Two Seed Baptist Ideology (XVI)

In this chapter we will continue our review of the apology given for Two Seedism by Elder T.P. Dudley of Kentucky in the early to mid nineteenth century. But, before we do this, I want to let the reader know that in my recent readings I have come across the entire review of Dudley's "Christian Warfare" as given by John M. Watson. It can be found in the "Signs of the Times" by editor Gilbert Beebe in Vol. xvii for Feb. 15, 1849. (See here) In that same issue Beebe responds to Watson's Review, from which we have previously cited. We will later perhaps give more citations from Beebe's response in the "Signs of the Times." In 1849 there was a good bit of exchange of views and discussion over the leading propositions of Two Seedism. We will give a good bit of this debate beginning in this chapter.

Since writing the previous chapter I have also noticed that Elder Wilson Thompson wrote an article for the Signs which shows that he did in fact believe in Two Seedism, the preexistence of the persons of the elect, the preexistence of the humanity of Christ, and the no change view of regeneration. I will post these citations in upcoming chapters, along with other citations from him that I have previously cited in years past in articles in the Old Baptist Test blog. So, Grigg Thompson, Wilson's oldest son, did not tell the truth when he said (as I remember reading somewhere) that his father did not hold Two Seed ideas. I will hunt for that citation where Grigg said this. It may be from the debates Grigg had with Elder Mark Bennett, who once was editor of the "Primitive Baptist" published in North Carolina, but who later left the Hardshells and joined the Missionaries, and then had a couple debates with Grigg Thompson. Or, it could be from a writing he sent to "The Primitive Baptist" periodical published in North Carolina. I have cited from these Thompson debates with Bennett previously in this blog.

So far we have identified several of the leaders of Two Seedism among the "Old School" Baptists: Daniel Parker, Gilbert Beebe, Samuel Trott, T. P. Dudley, and Wilson Thompson. We have also seen who were the first leaders of the opposition to Two Seedism among the Old Schoolers, "Primitive Baptists," or "Hardshells," such as John M. Watson, R.W. Fain, and John Clark. In upcoming chapters we will add to this number, from Elders George Y. Stipp, Lemuel Potter, C.H. Cayce, Grigg Thompson, etc. 

We have been citing from J. Taylor Moore's biography of Dudley, wherein he gives citations from Dudley and where he himself defends Dudley and Two Seed ideology. See Moore's writing (here). We will begin by reviewing an article that appeared in Beebe's "Signs of the Times" periodical, the first periodical for the Old School cause after the Black Rock Address in 1832 (that officially brought about the separation of anti mission Baptists from the general Baptist family), and written by Dudley and addressed to Beebe. Beebe, on more than one occasion, endorsed the views of Dudley and promoted the same Two Seed views in various writings, as we have seen in previous chapters. In that article Dudley seems to think that Beebe has backtracked on his Two Seed views. That article is titled "THE SOUL OF MAN" and written from Lexington, Ky., Aug.15, 1849. However, that article is not in the August 15th, 1849 issue of the "Signs of the Times" (as you can see by reading that issue here). It does appear in the October 1st issue (1849). In that article, as given by Moore, Dudley begins as follows:

"MY DEAR BROTHER BEEBE: 

From the moment I read your response to Elder Williams’ queries in No.12 of the SIGNS, I have had it in contemplation to write to you, and drop some suggestions for your consideration – knowing Elder Williams, and being satisfied that I know the motive which prompted him in propounding the queries to you, I was prepared for his exultation at your admitting that the soul is regenerated. That brother Beebe, has committed himself in his reply to Elder Williams, I think will be manifest upon his re-examining the following positions taken in his reply. “If what we have thus far written on this query be correct, then nothing in the christian is a new creature, but what was actually in Christ.” A little lower down on the same page you say, “And this quickening is the communication of new life to the soul, which was dead, by the which that soul is made alive, and becomes a new creature.” 

In upcoming chapters we may perhaps give the back and forth conversation or debate from Elder Samuel Williams of Lebanon, Ohio and Elder Gilbert Beebe on Two Seedism and published in the "Signs of the Times." It is in Beebe's reply to Williams that Dudley thinks Beebe has contradicted himself and upheld a view that is against Two Seedism, wherein Williams affirms that "the soul is regenerated" and the "soul is made alive and becomes a new creature." I think Dudley is right, that Beebe does contradict his previous writings in promoting the Two Seed idea about regeneration not changing a person's soul or making him a new creature. Later we will see not only Beebe's reply to Williams but his reply to Dudley also. Further, Elder Samuel Trott, from whom we have already cited, jumped into the debate and addressed remarks to Williams on the leading points of Two Seedism.

Wrote Dudley:

"Now, I ask brother Beebe, was the soul actually in Christ? If not, and I think on reflection, brother Beebe will admit it was not, are you not found in conflict with yourself? “And so it is written the first man Adam, was made a living soul.” “And he called their name Adam.” “The last Adam was made a quickening spirit.” “As is the earthy, such are they that are earthy; and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly.”

Beebe, in defending Two Seedism in previous writings, has upheld the view that being born again or regenerated made no change in the "Adam man." The "new creature" was "created in Christ Jesus" in past eternity, according to Beebe, and not when a man is converted. Being "born again" in time is simply the time when the previously begotten spirit of the children of God enters into the Adam man, according to Two Seedism. When it does enter the man, this eternal child of God is not changed, for he remains a pure holy spirit, nor does this entrance change the Adam man in either body, soul, or spirit. This is why this Two Seed idea of no change in regeneration came to be called the "hollow log" doctrine. It is a metaphor for the Two Seed idea of the new birth. Like as a rabbit enters into a hollow log and its entrance and presence therein does not change the log at all, so too does the preexistent child of God's entering into a human being in the new birth not change the man. Being "born again" to Beebe was simply a time when the entrance of the child of God into the Adam man "manifests" that he is now a God's child.

So, let us give some citations from the editorial that Beebe wrote as an answer to the questions of Elder Williams and to which Dudley felt the need to correct Beebe. It can be read (here) in the June 15th, 1849 issue of the "Signs of the Times" (Vol. XVII, No. 12) It is an editorial titled "Reply To The Queries Stated by Brother S. Williams, In His Letter of the 91 page".

Wrote Beebe:

"If brother Williams will admit that Christ is the only begotten Son of God, and that we are sons, which, of his own will he hath begotten; then he must also admit that we were begotten in him, as Mediatorial Head of the church. And if he denies this position, we challenge him or any other being to prove that we are or can be children of God in any other than a nominal sense.--Nor will it avail to say that we are vitally related to God by regeneration: for in regeneration that life which was and is in Christ only, is communicated to us. Regeneration does no more originate spiritual life, than generation does natural life. It does not originate, but it communicates to us that life and immortality which Christ only hath, and which cannot exist in us until Christ is formed in us the hope of glory. It will be found much easier to deny and denounce this doctrine than to overthrow it. In this we have not only a nominal union, but a union of existence--of Head and body."

So, being "born again" only makes a person a child of God in "a nominal sense"? The word "nominal" means "in name only." This is a novel, weird, and heterodox view of the Christian teaching about what it means to be "born again." The apostle John had a different idea about it however. He wrote:

"But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." (John 1: 12-13 nkjv)

Beebe also denies that "regeneration" is the time when a sinner becomes vitally united to Christ. His view is that the children of God have existed from eternity and had a vital (life) union with Christ. According to John believers were not children of God before they believed and received Christ.

When Beebe says that "regeneration" does not "originate spiritual life" he is again denying what is clearly taught in scripture. Of course spiritual life has always existed, for God is Spirit and Life, but affirming that does not in any way infer that those who are given eternal life in time when they believe already had it from eternity! When he says that being born again "communicates" that "life and immortality" that Christ has always had, he thinks that this means that God "communicates" to an Adam or natural man this eternal child of God. Ridiculous, and yet many of the first "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptists believed it. It is highly ironic that Beebe would claim to be "primitive" or "old school" when he has such a new and novel view of what happens when a sinner is born again.

Beebe also says that his Two Seed view is not easy to refute or overthrow! How deluded was he and other Two Seed Primitive Baptists!

Wrote Beebe:

"Query 3. (As asked by Williams) "Were those quickened spirits (referred to in brother Trott's quotations from brother Dudley's paper) in the first Adam when he sinned? If not, were they ever dead in sins?" Answer: The souls of all God's people which are quickened and made alive by regeneration or by the communication of spiritual life to them--were all in Adam, did all sin in Adam--did all die in Adam--and were all left, so far as their existence was identified with Adam under the same wrath and condemnation that Adam was under; but that life of God which is communicated to them in regeneration, by which they that were dead are quickened and made alive, was not in Adam, did not sin in him, and never was dead in trespasses and sins."

Again, the error of Beebe is clearly seen in the above answer given to the questions asked of Williams. He makes a gigantic inferential leap that is completely without warrant. It is against reason and scripture. He thinks that the affirmation that the "life of God," or "spiritual life," being from eternity necessitates believing that the children of God existed from eternity! He falsely equates "life of God" with "children of God." This is clearly a case of "handling the word of God deceitfully" (II Cor. 4: 2), "corrupting the word of God," (II Cor. 2: 17) and "twisting" or "perverting" the scriptures. (II Peter 3: 16) As we will see, Williams affirms these very things in his attempts to "overthrow" the Two Seed view of Beebe.

Wrote Beebe:

"Query 4. (As asked by Williams) "Does the apostle mean that the man is a new creature, or that a new creature has come into the man?" 

