Two Seed Baptist Ideology (LX)

Elder Claudis (Claud) Hopkins Cayce

1871-1945

In this chapter and the next few we will continue examining what Elder C.H. Cayce wrote in his editorials in the "Primitive Baptist" periodical in the first half of the twentieth century concerning battles that were still then occurring over several tenets of Two Seedism. But, before we do that, it might be good to inform the reader as to what issues were dividing the "Primitive," "Old School," or "Hardshell" Baptists at the end of the 19th century and well into the 20th century. 

1. Division over the "means question." 

2. Division over "Two Seedism" and its various tenets. 

3. Division over the extent of predestination or the "absolute predestination of all things." 

4. Division over the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints. 

5. Division over the use of musical instruments and Sunday Schools. 

6. Division over Universalism.

7. Division over minor issues, such as allowing church members to be members of secret orders such as Masonic Lodges, and support of missionaries, protracted or revival meetings, foot washing, etc.

8. Division over the question of whether the Great Commission was binding on the church involving the Kirkland preachers. 

In another editorial by Elder C. H. Cayce titled "TWO-SEED DOCTRINE" for the July 15th, 1920 issue of the Primitive Baptist periodical, published out of Thornton, Arkansas, Cayce wrote:

"Brother W. A. Beggs, Jacksboro, Texas, has asked us to explain the difference between the eternal Two-Seed doctrine and the doctrine of the Primitive Baptists. We hardly deem it necessary to show the contrast and show what the differences really are, as we suppose the brother understands what the teachings of the Primitive Baptists are and have been on the points which we shall mention."

Elder Cayce wrote further:

"The eternal Two-Seed doctrine is that God made choice of certain persons from among the human family for His children to dwell in for awhile here in time. Hence, they claim to believe in the doctrine of election; but they do not believe that sinners of Adam’s race were chosen to be saved in heaven. They teach, as stated, that God made choice of persons of Adam’s race for His children to dwell in for awhile here on earth."

In earlier chapters we showed what was the error with the Two Seed understanding of the doctrine of unconditional election. It is true that some Two Seeders did not believe that "sinners of Adam's race were chosen to be saved in heaven," but not all. All of them believed, however, that the reason why the elect were chosen to salvation is because they were already related to Christ by having been begotten in him from eternity, and so Christ, as a "kinsman redeemer" or husband of the church, was obligated to choose them and save them. That makes the choice to be conditional. 

Elder Cayce wrote further:

"In the work which we call regeneration they teach that there is an eternal spirit or child which comes down from God out of heaven and takes up its abode in the Adam man, and remains in the Adam man and torments him until the Adam man dies; when the Adam man dies, this eternal child goes back to God where it came from and the Adam man goes to the ground where he will always remain."

That is true, but he failed to mention other errors about "regeneration" espoused by the Two Seeders. He does not mention the "no change" view of regeneration. He does not mention the Two Seeder's view that regeneration was the begetting of the children of God and was distinct from the birth of those children. 

Elder Cayce wrote further:

"The eternal Two-Seeder claims that the body of the Adam man is no part of the child of God; that the child of God is on the inside of the Adam man; the child of God is a man on the inside of the man you see. They carry this doctrine to its logical conclusion and deny the resurrection of the body, claiming that the body remains in the dust, and will not be raised again."

What Cayce says of the Two Seeders is true with some of them.  

Elder Cayce wrote further:

"The eternal Two-Seeders also hold that God unalterably fixed and decreed all the wickedness that men do, and that wicked men and devils are doing God’s will in their nefarious crimes and meanness as much so as is being done by His children rendering gospel service and living a life of righteousness; that the devil does the will of God as much as Jesus Christ did in His perfect life of obedience to the law of God."

Elder Cayce wrote further:

"These are some of the fundamental principles of the teaching of the eternal Two-Seeders. Primitive Baptists do not teach those things, and never have taught them. Those things are not Primitive Baptist doctrine, and never have been.” 

It is interesting to note what Cayce left out in his listing of the beliefs of Two Seeders. In earlier chapters I cited from Elders John M. Watson and Hosea Preslar, two leaders of the "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptists in the early to mid 19th century and who battled against Two Seedism, and gave their testimony as to what were the leading beliefs of Two Seeders. Why does Cayce not mention the work of Elder John Watson in refuting Two Seedism in his book "The Old Baptist Test"? Why does he not mention the work of Elder George Stipp? Why does he only mention Potter and Grigg Thompson? Is it because these two men denied means in eternal salvation and Watson and Stipp did not? 

Elder Lemuel Potter, who Cayce extolled, did mention Watson in his debates with W. P. Throgmorton and Potter claimed in that debate that Watson was one of their highly esteemed founders. So did Elders Sylvester Hassell and Gilbert Beebe. So why could he refer the readers to the writings of his fellow ministers who wrote against Two Seedism, such as Lemuel Potter and Grigg Thompson, but not refer them to what Elder Watson wrote in the "Old Baptist Test," especially since it was written for the purpose of rebutting Two Seed beliefs? 

I am  fairly sure it is because he knew that Watson, Preslar, and Stipp stated that the anti-means view was a Two Seed belief, and Cayce shared that view, but he did not want to affirm that his anti-means view was a Two Seed view. We have not yet presented the work of Elder George Stipp against Two Seedism, but we plan to do so in upcoming chapters. However, in this post (here) I gave citations from Stipp's work where he plainly says that only those who hear the word of God and the Savior's voice, and who become believers in Jesus, are regenerated.

Cayce shared several other Two Seed ideas and had some of their quirks. He certainly agreed with the Two Seed idea that nothing a person did or didn't do determined whether he went to heaven. He also shared their penchant for spiritualizing or allegorizing of scripture. He took their view of the story of the rich man and Lazarus, denying that it taught what happens to saved and unsaved people when they die. He also shared their view that Adam did not die a spiritual death, and that Paul's "natural man" was man as originally created, rather than fallen man. 

Cayce says nothing about the question of the origin of Satan, a chief question in the Two Seed debates. He also says nothing about union with Christ, which was the crux of the debate. Two Seeders believed in an eternal vital union between Christ and the church, and denied that union with Christ occurred in regeneration or by faith. He also said nothing about another key idea that led to the formation of Two Seedism, which was the idea that Christ, as a mediator with a human soul, was begotten before the world began, a teaching that Joseph Hussey and others taught at the beginning of the 18th century, and a view shared by Isaac Watts and Menno Simons. We wrote about this in earlier chapters. He also did not mention how many Two Seeders denied the Trinity or denied that Christ being the Son of God pertained to his divinity. 

It is strange that Cayce says that Two Seeders taught that God "unalterably fixed and decreed all the wickedness that men do, and that wicked men and devils are doing God’s will," which was what was asserted by those who opposed those "Primitive Baptists" like Gilbert Beebe who affirmed the absolute predestination of all things. But, more on that shortly.  However, as we saw in chapter twenty two of this series, Daniel Parker believed in the self-existence of the Devil because he did not want to believe that God was the cause of evil, directly or indirectly. Other Two Seeders shared this concern. Therefore, it seems Cayce is off base in charging Two Seeders with believing that God was the reason for men being wicked. In that chapter I cited from O. Max Lee who said about Parker: "To hold that God was responsible for the creation of Satan, Parker surmised, would make God the author of both good and evil." 

In my post titled "Elder Preslar on Two Seedism" (See here) I cited from Preslar's book "Thoughts on Divine Providence" where he wrote:

"Now if there is any system to their doctrine (Two Seeders), or if they preach any system, I understand it to be about as follows:

First:  they hold that the foreknowledge of God amounts to a decree, because (say they) it could not be any other way, and therefore denounce the idea that Adam was able to stand, but liable to fall. 

Secondly:  They hold that the Church of God was in eternal union with Him, (not in purpose, but actually so); and that the church is composed of a family of eternal children, that was in eternal union with God. 

