In this short series I will be citing from "A history of the Sandy Creek Baptist Association: from its organization in A.D. 1758 to A.D. 1858" by George W. Purefoy, 1809-1880 (See and Read here) and making comments in regard to the "Primitive" or "Hardshell" or "Old School" claims about them being the "original" Baptists on the question of missions and other similar things and that those who support missions, theological seminaries, Sunday schools, revival meetings, etc., i.e. the "Missionary" Baptists, are the "new Baptists," and the ones who seceded from the general Baptist family. As I have stated many times in my writings on the history of the anti-mission movement and the formation of the Hardshell sect, the Hardshells have given their people a false or revisionist history, one that is full of errors, and even ones that have knowingly and willingly lied. As we will see from the evidence given by Purefoy, it is rather the Hardshells who are the new Baptists.
I have read the debates that Hardshell leaders have had with Missionary Baptists about this issue as to who departed from Baptist faith and practice. The question "Who Are The Primitive Baptists" was debated by Hardshell elder Lemuel Potter (1878 and 1887) and later by elder John R. Daily (1911 and 1912), both with Missionary Baptist elder W.P. Throgmorton. Elder Potter also debated this question with Elder W.T. Pence over the means question in 1890. In all these debates, the Hardshells could not prove that they were the real old school or orginal Baptists.
We will be citing from:
CHAPTER V
THE REGULAR BAPTISTS, COMPRISING THE SANDY CREEK BAPTIST
ASSOCIATION, TOGETHER WITH THE GREAT BODY OF BAPTISTS
IN THE UNITED STATES, SHOWN TO BE THE "OLD SCHOOL," OR
"PRIMITIVE BAPTISTS." THEY ARE NOT SECEDERS FROM THE
ANTI-MISSION BAPTISTS, OR FROM ANY OTHER DENOMINATION.
Wrote Purefoy (emphasis mine):
"As the idea obtains extensively that the Regular
Baptists (called Missionary Baptists, as a distinction between them and the Anti-mission Baptists), are the new or seceding party, we will submit testimony that proves
the erroneousness of this idea. This wrong impression
prevails merely from the fact that the Anti-mission brethren call themselves "Old School or Primitive Baptists."
If a man calls himself the elder son, it does not make him so, unless he is actually the first born. So it is in
the case now before us." (pg. 48)
Anyone who claims that the "Hardshell" Baptists are the real "primitive" or "old school" Baptists shows that he knows next to nothing about Baptist history. In all the debates on the question of whether or not the Hardshells are the true descendants of the first Baptists in England and America, the Missionary Baptists have shown that the ancestors of the Hardshells supported missions, theological education, and other such things that Hardshells declared non fellowship against in the early nineteenth century. What was new, or new school, was the "anti" ism of the newborn Hardshell sect. This is why R.B.C. Howell, pastor of the Baptist church in Nashville at the time of the Hardshell schism, and opponent of John Watson, (Hardshell leader in that area during the split), called them "new test men." See my post "Howell on being "Old School"" (here) In that posting I cited Elder J.M. Peck, a leading opponent of Daniel Parker and Hardshellism, who wrote:
"They arrogate to themselves the name of Old School Baptists..." I also cited from historian D.B. Ray who said:
"The Regular Baptists and the Anti-Mission Baptists were once together as one people; and, therefore, their history up to the separation was the same. The opposition of our Anti-Mission brethren to the mission work, and kindred objects, is a new feature among Baptists."
Wrote Purefoy:
"The opposers of missions style themselves "the Old
School, or Primitive Baptists." That they are properly
the New Baptists, will appear from the following facts: I. Paul was a missionary, and was sustained by the
churches while he labored among the gentiles (heathen)
to teach them the gospel. He says: "I robbed other
churches, taking wages of them to do you service." 2 Cor. xi. 7, 8, 9. That is, while Paul was preaching at Corinth, other churches supported him, in the same sense that missionaries are now sustained among the heathen.
