We have tried to collect together from the major great men of god among Old School Baptists, their thoughts on the mysterious yet glorious doctrine of Eternal Vital Union. There may be additions to this book if other works are discovered.

We have added both sides of the issue, pro and con. We believe in the doctrine. The reader will have to judge whether the charges against Beebe and Trott are valid.

Guillermo Santamaria

Short answer: No – Dudley and Smoot are on the same side on eternal vital union, not opposite sides.

A bit more detail so the wires don’t get crossed:

Thomas P. Dudley (Bryan Station, KY) explicitly defended what came to be called eternal vital union in his famous “Circular on the Christian Warfare.” Even hostile historians summarize him as a leading defender of the “eternal children/eternal vital union” line among Hardshells. (hardshellism.blogspot.com)

William M. Smoot (Occoquan, VA) stands in exactly that same absoluter stream. Local history of Occoquan Meeting House notes that under his pastorate and influence the church’s 1903 articles of faith expressly affirm “Absolute Predestination, Eternal Vital Union and separation from Secret Societies.” (Internet Archive)

Later absoluter writers (like Stanley C. Phillips) actually group them together—“Gill, Beebe, Johnson, Dudley, Trott, Smoot and a host of others”—as men who held to “the eternal vital union of Christ with His body, the church.” (mountzionpbc.org)

So in terms of whether there is an eternal, living union of Christ and His elect from eternity, both Dudley and Smoot affirm it. Whatever differences they may have had about style, emphasis, or related questions (Two-Seed, pre-existence of souls, etc.), they are not on opposite sides of that doctrine.

Where it gets messy (and probably where the “disagreement” language sneaks in) is:

There was another E. S. Dudley (a nephew, not T. P.), who shows up in Signs of the Times as opposing “eternal vital union” and arguing for union only in time, through faith; Beebe replies sharply to him. (old-baptist-test.blogspot.com)

Some later writers also attacked Dudley/Beebe/Smoot as “eternal children” men and tried to distinguish themselves by rejecting EVU. From their angle, Dudley and Smoot are joint targets, not opponents. (mountzionpbc.org)

So, historically:

T. P. Dudley + W. M. Smoot = same camp on eternal vital union.The real fights are Dudley/Beebe/Smoot versus anti-EVU Primitive Baptists, not Dudley versus Smoot.

If you want, the next step is to do a side-by-side of Dudley’s “Christian Warfare” with Smoot’s doctrinal pieces so you can show how tightly their EVU language lines up.

1. Where Beebe responds to Dudley

Beebe’s direct response to E. S. Dudley (not T. P. Dudley) is in:

“Reply to Brother E. S. Dudley”, Signs of the Times, Sept. 1, 1849, Vol. XVII, No. 17. (old-baptist-test.blogspot.com)

That issue prints (E.S.) Dudley’s letter against “seminal union” / eternal vital union (EVU), and then Beebe’s editorial reply under that title.

A modern transcription with long excerpts of Beebe’s reply is conveniently reproduced (with hostile commentary) in Stephen Garrett’s blog series Two Seed Baptist Ideology (XXI), which explicitly identifies the SOT issue and title. (old-baptist-test.blogspot.com)

2. What Dudley had challenged

Dudley presses Beebe on the logic of “seminal union”:

Beebe had argued that the life of the church existed in Christ from eternity in a real, vital way.

Dudley asks (I’ll paraphrase): If the mere existence of the church’s life in Christ justifies “seminal union,” then why not also say the same about natural life, since we also derive that from God? (old-baptist-test.blogspot.com)

That’s Dudley’s reductio: Beebe’s reasoning seems to imply that all life and persons pre-exist in God “seminally,” including Adamic life, which leads straight into the “eternal created things” problem.

3. Beebe’s main line of response

Beebe does three big things in reply.

a) He asserts a “higher relationship” than mere creatureliness

Beebe starts by saying (again paraphrasing): if a brother can see no higher relationship between God and his people than that of mere created beings, he despairs of enlightening him. (old-baptist-test.blogspot.com)

That is, he doesn’t directly answer the natural-life reductio; instead he insists there is a unique, higher, spiritual relationship the elect have in Christ from eternity.

b) He doubles down on eternal spiritual seed in Christ

Beebe then lays out his classic EVU/Two-Seedish schema. In brief (from the Sept. 1, 1849 piece):

God is the author of both natural and spiritual life.

Natural life:

God “gave us” natural life in Adam.

It is developed in us by generation.

Generation is the manifestation of a natural seed that God created in Adam.nothing can be generated in that Adamic relation that did not have seminal existence in him. (old-baptist-test.blogspot.com)

Spiritual life:

God “gave us” spiritual life in Christ, the second Adam.

That spiritual life is communicated by regeneration.

Regeneration is the manifestation of a spiritual seed which God created in Christ.

Beebe says the saints’ sonship, life, righteousness, and heirship are all in Christ’s sonship, life, righteousness, and heirship; they are “one with Christ” as he is one with the Father. (old-baptist-test.blogspot.com)

In other words:

Natural seed: created in Adam → manifested in time by generation.

Spiritual seed: created in Christ → manifested in time by regeneration.

That is Beebe’s eternal vital union in full dress: the elect actually exist as a created spiritual seed in Christ from eternity; regeneration does not create this union, it only makes it manifest and experiential.

Dudley’s “eternal created things” objection is lurking in the background here; Beebe’s answer is essentially: Yes, there is a created eternal spiritual seed in Christ, and that’s exactly the point.

c) He hammers Dudley with seven rhetorical questions

In the closing section that Garrett reproduces, Beebe stops arguing and starts interrogating. His famous seven questions are all built to force Dudley to admit some form of real, eternal, vital existence of the church in Christ, not merely a decree or prospect. I’ll summarize them:

Does the church have “real and vital” existence in Christ or not?– If no, then there is no true “vital union” at all; if yes, we’re already halfway to EVU. ( old-baptist-test.blogspot.com)

If she does, is that existence created or self-existent?– If self-existent, you’ve deified the church; if created, you’ve just admitted “eternal created” spiritual existence.

If the church was “created in Christ Jesus unto good works” and Christ has been her dwelling place “from everlasting,” was this creation in Christ before the world began or after?– If you say “after,” you’ve introduced change in Christ and in his body; if “before,” you’re back at something like eternal vital union. (old-baptist-test.blogspot.com)

If Christ is “the same yesterday, today, and for ever,” and the church is his body, chosen, sanctified, saved and called in him before the world, did Christ ever exist as Mediatorial Head without the church existing in him?– If you answer yes, you have a mutable Christ and a changing mediatorial relationship; if no, again you’ve conceded some kind of co-existence of church and Christ from eternity.

If you say the church existed only prospectively / in purpose in Christ before time, does she now exist in him in some other way? If so, when did that change occur, where is it recorded, and how is that reconciled with Christ’s immutability? (old-baptist-test.blogspot.com)

If the church only exists in Christ prospectively or in purpose now, will she ever exist in him in any other sense?– Beebe is exposing how a purely “decretal” union never becomes real union.

Would a merely prospective / predestinated existence in Christ constitute any vital relationship at all between Christ and his people? (old-baptist-test.blogspot.com)

The structure is clever: Beebe tries to make Dudley’s “in purpose only” view look like either (a) a denial of any real, vital union, or (b) an implicit admission of an eternal, created, real union in Christ—effectively forcing Dudley into Beebe’s metaphysical framework.

4. How does this fit your Dudley / Smoot project

For your “DUDLEY/SMOOT DISAGREEMENT ON ETERNAL VITAL UNION”:

E. S. Dudley (Ohio) is functioning here as a proto-Smoot in 1849:

He pushes back exactly where Smoot later pushes: You’re turning decree and representation into literal pre-existence of persons (“eternal created things,” “seminal union”).

Beebe’s reply in 1849 is a clean, primary-source statement of the absoluter / Two-Seedish side:

Regeneration as manifestation only

Eternal created seed in Christ

Real, vital, actual union of church and Christ from eternity (not merely in decree).

So if you want to set up the later Smoot vs. anti-EVU debate, this 1849 article is almost the ur-text: Smoot is basically working out Beebe’s side rigorously; Dudley is giving, in nuce, the later anti-EVU critique.

In other words: Beebe’s “Reply to Brother E. S. Dudley” is Exhibit A for the absoluter, eternal-vital-union reading of union with Christ inside Old School Baptist history.

Short version: E. S. Dudley rejected “eternal vital union” in the Beebe/Trott/Smoot sense.

He believed the elect were chosen in Christ from eternity, but did not believe that any human person, or “spiritual seed,” actually existed in Christ as a living, vital entity before time. For him, vital union happens in time, when a sinner is regenerated and joined to Christ.

Let’s walk through the evidence.

1. His challenge to Beebe: no “seminal union” of persons from eternity

In the Signs of the Times debate (Sept. 1, 1849 issue), E. S. Dudley writes to Beebe, questioning the whole “seminal union”/eternal-vital-union construction.

Beebe himself quotes Dudley’s objection:

“Our beloved brother inquires, ‘If the existence, merely, of the life of the church, in Christ justifies the idea of seminal union, may we not also claim seminal union on account of the natural life; seeing that we derive both from God?’” (old-baptist-test.blogspot.com)

That one sentence tells you a lot about Dudley’s doctrine:

Beebe had said: the life of the church existed in Christ, therefore a “seminal” (seed-like, real) union from eternity.

Dudley answers: if you argue like that, then you’d have to say our natural life was also “seminally” in God, which leads to the absurdity of making every creature an “eternal created thing.”

In other words, Dudley is saying:

Yes, our life is “from God” (both natural and spiritual).

No, that does not mean our persons, as such, pre-exist in God as a living seed or “vital union.”

That’s a direct rejection of the Beebe/Trott doctrine of eternal vital union / seminal union of the elect in Christ.

The blogger who transcribes the 1849 exchange (and is hostile to Beebe’s side) rightly summarizes Dudley’s move:

Dudley’s argument “shows where Two Seed ideology leads” and presses that Beebe’s view implies “every human being has existed from eternity in God” as an “eternal created thing,” which Dudley clearly rejects. (old-baptist-test.blogspot.com)

Whatever we think of the blogger, that summary matches Dudley’s question exactly.

2. What (E.S.) Dudley did affirm: union in God’s purpose, not vital existence

The same analysis of the 1849 exchange goes on to describe the anti-EVU/anti–Two Seed line (the side Dudley is on):

Those “Primitive Baptists” who opposed the Two Seeders denied ‘eternal vital union,’ arguing that such a union takes place in time in the life of everyone chosen when he is by faith joined to Christ. (old-baptist-test.blogspot.com)

And they spell out the alternative:

Before the world, the elect are in Christ only in God’s counsel, decree, and purpose.

They do not actually or vitally exist in Christ before they exist as human beings.

Vital union begins when the sinner is:

created as a human, and

then re-created as a “new creature” when converted and brought to faith.

That’s exactly the theology Dudley is arguing for in seed form:

God’s people are loved, chosen, and given grace in Christ “before the foundation of the world.”

But that is a decretal union—a union in God’s mind and purpose—not a vital union of living persons from eternity. (old-baptist-test.blogspot.com)

So:

For E. S. Dudley, “in Christ before the foundation of the world” = in purpose and representation, not in actual vital existence as a pre-created seed.

3. His reputation among Old School Baptists

Pittman’s Biographical History of Primitive or Old School Baptist Ministers gives a little obituary sketch on (E.S.) Dudley. It doesn’t use the phrase “eternal vital union,” but the description of his ministry lines up with the anti-EVU concern:

Dudley “ever guarded against any system of doctrine that reflected upon the purity and holiness of God as opposed to sin, or that detracted from the truth that the sinner was the subject of regeneration and salvation, and that salvation was purely by the grace and mercy of God.” (Internet Archive)

That’s exactly what the anti–eternal-children men were worried about:

If you say the elect are eternally, vitally united to Christ as a holy seed and never truly “lost” in Adam in any real sense,

then you blur God’s opposition to sin and flatten regeneration into mere “manifestation” of a pre-existing holy life, rather than a real, gracious change in an actually fallen subject.

So even in a friendly OSB biographical source, (E.S.) Dudley is explicitly remembered as a man who:

drew a hard line around real, time-bound regeneration,

and rejected speculative systems that seemed to diminish the fact that a sinner is genuinely the subject of salvation, which is exactly his quarrel with Beebe’s “eternal created seed” idea.

4. Putting it together in plain terms

So, what did E. S. Dudley believe about eternal vital union?

You can summarize his position like this:

Election and purpose in Christ are eternal.

The elect are chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world.

Grace is “given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,” but as a covenant/donative reality in God’s plan, not as our own personal, living existence. (old-baptist-test.blogspot.com)

No human person exists from eternity.

No child of God exists as an actual person or “seed” in Christ before he or she is created.

To talk of “seminal union” of the person in Christ from eternity is, in Dudley’s eyes, to create the absurd category of “eternal created things.” (old-baptist-test.blogspot.com)

Vital union is in time, at regeneration/faith.

The sinner becomes vitally united to Christ when the Spirit regenerates him, and he is “joined to the Lord” by faith.

That is when the “new creature” is created in Christ; before that, the person simply did not exist as a living subject to be in vital union at all. (old-baptist-test.blogspot.com)

He rejected Beebe’s “seminal union”/eternal vital union.

Dudley’s 1849 question to Beebe is a direct attack on the logic of EVU.

He is saying: You can’t smuggle personal pre-existence in under the slogan “life given in Christ,” without carrying the same logic over to natural life and making everything eternally existent in God. (old-baptist-test.blogspot.com)

So in the Dudley/Smoot universe, you’re mapping out:

Smoot & Beebe (and T. P. Dudley) = yes to eternal vital union/seminal seed, with regeneration as manifestation of a pre-existing spiritual life.

E. S. Dudley^[1] = no; union in purpose only from eternity, and vital union only when the sinner is regenerated and joined to Christ in time.

He’s basically the early, Kentucky-flavored voice of the later anti-EVU, anti-“eternal children” wing—pushing back against the absoluter metaphysics from inside the same Old School orbit.

PRIMARY SOURCES

BEEBE’S 1879 ARTICLE

Reproduction of Articles published in the “Signs of the Times” more than 30 years ago. In the number of the SIGNS OF THE TIMES for Dec. 15, 1879, will be found a letter from our beloved brother, Wm. E. Freeman, in which he speaks of some articles published more than 30 years ago, which have been construed by certain parties as fastening on us what they called the “Arian Two Seed heresy.” Has but very few of our present readers have access to those old volumes, brother Freeman suggested that we should we publish them for the benefit of those who desire to know whether we have been for so many years publishing such pernicious heresies, and so very few of the many thousands of our readers have had sagacity enough to discover it. In all courts of equity, the burden of proving charges has been thought rightly to devolve on the accusers; the accused is supposed to be innocent until proved to be guilty. But circumstances alter cases. We are violently accused and challenged to prove our innocence of the things charged. Our accusers claim that they have proved by extracts from the SIGNS of many years ago what we have constantly protested and denied that we do now, or ever have held. And now, to show that the passages copied from the SIGNS have been unfairly garbled or strangely misconstrued, and that, in the very articles from which they have made these extracts, we distinctly, expressly, and most emphatically denied that we did at that time, or in any other time, pull what they so persistently charge us with. How truly brother Freeman says, “One thing that we should be thankful for, and that is, that of all the people calling themselves Old School Baptists, there are none so ignorant of these heresies as the readers and patrons of the SIGNS OF THE TIMES. This looks very strange, that those who never read the SIGNS should profess to know better what it teaches and advocates than those who do read it.” In a note which we appended to brother Freeman’s letter, we promise to attend to his suggestion in regard to the republication of the articles to which reference has been made by our accusers, at our earliest convenience. From the date of that promise our time and space have both been crowded, but we now commence in this number of the SIGNS the republication of the articles referred to. And as we can make room, we will continue their publication in consecutive numbers until we shall have reproduced all that has been referred to by brother Freeman has been claimed by our accusers as sustaining their charges against us. The first of the papers called for is here on two subjoined, being a letter from Eld. E. S. Dudley, dated June 28, 1849, and our reply.

E.S.DUDLEYS’ LETTER TO BEEBE IN THE SIGNS

DEAR BROTHER BEEBE: – if you feel free to do so, I would like if you would give your views on Heb. ii. 14, 15, which reads thus: “For as much then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil, and deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.” The particular point of difficulty with me, and the point to which I would direct your attention, is “the origin of those children,” and how they became united in their Federal head, the second Adam. My object is not to illicit controversy, but to get information; and if you will favor me with your views, I will just take them for what they’re worth.

Yours in Christian regard,

E. S. DUDLEY REPLY: – We feel free to give our views on the subject presented, not from any presumption that we enjoy it in clear light or happier talent of communication than our brethren, but because we desire to withhold no religious sentiment from the investigation of our readers. We consider them entitled to our religious views on all subjects on which they are pleased to interrogate us, and we feel the more unreservedly free in this instant because our brother assumes the more difficult task of estimating the exact worth of our views, and is pledged to take them for just what they are worth; if indeed they shall prove to be worth anything. This is what we desire on all subjects on which we express our opinion. To ask for more would be vain and presumptuous, and be willing to accept less would be to underrate their worth. The two particular points involved in the consideration of this text, to which our attention was called, are, 1. The origin of these children; and 2. How they became united to their Federal Head, the Second Adam. First, the origin of these children. Taking for granted that these children are the children of God, that seed which God, by the prophet, said, should serve him, and which should be counted to the Lord for a generation; and which are by Peter are called, “a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation,” &c., And by Paul, “the faithful in Christ Jesus,” we shall have but little difficulty in tracing their origin immediately two God. Christ himself is said of them, “Thine they were, and thou gavest them me.” Again, “All that the Father giveth me shall come to me.” “My Father which gave them me is greater than all,” &c. But we presume that brother Dudley is as well satisfied that these children had their origin in God, as we are; we conclude that his query was intended to embrace the consideration of the date, manner, and circumstances of their origin. Whether they originated at the time of the creation of the natural heavens and earth in the formation of Adam from the dust of the earth, or at some date antecedent or subsequent to the creation of the world. We are free to express the strong conviction of our mind that as the seed of Christ, they had their origin in him as their seminal Head, and divinely appointed Mediator, long before they became partakers of flesh and blood. Some of them we know existed as the seed of Christ when he poured out his soul unto death, for at that time he saw all his seed, and some of them have never until the present time been developed as partakers of flesh and blood; only as they had an earthly or natural existence in Adam the first, from the day that man became a living soul. The text before us demonstrates the fact that these children did exist as his (Christ’s) children before they became partakers of flesh and blood. Their becoming partakers of flesh and blood did not constitute them the children or seed of Christ, for they had their identity as his children, or “the children” before they partook of flesh and blood. Who partook of flesh and blood? The children. How did they partake of flesh and blood? Just as Christ “also himself likewise partook of the same,” when he was made flesh and dwelt among us; for the term likewise, signifies in like manner or in the same way. Christ existed as the Son of God before he was made of a woman; and so his seed existed in him as their Mediatorial and seminal Head, before they were created in Adam. When we speak of the existence of Christ as the Son of God, the Mediator, the Head of the church and life of his people, before he became incarnate, we do not allude to his absolute Godhead, for in his Godhead he is the eternal, the self-existent God, in the most absolute sense of the word; but we allude to what he was at the beginning of the creation of God and the First-Born of every creature. And thus existing in his Mediatorial character, the fullness of the Godhead and the fullness of the church were embodied in that Mediatorial existence. And hence it is said that his people were created in him, chosen in him, preserved in him, saved and called with an holy calling, not according to their works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given them in Christ Jesus before the world began. Their origin as his seed his simultaneous an identical with Christ as their Life, as we are informed in the connection of our text. For both he that sanctifieth and they that are sanctified are all of one, for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren, saying, “I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church I will sing praise unto thee. And again, I will put my trust in him. And again, Behold I, and the children which god hath given me.” In perfect harmony with the scriptures, he told his disciples that he was going to his Father into their Father, to his God and to their God. As he is the only begotten of the Father, their sonship is included in his Sonship. He was the Son of God before he partook of flesh and blood, and his seed were the children of God in his sonship before they partook of flesh and blood. Brother Dudley will perceive that while we ascribe to Christ absolute Godhead in the most absolute and a limited sense of the word; and as such denied that he is second, subsequent, or inferior to any other God, we refer every title applied to him in the scriptures, which implies derivation, emanation, generation or dependence, to his Mediatorial Headship of his church, which is his body, the fullness of him that fill with all in all; excepting only such titles as are used in special reference to his humanity. Second. The second point for consideration is, “How did they become united in their Federal Head, the Second Adam?” The original seminal union and identity of the church as the body, with Christ as the Head, has probably been sufficiently discussed in the first division of our article; but we suppose brother Dudley’s enquiry to embrace the subject of experimental union – for certainly neither he nor any other intelligent brother can conceive of the existence of a living head, and a living body belonging to that living head, and that the same time disconnected, or disunited. Separate any from which body, and neither head or body can survive the separation; the matter of union concerning which our brother inquires, must be that experimental union which is developed in the saints when Christ is formed in them the hope of glory. How this is brought about involves considerations second in importance only to what we have already expressed our views upon. This consideration is not only great and and sublime, but it is vast and its range, for it involves the consideration of the participation of his children in the flesh and blood of their Adamic nature, their natural seminal union to identity with Adam as the Federal head of the human family as such; their sin in him, their guilt and condemnation in that nature in union; their alienation from God, and their total depravity is fallen sinners; their redemption and reconciliation to God through the atonement of their “nearest of kin,” Christ, and finally their regeneration, by the quickening operation of the Holy Ghost. All these, and more, are involved in the consideration of this branch of our subject. It is not possible for us to be more clear on these points than the inspired writer, in the connection of our text. Christ, who in his mediatorial character was holy, harmless, separate from sinners and higher than the heavens, was made a little lower than the angels, in his assumption of that body which was prepared for the suffering of death; in which he, by the grace of God should taste death for them all, and thus bring many sons unto glory; by destroying him that had the power of death, and delivering them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. In this work it behooved him not only to be made like unto his brethren, but also to suffer the just for the unjust, to bring them to God; hints he was delivered for their offenses, and raised again for the justification, and by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. Thus having, by virtue of pre-existing relationship, union an identity, sustained legally the character, and performed effectually the work of a Redeemer, he has “Gone up with a shout, and with the sound of a trumpet.” The heavens have received him as the High Priest of our profession, and as the Captain of our salvation; and he has sent the Holy Spirit, whose work it is to quicken and regenerate all those for whom he died, and the take of the things of his, and show them unto his people. In the prosecution of this placid work, the heirs of immortality are made to hear the voice of the Son of God, and live; and when thus made alive, they are made to feel and realized their lost and helpless condition as sinners against God, and to despair of salvation thru any work or merit of their own, and whence efficiently humbled before God, Christ is revealed to them as their Life, their Righteousness, Sanctification and Redemption. The spirit of adoption is given them, and they cry, Abba, Father. God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, shines in their hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God, in the face of Jesus Christ. Not to make them sons, but because they are sons, God sends forth the spirit of his Son into their hearts, and his spirit witnesses with their spirit, that they are born of God. Now they experience and enjoy this union with their second, anti-typical Adam; and they are made to know him and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of his sufferings. Now they are recognized and sealed as the errors of Glory – and from their living in spiritual Head, by joints and bands united, they have nourishment ministered, and increased with the increase of God. Here we must leave the subject for the present. Brother Dudley would just throw what we have written into the scales of the sanctuary, weigh it fairly, ascertain its true weight and worth by a righteous standard, and do as he has promised, and we ask no more.

Elder Gilbert Beebe,

Middletown, N.Y. Signs of the Times, Volume 48, No. 11 June 1, 1880

LETTER FROM ELDER TROTT TO BRETHREN AT FORT MOUNTAIN, VIRGINIA. (2ND)

The second article, called for, as we are informed by our beloved brother Freeman,^[2] is in volume seventeen, pages 181-183. This is a long reply of the venerable Elder Trott to brethren at Fort Mountain, Virginia, which was published without note for comment by us at that time. As Elder Trott, and many, if not all, of the Fort Mountain brethren who were engaged in that discussion^[3], have been called the way by death, we deem it inexpedient to revive their controversy or to disturb their graves. We pass to the next in order, which is a letter made by us to a letter of Elder John Clark, in which has will be seen, we distinctly said, “We are not prepared to endorse what brother Trott has said, although with him we do believe that Christ was made a quickening Spirit.” For about thirty years past, we have carefully avoided the mention of his name in the SIGNS, leaving him to accomplish his threat, that unless we complied with his terms, the SIGNS OF THE TIMES should itself be discontinued; and to do in his own way. Nor do we publish these articles with any design to persist in the use of any words or phrases use by us, then which we’re liable to be misunderstood. We most freely admit our liability to err, and therefore have constantly urged our readers to compare carefully all we published with the scriptures, and receive only what the scripture sustain. We have been charged repeatedly with Arianism, two-seedism and other heresies, which we have distinctly denied. Our accusers have referred to passages in the SIGNS to prove these heresies upon us; to which we have replied that such passages from our writings have been garbled, and not taken in their legitimate connection with the manifest tenor of the articles from which they purported to have been taken. To garble, according to Webster, is “To pick out such parts of as may serve a purpose; to mutilate; to correct.” Arianism is generally understood to be a denial of the eternal Deity, or supreme and uncreated Godhead of our Lord Jesus Christ. Now let our readers examine the passages picked out of these reproduced articles, and compare them with the articles from which they have been extracted and picked out, in which we have in the most pointed manner declared we did not use the garbled terms in the sense which they attached to them, and then decide if what has been quoted of what we have said has been a fair in on this presentation of our manifest meaning and intention. Compare what was said of Christ, as the relative and official Head of the church and life of his body, as being constituted, made or created, the foundation and source of all life to his saints, with what we said in the next paragraph in these words, “If brother Clark and other brethren have so understood us, or any who have written on the subject, as to fear that we were others were losing sight of the absolute Godhead of Jesus Christ, their jealousy is commendable; but we are certain that those who have written have felt as tenacious for the supreme glory of God our Savior as any of our brethren can be. * * * * We do a surety believed that he (Christ) is God, and worship him and rejoice in him as God,” &c. Again, we say, if the attempt to fasten on us the charge of making Christ only a created being, when we have soulfully declare that he is himself the self-existent God, by whom all things are and were created, is not a mutilation and perversion of what we declared to be our meaning an understanding in the use of the words used by us, then we have unjustly charged our accusers with garbling. The word create in our English language, as defined by Webster in his unabridged dictionary, is defined in his second application thus: “To effect by the agency and under the laws of causation; to be the occasion of; to produce.” In his third application he says, “To invest with a new form of office, or character; to constitute; to appoint; to make.” The idiom of the English language justifies its application to Psalm lxxxix. 27: “Also I will make him my first born, higher than the Kings of the earth.” “Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion.” – Psalm ii. 6. “Even Jesus, made a High Priest forever, after the order of Melchisedec.” – Heb. vi. 20. “For the law make if man high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was sense the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated forevermore.” – Heb. vii. 28. None of these terms are or can be applied to the abstract Deity of Christ, nor applied to him abstractly from his Mediatorial relations, for as God, nothing can be added two or diminished from him; but of the increase of his government and peace, as our blessed Mediator, there shall be no end, upon the throne of David his Father, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth, even for ever. – Isa. ix. 7. Although the use of the word is sanctioned by Webster, and frequently used in the scriptures in a similar sense, as, “I form the light, and I create darkness,” darkness is caused only by withdrawing or withholding light. It is not making something out of nothing, or something that never existed before. – Isa. xlv. 7. “I create a new heaven and in new earth;” “for behold, I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy.” – Isa. lxv. 17, 18. Both Jerusalem and her people were already in existence, but she, with their people, was to be blessed with these additional favors. “Create in me a clean heart,” was the importuning prayer of David. – Psa. ii. 10. Not in the way the heavens and earth were created from nonentity, for he already had a heart, but it needed to be cleansed. The manner of this creation which he invoked was, “Purge me with hysop, and I shall be clean; wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow.” Now we repeat, although the word, in the sense in which we used it, is sanctioned by Webster, and what is far more important, by the scriptures, we do not feel inclined to persist in the use of it. Certainly, if we had apprehended that any of our brethren or readers would have inferred that we held the monstrous belief that Christ had no higher than a created existence, we would not have used it. When we published the article in which that word occurred, we were issuing about seven thousand copies of the SIGNS, which are read by perhaps 10 times that number of Old School Baptists, who have discovered no Arianism in it. Since that time, it has taken Elder Clark, who had threatened to annihilate the SIGNS, 30 years to make the impression, with the aid of a printing press and as many as he could enlist to cooperate with him, that we are an Arian Two-seeder; and the amount of his success in his efforts, others can judge for themselves. We presume the Two-seedism, of which we are accused, is that which was advocated by the late Elder Daniel Parker, which we have never sanctioned, and in refutation of which we published a pamphlet many years ago. The bible speaks of various kinds of seed: a holy seed, a godly seed, a righteous seed, and also of the seed of evil doers, a corruptible and an incorruptible seed, seeds of animate and of inanimate things; but on none of those seeds are we aware that we hold any views differing from the views of our brethren. Deeply regreting our inability to express in more unmistakable language powerful, unwavering and undying faith in the eternal power, majesty and refulgent glory of our Lord Jesus Christ, as the Word that was with God, and as the Word that was God, God over all, blessed forevermore, the true God and eternal life, that he is one and identical with the Father, and one an identical also with his body, the church, and with all our hope for heaven and happiness resting exclusively on his Godhead and his complete, finished and perfect Mediatorial work, we desire to worship and adore him as our God, obey him as our King, serve him as our Lord and Master, confide in him as the great High Priest who holds his office, not by the law of a carnal commandment, but by the power of an endless life, by which she is able to save all who come unto God by him, seeing that he ever liveth to make intercession for them. Yea, “In all the characters he bears, And all the forms of love he wears, Exalted on his throne, In loftiest songs of sweetest praise We would, to everlasting days, Make all his glories known.” The following is our reply to Elder Clark, first published And December 1, 1849, in volume 17, pages 181-183.

From a firm conviction of our mind that brother Clark had misapprehended the views of our self and of some of our correspondents, in relation to some of the things of which he complains, as existing among the Old School Baptists, and consequently that his repudiation of views which he imputes to them, would be regarded as an attempt to demolish that which has only an imaginary existence among Old School Baptists, we were led to defer into publication, intending as soon as we could command at leisure, to correspond privately with him, in the hope that we might be able to disabuse his mind on the subjects of all. By a letter subsequently received, brother Clark urges the publication as a matter of justice to himself and many others, who, he informs us, have entertained the same or similar views with himself. We are too well acquainted with brother Clark to doubt his sincerity are the purity of his motives, or to think him incapable of wishing to create an unprofitable excitement. We feel no disposition to deny him what he claims as a right at our hands; but while we publish his communication he will bear with us, while we injustice to the Old School Baptists generally, and in defence of the SIGNS OF THE TIMES, particularly, attempt to show that many of the things of which he complains have never been advocated by Old School Baptists through the columns of this paper. First. No writer in the SIGNS has ever claimed for his own productions that they should be regarded in any different light from that which they freely accord to all other writers, both ancient and modern; so far as they are sustained by the word of God, they are more than the opinions of man; but as far is the only express opinions, as such, they are like all other writings of the kind, to be esteemed only as the opinions of man. All the writings of uninspired man, whether in ancient or modern times, must necessarily set forth the opinions of their authors, and their correctness or incorrectness must be determined by a higher standard than themselves. Every sentiment, whether expressed by ancient our modern man, whether in the pulpit or at the fireside, whether published in Gill’s Commentary or the SIGNS OF THE TIMES, is true or false, as far as relates to spiritual things, as it is sustained or condemned by the scriptures. But we must make a distinction between the opinions of man, and the infallible word of divine inspiration. We admit of no standard writers for the church of God, excepting such as have written by the immediate inspiration of the Holy Ghost. A gray-headed heir is none of the better for its antiquity, nor is a newly discovered truth the worse because of its novelty to us. The query of brother Clark, whether the SIGNS has not been productive of as much harm as benefit, we shall leave our readers to decide; but we know not why our views on any point of doctrine, are not as good and edifying when given through the SIGNS in answer to an inquiring brother or sister, as though we were to express the same views from the pulpit, nor can we see why they should not be tested by the same rule in both cases. If our readers would regard our views and he either case, as a standard for their faith, they would be guilty of substituting the opinions of a man, in place of the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. It is not enough for us as christians to know that we have the opinions of great and good man of many generations; we require to know that these opinions are sustained by a “Thus saith the Lord.” Second. In the six specifications of “new things,” which brother Clark says, “have been found among us, and some of which have been advocated in the SIGNS,” there are some specifications which have not yet been developed to our knowledge among the Old School Baptists of our acquaintance, much less have they been advocated in the SIGNS. The doctrine of the first specification, asserting the self-existence, independence and progenitive properties of Satan, has never been held by any, who were recognized a consistent Old School Baptists, in the SIGNS OF THE TIMES. Nor did we ever before hear of any among us, we’ll than the sentiment of the second specification, nor do we think that sentiment has ever been advanced by any recognized Baptist of our order. The third specification is somewhat complicated. We know of none who deny that the non-elect are under law to God, and under condemnation and wrath, by the law of God under which they were created in Adam, and against which they have all transgressed; that there are many among us who do not profess to be informed, as to different degrees of punishment awaiting the non-elect in the world to come. Having in behalf of our brethren who have been contributors to our columns, plead “Not guilty,” to three out of the six specifications, we pass to notice the remaining three specifications; and on two of them we freely admit there has been some unpleasant description. The fourth specification is undoubtedly the most important of all; but the statement is by no means a fair version of the sentiments held by any writer in the SIGNS, unless we have all together misapprehended such writer. That which comes two nearest it of any thing that is appeared in the SIGNS, is perhaps the reply of brother Trott, to the brethren about the Fort Mountain, on the first page of No. 16, of the present volume. We’re not prepared to endorse what brother Trott has there said, although, with him we do believe that Christ was made a quickening spirit, as the Head of that life and immortality which was given us in him before the world began; and that as Adam was made a living soul, so Christ was me to quickening Spirit. But still it has been, and still is our view of the subject, that as eight is God who is assured us into being by communicating to us by generation than natural life which gave us in Adam, so it is God, who by the Holy Ghost communicates to us that spiritual life which she gave us in Christ before the world began. The immortality of the saints is not a mere emanation from a created being, nor was our natural life such an emanation from man merely; God gave us that life which we derive through Adam; he created it in him, but we receive it from God, through Adam. And our spiritual life proceeds to us from God through Christ. “He gave us a life in Christ his Son, Above for He spread the starry sky.” We do believe that Christ, as the fountain and source of all life to as saints, was so constituted, made or created by God; for these are scripture terms, and must have meaning. And it is in this sense we understand that “He only hath immortality.” From or through him only flows life to us; for that life was in his Son; but this life was so given us in him as to make us in him the sons and children of the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. But we also believe that in him as truly and fully dwells all the Godhead bodily, as we believe that the church of God is fully and completely in him embodied. We agree with brother Trott that the “law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus, by which we are made free from a law of sin and death, has reference to the power of immortality given us in Christ, and not to the person of the Holy Ghost.” But when it is written, “The spirit of the Lord God is upon me, because he has anointed me to preach good tidings to the meek,” &c., We understand that the Holy Ghost is intended. Holy men of old spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost; but unto Christ, as the anointed of the Father, the Holy Ghost was given without measure. And Isaiah, personating the anointed Savior, declares that this anointing was a qualification for his mediatorial work, “binding up of the broken-hearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound; to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn,” &c. We have understood the passage, “It is the Spirit that quickeneth,” to relate to the Holy Ghost; but we understand that the Holy Ghost quickens by communicating the life of Christ to the members of his mystical body. How far we may in these views agree with the views of brother Clark, and how far (if any) we may differ from the views of brother Trott, we’re not able to say; but it is with great deference to the views of both these brethren that we have expressed our own. And so far as they are our views, they are opinions of man, and should be so regarded, and tested by the scriptures; and so far as they are sustained by that standard, they are the revelation of God. Whether they have ever been entertained or expressed by mortals before or not, can neither make them true nor faults. If true, the word of God will sustain them; if untrue, that word will condemn them. The subject is infinite, and we are finite; our views at best are imperfect, and all we can know or understand of God, or the things of his spirit, is and must be by the revelation of the Spirit. If brother Clark and other brethren have so understood us, or any who have written on the subject, as to fear that we were others were losing sight of the absolute Godhead of Jesus Christ, their jealousy is commendable; but we are certain that those who have written, have felt as tenacious for the supreme glory of God our Savior as any of our brethren can be. And although brother Clark May think that we ascribe a triplex character to Christ, which the scriptures do not warrant, we for ourself must say, if to hold that he is God and Man, and Mediator between God and man, involves such of you, we certainly hold it. We do assuredly believe that he is God, and worship and rejoice in him as God. We believe that he took on him the seed of Abraham, was made of a woman, was put to death in the flesh, and was quickened by the Spirit, and we believe that he is the Head of his church, the life and immortality of all the sons of God; nor can we think that brother Clark wishes to exclude either of these characters from him. We may differ in some of our views, and we may differ still more in our manner of expressing them, but in our need of just such a “God, Man and Mediator,” we cannot differ. The fifth and sixth negative specifications are quite two metaphysical for our limited understanding. That the everlasting love of God to his people in Christ, is the cause of their being all to be drawn with loving-kindness two God, and of their loving him in return, is simple bible truth; but that love is what constitutes us the objects of God’s love, or are having our life and immortality given us in Christ, is the ground of our relationship, and that relationship the ground of love, is to be settled as the word in Spirit of God doth teach. Wide brethren who have witnessed and enjoyed that love of God shed abroad in their hearts, causing them to love God supremely, and to love one another with a pure heart fervently, should fall out by the way, and dispute on these nice distinctions, we cannot explain. It is certainly a matter of astonishment the God has loved his people and all; and a far more weighty question with us, whether we be partakers of that love, then any of the questions involved in the controversy. We were not aware that there was any diversity of sentiment among Old School Baptists on the subject of the sixth and last specification; or that any Old School Baptists contend that faith is in any sense the act of the creature. That its power is felt by the children of God, that it moves them the action, and is developed in them by their works, none, we presume, will deny. But we have learned and from the word, that faith is itself a fruit of the Spirit; that is the substance of things hoped for, and the evidence of things not seen. It is not simply the act of believing, (if believing be an act), but it is the power by which we are enabled to perceive the evidence of things not seen, that evidence on which conviction is set home to the mind, and our believing is the consequence which follows. We, for ourself, can see no more propriety in calling the faith of Christ an act of either the old or the new man, then in calling the grace of God the act of those who receive it. Believers do believe, it is true; but they are constrained to believe by the power of the faith of the operation of God. But we desire to make known new issue with our brethren on this point.

Elder Gilbert Beebe, Middletown, N. Y. Signs of the Times, Volume 48, No. 12 June 15, 1880.

THOMAS HILL’S^[4] LETTER TO BEEBE3RD)

The last of the published articles referred to by brother Freeman, as relied on by our accusers to sustain their charges of heresy against us, is contained in the letter of our late brother Thomas Hill, and our remarks upon the same, which we now republish and submit to the judgment and decision of our brethren generally. Let what we have written and published be carefully and prayerfully tested by the divinely authorized standard of inspired truth, and let nothing be accepted as bible doctrine that the bible does not fully sustain. Much has been said by some of our accusers in regard to the words of brother Hill, of his having thought that Christ, as the Mediatorial Head of his body, the church, was “the first production of divine power,” as though he had intended to deny his eternal self-existence as the supreme God; whereas Elder Hill very evidently was speaking of him as the begotten Son, and as such, by the pleasure of the Father, in all things having the pre-eminence.

