Elder Sylvester Hassell on Means (8)

"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good."

I Thessalonians 5: 21

"In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will: That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ. In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory." (Eph. 1: 11-14)

"And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption." (4: 30)

As in preceding chapters in this series, I will begin by citing another text that disproves the view of Hassell and the "Primitive Baptists" before critiquing further Hassell's polemical writing "NO HUMAN INSTRUMENTALITY IN REGENERATION," published in Hassell's paper "The Gospel Messenger" (No. 10 for January, 1898; You can read it on page 12  here). 

I would also call the reader's attention to an old post from 2008 titled "Hardshell Ordo Salutis" (here) wherein I gave a lengthy rebuttal to Sylvester Hassell's article "Order of Salvation Divine" published in "The Gospel Messenger" for December 1896. Combining that old article with this series will give my Hardshell brothers and sisters a through refutation of Hassell and the Hardshells on the question of whether the gospel is a means in the eternal salvation of sinners.

In the above texts the apostle Paul mentions the "sealing" of believers, which he also did in his other epistles. In II Corinthians 1: 22 he wrote: "Who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts." Is he not alluding to what occurs in regeneration or conversion? Is not the "giving" of the "earnest of the Spirit in our hearts" not the salvation experience? Sealed "unto" the day of redemption is also translated as sealed "for" the day of redemption, coming from the Greek preposition "eis." If sealing involves being given the Holy Spirit and is for the purpose of redemption, then it is something essential to redemption, and if it is, then the Hardshell idea that faith is not necessary for being eternally saved is false because the sealing takes place "after you believed." 

The word "sealed" is from the Greek word "sphragizō" and means to mark a thing for the purpose of owning and authenticating it. It is a way of saying of something - "it belongs to me." When a person, in primitive times, "sealed" a letter, he put his stamp or mark upon it. This seal or mark was often done on wax placed on the folded document. In the process of "sealing" the document an "impression" is made in the wax. Thus, when people are saved, after believing, they are "sealed," owned by God, impressed upon or marked by God, which impression or engraving is in the believer's nature, heart and mind. A signet is a seal or personal mark of identification and ownership. Cattle ranchers call their seals "brands." Each cattle owner had his own brand, his own symbol, his own mark, his own seal. Believers are sealed and branded in their renewed spirits when they are taken possession of by the Lord in conversion and this occurs "after" they believe.

Sealing also refers to protection of property in the Scriptures. Sealing protects items from tampering, and makes them safe and secure. "So they went, and made the sepulchre sure, sealing the stone, and setting a watch." (Matt. 27: 66) When the Lord saves his people and the Spirit takes possession of them, he seals their hearts and sets a watch upon their souls. The seal also serves as proof of identity. It is put with a signature or in place of it in letters, agreements and private or public instructions. As such, circumcision, as a seal, authenticates, certifies, and attests to the veracity of the inward faith that Abraham possessed and believers possess (Rom 4:11).

The image of sealing also refers to God’s approval (John 3:33; 6:27; 1 Cor. 9:2). Thus we speak of a product or document having a "Seal of approval." Thus we read: "Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his." (II Tim. 2: 19)

Of course, Hassell, Cayce, and the Hardshells will say that this "sealing" has nothing to do with eternal salvation or becoming children of God. They are forced to do so because to connect it with being raised from spiritual death would overthrow their proposition which says "nothing a person does in his life determines whether he goes to heaven," which is what their "Two Seed" forefathers taught. But, it is clear that no one is going to heaven who has not been "sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise." 

I would just call upon my Hardshell brethren to come and "prove me wrong" in what I am saying in this series. Solomon said: "The first one to plead his cause seems right, Until his neighbor comes and examines him." (Prov. 18: 17 nkjv) I am proving you are wrong on the question of means and on what precedes and what occurs when a sinner is born again. If you think I am wrong, come and "prove me wrong." Examine my arguments as I have yours.

Now let us pick up where we left off in reviewing Hassell's article titled "NO HUMAN INSTRUMENTALITY IN REGENERATION." In it Hassell wrote further (emphasis mine):

"In a similar figurative manner, Paul in Gal. iv. 19, represents himself as the mother of the Galatians. If Paul had said that he gave spiritual life to the Corinthians or Onesimus, he would have flatly contradicted both his own experience and all his other language on this subject." 

This is an example of what is called a "false narrative." Simply because Paul was an instrument God used in saving sinners does not mean that Paul "gave spiritual life" to someone. That is an example of Sophistry and misrepresentation. God gives eternal life but he gives it through his word and when people believe his word they have life through that means. The bringer of the word of God to sinners does make the preacher a means in salvation but he is not the one who does the saving. Paul and all Christians are to put all their effort into "holding fast the word of life." (Phil. 2: 16 nkjv)

"The word of life" is a genitive and it is clear to me that it is an "objective genitive" and so means "word unto or into (or gives) life." The genitive construction here is better taken in the sense of “the message that brings life,” not “the message concerning life." It is the work of the bible interpreter to discern what kind of genitive is intended in a given text. For example, the phrase "the love of God" as an objective genitive means "love for God," but as a subjective genitive means "God's love for us." Therefore "word of life," as an objective genitive would mean "word unto life." It could also be what is called a genitive of apposition and so "word of life" would mean "word which is life." If it is used as a genitive of source it would mean "life which is from the word." N. T. word scholar W.E. Vine says -- 

"The word of life is not here the Living Word, the Person (as in 1 John 1:1); only John uses logos in that sense; it is the (living and life giving) message, the gospel. It is called the Word of life because it ministers spiritual life and imparts the knowledge of God and of His Son Jesus Christ, which the Lord said “is eternal life” (John 17:3)." (Collected writings of W. E. Vine; emphasis mine)

Paul perhaps has these words of Christ in mind:

"It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life...But Simon Peter answered Him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. Also we have come to believe and know that You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” (John 6: 63, 68-69 nkjv)

These verses show how Hassell's statement questioning whether Paul had given "spiritual life to the Corinthians or Onesimus" is unfounded. Paul merely "held out" the "word of life," the word that quickens the dead. (Psa. 119: 50, 93) Many "Primitive Baptists" developed the idea that "the words" that Christ spoke are only "spirit" and "life" when he personally utters them but are not spirit and life when those same words are spoken by his messengers, which is ridiculous. That idea forces them to say that when they report the words of Jesus to people they are not then spirit or life, and so must be spiritless and dead words. Every Christian who gives to others the message of Christ, or the gospel or word of God, is giving "the words of eternal life" which "are spirit and life." John Gill, who Hassell and his brethren claim as one of them, commented on verse 63 as follows (highlighting mine):

"the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life; the doctrines which Christ had then been delivering concerning himself, his flesh and blood, being spiritually understood, are the means of quickening souls. The Gospel, and the truths of it, which are the wholesome words of our Lord Jesus Christ, are the means of conveying the Spirit of God, as a spirit of illumination and sanctification, into the hearts of men, and of quickening sinners dead in trespasses and sins: the Gospel is the Spirit that giveth life, and is the savour of life unto life, when it comes not in word only, or in the bare ministry of it, but with the energy of the Holy Ghost, and the power of divine grace."