Paul says to the Corinthians: "I have preached to you the gospel of God freely" v. 7; that is, without cost to you. "I robbed other churches, taking wages op them
to do you service;" v. 8. "And when I was present
with you, and wanted, I was chargeable to no man; for that which was lacking to me the brethren which came
from Macedonia supplied," &c. v. 9. This is the way that missionaries are now supported
this must be obvious to every unprejudiced mind.
In Acts xiii. 1, 2, 3, there is an account of the manner
of sending out missionaries to the heathen.
1. The Holy Ghost directed the ministers, Barnabas
and Saul, to separate, &c. v. 2.
2. They were set apart by fasting, prayer, and laying on of hands; v. 3.
3. They were sent away by the church. "They sent them away;" v. 3. This is the way that missionaries are now set apart, and
sent to the heathen.
Again Paul tells us, "It pleased God that I (Paul) might
preach among the heathen." Gal. i. 15, 16. In the 2d
chapter and 9th verse, Paul tells us who it was that gave
to him and Barnabas "the right hand of fellowship, that
they should go unto the heathen," namely, James, Cephas, and John.
From the preceding scriptural testimony, it is evident
1. That in the apostolic age of the church God called and directed men to preach to the heathen. Acts xiii. 2 : Gal. i. 15.
2. Funds were raised by the churches for this purpose,
and paid as "wages" to the missionaries. 2 Cor. xi. 7,
8, 9. 3. They were set apart by fasting, prayer, and laying on of hands, and then sent away. Acts xiii. 1, 2, 3...4. The right hand of fellowship was extended to those
that were sent. Gal. ii. 9. 5. The Regular Baptists, frequently called Missionary Baptists, "give the right hand of fellowship" to those that go out now to "the heathen." The Anti-mission Baptists give them their left hand, that is, non-fellowship; consequently they are the new party.
A very large proportion of the associations that are now calling themselves "Old School or Primitive Baptists," were previously committed to missions. This is true of the Kehukee, Country Line, Baltimore, and other associations." (pgs. 48-50)
In all the debates with Hardshells over what caused the Hardshell anti mission schism, the Hardshells could not overcome the historical evidence that showed that Baptists supported for thirty to forty years or more the very things that the Hardshells began to say were "new among the Baptists." Why did they not object during those years? The reason is because the vast majority of Baptists supported those things and so the new thing was the Hardshell schism objecting to those things. For more information on this point see my posting "Jarrel on Hardshell Origins" (here) See also the posting "History of Baptist Mission Work II" (here).
Wrote Purefoy:
"In 1802, and for a number of years afterward, the Kehukee Association was in favor of, and practised revival measures, that they have since repudiated and ridiculed. Elders Burkitt and Read, in their history of this association, p. 139, say: "The association (in 1794) agreed to appoint the Saturday before the fourth Sunday in every month, a day for prayer-meetings throughout the churches
whereon all the members of the respective churches were requested to meet at their meeting-houses or places of worship, and there for each of them, as far as time would admit, to make earnest prayer and supplication to Almighty God for a revival of religion.'''' Again say they, p. 145: "The ministers (in 1802) used frequently, at the close of worship, to sing a spiritual song,suited to the occasion, and go through the congregation,and shake hands with the people while singing." The ministers usually, at the close of preaching, would tell the congregation that if there were any persons who felt themselves lost and condemned under the guilt and burden of their sins, if they would come near the stage and kneel down, they would pray for them. . . .The act of coming to be prayed for in this manner, had a good
effect." In 1802 this body approved of evening meetings, especially of night meetings, for revival purposes. Elders Burkitt and Read, p. 148, say, "Evening meetings were greatly
blessed....In some neighborhoods they met once a week
on an evening, and numbers would attend. Sometimes
nearly two hundred people would meet and some would come ten miles to a night meeting." (pgs. 50-51)
So, though the Hardshells who decried altar calls as something new and novel, yet we see that the old elders of the Kehukee Association were doing this for many years before the Hardshells began a protest movement.
Wrote Purefoy:
"After 1827 this body changed its position, and condemned
these revival measures and meetings.
From the revival of missions in this country to 1826 or
'27, the Kehukee Association was a missionary body. This
subject was brought forward for consideration by them in 1803.
