Hanserd Knollys

Hanserd Knollys 

(1598-1691)

On the Baptist History home page, J. Newton Brown, D.D., Philadelphia writes the following about Hanserd Knollys, one of the great Particular Baptists of the 17th century in England. (See here emphasis mine)

"Some preliminary statements may be necessary to do this effectually. It is important to know what he was before he came to this country, and happily Crosby has preserved all the facts necessary. (Crosby, I. p. 334-344) Mr. Knollys was born in Chalkwell, Lincolnshire, 1598. His parents were pious. They "took good care," as Crosby says, "to have him trained up in good literature, and instructed betimes in the principles of religion." While at the University of Cambridge, he was converted, and his Christian character became of the highest order. "Happy would it be for this nation," says Crosby, "if our universities and private academies were filled with such students." After his graduation he was chosen master of the free school at Gainsborough."

Observations

As is true of several of the leaders of the English Particular Baptists in the 17th century, Knollys was highly educated. He knew Greek, Hebrew, and Latin.

"This was about the time that Roger Williams was baptized at Providence. Were it certain that Hansard Knollys was a decided Baptist, when he gathered the First Church in Dover, it might be maintained with some reason that he was the first Baptist Minister in America. But there is room now to doubt. True, he is called an "Anabaptist" by Mather and Belknap, but they were not contemporary, and Winthrop, who was contemporary, neither affirms nor denies it at the time. This makes it most probable that he was not a Baptist when he arrived in Dover. Indeed we know not where, when, or by whom he was baptized. In the absence of direct testimony, it may be inferred, from various circumstances that he became a Baptist while in Dover. It is, however, possible, that he embraced Baptist sentiments, and was baptized in London, while waiting for a passage to America."

Observations

Not only is it possible, but it is probable as the footnote of Dr. Brown's writing indicates. That being so, he would have been the first Baptist minister in America. Further, Hanserd was a leader of the Particular Baptists in London during the time of the 1644 and 1689 (really 1677) confessions. If you want to know what the signatories to the London confessions believed, you should read their writings besides their actual confessions or articles of faith. Had the Hardshells who put out a reinterpretation of the 1689 confession in Fulton, Kentucky (1900) been readers of their writings they may have not so misrepresented their beliefs as they did when they put out the Fulton Confession of Primitive Baptists.

"This is not the place to follow Mr. Knollys back to England, and trace his eventful life for the next fifty years, through the most agitated period of English History. The theme is most inviting, and, at some other time, might be pursued with the greatest pleasure and profit. We should see in him one of the brightest lights of his age, one of the ablest preachers of the Gospel, one of the most accomplished teachers of youth, one of the oldest pioneers of religious liberty, one of the meekest, yet most heroic, sufferers for the truth, one of the purest and best of men. We have the testimony of Neal, in his History of New England that "he suffered deeply in the cause of Nonconformity, being universally esteemed and beloved by all his brethren." (Neal, Vol. I. p. 216)"

Observations

I agree. So too were several other men who helped to write those old confessions, such men as John Spilsbury, William Kiffin, Benjamin Keach, Hercules Collins, etc. 

"That holy life which he lived did command reverence even from those who were enemies to the holy doctrine which he preached. He was a preacher out of the pulpit as well as in it; not like those who press the form of godliness on a Lord's day, and as openly deny the power of it the remainder of the week; who pluck down that in their conversations, which they build up in their pulpits. . .He loved the image of God wherever he saw it. He was not a man of a narrow and private, but of a large and public spirit; the difference of his fellow Christians' opinions from his, did not alienate his affections from them. . .He embraced them in the arms of his love on earth, with whom he thought he should join in singing the song of the Lamb in Heaven."

Observations

What a good example was this! When Baptists, like the Hardshells, became so strict in their fellowship, cutting themselves off from cooperation with other Baptists and Christians, they became a cult. It does not appear that those 17th century Baptists were Landmarkers, the "we be the only ones" or "we be Abraham's seed" type. They were not so exclusive as the Hardshells.

"It is, then, more than possible, - it is rather probable, on the whole, - that Mr. Knollys was already a Baptist on his arrival in America, in the spring of 1638; and if so, then he was the first minister in this country." 

Now let us notice some of the things that Hanserd Knollys wrote in "Christ is All in All" (here).

"You will say to me, Alas, here is my misery, to wit, although God propound Christ upon good terms to poor sinners, to me among others, I have no power of myself to receive Christ, to believe in Him, and accept of Him. True, it is not (as I said) in him, that willeth, nor of him that runneth but of God, who sheweth mercy (Rom. 9:16) It is the exceeding greatness of His power to us-ward who believe, which must be put forth in your hearts, to MAKE you believe also, according to the working of His mighty power, which He WROUGHT in Christ, when He raised Him from the dead. (Eph. 1:19-20) And you ought to wait on God in the diligent use of means until the day of His power come upon you, and then you shall be a willing, a believing people. (Psa. 110:3) I may exhort you to repent of your wickedness, profaneness, &c. as Peter did: (Acts 8:22) But God must GIVE you repentance unto life. (Acts 11:18)"

Observations

This shows that he and his London brethren were not Hardshell or Hyper Calvinistic in their thinking. I agree totally with Knollys. 

Said Knollys:

"It is my duty to preach the Gospel to you, and to exhort you to seek Christ, (Acts 17:22,27) but it is the mere mercy and free grace of God to DRIVE you to Christ, which nothing but His everlasting love can move Him to do. (Jere. 31:3) You ought to seek, and wait, ask, and use all the means which God hath appointed, and afforded you, both secret, private, and public. (Rev. 2:29) But God must make the means effectual. (Acts 16:14) And therefore I must say, it is not in me, I cannot draw you to Christ, that is the Father's work. (John 6:44) But having exhorted you to seek Him in the use of means, there I must leave you to wait on God for the moving of His Holy Spirit where you must lie and continue like the poor impotent man at the pool of Bethesda for healing: And though as he did, so you may see many a lame, blind, deaf, dumb, naked-leprous soul get healing and go away rejoicing and praising God, and you remain still so impotent, that you cannot get into the Fountain, set open for sin and for uncleanness, nor have any that can help you in, that you may be cured: yet be not disheartened, as Christ came suddenly and unexpectedly, and healed the impotent man after long waiting; so Christ will come according to His promise to your souls that seek Him. (Mal.3:1) The "The Lord whom you seek shall come, shall suddenly come, saith the Lord of Hosts."

Observations

I believe this. Our Hardshell brothers do not. Who then is "primitive" or "original" old Baptists?

Next, I want to cite from "Barry H. Howson on Gill, Knollys and the First Tenet of Hyper-Calvinism: The Denial of the Free Offer." (See here) Under the heading "The Theology of Hyper-Calvinism and Hanserd Knollys" we find these words. 

"This section will examine the theology of hyper-Calvinism from the writings of its most important Baptist expositors, John Gill and John Brine, and compare their writings with Knollys' in order to see if he espoused hyper-Calvinism or elements of it. Hyper-Calvinism is one step beyond that of the High Calvinism of the seventeenth century. Consequently, the two primary distinctives of hyper-Calvinism are: that the gospel is not to be offered indiscriminately to all people; and secondly, its corollary, that it is the duty only of the elect to exercise saving faith and evangelical repentance. Three secondary distinctives include: eternal justification; an eternal covenant of grace; and an excessive emphasis on irresistible grace and the passivity of the elect in their salvation. There is no doubt that Brine and Gill were High Calvinists but it is also evident from their writings that they went a step further holding to, and emphasizing, the above hyper-Calvinistic distinctives. We will examine these distinctives held by Gill and Brine comparing them with Knollys' writings." (Pages 129-132)

Observations

I agree that the doctrine of eternal justification (justified before the world began) has become a Hyper Calvinistic teaching. I have added it to my list. See my posting "Evolutionary History Of Hyper Calvinism" and the comment I left in the comment section - here) I don't doubt also that "an excessive emphasis on irresistible grace and the passivity of the elect in their salvation" has become a part of Hyper Calvinism.

