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

[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 Pitcher certainly brought forward in his queries those scriptural truths that seemed most like involving the sentiment of eternal justification, and yet as I showed there is no necessary implication of such an idea in them. And that the principle that would establish this inference, would with equal force establish the idea of eternal regeneration, and eternal sanctification. It is true this latter objection has been attempted to be obviated as made by others, by saying “that the matter of our justification before God is a righteousness wholly without us, and the whole business is an act of God's free grace toward us, accounting and sustaining us righteous in the estimation of the divine mind through the righteousness of his dearly beloved son.” See Vol. 1, page 15. 

But I would inquire, whether the righteousness which is a matter of justification of the elect before God, was wholly without Christ, as the head of his people? And whether such scriptures as the following do not teach that Christ's righteousness which was this matter of justification, was not wrought out by him in being made and serving under the law, “being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,” Romans 3.24; “for he has made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him,” 2nd Corinthians 5.21. “For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one, shall many be made righteous,” Romans 5.19. If these things are so, Christ having actually existed under the law and having brought in as the head of his people that righteousness which the law required, was as necessary a prerequisite to their actual justification in him, as their actual existence in the flesh is to their being actually regenerated. If a justification is spoken of that is without Christ, and in which he is not embraced as the head of his body, and is independent of the existence of his righteousness to answer the full demands of the law, it is one which the scriptures do not speak of, and with which I wish to have no acquaintance.

In reference to that part of my thoughts which have developed my own views on this subject, that the church the body of Christ, collectively was justified before God when he, the head was justified, or declared by his resurrection cleared from the demands of the law, I brought forward from the records of this whole transaction, the scriptures, several testimonies, to the fact unimpeached and unimpeachable. I will here give three, “who was delivered for our offenses and was raised again for our justification,” Romans 4.25. “But now once at the end of the world has he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself,” Hebrews 9.26. “For by one offering, he has perfected forever them that are sanctified,” Hebrews 10.14. Whilst it is written, “in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word shall be established,” (2nd Corinthians 13.1) will Brother Clark call for any more testimony to establish the claim of this little foundling to a heavenly birth? Are not the putting away of sin, perfecting, essentially and inseparably connected with the actual justification of the elect? And are not these witnesses then exactly in point to my views?

In reference to the argument that Brother Clark uses to justify brethren in the course they have pursued relative to this subject, the prediction of others that as soon as we have done fighting them we will turn in upon each other, I simply would ask, is it so that old school Baptists are to avoid all discussion of subjects were in they differ? Are they to wrap up everything that they think wrong in their brethren without seeking to correct the error, lest their adversaries should accuse them of being contentious? I would ask further, is it consistent with old-school Baptists, to hold sentiments that they are afraid to have brought to the test of scriptures, or have called in question on scriptural grounds? My brethren, whatever our opponents may say of us as being fighting characters, let them not have these things to say to us.

Again Brother Clark says, “As to Doctor Gill’s system on this point, there are many brethren who have never read the doctor's views and who yet believe in eternal justification.” This sentence no doubt has reference to my having spoken of this sentiment is being derived from Doctor Gill's writings. It has also been remarked with that my frequent reference to Doctor Gill's system has led brethren to consider themselves as held up as having no mind of their own. In answer to this, I would say, that I am sorry to represent my brethren in this light, but I am confident of being correct when I say that the sentiment of eternal justification was originally introduced among the American Baptists by Doctor Gill’s writing; Hence that on a general scale he is the father of that sentiment as existing among us.

That my brethren do have not the right it direct from the scriptures, I infer 1st from the fact that justification is not revealed in the scriptures as being an act passed in eternity. Second from the consideration that if they had derived the sentiment directly from the scriptures they would have been ready, not with their far-fetched inference, but with texts to the point, to support it against the objections raised against it. They will therefore please bear with me, in saying that when they met my objections to their sentiments of eternal justification, not as old school Baptists, with a thus says the Lord, but as new school Baptists, with general assertions, such as that the scriptures are full of the sentiment, whilst they named not a single text to point or with an interferential course of reasoning, or with general denunciations of the mischievous tendency, of the publication of my “thoughts” it was as strong and evidence as I could have, that they had not learned the sentiment from the scriptures nor from the teachings of the holy spirit. 3rd from my own experience in the case; I had drank in the sentiment in my intercourse with preachers and other brethren in whom I had confidence and never called in question its being revealed in the scriptures until the scriptures on the subject were open to my mind in the manner before described.

