Two Seed Baptist Ideology (LII)

Benjamin Keach (1640–1704) is the namesake of "Keach's Catechism" (also known as The Baptist Catechism), a 17th-century Particular Baptist catechism, though it was likely compiled by William Collins (d. 1702) following a 1693 General Assembly commission. Keach did write a separate, earlier catechism in the 1660s called Instructions for Children (or The Child's Instructor), for which he was pilloried. The catechism was officially authorized by the British Particular Baptists in 1693. "A very interesting "advertisement" was appended to the fifth edition of the Confession (1720)" said James M. Renihan (See here) which states: 

 

"This Confession of our Faith, together with the brief Instructions of the Principles of Christian Religion, or the Catechisms, both with the proofs in the margin, and also that with the words of the scriptures at length; with this Confession, put forth by the ministers, elders, and brethren of above one hundred congregations of Christians, baptized on profession of their faith in England and Wales, denying Arminiainism, owning the doctrine of personal election and final perseverance: having sold the property, right and title of the printing thereof, to John Marshall, bookseller, at the Bible in Gracechurch Street, by us, William Collins and Benjamin Keach, it is desired that all persons desirous to promote such useful books, do apply themselves to him".

If one reads this catechism he will see even more clearly what the signatories of the 1689 London Confession believed about salvation and will see that the footnotes that the "Primitive Baptist" ministers who attended the 1900 A.D. "Fulton Convention" attached to certain sections of the 1689 confession are indeed a gross perversion of what those 1689 English Baptists really believed. Keep in mind that the Philadelphia Confession of Faith (Baptist), ratified in 1742, was a copy of the 1689 with two additional articles added concerning the singing of psalms and the laying on of hands. 

In my article "From Keach's Catechism"* I wrote (See here):

"Benjamin Keach was a signer of the Second London Baptist Confession of 1689 and a leader of Particular Baptists in England and America. He was also a prolific writer and defender of the faith. He wrote "Keach's Catechism"* which was often attached to the London and Philadelphia Confessions, the confession that all the oldest Hardshell churches endorsed." 

*"Joseph Ivimey asserts "it is probable that the Baptist Catechism was complied by Mr. Collins, though it has by some means or other been called Keach's Catechism"."

I also wrote:

"The Hardshells who met in Fulton, Kentucky, in 1900, met to restate their continued acceptance and endorsement of the old London/Philadelphia confession. One wonders how they could do this since the confession clearly teaches that God saves his people through faith, through the preaching of the gospel."

I have numerous articles in "The Old Baptist Test" blog giving citations from the signers of the 1689 confession from their voluminous works which show what they believed and it is these beliefs that they wrote into the 1689 confession. I cite from men like John Spilsbury, William Kiffin, Hanserd Knollys, Hercules and William Collins, Benjamin Keach, and others. Surely many of the fifty one ministers at the Fulton convention knew this, and yet tried to convince their followers that they were Hardshell in beliefs. Now let me cite from Keach's catechism, which was attached to the old confession.

Q. 34. How does the Spirit apply to us the redemption purchased by Christ?

A. The Spirit applies to us the redemption purchased by Christ, by working faith in us, and thereby uniting us to Christ in our effectual calling.

(Eph. 2:8; 3:17)

Q. 35. What is effectual calling?

A. Effectual calling is the work of God's Spirit, whereby, convincing us of our sin and misery, enlightening our minds in the knowledge of Christ, and renewing our wills, He does persuade and enable us to embrace Jesus Christ, freely offered to us in the Gospel.

(2 Tim. 1:9; John 16:8-11; Acts 2:37; 26:18; Ezekiel 36:26; John 6:44,45; 1 Cor. 12:3)

Q. 92. What does God require of us, that we may escape His wrath and curse, due to us for sin?

A. To escape the wrath and curse of God due to us for sin, God requires of us faith in Jesus Christ, repentance unto life, with the diligent use of all the outward and ordinary means whereby Christ communicates to us the benefits of redemption.

Q. 93. What is faith in Jesus Christ?

A. Faith in Jesus Christ is a saving grace, whereby we receive and rest upon Him alone for salvation, as He is offered to us in the Gospel.

(Heb. 10:39; John 1:12; Phil. 3-9; Gal. 2:15,16)

Q. 96. How is the Word made effectual to salvation?

A. The Spirit of God makes the reading, but especially the preaching of the Word an effectual means of convincing and converting sinners, and of building them up in holiness and comfort, through faith unto salvation.

(Ps. 119:11,18; 1 Thess. 1:6; 1 Peter 2:1,2; Rom. 1:16; Ps. 19:7)

Q. 97. How is the Word to be read and heard that it may become effectual to salvation?

A. That the Word may become effectual to salvation we must attend thereunto with diligence, preparation and prayer, receive it in faith and love, lay it up in our hearts and practice it in our lives.

(Prov. 8:34; 1 Peter 2:1,2; 1 Tim. 4:13; Heb. 2:1,3; Heb. 4:2; 2 Thess. 2:10; Ps. 119:11; James 1:21,25)

Thus, the Fulton "footnotes" are lies, perversions of the words of the Old Baptists, and are unworthy of those who call themselves "Primitive Baptists."

What the Baptists who wrote and signed their names to the 1689 confession believed is the same belief they wrote in the above catechism. The fifty one elders at the Fulton assembly were saying that the ministers and churches that authorized the 1689 confession believed as they on predestination and salvation and yet many of them surely knew that this was not true. This was a deceitful act and by this they have no credibility.

The Baptist catechism of the Charleston association, which was organized in 1751, and put forth in 1813, says the same things about salvation as did Keach's catechism. Notice these questions and answers:

Q. How may we know there is a God? 

A. The light of nature in man and the works of God plainly declare there is a God (Rom. 1:19,20; Ps. 19:1, 2, 3; Acts 17:24); but his word and Spirit only do it fully and effectually for the salvation of sinners (1 Cor. 2:10; 2 Tim. 3:15,16). 

Q. What is the word of God? 

A. The holy scriptures of the Old and New Testament are the word of God, and the only certain rule of faith and obedience (2 Tim. 3:16; Eph. 2:20). 

Q. May all men make use of the holy scriptures? 

A. All men are not only permitted, but commanded and exhorted to read, hear, and understand the holy scriptures (John 5:38; Rev. 17:18, 19; 1:3; Acts 8:30).

Q. How are we made partakers of the redemption purchased by Christ? 

A. We are made partakers of the redemption purchased by Christ, by the effectual application of it to us (John 1:11,12) by his Holy Spirit (Titus 3:5,6). 

Q. How doth the spirit apply to us the redemption purchased by Christ? 

A. The Spirit applieth to us the redemption purchased by Christ, by working faith in us (Eph. 1:13, 14; John 6:37, 39; Eph. 2:8), and thereby uniting us to Christ, in our effectual calling (Eph. 3:17; 1 Cor. 1:9). 

Q. What is effectual calling? 

A. Effectual calling is the work of God's Spirit (2 Tim. 1:9; 2 Thess. 2:13, 14), whereby convincing us of our sin and misery (Acts 2:37), enlightening our minds in the knowledge of Christ (Acts 2:18), and renewing our wills (Ez. 36:26, 27), he doth persuade and enable us to embrace Jesus Christ freely offered to us in the gospel (John 6:44, 45; Phil. 2:13). 

Q. What is faith in Jesus Christ? 

A. Faith in Jesus Christ is a saving grace (Heb. 10:39), whereby we receive and rest upon him alone for salvation, as he is offered to us in the gospel (Jn. 1:12; Is. 26:3, 4; Ph. 3:9; Gal. 2:16). 