In 1804, Elders Burkitt, Ross, Spivey, Read, and McCabe, were appointed delegates to meet such as might be
appointed by the Virginia, Portsmouth, and Neuse Associations, to meet at Cashie M. H., Bertie county, on
Friday before the third Sunday in June, 1805, to devise
ways and means to support the missionary cause. At this meeting arrangements were made to enter into a system of
collecting money to aid missionary purposes. —See Bigg's
History of Kehukee Association, p. 162. From this it will be seen that the first missionary society that was organized in this State was in the bounds
of the Kehukee Association, and its members were mainly
instrumental in its organization.
In 1812, this association sent $3, in 1813, $5, and in 1814, $5, to the General Meeting of Correspondence of
North Carolina, for missionary purposes. —See Bigg's History, pp. 190, Idl, 195, 197. In 1817, "the association received from the Secretary fifty copies of the proceedings of a General Convention of
Baptists in the United States, held in Philadelphia in May,
1817, for which the association returned thanks."—Bigg's
History, p. 208." (pgs.51-52)
The only explanation for these historical facts by the Hardshells says that during those years prior to their declaration of non fellowship (via the Kehukee 'declaration and address' in 1827 and the Black Rock address of 1832) there was only grumblings against those things denounced, and that the Hardshells during those years were exercising forbearance with their missionary minded brothers. But, granting that this is so, it only shows that an extreme minority of Baptists objected to support of mission societies and the other things denounced by them in the 1830s. Further, if anyone will read the minutes of the Philadelphia Association in the 1700s he will see how they supported missions, theological education, Sabbath schools, etc.
Wrote Purefoy:
"After the Kehukee brethren turned Anti-missionary, and
thereby became the New Baptists, they were some time in
getting a name to suit them. They were at first called "The Reformed Baptists in North Carolina," and then
alternately "The Old Baptists," "The Old Sort of Baptists," "Baptists of the Old Stamp," "The Old Side Baptists," and finally they fixed upon the name of "Primitive
Baptists." See Elder M. Bennett's Review, p. 8." (pg. 52)
This is so ironic. The Hardshells chose the name "Primitive" or "Old School" and yet they were actually the new schoolers. The "original" position of the Baptists was not Hardshell.
Wrote Purefoy:
"It was not until 1827 that this body took a decided
Anti-missionary position. Their minutes for 1814 contain the following resolution
"Resolved, That we send five dollars to the fund of the
General Meeting of Correspondence, by the hands of Elder Philimon Bennett."
This Meeting of Correspondence was a Missionary Society.
Again, the minutes for 1814 contain the following appointment by the Kehukee Association: "Elders Jesse Read, William Lancaster, Philimon Bennett, and Brother Bennett Barrow, and in case of his failure, Brother Elisha Battle, are appointed delegates to the
next General Meeting of Correspondence."
Evidently the Kehukee Association was at that time a
missionary body.
Again, the circular letter for 1814 was rejected, and in- stead of it the association agreed " that they would adopt
a part of the address of the Baptist Convention, held in May last, at Philadelphia, for missionary purposes."
We have now clearly shown that the Kehukee Association, which, since 1827, has manifested such hostility to missionary institutions, was for a number of years previous
to that date a missionary body; consequently they are not
"the Primitive" but the New Baptists. The Regular or Missionaiy Baptists are now occupying the position that
the Kehukee brethren did previous to 1826 and '27." (pgs. 52-53)
These are historical facts. Every association that became Hardshell was once friends of missions, seminaries, etc.
Wrote Purefoy:
"3. The Country Line Association, in the days of Elders
William Brown, Richard Graves, Thomas Moore, Barzillai
Graves, Stephen Chandler, George Roberts, David Lawson, R. Deshong, and W. Stoval, was a missionary body.
In 1821, this association unanimously adopted and printed a circular letter, which strongly advocated Sabbath
schools. The following is an extract from it
"They [our children] may be taught also in Sabbath
schools; an institution which has been blessed of God to the salvation of many souls, both of children and parents.
We earnestly solicit your attention to these schools, and
beg you to establish one in every neighborhood."
