Hardshell Sabellianism III

Elder Samuel Trott, in response to the objections of Elder John Clark, regarding charges of Arianism, wrote (emphasis mine) the following in an article titled "Son of God and Godhead" (1850):

"Now to come to the points of difference. They contend that God exists as three persons and one God, that these three persons are alike equal and alike the self-existent God, but that they exist by distinct modes of existence, that the Father exists of Himself that the Word or Son exists by the generation of the Father, being begotten of Him, and that the Holy Ghost exists as He proceeds from the Father and the Son. This I presume will be admitted to be a simple and candid representation of their views. Now to this system I conscientiously object, that it presents palpable contradictions, and that as they represent this as the revelation of God, they charge Him with these contradictions. They say that the three are alike eternal, self-existent and independent, and yet that the Father alone has an underived existence, and that the other two exist by a derived existence and depend on the existence of the other; the Son on the existence of the Father, and the Holy Ghost on the existence of the Father and the Son. Can they then be alike independent in their existence? If I say of two persons, one is the father and the other is the son, do I not distinctly convey the idea that the one existed as a person before the other, and that the latter's existing as a person is a consequence of the previous existence and action of the former; and hence while the father's existence did not depend on the previous existence of the son, the son's existence did depend on the previous existence of the father?"

Clearly this is more evidence of how many Hardshells in the 1830s through the 1850s denied the doctrine of the Trinity, that God exists in three persons.  They denied an ontological Trinity in favor of the Sabellian economic Trinity.  They also did not believe in the eternal Sonship of Christ, not connecting sonship with his divinity.  They did not understand the doctrine of Christ's sonship.  The Athanasians do not believe that the Son of God derived his divinity from the Father, but that the term "Son of God" was not in all respects the same as when men use the term "son of" so and so.  Christ is the "only" begotten Son, his Sonship being unique and unlike that of creatures.    If the sonship of Christ was in all respects the same as sonship among humans, then his sonship would not be unique.  It was this failure to connect sonship with divinity that led Trott and other Hardshells to deny that Christ was the eternal Son of God.  If he was not the eternal Son of God, then when did he first become the Son?  If the sonship of Christ was in every respect like sonship among men, then Christ must have a divine mother, for who, among men, has a father but not a mother?

Historically, many have denied Christ's eternal Sonship and advocated that Christ, The Word, became the Son of God either at his birth, his baptism (adoptionism), or at his resurrection.  Even modern Hardshells had a small squabble over this in the early 1980s as Elders Conrad Jarrell and Ben Mott began to teach that Christ became the Son of God by his incarnation.  This led to the above named elders being disfellowshipped by the Hardshells.  But, the view of Trott was that Christ became the Son of God by an act of the Father before the foundation of the world.  It was this view that led Elder John Clark and others to accuse Trott of Arianism.  Elder James Osbourn correctly noted rampant Sabellianism among the Hardshells and Clark accused Trott of Arianism.  What is the difference?  Was the charge of Clark justified?  How can one be both an Arian and a Sabellian?

When Trott said "they say," he refers to Elder Clark and the trinitarian Hardshells.  But, the question must be asked - "who was keeping to the Old Baptist faith as expressed in the London and Philadelphia confessions of faith?"  Or, "who were the real Old Baptists on this point?" 

Trott continued:

"Now when they say there are three persons in the Godhead, and of these three, as persons, one of them is the Father, and of another, He is the only begotten Son of this Father, what reason is there that the same declaration made concerning these two divine persons does not tend to convey the same idea, as to the previous existence of the one, and the subsequent and dependent existence of the other, as in the case of two men? When, therefore, they contend that the one is the Father, and the other His Son in relation to their personal existence in the Godhead, how can they, without a plain contradiction to that declaration, say in reference to the same personal existence, that they are alike eternal and independent in their existence? Is this letting God be true, but every man a liar, in charging these, and several other contradictions in this system, to God's Word? Again, I object to this system because that by making the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost three persons in the Godhead, they make them to be three distinct individuals, for what less does the term person mean, than an individual being?

Again, Trott is plain enough, as was Wilson Thompson, in his denial of the historic doctrine of the Trinity, which is what all Baptists who endorsed the London and Philadelphia Confessions of faith believed.  Trott and Thompson cannot claim to be "primitive" Baptists in their denial of the doctrine of the Trinity.  So what if the Trinity makes God into "three distinct individuals"?  Is a "person" an individual?  Recently in some debates I have had with a local Baptist church over Sabellianism, I often heard them retort with the words - "God is not three selves."  So, whether Sabellians use the term "self" or the term "individual," they are affirming that it is ridiculous to say that God is three selves, or three individuals, and that this is what is being said when one says that God is three "persons."  Yet, they say such things in spite of the fact that Jesus often referred to the Father by the word "your self" and referred to himself by the term "my self," and often in the same sentence.  That makes two selves!  God is three persons, yet he is one in essence and substance, one in nature and attributes.

Trott continued:

"This, I think, at best is dividing the Godhead more than I believe the scriptural revelation of the one God will admit. But when we carry it out, that they contend that each of these persons is distinctively God, as each is a distinct individual, there must be three individuals existing by distinct modes of existence, and, of course, three Gods. Brother Clark says of the Apostles, that they were not afraid of making a plurality of gods by maintaining that the Son of God was Jehovah. Neither am I; but the Apostles never taught that the Son of God in His Godhead was a distinct person from the Father, so that his remarks are altogether out of place."

Again, this is clear Sabellianism.  Sabellians typically argue that belief in three persons as God means that one believes in three Gods (tritheism).  Yet, the Bible does use the word "Elohim" in reference to God, which is a plural.  God is Gods and God is God.  He is one and yet he is three.  John said - "these three are one."  (I John 5: 7)  Trott says that the the Son of God is the Father.  But, who was ever the father of himself?  Trott likes to make divine sonship in all respects the same as sonship among men, but has he ever met a person who was either the son or father of himself?  Trott thinks that it is ridiculous to believe in eternal sonship and yet his view is not free of such ridiculousness.  Jesus used language in regard to himself and to his Father that necessarily imply distinct persons.  For instance, he says of him and his Father - "WE will come in and dwell in him who believes."  (John 14: 23)  Can I say of myself - "we are going to the store"?  Is it not ridiculous for me to say that I am my own father?  Or, I am my own son?

