The above text cautions us about being carried about by various kinds of "strange doctrines." Few will deny that Two Seedism is such a doctrine. It is indeed a "doctrine of demons" (I Tim. 4: 1). It is interesting that when true Bible "doctrine" is referred to in scripture, it is in the singular, whereas false doctrine is often in the plural, "doctrines."
In this chapter we will conclude our examination of what Elder Grigg Thompson wrote in 1860-1861 against Two Seedism in his book "The Measuring Rod."
Thompson wrote:
"They also deny that the washing of the saint's feet is an ordinance established by Christ, and that it is the duty of saints to attend to it in obedience to his teaching." (pg. 109)
How true this is I cannot say. I do know that some Two Seeders and those who favored the name "Old School" Baptists did practice feet washing. Also, some who opposed Two Seedism and favored the name of "Primitive Baptist" did not practice feet washing.
Wrote Thompson:
"If it was the purity of the seed, or the particular quality or nature of those chosen, that caused their election, then the election was not of grace, but of works, for the elected procured their own election. On this point Beebeism, or modern Two Seed, Arianism, is as much at fault as Armenianism (sic), for while Beebeism makes election rest upon an actual spiritual, holy nature, possessed by the elect; Armenianism places it upon foreseen virtues, which by their own act they are to possess themselves of: either of these views destroy the doctrine of election by grace, which is an unconditional act of the Divine mind. The elect were sinners of Adam's race, for they were chosen out of the world, from among men, and were ordained unto eternal life, or to be conformed to the image of Jesus. This election was not based upon the actual existence of those elected as taught by Beebeism, but upon the foreknowledge of God." (pgs. 139-140)
In previous chapters we have mentioned how Two Seedism contradicts the idea that God chose to salvation unconditionally, his choice not being based upon any merit or distinguishing quality in the ones chosen. Beebe and the Two Seeders say, however, that God chose the elect because they were "in Christ" from eternity, and that Christ was obligated to save them because of this fact. As we will see in the next few chapters Elder Lemuel Potter in 1880 also attacked Two Seedism's consequences for the doctrine of unconditional election. If Christ was obligated to save the church because she was his wife from eternity, then salvation is not by grace, not unmerited.
Wrote Thompson:
"We have already seen that the church of Christ cannot be of the Beebe, Two Seed, Arian faith, because their articles are at variance with the teachings of Christ and the apostles, and destroy the idea of a visible church, composed of men and women of Adam's family, who have been regenerated and born again. For if their views are correct, the church is a mystical, invisible, spiritual existence, that was created before time, and has no connection with fallen men and women." (pg. 167)
Thompson was a reader of the writings of Dr. J. R. Graves, who was contemporary with him, and seems to accept many of the Landmarker views of Graves, the recognized spokesman for Landmarkism. One of the ideas of many Landmarkers is to deny that the word "church" (Grk. eklesia) denotes a universal church composed of all the elect, affirming that it always refers to local churches or assemblies, or to the visible institution and not to an "invisible" church. Not all "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptists agreed with this view, affirming that the "church" sometimes refers to all the saved, and not only to local assemblies. The former definition has been referred to as the "invisible" church since no one can see the whole assembly of saints (though that will change when all are assembled together at the second coming of Christ and afterward), and as the "universal" church because it is a body that contains all the saved, it being believed that not all the saved became members of a local church. So, in this area Thompson is not correct in saying that a belief in such a universal invisible church "destroys the idea of a visible church." What Beebe and the Two Seeders were wrong about is their view that says the church, or elect, had an actual existence in Christ before the world began, and their saying that the church or spiritual seed had "no connection with fallen men and women."
