Duke Research Results (3)

History of the Debate on Clark

The Older Potter

The Younger Potter

 (1841-1897)

In my posting "Pence On Hardshell Origins" I cited these words of Potter (regarding the debate he had with Elder W.T. "Tom" Pence on the means question):

"Elder Pence claimed that we could not find a single author or commentator, prior to fifty years ago, that took the Anti-means position. He referred to Dr. Watson, and the London Confession of Faith, and to Dr. Gill, and other authors, in order to prove that the Baptists had heretofore believed in the doctrine of means, and that our position among the Old School Baptists was entirely new."

I took the position that none of the Baptists, Gill, the London Confession of Faith, Dr. Watson, or any of the Old School Baptists took the position that he did; that the anti-means position was not a new thing among the Old School Baptists."

Of course, we have shown how Potter told some big falsehoods here! Now, he either did it out of ignorance, or he did it willfully and knowingly. I believe the evidence strongly favors the latter. How could anyone read Gill, the London Confession, and Dr. Watson and then say that they denied means is incredulous. If he said these things out of ignorance, that is bad too, because he ought not to say such things in debate unless he has evidence to prove it. But, there is no evidence to prove his bare assertion.

Potter continued:

"He undertook to show that Elder Clark was agreed with him on the subject of means. In this he gloriously failed, for I showed him from Zion's Advocate, that on the occasion of Elder Booten's ordination, Elder Clark was the moderator of the Presbytery, and that Elder Booten was interrogated on this very point, as to whether he believed in the Spirit's work in the regeneration of sinners, without, and independent of, all means and instrumentalities whatever. A correspondence between Elder J. B. Stephens, of Nashville, Tenn., and Elder Clark, concerning this matter, which was published in Zion's Advocate, shows that Elder Clark emphatically denied the use of any means or agencies outside of the divine Spirit in the regeneration of sinners. I am not prepared to give the date of the Advocate in which this correspondence occurred. In reply to my idea that the gospel was the power of God to the saved, Elder Pence rather made light, saying: "The power of God unto salvation to the man already saved?"

It was convenient of Potter not to give the citation from Elder Clark. In this blog I have cited statements from Elder Clark which showed clearly that he believed that sinners were born again by the preaching of the gospel. Now, it very well could be that Elder Clark agreed with Beebe, Trott, and others, that regeneration was distinct from the birth, and allowed no means in the former but allowed them in the latter. In this case, Clark must be read carefully to see if he is talking about means in regeneration or in birth. However, from what I have read of the writings of Clark and his supporters, they seemed to believe that regeneration and the new birth were the same. When I was going through the volumes of Zion's Advocate for the 1850s the 1860s (did not finish examining all the volumes Duke had) I saw how many writers viewed the three stage model of Beebe and Trott (where regeneration preceded the birth) as too much in support of Two Seedism.

Further, what kind of proof is it (to prove that the anti means had been the standard view of the PBs since 1832) when Potter refers to an ordination service where an Ultraist asked a candidate about means? Is he saying that Clark's non objection was evidence that he agreed that the anti means view had been the historic Baptist view and that all other views were heretical?  Are not Clark's several writings over several years not sufficient to establish that he did believe in means? I think that Clark as Moderator did not feel as though the ordination service should be interrupted due to the question, and so allowed it without agreeing with the Ultraist.

Still, the point to be made is that shortly after Clark's death in 1882 men of the "Ultraist" or "no means" faction took over Zion's Advocate and used it as a vehicle to promote their newly invented doctrine. Dalton, who preached means before Clark died, went to the Ultraist side afterward, as did others such as Elders Purifoy and Waters. When the Mt. Carmel church trial finally occurred, Dalton was present and heard Burnam and others of the Means Side cite works proving that 1) Clark believed in Means and so wrote about it in his paper, and 2) Dalton also believed it. And, if Dalton knew Clark's view, and then later reported that his views were in line with the no means view, then Dalton shows he is as much a liar as Crouse was shown to be. But, more on that in the next posting.

I need to go through the other volumes of Zion's Advocate (late 1860s to early 1880s) to find that discussion between Elder Stephens and Clark that Potter references (but could give no date). Perhaps I will still find it. But, even granting that it occurred, what does that prove? It only proves that it was not till after the Civil War that the no means folks started pushing their new found revelation. But, I did see that in the 1850s-1860s that Elder Stephens (Nashville, in Watson's area) wrote frequently to Zion's Advocate and in those years it was constantly upheld as the view of the Old Baptists to believe in means. Maybe Stephens, like Dalton, became a convert to the new revelation of the Ultraist Innovators.

In the account of the Potter-Pence debate Potter says Pence was  "...claiming all the time that the anti-means was an innovation of the Baptist not exceeding fifty years."

This was the claim that Elder Potter could not refute, having no evidence to disprove it. The Hardshells may claim to be "primitive" but they are not. Potter simply told a falsehood in regard to Clark. But, he did the same with Watson, Gill, etc., so why not with Clark also?