Reviewing Ivey's Work I

Elder Michael N. Ivey wrote "A Welsh Succession of Primitive Baptist Faith and Practice" (1994) (see here) and I have reviewed parts of his writing already. See

here

And here

Ivey's errors in this writing are numerous. His writing is mostly commentary on history, and very little real history. In the preface of his work he says:

"It is not that historians are intentionally dishonest; rather, often they do not have complete information or understanding. This has certainly been my case."

Whether Ivey was "intentionally dishonest" is a matter for each person to decide for himself, based upon what Ivey wrote. Certainly the Hardshells have shown that they can be intentionally dishonest when they want to be. Several instances of this dishonesty is evident in several of their historical documents. For instance, the leading Hardshell history, "Hassell's Church History," or "History of the Church of God," has parts in it that are incorrect, and some of them are examples of wilful dishonesty, mostly by Hassell's intentional omission of pertinent information about certain Baptist forefathers, such as John Gill, William Fristoe, John Leland, and others. But, I cannot go into detail about Hassell's history at this time but will save it for future postings and additions to my ongoing book on the "Hardshell Baptist Cult" (See here) when I come to review the "historians" of the Hardshell church.

Second, those Hardshells who assembled in Fulton, Kentucky (1900) for the purpose of supposedly endorsing the London Baptist Confession of 1689 but who butchered it by adding footnotes to that document which totally twisted and distorted the words of that confession, were dishonest. Bob Ross has written about this dishonesty. (See here)

A third example of Hardshell "historians" presenting erroneous and dishonest historical information and commentary is seen in how many Hardshells affirm that Dr. John Gill agreed with Hardshell views. I have written in response to this false charge in my series "Hardshells on Gill" in chapters 58-65 of my book on the "Hardshell Baptist Cult."

But, even if we allow that Ivey was not intentionally dishonest, he was nevertheless one of those historians who did "not have complete information or understanding." He even says "this has certainly been my case." Whether Ivey had the information available to him which disproves his false assertions is a fact that only he can know for sure, but I suspect he knew this information and chose to ignore it and to present his own revisionist history anyway.

Ivey said - "I am not trying to replace one succession with another," and yet that is clearly what he tries to do in his book. He says this in response to what his Hardshell forefathers did in Fulton, and yet he obviously disagrees with the conclusions drawn by them. The elders who assembled in Fulton attempted to affirm their belief in the old London Confession. What else could they do seeing that all their churches originally endorsed it? Their claim to be "Primitive" forced them to affirm the authority of the old confession. However, Ivey believes that the London confession taught gospel means, but his Hardshell forefathers, rather than being as honest as he, nevertheless denied that it taught means, and reworked the confession to make it agree with their no-means view. Why does Ivey not denounce the dishonesty of his Hardshell forefathers who assembled in Fulton? Other Hardshells have been honest enough and confessed that the Hardshells in Fulton were dishonest. Elder R. V. Sarrel who wrote a book presenting Hardshell doctrine, called a "Systematic Theology," very candidly confesses that Primitive Baptists "do not believe" chapter three of the London Confession, and he charges that the Fulton Convention of 1900 wrote a footnote "to make this old article MEAN WHAT IT DOES NOT SAY." (Systematic Theology, pages 109, 110) Wrote Brother Ross:

"Sarrels indicates that the sweet brethren who gathered at Fulton, Ky. in 1900 were engaged in a "literary effort of TORTURING of language" when they tried to "clarify" and "explain" the London Confession. He says, "Moderate or Non-fatalist Calvinists must either repudiate this statement [in the London Confession] or resign themselves to the endless task of trying to make it mean what it does not say" (page 111)."

Other Hardshells have confessed the same. And, in doing so, have they not indicted their Hardshell brethren for "dishonesty"?

Ivey, in his preface, said:

"Therefore, I cannot claim every assumption is correct, nor every conclusion satisfactory. My research was not exhaustive. Financial and geographic limitations compelled me to rely on local libraries, and the generous kindness of several Elders who loaned me books. My efforts were far from perfect. Thus, they cannot be considered the final word on this subject."

It is interesting that Ivey mentions "assumption" and "satisfactory conclusion," dealing with his "history," seeing his work is filled with unfounded assumption and unsatisfactory conclusions. It is also interesting that Ivey admits that his "research" is "not exhaustive." That is true. His research is very limited and represents a piecemeal or patchwork of citations, often taken out of context, or misinterpreted. Truly his work is, as he says, "far from perfect." And, his work cannot at all be "considered the final word on this subject" of old Baptist beliefs.

