Two Seed Baptist Ideology (XX)

The question that Lord God asks the prophet Job in the above text is intended to affirm that Job did not exist in any real sense when the world was created. Had God asked the same question to Daniel Parker, Gilbert Beebe, Samuel Trott, Wilson Thompson, and other apologists for Two Seedism, they would have answered - "Lord, you know that we existed from eternity in Christ, being in his loins as Levi was in the loins of Abraham." 

As we have seen in earlier chapters, the idea of the preexistence of souls was not only a leading tenet of Two Seedism among "Primitive Baptists" but also of other Christian cults, such as in church father Origen, and some sub cults within Catholicism. For instance I came across a book titled "Pre-Existence of the Souls of Christ and Mary. Falsification of the Acts of the Second Council of Constantinople" (See here) In that book we read these citations (emphasis mine):

"The pre-existence of the Souls of Christ and Mary: Saint Gregory XVII taught this vital dogma in one of his first great doctrinal documents. It is an essential doctrine for understanding many Old Testament mysteries."

"Nonetheless, in the former Acts (falsified) of the Second Council of Constantinople is read: “If anyone should say or feel that the Soul of the Lord pre-existed united to the Word of God before the Incarnation and Birth from the Virgin, let him be anathema.” But this goes against the Bible, which has greater force, where Saint Paul says that “Christ, as Man, is visible Image of the invisible God, Firstborn of all creatures!” (Letter to the Colossians)." 

What these words show is that the belief of the Two Seed Primitive Baptists is also believed by other fringe groups of professing Christians. We have also stated that Mormonism also teaches the preexistence of souls, possibly a view that Joseph Smith and company borrowed from Parker et.al, seeing it was formulated in the 1830s and 1840s, and because Smith had read Parker's books on the subject and had been reading the "Signs of the Times."  

In previous chapters we have given the Two Seed view of Paul's "old man" versus "new man" wherein Two Seeders contended that the "old man" is the human being, or the Adam man's soul, body, and spirit, and where the "new man" is the preexistent child of God. Ironically, however, the Two Seed system makes the "new man" to be older than the "old man." 

The same may be true relative to Adam and to the "second Adam" in Two Seedism, for Two Seeders make the second Adam to be the "Mediatorial" Christ who was begotten in eternity past as the Son of God and which involved his obtaining his human soul. That being so, the human Christ, as the second Adam, preceded the first or earthly Adam, and must therefore be the first Adam and the earthly Adam then becomes the second Adam.

We have shown in previous chapters that one of the leading arguments of the Two Seeders was to affirm that the Son of God in being begotten by the Father, before the creation of the world or any other thing, was at that time "made" or "created" the "Mediator," or "Head," of all the "body of Christ," i.e. all the members of the church or body of the elect. This is why many of those who opposed the Two Seed wing of the "Old School" or "Primitive" Baptist church accused them of being "Arian." The scriptures however do not teach that the Son of God has actually been a mediator, head, or high priest from eternity.

Christ the Head

Does the fact that Christ was pre-ordained to be the "head" of the church prove that 1) he existed as a human composite being from eternity, and 2) that the church or body of Christ existed from eternity?

Argument 

Christ is not only the head of the church, but is 1) the head of every man, and 2) the head of all principalities and powers. If Christ has been the head from eternity, and if being head implies the existence of the entity over which he is head, then all men are uncreated eternal beings, and so are all principalities and powers. Notice these verses:

"But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God." (I Cor. 11: 3 nkjv)

"...and you are complete in Him, who is the head of all principality and power." (Col. 2: 10 nkjv)

If we accept the logic of the Two Seeders, then we will have to conclude that every man, and every other thing, is uncreated and has existed from eternity.

In another article by T. P Dudley, as J. Taylor Moore gives it in Dudley's biography (See here), titled "ONE MEDIATOR" and written from Lexington, Ky., Dec.10, 1854. Dudley wrote:

"Would there be any more propriety in denying that we had any existence, antecedently to our natural birth; than in denying the existence of the manhood of our glorious Mediator, antecedently to his being brought forth of the virgin?" 

Again, we remind the reader that this idea of the preexistent manhood of Christ was taught by Joseph Hussey and other Hyper Calvinists at the start of the 18th century in England. We will have more to say about this in future chapters, especially when we look at Elder Lemuel Potter's writings against Two Seedism. Needless to say, the Bible does not teach such. Christ, as man, was created or begotten in the womb of Mary by the Holy Spirit. He preexisted his incarnation as the eternal Son of God, or Word of God, or second person in the Trinity.

Wrote Dudley:

"Jesus said, “I came down from heaven.” Was it the Godhead or the man that came down from heaven? As God, “Heaven is his throne; and the earth his footstool.” This is a very deep matter, and I dare not go beyond what is revealed. “Revealed things belong to us and to our children.” The world existed at least four thousand years before the incarnation of the WORD, was the world, in existence, these four thousand years without a Mediator? Who is the Mediator as known in the Bible? If we shall be told that Jesus Christ in his Godhead, or divine nature, was the Mediator during these four thousand years, we shall reply, is Christ not in his Godhead, or divine nature, essentially God? Is not God one? “Now a mediator is not a mediator of one; but God is one.” Gal.3:20. The question recurs, Who was the mediator during those years? The bible reply is, “the same yesterday, and today, and forever.” But who is he? “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the MAN Christ Jesus.” I Tim.2:5. Now, if this mediator, this man, Christ Jesus, did not exist during that period, through what medium did Abel, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, with many others, approach a mercy seat? What has become of the millions and myriads, who lived and died in these four thousand years?" 

It was God that came down from heaven. John 1: 14 is clear on this point. "The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us and we beheld his glory, the glory of the only begotten Son of God, full of grace and truth." John says "the Word was God" and this God was made flesh.

The second question asks whether the Son of God was a Mediator prior to his incarnation. No, he was not. He was appointed to be such, but was not actually so. The Mediatorship of Christ is connected with his Priesthood. 

When Did Christ Become High Priest?

"This hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and steadfast, and which enters the Presence behind the veil, where the forerunner has entered for us, even Jesus, having become High Priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek." (Heb. 6: 19-20 nkjv)

"For the law appoints as high priests men who have weakness, but the word of the oath, which came after the law, appoints the Son who has been perfected forever." (Heb. 7: 28 nkjv)

"But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as He is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises." (Heb. 8: 6 nkjv)

"But Christ came as High Priest of the good things to come, with the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands, that is, not of this creation. And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance." (Heb. 9: 11, 15 nkjv)

In order for the eternal Son of God to become a mediator and high priest between God and man, he had to become a man, because he had to be both God and man. He could only represent God to men as God, and he could only represent men to God as a man. So Paul testified: "For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus." (I Tim. 2: 5 nkjv) The incarnation of the eternal Word and Son of God was essential to his work as a savior, redeemer, priest, and mediator. It is by his work as such that he is able to "reconcile" God and condemned men.

The above texts tell us 1) that the divine Son of God, before his incarnation, was not a mediator, high priest, savior, or redeemer, and 2) that his "becoming" such via his incarnation had retroactive results for all believers in the old testament. Therefore, Christ' mediatorial and redemptive work did not occur prior to his incarnation, and therefore the argument of Two Seeders is invalid, which says that the Son of God has always been priest and mediator even from eternity, and therefore his humanity must also have been from eternity. Such a view makes the incarnation unnecessary.

The above texts tell us that Christ' priesthood, which involved his work of mediation, began in time following his incarnation. His priesthood began with God's oath and is connected with the new covenant, and not with the old covenant, and this oath was not made before the law was given, nor from eternity, but in time.

Wrote Dudley:

"When we resort to the “more sure word of prophecy,” we there learn, “And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.” John 3:13. Again, “What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?” John 6:62. Again, “Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth? He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.” Eph.4:9,10."

The texts cited by Dudley do not prove that the humanity of Christ came down from heaven, nor that the man Christ existed from eternity. Wrote John Gill in his commentary on John 3: 13:

"Not that he brought down from heaven with him, either the whole of his human nature, or a part of it; either an human soul, or an human body; nor did he descend locally, by change of place, he being God omnipresent, infinite and immense, but by assumption of the human nature into union with his divine person: even the son of man which is in heaven; at the same time he was then on earth: not that he was in heaven in his human nature, and as he was the son of man; but in his divine nature, as he was the Son of God; see John 1:18..."

