Chaper Four - Hardshell History (Primer)

Hardshell History

Hardshells make many false and erroneous "claims." Nowhere is this more evident than in the so-called "histories" that they have produced. They "claim" to be the "true," "Old," and "Original" Baptists. They "claim" that they only have stood "unchanged" from what their "forefathers" were, prior to the "Great Division" in 1832. They try to "prove" this from scripture and from history; however, both are against them, as we will continue to show.

The Hardshell denomination was born and developed between 1820-1840 in America. Many Hardshells refer to the year 1832 as the precise time when the Hardshells severed all ties with "Mission Baptists." This was the year of the famed "Black Rock Address," wherein the Hardshells, under the leadership of Gilbert Beebe, and assembled at the Black Rock meeting-house in Maryland, declared "non-fellowship" for all Baptists who supported the "mission movement."

It took time for the controversy to reach the various parts of the country, but as it did, association after association took up the issue. Associations, churches and even families, soon divided and thus began what Hassell called a "war of words" that continued to this day. And it will become obvious to the reader that the Hardshells have been the primary "combatants" in this "Cold War," "throwing stones" and "taking pot-shots" at the so-called Mission Baptists.

Elder Claud Cayce himself put out a booklet entitled "HOT SHOTS" in which he "lambasted" the "Arminian" or "Missionary Baptists." And as you will see from the quotes to follow from Hassell, the Hardshells have been the most "violent" in their "attacks" upon non-Hardshell groups of Baptists, almost to the point of using "terrorist tactics." You will also see that, to the Hardshells, the number one "enemy" is the "Mission Baptists." This will justify my "claim" that the Hardshells are, in many ways, a "hate group." They have very little good to say of the "New School" Baptists. This practice of "preaching against" the Missionaries has had its "adverse effects."

After you have been shown some of this "garbage" that the Hardshells spew forth against the Missionaries, you will then be amazed, like brother Ross and I have been, that some Hardshells ask us, saying, "What has gotten your ire up? What have we done to upset you? Why don't you leave us alone?"

Actually, these are questions that the Missionaries should have been asking the Hardshells, because it is they who will not leave the Missionaries alone, and it is they who have become "upset!" This is evident when we read the writings of Hassell and others.

The Hardshell "Name"

Hassell's view of the "Old School" or Hardshell faction of Baptists was that they were the "true," "orderly" and "original" Baptists and the "only ones" entitled to the name "Old School" or "Primitive" Baptists. He recognizes, however, that the so-called New Schoolers repudiate that claim, especially those who still hold to the Calvinism of the old Confessions and yet are missionary, such as brother Ross and myself.

Hassell says:

“This claim on the part of the New School has been set up by some of them, perhaps, since the year 1870. Lectures have been given, sermons delivered, newspapers have teemed, magazines have been filled, and books have abounded with argument, declamation and sophistry, to prove that the New School are the Old School-that the Old School are the New School-that white is black, and black is white-that the pharisaical, money-loving, money-hunting, money-begging, mesmerizing, passion-exciting, 'do and live' Baptists of the present day are the Simon-pure, old fashioned, Primitive Baptists of a hundred years ago; and that Kehukeeites [Hardshells-S.G.] and Blackrockers need not lay claim to any such title at all! Thus it is seen after all what advantage there is thought to be in a good name" (page 749).

Talk about a "war of words!" Talk about "ad hominem" attacks! There is surely plenty of "venom" here! These words of Hassell reveal how much in love the Hardshells are with a "name!" They are like their "twin" brother, the "Campbellites," in their love of a name and title. The so-called New Schoolers did not fall in love with a name, as their churches generally just kept the name of "Baptist." The fact that Missionary Baptists, who remained Calvinistic, contend that they are the really "Old" Baptists, does not mean that they, like the Hardshells, covet the "name." On page 759 of this venerated Hardshell "history," Hassell says further:

“How much does this advance the claim of these men [Missionary Baptists], who made or cling to this society [missions] to the title of 'Primitive Baptists?' Primitive Baptists! How Primitive? Why Primitive as far back as 1814. Born then . . . renounced the Church of Christ in 1814, and denounced her as an old-fashioned, worn out concern . . .”

Oh! how these Hardshells love their name! But the name does not fit them. Their rejection of the Old Confessions denies them to be "entitled" to the name of "Primitive" or "Old" Baptists! Hassell believed that the Missionary Baptists were the "new party, just sprung into existence during the present century" [19th] (page 755).

