the belief of many, that ministers are authorized to license preachers of the Gospel, and that whoever engages in this work without their license runs before he is sent; that ministers and churches are to examine and ordain all the clergy, and that this action, and this alone, gives to the latter their commission and authority.  He testifies that it was often asserted, both from the pulpit and in conversation, That the call of man is the call of God; that if a man has college learning and is regularly introduced according to their order, he is a minister of Christ and sent of God, though unconverted; and that one must have an understanding of the original tongues, or else he does not know whether he preaches right or wrong.

       He speaks of his own view as novel, and therefore likely to encounter many objections; and he proceeds to answer briefly the most material of these objections, "though," he says, "I know that a man may as easily stop the winds from blowing with his words, as to still all the cavils of such as do not love to receive the truth."  He protests against being regarded an enemy to learning, and grants that a knowledge of the original tongues may, by the help of the Divine Spirit, be improved for the good of others.  He pronounces an acquaintance with the languages useful in itself, but considers it evident "that in our colleges many learn corrupt principles, not only about what makes a minister, but also about what makes a Christian."  And he takes the ground that a true minister's qualifications consist more in divine enlightenings than in human learning, that his authority to preach depends more upon his being internally called by the Spirit of God, than upon his being externally sent by the voice of man.

       According to this discourse, the Holy Spirit inwardly calls men to preach the Word, by giving them a specially clear view of the present state of the church and the world, by opening and committing to them the treasure of the Gospel, and by constraining them sweetly and powerfully to enter upon this great work at God's command.  Mr. Backus concedes, however, that "the Lord deals variously with different persons as to the means and manner of their call," yet insists that all who are moved by the Holy Ghost to take upon themselves this ministry, have such views of the actual condition of immortal souls and of the glories of divine truth, that they are constrained by divine power, and animated, by love to the children of men, and zeal for their good, to go and speak unto them all the words of this life.

       He moreover denies that holding to an internal call invalidates external ordination in the least; for as a converted person, he argues, has an internal right to all the privileges of the Christian church, yet has no external right to them, till he is openly received as a member; so a person who is called to preach has no right to act in duties peculiar to an officer of the church, till he is publicly set apart therein.  Praying, exhorting, and preaching, though duties to be performed in the church, are not so confined to it, that they may not rightly be performed where there is no church at all.  But only those who have a visible standing in the church can administer special ordinances or act in cases of discipline, for these are things peculiar to a visible church. ¹

       Backus stood firm in his conviction that only those men who were truly regenerated and had been called by the church ought to be ministers of the Gospel.  Lord willing, we will look more into this man’s earthly ministry in a future post.

Christ, not man, is King!

Dale

1)      Alvah Hovey, A Memoir of the Life and Times of the Rev. Isaac Backus, A.M. (Boston, MA: Gould and Lincoln, 1859), p. 55-64.

The Conversion of Isaac Backus

       As I promised in my last post, here is Isaac Backus’ own recounting of how he was graciously saved by the Lord Jesus Christ.

       In the great awakening which we have briefly noticed, Backus was brought to a saving knowledge of the truth.  He had no opportunity to hear either Whitefield or Tennent, but the revival which attended their labors, "reached Norwich in 1741, under the preaching of Dr. Wheelock and others."  "This work," says Mr. Backus, "was so powerful, and people in general were so ignorant, that they had little government of their passions.  Many cried out and fell down in meetings.  But I had so much doctrinal knowledge, that I never was overcome in that manner.  Neither could I put off my concern, as I had done before, for a more convenient season.  No, though I was in good health, I saw that life was forfeited by sin, and that God had a right to take it away in a moment.  I saw also that He had now given me an opportunity to repent and turn to Him, and that, if it was neglected, I was lost for eternity.  Time was then taken out of the way, and a vast eternity was directly before me, without any hope of ever having another day of grace, should this be neglected.   This moved me to the earnest use of all the means, public or private, within my reach, that I might get a good heart to come to Christ with.  For all the sound teaching with which I had been favored had given me no higher ideas than that a good disposition of mind was necessary in order to come to Christ for salvation.  But all the awakening preaching that I now heard, and all the books which I read, were so far from producing any such disposition, that my heart seemed to grow worse and worse daily; and I saw seeds of all the evils of the world in me.  While others were crying out and falling down in distress, I felt like a stupid beast before God; and nothing was more terrible to me than the fear of losing my convictions and being left of God to a hard heart and reprobate mind; for I fully believed that now was my only time to obtain salvation, that I should never have another day of grace.  Neither could I bear to be deceived with a false hope.  When a minister once stated a case like mine, and then said to his hearers: "If this be your case, be not discouraged, but see if God does not appear speedily for your help," I was powerfully tempted to cast off my concern and to hope for help hereafter.  But this appeared plainly to come from the adversary, and it increased my distress.  Again, one morning these words came into my mind like an audible voice, "Thou art not far from the kingdom of heaven."  But my soul was alarmed thereby, through fear of being settled down in something short of a union with Christ, and this alarm made me cry out to Him for help.

