Reviewing Ivey's Work IV

Ivey wrote:

"Like both his great-grandfather Edward Wightman, who was executed in 1612 for his primitive Baptist beliefs, and John Clarke, who established the first Baptist church in America, Valentine Wightman is a link in the chain of succession of the primitive Baptists."

Here again is more baseless assertion by Ivey. He thinks that all he has to do is to say that such and such a person was "Primitive Baptist" and that will prove it! Ivey offers no statements of faith by Clark or Wightman to prove that they were Hardshell. I have already disproven it relative to Elder Clark, and until Ivey produces documented evidence to prove that Wightman believed hardshellism, we will not believe it. Ivey has a very weak "link" in his Hardshell "succession."

Interesting is the fact that Wightman's brother Daniel was co pastor of the second Baptist church of Newport, Rhode Island. This leads one to think that Wightman was a Particular Baptist and agreed with Clark and Holmes on soteriology. Also, Daniel's first wife was Susannah Holmes, great-granddaughter of Obadiah Holmes, and the great-granddaughter of Roger Williams, all which argues against Wightman and family being Hardshells.

Of course it was Wightman who won Wait (Waitstill) Palmer to Christ. Palmer, then pastoring in North Stonington, immersed Shubal Stearns.

Ivey wrote:

"Because of Elder Wightman's religious heritage, together with what is known about those with whom he had fellowship, and those to whom he passed his theological lineage, it is reasonable to assume Valentine Wightman was a primitive Baptist of the order of the Midland Association and the Old Baptists of Olchon and vicinity."

But, Elder Wightman's "religious heritage" was in the Calvinistic tradition of the London Baptists who penned the oldest confessions! Further, notice again how Ivey wants us to believe that Wightman believed in hardshellism based upon those with whom he had fellowship! But, in other places in Ivey's book, he rejects this criterion! Again, association and fellowship denotes agreement when Ivey wants it to, and does not denote agreement when Ivey does not want it to! "Consistency thou art a jewel." And, who does Ivey name as in fellowship with Wightman which proves he was Hardshell? Ivey fails to give us that information. Again, Ivey's work is full of unfounded assertions and it becomes wearisome to have to keep pointing this out. He shows how he is unable to produce plain declarations of faith by such men as Wightman to prove his assertion that such were Hardshells.

Ivey writes:

"His original membership was with the second Newport Church. This church was not Arminian during the time of his membership, neither was North Kingston where he later held membership. Also, Swanzy Church, constituted by John Miles, was six principle, as was Rehoboth, constituted by Dr. John Clarke. Neither of these churches were Arminian in the late 17th and early 18th centuries. In fact, by 1750 the practice of laying on of hands on those newly baptized was a common practice among both primitive and Particular Baptists."

However, we have already seen how the Baptists in Newport were not Hardshells! Further, it is clear that John Miles (Myles), like Clark, was no Hardshell. First, let us notice some information about Myles.

"These are all the details we have of the history of John Myles uniting with the Baptists. It is not said that John Myles and Thomas Proud were baptized in London, and the object of their visit to the capital is not mentioned. What is said is, that they were the first two to whom the Lord revealed his will in this matter in these parts, that they were led to London, and that whilst they were there they came in contact with the church at the Glass House, which received them kindly, and regarded their coming among them as an answer to their special prayers for Wales, and that they were sent back by this church to labor in Wales. At the same time it seems very probable from this history, and from a letter written to Myles by Rev. J. Colman, pastor of Barnstable, dated May 9, 1650, that it was in London during this visit they were baptized."

"To be orthodox was an important matter in the estimation of men like John Myles, Richard Blount, and others, and to be baptized and received as church members by orthodox persons was equally important in their view, especially in connection with the formation of a church."

"After being convinced of their duty to obey Christ in baptism, they were anxious that it should be complete in its administration and obedience; hence they went to the Baptists of the Glass House to secure this. This shows how conscientious they were in the course they pursued."

