Since Michael Ivey is disclaiming the fact that the Hardshells have traditionally claimed "succession" from those old churches who endorsed the old London Confession, and seeking to create another separate line of succession, I will begin this section of my review by citing from Hardshell elder Mark Green who has given numerous citations from Hardshells who have claimed that Hardshell succession has come through those churches who embraced the London Confession. In his internet article "Two Old and Honored Friends," Mark Green writes in his foreward:
"It is an easily documented fact that among uninspired writings, the London Confession of Faith and the works of John Gill have been held by Primitive Baptists in high regard and with great respect. We have claimed them as our own and have referred to them time and time again in our defense of the faith against Arminianism and Fullerism. They provided a very visible link for us with the “old country” and those brethren who were not only of our faith, but also of our own language and a similar culture."
Green disagrees with Ivey in regard to the authority of the London Confession among the Hardshells, as well as the authority of Dr. Gill. Of course, both the confession and Dr. Gill taught the use of means in regeneration, and so the Hardshells cannot legitimately claim to be "old" or "primitive" Baptists. They are primitive to claim the old confession, but not primitive in denying its teachings regarding means in regeneration.
Green said:
"We Primitive Baptists have been very vocal in our claims that the true churches of God in this generation are found under our name."
This is true. Hardshells have continuously affirmed that they were the only one true church of Christ and I have identified this as a cult characteristic.
Green wrote:
"Included in the contents of this article are numerous quotes from a number of leading Primitive Baptist ministers over the years concerning their affection for the London Confession and the writings of that fierce opponent of Arminianism, Dr. Gill."
Before I cite some of these quotations, as given by Green, I want to reiterate that Ivey ignores all this, and comes along and seeks to correct all his forefathers, and to deny that Hardshells have descended from those churches who endorsed the old London Confession.
Green wrote:
"It should be noted that Elders C. B. Hassell, Sylvester Hassell, J. S. Newman, and W. S. Craig in particular were well-known as experts in the history of our denomination. Others, including Elders J. Harvey Daily, S. N. Redford, R. H. Pittman, Jesse Cox, and Lee Hanks, published works in this field, and were serious students of the subject."
It is my intention to review all these histories, in addition to that written by Ivey, and include the reviews in my ongoing book on the "Hardshell Baptist Cult." Ivey mentions W. S. Craig and cites a statement Craig made which will be the substance for my present review.
Green wrote:
"The quotes that follow are from leading ministers among the Primitive Baptists, men whose ability and faithfulness have made them household words among our people. Elders J. K. Booton, C. H. Cayce, S. F. Cayce, W. S. Craig, J. Harvey Daily, T. S. Dalton, J. H. Fisher, Benjamin Griffin, Lee Hanks, C. B. Hassell, Sylvester Hassell, J. S. Newman, James H. Oliphant, John T. Oliphant, Lemuel Potter, S. N. Redford, G. W. Stewart, John M. Thompson, J. G. Webb: all these honored and respected men of God, and others, are found herein expressing their love and respect for the dear old London Confession. The Confession was a work of men, and thus we today may take exception to an expression here and there. That is not denied here. It would be greatly presumptuous, however, for us, their children, to ever cast aside this document which these men held so dear."
Green indicts Ivey in these words for denying the place of the London Confession in Hardshell histories. Ivey is "presumptuous" in his efforts.
Green cites from the works of Elder Lemuel Potter who said that "the Philadelphia confession of faith is still a “Hardshell” Baptist document..." Of course, it is not a Hardshell document, for it taught means in regeneration, but it nevertheless was recognized by Potter as being the document that all real old Baptists embrace as a statement of their faith.
He cites Potter as also saying:
"This has been the doctrine of our people for the past two hundred years, provided it was our people who first drew up and published the London Confession of Faith, in England, in the year 1689. In our efforts to identify ourselves with the Old Baptists against the claims of the missionaries, we claim to be identical with these old English brethren in doctrine. THE ADVOCATE does now stand, and always has stood there, especially on the new birth. We hope that none of our brethren will differ from them, and at the same time claim identity with them..."
