Elder Samuel Trott
(1783 - 1866)
In John 1st, as already noticed, we have the three natures, "The Word was God;" again, "In Him was life;" again, "The Word was made flesh," verse 1,4 & 14. In Isa. 9:6, we have A child born and a Son given, are not these distinct?
They hold that there are three persons in the Godhead. I deny that, but say that the Son is a proper and distinct person from the Father and the Holy Ghost, in relation to His sonship; but that He does not exist in His sonship separate from His Godhead, any more than He does as man, so that in His distinct personality He is God, Son of God, and Man. They hold that His sonship relates to His Godhead, so that He is no otherwise God than as He is begotten of the Father; I deny this as contradictory to His being equal with the Father, and to His being the independent and self-existent God; and in distinction, I hold that His sonship consists in His being begotten of the Father as the Head of His church and life of His people and that they thus, in their spiritual life, were begotten in Him and proceed from Him, and that He is the "first born among many brethren" Rom.8:29."
Trott is also said to have been the person who wrote the "Black Rock Address" in 1832 wherein the Hyper Calvinists declared non-fellowship with all other Baptists who supported mission societies, theological education, etc.
In my recent chapter on the creation and fall of the angels, I showed how many of the first Two Seed Baptists did not believe in the creation and fall of the angels, such as Daniel Parker and Gilbert Beebe. (See here) Not all those who believed in some of the foundational beliefs of the Two Seeders agreed with Parker and Beebe on this issue. Just like in the anti-mission movement as a whole, not every element within Two Seedism was accepted by all Two Seeders. Many, for instance, did not believe in an eternal Devil, but did believe in the preexistence of the human soul of Christ and the souls of the elect. In that chapter on angels I showed that Elder John Clark, one of the founders of the "Primitive Baptist Church," took issue with Beebe on his views and seemed, according to Beebe, to believe the angels that fell were cast out of the third heaven. Samuel Trott also did not agree with Beebe and seems, from the following citations, to have agreed with Clark and with my departed father in some statements he made, both of whom I referred to in that chapter. Trott writes the following under the title "The Being And Nature Of Angels" (See here). Many of Trott's and Beebe's writings are available on the Internet, although very little of Elder Clark's writings have yet appeared on the Internet. Hopefully one day his writings in "Zion's Advocate," the paper he began in 1854. I have cited from some of the issues of that periodical in the past. I spent a whole day at Duke University looking at some old volumes of that periodical. Trott wrote (emphasis mine):
"I will now come to the subject proposed. My first
position in describing the being, &c., of angels, is, That in the
Scriptures, the term angels, when not used in the figurative
language of prophecy or parable, is descriptive of a distinct
order of Beings. This I prove from Heb.2:16. “For verily he
took not on him the nature of angels, but he took on him the
seed of Abraham.” Not to insist on the term nature in the
least, as it is in italics, yet the expression that he took on him
angels, in distinction from the seed of Abraham; that is, the
promised seed, must exclude everything human to which the
term has been applied, and we must therefore understand the
Apostle as meaning a distinct order of beings distinguished by
the term angels; and the term angel must therefore mean
such a distinct order of beings in its proper Scriptural import.
For he certainly took on him human nature, he took on him the
office of Messenger, of Servant, of Apostle, Prophet and Priest;
the apostle could not therefore mean human nature, nor any
of these offices by the term angels, neither anything connected
with the seed of Abraham, either natural or spiritual, because
according to the flesh he was a Jew." (pg. 203)
So, Trott disagrees with Beebe when the latter says that angels are human beings.
Trott also wrote:
"My second position is, that the angels are spirits and so
made of God, therefore that they are the creatures of God.
This I prove from Ps.104:4 & Heb.1:7. “Who maketh his angels
spirits and his ministers a flame of fire.” In reference to this
passage as found in the 104th Psalm, could the order be
changed without doing violence to the established usage of the
Hebrew, so as to read, Who maketh spirits his angels, &c., or
as some would construe the passage, winds his angels, then
there might be a propriety in supposing the term angel to
mean merely a messenger. But not only does the usage of the
Hebrew require us to preserve the order in which it stands, but
the quotation of the passages, Heb.1:7, in an argument
showing the superiority of Christ as a Son, requires us to
understand by angels here the highest order of created beings." (pg. 203)
Trott also wrote:
"But if God maketh his angels spirits; angels
must be his workmanship, and therefore his creatures. What
then becomes of the challenge of our western brother to me;
to prove that angels are created beings?" (pg. 204)
By "our western brother" might be one who is a Two Seeder and wanted to deny that angels are created beings. Isn't that a strange phenomenon? I suspect that this brother took this view because he believes like Beebe that angels are human beings, and also believes in the doctrine of "eternal children," and "eternal vital union," and so believes that the elect have always existed in God and the Son of God, and that this is what he means by his belief that angels, being the elect, were never created.
