I want to begin this chapter with some things said by Dr. W. P. Throgmorton in his debate with Elder Lemuel Potter (1887) as it relates to Two Seedism. I wrote a series reviewing this famous debate and in one of them I made the following citations. (See
here) I then made some observations.
In Dr. Throgmorton's first negative speech, he said:"Many Hardshells hold that it is the dust man, the man formed of clay, that is the subject of the new birth; and, hence, that the wicked have no immortal souls. Many dispute this, and hold to the orthodox view; but they do not make it a bar to denominational fellowship."
I then made this observation:
"In this statement Throgmorton is affirming that as late as 1887 that the Hardshells still had many in their sect that held to "Two Seedism" ideas. He also affirms that the Hardshells still as yet did not make such Two Seed doctrines a "bar to fellowship." His point is to show the utter inconsistency of the Hardshells not fellowshipping Missionary Baptists, for supporting missionaries and preachers, and for teaching children in Sunday Schools, etc. They can fellowship the awful doctrines of the Two Seeders but not the efforts of Mission Baptists to spread the gospel and knowledge of God!"
I will add, however, that some churches did declare non-fellowship for Two Seedism, yet many still had not by 1887, because at that time there were still many churches believing it.
Throgmorton continued:"There are many among them who hold that God's children are as eternal as himself; and that the devil is self-existent, and his children as old as himself; that not a single one of Satan's children was represented in Adam when he fell, but were added afterward; that two men may be the children of the same parents and yet one be a child of the devil from eternity and the other be a child of God from eternity. Others do not believe these things. Neither view, however, seems to be a bar to denominational fellowship."
I then made this observation:
As I have shown in other postings, even Elder Sylvester Hassell acknowledged the presence of Two Seed doctrines among the Hardshells late into the 19th century. See "Hassell On PB Two Seed Ancestry" (here) and "Rebuke the ultraist" (here) and "The Ultraist Response?" (here).Throgmorton continued:"Hardshells have many among them who deny the resurrection of the body. These are “two-seeders." Others hold to the orthodox view. Neither view, however, is a bar to denominational fellowship.
I have made all these preliminary statements because I think they may help us to a better understanding of the question; and because they show, as I think, the utter inconsistency of our Hardshell brethren in taking the position they do relative to fellowshipping missions, Sunday-schools, etc." I then made this observation:
Yes, the "utter inconsistency of our Hardshell brethren"! They declare against those Baptists who work to teach the gospel to every creature but fellowship all kinds of heretical doctrines.
Throgmorton continued:
"I hold that the Missionary Baptists, as I have described them, are the Primitive Baptists, and that the Hardshells are not. In support of my position I shall argue, first, from Scripture; secondly, from history."
In the last chapter we gave Elder Potter's arguments against those Two Seeders who denied the biblical teaching of the resurrection of the bodies of either the just or unjust. Before we end looking at that issue, I will cite more from Elder John M. Watson on that point. First, however, let me cite the following from Elder Sylvester Hassell:
In "Interpreting The Scriptures - Eschatology" Hassell (1842-1928), in "The Gospel Messenger," wrote the following for October, 1894:
"Consistent Parkerites, or Two-Seed Baptists, deny the Second Personal Coming of Christ to the world, the Resurrection of the Body, the General Judgment, and the Conflagration and Renovation of the world; and some Primitive Baptists (I think less than a thousand) seem to follow them in one or more of these errors, and-- what is even far more serious--two or three of our writers seem to deny all Bible proof of any Hell after death, and almost all Bible proof of any Heaven after death, applying such Scriptures as Psalms ix. 17, Mal. iv. 1, Matt. x. 28, xxv. 41, 46, Mark ix. 42-48, Luke xvi. 22, 23, Rev. xiv. 10, 11, and John xiv 2, 3, xvii, 24, 2 Cor. v. 1, Rev. xxi., xxii., to the experience of the people of God in the present life, and either flatly denying or ignoring their reference to any thing beyond the grave!!!"