Thompson wrote:
"The practice of passing non-fellowship resolutions against men without giving them a hearing, is unjust and iniquitous, and will destroy the peace and prosperity of any community of saints. This practice has of late prevailed to a considerable extent among the Bebeeite Baptists. The Hanes' Creek church, in Yellow River Association, passed a resolution declaring nonfellowship for me, and all who were friendly with me, without ever giving me a hearing, or even letting me know that they had aught against me. When I heard of the action of the church, I wrote them a letter, asking for a trial, and offering to come to their own church, and be tried by their own members, if they would give me a fair hearing; but they would not do it, knowing that their conduct would not bear investigation. In fact, this has been the course pursued by the Beebe party in Georgia, from first to last, where they have had a majority. A solitary instance cannot be pointed out, where they have ever given a member a fair trial, and allowed him to defend himself, who has dissented from their views. When Eld. T. P. Dudley, of Ky. , first made his assault upon me, I wrote him a private letter, begging him to meet me, and to submit our differences to our brethren, and to let them decide between us, but he refused; and subsequently, when Beebe made his attack upon me, in the "Primitive Baptist, " I wrote to him twice, begging of him to meet me, and to refer the matter to brethren chosen by us both, and let them judge between us, but he would not. I done the same thing with D. W. Patman, and J. R. Teat, and others of the party, who publicly made attacks upon me, but I never could get one of them to consent to have a fair investigation, and to submit the matter to our brethren...But where the Beebe party have been in the minority, they have refused to stand a trial, but have abruptly withdrawn, and refused to hear the church, or to be tried by them" (pg. 189-191)
The practice of the Beebe or Two Seed party in their mistreatment of Thompson, if true (and I tend to believe it is true), reveals the spirit that was motivating them. But, sadly, as I know from my years of being in the "Primitive Baptist Church" and from studying their history, both sides, Two Seeders and non Two Seeders, were guilty of such things.
I have not spent the time to go through all the issues of the "Primitive Baptist" periodical to find where Beebe "made his attack" upon Thompson. As I have shown in previous chapters, Elder Joshua Lawrence, who was the impetus in the creation of that periodical and wrote many articles for it, was not a Two Seeder and considered Elder Beebe to be unsound and would not recognize him. So, it is surprising that Beebe would write for that paper. Perhaps it was published after the death of Lawrence (1843), and after the departure of Elder Mark Bennett, its first editor, and when Elder Burwell Temple was its editor.
Thompson wrote:
"The Primitive Baptists, of late, have had a Diotrephes among them, who has obtained the exclusion of many brethren where he has had the majority. He has had the control of the press, and the communications of the brethren, Diotrephes like, have been suppressed, so that the brethren have never got to see them. This modern Diotrephes is to be found in the person of Eld. G. Beebe; and I can produce a number of instances where worthy brethren have been slandered, and falsely accused in his paper, and he has refused to let those brethren say one word in self-defence; but one or two cases may suffice." (pg. 198-199)
The "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptists have had many splits, many wars and fights since their beginning, the kind that James wrote about in James chapter four ("whence comes wars and fightings among you"). They have split over so many issues, and every time the in-fighting has been ferocious, vicious, where the combatants were biting and devouring one another as Paul spoke about. (Gal. 5: 15) In these fights the combatants often used associations, and councils, and presbyteries, as weapons against their enemies. Recall that Elder Daniel Parker threatened to "burst the association" if the associations did not declare non-fellowship for mission societies, seminaries, Sunday schools, etc. These threats were the means of forcing others to kowtow to them. I wrote about how my father and I, and our church, experienced this first hand when the Powell Valley Association held a council over father's view on the origin of Satan and his fall from heaven. You can read about that in my online writing titled "The Hardshell Baptist Cult," which has its own blog with all the chapters. (See chapter two titled "Personal Experiences" here) When a schismatic faction wants to force their views on others they will begin to ask candidates for ordination their views on the questions dividing the Hardshells. This was another way to force others to kowtow. I also had this happen to me in my second ordination when I was a Hardshell Baptist.
I also believe that Beebe did crave being the head dog among the newly created cult. He was at the Black Rock Convention when that convention declared non-fellowship against fellow Baptists who were supporting mission societies, religious education, tract distribution, and a host of other things and he was chosen by the ministers in that convention to represent them by starting the "Signs of the Times" periodical with their support. So, I agree with Thompson that Beebe was like Diotrephes in desiring preeminence. But so too did Samuel Trott. So too have a host of others. Grigg's own father seemed to enjoy being put on a pedestal and being admired by many Hardshell Baptists.
