RESPONSE TO BROTHER CLARK’S COMMUNICATION TOUCHING THE SUBJECT OF JUSTIFICATION, AS AGITATED AMONG US 1/2

[This article represents the early stages of a disagreement between Elder John Clark and Elder Samuel Trott on the subject of Eternal Justification.  This article has to our knowledge never been republished since 1838 when printed in the Signs.  It is part of the soon-to-be-released Writings of Old School Baptist Preachers Flash Drive by Welsh Tract Publications - ed].

Brother Clark has kindly, in the postscript to his communication, opened the way for my responding to him; And indeed I shall feel excusable in thus doing, although I stated it was not my intention to write any more on this subject, from the circumstance that he is in his peace, “Signs” No. 14, Vol. 6., to which this is designed as an answer, writes not as a controversialist, but as a mediator, his communication, therefore, demands attention; Besides to let pass without notice, what is incorrect in the representation Darren given of the state of the case, would be to admit its correctness.

Brother Clark's communication I have no doubt was dictated from the best intention, but that he has led in some instances, together with the brethren whose remarks he quotes, to a misapprehension of the state of the case, I am equally confident.

Props 1st declaring my dissent from certain parts of Brother Clark's representations, and my reasons for the same.

1st dissent from the impression which his remarks are calculated, I think, to make, that brother Beebe and myself have, by what we have said, called in question the right or propriety of brethren candidly investigating, or closely scrutinizing anything I have written on a subject of justification, and of exposing through the Signs or other ways if they have chosen, any error they have discovered in my views. Is this a correct impression to go forth? Has Brother Beebe, or myself, said anything to justify it? Did I not, in a postscript to my “thoughts on justification,” invite brethren to give a more correct view of the subject, if such descriptors afforded them? Did I not in the preparatory remarks to my answer to Brother Pitcher, argue and insist on the propriety of brethren discussing the subject through the Signs so far as they did in regard to truth and to the testimony of scripture? 

How then could opposing brethren, consistently with the correct representation of me, adopt such language as this, “Has Brother Trott’s notion or thoughts become so sacred to be meddled with or called in question?” I will answer this inquiry, and I feel that I can conscientiously say, thy I never gave held and never wish to hold any of my thoughts or to have others hold them, of the above being examined, and scrutinized. What as I had candidly stated the reasons I could not agree with my brethren on the subject of justification, and having given my own views, and the scriptures from whence these views were drawn; had I not a right to expect from brethren who profess to be governed by the scriptures, and who stood in the relation of brethren engaged in the same cause with me, that if they considered my thoughts on justification worth noticing publicly, at all, that they would treat them with some degree of candor, and if I was in an error that they would show from the scriptures wherein my views and objections were wrong? 

If I had a right to expect this kind of treatment from them, wherein they felt objections to my views, is surprising, that when instead of that brotherly treatment, I was hearing, from every quarter, of ill-natured expressions which I knew common candor could never justify, and to crown the whole, heard of others carrying their opposition so far as to threaten withdrawing their patronage from the Signs must be abandoned. Hence I could see no alternative, but the sacrifice of paper which I believed had been so useful, or be myself excluded from it; as to being controlled by other men's opinions, in religion, brethren had no right to expect me to submit to it, after what I had said on miss the head, in a former communication on this subject.

In reference to my applying the expression of Paul to myself, that “with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged of you,” I did feel so then, and I sincerely desire ever to feel so, when revealed truth of God is of one scale and a good opinions of even my brethren in the other, and I do not consider this as thinking lightly of their approbation.

Although I am not disposed to say much on Brother Beebe's account, In this case, as he is fully able to answer for himself, I will remark that I still think, he justly considered himself called upon, by the position brethren had taken, in threatening to withdraw their patronage from the Signs, to let them know the ground which he should occupy, as editor that he wouldn't sooner abandon the station, than give up the right of exercising his own judgment in deciding what is proper to be inserted in his paper; that the object of increase, or the to prevent decrease of patronage, should not sway him on this ground. Could we expect the Signs to remain a consistent old-school paper on any other ground?

While I say thus much in our defense, I cheerfully acknowledged that although the information that brethren were disposed to resort that this kind of argument, to show their disapprobation of my writing, and brother Beebe’s, On what we considered correct views on justification, seem to require a corresponding answer from us both; yet as brother Clark had conveyed the information to me as a friendly caution and in a private letter, I ought not in my communication to have made so direct a reference to his letter. Hence as he must have felt himself somewhat injured in that case, and is, besides, relative to the subject of justification on the farther point in opposition to our views, it is not surprising that he should not view the difficulties that have arisen, on this subject, in the light in which we view them.