Utica, N.Y., Jan. 28, 1850.

DEAR BROTHER: – When you have written in defence of the Mediatorial character and standing of our Lord Jesus Christ, I have felt almost always prepared to endorse what you have said upon the subject. There is, however, one exception to be taken, and I think that exception has given your opponents some advantage over you. It is this, in your remarks, speaking of Christ in his ancient headship to, and with the church, you have made free use of the term “Eternal Union,” which term, my dear brother, I have thought was hardly tenable, for if such idea be correct, then as unavoidable consequence the church must be eternal, but as the church is admitted to be a creature, the idea involves a difficulty which to my poor mind is insurmountable. I will now submit to you a thought which has occupied my mind for many years on this very interesting subject. From the testimony of the scriptures, my mind has been led to conclude that, Christ as the Son of God and head of the church, was the first production of divine power! and when he was brought forth, (as declared in the 8th chapter of Col., and 3rd chapter of Rev.,) the church was brought forth with him and in him, as Eve was brought forth in Adam, who is said to be “the figure of him that was to come.” In this display of divine power I have thought the era of time was launched forth from the Almighty hand of God; and as it is stated in the scriptures that in ALL THINGS Christ might have the pre-eminence, so I have been led to think that he stood forth in the commencement of all time, or in other words, that the data of the union of Christ and the Church is coeval with time, and this is what I have been in the habit of terming an “everlasting union.” What I have written above, my dear brother, I have written in love, and I hope you will so understand it, and I would further say that it is written for you and myself alone, as I do not wish you to give it publicity, unless you feel that it might help, and not hinder the brethren, nor injure the SIGNS, for I assure you I have no wish to figure as a controversialist.

I am yours, I hope, in sweet and blessed identity with the “Alpha and Omega,”

THOMAS HILL.

REPLY: – We are greatly pleased with, and would desire to possess and manifest in all our labors, the kind, affectionate and brotherly spirit of the short letter in this paper over the signature of our beloved brother Thomas Hill, of Utica, N.Y. How much the children of God might profit by a free interchange of their views, could they always write and speak with the same manifest kindness of feeling, and desire to import useful suggestion to each other. On the other hand, how much has been frequently lost to them, by an indulgence of those carnal and mischievous, selfish, jealous, and censorious developments of poor, depraved nature, which are so apt to predominate when brethren allow themselves to speak or write in a harsh or unkind manner.

Brethren may differ in their understanding of many important points, and honestly differ for want of clearer light on those subjects, and these differences might be greatly lessened by letting all the light which is among them shine forth, for the common benefit of all that are in the house of God. “In meekness instructing them that oppose themselves.” But when brethren mistake the carnal impulses of their own deceitful hearts, for the inspiration of the spirit of truth, and became jealous of each other’s gift, and fearful that their own light will be eclipsed by that of some other brother, this vain, selfish ambition, not only sinks them low, very low, in the estimation of those who can discern the spirit by which they are influenced, and thereby raises an insuperable barrier against the impartation of instruction, comfort, or edification to others; but it equally disqualifies the brother himself from being benefited by such other gifts as God has been graciously pleased to bestow on other members of his mystical body. But the utter disqualifications of brethren to impart or receive instruction through the diversified gifts of the church is not all the evil which a sour, suspicious, ill-natured, jealous feeling, which is, wherever it is cherished, always accompanied by self confidence and self esteem, is certain to produce; for we all know that the fellowship of the saints is retarded and the love of many waxes cold, as a legitimate result of such a state of things in the church of God. Is it not strange that brethren thus act who have walked together for many years in the sweetest harmony and fellowship, who have often stood shoulder to shoulder in confronting the common enemy of God and truth; should be carried away so far from a gospel course by their carnal feelings, as to jeopardize the peace, union, fellowship and useful intercommunication of the whole brotherhood, indulging their carnal passions; and for the lack of a becoming humility, courtesy, forbearance and brotherly deportment, allow the enemy to come in among them like a flood, and plunder the church of so large an amount of her comfort and peace? In the younger days of our experience, we thought it strange that the inspired apostle should have exhorted christians not to bite and devour one another; it seemed to us that he must have designed the exhortation for some other characters, not Christians; but to our sorrow, we have learned that christians are capable of biting and devouring one another. We see whole churches and associations of churches often distressed, distracted, and torn piecemeal by this spirit which the apostle admonished them to beware of. From whence come these wars, and divisions, and distraction, among the heirs of immortal glory? Come, they not from our own lusts, from the indulgence of the very propensities of depraved nature which we have enumerated in the foregoing remarks? Is there a brother among us who does not feel and know that these evils exist to an alarming extent, at this time? Is there one who can say that he is free from these corruptions in himself? Would we be convinced of the deceitfulness of our hearts, or of the mistaken zeal of some of our dear brethren, follow them from the field of combat to their closets? In the field of contention, when arrayed in warlike attitude to each other, from the self-confidence, and unyielding determination evinced, one would be ready to say, “Surely these are the men, and wisdom shall die with them,” and the cutting proverb, “The fool rageth and is confident,” will, despite ourselves occur to our mind. Each brother seems determined to sustain his position at all hazard, even should he in some instances see the church divided, and hear the wailing lamentations of the feeble ones of the flock, all this is unheeded, the war cry is sounded but the louder, while those who look on, conclude that the combatants are either strangers to the spirit of the gospel, or that they are for the time led captive by the devil at his will; but follow these very brethren to their secret retreat where they pour fourth their supplications to God, and you could hardly think that these brethren, now prostrate before the Lord, confessing their weakness, ignorance and nothingness, were the same that you had seen so determinedly battling to bring all Israel over the standard which they had set up. To avoid this thrusting and wounding of one another, it is not necessary that brethren should avoid one another, or that they should withhold such views as they honestly entertain on any subject of common interest to the saints, or that they should crush the SIGNS, or make a Jonah or a scape goat of some one of their number; all that is wanted is to write and speak in kindness and brotherly affection, and in a spirit of unaffected humility, and soon they will see that “A soft answer turneth away wrath.” We do not wish to be understood by what we have written, that it is wrong to “contend earnestly for the truth,” but we would urge our brethren to observe the apostolic injunction, “Speaking the truth in love.” Not only manifesting love for the truth, but also in love with the brethren, for whose benefit the truth is to be spoken. “I keep under my body,” said Paul, “lest while I preach to others myself should become a castaway.” OH that we could all say that we keep our bodies under. It is, as we conceive, as important to prevent our being castaways to each other, as to our usefulness in the house of God, that we should mortify such deeds of the flesh as we have alluded to in the forgoing, as that we should abstain from drunkenness, meats offered to idols, things strangled, fornication and blood; “from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall d well. Farewell.” Our object when we commenced this article was to make some remarks on the letter of brother Hill. We thank him for the suggestions he has so kind a manner made, and would remark that we do not discover any important difference between us, except in our manner of expressing what we have called eternal union, and which he called everlasting union. We are not sure that this is not the better name for the sentiment, especially as it is less objectionable to the saints; for we know of no Old School Baptist who denies that the union of which we speak is everlasting, though some good brethren doubt the propriety of calling it eternal. In a strict construction of the word eternal, or in its broadest signification, all that is absolutely eternal must of necessity be uncreated, and in such a sense we never held the doctrine of eternal union, nor have we ever understood any of our brethren to hold or contend for it in that sense. But we do hold what we understand our brethren to mean by the use of these terms, viz: 1st. To distinguish between it and the Arminian notion of a time union, depending on uncertain contingencies. 2d. To distinguish it from that kind of union contended for by Eld. J. M. Watson of Tenn., which is not real, only existing in purpose, and which if true, must involve the notion that the saints were not actually chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world, and predestinated to the adoption of children, &c., but that God did before the foundation of the world purpose to predestinate, and choose them at some subsequent time. 3d. We by the term have designed to discriminate between the seminal union of the spiritual life of the church, which is hid with Christ in God, and the experience of that union after their life in Christ is communicated to them in regeneration. 4th. We have felt justified in the use of the qualifying term eternal, from the frequent application of it in the New Testament, to the life which God has given to his church in Christ. “The gift of God is eternal life, through Jesus Christ our Lord.” “I give to them eternal life, and they shall never perish.” “And this is life eternal,” &c. The apostles declare to us that this life was in his (God’s) Son, and many concurrent passages establish the same point. Now, if Christ as a Head existed with the Father before the world began (and this we think no Old School Baptist will dispute) and the eternal life of all the heirs of glory existed in him, it constituted all the union for which we contend, or for which any of our brethren contend. It is of little consequence to us whether brethren call this union and identity an eternal union or an everlasting union, so long as they hold with us that the church had an existence in Christ before the foundation of the world. But to deny this, in our judgment, would be equivalent to a denial of the Mediatorial existence of the Head of the church, for a living Head must have a living body, and a living body must have a vital Head. We are not prepared to state any particular period in eternity, as the commencement of the union or of the life of the church; all we contend for is what brother Hill admits, that it existed before all time.

Elder Gilbert Beebe,

Middletown, N.Y.

Signs of the Times Volume 48, No. 13 July 1, 1880.

VIRTUAL UNION VS. ACTUAL UNION. (BEEBE)

We have read some very labored articles which have been written against the doctrine of eternal, vital union of our Lord Jesus Christ and his mystical body, the church, in which the writers have attempted to draw a line between what they call a virtual eternal, and an actual eternal union, admitting the former, but denying the latter. Some of the less discerning of the saints have become perplexed, and we have been frequently called on to define the difference. Before attempting to do so, we will remark that every expression of Bible truth by which the church of the living God, which is the ground and pillar of the truth, is or ever has been distinguished from the world or anti-Christ has been assailed in the same sly and insidious manner. Predestination, election, special redemption, regeneration, final preservation of the saints in grace to glory, the resurrection of the dead, and ultimate glory of the heirs of salvation, have shared the same fate. Read to the Arminian, "Whom he [God] did foreknow, them he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son," &c. "Having predestinated us to the adoption of children," &c. "Him being delivered up, by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken and by wicked hands have crucified and slain." Ah, says he, I believe in predestination; but not in absolute predestination! Well, let us see: What kind of predestination can that be which is not absolute? Something like this. The Lord had a design, a purpose or a will to do certain things if men or devils would allow him to do so; but nothing in reality was made certain by the counsel or predestination of God. This is, in reality, a flat denial of predestination in toto, yet it is what predestination must be if it is not absolute. We believe in election. O yes, says the self-conceited freewiller, certainly, I believe election, but not eternal, sovereign, personal election. But that God chose to save all who would comply with certain terms, perform certain conditions, and make use of certain means. A man must be lamentably stupid who cannot perceive that this is a full denial of election altogether. Special redemption, yes, says Andrew Fuller, and all his motley echoes, we believe it is special in its design and in its effect, but general in its nature, and so general that all sinners, if they are so disposed, can avail themselves of its full benefit. Thus professing to believe it to be special, deny its speciality, and rest its efficacy on the will of the creature, and thereby disallow the saving virtue of the blood of Christ. Regeneration. With one voice all the work-mongrel tribes of the earth agree, the sinner must be born again, but at the same time deny that the new birth brings forth anything that the sinner did not possess before the birth; no seminal preexistence of the life which the birth brings forth: no begetting by the heavenly parent, but a mere change of purpose and pursuit, a new modeling of the carnal mind, and a new formation of the old man. Perhaps this may be a virtual, but not actual regeneration. All who are thus virtually born again, if such a thing could be, would present a race of fatherless children; bastards, and not sons. Perseverance is admitted, if they may be allowed to supply the condition, if they hold out faithful, &c. Anything that will strip the crown from the head of Christ, and crown the sinner as his own savior, they seem very willing to admit. The resurrection is only admitted with such qualifications as either, it is past already, or that it does not mean what the Scriptures affirm, that "He that raised up Jesus from the dead, shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwells in you. We come now to our subject, and will inquire, What is meant by Eternal Vital Union? 2. Does such a Union exist? And if so, 3. Is it Actual or Virtual? By the term eternal, we mean that which was before all time. The word vital means life, and union is oneness - identity as a unit. What kind of life does God give to his people? Is it eternal, or is it only time-life? John says, "This is the record that God hath given us eternal life." - 1 John v; and Jesus says, "I give to them eternal life." Many other express declarations of Scripture prove that the life given to the children of God is eternal, and consequently did as fully exist before they individually and experimentally received it, as afterwards. If it did not exist before it was implanted in us, or communicated to us by the new birth, then why is it called eternal? The eternity of it is attested by the declaration that it was with the Father and was manifested. (1 John i.) This life is hid in God, those who receive it, receive by being begotten of his own will, and born of God. Not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. This vitality then is eternal vitality, or eternal life, which was with God, the Father, before it was manifested. Having then settled by Scripture testimony the two points, namely, the life and its eternal character, we come to the word union in its connection with the terms eternal, vital. 2. Did such a union exist? It seems almost like insulting the intelligence of the reader to ask, was this life a plurality, was it legions, or was it one life as it was with the Father before? Was it more than a unit, when given to us in Christ Jesus, according as we were chosen in him before the foundation of the world? If it was more than one life, perhaps some one can tell us how many lives it was, but if it was one and the self-same life as it originated in God the Father, and is hid in him, if it was but one and the same life as given to us in Christ Jesus before the world began, then the controversy on the subject of eternal vital union may cease, for one of the two propositions must be admitted or the Bible rejected. To deny that a vital union, or a union of spiritual vitality, did so exist in eternity before all time, is rank infidelity, for God has so declared it. This life was and is and forever shall continue to be that which makes us one with Christ, as Christ is one with the Father, and that Christ and the church are identified in, is positively asserted by Christ himself. He is in them, they are in him. He also is in the Father, and the Father is in him, and so completely so that he that hath seen him, hath seen the Father also. And we ask, who has ever seen the Son, who hath not seen the church also? seeing that he is in the church, and the church is in him. He is the head, the church is his body; and does a head and its body make more than one man or person? "For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body, so also is Christ." - 1 Cor. xii. 12. Then Christ the head, and his church with all her legitimate members, being many in membership, are but one unit in life or vitality. Christ says, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no man cometh unto the Father but by me." If it be admitted that Christ is truly the life of the church, the true God and eternal life, then that same life which unites him to the church as his body, unites his body, the church, to him as her head. If it be admitted that Christ is now today the head of the church, will they presume to say that he was not the head of his church yesterday? Dare anyone deny the announcement of the Holy Ghost? "Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, today, and forever." Of course, when we speak of Christ in his oneness with and headship of the church as his body, we speak of him in his mediatorial character as the Son of God, and so revealed with power. 3. Is this union of oneness of life in Jesus Christ actual or only virtual? As neither of these words is used in the inspired writings in connection with the union of Christ and the church, we must depend upon our lexicons for their signification; Webster's Dictionary is the recognized standard of our language in the principal colleges of our country. His definition is: Actual: 1. real or effective, or that exists truly and absolutely; 2. exists in act; real; in opposition to speculative. Virtually: In efficacy or effect only; by means of some other influence, or the instrumentality of something else. According therefore to the established and acknowledged laws of our language, those who hold the doctrine of eternal, actual, vital union believe that the life of the church of God is one life and that it really, effectively, truly, and absolutely did exist in eternity, before the world began, in a sense opposite to that of mere speculation. While those who deny that it was actual, deny that it was real, or that it existed truly and absolutely, in a sense opposed to that which is only speculative. And those who deny that this union was actual before the world began, but admit that it was virtually existing in eternity, deny that it was really, truly, or absolutely so, but in efficacy or effect only; and that efficacy or effect could only be developed or produced by the means or instrumentality of something else. Now, which of these positions, if either, do the Scriptures and the teaching of the Spirit in our experience establish? To us, it is very clear that if this union of the life of the church in Jesus Christ existed in him before the world began, it was more than a speculation; it was a reality. If it was not then a reality, a fact, what is there in the communication of that eternal life to us experimentally in the new birth, that can make the life what it was not before we were made to feel its power? But one will say, the word actual signifies an act or action. This Webster admits in a secondary sense, not in its primary signification. Well, be it so; are we not told that the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ, our L

ord? Does not the giving of

a thing imply an act or an action? Certainly it does. Well, when was the act or action of giving us eternal life in Jesus Christ performed? We are told that God hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ Jesus, according as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world. Is eternal life a spiritual blessing? It certainly is not a mere temporal blessing, then it was actually given to us in him before the foundation of the world. God hath given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. The gift, not gifts of God, is eternal life through Jesus Christ, our Lord. It is given us in him, and through him it is in due time communicated to all the members of his body, when they pass from death unto life, are born again, and brought into the unity of the faith and knowledge of the Son of God. If the work of the Spirit in the new birth is the action which makes this union actual, then we set aside the reality of grace given us in Christ before the world began, and instead of the gift of God is eternal life, we should read it, the gifts of God, there are as many distinct gifts as there are members in the body. And as the relationship of nearest of kin could not exist in reality before the life union existed, the consequence must be that when the Lord Jesus died for his members on the cross, we, who now live upon the earth, were not really, truly and absolutely so united with and related to him, as to allow us any part or lot in the atonement.

Much confusion prevails where brethren confound this vital union with our individual experience of it when brought into it. The union, spiritually, was as perfect before we were brought experimentally into the enjoyment of it, as it is now, or ever will be. But in our earthly, carnal, sinful nature, we had no union with Christ, but were children of wrath even as others; nay, we were dead in sins, and enmity against God, and enemies to him by wicked works. But although the holy law of God cursed us in the earthly Adam, yet for the great love wherewith he loved us in Christ Jesus, even when we were in ourselves, that is in our earthly nature, dead in sins, he hath quickened us together with Christ, and hath raised us together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in him, and thus by grace are we saved through faith, and that not of ourselves, it is the gift of God, not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk therein. We all know that our earthly nature is estranged from God, and in it we are strangers and foreigners, requiring to be redeemed from the earth, called by grace, quickened by the Spirit, and translated into the kingdom of God's dear Son. This gift of God, which is eternal life, was not given us in the earthly Adam, nor was our earthly, carnal, and corrupt nature given to us in Christ. The first Adam is of the earth, earthy, and as is the earthy, such also are they that are earthy. But it was given to us in the Son of God, who is the Lord from heaven: as is the heavenly, such also are they that are heavenly. Our natural birth develops us in the one life in which we were created in the earthly Adam, and a spiritual, new, and heavenly birth develops or makes manifest in us experimentally that one life which was hid in God, and which is now made manifest by the appearing of the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ.

In conclusion, we do not regard either the words actual or virtual as necessary, or they would have been supplied in the divine volume, but when men deny the reality of this eternal, vital union, or oneness of life, and say it is only virtual, or that it is not so in fact or in truth, we are compelled to resist them, and contend that it is an eternal reality.

Middletown, N. Y. March 1, 1860.

Elder Gilbert Beebe Editorials Volume 4 Pages 315 – 322

ETERNAL VITAL UNION

BRETHREN G. BEEBE & SON: – As I have been reading your paper a long time, and have never asked for your views on any particular subject, I will now ask one question; but not to produce controversy. I presume that all sound Baptists believe that it was the relationship Christ bore to his church which was under the law that rendered it necessary for him to be made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law. Now as eternal, spiritual life could not be under the law, in what did the relation consist? If it was a spiritual relation, how did anything spiritual get under the law? Now if you consider the question unreasonable or out of place, pass it by, and all will be right.

F. ODOM^[5] Lindale, Texas,

May 7, 1879.

REPLY: – When we speak of the eternal, vital union of Christ and his bride, or church, we do not mean that either the bride or Bridegroom existed in the flesh, or under the law, until the members of Christ as the children of God were manifested in their earthly nature. “Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he [Christ] also himself likewise took part of the same.” – Heb. ii. 14. The children came under the law by being partakers of flesh and blood, just as their heavenly Bridegroom did. “In union with the Lamb, From condemnation free, The saints from everlasting were, And shall forever be.” But that union of Christ and his members, which is from everlasting and to everlasting, is a purely spiritual and vital union, a union of spiritual, eternal life, which is hid with Christ in God; a union of the life of the head and spiritual or mystical body of Christ. The members or children are said to be partakers of flesh and blood; their partaking of flesh and blood made them children of the flesh, which was under the law, but it did not make them children of God, for we are expressly told in the scriptures that “They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.” – Romans ix. 8. They were children of God in Christ before they were partakers of flesh and blood, and in that flesh and blood they came under the law, which in their fleshly nature they transgressed, and from which they required to be redeemed, that they might receive the adoption of sons, to wit, the redemption of their body. So they came under the law precisely as their Redeemer did, by partaking of flesh and blood; he was made under the law by being made of a woman. His coming in the flesh did not make him the Son of God, for he bore that relation to the eternal Father from everlasting; but he became the Son of man by his incarnation, and as the Son of man he came under the law which he came down from heaven to fulfill, magnify and honor, and from the demands of which he came to redeem those who were chosen and blessed in him before the foundation of the world. – Eph. i. 3,4. We have never held, as some have seemed to understand, that our earthly nature ever stood in eternal union with Christ, nor that the saints were brought into an experimental union with him until they are personally born of the Spirit; but we have and do understand, that our earthly nature ever stood in eternal union with Christ, nor that the saints were brought into an experimental union with him until they are personally born of the Spirit; but we have and do understand and believe that the incorruptible seed, by which our experimental birth is produced, is a vital seed, that liveth and abideth forever; and that seed as the germ of immortality was hid with Christ in God eternally, as our natural life was given us and hid in the earthy Adam from the time of his creation until we were born of the flesh, and that it was in this as well as other respects that Adam is the figure of him that was to come.

Elder Gilbert Beebe

Middletown, N.Y.

Signs of the Times Volume 48, No. 8 April 15, 1880

ETERNAL LIFE. (TROTT)

“This is the true God, and eternal life.” - 1 John v. 20. That this testimony is given by the inspired apostle concerning our Lord Jesus Christ, we presume but few, if any, will dispute, since there is no other character or being found in heaven or earth to whom we can apply these titles without involving the sin of blasphemy. The whole theme of John in this epistle, as well as in all his writings, was to bear record or testimony of him, and to show by the most indisputable testimony that he is, as here declared, the true God, and eternal life. It is highly important that the children of God should be instructed in regard to his being, his attributes, his fullness, and the relationship subsisting between him and them; and to meet this necessity, the Holy Ghost inspired John to write unto the scattered family of God that they may have fellowship with each other, and that their joy may be full. (1 John i. 1-4.) As the doctrine declared in our text involves the fellowship of the saints one with another, and their fellowship also with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ, how very important it is that we, in striving to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bonds of peace, should search diligently these Scriptures which testify of him.

Two important points are established by the declarations of our text. First, that Jesus Christ is the ·true God, and secondly, that he is the eternal life. On these two points, we will offer a few remarks for the prayerful consideration of our readers. First. He is the true God. It is not said that he is a true God, as though there were a plurality of true Gods: for the Scriptures proclaim but One living and true God: and he himself has said, “I am God, and beside me there is no other.” Hence, the definite article is used to signify that Jesus Christ is the same God of whom Moses testified unto Israel, saying, The eternal God is thy refuge, and underneath thee are the everlasting arms. He is the same God who said, by Isaiah, unto the seed of Israel, Look unto me, and be ye saved, all ye ends of the earth, for I am God, and there is none else. Yeah, he is that very God who has said he will have no other god before him. He is therefore called, The only wise God, our Savior. And in our text, he is also distinguished from all false gods, or imaginary deities, the true God. This descriptive characteristic implies that there are those who are called gods and worshiped as such, who are not true. Jesus himself testified, all that ever came before him were thieves and robbers, and he admonished his disciples that many false christs would come, and commanded them to beware of them. He is the true God; all others who claim that honor, or who are revered as such, are false, delusive idols, whether they be of gold or silver, or any material substance, or existing only in the vain imagination of their worshipers. But when we claim that Jesus Christ is the only true and living God, we hold that all the fullness of the eternal Godhead dwells in him.

The eternal Father is in him, and he is in the Father, and he and his Father are one. The Holy Spirit of the Lord God, in all his infinity, is given to him without measure or limitation; it dwells in him and is one with him. All that constitutes the Godhead, with all the attributes and perfections, belongs to him, and are essential to his nature, so that in the absence of any of them, if it were possible that any of them could be absent from him, he would be disqualified to be a Savior, or to be worshiped. God has declared that he is God and beside him there is no Savior, and he has forbidden his creatures to worship any but himself; therefore, in worshiping Christ, we worship none other than the true God. The Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, notwithstanding these personal distinctions by which they are severally set forth in the record of truth, are but the one only living and true God, for these three are one. In his eternal Godhead, we hold therefore, in distinction from the views advanced by those who lately assailed our faith on this subject, that Christ, in his Godhead, is self-existent, independent, and eternal. That his Godhead is unbegotten and underived, it is the Godhead of the Father, and of the Holy Ghost, and we would as soon think of applying derivation to the Father or Spirit, as to that fullness of the Godhead which is embodied in our Lord Christ. Although he is the true God, equally and identically with the Father and the Holy Ghost, he also sustains and most gloriously fills a mediatorial identity, in which he is as fully identified as one with his church, as in his Godhead he is one with his Father. Hence, our apostle not only declares him to be the true God, but also proclaims him as the eternal life. He himself declares, “I am the Way, and the Truth, and the Life.” “I am the Resurrection and the Life.” The scriptural record of this Eternal Life, as given by the apostle John, and by all inspired writers, finds its origin in the eternal Father; and hence its eternity. “That which was from the beginning, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of Life; (for the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that Eternal Life which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;) that which we have seen and heard, declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us; and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.” - 1 John i. 1-8. The manifestation of this eternal life, which was with the Father, is represented as a begetting, a bringing forth, a setting up, and a Sonship, while its incarnation extended the manifestation to the saints on earth, so that they could see with their eyes and handle the Word of life. Let us not forget that this Life is eternal, the manifestation is not the origination of it; for before it was manifested, it was with the Father. The begetting, or birth, is not the origination of that life which is made manifest by a birth. This eternal Life is the Life which our Lord Jesus Christ is unto his body the church, which is the fullness of him that filleth all in all. “For me to live is Christ.” “When he who is our life shall appear, we shall appear with him in glory.” When this eternal life was manifested, of course, it appeared, and in it all the saints were and are manifested in glory, even in that glory which the divine Mediator had with the Father before the world was. This is what we understand to be the eternal vitality, or immortality of the church of God. It was with the eternal Father, hid with Christ in God, and it was given unto the saints together with all that pertains to life and godliness, in the unspeakable gift of God’s dear Son, whom God has given to be the Head, Life and Immortality of the church, which is his body; all the members of which the onmiscient eye of the Father did see, yet being unperfect, and in his book all its members were written, which in continuance were fashioned when as yet there were none of them. These views, if correct, involve what is called the doctrine of Eternal Vital Union. That in the life of all the saints of God is one life, it is Christ, and Christ is eternal, as the Immortality of his body. The manifestation of this eternal life involves a spiritual generation, proceeding from God the Father, in manifestation of the eternal Life which was with him, and all this eternal life with all spiritual blessings, was given us in Christ Jesus, according as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world. Hence, in the Sonship of Christ is found all our vital relationship to God. This is the record that God hath given to us eternal life, and the life is in his Son, so completely identified with the Sonship of Christ that he that hath the Son of God hath life, and he that hath not the Son hath not life. For he only hath immortality dwelling in the light. The children of God, having spiritual, eternal life given them in Christ before the world began, are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a peculiar people; they are a seed that shall serve him, and be counted to the Lord for a generation. This is the doctrine of the Bible on the subject of the true God, and Eternal Life, and a prominent and fundamental doctrine of the apostolic Baptists in all ages, and in all parts of the world. It sets forth Eternal, Unconditional Election, and life given to the chosen or elected people of God, before the world began. Yet there are those now, as probably there have been in past ages, who would confuse the minds of the saints, in order to rob them of the comfort which an understanding of this subject inspires. John says, These things write we unto you, that your joy may be full. Satan and his legions oppose the doctrine, traduce, misrepresent, and persecute those who hold and proclaim this doctrine. Not because Satan has any hope of being able with all his allies on earth, in or out of the Christian profession, to overturn or destroy it, but the joy of the saints cannot be full without the consolation of this doctrine; the object of the powers of darkness is to prevent the fullness of joy which the subject inspires. May the Lord lead our minds by his Spirit into this and all truth, and deliver us from all error and delusions, for Jesus’ sake, and then we can well afford to bear all the reproach which may be heaped on us for the truth’s sake. “Then let the loudest storm arise, Let tempests mingle earth and skies, No fatal shipwreck shall we fear, For Christ, our life, is always near.”

Middletown, N.Y. January 15, 1859.

Elder Gilbert Beebe

Editorials Volume 4 Pages 186 - 190

UNION OF CHRIST WITH THE CHURCH.

Brother Beebe: - Our brother Raymond was not mistaken in supposing that his ideas would not all be received by the readers of the Signs. I think he labors under a mistake relative to that union which constitutes the oneness of Christ and His people, and probably relative to the idea intended to be conveyed when we speak of the substitution of Christ. I will propose for his consideration what appears to me to be the Scriptural doctrine of the union of Christ and His church.

Instead of that nominal union which many talk of, which is produced by the creature's believing, the Scriptures speak of a real oneness. "Both He that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one," is the Scripture testimony (Heb. 2:11), and so I believe. I cannot conceive how the spotless Lamb of God could be made to bleed, or bleeding, how His blood could, sanctify or cleanse from their sins any of the family of Adam unless such a union previously existed between Him and them as made their sins, of right, chargeable to Him; and His suffering of death and enduring of the curse, accounted as done by them. Instead of this union being founded in Christ's assumption of human nature, the Scriptures speak of His taking flesh and blood as a consequence of His relation to children who were partakers thereof. "Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, He also Himself likewise took part of the same; &c." What children? Those of whom Christ says, "Behold I and the children which God hath given me." See Heb.2:14,13.

Instead of this oneness being a union of feeling or views, the Scriptures speak of it as a oneness of life. Hear the Apostles: "Ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God, when Christ, who is your life, shall appear &c." Col.3:3,4. This life, which is one in the Head and in the body, was in the only begotten of the Father, from the beginning; for in Him was that life which is the light of men. John 1:4, compared with vs.14. Hence, as it was said of Adam - Gen.5:1,2- "In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made He him. Male and female created He them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created; "so it must have been with Christ, when He was setup from everlasting, from the beginning, and brought forth when there were no depths(Prov.8:23,24); He must have been brought forth a perfect Christ, head and body, He and His bride in Him. Hence His people were chosen in Him, (not into Him) before the foundation of the world; and they were created in Christ Jesus unto good works and as Christ- not as the essential Word, He is the Beginning of the creation of God (Eph.1:4;2:10&Rev.3:14). Christ was thus another or second Adam, not of the earth, earthy, but the Lord from heaven; not a living soul merely, but a quickening spirit. ICor.15:45,48. Again, as Eve when produced from the original creation in Adam, was bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh; so the church, in her quickened members, being born again, born of the Spirit, they are manifested as members of Christ's body; and are of His flesh and of His bones, spiritually. See Gen.2:23 & Eph.5:30. Thus, Adam, both as a husband and a head, was a figure of Him that was to come.

As is the distinction between the two Heads- the first man and the second man, so is the distinction between the two lives brought forth severally in the distinct heads; consequently, so is the distinction between the bonds of union by which each He a disunited with its body and members. The one bond is earthly, the other is spiritual; the one commenced in time and is dissolved in time, the other commenced in eternity, and therefore unchanged by time, will be eternal.

The one head, Adam, being created under the law, and his posterity in him, they, as servants, are driven by the terrors of the Law. The other Head, Christ, as the Son of the Father, was set up and His posterity in Him, under the everlasting covenant, that is ordered in all things and sure, they are there for ages sons loved with an everlasting love, and with loving kindness are they drawn. Again, as the members of Adam's family, or of the creation in him, are made manifest as such by being born after the flesh, so the members of Christ's body can be manifested only by being born again of the Spirit. They are, by this, brought into personal existence as new creations and are now personified by their new life. Hence, says Christ speaking of His disciples, "They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. “John 17:16; and says Paul, "Now if I do that, I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. "Rom.

7:20. Seals of I John 3:9 &5:18.

As the posterity of Adam came into existence under the curse of the law as having been in him when he fell; so the posterity of Christ in their new birth, are born into the blessings of the new Covenant, as well as those exceeding great and precious promises given them in Christ as that full provision for their deliverance from under the law; therefore they receive not the spirit of bondage again to fear, but they receive the spirit of adoption whereby they cry, Abba, Father. Thus much in relation to the union of Christ's people with Him.

I will now briefly notice this union with Adam, &c. Whilst they were thus setup in Christ, and as such loved with an everlasting love, it was the pleasure of the Father that they should be partakers of flesh and blood, and therefore as rational creatures they were created in a natural head, Adam, and under the law; were in common with all his posterity, left to fall in him, and became subject to the curse of the law.

While they were thus a part of the same fallen family of Adam involved in the same condemnation, they by the eternal purpose of God were distinguished from the rest of the human family-and were from the beginning chosen unto salvation; and predestinated unto the adoption of children, by Jesus Christ, and were given to Christ as His portion, as it is written: the Lord's portion is His people, Jacob is the lot of His inheritance. It was also necessary in order that they might be brought into liberty as sons and receive the spirit of adoption, that they should be redeemed from under the law and also to be slain by it, that their union to it might be dissolved. For all this, provision was made in the everlasting Covenant and the accomplishment thereof assigned to the Son and to the Holy Spirit in their respective offices. Their redemption could alone be accomplished by one who could fulfill the demand soft he law and make it honorable on their behalf, and consequently alone by one who could be acknowledged by Divine Justice as standing in their lawplace. Christ being their Brother, their Head, their Husband in the everlasting Covenant, and in relation to the life there, the right of redemption belonged to Him, and being not Himself under the law, He could take their law place and obey on their behalf,and be so accepted by Divine justice.

One leading idea more, relative to this subject, I wish to distinctly notice, namely: that it was not the children of Christ, but

He children of Adam that the elect were subject to the law, had sinned against it, &c. It was then, as the children of Adam alone, that they needed deliverance from the curse of the law, justification from its demands, and a dissolution of their relation to it.

If our Brother Raymond would duly reflect on the different relations the elect sustain to the distinct Heads, he would, I think, abandon the stand he took in his letter published in the 9th number of the Signs. He speaks of substitution as involving a separation between Christ and His people. Do not the Scriptures teach a manifest separation in this respect? Was Christ created with His people in Adam? If so, He is but a creature and a branch of a fallen stock. Or was He as the Head of His people, set up under the law? If so, the inheritance coming through Him is but earthly and must fail. On the other hand, Christ being the elder Brother of His people in the everlasting Covenant, it was His province to interpose Himself as their Redeemer that the law might not remain a barrier to their being put in possession of the inheritance bequeathed in the better Testament. Hence it is said, He was made sin, or rather, as in offering, for us, who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him-and being made a curse for us. IICor.5:21&Gal.3:13.If I know anything of the use of words, the doctrine of these texts is the doctrine of substitution; and the word for is used in them, in the sense of instead of. He being made a curse for us; for what purpose? To deliver us from the curse of the law. Did He not then endure that curse which He would deliver His people from? And would they not have suffered the curse, if He had not borne it? What is this but His bearing it in their stead? And what can that be but substitution? Again, we are told that Christ laid down His life for the sheep. Now, if He did not lay down His life in the place of the sheep, how will we find an atonement in the death of Christ? And how will we find a ransom in it? If He laid down His life for us in any other sense than as suffering that punishment which was due to our transgressions, then there was no ransom price in the death of Christ; for a ransom is an equivalent rendered for the demand against those to be ransomed, and consequently involves substitution.

Brother Raymond challenges proof from the Scriptures, that God’s children were never appointed unto wrath. That God’s children were as the children of Adam, under the curse of the law, and children of wrath, even as others, we are prepared to prove from the Scriptures of Truth. But there was no need of God's appointing any man, save the man Christ Jesus, unto wrath; for left to themselvesthewrathofGodwouldassuredlyabideuponthem.SeeJohn3:36.

Brother R. seems through this letter, if I understand him, to suppose that the children of God were never viewed in any other relation than in their than to thei relation to Christ. If this were true, I would venture to say that God never viewed them as sinners; for they never sinned in Christ, nor with that life which they derived from Christ as a Head.

Once more, He remarks that it is a day full of substitutions, I grant it. But to me the reisavery important difference between men's presuming to substitute human systems instead of God's revealed truth, human ceremonies, instead of God's ordinances, and human schemes instead of that order and plan which God has established in His word; I say there is a great difference between this substitution of men, and God's substituting His Son as a ransom for those who had been given Him. And those who are the fondest of these human substitutions are the ones who, by their substituted systems, do away with the substitution of Christ in the lawplace of His people. Most of these new substitutions are the offspring of Fullerism and its twin sister Hopkinsianism,^[6] and both of these systems virtually, if not formally, deny the proper substitution of Christ.

Brother Raymond will, of course, act according to his own pleasure in writing again on this subject. But I hope if he does, he will be led to take a stand in support of the doctrine which is according to godliness. And I hesitate not to say that if he is what I hope he is, one taught of the Lord, he would never have found peace for his burdened soul had he not by faith discovered the Lord Jesus as having been as completely substituted in his law place as was the ram caught in the

Thicket, in the place of Isaac. He will then write in union with the doctrine which the Signs are pledged to support.

Centreville, Fairfax County, Virginia,

May 13, 1833.

S. Trott. From: SIGNS of the TIMES: Vol.. 1(1833)

Select Works of Elder Samuel Trott pgs.39-43

THE CHILDREN OF THE FLESH, THESE ARE NOT THE CHILDREN OF GOD (SMOOT)

“They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.” – Romans ix, 8.

Beloved Brethren, and companions “in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ:” It affords us pleasure to again greet you, through the abounding grace of God; and to give expression to our tender love for you in the Truth of the Gospel: and our unalterable devotion to the doctrine and order which distinguishes us from every other people (religiously speaking) under the canopy of heaven.

Dear Brethren: - We have certainly no new thing to write you, no new doctrine to advance; but to pledge again, by the grace of God, our changeless love for that doctrine which our fathers believed and maintained throughout the long and eventful travel of Gospel Churches in our native State.

“Ye who ask for some new doctrine; Some new way of Gospel life; Ye who seek for other pathway Than our God doth wisely give, Ye who Heaven itself would lower, Unto mortal heart and mind, Think not in our Gospel travel, Teaching new and strange to find.

“For we love the old worn pathway That we know is tried and true, Where our dead have passed to glory, To that life forever new, Other teachings – so misleading, Full of worldly pride and lust, But the faith our fathers died in Is the only faith for us.”

Therefore to “stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance” of the deathless and priceless principles which are now and ever have been “most surely believed among us,” we will call your attention to Romans ix, 8: “They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.”

In the superficial manner of discussing this subject among professed Primitive Baptists of the Means order, this testimony has been referred to as simply distinguishing the difference between Israel under the law, as the literal descendants of Abraham, and Israel under the Gospel Covenant as gathered from Gentile lands.

That the subject taken with its connection may have a reference of this character, we are willing to admit, but that this is not its first and important meaning, we positively assert. The cursory reader skimming over the surface of this subject may see nothing deeper than the view we have named, but one led of the Spirit to consider the depth of the apostolic argument, is not willing to be confined to such a superficial and simplistic view.

The immediate connection of this subject runs through several chapters based upon the identical point so clearly set forth in the text: “The children of the flesh, these are not the children of God.”