But the opposite is true, as brother Ross has shown already in his writings. The Hardshells are the ones newly "sprung!" No Baptist, prior to the 19th century, held that the Lord saved men apart from the preached gospel. Gilbert Beebe was the "innovator" of this "new" idea.

Dr. and Elder John Watson, whom the Hardshells claim as one of their own, but who is not one with them, affirms in his book, “THE OLD BAPTIST TEST”, published in the middle of the 19th century, that these Hardshells who reject "gospel means" are the "innovators!" He was opposed to much of the "methodology" of the mission movement, but he believed, like the old Confessions, that the gospel is "God's ordinary means" of saving sinners.

What about Change?

Jesus condemned some who erroneously contended, when they should not have, that “the old is better.” (Luke 5:39) Hardshells claim that they are the "original" Baptists because the Missionaries were the party who "changed" and brought in "new things," which they say was "the cause" of the "division." The argument that they make runs like this; Missions are new among the Baptists. We don't have them. We are therefore the "old" Baptists. Sunday Schools, musical instruments, seminaries, Bible and Tract Societies, etc. are all "new" among the Baptists. We don't have them. We are therefore the "Old" Baptists.

But all this is "farcical." According to Hardshell, Elder W. J. Berry, who knows the true facts of history in the case, testifies that the Hardshells of his day (1960) had "changed" in many ways from the Hardshells of the 1820-1840 era. He points out that many of those Hardshells were against divorce, even for adultery, and were also opposed to Baptists having life insurance! (See his pamphlet entitled, WHAT WERE THE OLD SCHOOL BAPTISTS IN 1840?-IN 1960?)

According to the statements that brother Ross has quoted from Dad and Elder Tolley, the Hardshells repudiate much of the old Confessions, especially as it concerns "gospel means," "predestination" and "perseverance." I ask the Hardshells: Who are the "old" Baptists? The Baptists who believe these things in the Confessions or those who do not? Who has "changed?"

Deception & Contradiction

One of the things that I have noticed in Hardshell "histories" is the deceptive way that they account history. They will often omit pertinent information about those ancient Baptists in order to give the "appearance" of being the truly old Baptists. These are nothing but the same kind of “revisionist histories” that dictators, like Stalin, have done. They are false histories. Brother Ross certainly has shown that with Hassell's reference to the Ketocton Association and its first moderator, Elder Fristoe. Hassell speaks of Fristoe and Ketocton as being "like one of them." However, Fristoe believed the confessions and in "gospel means." Did Hassell know that? Yes, he did. Then why not tell the reader? Because it served his purpose better not to mention it. He shows that he is not a true “historian.”

Actually, while I was with the Hardshells, I often heard them "claiming" certain 18th century Baptists as being "on their side," when in fact they were not. They claim Elder John Leland, but Elder Leland believed in gospel means, and accepted the Philadelphia and London Confessions of the Baptist Faith, and though he opposed many of the mission methods and of the “board system,” yet he is still not a 32nd cousin to the Hardshells. They claim, as I said, Elder Watson. But, he is against them too in their "anti-means" doctrine. The list could go on and on.

Some Hardshell "historians," unlike Hassell and others, make an attempt to appear or be somewhat "honest" in presenting the "facts of history." Elder Benjamin Griffin wrote a "History of the Primitive Baptists of the state of Mississippi," published first in 1853. He was honest enough to record how active the Mississippi Baptists were in the beginning in supporting and promoting "missions" of all kinds, both foreign and domestic. He also gives lengthy quotes from the histories of Mississippi's first Associations which show that they accepted the London and Philadelphia Confessions together with their belief in "gospel means." They were "Gillites" but, like Gill himself, believed that the elect were called, converted and regenerated by the word of God. More on that later.

Elder Griffin says, reluctantly, on page 124 of his history, that "were we not bound by the truth of history to speak of these things [the missionary zeal of those early Baptists-S.G.] we would gladly hide them in oblivion."

Hassell, Hanks, and other Hardshells have not been so honest and candid. You might wonder, at this point, how Griffin and other Hardshells can continue to claim to be "Old" or "Original," at least in Mississippi, in light of these revelations of true history. Basically, Griffin argued that those "Old Baptists" in Mississippi were "duped" by the wily Missionaries! This is interesting because he calls these Mission Baptists the "Old Baptists!" How could he not? They had been missionary ever since their beginning. And if these are they whom he "claims" as his "forefathers," i.e. the "Old" Baptists, what does that say of them today? If they are "Old" Baptists, then they are also "duped!" Or else they are not "old" Baptists!