Q. What are the outward means whereby Christ communicateth to us the benefits of redemption? 

A. The outward and ordinary means whereby Christ communicateth to us the benefits of redemption are his ordinances, especially the word, baptism, the Lord's supper, and prayer; all which means are made effectual to the elect for salvation (Mt. 28:19, 20; Acts 2:42, 46, 47). 

Q. How is the word made effectual to salvation? 

A. The Spirit of God maketh the reading, but especially the preaching of the word, an effectual means of convincing and converting sinners, and of building them up in holiness and comfort through faith unto salvation (Neh. 8:8; Acts 26:18; Ps. 19:8; Acts 20:32; Rom. 1: 15, 16, 10: 13, 14, 15, 16, 17; 15:4; 1 Cor. 14:24, 25; 1 Tim. 3:15, 16, 17; ). 

Q. How is the word to be read and heard, that it may become effectual to salvation? 

A. That the word may become effectual to salvation, we must attend thereunto with diligence (Pr. 8:34), preparation (1 Pet. 2:1, 2), and prayer (Ps. 119:18); receive it with faith and love (Heb. 4:2; 2 Thes. 2:10), lay it up in our hearts (Ps. 119:18), and practice it in our lives (Luke 8:15; James 1:25).

This is the true "primitive" or "original" Baptist belief. The so-called Primitive Baptists who assembled in Fulton, Kentucky in 1900 are not, though they claim to be. They cannot find Baptists before the 19th century who believed as they do. They are therefore a new sect of Baptists. Since "Primitive Baptists" are Landmarkers they believe that for any church to be a true and legitimate church it must be a descendant of other legitimate churches in a chain of churches going back to the first churches established by the apostles. Since they cannot show such a succession through the English or American Particular, Regular, or Separate Baptists, they have tried, since the failure of the Fulton convention to find it through the English Particular Baptists who authored the 1689 confession, to find another succession. 

This is what Hardshell Michael N. Ivey attempted to do in his work titled "A Welsh Succession Of Primitive Baptist Faith And Practice." However, he miserably failed in this effort as I showed back in 2011 when I wrote a series of articles proving this, and showing how the Welsh Baptists of the 17th and 18th centuries in Wales did not believe as do the Hardshells, and that Ivey did to the old confessions and writings of the Welsh Particular Baptists what the Fulton Hardshells did to the 1689 confession. You can see these articles in the Old Baptist Test blog for the year 2011. The first in that series can be read (here). 

Now, let us look at the APPENDIX TO FULTON CONVENTION, which gives what a prior convention of "Primitive Baptist" ministers put forth just two months prior to the convention in Fulton. This appendix was attached to the Fulton convention's publishing of their remarks on the 1689 London confession. That appendix says (emphasis mine):

"We, the undersigned elders and brethren, pursuant to a request made by brethren of Patoka Association of Primitive Baptists, now convened at Oakland City Church, in Oakland City, Indiana, on the 27th day of September, 1900."

One wonders why the "Primitive Baptists" at the start of the twentieth century felt the need to come together and state their beliefs in relation to the 1689 confession and to what their forefathers believed. In the introduction to the Fulton confession the fifty one ministers speak of how the "Primitive Baptist Church" (which they call "Zion") is torn apart by numerous factions. By their convention they hoped to unite all these factions, but they did not succeed, for it is in the nature of the Hardshells to be schismatic.

In the appendix, the elders who first assembled in Indiana wrote (emphasis mine):

"We believe the Scriptures teach that there is a time salvation received by the heirs of God distinct from eternal salvation, which does depend upon their obedience. The people of God receive their rewards for obedience in this life only. We believe that the ability of the Christian is the unconditional gift of God."

There is no mention of this so-called "time salvation" in the 1689 confession nor in any other Baptist confession prior to its invention by the Hardshells. You do not see it in any of their church articles of faith in the early 19th century either. When the "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptists began to deny that God uses his written word and the message of the Gospel in the eternal salvation of sinners they were forced to explain how this denial could be true seeing there are so many texts in the Bible that clearly show otherwise. So, what they did was to invent this idea of a "time salvation," which said that it was a salvation that was conditioned upon faith, repentance, evangelical conversion, and perseverance in the faith, but that it was not necessary for eternal salvation. In one of my many articles on this novelty in bible interpretation (See here) I cited from two elders who stated what they mean by "time salvation." 

"When salvation refers to what God does for man without action on his part, and by the meritorious work of Christ, they know and realize that it refers to salvation in its highest order; preparing one to live with God in glory after death. When salvation is mentioned in connection with the acts of men; or man is to perform some action to bring about a better situation for himself, they know it is to be to the child of God (one freed from the guilt of sin), and refers to a timely deliverance, or something that is for man's benefit while he lives here in the world."

This new innovation in bible doctrine was invented in order to uphold their man-made thesis, one first given by the Two Seeders, which said "nothing a person does in life determines whether he goes to heaven or hell" and the one which said that "the gospel is only for the temporal benefit of those who are already children of God from eternity." 

 

Next the Indiana gathering wrote:

"Section 5, Chapter III.: “God hath chosen in Christ unto everlasting glory, out of His mere free grace and love, without any other thing in the creature as condition or cause moving Him thereto.” Although the two-seed doctrine was not thought of at the time this Confession was written, yet this article clearly condemns the two-seed doctrine in all its phases."

By "this confession" they mean the 1689 London Confession. Notice that they mention one of the tenets of Two Seedism dealing with the Calvinist doctrine of "unconditional election," which we in previous chapters (beginning with chapter 27) had much to say, especially when reviewing what Elder Grigg Thompson wrote about it in his 1860 work "The Measuring Rod." We have already seen where the Fulton convention of elders likewise mentioned Two Seed views in their footnotes to their version of the 1689 London confession. 

I find it interesting that these brethren who assembled in Oakland City, Indiana stated that "the two-seed doctrine was not thought of at the time" that the 1689 "confession was written" because the same thing could be said about their novel doctrine of "time salvation"! It is stunning that these brethren apparently failed to see this gross incongruity. 

Next the Indiana convocation said:

"...so we oppose the two-seed doctrine because it seeks to find some quality in man that stands as the cause of his election to glory, while Paul speaks of God’s people, “were by nature the children of wrath, even as others”.

The assembled elders in Oakland City and in Fulton may have opposed certain Two Seed tenets, such as the doctrine of eternal children, yet they still held to other Two Seed tenets, such as we have just named. Also, by their divorcing conversion from regeneration, and by their saying that nothing a person does determines whether he goes to heaven, they too believe in a "no change" view of regeneration. Those who followed the Fulton Convention's dictates would continue to move towards the "hollow log" view by affirming that becoming a regenerated or born again person does not make him that person a believer in the true God, nor in Jesus Christ, not in the Gospel, and does not guarantee that the one regenerated will persevere. 

Some who read this series on Two Seedism might wonder why we have written a few chapters on the Fulton Convention. It is because of several reasons. First, because in both the Oakland City and Fulton assemblies there is mention of Two Seed views. Second, because the footnotes attached to the 1689 confession show them advocating several of the leading tenets of Two Seedism. 

In the next chapter we will return to reviewing some additional things that Elder Potter wrote in his rebuttal of Two Seedism. Following that we will have a chapter on what Elder George Stipp wrote against Two Seedism. Following that we will observe what Elder C.H. Cayce and others have said on the subject. We will then have some closing thoughts on what we have previously written and bring to a close, for the time being, our writings on the history and heresies of Two Seedism.

