Elder W. M. Mitchell
1819 - 1901
Elder John M. Watson, who we have cited from extensively in the earlier chapters, from his book "The Old Baptist Test" (designed to chiefly combat Two Seedism or Parkerism), said the following on page 28 (highlighting mine):
"After our painful separation from the Missionaries in 1836, a number of Churches, in the bounds of the old Concord association, met together and formed the Stones River Association. We had then, as was generally supposed, a strong and happy union; but alas! there was an element of heresy incorporated in that body as bad, if not worse, than that from which we had just withdrawn. This heresy-the two-seed doctrine as it is termed-was at the time of the formation of the Stones River Association, very prevalent in the Caney Fork Association. Ministers from that section of the country frequently visited some of the Churches in our associations. In this manner they preached among us until it was soon perceived that their words began to eat as doth a canker on the minds of some of the brethren. It also soon became evident that we would have to tolerate the heresy or separate from the Churches which entertained it." (You can read his book here)
I have in previous chapters called attention to the fact that it is bewildering how the "Primitive" or "Old School" or "Hardshell" Baptists, the ones who were behind the "anti-mission movement" of the early 19th century, could declare non fellowship for Baptists who supported mission societies, theological or bible education, bible and tract distribution, revival meetings, etc., and yet tolerate the Two Seed or Parkerite heresy. Many Baptists, in order to prevent division, tried to reason with the Hardshells, arguing that the antis were not obligated to support such things, and that they should allow others to do so without declaring non fellowship against them. Could not both sides tolerate each other? The Hardshells said that they could not tolerate having fellowship with mission Baptists and declared them heretics. Elder Watson agrees that mission societies and the other things mentioned above were heretical and is why he was on the anti-mission side. However, in the above citation he says that the Two Seed doctrine was "as bad, if not worse, than" the perceived heresy of the Missionary Baptists. I suspect, especially after reading his book, that he actually did consider Two Seedism to be far worse than perceived unscriptural mission methods; And, indeed it is. The former chapters show this to be the case.
At this point in our series we have begun to show what the leaders of the opposition to the Two Seed heresy began to say in their attacks upon it. We began with Elder John Watson in earlier chapters, and have mentioned a few others, such as Elder Hosea Preslar. In the past few chapters we have seen what Elder Grigg Thompson wrote in 1861 against Two Seedism and those who were promoting it. In the next few chapters we will look at what Elder Lemuel Potter and others wrote in their attacks upon Two Seed ideology. But, before we do this I want to write some things about the suspected Two Seedism of Elder W. M. Mitchell of Alabama. Recall that in chapter thirty of this series, I cited Grigg Thompson who wrote the following about Elder Mitchell (pictured above), citing from this mid 19th century leader of the "Primitive Baptist Church":
"Eld. Wm. Mitchell, of Ala., says, that "the penalty of the law given to Adam was death, and when the transgressor dies, he has paid the penalty, and that is the end of him." Another says that, "These bodies are only adapted as a temporary residence for the spiritual man to dwell in, and that when this spiritual man leaves it, God will have no farther use for it; that it will return to the earth, and be destroyed with the earth. "I know of none of them in Georgia but what teach that "the Adam man, soul, body, and spirit, dies, and sinks down into the grave." (pgs. 88-89)
I then wrote this in commenting upon this citation:
"Elder Mitchell, a leader of the "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptists in Alabama, was a Two Seeder, a fact that today's Hardshell Baptists in that state want to hide. Thompson thinks he was. If one reads old issues of the "Signs of the Times" or "The Southern Baptist Messenger" he will see Elder Mitchell writing in support many times. If what Thompson says is correct, it appears that Elder Mitchell did not believe in the resurrection of the bodies of the wicked. He also says that a large number of Two Seed Primitive Baptists believed in annihilation for the wicked non-elect."
Elder Mitchell became associated with Elder Respess as an associate editor of "The Gospel Messenger" in 1881, a paper to which Elder Sylvester Hassell also became a contributing editor, and who became its owner after the death of Elder Respess. But, prior to Mitchell becoming an editor of that periodical, he was a frequent writer to "The Southern Baptist Messenger" and I have just read through many of his writings in that periodical for the years 1860 and 1862. So far these are the only years available on the Internet. (See here) So far I have not found where Mitchell wrote anything in support of Two Seedism, nor in scanning through those issues have I noticed where anyone else wrote about it. Elder Grigg Thompson, however, believes that Mitchell was a Two Seeder and cites the few words of his above (but does not tell us where Mitchell wrote them) where he seems to believe that the wicked are annihilated at death. Elder Sylvester Hassell did not believe in Two Seedism and I would think that when Mitchell was an editor of "The Gospel Messenger" that he had abandoned Two Seedism or he would not have been on the editorial staff with elders Hassell and Respass.