Ivey also wrote:

"I tried to be scrupulous in the selection of reference material. Because some Baptist histories were written with the intent of denominational promotion, with almost every event and character it is possible to find a historian who has written the exact opposite of other historians."

"I tried to be scrupulous in the selection of reference material"? As can be see from his work, he was rather a biased researcher, ignoring facts which opposed his interpretation of historical facts. Histories "written with the intent of denominational promotion"? That is exactly what Ivey's work is! Ivey is a "historian" who has "written the exact opposite of other historians," other more reliable and honest historians.

Ivey wrote:

"Further, I wish to offer observations and conclusions I have developed for myself over these two years spent researching and compiling this information. I do not present this work as a comprehensive study of the subject of Primitive Baptist origin and succession. It is a view of my own insights and understandings based upon certain events in history uncovered by my limited research. I have tried very hard to be honest and objective."

Ivey admits that his "observations and conclusions" are novel and contrary to what all other historians have said! That ought to be enough to convince people that Ivey is writing with denominational bias. Ivey says he is offering his "own insights and understandings," and this is true, for he concludes things that no other historian, other than Hardshells, conclude. He says he offers his own private "insights," but they are anything but insightful. In all of Ivey's work he never offers any direct statements from any pre-19th century Baptist source to prove that they believed hardshellism. He offers no proof that shows that people believed hardshellism prior to the "rise of the Hardshells" in the early to mid 19th century. Ivey speaks of his "limited research," and yet how can he make such dogmatic conclusions about Baptist history? Especially conclusions that are so against all reliable histories? Ivey says that he "tried very hard to be honest and objective," which implies that he fought against an impulse to be just the opposite. It ought not to be "very hard" to be "honest" and "objective," but ought to be easy. I can see, however, how it would be hard for a cultist to be so, how one with "denominational bias" would find it very hard. However, in his efforts to fight his impulse to be dishonest he nevertheless does not get a complete victory.

Ivey wrote:

"Incorrect identification of Primitives as Calvinists is a common trap most religious historians seem to fall into."

It may be incorrect to identify Hardshells, or those who today call themselves "Primitive Baptists," as "Calvinists," but it is not incorrect to identify the old Baptists prior to the 19th century "rise of the Hardshells" as such. But, historians are not wrong in identifying "Primitives" (Hardshells) as Calvinists. It is true that some Hardshells don't want to be called "Calvinists," but this does not mean that they are not so. Are Hardshells "Arminian"? Besides, many Hardshells have historically confessed to being "Calvinist." But, they meant that they believed in the "five points of Calvinism," and not that they were followers of Calvin. Ivey admits that the London Confession is "Calvinistic" and that the great assembly of leading Hardshell elders endorsed it in Fulton in 1900!

We have already seen how Ivey wants to give new definitions to the terms "Hyper Calvinism" and "High Calvinism."

See here

Ivey writes:

"This work relies upon distinctions of primitive and reformed doctrine to identify groups. Specifically, Baptists which believed in election and predestination, and also believed that a saving faith is imparted prior to actual new birth in regeneration, I identify as holding to reformed theology."

Here Ivey shows his ignorance. Those today who identify themselves as "Reformed" do not generally affirm that "saving faith is imparted prior to actual new birth in regeneration." James White is a classic "Reformed Baptist" and he avows that "regeneration precedes faith." Now, it is true that most Calvinistic Baptists, such as those who wrote the oldest Baptist confessions, and of Dr. Gill and his successor, C. H. Spurgeon, taught that regeneration and faith were inseparably connected, so that one does not exist without the other. They did not believe that regeneration, biblically speaking, preceded faith, nor vice versa. Even those Reformed or Calvinistic Baptists who affirm that "regeneration precedes faith" do not believe that it precedes it chronologically, but logically only. Therefore, Ivey shows his ignorance when he says that "reformed theology" puts faith prior to regeneration.

Ivey wrote:

"In the case of the Particular Baptists, based upon Article XXIV of the 1644 London Confession and Articles X and XIV of the 1689 Confession, as these several articles appear to be statements of Calvin's theology as expressed in his Institutes of Christian Religion Book 2, Chapter 2, Number. 6 and Book 3, Chapter 11, Numbers 16, 17, they are identified as Baptists of reformed theology. Baptists which believed in election and predestination, but also believed new birth precedes faith, are identified as Baptists of primitive theology. They are not reformed."