Are any who claim to be Old School Baptists willing to take a converse proposition to this declaration of the apostle and claim for “the children of the flesh”, that these are the children of God? We presume that it would be difficult to find any so bold, and yet this is the identical position (under cover) to which the arguments of this class of Baptist lead.

The apostle is writing to a church whose “faith is spoken of throughout the whole world.” Romans 1, 8. Much of his argument in the first chapters is devoted to elucidating the principle laid down in Acts x, 34, 35; “Of a Truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: but in every nation, he that feareth Him and worketh righteousness, is accepted with Him.” He sets aside forever the idea that the Jews had an inherited right to Gospel grace. “For the promise that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.” – Romans iv, 13. “For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh; but he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.” Romans 11. 28, 29.

Through this line of argument, he leads us to consider the Headship of Christ. He takes up, first, the figure (Adam) of that natural headship; and clearly shows that “by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.” Chapter v, 12. From the figure, he traces the substance: “much more they who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in Life by One, Jesus Christ.” Chapter v,17.

Having brought clearly the head in view, he calls attention to the body of that Head, “them that are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.” Chapter viii,1. From such a premise, how could any other deduction be drawn than, “If the Head be spiritual, the body must also be spiritual.” And as had also been so clearly shown, “every seed producing its own kind” (Genesis 1:11,) that as the development or body of the first Adam was lost and polluted sinners, Life eternal could not come through such a polluted source; but must come through Christ the last Adam (born of incorruptible seed.) And, How, we ask, could this eternal life ever be developed except by a birth of the Spirit? And how could there ever be such a birth without this pre-existing life? Birth is not the cause, but it is the development of life; the quickening eventually and inevitably brings to a birth.

If the pre-existing life is flesh it can but produce flesh by birth. If the pre-existing life is Spirit, the development by a birth must necessarily be spirit: for, “That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” John iii.6. The apostle in the testimony under discussion clearly presents the subject in the same light as did Jesus to Nicodemus. He traces the two distinctly separate and antagonistic characters of life; the one fleshly, sensual, and devilish; the other spiritual, pure and holy. And these are as stated, two separate characters of life; each life previously and personally existing in its own distinct and separate seed or head.

Each life is developed by a birth. Each birth from a separate origin: this is not two principles as in one man, but two men in one dual character. “What will ye see in the Shulamite? As it were, the company of two armies.” Song. vi.13. Two distinct orders of life, developing from two distinct orders of seeds; developing two distinct men: “the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts,” (Ephesians iv.22;) the “new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.” (Ephesians iv. 24.)

These are not mere principles, but men; all the sophistry of Means Baptist to the contrary notwithstanding. The inspired penman in our subject follows the usual order of Scripture testimony in first telling what the thing is not, then what it is. No amount of work upon the Adam man, short of the transforming change at the resurrection of the body, will produce any change in his corrupt nature. He is “enmity against God” (Romans viii, 7,) he is “not subject to the law of God,” even after the new birth, any more than antecedently. He serves the law of sin. (Romans vii, 25.) To quicken such a life will only cause it to be more active in producing fruit, will but quicken its evil tendencies; hence, there is absolutely no such thing as a “sinner being quickened” from a state of nature to a state of grace. Such is not the case experimentally. This new-modeling process is pure Arminianism and aims to accomplish what the apostle distinctly declares cannot be accomplished; i.e., making children of God out of children of the flesh.

The testimony of all ages proves the Truth of the apostolic assertion. “They who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God.” Who indeed were the wicked Canaanites, but lineal descendants of Noah? And trace the genealogy of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob; of David, and of others, and it will be readily seen that the generation of these men, with all of their piety and zeal, was but a generation of evil doers. And why indeed should not this be the case when every seed “produces after its own kind.”

If the Adam-sinner is born of the Spirit, he would become “spirit,” for “that which is born of the Spirit, is spirit,” (John iii,6) hence as his nature is (supposedly) changed, he would necessarily bestow upon His offspring His own nature; and they would also be spirit. “A spirit hath not flesh and bone.” But the testimony of Scripture proves them to be flesh, and frequently of the worst kind.

The fact of their being flesh shows that the natural man is not born of the Spirit of God. It was said of Jacob, “The children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of Him that calleth.” “As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.” Romans ix, 13. From this testimony there can be no question of Jacob’s being born of the Spirit, yet trace the nature of his children. He says of them in their wickedness; “Ye have troubled me to make me to stink among the inhabitants of the land.” Genesis xxxiv, 30. “Then shall ye bring down my grey hairs with sorrow to the grave.” – Genesis xlii ,38. Who were Korah (Numbers xvi. 1-3,) Dathan, and Abiram, who perished in their rebellious idolatry? they were the sons of Levi, and of Reuben; lineal descendants of Jacob, of Isaac, of Abraham. Who was Abimelech the wicked Judge of Israel (Judges ix, 1-5,) but the son of Gideon one of the most favored Judges of Israel? Who were the idolatrous kings of Judah and Israel but descendants of Abraham, and many of them direct descendants of David, the “sweet singer of Israel.”

But we need not go back of our own times to see the evidence of the Truth of this record. We have only to scan the lives of our own children; and the children of the dear saints who have gone before us; who are mixed with every false way, with every wicked and idolatrous practice.

A beloved and faithful Saint may live a spotless life, setting as example in a life of holiness, of purity and of grace; and yet his children brought up under his own parental roof, with all the holy admonitions and sacredness of such a life, may give no more evidence, bear no more fruit unto holiness, than the dumb brute; thus evidencing the truth of what we are discussing, - “THE CHILDREN OF THE FLESH, THESE ARE NOT THE CHILDREN OF GOD.”

“But the children of the promise are counted for the seed.” We are informed in Hebrews vi, 13-20, of the character of the promise to which reference is here made. “For when God made a promise to Abraham, because He could swear by no greater, He swore by Himself, saying, Surely blessing, I will bless thee, and multiplying I will multiply thee.” The reader will recognize that this blessing was given without consideration of worth or merit on Abraham’s part. “The Lord hath appeared of old unto me, saying, Yea, I have loved thee with an everlasting love.” – Jeremiah xxxi, 3. This everlasting love must have had an everlasting object upon which it centers. The promise runs co-equal with the love of God. For “to Abraham and his seed were the promises made: He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, and to Thy seed, which is Christ.” – Galatians iii, 16.

If the promise ran on a fleshly line, why could not Ishmael receive the blessing, for he certainly was the natural son of Abraham: but it is written, “In Isaac shall thy seed be called.” - Genesis xxi, 12. Isaac was born when “Abraham and Sarah were old and well stricken in age; and it ceased to be with Sarah after the manner of women.” - Genesis xviii, 11. The God of heaven had promised the birth of Isaac who was born contrary to nature.

The promise was made to both Abram and Sarah when old in years, whose names were changed to indicate their fruitfulness in the Lord. For “they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.” - Galatians iii, 7. The children of promise then are the seed of Christ (Galatians iii, 16;) and are born “not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.” They come “down from God out of heaven;” each of them takes up his abode in a body “afore prepared unto glory,” – prepared to receive the in-dwelling heavenly, spiritual child (Hebrews x, 5;) for they all partake of flesh as Christ their elder Brother partook of flesh. – Hebrews 2:14.

And the mortal body in which they dwell while here on earth, is sealed by the in-dwelling spirit (child) of God unto “the adoption, to wit, the redemption of the body.” Romans viii, 23. “And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit of Life because of righteousness. But if the Spirit of Him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, He that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by His Spirit that dwelleth in you.” - Romans viii, 10,11.

Paul speaks of the “hope of the promise,” unto which, he says, “our twelve tribes, instantly serving God day and night, hope to come.” Acts xxvi, 7. He again speaks of “the hope and resurrection of the dead.” Acts xxiii, 6. This is the grand and glorious culmination of the promise.

“For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto His glorious body, according to the working whereby He is able even to subdue all things unto Himself.” - Philippians iii, 20,21.

Our present meeting has been a season of refreshing we humbly trust from the Divine presence, saddened by the absence of some who met with us here at our last session six years ago who have been called to their immortal home. Our churches report, by the grace of God, healthy travel, with continued interest and zeal in Gospel things; blessings which can come alone from the bountiful hand of our God. Our next meeting is appointed to be held, if the Lord will, at Mt. Pleasant, Fairfax County, Virginia, at the usual time in August, 1912, when and where we hope again to greet you in bonds of love.

William M. Smoot, Moderator. L. H. Potter, Clerk.

The Sectarian, Vol. XXII, No. 9, September, 1911

THE CHILDREN PARTAKE OF FLESH AND BLOOD (Smoot)

Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself Likewise took part of the same; Hebrews ii, 14.

In July Sectarian we published an article from the gifted pen of the late Elder J. F. Johnson, of Kentucky, upon this most important subject. We were favored with an intimate acquaintance with Elder Johnson, have entertained him at our old Virginia home, and frequently during his life visited him at his home in Kentucky, as well as travelled over the scenes of his earlier labors in Indiana: have often heard him preach with power, and from such acquaintance regard him as one of the very ablest ministerial gifts in an age noted for able ministerial gifts, an age which produced such men as Gilbert Beebe, Thomas P. Dudley, David Caudell, J. M. Theobald, David Patman, with many others.

Elder Johnson was especially clear upon the subject discussed in our July issue, and we do not propose in any sense to review his very able article, with which we are in full accord. But we have been requested also to write upon this subject, and yielding to this request and our own impression we will make some reference to it.

In discussing the subject it is of primal importance to consider the character of the children that partake of flesh and blood. As Elder Johnson so ably shows they cannot be fleshly children, if so what benefit would accrue from their partaking of flesh and blood, “What more would the child be after such a participation than a fleshly one” – than he was before?

As in any investigation of this or any other Scripture subject our whole desire should be to ascertain the TRUTH, the whole TRUTH, and nothing but the TRUTH, we ask the reader to pause here for a moment and turn to Hebrews ii, where the text occurs and carefully read its connection.

We ask you, kind reader, after such careful perusal it in this connection you cannot clearly see the character of these children? Is not Christ here brought to view as the head, and they the members of his body? Are they not “all of one” verse 11. Identified in one life, in one seed; “He saith not, And to seeds as of many, but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.” Galatians iii, 16.

It is vain for any to attempt to ignore the fact that these children are of God, born of God. If born of God they must necessarily have existed in him before that birth, for one cannot be born of a life in which he had no prior seed existence.

In tracing the testimony of a birth as first recorded in Genesis i, the law of production is distinctly declared to be “after his kind, whose seed is in itself.” “And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind.”

Here is a positive declaration in typical creation, where the invisible things of God “from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead.” Romans i, 20. The testimony requires an indwelling seed producing after “his kind,” a development of kindred character in no wise differing from the producing seed.

To develop earthly (fleshly) life; they much necessarily come from an earthly seed. It is therefore written; “The first man is of the earth, earthy.” and “As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy.” 1 Corinthians xv, 47, 48. To develop Spiritual (heavenly) children, there must with equal necessity be spiritual life, spiritual children must come from a spiritual seed: the second man &c.

We have then two different orders of life, the one natural (earthy;) the other spiritual (heavenly:) two different order of headships, the one (Adam,) created; the other (Christ,) uncreated. To which the apostle testifies; “The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.” 1 Corinthians xv, 47.

The first head (seed) must produce earthly or fleshly children; the second spiritual children, each “after his kind.” The fleshly or natural children must necessarily have been created in the creation of their natural head, could have had no existence prior to such creation. The spiritual children much have been chosen in their spiritual head, must have had an actual existence in him (Christ.) As the head is eternal these last named children must be eternal; their existence in him is necessarily an eternal existence; they are as old as he is, for they were set up in him “from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was.” Proverbs viii, 23. See Isaiah Lxv, 22.

We are told in Romans v, 14, that Adam “is the figure of him that was to come.” Then as is the development of the natural so we find the development of the spiritual. There was a personal seed existence of each child in Adam, developed by a natural birth, so there must be a personal seed existence in Christ, the second Adam, developed by a spiritual birth; the birth of Adam develops a natural or fleshly child, the birth of God develops a spiritual child.

It is written in I John v, 7; “There are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.” Again in John i, 1; “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” It is evident from this testimony that the Word (Christ,) and God the Father are one. And Jesus Tells us in John xvii, 23; “I in them, and thou in me.” “As thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us.” Verse 21. What more can be said in testimony of such unity than that they are born, “not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.” John i, 13.

Hence as the Son (Word) exists in the Father: so these children exist in the Son; they are one in him their eternal and living head, as he is one in God the Father. They have never been, as they can never be separated from him. He is their “everlasting Father.” (Isaiah ix, 6;) they are his “everlasting children.” The words Father and child are relative; an everlasting Father certainly calls for everlasting children; in other words as the Father is eternal the children must be eternal, having an eternal existence in the Father; hence we read of the church “which is in God the Father, and in the Lord Jesus Christ.” 1 Thessalonians i, 1.

Birth is simply the developing of the prior existing child; the birth does not make the child, but it is the child that causes the birth; and the birth in no sense changes its nature, but simply changes its surroundings, developing it in a new chapter of life; but we can trace the child back in a continuous similar line of life to its prior seed existence; identifying it as a personal unit in that seed. If the seed is earthy (Adam,) the development must be of that nature; if the seed is Spiritual (Christ,) the child born must be spiritual; hence the Saviour says; “That which is born of the flesh, is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit, is spirit.” John iii, 6.

The children of Adam were created in his creation, existed in his life, the birth of each developing his prior existence as a personal unit in Adam the seed or head of the whole development; which must be quickened, born, and developed; necessarily manifesting no more, nor less than what existed in the original seed; and in each personal unit in that seed to be so quickened, born, and developed.

The Children of God eternally existed in God the Father, were set up in Christ their spiritual head; a spiritual seed to develop spiritual children, each spiritual child existing as a personal (spiritual) unit in Christ the seed; to be brought forth or developed by a spiritual birth; manifesting a different order of life from the Adamic development; one is called the “breath of life” (Genesis ii, 7:) the other, the “Spirit of life” (Romans viii, 2.)

One of these orders is not made up out of the other; but each is separate in seed and development; each retaining its particular characteristics; the spiritual (man) a seal of the natural (man) Ephesians i, 13, an evidence of the eternal salvation, glorious change, and redemption of the body or outward man. This seal, however, does not change, but simply holds under such mortal body unto the glorious change in resurrection immortality.

Having clearly established the character of the children which are (not were) partakers of flesh and blood, let us consider the manner in which they so partake. Upon this point the testimony is as clear as upon the other. “Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he (Christ) also himself likewise took part of the same.” Christ partook as they they partake, therefore if we wish to find how these children partake of flesh and blood it is only necessary to see how Christ partook of flesh and blood.

Upon this point the Scriptures are very clear. “Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.” Matthew i, 18. “The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee, shall be called the Son of God.” Luke i, 35.

Does not this testimony show the existence of the son of God before his manifestation in a mortal body; and as he was the “first-born among many brethren.” Romans viii, 29; “the first-born of every creature.” Colossians i, 15; and as we have previously shown one with them in eternal unity, with equal assurance we claim that each and all of these children had with him, in him, and like him an eternal existence, and were manifested like him, and he like them (Hebrews ii, 14,) in mortal flesh. It is written in Hebrews x, 5; “Wherefore, when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me.” The marginal reading is a body “thou hast fitted me.” As surely as a body was fitted or prepared for him, so surely a body is fitted or prepared for each one of these dear children which come “down from God out of heaven.” Revelation xxi, 2.

The existence of these children prior to their manifestation in mortal bodies is clearly demonstrated in Scripture. “And it came to pass, that, when Elizebeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elizebeth was filled with the Holy Ghost.” Luke i, 41. Will any one from this testimony question the prior existence of him who was afterward name “John the Baptist.” “Before I formed thee in the belly, I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.” Jeremiah i, 5. Do we not have here evidence of the prior existence of Jeremiah not simply in a natural, but in a spiritual identity, as a sanctified, called, and ordained prophet of God. “The children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth; it was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.” Romans ix. 11, 12, 13. The love of God referred to in the last verse of the quotation could never have been bestowed upon any but a spiritual child.

It is “the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord,” referred to by the apostle in Romans viii, 35-39, and from which nothing shall be able to separate the children of the Regeneration. It does not flow from a natural fountain, nor is it bestowed upon any but a spiritual subject. It is the love which is of God, like the ointment upon Aaron’s head which descended to the lowest member of his body; the immortal love which identifies in its eternal embrace only those who are born of God.

The children that partake of flesh and blood, are not therefore made up out of flesh and blood; that is, it is not the natural man born again that forms the spiritual child, as surmised by Nicodemus, and held by Clark and others in 1852-56; by Durand, Chick and others in 1886-89; but the previously existing eternal, spiritual child existing in God the Father, and born of God, whose “seed (Christ) remaineth in him.” 1 John iii. 9. The mortal flesh (body) of which he partakes composes every thing that comes from Adam; an entire mortal man, born of the flesh, and remains flesh after the spiritual child takes up its abode in such mortal body. The spiritual child comprises all that is produced by the spiritual birth. It can be well called a spiritual birth, because it is the birth of a spiritual child, which “cannot sin, because he is born of God.” The natural man can do nothing but sin, hence comes the Christian warfare between “the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts,” and the “new man which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.” Ephesians iv, 22, 24.

These points of truth from a Gospel stand-point are self evident, that these are two men, not two principles in one man, as held by the Means’ Baptist, and is an absurdity, congenial only to carnal reason; but two men, distinct in seed existence, in quickening, in birth, and in development; the natural or outward man (born of the flesh:) the spiritual or inward man (born of the Spirit.) Each of these two in the Scriptures is called a man, neither is either designated as a principle merely. The outward man is the temple for the indwelling, heavenly child.

Proceeding from a discussion of the manner in which these children partake of flesh and blood we pass to consider the effect of such a partaking. It is held by our adversaries that this Gospel doctrine does nothing for the natural man. The fact is that it does everything essential to his eternal redemption. “In whom after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise, which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.” Ephesians i, 14.

The indwelling child seals the mortal body (natural or fleshly man) in which he dwells, unto eternal redemption, as the treasure hid in the field (Matthew xiii, 44.) secures the purchase of the field.

It is the “Spirit of adoption.” (Romans viii, 15; Galatians iv, 5) that seals the earthen vessel, and wherever this seal is found it is the sure evidence of the salvation of the mortal man (body) which is so sealed.

We have not yet received the adoption, but we have received the “Spirit of adoption.” The natural man does not cry “Abba, Father,” by the spirit as held by some, but the Spirit itself cries “Abba Father.” We are “waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.” Romans viii, 23. “If the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.” Romans viii, 11. And when the adoption shall have been consummated “then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.” 1 Corinthians xv, 54. Assuredly here is something done for the natural man – the sinner. In fact the entire economy of the Gospel is for the salvation of the sinner; but there is an order in such salvation.

The indwelling, spiritual child (that partakes of flesh and blood,) is the one who hungers and thirsts after righteousness, after “true holiness;” and longs to be delivered from a body of sin and death; “we ourselves groan within ourselves.” Wonderful relationship this! Tis I in the flesh, and I in the Spirit; but it is certainly not the same I in each instance. It is not the same man that is black as the tents of Kedar, and at the same time white as the curtains of Solomon. It is the new man, the new creature in Christ Jesus (the indwelling, spiritual child) that groans being heavily burdened while in this time state; and who “shall be delivered from this bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.” Romans viii, 21. “For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.” Verse 19. “When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with him in glory.” Colossians iii. 4.

Of what we have written this is the sum, that the children who partake of flesh and blood, are, every have been, and ever will be spiritual, as chosen in an eternal spiritual seed: developed by a spiritual birth, and made manifest in mortal bodies, that are born of Adam: the life of Jesus manifest in our mortal flesh. 2 Corinthians iv, 11. That these heavenly children seal the mortal body or bodies in which they dwell as subjects of eternal redemption; to be consummated in the “resurrection of the dead.” But in their mortal pilgrimage, the indwelling child is antagonistic to the fleshly man, the mortal temple in which they dwell, revealing the wonderful mystery of two separate and distinct *men dwelling in one character. “Return, return, O Shulamite; return, return that we may look upon thee. What will ye see in the Shulamite? As it were the company of two armies.” Son vi, 13.

That the heavenly child is the stronger man who binds, and holds in subjection the strong man, Luke xi, 21, 22, that the outward man is but the servant of the inner man, as it is written “the elder shall serve the younger.” Romans ix, 12. The inner man gives color to the life of this dual character, and bends the earthly man to unwilling subserviency. That there is no change in the nature of the outward man until he is born from the dead, as born in “the resurrection of the dead” whereby he is changed and fashioned like unto the glorious body of the Lord Jesus Christ. Philippians iii, 21. That this entire and glorious Gospel economy was for the salvation and eternal redemption of the “vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory.” Romans ix, 23. These children of God in their pilgrimage here wander in a world uncongenial, nay hostile to all of their holy instincts; in a land of desert and drouth; “in the wilderness in a solitary way;” They cry unto the Lord in their trouble, and he delivers them out of their distresses. Psalms Cvii, 4, 6.

“Pilgrims they are, and heav’nward bound; Their journey lies along this road; This wilderness they travel round, To reach the city of their God.”

Oh the depths of sorrow, the keen bitter, fierce temptations that often assail them in their dark and dreary way; but at “evening time it shall be light.” Zechariah xiv, 7. Blessed and glorious anticipation this! that at the end of their journey here they shall awake with his likeness. Psalms xvii 15: they shall enter unending rest; purified and glorified; Divinely prepared to dwell forever in the presence of their God.

Then let us who are “of the day, be sober, putting on the breastplate of faith and love; and for an helmet, the hope of salvation.“ For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ.“ Who died for us that, whether we wake or sleep, we should live together with him.“ Wherefore, comfort yourselves together, and edify one another, even as also ye do.” 1 Thessalonians v. 8-11.

Elder William M. Smoot The Sectarian August 1914

* The outward or natural is certainly called a man in the Scripture; and the inward or spiritual is also called a man; and both of these constitute the dual character named.

1891 – CIRCULAR LETTER ON THE DIVINE ORDER OF GOSPEL SALVATION (SMOOT)

By Wm. M. Smoot

For the Virginia Annual Meeting of Anti-Means, Old School, Predestinarian Baptists

To all of like precious faith, greeting.

Dear Brethren: We hail with joy the favored opportunity of addressing you in the holy and precious fellowship of saints. Gathered together “with one accord in one place” we would write you of the holy things of that Kingdom “whose God is the Lord.” We realize anew the gracious power and sweetness of that which binds us together as one people, knowing no North, South, East or West, but kindred in Christ, and “companions in tribulation, and in the Kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ.” Though separated from you by many miles, dear brethren, yet there is a nearness, an eternal, vital oneness, and we feel the holy fervor of that fellowship which permeates the whole body of which Christ is the eternal Head, and which glows in living, immortal power in every member thereof.

What subject could we write you of greater interest than that salvation experienced by us all, and by which lost and helpless sinners shine in immortal perfection before the throne of God? For nearly forty years our brethren here have been accused of denying the salvation of sinners, with many other absurd and false accusations circulated against us. We know of nothing calculated to comfort and encourage the saints in their mortal pilgrimage but a revelation of the Truth as it is in Christ Jesus in the salvation of His dear people from both sin and death.

We must follow the Divine order, however, in presenting the subject of Gospel Salvation. The eternal, unconditional, and personal election of the Church in Christ, the chosen Seed, comes first in that order. Eternal vital union is the foundation of all other divine truth. Before all worlds were made, or time was brought into existence, this eternal choice in Christ, the chosen Head of all the members of His body, in an eternal oneness stood in union with the eternal Godhead. Let it then be distinctly understood that this is not the election of sinners of Adam’s race. This would, if that was so, make the election to be “in Adam,” and not in Christ, as amply taught in the sacred Scriptures. Nor is it the existence of a family of spirits in full development in all eternity, as so often foolishly charged by our adversaries. But it is the existence and choice of the Church in the chosen Seed thereof, which seed develops the generation of Jesus Christ in time. – Psalm xxii, 30 & Matthew i, 1. In that spiritual birth by which this development is made, the personal existence of the child of God in Christ is manifested. The birth develops that existence; hence the Redeemer says, “That which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” – John iii, 6. That spiritual child was in Christ as the spiritual seed when Christ “was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was.” The birth simply develops this personal existence. We see this in Adam “who is the figure of Him that was to come.” The natural birth of an earthly child simply develops the personal existence which this child had in Adam when Adam was created’ hence the Master says, “that which is born of the flesh is flesh.”

The eternal choice is in Christ and not in Adam, and the birth manifest the chosen child whose existence was thus “hid with Christ in God, the Father, before the world was made.” It is not the natural man born over again, and he, the natural man, by that birth becoming the child of God, entering into, or seeing the Kingdom of God. For it is manifest that if the man born of the Spirit is the man who sees and enters the Kingdom of God, and if the natural man is born of the Spirit, then he must after such a birth both see and enter into that Kingdom – which is too obviously false, by experience. This reasoning contradicts the testimony of the apostle where he declares that the “Natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” – 1st. Cor. ii, 14. The text does not add “until he is born from above.” But the development of this generation of Jesus Christ is in these vessels of mercy, afore prepared unto glory, called in the Scriptures the old man, the strong man, the natural man, the outward man; while the indwelling child of God within, and that which is born of God, is called the new man, the stronger man, the spiritual man, the inward man, and the new creature.

Take notice that this is not the natural man born again, or born of God, exhibiting one man with two natures; in one of which nature he is born of the flesh, and in the other, born of the Spirit. The whole benighted religious world holds that concept. But each birth reveals an existence in the parent seed of the flesh, and of the spirit of Adam and of Christ. Nothing, we suppose, is more clearly taught in the Scripture that the existence of these two men, each the parent seed of his family – the one natural, the other spiritual, the one the “figure” of the other. “The first man Adam,” we are informed, “was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.” – 1st. Cor. xxv. 45. In the development of the generation of each of these two men, by a birth, we trace the linage of the child born back to the parent’s seed. This is what we understand the master to have taught in the language, “That which is born of the flesh, is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit, is spirit.” This exhibits a natural and a spiritual seed, a natural and a spiritual birth, a natural and a spiritual progenitor, developing a natural and a spiritual generation.

Notice particularly that this is not the regeneration of the natural generation, and this regeneration constituting the generation of Jesus Christ, but it is the development of two characters of seed manifesting two orders of births, and developing a natural generation by the first, and a spiritual generation by the second. “The book of the generation of Jesus Christ” (Matt. i, 1) unfolds and reveals this heavenly generation in these vessels of mercy, yet not made out of them. To this agrees the inspired testimony, “Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, He also Himself likewise took part of the same.” – Hebrews ii, 14. The blending of these two generations into one duplex being, in which “flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh,” and wherein the old man, after the order of his father, “is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts,” and the new man, “which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness” – Ephesians iv, 22-24, reveals the wonderful “mystery of godliness.” The regeneration of this spiritual generation, in their being brought from under the law in the person of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, the eternal and chosen Head of the Church, brings us to a brief discussion of the subject of salvation.

We should bear in mind that it is the Child of God, and not the child of Adam, which is the subject of Gospel address; that the new man is the motive power in that duplex being to which we have referred, and not the old man. Instead of its being the same feet that once carried us to the gambling den that now carries us to the house of God, thus making the old man carry the new man; it is the old man which is brought into subjection by the new, as it is written in the type, “the elder shall serve the younger.” – Genesis xxv, 23.

But now let us regard the child of God as a partaker of flesh and blood, as developed or made manifest in a mortal body, born of the flesh, yet a “vessel of mercy,” in an outward man, a man that is born of corruptible seed of flesh and is yet flesh. In this relation only is he subject “to bondage.” And the revelation of this eternal, spiritual life, the manifestation of this inward man, who is born of God, is the eternal and abiding testimony, the everlasting seal of the salvation of the mortal vessel which holds the heavenly treasure. In this mortal body he groans, longing to be delivered, and hungering and thirsting for the things of the heavenly Kingdom. “We ourselves groan within ourselves.” This groaning is not the result of the quickening of a dead sinner into spiritual life, but it is the manifestation of that which is already born of God. The quickening is in the Spirit and not in the flesh. “It is the Spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing.” – John vi. 63.

The child of God, in his mortal pilgrimage, realizes ever the weakness, the mortal passion, the sin and death of that which is born of the flesh. When he would do good, “evil is present with him;” – And which do you suppose desires to “do good”?- flesh or spirit? The good that he would he does not, but the evil which “I would not,” he says, “that I do.” Tempted, distressed, beset on every side, weary of earth and sin, he looks with heavenly longing to the unending rest of his immortal home. “‘Tis there that he is delivered from earth, himself, and sin, and filled with the fullness of God. In this mortal fleshly body he groans, “waiting for the adoption, to-wit, the redemption of our body;” – Romans viii, 23. – waiting for the adoption of his flesh – that which is born of the flesh, but is not born over again, or born of God; waiting for the “birth” from the dead of that which is thus born of the flesh; waiting for the appearing of our Lord from heaven, “whom shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto His glorious body, according to the working whereby He is able to subdue all things unto Himself” – Phil. iii, 21. Most assuredly this world is not his home. “Here he has no continuing city.” Bound with a mortal chain, and oppressed with many a care, he clings with undying devotion to the Cross of the dear Redeemer as his only refuge. The hope which animates him is the hope of salvation, the abiding testimony of the Spirit, “the anchor of the soul.” Amid all the storms that beat upon him this hope abides, “entering into that within the veil.” All that he has, is, or hopes to be, rests upon that which is embraced in the Christian’s hope.

The hope of the Gospel! What thoughts cluster around it! What sweet affections are there! In the love they bear it, saints have forsaken the friendships of earth, its nearest and most tender ties, its wealth and fame, the popular reputation, yea, all, to follow Jesus. Through commotion and division, derision, through flames and flood, they follow where He leads. His providence, His predestination directs the path, and they know by precious experience that they have not yet attained unto the resurrection of the dead, nor the adoption of sons. But when this mortal body falls in death, when the glorious and wondrous change of the resurrection is complete, when that which is born of the flesh is born from the dead, and the royal army of Heaven in bright phalanx shall stand upright, redeemed from every nation and kindred of earth; when, in immortal splendor, “the saints of all ages shall in harmony meet,” then, and not until then, shall they comprehend the fulness of that salvation, the “volume of His deep decrees,” which embraces every chosen vessel of mercy, every heir of immortal promise, which raises from the dust of earth to the splendor of eternity, adopting the sons of earth, changing their vile bodies, fashioning them like unto the glorious body of our Lord. Can more be done for the natural man? Can there be more perfect salvation for a lost and helpless sinner than this?

In the hope of this salvation we greet you, dear brethren and sisters, believing that we “are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and of the household of God; and are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the Chief Corner stone: in whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: in whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.” – Eph. 2:19-22.

We have enjoyed a refreshing season, we trust, from the presence of our God. A large and attentive congregation has attended our church meeting, and our brethren feel comforted, and are led to rejoice in the testimony of the Lord's unfailing goodness.

William M. Smoot, Moderator James Posey, Clerk August, 1891

SOLOMON ANTITYPICAL OF CHRIST (SMOOT)

And when the queen of Sheba heard of the fame of Solomon concerning the name of the Lord, she came to prove him with hard questions. . . . And when the queen of Sheba had seen all Solomon’s wisdom, and the house that he had built, and the meat of his table, and the sitting of his servants, and the attendance of his ministers, and their apparel, and his cupbearers, and his ascent by which he went up unto the house of the Lord.” – 1 King, 10:1-5.

We could well inquire how this queen in her far distant country had heard of the wonderful fame of Solomon. He had no mission board to spread abroad the knowledge of his wisdom and kingly glory. But in unseen ways, far and wide his fame had spread reaching in an especial sense unto all unto whom the Lord was pleased to make it known.

In these Old Testament types we have a presentation of Gospel Truth, figures of New Testament and glorious realities. It is only in such character that we desire to refer to these types and truly only in such character that the sacred Scripture would record them. Beyond the kingly glory and fame of Solomon we see the King of kings, and Lord of lords.

“The King of all kingdoms forever is He.”

Beyond the princely beauty of Solomon’s kingly court there looms up before us the dazzling splendor and glory of the Gospel King and Kingdom, unseen by mortal eyes, unknown to mortal powers. “He was in the world, and the world was made by Him, and the world knew Him not,” yet the eternal fame of this wonderful King has ever, and will continue to reach unto the uttermost all “that come unto God by Him.” “In Him was life; and the life was the light of men.” These life-bearing and life-giving rays of immortal light, falling from the throne of God, will penetrate far and near, embracing the “children of the kingdom,” and opening before them the golden path of Truth eternal. It will draw them as it did the queen of Sheba “from a far country,” and will bring them before the throne. “Go forth, O ye daughters of Zion, and behold King Solomon with the crown wherewith his mother crowned him in the day of his espousals, and in the day of the gladness of his heart.” There opens before them a wonderful and glorious view of the jasper-walled, and golden “City which hath foundations, whose Builder and Maker is God.”

But we desire to trace this beautiful figure more on what might appear to be its surface, and not so much in its depths as it reveals the fullness of immortal glory; to refer to some things in its application to the visible church. No mortal eye can see the beauty and glory of this Church any more than such vain curious eyes can behold the glory of eternity. To look upon the outward forms of worship, is not to look upon Zion, and even children of God often go to meeting in their “every day clothes,” beholding no beauty and realizing no enjoyment in the holy service of Zion. But there comes a time when the light of the beauty and glory of God, shines over the hallowed scene, and the splendor of the kingdom opens before them. They see the court of King Solomon, the order of His house, the attendance of His ministers, and His ascent as He mounts His Mediatorial throne. His glory and splendor are there. In all this is seen the “meat of His table, and sitting of His servants.” An holy and solemn order clothes it all.

Each regulation fills its place; each reflects the glory of the King leading “captivity captive.” The glorious assent of the wonderful King is revealed in the shout of triumph heard in His kingdom. The eternal vital union between the living Head, and the living members underlies the glorious triumph of the members of the body of Christ. They suffer with Him, and are glorified together with Him. They ascend in His ascension and triumph in His triumph. The “winding stairway” up which our King passes to His throne, is manifested in our experience here, in the experience of His visible church, step by step He leads them, or,

“Each opening leaf, and every stroke, Fulfills some deep design.”They can not see nor trace the way by mortal sight,

“But trusting to His piercing eye, None of their feet to ruin go, Nor shall the weakest fail or die.”

Deeply inwrought in each living heart is the faith that overcomes the world, yes, that “subdued kingdoms, wrought righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the mouth of lions;” the revelation of the glorious triumph of our Lord. The Mediator has ascended His throne. The Lord makes bare His arm in the travel of His church. “Let God arise,” says the Psalmist, “let His enemies be scattered.”

Elder William Smoot November 1899

ETERNAL VITAL UNION AND HIS CHURCH 1849 (T.P. DUDLEY)

Dearly beloved Brethren and Sisters:

Our fondest gratitude is due the Author of our holy religion, for the privilege of associating once more in our annual convocation, and for the sweet, and we trust, profitable converse we have held with each other.

We know not how better to subserve the cause of truth, or the interests of Zion, than by submitting such views of the divine economy of redemption and salvation, as we entertain; whilst we most cordially accord to others, the right to test the correctness of those views by the standard of truth.

We have long esteemed the doctrine of the indissoluble union of Christ and the Church, as being at the very base of the Christian system; that it is second, in point of importance, to no point in that system; and that to overturn it, would be to remove one of the main pillars of the spiritual temple; yea more, to raze the foundation itself, and prostrate all the well grounded hopes which saints indulge, of meeting in another and better state of things.

As we attach so much importance to this doctrine, and have made it the topic of our present Annual Address, it will be expected of us that we enter into a calm, dispassionate, and scriptural investigation of the subject. The doctrine is so lucidly inculcated in the Holy Scriptures, that, with a consciousness of incompetency to a full and thorough elucidation of its momentous bearings, we are nevertheless encouraged to present such considerations as have brought conviction to us of its truth and vital importance.

The history given us of the “first Adam,” combining within him, his bride, with all his natural family, and who is declared to be “the figure of Him that was to come,” is such, that, being understood, must carry with it undying conviction of the doctrine of “union,” with reference to that family.

Professing as we do, to take the Bible for our guide, does it not behoove us to inquire for truth at its sacred pages? Whether our pre-conceived opinions shall be found to harmonize therewith or not, all should bow without a murmur to its doctrine.

We proceed with the figure: “And God said, Let us make man in our own image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea,” &c. “So God created man in His own image: in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them.” - Gen. 1:26,27. By the term, “In the image of God created He him, male and female created He them,” we cannot suppose the Holy Ghost meant that Adam was created a god - that he was immutable. Then would he not have sinned and fallen under the sentence of condemnation - or that he possessed the attributes of the Deity; but that he was created in the image and after the likeness of “God manifest in the flesh;” in the image of the “Everlasting Father,” of the Spiritual Husband; in whom the Bride, and all the sons and daughters of Zion were created. “This is the book of the generation of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made He him; male and female created He them, and blessed them, and called their name Adam; in the day when they were created.” - Gen. 5:15. “And Adam called his wife's name Eve, because she was the mother of all living.” - Gen. 3:20. From all which, it is manifest that God is, alone, the creator of the “first man Adam,” who is of the earth earthy - that his bride, and all his natural seed were created in him - that it took all combined to constitute the “first Adam,” (the Adam of the Bible.) “And He called their name Adam.”

We next inquire, Whence did Adam derive his vitality, and what were his susceptibilities? “And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.” - Gen. 2:7. Man was destitute of life, of consciousness, and, consequently, only became a responsible being, when he “became a living soul.” It took soul and body to constitute him a rational, intelligent being - the subject of law, and accountable to God. “And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden, and there He put the man whom He had formed. And out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.” “And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: but of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eat thereof thou shalt surely die. And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.” “And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof: and the rib, which the Lord had taken from man, made He a woman, and brought her unto the man. And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called woman, because she was taken out of man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.” - Gen. 2:8,9,16,17,18,21-24. We presume that all intelligent beings must see the doctrine of “union” fully and conclusively taught in the foregoing reference to the Scripture of truth.

Irrespective of “vital union,” we should be totally at a loss to comprehend the following declarations, “Behold, I was shaped in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me” - Psa. 51:5. “The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies.” - Psa. 58:3. “Wherefore, as by one man, sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned. (For until the law, sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed where there is no law.) Nevertheless, death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of Him that was to come. But not as the offense, so also is the free gift. For if through the offense of one, (Adam) many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one Man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation; but the free gift is of many offenses unto justification. For if by one man's (Adam's) offense, death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace, and of the gift of righteousness; shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.” - Rom. 5:12-17, inclusive.

Had the union between Adam the first, and his natural seed (who were created in him, and simultaneously with him,) been dissolved by transgression, there had been no development of one son or daughter of Adam. But we go further, and say, that “union” is proven to have existed both antecedently and subsequently to transgression, in the fact that, “Adam the first,” though created upright, is the father of an apostate and degenerate family, as is manifest in the case of Cain, and multitudes of others. “Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright, but they have sought out many inventions.” - Eccl. 7:29. “And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth.” - Gen. 5:3.

From the quotations made, we recognize two heads. The one of the natural, the other of the spiritual family. Let us not forget the character of the respective heads, or we shall mistake the character of their families. “And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul, the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.” Hence, the Apostle continues, “Howbeit, that was not first which was spiritual, but that which is natural, and afterward that which is spiritual. The first man is of the earth earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven. As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy; and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly. Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.” - 1 Cor. 15: 45-50 inclusive. Here we are presented with two distinct families; the first, “living souls” - the second, “quickened spirits.” The first, natural beings - the second, spiritual; the first, earthy - the second, spiritual beings.