Many Hardshells will also argue that by the words "the flesh profits nothing" means that humans cannot be employed in giving the words of Christ to others and cannot in any sense be a means in sinners being saved and receiving spiritual life thereby. No bible commentator takes that view, nor would any bible reader see that in the text. You have to have help from Hardshells to see that interpretation. It is clear from the context that "flesh" means Christ's own flesh. Notice these words from the context:

"53 Then Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For My flesh is food indeed, and My blood is drink indeed." (vs. 53-55 nkjv)

If one could literally eat Christ's flesh (as the Catholics say they do), it would avail nothing. Eating Christ's flesh is done by faith when a believer eats Christ the "bread of life" through meditating upon Christ and taking his message into the heart. We eat Christ when we receive his words which are spirit and life. Surely the Hardshells can come up with a better text to prove their no-means belief! Why don't they simply cite a text that affirms their no-means view instead of reading it into the words "the flesh profits nothing"? 

How did Paul's being an instrument in spiritual birth, either as a father or mother, or a kind of midwife, "flatly contradict both his own experience and all his other language on this subject"? God, as we have seen, identifies himself as both father and mother to his people. So, it is not a contradiction for Paul, as God's instrument, to be both. The same is true with regard to "giving eternal life," as I have explained. 

The argument that when a preacher is used in a work, whether of regeneration or conversion, God is not the one doing the regenerating, converting, or resurrecting is ludicrous. If that were so then God did not bring life to the dry dead bones in Ezekiel chapter 37 because he used Ezekiel as an instrument.

Now let me show the reader, especially those of our readers who are "Primitive Baptists," that many of their founding fathers believed that the word of God was a means in spiritual birth. This being true, why did Hassell not tell us this?

Elder John M. Watson in his "Old Baptist Test" (first published in 1855, revised in 1867) wrote:

"To show that the will of God is in His word, of His own will, says James, begat he us with the word of truth. The proof that His everlasting love is in it, is that with loving kindness He draws believers to Christ." (page 421)

Elder R.W. Fain, an associate with Watson (both were physicians in the Nashville area) wrote the foreward to the later edition of "The Old Baptist Test." He and Elder J.B. Stephens (also a physician and associate of Watson) were editors of "The Baptist Watchman" published out of Nashville after the Civil War and they both contended for God's use of the means of his word in the eternal salvation of sinners. I have several posts in this blog that give citations from that periodical to prove this. Fain wrote the introduction to the second edition of the "Old Baptist Test." 

Elder Hosea Preslar, also an associate of Watson, in "Thoughts On Divine Providence" (1867) wrote:

"...the other is the child of God, that was begotten by the word of truth; James 1: 14; I Cor. 4: 15; I John 5: 1." (Page 112)

"This is the new man begotten by the word of truth; yea, begotten of God; I John 5: 18." (page 185)

He says that the gospel "is moreover to be for a witness unto all nations; Matt. 24: 14; and for the awakening of sinners, who are dead in trespasses and in sin." (page 187)

"But some object to these ideas and say all this is the work of the spirit of God; and the gospel has nothing to do with it. Ah, a gospel without a spirit! Well, God save me from a gospel that has not His spirit. God says His word is quick and powerful, and He says by Peter, This is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you; I Peter 1: 25."

I have already cited from Elder Joshua Lawrence of the Kehukee Association, a predecessor of Elder Sylvester Hassell, but an associate of his father C.B. Hassell, said:

"...the effects of the preaching of that gospel on good ground hearers produces the children of his kingdom. Hence it is said, born not of flesh, blood, or will of men; but of the word of God, that liveth and abideth forever. And again: I have begotten you through the gospel, etc." (third volume of "The Primitive Baptist" periodical, 1838, page 306)

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

Further, if one reads "The Primitive Baptist" periodical of the 1830s up to the time of the Civil War he will see many correspondents who wrote to that paper and espoused the means view. Elder Mark Bennett, the first editor, certainly believed as elder Lawrence. Elder James Osbourn, a recognized leader among the founders of the newly formed "Primitive" or "Old School" sect believed in means as I have shown in several posts in this blog. He was a close friend of Elder C.B. Hassell who we have seen also believed in means. 

Elder John Clark also wrote in his paper "Zion's Advocate" (1854) for June, 1858:

"Now for proof that God does make use of means, or second causes, in awakening dead sinners. "I have begotten you through the gospel" (I Cor. iv. 15). "For our gospel came not unto you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance" (1 Thes. 1:5). "Whereunto he calley you by OUR GOSPEL, to the obtaining the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ" (2 Thes. ii:14). "Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers, by whom you believed, even as the Lord gave to every man" (I Cor. 3:5) "To OPEN THEIR EYES, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God" &c. (Acts xxvi.18) "For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ FOR IT IS THE POWER OF GOD unto salvation to every one that believeth, the the Jew first, and also to the Greek" (Rom. 1:16) "Now when THEY HEARD THIS they were pricked in their hearts, and said unto Peter, and to the rest of the Apostles, men and brethren what shall we do?" (Acts 2:37) "Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me THROUGH THEIR WORD" (Acts xvii.20) "And many of the Samaritans of that city believed on him for the SAYING OF THE WOMAN, which testified, he told me all I ever did" (John iv.36). Of his own will begat he us WITH THE WORD OF TRUTH. Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, BY THE WORD OF GOD, which liveth and abideth forever. And they went forth, and preached everywhere, the Lord WORKING WITH THEM and confirming the word with signs following. So shall MY WORD be that goeth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall ACCOMPLISH that which I please, an it shall prosper in the thing whereunto I sent it (Isaiah lv.11) If the above named scriptures are not sufficient to convince any unprejudiced mind that God does make use of means and instrumentalities in awakening and making alive dead sinners, then the bible is of but little use; as well without as with it.

In the "Primitive Baptist" periodical for January 8, 1842 (you can read it here) there is a Circular Letter printed by the newly formed South Carolina Primitive Baptist Association (1840) and here is what they say about the gospel being a means in new birth or spiritual resurrection:

"We believe, brethren, all those whom God hath predestinated unto life, and those only, he is pleased in his own appointed and accepted time, effectually to call, by his word and spirit, out of that state of sin and death which they are in by nature. Christ enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God. Again, Acts, 26: 18 "to open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins." God has said he will take away the heart of stone, and give unto them an heart of flesh. And we believe he renews their wills by his almighty power, determining them to that which is good, and effectually drawing them, to Jesus Christ. Yet they are made willing by that grace given them."

So, why did Sylvester Hassell not tell his readers these things? His arguments on why it is not possible for God to use his word in saving sinners from spiritual death were not believed by his own father C.B. Hassell nor by the first ministers of his own Kehukee Association, nor by most of the first leading ministers of the newly formed "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptist church.

