Two Seed Baptist Ideology (XXXVII)

I John 3: 8

In this chapter we are continuing to cite from Elder Lemuel Potter's 1880 booklet titled ""UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION STATED AND DEFINED; OR, A DENIAL OF THE DOCTRINE OF ETERNAL CHILDREN, OR TWO SEEDS IN THE FLESH" and can be read (here). It is a lengthy treatise and much of it is repetitious and not very well organized and we are only citing those portions of it that have substance. The web site above is from the web page of the "Primitive Baptist Library" and does not format Potter's writings against Two Seedism very well. His pamphlet were copies of articles he wrote in his church paper "The Church Advocate." In the pamphlet Potter listed eleven doctrinal tenets that are held to by Two Seeders, though there were disagreements among Two Seeders. Having already considered articles one through six, we will in this chapter begin with tenet number seven. Potter wrote, giving us the following citation from a Two Seeder:

"7. "Hence I will say without any fear of successful contradiction from the Word of God, that if the greatly multiplied stood in Adam before the curse was pronounced in consequence of the transgression, the non-elect are safe, for what God blessed in Adam He could not curse; for James informs us that every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning." - Herald of Truth, by M. Loveridge, Vol. 3, p. 5."

By "the greatly multiplied" there is reference to that Two Seed tenet that says that a result of Satan sowing his seed in Adam or Eve, that God multiplied the human seed, so that now not only will the children of God be born into the human race, but a host of other humans of the seed of Satan, and that this is what is implied in God saying to Eve that he would "multiply" her "sorrow" and "conception." (Gen. 3: 16) However, that may not be what the text says. On that text the learned Dr. John Gill wrote:

"I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception, or "thy sorrow of thy conception" (a), or rather "of thy pregnancy" (b); since not pain but pleasure is perceived in conception, and besides is a blessing; but this takes in all griefs and sorrows, disorders and pains, from the time of conception or pregnancy, unto the birth; such as a nausea, a loathing of food, dizziness, pains in the head and teeth, faintings and swoonings, danger of miscarriage, and many distresses in such a case..." (Commentary)

Of course, when the Lord said this to Eve it was not intended for Eve alone, as if she alone would suffer travails in conception. Rather, Eve stands for all women who become pregnant and who are thus cursed as a result of her sin and that of her husband Adam.

Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges gives this commentary:

"...thy conception] Lat. conceptus tuos. But LXX τὸν στεναγμόν σου = “thy groaning,” according to a reading which differs by a very slight change in two Hebrew letters. This is preferred by some commentators..."

Pulpit Commentary says: "A hendiadys for "the sorrow of thy conception" (Gesenius, Bush)."

However, Keil and Delitzsch Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament says:

"I will greatly multiply (הרבּה is the inf. abs. for הרבּה, which had become an adverb: vid., Ewald, 240c, as in Genesis 16:10 and Genesis 22:17) thy sorrow and thy pregnancy: in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children." As the increase of conceptions, regarded as the fulfilment of the blessing to "be fruitful and multiply" (Genesis 1:28), could be no punishment, והרנך must be understood as in apposition to עצּבונך thy sorrow (i.e., the sorrows peculiar to a woman's life), and indeed (or more especially) thy pregnancy (i.e., the sorrows attendant upon that condition). The sentence is not rendered more lucid by the assumption of a hendiadys. "That the woman should bear children was the original will of God; but it was a punishment that henceforth she was to bear them in sorrow, i.e., with pains which threatened her own life as well as that of the child" (Delitzsch)."

It is possible that the oracle does mean that the number of children to be born will be greater because of sin. The Lord told Adam and Eve to "be fruitful and multiply" (Gen. 1: 28), and this before they had sinned. So when the Lord pronounced the curse on woman, saying he would "multiply" her "conception," he may have meant that she would be more fruitful and multiply, but if so it would have to be a cursed consequence and not a blessed one. It does not seem right to think that the blessing of being "fruitful" would be enhanced by the apostasy of Adam and Eve. Recall that the Psalmist said: "Happy is the man who has his quiver full of them (children)" (127: 5 nkjv). So, it is incongruent to say that Eve's punishment would be to have more children. It seems, therefore, that the right interpretation is as the commentators indicate, as previously cited, which say that the text means that Eve and women would have multiplied travail in birthing children.

That is not to deny, however, that Eve's sin would also often cause abortions, deformed offspring, etc., beyond the multiplied pains of pregnancy and childbirth. The same thing could be said about sexual intercourse itself, which would have been painless to Eve before her transgression, but often is painful for women today who are under the curse placed upon women by the fall of Adam and Eve. 

So, even if the text says that more children will have been born than would have been born, had Adam and Eve not sinned, it does not necessarily mean what Two Seeders read into that assumed fact.

The Two Seeders, as we have seen in earlier chapters when noticing what they taught about the parable of the wheat and tares, have strange views on it. In that parabolic story, the owner of a field first sowed wheat in it, and existed for a time without any tares (weeds). Then sometime later an enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat. In the interpretation that Jesus gives of this parable we see what each item in the story represents. The wheat represented the children of God and the tares the children of the Devil. 

So, what is strange and novel about the Two Seed interpretation? 

First, it must be their idea that the children of God existed as seed before being planted in a human body, yea, even preexisting in Christ (in him as a Mediator possessing a third nature, a composite of his divinity and humanity).

Second, likewise it must be their idea that the children of the Devil existed as seed before being planted in a human body, yea, even preexisting in the Devil.

Third, it must be their idea that some are born wheat and some born weeds, therefore some born to stay wheat and be burned up and some born to stay tares and be harvested for the owner (farmer) of the field. 

Fourth, it must be their idea that those who are wheat have always been wheat, and have always been saved, and therefore never were tares, and therefore never lost.

Fifth, it wholly gives a new meaning to why God created human beings, and what was his purpose in planting the preexisting wheat seeds into humans, and what was his purpose in making it possible for the Devil to sow tares in his field.

Sixth, it calls into question why the need for a resurrected body for either the wheat or the tares. If the bodies are simply temporary houses for preexisting souls, for the purpose of developing or training those souls for life in eternity, then it seems like there will come a time when the physical bodies no longer serve their purpose, and death simply returns a soul to its source, whether God or Satan. 

But, such a Two Seed interpretation is broadening the elements of the parable beyond what was intended. The main elements of the parable are these:

1) there are lost sinners in the world as a result of the work of the Devil, and

2) there are saved sinners in the world as a result of the work of Christ, and

3) both saved and unsaved will exist together until the time of the harvest.

If the Two Seed ideas on the parable are correct, you would expect Christ, in his interpretation of the parable, to give the Two Seed interpretation. But, he did not. Let us notice some things from the parable.

“The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field; but while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat and went his way. But when the grain had sprouted and produced a crop, then the tares also appeared." (Matt. 13: 24-26 nkjv)

Good seed was sown first and this means that God originally made Adam and Eve good. The enemy sowing tares came after. This is what we see in the opening chapters of Genesis. But, we cannot make every detail of the parable have some hidden meaning. If so, what do the words "while men slept" mean? It can't mean while God slept, nor while the angels slept, and it cannot mean men in general, for only Adam and Eve existed when the Devil first sowed his seed (false ideas) into the mind of Eve. Also, the results of the enemy sowing tares did not need to wait for the grain (wheat) to sprout and produce a crop.

Potter wrote this in rebuttal to the seventh tenet of Two Seedism, given above:

"7. We presume this item was intended for two seed doctrine; and we have frequently been asked the question, "Do you believe the two seed doctrine? If the above is two-seedism, we do not now, nor never did believe it. We believe that the children of God, or the elect transgressed the law, which brought them under the curse. This item denies the curse being pronounced on the elect. We do not believe the law holds any claims on a people who never transgressed it. The above places the curse on "the greatly multiplied," and yet denies their being in the transgression. We believe the objects of God's redemption to have been under the curse. We read in the Bible, "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree." Gal. 3: 13. We cannot divine how they could be redeemed from the curse, if they were never under it. We do not believe the non-elect were redeemed, yet the above would necessarily make them the subjects of redemption; for the elect could not be cursed because God had blessed them, so the curse must have been placed on the non-elect, and they that were under the curse were the ones Christ redeemed. This makes the non-elect safe any way you turn it according to the writer above quoted."

This is a good rebuttal by Potter. However, I am a little puzzled by his assertion that he never believed in this tenet of Two Seedism, saying "we do not now, nor never did believe it." We have seen where Potter confessed that he favored Two Seedism for many years and it was not till around 1880 that he felt that he must attack it. Perhaps he did not believe this tenet of Two Seedism when he favored Two Seedism. After all, there are varieties of Two Seedism, some holding one tenet and another not. He says that he always believed that the redeemed were cursed, under wrath, because of sin, just as the unredeemed. He disagrees with those Two Seeders who affirmed - "what God blessed in Adam He could not curse." As we have seen, Daniel Parker was inconsistent on this point. He would affirm that the Devil's seed could be saved if they chose to be saved, on one hand, and then say that they could not on the other hand. Parker did not believe that any being created in God's image could be damned. 

Further, consider the fact that the blessed Jesus was made a curse for us. (Gal. 3: 13) But, if God cannot curse what he had blessed, then he could not curse the blessed Jesus. In fact, many things that were originally blessed by God were later cursed by him. If God cannot turn blessings into curses, then can he turn curses into blessings? Adam and Eve were blessed while living in Eden, but when they rebelled against their God, they were cursed by him.

