David Benedict was a Baptist minister and historian who lived in the 19th century. He was an observer and chronicler of the Baptists in his day. He was well traveled and a collector of old records. He is the author of several books:
"The History Of Baptism"
"A General History Of The Baptist Denomination In America" (1813)
"History Of The Donatists: With Notes" (with Henry Clinton Graves)
"Fifty Years Among The Baptists" (1847)
Several lessor works
I read both his general history and his fifty years when a young Hardshell minister (and as a Baptist historian since then) the two works for which he is most known. I was told, as a young "Primitive Baptist" minister, in talks about the history of the "primitive" or "old school" church and of the split with the "Missionary Baptists" in 1832 (via "the Black Rock Address"), that David Benedict's book "Fifty Years Among The Baptists" showed that the "Primitive," "Old School," or "Hardshells," were the original Baptists and that the Missionaries were the new party and cause of the schism. Ironically, you can read this book at a "Primitive Baptist" web site (See here).
However, here is what I have discovered about "Fifty Years Among The Baptist" as it relates to today's Hardshells or "Primitive Baptists" (with some few exceptions, such as in the Eastern District PBs and other smaller groups):
1. Benedict does affirm that the Baptists in America at the beginning of the 19th century were almost totally Calvinistic, and even Hyper Calvinistic. There are exceptions of course, but they represent the minority.
2. Though most Baptists were advocates for limited atonement (Gillite view), a growing number began to hold to the views of Calvinist preacher Andrew Fuller, who we might call a 4 and 1/2 point Calvinist. This is because he taught that the atonement was for all men, although redemption is particular because it deals with the application of the atonement. Election of certain people effected who would become regenerate but not who the Lord died for.
3. The Gillites were deniers of duty faith and repentance and did not believe in addressing the unregenerate directly. Those agreeing with Fuller espoused duty faith and believed in exhorting the spiritually dead about faith in Christ and repentance.
4. Both groups, Fullerites and Gillites, were strong Calvinists. It was only in respect to the extent of the atonement and duty faith that there was disagreement.
5. Benedict did not say that the Gillite Baptists (the majority) denied gospel means, or the necessity of faith and repentance for salvation. Their leader, John Gill, believed in means and the necessity of faith and repentance for salvation. Their separation from the Missionary of Fullerite Baptists led them to further extremes, for in the latter half of the 19th century they began to declare the means view, and the duty faith view, to be heresy.
6. When Benedict affirms that most Baptists (outside of the General Baptists) were Calvinistic, even Hyper Calvinistic, he includes Separate, Regular, and United Baptists. He did affirm that as the 19th century progressed, Baptists became less Calvinistic and more Arminian (or less Calvinistic).
Here are some excerpts from his book Fifty Years Among the Baptists along with some observations of mine upon them. (highlighting mine)
"FORTY YEARS AGO large bodies of our people were in a state of ferment and agitation, in consequence of some modifications of their old Calvinistic creed, as displayed in the writings of the late Andrew Fuller, of Kettering, England. This famous man maintained that the atonement of Christ was general in its nature, but particular in its application, in opposition to our old divines, who held that Christ died for the elect only. He also made a distinction between the natural and moral inability of men."
Observations
"Forty years ago" would denote the start of the 19th century (since he published this in 1847). Also, count me a Fullerite in this respect. Though not believing in a general atonement in the same way as Fuller, yet I do believe in some aspects of the death of Christ that were general. I believe that he died "for" all men in some sense, and that he died only for the elect in some sense. I also agree with Fuller (and others who taught the same) that the inability of man, in his total depravity, is not "natural" or physical, but is moral or spiritual.
What Benedict shows, by these historical notes, is that the Baptists were mostly five point Calvinists. Today only a small minority of Baptists are five pointers, or even, like Fuller, a four and a half pointer.
Said Benedict:
"Dr. John Gill, of London, was, in his day, one of the most distinguished divines among the English Baptists, and as he was a noted advocate for the old system of a limited atonement, the terms “Gillites” and “Fullerites” were often applied to the parties in this discussion. Those who espoused the views of Mr. Fuller were denominated Arminians by the Gillite men, while they, in their turn, styled their opponents Hyper-Calvinists. Both parties claimed to be orthodox and evangelical, and differed but little on any other points except these which have been named. On Election, the Trinity, etc., they all agreed."