We maintain that Eve, and all the natural family, were created in, and known only as “Adam.” “And He called their name 'Adam'.” That they all received the law in him - transgressed in him - became the subjects of condemnation and death in him - in a word, such as he was after the transgression, such are they in a state of unregeneracy. We confess we are utterly unable to see the force of the figures used in the Bible with reference to this subject, if the Bride, and all the “sons and daughters of the Lord Almighty,” were not created in, and known only, as Christ, mystically received the gospel, and all their spiritual blessings in Him. Hence, an Apostle said, “Ye are all one in Christ Jesus.” Again, “As He is, so are we in this world.” Adam the first conveyed death, condemnation, and moral depravity to all his natural seed, who descend from him by ordinary generation, in consequence of “union.” “Adam the second” conveys all spiritual blessings to His spiritual seed, in consequence of “union.” Adam's natural family is born as a consequence of his previous existence in, and “union” with him. Christ's spiritual family, are born again, as a legitimate consequence of previous existence in, and union to Him; as the “branches in the vine” - “created in Christ Jesus” - “chosen in Him before the foundation of the world” - having “grace given them in Christ Jesus, before the world began” - “preserved in Christ Jesus and called.”

Imputation necessarily follows relation; else would not Adam's family have been affected by his disobedience? Nor yet would Christ's spiritual family be affected by His obedience?

The doctrine of the Eternal Union of Christ and the Church, when unfolded to, fills the hearts of the regenerate with peace and joy in the Holy Ghost. Hence, the Psalmist said, “Lord, Thou hast been our dwelling place in all generations. Before the mountains were brought forth, even from everlasting to everlasting Thou art God.” - Psa. 90:12. “In all their afflictions He was afflicted, and the angel of His presence saved them; in His love and in His piety He redeemed them; and He bare them, and carried them all the days of old.” - Isa. 63:9. “Behold the Lord God will come with strong hand, and His arm shall rule for Him: behold, His reward is with Him, and His work before Him. He shall feed His flock like a shepherd, He shall gather the lambs with His arms, and carry them in His bosom, and gently lead those that are with young.” - Isa. 11:10,11. “My substance (said David, personating Christ,) was not hid from Thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. Thine eyes did see My substance, yet being imperfect; and in Thy book all My members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them,” (that is, none yet made manifest upon the earth.) - Psa. 139: 15,16. The Psalmist further illustrates the “union,” when he says, (with reference to Christ,) “I am poured out like water, and all My bones are out of joint.” - Psa. 22:14. Although His bones (for “ye are members of His body, of His flesh, and of His bones,”) are “out of joint;” yet is there not one of them broken, or dead; in consequence of “union.”

The various metaphors, or figures, found in the Scriptures, and which are designed to set forth the union between Christ and the Church, it would seem, are unmistakable, if the children of light “would contemplate them in their connection; for example, we hear it said, “And hath put all things under His feet, and gave Him (Christ) to be head over all things to the Church, which is His body, the fulness of Him that fills all in all.” - Eph. 1: 21,22. Destroy “union” between head and body, literally, and that destruction is necessarily fatal to both head and body. The Apostle continues, “But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into Him in all things, which is the Head, even Christ. From whom the whole body fitly joined together, and compacted by that which every joint supplies, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, makes increase of the body, unto the edification of itself in love.” - Eph. 4: 15,16. “For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the Head of the Church, and He is the Savior of the body. So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies: he that loves his wife, loves himself. For no man ever yet hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, even as the Lord the Church: For we are members of His body, of His flesh, and of His bones. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery; but I speak concerning Christ and the Church.” - Eph. 5:23-32 inclusive. “And He is the Head of the body, the Church, who is the beginning, the first born from the dead, that in all things He might have the pre-eminence.” - Col. 1:18. “Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for His body's sake, which is the Church.” - Col. 1:24. “For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ.” “Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.” - 1 Cor. 12:12. We invite special attention to this chapter. But, the “union” is brought to view by other metaphors. “For unto us a child is born; unto us a son is given, the government shall be upon His shoulder; His name shall be called wonderful counsellor; the mighty God; the everlasting Father, and the prince of peace.” - Isa. 9:6. Compared with Gal. 4:5, - “And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying Abba, Father.” Again, “For thy maker is thy husband; the Lord of Hosts is His name; and thy Redeemer the Holy One of Israel; the God of the whole earth shall He be called.” - Isa. 54:5. “And I (the good shepherd) lay down My life for the sheep.” - John 10:15. “Feed the Church of God, which He hath purchased with His own blood.”- Acts 20:22. Thus we see, that “union” gave sanction to His work, as shepherd, for His sheep, as Father for His children, as Husband for His Bride, as Head for the members, including His whole body.

But Christ is emphatically the life of His people. “When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with Him in glory.” - Col. 3:4. Can “union” be closer or more indissoluble? The chosen family, transgressed the law, and incurred its penalty, in their earthly head. Life is the forfeit - nothing more or less than life can meet the demands of divine justice. “The wages of sin is death.” “The soul that sins, it shall die.” “None of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him: (for the redemption of their soul is precious, and it ceases forever.)” - Psa. 49: 7, 8.

Such the Apostle considered the nature of that “union.” He says, “For the love of Christ constrains us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead; and that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them and rose again.” - 2 Cor. 5: 14,15. “I am crucified with Christ; nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh, I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave Himself for me.” - Gal. 2:20. “But God who is rich in mercy, for His great love wherewith He loved us, even when we were dead in sin, hath quickened us together with Christ; (by grace are ye saved.)” - Eph. 2:4,5.

Adam the first possessed within him all who have been, now are, or ever shall be developed, as living souls, and imparted to them the nature which he had as a “living soul.” Christ, the “second Adam,” possessed within Him, all who shall ever be developed as “quickened spirits,” and imparts to them the nature which He possessed; which is indispensable to serve God aright, and enjoy the world to come.

We feel, we own, we have transgressed the divine precept, that “in me, that is in my flesh, dwells no good thing;” “for to will is present with me, but how to perform that that is good I find not.” “I cannot do the good I would , nor keep my conscience clean.” But O! with what transport is the heart of the believer filled, when he feels some application made of the declaration, “He hath made us accepted in the Beloved.” “For ye are complete in Him, which is the Head of all principality and power.”

“My filthy rags are laid aside, He clothes me as becomes His bride; Himself bestows my wedding dress, The robe of perfect righteousness.”

“Unto her it was granted that she should be clothed in fine linen, clean and white, and the fine linen is the righteousness of saints.” Hence, the angel said to John,

“Come hither, and I will show thee the Bride, the Lamb's wife.” “Thou art all fair My love, (said the husband,) there is no spot in thee.” “He hath not beheld iniquity in Jacob, neither hath He seen perverseness in Israel: the Lord His God is with him, and the shout of a King is among them.” - Numbers 23:21.

O ye sons and daughters of Zion, - Ye who mourn and so deeply lament “iniquity” within, and long for deliverance from “perverseness,” destroy “union;” eternal, indissoluble “union,” with your living Head, and whence could you look for comfort, or hope for acceptance? Your King, your Savior, in His prayer on your behalf, says, “And the glory which Thou gave Me, I gave given them; that they may be one, even as We are One; I in them, and Thou in Me, that they may be made perfect in one: and that the world may know that Thou hast sent Me, and hast loved them, as Thou hast loved Me. Father, I will that they also, whom Thou hast given Me, be with Me where I am; that they may behold My glory, which Thou hast given Me: for Thou lovest Me before the foundation of the world.” - John 17:22-24.

We confess, most frankly, that in the absence of “union,” we are utterly at a loss to reconcile the justice of God with the sufferings endured by the Lord Jesus, and His death upon the cross; or to reconcile that justice with the salvation of sinners. “The wages of sin is death;” but Jesus was “holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens,” “who did no sin, neither was guile found in His mouth.” “Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise Him.” “Who His own self bear our sins in His own body on the tree.” “He was wounded for our transgressions and bruised for our iniquities.” “He shall see of the travail of His soul, and shall be satisfied. By His knowledge shall My righteous servant justify many, for He shall bear their iniquities.” “The Lord is well pleased for His righteousness' sake; He will magnify the law, and make it honorable.” “As for thee, by the blood of Thy covenant, I have sent forth Thy prisoners out of the pit wherein is no water.” Why is it that the shepherd is held responsible in law for the trespass committed by sheep placed in His charge, if not by virtue of His relation as shepherd? Why is the husband held responsible for the trespass of the bride, if not by virtue of His relation as husband? “The reproaches of them that reproach Thee, are fallen upon Me: Then I restored that which I took not away.” Why is the Head held responsible for murder committed by the hand, if not because of union or relation?

We presume that no intelligent Christian will deny that “union” between the “first Adam” and the “living souls,” who descend from him, existed antecedently to their development; and that that “union” is the cause of their being born into an earthly state of existence, susceptible of earthly enjoyments, and sustained upon earthly productions. Is it not passingly strange then, that any who have been brought to taste that the Lord is gracious, should deny that “union” to the “second Adam,” who “was made a quickening spirit,” is the cause of all those who concentrated their spiritual existence in Him; being “Born of God;” “Born of the Spirit;” “Born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible; by the Word of God which liveth and abides forever?” The being born of corruptible seed, and “going astray from the womb speaking lies,” no more necessarily results from the born corruption of the fountain whence they proceeded; than the being born again of incorruptible seed and possessing holy desires, results from the incorruptible nature of the Fountain, whence they derive their existence. “Whosoever is born of God, doth not commit sin: because His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.” “In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the Devil: whosoever does not do righteousness is not of God, neither he that loves not his brother.” - 1 John 3:9,10. “We know that whosoever is born of God, signs not: but he that is begotten of God, keeps himself, and that wicked one touches him not.” “We know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know Him that is true; and we are in Him that is true, even in His son Jesus Christ . This is the true God and eternal life.” - 1 John 5:18,20. The cause of rebellion, and disposition to sin, is found in the “first Adam,” hence we are at no loss to account for the effect, as manifested in all his natural seed. “There is none that does good, no, not one.” The cause, or nature of holiness, is found in the Lord Jesus; hence, they who are in love with holiness, are ardently desire its practice, manifest that they are born of God, that they are branches in the “true vine.” And here we perceive the root of all spiritual or holy obedience; “God is a spirit, and they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth.” In all this, the doctrine of the indissoluble “union” of Christ and the Church, is taught; let it be successfully controverted, and we despair reaching that “city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God,” or joining the heavenly anthem, “Great and marvelous are Thy works Lord God Almighty, just and true are Thy ways, Thou King of Saints.”

“This sacred bond shall never break, Though earth should to her centre shake; Rest, doubting saint, assured of this, For God has pledged His holiness,”

“Because I live, ye shall live also.” “Fear not, little flock, for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom.” “I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee; therefore, we may boldly say, the Lord is my helper, I will not fear what man shall do unto me.”

It is matter of no little surprise to us, that there should be found among those claiming to be old school Baptists, some who can make no distinction between between the doctrine of “union,” as taught in the Holy Scriptures, and illustrated in the foregoing pages, and the modern “two seed” heresy - that they destroy both the head and the body. Destroy the union between the head and any one member of the body, and the body is imperfect. But God is to be thanked that there is nothing that can separate us from our Head for every member is kept by the power of God, and it is the same spirit that animates the whole body; for all God's people are taught of the Lord, and are led by the same spirit to admire the riches of that grace which has made us accepted in the Beloved, in whom is treasured all riches, and glory. Brethren beloved, rejoice evermore, and be exceeding glad, for He who has called you is faithful and true, and has declared that the gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church, neither shall the purposes of His grace be frustrated, for He must reign until all enemies are put under His feet.

We were greatly comforted in having the presence of your messengers with us, and we desire that God will continue to bless our correspondence to our mutual comfort, and to the strengthening of our love in the truth.

Our next association will be held with our sister Church at Rockbridge, Bourbon Co., Kentucky, on the 2d Saturday in September, 1849, where we hope again to hear from you.

Done by order of the association, and signed in her behalf.

T. P. Dudley, Moderator. Attest: - James S. Peak, Clerk.

ETERNAL VITAL IUNION AND HIS CHURCH 1847 (T.P. DUDLEY)

By Thomas Dudley, 1847

Moderator of the Licking Association of Particular Baptists of Kentucky.

Brethren and Sisters: - The Father of Lights, in whom there is neither variableness or shadow of turning, in His kind and unerring Providence, has permitted us to meet in our associate capacity, and to hear from you through the medium of your letters and messengers, and to avail ourselves of the opportunity of addressing you briefly on the three following propositions, viz: First, That Christ and His Church are one. Secondly, that their oneness is vital and spiritual. Thirdly, it is eternal.

That they are one is proven by the testimony of Paul, 1 Cor. 12:12, “For as the body is one and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body, so also is Christ.” Here, the oneness is so complete that the body or church is called “Christ.” “So also is Christ;” that is, Christ the Head, and the church, His body, are one. Verse 27, “Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.”

That this union is “vital,” we think is clearly proved by the fact that the Spirit of Christ, which testified through the holy Scriptures, in setting this doctrine forth, has used the strongest figures known, viz, Head, Husband, Vine, Shepherd, 7c. But the limits of a circular will not permit us to particularly notice more than one of these at present. We therefore pass to Romans 5:14, “Nevertheless, death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of Him that was to come.” Now, we ask, was not the reign of death considered by the Apostle as a consequence of vital oneness with the first Adam? And if he was not a figure of Christ in relation to this oneness, why did Paul allude to that subject? In the figure, as a unit, we behold the substance of all the seed in Adam. But how came it there? Not by being born of the flesh; not by being quickened; but by the creative act of God. Gen. 1:26, “ So God created man in His own image; in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them.” This vital relationship to the first Adam preceded and is the foundation of every ordinary birth into this natural world. But how shall we apply this? Shall we say that all the seed of Christ are one with Him by virtue of the creative act of God? Will not someone charge us with teaching that the blessed Redeemer is a “created being?” Paul said, Eph. 2:10, “For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus, unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.” And, Eph. 1:4, “According as He hath chosen us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love.” And now we are saved and called, “according to His own purpose and grace which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began.” – 2 Tim. 1:9. And in view of our becoming partakers of flesh and blood, God, that cannot lie, promised us, in Christ, eternal life, before the world began. Titus 1:2. All of which leads us to the conclusion that it is our creation in Christ that gives us vital oneness with Him, as His seed, and hence we are born again, born from above, born of an incorruptible seed- born of God. But, in order that you may more fully understand us, we will premise that the nature in which the Church stands, and has stood from the foundation of the world related to Christ, is not His Godhead; but His manhood, in which, according to Proverb 8: 22,23, “The Lord possessed Me in the beginning of His way, before His works of old. I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was.” He was constituted Mediatorial “Head over all things to the Church which is His body, the fullness of Him that filleth all in all.” “Who is the image of the invisible God; the first-born of every creature: for by Him were all things created that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones or dominions, or principalities or powers, all things were created by Him, and for Him, and He is before all things, and by Him all things consist; and He is the Head of the body, the Church, who is the beginning, the first-born from the dead, that in all things He might have the pre-eminence. For it pleased the Father, that in Him should all fullness dwell.” That is, as we believe, in the Man Christ Jesus. As to His Godhead, He was never brought forth, never set up, never made Head over all things, - never was the first-born of every creature, but is uncreated, underived, unbegotten Deity. “For there is one God, and one Mediator between God and man; the Man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.” –1 Tim. 2:5. Now a Mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one. Just as ancient as the date of Christ’s Mediatorial Headship is His manhood. But you are not to suppose that what the Scriptures denominate The Man Christ Jesus, or He who is the Mediator between God and man, existed in flesh, blood, and bones, before the world began, (as has been charged against us.) Nor yet that His incarnation constituted Him the Mediator. “And so it is written, the first man Adam was made a living soul. The last Adam was made a quickening spirit. Howbeit, that was not first which is spiritual, but natural, afterwards that which is spiritual. The first man is of the earth earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven.” –1 Cor. 15:45-47. The first man, Adam, was first only in development. And no man has ascended up to heaven but He that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven. – John 3:13. God dwells in this Man, and He is God. John 14:10,11- “Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me? The words that I speak unto you, I speak not of Myself, but the Father that dwelleth in Me, He doeth the works. Believe Me, that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me, or else believe Me for the very work’s sake.” In view of the foregoing, are we not justified in believing that the oneness of the first Adam with his seed was figurative of Christ and all His spiritual seed? But again, Adam is not only a figure as a unit, but after the development of His Bride, He recognizes her union with Him. Genesis 2:23,24 – “And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called woman, because she was taken out of man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife, and they shall be one flesh.” Compare this with Ephesians 5:23-32. “For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is Head of the Church, and He is the Savior of the body – for we are members of His body, of His flesh and of His bones. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined to his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the Church.” Here is an indissoluble bond, a vital relationship which is as old as the constitution of man. We regard our mother Eve as representing figuratively the same that the Apostle represents Sarah, the wife of Abraham, viz.: “Jerusalem which is above and is free, which is the mother of us all.” Thus God is, through Christ the Everlasting Father of His people, while Jerusalem, which is above, and is free, is their mother. But, according to the decree of predestination, these children were regarded as partaking of flesh and blood. Hence, the two-fold character of the Church. The one earthly, the other heavenly; in her earthly relation she was liable to, and did become corrupt, but she did not thereby sever the bond which united her to Christ. “Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, He also Himself likewise took part of the same.” – Hebrews 2:14. Here we are taught that the flesh and blood relation that the Savior assumed in His incarnation was not to make them children, but because they were children. If what we have said in reference to the spiritual vital nature of the oneness, be true, it follows of course, that it is eternal. We see already that it has led to the incarnation of the Son of God. He is now, in all things made like unto His brethren, and in an attitude to meet the claims of the law and justice. The Father looks justly to Him as the Head, Husband, Shepherd and Surety. The iniquities of them all are laid on Him, and heaven’s own voice sounds the battle-cry, “Awake, O Sword, against My Shepherd, against Man that is My fellow, saith the Lord of Hosts. Smite the Shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered, and I will turn My hand upon the little ones.” He cries, “It is finished!” and gave up the Ghost, Yes,

“He paid whate’er His people owed, And canceled all their debt.”

He finished transgression, made an end of sin, and brought in everlasting righteousness. Much more might be said upon this subject, dear brethren, but lest we weary you, we will close for the present, in the beautiful language of Psalm 40:5-8, “Many, O Lord My God, are Thy wonderful works which Thou hast done, and Thy thoughts which are to us-ward: they cannot be reckoned up in order unto Thee: if I would declare and speak them, they are more than can be numbered. Sacrifice and offering Thou didst not desire; Mine ears hast Thou opened: burnt offering and sin offering hast Thou not required. Then said I, Lo, I come: in the volume of the book it is written of Me, I delight to do Thy will, O My God: yea, Thy law is within My heart.” “By the which will,” said Paul, “we are sanctified, through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ, once for all.”

May grace, mercy and peace, from God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ, be with you all, Amen.

Done by order of the association,

Thos. P Dudley, Moderator. H. Rankings, Clerk.

IMAGE OF GOD 1871 (T.P. DUDLEY)

Lexington, Ky., March 24, 1871.

MY DEAR BROTHER BEEBE: - The sixth number of the current volume of the SIGNS OF THE TIMES came to hand a day or two since, in which I have read attentively a communication from Elder John A. Thompson, of Lebanon, Ohio, offering a criticism on some things contained in my letter published in the number for the first of February. I take no exception whatever to the spirit of that letter, however much we may be found to differ on the points criticized. I fully accord to brother Thompson, and to all other brethren, the right to criticize anything I may have written, or may write for the eye of my brethren, on the subject of the religion of Christ. I desire however that they shall show wherein I have misinterpreted or misapplied any portion of the divine record. The circular on the Christian Warfare has now been the subject of criticism, sometimes severe, since its publication, more than twenty years, and more than three thousand copies have been printed and circulated among the brethren. I should be gratified that those who attempt to criticize its teachings would specify what in it is antagonistical to the doctrine of the Bible. I am fully conscious of my own imperfections, and liability to err, and am anxious, if in error, to learn the better way. I am now too old, and it would require too much labor to re-write all that I have written on that, to me, deeply interesting and, as I conceive, important subject.

Brother Thompson has not now to learn that the first Adam was composed of soul, body and spirit, and that the soul is generally conceded to be the seat of intelligence, which distinguishes man from the rest of the creation, possessed of animal life, and that it is this intelligence which renders man the subject of law, and responsible to God.

“And God said, Let us make man in our own image, after our likeness.” Brother Thompson and I shall not differ in opinion that the likeness spoken of is the likeness of “God manifest in the flesh.” Nor yet shall we differ in regard to what is said of the creature man. “In the likeness of God made he him; male and female created he them, and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.” Gen.5:2,3. Nor yet shall we disagree in regard to the declaration, “And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul.” Christ, the anti-type of Adam, was possessed of soul and body. Hence it is said, “When thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin.” My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death.” Again, “Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree.” With regard to the earthly or old man, it is said, “For the redemption of their soul is precious, and it ceases forever.” Psalm 49:8. “For the word of God is quick and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.” Heb.4:12. With regard to the spirit of man, Paul said, “For what man knows the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him?” I Cor.2:11. Brother Thompson will not require more proof that the earthly Adam was composed of soul, body, and spirit. If, however, he desires more, please read the following: “Abstain from all appearance of evil, and the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit, and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. Faithful is he that calleth you, who also will do it.” I Thes.5:23,24. From the last quotation we learn, first, that Paul’s brethren to whom he wrote were partakers, or composed of body, soul and spirit; and secondly that neither their spirit, soul or body was born of God. Each was liable to contract blame, which the apostle John will not allow as possible. “Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.” I John 3:9.

Allow me to call brother Thompson’s attention to the text, “And Adam lived one hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his own image, and called his name Seth.” Gen.5:3. Brother Thompson will excuse me for my obtuseness in comprehending how “our corrupt lusts or sinful propensities” could beget the old man, or from whence the old man derived his being, if not from the earthly Adam. But the apostle abundantly sustains my declaration, to which brother Thompson objects, and which he concludes is indefensible, the Bible being the guide, namely: “I conclude the old man is an entire old man, composed of soul, body, and spirit, and bears the image of his natural father.” He adds, “Brother Dudley, will you be so kind as to tell us why you conclude thus?” It gives me pleasure to inform brother Thompson how my mind is irresistibly brought to the conclusion. First, I have already quoted that Adam begat a son in his own likeness, after his image, and I now offer additional and, as I think, irrefragable proof. “And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening Spirit. Howbeit, that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural, and afterward that which is spiritual. The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven. AS IS THE EARTHY, SUCH ARE THEY ALSO THAT ARE EARTHY. And as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.” I Cor.15:45-49. Could language be more emphatic to establish the character of the children of each, the first and last Adam? Brother Thompson has wholly misapprehended my meaning in regard to the buckeye. It was designed, in part, to illustrate the text, “Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abides alone; but if it die it brings forth much fruit.” Brother T. will not deny, I apprehend, that everything that will spring from or grow out of the corn of wheat had a life existence in the germ, or that every seed will, according to the word of God, produce its kind. If I comprehend brother Thompson, he denies that the old man is the son of the first Adam. He seems to make him a sort of nondescript, or automation, destitute of mind, will, or anything pertaining to a living intelligent being. And yet we see the old man living, moving, eating, drinking, trading, &c. If the old man is not a living, conscious, intelligent being; whence do we find so many warnings and cautions against him? Although the old man, who so much annoys, harasses and distresses the christian, or new man, is “dead to the law by the body of Christ,” yet will he not cease to war until he shall fall a prey to death temporal.

Brother Beebe, I have wondered that brethren seem so much excited when we speak of the “old man” and the “new man,” as the antagonistic parties to the christian warfare. I have been told, “If you will call them two principles, we will not object. But we will not have your two men.” I tell them, I only characterize them as the apostle did. He tells us, “The old man is corrupt with his deeds.” “The old man is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts.” He furthermore tells us, “The new man, after God, is created in righteousness and true holiness.” Again, “I delight in the law of God after the inward man.” And yet again, “But though our outward man perish, yet the inward man is renewed day by day.”

Let us, dear brethren, ask ourselves, Is it more mysterious that two men should dwell in our earthly tabernacle, than that two nations should be in Rebekah’s womb, and that two manner of people should be separated from her bowels, and that one people should be stronger than the other people, and the elder shall serve the younger? See Gen.25:23. Or that Solomon should see in the Shulamite as it were a company of TWO ARMIES? And remember that “As then, he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.” Gal.4:29.

We said in a document published more than twenty years since, “Where brethren agree that salvation is of the Lord, and wholly of grace, and that the warfare follows being born again, our fellowship for them has not been interrupted though they use a different mode of expressing themselves; and we think it rather uncharitable in them to withdraw fellowship from us because of our manner of illustrating the subject.”

Brother Beebe, we are told that history repeats itself. As part of the current history of the times, I propose introducing a piece of that history, which I do not suppose brother Thompson will fail to remember. Many years since, and after the Circular on the Warfare, in which is necessarily involved the doctrine of union of Christ and the church, had been printed, and extensively circulated, I received a letter from the late Elder McQuary, of Indiana, than whom I do not think I have ever known a truer friend, or more faithful minister of Christ, informing me that I had been greatly misrepresented, and the author of the mis-representations had found an endorser, who had weight of character, or influence among the Baptists, and that several Old Baptists who had heard me preach, and said if they had ever heard the truth preached, they heard it from me, but from what was reported of me they felt embarrassed. Now, said brother McQuary, brother Dudley, I very much desire that you shall attend the approaching session of Conn’s Creek Association, which is to meet, I think he said, with Conn’s Creek Church, in his immediate neighborhood, and that he would meet me at Edinburg, Ind., with conveyance. I responded that I would, unless providentially hindered, be at Edinburg on the certain day named, on the morning train. Brother McQuary met and conveyed me to his house, where I remained from Wednesday afternoon until Friday morning following, during which time not one word passed between us on the subject of his letter. On Friday morning we went to the association, and while standing in company with Elders Wilson Thompson, John F. Johnson, Nay, Jackson, who had not then been ordained, John A. Thompson, with several other ministers, whose names I do not now remember. Brother McQuary passed and touched me on the shoulder, saying, Brother Dudley, you have got to preach the introductory. I turned my head and replied, Go and preach your own introductory. Brother Wilson Thompson said in his familiar way, When old Mack gives an order, he intends to be obeyed. We went on the stand, and I determined within myself, if I can find language plain enough to make myself understood, a future misrepresentation should be willful. I took up my subject, embracing the points about which I had been so often and so grossly misrepresented, and after discussing the subject for perhaps from forty minutes to an hour, a brother in the congregation cried out aloud, If that man is a heretic, so am I. He was responded to by another in a different part of the congregation, So am I. Yes, said brother Wilson Thompson, brethren, if that is heresy, we are all heretics. As you may suppose, those exclamations produced considerable excitement in the congregation. The introductory being concluded, Elder John A. Thompson was requested to occupy the stand, who in his introductory remarks was understood to say, I heard brother Dudley once before, and then said, If I ever heard the gospel preached, brother Dudley preached it. Since then I took a pretty extensive tour in Kentucky, when I heard many things said against brother Dudley, but it was among his enemies. He then endorsed most fully and feelingly what I preached on that occasion.

When it is remembered that I had been reported far and near as guilty of the “worst kind of heresy,” and fellowship publicly withdrawn from me in various quarters, you will not wonder that being endorsed by so large and intelligent an assembly of brethren made an impression on my mind not easily to be erased.

Brother John A. Thompson may have misapprehended me, or he may have had different reasons since to change his opinion. In either case I attach no blame to him.

In the year 1852 I visited the Scioto and Muskingom Associations, and there found that the charge of heresy had preceded me. The brethren of each association, at each of which I preached several times, were very kind, and I had the satisfaction to know that, heretic as I had been charged with being, the body of each association cordially received what I preached, and invited me to visit them again.

In the year 1860 I had a long tour in Missouri, extending from St. Joseph down the Missouri River to St. Charles, preaching some twenty times, to large congregations, with every evidence I could ask that the doctrine was cordially received generally, although I had been published as a heretic in several places I visited. I also attended the White Water and Lebanon Associations, in Indiana, and Okaw, in Illinois, and at each I preached several times, and had assurances that the doctrine was received. Less than four years ago I attended Red River Association, in Tennessee, which had discontinued correspondence with us many years since, because of my reported heresy; but upon hearing me for themselves, assured me that the doctrine I preached was what they believed, and their belief that I had been slandered. In addition to all these cases, two associations in this state, which had discontinued correspondence for the same assured cause, came back with full acknowledgments, and were cordially received into correspondence again.

Taking into view the foregoing facts, combined with the additional one that I had been preaching the same doctrine for more than twenty years before I wrote the circular, without hearing the first exception taken to the doctrine, and you, brother Beebe, will perceive how fully you are sustained in the following remarks in the last number of the SIGNS: “And we firmly believe that much mischief and mystification have already resulted from the attempts of some overmuch wise and confident expositors attempting to interpret his meaning.” Nor are you more mistaken in saying, “And if we have not altogether failed to understand him, it is the consciousness of the depravity of his own fleshly nature that has led him to express his views upon this very subject of the conflicting elements which are found in all the children of God while here in the flesh.”

Brother Beebe, since I commenced writing, the PRIMITIVE BAPTIST came to my address, in which I find my letter copied from the SIGNS of the 1st of February last, with a number of comments by the editor. The spirit of those remarks is kind and brotherly as one could ask. Elder Temple asks me to tell him what the soul of man is. I was asked the same question more than twenty years ago, by those who denounced me as a heretic, because I could not conscientiously say I believed that the soul literally was regenerated and born again, and resurrected and become the new man. I then answered, as I now answer Elder Temple, I most frankly confess that I am so ignorant that I am utterly incapable of defining that mysterious indefinable something, called the soul; but if they, or he, will tell me what the soul is, as they certainly ought to do, since they insist that it is regenerated and born again, I will then tell them whether or not I think it is born again.

Elder Temple has given me a new idea, however. He tells me, “The dust of the ground fashioned into a man, and the breath of life, as it was afterwards breathed into his nostrils, is the new man.” If I comprehend him, I confess the idea is too obtuse for my comprehension, and he must excuse my ignorance. Especially as I have all the while contended that neither soul nor body of the redeemed can go to hell, but are destined to undergo a mysterious and glorious change, by which they will be assimilated into the likeness of the soul and body of the Lord Jesus, and reign in eternal bliss. Very soon after I entertained a hope in Christ, and was received into the fellowship of the church, I was thrown into the deepest distress on hearing a minister declare from the pulpit that in the new birth, “the soul, or the man, is changed from the love of sin to the love of holiness.” I asked myself the question, If there be nothing in you which loves sin, why are you so full of it? Why do you see daily in yourself so much of it? It is true that I hated it, but still vain, foolish and presumptuous thoughts would rise up within me. Again, I asked myself, Is the enmity of your heart slain? If so, whence all that rebellion and rising up against your domestic affliction, to such an extent that, had you the power, you would roll it back? I felt as though I was ready to surrender all hope, when Paul’s experience came to my relief; “When I would do good, evil is present with me.” And, “The flesh lusts against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh, and these are contrary the one to the other, so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.” I felt that my nature was no better, and that such was Paul’s case. But there was something in me that did not proceed from nature, which could be satisfied with nothing short of perfect holiness. The flesh, or fleshly man, [for really I could not conceive how my flesh, independently of a living, acting principle, would rebel against God] was yet sinful. I could not believe it was at all improved, or was any better than when I expected to be banished from the presence of God. I trust that I felt within me another intelligent somebody, who delighted in the law of God, and rejoiced to hear the brethren talk of the goodness of God and glory of Christ. My conclusion was, If the man is changed from the love of sin to the love of holiness, he would be as entirely devoted to holiness after, as he had been to sin before, especially as the change was wrought by God; and the Bible declares, “He is the Rock; his work is perfect.”

Brother Beebe, I have rested satisfied with the theory I then embraced, for over fifty years, and nothing I have yet heard has shaken that confidence. If I am in error in the premises, I pray God to deliver me from the error.

I sincerely hope I may not again feel called upon to publicly investigate this subject. If what I have already written has failed to satisfy brethren, I despair of doing so.

In conclusion, if it will afford any comfort to the brethren, I will close in the language of Paul, “But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets.”

Affectionately, your friend and brother, Thomas P. Dudley.

OLD SCHOOL BAPTISTS WHO REJECTED ETERNAL VITAL UNION

Short version: the people who really picked up a sword against Eternal Vital Union were mostly the “moderate” Old School/Primitive Baptists who thought the doctrine turned the elect into little uncreated gods and wrecked both creation and regeneration.

When Old School writers say “eternal vital unionism,” they usually mean this very strong version:

The elect existed as actual, uncreated spirit-children in Christ before the world, and therefore had a real, vital union with him from eternity, not just a covenant/federal union.

That’s what they were attacking.

Here are the main anti-EVU voices.

1. Elder William Conrad (Kentucky)

Probably the single clearest “anti–Eternal Vital Union” leader.

In his Life and Travels of William Conrad (1875), he calls the “eternal children / eternal vital union” view “the worst of all heresies” and argues:

If there are “actual beings in eternal existence” besides God, then you’ve destroyed the Scriptural vein that says God alone is the one eternal self-existent Being.

There must be actual creation and begetting; no person exists eternally except God, so there can’t be an actual eternal vital union between Christ and a people who don’t yet exist. (hardshellism.blogspot.com)

He explicitly locates the novelty in Thomas P. Dudley’s 1849 circular on the Christian warfare and spends pages refuting Dudley’s version of Eternal Vital Union and “eternal children.” (hardshellism.blogspot.com)

Conrad is the classic Kentucky anti-EVU witness.

2. Elder John M. Watson (Tennessee) – Old Baptist Test

Watson is a major architect of the anti-Two-Seed, anti-Eternal-Children side.

In The Old Baptist Test he takes up “Parkerite” Two-Seed doctrine and lists among its errors:

the idea that the souls of Christ’s people are uncreated and eternal and “were always in actual union with God.” (old-baptist-test.blogspot.com)

He sets out to show instead:

that evil arises from the imperfection of created things, not from an eternal evil principle,

that all humanity fell in Adam (not just an eternal elect “seed”), and

that union with Christ must be understood in biblical ways (covenant, representation, and time-bound regeneration), contra Parkerite/Eternal-Children notions. (old-baptist-test.blogspot.com)

So Watson is a key systematic opponent: he doesn’t just say “this is weird,” he rebuilds a doctrine of union, fall, and resurrection specifically against eternal vital union.

THE NEW BIRTH, UNION WITH CHRIST, ETC.

To be born again, then implies a spiritual change so great that the I, the ME, or ONE'S SELF, becomes “a new creature” “a new man,” the “workmanship” of God, and grows up into Christ as his Head, “Who of God is made unto” all such “wisdom, righteousness, sanctification and redemption” – The way, the Truth and the Life. Paul in heaven, with his crown of glory, robe of righteousness, palm of victory, and glorification of both soul and body, will be the same Paul, in the I or ME, whose soul was once dead in trespasses and sins, and whose body was one of sin and death. So, the creature is born of the Power of God, of the Quickening Power of the Spirit, of a Sanctification of the Spirit, of Christ as the Quickening Spirit – all signifying the transforming power of God, or the creative fiat of Deity. The spiritual fruit of this birth accords well with this exposition; for saints are said to be quickened – endowed with spiritual life by the Lord – to believe according to his power – also through a sanctification of the Spirit – and to be created in Christ Jesus unto good works. Peter says, replies the objector, that they are born of an incorruptible seed, which is true, but Christ and Peter must agree with each other, and He says that they “must be born of the Spirit,” and John affirms that they are born of God, and elsewhere, that their seed remains in them, and we ask what is it that dwells in the saints, that cannot be corrupted, but a state or principle wrought by the Holy Spirit. His work cannot be corrupted, for that which is born of the spirit is spirit – is spiritual; hence, we have, as the fruit of the spirit, an actual, living union with Christ, love to God, joy and peace in the Holy Ghost, faith, and a living union with Him. Besides, the Spirit takes the things of Christ and reveals them to believers, and they thus receive of His fullness, grace for grace – yea, Christ Himself is revealed in the soul, the hope of glory by the Holy Spirit. This is Peters incorruptible seed.

All the foregoing, it must be admitted, is very different from a natural birth; and, hence, implies a very different kind of union between Christ and His people, from that between Adam and his posterity. It is true, that saints call God Father, but in what sense? Paul says, through the Spirit of Adoption, and not according to an actual and everlasting sonship, as does Christ. Saints cannot, like Christ, as sons, claim equality with the Father, and an equal glory with Him, before the world began, as I have shown they might do, according to the Manichæan theory. They would, in that sense, have the glory of an actual, eternal existence in, and union with, God; which in strict conformity to the figure of a natural birth, might, through spiritual developments, attain to Godhead! just as Adam's children attain, through natural developments, manhood. What an absurdity!

I will now indicate, as clearly as I can, the kind of union which subsisted between God and His chosen people before time, and before their spiritual quickening, or before Christ gave them life, and, also, the kind which obtains between them after they are made alive in Christ. He is said to be before all things – by Him were all things created, that are in Heaven and that are in earth, visible and invisible. Thus Christ, in His uncreated Divinity and Godhead, was before all things; hence, all other beings, in heaven and in earth, are after creatures, subjected, as to their actual existence, to the future, when their entity was only in the purpose, and not in the essence of God; and the certainty of their existence in themselves, in their day and time, was of the power of God, and the order of their date was of His will and wisdom. Such after creatures, considered in themselves before their creation, were nonentities; but not so with God, for He had “gone out before” them, in a purpose to create them, according to His foreknowledge of them, in their day, time and state. Thus did God reduce the future to the present with Himself. With whom the purposes are the same as the actualities of time – no difference with him between time and eternity! In this sublime way He embraced His people in eternal bonds of love, grace and election, wherein they stood personally as distinct from all the rest of the human family, as though they had no connection with them. In the same way grace was given to them in Christ before the world began; and all other blessings given to them in Christ before they had an actual existence. We should be very particular, just here to distinguish between God and created things. On their part in themselves, they have a beginning previously to which they were nonentities, and as such, could have no union, actually, in themselves, with anything. So, their actual, natural existence in, and union with, Adam, had a beginning, and so had their actual, spiritual existence in, and union with, Christ, in themselves. This kind of union cannot obtain until they are quickened by the Lord into life, and thereby brought into a spiritual vital union with Himself. Then, and not until then, does the spiritual union between God and His elect, become mutual and actual on their part. I admit, there was an actual, eternal union on the part of God, with his chosen, but it was only in the eternal bonds of predestination, purpose, election, love, grace and mercy.

Throughout all the works of God, we may trace, in some degree, His power, His wisdom, His purpose, and His design, but not His essence. He did not confound that with natural or spiritual nonentities; they stand forth plainly contradistinguished from Himself, however closely He may be otherwise united to them. They are the works of His power and wisdom, and not a dissemination of the Divine Essence.

I will now briefly show what Paul meant by the text under consideration, especially, in what sense Adam was a figure of Christ, in strict conformity to the five succeeding verses, wherein the true import of the text may be seen, as far as the figure is concerned. Adam was regarded by the Apostle, according to a learned commentator, with whom I fully agree, as an antithetic figure of Christ, and is represented as an antitheton, or opposite to him; therefore, death came by Adam, and life by Christ; sin came by Adam and righteousness by Christ; judgement unto condemnation by Adam, the free gift of justification by Christ; death reigned by Adam, life by Christ; the disobedience of Adam made many sinners, the obedience of Christ made many righteous; sin reigned unto death through Adam, but grace reigned unto eternal life through Christ. Thus, the evils which were entailed on the human family by Adam, as their federal head, are contrasted with, and compared antithetically to the blessings which have been procured by Christ, for his elect as their federal head; in this, and no other way, was Adam a figure of him that was to come. So, he great delusion about Christ's elect having an eternal, actual existence in; and union with him, receives no seeming support from this text, as modern Parkerites vainly imagine.