"The first hyper-Calvinist distinctive that Gill and Brine held was that the gospel or grace or Christ ought not to be offered to all people indiscriminately but only to those who are the elect. This was not the teaching of Calvin. In his comment on Acts 2:21 where the Apostle Peter preached, "Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved," Calvin writes, "We must also observe the universal word, 'whosoever'. For God admits all men to Himself without exception and by this means invites them to salvation, even as Paul deduces in Rom. 10." And again commenting on Romans 1:16 he states,

The Gospel is indeed offered to all for their salvation, but its power is not universally manifest...When, therefore, the Gospel invites all to partake of salvation without any difference, it is rightly termed the doctrine of salvation. For Christ is there offered, whose proper office is to save that which is lost, and those who refuse to be saved by Him shall find Him their Judge." (pg. 133-134)

Observations

Not only was this not the teaching of Calvin and the first Reformers, it was not the teaching of the authors of the 1689 London Confession. It was an 18th century invention thanks to Hussey, Gill, and Brine.

"John Gill disagrees with Calvin. He states in The Cause of God and Truth in reference to Isaiah 55:1:

These words are no call, invitation, or offer of grace to dead sinners, since they are spoken to such who were thirsty, that is, who, in a spiritual sense, were thirsting after pardon of sin, a justifying righteousness, and salvation by Christ; after a greater knowledge of him, communion with him, conformity to him, and the enjoyment of him in his ordinances, which supposes them to be spiritually alive.... The persons here encouraged are such, who not only have no money, but know they have none; which are poor in spirit, and sensible of their spiritual poverty; which sense arises from the quickening influences of the Spirit of God upon their souls. 

Again he states, 

 

I know of no exhortations to dead sinners, to return and live, in a spiritual manner. Those referred to in Ezex. [sic] xviii., I have often observed, respect civil and temporal, and not spiritual and eternal things; we may, and should indeed, encourage and exhort sensible sinners to believe in Christ, and testify their repentance, by bringing forth fruits meet for the same." (pgs. 135-136)

Observations

Though Gill and Brine believed that no exhortations are to be given to dead sinners, yet they believed that the gospel and faith in it were means to spiritual life.

"In some places Gill gives the impression that the gospel ought not to be offered to anyone whether elect or not:

Salvation is not offered at all by God, upon any condition whatsoever, to any of the sons of men, no not to the elect: they are chosen to it, Christ has procured it for them, the gospel publishes and reveals it, and the Spirit of God applies it to them; much less to the non-elect, or to all mankind; and consequently this doctrine, or God according to it, is not chargeable with delusion and insult." (pg. 137)

Observations

But, I have observed before that Gill did not always speak so dogmatically on this point. See my posting Gill And Duty Faith. 

"Again in his tract The Doctrine of Predestination, Stated, Gill writes, 

 

That there are universal offers of grace and salvation I utterly deny; nay, I deny they are made to any; no, not to God's elect; grace and salvation are provided for them in the everlasting covenant, procured for them by Christ, published and revealed in the gospel, and applied by the Spirit; much less are they made to others....Let the patrons of universal offers defend themselves ... I have nothing to do with it." (pg. 138)

Observations

In teaching this Gill was going against his brethren who preceded him, the signatories of the 1689 confession, and of Benjamin Keach who preceded him as pastor of the church Gill later came to be called as pastor.

"This, however, did not mean that the gospel should not be preached to all. He states, The ministers of the gospel are sent to preach the gospel to every creature; that is, not to offer, but to preach Christ, and salvation by him; to publish peace and pardon as things already obtained by him. The ministers are...criers or heralds; their business is...to proclaim aloud, to publish facts, to declare things that are done, and not to offer them to be done on conditions; as when a peace is concluded and finished, the herald's business, and in which he is employed, is to proclaim the peace, and not to offer it; of this nature is the gospel, and the whole system of it; which preaches, not offers peace by Christ, who is Lord of all." (pg.139)

Observations

Correct. Not only did his denial of duty faith not entail him denying that the gospel was to be preached to all, but also never denied that it was the means of regeneration.

"John Brine concurred with Gill that the gospel or grace was not to be offered. In A Refutation of Arminian Principles, Brine's response to Matthias Maurice's pamphlet A Modern Question, he challenges Maurice's contention that it is the duty of all people to exercise saving faith and evangelical repentance. This is the logical progression of the "no offers of grace" teaching and is one step beyond it. However, in a work entitled, The Certain Efficacy of the Death of Christ published in the same year as A Refutation he clearly states his disapproval of offering grace to all:

But I am of opinion, that an Offer or Proposal for acceptance of New Covenant Blessings, is not made to Men, whilst they are under the old Covenant, or Law of Works, which are all men 'till regenerated, or so long as they are under the Dominion of Sin. Offers of grace as I conceive, are not made to those who are not under grace, nor interested in the Covenant of Grace, which many are not, to whom the Gospel is preached." (pg. 140)

He continues:

"Moreover, in A Refutation when considering passages of Scripture where repentance and faith are exhorted he states, "It evidently appears, that the Persons addressed were the happy Subjects of a Conviction of their Misery by Nature, and therefore not to be considered in a State of Unregeneracy;"

Observations

Here Brine states an error of which the Hardshells are guilty. He says that conviction of sin, or a sense of guilt, is an evidence of regeneration. But, again, this is not the view of the Reformers nor of the 1689 brethren.

"Did Knollys espouse this hyper-Calvinist tenet? Along with the hyper-Calvinists Knollys believed that the gospel should be preached to all. But contrary to this first hyper-Calvinist tenet he believed the gospel should be offered to all. When preaching on Colossians 3:11 that "Christ is all, and in all", he says, "Let me tell you God offers you Christ upon Gospel-terms,...God doth offer Christ to lost sinners without respect to price or person. He invites them, that have no money, to come, and buy Wine, and milk (that is to say, Christ) without price." (pg. 141-142)

Observations

Yes, Knollys and the 17th century Particular Baptists did not teach such. Gill's view was a novelty. To show the view of Knollys and his brethren, our author says:

"And, again, when preaching on Luke 19:10 where Jesus said, "For the Son of Man is come to seek and to save that which is lost," Knollys proclaims, "The Lord having propounded or offered Jesus Christ to lost sinners, outwardly and in generall by the word, and inwardly and perticular to this or that lost sinner by the Spirit, accompanying that word of the Gospel with divine light and power to the heart of the sinner, doth enable the poore soul so to assent unto what is propounded." In 1688 commenting on Revelation 22:17 where "The Spirit and bride say, Come", Knollys writes, "The Church of God, and the holy Spirit of God, and all converted persons, do invite all sorts of sinners, especially, thirsty sinners, without exception against any Persons, that are willing, and without any price, to take Christ freely." Notice that Knollys says that the church of God is to invite not only thirsty sinners but "all sorts of sinners." Gill had said that the offer of Isaiah 55:1 was only to thirsty sinners. In the Parable of the Kingdom he writes, "These that sell this Mystical and Spiritual Oyle are Christ and His Ministers, and Servants....Ordinarily and commonly Christ authorizes and commands his faithful Servants (the Ministers of the Gospel) whom he appoints, commissions and sends to offer this spiritual Oyle to sale, and to sell it unto whomsoever will buy it." And again in the same treatise he calls sinners "to open the door of your hearts to Christ." (pgs. 143-145)

Observations

Knollys' view is the original view of the Particular Baptists. Gill's view is the novel Hyper Calvinistic view.

