Two Seed Baptist Ideology (XXXI)

The above text cautions us about being carried about by various kinds of "strange doctrines." Few will deny that Two Seedism is such a doctrine. It is indeed a "doctrine of demons" (I Tim. 4: 1). It is interesting that when true Bible "doctrine" is referred to in scripture, it is in the singular, whereas false doctrine is often in the plural, "doctrines."

In this chapter we will conclude our examination of what Elder Grigg Thompson wrote in 1860-1861 against Two Seedism in his book "The Measuring Rod."

Thompson wrote:

"They also deny that the washing of the saint's feet is an ordinance established by Christ, and that it is the duty of saints to attend to it in obedience to his teaching." (pg. 109)

How true this is I cannot say. I do know that some Two Seeders and those who favored the name "Old School" Baptists did practice feet washing. Also, some who opposed Two Seedism and favored the name of "Primitive Baptist" did not practice feet washing.

Wrote Thompson:

"If it was the purity of the seed, or the particular quality or nature of those chosen, that caused their election, then the election was not of grace, but of works, for the elected procured their own election. On this point Beebeism, or modern Two Seed, Arianism, is as much at fault as Armenianism (sic), for while Beebeism makes election rest upon an actual spiritual, holy nature, possessed by the elect; Armenianism places it upon foreseen virtues, which by their own act they are to possess themselves of: either of these views destroy the doctrine of election by grace, which is an unconditional act of the Divine mind. The elect were sinners of Adam's race, for they were chosen out of the world, from among men, and were ordained unto eternal life, or to be conformed to the image of Jesus. This election was not based upon the actual existence of those elected as taught by Beebeism, but upon the foreknowledge of God." (pgs. 139-140)

In previous chapters we have mentioned how Two Seedism contradicts the idea that God chose to salvation unconditionally, his choice not being based upon any merit or distinguishing quality in the ones chosen. Beebe and the Two Seeders say, however, that God chose the elect because they were "in Christ" from eternity, and that Christ was obligated to save them because of this fact. As we will see in the next few chapters Elder Lemuel Potter in 1880 also attacked Two Seedism's consequences for the doctrine of unconditional election. If Christ was obligated to save the church because she was his wife from eternity, then salvation is not by grace, not unmerited.

Wrote Thompson:

"We have already seen that the church of Christ cannot be of the Beebe, Two Seed, Arian faith, because their articles are at variance with the teachings of Christ and the apostles, and destroy the idea of a visible church, composed of men and women of Adam's family, who have been regenerated and born again. For if their views are correct, the church is a mystical, invisible, spiritual existence, that was created before time, and has no connection with fallen men and women." (pg. 167) 

Thompson was a reader of the writings of Dr. J. R. Graves, who was contemporary with him, and seems to accept many of the Landmarker views of Graves, the recognized spokesman for Landmarkism. One of the ideas of many Landmarkers is to deny that the word "church" (Grk. eklesia) denotes a universal church composed of all the elect, affirming that it always refers to local churches or assemblies, or to the visible institution and not to an "invisible" church. Not all "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptists agreed with this view, affirming that the "church" sometimes refers to all the saved, and not only to local assemblies. The former definition has been referred to as the "invisible" church since no one can see the whole assembly of saints (though that will change when all are assembled together at the second coming of Christ and afterward), and as the "universal" church because it is a body that contains all the saved, it being believed that not all the saved became members of a local church. So, in this area Thompson is not correct in saying that a belief in such a universal invisible church "destroys the idea of a visible church." What Beebe and the Two Seeders were wrong about is their view that says the church, or elect, had an actual existence in Christ before the world began, and their saying that the church or spiritual seed had "no connection with fallen men and women."  

Thompson wrote:

"The practice of passing non-fellowship resolutions against men without giving them a hearing, is unjust and iniquitous, and will destroy the peace and prosperity of any community of saints. This practice has of late prevailed to a considerable extent among the Bebeeite Baptists. The Hanes' Creek church, in Yellow River Association, passed a resolution declaring nonfellowship for me, and all who were friendly with me, without ever giving me a hearing, or even letting me know that they had aught against me. When I heard of the action of the church, I wrote them a letter, asking for a trial, and offering to come to their own church, and be tried by their own members, if they would give me a fair hearing; but they would not do it, knowing that their conduct would not bear investigation. In fact, this has been the course pursued by the Beebe party in Georgia, from first to last, where they have had a majority. A solitary instance cannot be pointed out, where they have ever given a member a fair trial, and allowed him to defend himself, who has dissented from their views. When Eld. T. P. Dudley, of Ky. , first made his assault upon me, I wrote him a private letter, begging him to meet me, and to submit our differences to our brethren, and to let them decide between us, but he refused; and subsequently, when Beebe made his attack upon me, in the "Primitive Baptist, " I wrote to him twice, begging of him to meet me, and to refer the matter to brethren chosen by us both, and let them judge between us, but he would not. I done the same thing with D. W. Patman, and J. R. Teat, and others of the party, who publicly made attacks upon me, but I never could get one of them to consent to have a fair investigation, and to submit the matter to our brethren...But where the Beebe party have been in the minority, they have refused to stand a trial, but have abruptly withdrawn, and refused to hear the church, or to be tried by them" (pg. 189-191)

The practice of the Beebe or Two Seed party in their mistreatment of Thompson, if true (and I tend to believe it is true), reveals the spirit that was motivating them. But, sadly, as I know from my years of being in the "Primitive Baptist Church" and from studying their history, both sides, Two Seeders and non Two Seeders, were guilty of such things. 

I have not spent the time to go through all the issues of the "Primitive Baptist" periodical to find where Beebe "made his attack" upon Thompson. As I have shown in previous chapters, Elder Joshua Lawrence, who was the impetus in the creation of that periodical and wrote many articles for it, was not a Two Seeder and considered Elder Beebe to be unsound and would not recognize him. So, it is surprising that Beebe would write for that paper. Perhaps it was published after the death of Lawrence (1843), and after the departure of Elder Mark Bennett, its first editor, and when Elder Burwell Temple was its editor. 

Thompson wrote:

"The Primitive Baptists, of late, have had a Diotrephes among them, who has obtained the exclusion of many brethren where he has had the majority. He has had the control of the press, and the communications of the brethren, Diotrephes like, have been suppressed, so that the brethren have never got to see them. This modern Diotrephes is to be found in the person of Eld. G. Beebe; and I can produce a number of instances where worthy brethren have been slandered, and falsely accused in his paper, and he has refused to let those brethren say one word in self-defence; but one or two cases may suffice." (pg. 198-199)

The "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptists have had many splits, many wars and fights since their beginning, the kind that James wrote about in James chapter four ("whence comes wars and fightings among you"). They have split over so many issues, and every time the in-fighting has been ferocious, vicious, where the combatants were biting and devouring one another as Paul spoke about. (Gal. 5: 15) In these fights the combatants often used associations, and councils, and presbyteries, as weapons against their enemies. Recall that Elder Daniel Parker threatened to "burst the association" if the associations did not declare non-fellowship for mission societies, seminaries, Sunday schools, etc. These threats were the means of forcing others to kowtow to them. I wrote about how my father and I, and our church, experienced this first hand when the Powell Valley Association held a council over father's view on the origin of Satan and his fall from heaven. You can read about that in my online writing titled "The Hardshell Baptist Cult," which has its own blog with all the chapters. (See chapter two titled "Personal Experiences" here) When a schismatic faction wants to force their views on others they will begin to ask candidates for ordination their views on the questions dividing the Hardshells. This was another way to force others to kowtow. I also had this happen to me in my second ordination when I was a Hardshell Baptist. 

I also believe that Beebe did crave being the head dog among the newly created cult. He was at the Black Rock Convention when that convention declared non-fellowship against fellow Baptists who were supporting mission societies, religious education, tract distribution, and a  host of other things and he was chosen by the ministers in that convention to represent them by starting the "Signs of the Times" periodical with their support. So, I agree with Thompson that Beebe was like Diotrephes in desiring preeminence. But so too did Samuel Trott. So too have a host of others. Grigg's own father seemed to enjoy being put on a pedestal and being admired by many Hardshell Baptists. 

In 1846 in the trial over church doctrine in Indiana, in the White Water Association, Wilson Thompson led the no-means side, and the editor who published the record of that trial called him "the leader, the Ajax" of that side. (See here for my post on that) I also think that Grigg Thompson too was probably jealous of the influence of Beebe, coveting that for himself. I saw such a spirit when I was with the Hardshells, how each association or area had one minister who was the "ringleader" or pope, the one whom the other ministers feared. In the early church there were those who only sought a following, and who had "men's persons in admiration because of advantage." (Jude 1: 16 kjv) Even many "historians" of the "Primitive" Baptist church have said that many of their associational divisions resulted from ministers fighting for supremacy. 