 

Two Seed Baptist Ideology (LI)

The Fulton Convention

of

Primitive Baptists

1900 A.D.

Authors of the Fulton Confession

In this chapter we will continue to look at what the Fulton Convention of "Primitive Baptists" said about the 1689 London Baptist confession. We will begin by again citing from Bob L. Ross, from chapter four of his book "History and Heresies of Hardshellism." Brother Ross was a close friend of mine and I loaned him my Hardshell books before he wrote the above booklet. He paid for me to fly to Pasadena, Texas in 1993 to do a series of Videos on the Hardshells, which were done through Larry Wessels and they are available on YouTube. Brother Ross wrote the following (you can read his work here)

"Elder S. T. Tolley, a Primitive Baptist leading minister of Atwood, Tennessee has long been the Editor and Publisher of The Christian Baptist magazine, a periodical which obviously speaks the views of many Primitive Baptist churches and preachers. A few years ago, I had a cordial visit with Bro. Tolley at his address and briefly toured the "Christian Baptist Library" which houses quite a collection of books, minutes, and other historical materials. I was a subscriber to this magazine, and have a collection of Elder Tolley's publication going back many years."

I was also a close friend of Elder Tolley as was my father (who was a "Primitive Baptist" minister for over fifty years). I spent time visiting in his home more than once, in Atwood, Tennessee. Elder Tolley was a good and honest man, unlike the fifty one elders who attempted to pervert the 1689 London Confession of Faith in Fulton, Kentucky. My father was one of the leading ministers on the editorial staff of the "Christian Baptist." I also wrote articles for it.

Ross wrote further (emphasis mine):

"In one of them -- the June 1971 issue -- Elder Tolley headlines a front-page article entitled A Re-Statement of Our Faith Needed. One of the primary targets of the article is the London Confession of 1689. Here are a few excerpts from Bro. Tolley's remarks:

Although the "London Confession" does set forth much of what we believe -- it does not clearly set forth our full and proper views on several points of doctrine.

Although we do accept most of the London Confession of Faith, we certainly do NOT agree with ALL of it! And we would not agree with the wording on some of the points even though we would agree with the sentiments.

To show that the "London Confession" does not set forth the beliefs of Primitive Baptists in full I will here give some excerpts from it: [then follows quotes from chapters 2, 10, 14, and 15].

This quote [from chapter seven of the Confession] has overtones of "Arminianism" in it . . . If a Primitive Baptist preacher should set forth such a statement from his pulpit you would clearly see the clamor that it would justly provoke.

They [signatories of the London Confession] believed that the "elect" are ordinarily called to regeneration and salvation by the medium of the preached word. Primitive Baptists do NOT believe this. This [chapter 10] is NOT the concept that Primitive Baptists hold relative to "Effectual Calling."

Does this [chapter 14] sound like Primitive Baptists sentiment? It is not. We believe that there will be millions of the "elect" saved in heaven who have never, nor will they ever, hear the gospel of the Son of God. [Tolley's comment on chapter 15, paragraph 5 of the Confession].

There are several similar expressions in the "London Confession" that we do not agree with, and some statements that need to be more fully explained in order to show just what is intended."

I find it quite interesting how Elder Tolley can call certain articles of the 1689 confession "Arminianism" and yet find other Hardshell elders, such as we cited in the previous chapter, who call the confession a "Calvinist" "Missionary Baptist" document. Yet, the introduction to the 1689 Confession finds the authors saying that in publishing their confession that they were "denying Arminianism." 

Ross wrote further:

"In Elder Tolley's "Library News," in this same issue, he says:

I have for several years talked with many ministers and other interested individuals about this ["a statement (confession) of faith of the Primitive Baptists of our times"] and there has been much interest in this long needed work.

If any of our readers will read the "London Confession of Faith" (this is the confession of faith that Primitive Baptists are said to believe) you will clearly see the need for re-stating our beliefs -- as we hold today."

In Elder Tolley's January 1983 issue of The Christian Baptist, he is still "grinding an ax" about the London Confession. He refers to chapters 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, and 15, and says:

It would be hard to understand how any man could fully endorse all that is stated therein and remain in good standing and full fellowship with Primitive Baptists. No one could be well informed on the doctrine and beliefs of the Strict Baptists of England and not understand that they were and are, today, different from Primitive Baptists of America on several important points.

The men who drew up the London Confession of Faith held what we call "absolute" tendencies, and, although they believed in predestination and election, they also believed that the gospel was ordinarily God's ordained means to call the elect to regeneration . . . We have published several articles in THE CHRISTIAN BAPTIST pointing out these discrepancies."

Tolley, like others, was being honest in his interpretation of the 1689 confession. However, in being honest he indicts the fifty one ministers who dishonestly attempted to distort the confession by their footnotes. 

Ross wrote further:

"In the August 31, 1957 issue of The Baptist Examiner, I wrote a short editorial comment concerning the purpose of the Gospel as viewed by Arminians, Calvinists, and Hardshells. W. J. Berry, then Editor of the Old Faith Contender magazine in Elon College, North Carolina, quoted from the editorial and proposed the question to his readers, "Is this the 'Hardshell' Position?" He gave several issues of his magazine to letters from readers who wished to comment on the question, then he followed-up with his own commentary on the matter. Here is what he wrote:

Now we knew that except for minor variations this editor [Bob L. Ross] has described too accurately the position of present-day Primitive Baptists. We also knew that what he gave as the Arminian position was that generally held by Baptists just prior to 1633 (Hassell's History, p. 335, 336), and that what he gave as the Calvinistic doctrine was held by Presbyterians before Baptists espoused it, and was the position formerly held by all doctrinally sound Baptists in America prior to 1800. [As quoted in the Oct. 4, 1958 BAPTIST EXAMINER, p. 2].

In the same article, Elder Berry alleged that Primitive Baptists of this day have "almost completely abandoned" the position of early American Baptists "in actual practice."

So here is a second well-known minister who, in effect, alleged that modern Primitive Baptists are not really "Primitive," so far as having a doctrinal identity with early American Baptists, or the 17th century English Particular Baptists. The Confessions of Faith are the most conclusive "standards" whereby to determine such an issue, and by their own ADMISSION the modern Primitives do not consider the Confessions to be representative of Primitive Baptist doctrine."

It is true that Hardshell historian Sylvester Hassell acknowledges that the forefathers of the Kehukee Association of Primitive Baptist churches were Arminian. The Kehukee churches became Calvinists, and perhaps truly saved, when the Philadelphia Baptist Association sent a missionary to eastern North Carolina, a preacher named John Gano. After his visit in 1754 he reported the "melancholy condition" of North Carolina churches. In 1755, the Philadelphia Association sent ministers, specifically including Benjamin Miller and Peter P. Vanhorn, to North Carolina to reform "General Baptist" churches into "Regular Baptist" (Calvinist) churches. These efforts influenced the establishment of the Kehukee Association (organized 1765/1769), which adopted the strict Calvinist Philadelphia Confession.

I have numerous articles in the "Old Baptist Test" blog under the heading "What The First Hardshells Believed" which show that the general view of the first Anti-Mission Baptists believed in means just as the 1689 confession says, and I have other articles that show that the "no means" view was what Elder Watson called an "innovation." I have given evidence that shows that the "no means" view, and the view that evangelical faith and repentance were not essentials for eternal salvation, originated with the Two Seeders who came after Daniel Parker. This post (here) will give the reader links to those posts. On the question of means both Arminian and Calvinists nigh unanimously agree that God uses the preaching of the Gospel in the salvation of sinners. The Two Seed view is truly aberrant. 