Trott continued:

"When I was led to look at these inconsistencies, and contradictions in the Nicene system, I turned to an examination of the Scriptures on that head, and I found that they by no means sustained that system. I found that God has revealed Himself as three, and so as three, that distinct things are affirmed of each; but not so as three as to infringe upon the unity of God. Hence it is said, "These three are one." Hence, whenever God is spoken of He is spoken of as the one God, that is absolutely God, whether in reference to the Father, the Word or Son, or the Holy Ghost. Therefore, I conclude that each in His distinct relation is the one God, having all the fullness of the Godhead in that relation, whether as Father, as Son, or as the Holy Ghost."

So, according to Trott's modalism, God is one person.  The Father is the Son and the Son is the Holy Spirit.  The terms Father, Son, and Spirit are but three modes or roles that the one person God manifests his singular person.  But, how can one person talk to himself or send himself?  How can one person be the son or father of himself?  "One" God does not mean "one person."  That is the error of Trott and the Sabellians.  As I have shown before in my writings against Modalism (in the Gadfly blog), Jesus said that all believers will be "one" in the same way that he and his Father are "one."  (John 17: 21)  But, surely no one will say that all believers are the same person!

Trott continued:

"The views which I have advanced have been charged with Sabellianism. But any candid reader of what I have written will see the falsity of such charge. They will see that I believe just what the Scriptures say, that "There are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one" I John 5:7; that is, that God exists as three, but so as three, as to be absolutely one, and therefore, not three persons or individuals."

Though Trott denies being a Sabellian, he clearly is nonetheless.  When he denies that God is three persons, he is a Sabellian.  When he says that God is one person, he is a Sabellian.  When he says that the Father is the Son and Spirit, he is a Sabellain.  When he says that the terms Father, Son, and Spirit simply denotes roles or modes of the one person God, then he is a Sabellian.  The charge that Trott, Beebe, and Thompson were Arians was not as accurate as the charge that they were Sabellians.  But, more on this shortly.

Trott continued:

"I have been charged with Arianism, so brother Clark charges me with denying the divinity of the Son of God. He says he has made it deliberately, but I must say he has made it wantonly. I cannot view it in any other light, though I presume he designed no such looseness. What I have written will, I think, show the entire incorrectness of the charge. I will, however, add that brother Clark, I think, will admit that the Word was made flesh, or became a perfect man, without in the least destroying His essential Godhead. Why then could He not exist with the life of His people, and therefore a begotten life in Him, and as personally one with Him without destroying His divinity? However, it is enough to sustain me against such a charge, that, in the same declaration of Him, in which it is said, "In Him was life, and the life was the light of men," it is also said, "The Word was with God, and the Word was God." John l:1 & 4."

The reason for Elder John Clark charging Trott with Arianism is because he says that Christ became in time, by an act of the Father, the Son of God.  To Trott, as with traditional Baptist views on the Trinity, the term "Son of God" was a term that spoke of the divinity of Christ, just as the term "son of man" spoke of the humanity of Christ.  To say that Christ was made the Son of God is equivalent, in the mind of Clark, with affirming that Christ became God, or was made God.  And, this is Arianism.  The charge is not exactly accurate, since Trott does not deny that Christ was God before he became the Son of God.  Trott believes that God existed as a one person God before he took the roles or modes of Father, Son, and Spirit.  Still, the view of Trott is in many ways like the views of Arius.  Trott was a true Sabellian, not a true Arian.

Trott continued:

"Again he appears to think there is nothing in the Scriptures to warrant the idea of Christ's being anything else than God and man. Strange! Does brother Clark harbor the idea that God in His word has carelessly used descriptive and distinctive names and terms, where there are no distinctions designed? Is not the Lord Jesus Christ in the Scriptures declared to be God and Jehovah, and the Son of God, and man? Are not these three distinctive names, and is there nothing distinctive intended by them? Does not the name Jehovah imply absolute, independent, and self-existence? Does not the term Son, as used among men, and generally in the Scriptures, distinctively imply a begotten, and therefore dependent existence? And does not the term, man, imply a fleshly existence? Was He not a Son before He was made of a woman and made under the law? I cannot believe that our Lord is revealed to be what He is not. Why then are these three distinctive terms so often used of our Lord if He does not possess the three distinct existences thereby designated? Can brother Clark answer these enquiries so as to make them harmonize with the truth of Scripture declarations and yet so as to deny His distinct existence as the Son of God? 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? And again, His names are The Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, and the Prince of Peace. Are not these names descriptive? I presume brother Clark could not say that the name Everlasting Father being given to the child born and the son given implies He is distinctively the Father in the Godhead."

Trott says that Christ was God before he was the Son of God.  That is, he was the one person God before he manifested himself in the role or mode as the Son of God.  Also, even though he says that Christ was the Son of God before his virgin birth (a denial of incarnational sonship), yet he does not believe that Christ has eternally been the Son of God.  So, when does Trott believe that Christ became the Son of God?  He believed that there was an instance before the world began when Christ was begotten or made the Son of God.  It was this view that made Elder Clark associate the views of Trott and of the Signs of the Times periodical with Arianism. 

The idea of Trott that Christ had "three natures" is most ridiculous. 

Further, the argument that Christ being called "everlasting father" (Isa. 9: 6) proves that he is the Father has been answered by Trinitarians just as has been the argument made from the words of Jesus where he says "he who has seen me has seen the Father" (John 14: 9) and where he says "I and my Father are one."  These verses do not prove that the Son is the Father.  How can one be the father of himself?  How can one be the son of himself?

Trott continued:

"Brother Clark will probably shuffle these queries off by saying the subject of God's existence is a mystery. True it is a mystery, but does this imply that we should, by our constructions put upon God's word, involve it in contradictions? There is a material difference between mystery and contradictions. It is nowhere written, great are the contradictions of godliness. Contradictions in his system I have already pointed out, the above hint therefore will be sufficient. I have thus presented my views as contrasted with the popular system, by which it will be seen that I, in common with the advocates of that system, hold that God exists as three, and that these three are one, and so one, that either of the three is, in His distinct relation, the one God. 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."

It is ironic that Trott should decry contradictions in the Trinitarian scheme and yet contradict himself when he says that there are not three persons in the Godhead and yet says that the Son is a distinct person from the Father and Holy Ghost.  Trott denies that the sonship of Christ "relates to His Godhead."  Yet, in affirming this he is against the Old Baptist faith.  He certainly rejects the clear teaching of Dr. Gill on this matter, and Dr. Gill reflected the traditional Old Baptist faith.  Further, Trott holds that God begat himself!  But, in the realm of men, who ever begat himself?  Does Trott not frequently point to human begetting as being all the same as divine begetting? 

