Roger Williams (c. 1603 – between January and March 1683)
Beloved, if you have read this blog you know I have looked into and written about men said to have a reputation as followers of the Mashiach. Is the one true gospel declared in their life? Is their conversion in harmony with the gospel and grace? Do they preach and teach the one true gospel? Have they have endured to the end? Is there is love without hypocrisy? As I have become aware of Roger Williams I see great works of love and the grace of God. I see his conversion at the age of twelve and the offense of his parents. I see the word of the Lord fulfilled, “Come ye out of her my people, lest ye be partakers of her plagues.” I see the refusal of support and a livelihood from churches that were no churches. For I, Daniel, say all denominations are contrary to the Mashiach. I see the love of God toward all men as Roger loved the native Americans Indians, and black folks. I see the constant persecution and opposition to the love of God manifest in Roger’s life by those who called themselves christians. I see him exiled and then loving those who exiled him, and their hate not ceasing. I see him rejecting absolutely, forced conversion and infant baptism and rightly judging these things. I will continue to judge what is written of and by Roger by the one true gospel, but these words and works that are known judged by the gospel are righteous. Remember that this is a story told of a Christian and those with him, and others who opposed them and called themselves christians and hated them. The following is taken in the largest part from Wikipedia and also other sources on the internet. I attempted to leave off embellishment and the praise of men, and include necessary facts only, that a picture of the man’s life as close to the truth can be seen.
Early life
Williams was born into the Church of England in London, England, around 1603. At age 12 he had a conversion experience of which his father disapproved. His father, James Williams (1562–1620), was a merchant tailor in Smithfield, England. His mother was Alice Pemberton (1564–1634). As a teenager Williams apprenticed with Sir Edward Coke (1552–1634), the famous jurist, and under Coke’s patronage, Williams was educated at Charterhouse and also at Pembroke College, Cambridge (1627). He seemed to have had a gift for languages, and early acquired familiarity with Latin, Hebrew, Greek, Dutch, and French. Although he took Holy Orders in the Church of England, he had become a Puritan at Cambridge, forfeiting any chance at a place of preferment in the Anglican church. After graduating from Cambridge, Williams became the chaplain to a Puritan lord, Sir William Macham. He married Mary Barnard (1609–76) on December 15, 1629 at the Church of High Laver, Essex, England. They had six children, all born in America. Their children were Mary, Freeborn, Providence, Mercy, Daniel and Joseph.
Williams was privy to the plans of the Puritan leaders to migrate to the New World, and while he did not join the first wave in the summer of 1630, before the end of the year, he decided he could not remain in England under Archbishop William Laud‘s rigorous administration. When Roger and Mary Williams arrived at Boston on February 5, 1631, he was welcomed and almost immediately invited to become the Teacher (assistant minister) in the Boston church to officiate while Rev. John Wilson returned to England to fetch his wife. He shocked them by declining the position, saying that he found that it was “an unseparated church.” In addition he asserted that the civil magistrates should not punish any sort of “breach of the first table [of the Ten Commandments],” such as idolatry, Sabbath-breaking, false worship, and blasphemy, and that every individual should be free to follow his own convictions in religious matters.
He reguarded the Church of England irredeemably corrupt and that one must completely separate from it to establish a new church for the true and pure worship of God. His search for the true church eventually carried him out of Congregationalism, the Baptists, and any visible church. From 1639 forward, he waited for Christ to send a new apostle to reestablish the church, and he saw himself as a “witness” to Christianity until that time came. He believed in soul liberty, freedom of conscience, and it was a gift from God, and that everyone had the natural right to freedom of religion. This is in contrast to force conversion (relevant to his day by infant baptism and forced native American, Indian, conversions). This demanded that church and state be separated. Williams was the first to use the phrase “wall of separation” to describe the relationship of the church and state. He called for a high wall of separation between the “Garden of Christ” and the “Wilderness of the World.” This idea is one of the foundations of the religion clauses in the U.S. Constitution and First Amendment to the United States Constitution. In 1802 Thomas Jefferson, writing of the “wall of separation” echoed Roger Williams in a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association.
The Salem church (of Massachusetts, a Puritan colony) was much more inclined to Separatism, so they invited Williams to become their Teacher. When the leaders in Boston learned of this, they vigorously protested, and the offer was withdrawn. By the end of the summer of 1631, Williams had moved to Plymouth colony where he was welcomed, and informally assisted the minister there. He regularly preached and according to Governor Bradford, “his teachings were well approved.”
Life at Salem, Exile and the Native Americans
After a time, Williams felt disappointed that the Plymouth church was not sufficiently separated from the Church of England. His study of the Native Americans had caused him to doubt the validity of the colonial charters. Governor Bradford later wrote that Williams fell “into some strange opinions which caused some controversy between the church and him.” In December 1632 he wrote a lengthy tract which openly condemned the King’s charters and questioned the right of Plymouth (or Massachusetts) to the land without first buying it from the Indians. Among Roger’s many “strange opinions” was challenging the King of England’s claim to the American colonies with the counter-claim that the rightful owners of the land were the native Americans, and not the King. He charged that King James had uttered a “solemn lie” when he asserted that he was the first Christian monarch to have discovered the land. Roger Williams tried to persuade his fellow European settlers to respect the land claims of Native Americans and live and trade with them as neighbors, not kill them like vermin. Roger’s first book was entitled A Key to The Language of America, which featured a language-translation guide teaching Europeans how to communicate with the Natives — a primary precondition for peaceful association. Unfortunately the majority of Europeans preferred extermination over translation. Roger’s contemporaries argued that Native Americans did not believe in property, and therefore the claims of European settlers violated no preexisting property claims. Roger argued that Native Americans did make property claims and that those claims must be respected. Edwin Gaustad, a professor of history at the University of California, describes the case Williams made for Native land-rights:
The English…justified their grabbing of Indian land by claiming that these simple folk did not really believe in property rights. On the contrary, Williams observed, “the Natives are very exact and punctual in the bounds of their Lands, belonging to this or that Prince or People,” even bargaining among themselves for a small piece of ground.
Roger Williams, a Christian minister called by God (my words), argued most vigorously against the forced conversion of the Natives to Christianity. Williams believed that forced conversion violated Christianity and was one of the most “monstrous and most inhumane” acts forced upon the Native peoples of North and South America. Roger called forced conversion “Antichristian conversion” that was like compelling “an unwilling spouse…to enter into a forced bed.” Ignoring Roger’s appeal to the sanctity of property and individual conscience, European settlers rushed forward to rape not only the Indian’s lands but their minds as well.
He ended up moving back to Salem by the fall of 1633 and was welcomed by Rev. Samuel Skelton as an unofficial assistant in the church. The Massachusetts authorities were not pleased to see Williams return, and when they learned of his tract attacking the King and the charters, he was summoned in December 1633 to appear before the General Court in Boston. The issue was smoothed out, and the tract disappeared forever, probably burned. In August, 1634 (Rev. Skelton having died), Williams became acting pastor of the Salem church and continued to be embroiled in controversies. He had promised earlier not to raise the issue of the charter again, but he did. Again, in March 1635 was ordered to appear before the General Court to explain himself. In April he so vigorously opposed the new oath of allegiance to the colonial government that it became impossible to enforce it. He was summoned again before the Court in July to answer for “erroneous” and “dangerous opinions,” and the Court declared that he should be removed from his church position. This latest controversy welled up at just the moment that the Town of Salem had petitioned the General Court to annex some land on Marblehead Neck (the outer northern limits of Massachusetts). The Court would not consider the request until the Salem church removed Williams. The Salem church felt that this order violated the independence of the church, and a letter of protest was sent to the other churches. However, the letter was not read, and the General Court refused to seat the delegates from Salem at the next session. Support for Williams began to wane under this pressure, and when Williams demanded that the Salem church separate itself from other churches, his support crumbled entirely. He withdrew and met in his home with a few of his most devoted followers (I say those most devoted to the Mashiach. For we do not follow a man but God by the one true gospel).
Finally, in October 1635 he was tried by the General Court and convicted of sedition and heresy. The Court declared that he was spreading “diverse, new, and dangerous opinions.”[6] He was ordered to be banished. (This order was not repealed until 1936 when Bill 488 was passed by the Massachusetts House.) The execution of the order was delayed because Williams was ill and winter was approaching, and he was allowed to stay temporarily provided he ceased his agitation. He did not cease, so in January 1636 the sheriff came to pick him up only to discover that Williams had slipped away three days before. He walked through the deep snow of a hard winter the 105 miles from Salem to the head of Narragansett Bay. There he was rescued by his friends, the Wampanoags, and taken to the winter camp of their chief sachem, Massasoit.
Settlement at Providence
In the spring of 1636 Williams and a number of his followers (again the Mashiach’s) from Salem began a settlement on land that Williams had bought from Massasoit, only to be told by Plymouth that he was still within their land grant. They warned that they might be forced to extradite him to Massachusetts and invited him to cross the Seekonk River to territory beyond any charter. The outcasts rowed over to Narragansett territory, and having secured land from Canonicus and Miantonomi, chief sachems of the Narragansetts, Williams established a settlement with twelve “loving friends.” He called it “Providence” because he felt that God’s Providence had brought him there. (He would later name his third child, the first born in his new settlement, “Providence” as well.) He said that his settlement was to be a haven for those “distressed of conscience,” and it soon attracted quite a collection of dissenters and otherwise-minded individuals.