Eleven years after this they declared non-fellowship with
Sabbath schools! When were they the Primitive or Old
School Baptists, in 1821, when they earnestly solicited attention to, and begged their members to establish Sabbath
schools in every neighborhood, or in 1832, when they
declared non- fellowship with Sabbath schools'?" (pg. 53)
I used to hear Hardshells affirm how "Sunday schools" were new, and not authorized by the scriptures, affirming that they were started by Robert Raikes in England near the end of the 18th century. But, the truth is, the Baptists of former centuries supported teaching the bible to the young by means of catechisms. See my series in the archives "Hardshells and Mission Opposition" and see this posting on the history of the Sunday school in the dark ages titled "On Sunday School History" (here).
Wrote Purefoy:
"The minutes of the North Carolina Missionary Society
show that, in 1825, contributions were sent up from seven
churches, belonging to the Country Line Association, viz.
Ebenezer, Mill Church, Country Line, Lick Fork, Wolf
Island, Bush Arbor, and Lynch's Creek. These are now
the leading churches of the Country Line Association! In 1817 and 1818, this association sent messengers to the North Carolina Missionary Society. This is evident
from the following extracts taken from their minutes, for 1818: "The messengers appointed to attend the General Meeting, reported and gave satisfaction." "Received by the hands of Brother Roberts, the Fourth Annual Report of the Baptist Board of Foreign Missions,
which was distributed among the churches." "The committee appointed to make collection on the
Lord's day, reported they had received $32 45, for which a vote of thanks of this body is given to the congregation for their liberality, and the money placed in the hands of Brother John Campbell, to be conveyed to the treasurer of the North Carolina Missionary Society." "Brethren Geo. Roberts, John Landers, John Campbell,and Nathan Williams, are appointed to attend the General Meeting of Correspondence, to meet in Fayetteville in August next."
No association was ever more fully committed to missions than the Country Line was in 1818." (pgs. 53-54)
The support for missionaries goes back even further, for the old London brethren supported missionaries and so did the churches of the Philadelphia Association. This I document in my series on Hardshell opposition to missions. In chapter twenty of the series "Hardshells and Mission Opposition" (See here) I cite from the Mt. Carmel church trial where the Hardshell opposition to missions is manifested by this questioning of a witness for the Hardshells:
To show what the Hardshell mentality is in regard to supporting preachers who desire to act as missionaries in preaching the Gospel in foreign lands, let us recall these words from the Mt. Carmel Church Trial (part 4 - see here). A Hardshell is being questioned about supporting preachers who have a burden to go and preach to those who have never heard the Gospel.
Q. Now, Mr. Compton, you are some sort of a missionary Baptist, aren’t you?
A. Well, I don’t know about that.
Q. You heard Brother Dalton’s deposition with reference to missions. Do you endorse Brother Dalton’s views?
A. Well, I would say this: so far as the bible directs missions, I am a missionary; but no further.
Q. You are a missionary Baptist on bible plans?
A. I don’t like to be called a Missionary Baptist.
Q. But you believe in missions on the bible plan?
A. I believe that if a minister of the gospel feels a call, a spiritual call, to go out and preach the gospel anywhere at all, it is his duty to go. Now, if you call that missions, why, then I am.
Q. Well, suppose one of your ministers would feel himself to be called to go into foreign lands and preach the gospel, would you believe that he ought to go?
A. Yes; if he felt like he ought to go.
Q. Would you believe that he ought to be encouraged in that?
A. No; I wouldn’t encourage him at all.
Q. You wouldn’t encourage him, even though you thought he felt in his heart---
A. If he felt like going anywhere at all, let him go. Let him go like he is directed by the bible, go without purse or scrip.
Q. But you would not encourage him in it?
A. No.
Q. Now, Mr. Compton, you are some sort of a missionary Baptist, aren’t you?
A. Well, I don’t know about that.
Q. You heard Brother Dalton’s deposition with reference to missions. Do you endorse Brother Dalton’s views?
A. Well, I would say this: so far as the bible directs missions, I am a missionary; but no further.
Q. You are a missionary Baptist on bible plans?
A. I don’t like to be called a Missionary Baptist.
Q. But you believe in missions on the bible plan?
A. I believe that if a minister of the gospel feels a call, a spiritual call, to go out and preach the gospel anywhere at all, it is his duty to go. Now, if you call that missions, why, then I am.