I rather believe that Elder Mitchell, like Elder Potter, accepted Two Seed views when he first started preaching, as this was the popular view in Alabama when he began to preach. I believe, however, as time went on and Two Seedism was slowly but surely having fewer adherents, that many preachers got off the Two Seed bandwagon and jumped onto the anti Two Seed bandwagon. I believe this was the case with Grigg Thompson when he wrote against it in his 1860-61 book "The Measuring Rod" and also with Elder Lemuel Potter in 1880 when he wrote his own diatribe against Two Seedism. Recall that Potter says that when he first began to preach that he favored the Two Seed view, but sometime later rejected it. He for years regularly wrote to the "Signs of the Times" and expressed support for Beebe and Trott, knowing that they were promoting Two Seedism, and he wrote extensively for the "Southern Baptist Messenger," both being, as Grigg Thompson said, clearly Two Seed periodicals. So, if he did not believe in Two Seedism at first, he at least raised no objection to it. But, as we will see, he seems to be questioning Two Seedism in 1880. Is this because of what Grigg Thompson wrote in 1861 or Potter wrote in 1880?
I want now to cite from Elder Mitchell, in the March 1st, 1880 issue of the "Signs of the Times" (See here) and show what he writes to Gilbert Beebe and asking him for clarification for his views on Two Seedism. Wrote Mitchell (emphasis mine):
"Beloved Brother Beebe:--I know that you have explained and re-explained so frequently on the subject of the new birth, that it would seem like an attempt to annoy you to even suggest a further explanation from you; yet I know you are not fully understood by even some of your warmest friends and brethren, who I am quite certain have no design to misrepresent or injure you. Or if they do understand you, they are not yet prepared to indorse or accept the position which you are understood to take on one point. You, and the brethren generally, I think, are agreed that the very identical man that sinned, is the very man that has to be redeemed by Christ and born of the Spirit in order to enter the spiritual kingdom of God. I do not think there is any misunderstanding on this point. But the difficulty is that you are understood to hold that not only the man is born again, but that the self-existent spirit of God is also born of God. I will refer to your editorial in reply to brother Martin, in the Signs of January 1st, 1877, quoting only so much of your sentences as refer to this particular point. You say, "soul and body and spirit that were and are born of the flesh--sinful and depraved--necessitated to be redeemed, washed, cleansed, purified and born again." Then in the next sentence it is said, "The spiritual life which is given to us in the new birth is born of God." This is in the second column, tenth page; and then again on same page, third column, there is a repetition in substance of the same sentiment, that the "earthly nature and Adamic man is born of the Spirit," and also that "eternal life," that never was defiled, "is born of God" and it "cannot sin, because it is born of God." Again, you say, "This life in us is born of the Spirit, and is spirit; but it is not the spirit of the flesh, which is vile, but it is the spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead." Is there any scriptural authority for saying that both the sinner and the spirit of Almighty God are alike born of God? Or do you indeed intend to convey the idea, as some understand you do, that the spirit of Almighty God that raised up Jesus from the dead is born of God, or a subject of the new birth, as the sinner is? I have italicized the points which present the difficulty in the minds of some of your readers, and tried to state the matter in as short and concise a manner as possible. Be assured, my dear aged brother, that no unkind feelings have dictated the above. Affectionately your brother."
As we have seen in previous chapters, Beebe often spoke out of both sides of his mouth relative to Two Seed views on what it means to be regenerated, begotten, and born of the Spirit. This sometimes drew criticism from brethren Samuel Trott and T. P. Dudley, two leading advocates for Two Seedism. In the above queries from Mitchell he gives citations from what Beebe wrote about what it means to be begotten or born of God. Those citations do show that Beebe was perhaps confused at this point in his life about his former Two Seed views. Beebe responds to written questions that Elder Mitchell submitted to him and writes (emphasis mine):
"The points in our former writings to which our dear brother has called our attention, we will now consider. We do most certainly believe that the very identical man that sinned is the very same that is redeemed by Christ, and must be born of the Spirit in order to see or enter into the spiritual kingdom of God, for so our Savior has expressly declared with a double asseveration, John iii. 3. But we do not believe that the self-existent spirit of God is either begotten or born, for that self-existent Spirit is God himself. We know of no other self-existent, Spirit than that God who is a Spirit, and of whom we are told. that they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.--John iv.24. But, while we believe that God is self-existent and independent, possessing all the eternal perfections of his supreme Godhead, we also read, that he is the Father of children which he has begotten, and who are in his own appointed time born of his spirit. The Spirit therefore by which they are begotten, and of which they are born, is self-existent but the children which are born of the Spirit are not self-existent; but being born of God, are children or sons of God, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit: it is not flesh or blood, or earthly, but it is spiritual and heavenly. Every one who has this spirit which is born of the Spirit, and is led by it, is by is sealed with it..."
