[This is another of Elder Trott's digitally unpublished article (as of now) on the subject of the Trinity - ed]
Brother Beebe: I will now take a brief view of Elder Osburn’s pamphlet, entitled “A Calm Investigation of the Letter written by Deacon Saunders, By James Osbourn V.D.M. Minister of the gospel at Woburn MA.” V.D.M. stands for three Latin words signifying a minister of the word of God. I should think a modest man would have been content with fixing to his name, as designating his office, “minister of the gospel act” without adding those scholastic letters, importing the same thing. But I would not have noticed this where it is not that the tautology so apparent in his connection indicates a servile attachment to various schools. But again, as has been intimated concerning elder Osborn's egotism, it may be said that this is a small matter. True it is. Straws, however, show which way the wind blows; and when we see many of them blowing in One Direction, we conclude a pretty strong wind blows that way.
Elder Osborn styles his pamphlet “A Calm Investigation,” I am very sorry he has so pronounced it; For when a person writes or speaks manifestly under excitement, some allowance may be made for his misrepresenting the expressions of his antagonist. But when a man calmly perverts the plain import of another's expressions, it looks like a settled purpose to misrepresent him.
Elder Osbourn takes this oft-repeated text as a motto, “he that is first in his own cause seems just but his neighbor comes and searches him out.” This might have been appropriate as a heading to the defense of our western brethren; but it is certainly quoted with an ill grace by elder Osbourn, after having been foremost in making so wanted an attack upon them. The adopting of this motto is one of Elder Osbourn’s calm attempts to direct the mind of brethren from the method he had taken to correct the error of the western brethren, by publishing them to the petal baptists as heretics and clearly representing that he considered himself a man of God of such dignity as not to be approached by others but with a voice of adulation and praise.
As to the letters of the North Berwick and Woburn churches, with which elder Osbourn has prefaced his pamphlet, I have already said they might as well be let alone, considered as attacks upon the Signs. And I will show now only say concerning them, that I know not whether elder Osbourn dictated the matter of them or not; but this I know, that a worthy and respectable old school Baptist preacher; In the lower parts of Virginia, informed me last winter that elder Osbourn some few years before, had visited him and preached several times among the churches in the neighborhood; and that when about to leave he drew up a letter of recommendation of himself as an able gospel minister, and of the great satisfaction which had resulted to the brethren from his visit amando, and presented it to his brother with the request that he should sign it; and that because this brother refused to do so, he left apparently much offended.
Elder Osbourn denies having said what Brother Saunders Affirms he did in his preaching, “that God the father cannot regenerate a Sinner,” and represents Brother Saunders As having stated a falsehood, though he hopes not from a malignant spirit, (see pages 11 and 12 of the pamphlet.) I shall not hear an attempt to decide which has stated the truth in the case. Except many other witnesses agreed to what he stated; And what he may do if he should again recover his eyesight, [with the loss of which, from inflammation, I understand he is at present much afflicted] I cannot see. I however have not believed that either designedly stated a falsehood in the case. We know that persons, not infrequently, and hearing draw what they consider correct inferences from what they hear, and these inferences, in their after reflections, may so blended with the word spoken, that in making a statement on a future occasion of the thing, they may, in honesty of intention, state their own inferences for the word spoken. On the other hand, a preacher may speak under such excited feelings as to use expression stronger than he is aware of, or then he afterward recollects.
And as elder Osbourn imagined at the time the sabellian foxes (as he in his Christian spirit calls them) to be hissing at him, it may well be supposed that he was not a little excited. With the expressions of elder Osbourn as given by Brother Saunders In his letter to him, that it was not the work of God the father, that it was not the business or office of the son the second person, that is to regenerate, I should not myself so much object, were it not for his needless use of the terms second person, and third person in the Holy Trinity. And it was not with his Speaking of the special office work of each of the three, that Brother Saunders In that letter, finds fault; but with what appeared like dividing God into, first, second, and third persons. And I must say that this Speaking of persons and arranging them as first, second, and 3rd in the godhead greats much upon my ear, being too much, not only like dividing God into three but also like appointing to each their respective stations in the godhead. Hence I wonder not that our brethren of the Miami association, accustomed, as I know they have been in times past, to hear their preachers on such points, confined themselves to scriptural modes of expression, should have shuddered at this presumptuous appointing to each of the three his order as 1st, second, etcetera; nor that Brother Saunders Still having confidence in elder Osbourn should have written to him on the subject. I would remark just here, that dead brother Saunders' stating Elder Osbourn’s expressions as he did in that letter, is no evidence to me that he did not at the tie, consider them stronger and more offensive; For while in faithfulness he wished as a brother to admonish elder Osbourn on that subject, he evidently wrote the letter under the most conciliating feelings towards him; And I think that most of the children of god know that when actuated by such feelings they are not apt to represent a brothers error.
