Publishers introduction: We present here the first article from the pen of Thomas Paxton which appeared in the "Western Predestinarian Baptist." We have removed a few commas, separated one long paragraph into two, modernized some spelling. Italics and all caps are as in the original, as is most punctuation. If our brethren enjoy this we will include more of this brother's writings. Though we do not endorse every remark Bro. Paxton made in this article, in the main we are pleased with his original thoughts on a subject which we would do well to study more.
Dear Editor: -- In consequence of the desire of many of your brethren, that I should write more upon doctrinal points, I here put my life in my hand, to gratify them; I the more readily do so, as I think, I am in the meantime stopping the mouths of gainsayers and glorifying our common Savior.
Many of the forthcoming remarks would have been anticipated, if the letter I wrote brother M Bennett[1], had been published. In the commencement let me apprise my readers that I have prepared myself with an axiom from which I may not depart.
That God never has been – never will be, nor ever can be frustrated in any of his works. Reader, pause, and consider well the propositions contained in my axiom. Do you assent to them? Then we shall walk together. But do you dissent? Then let me speak plainly to you. I first pity you, for worshipping such a weak and deficient God, next I pity your God, who appears unable to prevent his own loss. I now introduce my text – “Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God,” 1 Cor. 15 and 50. The kingdom here spoken of, cannot mean the church Militant, for flesh and blood must accompany this; and the Scripture says, “No man knoweth either love or hatred by all that is before them.” It must, therefore, mean ultimate glory; I wish the language of the text to be well considered. It does not say that flesh and blood shall not, &c., but that they CANNOT, &c. There remains, therefore, no chance for a quibbler to say, that God got angry at man’s transgression, and so altered his original plan of salvation. The proposition of itself, is complete, and shows it to have been a decree of the eternal and omnipotent God. There is a plain and concise way of reasoning, which I shall adopt on this occasion, I mean by syllogism. The text furnishes the major proposition. “Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God.” The minor proposition is this: But Adam, in his original estate, was flesh and blood. – The unavoidable consequence is, that Adam could not have inherited the kingdom of God. Can all the men and devils in this world, or any other, pull this syllogism to pieces? The greatest sceptic must answer, no. Then I proceed to state an equal truth: That Jesus Christ, as the quickening and saving word of God, existed before Adam and was the model or image, after which Adam was made. This idea, alone, furnishes to us a reason why the God-Head was, personally, divided into a Trinity, Adam was made after the image of God. But God never a form or image, except in his Son; for he is merely a simple spirit, and in this way must be worshiped through his Son. Here have we the only tangible ground on which to rest our hopes. It follows that our hope is anchored upon the created part of our Lord, for of this only, could it be said, “of his entering of that within the veil.” – But of what consequence would this great fore-runner, and even the person division of the God-Head, would have been to us, if Adam (and we in him) had not died?
Let it be continually remembered that, Adam (and us in him) was flesh and blood and therefore could not inherit the kingdom. But just here, arises a very serious question, or rather several questions. Did God make that kingdom for Adam (and us) to inherit? And must he, and we, die to inherit it? Both of these must be answered, Yes, certainly. Here comes another: But how was he to die? He was good, (many think he was righteous and wise; I do not; but more of this hereafter.) He was upright; he was indeed perfect, in the stage of his existence; and if let alone could never have died. But God did not let him alone but bound him under a good and holy law. God had a right to do so; yet had he the design of preparing him for that REST, which also was prepared for him from the foundation of the world, Heb 4 and 3. The breach of the law alone, could cause Adam’s death, according to God’s plan, and thank God he died – for I want to inherit that kingdom. The Apostle also thanks him. See Rom. 6 and 17. “But God be thanked that ye were the servants of sin. This I do the rather, because I now can give all the glory to HIM whom I ought; otherwise I could not have so done.” God had two principal things in view, beside his own glory, when he created man. One, was, that many beings might be made happy – the other, their inheritance, that should make them so. God had, in his eternal purpose, joined these two together; and I ask, triumphantly, who shall separate them? Sin is a present thing, and Hell is a thing to come; but these, with all the THINGS, shall remain unable to untie this knot. From the nature of things, man could not enjoy his inheritance, but by dying – he could die, but by sinning – he could not sin without a law. God knew all this, and THEREFORE, gave the law. I shall be able to prove, that this was the very reason, why God gave the law; and that without being the author of sin, “Moreover, the law entered, that the offence MIGHT abound.” But let us trace God’s views a little farther, (for we may do so, where he tells us himself.) Take notice, that what Christ has done for us, was not merely to re-instate us; for in truth, Adam worked too, for our good, inasmuch as no man can be born a second time, without a previous birth. From the beginning, the evening preceded the morning. We must look upon the whole; what both Adam’s done; every other thing, whether we are disposed to call it good, bad or indifferent; as working an irresistible process, in favor of all, who are called according to God’s purpose, and who of course love him. Never mind my brother, [for I write to them that peculiarly hate sin] “be careful for nothing” – “for where sin abound, grace did MUCH MORE abound.” And “not as the offense, so also is the free gift; which may signify that you shall not lose you kingdom of God, as we did our earthly Eden. Fear not little flock,” &c.