But, Ivey denies all this. And why? Because he is honest in admitting that the old London Confession taught gospel means, choosing not to do as his forefathers, who distorted the confession's teaching on means. The London Confession is troublesome for the Hardshells. If they claim it, they must do so by denying its teaching on means, or by twisting its teaching thereon, or they must do as Ivey and disregard its authority altogether.
Of course, Elder Potter is guilty of his own accusation, for he did not believe what the old confession said about means in regeneration. But, he at least recognized that the first old Baptist churches in England and America all endorsed that confession.
Green next cites Elder J. Harvey Daily, who said:
"It has ever been recognized as the nearest correct expression of faith of true Baptists every where, until the present time, that has ever been published in a like form." (from History of the Primitive Baptist Church by Elder J. Harvey Daily)
But, again, Ivey rejects all this and comes, at this late date in Hardshell history, and says all his forefathers were wrong on the authority of the old confession.
Green then cites Elder T. S. Dalton, who said:
"But we will give here a short sketch from the old London Confession of Faith, which was adopted by the Primitive or Old School Baptists in 1689, and was approved and published by the Philadelphia Association of Baptists in 1742, and surely if we claim to be identified with those old brethren we must teach what they taught." (from A Voice From the Past Vol. 3 by Elder T. S. Dalton)
Dalton says that those who wrote the old London Confession were "Primitive" Baptists. So, those Hardshells today who reject it, as does Ivey, are not what they claim to be! He says that for one to be an old Baptist then he must "teach what they taught."
Green then cites from Craig:
"...the London Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689, adopted as an expression of their belief by all the Predestinarian Baptists of the United States in the 18th century; and these principles, exactly as here published, were unanimously approved by the general meetings of Primitive Baptists at Oakland City, Ind., Sept. 27, 1900, and at Fulton, Ky., Nov. 14-18, 1900, representing two-thirds of the Primitive Baptists of the United States; and, I believe, that they are the sentiments of nine-tenths of all Primitive Baptists now living." (from History of the Primitive Baptists by Elder W. S. Craig)
See here
How can Ivey now stand up and affirm that his Hardshell denomination does not claim succession from the London Confession?
Ivey wrote:
"In his book, Primitive Baptist History, Elder W. S. Craig provides modest biographies of several of these able ministers of the gospel. While we will not repeat his work, the significance of the labors of such pious evangelicals demands they be identified in this writing. Welsh Baptist notables include; Elders Thomas Griffin, John Miles, Morgan Edwards, Samuel Jones, Abel Morgan, William Davis, Hugh Davis, Davis Evans, Nathaniel Jenkins, Griffith Jones, Caleb Evans, Elias Thomas, Enoch Morgan and many more brethren who preached the pure doctrines of grace in power and demonstration of Spirit of God."
Craig and Ivey want us to believe that the men named in the above citation were Hardshells, but nothing could be further from the truth, as I shall show.
In the above citation from Craig, I am sure that Craig and Ivey mean Thomas Griffith, rather than Thomas Griffin. This kind of mistake demonstrates their weakness as authentic historians. How can you claim a man as a leading forefather of your faith, and not even know the spelling of his name? But, they are as ignorant of his doctrine as they are of his name.
A writer who has reviewed Ivey's work, along this line, wrote:
"We have been trying to write this review for the last two months, but we have been so overwhelmed by the number of errors Ivey’s book contains that we are still almost at a loss where to begin.
Ivey does a similar thing in attempting to prove the antiquity of his position, the erroneous theory of Conditional Time Salvation. He misrepresents the history of the early English and Welsh Baptists in so doing. I have spent over 15 years studying the history of the Baptists of England, Wales and the continent of Europe covering the time Ivey attempts to cover. I possess and have read hundreds of pages of original source material and thousands of pages of secondary histories about those times, and find few of the things Ivey has set forth. Neither have I come to the doctrinal conclusions he has. Indeed, I have not considered this amount of research comprehensive enough to publish much of my findings and conclusions.
