Elder Sylvester Hassell on Means (6)

In this chapter we will continue our critique of Elder Sylvester Hassell's defence of the "no means" view of salvation. In the previous chapter we began examining Hassell's editorial titled "NO HUMAN INSTRUMENTALITY IN REGENERATION" in Hassell's paper "The Gospel Messenger" (No. 10 for January, 1898; You can read it on page 12  here). But, before doing that I wish to call attention to the above text from Romans 1: 16 that clearly refutes the "Primitive Baptist" idea that sinners are saved apart from faith and apart from the means of the word of God. 

Hassell believed, like all Hardshell Primitive Baptists, that the salvation of the text is not eternal salvation, or regeneration, but is rather a "time salvation" which is not necessary to be saved in heaven. If Hassell were here today I would challenge him to cite one Baptist, prior to the "rise of the Hardshells," who taught that the salvation of this text (Rom. 1:16) was not eternal salvation. John Gill believed that the gospel was the power of God unto eternal salvation. If one reads the issues of "The Primitive Baptist" periodical from the 1830s through the 1850s (you can read them at this web site here) you will see that those who wrote for that periodical believed that the gospel was a means in saving sinners from sin and death and often cited Romans 1: 16 as a text in support of it. 

They also often cited II Thessalonians 2: 13-14, where the apostle Paul says that the salvation to which people were chosen to obtain, from the beginning, was "through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth," and did so to support the means view. See my recent post on that text (here).

Hardshell Baptists use several tactics in trying to harmonize Romans 1:16 with their anti-means view. That the text prima facie overthrows their anti-means view is evident to all. If the salvation of the text is eternal salvation, and includes regeneration or rebirth, then clearly the apostle Paul is affirming that the gospel, whether read or heard orally, is God's ordained means of salvation. Many Hardshells will argue that the salvation of the text is not eternal salvation, but a "time salvation" or "gospel salvation" which is not necessary for eternal salvation. However, that is clearly against the context.

Paul does not talk about an optional "time salvation" in the book of Romans. The whole letter is talking about eternal salvation. The first several chapters are talking about man's lost depraved condition and need of salvation from it. Chapter four begins with an introduction into the doctrines of justification and imputation, which are connected with eternal salvation, and he continues to talk about eternal salvation in chapters five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, and eleven.

Other Hardshells will argue that the salvation of Romans 1: 16 is to "everyone who believes" and will argue that by "everyone who believes" means "everyone who was previously regenerated" before the gospel was preached. That being the case, the salvation was a salvation that came after a prior salvation or regeneration. But, this interpretation creates several difficulties for them. 

First, the text means the gospel is the power of God unto salvation to everyone who believes the gospel when they hear it preached. People are not believers before they hear the gospel. If they are "believers" before they hear the gospel, it cannot be because they are believers in the gospel. Men like Cayce and Hassell might say that they were believers because Christ had previously preached the gospel to the Romans in regeneration. But, if this is so, then Paul would not be the one who first preached it to them. 

Some will say that people are "believers" before becoming believers in the gospel or word of God, by their idea of "regeneration," and contend that the belief is in some kind of deity or deities, which would take in nearly all religionists. In the previous chapters I cited C.H. Cayce who said that the Athenian idolaters to whom Paul preached (Acts chapter seventeen) were children of God, born of God, because they worshiped false gods and "the unknown god" and yet who did not believe in the one God of Abraham nor in salvation through Christ. I also cited elder John Daily who said in his debate with W.P. Throgmorton - "Men in heathendom are regenerated by the Spirit of God without the Gospel" (Daily-Throgmorton Debate, p. 273).

I have also cited from Elder R.V. Sarrels and his "Systematic Theology" where he defended this view that heathens are "believers" and "regenerated" but still worship false gods and know or believe nothing about Jesus Christ. For instance Sarrels wrote:

"...in perhaps the vast majority of cases the elements of conversion–repentance, faith, and justification–may be present only embryonically..." (Systematic Theology, page 369)

"The more advanced intellectual Christian concepts about all of these progressive steps which unfold in the believer's experience do not prove that these do not exist embryonically in the obscure, yet spiritual, exercise of the quickened soul in heathen lands. The child of God, be he heathen or cultured, may not understand all that is woven around his life in God, yet in germ all is there. (See Rom:2:14)