"Besides this, the polity of the Baptists was unfamiliar to them; hence it was natural for them to go to London to learn the word of God more fully in these matters. The fact that the Ilston Church frequently consulted the Glass House on church duties is an additional ratification of this. The truth is, Ilston Church regarded John Myles and Thomas Proud as sent by the Glass House Baptist Church to Wales to preach and administer the ordinance according to the primitive order."

"We come now to the establishment of the church at Ilston. After two weeks’ absence in London, Myles and Proud returned to Gower under the auspices of the Glass House church."

"We come now to an important question, i. e., was this the first Baptist church in Wales after the Reformation? A twofold answer may be given. If by this question is meant that it was the first church of baptized believers organized in Wales, we answer Yes; but if it means that these were the first Baptists in Wales, say unhesitatingly, No. What is said in the history of Ilston Church is that there was no company or society of prophets holding the doctrines, etc., according to the primitive instruction in all Wales, that they had ever heard of since the time of the apostacy [sic], and that they were the first church of baptized believers. This does not militate against the saying that there were Baptists in Olchon previous to this, for Olchon was in Herefordshire and thus in England, though on the borders of Wales, and the inhabitants were Welsh. There is no certainty that the Baptists of Olchon were ever organized in the same sense that word is understood by other churches.

"In 1651 we find him sent as a member in behalf of the Welsh churches to the church in London."

"Soon after the restoration of Charles II, in 1660, the storm became too severe for him, so that he and a few others emigrated to America, where they spent the remainder of their days. The time, place, and circumstances of his immigration are not known now, but it is known that he was in America early in 1663...The first history we have of him in America is that he, with six other brethren, one of whom came with him from Wales, formed a church in Rehoboth."

(From "BAPTIST QUARTERLY REVIEW," 1888, "John Myles and His Times," By John Jones)

See here

So, let us look at the facts. If you want to know what John Myles believed, look at what the London Confession Baptists believed, for they were one and the same. Ivey admits that the Confession teaches gospel means, but wants to affirm that there were Baptists, at the time of the "Particulars," who could be styled Hardshell, men who rejected the teaching of the confession on the means of salvation, and he offers John Myles and Benjamin Cox as examples of early 17th century "primitives" or Hardshells. But, I have already shown how Ivey misstates the beliefs of Cox relative to the use of means in salvation.

Myles was baptized by the London Confession Particulars. Myles was sent out as a missionary to the Midlands area and organized new churches and the first Welsh Association. And, the confession that he helped to write, the Midland Confession, is not different in doctrine from the London Confession. Thus, he was not Hardshell.

Further, our author said - "To be orthodox was an important matter in the estimation of men like John Myles," thus his association and fellowship with the London brethren, can be seen as a sign of agreement between them but Ivey wants to simply say that such fellowship did not denote agreement on the matter of effectual calling.

Note: The above citations of Ivey are from chapter seven of his book.

Ivey wrote:

"During this migration of gospel conversion, Shubal Stearns, a prominent Separate preacher, joined the Baptists and was baptized and ordained in 1751 by Elder Waitt Palmer at Tolland, Connecticut. Elder Palmer had been baptized and ordained by Valentine Wightman."

"The American succession of faith and practice of the Primitive Baptists can be traced through Shubal Stearns and the Separate Baptists. The Separate Baptists received their name as an indirect result of the Great Awakening, which had its beginnings in New England around 1734.

Well, is it true that Wightman, Palmer, and Stearns were all Hardshells? That they believed that those who were unbelievers would nevertheless be regenerated and saved? That they did not believe that conversion was inseparably linked to regeneration? That they disagreed with the London Particulars of the old London confessions? Ivey insinuates this, but again, does so against all evidence to the contrary, and does not present any historical evidence to prove his assertions and insinuations.

So, what about Shubal Stearns and his brother in law, Daniel Marshell, and the early "Separate Baptists."

One historian wrote:

"Three men of note who joined the Separates during the 1745 revival were Isaac Backus, Daniel Marshall and Shubal Sterns. All three would later join the Baptists, bringing with them their enthusiastic belief in evangelical revival."