Potter wrote further and gave us tenet number eight:

"8. - "The non-elect are no more related to the elect than the cocklebur is to the corn, both growing in the same field." - Elder G. Dalby, in Herald of Truth."

This is what Two Seeders often said when talking about the parable of the wheat and the tares, saying that the wheat were never tares, and vice versa. We saw in a former chapter where Elder Joshua Lawrence, a first generation leader of the Hardshells of the Kehukee Association, strongly disagreed with this idea, affirming that the wheat were once tares. By this he means this is so in respect to what they are in themselves, that the saved were once unsaved, the regenerate were once unregenerate, the justified were once condemned, etc. He does not mean that the elect were once non-elect. The elect and the non-elect are "related" by both being descendants of Adam and Eve, both born in sin and under wrath. Jacob and Esau were twins, related to each other, and yet one was loved and chosen before he was born, and the other was hated and rejected before he was born. 

In reply to this tenet Potter wrote:

"8. Cain is considered one of the non-elect, and the Bible recognizes Cain and Abel as brothers. Every Bible reader knows that after Cain had killed Abel, the Lord inquired of Cain where his brother was. Gen. 9: 9. "Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil and his brother's righteous." I. John iii, 12. To be brothers, is to be children of the same parents. There must be quite a similarity, or a oneness in the nature of two brothers, if they both partake of the nature of their parents; and we can see no reason why Cain would not be as likely to partake of the nature of his parents as Abel. Jacob and Esau were brothers, as every one knows who is acquainted with the Bible. Matt. i: 2. They must be more related and more alike than corn and cockleburs."

Paul plainly says that believers were once children of disobedience and under God's wrath "even as others." (Eph. 2: 3) This fact is also seen in Romans 3: 10-12. All are alike condemned for the one sin of Adam. (Rom. 5: 12-18) "In Adam all die" (I Cor. 15: 22). All come from the same lump of clay, whether they are vessels of mercy afore prepared for glory, or vessels of wrath fitted for destruction. (Rom. 9) 

Potter wrote:

"God has made all things for himself; yea, even the wicked, for the day of evil." Proverbs xxi. 4. Then the wicked are not an emanation from the devil, as men, or produced, or brought forth by or from the devil, as the plant comes forth from the seed. For God made them, and he either made them when he made Adam, or he made him afterwards; or before. All the man the Bible gives any account of being made, was Adam, and it is generally conceded that when the Lord made him, he made all his posterity in him. God, then, made the wicked; not that he made them wicked, but he made them, and they became wicked. If the Bible ever says one word about the people of God pre-existing the creation and formation of Adam, we have so far failed to find it."

Potter attacks one of the chief errors of Two Seedism, one which says that the Devil's children were not created by God. This view says that there is more than one Creator. That is gross heresy indeed. When Potter says that "it is generally conceded that when the Lord made Adam that he made all his posterity in him," he should have explained that further. This is what the Two Seeders said loudly and began to make inferences from that fact. 

If it is true that every person whoever is born into the world existed in Adam when Adam was created, then how could there be a multiplied increase in the number of children as a result of Adam and Eve's sin? When Eve sinned and God cursed her with the prospect of bringing forth all the persons of the Devil's children, were they in Adam originally or placed in him after his original creation and after they had sinned? When did the children of the Devil originate in Adam? 

Potter is correct to say that the Bible no where says that anyone actually existed before they were conceived in the womb. They did exist in God's foreknowledge, and were represented by the Son of God, to whom they were given and promised by a covenant between the Father, Son, and Spirit. But, we cannot rely too much on arguments from silence. Are there not bible passages which state that a person's birth into the world is when they begin to exist? Yes, many. Why does Potter not cite those passages. 

Two Seed Baptist Ideology (XXXVI)

"that we should no longer be children, 

tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, 

by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting" 

(Ephesians 4: 14 nkjv)

What a mighty wind of false doctrine is Two Seedism! It has "tossed to and fro" those known as "Primitive," or "Old School," or "Hardshell" Baptists. Potter in his pamphlet* against Two Seedism said:

"Of those who maintain this doctrine, we find about as many different positions on it as we find men who advocate it. Their tongues are as badly confused as those of the builders of the Tower of Babel." 

*"UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION STATED AND DEFINED; OR, A DENIAL OF THE DOCTRINE OF ETERNAL CHILDREN, OR TWO SEEDS IN THE FLESH" and can be read (here)

In this chapter we will continue our examination of what Elder Lemuel Potter wrote in his pamphlet against Two Seedism in 1880. In that pamphlet he gave eleven tenets of Two Seedism and in the past few chapters we have given the first three along with Potter's response to each. Potter wrote further, giving us the fourth tenet of Two Seedism:

"4. - "Are the serpent's seed accountable beings to God, and on what principle will they be judged, condemned and punished? The serpent's seed are accountable to God, because they are in His rightful dominion, came into action in the world by way of God's creation, and live in this world on the bounties of heaven, and they will be justly condemned, not because they are the serpent's seed, or that God reprobated them to destruction before they were born, but because of their sins and acts of wicked rebellion against God, for they shall be judged according to their works." - Daniel Parker, Church Advocate, Vol. 2, No. 9, June, 1831, editorial."

Parker does not affirm that the "serpent's seed" were "accountable to God" because they were his creation, but because they were in his dominion. We have already seen where Parker did not believe that God created the Devil, and that he believed that all who were created in God's image would be saved, and so this involves believing that God did not create the Devil's children, nor that they were made in the image of God. How did the Devil's children get into God's dominion? Parker said that the Devil's children, like the evil angels (who he believed were humans), were particles infused into the human race. In chapter XII Nowlin cited Parker where he said this very thing. Also, Potter has already given us tenet number one in the list of Two Seed tenets, which said:

1. - "Now, dear sister, we agree with you, that God has no partnership with the devil. Nor do we believe that God created or made bodies for the devil or his children, or that the devil draws upon Eve for bodies. We believe that every seed produces its own body." - Herald of Truth, by Anderson Gordon, January 1878, p. 201."

Potter makes this comment on this Two Seed 4th tenet of Two Seedism:

"4. We endorse the idea that the wicked will be punished for their wickedness and rebellion against the government of God. By their sins they incur the just penalty of God's law, and they will be judged and condemned by it, just as the elect of God would without redemption from the curse of the law. Gal. iii: 13."

He did not, however, point out the things I just pointed out, and you would think that he should have done so. Further, why did he not cite other Two Seeders who said that nothing a person does in his life is a cause of his going to Hell forever? This was what tenet number three stated.

3. - "No man will be taken to eternity of bliss or sent to an eternity of woe for what he does in this world...our doings in this life only affect us in this life."

So why does Potter not say that Parker was wrong to deny that the Devil's seed were accountable to God because they were his creation and not simply because they were in God's dominion? Why does Potter not say that he agrees with Two Seeders on the proposition that says that nothing that a person does in this life is a reason why he goes to an eternity of bliss? He does say that he agrees with Parker in affirming that people go to Hell because of their sins, even though later Two Seeders denied this.

Potter wrote further, giving us tenet number five of the Two Seeder's creed, which stated:

"5. - "Are the serpent's seed human beings? If they are, how did they partake of humanity? The serpent's seed are human beings; they partook of their humanity by means of the creation which God had made. Creation was made good; the serpent corrupted and got into it, for which cause God yet multiplied its conception and made it capable of bringing forth the serpent's seed, and thus the children of the multiplied conception, coming through the created stock, are equally human beings with the children of creation, or divinely appointed conception, and the old serpent, the devil, is also the father of the wicked, corrupt nature that is in man, or in the world." - Church Advocate, Vol. 2, No. 9, June 1831, editorial."

Again, this is what Daniel Parker said, and it was not what other Two Seeders who followed him believed. So, why did Potter put this in his list of tenets of Two Seedism that are unsound? It is true that later Two Seeders would deny that the Devil's seed, or the "multiplied conception," were fully human beings, or had human souls, but Parker did not go that far. It is possible that Parker meant that the Devil's seed were humans physically, but not fully, lacking a soul and spirit.

It is allowable to say that the Devil sowed a "seed" into the woman's mind, that seed being a thought, or suggestion. After all, we do speak of thoughts being "conceived" in the mind. When Paul was in Athens and teaching the word of God, he was accused of being a "babbler," and the Greek word is spermalogos, which is a compound of "sperma" (seed) and "logos" (words). (See my posting on this here) Paul was viewed as one who was broadcasting seed, giving news. So we speak of newsmen as "broadcasters." The Devil did not sow his seed in the sense of child producing sperm.

Potter's response to this article said:

"5. So far as the manner of the serpent's seed partaking humanity is concerned, there are only three positions for us to take, provided they are human beings, and this item says they are; one is that God made them when he made Adam, or he made them after he made Adam, or he did not make them at all. If they are the wicked he made them, and if they are men and women he made them, as we have already shown above. We have no account in the Bible that God made any man but Adam. To say that the devil is the father of the wicked and corrupt nature that is in man or in the world, and that that makes some of them his seed, would be to make all of them his seed that possess the wicked and corrupt nature; and to take the wicked and corrupt nature out of all of them would leave him with no seed, and we would have the same men and women in the world; for the corrupt and wicked nature in man is no part of man."

Recall in earlier chapters we gave the rebuttal of Elder Joshua Lawrence to the Two Seedism of Daniel Parker and showed where Lawrence said that all lost sinners are children of the Devil and it is this same seed of the Devil that God makes into his children. All men are born in sin, born under wrath, born morally corrupt, and so they are all born children of the Devil.