Thirdly: That when Adam transgressed the law of his Creator, and fell under its curse, that those eternal children fell in him; but not in the same like sense that the children of the devil fell. 

Fourthly: That the devil is a self-existent devil, or wicked spirit, and that, after Adam had transgressed the law of his Creator, the devil and his children, through Eve, began to make their appearance; and from them came another set of children that they call the children of the devil, or the seed of the serpent.  And that those wicked children are a wicked spiritual family that dwell in mortal bodies; and are therefore called children of the flesh, and that this wicked generation of children constitute the non-elect; and that those eternal children that were in eternal union with God, constitute the elect of God or the church. 

Fifthly: And as they had fallen under the law in Adam, that Christ came and redeemed them back again, and that the Holy Ghost makes manifest this to them in time, and that they are now renewed in the spirit of their mind, that is in the enjoyment of that eternal union they had with God; for (say they), there is nothing the soul receives in time, but a manifestation of what did before exist, not in purpose, for purpose (say they) amounts to nothing, but actually so.

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.

Seventhly: That everything must return back again to its origin, and hence, these mortal bodies of ours must return to the dust, and never will be resurrected any more.  They contend for (what they call) a spiritual resurrection, and a spiritual body, that was eternally prepared of God for them; and that this was the kind of body that Jesus ascended into heaven with, and not in the one that was born of the Virgin Mary, crucified upon the Roman cross, and laid in the sepulcher; adding that it is none of our business what became of that body.

Eighthly, and lastly: They say that all other doctrine outside, or differing from this, is unsound, is Armianism, etc.

"The above is a correct and concise account of the items or tenets of doctrine, I understand them to hold forth.  And as I consider their system to be heresy, and having suffered much, as well as many others on account of it, I here give my reasons in a brief way, hoping that Divine Providence may make it a blessing to His church and people hereafter, for of all the systems of heresy that ever I have encountered with yet, I abhor it the most."  (pages 179-80)

"Neither has he told us when or how the devil was made or created, but He has let us know there is a devil, and He has let us know he is a murderer, a liar, and the father of lies, and that he sinned from the beginning, and abode not in the truth; John 8: 44. This much God has been pleased to let us know about the devil.  He does not tell us he never was in possession of the truth, but that he abode not in the truth...Then away with the doctrine of an eternal, self-existent devil."  (pg. 183-84)

"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)

"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."  (pg. 187)

Preslar mentions nothing about the absolute predestination of all things as being an error held to by only the Two Seed Primitive Baptists, as Cayce says. The fact is, many "Primitive Baptists" who were not Two Seeders believed in this doctrine. Cayce may be saying this because Elder Gilbert Beebe held to Two Seed views and also was a leading advocate of the absolute predestination of all things. Further, this is the teaching of the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith which Cayce endorsed in 1900 when he attended, with his father, the Fulton Convention of Primitive Baptists, wherein the fifty one leading elders assembled endorsed the 1689 confession, although they put footnotes to the articles on predestination to "clarify" those articles. It is also ironic that Cayce would say that the absolute predestinarian view was a Two Seed view, if he is basing that opinion upon Gilbert Beebe embracing both Two Seedism and absolute predestination of all things because Beebe was one of the first ones to teach against means, saying that it is the voice of Christ himself spoken to sinners internally that regenerates them. 

In Bob L. Ross's book "History and Heresies of Hardshellism," chapter six, he wrote (emphasis mine):

"Gilbert Beebe (1800-1881), editor of the Signs of the Times magazine, the foremost Anti-mission periodical following the 1832 split, was perhaps the first one -- at least, one of the first -- to propagate this new theory of "direct speaking" regeneration. He says:

"The word of the Lord, which is Spirit, and which is life, which liveth and abideth forever, is that by which regeneration is affected; not MERELY by the Scriptures in their LETTER, not reading or preaching them, but the words which Jesus himself SPEAKS to the individual persons who are made to hear and live." [Compilation of Editorial Articles, Vol. IV, pages 21, 22].

Claud H. Cayce, editor of The Primitive Baptist in the first part of the 20th century, would represent the view of the "conditionalist" faction of Primitives, or "Old Schoolers," when he says:

"Sinners receive eternal life, are regenerated, just one way. The Lord SPEAKS to them as He did to Saul of Tarsus when he was on his journey from Jerusalem to Damascus, and when He SPEAKS to the dead sinner he IMPARTS LIFE. He regenerates the sinner. 'The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit and they are life,' says the Redeemer." [Selected Editorials From The Primitive Baptist, Vol. I, page 194].

So, Cayce is taking a view of regeneration that was first finely defined by Two Seeder Gilbert Beebe. If he thinks that Two Seedism embraces the absolute predestination (or God's decree of) all things because Two Seeder Beebe held to it, then by the same logic he has to agree that his anti-means view is also a Two Seed view. Recall that previously I cited from "The History of the Baptists of Tennessee" by Lawrence Edwards (August, 1940), University of Tennessee - Knoxville (see here), from Chapter IV, titled "ANTI-MISSION BAPTISTS OCCUPIED BY DOCTRINAL DISPUTES" and from chapter V, "THE TWO-SEED HERESY AND ABSOLUTE PREDESTINATION," wherein Lawrence wrote:

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

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

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

But the Powell Valley seems to feed on division and dissension, for in the early years of the twentieth century it was again torn asunder."  (pg. 89)

This is interesting because it was written in 1879 which was several years before Cayce wrote the above editorial. Second, the association does connect the anti-means doctrine with Two Seedism and does hint at the doctrine of absolute predestination in that it seems to allude to supralapsarianism, as also connected with Two Seedism. It does allude to the Two Seed tenet that said that nothing a person does in his life determines whether he goes to heaven or hell. So, though Cayce may reject absolute predestination of all things and say that it is a tenet of Two Seedism, yet he himself held to the Two Seed anti-means view, the view that it is useless to preach to the unregenerate, and the view that nothing a person does in his life determines whether he goes to heaven. 

Consider also that many "Primitive Baptists" who say they reject Two Seedism nevertheless believe in what is called "eternal justification," a view that John Gill advocated in the 18th century. Elder David Pyles, a leading minister in today's "Primitive Baptist Church," denies means and also holds to the doctrine of eternal justification.

Two Seed Baptist Ideology (LIX)

Elder S. F. Cayce

1850-1905

The above is a picture of Elder S. F. Cayce, father of Elder C. H. Cayce, which I probably should have put in the last chapter since C.H. (Claud) cited from his father on Two Seedism. In this chapter we will begin with an editorial titled "Regeneration" by Elder C.H. Cayce (November 16, 1915). In it Cayce wrote:

"The Saviour says, in (John 3:3), "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." The word man is translated from a word which means anyone. Hence, "Except anyone be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." The word again is translated from a word which means from above. Hence, "Except anyone be born from above, he cannot see the kingdom of God." The word man, or the word anyone, simply refers to the race-except anyone of the race of Adam be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. One must be born from above in order to that end. It is the sinner of Adam's race that is the subject of the new birth."

Why, in the year 1915, does Cayce find it necessary to stress the idea that it is the man who has descended from Adam who is born again? Is it not because he is fighting against the Two Seed idea that says it is not the "Adam man" who is born again? Obviously then, the "Primitive Baptists" are still having trouble over the doctrine of regeneration, or the new birth, a topic that has troubled that denomination from their start.

By his saying that "born again" means "born from above" he is saying what some Two Seeders were often heard emphasizing. They rejected the translation that says "born again" and said it meant "born from above," and with them it was an important distinction. However, Nicodemus understood Jesus to mean "born again" for he said "can he enter the second time into his mother's womb and be born?" Further, Peter spoke of being "born again." (I Peter 1: 23) "Born again" in that text is from a singular Greek word, anagegennēmenoi (ἀναγεγεννημένοι) where the prefix "ana" means "again." 

