Chapter 169
In the first chapter of this series, it was shown that the Baptists who produced the London Confession of faith met in 1677 and collectively supported organizations to collect monies for ministerial education and mission work. Interestingly, it was 150 years later, in 1827, when the Kehukee Asoociation of churches (NC) declared non fellowship with Baptists who continued to do, though on a larger scale, the fundamentally exact thing as did the Old Baptists of 1677. This was 145 years before the Black Rock Address.
It was also seen how in 1722, the Philadelphia Association, the oldest in America (and a close ally of the London Association of churches that produced the 1689 confession), proposed to the churches "to make inquiry among themselves, if they have any young persons hopeful for the ministry, and inclined to learning" that they might be recommended to the academy of Mr. Hollis. There was no outspoken protestations against the practice of the churches of the Philadelphia Association, not even by old Kehukee, who corresponded with the Philadelphia Association throughout the 1700s. Where were the Hardshell churches in the 1700s who declared the Philadelphia Association in disorder for this?
We saw how the first Particular Baptists who put forth the London Confession supported Bristol college, which trained Baptist ministers throughout the 18th century. We saw how the Philadelphia Association of churches not only supported academies for preachers, but the creation of Rhode Island college (now Brown University). We also saw how the first American Particular Baptists supported churches contributing money to a general fund for the support of missionaries.
It is important to understand that the Baptist ancestors of the Hardshells, the Particular Baptists of England and America of the 17th and 18th centuries, believed and practiced providing school for the special education of young ministers, and training disciples in Bible classes and by catechisms, and cooperative mission work by agents and standing committees of the association. The Hardshells, as I have stated, claim that the things declared against in the Black Rock Address were new things introduced into the faith and practice of Baptists who adhered to the London and Philadelphia confessions of faith, and that it was the introduction of these new things that was the cause of the division..
In the Potter-Throgmorton debate Elder Potter, arguing for the Hardshells and giving his apology for the Hardshell conduct in the division, said:
"I wish to notice some things in the speech we have just listened to. The first thing Mr. Throgmorton does is to say that he is not bound to show that the Baptists had Sunday Schools, missionary boards, etc., during all the ages. He is under no obligation to show that they always had them. He admits that. He is begging the question. I challenge him to tell what divided us except these very things. It was after the introduction of these things among us that we divided. If we never had them we would not have been divided yet." (Potter-Throgmorton Debate, page 86; published in 1888 in St. Louis by J. N. Hall and J. H. Milburn, representing Missionary Baptists, and by H. C. Roberts and S. F. Cayce, representing the Primitive Baptists).
It is interesting that Potter only mentions "Sunday Schools" and "missionary boards" as being newly practiced in the 19th century. He could not say that organizations to train Baptist ministers was new. He could not say that revival or protracted meetings were new. He could not say that special classes for new converts was new. He could not say that agencies set up by associations of churches for mission work were new. But, how does one define "board"? Further, the London Baptists, as we saw, had people who were appointed to oversee the collection of mission funds on behalf of churches, and see that the money was dispersed to the ministerial students. Was that not a kind of board?
Notice how Potter does not say that the division resulted over doctrinal questions, over disagreements over the means of the Gospel, over the nature of perseverance, or over the absolute predestination of all things. It was initially a division over the means and methods of evangelism. Potter wants people to believe that the Baptists who began the practice of Sunday Schools and of mission boards were guilty of causing the division, or separation of the Hardshells from the general Baptist family. Elder John R. Daily, one who later also debated Dr. Throgmorton, in an article titled "A Loving Appeal to Primitive Baptists," wrote:
"Those who bring about division always accuse others of being the cause of it. Unfounded accusations amount to nothing. The rule by which to determine this question is that the one who introduces the new thing that results in severing the fellowship of the saints of God is the one who causes the division. It is never difficult to determine who this is in any case where innovations make their appearance." (see here)
Elder J. S. Newman in his history, says in Chapter 11 "The Division of 1832" (see here):
"I have before me a copy of a small book called "Christian Union," written by Ben M. Bogard. I wish to quote the following from page 56:
"Before the year 1832 the Baptists believed and practiced the same things. At that time (1832) they divided on the following questions: Missions, salary to preachers, boards, conventions, schools and colleges, etc. Previous to this all were one, and such a question, as who were the Primitive Baptists, was never asked, because they were all primitive. Whatever was practiced and believed before the year 1832 by the Baptists was the practice and belief of Primitive Baptists. Those Baptists who do not teach the doctrines which Baptists taught before the year 1832 are not Primitive Baptists."
