Two Seed Baptist Ideology (LVII)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"It is especially in what claims to be the spiritual interpretation of the Scriptures that these ultra, wild, chilling, deadening, bewitching, confusing, dividing, and ruinous errors prevail among us. We have been so inattentive and dormant that the Lord righteously permits us to be afflicted, deceived, and desolated by false spirits, "transformed as the ministers of righteousness," (2 Cor. xi. 14, 15). Hyper, or Pseudo-Spiritualism, denying the truth or the importance of the literal meaning of the Scriptures, and thus sapping the very foundation of Christianity, now threatens, above every other danger, to be our ruin." 

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Elder C.H. Cayce on the KJV

When I was a young "Primitive Baptist" minister there began a campaign by some to change their church's articles of faith to say that only the King James Version of the Bible was scripture. One of the foremost leaders in this campaign was Elder Sonny Pyles who was a friend of my father and me. Father did not believe that the King James Bible was the only Bible and believed as I do that other English translations may be used and that some of them are better than the KJV. We believed that the KJV had some texts that were badly translated. 

Recently while reading through the editorial writings of Elder C.H. Cayce in his paper "The Primitive Baptist" I noticed what this highly esteemed Hardshell apologist wrote about the KJV. In the February 22, 1916 issue of his paper Cayce wrote (emphasis mine):

"Brother J. J. Beck, of Sandy River, Va., writes as follows: How and in what manner were the translators (of the King James Version) chosen?

It was published in 1611; and a number of years elapsed before its intrinsic superiority and merits drove all other English translations out of the field Taken as a whole, it is the best and most truly English version. Couched in noble language, it abounds in felicities. It is musical, dramatic, and even tragical. It is, in turn, pathetic and sublime, and has, withal, a directness and force which commend it to all classes and conditions of men. But it is far from perfect; and wherein, in the opinion of many of its most ardent admirers, it should be made to conform more thoroughly and consistently with the original Scriptures remains to be briefly indicated under the following heads, etc." 

I agree with Cayce. The KJV is "far from perfect." I wonder whether Cayce, if he were alive today and could see other new English translations, would feel differently. I suspect that he would bow to the pressure and go along with what is called "KJV Onlyism." 

In my post (here) "Elder Sylvester Hassell on Translations" I cite where Hassell wrote: 

"Nowhere in the Bible does God promise to inspire or make infallible translators or transcribers or printers; but the men of God who first wrote the Sciptures were, as they claim, and as is abundantly demonstrated, inspired of God; and He has not allowed these variations of others to affect a single doctrine or practice of His Written Word." (The Gospel Messenger, 1914, page 45)

In another post (here) I cite from Hassell's History as follows:

In Hassell's Church History, we note these words: 

 

"It is unfortunate that King James's, or the Authorized Version of the Bible, always translates by the same term "beast" the two different Greek words zoon and therion in the book of Revelation." (page 253)

I am sure that he and Cayce would likewise say that it is unfortunate that the KJV always translates "world" by two different Greek words aion and cosmos. We could give other examples.

On page 508 of Hassell's "History of the Church of God" we read: 

“The seventeenth century was the century of the publication of the King James or Authorized Version of the English Bible (in 1611), the best and noblest of all the translations of the Bible ever made in any language.”

So, both Cayce and Hassell, though both said that they believed that the KJV was best (in their day) yet they did not believe it was perfect.

In this post (here) I cited from a "Primitive Baptist" elder from Welsh Neck Primitive Baptist church, Elder Robert Lackey, who said this about the translators of the KJV:

"If these baby-sprinkling, Baptist-persecuting, state-church loving Episcopalians were inspired as were the prophets, poets, historians, evangelists and apostles then we are bound to account the King of England and Pope of the Church of England as also inspired by the Holy Ghost when he set forth his rules for the translators. Now whether or not King James was a cross-dresser or a boy child lover we will not speculate upon. There is evidence from his enemies he was; there is evidence from his friends he was not. That part matters not to us, what we can say is while in Scotland he was a Presbyterian, but his religious convictions were so strong that he gladly embraced Episcopacy when crowned King of England, and became head (pope) of the Church of England."

Prevenient Grace (5)

"The preparations of the heart in man, 

and the answer of the tongue, is from the Lord"

Proverbs 16:1

Elder C.H. Cayce in an editorial titled "The New Birth" in the September 19, 1911 issue of "The Primitive Baptist" wrote:

"The very fact that a child cries is unmistakable proof that a living child has been born. So when one begins to mourn on account of sin and to cry unto the Lord, begging for mercy, it is positive proof that he has been born of God. Then one may ask, “Why does he mourn if he has been born of God?'' We answer, Because he does not know he has been born of God. When the fact is made known to him that Jesus is his Saviour and that he has been born of God, then he rejoices. The fact is one thing, and the knowledge of the fact is another thing." 

This is the Hardshell or Hyper Calvinistic view on the question of whether conviction of sin and guilt is a precursor to or an after effect of "regeneration" or new birth. I wonder what Cayce would say about the remorse of Esau and Judas. Of Esau we read:

"14 Pursue peace with all people, and holiness, without which no one will see the Lord: 15 looking carefully lest anyone fall short of the grace of God; lest any root of bitterness springing up cause trouble, and by this many become defiled; 16 lest there be any fornicator or profane person like Esau, who for one morsel of food sold his birthright. 17 For you know that afterward, when he wanted to inherit the blessing, he was rejected, for he found no place for repentance, though he sought it diligently with tears." (Heb. 12: 14-17 nkjv)

Were Esau's tears evidence of regeneration? Hardshell Hyper Calvinists would have to say yes. About Judas we read:

"Then Judas, His betrayer, seeing that He had been condemned, was remorseful and brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, saying, “I have sinned by betraying innocent blood.” And they said, “What is that to us? You see to it!” Then he threw down the pieces of silver in the temple and departed, and went and hanged himself." (Matt. 27: 3-5 nkjv)

Was the remorse of Judas an evidence of regeneration? It was good that he realized his sin, but what he did as a result sealed his doom. Why did he not simply go to Jesus and ask for forgiveness? Killing himself was not the right choice. His sorrow for sin did not lead to salvation.

