Throughout their history, Baptists in America have been known as “people of the Book” committed to the simple preaching of the Bible. To some inside and outside of the Baptist movement, this means that education, ministerial training, and systematic theology are of no importance. Though Baptists, by their DNA, are skeptical at times of institutions and central authority, their lack of access to education did not arise out of an inherent rejection of formal training. Baptists faced many challenges from the established order of New England and elsewhere when it came to education. In 1654, Henry Dunster (1609–1659) was removed as president of Harvard when he refused to have his baby sprinkled and announced he no longer believed in infant baptism. There was no room for credobaptists in the hallowed halls of higher learning.¹Thomas S. Kidd and Barry Hankins, Baptists in America: A History (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015), 14. By the 1760s, Baptists formed the College of Rhode Island (later renamed Brown University) due to fears that the lack of an educational institution would lead to their ministers becoming paedobaptists.²Kidd and Hankins, Baptists in America, 42 While some might have been skeptical about formal education, the founding of Brown established the means for an educated ministry among Baptists in America.

This desire was not confined to New England, for Baptists in the South founded colleges and made plans to form a theological seminary. As the nineteenth century progressed, Baptists desired a central theological institution for the training of pastors. For the realization of these desires, Southern Baptists owe much to the tireless labors of James Petigru Boyce (1827–1888). When Boyce began serving as professor of theology at Furman University, he declared, “The Baptists are unmistakably the friends of education, and the advocates of an Educated Ministry.”³James P. Boyce, “Three Changes in Theological Institutions,” in Confessing the Faith: The Living Legacy of Southern Seminary’s Abstract of Principles, ed. R. Albert Mohler, Jr. (Louisville, KY: SBTS Press, 2016), 149.  Boyce embodied the concept of the Gentleman Theologian.⁴Thomas J. Nettles, James Petigru Boyce: A Southern Baptist Statesman (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2009), 13. Furthermore, he sought to fashion confessional Reformed orthodoxy⁵Willem J. van Asselt and Pieter L. Rouwendal define Reformed orthodoxy as “that stream within orthodoxy connected to the Reformed confessions.” Orthodoxy refers to the core truths of Christianity taught throughout the ages and expressed in the Reformed tradition. For more, see van Asselt, Introduction to Reformed Scholasticism (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2011), 6–8. for the more populist sensibility found in Baptist churches.⁶Richard A Muller classifies the theology taught at Princeton by Charles Hodge, a mentor to Boyce, as an example of Protestant Scholasticism in the nineteenth century in America. Muller calls the work of Hodge and others at Princeton as “a revival and modernization of the Reformed orthodox scholasticism of the seventeenth century.” For more, see Muller, “Giving Direction to Theology: The Scholastic Dimension” JETS 28 no. 2 (June 1985), 183–193. While not the only Southern Baptist leader pressing for a seminary, Boyce’s leadership and proposals guided the fledgling denomination to establish an institution that remains one of the largest in the world. The conviction that the academy should serve the church animated Boyce and his supporters for Baptist education in the South. The vision of wedding the orthodox theology of the Reformed confessions to a churchly emphasis on Bible preaching can still inform Baptist educational purposes in the present day. Boyce’s articulation for theological education still speaks to us today. As varying forms of populism remain and grow in Baptist life, a robust confessional education that protects the churches from theological error remains vitally important.

A Long, Winding Road: From Providence to Greenville

From before the American Revolution until after the Civil War, education among Baptists in America remained a topic of discussion, debate, enterprise, success, and failure. Boyce witnessed the educational efforts of Baptists in the North and South. As the president of the first Baptist seminary in the Deep South, Boyce penned a brief survey of Baptist efforts for education in The Western Recorder in 1866. Boyce wrote, “Need I say anything about the importance of Theological study. The history of our denomination in the United States for more than a century past testified to its value.”⁷James P. Boyce, “The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, II,” The Western Recorder, 14 July 1866 in Stray Recollections, Short Articles and Public Orations of James P. Boyce, ed. Thomas J. Nettles (Cape Coral, FL: Founders Press, 2009), 142. Baptists in New Jersey established a small institution in 1756, but the founding of Brown University in 1764 marked a seismic moment in Baptist educational efforts. In Washington, D.C., Columbian College began in 1821 under the leadership of William Staughton (1770–1829) and Luther Rice (1783–1836).⁸Nettles, James Petigru Boyce, 116. By the middle of the nineteenth century, Baptists established three seminaries in the North: Hamilton Theological Seminary (later Colgate) in New York in 1820, Newton Theological Institute in 1826 in Newton Centre, Massachusetts, and Rochester Theological Seminary in Rochester, New York in 1850.⁹Gregory A. Wills, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1859–2009 (New York: Oxford University Press, 2009), 6. Motivated by sectional rivalry and the desire for their own regional institution, some Baptists in the South desired to see the creation of a theological seminary. By 1835, Basil Manly Sr. (1798–1868) proposed a Baptist seminary that would be supported by Baptists in Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina. That attempt failed. By 1845, the formation of the Southern Baptist Convention provided seminary advocates new hope that an institution could be established.¹⁰Wills, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1859–2009, 7–8. Boyce emerged as a young leader among those in favor of a central theological institution in the South, and his vision for such a seminary crystallized.