Again, this is all false. Again, James White, a "Reformed Baptist," puts regeneration before faith, logically speaking, but he would not be identified as being "Primitive Baptist" or Hardshell. Further, Ivey makes statements like this without any proof, but only offers them as his assertions. He does not speak as a historian and his definitions are novel and untrue. Ivey affirms that the old Baptist who signed the old London confession of 1689 were not "primitive" but "reformed." But, how can he say the brethren who wrote the confession were not "primitive"? No, they were "primitive" but today's Hardshells, who falsely call themselves "primitive," are not so, for they can find no old Baptist prior to the 19th century who held their views.

Ivey wrote:

"However, such distinctions are not always clear. From the beginning, there were some among the Particulars, such as Benjamin Cox, who were primitives in their theology. Conversely, there were those among the primitives, such as William Carey, who embraced Calvin's reformed theology."

First of all, this is confusing. He seems to use the label "primitive" in two different senses. In the first instance he seems to use the term "primitive" as synonymous with "Hardshell," but then uses it in the sense of "original." He says "some of the Particulars were primitive (Hardshells)." He mentions Benjamin Cox as one of them. But, then he says that William Carey was a "primitive"! Is Ivey saying that "some of the originals were originals"? How does that make sense? We know who the "primitives" are! They are they who wrote the oldest Baptist confessions of faith, and by this standard, today's Hardshells are not "primitive."

Ivey wrote:

"For this reason, I make distinctions in this work based upon identifying documents rather than affiliations. I rely upon confessions of faith, articles of faith, statements of belief and circular letters as documents which reveal a group's belief relative to faith and new birth."

Ivey states a number of falsehoods in these words. First, he says he makes "distinctions based upon identifying documents" and yet he produces no documents that clearly and expressly avow Hardshell views on regeneration and faith. All he can do is read a statement from a document and twist its meaning as did his forefathers, in Fulton, to the London confession. Second, Ivey says that he makes no distinctions based upon "affiliations." But, he does exactly that when he argues that the supposed lack of affiliation between the Welsh and London Baptists proved that the Welsh Baptist disagreed with the London Baptists on the means of regeneration!

Ivey says - "I rely upon confessions of faith, articles of faith, statements of belief and circular letters" but he clearly does not do so in his work. He never produces any such pre-19th century records which affirm Hardshell views regarding regeneration and God's use of means to effect it. He produces no confession of faith from the old Baptists that shows that they clearly denied the use of means in saving souls. When we cite today's Hardshells "relative to faith and new birth," we do not deduce their views from statements, but cite clear-cut statements, but Ivey cannot do so with the writings of the old Baptists of the centuries prior to the existence of Hardshells.

Ivey wrote:

"This is necessary because of a unique phenomenon which occurred during the reformation, Baptist groups with variant theologies first fellowshipped, then generally merged together. Beginning in the mid-seventeenth century primitives and reformed Particular Baptists in England often worshipped together."

They fellowshipped and worshipped together but they disagreed on the fundamental doctrine of regeneration! Again, Ivey must argue this way for he will not accept the fact that there were no Hardshells in the 17th century. When it suits Ivey, groups fellowshipping each other denotes agreement, and when it doesn't suit him, such fellowshipping does not denote agreement. Ivey offers no proof for such an assertion! First, he does not prove that there were any "primitives" or Hardshells in England at the time of the writing of the old confessions by the "Particular Baptists." He says that the old Hardshells in England (which didn't really exist except in Ivey's biased and blinded mind) "fellowshipped" with the "reformed Particular Baptists," and "worshipped together," but today's Hardshells will not "fellowship" or "worship together" with such! How is he "primitive" then? But, ironically, later Ivey will argue that the Welsh brethren, who he identifies as Hardshells, did not fellowship and worship with the London brethren and argues that this proves they were not Hardshells! But now he says just the opposite.

Ivey wrote:

"This general merger resulted in primitives in Northern England, the Midlands and Wales adopting the London Confession and losing their distinct identity as primitives. By the early nineteenth century the merger was nearly complete. The result was loss of the primitive faith in England."

Ivey says that those who accepted the old London Confession of faith lost their identity as churches of Christ. But, his brethren in Fulton, Kentucky endorsed the London confession! Thus, by Ivey's own admission, his Hardshells lost their identity in doing so!

