I continue to find more information and writings by Elder Mark Bennett, the first editor of "The Primitive Baptist," and one who twice debated Elder Grigg Thompson, after he saw the errors of the Hardshells. The following is a letter published in The Biblical Recorder to Thomas Meredith*. The letter can be seen (HERE). Highlighting is mine.
*Rev. Thomas Meredith was beyond question the ablest man who has yet appeared among the Baptists of North Carolina, and as the founder, and for nineteen years the editor, of the Biblical Recorder, probably did more to develop the denomination than any man who has ever lived in the State. Mr. Meredith was born in Pennsylvania in 1797; came to North Carolina as pastor of the Newbern church in 1820; removed to Georgia in 1822; settled as pastor in Edenton, N. C., in 1825; originated the Baptist Interpreter in 1832, which was changed to the Biblical Recorder in 1834; removed to Newbern in 1835, and was pastor as well as editor till 1838, when he removed to Raleigh, and taught a female school in connection with editorial labors.
Mr. Meredith was the author of the constitution of the North Carolina Baptist State Convention, and of the masterly address of that body when organized in 1830. He was elected a Professor of Mathematics in Wake Forest College in 1835, but did not accept the position. He died in Raleigh in 1851. As an editor, he was the equal of any man in the United States in his day. (see here)
Dear Brother Meredith:
It is known to many in various parts of our country, that, a few years ago, I was standing in the front rank of opposition to the plans designed for the spread of the gospel, and for the improvement of the moral, intellectual, and physical condition of mankind. It is likewise known to a number of that many, that I now am considered a warm friend to those plans. And having had it suggested to me by President Wait of Wake Forest College that it would probably be productive of good to lay before the public through the Recorder, the reasons which have brought about this change in my views; and as it may be gratifying to others as well as brother Wait, and, under providence, may result in adding a little strength to the cause which is deemed so well worthy of all the aid it can receive, I proceed to give them in detail.
I will begin with naming the causes which led me to a patient examination of the mission question.
In the summer of 1835, I was consulted by bro. Joshua Lawrence, to know whether I would edit a religious news paper, to be printed in Tarborough, N.C. I consented to do so; but not until I had stated to Elder L. that I should claim the full exercise of editorial discretion; that, whatever I should judge adapted to promote the Old School cause and the cause of truth generally, might be published, but all else I should suppress: that, if necessary, I should trim the communications of our correspondents; and I should not hesitate to apply the pruning knife to his writings, sooner than to any other's. This course appeared at the time to receive his cordial approbation. But first acts of elision upon his writings met with complaints from him and censures against the editor.
Early in the third volume of the Prim. Bap. we published Elder L's "Baptist Associations proved from Scripture." Shortly thereafter we received a communication, in which the writer proposed to show the insufficiency of Elder L's proofs. I was about to publish the communication, when Elder L. expressed his high displeasure thereat, pronounced the correspondent unworthy of his confidence as an Old School baptist; and used language which strongly questioned the fidelity of the editor.
Towards the close of that volume, Elder L. gave us his first two articles on "The two seeds." In the front of the fourth volume, stands his second. The sentiments contained in those two articles met a dissent in and some strictures from "The Signs of the Times." For this, he denied the editor of the "Signs" an identity with Old S. Baptists, and rejected him from their confidence.
These things led me to regard with a more inquisitive eye, the prevailing spirit of our correspondents. And, although I had, in the first vol. first num. Prim. Bap. requested all writers for the paper "to abstain from abuse and ridicule of every kind; as ill comporting with the design of this (Prim. Bap.) paper; and although it was proclaiming in the very introduction that the Prim. Baap. was "principally intended to defend the Old School United Baptists from the many aspersions cast upon them by deluded persons professing their own faith;" and, although I was to sit out with the universal and impartial pruning knife; yet, borne along by the strong current of opposite views and sentiments, I had at length unintentionally and unexpectedly found myself at the head; (or rather at the foot,) of a paper which was celebrated for assailing and abusing other principles and other men.
I felt the awkwardness of my situation, and that of the denomination to which I belonged.--To a discerning public we must have appeared in the outset, either to have been wanting in purpose, or else in firmness to carry it out. I still thought, however, that my brethren aimed well, and were injudicious and indiscreet only in their mode of opposition. But I could not resist the force of this truth, that good aims cannot justify unlawful means.
These facts, added to those named in my valedictory, fixed my determination to be no longer editor, after the 3d vol. was closed. They led me also to examine more closely into the state of our Ministry. The result of this investigation was, a conviction that we had departed in several important points from gospel ground. As the correspondents of the Prim. were unwilling to be contradicted, and to have their opinions thoroughly investigated, under the pretext that all controversy with each other must be avoided, so the ministry. If one of our ministers contradicted or differed with us, we straight regarded him with jealousy and suspicion. What we ourselves said in opposition to other denominations we viewed in the light of sacred duty; what others said against us, we did not hesitate to pronounce persecution.