"If what we have thus far written on this query be correct, then nothing in the christian "is a new creature" but what is actually in Christ."

"The. foregoing remarks are in answer to the first part of the query; the other branch of it remains to be answered, viz. "Or that a new creature has come into the man?" "We understand that the soul, not the natural body of the saint, is quickened in being born again. And this quickening is the communication of new life to the soul, which was dead, by the which that soul is made alive, and becomes a new creature. The life which is thus communicated, was not in that soul before he was born again; and this life is from Christ, who only hath immortality, and it is Christ; and consequently is the new, and not the old creation. And farther we believe that the same change substantially, which is effected in the soul by the new birth will also be effected in the bodies of all the saints, when that new and spiritual life which was given them in Christ Jesus before the world began, shall be communicated to them at their first resurrection; so that they shall not be raised up out of their graves in their old Adamic natures, but as particles of the new creature, "which after God, is created in righteousness and true holiness." 

It is these statements by Beebe that provoked Dudley to write to the "Signs of the Times" and to make the comments he did as cited above. He thinks Beebe has contradicted himself by those comments, and indeed he does. Perhaps it shows that at this date (1849) that Beebe, like some other Two Seeders, were beginning to doubt the truthfulness of their views on the new birth. Later we will see where Williams later writes to the Signs to tell Beebe how glad he was to hear Beebe affirm that the soul of man was made spiritually alive when he was regenerated or born again. He does still emphasize that the eternal life that the sinner receives in his soul in being born of God in time existed from eternity, and that this is equated with children of God existing from eternity. 

In response to Beebe's editorial reply to the questions of Williams, we have the following written to Beebe and the "Signs of the Times" by "the Brethren About The Fort Mountain." I will give some of the leading parts of that communication.

"Dear Brother Beebe: In Number Ten, of the present volume of the Signs of the Times, we notice a communication from Brother Barton, on the subject of love being the bond of union."

"And passing over several remarks from Brother Trott, which we, the brethren, do not think exactly accord with our views, we, Brother Barton and the Ketocton brethren, are asked, "to point out any definite period in time where Christ was made (or created) a quickening Spirit, and then first stood as the Head of spiritual life in believers." 

By "Brother Barton" Beebe intends Elder Thomas Barton (1787-1870), a close friend of Beebe and yet reluctant to accept all of the Two Seed views of Beebe and Trott. He was present at the "Black Rock Convention" in 1832 when several Hyper Calvinistic churches declared non fellowship with other Baptists who supported missions, theological education, etc. 

From the above letter from the "Fort Mountain" brethren it appears that Barton believed what the Fort Mountain brethren believed, which was a denial of two of the leading ideas of Two Seedism, the preexistence of the children of God, and the no change view of regeneration.

They continued:

"We, the brethren about the Fort Mountain, by our experience and the word of Truth, never were taught to believe in any other quickening power than the Holy Ghost: neither do we believe that the Holy Ghost by his renewing us in the spirit of our minds (souls) created little independent gods in us; or that our Adamic nature is pure, in whole, or in part. Neither do we believe that the Head of the church is a creature, and that we are the creatures of that creature, this, we consider would be degrading the Head...but the spirit giveth life" (or quickeneth) and that spirit of life, or life giving spirit, is a self existent principle of life, and can, and does impart new life, spiritual life to sinners dead in trespasses and sins, and this new life is planted in the soul of the sinner, and is the new man, and eternal life."

This is a denial of the Two Seed idea that the dead sinner is not changed, does not go from being spiritually dead to being spiritually alive.

They continued:

"Brother Trott has quoted two texts as proof of the creatureship of Christ, we do not understand them as he does; but we assure our brother, we desire to give the fairest construction that we can to the Tenor of Truth.--The first is Rev. 3:14, "And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; these things saith the Amen, the faithful and true Witness, the beginning of the Creation of God." Great stress is laid on these words "the beginning of the Creation of God." Let us compare it with the 8th verse of the 1st chapter, "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty." How the beginning? The first creature that God ever created? no, for it is written, "In the beginning God created the Heaven and the Earth." And he calls himself the Almighty in Rev. 1:8. He is the beginning of Creation, none ever created before him. He is the author of Creation, as will clearly appear from the second text quoted, Col. 1:15, "Who is the image of the invisible God, and the firstborn of every Creature." 

In earlier chapters we showed how the Two Seeders were semi-Arian in their views about Christ not being the Son of God by eternal generation, but denoting his being begotten or created as a Mediator, which involved him having three natures rather than two. We have also addressed how they are very similar to the way Arians interpret Rev. 3: 14 and  Col. 1: 15. We made the same remarks that the above brethren did in response to this Arianism.

They continue:

"He is not born first, if it has reference to his humanity, for he was not born for four thousand years after the Creation. What can the first born mean? If you will read the 16, 17, 18, and 19th verses after the one quoted, it will appear very clearly; that he is before all Creatures, that he is the Creator of all creatures." 

Christ being the "firstborn" is true in several respects in scripture. As respects his divinity, he is not begotten in the same sense that humans are begotten, nor in the same way he was begotten of God in his humanity when conceived by the Holy Spirit in the womb of the virgin Mary. As the eternal Son of God he is the "only" or "unique" Son of God, which is intended simply to convey the idea that he and the Father are one, or equal. The term "firstborn" in this respect denotes Christ's rank over all creatures. 

Interesting is the fact that in this same issue of the Signs Elder Grigg Thompson writes a short piece and says nothing about the things being discussed relative to Two Seedism. Why was this? Why did so many Hardshells write often to the Signs of the Times at first without denouncing Two Seed ideas? Especially in light of the fact that many of them later decided to publicly and intensely oppose it? Albert Barnes in his commentary wrote:

"He does not say that, in all respects, he resembled the first-born in a family; nor does he say that he himself was a creature, for the point of his comparison does not turn on these things, and what he proceeds to affirm respecting him is inconsistent with the idea of his being a created being himself. He that "created all things that are in heaven and that are in earth," was not himself created. That the apostle did not mean to represent him as a creature, is also manifest from the reason which he assigns why he is called the first-born. "He is the image of God, and the first-born of every creature, for - ὅτι hoti - by him were all things created." That is, he sustains the elevated rank of the first-born, or a high eminence over the creation, because by him "all things were created in heaven and in earth." 

In the next chapter we will continue to cite from the debate that was carried on in the Signs of the Times in 1849. 

 

Two Seed Baptist Ideology (XV)

In this chapter we will continue to give the Two Seed views of "Old School Baptist" Elder T. P. Dudley, one of the chief defenders of Two Seedism in its beginnings in the nineteenth century among those called "Primitive" or "Old School" or "Hardshell" Baptists. We have been citing from his biography as given by J. Taylor Moore (See here).

Wrote Moore:

"The idea of substituting a part of the generation of Adamic sinners as “the generation of Jesus Christ” is to subvert the whole general tenor of Bible truth. And this is just exactly what the learned John M. Watson did in his “Review of the Circular Letter of Licking Association of Particular Baptist;” namely, “the circular on the warfare,” and all others who war in like manner against the truth of God." 

Watson was one of the first "Primitive Baptists" to lead the opposition against Two Seedism, as we have before seen. An Internet search does not locate the work of Watson referenced above, wherein he reviews the Circular letter of Dudley. Perhaps he incorporated his "Review" into his book titled "The Old Baptist Test," which was first published in the late 1850s. In upcoming chapters we will read of others who followed in the steps of Watson and opposed the Two Seed wing of the newly formed "Primitive Baptist Church," such as Elders George Stipp, Lemuel Potter, C.H. Cayce, and Grigg Thompson, etc. 

Wrote Moore:

"In a reply to this lengthy review of J.M. Watson, the venerable editor of the SIGNS OF THE TIMES, Elder Gilbert Beebe, says: “It is not our human existence that is born again. ‘That which is born of the flesh, is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.’ Elder Watson falls into the same error in confounding the two births that Nicodemus did, in supposing them both to be applied to us as merely human beings, whereas the new birth is a spiritual birth. But in what language shall we treat the conclusion arrived at by Elder Watson that, ‘if the children of God are born of him as a consequence of a previous existence in and union to him before they are born again, as in the case of Adam, then they must needs be born gods, and not merely saints or new creatures.’ This is a very extraordinary conclusion for a man of Watson’s superior understanding to draw from the premises. We think that it is clearly demonstrated in the Scriptures of truth that Christ is the life of his mystical body, that He has been their dwelling place in all generations, even from everlasting, and that upon this very principal they are his seed that shall serve him, and they shall be accounted to him for a generation."

The burden of proof was on the Two Seeders to prove that the children of God were begotten in Christ before the world began. They have no scripture which asserts such a thing. They have only one argument, which is to say that "as all human souls were created in Adam so were all spiritual souls created in the second Adam before the world began." They argued that "the seed" of Adam (his sperm) contained all the souls of every human being as Levi was in the loins of Abraham. (Heb. 7: 10) Beebe would cite Hebrews 2: 14, as we have seen, as a proof text that affirmed that Christ becoming flesh is the same in all respects as the elect becoming flesh, that as Christ existed before his incarnation, so too did the children of God. But, that is certainly not what the text is affirming. 

As we have before suggested, Two Seedism was in part spawned from a belief of some Hyper Calvinists of the 18th century who affirmed that the human soul of Christ was begotten in eternity. It was easy to jump to the conclusion that the bride of Christ (the elect) was also begotten when Christ was begotten. Thus, we have the doctrine of "eternal vital union" and of the preexistence of souls. We will have more to say on this when we give citations from Elder Lemuel Potter's articles against Two Seedism in the latter end of the nineteenth century. 