Prior to Christ taking upon him "the form of a servant" he existed in the "form of God." So, when he says he came down from heaven, he means he as God came down from heaven.

Wrote Gill further:

"...though this is predicated of his person, as denominated from the human nature, which was proper to him only in his divine nature; for such is omnipresence, or to be in heaven and earth at the same time: just as on the other hand God is said to purchase the church with his blood, and the Lord of glory is said to be crucified, Acts 20:28, where those things are spoken of Christ, as denominated from his divine nature, which were proper only to his human nature; and is what divines call a communication of idioms or properties; and which will serve as a key to open all such passages of Scripture..."

On John 6: 63 Gill writes:

"...ascend up where he was before? for Christ was, he existed before his incarnation, and he was in heaven before; not in his human nature, but as the word and Son of God: and he intimates, that when he had done his work, and the will of his Father, for which he came down from heaven, by the assumption of the human nature, he should ascend up thither again..."

Christ means that he existed prior to his incarnation as the eternal Word and Son of God. John 1: 14 says "the Word was made flesh" and tells us that his human existence is not coextensive with his divinity. We have already noticed what Paul wrote in Philippians chapter two when he speaks of Christ being in "the form of God" prior to his incarnation when he "took the form of a bondservant" and was "made in the likeness of men." Christ did not always exist in both forms from eternity.

Wrote Dudley:

"There are those who cannot, it seems contemplate the existence of the man Christ Jesus, except in communion with the body. Indeed, who deny his existence as man, antecedently to his being brought forth of the virgin. I would ask such, did you, or did you not exist, anterior to your development from your earthly parents? Is the one mystery more incomprehensible than the other? If we admit the first proposition, why reject the second; supported as it is by many unmistakable proofs?"

No, a person does not exist as a person prior to his being begotten in the womb. The Bible says nothing about the pre-existence of souls and has no basis in truth. The Bible makes it clear that every human being is a unique creation of God (Genesis 2:7; Zechariah 12:1; Jeremiah 1:5) and that each human soul begins at conception. (Psalm 139:13–16; Isaiah 44:24; Job 38: 4) 

Argument 

"For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones." (Eph. 5: 30 kjv)

"For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body." (Eph. 5: 23 nkjv)

So, when and how do sinners become "members of his body"? When does Christ become the head of the church, his wife? The figure of body, with head and members, is one of several figures that depict the union that exists between Christ and his people. So, when is this union created? We do not deny that Christ and his people had a representative union before the world began when God (Father, Son, and Spirit) decreed that the Son become flesh and become the Lord, Savior, and Head of the elect or chosen people. But, that union is not vital or actual. Vital or actual union occurs when a person joins himself to Christ. One becomes a member of the body of Christ in time when he is united to Christ by faith and by being immersed into it by the Spirit. 

Testified Paul:

"For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free—and have all been made to drink into one Spirit." (I Cor. 12: 13 nkjv)

Notice that this verse denies that believers were vitally or actually in the body of Christ from eternity. They were "baptized" or "placed into" the "one body" by "one Spirit" when they were converted to Christ and placed their faith in him, when they "received" him, that is, when they embraced him. In Ephesians 4: 15-16 we also learn that the body of Christ is growing due to new members being added to it. This fact overthrows the idea that the body of Christ existed from eternity. 

Further, a man and woman become one, or one body, when they are married or joined together in marital union. Wrote the apostle Paul in confirmation of this fact:

"Or do you not know that he who is joined to a harlot is one body with her? For “the two,” He says, “shall become one flesh.” But he who is joined to the Lord is one spirit with Him." (I cor. 6: 16-17 nkjv)

So, when does a man become one body or one flesh with a woman? Is it not when the man and woman are joined together? Two Seedism must affirm that believers were joined to Christ from eternity. But, that denies what is plainly affirmed in the scriptures, which assert that the union of the believer with Christ occurs when a person receives Christ and unites with him by faith. Wrote Paul further:

"So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as the Lord does the church. For we are members of His body, of His flesh and of His bones. “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church." (Eph. 5: 28-32 nkjv)

A marriage between Christ and the church must occur before there can be an actual union. That marriage occurs when a sinner receives Christ by faith. That is when Christ and the believer become one body and one flesh. Wrote Paul to the Corinthian believers:

 

Two Seed Baptist Ideology (XIX)

In this chapter we will continue to give the back and forth discussion that occurred in 1849 in the "Old School Baptist" periodical "The Signs of the Times." From the Signs of the Times (Vol. VXII, No. 12; June 15th, 1849) and written by Elder Samuel Williams, Lebanon, Warren Co., Ohio, May 24, 1849 (See here), we read these remarks in a letter to Beebe (highlighting mine).

"Dear Brother Beebe:

"Will you be so kind as to publish what follows?

2. If the people of God were created in Christ Jesus in eternity--BEFORE what--or BEFORE when--did God ordain that they should walk in good works? 

3. Were those "QUICKENED SPIRITS" (referred to in brother Trott's quotations from brother Dudley's paper) in the first Adam when he sinned? If not, were they ever dead in sins? If they were never "dead in sins," they cannot be the people that Paul was writing to in the second chapter of Ephesians. Paul says "if any man be in Christ he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things become new."

4. Does the apostle mean that the man is a new creature--or, that a new creature has come into the man?

5. When Jesus said to Nicodemus--"ye must be born again," did he mean that Nicodemus must become a new creature, or that a new creature must come into him?"

6. Does the "new creature" in Second Corinthians fifth chapter and seventeenth verse, mean the same thing as "new man" in Ephesians fourth chapter and twenty-fourth verse?

I have never read in the Scriptures, that Christ came to save a people that were never lost; or, that he came to justify a people who were eternally justified. 

"...an eternal actual existence with Christ that needed no Salvation..."

These are good questions by Williams and get to the most important parts of the Two Seed heresies. Next we will cite from "Reply to the Queries Stated by brother S. Williams" by Gilbert Beebe in the "Signs of the Times" for the same issue (See here). Wrote Beebe:

"There is no sense in which we can consider Christ as the Head and the church as the fullness of his body, without necessarily involving the doctrine of vital union between that Head and body. If we take the natural figure of the body of a man, any man, a vital union is implied; together they live, but divided both head and body must die. Or if we take the figure of the seminal union of Head and body, all vital relationship is involved in it. Adoption, simply considered, constitutes no vital relationship; it only brings the persons adopted into the privileges of children; but to the offspring or seed of a natural or spiritual progenitor, constitutes vital relationship."

This line of reasoning we have examined somewhat before. Beebe reasons that Christ has from eternity actually been the Head of the body of the redeemed, and he argued that a head cannot exist without the body. Christ, however, though he had been ordained to be the head and representative of men from eternity, did not actually become the head until the body was being formed. God has appointed man to be the head of the woman, or of his wife, but it would be ridiculous to say that this implies that both the man and his wife existed as such from eternity. (See I Cor. 11: 3) Christ was also ordained from eternity to be a king, savior, lord, etc., but he did not actually become such until there were people created who he would rule over and save. God also ordained that Christ should suffer as a sacrifice for sin, but that does not equate with Christ suffering such from eternity. 

Wrote Beebe:

"Christ is not only called the Son of God, but he is emphatically called the "Only begotten of the Father." We cannot conceive that this or any other expression implying derivation, can apply to the eternal and self existent Godhead of our Lord Jesus Christ; and certainly it is not applicable to his human nature, which he took on him when "he was made flesh," "made of a woman," &c., but to his Mediatorial Headship of the church. As Mediator, let it be remembered, he is as closely identified with his church as he is with his Godhead; for he says they are one with him even (or exactly) as he is one with his Father; and on this principle only could they have been loved of the Father simultaneously with himself, before the foundation of the world."