Although Elder Osbourn throughout his pamphlet represents Brother Saunders As having given in his letter the amount of what he said, yet in his letter to his brother of the Dutch Reformed Church, as published in the doctrinal advocate for July 18 39, page 19, we find him making this statement: “in a sermon which I preached at the Miami association, in Ohio, on September 18 37, I had occasion to treat distinctly of the person and work of the Holy Spirit and of the work of each person in the Trinity as that of God the Father the first person, God the Son the second person, and God the Holy Spirit, the third person. Now why appealed to the candor of any man of reflection to say, that there is, if anything there be, in this mode of expression, to prevent a plain man from receiving the idea from it, of the father's being the first God and the son, the second God, and the Holy Ghost, the third God as distinctly as they are three persons. Each is as a God spoken of as a distinct person, having a distinct work, occupying a distinct station, as first, 2nd etcetera, why then does it not represent him as equally distinct gods? It may be given as an answer, and the only answer, that we know elder Osbourn did not mean so. And it is true that persons accustomed to these scholastic expressions do know this. But if he did not mean soul, why did he speak so? And why was Brother spirited right in admonishing him for so speaking? See, for a form of expressions quite as strong, his pamphlet on page 24.
I next come to elder Osbourn censure upon Brother Saunders For inviting him into Ohio, after knowing that he held the doctrine of three persons in the Godhead, which he shows he must have known by quotations from certain of his works as on pages 15 and 16 of the pamphlet. But these quotations show nothing more in elder Osbourn’s views of the Trinity, than was held by many other Baptists, with whom the brethren of the Miami association were conversant and in fellowship: that God dwells in a Trinity of persons, the father, the son and the Holy Ghost, who are one in nature, etcetera, and that the Holy Ghost is God, etcetera. Now this circumstance speaks more against the truth of Elder Osbourn’s statement concerning the cannots, than against Brother Saunder's candor in inviting him.
For if after being acquainted with what elder Osbourn had published on the subject, Brother Saunders So freely invited him to visit them and introduce him to the association, it is almost self-evident that he must have used in his preaching expressions much stronger than his books contained, and more calculated to represent God as divide it into three parts or three gods, or Brother Saunders Would have passed it by, as he had done what the books contained.
Elder Osbourn Persists throughout his pamphlet, in representing, as he had done to his pedo Baptist brother, That Brother Saunders By his use of the words Pa and Tool, Intended to treat with contempt the scriptural doctrine of God's existing as Father, son, and Holy Ghost, three in one. The passage in Brother Saunders' letter containing these expressions, reads thus: “And if it should turn out that Brother Osbourn believes in three gods and we only in one, why the We will find out, private or comment by ministers or lay members. But Brother Osbourn, I cannot indulge in the unpleasant thought for a moment that the contrast is so great, As for Brother Osbourn to have two gods more than any of the Baptists in the valley. It must be that by tradition he retains words and terms not extent in the West, which frightens and alarms us to think that there should be three gods, God the father, the highest on the throne; God the son the 2nd distinct person, a step lower, bowing obeisance to his pa, and then the spirit or Holy Ghost, away down lower yet, as the 3rd distinct person last and lowest and inferior God to be sent as a mere servant and tool of the other two gods to finish the work of salvation.”
Can anyone unprejudiced by Osbourn’s representation, read this, and not see at once that Brother Saunders Uses the terms, Pa and tool Of the other two gods to finish the work of salvation to carry out the supposition he had ironically made to illustrate the inconsistency of Osbourn’s using such expressions, as first, second and third persons? And was the supposition a farfetched one, seeing Osbourn himself had arranged them as first, second, and third? Notwithstanding this manifest design of Brother Saunders in using these expressions, and his immediately after saying, “Now brother Osbourn, you do not believe and think so diminutively of Jesus the alpha and Omega, nor of the Holy Spirit which is God,” thus showing that he had more exalted views of Jesus and the Holy Spirit then to view them as inferior gods and that he had a higher opinion of Osbourn’s real belief; elder Osbourn makes this gross perversion of brother Saunders supposition, and represents him as using these expressions in reality of the father, son and Holy Ghost as revealed in the scriptures. If elder Osbourn can resort to such gross perversions, to bridge advice the public mind against old school Baptists and their sentiments, in a CALM INVESTIGATION, I know not what he would do if irritated.
