Hymn Book as “Prayer Book”

An interesting thought.

It has been asserted by some that in many of the English “free churches” (dissenters from the Anglican Church, including Baptists), the hymn book acted as a central, unifying, and authoritative resource. In that place it fulfilled many of the same functions as the Book of Common Prayer did in the Church of England. I find this very intriguing, and think there is some merit in that assertion. A group of churches with a shared hymn book had a degree of shared theological and structural framework for worship.

For example, Ernest Payne says that the hymn book as a body of practical and experimental divinity was “One of the more immediate and personal legacies of Wesley was the hymn book he edited.” He continues, “In the Free Churches a hymn book takes the place occupied by the Prayer Book in the devotional life, public and private, of the Anglican. This in part explains how it is that the hymns of Watts, Doddridge, and the Wesleys have so entered into the life of the English people.”

The Free Church Tradition in the Life of England, Ernest Alexander Payne. London: S.C.M. Press Ltd., 1944, p. 79

Matthew Poole’s Annotations

Matthew Poole (1624-1679) was an English Non-Conformist preacher, author, and theologian. He is best known for his commentary on the Bible. As with Matthew Henry, I most often shorthand Annotations Upon the Holy Bible simply as Matthew Poole’s commentary. However, also like Matthew Henry, Matthew Poole died before he completed his work. Poole finished the English Annotations from Genesis 1 through Isaiah 58 before his died in 1679. Friends and colleagues completed annotations on the rest of the books of the Bible . Editors Samuel Clark and Edward Veale later added chapter outlines. Poole’s “death prevented his going farther than the 58th Ch. of Is.” According to Edmund Calamy, the other authors completing the Annotations were:

• Isaiah 59-60 – Mr. [John] Jackson of Moulsey
• Isaiah 61-66, Jeremiah, Lamentations, the Gospels, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Revelation – Dr. [John] Collinges
• Ezekiel, Minor Prophets – Mr. [Henry] Hurst
• Daniel – Mr. [William] Cooper
• Acts – Mr. [Peter] Vinke
• Romans – Mr. [Richard] Mayo
• Ephesians, James, 1 and 2 Peter, Jude – Mr. [Edward] Veale
• Philippians, Colossians – Mr. [Richard] Adams
• 1 and 2 Thessalonians – Mr. [Matthew] Barker
• Hebrews – Mr. [Obadiah] Hughes
• 1, 2 and 3 John – Mr. [John] Howe

Edmund Calamy, The Nonconformist’s Memorial: Being An Account of the Ministers Who Were Ejected Or Silenced After the Restoration, etc., Volume 1, 1775, p. 135

In addition to print sets of the Annotations, it can be found online in various places:

• Bible Hub
• Bible Portal
• Hathi Trust
• Study Light

Tertullian, John 5:3-4

John 5:3b-4 ...waiting for the moving of the water. For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had.

Though the above text is in the majority of Greek manuscripts, the critical text and many modern translations omit it because it is not in early manuscripts such as א. However, notice that Tertullian, who lived circa AD 155 to 220 (before א), had this text in his Bible, and addressed it in his writing on baptism.

If it seems a novelty for an angel to be present in waters, an example of what was to come to pass has forerun. An angel, by his intervention, was wont to stir the pool at Bethsaida. They who were complaining of ill-health used to watch for him; for whoever had been the first to descend into them, after his washing, ceased to complain.

Tertullian, in De Baptismo (On Baptism, chapter 5)

Recommended, with reservations

Historic Churches of Texas: The Land and The People, Frank A. Driskill and Noel Grisham. Burnet, TX: Eakin Press, 1980

This is a book about churches in Texas, and their church buildings. I was excited when I found I could borrow this book at Archive.Org. The excitement quickly dissipated, and overall I was sadly disappointed. The work contains many mistakes, some perhaps of only a typographical nature, but others are errors in fact. For example:

• On page 1, Driskill and Grisham introduce the famous Baptist preacher Z. N. Morrel (sic). When they refer to him again on page 3, he becomes J. N. Morrell. On the same page (3), the real Isaac Reed becomes “Isaac Read,” J. S. Milstead is “J. M. Milstead,” and M. Melton becomes “W. Melton.” If there are this many typographical errors in the first three pages, no doubt the book is filled with them. 
• The name Union Church is claimed to be so because the house was used by Baptists, Methodists, and Primitive Baptists (a sort of “union,” I suppose). On the other hand, the house itself already had name – Liberty School House – and there is no evidence of any Methodists or Primitive Baptists meeting there in 1838 when the Union Baptist Church was formed. Union is the name of the church – the congregation – not the building.
• The constitution of this church, the first of its kind in East Texas, was a “union” of Baptist believers in covenant, organized by a presbytery of ordained Baptist ministers. It took that name at its very beginning, in the conference conducted after the church was constituted – “Church met for business – chose bro. Green moderator, -- named the church Union…” The church, not the building. No other explanation need be devised.
• At the bottom of page 3 we “learn” that the “earlier migrant Pilgrim Baptist Church was organized near Nacogdoches in 1824.” Actually the “migrant Pilgrim Baptist Church” was organized in Illinois in 1833, and moved as a congregation to Texas, arriving in January 1834.

I have some questions about which churches were chosen, and which were left out, and why, but I suppose that is a matter of an author’s purpose and perspective. There is some interesting stuff in this book, all collected in one place. Nevertheless, the reader should be keenly aware that, because of the nature of some of the mistakes, that details must be verified by more reliable sources. Read with caution, and check the work.

God and the Sand

Read God and the Sand: 50 Year History of Old Prospect Baptist Church.

X-mas or Christmas or both?

There are Christians who spend a great deal of time saying, “Keep Christ in Christmas” or “Put Christ back into Christmas.” (Other Christians would say he was never part of it!) For the first group, “put Christ back into Christmas” is a retort against the use of “X-mas” in the place of “Christmas.”[i] I have heard this most of my life. However...

Chi (Χ or χ) is the twenty-second letter of the Greek alphabet. Used in X-mas, it is not leaving out the name of Christ, but substituting or abbreviating it by using the first letter in the Greek name Christ (χριστός) for Christ. Abbreviations can make communication easier – if you understand the abbreviation. We use them in most aspects of life, especially in writing. In this abbreviation or substitution, X = Christ. X-mas = Christmas.

Some secularists say or use X-mas thinking they deliberately leave Christ out. Some scrupulous Christians substitute the X instead of using “Christ,” thinking they avoid combining the title of Jesus “Christ” with the Roman Catholic “Mass.”[ii] Nevertheless, there is longstanding documented sacred history of Christians using Chi (Χ or χ) to mean, stand for, or symbolize Christ. X-mas does not avoid putting Christ in Christmas, no matter how you slice it.