Beebe says that Christ being begotten as the Son of God is not intended to express the idea that Christ was God, of the same nature and essence of the Father, nor was it expressive of his "human nature," but was expressive of his third nature, his nature and being as Mediator and Head of the church body. As we have seen, however, many Two Seeders connected Christ' being begotten as the Son of God, before the world began, with his acquiring his human soul or nature, for how could he be the Mediator and Head of the church if he was not human? Here then is another instance where Two Seeders were contradictory in their ideology. If Christ could be mediator, savior, and head of the redeemed without being human, then what need for his becoming flesh and blood?

Wrote Beebe:

"This life or immortality was in him, and no where else; and it is begotten of the eternal Father and is the Firstborn of every creature...And this immortality being an emanation from the Godhead, begotten and born of the Father before any creature was created, covers the only ground on which our relationship to God, as his children can stand. If brother Williams will admit that Christ is the only begotten Son of God, and that we are sons, which, of his own will he hath begotten; then he must also admit that we were begotten in him, as Mediatorial Head of the church."

"Life and immortality" is what is "begotten of the eternal Father"? Life and immortality are not persons and are not begotten. Neither are they "an emanation" of God but are qualities, characteristics, or attributes of God. Again, as stated in earlier chapters, that is Gnostic language. Life is not a creature. God is life, just as he is light. Beebe makes this begotten life and immortality to be the Son of God. What Beebe is trying to prove is that the church (group of believers or elect) was begotten in eternity past when life, immortality, and the Son were begotten by the Father.

Wrote Beebe:

"Nor will it avail to say that we are vitally related to God by regeneration: for in regeneration that life which was and is in Christ only, is communicated to us. Regeneration does no more originate spiritual life, than generation does natural life."

Of course the life which is given to believers when they believe and are regenerated is eternal, without beginning or end. But that certainly does not imply that those who are regenerated are not made alive when they experience regeneration or the new birth, because they were already alive. Nor does it imply that they preexisted, being "that life" which is "communicated" in regeneration. "That life" does not mean "that preexistent child of God." Of course "regeneration" does not "originate spiritual life"! But, it does originate it in those who were previously spiritually dead.

Wrote Beebe:

"...the body cannot survive if the Head be dead, nor can the Head survive if the body dies. And it is upon this principle that when Christ died for his people then were they all dead, and when he arose from the dead, they were quickened together and with him."

We have already spoken of this argument for Two Seedism by Beebe and shown it to be fallacious. Christ is also said to be "the head of every man" (I Cor. 11: 3) and if the argument is true that the head cannot exist without the entity over which it is head, and if Christ is head from eternity, then so too are human beings eternal and without beginning. It is true that when Christ the head and representative of the church died, was buried, resurrected, and ascended into heaven that the apostle Paul said that the church also died, was buried, etc. But, this is far from saying that all the elect (or all believers) were then in existence, and therefore literally crucified, buried, raised, and ascended into heaven.

Wrote Beebe:

"...we will next call his attention to the words of inspiration recorded in Psalms xc. 1&2 and xci. 1. "Lord thou hast been our dwelling place in all generations, before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting thou God." 

Beebe often cited this text as if it proved that the elect actually and literally existed from eternity. He thinks that "from everlasting to everlasting" refers to God being a dwelling place for God's people, and therefore asserting that they existed from everlasting. But, that is not the case. "From everlasting to everlasting" refers to God existing as God from eternity.

Wrote Beebe:

"The foregoing remarks are in answer to the first part of the query; the other branch of it remains to be answered, viz,7.-- "Or that a new creature has come into the man?" "We understand that the soul, not the natural body of the saint, is quickened in being born again. And this quickening is, the communication of new life to the soul, which was dead, by the which that soul is made alive, and becomes a new creature. The life which is thus communicated, was, not in that soul before he was born again; and this life is from Christ, who only hath immortality, and it is Christ; and consequently is the new, and not the old creation. And farther we believe that the same change substantially, which is effected in the soul by the new birth will also be effected in the bodies of all the saints, when that new or spiritual life which was given them in Christ Jesus before the world began, shall be communicated to them at their final resurrection; so that they shall not be raised up out of their graves in their old Adamic natures, but as particles of the new creation..." 

It is these rebuttal comments of Beebe to Williams that provoked Dudley to write to Beebe and take issue with him for agreeing with Williams that the man who was spiritually dead is what is made alive, for the view of Dudley and other Two Seeders, and even of Beebe himself in prior writings, is that nothing about the unregenerate man is changed in regeneration. So, Dudley thinks that Beebe has recanted.

Beebe does speak out of both sides of his mouth at this point. He says "new or spiritual life" was "given them in Christ Jesus before the world began" but then says it is given to them when they are born again in time.

Williams in the following issue responded to Beebe's answers of his previous address to Beebe via the Signs of the Times and here are some of the excerpts of what he said. You can read it here for July 18, 1849 (Vol. XVII, No. 17 (See here)

Brother Beebe:

"I have just received the 12th number, present volumne, of the Signs: and I am much pleased with your reply to my letter contained in the same paper. I freely admit, that Jesus Christ is the life of the church; and that that life existed prior to the creation of this natural world. But, I have never understood that "life," to be the church. I believe the church as a body, is composed of sinners of Adam's race--and that sinners of Adam's race are adopted into the family of God. In God's appointed time that life enters the "vessels of mercy,"--quickens their dead souls--washes them from all sin by the washing of regeneration--and is in them the spirit of adoption, whereby they cry Abba Father. I agree with you, my brother, that the natural or mortal body, does not become a "new creature" until the resurrection day. And, I am glad that you admitted that the souls of God's children are "quickened" and become "new creatures" by being born again."

Of course, though Williams was glad that Beebe "admitted that the souls of God's children" are what is made "new creatures," fellow Two Seeder T. P. Dudley did not, as we saw in previous chapters. 

Wrote Williams further:

"With your answer to my second question I do not fully agree. I believe that the apostle in the second chapter of the Epistle to the Ephesians is speaking of the great change wrought in the souls of his brethren by the Spirit of the living God. Consequently, when he says,--"we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works." he means by the word "created," the regenerating influence of the Spirit, by which their souls were made new creatures. And these Ephesian brethren, together with all who have been born of the Spirit since their day, are the "created" people spoken of by David--"This shall be written for the generation to come, and the people WHICH SHALL BE CREATED shall praise the Lord." Psa. cii. 18." 

Williams rightly objects to the idea that being "created in Christ Jesus" is something that took place in eternity past rather than in time when a sinner believes in Christ and receives him into his heart.

Samuel Trott writes to Beebe about Williams letter in the "Signs of the Times" for August 1st, 1849 (Vol. XVII, No. 15; See here) Trott wrote:

"2. From the general current of Brother Williams' queries and remarks I should infer that with him, the "New creature" is a mere change in the natural man, in that they imply that there is nothing in the new creature that was not through Adam dead in sins, and needed salvation...If this be his ground, then he occupies the very position from which originates all the differences between Old School Baptists and most popular religionists in reference to experience. For although brother Williams may hold in distinction from the Reformers or Campbellites that the natural man cannot arrive at the knowledge of spiritual religion only as he is taught by the Holy Spirit, yet the moment he assumes that no new faculty is imparted to the man, that it is a mere enlightening of his natural or rational faculties to understand spiritual things, he places this knowledge within the scope of human reason; and I have a right to challenge him to show according to the principles of reason why a man cannot impart to others, of like rational faculties, any knowledge which he has himself received by the powers of his natural mind. Let me be discipled to this belief that the natural man is capable of receiving the things of the Spirit of God, and I shall be an advocate for the popular course of religious instruction by Sunday Schools, &c. If this be the ground really occupied by our brother, (which, by the by, I still hope is not the case) he has evidently overlooked the true import of what the Scriptures deny to the natural powers of man."

Trott states a couple serious errors that helped to create the Two Seed ideology of the first "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptists. He argues that "the natural man," meaning the man as originally created by God, is incapable of arriving "at the knowledge of spiritual religion." Second, he argues that this natural man lacks the "faculties" to "understand spiritual things" and that when a man is made spiritual he is given new faculties. As I have stated before, when Paul says "the natural man receives not the things of the Spirit of God" and "neither can he know them" (I Cor. 2: 14), he is not talking about Adam or Eve as they were originally created. Rather, he is talking about a fallen man who is without divine revelation, and who is following his own whims and speculations, and "leaning upon his own understanding." (Prove. 3: 5) 

Also, the "natural" man in First Corinthians chapter fifteen is a reference to Adam's physical body, and not to his soul, mind, or spirit as in I Cor. 2: 14. Further, Paul's description of Adam's body focused on his body as it became when he sinned, for he speaks of the body as being corrupt, dishonorable, infirmed, and subject to death.