From the beginning, the settlement was governed by a majority vote of the heads of households, but “only in civil things,” and newcomers could be admitted to full citizenship by a majority vote. In August of 1637 they drew up a town agreement, which again restricted the government to “civil things.” In 1640, another agreement was signed by thirty-nine “freemen,” (men who had full citizenship and voting rights) which declared their determination “still to hold forth liberty of conscience.” Thus, Williams had founded the first place in modern history where citizenship and religion were separated, a place where there was religious liberty and separation of church and state.
In November 1637, the General Court of Massachusetts disarmed, disenfranchised, and forced into exile the followers of Anne Hutchinson, called Antinomians (it does not seem as if they are antinominists, one without law, for the sign of a true antinominist is blatant unrighteousness. They were probably given this label as a flase accuation. At this time I do not know much of this people). One of them, John Clarke, learned from Williams that Aquidneck Island might be purchased from the Narragansetts. Williams facilitated the purchase by William Coddington and others, and in the spring of 1638 the Antinomians began settling at a place called Pocasset, which is now the town of Portsmouth, Rhode Island. Some of the Antinomians, especially those described by Governor John Winthrop as “Anabaptists (Anabaptist means baptized twice. How offensive is it to the hateful ones who call themselves christians, when it is told them, they are so far from the truth their water baptisms are not according to the Spirit and in truth. Their baptism is the practicing of hypocrisy and errors. And those who were baptized by them, it is as if they were never baptized. How these who are full of hate, despise the children of grace. They call themselves christians, but it is not God who called them.),” settled in Providence.
In the meantime, the Pequot War had broken out, and it was a great irony that Massachusetts Bay was forced to ask for Roger Williams’ help. He not only became the Bay colony’s eyes and ears, he used his relationship with the Narragansetts to dissuade them from joining with the Pequots. Instead, the Narragansetts allied themselves with the English and helped to crush the Pequots in 1637-1638. When the war was over, the Narragansetts were clearly the most powerful Indian nation in southern New England, and quite soon the other New England colonies began to fear and mistrust the Narragansetts. They came to regard Roger Williams’ colony and the Narragansetts as a common enemy. In the next three decades Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Plymouth exerted pressure to destroy both Rhode Island and the Narragansetts.
In 1643, the neighboring colonies formed a military alliance called the United Colonies and pointedly excluded the towns around Narragansett Bay. The object was to extend their power over the heretic settlements and put an end to the infection. (Even after Roger had come to their aid they sought to destroy him.) In response Williams was sent to England by his fellow citizens to secure a charter for the colony. The English Civil War was in full swing in England when Williams arrived. The Puritans were then in power in London, and through the offices of Sir Henry Vane a charter was obtained despite strenuous opposition from agents from Massachusetts. Historians agree that the key that unlocked the door for Williams was his first published book, A Key Into the Language of America (1643). Printed by John Milton’s publisher the book was an instant “best-seller,” and gave Williams a large and favorable reputation. This little book was the first dictionary of any Indian tongue in the English language and fed the great hunger of the English about the Native Americans. Having secured his precious charter for “Providence Plantations” from Parliament, in July 1644 Williams then published his most famous book, The Bloudy Tenent of Persecution for Cause of Conscience. This produced a great uproar, and Parliament responded in August by ordering the book to be burned by the public hangman. By then, Williams was already on his way home to Providence Plantations. Also, by then, the settlers on Aquidneck Island had renamed their island “Rhode Island.”
Because of opposition from William Coddington on “Rhode Island,” it took Williams until 1647 to get the four towns around Narragansett Bay to unite under a single government, and liberty of conscience was again proclaimed. The colony became a safe haven for people who were persecuted for their beliefs including Baptists, Quakers, and Jews. Still, the divisions between the towns and powerful personalities did not bode well for the colony. Coddington, who never liked Williams nor liked being subordinated to the new charter government, sailed to England and returned in 1651 with his own patent making him “Governor for Life” over “Rhode Island” [Aquidneck] and Conanicut. As a result, Providence and Warwick dispatched Roger Williams and Coddington’s opponents on “Rhode Island” sent John Clarke to England to get Coddington’s commission canceled. To pay for the trip, Williams sold his trading post at Cocumscussec, near present-day Wickford, Rhode Island. This trading post was his main source of income. Williams and Clarke were successful in getting Coddington’s patent rescinded, but Clarke remained in England until 1664 to secure a new charter for the colony. Williams returned to America in 1654 and was immediately elected the President of the colony. He would subsequently serve in many offices in the town and colonial governments, and in his 70s he was elected captain of the militia in Providence during King Philip’s War in 1676.
One notable effort by “Providence Plantations” (Providence and Warwick) during the time when Coddington had separated “Rhode Island” (Newport and Portsmouth) from the mainland came on May 18, 1652, when they passed a law which attempted to prevent slavery from taking root in the colony. In 1641 Massachusetts Bay had passed the first laws to make slavery legal in the British colonies, and these laws spread to Plymouth and Connecticut with the creation of the United Colonies in 1643. Roger Williams and Samuel Gorton both opposed slavery, and the law passed in 1652 was the attempt to stop slavery from coming to Rhode Island. Unfortunately, when the parts of the colony were reunited, the Aquidneck towns refused to accept the law and it became a dead letter. The economic and political center of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations was Newport for the next 100 years, and they disregarded the anti-slavery law. Indeed, Newport entered the African slave trade in 1700 and became the leading American slave traders from then until the American Revolution.
Relations with the Baptists
By 1638, Williams’ ideas had ripened to the point that he accepted the idea of believer’s baptism, or credobaptism. Williams had been holding services in his home for some time for his neighbors, many of whom had followed him from Salem. To that point they had been like the Separatists of Plymouth, still believing in infant baptism. Williams came to accept the ideas of English antipedobaptists.
John Smyth, Thomas Helwys, and John Murton were co-founders of the Baptist movement in Britain, and produced a rich literature advocating liberty of conscience. Williams certainly had read some of their writings because he commented on them in his Bloudy Tenent. While Smyth, Helwys and Murton were General Baptists, a Calvinistic Baptist variety grew out of some Separatists around 1630. Williams became a Calvinist or Particular Baptist (Reformed Baptist).
However, Williams had not adopted antipedobaptist views before his banishment from Massachusetts, for antipedobaptism was not a charge levelled at him by his opponents. Winthrop attributed Williams’s “Anabaptist” views to the influence of Katherine Scott, a sister of Anne Hutchinson, who may have impressed upon Williams the importance of believers’ baptism. Historians tend to think that Williams arrived there from his own study.
Williams had himself baptized by Ezekiel Holliman in late 1638. Thus was constituted a church which still survives as the First Baptist Church in America. A few years later, John Clarke, Williams’ compatriot in the cause of religious freedom in the New World, established a Baptist church in Newport, Rhode Island. In 1847 the Newport church suddenly maintained that it was the first Baptist church in America, but virtually all historians have dismissed this claim. If nothing else, Roger Williams had gathered and resigned from the Providence church before the town of Newport was even founded. Still, both Roger Williams and John Clarke are variously credited as being the founder of the Baptist faith in America.
It should be noted that Roger Williams was a Baptist only briefly. (Baptist denominations lay claim as Roger being their own. That he is of their lineage.) He remained with the little church in Providence only a few months. He became convinced that the ordinances, having been lost in the Apostasy [when Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire], they could not be validly restored without a special divine commission. He declared: “There is no regularly constituted church of Christ on earth, nor any person qualified to administer any church ordinances; nor can there be until new apostles are sent by the Great Head of the Church for whose coming I am seeking.”
He never again affiliated himself with any church, but remained deeply religious and active in preaching and praying. He looked forward to the time when Christ would send a new apostle to restore the church, but in the meantime, he would be a “witness” to Christianity. He always remained interested in the Baptists, being in agreement with them in their rejection of infant baptism as in most other matters. He has been mistakenly called a “Seeker“, both in his own time by his enemies and by his admirers in the last century. Some of his enemies in England called him a “Seeker” in an attempt to smear him by associating him with a heretical movement that accepted Socianism (they say in error Yeshua the Christ was not God) and universal salvation (they say in error all men shall be saved). Both of these ideas were anathema to Williams. He was like a Seeker only in his rejection of any visible church as being a true church. A twentieth century biographer revived the Seeker label, but regarded it as a positive thing, and it caught on.
Church and state
Roger Williams was by no means the first to advocate separation of church and state, but he was the first to establish a place where it could be practiced. The General Baptists in England had advocated separation as early as 1611, and the first two pastors of the first Baptist church in England died in prison for these beliefs. Williams had read their writings, and his own experience of persecution by Archbishop Laud and the Anglican establishment and the bloody wars of religion that raged in Europe at that very time convinced him that a state church had no basis in Scripture. Clearly he had arrived at this conclusion before he landed in Boston in 1631 because he criticized the Massachusetts Bay system immediately for mixing church and state. (God is the teacher of His chosen ones.) He declared that the state could legitimately concern itself only with matters of civil order, but not religious belief. The state had no business in trying to enforce the “first Table” of the Ten Commandments, those first commandments that dealt with the relationship between God and persons. The state must confine itself to the commandments that dealt with the relations between people: murder, theft, adultery, lying, honoring parents, and so forth. He regarded any effort by the state to dictate religion or promote any particular religious idea or practice to be “forced worship.” And he declared that “forced worship stinks in the nostrils of God.” He would write that he saw no warrant in the New Testament to use the sword to promote religious belief. Indeed, he said that Constantine had been a worse enemy to true Christianity than Nero because Constantine’s support had corrupted Christianity and led to the death of the Christian church. (Though Constantine and those who followed him made a great error, the gates of sheol, the grave, do not prevail against against the assembly of God in all generations. The assembly of Yeshua the Mashiach cannot die!) In the strongest language he described the attempt to compel belief to be rape of the soul, and he spoke of the “oceans of blood” shed as a result of trying to command conformity. He believed that the moral principles found in the Scriptures ought to inform the civil magistrates, but he observed that well ordered, just, and civil governments existed where Christianity was not present. All governments were required to maintain civil order and justice, but none had a warrant to promote any religion (religion here means denomination).