Ivey wrote:

"In 1638 primitive doctrine was the doctrine of Dr. John Clarke, pastor of Newport Baptist Church in Rhode Island, the first Baptist church constituted in America. It was also believed by the Separate Baptists led by Shubal Stearns and Daniel Marshall according to their statement of belief in 1758."

But, I have already shown how Clark believed in gospel means and that faith was required to be eternally saved. Thus, Hardshells are not "primitive"! Later Ivey will try to prove that Stearns and Marshall also preached hardshellism, but he fails in this as he has in trying to prove that Clark, Holmes, and the old Welsh Baptists were Hardshells.

Ivey wrote:

"Because Primitives believed in election and predestination, but did not believe in gospel instrumentality in regeneration (saving faith), they are often referred to as hyper-Calvinists. Of course, they weren't."

But, I have previously shown this to be false. Hyper Calvinism was not a term that included, prior to the "rise of the Hardshells," in the 19th century, a denial of means in regeneration. When historians refer to "Hyper Calvinists" of the pre-19th century period, they did not have a denial of means in mind, for there was no such denial by people at that time, but they referred to those who denied the well meant offer of the gospel, or to those who believed in limited atonement. But, what is interesting in this citation from Ivey, is the fact that he said Hardshells are not "Hyper Calvinists," and yet defines the term as referring to those who denied the means of the gospel in regeneration! Such glaring contradiction!

Ivey wrote:

"The inclination of historians to identify them as extremist Calvinists, not only exacerbates the problem of correct identification, it also tends to hide their history by folding it into the history of more visible reformed Baptists such as the Particulars. For this reason, distinctions in Primitive Baptist history are often missed or ignored. Therefore, a study of their history includes searching for similar misnomers, consistently incorrect statements of their beliefs and practices, and similar disparaging descriptions. This tends to make researching Primitive Baptist history a bit of a treasure hunt."

Ivey shows, by these statements, how his treatment of history is novel, how it goes against all other histories. But, surely, a man who gives a totally novel twist to Baptist history ought to have a pile of evidence to back him up. But, we have already seen how he has no such evidence for us to accept his conclusions over those of all other Baptist historians.

"Researching Primitive Baptist history" is a "treasure hunt"? Well, it certainly is! But, it is a fruitless hunt! Because no one can find a Hardshell prior to the 19th century! In this statement Ivey shows his bias and purpose in doing his research. It is to go on a hunt for evidence to prove his Hardshells existed prior to the 19th century. But, his search only led him to find evidence that he could twist and make to support his view which affirms that the Hardshells have existed since the days of the apostles.

Ivey wrote:

"If a group claimed common origin with the writers of the first or second London Confession, I interchangeably call them Regular or Particular Baptists."

But, his great band of Hardshell elders who assembled in Fulton claimed a common origin with the London brethren who wrote the London confession! And yet Ivey claims that the Hardshells are not "Regular" or "Particular" Baptists! More glaring contradiction. Notice also more evidence of how Ivey defines terms, not as they have been traditionally defined by historians, but as he wants to do so, giving new definitions to the terms "Regular" and "Particular" Baptists.

Ivey wrote:

"However, in some few instances, I suspect varying accounts of history are the result of denominational prejudice."

Ivey is one to talk here! His work is nothing but an example in "denominational prejudice"!

Ivey wrote:

"Sometimes histories were written with a polemic attitude, to indict some group or defend oneself. The phenomenon of revisionist histories reached almost epidemic proportion with works written in the period immediately following the mission/anti-mission divisions of the 19th century. I have tried to pick through this category of histories. If I could not find generally collaborative accounts, I tended to reject them."

All this is simply absurd and ironic. It is Ivey and his Hardshell brethren who have been the most guilty of writing "revisionist histories." Is that not what his brethren attempted to do in Fulton in 1900? Further, the leading assertions of Ivey relative to the supposed existence of Hardshells in the years prior to the 19th century, has no other historian to collaborate him! Laughable! No, what Ivey rejects is the "collaborative accounts" of all reliable historians who show no existence of hardshellism prior to the 19th century.

Note: all of the above citations from Ivey are from his "Preface" to his work.

Ivey wrote

"This book began as a simple desire to understand a seeming inconsistency which I believed existed in Primitive Baptist history relative to the question of our succession as Christ's church."

A "desire to understand"? To accept the truth of history even though it overthrew his belief about Hardshell churches existing in a succession from the apostles? If he truly had a desire to understand and accept the historical records, then he would acknowledge that there were no Hardshell churches in existence prior to the 19th century.