"Born from above" fit better with Two Seed theology, for they say that the divine seed, which contained the people of God as Adam's seed contained all the race, came down from heaven and was deposited in human beings. They said "born again" carries the connotation of "born over." They thought "born from above" indicated that it was not the earthly man that had been born again. Keep in mind also that they made a clear distinction between being conceived (or begotten) and being born (delivered) as we do in physical birth. Two Seeders rejected the idea that the same person who was of Adam's seed was born again, for that would mean "born over," or another birth of the flesh. 

Elder Gilbert Beebe in an editorial in the "Signs of the Times" for April 1st, 1868 (you can read here) said (emphasis mine):

"The saints are spoken of in the Scriptures as having an existence in Christ before the foundation of the world (Ephesians 1:4), and as having an existence in Adam as early as the creation of man: Consequently, they did exist and were identified in some sense, before they were born, either of the flesh or of the Spirit. A birth gives no existence; it is the bringing into manifestation that which before existed...Our conviction is that the man who is born again was created and chosen in Christ Jesus before the foundation of the world; was in time born first of the flesh, and subsequently born again, of the Spirit."

Both the Two Seed Primitive or Old School Baptists and the Non-Two Seeders saw regeneration (or begetting) as distinct from the birth from above. The former believed that the conception or begetting of the children of God occurred in conjunction with the begetting of the Son of God sometime in eternity past, and believed that the birth took place in time when a sinner was saved or quickened unto spiritual life. The latter believed that the begetting and the birth both took place in time, the begetting being regeneration proper, the time when the divine "incorruptible seed" (I Peter 1: 23) was deposited within a sinner and germinated, producing a child of God, and the birth coming later after the child has been formed in the womb and brought forth (or manifested). Gilbert Beebe argued in favor of both views, ironically. In this post (here) I cited Beebe's views on James 1: 18 where he wrote the following in 1846:

10. “Of his own will begat he us, with the word of truth.” – James i. 18. Instead of honored instrumentalities, the whole power of producing the conception and consequent birth of the children of God is in this test accredited to “His own will” alone, that is, to the sovereign, immutable will of God, which proves the position we have taken in the preceding item of our reply."

Notice the words "conception and consequent birth." So, when does each occur?

In chapter thirty two of this series I cited from Beebe's editorial of March 1st 1880 in his paper "The Signs of the Times," where he responded to queries by Elder W. M. Mitchell and wrote the following in reply (highlighting mine):

"We have usually spoken of the implantation of the spirit, in which Christ is formed in us, as a new birth, and so we now understand it, as taught, John i. 13. and 1 Peter 1. 23. 24. And this work is performed in the sinner of Adam's race, who, as a natural man, is spoken of in the scriptures as possessing a soul, body and spirit, which is depraved and, sinful, to qualify him to see the kingdom of God. But we have labored to the extent of our limited ability to keep in view that a birth is the bringing forth into manifestation something that was begotten and which exist antecendently to its development by birth."

Again, notice that he says the birth is distinct from being begotten. In chapter forty three I cited from Beebe's editorial response to Elder Potter's critique in the "Signs of the Times" for June 1880 (See here under "Number 6" of his editorials)

"If we have read correctly the record which God has given of his Son, as the Head of the body, the church, he, as the Head of the church and Savior of the body, is not only the begotten, but the only begotten of the Father; and we infer that the begetting of the Head includes the begetting of the spiritual body, and all the members of the body of which he is the Head."

So here again we see where Beebe says the children of God were "begotten" in eternity past when Christ was begotten of the Father. However, he also believed that the begetting corresponded to the time when a sinner is "regenerated" and that the "birth" corresponded to the time when the regenerated or begotten sinner was converted to faith in Christ. In chapter fifty two of my series "The Hardshell Baptist Cult" (See here) I cited from Beebe's editorial in the "Signs" titled "Regeneration and the New Birth" for September 1st, 1857, taken from Vol. 4 of his editorials. (emphasis mine)

"In the order of regeneration, or the development of the children of God, no intermediate agencies are employed, no system of means can bring forth the promised seed, as was demonstrated in the case of Hagar and Ishmael; it is the immediate work of God himself. "Of his own will begat he us, with the word of truth." - James i. 18...When a sinner is thus quickened, the incorruptible seed, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth forever, is implanted in his heart, and the evidence of this implantation is first given by a sense of the purity and holiness of God, and the spirituality of his law, contrasted with a sense of guilt, pollution and just condemnation of the person to whom this communication is made, and consequently a struggle for deliverance...Now all this conviction, contrition, lamentation and distress, is the legitimate consequence resulting from life implanted, and indicates to all who know experimentally the way of life, that the poor sin-burdened soul is drawing near to the time of his birth, or deliverance...Then by the revelation of Christ in us the hope of glory, the way of salvation through him is brought to view, the burden of guilt is removed, the blood of Christ is applied, the demands of the law are canceled, the curse is removed, the prison doors are opened, the captive is delivered, the love of God is shed abroad in the heart, old things are passed away; behold all things have become new; a new song is put in his mouth, even praise unto God, the gospel pours its joyful sound into his quickened ears, his goings are established and he is a new creature..."

In that chapter I give further citations from Beebe where he taught this paradigm. It was the paradigm most generally believed by the "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptists of the early 19th century. So, Beebe believes that the elect were "begotten" twice, once in past eternity, and once in time and which was distinct from the birth.

Cayce wrote further in the same editorial mentioned above (1915):

"It is not some kind of spirit, or eternal child, that comes down and takes up its abode in the Adam man, and remains in him until the Adam man dies and then goes back to heaven where it came from, thus leaving the Adam man out of the benefits of salvation."

Cayce takes the view of G.M. Thompson and Lemuel Potter. These represented the side that opposed Two Seedism. However, as I have shown in previous chapters, they nonetheless retained several Two Seed tenets, such as 1) affirming that the word of God is no means in eternal salvation, and 2) that nothing a person does in his life determines whether he goes to heaven, and 3) that there is little to no change in the thinking and belief of sinners when they are regenerated. In chapter forty six I cited from C.H. Cayce's editorials where he applauded the Forked Deer Association for declaring non-fellowship for those who believed in preaching the gospel to sinners. So I wrote:

In Cayce's Editorials, we find the following under title "OUR WORK ENDORSED" for October 10, 1905 (emphasis mine):

"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 that same chapter I cited from the 1879 minutes of the Powell's Valley Association of Primitive Baptists where they wrote the following under the tenth item of business:

"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."

Cayce wrote further in that same editorial in 1915:

"Elder G. M. Thompson was considered one among the ablest men of his day. He wrote a book called "The Measuring Rod; or the Principles and Practice of the Primitive Baptists," which was published in 1861. It is a refutation of Two-Seedism. On pages 79, 80, 81, and 82 he says: The Bible represents the new birth or regeneration, as producing a great change in the sinner; but it does not only prove the change, but it proves that the sinner is the subject of that birth or regeneration. It is the sinner's heart that is circumcised to love the Lord; it is the sinner that is purged from an evil conscience to serve the Lord; and it is the dead sinner that is to hear the voice of the Son of God, and live. In the work of regeneration, the stranger is made a citizen, the enemy is made a friend, and those who know not God, are made to know Him and love Him."

We reviewed Thompson's work in earlier chapters of this series. Notice that Cayce sees "birth" as the same as "regeneration." That was not, however, the more common view of "Primitive Baptists" prior to the time when Cayce wrote the above. It was the view of Elder Grigg Thompson but not the view of his father Elder Wilson Thompson.

