What The First Hardshells Believed (X)

Today while reading from issues of "The Primitive Baptist" periodical for the year 1845 I found some more evidence that the first "Primitive," "Old School," or "Hardshell" Baptists believed that one had to hear and believe the gospel about Jesus to be saved. In past postings I have given many such instances. See these posts for example:

From the "Primitive Baptist" (1837) and
What the first Hardshells Believed IX and
What the first Hardshells Believed VIII and
What the first Hardshells Believed VII and
What the first Hardshells Believed VII (second under that title) and
What the first Hardshells Believed VI and
What the first Hardshells Believed V and
What the first Hardshells Believed IV and
First Hardshells on Rom. 8: 28 and
What the first Hardshells Believed III and
What the first Hardshells Believed II and
What the first Hardshells Believed

Wm. C. Hunter in "The Primitive Baptist" for August 9, 1845 (See here) wrote the following (emphasis mine):

"Then we should never think we are doing the works of God only, by believing on him whom he hath sent; for this, says the scripture, is the works of God, and so soon as we get faith in the only begotten of the Father, our chains all fall off. Hence it is, if the Son shall make you free, you shall be free indeed. Then faith, says Paul, is the gift, of God; yet faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. Thus, we hear the scriptures and we acknowledge our condemnation to be just; this is belief, we believe there is a God and that he is just. Thus faith comes by hearing; then after the legitimacy of his claims are admitted, the Lord works in us to believe in his Son and thus we work the works of God by believing on him whom he hath sent. Thus we get the righteousness of Christ, that came by faith, called the faith of God's elect. This righteousness is not imputed to the heirs of promise, because they are any better than others; but that the purposes of God according to election, might stand not according to their works, but according to God's own purpose and grace, which was given them in Christ Jesus, before the world was made."

These words show that Hunter and the editors and supporters of the "Primitive Baptist" periodical believed that one had to believe in Jesus, or have evangelical faith via the gospel in order to be free of the shackles of sin and obtain the righteousness of Christ. 

Hunter also wrote, however, what seems to be a reversal of the above words. He wrote:

"And more than this, they (Missionary Baptists) will tell you that there are thousands of souls among the heathen starving and going to hell for lack of the gospel. Oh, what swindlers, what adders and diminishers; what deceitful workers, what vine spoiling foxes, what busy-bodies, what greedy dogs, which never can be filled. Look, brother, and ground your weapons against the truth: for I tell you, you are fighting against God, you are strengthening the hands of the wicked. Look at the fallacy and sophistry of your system. Your fraternity sets darkness for light, and light for darkness: ensigns for signs, and signs for signs. By disavowing the agency and operation of the Holy Spirit, or so obscurely avowing it as for it to amount to a disavowal, saying, the heathen are going to hell..."

Do these words not seem to contradict what he said previously? Maybe not. Perhaps he is criticizing the idea that it only takes the gospel to save people, a view that was being promoted in his day by the followers of Alexander Campbell and company, who taught that the word of God alone was sufficient for salvation, and that the Spirit was in the word. Both Campbellites and Hardshells both went into error on this point, the former arguing for a "word alone" view and the Hardshells who would later teach a "Spirit alone" view of regeneration. The Old Baptist Confession of London and Philadelphia however said it was by God's word AND Spirit. It is wrong for Missionary Baptists to say that all that the heathen needs to be saved is the Gospel. No, it takes both the Spirit and the word. 

What think ye? Is he contradicting himself? Or, is my interpretation of his words and sentiment correct?