"If we can find out what the Baptists believed before 1832, and then can find a group of Baptists believing the same things now, they are Primitive Baptist; and those who do not believe the same doctrine, are not Primitive Baptists."
This is sufficient evidence to demonstrate what has been the apologetic response of the Hardshells about their being the cause of division. They deny being the cause of the division of 1832, and affirm rather that the supporters of mission and educational organizations were the guilty party, causing the division by introducing new beliefs and practices among the Baptists. So, the question of whether such things were new, in the 1830s, is very important. Also, whether the protests of the Hardshells represented something new.
By the criterion given above by the Hardshell apologists, the "Primitive Baptist" denomination must show how its views and practices were the views and practices of pre 19th century times. But, this is the very thing that they cannot do. Beebe could not find his brand of Hardshell Baptists in the intervening period between the time of the apostles and the 1830s. But, such an admission is not easy to obtain from Hardshells. When they can show the existence of Baptists, in the 17th and 18th centuries, who denied the use of the Gospel in regeneration, or the necessity of evangelical conversion to be eternally saved, and who opposed and declared non fellowship for any who support religious education and cooperative mission work, then they will have some reason to call themselves "primitive" or "old school" Baptists.
In the same article as cited above, Elder Newman says:
"Elder Keach, being a Primitive Baptist."
But, if this is so, then to be a primitive Baptist one needs to believe in Gospel means, for this is the teaching of Keach. Also, Keach was a supporter of the London Association's work in providing educational training for ministers and agencies to oversee collections for mission work.
Primitive Baptists today do not want to debate the question as to who is the real primitive Baptist. The reason is obvious. They cannot show from history how their particular sect has existed unchanged since the days of the apostles, ironically the very thing they say they must be able to prove to be a genuine church of Christ.
Now, in closing out this series on the history of religious training for ministers among the ancestors of the Hardshells, let me return to analyzing the rebuttal apology of Elder Gilbert Beebe who sought to explain how the Hardshells were the real descendants of American Particular Baptists.
Beebe continues:
"But shall we ask this valiant historian, this learned novice, what was the state and condition of the church of Christ prior to the setting up of these abominations among the Baptists? Could he! would he! dare he tell us? The truth is they were then precisely what the Old School Baptists are now, “a poor and afflicted people which trust in the name of the Lord.” They did not trust in E. Ferrel’s large estate, nor this Bristol minister-making machine, before the first gave his bequest, or the other was erected. They had no confidence in the flesh."
We might ask Beebe and his brethren, after the same manner, "where were the "antis" in the days of Bristol college"? Where were the protesters? Does he not admit that these things existed for centuries without any Hardshell existing to protest? All Beebe can do is assert that he and his brethren are the ancient church, without any historical proof, just as his twin brother, the Campbellite! He says that the establishing of Bristol college by the 17th century London brethren, was the setting up of an idol of abomination! But, if so, where were the loud opposers of these things in the 17th century? In the 18th? There were none! Ergo, there were no Hardshells.
Beebe continued:
"Go back then, Mr. F. and W., with your researches into the ancient history of the church, as far as the third of Matthew, and from thence trace down the channel of time the history of the people of God. Read it not in ostentatious bequests, in the erection of Theological Seminaries, or the formation of unscriptural Mission Boards, but read in characters of blood, the rise and progress, the persecutions, afflictions and the deliverance of the people of God, placed by grace in the Old School of Christ. You may find them, with some few interruptions, steadfastly adhering to the doctrine of the apostles, and conforming to the laws of Christ."
Again, when Beebe can't meet the historical argument and proof, he simply claims that they are like the apostolic church. He shows that he cannot prove his "primitive" status by appeal to history. Yet, in spite of this admission, his followers continue to affirm that they are most like the Baptists of the old confessions! Notice the arrogance of Beebe and his brethren! This is their cult mentality. He asserts that those who oppose religious schools are students in "Old School of Christ," while those who support such are not students in the school of Christ. Again, this is a cult phenomenon. By Beebe's standard, the Old Baptists of England and Wales who wrote and endorsed the London Confession, were not students in the school of Christ. John Gill was not by the same standard.