"At the end of the first part of his treatise, The World that now is, he calls unbelievers to believe and repent, exhorting them "to come to Christ because there is salvation in no other." In the second part of the same treatise he closes with another exhortation to "profane sinners" calling them to get into a state of salvation before Christ comes from heaven to judge the quick and the dead, and before they die. He goes on to counsel them to consider: that they are dead in trespasses and sins and are without Christ; that they are in need of Jesus Christ; and that God offers Christ to poor, lost, miserable sinners upon gospel-terms of free grace (everyone who is willing may come to Christ and have Christ freely). He then exhorts them to suffer Jesus to come into their hearts by his Spirit and Word, and open their hearts to Christ when he knocks at the door of their souls and let him come in (if the sinner be willing to open the door of his heart, Christ will come in by his Holy Spirit). It is evident that from the beginning of his Baptist ministry to the end, Knollys believed the gospel should be offered to all, and that the minister should offer the gospel to all. Knollys' extant writings make it quite clear that he had a passionate concern for lost sinners and that he called them to seek Christ, repent, come to him upon "Gospel-terms", and to attend the "means" of salvation in order that they might be converted. Knollys did not hold this first important hyper-Calvinist tenet." (145-148)

Observations

Christ is offered to sinners in the gospel! That is the truth and it is amazing that so learned a man as John Gill could refuse to acknowledge it. 

In Knollys' work titled "The World That Now Is..." (here) we have some other citations that show that he believed in offering Christ to sinners.

Said Knollys:

"Seeing then that the Ending Time of this evil world will be so perillous, and a Day of so great Tribulation, I do intreat both unconverted Sinners, and sanctified Believers, to suffer a word of Exhortation. I do therefore exhort unconverted Sinners, upon whom the End of this WORLD is coming by Death, or Dissolution, That you would come to Christ, Believe in Jesus Christ, and Repent of your sins." (pg. 99-100)

"First, I exhort you to come to Christ; for there is not salvation in any other, Acts 4.12. If you will not come to Christ whilst you live, you will certainly go to Hell when you dye, Psal. 9.17." (pg. 100)

Said Knollys:

"Some poor sinner haply will say, Alas! I am a vile sinful sinner; I am unworthy, may I presume to come unto Christ? Yes, Jesus Christ who came into the world to save the chiefest of sinners, doth invite all, that will, to come unto him, Isa. 55.1, 2, 3. & Rev. 22. v. 17. But if I do come unto Christ, will he not refuse me, and reject me, and cast me off? No! Joh. 6.37. Him that cometh unto me, I will in no wise cast out. Some poor lost sinner may haply say, Indeed I see a great need of Christ to justifie me, and to sanctifie me, and to save me; but I know not how to come to Christ; I cannot come to Christ; what shall I do? I answer, It is true, no man can come to Christ, except the Father draw him, John 6.44. but God the Father doth draw sinners unto Christ with his Cords of Love, Jer. 31.3. Yea, I have loved thee with an everlasting Love; therefore with loving-kindness have I drawn thee. Though thou canst not come to Christ, yet know, that the Lord Jesus Christ can, and will come to thee, and teach thee to go to him, as he did Ephraim, Hos. 11.3, 4. The danger is not in thy own Inability, that thou canst not come to Christ, accept of Christ, and take Christ upon Gospel-terms of Free Grace: but thy souls danger lyeth in thy own unwillingness, Thou wilt not come to Christ; this Jesus Christ complained of, John 5.40. But ye will not come to me, that ye might have life. Ah! woe's me, saith the poor lost sinner; If I were so deeply humbled for my sins; if I had a soft, broken, penitent heart; if I could get victory over my corruptions, then I should be willing to come to Christ for pardon, and for salvation; but these things hinder me, and discourageth me from coming to Christ; I am ashamed to come; I am afraid to come; I confess I am unwilling to come; yet know, God and Christ is willing that thou shouldest come, Mat. 11.28. And ere long, the Day of God's Power will come upon thee; and then thou wilt be willing, Psal. 110.3. Thy People shall be willing in the Day of thy Power." (100-102)

Observations

When the Hyper Calvinists lost this zeal in preaching to and exhorting lost sinners, they began to die and is why there are so few who are saved by their preaching. 

Said Knollys:

"Secondly, I exhort you to believe in Christ. When the Jaylor asked Paul and Silas, and said, Sirs, What must I do to be saved? They said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, Acts 16.30, 31. This is that glad Tydings of the Gospel, which Christ hath commanded and commissioned his Ministers to Preach unto every creature, Mark 16.15, 16. He that believes shall be saved, but he that believes not shall be damned. There is an absolute necessity of believing in Jesus Christ unto salvation; for without faith it is impossible to please God, Heb. 11.6. Alas! saith a poor sinner, I cannot Believe, I know not how to Believe; what shall I do to Believe? I answer, Faith is not of our selves, it is not of works, but it is the Gift of God, Eph. 2.8, 9, 10. The Faith of the Operation of God, Col. 2.12. It is the exceeding greatness of his mighty power, Eph. 1.19, 20. The same Almighty Power of God, that raised Jesus Christ from the dead, must raise the soul of a sinner from the death of sin, unto the life of Righteousness. The soul being dead in trespasses and sins, must be quickened together with Christ, and raised together with Christ, Eph. 2.5, 6." (102-103)

Observations

Here we see how John Leland was like Knollys. I recently cited David Benedict ("50 Years Among The Baptists") who said:

"John Leland, although a Calvinist, was not one of the straitest class. Two grains of Arminianism, with three of Calvinism, he thought, would make a tolerably good compound." 

And, like brother Mann said, I believe this is a good compound. (Said he - " It is a "compound" I am glad to serve up) The Calvinism of Knollys did not lead him to quit preaching like Arminians. Spurgeon is a good examply of mixing the two.

Said Knollys:

"Thirdly, I exhort you to Repent of your sins. Repentance is also the Gift of God, Act. 11.18. Then hath God also to the Gentiles, granted Repentance unto life. Evangelical Repentance is a godly sorrow for sin, or a sorrowing for sin after a godly manner, 2 Cor. 7.9, 10. For godly sorrow worketh Repentance to salvation, &c. which Gospel-Repentance consists of confession of sins to God, contrition, and mourning for sins before God, and turning from sins unto God with our whole heart, and with our whole man, in Spirit, Soul and Body." (103)

Observations

Again, a good compound!

