Two Seed Baptist Ideology (XLVIII)

The above is a picture of one of the many books that are now being published by "Welsh tract publications" and you can see them at their web page (here). Welsh Tract church is one of the oldest in the Philadelphia Baptist Association, formed in 1707, and is the oldest Baptist Association in America. I don't know much about Guillermo Santamaria, but he has written several books giving the history of the Old School Baptists and especially of the Two Seeders and anti-Trinitarians within that sect. The web page has a tremendous amount of old writings from the first generation of Old School or Two Seed Primitive Baptists.

In this chapter we will give more citations from Elder Lemuel Potter, a man who had Two Seed leanings when he first began to preach for the "Primitive" or "Regular" Hardshell Baptists and who in his later life began to write polemically against Two Seedism, as we have seen in the immediate preceding chapters dealing with those writings of Potter. This and the next chapter we will look at some various articles Elder Potter wrote against some of the leading tenets of Two Seedism, especially as it relates to the doctrine of regeneration or of the new birth. 

We have already reviewed what he said about the Two Seed doctrine of "eternal children," or "eternal vital union," and about the "preexisting humanity of Christ, and about the "non-resurrection" belief, and about the Two Seed idea about "unconditional election," etc. We have looked at citations from Potter's book titled "Unconditional Election Stated And Defined; Or, A Denial Of The Doctrine Of Eternal Children, Or Two Seeds In The Flesh" and from his autobiography titled "Labors and Travels of Elder Lemuel Potter" from which we will continue to cite from in this chapter. In the next chapters we will cite also from Potter's 1895 work titled "A Treatise On Regeneration And Christian Warfare." You can read that work at the Primitive Baptist Library's Web Page (here).

It is interesting that Elder Potter does not say anything about the Two Seed denial of angels, and of their view that angels are human messengers, which is because it was such a bugaboo or taboo subject so that even the opposers of full blown Two Seedism avoided the topic or simply went along with the common view that sin never occurred in heaven. In previous chapters we wrote about this issue at length. He says nothing about the fall of the angels nor of the origin and fall of Satan, as did Elder John M. Watson. Elder Potter claimed Watson as one of their first leaders or founders when they became a separate sect, as did Elders Sylvester Hassell, Gilbert Beebe, and others. 

Potter, in his debate with Throgmorton (which we cited from in the previous chapter), argued that Watson did not believe in means in regeneration or eternal salvation, which was a falsehood, and I believe Potter knew it was, and if true, then why do the present day descendants of the Two Seeders, aka the "Primitive Baptists," continue to hold Potter up so highly? How could Potter deny that Watson believed in means seeing it is so clearly taught in Watson's Book "The Old Baptist Test" and through Watson's periodicals such as "The Old Baptist Banner," the "Correspondent," etc.? He was familiar with the editors of "The Baptist Watchman" that I mentioned earlier, nearly all who were physicians like Watson, and who believed in means and in the perseverance of the saints in faith. They all believed that they were carrying on the work of Watson in his fight with the Two Seeders and their beliefs, one such tenet said that the Gospel was not a means in saving sinners from sin nor in coming to have faith. 

Potter used to write to the "The Baptist Watchman" that was begun by fellow ministers and doctors of Elder Watson, namely Elders R.W. Fain, J. Bunyan Stephens, and E.B. Mullins. It started after the civil war (late 1860s) and continued till the latter end of the 1870s. It was published out of Nashville, and was a weekly periodical with a wide readership and the elders who published it carried on the work and beliefs of Watson, fighting against Two Seedism, and against the view that the Gospel is no means in the eternal salvation of sinners. So, Potter no doubt knew that these brethren believed in means, in perseverance and not mere preservation, and other things that Potter would later reject along with those who followed him. So, I can only conclude that he told a falsehood. He certainly did when he also said that John Gill did not believe in means, which is another falsehood. In my series "The Hardshell Baptist Cult" I have several chapters titled "Hardshells On Gill" (chapter 58-65) where I show where Gill clearly believed in means. (See that series here)

In Potter's debate on the "means question" in 1890 with Elder W. T. (Tom) Pence, Potter admits that J. Bunyan Stephens believed in means, and in so doing agrees that the means view was taught by the supporters of Watson. Potter said the following in that debate:

"He (Pence) undertook to show that Elder Clark was agreed with him on the subject of means. In this he gloriously failed, for I showed him from Zion's Advocate, that on the occasion of Elder Booten's ordination, Elder Clark was the moderator of the Presbytery, and that Elder Booten was interrogated on this very point, as to whether he believed in the Spirit's work in the regeneration of sinners, without, and independent of, all means and instrumentalities whatever. A correspondence between Elder J. B. Stephens, of Nashville, Tenn., and Elder Clark, concerning this matter, which was published in Zion's Advocate, shows that Elder Clark emphatically denied the use of any means or agencies outside of the divine Spirit in the regeneration of sinners. I am not prepared to give the date of the Advocate in which this correspondence occurred. In reply to my idea that the gospel was the power of God to the saved, Elder Pence rather made light, saying: "The power of God unto salvation to the man already saved?" (I have cited this statement several times, such as in this post here).

First, I have shown how Potter was wrong about Elder John Clark of Virginia, a first generation leader of the newly formed "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptist sect, in saying that Clark denied means. This same claim was made years later in the famous "Mt. Carmel Church Trial." (1909) In that trial the means side of the "Primitive Baptist" church testified that Elder Clark, editor of "Zion's Advocate," did not deny means, and even cited articles of his from "Zion's Advocate" that showed that to be the case. I spent a whole day driving to Duke University years ago and reading old issues of the periodical and I saw clearly that Clark, like Stephens, believed in means. The means view was the original view of most of those who were part of the "anti-mission" movement, and the "no means" view was a later view begun by the Two Seeders who came after Elder Daniel Parker. My blog "The Old Baptist Test" (named after Watson's book title) is filled with Clark's writings that show this to be true. I also show that other first generation leaders were believers in the traditional Orthodox Baptist view that avers that the Gospel or written word of God is a means God uses in bringing about the birth of the Spirit and the eternal salvation of sinners. I also have citations from many other first generation Hardshells which prove this thesis, such as Elder R.W. Fain, Elder James Osbourn, Elder Mark Bennett, Elder Joshua Lawrence, Elder Samuel Trott, Elder C.B. Hassell, etc. 

Potter in "Labors and Travels of Elder Lemuel Potter" wrote the following in chapter nineteen (See here; emphasis mine):

"During the year 1871, and '72, I began to get acquainted with the brethren of Wabash District Association. I visited their Association once or twice, and visited a number of their churches, and found that among them and some of their correspondents, the question was being agitated as to what it is that is born again in the work of regeneration. Some of the preachers of that, and some other Associations, differed so widely about it that they were accused of taking positions that were very extreme. One man was accused of claiming that the body was no part of the child of God. Another denied any distinction of soul and body, claiming that the man that was born again, to use their own language, was, the man that ate bacon and cabbage. There might have been other issues among the people, but about, that time I met a man by the name of G. W. Paine, who denied the doctrine that the soul was born again in the work of regeneration, and who made light of the idea that any part of the man went to heaven when the body died. The first hint that I ever had from him on this question, was in a conversation which I overheard between him and another brother in Paris, Illinois. As soon as I had an opportunity, I asked him if he believed that there was a distinction between the soul and body, and if he believed that the soul went to heaven when the body died. He held forth the idea that man went to the grave and remained there until the resurrection, and that if he went to the grave he did not go to heaven. He denied being a soul-sleeper, but at the same time in speaking of the state of the dead, he had the whole man in the grave. He said when the Bible said soul it meant man, and when it said man it meant soul. According to his own definitions, I sometimes called him soul-sleeper, and sometimes accused him of believing that man had no soul, the latter, I think perhaps is the most proper name." 

The controversy over regeneration has plagued the "Primitive," "Old School," "Old Regular," or "Hardshell" Baptists since it began via the anti-mission movement of the 1820s and 1830s. The controversy involved several points, one of which is mentioned by Potter in the above. It concerned stating "what is it that is born again?" Another question involved describing what occurred in regeneration, what changes, if any, occurred to a sinner when he was regenerated or born again. Another question involved whether regeneration is the same as spiritual rebirth. Another question involved whether the begetting was distinct from the birthing. Another question involved whether those "born" of the Spirit were "begotten" in eternity past. Another involved the question about whether regeneration involved conversion, or evangelical faith and repentance, whether a sinner could be regenerated without being converted. Another question involved whether a person did anything in order to be regenerated. Another question involved whether God used human means, or the means of the Gospel or word of God in his work of regeneration. Another question involved whether regeneration was in any sense a renovation or restoration of the fallen nature of sinners. Another question involved discerning what are the causes and effects of regeneration. Another question involved the doctrine of vital union with Christ, whether regeneration brought about this union or whether the union was from eternity.