Trott also wrote:
"My third position is, That angels are heavenly, not
earthly beings. This I show from such texts as the following, in
reference to the holy angels. “For I say unto you, that in
heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father
which is in heaven.” Matt.13:10. “But of that day and hour
knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven.” Matt.24:26.
“But are as the angels, which are in heaven.” Mark 12:25." (pg. 204)
Trott also wrote:
"But, secondly, this position is proved from I Tim. 5:21, “I charge thee before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ,
and the elect angels.” Here a regular gradation is observed in
the order of invisible beings, in whose sight Timothy is thus
reminded, that he acts, whether seen of men or not. By the
Apostle here, the purpose of God, by which these angels are
set apart to holiness, is showed to be according to election by
which they were chosen whilst others were passed by. But in
reference to this text, we are met by an assertion, and a bare
assertion it is, not having a particle of Scripture proof to
sustain it, that the elect angels here mean men; namely, the
presbytery who ordained Timothy...But further we have nothing in the New
Testament sanctioning the idea of electing particular elders to
officiate in ordaining any individual." (pg. 205)
This is a direct denial of the position of Beebe who believe the "elect angels" were human elders in the church.
Trott also wrote:
"My fifth and last position is, That some of those spiritual
beings designated by the term angels, kept not their standing
in uprightness, but sinned. My proof for this is found in II
Pet.2:4, “For God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast
them down to hell and delivered them into chains of
darkness,” &c., and in Jude 6, “And the angels, which kept not
their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath
reserved in everlasting chains, under darkness, unto the
judgment of the great day.” Attempts have been made, in
order to get rid of the proof these texts afford of a future
judgment, to make us believe, that these angels were Jews, or
national Israelites. But where is the proof for such an idea?" (pg. 206)
Trott also wrote:
"These
Apostles speak of angels, and what right have we to say they
do not mean what they say; especially when, by representing
them to mean something else, we turn the beauty and
harmony of the order observed by Peter, into confusion? We
are therefore warranted by these texts, taken in connection with I Tim.5:21, in the belief that whilst some angels were
elected to holiness, others being passed by and left to
themselves, sinned, and in sinning left their first estate, or that
uprightness in which they were created. We are not directly
informed that these sinning angels are the devils spoken of in
Scriptures; but we know that like the devils they are wicked
spirits, and are reserved in chains of everlasting darkness, or
in everlasting opposition to God who dwells in light; and like
the devils have hell for their habitation. What particular
occasion occurred to lead them to sin, we are not informed,
unless it be found in Heb.1:6. But we know, that they
transgressed the law, under which they were placed; for “sin is
the transgression of the law,” and they sinned. Hence they
cannot have been created with a wicked nature, because no
law would require them to act contrary to their nature; neither
could they have been self-existent, for then they would have been without law, and where no law is, there is no
transgression." (pg. 206-207)
As a side comment, I want to say something about these words of Trott: "We are not directly informed that these sinning angels are the devils spoken of in Scriptures; but we know that like the devils they are wicked spirits." I hold to the view that the fallen angels are not the same order of beings called "demons" (often translated as "devils" in the KJV). See my posting on this (here). In spite of Trott's errors on other things, I think he is right to question the traditional view that says the fallen angels are the same as the demons.
Trott also wrote:
"The five positions, which I have laid down relative to the
being, &c., of angels, are showed to be supported by the
Scriptures I have quoted, if we will allow them their plain and
natural import, and by others to which I might refer. Why not
then let them stand as revealed truths? And why not be
satisfied with the plain declarations of God’s inspiration? What
is gained by launching out, without compass, into the ocean of
speculation? What by torturing and wresting the Scriptures
from their natural import to establish the belief of no future
judgment? Or that of the Sadducees, that there are neither
angels or spirits? I cannot believe that anything would be
gained, but much lost." (pg. 207)
This is the view of many of the non Two Seed Baptists who were part of the original "Primitive Baptist Church" in the nineteenth century.
Trott also wrote:
"Although no Scripture has been or can be brought to
prove the contrary to these positions, yet certain ideas have
been advanced against the possibility of spiritual beings having
sinned, which in conclusion, I will notice." (pg. 207)
Trott is correct to affirm that those who denied the creation and fall of angels from the highest heaven do not have any scripture to support their view but rely upon their reasonings. He is right to say that the scriptures are very clear on this subject, a fact I showed in that chapter on angels and Two Seedism.