Thompson wrote:

"When I reviewed Eld. T. P. Dudley's circular on the "Christian Warfare," he (Dudley) wrote a letter to Beebe, and it was published in the "Signs of the Times," calling me a "libeler," and many other hard things. I then wrote a letter to Beebe denying Dudley's charges, and proposing to meet Dudley, and submit the matter to our brethren; but he refused to publish my letter, and would never let me say one word in self-defence. Shortly after the division in the Licking Association, Ky., between the Primitive Baptists and the Dudleyites of that Association, Eld. J. F. Johnson, then of Indiana, wrote a letter, which Beebe published in the "Signs of the Times," stating that he had just been a tour through Ky. , and in it, he, in the strongest kind of language, said that the Primitive Baptists, who had left the Licking Association, denied the doctrine of eternal, personal, and unconditional election. The charge was false, as the articles of faith adopted by those brethren and published to the world showed; and Eld. Beebe knew the same, for he had seen the articles. I again wrote to him, desiring that he would let me correct the falsehoods published against the brethren by Johnson, but he would not suffer it, and the brethren had to lay under the false charge, without any means of defence. Thus, where the brethren who loved the truth would write, their letters were suppressed by this Diotrephes who loveth pre-eminence, and with malicious words heaps reproach upon the brethren, and will not receive them himself, and forbiddeth them that would, and casteth them out of the church." (pgs. 199-200)

I find it interesting that each side in the Two Seed debate accused the other side of denying the Calvinistic doctrine of unconditional election. We have already taken notice of this and have stated that the Two Seed view does in fact deny that doctrine. In the next chapter, when we look at what Elder Lemuel Potter wrote against Two Seedism in 1880, we will see how Potter also says that Two Seedism denies unconditional election or election by grace. 

Though there were no doubt some formal debates on Two Seedism, whether in oral or written debates, I have not found any. We will see where Beebe did make a formal reply to Potter, and have seen where Beebe responded to Elder Samuel Williams' criticisms of Two Seed ideas, but nothing was extensive. It seems that the Two Seeders, like Beebe and Dudley, were not interested in debating their views, but chose rather to force them on others. 

Thompson wrote:

"I became a Baptist about the time that Campbellism began to interrupt the peace of our churches. I passed through that war, and next came the machinery system of modern missions, which brought with it another war, and division in our denomination. I was called to bear my part in that struggle, and to suffer in common with my brethren. But we had hardly got through that war, and began to enjoy peace and union among ourselves, before the Arian, Two Seed notions of Beebe & Co. were introduced into our churches, and produced another war among us which has effected a third split, and built up a Beebe, Two Seed party in our midst. This last war has been conducted in a different way from either of the other two." 

I have written about the Campbellite schism several times through the years. That schism clearly showed one thing that destroys many things that the Hardshell Baptists say about the state of the Baptist denomination at the beginning of the 19th century. They have said that the Baptists, prior to the anti mission schism, were all believers in the peculiar tenets of Hardshellism. They say that they all at that time believed in the "no means" view of regeneration and salvation, and that they all opposed Sunday schools, mission societies, theological education, revivals, etc. All of this is untrue, however. The fact that Campbell led off many Baptists into his movement shows that many of the Baptists, at the start of the 19th century, were Arminian or semi Arminian. Actually, history shows that nearly all Baptists at first had no qualms about supporting the things that the Hardshells would later declare to be heresies. Even Wilson Thompson supported missions at first and believed that the Gospel was a means in salvation. I have shown this to be true in many postings through the years. His book "Simple Truth," published in 1821, shows this to be the case, as does his "autobiography." 

I find it interesting that Grigg does not mention the fact that his father believed in Two Seed tenets, a fact we have shown to be the case in previous chapters. He speaks of the split over Two Seedism, it being "a third split," as having occurred at the time of his publishing "The Measuring Rod." However, that is not quite true either. It is true that some churches and associations had begun to declare non fellowship with Two Seedism, yet many others had not yet. Just as the splits over "missionism" occurred over several decades, so too the split over Two Seedism. We have already shown how the Powell Valley Association did not split over it until 1879. In a previous chapter we showed this to be the case, citing Lawrence Edwards who gave us what the minutes of that association for that year declared. (See my posting here) The same is true about two other doctrines that split the churches in the 19th century. After the Civil War there began to be disputes and divisions over the doctrine of "absolute predestination of all things" and over the question of whether God uses the means of the Gospel or word of God to effect regeneration, new birth, or eternal salvation. The truth is, prior to all these splits, the "Primitive Baptist Church" had within it both sides, and existed together for several decades before a formal split occurred, each side tolerating the other for several decades prior to the formal splits. 

Thompson wrote:

"The Beebe party have on all occasions shunned investigation; and whenever their doctrines have been called in question by any one, they would at once make it a personal business, and at once assail the moral character of the brother, and do all they could to destroy his good name." 

The shunning of open debate, however, is alive and well today among those who called themselves "Primitive," "Old School," or "Hardshell" Baptists. In the Powell Valley church council that I write about in my series "The Hardshell Baptist Cult" that occurred when I was a young member of that association in the early 1970s it was clear that the opposers of father's view (that Satan was a fallen angel from heaven) did not want to debate the merits of his view from the scriptures, though father tried to get them to do so. Consider also the fact that as time went on, the Hardshells had fewer and fewer debates with those of other denominations. Though they had many in the late 19th century, and the early 20th century, they had very few in the late 20th century, and only one or two in the 21st century. This is the same thing that we often see among the liberals in politics today. Rarely do they want to debate the issues with conservatives, but rather make personal ad hominem attacks upon conservatives. 

Thompson wrote:

"When Eld. T. P. Dudley began to preach this doctrine in Kentucky, I met him at Mount Gilead church, Mason County, and publicly opposed him, and invited him to discuss the subject; but he refused, and in a secret and under-handed way, immediately began to put in circulation reports prejudicial to my character, and offered them as reasons why he would not meet me. The reports put in circulation by him, which have since been published by Beebe in substance, though changed a little in phraseology, and last of all, by Eld. W. C. Cleaveland, will be fully explained and refuted by the following letter from the Hamilton Primitive Baptist church, in Butler County, Ohio..." (pgs. 225-227)

Why did Thompson not "publicly oppose" his own father for believing in Two Seedism? Was it not because he thought it might hurt his influence? If so, then is he not also like Diotrephes? Why did he not object to Two Seedism in the 1830s, or 1840s, or 1850s? He often wrote affectionate letters to the Signs of the Times in those decades and I have yet to find where he ever raised an objection to Two Seedism. Perhaps he waited till 1860 because at that time more and more of his brethren began to oppose it. 

Thompson wrote:

"For I have been known among the Baptists for thirty years, and from the time I was restored by the Hamilton church up to now, have never had a charge preferred against me in any church; and up to fifty one or two, was a constant writer for the "Signs of the Times," edited by Eld. Beebe, and all these things were no objection to me with him, until he came out with his new doctrine, and I opposed it. He then saw that his only chance was to blacken my character if possible, and as his pen was accustomed to slander, it did not take him long to concoct and publish anything without regard to truth, that he could think up. Eld. D. W. Patman visited several Associations in Georgia, and read a letter to many of the brethren, which he said was from my father, stating that I had been twice excluded from the church, once for lying, and a second time for abandoning my family. I wrote to him for a copy of the letter, but I could not get it. I then wrote to my father, and asked him if he had ever written such a letter, and I got a letter, bearing date at Acton, Ind. , May 3, 1860, in which he says, "Patman, nor any other man, has not now, nor ever had, nor will have, any such a letter as you allude to, written by me, for I never wrote any such letter to any one." (pgs. 229-230)

Here, it is clear that Thompson is writing a false narrative, and the only reason I can surmise for it is the fact that he did not want to do anything to hurt his own influence prior to 1860. He says that he was a "constant writer" to the Signs of the Times and implies that during those times that Beebe did not advance Two Seedism in his periodical. But, that is simply not true. I have in previous chapters cited from the Signs of the Times from the 1830s, 1840s, and 1850s and have shown where Beebe and Trott were promoting Two Seed ideas in those decades. So, Thompson is not telling the truth when he says that Beebe did not "come out with his new doctrine" until the late 1850s. I don't doubt that he was unfairly treated by the Two Seeders.