Ross wrote the following under the sub-heading "Hatchet-Job" Done to the London Confession by Hardshell Book":

"Several years ago, a well-known Hardshell preacher, Elder Lee Hanks, compiled a number of historical items and published them under the title, The Church of God. I have the reprinted edition of 1982, published by Elder S. T. Tolley's Christian Baptist Publishing Company, and I have also examined an original edition. The book mutilates the London Confession, not only omitting significant words (indicated by a series of dots), but it even cuts-out entire chapters! It omits chapters 5, 14, 15, and 17 thru 25. It is significant that the material which is omitted includes the same points of doctrine which Hardshells such as Tolley admittedly do not believe, particularly those that express the Baptist position on the use of the Word, or Gospel, in regeneration. At this writing, I have twice written to Elder Tolley and asked him who was responsible for this "hatchet-job" on the London Confession of Faith, but he has not responded. I assume Hanks is responsible until other evidence is presented."

In my historical studies of the "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptists I have learned a good bit about Elder Lee Hanks. I am the one who loaned Brother Ross my copy of the "history" book authored by Hanks wherein he, on one hand, seems to claim affinity with the 1689 confession, but then on the other hand, eliminated large sections of it that he didn't agree with, by the use of the ellipsis (using the "..."). In my writings I have shown where this has been a common practice by the Hardshells. They will often cite from the works of others and use the ellipsis to excise those parts that they don't like, and by cutting out those sections they often totally pervert what the writers they are citing really meant. I wrote about this practice in these posts (here and here). In the latter post I cite where Brother Ross said the same thing, writing:

"...we have learned to watch the Hybrids* carefully when they start "quoting" someone whom they would like to array in their camp on "born again before faith." For some reason, they might fail to give the complete picture." 

*By "Hybrids" he includes the "Primitive Baptists." 

It is interesting that Hanks was one of the ministers who was at the Fulton convention and endorsed the 1689 confession and admitted that this was the confession that his forefathers accepted as a statement of their beliefs.

Ross wrote further:

"This is simply further evidence that the Hardshells of today are not the "original" Baptists, but in reality they have departed from the Baptist faith and constitute a cult formed around their opposition to the preaching of the Gospel to the unregenerate as a "means" used by the Holy Spirit in bringing about to the New Birth. Some may question my use of the term "cult," but when one becomes acquainted with the exclusivism of the Hardshells and their claims, it is obvious that "cult" is the most appropriate term."

This is also what I have shown in my own historical work "The Hardshell Baptist Cult" (you can read all the chapters in that massive work in its own blog here). 

Now let us notice some citations from the "Fulton Confession" and show the articles of the 1689 confession that they felt the need to rewrite in their footnotes.

CHAPTER I. OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES

1. "The Holy Scriptures are the only sufficient, certain and infallible (a) rule of all saving knowledge, faith and obedience; although the (b) light of nature and the works of creation, and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom and power of God as to leave men unexcusable; yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God and His will which is necessary unto salvation."

7. All things in Scripture are not alike (l) plain in themselves, not alike clear unto all; yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation are so (m) clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned but the unlearned, in due use of ordinary means, may attain to a sufficient understanding of them. (2)

Now, here is the footnote the Fulton Sanhedrin attached to this 1689 article:

"(1) We do not understand this section to teach that eternal life is obtained by the understanding of or obedience to the scriptures."

They are being deceitful in this statement for the articles above show that the 1689 confession taught that the scriptures were a means in saving sinners and giving eternal life. Many "Primitive Baptists" as we have seen agree that these fifty one elders were purposely denying what the confession says. The 1689 articles say that there is a certain "knowledge of God and His will which is necessary unto salvation" and that this knowledge can only be obtained through the scriptures.

CHAPTER II. OF GOD AND THE HOLY TRINITY

Of God and the Holy Trinity Chapter 2

Paragraph 3

"In this divine and infinite Being there are three subsistences, the Father, the Word or Son, and Holy Spirit,27 of one substance, power, and eternity, each having the whole divine essence, yet the essence undivided:28 the Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father;29 the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son;30 all infinite, without beginning, therefore but one God, who is not to be divided in nature and being, but distinguished by several peculiar relative properties and personal relations; which doctrine of the Trinity is the foundation of all our communion with God, and comfortable dependence on Him."

Now here is the Fulton footnote:

"(2) We understand the words of “one substance” contradict the idea that God’s people existed eternally in seed or substance in Christ, for this would establish a distinction in substance between the Father and the Son."

This is not the only footnote that mentions a Two Seed tenet. So, in the year 1900 the "Primitive Baptists" of the faction represented in Fulton felt a need to distance themselves from Two Seedism. By this footnote we surmise that there must have been some Two Seed Primitive Baptists who tried to argue that the words "one substance" in the old confession included the Lord's seed or children. 

CHAPTER III. OF GOD’S DECREE

"6. As God hath appointed the elect unto glory, so He hath by the eternal and most free purpose of His will foreordained (m) all the means thereunto; wherefore they who are elected, being fallen in Adam, (n) are redeemed by Christ, are effectually (o) called unto faith in Christ, by His Spirit working in due season, are justified, adopted, sanctified, and kept by His power through faith (p) unto salvation; neither are any other redeemed by Christ, or effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified and saved, but the elect (q) only. (3)

Now here is the footnote of the Fulton ministers:

"(3) We do not understand the words “all the means thereunto” include other means than those especially set out in this section: “Redeemed in Christ”, “effectually called”, “by His Spirit”, etc."

Of course, when they say "we do not understand" they simply mean "we do not believe," and involve these ministers saying that this is what the writers of the 1689 confession meant. One of the scriptures given by the 1689 confession to support what they mean by "all the means" is this text:

"But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth: Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ." (II Thess. 2: 13-14 kjv)

So, the authors of the 1689 confession clearly believed that the effectual call was "by our gospel" and the salvation to which the elect were chosen was effected by a "sanctification of the Spirit AND belief of the truth." The means are not limited to the things the Fulton footnotes mention. The article clearly says that "faith" is a means, and they agree with the apostle Paul that "faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." (Rom. 10: 17)

CHAPTER VII. OF GOD’S COVENANT

"2. Moreover, man having brought (b) himself under the curse of the law by his fall, it pleased the Lord to make a Covenant of Grace, wherein He freely offereth unto sinners (c) life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in Him, that they may be saved; and (d) promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto eternal life His Holy Spirit, to make them willing and able to believe. (1)"

Now, here is the Fulton footnote:

"(1) By the words “offereth unto sinners life and salvation”, etc., we do not understand that the gift of eternal life is offered to alien sinners, but should be understood as meaning the assurance or enjoyment of spiritual or divine life, as is taught in John 20:30-31; Galatians 6:7-8. The following places in the Confession describe the alien sinners as being unable to accept an offer of life: Chapter XX., Section 4; Chapter IX., Section 3; Chapter III., Section 6; and for further explanation of the doctrine herein set forth and from which said doctrine is deducible, see Chapter XVII., Section 3; Chapter XVIII., Sections 3 and 4; Chapter X., Section 4; Chapter XX., Sections 1 and 4; and 2 Peter 1:10-11."

Again, we have the words "by the words...we understand or do not understand." But, all see, if they are honest, that the words of the confession do mean that God offers eternal life to alien sinners and does not mean offering "the assurance or enjoyment of spiritual or divine life." Further, it is true that the confession does say that alien sinners are unable to accept the offer, but this does not negate the fact that it is offered, for the authors of this confession believed that the power to believe and receive was of God and not of the sinner. When Jesus said to the man with the paralyzed hand "stretch forth your hand" it did imply that the man had in himself the power to obey, the power to obey came from the Lord. 

