This article is presented to illustrate the apparent intention of Elder Bradley to change the practices of the Primitive Baptist Church by his claim that some key Primitive Baptist practices are really man's traditions and not biblical. This article written in 1996, his defense of  Cincinnati Preachers' meetings written in 1997 and his article The Old Paths written in 2002 show a remarkable contrast with his apparent feelings about Primitive Baptist Practices in a sermon he preached  in 1958 , just prior to coming over to the Primitive Baptists.

Recently while filling appointments on the east coast, I had opportunity to speak at Black Rock Church just outside Baltimore. It was a beautiful autumn morning as we drove across the Maryland countryside. The display of the farmers' harvest at the roadside stands seemed to speak of earlier times and a slower paced life than what now prevails on the freeways of the big city just to the south.

Arriving at the crossroads where the old Black Rock meeting house is located, we saw some stores and houses which also brought back memories of days gone by, and the stone church building was virtually unchanged over the years except for a little paint and some carpet. Having heard of the Black Rock Address ¹ from my earliest contacts with Primitive Baptists, my mind was flooded with many thoughts, both about our heritage of the past and our challenge of the present. One hundred sixty-four years have passed since our brethren signed the document that has been so often quoted and misquoted in the years that have followed. Who could have imagined the changes which were ahead for this country? The wars in which America has been engaged , the automobile , the super highways, the advent of TV and the age of the computer have all played their part in reshaping the way people in this country live today. But in spite of all the changes going on around it, Cars driving by, planes flying over and a bustling metropolis continuing to expand just a few miles away, the old church building stands there just like it was so many years ago. In this rapidly changing, throw-away society there is something reassuring about observing things which remain the same as the years pass by.

But as I thought about what had gone on outside that old building, I thought more about what had gone on with the church that met in it. Meetings with some regularity have been held there from the beginning, but sometime in the early 1970's the church ran out of members. Other believers came in and worshipped there but there were no members. Thankfully the church has since been revitalized and an enthusiastic congregation responded to my preaching as I spoke on. "God's People In A Day of Crisis."

One cannot help asking, why did a church with such a history go down? Why have most of the old churches that stood with her in that area close their doors? Why is it that in several northern states. Old School Baptist buildings of impressive architectural style stand as a monument but no churches remain? I remember the sadness I felt when I learned that London Tract Church in Pennsylvania where I had preached years ago had been turned into a public museum. I thing about how beautifully the singing had reverberated in the meeting house at Hopewell, New Jersey, when I have spoken in that lovely old house of worship. The building stands and the grave markers recite some of the church's impressive history, but the church is gone, In my own state the church in our capital city is now an antique shop, and one of the largest churches at the time I came to the Old Baptists in 1958 has less than half a dozen members. Although the problem of church closings may be more acute in the north it is certainly not limited to that territory. I look at a list of churches which have closed in Kentucky, Georgia, Missouri, Texas, California and all across the country, and I grieve. It is impossible to look at the facts today and deny that there is a significant decline. Now someone may reply, "That is a negative observation and I just do not like negativism." If a patient is sick should he not be told? Jeremiah 6:14 says, "They have healed also the hurt of the daughter of my people slightly, saying, peace, peace: when there is no peace." When the prophet saw the city empty that once had been filled he asked, "Is it nothing to you, all ye that pass by?"(Lam 1:12). To deny that there is a decline is to ignore the facts. To ignore the decline is to accelerate its pace. Jesus warned the seven churches of Asia that unless they repented, He would remove the candlestick. When a church dies there is no doubt that the candlestick is gone. Should not declining churches be willing to examine themselves by the test of the inspired word to see if repentance is in order?

A variety of opinions may be offered in response to the question as to why churches die. Shifting trends from a rural population to an urbanized society must be acknowledged. The spirit of absolutism which influenced many of the churches of the northeast can be cited. The divisions have taken their toll, and the attractions of the world have caused the love of many "to wax cold." But are there not other issues to be considered? Some console themselves with the thought that all the days of revival and in gatherings are behind us. This is the Laodicean age and there is nothing we can do about it. We can only stand by and watch our churches die. We must keep our "minutes" and put our buildings into the hands of trustees who will preserve them as memorials for future generations. But is that concept biblically sound? Does it not, rather, relieve one's conscience for a lack of activity and allow for the spirit which excuses us from responsibility? Does not the word of God call us to return to our first love and implore us to be zealous of good works? Was not the Apostle Paul willing to spend and be spent and labor diligently that he might "gain the more"?