Why did Thompson want people to think that Beebe did not promote Two Seedism prior to the time that Thompson finally went public with opposition to it (1860)? Especially since it is not true? Why did Thompson not write to that paper in the years from 1833-1860 and object to the Two Seedism, as did men like Elder Samuel Williams? We cited from him in previous chapters for that time period. By his saying that he was a "constant writer" to Beebe's periodical he implies that Beebe had not yet "come out with his new doctrine," or else Thompson would have publicly opposed it. Why did he in 1860 not just simply and honestly say - "I saw Two Seedism as a serious error but did not oppose it till now, and I should have"? I think that Thompson, like many of the frontier lay preachers, did not want to do anything to lesson his standing and support, financial or otherwise. It was not until he saw the tide turning away from Two Seedism that he got on the bandwagon of the opposition. 

Further, since his father Wilson Thompson believed in the chief tenets of Two Seedism, he may have been held back from denouncing it. Elder John Clark of Virginia (who began his paper "Zion's Advocate" to oppose the views of Beebe and the Signs) and Elder John Watson of Tennessee (who wrote the "Old Baptist Test" to combat Two Seedism) were friends of Grigg. In the 1850's both of them waged a war against Two Seedism. Grigg finally jumped on their bandwagon. Of course, I am also fairly certain that he did not believe Two Seedism, at least in 1860 when he wrote "The Measuring Rod." Elder Lemuel Potter, who wrote his diatribe against Two Seedism in 1880, said that when he first began preaching in Illinois, a place where Two Seedism was widely believed, that he rather favored it. Perhaps that was true of Grigg Thompson also.

The same seems to be true also of Elder W. M. Mitchell of Alabama (1819-1901). Throughout the decades of the 1840s through the 1870s, Mitchell frequently wrote to the Signs of the Times and to the Southern Baptist Messenger, both Two Seed publications, and never objected to Two Seedism, though I have not read every issue of both. However, in 1880, the year before Beebe's death, and the year wherein Elder Lemuel Potter wrote his treatise against Beebe and Two Seedism, we find Mitchell writing to Beebe and the Signs and questioning Two Seedism (Signs of the Times March 1st, 1880; Vol. 48, No 5; See here). In the previous chapter we cited Thompson's citation of Mitchell, which showed that he was a Two Seeder who denied the resurrection, at least of the non-elect, and affirming annihilationism for them. We will delve into what Mitchell wrote to Beebe and of Beebe's response in the next chapter. It seems that many of the first anti mission Baptists jumped on to the Two Seed bandwagon when Parker first gave it prominence by his first books on that subject. However, as time went on, the opposers of Two Seedism began to increase, so that it appeared that Two Seedism had lost its glitter; And, for those seeking popularity and a following, they saw it better to abandon ship and get on board the Anti Two Seeder bandwagon.

Thompson wrote:

"But, last of all, W. C. Cleaveland came out with a letter in the "Southern Baptist Messenger," an Arian, Two Seed sheet, published at Covington, Ga., reiterating all these charges as though they were something new with him, when he and I had talked them all over in 1857, and he had been active in defending me against them. While I was at the Echonna Association, in 1857, W. C. Norris was there, and was secretly whispering thes e things, and W. C. Cleaveland said that "He thanked no drunken preacher for coming there and trying to injure good men." But in 1859, he whirled over to Beebeism, and like all the rest, began to slander all who would not go with them. In the "Herald of Truth" I published him guilty of falsehoods, and proposed to meet him before a tribunal of brethren, and prove it by as good Baptist testimony as could be found, but he refused to meet me." (pgs. 232-233)

Both the Signs of the Times and the Southern Baptist Messenger were leading Two Seed publications, and Gilbert Beebe was the editor of the former and his son William L. Beebe was the editor of the latter. Elder John Watson, prior to his death in 1866, spoke of the need to have Two Seedism debated through a paper called the "Herald of Truth." I have searched through the years trying to find a library that might have old issues of that periodical. I know that in the later 19th century that Elder T. S. Dalton, a person who became a leader among the Hardshell Baptists, took over the editorship of that paper. Dalton (1846–1931) served as the editor of the Primitive Baptist publication The Herald of Truth from February 1891 until 1898. The Herald of Truth was originally established in January 1858 by Elder Fain, it seems. Dalton purchased the paper in 1891 and merged it with his own existing publication, retaining the name The Herald of Truth. He was succeeded as editor by Elder John R. Daily in 1898. The Primitive Baptist Library in Carthage, Illinois, says (See here):

"After his  (Elder John Clark) death, in 1882, it ("Zion's Advocate") was published for several years by Elder C. H. Waters (1849-1920) as editor, and Bro. J. G. Wiltshire as publisher. In February 1891 the paper was purchased by Elder T. S. Dalton (1846-1931), who merged it with the Herald of Truth, and served as editor until 1898. Elder John R. Daily (1854-1920) then served as editor for eight years." 

I believe that Elder R. W. Fain, a fellow "Primitive Baptist" minister, doctor, and friend of Elder John M. Watson, who helped Watson to revise his book "The Old Baptist Test" before his death in 1866, and who would later promote Watson's book and begin the periodical "The Baptist Watchman" with Elder J. B. Stephens (also a doctor) and others, which was a leading periodical in the 1870s, carried on the debate over Two Seedism through the "Herald of Truth."

According to the Primitive Baptist library (here) Dr. Fain was editor of the "Herald of Truth," for they say:

"HERALD OF TRUTH Elder R. W. Fain, (1807-1876), Shelbyville, Tennessee, founder, in 1858. Elder John M. Watson may have later served as editor of this paper. No issues of this paper have been located yet." 

I cited this in a post on Elder Fain, where I also had a picture of him (which took me years to find). You can read that (here). I have read recently where the library has obtained a few copies of that periodical, probably when Elder Dalton took it over. 

I find it strange that Grigg Thompson would be writing articles in "The Herald of Truth" against Two Seedism, for that periodical promoted the view that the gospel or word of God was a means in the eternal salvation of sinners, which was the view of Watson and Fain and Stephens. Yet, Thompson would at some time reject that view, as he did in his debate with Elder Mark Bennett, first editor of the "Primitive Baptist" periodical, which debate first occurred in 1853. (See my write up about it here) So, though Thompson would deny the means view, at least in "regeneration," he nevertheless still associated with Elders Watson, Fain, and Stephens, and John Clark, who believed in means. Keep in mind also that a denial of means first developed among the Two Seeders who came after Elder Daniel Parker. Elder Dalton, who took over the Herald of Truth in 1891 when he took ownership of Clark's paper "Zion's Advocate," believed, as I have shown in several postings through the years in my "Old Baptist Test" blog, in means at first, but later jumped ship when he saw that the anti means side was gaining the ascendency in the latter part of the 19th century. (For instance, see this post here)

With this chapter we conclude our look at what Elder Grigg Thompson wrote against Two Seedism in 1860-1861 via his book "The Measuring Rod." In the next several chapters we will look at what other elders would later say in their disputes over Two Seedism.

Two Seed Baptist Ideology (XXX)

In this chapter we will continue to review what Elder Grigg Thompson wrote against Two Seed Primitive Baptists views on regeneration or the birth of the Spirit in his work "The Measuring Rod." 

Thompson wrote:

"We have now found them to be Arians in their views of the Mediator, and to be Two Seed in their views of the origin of the elect and non-elect. It is true that they believe God created both; but they hold that he created the elect in Christ before time, and that he created the non-elect in Adam in time; that the elect are by creation a spiritual family, and that the non-elect are by creation a natural, or earthly family. These views have led them to deny the doctrine of regeneration as taught in the Bible, and by the Primitive Baptists. For if the elect were created in Christ in eternity a spiritual seed, and were in eternity made partakers of the divine nature, regeneration can effect no change in them, unless it should be a change for the worse; for it is contended that the elect are a "spiritual, holy seed," therefore a change could not better their condition. But they deny that any change is wrought in the sinner, in soul, body, mind, spirit, or matter, in regeneration, as I shall show before I am done with this point, and teach that regeneration is nothing but the generating or making manifest the spiritual child, which has laid dormant in the loins of Christ, from the time of his creation. Eld. T. P. Dudley says: "Regeneration is not a reforming, remodeling, or working over, like a hatter taking an old hat, and working it over, and making a new hat of it, but that it is the bringing forth of a new hat, or new man." (pg. 67-68)

Thompson here gives a fair description of what Beebe and Trott and some other Two Seeders taught about regeneration and the origin of the elect and non-elect. However, as we have seen, not all Two Seeders "believe God created both" the elect and non-elect, for Daniel Parker did not believe that God created the Devil or his children, did not believe that God "created the non-elect in Adam."