In 1846 in the trial over church doctrine in Indiana, in the White Water Association, Wilson Thompson led the no-means side, and the editor who published the record of that trial called him "the leader, the Ajax" of that side. (See here for my post on that) I also think that Grigg Thompson too was probably jealous of the influence of Beebe, coveting that for himself. I saw such a spirit when I was with the Hardshells, how each association or area had one minister who was the "ringleader" or pope, the one whom the other ministers feared. In the early church there were those who only sought a following, and who had "men's persons in admiration because of advantage." (Jude 1: 16 kjv) Even many "historians" of the "Primitive" Baptist church have said that many of their associational divisions resulted from ministers fighting for supremacy.
Thompson wrote:
"When I reviewed Eld. T. P. Dudley's circular on the "Christian Warfare," he (Dudley) wrote a letter to Beebe, and it was published in the "Signs of the Times," calling me a "libeler," and many other hard things. I then wrote a letter to Beebe denying Dudley's charges, and proposing to meet Dudley, and submit the matter to our brethren; but he refused to publish my letter, and would never let me say one word in self-defence. Shortly after the division in the Licking Association, Ky., between the Primitive Baptists and the Dudleyites of that Association, Eld. J. F. Johnson, then of Indiana, wrote a letter, which Beebe published in the "Signs of the Times," stating that he had just been a tour through Ky. , and in it, he, in the strongest kind of language, said that the Primitive Baptists, who had left the Licking Association, denied the doctrine of eternal, personal, and unconditional election. The charge was false, as the articles of faith adopted by those brethren and published to the world showed; and Eld. Beebe knew the same, for he had seen the articles. I again wrote to him, desiring that he would let me correct the falsehoods published against the brethren by Johnson, but he would not suffer it, and the brethren had to lay under the false charge, without any means of defence. Thus, where the brethren who loved the truth would write, their letters were suppressed by this Diotrephes who loveth pre-eminence, and with malicious words heaps reproach upon the brethren, and will not receive them himself, and forbiddeth them that would, and casteth them out of the church." (pgs. 199-200)
I find it interesting that each side in the Two Seed debate accused the other side of denying the Calvinistic doctrine of unconditional election. We have already taken notice of this and have stated that the Two Seed view does in fact deny that doctrine. In the next chapter, when we look at what Elder Lemuel Potter wrote against Two Seedism in 1880, we will see how Potter also says that Two Seedism denies unconditional election or election by grace.
Though there were no doubt some formal debates on Two Seedism, whether in oral or written debates, I have not found any. We will see where Beebe did make a formal reply to Potter, and have seen where Beebe responded to Elder Samuel Williams' criticisms of Two Seed ideas, but nothing was extensive. It seems that the Two Seeders, like Beebe and Dudley, were not interested in debating their views, but chose rather to force them on others.
Thompson wrote:
"I became a Baptist about the time that Campbellism began to interrupt the peace of our churches. I passed through that war, and next came the machinery system of modern missions, which brought with it another war, and division in our denomination. I was called to bear my part in that struggle, and to suffer in common with my brethren. But we had hardly got through that war, and began to enjoy peace and union among ourselves, before the Arian, Two Seed notions of Beebe & Co. were introduced into our churches, and produced another war among us which has effected a third split, and built up a Beebe, Two Seed party in our midst. This last war has been conducted in a different way from either of the other two."
I have written about the Campbellite schism several times through the years. That schism clearly showed one thing that destroys many things that the Hardshell Baptists say about the state of the Baptist denomination at the beginning of the 19th century. They have said that the Baptists, prior to the anti mission schism, were all believers in the peculiar tenets of Hardshellism. They say that they all at that time believed in the "no means" view of regeneration and salvation, and that they all opposed Sunday schools, mission societies, theological education, revivals, etc. All of this is untrue, however. The fact that Campbell led off many Baptists into his movement shows that many of the Baptists, at the start of the 19th century, were Arminian or semi Arminian. Actually, history shows that nearly all Baptists at first had no qualms about supporting the things that the Hardshells would later declare to be heresies. Even Wilson Thompson supported missions at first and believed that the Gospel was a means in salvation. I have shown this to be true in many postings through the years. His book "Simple Truth," published in 1821, shows this to be the case, as does his "autobiography."
