Jesse Mercer responded to Cyrus White with a series
of letters published under the title Ten
Letters Addressed to the Rev. Cyrus White, in Reference to his Scriptural View
of the Atonement (Washington, GA: News Office, 1830). His “apology”
is dated June 15, 1830 (The first letter is dated May 7, 1830).[i]
Mercer says White had “gone to general provision and free-will ability.” Part
of Mercer’s reason for writing the response was that some were implicating him as
being in agreement with Cyrus White. “...at the Ocmulgee Association last fall,
[Mercer] was requested to deliver a discourse on the atonement; but he declined...this
course was construed, rather into evidence of defection, and soon it was
reported, through that section, that he had apostitised from the faith of his
denomination, and was, at least, in connection with Cyrus White and B. H.
Willson (who were accused of propagating arminian sentiments) and of even being
their abettor...’You know brother Mercer, that Willson frequently asserted in
the association that he had not departed from the faith—but believed as you
did. If this be the truth, then the inference is fair, when we say, you believe
as Willson does: and we are well assured here than Willson believes as White
does; and White’s faith we have in print.’...On reading Mr. White’s views of
the atonement, and finding them far different than he had anticipated, and from
what he conceived to be correct; [Mercer] thought it proper to write the
following letters, not only to shew that his was not in sentiments with Mr. W.
as had been suggested, but also [to show Andrew Fuller had been misrepresented,
rlv].”[ii]
In The Baptist Memorial and Monthly Chronicle, Volume 1 (R.
Babcock, Jr. and J. O. Choules, Editors, New York, NY: John R. Bigelow, March
1842 pp. 77-78) those who followed the atonement viewpoint of Cyrus White were
dubbed White-ites, “composed of the followers of Rev. Cyrus White, who was once
a preacher of some reputation amongst the Baptists of Georgia. He embraced
Arminian sentiments...” The author goes on to say, though, “Both parties
evidently ran into extremes...The one party, anxious to expose the heresy of
the other, would put a construction upon the word which the speaker never
designed they should have. The other, too proud to disclaim the uncourteous
imputations, would evade them...So it happened with Cyrus White. Had he never
been opposed with violence, it is not probable that he ever would have become a
schismatic.”[iii]
It has been common, from Mercer to those who
follow, to cite Cyrus White as an Arminian.[iv]
No doubt the term Arminian is often used as a loose “catch-all” phrase. But according
to theological understanding, Cyrus White was no Arminian. While he embraced
the “full” or general atonement, which differs from a strict 5-point Calvinism,
there is no evidence brought forth of which I am aware that White embraced
other Arminian points, such as conditional election or the possibility of
falling from grace.[v] In his atonement booklet,
White writes, “If I have understood Election, it means the sovereign right of
God to choose whom he will...And such is the enormity of the human heart, it
will not submit to GOD’s government and grace. All men do most freely, most
willingly reject the gospel, and forever will, until the enmity of their heart
is slain, and their stubborn wills subdued by sovereign grace. This application
of the grace of God is made by him to whom he will; his people are made willing
in the day of his power, and this is Election...None will be saved but those to
whom an application of the atonement is made.” (p. 22).
In contrast to Mercer and others who follow his
view of White’s theology, Peter
Lumpkins pointed out to me that there is a similarity of the view to
White to the New
Divinity views on the atonement of Jonathan Edwards and Timothy
Dwight. Jonathan
Maxcy, a Baptist minister, “took over the presidency of [the
University of South Carolina] in 1804, for the next two decades, he made a
powerful impact all over the south with his New Divinity views on the
atonement, a general atonement based upon the governmental theory rather than
strictly penal substitution and the Owenic pecuniary emphasis upon the
traditional ‘commercial transaction’ taught by Gill and explicitly inherited by
the Mercers and subsequently most GBA Baptists at the time.”
[i] Since they are letters, I
wonder out loud whether Jesse Mercer may have sent these to Cyrus White before
they were printed. These were also printed in The Christian Index, August 28, 1830: “We have received a pamphlet
of near 50 pages containing ten letters addressed to the Rev. Cyrus White, by
the Rev. Jesse Mercer, of Georgia,
on the Atonement” (W. T. Brantly, The
Columbian Star and Christian Index, 1830). Brantly wrote, “…if brother
White chooses to reply…we shall feel bound to print his reply.” I am not aware
that White ever replied via the Index.
[iii]
“Origins of Free Will Baptists in Georgia” in The
Journal of Baptist Studies (Volume 6, June, 2014), if accurate,
indicates a slow movement of the White-ites toward becoming Free Will Baptists.
For White himself, it appears his main difference from the larger body of
Georgia Baptists was that he held and preached a general provision in which the
blessings of salvation are freely offered to all by the gospel.
[iv]
By both those who wish to oppose him as an Arminian, and those who wish to
embrace him as an Arminian. (Mercer, p. i, mentions Arminian in reference to
White’s view.)
[v] Chattahoochee United
Baptist Association’s doctrinal abstract, Article 8 states, “8. We believe that
Saints will persevere in Grace to the end of their lives.” (Minutes of the Chattahoochee United Baptist
Association, 1848, p. 4) thanks for Peter Lumpkins for this information.
No comments:
Post a Comment