Secondly from what I have already noticed of Doctor Gill as having been the First Baptist writer of note who advanced a sentiment, it is evident that his writings from their extensive circulation have been the means of disseminating it largely through the country. Certain preachers have taken up the sentiment as truth from reading his writings, they have again advanced it as truth, and as intimately connected with predestination. Others have received it from them and again advanced it, and so on. Begin at the 4th or even the 10th remove, and trace it back and you will find it originated from reading Doctor Gill.
I now passed a notice of certain remarks that Brother Clark mentions as being made by other brethren. 1st the middle ground party, and through new school, almost to a man received those views; And whatever they receive and support must be false of course. In the first place, I think the inference drawn in this case is broad. In the second place, there is certainly a mistake in one of two cases. Either those persons have altogether mistaken my views, or those brethren are mistaken as to their receiving them. 

It is I believe a general fact that the middle ground and new school classes are both either Fullerites or more directly Arminians. It is an equally unknown fact, that all the grades of these, from Fuller down, unite in denying the eternal union of Christ and his people, and holding faith to be the bond of union. Hence it is not possible that they can receive my views of justification consistently with their own systems, standing as these views manifestly do, so intimately connected with, and involved in the doctrine of the vital and eternal union of Christ and his people.

The connection of these two points of doctrine is fully carried out in my views as published in my “thoughts,” And in what I have since written on the subject; in reference to the priority of the existence of the children of God in Christ, and therefore an existing in him, beyond the necessity of legal justifying righteousness being imputed to them in order to their being loved and chosen of God; and my view is thus distinguished from doctor gill's notion of the priority of their existence in Adam, that is, in purpose and afterward put into Christ by election. Also in the view given of that complete oneness of Christ and his people, being such, that when one, either the head or the body, Christ or his people, was involved in the demands of the law, the other was; That it was in consequence of this oneness of Christ with his people, that justice held the demand against him, which resulted in his death, under the curse, and hence that in his bearing the penalty of the law, they bore it in him and when he arose, justified from all other demands of the law, they rose and were justified in him. This constitutes a material distinction between my views as before shown, and that separating sentiment advanced into linking circular and by others, by which they would sever Christ from his church, the head from the body, in the article of justification, a dilemma from which they cannot extricate themselves without abandoning their system. If Fullerites in sincerity embraced these views I shall rejoice, but if they do, they will drop Fuller, they cannot go both roads. The fact is the notion of eternal justification verges much higher towards Fullerism than do the views I have advanced, on the point of the union of Christ and his people in particular.

In connection with this, I will notice the remark that has been made by a brother that there is too much Arminianism in my “thoughts on justification” for him to embrace them. Such slang will do for a put-off, and as a scarecrow to deter others from examining and receiving the views I advanced; but is there any reality, any Christian candor in them? I will not challenge him or other brethren who have charged my views with being Arminian To prove it, but I do entreat them, in consideration of my standing with them, and by their regard for the honor of the old school cause, if they can by strictest scrutiny of what I have written on the subject have written on this subject of justification, find a single sentiment which leads to Arminianism, a single idea, which, if carried out in its legitimate bearings, involves an idea of conditional acceptance with god, or of dependence on creaturely exertions for salvation, that they would expose it, in its true colors through the Signs.

Another brother as noticed by Brother Clark, says that I shall have to surrender a part of my theory, that is, that the act of justification was not passed until Christ was raised again. From Brother Clark's remarks and the connection, it strikes me that there must be somewhere, some mistake in a representation here given of this brother's remarks. If however, the representation here is correct, I suppose this brother would have me exchange my views for the idea that the elect was collectively justified when the first promise of Christ was made in the garden of Eden; but before I can adopt that idea, he must show me, that what their appears to me, given in promise, was a narrative of what had been done, that is, that satan's head had been bruised, or he must show me how the body can be justified, cleared from all obligations to the law, while the head remains bound to the law, without there being severed, and the life which consists in their union being therefore destroyed. Or if this brother's views are misrepresented, and he would have me believe that the people of God are not actually justified before God only as they are brought to experience justification by faith; I must say that I cannot be brought to surrender upon that ground while I have so many scriptures declarations to support my views, such as those already quoted, Romans 4.25; Hebrews 9.26; 10.4, and these, “your dead men shall live, together with my dead body shall they arise,” Isaiah 26.9. “After two days will he receive a; In the third, he will raise us up and we shall live in his sight,” Hosea 6.2. Perhaps some may not consider this text in point; But I do consider it strictly in point, that it is a prophecy of the resurrection of Christ on the third day, and that the personification is charged from the Lord whose going forth is prepared as the mourning, to the us, the true spiritual of Israel of God as contrasted with Ephraim Spoken of before, and this change was to show that when he, the Lord was raised up, they would be raised up, and when he lived, they would live in his sight, Ephesians 2.4-6.

A few observations shall not close this lengthy response. 1st I would in reference to brother pictures inquiries published and answered through the Signs Say, that in the blame I have attached to my brethren, I wish to be understood as accepting him, for though I thought that if he had more carefully examined my “thoughts on justification,” he would have seen some of the inquiries previously answered, yet there was throughout his communication a disposition manifested to inquire, and to discuss the subject as become brethren.