Beebe continues:
"Should you be at any loss to recognize them, remember the infallible mark by which they shall be known. Such as will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution. The Old School, of whom we write, and among whom we desire to be numbered, were persecuted by the Jews, Scribes, Pharisees and priests, then by the Pagans, afterwards by the Papists, subsequently by Protestants, and now by the New School Baptists, but thanks be to God who giveth them the victory, they are the same people, one in the Lord their Savior, who will bring them one and all up out of great tribulation, having their robes made white in the blood of the Lamb."
Because Howell, Peck, and other Baptist historians overthrew the pretensions and claims of those who boasted of being "primitive" Baptists, therefore they are "persecutors"? But, by the same standard, Beebe and his Hardshell brethren were gross persecutors of those they judged as "new school" Baptists. Notice again how Beebe makes his Hardshell brethren to be equated with the elect few who will persevere, and how he equates Baptists who supported missions and theological education with being opposed to them. More evidence of cult thinking.
Beebe continued:
"We once saw when a boy a bird called, where we were raised, a woodpecker, dash his bill against the trunk of a very large tree, and immediately flew round the tree, apparently to see if he had not forced a hole through its diameter. We were reminded of the circumstance when we read the conclusion of our hero’s silly attack, for in his conclusion he apprehends that some of the readers of the Watchman may conclude that be should not have exposed the Old School Baptists so far; but should they not be satisfied with this hint, he threatens to give them another or two in a future number. O, spare us, Mr. Mule, (for we suppose by your significant anonymous title you must be something of a mongrel,) spare us the trouble of sifting out your trifling trash, for the game will but too poorly pay for the amunition." (ALEXANDRIA, D. C., August 25, 1838. Elder Gilbert Beebe, Editorials Volume 1, Pages 441–446)
here
Notice how Beebe cannot rebut the evidence against him but can only hurl epithets against Howell and Peck. Does this not speak volumes?
Beebe continued:
"We could no sooner take them as our guides than we could any other set of men, any farther than they followed Christ, and in our use of the distinctive appellation, we have, as we have frequently published, not the remotest allusion to any school of men, we reject alike every system of scholastic divinity, and profess to be pupils in the school of Christ, who as a teacher, teaches as never man taught; we call this the Old School, because it is the original gospel school, and in it the same divine lessons are taught now which were taught eighteen hundred years ago. And although, to our mortification, we confess that we are but dull scholars in this blessed school, yet it is our mercy to be found among those despised ones, who renouncing every other kind of religious teaching, are taught of God, come to Christ, learn of him, for he is meek and lowly, and here alone we find rest to our souls. It is the privilege of all Regular Old School Baptists to set where Mary sat, at the feet of Jesus, where they may receive his gracious words and divine instruction. It is our peculiar glory to wait on him; not like the New School, to plan, contrive, chalk out and dictate, and then call on the Lord to lay aside his plan and wisdom and adopt ours, or to come on in our rear, and succeed our undertakings, and follow with his blessing our efforts, &c. "Tis his to command, and ours to obey.”
Beebe wants people to know that the name "Old School" or "Primitive" does not affirm that they are kin to the Baptists who endorsed the old confessions, the Baptists of the 17th and 18th century! Being Landmarkers, however, where is his historical chain or linkage to the apostles? Who can believe that they only meant to affirm apostolicity by giving themselves the name of "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptists?
Beebe continued:
"Go back then, Mr. F. and W., with your researches into the ancient history of the church, as far as the third of Matthew, and from thence trace down the channel of time the history of the people of God. Read it not in ostentatious bequests, in the erection of Theological Seminaries, or the formation of unscriptural Mission Boards, but read in characters of blood, the rise and progress, the persecutions, afflictions and the deliverance of the people of God, placed by grace in the Old School of Christ. You may find them, with some few interruptions, steadfastly adhering to the doctrine of the apostles, and conforming to the laws of Christ."
Again, when Beebe can't meet the historical argument and proof, he simply claims that they are like the apostolic church. He shows that he cannot prove his "primitive" status by appeal to history. Yet, in spite of this admission, his followers continue to affirm that they are most like the Baptists of the old confessions. The arrogance of Beebe and his brethren is clearly evident.
In the next short series, we will give more detailed evidence that the Old Baptists who were in support of the old London Confession were supporters of organizations, set up by associations of churches, that promoted mission work. Therefore, the charge of the first Hardshells that such organizations were new is false.
No comments:
Post a Comment