"Inconsistency" relative to Hardshell history? There is lots of that! It is inconsistent for them to claim that hardshellism was the general belief of Baptists prior to the 19th century and yet can produce no proof of it! It is "inconsistent" for Hardshells to have once claimed succession from the Baptists who wrote and endorsed the London confession and then later claim otherwise. As an old Calvinistic Missionary Baptist I can show Baptists who believed in gospel means in generation after generation by their clear-cut statements, but Hardshells cannot do so, but have to resort to twisting records and documents in an attempt to do the same.

Ivey wrote:

"I could not resolve the differences I perceive between Primitive Baptist Confessions of Faith and the 1689 London Confession of Faith. I heard various arguments relating to differences in language, but did not accept them because the King James Version of the Bible is written in the same language and is readily understandable. I was given an explanation that the London brethren were attempting to escape persecution and so, wrote an "acceptable" confession. This did not seem to make sense to me since the church has always been a dissenting body from popular religion and always suffered persecution for her convictions. It did not seem reasonable that men who came to Baptist conviction knowing full well the persecution they must suffer would suddenly lay their convictions aside to avoid persecution."

The Hardshells have had a "trying time" in regards to what to do with the old London and Philadelphia confessions! Their forefathers in Fulton stated that they recognized their succession was through the churches who embraced those confessions. How could they do otherwise and yet claim to be "Primitive Baptists"? All pre-19th century Hardshell churches universally adopted these confessions. So, the Fulton assembly of Hardshell leaders acknowledged this much, but became dishonest in reinterpreting those portions of the confession which stated things contrary to Hardshellism. So, the effect of this has put all Hardshells on the spot to choose whether to indict the Fulton brethren for dishonesty or to agree with them in their reworking of the confession. Most Hardshells today will agree with Hardshell apolologist R. V. Sarrels who said that those Hardshells in Fulton attempted to make the confession to say what it clearly did not say.

The Hardshells who assembled in Fulton gave their reasons for reworking the old London confession by saying that the language of the old confession was archaic and that it therefore does not really say what it seems to say. But, Ivey rejects that view and gives good reasons for doing so. The KJV is also written in the same archaic language but no one misunderstands what it says. Ivey also rejects another argument that some Hardshells advance relative to the London confession, which argues that the London brethren did not really believe in gospel means but only said they did in order to avoid persecution! Ivey rejects that blasphemous charge also, and for good reason, for such an argument indicts the honesty of those old Baptists who wrote and endorsed the confession. Is this not more evidence of the "inconsistency" in "Primitive Baptist" history that Ivey referred to?

Ivey wrote:

"My problem with resolving the language of the London Confession to Primitive Baptist faith was centered around the concepts of saving faith, and gospel agency as it is described in Articles 10 and 14 of the 1689 edition. In part these articles state:

Article 10, Part 1. Those whom God hath predestinated unto Life, he is pleased, in his appointed, and accepted time, effectually to call by his word, and Spirit, out of that state of sin, and death, in which they are by nature, to grace and Salvation by Jesus Christ; enlightening their minds, spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God; taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them an heart of flesh; renewing their wills, and by his Almighty power determining them to that which is good, and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ; yet so as they come most freely, being made willing by his Grace.

Article 14, Part 1. The Grace of Faith, whereby the Elect are enabled to believe to the saving of their souls, is the work of the Spirit of Christ in their hearts; and is ordinarily wrought by the Ministry of the Word; by which also and by the administration of Baptism, and the Lords Supper, Prayer and other means appointed of God, it is increased, and strengthened.

The archaic language and punctuation of the London Confession, to some measure, leaves the meanings of the these articles open to interpretations. However, inclusion of proof texts seem to indicate the London brethren believed in gospel agency, or instrumentality, in regeneration. Particularly, the use of II Thessalonians 2:13-14 as a proof text for Article 10 led me to conclude the authors believed that gospel utility includes its employment as a verbal instrument of effectual calling in regeneration. In addition, the use of Romans 10:14-17 to define the Ministry of the Word in Article 14 caused me to believe they were writing of the preached word, despite the use of capital punctuation. If I understand what they wrote, it is: The divine influence of faith, whereby the Elect are enabled to believe and thereby save their souls, is the work of the Spirit of Christ in their hearts; and is ordinarily produced by the agency of the preached word."