2nd my brethren generally, I would caution, not to fear a candid discussion of any sentiment that they may hold; if it is truth, they cannot be too well grounded in it, and canvassing it will have that tendency; if it is error they cannot be too soon convinced of it and made willing to give it up. Or are you, my brethren, of those who never found themselves holding error for truth; If so, instead of rejoicing a juror escape, I might pity you. For I do not believe that any have steered entirely clear of error in this day of darkness through which the church has been passing, and never to have been convinced of error therefore, argues too much of that obstinate kind of spirit, which will never acknowledge itself wrong. Such a spirit is unbecoming a Christian and is also a disposition to be afraid of being shown our errors, and to resort to other means to maintain our sentiments when we cannot find scripture arguments and prove to support them. Perhaps my brethren may think they see something of this disposition manifested in this communication. I know we are apt to be blind on our own behalf, apt to see the mole before the beam; but if this is now the case with me, I know it not. I think I have been actuated in this thing, by a regard, to truth and to a consistency with our old school stand. The course pursued relative to this subject has in my estimation added importance to the controversy, as I perhaps ought to call the affair, rather than discussion. The importance of having correct scriptural views of justification is not diminished; In addition to this, or yielding to the opposing current in this case, would be like establishing the principle among us, that however fully we may, any of us, be convinced of our brethren being an error, on any point, we must not expose that error, and tried to lead them out of it by discussing the subject in the signs lest we provoke contention; and we may be fully satisfied from scripture testimony of the truth of any sentiment; yet we must not advance in the signs unless we know that it will be well received of the brethren, all that they have so seen it. Such principle I cannot sanction, hence I did not write hastily or inconsiderately when I made the proposition to be made a Jonah of; I had this very principle that in view as tending to be established by the course pursued by brethren. And I felt dent, as I now feel, that rather than have such shackles riveted on me, or rather than sacrifice the signs in contesting this point of Christian liberty with them, I would prefer being excluded therefrom.

A word to those brethren who admit that the justification of the elect existed in purpose only, and eternity, and as an act was consummated in time, and you yet advocate the use of the term eternal, as prefixed to the article of justification. Let us come right to the point. Did the eternal purpose to justify the elect, constitute itself from the act of their justification from all things? Or did that purpose appoint their justification to be through the redemption to be wrought by Christ, and to be one with his justification from the demands of the law, as he represented them? If the former is the case, you are right in contending for the term eternal as a prefix to the word justification, for the purpose was certainly eternal, but remember in taking this position you exclude Christian actual obedience to the law from being any part in the act of justification; the act being completed long before this obedience was rendered. If you admit the other side of the question, then must you not admit that God's raising Christ, by his right hand, without seeing corruption was the act by which he was declared acquitted; justified from all demands of law, and if so was it not that, by which the elect were declared acquitted in him? Why then in persisting in your use of the term eternal thus confound the purpose going before, with the act which was to follow as appointed by that purpose? 2nd if the Holy Spirit had seen the idea of eternity in reference to the origin of the existence of the act of justification necessary to be conveyed, in giving a full corrector relation of the doctrine of justification, should we have not found the term eternal or its equivalent, thus connected in the revelation of this doctrine in the scriptures? As it is written you're not, in this instance, assuming to be wiser than God, in trying to establish a use of this term which he does not thought proper? What do you gain by this hitching on, the term eternal to justification? It certainly is not, necessary to establish a fact of the infallibility and eternity of the purpose of God concerning justification; this is clearly revealed in the scriptures without any such confounding of the purpose with the act. Or is it, my brethren that you cannot conceive of God's declaring the end from the beginning with absolute certainty, and lest there should be a failure by so long a period intervening between the beginning and the end, the purpose and act, you are therefore trying to bring the two together, or confound the one with the other? Pardon me, my brethren for this suggestion, for really you're contending for that which in this case you admit is not strictly true, looks very much like human policy to help God out with his purpose.

To conclude, while I would approve of discussing this or any other subject with a view to the producing of a greater oneness of views and practice, and a greater oneness of doctrine among us, and so long as it may be found to have such tendency, I would urge upon my brethren to guard against indulging in bitter feelings and reflection, and against resorting to uncanned arguments to supply a point, or even against trying to maintain a point, when you find yourselves without scriptural proofs. In a word let us buy the truth, even at the expense of every tradition and every notion that we may have derived from the schools and systems of men, and sell it not. Let us pursue peace among ourselves, but not at the expense of truth and Christian liberty.

S. Trott Fairfax CH, (Va) August 2, 1838

P. S. This response is rather late in appearing; But in the 1st place, the affliction in my family, and since that other engagements must bleed my excuse.

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!