Another peculiar thing about Ivey is his inability to get people’s names right. On page 6 he speaks of Vavasor Howell; I am sure he means Vavasor Powell. On page 11 there is a mention of John Helwys. Never in my research have I seen a mention of "John" Helwys, but I do find Thomas Helwys and have books which he wrote. On page 15 "Sam Elton" makes an appearance for the first time in the history of English Baptists of the seventeenth century. There was, however, Sam Eaton connected with Henry Jessey’s Church. These are given to show his inaccuracies. If Ivey cannot get the names of those involved correct, what will he do with more abstract concepts? You may reply, what’s in a name? In presenting history accuracy is paramount. Ivey shows either poor judgement in thinking "little errors" would not be found by the average reader, or total unconcern for truth by not checking his own work, or, and worst of all, perhaps Ivey did not know he was in error!
A peculiar treatment is given to Benjamin Coxe, a Particular Baptist minister of the 1600s. Mr. Ivey almost makes an idol out of him, but, when you examine what he writes of Elder Coxe, it is obvious he knows nothing of the man or even where he labored. Ivey tells us on page 32 that Coxe presented an appendix to the general conference which revised the 1644 First London Confession. This is repeated on page 145 with the statement that it was not officially endorsed by the conference. Like the other wild assertions in his book, no source is offered for this piece of new information. The second edition of the First London Confession of Faith was published January 28, 1646. It was a complete revision of the first edition of 1644. Benjamin Coxe was present and if he truly disagreed with the work he did himself, and all who read it, a disservice by signing it. By signing the confession he endorsed it, so evidently he thought there was nothing in it worthy of protest. Coxe published his work entitled An Appendix to a Confession of Faith, or A More Full Declaration of the Faith of Baptized Believers in November 1646; a fact of which Ivey seems to have no knowledge." (By Elder Robert N. Lackey)
See here
In addition to the names mentioned by Craig, Ivey has also inferred that Isaac Backus, Richard Furman, and Robert Semple, were Hardshells, but again, nothing could be further from the truth. I shall deal with these named old Baptists and show how both Craig and Ivey grossly misstate things.
Ivey wrote:
"Robert Semple, Separate Baptist minister and historian was an eyewitness to many of the activities of the Separate Baptists (including divisions). As a Separate Baptist Elder who understood their doctrine, a man whose integrity remains to this day unchallenged, he must be considered the premiere and authoritative resource of Separate Baptist history. In his history of the Virginia Baptists, Elder Semple makes no statement, nor does he intimate, that the Separate Baptists were originally Arminians."
This is an important statement by Ivey. Ivey accepts the beliefs and historical writings of Robert Semple as a criterion for judging what were the beliefs of the Separate Baptists, and of Elders Stearns and Marshall. Well, what did Semple say about the Separate Baptists and their beliefs about effectual calling? What did Semple believe about gospel means and faith?
James B. Taylor wrote this about Semple:
"In the early efforts of the Baptist denomination to send abroad the gospel among the heathen, Elder Semple became deeply interested. His benevolence was enlarged, like that of Christ, embracing the whole world. He thus refers to the subject of missions: "The whole glory of the salvation of sinners is due to God; but the means must be used by his people. Go ye and preach, said Christ, and I will be with you. Do you use the outward means, and I will make them effectual. To preach is the duty of the preacher; but are there not duties incumbent upon others as well as preachers? Doubtless there are: nothing is plainer in the Scriptures than that ministers must not go on this warfare at their own charges."
He also cites Semple as saying:
"In order to concentrate the energies of the friends of the gospel, missionary societies have been formed in various parts of the earth. The individuals of these societies combine their efforts to send the gospel into destitute places, whether heathen or nominally Christian. Preachers are sent out under their direction, and are supported or compensated from their funds. These funds are raised by the contributions of the members of these societies, by private donations, and by public collections, etc. These measures, like all others requiring money, have met with opposition. Where is the Scripture proof? say some. We answer, abundant proof is to be found in the New Testament."