Potter continued:

"He also held forth the idea that the flesh and bones of Jesus Christ had existed from all eternity, and that no part of the body of the Savior was taken from the Virgin Mary except the blood. In conversation with him, I asked him this question; "Jesus Christ said to the thief on the cross. 'To-day shalt thou be with me in paradise.' Where is paradise of which the Savior spoke on that occasion?" He said it was the grave. I then asked him, “If the grave was paradise, why would not both the thieves be in paradise when they went to the grave?" This question he did not answer, if I remember correctly. He finally began to make visits among the churches and country where I lived, and as is always the case, when heresy is introduced among a people, he had a following. I opposed his doctrine, and I also opposed him as a man. Finally the churches refused to open their doors to him to preach, because he advocated the doctrine that I have already mentioned in this chapter." 

About the idea that Christ's body existed from eternity we have already addressed, and quite extensively. It is one of the ideas that helped to produce the Two Seed sect in the Baptist family.

Potter continued:

"During the agitation of this question among our brethren, I became more discouraged in the ministry than at any other one thing that could have happened. I did not believe that doctrine. I believed that there was a distinction of soul and body in the man, and that the soul was born again in the work of regeneration, that it went to heaven at the dissolution of the body, and that in the resurrection, the body would be changed and taken to heaven, and that soul and body thus united would make a complete man, capable of enjoying heaven with all that heaven means. I still believe that doctrine. There has never been a moment of time when I thought on that subject that these have not been my sentiments, and so far as the pre-existence of the children of God is concerned, I never have believed that they actually existed. I have believed that God has known them from all eternity, and that it was as easy for Him to know them before they existed as afterwards. I believe that God made his people, both soul and body, and I have never believed that he brought any part of them down from heaven."

I believe Potter is equating "soul" with "spirit" in the above words. Therefore he seems to take the view that man is dichotomous rather than trichotomous. My departed father, a minister with the "Primitive Baptists" for over fifty years, held to the dichotomy view, which I did also until I studied the matter more fully and came to believe in the trichotomy view. In either case, the argument of Potter, if true, destroys one of the leading tenets of Two Seedism. How is that? Because the Two Seeders believed that there was no change to the "old man," to the fallen man, to the "Adam man"; not to his soul, spirit, mind, heart, or body. They rather believed that something outside the man was "deposited" or "implanted" within the Adam man and did not change the Adam man, like a rabbit's entering into a hollow log, which does not change the log (hence the "hollow log" doctrine that we spoke about in previous chapters). 

The truth is, of course, that God's internal work in a sinner, begun in what is called "regeneration," is the beginning of a transformation process which is changing the man in all his inward parts, his soul, spirit, heart, and mind. The body is not changed, nor his "fleshly" nature obliterated, but by God's work in "progressive sanctification" he assures that the new nature, the divine nature, will ultimately win in its battle with the old depraved nature. So Paul wrote:

"And I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ." (Phil. 1: 6 (esv)

"Even though our outward man is perishing, yet the inward man is being renewed day by day." (II Cor. 4: 16 nkjv)

"But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as by the Spirit of the Lord." (II Cor. 3: 18 nkjv)

These verses show that by God's internal work the invisible parts of man's constitution are continuously and progressively being changed, restored, reconstituted, reformed, being a kind of spiritual metamorphoses.

Potter says "I never have believed that they (children of God) actually existed" in eternity past when God foreknew and predestined them to become his sons and daughters. However, later in the book he writes:

"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) 

Is he saying that he never believed in the "eternal children" doctrine, but did believe in some of the other Two Seed tenets? He also said: "I did not know but what it was the doctrine of our people generally." I find that statement to be a head-scratcher. 

Wrote Potter further:

"I also believe that Jesus Christ took everything from the Virgin Mary, his mother, that pertains to his humanity. I do not now, nor have I ever believed in the pre-existence of human nature. Because I contended for what I believed on these things, and opposed what I did not believe, some of the brethren thought very hard of me, especially the admirers of Mr. Paine. One man who had been, and is yet a friend of mine, spoke to me on one occasion concerning the matter about this way: "Let me tell you as a friend, that when you undertake to fight Elder Paine, you are killing yourself. You are jealous of him—that is the trouble. He can beat you preaching. He does not even leave you the bone to gnaw on, that is the reason you are opposed to him." I replied to him that if my opposition to Elder Paine and his doctrine killed me, to just let me die. I expected to oppose him and his doctrine as long as I was able to do so, and thought it necessary. His doctrine is heresy, and it is not good for the church."

In chapter twenty Potter wrote:

"Among other things that Elder Paine preached, besides the no-soul doctrine, as I have stated in another chapter, was that the flesh and bones of Christ and his human nature had existed in heaven from all eternity. I had about as little use for this as for the no-soul doctrine, or the non-resurrection doctrine, and I had frequent conversations with him upon that subject."

Again, we have in previous chapters spoken of this leading tenet of Hyper Calvinists of the early 18th century (Hussey, et. al) and how it (preexisting humanity of Christ) became one of the pillars of Two Seed ideology.

Potter continued:

"Then I began to make inquiries and was told that Elder Paine himself had gone away and told the people that he preached the eternal flesh and bones of Jesus in my pulpit, and that I and my brethren endorsed it, and that I called on them to come forward and give him their hand as a token that they endorsed his doctrine. I did not feel much surprised, when I was told that Elder Paine had so willfully misrepresented what I had said, for he had prevaricated so many times, while he was in our part of the country, on different occasions, that I had lost confidence in his veracity. I was not alone in that view. A number of other brethren soon found out that it would not do to depend too much on his word."

Potter continued:

"He was at Mount Pleasant Church on one occasion, and the brethren requested him to come out on those points plainly in his Sunday discourse, so they would know just where he stood, but he politely declined and preached a good sermon, that I suppose no Primitive Baptist would make any serious objections to. But afterwards he preached at a brother's house in the neighborhood—and in his discourse stated that he could prove by the Scriptures that Jesus Christ was on earth three times before he was born of the Virgin Mary, and that he ate meat, and after his meeting was over he walked around among the brethren, and seemed to feel very much elated with the thought that all those brethren were going to take his doctrine...I was told that he thought very hard of me for opposing him in that country, but I feel thankful that his preaching, with all the zeal and ability that he possessed, did not effect a division among our people, and perhaps very few if any of the brethren of the Skillet Fork Association fell in with his doctrines, concerning what it is that is born again in the work of regeneration in time, and the pre-existence of the flesh and bones of Jesus Christ."

Of course, the pre-incarnate appearances of Christ, as the "angel of the LORD," or "Malek Yahweh," the eternal Son of God, in a human form does not prove that the Son of God has always had a human body. These are called "theophanies" by theologians. Some wonder, because of these theophanies, why Christ needed to be born of woman to obtain a human body. In reply we say that by being conceived in Mary, Jesus took on human flesh so that He could be our “kinsman-redeemer.” As a literal descendant of Adam, Jesus could be the perfect sacrifice for Adam's offspring. The Messiah was prophesied to be the "seed of the woman" and the "seed of Abraham" and the "seed of David." The bodily forms in which Jesus appeared in the old testament did not fit this description. Notice these words of the writer of Hebrews:

"14 Inasmuch then as the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He Himself likewise shared in the same, that through death He might destroy him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, 15 and release those who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage...17 Therefore, in all things He had to be made like His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people." (Heb. 2: 14-16, 17 nkjv)

Recall that this was a favorite proof-text of Gilbert Beebe in his affirmation of Two Seedism. He thought that it taught that Christ's incarnation was the same as the children of God, that just as Christ existed prior to his assumption of a human body, so likewise did the children of God (or elect) exist from eternity before becoming incarnate in human bodies. That view of course no one ascertains by reading the text, prima facie. You have to see it through the spectacles of a Two Seeder. However, the verse does show that Christ partook of flesh and blood. So, the question is, when did he do this? Certainly it was not from eternity. The apostle John wrote:

"And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth." (John 1: 14 nkjv)

Clearly John is referring to Christ being begotten in the womb of his mother, the virgin Mary.

Other angels, other than the uncreated "angel of the LORD," appeared in human bodies in the old testament time period. But, angels do not have physical human bodies. So said Jesus: "a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have" (Luke 24: 39) and scripture tells us that angels are disembodied spirits. (He. 1: 14). So, just as angels appearing in human forms do not prove that they have had human bodies from the very beginning of their existence, so too Christ appearing in human form in the old testament does not prove that he had a human body from eternity.

Two Seed Baptist Ideology (XLVII)

Since we have been looking at what Elder Potter said about many Two Seeders denying a physical resurrection of the body, we will return to look at what Elder John M. Watson in "The Old Baptist Test" wrote on that point. Following that we will have a couple chapters where we give some more citations from Potter on certain Two Seed tenets.