"We have the mind of Christ," says Paul (I Cor. 2:16)...However embryonic this mind of Christ may be in one's conscious life, even among civilized people, or however indistinct and distorted this may be in saved people who have no knowledge of Christ in the gospel sense, the mind of Christ is there; as something absolutely native to the new creation, it is there in every person on earth. Paul did not preach ANOTHER God to the men of Athens who had gathered on Mars' Hill; he preached to them the very God WHOM THEY IGNORANTLY WORSHIPPED." (pg. 423)

"Not only does this view limit salvation to areas where the gospel is preached; it actually limits salvation to those who believe the gospel and obey it. The Moslems, the Buddhists, the Brahmans, and all other non-Christian adherents, even in gospel lands, are according to the strict sense of this view doomed. Not only this--strictly interpreted and applied, this view would exclude Jews and Unitarians, and, by some, even Catholics, who do not believe what is preached as some religious groups would present the matter. These are hard facts which need to be placed before the world. For reasons which are but briefly alluded to in some parts of the work, but developed more fully in other parts, we hold that God, despite the teachings of man, saves his chosen people all over the world." (page 434) (See these posts of mine for more citations from Sarrels on this point --- here and here)

You ask any Hardshell Baptist today if a person has to believe in the God of the Bible or in Christ the Son of God to be saved and they will say "no."

Consider also that in chapter ten Paul asks rhetorically - "how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher?" He then concludes by saying "so then faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God." (vs. 10-17) In I Corinthians 3: 5 Paul says that he and Apollos were "ministers by whom you believed." 

Hassell could not cite one Baptist prior to the "rise of the Hardshells" (a term used by Dr. B.H. Carroll Jr. in his work "The Genesis of American Anti-Missionism" in 1902) who denied that Romans 1: 16 was talking about eternal salvation and that the gospel was a means thereto. Surely Hassell also knew that Elder Mark Bennett, editor of "The Primitive Baptist," published the Kehukee Association articles of faith in said periodical in 1838. Here are some of those articles with Bennett's introductory remarks:

“An abstract of the principles then agreed to, and the substance of which afterwards was published in print, by order of the Association at Whitfield’s meeting house, Pitt county, North Carolina, 1779, is as follows:

2. We believe that Almighty God has made known his mind and will to the children of men in his word; which word we believe to be of divine authority, and contains all things necessary to be known for the salvation of men and women. The same is comprehended or contained in the books of the Old and New Testament, as are commonly received.

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

Those articles show that the Kehukee brethren believed in means and believed that the written word of God was a means to impart that knowledge that is necessary for salvation and that people who hear the gospel must answer the gospel call and receive the offers of mercy therein to be saved.

Elder Joshua Lawrence was a leader in the Kehukee Association and the person who brought about the creation of "The Primitive Baptist" periodical and who chose Elder Mark Bennett to be its editor, and who wrote many articles for it. In the March 11th, 1837 issue of that paper (you can read it here) Lawrence wrote (emphasis mine):

"4th. That of an effectual calling of the elect from darkness to light, and from the power of sin and satan unto God, to be a partaker of eternal salvation, is also an apostolic doctrine. First, the foreknown and the predestinated to a conformity to his Son, are also predestinated to be called. Romans 8:30. And here are two verses that show who are called, and the design of calling. Romans 9:23: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory. Verse 24: Even us whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles. And also who he calls, the vessels of his mercy, afore prepared unto glory. And here you see the design of God is, to make known the riches of his glory on these vessels of mercy. I Cor. 7:17: As the Lord hath called every one, so let him walk. It is a calling of God's grace. Gal. 1:15: It pleased God, who called me by his grace. I Thess. 2:12: Who called you to his kingdom and glory. 4:7: For God hath not called us to uncleanness. 2 Thess. 2:14: Whereunto God called you by his gospel. I Peter 5: 10: The God of all grace who hath called us. Now all these texts prove that the calling of a sinner is the act of God by his grace, and Romans 11:19 prove that the gifts and callings of God are without repentance. Philippians 3:14: For the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus. 2 Timothy 1:0: An holy calling. Heb. The heavenly calling. I need not multiply texts further on this doctrine, for it would be almost to transcribe the scriptures, it is so full of proof that the elect shall be called of God."

Recall that Hassell said that "effectual calling" was not "regeneration" but denoted "conversion" which followed regeneration in many, but not all, cases. That, of course, is not what the authors of the 1689 London Baptist Confession believed, as I have shown. It is also not what Lawrence and the supporters of the "Primitive Baptist" periodical believed. That is quite evident from the citation above. If one reads that periodical in the decades leading up to the Civil War he will see that this periodical supported the means doctrine. This paper was supported by Elders John M. Watson, John Clark, James Osbourn, C.B. Hassell, and even Wilson and Grigg Thompson. 