Elder Sylvester Hassell on Means (7)

"That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel: Whereof I was made a minister, according to the gift of the grace of God given unto me by the effectual working of his power." (Eph. 3: 6-7 kjv)

As I have done in preceding chapters in this series, I will first cite a text that disproves the view of Sylvester Hassell and of those who arrogantly and falsely claim to be "Primitive Baptists" before citing further from Hassell's polemical writing "NO HUMAN INSTRUMENTALITY IN REGENERATION," published in Hassell's paper "The Gospel Messenger" (No. 10 for January, 1898; You can read it on page 12  here). 

The above text clearly shows that becoming "partakers of his promise in Christ" was effected "by the gospel." Well did Elliott in his commentary say: "In Christ by the gospel.—These words should be joined with all the three preceding. Of all the privileges of the new life, the being “in Christ” is the substance, the reception of the gospel in faith the instrument." That being correct, we affirm that for anyone to be 1) a "fellow heir" with the children of God, and 2) a member of the body of Christ, or to be "in Christ" (denoting having vital union with Christ), and 3) a "partaker of his promise in Christ," it must be "by the gospel" as a means. Being "in Christ" is "by the gospel." That is because being united with Christ is "by faith" and "faith is by the gospel." Christ is "received" by "faith" (John 1: 12-13) and Christ "dwells" in people "by faith." (Eph. 3: 17) "Faith comes by hearing the word of God" said the apostle Paul. (Rom. 10: 17)

In resisting the truth of this text, the anti-means Hardshell must deny that eternal salvation is what Paul is talking about when he speaks of being a fellow heir, or united to Christ, or being a partaker of the promises of salvation. Anyone who is not biased, however, will see that it is eternal salvation that Paul is talking about. 

Now let us return to our analysis of Sylvester Hassell's article titled "NO HUMAN INSTRUMENTALITY IN REGENERATION" where he writes to defend the "no means" view of salvation. In that article Hassell wrote (emphasis mine):

"In 1 Cor. iv. 15 and Philemon 10, Paul uses the verb "beget" or "regenerate," not in a primary and literal, but in a secondary and figurative sense, or in its wider meaning as including conversion, as explained by his own language in 1 Cor. iii. 5, 6 ; he did not at all mean that he had given spiritual life to the Corinthians and to Onesimus, but simply that he had been the minister by whom they had first believed in Christ, the planter or founder of the Corinthian Church; it was only to those already called and saved of God that the preaching of the gospel was the power of God (1 Cor. i. 18, 24); it was only of God, and not of Paul, that the Corinthians were in Christ Jesus (1 Cor. i. 30, 31); in this great matter of regeneration, of the infusion of divine and eternal life, a planting Paul and a watering Apollos were equally nothing (1 Cor. iii. 6, 7); and thus he exhorts the Corinthians not to glory in men, but to glory only in the Lord (1 Cor. i. 31 ; iii. 21)."

I have already responded, in chapter four of this series, to Hassell's baseless assertion that the birthing of I Corinthians 4: 15 and Philemon 1: 10 cannot be that birth that Jesus talked about in his conversation with Nicodemus in John chapter three. It is only the Hardshells of today who think that the birth via the apostle Paul had nothing to do with the birth of the Spirit. Notice that Hassell says that the begetting of the texts may have a wider meaning so as to denote evangelical conversion. In previous chapters in this series we noticed that Hassell agrees that the older Calvinists, including John Calvin himself, viewed conversion (of which faith and repentance are the main elements) as experienced within biblical regeneration and that some later Calvinists began to restrict the definition so as to exclude conversion. In the above words of Hassell he seems to think those two texts do allude to a broader definition of regeneration. 

If there is a broad definition of regeneration or rebirth that includes conversion, and follows faith and repentance, then Hassell cannot legitimately or logically say that the gospel is not a means used by God in that birth. We have already seen, in chapter five of this series, Hassell's answer to the question "Will any persons be saved unless the gospel is preached to them?" In reply he said: "Jesus is the Great Preacher, and, by His omnipresent Spirit, He preaches His gospel savingly to His people (Isa. 61:1-3,10,11; Luke 4:16-30; Heb. 2:11,12; Psalm 110:3)." We also called attention to Elder C.H. Cayce's declaration which said: "There is a preaching, or a work, which Jesus does by His Spirit, or by the Holy Spirit. This work is what is also called regeneration." So, if there is a preaching of the gospel which Jesus does by his Spirit in regeneration, then why is Hassell saying that the gospel is not a means? 

We have also seen where Hassell and Cayce have affirmed that Jesus preached by the Spirit through Noah. Since that is true, then why fight the view that Christ regenerates by preaching he does through his Spirit filled preachers? In II Corinthians 13: 3 Paul says that Christ was speaking in him when he preached the gospel. Further, Jesus said to his appointed preachers of the gospel -- "whoever hears you hears me." (Luke 10: 16) 

Hassell says that the birth of I Corinthians 4: 15 and Philemon 1: 10 may be used to denote regeneration or rebirth in a "wider meaning as including conversion." If that is so, then is evangelical conversion not effected by the gospel or word of God? It seems that Hassell is chasing his tail in such reasoning. So, why is the idea of God's use of his gospel word as a means in giving spiritual life to dead sinners so vehemently opposed by Hassell and the Hardshells? We have shown how Hassell and his brethren simply make assertions and put forth premises that are not found in scripture. Where in the bible is it said that God uses no means in regeneration or new birth or in initial salvation? 

As I have previously stated, Isaac is said to have been "born after the Spirit," i.e. supernaturally. (Gal. 4: 29) Yet, both Abraham and Sarah were instruments or means in that birth, even though neither of them could have children. Consider also that Isaac's birth "after the Spirit" was a result of the word of God, of God's promise. (Rom. 9: 9) Further, if Paul was born of the Spirit when Christ appeared to him and preached or confirmed the gospel to him on the Damascus road, then the gospel was a means in his rebirth. Also his rebirth involved his conversion, his becoming a believer in Jesus and repentance or change of mind or turning.

The apostle John taught that people were "born of God" by their "receiving" or "believing in" Christ. (John 1: 12-13) See my post on this text (here). John says "to as many as received him to them he gave the right or privilege to become children of God." The words "become" and "children" (Greek tekna) denote those who are children by birth. So, since means are employed by the Spirit to beget faith, and since faith is the medium for becoming birthed children of God, then the view of Hassell and his brethren is therefore overthrown. I know, I know, that they will claim that John's words in verse thirteen "which were born...but of God" are in a tense that shows that the birth preceded the receiving and the believing. However, I show in my post on that text that such argument is not true. In it I wrote:

"Received" in "received him not" and "received him" are Aorist tense (indicative active). "Believe" is a present tense, active participle. "Were born" is Aorist (indicative passive). The argument is often made that since "believe" is a present participle, active voice, and "were born" is Aorist passive, the birth must precede the believing. But, that is simply not the case. For one thing, though the word "believe" is present yet "received" is Aorist. The only difference in "received" and "were born" is that one is active and one passive voice. The tense and aspect are the same. They are both Aorist. Therefore, the argument is null and void that says the "receiving" and the being "born" do not occur together."