The years leading up to the adoption of the Black Rock address had been fraught with controversy. Of course such struggles were not new among the Baptists. In contrast to other religious bodies which had centralized structures of control, Baptist churches were autonomous, recognizing only the head of the church, Jesus Christ and His word, the scriptures. There were often differences of interpretation which led to various alignments of fellowship among Baptist. Prior to 1832 there were already differences between those of the Arminian persuasion and those who were strong advocates of sovereign grace. Among the Baptist groups of that time were the Regulars,, the Generals, the Separates and the Uniteds. To say the least, the Baptists of that time were not one people.

To add to the turmoil of the day, Daniel Parker and his "Two-seed" doctrine and Alexander Campbell through his publication The Christian Baptist introduced doctrines previously unknown in the Baptist ranks. Controversies also rage over Tract societies, Sunday Schools, Temperance societies and Mission Boards. Obviously for a people who had always believed that the church is the highest ecclesiastical organization on the earth, the idea of having ministers approved, sent and sponsored by an outside Board was cause for alarm. If the principle involved was not enough, some of the practices became unbearable. The mission boards appointed "agents" to raise money for their cause and many of these were very aggressive individuals who not only disturbed the churches by their techniques but solicited funds from the public, much to the chagrin of the humble followers of Christ who believed that giving should be a service cheerfully rendered unto the Lord.

 The brethren at Black Rock declared. "… out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem, the Lord has manifestly established the order that his ministers should be sent forth by the churches. But the mission plan is to send them out by a Mission Society." But as the brethren of that day vigorously opposed the mission system, it is often forgotten that they confirmed their belief that the gospel should be circulated. They expressed it this way. "Previous to stating our objections to the mission plan we will meet some of the false charge brought against us relative to this subject, by a simple and unequivocal declaration, that we regard as of the first importance the command given of Christ, primarily to His apostles, and through them to his ministers in every age to, Go into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature and do fell an earnest desire to be found action in obedience thereunto, as the providence of God directs our way., and opens a door of utterance for us. We also believe it to be the duty of according to their abilities, for the support not only of their pastors, but also of those who go preaching the gospel of Christ among the destitute."

 It is clear that these brethren were not opposed to preaching the gospel wherever the Lord opened the doors of opportunity, but they were opposed to gospel ministers being directed in their travels by a society of men. They were not opposed to supporting those who labored among the destitute, in fact they encouraged it; but they were apposed to high pressure money raising schemes. They were not opposed to the gospel of God's grace being proclaimed but they were opposed to "free-willism." Both at home and abroad.

 It is no wonder, though, that they felt compelled to speak out against some of the extremes of their day. In a letter addressed to the ladies of America, Adoniram Judson, the well known missionary to Burmah, asked that they take off their necklaces and earrings" that they might contribute to the mission cause. He lamented that, "During the years that you have been wearing these useless ornaments…many precious souls might have been redeemed from the quenchless fires of hell, where now they must lie and suffer for all eternity, had you not been afraid of being thought unfashionable…" Others had the salvation of souls calculated to a specific dollar figure when the word of God says, "ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; but with the precious blood of Christ..")I Peter 1:18-19).

 It is interesting, indeed, to trace the road traveled by the Baptists since the document adopted at Black Rock led to a division of the Old School and the New School, more generally known now as Primitives and Missionaries. While Judson and Luther Rice were promoting their mission endeavors with the idea that money would make a difference in the eternal destiny of men's souls, many of the New School still spoke firmly in defense of the truths of grace in those early days following the division.

 In an article entitled, "The Ascent of Lost Man In Southern Baptist Preaching," appearing in the Founders Journal, Mark Coppenger quotes a number of preachers from the time the southern Baptist Convention was formed in 1845 until the present and shows how there has been a steady movement away form some of the earlier positions. Antebellum preacher Charles D. Mallary, a founding trustee of Mercer University is quoted as giving the following definition of election: "God's free, sovereign, eternal and unchangeable purpose to glorify the perfections of this character in the salvation of a definite number of the human family by Jesus Christ, with out regard to any foreseen merit of good works on their part, as the foundation or condition of this choice."

 Mr. Coppenger continues. "His [Mallary's] account of depravity serves as a clear benchmark of early Southern Baptist views: '…that being alienated in his heart from God, corrupt in the very fountain of action , in the temper and spirit of his mind, all the actions that he performs, even those which are in themselves excellent and lovely, are still the service of an alien and a rebel, and consequently an abomination in the sight of heaven.'