Balaam said "let me die the death of the righteous, and let my last end be like his" (Numb. 23: 10) and yet he was never saved. Of Balaam Owen said:

"Men question what will become of them in the close; they fluctuate about what will be their latter end. Did not Balaam do so when he cried, “Let me die the death of the righteous, and let my latter end be like his”? That wretched man was tossed up and down between hopes and fears. This is common to the vilest person in the world. It is but the shaking of their security, if they be alone." (From his sermon "the strength of faith"; See here)

Many of our Hardshell brethren will say that Balaam was a saved man because he expressed a desire to be saved. In this post (here) I cited a Hardshell Baptist on this very point and gave a short rebuttal to it. In that post I wrote:

Elder Moore, a Hardshell Baptist, in delineating what "Primitive Baptists" believe, responded to questions.  (see here)

8. Do you not then teach that some might want salvation but could not have it because they are not one of the elect?

Answer: No, the man who wants salvation already HAS it.

I have cited others who have said the same thing in my book on "The Hardshell Baptist Cult."  Such a proposition makes men like Baalim a child of God, even though the Scriptures clearly affirm that he is one of them who will "perish."  (Jude 11)

Looks like Balaam wanted to be saved, and by the logic of the Hardshells, this was enough to prove that Balaam was a born again child of God!  Who can believe it?

In "Conviction of Sin Before Conversion" by John Owen in "Several Practical Cases of Conscience Resolved" (Available here), Discourse One, page four, wrote:

"QUESTION. To what extent should I be convicted of my sin and guilt before I may turn to Jesus Christ to find salvation?" 

For, seeing conviction is so indispensably necessary, some may say, "It hath not been thus and thus with me,—according as hath been declared." Therefore,I would only show what I judge to be so necessary, as that without it a soul cannot be supposed sincerely to have closed with Christ. And we having all made our profession of choosing and closing with Christ, as I would be loath to say any thing that might discourage any, lest they should have failed in the very necessary work of conviction; so I would not betray the truth of God, nor the souls of any." 

Of what Owen meant by conviction of sin, and of "closing with Christ" we have already spoken in the previous chapters. Notice that Owen, though a Calvinist, believes that closing with Christ, involves choosing Christ, and that this choice is essential for being initially regenerated or born of God. He also again says that the "work of conviction" is "very necessary" in leading a person to repentance.

Owen wrote further:

"Therefore, I shall place it upon this: What Jesus Christ doth indispensably call men unto, in order to believing in him, that is indispensably required of them. And this I shall manifest out of two or three places of Scripture:—Mark 2:17, "I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance." Now, this calling them unto repentance, is a calling them unto it by the faith which is in him...What is the conclusion? "Lost sinners," saith Christ, "this is that I require of you." So that this is what I assert to be indispensably necessary,—namely, that they are so far convinced that they are sinners as to state and course, that they are not righteous in themselves, and can have no righteousness in themselves. I say, therefore, when a person is not really convinced that he is not righteous, he is not under the call of Jesus Christ; and if he doth believe this, he is under a sovereign dispensation, and let not such despond." 

On this point we have already taken notice of in the preceding chapter. A person must first see himself as lost and guilty before he will ever seek or find salvation through Christ.

In DISCOURSE #6 "On the Work of the Spirit after Justification," Elder Wilson Thompson (1788-1866), leader of the newly formed "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptist denomination wrote the following in his 1821 book "Simple Truth." I wrote about this in this post (here).

"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 does not equate "regeneration" with "the new birth." He believes that one must be regenerated first before he can later be born of the Spirit. This was a common view among the Hardshells of the 19th century. In this paradigm "conviction of sin and guilt" followed regeneration but preceded the birth. In this paradigm "regeneration" becomes "prevenient grace." Unlike the view of Owens and the Puritans, which viewed conviction of sin as a step towards regeneration or rebirth, Hardshells and the Hyper Calvinists saw conviction as an effect of regeneration. It may be that it was rejection of prevenient grace that led many Hyper Calvinists to say that conviction of sin and guilt was an effect of regeneration and that regeneration precedes faith and evangelical conversion and that the gospel or word of God is no means in effecting regeneration. Here are some more citations from "Primitive Baptists" of the 19th century that show that this paradigm was their common belief.

Elder William Conrad of Kentucky (1797-1882), an associate of Thompson, wrote:

"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." (Life and Travels of Elder William Conrad; chapter 25 and cited by me in this posting here)

Elder J. R. Respass (1831-1895) wrote:

"When a man is born again, he, the man, becomes a new creature...but as woman in pangs of travail is delivered by birth, so he is delivered by faith, and rejoices in the truth." (Elder J. R. Respass in The Gospel Messenger, 1883, pg. 57)

Elder Gilbert Beebe (1880-1881) wrote:

"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" - Middletown, N. Y., September 1, 1857 - Editorials of Gilbert Bebee Vol. 4; for more such citations see my post here)

Elder Samuel Trott (1783-1866), an associate of Beebe, also wrote:

"Thus in the new birth there is a striking correspondence to the natural birth; to each there is a seed implanted, and then a quickening 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 "SIGNS of the TIMES" - Vol.21 - 1853 - Writings of Elder Samuel Trott, pages 404 - 409)

Abraham Kuyper (1837-1920) wrote:

"Hence God's work of grace runs through these three successive stages:

1st. Regeneration in its first stage, when the Lord plants the new life in the dead heart.
2d. Regeneration in its second stage, when the new-born man comes to conversion.
3d. Regeneration in its third stage, when conversion merges into sanctification.

What Arminians and many Calvinists, such as I am, saw as instances of prevenient grace, or preparatory steps towards being saved, Hardshells and some Hyper Calvinists saw as salvation. In their system there are no graces that precede salvation. This is what led many of them to see the experience of being "awakened" as regeneration.