"The Separate Baptist commitment to Reformed theology is clearly evident in the expressed convictions of leaders such as Shubal Stearns, Daniel and Abraham Marshall, Richard Furman and Isaac Backus.

Abraham himself was instrumental in writing the first articles of faith for the Georgia Baptist Association of churches in 1790. Called the “Abstract and Decorum,” the articles reflect the Calvinism of the Philadelphia Confession.

6th. We believe that all those who were chosen in Christ, will be effectually called, regenerated, converted, sanctified, and supported by the spirit and power of God, so that they shall persevere in grace, and not one of them be finally lost."

This article of faith demonstrates that the Separates were not Hardshell for no Hardshell can endorse it. Hardshells today do not beleive that all the elect will be effectually regenerated and converted. They believe all will be regenerated but only a few will be converted.

Further, Richard Furman and Isaac Backus were Separate Baptists and both these men, as I shall show, believed in gospel means. Thus, it is highly likely, from this fact alone, that Stearns also believed in means, and was therefore no Hardshell. But, more on Furman and Backus later.

So, were the first Separate Baptists Hardshells as Ivey claims?

Ivey wrote:

"It was through the evangelical activities of Elder Stearns and his brother-in-law, and brother in the ministry, Daniel Marshall, that primitive Baptist faith and practice was carried to the Kehukee brethren of North Carolina. In 1755 Stearns joined Daniel Marshall in Virginia.

The name Regular Baptist was applied to those who embraced the Philadelphia Confession."

Ivey mentions the "evangelism" of the Separates and yet wants us to believe that this defines the Hardshells. But, anyone familiar with the history of the Hardshells knows that this has never been a description of them.

Ivey also mentions the fact that the "Kehukee brethren" were "Regular Baptists," as were those of the Philadelphia and Charleston Associations, and yet wants us to believe that Hardshell succession is through the Separates! But, Hardshells have affirmed their succession through the Regular Baptists of these associations! Ivey wants to disassociate himself from the "Regular Baptists" because he wants to distance the Hardshells from the London and Philadelphia confessions, which he acknowledges taught gospel means. Yet, whether Ivey wants to look through the Regulars or the Separates, he will find no Hardshell succession link.

Ivey wrote:

"Elder Burkitt continues his somewhat detailed and flattering description of the Separates by describing their preachers as extremely pious and zealous men. He characterized the effect of their evangelical zeal with this quote; "and such a work appeared to be amongst the people that some were amazed, and stood in doubt, saying what means this?" He notes, "The distinction between them and us, was they were called Separates and the Philadelphia, the Charleston, and the Kehukee Associations were called Regular Baptists.""

How can Ivey deny that his denomination originated with the Regulars as well as with the Separates? All his forefathers, such as Hassell and the Fulton Convention, acknowledged "succession" through the London and Philadelphia confessions, and through the Regular Baptists. But, Ivey rejects their attempts and claims that Hardshell succession came only through the Welsh, through the Separate Baptists.

Ivey wrote:

"As has been noted, some have imagined Elders Stearns and Marshall were Arminian in their theology. In their efforts to claim a historical argument for their own position they assert Elders Stearns, Marshall and Burkitt were supporters of the missionary system. With this latter claim, they strain to make evangelical zeal a missionary system. Further, they incorrectly assume only Arminians embraced Fuller's missionary scheme. This is not so. The Regular Baptists of the Philadelphia and Charleston Associations were enthusiastic in their support of the missionary movement."

This is damaging, however, to the claims of Ivey. He admits that the Regular Baptists of the Philadelphia Association were supportive of the missionary movement, and yet his old Hardshell churches all embraced the Philadelphia confession! Further, Ivey omits mentioning the Kehukee brethren as also "enthusiastic in their support of the missionary movement," but the records show that the Kehukee brethren were such for many years before the Hardshells arose and began to speak out against it.