Christ says, “All that the Father giveth me shall come to me” as their surety, covenantee and Spiritual Head, but not from me, as their Spiritual Head, as some would speak for him in these latter days!

While on the subject of figurative texts, I will refer to another which has been improperly interpreted by carrying the figure too far, which is as follows: “I am the vine, ye are the branches.” John xv, 5.

All figures in the Holy Scriptures, and other writings, are used to represent the prominent outlines of things for which they are substituted, and by straining them to the utmost, as is often done, to sustain some favorite theory, many hurtful errors and gross absurdities have been involved. For instance, Christ is compared by Moses to himself, but if we extend the figure beyond proper bounds, the comparison will fail and involve absurd contradictions. In some respects Abraham and his posterity were typical of Christ and His people, but surely not in all. Joseph was typical of Christ, but the figure has its bounds, which cannot be passed without destroying it. So in regard to Christ and His people, -when compared to a vine and its branches. This figure has been made, by modern Parkerites, to signify that as the branches had an actual existence in the vine before they were put forth, so the elect of Christ have an actual existence in him before they are born as saints! See how far this figure has been carried. This figure of the vine was only designed to show the close union of Christ and His people; for, by taking the same liberty with the text which Parkerites have done, any one may prove the final apostacy of true believers; for, says Christ, “every branch in me that beareth not fruit” he taketh away. But these surely represent false professors, although, observe, they are said to be in Christ, as the branches are in the vine.

While Parkerites extend some figures far beyond their Scriptural signification, they seem inclined to reduce others to an unmeaning nullity. The three following texts have been treated in that way by them:

“Having predestinated us unto the adoption by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of His will.” Eph. i, 4.

“For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the spirit of adoption, whereby we cry Abba, Father.” Rom. viii, 15.

“But when the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth His Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.” Gal. iv, 5, 6.

Those who would evade the force of the doctrine of adoption say, “It is the Church that adopts,” notwithstanding Paul has so plainly taught us that our adoption is of God, “by Jesus Christ, to Himself, according to the pleasure of His will.” No wonder we have perversions, heresies, debates and divisions among us, from such a deceitful handling of the “Word of God; a part carried far beyond its true import, and another portion suppressed just as may subserve their tenets or fancies.

Let the reader observe, that the elect of God were first predestinated to the adoption of children; secondly, that Christ was “made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons,” and, thirdly, Paul says, “We have received the spirit of adoption, whereby we cry Abba, Father.”

Who, but blind guides, could affirm, in view of such Scripture testimony, that the Church adopts the children of God – that their adoption is of no higher order than that of the Church, when Paul says God predestinated our adoption – Christ redeemed us from the law that we might receive it – and the Holy Spirit surnames Himself by it in communicating its blessings – calling Himself the “Spirit of Adoption.” The three persons in the trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, have taken a part in this great affair, and in these latter days men arise among our own selves and say, “it is only the Church that adopts!!” O Lord deliver us from such teachers!

The Greek word uiothesia, the Latin one adoptio, and the English derivative adoption, agree in one common signification – the taking of the child of another person – and treating it as one's own. Thus, God takes the sons and daughters of Adam, those whom He did predestinate unto the adoption of sons, and treats them as His own. He brings them through the spirit of adoption, according to the blessings of adoption, into a living actual union with Himself and Son. But the perverter of adoption, to evade its force here, is constrained to say that the Church adopts, or that God adopts His own children.

I will now bring forward some of the great outlines of adoption, which, though deficient in many respects, they will yet show some of its leading particulars.

A wealthy, pious man, with only one son, pre-determines, (Eph. i, 5,) at the expiration of five years to adopt three out of the twelve children of a neighboring family, in great distress, wretchedness and vileness. This only son agrees to remove (Gal. iv, 5,) all obstacles out of the way. Observe, that although these children are predestinated to the adoption of sons, and unto all the blessings of adoption, yet until the five years expire, they will not differ from the others, (Gal. iv, 1,) though they he heirs of all the hies sings of adoption, in the purpose, pre-determination and choice of this benevolent person. But, at the expiration of the live years, the appointed time – all obstacles being removed – they receive (Gal. iv, 5,) the adoption of sons, and through its blessings are translated from the hovel of poverty, vice and wretchedness, to a mansion of plenty, piety, peace and happiness; and to carry out the figure, this benevolent man takes off their “filthy garments,” and puts the costly clothing of his son on them – infuses the spirit and wisdom of his son into them – regards them as righteous as his son, on account of what he has done for them. Thus, they become one with him, and call him brother, and he calls them brethren, and they call the adopter Father; but, I ask, in what sense? Not in the sense which his only son does, but through the blessings of adoption Rom. viii, 15. So, God's children cry Abba, Father, not as Christ does through the spirit without measure, but through the measure of the spirit in adoption. Thus God sends forth the spirit of his son into their hearts, because they were predestinated to the adopted of sons, to make them his actual spiritual adoptives in themselves. Hence, the reason why they are called sons before the spirit of adoption is sent forth into their hearts.

S E C T I O N X I .

ARGUMENT CONTINUED.

I will now quote another text which is often interpreted erroneously by our Parkerite expositors: “Forasmuch, then, as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is the devil.” Heb. ii, 14. Just as though the apostle had said, 'forasmuch, then, as the children, whom the Lord foreknew, as beings who were not, as though they were, were in the fullness of time partakers of flesh and blood, he likewise took part of the same when he was made of a woman, made under the law, for this is the only way in which he could reach their state of death and sin, and become one with them as a brother, or near kinsman, and thus deliver them therefrom. Again, the meaning of the apostle is, forasmuch as those whom the Lord did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his son, were partakers of flesh and blood – children in a prospective sense – he likewise took part of the same. Or, further, forasmuch as the children, children first in the following sense, elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, unto actual adoptive sonship, through a sanctification of the spirit, and a conformation to the image of Christ, were partakers of flesh and blood, he likewise took part of the same, that he might, through his humanity, deliver them from death and sin, which they and all the rest of the human family were subject to, and secure to them the blessings just mentioned. Thus we see that they were not actual spiritual children, but children in the sense which I have plainly indicated.

It is highly necessary we should observe, that the Lord, in the assumption of our human nature, became actually united to us in that respect, and when we receive his spirit, the spirit of adoption, with all the blessings of adoption, we become actually united to him spiritually, and we had just as well say that we were in actual union with him in our human nature, before he took our humanity, as to say that we were in actual spiritual union with him before he sent his spirit into our hearts, to change them, and to bring them into a living actual union with himself.

How different is all this from the Manichæan error, that the children in the text emanated from God as his actual spiritual children infused into Adam at the time his body was created; and as they have in that way partook of flesh and blood, Christ also partook of the same. These emanations dwell in a part of the human bodies and a similar emanation from the devil, called his seed, dwell in the rest of the human bodies! And in proof of this two-seed system, they quote another text from Isa. ii, 10: “When thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed;” just as though the prophet had said he shall see his elect, his predestinated ones, those whom the Father gave him in covenant.

Manichæan teachers pretend to think that the parable of the tares and wheat will not admit of any other interpretation, than that which they give? hence, they attach great importance to their perversions of the parable, believing, as they do, that they cannot be refuted.

The first thing necessary to a correct understand of this text will be to attend carefully to the other parables, delivered at the same time by the Savior, illustrating the kingdom of heaven.

The parable of the sower, which shows, the activity of Satan in perverting the word of God and contains nothing in it, which favors the two-seed system.

The parable of a grain of mustard seed, by which the kingdom of heaven was illustrated, certainly does not refer to anything of the kind.

That of comparing the kingdom of God to leaven, does not signify anything like such a notion.

Nor does the likening of the kingdom of heaven to a treasure hid in a field afford the least support to such a tenet.

Who, I would ask, can see anything like it, in the parable of the merchantman and pearl?

The parable of the net is surely not amenable to any such interpretation.

Whence, all their errors may be traced to the one of the tares and wheat, although there are six other parables in the same chapter, yet they cannot find anything in any of them tending to confirm their views. And yet all these parables were instituted by the Savior to elucidate his Kingdom. Surely, so important a doctrine as that of God's having a spiritual seed, which emanated from his divine Essence, and the devil one likewise, which emanated from his own uncreated entity, would have been taught in some of these parables. On the contrary, no such a doctrine can be deduced from any of them – not even from their favorite one, the parable of the tares and the wheat. Let us now attend to Christ's explanation of it: “He answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed is the son of man: The field is the world: The good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one. The enemy that sowed them is the devil.” Mat. xiii, 37; 38; 39. If it be a settled truism, as it should unquestionably be, that the Lord makes Christians comparable to wheat in the parable – according to what has been termed a work of grace on their hearts – then we may, in the light of that truth, see Him that soweth the good seed, the field wherein they are sowed, and the good seed themselves. Again, if it be admitted – and truth demands its admission – that the devil makes hypocrites, seducers, deceivers, and heretics, then we may, according to that truism, learn what is meant by tares, the sowing of them, and the wicked one who sowed them. The church, therefore, will of necessity be infested with hypocrites and heretics; and their earthly connections are often such with true believers that they cannot be separated from them without injury; and the same may be said of their connections in the world their final separation cannot take place here, but will at the end of the world. Satan, through his power over the seed of the sower – the very seed which brought forth good fruit on good ground – prevents this seed from doing so when they fall by the way-side. If he has power to blind the eyes of some when the true Gospel is preached, how much greater must be his power over his own system – the devil's system – termed by the Apostle, “another gospel,” made up of “the doctrines of devils,” and “strange doctrines,” when preached by his ministers: then tares are sowed, in the fullest sense of the term, them come indeed hypocrites, seducers, figurative children of the devil, just such as are represented in the parable.

A wrong exposition of the following text has also often been given from our pulpits: “Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus, before the world began.” 2 Tim. i,9.

The heretical exposition of this text involves the absurd tenets that saints existed spiritually before the world began, and that grace was actually given to them before the world began. Note, if an actual seed of this kind were infused into Adam, in the actual possession of grace, given actually to them before the world began, (they say all this was actual) how, could they become afterwards “dead in trespasses and sins!” An actual spiritual seed, with actual grace, becomes actually dead afterwards “in trespasses and sins!” Monstrous – how can they believe it?

The text explains itself, and just let it be interpreted according to its own explanation, and we shall have its true meaning. For instance, let the gift of grace be “according to His purpose,” and not according to the reality of the gift to a real spiritual seed, and then the whole affair becomes plain in the letter, and consistent with christian experience. This grace was then given in covenant before the world began, unto those “whom He did foreknow,” according to his eternal purpose to create them in Adam, and to save them after their fall in Christ, according to those spiritual blessings which he gave them, prospectively in him.

After all, the perverters of this text say, that it says, in plain words, the Lord did give us grace in Christ before the world began, and that it must be so, without apparently any correct understanding of the prospective way in which it was done; and now, to show them that the explanation given is entirely compatible with the general tenor of Scripture, I will quote a strong text just in point: “The Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.” Rev. xiii, 8. The error would be no greater to say that Christ was actually slain from the foundation of the world, than to say that grace was actually given to us before the world began. And we know that the world had been in existence 4,000 years before Christ was actually slain! The Lord both speaks of, and acts in regard to things, “which be not as though they were.” I have not only proved this from the plain declarations of Scripture, (Rom. iv, 17,) but also given an example of it.

This text, “Perserved in Christ Jesus and called,” deserves a passing notice, as some say, that it means the saints had some kind of an existence in Christ before time! Surely, this Scripture does not mean anything more or less than that the elect of God are preserved through the special providence of Christ alive, until he calls them to be saints – to be made such by his grace; for I would as soon expect the world to come to an untimely end as for one of these to die before they are regenerated, or called to be saints. Well, indeed, may they be said to be “preserved in Christ Jesus and called.”

And He said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.” Mark xvi, 15; 16. The unscriptural sayings which have been predicated of this text, have done much heretical mischief among the Old Baptists. Some of our ultraists are occasionally heard to say, in our pulpits, that they have no authority to preach to sinners, and they seem to glory in their fancied exemption. Nothing appears to give them greater offense, or savors more of Arminianism with them, than for sinners to be exhorted to repent!

That the commission extends to such, is apparent from the fact that some believe, and some do not. Those who believe were unbelievers before, and the unbelieving of others can only be predicated of their hearing. What said the prophet? “ye dry bones, hear ye the word of the Lord.” I would just state here, at once, that 1 have no idea that sinners, dead in trespasses and sins, will ever believe through the mere preaching of the Gospel, or through the exhortations of the Lord's ministers, any more than that the dry bones would have lived through the prophesying of the prophet, apart from what the Lord did for them. But that fact does not nullify the commission to preach to them, but on the contrary greatly strengthens it. The divine assurance that God's word will prosper in the thing whereunto He hath sent it, affords great encouragement to preach to sinners. If it be said by the objector that they are deaf and cannot hear it, faith replies God can open their ears; if said they are dead, faith again says God will give them life; and thus faith can meet all the objections which can be urged against preaching to the very chief of sinners, and at the same time exclude that Arminianism which some affect to see in a course of this kind. Where is the Arminianism, I would ask, in doing what the Lord has expressly commanded us to do? unless, however, it be by doing these things without faith. It seems to me that two very opposite errors may be indicated here: 1. The Arminian takes the means out of the hands of God, in toto, or in part, and uses them according to His own strength, and they then degenerate into Arminian powers. 2. The Antinomian will not regard any thing in the light of means, and in his doctrine will not allow even the Lord to employ them, says that the Lord is not dependent on means, and can do all His work without them. Now, the truth is, had it been the will or the way of the Lord, He could have breathed upon the dry bones as well without the prophesying of the prophet as with it, and could have given repentance to John's converts, or to Paul's, without their preaching; but their preaching to such, even to those dead in trespasses and sins, had been included in the divine plan, and it needs must be done, let it be termed means, the will or way of the Lord, as you please.

I will now confirm all the foregoing, by a reference to an example, recorded in the 13th chapter of the Acts of the Apostles. Paul and Barnabas, preached several days at Antioch in Pisidia – preached the Gospel, according to the commission to every one – stating also how John had fulfilled his course, by preaching the repentance of baptism to all the people of Israel. Paul both preached and exhorted, and in conclusion, we are informed that “as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.” Observe, not as many as were addressed, but as many as the Lord made alive, as many as the Lord enabled to believe, or gave faith to, which blessings always take the course of God's ordination, and not the course of general or promiscuous preaching. While Paul, for instance, is preaching and exhorting all his hearers to believe the Gospel tidings, a secret, unobserved, hidden power is operating on the few in the way of divine ordination. Our preaching is unto all – we have only the letter of the Gospel committed to our charge, and that we should declare unto all; but “the excellency of the power” is with God, and takes the line of His election with divine certainty, and all the preaching that was ever done by Patriarchs, Prophets, Apostles, or called Ministers, will not extend “the excellency of the power” beyond it. God has never delegated that to any one else, and of course it will be put forth according to His will, predestination and election; but not so of the commission to preach the literal word; which includes in its scope “all the world and every creature” in it. Now, if it be asked, Why did the Lord give a commission to preach to every creature, when it was not His design to save every creature? I will answer it as soon as the following one is correctly answered: “Why was it necessary that the word of the Lord should be first preached to the unbelieving Jews, who despised and wondered at it, and put it away from them, before it was preached to the Gentiles?” Let us learn our duty as ministers, examine our commission, and see how fully it authorizes us, in faith, to exhort the sinner to repent, believing that the Lord can give him repentance; so as to believe, believing that the Lord can give faith. We have taught fully and plainly that Christ is exalted a Prince and a Savior to give repentance, and there is no lack of teaching in that respect, but, we have neglected the precept, “repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” We have taught, with great plainness, that faith is the gift of God, that it is a fruit of the Spirit, but we have not showed and held forth as we should have done, the works of faith, or the obedience of faith. We have preached the doctrine of the final perseverance of the saints, without showing, as we should have done, the holy way of perseverance, such for instance, as true believers pursue, which is far different from that of an Antinomian, or a carnal professor. In short, we have taught the word of doctrine to our hearers, without stopping to exhort them to be “doers of the word.” Such preaching has been a great injury to us as a denomination; it has quenched the spirit of exhortation among us, and the exhorter is afraid to call on sinners to repent, for fear of being called an Arminian. Parkerites and Antinomians call the things which have been so much neglected Arminianism, and they have thus, in a goodly degree, suppressed them. But, as there is some prospect of our getting clear of that heresy, we hope to see the spirit of exhortation revive among us again; to see our ministers take up the long neglected things just indicated; and to see our brethren going forth in all the obedience of faith. We had better thus incur the Parkerite's reproachful term, Arminian, than the Bible penalties for a neglect of them.

S E C T I O N X I I .

ARGUMENT CONTINUED.

A modern heresy, with which the Old Order of Baptists are now troubled, has been based upon the following texts of Scripture: “These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true Witness, the Beginning of the Creation of God.” Rev. iii, 14. “For ye are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.” Eph. ii, 10.

Those who pervert these texts say that Christ is the Beginning of the Creation of God, and was created in His divine nature, rather, as I conceive, in an Arian sense, that when He was set up, as the First Born, the Brought Forth, or the Beginning of the Creation of God, that His mystical seed was then created in Him; but that Christ, as God, be- fore this was uncreated, underived, etc. So the saint is not regarded by them as an emanation from God, in the full Manichæan sense, but in a Semi-Arian sense, as an emanation from Christ, as the Beginning of the Creation of God; or the development of a seed created in Him when He Himself was created in His Divine Nature! But after all, the words on which they so much rely, “the Beginning of the Creation of God,” will not admit of the Arian sense ascribed to them, for it is well known that the Greek word arche translated beginning, signifies with another noun, as arche ktiseos, Head

Producer, Author, First Cause, etc., which agrees indeed with Col. i, 15, 16, 17. John i, 1, 2, 3. Then Christ is the Head of Creation, the Creator of all things, and in that sense the Beginning of the Creation of God, through Whom creation began, not verily, as I, might suppose merely, but according to the plain testimony of John and Paul, as just referred to; which, forsooth, has ever been the Orthodox view of the subject. But Christ, as the Beginning of the Creation of God, with a mystic spiritual seed then also created in Him, is something new among the Old Order of Baptists, and the ism is hard to define, I acknowledge. So, indeed, is the new ism about “Quickened Spirits.” I have read of a Holy Spirit, of an Evil Spirit, of a Right Spirit, of a Quickening Spirit, of being

Quickened, but never in my Bible, or any where else did I ever read of “Quickened Spirit!” I cannot conceive of such a thing, only in words, for it is all the while with me like giving life to the living, and death to the dead. This, I suppose, is the imaginary seed, which was created in Christ when He became the Beginning of the Creation of God, and which afterwards becomes in the new birth a quickened spirit. What is the fruit of the new or spiritual birth? It is no where said to be the quickening of a spirit, I am sure. Paul says, writing to Ephesian Christians, “And you hath He quickened,” the “you” here surely does not relate to a dead spirit in Christ, but to the Ephesians, who were, as he said, dead in trespasses and sins, the seed in Christ could not have been thus dead, even supposing such a seed to have existed. Moreover, note the fact, that the Ephesians were not quickened by quickening spirits from Christ, but by Christ Himself as a Quickening Spirit.

The fruit of the spirit in the new birth is said to be spiritual. This spiritual change of the soul makes it meet for the indwelling of the Holy Ghost, and not a quickened spirit. The soul, therefore, gives evidence of a spiritual change, by the fruit of the Spirit, who wrought that change. Christ is made unto saints – not a created or derived seed – but wisdom, righteousness, sanctification and redemption; through which spiritual blessings they become new creatures in Christ Jesus, and are said to be, consequently, the workmanship of God, created in Christ unto good works. Then it is through a sanctification of the spirit, (Pe. i, 2. Thes. ii, 13,) and not a quickened spirit, that we are prepared for good works.

We were blessed, says Paul, Eph. i, 3, with all spiritual blessings, just such as were necessary to bring the soul in this life, and the body after death, into living and actual union with Christ, and to make both meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in heaven. All these spiritual blessings were given in counsel, in covenant, in purpose, in predestination, and in election, before the world began.

It is very astonishing that the old order of Baptists should write and preach so much about these things without referring to the purpose and election of God. Their system has become independent of the purpose and election of God, and merges all things into the Divine Essence, or into Christ as the beginning of the creation of God; hence so little of late has been preached or written about the prospective foreknowledge of God, His purpose, His election, etc, They say: Deny the eternal actual union of saints with God, and you take away the greatest consolation of the Christian. They cannot, I suppose, see anything sure in the foreknowledge of God, or certain in His predestination and election. The covenant, though well ordered in all things is not sure in their estimation. He who has an eye to see these things, as they are, can deduce much more comfort and assurance from them than others can from the belief of the error, that we were created in Christ Jesus when He Himself was created in His Divine Nature; or, from another, that we have been in eternal, actual union with God, as a part or portion of his incommunicable Essence!

The second text: “For ye are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them,” has been wrested from its vital connections, and pressed into the service of dead fancies. This text maintains throughout an intimate doctrinal connection with the context. For instance, the apostle first mentions that those who were dead in trespasses and sins were quickened – that they were saved by grace – that they were made to sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus – that they were not saved by works, lest any man should boast; then comes in the connecting conjunction, for, showing the dependance of the text on the context – “for we are his workmanship” etc.; yet, strange to tell, it is made to signify that the Ephesians, who were dead in trespasses and sins, were created in Christ when He was created, a created Savior!

Besides, this text has many synonyms, some of which I will now introduce: “Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy hath He saved us, by the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost,” Tit. iii, 5. This means precisely the same as though the apostle had said “not by works, lest any man should boast; for we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus,” etc. This is the circumcision of the heart without hands – a translation from nature's darkness into the marvelous light – a new creature in Christ Jesus – a new man who after God is created in righteousness and true holiness – being born again – born of the Spirit – a sanctification of the spirit unto a belief of the truth – all these along with the text under consideration, signify the same thing – what we term the work of grace on the soul.

I have tried to trace out the serpentine doctrine of Parkerism as it has surreptitiously connected itself with the foregoing texts – but, snake-like, it has its coils, flexures, gyrations, contortions, and likewise its strong holds, covert places and open showings. Sometimes we get a broken glimpse of it, and then a pretty full view. Its advocates are, however, always afraid of a full showing, they prefer showing, occasionally, some of its less offensive parts; and whenever, through inconsiderate zeal or imprudence, they bring the monster fully into view, they are inclined afterwards to disown it. An instance of this kind occurred at Barfield's, Ridge Meeting House, and with and Old Baptist Church in Missouri. Besides, a zealous scribe once gave such a correct description of this monster, that he fain would have called it in; but as it came from one in authority, it was published verbatim et literatim.

When the Waldenses were charged with this heresy, they regarded the charge as a reproach and the fruit of persecution. The English Baptists forestalled it in their confession of faith; and the Sequachee Valley, the Fountain Creek, Elk River, Stones River and Round Lick Associations, have declared a non-fellowship with it. It cannot exist with the Old Baptists; for it must either change them, or form a sect. The latter will be done, should it survive its separation from the old order of Baptists.

We have become too ultra in most things. How great the change. Watchman! what of the night? I hear one respond, All is not well! another, that strange winds are blowing – another, that the sickly dews of heresy are falling thickly around us, many are sickly and weak – another, that the sound of another gospel is heard in our midst, whereby many are being bewitched. From another quarter I hear it proclaimed that old Manichæanism, which was supposed to have died centuries ago, has been revived, through the heretical skill of one Daniel Parker, unto almost youthful vigor; and now, with more than a hundred tongues, propagates his poisonous heathenism, whereby were it possible, he would heathenize the old order of Baptists. But O thou perverter of truth, thou Polytheist, thou disturber of the Lord's people, thy day of rebuke has come, thy native darkness is being expelled, and although thou art clothed in fancy's gossamer, wrought with cunning craftiness from the word of God, yet thy deformities still appear. Flee, from the light of truth; for in it thou art seen a Pagan Monster. Go league thyself with Roman or Mormon darkness, where thou mayest dwell in quiet, until thou and all other kindred monsters shall be consumed with the coming brightness of truth!

Something new, exclaims a watchman in another direction: Manichæanism and Arianism have formed an alliance. The former concedes the notion that Christ was created in His Divinity, on consideration that the latter will admit the new tenet, that His people were created in Him when He Himself was created! Thus, a ManichæoArian banner of Pagan aspect, has been raised by innovators. Some strong men have enlisted under it, and are now fighting with intemperate zeal against the great and cherished truth of Christ's uncreated Divinity and Godhead, and against the great and hitherto acknowledged principles of the spiritual regeneration of Adamic personalities.

I hear something of heavenly origin! Listen: “Though we or an angel from heaven preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.” O, Israel, to your tents! Gird on the sword of the Spirit! Put on the whole armor of God. Set up the way marks, and, in holy boldness and meekness, defend them against all heretical defacers! Ye! whose lips have been touched with a live coal from the altar, you, unto whom the Lord has said, Go ye, study to show yourselves approved unto God; workmen that need not be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. Preach the word, according to your commission, to every creature within the scope of your ministry – declare the precept as well as the doctrine – show the difference between works, the obedience of faith, and works without faith. Let those good works, which God ordained for Christians to walk in, be seen plainly contradistinguished from the works of a soul dead in trespasses and sins – the great difference between works which are the fruit of the spirit and those the fruit of the flesh. Labor to show all these things in their proper places and connections. But, above all things, avoid those prevailing ultraisms which are now eating on the Old Baptist Church as doth a canker – dividing Churches and Associations, and disturbing the order and peace of the Baptists generally. Rebuke the altruist whenever you meet with him – reclaim or reject him – let him be regarded constantly as the worst enemy of the Baptists of the present day! And ye hearers of the word! receive the admonition; it came from heaven – be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only!

S E C T I O N X I I I .

RECAPITULATION.

Although the following truisms have already been set forth, on the subject of the origin of evil, to a greater or less extent, yet we wish to offer them once more to the consideration of the reader in a more concise and definite form; wherein they may be seen numerically as so many indubitable verities which cannot be refuted, nor even denied, without involving the dark sayings of Parkerism, which a sinful fancy has predicated of imaginary things, exterior to God, to eternity, creation and revelation. That the heathen, according to his mythology, in his vain imaginings, should have gone beyond The True God, in setting up an evil spirit, co-existent and antagonistic to a good spirit, is not so very surprising but that Christian worshipers, amidst the burning and shining lights of the Bible, should do so, is not only a matter of surprise, but verily a confirmation likewise of the truth, that “Men love darkness rather than light.”

The tenet of the co-eternitv of an evil spirit with God grossly violates the great truth, that God did entertain the divine plan of the universe from everlasting, and did arrange all things after the counsel of his own will subjectively, when there was nothing existing objectively, only as it was foreknown and foreseen in harmony with His will and purpose, wisdom and power.

The co-eternity of such a spirit with God would necessarily have affected the divine plan of creation, as it could not have been arranged independently of such a spirit. Besides, there would then have been two first causes! independent of each other in their existences, and opposed to each other in their nature; and the existence of such a spirit would have been independent of, and in opposition to, the will and power of God.

The scriptures affirm plainly and conclusively, that God is the Creator of all things, and that He is before all things; Col. i, 16, 17. But the Parkerite perversion of these texts is, that God is before all things except the devil!

Evil either had, or had not a beginning.

If evil had not a beginning, it must of necessity have existed from everlasting, as the quality of an evil spirit self-existent and eternal; which notion, we have just seen, is contrary to revealed truth, and highly derogatory to Divine Glory.

Evil had a beginning, and must have originated with created beings, after “the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the hosts of them.”

Creation necessarily involved a beginning and a state of creatureship, which admitted of the origination of evil, through the operation, however, of secondary causes, yet under the permissive providence of God, which, though to us an unresolvable problem, partakes no less of His wisdom, power and goodness than does His direct providence; for all evil has its foreknown origin, determinate course, fixed bounds, and certain results.

Nor do we, by any truth, as just stated, make God the author of sin; for as “sin is the transgression of the law” God cannot sin, as He is above all law and rule of government from without, but is a law unto Himself; and as all his acts take the course of infinite wisdom and perfection, his works must be far above finite knowledge and comprehension, and produce, as secondary causes, mysterious results, which finite beings cannot judge rightly of – only by faith. Gen. xviii, 25.

Finite creatureship necessarily involved a law, or rule of government, from without, as created beings could not, like God, be a law unto themselves.

Neither could finite creatures be created immutable, as immutability belongs onlyto God, and is incommunicable; the very fact that their states required a rule of government from without, teaches us that they did not contain in themselves everything necessary for their well being, guidance and sinless course; or an external government would not have been enjoined; nor would any penalty have been annexed, in case of a transgression, had there been no liabilities to disobedience. The very fact of a penalty being annexed, implies a liability to disobedience.

Had the condition of created beings been above all law, and had admitted of immutability, they could not have sinned, as “sin is the transgression of the law.”

All created beings were subjected to the government of God, and in their free agency, mutability, and liabilities to pride, deception, temptation and disobedience, they transgressed the government of God, and thereby sinned, and incurred the penalty or evil of sin; for be it remembered that “sin is the transgression of the law,” and until some law or rule of government was transgressed there was no sin, nor evil of sin, anywhere, there only existed a liability to such things, on the part of finite beings.

We believe that sin began with “the angels who sinned” somewhere in the created heavens, by disobedience to a law of some kind, through their free agency, mutability and liability to pride, apart from any tempting evil spirit from without; and as “sin is the transgression of the law;” they must have been under a law, which they transgressed.

We believe that the evil of the sin of the angels soon reached the paradise of this world in the state and character of Satan, and that Eve, through deception, yielded to his influence, and transgressed the law of God, and then involved Adam, apart from direct Satanic power, in the transgression; for Adam was not deceived, either by Satan or Eve. 1 Tim. ii, 14. Here we see the commission of sin on the part of Adam from an internal personal source, and not from an external one, as in the case of Eve. Adam was not deceived; but through the mutability of his will and his moral free agency he willed to go into transgression with Eve; he had more regard for her than the commandment of the Lord, and partook of the forbidden fruit, and thereby involved himself and all his posterity in the evil of sin, or the penalty of a violation of God's law.

We are aware that we have taken Adam's transgression too much out of the hands of the devil for the Parkerite, but as we have a surer word of prophecy than any they have adduced, we shall abide by Moses and Paul's testimony. Gen iii, 12; 1 Tim. ii 14.

Observe, had none of God's laws been transgressed, neither by “the angels who sinned” nor by Adam and Eve, sin could not have been committed; nor would we have known or felt the penalties of a violation of God's laws, which constitute the evil of sin. Thus we see that our views exempt us from the charge of making God the author of sin, as it was committed in opposition to his commandments; the observance of which would have excluded its penalties – the evils of sin.

Creation, as seen in the Recapitulation, did not admit of creatures being endowed with immutability, and, therefore, of necessity, involved a mutable state, which did not exclude liabilities to deception, to temptation, to pride, and transgression; or there would have been no necessity for subjecting them to a law or rule of government; and had there been no liabilities to a violation of such laws, no penalties would have been annexed.

I8. Notice, all creatures were created good very good of their kind, but not in a state to be a law unto themselves, which shows that there was something within them, which required the controlling guidance of a law, or rule of conduct from without, which might, through the free agency of the creature, as connected with a mutable will, be violated.

The exposition of sin, and its consequent evil, as given in the Bible, should be closely attended to – that “sin is the transgression of the law,” whether it be through pride, as in the case of “the angels who sinned,” or through the beguiling influence of Satan, as in the instance of Eve, or from regard for the creature as in the case of Adam – sin is all the while the transgression of the law and the penalties of such transgression constitute the evils of sin, here and elsewhere. Then sin may be said to issue from the defection of the creature, through his mutability, finitude and moral free agency, and not from an evil spirit co-eternal with God, and the evils of sin are the punishments inflicted by the Lord, which are graduated, controlled and directed by Him to prescribed issues.

In refutation of the absurd notion of the Parkerite, that one part of the human family has derived a seed from God, and the other from the devil, and that this difference obtains between men and men, in their natural state, we have only to refer to the plain texts, 1 John iii, 9; 1 Pe. i, 23. John says, “Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin, for his seed remaineth in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.” Born, says Peter, “of an incorruptible seed,” which is derived actually from

Christ at the time of the new birth, and is inwrought by the Holy Spirit – called in the Scriptures “a new man,” “a new creature,” etc. Observe, John says this seed cannot sin – cannot be corrupted by the sin of the flesh, by the temptations of the devil, nor by the evil course of the world. How different, then, is this seed from anything “the angels who sinned” had, or from anything with which Adam was endowed at the time of his creation; for with all his high moral endowments he took the downward course of disobedience, transgression, sin, corruption and death, and thereby involved all his posterity in the same general ruin. But the incorruptible seed takes through Christ the upward glorious course of holiness, incorruption, and eternal life. Here are the two seeds of the Bible, very different indeed from those of Parker.

We have presented a score of aphoristical truths to the consideration of our brethren, and we would, with kind feelings, say to our Parkerite respondents, either refute them or cease caviling at them; and to orthodox Baptists, that a denial of the proposition that evil originated with created beings, involves the Pagan tenet of Parkerism, the c0eternity of two opposite beings, and the existence of two conflicting first causes! for if our proposition be true, then evil must as an unavoidable consequence, have proceeded from an eternal evil spirit, co-existent with God!

3. Ketocton Association & the “Old Virginia” line

The old Ketocton Association in Virginia and its friends are the “association-level” leaders on the anti-EVU side.

In their 1890 circular on regeneration, Ketocton complains that “metaphysics” had been introduced among Old School Baptists and that this led to denial of a created soul and denial of regeneration of the soul. They explicitly reject the theory of “eternal spiritual existence in Christ as our seminal head” that leaves no real change in the man. (baptistgadfly.blogspot.com)

That circular says that about half a century earlier (c. 1840) such theories arose, including the idea of “eternal spiritual existence in Christ… implantation into the Adam sinner, making no change in soul, body, nor spirit,” and links that to non-resurrectionism and other heresies. (baptistgadfly.blogspot.com)

Ketocton’s stance effectively brands Eternal Vital Union (in the “actual eternal children” sense) as a novelty and keeps it out of their fellowship.

Elder John Clark (Virginia) – Exposure of Heresies & Zion’s Advocate

( we have not been able to obtain a digital copy of this book the only information is quotes from Elder Trott from his articles)

Clark is both a doctrinal writer and a factional leader.

In Exposure of Heresies (1873), and in his paper Zion’s Advocate, he sides with Ketocton and Ebenezer against the extreme North-Eastern positions that included “no change in the soul” and eternal-children-style ideas. (divinityarchive.com)

A later historical sketch by Sylvester Hassell notes that Ketockton and Ebenezer had suspended correspondence with certain North-Eastern bodies because they allowed:

talk of “no change in the soul in regeneration,”

eternal-life-died, creature-Christ, and related errors,

and what Hassell later labels “eternal-vital-unionism.” (divinityarchive.com)

Clark is thus one of the Virginia-line men whose polemics stand behind the association actions against EVU-type teaching.

SEPARATION OF KETOCKTON AND OLD VIRGINIA ASSOCIATIONS

Elder John Clark, of Front Royal, Va., in his "Exposure of Heresies " published in 1873, says n Chapter Fourth, pages 24-32) that at the session of the Ketockton association, held with Water Lick Church in 1850, Elder R. C. Leachman, of the Corresponding Meeting of Virginia, declared from the stand that Christ would not come again to this earth ; that He came once, and then had something to do, but having finished that work, He would not come again. The Ketockton Association, held with Zion Church in 1852, condemned as heretical this denial of the second coming of Christ to the world, and also the affirmations that "the life-giving Spirit of God is a created existence"; that "the Son of God, as the Head of the Church, is a creature " ; and that "when Christ died and lay in the grave three days and three nights, there was not a living saint in heaven or upon earth." Elder Clark says that, at this session in 1852, three preachers, Elders Trott, Leachman, and Klipstine (of the Corresponding Meeting of Virginia) and four churches withdrew from the Ketockton Association on account of the above declaration, assert- ing that they were cut off thereby, and that they called a meeting at Ebenezer Meeting House, and affirmed that they did not hold the doctrines condemned by the Ketockton Association, and yet passed resolutions of non-fe of their withdrawal and declaration of non-fellowship for the Ketockton Association.

The Ebenezer Association, at its session in 1853, discontinued correspondence with the Corresponding Meeting of Virginia, the Baltimore, Warwick, Delaware, and Delaware River Associations, not for believing, but for tolerating and fellowshipping those who declared, that "the Eternal life died on Calvary, —was a created or produced existence, —that the Son of God is a creature, —that there is no change wrought in the soul in regeneration, —that the life-giving Spirit of God is a created existence, and many other kindred heresies recently preached and published by professed Old School Baptists." The members of the Corresponding Meeting of Virginia, and of the Warwick, Baltimore, Delaware, and Delaware River Associations said, and still say, that the Ketockton and Ebenezer Associations misunderstood and misrepresented their sentiments on the above subjects; that a very few of their ministers may, at times, have said or written some such things, but that such sentiments were not and are not endorsed or accepted by those Associations or their churches. From my own acquaintance, for thirty years, with the ministers of the North-Eastern Associations and with their writings, I can say that the most of the sentiments above mentioned and condemned were advocated (apparently, obscurely, and confusedly) by only one, two, or three of those ministers, all of whom have long since died, and that the most of those sentiments are not held now by any living person in the Old School Baptist ranks; and that only one of those sentiments, and that in a modified form, is now held by our North-Eastern ministers, and this is that, not in the nature, but only in the condition, of the soul is there a change wrought in regeneration. They admit that there is a wonderful change in the human being who is born again, and that the Holy Spirit is the sole author of this change, and that the change consists in the impartation of a new and heavenly and holy life or nature or principle to the quickened sinner, which principle will continually war with the old evil fleshly principle, until the latter is subdued and forever done away with at death and in the resurrection. Our brethren of the Ketockton and Ebenezer Associations prefer to say that the soul is quickened and made holy in regeneration, as the body will be in the resur- rection, at the same time admitting that the flesh or sin remains in the body until death. It seems more scriptural and correct to me to say, that regeneration takes place in the soul or spirit, and that sin also remains in the soul or spirit till death. But in all these three different methods of expression, the substantial, fundamental meaning seems to me to be precisely the same, so that either one of these expressions is perfectly allowable to those who may prefer it, without any weakening of the bonds of love and fellowship. In August, 1895, the Ketockton and Ebenezer Associations unanimously adopted the following resolution : "Whereas, The Lord Jesus Christ prays that His people should be one, as He and the Father are one, and, Whereas, Discordant and extreme elements (those advocating eternal-vital-unionism and those advocating meansism) have been separated from our North-Bastern brethren and ourselves; and, Whereas, We have reason to believe that the great body of those brethren are agreed with us in regard to salvation by grace alone, and the divinity and second coming of Christ, and the change in the soul in regeneration, and the resurrection of the body, and the eternal judgment of God, consigning the wicked to everlasting punishment, and welcoming the righteous to everlasting happiness, and all other cardinal points of the Old School or Primitive Baptist faith; therefore, “Resolved, That we take pleasure in declaring our hearty gospel fellowship for our North- Eastern brethren and all other Old School or Primitive Baptists who agree with us in regard to these fundamental points of doctrine, and we hereby cordially invite these brethren to visit us and to be- hold our faith and order in the gospel, and their ministers to attend our meetings and preach for us." By "eternal vital-unionism " above is meant, the doctrine of the eternal—vital—union of Christ and His people, in the sense that they are as eternal and uncreated as He, and had an actual existence as eternal children, eternal spirits, before the beginning of the world; this doctrine was apparently maintained thirty years ago, both by tongue and pen, by some brethren in the fellowship of the North Eastern Associations, but not one person in their fellowship now maintains such a doctrine; they all say that Christ as God is the only eternal, uncreated Being, and that He gave His eternal life to all His elect, and is Himself their Head and Life. In August, 1896, the Ebenezer Association unanimously adopted the following resolution: "Whereas, We, the Ebenezer Association, have been estranged from our brethren of the Eastern Associations, and it seems to us desirable, and for the good of Zion andthe glory of God, that this estrangement should cease, wefeel willing to do our part towards a restoration of our former brotherly relations; therefore, “Resolved, That whatever causes of difference may haveonce existed, we believe that we are now one with ourbrethren of the Eastern Associations, and with the breth-ren generally in their correspondence; we, therefore, desireand ask for a renewal of our former relations with them.' ''Resolved, That we send each of these Associations a copy of these resolutions and ask them to receive and consider them in the same spirit of brotherly love that actuates us, as we hope, in sending them.