       "In the beginning of August, Mr. James Davenport came to Norwich, where he was met by Doctors Wheelock and Pomeroy, and meetings were held incessantly for three days.  People were greatly affected and many hopefully converted, while I grew worse and worse in my own view.  Powerful preaching, and the sight of many in distress or joy, while I remained a hardened sinner, caused such anguish as words cannot express.  Yet hereby God laid open to me the plague of my own heart and the folly of seeking life by my own doings.  My tears were dried up, and I could find no good in me.  Instead of this I felt inclined to quarrel with the sovereignty and justice of God, and the freeness of his grace, a grace so free that he was not obliged to have mercy upon me after all my doings.  A sight of these corruptions increased my distress and filled me with confusion before God.  And as I believed this to be my last opportunity, and my convictions seemed to be going off, and the work of God to be abating among us, how awful did my case appear!  But God's thoughts are as high above our thoughts as the heavens are above the earth; for He thus drew me off from all trust in myself or any creature, and led me to embrace salvation in His own way.

       "As I was mowing alone in the field, August 24th, 1741, all my past life was opened plainly before me, and I saw clearly that it had been filled up with sin.  I went and sat down in the shade of a tree, where my prayers and tears, my hearing the Word of God and striving for a better heart, with all my other doings, were set before me in such a light that I perceived I could never make myself better, should I live ever so long.  Divine justice appeared clear in my condemnation, and I saw that God had a right to do with me as he would.  My soul yielded all into His hands, fell at His feet, and was silent and calm before Him.  And while I sat there, I was enabled by divine light to see the perfect righteousness of Christ and the freeness and riches of His grace, with such clearness, that my soul was drawn forth to trust in Him for salvation.  And I wondered that others did not also come to Him who had enough for all.  The Word of God and the promises of His grace appeared firmer than a rock, and I was astonished at my previous unbelief.  My heavy burden was gone, tormenting fears were fled, and my joy was unspeakable.

       "Yet this change was so different from my former ideas of conversion, that for above two days I had no thought of having experienced it.  Then I heard a sermon read which gave the characters of the children of God, and I had an inward witness that those characters were wrought in me; such as a spirit of prayer, a hatred of sin, an overcoming of the world, love to the brethren, and love to enemies; and I conclude that I then had the sealings of the Spirit of God, that I was a child of His.  New ideas and dispositions were given me; the worship and service of God and obedience to His will were the delight of my soul.  I found such happiness therein as I never had in all the vanities of the world; and this I have often experienced since."

       Mr. Backus then proceeds to speak of those alternations of spiritual joy and despondency, to which every Christian is peculiarly subject in the beginning of his course.  He observes, that although darkness at times overspread his mind, he was unable to revive his former terrors; although doubts in respect to his piety were experienced, he sought in vain to recover his previous state of conviction.  He attributes his depression and distress to a want of watchfulness and to a neglect of known duty. ¹

       It is true that God only saves those who have abandoned all hope of spiritual merit in themselves, and certainly Backus’ testimony is just another confirmation of this truth.  Lord-willing, we will glean more from the life of this great preacher in my next post.

Christ, not man, is King!

Dale

1)      Alvah Hovey, A Memoir of the Life and Times of the Rev. Isaac Backus, A.M. (Boston, MA: Gould and Lincoln, 1859), p. 37-40.

The Great Awakening Comes To New England

       In my next series of posts, I hope to examine an aspect of American colonial history that is often overlooked.  Although they do get some attention from professional historians, the colonial preachers, particularly of the era of the War for Independence, are virtually forgotten today.  Perhaps a few people will know of Edwards and Whitefield; almost no one could name Samuel Davies, or Isaac Backus, or David Jones, or Jonathan Mayhew.  Lord willing, it is my desire to examine the lives and ministries of a few of these men who were used by God in preaching the Gospel to their communities as well as inculcating the people at large with a Christ-centered polity.  To start this series, we will examine a selection from Alvah Hovey’s biography of the influential Baptist preacher, Isaac Backus.