Ivey indicts his Hardshell forefathers who abused the old London confession and who tried to make it say what it didn't say. But, this only shows how dishonest are the Hardshells who are so intent on holding to their man-made doctrines that they will twist and distort both scripture and the old Baptist confessions. Ivey is to be commended for his honesty about what the confession says, but he is to be condemned for not denouncing his Hardshell forefathers for attempting to make the old confession say something other than what it actually says.

Ivey wrote:

"As I continued to ponder these things, it came to my attention that certain brethren, who no doubt are struggling with these same questions, are teaching gospel agency in regeneration and citing an historic perspective of church succession through the Particular Baptists as a point to support their theology. Simply put, they assert Primitive Baptists abandoned their true beliefs in the 19th century, claiming that until then all orthodox churches subscribed to the tenets of the 1689 London Confession of Faith. They reason abandonment of the London Confession occurred gradually through minor deviations in theology, which developed as an extremist response to anti-missionary, anti-Arminian sentiments. They have asserted that gospel means, or agency in regeneration is first, a bible doctrine and second, an historic belief of the Primitive Baptists owing to our historical connection to the London Confession. I knew this could not be the case. I have read articles of faith written prior to the 19th century, which do not support gospel means."

It is true that the Hardshells have abandoned the London Confession and this is why Ivey looked for another "line of succession," even though he claimed that this was not his purpose! But, his forefathers did not claim succession through the Welsh Baptists, but through the Philadelphia and London confessions. It is obvious to the honest person that those who called themselves "Primitive" are not really primitive at all. That is why I have consistently challenged the Hardshells to produce the clear evidence that there were Baptists who held to hardshellism prior to the 19th century and this challenge yet remains unmet. I can see how this is a real "struggle" for today's Hardshells! They struggle in their consciences about this matter! Will they heed the witness of their consciences and confess that they are not "Primitive" at all?

Ivey wrote:

"All this deepened my desire to know more about the circumstance of the writing of the London Confession. I did not initiate this study to find some non-London Confession succession of the church; rather, my intent was simply to understand how the 1689 London Confession came to such wide acceptance among the Baptists. Also, from a historical perspective, I was anxious to know what events caused the Primitive Baptists to leave it. What I found was a Baptist succession which does not embrace the London Confession or, for some, has only coincidental contact."

Ivey makes a number of interesting testimonials in these words. First, he testifies that he "did not initiate this study to find some non-London Confession succession," and yet that is exactly what he does in his book! He throws away the London confession as a means of determining succession, even though this is the historic document that all Hardshell churches endorsed, prior to their separation from the main body of Baptists in the 1830's. Second, he admits that it was this old confession that had traditionally had "such wide acceptance among the Baptists," including the first Hardshell churches. Third, he confesses that the Hardshells had forsaken the old confession! Fourth, he says he was "anxious" about this matter! I am sure these questions entered into his mind (as they did mine as I began to study the history of the Hardshells as a Hardshell).

1. How can I claim to be "primitive" or "original" when the Philadelphia and London confessions, which was the standard of all original Hardshell churches, teach contrary to my views on regeneration apart from means and faith?

2. Since I believe that the "one true church" of Jesus Christ is the Hardshell denomination, and that the "one true church" must have never been non-existent, why is there no evidence of Hardshell views on regeneration in existence among Baptists prior to the 19th century?

3. How can I admire the great assembly of elders who assembled in Fulton, men who are greatly admired by today's Hardshells, when they clearly were dishonest in attempting to make the old London confession to say what it does not say?

Ivey wrote:

"I have been asked why the line of succession this work claims is not listed elsewhere. My answer is, I do not know; perhaps it does exist elsewhere. However, I did not find it in any of the major works of Baptist history. Bits and pieces, sometimes hints, were found in the works of Crosby, Armitage, Underhill, Jones, Benedict and Hassell. But I could find no place in their works where these renowned Baptist historians suggested a consistent Welsh line of succession (though most note the existence of Baptists in England as early as 600 A.D.). Neither did I find a Welsh succession in the works of modern Historians such as Lumpkin, Torbet, or Armstrong. (Modern historians generally deny the existence of an unbroken succession of the church from Christ). Dr. Roy Mason does mention the existence of ancient Christians in Wales in his history, but he mostly quotes the work of Dr. John Christian. However, when all the pieces were placed together, a Welsh succession of the church unfolded."

What a "struggle" of conscience Hardshells face in regard to their claim of being the genuine old Baptists! Again, Ivey makes some noticeable confessions.