I find it interesting that Grigg does not mention the fact that his father believed in Two Seed tenets, a fact we have shown to be the case in previous chapters. He speaks of the split over Two Seedism, it being "a third split," as having occurred at the time of his publishing "The Measuring Rod." However, that is not quite true either. It is true that some churches and associations had begun to declare non fellowship with Two Seedism, many others had not yet. Just as the splits over "missionism" occurred over several decades, so too the split over Two Seedism. We have already shown how the Powell Valley Association did not split over it until 1879. In a previous chapter we showed this to be the case, citing Lawrence Edwards who gave us what the minutes of that association for that year declared. (See my posting here) The same is true about two other doctrines that split the churches in the 19th century. After the Civil War there began to be disputes and divisions over the doctrine of "absolute predestination of all things" and over the question of whether God uses the means of the Gospel or word of God to effect regeneration, new birth, or eternal salvation. The truth is, prior to all these splits, the "Primitive Baptist Church" had within it both sides, and existed together for several decades before a formal split occurred, each side tolerating the other for several decades prior to the formal splits.
Thompson wrote:
"The Beebe party have on all occasions shunned investigation; and whenever their doctrines have been called in question by any one, they would at once make it a personal business, and at once assail the moral character of the brother, and do all they could to destroy his good name."
The shunning of open debate, however, is alive and well today among those who called themselves "Primitive," "Old School," or "Hardshell" Baptists. In the Powell Valley church council that I write about in my series "The Hardshell Baptist Cult" that occurred when I was a young member of that association in the early 1970s it was clear that the opposers of father's view (that Satan was a fallen angel from heaven) did not want to debate the merits of his view from the scriptures, though father tried to get them to do so. Consider also the fact that as time went on, the Hardshells had fewer and fewer debates with those of other denominations. Though they had many in the late 19th century, and the early 20th century, they had very few in the late 20th century, and only one or two in the 21st century. This is the same thing that we often see among the liberals in politics today. Rarely do they want to debate the issues with conservatives, but rather make personal ad hominem attacks upon conservatives.
Thompson wrote:
"When Eld. T. P. Dudley began to preach this doctrine in Kentucky, I met him at Mount Gilead church, Mason County, and publicly opposed him, and invited him to discuss the subject; but he refused, and in a secret and under-handed way, immediately began to put in circulation reports prejudicial to my character, and offered them as reasons why he would not meet me. The reports put in circulation by him, which have since been published by Beebe in substance, though changed a little in phraseology, and last of all, by Eld. W. C. Cleaveland, will be fully explained and refuted by the following letter from the Hamilton Primitive Baptist church, in Butler County, Ohio..." (pgs. 225-227)
Why did Thompson not "publicly oppose" his own father for believing in Two Seedism? Was it not because he thought it might hurt his influence? If so, then is he not also like Diotrephes? Why did he not object to Two Seedism in the 1830s, or 1840s, or 1850s? He often wrote affectionate letters to the Signs of the Times in those decades and I have yet to find where he ever raised an objection to Two Seedism. Perhaps he waited till 1860 because at that time more and more of his brethren began to oppose it.