Cayce wrote further in the same editorial:

"It seems to us that we have been plain enough in the foregoing for anyone to know that we do not believe the "whole man" doctrine; but for fear some person might not remember, we will say, most emphatically, that WE DO NOT BELIEVE THE" WHOLE MAN" DOCTRINE. When we say we do not believe a thing, there is no man under heaven who has any right to say that we do, and no honest man who reads this will hereafter do so. Some have accused us of believing that, but every honest man who has thought so will say it no more, and will be willing to correct his statements that we did."

It seems clear from these words that Two Seed ideas were still being discussed in 1915. In fact, as I have shown in previous chapters, Cayce, like nearly all "Primitive Baptists" today, still retain several Two Seed tenets, such as a denial that the gospel is a means in the regeneration of sinners, and in their accepting the premise that says "nothing a person does determines whether he goes to heaven or hell." 

Cayce wrote further in the same long editorial:

"We have been silent for some time, and have written nothing for our columns, hoping that peace might be restored, until we have felt that circumstances and the cause absolutely demanded that we say this much, and give our readers to understand that we do not believe the "whole man" doctrine, and that we were not going to allow any quarrel in The Primitive Baptist on the question. While we do not believe the "whole man" doctrine, we wish it also understood that we do not believe what has been called the "hollow log" doctrine. Both are wrong and we will not accept either."

In previous chapters we have said much about both the "hollow log" and "whole man" doctrines of the Two Seed Primitive Baptists. Notice that Cayce speaks of "peace" in the churches "might be restored," which shows that Two Seedism was still dividing churches in 1915.

In another editorial titled "The TWO SEED Doctrine" Cayce wrote the following July 15, 1920:

"The eternal Two-Seed doctrine is that God made choice of certain persons from among the human family for His children to dwell in for awhile here in time. Hence, they claim to believe in the doctrine of election; but they do not believe that sinners of Adam’s race were chosen to be saved in heaven. They teach, as stated, that God made choice of persons of Adam’s race for His children to dwell in for awhile here on earth." 

In previous chapters we have seen how the Two Seed view of the doctrine of unconditional election was described and shown to be perverted by the Two Seeders.

Cayce wrote:

"In the work which we call regeneration they teach that there is an eternal spirit or child which comes down from God out of heaven and takes up its abode in the Adam man, and remains in the Adam man and torments him until the Adam man dies; when the Adam man dies, this eternal child goes back to God where it came from and the Adam man goes to the ground where he will always remain."

This is a repetition of what he had earlier said. He feels a need to keep saying this.

Two Seed Baptist Ideology (LVIII)

In the previous two chapters we began to look at what Elders S.F. Cayce and his son C.H. Cayce had to say about several tenets of Two Seedism. Let us begin this chapter by citing further from Elder C.H. Cayce and his editorial titled "Two-Seedism" from the April 30, 1912 issue of "The Primitive Baptist." Cayce wrote:

"The doctrine of eternal Two Seedism is that in the work which we call regeneration, an eternal child, or eternal spirit, comes down from God out of heaven and takes up its abode in the Adam man, and remains in the Adam man until the man dies; then that eternal child goes back to God where it came from, and the Adam man goes to the grave and remains there forever. Thus the Adam man is not a subject of salvation. It is also taught that there are two families in the flesh - that Cain was a child of the devil by ordinary generation, and that Seth was a child of God by ordinary generation - that there are two families existing in the flesh - the family of God and the family of the devil, and that these two families have continued to exist all along from then until now. This is their teaching, although we have not learned how the devil got his family across the flood. These are some of the teachings of the Two Seed system, which we think are enough to show that the system is false."

It is interesting to all historians of the "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptists to notice that in the early part of the twentieth century that several tenets of Two Seedism were still being debated among them. In several posts of former years I have cited the following words from Elder Sylvester Hassell, written near the end of the nineteenth century:

"...the heathenish perversions of Scriptural truth set forth by Eld. Daniel Parker, of Tennessee, about 1835, in his pamphlet called "My Views on the Two Seeds," have corrupted Primitive Baptist doctrine more, and rent off more members and churches from our fellowship, than any and all other causes combined. In the census of 1890, the Two-Seed Baptists claim to have 333 churches and 9,932 members in 33 States, the largest membership being 2,019 in Texas, 1,270 in Tennessee, 1,230 in Arkansas, 965 in Kentucky, 840 in Mississippi, 668 in Missouri, 641 in West Virginia, 538 in Alabama, 330 in Georgia, and from 10 to 194 in each of 14 other States. (The entire number of Primitive Baptists in the United States is probably about 100,000.) I am glad to have evidences that, at least in some sections, there is a strong tendency among the Two-Seed Baptists to renounce all the Parkerite corruptions of truth, and to return to the simple faith of the gospel. May it please the God of Israel soon to dispossess all their minds of the blighting Satanic delusions with which their churches have been cursed for nearly sixty years."" (The Two Seed Heresy The Gospel Messenger--March 1894) 

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

Cayce in the above words gives a limited description of Two Seed tenets. What he says about Two Seedism is true as regards that segment of Two Seeders known as Two Seed in the Flesh Predestinarian Baptists though not Two Seed in the Spirit Predestinarian Baptists. Daniel Parker held the latter view, not believing that it was by physical generation or procreation that children of God or children of the Devil were produced, but by a spiritual generation through sin. Also note how there were still many Two Seed churches, said Hassell, at the end of the 19th century. He does not mention the fact, however, that even among his own fellowship of "Primitive Baptist" churches that there still remained many remnants of Two Seed ideology: And, as we will see further from the early 20th century writings of Cayce, there were still battles going on over Two Seed ideas.

In chapter twenty eight of this series I cited from history professor John G. Crowley and his book "Primitive Baptists of the Wiregrass South" (1999), who is himself a "Primitive Baptist," who said on page 133 of that book that one could still find Two-Seed doctrines expounded by today's "Primitive Baptists," "if one knows where to go and what to listen for." (page 133) We can see that in several ways, as we have seen. In the first couple decades of the twentieth century Elder Cayce is still having to deal with remnants of Two Seedism still existing within the denomination.

In an editorial titled "The New Birth" for the December 12, 1916 issue of "The Primitive Baptist," he wrote:

"The following article was written by Elder F. A. Chick, and was first published in the Primitive Monitor of February 15, 1890, and was copied on the editorial page of THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST of September 13, 1894. Elder R. W. Thompson was editor of the Monitor when the article appeared in that paper, and is still the editor of that paper. This article shows what position our father occupied at that time, and what this paper stood for then."

Apparently there were still debates going on in 1916 about whether Cayce, like others, held to some tenets of Two Seedism. Cayce denied any change of views and cites what was published by his father in the "Primitive Baptist" periodical for September 13, 1894 to prove it. He cites from the article by Elder Chick on one of the Two Seed tenets dealing with what is meant by "old man" and "new man" in the writings of the apostle Paul. In previous chapters we have seen what the Two Seeders believed about the significance of these terms, and how it was a hotly debated point. 

Chick wrote (emphasis mine):

"First, you ask me what I understand by the terms old man and new man."

"First, I desire to call attention to this one consideration, viz.: that the “new man” is not addressed and told to put off the old man, neither is the “old man” addressed and told to put on the new man. But Paul is addressing his brethren...And he says to these believing men and women that they should do this, or that have done this, viz.: have put off the old man and have put on the new. Here, if I may so speak, are three men instead of two. But, indeed, the expression, old man and new man, are simply figurative expressions for the two opposing principles which every believer finds dwelling in his own heart and waging ceaseless warfare there. We are not to suppose for a moment that the apostle means that we are to understand by these terms two fully developed men, with soul, body and spirit in each, and both dwelling in us, you and I, who constitute a third distinct man or woman. It seems to me that anyone who has the slightest acquaintance with the use of figures of speech would see at a glance that the apostle had no such meaning as this." 