Elder John Clark, a founding father of the "Primitive Baptist" sect, and editor of Zion's Advocate (1854), believed in means as did many other first generation leaders in the anti-mission movement, and I have many citations from him that show this to be true. In one of my posts I give the following citation which answers the objections raised by the above Fulton footnote:

"But some object and say, Why preach repentance to dead sinners? They can neither hear, see nor understand. That is true; that they hear not, see not, understand not, so far as the preacher is concerned or is able to effect them; but why did the prophet call upon the dry bones to hear the word of the Lord? He answered, “And I prophesied as I was commanded.” That was authority then for all who feared God, and it is still the authority for all such. This objection, however, will lie against all the exhortations and admonitions to the saints as it does against addresses to the ungodly, for the Christian has no more power than the unbeliever. The difference between them is not in the power, but in the will; as it written: "To will is present with me, but to perform that which is good I find not.”"

The theory that we must preach to men according to the power they possess to obey is sublimated Arminianism, and yet; the advocates of it are very fraid of being called Arminians. Christians know, however, by the word of his grace, and by the revelation of that word in their hearts, when it comes in power and in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance, that Christ’s word is true which says, “Without me you can do nothing.” The Spirit takes the word of Christ and shows it to his people, and thus it is verified in the experience.

To preach to men upon the ground that they have power to do what is commanded, or to refuse to preach to them because they have not the power, shows that the confidence is in the flesh and not in God; that they depend upon the will of the flesh and not upon the power God, and that is the very essence, double refined, of Arminianism.

The minister of Christ does not preach to any class of men upon the consideration of their ability or inability. He has the sentence of death in himself, and therefore cannot trust in himself; and he has no confidence in the flesh of any other, but his confidence, his faith and hope, is in God, from whence alone are his expectations."

("What To Preach and How To Preach" Written by John Clark in Zion's Advocate--August 1875)

You can read other citations from Clark (here, here, here, here, here)

Keep in mind that the Hardshell convention of ministers was attempting to uphold the Two Seed ideas that said "nothing a person does in his life determines whether he will be saved" and said "the gospel or written word of God is only for the temporal benefit of those already saved." We cited elders John M. Watson and Hosea Preslar in earlier chapters who stated this very thing. We also cited from the 1879 minutes of the Powell Valley Association which affirmed this fact.

CHAPTER IX. OF FREE WILL

"4. When God converts a sinner, and translates him into the state of grace, (g) He freeth him from his natural bondage under sin, and by His grace alone enables him (h) freely to will and to do that which is spiritually good; yet so as that, by reason of his (i) remaining corruptions, he doth not perfectly nor only will that which is good, but doth also will that which is evil. (2)"

Now, here is one of the footnotes to this article:

"(2) We understand the expression “when God converts” to mean when God regenerates."

Yes, the Hardshells may "understand" that conversion is not regeneration, but this is not what the authors of the old confession believed. In fact, I have cited many of the old articles of faith of many "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptist churches that say "we believe all the elect will be regenerated AND converted," which shows that they believed that all the elect would be converted to faith in Christ and not regenerated only. In fact, nearly all the old Puritans, and the old Baptists who authored the 1689 confession, saw evangelical conversion as being regeneration. I have numerous proofs of this in my Old Baptist Test blog. I have numerous articles in the Old Baptist Test blog which shows this is the case. For instance, I cite these words from the learned W.G.T. Shedd  (as cited by me here):

W. G. T. Shedd, in his "Dogmatic Theology," Volume 2, pages 492-494, confessed much the same, saying:

"The divines of the seventeenth century very generally do not distinguish between regeneration and conversion, but employ the two as synonyms. Owen does this continually: On the Spirit, III. v. And Charnock likewise: Attributes, Practical Atheism. The Westminster [Confession] does not use the term regeneration. In stead of it, it employs the term vocation, or effectual calling. This comprises the entire work of the Holy Spirit in the application of redemption."

CHAPTER X. OF EFFECTUAL CALLING

"1. Those whom God hath predestinated unto life, He is pleased in His appointed and accepted time (a) effectually to call by His Word and Spirit out of that state of sin and death, in which they are by nature, to grace and salvation (b) by Jesus Christ; enlightening their minds, spiritually and savingly, to (c) understand the things of God; taking away their (d) heart of stone, and giving unto them an heart of flesh; renewing their wills, and by His almighty power determining them (e) to that which is good, and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ; yet so as they come (f) most freely, being made most willing by His grace. (1)"

Now here is the Fulton footnote:

"(1) We do not understand that sinners are effectually called by the written word in any sense out of that state of sin and death in which they are by nature to grace and salvation but by Christ, the Word of God. The quickening and renewing of the Holy Spirit prepares the sinner to answer the gospel call, as seen in Section 2; 2 Timothy 1:9; 1 John 4:6."

What these Fulton brothers refused to understand about this article of the old confession is what is clearly affirmed by it. By "word" in the above article is not Jesus, and many later "Primitive Baptists" have agreed that this is not what the authors of the confession meant. Not only this, but the Hardshells often do the same with scripture. When they find texts which say that God uses means in the eternal salvation of sinners, they will say "we do not understand this to mean" what it plainly says and so will distort it or explain it away by any means.

"2. This effectual call is of God’s free and special grace alone, (g) not from anything at all foreseen in man, nor from any power or agency in the creature co-working with His special grace; (h) the creature being wholly passive therein, being dead in sins and trespasses, until, being quickened and renewed by the Holy Spirit, he is thereby enabled to answer this call, and to embrace the grace offered and conveyed in it, and that by no less (i) power than that which raised up Christ from the dead. 

3. Elect infants dying in infancy are (j) regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit, who worketh when and where and (k) how He pleaseth; so also are all other elect persons, who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the word. (2) 

4. Others not elected, although they may be called by the ministry of the word, (l) and may have some common operations of the Spirit; yet, not being effectually drawn by the Father, they neither will nor can truly (m) come to Christ, and therefore cannot be saved; much less can men that receive not the Christian religion (n) be saved, be they never so diligent to frame their lives according to the light of nature and the law of that religion they do profess. (3)"

Now here are the Fulton footnotes:

"(2) We understand this section to teach that all persons dying in infancy are of the elect, and will therefore be saved. We do not understand from this that infants and insane persons are saved in a manner different from the manner in which all other elect persons are saved. The word “others” in Section 4 has no reference to infants, but adults who are subjects of the ministry of the Word. 

(3) We understand for man to spiritually profited by the gospel he must have been born of God and made partaker of His divine nature, and by the words “common operations of the Spirit” is understood as teaching that the gospel has an enlightening and moral influence upon all rational men."

Again, what a dishonest and gross misinterpretation of what these articles say! The articles clearly say that anyone who does not receive the Christian religion is not saved. However, that is not what today's "Primitive Baptists" generally believe.

CHAPTER XI. OF JUSTIFICATION

"1. Those whom God effectually calleth He also freely (a) justifieth, not by infusing righteousness into them, but by (b) pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as (c) righteous; not for anything wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ’s sake alone; not by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other (d) evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness, but by imputing Christ’s active obedience unto the whole law, and passive obedience in His death, for their whole and sole righteousness; they (e) receiving and resting on Him and His righteousness by faith, which they have not of themselves; it is the gift of God. (1) 

2. Faith, thus receiving and resting of Christ and His righteousness, is the (f) alone instrument of justification; yet it is not alone in the person justified, but is ever accompanied with all other saving graces, and is no dead faith, (g) but worketh by love."

Now here is the Fulton footnote:

"(1) We understand this section to teach that the elect are justified in the sight of the law by the actual work of Christ when He satisfied the law for them, and we believe this is applied to the elect in the work of regeneration, bringing personal righteousness or making their persons righteous in heart. (2) These sections have relation to God’s spiritual and parental government over His children in this world."