Hassell in the above citation said: "in this great matter of regeneration, of the infusion of divine and eternal life, a planting Paul and a watering Apollos were equally nothing (1 Cor. iii. 6, 7)" I am bewildered by this comment. Is he saying that the planting of Paul and the watering of Apollos were not means? Also, does he think that the text deals with regeneration? It seems so. That being the case, we see where Paul and Apollos were indeed means in regeneration. Yes, of course, God must give the increase. The word preached is unsuccessful without God's blessing. The Psalmist said "except the Lord build the house they labor in vain to build it" and "except the Lord keeps or watches over the city the watchman watches in vain." (Psa. 127: 1)

I think Hassell says "the verb "beget" or "regenerate" (used in I Cor. 4:15 and Philemon 1: 10) is used "not in a primary and literal, but in a secondary and figurative sense, or in its wider meaning as including conversion" for another reason. Surely he knew that many of his brethren before him, and even in his day still, believed that there were distinct stages to being "born" of God. These brethren saw two phases of regeneration or rebirth, one restrictive and one broad. Just like human physical birth has both a conception in the womb and a later birth or deliverance from the womb, both being called a birth or begetting, so did a large portion of "Primitive Baptists" of the nineteenth century see two stages or kinds of spiritual birth. I have many articles showing this, giving citations from many nineteenth century Hardshells. I will give some examples now.

Elder Samuel Trott (1783-1866), one of the ringleaders of the old school sect, and a writer for the "Signs of the Times," and an associate with Elder Gilbert Beebe (1800-1881), and who was a Two Seeder like Beebe, wrote the following:

"Regeneration, as I hold it, is the implanting in an individual, or adding to his mind, that incorruptible seed which Peter speaks of, even the spiritual seed of Abraham, which is Christ, Christ in you, and which is that life that was in the Word, which is the light of men; for Christ is the true light which lighteth every man that cometh into the world John 1:9. Hence this individual sees his relation and accountability to God and to the law, and sees his sinfulness as he never saw or felt it before, for by the law is the knowledge of sin."

"The new birth I understand to be the being born again of the incorruptible seed by the word of God which liveth and abideth forever. Whether by the word of God in this text is understood the essential Word, who is God, or, as is frequently intended by the word of God, that which God directly speaks or communicates to a person, is immaterial, for both ideas are true. For Christ said, "Verily, verily I say unto you, The hour is coming and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God, and they that hear shall live" John 5:25. This person being, as we showed, dead, killed by the law, is now made to hear the voice of the Son of God, the proclamation of pardon and salvation through Christ's atonement."

"Thus in the new birth there is a striking correspondence to the natural birth; to each there is a seed implanted (1st stage or regeneration- SG), and then a quickening (final stage or rebirth/quickening - SG) by which life is manifested. And when the natural child is brought to the birth, the sorrows of the woman in travail, the fetus being broke loose from that by which alone it had been hitherto nourished, strongly represents the agonies and the killing by the law belonging to the second birth." ("THE NEW BIRTH," from the Signs of the Times, 1853)

"The position I have taken relative to this subject will, I think, be admitted by every reflecting Christian as the Scriptural one when he considers that the promises of salvation run alone through faith in Christ, "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life; and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him" (John 3:36 and Mark 16:16). And that faith implies a knowledge of Christ, and this knowledge evidently is only from being taught of God. "No man knoweth who the Son is, but the Father; and who the Father is, but the Son and he to whom the Son will reveal him" (Luke 10:22). I hope this brother, on a re-examination, will be able to tell us something of what he has learned of Jesus and of His saving power." ("CHRISTIAN EXPERIENCE," 1845)

I have many citations from the 1830s till the end of the nineteenth century from many "Primitive Baptists" who espoused the same view. It was the common view. Many taught that the begetting was regeneration (strictly defined) which then produced conviction of sin, a sense of guilt and lost condition (corresponding to being in the darkness of the womb), and it was believed by many that this was often done apart from the means of the gospel or word of God. However, they all believed that after the begetting and after a time spent in the darkness of conviction there would come the birth proper, the deliverance from the womb, when the previously begotten or regenerated soul would be brought to evangelical faith in Christ and experience deliverance and a hope in Christ. That is what Trott was saying in the above citation. 

Many who held this view frequently called the "birth" that followed the "begetting" a "manifestation." But, they did not use it as many later Hardshells have used it. The manifestation was an essential part of being born and when the bible speaks of the necessity of being born of God or the Spirit it included all aspects of birth. A person is not born of God before he has been delivered from the womb of conviction and found assurance of salvation in Christ through the gospel.

The following posts give numerous citations from many "Primitive Baptists" of the 19th century who believed as Trott. (this link here gives other links to other posts that give citations; see also here; here; here; here) Let me give the reader some further citations from those chapters by the first Hardshell Baptists.

The following is from Wilson Thompson's (1788-1866) book "Simple Truth" published in 1821. It is a composite of several of his sermons. His book "Triumph of Truth" was published in 1825. In discourse #6 in "Simple Truth" under "On the Work of the Spirit after Justification" Thompson said (emphasis mine):

"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."

Notice that Thompson says that "regeneration" "IS ALWAYS" followed by the new birth, which shows that he did not believe as do later "Primitive Baptists" that a person did not have to believe in Christ to be saved. In other words, he believed that all who were regenerated would later be converted, which is what is stated in many old church articles of faith where they say that "all the elect will be regenerated AND converted." Elder William Conrad (1797-1882) of Kentucky, an associate of Thompson, wrote the following in his autobiography ("Life and Travels of William Conrad") in 1876:

"There is also a begetting and being born, but our being born does not give us life; we are born because we have life; but there is a begetting, and previous to this begetting there is no vital or actual existence; but there is eternal decreed, purposed or treasured in Christ before it is given, and in due time we are said to receive it according to the election of grace; and therefore we are said to be the Temple of God, which is holy, which temple ye are." (Chapter 25)

In chapters 52 and 57 of my work titled "The Hardshell Baptist Cult" I give citations from Gilbert Beebe and Trott on how the new birth has two separate events connected with it. (See here and here) In chapter 52 I give lengthy citations from Trott as published in the "Signs of the Times." In chapter 57 I give these citations from Beebe:

"We also, with brother Buckles, hold that regeneration, in the order of things, and according to the word, must precede the new birth. How can that be born of God that is not first begotten of him?" (Elder Gilbert Beebe, Middletown, N.Y.June 1, 1868. Editorials, Volume 7 – Pages 198-202)

Notice that he believes that "regeneration precedes the new birth." He also wrote:

"Regeneration, as we understand it, like generation, involves the begetting, conception and birth, of that which is generated...In the order of regeneration, or the development of the children of God, no intermediate agencies are employed, no system of means can bring forth the promised seed..."