Watson, in Section VI of his book "The Old Baptist Test" titled "The Resurrection" wrote:

"There has been much figurative language used with respect to the resurrection, which some have seized upon and tried thereby to reduce the whole to a figure, but instead of the truth of a real resurrection..." (pg. 228)

It is a funny thing that Two Seeders were too literal in Bible interpretation in some ways and yet too non-literal (or figurative) in other ways. They interpreted texts that speak of people being the children of the Devil in a most literal manner but scriptures dealing with a physical resurrection in a most figurative way, thereby denying a literal bodily resurrection. The only way to deny the resurrection of the bodies of the just and unjust is to deny that the texts that speak of it are literal. We have already seen in the preceding chapters where Elder Sylvester Hassell saw the ill effects of overly spiritualizing many literal texts in the Bible, a thing that still characterizes many of today's "Primitive Baptists." 

Watson wrote further:

"But after all the revealed light we have on the subject of the resurrection of our bodies, and the examples given of it, the Parkerite will not admit it, but entertains a notion about it subversive of the whole matter. His conception is predicated of the erroneous propositions that only the elect fell in Adam, that all human souls are eternal, and were infused into Adam at the time of the formation of his body, and that the multiplication of the woman's conception was to engender bodies for the abode of a seed from Satan. Human bodies, therefore, are held in low estimation by them, and, when they die, go to the dust from whence they were formed, the soul to God, with a mystic, imaginary body of its own, and the seed of the devil back to him, and the body in which it dwelt, like that of the Saint, to the dust, never to rise again. Thus the bodies, both of the just and unjust, are never to rise again, but the soul returns to God to be again confounded with him, and can have no distinctive existence or being of its own, while the seed of the devil returns to Him to be one with Him again-so, in the winding up of the whole affair, there will be one God and one evil spirit. This is a fair induction from their erroneous premises-a palpable reductio ad absurdum." (pg. 228)

In the above citation Watson gives several Two Seed propositions, one of which says that the Two Seeders believe "that all human souls are eternal." But, that is a correct proposition. Surely Watson does not deny the immortality of the soul. Perhaps he means "that all human souls are eternal AND were infused into Adam at the time of the formation of his body." That would have been clearer had he not put a comma after "eternal" and before "and." In this case Watson would deny that all souls were in Adam when he was created and would be taking what is called the "creationist" view of the origin of the soul, which says that each soul is created by God in the womb after the female egg is fertilized by the male seed. The other view is called Traducianism, which posits that both body and soul are derived from parents through natural procreation, with souls passed down from Adam. I think, however, that the Two Seed view is a modification of the Traducian view, for it does not simply say that the souls of all are derived from the first soul in Adam or Eve but that the souls were actually present in them. Many Creationists would not deny that all souls were represented in Adam, but not that each soul preexisted in Adam.

Watson also says that the Two Seed view has a low estimation of the human body. Recall that in the first chapters of this treatise we saw how Two Seedism borrowed much from Gnosticism, and a chief idea in it is to say that the material or physical world is evil and that salvation was to be delivered from it. They therefore would naturally see the idea of living forever in human bodies as a bad thing.

Next, Watson gives a list of the several items in the "Parkerite creed." Watson wrote:

"We will now take a general retrospect of what we have written, and compare tenets with our opponents. Let us, then, make out a synopsis of the Parkerite creed:

1. They believe there is an uncreated, self-existent and eternal God, infinite in Wisdom, Power and Holiness.

2. They believe there is an uncreated self-existent, eternal Evil Spirit, or Devil, intelligent, wicked, cunning and antagonistic to God.

3. They say that the soul of Christ is uncreated and eternal.

4. They fancy that the souls of the Children of God, or the Elect, are uncreated and eternal, and were always in actual union with God.

5. They contend that all the souls of the Children of God were infused into Adam, and pass, by a procreation of human bodies, into the persons of the elect.

6. They assert that the reprobates have no souls, and that their bodies are a multiplication of the woman's conception for the reception of a connate Satanic seed, uncreated and eternal, instead of souls, with which Satan was eternally united.

7. They affirm that, at death, the soul returns to God, and the seed of Satan to him.

8. They deny the resurrection of the bodies of the just and unjust." (pg. 229)

Tenet number one, of course, is true. We have thus far looked at the above errors and of others not in the list. However, it is strange that Watson left out several other false tenets, although he does mention them in other places. He does not mention the errors of Two Seeders concerning "regeneration" or "rebirth," the "no change" view of it, nor their denial of God's use of the means of his word in that work. It is also strange that in a list of their beliefs he lists one item that is true but seven that are false. Perhaps he is just willing to grant them some degree of orthodoxy by mentioning that one item. However, as we have seen, they really do not believe item number one, for they believe the Devil is uncreated and self existent, and that he created or procreated his children. They may believe that God is as stated in item number one, but they do not believe he is the only one who fits that description.

Watson makes this observation on Two Seedism:

"Their doctrine is serpentine, and it has serpentine ways and outlets, and is hard to hold even when caught." (pg. 231)

I think that this was not only true with the Two Seeders in Watson's day, but it is also true in later days, in the twentieth and twenty first centuries among those who call themselves "Primitive Baptists," with the exception of those who are of a different strain, such as the Eastern Association of Primitive Baptists. They are slippery in a deceitful way, and this is true with cults. By this I mean that they can be shifty, sneaky, deceptive, crafty, etc. When they are confronted with biblical texts that refute their erroneous premises, they can show some cunning craftiness in the ways they can twist a text to make it say what it does not say upon first glance. When I was with the Hardshells I often saw this slippery activity. They not only show this slippery serpentine activity in how they twist scripture but also in the ways they alienate preachers who do not toe the line from the affections of the Hardshell community.

Watson wrote:

"We were then willing to bear with the sparse amount of Parkerism, which then showed itself, while its advocates were careful to keep back its most objectionable tenets; but since then, it has been preached even to the extent of a full denial of the resurrection of our natural bodies, with its other unscriptural and hurtful doctrines; in consequence of which five of our churches have passed resolutions that it shall not be preached in their pulpits, and some of its advocates have been, from time to time, kindly entreated to forbear preaching such things. Moreover, an association lately constituted, which came out from among the Parkerites, or non-resurrectionists, has been received into our correspondence. Notwithstanding all this, we again entreat the advocates of Parkerism to desist from preaching their tenets; yea, we say if one or two of its leading advocates would desist, our associated union might be preserved, and oh! how fearful is the responsibility which now rests on them." (pg. 233-234) 

As we saw in previous chapters, for several decades of the 19th century the "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptists who opposed Two Seed heresies were far too willing to bear with Parkerism. In the previous chapter we saw how Dr. Throgmorton stated this very thing in his debate with Elder Potter. Some did begin to declare non-fellowship with Two Seeders in the 1840s and onward, but most did not. It was not until the 19th century neared its end that there began to be a widespread declaration against Two Seedism. Further, as we have shown, remnants of Two Seedism still remain among the "Primitive Baptists" of the Hardshell variety. How any of them could have tolerated the presence of those who denied a bodily resurrection for even a short time is amazing. It is also bewildering how they could declare non-fellowship against those who believed in supporting mission organizations, seminaries, Sunday Schools, etc. but not do so against Two Seed heresies. 

Watson wrote:

"Most of the evils, which have convulsed and shook the world, at different times, emanated, from perversions of Divine Truth. Have I perverted any text of Holy Scripture, and in that way opened a fountain tributary to the great time stream of error? Let me search it out and repent of it, and seal it up forever with a hearty recantation."

I wish that those who call themselves "Primitive Baptists," with but few exceptions, had this attitude. I have labored hard for the past thirty five years, and especially the past twenty years in writing against Hardshellism in my various blogs, to get them to do some honest investigation of their beliefs, to come here and discuss their heterodox views on Bible doctrine. I am thankful that we have helped many to come out of Hardshellism (with its remnants of Two Seedism) and others from going into it, but I wish there had been more. If Lemuel Potter, C.H. Cayce, John R. Daily, etc., were here today, I believe they would come here and debate their heresies. But, where are the debaters today?

Watson wrote:

"Who of us are thus feeding and sustaining the Man of Sin, aiding in building Babylon, or sinning in propagating Protestant heresies, or Old Baptist ultraisms. We can readily see the absurdities of Romanism, the errors of many Protestant sects, and avoid them, but we do not recognize, as heresies, those hurtful ultraisms which are eating, as doth a canker, upon our very vitals as a denomination--a denomination which very justly boasts of its antiquity, and of having never acknowledged any other rule of faith and practice but that of the Bible. But some of our brethren are interpreting many of its blessed truths in such a way as to lead off their hearers from the Old Baptist platform of principles. Some of them have pursued that perverse thing, Parkerism, with such obstinacy of opinion, and such perversions of the Scriptures, that we have been compelled to withdraw reluctantly from them. I will now show, most conclusively, that Parkerite ultraisms have changed some of the Old Order of Baptists into a new sect." (pg. 235-236) 

Watson believes that a person sins when he propagates heresies. I agree. I also believe that those who bid heretics God speed sin in doing so. So, it is a serious thing to believe and teach heresy. He speaks of what he calls "Old Baptist ultraisms." Many of those heretical ultraisms involved Two Seed tenets, and certainly included a denial of means in eternal salvation, a denial that a person must believe and repent to be eternally saved, affirming that nothing that a person does in life determines whether he goes to heaven or hell. He says those heresies and ultraisms were eating, like a cancer or gangrene, "our very vitals as a denomination." That cancer has indeed spread far so that very little of their denomination is yet living. He says that Parkerite Two Seed tenets have made the Hardshells "into a new sect." It is therefore highly ironic, and grossly inappropriate, for them to claim that they are "Primitive," meaning "original" Baptists.