Notice how the Fulton Two Seeders omitted any reference to "faith" and its being "the alone instrument of justification" and the way sinners receive Christ and his righteousness. Why is this? Is it not because they believe that faith in Christ is not essential for being saved? How anyone can read the old confession and conclude that they taught that unbelievers may be saved and regenerated is bewildering. 

CHAPTER XIV. OF SAVING FAITH

"1. The grace of faith, whereby the elect are enabled to believe to the saving of their souls, the work of the Spirit of CHRIST (a) in their hearts, and is ordinarily wrought by the ministry of the (b) word; by which also, and by the administration of baptism and the Lord’s Supper, prayer, and other means appointed of God, it is increased (c) and strengthened. (1)"

Now here is the Fulton footnote:

"(1) By the words “faith as ordinarily wrought by the Word” we are taught to distinguish between life and the motions or fruits of life, because faith as one of the acts of life may be instrumentally produced by the Word. (Romans 10:17.) While life itself is the immediate gift of the Almighty, (Romans 6:23), and is antecedent to and the foundation of faith."

This footnote is diametrically opposed to what the article clearly says and it shows just how dishonest and deceitful were these stalwarts of Hardshellism and Two Seedism.

CHAPTER XX. OF THE GOSPEL, AND OF THE EXTENT OF THE GRACE THEREOF

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

2. This promise of Christ, and salvation by Him, is revealed only by (c) the word of God; neither do the works of creation or providence, with the light of nature, (d) make discovery of Christ, or of the grace by Him, so much as in a general or obscure way; much less that men destitute of the revelation of Him by the promise or gospel, (e) should be enabled thereby to attain saving faith or repentance. (1)

4. Although the gospel be the only outward means of revealing Christ and saving grace, and is, as such, abundantly sufficient thereunto; yet that men who are dead in trespasses may be born again, quickened or regenerated, there is moreover necessary an effectual, insuperable (h) work of the Holy Spirit upon the whole soul, for the producing in them a new spiritual life, without which no other means will effect (i) their conversion unto God."

Now here is the Fulton footnote:

"(1) We are taught by this section that nature does not reveal the scheme of human redemption to man. Nevertheless this fact does not render the work of Christ and the Spirit impossible in the regeneration and eternal salvation of sinners, even in the absence of the preached Word."

Here the Fulton footnote says that the articles of the old confession teach that people who have not the word of God or know not Christ nor the Gospel may be saved and yet this is clearly not what the articles teach. Who were these fifty one elders think they were fooling by these footnotes? The only ones would be the Hardshell lay members who would simply take what these elders said without checking them out.

CHAPTER XXXI. OF THE STATE OF MAN AFTER DEATH, AND OF THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD

"1. The bodies of men after death return to the dust (a) and see corruption; but their souls, which neither die nor sleep, having an immortal subsistence, immediately (b) return to God who gave them; the souls of the righteous, being then made perfect in holiness, are received into paradise, where they are with Christ, and behold the face of God in light and (c) glory, waiting for the full redemption of their bodies; and the souls of the wicked are cast into hell, where they remain in torment and utter darkness, reserved to (d) the judgment of the great day; besides these two places for souls separated from their bodies the Scripture acknowledgeth none. (1)"

Now here is the Fulton footnote:

"(1) By the words “immortal subsistence” is not meant that the souls of men are eternal as God is eternal, but that they are eternal in the sense that they possess endless being or shall never cease to exist or die."

Here again we see an allusion to the Two Seed view that the souls of the elect are without beginning, being "eternal children," having been begotten in the Son of God from eternity. What is ironic is that though the Fulton brethren tried to distance themselves from some of the tenets of Two Seedism, yet they still retained some of those tenets.

In the next chapter we will continue this line of thought.

Two Seed Baptist Ideology (L)

The Fulton Convention

of

Primitive Baptists

1900 A.D.

Authors of the Fulton Confession

The above picture is of the many "Primitive Baptist" elders in attendance in Fulton, Kentucky, the purpose of which was to unite around a common creed. I used to have this picture in my study when I was a young Hardshell Baptist minister. Elder Potter had passed away several years before this convention. In this convocation the assembly unanimously endorsed the 1689 London Confession of Faith, but put footnotes at the bottom of several sections of that confession for the purpose of giving their interpretation of those sections, which interpretations were diametrically opposite of what the confession said. You can see from those footnotes remnants of Two Seedism in their denial of Gospel means in the eternal salvation of sinners and of what they say about the nature of regeneration and conversion. Under section II of the 1689 Confession the Fulton brethren said:

"(2) We understand the words of “one substance” contradict the idea that God’s people existed eternally in seed or substance in Christ, for this would establish a distinction in substance between the Father and the Son."

By this they show that they were at this time determined to distance themselves from at least one of the tenets of Two Seedism. In chapter XLVII I cited the words of Elder Watson regarding the way Two Seeders handle the word of God in their twisting of scripture. Watson said: "Their doctrine is serpentine, and it has serpentine ways and outlets, and is hard to hold even when caught." The fifty one elders who are pictured above showed this trait in how slippery they handled the 1689 confession.

In this chapter we will focus our attention on what Elder Potter wrote in his book titled "A Treatise On Regeneration And Christian Warfare" (Read it here), written in 1895. We will also have a good bit to say about the Fulton Assembly and the 1689 London Confession, especially since Potter mentions it in the above treatise, as we will see. In chapter one, under "Introductory Remarks," Potter wrote:

"In the publication of this little work I have only one object in view, and that is the defense of gospel truth, and the peace of the Baptists. I have been associated with brethren who differed with me on the new birth, for more than twenty years, and as they were good and precious brethren, I thought that if we could all let that subject alone, and not agitate it, we might get along peaceably together, and yet not see exactly alike on that subject. They knew, however, what I believed on the question, for they had often heard me express myself. I was requested by some of my readers of the ADVOCATE, in Arkansas, to write some on the new birth, through the paper, for their sakes, as they had a minister among them that was leading off on that subject; this was in the fall of 1892."

I find Potter's statement that he thought that brethren who disagreed on the subject of the new birth should "leave that subject alone," especially in view of the fact that he says this in the context of Two Seed views on that subject, which are indeed heretical and heterodox. Why did Potter and his cohorts not feel the same way about their primitive missionary Baptist brethren who supported missionaries and biblical education? I am also bewildered how he could advise a "leave it alone" procedure and then write this book on it. Why did he not have this same attitude towards those "Primitive Baptists" who believed in means? Potter would not leave that issue alone but became the flag bearer for those who opposed means and began to debate "Primitive Baptists" who believed in means, which was the original position of his forefathers. He has even said that he began his paper "The Church Advocate" to combat the means view. 

Potter wrote further:

"I thought the Baptists in our part of the country might get along without agitating that subject, and that we would live in peace and union, as we had always done. But those brethren who differed, finally became intolerant, some of them, and could not bear to hear a brother say "soul and body" or that "it is the spirit that is born again," or speak of the separation of soul and body at death, or "inner man," or that "the soul of man is born of God in time," or any of those intimations of a distinction of soul and body, without making war on the party that made use of the expression."

