NOTICE OF BROTHER CROOKS’ LETTER ON JUSTIFICATION (TROTT) 1838

[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 Beebe: as Brother Crooks requests an answer from me to certain points in his letter, and as he has taken hold of the subject manifestly in a spirit of candor and disgusted in a way in which I had hoped it would have been discussed when I first introduced it, that is, assigning his reasons and the scriptures on which he sounds his objections to my views, and his belief in eternal justification, I with pleasure meet his inquiries, and engage in a discussion with him; Hoping that while thus pursued it may not injure any, either in feelings or otherwise.

I will first notice this remark of his, “Brother Trott requires direct scriptural testimony in this and yet admits that in some points of theology, it cannot be had in just so many words.” Brother Crooks has certainly come I presume undesignedly, mistaken my meaning, if not my expressions in this case. I stated as a first objection, to the doctrine of eternal justification, that according to our old school stand, a “thus says the Lord” is requisite to justify us in what we believe. I immediately added, “I do not mean by this, that the doctrine must always be expressed in so many identical words,” an instanced as a little station of this, the doctrine of eternal union of Christ and his people; showing thereby that a doctrine may be clearly revealed without being declared in a set form of the word; and at such clear revelation, comes up to the import of the expression, a thus says the Lord. I think if Brother Crooks will again read my remarks upon this point in “Thoughts on Justification,” he will be convinced that this is their import.

Brother Crooks thinks that the doctrine of eternal justification is fairly implied, that is, in the scriptures. While he thus thinks, he is right in believing it. But I must examine the correctness of his proofs before I can think with him; and if I should be unable to show him clearly that his proofs are not correctly drawn, I hope, from his candor, he will abandon them, and with them the theory he has built upon them.

He commences his proofs with an explanation of what he understands by their terms, eternal, and justification. As I presumed that by his definition of eternal, he means the idea, of never beginning, or of never-ending, either alone, as well as both combined, constitutes the idea of eternal, I have no objection to it. And I have no objection to the term eternal being prefixed to justification, in reference to the idea of its never-ending, because among other reasons, I have an equivalent expression of scripture direct to the point, Hebrews 10.14, “for by one offering he has perfected forever them that are sanctified.”

Brother Crooks says, “To justify and justification certainly means defense or vindication as well as a legal pronouncing 1 clear from guilt.” Brother crooks should remember that in discussions upon the scriptural authority for any point of doctrine, we cannot with propriety take any man's bare assertion as proof. I cannot acknowledge the correctness of the former part of his definition of justification, and he has produced no instance of the term being so used in the scriptures. The question here is, not in what sense the term might be used, but what is the legitimate meaning of the term, according to its etymology, and according to its uniform use about that branch of the doctrine of salvation of which we are speaking. 

To justify is according to its etymology, to make just, or righteous; And its uniform primary meaning, according to general usage both in the scriptures and otherwise, is a judicial decision, by which a person is made, that is, pronounced just or righteous according to law, about the charges made against him, and is thus the direct opposite of to condemn, Genesis 18.25; Deuteronomy 25.1; Romans 3.19-26; 5.16-19. It was in this sense that I have used a term, as referring to a judicial decision by which the body of Christ is publicly cleared from the demand and charges of the law, and so I presume brother crooks and others understood me. And when persons speak of the elect having been eternally justified I understand them to convey the idea, that they were eternally cleared from the demands of the law, and so I think they are generally understood, whether they mean to convey the idea or not; some do mean to convey it, and some do not.

The point is, is not this the legitimate idea conveyed by the expression? From a passage quoted from Doctor Gill in my response to Brother Clark, it is evident that he has so understood, and so used the term.

Brother Crooks says in the text, “who was delivered for our offenses and was raised again for our justification,” Romans 4.25, he cannot think as a reference to the subject of justification at all! Why, my brother, is it possible that the inspired writer was mistaken in this point? If he was not mistaken, is it not evident that the passage is intimately connected with the subject of justification when he says and was raised again for our justification? Brother Crooks should have given us an expression of the passage showing its proper reference. But perhaps he means to distinguish between the ground of our justification and the act, four he says it is the judge that justifies. True; but has not the death and resurrection of Christ any bearing upon the act? If not, why does Paul after saying it is God that justifies, immediately add, “it is Christ that died yes rather that is risen again,” Romans 8.34.