Trott continued:

"And now brethren, is there anything heretical, anything anti-scriptural in those points wherein I differ from you, anything contradictory to the Son of God's being absolutely the Jehovah, whilst He is the Son of God, and Man, possessing these existences distinct from His Godhead, yet inseparable from it, and personally one with it; any diminishing of His capacity to act as the one Mediator between God and men? If there is, then clear yourselves from the heresy by separating from me. But beware how you encourage splits among us, when that from which you would separate is sustained by the word of God. I am willing to join issue with brother Clark in an appeal to the saints of the most high God, which it is that denies that the Son of God is the Jehovah, he who says He is begotten of the Father as God, or I in contending that He is unbegotten, unproduced in His Godhead; and whether I any more diminish His essential Godhead by contending that He exists as the life of His people as well as man in His personal union with His Godhead, that he does in admitting that He exists as proper man in like union with His Godhead. Whilst having joined in this appeal to the saints, I would not forestall their decision, but wish them to consider and speak candidly if they are disposed to do so, and say which more denies the idea of absolute self-existence, he who contends that it is an unbegotten, underived existence, for this is the point; I would beg indulgence to lengthen this communication by stating what I believe to be the actual difference between me and brother Clark and other brethren whom I could name, and that reduced to the shortest span. It is simply this, that I believe that Christ actually existed from before the foundation of the world, in union with His Godhead as the Head and life of His people, and they deny His so existing, and therefore in effect, deny His actual existence as the Christ and Mediator until He was born of Mary. Also, we differ in the reference of His sonship, they referring it to His Godhead and I referring it to His existence as Head and life of His people. This is the amount on this subject; it, to be sure, extends itself to the subject of regeneration as to what constitutes that. Whether this be a sufficient ground for a split I leave them to judge for themselves. My opinion and my feelings are that it is no cause for a split or for hard feelings; but as I do not wish to intrude upon their fellowship after what brother Clark has developed by crowding myself upon their churches, or associations, I shall stand aloof, till invited."  (see here)

These views of Trott are radical and a mixture of Sabellianism and Arianism.  It is good that modern Hardshells have rid themselves of these errors.  However, it is to be noted that they come from this stock and is a monkey wrench in their Landmarker views of link chain succession. 

Concerning the eternal Sonship of Christ, Dr. John Gill wrote:

"X. When the Reformation began in the sixteenth century, and spread throughout many nations in Europe, great evangelical light broke forth among the Reformers; and Satan fearing his kingdom would greatly suffer hereby, went to his old game again, which he had played with so much success in the first ages of Christianity, namely, to stir up an opposition to the doctrine of the Trinity, and the person of Christ...but the contrary has been maintained by all sound divines and evangelical churches, from the Reformation to the present time, as appears by their writings and harmony of confessions: so that upon the whole it is clear, that the church of God has been in the possession of this doctrine of the eternal generation and Sonship of Christ, from the beginning of Christianity to the present age, almost eighteen hundred years; nor has there been any one man who professed to hold the doctrine of the Trinity, or of the three distinct divine persons in the unity of the divine essence, that ever opposed it, till the latter end of the seventeenth century: if any such person in this course of time can be named, let him be named: none but the followers of Simon Magus, Cerinthus, Ebion, Carpocrates, the Gnosticks, etc. in the two first centuries, and then by the Sabellians, Samosatenians, Arians, Photinians, Mahometans, Socinians, and more lately by the Remonstrants, such as are Antitrinitarians."

"Now since it appears that all the sound and orthodox writers have unanimously declared for the eternal generation and Sonship of Christ in all ages, and that those only of an unsound mind and judgment, and corrupt in other things as well as this, and many of them men of impure lives and vile principles, have declared against it, such must be guilty of great temerity and rashness to join in an opposition with the one against the other; and to oppose a doctrine the Church of God has always held, and especially being what the scriptures abundantly bear testimony unto, and is a matter of such moment and importance, being a fundamental doctrine of the Christian religion, and indeed what distinguishes it from all other religions, from those of Pagans, Jews and Mahometans, who all believe in God, and generally in one God, but none of them believe in the Son of God: that is peculiar to the Christian religion."  ("Dissertation Concerning The Eternal Sonship of Christ, Shewing By Whom It Has Been Denied And Opposed, and By Whom Asserted And Defended In All Ages Of Christianity" -  see here)

Elder Samuel Trott on Nature & Sin of Angels

Elder Samuel Trott

(1783 - 1866)

Elder Samuel Trott was one of the preachers who helped to begin the "anti-mission movement" of the early nineteenth century and to spawn the new sect called "Old School" or "Primitive" or "Hardshell" Baptist church. He was a frequent writer to the "Signs of the Times" periodical edited by his ministerial friend Elder Gilbert Beebe. He held to certain "Two Seed" beliefs as did Beebe, although he did not embrace several of the foundational principles of Two Seed doctrine. He did believe in "eternal vital union" and therefore of the preexistence of the man Christ Jesus and of the elect in him. He also denied the doctrine known as "eternal sonship of Christ," and he did not believe in the Trinity. However, he rejected "eternal justification" and did not reject God's use of means in the eternal salvation of sinners. I posted Trott's views on the Trinity in a post a few years ago (See here). In that posting I cite where he says that some of his brethren accused him of being both Sabellian and Arian. In those citations he takes the view of Beebe that the Son of God had three natures, not two as the orthodox view has traditionally affirmed. He said

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?

Two Seed Baptist Ideology (VI)

In the next few chapters we will once again look at the Two Seed doctrine of the preexistence of both the human soul of Christ and of the souls of the elect and how Two Seeders believe that the "begetting" of the Son of God occurred before the foundation of the world and had nothing to do with his being divine but with him being human, and when Christ' human soul was begotten so too were his elect people (or bride) likewise begotten or created in him. This is why this Two Seed belief is called "the eternal children doctrine." It involves the idea of the preexistence of souls, an idea that did not originate with the Two Seeders, as many religions believe in it. 

In beginning this section we will first give citations from Two Seeders to show what is their belief about the preexistence of the human nature of Christ and of the preexistence of the souls of the elect. We have already given extensive citations from Two Seeders in years gone by and in this series I will give some of those citations as a prelude to a further elaboration on that point. I will show how two major ideas from earlier times helped to produce Two Seedism. The first was the heresy of Arianism and the second was the idea that Christ's human soul was created when he was "begotten" of the Father before the world began. 