Thompson wrote:
"For I have been known among the Baptists for thirty years, and from the time I was restored by the Hamilton church up to now, have never had a charge preferred against me in any church; and up to fifty one or two, was a constant writer for the "Signs of the Times," edited by Eld. Beebe, and all these things were no objection to me with him, until he came out with his new doctrine, and I opposed it. He then saw that his only chance was to blacken my character if possible, and as his pen was accustomed to slander, it did not take him long to concoct and publish anything without regard to truth, that he could think up. Eld. D. W. Patman visited several Associations in Georgia, and read a letter to many of the brethren, which he said was from my father, stating that I had been twice excluded from the church, once for lying, and a second time for abandoning my family. I wrote to him for a copy of the letter, but I could not get it. I then wrote to my father, and asked him if he had ever written such a letter, and I got a letter, bearing date at Acton, Ind. , May 3, 1860, in which he says, "Patman, nor any other man, has not now, nor ever had, nor will have, any such a letter as you allude to, written by me, for I never wrote any such letter to any one." (pgs. 229-230)
Here, it is clear that Thompson is writing a false narrative, and the only reason I can surmise for it is the fact that he did not want to do anything to hurt his own influence prior to 1860. He says that he was a "constant writer" to the Signs of the Times and implies that during those times that Beebe did not advance Two Seedism in his periodical. But, that is simply not true. I have in previous chapters cited from the Signs of the Times from the 1830s, 1840s, and 1850s and have shown where Beebe and Trott were promoting Two Seed ideas in those decades. So, Thompson is not telling the truth when he says that Beebe did not "come out with his new doctrine" until the late 1850s. I don't doubt that he was unfairly treated by the Two Seeders.
Why did Thompson want people to think that Beebe did not promote Two Seedism prior to the time that Thompson finally went public with opposition to it (1860)? Especially since it is not true? Why did Thompson not write to that paper in the years from 1833-1860 and object to the Two Seedism, as did men like Elder Samuel Williams? We cited from him in previous chapters for that time period. By his saying that he was a "constant writer" to Beebe's periodical he implies that Beebe had not yet "come out with his new doctrine," or else Thompson would have publicly opposed it. Why did he in 1860 not just simply and honestly say - "I saw Two Seedism as a serious error but did not oppose it till now, and I should have"? I think that Thompson, like many of the frontier lay preachers, did not want to do anything to lesson his standing and support, financial or otherwise. It was not until he saw the tide turning away from Two Seedism that he got on the bandwagon of the opposition.
Further, since his father Wilson Thompson believed in the chief tenets of Two Seedism, he may have been held back from denouncing it. Elder John Clark of Virginia (who began his paper "Zion's Advocate" to oppose the views of Beebe and the Signs) and Elder John Watson of Tennessee (who wrote the "Old Baptist Test" to combat Two Seedism) were friends of Grigg. In the 1850's both of them waged a war against Two Seedism. Grigg finally jumped on their bandwagon. Of course, I am also fairly certain that he did not believe Two Seedism, at least in 1860 when he wrote "The Measuring Rod." Elder Lemuel Potter, who wrote his diatribe against Two Seedism in 1880, said that when he first began preaching in Illinois, a place where Two Seedism was widely believed, that he rather favored it. Perhaps that was true of Grigg Thompson also.
The same seems to be true also of Elder W. M. Mitchell of Alabama (1819-1901). Throughout the decades of the 1840s through the 1870s, Mitchell frequently wrote to the Signs of the Times and to the Southern Baptist Messenger, both Two Seed publications, and never objected to Two Seedism, though I have not read every issue of both. However, in 1880, the year before Beebe's death, and the year wherein Elder Lemuel Potter wrote his treatise against Beebe and Two Seedism, we find Mitchell writing to Beebe and the Signs and questioning Two Seedism (Signs of the Times March 1st, 1880; Vol. 48, No 5; See here). In the previous chapter we cited Thompson's citation of Mitchell, which showed that he was a Two Seeder who denied the resurrection, at least of the non-elect, and affirming annihilationism for them. We will delve into what Mitchell wrote to Beebe and of Beebe's response in the next chapter. It seems that many of the first anti mission Baptists jumped on to the Two Seed bandwagon when Parker first gave it prominence by his first books on that subject. However, as time went on, the opposers of Two Seedism began to increase, so that it appeared that Two Seedism had lost its glitter; And, for those seeking popularity and a following, they saw it better to abandon ship and get on board the Anti Two Seeder bandwagon.