But let us examine the text a little, first “who (Christ) was delivered for offenses;” that is delivered up to suffer the penalty due to divine justice for our offenses. What, after we by the decision of the judge, were actually declared clear of all offenses, of all demands of law? Certainly not, for God himself is the judge. As Brother Crooks refers immediately following to the circumstance of a husband paying a debt contracted by his bride, I would ask him, if, after the creditor had given the wife a receipt in full for all the demands, arising from the debt she had before contracted, he could then come upon the husband for the payment of that debt? And is not the deliberate decision of the supreme judge, of acquittal from all charges, or of justification, as valid as any receipt in the case of debt? And are not Christ and his church as much one, as a husband and his bride are?

2nd “and was raised again for our justification.” Now admitting that the cause of our justification is distinct from the act, does not the expressions here use clearly completely convey the idea, from their natural construction, that the cause, the resurrection of Christ, was brought into existence that the act might take place? If so, it could not have taken place before. To refer again to the husband and bride, if the husband's paying the debt she had contracted, was not itself her justification or clearance from the demand, was it not just ground for him to demand a receipt in full on her behalf? And could the creditor, have previously given her a receipt in full for the debt without clearing her husband from the demand seeing they are both one in the eyes of the law? And so of Christ in his church? Brother Crooks says if I inform him when God first acted in the capacity of a judge in the court of heaven regarding his chosen, he will fix the same date in their justification. I have no hesitation in telling him when according to divine revelation God did first act as a judge, that is in the court of heaven. But to come to this subject a right we must lay aside the deficiencies of all figures in the case, and view the subject as it is manifested in the clear light of revelation or at the point where all figures center.

1st. Then, the elect were all guilty, transgressors of the law, from the apostasy of Adam on, as connected with him under the law; so that by the deeds of the law no flesh could be justified in his sight. Had God assumed the judgment seat at any period previous to his coming of the Messiah, arranged the transgressors, and ordered the penalty to be inflicted upon them, there being no days man, known mediator present to interpose and receive the stroke in the place of the chosen, they must have received it on themselves and sunk forever. But this could not be, the eternal purpose of God, which he had purposed in Christ Jesus, his having made his surety of the better testament, having reposed full trust in him. All forbid that God should thus assume that judgment seemed until the fullness of time arrived, fixed in the eternal purpose when Christ should be made under the law to meet and satisfy its demands for his bride, his sheep. Thus we see generation after generation pass away until Shiloh came, but not summoning the human family, as such, to judgment. But when his hour came, not a moment before, the judge assumes to seat, that the man is made, the shepherd interposes in behalf of his sheep; Gives himself up, and says if you seek me let these go their way (John 18.8-9) justice receives its dread command “awake O sword against my shepherd, and against a man that is my fellow says the Lord of hosts;” he is given over to the will of his enemies, his father withdraws his presence, nothing but the rigid demands of stern justice before him, his sole agonize under the curse of the law, under the horrors of hell at length he dies, but not till he says it is finished. 

Had he been left here, his bride would have had no testimony of her release, but behold, he rises again without seeing corruption, shows himself to chosen witnesses, as a receipt from the court of heaven that law and justice were satisfied in full for the demands which had stood against for whose offenses he had been delivered. The Holy Ghost confirms it on the day of Pentecost. Now, my brother, did not God act as judge in this case, and in the court of heaven? Is there any scriptural evidence of his having so acted before? He acted as the God and father of his people, in Christ, from eternity, making full provision in his eternal purpose that they as children shall be put in possession of their inheritance, God also had repeatedly acted as judge on earth, as in the case of Adam, Kane, the old world etcetera.