For my previous writings on Two Seedism's belief in "eternal vital union" see (here) and (here) together with others that I will mention as we go along. I have three postings on this heresy of the Two Seed Baptists and you can read them in the blog that contains all my previous writings on Two Seedism. There is a link to that blog on this page in the list of links titled "Two Seed Baptists." In beginning this section of our present series we will cite from those previous postings to give the reader a synopsis of what is involved in this Two Seed idea. 

What Is Eternal Vital Union?

In the debate that Lemuel Potter (a leader in the "Primitive Baptist Church" in the latter half of the nineteenth century and former Two Seeder) had with W.P. Throgmorton, Dr. Throgmorton said (See here ):

"Is Brother Potter responsible for the two-seeders among his people? or is Dr. Watson? He admits that they have a considerable party of two-seeders among them, in their denomination; and so does Dr. Watson. I will read some about them. This will not be so funny to the old brethren. O, no! They will not like to hear this. What do those two-seeders among the Hardshells believe? Dr. Watson's Old Baptist Test, page 292:

2. They believe there is an uncreated-self existent, eternal evil spirit, or devil, intelligent, wicked, cunning and antagonistic to God.

3. They say that the soul of Christ is uncreated and eternal.

4. They fancy that the souls of the children of God, or the elect, are uncreated and eternal and were always in actual union with God."

Now, Brother Potter talks pretty hard against that doctrine in his book. But I think they have quite a respectable portion who believe it.

8. "They deny the resurrection of the bodies of the just and unjust."

These two-seeders do, and there is a considerable party of them, among Mr. Potter's people, mark you. And what does Potter say about those that deny the resurrection? He says that they virtually deny the whole Gospel of Christ; they do not only say that Christ did not rise, but that we are yet in our sins." (166)

I wrote the following in a post titled "Eternal Vital Union" (See here), citing Gilbert Beebe's comments on James 1: 18 which says "Of His own will He brought us forth by the word of truth, that we might be a kind of firstfruits of His creatures." 

Testifies Elder Gilbert Beebe

"Perhaps the means renders will try to make some capital of the words “with the word of his power,” construing the word of his power to imply instrumentality. One of two things must be intended by these words: “With the word,” they were begotten by the Father of lights, spoken of in the context. Christ is the only begotten of the Father; but as a begotten emanation from the Godhead, he is the life of his people, head of his body, the church, mediator, &c.; as God he is self-existent, equally with the Father; but as the life and immortality of his spiritual body, he is the beginning of the creation of God, and the first born of every creature; and in this sense he only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto, [not even by the magic Power of means,] whom no man hath seen nor can see; to whom be honor and power everlasting’. Amen. Now the one production of spiritual life was what we understand to be the begetting of both the head and the body, so that if Christ as the Word is intended by James, the saints have a common origin with Christ their head, and both be that sanctifieth and they that are sanctified are all of one, for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren." 

Gilbert Beebe and Samuel Trott, the two leading writers for the "Signs of the Times," here promote their own version of Daniel Parker's "Two Seedism." Who would have ever interpreted James 1: 18 in the absurd fashion of these Two Seed Hardshells? (See here) From the expressed belief of Beebe in the above words we can see why his view was identified as being "Arianism" by other Hardshells who rejected these ideas. In the above citation, however, Beebe does not deny the deity or divinity of Christ, but denies that his being begotten as the Son of God was designed to demonstrate it. This reminds me of my early days as a Hardshell Baptist elder when a leading minister, Conrad Jarrell, and a few other younger elders, such as Jackie Mott, taught that Jesus being begotten referred to his being born a human being. Their idea was that the second person of the Trinity was God and as such was called the "Word of God," and denied that the second person was God because of being begotten. It caused a stir among the Hardshells and both Jarrell and Mott were forced to form their own sub cult. These brethren argued as do the Arians and Beebe that a son who is begotten cannot be equal with his father. They denied the traditional orthodox view called "eternal generation," the belief that Christ being the begotten Son cannot be an event that took place in time, nor be in every respect like human begetting.

In an article titled "ROMANS 8: 38.39 Eternal Vital Union and Its Blessings," Gilbert Beebe wrote:

"Consequently if there ever was a period in time or eternity when any of the members of His church were NOT IN HIM, then there has been a period when His body was not full. But to imagine the existence of a Head without a body, or a body without a Head, or a perfect and complete Head, and an imperfect and deficient body, does not suit our understanding of the declaration that it pleased the Father that in Him all fulness should dwell. (Col. 1:19)" 

"All the members of Christ are IN HIM, even as the eternal Father is in Him. He is the dwelling place (not of one-third part of the Godhead, as some seem to understand it,) but of ALL the fullness of the Godhead. “That they all may be one, as thou Father art in Me and I in Thee, that they also may be one IN US.” “I in them, and Thou in Me, that they may be made perfect IN ONE,’ &c. (John 17:21-23)."

"If the church is in Christ as the eternal Father is in Him, must they not have been in Him from everlasting?"

“Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, He [Christ] also Himself likewise [or in like manner} took part of the same.” (Heb. 2:14) His children partaking of flesh and blood, shows that their relationship to God as children was perfect before they partook of flesh and blood; and that participation of flesh and blood no more constituted them children, than Christ’s coming into the world, and “also Himself likewise partaking of the same,” constituted Him the Son of God, or the Head of Immortality to His body, the church."

Beebe believed that "Christ" was eternally begotten by the Father (and this is not to say that he is God by this begetting), or produced (created) in the manner believed by the Arians. As a caveat, however, what he meant by "eternally begotten" was that he was begotten before the world began, not that he has always been the Son of God. The term "Son of God" does not denote Christ's divinity, but his composite nature, as part divine, part human, and a third part, a hybrid mixture of the two (thus three natures). 

Many held, as I will show, to the belief that this created (begotten) Christ involved the preexistence of the human soul and/or body of Christ, and some went further and believed that all the elect were created or begotten in Christ when he was created and begotten before the world began. So, not only did Christ preexist before his incarnation (being made flesh) but so too did the elect preexist in Christ, and had a vital or seminal union with him.

In "ETERNAL VITAL UNION," Beebe wrote the following things on the subject. [Republished by request of brother Isaac N. Moon in The 1880 volume of The Signs of The Times, page 81-82] (See here)

"But the question still may arise, how, or in what sense, we the saints in Christ Jesus before the world began?"