From these considerations, we arrive at a very curious fact, in the mysterious science of Godliness, viz: when Adam fell, [if it can be called a fall; the Scripture does not call it so,] he must have fallen upwards, towards his inheritance. This conclusion cannot be denied, without denying my text also. Suppose I change an old couplet into a new one –
“In Adam’s fall,
We sinned all.”
“In Adam’s flight,
We all went right.”
Let us not forget that, when the Apostle said that, “when SIN abounded;” he used it in the singular, thereby intending to identify Adam’s first transgression. Now, my dear brethren, if this sin abounded to all Adam’s posterity, why are we not universalists? – for surely, if grace not only abounded to these all, but much more done so, shall they not all inherit the kingdom by that superabounding grace, of which our Lord Jesus Christ is full? Surely the non-elect were not in Adam; but their rise by Adam, in his transgression. If all Israel were on of Israel, then may not some of Adam’s descendants be not of his original and essential offspring, which God, at first told him to bring forth, even before his female partner, was brought forth? – And I can as easily account for all the members of Christ’s church, being created in him, and manifesting their emanation, in the production of Adam, as I can conceive the other instrument, with feminine qualities, hidden in the person of Adam, but was made manifest by one of his ribs. Here, my brethren, was Adam the figure of Christ? Was not Adam to partake of his wife’s lost state, for she was his own bone and flesh; and did not the iniquities of Christ’s heels compass him upon the cross? But more of this, upon the article of imputation, I leave it to the reason of every man, that if any of God’s original creation could be damned. Eve had been one; yet we have an infallible proof that she was not. God told her that he would put a mutual enmity between her and the Devil, [Gen. 3 and 15,] and I, for one, am certain he did so; now I want no better a passport when I leave this world.
Strong as I believe that I see a display of two seeds, in Scripture, I will give up the point, when anyone shall show me, upon other grounds, how our poisonous vegetation obtained in the earth. I think this a fair compromise. But if any Predestinarian will not go with brother Parker, in this point, there is but one other course to take—Universalism. I don’t care how he may quirk and work, twist and turn, snuff his nose, glare his eyes, and shrug his shoulders—he never can make a reasonable Christian believe that those who are not elected, was as near to God, in their creation, as was his little flock. Any person who assents to my axiom, can agree that, when we were created in Christ Jesus to good works, that then, he had been necessitated to do his work over again!!! Shocking, shocking! I believe in no such God. Brother V.D. Whatley has bid me hew on with my broad-axe; I answer, I will; though I may hew off a member of his, or my own, I am in favor of TRUTH, let me find it wherever I may; but an error, I will hew to pieces, before all Israel, like Samuel did the accursed Amelakite [Agag] altho’ nourished and preserved by a KING. I have many new things to say about Adam, among which I shall be a hewing down many gray-headed errors, which I am determined not to spare. It is said that Adam being a moral agent, was therefore a fit agent to represent all his progeny, and of course it was right to impute his sin to them. But I must deny him to be a moral agent. It is essential that a moral agent should know the difference between good and evil; but it is plain, that Adam knew not this difference. This is also, an objection against him, as being either wise or righteous. He cannot be called a righteous man, who knows not what right is; neither can he be called wise, who does not even know good from evil. Any person who attends to Genesis 3 and 22, will see that Adam in his original state, knew none of these things. Moreover, it is continually said that, when Adam fell, he lost the divine image. Now, if this be true, down comes my boasted axiom, and with it all my rational hopes of salvation. But I will cut to pieces this venerable error also. Let us listen to a couple of Apostles about this matter – Paul, 1 Cor. 11 and 7, “For as much as he [man] IS [not was] the image and glory of God,” &c. Again, James 3 and 9, “Men which ARE made [not was made] after the similitude of God.” I conclude that, if man kept the image of God until the days of the Apostles, he does so yet; what ever that image may be. Furthermore, a no less reverenced error is, the demonstration of Adam’s