Trott's belief that the new birth gives new faculties to a man is another error. No one who is born again of God receives any new faculties. Man's depraved and lost condition is not characterized by a loss of faculties. This is another area where Hyper Calvinists have erred. 

Wrote A.W. Pink (as cited by me in this post - here):

"It is due neither to the absence of requisite faculties for the performance of duty nor to any force from without which compels him to act contrary to his nature and inclinations. Instead, his bondage to sin is voluntary; he freely chooses the evil. Second, it is a moral inability, and not physical or constitutional."  ("The Doctrine of Man’s Impotence"; Chapter 9-Affirmation, see here)

In another old post of mine (See here) I cited from an old circular letter of South Carolina Primitive Baptists. I wrote:

In an 1842 Circular Letter of the South Carolina Primitive Baptist Association (see here), the writers addressed these issues and wrote the following. 

"WHAT ARE WE TO UNDERSTAND by being born again?"

"We say a change or renewal in the disposition of the soul, because no new facilities are imparted to man in the new birth, none were lost by the fall and none are given in regeneration; the carnal mind or disposition of sinful man is enmity against God, and in the new birth a spiritual mind or disposition is given to man under the power and influence of the spirit of God, in which the powers and faculties of the soul receive a new and spiritual direction; the moral image of God was defaced in man by his apostasy. This image is restored in the new birth, by the word and spirit of God."

In my series on Hardshell Pelagianism I cited from several able theologians who showed that man was originally able to obey God and to enjoy him and how his fall into sin did not take away any of his natural faculties for doing what God said. Man's inability to please God is strictly moral and not physical or a result of lacking the needed faculties, contrary to what Trott was arguing. (See my series on "Hardshell Pelagianism" in the archives of the "Old Baptist Test" blog for the year 2013)

Wrote Trott further:

"But we see the full denial of the capability of the natural or Adamic man of receiving the things of the Spirit of God in I Cor. ii. 14. "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness unto him; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." The natural man embraces all that belongs to man as he was originally created in Adam. As to the idea that the new birth is a production in the soul of a spiritual existence or life by immediate creation instead of its being produced by regeneration from an original creation in Christ as a Head, as brother Williams' queries and remarks do not involve it, I will not now notice it."

The words highlighted in red above are a false proposition. The "natural man" in that passage, as we have said, is not a reference to Adam as God originally made him. It is totally untenable to believe that God made Adam as a being incapable of receiving the things of God. Then why did God give him his law which is spiritual? Then why did he enjoy fellowship with God, and walk with him? Even after he had sinned, God gives him a Gospel revelation about the coming Messiah in what is called the protoevangelium (See Gen. 3: 15) Why give him the good news if he could not receive it? Adam being made in the image and likeness of God involved divine "knowledge" and "true righteousness and holiness." (See Col. 3: 10, Eph. 4: 24)

Wrote Trott further:

"The scripture to which Elder Dudley referred is found in I Cor. xv. 45-49. In this passage the two Adams are spoken of and contrasted. And is it not too manifest to be denied by any candid enquirer after truth, that they are presented to view as two Heads, having each a distinct posterity or seed like unto himself, the one earthly as is the earthly, the other heavenly as is the heavenly? (verse 48) If the first Adam was an actual head having actual seed; was not the last Adam an actual Head having an actual seed? If the posterity of the first were created and received a being in him, when he was made a living soul, were not the posterity of the last Adam in like manner created in him, when he was made a Quickening Spirit"?"

Adam was the head of the human race even before he had any offspring. It is true that all men came from Adam's seed (sperm), but that is not to say that all men existed as persons in Adam. Further, Adam was head over Eve and yet she did not come from his seed but from his rib. All the children of God were not made when Christ was made a human being, nor when Christ was begotten of the Father in eternity past. Trott is reading all that into the passage. Further, in God's decrees, he ordained that the incarnate Son be the head of all men, of the church, and of all principalities and powers, even before they actually existed. They did exist as an idea in the mind of God.

Wrote Trott further:

"Again does not verse 49, "And as we have borne the image of the earthly, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly," clearly show that the same we who bear the image of the heavenly, and are thereby manifested as his seed, also bear the image of the earthly, and are thereby manifested as his seed; first manifested as the seed of the natural, and afterwards as the seed of the spiritual? How are they manifested in the image of the earthly as to his nature, and in his likeness as to his depravity? We are told Gen. v.3, that Adam "begat a son in his own likeness and after his image." There then is the answer. May we not then safely conclude that the seed of Christ are manifested in his image as spiritual, by being born of the Spirit, and in his likeness as the glorified Jesus, by their resurrection or being born from the dead, according to the two begettings, ascribed to their Head, Christ Jesus?"

Notice how Trott uses the word "manifested" over and over again. In earlier chapters we spoke how this word, like several others, is inordinately used by Two Seeders. So, in being born of our parents, we did not come into existence, but only manifested our prior existence as persons in Adam. Likewise, in being born of God, we did not become children of God but were only manifested that we were children of God from eternity. That of course is no where taught in the Bible.

Wrote Trott further:

"...will not brother Williams be constrained to acknowledge this comparison between the two Adams and their seeds as holding good? If so, all the ground is taken from him to infer that, because we have been quickened by the spirit of Christ and therefore existed in him as his seed before the foundation of the world, we therefore never existed in Adam, were not dead as his seed in sin, and did not need salvation. Indeed I cannot conceive how he could ever draw such an inference, if he admits that those who have been born of the flesh may actually be born again of the Spirit. As to the new man, the spiritual life of the believer, as Christ is that life, I am free to admit, that it was not created in Adam, did not fall in him, and never needed salvation any more than Christ did personally. But to draw the conclusion from this that the persons quickened with this life, were never in a lost state needing salvation, is to me strange logic, and stranger divinity." 

What a confusing mess this is theologically and philosophically! Were believers created in Adam or in Christ? Do they owe their origin to both? If they "existed" in Christ before the world began, then they were not created in Adam or in time. Trott seems to say that part of a believer was created in Christ before the world began and part was created in Adam. The part that was created in Christ Jesus never sinned and the part that was created in Adam sinned and needed salvation. There are so many absurdities, and ridiculous consequences of this ideology that it would take much time to delineate them.

Wrote Trott further:

"5. As to eternal justification, I see not that it is involved in the subject of his queries. Besides brother Williams probably was not aware that the first complaining among the readers of the Signs about doctrinal controversies, arose from our opposing the idea of the saints being justified from eternity, as he has in his communication."

Here Trott affirms that his view, which denies that the elect were justified from sin's condemnation from eternity, is not the prevailing view of the majority of Two Seeders. Trott believes that the elect are not justified until Christ has come and paid the penalty of sin and has been declared to be so with an individual until he believes in Christ. This shows us a fact that has been often stated about Two Seeders, which is that they did not always agree among themselves on several of the tenets of that system. Some denied the resurrection of the bodies, some did not. Some affirmed that the Devil was uncreated and self-existent, others did not. The same may be true with the doctrine of eternal justification.

 

Two Seed Baptist Ideology (XVIII)

In this chapter we will continue to examine the debate over some of the leading tenets of Two Seedism that occurred in the Two Seed Primitive Baptist periodical "Signs of the Times" for the year 1849. We will begin with what Elder Wilson Thompson wrote in the January 1st, 1849 issue of the "Signs of the Times." (See here for that year's periodical) We have already identified the first leading defenders of Two Seedism among the "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptists, such as Daniel Parker, Gilbert Beebe, Samuel Trott, and T.P. Dudley. We can also add to this list, Elder Wilson Thompson, who was described by Elder Sylvester Hassell, in the late 19th century, in his "history" of the "Primitive Baptist Church," as "regarded as the ablest Primitive Baptist minister that ever lived in the United States." (See my posting on this here). Yet, the same historian also said that Two Seed beliefs "have corrupted Primitive Baptist doctrine more, and rent off more members and churches from our fellowship, than any and all other causes combined." (See my posting here) That citation was taken from Hassell's periodical "The Gospel Messenger" for March, 1894. How could Hassell say that Wilson Thompson was so great since he believed in several of the leading tenets of Two Seedism and since he denied the Trinity? 