That spirit that first infected the Hardshells is still present in today's Hardshells. Many things have changed with them in doctrine and practice, but this spirit is the same. We have had to test that spirit many times. Bennett says that the first "correspondents of the Prim. were unwilling to be contradicted, and to have their opinions thoroughly investigated." Still true today!
From this impression, we went a step further. We attached increased importance to faith or belief, and less to works; until almost all practical religion or good works seemed to us like self righteousness. We became afraid to preach up and insist upon practical piety; and our discourses or sermons became almost exclusively doctrinal.
This is still true today of the Hardshells, except now they even decry "belief" as well as works!
This step was followed by another. Those who attached great importance to works, and preached their necessity, were thought by us to be false professors and self righteous hypocrites.
And one of the tactics of these Antinomian and Hyper Calvinist Hardshell "ultraists" was to call any such preaching "Arminianism"!
We stopped not here. We opened an offensive warfare upon all other denominations, and that from the pulpit, which was cried to such length that half our sermons, many a time, was taken up in censuring them. A censorious spirit by this means pervaded our whole sect. And when all the rest, of course, condemned such a practice, we exclaimed that all other denominations were opposed to the O.S. Baptists. We claimed their objections as evidence of our orthodoxy. We published from the pulpit that all christendom was against us, in order to enlist public sympathy.
Whew! How true still! A "censorious spirit"! Yes, indeed. "Pervaded the whole sect."
From being always doctrinal in our preaching, we came to dwell almost entirely on the decrees of God. The believing of election was made indispensable to salvation. If a professor did not believe in that doctrine we did not scruple to dispute his gracious state. We preached it to the impenitent and unbelieving in the same manner as if their salvation depended on believing in that single point. We often appeared to preach it of spite, telling the people we did not care whether they believed it or not. It was the truth and help themselves if they could.
How revealing are these words from such an important witness!
As if we had not gone far enough yet, we tacitly contended for perfection in our ministry.--It was declared as our belief, that God never sent a man to preach the truth, and then sent another to contradict him: that any who contradicted the truth was not sent of God. The consequences of which is, man must be perfect in doctrine, or not divinely sent.
We strongly intimated that, we preached by inspiration. Our objections were pointed and strong not only against reading sermon, but also against notes to assist the memory in preaching. We did not wish our congregations to think we had meditated upon our subjects; nor that we preached by chance. And as there is but one more way, that of inspiration, we must have left them to infer that we preached in that way--Hence it was common to say we would preach just such texts as God gave us, and no other. We wished to impress men with the belief that, learned ministers preach from their knowledge of books; but we had a surer guide.
I have written about the Hardshell idea about what constitutes blessed preaching! "We strongly intimated that, we preached by inspiration." Is that not the thinking of cult leaders?
Finding the Ministry in this condition, I was naturally led to inquire more patiently into that of the church. The latter I found to be as deplorable as the former. Long accustomed to hear works ridiculed, she had become afraid of them, lest she should be liable to the charge of being hypocritical. She thus had a fair opportunity of indulging in sloth, lukewarmness, sleep, and every thing else, that shrinks from the cross.
She had not been reproved for unevenness, nor admonished for disobedience, until she would not bear reproof nor admonition. She would not tolerate a Minister who would describe her true state to her. She was prepared to hear him speak only of her purity, her orthodoxy, and stedfastness.
She had not been reminded of the unhallowed passions, tempers, and desires, which rage within and war against faithfulness and piety, until she had almost forgotten to expect their attack, or to search within for them. This maxim seems to have obtained in her: Sound in belief, sound in christianity.
Hearing her watchmen all the time crying the alarm of remote danger,--from Arminians, from missionaries, etc., she forgot to watch at home. By having her attention so long diverted from herself, and by the consequent neglect of the culture of the heart, appetite and passion gained a dangerous ascendant and hurtful influence over her. The churches were prayerless, negligent and indifferent. Virtue, knowledge, temperance, patience, brotherly kindness, godliness, charity, were daily slighted; worldly-mindedness, coldness, and covetousness prevailed; little communion and fellowship of the spirit, little enjoyment in fellowship with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ, was felt or sought. They saw their condition was bad yet did not consider it their duty to attempt to alter it.
Among other vices, intemperance in the use of ardent spirits held a powerful sway. There were few churches in my knowledge but that were infested with this evil. And what was worse, where members of the churches had from long habit, nearly or quite lost the power of governing themselves, and needed a brotherly hand gently to draw them back, they were still encouraged and incited both by the example and arguments of their ministers. We were become a reproach and a byword to the world. Mine eye affected my heart; and I mourned for Zion.
I believed something must be done,--and should be done; and I determined to act though I should act alone. In 1840, my Association, the Contentnea, requested me to write a circular letter to attach to her minutes for 1841. In discharging this duty, I wrote on practical piety, and dwelt at some length on temperance. This circular advocated a total abstinence in all cases, provided spirits might be used as a medicine only. The circular passed and was printed, but proved to be very unsatisfactory to the churches, and the next circular was naturally designed as an answer, and warmly advocated the use of spirituous liquors. It was, however, rejected by the examining committee, and was not printed. Subsequently to this, a word was carefully mingled with pulpit discourses to justify and encourage the use.