Wrote Moore:

"If they are his seed then that seed was in him as their spiritual progenitor, or seminal head, and so long as he has sustained the relationship of everlasting Father, they have existed in the relationship of children. By virtue of this relationship they are born ‘not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.’ Does this birth, then, make them gods? By no means. Our pre-existence in, and lineal descent from Adam did not make us all Adams, or public federal heads of all the human family, but it made us manifest as the sons or children of Adam. So our relation to and previous existence in Christ, and our consequent descent from him by regeneration makes us manifest, not as gods, but as the sons or children of God. To charge that, the doctrine of vital relationship and the pre-existence of a spiritual life in Christ, savors very much of Manicheism, falls harmlessly and powerlessly at our feet, so long as we find in support of that soul-cheering, God-honoring, and hell-defying doctrine, that cluster of direct Scripture testimony, which he [Watson] has copied from the Licking Circular immediately preceding this charge.”

What "cluster of direct Scripture testimony"? Where do the scriptures affirm the preexistence of the souls of men in either Adam or in Christ before the world began? Is it not built upon taking some scripture hyper literally? Upon unwarranted inferences? Is it not a case of reading Two Seed ideas into certain texts?

If those who are the "children of God" have been such from eternity, then they do not become children of God in time when they are born of God. 

Many of the first "Primitive Baptists" believed in dividing the birth experience into conception, gestation in the womb, and final birth from the womb. They believed this to be true in regard to the new birth, where "regeneration" was equated with "conception" or the sowing of the seed (sperm) in the womb, and "conversion" with "deliverance" from the womb, and the time in the womb as a time when the fetus was being developed, corresponding to the time when a soul is under conviction of sin and before he finds hope in Christ. Alexander Campbell also took this paradigm and altered it by saying that the "birth" of a sinner occurs in the act of baptism, though his conception occurred when the sinner believed. Many Two Seeders also adopted this paradigm and said that the children of God were "conceived" (or 'begotten') before the world began when the Son of God was begotten, when Christ's human soul was conceived, but they are "born" when they are "born again" by the Spirit. 

When Paul spoke of "casting down imaginations" (II Cor. 10: 5) we cannot help but see Two Seedism as one of those theological "imaginations." It is certainly one of those theological "inventions" that we are warned about in scripture. (Eccl. 7: 29; Rom. 1: 30)

As we will see, such a view not only is opposed to the biblical teaching that one becomes a child of God by being begotten of God  when he believes, but also is against the Calvinist belief in "unconditional election." In the above words of Moore, defending Dudley and the Two Seed doctrine, he says that it is because of one's "previous existence in Christ" that they are born again, or God's chosen people. Two Seedism says that Christ was obligated to save his elect because they were his wife, and a husband is obligated to pay the debt of his wife. He chose them because they were in Christ. Many of those who opposed this narrative said that it taught a conditional election and was thus "Arminianism" because the choice was based upon some difference in the ones chosen. Beebe on several occasions argued this view. The reason why God chose anyone, before the world began, is because he was already "in Christ." The choice was not in order to place a person in Christ, but because one was in Christ. Thus, as Potter and others would argue, this denies unconditional election.

Wrote Moore:

"We will now give the extract from Elder Watson’s review: “We should note the qualifying adverb again in the declaration of the Savior that a man must ‘be born again, before he can see the kingdom of God.’ We shall then learn that human beings are born again, those who have already derived by a natural birth personal existence from Adam in such a manner that each one has become a distinct person, an I, me, one’s self. The very I, one’s own self must, says Christ, be ‘born of the Spirit.’ How? In consequence of an actual eternal existence in and union to the spirit? No, verily, for that would be downright Manicehanism. The I, me, or one’s self is brought into an actual union with Christ through the quickening, sanctifying, and transforming power of the Holy Spirit; thus this actual union has a beginning with the creature, and becomes one of life, the soul that is dead in trespasses and sins is quickened into spiritual life … Hence to be born again does not imply a previous actual eternal existence in and union to the spirit.”

In other words, why would the Lord say to Nicodemus "you must be born again" if he was already spiritually born before the world began? Further, is the "you" not the human Nicodemus? The one who had been born physically, i.e. the "Adam man"? It is a gross twisting of scripture to read the text as "you must have your preexistent self enter into you to manifest your prior birth of God"? Watson correctly affirms that actual vital union with Christ occurs when "the soul" or spirit that is spiritually dead is made alive. 

Wrote Moore:

"Now I desire to ask in all candor, what better is the position of Modern Old School Baptists who claim that it is “the sinner that is born again” of the Spirit, or from above, for their view of vital union is the same sporadic disease that affects every religious organization known on earth, that profess to believe in the operation of the Spirit? And all classes of Arminians can receive it as a weapon against the chosen generation of Jesus Christ."

Two Seedism is a novelty, and not the Orthodox view of Christians, and they even acknowledge this fact. Yes, it borrowed ideas from other sources, as we have seen, but the particular combination of those ideas is what is new, at least among Baptists. "The sinner" is not the one who is born of God? It is bewildering that a Baptist, or any other Bible believer, could read the bible and come to that conclusion.

Next, Moore begins to give us some other writings of Dudley and from these we now wish to cite.

SELECT WRITINGS OF T. P. DUDLEY. THE ADAMIC STATE. Near Lexington, Ky., Feb.16, 1841.

"MY DEAR BROTHER BEEBE: - Although a controversy has been going on between the Old and New School Baptists in the west, for some years, in relation to what Adam was antecedently to his transgressing the divine command, yet I was not aware of a discrepancy in the views of “Old School” Baptists, on that point, until I read your editorial remarks in number 20, vol.8, of the SIGNS, in which your readers are informed that “a part of the Redstone Baptist Association, Pennsylvania,” take exception to the views contained in the circular of the Licking Association of 1839. I had hitherto supposed that association to be “built upon the foundation of the Apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the Chief Corner Stone,” and consequently that she recognized the Bible as the only infallible standard of faith and practice. I am very sure that no evidence can be had thence to sustain the opinion that he was spiritual; and I confess I was surprised to learn that such an idea was entertained even by a part of that body. The New School party in this country assume that he was a spiritual being; hence he was obliged to the performance of spiritual duties, such as evangelical faith and repentance, and liable to condemnation for non-compliance. I say assume, because it is assumption without proof; indeed the proof is altogether on the other side, and we have abundant cause of adoration to God that it is so – were it otherwise, the christian’s hope would be entirely prostrated."

The Two Seed idea that Adam was unfit for heaven and enjoyment of God even before his fall is totally untenable. In my years with the Hardshells I often heard them saying that Adam was not in any sense a spiritual being, and as such could do nothing spiritual, nothing holy, nothing pleasing to God. However, if Adam became spiritually dead when he sinned, then he must have been spiritually alive. Yet, many Hardshells would say that Adam did not die spiritually. I used to reject that idea when I heard it. So too did father, probably because he came to the "Primitive Baptist Church" from the Missionary Baptists and did not cease believing in some truths held to by the Missionaries. One of those beliefs, as we have seen, was father retaining the view that Satan and other angels fell from heaven, a view that got him into hot water with many Hardshells. He would often argue with other Hardshells who wanted to say that Adam did not die spiritually when he sinned.

It is absurd for the Two Seeders to say that Adam, prior to his sin, had no duty to believe God or obey him, for according to them he had no ability to do anything spiritual. 

Wrote Dudley:

"If, as is contended by some, the object of the second Adam was to restore the ruins of the first, why is the curse not removed from the ground? Why does it yet produce “thorns and thistles?” And why has man yet in the sweat of his face to eat his bread?" 

This is fallacious reasoning by Dudley. Does he not know that salvation occurs in stages? That redemption is not yet complete? Restoration will be fully realized when Christ returns, and then there will be no more curse, no more thorns and thistles, etc. So we read where Peter said:

"whom heaven must receive until the times of restoration of all things, which God has spoken by the mouth of all His holy prophets since the world began." (Acts 3: 21 nkjv) 

Initial restoration occurs when a person is united to Christ by faith and is converted. It is then that "the image and likeness of God" is recreated. Adam was originally made in the image and likeness of God. But, sin and death altered or defaced that image. Restoration of that image begins when a soul is born of God. Yet it is not complete, for that restoration or transformation is continuous and progressive throughout the life of the believer. He is being "conformed to the image" of the Son of God, which is a restoration of the image that was lost by sin. 

Wrote Dudley:

"But to return; All the perceptions and powers bestowed upon man in his creation were purely of the natural kind; hence his feelings, his enjoyments and happiness are all earthly. “But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness unto him; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.”

That is false. Adam was a spiritual man. If he was not, then he could not die spiritually. But, he did die spiritually. Ergo, he was previously alive spiritually. 

"The natural man" that Paul mentions in First Corinthians 2: 14 is not Adam as originally made, but of a sinful fallen man. Yes, he does refer to Adam's body as being natural in First Corinthians chapter fifteen, but he does not affirm that Adam was not spiritual in his soul, mind, heart, or spirit.

In "Was Adam Made Spiritual?" Sylvester Hassell, "Primitive Baptist" historian and apologist, we find the following comments made by him (Posted by Marchtozion.com on August 21, 2020 - See here):

"Question. Was Adam made a spiritual man, and did he die a spiritual death when he ate the forbidden fruit?"