       Mr. [Isaac] Backus refers the most important event of his life to a very interesting period in the history of New England, the time of the Great Awakening.  Previous to this Awakening there had been a sad declension.  Many persons had been educated for the ministry and had undertaken to perform its sacred duties while strangers to renewing grace, and therefore in many places the peculiar and efficacious truths of Christianity had been imperfectly taught or entirely overlooked.  "We have long," says Jonathan Edwards, "been in a strange stupor; the influences of the Spirit of God upon the heart have been but little felt, and the nature of them but little taught."  "No serious Christian," writes another, "could behold it without a heavy heart, and scarce without a weeping eye, — to see the solid, substantial piety, for which our ancestors were justly renowned, having long languished under sore decays, brought so low, and seemingly just ready to expire and give up the ghost."

       It must, however, be remarked, as an evidence of remaining life, that Christians were deeply conscious of the stupor and coldness complained of.  There were, moreover, during this period, several local revivals which served to awaken a general desire in the hearts of believers for a "time of refreshing from the presence of the Lord."  The "Narrative of Surprising Conversions," prepared by Jonathan Edwards, and giving an account of the glorious work of God at Northampton, in 1734, did much to spread and strengthen this desire. In the spring of 1735, before the publication of this narrative, two ministers of Connecticut, namely, Mr. Lord of Norwich, and Mr. Owen of Groton, had visited that place, "that they might see, and hear, and form a judgment for themselves.  They conversed with Mr. Edwards, and with many of the people, to their great satisfaction.  They declared that the work exceeded all which had been told, or that could be told.  On their return, they reported what they had heard and seen, to their own people, on whom it had a great effect.  It appeared, to be a means of beginning a similar work in Norwich, which in a short time became general."  In many other places the people of God were refreshed by his presence, and throughout New England there seems to have been a growing desire on the part of Christians for a genuine revival.

       It is not therefore strange that good men in Boston, "where religion was at a very low ebb," heard with peculiar interest of Whitefield's success as a preacher of the Gospel in the southern colonies and in his native land, and sent him earnest invitations to visit New England.  Sailing from Charleston, South Carolina, in answer to their call, he landed at Newport, Rhode Island, on the fourteenth day of September, 1740, and at once began his labors.  Thousands hung upon his words; and these words were accompanied by "the demonstration of the Spirit and of power."  From Newport he proceeded to Boston, where he remained about ten days, and preached the truth to multitudes with astonishing effect.  From that city he extended his journey eastward to York, Maine, finding everywhere on his way eager listeners to the word of life.  Retracing his steps, he labored once more a short time in Boston, and then directing his course toward the west, he visited Edwards in Northampton. Passing thence through Connecticut, he preached in a large number of towns, and the power of God was signally manifested in turning sinners unto Himself.  Meanwhile, revivals commenced in many places which he was unable to visit.  Religion became the principal topic of conversation.  Faithful pastors redoubled their efforts and urged upon the attention of their hearers with unwonted zeal the most affecting and pungent truths of revelation.  Godly persons were encouraged by the remarkable success of the Gospel, to pray with more confidence for the outpouring of the Holy Ghost upon themselves and their friends.  Many, too, of the ungodly were led to believe that the present was their only day of grace. Trumbull, in his history of Connecticut, after describing at length the peculiarities of this religious awakening, thus proceeds: "Notwithstanding the unreasonable and powerful opposition made to the work of God at this time, and all the clamor which was made about errors and disorders, it was the most glorious and extensive revival of religion, and reformation of manners, which this country ever experienced. It is estimated that in the term of two or three years thirty or forty thousand souls were born into the family of heaven in New England."  There has never, probably, been a time since the settlement of New England, when the minds of her people were so generally and so intensely directed to the characteristic doctrines of Christianity.  The preaching of such men as Edwards and Bellamy and Whitefield and Tennant and Wheelock and Pomeroy, was in the main Calvinistic and highly discriminating.  It led to self-examination and deep conviction of sin.  The law was exhibited in all its breadth and spirituality, until the unconverted hearer felt himself to be a guilty "sinner in the hands of an angry God."  Salvation was declared to be a free gift, an effect of sovereign, electing, infinite love.