It is truly an unpleasant circumstance, that this difficulty should have occurred, and such feelings as have been manifested should have been excited, better such is the case, I cannot think it consistent with the cause in which we are engaged, to heal the wound slightly or to daub with untempered mortar. No, let us meet the difficulty firmly, and patiently probit to the bottom; wherein we have erred, Let us retrace every false step. In this way, it may result in an increase of unity and brotherly love among us and tend to make us more watchful. Were it not for these considerations I should have judged it prudent to pass in silence the expressions in Brother Clark's letter thus far noticed. From the appeal which I made in a former communication, for brethren to show from scriptures wherein I was wrong, or why my views of justification were not entitled to a place in the Signs equally with those brethren on the opposite side; and as brother Beebe has made a similar appeal, I will add nothing here on that point, as I may have to touch this again, in the course of this response.

I will now proceed to such of Brother Clark's remarks touching justification as seem to require notice on this occasion.

1st the following “It would be a herculean task to lead all the Saints to believe that the doctrine of justification has never been properly understood since the Apostolic age until now.” I presume Brother Clark, in this remark, has referenced some things I said in the apology prefixed to my “thoughts on justification” I said more in that way, by way of apology, than was necessary or of any advantage to the cause of truth. The fact is, I wrote that communication under considerable embarrassment of feeling, owning to the circumstance that the licking circular advocating eternal justification had been published and it came from an association, to which I had long been in feeling, peculiarly attached, and was written by a brother to whom I was peculiarly partial. Hence I felt solicitous that my communication should not be considered in the light of an attack upon that circular. Indeed, my simple design was to, bring to the Kent consideration of my brethren the scriptural objections I had to the sentiment of eternal justification, and to state plainly my own views on that subject. How much candor it met with from some of my brethren, I will leave for them to judge. I was therefore disposed to give my brethren all the advantages they could derive on their side of the question, from human authors. 

But Brother Clark has quite mistaken, I think, the import of my remarks, if he understood them as conveying the idea that the doctrine in question had not been understood since the apostle’s days. I mentioned that a certain class of authors, for the last hundred years had differed from my views on this subject; I intended by this. Fully to cover the time since Doctor Gill, by his writings first introduced the notion of the eternity of the act of justification among the Baptists. On further reflection, I conclude that seventy years would have fully embraced this period. There were previous to gills works coming out, certain Lutheran and Calvinistic authors, on the continent of Europe and certain of the Presbyterian Church in Scotland, who from the representation given by Mosheim and others, of their sentiments, must have held the notion of eternal justification. For they are represented as holding, that God never saw any sin in the elect, which must imply that the elect had been from eternity justified or cleared from the demands of the law. But remember I spoke only of writers on this subject; otherwise, I have known excellent brethren with whom it was my privilege to agree on this subject. 

Again I said I had met with no human author who had advanced my views on this point. And esteemed brother has since reminded me that Doctor Gill refers to several authors of note who held the justification of the church's I do; at the resurrection of Christ. I had formerly read Gill's Body of Divinity, but having at that time full confidence in a doctrine of eternal justification, I did not probably so particularly notice a different view that he ascribes to these authors. Having since procured the loan of a copy of Staughton’s abridgment of this work, I will here give the paragraph wherein reference is had to those authors, as also other quotations from the doctor on the subject. The reference to those authors as it stands in Gill's Body of Divinity as abridged by Doctor Stoughton, page 135, is this, “all the elect of God were justified in Christ, their head and representative, when he rose from the dead; hence when he rose, they rose with him, and when he rose justified, they were justified in him; for he was delivered for their offenses, and raised again for their justification Romans 4.25; first Timothy 3.16, and this is the sense and judgment of many sound and learn that divines; as Sanford, Doctor Goodwin, the learned Amesius, Hornbeck, Witsius, and others.” 

And page 355 Doctor Gill says, “God the Father contrived a scheme and method of justification. He sent in the fullness of time to execute this scheme.” And again page 361, “the complete justification of the Sinner does not seem to be finished by Christ until his resurrection, after his obedience and suffering of death; For he was delivered for our offenses, and raised again for our justification, Romans 4.25. In short, the righteousness by which we are justified, as Doctor Ames says, is to be sought from his whole obedience.” Who would imagine that Doctor Gill, after thus showing that the justification of the elect was not completed until the resurrection of Christ, would go on to argue that they were actually justified from eternity? But such are the inconsistencies of men, even the greatest and best, when they allow scholastic logic to usurp the place of revelation. I will give a specimen of its argument derived from the doctrine of election. It is found on the same page directly following the 1st of the above quotations, page 135. He says, “Justification is not only before faith, but it is from eternity as may be concluded” (well did he say concluded not proved.) 1st “from eternal election; who shall lay anything to the charge of God's elect, it is God that justifies; (Romans 8.33,) by electing grace men were put into Christ, and were considered as in him before the foundation of the world; and if they were considered as in him, they must be considered as righteous or unrighteous, not surely as unrighteous, unjustified as in a state of condemnation, for there is no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus (Romans 8.1,) and therefore must be considered as righteous and so justified.” 