"The truly humble soul does not desire to indulge in such speculations, or to hear or read such speculations from other (Psa. cxxxi.; Isa. viii 20.; Acts xvii. 11; 1 Tim. Vi. 3-5; 2 Tim. Iii. 15-17). We know from the scriptures that Adam was made with a body and a soul (Gen.ii 7; Ecc. Xii. 7), and yet that he was made a natural man (1 Cor. Xv. 45-49). Though he had a human spirit, he was not spiritual in the sense in which God’s children are who are born of the Divine Spirit. And we know, from the Scriptures, that, when he ate the for bidden fruit, he died to the pleasant communion that he had before with God, became dead in trespasses and sins (Gen ii. 17; Eph. ii 1), and that he became subject to Divine wrath and to physical and eternal death unless saved by Divine mercy. Gen iii. 17, 19; Rom. V. 12, 21. Some call the death in trespasses and sin spiritual death; if by the phrase “spiritual death” they mean death in trespasses and sins, let us bear with them, and not make our brother an offender for a mere word or expression, when he means only what that Scriptures declare (Is. xxix. 21).” (From Gospel Messenger of Oct., 1902) (emphasis mine)

Though Hassell was an opponent of Two Seedism, nevertheless, as we have seen, he, like many of today's "Primitive Baptists," often showed remnants of Two Seedism in various ways. The above is another example of this fact, just as was Hassell's and others of his brethren's reluctance to say that Satan and the angels fell from the third heaven. How can he deny that sinners are spiritually dead? The text from First Corinthians chapter fifteen that says that Adam, when created, was a "natural man," refers to his physical body. It is not till the resurrection that the natural body will be made spiritual. If Adam had "pleasant communion with God" as Hassell says, then that is the essence of spirituality. 

When I was a young Hardshell Baptist I traveled with my father, Elder Eddie K. Garrett Sr., as he went on preaching tours among the "Primitive Baptists." Often father would have Bible discussions with various elders and I remember many of them not wanting to admit that Adam died spiritually. Father believed that Adam did die spiritually. Father came to the Hardshells from the Missionary Baptists and that kept him from embracing certain Two Seed ideas that would come up in those discussions, because he continued to believe that Satan and other angels fell from the third heaven, that the story of the rich man and Lazarus taught what happens to the saved and unsaved when they die, and that Adam died spiritually. 

In the "SELECT WRITINGS OF T. P. DUDLEY" as given by Moore, we have Dudley's article titled "THE ADAMIC STATE" written from Lexington, Ky., Feb.16, 1841. His article was published in the "Signs of the Times." He wrote to the editor, fellow Two Seed Primitive Baptist leader, Gilbert Beebe as follows:

"MY DEAR BROTHER BEEBE: 

Although a controversy has been going on between the Old and New School Baptists in the west, for some years, in relation to what Adam was antecedently to his transgressing the divine command, yet I was not aware of a discrepancy in the views of “Old School” Baptists, on that point, until I read your editorial remarks in number 20, vol.8, of the SIGNS, in which your readers are informed that “a part of the Redstone Baptist Association, Pennsylvania,” take exception to the views contained in the circular of the Licking Association of 1839. I had hitherto supposed that association to be “built upon the foundation of the Apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the Chief Corner Stone,” and consequently that she recognized the Bible as the only infallible standard of faith and practice. I am very sure that no evidence can be had thence to sustain the opinion that he was spiritual; and I confess I was surprised to learn that such an idea was entertained even by a part of that body. The New School party in this country assume that he was a spiritual being; hence he was obliged to the performance of spiritual duties, such as evangelical faith and repentance, and liable to condemnation for non-compliance. I say assume, because it is assumption without proof; indeed the proof is altogether on the other side, and we have abundant cause of adoration to God that it is so – were it otherwise, the christian’s hope would be entirely prostrated."

Dudley uses a fallacious argument when he infers that those who are called "Old School" Baptists cannot believe that Adam died spiritually because this was believed by "the New School party." This argument is built upon the premise that the "New School" or "Missionary" Baptists cannot possibly be right on anything. Further, even as Hassell admits, the Hardshells of the nineteenth century differed on the question, some affirming that Adam died spiritually. Hassell stated that the issue should not be a test of fellowship if those who say Adam died spiritually simply meant that he became "dead in trespasses and sins." This statement reveals that the question was often a bone of contention among the Hardshells, and this is because the denial that Adam died spiritually is another instance of the remnants of Two Seedism among them.

Wrote Dudley further:

"But to return; All the perceptions and powers bestowed upon man in his creation were purely of the natural kind; hence his feelings, his enjoyments and happiness are all earthly. “But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness unto him; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.”

Here Dudley presents what is called a false dichotomy by assuming that the "natural man" of First Corinthians 2: 14 and First Corinthians 15: 44, 46 are the same. They are not. In the former passage "the natural man" is the man in his fallen state and who is either without the biblical revelation and Holy Spirit or one who rejects both. The "natural man" of the latter refers to what Adam was before the fall in his physical being, in his body. 

To be spiritually dead is to be "cut off" from God. So the prophet said "your iniquities have separated you from your God, and your sins have hidden his face from you." (Isa. 59: 2) Adam, when first created, was without sin, and enjoyed God's presence, and seeing God face to face. Therefore he was spiritually alive. Further, being created in the image and likeness of God implies having spiritual life. Further, if sin "separated" or "cut off" Adam from God, then he must have been previously joined or united to God.

Thankfully some "Primitive Baptists" do affirm that Adam died spiritually, and that all are born spiritually dead as a result, except for Christ. In "The Fall of Man" by Elder Jeremiah Bass (See here), pastor of Cincinnati Primitive Baptist Church, we see the truth affirmed which says that Adam died spiritually when he sinned. Wrote Bass (emphasis mine):

"The curse that fell upon Adam and all his offspring was death, according to the terms of God’s covenant with Adam: “And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die” (Gen. 2:16-17). Now certainly physical death is partly to be understood here. But Adam and Eve did not immediately die in that sense. Rather, we are on surer footing if we understand death as the curse accompanying disobedience to the Divine command in its fuller sense as encompassing spiritual, physical, and eternal death. Thus, Adam and Eve were not only going to die physically (which they did, see Gen. 5:5), but also they immediately died spiritually, and were exposed to die eternally."

This was father's position and would argue it with other fellow Hardshells who were against that idea.

Wrote Bass:

"What does it mean to die spiritually? The apostle Paul again comes to our aid with his words to the Ephesian church: “And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins; wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others” (Eph. 2:1-3). Here we learn that spiritual death is characterized by bondage to the world, to the Devil, and to the lusts of the flesh."

Adam walked with God before he sinned. Therefore, he was spiritually alive. He also was under law, and Paul says that "the law is spiritual" (Rom. 7: 14), and so Adam was obligated to be spiritual in obeying it. He had a duty to be, and actually was, when originally made in the image and likeness of God, "spiritually minded" (Rom. 8: 6), and so was "spiritually alive," for Paul says "to be spiritually minded is life and peace." The logical conclusion of Dudley and the Two Seeders on this point leads them to deny that any man is spiritually dead, and if not spiritually dead, then being "quickened" by the Spirit does not give spiritual life to the spiritually dead.

 

Two Seed Baptist Ideology (XIV)

In this chapter we will continue to look at what T. P. Dudley wrote in defense of Two Seedism in his pamphlet "The Origin, Nature, and Effects of the Christian Warfare." We will also give the views of Dudley and the Two Seed Primitive Baptists regarding "the old man" and "the new man" in Paul's epistles. We will begin by citing from some of the things Dudley wrote in that writing. Wrote Dudley:

"It is contended by some, yea, many professors of religion, that the soul is regenerated. We confess we know but little about the soul...If the soul were regenerated, would it not be as wholly devoted to God, subsequently, as it had been to sin, antecedently to the new birth? If it be the soul that exercises volition for the body, and that soul is “born of God,” and consequently “cannot sin,” how are we to account for the wicked actions of David, of Peter, and thousands of other christians, even down to the present day?"

The "soul" is often put for the "spirit," or what Paul calls the "inner man" in contrast to the "outer man," which is the body. (2 Corinthians 4:16; Ephesians 3:16; Romans 7:22–23) How does the inner and outer man relate to the "new man" or the "old man"? The expressions “old man” and “new man” occur in basically four places in Paul’s letters, namely, Romans 6:6; Ephesians 2:15; 4:22-24; and Colossians 3:9-11. The way Dudley and the Two Seeders interpret these terms is strange. To them, the "new man" is their preexistent self, begotten or made when Christ was begotten or made before the world began. To them the "old man" is the man who was created in Adam and the man born with his depraved fallen nature. Upon this foundation they then say that "regeneration" or being "born again" does not change anything about the "Adam man." The new man is not changed, for it enters into a man and remains as it was from eternity, a holy spiritual being who needs no regeneration. So too the old man is not changed because he remains degenerate. That is why in the above citation Dudley denied that "the soul" is "regenerated." A man when "born again," according to Dudley, experiences no change to his depraved Adam nature, to his natural soul, spirit, or body, and the divine nature he receives is not changed. So, how did the opponents of Two Seedism, such as Watson, Potter, etc., reply to this narrative? Before we answer that question, let us first notice a few more citations from Dudley on this point.

Wrote Dudley:

"But, it is contended, that the same soul, exercises wicked volition for the “old,” and holy volition for the “new man?” If so, is not the soul divided against itself? Others tell us, it is the mind which exercises volition for the body."