Here endeth the history lesson.[iii]

---

[i] This objection may have originated in the periodical News and Views, published by the Church League of America. An article in December of 1957 titled “X=The Unknown Quantity” criticized the use of X-mas instead of Christmas. However, it is possible that this has earlier criticisms, and was only widely popularized at this time.
[ii] The etymology of the English word Christmas is Middle English Christemasse, from Old English Cristes mæsse, literally, Christ’s mass (combing the words Christ + Mass, the eucharistic service). Nevertheless, to most Westerners it just means the annual commemoration of the birth of Jesus, usually celebrated on December 25. Notice however, for example, Wednesday is “Woden’s Day,” Thursday is “Thor’s Day,” and “Friday is “Frigga’s Day.” We would lose our ability to communicate effectively in our native language if we made up words to replace all words that have offensive root associations.
[iii] This is a history lesson, not an advocacy article. I do not care that much what you choose call it. Nevertheless, I would suggest that using the full “Christmas” is less likely to be misunderstood in our culture, without having to explain which one of at least three ways you might be using “X” (as a non-Christian trying to avoid Christ, as a Christian trying to avoid placing Christ next to Mass, or as a Christian using X to stand for and represent Christ).

One cup and no Sunday School

Some interesting information about the doctrine and history of a minority Stone-Campbell Restorationist group – the one communion cup and no Sunday School churches of Christ.

• A Brief History of the One-Cup and Non-Sunday School Movement
• Oddities in Pattern Theology
• First Day of the Week: Acts 20: 7

I found it intriguing; perhaps some of you will as well.

’Twas the Night Before... What?

“This volume is like a beautiful old picture which has come down to us in a state of extraordinary perfection.”

Clement Clarke Moore (1779-1863) is best known as author of the poem “A Visit from St. Nicholas” (also known as “’Twas the Night Before Christmas.”[i] Additionally, Moore was Professor of Oriental & Greek Literature and Divinity & Biblical Learning at the General Theological Seminary in New York City – a seminary of the Protestant Episcopal Church (i.e., the Anglican Church in the United States). He compiled A Compendious Lexicon of the Hebrew Language, in Two Volumes (New York, NY: Collins & Perkins, 1809).

On November 14, 1825, Clement C. Moore gave a lecture at Christ Church in New York City. Professor Moore’s lecture was reported in the February 1826 issue of The Christian Journal and Literary Register (Vol. X, No. 2, pages 51-52). The author said Moore’s “description of the Bible is unequalled.”

“Such, my young friends, is the wonderful volume, to the study of which a large portion of the time to be passed by you in the seminary is allotted. When the difficulties of its language are surmounted, it opens an abundant store of treasures to the antiquary, the historian, the chronologer, the philologist, the grammarian, the orator, the poet, and the divine. Its entire freedom from every thing that makes the least approach to affectation; the unrivalled simplicity of its style; its admirable touches of pathos; the perfect picture of nature in its narratives and descriptions; the beautiful metaphors, allegories, and similies; the noble hymns of praise; the profound strains of penitence and prayer with which it abounds, added to its high and holy import, render it a work of a nature fitted, in every point of view, to excite the most intense interest, and to afford the most exquisite gratification. And I hope it is not presumptuous in a layman to dissuade you from being influenced by the practice of those bold critics who, by conjectural emendations of the original text, attempt to throw light upon such parts of it as the lapse of ages has rendered obscure. This volume is like a beautiful old picture which has come down to us in a state of extraordinary perfection. Some defects and blemishes, it is true, appear; but they materially hurt neither the design nor the colouring; and it is not for modern and obtrusive hands to attempt to repair the injuries done by time to such a venerable and matchless work.” 

Moore’s discourse was printed by T. and J. Swords of New York in a booklet as A Lecture Introductory to the Course of Hebrew Instruction in the General Theological Seminary of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States.

---

[i] The poem was first published anonymously in the Troy, New York Sentinel on December 23, 1823. Moore later claimed authorship.

Early Baptist Churches in the Northeastern U.S.

Recently our daughter treated the “old folks” to a vacation with her to the northeastern United States. We saw many marvelous things while there – from fall foliage to Mount Washington to Niagara Falls to the Cincinnati Zoo. Part of the trip included visiting the sites of some historic Baptist churches. Here is a brief report of what we saw. Some locations were deliberate encounters, and some we happened across while traveling. I will take them in chronological order.

First Baptist Church, Providence, Rhode Island.

It was dark when we arrived at this location, but I was able to get some pictures. This church at Providence claims to be the oldest Baptist Church in America. The church claims its organization from 1638. Roger Williams gathered a congregation in 1638, but it is not clear that he was a Baptist at the time. I consider Williams a “halfway Baptist” – one who accepted some of the principles of the Baptists, and may have connected himself with them for a very brief period but was never fully committed to Baptist doctrine. Additionally, it appears that the Williams church died out, and the current First Baptist Church is the continuation of a General Baptist Church organized in 1652. Nevertheless, they claim to be the first Baptist Church in America. The building used by First Baptist Providence was built in 1775. The church is now a very liberal society affiliated with the ABCUSA and American Baptist Churches of Rhode Island.

United Baptist Church, Newport, Rhode Island.

The Baptist Church at Newport was organized in 1638 by John Clarke. It is the oldest Baptist Church in the United States and America. The building in which the church currently meets was built in 1826. The church is affiliated with the ABCUSA and American Baptist Churches of Rhode Island, but appears to be a much more conservative evangelical church than the one at Providence. They hold the New Hampshire Confession of Faith as their doctrinal statement.

“Sometime during the year 1638, it is believed, the church now known as The United Baptist Church, John Clarke Memorial, of Newport, was organized and he [i.e., John Clarke] became its first pastor, holding that office until his death. He is believed to have been the first American Baptist pastor, and it is thought by many that the church he founded and served as pastor is entitled to the distinction of being the oldest Baptist church in this country.” Wilbur Nelson, The Life of Dr. John Clarke, Newport, RI: Men’s Bible Class of First Baptist Church, 1924, p. 17. 

Pennepack Baptist Church, Busleton, Pennsylvania.

The Pennepack Church was organized in 1688 by Elias Keach, son of English Baptist leader Benjamin Keach. Though not the first Baptist church constituted in Pennsylvania, it is the oldest Baptist church in Pennsylvania in continuous existence. The first meeting house was built in 1707, and the current building was built on the same location in 1805. The church is affiliated with the ABCUSA.