       These doctrines are very repugnant to the natural heart, and can be received by those only who understand the exceeding sinfulness of sin.  Yet they take strong hold of the awakened mind, and when applied by the Holy Spirit, lead it into the presence of God and fill it with peace and strength indescribable.  Under the influence of such preaching the transition from death to life was often strongly marked.  "As their convictions were powerful, and their distress, in some instances, almost intolerable; so their light and joys, on a change of heart, were unusually great.  They appeared to rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory.”  Sometimes the overpowering emotions of the soul produced strange agitations in the body.  Yet these bodily changes were not regarded as proofs of inward grace; they were deprecated rather than desired.  Still, by the friends of the revival they were neither ascribed to Satanic agency nor thought to be inconsistent with the gracious operations of God's Spirit.  Jonathan Edwards refers to imprudences and sinful irregularities, to transports and ecstasies, to errors in judgment and indiscreet zeal, to outcries and faintings and agitations of body, but he nevertheless finds the clearest indications of a work of God, even in the hearts of some who were thus carried away by the strength of their emotions.  And after a careful examination of the evidence, few will dissent from his opinion. ¹

       In my next post, we will look at Backus’ own recounting of his conversion to Christ.

Christ, not man, is King!

Dale

1)      Alvah Hovey, A Memoir of the Life and Times of the Rev. Isaac Backus, A.M. (Boston, MA: Gould and Lincoln, 1859), p. 33-7.

The Tortuous Death of Col. William Crawford

       In my last post, we saw that John Slover and Dr. Knight had been able to elude their Indian captors and eventually, through various hardships, they were both able to make it back to the American settlements.  Col. William Crawford, the commander of the American expedition, was about to meet his Creator.  WARNING: the following narrative contains very graphic depictions of immolation and tortures.

       In the capture of Crawford, the Delawares had secured the "Big Captain" of the invading army—a prize they were determined should not be lost, as evinced by his being guarded, from the Sandusky to the Tymochtee, by their two war-chiefs—The Pipe and Wingenund.  Common prisoners were tomahawked with little ado; but Crawford was reserved for a more terrible death.

       There was a fire burning at the spot where, on the afternoon of the 11th of June, we left Crawford in charge of the Delawares, to follow the fortunes of Knight.  Around that fire was a crowd of Indians— about thirty or forty men, and sixty or seventy squaws and boys.

       A few Wyandots were there, and Simon Girty with them, as already mentioned; also Captain [Matthew] Elliott, it is believed, as he did not arrive at the Shawanese towns, where Slover was held captive, until after this date.  "Dr. Knight thinks a British captain was present," wrote Irvine to Washington, on the 11th of July.

       "He says he saw a person there who was dressed and appeared like a British officer."  There, too, was Samuel Wells, the negro boy, who had been captured by the Indians, as previously stated, and who afterward stoutly affirmed to early white settlers in the Sandusky country that his employment, at the time, was the holding of Girty's horse.  A spectator, likewise, but an unwilling and horrified one, was Dr. Knight, who stood at a short distance from the fire, securely bound and guarded by the rough-visaged Tutelu.

       Within hearing distance at least, if not in the crowd around the fire, was Christian Fast, a boy seventeen years of age, who, the year previous, having enlisted in that part of Westmoreland which soon after became Fayette county, as a member of the expedition from Western Pennsylvania that descended the Ohio river in aid of George Rogers Clark, was captured when near the Falls (Louisville) and taken to Sandusky.  Fast, it seems, saw Crawford either at the Half King's town or at Wingenund's camp, and had a conversation with him, the particulars of which are unknown.

       Crawford was stripped naked and ordered to sit down.  It is a tradition seemingly well authenticated that his clothes, especially his hat, which was made of leather, were long after in the keeping of the Delawares.  The Indians now beat him with sticks and their fists; and, presently after, Knight was treated in the same manner.  The fatal stake—a post about fifteen feet high—had been set firmly in the ground.  Crawford hands were bound behind his back, and a rope fastened—one end to the foot of the post, and the other to the ligature between his wrists.  The rope was long enough for him to sit down, or walk around the post once or twice and return the same way.  Crawford then called to Girty and asked if they intended to burn him.  Girty answered, "Yes." He then replied he would take it all patiently.  Upon this, Captain Pipe made a speech to the Indians, who, at its conclusion, yelled a hideous and hearty assent to what had been said.

       The spot where Crawford was now to be immolated to satisfy the revengeful thirst of the Delawares for the blood of the borderers, was in what is now Crawford township, Wyandot county—a short distance northeast from the present town of Crawfordsville. ¹

       That the stake was planted in the immediate vicinity, so abundantly described, there can be no doubt.  Besides, we have the positive statement of Knight that the place was three-quarters of a mile from "Captain Pipe's house"—the Delaware village upon the Tymochtee.  Here, then, at about four o'clock in the afternoon, of Tuesday, June 11, 1782, the torture began.

       The Indian men took up their guns and shot powder into Crawford's naked body from his feet as far up as his neck.  It was the opinion of Knight that not less than seventy loads were discharged upon him!  They then crowded about him, and, to the best of Knight's observation, cut off both his ears; for when the throng had dispersed, he saw the blood running from both sides of his head!