Yes, the soul (self, spirit, mind, heart, etc.) is divided. Within a born again believer there is both a depraved human nature and a holy divine nature. That is, there is within his innermost being both natures. Sometimes the one is followed and sometimes the other. But, this implies a third person. I am the one who decides whether to follow the old man or the new man. That makes three men. There is but one soul or spirit and within it there are two natures, principles of law, that are influencers. 

Even in the unregenerate there is a duality for he has within him 1) a conscience (spirit or nature) wherein the law of God is inscribed (See Rom. 2: 14-16) and which convicts him of sin, and restrains him in his immoral conduct, and wherein the Spirit of God "strives" with him (See Gen. 6: 3) and 2) an innate depravity of soul, mind, heart, and spirit which tempts, entices, or lures him to do immoral acts. This is sometimes caricatured by showing a person trying to make a moral decision and having a good angel whisper in one ear and a bad angel whispering in the other. In the life of the Christian these two entities are called "flesh" and "spirit." The flesh, like the term "old man," stands for the depraved nature, for inward carnality and lust, while "spirit" refers to the "spirit of a man" that is now indwelt by the Holy Spirit. So Paul wrote:

"For the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary to one another, so that you do not do the things that you wish." (Gal. 5: 17 nkjv)

By "the spirit" here is not the Holy Spirit, but the spirit of the believer which is united to the Spirit of God. This inner spirit of the believer has been, and continues to be, renewed, so Paul exhorts believers to be "renewed in the spirit of your mind" (Eph. 4: 23), which exhortation speaks of "the spirit" of the "mind." The spirit of the mind is not always pure and holy even in the believer and is why continual cleansing and renewal are needed. Sometimes the believer is operating from a "pure mind" (II Peter 3: 1) and sometimes from an impure mind, but in either case it is the same mind (or faculty) that is alternating between states. 

Notice also the three entities in the above text. There is 1) "the flesh" (or old man), and 2) "the spirit" (or new man), and 3) "you." If the flesh and spirit denote persons or selves, then we must say that, according to Two Seedism, a man is composed of three persons or selves. 

Wrote Paul:

"21 I find then a law, that evil is present with me, the one who wills to do good. 22 For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man. 23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. 24 O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? 25 I thank God—through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin." (Rom. 7: 21-25 nkjv)

Two men, two minds, two laws controlling thought and behavior, two hearts, etc. Or, is it not a case where the same heart, soul, mind, or spirit is the source of both obedience and disobedience? We read of people who are "double minded" (James 1: 18) but we do not interpret that to mean two brains, or two separate thinking entities, but two ways of thinking by the same faculty. So, likewise, we sometimes read of a person having two hearts: Psalm 12:2: "Everyone utters lies to his neighbor; with flattering lips and a double heart they speak." Again, that does not mean that there are literally two separate hearts, but one heart that sometimes is divided. 

The "heart" in scripture often carries the idea of what is the core of being, what is the innermost or center of self. In the believer Christ, as well as the Father and Spirit, take up residence in that place. But, within that heart there yet remains sin and lust, its complete eradication not occurring when a person has God within, but occurs gradually.  Paul warned believers, those who had been given a "new heart" and "new spirit" when they were converted, to "take heed lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief." (Heb. 3: 12) A Christian is not always singular in his heart. Yet, God gives to Christians, according to his promise, "singleness of heart" (Eze. 11: 19; Jer. 32: 39; Acts 2: 46-47). 

Is God making a new man out of the old man? Is God making a new heart out of the old heart? Is God making a new spirit out of the old spirit? Is God making a new nature out of the old nature? Is regeneration a change or an exchange? These are the central questions that Dudley and other Two Seeders frequently asked of their opponents. This is why Dudley and his ilk did not like referring to regeneration as a "reformation," "restoration," or a being "born over" as opposed to being born anew. However, the bible writers did speak of restoration and reformation. Does partaking of the divine nature change the human depraved nature? Dudley would say no. 

Wrote Moore:

"And so they reverse the scriptures, and have the old man, put off the old man, if it is only one man with two natures. On this subject Elder Dudley says: “I find no authority in my Bible for dividing the man. The old man is an entire old man, and the new man is an entire new man.”

The scriptures show that it is the same soul, heart, mind, or spirit, or the same person, that is changed when it experiences conversion, regeneration, or rebirth. The words the apostles used to describe this experience show this to be the case, such as "renewed," "transformed," "conformed," "resurrected," "converted," "repented," etc., all which means that the inner man, the incorporeal self, a person's innermost being, soul and spirit, or his mind or way of thinking, is changed or being changed. This change is drastic at the start, but not completed. Transformation of the inner self continues throughout the life of the born again child of God. 

We would ask the Two Seeders:

1. Is not what is dead in a lost sinner quickened? 

2. Is not what is degenerate in a man the very thing regenerated?

3. Is not what is transformed or renewed in the believer changed?

Wrote Moore:

"But I have a letter before me, written by Elder Dudley, in which he states that, “I [Dudley] have various letters from John Clark, of Virginia, pledged to the belief of the doctrine I maintain, and in one or more of which he [Clark] uses the language, ‘I [Clark] have read the Circular on the Warfare and I see nothing in it, which should disturb the fellowship of brethren.’ ”

I have to question whether John Clark, a first generation leader of the newly formed "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptists, believed in Two Seedism. Perhaps he did believe in some portions of it early in his ministry, as did Lemuel Potter, but later turned away from it. Much of what Dudley wrote in his book on the Christian Warfare is biblical. The only part that is not is: 1) the belief that the new man is a preexistent man who enters into the old man, 2) the belief that nothing of the man is changed in regeneration. 

J. Taylor Moore in his biography of Dudley (from which we cited in the previous chapter) also wrote:

"Elder Dudley, in his defense against the very same characters wrote: “How, then, can they contend that some part – for I have not met with one who contends that the entire Adamic man or the old man – is born of God?” And on another occasion, when asked by an aged Baptist minister why he did not tell the people that it was the Adam man that is born of the Spirit, his reply was: “My Bible don’t say so.”

If the unregenerate man is not born of the Spirit, then who or what is born again? Obviously the person who is born again is the same person who was born the first time, i.e. an "Adam man." So Paul wrote: "and you has he quickened who were dead in trespasses and sins." (Eph. 2: 1). The "you" that was dead is the you that was brought back to life.

Wrote Moore:

"Their principal charge was that Elder Dudley denied the “new birth.”"

This is a valid objection to the Two Seed idea of the preexistence of the souls of the elect. The Two Seed idea is that being born of God occurred in eternity past when Christ, as a human mediator, was begotten by the Father, and that a person being born again in time is but a manifestation of that previous birth, being the time when the eternal child of God is incarnated (enters into a person). That is certainly foreign to how the new testament describes the new birth.

In Chapter IV Moore wrote:

"Elder Dudley soon learned that there would be no lack of an attempt to overthrow the faith that he maintained, for correspondents now began to write to him from almost every state in the Union, and from Canada; some desiring further explanation on certain points contained in the Circular, others urging him to visit their section, others assuming to teach him the way more perfectly, while some others aspiring to greater and public notoriety, began an attack on garbled extracts from the Circular, through the different religious periodicals, to the greater number of which he replied in the most humble and Christian-like spirit."

The debate over "Two Seedism" was very intense in the first decades after the formation of the Hardshell Baptist sect. It continued to be a hotly debated and divisive issue with them through the entire nineteenth century, as Elder Sylvester Hassell stated at the end of that century.

Wrote Moore:

"I have frequently heard him speak of a visit to the Red River Association where he had been most outrageously misrepresented by a Dr. Fain, one of the editors of the Baptist Watchman. When Dudley was put upon the stand to preach he had been speaking but a little while when some man in the congregation cried out “If that man is a heretic so am I.” He had proceeded but a little while when the same expression was used, and immediately it was taken up throughout the congregation. When the excitement had quieted, one of the preachers in the stand behind him, said, “Yes, we are all heretics.” On Sunday Dr. Fain followed him in a very excited manner, and had progressed but a short while when he said, in a very excited way, “Yes, yes, a few years ago, you pronounced what you have just heard, the worst kind of heresy, and now you swallow it down greedily, greedily, greedily,” reminding us very forcibly of what we have heard Elder Dudley say, about a Baptist coming to him in a certain section, where he had been libelously reported, and saying to him, “Brother Dudley, when I hear others tell what you believe, and preach I don’t believe a word of your preaching, but when I hear you preach, I believe every word of it.”

R.W. Fain was an associate with John Watson, and they were not only fellow "Primitive Baptists" but fellow physicians, and lived in the same area around Nashville. When Watson died in 1866, Fain, along with others, such as Elder (Dr.) J. B. Stephens, began a weekly periodical titled "The Baptist Watchman." I have cited from this periodical several times and have shown how Fain, Stephens, et.al, published articles supporting the view that God saves his people through the means of the gospel. That paper was also intended to carry on the work and teachings of Watson, being the publishers and promoters of Watson's book "The Old Baptist Test." Fain, like Watson, was a fervent opponent of Two Seedism. 