Welsh Tract Baptist Church, Newark, Delaware.

The Welsh Tract Baptist Church was organized in Wales in 1701, and then moved to the “Welsh Tract” purchased from William Penn in 1703. The current meeting house was built in 1746. The picture from one side (below) shows a brick wall repair of a cannon ball hole made during the Revolutionary War Battle of Cooch’s Bridge. The meeting house is surrounded by the cemetery on three sides, which includes burials of early members and pastors. The Welsh Tract Church rejected the concept of parachurch societies for carrying out the Lord’s work, and followed the “old school” local church ministry. Welsh Tract Old School Baptist Church meets here monthly on second Sundays.

Baptist Church, Hopewell, New Jersey.

The church at Hopewell was constituted in 1715. Some of its first members were baptized by the Pennepack Church in Pennsylvania. The Old School Baptist Meeting House at Hopewell was built in 1747. No congregation currently meets here. Declaration of Independence signer John Hart is buried in the graveyard, as well as Joab Houghton, who in front of this meeting house made a call for volunteers for the Continental Army.

Second Baptist Church, Harbourton, Hopewell, New Jersey.

This building built in 1879 was once the home of the 2nd Hopewell Baptist Church. There was a church meeting here by 1803, when the cemetery was established. The Baptist Church disbanded around 1930. The Harbourton Cemetery Association was incorporated in 1931 to maintain the cemetery – which had been owned by the church. I believe a generic community church probably meets here now.

Old Stone Church, Old School Baptist, Locktown, New Jersey.

It is not clear just when this church at Locktown was constituted, but at least by 1819 when Old Stone Church building was built. The nearby Kingstown Baptist Church held meetings in Kingstown as well as in this area. Eventually a church was established here as well. The church disbanded in the 1960s, and the location is now maintained as an historic building by the “Friends of the Locktown Stone Church, Inc.”

Union Baptist Church, Mystic, Connecticut.

This church building in Mystic, Connecticut was originally built in 1829 for use by different denominations. Some members from the First Baptist Church founded the Third Baptist Church in 1831. The Third Baptist congregation met here. As different groups built their own buildings and moved out of this location, this meeting house was left to the use of the Baptists. In 1861, the Third Baptist Church merged with the Second Baptist Church to form Union Baptist Church. The current building itself is also a combination of the Second and Third Baptist meeting houses, the building of Second Baptist being moved to the back of the original building. The Second Baptist Church dated back to 1765, when it was organized in Fort Hill, Groton, Connecticut.

Wearts Corner Baptist Church, Wertsville, New Jersey.

The Baptist Church in Wertsville, New Jersey was formed by “New School” Baptists who left the “Old School” congregations at Hopewell and Flemington. These departing Baptists supported missionary societies and other extra-church organizations. They had organized by 1834, when the stone meeting house was constructed. The congregation ceased to meet in 1908. The building is now a residence. (Apparently also called Amwell Baptist Church, which name is on the gable front.)

Baptist Church, Weston, Vermont.

The “church on the hill” building was built in 1838. It was originally built by the Baptists, so there was a Baptist Church in Weston by that time. However, the building is now home to the Weston Community Church. It is said to be one of the most photographed buildings in southern Vermont.

Tremont Temple Baptist Church, Boston, Massachusetts.

Tremont Temple Baptist Church was founded in Boston in 1839. My understanding is that it was a Free Baptist Church—believed in a general atonement and free (that is, open) communion. The building was completed in 1894. Several stories, it is now used by others as well as the church. The old sign over the church door says “The First Integrated Church in America.” I am unsure what nuance they use to make that claim. Many Baptist churches in America had integrated congregations long before this. The church affiliates with the ABCUSA, but also is part of the 9Marks orbit.

Pawcatuck Seventh Day Baptist Church, Westerly, Rhode Island.

There were Baptists in England and America who worshipped on the 7th day rather than the 1st day. This church house is the meeting location for the Pawcatuck Seventh Day Baptist Church in Westerly, which was organized in 1840. Apparently, based on there being two signs, and considering the Seventh Day Baptists meet on Saturday, another church called “The Church at Westerly” meets in the building on Sunday.

The church locations we visited cover a founding history of over 400 years, 1638-1840. Obviously, there were other locations we could have seen, but these constitute two that I was determined to see – Newport and Welsh Tract – and others that my daughter determined we would be close to, or places we happened to drive by. In most cases the buildings were locked, no one was around, and we were unable to go inside (Welsh Tract & Tremont Temple being exceptions). I did not do detailed research on the foundings of these churches, but generally accepted the dates they proposed. We saw other non-Baptist historical buildings, such as the Old North Church where the lanterns of warning were hung prior to “the midnight ride of Paul Revere” and William Dawes. I thought I would share a bit of history and a few pictures.

Learning from the Augsburg Confession

“Poor and afflicted,” Lord, are thine,
Among the great unfit to shine;
But tho’ the world may think it strange,
They would not with the world exchange.[i]

It is a common modern misconception that the Amish and Mennonites are Anabaptists, and that Baptists are not. In popular usage there is some truth to that. However, in meaning and history such a view is not correct.[ii] Historically, “Anabaptist” has been a catch-all term to describe all sorts of groups, with varying shades of belief. They were all Anabaptists in the sense that they held in common believers’ baptism, that water baptism was reserved for adults who professed their own faith, and therefore “re”baptized those who had been baptized (usually sprinkled) in infancy. It is for this practice that they were called “Anabaptists” by their opponents.[iii]

The Baptists of London prepared a Confession of Faith in 1644, which they called a confession “Of those Churches which are commonly (though falsly) called Anabaptists.” This statement has been used to “prove” that Baptists are not Anabaptists. However, we must understand the use and misuse of the term, as well as its origin. Again, it was a catch-all. If you rejected infant baptism then you were an Anabaptist, historically. On the other hand, the Baptists of London rejected the term as a self-descriptor. The confession itself does not clarify why they rejected the term. Their opponents were not impressed, and still considered them Anabaptists.[iv] In the end, this is a struggle to be recognized clearly on our own terms rather than the terms given by opponents. Baptists of strong constitution still argue that we do not “rebaptize.”[v] “Anabaptist” Balthasar Hübmaier put it this way in his Short Apology (1526):

“I have never taught Anabaptism…But the right baptism of Christ, which is preceded by teaching and oral confession of faith, I teach, and say that infant baptism is a robbery of the right baptism of Christ…”

The 1530 Augsburg Confession (Confessio Augustana) of the Lutheran Church provides some interesting insight into the views of Anabaptists in the early 16th century.[vi] This confession of faith was submitted at the Diet of Augsburg (Germany) in 1530 to His Majesty Charles V (1500–1558. Holy Roman Emperor, King of Spain, Archduke of Austria, and Lord of the Netherlands), setting forth the views of “Our [Lutheran] Churches, with common consent.” It sets forth their views in two parts – the chief articles of faith in 22 articles, followed by 7 articles recounting Catholic abuses that had been corrected by the Lutherans (e.g., celibacy of priests). The Confession was printed in both German and Latin.