Said Knollys From Chapter Two:

"O ye unconverted Professors! Consider, I beseech you, there is a world to come, and Christ will come, and then every one shall give account of himself to God, Rom. 14.10, 11. What account will you give to God for your formality, lukewarmness, hypocrisie, and unprofitableness under the Means of Grace, you sinful Professors, that have refused the offer of Christ, and despised the goodness of God, which should lead you to Repentance; you that have sinned against Gospel-light, and knowledge, quenched the Spirit, resisted the Spirit, and grieved the holy Spirit, it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Zidon, than for you in the Day of Judgment, except you repent, and believe in Christ. And you unconverted ungodly wicked sinners, what account will you give to Christ in the World to come, for all your unrighteousness, and all the wickedness that you have done, and still do in this World. Read Jude verse 15. It will be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrah, in the Day of Judgment, than for you, Jude verse 7." (Pg. 32)

Said Knollys again:

"O ye unconverted Sinners, both Professors and Prophane! will you now accept of, and receive a word in season of spiritual Counsel? then I will instruct you how you that are miserable may become happy; and you that are in a damnable state, may get into the state of salvation, before Christ come from Heaven to judge the quick and the dead, and before you dye: That you may obtain eternal Life, and Glory; my counsel to you is, as followeth. 

1. Consider, you are dead in sins and trespasses, and you are without Christ, Ephes. 2.1.5, 12. you have no saving sanctifying Grace; you are not holy; and if you dye in this your sinful state and condition, you will be damned to eternity, Psal. 9.17. The wicked shall be turned into Hell. 

2. Consider your need of Jesus Christ: There is not salvation in any other, Act. 4.12. no Christ, no Salvation: He is that One thing necessary; without him you can do nothing, Joh. 15.5. to please God, or to glorifie God, Heb. 11.6. Without Faith in Christ, it is impossible to please God: Without being and abiding in Christ, you cannot bring forth fruit, nor do any thing, whereby God is glorified, Joh. 15.5-8. You stand in need of Christ to justifie you, to sanctifie you, and to save you from Sin, and from Hell." (pg. 33-34)

3. Consider, God offers Jesus Christ to poor, lost, miserable sinners, Rev. 3.17, 18. yea to the chief of sinners, 1 Tim. 1.12-15. upon Gospel-terms of Free Grace, Isa. 55.1-7. without exception of person, and without respect of price, Revel. 22.17. The Spirit and the Bride saith come, and let him that heareth say come, and let him that is athirst come, and whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely; that is to say, Any one, every one that is willing may come to Christ, and receive Christ, and have Christ freely; for HE is the free Gift of God to Sinners, who are without Christ in the World, Joh. 3.16. Be but willing to take Christ, and the work is done. Christ complained of them that would not come to him, that they might have life, Joh. 5.39, 40." (34)

Observations

That is the kind of preaching that characterized Charles Spurgeon, George Whitefield, and the ablest Calvinist evangelists.

Said Knollys:

"When you have seriously considered those three particulars, then I counsel you poor, lost, perishing Sinners, first, suffer the LORD Jesus Christ to come by his Spirit and Word into your hearts, and set up the Kingdom of his Grace in your souls; that where Sin hath abounded, Grace may much more abound; and where Sin hath Reigned unto Death, there Grace might Reign through Righteousness unto eternal Life by Jesus Christ our LORD, Rom. 5.20, 21. Do not resist the Holy Spirit, as they did, Zech. 7.7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13. and their Children after them, Act. 7.51." 

Observations

We see this kind of preaching among many of the first PB preachers in the early 1800s, such as we see in Elders John Watson, John Clark, and Grigg Thompson. (On the latter see here and here)

Said Knollys:

"Secondly, Open your hearts to Christ, when he knocks at the Door of your Souls, and calls you to come to him, to receive him, and let him come into your hearts, and dwell in your hearts by his holy Spirit, and sanctifying Grace, Rev. 3.20. Behold I stand at the Door and knock, if any man hear my voice, and will open the Door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me. If the Sinner be willing to open the door of his heart, Christ will come in by his holy Spirit, and HE will communicate of his Grace to his Soul." (35-36)

Observations

Knollys was no Arminian and yet he had no reluctance to address sinners in this manner. Nor do I.

Said Knollys:

"Not that you can do those things of your selves; I have told you, without Christ you can do nothing, Joh. 15.5. But it is your duty to do them, and it is the Free Grace of God, to work in you to will and to do, according to his good pleasure, Phil. 2.12, 13. that he so working in you, you may work out your own salvation with fear and trembling." (36)

Observations

Again, a good compound mixture!

Said Knollys:

"Prepare yourselves for that time of Tribulation, which shall come before Christ come, Matth. 24.21, 29, 30. It's call'd an hour of Temptation, which shall come upon all the World to try them that dwell upon the Earth, Rev. 3. It will come upon the Jews, Dan. 12.1, 2, 3. and upon the Gentiles, Rev. 11.7. but more especially upon the Inhabiters of the Earth, Rev. 8.13. & 12.12. & Rev. 19.19, 20. viz. upon the Beast, and the false Prophet, and upon the Kings of the Earth, and their Armies. Prepare for that midnight Dispensation of Darkness, Distress and Temptation, which is coming upon Nations, Cities and Churches to try them." (pg. 45)

This latter citation I include here although it does not deal with the subject of this posting. I post it to show that he believed that the great tribulation will occur before the second coming (as I also do)

For more Online Books by Hanserd Knollys see (here)

DAVID BENEDICT'S HISTORY - ANOTHER VIEW

    First, let me state clearly, that this is in RESPONSE to Bro Stephen's article on Benedict's History, as another view, not a rebuttal or debate. Bro Stephen is honest, desires truth, and has granted me great liberty, even when he strongly disagrees. I love him as a brother, as I know he does me.

   What I wish to discuss here, is how two people can view the same facts, but see different things. This is not a fault, but in fact, has scriptural example. For instance, Matthew says Jesus' robe was bright red (scarlet) while Mark and John say it was purple. Luke just says it was "gorgeous". Was one or more of them mistaken? Absolutely not. There is an explanation, but now is not the time for that. It is just an example of differing views of the same event. It is also an example of WHY we should believe what the gospel writers wrote, because if they had "colluded" in making up the story, surely they would've gotten together and gotten their "facts" straight. Sometimes what Bro. Stephen calls "scarlet" I call "purple", yet we both are describing the same event. Stephen is a Calvinist, staunchly so. I am what is now called a Non Calvinist, but it is a term I do not really like. Nevertheless, it is a term I will use for the rest of this article to denote my views for clarity's sake. I am definitely NOT Arminian. This is the crux of my response, as some would call me Arminian, because I believe in general atonement, yet others decry me as a Calvinist, because I believe in perseverance of the saints or eternal security. Terms are tricky and the meaning at times, depends on who is defining them.

   Let's get started. In the 19th century, all Christians were classified as either Calvinist or Arminian. These were the only options "allowed". A Calvinist could've been anything from a 2 pointer to a 5 pointer. There are also "points" in the Arminian system. Some have said that Arminius himself was a "one point Calvinist", believing in total depravity. And, as Stephen has pointed out, Arminius was "Reformed", which on a side note, is why I make a distinction between being "Reformed" as opposed to being merely "Calvinist". Defining terms is important, especially when speaking historically. We must understand how writers of that day defined  terms, as opposed to how we define them today. Even now, the hardshells accuse anyone who believes in "means" of being Arminian. If a hardhshell, were writing about Baptist history, they would say "all those mission Baptists were Arminians" (most of which later became the Southern Baptist Convention). This is false. If I stopped writing at this point, some people would say "Kenny has said all those in the SBC were Calvinists", merely because I said they were NOT Arminians. This too would be false.  Nevertheless, IF the hardshell defines "Arminian" as one who preaches the gospel to ALL persons, then count me an Arminian!  IF the Free Will Baptists call me a Calvinist for believing that the power of God has caused me to be born again, and that once born, I cannot be "unborn", then count me as a Calvinist! But please don't count me as being any less of a Baptist.