Surely Hassell knew all this and yet he said, as we noted in chapter three of this series, in answer to the question -- "Have Baptists always denied the use of means in regeneration?" gave this answer: "In careless expressions some Baptists have advanced this error, but the same men, when taking into consideration the entire teaching of the Scriptures on this point, have, in their more exact expressions, repudiated it." Was this true of his father, of James Osbourn, of John Watson, of John Clark, of Joshua Lawrence, etc.? Writing in the third volume of "The Primitive Baptist" periodical (1838), Lawrence wrote (emphasis mine):

"The first parable showeth the effect of the gospel preached by the Son of man with its effect on different persons, compared to the way side, stony ground, thorn, and good ground hearers; which showeth that three-fourths of his gospel preaching is lost, as only the good ground hearers bro't fruit. And this is true under the preaching of all his ministers, as well as his. So then the field in the first parable is the world, in which the gospel or word is preached; the field, in the second parable, is the world, in which the effects of the preaching of that gospel on good ground hearers produces the children of his kingdom. Hence it is said, born not of flesh, blood, or will of men; but of the word of God, that liveth and abideth forever. And again: I have begotten you through the gospel, etc...Well then, this is the true meaning of the kingdom of heaven in this text: the church of Christ in the field of this world, or Christians by the agency of the Spirit of God and gospel preaching sowed among mankind..." (pg. 306)

So, clearly Lawrence believed in means as did C.B. Hassell who supported Lawrence and the "Primitive Baptist" periodical. Lawrence says the "effects of the preaching of that gospel" was to "produce children of his kingdom" and says that they were "born of God," or "of the word of God," being "begotten through the gospel." 

It is no wonder that Hassell never had any public debates, unlike his contemporaries, such as Lemuel Potter, C.H. Cayce, and John R. Daily, to name a few. No wonder that today's "Primitive Baptists" don't want to debate me on "who are the real primitive Baptists" or on the "means question." They know that I would show them that their no-means view was not the predominant view of their founding fathers nor of the 1689 London Baptist Confession. It was easy for Sylvester to give false narratives about the views of his forbears and to give perverted interpretations of scripture as it relates to the means question since he was preaching to the choir. 

Lawrence also wrote:

"Although Christians are sons and daughters of God, yet they are not begotten of a woman; but through the gospel by the same Spirit that begot the body of Christ by Mary; therefore he is not ashamed to call them brethren." (pg. 310)

So, twice we have seen where Lawrence said that sinners were "begotten through the gospel." That was the original position of most of the first generation of "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptists and is a fact that Hassell hid from the body of the "Old Schoolers." This blog is also filled with citations from Elder John M. Watson's "Old Baptist Test" that show Watson believed in means. Here are some examples of what Watson wrote in that work:

"Means admit of a similar exposition. The Lord has gone out before us also in them. He not only gave us His Gospel, but ordained means by which it would become savingly efficacious to all His chosen. Isa. 55: 11...So we may say of Gospel means, without the power of God they never prevail over the hearts of sinners; but means in His power, whether great or small, in our estimation, are always efficacious. He derives no strength or advantage from them as adjuncts to His work. He employs them because it is His will to do so. Eph. 1: 11." (page 357)

"Paul, however, does not affirm, like some of our modern innovators, that means or instrumentalities are not employed by the Lord in the divine plan of salvation; for he asks: "How shall they hear without a preacher?" Rom. 10: 14." (pg. 399)

"The Antinomian will not regard any thing in the light of means, and in his doctrine will not allow even the Lord to employ them, says that the Lord is not dependent on means, and can do all His work without them. Now, the truth is, had it been the will or the way of the Lord, He could have breathed upon the dry bones as well without the prophesying of the prophet as with it, and could have given repentance to John's converts, or to Paul's, without their preaching; but their preaching to such, even to those dead in trespasses and sins, had been included in the divine plan, and it needs must be done, let it be termed means, the will or way of the Lord, as you please." (pages 327-28) 

Notice what Elder Hassell wrote about Watson (emphasis mine).