The following excerpts of the Augsburg Confession are found at the CCEL.ORG website. I provide first the Latin, for it goes back to the original time period. This provides an extra layer of research for those who understand Latin. The rest can ignore it. The Latin text is from the editio princeps, 1531, and the English translation is by Charles P. Krauth in the 1800s.[vii] I will also give an alternate English translation (and explain why later).

The Augsburg Confession condemns the beliefs of Anabaptists in five of the 22 articles of faith. We should not understand that all Anabaptists believed all of these things – which can be disproven with a little research. Rather, it is that the Lutherans thought each of these were things held by some variety of Anabaptist. The Anabaptists in concert rejected the baptism of infants and held to the biblical practice of believers’ baptism. However, they thought there were Anabaptists who were universalists, or believed in annihilation of the wicked, Anabaptists who held sinless perfection, Anabaptists who held eternal security, and, of course, Anabaptists who rejected service in civil office and military service.

Article V: Of the Ministry

Damnant Anabaptistas et alios, qui sentient, Spiritum Sanctum contingere sine verbo externo hominibus per ipsorum preparationes et opera.

They condemn the Anabaptists and others, who imagine that the Holy Spirit is given to men without the outward word, through their own preparations and works.

They condemn the Anabaptists and others who think that the Holy Ghost comes to men without the external Word, through their own preparations and works.

It is possible, considering the last phrase, that the Anabaptists were misunderstood by the Lutherans for attending on their own local congregations while refusing to attend the ministrations of the state church. There were some Anabaptists who were spiritualists, expecting to receive new or advanced revelation beyond the written word. Those might be included in this condemnation.

Article IX: Of Baptism

Damnant Anabaptistas, qui improbant Baptismum puerorum et affirmant pueros sine Baptismo salvos fieri.

They condemn the Anabaptists who allow not the Baptism of children, and affirm that children are saved without Baptism.

They condemn the Anabaptists, who reject the baptism of children, and say that children are saved without baptism.

This is the common thread of all Anabaptism – rejecting the baptism of children and holding to believers’ baptism. Whether they are Baptist immersionists or Mennonite pourers, they are all alike Anabaptists in this regard.

Article XII: Of Repentance

Damnant Anabaptistas, qui negant semel justificatos posse amittere Spiritum Sanctum. Item, qui contendunt quibusdam tantam perfectionem in hac vita contingere, ut peccare non possint [dass diejenigen so einst sind fromm worden, nicht wieder fallen mögen]. Damnantur et Novatiani, qui nolebant absolvere lapsos post Baptismum redeuntes ad pœnitentiam. Rejiciuntur et isti, qui non docent remissionem peccatorum per fidem contingere, sed jubent nos mereri gratiam per satisfactiones nostras

They condemn the Anabaptists, who deny that men once justified can lose the Spirit of God, and do contend that some men may attain to such a perfection in this life that they can not sin. [Here are rejected those who teach that those who have once been holy can not fall again.] The Novatians are also condemned, who would not absolve such as had fallen after baptism, though they returned to repentance. They also that do not teach that remission of sins is obtained by faith, and who command us to merit grace by satisfactions, are rejected.

They condemn the Anabaptists who deny that those once justified can lose the Holy Ghost. Also, those who contend that some may attain to such perfection in this life that they cannot sin. The Novatians also are condemned, who would not absolve such as had fallen after Baptism, though they returned to repentance. They also are rejected who do not teach that remission of sins comes through faith but command us to merit grace through satisfactions of our own.

This first English translation of this statement is the main reason I chose to include an alternate translation. Krauth’s translation muddies two groups in one. There were Anabaptists who denied that once men were justified could lose the Holy Ghost. That is Baptist eternal security teaching, and different from the falling from grace idea held by the majority of modern-day Anabaptists. Then again, there are those who believe one can attain sinless perfection in this life. As written, these are two different statements, rather than one belief as Krauth translates it. It is not clear to me whether the Lutherans saw the Novatians as a group within Anabaptism, or a completely separate. More research could shed some light on that.

Article XVI: Of Civil Affairs

Damnant Anabaptistas, qui interdicunt hæc civilia officia Christianis. Damnant et illos, qui Evangelicam perfectionem non collocant in timore Dei et fide, sed in deserendis civilibus officiis, quia Evangelium tradit justiciam æternam cordis. Interim non dissipat Politiam aut Œconomiam, sed maxime postulat conservare tanquam ordinationes Dei, et in talibus ordinationibus exercere caritatem. Itaque necessario debent Christiani obedire magistratibus suis et legibus; nisi cum jubent peccare, tunc etiam magis debent obedire Deo quam hominibus (Acts v. 29).

They condemn the Anabaptists who forbid Christians these civil offices. They condemn also those that place the perfection of the Gospel, not in the fear of God and in faith, but in forsaking civil offices, inasmuch as the Gospel teacheth an everlasting righteousness of the heart. In the mean time, it doth not disallow order and government of commonwealths or families, but requireth especially the preservation and maintenance thereof, as of God's own ordinances, and that in such ordinances we should exercise love. Christians, therefore, must necessarily obey their magistrates and laws, save only when they command any sin; for then they must rather obey God than men (Acts v. 29).

They condemn the Anabaptists who forbid these civil offices to Christians. They condemn also those who do not place evangelical perfection in the fear of God and in faith, but in forsaking civil offices, for the Gospel teaches an eternal righteousness of the heart. Meanwhile, it does not destroy the State or the family, but very much requires that they be preserved as ordinances of God, and that charity be practiced in such ordinances. Therefore, Christians are necessarily bound to obey their own magistrates and laws save only when commanded to sin; for then they ought to obey God rather than men. Acts 5. 29.