I now pass to some of Brother Crook's remarks on Revelation 13.8, the lamb slain from the foundation of the world. He says, “not in types and shadows, but he stood so under the sentence of the law, viewed so according to the eternal purpose of god. And if, so slain his bride was so redeemed with eternal redemption.” Here I will stop and review. And 1st. I would ask, if his bride was so redeemed, thus early with eternal redemption, who those were, that were under the law, whom, he, in the fullness of time was away made of a woman and made under the law to redeem? Galatians 4.4-5. Brother Crooks I presume does not believe he ever redeemed any but his bride. You, my brother, may, and probably, have a clearer head than mind, and can see how these things can harmonize together. But to me, bear with me in so saying, if it appears perfect jargon. On the one hand, I am informed by the best authority, that in the fullness of time, God sent forth his son to redeem not because he had redeemed them that were under the law; again that about 1800 years ago, the son of man, told his disciples he came not to be ministered to but to minister and to give his life a ransom for many (Matthew 20.28) on the other hand I am told that very people, he then came to redeem, had been redeemed from the foundation of the world. Brethren must excuse me for not believing both of these positions.

Again he says viewed the soul (that is, slain) According to the eternal purpose of God. Now I had not thought that he had done so viewed only from the foundation of the world; and I still think he was so viewed before the foundation of the world, from eternity. He says further, that he stood so under the sentence of the law, that is as slain from the foundation of the world. That is a strange doctrine to me. Does this passage Philippians 2.6-7, “who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God but made himself of no reputation and took upon him the form of a servant.” Look like his having stood from the foundation of the world in servitude under the law and under its sentence? I will not multiply remarks upon this, for I am sure, on a momentous reflection, Brother Crooks will recall this expression, as reflected much on him whom we delight to honor, as standing from eternity, as head of his church, not in the degradation of a servant, lower than the angels, but in the glory of the only begotten of the father full of grace and truth. If Brother Crooks should demur from these remarks, I would ask him to explain how Christ could be under the sentence of the law, without being under the law. Again he says, not in types and shadows. I'll then? If the promises, types going before had not a special reference to Christ's death, I have been mistaken altogether in them; and if they had the reference, then I am sure Christ did stand so set forth in them; And that, as an object of faith, from the declaration made in the garden concerning the seed of the woman; which reaches back very near, or quite, as far as the expression from, or since (as it might be rendered,) the foundation of the world. I think Brother Crooks's proofs from this text must fail him.
Brother Crooks concludes from Romans 8.29-36 that justification is as old as predestination. And why not conclude that the calling of the elect is equally as old? Had the apostle written thus, whom he did predestinate, then he also called, justified and glorified, it would have appeared less presumptuous in men to undertake to transpose the order laid down. But when he writes that thus, “whom he did predestinate them he also called; And whom he called, them he also justified,” thus welding so firmly each link, in this, which has been called the golden chain of salvation, in its divinely appropriated position, it is truly astonishing to me that such men as brother crooks, doctor gill, should attempt to wrest justification from its place, to put it alongside predestination. Whom did he justify? Does not Paul declare as emphatically as words could do it, that they were them whom he had called? Whom he called, them he also justified. As I have formally said, so I now repeat, that experimental justification is evidently that which is here spoken of.

I will now notice the following remark of Brother Crooks “She (the church) was created in Christ Jesus and there stood always justified, or just as if you would rather have it so, that there was neither spot nor blemish in her.” I like Brother Crook's idea of the church having been created in Christ, and hence having a distinct existence in him, better, as being more scriptural, than Doctor Gill's notion that the children of God were primarily created in Adam, and then put into Christ by-election. That the church, in that life which Christ is, and is the head and fountain of, to his people, stood ever perfect brother crooks must be aware I have uniformly contended for. I will add she thus stood essentially righteous according to the spirit of the law, but not, as having a wrought righteousness according to the letter of the law. This constitutes one of the original objections to the notion of eternal justification because such a notion implies that the church as originally brought forth and as eternally stood in her head, Christ, was subject to charges of transgression that needed clearing away before she could be recognized as the object of God's love. According to the proper import of the term justification as shown before, the fact that the church eternally stood in Christ her head complete, and from the infallibility of him in whom she stood, without the possibility of a charge of sin, or of blemish, being made against her, instead of proving her having been eternally justified, proofs, that is thus standing in, and represented before God, by, her head lowered, and life, Christ, she was not the possible subject of the act of justification.