wisdom, in being able to give pertinent names to the beasts, &c., which is contended, were appropriately significant. To which I reply that there are but two possible ways, for man to have any knowledge. The one is, by induction; that is, “by reason of use, to have the senses exercised,” Heb. 5 and 14. The second is, by divine impulse. Adam could not have named every beast by the exercise of his reason; for he had had no use for them. – But it can easily be perceived that, God could, and did inspire him, as he did Isaiah, to write his 53d chapter, or as he did, the dumb ass, to rebuke the madness of Balaam. As for Adam’s hiding himself from God, amongst the trees, this was not the effect of his foolishness, so much, as it was of his shame, which in fact, was the result of his knowledge. “He knew that he was naked.” But was he not naked before he knew it? Yes, certainly. Those who think he discovered great ignorance in using fig leaves for an apron, remember that no better materials were at hand, and in all probability, the aprons were not to hide their nakedness from God, but from each other. But I am yet very far from being done with Adam, since I believe his fate is ours, be it good or bad. It will be seen from Gen. 3 and 22, that, one reason for which he was expelled from the garden was, because he had become knowing enough to perceive good from evil. Now, I ask my brethren, if they would be willing to exchange their hopes of that eternal inheritance, for that earthly Eden, from whence they were driven, while in the loins of Adam? Consider what I say, as it is a principal point, in the illustration of my text. For if Adam had kept his Eden, we too, had kept it, in him; and while keeping that we must, of necessity, have kept our “flesh and blood” to the everlasting exclusion of the kingdom of God!! – But another reason, why he was driven out was, “lest he take of the tree of life.” Now, it is vain, for any man or angel to so explain this tree of life, as to make it mean any thing else, save the Lord Jesus. This TREE is here mentioned in the beginning; it is also mentioned in the end of all revelation. It is referred to, throughout the whole, as the only source of LIFE, as well as of light, to the children of men. – I wish it to be particularly noticed, [as I am upon an untrodden path,] that, there was a POSSIBILITY of Adam’s so partaking of it, as to keep his flesh and blood, and yet not die; which, according to my text, would forever have excluded him [and us] from the kingdom of God. – Should this have taken place, my axiom would have fallen, and with it, the glorious salvation of all God’s elect. I shall here offer my views on how Adam could have so partaken of Jesus Christ, as to live forever, in his then estate. But if any man can produce better, I will throw away mine, and thank God. But without doing this, let him not say, that I am presumptuous, and wise above what is written. I contend that it is written – not for any private interpretation neither; but for our learning – it certainly has some meaning, and this is what I am after. If any brother can advise me, my ear is open. But should any person, unchristianly, unreasonably and dogmatically, condemn me, there is a Scripture with me, “If any will be ignorant, let him be ignorant still.” If, indeed, by pounding them, I could separate their ignorance from them, I would do so; but God says it cannot be done – Prov. 14:7—Prov. 27 & 22.
I have proven, already, that Adam had not lost the image of God; and that that image was peculiarly to the second person in the trinity. Neither are we at a loss to know the meaning of what eternal life is; for Christ hath explained it. John 17 and 3, “This is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.” But no man can know the father, but by the son; and “he that hath seen Jesus Christ, hath seen the father.” Now, my brethren, Eden was such a place as, that God could be seen walking and heard talking. But this was God in Christ, his only tangible point. Now, since to know God, was only to know his Christ – and since Christ could [by his Jesus part[2]] be seen walking – and since, also, Adam retained his image, why not the RECOGNITION of his relationship, to be, the participation of the tree of life? If Adam could have come to the knowledge of the son of God, would he not have known the TRUE God? Yes, and Jesus, too. Then how could he die; flesh, or no flesh? Then, also, would he have broken my text, all to pieces! But the glorious plan of Omniscience, could not be so broken nor the just to walk by sight, and not by faith. My dear brethren, join me in thanking God that Adam was thrust out of Eden.