It is well-known that many Anabaptists then and now believed Christians should not hold civil office. That was not, however, the sine qua non of Anabaptism. Anabaptist leader Balthasar Hübmaier (1480-1528) believed government was an institution ordained by God, that Christians should support their government and pay taxes, and even that Christians could “take up the sword” for government under the right circumstances.[viii] Pilgram Marpeck (1495–1556) was an engineer who worked in the public employ. The Münster Rebellion is a very negative, radical, and damaging example of Anabaptists and civil office. In fact, it may have helped solidify many anti-paedobaptists of that period against interacting in government affairs. The Confession seems to imply that Anabaptists did not believe in obeying magistrates, which is a misinterpretation. They also believed in Acts 5:29, but, holding the freedom of religious expression, thought that magistrates requiring religious faith and “orthodox” belief of its citizens was a violation of Acts 5:29. The Lutheran concept of a state church probably further exacerbated their misunderstanding.

Article XVII: Of Christ’s Return to Judgment

Damnant Anabaptistas, qui sentiunt hominibus damnatis ac diabolis finem pænarum futurum esse. Damnant et alios, qui nunc spargunt Judaicas opiniones, quod ante resurrectionem mortuorum pii regnum mundi occupaturi sint, ubique oppressis impiis [eitel Heilige, Fromme ein weltlich Reich haben, und alle Gottlosen vertilgen werden].

They condemn the Anabaptists who think that to condemned men and the devils shall be an end of torments. They condemn others also, who now scatter Jewish opinions, that, before the resurrection of the dead, the godly shall occupy the kingdom of the world, the wicked being every where suppressed [the saints alone, the pious, shall have a worldly kingdom, and shall exterminate all the godless].

They condemn the Anabaptists who think that there will be an end to the punishments of condemned men and devils. They condemn also others who are now spreading certain Jewish opinions, that before the resurrection of the dead the godly shall take possession of the kingdom of the world, the ungodly being everywhere suppressed.

This shows some Anabaptists were universalists, and that some were probably annihilationists (i.e., annihilation of the wicked would put an end to their punishments). The later belief sounds much like Postmillennialism, and bears more study. We do know that at least some Anabaptists were looking for and expecting a Millennial Kingdom. The various condemnations in this Confession do not embrace a single group of Bible believers. To them, anyone who rejected infant baptism were “Anabaptists.” (Perhaps even some opponents who did not even hold believers’ baptism were tarred with the Anabaptist brush!)

Final thoughts 

That’s a brief look, in a long post, of some ideas which one might draw about Anabaptists from the Lutheran Confessio Augustana. It represents what they felt were errors of the Anabaptists, as they understood them. They condemned and opposed them. Roman Catholics replied to the Confessio Augustana in August 1520 with the Confutatio Augustana. At least three times they praised the Lutherans for “condemning the Anabaptists, a most seditious class of men that ought to be banished far from the boundaries of the Roman Empire…” The kings of the earth stood up, and the state churches gathered together, against the Lord and against his little flock.

For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: but God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; and base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: that no flesh should glory in his presence. 1 Corinthians 1:26-29.

---

[i] By Thomas Kelly (1769–1855).
[ii] Even the Editors of the online Encyclopaedia Britannica – certainly no bastion of Landmarkism – recognize that the Anabaptist, at the least, is the “spiritual ancestor of modern Baptists, Mennonites, and Quakers.”
[iii] From the Greek baptizo, immerse, and ana, again. “Again” refers more to how their opponents viewed these baptisms – that is, baptizing again, or a second time, someone who have already been baptized. The “Anabaptists,” on the other hand, saw this as the first, real, and only baptism – that is, whatever had happened before, it was not baptism. This is one reason Baptists moved away from the term. They did not admit to “rebaptizing” or baptizing again. Other reasons were to distance themselves from other Anabaptists they considered unsound or heretical, and probably to avoid some of derision and persecution directed at all who were considered Anabaptist. The excesses, uprising, and establishment of an “Anabaptist Kingdom” at Münster, Westphalia tainted the name for years to come. Many still associate the name “Anabaptist” and “Münster” as inextricably linked. There exists the possibility and even cases of “anabaptist” practice by some who believe in infant baptism, in that they will not receive a particular infant baptism performed by some other group, denomination, etc. This is anabaptism in principle, though I am not aware of it being historically identified as Anabaptism.
[iv] For example, Daniel Featley wrote wrote of Article 39, “Here they lispe not, but speak out plain their Anabaptisticall doctrine; whereby they exclude all children of the faithfull, from the Sacrament of entrance into the Church.” In 1647 published The Dippers Dipt, or, The Anabaptists Duck’d and Plung’d over Head and Ears.
[v] “Antipaedobaptists” is another term that is probably more accurate. Baptists are against paedobaptism (infant sprinkling, pouring, and even immersing), while, in the strictest sense, do not believe that they are rebaptizing Paedobaptists when they baptize them.
[vi] Thanks to Mark Osgatharp, Baptist pastor in Wynne, Arkansas, for pointing out this resource connection.
[vii] The first English translation of the Confession was made by Richard Taverner in 1536. It has the advantage of also being from the time period. I have not seen it online, however.
[viii] Enough Anabaptists defended the use of the sword for defense of country that there is a distinct name for those who held such a view, Schwertler Anabaptists. In Anabaptists and the Sword (1972), James M. Stayer challenged the consensus teaching that all 16th century Anabaptists taught non-resistance (and wins, in my opinion).

Siloam Baptist, Greene County, formerly Smyrna

Historic Rural Churches of Georgia posted pictures of the building of Siloam Baptist Church of Greene County, Georgia. Siloam was originally called the Smyrna Church when it was organized in 1828, and was in the Smyrna Community. A later post office application changed the community name. Click HERE to see pictures and story. 

My ancestors Wyatt and Eliza Jane (Parker) Vaughn were early members of this church, as well as others of the Parker family. Several folks from Greene County populated the eastern portions of Rusk County, Texas, and some of the western portions of Panola. These folks became members of existing churches and/or organized new ones. They were in Baptist churches such as Liberty, Mt. Carmel, Mt. Zion, Shiloh, and so on. In August of 1873, some of the Parkers from Georgia, as well as others who had been members of the Mt. Carmel Church, organized the Smyrna Baptist Church. On August 19, Martha Frazier (originally of Greene County) joined by letter of recommendation. On February 14, 1874, my great-great-grandmother Eliza J. Vaughn came on letter of recommendation (her husband was already deceased).

I have long assumed that, in addition to choosing a Bible name, these Georgians named their church Smyrna because of their former connection to the Smyrna Church in Greene County, Georgia. This year, Smyrna Baptist Church of Rusk County, Texas will celebrate its 150th anniversary, Lord willing.