Interesting, however, is the fact that other theologians who would not be characterized as Hyper Calvinists also believed in a similar paradigm, which paradigm was also the result of making spiritual birth to be in every way like physical birth, which has three stages to it, first the conception in the womb, then a time of development in the womb, and then a time of birth proper, when the living fetus is delivered from the womb. Alexander Campbell and some of his followers had a modified view of this paradigm. He believed that a sinner was regenerated when he believed and repented but was not born until the believer was baptized in water. A.W. Pink, a leading Calvinist of the 20th century also held to the Hardshell paradigm. In this post (here) I cited from his work titled "Quickening Is the Initial Operation of the Spirit," wherein Pink wrote:

"In earlier years we did not ourselves perceive the distinction which is pointed by John 6:63 and 1 Peter 1:23: the former referring unto the initial act of the Spirit in "quickening" the spiritually-dead soul, the latter having in view the consequent "birth" of the same. While it is freely allowed that the origin of the "new creature" is shrouded in impenetrable mystery, yet of this we may be certain, that life precedes birth. There is a strict analogy between the natural birth and the spiritual: necessarily so, for God is the Author of them both, and He ordained that the former should adumbrate the latter. Birth is neither the cause nor the beginning of life itself: rather is it the manifestation of a life already existent: there had been a Divine "quickening" before the child could issue from the womb. In like manner, the Holy Spirit "quickens" the soul, or imparts spiritual life to it, before its possessor is "brought forth" (as James 1:18 is rightly rendered in the R.V.) and "born again" by the Word of God (1 Pet. 1:23)."

 

In that same post I also cited from several other Calvinists, such as Hardshell Jimmy Barber, W.E. Best, Bryan Schwertly, and John Hendryx of the web site monergism.com. I cited these words of Hendryx:

"I. Regeneration is described as a spiritual new birth.

1. This is affirmed in the following New Testament passages: John 1:12-13; 3:3-8; I Corinthians 4:15; Philemon 10; James 1:18; I Peter 1:3,23; I John 2:29; 3:9; 4:7; 5:1,4,18.

2. The embryonic stage of regeneration is what is called "quickening", and it is the work of the Holy Spirit alone.

3. The final stage of regeneration is delivery or birth, and it is the work of the Holy Spirit in dependence upon the Word as a means. Consequently, the spiritual knowledge conferred by illumination is the spiritual content or revelation (holy Scripture)."  ("Biblical Regeneration and Affectional Theology," see here)

In Owen's work "Discourse of the Efficient of Regeneration" (Available here) he wrote:

"These preparations are many times without perfection. The pangs of conviction resolve sometimes into a return to the old vomit, and make no progress in a state of life and grace. The apostle's rule will hold true in the whole compass of the work, Rom. vi. 11, 'If it be of works, then it is no more grace.' So much as is ascribed to any work or preparation by the creature, so much is taken from the glory of grace, and would make God not the author, but assistant, and that too by obligation, not by grace."

By "these preparations" he means those workings of the word and Spirit of God upon the hearts and minds of lost sinners prior to their being raised out of spiritual death. He also says that many sinners experience conviction of sin and guilt but who do not avail themselves of the salvation which is in Christ Jesus. I contend that being convicted of sin is not only a necessary precondition, except in cases of small children, for being regenerated but that it also is an example of both common and prevenient grace. Owen also makes a distinction between any preparatory works of the creature made apart from the work of the Spirit and grace of God and those preparations which are the result of the Spirit and grace of God. So Owen wrote further: "From this it follows, that man does not prepare himself by any act of his will, without the grace of God." 

Owen mentions the "pangs of conviction." The people I cited previously who believed that regeneration preceded the new birth would see these "pangs" as denoting the "travail" a quickened, awakened, or regenerated sinner experiences while in the womb of darkness and guilt and before he is delivered from those travails in the birth. 

Owens wrote further:

"Thirdly, What preparation had any of those we read of in Scripture from themselves? What disposition had Paul, when he was struck down with a heart fuller of actual enmity than he had at his birth? Did the apostles expect any call from their nets, or set themselves in a readiness before they heard that call? A voice from Christ was attended with a divine touch or power upon their hearts; both the preparation and the motion itself took birth together. And what preparations are there in Scripture, but are attributed unto God? If a conviction be thorough and full, and consequently a preparation, it must refer to that Spirit which our Saviour asserts to be the principal cause of it, John xvi. 8, 9, 'When he is come,' that is, the Comforter, 'he will reprove the world of sin.' It is laid wholly upon this, as the end of the almighty Spirit's coming, whereby it is not likely men would be convinced without him. Is there any desire or prayer for it? Even this, if true, is from the Holy Ghost; 'no man can call Christ Lord, but by the Holy Ghost,' 1 Cor. xii. 3. Did any of those our Saviour cured of bodily infirmities, prepare themselves for that cure? Neither can any man prepare himself for his spiritual cure...If one man of the same nature with another be endued with rich morals, it is from the common grace of God exciting natural light, and the common notions of fit and just; as the reason one vine of the same kind brings forth more generous fruit than another, is from the stronger influence of the sun. All nature assents to this truth, that nothing does prepare itself for a change."

It is true, as Owen says, that sometimes a conviction of sin, or an awakening, instantly brings forth a birth of the Spirit, as in the case of the apostle Paul. But many times there is much time between the preparatory steps and the birth. Further, as he has stated, people may be convicted and thus prepared but who are never saved. It seems also that Owen makes a distinction between the conviction that sinners experience, for he says "if a conviction be thorough and full" it is then definitely a work of the Spirit and will surely bring a sinner to the birth. 

Many Calvinists, especially those who say that a sinner must be born again or regenerated before he can be converted by faith and repentance, in arguing against any type of prevenient grace, will say that if God convicts a sinner of sin and does not bring about his regeneration, that such a scenario would violate what Paul affirmed when he wrote: 

"I thank my God upon every remembrance of you, always in every prayer of mine making request for you all with joy, for your fellowship in the gospel from the first day until now, being confident of this very thing, that He who has begun a good work in you will complete it until the day of Jesus Christ; just as it is right for me to think this of you all, because I have you in my heart, inasmuch as both in my chains and in the defense and confirmation of the gospel, you all are partakers with me of grace." (Phil. 1: 3-7 nkjv)

If God initiates the "good work" in conviction of sin, or in some other preparatory work in a sinner's heart and mind, then it can never be the case that such a convicted sinner would fail to be regenerated or finally saved, according to the words of the apostle. If God began the good work of convicting of sin in some and yet it did not end in salvation, it is argued by Hyper Calvinists that what Paul said is wrong. To which I reply first by saying that the "good work" Paul refers to is the conversion of the believers at Philippi. However, there are some, such as Kenneth Wuest, well known Greek exegetist, who say that the good work Paul has in mind is the financial support the Philippians gave to Paul and the first missionaries. In his commentary on the above passage he wrote:

"Paul had come to a settled persuasion concerning the fact that the God who had begun in the Philippians the good work of giving to missions, would bring it to a successful conclusion right up to the day of Christ Jesus."