By the mid-1850s, momentum for a seminary grew and the dream of Boyce came to fruition. Boyce’s inaugural address as a professor of theology at Furman University entitled “Three Changes in Theological Institutions,” along with the Educational Conventions of 1857 and 1858, paved the way for The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary to begin classes in the fall of 1859 in Greenville, South Carolina.¹¹John A. Broadus, “Historical Sketch,” in Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, The First Thirty Years ed. John R. Sampey (Baltimore: Wharton, Barron and Company, 1890), 6–7. The heart of Boyce’s vision for ministerial education was to recast the Reformed orthodoxy he learned at Princeton Theological Seminary and place it in the mold of Baptist pulpits throughout the South. This vision can be traced through Boyce’s educational journey as a student and professor, as well as through the other leading figures of the Southern Baptist Educational Conventions.

Looking North: Wayland, Hodge, and Boyce

In Boyce’s development of a vision for theological education in the South, two Northern theological leaders shaped his outlook more than any other: Francis Wayland (1796–1865) and Charles Hodge (1797–1878). Wayland, a Northern Baptist educator and pastor, served as the President of Brown University in Providence from 1827–1855. By the time Boyce arrived at Brown in 1845, Wayland had been president for eighteen years. Hodge, a confessional Presbyterian, began teaching at Princeton Theological Seminary in 1840 and became the second principal of the seminary in 1851, serving until his death in 1878. In his biography of Boyce, John A. Broadus (1827–1895) wrote that Boyce “was more powerfully impressed by Dr. Hodge than by any other Princeton professor, and probably more than any other teacher except President Wayland.”¹²John A. Broadus, Memoir of James Petigru Boyce (New York: A.C. Armstrong and Son, 1893), 73. Boyce adopted the classroom philosophy of Wayland in having his students engage in the recitation of texts that the students were assigned to read.¹³Nettles, James Petigru Boyce, 397. In addition to his classroom rigor, Wayland also capably filled the pulpit as a preacher, trained young men in for ministry, and effectively oversaw a university.¹⁴William A. Mueller, A History of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1959), 19. William A. Muller identified three principles that Boyce drew from his time at Brown under Wayland: “first, Wayland’s method of analytical recitations in the classroom; second, the idea of the elective system of study; and third, certain views of theological education.”¹⁵Mueller, A History of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 19. This third aspect of Wayland’s influence on Boyce points to how both men believed that ministerial education should not hinge on a preacher having received a classical education. Following in the footsteps of his mentor, Boyce rejected the idea “that the work of the ministry should be intrusted only to those who have been classically educated, —an assumption which, singularly enough, is made for no other profession.”¹⁶Boyce, “Three Changes in Theological Institutions,” 153. Boyce’s years at Brown not only shaped his conviction that theological education should be open to all Baptist ministers, but also the way that a school could be a vibrant place of spiritual life and missionary impulse.¹⁷For more on Boyce’s time at Brown University, see Nettles, James Petigru Boyce, 46–57. However, theological education and formation did not end for Boyce when he exited Brown.