In noticing this quotation, I will 1st call the attention of my brethren to the two texts that he quotes in support of his position and beg them to read in connection with the first quotation the 34th verse, and in connection with the second the whole of the verse in other words verse 1st. And they will find it both texts relate to experimental justification? I presume the doctor so applies them in this exposition. Must he then, in this case, have been hard run for scripture proof, to have resorted to such a dissection, such a perversion of these texts from their connection and intent.

2nd I will request my brethren to notice the doctor's position concerning the union of Christ and his people, that it is only a constituted union; that men therefore as previously existing in Adam, were put into Christ by election. If I believed the union of Christ and his people was originally formed by constituting him one by the act of election, with the fallen polluted sons of Adam I should think it necessary, to render the position consistent not only to believe them previously justified, but also to consider them previously sanctified. It would be quite as absurd to consider such a pure and holy head, by an arbitrary act of God constituted one with such a mass of corrupt polluted creatures, as to consider him thus united with them in an unjustified state.

For justification, remember, does not clear away pollution, it only clears from the demands of the law. But I am thankful that the scriptures authorize me to believe that the union between Christ and his people is a vital union and that the life that constitutes the union is far more heavenly and glorious than that which is of the earth, earthy, that is as far above that which was created under the law, as Christ, as a head, is above Adam.

Leaving Doctor Gill, to return to Brother Clark, I will add, that if he intended by the expression under consideration to convey the idea, that actually all sound christians, from the apostolic age to this time, held to the sentiment of eternal justification, I would ask him to explain how it is that none of the ancient and sound articles of faith a vow the sentiment? They all speak of justification? And I would ask him also, whether his sentiment of justification was ever declared by inspired or uninspired writers until after the Reformation? Or after that., until Doctor Gill wrote on it, accepting from the reformers, that is, those who belonged to some of the daughters of the mother of harlots? I was more lavish in allowing my brother and human authorities on their side than I ought to have been, or than I probably should have been, had I not supposed, I was writing to those who would consider the scriptures the alone proper standard by which to test the views advanced.

A second remark of Brother Clark's requiring notice is this; “he that brings into existence or furthers any little foundling at the present day among old school Baptists must be prepared to show that it is a legitimate offspring of heavenly birth, or it will not be admitted into society.” This is no doubt Brother Clark's representation of my views of justification, and it's perhaps also derived from what I said in my apology. I among other things said I never learned of my views on this point from men. But as I once held other views on the subject, my brethren may perhaps feel a solicitude to know where I picked up this little foundling, I will therefore give them a brief history of the little thing.
As I was passing through a mountainous, lonely district, on my way to fill one of my stated appointments with the Hardeston church, in New Jersey, in June 1824, from reflecting on something that had occurred at the then-recent session of the New York association, I was led into a train of thoughts on the doctrine of justification and while thus meditating on this subject, the scriptural view of this doctrine was so clearly opened to my mind as at once to sweep all my notions of eternal justification from me; and the impression made by this change of views was so sensible on my mind, that the very curve in the road as it rounded the mountain, where the change took place, is at this moment as if present to my view. Every succeeding view of this subject in the light of the scriptures has but confirmed me in my views then giving me, at which I advanced in my thoughts on justification. But knowing that most of those whom I delighted to acknowledge as brethren, of my acquaintance, held with doctor gill on this subject, and not considering the difference in our views A cause for a breach of fellowship, I seldom declared my dissent from them, unless one particularly asked my views on this point. 

But when the old school stand was taken, and the signs introduced as a vehicle of communication among us, I then felt increased anxiety that every point of doctrine, as well as practice, advocated through the Signs, should be strictly scriptural, that we should renounce human authors and all scholastic notions as our guides, and test everything by the word of truth. Hence when Brother Kitts’ written letter on eternal justification was republished in the Signs, I over the signature of, a Waldensis proposed to him certain objections to his views, requesting that he would answer them. See Signs, volume one, #5, page 67. I hope thereby to bring about a candid discussion of the subject and thus to lend my brethren generally to investigate it on the ground of scriptural testimony. Failing to bring Brother Kitts or any other brother out, to answer my objections, I passed on as before; Seeing no opportunity to bring the subject forward, without its appearing like an abrupt attack upon the views of those whom I esteemed as brethren, until in preaching at the Baltimore association in 1837, I was led by certain circumstances to advance my peculiar views on this point. Finding that several brethren were somewhat alarmed at what I advanced, and the notice of a correspondence growing out of this, having got into this Signs, I concluded that it was proper to regard to my own standing among the brethren, to give an explicit statement of my reasons for differing from them on this subject, and a fit opportunity to bring the subject before them for their candid consideration. 