Notice that Hassell does not say that all Parkerites or Two Seed Baptists denied a physical resurrection, but said, like Potter, that all "consistent" Two Seeders denied it. Why? Because it is the logical outcome of their ideology. Further, many sub-groups within the Two Seed sect denied one, some, or all of the various doctrines listed by Hassell above. What he leaves out, however, are beliefs that he himself believed along with many others at the end of the 19th century. He leaves out the Two Seed belief that says that God does not use the means of his written or preached word, or the Gospel, in the eternal salvation of the elect. In previous chapters I have given citations from several "Primitive Baptists" who opposed Two Seedism and who testified that this denial of means originated with the Two Seeders who followed Daniel Parker, such as Wilson Thompson, Gilbert Beebe, et al. Those opposers of Two Seedism who said this were Elder John M. Watson and Elder Hosea Preslar. In Preslar's book "Thoughts on Divine Providence" he said the following about the beliefs of Two Seeders:
"And as to their views of the use and design of the gospel being for nothing but for the edification of the Church, and believers being the only subjects of gospel address, I believe it not." (Page 186)
He goes further (same page), saying:
"But some object to these ideas and say all this is the work of the spirit of God; and the gospel has nothing to do with it. Ah, a gospel without a spirit! Well, God save me from a gospel that has not His spirit. God says His word is quick and powerful, and He says by Peter, This is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you; I Peter 1: 25. And as to the subjects of Gospel address, it is to every creature the disciples were commanded to preach the gospel; and Paul said, Whom we preach warning every man, and teaching every man, in all wisdom, etc.; Col. 1: 28. So we see that their idea on that point is false as the balance, and we will now give their last, but not least error a passing notice."
He also wrote further, giving a list of Two Seed errors, and the sixth states that the denial of means is one of them. It reads as follows:
"Some call them the "Sadducees," some "Non-Resurrectionists," but mostly the "Two-Seeders." Now if there is any system to their doctrine, or if they preach any system, I understand it to be about as follows:
Sixthly: That the gospel never was designed for anything else, but for the edification of the body of Christ, and that believers are the only subjects of gospel address."
In another posting titled
"Hardshells Declare Non Fellowship Against Gospel Preaching" (
here) I cited these words from
"Cayce's Editorials" for 1905.
"The Forked Deer Association met with the church at Flowers Chapel, near Rutherford, Gibson county, Tenn., on Friday before the second Sunday in September, 1905. Elder John Grist, of Friendship, Tenn., was moderator, and L. J. Law, Trenton, Tenn., was clerk. The following appears in their minutes as the third and fourth items of their business on Saturday:
By motion and second, agreed that we adopt as the sense of this association the action of five of our churches as expressed in their letters, that we declare non-fellowship for the idea of a federal form of government, that the commission was given to the church and not to the apostles or ministry, that it is the duty of the ministry to admonish the alien sinner to repent and believe the gospel, and against affiliation in and with secret institutions."
In chapter thirty five I cited these words from historian O. Max Lee and his book "DANIEL PARKER'S DOCTRINE OF THE TWO SEEDS" where he wrote:
"In seeking to refute the two-seed views, Watson understood the doctrine to include (1) the denial of the resurrection of the bodies of the just and unjust, (2) the absence of souls in the non-elect, and (3) the rejection by God of the use of any kind of means to bring about salvation. Parker had explicitly taught the opposite in his two-seed views." (pg. 63)
You can find these citations in these articles that I wrote years ago (
here,
here). I have numerous citations in my
"Old Baptist Test" blog that show that Watson did affirm that the no means view was a Two Seed
"innovation" and
"ultraism."
Recall that I cited from Lawrence Edward's history of Tennessee Baptists who wrote this about the Two Seed division in the Powell Valley Association:
"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."
Watson wrote the following in his book "The Old Baptist Test" about the beliefs of the Two Seeders:
"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." (pages 399-400)
"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." (pages 327-28)
It is a fact that many of the Two Seed errors listed by Hassell can still be found among today's "Primitive Baptists" in spite of the fact that they will want to deny it.
In the above citation of Hassell he mentions how some "Primitive Baptists," even at the end of the 19th century, denied eternal punishment. That is why we have a faction today known as "Primitive Baptist Universalist." He says that Two Seeders are guilty of "applying such Scriptures as Psalms ix. 17, Mal. iv. 1, Matt. x. 28, xxv. 41, 46, Mark ix. 42-48, Luke xvi. 22, 23, Rev. xiv. 10, 11, and John xiv 2, 3, xvii, 24, 2 Cor. v. 1, Rev. xxi., xxii., to the experience of the people of God in the present life." Notice also that he mentions the Two Seed view on Luke 16: 22-23 which deals with the story of the rich man and Lazarus and what happened to each upon their deaths.