After serving as a denominational newspaper editor for a few years, Boyce enrolled in Princeton Theological Seminary in 1849. Why did Boyce decide to attend Princeton? After all, Boyce was a Baptist and Princeton was a Presbyterian institution. Boyce considered attending Hamilton Seminary in New York, and his friend Basil Manly Jr. (1825–1892) attended one year at Newton Theological Institute before transferring to Princeton. The division between Northern and Southern Baptists in 1845 contributed to these Baptist men from the South seeking a school to receive more formal theological and ministerial training where they would be more welcomed.¹⁸Nettles, James Petigru Boyce, 77–78. While the sectional differences over slavery contributed to these Southern Baptists not attending Northern Baptist institutions, there were also theological issues as well. Greg Wills points out that Southerners viewed the “New Divinity and German theology” as making inroads in Northern Baptist schools.¹⁹Wills, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1859–2009, 6–7. Another divergence was the lack of confessional fidelity among Northern Baptist institutions. An aversion to any form of creedalism shaped their trajectory away from dogmatic theology. In her work commemorating the two-hundredth anniversary of Newton, Margaret Bendroth writes, “Newton had no constitution, and its leaders made no attempt to set forth a faculty creed, course curricula, or any means of doctrinal oversight of the school.”²⁰Margaret Lamberts Bendroth, A School of the Church: Andover Newton across Two Centuries (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 31. Matthew Shrader describes the theological philosophy of Newton’s founding as “one of high academic standards, free inquiry, no confessional standard, and biblicist theological reasoning.”²¹Matthew C. Shrader, Thoughtful Christianity: Alvah Hovey and the Problem of Authority within the Context of Nineteenth-Century Northern Baptists (Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2021), 36–38. Therefore, the confessional Calvinism espoused at Princeton drew Boyce, Manly, and other Southern Baptists to New Jersey and would lay the foundations for Southern Seminary’s theological trajectory.

Boyce arrived at Princeton as the careers of the two founders of the seminary were coming to an end: Archibald Alexander (1772–1851) and Samuel Miller (1769–1850). Nettles describes Alexander as molding Princeton with “a commitment to historical doctrinal standards, a sound commitment to Christian evidences…fervent, Bible-centered, Christ-centered preaching” that stood in opposition to the measures of Charles Finney (1792–1895).²²Nettles, James Petigru Boyce, 78–80. Alexander’s influence upon Boyce came through Charles Hodge, Alexander’s greatest pupil. Alexander and Hodge’s mark upon Boyce can be seen when Boyce assigned Francis Turretin’s (1623–1697) Institutes of Elenctic Theology for his Latin Theology class at Southern Seminary.²³Nettles, James Petigru Boyce, 80. Alexander’s two sons, J.W. Alexander (1804–1859) and J.A. Alexander (1809–1860), were also among Boyce’s professors at Princeton. Samuel Miller’s impact upon Boyce can be seen in the defense of creeds that Miller articulated. Nettles summarizes this influence in this way:

Miller believed that any conscientious minister with a love for truth, for the glory of God, for the peace and edification of the church, with a desire for her protection from the destructive error will hold forth the standards of truth symbolized in the Westminster Standards. Boyce would project this same view of the function of a creed into his call for the establishing of a theological seminary for Baptists.²⁴Nettles, James Petigru Boyce, 83.

However, it was Charles Hodge who impacted Boyce the most. Hodge studied at Princeton and then spent two years studying in France and Germany. Hodge was exposed to the German philosophy and the theological system of men like Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768–1834). Despite his interactions with this higher critical theory and experiential theology, Hodge remained committed to the confessional theology of Princeton. Hodge’s utilization of Turretin provided Boyce with a confessional and biblical model in how to study and teach theology. The thrust of Hodge’s method was an exegetical theology that organized topics based on exegesis.  Hodge’s lectures on theology shaped how Boyce formulated his own scheme of doctrine. Timothy George writes that at Princeton, “Boyce drank deeply from the wells of Calvinist orthodoxy, his principal mentor being Charles Hodge … Hodge transmitted the framework of Protestant Scholasticism, which Boyce revamped into his own unique redaction.”²⁵Timothy George, “Systematic Theology at Southern Seminary,” Review and Expositor 82, no. 1 (February 1985), 32. Hodge’s interactions with the work of Schleiermacher regarding Christology demonstrates the Princetonian scholar’s desire to remain faithful to the tradition that was passed on to him. Utilizing the work of Calvin, Ursinus, and Turretin, Hodge responded to attacks on orthodox Christology by refining their arguments and reformulating them to address current theological challenges.²⁶Muller, “Giving Direction to Theology: The Scholastic Dimension,” 187, 190. Boyce drew upon this model in how he trained men to know and drink deeply from Reformed theologians in order to be prepared to combat the challenges of their day. Wayland’s recitation method which incorporated an analytic approach alongside Hodge’s method of exegesis and systematizing provided the structure for Boyce’s methodology that he sought to impart to his theological students. The vision of Southern Baptist theological education developed due to the Northern influence of Wayland and Brown University along with Hodge and Princeton. Those two streams merged together in the life of Boyce as he arrived back in South Carolina in 1851.