"When a sinner is thus quickened, the incorruptible seed, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth forever, is implanted in his heart, and the evidence of this implantation is first given by a sense of the purity and holiness of God, and the spirituality of his law, contrasted with a sense of guilt, pollution and just condemnation of the person to whom this communication is made, and consequently a struggle for deliverance. The ear is now opened to hear the thunders of Sinai, and the eye is made to see the justice of God as a sin avenger; a brokenness of heart that he or she, as the case may be, has been all their lifetime in open rebellion against so holy, just and righteous a God, who has followed them with his mercies all their days. A sense of his goodness leads them to repentance, contrition and humble acknowledgment of their guilt. Now the quickened and awakened sinner becomes burdened with the load of depravity...Now all this conviction, contrition, lamentation and distress, is the legitimate consequence resulting from life implanted, and indicates to all who know experimentally the way of life, that the poor sin-burdened soul is drawing near to the time of his birth, or deliverance. He who has thus arrested him, and brought him to a sense of his lost and helpless estate, will perform the work in his own time, but the burdened soul must wait until "God who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, shines in [not into] his heart, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ." -2 Cor. iv. 6. Or, as Paul relates his own experience, "When it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace, to reveal his Son in me." - Gal. i. 15. Then by the revelation of Christ in us the hope of glory, the way of salvation through him is brought to view, the burden of guilt is removed, the blood of Christ is applied, the demands of the law are canceled, the curse is removed, the prison doors are opened, the captive is delivered, the love of God is shed abroad in the heart, old things are passed away; behold all things have become new; a new song is put in his mouth, even praise unto God, the gospel pours its joyful sound into his quickened ears, his goings are established and he is a new creature..."  ("REGENERATION AND THE NEW BIRTH" in Signs of the Times for September 1, 1857)

Now let me cite from Dr. J. P. Boyce (1827-1888) who was founder and first president of Southern Baptist seminary, on this question as to whether there are two separate stages of spiritual birth and whether evangelical conversion is part of biblical regeneration. Boyce wrote:

"From the Scriptural teaching we see that the whole work of Regeneration and Conversion is included under the one term regeneration." ("Abstract of Systematic Theology," CHAPTER XXXII - "REGENERATION AND CONVERSION")

Boyce, a Calvinist, did not say that conversion was separate from regeneration as did the first Hardshells and as do many five point Calvinists who call themselves "Reformed Baptists" and many Southern Baptists churches that are associated with the "Founders" movement. This organization's web page is (here). My dear departed ministerial brother, Bob L. Ross of Pilgrim Publications, was a tireless opponent of this organization because it taught the "born again before faith" error. James White and the late R.C. Sproul are leading apologists for this error. Many of the brethren who teach this error praise Boyce and think he agreed with them in teaching that the new birth preceded faith (or conversion). However, in the above citation he does not agree with that view. Boyce's view is the same as John Gill who I cited on this point previously. Boyce in the same section said:

"At the outset of a discussion of these two subjects we are met by the question, whether they are not one and the same thing. They are unquestionably so intimately associated that it is difficult to separate them and point out the distinctions between them. The Scriptures connect the two under the one idea of the new birth, and teach that not only is regeneration an absolute essential in each conversion, but that in every intelligent responsible soul conversion invariably accompanies regeneration."

Boyce says that in the scriptures "the whole work of regeneration and conversion is included under the one term regeneration." So, the Founders organization and others who espouse the view that regeneration precedes conversion cannot claim Boyce as agreeing with them. As I have previously said, many who hold the "born again before faith" error have used an analogy for their view which is to say that regeneration and conversion are two sides of a coin. The regeneration side is the side where God acts and the sinner is passive and the conversion side is where the sinner acts and is active. The first Hardshells would say that one side of the coin is "begetting" and the other side is "birthing." Boyce however says that the coin itself is regeneration and has two parts, one involving the cause (God) and the other the effects (sinners believing and repenting or being made alive). 

In the above citation Hassell said: "it was only to those already called and saved of God that the preaching of the gospel was the power of God (1 Cor. i. 18, 24)."

That is hardshellism in a nutshell. Recall the words of C.H. Cayce who said:

"A saving knowledge and faith in Christ does not come through the gospel; but one must have that before he can be reached through the gospel. God does not reach them in the work of regeneration through preaching. If He does, then that involves the idea that their eternal salvation is conditional."   (Cayce's Editoria Writings, Volume 6, page 176)

In another editorial titled "SALVATION BEFORE FAITH," published October 30, 1906, C.H. Cayce wrote (emphasis mine): 

"We most assuredly think you are correct in saying salvation precedes faith." 

So, both Hassell and Cayce say one is saved before faith. In saying this it is quite puzzling that neither of them cited a single bible passage that plainly says such a thing. On the other hand, we have numerous texts that say salvation follows faith. One of the most famous is Ephesians 2: 8 which says people are saved by grace through faith. Let us cite the context, being verses one through ten.

"1 And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins; 2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: 3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others. 4 But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, 5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;) 6 And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus: 7 That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus. 8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them." (KJV)

This text is very troublesome for the view of the so-called Primitive Baptists. They have come up with several devious ways of attempting to make it harmonize with their views, one of which is given by Hassell and Cayce and affirms that salvation from sin, or initial salvation, occurs before and apart from faith in Christ. Reader, does the above text say that salvation is before or after faith? Clearly it is after faith. So, how is it possible for the view of Hassell and Cayce be true? 

It is useless for the scripture twisting apologists for Hardshellism to successfully deny that it is eternal salvation, including regeneration or quickening, that is the subject of verse eight. That being so, we see that salvation, regeneration, rebirth, quickening, and being a new creation is "by grace through faith." There is no "time salvation" in the passage, nor a salvation that is not necessary for going to heaven. The salvation of verse five ("for by grace are you saved") all Hardshells say is eternal salvation and obviously it is for it is a summary statement the apostle gives for why a person is "quickened" from being "dead in sins," and this is why he says "for" which is the same as "therefore." The salvation of the chapter is therefore an eternal salvation, and particularly that salvation that had already occurred in the lives of the Ephesian believers. 

The salvation of the verses entails being "raised with Christ," being "quickened" to life from "death in sin," becoming God's "workmanship" or new "creation," having one's "course" in life drastically changed from living in sin to living for Christ, being no longer under the power of Satan or "prince of the power of the air," no longer possessed of his "spirit," no longer "children of wrath." When does a sinner come out from being under the wrath of God? Jesus answered this question by saying: 

"He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him." (John 3: 36 KJV)

So, the point in time when the Ephesians Paul is addressing were "regenerated" and were no longer "children of wrath" was not through a regeneration that occurred before they believed in Jesus but when they believed and turned to the Lord. In the passage there are several time signatures, such as I highlighted in red. These words point to the demarcation point when the Ephesian believers went from being dead to being alive, went from being unsaved to being saved, etc. When did that occur? What point in time is Paul referring to? Is it not to the time when they became believers in Jesus? Clearly it was not before they possessed faith and were converted. If the salvation was "by faith" then the time Paul is alluding to is the time when they became believers. 

Nearly all bible believers would be shocked to hear it said that people are saved before and apart from faith. That is simply not what the bible says. I repeat, there is no verse in the bible that says people are saved before or apart from faith.