We may also say that where there has been what Owen called a "thorough and full" conviction, a good work in the hearts of those chosen to salvation, he will indeed complete what he designs to accomplish by that conviction; And, as Owen taught, even in those cases where some have been convicted and yet never saved God still completes his design therein. 

Consider also the fact that a person must hear the gospel first before he can believe in Christ (Rom. 10), and if hearing the gospel is a gracious gift or good thing, then we see where there is prevenient grace at work prior to salvation by his bringing the sinner into contact with the gospel and word of God. However, Hyper Calvinists will sometimes go so far as to assert that one must be regenerated before he can savingly hear the gospel. Oftentimes he does not see that hearing the gospel is in itself a gracious thing, even if one does not believe it. 

Wrote Owen:

"If the preparations were from the will of man, man would begin the noblest work that ever was wrought, and God would be made no more than an attendant upon the creature's motion; whereas the very beginning in the will, as well as the perfection, is ascribed to God: Philip. ii. 13, 'God works in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.' God's good pleasure is the original cause of this work upon the will, not the will's good pleasure. The work then depending on God's good pleasure, excludes any dependency on the will of man; it is therefore called a creation, to show God's independence upon anything as to this work."

God works in the heart of the elect to will or to choose to be saved before he is actually saved or regenerated. The work of making willing does not always occur in an instant either. God may work long on a hard heart before he softens it and makes it receptive to him and his word. So Owen agrees when he writes further:

"If we seek, we shall find; if we ask, we shall receive, but who first touches the heart to seek or to ask? If we cannot think a good thought of ourselves, how can we think so good a thought as a desire of regeneration? To say, then, we can desire the new creation of ourselves, without some kind of grace, is to assert another doctrine than what the apostle Paul asserted to those already regenerate. The first will, which is the necessary spring of all actions, is wrought by God, Philip. ii. 13."

Cayce's Debate Strategy (appendix)

Elder Harold Hunt

In Elder Harold Hunt's book "The London Confession: And its Place in Baptist History" (2007), which you can read (here), I cited from this work and refuted much of what he wrote in this post (See here). In that post I cited these words of Hunt (emphasis mine): 

 "They point to those texts that identify the saved as those who believe in Christ, and they are sure the sinner could not possibly believe until they talk to him (the preacher - SG) —and tell him what to believe—as if the Spirit of God is unable to witness in the heart of the sinner."

"First off, the Bible teaches in the clearest language that the Holy Spirit teaches us to know Jesus Christ—as a person."

So, Hunt, like Sylvester Hassell, C.H. Cayce, and P.T. Oliphant, who I cited in the previous post, agrees that in order for sinners to be made believers in Jesus and be saved, Christ must personally, or the Holy Spirit must personally, witness to or preach to the sinner.

In this post (here) I cited what the late Elder Sonny Pyles said in a sermon attacking those "Primitive Baptists" who were saying that the elect must hear the gospel after regeneration in order to be finally saved. He also mentioned how some of them said that Jesus himself preaches the gospel to every elect person, and then Sonny said: "Why didn't you say that to start with?" I take that to mean that he agreed with Hassell, Cayce, etc. 

In another post (here) I cited from Elder Pyle's son, Elder David Pyles, who wrote:

"We allow that God has every right and all ability to preach the gospel himself without the aid of man. According to Galations 3:8, God preached the gospel to Abraham long before there ever was an apostle, elder, or missionary. It is presumptuous for us to take any position asserting that only man can preach the gospel."  (see here)

And,

"I believe I speak for all Primitive Baptists by saying that God will reveal Himself, in His own chosen way and degree, to all of His elect people here in time. In this sense it could be said that the gospel will reach all of the elect."

And,

"These texts also show that without the "gospel" preached by God, one will never receive the gospel as preached by man. Observe that in the last verse, it is asserted that the Jews would not receive the outward word because they did not possess the inward word. Only God can implant this inward word, and He will do it to all of His chosen in time."

And,

"While we allow that God may, in His own sovereign pleasure, quicken whom He will, where He will, and when He will, and while we allow that God may do all of these even among those who are, and shall remain, deprived of the true gospel as preached by man, the scriptures deny that uninspired man can identify the presence of a regenerate heart in the absence of belief in the Lord Jesus. Accordingly, we have no authority to offer the promises of the gospel to anyone who has not accepted it."

Elder Gilbert Beebe was probably the first one to promote this view. He wrote:

"The word of the Lord, which is Spirit, and which is life, which liveth and abideth forever, is that by which regeneration is affected; not MERELY by the Scriptures in their LETTER, not reading or preaching them, but the words which Jesus himself SPEAKS to the individual persons who are made to hear and live." ("Regeneration and the New Birth" in the Signs of the Times for Sept. 1st, 1857; you can read here beginning on page 13)

Hunt, in the same writing, wrote:

"For the last two hundred years the notion that one must hear the preached gospel—and believe it or burn—has caused untold contention among the Baptists."

Notice that he did not say "for the past two thousand years," but says the "past two hundred years." By this statement he admits that there was no contention over the question until the birth of the Hardshell sect in the early 1800s. Prior to that time nearly every Baptist believed that a person had to hear and believe the gospel in order to be saved. He has even admitted that the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith taught this truth. Though he exalts his ministers who signed the Fulton Confession of Faith (1900), saying they were the most ablest of preachers the "Primitive Baptist" ever had, yet he says they attempted to make the London confession to mean something different than it plainly says on the question of whether God uses the word of God as a means in the eternal salvation of sinners and on what that confession said about predestination. 