I will now notice Elder Osbourn’s remarks, (page 27) on Brother Sanders' saying there is no such scripture as a first-person second person etcetera. Elder Osbourn makes the other reason, on this, a wonderful exclamation, saying, most powerful criticism!! And adds, “but I would not wish to play upon words, nor take any undue advantage of your weakness; But really, Sir, a man whom must needs criticize octopus as some little wisdom. You say there is no such scripture as, the first person, etc. “And is it from hence you conclude that the eternal father is not a person,?”
May I not exclaim in return and say, behold, what magnanimity elder Osbourn manifests towards a weak brother, in not taking advantage of his ignorance, in supposing that the scriptures are the standard by which to weigh words used in religious discussions? But to the point of a simple man's reasoning, admitting that brother Saunders made these remarks, not as a criticism, which Osbourn knows he did not, but as an argument, and a plain Christian in reference to Osbourn’s reply would say; 1st. Then if he lacked wisdom he would consider it much safer, to hear instruction, from the Lord's mouth and find wisdom (proverbs 8.23 ) than to look for it from elder Osbourn’s scholastic creeds and expositions. 2nd. That to a mind which has ever received the scriptures as the revelation which God has made of himself, the fact that the terms first person, second person, etc, are not found therein, used in reference to God, is a good and sufficient reason why he should not so use them.
If elder Osbourn was guided by divine wisdom and fixing to the sacred three, their respective stations as first, second and third, how came Paul to make such a mistake as to reverse disorder, as in 2nd Corinthians 13.14, “the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God,” and to make that other mistake, if elder Osbourn’s exposition of the texts (Colossians 2.2 ) is right, (of which I have some doubts,) in which he supposes God to stand personally for the Holy Spirit, thus “of the mystery of God, and of the father, and of Christ?” In the one instance placing the Lord Jesus as first, and in the other, the Holy Ghost as first period again, was the Holy Spirit deficient in wisdom or faithfulness in making that declaration of God in first John 5.7, in not saying. There are three persons that bear record in heaven, and these three persons are one was deficient, who gave elder Osbourn and Mr. Booth authority to supply it? If otherwise, is it not insulting to the Holy Spirit for them to dictate what ought to be supplied; And presumptuous in them, to make it a test of heresy, whether men will adopt that supply, or not, as did Mr. Booth in effect, by his inquiries addressed to brother Saunders in his communication in the advocate, notice in the previous number. See Elder Osbourn, page 28.
But do they, or do they not know, that there is a material difference between using words that are of the same import as other words used in the scriptures, for those words, or as condensing the idea expressed by several words into one; and the using of words to supply an imaginary deficiency in the scripture revelation? And we challenge these gentlemen to show us any authority from scripture, for applying the terms, first person, second person etcetera, to God. But when we come to look at Brother Saunders' letter we find he made the remark, that there is no such scripture as first person, second person, etcetera, neither as an argument, nor as a criticism, but simply as a known fact and as a reason why elder Osbourn’s dividing God into first, second and third persons did not sound so well. Here then is another of elder Osbourn’s calm perversions.
I will hear add that for myself I do not object to the use of the word Trinity, though not found in the scriptures; it being an abbreviation of two words, which in English, signify three in one, and is used as an equivalent to, these three are one.
Elder Osbourn Is not content with the use of the simple word person, but throughout his pamphlet, adds to it the expressions, proper and distinct. A distinct person is one who is a person by himself. A proper person, I should suppose means one who is a person properly, not in an improper or figurative sense. What is it to be a person properly, but to be an individual being? We have then in the godhead according to elder Osbourn’s expressions three distinct individual beings. I do not say that he means so, by these expressions. Indeed on page 33 of his pamphlet, he says that the father, the son, and the Holy Ghost are not persons, strictly in that sense in which the word is applied to men, and that three distinct persons in that sense would make 3 distinct beings. But when are we to believe him, when he says they are three proper and distinct persons, or when he says they're not properly so?
And if he does not use the words in the sense in which they are used in common conversation, as applied to men; why does he not give us the definite idea which he intends to convey by them, or refer us to a use of them, by which that idea is defined? Words without a definite idea, are to me unmeaning sounds, better not used than used.
Further, elder Osbourn on the same 33rd page, strips, the three in the godhead of a personal distinction which I think the scriptures give them. He says, (and I doubt whether he understood what he said,) “we need not suppose that to constitute proper and distinct personality in the godhead, there must necessarily be a distinct divine understanding and will,” again, “and if there really was a distinct divine understanding and will, but God had would necessarily be divided, and Christ in the spirit would indeed and of a truth be separate gods.” I would like to know what he would do with such texts as these, “I came down from heaven not to do my own will, but the will of him that sent me,” John 6.38. And this: Father, if you be willing remove this cup from me; nevertheless not my will, but yours be done. Luke 22.41.