Most of William’s contemporaries and critics regarded his ideas as a prescription for chaos and anarchy. (God is in control of all things and rules His assembly by the one true gospel. It is the power of God unto salvation.) The vast majority believed that each nation must have its national church and that dissenters had to be compelled to conform. The establishment of Rhode Island was so threatening to its neighbors that they tried for the next hundred years to extinguish the “lively experiment” in religious freedom that had begun in 1636.
DEATH
Williams died sometime between January 28 and March 15, 1683 and was buried on his own property. Fifty years later, his house had collapsed into the cellar and the location of his grave forgotten. The rest written here is mere hear say and means little. They who man forgets God does not forget:
In 1860, Zachariah Allen sought to locate his remains, but found nothing. In the grave that Allen thought was that of Williams, he found the apple tree root, but little else. Some dirt from the hole was placed in the Randall family mausoleum in the North Burial Ground. In anticipation of the 300th anniversary of the founding of Providence, the dirt was retrieved from the mausoleum and placed in an urn and kept at the Rhode Island Historical Society until a proper monument was erected at Prospect Terrace Park in Providence. The actual deposit of the “dust from the grave of Roger Williams” did not occur until 1939 when the WPA finished the monument. The apple tree root is now regarded as a curio and kept by the Rhode Island Historical Society at the John Brown House Museum.
Absolutely no partiality with the children of grace! Not tolerated!
Beloved, we have sinned greatly against the Lord.
Let me introduce you to a Christian man you probably know not much of. He was born and raised a slave on the East Shore of the Chesapeake Bay (Maryland) in the early 1800′s. He had a conversion experience in slavery and in his 20′ s escaped to freedom in the North. North of Baltimore it was needful for him to escape, for Baltimore was a great center of the slave trade within the US. In the north he met friend and foes. Understand that the hatred of blacks was rampant on the northern side of the Mason-Dixon line among those who called themselves Christians, just as it was in the South. Beloved, and as these things are looked into by you, you will find exploits among the few. But let it be understood, that the list of witnesses of those who loved all men at its greatest was a few. They are a “great” cloud of witnesses.
What most greatly strikes me about Frederick Douglass (c.1818-1895) is how clearly and vividly he wrote, and could not convince all who call themselves Christians, of the evils of the sin called slavery. This is not the slavery of the unbeliever (as Paul wrote concerning), but the Christian slavery of Western civilization. Christians enslaving the unbeliever. Christians enslaving believers. This cannot be so, in the true grace of God. Those who did such things were barren of the grace of God. I read Frederick’s writings as one who needs no convincing and I am astounded that so many who called themselves Christian did not fall on their knees and immediately repent. He was burdened to continue to speak and write words primarily to those who called themselves Christians, that black folks where men as them, equal. This is no aberration in our behaviour toward God and man, it went on for centuries, and it continues to go on. We have sinned greatly against the Lord Yeshua who loves all men and died for all men. “For in Adam all died, even so in the Mashiach all will be made alive, each man in God’s order.” “The end of the Lord is the Lord is very pitiful and of tender mercies.” “His mercy endureth forever!” How have we omitted the weightier things of the Law, such as the love of the brethren. How greatly we do not understand the promises of God! Have we not read “in thy seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed.” Do we not know that the seed is one and the seed is the Mashiach? Do we not know that all nations shall be blessed, and some of the nations have men of dark-colored skin? How ignorant we are, and barren of the grace of God to act the ways we have and call ourselves Christians. And what do we do to day, the same, and more, for we kill the child in the womb. We are now so deceived, that we who call ourselves Christians, do not speak out strongly against abortion to those who call themselves Christians. We have sinned greatly against the Lord, o people who call yourselves Christians. Let it not be us who are calling ourselves Christians, but God calling us followers of Yeshua. “In Antioch they were first call Christians.” Just as slavery was tolerated and justified by the vast majority of those who called themselves Christians, it is not any different in our day and hour, that abortion is justified by the majority who call themselves Christians. If it was not tolerated by those who call themselves Christians, the abortion provider would be out of business. I speak not to the unbeliever, for God is his judge, but I speak to you who call yourselves Christians.
The following exerts are from the second revision of Frederick’s autobiography, “My Bondage and My Freedom”. They speak of his conversion, his former master’s conversion, a preacher named George Cookman, a light of God’s grace in the midst of the darkness, his first Sunday school experience, and his first attendance gathering with those who call themselves Christians after his escape from slavery. We have sinned greatly against the Lord! He who has ears to hear, hear, and eyes to see, see!
HIS CONVERSION
“Previous to my contemplation of the anti-slavery movement, and its probable results, my mind had been seriously awakened to the subject of religion. I was not more than thirteen years old, when I felt the need of God, as a father and protector. My religious nature was awakened by the preaching of a white Methodist minister, named Hanson. He thought that all men, great and small, bond and free, were sinners in the sight of God; that they were, by nature, rebels against His government; and that they must repent of their sins, and be reconciled to God, through Christ. I cannot say that I had a very distinct notion of what was required of me; but one thing I knew very well—I was wretched, and had no means of making myself otherwise. Moreover, I knew that I could pray for light. I consulted a good colored man, named Charles Johnson; and, in tones of holy affection, he told me to pray, and what to pray for. I was, for weeks, a poor, brokenhearted mourner, traveling through the darkness and misery of doubts and fears. I finally found that change of heart which comes by “casting all one’s care” upon God, and by having faith in Jesus Christ, as the Redeemer, Friend, and Savior of those who diligently seek Him. (God found Frederick. It must be so, or grace is not grace.)
After this, I saw the world in a new light. I seemed to live in a new world, surrounded by new objects, and to be animated by new hopes and desires. I loved all mankind—slaveholders not excepted; though I abhorred slavery more than ever. My great concern was, now, to have the world converted. The desire for knowledge increased, and especially did I want a thorough acquaintance with the contents of the bible. I have gathered scattered pages from this holy book, from the filthy street gutters of Baltimore, and washed and dried them, that in the moments of my leisure, I might get a word or two of wisdom from them. While thus religiously seeking knowledge, I became acquainted with a good old colored man, named Lawson. A more devout man than he, I never saw. He drove a dray for Mr. James Ramsey, the owner of a rope-walk on Fell’s Point, Baltimore. This man not only prayed three time a day, but he prayed as he walked through the streets, at his work—on his dray everywhere. His life was a life of prayer, and his words (when he spoke to his friends,) were about a better world. Uncle Lawson lived near Master Hugh’s house; and, becoming deeply attached to the old man, I went often with him to prayer-meeting, and spent much of my leisure time with him on Sunday. The old man could read a little, and I was a great help to him, in making out the hard words, for I was a better reader than he. I could teach him “the letter,” but he could teach me “the spirit;” and high, refreshing times we had together, in singing, praying and glorifying God. These meetings with Uncle Lawson went on for a long time, without the knowledge of Master Hugh or my mistress. Both knew, how ever, that I had become religious, and they seemed to respect my conscientious piety. My mistress was still a professor of religion, and belonged to class. Her leader was no less a person than the Rev. Beverly Waugh, the presiding elder, and now one of the bishops of the Methodist Episcopal church. Mr. Waugh was then stationed over Wilk street church. I am careful to state these facts, that the reader may be able to form an idea of the precise influences which had to do with shaping and directing my mind influences.
In view of the cares and anxieties incident to the life she was then leading, and, especially, in view of the separation from religious associations to which she was subjected, my mistress had, as I have before stated, become lukewarm, and needed to be looked up by her leader. This brought Mr. Waugh to our house, and gave me an opportunity to hear him exhort and pray. But my chief instructor, in matters of religion, was Uncle Lawson. He was my spiritual father; and I loved him intensely, and was at his house every chance I got.
This pleasure was not long allowed me. Master Hugh became averse to my going to Father Lawson’s, and threatened to whip me if I ever went there again. I now felt myself persecuted by a wicked man; and I would go to Father Lawson’s, notwithstanding the threat. The good old man had told me, that the “Lord had a great work for me to do;” and I must prepare to do it; and that he had been shown that I must preach the gospel. His words made a deep impression on my mind, and I verily felt that some such work was before me, though I could not see how I should ever engage in its performance. “The good Lord,” he said, “would bring it to pass in his own good time,” and that I must go on reading and studying the scriptures. The advice and the suggestions of Uncle Lawson, were not without their influence upon my character and destiny. He threw my thoughts into a channel from which they have never entirely diverged. He fanned my already intense love of knowledge into a flame, by assuring me that I was to be a useful man in the world. When I would say to him, “How can these things be and what can I do?” his simple reply was, “Trust in the Lord.” When I told him that “I was a slave, and a slave FOR LIFE,” he said, “the Lord can make you free, my dear. All things are possible with him, only have faith in God.” “Ask, and it shall be given.” “If you want liberty,” said the good old man, “ask the Lord for it, in faith, AND HE WILL GIVE IT TO YOU.”