"As the seed of Abraham existed in him before any of them we born; and being thus in him, unto them God gave the land of Canaan, before any of them were manifested by generation. God made Abraham the father of many nations, long before any of these nations were developed. Adam called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all living; and that too, before any of her children were born. But the life of all the posterity of which Abraham was the father was in him, and though not manifested to men, they were personally identified by God; for Levi paid tithes unto Melchisedec, when he was yet in the loins of his great-grandfather Abraham. If the life of all the human family had not been in Adam, how could their development by generation and birth been regarded as a multiplication of Adam? God blessed Adam and bade him be fruitful, and multiply and replenish the earth. And in this, Adam is the “figure of Him that was to come,” which is Christ. And in covenant with Abraham, God said, “Surely blessing I will bless thee; and multiplying I will multiply thee.”"

"Our being born into the natural world did not make us the sons and daughters of Adam; but our original creation in him as his posterity, is that which constitutes the relationship, and our birth is but the manifestation of it. Our generation is the manifestation of that life which was given us in Christ, and makes us manifest as the children of God."

"Thus to be IN Jesus Christ seminally, as the spiritual embodiment and progenitor of “a seed that shall serve Him, and be counted to the Lord for a generation,” according to Psalms 22:30; Isaiah 53:10-12; I Peter 2:9, involves the Bible doctrine of eternal Union. A union of life, love and immortality. One with Christ even as Christ is one with the Father." 

"A birth is not the creation or origination of life, but the manifestation of life by what is called procreation. Our earthly nature which in Christians is called the old, or outward man, was created in Adam, but pro-created by natural generation. But that immortality which is in the Christian, and which is denominated the new, or the inward man, was given us in Jesus Christ, and is manifested by spiritual generation when born of God."

Of course, as the opponents of eternal vital union showed, no one has an actual existence prior to his creation and birth in the womb. Yes, they were foreknown, loved, and chosen, but only because God foresaw them before they existed. Yes, all men were "in" Adam not only by representation, but seminally (physically), as containing or contributing the seed of later generations. However, the teaching that all souls or spirits were created in Adam is not an indisputable fact. Were the souls or spirits of the elect created in Adam or in Christ before the world began? It seems the Two Seeders cannot logically have it both ways. Many of them said that only the souls of the non-elect were "in" Adam when he was created, for the souls of the elect were "in" Christ when he was begotten sometime in eternity past.

It is not appropriate to say that the elect were "in" Christ seminally when he was begotten (either in eternity past or in the womb of the virgin). The way one is joined to Christ vitally, according to the new testament, is to be born again by faith. So Jesus taught that one must eat his flesh and drink his blood in order to have him enter into the heart, mind, and spirit. (John 6: 53-57) This partaking of Christ is done in the mind when it receives the message of the gospel of Christ. 

Also, the begetting of the Son of God was not a creation of the man Christ. Christ, as man, did not exist till he was conceived in the womb of the virgin Mary. Two of the oft cited scriptures of the Two Seeders were those which speak of Christ as being the "beginning of the creation of God." (Rev. 3: 14; Col. 1: 15). They interpret such verses in an Arian fashion, except that they say they involve him being a mediator, and having both a God nature and a human from the time he was created or begotten. The doctrine of eternal vital union, and the preexistence of souls, is interwoven with serious errors on the doctrine of the Trinity.

One of the verses that has been cited to disprove that the elect preexisted with Christ in eternity past, or were "in him" before the world began, is the one from Paul who said of two named Christians that "they were in Christ before me" (Rom. 16: 7). If all the elect were literally in Christ from eternity, then how can one be in Christ before another? 

In my writings in "The Hardshell Baptist Cult" and copied for this blog (and the "Two Seed Baptists" blog) I had two chapters titled "Eternal Children Doctrine" and I want to cite from those two chapters. In the first (See here) I wrote:

Elder Gilbert Beebe - "INCARNATION OF THE CHILDREN OF GOD"

"...the participation of the children of God of flesh and blood, and the incarnation of the Son of God, are placed on the same ground, and based upon the same principle, by the inspired apostle in his epistle to the Hebrews: "Forasmuch, then, as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same." [2:14] To our mind, this text is a key to the subject..."

Beebe interpreted Hebrews 2: 14 as saying that the children of God became incarnate just as Jesus. As Jesus existed before his being made flesh, so too did the children of God. However, that is not what the text is saying. 

Now I want to go back in history to the late 17th and early 19th century and cite from some "high" or "hyper" Calvinists, some of whom were Baptists, who believed that the human soul of Christ was conceived when he was begotten by the Father and that this idea, like the idea of Manichaeistic dualism, and the idea of the preexistence of souls, came from other sources and were blended together in Two Seedism.

In "THE EMERGENCE OF HYPER-CALVINISM IN ENGLISH NONCONFORMITY 1689–1765" (here) well known author Peter Toon writes the following in chapter one titled "CALVIN AND CALVINISM" and under the sub-title "Modifications in the doctrine of the Trinity." Wrote Toon (all emphasis mine):

"Not a few “Calvinists” found the doctrine of the Trinity as explained in the traditional Creeds and Confessions difficult to accept. In his lectures on the Larger Catechism, Thomas Ridgley, minister of the Congregational Church which met at the Three Cranes, Thames Street, London, revealed that he found two orthodox positions untenable. He believed that the expressions “the eternal generation of the Son” and “the procession of the Holy Ghost” were absurd and unscriptural phrases. He thought of the Second Person of the Trinity as Son of God by virtue of His office as Mediator and not through eternal generation by the Father. Yet he did not deny the equality of the Son with the Father and His proper eternity." (pg. 47)

This was the view of Beebe. Beebe actually believed that Christ had three natures, a human, a divine, and a mediatorial. He also connected Christ's being begotten by the Father with his becoming a mediator, and his becoming a mediator necessitated that he be human. Thus, if one believes that Christ functioned as a mediator before the world began, or in the old testament before his birth of Mary, then Christ must have been human before his incarnation.