An “Epoch-Making Address”

After serving as pastor of the First Baptist Church of Columbia, SC for four years, James P. Boyce was elected to be the chair of theology at Furman University. From this position, Boyce envisioned the creation of a seminary for Southern Baptists, which explains why he declined the presidency of Mercer University in 1857.²⁷Wills, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1859–2009, 15. Boyce’s emergence as the educational leader among Southern Baptists came about at the 1856 South Carolina Baptist Convention. To secure the funding for a seminary, Boyce proposed that Furman University should give its endowment towards a new seminary and South Carolina Baptists should raise $100,000 for the seminary’s endowment. If one state would take the lead in this project, Boyce believed other Southern states would soon follow.²⁸Wills, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1859–2009, 17. South Carolina Baptists agreed to Boyce’s proposal with the condition that the school be in Greenville, SC.

After the convention’s session ended, Boyce gave his inaugural address as chair of the theology department at Furman. His address was entitled “Three Changes in Theological Institutions.” Broadus, reflecting on the address and its impact, wrote, “This address by Professor Boyce proved to be epoch-making in the history of theological education among Southern Baptists.” Broadus also recalled that Boyce attributed some of the philosophy of the address the influence of Francis Wayland.²⁹Broadus, Memoir of James Petigru Boyce, 142. The three changes that Boyce proposed were: 1) A Baptist theological seminary should be available for any man called to ministry regardless of whether he was a college graduate or had received only a common English education; 2) The institution should help prepare men for pastoral ministry as well as become a place of scholarship so that men did not have to rely upon European institutions for advanced learning; 3) That a confessional statement should be signed by all faculty to ensure the orthodoxy and integrity of the school in teaching the Bible and theology to the students.³⁰Broadus, Memoir of James Petigru Boyce, 121. Each of these changes demonstrates Boyce’s vision of a confessionally orthodox education made available for the Baptist preachers that lived throughout the South. Combining his training at Brown and Princeton, Boyce was determined that a new seminary should serve the needs of both the church and the academy.

Boyce began his address with these words, “The Baptists are unmistakably the friends of education, and the advocates of an Educated Ministry.”³¹Boyce, “Three Changes in Theological Institutions,” 149. While acknowledging the theological work being done at many colleges throughout the South, Boyce saw the purpose of a seminary as unique and set apart from the work of colleges. Boyce’s main concern was that requiring a college education for seminary training was a roadblock for ministers. Making a strong charge, Boyce declared that:

The idea which is prominent…is, that the work of the Ministry should be entrusted only to those who have been classically educated…It is in vain to say that such is not the theory or the practice of our denomination. It is the theory and the practice of by far the larger portion of those who have controlled our Institutions, and have succeeded in engrafting this idea upon them, contrary to the spirit which prevails among the Churches.³²Boyce, “Three Changes in Theological Institutions,” 153.

Boyce was grateful for the work that colleges performed and encouraged men to get as much learning as possible. However, reflecting the ethos of a Baptist preacher and professor, he urged his denomination to stop putting up qualifications that God himself had not given to ministers. Boyce explained, “The qualification God lays down is the only one He permits us to demand, and the instruction of our Theological schools must be based upon a plan as shall afford this amount of education to those who actually constitute the mass of our Ministry, and who cannot obtain more.”³³Boyce, “Three Changes in Theological Institutions,” 155. Boyce described how God had used men with formal education, like Paul, Augustine, Calvin, Beza, Davies, Edwards, and others, as well as those without formal education, like the Apostles who were simple fishermen and of the working class.³⁴Boyce, “Three Changes in Theological Institutions,” 155–156. These two different types of ministers had always been a vital part of the Baptist story. Boyce continued, “We have had our men of might and power who have shown the advantages of scholastic education as a basis, but we have also seen the great instruments of our progress of to have been the labors of a much humbler class.”³⁵Boyce, “Three Changes in Theological Institutions,” 156. Boyce reminded his audience of Baptist stalwarts of the past who did not have college training but were powerful testimonies to God’s grace in the expansion of the Baptist movement in America. For Boyce, the creation of a seminary was not to construct an ivory tower that separated the academy from the church. Rather, his vision saw the two joining together to prepare Baptist ministers of the gospel with the tools they needed to adequately preach the Word and teach sound doctrine. As Wills summarizes this first change, Boyce’s program “meant that all theology students should take instruction based on the English version of the Bible and English-language texts” while those with a college education should take courses in Hebrew and Greek for the Bible and Latin-based texts for theology.³⁶Wills, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1859–2009, 18. A concern for Baptist pulpits being filled with men who had access to a seminary education was at the heart of Boyce’s burden.