First, he admits that previous Hardshell historians argued for no other succession of churches apart from the London confession. But, how could they? That is the nagging thought in the minds of all honest Hardshells who investigate their historical claims. He says none argued, as he would do, for a "Welsh line of succession." I have shown, however, that there is no such line, for the old Welsh Baptist, contrary to what Ivey asserts (without proof), did not believe hardshellism. He also says that not only did his Hardshell "historians" not identify a "Welsh line of succession," for the Hardshell denomination, but neither have any other historians. Yet, in spite of this, Ivey comes along and says he has discovered what no other historian has discovered! The irony in this is seen in the fact that Ivey does just exactly what his brethren did in Fulton! As they attempted to rewrite and misinterpret the old London confession, Ivey attempts to rewrite and misinterpret the articles of faith of the old Welsh Baptists, and the stated beliefs of Elders Clark and Holmes of the church in Newport!

Ivey wrote:

"I do not claim that such renowned historians were dishonest, or even incorrect. Each wrote books which greatly contribute to our understanding of Baptist history. However, in each case it is apparent their focal perspective was different from mine. They wrote to present a panoramic landscape of Baptist history. I have sketched a crude portrait."

He does not say the historians were dishonest or wrong? He believes that his brethren in Fulton were honest? That they were correct? Ivey may not overtly say that his Hardshell histories are incorrect, and histories written by other Baptist are incorrect, but he does so covertly, for he substitutes another line of succession for the previously accepted one! I challenge Ivey and the Hardshells to produce the statements of faith of Baptist churches and leaders, prior to the 19th century, that avow hardshellism. How does what the Fulton Hardshells did "contribute to our understanding of Baptist history"? Ivey refuses to overtly condemn his forefathers, who tried to affirm belief in the London confession by altering what it says, but rather tries to excuse them!

Ivey wrote:

"The absence of an assimilated account of Welsh succession is troublesome to me."

Why was it "troublesome" to Ivey? As a former Hardshell I know why! It was at one time troublesome to me also. What really troubled the conscience of Ivey, however, was the lack of any genuine succession of Hardshell churches! He had enough good conscience to reject the attempts to make the London confession to agree with hardshellism, but he was convinced that there was a true succession somewhere and so went looking for that "treasure"! But, rather than finding one, he rather invented one! This is why one historian who has reviewed Ivey's work has appropriately called it a "wish history." Ivey ought to become more "troubled" if he reads my review of his work! For I show that he has no proof for any succession of Hardshell churches back prior to the 19th century!

Ivey wrote:

"However, such a void probably resulted from the obscurity of many of the documents used by Welsh Baptist historians."

Yes, there is a scarcity of historical documents about the Welsh Baptists, but, as I have shown, there is sufficient to show that they believed in gospel means and the necessity of faith for salvation, and thus to show that they were not Hardshells. The problem is, Ivey does not approach those old historical documents with honesty, to accept what he finds, but only goes looking for evidence that will help him sustain his proposition that avows that the Hardshells are the true original Baptists, and finding none, does exactly what his forefathers did in Fulton. He hacks and hews on the writings of the old Welsh Baptists like the brethren at Fulton did on the old London confession.

Ivey wrote:

"Both Joshua Thomas and Jonathan Davis, who will be quoted often in the course of this work, were Welshmen."

Yes, and none of these Welsh historians produce any evidence that the old Welsh Baptists of the 17th century held to Hardshell "anti-means" views!

Ivey wrote:

"Much of their original research involved Welsh documents and manuscripts. Because of the obscurity of the Welsh language outside of Wales, it is reasonable to conclude that much of this information was hidden from both early and modern historians."

What is interesting is the inconsistency and contradition in Ivey's words. He disowned the Fulton brethren's reason for reworking the London confession which said that it was due to the archaic nature of the language, and yet this is exactly the reason he is now giving for his altering of the old writings of the Welsh Baptists!

Ivey wrote:

"I do not claim that Thomas and Davis are major historians. Their work is perhaps of little interest to those who are not specifically researching Welsh Baptist history. Also, with the exception of the Welsh Tract Church in America, most historians have considered Welsh Baptist history to be of little consequence. The Welsh Baptists were an obscure people."