Potter also said:

"We take Parker's position as quoted above, that the devil is the father of the wicked and corrupt nature that is in them, and that were it not for the provisions that God has made for the objects of his love, to redeem them from sin, and rid them of the wicked and corrupt nature, they would be fit for nothing but to live in the service of sin in this world, and at last to make their home eternally among the demons of eternal despair."

So, can we prove from scripture that those who become the children or seed of God were previously the children or seed of the Devil? In Matthew chapter three John the Baptist addresses Jews (Pharisees and Sadducees) and called them a "brood of vipers." Yet, to them he gives a warning to flee from the wrath to come, and says that he would baptize them upon their repentance, saying to them "I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance" and "he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire." (vs. 7-12) Who is the "you" in this text? Clearly it is to those vipers who repented and heeded the warning. If being vipers is equated with being children of the Devil, then by exhorting these vipers to repentance his aim was to make children of God out of the children of the Devil. In John chapter five Jesus addresses some of these children of the Devil and exhorts them to come to him for life and salvation. We should also call attention to the case of Cain, one whom the apostle John said was "of the Devil" (I John 3: 12), and who the Two Seeders who followed Parker said was of the Devil's seed and could therefore never be saved. However, notice what God says to Cain when he and his offering were rejected by him. The text says;

"but He did not respect Cain and his offering. And Cain was very angry, and his countenance fell. So the Lord said to Cain, "Why are you angry? And why has your countenance fallen? If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin lies at the door. And its desire is for you, but you should rule over it." (Gen. 4: 5-7 nkjv)

John Gill, the Calvinist, in his commentary on the expression - "If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted?" - says:

"...if thou doest thine offering well, or rightly offereth, as the Septuagint; or offers not only what is materially good and proper to be offered, but in a right way, in obedience to the divine will, from love to God, and with true devotion to him, in the faith of the promised seed, and with a view to his sacrifice for atonement and acceptance; then thine offering would be well pleasing and acceptable."

Gill does leave out the fact that not only would God accept Cain's offering when it is made in the right way and in the right motive, but Cain himself would be accepted. After all, the Lord not only rejected Cain's offering but also rejected Cain himself. Therefore his counsel to Cain involved what Cain should do to have both his offering and his person accepted by God. God says that Cain himself would be accepted if he did what he was counseled by God to do. So, this shows that children of the Devil may become children of God.

Potter wrote further, giving the following short statement for the sixth tenet of Two Seedism:

"6. - "Two seeds manifest in the flesh." - Herald of Truth, Vol. 3, No. 6."

Potter writes this in commentary on the above tenet:

"6. Two seeds manifest in the flesh would make a difference in the flesh; so that some men would be good seed in consequence of their natural birth. This would make flesh and blood inherit the kingdom of heaven. The Bible says, "Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God." I. Cor. xv: 50. Those that were admitted to John's baptism were not admitted because of their fleshly birth, but they must have other qualifications. Those who received Jesus when he came into the world were not different from those did not, by virtue of their natural birth; but they were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. It is being born of God that makes a difference between them and others, and even makes the same man different from what he was before. If the natural, or fleshly birth made a man a child of God, there would be no need of him being born again to entitle him to enter the kingdom of God. "That which is born of the flesh is flesh." John iii, 6."

Of course the bible teaches that the children of God are his seed or offspring. However, all men are God's offspring in a natural sense, as Paul said to the Athenian idolaters, citing from their own poet, "we are all God's offspring." (Acts 17:28) But, not all men are God's offspring by a spiritual birth. Lost sinners are God's offspring because they are God's creation, through procreation, but only those who have been "born of God" or "of incorruptible seed," through the Spirit and "by the word of God" (John 1: 12-13; I Peter 1: 23) are his spiritual children via a new creation. This is what Potter is arguing and it is fully scriptural. However, when he says that there is no difference between those who "received Jesus" and those who rejected him, he is going against what he himself teaches. Why? Because he and those "Primitive Baptists" who follow him today say that the reason why one receives Jesus and another not is because there is a difference between them, one being born of God and another not. Maybe this is why Potter adds these words after his comma -- "by virtue of their natural birth."

Potter also does not explain the Two Seed response to his rebuttal. As I have shown in previous chapters, Two Seeders like Beebe would say that the birth is not the begetting of the child, not the origin of the child, for the child born was "conceived" prior to the birth. So, Beebe would say that birth only "manifests" the already begotten child. He would say that the child born of the Spirit was "begotten" in eternity past when Christ was begotten as the Son of God. Potter and his brethren would say that being born of the Spirit "manifests" those who have been chosen to salvation. He and they would also say that "receiving Jesus" only manifests that one was already born of God, was already a child of God. This is contrary to what the apostle John wrote when 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)

They became children of God when they received Christ and believed on him, and not before. It is when they received him that they were "born of God."

In the next chapter we will continue our review of Potter's lengthy rebuttal of Two Seedism.

 

Two Seed Baptist Ideology (XXXV)

Several new testament texts speak of the necessity of holding to "sound" doctrine, and the above is one of them. (See also Titus 1: 9; I Tim. 1: 10; II Tim. 4: 3) The word "sound" means to be wholesome and healthy. Unsound doctrine is sick or unhealthy doctrine. The apostle Paul in the same vein also warned of false teachers who would arise within the community of saints and be found teaching "perverse things, to draw away disciples after them." (Acts 20: 30kjv) By "perverse things" he means perverted teachings, twisted or distorted interpretations of holy scripture. (See also II Peter 3: 16) In chapter 31 I cited Paul's warning about "strange doctrines." (Heb. 13: 9) Truly Two Seed doctrine is sick, perverted, and weird. 

Before we proceed to address what Elder Lemuel Potter wrote in 1880 against Two Seedism, I want to cite from O. Max Lee's book "DANIEL PARKER'S DOCTRINE OF THE TWO SEEDS" (1962), his Thesis Paper (See here), from which we cited much already in chapter 25. The reason for this is to enlarge upon what I stated in previous chapters regarding my assertion that the one tenet that all factions of Two Seed Primitive Baptists believed was the eternal oneness existing between Christ and his people or wife. This tenet necessitated believing that the children of God preexisted in Christ before their birth in the womb of their mothers. Another reason is to give further evidence of my contention that the idea that God saved his people by the means of the word of God or gospel was a Two Seed idea, even though Parker himself did not deny means. So, those "Primitive Baptists" today who say they are not Two Seeders and yet deny that God uses means are holding to Two Seed tenets in doing so. First, in regard to the doctrine of eternal vital union, Lee wrote:

"According to Parker, "the nature and certainty of the relationship or union which exists in Christ with his Church" was a crucial issue in his two-seeds doctrine. Parker said that an eternal oneness existed between Christ and His Church." (pg. 55)

"I wish to be understood as believing, and now aiming to prove, that Christ and his Church are one; and if they are now, or ever will be one, that, that oneness has existed as long as Christ has existed, as it is as impossible for a head to exist without a body, as for a body to exist without the head." (pg. 55)

"This oneness or union, while existing prior to God's creation, was demonstrated in the creation itself." (pg. 55)

"Having come into the world, the Church sinned. Adam, who stood with the Church (the elect) in him, partook of the forbidden fruit, causing him and the Church to deserve God's wrath. But because of Christ's union with and love for the Church, he married her human nature, assumed her debt of sin, and redeemed her from the curse of the law. Such a manifestation of love, while having no equal, was a logical outgrowth of the eternal union which existed between Christ and his Church." (pg. 56)

When Parker said - "because of Christ's union with and love for the Church, he married her human nature, assumed her debt of sin," he was denying the Calvinistic doctrine of "unconditional election" which affirms that the choice of sinners to salvation was not based upon any difference in the ones chosen from those not chosen. As we have seen, Elder Grigg Thompson dealt much with this consequence of the Two Seed doctrine, and so too did Elder Lemuel Potter. 

The idea of an eternal "vital" or "actual" union of Christ and his elect people is a foundational belief of all Two Seeders, and involves the idea that the elect existed in Christ from eternity. As we have seen, this belief had adverse effects for two bible doctrines, one dealing with unconditional election by grace, and the other with the nature and causes of regeneration or rebirth in the spirit. 

Now let us focus on the Two Seed idea that the means of gospel preaching and teaching are not means in the eternal salvation of sinners. Lee wrote (emphasis mine):

"In seeking to refute the two-seed views, Watson understood the doctrine to include (1) the denial of the resurrection of the bodies of the just and unjust, (2) the absence of souls in the non-elect, and (3) the rejection by God of the use of any kind of means to bring about salvation. Parker had explicitly taught the opposite in his two-seed views." (pg. 63)

Watson was correct in affirming that the Two Seeders who followed Parker did generally promote the idea that God did not use such means. Lee implies that Watson was wrong. But, that is not true. Watson never said that Parker himself denied means. We have given other testimonies of other elders of the 19th century who also all said that a denial of means was a Two Seed idea. We also saw this from my citation from the 1879 minutes of the Powell Valley Association of Primitive Baptists. Some Two Seeders taught that no such means were used by God to "regenerate" or "beget" sinners, but did teach that such means were used to "birth" those who were previously begotten and they connected this birthing with evangelical conversion. See my post titled "Elder Samuel Trott On Means" (here) and also chapter 52 of "The Hardshell Baptist Cult" series titled "Beebe Trott Model" (here).