I determined to make one more effort, though it should cost me the loss of fellowship--but I hoped I should not lose that. I could not help persuading myself that I could approach my brethren in so humble and affectionate a manner as not to incur their displeasure, if I did not gain their approbation. I therefore wrote and had published at a cost of $25, "An Essay on the use of spirituous liquors, etc," and distributed gratuitously.
It is true, I was afraid I should lose my brethren. I knew the rage of appetite when upheld by the power of habit. I knew also the deep and abiding prejudice against Temperance Societies; and jealousy which was constantly awake would be apt to identify the present movement with that Society. Notwithstanding all this, I still hoped to gain them. I thought they were compelled to see and consider the universal mischiefs of drunkenness; and that they would yield to the fact that all abstaining person testify to the unprofitableness and danger of the habit of dram drinking. Thus I hoped on, and wrote on.
Oh the courage and love of brother Mark Bennett! So many others, thankfully, followed him in later years and left this cult, praising God for their deliverance.
The pamphlet, it is hoped, did much good. But the power of habit over that of resolution, soon evinced the necessity of a pledge; and warmly recommended to my reason, my approbation, and my active aid, the Temperance Society. Where the man is immersed in weaker than infant imbecility, and decision has long lost all its tone in him; where he possesses no resistance against invitation, no remedy against derision; the pledge, the stake of his honor, his veracity, his reputation, comes to his relief.
Thus the uncomfortable and relaxed state of our Ministry, and of our churches, weakened in my mind, the claims of our opposition; and my reflections on the necessity and benefits of the temperance cause, led me to question the righteousness of our cause, and to admit the question of Missions to a candid hearing; when I reason with myself in the following manner:
Is it right, or is it wrong, for other nations, and the destitute parts of our own country, to hear the gospel and read the Bible?
I could not say it is wrong. For though the light of the gospel may be now extinct in many places where once it shone, yet we have nothing to show that it shall not be rekindled in the same places. Indeed we are assured it shall be the case to some extent: for Jerusalem, whose house is now left desolate, shall yet say, blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord. And yet if I should decided that it is right, I saw plainly I should lose considerable, if not the whole ground I occupied. Recollecting we had all along admitted it to be right, and seeing no cause to dispute it now, unless it was impliedly prohibited in the commission, go ye into all the world, etc.; or rather in the fulfillment of this commission, I turned o examine it after this method:
Was the commission carried out to its full extent during the day of inspiration, or during the Apostle's life-time, or not?
If it was, then under what authority does any man now preach? If that commission ceased with the Apostles, then we have no right or authority to preach under it. But if the obligation of that charge rests in all its force upon us, then is the space still defined into all the world. I answered, it is right, and proceeded to consider,
Will other nations ever receive the gospel in any way, except, either through miracles, or by the reading of the Bible and preaching?
It is not expected they will receive it through any miraculous means. For miracles, though they began the present dispensation, have long ago ceased, (unless we regard conversion as a miracle, but no one who understands the use of words will confound that term with miracles.) Again, if miracles were to precede the gospel, or accompany it to every nation, they would have come with it to America. The gospel, then, must go through the Bible and preaching. This is the only way in which it has spread for eighteen hundred years. The gospel dispensation, therefore, is going on without miracle or inspired men. It spreads its limits to all nations, and stretches out its duration always even to the end of the world. But,
The scriptures are silent, except they answer, Go. In vain shall we expect them to to specify that it is now God's time for America, but not for Asia and Africa. In vain shall we search for the passage that tells us the difference between his time for North Carolina and for Burmah. The gospel dispensation right in every candid ear, and sinks to every honest heart, Behold NOW is the accepted time; behold NOW is the day of salvation. Moreover, I felt it incumbent upon us who denied its being God's time to tell the people when it would be God's time, and how they might know it.--Lastly,
Are the plans now operated for spreading the gospel, justifiable means according to the scriptures?
If the gospel were to spread by miracles only, then were the missionary Institutions unjustifiable. They would then be substituting human agency for divine. But it is to be spread by simple methods and human instrumentalities; as it is to go by printing and reading; by walking, riding, and sailing by eating, drinking, and praying; by crossing rivers, mountains, seas and lakes; by buying food and raiment, and means for travelling; by singing, praying, preaching, and hearing; by building meeting houses, and buying ground for that purpose; by communicating to him that teacheth in all good thinks; by allowing the minister of the gospel a living, and giving the laborer his hire; and seeing that these means were in requisition in apostolic times, they are not only justifiable but commendable; nay, more, they are obligatory. I yielded my hearty assent to missions, as heaven's instruments, and ceased my opposition.
As an historian, and so that more information like this may continue to fill this blog's archives, I am happy to share this and like material with our readers, and with all whom the sovereign, Lord God, may direct to read it.
No comments:
Post a Comment