My Hardshell brothers should also consider the fact that if "time salvation" is under consideration in Ephesians 2: 8, then they ought to affirm that every person to whom God gives saving grace or intends to save will in fact be saved in a "timely sense." Further, my brothers, you all say that eternal salvation is by grace, which means it is unconditional and always effectual. If that is so, then the grace of "time salvation" ought to be as sure, effectual, and certain as eternal salvation. Is your "time salvation" by grace or not?

In the next chapter we will continue to review Hassell's polemic for the Hardshell "no means" view of salvation.

Elder Sylvester Hassell on Means (6)

In this chapter we will continue our critique of Elder Sylvester Hassell's defence of the "no means" view of salvation. In the previous chapter we began examining Hassell's editorial titled "NO HUMAN INSTRUMENTALITY IN REGENERATION" in Hassell's paper "The Gospel Messenger" (No. 10 for January, 1898; You can read it on page 12  here). But, before doing that I wish to call attention to the above text from Romans 1: 16 that clearly refutes the "Primitive Baptist" idea that sinners are saved apart from faith and apart from the means of the word of God. 

Hassell believed, like all Hardshell Primitive Baptists, that the salvation of the text is not eternal salvation, or regeneration, but is rather a "time salvation" which is not necessary to be saved in heaven. If Hassell were here today I would challenge him to cite one Baptist, prior to the "rise of the Hardshells," who taught that the salvation of this text (Rom. 1:16) was not eternal salvation. John Gill believed that the gospel was the power of God unto eternal salvation. If one reads the issues of "The Primitive Baptist" periodical from the 1830s through the 1850s (you can read them at this web site here) you will see that those who wrote for that periodical believed that the gospel was a means in saving sinners from sin and death and often cited Romans 1: 16 as a text in support of it. 

They also often cited II Thessalonians 2: 13-14, where the apostle Paul says that the salvation to which people were chosen to obtain, from the beginning, was "through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth," and did so to support the means view. See my recent post on that text (here).

Hardshell Baptists use several tactics in trying to harmonize Romans 1:16 with their anti-means view. That the text prima facie overthrows their anti-means view is evident to all. If the salvation of the text is eternal salvation, and includes regeneration or rebirth, then clearly the apostle Paul is affirming that the gospel, whether read or heard orally, is God's ordained means of salvation. Many Hardshells will argue that the salvation of the text is not eternal salvation, but a "time salvation" or "gospel salvation" which is not necessary for eternal salvation. However, that is clearly against the context.

Paul does not talk about an optional "time salvation" in the book of Romans. The whole letter is talking about eternal salvation. The first several chapters are talking about man's lost depraved condition and need of salvation from it. Chapter four begins with an introduction into the doctrines of justification and imputation, which are connected with eternal salvation, and he continues to talk about eternal salvation in chapters five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, and eleven.

Other Hardshells will argue that the salvation of Romans 1: 16 is to "everyone who believes" and will argue that by "everyone who believes" means "everyone who was previously regenerated" before the gospel was preached. That being the case, the salvation was a salvation that came after a prior salvation or regeneration. But, this interpretation creates several difficulties for them. 

First, the text means the gospel is the power of God unto salvation to everyone who believes the gospel when they hear it preached. People are not believers before they hear the gospel. If they are "believers" before they hear the gospel, it cannot be because they are believers in the gospel. Men like Cayce and Hassell might say that they were believers because Christ had previously preached the gospel to the Romans in regeneration. But, if this is so, then Paul would not be the one who first preached it to them. 

Some will say that people are "believers" before becoming believers in the gospel or word of God, by their idea of "regeneration," and contend that the belief is in some kind of deity or deities, which would take in nearly all religionists. In the previous chapters I cited C.H. Cayce who said that the Athenian idolaters to whom Paul preached (Acts chapter seventeen) were children of God, born of God, because they worshiped false gods and "the unknown god" and yet who did not believe in the one God of Abraham nor in salvation through Christ. I also cited elder John Daily who said in his debate with W.P. Throgmorton - "Men in heathendom are regenerated by the Spirit of God without the Gospel" (Daily-Throgmorton Debate, p. 273).

I have also cited from Elder R.V. Sarrels and his "Systematic Theology" where he defended this view that heathens are "believers" and "regenerated" but still worship false gods and know or believe nothing about Jesus Christ. For instance Sarrels wrote:

"...in perhaps the vast majority of cases the elements of conversion–repentance, faith, and justification–may be present only embryonically..." (Systematic Theology, page 369)

"The more advanced intellectual Christian concepts about all of these progressive steps which unfold in the believer's experience do not prove that these do not exist embryonically in the obscure, yet spiritual, exercise of the quickened soul in heathen lands. The child of God, be he heathen or cultured, may not understand all that is woven around his life in God, yet in germ all is there. (See Rom:2:14)

"We have the mind of Christ," says Paul (I Cor. 2:16)...However embryonic this mind of Christ may be in one's conscious life, even among civilized people, or however indistinct and distorted this may be in saved people who have no knowledge of Christ in the gospel sense, the mind of Christ is there; as something absolutely native to the new creation, it is there in every person on earth. Paul did not preach ANOTHER God to the men of Athens who had gathered on Mars' Hill; he preached to them the very God WHOM THEY IGNORANTLY WORSHIPPED." (pg. 423)

"Not only does this view limit salvation to areas where the gospel is preached; it actually limits salvation to those who believe the gospel and obey it. The Moslems, the Buddhists, the Brahmans, and all other non-Christian adherents, even in gospel lands, are according to the strict sense of this view doomed. Not only this--strictly interpreted and applied, this view would exclude Jews and Unitarians, and, by some, even Catholics, who do not believe what is preached as some religious groups would present the matter. These are hard facts which need to be placed before the world. For reasons which are but briefly alluded to in some parts of the work, but developed more fully in other parts, we hold that God, despite the teachings of man, saves his chosen people all over the world." (page 434) (See these posts of mine for more citations from Sarrels on this point --- here and here)

You ask any Hardshell Baptist today if a person has to believe in the God of the Bible or in Christ the Son of God to be saved and they will say "no."

Consider also that in chapter ten Paul asks rhetorically - "how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher?" He then concludes by saying "so then faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God." (vs. 10-17) In I Corinthians 3: 5 Paul says that he and Apollos were "ministers by whom you believed." 

Hassell could not cite one Baptist prior to the "rise of the Hardshells" (a term used by Dr. B.H. Carroll Jr. in his work "The Genesis of American Anti-Missionism" in 1902) who denied that Romans 1: 16 was talking about eternal salvation and that the gospel was a means thereto. Surely Hassell also knew that Elder Mark Bennett, editor of "The Primitive Baptist," published the Kehukee Association articles of faith in said periodical in 1838. Here are some of those articles with Bennett's introductory remarks:

“An abstract of the principles then agreed to, and the substance of which afterwards was published in print, by order of the Association at Whitfield’s meeting house, Pitt county, North Carolina, 1779, is as follows:

2. We believe that Almighty God has made known his mind and will to the children of men in his word; which word we believe to be of divine authority, and contains all things necessary to be known for the salvation of men and women. The same is comprehended or contained in the books of the Old and New Testament, as are commonly received.