--

Organization minutes of Smyrna Baptist Church, Greene County:

December 19, 1828

A Presbytery being called met consisting of Brethren R. Pace, J. Roberts and J. Davis, in order to constitute a Church. Brother Pace Preached the Sermon from Colosians the 3rd & 1st. If ye then be risen with Christ seek those things which are above where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God. After which, Bro. Davis made some appropriate remarks and prayer, and then Proceded to the Constitution of the Church. Bro. Roberts asked the necessary questions. Prayer by Bro. Pace

Charge by Bro. Davis.

Done the 19th December 1828
Vincent Sanford, Clerk P.T.
Presbytery: Richard Pace, Joseph Roberts, Jonathan Davis.

--

Organizational minutes of Smyrna Baptist Church, Rusk County:

Sat. before the 3rd Sun. in Aug. 16, 1873. 

A number of Brethren and Sisters met at Chinquapin for the purpose of organizing a Missionary Baptist Church. After divine service by Elder John Sparkman. Solicited brethren called for, none present. On motion Bro. John Deason was called to preside with Eld. John Sparkman, Bro. F. O. Galloway to act as clerk protem. Opportunity then extended to those wishing to unite whereupon 17 came forward with letters of recommendation and were received. Namely E. S. Parker, Rebecca Parker, Jasper Parker, G. A. Parker, M.  T. Wells, E. Wells, W. J. Parker, C. A. E. Parker, Martha Moore, J. F. M. Reid, Mary V. Reid, Robert P. Goldsberry, Nannie E. Goldsberry, G. W. McNew, Martha McNew, C. M. Holleman, F. O. Galloway.  After letters being read, fellowship for each other called for and was granted, then we extended to each other the right hand of Christian and church fellowship. Prayer being offered by Eld. John Sparkman for the preservation and the unity of the church. We then proceeded in conference, elected J. F. M. Reid church clerk. On motion the meeting was protracted. No farther business. Conference adjourned, Conference approved.

            John Sparkman Mod. J.F.M. Reid, C.C.

Adders and Subtracters

Pharisees and Sadduccees, examples of those who adde to and dimimish from the words of God.

The earliest disciples had held Jesus, walked with Him, and learned directly from Him. This fostered a dedication that was unrivaled in the church age. Dedication and devotion marked the church as a unique body through the early portion of the church age. Martyrdom was common and fervor for the Lord ran rampant. However, during the days of the Byzantine church, the pureness of parts of the church strayed amongst many that identified themselves as Christians. This is easily identified in Deuteronomy 4:2 as adding to or subtracting from the Word of God.

Consider that the problem ran from Judaism into Christianity as Pharisees and Sadducees. The Pharisees added to the Word by adding rules that were not given in the Word, such as additional rules for Sabbath. The Sadducees subtracted from the Word by removing doctrines such as the resurrection. These problems have been accrued under the name of Christianity throughout the church age. While some remain steadfast to the Word of God alone, other groups have identified under Christianity while compromising the foundations of the Word.

“Church History” column, John Melancon, in The Baptist Monitor, Nov/Dec 2022, Vol. 74 No. 6, p. 18

Opposition to the proposed 1870 Bible revision

About mid-February 1870, the Upper House of the Convocation of Canterbury passed a resolution to revise the English Bible. Near the end of the month the Convocation of the Province of York declined to join them in producing a revision. The London Times carried a report on the proposed revision, February 11, 1870 (p. 8). By the 5th of March, Anthony Ashley Cooper (1801-1885), the seventh Earl of Shaftesbury, had written at least three letters about and in opposition to the idea. Shaftesbury was not a clergyman. He was, however, an avid evangelical Anglican who was active in Bible and benevolent work. For many years Shaftesbury was president of the British and Foreign Bible Society (1851-1885), as well as president of the Evangelical Alliance.

Below are two letters of correspondence from Lord Shaftesbury to The Times. (I will post the third letter tomorrow, d.v.) Shaftesbury, among other things, was a philanthropist and member of parliament actively engaged in the reform of certain English laws and standards – including the lunacy laws and treatment of lunatics, the treatment of factory workers (many of whom were children), and better housing for the poor. Much, but not all, of his objection to the Bible revision centered in his conviction of the importance of a common or standard Bible for all English-speaking people.

Everything below, if I have introduced no errors, was written by Shaftesbury and appeared in The Times newspaper.

THE TRANSLATION OF THE BIBLE.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE TIMES.

            Sir,—As President of the Bible Society, I request leave to address you, and through you the public, on “the revision of the version of the Scriptures, as proposed by the Upper House of Convocation,” at their sitting of the 11th of this month.

            If the suggested revision were intended to remove serious mistranslations involving errors of faith and doctrine, we should, such error being admitted, have nothing to say. But we have the remark of the Bishop of St. David’s, made at this same sitting, who “did not believe that any alteration in the verbal or grammatical construction of the New Testament would in any way affect the doctrine which the Church of England now held.” At this point their Lordships, “contrary,” as your reporter observes, “to their usual custom, broke out into cries of ‘Hear, hear,’ ‘Hear, hear,’” thus giving to the sufficiency of our version of nearly the whole of the Episcopal Bench.

            His Lordship of St. David’s proceeded to observe “that the issue of this movement might be a Church Bible and a Dissenting Bible; and this would be such a tremendous evil that no advantage which could possibly be gained could ever compensate for it.”

            This statement, though most true, is very greatly under the mark. The English Bible, as altered by the Bishops, will cease to be the Bible, not only of the Nonconformists, but of the Scotch and Irish Presbyterian Churches; it would cease to be the Bible of our brethren in the United States of America, and of every Protestant speaking the English language over the entire surface of the globe; we should, moreover, lie under the burden, the importance of which will, of course, be variously estimated, of having the fifty million copies of the Scriptures already issued by the society “synodically condemned.” Such is the phrase by the two Houses of Convocation.

            It would be difficult to describe the benefits that have been derived by a very large portion of the human race from this hearty, earnest, and general acceptance of the authorized version; but it would be still more difficult to describe the manifold evils that would flow from the disruption of it.

            Nearly all, I believe, both of Churchmen and Dissenters, would be most happy to leave the translation as it at present exists, and to forbear the assertion of their special criticisms on words and phrases; but if the Bishops will insist on such minute accuracy, others will be equally positive in similar demands. Many will ask, and justly ask, whether “the Church,” as understood in the present day, is a due rendering of the Greek; and why should it be “Church” in one place, and “Assembly” in another.

            They will also ask how far the word now rendered by “Bishop” designates a Bishop of the present day; and, turning to the word “Priests,” they will, since all possibility of mistake is to be avoided, require such a marginal note, at least, as shall remove the confusion that now prevails between the priests of the Old Testament and the priests of the New.

            This is effected in the French Protestant translations by the use of the word “Sacrificateur”—a word which could never be used in our Prayer-book, or applied to designate a Protestant minister.