Brother crooks and most who have written on this subject, seemed to me, to lose sight of the scriptural fact that Christ and Adam were as distinct in their headships, as in their persons, and were set up under economies as distinct, as are the law, and the everlasting covenant. The one is the Lord from heaven the sun, and not a servant; the other was of the earth, earthy a servant, bound to obey. Each head as originally brought forth, and of course, in him, his distinct body or seed, and their seeds consequently were as distinct as their headships. “As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy; and as is the heavenly, such as the day that our heavenly.” “That which is born of the flesh is flesh, And that which is born of the spirit is spirit.” 1st Corinthians 15.47-49; John 3.6.

Now the elect of God had stood in a relation to both these headships; their natural life they derive from Adam, and thus are his posterity; their spiritual life they received from Christ and are thus his seed.

Brother crooks I think must admit that the Lord from heaven, as such, and as eternally brought forth and his bride in him, was not subject to legal charges, and therefore not an object of legal justification, or condemnation. If he was not, neither was his bride as represented by him. But it was the eternal purpose of God to create his children in an earthly head, Adam, and leave them to fall, that the riches of his grace might be displayed in the exultation of such worms of the dust to the privilege and manifestation of sons of God, by being regenerated and born again, that is being brought into actual existence as the seed of Christ, by being vivified with that life that was in him from the beginning and thus growing out as branches from him, the vine. Now, would the law let go of its hold and demand upon these children of Adam that they might be exalted beyond its fear without their being redeemed and cleared or justified from all its demands? Romans 8.1-16; Galatians 4.1-7. Hence the provisions made in the everlasting covenant to meet the demands of law and justice. 

The above I should suppose fully met Brother Crooks's inquiry concerning what it was, that was justified in time. But as I have repeatedly referred to this distinction between the two headships, and to its importance in the discussion of this subject, without any having noticed it either pro or con, I will in further answering Brother Crooks' inquiry, illustrate this point by experience. I will therefore refer to the experimental fact, that in the intimate personal connection which takes place in the believer, at the new birth, between the flesh and spirit, between the old man that is corrupt, and the new man that is created in righteousness and true holiness. It is not that the new man comes in as a servant to the old and to be involved with it, in the bondage and curse of the law, but he comes in to take the head and government, here represented to have his seat in the heart, the throne as it were, in man; and not only to take this seat but to be acknowledged as the head and person in the believer. Hence these texts improve, “it was said unto her, the elder shall serve the younger” (Romans 9.12; Genesis 25.23) “If any man is in Christ, he is a new creature; old things are passed away; behold all things are become new” (2nd Corinthians 5.17,) and concerning the identity of the believer's person, Paul says, “it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwells in me.” Romans 7.20; and the master to the same effect, says of his disciples, “They are not of the world even as I am not of the world” John 17.16. Hence when the law in its letter, comes to the believer, it finds itself mistaken, he is not the person it took him to be, it has no authority over this person, (the believer) no power to curse him, Christ, and not Adam is now sitting at the head and this body which was once only earthly in its principles. 

Hence the apostle's remark, “for you are not under the law, but under grace” Romans 6.14. Now, brother crooks I ask you, which is most scriptural or even most consistent to suppose; that, that life of the believer which was conceived and brought forth from everlasting which is no other than Christ, (Colossians 3.3-4) and therefore no other than the brightness of the father's glory, Hebrews 1.3, should be subject to redemption from under the law, and legal justification that it might be brought into a personal connection with the earthy nature of the elect Raising that nature in its hopes, prospects, and joys, here, and ultimately taking it, changed from corruption to incorruption from a natural body to a spiritual one, home with it to eternal glory? Or that the nature of the elect which was originally created under the law, should be thus redeemed and justified that it might be made manifest in its blessed connection with life, with Christ with glory? 

If you say that it was the former, the spirit, that needed justification, then you might with some propriety suppose justification to have been eternal; but if you admit that it was the elect, alone as they were related to Adam, or their human nature that needed justification, then be consistent, you must admit that this justification did not actually pass until since time commenced; for this nature itself, had not an actual existence, neither personal nor representative, until the 6th day of the creation, Genesis 1.27; verse 1 and 2; Hebrews 214; John 1.14; Galatians 4.4.

S. Trott Fairfax CH Va. August 28, 1838

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!