“Resolved, That we solicit a reply from these Associations, and ask as many as can to come to meet and mingle with us, either in visiting our churches or Associations to see whether or not we are really one in faith and practice."And in August, 1897, the Ketockton Association unanimously adopted this resolution: "Whereas, The union and fellowship of God's children are greatly to be desired, not only for our comfort andenlargement in the gospel, but also that we may properly witness to the world our faith in Jesus : Therefore we affectionately invite all ministers of the Primitive Baptistfaith, including those of the North-Eastern Associations, to visit and to preach among us, with a view, if we are found to be agreed, to brotherly relations between us." I have before me the replies of the Virginia Corresponding Meeting, and the Baltimore, Delaware, Delaware River,and Warwick Associations to the above resolution of theEbenezer Association. The four last Associations (theBaltimore, Delaware, Delaware River, and Warwick) consider that the expression of a desire on the part of the Ebenezer Association for a renewal of brotherly relations is a virtual withdrawal of all former acts of non-fellowship, and they cordially respond to the invitation of the Ebenezer Association to meet with them, as opportunity in Providence may occur, for kindly and candid exchange of views, trusting that it may be found that they are really one in heart and mind, in experience, and in the faith of the gospel. The Delaware River and Warwick Associations say that they are not aware that they have in any wise departed from the faith of their fathers, as held and de- clared by them when they withdrew from those who were carried away by the false doctrine and practice of Andrew Fuller, and that upon those principles they understand that the Bbenezer Association formerly stood, and they are glad to hope and believe that they still stand; and they very properly add : " If individuals among them have said things contrary to those principles of doctrine, we would not therefore accuse them as a body of unsoundness, and we think that we have a right to ask of them the same kindly judgment." The Virginia Corresponding Meeting reply to the resolution of the Ebenezer Association as follows: "We have at no time declared non-fellowship for them, nor have we made any point of doctrine held by them, and not by us, a test of fellowship; but as they have so declared against us for doctrine we hold, and for some we do not and never did hold, it is but reasonable that they should rescind all resolutions of non-fellowship on their books against us, and cease charging us with heresies, and making a test of fellowship of certain points of doctrine against us which our correspondents do not do, and strife will be at an end, and peace and fellowship will follow.

In answer to this declaration of the Virginia Corresponding Meeting it may be said, in regard to the latter suggestions, that it does indeed seem reasonable that charges of heresy and tests of fellowship unknown among other Primitive Baptists, should be abandoned between Associations and churches seeking brotherly relations with each other; but, in regard to the former suggestion, that all resolutions of non-fellowship on their books should be rescinded, it may be said that, as I have shown in this article, the first personal resolutions of non-fellowship, on these matters of difference, were passed by four churches of the Virginia Corresponding Meeting, which ought, therefore, to be re- scinded first, if other similar resolutions must be rescinded;and, though the Ketockton and Ebenezer Associations dis- continued or suspended correspondence with the NorthBastern Associations, they did not declare non-fellowship for them, but qnly for certain doctrines which they allowed to be preached among them, and, if they should rescind these resolutions, they would seem to declare fellowship for what they still consider erroneous teachings or statements; and, finally (and this, it seems, ought to settle the matter), the Baltimore, Delaware, Delaware River, and Warwick i\ssociations regard the recent resolution of the Ebenezer Association as a virtual withdrawal of the application of the former non-fellowship resolutions to themselves, and they cordially reciprocate the desire of the Ebenezer Association for mutual visitation with a view to the restoration of brotherly relations. The resolutions passed in 1895 and 1897 by the Ketockton Association requested similar friendly visits from the brethren and ministers of the North -Eastern Associations. I am sure that I express the sentiments of the Kehukee Association and of Primitive Baptists in general throughout the United States, when I say, that we earnestly hope that these long-separated brethren will visit each other in humility and love, and find that they are agreed in the fundamental points of doctrine, and will hereafter dwell together in peace and fellowship. Thus will the body of Christ be edified, and God will be glorified.

Sylvester Hassell, The Relations Between Those Called the Beebe and the Clark Old School Baptists.

C A L M R E P L Y

TO A

COMMUNICATION OF ELD. JOHN CLARK

WRITTEN ORIGINALLY FOR THE "Signs"

BUT PUBLISHED IN THE "PRIMITIVE BAPTIST,"

APRIL 30, 1853,

WITH THAT COMMUNICATION INSERTED.

BY. S. TROTT

PREFACE

The communication herein replied to, was written with more moderation than anything I had seen from Elder C's pen for a long time, besides containing strong professions of sincerity and honesty. Hence when a copy of the Primitive containing it was furnished me, some months since, by the kindness of a brother, I thought should its statements remain not contradicted, some well meaning brethren on reading it, might, from the sincerity professed, conclude that I was the base heretic I am there represented to be. After much hesitancy, arising from an unwillingness to engage further in a publication of this kind, I therefore concluded to write this reply. But it was not simply with view of answering Elder C. that I came to this conclusion. Any person accustomed to discussion, knows how difficult it is for a person engaged in an exciting and excited discussion, so to be on his guard as not to use expressions, and even form sentences, that might be construed to convey ideas different from what he intended, or his general declarations would warrant. An uncandid opponent will be sure to catch at such slips, and make the most he can of them to our disadvantage. But even in a more calm discussion, in following the course of argument pursued, we do not always attend to giving all that explanation to our views, which would be requisite for their being clearly understood. It is no wonder then, that in a discussion so diversified, and of a subject so vast, as was that which we had through the Signs, some years back, I should at times have darkened counsel by words without knowledge. If Job with all his patience, was led by the false charges and misrepresentations of his three former friends, to utter expressions, which subjected him to the reproofs both of Elihu, and of his God; is it any wonder, when subjected to similar uncandor and uncharitableness, when every opportunity was seized to misrepresent my views, and to brand me with heresy, that, irritable and impatient as I am, I should in such cases, utter things which I ought not, and leave the important point of advocating and illustrating truth for the more selfish object of rebutting the attacks of those I had to deal with? Elder Clark has boasted somewhat of having passed through wars before. I have known something of contests before, and of being particularly blamed for them, but I have met with more uncandor and more malignancy in this, than in all I have before been engaged in. I then, probably, have, from all these circumstances, left some of my sentiments, and important ones, somewhat obscured and liable to be misunderstood.

Hence the important object had in view, in making this reply, has been to give as clear an illustration of what I do believe, on those important points, concerning which I have been charged with heresy, as I could, as well as to sustain them by Scripture testimony.

Elder C.'s communication, together with other of his letters in connexion, has given me the opportunity to notice most of the points which have been in dispute: though in replying to his communication according to its order, I have had to notice those points in rather a disjointed manner, and to intermingle other remarks with them, more than I could wish.

The publishing of this reply, as has been the writing of it, may be somewhat delayed by circumstances. And the publishing of it will be rather an expensive concern, as from the unpopularity attached to my name, among the Baptists, as well as from not having much opportunity to make sale of the work, I shall probably not be able to dispose of it to any great extent. But still with these discouragements, I feel it duty to have it published, that I may leave it with the churches and brethren who have stood with me, and extended fellowship to my preaching; that they may be able to refer to it as a vindication of themselves, from the charge of having sustained one who had preached among them unscriptural sentiments. If this falls into the hands of any of those who have been led to believe me as a mischievous person, and a propagator of heresies, I would ask, as the only favor at their hands, that they would candidly examine my views and test them by the Scriptures. If they, according to that standard, find them erroneous, let them reject them; and in doing so, they will be able to show from the Scriptures a good reason for doing so. But if they do not find the Scriptures condemning them, or declaring that which is at variance with them, I pray God that for their own peace, they may not any longer denounce or reject them. And may my brethren be careful to know for themselves that they are holding the truth.

S.TROTT

Fairfax, C.H., VA., Feb. 25th, 1854

A CALM REPLY TO A COMMUNICATION OF ELD. JOHN CLARK.

Before coming to Elder Clark's communication, there are two or three passages, in his letter to the Editor of the Primitive, introductory to his communication, which I wish to notice. On page 113, of the Primitive for April 30th, 1853, he says:

"It is an eventful period, Old Arius has arisen from the dead, and we are fighting the battle of the 3d and 4th centuries again."

From the many gross misrepresentations amounting to a direct falsifying of my views, which have been apparent before and which I shall have to notice in this reply, I have been led to reflect on the subject, and not being willing to believe that a man, who has sustained the standing he has among the Baptists, could, in his senses, deliberately perpetrate such falsities, I have in charity concluded, that in some way, some one of his bumps has been injured, producing some disorders of his brain. In accordance with this idea, his hallucination has apparently, led him to think that he is an Athanasius of this age. Of course, in order to attain to the celebrity of his prototype, he must either find, or manufacture an Arius, to contend with this he thinks he has done out of me. He, in a communication published in the Primitive, some months previous to the one I am now replying to, quoted some arguments I had used, relative to the Sonship of Christ, to show that his Sonship could not consist in his existence as God, seeing that as a Son, his existence must be derivative, and posterior to that of his Father who begat him. These arguments he placed parallel with certain of Arius expressions, thus representing that I had applied those arguments as Arius was supposed to do his expressions – that is, to the original and essential being and person of the Son. Yet, Elder C. knew that I applied those arguments only to the Sonship of the Son, insisting at the same time, that in his essential existence, he was as truly and equally the unbegotten and self-existing God as was the Father; because he and the Father are one: while Arius is supposed to have held that the Son no otherwise existed, than as he was begotten of the Father. As, Elder C., you now have your Arius full in view, in your fancy, if you could only with the same dexterity make another Constantine, who, by his imperial edicts and sword, would enforce your decrees against me, what glorious fightings you would have. But I must object to engaging with you in anything like the Arian controversy,independently of any doctrinal views. If you claim to belong to a Church that is descendant from the Church in which that controversy was waged, viz: the national establishment of Constantine, we do not belong to the same Church; for I claim for the Church with which I am connected, a descent through the Waldenses, from the Churches of the Novatians, which separated from what was called the Catholic Church years before the Athanasian scar.

If it was otherwise – if I could acknowledge a descent from

the Catholic Church, as established by Constantine, then I would admit the authority of the decrees of councils and edicts of Emperors, in establishing doctrine and order: as it is, I am not disposed to acknowledge such authority even of the Baptist Churches in doctrine, for they evidently have bowed too much to the decrees of councils, and the opinions of schoolmen. Nothing but the Scriptures will answer me, for authority in religion. I though those who claimed to be O.S.Baptists were with me in this, when we took our stand: but in this I have been greatly disappointed, with regard to many.

Again, on page 114, Elder C., though he names no one in this letter, yet he evidently refers to those named in the accompanying communication, says:

"I have preached and written against their doctrine concerning the Son of God, and charged that it is Arianism – and I here repeat it."

In the foregoing paragraph, he speaks of being in readiness to prove upon us the sentiments with which he charges us: yes, just as he proved me an Arian, in the specimen I gave of his manner of proving it, on a preceding page. In that way of proving things, I could prove from the Scriptures that there is no God; for it stands in Psalms, 14:1 and 53: 1, if you throw away the connexion, "There is no God."

But we will come to the charge which Elder Clark boasts of having made against us. I entreat Elder C., and any others who unite with him in these charges, to follow me in the inquiry as to the truth of this charge, with candor. As to what Arius actually believed, I know not; but in speaking of Arianism, I speak of it as described by those who wrote of it. Elder C., and others with him, generally, will, I presume, admit that Athanasians, and Tripersonalists, generally, hold that the Son no otherwise exists as God, than as he is the Son of God, or than as he was begotten of the Father; that in his Godhead, therefore, as well as a person in the Godhead he was begotten of the Father; whilst they hold that he is of the same substance coequal and coeternal with the Father.

They will, also, I think, admit that Arius occupied exactly the same starting ground with the other party, viz: that the Son no otherwise existed than as he was the Son of God, or begotten of the Father. But here they split in their conclusions from this common position. Arius drew the conclusion, that as the Son only existed in his Sonship, he, from the nature of that relation to the Father, and from the fact that his existence was a begotten existence, must necessarily be posterior in his individual existence to the Father who begat him, and hence was not coequal and coeternal with the Father. I must confess, if I had not the Scriptures for my guide, but had to take the same leading position which Athanasius and Arius both occupied in the forming an opinion of the being of the Son of God, that I must take Arius' side of the question, as being far more consistent than the other. But I, and those with me, do not occupy the same original position with them, at all: hence, I have offered to prove, if any of those accusers would meet me in arguments on the point, that they are far more assimilated to Arianism than we are: but they have never consented to meet me on that point. The position which we occupy, and the ground on which we stand, is, that what God has revealed of himself in the Scriptures, we are safe in receiving as truth; what He has not revealed, it is presumption in mortals, and would be in angels, to attempt to inquire into; that God has revealed himself as three, as the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and that these three are one; that they are so three, that there are points of distinction by which they are severally declared in the Scripture; and so one, that to us there is but one God.

Hence, when either of the three is spoken of as God, we

understand it to be that one God in all his fullness of attributes and glory. Hence our conclusion is, that if God exists absolutely independent of any one, or of any act by which he is brought into existence, then each of the three must alike so exist as God: and as we find it not declared in the Scriptures that God exists as three distinct persons, or that one of these persons was begotten of the other, and that the third is breathed into existence, we reject the whole, as fabulous. Again: we find the Son of God declared in the Scriptures, and all those characteristics, or attributes of Sonship, so ascribed to him, that we feel bound to believe that he is actually the Son of God, the only begotten of the Father. We further find this Son of God so identified with the Word, that we believe that the Son is the Word, in all his fullness of the Godhead. Hence, as we believe the Godhead cannot be changed from its absolutely independent self- existence, so as truly to sustain the relation and characteristics of Sonship, we believe the Word has that in himself, and has had from the beginning, which enables him fully to sustain this relation of Sonship, and of being begotten of the Father, without diminishing, or changing the attributes of his essential Godhead, or ceasing to be the one God. In reference to what his characteristics of Sonship consist in, I shall have to speak more fully in another place. But I have more summed up, in as definite and clear words I can, my belief of God, as existing in Trinity, for I do believe in a Trinity, but not in tri-personality; and in the Son of God, as being in his person, truly, both God and the Son of God.

Now, Elder Clark, compare the sentiments I have here avowed as mine, with the Arian sentiments on this point, and see if you can find any similarity between them, taking each in its connexion. And if you will look back into the past volumes of the Signs, you will find that in substance, these have been my declared views concerning God, and concerning the Son of God, from the first of my writing on the subject. And I cannot help thinking you will have to acknowledge, if you have the candor to do it, that you have slandered, and willfully slandered me, and those with me, in preaching that we are Arians.

I now come to Elder Clark's communication. It is headed "For the Signs of the Times.

"To the Churches of the Saints, and to the faithful brethren in Christ:

"As my name will cease to appear among the List of Agents for the Signs of the Times, from the date of the publication of the communication in that paper, it becomes me, and I feel it to be my duty, to present to you my reason for such decision.

"The first No. of the 1st Vol. of the Signs was issued on the 28th of Nov. 1832; just two months after the meeting at Black Rock, and the proceedings of that meeting, including the Address and Declaration of Principles, (which latter is preceded by a selected article upon justification, in which the date of justification is maintained to be eternal, which, of course, includes that view of the subject upon the 'Scriptural sentiments,' set forth in the declaration of principles,) dated 28th Sept., are published in that No."

It would seem, from Elder C.'s first sentence, that the design of this communication was to assign to the readers of the Signs his reasons for no longer allowing his name to stand as Agent for that paper, and to assign to Bro. Beebe the pleasant task of publishing his denunciation of his paper. But why so large a portion of his communication was written, with so direct a reference to me, and to my former writings in an article of this kind, he must hereafter reveal, or we must be left to guess.

In the latter paragraph of the above extract, he has included in a parenthesis, a most barefaced piece of sophistry, by which he would impress on his readers the conclusion, as legitimate, that because Bro. Beebe, as Editor of the Signs, published in the same No. of his paper in which he published the O. S. Address, and his declaration of principles, a borrowed article on the subject of eternal justification, the views in that article must therefore be considered, to use his expressions, Included upon the Scriptural sentiments set forth in the declaration of principles; and that this sentiment was, therefore, one of the points for which the O. S. Baptists contended in their first separation. Yet, he knows that not a work upon that point is to be found in the O. S. Address, nor uttered by Bro. Beebe in the declaration of principles, which he appended to the Signs. Besides, he knows that so far as I am concerned in this piece of sophistry, that I shortly followed the publication of that article on justification, taken from the World, with a communication over the signature of A. Waldensis, containing objections to the sentiments of that article, and inviting T. J. K., the author of it, to a discussion of the subject. See Signs, Vol. 1st, No. 5.

Elder C. goes on, in his communication thus:

"I became a subscriber for the paper in the beginning, and have continued so to this time; and have now in possession, I think, a copy of every Vol. that has been published. I did not sign the Black Rock Address, about which so much as said in the New School Journals, simply because I was not present at the meeting, but I approved of it then in the main, and do still, with the platform of principles accompanying it."

As there is nothing in the above worthy of a reply, I will give another extract:

"The cognomen of Old School was given us, and adopted by us; and the party advocating Benevolent Institutions, &c., were called New School. These epithets, Old and New were understood by us to be applicable on the one hand to those who adhered to the doctrine and order of the ancient school of Christ, who were seeking for the old paths, and were found walking therein; whilst on the other hand, the term New School was considered appropriate to all those of the Arminian tribe who were advocating new doctrine and measure, which had their origin in the wisdom of men. That this was the ground we then occupied in our original stand against new schemes and devices in religion, will appear abundantly clear to every one who (tho' he was not familiar with our stand and proceedings at that date,) will but consult the record of those proceedings and the correspondence through the Signs, as the following example will show for the present. See Eld. Trott's letter on the 17th page, Vol. 1st, introducing Eld. Leland's letter in the close of the letter he says: 'In these things it will be seen by the letter, Father Leland is with us: that indeed of considering new schemes, improvements, he considers them defection and apostacy.

But the letter will speak for itself.' Now brethren, upon this

ground I stood, and will stand."

The distinction here laid down by Elder C., between the Old and New School, is as we understood it at the first, and as we still understand it. Why, if he was so fully with us formerly, has he now left us and denounced us as heretics? Perhaps the solution of this query will be found in the fact that we have been found to have different views of the ancient school of Christ, and of the old paths. As the term old paths is quoted from Jeremiah, I have understood those old paths to be the paths pointed out in the law and the preceding prophets of the Lord. Certainly he did not mean the paths marked out by Jereboam, the son of Nebat, or by any of the false prophets.

So, in reference to the school of Christ, I believe the Scriptures to be the only standard according to which his disciples are taught. "To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them," is the rule by which to determine whether what is presented as doctrine, or practice, has been learned in the school of Christ, or not; whether they are old or new paths pointed out. Hence the decrees of the Council of Nice are esteemed, as also all that have emanated from men since, as too new for us. But it appears that Elder C., and those with him, place great confidence in the decrees of that Council, and the opinions of certain men as pointing out old paths. Hence things which are new to us, as originating in the wisdom of men, are esteemed old by them; and things which did not pass current with the Baptists fifty or a hundred years ago, are called new by them, however clearly taught by the Apostles. It was in the sense in which I now understand new paths, or new schemes, that I used the term in reference to Elder Leland's letter.

Elder Clark says, again:

"But, as still farther preliminary to what I have to say in this communication, I beg leave here to introduce an extract from a letter of Eld. Trott, on pages 174 and 5 of the 1st Vol.

Signs, which not only clearly expresses my sentiments, but is fully expressive of my feelings in the present undertaking. (The extract is his) 'Indeed, I cannot conceive how a person can be brought experimentally to know and love the truth as it is in Jesus, and not so feel his heart bound to that truth, that the setting up of anything in opposition to it, would be like rending his own soul. There is in this truth as it is known and felt by the believers, every thing to enlist all the better feelings of the soul. The glory of the Three-one God is involved in it. The sovereignty, glory, wisdom, love and mercy of the Father: the love, faithfulness and power of the Son, and the efficacy and completion of his work; the sovereignty, faithfulness, and divine energies of the Holy Ghost, are all so contained in, and connected with the truth of the gospel, that there never has been a system of doctrine contrived by men, but what has struck directly at one or more of these divine attributes. Again the believer knows that the whole Godhead as is known as Father, Word and Holy Ghost, is necessary to secure the salvation of the sinner; hence as any of the divine attributes are left out, or thrown into the back ground by any system introduced, he must, feel that the foundation of his hope and comfort is struck at; and at the same time he knows that as such system is received and rested upon, so his fellow men are deceived into a confidence in that which will leave them to perish at last; and knowing all this, can the christian refrain from manifesting his abhorrence of such a system, and his opposition to it? That christian who can turn from such divine glory and excellency as is in the truth as it is in Jesus, or who can approbate or even wink at any attempt to deface it, and that, from the mean desire of thereby securing a little worldly case and worldly applause.'"

I have met with may rebuffs for my former publications in the Signs; have heard of brethren groaning over the Signs being filled with my long pieces, and been told of brethren who, when they saw my name appended to a communication, did not pretend to read it; together with a great many other things said, and hints thrown out, calculated to dampen all my ardor for writing, and which, if I had not felt some of that warm regard for what I believed to be the truth as revealed in the Scriptures, which I spoke of in the above quotation, which Elder C. was pleased to make from me, and an earnest desire to hold it forth in opposition to those false systems, which for so many ages had prevailed, would have driven me from the Signs sooner than they did. But from such opposition, I was at length led to think, that for the prosperity of the Signs, and therefore, to spare the feelings of the Editor, I ought to withdraw from its columns. Now, to find Elder C. hunting up my old writings and making extracts from them, with such declarations of approval, is quite calculated to cheer my drooping spirits; and, were it not that my judgment suggests that I ought not to place too much confidence in approvals coming, I will say, in that way, I might be led to draw the comfortable conclusion, that after all I have had to suffer in mind on this account, my labors in writing had not been altogether unprofitable.

Elder C. goes on to say, in reference to the extract just given from me:

"As the author of this, we might charitably hope, felt the full force of what he wrote; so did I feel in adopting it; and feel it as applicable in a good measure to him; and the conductors of the Signs, who have departed from the original ground assumed, as will appear from the following specifications: First on the doctrine of justification. This as I have shown, was viewed in the ancient creed as eternal; and as farther appears from the Nos. published in the 2d of the Signs, pages 163, 196 and 244, upon justification, with the Editorial sanction. But at a later date Eld. Trott introduced his new theory upon the subject, which after pretty full discussion, in which several participated, the subject was dropped, though the Editor was carried by the board, and came out a convert to the new theory. This I did not consider a sufficient cause to abandon the Signs and hence continued to patronize them."

Elder C. speaks of the conductors of the Signs; I know of but one. He speaks of the remarks in the last quotation he has given from me, as being applicable to me and to the conductor of the Signs. He has not said whether in a good or in a bad sense. I will say for myself, that I feel the importance of those remarks now, perhaps as strongly as when I wrote them originally. I find not a sentiment or idea therein that I wish to retract. I may not have the same energy of action as then, but still, with all my discouragements, I have enough, to undertake the publication of this pamphlet in defence of the same truths I there referred to.

Elder C. has, I think, wrongly charged us with departing from the original ground assumed. The ground assumed in our original stand, was, that the Scriptures were a perfect, and the only legitimate rule of faith and practice; and hence the only rule to be governed by in religion. So we professed to belong to the ancient school of Christ – of course, being still learners therein – not to have graduated therefrom. Hence, in accordance with that profession, whatever we learn in that school, as being laid down in that perfect rule, we do not hesitate to receive and to advocate as truth, on account of any former opinions of our own, or of other men's being different from it. When Elder C. can show from the Scriptures that our present views are not sustained thereby, then he may charge us with leaving original ground; this he has not attempted to do in this communication. I, several years since, found to my grief, that some who professed to be of the same Old School with us, instead thereof belonged to the Old School, which our opponents meant, when they named us Old School; that is, what may be termed the School of the old English Particular divines, in distinction from the Fullerites school, which they then called a new school: Elder Clark was one.

In reference to being still learners, I further say, that those who have learned in the schools and from the writings of men, are not, with few exceptions of independent minds, still learners. The system of men are soon fathomed and exhausted. Those who have studied the system, of what they call divinity, in the schools, when they graduate, come forth with all the knowledge they ever have of the system they are to preach. It has been said of some preachers, that they were like young wasps; the biggest when they were first hatched. So those who, though not having been educated in the divinity school, yet depend mostly on expositors and other human authors, for their doctrinal views and understanding of the Scriptures, are confined in their knowledge of these things to very narrow limits, even to the limits of man's mind. By just reading their favorite authors you will have their whole system, all the doctrine they will ever preach; and it will be all old; nothing new. The Scriptures are not so, they are an inexhaustible fund of knowledge; we can never reach the bottom of that revelation which God has made of himself and of His salvation. Hence he who obeys the Apostle's injunction to "Study to show himself approved of God, (not of men,) a workman that needeth not to be ashamed rightly diving the word of truth," that is, who maketh the Scriptures alone his rule and study, depending on God's teaching to understand them, will be like him, (as our Lord said,) "Who is an householder, which bringeth forth out of his treasure things new and old."

The sophistry by which Elder C. attempts to force the notion of eternal justification into what he calls our O. S. creed, has been already exposed. He certainly cannot be ignorant of the fact that Editors frequently insert communications in their papers, without holding themselves responsible for the sentiments. He says at a later date Elder Trott introduced his new theory, &c. This is in keeping with the rest he says on this point; I have already showed, what he might have known, that early in the 1st Vol. of the Signs, page 67, I introduced my objections to that sentiment. As to its being a new theory, it is entirely a mistake. The idea that the elect were justified in eternity, justified before they were under law at all; for they were actually not under law until they were created under it in Adam, is comparatively a modern idea. Elder C. must know, if ever he inquired into the subject, that he cannot show either from the Scriptures, or the writings of men, that this sentiment had ever been advanced more than two hundred, or two hundred and fifty years back. Hence in rejecting it, I was only asking for the old paths. If we admit of such union between Christ and his people as taught by the Apostle, such as of husband and wife, of the hand and body, we shall see the inconsistency of such sentiment. What, the wife considered as justified, while her husband stands liable to be arrested and imprisoned for her debts? The body cleared from all liability to the law, whilst its head has to suffer the penalty for transgression?

Elder C. next says:

"Next came the war upon creeds and confessions of faith, which resulted in wiping out the creed of the Warwick Ass.; and which was succeeded by a controversy between Eld.

Beebe and the brethren of the Licking Ass. But to show how that accorded with first principles, I will give an extract from the letter of Eld. Trott from which the foregoing extract was made, page 275, Vol. 1st of Signs. 'I know that great exertions are making to put down all confessions of faith, by those who are afraid to have the principles see the light. I am surprised that any lover of the word should join them in the attempt. Let them succeed, and we shall see Unitarians and Trinitarians, Universalists and Methodiest, Presbyterians, Baptists, &c., all united in battle array against the truth. Let us separate ourselves from the whole mixed multitude.' He then advises to drop the name 'Philadelphia Confession,' because it has been abused, &c., but continues – 'Let us make an unequivocal declaration of what we believe to be the faith and practice taught in the word of God, as we have learned it in the school of Christ.' Comment upon this is unnecessary."

In reference to the quotation which Elder C. has here given from some of my early writings, I will remark that I recently read some remark made by Melancthon in reply to a charge made against him, of having changed his views on some points. In correspondence thereto, I will say, that I have lived, studied the Scriptures, and met the rebuffs, the cavils, and various complaints against my writings for these twenty years to very little profit, if I had not been corrected of one error, nor learned one new idea. I readily admit there are expressions in that extract which may be taken as conveying ideas which I cannot now approve. But still, that commingling of all sects together in one mass, by no one's insisting on any particular points of doctrine or order, as tests of fellowship, which had been much advocated, I as much disapprove of now as then. And I as fully approve now as then of churches and individuals making a full and candid declaration of what they receive as truth, and of what they reject as error.

Elder C.'s next paragraph reads thus:

"Next and last I shall notice is the doctrine of a created Son of God, and its concomitants as briefly touched on the Circular of the Corresponding Ass. of this year; and more at large in the Warwick Circular. The avowal of this doctrine – The life giving spirit of God is a created existence – was made by Eld. Trott in his controversy with the brethren about the Fort Mountain, though it must be admitted that he had on former occasion in letters to Bro. Barton and others, and his articles upon the Sonship of Christ, expressed himself in a way which now appears in harmony with the sentiment, 'such as the creature-ship of our Son in reference to his headship, &c.'"

In reference to this charge of holding a doctrine of a created Son of God, I will refer the reader to what I have already written in answer to the charge of Arianism, and to a further reply to this charge in noticing a following repetition of this charge. Elder C. has an avowal of this doctrine is in these words: The life giving spirit of God is a created existence. I would like to know how this is an avowal of the doctrine of created Son of God, unless it can be showed that this life giving spirit is the Son of God. The question asked by the brethren about the Fort Mountain was, "Is the quickening and life giving spirit of God a created existence?" See Signs, Vol.

17th, page 8. To this inquiry I answered, "Yes," and then gave some explanation showing that I intended the yes to be confined to the idea of a quickening spirit. But this is in keeping with all the rest of Elder C.'s representations of my views, to leave out the quickening and make me say the life giving spirit of God was a created existence. Elder C. must well know that I have two or three times given explanations concerning what my design was in answering that inquiry thus in the affirmative. In those explanations I have declared that I knew of no life giving spirit of God being revealed in the Scriptures, and therefore I could say nothing about it.

But that the Second Adam was said to be made a quickening spirit as the first Adam was made a living soul; and if made, then created. See 1 Cor., 15:45. But there seems to be as great a propensity in Elder C. and his party to make a man an offender for a word as ever existed in the days of Isaiah. It was certainly an unguarded yes that I gave in answer. I did not properly regard the wise man's injunction, to "Answer not a fool according to his folly." For if those brethren acted the fool in the sense in which I understand the term to be here used, in asking a question about what the wisdom of God has never revealed, I should not have given any sanction to the inquiry. I know nothing of what Elder C. means by the expression, the creatureship of our Son. I, of course can say nothing about it.

Elder C. next adds:

"I need only add, in reference to the controversy which I had with him through the Signs, that after its close in the paper it was continued for a while privately, but with no better success than appeared upon the face of what was published."

I presume by the him in this paragraph he has reference to me; if so, this is as deceptive as the rest he has written. The points discussed through the Signs were not discussed by private correspondence. He wrote me and proposed a further discussion; I in answer to him accepted the proposition, and urged a calm investigation of the points of difference. The next was, I received from him a most abusive letter in reference to some correspondence I had had with Bro.

Dudley, varying but little from an exact copy of the one I had received from Elder Buck, published in my appeal to the churches of Ketocton. I then dropped correspondence with him. If I am not correct, let him publish the correspondence.

His next statement is this:

"From all I can gather from what they have written upon this point, and with an ardent desire to know the truth, and not to be found fighting against it, the doctrine is this: That Christ in his person and character as the Son of God, is the first production of divine power, that is the first creature that God made; which is proven as they think by the expressions – 'The beginning of the creation of God,' – 'The first born of every creature – created in eternity and his people created in him. That he is as the Son of God, inferior to the Father, because the Father begat him."

As he has divided his sketch of our views into paragraphs, so I take the liberty of noticing this paragraph by itself, especially as it relates wholly to one subject, the person of our Lord Jesus Christ. Elder C. professes a good deal of sincerity at the commencement. But I think he only wanted to know so much of the truth of our views as would suit his purpose. So far as it respects myself, he has in this paragraph given a more truthful description of my views than in any other part of his communication. But it is only divided parts of the truth, and hence is not a correct representation of the truth; for if the whole truth is not told, you are not correctly informed concerning it, he will not admit, it seems, that the person of our Lord Jesus Christ is a compound person; hence he will not admit of my believing it, but estimates my views according to his views of the person of Christ. This is as far from giving a correct representation of my views, as it would be in giving a description of my person and age by his own. In contemplating so vast and mysterious a subject as that of God manifest in the flesh, our minds are so limited, that what glimpses we get of it, has to be in parts. Hence in discussing the subject of his manhood, in describing that manhood, we should have to represent it in language that would present him to view as a creature of time, if the fact that he was God manifest in the flesh was not kept in view; so of that by which he is the actual head and life of his people. The part of candor would be to estimate our views of Emanuel as we represented him, as God and man in one person, and so in reference to his being the life of his people, as we have uniformly represented this life as existing in God, and as one with the Word, and not as though we had represented it as something existing as a person by itself.

How much soever of candor Elder C. may have with others,

he is far from manifesting any in his treatment of my views.

But to come to the subject of this paragraph, and to give my views, if possible, so as to be understood, I will consider: First, the compound person of the Son of God as presented to view in the Scriptures. I presume that it will be admitted that with God there is no variableness, neither shadow of turning; if so, it ought to be admitted that as God is sovereign, independent and self-sufficient in one of His acts and ways, so He must be in all of His acts and ways. Hence if

we find the Scriptures at one time ascribe to Christ a oneness with the Father, and the Godhead in its fullness, and at another time a dependence and subordination to another as his Father and his God, surely, if governed by candor and reflection, we must admit that there is in his person some element distinct in its nature from his Godhead, in which he can sustain this subordinate relation; for the Godhead cannot vascillate thus from a state of sovereignty to a state of dependence. In Heb. 1st, 8:9, we find quoted from the 45th Psalm, and addressed personally to the Son, these two different declarations, 1st: "Thy throne O God is forever and ever"; 2nd: "Therefore God even thy God hath anointed thee," &c. So Christ sends to his Disciples this message: "I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God." Again he saith: "I and my Father are one," John 10:30, and in John 14:23 this very same person says: "For my Father is greater than I." Again in Rom. 9:5 Christ is declared to be, "Over all, God blessed for ever, Amen." Yet in 1 Cor., 15:24-28, "Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule, and all authority and power. For he must reign till he hath put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted which did put all things under him. And when all things shall be subdued unto Him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto Him that put all things under Him, that God may be all and in all." Thus in the one text Christ is declared to be over all, God; and in the other to reign by a delegated power, in a kingdom which he must give up to God, even the Father, and ultimately must himself as the Son be subject to Him that put all things under Him. I know that many try to do away with the force of those texts by ascribing this subordination to his mediatorial office; but he does not so speak in the one, neither is it so represented in the other, in both he is personally spoken of. My Father is greater than I, personally of course, if language can express it. In the other, Then shall the Son also himself be subject. What can be more personal than this in expression? Indeed no person can read the Scriptures with a desire to have their opinions regulated by the testimony of Scripture, without discovering many instances, in which the independent Godhead of Christ is presented to view as equal and one with the Father; and many other instances in which as Son he is represented as sustaining a subordinate relation to the Father. Some may suppose that these cases relate exclusively to his manhood. But even if it was admitted that only in his manhood, he could thus stand in a subordinate relation to the Father, yet as it is so manifest that he personally sustained this subordinate relation, it fully proves the correctness of our position that he exists in a compound person. That the manhood of Christ possessed all the requisites of a distinct person in itself, I admit; but as it was the Word that was made flesh, I must believe that his manhood only existed in personal union with the Word, and with the Word that life in him which is the light of men; so that in the same person he is God, is the Son of God and is man. Were it not so, we should have only a human sacrifice to rely upon. If he only suffered as man, then there was no God in the sacrifice, nor any representation of his people in it. The oneness of his people with him did not consist in his being made flesh, is evident because they were chosen in him, and therefore were in him, before the foundation of the world. And we have no authority for believing that his manhood existed before he was made of a woman, only as it might be considered as existing seminally in the seed of the woman or from Eve. But whatever some of our western brethren may thin, I cannot conceive that this seed of the woman can constitute a flesh and blood union of Christ and his people, for the very plain reason that they are of the seed of Adam, and therefore inherit from him depravity, but he being of the seed of the woman only, in his flesh, had no depravity, condemnation coming not through her. But that it was not of him, alone in his manhood that he is represented as sustaining a subordinate relation to the Father, appears from the following, among many texts of Scripture, - In John 3d, 16:17, we find Jesus himself testifying that "God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, &c.;" he adds, "For God sent not His Son into the world to condemn the world, &c." Does not this clearly relate to an existence the Son had before he came into the world, as it speaks of his being sent into the world? And is there not a subordination here expressed concerning the Son, that he was given, was sent into the world? Surely there is not that sovereignty and independence in this passive obedience of the Son which belongs to him as God. So in John 6th, 38:39, Jesus says, "For I came down from heaven not to do mine own will, but the will of Him that sent me; And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, &c." Here he speaks of coming down from heaven, and therefore cannot speak of his manhood which was born of Mary, yet he speaks of being sent, and therefore in subordination to his Father's will. Again, in verse 51st of same chapter, he says, "I am the living bread which came down from heaven: If any man eat of this bread he shall live for ever; and the bread which I shall give is my flesh, &c." Here he shows that his flesh is the bread of life, and that which he gives for the life of the world, yet he so identifies it with his person, as to represent it as the bread which came down from heaven. But I will not multiply texts, though I might produce many more to the same effect.

Has Elder C. and those with him, such an idea of the sovereign and independent Jehovah, as to believe that in His Godhead He can lay aside His sovereignty so as to be subject to be given and sent, &c.? If they have, I will think them not to measure my views of God by their standard. I so believe in the unchanging sovereignty of God, that I, must believe that the Word took that in to personal union with himself when was not God, that in that distinct existence he could be subject to be sent and given by the Father, as he had to be made flesh in order to be subject to the law.

Will Elder C. now see that my views of the person of Emanuel is, that it is so compounded that he could be a Son given, and a child born, and yet be the mighty God; that he could be the beginning of the creation of God, and yet be the I AM THAT I AM. If so he will see that he has fallen as far short of giving my views of the person and character of Christ as the earth is bellow the heavens. If he will look back through the Signs; he will see that these in substance are the views I have held and published for these many years.

I will now pass to notice the idea of creatureship as applied to Christ in the Scriptures, in distinction from his being made flesh. It will, I presume, be admitted that in God's Son being made of a woman, the idea of creatureship is ascribed to him in person, and that without derogating from his Godhead or making him a "created God;" strange, then, that such a general alarm should be produced at the idea of creatureship being applied to him, as he is the life of his people. But surely, if men inspired of God have, without reserve, in giving their testimony of Jesus, attached this idea to him, I think I need not be afraid to do it, though opposed by friends and foes. But I have never represented that as the Son he is inferior to the Father because God created him, as Elder C. has stated. I have based his subordination to the Father upon his relation as Son, as well as upon the testimony of Scripture, showing that he sustained such inferior relation.