HIS MASTER’S CONVERSION
In the month of August, 1833, when I had almost become desperate under the treatment of Master Thomas, and when I entertained more strongly than ever the oft-repeated determination to run away, a circumstance occurred which seemed to promise brighter and better days for us all. At a Methodist camp-meeting, held in the Bay Side (a famous place for campmeetings) about eight miles from St. Michael’s (Maryland), Master Thomas came out with a profession of religion. He had long been an object of interest to the church, and to the ministers, as I had seen by the repeated visits and lengthy exhortations of the latter. He was a fish quite worth catching, for he had money and standing. In the community of St. Michael’s he was equal to the best citizen. He was strictly temperate; perhaps, from principle, but most likely, from interest. There was very little to do for him, to give him the appearance of piety, and to make him a pillar in the church. Well, the camp-meeting continued a week; people gathered from all parts of the county, and two steamboat loads came from Baltimore. The ground was happily chosen; seats were arranged; a stand erected; a rude altar fenced in, fronting the preachers’ stand, with straw in it for the accommodation of mourners. This latter would hold at least one hundred persons. In front, and on the sides of the preachers’ stand, and outside the long rows of seats, rose the first class of stately tents, each vieing with the other in strength, neatness, and capacity for accommodating its inmates. Behind this first circle of tents was another, less imposing, which reached round the camp-ground to the speakers’ stand. Outside this second class of tents were covered wagons, ox carts, and vehicles of every shape and size. These served as tents to their owners. Outside of these, huge fires were burning, in all directions, where roasting, and boiling, and frying, were going on, for the benefit of those who were attending to their own spiritual welfare within the circle. Behind the preachers’ stand, a narrow space was marked out for the use of the colored people. There were no seats provided for this class of persons; the preachers addressed them, “over the left,” if they addressed them at all. After the preaching was over, at every service, an invitation was given to mourners to come into the pen; and, in some cases, ministers went out to persuade men and women to come in. By one of these ministers, Master Thomas Auld was persuaded to go inside the pen. I was deeply interested in that matter, and followed; and, though colored people were not allowed either in the pen or in front of the preachers’ stand, I ventured to take my stand at a sort of half-way place between the blacks and whites, where I could distinctly see the movements of mourners, and especially the progress of Master Thomas.
“If he has got religion,” thought I, “he will emancipate his slaves; and if he should not do so much as this, he will, at any rate, behave toward us more kindly, and feed us more generously than he has heretofore done.” Appealing to my own religious experience, and judging my master by what was true in my own case, I could not regard him as soundly converted, unless some such good results followed his profession of religion.
But in my expectations I was doubly disappointed; Master Thomas was Master Thomas still. The fruits of his righteousness were to show themselves in no such way as I had anticipated. His conversion was not to change his relation toward men—at any rate not toward BLACK men—but toward God. My faith, I confess, was not great. There was something in his appearance that, in my mind, cast a doubt over his conversion. Standing where I did, I could see his every movement. I watched narrowly while he remained in the little pen; and although I saw that his face was extremely red, and his hair disheveled, and though I heard him groan, and saw a stray tear halting on his cheek, as if inquiring “which way shall I go?”—I could not wholly confide in the genuineness of his conversion. The hesitating behavior of that tear-drop and its loneliness, distressed me, and cast a doubt upon the whole transaction, of which it was a part. But people said, “Capt. Auld had come through,” and it was for me to hope for the best. I was bound to do this, in charity, for I, too, was religious, and had been in the church full three years, although now I was not more than sixteen years old. Slaveholders may, sometimes, have confidence in the piety of some of their slaves; but the slaves seldom have confidence in the piety of their masters. “He cant go to heaven with our blood in his skirts,” is a settled point in the creed of every slave; rising superior to all teaching to the contrary, and standing forever as a fixed fact. The highest evidence the slaveholder can give the slave of his acceptance with God, is the emancipation of his slaves. This is proof that he is willing to give up all to God, and for the sake of God. Not to do this, was, in my estimation, and in the opinion of all the slaves, an evidence of half-heartedness, and wholly inconsistent with the idea of genuine conversion. I had read, also, somewhere in the Methodist Discipline, the following question and answer:
“Question. What shall be done for the extirpation of slavery?
“Answer. We declare that we are much as ever convinced of the great evil of slavery; therefore, no slaveholder shall be eligible to any official station in our church.”
These words sounded in my ears for a long time, and encouraged me to hope. But, as I have before said, I was doomed to disappointment. Master Thomas seemed to be aware of my hopes and expectations concerning him. I have thought, before now, that he looked at me in answer to my glances, as much as to say, “I will teach you, young man, that, though I have parted with my sins, I have not parted with my sense. I shall hold my slaves, and go to heaven too.”
Possibly, to convince us that we must not presume too much upon his recent conversion, he became rather more rigid and stringent in his exactions. There always was a scarcity of good nature about the man; but now his whole countenance was soured over with the seemings of piety. His religion, therefore, neither made him emancipate his slaves, nor caused him to treat them with greater humanity. If religion had any effect on his character at all, it made him more cruel and hateful in all his ways. The natural wickedness of his heart had not been removed, but only reinforced, by the profession of religion. Do I judge him harshly? God forbid. Facts are facts.
Capt. Auld made the greatest profession of piety. His house was, literally, a house of prayer. In the morning, and in the evening, loud prayers and hymns were heard there, in which both himself and his wife joined; yet, no more meal was brought from the mill, no more attention was paid to the moral welfare of the kitchen; and nothing was done to make us feel that the heart of Master Thomas was one whit better than it was before he went into the little pen, opposite to the preachers’ stand, on the camp ground.
Our hopes (founded on the discipline) soon vanished; for the authorities let him into the church at once, and before he was out of his term of probation, I heard of his leading class! He distinguished himself greatly among the brethren, and was soon an exhorter. His progress was almost as rapid as the growth of the fabled vine of Jack’s bean. No man was more active than he, in revivals. He would go many miles to assist in carrying them on, and in getting outsiders interested in religion. His house being one of the holiest, if not the happiest in St. Michael’s, became the “preachers’ home.” These preachers evidently liked to share Master Thomas’s hospitality; for while he starved us, he stuffed them. Three or four of these ambassadors of the gospel—according to slavery—have been there at a time; all living on the fat of the land, while we, in the kitchen, were nearly starving. Not often did we get a smile of recognition from these holy men. They seemed almost as unconcerned about our getting to heaven, as they were about our getting out of slavery.
GEORGE COOKMAN
To this general charge there was one exception—the Rev. GEORGE COOKMAN. Unlike Rev. Messrs. Storks, Ewry, Hickey, Humphrey and Cooper (all whom were on the St. Michael’s circuit) he kindly took an interest in our temporal and spiritual welfare. Our souls and our bodies were all alike sacred in his sight; and he really had a good deal of genuine anti-slavery feeling mingled with his colonization ideas. There was not a slave in our neighborhood that did not love, and almost venerate, Mr. Cookman. It was pretty generally believed that he had been chiefly instrumental in bringing one of the largest slaveholders—Mr. Samuel Harrison—in that neighborhood, to emancipate all his slaves, and, indeed, the general impression was, that Mr. Cookman had labored faithfully with slaveholders, whenever he met them, to induce them to emancipate their bondmen, and that he did this as a religious duty. When this good man was at our house, we were all sure to be called in to prayers in the morning; and he was not slow in making inquiries as to the state of our minds, nor in giving us a word of exhortation and of encouragement. Great was the sorrow of all the slaves, when this faithful preacher of the gospel was removed from the Talbot county circuit. He was an eloquent preacher, and possessed what few ministers, south of Mason Dixon’s line, possess, or dare to show, viz: a warm and philanthropic heart. The Mr. Cookman, of whom I speak, was an Englishman by birth, and perished while on his way to England, on board the ill-fated “President”. Could the thousands of slaves in Maryland know the fate of the good man, to whose words of comfort they were so largely indebted, they would thank me for dropping a tear on this page, in memory of their favorite preacher, friend and benefactor.
SUNDAY SCHOOL
But, let me return to Master Thomas, and to my experience, after his conversion. In Baltimore, I could, occasionally, get into a Sabbath school, among the free children, and receive lessons, with the rest; but, having already learned both to read and to write, I was more of a teacher than a pupil, even there. When, however, I went back to the Eastern Shore, and was at the house of Master Thomas, I was neither allowed to teach, nor to be taught. The whole community—with but a single exception, among the whites—frowned upon everything like imparting instruction either to slaves or to free colored persons. That single exception, a pious young man, named Wilson, asked me, one day, if I would like to assist him in teaching a little Sabbath school, at the house of a free colored man in St. Michael’s, named James Mitchell. The idea was to me a delightful one, and I told him I would gladly devote as much of my Sabbath as I could command, to that most laudable work. Mr. Wilson soon mustered up a dozen old spelling books, and a few testaments; and we commenced operations, with some twenty scholars, in our Sunday school. Here, thought I, is something worth living for; here is an excellent chance for usefulness; and I shall soon have a company of young friends, lovers of knowledge, like some of my Baltimore friends, from whom I now felt parted forever.
