Thursday, July 21, 2022

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.

No comments:

Post a Comment