   For a political example, Puerto Ricans today may be called "Americans" and this would be true. But they may also be called "Puerto Ricans" and this would also be true. Puerto Ricans pay no income tax IF they live in Puerto Rico. Once they move to the mainland, they must pay taxes. But if I move THERE, then I still have to pay the taxes, because I am not a Puerto Rican citizen. Puerto Rico has the right to sever all ties with the USA, but I do not as a Georgian. So they are "Conditional Americans" whereas I am a "Natural American". Then you have "Native Americans". When writing about the history of the USA, you must make a distinction between "American" and the other descriptive terms. Is Native American history  part of "American" history? Some would say "yes" but the Native Americans would say "no". While they are "American citizens" they don't consider themselves as Americans but citizens of their respective Sovereign Nations, with their own courts, police, laws etc. They cannot be charged even with murder by any state. They must be charged by their own tribe. The same is true when talking about Calvinism (or Arminianism for that matter). I might speak of myself as a "Conditional Calvinist", but I could also be called a "Conditional Arminian". I say this to prove a point, but I see myself as neither. But as a "Conditionalist" I may be included in one group or the other, depending on what angle the writer is coming from. This same concept comes up when I am debating a Campbellite. I affirm that "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved.." but I do NOT affirm that "whoever believes and is NOT baptized will be damned". If I failed to clarify the former by adding the latter, it is still true that I am affirming the former, but it is an incomplete and misleading picture.

   Now on to another view of Benedict's History.

Said Benedict:

"The Philadelphia Confession of Faith, published in that city, in 1742, was the standard of most of the oldest Baptist churches in this country, especially in the middle and southern States.

 As a Non Calvinist, I view this statement with caution. While it is true that it was the standard by MANY old Baptists, it was not of all, especially among the Separate Baptists. Almost all churches had their own Articles of Faith (henceforth AoF), and there'd be no need to do so if they simply subscribed to the Philadelphia Confession. The Separates were fiercely independent, and agreed to unite with the Regular Baptists with the condition, that the Holy Scriptures alone was their "creed". Nevertheless, many Separates said "We will unite with our Philadephia brethren, so long as their Confession does not conflict with Holy Scripture", then many of them simply ignored the Confession and adopted their own AoF. This is one reason why the union didn't last very long. Recently I have been lucky enough to have access to hundreds of AoF of the Separates kept in the archives of New Orleans Baptist Seminary. Associations who wished to join the SBC, sent their AoF to the convention to ensure they were "in good order and orthodox". To date, I have scoured thru 78 of them. 16 of them are decidedly Calvinist. 34 are clearly Non Calvinist. 28 are ambiguous, using terms that could be interpreted either way. As an example of known Non Calvinist Separates, read the 11th article of three Associations of Separate Baptists, the Central, Unity, and Nolynn, dealing with the atonement.

"11. We believe that Jesus Christ, by the grace of God, tasted death for every man, and

that all may partake of his Divine benefits through repentance toward God and faith in

the Lord Jesus Christ. Also, infants and those who have never developed the mental

ability to receive regeneration, are included in the covenant of God’s grace. John 3:15-

17; Acts 4:12 "

 

This clearly is not an article today's Calvinists could subscribe to. Notice it says "all may partake" and notice it does NOT say "elect infants" or "elect mentally disabled" as the London and Philadelphia Confessions state. In article 5 it says

"5. We believe that he who endures to the end the same shall be saved. Rev. 2:10; Matt 24:1

This is an article that is vague, but is calvinistic, but not strongly so. While it does describe perseverance, there is no language that says "none shall be lost"  etc. For someone who didn't know, it could be interpreted as Arminian. However, we know that they weren't because the  Central Association declared non fellowship of  an elder for and his church for teaching "it is possible for some to fall away", Stating that these three associations were Arminian or Calvinist, without digging into their history would be a false statement. For those who simply read these articles, it is very possible that they would conclude that these associations were totally Arminian, because even they believe the believer must "persevere" to "stay saved", but their emphasis is very different from how the these Separate brethren believed in perseverance.

Said Benedict:

"The old Baptists in New England, although, for the most part, they held with their brethren elsewhere the doctrines of Depravity, Election, Divine Sovereignty, Final Perseverance, etc., yet they were not in the habit of enforcing them so strongly as were those in New York, Philadelphia, and further South."

 

 This statement also has some issues. This is absolutely true when referring to Regular Baptists, but the Separates would never accept "enforcement" from anyone. Even a few of the Regulars were not as Calvinistic as some would make them out to be. The Ketocton Association of Regular Baptist Churches is one such example. Smith Creek Regular Baptist Church, est. 1756, is the oldest Regular church still in existence in Virginia. They applied for membership in the Philadelphia Association in 1762, but in 1765 they withdrew, along with other churches to form the Ketocton Regular Baptist Association. When they adopted their AoF, they dropped the "certain number" clause found in so many other AoF.. Article 4 of their AoF states "We believe that God, from the beginning or in eternity, chose His people in Christ unto salvation, through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ; all of which are set forth and affected through the Gospel." This is very similar to how it is phrased in the Eastern District Primitive Baptist articles. Stephen, in his second article about the Eastern District, saw that they were likely never Calvinists, at least in the predestinarian sense. But in His first article, he expressed much doubt, and said that they had indeed started out as Calvinists, but changed over time. I stressed to him that they had NEVER interpreted predestination as Calvinists do, and upon further research, he found that to be consistent with the association they split from. To his credit, he admitted such. I myself, although I'd word it differently, could subscribe to the 4th article of the Ketocton Association, the key phrase being "IN CHRIST" and "His people" rather than "certain number" of persons. I could also interpret "through sanctification" as a PROCESS decreed by God, rather than a decree of who will be saved. I cannot tell for certain how much the Ketocton Association has changed, but I can verify that now, none of their churches are Calvinist in the predestinarian sense, and are in complete agreement with my views about soteriology, and still subscribe to those AoF, as I have spoken at great length with some of their pastors. They identify as Independent, fundamental, but not KJV only, which in itself is rare, as most Independents do not belong to an association. So can anyone tell me "why" so many different strands of Baptists have "strayed" from Calvinism, if  Calvinism, as defined by today's definition, was "the" orthodox Baptist position? Not only SBCers, but the Old Regulars, the Ketocton Regulars, the Uniteds, the Independents, the Separates that remained aloof from the SBC, and the Seventh Day Baptists have ALL "strayed", and yet they have had little to no contact with each other for the last 150 years. If Calvinism (defined in today's terms) was the main standard of Baptists, why have none of these groups remained faithful to it? It seems there are only two choices. Either they defined Calvinism in different terms back then, or ALL of these groups, after biblical study, have concluded that Calvinism, is not the best example of the way the gospel is to be understood. Either way, the strict Calvinist will not be happy.

Said Stephen:

Though some want to affirm that the Separate Baptists were not Calvinists, this is not true. Certainly Backus was either a five pointer or a four and a half pointer. It is true that the Separate Baptists  were generally "Calvinists of a still milder type." What Benedict means by this is not known.