But, in my first rebuttal to Hardshell apologist Jason Brown, who cited Ivey and argued as he did, I showed how the first Welsh Baptists in America all believed just as the London confession says about regeneration! The old Welsh Tract Church endorsed the London Confession when it became on of the first churches to form the oldest association in America, the Philadelphia confession. Roger Williams was a Welshman, and I have shown how he believed in gospel means.

Ivey wrote:

"Because a single line of Baptist Succession is found in Wales, it cannot be assumed that all Welsh Baptists were primitives. We know this is not so."

This is interesting testimonial. He acknowledges that not all the old Welsh Baptists were Hardshells. But, he ought to go further and acknowledge that none were Hardshell! The old Welsh Baptists were "primitive," but since the Hardshells don't agree with their Welsh and London and early American brethren, they are the ones who are not "primitive."

Ivey wrote:

"The denominational polarizations which exist today among Baptists were less acute in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Evangelists and other itinerant Baptist ministers were welcomed to preach wherever a Baptist congregation was gathered...Thus, a church which for centuries was primitive in faith one day would find herself with a reformed Pastor. This happened very often."

So, is he saying that the "Welsh line of succession" for which he argues has "missing links"? That a church was one day "primitive" and then became Missionary? And, that this "happened very often"? The truth of the matter is, that all were Missionary at the first until the Hardshells came into being in the early 19th century.

Ivey wrote:

"Neither am I attacking our forefathers who met in Fulton, Kentucky, in 1900. To the contrary, I thank God for their efforts."

What an indictment of Ivey! He knows they were dishonest and had no good reasons for claiming a line of succession, via the old London confession, and yet he will not come out plainly and say so! That is evidence of his cult status. He "thanks God for their efforts"? How can he? Elder Sarrels did not "thank God for their efforts" but condemned them. So have other Hardshells. Ivey even agrees that the old London confession clearly taught means in regeneration, but his brethren in Fulton said just the opposite. If they were not dishonest, then surely they were incorrect and yet we cannot get Ivey to overtly say so.

Ivey wrote:

"These brethren were evidently struggling with the same issues, concerning the London Confession, with which I have struggled. They give historic precedence to my struggle. They arrived at a solution which satisfied themselves and their congregations. I applaud their efforts and its outcome."

"They arrived at a solution" to the problem of Hardshell lack of succession? What "solution" was that? To affirm that the confession was a lie? That it really does not mean what it says? Their "struggle"? Is it not the same one that all Hardshells possess when they come to see the real facts about their history?

Ivey wrote:

"However, we cannot assume their solution is the last word on the matter. If they felt at liberty to scrutinize the London Confession from a theological perspective, is it not our privilege to scrutinize it from an historical vantage? I do not see the result of my work as confrontational towards theirs, rather as a complimentary addendum. Theological truths must always take precedent over historical perspective. But when theology and history agree, historical perspective compliments truth."

But, the "solution" to the Hardshell problem of succession, prior to the 19th century, given by the brethren at Fulton, was no "solution" at all! It did not solve anything but only made matters worse, for it revealed the cultic spirit of the Hardshells, their adherence to their cult views over any solid evidence to the contrary. Also, the "solution" that Ivey offers is no better! Ivey would have done better to divorce himself from the kind of historical dishonesty manifested by his Hardshell brethren who distorted the old London confession. Rather, he says he is continuing in their tradition! A tradition of twisting the statements of the old confessions and primitive documents of Baptist faith!

Ivey wrote:

"The Fulton brethren exercised their theological perspective of truth by adding footnotes to the London Confession. I have now come along and offered my applause for their work."

But, many Hardshells acknowledge that their Fulton brethren were dishonestly trying to make the old London confession to say what it did not say by twisting their words in what they add in those infamous "footnotes" that they added to the confession! But, Ivey will not denounce them but rather "applauds" them!

Ivey wrote:

"I say to them, bravo! History affirms that your concerns were valid and your corrections accurate. Brethren in years past made the same corrections. It proves that the truths you penned at the bottom of the page are the same truths held by Old Baptists through the years. My work is merely an appreciative reaction to yours, a standing ovation."

Yes, their "concerns" may have been valid, but their motives and tactics were not! Their footnotes were accurate corrections? How can Ivey say this when he admits that the London confession taught gospel means, denied hardshellism, and was a true statement of the faith of the oldest Baptists with records? Yes, the footnotes that the Fulton brethren attached to the London confession may accurately state Hardshell views, but they do not state the views of the confession itself.

Note: The above citations are from the "Forward" of Ivey's book.

In future postings I will continue my review of Ivey's work.