26 Denominational Name 1804-1805

26 - DENOMINATIONAL NAME 1804-1805 FOR nearly a quarter of a century Mr. Randall had been engaged in building up churches, and to all his organizations, of whatever class, he had applied simply the name Baptist. Thus he gave testimony to the world that he was not laboring to bring out a separate denomination. He held himself as ever, acting within the bounds of the great Baptist family, to which family he had at all times maintained a perfectly loyal attitude, and in which he still claimed a home. And why not ? Ever after receiving baptism at the hands of Rev. Mr. Hooper, he had lived true to Baptist principles. Nowhere had he swerved from them in the least degree. Hence, on Baptist grounds, he had as clear a title to the family name, shield, and prestige as the strictest of the strict.

But, to the regret of Mr. Randall, if seemed that the time had come when it was best for him and his adherents to be known to the world by a distinguishing name. The following legislative act shows the epithet they accepted:

State of New Hampshire. In the House of Representatives, December 7, 1804.

Resolved, That the people in this State, known by the name of the Freewill Anti-pedobaptist Church and Society, shall be considered as a distinct religious sect or denomination, with all the privileges as such, of the constitution.

Sent up for concurrence, john langdon, Speaker. In the Senate, December 8. nicholas gilman, President. Not approved nor returned by His Excellency, the Governor, it therefore becomes a law. joseph pearsons, Secretary of. State.

It was reported by some of his friends that the governor excused himself from signing the resolution on the ground that, in his view, it was needless; that the Society possessed all the rights and immunities before that they could have after its passage; that by the constitution every religious sect in the State really stood on the same footing. This view of the governor may have been the correct one; that is, as far as related to the period after the adoption of the constitution. Still, the resolution even in that case was of great importance, in that it tended to set things in a clear and unmistakable light. If the dominant sect for these long years had not really possessed any legal advantage over others, through a lack of proper understanding among the people or for some other cause, this sect had always succeeded in keeping alive the contrary sentiment.

There prevailed an impression that in a town provided with a minister of the Standing Order, a resident who never attended the meetings had to be fortified with a certificate of membership in another religious body or of adherence to it, in order to avoid being distrained upon for a tax to support that minister. From this sentiment arose the fact that here and there town officers would ignore those certificates and levy upon the possessor, who would usually pay the tax rather than stand a lawsuit. One historian, referring to these conditions, says:

Indeed, these annoyances were numerous and grievous, far more so than those that roused our Revolutionary fathers to cut loose from the mother country. The adoption of the resolution mentioned above resulted in no little advantage to the cause of our people, securing as it did to our denomination in the State a recognized legal standing by the side of the dominant sect, and sweeping away the last vestige of that religious oppression, against which Mr. Randall had been so valiantly contending ever since he commenced his ministry. Our people in Maine, and other religious bodies in this State, soon obtained like recognition. But to Mr. Randall belongs the credit of having been the pioneer in this contest for religious liberty. As to the name under which we obtained State recognition, the second prefix soon fell into disuse. As " Baptist " was a synonym for immersed believers only, the word " Antipedo " was soon discovered to be superfluous, and was dropped-dropped before it ever got into our literature. As our people believed not only in free will, but in free grace and open communion as well, " will" came to be regarded as superfluous and also restrictive. So this word also was dropped, and left us only Free Baptists. In the statement of the Baptist Brotherhood, agreed upon by representatives of the Baptist and Free Baptist denominations, in a meeting held in Brooklyn, New York, November, 1905, among many fraternal expressions, we find the following: In view of these facts, patent to all students of the situation, and moved by a spirit of fraternity, which is affecting the whole Christian world, both denominations, by an impulse unpremeditated on the human side sought conference on the subject of reuniting the work. It seemed to many that both the letter and the spirit of Christian brotherhood called for the abandonment of divisions in the body of Christ, which have so little to justify and so much to rebuke them. On recommendation of the joint committees, which met in Brooklyn, in November, 1905, the following resolution was approved by each of the Baptist Societies in their meetings at Washington, in May, 1907:

Resolved, That the Baptists and Free Baptists are so closely related by a history which long was common, and has always been kindred, that they enjoy closer fellowship and greater similarity in genius and spirit than are common between two Christian bodies. It is recognized as a fact that the original occasion and cause of separation between our two bodies have practically disappeared, and that in all essentials of Christian doctrine, as well as of church administration and polity, we are substantially one. To this platform of accord was added by a joint committee, representing all of the agreeing Societies, met in Boston, Massachusetts, March 28, 1908, the following statement:

Differences, if still existing, may be left, where the New Testament leaves them, to the teaching of the Scriptures under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

These joint committees have anticipated a transition period. During that period we are informed that: The basis of union, and the action accompanying it, take a broad and liberal attitude toward names. These names are suggested as of equal validity: Baptist, Free Baptist, and United Baptist. One is as good as another. They may be used interchangeably. Either may include the other. We may continue to call ourselves Free Baptists and still be in the fellowship and the fold-we may term ourselves United Baptists without ceasing to be either Baptists or Free Baptists; we may use the name Baptist and still be Free Baptists. In names no rigid conformity is required. The wisdom and grace that dominated these joint committees are evinced in the use of names suggested for this transition period. But are not all these qualifying terms burdens to be dropped as soon as compatible with the safeguarding of pending interests ? As Free Baptists, may we not consistently hold to the simple name that Randall loved and honored for the first quarter of a century of his public ministry ? He regretfully accepted a prefix as a necessity. We have carried it for a hundred and ten years. But if " it is recognized as a fact that the original occasion and cause of separation between our two bodies has practically disappeared," may we not now gratefully accept the magnanimity of our brethren of the larger body, soon drop our distinctive prefix and call ourselves, what in heart we really are, simply Baptists? Of Washington it has been said: "The name needs no prefix. Let it stand in its simple grandeur. No other name can find a fitting place beside it." Of Baptist it may be said: The name stands as an exponent of government of the people, by the people, for the people. It stands for a correctly interpreted Bible, a regenerated membership, and a world-wide evangelization. " The name needs no prefix. Let it stand in its simple grandeur. No other name can find a fitting place beside it."