Boyce’s second change was briefer but centered upon how he saw a Baptist seminary serving the academy more faithfully. Boyce was concerned that Baptists depended too much on the methods and scholarship of the German academy when it came to biblical studies and church history.³⁷Wills, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1859–2009, 19. Lamenting the way that Baptist were treated in church history books, Boyce proclaimed that Baptists “have been overlooked, ridiculed, and defamed…The Baptists in the past have been entirely too indifferent to the position they thus occupy. They have depended too much upon the known strength of their principles, and the ease with which from Scripture they could defend them.”³⁸Boyce, “Three Changes in Theological Institutions,” 165. Boyce set forth two proposals in this second change: that a seminary be equipped with a library that included great works of the past as well as the best of modern scholarship, and that the school provide post-graduate studies in the languages or a field for original scholarship.³⁹Wills, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1859–2009, 19. This second remark demonstrates how Boyce saw a seminary as a center of pastoral training , as well as a hub of distinctively Baptist theological scholarship to serve the broader Christian world and bolster the Baptist academy.

The third and final change dealt with the issue of confessionalism. Boyce saw Baptists as susceptible to threats and changes that were coming on the theological horizon. Boyce spoke a word of warning: theological integrity had to be protected. Commenting on a present situation, Boyce stated that “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 most endowed and most flourishing Baptist Theological Seminary in America, the technical terms of Theology were no longer heard.”⁴⁰Boyce, “Three Changes in Theological Institutions,” 168. From Boyce’s perspective, a doctrinal crisis was coming for Baptists in the South and that a robust confessionalism in the seminary would help prevent it. Boyce defended his views on confessional subscription for professors as “an assurance of his entire agreement with its views of doctrine, and of his determination to teach fully with the truth which it expresses, and nothing contrary to its declarations.”⁴¹Boyce, “Three Changes in Theological Institutions,” 171. Creeds and confessions served two purposes: to positively state doctrine and to expose those who were departing from the faith. Knowing how some used Baptist views on liberty of conscience as a way of getting out of confessional accountability, Boyce explained that “Baptists of all ages” had “almost universally used” creeds in this two-fold way, and that it was “in perfect consistency with the position of Baptists” to utilize a confessional document in this way.⁴²Boyce, “Three Changes in Theological Institutions,” 174–175. Armed with Baptist history and the influence of Princetonian confessionalism, Boyce’s final charge set the stage for a new seminary in the South to be mindful of the pulpit in Baptist churches, the academy outside the church, and to serve both with a confessional theology anchored in the Bible and promoting Baptist distinctives.

“Bricks, Books, Brains”: Putting the Pieces Together

In 1857, the Education Convention met in Louisville and Southern Baptists debated the proposal set forth by Boyce and South Carolina Baptists. A Committee on the Plan of Organization was appointed that included Boyce, Broadus, Manly Jr., E.T. Winkler (1823­­–1863), and William Williams (1821–1877).⁴³Wills, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1859–2009, 25. Basil Manly Sr. served as the president of the convention. John A. Broadus named the following men as leaders at the convention: J.B. Jeter, A.M. Poindexter, R.B.C. Howell, J.L. Burrows, and J.B. Taylor of Virginia; G.W. Samson of Washington, D.C.; J.W.M. Williams of Maryland; J.O.B. Dargan and Richard Furman of South Carolina; J.H. DeVotie of Georgia; J.M. Pendleton of Tennessee; and S.L. Helm of Kentucky.⁴⁴Broadus, “Historical Sketch,” 8–9. The educational backgrounds of the men involved in the planning and organizing of the seminary are instructive as to why they would support Boyce’s proposal.⁴⁵The following information is drawn from The Baptist Encyclopedia, ed. William Cathcart (Philadelphia: Louis H. Everts, 1881), and Encyclopedia of Southern Baptists, ed. Clifton J. Allen (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1958). Helm, Jeter, and Taylor had no formal education. Broadus attended the University of Virginia. Dargan and DeVotie studied at Furman. Howell, Poindexter, and J.W.M. Williams attended Columbian College. Manly Sr. studied at the University of South Carolina while Manly Jr. studied at the University of Alabama. Burrows attended Union College in New York. Richard Fuller was trained at Harvard University and William Williams studied at Harvard Law School. Samson and Winkler both went to Brown University. The following men went to seminary as well: Burrows to Andover Theological Seminary, Samson and J.W.M. Williams to Newton Theological Seminary, Pendleton to Christian County Seminary in Hopkinsville, KY, and Manly Jr. to Princeton. Education mattered to these men as they represented a diverse background of studying in the North and South, at Baptist schools and non-Baptist schools, at confessional institutions and those who espoused no creed. The leadership of the Education Convention used their influence to persuade the Southern Baptist populace that the seminary was a worthwhile endeavor. Furthermore, their backgrounds explain how Boyce’s vision of an institution open to all ministers, excelling in scholarship, and guided by a confession came to fruition in the South. These men collaborated and helped lead the convention to adopt Boyce’s proposal to establish a seminary in Greenville, South Carolina.