Thompson wrote:

"By the “Golden Rule” they cannot be the true church, and have no right to bear its name. If there are any among them that have ever been born again; have ever been made a new creature in Christ Jesus; have ever been changed from the love of sin to the love of holiness, I would say, “Come out of her, my people,” for the doctrine is at war with the Bible, is at war with the interests of the true church, and is at war with your own experience." (pg. 82)

Here Thompson questions whether the Two Seeders were even born again. He certainly denies that they could be "the true church." This is somewhat strange in view of what today's "Primitive Baptists" believe, for they are quasi Universalists and want to make nearly all religious people, whether heathen or Christian, to be God's born again children. As I have shown in other writings the first "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptists often questioned the salvation of all who did not agree with them. In an article I wrote back in 2013 titled "How Far Removed" I wrote the following:

"In reading the oldest Hardshell periodicals of the 1830s I am stunned by how different today's Hardshells are in doctrine. The first Hardshells were very strict in judging all other groups as not truly Christian, or not truly born again. They were quick to affirm that the true born again child of God would not follow others in supporting mission boards and societies, or Sunday Schools, or theological schools, etc. They constantly referred to those who supported such as being part of the whore of Babylon, and of the Antichrist. They thought they were wolves, and not sheep. True, they thought that some of the Lord's elect were among these groups, for they were often heard citing this verse - "come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues." (Rev. 18: 4) But, they did not believe that such chosen people would remain in Babylon once they were regenerated and converted."

Thompson's statement about the Two Seed Primitive or Old School Baptists reflects this view. He doubts that the Two Seeders were saved. He certainly doesn't believe that they are a legitimate church of Christ. But, such a view creates problems for Thompson and for the entire "Primitive Baptist" denomination. Why? Because a large number of their churches in the 19th century believed in Two Seedism and those churches and elders who believed it baptized a large portion of their members, and therefore were not qualified administrators, and because of their Landmarker views they must therefore say that all the baptisms performed by Two Seeders are invalid. See my series on Landmarker beliefs in "Hardshells and Alien Baptism" in the archives for 2017. I recall reading where there was a lot of debate in the mid to late 19th century among "Primitive Baptists" about whether to rebaptize those who had been declared to hold to heresy and I believe Thompson said that no one could undo the past, that it would be impractical and impossible to try to rebaptize all who had been baptized by those in disorder. He therefore suggested accepting those baptisms but not to do it any longer. However, that did not alleviate the problem.

Thompson wrote:

"I shall now come to another article of their faith, which may be stated in these words:— “God has two kinds of children, one are children by descent, the others, children by adoption. The children by descent never sinned, were never under the curse of the law, and needed no redemption.” (pg. 82-83)

I hardly know what to say to this belief by some Two Seeders. I would encourage the reader to read my lengthy series on adoption (which are all in one blog devoted to that subject). The link is (here). Such a view is obviously against what the Bible teaches.

Thompson wrote:

"Elder J. F. Johnson, in a letter publish ed in the Southern Baptist Messenger, for April 1st, 1857, uses the following language:– “There is a visible difference manifested in the Scriptures between the children born of God, and those adopted by him.” (pg. 83)

I have not been able to find any copies of "The Southern Baptist Messenger" for the year when Johnson published the article Thompson refers to, but I certainly would like to see more writings by Two Seeders on this point.

Thompson wrote:

"The children by descent, had their preexistence in God, inherited their holiness from him, and descend from him a spiritual, holy generation. The adopted child is the Adam man, and this adopted child never can possess the nature of a child, because it did not pre-exist in the parent. But I will let the Elder tell it in his own words, and then he cannot grumble at me—here they are: 

“A birth necessarily involves the idea of a pre-existence in the parentage. Not so with adoption. The child born, are children by lineal descent; those adopted, are made children by a legal process, from first to last.” (pg. 83-84)

I find all this quite interesting in light of all my writings on the adoption question. You can read all those writings in a blog devoted to that issue. (See here) I can see how Two Seeders like Johnson might say that the soul or spirit of a child of God was begotten in eternity, and needed no adoption, but that the human body was begotten in Adam and needed to be adopted. 

Further, the reasoning of the Two Seeders forces them to say that any person "born of God" eternally existed in God. But, that is far-fetched. Those who are in time born again did preexist in the mind of God, but had no actual existence.

Thompson wrote:

"He tells us that those two children are “antagonistical” in their natures, and can not live together in peace. The child by lineal descent, is a holy, incorruptible child, and was preserved in Jesus Christ holy, so that the taint of sin was never upon it. Elder Johnson represents the children by descent as a “spiritual seed, eternally existing in God, and preserved in him, as a woman preserves fruit in a jar.” Elder Beebe, in speaking of the origin of this spiritual seed, says, “The same spiritual creation which set up our Day’s man, our spiritual Head, gave actual being to all the elect of God, in him.” (pg. 84)

That is a strange view. God has birthed children and adopted children, and they are different. There is no Bible teaching that affirms such a thing. All those who are born of God will, in the day of the resurrection and judgment, experience "adoption" or "son placement," as Paul said. (Rom. 8: 23) Adoption involves the redemption or glorification of the body, as Paul said in that text. See my series on the birth/adoption question in this blog dedicated to that one subject. (here)

Thompson wrote:

"Eld. Dudley says, “The bride and all the spiritual children were created in, and simultaneously with the last Adam—they all are of the same nature with him.” “The seed of the last Adam make manifest his nature.”" (pg. 85)

Again, this is one of the fundamental beliefs in Two Seedism. The elect or children of God were not created in Adam along with the non-elect, but were created in Christ in eternity past. Further, one can see how this belief requires that "the last Adam" was created or procreated (begotten) in his manhood before the world began, a view that we saw was taught by Joseph Hussey and other Hyper Calvinists at the beginning of the 18th century. 

Thompson wrote:

"Elder Beebe, in running the parallel be tween Adam and Christ, tells us, that “identical with the creation of Christ was the creation of his elect, his bride—bone of his bones, and flesh of his flesh.”" (pg. 85)

So, when was Christ created according to Beebe? Answer: some time in eternity past. Not that Beebe believed that Christ was created in his divinity, but in his humanity or in his state as a Mediator. Still, it is very close to Arianism, or what perhaps would be better to say, they were semi-Arians. 

Thompson wrote further:

"The reader will see that they are not talking about eternal life, which God promised before the world was, but that they are teaching an actual personal existence of all the elect before time, and that this spiritual creation, this spiritual seed, whose existence is identical with Christ, bone of his bones, and flesh of his flesh, is the child by descent, the legitimate heir of God; and that it never has sinned, or in any way lost the purity or holiness it had in its creation; therefore, the doctrine of adoption can have no reference to it, for it has never forfeited its estate, and become, by wicked works, a foreigner, a stranger, an alien, and an enemy." (pg. 85-86)

One can see how the doctrine of adoption, as generally understood by most Christians, is a death blow to the doctrine of "eternal children." The Bible does teach that those who God chose to salvation before the world began are foreknown children, or planned and purposed children, as Isaac was the promised child of Abraham before Isaac was born, but this does not mean that the children of God or Isaac were actual existing children before they were born.

Wrote Thompson:

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

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

Wrote Thompson:

"Another gross error of this Two Seed, Arian doctrine is, that it teaches that "the elect of God are no part of Adam's posterity." This sentiment is in direct opposition to the teachings of God's word, for we are there taught that they are chosen out of the world from among men, and out of all nations." (pg. 106)

Not all Two Seeders denied that the elect were of Adam's posterity. Some say that the preexisting souls of the elect were implanted within Adam, and had Adam never sinned, only the elect would have been born of his seed. Parker taught that the sin of Adam and Eve made it possible that the non-elect or seed of the Devil to be born, and that this was what was meant by God telling Eve that he would "multiply" her seed. Some Two Seeders said that the physical bodies of the elect came from Adam but not their preexisting souls. Others said that even the physical bodies of the elect came from the preexisting human body and soul of Christ. 

Wrote Thompson:

"The beauty of the Gospel is, that it presents a Saviour in every way suited to the sinner in his lost and helpless state. When embraced by faith, this is good news to the weary, heavy laden soul, pressed down under a sense of its just condemnation. But if this new theory be true, the poor sinner of Adam's race may sink down in eternal gloom and despair, for he is not the elect seed, and has no part, or lot, in Christ, or the precious promises of the Gospel. I think that I can speak for every reader of these pages, and say, I am glad the doctrine is not true, for if it was, I should be without hope, and without God in the world, for I am a sinner of Adam's race, and if ever saved, it is all of grace. But, notwithstanding this Arian heresy, "This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief." (pgs. 107-108)

This reminds us of what we noticed in preceding chapters about Beebe and others affirming that being "created in Christ Jesus" or being a "new creation" or a "new man" refers to what took place in eternity past rather than in time when a sinner believes and is converted. Thompson is correct to show how this undermines the good news message to sinners of Adam's race.