He also does not mention the fact that most of the first generation of "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptists (prior to the Civil War) believed in means. He also contradicts himself as did Cayce for in one breath he denies that one must hear the gospel and believe it in order to be saved and then in another breath says that all the elect will hear it preached by Jesus and believe it.

I know Elder Hunt personally. I have been in his home. He was at one time a close friend of my father, a fellow Hardshell of Hunt. When father was brought up on charges of heresy by the Powell Valley Association for preaching heresy because he taught that Satan was a fallen angel, falling from heaven, Hunt at first opposed those who were making this question a test of fellowship, but then when he was pressured he did an about face and fought against father and persecuted him. I say this in order to say that when Hunt denies that the gospel, as preached by God sent preachers, is a means in saving sinners, that he is going against what his own association (Powell Valley) affirmed in 1879 in their declarations against the views of the Two Seed Baptists. In this post (here) I cited from historian Lawrence Edwards who gives us what is in the 1879 minutes of that association. Here is the citation I gave:

In chapter V, "THE TWO-SEED HERESY AND ABSOLUTE PREDESTINATION," Lawrence wrote:

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

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

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

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

Elder Cayce on Asking for the Spirit

Recently I wrote on Luke 9:13 where Jesus said (See here):

"If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him!” (Luke 11: 13 nkjv)

I stated that this was true in regard to lost sinners asking that God send them his Spirit to save them. After that, as I was reading from the editorial writings of Hardshell leader Elder C.H. Cayce, I saw where Cayce was asked about this text for the July 30, 1912 issue of his paper "The Primitive Baptist" and he answered it with these words:

"Brother C. C. Gooch, of Selmer, Tenn., requests our views of (Luke 11:13), which reads, “If ye, then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask Him?'' The Saviour was talking to His disciples. He was not talking to unregenerate sinners, trying to get them to ask for the Holy Spirit. As He was talking to His disciples, those who were already children of God, He was, therefore, talking to people who were already in possession of the Holy Spirit in the sense of regeneration. God's children may, therefore, approach the throne of grace and ask the Father for the manifest presence of the Holy Spirit to lead, guide, direct and influence them in the right way, and to sustain them in sorrows and distresses."

It is true that Christ was talking to his disciples but Cayce fails to mention the fact that not all who were disciples of Christ were regenerate. Cayce believed that Judas never was a child of God nor a true disciple and yet he is included in the group of disciples that Jesus addresses. There were those who followed and sought for Jesus in order to be fed by the food Christ miraculously provided and so Jesus said to them:

“Most assuredly, I say to you, you seek Me, not because you saw the signs, but because you ate of the loaves and were filled. Do not labor for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to everlasting life, which the Son of Man will give you, because God the Father has set His seal on Him.” (John 6: 26-27 nkjv)

Why can't such lost sinners, fake disciples, be exhorted to ask for, seek for, and labor for food that endures forever but not for the Holy Spirit? In the same discourse this is recorded about these illegitimate followers: "From that time many of His disciples went back and walked with Him no more." (vs. 66) 

Also, Jesus says of the people he is speaking to that they are "evil." How could you exclude the unregenerate wicked? 

In the same discourse Jesus says to all:

“Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened." (Matt. 7: 7-8 nkjv)

According to Cayce, one must first be in possession of the Spirit in order to ask for the Spirit. How is that for logic? Especially from a man who prided himself on being logical? He also believed that one must also be saved before he can ask to be saved! If pressed, however, he would say that no one is saved by asking to be saved. He would say God is not found by seeking, asking, and knocking. Asking for the Spirit is no different than asking for the presence of the Father and Son. To the wicked God says: "Seek the Lord while He may be found, Call upon Him while He is near." (Isa. 55: 6 nkjv)

To "call upon the name of the Lord" for salvation is the same as asking the Lord to save.

Cayce's Debate Strategy Against Mission Baptists

Elder C. H. Cayce, the great champion debater for the "Primitive Baptist Church," often pressed Missionary Baptists and all others who believed 1) that one must have faith in the one true God and in the Messiah to be eternally saved, and 2) that faith is produced by the Spirit's use of the word and gospel of God, about whether those who die without hearing the gospel or word of God, or who were incapable of understanding and believing it, could be saved. Cayce knew that this was an Achilles heel for those who believe that the gospel is a means in the salvation of sinners and that faith by it is a condition thereto. 

Many of them did not want to "shell down the corn" and say "yes, all who die without hearing or believing the gospel are lost." Cayce knew that most of those who hold this view are reluctant to say that all the heathen who die without hearing the gospel are lost, and so when asked about that troubling question, many occupied the proverbial hot seat, squirmed, and tried to evade the question. Some will even go so far as to say that the heathen may be saved without the gospel, if they live up to the light they have, affirming that God's revelation in creation is enough to bring them to saving faith. This is the place Cayce wanted to push those of the means view, and he often succeeded; And, when his opponents admitted that people could be saved without faith, without hearing the word of God, he won the debate and made Hardshells of them. 

I have made several posts over the years pointing out how many people who believe that evangelical faith is necessary for salvation, when pressed on the fairness of God in sending to hell those who never had a chance to be saved (because they had not the word of God), begin to evade, squirm, and end up failing to answer the question. I have shown where well known bible teacher John Lennox refused to say that heathen who die without ever hearing the gospel or believing in the one true God and in Jesus would be lost. (See this post here) Dr. Leighton Flowers, another well known bible teacher, also allowed that many heathens would be saved even if they never heard the gospel, arguing that natural revelation was enough to produce saving faith. See this post (here). Dr. C.S. Lewis, a well known theologian of the past, wrote the following on this question (as cited by me here; highlighting mine):

“Here is [a matter] that used to puzzle me. Is it not frightfully unfair that this new life [in Christ] should be confined to people who have heard of Christ and been able to believe in Him? But the truth is God has not told us what His arrangements about the other people are. We do know that no man can be saved except through Christ; we do not know that only those who know Him can be saved through Him.” (C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (New York: Touchstone, 1996), 65.