I believe Chick is right in his interpretation. The "new man" is not an eternal child of God who was begotten in Christ from eternity, nor does it denote a part of a man that has been regenerated, nor is it anything implanted within a man. The "old man" is the person who is lost in sin and who is guided by his own understanding and by the world, having the world's values and beliefs about God and morality. The "new man" is the person who has been converted to Christ and who is guided by the Spirit and word of God and has Christ as his example.

In another editorial titled "The Inner and Outer Man AN OLD EDITORIAL" for the February 6, 1917 issue of his paper Cayce wrote:

"It has been charged that we have changed - that we are not advocating now what we advocated a few years ago. We publish the article below to show that we have not changed - that we believe now just exactly what we did when the following article was written by our father, Elder S. F. Cayce, and published in THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST of August 19, 1892. C. H. C. 

THE ARTICLE 

"The text which speaks of the children being partakers of flesh and blood will be found in (Hebrews 2:14)...The term, "partakers of flesh and blood," then, has no reference whatever to the work of regeneration nor to anything done at that time, but is only expressive of the kind of characters Jesus came to save - not eternal spirits, but sinners, "partakers of flesh and blood, those embraced in the covenant of grace and heirs according to promise..."

Recall what we observed about Hebrews 2: 14 and its interpretation by Elder Gilbert Beebe and how he thought that it taught that not only did Christ preexist before his incarnation, so too did the people of God preexist in Christ before their incarnation. Elder S.F. Cayce rightly rejects that view saying the text "is only expressive of the kind of characters Jesus came to save - not eternal spirits."

S.F. Cayce wrote further:

"Having shown that we understand this term, "partakers of flesh and blood," to be expressive of the kind of characters Jesus came to save, or of the condition His covenant people are in, or who they are, I will next give the three places in which Paul uses the expression "inner" or "inward" man, in one of which it will be observed that he also uses the term "outward" man, and of course the idea of such a term (outward or outer man) is conveyed in the other quotations also, as the inner or inward man is mentioned. "For I delight in the law of God after the inward man." (2) (Romans 7:22). "For which cause we faint not; but though our outward man perish, yet the inward man is renewed day by day." (II Corinthians 4:16). "That He would grant you, according to the riches of His glory, to be strengthened with might by His Spirit in the inner man." (Ephesians 3:16). A careful reading and examination of these verses, and their connection, will certainly show that Paul was referring to two natures, or two principles, possessed by the child of God, one of which he calls the inner or inward man and the other the outward man. Not that there are two persons (or men) dwelling in the body, it (the body) being only a hull or dwelling place for the two; that is not it at all. But the child of God, having been born of the flesh first, born of Adam, has a nature or principle about him that is of the flesh or of Adam, and this Paul calls the outer man, and as he has been born of God, born again, he has also another principle, nature, or disposition about him, which Paul calls the inner or inward man. Especially does the apostle make it plain in (Romans 7) (entire chapter) that this is what he means by the expressions, inner, or inward, man and outward man. Having been born of Adam and afterwards born of God, Paul, like all others who have been born again, was a complex being had a principle or disposition that was common to his nature as a child of Adam and also another principle or disposition that was the result of "being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the Word of God, which liveth and abideth forever, are "by nature children of wrath, even as others."

I don't think that the "inner man" and the "outer man" denote the same thing as Paul's "old man" vs "new man." We have addressed this issue in previous chapters. In other words the "inner man" is not simply another title for "new man" and "outer man" is not simply another title for "old man." The following text makes this clear:

"Therefore we do not lose heart. Even though our outward man is perishing, yet the inward man is being renewed day by day." (II Cor. 4: 16 nkjv)

Here it is clear that the "outward man" is the physical body that houses the soul and spirit. The "inward man" is the incorporeal part of man, denoting his soul and spirit. The term "old man" denotes the man who is unsaved, the man who was "shapen in iniquity" and "conceived in sin." (Psa. 51: 5) That old man is ruled by self, by Satan, by sin, and by the ungodly world. Paul described him as being "dead in tresspasses and sins" and who "walks according to the course of this world" and "according to the prince of the power of the air" and according to "the spirit that now works in the sons of disobedience" and who "conducts himself by the lusts of the flesh" and is governed by "the desires of the flesh and of the mind" and who is "by nature a child of wrath." (Eph. 2: 1-3 nkjv)

On the other hand, the new man is the man who now has Christ living in him and governing him, and who is steadily being conformed to the image of Christ. We addressed how these terms, old man and new man, are used and defined in scripture in chapters fourteen and fifteen. The "new man" is the ideal man, or "the perfect man," as exhibited in the man Christ Jesus. So Paul wrote:

"till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ." (Eph. 4: 13 nkjv)

"Not that I have already attained, or am already perfected; but I press on, that I may lay hold of that for which Christ Jesus has also laid hold of me." (Phil. 3: 12 nkjv)

S. F. Cayce wrote further:

"All this shows that Paul not only calls that new principle or disposition which we receive in being born of God the new man, but he admonishes us to live after, or follow, its leadings or promptings and to keep in subjection the leadings or promptings of the old principle or disposition, the leadings of the outward man. And Peter also would teach the same lesson in his instruction to the sisters of the church, (Pet 3:3) (I Peter 3:3-4): Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; but let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price."

Two Seed Baptist Ideology (LVII)

Elder C.H. Cayce
Editorial Writings in the "Primitive Baptist"

The above is a picture of one of the bound volumes of "The Primitive Baptist" periodical and I bought my set many years ago. In the previous chapter we began to look at what Cayce wrote about Two Seedism and its tenets. We will continue to do so in this chapter. We will begin with Cayce's views on the parable of the wheat and tares, a key portion of scripture for Two Seeders, beginning with what he wrote in the following editorial for February 26, 1907. 

"Now, it seems to us that this parable has reference somewhat to the end or closing out of the old or law dispensation and the ushering in of the new, or rather to the end of the Jewish age or Jewish world. Jesus says the harvest is the end of the world, and the reapers are the angels. The word angel, in Scripture, often means minister. “Unto the angel of the church,” as used several times in Revelation, certainly refers to the minister of the church. So the reapers or angels were the ministers of Christ, sent by Him. They were not sent by the church or by a board, but were sent by Him. They are sent the same way now as they were then-that is, Christ sends His ministers or His angels now. 

As the tares are gathered and burned in the fire, so it was in the end of the Jewish age or Jewish world. Those wicked Jews were cast out; there was wailing and gnashing of teeth. The Lord's kingdom, or church, came forth from all the darkness of that age, her subjects shining as the sun. Though they suffered persecution and martyrdom, yet loyal subjects were there, and the kingdom of Christ was 'fair as the moon, clear as the sun, and terrible as an army with banners.”

These are a few of the thoughts we have had in connection with this parable. We do not know that this is the correct view of it, but it is the way we view it, and we offer these thoughts for our readers, and not as a standard at all. We know there is a difference among brethren on many of the parables, and we do not propose that our views are a standard."

From the above words of Cayce we see several remnants of Two Seed thinking. Notice that he says that the "angels" who gather the wheat and the tares at the end of the age are human beings, gospel ministers. Though it is true that occasionally "angel" does refer to human messengers, this is not its predominant usage. It is a rule of bible interpretation to take words in their common ordinary usage except where the context or common sense dictates otherwise. But there is nothing in the parable to lead one to think that the angels were human beings who were gospel preachers. 