The first thing I want to address in regard to the words of Beebe is his statement that he did not believe that "the self-existent spirit of God is either begotten or born." He also says that "Spirit" is "God himself." One wonders why he did not capitalize "spirit" in the first citation but did in the second. Second, he believes, as we have seen in former chapters, that he believed that Christ and his people were "begotten" and "created in Christ Jesus" in eternity. Third, I have colored red the words "begotten" and "born" in the above words, because this will become important in our analysis of what Beebe is trying to say. In Beebe's mind, and in the mind of most "Primitive Baptists" in his day, being begotten was not the same as being born. A man was begotten before he was born. He often said "birth is not the beginning of the child." This is true in regard to physical birth, and those of us who fight against the abortion promoters constantly affirm this fact. Before I expand on this difference, I want to cite from what Elder Trott wrote in the "Signs of the Times" about the statement of Paul that "the second Adam was made a quickening spirit." (I Cor. 15: 45) This text, as we have seen, was much disputed and is the context around the discussions about this "self-existent spirit" that Mitchell raised, connected with Beebe's former writing which said "the spiritual life which is given to us in the new birth is born of God." In chapter 17 I cited these words of Elder Samuel Trott, a friend of Gilbert Beebe and writer for the "Signs of the Times":
"They (the Fort Mountain brethren) try to convince the minds of the readers that Christ was never made a Quickening Spirit as so expressly asserted in that text...I will answer the questions they put to me. The first is, Whether the quickening and life giving spirit of God is a created existence? I answer decidedly yes.--The text under consideration I think gives me full authority to answer. It says, "The last Adam was made a Quickening Spirit." A Quickening Spirit I presume they will admit must a life giving spirit. To be made is equivalent to being created."
Is Beebe now disagreeing with this in 1880?
What did Beebe mean when he said that the man who sinned is the same man who is born again of the Spirit? In earlier chapters we have seen that Beebe and Trott taught that "the new man" was that man who was begotten or made before the world began when Christ was begotten or made, and "the old man" was the human man who was of the seed of Adam. Under that framework the "new man" was "begotten" in Christ before the world began, but was not "born" until it entered into the human man and "manifested" itself. So, in Beebe's Two Seed paradigm there is actually two begettings and one birth. The first begetting occurred when Christ was begotten as the Son of God or Mediator (and which has nothing to do with his divinity) and the second begetting occurred when an earthly man was "regenerated." Then, sometime later after spending time in the womb (corresponding to the time under conviction of sin and in darkness about Christ and the way of salvation) there would be a "birth" (corresponding to the time when a person receives Christ or a hope in Christ).
If by being "born" Beebe means something like the "hollow log" metaphor of rebirth (that I wrote about in earlier chapters), then being "born" of God simply refers to a time when an eternal preexisting child of God enters a man as a rabbit enters a log, and where the entrance of the rabbit does not change the log nor the man, but only temporarily served the needs of the rabbit, then he doesn't believe the new birth changed the new man. The only change to the "old man" (the hollow log) was that it now was the residence of the "new man." This paradigm is behind these words of Beebe: "the Father of children which he has begotten, and who are in his own appointed time born of his spirit." A good follow up question to Beebe would have been - "when were the children begotten?" Another would be - "when is the begotten child born of the Spirit?" In the above words Beebe clearly believes that the begetting occurs before the birth. In his previous writings, as we have seen, he has affirmed that the children of God were begotten and made new creatures before the world began when Christ was begotten and made a Mediator.
Wrote Beebe further:
"Our reception of the first fruits of the Spirit was a birth produced by and of the Spirit; but what was born? Was it the old man, which is corrupt with its affections and lusts? If so, it could not have been born of incorruptible seed, or it would not now, subsequently to such a birth, be still corrupt. The old man is a child of the flesh, and it was born before we received the spirit by which we now cry Abba, Father. We understand the apostle to teach that it is the new man, which after God (not Adam) is created in righteousness and true holiness. It is a child born of the Spirit, a new man--not an old man reformed; it is an inner man, a treasure committed to earthen vessels, that the excellence of it may be of God, and not of man. It is Christ in us the hope of glory. The old man, which we are to deny, resist, keep in subjection, and crucify, is not Christ; but Christ by his spirit dwells in us, if we have indeed been made partakers of the divine nature; and this indwelling of Christ's spirit as a sacred seal assures us that this vile body shall in due time be changed, for flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, neither doth corruption inherit incorruption."