Wrote Thompson:

"In solving a problem, if we start wrong, our whole work will be wrong, and we will never obtain the correct answer; so with this Two Seed, or Arian, theory, they start wrong, and they never get right. Their peculiar notions that the elect is a spiritual seed, that was created in Christ Jesus before the world was, that never sinned or fell in Adam, has led them to deny that the Gospel is to be preached to all the world. I have frequently heard their preachers say, "I was never called to preach to sinners. The Gospel is only an address to the saint, &c." If they tell the truth, they have received quite a different call from the apostle Paul, for he was called to bear his name far hence among the Gentiles, to testify both to Jew and Greek, repentance towards God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ." (pg. 108)

This is quite interesting for several reasons. First, because Thompson himself led the way in the mid 19th century in denying that one must hear the gospel in order to be saved or regenerated. What kind of Gospel did Thompson preach to those who were lost sinners? If one reads his book "The Primitive Preacher," which has many of his sermons, he did often address the dead sinners, a thing which Hardshell Baptists do not do today. See this post (here) where I cited from that book and showed how Thompson often appealed to the lost sinner about his salvation and his need of Christ. Second, he is another witness to the fact that it was the Two Seeders (with the exception of Parker himself, as we have seen) who denied that the Gospel was a means in eternal salvation. Thompson was a friend of Elder John Watson, who we cited much from in earlier chapters, and Watson believed in the Gospel and faith in it being a means in eternal salvation and decried other Two Seeders who thought that preaching to the unregenerate was Arminianism. Another witness was Elder Hosea Preslar, who lived in middle Tennessee and labored with Elder Watson, who wrote the following about Two Seeders and their views in this doctrinal area in his book "Thoughts on Divine Providence" and cited by me in this post (here):

"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 says that the gospel, in his view -

"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:

"But some object (the "ultraist" Hardshells - SG) 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)

Also, from the same book I cited these words of Preslar (See here) which give the Two Seed view:

"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."

"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)

So, we can add Grigg Thompson's testimony in support of the fact that it was Two Seeders who taught that the preaching of the gospel was no means in regeneration, rebirth, or eternal salvation. So, those "Primitive Baptists" today who say that they are not Two Seeders and yet agree with Two Seeders in their view of the purpose of the gospel, are fooling themselves, for they retain this false idea of Two Seeders. I should also say, however, that many Two Seeders, such as Beebe, Trott, Wilson Thompson, etc., though they denied that the word of God or gospel was a means in "regeneration," nevertheless did not deny that it was a means in conversion, for with them conversion was the "birth" that followed regeneration. I have numerous citations in the "Old Baptist Test" blog that show this to be so. For instance, I cited what Trott wrote in 1833 in his writing titled "The Absolute Predestination of All Things" (See here or here for the original source) where he wrote:

"But we as firmly believe that God “has chosen” His people “to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth;” that: “It pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe,” (II Thessalonians 2:13) and that while the “preaching of the cross is unto them that perish, foolishness; unto us who are saved it is the power of God” (I Corinthians 1:18)."

"In reference to the charge that our belief in the doctrine of predestination occasions our not preaching that men should repent and believe, I would remark in the first place that according to our understanding of the Scriptures, “repentance towards God and faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ” are essential parts of that salvation to which the elect of God are predestinated. These things therefore we preach."  (pg. 335)

So, it is ironic that Thompson is writing against Two Seedism and yet he holds to Two Seed views when he denies that the Gospel is a means in begetting faith and in saving sinners. It is also somewhat ironic since his father held to Two Seed views.

In the next chapter we will conclude our look at what Grigg Thompson wrote about Two Seedism among "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptists. Following that we will look at what others wrote in their attacks on Two Seedism.

 

Two Seed Baptist Ideology (XXIX)

In this chapter we will continue to focus on what Elder Grigg Thompson wrote in opposition to Two Seedism, especially as promoted by Elder Gilbert Beebe in his paper "The Signs of the Times" and in a pamphlet he wrote in 1843 to promote Two Seed ideology, but will focus on his attack against the Two Seed ideas about "regeneration" or "rebirth" of the Spirit, rather than on their ideas about the Trinity or their being charged as being Arian. We have in previous chapters already had much to say on the Two Seed view on what is regeneration and rebirth. We will still be citing from Thompson's book "The Measuring Rod" published in 1860 or 1861.

Thompson wrote:

"Eld. D. W. Putman, a prominent leader of the Two Seed Arian party in Georgia, says that it is “the spiritual seed of God that is changed in regeneration.” If this is true, I would like to know in what respect it is changed. Is it changed from holiness to unholiness, or is it changed from spiritual to natural, or is it changed from being the seed of God, to be the seed of Adam, or the seed of the devil? The truth is, they use the word “change” to deceive their hearers, for they emphatically deny any change in regeneration, either in soul, body, mind, matter, or spirit." (pg. 71-72)

I am sure that Thompson is correct about why Elder Putnam wanted to affirm that there is some "change" that occurs in regeneration. Most Two Seeders say that there is no change in the human person, and no change in the "new man" or eternal child of God when that person is "regenerated." It would be better for them to have said that the only change is a change of place, for that "new man" was once in heaven and then was removed and deposited in a human body. But, one has to wonder about Thompson himself also watering down the change that occurs to a man when he is regenerated or born again. If he believes like many of his Brethren began to believe in the 19th century that a person could be "regenerated" and yet remain an unbeliever and a worshiper of idols, he too has embraced a view of "regeneration" where there is little to no change. Recall that T.P. Dudley said that those who believed that a man was changed in regeneration believed in a mere "remodeling" or repairing of the old man.

Thompson wrote:

"The Saviour said to Nicodemus, “Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” This a second birth, experienced by the same individual or person; it would be impossible for a person to be born a second time, before they had been born the first time. Nicodemus had been born of the flesh; that birth had brought him into this world with capacities to enjoy it; but this same Nicodemus must be born a second time to enter the kingdom of God and enjoy it. But those Arians tell us that to be born again does not mean to be born a second time, and that it has no reference to the posterity of Adam, but that it has reference to the spiritual generation in Jesus Christ. And that by the new birth this generation are made manifest. They say that the children of men are made manifest by birth, and the children of God are also made manifest by birth. This is true and Scriptural; for it is by the sinner's being born again that he is made manifest as the child of God. But, if their views are true, it is not a second birth, neither is the sinner the subject of this birth. Eld. Dudley, in commenting upon the passage in Ephesians, “You hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and in sins,” says that “This quickening took place before time.” Eld. Beebe says that “The elect were made partakers of the Holy Ghost in eternity.” The new birth, is therefore only a making manifest that which actually existed, and had been actually quickened in eternity. But if we were to admit their argument, the text of itself would expose the error, for it was those who were dead in sin that were quickened. Now, if they were quickened in eternity, or before the world was, then they were dead in sins in eternity, or before the world was, for it was the man dead in sin that was quickened. Their doctrine of the new birth or regeneration, if I can understand them, is just this: That the children of Adam possess the same nature before birth that they do after; that the birth effects no change; that as soon as the child is born, it discloses the nature of its parent. That the elect actually existed in Christ before time a spiritual seed; that in time they descend from him and make manifest his nature; but that there is no change in nature, or the spiritual condition of the child or elect, in this birth or regeneration." (pg. 76-78)

This is why some Two Seeders would argue that "born again" in John chapter three should rather be translated "born from above." That translation fit better with their idea of the spiritual birth occurring in eternity past. However, "born again" is correct. Even Nicodemus understood it that way for he said "how can a man be born again? Can he enter the second time into his mother's womb and be born again?" Further, being born again does not merely manifest that those born again were already actual children before being born of God, for people are not children of God until they are born of God. It is a remnant of Two Seedism to hear today's "Primitive Baptists" use that word "manifest" so many times. Everything manifests that one is a child of God and nothing brings about that birth, except what the Holy Spirit does. Even though Peter said that believers have been "born again of incorruptible seed by the word of God," today's Hardshell Baptists deny that the word of God or faith in it have anything to do with being born again. Even Thompson does not object to saying that being born of God merely "manifests" that one was already a child of God, showing that he himself is in line with those he is opposing. 

It is true that a child exists in the womb before it is born from the womb. But, when the scriptures speak of being born, or born again, focus is on birth from the womb. This is when a person "comes into the world" (John 1: 9). When a person is "born of God" he then becomes a child of God. Contrary to what most "Primitive Baptists" taught in Thompson's day, the new birth is not divided up into stages where being conceived precedes birth by nine months as in natural birth of the flesh. When we ask a person "how old are you" the person responds by dating his age from the time he was born from the womb.