Wrote Moore:

"He (Dudley) says in his writings, that one of the first objections he heard urged against the Circular on the Warfare was, that it taught that man had two souls. Then one Elder White, of Missouri, concluded that he taught in his writings that man had not even one soul; and one charge became proverbial among his antagonists; namely, “that he taught that in the atonement of Christ, there was nothing done for the sinner,” another, “that he denied the resurrection of the dead,” and still another, “that God had a family of spiritual children in heaven before time began, fully developed, who from time to time come down to earth, take up their abode in the Adamic man, engage in mortal combat, carry on the unequal strife, til man dies, and then returns to heaven without accomplishing anything else than opposition to man.” All of these charges with a multitude of others he met and refuted with that Christian-like spirit that characterized his whole public life." 

Well, Dudley did not refute all these charges. He did in fact believe in the "Eternal Children" doctrine. 

Wrote Moore:

"To the honest reader, I wish to say, that this is but a brief extract from Elder Dudley’s writings, and I have many of a like nature, and for which many withdrew their correspondence, fellowship, and Christian intercourse, from him, his churches and the Licking Association. This was in reply to a man who claimed that the soul is “born again,” “or a part of the Adamic man.” This turn was taken in order to avoid the idea, that the man is born over again. Elder Dudley reputed the idea that the Adamic man, or sinner in whole or in part, in order to constitute the child of God, is born of the Spirit. For he says, “I have ever conceived that the corn of wheat, which falls into the ground and dies, contains within its germ everything, and nothing more than will spring up and grow out of it. Now I ask, was anything born of that incorruptible seed which was not in the germ? Was the natural seed deposited in Christ? I think brethren will answer each of these questions in the negative. How then can they contend that it is some part [for I have not met with one who contends that the entire Adamic man or the old man] is born of God.” In view of such clear expressions, such a positive position, what must be thought by every honest, intelligent Christian of such men as Elder S.H. Durand, of Pennsylvania, and others, who claimed such harmony with Elder Dudley while living, to come among us after he is gone claiming that it is the sinner, that is born again, but in vain pretending they don’t mean “born over;” don’t mean that the Adamic man is changed. Who is the sinner? Is he not the Adamic man?" 

So, Dudley did believe that the man who is born into the world and of the lineage of Adam was not the man who was saved, or born again. This is why Two Seeders were accused of believing in the "no change view" of regeneration or "hollow log" doctrine (of which I have spoken about in other articles). 

Wrote Moore:

"I have a private letter written by Elder Dudley in which he says, in speaking of the doctrinal sentiments of the Circular on the warfare, that he believed the time would come when that sentiment would be made a test of fellowship." 

Dudley's prophecy was true, although it took the "Primitive Baptist" church nearly a century to rid themselves of it, although as we have said, citing Crowley, that if one knows what to listen for, he can still hear remnants of Two Seed thinking among today's Hardshells.

Wrote Moore:

"Not only did Elder Dudley have Elder John Clark of Virginia, committed in writing of his hearty endorsement of the faith he maintained of the vital oneness of Christ and his people, but many others, among whom was Elder Wilson Thompson and his son, John A. Thompson, who said publicly on the stand at the Conn’s Creek Association in following Elder Dudley [who preached the introductory on that occasion at the request of Elder McQuary,] I [J.A.T.] have heard Brother Dudley once before, and then said, “If I ever heard the gospel preached Brother Dudley preached it,” and Elder Dudley writes: “He [Thompson] then endorsed most fully and feelingly on that occasion.” Elder D. says of the occasion: “When we went on the stand I determined within myself, ‘If I can find language plain enough to make myself understood, a future misrepresentation should be willful.’ I had been so often and so grossly misrepresented.” While discussing the question a brother in the congregation cried out aloud, “If that man is a heretic so am I.” He was responded to by another, and it was Elder Wilson Thompson, who proclaimed aloud from the stand, “Yes, brethren, if that is heresy, we are all heretics.” 

I do believe that Wilson Thompson, a founding father of the "Primitive Baptist Church," did believe in Two Seed ideas. I have read where he considered himself a friend of Daniel Parker, and never wrote anything in opposition to Parker. According to Moore, Wilson Thompson wrote letters to Dudley endorsing his views. However, I have also read in the past where Wilson's eldest son, Grigg, who also was a first generation leader of the newly formed denomination, denied that his father believed in Two Seedism. I think, however, that Grigg was not telling the truth. I am sorry that I cannot recall where I read this about Grigg defending his father relative to whether he was a Two Seeder.

The fact is, a large portion, possibly the majority, of those who became part of the anti mission movement and of the sect that called itself "Primitive" or "Old School" or "Hardshell" Baptist, were Two Seeders. It was not till we got towards the end of the nineteenth century that the Two Seeders began to decrease dramatically. 

Wrote Moore:

"And the idea of having the old man, the Adamic man, and sin and lust or corruption, making three men, then boiling these three down into one sinner man, then throwing a little essence of spirit in, and by its operation, making all into one spiritual man, did not originate with one P.G. Lester, who a few years ago came amongst us, backed by an eastern syndicate, sizzling like a trembling crater, ready for an eruption for a number of years, for Elder Dudley had the same heretical notion to meet in a controversy with Elder John A. Thompson, of Lebanon, Ohio. In that controversy with Thompson, Elder Dudley says: “If I were as entirely confident of interest in the atoning blood and righteousness of the Lord Jesus Christ, as I am that the earthly, fallen and depraved Adam, is the old man, I do not think I should entertain a doubt of reaching the heavenly glory."

So, is any part of a man changed in being born of God? The Two Seeder would say no. Those who oppose them would say yes. So, what does the Bible say? The word "repent" means either to "turn" or to "change your mind." It is from the Greek word metanoia, meta meaning change, and noia meaning mind. So, the mind of the Adam man is changed. This involves a change in a person's psychology, and "psuche" is the new testament Greek word meaning psyche. To change a soul is to change a personality, including a change in attitude, beliefs, etc.  The word "convert" also means to change, the thing being changed is the way of thinking, or the things believed. In other words, the soul of man is changed. So the Psalmist said:

"The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple." (Psa. 19: 7)

The Psalmist David also prayed:

"Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me." (Psa. 51: 10)

The word "renew" means to make new again, and is similar to the word "regeneration." It is not something foreign to an Adam man that is made new, but what was part of the man. 

One of the errors of Primitive Baptists is in thinking that in regeneration, rebirth, renewal, etc., there is a change to the essence or substance of the soul and spirit, a physical change, rather than being a moral, spiritual, psychological, change. They not only believe this is true in regeneration, but also in being generated in physical birth, for they will contend that the doctrine of "total depravity" means that a degenerate sinner lacks the physical faculties to do anything pleasing to God. The great theologian, Jonathan Edwards, however, taught that in becoming degenerated by sin did not remove any faculties of body or soul, there being no physical inability in the lost sinners to believe, repent, etc. He does not have moral or spiritual ability is what Edwards taught and many Baptists agreed. In my early writings against Hardshell Baptist teachings I cited from Elder R.V. Sarrels who wrote a "Systematic Theology" from a Hardshell point of view. In his section on regeneration he advocated that there was a change is the soul's essence when it was regenerated. 

Also, the word "restore" is used to describe the change that occurs when a sinner believes and is renewed. David said "He restores my soul" (Psa. 23: 3). The Two Seeders, however, opposed using such words to describe the change that occurs when a person is born of the Spirit. They opposed the word "reformed" also for the same reasons, although the word "repent" carries with it the idea of being reformed. 

Wrote Moore:

"One man now living made an insidious attack on his views of “quickened spirits,” in the Baptist Watchman, a paper published in the South that never was regarded as sound in the old Baptist faith, and this man at the same time was professing great love, fellowship and “perfect harmony of sentiment,” but since the death of Elder Dudley the turpitude of the spirit by which he was acting then has been so clearly demonstrated, that we wonder how any can respect him for such baseness of character." 

This is a biased statement made by a Two Seeder who is writing in defense of Dudley. We have already seen where Moore referred to the opposition coming from Elder (Dr.) R.W. Fain who was one of the editors of "The Baptist Watchman." Dr. Fain was far more sound in the faith than other Two Seed or Primitive Baptists. 

 

Two Seed Baptist Ideology (XIII)

Elder Thomas P. Dudley

1792 - 1886

The above elder was, along with Gilbert Beebe and Samuel Trott, one of the chief defenders of Two Seedism. He was a frequent writer to the "Signs of the Times" periodical edited by Beebe. Dudley wrote much on Two Seed ideas and we will begin in this chapter a look at those writings. Following this we will study what the leading opposers of Two Seedism wrote in their attacks upon Two Seedism. We have already mentioned Elder (Dr.) John M. Watson of middle Tennessee and will look at what Elder Grigg Thompson, son of Elder Wilson Thompson, wrote in his opposition to Two Seedism, and also at what Elder Lemuel Potter wrote against it, and of the dialogue the latter carried on with Beebe. 

From the "Baptist History Homepage" we learn the following about Thomas Dudley, a founding father of the "Primitive Baptist Church" (emphasis mine), citing William Cathcart, editor of the The Baptist Encyclopedia, 1881; reprint, 1988, pp. 345-6:

"Rev. Thomas Parker Dudley, son of Rev. Ambrose Dudley, is the most distinguished preacher among the Baptists of Kentucky. He was born in Fayette Co., Ky., May 31, 1792. In 1812 he entered the army, was made commissary of the Northwestern troops, participating in the battles of Frenchtown and the River Raisin; in the latter was wounded in the shoulder; taken prisoner by the Indians and carried to Detroit. In the fall of 1814 he was made quartermaster of a detachment which reinforced Gen. Jackson at the battle of New Orleans, and the same year was appointed quartermaster-general of Kentucky. From 1816 until 1824 he was a cashier of a branch of the old Bank of Kentucky, located at Winchester, and for several years afterwards was engaged in settling up the business of these branch banks. He succeeded his father in the pastorate of Bryant's church in 1825. Of this church he has now (1880) been pastor fifty-five years, and of the three other churches almost as long, and he has also been moderator of Licking Association forty-seven years. He resides in Lexington." (See here)

I have read tidbits of history about both Ambrose Dudley and his son Thomas. The father was more sound in doctrine than the son, for the former was no hyper Calvinist nor a Two Seeder, while his son was all this and more, including being antinomian, and a denial of means in regeneration and eternal salvation. During the time of Thomas Dudley he did much to bring division to the churches in the Elkhorn and Licking associations over his Two Seed ideas, including his "Two Souls" view and his book called "The Christian Warfare." 

