Duke Research Results (2)

Over the years I have had to correct PB histories numerous times, revealing the bias in them, even at times pointing to blatant falsehoods and distortions of records. We saw a good example of this in my previous posting regarding Elder W.H. Crouse' book in which he attributes to Elder John Clark words that belonged to Clark's opponents on the "means question"; rather than being Clark's words and belief, they are words he denied as being true. Clark was affirming his belief in means, which is what he had taught all his life, not denying them.

His beliefs were the same as those who wrote to "The Primitive Baptist," a periodical to which he often wrote in the 1830s and 1840s. If one reads Clark's periodical "Zion's Advocate" he will see the same supporters of "The Primitive Baptist" supporting Clark and his paper. Elder Temple (who took over editorship of the PB periodical when Elder Bennett left the PBs) gave announcement of Clark's paper in "The Primitive Baptist." The paper that Clark came out to attack, in Zion's Advocate, was "The Signs of the Times" and its main writers, Elders Gilbert Beebe and Samuel Trott.

The doctrines connected with the Signs of the Times that were solidly opposed by Clark come under the umbrella of "Two Seedism" or "Parkerism," and its connected ideas. One of those ideas was that Jesus as "Son of God" was a creature before time (identified as "Arianism" by Clark) and that his "sonship" was connected with his becoming a mediator and redeemer. Christ, when created, was neither divine nor human, but possessed a third nature. And, when this Christ or Son of God was created as a mediator, his elect were also then created in him, and then chosen and saved in him. This aspect of Parkerism came to be known as the doctrine of "eternal vital union" or "eternal children." These, and other ideas, were vehemently opposed by both "Zion's Advocate" and by "The Primitive Baptist."

Frequent writers to Zion's Advocate through the 1850s-1860s
(from my research at Duke).

Elder (Dr.) John M. Watson
Elder (Dr.) R.W. Fain
Elder (Dr.) J. B. Stephens
Elder Grigg Thompson
Elder Mark Temple

All these men, except perhaps Stephens, and Thompson, believed and taught Gospel means. They all believed that the Gospel was to be preached to dead sinners. We can conclude from this that Clark also held these views. Of course, his writings very pointedly aver his belief in means and he contends, like his fellow editors, Burnam and Yates, that this has always been the belief of the Primitive Baptists. Clark, if he were alive here today, would tell our modern PBs that their anti means doctrine is a new and novel doctrine among them and that it did not take over the denomination till after his death in 1882.

It is also apparent from reading the old issues of Zion's Advocate that the first few voices that began to write into the Advocate who denied means were all of the Beebe side, the Two Seed side. This is more evidence of my thesis, formed years ago from my research, that the no means view came from the Two Seed faction of the Hardshells.

It was a famous motto with the Two Seeders to say that the Gospel was for the one object of "feeding the sheep." Those who believed in Means, like Watson, Preslar (who battled on the front lines with the Two Seeders), often spoke of the Two Seeders repeating that motto. They would often counter this motto and say, "we believe it not." They would say it is also for quickening dead sinners. (For more info on this see my posting Biased Interpretation)

In my posting Elder Hosea Preslar & Watson I cited these words of Elder Hosea Preslar:

"And as to their views of the use and design of the gospel being for nothing but for the edification of the Church, and believers being the only subjects of gospel address, I believe it not." (Page 186)

See also Elder Preslar On Two Seedism.

So, just as I have proven how the Hardshells falsely claim Dr. Gill as teaching their views on means in regeneration and rebirth, and proven how they also falsely claim the old London and Welsh brethren of the 17th century, and proven how they falsely claim Elder (Dr.) John Clark and his associate Obadiah Holmes, and proven how they falsely claim every first generation leader of the "Old Schoolers," we now are proving how they have falsely claimed elder John Clark and Zion's Advocate as being in agreement with them in their teachings of today, i.e., no means regeneration, conversion not certain or necessary, denial of perseverance, denial of absolute predestination, etc.

The foreword to Crouse' work was written by Elder David Montgomery (with whom we have had many things to say) to the edition that I linked to in a previous posting, and which was published by Montgomery and the Hardshells, and it has some words that I want to quote. (I have an older copy around here somewhere - highlighting mine).