And again:
"The Lord Jesus himself, while preaching the gospel, received support by the contributions of his followers. See Luke, viii. 23. After his ascension, his disciples, impelled by a holy desire for the spread of the gospel, and by Divine charity, cast all they had into one common stock. This might very properly be called a missionary fund, by the aid of which the gospel was propagated in Jewish and heathen countries. And hence the Apostle says to the Gentile churches, their debtors they are. See Romans, viii. 27. The Gentile converts, on their part, repaid the debt, by sending aid to the Jewish, impoverished by their extraordinary liberality. The church at Philippi is applauded by Paul as having been the first among the Macedonian churches who contributed to his necessities; and still more commends them because they had done this once and again. Right reason speaks the same sentiment. Can anything be more reasonable than to contribute, [p. 315] for godly purposes, a part of the abundance which God gives us? Can we receive from him so much as to be able to fare sumptuously every day at home; show finely abroad; expend hundreds in the education and dress of our sons and daughters; build fine houses, etc.; and, even after such expenditures, have wherewithal to make purchases of lands, etc., shall we be thus kindly treated by him, and refuse or neglect to make any return, by contributing out of this abundance for the advancement of his cause? Nothing would be more unreasonable. Objections have been raised upon the ground of practicability. Is it not a hopeless undertaking? say they. No! by no means. Great success has already attended the efforts of missionary societies."
See here
Thus, it is clear the Semple was no Hardshell. We can see more of this truth by looking at Semple's conversion.
"He (Semple) determined to make himself more familiar with the bible, and doubted not that he should be able still to triumph over his opponent. The controversy was renewed, but with the same result. Mr. Skelton extorted from him a promise, at the close of the second 'interview, that he would carefully read the New Testament, and note all the passages which related to the points in dispute. This examination was productive of lasting good. "The law of the Lord is perfect converting the soul.'' The whole character of the young disputant was now changed. He was no longer the petulant caviler, or the self-approving Pharisee; but the humble, broken-hearted inquirer. His proud heart was subdued: for he saw what to him was before unknown, that he was a ruined sinner, and deserved to perish. Now, the sentiments which had been advanced and vindicated by his aged neighbor, were seen to be truths of everlasting importance. The farther his investigations were pursued, the more wretched he became, until the plan of salvation, in all its simplicity and fullness, was beheld and trusted in by him. A new world was opened to his vision; Christ was made unto him wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption; and became, in his estimation, the chief among ten thousand, and altogether lovely."
Clearly the preaching of the gospel was the means of "subduing" the heart of Semple and the means of his coming to trust in Christ.
"In adverting to the means by which the spirit of God effected a change in the heart of this young formalist, a number of important suggestions occur to the mind. The first is, the sovereignty of divine grace. Here is an individual presenting himself in the attitude of an opposer; he wages war against God and his Christ, and God subdues, not by confining him in chains of darkness, but by taking away his stony heart, and giving him a heart of flesh. God's (saving) purpose is accomplished too, not by human wisdom, or human eloquence, but in the manifestation of truth, by a plain, uneducated farmer."
See here
Next, in regard to the great Separate Baptist historian, Isaac Backus, we learn the following.
"But many are deceived by them because in words they profess to know him. Since Christ was exalted to the right hand of the Father his only priests upon earth are elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit unto obedience, and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ. Being born again, not of corruptible seed but incorruptible, by the Word of God which liveth and abideth forever. These are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people, that they should show forth the praises of him who hath called them out of darkness into his marvelous light, 1 Pet. i, 2, 23; ii, 5, 9.
And none will be owned by him in the last day who are now ashamed to confess him before men, Matt. x, 32, 33." ("THE DOCTRINE OF PARTICULAR ELECTION AND FINAL PERSEVERANCE EXPLAINED AND VINDICATED")
See here
Welsh Tract Church
Hardshells affirm that this old church, one of the first to form the Philadelphia Association and to endorse the London Confession, was a Hardshell church, and rejected the teaching of the confession regarding means in salvation, and for this reason, Hardshells like Craig will affirm that the pastors of this old Church were Hardshells. But, clearly they are wrong, for they endorsed the old confession which teaches means.