Recall that we stated how Two Seeders were gross spiritualizers of the bible, a point that Elder John M. Watson stated in his work against Two Seedism in his book "The Old Baptist Test." In chapter forty seven  of this series I showed where he spoke of how they needed to give figurative interpretations of biblical texts in their denial of a physical resurrection. He also spoke of this tendency in the context of Two Seedism and what he called "ultraisms." Elder Sylvester Hassell agreed with Watson and I wrote about this in this post (here), writing:

In "Interpreting the Scriptures-The Spiritual Interpretation of Scripture," written by Elder Sylvester Hassell and published in The Gospel Messenger for April 1893 (See here), Hassell made these interesting comments (emphasis mine):

"Nearly thirty years ago “the beloved physician,” Eld. John M. Watson, professor of obstetrics in the medical department of the University of Nashville, Tenn, wrote in the "Old Baptist Test,' these wise and warning words: "We have become too ultra in most things...Above all things, avoid those prevailing ultraisms which are now eating on the Old Baptist Church as doth a canker--dividing churches and Associations, and disturbing the order and peace of the Baptists generally. Rebuke the ultraist whenever you meet with him--reclaim or reject him--let him be regarded constantly as the worst enemy of the Baptists of the present day!"

"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. We have been so inattentive and dormant that the Lord righteously permits us to be afflicted, deceived, and desolated by false spirits, "transformed as the ministers of righteousness," (2 Cor. xi. 14, 15). 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." 

The idea that the parable of the wheat and tares was intended to teach the casting away of the Jews and the bringing into the gospel church the Gentiles is certainly not what is self evidently the teaching of the parable. In the Lord's interpretation of the parable he does not give such an interpretation. The preachers in the time of Christ who Cayce says are the angels, and the "end of the age" which he connects with the time of the institution of the church, did not burn the wicked at that time. Nor did they gather the wheat into God's storehouse (kingdom). The plain fact is, there are still wheat and tares, saved and lost, living together in the world, and even in many churches. There has not yet been a total separation between the two nor a complete removal from the world of all wicked souls. 

Cayce is one who Hassell condemns in his words of denunciation about spiritualizing literal biblical truth. Elder Sylvester Hassell, a leader among the Hardshells in the time of Cayce, took the traditional view of the parable. In his "Questions and Answers" (See here) he wrote:

 

"Q. What is meant by the parable of the wheat and tares (Matt. 13:24-30, 36-43)?

A. Jesus clearly explains that the wheat is the children of the kingdom, who will at last shine forth in the kingdom of their Father; and that the tares are the children of the wicked one; who will, at the end of the world, be cast into a furnace of fire, where shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth."

Cayce does recognize that many of his brethren disagree on the meaning of the parable and so he says that he does not know if his view is correct. I suspect that even in the day he wrote this there were still those of his brethren who took the Two Seed view. Further, as we will shortly see, Cayce admits that he sees all the parables as teaching the same thing as he believes is taught in the parable of the wheat and tares. 

Later, in "The Primitive Baptist" for December 6, 1910 Cayce again writes on the parable and says:

"The parable of the wheat and the tares refers to the closing out of the law dispensation and the ushering in of the gospel dispensation. The wheat was gathered together in the gospel kingdom in gospel worship and service. The tares were not admitted in the gospel worship and service. The law service and worship was then done away. It was destroyed."

That is obviously not what the parable teaches and Hassell would agree. Though many Hardshells boast of the greatness of Claud Cayce as a theologian, he certainly was not. He was a good debating Sophist, however. According to Cayce's view the separating work of the angels has been going on for the past two thousand years! However, it is clear that the "reaping" of "the harvest" does not take two thousand years to effect. 

Later, in The Primitive Baptist, Feb. 21, 1911, he writes again on the parable as follows:

"On another page of this paper appears a letter from Brother John G. Rousseau, of Paint Rock, Ala., in which he takes issue with us concerning the wheat and the tares. We gave a short statement of our views on this in our issue of December 6, 1910. We do not propose to set up our views as standard, but we certainly think Brother Rousseau is wrong in his application of the subject.

It is a fact that most, if not all, the parables the Saviour used had primary reference to the closing out of the law dispensation, or the Jewish age, and the ushering in of the gospel dispensation, or gospel age. The original meaning of the term “end of the world,” as used in the parables in the thirteenth chapter of Matthew, is the “end of the age;” the end of the dispensation. The word “world” in the original has no reference to this material universe. For this very reason Brother Rousseau’s position cannot possibly be correct.

The passages quoted by Brother Rousseau showing that grievous wolves shall enter the church, and so on, does not, at all, disprove our statement that the parable has reference to the closing out of that Jewish age or dispensation.

An angel is a messenger. The Lord’s angels were His apostles and ministers, and by their ministry and preaching they gathered the good out from among the bad. The good were gathered together in bundles into gospel worship and service. 

If Brother Rousseau makes the proper application of the parable, it would be wrong to ever exclude anyone from the church, no matter what crime he might commit, for we understand his application to be that the tares are in the church, and must not be rooted up, or taken out, for fear of rooting up the wheat; and if this be a correct application it would destroy all church discipline. Not only so, but the Saviour does not say the field is the church, but the field is the world."

If Cayce's view is correct, then there should never be any failure in gathering the wheat nor in gathering the tares. Every plant, whether wheat or tares, will be harvested and there will be no successful resisting being harvested, all being effectually and irresistibly harvested. But, Cayce believed that many children of God (wheat) are never gathered into the church, and many of the tares are never gathered out of the church nor out of the world. Consider these words of the apostle Paul:

"I wrote to you in my epistle not to keep company with sexually immoral people. Yet I certainly did not mean with the sexually immoral people of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world." (I Cor. 5: 9-10 nkjv) 

Paul indicates that though it is possible for Christians to not associate with brethren who have been excluded from their fellowship and shunned it is not the case that they exit this world by being burned as weeds, and Paul also says that outside of the Christian community there are yet wicked people (weeds) and the only way to be separated from them is to "go out of the world." Taught the Lord Jesus: “Every plant which My heavenly Father has not planted will be uprooted. Let them alone." (Matt. 15: 13-14 nkjv) Jesus said that every plant not planted by the Lord, but planted by the Devil, will be rooted up and separated from the plants of the Lord and then burned in the fire. Until then, the admonition of the Lord to his disciples, to his ministers, was to "let them alone." But, if Cayce's view is correct, how can his human angels let the tares alone and yet gather them together to be burned? Cayce's view makes it the duty of ministers not only to gather the wheat but to also gather the tares for burning!

In another editorial titled "WHEAT AND TARES AGAIN" Cayce wrote the following in "The Primitive Baptist" for August 8, 1911.

"To make the separation of the wheat and tares to mean the final wind up of time, at the resurrection, is to make the resurrection of all and separation of the sheep from the goats, a work done through instrumentality. We would as soon believe and teach that God regenerates sinners through the instrumentality of ministers (angels) as to teach that He will resurrect them and separate them from the goats that way at the final wind up of all time.

Now, brethren, no matter how much you quibble, nor how much you quarrel about the matter, our statement remains true, whether you believe it or not, that the word world in the expression, “so shall it be in the end of the world,” is translated from a word which means age, and never was used to denote mankind, neither part nor all the race. Now, this is a fact, and all your grumbling at our position will not change this fact."

