09 Called to Answer As To Doctrine 1778-79

9 - CALLED TO ANSWER AS TO DOCTRINE 1778-1779

DURING 1778, in connection with his local labors, Mr. Randall preached to some extent in other places. Revivals attended his efforts, especially in Gilmanton, Loudon, and Canterbury. In connection with these many were converted, of whom some entered the ministry.

But, though settled in a place combining such physical attractions, congenial associations, and the witness of God’s approval, Mr. Randall was not exempt from harassing conditions. He was doomed to feel, as never before, the cutting force of the language by which the psalmist gave expression to some of his experiences: "It was not an enemy that reproached me; then I could have borne it: neither was it he that hated me that did magnify himself against me; then I would have hid myself from him. But it was thou, a man mine equal. We took sweet counsel together, and walked unto the house of God in company."

Up to this time, within the sphere of Mr. Randall’s acquaintance, the Baptists had moved forward in one united band, cherishing a common interest in the promotion of their general cause. They had all shared alike in the odium that the intolerant spirit of the age was accustomed to heap upon those dissenting from the dominant sect, and were all feeling the rigor of unjust religious laws. This outside pressure had tended to drive them together, and cemented their hearts more firmly in the bonds of Christian affection. But that good-fellowship was not to continue. For while some, like Randall, adhered to the doctrine of free grace for all who would accept salvation, others held the doctrine that God, by his sovereign will, had determined that, while a certain number must be saved, others, both adults and infants, must be lost, and all-as they would contend-for the glory of God! Some would preach that there were infants in hell, pot a span long! The extremes of Calvinism, as above described, had now, to some extent, crept into the Baptist denomination, especially in New England. It does not appear, however, that this doctrine had, as yet, been made a matter of controversy; at least, not in Randall’s circle. We do not learn that up to this time he had said anything about these distinctive views, but we infer that he had passed them quietly by. It is probable that Randall’s mind was crowded with the ideas of salvation full, free, and possible to all, and the importance of offering that salvation to the largest number, in the least possible time. The first attack on Mr. Randall was by an aged minister, who called on him publicly to state why he did not preach the distinctive views of Calvin. His laconic answer was, " Because I do not believe them." "Then," Mr. Randall says, "he fell into a discussion with me upon the matter. But it only served to set us farther apart." The date of this interview was probably March, 1779. This attack necessarily brought the subject before Mr. Randall’s mind as never before, drawing him into a closer study of the points in dispute, and to a more careful survey of the whole system. This resulted in a clearer and deeper conviction that what he had preached was the truth. But still he found certain texts, notably in Romans, that he could not explain quite to his own satisfaction. Yet, seeing that the whole tenor of those passages was in his favor, he, like a rational man, concluded that when correctly understood these Scriptures must be found in harmony with the doctrine of free salvation, and that their Calvinistic construction arose from a false system of philosophy. He says: The more they disputed with me on these points, the stronger I grew in my sentiments; for it drove me to searching the Scriptures with greater diligence, and to pray more earnestly to God for a correct understanding of their meaning. In July, 1779, Mr. Randall was summoned before a meeting, held for the purpose, at a Baptist church in Lower Gilmanton, to answer for his alleged doctrinal errors. He there met his inquisitors during a two days’ debate. But so clearly and forcibly did he sustain his views that all combined could not confute his arguments. At the close, his most prominent and zealous accuser thus proclaimed: " I have no fellowship for Brother Randall in his principles." To this Mr. Randall replied:

It makes no difference to me by whom I am disowned, so long as the Lord owns me. And now let him be God who answers by fire, and that people be his people whom he owns and blesses. A little later Mr. Randall was again arraigned, with Daniel Lord, at a public meeting in Madbury, to answer for what some called his wrong sentiments, to which he briefly alludes in his journal thus:

They had us in a great meeting-house, before a large congregation, and disputed with us as long as they saw fit. Then they let us go without owning us or disowning us. I applied to the church to which I belonged for dismission, but they would not grant it. Neither, to my knowledge, did they ever appoint a committee to labor with me, or put me under censure-so they let us alone. (Here note: Mr. Randall was not expelled from the Baptist denomination.)

Thus harassed, Mr. Randall found himself in an undesirable situation. But he could not violate his convictions of truth and consent to preach Calvinism. Hence, he saw no alternative but to follow Paul’s example in regard to Barnabas-step aside from these ultra-Calvinists, and pursue the path which he believed to be divinely marked out for his own footsteps,

But, in making this move, it is evident that he had no purpose or anticipation of founding a separate sect. He still claimed a place in the Baptist ranks, and full loyalty to Baptist principles. He was fully opposed to any division then, and until several years later, when it seemed a necessity.

It was one of the greatest trials of Mr. Randall’s life that anything should have occurred to strain the sympathetic relations between himself and his former brethren. Surely no just reason could be produced why he, and those of like views, should at that time leave the Baptist fold. They were not the aggressors, and could claim a clear right of possession by inheritance.

Mr. Randall and those of like faith were cherishing views over which no controversy had arisen for many centuries after the dawn of the Christian era; views too, which were held and taught by the General Baptists of England, the early Baptist churches of our Southern States, Rhode Island, Connecticut, and more or less in the Middle States. The West was not then developed.

It is believed by those whose opinions command respect, that hyper-Calvinism was especially assertive at this time in New Hampshire and Maine, and that-the doctrines held and preached by Mr. Randall would not have been antagonized if proclaimed in any other section of our country.

James A. Howe, D. D., late Dean of Bates College Divinity School, was a Free Baptist representative at the World’s Parliament of Religions, held in connection with the Columbian Exposition, at Chicago, in 1893, and presented to that parliament a summarized history of the Free Baptists. A paragraph of this has fitting place in this connection. Doctor Howe says: The first Baptist church recognized in English history was of the General or Free Baptist order, and antedated the first Particular Baptist church by a score of years. For a long period the General Baptists continued the larger and more influential part of English Baptists, and therefore we should expect that, among the earliest Baptist churches in America, no small number would be of this persuasion; as, in fact, they were; the church planted by Roger Williams being properly reckoned as the first. With numerous churches centrally placed, they gave early promise of a large development in our country, a promise that only needed fulfilment to have taken away any occasion for the rise of the Free Baptists as a separate people. But this golden opportunity was not improved.