The adoption of the plan included the curriculum at the seminary representing three novel innovations. Wills explains, “The first was the elective system. The second was the mixing of college and noncollege men in the same courses. The third was the reliance on the English Bible…to provide a through grounding in exegesis and interpretation of the Bible.”⁴⁶Wills, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1859–2009, 26. The elective system allowed students to choose which courses to take within one of the seminary’s eight schools. The seminary sought to be flexible and assist young preachers while not backing away from rigorous standards. In reflecting on the establishment of the school, Broadus made this observation, “Our Baptist Colleges and Theological Seminaries in America had followed very closely the Congregational and Presbyterian pattern, built upon ideas brought from England and Scotland.”⁴⁷Broadus, Memoir of James Petigru Boyce, 143.  At the time of the approval of the seminary, the Reverend William Curtis spoke to the convention and gave his approval to Boyce’s proposal. Curtis then stated the following that became a motto for the institution over the years, “The requisites of an institution of learning are three, ­­—three B’s: Bricks, Books, Brains. Our brethren often begin at the wrong end of the B’s. They spend all their money for bricks, have nothing for books, and must take such brains as come along. Our brethren ought to begin at the other end.”⁴⁸Broadus, “Historical Sketch,” 11.   Boyce took this to heart and wisely managed the school’s finances during times of great financial upheaval. The founding faculty members were rigorous in their demands of the students intellectually while also seeking to shepherd their hearts. Broadus remembered how Boyce’s reluctance to invest much in “bricks” in those early days allowed the seminary to reopen after the Civil War.⁴⁹Broadus, Memoir of James Petigru Boyce, 153. The priority was the development of the minds and hearts of the men matriculating at the seminary.

Baptist and Reformed: Boyce’s Theological Method

Boyce’s vision for the seminary came to fruition in the way he taught systematic theology. While stressing the importance of the English Bible in the curriculum, Boyce was not a professor who disdained systematic theology and had no use for a confessional tradition. As a boy, he sat under the Reformed, confessional preaching of Basil Manly Sr. at First Baptist Church of Charleston, South Carolina. His training at Princeton refined his theology and fashioned him in as a champion of Reformed orthodoxy. Nettles describes all these factors contributing to Boyce seeing “the necessity for creating a school for theological education among Baptists” that saw “Reformed theology as true Baptist theology.”⁵⁰Nettles, James Petigru Boyce, 396. Boyce sought to incorporate confessional Reformed theology into the lives of the Baptist preachers sitting in his theology classes.

The resources Boyce utilized in his classes demonstrate his commitment to a confessional theology in the Reformed tradition. At both Furman and in his English theology class at Southern Seminary, Boyce early on used the Southern Baptist John L. Dagg’s A Manual of Theology and the Presbyterian John Dick’s Lectures on Theology. During his time teaching at Southern, Boyce also taught from Johannes Jacobus Van Oosterzee’s Christian Dogmatics, Alvah Hovey’s A Manual of Systematic Theology, and A.A. Hodge’s Outlines of Theology. In his Latin Theology class, Boyce depended the most on Francis Turretin’s Institutes of Elenctic Theology.⁵¹Nettles, James Petigru Boyce, 396–397. Broadus shared that Boyce incorporated Turretin mostly but then began to use works from Tertullian, Augustine, and Anselm in his Latin Theology class before creating a separate class of Patristic Latin theology. After the creation of that class, Boyce combined readings from the Summa Theologiae by Thomas Aquinas to accompany Turretin.⁵²Broadus, Memoir of James Petigru Boyce, 268–269. Boyce’s usage of these works and Wayland’s recitation method helped him impart his theological wisdom into his students. Broadus related a story of one of Boyce’s former students sharing with his old teacher how his theology courses had preserved him from the “New Theology” and liberalism of the day. Boyce responded, “It is a very high gratification to me that during my life as a teacher I have been enabled to do something towards holding our boys in the ‘old paths’ of God’s Word, and so drilling them in the Old Theology of the inspired Book that they are not carried away by every wind of doctrine that blows in these days of ‘Isms.”⁵³Broadus, Memoir of James Petigru Boyce, 266–267. Boyce did not see himself as doing anything new. Rather, he was taking what was old and imparting it anew into the hearts of the men who trained at the seminary.