It is agreed that the words "end of the world" (kjv) means "end of the age." But admitting that does not lead to the view of Cayce that the "end of the age" means the end of the Jewish or old covenant age. In Matthew chapter twenty four Jesus speaks about the "end of the age" and it is clear that he means the time when the church age ends and the millennial age begins. Cayce, however, was a Preterist, and believed that the "end of the age" Jesus talked about in that chapter occurred in A.D. 70 when the temple was destroyed by the Roman army under Titus. Jesus, however, connected the "end of the age" with his second coming and it seems that Cayce, due to his Preterist view, must say that the second coming occurred in A.D. 70. That chapter begins with this question: "what shall be the sign of your coming and the end of the age?" (vs. 3) Christ then says these words in that wonderful discourse:

"For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be...And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other." (vs. 27, 30-31 kjv)

Of course, Cayce, like the Two Seeders, often thought that "angels" denoted preachers of the gospel. Just as he said that the reapers in the end of the age harvest were preachers, he would no doubt say that this gathering of the elect from the four winds by the angels, at the time when there is "a great sound of a trumpet," is what began to occur prior to A.D. 70 or immediately after. Such an interpretation is of course ridiculous. In the Primitive Baptist for June 26, 1906, Cayce writes on Matthew 24 and says:

"We will offer only a few words. In the thirty-fourth verse the Saviour says, “This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.” All those famines, pestilences, wars, rumors of wars, desolations, earthquakes, and other distresses mentioned— these were all to be fulfilled before the passing away of that generation. So this prophecy could not be of something that is yet in the future. Those things have all been fulfilled...So, taking it all together, we think this chapter is foretelling the destruction of Jerusalem and the overthrow of the temple. In verse 2 it is said, “There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.” This was said with reference to the temple. Then the Saviour tells of some things that were to come to pass before the destruction of the temple, and says these shall all be fulfilled before that generation passes away. For these reasons we think the chapter is foretelling, mainly, of the overthrow of the temple and the destruction of Jerusalem. We offer these thoughts simply as our own views. We are not infallible, and may be wrong; but if what we have given can be any benefit to anyone, we shall have nothing to regret."  

I have read most of Elder Cayce's writings and I have not been able to find where he wrote much about angels, the angels of heaven. Elder Potter in his writings against Two Seedism did not talk about angels, as did Watson. As we saw in previous chapters many Two Seeders denied the existence of angels and always interpreted angels in the bible as human messengers. Cayce in the parable of the wheat and tares said the angels who harvest the wheat and tares at the end of the age are preachers. I am sure that in the above discourse of Christ (called the "Olivet Discourse") about the second coming of Christ, that Cayce would say that the gathering of the elect from the four winds was the gathering that God's ministers do in preaching the gospel.

Further, the complete separation of the saved from the unsaved does not occur until Christ comes, and this is taught by Christ in Matthew chapter twenty five about the separation of the sheep from the goats.

“When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the holy angels with Him, then He will sit on the throne of His glory. All the nations will be gathered before Him, and He will separate them one from another, as a shepherd divides his sheep from the goats. And He will set the sheep on His right hand, but the goats on the left." (Matt. 25: 31-33 nkjv)

Just as the parable of the harvest of the wheat and tares effected a separation of the two, so the above prophecy speaks of that same separation which shall occur "when the Son of Man comes in his glory." In an article on "The Sheep and the Goats" for August 15th, 1935 in his paper he agrees that this separation occurs when Christ returns. However, he does not say who the angels are.

Now let me address Cayce's reasoning that led him to take the views he did on the parable of the wheat and tares. He said: "To make the separation of the wheat and tares to mean the final wind up of time, at the resurrection, is to make the resurrection of all and separation of the sheep from the goats, a work done through instrumentality."

I find this reasoning quite stunning. He says that his interpretation is the result of his belief that God does not use his word or gospel by the preachers of it as an instrument in salvation. He thinks that to believe that the harvest of the wheat and tares is what takes place at the end of time would overthrow his anti-means view. Quite frankly, I just don't see how that is so. How does God's use of angels in the end time harvesting overthrow his no means view? If this is his reasoning, then he surely will not believe that the words of Jesus in Matthew twenty four about the angels gathering together the elect from the four winds is what occurs at Christ's second coming, but will want to twist it to make the angels to once again be preachers and the gathering to be what is going on now in the church age and not what will occur at the second coming.

It seems to me that Cayce's view was an invention that was produced because he 1) made "angels" in the parable to be preachers, and 2) denied that God used preachers of his word in the saving of sinners, and 3) because he had no compunction in giving wing to fanciful interpretation, taking many literal truths and giving them a figurative non-literal meaning. Many "Primitive Baptists" believe that the parable teaches what nearly all bible teachers say, as Hassell, that it is talking about the separation of the righteous from the wicked at the return of Christ and yet they do not think that such a view goes against their no-means view of salvation.

Cayce said -- "The Lord’s angels were His apostles and ministers, and by their ministry and preaching they gathered the good out from among the bad. The good were gathered together in bundles into gospel worship and service." Why does he find fault with the holy angels of heaven being instruments in the end time harvesting of the wheat and in the separating of the wheat (saved people) from the tares? He mentions that the traditional interpretation of the parable leads to believing that the angels are employed in the resurrection. However, none of the texts say that the angels are instruments in the resurrection (though they may be) but that they are means for gathering, and he thinks that this gathering implies resurrecting. Perhaps he thinks that if one admits that angels can be instruments in the final resurrection of all, good and bad, then the Hardshell view that human beings cannot be instruments in spiritual resurrection is overthrown. If that is so, then why does he not have a problem with the fact that holy men of the bible raised the dead? Elijah and Elisha raised the dead in the old testament. Peter and Paul did so in the new testament. Why does he not see the same problem for his Hardshell Two Seed no means view in God's using the prophesying of Ezekiel to bring to life a large number of dry dead bones? (Ezekiel 37) 

Two Seed Baptist Ideology (LVI)

Elder C.H. Cayce

1871-1945

In this chapter we will give some of the things that the above elder wrote in his paper "The Primitive Baptist" about Two Seedism. It is therefore necessary for me to give some background information on him. He was the son of Elder S.F. Cayce who began the "The Primitive Baptist" periodical in 1886. According to the book "Biographical History of Primitive or Old School Baptist Ministers in the United States..." (You can read here) he was born in 1850 and died in 1905. You can also see a picture of him in that book. Though he was born in Kentucky, he became a resident of Martin, Tennessee and died in McMinville, Tennessee while preaching at an association there. 

He joined the "Primitive Baptist Church" in 1866 and was ordained an elder in 1878. It also mentions that he was engaged in many debates with others. The "Primitive Baptist Library" has a web page that lists many of S.F. Cayce's debates (here). I find it interesting that one of those debates was with Dr. W.P. Throgmorton in 1896. Throgmorton held several debates with the Hardshell Baptists. In 1878 he held his first debate with Elder Lemuel Potter, of whom we have already been citing. Potter and Throgmorton actually held another debate in 1887. Throgmorton would also have a debate with Elder John R. Daily, and perhaps more than one, and perhaps with other Hardshells. 

In S.F. Cayce's first debate with Throgmorton Cayce affirmed that eternal salvation was unconditional, that a person did not have to do anything to be saved, which echoes the Two Seed proposition that says that nothing a person does in his life determines whether he goes to heaven or hell. 

Elder S. F. Cayce met Elder Lee Jackson (a Campbellite) in a public debate at Lafayette Springs, Mississippi, in November 1895. The first proposition was: "The eternal salvation of sinners, as set forth in the Scriptures, is the work of God, independent of any conditions to be performed by man." In support of this proposition Elder S. F. Cayce gave thirty-six affirmative arguments. I give these thirty six arguments in this blog post (here) and give my rebuttal to them. 