Our first Sabbath passed delightfully, and I spent the week after very joyously. I could not go to Baltimore, but I could make a little Baltimore here. At our second meeting, I learned that there was some objection to the existence of the Sabbath school; and, sure enough, we had scarcely got at work—good work, simply teaching a few colored children how to read the gospel of the Son of God—when in rushed a mob, headed by Mr. Wright Fairbanks and Mr. Garrison West—two class-leaders —and Master Thomas; who, armed with sticks and other missiles, drove us off, and commanded us never to meet for such a purpose again. One of this pious crew told me, that as for my part, I wanted to be another Nat Turner; and if I did not look out, I should get as many balls into me, as Nat did into him. Thus ended the infant Sabbath school, in the town of St. Michael’s. The reader will not be surprised when I say, that the breaking up of my Sabbath school, by these class-leaders, and professedly holy men, did not serve to strengthen my religious convictions. The cloud over my St. Michael’s home grew heavier and blacker than ever.
FIRST ATTENDANCE GATHERING WITH THOSE WHO CALL THEMSELVES CHRISTIANS AFTER HIS ESCAPE FROM SLAVERY
Among my first concerns on reaching New Bedford, was to become united with the church, for I had never given up, in reality, my religious faith. I had become lukewarm and in a backslidden state, but I was still convinced that it was my duty to join the Methodist church. I was not then aware of the powerful influence of that religious body in favor of the enslavement of my race, nor did I see how the northern churches could be responsible for the conduct of southern churches; neither did I fully understand how it could be my duty to remain separate from the church, because bad men were connected with it. The slaveholding church, with its Coveys, Weedens, Aulds, and Hopkins, I could see through at once, but I could not see how Elm Street church, in New Bedford, could be regarded as sanctioning the Christianity of these characters in the church at St. Michael’s. I therefore resolved to join the Methodist church in New Bedford, and to enjoy the spiritual advantage of public worship. The minister of the Elm Street Methodist church, was the Rev. Mr. Bonney; and although I was not allowed a seat in the body of the house, and was proscribed on account of my color, regarding this proscription simply as an accommodation of the uncoverted congregation who had not yet been won to Christ and his brotherhood, I was willing thus to be proscribed, lest sinners should be driven away form the saving power of the gospel. Once converted, I thought they would be sure to treat me as a man and a brother. “Surely,” thought I, “these Christian people have none of this feeling against color. They, at least, have renounced this unholy feeling.” Judge, then, dear reader, of my astonishment and mortification, when I found, as soon I did find, all my charitable assumptions at fault.
An opportunity was soon afforded me for ascertaining the exact position of Elm Street church on that subject. I had a chance of seeing the religious part of the congregation by themselves; and although they disowned, in effect, their black brothers and sisters, before the world, I did think that where none but the saints were assembled, and no offense could be given to the wicked, and the gospel could not be “blamed,” they would certainly recognize us as children of the same Father, and heirs of the same salvation, on equal terms with themselves.
The occasion to which I refer, was the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, that most sacred and most solemn of all the ordinances of the Christian church. Mr. Bonney had preached a very solemn and searching discourse, which really proved him to be acquainted with the inmost secerts(sic) of the human heart. At the close of his discourse, the congregation was dismissed, and the church remained to partake of the sacrament. I remained to see, as I thought, this holy sacrament celebrated in the spirit of its great Founder.
There were only about a half dozen colored members attached to the Elm Street church, at this time. After the congregation was dismissed, these descended from the gallery, and took a seat against the wall most distant from the altar. Brother Bonney was very animated, and sung very sweetly, “Salvation ’tis a joyful sound,” and soon began to administer the sacrament. I was anxious to observe the bearing of the colored members, and the result was most humiliating. During the whole ceremony, they looked like sheep without a shepherd. The white members went forward to the altar by the bench full; and when it was evident that all the whites had been served with the bread and wine, Brother Bonney—pious Brother Bonney—after a long pause, as if inquiring whether all the whites members had been served, and fully assuring himself on that important point, then raised his voice to an unnatural pitch, and looking to the corner where his black sheep seemed penned, beckoned with his hand, exclaiming, “Come forward, colored friends! come forward! You, too, have an interest in the blood of Christ. God is no respecter of persons. Come forward, and take this holy sacrament to your comfort.” The colored members poor, slavish souls went forward, as invited. I went out, and have never been in that church since, although I honestly went there with a view to joining that body. I found it impossible to respect the religious profession of any who were under the dominion of this wicked prejudice, and I could not, therefore, feel that in joining them, I was joining a Christian church, at all. I tried other churches in New Bedford, with the same result, and finally, I attached myself to a small body of colored Methodists, known as the Zion Methodists. Favored with the affection and confidence of the members of this humble communion, I was soon made a classleader and a local preacher among them. Many seasons of peace and joy I experienced among them, the remembrance of which is still precious, although I could not see it to be my duty to remain with that body, when I found that it consented to the same spirit which held my brethren in chains.
We have sinned greatly against the Lord for 300 years of slavery, this Christian slavery, in which we enslaved men. We have sinned greatly against the Lord in all our Jim Crow laws 100 years more. We continue to sin greatly against the Lord in the hidden hatred of our hearts calling ourselves Christians. We are not worthy of the least of the mercies of the Lord. How blind we and any man is if God does not give grace to accept the one true gospel, and give grace upon grace that our love will abound toward all men. Men tireless spoke for entire generations to those who made their boast in God and their Jesus (not mine), and would not cease being hypocrites. They would not listen. But the gates of sheol shall not prevail against the assembly of God. And God has a people, the children of grace, who love the brethren, that is all the brethren of every nation, in every generation. For in the midst of all men’s thoughts being continually evil always, the grace of God finds men, so God will have a people. God the Father is faithful in and through the name of His Son, Yeshua ha Mashiach, the only name under heaven in which any man can be saved, black or white, male or female, bond or free, of Yudah or Greek or Gentiles: these are of the nations. And God has one gospel, and in the true grace of God there is no disagreement concerning it, and it is the Mashiach, who is Yeshua of “Nazareth”, died for our sins, and according to the Tanach (Old Testament), He was buried and He rose again the third day and according to the Tanach. (Luke 24, 1 Cor 15:1-6)
Beloved, I mention Frederick, one black man, because if one child of grace is looked at with partiality in an assembly of God, this is contrary to the Mashiach. Let me give you my literal translation of James 2:1, “My brethren, there is no favoring of an individual in the faith of our Lord Yeshua, the Mashiach of glory.” Got it, there is no favoring of any individual in the faith of Yeshua. There is no favoring of one group or class in the Mashiach, such as white, such as the rich, and despising the poor. I know that there has been slavery involving many different peoples, but what I speak about here is relevant to the lands we live in (western civilization). We have been most contrary to the Mashiach, for we have favored the white man over black folks many times. We have favored ourselves over many others. We have been partial toward those of Yudah (the Jew). I wish the black person who is a child of grace will not favor a black man over a white. I wish that all the children of grace would lift up holy hands to our God without partiality towards none, loving all men, especially the brethren. For if you trangress in one man, you trangress against the entire law. You are guilty and apart from the Mashiach. You are lost in your sins and await the judgment of our God!
“We have men sold to build churches, women sold to support the gospel, and babes sold to purchase Bibles for the poor heathen! All for the glory of God and the good of souls! The slave auctioneer’s bell and the church-going bell chime in with each other, and the bitter cries of the heart-broken slave are drowned in the religious shouts of his pious master. Revivals of religion and revivals in the slave trade go hand in hand.” -Frederick Douglass, Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, An American Slave, Written by Himself-1845
“We kill infants in the womb to build churches, to support the gospel, and to purchase Bibles for the poor heathen! All for the glory of God and the good of souls! The ones killing the babies in the womb are comfortable in our church buildings made with men’s hands. We do not say this is unacceptable in the assembly of the living God for the love of money. It is the root of all evil. For the church and the world have become one and the same, but God does have a people in all generations.”-Now
The end of the matter on conversions and men of reputation
All understanding comes through the Old Testament as it prophesies of the Mashiach, Yeshua of “Nazareth”, death for our sins, His burial and His resurrection the third day.
Beloved, I have examined the life and writings of many men of reputation down through the centuries. I have attempted to judge their conversion and their doctrine by the one true gospel. At the most I can say I do not know. Many teach false doctrines and describe their conversions contrary to the one true gospel. Because of this I cannot commit any their writings to believers in any place.
But, beloved, I have found the writings of the apostolos (NewTestament) to be sure and true, judged by the one true gospel. I judge Paul’s conversion as a pattern of God’s grace to all. If any man speaks of his own conversion contrary to Paul’s, he is contrary to the Mashiach. And thus, I commit to you, beloved, the writings of the apostolos. Do not accept them as grace allows you to accept the Old Testament prophesying of the Mashiach death for our sins, His burial and His resurrection the third day, but judge them by the one true gospel. JUDGE THE NEW TESTAMENT WRITINGS BY THE ONE TRUE GOSPEL. It is the writings of the apostolos I find trustworthy to commit to all believers everywhere and by the writings of the prophets (Old Testament).
This is the last word I will write on men of renown of the past, their conversion and their doctrine. This is God’s matter.
The Will of God, the Spirit of God, Grace, the Spirit of God and Baptism
All understanding comes from the writings of the prophets (Old Testament or Tanach: they are one and the same) in light of the Mashiach’s death for our sin, His burial and His resurrection the third day. The Law and the Prophets prophesy or foretell the Christ’s death for our sins, His burial and His resurrection the third day. Yeshua of Nazareth is the Mashiach.