"Nearly thirty years ago “the beloved physician,” Eld. John M. Watson, professor of obstetrics in the medical department of the University of Nashville, Tenn, wrote in the "Old Baptist Test,' these wise and warning words: "We have become too ultra in most things...Above all things, avoid those prevailing ultraisms which are now eating on the Old Baptist Church as doth a canker--dividing churches and Associations, and disturbing the order and peace of the Baptists generally. Rebuke the ultraist whenever you meet with him--reclaim or reject him--let him be regarded constantly as the worst enemy of the Baptists of the present day!"  ("Interpreting the Scriptures-The Spiritual Interpretation of Scripture" - The Gospel Messenger--April 1893)

Why did Hassell not tell his people that Watson believed in means? Why have the Hardshells since the days of Hassell not mentioned Watson? It is because they don't want their brethren to know that the means view was the original view of even the founders and first generation leaders of the anti-mission movement. 

Here is what Elder Gilbert Beebe said about Elder Watson in his paper "The Signs of the Times" and as published in "The Primitive Baptist" for September 28, 1839 (you can read it here on page 282):

"The "Correspondent." - The 2nd number of this paper published at Murfreesborough, Ten. and edited by our Brother John M. Watson, M.D., has just reached us. The first number we have not seen: by the number now before us we learn that the Correspondent is a continuance of "The Old Baptist Banner." Of the orthodoxy and the ability of Brother Watson, we have no doubt: some of his communications published in back numbers of the "Signs of the Times," will satisfy our readers that Brother W. is thorough going Old School Baptist, and we wish him great success in setting forth truth and opposing error in the "far west"."

("The Correspondent" Vol. II, No. 4, for August 1839, published out of Murfreesborough, Tenn. and being copied by Elder Watson from the periodical "Signs of the Times" edited by Elder Gilbert Beebe)

In both the "Old Baptist Banner" and "The Correspondent" we find endorsements and articles from such PB leaders as James Osbourn, Daniel Jewett, William Conrad, and other such men who were leaders in the anti-mission movement. I have many issues of these two periodicals of Elder Watson on a USB drive that I bought from the Southern Baptist Library in Nashville several years ago. 

Here is what Elder Lemuel Potter said of Watson (as cited by me here): "In the first place, I will state that Dr. Watson was an old Baptist. He was one of our brethren."

Sadly, however, Potter told a falsehood about the beliefs of Watson in his debates with Throgmorton. He said that Watson denied means and surely he knew better. The above citations from Watson show that he lied for I am sure he had read "The Old Baptist Test" and also was familiar with "The Baptist Watchman" periodical that was started after the death of Watson (1866) and edited by Elder (Dr.) R.W. Fain and Elder (Dr.) J.B. Stephens, both who also believed in means. I also have many copies of this periodical also on a USB drive and Potter sometimes wrote to the Watchman. 

I have proof that it was common for many of the Hardshells to lie about their history. I have plans to write an article showing this to be the case, putting together such proofs that I have given in previous articles.

Elder C.B. Hassell, who wrote the bulk of "Hassell's History," and the earlier chapters of that work, wrote the following in chapter nine, page 317 and which you can read online (here; emphasis mine):

"Just before His ascension He told His Apostles that they should, in a few days, be endued with the power of the Holy Ghost, and they should be witnesses unto Him both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth (Acts i. 5-8). He said, "All power is given unto Me in Heaven and in earth. Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you; and, lo, I am with you alway, unto the end of the world" (Matt, xxviii. 18-20). Or, as Mark gives the commission, "Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but He that believeth not shall be damned" (Mark xvi. 15, 16). Instead of preaching only to the Jews, as He had commanded them during His ministry (Matt. x. 5, 6), the Apostles, after the ascension of Christ, were to preach to any human being that they met in all the world; and they were to go forward in simple dependence upon Him who had all power in Heaven and earth, and who would always be with them; and they were everywhere to preach the gospel, that is, according to inspired authority, "the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth, whether Jew or Greek"--" Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumbling-block, and unto the Greeks foolishness; but unto them who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God" (Rom. i. 16; 1 Cor. i. 23, 24). 

Ezekiel, in the valley of very dry bones representing the whole house of Israel, simply prophesied, by Divine direction, the almighty power of God that was soon to be exerted in their behalf — how that God would open their graves, and cause them to come up out of their graves, and put sinews and flesh and skin upon them, and breath within them, and they should live, and know that the Lord had performed this mighty work (Ezek. xxxvii. 1-14); it was not the work of the bones or of the prophet or of any created arm, but exclusively the work of Almighty God, and all the living house of Israel know it. So the Apostles were commanded by Christ to preach, and did preach, not the power of dead sinners or of human appliances of any kind, but the power of a Divine and Almighty Savior to save every sin-laden soul— yea, even the amazing power of the voice of the Son of God to penetrate the soul of the spiritually dead."