Wrote Lee:

"Some groups which held generally to the two-seed views rejected certain portions of the doctrine. One such group, the Old School Baptists of Bethel and Muddy River Associations (Illinois), strenuously denied that the proclamation of the gospel had anything to do in bringing sinners to a knowledge of the truth.  Daniel Parker had declared just as strenuously that God used such means to bring sinners to repentance." (pg. 63-64)

Lee's failure is that he was not as familiar with the history of the "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptists as I am, although he was thoroughly knowledgeable of the writings of Daniel Parker, having access to them all. The two instances Lee mentions where Two Seed associations declared against means should have prevented Lee from thinking that Parker's belief in means showed that Two Seeders did not deny means. As I have been careful to state in previous chapters, though Parker believed in means his later followers began to deny them.

So, as we have before observed, it is ironic that Potter writes against Two Seedism in 1880 and yet becomes the leading advocate for the no means view that was spread by those Two Seeders who followed Parker. Beebe and Trott, however, were reluctant to deny means completely. They also did not think that anyone who did not love and believe in Jesus would go to heaven. With these preliminary comments, let us return to what Potter wrote. In the previous chapter we saw that he gave eleven items that Two Seeders thought were necessary to believe to be sound in the faith. We began with the first item in the list and now proceed to the next. Potter wrote further citing a Two Seeder:

"2. - "We affirm the following: Unconditional election and final redemption of all that God made, blessed and called Adam." - Herald of Truth, by the Editor, Jan. 1878, p. 206."

Many Two Seeders would say that Christ died for all of Adam's descendants, and some might think that this means that they believed that Christ made atonement for every human being, but that would be the wrong jump. That is because they did not believe that the Devil's seed came from Adam, or had souls.

In response to this Two Seed tenet Potter says:

"2. This item affirms the election and final redemption of all that God made, blessed and called Adam. This does not merely include those that God blessed; but it includes all that he made. Then surely it embraces the wicked. It embraces all nations of men that dwell on all the face of the earth. Is not this two-seeder a Universalist? Excuse us from believing the second extract."

This is a good rebuttal by Potter to this Two Seed tenet. Those who are children of the Devil and remain so till they die, will not be redeemed, and yet they are of the Adamic race. 

Potter wrote further and gave us this third tenet of Two Seedism:

3. - "No man will be taken to eternity of bliss or sent to an eternity of woe for what he does in this world. But those that are accounted worthy of an eternity of bliss, will receive it on the principle of heir-ship, as an inheritance, for what they are, and not for what they do. So, also, those sent to the region of endless misery will be sent there for what they are, and not for what they do. We say, without the fear of successful contradiction, that our doings in this life only affect us in this life." - Herald of Truth, Editor, Dec. 1878, pp. 69-70."

The statements highlighted in red are Two Seed beliefs and it is ironic that Potter and his brethren who denied that the gospel was a means in salvation, and so too faith and repentance, and perseverance, actually agree with the Two Seeders on these statements. I recall reading an article by Elder C. H. Cayce where he said that a person reaps in the same field in which he sows, meaning that a person only reaps in this life for the things he has done, whether good or bad, and so no one reaps in the afterlife. If this is true, then no one goes to Hell for anything he did in this life, for no sin committed. It also denies that coming to Christ, believing in him, or repenting of sin, are necessary conditions for being eternally saved. 

This is so clearly heresy for it is against what is so plainly taught in the Bible. Many of today's "Primitive Baptists" would agree with the first statement, that no one will go to heaven for anything he did in life. They would not agree, however, with the second statement, that no one will go to hell for anything he did in life. All this is quite heretical of course, for if the former statement was true, then it would mean that coming to Christ is unnecessary for a person to do in order to go to heaven, nor believing in God or Christ, nor repenting of sin, etc. 

Notice again the irony in what Potter says. He condemns the Two Seed view given, and yet he himself believed that nothing the sinner does is a necessary condition for salvation, and which makes himself a Two Seeder in this respect also. 

Potter replies to this Two Seed article of faith by saying:

"3. There are two points in this we want to call attention to: the first is, that we receive an eternity of bliss on the principle of heirship as an inheritance. That is all good enough, if it does not carry with it the idea that we were eternally heirs, and consequently eternally children. The Bible says, "That being justified by His grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life." Tit. iii, 7. "And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed and heirs according to the promise." Gal. iii, 29. Not that we were eternally heirs, in consequence of which the promise was made, but we are heirs according to the promise. "Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will." Eph. i: 6. Not that we were eternally children, but God predetermined to adopt us children." 

Again, this is a good rebuttal to the Two Seed idea that no one suffers in the afterlife or in eternal torment in Hell for any sins he committed in his life. No one was an actual heir of God in eternity past, nor before he had an existence in time, nor is he an heir before he actually becomes a child of God. Even then, the child does not obtain his inheritance until he has come of age. Isaac was chosen by God to be the heir of Abraham before he was conceived and born into the world, and so too with everyone of the elect. But, they do not actually become heirs by the preordination.

Potter replies to the second part of that tenet, saying:

"The next is those that are sent to the region of endless misery, will go there for what they are, not for what they do. That our works only effect us in this life. The Bible says, "And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life, and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works." Rev. xx: 12. The next verse closes by saying, "and they were judged every man according to his works." The writer was speaking of the dead, and he certainly does hold forth the idea that the wicked are punished for what they do, and that their works do effect them after this life. Our sins affect us after this life to the extent that none could go to heaven until their sins are forgiven, hence the use of redemption from sin by the Great Redeemer."

Potter is correct in his argumentation and shows by the scriptures that men will suffer in the afterlife and in eternity for the evil deeds they did in life. It is sad however that he did not see how men will also be rewarded in the afterlife for the good deeds they did in life, and that eternal salvation is given to those who did certain things, such as come to Christ, believe, repent, and persevere. Jesus taught this. He said:

"Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am, you will die in your sins.” (John 8: 24 nasb)

Believing is something people do, and doing or not doing that determines whether they go to Heaven or Hell. Jesus also said:

"I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread that I shall give is My flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world...Then Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day." (John 6: 51, 53-54 nkjv)

This is another text that overthrows the Two Seed notion that says that nothing a person does in his life determines whether he will go to Heaven and have eternal life. Eating the bread of life, partaking of Christ, must be done by a sinner in order to be saved in Heaven.

In the next chapter we will continue our examination of Potter's list of eleven Two Seed tenets and of his rebuttal to each.

 

Two Seed Baptist Ideology (XXXIV)

Elder Lemuel Potter's (1841 - 1897) book against Two Seedism is titled "UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION STATED AND DEFINED; OR, A DENIAL OF THE DOCTRINE OF ETERNAL CHILDREN, OR TWO SEEDS IN THE FLESH" and can be read (here) and was written in 1880. The book above is only one of several books he wrote and published.

I will begin by citing these words from that book (emphasis mine):

"For the past fifty years there have been so many vain speculations among the brethren of the Baptist family on the subject of what is known as "Two Seedism," and the advocates of the doctrine having become so badly confused among themselves as to what the Two Seed doctrine is, it has caused the author of this little work to begin to investigate the subject for himself, which has resulted in the conclusions found in the following pages. Some brethren, when speaking or writing on the apostle's writing relative to the vessels of mercy and the vessels of wrath, seem to make it appear that God had made the vessels of wrath and hardened them in order that they should be wicked, and then he would be glorified in their destruction. We find no account of his ever hardening any man to make him wicked, but because they were already wicked."

The period of time Potter refers to by saying "for the past fifty years" is 1830-1880. Also, by "the Baptist family" he means not all Baptists but only those who Potter agreed with, or with those who called themselves "Primitive," or "Old School," or "Hardshell" Baptists, with few exceptions. No other Baptist group had Two Seeders among them.

Potter is correct in his description of the historical development of Two Seedism among the Hardshell Baptists of the 19th century. He says what other "Primitive Baptists" have said about Two Seedism's varied beliefs. In my post "Hassell On PB Two Seed Ancestry" (See here) I cited Sylvester Hassell from the Gospel Messenger (March, 1894) where he wrote:

"It would be impossible to tell how many changes and forms, each one inconsistent with itself, with the others, and with the Scriptures, Two-Seedism has assumed during that period."

Some Two Seeders believed the Devil was uncreated, others did not. Some denied the resurrection, others did not. Some denied the devil's children had souls, others did not. Etc. The one common tenet held by all Two Seeders, however, is the idea of "eternal vital union," a doctrine that says that when Christ was begotten or made a mediator in eternity past, so too were his seed, or children, begotten in him. This tenet involves believing that the human soul or Christ was begotten when he was begotten as the Son of God, and that this begetting of the Son of God had nothing to do with his divinity. 

What is interesting to notice in the above words of Potter is his statement that "after fifty years" of hearing the "many vain speculations" of Two Seedism that he was then "caused" to become "the author of this little work" and "to begin to investigate the subject for himself, which has resulted in the conclusions found in the following pages." Is he saying that he did not investigate the tenets of Two Seedism until after those fifty years? Does that mean he held to Two Seedism until 1880 when he finally reached the "conclusions" found in his lengthy rebuttal of Two Seedism? 

It was in the 1880s that there began to be a heated debate over whether the Gospel was a means in the eternal salvation of sinners and Potter became a leader on the side that denied means. Up until this time there existed within the "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptists those who believed in means and those who did not. Prior to the Civil War it seems that the majority of the "Primitive Baptists" believed in means, but after the Civil War the anti-means side became the majority and forced a formal division. Elder Potter led the way in his debate with Elder W. T. Pence on this question in 1890. The Primitive Baptist Library in Illinois writes about this (here). A fellow "Primitive" or "Regular" Baptist who led the means side was Elder E. H. Burnam, and Hardshell historians speak of the division that occurred over the means question as the "Burnamite" split. I write about him and the debate between Pence and Potter in these posts (See here, here, here).