Beloved, continuing from the last post I am glad we are (I am) settled that there is no “free will of man”, only the sovereign will of God. We who abide in the true grace of God are settled. And so when we speak of the conversion of a man, first there is the will of God. This is what Yeshua clearly spoke of in Yohan 3: “Verily, verily, I say unto you, except a man be born from above, he cannot see the kingdom of God…Except a man be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is of the flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is of the Spirit. Marvel not that I said unto you, you must be born from above. The Spirit where He desires breathes, and the voice of Him you will hear, but you do not know where He comes from and where He goes. This pertains to everyone born of the Spirit.” Born of the earth speaks of the will of father and mother, but born from above speaks of the will of God. And if you are born of the will of those on the earth, you are carnal, but if you are born from the will of God above, you are of the Spirit. And the Spirit of God comes from where you do not know and goes to where you do not know. And thus it is for all who are converted (no exceptions), it is by the will of God through the Spirit you hear the one true gospel, but where the Spirit of the Father comes from and where He goes you did not know. For which of you are the counselors of God for any of His purposes, or for the conversion of a person.
And so we first have the will of God and the Spirit of God, and then the one true gospel is preached (again by the will and the Spirit of God), and in the midst of the preaching of the one true gospel, grace is given to a person to accept that which the moment before they could not accept. If there is not the will of God and grace there is rejection. Is not these thoughts witnessed in the conversion of Paul? Yes, of course! And now by the will of God through His Spirit, grace is given in the midst of the preaching of the one true gospel, and the person is put in the Mashiach, in Christ. We are crucified with Him, buried with Him, and raised to newness of life.
Now all that comes before is the order of God, and all that comes after grace is given, is the order of God. I will speak now of the order given to the household of Cornelius, for this was the same order of things when God granted to me the earnest (down payment) of the inheritance. I was endued from power on high and then dipped in water in the name of Yeshua. So I was endued with power on high. This is the promise of the Father. Now if a child of grace had no guide who did not know of the Holy Spirit, God will have to be his guide. And He will be a guide and give desire, awareness and understanding of the Holy Spirit, and the child of grace will be endued with power and high. It is a good gift that the Father will give to His sons and daughters of His Spirit through Yeshua. It is the will of God.
And then when grace is given, and the man is endued with power on high who shall forbid this one of water. The child has been given grace and desire for all that God has desired for him. He will not want to be excluded from dipping in water in Yeshua’s name, to be so identified with being buried with the Mashiach as all the children of grace.
Now brethren, at the beginning, the conversion of a person, God does not change the order. There is the will of God, and the Spirit of God, and the preaching of the one true gospel, and then grace is given to a person. But afterwards there can be enduing with power on High, and then water baptism, or water baptism and the enduing of power on high. This is not a second act of grace. This is all that God gives each of child of grace. Endued with power on high to read the scriptures. Endued with power on high to love and perform exploits (these are the works of God). Endued with power on high to prophesy and receive spiritual gifts. Endued with power on high to declare the one true gospel. Endued with power on high, to have confidence in Yeshua the Mashiach. Endued with power on high to accomplish His purpose. Endued with power on high to give unto Him a reasonable service, the fruit of lips, the sacrifice of thanksgiving to our God: thanks, Father for your dear Son, Yeshua the Mashiach! And there will be desire to be dipped in the name of Yeshua, for again the child of grace wants all that God desires for him to have. Desire spiritual gifts, but especially to prophesy.
Billy Graham (Nov 7, 1918 to present)
Commentators comments in italic (http://tonyclark.org/ham.html) and my comments in bold:
William “Billy” H. Graham was born in Charlotte, North Carolina on November 7, 1918 . Graham’s father, Frank Graham was raised in a strong Methodist tradition, and was experientially saved as an eighteen year-old in 1908. Graham describes his father: “My father had been reared as a Methodist, in the best old mourner’s-bench revivalist tradition.” Graham’s mother, Morrow Graham was a devout Presbyterian, but unlike his father, it is unknown as to whether she had experiential salvation. In the year 1934, at about the age of sixteen, Billy Graham started attending the famous Ham revival in Charlotte. Ham attended the meeting for several days until it so happened that Graham felt compelled to go forward and accept Christ. Here are a few excerpts from Graham’s testimony of when he accepted Christ at the meeting:
“And then it happened, sometime around my sixteenth birthday. On that night, Dr. Ham finished preaching (Preaching what?) and gave the Invitation to accept Christ…” (Conversion is the will of God and not the will of a man, whether the preacher or the hearer).
“On the last verse of that second song, I responded. I walked down to the platform, feeling as if I had lead weights attached to my feet, and stood in the space before the platform…”.
“My heart sank when I looked over at the lady standing next to me with tears running down her cheeks. I was not crying. I did not feel any special emotion of any kind just then. Maybe, I thought, I was not supposed to be there. Maybe my good intentions to be a real Christian wouldn’t last. Wondering if I was just making a fool of myself, I almost turned around and went back to my seat…”
As Graham stood at the platform, J.D. Prevatt, a friend of the family’s, testified to Graham and guided Graham to pray.
“He prayed for me and guided me to pray. I had heard the message (What message?), and I had felt the inner compulsion to go forward. Now came the moment to commit myself to Christ…” (The language here is as if it was the will of a man to be converted.)
Graham leaves us with a picture of him kneeling in prayer, but he never relates experiencing a feeling of joy and peace that is associated with experiential salvation. The next thing he tells us is:
“I checked ‘Recommitment’ on the card I filled out.” (This means nothing spiritually.)
He continues and says,
“No bells went off inside me. No signs flashed across the tabernacle ceiling. (Beloved, these are the descriptions of conversion from someone who does not know what conversion is. When I was converted there were no bells or lights, and to say describe the moment of conversion as this is to ridicule the grace of God.) No physical palpitations made me tremble. (Upon conversion the flesh is affected, but what is most significant is the acceptance of the one true gospel. Look at Paul’s conversion as an example. One moment there is unbelief, and the next moment the faith of Yeshua. That which I could not accept, in a moment in time, was accepted by grace and the will of God.) I wondered again if I was a hypocrite, not to be weeping or something. I simply felt at peace.” (Compare this conversion with the conversion of Paul. Compare all our conversions to the conversion of Paul, that grace would be grace. The will of man is not apart of conversion.)
Strictly speaking, Graham did have a “time and place” salvation. (Billy Graham heard a preacher preaching a message I do not know. Was the true grace of God given by the will of God? I do not know.) However, his testimony lacks of a true experiential conversion. He mentions how that he felt out of place when he saw people around him weeping and mourning. Even after he was “converted,” Graham had doubts about the sincerity of his experience. It is the opinion of the author that Graham did not have a true experience of salvation, but instead that he was deceived by the evangelical efforts of Mordecai F. Ham, Jr. (There is no evidence of God making choice, whether it never happened, or never was rightly understood.)
After a few years, Graham began an evangelical mission of his own. Graham was ordained as a Baptist minister in a Southern Baptist Church in 1939. After being a pastor for about five years, Graham began his evangelical crusades in the year 1944. Graham’s crusades were unbelievably productive. Graham’s preaching style and amount of converts brought him world-wide fame. In fact, he has preached in North America, South America, Europe, Africa, Asia, and Australia — all of the inhabited continents (Graham 866-869). In response to Graham’s incredible success, the entire Southern Baptist Convention has transformed. (And from his ministry and its falsehood that people can make a “decision for Christ” there is no evidence of the grace of God. His doctrine is false in many ways, for how can right doctrine come forth from one who knows not the true grace of God.)
Moredecai Ham (1877-1961)
From a commentary (http://tonyclark.org/ham.html) on Mordecai Ham in italics, and my comments in bold.
In order to better understand how experiential salvation (Experiential salvation means that there was a specific time or an experience when God gave grace by His will for a person to accept the one true gospel. Grace is given in the midst of the preaching of the gospel.) has become discarded within the Baptist denomination, one must study the life of a man called Mordecai F. Ham, Jr. Mordecai F. Ham, Jr. was born April 2, 1877 in Allen County, Kentucky. He was the son of Tobias and Ollie Ham. In fact, Mordecai F. Ham, Jr. was born into a long tradition of Baptist preachers. His father, Tobias Ham (b 1847), was a Baptist minister from South Central Kentucky, and his paternal grandfather, Mordecai F. Ham, Sr. (b. 1816) was also a Baptist minister from South Central Kentucky. There have even been efforts to connect Mordecai F. Ham, Jr.’s lineage all the way back to Roger Williams. The single most important detail of Ham’s life was his salvation. According to his biography, he did not have an experience of salvation:
“Mr. Ham is one of the many who cannot date the day and hour of their conversion. He comments, ‘From the time I was eight years old, I never thought of myself as anything but a Christian.’” According to his nephew, Edward E. Ham, Mordecai F. Ham, Jr., did not have a “time and a place” salvation experience. Therefore, the question is, how did Ham manage to be baptized into a Baptist church without a testimony of experiential salvation? Some argue that Ham was baptized because he lied about his salvation. Having been raised in a very Baptist family, Ham had heard many people give their testimonies of salvation. It would not have been difficult for him to have conjured one up for himself. Another possibility is that the church he was baptized into was not skeptical of his conversion because of his upbringing. Ham’s father and grandfather were both honest and hard-working Baptist preachers. It was likely that both factors were involved: He lied about his salvation, and the church did not question his salvation because of his father and grandfather. Whatever the case, Ham apparently did not have an experience of salvation.