Boyce’s theological labors came to a head in the publishing of his own systematic theology text entitled Abstract of Systematic Theology. It was first printed in 1882 for his students to use in class. After being revised and enlarged, it was reprinted in 1887.⁵⁴Broadus, Memoir of James Petigru Boyce, 304. Broadus described Boyce’s aim in this work to be “comprehensive, but analytical and condensed, presenting all the points necessary to a complete discussion of every subject.”⁵⁵Broadus, Memoir of James Petigru Boyce, 305. Broadus pointed out that Boyce followed Hodge in his arrangement and method just as Hodge followed Turretin. However, “like Dr. Hodge again, he based everything upon laborious collection and conscientious examination of Scripture passages. No one better knew that the theologian and the exegetical student are interdependent.”⁵⁶Broadus, Memoir of James Petigru Boyce, 307. Boyce quotes Charles and A.A. Hodge extensively throughout his systematic as well as Turretin, James Buchanan, Robert Dabney, John Dick, John Gill, J. Pye Smith, James H. Thornwell, John Dagg, J.P. Lange, G.C. Knapp, Moses Stuart, and Jonathan Edwards.⁵⁷Nettles, James Petrigu Boyce, 398. Boyce exhibited the “The Baconian Style” which he received from Charles Hodge in his method of theology. Both men followed an inductive approach that gathered the facts of theology by investigation and then explore the relationship between the governing laws that the facts were based upon. Hodge and Boyce both believed Christianity was superior and rational with the ability to defend natural theology by showing how it was linked to biblical revelation.⁵⁸Nettles, James Petrigu Boyce, 398–399. Boyce’s commitment to Reformed orthodoxy set him apart as a Baptist systematician in his day. While using Dagg in his classes for a time, it is interesting to note that Dagg does not spend much time focusing on the personal relations within the Trinity nor discussing the subject of the eternal generation of the Son. Boyce’s treatment of such doctrines showcases his commitment for the orthodox faith to be transmitted to Baptist preachers. For Boyce, this demonstrated the ability to combine a full commitment to biblical exegesis with the systematic categories that marked confessional Reformed theology.

Boyce’s genius in his methodology and technique was to require his students to read and recite back to him the theology they studied. He demonstrated how the systematic way of framing truth was not based on mere speculation but always rooted in the biblical text. Combining the emphases of Wayland and Brown, Boyce helped Baptist preachers develop categories to understand sound theology as well as a bulwark to protect them from the theological novelties that became more disastrous as the nineteenth century marched on. J.H. Luther, president of Baylor Female College in Belton, Texas, described Boyce’s systematic as deserving “a place by the side of Andrew Fuller and Charles Hodge” and said that it provided students with “the good old Pauline theology free from vagaries and wild speculations.”⁵⁹Nettles, James Petrigu Boyce, 529. This was Boyce’s aim: to train Baptist preachers theologically in confessional manner that familiarized them with the Reformed tradition and refined it with the Bible.

Conclusion

James Petigru Boyce and the men who supported the establishing of a seminary for Baptists in the South were men of the Book. They cherished the Bible and sought to faithfully expound the truths from it. Yet, they were not isolated from the Christian tradition. Instead, they were men committed to teaching the theology that had been passed on to them in the form of creeds and confessions. Boyce embodied most clearly the concern held by early Southern Baptist educators that confessional theology be imparted into the men who would fill Baptist pulpits. Following the example of Wayland and Hodge, this is what Boyce meant when he said Baptists were the friends and advocates of an educated ministry. Baptist theological education ever should balance the needs of the church and the academy by shaping faithful biblical exegetes situated in a confessional tradition that holds fast the deposit of truth. By their very constitution, Baptists are susceptible to populist causes that detract or even contradict the theological tradition that has been passed down. The philosophy of Boyce helps guard preachers, churches, and a denomination from living on the latest clickbait theology of the hour. Instead, by being rooted in biblical exposition that is situated in a confessional tradition, Baptists can be ready to faithfully apply principles in any age without the risk of selling their theological birthright.

[1] Thomas S. Kidd and Barry Hankins, Baptists in America: A History (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015), 14.

[2] Kidd and Hankins, Baptists in America, 42

[3] James P. Boyce, “Three Changes in Theological Institutions,” in Confessing the Faith: The Living Legacy of Southern Seminary’s Abstract of Principles, ed. R. Albert Mohler, Jr. (Louisville, KY: SBTS Press, 2016), 149.

[4] Thomas J. Nettles, James Petigru Boyce: A Southern Baptist Statesman (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2009), 13.

[5] Willem J. van Asselt and Pieter L. Rouwendal define Reformed orthodoxy as “that stream within orthodoxy connected to the Reformed confessions.” Orthodoxy refers to the core truths of Christianity taught throughout the ages and expressed in the Reformed tradition. For more, see van Asselt, Introduction to Reformed Scholasticism (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2011), 6–8.