Wrote Toon:

"In his The Glory of Christ Unveil’d (1706), Joseph Hussey set out his belief that the human nature of Jesus Christ existed in heaven from the agreement of the covenant of grace by the Trinity. He believed that the verses in Proverbs 8. 22 ff. referred to the Second Person as God-Man possessing the human nature before the creation of the world." (pg. 47)

Joseph Hussey was a Hyper Calvinist. He wrote several books, but the one that promotes one of the foundational beliefs of Hyper Calvinism is the book titled "God's Operations of Grace but No Offers of His Grace" (1707). Hyper Calvinism began with the denial that salvation was to be offered to lost sinners in Gospel preaching. It seems to me that Beebe, the leading apologist for Two Seed propositions, at times parroted things that Hussey taught. One was the no offers of salvation proposition, and the other was the proposition that the human soul of Christ came into being when he was "begotten" sometime in eternity past. So, Two Seed views on this are not new. However, as we will see, they also added the idea that all the souls of the elect were also begotten or created when Christ was begotten, and thus came their tenet known as the "eternal children doctrine." I have written on this proposition in chapters 37-39 in "The Hardshell Baptist Cult" book (See here). This belief in the preexistence of souls is a belief borrowed from other religions, such as Gnosticism and several Oriental religions. 

Wrote Toon:

"Isaac Watts, who had maintained a neutral position in the subscription controversy at Salters’ Hall, found himself confused by the doctrine of the Trinity for most of his life. It was in 1725 that he first gave a clear statement of his view that a human soul was joined to the Second Person of the Trinity in heaven before the creation of the world. He believed that the human race, in its creation, was modelled by God on this archetype, the God-Man, the Mediator, Who became “the first born of all creation” (Col. 1. 15). Then from Mary, the God-Man received His human flesh and form. This Christology also appeared in his "The Glory of Christ as God-Man (1746)." (pg. 48)

I have mentioned this view of the great hymn writer in the past. I strongly believe that Beebe and his fellow Two Seed Baptists not only had been influenced by reading Hussey on the preexistence of the human soul and nature of Christ, but also in reading Watts also.

When Toon says that Watts, following Hussey, affirmed that "the human race was modelled by God as the archetype," or "God-man," that he was stating the view of Primitive Baptist Two Seeders who a century later read his writings. One Hardshell article of faith affirms this teaching of Watts. In my posting titled "Bear Creek Association & Two Seedism" (See here) I wrote about how Elder Hosea Preslar (who I have cited already in this series on Two Seedism) wrote about how Two Seed ideas had been embraced by the Bear Creek Association of Primitive Baptists, an association I was part of when I was a young Hardshell preacher. I cited from that association's articles of faith that affirmed belief in what Hussey and Watts taught. In that posting I wrote the following:

"Here is what Elder Preslar wrote about the Bear Creek Association in the days just preceding the Civil War. 

 "But in the midst of all this confusion, my desire and prayer to God was that the Bear Creek Association might be saved,--saved from the many errors by which she was surrounded, (her well known enemies) And also from some erroneous things or principles, that are now in her midst, or in her ranks, going under the name of "Old Baptist;" but when named by those who are better acquainted with its signs and marks, is the old Two Seed Parkerite heresy." 

(This citation was taken from the periodical "The Primitive Baptist" after Preslar had moved back from Tennessee to his home state of North Carolina, and mingled among the Bear Creek churches)

In that posting I then cited from the articles of faith of the Bear Creek Association which read as follows:

"Article 2. We believe in the man Jesus being the first of all God's creation and the pattern of all Gods perfection in nature, providence, grace and glory, and in relative union with the Divine Word, and thus united with the whole Trinity."

This is exactly what Joseph Hussey and Isaac Watts had taught, and others too as we will see.

In the next chapter we will continue with an investigation into these Two Seed ideas about the preexistence of both the human soul of Christ and of the human souls of the elect, and the doctrine of "eternal children" and of the effects of this teaching on other areas of theology.

Two Seed Baptist Ideology (XXVII)

Elder Matthew Grigg Thompson

(1811 - 1888)

In this chapter we will look at what Elder Grigg Thompson wrote in opposition to Two Seedism. As I have shown in previous chapters, his father, Elder Wilson Thompson believed in one of the key tenets of that heresy, the idea of "eternal vital union" or "eternal children." I have also stated that Grigg (this was his mother's maiden name) stated that his father did not believe in Two Seedism. I have not been able as yet to find where he said this, but I do remember reading it somewhere in years past. I don't believe that Grigg agreed with his father on the Trinity either, for Wilson was a Modalist or Sabellian and I don't believe that Grigg believed this. I know what it feels like to disagree with your father, as I disagreed with my father too, although we both claim to be "Primitive" or "original" Baptists. Grigg's book "The Measuring Rod" was published in 1860. In it he calls the Two Seeders "Arian Baptists" and "Beebeites," just as others called them "Parkerites," and I have cited from this work in previous postings on the subject, but I wish now to cite further from it and make some observations thereupon. The title of his book was a long one, being --

"The Measuring Rod, Or, Principles and Practice of the Primitive Baptists Stated and Defended Against Modern Arianism, Two Seedism, &c. ; with an Appendix, in which the Writer Has Met and Refuted the Many False Charges Made Upon Him by Elders T.P. Dudley, G. Beebe, & W.C. Cleaveland"

Here is the cover of that book and it can be read (here).

In Chapter Two Thompson writes (all highlighting mine):

"I Now come to that part of my investigation, in which I shall have to apply the Measuring Rod, for each party claims the name of Primitive Baptists, and as far as I know, are the same in their church government. Their difference is doctrinal, and each professes to get his views from the Scriptures, and to them they make their appeal. I shall call one party, Two Seed, or Arian Baptists, because that name seems to indicate some of their leading doctrinal views, and as both claim the name Primitive Baptist, the reader might become confused if we did not distinguish them by different names; and, I think, that before we are done, the reader will not think that I have done them injustice, in giving them the name I have." (pg. 36-37)

I have written quite a lot in my Old Baptist Test blog about how the first Hardshells had disagreements over the doctrine of the Trinity. Wilson Thompson was a Modalist or Sabellian. I have several articles where I cite from Wilson on that point. Elder Sylvester Hassell in his church history acknowledges this fact about Wilson Thompson. Wilson was also accused of believing in Two Seed doctrine, and as we have seen, he did believe it, even though his son Grigg later would deny this about his father. The late Dr. R.E. Pound used to have a web page where he documented a lot of the controversies around the doctrine of the Trinity that existed among the first "Primitive Baptists," a fact of history that today's Hardshells are not aware of. From his Web page (which is not now available) I cited him in my article titled "Dr. R. E. Pound on Hardshell Factions" (See here). He wrote:

"In those days the Old School brethren were in three groupings on theology: 1. The Delaware River and the Warwick, Samuel Trott, grouping, the deniers of Nicenism; 2. The Ketocton association, with John Clark, the followers of Niceinism; 3. The followers of Wilson Thompson, a Sabellian, who denied that the Father and the Son entered into an eternal covenant because these were not two distinct Beings, but only personalities of the One Divine Being. It seems to me that at the first, these divisions among the old schoolers was not over absolute predestination, but OVER NICENISM."