Notice again that I have colored the words "birth" and "born" in red. Notice too that he holds to his old Two Seed position by saying "the old man" is not what experiences the new birth. What he really believes is that the "new man" was deposited within the old man and this may be called a birth of the old man, the man being a kind of pod holding the seed, or a womb for the new man ("a treasure committed to earthen vessels").
Wrote Beebe further:
"But we will notice more particularly the marked passages copied from our reply to brother Martin, to which brother Mitchell calls our special attention. We have said, as quoted, "soul and body and spirit that were and are born of the flesh-sinful and depraved--necessitated to be redeemed, washed, cleansed, purified, and born again;" and then in the next sentence, "the spiritual life which is given to us in the new birth is born of God." We have usually spoken of the implantation of the spirit, in which Christ is formed in us, as a new birth, and so we now understand it, as taught, John i. 13. and 1 Peter 1. 23. 24. And this work is performed in the sinner of Adam's race, who, as a natural man, is spoken of in the scriptures as possessing a soul, body and spirit, which is depraved and, sinful, to qualify him to see the kingdom of God. But we have labored to the extent of our limited ability to keep in view that a birth is the bringing forth into manifestation something that was begotten and which exist antecendently to its development by birth...Although sinners redeemed from Adam's race are the subjects of this work of the Spirit, still their flesh, born of the flesh, continues to retain its mortality and corruptibility after the incorruptible seed, the Word of God, which liveth and abideth forever, has brought forth by birth in them the new man, or life, or spirit, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness. This new birth of the Spirit is not flesh, nor is it born of the will of the flesh, for it is the bringing forth only what is born from above, as in the marginal reading of John iii. 3, 7."
Though he believes that the soul, body, and spirit that makes up a fallen human being needs to be redeemed, cleansed, and born of God, yet he defines the new birth as simply an "implantation" of that new man that preexisted with Christ. The bold red letter highlighting reveals the basic paradigm. He says "a birth is the bringing forth into manifestation something that was begotten and which exist antecendently to its development by birth" and that this preexisting new man is "brought forth by birth." What we see in the above words of Beebe is what is called "double talk." In this paradigm nothing is originated when a sinner is born again.
Wrote Beebe further:
"...and in conclusion we will say that, of what we have written, this is the sum: the identical man who was chosen of God in Christ Jesus before the foundation of the world, and in him blessed with all spiritual blessings before he was brought forth into manifestation by either a first or second birth, had his spiritual, eternal life given to him in Christ Jesus, as the Adam who is the Lord from heaven. The same identical man had a natural life given him in the earthly Adam, which is of the earth, earthy, when man was formed of the dust of the ground. By a first and second birth these two distinct lives were destined to be developed severally, without changing the identity of the man, by, first in the order of time, a natural birth of the flesh like, and is common with all others of the human race; and afterward, their spiritual life in Christ the second Adam who is the Lord from heaven, to be developed or made manifest in him by a second birth. And as nothing spiritual, pure and heavenly can be born of the flesh, so neither can anything carnal, fleshly or impure be born of God. The same identical man possesses in his development by the two births, that which is born of the flesh, and is flesh, and when born again, of the Spirit, that which is not flesh, but is spiritual; and by this spirit in him, which is born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God, his Person is sealed until the day of redemption..."
When Beebe says "the identical man who was chosen of God in Christ Jesus before the foundation of the world," read "the identical man who was chosen of God in and existing in Christ Jesus." So, this preexisting chosen child of God would in time be "brought forth into manifestation by either a first or second birth." He surely does contradict himself when he says in one breath that the same depraved sinner is born again and then says in another breath that impure or sinful men cannot be born of God.
Wrote Beebe further:
"Christ was begotten from the dead as the first born among many brethren; and "if the spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his spirit that dwelleth in you."--Rom. viii. 11, 19. If then his resurrection was a birth, the resurrection of his redeemed members is also a birth from the dead; for "if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the spirit [of Christ which now dwells in you is life because of righteousness."--Rom. viii. 10. Therefore, as we said in the paper referred to by brother Mitchell, we still believe, that the spirit, of Christ which dwells in the saints is the same spirit by which God raised up Christ from the dead, and that it is born of God; not that God is himself born, but that he has by birth communicated to us personally and experimentally of his spirit; that God is the parent, or as it is written, "The Father of spirits," (Heb. xii.9,) and that the spirit which dwells in us is born of him, and is his child and his heir."