Elder C. admits that we have such expressions as these: "The

beginning of the creation of God," – "The first born of every creature," to sustain our views; but he appears not to admit them to be Scripture. They, however, will be found Rev. 3:14, and Col. 1:15. How is Christ The beginning of the creation of God, according to the proper import of the words, if he was not in some sense the first of God's creating? And how the first born of every creature, if not in some sense a creature? Some, in order to get rid of the idea of creatureship being applied to the Son, have suggested that the terms expressing that idea should be understood in some other sense; that of constitution, or institution, has been intimated. I should not know what sense to make of the sentence, The beginning of the institution of God, or of this, The first born of every constitution; because I should not know what was meant by the constitution or institution. So if Christ was instituted the Head and Life of his people instead of created, then Eph. 2:10 should read, For we are his appointment instituted in Christ Jesus, &c.; 2 Cor. 5:17, should read, if any be in Christ Jesus he is a new institution. And the new man is after God constituted in righteousness, &c. See Eph., 4:24. But unless there is something in the original or in the connexion which shows that a different translation would be more correct, I cannot sanction the idea of saying that the Scriptures do not mean what they say. If one may say that this word, and that, and the other are not to be understood according to their legitimate meanings, others may occupy the same ground, and all because the proper meaning does not suit their notions of things; so every man would be at liberty to construe the Scriptures according to his own opinion. Where, then, should we have any standard to test the truth of our various opinions? In the case under consideration, not only are the terms create, creature and creation decidedly a correct translation of the original words, but they also give a more definite sense to the texts in which they are used than the substitution of other words would; and what is more, in some instances at least, the connexion evidently calls for the very idea conveyed by these words. As in Eph., 2:10, the expression, "For we are his workmanship," evidently requires the idea of create, or make, to follow it, so that I think the text reads correctly. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus, &c. Does not the expression, created in him, convey the idea of being created in him as a head, as the human family were created in Adam as a head? If so, he must have been created in that which constituted his headship. If in his headship he was self-existent, then his posterity as existing in him were self-existent, and therefore could not have been created; but if they were created in him, then he as their existence, as their life was created. So the new man which after God is created in righteousness, &c., (Eph. 4:24) can be no other than the Christ in you the hope of glory. If, then, the new man was created, then Christ as living in the believer was created. Hence, when we take into consideration the compound person of Christ, I can see nothing in the idea of Christ's being the beginning of the creation of God, that ought to alarm us.

But as some of my most esteemed brethren do not agree with me on this point, I wish to examine it still farther. And First, if Christ as the life of his people, is that spiritual life which lives in them, and that life is communicated to them personally, so that they are born of it, then Christ as their life becomes personally identified with them. And when we consider what God is, a perfect being of himself, a complete whole, a perfect unit, we cannot conceive that He can so communicate of Himself of His essence, to creatures, so as to be personally identified with them. Hence I conclude that He must have something in Himself distinct from His essence, which He could communicate to creatures so as to make them participants in it. This something, this communicable essence, I conclude is found in that life which is declared to have been in the Word. I think by carefully reading the 1st Chap. Of the Gospel according to John, a person will be convinced that John commences his Gospel without particular description of the person of Christ. He commences with the declaration that "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God," and that "All things were made by Him, &c." Now, this being with God, which John is so particular to affirm, must imply, unless we consider Him as making so particular an assertion without any meaning, that there was in the Word a distinction from God, while at the same time the Word was God. In verse 4 he goes on to tell wherein that distinction was: "In Him was life and the life was the light of men." – not that the Word was the light of men, but the life was the light of men. Surely this life must be something, it must be a distinct existence to have such an affirmation made distinctively of it. This is not all, but he goes on to speak particularly of that Light which this Life is, speaks of it as a person uses the pronouns he and him in particular reference to it. See on the 13th verse. In the 14th verse he returns to speak again of the Word, which we shall have occasion to notice again. This Light which is the lift of which John affirms so much, must be an existence of itself. If an existence, it must either exist independently of its own pleasure in the Word, in God and with God, or it must so exist dependently by the will of God. The first of these, I think no one will believe. If then it exists in the Word of God's will, it is as much in its existence there the production the creature of God's will as the natural light was the production of God's word. So that this was, I believe, the beginning of the creation of God, and as it is the life of his people, the light of men, they in that life were thus and then created in him, or brought into existence in the Word, by the will of God.

But then in thus contending for the creatureship of this life that was in the Word, I do not wish to place it upon a footing with those creatures which God has created exterior from Himself, neither am I authorized by the Scriptures to do so, any more than I am authorized to place that "Holy thing" which was born of Mary on a level with Adam. That Holy thing had he existed only as the Son of Mary would no doubt

have existed as a perfect man, that the Scriptures teach that from his conception he so existed as one or in personal union with the Godhead that he was no other than Emanuel, than the Word made flesh. So of the life that was in the Word, as being that Light which John bare witness to, had evidently personal qualities, so that had he existed separately he would have been a distinct person, but he existed only in the Word. Hence the Word through God, having this life in him possessed such a personal distinction from God, that he could be said to be with God, and could sustain the relation of Mediator between God and men. And thus whilst in his person he could stand as Mediator between God and men, he in his person was also one with the Father and with the Holy Ghost, as it is written, "These three are one." Thus this created existence which is included in the person of the Son, for the Son is the Word with that life in him, does not make him as the Son a creature any more than the assumption of manhood did. He remains identically the Word and God manifest in the flesh, whilst through the whole of his mediatorial office, he sustains a personal distinction from God, as abundantly testified in the Scriptures.

But as creation is in idea distinct from begetting, the inquiry arises, how is Christ the begotten Son of God? Before proceeding with the inquiry, it will be well to notice what it is to be a son, what its relation is. First: a son, according to the uniform usage of the term, is one who derives his existence as such from another who begat him, and whim he is therefore bound to honor as his father, according to the 5th command. "Honor thy father and thy mother, &c." Second: a begotten son, partakes of the nature of the father; and, Third: in consequence of his being the first or only begotten son, he is entitled to be the heir to his father's honors, relation, and possessions, &c. When Christ is declared to be God, we understand by it, that he is the self-existent, great First Cause of all things, the sovereign Majesty of the universe. When he is declared to be a servant, we understand that he sustained the relation of a servant, was in servitude under the law. Why not then, when he is so often spoken of as a begotten Son, understand that he sustains the relation indicated by those terms, to another as his Father?

In coming to the first characteristic of Sonship, that of being begotten, as manifested in the Son of God, I would remark, that in formerly treating of this subject, whilst I have uniformly contended that the Son of God, was God coequal with the Father, I have, in speaking of his Sonship, in itself considered, and in opposition to the absurd idea of a begotten God, used expressions which in themselves considered were perhaps calculated to convey the idea that his Sonship belonged only to that life that was in the Word. This was wrong, though I still maintain that he never could have sustained the relations of a begotten Son, had he only existed as God, because I cannot believe that God who is so emphatically declared to be one, could be so divided in his person, as in his Godhead alone, to be both the Father and a Son, the progenitor and the descendant, the bestower and the recipient of an inheritance; neither can I conceive that God can so divest himself of his independent, self-existence, as to exist in a derivative existence; or of his absolute sovereignty as to owe honor to another as his Father. Hence I consider that life which was in the Word was as the seed of which he was begotten. His headship, of a posterity who were to proceed from him, is in that life of which they are born, though in his person he is God. My mistake in speaking of the Sonship of Christ, arose from the want of a clear idea of what is to be understood by his being begotten. I had merely taken the term as it stood in the Scriptures without having been particularly led till recently to reflect on its import as spoken in reference to God, and the Son of God.

How Christ is the begotten Son of God, may, I conceive, be illustrated by his second begetting as the Son of God; for there are evidently two begettings spoken of in the Scripture to him. John says, speaking of the Word being made flesh, "We beheld (not shall behold,) his glory, the glory as of the only begotten Son of the Father, &c." And at the baptism of Jesus, and in his transfiguration on the mount, the voice from heaven was, "This is (not shall be,) my beloved Son, &c." Thus he was declared to be already the begotten Son of God. But the begetting of which I speak as a second begetting, was an after event to these. It is named in Psalms 2:7, "Thou art my Son this day have I begotten thee." This was spoken prophetically, and therefore though spoken in the present tense, had a future reference. So an inspired Apostle applied it (Acts 13:33,) when he said, "God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again, as it is also written in the second Psalm, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee." The apostle makes this begetting to be the same with his being "The first begotten of the dead." Rev. 1:5. It is probable that it is from these texts, that persons have inferred that regeneration and resurrection are the same. Resurrection alone does not alter the standing of a person; if he dies under the law, he will be under it in his resurrection. As Christ died under the law, if there had been simply a resurrection of him from death, he would still have been under it. But according to Rom., 1:4, he was "Declared to be the Son of God with power according to the spirit of holiness by the resurrection of the dead." The Son in being made of a woman, was made under the law, and having by his death accomplished the object of his humiliation, the redemption of his people, by bearing the curse in their behalf, and thus exhausted the penalty death, as Peter said, "It was not possible that he should be holden of it," and therefore came out from under it in that nature in which he as the Life of his people had died, his own body, and brought out with him from under the law his spiritual body, the church. In being thus raised up, he was of God, in his manifest relation to his church invested with all the prerogatives of an only begotten Son; he was seated at the right hand of the Father, having all power given to him in heaven and in earth; was invested with the inheritance of all things, having all things put under his feet, Him only excepted who did put all things under him. Thus we see him of God brought into life from the womb of the grave, and invested with all the prerogatives of the Son of God, inheriting all things and sitting upon the throne and exercising all the power of God; Him only being excepted who did put all things under Him. He must thus be of the same nature of the Father, and is so recognized in that it is said to him, "Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever, &c." See Heb., 1:8. None but God could sway the scepter of universal dominion, and yet as a Son it is in submission to the Father that he reigns, and hence the period is to come when he shall deliver up the kingdom unto God even the Father, and the Son himself be subject to Him that put all things under him. 1 Cor. 15:24-28. Thus it appears to me that the terms only begotten Son of God are according to their proper import, strictly descriptive of that relation which Christ as Mediator sustains to God. But as this exaltation of Christ was a being glorified with that glory which he as Son had with the Father before the world was, (See John, 17:1-5,) we may conclude that his relation as Son was the same before the world was. As there was nothing corresponding to a fleshly begetting in bringing forth the Son of God from under the law and its penalty, so we presume there was nothing like it, in his first being brought forth as the only begotten Son of God. If we look back to the beginning, we find the Word with that life in him which was the light of men. This Light, as we have showed from the connexion, is a distinct existence, and that from the nature of things must be a created existence; it is a something that is communicated to men; thus Jesus saith, "I am the light of the world, he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life." John 8:12. What is this light of life, but that life which is the light of men? Now this Life, though a created existence could never be involved in the relation of a servant; being in the Word, hid in God, no law could ever reach it, with its demands, but the glory and majesty of God must ever shine forth with, and around it.

But still, this life being in the Word imparted to him a distinct and compound personality, as has been noticed. This complex person could not as noticed, be in the station of a servant under the law, without being made under it, in an additional nature, neither could he in his complex person, though in that person he was God, sustain the relation of the absolute God, but was exactly adapted to sustain the relation of a Son, and was therefore set up, and brought forth in the everlasting covenant as the Son of God; and the same mighty power of God was manifested in thus bringing him forth as the Son of God and Head of his church and people, and they in him in that Life which was embraced in his distinct personality, as was manifested in raising Christ from the dead. See Eph., 1:19,20. It is no wonder that John said of him, when he the Word with this life in him as described, was made flesh, so that he could be beheld of mortals, "And we beheld his glory the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth." Here is the difference between the Word's taking this life into personal union with him, and his being made flesh, though both created existences; the life was in him as God, was hid in God, but the manhood was taken upon him, the Godhead was veiled in his flesh. Hence the law could not reach his manhood with its demands, without being intercepted by the intervening Godhead; not so with the life. Hence I can conceive how the law could inflict its penalty upon the Word as being the life of his people, in his manhood, whilst it could not touch the life itself. Again, the manhood of Christ was made of the seed of the woman; but we are not warranted to believe that the life was made of any created substance. The account we have is, that the new man, which must be the life, or Christ, in us, was After God created in righteousness and true holiness.

From the testimony of Scripture, I conclude that the Word as the Son, occupied the same exalted station at the right hand of the Father, having the immediate government in his own hands, before the foundation of the world as after his exaltation from the dead. Hence the glory which he now has is the same that he had with the Father before the world was; and the Word was with God. Hence it is declared, that "All things were made by him, and without him was not any thing made that was made." Every declaration made of God whether under, or before the law, must have been made by him; for it is written, "No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him." John 1:18. This must therefore embrace every manifestation made of God, to the fathers, and through the law and prophets. Hence he must be the God of Abraham, &c. But here as after his resurrection we see evidences, that whilst all things were put under him, He was excepted who put all things under him; that the Father retained the supremacy on the throne. Thus whilst all things were made by the Word, or Son, yet it is testified that "God made the worlds by him." Heb., 1:2 and that "God created all things by Jesus Christ." Eph., 3:9. And also in the fullness of time God sent forth His Son. &c. Thus showing the supremacy of the Father over him as the Son in all things, and his obedience to his Father's will.

Thus we see in Christ all the characteristics of a begotten Son. He is brought forth in that relation to God. Hence he acknowledges the obligation and willingness to honor and obey God as his Father. He says, John 8:49, "I honor my Father but ye do dishonor me," and he is represented as saying, "I delight to do thy will, O God, yea thy law is within my heart." See Psalms, 40:8, and Heb. 10:5-9. Again he is of the same nature with the Father; for the Word was God, and he was the express image of God's person. Again as the only begotten Son he is appointed heir of all things, and none others, none of the Angels does God recognize as Sons with Him, excepting that Christ's people are acknowledged as sons in him, and are therefore joint heirs with him.

This case of acknowledging one as a begotten Son distinct from the idea of a literal begetting, is not singular in the Scriptures. God directed Moses to say unto Pharaoh, "Israel is my son, even my first-born." Ex., 4:22. He evidently thus owns Israel as His son, because He had chosen him to be a peculiar people to himself, and had provided for him an inheritance. See Deut., 14:1, 2. Thus it is said of Abraham that he offered up his only begotten son. Heb., 11:17. Isaac could have been called his only begotten, only in the sense that he only was recognized as his heir.

I have thus given my views of the person, character and relation of the Son of God, as definitely as I can; however much Elder C., and those with him, may be opposed to these views, I do request him, no longer to so grossly misrepresent them. Let him present what argument against them, he can, but if he has any candor, let those arguments be against my views as they are.

Elder C. goes on with the catalogue of what he calls our views, thus:

"That God made the worlds by him (by the Son,) as Solomon made the Temple by Hiram, that is as his servant or instrument. That we are not quickened or regenerated by the Spirit of God or the Holy Ghost, and consequently are not the children of God in that sense, else we should be little Gods.

But we are quickened by the infusion of this created spirit, and hence our life is not in God, or God is not the life of the church. That this life is not in the Divinity of Christ , or in him as the essential Word, but in this undefined existence, and which life and his people with him died, arose again and ascended to heaven, &c. This condensed formula contains, what I am well satisfied I can prove from the record whenever called to it, as their sentiment upon the vital and fundamental point of doctrine – the character of the Son of God."

Elder C. says he is well satisfied he can prove these things are our sentiments. So he can, according to his manner of proving things, by taking a word here, and a word there, from our writings, and patching them together by some additions of his own. But I as confidently deny that I have ever held or advanced one sentiment as he has presented it, in this formula. In some instances at least, I think he must have known that he entirely misrepresenting me. But I will proceed to notice the several items.

The first, is, That God made the worlds by the Son of Solomon made the Temple by Hiram, thus far is a correct representation of my language. But the addition, as his servant or instrument, is a gratuitous supply by Elder C. Any person, anywise acquainted with agencies, knows that the idea of agency is very different from that of servitude. I have, already, in speaking of Christ's sustaining fully the relation of Sonship, referred to Heb., 1:2, and Eph., 3:9, as fully sustaining the idea, that all things were made by the Son or Word, yet that God made them by him. Thus showing that whilst all things were the Son's and in subjection to him, God as the Father held the supremacy on the throne, similar to the case of Joseph and Pharaoh. I referred to the case of Solomon and Hiram, as I have formerly explained, because I considered the building of the temple typical, and because similar expression are used as in this case, in relation to Solomon and Hiram. That I was not correct in the idea conveyed thereby, of God's supremacy over the Son as such, Elder C. cannot show, unless he can show the incorrectness of those two texts above referred to.

His next item is, That we are not quickened or regenerated by the Holy Ghost, and consequently are not the children of God in that sense, else we would be little Gods.

I used the term little Gods in my controversy with Elder Buck in relation to some position of his, implying that the Godhead was imparted in regeneration, which I stated would constitute the subjects of such regeneration little Gods. I have never named that as a conclusion to be drawn from the idea of being regenerated by the Holy Ghost. Why Elder C. so represented it, he knows better than I, though it looks suspicious of some uncandid design. In reference to regeneration by the Holy Ghost, I have said that if regeneration is to be ascribed to either of the Three, exclusively, to the Father, to the Word or to the Holy Ghost. I should suppose it would be ascribed to the Word as the regenerated are represented as the seed of Christ. I have further said, there is no Scriptural authority, or that I know of none, for supposing that the Holy Ghost was exclusively the agent in regeneration, that he was particularly described as the Comforter, &c., but not as the Regenerator. The truth is, regeneration is ascribed to God in the Scriptures, without designating either the Father, the Word or the Holy Ghost, as in such texts as these: "Born, not of blood nor of the will of flesh; nor of the will of man, but of God." Again, "For God who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, &c." Unless this text may be considered as confining it to the essential Word, "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God which liveth, &c." This position may appear strange to those who may have been accustomed to hear regeneration ascribed to the Holy Ghost exclusively, without having considered for themselves whether the Scriptures thus ascribe it to him. But if Elder C. could have refuted my position by the testimony of Scripture, would he have resorted to such misrepresentations to evade it? In reference to Elder C.'s using the word regeneration and quickening as synonymous; he may view them as synonymous, but he knows that I do not. In candor, therefore, he should not have so used them in speaking of my views. I deny their being synonymous, because both in their common use among men, and in the Scriptures they are used to convey quite different ideas. Generation is used to convey the idea of begetting an individual that had not before existed excepting seminally in its progenitor. So regeneration implies the begetting another and a spiritual existence in one who already had a fleshly existence; as being born again is the experiencing by a person of a new and distinct birth from his former fleshly birth. Therefore the person born again, now exists in a new and distinct life from his natural life, is a new creature. But quickening conveys the idea of stirring up, reviving, exciting, &c., that which already exists; its strongest idea is that of reanimating the dead, as in John, 5:21, "For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them, even so the Son quickeneth whom he will." Adam's begetting a son in his own likeness, is a very different idea from that of his raising up or quickening Abel who was dead. So from Elisha's having brought again to life, or quickening the Shunamite's son, no one would infer that he had begotten a son. When David prays, as he does repeatedly in the 119th Psalm, "Quicken thou me;" none, I presume understands him to be praying to be regenerated. Is it not strange that men, and even christians, will suffer their minds to be so enslaved by certain hackneyed expositions, as not to regard the proper meaning of words, in their explaining of Scripture; but will, to suit certain imbibed notions, divert words from their legitimate meaning, and thus represent that the Scriptures do not mean what they say, and therefore that the Holy Ghost in indicting them, either did not know, or did not regard the meaning of words! No wonder that there is confusion among us, whilst such is the case; for we thereby deprive ourselves of any definite standard of truth. Men cry up the scriptures, and yet treat them as some of the heathen do their household gods, wherein they displease them, they repudiate them. If the regeneration of the Scriptures is nothing more than a quickening, then both the soul- regenerationists, or rather soul-quickenists, and the Arminians are right on this point: for both represent it as being only a bringing into religious action certain dead or dormant powers of man. The one class say that God only can quicken these dead powers of man; the other, that men can do it of themselves, or that the preacher can do it for them. I know not but the latter class are right, if a quickening of the powers or faculties which the natural man already possesses, is all that constitutes an experience of religion.

But is there not a quickening connected with the new birth? I answer, yes; corresponding spiritually, to that which belongs naturally to the natural birth. Persons knowing any thing about it, know that the quickening of the fetus, is a different thing from the conception. So I understand spiritual quickening to be a different thing from regeneration. But in this, as in many other points of comparison between natural and spiritual things, there is a correspondence, but not a parallel. In the natural world that which is implanted is the subject of the quickening; in reference to the spiritual birth, the receptacle or soul is that which is quickened. Hence while I have uniformly held and contended that regeneration is of God, that God alone implants in the soul or heart that life which is the light of men, or imparts to it that light of life; yet I do contend that it is through this light of the[*] life shining in the heart, the soul is quickened to any just conceptions of the spirituality of the law, and of that worship which is acceptable to God; and ultimately of those spiritual blessings which come through Christ. Thus the soul is quickened to the knowledge of sin, and to repentance, as also afterwards, to rejoice in the truth and consolations of the gospel. "For the natural man receiveth not the things of the spirit of God; for they are foolishness unto him; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned;" and, "Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." Thus while I contend that the soul is not changed from a natural to a spiritual soul, in regeneration, but remains after the new birth, with just the same faculties it had before, and reasons just in the same way as before; and that without the impartation in generation, of this life which is the light, without the new birth, or being born of a new life, or of the spirit of God's Son, the natural man could never know; nor relish spiritual things; yet that when this light of the life shines in him, he is made so to see the exceeding broadness and the spirituality of the law, and to know sin by it, that as a rational man, that is, with all his mind, he approves of the justice of his condemnation. So of salvation through Christ, when by faith he beholds it, it is no longer foolishness unto him, with every faculty of soul, he approves of it, as the wisdom and the power of God, and he is astonished at himself, that with all his reading of the Scriptures he never saw these things so, before. Yet the moment he is again left to reason upon the subject without the aid of this light, he concludes that because he is such a poor, guilty sinner, there can be no salvation for him; against when the light shines all is right. Brethren, is not this experience, and is it not consonant with Scripture? If so, is it not then manifest, that the soul of itself is not changed to a spiritual soul? and is it not equally manifest that the light of this life, when it shines does quicken the faculties of the soul, otherwise dead to spiritual things, to receive and rejoice in the things of the spirit of God? Thus Christ was made a quickening spirit; for this life is Christ in you. So in John, 6:63, Christ says, "It is the spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing, the words that I speak unto you are spirit, and are life." What words does our Lord here refer to? What he says to be sure, was true of most of his words; but there evidently is a reference in this declaration to the discourse he was holding with the people concerning his flesh being the true bread from heaven, and that his flesh was meat indeed, and his blood drink indeed, &c. We find the Jews reasoning on the subject , and saying How can this man give us his flesh to eat? Also some of his Disciples said, this is a hard saying, who can bear it, that is, understand it. It evidently was in reply to these murmurings that he said, It is the spirit that quickeneth, &c., and futher adds, There are some of you that believe not, and again, "Therefore said I unto you that no man can come unto me except it were given him of my Father." All this convinces me that he did not in that text break abruptly off from his discourse to teach what regeneration was, but was assigning the reasons in those several verses above quoted, why they could not receive or hear his words. First he lets them know that it was not of a literal eating of his flesh and drinking of his blood that he spake, that his words were spirit and were life, therefore the flesh profiteth nothing in this matter, whatever it may profit in natural things, no fleshly powers, or powers of the fleshly birth could comprehend him. They must believe, in order to believe or to trust in a crucified Jesus for life and acceptance with God, they must have that faith which God giveth. And this faith which is a fruit of the spirit, and belongs to the new man, is that, by which, as men we are enabled to trust in a crucified Jesus as the way of salvation. This being by faith on Christ crucified, is the eating his flesh and drinking his blood intended. It is this faith view, this light of life, that quickens the faculties of our souls to receive and relish the doctrine of Christ crucified, and to esteem his flesh as meat indeed and his blood as drink indeed. Thus I understand the spirit here, as contrasted with the flesh, to be Christ the quickening spirit, as contrasted with the fleshly Adam. The natural Adam has no power to quicken itself to the apprehension of spiritual things; but Christ, the spiritual life, can and does quicken the rational powers of the regenerate to receive and rest upon as truth, the doctrine imparted of spiritual things; if my experience does not deceive me.

There is another quickening spoken of in the Scriptures connected with salvation. That is, as they died representatively, or in Christ's dying, under the sentence of the law, so they were quickened together with him, and raised up together from under the penalty of the law. See Eph. 2:5, 6 and Col. 2:13. And again in experience, being killed by the law, they are again quickened to life, and raised up from under the sentence of the law, through faith in Christ.

I have been lengthy on this subject of quickening, and more so from having had to differ in my views from most of the brethren on this point. Whether or not I have said any thing that will convince any one of the correctness of my views; I think I have said enough, to show that Elder C. has done me great injustice in applying what I have formerly said of quickening, to regeneration.

Elder C., in connexion with the subject of quickening, further gives as my views, that the life is not in God, is not in the Divinity of Christ, is not in the essential Word, &c. Yet as in this pamphlet, so in all my discussions heretofore on this subject, I have repeatedly quoted John 1:1-4, and appealed to it as sustaining me in my belief, that there was in the Word who was God, and distinct in its nature from the Godhead, as being in the Word, that life which Christ is to his people, as he is their light, and therefore that life of theirs; which was hid with Christ in God. I have also contended that this life being in the Word, thus constituting the Son who is the Word with this life in him, both personally one with the Father, and personally one with his people as being their life, in a compound person, and thus making him a divinely fit

person to stand as the Mediator between God and his people. Now I know that Elder C. knew that such in substance was my views, and has joined with others – not in trying to show by sound arguments and proofs that they were wrong – but in trying to ridicule the idea of there being in him before the foundation of the world, a nature distinct from the Godhead; yet in this publication he has made these positive assertions to the contrary. When I consider the standing Elder C. once had among us, I am disposed to look around for some excuse for his representing things so falsely, but really I find none more charitable than the one already hinted at. But of this, I will leave for those to decide, and to reconcile his course with the confidence they are placing in him, who have put him forward as their oracle.

As to the additional remark intermixed with the others, viz: that God is not the life of the Church, I will remark that I did not fully know they held that the Godhead was the life of the Church, that God was the life that was hid with Christ in God. I freely confess that I did not believe it.

Next following the paragraph which we have just noticed, are four or five paragraphs in Elder C.'s communication which relate wholly to the Editor of the Signs, which, of course, do not refer to me; I will therefore pass them over without copying them, or adding any remarks concerning them, as the Editor is fully able to take his own part.

The following paragraph to those omitted is this:

"I will now present in contrast what I understand to be the Scriptural doctrine upon these points. The most casual observer must have seen that this doctrine in relation to the character of Christ as the Son of God, is a denial of the equality of the Son with the Father, and is allied to the new theory of the life of the church dying and the church dying, rising, and ascending with that life, &c. The former branch of the scheme runs into Atheism and the latter into the grossest Arminianism, and is a denial of the substitution of Christ for or instead of his people, which I will show from the Signs is contrary to the doctrine formerly contended for by those who are now advocating it. First then, upon the first branch, and upon which I have now but little to say, I take this declaration as a fair statement of the doctrine – 'There is a priority of existence with the Father.' If this be true the Son cannot be equal to the Father, and it therefore would be robbery in him to claim that equality. Again, if this is true there was a period when the Son did not exist, and of course there could then have been no Father, for that is a relative term and cannot apply to God under such circumstances, and so we are into Atheism at once."

This, certainly, is a strange way of presenting in contrast the Scriptural doctrine, &c. I would like to know what Scriptural authority he has for the ideas he has advanced in this paragraph. However, we will notice some of the points he has taken. First he charges, to the representation he has given of our doctrine, a denial of the equality of the Son with the Father. He evidently means that we deny this equality, in any view of the person of the Son, and he bases the charge not upon any Scripture testimony, but upon the authority of the decrees of the Nicene Council, for that is the earliest authority he can produce for fixing the modus of God's existence as Three. According to that the Son no otherwise exists as God, than as he exists as the Son of God, and therefore in his Godhead, he is the begotten Son of God, and hence is, if God, upon this principle, a begotten God. But as showed in reply to his charge of Arianism, we reject this whole attempt to fix the modus of God's existing as Three, or in trinity, and we just receive the Scripture testimony that he does exist as Three; and as it is as God that he thus exists, we believe that with the same sovereign and absolute independence, that he exists at all, he exists as Father, as Word, and as Holy Ghost; that the Word is equally self- existent with the Father, and can no more have a begotten existence than the Father, for he is equally the Jehovah; and that the Word, with the life in him which is the light of men, in one person, is the Son. Hence he could say I and my Father are one. But as the Son, as I have abundantly showed, his Father is greater than he. And I have showed from 1 Cor. 15:24-28, as well as from other portions of Scripture, that in his present exaltation, as the Son of God with power, he is subordinate to the Father, and must ultimately deliver up the kingdom to Him. Elder C. admits that the term Father is a relative term; is no the term Son equally so? Several of the relations characteristic of a son I have before noticed. Is it not equally characteristic of the relation of a son that he has descended as such from him whose son he is, or that he is a son by the act of his father? That art my Son, this day have I begotten thee, says God of him, as before noticed in reference to his present exaltation as Son. Does not this imply priority of existence in the Father, to him as Son? If Christ sustains the name and relation of Son, why not the characteristics? Who, without the greatest presumption, dare say he does not, when God claims him as His Son, because he had begotten him, and that on a certain day?

But says Elder C., this leads to Atheism, that is, that the Son could only exist as he existed as a Son, so the Father could only exist as he existed as a Father. Elder C. speaks of out Heroding Herod, but with what point I know not; but surely he has here out Athanasiused Athanasius himself with all his audacity. Athanasius made only the existence of the Son as God, to depend on the begetting and yet self-existent God, being, to use their terms, unbegottenly begotten; an absurdity I should think sufficiently large for any sane man to swallow; yet Elder C., here makes the existence of both Father and Son, as God, to depend on the Father's begetting the Son begat himself into existence as God. How else does he make out the charge of Atheism? When shall we be done with such absurdities? Not till men will be satisfied with the simplicity of Bible testimony, and not blindly follow the dictations of the Dragon. I admit the correctness of Elder C.'s position, that Father and Son are relative terms, and I contend that we are bound to believe, that God in thus making use of these terms, in the revelation of himself, meant to convey the idea that the relation indicated by these terms, did exist between Him and His Son. And everybody knows what is involved in the relationship of father and son. My contending for this is just the thing laid hold of by Elder C. as an occasion for splitting his spite against me by representing me as an Arian. Will he condescend to inform us, as these are relative terms, why they are used, if not to show that such relation exists; and will he further tell us why he spoke of them as relative terms, if he did not admit of the existence of such relation?

But these relative terms by no means imply that God did not exist antecedent to his being a Father; yea, the very relation implies that the Father had an existence independent of his paternity. Christ said to Mary, "But go to my brethren and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God." The language of Christ here, cannot be construed otherwise than as conveying the idea that the relationship which he acknowledges to God as a Father, is mutual, and the same with that of his Disciples, without doing violence to the order and language of the text. Will Elder C., or any other disciple of Athanasius say that God had no existence until these brethren of Christ existed? It may be said that Christ is the elder brother; but it is also said that he is the only begotten of the Father, they therefore as sons, must have been begotten in his being begotten; as Adam's posterity were created in his creation. God has revealed himself by different names, some descriptive of his being, and of his attributes, and some relative. He has declared himself as the "God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, &c." Did he not exist until these men existed?

So of the Son, when we take into consideration the character given of him in the Scriptures, we must believe that he existed as God independently of his Sonship. He is declared as the Mediator, as the Redeemer, as the Messiah or Anointed, as Jesus or Savior, these are all relative terms as well as Son. In reference to his name Redeemer and Savior, the name God is applied to him as such as well as to him as Son, yet I presume Elder C. would not say that he did not exist as God until he redeemed or saved. The fact is, the assumption of the adherents to the Nicene Creed, that the Godhead of the Father and of the Son depended on the paternity of the one, and the Sonship of the other, is altogether a begged question, for which they can produce no direct authority from the Scriptures. If they will assume to be wiser than the Scriptures, I am not required to follow them, but rather to look for the old paths. And they have no right to denounce me as an heretic or schismatic for thus doing.

Elder C. goes on thus:

"Secondly, as to the second branch – Christ the Head and life of the Church. The Scriptures reveal that life as existing in Christ the essential Word – the true God and eternal life. For we read – "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God: in his was life, &c." that is, in God was life. John, 1st Chap. "If this life was in his humanity – that in which he suffered and died on the cross, then the church had no life until he took on him the seed of Abraham. But we read that, 'As the children were partakers of flesh and blood he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death, he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil, &c.' They were children then anterior to his assumption of human nature – the children that the Father had given him, who were chosen in him before the foundation of the world, and predestinated to the adoption of sons, &c. As early as the existence of Christ which is without date – for, 'From everlasting to everlasting thou art God.' – so early his people existed in him, and had their life not only hid with him in God, but he was their life, for when Christ who was our life shall appear we shall appear with him in glory. This life the conclave of Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel, and all the powers of earth and hell combined besides, could never reach nor destroy. These had their hour, when they came upon him to eat up his flesh, when his soul was made an offering for sin and when he cried out, my soul is troubled – my soul is exceeding sorrowful even unto death. Here he suffered for sins the just for the unjust, being put to death in the flesh but quickened by the spirit. Here he bare our sins in his own body on the tree, and suffered for us in the flesh. It was here that the declaration of God by the prophet was accomplished – 'Awake, O, sword against my shepherd, against the man that is my fellow, saith the Lord of Hosts; smite the shepherd and the sheep shall be scattered; and I will turn mine hand upon the little ones.' Christ thus entered in with his own precious blood, which is the price of redemption, and in the sacrifice and offering we see the Priest, the Altar and the Lamb. But I cannot now enlarge upon the point without occupying too much space. It is enough to know that in the sufferings and death of Christ in which a full and complete atonement was made for his church; who stood related to him by an eternal and indissoluble tie; his divinity, though in union with his humanity, did not, it could not, either suffer or die; and that the atonement was vicarious, as Christ stood under the law as the substitute for his people."

In this lengthy extract, Elder C. has given us his views as in contrast with ours. There are in it some few expressions that I should object to, not more perhaps than I should formerly have found in his preaching, and as they do not materially affect the subject in dispute, I shall not stop to point them out. The doctrine expressed as far as it goes, is good, such as I approve of. The question arises, How can he in expressions advance the same sentiments which I hold and contend for, and yet condemn me for advocating them? So also the question has arisen, How was it that we so long got along and preached together in harmony each esteeming the other sound? I then preached the same sentiments I do now and he probably believed as he now does. The answer to these questions, so far as I can form an opinion from what has transpired in our discussions is this. When he and others preached that the people of God were the children of Christ, that from everlasting they existed in him, that their life was hid with in God, that he was their life, we supposed they spake of realities, that they meant what they said, we supposed that those who were his children seminally would be manifested as children in time, by existing personally in that very existence, that life in which they existed in Him before time, in their being actually born children, born of that life in a second birth. How else could any be known as ever having an existence in Him, but by being personally partakers of that life? And they preached about being born again. On the other hand when we preached in this way, they, I presume, thought that we used these expressions from general usage without intending to convey any definite, or at least any adequate meaning by them. Hence, when we came to contend that these several Scriptural expressions had a definite meaning according to their general use, and that we understood such meaning to be conveyed by them, they quarreled with us, and set up the cry against us of new things. Hence this dispute has been evidently different from some which have been said to be merely about words; for in this case both had used the same words, but it was the substance about which we differ.

But let us test the point, whether it is so or not. Elder C. has not directly said it in this communication, but he and those with him have been understood throughout this discussion to contend that the Son of God previous to his incarnation, existed only in his Godhead, and therefore existed only as God, and to us there is but one God; then as nothing but God existed before time, if the elect had then an actual existence in him they must of course have existed as God, must haven been God in their antemundane existence. Elder C. do not turn these conclusions off with contempt, for I am so weak minded, and some others perhaps are like me, that I cannot understand how it can otherwise be than, that if nothing but God existed before time, then all that did exist at that period, was God. If you can explain the matter otherwise, do so. But again, if this life, this existence of the children of Christ which God has given him, is ever communicated to the sons and daughters of men, so as to make them manifest as these children, they must be made personally participants of it, in being born of it, and if it was God in the head, it must be God in the members, in the children, for God changes not, he says "I am the Lord I change not." Matt. 3:6. What then can they be in the new man the new creature, but God manifested in the flesh. But as Elder Buck discarded this idea of his being personally God, as he was a son of God; and as the idea is so inconsistent with all that is revealed of God, or of the experience of the children of God, this surely cannot be the idea. What else then can he mean by his declarations of a life and existence in Christ, in God, from everlasting, but that they existed only in the purpose and grace of God; that is, that God had purposed to display his grace toward them, in making them live, and in giving them an existence in union with Christ? But the text reads "According to his own purpose and grace which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began." But that which is only a purpose to give life, is not the life; the purpose of God is sure, but the life itself till it is brought into actual being, in the subject of it, is a nonentity. So the existence which is only purposed to be hereafter, is not now, it is not an actual existence. Hence as before intimated, there is no reality in the existence in Christ, and the union with Christ, in the life in God, which they preach as being from everlasting. But Christ is their life; if then the life did not actually exist, Christ did not actually exist before time, and if not before time, then not till he existed in the flesh, or was conceived of Mary. Where then was there any Mediator, before Jesus was born? Were the Old Testament Saints saved at first by their own intercession, and afterwards by the mediation of Moses? Or were they not saved at all? Here then is Elder C.'s dilemma of denying the existence of any thing but the Godhead in the Son of God before time; and I have showed its two horns. He may hang to which of them he pleases; only it will be nothing but candid for him to inform us which horn he takes, that we may know in future how to understand him, and to meet him in argument. But certainly it must be more consistent with the Scriptures, and sound reason to believe that the life which is the light of men, and which was in the Word, was in the beginning a reality, and something which in the nature of its existence was distinct from God, as it is said to be in the Word, his us in God, &c. but never said to be God, or the Word, than to take either horn of Elder C's dilemma. The Psalmist says "LORD, thou hast been our dwelling place, in all generations; Before the Mountains were brought forth, &c." If the Psalmist was correct, the people of God must have had, as a people, an existence in the LORD, not as existing in his existence, but as existing in him, as their dwelling place, having a distinction from him, such as is indicated, by the distinction between the inhabitant and his dwelling.

Elder C. again says:

"And here I wish to present another extract from a letter of Eld. Trott, page 239, Vol. 1st Signs, which is well worth the labor of transcribing and republishing. Speaking of some sentiments advanced by Eld. Raymond, he says, 'He speaks of substitution as involving a separation between Christ and his people.' Do not the Scriptures teach a manifest separation in this respect? Was Christ created with his people in Adam? If so he is but a creature and a branch of a fallen stock. Or was he as the Head of his people set up under the law? If so the inheritance coming through him must fail. On the other hand, Christ being the Elder brother of his people in the everlasting covenant, it was his province to interpose himself as their Redeemer, that the law might not remain a barrier to their being put in possession of the inheritance bequeathed in the better Testament. Hence it said he was made sin – or rather a sin offering for us, who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. See 2 Cor., 5th:21, and Gal., 3d:13. If I know any thing of the use of words, the doctrine of these texts, is the doctrine of substitution, and the word for is used in them, in the sense of instead of. He being made a curse for us, for what purpose? to deliver us from the curse of the law. Did he not then endure that curse which he would deliver his people from? And would they not have suffered the curse if he had born it? What is this but his bearing it in their stead? and what can that be but substitution? Again we are told that Christ laid down his life for the sheep. Now if he did not lay down his life in the place of his sheep, how will we find an atonement in the death of Christ? and how will we find a ransom in it? If he laid down his for us in any other sense than as suffering that punishment which was due to our transgressions: I repeat it, there was no ransom price in the death of Christ; for a ransom is an equivalent rendered for the demand against those to be ransomed, and consequently involves substitution? The Editorial endorsation of this is in the following note: 'The letter of our Bro. Trott in reply to Bro. Raymond on the subject of substitution is in accordance with our views on the subject.' Thus it appears that what was sound Old School doctrine 20 years ago, is not Old School now! Then it was for his people, or in their stead, now, it is with them."