Griffin shows that the missionary spirit continued until the late 1840's in Mississippi and that not a word was uttered against missions until the Hardshells came along. How does he handle that? He says on page 124:

“The reader, however, if he has paid strict attention to the history of this Association [the oldest in that state-S.G.], is now prepared to understand, that it is composed of two people, struggling against each other, sometimes one having the ascendancy, and sometimes the other.”

But the strange fact is, Elder Griffin never produced a single historical record until the late 1840's to indicate that anyone ever opposed the missionary work of the Baptists in that state! He wants his Hardshell readers to believe that they were there all along, but with their "mouths shut in silence!" But if this is the case, then how can they claim to be descended from that "silent minority?" Hardshells today don't "keep silent" in the presence of missionaries. Those "Old" Baptists in Mississippi did! It seems to me that Griffin would be more "Old Baptist" if he also kept his mouth shut and supported missions, both foreign and domestic.!

Actually, Griffin is not unlike Hassell in his "violent attacks" upon the Old Missionary Baptists! But I will not detail such. Suffice it to say that they consider the mission movement among Baptists as the "Man of Sin," "Anti-Christ," "Babylon," and as "abominable," "priestcraft," "worldly," "evil," etc. He also considers the "Anti-Mission" or Hardshell Baptists as being the descendants of Isaac and Sarah and the "Mission Baptists" as the offspring of Hagar and Ishmael! If this doesn't constitute them as a "hate group" and a "cult," then I don't know what you would call them!

There are so many contradictions in Griffin's and in Hassell's "histories" that it would take a lengthy book to expose them all. Let me give some further examples.

First, Griffin says, on page 143, that the Hardshells "never have crept into Armenian (sic) churches and attempted to draw away members from them."

But then on page 162, he says to those Arminian churches:

We believe that you have among you some of the Primitive Baptists; to them we say "Come out of her my people..."

He also says that those coming out of Missionary churches are like Lot coming out of Sodom"!

Another example of the contradictions and hypocrisy in Hardshell “history” is found on pages 133 and 186. On page 133, he says:

“It is the right of every sect, society, Denomination or Fraternity to fix the rules of their own government . . . and for this privilege the Primitive Baptists will ever pray.”

But the on page 186, he says:

“Hence, we believe Jesus Christ is King in Zion, and has the sole right to give laws for the government of His Church . . .”

Well, which way is it?

Let me also show you an inconsistency in Hassell's so-called history. He states on page 742 that the Kehukee Association passed a resolution that said:

“We will not countenance any preacher who travels within the bounds of this association, establishing societies for the collection of money, or who may be himself collecting money to support any institution whatever.” (Emphasis mine)

But later, after this was passed, we find that at the 1843 session of the Association, that "the churches were recommended to increase their future contributions specifying how much is intended for the association fund, and how much towards defraying the expenses of their messengers . . ."

Is the church not an "institution?" Are not their associations such? Hardshells must be blind not to see their hypocrisy. Perhaps it is the old "Do as I say and not as I do!"

Division

The Hardshells, as I have said, constantly charge those Old Missionary Baptists of early American history with being the sole cause and "guilty party" of the "Great Division" among the Baptists. Their only reason for this charge is given as being the introduction of something "new." It has been argued by them in court cases over church property and in public debate, that “when a political body has a division over a new innovation among them, then the side bringing in that "new" thing is the cause of the division.” They are the ones responsible for the division.

The problems with “arguments” like that are easily discerned. First of all, missions existed among Baptists for many years before anyone "got up in the air over it.” In the case of the Mississippi Baptists, missions were a big part of the collective work of the Baptists for over fifty years before a "protest" was ever uttered by a Baptist!

In most cases, the years of mission work continued among Baptists for over a hundred years in America before a Hardshell sprang up to "object," "dissent" and to "separate."

Now let us return to the Hardshell "argument" on who are, in fact, the "innovators" and "guilty party." If a body brings in a new thing and continues in possession of it for a hundred years without one protest, then who can say that it caused division?

Actually, it is the Hardshells who caused the division. In the above scenario, the Baptists were at peace for many years with their "missionary zeal," a fact of history that Hardshell "historians" reluctantly acknowledge, and didn't have any division until the Hardshells sprang on the scene!