Billy Graham has also made similar remarks. So too have many Catholics. They say this on the one hand, but then say that people must believe, repent, etc. to be saved, on the other hand. 

Dr. R.B.C. Howell, the second president of the Southern Baptist Convention, fought with the Hardshells in his day, especially in the 1830s through the 1850s, through his paper "The Baptist." He contended that no one would be saved apart from having faith in Christ and that hearing the gospel was a necessary means thereunto. See my post (here) that gives citations from Howell. This was the historic belief of Baptists as we will see shortly.

Cayce, in his debate with Elder I.N. Penick, a Missionary Baptist, in his editorial "Do You Mean It?" for November 21, 1911 in "The Primitive Baptist" wrote:

"First. “Whatever is essential as a gospel condition to salvation must be absolute, universal, indispensable and without “exception.” - J. H. Grimes, in Baptist Standard of April 25, 1907. 

Second. “The condition of salvation is faith in Christ.'' - J. A. Scarboro in “Geology,'' page 32. 

Third. Therefore, faith in Christ as an essential to salvation is absolute, universal, indispensable and without exception."

The two men Cayce cites are prominent Missionary Baptists. Grimes was a Calvinist and Penick was a moderate Calvinist. After giving these premises Cayce wrote:

"If faith in Christ, according to their own logic, their own argument, is an absolute essential to salvation and is universal and without exception, as the infant is unable to exercise faith in Christ, it absolutely, universally and without exception excludes the infants and leaves them out of salvation. You cannot reach the case of the infant with your plan of salvation."

"What is the conclusion? That no one can be saved unless he first has faith in Christ. And the brother has used the word faith all through this discussion in the sense of belief. Therefore, no one can be saved unless he believes in the Lord Jesus Christ."

Cayce then says of Penick's response to these arguments in their debate: "Did Elder Penick ever make any reply to these arguments? NOT ONE WORD." 

From the above we want to focus on several points. First, Cayce is denying that faith in Christ is a necessity for being saved. Second, Cayce seems to deny the definition of faith, that it involves "belief." Third, Cayce says that since infants cannot believe therefore faith is not necessary for anyone's salvation. Fourth, Cayce denies that one must hear the gospel to have faith or to be eternally saved.

In an article titled "Takes Exception" for May 14, 1912, Cayce wrote the following in "The Primitive Baptist":  

"Friend Nelson labors rather hard to prove that one must hear and believe in order to be saved eternally, but makes no effort at all to prove our contention untrue -- that if the heathen are sent to hell for not believing the gospel when they have never heard it, and they have not heard it because of the failure of those who have the gospel, then the wrong party is sent to hell. Perhaps the gentleman can tell us upon what principle of justice God will send the heathen to hell for not believing the gospel when they never had the opportunity of believing it. And perhaps the gentleman can tell us upon what principle of justice God will damn the heathen on this account, and at the same time save the man who has the gospel, believes the heathen are going to hell without it, and has the means to send it to them; but instead of using his means that way, spends the money going on a pleasure trip!" 

Cayce thinks that God's making salvation contingent upon a person hearing the Gospel or word of God is unjust if he does not make that Gospel available to every person. Ironically, this is also what many Arminians say when pressed on the question of whether God is just to send to Hell the heathen who never had a chance to be saved because they had not the gospel. Further, Cayce is wrong to say that God damns the ignorant heathen to Hell for their failing to believe the gospel they know nothing about, for in their case he does not condemn them for this reason, but because they are sinners and guilty before God. He also is upholding the view of his father and other Hardshells of his day that says there are no conditions for being eternally saved, echoing the Two Seed view that says nothing a person does in life determines whether he goes to heaven or hell.

Cayce wrote further:

"We have been trying to get some of their strong preachers and debaters to explain this. They have all failed, up to the present time, to make any attempt to do so. But perhaps the above gentleman can come to the relief of his brethren now and remove the difficulty for them." 

Though Cayce is not alive now, I will explain this to those "Primitive Baptists" today who follow Cayce's logic. In what follows will be the way I would have argued in rebuttal to all Cayce stated in the above citaions. 

Observation Number One

1. Can we just stick with what the Bible says and not make doctrine based upon our own carnal reasonings or private interpretations? Cayce gives no scripture that says faith is not essential for salvation. He relies on logical reasonings and human understanding, upon deductions, and yet we are told to "lean not upon your own understanding." (Prov. 3: 5) The Bible plainly says that the "unbelieving" shall "have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death" (Rev. 21: 8); And, "If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha." (I Cor. 16: 22 kjv)

Observation Number Two

Cayce himself, like others in his day, taught that all the elect would hear the gospel preached directly by Jesus and be regenerated thereby. Let me give the proof for this statement from some of the leading "Primitive Baptist" apologists of his day. 

Elder Sylvester Hassell (1842-1928)

Hassell was a leader of the Hardshells in Cayce's day, editing the "Gospel Messenger" periodical, and he wrote the following in answer to the question - "Will any persons be saved unless the gospel is preached to them?" (emphasis mine)

"While it is true that the ministry is to go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature, as the Spirit of God may direct them, and as the providence of God may open the way to them, and it is the duty of other members to help them on their way after a godly sort, and those to whom they minister in spiritual things should minister to them in carnal things, as the Scripture teach, it is at the same time true that all the elect and redeemed people of God, both infants and adults, will be saved. (Psalm 33:12; Isa. 35:10; 45:17; 53:11; Jer. 31-34; Matt. 1:21; 11:25-27; 16:16,17; John 5:25; 6:37-40; 10:27-30; 17:1-3, 24; Rom. 8:28-39; I Cor. 1:26-31; 12:3; Eph. 1:1-14; I Pet. 1-5; Rev. 5:9,10). 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)." (Questions and Answers-Part 11)

Hassell affirms that all the Lord's people will have the gospel preached to them by Jesus and by the Spirit. 