7. We believe that in God’s own appointed time and way, (by means which he has ordained) the elect shall be called, justified, pardoned and sanctified; and that it is impossible they can utterly refuse the call; but shall be made willing by divine grace to receive the offers of mercy.

Those articles show that the Kehukee brethren believed in means and believed that the written word of God was a means to impart that knowledge that is necessary for salvation and that people who hear the gospel must answer the gospel call and receive the offers of mercy therein to be saved.

Elder Joshua Lawrence was a leader in the Kehukee Association and the person who brought about the creation of "The Primitive Baptist" periodical and who chose Elder Mark Bennett to be its editor, and who wrote many articles for it. In the March 11th, 1837 issue of that paper (you can read it here) Lawrence wrote (emphasis mine):

"4th. That of an effectual calling of the elect from darkness to light, and from the power of sin and satan unto God, to be a partaker of eternal salvation, is also an apostolic doctrine. First, the foreknown and the predestinated to a conformity to his Son, are also predestinated to be called. Romans 8:30. And here are two verses that show who are called, and the design of calling. Romans 9:23: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory. Verse 24: Even us whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles. And also who he calls, the vessels of his mercy, afore prepared unto glory. And here you see the design of God is, to make known the riches of his glory on these vessels of mercy. I Cor. 7:17: As the Lord hath called every one, so let him walk. It is a calling of God's grace. Gal. 1:15: It pleased God, who called me by his grace. I Thess. 2:12: Who called you to his kingdom and glory. 4:7: For God hath not called us to uncleanness. 2 Thess. 2:14: Whereunto God called you by his gospel. I Peter 5: 10: The God of all grace who hath called us. Now all these texts prove that the calling of a sinner is the act of God by his grace, and Romans 11:19 prove that the gifts and callings of God are without repentance. Philippians 3:14: For the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus. 2 Timothy 1:0: An holy calling. Heb. The heavenly calling. I need not multiply texts further on this doctrine, for it would be almost to transcribe the scriptures, it is so full of proof that the elect shall be called of God."

Recall that Hassell said that "effectual calling" was not "regeneration" but denoted "conversion" which followed regeneration in many, but not all, cases. That, of course, is not what the authors of the 1689 London Baptist Confession believed, as I have shown. It is also not what Lawrence and the supporters of the "Primitive Baptist" periodical believed. That is quite evident from the citation above. If one reads that periodical in the decades leading up to the Civil War he will see that this periodical supported the means doctrine. This paper was supported by Elders John M. Watson, John Clark, James Osbourn, C.B. Hassell, and even Wilson and Grigg Thompson. 

Surely Hassell knew all this and yet he said, as we noted in chapter three of this series, in answer to the question -- "Have Baptists always denied the use of means in regeneration?" gave this answer: "In careless expressions some Baptists have advanced this error, but the same men, when taking into consideration the entire teaching of the Scriptures on this point, have, in their more exact expressions, repudiated it." Was this true of his father, of James Osbourn, of John Watson, of John Clark, of Joshua Lawrence, etc.? Writing in the third volume of "The Primitive Baptist" periodical (1838), Lawrence wrote (emphasis mine):

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

So, clearly Lawrence believed in means as did C.B. Hassell who supported Lawrence and the "Primitive Baptist" periodical. Lawrence says the "effects of the preaching of that gospel" was to "produce children of his kingdom" and says that they were "born of God," or "of the word of God," being "begotten through the gospel." 

It is no wonder that Hassell never had any public debates, unlike his contemporaries, such as Lemuel Potter, C.H. Cayce, and John R. Daily, to name a few. No wonder that today's "Primitive Baptists" don't want to debate me on "who are the real primitive Baptists" or on the "means question." They know that I would show them that their no-means view was not the predominant view of their founding fathers nor of the 1689 London Baptist Confession. It was easy for Sylvester to give false narratives about the views of his forbears and to give perverted interpretations of scripture as it relates to the means question since he was preaching to the choir. 

Lawrence also wrote:

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

So, twice we have seen where Lawrence said that sinners were "begotten through the gospel." That was the original position of most of the first generation of "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptists and is a fact that Hassell hid from the body of the "Old Schoolers." This blog is also filled with citations from Elder John M. Watson's "Old Baptist Test" that show Watson believed in means. Here are some examples of what Watson wrote in that work:

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

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

"The Antinomian will not regard any thing in the light of means, and in his doctrine will not allow even the Lord to employ them, says that the Lord is not dependent on means, and can do all His work without them. Now, the truth is, had it been the will or the way of the Lord, He could have breathed upon the dry bones as well without the prophesying of the prophet as with it, and could have given repentance to John's converts, or to Paul's, without their preaching; but their preaching to such, even to those dead in trespasses and sins, had been included in the divine plan, and it needs must be done, let it be termed means, the will or way of the Lord, as you please." (pages 327-28) 

Notice what Elder Hassell wrote about Watson (emphasis mine).

"Nearly thirty years ago “the beloved physician,” Eld. John M. Watson, professor of obstetrics in the medical department of the University of Nashville, Tenn, wrote in the "Old Baptist Test,' these wise and warning words: "We have become too ultra in most things...Above all things, avoid those prevailing ultraisms which are now eating on the Old Baptist Church as doth a canker--dividing churches and Associations, and disturbing the order and peace of the Baptists generally. Rebuke the ultraist whenever you meet with him--reclaim or reject him--let him be regarded constantly as the worst enemy of the Baptists of the present day!"  ("Interpreting the Scriptures-The Spiritual Interpretation of Scripture" - The Gospel Messenger--April 1893)

Why did Hassell not tell his people that Watson believed in means? Why have the Hardshells since the days of Hassell not mentioned Watson? It is because they don't want their brethren to know that the means view was the original view of even the founders and first generation leaders of the anti-mission movement. 

Here is what Elder Gilbert Beebe said about Elder Watson in his paper "The Signs of the Times" and as published in "The Primitive Baptist" for September 28, 1839 (you can read it here on page 282):

"The "Correspondent." - The 2nd number of this paper published at Murfreesborough, Ten. and edited by our Brother John M. Watson, M.D., has just reached us. The first number we have not seen: by the number now before us we learn that the Correspondent is a continuance of "The Old Baptist Banner." Of the orthodoxy and the ability of Brother Watson, we have no doubt: some of his communications published in back numbers of the "Signs of the Times," will satisfy our readers that Brother W. is thorough going Old School Baptist, and we wish him great success in setting forth truth and opposing error in the "far west"."

("The Correspondent" Vol. II, No. 4, for August 1839, published out of Murfreesborough, Tenn. and being copied by Elder Watson from the periodical "Signs of the Times" edited by Elder Gilbert Beebe)

In both the "Old Baptist Banner" and "The Correspondent" we find endorsements and articles from such PB leaders as James Osbourn, Daniel Jewett, William Conrad, and other such men who were leaders in the anti-mission movement. I have many issues of these two periodicals of Elder Watson on a USB drive that I bought from the Southern Baptist Library in Nashville several years ago. 

