Jarrel on Hardshell Origins

The following are some important citations from Dr. Jarrel's work with some comments by me. (emphasis mine)

Dr Willis Anselm "W.A." Jarrel

CHAPTER 27

THE REGULAR BAPTISTS, OFTEN CALLED MISSIONARY BAPTISTS, ARE THE “OLD” OR PRIMITIVE BAPTISTS.

Baptist Church Perpetuity Or History By W. A. Jarrel, D. D.

"Unable to meet the overwhelming testimony for Baptist Church Perpetuity, Baptist opponents attempt to “darken counsel” by asking: “But who are the 'old Baptists?'” Some of them, when meeting the Regular Baptists, affirm “the Anti-missionary Baptists are the oldest;” when meeting the Anti-missionary Baptists, they affirm the “Regular Baptists are the oldest!!”

Yes, who are the old or primitive Baptists? Those today who call themselves such? Those who espouse the novel view of a no means salvation? Jarrel, like others, shows that the "ultraist" modern innovators (Elder Watson's words) who name themselves "Primitive Baptists" are not in fact such. Remember too that many of the Hardshells, even after 1832, wanted to be known as "Regular" as well as "Primitive" Baptists.

Jarrel continued:

"Inasmuch as Baptist history demonstrates that in every age, in non-essential matters, Baptists have differed from Baptists of other ages, by such matters we are not to identify Baptist churches of the present with those of the past. Thus, speaking of 1691, Crosby says: “If I am not mistaken this was the first church of the Baptists that practiced the holy ordinance” of singing in public worship. In the early history of American Baptists whenever a preacher changed his field he was re-ordained. When a preacher “got out of his parish he was nobody.” In the latter half of the last century protracted meetings were unknown among Baptists. In 1840, Baptists protracted meetings often continued a year.  Church houses, singing books, associations, and many other things to which Baptists hold, are not mentioned in the Bible and have been unknown to ages of Baptist history. While the constitution and the organization of the churches is, in the New Testament, in particulars, prescribed and described their methods of work and most of the forms of their worship are left to be decided by the spirit of the gospel and sanctified common sense. Missionary boards, like associations, hymn books, etc., are of comparatively modern origin. Like associations, etc., missionary boards, are mere Baptist expediencies, not being essential to the existence of Baptist churches. Anti-missionary Baptists had as well — because they have associations, hymn books, and many other customs which ancient Baptists did not have — deny that they themselves are the “Old Baptists” as to deny that the Regular Baptists are the “Old Baptists,” because they have missionary boards. Since the Anti-mission Baptists have neither missions, pastors' support, nor educational enterprises, the question, dividing the two, is REALLY NOT PLANS OF MISSIONS, OF EDUCATION, BUT IT IS MISSIONS OR NO MISSIONS, AND EDUCATION OR NO EDUCATION, AND MINISTERIAL OR NO MINISTERIAL SUPPORT. It is whether the churches shall do any missionary and educational work and support their ministers."

Jarrel silences the argument based upon "Patternism," which avow that everything a church practices be specifically mentioned in Scripture. He shows that the Hardshells do not practice what they preach, being grossly inconsistent on this, as on other matters, and shows the weakness of trying to argue from such a principle. Further, he was correct to state that the question really involves doing something or doing nothing.

He continued:

"Regular Baptists do all this. Anti-missionary Baptists not only do not this, but they bitterly oppose it — so bitterly that they would exclude from their fellowship any who should do these obligations. That the churches, when able to do so, should so support their ministers as to leave them free from all worldly care, is, from the following Scriptures as clear as that Christ is the Son of God: “The laborer is worthy of his hire.” — Luke 10:7. “Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in word and doctrine. For the Scripture saith: 'Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And the laborer is worthy of his reward.'” — I Tim. 5:17-18. “Who goeth a warfare at his own charges? Who planteth a vineyard and eateth not of the fruit thereof? Or who feedeth a flock and eateth not of the milk thereof? Say I these things as a man, or saith not the law the same also? For it is written in the law of Moses: 'Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn.' Doth God take care for oxen? Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt this is written. …If we have sown to you in spiritual things is it a great thing if we should reap your carnal things? …Even so HATH THE LORD ORDAINED THAT THEY WHO PREACH THE GOSPEL SHOULD LIVE OF THE GOSPEL.” — I Cor. 9:7-11-14. Paul, in order that he should not prejudice the heathen, in planting the Corinthian church, charged nothing for his services, but says: “I robbed other churches, taking WAGES from them to do you service.” — II Cor. 11:8): Therefore, Paul says it is as unlawful for a preacher to make his living as for a soldier to do so — “no man that warreth, entangleth, himself with the affairs of this life, that he may please him who chose him to be a soldier. And if a man strive for masteries, yet is he not crowned except he strive lawfully. The husbandman that laboreth must first be partaker of the fruits.” — II Tim. 2:4-6."

Well, my Hardshell brothers, is this true or not? Have your ministers historically decried ministerial support or not? Have the Hardshells not been covetous, their own leaders being witnesses to the fact?

Jarrel continued:

"Turning to history, we find that during ages persecution prevented Baptists from building educational institutions and conducting missions on as extensive a scale as today, or supporting their pastors as well as today. But, such opportunities as they had for this work were often improved. The Waldenses, etc., were preeminently a missionary church, their missionaries so widely scattering the gospel seed as to revolutionize Europe, produce the Reformation, and, consequently, the liberty and the Christianity of our own times."

This is correct reasoning and for Hardshells to argue that because there are times in Baptist history when they did not practice certain things very much that they therefore did not believe in those things is faulty reasoning. One time our Baptist forefathers did not practice singing in the church till Benjamin Keach led them to begin doing so.

Jarrel continued:

"The London Confession, “put faith by the elders and brethren of many congregations of Christians (baptized upon a profession of their faith) in London and the country,” A. D. 1689, which both sides recognized and both used as their main confession before the split, reads: “The work of pastors being constantly to attend the service of Christ, in his churches, in the ministry of the word and prayer, with watching for their souls as those who must give an account to him; it is incumbent on the churches to whom they minister, not only to give them all due respect, but also to communicate to them in all good things, according to their ability, so that they may have a comfortable supply; without being themselves entangled in secular affairs; and may also be capable of exercising hospitality towards others; and this is required by the law of nature, and by the express order of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath ordained that they that preach the gospel should live of the gospel."

Let the Hardshell today come forth with the evidence to disprove this statement!

Jarrel continued:

"The General Association of “Particular” or “Calvinistic” Baptists of England and Wales — the one which adopted the Confession, just quoted, which was first published in 1677 — which met “to consult of proper means to advance the glory of God and the well being of their churches,” raised a fund of money: (1.) “To communicate thereof to those churches that are not able to maintain their own ministry; and that their ministers be encouraged wholly to devote themselves to the great work of preaching the gospel. (2.) To send ministers that are ordained, or at least, solemnly called to preach the gospel in both country and city where the gospel hath or hath not yet been preached, and to visit churches. (3.) To assist those members that shall be found in any of the aforesaid churches, that are disposed to study, have an inviting gift, and are found in fundamentals, in attaining to the knowledge and understanding of the languages, Latin, Greek and Hebrew.”

I cited Jarrel and others when I wrote those sections in my book "The Hardshell Baptist Cult" dealing with the history of Baptist support of ministerial education and missions. The first Hardshells when confronted with such facts either ignored them or argued that they did not change their position that such things were still "new" to Baptists and the cause of the division of 1832.

Jarrel continued:

"The ministers and messengers of thirteen churches, “in and about London, in assembly, in 1704, recommended;” “That it would be highly useful, that a fund of money be settled and maintained, either by subscriptions or collections, as each church shall think most expedient, for the education of pious young men…for the better fitting of them for the work of the ministry; and also, for the furnishing of others, who have not time to attain the knowledge of tongues and some other parts of useful learning, with such English books as may be thought most proper, for their assistance and improvement. And that this be recommended to each particular church.”