Observations:
Historians who today study Baptist history, and who find where early 19th century Baptists taught a general atonement like Fuller, should not infer that this must mean they rejected the other four points of the Calvinistic system, such as total depravity, unconditional personal election, and irresistible grace. Since most Baptists at that time soon came to believe like Fulller, we may say that they were four and a half pointers.
The Gillites were stating falsehoods when they accused the Fullerites of being "Arminian." It was a type of slander that has characterized the Hardshells in the 19th century and continues to this day. The Hardshells, once they rejected a belief in means, began to accuse other PBs who believed in means of being "Arminian," because of that one issue. They would also accuse those who supported missions, had Sunday Schools, or musical instruments in the church, also of being "Arminian." Such ignorance!
On the other hand, the Fullerites were right in charging their opponents as "Hyper-Calvinists." Keep in mind, at the start of the 19th century, Hyper Calvinism had not yet evolved to its extremist form of "hardshellism" where all human means, including the gospel, and faith, and repentance, were rejected. Though "Hyper Calvinism" did not originally involve a denial of a general atonement, yet because nearly all Hyper Calvinists believe in limited atonement, it has often been associated with it since.
Said Benedict:
"In the age when this discussion arose among the American Baptists, as none of the modern subjects of agitation had been introduced into their churches, the speculative opinions thus briefly described, for a number of years were the occasion of unhappy debates and contentions in many locations. Our old Baptist divines, especially those of British descent, were generally strong Calvinists as to their doctrinal creed, and but few of them felt at liberty to call upon sinners in plain terms to repent and believe – the gospel, on account of their inability to do so without divine assistance. They could preach the gospel before the unconverted, but rousing appeals to their consciences on the subject of their conversion did not constitute a part of their public addresses."
Observations
This is a fact of history. Arminianism was repugnant to most Baptists in America at the beginning of the 19th century. Many were in fact Hyper Calvinistic. Again, nothing that Benedict said about the Baptists at that time, in their being Hyper Calvinistic, affirms that they were anti means. As I have shown in my writings here, the Baptists who produced the 1689 London Confession believed in means, in regeneration being by faith, and in supporting missionary and educational institutions. The same with John Gill. It was Andrew Fuller and his supporters who began to turn the Baptists away from Hyper Calvinism.
Said Benedict:
"In expatiating on the strong points of their orthodox faith they sometimes ran Calvinism up to seed, and were accused by their opponents of Antinomian tendencies. In that age it was customary for many of our ministers to dwell much on the decrees and purposes of God, to dive deep, in their way, into the plans of Jehovah in eternity, and to bring to light, as they supposed, the hidden treasures of the gospel, which they, in an especial manner, were set to defend. In doing this they discoursed with as much confidence as if they were certain that they were not wise above what is written, but had given a true report of the secrets of the skies."
Observations
This still characterizes the Hardshells of today. However, many of the founding fathers of the "Primitive Baptist" church, such as Elder John M. Watson, John Clark, Grigg Thompson, etc., did believe in addressing the spiritually dead and that it was a means in regenerating the elect. Such men did warn their brethren against their Antinomianism.
Said Benedict:
"This extreme of orthodoxy has been followed by laxity and indifference."
Observations
Indeed the ill effects of the Hyper Calvinism of many Baptists, at the beginning of the 19th century, were manifested in the newly formed "Old School" or "Primitive" Baptist sect. One of those ill effects was to deny means in effecting the eternal salvation of the elect, and in refusing to address the lost in preaching, and in creating an "anti mission" and "anti effort" (Antinomian) state of mind. (See my series "Hardshell Antinomianism" in the archives for September 2014) They became lazy and indifferent, "do nothings."
The twig had been bent towards Hardshellism in the early 19th century and the tree became fully inclined towards greater extremism in the history of the Hardshells for the remainder of the 19th century.
In the next chapter we will conclude our examination of Benedict's "Fifty Years Among The Baptists."