Of course, Watson was not correct to say that the "Primitive Baptist" denomination that was created as a result of the anti-mission movement of the late 1820's and 1830s had an ancient ancestry so as to be able to "justly boast of its antiquity." Of course, Elder Watson and his segment of "Primitive Baptists" could make a better claim on that score than those "Primitive Baptists" who 1) began to deny that God used the means of gospel preaching to save his elect, and 2) began to deny that evangelical faith and repentance were essentials for eternal salvation, and 3) taught a no change view of regeneration, 4) and taught other Two Seed ideas.

Watson wrote:

"Parkerites are frequently heard to say, "that nothing will ever go to heaven but what came from there!" and, to prove the assertion, quote this text: "He that descended is the same also that ascended." Eph 4:10. They mean, that as the same person ascended who had descended, and as that person was Christ, his glorified human body was not taken up into heaven; thereby hinting darkly at the non-resurrection of our bodies-a heretical tenet which has been embraced by many of them!" (pg. 243) 

In previous chapters I have called attention to this motto of the Two Seeders that says "nothing will go to heaven but what came from there." This proposition is not given in scripture but is a man-made one, and it is taken to scripture and the scriptures made to conform to it by twisting scripture. This is true with many man-made propositions that cults and heresies invent. Today's "Primitive Baptists" have several of these as I have shown in previous chapters. Recall another Two Seed proposition that says that nothing a person does in his life determines whether he goes to heaven or hell. Believing that proposition is inspired, they make scripture to agree with it by perverting scripture. Another one says that if a salvation text has a condition to it then it is a mere time salvation, but if there is no condition then it is eternal. Accepting this proposition as inspired they make the scriptures to conform to it. 

 

Two Seed Baptist Ideology (XLVI)

I want to begin this chapter with some things said by Dr. W. P. Throgmorton in his debate with Elder Lemuel Potter (1887) as it relates to Two Seedism. I wrote a series reviewing this famous debate and in one of them I made the following citations. (See here) I then made some observations.

In Dr. Throgmorton's first negative speech, he said:

"Many Hardshells hold that it is the dust man, the man formed of clay, that is the subject of the new birth; and, hence, that the wicked have no immortal souls. Many dispute this, and hold to the orthodox view; but they do not make it a bar to denominational fellowship."

 

I then made this observation:

"In this statement Throgmorton is affirming that as late as 1887 that the Hardshells still had many in their sect that held to "Two Seedism" ideas. He also affirms that the Hardshells still as yet did not make such Two Seed doctrines a "bar to fellowship." His point is to show the utter inconsistency of the Hardshells not fellowshipping Missionary Baptists, for supporting missionaries and preachers, and for teaching children in Sunday Schools, etc. They can fellowship the awful doctrines of the Two Seeders but not the efforts of Mission Baptists to spread the gospel and knowledge of God!"

I will add, however, that some churches did declare non-fellowship for Two Seedism, yet many still had not by 1887, because at that time there were still many churches believing it. 

Throgmorton continued:

"There are many among them who hold that God's children are as eternal as himself; and that the devil is self-existent, and his children as old as himself; that not a single one of Satan's children was represented in Adam when he fell, but were added afterward; that two men may be the children of the same parents and yet one be a child of the devil from eternity and the other be a child of God from eternity. Others do not believe these things. Neither view, however, seems to be a bar to denominational fellowship."

I then made this observation:

As I have shown in other postings, even Elder Sylvester Hassell acknowledged the presence of Two Seed doctrines among the Hardshells late into the 19th century. See "Hassell On PB Two Seed Ancestry" (here) and "Rebuke the ultraist" (here) and "The Ultraist Response?" (here).

Throgmorton continued:

"Hardshells have many among them who deny the resurrection of the body. These are “two-seeders." Others hold to the orthodox view. Neither view, however, is a bar to denominational fellowship.

I have made all these preliminary statements because I think they may help us to a better understanding of the question; and because they show, as I think, the utter inconsistency of our Hardshell brethren in taking the position they do relative to fellowshipping missions, Sunday-schools, etc."

I then made this observation:

Yes, the "utter inconsistency of our Hardshell brethren"! They declare against those Baptists who work to teach the gospel to every creature but fellowship all kinds of heretical doctrines.

Throgmorton continued:

"I hold that the Missionary Baptists, as I have described them, are the Primitive Baptists, and that the Hardshells are not. In support of my position I shall argue, first, from Scripture; secondly, from history."

In the last chapter we gave Elder Potter's arguments against those Two Seeders who denied the biblical teaching of the resurrection of the bodies of either the just or unjust. Before we end looking at that issue, I will cite more from Elder John M. Watson on that point. First, however, let me cite the following from Elder Sylvester Hassell: 

In "Interpreting The Scriptures - Eschatology" Hassell (1842-1928), in "The Gospel Messenger," wrote the following for October, 1894:

"Consistent Parkerites, or Two-Seed Baptists, deny the Second Personal Coming of Christ to the world, the Resurrection of the Body, the General Judgment, and the Conflagration and Renovation of the world; and some Primitive Baptists (I think less than a thousand) seem to follow them in one or more of these errors, and-- what is even far more serious--two or three of our writers seem to deny all Bible proof of any Hell after death, and almost all Bible proof of any Heaven after death, applying such Scriptures as Psalms ix. 17, Mal. iv. 1, Matt. x. 28, xxv. 41, 46, Mark ix. 42-48, Luke xvi. 22, 23, Rev. xiv. 10, 11, and John xiv 2, 3, xvii, 24, 2 Cor. v. 1, Rev. xxi., xxii., to the experience of the people of God in the present life, and either flatly denying or ignoring their reference to any thing beyond the grave!!!"

Notice that Hassell does not say that all Parkerites or Two Seed Baptists denied a physical resurrection, but said, like Potter, that all "consistent" Two Seeders denied it. Why? Because it is the logical outcome of their ideology. Further, many sub-groups within the Two Seed sect denied one, some, or all of the various doctrines listed by Hassell above. What he leaves out, however, are beliefs that he himself believed along with many others at the end of the 19th century. He leaves out the Two Seed belief that says that God does not use the means of his written or preached word, or the Gospel, in the eternal salvation of the elect. In previous chapters I have given citations from several "Primitive Baptists" who opposed Two Seedism and who testified that this denial of means originated with the Two Seeders who followed Daniel Parker, such as Wilson Thompson, Gilbert Beebe, et al. Those opposers of Two Seedism who said this were Elder John M. Watson and Elder Hosea Preslar. In Preslar's book "Thoughts on Divine Providence" he said 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)

He goes further (same page), saying:

"But some object to these ideas and say all this is the work of the spirit of God; and the gospel has nothing to do with it. Ah, a gospel without a spirit! Well, God save me from a gospel that has not His spirit. God says His word is quick and powerful, and He says by Peter, This is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you; I Peter 1: 25. And as to the subjects of Gospel address, it is to every creature the disciples were commanded to preach the gospel; and Paul said, Whom we preach warning every man, and teaching every man, in all wisdom, etc.; Col. 1: 28. So we see that their idea on that point is false as the balance, and we will now give their last, but not least error a passing notice."

He also wrote further, giving a list of Two Seed errors, and the sixth states that the denial of means is one of them. It reads as follows:

"Some call them the "Sadducees," some "Non-Resurrectionists," but mostly the "Two-Seeders."  Now if there is any system to their doctrine, or if they preach any system, I understand it to be about as follows:

Sixthly: That the gospel never was designed for anything else, but for the edification of the body of Christ, and that believers are the only subjects of gospel address."

In another posting titled "Hardshells Declare Non Fellowship Against Gospel Preaching" (here) I cited these words from "Cayce's Editorials" for 1905. 

"The Forked Deer Association met with the church at Flowers Chapel, near Rutherford, Gibson county, Tenn., on Friday before the second Sunday in September, 1905. Elder John Grist, of Friendship, Tenn., was moderator, and L. J. Law, Trenton, Tenn., was clerk. The following appears in their minutes as the third and fourth items of their business on Saturday:

By motion and second, agreed that we adopt as the sense of this association the action of five of our churches as expressed in their letters, that we declare non-fellowship for the idea of a federal form of government, that the commission was given to the church and not to the apostles or ministry, that it is the duty of the ministry to admonish the alien sinner to repent and believe the gospel, and against affiliation in and with secret institutions."