Thompson wrote:

"When the Saviour taught Nicodemus that a man must be born again, he could not understand how this could be; and this seems to be the difficulty with these Arians, hence they deny that the man who has been once born can be born again, and tell us that the new birth has no reference to the Adam man, or fallen sinner, but to the spiritual man, the holy man, the man who never did sin." (pg. 78-79)

In the midst of the intense debate over these things in the mid 19th century, it became necessary to ask each minister - "do you believe that the Adam man is the subject of the new birth?" If you said yes, you were not a Two Seeder. If you said no, you were a Two Seeder. Elder T.P. Dudley in his Dec. 19, 1854 article titled "ONE MEDIATOR" wrote:

"The conclusion is, then, that instead of any part of the Adamic man being “born of the Spirit,” “a new man created in righteousness and true holiness,” is developed."  

So, we see how Two Seeders denied that "any part of the Adamic man" was born of the Spirit.

In an article titled "Two-Seedism" (April 30, 1912 by C.H. Cayce in "The Primitive Baptist"; See here), we read these words:

"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."

In another editorial titled "Regeneration," Elder C.H. Cayce (November 16, 1915) wrote the following (as cited here):

"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."

Notice how Cayce, like the Two Seeders, says that "born again" means "born from above." But, as we have seen, the text does mean "born again" for this is how Nicodemus understood it. Further, Peter says "being born again" (I Peter 1: 23) and the Greek word does mean "born again" or "born anew." Yet, he says "it is the sinner of Adam's race that is the subject of the new birth." 

Cayce wrote further:

"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 wrote further:

"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."

One wonders why Cayce would reject Grigg Thompson's view that the new birth produced evangelical faith and repentance, and affirm that most of those who are born again never come to believe in Jesus or turn from their sins. Thompson says that the sinner hears the voice of the Son of God and "are made to know Him and love Him," which is not the view of Cayce not of today's "Primitive Baptists." 

Cayce wrote further:

"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...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."

The "whole man doctrine" said that the entire Adam man, body, soul, and spirit, were born of the Spirit, which was one extreme, and the "hollow log doctrine" went to the other extreme and affirmed that there was no change at all to the Adam man. In previous chapters we have explained what is meant by the "hollow log doctrine." 

Thompson wrote:

"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. The debtor receives forgiveness, the criminal receives pardon, the captive receives liberty, and the guilty receive justification. The change is great, and all this change is wrought in the sinner, the son or daughter of Adam. The change was so great in Saul, the vile persecutor, that he became the humble follower of the Lord Jesus Christ, and labored to build up what he had tried to tear down. If Paul was here, and was to hear Dudley, Beebe, or any of this Arian school, affirm that there is no change effected in the sinner, of Adam's race, in regeneration, he would reprove their heresy by telling his own experience, how he was once the servant of sin; how a light shone around above the light of the sun; how God called him by his grace, revealed his Son in him, and made him a minister and a witness to the Gentiles. When Paul wrote to the Ephesians, he believed that in regeneration the sinner experienced a change, for he says, “Ye were once darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord.” In his letter to the Romans, he says, “But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin; but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.” Again: “For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness. What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed? for the end of those things is death. But now, being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life.”" (pg. 79-81)

It seems clear that in fighting Two Seedism Thompson did not go to an opposite extreme as did Cayce and others. Thompson explains the experience of being "born again" in terms of being converted to faith in Christ and involved repentance. He says being born again made Saul a "humble follower of the Lord Jesus Christ" and made him a "servant to God," but this was not the view of C.H. Cayce nor of "Primitive Baptists" generally of the late 19th century and today. I wrote about this in years past, and showed how Cayce and Albert Oliphant disagreed on the condition of the Athenian idolaters to whom Paul preached in Acts chapter 17. (See here) Cayce first cites the words of Oliphant and then gives his counter views (all emphasis mine).

"First, let me cite from brother Oliphant's letter.

"The gospel also makes it the duty of 'all nations of men' that 'dwell on all the face of the earth' to seek the Lord. Acts 17: 26: 'And hath made of one blood (Adam) all nations of men (all human creatures), for to dwell on all the face of the earth; and hath determined the times before appointed (when they shoulud each exist), and the bounds of their habitation' (where they should each exist). Verse 27: 'That they (relative pronoun, which has for its antecedent all nations of men) should (duty) seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after Him, and find Him, though He be not far from every one of us.' Verse 28; 'For in Him we live, move, and have our being' (existence). Here is accountability in its full force, declared by the Lord in His gospel, or counsel. Since all the human specie is commanded to repent, and seek the Lord, it is each and every one's duty, and God by His gospel requires all duty to be performed; and whatever God requires of His creatures is His 'counsel' to them; and He hath commanded His ministry 'shun not to declare the whole counsel of God." ("The Spirituality Of The Gospel," Editorial Writings, Vol. 1, July 24, 1906, pages 98, 99)"

Cayce responded, saying:

"He does not quote all of the 28th verse. That verse, in full, and the 29th and 30th verses read, 'For in Him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also His offspring. Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device. And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men everywhere to repent.' Paul is here preaching to a people who are the offspring of God--born of God--a people who have been worshipping God ignorantly, having an altar erected to the unknown God. They are commanded to turn away from their ignorant or idolatrous worship, and all those who are born of God, the offspring of God everywhere, who are engaged in such worship are commanded to repent. There is nothing in this text for the unregenerate. It is to the children of God who are engaging in false worship, and it is the duty of the ministry to admonish all such persons to repent, turn away from it and worship the Lord as directed in His word." (Ibid)

So, Cayce's view of "regeneration" or rebirth is that there is no change in the sinner's belief about God and the way of salvation through Christ. That was not the view of Thompson nor of most of the first generation of Hardshell ministers. When it is said that the Athenians were "the offspring of God" it does not mean that they were born of the Spirit, but simply that they were God's natural children through being his creation. Cayce's view became the predominant view of the "Primitive Baptist Church" and the view of Thompson and Oliphant receded. Cayce believed the Athenians were regenerated even before they knew of the one true God and before believing in Christ. That does not seem to be the view of Thompson and Oliphant, and was not the general view of most "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptists at the beginning. What changed in the Athenians when they were "regenerated" or "born again" while in their polytheism? Here again we see where even Cayce, though opposing the Two Seed "no change" view of regeneration, nevertheless believes the same, for the Athenians were not made knowledgeable of God or Christ and did not change from being polytheists to being monotheists.

In the next chapter we will continue to look at Grigg Thompson's attack upon Two Seedism and of the no change view of regeneration or rebirth.

Two Seed Baptist Ideology (XXVIII)

                      

Historian and Professor John G. Crowley, author of "Primitive Baptists of the Wiregrass South" (1999) said that one may still find Two-Seed doctrines expounded by Primitive Baptists "if one knows where to go and what to listen for." (page 133) This is true of today's "Primitive," "Old School," or "Hardshell" Baptists. Though they will tell you that they have declared non-fellowship against the heresy of Two Seedism, yet they still have remnants of Two Seedism in their thinking. We have already seen how this is true in regard to their "no change" view of regeneration, of their denial that God uses the gospel or word of God in rebirth, etc. 

In this chapter we will continue our examination of what Elder Grigg Thompson wrote in 1860 against Two Seedism in his book "The Measuring Rod..." We see how he took aim mainly at Elder Gilbert Beebe whom he considered one of the foremost apologists for Two Seedism. We will also see what Beebe said in response to Thompson. 

Thompson wrote in "The Measuring Rod":

"I have now showed that they are Arians, in their views of Christ, and the quickening spirit of God, and hold them both to be creatures in a sense that is in palpable contradiction to God’s word. I shall now examine their Two Seed notions, and try them by the infallible rule. I quote first, from a pamphlet published by Beebe, in 1843, page 11, and 2d column:

“It is not true that the elect, as such, were created in Adam. . . But the elect of God, as such, were created in Christ Jesus, and existed in him before the natural creation took place.” . . . “In his (Christ's) Godhead he is not numbered with, nor compared to creatures, for his Godhead is self-existent, and, therefore, not begotten, created, or derived But in his Mediatorial offices, or Headship of his church, he was set up, created, and begotten; and all his church were set up in him, created in him, and begotten in him, so far as relates to their spiritual life and spiritual condition.” “And thus existing in his Mediatorial character, the fullness of the Godhead, and the fullness of the church were embodied in that Mediatorial existence. And hence it is said, that his people were “created in him, chosen in him, preserved in him, and called with an holy calling, not according to their works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began.' Their origin, as his seed, is simultaneous and identical with Christ as their life.”—Signs of the Times, July 1st, 1849." (pg. 45-46)

Once again we see where Beebe did believe in the actual preexistence of God's elect and that Christ being "begotten" in eternity past was his creation as a "Mediator" and which involved him being possessed of a human soul and nature, and that when Christ was begotten or created so too were the elect begotten and created. So, when Beebe wrote in 1838 (see previous chapter) that he did not believe that the elect actually existed before the world began he was stating what was not true, for he did believe such.