In "Twin Creek Baptist Association" in "A History of Kentucky Baptists," Baptist historian John H. Spencer (1885) wrote the following about this Baptist Association (See here):

"This small community of Antimissionary Baptists originated from a division of Licking Association, caused by a circular letter, written by Elder Thomas P. Dudley, in 1846. This letter was not presented to the Association, as was originally intended; but some of the members were permitted to read it, and, in 1847, it was read before the body. The style of the writing was obscure, and it was not clearly understood by the members. However, it caused considerable dissatisfaction and disputation. To avoid being further misrepresented, as he averred, Mr. Dudley, in 1848, caused 1,000 copies of the letter to be printed and circulated. A deliberate reading of the document increased the discontent. With the hope of restoring harmony, James Dudley, a brother of the author of the letter, sent a circular to all the churches of the Association, requesting them to send messengers to Bryants Station, in Fayette county, on the last Wednesday in March, 1850. In this meeting, about half the churches were represented, and the writer of the letter was acquitted of heresy. This further increased the discontent of the churches which dissented from the decision of the conference. Stony Point and Friendship churches issued a "Joint Manifesto" in which it was averred that Mr. Dudley taught the "Eternal Creation System." It was also claimed that he denied the doctrine of the "Regeneration of the soul."

In upcoming chapters we will look at some peculiar things taught by Dudley in the document referred to, and which later became a booklet called "The Origin, Nature, and Effects of the Christian Warfare." In this writing Dudley defended the leading ideas of Two Seedism, namely the belief that the souls of the elect were brought into existence when Christ, as the God-Man mediator, was begotten sometime in eternity past. He vehemently defended the doctrine of "eternal vital union." We must also remember that T.P. Dudley became one of the most important figures in the history of Kentucky Baptists, especially of those who were known as "Primitive," "Regular," or "Old School" Baptists, or as Hardshell or anti mission Baptists. In the above citation Spencer gives the name of Dudley's home church as "Bryant" but others say it is "Bryan." It is one of the oldest Baptist churches in Kentucky.

Said Spencer in his description of the Two Seed views of Dudley:

"The "Eternal Creation System" taught that God, in the Eternal Past, created two distinct families: one in Adam, and the other in Jesus Christ; that all the members of each of these families were created simultaneously, and, that, of course, they [p. 605] are, in fact, of the same age. According to this teaching, the child born today is, in reality, as old as Adam: The recent birth is only a development of an "eternal creation." So of the spiritual family, "created in, and simultaneously with Jesus Christ." Abel, the first Christian, is no older than the last one that shall be "born from above." The descendant of Adam is the natural man, a simple being wholly corrupt, and unchangeable in the present life. A descendant from Jesus Christ, whether born (developed) in the days of Abel, or in the present age, is wholly pure and incorruptible." (Ibid)

It is stretching things beyond measure to say that I existed as a person in Adam just because I have come from his seed. To use a pun, that is "going to seed" on what it means to be the seed of another person. My person, my "self," my soul or spirit, did not exist in Adam but was brought into existence when I was formed in the womb of my mother and from the seed of my father. The kind of union that human beings have with Adam and Eve is twofold, seminally and representatively. The scriptures emphasize the latter, however, and not the former. It is because of my connection with Adam that I am born with a human nature, with a human soul. It is because of my connection with Christ, the second Adam, that I am born with a divine nature. (II Peter 1: 4) There is no vital union with Christ until Christ is received by faith. 

Just because the divine nature or divine seed ("incorruptible seed" - I Peter 1: 23) has eternally existed does not mean that the one who partakes of the divine nature when converted to Christ has eternally existed with a divine nature. It is not deducible to affirm that since all the children of God are "begotten" of God that they therefore eternally existed in God. 

The Two Seed view expressed above by Dudley is ridiculous. If what he says is true, then my father and I are the same age. The scriptures however do not speak this way, but often speak of one person being either younger or older than another. If what he says is true, then when Paul says that Andronicus and Junia "were in Christ before me" (Rom. 16: 7) is incorrect. 

Said the same source:

"A Christian, according to this theory, is not a child of Adam, regenerated, nor yet a descendant of Christ, born from above, but a coalescence of both, and consequently, a "compound being." As both of the component parts are unchangeable, and are antagonistic in their nature, there must be a perpetual strife between them until the stronger destroys the weaker. This Mr. Dudley denominates the "Christian Warfare." While the subject was agitated, the theory was sometimes called the "Two Souls doctrine." The denial of the regeneration of the human soul was a necessary sequence of this theory." (Ibid)

One can see how this idea of the preexistence of souls, either in Adam or in the pre-incarnate Son of God, has far reaching effects on the doctrine of regeneration or birth of the Spirit and of the resurrection of the dead. In the Two Seed view of being regenerated or born again, an eternal divine child of God who is spirit enters into the physical body of a person (much like a demon spirit). That child of God is not essentially changed in regeneration nor is the "Adam man." The entrance of that eternal spirit into the human merely causes a warfare. 

Dudley's treatise "The Origin, Nature, and Effects of the Christian Warfare" was at first the title to the circular letter. Spencer in his "A History of Kentucky Baptists," writes (See here):

"In 1845 [1844], Thomas P. Dudley was appointed to write the circular letter for the ensuing year. He wrote on the subject of the "Christian Warfare, including the Eternal Spiritual Oneness of Christ and the church." Showing the paper to some of the brethren, it was privately discussed, before the Association was organized. Learning that some objection would be made to the letter, Mr. Dudley declined presenting it, and it was not published, for the time. But its contents were discussed among the brethren, and, as Mr. Dudley averred, its teachings were misrepresented. In order to correct the erroneous impressions, made on the public mind, Mr. Dudley, in 1849, printed and circulated a thousand copies of the letter, in pamphlet form. The style of the treatise is labored and obscure, but the substance of the doctrine contained in it was understood to be as follows:

1. God created two distinct families of men. The first was created in Adam, and was denominated the natural man. As the great oak, with its innumerable branches, leaves and acorns, was contained in the acorn from whence it sprang: so the whole human family, comprising the countless millions of all its generations, was contained in Adam, at his creation.

2. The other family was created in, and simultaneously with Jesus Christ, and was called the spiritual man. As every soul of the natural family was comprised in Adam: so every member of the spiritual family was embraced in Jesus Christ, at his creation. 

3. What men call a multiplication of these families, is only a development, or manifestation, to human perception, of what God created instantaneously, in the beginning.

4. The nature of each of these families, is uniform and unchangeable. That of the natural man is wholly corrupt, and remains so perpetually, in every member of that family: That of the spiritual man is wholly pure, and can never be, in any degree, corrupted or tarnished.

5. A christian is a compound being, composed of one natural man and one spiritual man, mysteriously combined by the power of the Holy Spirit, while the original nature of each remains unchanged, and unchangeable.

6. The christian's warfare consists in a life-long struggle between the two men of which he is composed, often called, in the sacred Scriptures, the "old man" and the "new man." In the end, the spiritual man triumphs over, and utterly destroys his antagonist, and then returns to God, who sent him to be developed in this warfare.

As we have pointed out previously, this is similar to Mormon belief. As we will see later, one of the arguments that Dudley and the Two Seeders used to prove their thesis was Paul's "new man" and "old man" teaching. The "new man" is the eternally begotten child of God and the "old man" is the begotten child of Adam.

Wrote Spencer further:

"This teaching was popularly called the "Two-Souls doctrine," and was regarded heretical by some of the churches and all the correspondents of Licking Association. Such was the influence of Mr. Dudley, however, that a majority of the churches acquiesced in his interpretation of his pamphlet. But much disturbance followed its publication. Salem Association of Predestinarian Baptists withheld correspondence from Licking, in 1850. Foreseeing the storm that was gathering, James Dudley, a brother to the author of the "Christian Warfare," sent a circular to all the churches in Licking Association, inviting them to send messengers to meet at Bryants, in March, 1850, for the purpose of endeavoring to allay the confusion. Most of the churches responded to the call. But Friendship and Stony Point issued a joint manifesto, denouncing the teaching of Mr. Dudley's pamphlet, and declaring non-fellowship for three churches which had received it, and for all who believed as they did. This resulted in a speedy division of the Association. Friendship, Stony Point, Twin Creek, Williamsburg, Rays Fork, and Fork Lick churches withdrew, and constituted a new fraternity, under the style of "Twin Creek Old Regular Baptist Association." This occurred, in 1850. The next year, all the Associations in Kentucky withheld correspondence from Licking. The body still exchanged minutes with two or three distant fraternities, but, in 1853, even this shadow of a correspondence was dropped. But Mr. Dudley, who has been the leading spirit of the Association, for more than fifty years, was a man of great energy and excellent address, and, by visiting the various Associations, preaching among them, and conciliating them, wisely and prudently, he succeeded in re-establishing correspondence with most of those fraternities from which his Association had become alienated. - Volume II, 1881, pp. 245-246."