In chapter thirty five I cited these words from historian O. Max Lee and his book "DANIEL PARKER'S DOCTRINE OF THE TWO SEEDS" where he wrote:

"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)

You can find these citations in these articles that I wrote years ago (here, here). I have numerous citations in my "Old Baptist Test" blog that show that Watson did affirm that the no means view was a Two Seed "innovation" and "ultraism." 

Recall that I cited from Lawrence Edward's history of Tennessee Baptists who wrote this about the Two Seed division in the Powell Valley Association:

"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."

Watson wrote the following in his book "The Old Baptist Test" about the beliefs of the Two Seeders:

"Paul, however, does not affirm, like some of our modern innovators, that means or instrumentalities are not employed by the Lord in the divine plan of salvation; for he asks: "How shall they hear without a preacher?" Rom. 10: 14." (pages 399-400)

"The Antinomian will not regard any thing in the light of means, and in his doctrine will not allow even the Lord to employ them, says that the Lord is not dependent on means, and can do all His work without them." (pages 327-28)

 

It is a fact that many of the Two Seed errors listed by Hassell can still be found among today's "Primitive Baptists" in spite of the fact that they will want to deny it.

In the above citation of Hassell he mentions how some "Primitive Baptists," even at the end of the 19th century, denied eternal punishment. That is why we have a faction today known as "Primitive Baptist Universalist." He says that Two Seeders are guilty of "applying such Scriptures as Psalms ix. 17, Mal. iv. 1, Matt. x. 28, xxv. 41, 46, Mark ix. 42-48, Luke xvi. 22, 23, Rev. xiv. 10, 11, and John xiv 2, 3, xvii, 24, 2 Cor. v. 1, Rev. xxi., xxii., to the experience of the people of God in the present life." Notice also that he mentions the Two Seed view on Luke 16: 22-23 which deals with the story of the rich man and Lazarus and what happened to each upon their deaths. 

Many of today's "Primitive Baptists" want to declare it heresy to believe that Lazarus went to paradise when he died and that the rich man went to Hell (Hades), and so spiritualize the story so as to make it mean something other than what it plainly teaches. I write about this in my writings under the label "The Hardshell Baptist Cult." Yet, Hassell did not agree with this Two Seed handling of that passage. On the other hand, Elder C.H. Cayce, who also was a leader of the Hardshells at the time of Hassell, and an opponent of Two Seedism, nevertheless gave a Two Seed interpretation of that story. Cayce wrote the following under the editorial title "RICH MAN AND LAZARUS" for June 8, 1909 in his paper "The Primitive Baptist" (not to be confused with the older paper called by the same name and published out of North Carolina):

"The Scripture referred to is the parable of the rich man and Lazarus. We think the parable primarily refers to the Jews and Gentiles. The rich man represented the Jews and Lazarus represented the Gentiles. The Jews were scattered, and are yet in a scattered condition. They are now being tormented. They had their good things under the law dispensation. But now, under the gospel dispensation, the Jews are being tormented and the Gentiles are enjoying the privileges of the gospel."

According to Hassell, Cayce was giving the Two Seed view of that passage. It is spiritualizing or allegorizing the literal truth of that story, which Cayce often did with other passages, and which became a common practice by many in Cayce's day. It is also the kind of interpretation that Hassell warned about.

Elder Wiley Sammons in "Identity Of The True Baptist Church" Vol. Two (Cayce Publishing Company, 1979) wrote an article titled "The Rich Man And Lazarus" (beginning on page 147) and wrote (emphasis mine):

"In the 22nd verse of this chapter, it speaks of both the rich man and Lazarus dying. This does not have reference to the physical death because Lazarus died and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom (meaning the New Testament church kingdom) and this is why he was not buried...Therefore the rich man lifted up his eyes being in torments. I don't think that this is teaching eternal hell, but it means confusion, darkness, and a terrible state of suffering called hell. Later in this article, I will give Bible proof as to why I understand the word hell as it is used here does not mean eternal hell...The rich man lifted up his eyes in hell, being in torments, and this depicting the Jews today as a nation...The above lesson about the rich man and Lazarus does not teach eternal damnation though the word hell is used, nor does it have reference to eternal heaven as the theologians and others would have you to believe. Though the Bible in some places refers to eternal damnation or eternal hell: also there is an eternal heaven, which the Bible teaches." 

This view Hassell identifies as a Two Seed view. He also did not agree with it, believing that it showed that those who took that view were guilty of violating basic rules of Bible interpretation. Elder Hassell wrote about this in 1893 in an article titled  "The Literal Interpretation of Scripture" in the "Gospel Messenger" for February 1893 (which I wrote about in this post here), citing with approval the words of Luther, Calvin, Melanchthon:

Luther says: "Mystical and allegorical interpretations are trifling and foolish fables, with which the Scriptures are rent into so many and diverse senses that silly, poor consciences can receive no certain doctrine of anything. When I was a monk, I allegorized everything; but now I have given up allegorizing, and my first and best art is to explain the Scriptures according to the simple sense; for it is in the literal sense that power, doctrine, and art reside." Calvin says: "The true meaning of Scripture is the natural and obvious meaning, by which we ought resolutely to abide; the licentious system of the allegorists is undoubtedly a contrivance of Satan to undermine the authority of Scripture, and to take away from the reading of it the true advantage." And Melanchthon says: "The one and certain and simple sense of the Scriptures is everywhere to be sought according to the precepts of grammar, logic, and rhetoric."

You have to be such a spiritualizer to interpret passages dealing with the resurrection of the body as did many of the Two Seeders, for those passages are clearly literal. He also said:

"It is especially in what claims to be the spiritual interpretation of the Scriptures that these ultra, wild, chilling, deadening, bewitching, confusing, dividing, and ruinous errors prevail among us...Hyper, or Pseudo-Spiritualism, denying the truth or the importance of the literal meaning of the Scriptures, and thus sapping the very foundation of Christianity, now threatens, above every other danger, to be our ruin...and which are now assailing us." 

He wrote further:

"...in Lu 16:19-31, wherein He tells of the Rich Man and Lazarus...In fact, neither of these passages is a parable, nor anywhere called so in Scripture, though misnamed such by a few uninspired men. The passage in Luke is a literal history," 

Hassell, under "Abuses and Extremes" (The Gospel Messenger--May 1893) wrote:

"I now enter upon the consideration of the ruinous abuses in what falsely professes to be the spiritual interpretation of the Scriptures, as exhibited, for our solemn warning, in the Scriptures themselves, and also in subsequent church history. The present sad condition of the church, which has been brought about by these unwise, unscriptural, and destructive extremes, emphasizes the great importance of this subject, and has been the leading cause of the preparation of this series of articles."

In the next chapter we will conclude our look at the non-resurrection doctrine of many Two Seed Primitive Baptists.

 

Two Seed Baptist Ideology (XLV)

In earlier chapters I showed a picture of Elder Lemuel Potter when he was a young man. The above picture is of him when he was older. He died a relatively young man. In this chapter we will continue to cite from Potters autobiography titled "Labors and Travels of Elder Lemuel Potter." In the previous chapter we were relating what Potter said about a couple Two Seed preachers who were causing trouble in Illinois because of their denial of the resurrection of the body and of their belief in "eternal children." 

Potter continued:

"So, at the close of Elder Tabor's remarks, Elder Trainer arose, and in a short speech, said he heartily endorsed the entire discourse, and seemed to be very enthusiastic in saying so. At the close of his remarks, he was about to dismiss the congregation, when I ventured to give his coat a pull, and told him I would love to speak. I arose, and, as near as I remember, made the following speech. I told my people that we would always do well to watch strangers. If the brother we had heard preach tonight was an honest man it would not hurt him to watch him, and if he was not an honest man, we should watch him, even if it did hurt him. I told them that he was one of those men, that the apostle frequently speaks of, who go about causing divisions and trouble in the churches. It was not my intention to say so positively that he was one of these men, but I intended to say he might be one of them, but in my embarrassment, and perhaps excitement, I said it the other way, and just let it go, believing that it was the truth anyway. I told the people that I believed in the doctrine of the resurrection, that I could not understand Elder Tabor's position, that it was the sinner who was saved, and at the same time that the sinner saved was not Adam, nor any of his posterity. It seemed to present to my mind a contradiction and an inconsistency. I remarked that I believed in the doctrine of the resurrection of the just and of the unjust, even if I must be called a Pharisee for saying it. For me to arise in the face of a large audience, and in the presence of two men who were as able as they were, and having so much the advantage of me in age, was one of the hardest trials of my life, as a minister. After I was through, and the meeting was dismissed, quite a number of my brethren and friends came to me and gave me their hand, and congratulated me on my faithfulness. And I felt that I had done no more than was my duty to do, although I was thought by those men to be egotistical. This meeting occurred on Friday night, and on Saturday morning I went down to the Little Wabash church, where those two brethren were going, and when I arrived there and met them on the ground, neither of them would speak to me." 