Wrote one historian:
"To come to the history of this church, we must cross the Atlantic and land in Wales, where it had its beginning in the following manner. "In the spring of the year 1701, several Baptists, in the counties of Pembroke and Caermarthen, resolved to go to America; and as one of the company, Thomas Griffith, was a minister, they were advised to be constituted a church; they took the advice."
"The pulpit of this church was filled by great and good men of Welsh extraction, for about 70 years.
The first minister was Thomas Griffith, who emigrated with the church. All we can learn of him, is, that he was born in Lauvernach parish, in the county of Pembroke, in 1645, and after faithfully serving this church twenty-four years, died at Pennepek, July 25, 1725.
Mr. Griffith was succeeded by Elisha Thomas, who was born in the county of Caermarthen, in 1674. He emigrated from Wales with the church whereof he was one of the first members, and died, November 7, 1750, and was buried in this church-yard, where a handsome tomb is erected to his memory: the top-stone is divided into several compartments, wherein open books are raised, with inscriptions and poetry both in Welsh and English.
Mr. Thomas's successor was Enoch Morgan. He was brother to Abel Morgan, author of the Welsh Concordance." (By David Benedict in his history, 1813)
See here
Next, concerning the great historian Morgan Edwards, we observe these facts.
"Rev. Morgan Edwards was born in Wales, May 9, 1722. He was educated at Bristol College under Bernard Foskett, its first president. He was ordained June 1, 1757, in Cork, Ireland, where he labored for nine years. He returned to England and preached for a year in Rye, in Sussex, when, through the recommendation of Dr. Gill and others, on the application of the Baptist church of Philadelphia, he came to that city and church, and entered upon the pastorate May 23, 1761.
Edwards was a man of uncommon genius. In his day no Baptist minister equaled him, and none since his time has surpassed him.
He was the founder of Brown University, at first called Rhode Island College. It is well known that this enterprise was started in the Philadelphia Baptist Association in its meeting in 1762, and Morgan Edwards was "the principal mover in this matter," as he was the most active agent in securing funds for the permanent support of the institution. To Morgan Edwards more than to any other man are the Baptist churches of America indebted for their grand list of institutions of learning, with their noble endowments and wide-spread influence.
But we owe him another heavy debt for his "Materials Towards a History of the Baptists," etc. He journeyed from New Hampshire to Georgia gathering facts for a history of the Baptists, and these "Materials," printed or penned, are the most valuable Baptist records in our country. They show immense painstaking, they are remarkably accurate, they treat of points of great value. Morgan Edwards and Robert B. Semple, of Virginia, deserve the lasting gratitude of every American Baptist in a fervent measure. This great Welshman has conferred favors upon American Baptists not second to those of his illustrious countryman who founded Rhode Island." (Baptist History Homepage - The Baptist Encyclopedia)
See here
Thus, it is clear that Morgan was no Hardshell, as Ivey and Craig imply.
Next, concerning the great Richard Furman, we observe these facts.
"Furman's spiritual heritage of evangelistic Calvinism determined his doctrine and tempered his preaching. He was converted in 1771 under the ministry of Joseph Reese at High Hills. Reese was a convert of Phillip Mulkey, who was in turn a convert of Shubal Stearns; all were zealous, evangelical Calvinists. The union of the enduring qualities of the Regular and Separate Baptists in Furman made him the arch-prototype of the prevailing norm of the Southern Baptist of the 20th century. Furman began to preach at the age of 16 and became popularly known as the "boy-evangelist." Reese and Evan Pugh ordained him two years later, on May 10, 1774, as pastor of High Hills. After a fruitful ministry there of 13 years, he became pastor of the Charleston Baptist Church, which he served for the rest of his life. "In the community no minister ever enjoyed so large a share of general confidence and reverence." For 38 years he made "annual excursions" into various parts of the state, preaching the gospel and promoting the interests of the denomination. This itinerant ministry resulted in numerous revivals and the formation of many churches. His eloquence and fame as a preacher once opened for him an opportunity to preach in the United States Congressional Hall.