I have tried to find that "joint manifesto" against Dudley and his Two Seed (or Two Souls) view that was issued by Friendship and Stony Point churches. Now let us look at some of the things Dudley wrote in that pamphlet. He begins by saying (emphasis mine): "To the Churches composing the Licking Association of Particular Baptist; their Messengers wish grace, mercy and peace multiplied." (See here) The following citations are from chapter four of the biography of T.P. Dudley, as written to Elder Smoot by J. Taylor Moore. 

Dudley writes:

"DEARLY BELOVED; It occurs to us that we could not select a more appropriate subject, because none possesses more intrinsic merit, for our present annual address, that the ORIGIN, NATURE, and EFFECTS of that warfare which so painfully disturbs the peace and quiet of the Children of the Regeneration."

Wrote Dudley:

"That the warfare, invariably follows being “born again,” is not, we believe, controverted by any experimental Christian. But whilst some of us maintain, that the warfare results from a conflict of elements within; others, and perhaps the larger number contend, that in the new birth, the man is changed from the love of sin to the love of holiness."

Notice that Dudley affirms that being born again does not change a man from the love of sin to the love of holiness. Such an affirmation caused many Old School or Primitive Baptists to react with fervent censure. There was intense debate among the Hardshells over this very question. What change, if any, occurs in a sinner when he is regenerated and converted? The Two Seed view came to be called "the no change view of regeneration" or "hollow log" doctrine. But, more on that later. 

Wrote Dudley:

"Now we ask, if indeed, in the new birth, the man is changed from the love of sin to the love of holiness, and this change is perfect, does it not necessarily follow, that he will be as wholly and entirely devoted to holiness subsequently, as he had been to sin antecedently to the new birth? If, as is contended by many, the enmity of the heart is slain in regeneration, whence arises opposition to the dispensations of God’s providence? Irreconciliation to his will? And whence the exclamation, “O wretched man that I am! Who shall deliver me from the body of this death?” Rom.7:24. That the Christian is a compound being, is a truth so fully taught in his history; as given in the holy Scriptures, that we wonder it should be controverted by any who have tasted that “the LORD is gracious.”

There again we see Dudley denying that a man is changed in being born of God. The "new man" does not need to be changed, for it was perfect when first begotten in eternity past, and the "old man" is not changed at all when the "new man" takes possession of the "old man." The only change is in the activities of either, each beginning a war with the other. 

Notice also in the citations above that Dudley admits that his view was a minority view, admitting that it is the view of the majority that the new birth slew the natural enmity of the heart against the Lord. About the Christian being "a compound being" we will have more to say later perhaps. In some sense we can agree with this affirmation, but not in the sense given by Dudley and Two Seed Baptists. 

Wrote Dudley:

"Whence these various distinctions between the old and new man, if indeed there are not two men? If man is only changed in the new birth? If the language that “man is changed” were appropriate, there would be but one man; his feelings and affections having been changed; there would be no conflict and hence no warfare! We presume that none will contend that the old is the new man, or the new is the old man. This would be to confound language and make it unintelligible." 

The terms "new man" and "old man" as used by Paul are not to be taken literally but figuratively. It is used by Paul in the same way people use it in common speech, as when they say "he is not the same man as he once was." This is said in instances where a person has changed dramatically in either physical appearance or psychological ways, as in a change of beliefs, values, behavior, attitude, etc. The "old man" is a metaphor for the kind of person a believer was before he was converted and the "new man" is a metaphor for the man after conversion. Some bible commentaries say that the "old man" represents the old depraved nature that a person receives from Adam when he is born into the world, and the "new man" represents the new divine nature that a person receives from Christ, the second Adam, when born of the Spirit. 

This led to a debate on whether any part of the "Adam man," or "the natural man," is changed in regeneration. The Orthodox view said that it is the soul or spirit of a man that is what is changed. 

Wrote Dudley:

"The Bible furnishes the following history of the natural family. “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.” Gen.1:27. “And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.” Gen.2:7. “Man and female created he them, and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.” Gen.5:2. Hence we learn that all “living souls,” were created in, and simultaneously with their natural progenitor." 

Here Dudley begs the question when he says that every living soul was created in Adam. He then makes a giant inferential leap when he affirms that likewise all the souls or spirits of God's children were created in Christ before the world began. 

Wrote Dudley:

"They all descend from him by ordinary or natural generation. They necessarily partake of his nature, and subsist upon the same elements upon which he subsisted. The breath of life communicated to man, whence he became a “living soul,” constituted him a rational, intelligent, responsible being, the subject of law and of earthly enjoyments, capable of subsisting upon the products of the earth; but incapable of other and higher enjoyments." 

Dudley argues as do other Two Seeders that Adam, even before his fall, was not in any sense a "spiritual" being, but was wholly a "natural man" (I Cor. 2: 14). Being natural meant that he could not have anything spiritual about him, no communion with God as such. Of course, that is not true. Adam walked with God in the Garden and conversed with God. There was nothing in the original constitution of man that hindered him from enjoying anything spiritual. After Adam's fall he became morally and spiritually unable to please God and to enjoy him, not a physical inability. 

Wrote Dudley:

"The characteristics of this family are strikingly marked in the Scriptures – “And Adam lived a hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his own image; and called his name Seth.” Gen.5:3. “Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.” Ps.51:5. “The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.” Ps.58:3. “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.” Rom.5:12." 

This family of man, however, contrary to the views of many Two Seeders, had both elect and non elect, wheat and tares, children of God and children of the Devil. Many Two Seeders denied that the seed of the Devil fell in Adam.

Wrote Dudley:

"From the preceding verses and arguments it is manifest that the family of the “first Adam” is not capable of rendering acceptable service to God, but the antagonist nature and principle of the two families [the natural and the spiritual,] out of which grows the warfare, are made still more manifest by the contrast introduced by an Apostle. And so it is written: “The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterwards that which is spiritual. The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven. As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy; and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly. Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.” I Cor.15:45-50"

When Paul speaks of "the natural man" in First Corinthians (2: 14) he is not referring to how man was created originally by God. Rather, he is referring to a "soulish" man, the Greek word psychikos denoting such. Such a natural man who follows his own ideas and rejects divine revelation. When Adam was first made he did not have an "antagonistic nature" towards God. He was created holy, righteous, spiritual, godly, etc. This is because he was created in the image of God. It was not till he sinned that he lost that original state and likeness. 

When in the above words of Paul he says that Adam was natural, earthly, and not spiritual, he is speaking of his human body, not of his soul or spirit. First Corinthians chapter fifteenth is talking about the resurrection of the body. The flesh and blood of Adam, before his sin, was not spiritual.

Wrote Dudley:

"Is it not evident then, that all “living souls” were created in and simultaneously with the “first man Adam,” that they all, being born of him, necessarily partake of his nature, “and he called their name Adam?” And that all “quickened spirits” were created in and simultaneously with the “last Adam” – that they all, being born of him, “born of God,” as necessarily partake of his nature? That all living souls no more necessarily descend from the first Adam than all quickened spirits necessarily descend from the last Adam; that the seed of the “first Adam” disclose his nature, and the seed of the “last Adam” make manifest his nature."

No, it is not evident that all the souls of the elect were "created in and simultaneously with" Christ the last Adam. Being "in Christ" and being created or born anew occurs when the soul is joined to Christ by faith in the work of conversion, and not in eternity past. The Son of God has always existed as such but the man Christ Jesus, composed of human soul and spirit, was created and begotten in time, when he was conceived by the Spirit in the womb of Mary his mother. 

In the above citation Dudley admits that it is when a man is born that he then partakes of the fallen nature of his father Adam. This would deny that the elect or non-elect partake of either the divine or human nature in past eternity. If a person becomes a "partaker of the divine nature" when he is born again, then he did not have a divine or spiritual nature before, and thus Two Seedism is overthrown.

Wrote Dudley:

"The children of the “first Adam” are born of the flesh and are earthly in all their feelings and affections; the children of the “last Adam” are born of the Spirit and are necessarily heavenly or spiritual in their feelings and affections. The children of the first are born for earth; of the last Adam, are born for heaven. Those of the “first” are born of corruptible; those of the “last Adam” are of incorruptible seed. The first necessarily partake of human; the last, of the divine nature. The antagonistic principles attached to the two men necessarily result in the warfare. If all living souls were not vitally united to the first Adam, how could they be so directly and fatally effected by the first transgression? How could the original act of transgression be considered their act? “And so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.” “There is none righteous, no not one.” Rom.3:10."

Much of what Dudley here says is orthodox. The question however is - "when and how does a person partake of either Adam's fallen nature or the divine nature?" If Two Seedism is correct, he cannot say that the divine nature is given to people when they are born again of the Spirit, for they were eternally begotten as such. Dudley has already affirmed that all the souls of Adam's seed were in Adam and so partook of his corrupt nature all at once when he sinned. If that is so, then it is wrong to say that an individual of the race obtains his fallen nature when he is humanly conceived. Likewise, if all of the souls of the Lord's seed were in Christ since eternity, and all received his nature at the same time, then it is wrong to say that an individual of the race obtains the divine nature when born anew.

In the next chapter we will continue giving the Two Seed views of Dudley from his book on the Christian Warfare and other writings.