 "Shortly after the turn of the century, there are clear signs of lost man's progress in Southern Baptist preaching. C. B. Williams… argued that 'man is worth saving morally and spiritually, This is his chief glory. Then let us build more churches, more Sunday schools, let us send forth more evangelists and missionaries to save this lofty being called man…'"

 The article goes on, "Moving into the 1940's, many other spokesmen for the liberty and even the honor of lost men are easily found. M, F. Ewton… drew this boundary line: 'God cannot go beyond man himself. Men are free moral agents, having the right and power of choice. Man can choose the highest heights of heaven of the lowest depths of hell. God will not, God cannot force men to love and serve Him because forced service is slavery…'"

Additional references are made to sermons over the years which reveal al changing point of view about mans condition, all the way from man "an abomination in the sight of heaven to the view that Jesus "believes in the boundless possibilities of mankind to become free sons of God" in the later years. The article points out, however, that there were exceptions to the trend and some preachers spoke boldly concerning man's depravity and the effectiveness of God's grace.

 For the most part, though, the truths of sovereign grace have been deserted by the New School brethren. When I, as a young Southern Baptist preacher, asked about the doctrine of election many years ago I was told it was a dangerous doctrine and that it should not be preached. Furthermore, the movement away from the simple church structure found among the Baptist in early America has been of enormous proportions. The list of societies opposed at the Black Rock Convention would pale beside the list of institutions, societies and schemes which have been introduce over the years following. I well remember when the issue of in the local Southern Baptist Association of my membership was whether to participate in building a hospital because many of the old brethren saw it as a business enterprise and without scriptural precedent as a ministry of the church. In more recent years the controversy at the Convention level has been over a more serious issue, the inspiration of the Scriptures. Yes, the path followed by many of the New School persuasion has taken them far from the old landmarks of another era.

 But what has been the course of those who were willing to be called "Old School" or "Primitive"? As is often the case it is difficult to give a clear account of their travels or of their present position by name identification only. There are groups known as Primitive Baptists which are Arminian in doctrine and some who have gone the same direction as the missionaries as to their practice; but thankfully, a significant number of churches today remain true to the faith for which they have contended as a people since 1832 and before. Various doctrinal errors from the "hollow-log doctrine" to the idea of non-resurrection have been rejected, and the true witness of gospel truth has been successfully maintained.

 We should be forever grateful that the Lord raised up men to oppose Arminianism and its connected societies which have caused others to travel far from their original Confessions. But it must also be observed, as is often the case in times of conflict and division,that there is a tendency to be more concerned about successfully opposing "the other side" than there is to be biblically correct. It is understandable that our brethren would oppose "Protracted Meetings" because, as they described them , "these meetings are got up either for the purpose for inducing the Holy Spirit to regenerate multitudes who would otherwise not be converted, or to convert them themselves by the machinery of these meetings, or rather to bring them in to their churches by means of exciting their animal feelings, without any regard to their being born again." In their declaration the brethren not only condemned protracted meetings" but also "four day meetings"; and by doing so, they encouraged a mindset that has had an impact on Primitive Baptist for these past 164 years.

While acknowledging, "the example worthy to be imitated which the apostles set of embracing every opportunity consistently with propriety for preaching the gospel where they met with an assembly…, "they set forth their reasons, for opposing meetings which should be of four-day duration. "Because by appointing and holding a protracted meeting, as such, although we may not carry it to the same excesses to which others do, yet as most people will make no distinction between it and those meetings where all the borrowed machinery from the Methodist camp meeting is introduced, we shall generally be considered as countenancing those meetings." So the concern of not wanting to "look like others" was introduced and that viewpoint has had tremendous influence in the churches ever since.

 It is understandable that our forefathers did not want to be mistakenly identified with some of the unusual events being reported at the camp meetings. Everything from the "jerks" to the "trance" was claimed to be the evidence of the Spirit's presence. But apart from all the fleshly religious fervor of that time, can anyone turn to the Scripture and condemn a meeting of four days or forty days, for that matter? Many sound churches have for years held week's meetings in which the preaching was sound and the practice was simple and God-honoring. To avoid a four-day meeting or a meeting of any length just because some other group held a meeting for the same length of time and preached and practice error is, to say the least, stretching our concern for separation from error to destructive lengths.

 This mindset has touched many areas of practice. Some have felt that if other orders meet every Sunday, we prefer to meet only once or twice a month. If others sing joyful songs from a hymn book with notes, we want to sing only mournful songs from a book without notes.If the church down the road meets in a brick building then we want to meet in one that is frame. (It is interesting to note, however, that some of the oldest Primitive Baptist meeting houses are built of either brick or stone.) As this thinking has been entertained by some and encouraged by others, there has often developed confusion over the issue of whether some practices are merely long-standing traditions or sound scriptural precepts. As solid Bible teaching and preaching is minimized and custom and experience take their place, it is easy for sincere, humble souls to become confused. No doubt there are those who cannot distinguish Appalachian folk religion from true primitive Christianity.The cry, "That's not the way we do it here" takes precedence over everything else. Ultimately this can lead to an outright rejection of the word of God and the substitution of man-made tradition. Sadly, though, it all gains credibility when the claim is made that this is what it means to contend for the faith.