I shall now attend to the Scriptural meaning of the word “imputation.” If our views of imputation, go no farther than to arbitrarily ascribe the righteousness or wickedness of one person to another, of all men, we are the most preposterous! I cannot conceive of God’s doing thus, without extreme horror!! What, that God should be so unmerciful to the sufferer, and so unjust to the acquitted! This horrible idea is augmented when, the substituted victim is the most rational and the most innocent of all beings, and the acquitted the most guilty! How can this be, with the most holy God! Don’t say that the innocent freely offered to suffer thus: this truly makes the matter worse. If Jesus Christ [the just] were a distinct person from any who compose his church, then could he not have brought them [as unjust] nigh unto God. The union of Christ and his church consists, not in a mere figure of things; for it is the SUBSTANCE of all Scriptural figures. Adam and his wife was only a figure, and so doth the Apostle esteem it: Eph. 5 and 32 – Rom. 5 and 14. For God to make Tom suffer for John’s crime, is, what I cannot conceive; but to break Tom’s head for the murder which his hand or foot hath committed, I can readily agree to. I ask, does God damn any man for Adam’s sin? NO. [I do not believe that God damned Adam for his own sin, for this single reason, that he was one of God’s original creation.] But did we not become sinners FOR Adam’s transgression? I again answer NO. But I readily and gladly say that we became so, BY his transgression. This is the truth. We partook of Adam’s sin, because we were IN his loins, and we partake of the righteousness of God, because we were created in his Son. Thus was Jesus Christ the righteousness of God; and also, OUR righteousness. ‘Tis not, therefore, what Christ done for us, merely so, but what Christ IS for us. He did not fulfil the righteousness of the law for us, merely; but fulfilled it in us: and that by forming himself in us, the hope of glory. If any man have not the spirit of Christ, he is none of his [adopted.] But the Lord is that spirit, Rom. 8:4, 9; 2 Cor. 2:17. On the other hand, he bore our sins IN his own body upon the cross; and thus by his knowledge, did God’s righteous servant justify many. There we see mercy and truth [justice] meeting together, and righteousness springing out of the earth, Psalms 85 and 10. Here, also, we see, that judgment and justice is the habitation of God’s throne, while mercy and truth go before his face; and I am writing for none but those who know this gospel sound, Psalms 89:14, &c. I can see our sins, justly imputed to Jesus, while the sword of the most holy, smote him on the cross, as being “compassed by the iniquity of his heels;” while on the other hand, we are the righteousness of God in him. But it appears to be an unsettled point when God’s children were FIRST in Christ? Let me put this question forever to rest, if I can. It is said that we all are the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. Again, it is said, that some were in Christ before others. — These are truths that I love to believe. But HOW can it be said that one child is in Christ before another? Answer, by adoption; by election through sanctification of the spirit, &c. Not by choice, nor by creation, [I leave the eternal purpose and fore-knowledge of God out of the question; but these are strong in my behalf.] I don’t go to the Roman usage to explain God’s manner of adoption. God adopts none but his own; by which, he removes them, as it were, from among his servants, in the kitchen, to his own family table. – He doesn’t send the spirit of his Son into them to make them children, but it is because the ARE children; and thus removes them from that bondage which is the natural result of being under the elements of the world, Gal. 4:1, &c., where it will be seen that, before they are adopted, they are both heirs and children. The father gives them (see John 17 and 2, see also, verse 10,) to Christ, as subjects of his kingdom, by faith in him, at his own appointed time, after he hath taught them, by his fiery and life-taking law: see Isaiah 54 and 13 – also John 6 and 44. But after they are thus given, Christ says they were his before: John 17 and 10. “All thine are mine,” as well as “all mine are thine.” But who is it that reads the New Testament, but sees that there are more ways than one of being in Christ? First[3], When were we created in Christ? (I won’t permit my axiom to be broken by God’s having to create us over again.) It must be his first and only creation. If this still seems hard for my dear brethren to understand, I will take one or two of Christ’s own figures to convince them, Christ is a vine – we are its branches. Now, is it not easily conceived that some of the branches put forth before others, and that they were all essentially in the vine, before any put forth. But again, was not the grain of corn, which would have abode alone, except it had died, Christ himself? Yes, certainly. Then how can we say, as relates to the essential properties of the much fruit it was to bring forth; this was in him first and that was in him last? God has indeed made short work, but a perfect one, in our salvation. He delivered his Son for our offenses, who was raised again for our Justification. See, also, its counterpart, which also is short: “Therefore it is of FAITH, that it might be by GRACE, to the END the promise might be SURE to ALL the SEED.”
Dear brother Newport[4], until twenty minutes ago, I had never heard of your Prospectus. When I found your first number, O! how my heart leaped for joy. I had been meditating all the morning upon the treatment I had received from the Primitive press[5]. It has admitted vituperate addresses when in favor of bother Lawrence’s views, and suppressed replies, when encouched in terms with studied courtesy. In spite of all my affection for my primitive brethren, I am obliged to think (at least) they are doing evil that good may come. I say not this to induce you to publish the above, which I had in my pocket when I arrived at the office to-day, (9th April.) Do as you please with my productions; all I wish, is fair play, and no one sided work. My knowledge of your work seems so opportunely, that with thankfulness, I ascribe its succor to my heavenly father, in my great temptation. May God prosper you, my dear brother, and mind to let patience have her perfect work. I shall exert myself for the “Predestinarian Baptist.” I am teaching a public school at some distance from the office.
THOMAS PAXTON
[1] Mark Bennett was editor of the Primitive Baptist. He left and joined the Missionary Baptists about this time. Paxton had several letters printed in that paper before the Western Predestinarian was started.
[2] We believe that Paxton means Jesus's human nature by this phrase.
[3] There is no second.
[4] Elder Richard M Newport was the editor of the Western Predestinarian Baptist
[5] He is referring to the periodical The Primitive Baptist.
wonderful observation of Adam an the necessity of the transgression-
ReplyDeletemarvelous grace of God
Eld John Napier