            In the sincere hope that the public voice and opinion of all English-speaking Protestants may avert this calamity.

                        I am, Sir, your obedient servant,

            February 12.                            SHAFTESBURY.

[The Times, Monday, February 14, 1870, page 10.]  

 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A REVISED TRANSLATION OF THE BIBLE.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE TIMES.

            Sir,—When I had the honour to address you a few days ago on the subject of a revised translation of the Bible, I did so as President of the Bible Society, without any intention of implying that I acted under the direction and sanction of the committee. The gentlemen who form the body have instructed me that they desire, for the present, to remain altogether neutral.

            I am in duty bound to state their wishes, and so correct any misapprehension that may have arisen.

            For myself, I have no intention to remain neutral or silent, believing that a new translation of the Holy Scriptures into the language of modern days, though it will not affect in any degree our faith and doctrine, will produce a momentous and permanent change in the thoughts and feelings of every English-speaking people.

                        I am, Sir, your obedient servant,

Feb 23.                                    SHAFTESBURY.

[The Times, Thursday, February 24, 1870, page 10.] 

Bible Bill, King James, Western Canada, and the World

Why Bill? Which Bible? (As promised back on April 4th, I am getting around to a biographical effort on William Aberhart.)

Bible Bill’s biography

William Aberhart was a school teacher, principal, Bible teacher, radio evangelist, and the premier of Alberta (from 1935 till his death in 1943). Aberhart was often called “Bible Bill” in the press, probably in an effort to diminish or ridicule his political status.[i]

William Aberhart was born December 31, 1878 in Perth County, Ontario, Canada, the son of William Aberhart and Louisa Pepper. Aberhart married Janet Maria “Jessie” Flatt (1878-1966) in 1902. They had two daughters, Khona Louise (1903-1998) and Ola Janette (1905-2000).

Aberhart trained at Queen’s University and became a teacher. In 1915 he became the principal of Crescent Heights High School in Calgary. The same year he became the “unofficial minister” at Westbourne Baptist Church (he was not ordained). He continued to serve as principal of Crescent Heights High School until 1935.

Aberhart was a passionate preacher, Bible teacher, and radio evangelist. He started the Calgary Prophetic Bible Conference at Westbourne Baptist Church in 1918. He began broadcasting Bible teaching over CFCN in 1925. At the time CFCN was the most powerful radio station west of Montreal. Aberhart opened the Calgary Prophetic Bible Institute in October 1927. A popular and well-known American fundamental Baptist preacher, William Bell Riley, preached at the grand opening of the building. In the midst of controversy yet by mutual agreement, in 1929 Aberhart separated from Westbourne Baptist Church (then still at least nominally affiliated with the Baptist Union of Western Canada)[ii] with authority to form a new church with his supporters. He organized the Bible Institute Baptist Church (an independent fundamentalist church).

Though Aberhart’s religious views are considered to the right, he adopted a political view (Social Credit) that was on the left, a form of socialism.[iii] Is this political position one reason some King James defenders tend to shy away from William Aberhart? Perhaps for some of his contemporaries, though it may be more likely for modern defenders that they simply have not heard of him. William “Bible Bill” Aberhart died May 23, 1943 in Vancouver, British Columbia, and is buried there in the Forest Lawn Memorial Park in Burnaby.

Bible Bill’s Bible

William Aberhart stood tall as a proponent of the King James translation and an opponent of the Revised Version. Booklets, Institute course outlines, lectures, memories, and newspaper accounts stand as a reminder of that fact. Perhaps Lecture No. 12 in the God’s Great Prophecies series – “The Latest of Modern Movements,” or “What about the Revised Version of the Bible?” – is the most complete surviving statement of Aberhart’s views. Here are a few excerpts.

“Can we estimate the effect upon the rising generations to have nothing settled? Are the Holy Scriptures a mere nose of wax to be turned and twisted to suit the caprice of the reader? or Are the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament, the WORD OF GOD, and the only infallible guide of faith and manners? Every earnest person must answer these questions.”

“Contemporaneous with this splendid movement back to the scriptures there has arisen the latest modern religious movement, which is settling down upon the human race like a dense fog. I refer to the popular, apparently insatiable craze to undertake the seemingly insignificant task of correcting the Bible by revision.”

“The Authorized version is reliable. I believe the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be the Word of God and the only infallible rule of faith and practice.”[iv] 

In this lecture, Aberhart follows lines of argument in common with many modern King James Bible defenders. He:

• Gives biblical warnings and assurances
• Speaks of the fog of higher criticism
• Addresses the modern craze of correcting the Bible by revision
• Warns against multiple translations and following modern scholarship
• Allows for changing archaic words that no longer mean the same
• Calls attention to Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, and Alexandrinus
• Talks about Westcott, Hort, and the revisers
• Examines the revision itself, comparing verses with the King James Version

In “The Present Eastern Question in the Light of Prophecy” (p. 7) Aberhart says the Presbyterians and Baptists arose “from the faithful ones who had preserved God’s Word in the caves and hiding places of the Alps.” (emphasis mine)[v] 

In Bible Bill (p. 36), David Elliott reminds us that William Aberhart’s rallying cry was “‘The Bible, the whole Bible, and nothing but the Bible!’ He held that the King James Bible of 1611 embodied the literal, unabridged, and undiluted Word of God” and that he “deplored the confusion and disagreement among those making new translations, his bête noire being the Revised Version of 1884.”

Bible Bill’s Bearing

William Aberhart had connections with leading fundamentalists in Canada and the United States. In 1925, the Prophetic Conference, Westbourne Baptist Church, and other sponsors brought T. T. Shields (pastor of Jarvis Street Baptist Church in Toronto) and P. W. Philpott (pastor of Moody Memorial Church in Chicago) for a series of meetings against modernism. Harry Rimmer lectured at the Calgary Prophetic Bible Institute in 1930. Aberhart visited the Bible Institute of Los Angeles (BIOLA) at least two summers while preaching in Los Angeles.[vi] 

“William ‘Bible Bill’ Aberhart was very much a home-grown Canadian…Mr. Aberhart also believed in the inerrancy of the King James Version of the Bible, claiming that the text on which the KJV is based had been preserved by God in the Swiss Alps, beyond contamination of the Roman Catholic Church.