As I have shown in previous chapters, Elder Watson, Elder Preslar, Elder Conrad, and others said that the no means view came from the Parkerites, or Two Seeders, though Daniel Parker believed in means. So, it is ironic that Potter is writing against Two Seedism and yet in several of his beliefs he still remained a Two Seeder. I cited Elder Preslar, who in his book "Thoughts on Divine Providence" wrote the following about the beliefs of Two Seeders:

"And as to their views of the use and design of the gospel being for nothing but for the edification of the Church, and believers being the only subjects of gospel address, I believe it not." (Page 186) 

You can read about this in my post "Hosea Preslar & Watson" (here). By "their views" he is referring to the Two Seeders. Potter believed that the Gospel was for the sole benefit of those who were already saved apart from the Gospel and in this he remained a Two Seeder in spite of rejecting certain tenets of that system. 

Potter also wrote:

"Hence we believe that the whole family of Adam stood in him, and by his transgression fell under the law. Out of Adam's posterity, God chose a people for his name as the objects of his mercy and grace, for whom he made all the rich provisions of his grace in Christ before the world began; not because they had any right to be chosen, or that he was under any obligations whatever to choose them, only his own eternal purpose to do so."

One of the major objections that Potter and others, such as Grigg Thompson, made against Two Seedism was that it denied the traditional doctrine of unconditional election. The Two Seeders say that God chose his people because they were already "in Christ" by having been begotten in him from eternity. Potter shows that this view says that God chose people because they were already his children or seed by being in Christ. This view says that Christ was obligated to save the elect, because they were his seed or his wife. 

Potter wrote the following under the sub-heading "WHAT IS A MAN REQUIRED TO BELIEVE IN ORDER TO BE A SOUND BAPTIST?":

"This may be thought a foolish question, but we think, dear reader, if you will read the following you will not be so much surprised at it after all. We have been asked as often as any one man, in all probability, in this country, "Do you believe the Two Seed Doctrine?" and in order that we be considered sound among some of our brethren, we must be a "two-seeder." Among others, we must not be if we are considered sound. We have been questioned by our brethren on both sides of this question in a manner that seemed to us to fear that we might not be exactly square-toed on the subject of "Two-Seedism." We have always thought best not to name a doctrine, and then condemn it for its name, or believe it for its name. We never felt willing to say we believed the two seed doctrine, and then let some man tell us what it was, so we have generally called for a definition of the terms before we could answer."

Just as the "fifty year" period of time that Potter speaks of (1830-1880), relative to those who called themselves "Primitive," "Old School," or "Hardshell" Baptists, had Two Seeders and non-Two Seeders existing together during that time, so too did that same period have two sides of the means question existing together without any divisions, and the same may be said relative to the question over the extent of predestination or the divine decrees. Some believed as Beebe that God had predestined everything that exists or event that comes to pass and they would become known as "Absoluters." Others argued that God only predestinated what is related to salvation. The split over means and predestination occurred in the last quarter of the 19th century primarily, and so too did the split over Two Seedism reach its height in that time frame. When Grigg Thompson wrote his treatise against Two Seedism (1860) there began a more intense rivalry of these two sides. Recall that I cited from the 1879 minutes of the Powell Valley Association which said:

"We as an association advise our sister churches to have no fellowship with what is generally known as the two-Seed Heresy or those who teach the doctrine of an Eternally damned or Eternally Justified outside of the preaching of the gospel of the Kingdom of God and teach that the unbeliever is no subject of gospel address. We believe that God makes use of the Gospel as a means of calling his Elect and this means is the work of the Spirit in the church."

Potter wrote further:

"In order to be a sound Two Seed Baptist, we are required to believe..."

Potter then lists eleven Two Seed tenets. We will give some in this chapter along with Potter's rebuttal and give others in the next chapters. After listing those tenets he writes:

"Can any one man believe all that is set forth in the above eleven extracts, in order to be considered sound in the faith? Surely that would be requiring a great deal of a man."

"We might go on and point out more contradictions, but we leave our readers to do that. We now propose to notice each one separately, and see how they corroborate with the Bible. We begin with the first and take them in their order, and we desire the brethren to study them carefully."

Potter gives the following as the first on the list:

1. - "Now, dear sister, we agree with you, that God has no partnership with the devil. Nor do we believe that God created or made bodies for the devil or his children, or that the devil draws upon Eve for bodies. We believe that every seed produces its own body." - Herald of Truth, by Anderson Gordon, January 1878, p. 201."

Notice that Potter cites from the "Herald of Truth," and it seems that what he says leads one to think that said periodical was a Two Seed publication. However, in previous chapters we have given evidence that it was started by Elder R.W. Fain, a leader in the fight against Two Seedism. In chapter 31 of this series we gave evidence of this from the Primitive Baptist Library. Perhaps Potter is citing from what Two Seeders said in writing to this periodical, or what Elder Fain was quoting from the Two Seeders. It sure would help to find in a Baptist library old issues of this periodical and see the debate over Two Seedism that was carried on in this periodical. Elder Fain promoted "The Old Baptist Test" book by Elder Watson and wrote the introduction to it. After the Civil War he, along with a couple other Primitive Baptist elders, started the weekly periodical "The Baptist Watchman." He and the other elders on the editorial staff believed in means and saw the no means view as being a Two Seed idea. 

In the above citation, the Two Seeder, named Anderson Gordon, said that the bodies of the devil's children were not made by God or through Eve. This is a heresy of the worst sort. It denies that God is the only creator, and makes the Devil a creator. Did Potter believe this in those years when he said he favored Two Seedism? If so, what took him so long to discover its falsity?

Here is what Potter said in response to the first tenet on his list:

"1. In this item we read, "Nor do we believe that God made or created bodies for the devil or his children." The Bible says, "God hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil." Prov. xvi. 4. If the wicked are not the children of the devil, we doubt his having any. "And hath made of one blood all nations of men to dwell on the face of the earth." Acts xvii, 25. Are the devil's children included in all nations of men? If so, God made them; if not, they are not men. So the Bible being right, the first item is wrong. We might multiply quotations to this point, but our space will not allow us to do so."

I find it incredible that Elder Potter once believed Two Seedism. Did he not see this error of Two Seedism during the fifty year period he mentions? Why did he wait till 1880 to denounce this tenet of Two Seedism (that denies that God is the sole Creator)? He is of course right in what he says in rebuttal to this Two Seed tenet.  

 

Two Seed Baptist Ideology (XXXIII)

Elder Lemuel Potter

1841 - 1897

I have two chapters on "Eternal Vital Union" and one on "Hollow Log Doctrine" from my writings titled "The Hardshell Baptist Cult" (which has its own blog with 128 chapters, which I began writing back in 2008; See here). Those chapters can be read in that blog (here, and here and here) or in my blog that has all my Two Seed Baptist writings and chapters (See here). In those chapters I cited much from Lemuel Potter and some from others, such as Grigg Thompson, J. H. Oliphant, William Conrad, S. F. and C. H. Cayce, etc. So, some of what I will be writing in the next several chapters may be but a repeat of what I wrote therein. In the past two chapters we have looked at what two of the leading elders of the "Primitive Baptist" or "Old School" Baptists wrote in opposition to Two Seedism, namely Elder Joshua Lawrence and Elder Grigg Thompson. Beginning with this chapter we will focus on what Elder Lemuel Potter of Illinois wrote against Two Seedism, beginning around 1880. In the first link of the three in parentheses I focus on what Elder Potter wrote. In the second link I focus on what Elder William Conrad (1797-1882) of Kentucky wrote against Two Seedism in his book "Life And Travels Of William Conrad." He was a contemporary of T. P. Dudley, one of the leaders of the Two Seeders from whom we cited much in previous chapters. In the third link I cite again from Potter, Grigg Thompson, S.F. Cayce, C.H. Cayce, and a few others.

Elder Potter says that when he first began to preach among the "Primitive," or "Regular" Baptists, that he favored the Two Seed doctrine. I wrote on this in a posting titled "The Church Advocate" Periodical" (See here) and cited from Potter's book "Life and Travels of a Poor Sinner." In that post I wrote:

"The Church Advocate" periodical was first begun by Elder Daniel Parker in 1829 to promote his "two seed" views. What is interesting is the fact that Elder Lemuel Potter, about fifty years or so later, an opponent of "Two Seedism," started a paper and named it "Church Advocate."