Thompson wrote:
"But, last of all, W. C. Cleaveland came out with a letter in the "Southern Baptist Messenger," an Arian, Two Seed sheet, published at Covington, Ga., reiterating all these charges as though they were something new with him, when he and I had talked them all over in 1857, and he had been active in defending me against them. While I was at the Echonna Association, in 1857, W. C. Norris was there, and was secretly whispering thes e things, and W. C. Cleaveland said that "He thanked no drunken preacher for coming there and trying to injure good men." But in 1859, he whirled over to Beebeism, and like all the rest, began to slander all who would not go with them. In the "Herald of Truth" I published him guilty of falsehoods, and proposed to meet him before a tribunal of brethren, and prove it by as good Baptist testimony as could be found, but he refused to meet me." (pgs. 232-233)
Both the Signs of the Times and the Southern Baptist Messenger were leading Two Seed publications, and Gilbert Beebe was the editor of the former and his son William L. Beebe was the editor of the latter. Elder John Watson, prior to his death in 1866, spoke of the need to have Two Seedism debated through a paper called the "Herald of Truth." I have searched through the years trying to find a library that might have old issues of that periodical. I know that in the later 19th century that Elder T. S. Dalton, a person who became a leader among the Hardshell Baptists, took over the editorship of that paper. Dalton (1846–1931) served as the editor of the Primitive Baptist publication The Herald of Truth from February 1891 until 1898. The Herald of Truth was originally established in January 1858 by Elder Fain, it seems. Dalton purchased the paper in 1891 and merged it with his own existing publication, retaining the name The Herald of Truth. He was succeeded as editor by Elder John R. Daily in 1898. The Primitive Baptist Library in Carthage, Illinois, says (See here):
"After his (Elder John Clark) death, in 1882, it ("Zion's Advocate") was published for several years by Elder C. H. Waters (1849-1920) as editor, and Bro. J. G. Wiltshire as publisher. In February 1891 the paper was purchased by Elder T. S. Dalton (1846-1931), who merged it with the Herald of Truth, and served as editor until 1898. Elder John R. Daily (1854-1920) then served as editor for eight years."
I believe that Elder R. W. Fain, a fellow "Primitive Baptist" minister, doctor, and friend of Elder John M. Watson, who helped Watson to revise his book "The Old Baptist Test" before his death in 1866, and who would later promote Watson's book and begin the periodical "The Baptist Watchman" with Elder J. B. Stephens (also a doctor) and others, which was a leading periodical in the 1870s, carried on the debate over Two Seedism through the "Herald of Truth."
According to the Primitive Baptist library (here) Dr. Fain was editor of the "Herald of Truth," for they say:
"HERALD OF TRUTH Elder R. W. Fain, (1807-1876), Shelbyville, Tennessee, founder, in 1858. Elder John M. Watson may have later served as editor of this paper. No issues of this paper have been located yet."
I cited this in a post on Elder Fain, where I also had a picture of him (which took me years to find). You can read that (here). I have read recently where the library has obtained a few copies of that periodical, probably when Elder Dalton took it over.
I find it strange that Grigg Thompson would be writing articles in "The Herald of Truth" against Two Seedism, for that periodical promoted the view that the gospel or word of God was a means in the eternal salvation of sinners, which was the view of Watson and Fain and Stephens. Yet, Thompson would at some time reject that view, as he did in his debate with Elder Mark Bennett, first editor of the "Primitive Baptist" periodical, which debate first occurred in 1853. (See my write up about it here) So, though Thompson would deny the means view, at least in "regeneration," he nevertheless still associated with Elders Watson, Fain, and Stephens, and John Clark, who believed in means. Keep in mind also that a denial of means first developed among the Two Seeders who came after Elder Daniel Parker. Elder Dalton, who took over the Herald of Truth in 1891 when he took ownership of Clark's paper "Zion's Advocate." Dalton, as I have shown in several postings through the years in my "Old Baptist Test" blog, believed in means at first, but later jumped ship when he saw that the anti means side was gaining the ascendency in the latter part of the 19th century. (For instance, see this post here)
With this chapter we conclude our look at what Elder Grigg Thompson wrote against Two Seedism in 1860-1861 via his book "The Measuring Rod." In the next several chapters we will look at what other elders would later say in their disputes over Two Seedism.
No comments:
Post a Comment