It is interesting that those Two Seed Baptists called those who believed in a bodily resurrection "Pharisees." But, are the Two Seeders who denied the resurrection not Sadducees? 

Potter speaks of how hard it was for him to stand up and publicly oppose two older well known ministers who had preached their non-resurrection doctrine. Well, I had the same experience when I was a young minister with the "Primitive Baptists." I stood up in a deacon ordination service, being one of the presbyters, and objected to some presbyters asking the two deacon candidates what they believed about the Devil falling from Heaven and about what the story of the rich man and Lazarus taught. The reason why these two questions were asked was because they were desirous to make one's views on these two things a test of fellowship or orthodoxy. On the way to the ordination service, I rode with two elders, my father in law Elder Newell Helms and Elder Charles Smith, both fearing that such questions would be asked, just as I was. We queried -- "what do we do?" I said we should object to such questions as they had no bearing on whether one was qualified to be deacons. They agreed with me that they would object. 

Sure enough, those questions were indeed asked as we had predicted. I waited for Helms and Smith to rise and object. They did not, but looked at me and shook their heads in disapproval of those questions. They did not publicly object. So I stood up and objected and said "what do these questions have to do with whether these men are qualified to be deacons? You are asking these questions because you want to make certain interpretations on these two subjects a test of fellowship." 

I recall what Elder Potter said in his debate with Elder W. T. (Tom) Pence, both "Primitive Baptists," on the question of whether the gospel or word of God were means God used to regenerate or eternally save sinners. This debate was held in 1890 when that question was dividing churches, each side affirming that their view was the original view of Baptists. In this debate there was discussion about whether certain "Primitive Baptist" preachers of the past believed in means or not, and Elder John Clark, editor of "Zion's Advocate," was one of them. Pence argued that Clark believed in means (he was right, as many citations from Zion's Advocate in this blog show). Potter denied that Clark believed in means, just as he also denied that Elder John M. Watson believed in means, and denied that John Gill believed in means, which both assertions were clearly false. 

The only arguments that Potter provided was to say 1) that Clark held a written discussion with Elder J.B. Stephens (who clearly believed in means) and supposedly took a different view than Stephens (although he could not provide proof of this and I have never been able to find a record of that discussion), and 2) that Clark was a moderator of a presbytery to ordain a minister and the candidate was asked in he believed in means and the answer was "no." Potter said that this proved that Clark denied means because he did not object to the questions. That is no proof at all. If he had better proof of this, why argue this way? Why not just give citations written by Clark in his paper "Zion's Advocate"? 

So, I know the hesitation of Elder Potter in making a public opposition to aged ministers. He however did the right thing. Paul told Timothy "let no one despise your youth." (I Tim. 4: 12)

In chapter fourteen Potter wrote:

“They had an appointment at Grayville, on their way home, for the Tuesday night following, and I went again, thinking, I will make Elder Trainer speak to me now." We had always been good friends. So I went early to the church, and found only a few there, and I went and sat down by him and spoke to him, and in conversation, I asked him if he endorsed what that man had been preaching all the time. He said he did, and that if the Baptists did not believe it, that Elder Tabor would debate the question with any of them. I told him we wanted no debate, but that I would love for him to state to me as nearly as he could and in as few words as possible, what he believed. He said he believed that there were three generations of people. The generation of Adam, the generation of Jesus Christ, and the generation of vipers. The generation of Adam were made of the dust of the ground, and would go back to the dust where they came from, and remain there forever. The generation of Jesus Christ came down from heaven, took up their abode in the Adam man, and they would finally go back to heaven where they came from. The generation of vipers came from hell, and they also took up their abode in the Adam man, and would go back to hell where they came from."

I can hardly believe that Lemuel Potter, one of the most celebrated debaters for the "Primitive Baptists," said that he and the church "wanted no debate" on the doctrine of the resurrection. Oddly enough he does later have a debate with a Two Seeder on that subject. In chapter twenty one Potter wrote: 

"In the month of February, 1881, I held a three days' discussion with a gentleman by the name of Williams, in Franklin County, Illinois, on the following proposition: —The scriptures teach that there will be a general resurrection of the bodies of all the sons and daughters of the first man Adam, or natural man, some of them to endless life, and some to endless punishment." Mr. Williams was a Universalist. and while he professed to believe in the salvation of "all men," as he said, he did not believe that Adam's posterity would be saved."

Potter was such a highly promoted defender in debate for the Hardshells that another one of their champion debaters, Elder John R. Daily, named one of his sons, "Lemuel Potter Daily" (1890). I think Daily felt like the mantle had passed from Potter to him, like the mantle of Elijah passed to Elisha. Potter died in 1897. Both were originally from Indiana, and served churches there, though Potter moved to Illinois and Daily to Virginia, though Daily returned to Indiana and died in Indianapolis in 1920. 

The Two Seed statement that there are "three generations of people" is one that would grab the attention of most people. It is however one of those "cunningly devised fables" that the apostle Peter warned about, or an invention of evil doctrine, as the apostle Paul spoke about. 

First, "the generation of Jesus Christ" (Matt. 1: 1) denotes the family tree of the man Christ Jesus. The context makes that clear. Nowhere in the bible is the family of God called such, although the family of Jesus might well be called such, or more properly "the generation of Father God" denoting those who are "born of God." 

Second, the "generation of Adam" alludes to Genesis chapter five, and particularly to verse one, "book of the generations of Adam." Again, as the context shows, that refers to the family tree of Adam, or his progeny, all those who are descended from him. It is in the plural, unlike the Two Seed terminology. So, it is not far-fetched to say that the human race is one family, or one generation, or one kind of people. But, the Two Seeders were not united on whether to affirm or deny the proposition that says that any part of the "Adam man" was a child of God. Some said that all of Adam's descendants were the children of God, and the children of the Devil are not Adam's descendants. These would say that all the "generation of Adam" were the "generation of Jesus Christ." Some would say that the "generation of Adam" denoted those who have a human body but no soul and whose bodies would return to the dust and never exist again. 

Third, "generation of vipers" is a term for lost people, or perhaps to a particular segment of that group. 

Both saved and unsaved people are of Adam's family tree and in that sense all are of the "generation(s) of Adam." The generation of vipers are of the generation of Adam. So, the Two Seed idea that these are three distinct groups of people is an intriguing fable, but not the teaching of the scriptures. Think of a Venn diagram, such as this one:

Imagine each of these three circles representing the three generations asserted by the Two Seed minister that Potter refers to. I will leave it with the reader to discern whether a particular area is empty or not.

In chapter eighteen Potter wrote the following which occurred in 1873:

"Elder Hearde, in his debate with me, treated me very courteously, I being quite a young man while he was much older. He undertook to prove in his affirmation that the people of God are a seed which existed in heaven prior to the formation of the Adam man, that they would all go back to heaven where they came from. I do not pretend to say that I have his proposition verbatim, but this is the substance of it, and he led out in the opening of that question, with a speech for one hour, in which he made a number of scripture quotations to show that God’s people were a seed. He quoted this among others; “A seed shall serve him, and it shall be counted to the Lord for a generation." And "In thee and thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed." "I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed. It shall bruise thy head and it shall bruise his heel." Quite a number of other texts of this character were introduced in his first speech, without a great many comments. He stated that he intended to merely lay his planks down loose, in this speech, and that he would come with his hatchet and nails and fasten them down in his next speech. In my reply to his arguments on these proof-texts, to prove the pre-existence of God's people, I simply admitted that I believed that the Lord's people were a seed, and that was all that he had proven by these texts. I was not here to deny that God's people were a seed, but that I was here to deny that they had an eternal existence, and that there was not a single text in all the catalogue of texts that he had quoted that said anything about the pre-existence of the people mentioned in his proof-texts. I thought then, and do yet, however, that he did about as well in proving that doctrine as any man could do. I felt very confident that he could not prove it by the Bible. He finally inquired where the Lord got his people, if they did not eternally exist. I replied that he made them. That I knew of no people as the subjects of eternal salvation, only the people that God made. That the Bible frequently spoke of the fact that God made his people. "Thy maker is thine husband," is one expression of Scripture, and the very idea of a maker is the best inferential testimony that they must have been made. Again, I do not believe that they had an eternal existence, because it was said that Adam was the first man, I could not conceive of the idea of there being a man before him, and not only was he the first man, but that he was made of the dust of the ground. This was the man that I believed had transgressed the law of God, and fallen under its curse, and became subject to death, and all the miseries consequent upon sin, and that they were the subjects of salvation. But I will not stop here to give a full detail of the arguments, any more than to say that I became more fully convinced during that discussion against the doctrine of the pre-existence of God's people than I had ever been."