"Elder Lemuel Potter resumed publication of his paper, the "Church Advocate" in 1892, to oppose the "means" doctrine. The first issue of the paper in 1892 aggressively opposed those who were introducing these departures. Elder Potter stated that the "Means" party claimed that they had about 100 churches with about 5,000 members." (From Primitive Baptist Library - here)

I have not been able to ascertain when he first began this paper. I do know that he used it to fight two major theological views; Two Seedism and Means. If one reads Potter's book "Life And Travels Of A Poor Sinner" (here) he will find Potter saying this:

"When I first joined the church and began to preach, there was a great deal said about the Two Seed doctrine, and the most of our preachers of southern Illinois believed it. It was nothing uncommon to hear a minister speak out in favor of that doctrine in his sermons. It seemed that in our immediate connection, it had the ascendency (sic). Some of the Associations in our correspondence passed resolutions that the belief or disbelief of that doctrine should not be a bar to fellowship. For several years after I commenced preaching, I rather favored it, enough to accept it at least, and without any investigation of the matter, I did not know but what it was the doctrine of our people generally. I finally began to study the matter for myself, and I soon became satisfied that if it was the Baptist doctrine I did not believe it. After trying to discourage the agitation of it for a few years, I studied the matter so much that I finally concluded to write on that subject, which I did, and put out a small work, giving my objections to it, in the year 1880." (pg. 262) 

I find it strange and ironic that Potter would name his periodical the same as Daniel Parker named his periodical, seeing that Potter was at that date strongly opposing Two Seedism. I also find it strange that he says that he started that periodical to fight against the doctrine that God uses the means of his word or gospel in regeneration and eternal salvation and yet Daniel Parker believed in means, as we have seen. Later Two Seeders did lead the way in teaching that means were not used in God's saving of sinners. We have Elder John Watson's testimony to that fact. We also have Elder Hosea Preslar's testimony of that fact. We could also mention Elder William Conrad who testified the same in his book "Life and Travels of Elder William Conrad." In the previous chapter I cited from the testimony of several other first generation leaders of the newly formed "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptist sect that also said that the no means view originated among the Two Seed Primitive Baptists who followed Parker. 

In a post titled "Powell's Valley Originally Espoused Gospel Means" I cited from a book titled "The History of the Baptists of Tennessee" by Lawrence Edwards (August, 1940) and from chapter five titled "THE TWO-SEED HERESY AND ABSOLUTE PREDESTINATION," where he wrote (See here):

"The Two-Seed doctrine, which was beginning to occupy the attention of the churches in the early 1870's, continued to plague the Primitive Baptists, especially those of the Powell Valley association, until 1889, when a split occurred in the association. The Nolachucky association, too, felt the impact of this conflict, but no complete rift, such as the Powell Valley experienced, occurred in any of the other East Tennessee associations.

At the 1879 meeting of the Powell Valley association the tenth item of business said: Committee appointed to draft advice to the churches in regard to the Two-Seed doctrine, who reported as follows:

We as an association advise our sister churches to have no fellowship with what is generally known as the two-Seed Heresy or those who teach the doctrine of an Eternally damned or Eternally Justified outside of the preaching of the gospel of the Kingdom of God and teach that the unbeliever is no subject of gospel address. We believe that God makes use of the Gospel as a means of calling his Elect and this means is the work of the Spirit in the church."

Here we see where Edwards also shows how the "eternal justification" and "no means" views were identified as part of Two Seedism. Many of today's "Primitive Baptists" accept the "eternal justification" view, men such as David Pyles, pastor of Grace Primitive Baptist church of Pearl, Mississippi, and nearly all of them accept the "no means" view. So, though they may say that they are not Two Seeders, that is not totally true.

I also am astounded by the fact that some of the first "Primitive," "Old School," or "Hardshell" Baptists who did not believe in Two Seedism nevertheless did not declare non-fellowship for Two Seeders. We have seen in the previous chapters where Elder Grigg Thompson published his book "The Measuring Rod" wherein he said that such churches and ministers who believed in Two Seedism were not true churches and ministers, and that he doubted they were even saved. At that time there were churches and associations who were beginning to declare non-fellowship for Two Seed churches, but prior to that time, and even in the time of Thompson, many tolerated Two Seedism, not seeing it as a heresy, as Potter says. How could such people declare non-fellowship for Missionary Baptists because they supported mission work and religious education and yet tolerate Two Seedism? Hosea Preslar and John Watson both said they believed that Two Seedism was far worse than the errors of Missionary Baptists from whom they had declared non-fellowship. In the previous chapter I cited the words of Elder John Watson from his book "The Old Baptist Test" where he said: "It also soon became evident that we would have to tolerate the heresy or separate from the Churches which entertained it." So, which choice did the new denomination choose at the first? 

The ones who rejected Two Seedism tolerated it for the most part and it took decades for the new denomination to declare Two Seedism a heresy and rid themselves of it, although, as I have stated, remnants of it still remain to this day among the "Primitive" or "Hardshell" Baptists. We have given evidence of that fact in previous chapters. In my post titled "Hassell On PB Two Seed Ancestry" (See here) I cite Hassell's testimony from "The Gospel Messenger" (March, 1894) where he wrote, speaking of Two Seedism: "the blighting Satanic delusions with which their churches have been cursed for nearly sixty years." Sixty years would take in the time period between 1834-1894. He also said: "It would be impossible to tell how many changes and forms, each one inconsistent with itself, with the others, and with the Scriptures, Two-Seedism has assumed during that period." 

As stated in the first paragraph of this chapter, I have already written much on what Elder Lemuel Potter wrote against Two Seedism. So, a lot of this will repetition of what I wrote in those chapters from my writings in "The Hardshell Baptist Cult." I will perhaps put some of those citations in this series as it will put it all together. I do have those chapters in my blog devoted to all my writings on Two Seedism. 

Elder James H. Oliphant (1846-1925), a well known leader of the "Primitive Baptists" and who was the chosen moderator of the "Fulton Convention" (1900), in his book "Principles And Practices Of The Regular Baptists" (See here) writes (1883): 

"We think that the doctrine of the two seeds, as taught by Parker, and also the doctrine of eternal vital union, as held by others, are opposed to the doctrine of election as taught by the bible, and that they are equally as objectionable as the doctrine of election as taught by Wesley. Each of these views finds the reasons of one's election in himself. Wesley ascribes our election to our obedience, which is at war with grace. Parker and others find a difference in the origin of men that accounts for the election of some and the reprobation of others, while the bible puts it upon the sovereignty of God. Eld. Lemuel Potter has recently published a pamphlet in which this subject is fully investigated, in which he has shown that all these views are open to the same objections."

In the next chapter we will continue to look at what Elder Potter wrote on Two Seedism.

 

Two Seed Baptist Ideology (XXXII)

Elder W. M. Mitchell

1819 - 1901

Elder John M. Watson, who we have cited from extensively in the earlier chapters, from his book "The Old Baptist Test" (designed to chiefly combat Two Seedism or Parkerism), said the following on page 28 (highlighting mine):

"After our painful separation from the Missionaries in 1836, a number of Churches, in the bounds of the old Concord association, met together and formed the Stones River Association. We had then, as was generally supposed, a strong and happy union; but alas! there was an element of heresy incorporated in that body as bad, if not worse, than that from which we had just withdrawn. This heresy-the two-seed doctrine as it is termed-was at the time of the formation of the Stones River Association, very prevalent in the Caney Fork Association. Ministers from that section of the country frequently visited some of the Churches in our associations. In this manner they preached among us until it was soon perceived that their words began to eat as doth a canker on the minds of some of the brethren. It also soon became evident that we would have to tolerate the heresy or separate from the Churches which entertained it." (You can read his book here) 

I have in previous chapters called attention to the fact that it is bewildering how the "Primitive" or "Old School" or "Hardshell" Baptists, the ones who were behind the "anti-mission movement" of the early 19th century, could declare non fellowship for Baptists who supported mission societies, theological or bible education, bible and tract distribution, revival meetings, etc., and yet tolerate the Two Seed or Parkerite heresy. Many Baptists, in order to prevent division, tried to reason with the Hardshells, arguing that the antis were not obligated to support such things, and that they should allow others to do so without declaring non fellowship against them. Could not both sides tolerate each other? The Hardshells said that they could not tolerate having fellowship with mission Baptists and declared them heretics. Elder Watson agrees that mission societies and the other things mentioned above were heretical and is why he was on the anti-mission side. However, in the above citation he says that the Two Seed doctrine was "as bad, if not worse, than" the perceived heresy of the Missionary Baptists. I suspect, especially after reading his book, that he actually did consider Two Seedism to be far worse than perceived unscriptural mission methods; And, indeed it is. The former chapters show this to be the case. 

At this point in our series we have begun to show what the leaders of the opposition to the Two Seed heresy began to say in their attacks upon it. We began with Elder John Watson in earlier chapters, and have mentioned a few others, such as Elder Hosea Preslar. In the past few chapters we have seen what Elder Grigg Thompson wrote in 1861 against Two Seedism and those who were promoting it. In the next few chapters we will look at what Elder Lemuel Potter and others wrote in their attacks upon Two Seed ideology. But, before we do this I want to write some things about the suspected Two Seedism of Elder W. M. Mitchell of Alabama. Recall that in chapter thirty of this series, I cited Grigg Thompson who wrote the following about Elder Mitchell (pictured above), citing from this mid 19th century leader of the "Primitive Baptist Church":

"Eld. Wm. Mitchell, of Ala., says, that "the penalty of the law given to Adam was death, and when the transgressor dies, he has paid the penalty, and that is the end of him." Another says that, "These bodies are only adapted as a temporary residence for the spiritual man to dwell in, and that when this spiritual man leaves it, God will have no farther use for it; that it will return to the earth, and be destroyed with the earth. "I know of none of them in Georgia but what teach that "the Adam man, soul, body, and spirit, dies, and sinks down into the grave." (pgs. 88-89)

I then wrote this in commenting upon this citation:

"Elder Mitchell, a leader of the "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptists in Alabama, was a Two Seeder, a fact that today's Hardshell Baptists in that state want to hide. Thompson thinks he was. If one reads old issues of the "Signs of the Times" or "The Southern Baptist Messenger" he will see Elder Mitchell writing in support many times. If what Thompson says is correct, it appears that Elder Mitchell did not believe in the resurrection of the bodies of the wicked. He also says that a large number of Two Seed Primitive Baptists believed in annihilation for the wicked non-elect."