Elder P. T. Oliphant (1848 - 1931)

Elder P. T. Oliphant, who also lived in the time of Cayce and Hassell, was a medical doctor and wrote the following under the title "Jesus Preaches To Souls Immediately By His Prophetic Office And Spirit" as quoted by David Pyles at his web page (here), 

"He does His own preaching to our souls, and He applies there our preaching...“The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because He hath anointed me preach the Gospel to the poor; He hath sent me to heal the broken-hearted; to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind; to set at liberty them that are bruised; to preach the acceptable year of the Lord.” (Luke 4:18,19). Jesus is both preacher and physician jointly in office. Anointed and sent of the Lord God to preach and heal souls, of His prophetic office and power.

One says, Jesus is the great Preacher, and by His omnipotent Spirit, He preaches His Gospel savingly to His people. (Isa. 61:1 and Heb. 2:11,12 and Ps. 100:3). He preaches to souls internally when saving them. Then He makes His Gospel come to them not in words only, but in power, and in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance...In the work of His office of Prophet of God, He teaches, intercedes and enlightens sinners with new life and wisdom of His Spirit. So He teaches them to know the Lord; opens their hearts like Lydia’s of old, so as to understand the Gospel and spiritual things. “Thy children shall all be taught of God.” “And they shall all know Me from the least to the greatest,” as teaching God effects by His Supreme Prophet, Jesus. Such teaching is not done by any other man. (125)

“He that believeth on the Son hath the witness in himself.” (Jno. 5:10). Hath the Prophet’s Spirit in His own heart to cause His belief. He does not and cannot believe without the witness in His own soul. “The Spirit itself (of our Prophet) beareth witness with our Spirit that we are the children of God.” (Rom. 8:16). This informs us that our heavenly Prophet assures and teaches us to know we are His sons, by His Spirit in our spirits. “Christ was put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit, by which He went and preached to the spirits in prison when once the long suffering of God waited in the days of Noah.” (Peter). He preached to spirits or souls. His Spirit in Noah preached 120 years as He does now both ways yet. Sinners were “captives” then of sin, satan and law, as sinners are now. By His Spirit He preached then to souls as He does now. He preaches to them “Deliverance, recovery of sight, and their year of Jubilee.”

Oliphant wrote more on this point but the above is sufficient to show that he agreed with what Hassell stated and in fact he seems to allude to what Hassell said (or vice versa) when he said "One says, Jesus is the great Preacher, and by His omnipotent Spirit, He preaches His Gospel savingly to His people." I suppose that the "one" he alludes to is Hassell. 

Elder C.H. Cayce (1871-1945)

"So, then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God."--Verse 17.

"The word here is the speech of God. God speaks to the sinner who is dead in sins, and by the power of that speech the sinner is made alive in Christ, made alive from the dead..." (Cayce's Editorials, Volume 5, pages 123, 124)

In another editorial on 1 Peter 3:18-21 for October 23, 1906, Cayce wrote:

"By the same Spirit by which His body was quickened He went and preached unto the spirits in prison. This shows very clearly that there is a work upon spirit which is performed by the direct work of the Spirit. “And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh. For through Him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.” - (Ephesians 2:17-18). 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. Through the work of Jesus, His offering, both Jews and Gentiles have access to the Father by one Spirit in the work of regeneration. The Holy Spirit makes the application of the blood of Christ in the work of regeneration."

If I were Penick I would --

use these citations against Cayce. Cayce says one does not have to hear the gospel to be saved or to have saving faith, but then contradicts that by saying that Christ preaches the gospel himself in his work of regenerating his elect. Further, if what Cayce, Hassell, and Oliphant said is true, then the gospel is preached to the dying infant, for he has said that Jesus preaches the gospel and word of God in every case of regeneration. It seems that what Cayce is fighting is the view that Jesus or the Spirit is able to do this preaching through preachers like Paul. Yet, in the citation above from Oliphant, Oliphant says that Jesus "preached to spirits or souls" and "His Spirit in Noah preached 120 years as He does now both ways yet." Further, in the text Cayce cited from Ephesians 2: 17-18 where Paul says that Christ "came and preached peace to you who were afar off," Cayce thinks that Paul meant that Jesus personally came and preached the gospel to the Gentiles in Ephesus and by that preaching regenerated them, and yet it is clear that Jesus came and preached through the preachers he sent, as Oliphant stated. 

Cayce called into question the justice of God, as do some Arminians, in his not making it possible for every person to hear the gospel. But, what about his own problem in this regard? Since he says that Jesus preaches the gospel to every heathen he intends to regenerate, then why does he not say that God is unjust in not preaching the gospel to everyone? 

Further, Cayce is arguing against the proposition that men must hear the gospel and believe it in order to be eternally saved and yet he believes that they must hear it to be saved! Also, his argument about how the gospel cannot be a means of salvation because infants cannot hear and believe, contradicts his own view! Is God not able to make the infant hear and believe, I would ask Cayce. Did he not make John the Baptist hear the good news of the conception of the Messiah, while in his mother's womb, and leap for joy? In the citation above from Hassell, he in fact mentions "both infants and adults" as being saved by the personal preaching of Jesus.

Another point I would have made against what Cayce was arguing about how sinners are saved, and about the case of the heathen who die without hearing the gospel, is to show that Cayce goes against the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith which he and his brethren endorsed in the Fulton Convention of Primitive Baptists in the year 1900 and against what men such as John Gill believed, a man who they uphold as believing as they do. Cayce was one of the fifty one elders who attended that convention.

Here is what the London and Philadelphia Confessions say about the state of the heathen.