Interesting also is the fact that his father, Elder C. B. Hassell, who was a fellow author of "Hassell's History," often wrote to the "Signs of the Times" in the years leading up to 1849, expressing his support for it and for Elder Beebe. He did not write anything in that paper in 1849 that suggested that he disagreed with Beebe's Two Seedism. It also seems that Sylvester Hassell sought to sweep under the rug as much as possible about how extensive Two Seedism was among the founding fathers of his denomination.

It was in the January, 1849 issue that Wilson Thompson wrote the following, wherein he expressed belief in several of the tenets of Two Seedism. Wrote Thompson (emphasis mine):

"The Mediator surely did pre.exist the visible creation, as one brought up with the divine Father. His goings forth were of old, from everlasting, &c. The union of Father and Son, or God and the Mediator, the Man, Christ Jesus; although beyond our weak capacity to dissect or analyze; yet we are plainly taught that there is, and was always two whole and distinct natures essentially belonging to the one lmmanuel, God with us. The whole fulness of the Godhead dwelt in him. He and his Father are one. Such was and is the union existing between the manhood and Godhead in the person of Christ." 

Notice the Two Seed ideas stated by Thompson. He believes in the preexistence of the humanity of Christ, a basic idea of some early 18th century Hyper Calvinists, and which led to the idea that the elect (or church) were also created in him when Christ was created or begotten as a Mediator, which was a third nature of the divine Word, in addition to his human and divine natures. In writings on Thompson I have shown how he was a Sabellian or Modalist, denying the Orthodox ontological Trinity, a fact even "Primitive Baptist" historian and apologist Sylvester Hassell acknowledges, and yet calls him the ablest Hardshell preacher that ever existed up to that time (late 19th century). In his acceptance of Two Seedism he mixes together Modalism with Arianism, which is indeed a strange concoction. He affirms that "the manhood" of Christ is as eternal as his "Godhead," which is similar to what Mormonism also teaches.

Continued Thompson:

"The church or elect seed were of God, a spiritual seed, chosen and set up in Christ before the foundation of the visible material world; and being of God, and in Christ, who of God is made unto them, wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption, they have, as a seed of God, in Christ, an indissoluble union with both natures of the Mediator, and so, as the seed in Christ, their sonship or filial relationship to God is identified with the sonship of Christ, and they are joint heirs with him; heirs of God, and joint heirs with Christ: and so in their Father's will, which Christ the Elder Brother was appointed to do, or execute, they as the sons of God, which this Mediator or executor was bound to bring to glory, were blessed with all spiritual blessings, in heavenly places, or things, in Christ Jesus, according as they were chosen in him. Being then, of God and in Christ, they were perfectly related to both natures, with their Father, a spiritual relation as his one spiritual seed; and with the Man Christ Jesus, a legal relation by God's appointment and choice. So we see that all the spiritual blessings of the will of God, come directly to them, as gracious bestowments of his will, and all legal blessings come to them by the legal, official acts of Christ, as Mediator or executor of that will. In this sense Christ was legally bound to do, suffer, and fulfill every demand of the law that was against them, and so redeem them from the legal curse, and justify them to a legal life."

Thompson affirms that the "church or elect seed" has from eternity been united to "both natures of the Mediator." He also says that these "eternal children" are begotten "sons" of God from the time when Christ was begotten of the Father and became his Son. 

Next he teaches another idea that we have previously called attention to in regard to why God chose people to salvation and why Christ came to redeem them. Two Seeders say that Christ, as the Mediator created by God, was obligated to come and save those he came to save because they were already the wife of Christ, and his kinsman, and so he was obligated to save them because of that. This destroys, as the anti Two Seeders would argue (such as Elder Lemuel Potter, as we will see), that election to salvation is by grace and mercy, and how God was not obligated to save anyone. It denies "unconditional election," for God chooses to save only those who meet the condition of already being the wife of Christ or children of God.

Continued Thompson:

"Such are the legal blessings which result to the elect, from the ancient relationship in which they stood to him as man; and all spiritual blessings, which were not in Adam before he sinned, to be forfeited by his offence, are freely given to them in Christ, by the will of God---his, and their Father. These being God's children, and being related to the manhood of the Mediator, became partakers of flesh and blood, and in that state fell under the legal curse of the law, the reign of sin, and the power and sentence of death. The Mediator in whom they were originally, by choice, and in whose nature, as Mediator they were identified, was, in that nature, and in the office of it, legally involved with them: and as the executor or Mediator of his, and his Father's will was legally bound to render legal satisfaction for them all. Their partaking of flesh and blood was no crime, but a legal transaction, resulting from the creative power and express command of God; and was therefore an essential and divinely authorized union of the human nature, or essence of man, with the flesh and blood, or material body of man and now the body, and soul and spirit of this human, visible, corporeal being was but one accountable mass, or frame, or body in all its parts, or many members. Christ was the Head, Life, Firstborn, Elder Brother and King of them all; that in all things he might have the pre-eminence. So when they had legally partaken of flesh and blood, and in that state had sinned, he, as their proper and legal Mediator, legally took part of the same, that through death he might legally destroy death, and him that had the power of death, that is the devil; and so legally deliver all the heirs from the fear of death, in which they were held in perpetual bondage."

Again, Thompson argues that since the church was in Christ from past eternity, Christ as the church's husband and near kinsman was obligated to elect her and redeem her when she became involved in sin by being placed in Adam by God. It seems strange that the Two Seeders don't see how ugly is this idea. In this ideology the elect were in Christ, were spiritual holy beings, without sin, and would have remained so had not God chosen to place them within Adam. Why did God do that? 

This view also denies that election and salvation is by grace and mercy, and that God had no necessity or obligation to save anyone.

Also, it seems that it is incongruous to say that the elect were created first in Christ the second Adam and then later created again in the first Adam. As we have before stated, this makes Christ the first Adam and the first Adam to be the second Adam. Also, how can one be created twice? Not only that, but in Two Seed ideology the "new creation" or "new creature" was created in eternity past and the "old creature" or "old man" was created later, which is another incongruous thing, making the new creature to be the older creature, and the old creature to be the new creature.

Continued Thompson:

"Now, man was not spiritual but natural..."

We have before seen how the Two Seeders are vehemently opposed to the idea that Adam was a spiritual being, yet they say that spiritual beings (eternal children of God) were implanted within Adam. Obviously they believe that spiritual beings can sin and become carnal (no longer spiritual) for that is what happened to those spiritual children of God when implanted in Adam and sinned when he sinned. Also, as we have previously stated, if Adam was not a spiritual being then he did not die spiritually, and thus no one is spiritually dead.

Continued Thompson:

"Either of these would be attended with greater confusion than he supposes brother Beebe to be in when he rejects the notion of new modelling the carnal mind in regeneration, and yet admitting the spiritualizing of the body in the resurrection."

This reflects the views of T. P. Dudley who was so opposed to the idea that salvation (regeneration or rebirth) remodeled or restored what had become defective in man because of sin. He accepts the idea that nothing of the sinner or old man is changed by being saved, regenerated, or born again.