 

 I do affirm that the majority of Separate Baptists were not Calvinists by TODAY'S definition of the term. When Stephen says "What Benedict means by this is not known" it speaks volumes. I believe Benedict throws them in the Calvinist category, because they held to total depravity and perseverance or eternal security. Any writer of the 19th century would have definitely EXCLUDED the Separates from Arminianism. Again, how one defines the term is important. They could have (and most definitely were) at least "2 or 3 point Calvinists", but by today's standards, they would be considered Non Calvinists, with most, but definitely not all, interpreting predestination differently than 5 point Calvinists. My personal opinion is that they abandoned certain points of TULIP because many (but not all) came from the Congregational churches, which relied so heavily on Calvinism, at least in the Reformed sense, that they frowned upon revivalism, invitations, or the need to call sinners to faith in Christ. If the Separates were overwhelmingly Calvinist, why is there not one single association of them that still exists with that sentiment? There are at least 38 Separate Baptist Associations still in existence that I know of, and none could be called "Calvinist" by today's definition of the word. Yet there remains Primitive Baptists of both stripes.

In an article dealing with Calvinism on the site "Desiring God" which is a Calvinist site, Thomas Kidd says the Separates were "likely"  Calvinists. However "likely" doesn't belong in an article where the writer is a supposed expert. He never gives any facts to support "likely". He also says that out of 1032 churches, 956 were Calvinist according to a "survey" done in 1793. I know the survey he speaks of, but why doesn't he name it? And even if he did, what does that prove except that most Baptists did not want to be placed in the Arminian category? I could do the same today. In fact, in a survey done in the 90's of SBC churches, two different surveys were done. One asked the question "Do you consider your church to be Calvinist?" Guess what the answer was? 90% said "yes". Are you going to tell me that 90% of SBC churches are Calvinist by today's standard? That is impossible, but 25 years ago "Calvinist" was considered as "not Arminian". When another survey was done by Lifeway, it asked "Do you believe God has chosen some to be saved, to the exclusion of others?" Guess what that survey said? 88% said "no".Kidd also says "An impression grew that the Primitive Baptists, always a smaller presence among Baptists in America, were the true defenders of Calvinism." I have already proved this false in my previous articles. There were MANY Primitives who would NOT defend Calvinism, and declared against it. Why does he leave you with the impression that all Primitives were Calvinists? That is simply not true. Either he wants to leave us with a false impression, or he is not as educated as he purports to be. Article 2 of the Hiwasee Primitive Baptist Association states "We believe in election according to the foreknowledge of God, the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit". This is almost the exact same wording as the Eastern District PB's. Again, we have the phrase Through sanctification of the spirit", which is interpreted by these groups as a "process". If one didn't know what to ask or look for, they might conclude that this was a Calvinist statement. But as Stephen as shown himself in his article on the Eastern District, they were very much not 5 pointers,. Neither were the Hiwassee PB's. Their origins lie in the Separate Baptist camp. In their Query Book, the Eastern Association was asked by Flat Rock Church in 1877,  "Can we fellowship the doctrine known as Calvinism, or is it heresy?" (page 11) The answer was "...fellowshipping the doctrine known as Calvinism, or limited atonement, or fatalism, which we believe to be heresy, should be rejected...we do not believe God created the mass for destruction or...that God left them in their helpless state without offered mercy. And we have no fellowship with that doctrine that God foreordained all things that come to pass, even as some claim that God has predestined all the wicked acts of men, and yet holds them guilty. This compared to the teachings of Christ is a grievous error not to be tolerated by the saints of God. We believe what God has predestined will come to pass." You cannot get all this simply by reading their AoF! To make a statement this strong about Calvinism in 1877 means that the feeling MUST have been there long before this time. Remember, the question was about "fellowshipping" Calvinism, so they must have always not believed it, else why would anyone ask whether or not to fellowship it? They would definitely NOT claim to be Calvinist, nor would they claim to be Arminian! However, a historian who simply saw their AoF, might declare them as "Calvinists" of some sort. Let's also remember, that Alexander Campbell took with him quite a few Baptists who held to general atonement, and most of them were members of Regular Baptist churches. Before this, it was a Regular Baptist Association that took his church into fellowship, even though they knew he did not subscribe to the Philadelphia Confession. A second church of his was received into yet another Regular Baptist association. So it could be argued that some Regulars were not as staunchly Calvinistic as they may have appeared according to their AoF, or at least not strictly requiring it.

 

 

Said Benedict:

"In my early day the Associated Baptists were all professedly Calvinistic in their doctrinal sentiments. The term, however, was not agreeable to many, as they did not subscribe to all the sentiments of John Calvin, but they submitted to it for distinction sake, and in contradistinction from those whose views were less orthodox on Predestination, etc. Beside the people of our order in the associations, the Freewill and Seventh Day Baptists were then coming into notice, and they, with but few exceptions among the Sabbatarians, were decidedly opposed to some of the distinguishing doctrines of the Calvinistic creed.

Enough said! I totally agree. " but they submitted to it for distinction sake",  This I believe further proves my point, that terms were used not necessarily to show complete agreement with one side, but to distance themselves from the other.

Stephen said:

Not much to comment here except to say that those Baptists today who decry predestination are condemning their own Baptist leaders of previous times. Most Southern Baptists today are more in agreement with the Methodists on soteriology than with their forefathers.

 

I do not agree with this statement. Yes many  Baptists (not just SBCers) do decry Calvinism. But many do so because many Calvinists have not made it a point to distance THEMSELVES from Reformed theology. Also, what forefathers? Why do you compare Non Calvinist Baptists to Methodists, when you could just as easily compare them to the Free Will Baptists or the earliest Baptists who were Arminian like Thomas Helwys and the General Baptists? Are these not also our Baptist forefathers? What about the first seven Baptist Confessions that predate the Second London Baptist Confession by up to 78 years? Though I deny that Non Calvinist views can be rightly compared to an Arminian view, there are plenty of examples within the Baptist family to use, rather than the Methodists. I am not angry, and I know what Stephen means, but that is exactly my point. Others reading these articles may not know what he means, especially those who are not Baptist. So we must keep definitions and examples in mind when writing about history. If we are going to compare when we debate, let's keep the comparisons within the Baptist family as much as possible. In this way, we can disagree, without seeming to say that one is more or less of a Baptist because his view is different from ours. Baptist liberty is at the very heart of who we are.

Said Benedict:

"I well remember, to me, at the time, a very striking instance of this kind. A minister of another class of Baptists, but who had rendered me essential service in my historical pursuits, amused a large company in a public house, in which we happened to be at the time, and which company, also, happened to be of his own way of thinking, by repeating, evidently for my special benefit, some doggerel verses, the chorus of which was, 

 

“Then fill up the glass, 

and count him an ass 

Who preaches up predestination.”

 

 Stephen made a response to this by saying these sentiments are true today, that many Baptists have a "bitterness of feeling" and an assailant attitude towards Calvinists. This is true I admit.. But again, until Baptists who are Calvinistic display more solidarity with their Baptist brothers than they do the Reformed and Presbyterians, then it is only going to continue. I am not saying it is right though. However, it happens quite often the other way around as well. Many Calvinists will make statements to Non  Calvinsts such as "You just don't understand the gospel". Some will even make fun that we offer an invitation. Why doesn't Benedict also offer an example of the other way around such as Elder Elijah Hanks, and how his Calvinist brethren ridiculed him and railed him as an Arminian, told their churches to not hear him preach, even tho in 1815 the Cumberland Association had made a declaration that "the preaching that Christ tasted death for every man shall be no bar to communion"? How deep the pain Elder Hanks must have felt when he said "I was shunned and avoided by them all, as if to touch me would contaminate or sully their purity". That same sentiment still exists in the Calvinist camp. Counter views are very important if you want to teach true history.

