Baptism and Transfer to Baptists

It was during these early days at Morphett Vale that David began to make an intensive study of the subject of baptism. He became convinced that immersion of believers was the only baptism taught and practised in the New Testament and observed in Apostolic days. Consequently he arranged to be baptised in the Onkaparinga River at Noarlunga, five miles distant, by a Baptist minister, the Rev. A.W. Webb. From that time he began publicly to teach the duty and privilege of believer's baptism.
At a Church meeting held on 9th February 1863 a letter from David was read to the members concerning his change of views on the subject of baptism. He asked the Church to state whether they wished him to continue as their pastor or to resign. It was unanimously agreed that he be requested to continue his labours. It is not clear at what point of time he decided to transfer his allegiance to the Baptist denomination but before the end of 1864 he openly identified himself with the Baptists. At the request of the SA Baptist Association he addressed their first annual meeting in November 1864 on the subject of baptism. Excerpts from this address are reproduced in Appendix A.
Baptism has been a controversial subject from early in the history of the Christian Church. It is not surprising that the controversy should have revived in the religious climate in South Australia in the mid-nineteenth century. It is also not surprising that David's vigorous advocacy of believer's baptism caused embarrassment to the Congregational Home Mission Society which had been providing a regular grant to the Morphett Vale Church. The following item is recorded in the minutes of a Church meeting held on 23rd March, 1865:
'The deacons informed the church that, owing to Mr. Badger's advocating Baptist views, the Home Mission Society could not after this month continue the grant.
'Some conversation ensued as to the desirability of the church joining the Baptist Association when it was decided upon the motion of Mr. Clark that the friends had better be called upon by a deputation to see whether they were not willing to increase their subscriptions so as to render an appeal to any society unnecessary .'
The actual break with the Congregational Home Mission Society and the decision to join the SA Baptist Association is recorded in the following minute of a meeting held on 6th April, 1865:
'It was proposed by Mr. Collins and seconded by Mr. Darby that this church join the Baptist Association and contribute to its funds. After some explanations made by the Pastor as to the consequences involved in this step the motion was put and carried.
'The Members now understanding that henceforward the church is a Baptist one, but holding open communion principles.' (Notes and References 10.)

Church Union Proposals
It is interesting to note that at the time of David's transfer from the Congregational to the Baptist denomination, proposals for union between the two denominations were being considered. In 1865-66 the Chairman of the South Australian Congregational Union, the Rev. I. Jefferis, delivered addresses at the annual and half-yearly meetings deploring the evils of 'isolated Independency' and advocating an organic union of Congregational Churches, with enlarged powers and greatly increased financial resources for the Congregational Union. He also envisaged organic union with the Baptists. There were later overtures from the Baptist side. An editorial in the Baptist paper Truth and Progress in May 1868 declared:
'We as Baptists are ready for union with the Congregationalists. If as to doctrine shades of difference prevail, and if as to the test of admission to membership differing practices obtain, we are content to leave these matters to the decision of each independent church. If the distinctive denominational names now in use be supposed to constitute a difficulty, we see no good reason why both names should not be dropped and a new designation be adopted.'
'Let it be clearly understood that the sole condition of such union must be the abandonment of infant baptism. If Congregationalists are prepared for this, then, in every sense, we are prepared for amalgamation and for hearty united co-operation.'

The 'sole condition' was, of course, an impossible one. It is interesting to speculate whether a more tolerant proposal for recognition of both infant baptism and believer's baptism as acceptable alternatives, as exists now in the Church of North India and other Asian Churches, would have led to the proposed union proceeding.(Notes and References 11.) Although Church union did not eventuate a Union College, in which Congregationalists and Baptists participated, commenced operations in June 1872.