Chapter 20: Of the Gospel, and of the Extent of the Grace Thereof 1._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; in this promise the gospel, as to the substance of it, was revealed, and [is] therein effectual for the conversion and salvation of sinners. ( Genesis 3:15; Revelation 13:8 )

2. _This promise of Christ, and salvation by him, is revealed only by the Word of God; 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; 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. ( Romans 1:17; Romans 10:14,15,17; Proverbs 29:18; Isaiah 25:7; Isaiah 60:2, 3 )

3. _The revelation of the gospel unto sinners, made in divers times and by sundry parts, with the addition of promises and precepts for the obedience required therein, as to the nations and persons to whom it is granted, is merely of the sovereign will and good pleasure of God; not being annexed by virtue of any promise to the due improvement of men's natural abilities, by virtue of common light received without it, which none ever did make, or can do so; and therefore in all ages, the preaching of the gospel has been granted unto persons and nations, as to the extent or straitening of it, in great variety, according to the counsel of the will of God. ( Psalms 147:20; Acts 16:7; Romans 1:18-32 )

4. _Although the gospel be the only outward means of revealing Christ and saving grace, and is, as such, abundantly sufficient thereunto; yet that men who are dead in trespasses may be born again, quickened or regenerated, there is moreover necessary an effectual insuperable work of the Holy Spirit upon the whole soul, for the producing in them a new spiritual life; without which no other means will effect their conversion unto God. ( Psalms 110:3; 1 Corinthians 2:14; Ephesians 1:19, 20; John 6:44; 2 Corinthians 4:4, 6 )

Dr. John Gill in his writing titled "Of the State and Case of the Heathens" (Read here) wrote:

"We also know of no such covenant made with, nor of any tender of it, nor of any publication of it to the heathen world; but rather, that all that are destitute of revelation, are strangers to the covenant of promise (Eph. 2:12), which passage likewise acquaints us, that such as are without the knowledge of Christ, and God in Christ, are without hope; and that such who live and die so, have no good ground of hope of eternal life and salvation; which plainly points out the state and case of the heathens, and leaves us at no great uncertainty about it..."

"...and from the words themselves, that believing is absolutely requisite to coming to him; not only that he exists, but that he is, in Christ, a God gracious and merciful, and a rewarder, in a way of grace, of all them that diligently seek him in his Son, in whom only he is to be so found. And since heathens are without any knowledge of him or faith in him, as such; for, how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? (Rom. 10:14). It follows, that this passage of Scripture proves the reverse of what it is brought for; namely, that it is impossible for heathens to come to God aright, to serve him acceptably; or to do what is well-pleasing to him, because they are destitute of faith; and whatsoever, is not of faith, is sin (Rom. 14:23)."

So, this is how Penick should have responded. 

I have written on the question of whether God was just and fair in his not making the gospel or word of God available to every person in this post (here). In it I wrote:

If God gives faith, or any other gift, to a person, then obviously he chose to give it before he actually gave it. If a person has faith, God purposed to give it to that person before that person ever existed, yea, even before the foundation of the world. Did God first choose Jacob as a person and then, based upon that choice, chose to give him all the means of salvation? As we have before stated, many millions of people since the beginning of the world have never had the means of salvation, which is the gospel or word of God. Paul said that people cannot believe in the one true God or in Jesus unless they first hear about God and his Son Jesus, concluding that "faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God." (Rom. 10: 17) Anyone therefore who has been chosen to salvation by God before he or she was born would certainly be, by God's will and working, brought to hear the gospel and given all the necessary means of salvation. And, it is certain that God has the power to make it possible for everyone to hear the gospel. He could appear to everyone and personally teach it. He could send an angel to every human being. In fact this is what will actually happen in the time of the world's last generation before the second coming of Christ. John writes:

"Then I saw another angel flying in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach to those who dwell on the earth—to every nation, tribe, tongue, and people." (Rev. 14: 6 nkjv)

So, if God wanted to insure that every person heard the word and gospel of God and had opportunity thereby to become God's chosen and to be saved, he surely could make it happen. But, he has not made it happen and so many people have died without ever knowing about the one true God or in Jesus Christ.

If Cayce, Hassell, and Oliphant are correct, then no Hardshell today should say that hearing and believing the gospel are not necessary for being regenerated or eternally saved. What they need to do, however, is to see that Christ does preach through his ministers. In fact, though Cayce says that the hearing of the gospel in Romans chapter ten was the direct preaching of Jesus himself, what he called "the speech of God," Paul had a different view for he identifies the ones doing the preaching as "preachers" in the plural. Wrote Paul: 

"8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach; 9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. 10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. 11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. 12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. 13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. 14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? 15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things! 16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report? 17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God."

The preaching that saves is the preaching done by the preachers God sends. What they preach is the word and gospel of God. 

Cayce also argued, from the passage in Ezekiel about God's judgment on those watchmen who fail to warn the wicked to save them, that Penick and his brethren who do not support missionaries as much as they should, ought to be the ones who God sends to hell. Well, they certainly did more than Cayce and the Hardshells! So, maybe, instead of criticizing those who were supporting preachers in their missionary journeys he should have looked at his own case and that of his Hardshell brothers. 

Further, if Jesus is now appearing in person to the elect in heathen lands and preaching to them the gospel, then there is no need for any preacher to go to the heathen. After all, who can preach better than Jesus? Also, if Christ preaches the gospel himself in the work of regeneration, why does he not continue to preach to the elect after regeneration?

Cayce also wrote:

"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 though preaching. If He does, then that involves the idea that their eternal salvation is conditional."   (Cayce's Editoria Writings, Volume 6, page 176)

Sylvester Hassell, however, wrote a contrary view:

"All the unconditional spiritual promises of God, from the beginning to the end of the Scriptures, engage to work in His people all the conditions of the conditional promises, and thus ensure their salvation (Gen. iii. 15; xii. 3; 2 Sam. xxiii. 5; Psalm cx. 3; Isa. xxvii. 13; xxxv. 10; xlii. 16; xlv. 17; liii.-lv.; Jer. xxxi. 33-37; Ezek. xxxvi. 25-27; xxxvii. 1-14; Zech. xii. 10-14; xiii. 1, 7-9; Matt. i. 21; xxv. 34; John vi. 37-40; x. 15, 27-30; xvii. 2, 3, 24; Acts xiii. 48; Rom. v. 19-21; viii. 28-39; Eph. i.-iii.; 2 Thess. 13, 14; 2 Tim. i. 9, 10; 1 Pet. i., ii.; 1 John v. 11, 12; Rev. i. 5, 6; xxi. 27)."  ("Interpreting the Scriptures-The Error of Conditionalism" by Sylvester Hassell, The Gospel Messenger—September, 1894 - See here)

How could Cayce deny that salvation is conditional upon hearing and believing the gospel when he contends for the same truth when he says that Jesus preaches the gospel to all the elect as a means in their regeneration?