Potter says - "I thought the Baptists in our part of the country might get along without agitating that subject, and that we would live in peace and union, as we had always done." Why did he not think this way towards those Baptists who supported means, Sunday Schools, theological education, etc.? How could he tolerate the gross absurdities of Two Seedism but not Baptists who believed in supporting missionaries? Of course, as we have seen, Potter himself still held Two Seed ideas, such as saying  that people did not have to hear the Gospel to be saved, and saying that nothing a person did in life determined whether he went to heaven. Further, though he claimed to deny the Two Seed "no change" view of regeneration, yet he and his brethren came to entertain such a view when they began to say that a person could be regenerated while remaining believers in false gods and Messiahs. The Hardshell view evolved, or diverted back to the Two Seed view, so that it became similar to the Two Seed no change view.

Potter wrote further:

"I believe, and the Old School Baptist church believes, the doctrine of the following pages, and in order to set forth the Baptist doctrine, and defend it against the assaults of those who do not believe it, and to teach our people what the doctrine of the church is on this subject, this little book is offered to the public. I have blamed those brethren who differed, for trying to hide from the people, what they really do believe, and for trying to make it appear that the whole fight is on the question of the sinner being born again. But, in order that the reader may know just what they contend for, I will give a statement of what they say they believe, as given by one of the ablest men on that side of the issue. He says:..."

It is ironic that Potter said that he thought brethren should not talk about the things they disagreed about respecting some Two Seed tenets, such as what they believe about regeneration or rebirth, and yet in the above citation he is going against his own counsel and writing upon it and stating that his views are the historic view. Further, it is a characteristic trait of the Hardshells to find ways to hide their views from others to some extent. 

Potter wrote further:

"I would much prefer to quit publishing the ADVOCATE, than to not be allowed to publish what Old Baptists have always believed."

"What Old Baptists have always believed"? I find that statement astounding because though it is true that Two Seedism was a new doctrinal system, what Elder John M. Watson called "modern innovations" and "ultraisms," yet Potter's own view on regeneration and salvation are not the orthodox and historical views of Baptists. The Baptists prior to what B.H. Carroll called "the rise of the Hardshells," in chapter three of his famous treatise titled "The Genesis of American Anti-Missionism" (1902), did not deny that God used the gospel or word of God, and the preachers of it, as instruments in the eternal salvation of sinners, nor that evangelical faith and repentance, or conversion, was essential for being eternally saved. You can read Dr. Carroll's work (here).

In 1900 Potter's ministerial brothers met in Fulton, Kentucky to state their adherence to the 1689 London Baptist Confession which clearly taught differently than Potter and those ministers who assembled in Fulton and is why that convention of ministers felt the need to put footnotes on those sections they disagreed with in order to distort what that old Confession taught. 

In chapter two under "Reasons for Writing on This Subject" Potter wrote:

"In the ADVOCATE, of February 15, 1894, there appeared an article from one of our correspondents, on the subject of man, not on the new birth, but in the article, the writer spoke of the soul as being born again, in time, and the body in the resurrection. The expression so aroused some of our dear brethren that two of them wrote a reply at once."

Potter wrote further:

"THE CHURCH ADVOCATE believes that the sinner, the Adam sinner, is the subject of salvation; that it is the man that is the subject of the new birth, and that this man has a soul and a body, and that the soul is born again, in the work of regeneration in time, and that it goes immediately to heaven when the body dies. We believe that in the resurrection, the body will be born again, and go to heaven, and that the soul and body will be reunited in heaven, and thus the sinner will be born again, and saved. This has been the doctrine of our people for the past two hundred years, provided it was our people who first drew up and published the London Confession of Faith, in England, in the year 1689."

Why does Potter question whether it was his people, the Hardshells, "who first drew up and published the London Confession of Faith"? Potter died a decade or so before the meeting in Fulton. Had he lived till then, what would he think of those ministers who claimed that the authors of the 1689 confession taught Hardshellism? I have written many articles through the years on what took place in Fulton. I showed where many "Primitive Baptists" were honest enough to admit that the ministers of the Fulton convention were purposefully distorting the true meanings of the 1689 confession. For instance I give these citations from Hardshell Baptists:

Elder Bill Allen in an Internet article titled "Article 10 of the London Confession of 1689 Examined," (pastors the Stephenville, Texas "Primitive Baptist Church") writes (emphasis mine - SG):

"Below is just one of the problematic articles, no. 10, of the 1689 with the 3 related Fulton foootnotes.  My problem with the Fulton footnotes is not that they were themselves unsound.  They were quite sound, but the Fulton brethren were deceiving themselves in thinking that the 1689 was basically sound but just not properly understood....If we take the wording of the 1689, particularly in this article, for what it clearly says in plain English it can be easily seen that it is a hopeless wreck of a document that no amount of footnotes, explanations, or wishful thinking can fix...My point is that we should NOT make any endeavors to lay claim to the 1689 Confession but instead should do what the Fulton brethren did not and that is let those who believe such things have it as the Calvinists confession that it clearly is." 

Allen also says:

"...this says the effectual calling is by the Word and Spirit.  It is vital to the understanding of this article to discern exactly what they mean by the use of "Word".  The Fulton brethren correctly insist that on the Living Word, i.e. Christ, is the source of the Effectual Call.  Unfortunately, they would like us to believe that is what this article says.  I contend that this is wishful thinking. They are imposing what we know to be the truth on what other men have said in an effort to white wash something that would have to otherwise rejected if taken for what it says.  I contend the authors of this confession were consistent in their use "Word"." (See here)

Elder David Bartley, a minister of the Absoluter faction, writing about the Fulton Confession in 1901 had these remarks to offer (emphasis mine - SG).

"So now, let us kindly consider this question of disturbance and compare the points at issue with the London Confession, which all claim to accept upon those points of difference. But why, then, the need or utility of the Fulton Convention? Why the address, the foot-notes and the appendix added to the good old Confession, which had been good enough for the Old Baptist people through the centuries, until this late upheaval? The plea for all this additional supplementary work of the recent convention has been stated in print frequently, and is thus given in the general address: “Language through the lapse of many years undergoes variations in applications and meanings, whereby certain clauses become more or less obscure in meaning. Wherever, in the opinion of this assembly, the meaning of a section was not apparent, foot-notes were added to bring out the meaning.” But if such a change of meaning and obscurity of language is true of one section of the old Confession, it is also true of every section, and just as true of the whole Bible, which is older than the London Confession. In all candor, then, why were the foot-notes confined to a few sections, and these the very places which treat of the doctrines involved in this new issue! This is very strange indeed, if the old Confession has really become doubtful and dark in meaning because of its age! If this is a valid cause for calling a convention of Baptists, why not bring out in easy and plain words the meaning of the entire Confession, so that all the Baptists may now understand and unite upon its meaning? Then, if the plea is a real and valid one, why not also get up a Baptist Convention to “bring out the more or less obscure meaning “of the ancient Bible!"

These are excellent observations. If these brethren are right, what does it say about the many leading elders who assembled in Fulton and perverted the 1689 confession? If those brethren could twist and distort what the confession said in order to make it agree with their new ideas, why would we not think that they would do so with the scriptures too?

In "An Examination of How the Hardshells Diluted the London Baptist Confession" Bob L. Ross wrote (emphasis mine):

"One of the most reprehensible acts by a group of Primitive Baptist ministers was perpetrated in November 1900.

From the 14th day to the 18th day -- five days of infamy -- "fifty-one ministers, representing three-hundred and thirty-five churches, aggregating fourteen-thousand five-hundred members in direct correspondence with over one-hundred-thousand Baptists," set themselves -- after adorning their nefarious scheme with all the proper and pious camouflage of the most sanctimonious session of the Scribes and Pharisees -- to the work of "clarifying" and "adding some explanations to" the most highly respected confessional document in the history of English-speaking Baptists, The Baptist Confession, set forth in London, England in 1689.