Here is what Elder Lemuel Potter said of Watson (as cited by me here): "In the first place, I will state that Dr. Watson was an old Baptist. He was one of our brethren."

Sadly, however, Potter told a falsehood about the beliefs of Watson in his debates with Throgmorton. He said that Watson denied means and surely he knew better. The above citations from Watson show that he lied for I am sure he had read "The Old Baptist Test" and also was familiar with "The Baptist Watchman" periodical that was started after the death of Watson (1866) and edited by Elder (Dr.) R.W. Fain and Elder (Dr.) J.B. Stephens, both who also believed in means. I also have many copies of this periodical also on a USB drive and Potter sometimes wrote to the Watchman. 

I have proof that it was common for many of the Hardshells to lie about their history. I have plans to write an article showing this to be the case, putting together such proofs that I have given in previous articles.

Elder C.B. Hassell, who wrote the bulk of "Hassell's History," and the earlier chapters of that work, wrote the following in chapter nine, page 317 and which you can read online (here; emphasis mine):

"Just before His ascension He told His Apostles that they should, in a few days, be endued with the power of the Holy Ghost, and they should be witnesses unto Him both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth (Acts i. 5-8). He said, "All power is given unto Me in Heaven and in earth. Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you; and, lo, I am with you alway, unto the end of the world" (Matt, xxviii. 18-20). Or, as Mark gives the commission, "Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but He that believeth not shall be damned" (Mark xvi. 15, 16). Instead of preaching only to the Jews, as He had commanded them during His ministry (Matt. x. 5, 6), the Apostles, after the ascension of Christ, were to preach to any human being that they met in all the world; and they were to go forward in simple dependence upon Him who had all power in Heaven and earth, and who would always be with them; and they were everywhere to preach the gospel, that is, according to inspired authority, "the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth, whether Jew or Greek"--" Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumbling-block, and unto the Greeks foolishness; but unto them who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God" (Rom. i. 16; 1 Cor. i. 23, 24). 

Ezekiel, in the valley of very dry bones representing the whole house of Israel, simply prophesied, by Divine direction, the almighty power of God that was soon to be exerted in their behalf — how that God would open their graves, and cause them to come up out of their graves, and put sinews and flesh and skin upon them, and breath within them, and they should live, and know that the Lord had performed this mighty work (Ezek. xxxvii. 1-14); it was not the work of the bones or of the prophet or of any created arm, but exclusively the work of Almighty God, and all the living house of Israel know it. So the Apostles were commanded by Christ to preach, and did preach, not the power of dead sinners or of human appliances of any kind, but the power of a Divine and Almighty Savior to save every sin-laden soul— yea, even the amazing power of the voice of the Son of God to penetrate the soul of the spiritually dead."

I have read a lot of the writings of Elder Sylvester Hassell and I don't ever recall reading where he ever quoted or gave his view on Romans 1: 16. Yet, we see how his father did so in the above citation. He does not say as do the Hardshells of the late 19th century that the salvation of the text is a "time salvation" which he would do if he believed that the gospel was not a means in the eternal salvation of sinners. 

Further, the context of his remarks show that he believes that it is eternal salvation that Paul refers to. He even mentions the case of Ezekiel prophesying to the dry dead bones as a case where the preaching of the prophet was the means God used to exert his power in giving life to the dead bones. He mentions the gospel preaching by the apostles as the instrument to raise to life "dead sinners," the "spiritually dead," to "save every sin-laden soul" but says the power was God's operating through his ministers. He also equates the preaching of the gospel with the "voice of the Son of God," something that today's Hardshells do not do. 

Romans 1: 16 says that the gospel is "the power of God unto salvation." If it is the power of God, why then can it not be a means of raising the dead or regenerating a degenerate? The apostle Paul also in his first letter to the Thessalonians said "for our gospel came not unto you in word only but in power and in the Holy Spirit." (1: 5) If it comes in such a manner, why could it not save a soul from spiritual death? In the article by C.B. Hassell he even referred to this verse also.

These are not "careless expressions" about gospel means but "exact expressions." I find no place where the senior Hassell ever spoke differently. So, why did Sylvester not tell us that his father believed in means?

In the previous chapter we cited Hassell as saying that "effectual calling" was not the same experience as denoted by the experience of regeneration. He implied that this is what John Gill and the 1689 London Baptist Confession believed. However, that is false. We have already seen that Elder Lawrence did not think effectual calling was different from being quickened or regenerated or born again. Hassell would have supported his friend and senior Lawrence. In chapter ten of the old London confession it says:

"Those whom God hath predestinated unto life, He is pleased in His appointed, and accepted time, effectually to call,1 by His Word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death in which they are by nature, to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ." 

The scriptures the confession gives as proof of this statement are these: (1) Rom. 8:30, 11:7; Eph. 1:10–11; 2 Thess. 2:13–14.

In the same paragraph the old confession says: "effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ;5 yet so as they come most freely, being made willing by His grace."6 

So, what Lawrence believed about "effectual calling" is what Gill believed about it, and is what the 1689 London Baptist confession also taught. In paragraph four the confession said: "much less can men that do not receive the Christian religion be saved." This certainly is not what Hardshells believe. In paragraph one of chapter fifteen the confession said "effectual calling gives them repentance to life" and gives as the supporting text Titus 3:2–5 which speaks of "the washing of regeneration." So, in the minds of those who put forth the confession "effectual calling" was the same as "the washing of regeneration" and involved being given the gift of repentance and spiritual life. In paragraph one of chapter twenty the old confession said:

"The covenant of works being broken by sin, and made unprofitable unto life, God was pleased to give forth the promise of Christ, the seed of the woman, as the means of calling the elect, and begetting in them faith and repentance;1 in this promise the gospel, as to the substance of it, was revealed, and [is] therein effectual for the conversion and salvation of sinners.2"

By "the promise of Christ" they mean the protoevangelium or the word of God that promised a Redeemer and was the gospel in substance, a revealed revelation, and that word was "the means of calling the elect and begetting in them faith and repentance" and "effectual for the conversion and salvation of sinners." One has to ask -- are these "careless expressions some Baptists have advanced" in teaching gospel means? Where did these men ever "in their more exact expressions, repudiate" what they wrote on that question? 

The 1689 Confession also wrote in paragraph two of chapter twenty: 

"This promise of Christ, and salvation by him, is revealed only by the Word of God;3 neither do the works of creation or providence, with the light of nature, make discovery of Christ, or of grace by him, so much as in a general or obscure way;4 much less that men destitute of the revelation of Him by the promise or gospel, should be enabled thereby to attain saving faith or repentance.5" 

That paragraph says, in an "exact expression," that one must be a believer in the gospel in order to be saved. That is the real "primitive" Baptist teaching. In the next chapter we will continue our review of Sylvester Hassell's defence of the "no means" view.