Ivey wrote:

"Plentiful records of the warm and frequent fellowships between the churches of the Kehukee and the churches of the Separate Baptists are too great a witness of their common doctrinal sentiments. This witness is sealed with their amalgamation in 1789 as the United Baptist Association."

Ivey admits that the Kehukee churches were Regular Baptists who believed in gospel means and yet wants us to believe that the Separate Baptists did not believe in means, but here he says that these two groups held "common doctrinal sentiments." Again, "consistency thou art a jewel"!

But, even in Hassell's history, the leading Hardshell history, Hassell gave this as the confession that both sides agreed to when they united and became "United Baptists."

"Abstract of principles agreed to, in 1777, by this harmonized body of Baptists, termed then “The United Baptists,” but ever afterwards called “The Kehukee Association.” For some cause or other, the new name was lost sight of at once, it appears, and the old one prevailed onward and downward to the present time.

ARTICLES OF FAITH

VII. We believe that in God’s own appointed time and way (by means which He has ordained) the elect shall be called, justified, pardoned and sanctified; and that it is impossible they can utterly refuse the call, but shall be made willing, by Divine grace, to receive the offers of mercy.

VIII. We believe that justification in the sight of God is only by the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ, received and applied by faith alone.

IX. We believe, in like manner, that God’s elect shall not only be called and justified, but that they shall be converted, born again, and changed by the effectual working of God’s Holy Spirit.

X. We believe that such as are converted, justified and called by His grace, shall persevere in holiness, and never fall finally away.

XII. We believe Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are gospel ordinances, both belonging to the converted or true believers; and that persons who were sprinkled or dipped while in unbelief were not regularly baptized according to God’s word, and that such ought to be baptized after they are savingly converted into the faith of Christ." (Hassell's history, Chapter twenty)

Such articles of faith ought to settle the matter as to what was the belief of both Separate and Regular Baptists about the nature and causes of regeneration, and about the relation of faith and repentance (conversion) to being called and regenerated.

First, notice article seven where they said that all the elect will not only be regenerated, but also "pardoned" and "sanctified." But, these things are said in scripture to come "by faith." Further, they speak of the experience of regeneration as involving being "made willing, by Divine grace, to receive the offers of mercy." No Hardshell describes the experience of regeneration in these terms. They do not believe that regeneration involves receiving offers of mercy. Thus, Hardshells cannot say that they believe what either the old Separates or the old Regulars believed.

In article eight, the "United Baptists" said that justification and the righteousness of Christ are "received and applied by faith alone." That is not Hardshell teaching for they believe that many receive justification and the righteousness of Christ who remain unbelievers till death.

In article nine, the "United Baptists" said that "not only" will all the elect be called and regenerated, but also "converted." Hardshells do not believe this. They believe all the elect will be regenerated but only very few will be converted. They spoke of this conversion in the context of being "called" and "born again." They spoke of conversion as being as much the "effectual working of God’s Holy Spirit" as being "born again."

In article ten, the "United Baptists" said that all the converted will "persevere," but today's Hardshells deny that the saints will "persevere," though they say they will all be "preserved."

In article twelve, "United Baptists" spoke of those who were "savingly converted into the faith of Christ." This is not Hardshellism.

Wrote Ivey:

"While Sandy Creek Church, where Elder Shubal Sterns was pastor, did not have formal Articles of faith, the statement of beliefs contained in the church Covenant, written in 1756, testifies of the Old Baptist origin of their doctrine.

Holding believers baptism; the laying on of hands; particular election of grace by the predestination of God in Christ; effectual calling by the Holy Ghost; free justification through the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ; progressive sanctification through God's grace and truth; and final perseverance, or continuance of the saints in grace; the resurrection of these bodies after death, at the day which God has appointed to judge the quick and dead by Jesus Christ, by the power of God and by the resurrection of Christ; and life everlasting. Amen."

Ivey thinks that these articles promote hardshellism, that they deny the means of the gospel in salvation. He does this because there is no mention of the gospel or faith in the context of "effectual calling." But, the previous articles do mention those very things, and are but an elaboration upon what was written in the earlier shorter statement. Notice also the doctrine of "perseverence," a doctrine most Hardshells today reject.