Thompson also wrote the following in 1821, long before Beebe began the periodical "Signs of the Times" and which shows that he was a Two Seeder even then, and before Daniel Parker wrote his books on Two Seedism. Wrote Thompson, a close friend of Daniel Parker: 

"...we are lost when we go to hunt the antiquity of this union. We can only say it is as old as God, for God is love; but love must have an object or it ceases to be, for I cannot love and love nothing; love is that endearing or uniting perfection of God, which could only exist, so long as the object beloved existed; nor could God be love before the object was beloved, neither can love be controlled, for it brings forth, produces, or sets up its own object, that is, must necessarily have an object, in order to have its own existence; and as God is self-existent and independent, His existence as love, brought forth its object, which was the soul of Christ with all His people in it, and the very existence of God as king could only be because He had subjects: for a king without a kingdom, is no king at all; so love without an object is no love at all. So we see that in order to our speaking of God as being love, or His existing as love, there must be an object beloved, and in order to His being a king there must be subjects, and thus the pre-existent soul of Christ, was the object of the love of God and His people in it were the subjects of His kingdom, and Christ was the medium of operation through whom God exercises His authority in the government of His kingdom; for in the pre-existing soul of Christ, the subjects of this kingdom were chosen, before the world, when we speak or read of a choice being made in Christ before the world, we are not to understand, that God was looking through Adams posterity, and picking out one here, and another there, and writing their names in the book of life, and refusing the rest, for they were chosen in Christ before the world and not in Adam; for He did not exist before creation; and the choice was not an act that took place, or was planned some time after the existence of God, either before the world or since, but was a consequence of and inseparable from the existence of God as king, and this kingdom was organized in the pre-existent soul of Christ..."  (DISCOURSE #5 On the Atonement, and Man's Justification by it. in "Simple Truth")

In all these citations we see how Thompson promoted several of the foundational ideas in Two Seedism. He believed 1) in the preexistence of the humanity of Christ, and 2) in the preexistence of the souls of the elect or church, and 3) that being "born again" or "regenerated" was not the beginning of new life in Christ but simply the time when the eternal child of God entered into a human body, and 4) that being "created in Christ" is what took place in past eternity, and 5) that nothing in the human or old man is changed by being regenerated or born again. Additionally, like Beebe and Trott, he incorporated Arian views into this scheme, denying that Christ being begotten of the Father before creation was an affirmation of his underived deity. 

In the next chapter we will return to the discussion that was occurring in the "Signs of the Times" in 1849, involving Beebe, Trott, Williams, Dudley, etc. This chapter shows clearly that Wilson Thompson was a Two Seeder. I have not been able to find where he wrote on the origin of Satan or agreed with Parker on that point.

 

Two Seed Baptist Ideology (XVII)

This chapter is a continuation of the immediate previous chapters dealing with the Two Seed debate that was occurring in the "Signs of the Times" periodical for the year 1849. In the immediate preceding chapters we have noticed what Elder T.P. Dudley wrote as an apologist for Two Seedism in the early 19th century in his pamphlet on "The Christian Warfare." We also began to give some of the discussion that occurred through the "Signs of the Times," a Two Seed periodical, and the leading voice for the newly formed "Old School" or "Primitive" Baptist church. We have cited from several elders on both sides of the debate, from Beebe, Trott, Wilson Thompson, John Watson, Samuel Williams, T. P. Dudley, Thomas Barton, etc. 

In the previous chapter we cited from a letter sent to the "Signs of the Times" by "the Brethren About The Fort Mountain" wherein they, like Elder Samuel Willaims, objected to Two Seed ideas. We will begin this chapter with the reply to their letter by Elder Samuel Trott, who was often ready to reply to any and all who objected to Two Seedism. Trott's reply was published on the first page of the August 15th, 1849 issue of the "Signs of the Times" (Vol. XVII, No. 16; See here) titled "Reply to the Brethren about Fort Mountain." In it Trott says:

"In my communication in the 10th No. present Vol. Signs, in replying to brother Barton's query concerning the churches being created in Christ Jesus before the foundation of the world, I took the ground, that the expressions "Created in Christ Jesus," naturally involved the idea that his church was created in his creation, as the Head of his church, and of course, as far back as he has stood as her Head. I referred to I Cor. xv. 45 as sustaining the same idea, and Col. i. 15 as further justifying that application of the idea of creatureship to our Lord in reference to his headship."

When the scriptures speak of being "created in Christ Jesus" (Eph. 2: 10) and becoming a "new creature in Christ Jesus" (II Cor. 5: 17, etc.), the Two Seeders say that this creation occurred before the foundation of the world, from past eternity, in conjunction with Christ being begotten of the Father and being created a Mediator, and when his human soul (and body too according to some, but more on that later) was created. That is certainly a strange and novel view. It is the traditional view to say that this creation occurs when one is converted and born of the Spirit, when he is regenerated. With this view, one can see how the Two Seeders denied any change in conversion, regeneration, or the new birth. 

One can also see (if he has read our previous chapters showing where certain Hyper Calvinists such as Joseph Hussey, in the early 18th century, began to say that the human soul of Christ was what was begotten when he was begotten as the Son of God in eternity past) how an Arian view of the Sonship of Christ contributed to giving birth to the idea that the children of God were begotten or created when Christ was begotten. 

Trott wrote further:

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

So, does I Cor. 5: 45 and the words "the last Adam was made a quickening spirit" imply all that Trott and the Two Seeders affirm? Certainly not. Benson in his commentary rightly says:

"And so it is written — With respect to the animal body, Genesis 2:7. The first Adam was made a living soul — God gave him animal life, in many respects resembling that of other animals; the last Adam was made — Rather was, or is, for there is nothing in the original for made; a quickening Spirit — Having life in himself, and quickening whom he will: imparting even a more refined life to men’s bodies at the resurrection, than that which they formerly possessed."

Not only that, but Christ having life in himself is an affirmation that the man Christ, or divine Son in his incarnate state, has such life. So Jesus said:

"For as the Father has life in Himself, so He has granted the Son to have life in Himself." (John 5: 26 nkjv)

The incarnate Son was granted divine powers and attributes as a man, but this does not mean that he did not have these things as the eternal divine Son of God. Wrote Dr. Barnes in his commentary:

"Hath he given - This shows that the power or authority here spoken of was "given" or committed to the Lord Jesus. This evidently does not refer to the manner in which the second person of the Trinity exists, for the power and authority of which Christ here speaks is that which he exercises as "Mediator." It is the power of raising the dead and judging the world. In regard to his divine nature, it is not affirmed here that it is in any manner derived; nor does the fact that God is said to have "given" him this power prove that he was inferior in his nature or that his existence was derived."

We should compare "made a quickening spirit" with "made flesh" (John 1: 14). He was God the Word and God the Son before he was made flesh and before he was given life to give as such to others.

Trott wrote further:

"...but Christ being the Beginning of the creation of God, I understand no, for Christ is that beginning...But Christ being the Beginning of the creation of God, and the First Born of every creature, must in this sense have been created or brought into existence before these, and therefore before time. As no other reading has been attempted to be given these texts, Rev. iii.14 and Col. i.15, I still think them good authority as they read. But as they do not satisfy these brethren, I will produce other corroborating texts. In John i.4 we read, "In him was life; and the life was the light of men." This is said of the Word as he in the beginning was with God, and was God, vs. 1. Will any person after candid reflection say of this life that is so particularly spoken of as distinct from the Word as being declared to be in the Word; and again as to prevent mistake, it is said that the life was the light of men, not simply it was the light, &c, that it is itself the Word or the essential existence of the Godhead? If not, must they not admit that this life that it was a produced, that is, a begotten or created existence in the Word, or be driven to the necessity of admitting that there are other self existences than God, and therefore other Gods?--If then this life was not a self existence, then it may properly termed a creature as being produced of God."

In preceding chapters we have shown how Two Seed ideology sprang partly from an Arian view of the Sonship of Christ. Many first generation Hardshell Baptists did not agree with the Two Seeders on their interpretation of the texts above. We don't want to be too repetitious in giving citations from Two Seeders for we could give many. We only want the reader to see how error on the doctrine of the Trinity and on Christ' eternal Sonship led to Two Seed ideology.

Thomas Barton, who we have previously cited, writes to Trott in response to Trott's reply to him and the Fort Mountain brethren in the Sept. 15, 1849 issue of the "Signs of the Times" as follows.

"An allusion has been made, I presume, to a difference of opinion between brother Trott and myself on the "Bond of Union." 