Thompson wrote in response:

"In the above quotations, Eld. Beebe teaches that the elect were not created in Adam, and as such, did not exist in Adam; but that they were created in Christ, in his creation, and were a distinct seed, from Adam and his posterity: that when Christ the Mediator and Head of the church was begotten, created, and set up, all his elect were created, begotten, and set up in him: that their creation and begetting was simultaneous and identical with him. The creation of Christ and his elect before time, he calls the "spiritual creation; " and the creation of Adam and his seed in time, he calls the natural creation." (pgs. 46-47)

These are the chief errors of Two Seedism. The idea that Christ' sonship denoted not his divinity but rather his creation as a "God-man" with both human and divine natures is one error, and the idea that Christ was begotten or created as such before the world began is another error, and the idea that the elect or church were begotten or created at that same time is another error.

Thompson wrote:

"This is their Two Seed doctrine, the true philosophy of which is, that God, before time, created Christ a spiritual man, and his elect in him a spiritual seed; that their existence is simultaneous with Christ their spiritual head and progenitor; for Eld. Dudley says in the same letter: “The bride, and all the spiritual children, were created in, and simultaneously with, the last Adam, that they are of the same nature with him.” This spiritual seed has no real or actual existence in Adam, and is in no way related to him, but belong to another family, belong to a different creation, and have their actual existence in a different head. Eld. J. F. Johnson, in a letter published in the Southern Baptist Messenger, for April 1, 1857, tells us that the children of God by descent, are spiritual children; that they pre-exist in their parent, and of necessity, partake of his nature; and in confirmation of this view, Eld. Beebe says, in the pamphlet above named, page 21, second column:— “As Eve was created in Adam, as identified with and a part of him—the bone of his bones, and the flesh of his flesh: so the church, the elect of God, the Lamb's wife was, as I have before shown, created in Christ—— existed in him, as one and a part of him—bone of his bones, and flesh of his flesh.”" (pg. 50-51)

The paper "The Southern Baptist Messenger" I have mentioned in previous chapters. It was begun by Gilbert Beebe's son William L. Beebe, about 1850 and lasted about ten years. It was, like the "Signs of the Times," a Two Seed Primitive or Old School Baptist periodical. I have read some of the issues of this paper through the years, although the only issues now available on the Internet are from 1860, the year Grigg Thompson wrote "The Measuring Rod." The people who supported both those periodicals were generally Two Seeders. If a person read all the issues of that periodical throughout the decade of its existence, he will see Two Seedism written about and promoted. In fact, the 1850s was a decade where Two Seedism had its most influence and intensest debate with those opposing Two Seedism. 

Notice also how Beebe clearly affirms the preexistence of the children of God, though, as we have seen, he denied teaching it in 1838. 

Further, as we will see, the Two Seeders not only believed that the preexistent souls of the elect were "in" the mind or heart of Christ, but were actually part of Christ's physical body, that their bones and flesh are derived from the bones and flesh of Christ. This being so, it goes against what they were constantly preaching about the new birth, affirming that the new birth was not a case of flesh begetting flesh, but of Spirit begetting spirit. If the bone and flesh of the children of God are taken out of the bone and flesh of Christ, then they are contradicting themselves.

Thompson wrote:

"In the pamphlet above quoted from, on page 17, 2d column, he (Beebe) says:

"By the spiritual creation, I mean the creation in Christ Jesus; and by the natural creation, all that properly belongs to this world, including the creation of all the human family, as such, in Adam. In the natural creation, not even Adam, in his first estate, was a partaker of the Divine nature. But, in the spiritual, God's chosen people are made partakers of the Holy Spirit. In the spiritual creation, those who are the subjects of it are, after God, created in righteousness and true holiness. Christ, as Mediator and Head of the church, is The beginning of the creation of God, and the first born of every creature." (pg. 47)

Thompson wrote the following in response:

"The true philosophy of this quotation is, that Christ, the spiritual Head, was created before time, and that identical with his creation, was the creation of the church, or elect, that their actual existence was in him, and as soon as he began to exist, they began to exist, that this spiritual creation of Christ and his elect, was before time, and that in this creation before time, they were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, and that it was in this creation before time, that the elect were made a spiritual seed, in righteousness and true holiness, after the image of Him that created them, that Adam was created in the natural creation, and all his seed in him, and that, in that creation, neither Adam, nor any of his seed, were partakers of the divine nature, or, that anything spiritual or immortal pertained to them in that creation, that Adam, and his posterity, are a distinct creation from Christ and his posterity; and that as Adam's seed were made partakers of flesh and blood in him, when he was created, so Christ's seed were made partakers of the divine nature in his creation. Eld. H. G. Fuller, a prominent preacher of this sect, in Ga. , illustrates this idea in the following language, which will throw much light upon the subject, and will prove that I do not misrepresent them:- 

"All the human family are nothing but Adam in a state of multiplication, or expansion: and the church, or elect of God, are nothing but Christ in a state of multiplication or expansion." (pgs. 48-49)

Whether the children of God were in any sense created in Adam and represented by him was a point that not all Two Seeders agreed upon. Some say that the physical bodies of the elect were created in Adam, but not their souls or spirits, and these eternal souls were put within Adam when he was created. But, as we have seen, some of them even said that the human bodies and souls of the elect did not get their humanity from Adam, but from Christ. This led many of them to say that the elect were in no sense created in Adam, and that when Adam fell, it did not affect the elect. 

Thompson wrote further:

"This is their Two Seed doctrine, the true philosophy of which is, that God, before time, created Christ a spiritual man, and his elect in him a spiritual seed; that their existence is simultaneous with Christ their spiritual head and progenitor; for Eld. Dudley says in the same letter: - "The bride, and all the spiritual children, were created in, and simultaneously with, the last Adam,- that they are of the same nature with him." (pg. 50)

That doctrine makes the elect to be a distinct race of people from the race of Adam, or of humanity. So Thompson wrote:

"This spiritual seed has no real or actual existence in Adam, and is in no way related to him, but belong to another family,- belong to a different creation, and have their actual existence in a different head. Eld. J. F. Johnson, in a letter published in the Southern Baptist Messenger, for April 1, 1857, tells us that the children of God by descent, are spiritual children; that they pre-exist in their parent, and of necessity, partake of his nature; and in confirmation of this view, Eld. Beebe says, in the pamphlet above named, page 21, second column:- 

"As Eve was created in Adam, as identified with and a part of him the bone of his bones, and the flesh of his flesh: so the church, the elect of God, the Lamb's wife was, as I have before shown, created in Christ-- existed in him, as one and a part of him-bone of his bones, and flesh of his flesh." (pg. 50-51)

Again, not all Two Seeders agreed on whether the elect were derived from, or in any way represented by, Adam. How Two Seeders believed on such things affected their views on the resurrection of the bodies of the children of God, some believing in the resurrection and others denying it. On this we will have some things to say towards the end of this series.

Thompson wrote:

"I want the reader to keep in mind that this is the spiritual creation, and as such, has bones and flesh; and that it not only exists in life, as we hear some talk, but that it has an actual flesh and bone existence in its spiritual creation, so that it is not connected with Adam's seed, either in life, or in flesh and bones. For he tells us, that as "Eve was quickened, and received life when God breathed the breath of life into Adam, so the church or elect were quickened, or received life, when God breathed life into Christ." The existence of the church or elect, was, de facto, an actual existence in flesh and bone, before Adam was created or before time. The difference between the flesh and bones of Christ and his Eve or elect, and that of Adam and his Eve and seed, was that one was spiritual and the other natural. And that as a spiritual seed, Christ and his elect existed, in life, in flesh, and in bones, distinct from Adam and his seed, and were created before the visible heavens and earth." (pg. 51-52)

The idea that the elect not only received their spiritual existence and life in Christ in eternity past, but also their physical or natural existence too, is the grossest form of Two Seedism.

Thompson wrote:

"Right here a difficulty presents itself, that I think must blow up the whole system, without applying the Measuring Rod to it; and that difficulty is involved in answering this question: How are the elect involved in Adam's sin? If their existence was not in Adam, but were a different family, a different seed, we might just as soon suppose that angels, or God himself, would fall under the curse of the law, and become corrupt through the disobedience of Adam, as to suppose that this spiritual, distinct seed, that existed in Christ, should fall and become sinful by Adam's act: one is just as reasonable as the other. The act of Adam could not be imputed to them, for they were not related to him in their creation; they were a different order of being, for they were spiritual, and he was natural; they sustained no relationship to him, and without relationship, imputation cannot take place.  Neither could they inherit his sin, for they were never created in him, never descended from him, and of course cannot receive his corrupt nature by inheritance or descent. The very same rule that would involve them in the guilt of Adam, might involve God, the Holy Spirit, or the angelic hosts; for any of them were as much in union with Adam, according to this theory, as were the church or elect." (pg. 52-53)

Thompson shows the absurd consequences of Two Seedism and how that heresy leads to other heresies.