I would like to know more about this debate with Hearde. It seems Potter had more than one debate with others who held to Two Seed tenets. I don't know why Potter was not fully convinced of the errors of Two Seedism before this debate. Recall that he said that when he first began to preach that he rather favored Two Seed ideology.

Wrote Potter further:

"He finally, however, made this remark, that if I would admit the pre-existence of God's people, he did not ask me any boot on the question of the resurrection. So I say to- day, that the non-resurrection doctrine is the legitimate consequence, and the inevitable result of the doctrine of the pre-existence of the children of God, or the doctrine of eternal children. Men may talk all they wish about the doctrine of eternal vital union, eternal children, eternal justification, and so forth, but I do not believe in the eternal existence of God's people; neither do I believe in eternal vital union. Now, if a man admits the doctrine of eternal children, he may as well admit the doctrine of non-resurrection. We discussed this proposition a day and a half, after which I affirmed that there will be, in the future, a resurrection of the bodies, both of the just and the unjust, of Adam's posterity, some to eternal life, and some to everlasting punishment."

These are excellent observations. Though not all Two Seeders denied the resurrection of the bodies of the dead, men such as Gilbert Beebe, yet many did. In an upcoming chapter we will cite further from Elder Watson on this point.

Potter wrote:

"I believed then, and do to-day, that it was the Adam sinner that was saved, the same man that was made of the dust of the ground. I did not then believe, nor do I yet, that any part of him came from heaven. I believe that the very same body that goes to the grave will be precisely the same body that will be raised from the dead and finally taken to heaven. I contended for that doctrine in this discussion."

I don't know why there were not more public debates between Two Seeders and their opponents. It would be good if some of those debates had been published and preserved for us.

 

Two Seed Baptist Ideology (XLIV)

Having in the immediate preceding chapters focused on what Elder Lemuel Potter wrote about Two Seedism in his 1880 pamphlet "Unconditional Election Stated And Defined; Or, A Denial Of The Doctrine Of Eternal Children, Or Two Seeds In The Flesh" (It can be read (here) I wish now to examine some things he said about Two Seedism in his autobiography titled "Labors and Travels of Elder Lemuel Potter" (1894). He wrote the following in chapter thirteen (See here). Following that we will also look at what he wrote in his 1895 work "A TREATISE ON REGENERATION AND CHRISTIAN WARFARE" for it also has things to say about Two Seed views. In his book on his life, or his labors and travels, he writes (emphasis mine):

"After I commenced taking the care of churches, and baptizing and administering The Supper, it seemed like things were going along very smoothly except once in a while a brother would seem to criticize the doctrine of the resurrection. There was an old minister living in the country whose name was William Trainer, and who had been preaching in that country for many years before I was grown. He used to preach at my father's house when I was a boy. I held him in very high esteem as a man and a minister for some years after I commenced trying to preach. When I began to go out among the brethren, I would sometimes hear remarks made concerning him, that he did not believe in the doctrine of the resurrection of the body. He was occasionally accused of saying that he did not believe that anything would ever go to heaven that did not first come down from heaven." 

In earlier chapters we listed the various errors or heresies that are part of Two Seedism and a denial of the resurrection of the body was one of those errors, although not all Two Seeders denied it. Elder John M. Watson, from whose writings we cited in earlier chapters, stated that many of the Two Seeders in his area of middle Tennessee did deny a bodily resurrection. When I was a young "Primitive Baptist" minister I sometimes heard someone say of another "Primitive Baptist" minister that he denied the resurrection. I often said -- "I don't see how anyone can get that out of the Bible." I also would hear someone say of some Hardshell minister that he was a "no-Heller." These two denials spring from Two Seedism. We might even say that those who are known as "Primitive Baptist Universalists" came from Two Seedism. These would say that all of Adam's race would be saved, but would deny that all men are of Adam's race, those not of the race were the Devil's seed. 

In earlier chapters we stated that it was a basic premise of Two Seedism to say that nothing would go to heaven but what first came down from heaven and Potter says that very thing in the above citation. This premise or proposition was not derived from scripture, but one that was invented outside of scripture and then taken to the scriptures, and the scriptures twisted so as to make them agree with their man-made proposition. The Hardshells have invented other such propositions, ones that they think are inspired and are used to make the scriptures to square with them. Another one says this:

"Elder Afton Richards wrote a pamphlet in 1956 entitled, "Why I Am A Primitive Baptist". On page 21, he gives a definition of time salvation. Elder Richards says, "Primitive Baptists read the Scriptures with the desire of getting the harmony taught therein, and they enjoy much comfort that others do not get. When salvation refers to what God does for man without action on his part, and by the meritorious work of Christ, they know and realize that it refers to salvation in its highest order; preparing one to live with God in glory after death. When salvation is mentioned in connection with the acts of men; or man is to perform some action to bring about a better situation for himself, they know it is to be to the child of God (one freed from the guilt of sin), and refers to a timely deliverance, or something that is for man's benefit while he lives here in the world.""

I wrote about this in this post (here). The above words were written by Elder David Montgomery, a minister I met years ago. I also met Elder Richards years ago when I was preaching in Texas. You see the man-made proposition in the above, a proposition that is not stated in scripture but invented and then taken to the scriptures and one which takes priority over the scriptures and one which all scripture is interpreted or misinterpreted in order to square with it. The invention of such unbiblical propositions is a case of people being what Paul called "inventors of evil things." (Rom. 1: 30) I wrote upon this in this post (here), even citing Dr. John Gill who also applied this to invented false doctrines. The Hardshell proposition that says that any time salvation in the Bible is conditioned upon faith, repentance, etc., then it must be a mere time salvation, but any salvation text that mentions no such condition is a text dealing with eternal salvation, is of course, clearly unbiblical. This is true with the Two Seed proposition stated by Potter. 

Recall how Potter said that it was also a proposition of Two Seedism to say that nothing a person does in life is a reason for either going to heaven or hell. The proposition of Richards echoes this Two Seed proposition. 

When I was a young Hardshell minister I heard this motto and even heard one of the arguments or texts of scripture used to uphold it, which was taken from Revelation chapter twenty one where John sees the New Jerusalem descending out of heaven from God. Interpreting "new Jerusalem" as synonymous with "children of God" they argued that the children of God were once in heaven before they came down from heaven, which is a ridiculous interpretation. 

Potter continued:

"It was hard for me to believe but that he was all right, and I thought that some of the other ministers were jealous of him, and that that was the reason they found fault with his preaching. I was very fond of him, and I watched very closely after I had heard him accused, and I finally became satisfied that he did not believe in the salvation of the Adam man. He believed that the body—the earthly body—was no part of a child of God. After I became convinced that this was his faith, I said nothing for awhile, because I was young, and felt that I might be mistaken about the matter, until one time he preached at a school house a few miles from where I lived and I went to hear him." 

In a future chapter I will talk more in depth about how many Two Seeders denied the bodily resurrection of the just and unjust. At that time we will cite more from Elder Watson and his book against Two Seedism titled "The Old Baptist Test." The idea that "the Adam man" was "no part of a child of God" reflects the chief idea of Two Seedism, which says that in being "born of God" a preexisting soul or spirit comes down from heaven and enters into the Adam man and does not change the Adam man, a view that came to be known as the "hollow log" doctrine, which metaphor says that the children of God come down from heaven and enter the "Adam man" like a rabbit enters into a hollow log, and where the entrance of the rabbit into it does not change the log. Recall also that this entrance of the eternal child into the Adam man is called a "birth," but the "begetting" preceded the birth, occurring in past eternity when Christ was begotten. The "birth" was simply for the purpose of "developing" the eternally begotten spiritual child, and so, when the development is completed, the "Adam man" dies and the eternal child returns to God fully matured. 

It is hard to believe that when Potter saw the error of denying the bodily resurrection that he "said nothing for awhile," saying it was "because he was young and might be mistaken about the matter." How could he keep quiet? Was it because, as he said, that he rather favored Two Seedism when he began to preach? How could he be mistaken about such a fundamental element of the Christian faith? Does this confession of Potter not show how extensive Two Seedism and a denial of bodily resurrection were in Illinois in the 19th century? I can tell you this, I too was once a young minister among the Hardshells and I did not hesitate to call out the heresies and wrongdoings of some of them.  

