This has come up on another blog so I figured I would address the issue here. A question of historiography arises in Baptist History particularly in the life of William Carey. Many take it to be a cut and dry issue but it is hardly. Let’s start with some context around the question.
William Carey (1761-1834), affectionately known as the “Father of Modern Missions,” in 1785 met with other men from churches in what was called the Northamptonshire Association. These regular meetings were a time for exchanging of ideas, fellowship, and spiritual encouragement. At this meeting it was asked for someone to propose a topic for discussion. Carey proposed a theme on which he had given much thought.
“Whether the command given to the apostles to teach all nations was not binding on all succeeding ministers, to the end of the world, seeing that the accompanying promise was of equal extent.”
This is where the question arises. The issue is not with Carey’s question but with the answer that was given to the question. There are a number of options.
John Webster Morris, who was pastor of Clipston Baptist Church in Northamptonshire, who was present at the meeting wrote that John Ryland, Sr. responded with,
“You are a miserable enthusiast for asking such a question. Certainly nothing can be done before another Pentecost, when an effusion of miraculous gifts, including the gift of tongues, will give effect to the commission of Christ as at first. What, Sir! Can you preach in Arabic, in Persic, in Hindustani, in Bengali, that you think it your duty to send the gospel to the heathens?”
John C. Marshman, the son of Carey’s co-worker in India, Joshua Marshman, reported that Ryland, Sr. said,
“Young man, sit down. When God pleases to convert the heathen, he will do it without your aid or mine!”
In contrast to these two versions is the response of John Ryland, Jr. about the situation. He denies it even happened.
“I well remember the discussion of this question, which fully occupied the evening. Another had been discussed, after dinner, respecting village-preaching–What was a sufficient call, to attempt introducing it into places where it had not been usual before?–which, therefore, seems to leave no room for that ill-natured anecdote, respecting my father and young Carey, to have taken place this year, which is said to have been before the end of 1786; whereas my father had left Northampton before the Minister’ Meeting in 1786. And I must consider it as very unlikely to have occurred in 1785, for several strong reasons. I never hard of it, till I saw it in print, and cannot credit it. No man prayed and preached about the latter-day glory, morethan my father; nor did I ever hear such sentiments proceed from his lips, as tre there ascribed to him.”
Whatever the facts, it is true that among many Calvinistic Baptists in this period there would have been some who would have uttered these sentiments. The question though is did John Ryland, Sr. utter these kind of sentiments? Ryland was hardly a hyper-Calvinist but it would not have been unusual for even evangelical Calvinists to say similar things. Even Fuller was a little taken aback by Carey’s proposal. He had himself said, “If the Lord should make windows in heaven, might such a thing be!”
What is the true scenario that happened? Who is to know for sure. But it is one of those interesting questions in Baptist History. Let us not just quote John Marshman’s statement about what happened without stating that there is a debate about this event in the life of William Carey.
But it makes good preaching to quote only one side of this issue!
Yes, I suppose it does. But I suppose it’s also why we do what we do. We clarify and teach on these issues so that people don’t abuse history but actually use it to truly have “good” preaching! Thanks for being on the good side Steve!
I think that Steve Weaver was the one who actually called Carey an enthusiast. Steve is the archetypical hyper-Calvinist. Or so my friends down in Tennessee tell me …
Why do I smell a feud coming on? :)
You have friends?
Now, now both of you. Don’t make me take you guys off my favourite Baptist History blogs post!
Seriously, though, can anyone help me with this? I wonder whether c18th Baptist hyper-Calvinists tended to be premill rather than postmill – John Gill being a classic example. When Andrew Fuller comes along as a postmill, it is with a significantly lower doctrine of sovereignty. It’s as if hyper-Calvinism and premillennialism depend on the same kind of expectation of dramatic divine intervention, while ‘lower’ (perhaps more accurate) Calvinisms can go hand-in-hand with postmillennialism, with (what might be percieved to be) a ‘lower’ doctrine of sovereignty and a greater weight being put on human intervention. I’d be interested to know whether you think that’s right as a general historical observation. Thanks!
First, I’d have to say you’re probably more of an expert in this area than I since you’ve done work on the eschatology of Gill. Second, I haven’t read enough of other hyper’s to make any concrete comments. I have a small volume by Brine but I haven’t read it yet.
I’d have a hard time saying though if it was a necessary corollary (evangelical Calvinism and postmillennialism) since there are some notable figures who shared Fuller’s Calvinism but Gill’s premillennialism (I am thinking most clearly of Spurgeon).
You might try Barry Howson’s article, “The Eschatology of the Calvinistic Baptist John Gill (1697-1771) Examined and Compared” in Eusebeia (Autumn 2005). In it he looks at the eschatology of Gill and the eschatology of Fuller and compares them.
Again, maybe there are those out there more familiar with hypers and their eschatological stance who can comment on this issue.
Yes, I read that article with interest when I was across last autumn. It’s the best thing written on the subject. But as I’m thinking about Fuller’s postmillennialism I’m trying to get as much help as possible!
I would definitely suggest you asking Dr. Haykin about this. He would probably be the best one to answer your question.
[…] to historically reconstruct argument with William Carey (see my previous post on the issue here). I have always agree with Dr. Haykin that Ryland, Sr. was not a hyper-Calvinist for the reasons he […]