The Lord gives churches space to repent, but one thing He does not tolerate is the rejection of His word. Israel was often left in "confusion" when she refused to hear the message God sent her. Where must we go for our pattern? History is important, old confessions of faith are beneficial; but the only absolute test is the word of God. We must be concerned to walk in the old paths, but not those just fifty or a hundred years old. We must seek to walk in those paths which are mapped out for us in the New Testament

The Lord has richly blessed the Old Baptists. There have been any able defenders of the faith who have labored diligently among them. There have been seasons when the showers from above have come down in abundance and the Lord's people have greatly rejoiced in His gospel. There have been days of in gatherings when the Spirit moved mightily upon the hearts of poor needy sinners, and they came confessing their faith and hope in the risen Saviour. The warmth of love and fellowship to be found among them cannot be surpassed; and sometimes, in the singing of the old hymns a joyful note of praise is sounded that lifts the spirit above the troubles of life with a clear vision of the city on the other shore.

When others have sought unity without regard to doctrine, Old Baptists have been gracious and kind to their neighbors of other persuasions but have stood their ground unwilling to compromise the truth. When others have adopted a man-centered religion to appeal to the world, Old Baptist have continued to preach the truth of the sovereign God who saves sinners by His grace alone. With no denominational structure and no earthly headquarters they yet maintain a close fellowship across the country. This is a rich heritage and we should ever be thankful for it.

But lest we assume that we "are increased with goods and have need of nothing." Let's face the reality of our circumstances today. Why are many of the beautiful old buildings on the east coast empty today? Why are churches closing at an increasingly rapid rate? Why is it that in some churches there is not a member under fifty years of age? Has something been forgotten? Have some duties been neglected? Did some get so busy defending local customs that they lost sight of the word of God? In opposing Sunday Schools, did some parents forget it was their solemn duty to bring their children up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord and fail to see that they were in church on a consistent basis? Did some forget that the gospel of Jesus Christ is a message for sinners and fail to invite "outsiders" to come for fear they would not be qualified? Did some forget that while "mission boards" are to be rejected, the gospel is to be preached at home and abroad? Did some fail to rejoice when the Lord opened a door in the Philippines and a number of our brethren went there preaching without the direction or support of man made societies but with the approval of their own local churches?

 May we have the courage to examine ourselves in the light of God's word. May we be willing to repent where failure must be acknowledged. May we pray for a heaven-sent revival which is so needed today that the sound of the gospel trumpet may be head coming from Mount Zion. Let us make a clear and distinct sound in our preaching. Let us reaffirm that man is a depraved sinner and cannot save himself. Let us sing aloud that salvation is by sovereign grace. Let us rejoice anew in the gospel of Christ and recognize that it is a powerful message in the hands of the Holy Spirit. Let us be faithful in teaching our children and warning them of the darkness that prevails in the ungodly world around us. Let us be cheerful givers and support those who are called to labor in the Lord's vineyard. (No wonder many a flock suffers when there is no under-shepherd to give it his devoted attention.) Let us seize the opportunity which is ours to demonstrate to those with hungry hearts and inquiring minds what primitive Christianity really is.

 My visit to Black Rock stirred my mind, Reading again a number of histories even these past days has been interesting, to say the least. Reviewing again the terms on which the two groups of Baptist parted company and tracing what their travels have been from that day to the present has moved me to, once again, give special thanks for the truth and once more appeal to all believers of truth to zealously commit themselves to faithful service in the kingdom of God. A look back at history can be both interesting and profitable but we must be looking unto Jesus that we may run the race that is before us. Certainly, we want to avoid the schemes and methods of men; but let's not let that be an excuse for idleness.

 The river of time has flowed rapidly on since the meeting at Black Rock in 1832. men have come and gone. Ideas and innovations have been introduced by some and rejected by others. The new School party has grown tremendously but many of the old doctrines have been forgotten except by a few who now seek to again lift up the standard of their early confessions. While there are exceptions, most of the Old School or Primitive Baptist Churches have declined and many have ceased to meet. Do we see, then, a gloomy picture of hopelessness and despair? To the contrary, it is a day of challenge and opportunity. In a day when many are learning that the only way to cope with the pagan society in which we live and to prepare for possible persecutions in the future is to embrace the truth of God's sovereignty, we have the message. In a day when many have lost hope, we have the gospel which is good news for sinners. In a day when many are weary of programs and entertainment in the name of religion, we have the simplicity of New Testament practice. Will we move forward under the blood-stained banner of King Jesus or waste our energies disputing over local customs? Let us learn from Black Rock but keep our focus on the word of God. Let us learn even from our failures; but may we keep or attention on Christ, the head of the church, and know that through Him great days may yet be ours, to the glory of His Name. BW