Here he seems to say that no change happens to a sinful man until the resurrection of the dead. So, though no change happens to the sinner man when he experiences being "born" of God, he will experience a marvelous change in the resurrection of the dead.
Wrote Beebe further:
"The soul, body and spirit, all that constitutes the man in the flesh whom God has chosen unto salvation through Jesus Christ our Lord, fell in Adam, dies in Adam, and is born of corruptible seed, required to be redeemed, washed, cleansed, purified and born again; not only by the manifestation of the firstfruits of the Spirit, but by being ultimately born from the dead in the final resurrection of the dead."
Here he is even more clear and says what I just said about what he said.
In the rest of this chapter I want to cite from what Elder Mitchell wrote in the Gospel Messenger for 1882 under the title "Eternal Vital Union Of Christ And His Church" Elder Mitchell writes (See here):
"How, or by whom, the phrase "Eternal Vital Union" originated, we do not know; but we do know, that in the past thirty years, much has been very profitably written, and much very unprofitable, and even hurtful. It is not, therefore, our design nor desire to re-open the discussion, nor the wounds that have been created thereby; but rather to remind our brethren, that it is enjoined upon Christians, to "Follow after the things that make for peace, and things whereby one may edify another." — Rom. 14; 19...If need be, every ambiguous phrase, or hurtful, unscriptural word, should be abandoned for the sake of peace within the sacred walls of Zion."
The first thing I want to say in commentary on the above words of Mitchell is how he says that it was over the last thirty years that the subject of "eternal vital union of Christ and his church" had been a topic of discourse, and that some of it was profitable and some not. So, what part was profitable and what part was not? Also, since he is writing this in 1882, then the "thirty years" he is writing about spans the time from 1852-1882. Surely he knows that in the 1820s through 1840s period that much had been written about that subject. Surely he knows about Daniel Parker's books on it from the 1820s. Perhaps he also knew about Thompson's books on eternal vital union in his book "Simple Truth" also from the 1820s. Did he not know that Samuel Trott and Gilbert Beebe and others had written much on it in the Signs of the Times in the 1830s and 1840s?
Mitchell says that brethren should quit speaking of "eternal vital union" since those exact words are not in scripture. Why should they if the sentiment is taught in scripture? If the sentiment is not taught in scripture, then why does Mitchell not denounce the sentiment instead of simply saying let us not use that terminology? If he thought both the terminology and the sentiment were wrong, why did he wait till 1882 to say so? Mitchell says things that his associate, Elder Sylvester Hassell, also would say, possibly parroting what Mitchell here said. It also reflects what Alexander Campbell often said when beginning his reform movement, exhorting all to use bible terms.
Wrote Mitchell further:
"But we wish now to come a little more closely to this Vital Union question. The earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof, yet he has a people — a part of the Adamic race — that he claims in a special and peculiar sense from others. "This people, saith the Lord, have I formed for myself; they shall show forth my praise." — Isaiah. That they are related in some special and peculiar sense to Jesus Christ as their Saviour, Husband, Head and Redeemer, we presume none will deny. Nor have we ever heard any Primitive Baptist dispute the relation of Christ and his people as being Eternal in some qualified sense. Each, however, wants his own peculiar way of expressing this relation, but all agree that it is Eternal in some way. Some say that it is an Eternal vital or life union; some, an Eternal love union; others say that it is an Eternal covenant relation; and some will have it that it is an Eternal purposed union; and, lastly, some whittle it down to a union only in prospect. All agree that the relation is an Eternal one in some qualified sense, but yet not one of these peculiar forms of expression is found in the Scriptures, and the strife as to their use is often to a great extent a "strife about words to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers."
So, what is Mitchell's view on eternal union?
Wrote Mitchell further:
"But notwithstanding all the strife that ever has been or may yet be, it is certain that to deny the relation of Christ and his people in some sense, is to deny every principle of the gospel of God. The only hope of salvation for any sinner is based upon his relation to, and identity with, Jesus Christ as his Surety and Saviour."
Again, we ask - what is Mitchell's view?
Wrote Mitchell further:
"Christ does not redeem sinners to make them his people, but because they were his before. "He shall save his people from their sins."
But, in what sense were people God's people before they were born into the world? If they were already his actual children from eternity, why do they need to be made children in time by a birth of the Spirit?
So, in conclusion I say that it seems that Mitchell was a Two Seeder for many years but in later years began to turn away from Two Seedism.
In the next chapter we will begin to examine the things that Elder Lemuel Potter wrote in 1880 against Two Seedism.