If this is an historical fact, how could Elder Potter claim, in the late 19th century, in his debate with Elder Throgmorton, that Baptist education work was new and the cause of the division?

Jarrel wrote:

"An act of a General Assembly of these same Baptists, held in London, from May the 3d to May the 24th, 1692, reads: “That all churches make quarterly collections, in what method they think best for the encouragement of the ministry, by helping those ministers that are poor, and to educate brethren that may be approved, to learn the knowledge of those tongues, wherein the Scriptures are written.”

The Somerset Association, in England, at its meeting in 1655, recommended that the churches “follow after largeness of heart …in the maintenance of those who dispense the word unto you, that such dispensers may give themselves wholly unto the work.”

The Midland Association, in England, at its meeting in 1655, made a similar recommendation, and that, by money, the churches enter into “a joint carrying on of any part of the work of the Lord.''

Turning more to the history of the Welsh Baptists of the seventeenth century, we read: “In the Association held at Abergavenny, this church proposed to revive the old plan of supporting ministers in weak and destitute churches. …William Thomas was appointed home missionary for six months and received from Swansea five pounds; Llantrisaint, two pounds and ten shillings; Carmarthen, two pounds and ten shillings. …Our Welsh brethren were great advocates for the ancient order of things. They adopted the old plan of supporting missionaries. The gospel through the channel of missions has made its way to many parts of the world.”

August, 1711, the Biaenaugwent church resolved “Never to grieve their ministers, who should labor among them in word and doctrine, but cheerfully to assist them in temporal things.” The churches of the Welsh Association “doubled” their contributions to missions. “In the year 1654 there were several young men in this church — Llanwenarth church — who were exercising their gifts as public speakers…and as the church had increased considerably they contributed thirty pounds for the support of their minister that year.” “The Welsh ministers received money from the London fund.” In the Llanwenarth church “James Edwards commenced the work of the ministry in 1750. He also went to the same college. …Morgan Harris …went to Bristol College in 1776.” “John Phillips was baptized in 1720. Having exercised his gifts for some time he went to Bristol College. …He returned to Wales and preached at Usk for some time.”  Speaking of the Welsh Baptists at the time when the “split” occurred,  Davis says: “The traveling preachers received a stated sum, so that a man of a strong constitution, who can preach twice every day, as Christimas Evans, John Elias and others do, would receive a considerable sum for his services. For this purpose the churches have a fund or treasury.”

"The missionary and the educational work of European Baptists was, by Baptist immigrants, and otherwise, carried into the United States of America. The Philadelphia Baptist Association, was organized in 1707, the Charleston, in 1751, and the Warren, in 1767. These three associations figure more in the early history of American Baptists than do any others. The Philadelphia association is the oldest of American Baptist associations. In the first century and a quarter of its history it did probably more in giving type to the Baptists of America than all other associations within that time did.

In 1764, the Philadelphia association “agreed to inform the churches to which we respectfully belong, that inasmuch as a charter is obtained in Rhode Island government, toward erecting a Baptist college, the churches should be liberal in contributing towards carrying the same into execution.” At its meeting in 1766, it “agreed to recommend warmly to our churches the interests of the college, for which subscription is opened all over the continent.  This college hath been set on foot upwards of a year, and has now in it three promising youths under president Manning.” At its meeting in 1767 it “agreed that the churches should be requested to forward the subscription for Rhode Island college.” In the minutes of 1769, we read: “We receive pleasing accounts from Rhode Island college. …The colony has raised 1,200 pounds towards the building, which will begin early in the spring. About 1,000 pounds lawful currency of New England, have been sent us from home towards making up a salary for the president; and all the ministers of the association have explicitly engaged to exert themselves in endeavoring to raise money for the same purpose. …Voted that fourteen pounds Jersey currency be given Mr. Thomas Eustick, towards defraying  his expenses at college.”