Furman had a profound sense of the necessity and value of education. While a pastor in Charleston, in conjunction with Gen. Sumter and other leaders in the city, he helped to establish a literary society, and later a literary institution, Claremont Academy, near Statesburg. His interest in educating the masses in the Scriptures led him to assist in forming and directing the affairs of both the Charleston Bible Society and Religious Tract Society.
When the Triennial Convention was organized in 1814, Furman urged that provision be made for the education of ministers. His impelling address to the convention in 1817 aroused the delegates to include education in the denomination's program of work. Furman's plan, which was approved by the body, called for a central theological institution at Washington, with institutions preparatory to it in the separate states. A class of young men was gathered at Philadelphia under the instruction of William Staughton, whom Furman had influenced to come to America in 1793, in anticipation of removal to Washington when funds permitted. The movement which Furman began resulted in the founding of Columbian College (now George Washington University); Furman University; Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, which grew out of the theological department of Furman; Mercer University; and others."
See here
How any Hardshell can claim Furman as one of their own is ludicrous.
Next, concerning Samuel Jones, we cite from Hassell, the Hardshell historian. Hassell gives the circular letter written by Jones for the Philadelphia Association on "The Gospel and the Extent of the Grace Thereof" on pages 567, 568.
"But if we speak of supernatural and evangelical faith, the Scripture is express. By way of distinction from the other, it is called the faith of the operation of God, the faith of God’s elect, like precious faith with us, that faith which purifies the heart, and worketh by love. And in regard to them who received Him, it is said, to them gave He power. Yea, verily, all the power, influence, and everything in the business of our salvation is entirely of God alone, and not of us, who are but perfect weakness.” (1795)
See here
In another circular letter by Jones, we read these words:
"In the Gospel we find free grace, free mercy, free pardon; faith and repentance are freely given, and, with them, a new heart, a new nature, new life, — all is new, all is free. The Gospel, as the word signifies, is good message, good news, glad tidings.
The applications of the Gospel under the influence of the divine Spirit, in the work of conviction and conversion, is absolutely necessary, in order to our receiving saving benefit from it. In this precious work of grace in our hearts, the Law and Gospel, considered as means, go hand in hand, and are often found in the same verse. By the one is the knowledge of sin, by the other the discovery of deliverance. The one worketh despair, the other faith and hope."
"The scheme of divine truth contained in the Holy Scripture, is manifestly this: That man fell from that state of rectitude wherein he was created, and became guilty, polluted, depraved, helpless, &c.; that God in his rich mercy and wisdom, devised a way for the recovery and salvation of such as to him seemed meet, which was doing no injury to others, that were left; that the way of recovery is through the atoning blood of Christ, who glorified the divine perfections in making honorable the law, and bringing in an everlasting righteousness in behalf of and for those that were given him, who in God's own time and way are renewed and sanctified, made holy here and happy hereafter. To this end means are appointed, chiefly the word and the ministration thereof; wherein the state of the sinner by nature, and the way of recovery through rich grace is unfolded; and it pleases God to enlighten the mind; move on the affections, and subdue the will. The sinner is awakened and convicted; he sees his danger; is filled with concern of mind; enquires what he must do to be saved; has repentance unto life given him; is led to see the fulness, freeness, suitableness, and glory of the way of life through a Redeemer; is enabled to lay hold by faith of this hope; is transformed by the renewing of his mind; has the constraining love of God shed abroad in his heart; is humbled and abased in himself, yet triumphs in the mercy and power of God; and thus being filled with holy zeal, he goes on his way rejoicing. He is sensible the Lord of his mere sovereign unconditional grace and mercy began the good work, is now carrying it on, and will complete it in glory, to whom, therefore, without reserve, he ascribes all the praise, and will to all eternity.
See here
Next, concerning Silar Mercer, see this posting of mine in my Gadfly blog.
See here
No comments:
Post a Comment