       The fire was about six or seven yards from the post to which Crawford was tied.  It was made of small hickory poles burnt quite through in the middle, each end of the poles remaining about six feet in length.  Three or four Indians by turns would take up, individually, one of these burning pieces of wood, and apply it to his naked body, already burnt black with powder.

       These tormentors presented themselves on every side of him, so that, whichever way he ran round the post, they met him with the burning fagots.  Some of the squaws took broad boards, upon which they would carry a quantity of burning coals and hot embers and throw on him; so that, in a short time, he had nothing but coals of fire and hot ashes to walk on!

       In the midst of these extreme tortures, Crawford called to Girty and begged of him to shoot him; but the white savage making no answer, he called again.  Girty then, by way of derision, told Crawford he had no gun; at the same time turning about to an Indian who was behind him, he laughed heartily, and, by all his gestures, seemed delighted at the horrid scene!

       Girty then came up to Knight and bade him prepare for death.  He told him, however, he was not to die at that place, but was to be burnt at the Shawanese towns.  He swore, with a fearful oath, that he need not expect to escape death, but should suffer it in all its extremities!  He then observed that some prisoners had given him to understand, that if the Americans had him they would not hurt him.  For his part, he said he did not believe it; but desired to know Knight's opinion of the matter.  The latter, however, was in too great anguish and distress, on account of the torments Crawford was suffering before his eyes, as well as the expectation of undergoing the same fate in two days, to made [sic] any answer to the monster.  Girty expressed a great deal of ill-will for Colonel Gibson, saying he was one of his greatest enemies—and more to the same purpose; to all which Knight paid but little attention.

       Crawford, at this period of his suffering, besought the Almighty to have mercy on his soul, spoke very low, and bore his torments with the most manly fortitude.  He continued, in all the extremities of pain, for an hour and three-quarters or two hours longer, as near as Knight could judge; when, at last, being almost spent, he lay down upon his stomach.

       The savages then scalped him, and repeatedly threw the scalp into the face of Knight, telling him that was his "great captain."  An old squaw, whose appearance, thought Knight, every way answered the ideas people entertain of the devil, got a board, took a parcel of coals and ashes, and laid them on his back and head.  He then raised himself upon his feet and began to walk around the post.

       They next put burning sticks to him, as usual; but he seemed more insensible of pain than before.  Knight was now taken away from the dreadful scene.

       It was a tradition, long after repeated by the Delawares and Wyandots, that Crawford breathed his last just at the going down of the sun.  On the following morning, when Knight started for the Shawanese towns, he was conducted to the spot where Crawford had suffered, as it was partly in the direction he and his Delaware guard were taking.  He saw the bones of his commander, lying among the remains of the fire, almost burnt to ashes.  The Delaware told Knight that was his "Big Captain," at the same time giving the scalp halloo.

       After Crawford died—so runs the tradition—the fagots were heaped together, his body placed upon them, and around his charred remains danced the delighted savages for many hours.

       When the news of the torture reached the Shawanese villages the exultation was very great.  Not so when the awful story was repeated in the settlements upon the border.  A gloom was spread on every countenance.  Crawford's melancholy end was lamented by all who knew him.  Heart-rending was the anguish in a lonely cabin upon the banks of the Youghiogheny.  There were few men on the frontiers, at that time, whose loss could have been more sensibly felt or more keenly deplored.

       The language of Washington, upon this occasion, shows the depth of his feeling: "It is with the greatest sorrow and concern that I have learned the melancholy tidings of Colonel Crawford's death.  He was known to me as an officer of much care and prudence; brave, experienced, and active.  The manner of his death was shocking to me; and I have this day communicated to the honorable, the Congress, such papers as I have regarding it."  In a letter to Irvine, at Fort Pitt, written on the 6th of August, he says: "I lament the failure of the expedition against Sandusky, and am particularly affected with the disastrous death of Colonel Crawford."  ²

       Thus ends one of the most disastrous American military campaigns in history.  The death of Col. William Crawford is not only one of the most iconic episodes in the history of the colonial frontier, it is also one of those incidents in history that reveals the awful depravity of the human heart.  It is a story that haunts the reader.  As Crawford was said to have commended his soul to God before his demise, it is hoped that we may see him in the next life.

Christ, not man, is King!

Dale

1)      C.W. Butterfield, An Historical Account of the Expedition Against Sandusky (Cincinnati, OH: Robert Clarke & Co., 1873), p. 379-84. 
2)      Ibid., p. 387-92.