Said Benedict:

"But for many years past the asperity of feeling above described has been a good deal mollified, so that the differing men can meet together without taunting each other with their offensive creeds. On this subject I lately remarked to a Freewill Baptist minister, “Your side has been coming up, and ours has been going down, till the chasm between the two parties is by no means so great as formerly.

 I for one have no issue that this happened, and we should rejoice that the ill feeling had been "mollified". We need each other to temper our views, challenge our thoughts and sharpen our swords. I have never been frowned upon or ridiculed by my Free Will Baptist brethren, and they have no issue inviting me into their pulpits, even though they jokingly call me a "Calviminian" and I jokingly call them "Free for alls, willing to trip but please don't fall". That has not always been the case with my Calvinist brethren, especially those that call themselves "Reformed Baptists".

Said Benedict:

"The Fuller system, which makes it consistent for all the heralds of the gospel to call upon men everywhere to repent, was well received by one class of our ministers, but not by the staunch defenders of the old theory of a limited atonement. According to their views, all for whom Christ suffered and died would certainly be effectually called and saved. These conflicting opinions caused altercations of considerable severity for a time, among the Baptists, who had hitherto been all united on the orthodox side.

 

 This I totally deny. Is Benedict saying there were NO General Atonement Baptists? Is he saying ALL those who may have been counted on the Calvinist side were 5 pointers? Is he saying that the "Fuller system" was NOT orthodox? If that is the case, Stephen is not orthodox, for he himself has declared "I may be a semi Calvinist or Semi Arminian DEPENDING ON HOW ONE DEFINES THE TERMS". Stephen is not the first Baptist to examine his stand. I applaud him for this. Yet some of the Calvinist brethren would say he is not "orthodox". At times Benedict writes as though Calvinism was the only standard among Baptists. This is not true at any time during our history. Also, if we are going to judge what truth is by which side has the most in numbers, then we must concede that the Catholic Church is the most true, as even now, they are three times more in number than all Protestants combined. If there were only one General Atonement Baptist church during the 50 years Benedict speaks of, they are still part of Baptist history. Stephen has also stated that he "may be a 3 pointer". He firmly believes that faith precedes regeneration which is anathema to many Calvinists, especially among the so called "Reformed Baptists. They would say Stephen is requiring a "condition" for salvation. Yet he and I are agreed on this point. I hope Bro. Stephen is proud to be "lumped in" with my side on this issue, as I am proud to be "lumped in" his side on other issues. Benedict said "John Leland, although a Calvinist, was not one of the straitest class. Two grains of Arminianism, with three of Calvinism, he thought, would make a tolerably good compound." This "compound" of Arminian and Calvinist thought, was rampant among the Separates. It is a "compound" I am glad to serve up. But notice how Benedict STILL puts Leland in the Calvinist tribe.

Said Benedict:

"...the old-fashioned doctrines of Predestination, Total Depravity, Divine Sovereignty, etc., if referred to at all, must be by way of circumlocution and implication."

 

 "Old fashioned" according to who? Stephen has defined total depravity differently than other Calvinists do today. He has said that too many Calvinists make man out to be mere robots. I suspect that Stephen has many Baptist forefathers who would agree with his "unorthodox" view. Stephen also believes faith precedes regeneration. I know for a fact that many old Baptists also believed in faith before regeneration, as both the London and Philadelphia Confessions teach. Yet today, many, if not most Calvinists deny that fact. Benedict speaks as though Baptists of my stripe don't believe in predestination at all, and that the Calvinist alone believes in it. That too is false. Do I interpret it differently than they? Absolutely. But for a Calvinist to declare that those in my camp "deny predestination" is false.

 

In closing, I thank Stephen for allowing me to speak freely. He doesn't have to do that. He is gracious.  He may try to "roast me" in a follow up article, or in comments to this one. If he does, I hope he doesn't burn me and only roasts me until I medium rare, as that is how I prefer to be served up. As I said in the beginning, he sees the robe as "red" while I see it as "purple" but we both (I hope) see it as GORGEOUS!

 

 

 

 

 

Have I Become Your Enemy, My PB Brothers?

"Have I therefore become your enemy because I tell you the truth?" (Gal. 4: 16)

Have I become your enemy my Hardshell brothers because I tell you the truth? If I did not care about you I would not be spending so much time trying to lead you back to the place where you departed from the biblical and Baptistic faith. I do it because it is my duty and calling, and I do it out of love and concern for your souls.

David Benedict's History (ii)

David Benedict 

1779-1874

In this second posting we will finish looking at what historian David Benedict said in his book "Fifty Years Among The Baptists."

Said Benedict:

"The Philadelphia Confession of Faith, published in that city, in 1742, was the standard of most of the oldest Baptist churches in this country, especially in the middle and southern States. This Confession was copied mostly from one published by the Baptists in London, in 1689, and this again agreed in its doctrinal sentiments with the Westminster Confession."

Observations

In disagreement with some Southern Baptists who want to deny their Calvinistic roots this citation becomes important. Of course, as I have also written about over the years, the Hardshells, as they evolved, began to distance themselves from the London and Philadelphia confessions, just like the Southern Baptists. That is because they began to take issue with the confessions remarks on predestination (decrees of God) and means, and on effectual calling.

The fact that all the original pre 1832 PB churches adopted the Philadelphia confession proves that they believed in means in regeneration for that is the view of that confession and its authors.

Said Benedict:

"The old Baptists in New England, although, for the most part, they held with their brethren elsewhere the doctrines of Depravity, Election, Divine Sovereignty, Final Perseverance, etc., yet they were not in the habit of enforcing them so strongly as were those in New York, Philadelphia, and further South."

Observations

I believe that many Baptists in the 18th century, before and during the time of Andrew Fuller, lost their focus and allowed themselves to be sidetracked by an overemphasis upon the five points of Calvinism. We might add also the fact that all Calvinists during that time, and even the Hyper Calvinists, never denied what was taught in the London and Philadelphia confessions, and in the writings of John Gill, that the preaching of the gospel was God's ordained means of calling his elect to salvation. They would preach in the ears of lost people and tell them that all are lost who do not believe in Christ without any pleading or direct urging done with the lost. They believed that the preaching was a means apart from any special pleading.

Said Benedict:

"That class of Baptists which arose out of the Newlight stir in New England, which, as I have before stated, sent colonies into all the southern States, and in the second generation, over the mountains into the West, were Calvinists of a still milder type. Indeed, their orthodoxy was often called in question by the old school party in Virginia, the Carolinas and Kentucky. These zealous reformers, in their public performances dwelt mostly on the subjects of Christian experience and practical religion, while the strait Calvinists labored much to explain and defend the strong points of their system."

Observations

It was the "Newlight stir" that produced Shubal Stearns, Isaac Backus, and Daniel Marshall, founding leaders of those who came to be known as "Separate" Baptists. Though some want to affirm that the Separate Baptists were not Calvinists, this is not true. Certainly Backus was either a five pointer or a four and a half pointer. It is true that the Separate Baptists  were generally "Calvinists of a still milder type." What Benedict means by this is not known. It is perhaps in the fact that they did not dwell on the five points so much in their preaching, and were in the habit of exhorting the lost and being evangelistic. It could also mean that they believed like Andrew Fuller.