"In its minutes of 1774, we read: “The minutes and letters from Charleston association, South Carolina, were read. The plan adopted by them respecting Rhode Island college recommended to us. Agreed to recommend the same to the churches we stand respectively related unto; and whoever shall see good to contribute to the money so gathered, agreeable to the plan to be remitted or brought unto next association.” At its meeting of 1774, it says: “The money raised for increasing the fund of Rhode Island college is as follows,” etc."

"Prof. Whitsitt says; “Why didn't they found the college at Philadelphia? I suppose the motive that sent them to Rhode Island was the desire to do a work for the Baptists in that part of the world. And I presume this was the best way of capturing Rhode Island.” Thus BROWN UNIVERSITY STANDS AS MOST CONCLUSIVE PROOF THAT THE REGULAR BAPTISTS — often called Missionary Baptists — ARE THE “OLD BAPTISTS.”

"We have seen that the Philadelphia association at its meeting in 1769, raised money to educate Thomas Eustick for the ministry. At its meeting in 1790, it says; “As it appears expedient that Mr. Silas Walton should continue another year under the tuition of Dr. Jones, and as Mr. Carter, of Virginia, has generously given five pounds towards his assistance, it is agreed that we will be accountable for twenty pounds in addition thereto.” In the minutes of 1791, we read: “Voted that the money raised last year, remaining in the treasury's hands, be allowed on the usual terms, to brother David Stout, who is a candidate for the ministry.” In its minutes of 1792: “Elders Patten, Chugan and Vaughn, agree to travel for three months in the ensuing year …to preach the gospel to the destitute; and this association recommend that a sufficient sum be subscribed by the churches, and paid immediately into the hands of Col. Samuel Miles, to bear their expenses.” In its minutes of 1722 we read: “It was proposed for the churches to make inquiry among themselves, if they have any young persons hopeful for the ministry, and inclinable for learning, and if they have to give notice of it to Mr. Able Morgan …that he might recommend such to the academy on Mr. Hollis' account.” In its minutes of 1800 we read: “It is recommended to our churches that a sermon be annually preached among them, and after it a collection be made, the amount to be forwarded to the association at their subsequent meeting, in order to augment the fund for the education of such pious young men as appear promising for usefulness in the ministry of the gospel.”

"At its meeting in 1794 it said: “In consequence of information communicated to this association by brother William Rogers, it is desired that all donations for the propagation of the gospel among the Hindoos, in the East Indies, be forwarded to him.” In the minutes of 1795 we read: “Agreed that the church be advised to make collections for the missionaries to the East Indies.” At its meeting in 180O it “Resolved, that it be particularly urged on our churches, that, as stewards of God, and influenced by a strong desire to spread the cause of our blessed Redeemer, they endeavor to raise, as early as possible, and to maintain a fund for the assistance of such ministers as may be called to supply destitute churches, or otherwise publish the gospel in their connection. …The church of Philadelphia having presented a query on the propriety of forming a plan for establishing a missionary society: This association, taking the matter into consideration, think it would be most advisable to invite the general committee of Virginia and different associations on the continent to unite with us in laying a plan for forming a missionary society, and establishing a fund for its support, and for employing missionaries among the natives of' our continent.” In its minutes of 1803 w e read: “The plan of a missionary society was read, and with some alteration approved and recommended. It also recommended that sermons be preached for the education and mission funds.”

All these historical facts are against the Hardshells and their claims. I pointed a lot of these things out in my series on "Hardshells and Theological Education." Jarrel continued:

Silas Hart, 1795, died and left to the Philadelphia association, by will, “property sufficient to yield an annuity of fifty pounds, to be kept in the hands of trustees and applied to the education of' young preachers.”⁴ Living at that time, Semple says: “This is certainly an important case to the Baptists of Virginia.”⁴