Thompson wrote:

"3d. They hold that the elect were quickened and made partakers of the Holy Ghost, or divine nature, before time. The Scriptures, however, tell us, that God has given unto us great and precious promises, that by them we might (not eternally were) be partakers of the divine nature. See 2 Peter i. 3, 4. Hence it is, in time, the elect are made partakers of the divine nature, and experience the quickening and life-giving power of the Holy Ghost." (pg. 55)

We have seen in previous chapters where Beebe, Trott, and Two Seeders generally, said that being "created in Christ Jesus" or being made "new creatures in Christ" occurred some time in eternity past, and that the "new man" is that eternal child of God. They were children of God before they partook of flesh and blood. That is what Beebe taught, and yet at other times, we hear Two Seeders say that they partook of the flesh, bone, and blood of Christ in eternity past, and not from Adam. The idea that the elect were partakers of the divine nature in eternity past leads to many absurdities and unscriptural ideas.

Thompson wrote:

"I shall now return to the Two Seeds, for we must not lose sight of that important article in their faith; and if the reader has kept in mind the fact, that they teach that the elect is a spiritual creation, and make no part of Adam's seed; were not created in Adam, and do not descend from Adam; I expect by this time he is growing curious to know how they get under the law, and under the curse: for it is impossible for them to be involved in Adam's transgression, as they were not of his seed, and had no actual, or representative existence in him. The elect must, therefore, be brought under the law and under its curse in some other way be sides, or distinct from the transgression of Adam. In the following extract, made from the pamphlet quoted from before, Eld. Beebe has explained this matter in a way consistent with his system of doctrine, and believing that the reader will be interested in reading it, I make a lengthy extract." (pg. 55-56)

One must wonder what God's purpose was in creating the human race as it respects God's preexisting children. If he deposited these spiritual eternal children in Adam, for what purpose? If they come down from heaven, enter into the human body of a descendant of Adam, and then leave, what was the purpose of it all? Especially if there is no resurrection of the human bodies they inhabited. Was it for the purpose of teaching them?

Thompson wrote:

"Christ was set up, in the council and covenant of God, as the Head and representative of his people, before the highest parts of the earth was formed, or the fountains abounded with water; not as a spiritual Head, embodying a spiritual seed in him, but as a man- "The man of God's right hand." Paul calls him the "heavenly man," (not the spiritual man;) and in the fullness of time, he was "made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law." (pgs. 62-63)

I find this commentary by Thompson somewhat bewildering. Is he saying that Christ, "as a man," was "set up" in eternity past? He seems to speak like a Two Seeder himself in what he says. Is he parroting the view of Joseph Hussey, et al, when he believes that Christ was a "heavenly man" in eternity past? Or, is he simply saying that this being "set up" was in the eternal purpose or mind of God?

Thompson wrote:

"He is called the "Son of man," "the man Christ Jesus," the "man of God's right hand." But it no where speaks of him as a spiritual existence, which is neither God nor man: neither does the Bible make any distinction between the "Son of God" and the "Son of man, "for it was said to Mary that, "that holy thing which should be born of her, should be called the Son of God." But while he was man, we must not forget that he was "God manifest in the flesh." Hence, he was both God and man. As God, he was the "everlasting Father," and as man he was the "child born, the son given." His divinity was the uncreated, self-existent God, while in his manhood he was the mediator between God and men. To deny this, is to negative the Scriptures, for they declare, "There is one God, and one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus." Man had violated the law, and the law looked to "man," and not to some spiritual existence for satisfaction. Christ as man, was set up, or appointed in the covenant or will of God, our "Day's man;" and in the "fullness of time he came," as it is written in the volume of the book, to do the will of God, and as the appointed substitute, to die for, or in the room of, his bride or elect, and redeem them from the curse of the law." (pgs. 63-64)

Here Thompson seems to clarify himself, saying that Christ was set up or appointed to be the mediator, but was not actually so until he took upon himself a body in his incarnation. If he believes that Christ was a mediator from eternity, or in the old testament period, and believes that his being a man was essential to him being a mediator, then he would be affirming Two Seed views. 

Thompson wrote:

"There is one more difficulty in this absurd and vain philosophy, that I wish to notice. Eld. Beebe tells us that Adam was not spiritual but natural, which is the truth as testified by Paul. If Adam was not spiritual, how could any thing spiritual be involved in his transgression? and if he was not spiritual, the woman that was taken from him was not spiritual, and it was her "seed that was to bruise the serpent's head. "If Christ was therefore a spiritual man, he could not be the woman's seed, or else the woman had something spiritual about her; and it is not true, that Adam and Eve were nothing but natural beings." (pg. 66)

Again, this is all quite bewildering. Is he affirming or denying that Adam was spiritual? He says that Beebe and the Two Seeders were right in saying that "Adam was not spiritual but natural." But then he says that Adam must have been spiritual for something spiritual was "involved in his transgression," which is what I have previously noticed, saying that if Adam was not in any sense spiritual, then he could not have died spiritually. I think, however, that Thompson is showing the inconsistency in Two Seedism on this point. If Eve, being a type of the church, was "in Adam" as a type of the spiritual seed of Christ, then one must say that Adam had that which was spiritual in him. He also says that since Christ is a spiritual man and has descended from Adam and Eve, then this presupposes that Adam and Eve were spiritual. 

Thompson wrote:

"We have now found them to be Arians in their views of the Mediator, and to be Two Seed in their views of the origin of the elect and non-elect. It is true that they believe God created both; but they hold that he created the elect in Christ before time, and that he created the non-elect in Adam in time; that the elect are by creation a spiritual family, and that the non-elect are by creation a natural, or earthly family. These views have led them to deny the doctrine of regeneration as taught in the Bible, and by the Primitive Baptists. For if the elect were created in Christ in eternity a spiritual seed, and were in eternity made partakers of the divine nature, regeneration can effect no change in them, unless it should be a change for the worse; for it is contended that the elect are a “spiritual, holy seed,” therefore a change could not better their condition. But they deny that any change is wrought in the sinner, in soul, body, mind, spirit, or matter, in regeneration, as I shall show before I am done with this point, and teach that regeneration is nothing but the generating or making manifest the spiritual child, which has laid dormant in the loins of Christ, from the time of his creation. Eld. T. P. Dudley says: “Regeneration is not a reforming, remodeling, or working over, like a hatter taking an old hat, and working it over, and making a new hat of it, but that it is the bringing forth of a new hat, or new man.” (pg. 67-68)

First of all, not all Two Seeders believed that God created the Devil and his seed. Daniel Parker did not believe so, as we have seen. It is true that a belief in the preexistence of the humanity of Christ and of the elect in him led Two Seeders and Hyper Calvinists to deny the biblical teaching on regeneration. Our previous chapters have shown this to be true. Thompson, however, because he came to deny that God uses the means of his word or Gospel in the regeneration, rebirth, or eternal salvation of the elect, also altered his views on regeneration from what Baptists before him held to. Though Daniel Parker did not deny means, yet the Two Seeders that he helped to spawn did begin to deny such means. If the word of God is not a means, then neither is faith and repentance, for these are evangelical, being produced by the hearing of the Gospel, and so it led to the belief that you could be totally ignorant of the one true God and Jesus Christ, and the way of salvation through him, and be a heathen worshiper of other gods, and yet be "regenerated" or "born again." However, Grigg Thompson is on record as believing, like many of his Brethren, whether Two Seed or not, that conversion was equated with the "birth" of the Spirit, following "regeneration," and that conversion was necessary for salvation and required hearing the Gospel.  In Wilson Thompson's book "Simple Truth" (1821) we have his "Discourse #6 - On the Work of the Spirit After Justification" we have these words:

"This change wrought by the spirit, is called regeneration because it is begetting them unto a divine nature. The first work of the spirit on the heart is regeneration, or the implanting of that incorruptible seed with cleaves to holiness, and so it is sometimes called quickened, because this is a living seed, that causes the motions of life to appear, and this is always followed by the new birth which is effected when the soul is enabled to view Christ by faith, and lay hold of the comfort contained in the gospel, and so they are said to be born again, not of corruptible seed, but of an incorruptible seed, by the word of God." 

So, at least in 1821 Wilson believed that the "new birth" followed "regeneration" and involved receiving the Gospel. Was this the view of Grigg as it was of the large majority of "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptists in the 19th century?

In the next chapter we will conclude our look at Grigg Thompson's opposition to Two Seedism.