[6] Richard A Muller classifies the theology taught at Princeton by Charles Hodge, a mentor to Boyce, as an example of Protestant Scholasticism in the nineteenth century in America. Muller calls the work of Hodge and others at Princeton as “a revival and modernization of the Reformed orthodox scholasticism of the seventeenth century.” For more, see Muller, “Giving Direction to Theology: The Scholastic Dimension” JETS 28 no. 2 (June 1985), 183–193.

[7] James P. Boyce, “The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, II,” The Western Recorder, 14 July 1866 in Stray Recollections, Short Articles and Public Orations of James P. Boyce, ed. Thomas J. Nettles (Cape Coral, FL: Founders Press, 2009), 142.

[8] Nettles, James Petigru Boyce, 116.

[9] Gregory A. Wills, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1859–2009 (New York: Oxford University Press, 2009), 6.

[10] Wills, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1859–2009, 7–8.

[11] John A. Broadus, “Historical Sketch,” in Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, The First Thirty Years ed. John R. Sampey (Baltimore: Wharton, Barron and Company, 1890), 6–7.

[12] John A. Broadus, Memoir of James Petigru Boyce (New York: A.C. Armstrong and Son, 1893), 73.

[13] Nettles, James Petigru Boyce, 397.

[14] William A. Mueller, A History of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1959), 19.

[15] Mueller, A History of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 19.

[16] Boyce, “Three Changes in Theological Institutions,” 153.

[17] For more on Boyce’s time at Brown University, see Nettles, James Petigru Boyce, 46–57.

[18] Nettles, James Petigru Boyce, 77–78.

[19] Wills, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1859–2009, 6–7.

[20] Margaret Lamberts Bendroth, A School of the Church: Andover Newton across Two Centuries (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 31.

[21] Matthew C. Shrader, Thoughtful Christianity: Alvah Hovey and the Problem of Authority within the Context of Nineteenth-Century Northern Baptists (Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2021), 36–38.

[22] Nettles, James Petigru Boyce, 78–80.

[23] Nettles, James Petigru Boyce, 80.

[24] Nettles, James Petigru Boyce, 83.

[25] Timothy George, “Systematic Theology at Southern Seminary,” Review and Expositor 82, no. 1 (February 1985), 32.

[26] Muller, “Giving Direction to Theology: The Scholastic Dimension,” 187, 190.

[27] Wills, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1859–2009, 15.

[28] Wills, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1859–2009, 17.

[29] Broadus, Memoir of James Petigru Boyce, 142.

[30] Broadus, Memoir of James Petigru Boyce, 121.

[31] Boyce, “Three Changes in Theological Institutions,” 149.

[32] Boyce, “Three Changes in Theological Institutions,” 153.

[33] Boyce, “Three Changes in Theological Institutions,” 155.

[34] Boyce, “Three Changes in Theological Institutions,” 155–156.

[35] Boyce, “Three Changes in Theological Institutions,” 156.

[36] Wills, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1859–2009, 18.

[37] Wills, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1859–2009, 19.

[38] Boyce, “Three Changes in Theological Institutions,” 165.

[39] Wills, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1859–2009, 19.

[40] Boyce, “Three Changes in Theological Institutions,” 168.

[41] Boyce, “Three Changes in Theological Institutions,” 171.

[42] Boyce, “Three Changes in Theological Institutions,” 174–175.

[43] Wills, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1859–2009, 25.

[44] Broadus, “Historical Sketch,” 8–9.

[45] The following information is drawn from The Baptist Encyclopedia, ed. William Cathcart (Philadelphia: Louis H. Everts, 1881), and Encyclopedia of Southern Baptists, ed. Clifton J. Allen (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1958).

[46] Wills, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1859–2009, 26.

[47] Broadus, Memoir of James Petigru Boyce, 143. 

[48] Broadus, “Historical Sketch,” 11.  

[49] Broadus, Memoir of James Petigru Boyce, 153.

[50] Nettles, James Petigru Boyce, 396.

[51] Nettles, James Petigru Boyce, 396–397.

[52] Broadus, Memoir of James Petigru Boyce, 268–269.

[53] Broadus, Memoir of James Petigru Boyce, 266–267.

[54] Broadus, Memoir of James Petigru Boyce, 304.

[55] Broadus, Memoir of James Petigru Boyce, 305.

[56] Broadus, Memoir of James Petigru Boyce, 307.

[57] Nettles, James Petrigu Boyce, 398.

[58] Nettles, James Petrigu Boyce, 398–399.

[59] Nettles, James Petrigu Boyce, 529.