Hassell unknowingly confirms this when he testifies, saying:

“The example of the Kehukee Association [in declaring non-fellowship for Mission Baptists in 1827-S.G.] . . .was encouraging to other similar bodies; and from 1827 to 1840 there was a stir among churches and associations all over the land, and many followed the example of old mother Kehukee-p. 738]."

What does Hassell say caused the "stir among the churches and associations?" The act of "old mother Kehukee!" Would there have been a "stir" had the Hardshells not acted as they did? (And, if they were all Hardshells?) What was it that "encouraged" those Baptist churches to separate and rail on their brethren? It was the few Hardshells in "old mother Kehukee!" Hassell also testifies that the act of the "old mother" was by no means unanimous. Several churches and associations remained missionary within the Kehukee and her circle of correspondents.

Is the "Old" Better?

The Hardshells have slanderously accused the Mission Baptists of being "idolaters" (Hassell, Griffin, Beebe, etc.) and worshiping their "golden calf" of missions, seminaries, Sunday Schools, etc. But if anyone has become an "idolater," it is the Hardshell. What is it that they "idolize?" Why, "antiquity!" To them, the "old is better." They are therefore not unlike the Pharisees in this regard.

This is why they continuously talk of being "old." They even strive to look "old” with their old buildings and customs. This is their means of brainwashing and deceiving themselves and others. They have told themselves for so long that they are "old," they have "hypnotically" believed it and become entranced with things old.

What can we say of the premise that "old is better?" Is it valid? Well, for one thing, the Hardshells themselves, as Elder Berry and others have testified, and which history proves have "changed" so many times! They have not lived-up to their boast! If the old is indeed better and they themselves have changed, then they must admit that they have degenerated and gone backward!

Actually, error is nigh as old as truth. Falsehood has an ancient history (Gen. 3). Many examples could be given to show that many changes have occurred in Baptist history and that many of them have been improvements.

I've heard Hardshells argue that the Lord established the Church as a perfect institution. As such, they argue, it didn't need any "change." But again we insist that the Hardshells of today have "changed" in many ways from their forefathers and from the first churches of the apostles. So, they themselves being judges, they have become imperfect!

The question that I have for my Hardshell brethren is, doesn't "growth" involve "change?" The Baptist church of the early part of American history was "growing" by “leaps-and-bounds.” This necessitated some change and improvement. Doesn't the word "repent" involve the idea of change? Were those Baptists prior to the rise and growth of Missions not in need of repentance on some things?

Speaking of change and innovation, who departed from the old Confessions on "means," "predestination" and "perseverance?" If the old is indeed better, then return to it, Hardshell! For the old is what is expressed in those confessions.

Hardshells admit that the basis of "modern missions" is the belief that the "gospel is a means" in the "salvation of sinners." This being so, what does that say for all that "missionary zeal" that the Hardshells admit characterized the early American Baptists? It says clearly that those Baptists believed in "gospel means!"

Another question for Hardshells to consider is how the overwhelming majority of the Baptists of the early 1800's could endorse, with little or no opposition from within, the "Missionary cause" at all if they were of the Hardshell character. If the pre-1800 Baptists were primarily Hardshell, how did they allow missions to enter among them in the first place? Would Hardshells today allow the same to occur? Hardshells argue that those "Old" Baptists were "duped" and "asleep on the job." But such debate tactics and attempts at “Sophistry” will not work except with the spiritually gullible. Well, in this case at least, the Hardshells would have to say that the old is not better. It also shows that today's Hardshells are unlike the pre-1800 Baptists.

Also, what does this Hardshell "line of argument" say for their coveted "associations?" These are also a "new invention!" Have these "existed from the days of the Apostles"? Hassell quotes Baptist historian, David Benedict, saying that the pre-1800 Baptists "were noted for their familiarity with the Scriptures" just like his Hardshell cohorts of his (Hassell’s) day (page 755). But how can this be so if the Hardshells are correct in reasoning that those old Baptists were "duped" and "asleep on the job?" "The legs of the lame are not equal" here!

But I suppose that this is enough argument from history to show that the Hardshells are the ones who have "departed from the faith" and caused division within the body of Christ. I would welcome the opportunity to expound on this further, even in "debate" with an acknowledged Hardshell "historian." But no Hardshell today wants to come up to the task. They show in this how much unlike they are from their Hardshell parents. Cayce, Daily, the Thompsons, Dalton, Potter, Webb, Holder, Oliphant, Durand, and several other Hardshell “patriarchs” of bygone days were all "ready to answer" the call to defend their "claims!" Is the old better in this regard, Hardshell?