Dr. Pound's Web Page before he passed away was pbl.oldfaithbaptist.org. You can find some of Dr. Pound's writings (here).

Elder John Clark began to publish his periodical "Zion's Advocate" in 1854 out of his home state of Virginia and he frequently attacked the editors of the "Signs of the Times" for advocating Two Seed ideology and for affirming that Jesus was not divine because of his being the Son of God, or because he was begotten by the Father. However, as we saw in preceding chapters in writing about Elder T.P. Dudley, Dudley's biographer (Taylor) said that Clark had written to Dudley and stated that he believed much of what Dudley had written in his book on "The Christian Warfare" which promoted Two Seed tenets. Elder Beebe, like both the Hardshell Sabellians and Arians, argued that if Jesus was begotten of God in his divinity, then he would be inferior to God who begat him, would not be eternal but a creature of time. Wilson Thompson, the Sabellian (or Modalist) argued this way. Beebe and Trott, the semi-Arians, argued the same way. Christ being a begotten Son of God was an act that had a beginning. 

Elder John Clark in his book "Exposure of Heresies Propagated by Some Old School Baptists," published in 1873, wrote against the Arianism involved in the Two Seedism of many of his fellow Hardshells from the 1830s till the early 1880s when he passed away. So, both Grigg Thompson and John Clark referred to Two Seed Primitive or Old School Baptists as "Arians." John Clark's book is not available on the Internet. I was able to get the book years ago by using the benefits of the inter-library loan program, so that my local library had the book sent to them from another library in another state, and I was able to read it in my local library (but not take it home), and I did so and took some notes. I wrote about that in 2008 in my blog "The Baptist Gadfly" in a post titled "On Clark's Book." Here is my summary of what I read (See here).

"Back a couple months ago I posted an entry wherein I asked where a lost book could be found, one written by Elder Clark in 1873 (a crucial time period in the history of the Hardshells) and titled - "Exposure of heresies propagated by some "old school Baptists," from their own publications: showing their doctrines to be not according to the Gospel of Christ."

I can now report that I have read this short book and have taken some notes from it.

The book shows that many of the first Hardshells were Arian in doctrine, denying the eternal Sonship of Christ as an expression of his divinity.

In this book Elder Clark attacks the "no change" view of regeneration, a view prevalent among first generation Hardshells, or what has come to be called the "Hollow Log" doctrine. Those who generally held to this doctrine were they who retained the view of Elder Parker and his belief in "eternal vital union," or "eternal children," believing that the elect were in existence in Christ, by a creation before the world began, and that they simply, like Christ, "come down from heaven" and take up their abode in an "Adam man," like a rabbit would run into a hollow log and stay there, yet without effecting any change in the log.

Elder Clark found it absurd and a false doctrine worse than Arminianism. He did not believe that anyone existed before he was born into the world."

Thompson wrote:

"The Word is the infallible standard, and I intend to let the Two Seed, Arian party, express their doctrines in their own words, and then apply the Measuring Rod, or the Scriptures, to them; and, I think, that before I am done, the reader will see that, if possible, they have less claims to be the Apostolic church, than either of the parties already decided against." (pg. 37-38)

The "two parties" he alludes to are the "Campbellites" and "Missionary Baptists." Grigg believes that Two Seedism is a worse heresy than those. Elder John Watson said something similar, saying in his book "The Old Baptist Test" that in many ways "Parkerism" or "Two Seedism" was worse than the "New Schoolism" of the "Missionary" Baptists from whom they had separated. 

Thompson wrote:

"Before taking the subject up, I have another remark to make. Sometime past, I published an “Appeal to the Primitive Baptists,” in which I labored to expose the errors of the Arian party; in it I marked all my quotations, but, notwithstanding that, I have heard of some who have read the quotations from the stand, and affirmed it to be my doctrine, and made war upon it. In this work, I shall put every quotation from them in a different type from the body of the book, so that no one can be mistaken, but will know that they are reading their views, expressed in their own words." (pg. 38)

This shows either the gross ignorance or sinister doings of some "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptists. You have to be pretty ignorant not to realize what quotation marks mean. In a posting I made years ago titled "Duke Research Results (1)" (See here), I showed where Elder W.H. Crouse did what Grigg said others had done to his writings, attributing citations he gave of what others believed as being his beliefs. In that post I wrote the following:

In the book "Regeneration or the New Birth" by William H. Crouse in 1925 (see here), a book upheld by Sonny Pyles as stating things accurately, Crouse wrote:

"Elder John Clark, a recognized leader among Primitive Baptists, for years editor of Zion's Advocate (afterwards edited by T.S. Dalton, C.H. Waters, John R. Daily, and now by R.H. Pittman) in an editorial on this subject in June 1858, said:

"We can conceive how agencies and instrumentalities can be employed in ministering to the living, but what place they have in giving life we cannot so readily conceive.***Is it scripturally true that God uses instrumentality in quickening, or giving life, to sinners dead in tresspasses and sins. The burden of proof, we know, rests upon these who affirm this, but let us see a moment what saith the revelation of God upon the subject.***(John 5: 21; 25; Born 4:17, 2 Cor.3:6, Eph. 2: 4,5,10; Col. 2:13, I Tim. 6:13; Heb. 4:12.) This array of scriptural testimony is sufficient, we should think, to establish the proposition that God quickens the sinner independent of means."

Now, here is what Clark actually wrote (I have the copy right in front of me)..."

What Crouse said Clark wrote is not what Clark wrote, but were citations from his opponents that Crouse said were the words and beliefs of Clark. The above citation is not what Clark wrote but is what his opponents had written and which he disagreed with. You can read the entire citation that I gave in that post. So, what does this say about some "Primitive," "Old School," or "Hardshell" Baptists?