Wrote Montgomery (see here):

""Regeneration and the New Birth" by Elder William H. Crouse, was published in 1928 and has been out of print since that time. (I think my edition was published later - SG) It is my opinion that this book is one of the best ever defenses against the "Gospel Means" heresy. This heresy is the belief that the gospel is the means by which eternal salvation is brought to the Lord's people. Sound Primitive Baptists do not believe this doctrine. The leaders of this doctrinal advocacy were Elders Burnham, Pence, Screws, Yates and others."

The work by Crouse, though highly recommended by today's Hardshells, is hardly worth the paper it was first printed upon.

I have in previous writings fully analyzed this book and discovered its numerous errors. See here, and here, and here. See also my posting Hardshellism's Fundamental Tenet.

Crouse and his anti means Hardshells are the ones guilty of teaching heresy. Further, if believing in means makes one a new schooler, then all the founding fathers of the PB denomination were New Schoolers! Heretics!

Montgomery continued:

"In the book Trial and Decision of Mt. Carmel Church, Elder R.H. Pittman gave the background of the "Gospel Means" movement:

In the latter half of the nineteenth century the spirit of unrest began to be manifested. Dissatisfaction with the old way of the fathers was evidenced in the public and private service of some.

Improvement on the old way of teaching is urged. The children of Baptists must be saved, and the New Testament plan is not thought sufficient. The "Heathen" must have the Gospel preached to them, and the old Baptist system of depending entirely upon the Lord is not considered the proper one. And so a fireside campaign is put on foot to prepare the Baptists for the public introduction of the things thought to be needed. And the result of all this was that a party within the church was being formed, tutored, and nourished by certain local ministers within the bonds of the Ketocton and Ebenezer Associations, but led mainly by Elder E. H. Burnam, a minister of talent and influence that finally divided churches where peace and fellowship had long been undisturbed. This party showed their hand..."

No, the "fireside campaign" came from the anti means faction! They were the ones who pushed their new doctrine off by first labeling their opponents as "Arminian"; And, by oral communication among individual members they pushed the matter, and began to call the believers in means "heretics"; And, they pushed it further by asking questions of candidates for ordination to state their views, and if you wanted to be ordained you answered as the "Ultraists" expected and denied means. Elder Clark wrote about this in regard to himself in the 1850s and 1860s, where he was labeled a "heretic" for his belief in means! And, as we will see, Elder Lemuel Potter used as an argument, to prove that Clark denied means, the fact that Clark in later life was moderator of an ordination service where the candidate was asked if he believed in means. How is that proof? But, not to delve into that matter too much in this connection, let us rather point out the tactics used by the Ultraist anti means trouble makers, which was to use "fireside" chats to stir the issue, and then to push it in ordination questioning. As a side note, I have written about this tactic in my book "The Hardshell Baptist Cult" (chapter three - personal experiences).

Pittman's account is of course a very biased look at the causes of the division over the means question.

Montgomery continued:

"These "Meansites" or "Burnamites" first afflicted the churches that were of the "Old Line" persuasion. Soon, the heresy crept in the "Progressive" churches. Though Elder Crouse was a member of a Progressive church, it is my feeling that this wonderful defense of the doctrine of Regeneration should stand and speak for itself. This, I am certain, the reader will discover.

When I received my original copy of the book, I showed it to Elder Sonny Pyles who told me to "guard it with your life." Elder Pyles explained to me that the book was very rare and that it explains the 1689 London Confession of Faith as it ought to be interpreted. It was his feeling that every Old Baptist should read this book, especially the ministry. With such a recommendation, I felt behooved to republish it as soon as possible and get the work back into the hands of the Baptists.

Upon reading the book, it made me wonder why this book has never been republished heretofore. Elder Crouse so clearly explains the important doctrine and the Scriptural and historical evidence that he gives in support of his position, more than convinced me of the scholarship of this work and encouraged me all the more to seek its republication. So, with all this in mind, it is a great joy for me to present this volume to the public."

Well, both Sonny and David both should be more careful in the works they recommend! Why recommend a work so full of misrepresentations? It is clear that both Pyles and Montgomery do not act as noble Bereans and check the veracity of the things they read!

Elder John R. Daily, who baptized Crouse, writes of Crouse:

"For a young man of strong intellectual power and high ambition to turn away from all that naturally engaged his mind and heart and consent to live a life of deprivation and trials, such as the ministry of the true gospel entails, is unmistakable proof of a work of grace and calling of God." (here)

Well, if Crouse is representative of Hardshell "scholarship" then they are to be pitied.

In the next posting we will look further into the history of the debate regarding Elder Clark.