Elder Tolley made these remarks in his paper:

"They [Hardshells] have debated with every denomination that issued a sincere challenge." He also said that the "Primitive Baptists have the soundest and most tenable position of all who avow such [Calvinistic-S.G.] teachings."

Well, their forefathers may have been of that character, but not the "modern" Hardshells. Is the old better in this case, Hardshell?


Hardshell "Splinters"

Before we leave the subject of Hardshell history, I want to say something concerning the "major divisions" that have occurred among the Hardshells since their separation from the old-line Calvinistic Missionary Baptists.

Those "divisions" concern Predestination and the two factions involved, i.e. the "Absoluters" and the "Conditionalists," and the division over changes in practice with the so-called Progressives. There is also that "split" with Daniel Parker's group over his "Two-Seedism." Needless to say, there have been many minor "splits," mainly over "personalities," but also over such issues as the "origin of Satan," of which we have had firsthand experience and have already related.

There is no doubt that the "Absoluter" faction of Hardshells is more in line with the old Confessions of the Baptists than the so-called Conditionalist faction, which is of recent production. Elder S. T. Tolley knows this to be so. My Dad knows it. The Conditionalists cannot endorse those statements in the Confessions relative to the "predestination of all things." The Conditionalists believe in "free will." Some will try to deny it, but the attempt is in vain; for to the extent that one does not accept predestination, he must accept "free will" in its place.

The Hardshells split over predestination around the turn of the 20th century. Elder Gilbert Beebe was a devout believer in the "absolute Predestination of all things" and would not compromise on it. In this regard, he preached the faith of the Baptists.

It was also in the early part of this century that the Hardshells, especially in the state of Georgia, divided over the introduction of "Bible classes" and "musical instruments" and other such "innovations." Those who believed that these things were not "evil" were soon cut-off from the Hardshells. Some of these so-called Progressives also began to promote missions and ministerial education.

The particular Progressive churches that I have seen are much more "prosperous" in growth than the stubborn, "set in their ways," old Hardshells. Some of them have also come to see the truth of "gospel means" and, though they still retain the name of "Primitive," are more like the Sovereign Grace Baptists of the present.

Some Hardshell churches, like the Whitehaven Church in Memphis, Tennessee, have their own school for their children. They also have seen the need of more "systematic teaching" of the Bible and therefore have additional meetings through the week to present those lessons.

Actually, many Hardshells over the past several years have seen the "extremism" that has come to characterize their people. They, like Elder E. D. McCutcheon of Mississippi, believe that the Hardshells have gone overboard in their attempt to be contrary to everything the Missionaries practice. He is to be praised for this, but he is finding the road tough. "Tradition" is so embedded within the Hardshell denomination! Change does not come easily.

More examples such as this could be cited. Today's Hardshells have their "singing schools," "camp meetings," "conventions" and such like. And I am sure that those old Hardshells of years gone by would "turn over in their graves" if they could behold those things today.

Lastly, but not least, a word about Daniel Parker and his "Two-Seedism." Daniel Parker was an adamant opponent of the "mission movement" of the early 1800's. He may have even imbibed the "Spirit Alone" theory. In this regard, he must be regarded as one of the Hardshell "founding fathers." However, he began to teach that the devil was an "eternal and uncreated being" and that he had his "offspring" just as God had his. These two groups of children had eternally existed with each of their "fathers." Those who are "children of the devil" were the physical offspring of the devil.

There came to be two lines of thinking on this point among his followers. There were those who are called "Two-seed in the flesh Predestinarian Baptists" and "Two-seed in the spirit Predestinarian Baptists."

The Hardshells of Parker's day, for the most part, rejected all this. But many were nevertheless "led off" with this heresy. Again, however, what does this say of those Hardshells familiarity with the scriptures? It seems to me that, with so many "divisions" among the Hardshells, they have surely been duped and "asleep on the job" rather frequently!

Some Hardshells are very much prone to split even over the pettiest of issues. Time would fail to tell all about those "minor divisions." But they do show how cantankerous and stubborn they really are as a people. Hence, the name "Hardshell." They are truly "hard-headed!"

I will be writing further upon Hardshell "history" in later chapters. Consider this chapter a "primer."