Elder Mitchell became associated with Elder Respess as an associate editor of "The Gospel Messenger" in 1881, a paper to which Elder Sylvester Hassell also became a contributing editor, and who became its owner after the death of Elder Respess. But, prior to Mitchell becoming an editor of that periodical, he was a frequent writer to "The Southern Baptist Messenger" and I have just read through many of his writings in that periodical for the years 1860 and 1862. So far these are the only years available on the Internet. (See here) So far I have not found where Mitchell wrote anything in support of Two Seedism, nor in scanning through those issues have I noticed where anyone else wrote about it. Elder Grigg Thompson, however, believes that Mitchell was a Two Seeder and cites the few words of his above (but does not tell us where Mitchell wrote them) where he seems to believe that the wicked are annihilated at death. Elder Sylvester Hassell did not believe in Two Seedism and I would think that when Mitchell was an editor of "The Gospel Messenger" that he had abandoned Two Seedism or he would not have been on the editorial staff with elders Hassell and Respass. 

I rather believe that Elder Mitchell, like Elder Potter, accepted Two Seed views when he first started preaching, as this was the popular view in Alabama when he began to preach. I believe, however, as time went on and Two Seedism was slowly but surely having fewer adherents, that many preachers got off the Two Seed bandwagon and jumped onto the anti Two Seed bandwagon. I believe this was the case with Grigg Thompson when he wrote against it in his 1860-61 book "The Measuring Rod" and also with Elder Lemuel Potter in 1880 when he wrote his own diatribe against Two Seedism. Recall that Potter says that when he first began to preach that he favored the Two Seed view, but sometime later rejected it. He for years regularly wrote to the "Signs of the Times" and expressed support for Beebe and Trott, knowing that they were promoting Two Seedism, and he wrote extensively for the "Southern Baptist Messenger," both being, as Grigg Thompson said, clearly Two Seed periodicals. So, if he did not believe in Two Seedism at first, he at least raised no objection to it. But, as we will see, he seems to be questioning Two Seedism in 1880. Is this because of what Grigg Thompson wrote in 1861 or Potter wrote in 1880?

I want now to cite from Elder Mitchell, in the March 1st, 1880 issue of the "Signs of the Times" (See here) and show what he writes to Gilbert Beebe and asking him for clarification for his views on Two Seedism. Wrote Mitchell (emphasis mine):

"Beloved Brother Beebe:--I know that you have explained and re-explained so frequently on the subject of the new birth, that it would seem like an attempt to annoy you to even suggest a further explanation from you; yet I know you are not fully understood by even some of your warmest friends and brethren, who I am quite certain have no design to misrepresent or injure you. Or if they do understand you, they are not yet prepared to indorse or accept the position which you are understood to take on one point. You, and the brethren generally, I think, are agreed that the very identical man that sinned, is the very man that has to be redeemed by Christ and born of the Spirit in order to enter the spiritual kingdom of God. I do not think there is any misunderstanding on this point. But the difficulty is that you are understood to hold that not only the man is born again, but that the self-existent spirit of God is also born of God. I will refer to your editorial in reply to brother Martin, in the Signs of January 1st, 1877, quoting only so much of your sentences as refer to this particular point. You say, "soul and body and spirit that were and are born of the flesh--sinful and depraved--necessitated to be redeemed, washed, cleansed, purified and born again." Then in the next sentence it is said, "The spiritual life which is given to us in the new birth is born of God." This is in the second column, tenth page; and then again on same page, third column, there is a repetition in substance of the same sentiment, that the "earthly nature and Adamic man is born of the Spirit," and also that "eternal life," that never was defiled, "is born of God" and it "cannot sin, because it is born of God." Again, you say, "This life in us is born of the Spirit, and is spirit; but it is not the spirit of the flesh, which is vile, but it is the spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead." Is there any scriptural authority for saying that both the sinner and the spirit of Almighty God are alike born of God? Or do you indeed intend to convey the idea, as some understand you do, that the spirit of Almighty God that raised up Jesus from the dead is born of God, or a subject of the new birth, as the sinner is? I have italicized the points which present the difficulty in the minds of some of your readers, and tried to state the matter in as short and concise a manner as possible. Be assured, my dear aged brother, that no unkind feelings have dictated the above. Affectionately your brother."

As we have seen in previous chapters, Beebe often spoke out of both sides of his mouth relative to Two Seed views on what it means to be regenerated, begotten, and born of the Spirit. This sometimes drew criticism from brethren Samuel Trott and T. P. Dudley, two leading advocates for Two Seedism. In the above queries from Mitchell he gives citations from what Beebe wrote about what it means to be begotten or born of God. Those citations do show that Beebe was perhaps confused at this point in his life about his former Two Seed views. Beebe responds to written questions that Elder Mitchell submitted to him and writes (emphasis mine):

"The points in our former writings to which our dear brother has called our attention, we will now consider. We do most certainly believe that the very identical man that sinned is the very same that is redeemed by Christ, and must be born of the Spirit in order to see or enter into the spiritual kingdom of God, for so our Savior has expressly declared with a double asseveration, John iii. 3. But we do not believe that the self-existent spirit of God is either begotten or born, for that self-existent Spirit is God himself. We know of no other self-existent, Spirit than that God who is a Spirit, and of whom we are told. that they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.--John iv.24. But, while we believe that God is self-existent and independent, possessing all the eternal perfections of his supreme Godhead, we also read, that he is the Father of children which he has begotten, and who are in his own appointed time born of his spirit. The Spirit therefore by which they are begotten, and of which they are born, is self-existent but the children which are born of the Spirit are not self-existent; but being born of God, are children or sons of God, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit: it is not flesh or blood, or earthly, but it is spiritual and heavenly. Every one who has this spirit which is born of the Spirit, and is led by it, is by is sealed with it..." 

The first thing I want to address in regard to the words of Beebe is his statement that he did not believe that "the self-existent spirit of God is either begotten or born." He also says that "Spirit" is "God himself." One wonders why he did not capitalize "spirit" in the first citation but did in the second. Second, he believes, as we have seen in former chapters, that he believed that Christ and his people were "begotten" and "created in Christ Jesus" in eternity. Third, I have colored red the words "begotten" and "born" in the above words, because this will become important in our analysis of what Beebe is trying to say. In Beebe's mind, and in the mind of most "Primitive Baptists" in his day, being begotten was not the same as being born. A man was begotten before he was born. He often said "birth is not the beginning of the child." This is true in regard to physical birth, and those of us who fight against the abortion promoters constantly affirm this fact. Before I expand on this difference, I want to cite from what Elder Trott wrote in the "Signs of the Times" about the statement of Paul that "the second Adam was made a quickening spirit." (I Cor. 15: 45) This text, as we have seen, was much disputed and is the context around the discussions about this "self-existent spirit" that Mitchell raised, connected with Beebe's former writing which said "the spiritual life which is given to us in the new birth is born of God." In chapter 17 I cited these words of Elder Samuel Trott, a friend of Gilbert Beebe and writer for the "Signs of the Times":

"They (the Fort Mountain brethren) try to convince the minds of the readers that Christ was never made a Quickening Spirit as so expressly asserted in that text...I will answer the questions they put to me. The first is, Whether the quickening and life giving spirit of God is a created existence? I answer decidedly yes.--The text under consideration I think gives me full authority to answer. It says, "The last Adam was made a Quickening Spirit." A Quickening Spirit I presume they will admit must a life giving spirit. To be made is equivalent to being created."

Is Beebe now disagreeing with this in 1880? 

What did Beebe mean when he said that the man who sinned is the same man who is born again of the Spirit? In earlier chapters we have seen that Beebe and Trott taught that "the new man" was that man who was begotten or made before the world began when Christ was begotten or made, and "the old man" was the human man who was of the seed of Adam. Under that framework the "new man" was "begotten" in Christ before the world began, but was not "born" until it entered into the human man and "manifested" itself. So, in Beebe's Two Seed paradigm there is actually two begettings and one birth. The first begetting occurred when Christ was begotten as the Son of God or Mediator (and which has nothing to do with his divinity) and the second begetting occurred when an earthly man was "regenerated." Then, sometime later after spending time in the womb (corresponding to the time under conviction of sin and in darkness about Christ and the way of salvation) there would be a "birth" (corresponding to the time when a person receives Christ or a hope in Christ). 

If by being "born" Beebe means something like the "hollow log" metaphor of rebirth (that I wrote about in earlier chapters), then being "born" of God simply refers to a time when an eternal preexisting child of God enters a man as a rabbit enters a log, and where the entrance of the rabbit does not change the log nor the man, but only temporarily served the needs of the rabbit, then he doesn't believe the new birth changed the new man. The only change to the "old man" (the hollow log) was that it now was the residence of the "new man." This paradigm is behind these words of Beebe: "the Father of children which he has begotten, and who are in his own appointed time born of his spirit." A good follow up question to Beebe would have been - "when were the children begotten?" Another would be - "when is the begotten child born of the Spirit?" In the above words Beebe clearly believes that the begetting occurs before the birth. In his previous writings, as we have seen, he has affirmed that the children of God were begotten and made new creatures before the world began when Christ was begotten and made a Mediator.

