James Petrigru Boyce on the Doctrinal Integrity of Seminary Professors

by T. C. Pinckney                                                                                     Vol. XI, No. 7, August 1998

James Petrigru Boyce was the primary individual responsible for the 1859 founding of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, the first SBC seminary. He was its long-term professor and president and served nine terms as president of the SBC. However, when he delivered an address, “Three Changes in Theological Institutions,” to the trustees of Furman University on 31 July 1856, he was only 29 years old.

Boyce proposed three ideals for theological education: openness — a seminary for everybody regardless of prior academic training, excellence — the highest scholarly standards, and confessional integrity — a statement of doctrinal principles that every professor would heartily endorse and in accordance with which he would teach. The excerpt quoted below is from the third of these “changes,” confessional integrity. Bold print has been added for emphasis.

Readers are invited to contrast Boyce’s words with the views of Dr. Henlee Barnette set forth in this issue’s “Anti-Heritage” article.

The quotation is from Treasures from the Baptist Heritage, Timothy and Denise George, editors, Broadman & Holman, 1996, pp 126-8. Treasures from the Baptist Heritage is one of the volumes in the Baptist Classics series and can be purchased at your Baptist Book Store. I highly recommend the entire series. Now we turn to the words of James P. Boyce:

“The change which I would in the last place propose is not intended to meet an evil existing in our theological institutions so much as one which is found in the denomination at large, and which may at some future time injuriously affect this educational interest. It is the adoption of a declaration of doctrine to be required of those who assume the various professorships.

“The most superficial observer must perceive that in our day the sound doctrine of our churches is much imperiled. Campbellism, though checked in every direction in which it attempted to develop itself, has left no little of its leaven among us and exerts no inconsiderable influence. The distinctive principles of Arminianism have also been engrafted upon many of our churches; and even some of our ministry have not hesitated publicly to avow them. That sentiment, the invariable precursor, or accompaniment of all heresy — that the doctrines of theology are matters of mere speculation, and its distinctions only logomachines [wars of words] and technicalities, has obtained at least a limited prevalence. And the doctrinal sentiments of a large portion of the ministry and membership of the churches are seen to be either very much unsettled or radically wrong.

“Sad will be the day for this university should such sentiments ever obtain prevalence in your board or receive the sanction of any of your theological professors. And yet that this is not impossible is evident from the history of others similarly situated. The day has already come when it has been made matter of congratulation in a Baptist journal of high standing that at the examination of perhaps the best endowed and most flourishing Baptist theological seminary in America the technical terms of theology were no longer heard.

“A crisis in Baptist doctrine is evidently approaching, and those of us who still cling to the doctrines which formerly distinguished us have the important duty to perform of earnestly contending for the faith once delivered to the saints. Gentlemen, God will call us to judgment if we neglect it.

“The evil is one which calls for the adoption of a remedy by every church and every minister among us. It demands that every doctrine of Scripture be determined and expressed and that all should see to it; the churches which call and the Presbyteries which ordain, that those set apart to preach the Word be men ‘whose faith the Churches may follow,’ ‘who take heed to themselves and the doctrine,’ and ‘are not as many who corrupt the Word of God.'

“Peculiar obligations rest, however, upon those to whom are entrusted the education of the rising ministry. God in His mercy preserve the instructors from the crime of teaching a single error, however unimportant, and grant unto all our boards the grace necessary for faithfulness to the trusts developed upon them, that false doctrine, however trifling, may receive no countenance.

“It is with a single man that error usually commences; when such a man has influence or position, it is impossible to estimate the evil that will attend it. Ecclesiastical history is full of warning upon this subject. Scarcely a single heresy has ever blighted the church which has not owed its existence, or its development, to that one man of power and ability whose name has always been associated with its doctrines. And yet seldom has an opinion been thus advanced, which has not subsequently had its advocate in every age, and which in some ages has not extensively prevailed.

“The history of our own denomination in this country furnishes an illustration. Playing upon the prejudices of the weak and ignorant among our people, decrying creeds as an infringement upon the rights of conscience, making a deep impression by his extensive learning and great abilities, Alexander Campbell threatened at one time the total destruction of our faith. Had he occupied a chair in one of our theological institutions, that destruction might have been completed. There would have been time to disseminate widely and fix deeply his principles before it became necessary to avow them publicly; and when this necessity arrived, it would have been attended by the support of the vast majority of our best educated ministers. Who can estimate the evil which would then have ensued!

“The danger which threatened in this instance may assail us again. Another such, and yet another, may arise and, favored by better circumstances, may instill false principles into the minds of his pupils, and sending them forth to occupy the prominent pulpits of the land, may influence all our churches, and the fair fabric of our faith may be entirely demolished.

“This it is that should make us tremble when we think of our theological institutions. If there be an instrument of our denominational prosperity which we should guard at every point, it is this. The doctrinal sentiments of the faculty are of far greater importance than the proper investment and expenditure of its funds, and the trusts devolved upon those who watch over its interests should in that respect, if in any, be sacredly guarded.

“For all the purposes aimed at, no other test can be equally effective with that confession of faith acknowledged in the Charleston Baptist Association — the doctrines of which had almost universal prevalence in this state at the time of the foundation of the institution. Let that then be adopted, and let subscription to it on the part of each theological professor be required as an assurance of his entire agreement with its views of doctrine and of his determination to teach fully the truth which it expresses and nothing contrary to its declarations.”

How prescient was Boyce in his observation that a “crisis in Baptist doctrine is evidently approaching.” How thankful he would be that biblical inerrantists have succeeded in returning the SBC to its doctrinal roots.

But the main point today is his emphasis on the doctrinal integrity of Baptist seminary professors. Note his strong statement that “each theological professor be required” to give “an assurance of his entire agreement with its views of doctrine”. [Italics added.] What a contrast between the views of Boyce and Barnette! Praise God that whereas our six seminaries a dozen years ago were very close to Barnette’s position, today they are much closer to Boyce’s!