Many of today's "Primitive Baptists" want to declare it heresy to believe that Lazarus went to paradise when he died and that the rich man went to Hell (Hades), and so spiritualize the story so as to make it mean something other than what it plainly teaches. I write about this in my writings under the label "The Hardshell Baptist Cult." Yet, Hassell did not agree with this Two Seed handling of that passage. On the other hand, Elder C.H. Cayce, who also was a leader of the Hardshells at the time of Hassell, and an opponent of Two Seedism, nevertheless gave a Two Seed interpretation of that story. Cayce wrote the following under the editorial title "RICH MAN AND LAZARUS" for June 8, 1909 in his paper "The Primitive Baptist" (not to be confused with the older paper called by the same name and published out of North Carolina):
"The Scripture referred to is the parable of the rich man and Lazarus. We think the parable primarily refers to the Jews and Gentiles. The rich man represented the Jews and Lazarus represented the Gentiles. The Jews were scattered, and are yet in a scattered condition. They are now being tormented. They had their good things under the law dispensation. But now, under the gospel dispensation, the Jews are being tormented and the Gentiles are enjoying the privileges of the gospel."
According to Hassell, Cayce was giving the Two Seed view of that passage. It is spiritualizing or allegorizing the literal truth of that story, which Cayce often did with other passages, and which became a common practice by many in Cayce's day. It is also the kind of interpretation that Hassell warned about.
Elder Wiley Sammons in "Identity Of The True Baptist Church" Vol. Two (Cayce Publishing Company, 1979) wrote an article titled "The Rich Man And Lazarus" (beginning on page 147) and wrote (emphasis mine):
"In the 22nd verse of this chapter, it speaks of both the rich man and Lazarus dying. This does not have reference to the physical death because Lazarus died and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom (meaning the New Testament church kingdom) and this is why he was not buried...Therefore the rich man lifted up his eyes being in torments. I don't think that this is teaching eternal hell, but it means confusion, darkness, and a terrible state of suffering called hell. Later in this article, I will give Bible proof as to why I understand the word hell as it is used here does not mean eternal hell...The rich man lifted up his eyes in hell, being in torments, and this depicting the Jews today as a nation...The above lesson about the rich man and Lazarus does not teach eternal damnation though the word hell is used, nor does it have reference to eternal heaven as the theologians and others would have you to believe. Though the Bible in some places refers to eternal damnation or eternal hell: also there is an eternal heaven, which the Bible teaches."
This view Hassell identifies as a Two Seed view. He also did not agree with it, believing that it showed that those who took that view were guilty of violating basic rules of Bible interpretation. Elder Hassell wrote about this in 1893 in an article titled
"The Literal Interpretation of Scripture" in the
"Gospel Messenger" for February 1893 (which I wrote about in this post
here), citing with approval the words of Luther, Calvin, Melanchthon:
Luther says: "Mystical and allegorical interpretations are trifling and foolish fables, with which the Scriptures are rent into so many and diverse senses that silly, poor consciences can receive no certain doctrine of anything. When I was a monk, I allegorized everything; but now I have given up allegorizing, and my first and best art is to explain the Scriptures according to the simple sense; for it is in the literal sense that power, doctrine, and art reside." Calvin says: "The true meaning of Scripture is the natural and obvious meaning, by which we ought resolutely to abide; the licentious system of the allegorists is undoubtedly a contrivance of Satan to undermine the authority of Scripture, and to take away from the reading of it the true advantage." And Melanchthon says: "The one and certain and simple sense of the Scriptures is everywhere to be sought according to the precepts of grammar, logic, and rhetoric."
You have to be such a spiritualizer to interpret passages dealing with the resurrection of the body as did many of the Two Seeders, for those passages are clearly literal. He also said:
"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...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...and which are now assailing us."
He wrote further:
"...in Lu 16:19-31, wherein He tells of the Rich Man and Lazarus...In fact, neither of these passages is a parable, nor anywhere called so in Scripture, though misnamed such by a few uninspired men. The passage in Luke is a literal history,"
Hassell, under "Abuses and Extremes" (The Gospel Messenger--May 1893) wrote:
"I now enter upon the consideration of the ruinous abuses in what falsely professes to be the spiritual interpretation of the Scriptures, as exhibited, for our solemn warning, in the Scriptures themselves, and also in subsequent church history. The present sad condition of the church, which has been brought about by these unwise, unscriptural, and destructive extremes, emphasizes the great importance of this subject, and has been the leading cause of the preparation of this series of articles."
In the next chapter we will conclude our look at the non-resurrection doctrine of many Two Seed Primitive Baptists.