Will elder Osbourn say that these distinct wills belong to one to the human nature of Christ, and the other to the godhead? If so, according to his reasoning above, the divine and human natures in Christ must be divided into distinct beings. Sabellianism this truly!
Elder Osbourn’s pamphlet contains many quotations from Doctor Gill in support of his theory and several positive assertions of his own. I will notice here one or two of them. He says, on page 32, addressing Brother Saunders, “You say the Holy Ghost is God, and I will admit this to be a true saying, in one sense of the word, but in the sense you intended, it is not true; for you acknowledge him to be God, and yet deny his proper and distinct personality, which is an absurdity that wants a name.” And again lowering the page he says, “and thus Deacon, so long as you acknowledge Christ to be God, and the Holy Spirit to be God, and yet deny the proper and distinct personality of the spirit, you must acknowledge two gods.” Here are assertions very positive, but without proof, without argument, and I had almost said, without sense; And I will say, he affirms what he is ignorant of.
Who has told him that God cannot exist as father, sun, and Holy Ghost, and be the one only self-existent God in each of these relations or distinctions, without being divided into proper and distinct persons? God has not. His reasoning is truly ridiculous when he says that by denying the proper and distinct personality of the spirit, Brother Saunders makes the son and spirit to be two gods. The making of them to be two gods is the very thing that would make them to be proper and distinct persons, as anybody can see. I have already noticed a plain import of the expressions God the Father, God the Son, etcetera.
Here, in his mode of reasoning, the same idea is fully carried out, for if the Godhead of the son and of the spirit depends on their distinct personality, as his reasoning fully implies, then each in being God, must be as distinct from the other, as is his personality distinct. What is this but to make them to be distinct gods? I challenge Elder Osbourn to get rid of this conclusion by any fair reasoning, notwithstanding his positive assertions to the contrary.
In reference to elder Osbourn’s repeated assertions, that to deny distinct personalities in the godhead is sabellianism, I will hear merely say that this only proves his understanding and divine things not to be infinite.
Elder Osbourn gives several slaps at the Signs, and one, which I should judge intended as such, at the doctrinal advocate. He says, on pages 10 and 11, that for the last six months, he has not read nor heard read so much as one line from the Signs, that since last December he had borrowed 4 numbers of the advocate, but had not read in the whole to the amount of one column. What a dignified character he must be! He hurls forth his condemnation against old school Baptists, in a mass, and then will not Dane to read their defense against his sentence; Not even to read so much as one column in the advocate, paper so lately eulogized by him. Why?
Forsooth, because I. T. Saunders has been allowed to publish in it, in self-defense, and in defense of his brethren. And the circumstance of Brother Saunders publishing in the Signs his replies to Elder Osbourn is turned to be persecution against him. Well may such an exalted personage boast as he does on page 46, “Men may rave and storm against me as much as they please, it will not hurt me, for I am out of their reach, and out of their sight, and hence their envy will rage in vain; And a friend of mine here tells me that it does rage in a most vehement manner in a certain paper, a little below Baltimore; and be it so:
Calm on tumults wheel, I sit.
Elder Osbourn is said by his admirers to be a very spiritual man. Be it so. But what spirit was he of, when he wrote the above? According to any conceptions I have on the subject, that humble spirit which belongs to true Christianity would have led him to express himself quite differently from the posting self-vaunting style of this passage, even on this supposition, that Brother Saunders's communications were an unprovoked attack on him. What then shall we say of it, when all this is a vaunting against a defense of those whom he had wantonly published among the pedo Baptists as heretics, and whose private and friendly correspondence he had given to the public in a grossly perverted manner?
The pamphlet contains many words and displays much self-importance calculated to attract the admiration of such as regard sound more than substance, but I believe I have noticed in the above, all that in substance its 47 pages contained. There are some varied forms of expression that I may have occasioned again to notice.
My next is designed to contain a comparative view of Sabellianism, and elder Osbourn’s system of the Trinity.
As ever yours,
S. Trott
Centerville, Fairfax County, Virginia, July 21, 1840
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
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 $25 for the flash drive containing all this information. We accept Zelle, CashApp, Venmo, or personal checks. For more information write to gsantamaria685@gmail.com.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for commenting. If an answer is needed, we will respond.