“That the charges exhibited by the minority of the church were not sufficiently proven against the majority; and several of them, if sufficiently proven, imply not in themselves a departure from the Scriptures, nor from the usages of the Baptist denomination. In no case was it proven that the majority of said church took any step towards the minority, that the Bible does not, in our opinion, fully sustain; excepting that the 6th charge was proven, which is for disfellowshipping all those [members of that church] who dissent from them, without any previous steps of labor. But that act was rescinded by the majority of the church, and due notice of it given to the Council before they made their decision known to the public, or the parties, and the church accompanying the vote with a confession that they were wrong and regretted the act. The step, however, upon which the charges were founded against the majority, was not taken until the minority (composed of four or five males only) had restored four or five others who had been excluded from fellowship by the majority, for the neglect of covenant obligations, and agreeably to the usages of the Baptist denomination.MWM 291.13

“The 5th charge was for departing from the usages of the denomination, by baptizing persons without any relation of Christian experience, or other evidence. This was not proven to be a church act. The proof was, that the minister, who preached for the majority, baptized a person who insisted upon the administration of the ordinance the same night; but not until the minister, and one other brother at least, were convinced that the candidate was an experienced Christian. This act was justified by the undersigned by Scripture; as, for instance, the case of Lydia and her household, the Jailer and household, Philip and the Eunuch, and also the day of Pentecost, when there were above three thousand baptized. These scriptural examples are believed by the undersigned to be a sufficient warrant for a minister of the gospel, in at least a case of emergency, to baptize, when a candidate urges that he dare not hazard until morning the neglect of a known duty. This baptism has, however, never been sanctioned by any church act of the majority.MWM 292.1

“As a further reason for protesting, it was proven that the minority brethren had set up a separate meeting, and, as stated before, had restored, without any confession, we believe, five members of the church, who had been excluded by the majority (and who were the then acknowledged regular Baptist church), for neglect of covenant obligations, and not for a difference of opinion upon the Second Advent, or any other question. Still, the majority of the Council have, with these facts staring them in the face, acknowledged and resolved that the four or five brethren, together with the five brethren and sisters, excluded by the majority for neglect of the covenant obligations, shall be recognized as the regular Baptist church. It is true that the minority have several names of sisters added to their list, some of whom have taken but little part in church matters for many years. Although the Council was called as ex parte, yet after assembling it was made a mutual Council.MWM 292.2

“The undersigned verily believe that great injustice has been done to the majority for departing from the usages of our denomination, in setting up a separate meeting, and in those four or five brethren pretending to hold church meetings, and restoring members who had been regularly excluded, and which, in fact, is sanctioning the same acts, or worse ones, than those complained of by the minority.MWM 292.3

“THOMAS A. SHERWOOD, “Member of the Council from the Kingsbury “Baptist Church, Washington Co., N. Y.”MWM 293.1

CHARGES

CHAPTER 20