"True indeed; we differed; but if I understand the matter properly, the difference is not essential. I presume we agree as to the facts of this union; that the union has existed as long as Christ has existed as Head, and the church as his body...Our difference therefore is simply in reference to that which constitutes the bond by which they are held together. I took occasion in my communication to propose a query on the subject of creation.--My reason for doing so I will now give.--From my first reflection on Eph. 2: 10, I have understood it to have reference to the conversion of the sinner, and particularly gentile sinners; but when I found brethren for whose opinions I entertained the highest respect, and I am sincere in saying that I regarded them as far superior to myself in knowledge and wisdom: I say, when I found such brethren taking a very different view of that text and of its connection, I began to think that perhaps that I was wrong, and, for a considerable time I was agitated on the subject: and indeed, I may say, I was unsettled in my mind on the question; and with a view of getting all the light I could, I proposed the query. Since then I have read and heard in conversation much on the subject, all which has left me just where I was, until I was led to give it another investigation, and if ever in my life I investigated a subject with an honest and sincere desire to obtain a correct understanding of it, I did so on this occasion; the result of which is a more full confirmation of the correctness of my first view I took of it, than ever. I am now as fully satisfied, as I am on any subject in the bible, that Paul, or the Holy Ghost through him, was treating, not on what was done for the church in eternity, but what is done for her in time, in the conversion of the gentiles. True all that is done for her in time is the result of what was done for her in eternity."

"I cannot however see that this difference goes to affect any fundamental principle of the gospel."

Barton was correct in his interpretation. What is strange, however, is Barton's esteeming the leading ideas of Two Seedism to be no great error. I see that Barton's feelings were fairly common among the first generation of "Primitive" Baptists. If one reads the "Signs of the Times" in the 1830s and 1840s he will see many leading elders who wrote to that paper in support of it who would later become opponents of Two Seedism, men like John Watson, John Clark, Grigg Thompson, etc. It is also strange that they could declare non fellowship for Mission Baptists for supporting missions and theological education, etc., and yet tolerate such heresies of the Two Seeders. 

In the "Signs of the Times" for July 18th, 1849 (Vol. XVII, No. 14; See here) Elder Samuel Williams, who we have been citing in the previous chapters, wrote the following to Elder Beebe:

"I have just received the 12th number, present volume, of the Signs: and I am much pleased with your reply to my letter contained in the same paper. I freely admit, that Jesus Christ is the life of the church; and that life existed prior to the creation of this natural world. But, I have never understood that "life" to be the church. I believe the church as a body, is composed of sinners of Adam's race--and that sinners of Adam's race are adopted into the family of God. In God's appointed time, that "life" enters into the "vessels of mercy"--quickens their dead souls--washes them from all sin by the "washing of regeneration"--and is in them the spirit of adoption, whereby they cry Abba Father, I agree with you, my brother, that the natural or mortal body, does not become a "new creature" until the resurrection day. And I am glad that you admitted that the SOULS of God's children are "quickened" and become "new creatures" by being born again."

 

I agree with Williams that Beebe's argument to prove the preexistence of the souls of the elect or church based upon the fact that the "life" that is given is uncreated and eternal is invalid. Two Seedism is read into the scriptures which speak of sinners receiving eternal life. Receiving eternal life does not mean receiving an eternal spirit child of God. When a sinner is saved he partakes of the "divine nature" (II Peter 1: 4) but it would be a stretch to think that this implies that because the divine nature is without beginning so too are the children of God or those who are partakers of the divine nature in time. The preexistence of the divine life and nature does not necessarily infer the preexistence of the souls of the saved.

Williams says he is pleased that Beebe agrees that the souls of sinners, "of Adam's race," are "quickened" and made "new creatures" when they are born of the Spirit in time. This affirmation by Beebe, as we have previously seen, was objected to by Elder Dudley, a fellow Two Seeder as Beebe.

Wrote Williams:

"With your answer to my second question I do not fully agree. I believe that the apostle in the second chapter, of the Epistle to the Ephesians, in speaking of the great change wrought in the souls of his brethren by the Spirit of the living God. Consequently when he says---"we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works," he means by the word "created," the regenerating influence of the Spirit, by which their souls were made new creatures."

"These few lines I have written for the satisfaction of my brethren who may have read my letter containing the questions to which you have in a kind manner replied, in the 12th number of the present Volume of the Signs of the Times." 

After publishing the communications of Elder Williams and the circular by Elder Dudley (which we spoke of in the previous chapter) in the "Signs of the Times," in 1849, several people jumped into the discussion, such as Elder Trott, who wrote a lengthy reply to the queries of Williams and in defense of Dudley and his Two Seed views. Grigg Thompson also writes in the November 1st, 1849 issue of the Signs. (See here) Also, a writer named E. S. Dudley wrote in opposition to T. P. Dudley and Two Seedism. 

It was in the 1840s and 1850s that Two Seedism became the main topic of discussion among the "Old Schoolers." Some of those who became fervent opponents of Two Seedism nevertheless wrote brotherly remarks to the "Signs of the Times" and to other Two Seed Primitive Baptist periodicals, such as to the "The Southern Baptist Messenger," begun in 1850 by Gilbert Beebe's son, Elder William L. Beebe, and published out of Covington, Georgia, and to the "Herald of Truth," mentioned by Elder Watson in "The Old Baptist Test" and seems also to have been a leading paper of the Two Seeders. 

Elder John Clark often wrote to the Signs until he began opposing Beebe and Two Seedism in the early 1850s, and began publishing "Zion's Advocate," and then in 1873 published "Exposure of Heresies" wherein he attacked the "Arianism" of Beebe, Trott, and others. Many years ago I sat in our local library and read this little book, getting it via an inter library loan. We will also see what lengthy remarks Grigg Thompson had to say against the "Arianism" of Two Seedism. After Clark began his periodical "Zion's Advocate" in 1854 he became a recognized leader of those who came to be known as "Clark Old School Baptists" and who were opposed to those who were known as "Beebe Old School Baptists" or "Beebeites." 

In November, 1897, Sylvester Hassell, Hardshell historian, wrote some things in his paper the "Gospel, Messenger" which was later made into a booklet titled "The Relations Between Those Called the Beebe and the Clark Old School Baptists." (It can be read online here) 

It seems that the first two periodicals of the "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptists represented the two sides in the Two Seed debate. The "Signs of the Times" published out of New York, edited by Beebe and the peridical where Trott did much of his writings, was first, beginning immediately after the Black Rock Address, and had the support of that Convention for starting that periodical. It became the impetus for Beebe and sons running a publishing business out of New York. Shortly thereafter the "Primitive Baptist" periodical was begun in 1836 with Elder Mark Bennett as editor with the full support of Elder Joshua Lawrence, one of the foremost leaders in the Kehukee Association of North Carolina, and published out of Tarbor, N.C. However, the periodical titled "Christian Doctrinal Advocate and Spiritual Monitor" preceded both the above Hardshell periodicals. This periodical was first supported by nearly all the founders of the Hardshell sect. It's editor was Elder Daniel E. Jewett. Many old issues of this periodical are available to read online. I have read many issues. When Jewett passed away Elder C.B. Hassell married his widow, and the children of Jewett became step brothers and sisters of Sylvester Hassell. Later Beebe would purchase Jewett's periodical and is why the "Signs of the Times" would say on each page of issues of that periodical "Advocate and Monitor." I believe Jewett's paper preceded that of the "Signs of the Times."

In a separate article titled "Reply to Brother Dudley" by Gilbert Beebe in the "Signs of the Times" for July 1st, 1849 (Vol. XVII. No 13; See here), Beebe writes:

"The two particular points involved in the consideration of this text, to which our attention is called, are 1. the origin of these children, and 2. How they became united to their federal Head, the second Adam. 

"First, the origin of these children...we presume that brother Dudley is as well satisfied that these children had their origin in God, as we are."

"We are free to express the strong conviction of our mind as the seed of Christ, they had their origin in him as their seminal Head, and divinely appointed Mediator, long before they became partakers of flesh and blood. Some of them we know existed as the seed of Christ, when he poured out his soul unto death, for at that time he saw all his seed, and some of them have never until the present time been developed as partakers of flesh and blood: only as they had an earthly or natural existence in Adam the first, from the day that man became a living soul."