I have read a lot of the writings of Elder Sylvester Hassell and I don't ever recall reading where he ever quoted or gave his view on Romans 1: 16. Yet, we see how his father did so in the above citation. He does not say as do the Hardshells of the late 19th century that the salvation of the text is a "time salvation" which he would do if he believed that the gospel was not a means in the eternal salvation of sinners. 

Further, the context of his remarks show that he believes that it is eternal salvation that Paul refers to. He even mentions the case of Ezekiel prophesying to the dry dead bones as a case where the preaching of the prophet was the means God used to exert his power in giving life to the dead bones. He mentions the gospel preaching by the apostles as the instrument to raise to life "dead sinners," the "spiritually dead," to "save every sin-laden soul" but says the power was God's operating through his ministers. He also equates the preaching of the gospel with the "voice of the Son of God," something that today's Hardshells do not do. 

Romans 1: 16 says that the gospel is "the power of God unto salvation." If it is the power of God, why then can it not be a means of raising the dead or regenerating a degenerate? The apostle Paul also in his first letter to the Thessalonians said "for our gospel came not unto you in word only but in power and in the Holy Spirit." (1: 5) If it comes in such a manner, why could it not save a soul from spiritual death? In the article by C.B. Hassell he even referred to this verse also.

These are not "careless expressions" about gospel means but "exact expressions." I find no place where the senior Hassell ever spoke differently. So, why did Sylvester not tell us that his father believed in means?

In the previous chapter we cited Hassell as saying that "effectual calling" was not the same experience as denoted by the experience of regeneration. He implied that this is what John Gill and the 1689 London Baptist Confession believed. However, that is false. We have already seen that Elder Lawrence did not think effectual calling was different from being quickened or regenerated or born again. Hassell would have supported his friend and senior Lawrence. In chapter ten of the old London confession it says:

"Those whom God hath predestinated unto life, He is pleased in His appointed, and accepted time, effectually to call,1 by His Word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death in which they are by nature, to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ." 

The scriptures the confession gives as proof of this statement are these: (1) Rom. 8:30, 11:7; Eph. 1:10–11; 2 Thess. 2:13–14.

In the same paragraph the old confession says: "effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ;5 yet so as they come most freely, being made willing by His grace."6 

So, what Lawrence believed about "effectual calling" is what Gill believed about it, and is what the 1689 London Baptist confession also taught. In paragraph four the confession said: "much less can men that do not receive the Christian religion be saved." This certainly is not what Hardshells believe. In paragraph one of chapter fifteen the confession said "effectual calling gives them repentance to life" and gives as the supporting text Titus 3:2–5 which speaks of "the washing of regeneration." So, in the minds of those who put forth the confession "effectual calling" was the same as "the washing of regeneration" and involved being given the gift of repentance and spiritual life. In paragraph one of chapter twenty the old confession said:

"The covenant of works being broken by sin, and made unprofitable unto life, God was pleased to give forth the promise of Christ, the seed of the woman, as the means of calling the elect, and begetting in them faith and repentance;1 in this promise the gospel, as to the substance of it, was revealed, and [is] therein effectual for the conversion and salvation of sinners.2"

By "the promise of Christ" they mean the protoevangelium or the word of God that promised a Redeemer and was the gospel in substance, a revealed revelation, and that word was "the means of calling the elect and begetting in them faith and repentance" and "effectual for the conversion and salvation of sinners." One has to ask -- are these "careless expressions some Baptists have advanced" in teaching gospel means? Where did these men ever "in their more exact expressions, repudiate" what they wrote on that question? 

The 1689 Confession also wrote in paragraph two of chapter twenty: 

"This promise of Christ, and salvation by him, is revealed only by the Word of God;3 neither do the works of creation or providence, with the light of nature, make discovery of Christ, or of grace by him, so much as in a general or obscure way;4 much less that men destitute of the revelation of Him by the promise or gospel, should be enabled thereby to attain saving faith or repentance.5" 

That paragraph says, in an "exact expression," that one must be a believer in the gospel in order to be saved. That is the real "primitive" Baptist teaching. In the next chapter we will continue our review of Sylvester Hassell's defence of the "no means" view.