“In the 1920s, Mr. Aberhart began broadcasting Sunday School lessons over the radio in Calgary. By 1935, he was broadcasting five hours every Sunday over several stations, reaching hundreds of thousands of people.”[vii]

Barrie Oviatt also hints at the scope of Aberhart’s influence by 1935:

“The vast audience to which Aberhart was able to speak is evident from the fact that during a broadcast in April 1935, he read several letters from ‘as far distant as Quebec, the maritimes, and Pennsylvania.’ At its peak in 1935 Aberhart’s radio audience was computed at three hundred thousand (it is likely that not more than 65 per cent of the three hundred thousand were Albertans), while the Bible Institute listed one thousand two hundred and seventy-five supporters and the radio Sunday school with its printed lesson material reached eight thousand families. Such was the influence Aberhart wielded through his radio broadcasts and Institute in 1935.”[viii]

What bearing does William Aberhart have on the development of the King James Only position. He was a contemporary of Philip Mauro and Benjamin Wilkinson. His reach was probably distinct from Mauro’s and wider than Wilkinson’s. Anti-KJVO authors (such as Kutilek and Hudson) have arbitrarily appointed Benjamin Wilkinson the originator of KJVO. KJV defender David Cloud briefly mentions Aberhart in connection with Mark Buch, as well as printing excerpts from “What about the Revised Version of the Bible” on his Way to Life site. David Otis Fuller reprinted works by Mauro and Wilkinson, thereby securing their names in the modern King James Only movement.

It is equitable to place the Bible view of William Aberhart in the realm of “King James Onlyism” – that is, within what may be generally regarded as that viewpoint. He started a radio program in 1925 that within 10 years could be described as “reaching hundreds of thousands of people.” He organized a Bible Institute in Calgary, Alberta in 1927 (which taught his views on the King James Bible). Notably, both the radio program and Bible Institute preceded Benjamin Wilkinson, who on the other side of North America published Our Authorized Bible Vindicated in 1930.

More research needs to be done on Bible Bill Aberhart’s influence in the realm of the Bible versions debate.[ix] He influenced men such as Ernest Manning, Cyril Hutchinson, and Mark Buch, who carried the banner after him. His expansive outreach in print and on the radio make it likely that his influence was greater than has been remembered or credited.

My sense is that William “Bible Bill” Aberhart was more influential than has been previously supposed, and that he should take his place with Mauro and Wilkinson as important opponents of the Revised Version in the first half of the 20th century. Aberhart – as well as Mauro and Wilkinson – drank deeply from Dean Burgon’s well,[x] provided early 20th century opposition the use of the English and American Revised Versions, and provided ammunition for the rise of the mid-century opposition to the Revised Standard Version.[xi]

Through a Bible Institute, radio, travel, and interaction with other fundamentalists, “Bible Bill” Aberhart left an imprint, sometimes no longer acknowledged, not only in Western Canada, but also in other parts of the world.

---

[i] My limited newspaper research suggests journalists began using this terminology after William Aberhart became premier of Alberta. Searching the U.S. and Canadian papers available at Newspapers.com, I did not find the term used in reference to Aberhart before 1936. 

[ii] Westbourne church later connected itself to the Regular Baptists associated with T. T. Shields. Bible Bill: a Biography of William Aberhart, David R. Elliott, page 30 and page 90. 

[iii] I am not familiar with “Social Credit” and have not tried to understand it. George Palmer, a Calgary resident writing to the newspaper against “Social Credit,” called it a pseudo-economic-politico-religious conglomeration. For general reference, though somewhat biased against him, see the entry “William Aberhart” in the Canadian Encyclopedia.

[iv] William Aberhart, “The Latest of Modern Movements,” circa 1925. The online booklet from which I quote is undated and may represent a “final product” on the subject. However, a listing on the Aberhart Foundation site shows a lecture from the 1920s titled “The Latest Modern Movements or the Growing Craze for Bible Revision,” indicating he had already developed this lecture in the 1920s. The foundation states that there “appears to be at least 3 different publications of God’s Great Prophecies which have some differences in Lecture Numbers and Titles.” 

[v] With knowledge of Aberhart’s views on the Bible, we certainly may understand this in reference to the survival of a pure text. However, it also seems that Aberhart may also have in mind the faith delivered to the saints and pure worship – as opposed to that of the Roman Catholics. 

[vi] Bible Bill, pages 62, 71, and 72. See The Los Angeles Daily Times, Saturday, July 14, 1923, p. 16, showing he lectured at Biola in the summer of 1923; and Saturday July, 17, 1924, p. 3, part II, showing he held a Bible Conference at the YMCA building in 1924. Calgary Herald, Saturday, September 20, 1930, p. 18.

[vii] “God: Americans Spread Gospel northward,” The Ottawa Citizen (Ottawa, Ontario, Canada), Saturday, June 20, 1998, page B3.

[viii] The Papers of William Aberhart as Minister of Education, 1935-1943, Barrie Connolly Oviatt, Master of Education Thesis, University of Alberta, 1971, p. 18.

[ix] One important factor is to confirm more definitely just exactly when Aberhart publicly rejected the Revised Version and espoused a stance for only the King James translation. It seems likely at least by the mid-1920s, making it possible to be influenced by Philip Mauro, but unlikely by Benjamin Wilkinson. The Aberhart Foundation site has a photocopy of a Bulletin of the Calgary Bible Institute which they date 1925. It shows Aberhart was already teaching on the Bible versions, and specifically against the Revised Version (Systematic Theology, Course A, pp. 4-7). The reference “What about the Revised Version” seems to be to Aberhart’s lecture by that title (p. 4). It also shows that the Institute required students to have the Authorized Version of the Bible among its necessary books (p. 1).

[x] David Cloud wrote, “Mark Buch testified to me that Aberhard (sic) used Burgon’s material in his Bible institute classes.” 

[xi] Aberhart associates and students such as Mark Buch, Cyril Hutchinson, and Ernest C. Manning were among active opponents of the RSV. See, for example, “Says New Bible ‘Fraud’ But Sales Are Booming,” The Calgary Albertan, Wednesday, December 17, 1952, page 1, section 2; “Vancouver Minister Scores New Bible,” The Calgary Herald, Wednesday, December 17, 1952, page 27; “Manning Hits Out At ‘Revised’ Bible,” The Calgary Albertan, Monday, April 23, 1962, page 3. Ernest Manning became premier of Alberta after the death of Aberhart. “The Revised Standard, Manning said, results in modernization of God’s Word to the point where the original intent is lost…The premier said the King James Version of The Bible contained God’s True Word and should not be defiled (or defied)…The original Word, as it appears in the King James Bible, was blessed by God Himself and should remain untouched.” Perry F. Rockwood (1917-2008) was another Canadian fundamentalist who staunchly supported the King James Version, but it is not clear that he was influenced by Aberhart.