In sight of the fact that Ham did not have an experience of salvation, how did he become an ordained Baptist preacher? Truly, the death of his grandfather, Mordecai F. Ham, Sr. in 1899 affected him deeply. Ever since he witnessed his grandfather’s death, he had a desire to continue the family tradition of preaching. In truth, when his grandfather died, his father was found praying that his grandfather’s “‘Prophet’s Mantle’” would continue with him (. After a little more than a year, in December 1900, Ham made his decision to be a preacher of the gospel. He left his business job at that time. Ham devoted the first eight months of the year 1901 to extreme study and prayer. Alongside the Bible, Ham studied many commentaries and religious books. One important book of his study was The Second Coming of Christ by D.L. Moody. Moody was a famous “mass evangelist” of the late Nineteenth Century. After these eight months of diligent study, Ham went to the annual Bays Fork Baptist Association Meeting at Bethlehem Baptist Church, near Scottsville, Kentucky. It is estimated that over 3,000 people attended the Bays Fork Association that year (34). While at the Association, Ham was asked to preach without any prior notice. He reluctantly agreed, and preached his first sermon from the text, Matthew 11:12. Evidently, the entire congregation received the sermon well, because at the end of it, they were all praising and exhorting God. After his sermon, a deacon from Mt. Gilead Baptist Church asked Ham if he would start a revival meeting at his church. Ham agreed and was made very welcome at Mt. Gilead Baptist Church. Part of the reason that he was so well endorsed by the church was because of his prior education. Most of the church’s previous pastors were mostly uneducated, but Ham had been to high school, and had spent some time in college. After the meeting, the congregation wanted to get rid of their old pastor, and replace him with Ham. Within a couple of weeks, the old pastor of Mt. Gilead was voted out. Ham was therefore ordained and began his pastoral ministry at Mt. Gilead Baptist Church.
From this time until his death, Ham was an evangelistic preacher. As Ham’s style of preaching grew to be more popular, he was invited to preach in different places throughout the United States. He especially preached in meetings in Kentucky, Tennessee, Texas, Oklahoma, and North Carolina. It was in Charlotte, North Carolina in 1934, that Ham preached to and converted his most famous convert, Billy Graham.
God chooses us by His will as He gives grace. We are not always Christians. We are not born Christians. God gives grace in the midst of the preaching of the one true gospel. How can a man say he does not know when he first believed. Could Paul who is a pattern of the long suffering of God say these things? Paul who was chosen as child of grace and an apostolos, could he not tell of his conversion? Beloved there is a time in every believer’s life when in one moment they were in unbelief, and in the next moment they are found to accept what they just could not: the one true gospel. And the one true gospel is the Mashiach died for our sins, and according to the Tanach, He was buried and He rose again, and according to the Tanach. Yeshua of “Nazareth” is the Mashiach of God. I find what is written of Mordecai Hamm is unreliable and is not worthy to be committed to the saints of God in our day. It is the same with many writings of men. I find the writings of the apostolos, what is called the New Testament, to be reliable because by the grace given to me I have judged them by the one true gospel, and they are in agreement with the Mashiach. All other writings of men I am not sure of, and thus I do not commit them to the brethren. We have the writings of the prophets which are accepted by grace, and the writings of the apostolos which are not accepted, but judged by the one true gospel and they are in agreement with the Mashiach.
Paul Washer (1961-present)
Paul Washer is a popular preacher of our day. Notes taken from his video testimony in italics and my comments in bold:
I received a message from a student who told me he had a message from God. This is what he said, “You are wretched, and you are miserable, and you will continue to be miserable until you surrender your life to Jesus Christ.” Christ began to work in my life and eventually I was converted (Though there is no mention of the one true gospel preached, Paul Washer says he was converted)…Immediately I felt a burden to preach…I began to preach what I thought was the gospel (After his conversion he felt a burden to preach, but by his own admission, it was a burden to preach another gospel…I went to the seminary influenced by two men, George Mueller and Hudson Taylor…An ex-Catholic preacher encouraged me to read the Bible…I began to see that the gospel I was preaching was not the glorious gospel (Despite preaching another gospel which is no gospel as all, in the midst of this he saw the glorious gospel)…I studied the scriptures more.
Beloved, by his own conversion account I can say I do not know whether Mr Washer was converted or not. Judging the message Paul Washer preaches today, it is not the one true gospel. So his own conversion account is in doubt and the gospel he preaches is not the one true gospel, and he rejects the one true gospel, I know I preach. He speaks of “a gospel” and “a Jesus”, but it is not “the gospel”. There are other gospels (that are no gospels at all), and other Jesus’ and other spirits. And these other gospels and Jesus’ and spirits are contrary to Yeshua the Mashiach raised from the dead. Brethren, reject this man’s preaching and teaching.
William Tyndale (1494-1536)
Narrative in italics and bold letters are my comments:
I must say that Tyndale’s writings do not emphasize the one true gospel, but matters of doctrine. And doctrine is ground of shifting sand apart from the one true gospel preached by the one true Spirit of God who zealously only testifies of Yeshua ha Mashiach. So let God be the judge of his doctrine, as it must with so many others writings. You see, beloved, in what I have read of Tyndale, I find no clear repetitious proclamation of the one true gospel. There would be no doubt with the writings of Paul and the apostolos. Let all who write spiritual writings repetitiously repeat the one true gospel in all their writings to mark the truth. That way it would never be said , I do not know if he preached the one true gospel. By the grace given to me, the writings of this blog will never leave the reader in doubt that I preach the one true gospel.
And so with Tyndale because there is no repetitious preaching of the gospel in his writings, today, 500 years later, I do not know if he preached the gospel faithfully. Because of this I cannot commit his writings to the saints. I will leave the matter of William Tyndale to God.
John Wycliffe (1320-1384)
The commentor’s comments in italics, and mine in bold. Judge all things by the one true gospel.
This commentary begins with an unconverted Wycliffe. Though he opposed the Roman Catholic Church it was done as unconverted and for political reasons. Wycliffe’s defense of England’s rights to keep its revenues within its own borders was courageous and bold. The deeper he entered into this defense, the more clearly he wrote against the corruptions of the Romish hierarchy. He was the first to call the pope Antichrist — a name later echoed by the Westminster divines and incorporated into the Westminster Confession. He denied the pope supreme power in the church, denied the temporal rule of the pope in the nations, denied the power of the pope to forgive sins, and, in fact, denied that anyone but a godly pope had any authority whatsoever. An old chronicler speaks of Wycliffe as running about from place to place barking against the church. The pope, in Wycliffe’s own words, was “the antichrist, the proud, worldly priest of Rome, and the most cursed of clippers and cut-purses.” It is no wonder that the church did not take too kindly to all this. From the pope on down, notice was taken of Wycliffe, and the orders went out from the highest levels of ecclesiastical hierarchy to silence the blasphemer. There is a mixture of statements as one converted and as an unbeliever. Before conversion he stood contrary to the Pope for political reasons. This will be clearly seen as the commentary continues.
The first effort made to silence him was a summons from the Archbishop of Canterbury to appear before this highest ecclesiastic in England for trial. It was an interesting meeting. The Duke of Gaunt was there with some of his soldiers, as well as a large number of people from the monied classes, many of whom supported Wycliffe. Before the Archbishop could get on with any kind of a trial, he got involved in a heated discussion with the Duke over the question whether Wycliffe should sit down — the Archbishop insisting he ought to stand as a measure of respect; the Duke insisting he should sit down since the Archbishop did not really amount to that much. The whole meeting ended in a brawl and nothing could be done against Wycliffe. This was on February 19, 1377.
In April of 1378 Wycliffe was once again summoned to the courts of the church, but this time to an assembly of bishops. The bishops were almost sure that this time they would succeed in sentencing Wycliffe to the stake and be rid, once and for all, of his critical writings and preaching which were such an embarrassment to the church. But this effort also proved unsuccessful, for not only did Wycliffe enjoy the favor of the people, but the queen mother sent word to the bishops that, although they could try Wycliffe as much as they pleased, they had better not condemn him, on peril of their lives. This so filled them with fear and consternation that they immediately disbanded the meeting. God used strange ways and strange people to protect His servant. Again as far as I can tell he was not converted at this time. He was not yet God’s servant.
But 1378 proved to be a turning point in Wycliffe’s life. Shortly after the convocation of the bishops Wycliffe underwent what was almost a conversion. Here, beloved, we have the time of conversion when God gave grace to accept the one true gospel by His will. He was no longer interested in the politics of the realm, nor in helping promote the cause of the king and the landowners in their battle with the papacy. I like what is said here. His interests died out in the political realm. It seems as if, under God’s leading through the Spirit of Christ, he began to see that the evils in the Romish Church were, after all, not primarily evils in practice, but evils rooted in the false doctrines which Rome had adopted over the years. Yes, bad communications or bad doctrine corrupt. And so he began to concentrate his labors on the investigation of Scripture and the development of the truths of Scripture. God is our teacher and as long as He give grace by His will for the one true gospel to be preached, He will continue to teach men. God had preserved him from the fury of the Romish Church and from almost certain death at her hands. The godly in the Mashiach will be persecuted. Because he refused to involve himself any longer in the affairs of the realm and in the battle to keep England’s wealth from flowing into papal coffers, those who were only interested in this aspect of the controversy with Rome lost interest in Wycliffe. The cross (the one true gospel) is preached, and persecution follows. First he lost the popularity of the people. Then the Duke of Gaunt was no longer interested in protecting him. And, finally, even his colleagues in Oxford refused to rise to his defense. In 1381 the Peasants’ Uprising occupied the attention of the nation, and very little effort was made to silence Wycliffe. But on May 17, 1382 a council of bishops met in London under the prodding of the pope to consider what to do with the pestilential teachings of John Wycliffe. Just as the council was beginning its meeting a rare and unusual earthquake struck London, causing many walls to collapse and stones from buildings to rain down on the streets. Wycliffe interpreted this to mean that the judgment of God was upon the council met together to condemn him (this I am not sure of); but the archbishop assured the assembly that they should continue with their deliberations because the earthquake was proof that the awful teaching of Wycliffe had seeped into the ground and that now the earth had belched to rid itself of these foul doctrines. This council was, from that time on, known as the Earthquake Council.