From this history of the foundling, others may judge for themselves, whether my bringing this subject forward was from a conscientious regard to scripture truth, or from an ambitious spirit to be a leader, as has been kindly intimated. If Brother Clark had considered what I said upon this point in my apology for publishing my “thoughts on justification” together with the remark in my letter, he would, I think, have spared himself the trouble of writing; and me, the unpleasantness of reading this sentence; “as far as I know or I've heard no one judged brother Trott to be Arminian ground until those views came out.”
As for being prepared to show that this little foundling is a legitimate offspring of heavenly birth; I think myself fully armed to the point; And the demand for testimony comes I think with an ill grace, until I originally brought forward is invalidated. 

1st in reference to my rejection of the sentiment of eternal justification, I have presented that, as my ground forward, which ought to be decisive with all old-school Baptists, that it is not written in the standard of our faith; that there is not a single text in which the sentiment is declared in the direct terms, or by necessary construction. And I do think that old-school Baptists ought to pause seriously before they contend for a sentiment as religious that is thus destitute of a divine warrant.

THE COMPLETE DIGITAL SIGNS OF THE TIMES FROM 1832-2017

This is a very large file (10.11 gigabytes) If you don't have that much space, you may run it from the Flash Drive, but this will take more time. You need to have Adobe Acrobat Reader (a free download) program installed and open it from there. The PDF is searchable, but some of the older issues, are smudged thus affecting the software's ability to find the words. Copying and pasting will be difficult due to the quality of some of the older issues.  The price is $60.

Please send me an email at gsantamaria685@gmail.com. We will accept payment in Zelle, Cash App, Venmo personal check, or postal money order. Please make sure you give your mailing address. I will not post my Zelle, CashApp, or Venmo information until you write me due to privacy concerns. For those mailing a check or money order, you may mail me at:

Guillermo Santamaria
45 Westons Mill Road
East Brunswick, NJ 08816 USA

Email: gsantamaria685@gmail.com

Until Welsh Tract Publications is reorganized as an LLC, I will handle the financial transactions. Understand that Welsh Tract Church does NOT have any affiliation with Welsh Tract Publications. Like the website and the YouTube channel, these websites were created by the friends of Welsh Tract Church. We do not believe in any extra-church organizations or "ministries". Flash Drives are now available.

The Lord Bless you!

_______________________________________________________________

DIGITAL (POCKET) THOMPSON NOW AVAILABLE FROM WELSH TRACT PUBLICATIONS

This flashcard contains all of the known articles written by Elder Wilson Thompson from 1832 until he died in 1866. It also contains Simple Truths, His Autobiography in a PDF file, an audiobook, and his work Triumphs of Truth. Also, these works will be fully searchable and will fit on your smartphone. It will also be suitable for printing. The cost will be $60 for the flash drive containing all this information. We accept Zelle, CashApp, Venmo, or personal checks. For more information write to gsantamaria685@gmail.com.

____________________________________________________________________

OLD SCHOOL PERIODICALS FLASH DRIVE

We are also announcing the shipment of the OSB Periodicals Flash Drive, containing all the Old School Baptist papers we can locate.  Watch the video to know more.

TO ORDER you can send $60 to gsantamaria685@gmail.com.  we accept Zelle, Cash App, personal check, or Venmo.  Contact me for further information.  the Lord Bless You!

_______________________________________________________________________

CIRCULAR LETTERS FLASH DRIVE

This Flash Drive contains just the bookmarks for all the Circular Letters in the Signs from 1833-1881 (when Beebe died).  The price is $60.  Contact information is the same for all our other products, as well as the same payment options.

________________________________________________________________________

WRITINGS OF OLF SCHOOL BAPTIST ELDERS VOLUME 1 - JF JOHNSON

This PDF file contains ALL the writings of John Foster Johnson MD and Old School Baptist Preacher.  If you have the book version of the compiled writings of JF Johnson, it is incomplete.  We have included all his writings in any Old School Baptist paper up until he died in 1881.  His published book contains all that he had published up to 1872, thus it is incomplete.  This is not images of a page, this has been completely retyped, being able to be copied, pasted, and searched completely, with a table of contents and bookmarks.  The price is $60.  We accept PayPal, Venmo, Cash App, Zelle, and personal checks.  The contact email is gantamaria685@gmail.com.  The address to send a check to is:

Guillermo Santamaria

45 Westons Mill Road

East Brunswick, NJ 08816

The Lord Bless You!