Wrote Beebe further:

"Our reception of the first fruits of the Spirit was a birth produced by and of the Spirit; but what was born? Was it the old man, which is corrupt with its affections and lusts? If so, it could not have been born of incorruptible seed, or it would not now, subsequently to such a birth, be still corrupt. The old man is a child of the flesh, and it was born before we received the spirit by which we now cry Abba, Father. We understand the apostle to teach that it is the new man, which after God (not Adam) is created in righteousness and true holiness. It is a child born of the Spirit, a new man--not an old man reformed; it is an inner man, a treasure committed to earthen vessels, that the excellence of it may be of God, and not of man. It is Christ in us the hope of glory. The old man, which we are to deny, resist, keep in subjection, and crucify, is not Christ; but Christ by his spirit dwells in us, if we have indeed been made partakers of the divine nature; and this indwelling of Christ's spirit as a sacred seal assures us that this vile body shall in due time be changed, for flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, neither doth corruption inherit incorruption." 

Notice again that I have colored the words "birth" and "born" in red. Notice too that he holds to his old Two Seed position by saying "the old man" is not what experiences the new birth. What he really believes is that the "new man" was deposited within the old man and this may be called a birth of the old man, the man being a kind of pod holding the seed, or a womb for the new man ("a treasure committed to earthen vessels"). 

Wrote Beebe further:

"But we will notice more particularly the marked passages copied from our reply to brother Martin, to which brother Mitchell calls our special attention. We have said, as quoted, "soul and body and spirit that were and are born of the flesh-sinful and depraved--necessitated to be redeemed, washed, cleansed, purified, and born again;" and then in the next sentence, "the spiritual life which is given to us in the new birth is born of God." We have usually spoken of the implantation of the spirit, in which Christ is formed in us, as a new birth, and so we now understand it, as taught, John i. 13. and 1 Peter 1. 23. 24. And this work is performed in the sinner of Adam's race, who, as a natural man, is spoken of in the scriptures as possessing a soul, body and spirit, which is depraved and, sinful, to qualify him to see the kingdom of God. But we have labored to the extent of our limited ability to keep in view that a birth is the bringing forth into manifestation something that was begotten and which exist antecendently to its development by birth...Although sinners redeemed from Adam's race are the subjects of this work of the Spirit, still their flesh, born of the flesh, continues to retain its mortality and corruptibility after the incorruptible seed, the Word of God, which liveth and abideth forever, has brought forth by birth in them the new man, or life, or spirit, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness. This new birth of the Spirit is not flesh, nor is it born of the will of the flesh, for it is the bringing forth only what is born from above, as in the marginal reading of John iii. 3, 7."

Though he believes that the soul, body, and spirit that makes up a fallen human being needs to be redeemed, cleansed, and born of God, yet he defines the new birth as simply an "implantation" of that new man that preexisted with Christ. The bold red letter highlighting reveals the basic paradigm. He says "a birth is the bringing forth into manifestation something that was begotten and which exist antecendently to its development by birth" and that this preexisting new man is "brought forth by birth." What we see in the above words of Beebe is what is called "double talk." In this paradigm nothing is originated when a sinner is born again. 

Wrote Beebe further:

"...and in conclusion we will say that, of what we have written, this is the sum: the identical man who was chosen of God in Christ Jesus before the foundation of the world, and in him blessed with all spiritual blessings before he was brought forth into manifestation by either a first or second birth, had his spiritual, eternal life given to him in Christ Jesus, as the Adam who is the Lord from heaven. The same identical man had a natural life given him in the earthly Adam, which is of the earth, earthy, when man was formed of the dust of the ground. By a first and second birth these two distinct lives were destined to be developed severally, without changing the identity of the man, by, first in the order of time, a natural birth of the flesh like, and is common with all others of the human race; and afterward, their spiritual life in Christ the second Adam who is the Lord from heaven, to be developed or made manifest in him by a second birth. And as nothing spiritual, pure and heavenly can be born of the flesh, so neither can anything carnal, fleshly or impure be born of God. The same identical man possesses in his development by the two births, that which is born of the flesh, and is flesh, and when born again, of the Spirit, that which is not flesh, but is spiritual; and by this spirit in him, which is born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God, his Person is sealed until the day of redemption..."

When Beebe says "the identical man who was chosen of God in Christ Jesus before the foundation of the world," read "the identical man who was chosen of God in and existing in Christ Jesus." So, this preexisting chosen child of God would in time be "brought forth into manifestation by either a first or second birth." He surely does contradict himself when he says in one breath that the same depraved sinner is born again and then says in another breath that impure or sinful men cannot be born of God. 

Wrote Beebe further:

"Christ was begotten from the dead as the first born among many brethren; and "if the spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his spirit that dwelleth in you."--Rom. viii. 11, 19. If then his resurrection was a birth, the resurrection of his redeemed members is also a birth from the dead; for "if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the spirit [of Christ which now dwells in you is life because of righteousness."--Rom. viii. 10. Therefore, as we said in the paper referred to by brother Mitchell, we still believe, that the spirit, of Christ which dwells in the saints is the same spirit by which God raised up Christ from the dead, and that it is born of God; not that God is himself born, but that he has by birth communicated to us personally and experimentally of his spirit; that God is the parent, or as it is written, "The Father of spirits," (Heb. xii.9,) and that the spirit which dwells in us is born of him, and is his child and his heir."

Here he seems to say that no change happens to a sinful man until the resurrection of the dead. So, though no change happens to the sinner man when he experiences being "born" of God, he will experience a marvelous change in the resurrection of the dead.

Wrote Beebe further:

"The soul, body and spirit, all that constitutes the man in the flesh whom God has chosen unto salvation through Jesus Christ our Lord, fell in Adam, dies in Adam, and is born of corruptible seed, required to be redeemed, washed, cleansed, purified and born again; not only by the manifestation of the firstfruits of the Spirit, but by being ultimately born from the dead in the final resurrection of the dead." 

Here he is even more clear and says what I just said about what he said.

In the rest of this chapter I want to cite from what Elder Mitchell wrote in the Gospel Messenger for 1882 under the title "Eternal Vital Union Of Christ And His Church" Elder Mitchell writes (See here):

"How, or by whom, the phrase "Eternal Vital Union" originated, we do not know; but we do know, that in the past thirty years, much has been very profitably written, and much very unprofitable, and even hurtful. It is not, therefore, our design nor desire to re-open the discussion, nor the wounds that have been created thereby; but rather to remind our brethren, that it is enjoined upon Christians, to "Follow after the things that make for peace, and things whereby one may edify another." — Rom. 14; 19...If need be, every ambiguous phrase, or hurtful, unscriptural word, should be abandoned for the sake of peace within the sacred walls of Zion."

The first thing I want to say in commentary on the above words of Mitchell is how he says that it was over the last thirty years that the subject of "eternal vital union of Christ and his church" had been a topic of discourse, and that some of it was profitable and some not. So, what part was profitable and what part was not? Also, since he is writing this in 1882, then the "thirty years" he is writing about spans the time from 1852-1882. Surely he knows that in the 1820s through 1840s period that much had been written about that subject. Surely he knows about Daniel Parker's books on it from the 1820s. Perhaps he also knew about Thompson's books on eternal vital union in his book "Simple Truth" also from the 1820s. Did he not know that Samuel Trott and Gilbert Beebe and others had written much on it in the Signs of the Times in the 1830s and 1840s?  

Mitchell says that brethren should quit speaking of "eternal vital union" since those exact words are not in scripture. Why should they if the sentiment is taught in scripture? If the sentiment is not taught in scripture, then why does Mitchell not denounce the sentiment instead of simply saying let us not use that terminology? If he thought both the terminology and the sentiment were wrong, why did he wait till 1882 to say so? Mitchell says things that his associate, Elder Sylvester Hassell, also would say, possibly parroting what Mitchell here said. It also reflects what Alexander Campbell often said when beginning his reform movement, exhorting all to use bible terms.

Wrote Mitchell further:

"But we wish now to come a little more closely to this Vital Union question. The earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof, yet he has a people — a part of the Adamic race — that he claims in a special and peculiar sense from others. "This people, saith the Lord, have I formed for myself; they shall show forth my praise." — Isaiah. That they are related in some special and peculiar sense to Jesus Christ as their Saviour, Husband, Head and Redeemer, we presume none will deny. Nor have we ever heard any Primitive Baptist dispute the relation of Christ and his people as being Eternal in some qualified sense. Each, however, wants his own peculiar way of expressing this relation, but all agree that it is Eternal in some way. Some say that it is an Eternal vital or life union; some, an Eternal love union; others say that it is an Eternal covenant relation; and some will have it that it is an Eternal purposed union; and, lastly, some whittle it down to a union only in prospect. All agree that the relation is an Eternal one in some qualified sense, but yet not one of these peculiar forms of expression is found in the Scriptures, and the strife as to their use is often to a great extent a "strife about words to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers."

So, what is Mitchell's view on eternal union?

Wrote Mitchell further:

"But notwithstanding all the strife that ever has been or may yet be, it is certain that to deny the relation of Christ and his people in some sense, is to deny every principle of the gospel of God. The only hope of salvation for any sinner is based upon his relation to, and identity with, Jesus Christ as his Surety and Saviour."

Again, we ask - what is Mitchell's view?

Wrote Mitchell further:

"Christ does not redeem sinners to make them his people, but because they were his before. "He shall save his people from their sins."

But, in what sense were people God's people before they were born into the world? If they were already his actual children from eternity, why do they need to be made children in time by a birth of the Spirit?

So, in conclusion I say that it seems that Mitchell was a Two Seeder for many years but in later years began to turn away from Two Seedism.

In the next chapter we will begin to examine the things that Elder Lemuel Potter wrote in 1880 against Two Seedism.