Roanoke association of Virginia, at its meeting in May, 1809, had before it “the erection of Baptist seminaries of learning” as among the subjects “of the greatest importance to which it attended.”¹ At its meeting in 1807, “considerable agitation of mind was excited…in consequence of a query introduced from the church at Charlotte: Whether it was a maxim established among the Baptists, that 'human learning is of no use.' This query arose out of an illiberal assertion, contained in a letter to Mr. Rice, a Presbyterian preacher, of Charlotte, to the chairman of the committee of missions, and which was published in the assembly's Missionary Magazine, of May, 1807; in which Mr. Rice declares, that, among Baptists of this neighborhood, it is a maxim very firmly established, that human learning is of no use. The association took up the business and appointed a committee of certain brethren to answer and explain the subject. The answer which was strong and energetic, composed by Mr. Kerr, was printed. No reply or attempt to establish the assertion has been made by Mr. Rice as yet.”²

At the “general meeting of correspondence,” in 1808, representing “Dover, Goshen, Albemarle, Appomattox, Roanoke and Meherrin associations,” of Virginia, we read: “It also appeared from several publications that the Baptists of Virginia had been misrepresented, as to their sentiments respecting human learning. It was determined at this meeting to rebut this calumny, by publishing a few remarks on the subject in the form of a circular letter, which was accordingly done.”³ This body, at its next meeting — next year — favorably considered “the establishment of some seminary or public school, to admit young preachers to acquire literary knowledge.”¹

“The Georgia association was organized in 1784. In 1801 a letter was addressed to this body on the 'propriety and expediency of forming a Missionary Society in this State for the purpose of sending the gospel amongst the Indians, bordering on our frontiers, which was unanimously and cordially approbated,' on which Jesse Mercer remarks: 'The ministers of those times had too much of the spirit of the Apostles in them to be afraid of missions:’”²

Writing, about 1838, Jesse Mercer says: “It will be seen by a reference to these reports, etc., that the missionary operations of those times greatly interested the feelings of those who have entered into their rest before us. It will be seen, too, with how much truth and justice the missionary enterprise is now assailed as something new under the sun. Then prejudices, now powerful, were unknown. Then strife and opposition, now rampant, showed not their deformed heads.”³

Turning now to the associations which the Anti-mission Baptists claim we find that they were originally Missionary Associations. The Kehukee association, of North Carolina, was organized in 1765. The churches composing it “adopted the Baptist confession of faith, published in London, in 1689 upon which the Philadelphia and Charleston associations were founded.”⁴

In this chapter we have seen that the English Baptists who first adopted this Confession were strictly Missionary Baptists and that “in educational and missionary work” the Philadelphia and Charleston associations were in closest fellowship. The churches of this association, before they were organized into it, by missionary work of Mr. Gano, as missionary of the Philadelphia association, were reclaimed from Arminianism, and from a languishing condition.¹

At its meeting in 1788 this association (1.) “Do recommend to the consideration of the different churches for their approbation or disapprobation,” the “raising a fund in the first place by their own contribution. (2.) By public contributions from the inhabitants, twice in the year at least. Which money so collected and deposited in the hands of some person, and subject to the orders of the church, to be appropriated to the aid of any traveling preacher, whom they shall judge to be sent of God to preach.”^l

T. H. Pritchard, D.D., one of our most scholarly and critical writers, says:

“I shall now prove from unquestionable historical facts that the associations which are now anti-missionary were in favor of foreign missions up to the year 1826, '27 and '30, and hence have no claim to the title of the Old School Baptists.

“I will begin with the Baltimore association, perhaps the most famous body of this modern sect in the United States. Their minutes for 1814 contain the following record: 'Received a corresponding letter from Bro. Rice, one of our missionary brethren, on the subject of encouraging missionary societies.' This Bro. Rice was Luther Rice, who was then just from Burmah, where he had gone as a missionary with Adoniram Judson.