Trott also wrote the following in answer to those who argued that angels cannot fall from heaven because that would mean that redeemed men may likewise fall from heaven:
"The first is, That angels in heaven could not be subject
to temptation and therefore would have nothing to lead them
to sin. Whilst it is admitted that there is no account of their
being tempted; yet the idea that angels could not sin without
being tempted, wants proof both from reason and Scripture.
We are informed that they sinned, they were of course as
before noticed, under a prohibitory law; this is proof positive
that they were liable to depart from the rectitude in which they
were created, else why prohibited by law? And as a law only
commands, without providing the principle of obedience in the
subject, it would not remove their liability to disobey, if left to
their own choice. And whilst God’s having created them,
involved them in an obligation to obey him, it involved on him
no obligation to constrain them to obey. So that this argument evidently has nothing to stand on. A second idea which has been presented as an
argument, is, That the angels existed in heaven, they must
have been in the presence of God, where sin could not enter.
In one sense I admit, that neither sin, nor sinful creatures can
be in the presence of God. That is, as such can never receive
his smiles or approbation. In another sense they can be, and
are in his presence, for God fills immensity with his presence.
“Whither shall I go from thy Spirit; or whither shall I flee from
thy presence? If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there, if I
make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there, &c.” Psal. 139:7-
12. And we are told, “There was a day when the sons of God
came to present themselves before the Lord and Satan came
also among them;” in another text it is added, “To present
himself before the Lord.” Job 1:6, 2:1. If those who use the
above argument mean thereby to prove that angels could not
sin with God’s approbation, or that they would not be
beholding the face of Christ’s Father which is in heaven, as do
the holy angels, they are attempting to prove what will not be
denied. On the contrary Peter as quoted shows that God
disapprobated the sin of the angels. But if they mean to deny,
that the angels would have sinned, where God was present in
his being, and under his notice, they cannot sustain their
position; it would go to deny the possibility of Adam’s having
sinned, as well as that of the angels." (pg. 208)
has evidently nothing to stand upon." (pg. 207-208)
Trott here completely overthrows the reasoning of many of the Two Seeders.
Trott also wrote:
"A third idea advanced, is, That if angels could sin and
fall from heaven, saints might do so too when they get there.
If those angels which have been established in holiness by
God’s electing purpose were to fall it might afford some
plausibility to this argument. But even this would not establish
the truth of their position. Nothing short of proof, that Christ is
liable to fall, can prove the liability of the saints falling from
heaven. This argument therefore shrinks away at the first
touch. Nevertheless, as so much stress is laid on the idea of
the angels being in Heaven, in these arguments, we will notice
that idea a little. But no candid person would infer, that the
terms heaven or heavens as found in the Scriptures, always
denote the place of heavenly glory, where Christ in his glorified
body is enthroned at the right hand of the Father. Paul speaks
of a man whom he knew being taken up to the third heavens;
{II Cor.12: 2,} and Solomon says, that the heaven and
heaven of heavens cannot contain God. I Kings 8:27.
According to these texts there are more heavens than one; so
that these angels might have been in heaven, without being where the glorified body of Jesus is. As to Milton’s poetic
phantasma, I have never quoted him as authority, and
therefore no one has a right to charge his visions upon me. In
speaking of the angels which sinned as being in their creation
heavenly beings, I consider myself sustained by the fact that
they were made spirits, and therefore not earthly, not
serpents, nor any other beasts of the field, and as the
Scriptures speak of but two regions or spheres which God
created, the heaven and the earth, they must of course been
heavenly. Thus much I infer without assigning them a place in the third heavens, or heaven of heavens." (pg. 208-209)
Here one wonders why Trott ended his argumentation by not willing to say that he cannot be sure if the angels fell from the third heavens. In saying this he has contradicted all he has previously said, for he has said that the third heaven is the proper habitation of angels. I suspect he says this in order not to be totally rejected by the Two Seeders.
Trott also wrote:
"If the view I have thus given of the being and nature of
angels is sustained by the plainest and most natural
construction of Scripture, it must be the best view we can have
of them. I know of nothing which can be produced from the
Scriptures according to the literal import of them, to forbid the
idea of its being the correct view. And until it be clearly shown,
that the Scriptures require a different view, I would entreat
our brethren not to reject it for speculations."
S.TROTT.
Centreville, Va., Nov. 23, 1842. (pg. 209)
What think ye?
No comments:
Post a Comment