Said Benedict:

"The kind of preaching now much in vogue, at the period and among the people here had in view, would have been considered the quintessence of Arminianism, mere milk and water, instead of the strong meat of the gospel. Then, and with our orthodox Baptists, a sermon would have been accounted altogether defective which did not touch upon Election, Total Depravity, Final Perseverance, etc."

Observations

Though this is true, it does not mean that the Baptists at the end of the 18th century were deniers of means in regeneration or accepted the basic tenets of Hardshellism. Further, the manner of preaching to the lost at that time was not like the preaching of those who wrote the 1689 London confession, or of men like John Bunyan of the same time period. During the time of Gill and Brine, and Hussey, this kind of preaching became almost extinct until it was revived by Andrew Fuller and company. Fuller responded to those who accused him of bringing in new ideas and methods by saying that it was not new. He was right. He simply brought Baptists back to their 17th century roots.

Said Benedict:

"In my early day the Associated Baptists were all professedly Calvinistic in their doctrinal sentiments. The term, however, was not agreeable to many, as they did not subscribe to all the sentiments of John Calvin, but they submitted to it for distinction sake, and in contradistinction from those whose views were less orthodox on Predestination, etc. Beside the people of our order in the associations, the Freewill and Seventh Day Baptists were then coming into notice, and they, with but few exceptions among the Sabbatarians, were decidedly opposed to some of the distinguishing doctrines of the Calvinistic creed. The Methodists, too, who often came in contact with the Baptists, and with whom I frequently associated in my early travels, were extremely severe in their feelings and comments on the orthodox faith, so far as Election, etc., were concerned. Some of their circuit riders of that age conducted as if they considered themselves predestinated to preach against Predestination. And some of our illiterate elders were about a match for them against the Wesleyan creed. And the cry of fatalism on the one hand, and of salvation by works on the other, was continually sounded by the parties."

Observations

Not much to comment here except to say that those Baptists today who decry predestination are condemning their own Baptist leaders of previous times. Most Southern Baptists today are more in agreement with the Methodists on soteriology than with their forefathers.

Said Benedict:

"I was often not a little surprised at the bitterness of feeling which, in many cases, was displayed by the anti-Calvinists against the doctrine of Election, and of their readiness, in season and out of season, to assail it by reason and ridicule. Many could hardly be civil towards their opponents, who were silent all the while."

Observations

Well, that is still true today with many Baptists! 

Said Benedict:

"I well remember, to me, at the time, a very striking instance of this kind. A minister of another class of Baptists, but who had rendered me essential service in my historical pursuits, amused a large company in a public house, in which we happened to be at the time, and which company, also, happened to be of his own way of thinking, by repeating, evidently for my special benefit, some doggerel verses, the chorus of which was, 

 

“Then fill up the glass, 

and count him an ass 

Who preaches up predestination.”

Observations

There have always been various classes of Baptists! However, the fact is as Benedict affirms. Most Baptists who were not Free Will, Seventh Day, or General Baptists, at the start of the 19th century, were strongly Calvinistic, full five pointers or four and a half pointers as Fuller.

Said Benedict:

"But for many years past the asperity of feeling above described has been a good deal mollified, so that the differing men can meet together without taunting each other with their offensive creeds. On this subject I lately remarked to a Freewill Baptist minister, “Your side has been coming up, and ours has been going down, till the chasm between the two parties is by no means so great as formerly.”

Observations

Again, not much to comment upon with this statement. But, it is true that strong Calvinistic sentiment began to lesson as the 19th century moved forward.

Said Benedict:

"On the introduction of the Fuller system a very important change followed on the part of many of our ministers in their mode of addressing their unconverted hearers on the subjects of repentance and believing the gospel. Hitherto they would use circumlocution in their discourses on these matters, instead of direct appeals and exhortations to those whose conversion they desired. They would describe the lost condition of sinners and point out the duty of all men to repent and believe the gospel; but beyond this, their views of consistency with the doctrine which ascribes the whole work of salvation to God alone, would not permit them to go. As a general thing, the discourses of that age were very dull and monotonous, and were greatly deficient in the pathos and fervor of that class of evangelical preachers who were not trammeled by such rigid rules in their theological creed. Church members then received much more attention from our public speakers, than those who stood without its pale. At times men of more than ordinary zeal would overleap the bounds of their restricted rules, but with studied caution in their use of terms; and I well remember with what ingenuity and dexterity this class of preachers would so manage their addresses to their unconverted hearers, as to discourse to them much in the style of reputed Arminians, and yet retain the substance of the stereotyped phraseology of their orthodox creed."

Observations

This was certainly the case with Calvinist John Leland. Said Benedict about him:

"John Leland, although a Calvinist, was not one of the straitest class. Two grains of Arminianism, with three of Calvinism, he thought, would make a tolerably good compound."

Said Benedict:

"The Fuller system, which makes it consistent for all the heralds of the gospel to call upon men everywhere to repent, was well received by one class of our ministers, but not by the staunch defenders of the old theory of a limited atonement. According to their views, all for whom Christ suffered and died would certainly be effectually called and saved. These conflicting opinions caused altercations of considerable severity for a time, among the Baptists, who had hitherto been all united on the orthodox side. The Gillites maintained that the expositions of Fuller were unsound, and would subvert the genuine gospel faith. If, said they, the atonement of Christ is general in its nature it must be so in its effects, as none of his sufferings will be in vain; and the doctrine of universal salvation will inevitably follow this dangerous creed. While the dispute went on, it was somewhat difficult for the Fullerites to pass muster, on the score of orthodoxy, with the old school party, or be on terms of entire cordiality with them. But so greatly has the standard of orthodoxy been lowered, even among those who are reputed orthodox, from former times, and so little attention do most of our church members of the present day pay to the doctrines which are advanced by their ministers, that this whole story will probably be new to most of them, except of the older class."

Observations

Notice how "limited atonement" was "the old theory." Of course, this was not how things were in the 17th century with Baptists who believed in limited atonement but it became so in the 18th century thanks to men like Hussey, Gill, and Brine. Also, it was not true after Fuller restored such evangelical preaching for we see Charles Spurgeon, a believer in limited atonement, who preached fervently to the lost. 

Said Benedict:

"A few persons may now be found in most of our congregations, who are so well informed, and who pay so much attention to the preaching they hear, that they are able to detect any unsoundness in the doctrines advanced; but this is not so generally the case with the great mass of our members as it was in a former age. At present, the modes and manners, and the eloquence of their ministers, engage more of the attention of our people, than their doctrinal expositions; and most of all, they look for those attractions which are pleasing to young people, and which will collect large assemblies, and enable them to compete with their neighbors in numbers and style. With this end in view, nothing that will sound harsh or unpleasant to very sensitive ears must come from the preachers; the old-fashioned doctrines of Predestination, Total Depravity, Divine Sovereignty, etc., if referred to at all, must be by way of circumlocution and implication. “Ever since he was settled with us,” said one, “our minister has preached up election, and still never mentions it openly.”

Observations

Yes, the "Primitives" or "Old Schoolers" are much like the Hyper Calvinists of the start of the 19th century but they have gone way too far in their Hyperism for they have come to deny means in regeneration, to deny the necessity of faith and perseverance for salvation. Further, the Baptists at that time are not the best model to follow for they were infected with Hyper Calvinism. It would be better to imitate the Baptists of the 17th century who published the 1689 London Confession.