“In 1816 these minutes in their circular letter say: 'The many revivals of religion which are witnessed in various parts of the country — the multiplication of Bible societies, missionary societies and Sunday schools, both in our own and foreign countries, are viewed by us as showing indications of the near approach of that day when the knowledge of the Lord shall cover the earth.' The minutes of the same year state that 'the standing clerk was instructed to supply the corresponding secretary of the Foreign Mission Board with a copy of our minutes annually.' In 1817 'Bro. Luther Rice presented himself as the messenger of the Baptist Board of Foreign Missions and was cordially received.'

“Elder James Osborne was a member of this body, which cordially received a foreign missionary and at this very session was appointed a home missionary. This man Osborne, who was a leader in the anti-mission secession, both in Maryland and North Carolina, I remember to have seen in Charlotte when I was a small boy. He was a handsome, dressy man, full of conceit, and very fond of talking of himself and of selling his own books.

“From the same authentic source, the minutes of the Baltimore association, we learn that in 1828 they called themselves 'Regular Baptists,' just as we do now; the same year they express their joy at the intelligence of the conversion of the heathen, and as late as 1827 the association expressed, by formal resolutions, their sorrow at the death of Mrs. Ann H. Judson and their great interest in the mission with which she was connected, and it was not till 1836 (1832 - SG), when the association met with the Black Rock church, and then by a vote of sixteen to nine, that fellowship was withdrawn from churches favoring foreign missions, Sunday schools, etc.”

To come back now to North Carolina, I can prove that the Kehukee and Country Line Associations, two of the most influential of the anti-mission party, were once missionary bodies. In Burkitt and Read's History of the Kehukee Association it is stated on page 139, that in 1794, a special day was appointed to pray God for a revival of religion, and on page 145 that it was the custom of ministers of that date to invite penitents to come forward and kneel down to be prayed for, just as we do in our revival meetings now.

In Bigg's History of the Kehukee Association, page 162, it appears that this association appointed delegates to meet at Cashie Church, Bertie County, in June, 1805, with delegates from the Virginia, Portsmouth and Neuse associations, and at this meeting arrangements were made to collect money/or missionary purposes. That it appears that the Kehukee was not only in fellowship with the Portsmouth and other missionary Baptist associations, but that the very first missionary society ever organized in the State, was in the bounds of this body.

Now, from this brief statement of unvarnished facts we see that the Missionary Baptists are just where the Apostles were and where all of the name were till 1827-8 when a new set arose, calling themselves, according to Elder Bennett's Review, page 8, at first, The Reformed Baptists in North Carolina, and then the Old Baptists, the Old Sort of Baptists, Baptists of the Old Stamp, and finally adopted the name of the Primitive Baptists.

There are many things about these brethren which I like, and I would not needlessly call them by an offensive name, but I cannot style them either Old School or Primitive Baptists, for in so doing I should falsify the facts of history, and acknowledge that I and my brethren have departed from the faith of the Apostles and Baptist fathers. In no invidious sense, therefore, but from necessity, I am obliged to call them New School or Anti-missionary Baptists.¹

After years of pretty thorough and careful reading I have been unable to read the name of even one church, association or writer that ever opposed missions or education before about 1810.

As there is no difference in doctrine between what are called Missionary Baptists and what are called Anti-mission Baptists, I notice only that which really divides them — missions, education, support of pastors and other religious enterprises. To be sure, the Anti-mission Baptists have often run the doctrine of Divine Sovereignty and Election into fanaticism and other errors. But the Regular Baptists, by the Arminians among them, have equaled their errors. So neither can well throw up errors of doctrine to the other.

I conclude this part of the chapter in the language of David Benedict, “a leading Baptist historian”: “Old School and Primitive Baptists are appellations so entirely out of place that I cannot, as a matter of courtesy, use them without adding, so-called, or some such expression. I have seen so much of the missionary spirit among the old Anabaptists, Waldenses and other ancient sects — so vigorous and perpetual were the efforts of those Christians, whom we claim as Baptists, in the early, middle and late ages, to spread the gospel in all parts of the world, among all nations and languages where they could gain access that it is plain that those who merely preach up predestination, and do nothing, have no claim to be called by their name.”^l (see here)

Well, what say ye my Hardshell brethren?