"Christ existed as the Son of God before he was made of a woman; and so his seed existed in him as their Mediator and seminal Head, before they were created in Adam. When we speak of the existence of Christ as the Son of God, the Mediator, the Head of the Church and the Life of his people, before he became incarnate, we do not allude to his absolute Godhead, for in his Godhead he is the Eternal, the self-existent God, in the most absolute sense of the word, but we allude to what he was as the beginning of the creation of God, and the First-Born of every creature. And thus existing in his Mediatorial character, the fullness of the Godhead, and the fullness of the church were embodied in the Mediatorial existence." 

"He was the Son of God before he partook of flesh and blood, and his seed were the children of God in his sonship before they partook of flesh and blood. Brother Dudley will perceive that while we ascribe to Christ absolute Godhead, in the most absolute and unlimited sense of the word; and as such deny that he is second, subsequent, or inferior to any other God, we refer every title applied to him in the scriptures, which implies derivation, emanation, generation, or dependence, to his Mediatorial headship of his church, which is his body, the fullness of him that filleth all in all, excepting only such titles as are used in special reference to his humanity. (to be concluded in the next part)"      

Here Beebe once again gives some of the leading tenets of Two Seedism.

In Beebe's second article, which was published in the next issue of the "Signs of the Times" (for July 18, 1849; Vol. XVII, No. 14; See here) and addressed to "Brother Dudley" Beebe wrote:

"Second:--The second point for consideration, is, "How they became united to their federal Head, the second Adam?" The original seminal union and identity of the church as the body, which Christ as the Head has probably been sufficiently discussed in the first division of our article; but we suppose brother Dudley's enquiry to embrace the subject of experimental union--for certainly neither he nor any other intelligent brother can conceive of the existence of a living head, and a living body belonging to that living Head, and at the same time disconnected, or disunited."

We have noticed this line of argument before. The Two Seeders reasoned that since Christ has always been the Mediator and Head of the church, so must the church (body) have always existed. But, this is false reasoning for it is built upon false premises. Christ being a mediator and head of the church was only true in the decrees of God before he became such in time when he became a man. Christ was appointed such in eternity past, but that does not equate to his actually being so. Christ was my appointed Savior even before I was born or existed. To say that Christ was my Savior before I was born does not mean that I existed before I was born. 

Wrote Beebe:

"...the matter of union concerning which our brother inquires, must be that experimental union which is developed in the saints when Christ is formed in them the hope of glory. How this is brought about involves considerations second in importance only to what we have already expressed our views upon."

Here again we see unique terminology, jargon that is peculiar to Two Seed Primitive Baptists. We have already noticed in previous chapters how the word "manifested" is such a word, carrying connotations that are not normally understood by Bible believers. In the above we see the word "experimental" and this is another word often used today by "Primitive Baptists" who are no longer Two Seeders, it being one of those remnants of Two Seedism. I heard that word "experimentally" many times when I was a young "Primitive Baptist" preacher. Most did not believe in justification by faith, but in justification in eternity, as did many of the first Two Seeders, and would say that faith only justifies "experimentally," meaning it is only when he experiences or realizes that he is justified. 

Another word Beebe uses is "developed." In Beebe's thinking, after a child is conceived in the womb, he is yet undeveloped, and needs time in the womb to develop as a child of God, and even when delivered from the womb, the child still needs to develop or mature. In Two Seedism the child was conceived as seed when Christ was begotten by the Father in eternity past, which begetting of Christ was not expressive of his shared divinity with the Father, but of his becoming a Mediator and Head of the church, the body of Christ composing all the elect. That being so, being born into the world (partaking of flesh and blood) and being born again were instances where the eternally begotten children of God are in time developed. As I have written many times through the years in my blogs, many of the first Hardshell Baptists believed in what is called the three stage model of birth. The first stage being the implantation of the divine seed (corresponding to the time when an elect person is 'regenerated'), the second stage being the time spent in the womb (corresponding to the time where a fetus is 'developed' in the womb and to the time when a person is under Holy Spirit conviction of sin), the third stage being "deliverance" (corresponding to the time when the convicted sinner is delivered from guilt in conscience and receives a hope in Christ). Beebe would agree with this except that he would put the origin of the seed in Christ in past eternity.

Notice that Beebe's "experimental union" is not actual union, for he places union with Christ to a time in past eternity when Christ was begotten, created, or made a Mediator and Head, which involved the creation of his human soul. 

Wrote Beebe:

"Thus having, by virtue of pre-existing relationship, union and identity, sustained legally the character, and performed effectually the work of a Redeemer he has "Gone up with a shout, and with the sound of a trumpet." 

The only relationship that Christ had to any man, elected or not, in eternity past, was in the mind and foreknowledge of God. God, who exists outside of time, saw every man who would ever come into existence and in foreknowledge of this ordained that Christ should be the legal representative. Beebe and the Two Seeders think that this is nonsense, arguing that no one can be the representative of someone who does not yet exist. But, this is a case of willing ignorance for the scriptures show that this is not so. God knew Jeremiah before he was formed in the womb (Jer. 1: 5). David said that God did foresee him even before he existed. (Psa. 139: 13-17) Long before King Cyrus was born, God said he was his servant or anointed one to execute his will. (Isa. 44: 28-45: 1-7) He was appointed the head and representative of his empire even before either he or his empire came into being.

Wrote Beebe:

"In the prosecution of this blessed work the heirs of immortality are made to hear the voice of the Son of God and live; and when thus made alive they are made to feel and realize their lost and helpless condition as sinners against God, and to despair of salvation through any work or merit of their own, and when sufficiently humbled before God, Christ is revealed to them as their Life, their Righteousness, Sanctification and Redemption."

Notice the Two Seed order of things in the above testimony. He puts conviction of sin as a result of having been saved by hearing the voice of the Son of God and coming to life, rather than as a prerequisite for being saved. This aspect of Two Seedism still exists today among even those "Primitive Baptists" who say that they have declared non fellowship with Two Seedism. As I have pointed out in several articles through the years, this ordo salutis makes the Holy Spirit to bear witness to a falsehood, for if the ones convicted of their lost condition are not really lost, then the Holy Spirit is lying. If they are "alive" before they "feel and realize their lost and helpless condition as sinners" then they are no longer in that condition, and so if the Holy Spirit tells those spiritually alive sinners that they are lost, he is not telling the truth. 

Wrote Beebe:

"Not to make them sons, but because they are sons, God sends forth the spirit of his Son into their hearts, and his spirit witnesses with their spirits, that they are born of God. Now they experience and enjoy this union with their Second and anti-typical Adam; and they are made to know him and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of his suffering."

Beebe, in the above remarks, alludes to these words of the apostle Paul: 

"To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father." (Gal. 4: 5-6 kjv)

Beebe, along with today's Hardshells, even though they reject Two Seedism, nevertheless also teach that Paul is affirming that one is an actual, living, son of God before he is indwelt by the "Spirit of his Son." If we say that this receiving of the Holy Spirit occurs when a sinner is born again or regenerated, then such an interpretation says that one is already a born again son of God before he receives the Spirit, or before he is born again.

First, Beebe's view that says that these Galatian believers were begotten sons from eternity, being begotten when Christ was begotten, is against the text, for Paul says that Christ' work of redemption was in order that sinners might be placed into the position of sons, and thus disproves that they were already his sons before he redeemed them. 

Second, Paul is not denying that the sending of the Spirit into hearts is what makes anyone a son of God. Let me paraphrase what he is saying:

"And because you Galatians are presently sons of God as believers, through God's workmanship, God has obviously or evidently, prior to this, sent his Spirit into your hearts to make you cry Abba, Father." 

There is no way the text can be read to say:

"Because you are regenerated, God has sent forth his Spirit into your hearts to cause you to believe."

Paul has already affirmed to the Galatians that they had received the Spirit by faith. (Gal. 3: 2)

I could say - "because you are citizens the state has authorized it and made it so." In saying these words I do not mean that I was a citizen before the state authorized it, but only that my being a citizen implied or inferred that the state has defined me as such. In logic it is "If A, then B." I could also say "because you are a male, God has given you an XY chromosome." A necessitates B, being a consequent of B.

In the next chapter we will continue to look at some of the debate that took place in the "Signs of the Times" in the year 1849.