The council succeeded in condemning Wycliffe, but did not dare to execute him. It prevailed upon Oxford to expel him, which also Oxford did, though reluctantly. And so John Wycliffe retired to his parish in Lutterworth where he spent the rest of his days preaching and teaching. Wycliffe was banished to the assembly were the one true gospel would be preached. What the world considers a shame, God considers a great honor.
Perhaps John Wycliffe saw the truth of the one true gospel almost 200 years before the Reformation. He had access to a Bible in Oxford. He had two teachers. One of these teachers was a man by the name of Grosseteste, who hated and fought bitterly against the corruption of the church. At one time he wrote prophetically: “To follow a pope who rebels against the will of Christ is to separate from Christ and his body; and if ever the time should come when all men follow an erring pontiff, then will be the great apostasy . . . and Rome will be the cause of an unprecedented schism.” When the powerful Pope Innocent ordered Grosseteste to make his infant nephew a canon of Lincoln cathedral, Grosseteste flatly refused, with words which ring today in every church: “After the sin of Lucifer there is none more opposed to the gospel than that which ruins souls by giving them a faithless minister. Bad pastors are the cause of unbelief, heresy and disorder.” The other teacher which Wycliffe was given was Thomas Bradwardine. While able in philosophy and mathematics, he was above all a student of the Scriptures. It was Bradwardine who led Wycliffe to know the truth of the absolute sovereignty of God in grace over against the false doctrine of the Romish church. Bradwardine taught his students that the grace of God as determinative in salvation, and he opposed fiercely the doctrine of the free will of man. In fact, he taught these doctrines as they applied also to election and predestination.
As Wycliffe was taught of God he saw clearly many truths. Wycliffe was the first in centuries to teach the absolute authority of the Scriptures, over against the Romish error of the authority of the church. Wycliffe did battle too with Rome’s doctrine that the church was the Romish hierarchy and institute. He taught instead that the church was the body of Christ and was composed only of the elect. It was in this connection that he also taught the truths of sovereign election and reprobation. Wycliffe opposed the doctrine of transubstantiation (something which particularly aroused the fury of Rome). He taught a spiritual presence of Christ in the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper — although he was not very clear on what this meant. He repudiated the practices of Rome such as indulgences, the merit of pilgrimages, penance, etc. He denied that the church had the power to forgive sins and insisted that forgiveness came only from Christ. These were doctrines which, almost 200 years later, because the central teachings of the Reformation.
Wycliffe also put his teachings into practice. Beginning at Oxford, but continuing especially after he left Oxford for Lutterworth, Wycliffe began a translation of Scripture which he completed before his death. Although he did not know Scripture in its original languages, and translated Scripture from the Latin Vulgate, he gave a remarkably accurate translation which enabled the common people to hear the Scriptures in their language for the first time. The translating of the Scriptures was also extremely dangerous, because the church had forbidden that the Scriptures be put into the language of the common people. Nevertheless, even though printing had not been invented, many copies must have been made laboriously by hand, for there are still nearly 170 hand-copied Wycliffe Bibles extant.
Wycliffe believed strongly in the importance of preaching, something almost unheard of in his times in the decay of the Romish Church. He not only preached in his parish, but already in Oxford he began to train preachers to go out among the people with the gospel. He continued this while in Lutterworth and, arming them with a copy of Scripture or a part of it, taught them to expound the Word of God to the people. These traveling preachers became known as Lollards (a derogatory word signifying their lack of formal education). While they were severely persecuted, they continued after Wycliffe’s death and preserved his teachings until the Reformation finally broke upon England in the mid-1500s. Although Wycliffe suffered a stroke when about 50 years old, he partially recovered from it and continued his writing, preaching, teaching, and the training of his beloved Lollards. Finally, because the prelates in England seemed unable to do anything about Wycliffe, the pope himself summoned Wycliffe to Rome for trial. But Wycliffe had suffered his stroke and wrote a letter of decline. He suffered two more strokes, the last one in the pulpit, and finally left this life on December 31, 1384. Shortly after his death, the great Hussite (Moravians. Identified with John Hus.) movement arose and spread through Middle Europe. The Council of Constance declared Wycliffe (on 4 May 1415) a stiff-necked heretic and under the ban of the Church. It was decreed that his books be burned and his remains be exhumed. The exhumation was carried out in 1428 when, at the command of Pope Martin V, his remains were dug up, burned, and the ashes cast into the River Swift, which flows through Lutterworth. This is the most final of all posthumous attacks on John Wycliffe, but previous attempts had been made before the Council of Constance. The Anti-Wycliffite Statute of 1401 extended persecution to Wycliffe’s remaining followers. The “Constitutions of Oxford” of 1408 aimed to reclaim authority in all ecclesiastical matters, specifically naming John Wycliffe in a ban on certain writings, and noting that translation of Scripture into English is a crime punishable by charges of heresy.
-Taken from http://www.prca.org/books/portraits/wycliffe.htm
Beloved, I have not read extensively the writings of John Wycliffe, and I have not read in particular a clear declaration of the one true gospel, and whether it was faithfully declared to the end. The preaching of the one true gospel at the beginning to the end is most important. I see what seems to be the effects in his life of the grace of God. I use Paul as a benchmark of conversion and the preaching of the one true gospel. There is no doubt of Paul’s conversion, most clearly declared. His preaching of the one true gospel is documented until Acts 28, so this would be the time of the last two years of his life. He died with his head cut off by the sword. It is his conversion and his testimony and his gospel all judged by the one true gospel (he preached) that this gift to the assembly can be committed to the assembly of God. If another’s testimony cannot be as clear than I must judge it by the gospel with reservations, not fully committing it to the brethren. I wish I knew more of John Wycliffe’s preaching and his declaring of the one true gospel. But what I do know, it seems to be the grace of God, but as it stands what I know I cannot commit to the children of grace.
James Hudson Taylor (1832-1905)
The narrative in italics, my comments in bold:
The beginning of it all was a quiet hour among his father’s books, when young Hudson Taylor sought something to interest him. His mother was away from home and the boy was missing her. The house seemed empty, so he took the story he found to a favorite corner in the old warehouse, thinking he would read it as long as it did not get prosy. Many miles away, the mother was specially burdened that Saturday afternoon about her only son. Leaving her friends she went alone to plead with God for his salvation. Hour after hour passed while that mother was still upon her knees, until her heart was flooded with a joyful assurance that her prayers were heard and answered. The boy was reading, meanwhile, the booklet he had picked up, and as the story merged into something more serious he was arrested by the words: “The finished work of Christ.” Who can explain the mystery of the Holy Spirit’s working? Truth long familiar, though neglected, came back to mind and heart. “Why does the writer use those words?” he questioned. “Why does he not say, ’the atoning or propitiatory work of Christ’?” Immediately, It is finished shone out as in letters of light. Finished? What was finished? “A full and perfect atonement for sin,” his heart replied. “The debt was paid by the great Substitute. ‘Christ died for our sins,’ and ‘not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.’” The one true gospel declared by God to a man. Then came the thought with startling clearness, “If the whole work is finished, the whole debt paid, what is there left for me to do?” The one, the only answer took possession of his soul: “There was nothing in the world for me to do save to fall upon my knees and accepting this Savior and His salvation to praise Him for evermore.” The reasonable service, the fruit of lips, thankgiving to our God. Old doubts and fears were gone. The reality of the wonderful experience we call conversion filled him with peace and joy. New life came with that simple acceptance of the Lord Jesus Christ, for to “as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God.” And great was the change that new life brought. Longing to share his new-found joy with his mother, he was the first to welcome her on her return. “I know, my boy, I know,” she said with her arms about him. “I have been rejoicing for a fortnight in the glad news you have to tell.” (Howard, Spiritual Secret 16-18)
All men are converted when God according to His will grants grace to accept the one true gospel. The true gospel is the Mashiach, Yeshua, died for our sin according to the Old Testament, he was buried and He rose again the third day according to the Tanach.
If a man is a preacher or a missionary or a teacher of others it is necessary to write what they teach. The whole counsel of God should be declared. This is for others that they might clearly judge all which is said by the one true gospel. For if the whole counsel of God is not declared then the brethren are lacking at the least what needs to be understood. The whole counsel of God is necessary for the saints. For the enduring saints of God are not without understanding. They will be made perfect (complete). It is necessary to write what is needful. For how will your generation or another know what you have done is worthy of praise or condemnation.
-
Archives
- May 2012 (1)
- April 2012 (4)
- March 2012 (3)
- February 2012 (5)
- January 2012 (8)
- December 2011 (3)
- November 2011 (1)
- October 2011 (14)
- September 2011 (2)
- August 2011 (7)
- June 2011 (1)
- May 2011 (3)
-
Categories
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