Potter continued:

"His appointment had been published the Sunday before, and on that Sunday I went to my father's in company with some others for dinner, and as we were about separating, I overheard my father and another brother, in conversation, speak of Elder Trainer's appointment. They both expressed a desire to go and hear him, saying that if he had ever denied the resurrection of the body, they had never heard him. I said nothing, but thought that I had heard him. I went to hear him on this occasion, and when I got there these brethren were there, and when he arose to preach, he stated that some people were mistaken as to who the child of God is, or else he was. He said some thought that the lady and gentleman were the children of God, but that he did not believe that. When he made use of that expression I thought, "they hear it now." I know now, and did then, that if the lady or gentleman is not the child of God, the doctrine of the resurrection of the body is not a true doctrine. Elder Trainer, at that time was on his way to Little Wabash Church, in White county, and I concluded to make the trip with him, which I did. I rode with him all day, during which time he talked a great deal, for he was a great talker. He satisfied me that he did not believe in the resurrection of the body for he said it in so many words. His preaching among the churches in that part of the country caused a great deal of wrangling and considerable hardness among the brethren, and the exclusion of some good men from the church. This was rather embarrassing for me, to go among brethren who differed, and yet seemed to be good brethren. Matters went on in this way for some two or three years, before a final separation came on account of the non-resurrection doctrine."

This is a part of the history of many of those who call themselves "Primitive Baptists" and yet they want to sweep it under the rug as much as possible. So, why did Potter, who came to be such a great champion debater, not challenge Elder Trainer? As we will see, he did later have a debate with a Two Seeder on the issue of the resurrection of the bodies of the dead. 

Potter wrote further:

"In the winter of 1868, I was called to the care of Grayville church, and moved down into the neighborhood of that church. After I had been there about a year, it seemed that the non-resurrection doctrine advocated by Elder Trainer and others was causing more and more trouble all the time, and the feeling was getting very high, until finally the church at Little Wabash called a council from several of the churches around, to advise them what to do, which council advised all our churches to shut the anti-resurrection doctrine out of their houses. This most of the churches did throughout the Skillet Fork Association."

This denial of bodily resurrection is a direct offshoot of Two Seed ideology.

Potter wrote:

"While I am on the subject of the trouble concerning the non-resurrection doctrine, I will state that in the year 1869, the church at Little Wabash, White county, Illinois, at the request of her pastor, Elder David Stuart, called for the council mentioned in the preceding chapter. The council was to meet in February. Some of Elder Trainer's friends notified him of the meeting, and he and another preacher by the name of Enoch Tabor attended the meeting. On their way to that meeting, they had an appointment at my church at Grayville, for Tabor to preach on Friday night. I had never seen Elder Tabor, but he was said to be a very able man. Being in company with Elder Trainer, it was natural to suppose that he would be in sympathy with him on that doctrine. I went out to hear him preach, and he took for his text, “It is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief." For about an hour and a half, I thought he made as able a defense of the doctrine of salvation by grace, without creature conditions or merits, and against the charges on the part of conditionalists, as I ever heard a man make. I could not help but be pleased with his ability and the masterly and powerful manner in which he defended the doctrine of salvation as being by grace alone, through the Lord Jesus Christ. At the end of that time he began to inquire, “But who is it that is saved? Is it the Adam man, or any of his posterity?” and for another hour and a half, I do not think I have ever heard a man give his own people, claiming the Baptists as his people, more abuse for believing the doctrine of the resurrection, and the salvation of the Adamic sinner than he did. He said he had been in good standing with the Baptist people ever since the year 1827, and that he had opportunities to know what the Baptist doctrine was, and he wanted no better evidence that a man was a Pharisee than for him to believe in the doctrine of the resurrection of the just and the unjust. He said that if a man had his name written in letters of gold upon his forehead, whose brilliancy would outshine the sun, “Pharisee,” it would be no better evidence to him that he was a Pharisee than for him to say he believed in the resurrection of the just and the unjust. While he was preaching, I looked over my congregation and saw that the house was full of people, and that the majority of them were unacquainted with what the Baptists really did believe upon the question of the resurrection. All my responsibilities began to bear heavily upon my mind. Should I, young, weak and timid as I was, presume so much as to tell this intelligent and thinking audience that I did not believe or endorse this man's preaching on the question of the resurrection? If I undertake to argue against him the people will think I am foolish. If I let matters go and say nothing about it, I do injustice to my own cause. I am the pastor of this church, and have read in scripture the obligations resting upon a watchman who sees the foe coming and does give the alarm, I made up my mind, however, that I would not say a word until after Elder Trainer had said what he had to say." 

The idea that salvation is without conditions on the part of people is also a direct offshoot of Two Seed ideology. That is not to say that there were not others, prior to the genesis of Two Seedism, who denied that there were conditions for salvation. 

In J.H. Spencer's history, volume two, he writes the following about the Elkhorn Baptist Association of Kentucky in chapter one, published 1886 (See here):

"In answer to a query from Tates Creek, the churches were advised to use all tenderness to re-claim persons holding the error of conditional salvation, but if they could not be reclaimed, to exclude them."

This occurred in 1785 the year the Elkhorn Association was organized. What is interesting, however, is the association's endorsement of both the 1644 and 1689 London Confessions of faith, as well as the Philadelphia Confession, which of course does teach that there are conditions for salvation. In fact, in 1793 we have this record given by Spencer:

"1793. October 12. At South Elkhorn. Grassy Lick and Flat Lick Churches had been received, in May, and now Springfield Church was received. A union was formed with the four churches which had recently seceded from South Kentucky Association, on the following terms, proposed by the seceding churches:

"We agree to receive the regular Baptist Confession of Faith; but to prevent its exerting a tyrannical power over the consciences of any, we do not mean that every person is to be bound to the strict observance of everything therein contained, yet that it holds forth the essential truths of the gospel, and that the doctrines of salvation by Jesus Christ, and free, unmerited grace alone, ought to be believed by every christian, and maintained by every minister of the gospel. And that we do believe in the doctrines relative to the Trinity, the divinity of Christ, the sacred authority of the Scriptures, the universal depravity of human nature, the total inability of men to help themselves without the aid of divine grace, the necessity of repentance toward God and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, the justification of our persons entirely by the righteousness of Christ imputed, believer's baptism by immersion only; and self-denial; and that the supreme Judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be none other than the holy Scriptures, delivered by the Spirit, into which Scriptures, so delivered, our faith is finally resolved."

So, salvation is unconditional and yet faith and repentance are necessities for salvation? Obviously they felt like the term "conditional salvation" implied things that they did not believe. I write about this extensively in my series on "The Hardshell Baptist Cult" and in some other articles. (See here, here, here) In the latter I cite from Elder John M. Watson, who we have cited from extensively in earlier chapters, on this question. He wrote:

"Some suppose that as this doctrine includes conditions or means, the performance of, or compliance with, them determines the acts of the Lord, making His acts dependent on them of the creature; and as the subject is sometimes discussed in such a manner as to embarrass those who are otherwise sound in the faith, it may not be amiss to give scriptural exposition of conditions and means."

"The reader should be reminded that there is a difference between the conditions of the first covenant under the law, and those of the Gospel under the second, or new covenant, Heb. 8: 9, 19...The condition, do and live was performed by Christ, and the benefits of it are enjoyed by faith, and by our compliance with it; for by nature we are morally unable to do so." (page 355)

Next Watson cites Perkins:

"William Perkins writes equally as clear on this subject as follows: "In the covenant of grace, two things must be considered, the substance thereof, and the condition. The substance of the covenant is, that righteousness and life everlasting is given to God's people by Christ. The condition is, that we for our part are by faith to receive the aforesaid benefits; and this condition is by grace as well as the substance." And no less in point is the following: "He freely provideth and offereth to sinners a Mediator and life and salvation by Him, and requiring faith as the condition to interest them in Him, nourisheth and giveth his Holy Spirit to all his elect to work in them that faith with all other saving graces, and to enable them to all holy obedience of the truth of their faith."

"So that the subject of the conditions of the Gospel, which have been confounded by many with those of the law and have given rise to so many Arminian errors, admits of a very satisfactory exposition. The Lord did not under the first covenant, promise to give grace to the fallen sinner to enable him to keep the whole law, that being the condition of justification and life; but under the new covenant it was both promised and given." (page 356)

"Means admit of a similar exposition. The Lord has gone out before us also in them. He not only gave us His Gospel, but ordained means by which it would become savingly efficacious to all His chosen. Isa. 55: 11...So we may say of Gospel means, without the power of God they never prevail over the hearts of sinners; but means in His power, whether great or small, in our estimation, are always efficacious. He derives no strength or advantage from them as adjuncts to His work. He employs them because it is His will to do so. Eph. 1: 11." (page 357)

"Paul, however, does not affirm, like some of our modern innovators, that means or instrumentalities are not employed by the Lord in the divine plan of salvation; for he asks: "How shall they hear without a preacher?" Rom. 10: 14."

It is not surprising that the Two Seedism of Elder Trainer included a view that denied conditions for salvation. Recall that in a previous chapter we gave one of the propositions of Two Seedism which stated that nothing a person does in his life is a condition for going either to heaven or hell. 

In this next chapter we will continue what Potter says about Elder Trainer and Elder Tabor and their Two Seed tenets and their denial of a bodily resurrection.