I find it quite interesting that Elder S.F. Cayce named his periodical "The Primitive Baptist." The first paper by that name, as we have seen in previous chapters, was begun in January 1836 and ceased in 1879. It was at first edited by Elder Mark Bennett and supported by Elder Joshua Lawrence and the Kehukee Association. Those who supported it were believers in God's use of the means of gospel preaching to give birth to children of God. Bennett later left the "Primitive Baptists" and became a Missionary Baptist. He even held debates with Elder Grigg Thompson, who we have cited much from in previous chapters, after he left the Hardshells, about supporting missionaries. See these posts about that (here, here). Elder Lawrence believed in means and wrote against Two Seedism, as we saw in previous chapters. You can find articles about Lawrence and his views on means (here, here, here). In the first of these I cited from the 1838 issue of "The Primitive Baptist" where Lawrence wrote the following about the parable of the soils: 

"The first parable showeth the effect of the gospel preached by the Son of man with its effect on different persons, compared to the way side, stony ground, thorn, and good ground hearers; which showeth that three-fourths of his gospel preaching is lost, as only the good ground hearers bro't fruit. And this is true under the preaching of all his ministers, as well as his. So then the field in the first parable is the world, in which the gospel or word is preached; the field, in the second parable, is the world, in which the effects of the preaching of that gospel on good ground hearers produces the children of his kingdom. Hence it is said, born not of flesh, blood, or will of men; but of the word of God, that liveth and abideth forever. And again: I have beggotten you through the gospel..." (pg. 306)

"Although Christians are sons and daughters of God, yet they are not begotten of a woman; but through the gospel by the same Spirit that begot the body of Christ by Mary; therefore he is not ashamed to call them brethren." (pg. 310)

In my series "What The First Hardshells Believed" I cited much from this periodical to show that the first "Primitive Baptist" periodical believed in means and in the perseverance of the saints, two doctrines that would be denied by S.F. Cayce and his son C.H. Cayce and such denial was one of the foundational beliefs of the latter "Primitive Baptist" periodical. This post will give you links to many of the posts in that series (here).

So, what can we deduce by Elder S.F. Cayce naming his paper "The Primitive Baptist"? The first periodical by that name ended in 1879 and Cayce's periodical began in 1886. Surely he wanted to give the impression that he was carrying on the principles of the first periodical. However, that was a farce, for in his denial that people had to do anything to be saved, and his denial that God uses the means of his word or gospel in begetting children, and in his denial of the perseverance of the saints, and his denial of the predestination of all things, he was not continuing the views of the former periodical. This was deceitful and what Elder Watson called "serpentine." 

I also find that the year 1879 was an important date in the history of the Hardshell Baptists. Not only did the first "Primitive Baptist" publication cease, but so too did the "Primitive Baptist" publication "The Baptist Watchman" cease about that time. Elder R.W. Fain was an associate of Elder John M. Watson of whom we have cited much in previous chapters. We have also mentioned Elder Fain and his opposition to Two Seedism. Elder Fain, says the Primitive Baptist Library (here), began the periodical "Herald of Truth" in 1858, and was the paper Elder Watson recommended as the place to debate the issues involved in Two Seedism in his book "The Old Baptist Test." 

Elder Fain was also a physician as Dr. Watson in middle Tennessee. Another Elder and physician who was an editor of the Baptist Watchman was Elder J.B. Stephens. The older "Primitive Baptist" periodical generally supported means, so did elders Watson, Fain, and Stephens, and the Baptist Watchman. So, by the end of the 1870s we have the older periodicals that supported the means view going out of existence and being replaced by periodicals that embraced a denial of means, denied that a person had to do anything to be saved, all Two Seed ideas. Recall also how in former chapters I cited from the 1879 minutes of the Powell Valley Association of Primitive Baptists which said: 

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

Also, Elder John Clark, a first generation leader of the newly formed "Primitive Baptist" church and an opposer of Beebe and his Two Seed views, and who started his paper "Zion's Advocate" in 1854 out of Luray, Virginia, was a believer in means, and he died in 1882. After his death Hardshell elders who denied means took over the editorship. (See these posts about what Clark said about means -- here, here)

Two leading elders of the "Primitive Baptist Church" who lived in the time when that denomination was created were elders John M. Watson and Hosea Preslar. In previous chapters I have cited from both of them as they were opponents of Two Seedism and both stated what were the tenets of Two Seedism. In my post titled "Elder Hosea Preslar & Watson" (See here) I cited from Preslar's book "Thoughts on Divine Providence" where he wrote the following about the beliefs of Two Seeders:

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

Preslar however believed what had been the historic teaching of his Baptist forefathers, that the gospel "is moreover to be for a witness unto all nations; Matt. 24: 14; and for the awakening of sinners, who are dead in trespasses and in sin." (page 187)

He goes further (same page), saying this about Two Seed beliefs:

"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."

In another post titled "Elder Preslar on Two Seedism" (See here) he gave a list of the erroneous beliefs of Two Seeders, and one of them was given 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."  (Page 184)

"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)

"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."  (pg. 187)

Watson in his book "Old Baptist Test," of which we have cited from much already, also identified the no means view with Two Seeders, and the view that says that the gospel is only to be preached to the elect or those already regenerated. He certainly did not believe, as S.F. Cayce, that there were no conditions for being saved, which was a Two Seed tenet. He wrote (as cited by me here) the following from the above book, first published in 1858:

"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?" (pages 399-400)

So, here are three witnesses that show that the belief that 1) there are no conditions for being eternally saved and that 2) the gospel or word of God is no means in saving sinners from eternal condemnation, are tenets of Two Seedism. Watson called these two tenets "innovations" and their proponents "ultraists," "modern innovators," and "antinomians." He wrote the following in "The Old Baptist Test" about the Two Seeders:

"Some of our ultraists are occasionally heard to say, in our pulpits, that they have no authority to preach to sinners, and they seem to glory in their fancied exemption. Nothing appears to give them greater offence, or savors more of Arminianism with them, than for sinners to be exhorted to repent!" ("Old Baptist Test," pages 327, 328)

"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. Now, the truth is, had it been the will or the way of the Lord, He could have breathed upon the dry bones as well without the prophesying of the prophet as with it, and could have given repentance to John's converts, or to Paul's, without their preaching; but their preaching to such, even to those dead in trespasses and sins, had been included in the divine plan, and it needs must be done, let it be termed means, the will or way of the Lord, as you please." (pages 327-28)

"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. Paul, it is true, preached the Gospel in word only, while the election of God was manifested in the power and assurance of the Holy Spirit imparted to his words; when received by the elect which apart from that power and assurance would have been received in word only, as it really was by others not embraced in the divine election. I Thess. 1: 4." ("Old Baptist Test," pages 399, 400)

Elder C.H. Cayce on Two Seedism

Prior to the death of the senior Cayce, Elder Claud Cayce began to have his first debates, and before his death in 1945 had engaged in more debates than all other Hardshells combined. I have read somewhere that he had over three hundred debates. He also took over the editorship of the "Primitive Baptist" after the death of his father, a death that Claud said brought him great grief. By Claud's influence he made his periodical one of the most, if not the most, influential and widely read periodical of his day. Claud also was born in Kentucky as his father, but joined the "Primitive Baptist" church in Martin, Tennessee in 1889. He also traveled extensively through many states. He later moved to Thorton, Arkansas.

Back in the mid 1970s I went to Thorton, Arkansas with my father and with Elder Harold Hunt and visited with Claud's son Hartsel. I was amazed by the large library that was located in the printing office. Hartsel became editor of the "Primitive Baptist" after the death of Claud, and Hartsel passed away in 2015. Father (Elder Eddie K. Garrett, Sr.) and I got to preach in some of the churches where Claud Cayce preached. We spent time in the home of Hartsel Cayce and he was a good humble man. 

As we will see, though S.F. and Claud Cayce opposed Two Seedism, yet they promoted several of the leading tenets of Two Seedism, as do most "Primitive Baptists" today, with some exceptions. They denied God used the means of his word in the regeneration or eternal salvation of sinners, and affirmed that nothing a person did in life determined whether he went to heaven or hell (or unconditional salvation), another Two Seed tenet, as we have previously shown, and from these views he, like his brethren, had to throw away any belief in the perseverance of the saints. 

In my post titled "Effects Arising From Denying Means" (here) I cited from Cayce's Editorials for October 10th, 1905 where Elder C.H. Cayce wrote the following under the article titled "Our Works Endorsed" wherein he wrote:

"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."

These views were Two Seed tenets and are the views of most of those today who call themselves "Primitive Baptists" and yet they want others to believe that they no longer have fellowship with Two Seedism.

In the next chapter we will continue to look at what Elder C.H. Cayce had to say about the beliefs of the Two Seed Primitive Baptists.