Ivey wroter:

"Prior to Sandy Creek adopting more formal Articles of Faith, the Georgia Association was constituted. It was composed, in part, by several churches which Daniel Marshall helped constitute, including Kiokee where he served as pastor until his death in 1784. Also, Elder Silas Mercer, formerly a member of Kehukee Church, in the Kehukee Association, was involved with the constitution of the Georgia Association. The Articles of Faith of this association are free grace and primitive in their doctrinal expressions. For instance, Article four of the Georgia Association Articles of Faith reads; "We believe in the everlasting love of God to his people, and the eternal election of a definite number of the human race, to grace and glory: And that there was a covenant of Grace or redemption made between the Father and the Son, before the world began, in which salvation is secure, and that they in particular are redeemed." Article six further demonstrates Daniel Marshall believed in sovereign grace. "We believe that all those who were chosen in Christ, will be effectually called, regenerated, converted, sanctified, and supported by the spirit and power of God, so that they shall persevere in grace and not one of them be finally lost."

Ivey is either severely and willingly ignorant or dishonest to claim that these articles support the Hardshell views on salvation. The first Georgia Baptists, including Silas Mercer and Daniel Marshall, believed that "all" the elect would be "effectually converted" in addition to being "regenerated." But, Hardshells make it a pillar in their system to deny this!

Ivey wrote:

"The doctrine of the Separate Baptists was primitive. They believed in the immediate workings of the Holy Spirit. The immediate work of the Spirit precludes gospel preparation or instrumentality in regeneration or else the working of the Spirit is delayed until the preacher arrives. Immediacy of the Spirit eliminates works systems of all types, including evangelical efforts, for the purpose of the eternal salvation of sinners."

The above citations from Ivey are from chapter eight.

How Ivey can legitimately say that the Separates were Hardshells is astounding. He has no evidence to prove it. What he does is "read into" their writings his Hardshell notions and ignores direct, clear-cut statements which deny hardshellism. He says that the Separates, by their statements, "precluded instrumentality in regeneration," but he cited no statement from the Separates to prove it! He says that the Separates, by their statements, "eliminated evangelical efforts for the purpose of eternal salvation." But, again, he does not cite anything akin to this, from the writings of the Separates, to prove this!

Ivey wrote:

"Today all orthodox Primitive Baptist Churches have long since abandoned the London Confession."

First of all, this is not true. "All" Hardshells do not now reject the London Confession, for they recognize that all their oldest churches embraced it, via the Philadelphia Confession! His greatest leaders of the past would disagree with Ivey. Hassell and Hanks, Hardshell historians, both testified that all their oldest churches embraced the old confession. The large number of Hardshell elders who assembled in Fulton claimed succession through those churches who embraced the old confession.

Second, the reason why Ivey and most Hardshells today do not embrace or recognize the old confession is because they are being honest with their interpretation of the old confession, and not willing to twist and distort its meaning as did the Fulton convention. That is why Ivey wants to find another "succession" of Hardshell churches through the Welsh Baptists, even though he claimed that this was not his intention. Ivey's Hardshell forefathers said that adherence to the old confession was the criterion for deciding who is a real "primitive" or "old" Baptist! Taking this standard then, Ivey's Hardshells are not really "primitive."

Ivey wrote:

"It is from this nucleus of churches in North Carolina, Virginia, and South Carolina, that most modern Primitive Baptist Churches branched or descended."

The above citations from Ivey are from chapter nine.

But, the ancestry of the Hardshells, both Separates and Regulars, were Missionary Baptists who believed in gospel means, as I have shown. The Hardshells have no historical evidence that proves otherwise.

Further, consider this fact: When the Sandy Creek Association adopted their Articles of Faith in 1816, Basil Manly, Sr., chaired the committee that wrote them. Will Hardshells affirm that Manly was a Hardshell, as they do with Wightman, Clark, Holmes, Myles, Backus, Furman, etc.?