This 20th century "Sanhedrin" was shepherded in part by a couple of well-known elders of Old School craft, James H. Oliphant and John M. Thompson, who proved to be two veritable Jehudi's (Jeremiah 36:23). Not content with their rejection of the London Confession, they found it more to their liking to distort it and perpetrate the distortion under the "unanimous vote" of their ministerial accessories among which "tears filled eyes," contemplating their deed as "doing God service" (John 16:2). This meeting had all the "holy smoke" of a Papal election. And no one can puff more "sweet" and "comforting" holy smoke than the "little lambs" of Hardshellism.

The hallowed ground on which this holy convocation of Hardshell "rabbis" took place was the meeting-house located in Fulton, Kentucky, and the grand product of this enclave in Zion was published under title of A Comprehensive Confession of Faith. I am the proud possessor of a maroon hardback edition of this blessed creation, published by those professing to be "servants" -- E. D. Speir, R. E. Cagle, and E. D. Speir, Jr. -- in this current form in 1981.

These brethren of the Old School, in a humility worthy of the likes of Madam Guyon and St. Thomas of Assisi, announced that they felt themselves "under profound obligations to thank God and labor faithfully for the prosperity of his holy cause," and with "humble gratitude" to the "gracious and divine providence of God," recognizing that "language naturally undergoes some change," they "deemed prudent" the adding of "some explanations to those sections that seemed ambiguous" in the Baptist Confession of 1689.

The sanctified purpose of the "explanations" and "clarifications" was -- of course -- "increased gladness and the sweetest union," "general prosperity," "establishing union and fellowship," and similar attendant blessings within the sweet Old Baptist "home." Who could possibly have ever entertained the doubt that such "obedient servants" as Thompson, Oliphant and their fellow butchers would prove to be triumphant in behalf of their beloved Zion?

But despite their holy fervor, sweet prayers, tears, explanatory abilities, and unanimous vote, it seems that the old Baptist Confession has proved to be too much of a piece of granite, and their efforts at patching up Zion, where she was "torn into factions in so many places," failed; -- tears, rents, and factions are at this late date greater than at the turn of the century. "For many years, I have seen the spiritual decline approaching . . .The problems have obviously become worse," bemoans Elder S. T. Tolley (The Christian Baptist, 4/92, p.5).

Viewed from our own perspective, it would have been far more the act of honesty and candor had this solemn assembly of Scribes and Pharisees simply acknowledged the fact that their own theology was so far removed from that of the 1689 Baptist Confession they must cease the hypocrisy of claiming the Confession, then they should have composed their own confession. This would have at least relieved them of the necessity of the contemptible spectacle of "clarifying" what they and everyone else understood perfectly to be the doctrinal sentiments of the Baptists who set their names to the 1689 Confession.

THE FACT IS, IT WAS "UNDERSTANDING" THE BAPTIST CONFESSION WHICH MADE IT NECESSARY FOR THIS GATHERING OF HARDSHELLS TO HACK AND HEW ON THE CONFESSION IN THE EFFORT TO MAKE IT ACCEPTABLE. All of their pious reasons notwithstanding, the truth is, these Old School Primitive Baptists DID NOT BELIEVE the doctrines of the London Confession and would have set up "bars of fellowship" against every last one of those who originally signed the 1689 Confession had the signatories arisen from the dead and asked for a "home" among these Hardshell brethren.

We have already called attention to Elder S. T. Tolley's repudiation of the London Confession (chapter four) on those chapters of the Confession which he specified, as he called for the composing of a new confession which would accurately represent Primitive Baptists. Another Hardshell, Elder R. V. Sarrels, who wrote a book presenting Hardshell doctrine, ostensibly called a "Systematic Theology," very candidly confesses that Primitive Baptists "do not believe" chapter three of the London Confession, and he charges that the Fulton Convention of 1900 wrote a footnote "to make this old article MEAN WHAT IT DOES NOT SAY" (Systematic Theology, pages 109, 110).

Sarrels indicates that the sweet brethren who gathered at Fulton, Ky. in 1900 were engaged in a "literary effort of TORTURING of language" when they tried to "clarify" and "explain" the London Confession. He says, "Moderate or Non-fatalist Calvinists must either repudiate this statement [in the London Confession] or resign themselves to the endless task of trying to make it mean what it does not say" (page 111).

Why didn't the 1900 Fulton Convention do the honest thing and simply repudiate the London Confession and write their own separate confession? Because they are of the "We-be-Abraham's Seed" progeny, claiming they are the "true," "only," "legitimate" church and ministry in succession back to the 17th century Baptists. To come out and honestly state the truth of the matter, they would thereby be giving up their farcical and spurious claim. To avoid this humiliation, they took the route of adding "clarifications" and "explanations" in footnotes, presuming that naive Baptists didn't have enough sense to read and understand what the 17th century Baptists plainly stated.

Throughout the Confession, significant places were selected by the Hardshell scribes for "footnoting," wherein they have placed their leaven of Hardshell aberrations. The two primary doctrines which merit the most attention are (1) predestination, and (2) "means" in the new birth. On these, the reader is treated to the views of the Hardshells which are clearly in opposition to the views of the 17th century Baptists. The modern Hardshells deny these doctrines as they were believed by the Baptists of the London Assembly of 1689." (History and Heresies of Hardshell Baptists, chapter 5) (See this post where I wrote about the Fulton Confession and cited Brother Ross here)

I also cited from Elder Harold Hunt, who I know personally and who began a web page to give people access to writings of "Primitive Baptists" of the past, called "An Anthology of Primitive Baptist Literature," and who said this (See my post here):

"They reaffirmed what they could accept;  they explained away what they could not accept; and they looked aside, and walked past what they could not explain away." (This sentence was in bold in Hunt's book - SG)

We could multiply such statements by those Hardshells who were honest enough to admit what Brother Ross has said. Further, I am sure that many of the fifty one elders who assembled in Fulton were familiar with the writings of the Baptists who signed the 1689 confession and knew that those brethren did not believe Hardshell views on means and on salvation.

Potter wrote further:

"In our efforts to identify ourselves with the Old Baptists, against the claims of the missionaries, we claim to be identical with these old English brethren in doctrine. THE ADVOCATE does now stand, and always has stood there, especially on the new birth. We hope that none of our brethren will differ from them, and at the same time claim identity with them."

The Fulton brethren knew that they had to align with the 1689 confession (which is almost identical to the Philadelphia Confession) in order to give credence to their claim to be the "primitive" or "original" Baptists who preceded the rise of the Hardshells. Yet, the confession clearly taught against the newly accepted dogmas of the new sect. So, they either had to claim another line of succession, and admit that the Missionary Baptists were the true successors of that old confession, or twist the confession to make it conform to their views. Sadly those fifty one ministers chose the dishonest route.

Earlier Potter calls into question whether it was "our people" who drew up the 1689 confession and then in the above citation speaks of "our efforts to identify ourselves with the Old Baptists" who wrote that old confession. He also says that his Hardshell brethren, after their secession from the Baptist family, claimed to be in league with the 1689 confession "against the claims of the missionaries." He says "we claim to be identical with these old English brethren in doctrine." But, as we have seen, and will see further in the next chapter, this is an unfounded and farcical claim. He then makes a remarkable statement, saying "we hope none of our brethren will differ from them and at the same time claim identity with them." But, this is exactly what the "Primitive Baptists" have done. 

The elders gathered together in Fulton should have simply been honest enough to have stated that they were not the descendants of those English Baptists. Instead they endorsed that confession and in a highly dishonest and deceitful way totally changed what the confession said via their inglorious footnotes.

In the next chapter we will continue to review what the Fulton assembly said about the 1689 confession.