Q. Well, suppose one of your ministers would feel himself to be called to go into foreign lands and preach the gospel, would you believe that he ought to go?
A. Yes; if he felt like he ought to go.
Q. Would you believe that he ought to be encouraged in that?
A. No; I wouldn’t encourage him at all.
Q. You wouldn’t encourage him, even though you thought he felt in his heart---
A. If he felt like going anywhere at all, let him go. Let him go like he is directed by the bible, go without purse or scrip.
Q. But you would not encourage him in it?
A. No.
This is not the view of Baptists prior to the rise of the Hardshells!
Wrote Purefoy:
"Up to 1832, this body was in regular correspondence with the Sandy Creek and Flat River Associations, both of which are missionary bodies.
In 1816, the minutes of the North Carolina Baptist General Meeting show that Elders Geo. Roberts, David Lawson, John Landers, and John Campbell were sent by the Country Line Association to that body. Elder Geo. Roberts was chosen moderator of that meeting.
That the ministers and churches of the Country Line Association were, previous to James Osbourn's influence
among them, favorable to missions, &c. , is evident from the fact that in 1816, '17, '18, '19, and '20, there existed among them a benevolent society, that was encouraged by their
ministers and leading members. Brother John Campbell, by request, kept notes of the proceedings of these meetings,
which are entitled "Minutes of the Hyco Female Cent Society." The first meeting for the formation of the society was held at Lynch's Creek M. H., in Caswell
county, in October, 1816. In March, 1817, it met at Bush Arbor M H. In March, 1818, it met again at Arbor M. H. In 1819 it met at Grave's M. H. The
fifth annual meeting was held in September, 1820, at Arbor M. H. At these meetings, R. Dishong, J. Landers,
Barzillai Graves, and Abner W. Clopton preached ; Elder
S. Chandler was appointed to preach the sermon at the
sixth annual meeting. At the formation of this society,
Elder Reddick Dishong preached from Gen. i. 2: "And
the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."
Quite an amount of money was collected by this society,
and applied to sending the gospel to the heathen." (pgs. 54-55)
Again, the Baptists have always supported missions and the claims of the Hardshells to the contrary are simply blatant falsehoods. It is superbly ironic that those who call themselves "primitive" or "old school" are not either one. Lots of Hardshells read our writings. Will one of them come forward and disprove the historical evidence that shows that the Baptists, prior to the rise of the Hardshells, were supporters of the things they denounced in the Black Rock Address?
Wrote Purefoy:
"In 1832, Elder James Osbourn, of Baltimore, was present.
Through his influence a large majority of this association
declared non-fellowship with all the benevolent societies of the day, and have since assumed the name of "The
Old School or Primitive Baptists." It is, however, a misnomer, for they were formerly the "Primitive Baptists,"
but by changing their position, and instead of remaining
Missionary Baptists as they previously had been, they became the New Baptists. As Elder John Stadler, of the Country Line Association, took an active part in bringing about the Anti-mission movements in that body, and afterward, it will not
be inappropriate to refer to him while upon this subject.
He has been the leading spirit of the Country Line Association from its becoming Anti, to the present time. He
has made considerable effort, in the bounds of the Sandy
Creek Association, to lead them into Anti-ism, but has not
been very successful." (pg. 55)
Elder James Osbourn is probably, with the exception of Elder Daniel Parker, the person who had the most to do with creating the Hardshell sect or schism. I have read much of his writings. Interesting is the fact that he, like nearly all of the first Hardshells, believed in gospel means in the eternal salvation of sinners. For more information on Osbourn see these postings "Elder James Osbourne on Means" (here) "Elder James Osbourn's Creed" (here).
In the next chapter we will conclude our examination of Purefoy's history.
1 comment:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nuSk4vgzSQ
Post a Comment