Thompson wrote:

"The Two Seed, or Arian Baptists, in common with all professed Christians, believe that there is one God, who is the Creator, and who exists in, and of himself; who is omniscient, omnipresent, all-wise, and unchangeable, a most pure and holy spirit.They also believe that this God exists, or is revealed in the Scriptures as Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and that these three are one; so that there is not three Gods, but one. In this article of their faith I believe them, and the Primitive Baptists are identical, for the first article adopted by all the Primitive Baptist churches, with which I am acquainted, reads about as follows: “We believe in one only true and living God, and that there is a Trinity of persons in the Godhead, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and yet there are not three Gods, but one God.” To sustain this article, they refer to Isa. xliv, 6: 1 John v. 7, and a variety of other Scriptures." (pg. 38-39)

This is not all quite true, however. Not all Two Seed or Arian Baptists believed in the Trinity. As we have seen, Grigg's father, Wilson Thompson, denied the Trinity and yet held to Two Seed views. So too did Samuel Trott. Also, how can Grigg say that Two Seeders were sound on the Trinity and yet call them "Arian Baptists"? Further, we have cited from Daniel Parker in previous chapters where he denied that Satan or his seed were created by God, calling the children of the Devil "the products" of Satan. That makes Satan a creator. He also taught that Satan was "self existing" and so did many Two Seeders, and so what Grigg says is not true. So, why did Grigg say these things? I can only guess. Why did he deny that his father was a Two Seeder or not say that he disagreed with the Modalism of his father?

Thompson wrote:

"The Two Seed, or Arian Baptists, believe that the Son of God, or second person in the Trinity, is a created, inferior existence, that he was created before the visible heavens and earth, and was the first thing God ever created. To show that I have not used a misnomer in calling them Arians, I will give the Arian faith, as given by Buck, and I will then give their faith as expressed by themselves. “Arians,” says Buck, “maintained that the Son of God was totally and essentially distinct from the Father; that he was the first and noblest of those beings whom God had created; the instrument by whose subordinate operation he formed the universe; and, therefore, inferior to the Father, both in nature and dignity; also, that the Holy Ghost was not God, but created by the power of the Son.” (pg. 39-40)

Here Grigg seems to say just the opposite of what he said in the previous citation. He says Two Seeders believed in one God in three persons and yet says that they believed that the second person in the Trinity is a created and inferior being. Of course, men like Beebe and Trott believed that Christ was God, and believed in a Trinity of persons (disagreeing with Wilson Thompson), yet they believed that Christ being the Son of God had nothing to do with his being God, but had to do with him being begotten as a Mediator, which involved him being a composite person of three natures, from some point in eternity past when he was begotten or created as such. We have even seen where Joshua Lawrence, though not a Two Seeder, also believed that Christ being the Son of God did not mean Christ was God, but his being the Son of God denoted his being born a human being.

Thompson wrote:

"Eld. G. Beebe, of New York, Eld. S. Trott, of Virginia, and Eld. T. P. Dudley, of Kentucky, stand at the head of the Two Seed, or Arian party, in fact, they have given the party birth in the United States, and their views are received by their followers without a dissenting voice, as far as I know, and from them I shall quote largely." (pg. 40)

Why did Thompson leave out Daniel Parker or his own father? Why did he leave out Daniel Parker? Yes, I know that Parker died in 1844, several years before Grigg wrote the "Measuring Rod," and this may be the reason. He does give the leading apologists for Two Seedism, and we have cited extensively from these apologists in preceding chapters. However, he says that the men named had "given the party birth" and so he should not have left out Daniel Parker.

Thompson wrote:

"Eld. Beebe, in a pamphlet published in 1843, on page 17, and second column, says: “By the spiritual creation, I mean the creation in Christ Jesus, and by natural creation, all that properly belongs to this world, including the creation of all the human family, as such in Adam. . .The same spiritual creation which set up our Day's-man, our spiritual Head, gave actual being to all the elect of God in him.” 

This is quite interesting in lieu of the fact that in chapter XXIV we cited the words of Beebe from the "Signs of the Times" for 1838 (Vol. 6, No. 25, page 198) where Beebe said:

"That the words of divine revelation declare two seeds among the family of Adam, viz: the children of promise, which are accounted for the seed, the chosen generation, &c', and also of the seed of the serpent, the generation of vipers, the seed of evil doers, &,c., we fully admit; but that the former of these actually and personally existed in eternity, in any other sense than that their life was children with Christ in God, and that the latter had an actual existence in the bottomless pit before they existed on earth, is a doctrine which neither the word nor Spirit has ever revealed unto us;..."

So, Beebe is on record as both affirming and denying the "actual being" or existence of the elect in Christ before the world began. The denial was made in 1838 but the affirmation was made in 1843.

Thompson then cites these words of Beebe from that pamphlet wherein he cites Trott:

“I will, in candor, answer the questions put to me. The first is ‘Whether the quickening and life-giving Spirit of God is a created existence? I answer decidedly, YES. They again ask “If the Scriptures give any information of any thing being created before the beginning?" If they mean by the beginning, the creation of God, I answer No, for Christ is that beginning; but if they mean by it, the beginning of time, as in Gen. 1st chap. and 1st verse, I say Yes; for in that beginning God created the heavens and the earth; but Christ being the beginning of the creation of God, must in this sense, have been created, or brought into existence before these, and therefore before time.”— Signs of the Times, Vol. 17, No. 16, Aug. 1, 1849. s TROTT." (pg. 41)

This is what the Arians taught and is the reason why Thompson and Clark both accused Beebe and Trott and some other Two Seeders as being such.

Thompson wrote:

"As far as the creatureship of the Son is concerned, their views are identical, and the name Arian is appropriate." (pg. 42)

Well, not exactly, and that is why I prefer to call the Two Seeders "semi-Arian." Arius and Arians denied the Trinity, but Beebe and Trott did not. 

Thompson then writes:

"Arius says, that the Holy Ghost is a creature, and was created by the Son. Elder Trott says, that the quickening and life giving Spirit of God, is a created existence. The only difference between him and Arius, is that one ascribes the creation of this quickening spirit to the Son, and the other simply calls it a created existence, without telling us whether it was created by God or the Son."

That is not the only difference between Trott and Arius, for Trott did not deny the Trinity as did Arius. The likeness between both is in how they understood Christ being the begotten Son of God.

Thompson wrote:

"I have now showed that they are Arians, in their views of Christ, and the quickening spirit of God, and hold them both to be creatures in a sense that is in palpable contradiction to God’s word. I shall now examine their Two Seed notions, and try them by the infallible rule." 

However, we will save Thompson's refutation of Two Seedism for the next chapter.