Had Elder C. been so complaisant as to have transcribed the whole of my letter from which he made the above extract, he would have showed his readers that I at that period contended for the same life union, the same oneness of Christ and his people, as I now do. I will give an extract or two. On page 237, after quoting Heb. 2:11, "For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one," I go on to say, "And so I believe I cannot conceive how the spotless Lamb of God could be made to bleed, or bleeding, how his blood could sanctify or cleans from their sins any of the family of Adam unless such a union previously existed between him and them as made their sins chargeable to him, and his suffering of death and enduring of the curse accounted as done by them." Again I say in that letter, "Ye are dead and your life is hid with Christ in God. When Christ who is our life shall appear, &c." This life which is "one in the Head and in the body, was in the only begotten of the Father from the beginning &c." Again on page 238, in speaking of Christ as the antitype of Adam, I say, "He must have been brought forth a perfect Christ, head and body, he and his bride in him. Hence his people were chosen in him (not into him) before the foundation of the world, and they were created in Christ Jesus unto good works; and as Christ – not as the essential Word – he is the "Beginning of the creation of God." Now this was then all good doctrine to Elder C. and even now he could refer to that letter as something good.

But when I advance the same sentiments now, it is heresy,

Arianism. But I also in that letter noticed the relation of the people of God to Adam, and showed the distinction in their relations to the two Adams, to be the same a that between the two Adams, and that it was in their relation to the earthy Adam, that they were under the law and needed redemption,

and upon this ground I contended then and do so now, for a substitution in the death of Christ. Does this puzzle Elder C. more now than it did when he first read that letter, that the elect should suffer the penalty of the law in Christ's suffering it; and yet that he suffered it as a substitute for them as the children of Adam? If it does how can he reconcile the 38th and 39th verse of Acts, Chap. 13th? "Be it known unto you, therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins. And by him all that believe are justified from all things from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses." Forgiveness, and justification are as opposite in idea, as are substitution and participation in the death of Christ. Forgiveness presupposes guilt in the person forgiven; on the contrary, justification is a legal clearance from all charge of guilt. How could these meet in the same persons and in reference to the same demands of the same law, except in their distinct relation to the two Heads? In their relation to their natural head, Adam, they were transgressors and needed forgiveness, which comes only through the blood of Christ being shed for them. In Christ their spiritual Head, they had magnified the law made it honorable, and were therefore made the righteousness of God in him, and justified by him from all things." &c. So as showed in that letter, in their relation to Adam he was not one with them, he being, holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate from sinners, was the spotless Lamb of God, he was therefore substituted as an offering for their sins. But in their spiritual life they were so one with Christ, that he could be held amenable for their transgressions, and the sword of justice be commanded to awake against him; and their life was so in him, that it could be reached but through him.

Their life being hid in God, how could they die but as he their

life died? Hence as he was so one with them as to be made to bear their sins in his own body, they must have been so one with him, as to have borne the penalty of the law in his bearing it. This is just in accordance with what I then wrote, and preached, and now believe and preach. Hence, if Elder C. had transcribed that whole letter, he would have saved me the trouble of this explanation; and have saved himself from the charge in this instance, of giving, and that knowingly, a one sided view of my sentiments, as a just representation of them. For he evidently had the letter before him when he made that extract.

Elder C. now comes forward with an argument, for a rarity, he says:

"If in the death of Christ there was a ransom price, and if a ransom is an equivalent rendered for the demand against those to be ransomed, and the church or sinners died with Christ, &c. Then they aided in the payment of that ransom, and in rendering the equivalent for the demand against them. Nothing is clearer than this, unless to get out of the difficulty, we contend that Christ died for one object and his people in him for another, which would be a greater absurdity and also inconsistent with the idea that they are one. Talk of Arminianism! Why this scheme out Herods Herod! Old Arminius, the Wesleys, Adam Clark and all the host of Arminian authors must surrender the palm. For none of them ever contended that the sinner could do any thing in making the atonement. They gave Christ the honor of that achievement without their cooperation, but that after the atonement was made, the sinner could help along a little by his effort, prayers, &c. Perhaps that poet who sung of Mingling his tears with Jesus' blood might have believed in this theory. It is strange that the passages of Scripture that represent the believers as suffering, dying, as crucified, &c., with Christ, all of which is accomplished under the reign of divine grace in them, should be carried to Calvary and made to apply to his death there. Paul said, I am – not, was – crucified with Christ, and I die daily. The believer is dead to the law by the body of Christ – dead to sin – crucified unto the world, and the world unto him."

I might pass Elder C's mares-nest which he has found and chuckles over so much, as he has done with some of my arguments; but I prefer calmly investigating his positions. His conclusions from his position in the argument, are, Then they aided in the payment of that ransom, &c. Not so fast, Sir. Let us notice some of the positions of Scripture before we fall before your logic. It is written, "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." Again, it is written, "Wherefore as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, so death passed upon all men, for all have sinned." In this latter text it is declared, That death passed upon all, for that all have sinned; yet in the former text it is laid down as an undeniable proposition, that In Adam all died, then of course all must have sinned in Adam, for all to die in him. How else could they have died in him but by being in him, and therefore being accounted as having transgressed and incurred the penalty death in his transgressing the command. Even so, in the same way, shall all be made alive in Christ, that is, of course by being in him, their Life, when by his obedience unto death, he exhausted the penalty death due his people, and thus conquered it. And they thus conquered it, in his conquering it. If, then all men in the first part of the text were in Adam, when he died under the penalty, they must have been with him. So if the other all were in Christ, they must have been with him in exhausting the penalty of death. Elder C. will not contend that, because Adam's all were in him, and therefore with him when he transgressed, they aided him in the transgression. If not, his argument falls to the ground, that because Christ's people were in him, and therefore with him in bearing the curse, yea, even bore the curse in his bearing it, that therefore they aided him personally in bearing it. If Christ is the life of his people, and they are by that, identified as the sons of God, are they not personally one with him as such, being even his body, and members in particular and the fullness of him, &c. did they not then in him the Head, do what he did in making the atonement, and yet he the Head did it alone? If by a member of my head I swallow a pill, did not I do it, and is not my body affected by it? If it said my hand put the pill to my mouth, what put the bitter pill of the curse to Christ but the transgression of the members of his body? Elder C. certainly does not hold to an actual union of Christ and his people, such as exist between the head and body, or he could not have formed such an argument. As to the charge of Arminianism, when he finds us denying the actual union of Christ and his people, then he may expect to find us secretly, if not openly, looking for something in our Adamic natures, something to be done by us, or in us, that will make us participants of the benefits of Christ's death. And then, and not till then, may he charge us with Arminianism in our doctrine.

Elder C's criticism upon Gal. 2:20, "I am crucified with Christ," &c. is as inconsistent as his charge of Arminianism. It is true, Paul there speaks of himself experimentally. But does experience produce a salvation; or is it a being brought experimentally to the knowledge of that salvation which is in Christ Jesus, and which he is? Faith brings nothing into existence, any more than common belief does. It leads us to know spiritual things, to know the truth as it is in Jesus Christ in being crucified was made a curse for us. Is repentance a bearing the curse or being crucified with Christ? Take the other text which Elder C. quotes in connexion, "I am dead to the law by the body of Christ." Does repentance produce a death to the law? Paul speaks of dying when sin revived, and again speaks of sins slaying him by the commandment. Children of God, in this, when you was thus slain, lying destitute of all hope of ever becoming any better, or of doing any thing to recommend you to the mercy of God, did you feel that you was dead to the law, that its demands against you had ceased? Or rather were you not more alive to its demands, so that you could see now way how God could be just and save you from its curse? And was not its demands so personal against you, that you saw that whosoever also might be saved, God would be just in assigning you over to everlasting punishment? How then have you since become dead to the law? Why as Paul did, not by repentance, faith, or any other exercise, but by the body of Christ. God gave you faith to behold his body as slain, and him as being made a curse, to redeem guilty sinners like you from the curse, and all the demands of the law. You may not all the time have inquired, or understood how this could be, but the substance of Christ's actually representing his people on the cross you felt; yea, as personal as the curse had stood against you, now you felt it exhausted and therefore as though you had borne it, in Christ's bearing it; and hence you was from this time so dead to it, that its thunders could no more alarm you. Elder C. may think as he pleased about our carrying these texts back to Calvary; but rest assured faith will carry the believer directly back there, for all his hope, and all his participation in the benefits of Christ's death, yea, he is made to now that if he was not with Christ there, and his sins personally were not expiated, he cannot be saved.

We shall se now who comes the highest to Arminianism, our

accuser or we. If he can tell the people of any other way of being delivered from the curse of the law, short of honoring the law, through Christ's honoring it, and therefore as being crucified with him, the Wesleyans would be as much pleased with his preaching, as they are of late with the preaching of his coadjutor in the war against us, Wm. Gilmore.

Elder C. once more:

"And now dear brethren shall this war about the prepositions with and for, with the opinion of a created life and Head of the church, be allowed to rend asunder and break the peace and fellowship of Zion? If this is to be done well may we take up the lamentation of David. Tell it not in Gath, publish it not in the streets of Arkelen, lest the daughters of the Philistines rejoice, lest the daughters of the uncircumcised triumph."

If Elder C. has reference in naming these fors and withs to the doctrine whether the elect were one with Christ, so as their sins were legally accounted his, and his obedience to the law accounted theirs, or that their sins were charged to him and he made to suffer for them, by an arbitrary substitution of him in their law place, without any legal claim against him, such as was against them in consequence of their union with Adam, then I think the fors and withs of vast importance, involving no less a consequence, than the purity of violation of God's justice and truth. God said to Adam, "In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." Again he hath said, "The soul that sinneth it shall die." Hence the sinner must either suffer the penalty in his own person, or be so one with Christ as to suffer it in him, or the truth of God fails. And where is God's justice in making an innocent person a substitute for the guilty, if there is not such a union of the parties as to make them legally one; and if legally and truly one, where he is, they are with him, as being one. Elder

C. seems to have no other idea of the union of Christ and his

people, than that of a combination of persons bound together by the ties of love. In that case, to be with him, they would have to be personally with him as man. But that is not the union we speak of. Those who have a conception of a spiritual man in the believer, can conceive of that spiritual existence being Christ in them; and not Adam reformed.

Hence they can believe in the idea of having ever been with Christ, and of his Godhead having ever been their dwelling place. But with what kind of grace does Elder C. talk about breaking the peace of Zion. Did we ever make our views a test of fellowship with them, or show a disposition to sever from them, until they drove us from them, by their slanderous misrepresentations of our sentiments, and denunciations of us as heretics, in a way that it would be understood who they meant, though they had not the candor either to name us, or to state truly our sentiments. If the difference were of so trivial importance as Elder C. here represents it to be, why all this persecution of us in their associations and from their pulpits, preaching us heretics, instead of preaching Christ and him crucified? I presume the point is, he thought we ought to yield our views, however conscientious we might be in holding them, and believing them to be according to the Scriptures, to accommodate ourselves to their feelings. But because we would dare to think and search for ourselves, and preach as we had learned from the Bible, and not from Doct. Gill, no denunciations of us can be too severe. But what will all this avail them. If they should blast my name, it will be but a short triumph; I shall soon be out of their way, and it may be I shall be at rest.

Besides God has others in the field whom he has nerved,

naturally, and spiritually, for engaging in any contest they may meet for the truth's sake. You may enlist in your behalf your Gilmores, your Pitchers and Mansers, but will God own such as advocates for his cause? God will assuredly in the end, vindicate the integrity and honor of his revelation, against all the decrees of councils and systems of men that may be arrayed against us. "The word," says Christ, "that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day." John 12:48.

Elder C.'s concluding paragraph:

"Well would it have been for those who have been mainly instrumental in introducing these new doctrines and opinions and thereby causing divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine we have learned, if they had observed their own precepts, and followed the wise counsels which they gave in years past. See Signs, 1st Vol., page 255, where Eld. Trott says: - 'I think we have enough to do to face the opposers of the purpose and grace of God as revealed in his sacred word, with an unbroken front, without suffering ourselves to be divided into parties, by disputes about our individual peculiar notions concerning certain points. I could also bring forward peculiar notions of my own relative to certain minor points, and most of us could probably do the same, and thus introduce a continued sense of disputes, but what would it profit? If there ever was a time that called for unanimity among the willing subjects of Zion's King and a united firm stand in opposition to the encroachments of will worship and anti-christian delusions, that time is now.' Yes that time is still now – as much so as it was 20 years ago. But I will now close. I have no unkind feelings towards any and would cheerfully aid in any way consistent with the truth as it is in Jesus to effect a reconciliation. It has not been my design to try to place any one in a false position or to misrepresent their views. What the record shows I am willing to abide by whether that will sustain what I have set down or not, and I want my testimony against these doctrines to go into history in a tangible form, and will cheerfully abide the issue that may ensue from the church of the living God, which is the pillar and ground of the truth.

"JOHN CLARK. "Nov. 8th, 1852."

Thus closes Elder C.'s communication. He has given in this paragraph another extract from my former writings with his communication. I think myself that the extract he has made contains wholesome advice. I will not say that I have in all instances lived up to it. I think in several instances I have erred from it. I am an erring mortal. I need daily forgiveness from God, and forbearance from my brethren. The advice therein contained is as important now, as when written, to the willing subjects of Zion's King; though the warfare is somewhat changed. Elder C., I presume, knows enough of war, to know that when the attack of the enemy is made from a new quarter, it is necessary to change our front. Then the combat was with the New Schoolism; now it is with nominalism, if I may be allowed to coin a word, in distinction from realities, as also with a servile submission to the opinions of certain fathers, and decisions of councils, as opposed to the integrity of the Scriptures as they stand.

What Elder C. says in conclusion, about having no unkind feelings, and about not having designed to try to place any in a false position, &c., I leave as it stands. I wish I could believe in the sincerity of his declarations, that his misrepresentations were from an error of judgment, an undersigned misconception of our views; for I would rather think favorably of him than unfavorably. What he has written and said on the point, has, according to his wishes, gone into history. What I have formerly written has been read by some, and what I now write may fall into the hands of some who will, with candor, judge of the correctness or incorrectness of his representations of my views, and of the error or soundness of my views according to the true standard, the Scriptures.

I have thus replied, I think calmly, to Elder C.'s communication. I have used some 33

expressions harsher, than I wish to use towards one, who has a standing as a Baptist preacher, but not harsher than the occasion seemed to me to require.

In conclusion I will say, it cannot be expected but that Elder

C. will reply in some measure to this; indeed I have called on him for a reply to some points; I would request that if he undertakes any further to give my views, he will give them in their connexion, candidly as I have declared them. I do not claim for them an exemption from error, and I am willing that they should be candidly examined and tested by the Scriptures, the only standard I admit. In my reply, so far as his attacks on me have brought them to notice, I have given my views on the points of difference between us, in a pretty full, and as far as I was able, in a candid and plain manner. It is not for me to say what course Elder C. shall pursue toward my views, but I will venture to give it as my opinion that it will in the end be more for his credit, if he will attack my views, to state them honestly, as I have declared them, then to carefully investigate them, and if he can, by sound argument and the testimony of the Scriptures show them to be heresy; than arbitrarily to denounce them as such, because they differ from certain creeds, and then to give countenance to his denunciations, falsify my views. But God will take care of his truth, and with this I would wish to be satisfied. Though I would desire that, if it is consistent to his will, he would soon make his truth manifest, whether Elder C. or myself fall before it.

S. TROTT. FOOTNOTE:

* So it reads in the original, John 8:12

APPENDIX

CONTAINING SOME REMARKS ON THE EDITORIAL IN "ZION'S PILGRIM," FOR MARCH, 1853, IN RESPONSE TO A LETTER OF ELDER CLARK, PUBLISHED IN THE SAME NUMBER. ALSO, REMARKS ON A LETTER OF ELDER LOUTHAN'S.

The part of Mr. Manser's Editorial which I shall notice, will be found on page 78th Zion's Pilgrim for 1853. It is this:

"We do not hesitate nor fear to declare, that men who from the pulpit or otherwise can treat with ridicule and can pour contempt upon such expressions as a Triune God, a Three- one God, &c., used by the servants of Christ and fully warranted by the Scriptures, are rotten at the core, with all their show of religion and pretended soundness, and are to be shunned by the children of God as enemies to the cross of Christ, and secret emissaries of Satan though coming in the garbs of professed friendship to the cause of truth.

"The church of the living God from the Apostles' days to the present time have embraced the doctrine of three divine persons in the Godhead, the Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost, having plain Scriptures to support it, and being led into it by a blessed and heartfelt experience; while those who have denied and caviled at this, have just been regarded as lacking that holy unction and anointing which teacheth all things, &c.!"

Thus this Editor, catching the fire from Elder C.'s letter, which was of a piece with it, goes on with what would appear a holy zeal to denounce all who do not receive every expression which he holds sacred. Yet he himself can treat with contempt the authority of the Lord Jesus Christ, as King in Zion, by trampling under foot, what he has acknowledged to be the appointed ordinances of Christ, by publicly approving of extending fellowship to, and communion with those who pervert the ordinance of baptism by substituting sprinkling for immersion, and infants for believers. Yet is he hailed as a brother by Eld. C., and he with other characters are among those I presume whom he terms in his letter to this Editor, The living in Jerusalem. But for what has he denounced certain persons rotten to the core, and as deserving to be shunned by the children of God? For ridiculing, as he says, certain names by which those whom he calls the servants of Christ choose to designate God. As though the all- wise God did not know by what names to reveal Himself, without men's inventing names for Him. It is this spirit which I wish to point out in this paragraph; a spirit which rejects persons from christian fellowship, because they will not reverence such names as men may invent for God, however religious and sound they may otherwise appear to be.

But who are they to whom Mr. Manser refers? Elder C., in his letter to which this is a response, names only myself, but speaks in connexion of the Editor of the Signs. It is therefore probably Mr. M. has reference to us, or to others with us. It is possible that some among us may have spoken slightly of the term Triune as being too pedantic for plain O.S. Baptists, though I have not heard them. But I know that Bro. Beebe, as well as myself, have repeatedly declared our belief in the sentiment intended to be conveyed by that name, that is, that God exists as three and one. I know of none among us who do not so believe. As to the term in English, the Three- One God, I have myself frequently used it for brevity's sake. I have often had occasion to speak of God as existing as Three and yet as being but one, in distinction from the tri- personal notion. For whilst I believe that God exists as three in unity, I cannot believe that there are three divine persons in the Godhead. The legitimate idea conveyed by the term person, and especially where the term persons in the plural is used, is that if individual beings. Hence three divine persons, would be three divine individuals, and what would that be but three Gods? I believe in the incomprehensibility of God, but I cannot believe in His being an absurdity, and to speak of three individuals, as one being, is to my apprehension an absurdity.

In his next paragraph, he goes on in the same spirit to unchristianite all who deny the doctrine of three divine persons in the Godhead, or who cavil at it. As this strikes directly at me, it becomes me to inquire particularly into the authorities he gives to this doctrine. I will take his authorities given inversely.

He speaks of the Church having been led into this doctrine by a blessed and heartfelt experience. I have read and heard related many experiences, and those of numbers of persons who were tri-personalists, but I have never known one to name this things as any part of what they were led into the knowledge of, in their experience. I have known those who have been led into their experience, to a heartfelt sense of the Godhead of Christ Jesus, as they had not known it before. But I have not known of any being led to the knowledge of three persons in the Godhead by any such experience as that by which they were led to the knowledge of salvation. So that Mr. M., I think, was indulging in the imagination of the poet, when he wrote this. It was just that kind of speculation which many have mistaken for christian experience.

His next point is that the church has plain Scripture to support this doctrine. I find plain Scripture for believing that God has revealed himself as three, as Father, as Word or Son, and as Holy Ghost, and that these three are one, so one that whenever God is named, we are bound to believe it to be that God in His whole person or being, who hath said, "I am the LORD (or Jehovah,) and there is none else, no God beside me." Isa. 45:5. But plain Scripture to support the idea of three divine persons in the Godhead, I have not seen, neither do I think it can be showed. The Son is said to be the express image of God's person. Heb. 1:1,2. He is such, in that, all that hath been declared of God or reflected of Him, has been by the Son. "No man hath seen God at any time, &c." Again, that God who in time past spake unto the Father by the Prophets (Heb. 1:1) can be no other than the who by the Prophets said, "I even I am the LORD and besides me there is no Savior." But the Son is the only Savior, therefore the Son as God, must be the same with him who spake by the Prophets. Hence I cannot think the expression person, here has any reference to different persons in the Godhead. But the declaration, the express image of his person, conveys to me the idea that God in all His attributes and fullness is represented by the Son, as Christ said to Philip, "He that hath seen me hath seen the Father." Again, it has been supposed that tri-personality in the Godhead, is proved from the distinctive use of the personal pronouns in reference to the Father and Son, &c. But it must be borne in mind, that the Son as he is manifested, is the one Mediator between God and men. Paul says, "A mediator is not a mediator of one; but God is one," thus showing that a mediator must be personally distinct from God, as well as from men.

Consequently the Son in order to be a Mediator must possess a personality distinct from God, as well as one of the parties to be mediated between. A distinct personality in the Godhead, unless it made him distinct from God, would not meet the case. Hence says Paul again, "There is one God and one Mediator between God and men," – and who is he? God the Son? No; but "The Man Christ Jesus." If the Life that was in the Word from the beginning does not constitute the Son personally distinct from the Father and the Holy Ghost, in the estimation of others, yet surely if the Word in being made flesh, was made a perfect man, then in that manhood he possessed all the qualities of a distinct person; Jesus in Pilate's view was a person; then of course the Word or Son possessed in consequence of his assumption of manhood a distinct personality from the Father and Holy Ghost, who were not made flesh. But as the second man, or the man Christ Jesus, was the Lord from Heaven, so I believe he actually existed as the one Mediator from before the foundation of the world. But as I have above showed that no personal distinction in the Godhead would capacitate him for acting as Mediator between God and men, he must be personally distinct from God to stand in the relation of one. I think I find requisite personal distinction in the Word from his having in him that life which was the light of men. If that life was the life of Christ's people as I think no candid man can deny after considering what is said of it as the light of men, from the 4th to the 13th verse John, 1st Chap., then he was one with his people, being their life or existence, as he was one with God, being God, and at the same time had a personal distinction from each. He was thus distinct from his people because he was God, and distinct from the Father and the Holy Ghost because he was the life of his people. What a glorious person for a Mediator? One with God and one with his people, therefore securing the glory of the one and blessedness of the other; a Mediator in which both parties meet, and who is the antitype of the mercy seat which covered the Ark and the tables of the Law, and from which God communed with Moses and Israel, so in the Mediator God communes with His people and they behold His face in peace. Elder C. and his brother Manser, may pronounce the idea of such a Mediator, blindness and heresy; but with all their orthodoxy they cannot present to view a person so suitable to stand as Mediator between God and men, as is the man Jesus Christ in his compound person. Hence as we contemplate him as a Mediator it is no wonder the Scriptures present him to view in all the characteristics of a distinct person; so that we need not undertake to disturb the unity of the Godhead to find a solution of the use of the personal pronouns as found in the Scriptures from Gen. 1:26, and on.

Mr. Manser's first-named authority for three divine persons in the Godhead, and the last in our notice, is that the church from the Apostles' days to the present time have embraced that doctrine. If he could have showed us that the Apostles themselves taught this doctrine of three divine persons in the Godhead, there would have been no need of reference to the opinions of the church in after ages. If this doctrine of three persons were true, it is unaccountable that the Apostles

should not have taught it in direct terms; especially if it be so important a point, that the believing, or not believing it constitutes the distinction between those who have been anointed with the holy unction and those who have not.

However, as Mr. M.'s assertion involves an important point in history, we will examine it. Our appeal will of course be to history for proof on the point. Mosheim's testimony, speaking of the introduction of the Arian controversy, in the early part of the 4th century, is this: "The subject of this fatal controversy which kindled such deplorable divisions throughout the christian world, was the doctrine of three persons in the Godhead, a doctrine which in the three preceeding centuries had happily escaped the vain curiosity of human researches and been left undefined and undetermined by any particular set of ideas. The church, indeed, had frequently decided against Savellians and others, that there was a real difference between the Father and the Son, and that the Holy Ghost was distinct from both; or, as we commonly speak, that three distinct persons exist in the Deity; but the mutual relation of these persons to each other, and the nature of that distinction that subsists between them are matters that hitherto were neither disputed nor explained, and with respect to which the church had, consequently observed a profound silence. Nothing was dictated to the faith of christian doctors entertained different sentiments upon this subject without giving the least offence, and discoursed variously concerning the distinctions between Father, Son and Holy Ghost; each one following his respective opinions with the utmost liberty." Well would it be if the church was brought to that ancient simplicity concerning the modus of God's existing as three. Notice that this learned historian, though himself a tri-personalist, does not represent the church at this time, as having adopted the idea of three distinct persons in the Godhead, but the reverse, only that the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost were distinct; that is, they held to a trinity in the Godhead, as myself and others with me have held it. It is true he attempts to define their notions of the distinction existing between the three as corresponding with, to use his words, "As we commonly speak, that three distinct persons exist in Deity." And yet he fully shows that the christian doctors (or teachers) discoursed variously concerning the distinction between Father, Son and Holy Ghost. That Mosheim in the above extract, meant to convey the idea that the notion of the Three, being a trinity of persons in the Godhead was not a defined or generally received idea is further evident from what he says relative to the Macedonian sect which arose in the latter part of this (the 4th) century. He says the council assembled by Theodosius (the Emperor) in A.D. 381, "Put a stop by its authority to the growing evil and crushed this rising sect before it had arrived at its full maturity. An hundred and fifty Bishops who were present at this council gave the finishing touch to what the Council of Nice had left imperfect, and fixed in a full and determinate manner, the doctrine of three persons in one God." Thus history assures us, that the doctrine of three persons in one God was not fixed as the orthodox doctrine until the year 381, fifty years after the great Council of Nice, assembled by the decrees of Constantine the Great. If we examine Jones' history of the Waldenses it will be found, that whilst he speaks of the doctrine of a trinity being held, that as, that God exists as three, yet he in no instance mentions the doctrine of three persons in the Godhead as being held up to the Council of Nice in the year 325. Neither in the Creed adopted by that Council, as given by him, from Eusebius, is there any mention of three persons in the Godhead. In some excellent remarks of this historian the presumption of mortals in attempting to define the modus of the Divine existence, or how God exists as three and one, he quotes even Athanasius as saying upon this point, and as he thinks correctly, "The Father cannot be the Son, nor the Son the Father, and the Holy Ghost is never called by the name of the Son, but is called the spirit of the Father and of the Son. The Holy Trinity is but one divine nature and one God. This is sufficient for the faithful, human knowledge goes no farther. The cherubims veil the rest with their wings." Thus, notwithstanding the presumption of Athanasius and the Council in defining the Trinity in which God exists, to be three in the modus of their existence, as he that begets, he that is begotten, and he that is breathed forth, they then had not pried so far under the wings of the cherubims, or into that which God has not revealed, as even to see that their own prescribing to men what they must believe, as to how God exists as three, would lead others in like presumption to constitute the three into three persons in one God. Thus Mr. Manser's historical assertion that the doctrine of three persons in the Godhead has been held by the church from the Apostles' days, and his candor, or intelligence, in making the assertion, are alike dissolved into air by coming in contact with history. But the arrogance of him, and others in making tri-personality a test of regeneration, and of fellowship, is more fully developed by the following circumstances: The Novatians separated from what was considered the Catholic or general church, A.D. 251, seventy- four years before the Council of Nice, wherein Athanasius' notion of the Sonship of the Son of God was established. The Donatists in Africa in like manner and for like cause had also separated from the Catholic church some years' before the Nicene Council. There was no charge against these separatists on account of doctrine. The complaints against them were that they were too rigid in discipline, especially in receiving members, that they had made a great split in the church, and that they would receive none from the Catholic church without rebaptizing them, on account of the corruptions in that church. They thus occupied then the same ground towards the Catholic church that the O. School Baptists do now towards the New School. These, though much persecuted by the Catholic church or the christian Emperors, as Heads of the church, were numerous for one or two centuries, but being ultimately driven from their homes by the Emperor Honorius, were lost sight of, until the Waldenses were discovered in the vallies of Piedmont. These being a people holding a like separation from the Catholic church with the Novatians and Donatists, are supposed to be a continuation of those ancient churches, thus hid from the Dragon and the Beats in the place which God prepared for the woman. So that if the Waldenses be considered the true church in distinction from the Catholic, then the Donatists and Novatians, the only separatists from the Catholic church, from which they could be likely to have descended, must have been the true church before the doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son, as God, and that of three persons in the Godhead, were brought in and established as the doctrine of that church. Hence we find no mention of these doctrines in the Confessions of Faith of the Waldenses. Again, as the Dragon is said to have given to the Beast that arose out of the sea, his power, his seat, and great authority, imperial Rome as christian, must have been intended by the Dragon, and not Rome pagan as I formerly thought. The Emperor's presuming to connect the kingdom of Christ with their State government, taking the control of its affairs and enforcing such doctrines and ceremonies as the Council called by their command decided on, and that by cruel persecutions, was certainly a monster deserving the name of Dragon, as the power which arose after him, is called a Beast in distinction. The distinction between the two being this, the Dragon based his ecclesiastical powers upon his imperial authority over State governments by virtue of his ecclesiastical authority. Rome pagan was nothing but a kingdom of this world, but the Dragon was first seen as a wonder in heaven, Rev. 12:3; and besides is represented as continuing, as he does in all the religious establishments of every age and country. See Rev. 12:17; which cannot with propriety be said of Rome pagan. Thus as Constantine by his imperial authority called the Council of Nice and presided on it, and afterwards enforced its decisions by the sword, whilst he also persecuted the Novatians and Donatists for separating from the Catholic church. And as the Council of Constantinople was called by the Emperor Theodosius, and its decisions, that there existed three persons in the Godhead, were enforced by his persecuting edicts. It is therefore evident from history that the doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son of God, and that of tri-personality in the Godhead had their origin as established doctrines of the church, from the Dragon. Yet strange to tell, these very doctrines having such origin, are made, not only by Mr.

Manser and the popular, so called evangelical churches, but also by professed O.S. Baptists, as tests of soundness in the faith, and of christian fellowship. And they are still attempted to be enforced in the same spirit from which they originated. That is, demanding arbitrarily implicit faith in them as they had been handed down. Whenever a person manifests a disposition to examine the divine testimony for himself, and declares his dissent from the decisions of those Councils, instead of attempting to explain and prove those points and to clear away the objections the enquirer may bring against them, he is at once denounced as a heretic, or as a disturber of the peace of the churches, by bringing in NEW THINGS.

Here I leave Elder Clark and his brother Manser to pay my respects to Elder Louthan.

In the pamphlet I published entitled "An Appeal to the churches of the Ketocton Ass., I had accasion to present Elder Louthan to view, in some of his movements. He afterwards wrote me a lengthy letter on the subject, which I concluded not to answer. Since that, I have understood that he furnished a copy or copies of his letter to some of the Lauck and Clark party, that they have been feasting on its abusive contents, until they are so excited with it, that one of them, a Baptist, has said Burning is too good for me. But this is only a letting off a little of the spirit of the Dragon.

In consequence of this, I have thought it best to notice some few sentences of his letter in which our veracities stand in opposition; leaving his abusive expressions and denunciations of me unmolested, for the further enjoyment of those who delight in such things, the first point in his letter I shall notice, is the following: Speaking concerning my notice of his course at the Corresponding Meeting of 1850, in a letter to Bro. Dudley, he says:

"Why were you not candid enough to tell all the truth and inform Bro. Dudley that the Doct. Klipstein had preached his D.'s views on the stand on Friday, and as Louthan preached on Saturday he felt constrained to notice them and to give Bro. D. as the author of them, as they originated with him.

Would this have been too much truth to have answered your purpose?"

To this my reply is, that Bro. Klipstein, in preaching on Friday, preached his own views, that he knew he was at a meeting and among brethren who in general agreed with him in sentiment, and that he therefore had no just ground to suppose in preaching thus, he would provoke any dispute; that you, previous to that meeting, had been with Elder Buck and among his churches, where you had undoubtedly learned our agreement in most points with Bro. Dudley in the views advanced in his Circular, that on Friday night, you and Bro. Beebe with other brethren staid at brother Leachman's; that you there made your attack upon brother D. and his Circular, and that the whole matter was gone over two or three times that night, brother Beebe meeting your charges, and refuting them, and exculpating Bro. D. from all blame in having the Circular brought to public notice, assuring you that he was attending the Licking Ass. at the time, and that it was through his proposition it was brought before the Association, and yet when your charges were once exhausted and refuted, you would fly back and reiterate them, and again Bro. Beebe would drive you from them. Yet the next day when you came to occupy the stand instead of preaching the gospel, you entertained your audience with a repetition of the same charges against Bro. Dudley and his Circular from which you had been thrice driven the night before. From all this I think I was warranted in the conclusion that you came to the Cor. Meeting determined to make this attack upon Bro. D. and through him, upon our sentiments, hoping there were some elements among us on which you might operate to foment a division. It was on this account that I represented you as coming on a mission for making a division. I have now perhaps given you more truth on the point than you want. But as you have drawn it out, it must stand, and as truth too with those acquainted with the affair. The next portion of Elder L's letter which I shall notice is this:

"Our first meeting was at Bailtimore Ass. in May, 18, 1850. You urged me to preach the introductory sermon, and after you heard me preach three sermons at that meeting unsolicited on my part you took me by the hand and with tears in your eyes, you observed, Bro. Louthan I wish you to know that I have fellowship for your doctrine, to which I made but little reply, for I then believed your friendship was not worth much."

After several other lines of like stamp with the last but increasing in vulgarity of abuse, he goes on to say:

"At that meeting you prevailed on me to let you make an appointment for preaching at the City of Washington, and insisted on my attending the Corresponding Meeting."

I appeal to the candid reader, Was there any thing uncivil or unchristian-like in my treatment to Elder Louthan at this interview taking his own statement of the matter? Any thing calculated to provoke him to make such a rough attack upon our sentiments through his attack upon our sentiments through his attack on Bro. Dudley, at the Cor. Meeting? He was at the Balt. Ass. rather as a stranger, and as it was my province to invite one to preach the Introductory, I invited him. Knowing that he had a regular standing among the O.S. Baptists, I was willing to treat him as a brother, though I presume from what I had seen through the Signs, that he had some prejudices against me, and against some of my views. He twice afterwards preached during the meeting, and I was generally pleased with his preaching; there was nothing particularly objectionable in his doctrine, and he appeared to aim at peace, as he touched on no points, on which we were known to disagree. When I am pleased I am quite as apt to give a token of it a when I am displeased.

Elder L. is not the first person who has for a time preached in

conformity to the known views of those he was among till he gained their confidence. Neither am I the first that has been deceived in a person's preaching. I will relate an anecdote.

Our aged brother Abraham Cole, who, while living was a member of the Black Rock Baptist church, and was pretty extensively known as a correct, firm and discerning O.S. Baptist, was once traveling out west, and chanced to spend a Lordsday in the vicinity of a Presbyterian meeting which he attended, and being pleased with the soundness of the discourse, he concluded the preacher was one taught of God; going up to the preacher to express his approbation, he said to him "I perceive Sir, you have had a good teacher." Yes, replied the preacher, I studied under a good teacher, but he has been dead several years. Poor Bro. Cole, was taken all aback. So was I, when I heard Elder L's philippie at the Cor.

Meeting.

The next portion of Elder L's letter which requires notice reads thus:

"As you know it was after Bro. Beebe had preached and placed me as I thought in an improper light before the people, I spoke a few words in reply, in which I stated a large portion of God's word on the subject of regeneration implied a change, that this was their meaning. At that time I looked at you and you shook your head and said I was mistaken. I then quoted the language of Paul who says, it is not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us by the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost. I stated that if that passage did not imply a change I did not know the meaning of language."

There is Elder L's statement, but I still feel confident that the statement I formerly made is correct although differing so materially from his. It is true that he had labored in discourse to prove that regeneration was a change of the soul. But when he arose to reply to Bro. Beebe, after blaming him for attacking his discourse, &c. He remarked, "Much has been said on the subject of regeneration, What is it? It is a washing, (or cleansing) that is its import in the Scriptures." He looked round to me as he spake those words, and as he says, I shook my head at him, and said with some emphasis, and loud, My brother, you are mistaken. And as he turned from me he quoted Tit. 3:5, as he mentions in the above extract, and probably added, "If this does not imply a change, &c." I feel confident that in this statement I am in substance correct; not only from the recollection I have of the matter, but also from the connecting circumstances. Elder

L. ought to recollect that when he arose that second time, he

was much excited, and hence was not as sensible of what he said as though he had been calm. As to representing regeneration as a change, instead of a washing or cleansing whichever word be used, if he had so represented it, it would not have so surprised me as to lead me to interrupt him as I did, for I had often heard it so represented, and I do myself believe there is a change connected with regeneration both in the soul and life. In the soul in that it is quickened from its dormant state to a sense of its relation to God, &c. Here are the two versions of the matter; and there I leave it. If I am incorrect in the statement, it is from a wrong impression made on my mind at the time.

The last extract which I shall make from his letter, is this:

"In reference to the charge of the Ketocton Ass. It is true I laid down the position that faith was the result of testimony, and you must know my course of argument on that occasion. I spoke of a historical faith and the faith of miracles, as being entirely insufficient to make a man acquainted with Christ as his Savior; that a man in this respect might have all faith so that he could remove mountains, and without charity which could only flow from one who had been made alive from the dead it was nothing. You know that I contended in that sermon that faith was the gift of God and the fruit of the spirit; that I believed it to be one thing for a man to be born again, and another for him to have the evidence, &c."

Elder L. has once or twice stated in this extract that I know this and that, but I prefer stating for myself what I know. I know he is so far honest, as to confess that he laid down the position, That faith is the result of testimony. I know that being surprised at such a position from him my attention was fully aroused to see how he would carry it out, whether he would make faith out a mere natural belief or whether he would give it a turn so as to conform it more to what is generally received by O.S. Baptists. I know he went on to sustain his position at some length by a reference to our belief of natural things as being produced by evidence; and that whatever he may have said about historical faith, he said nothing to show that he meant any thing else than what the literal construction of his position implied. I know that at length he made these remarks; "It will be said that faith is the gift of God. So it is, because God gives the evidence by which it is produced." Or to that effect. Finding him thus wresting this text to suit his position, I turned to Bro. Beebe, who was sitting by the side of me, and said, If they are going to make a split, I care not how soon they do it, if such Campbellism as this is to be preached and received among them. After this I paid but little attention while I staid at the stand to what he said, so that if he mentioned faith's being a fruit of the spirit I know not what he said concerning it. But I think he is a man of sufficient sense to know that if he had quoted either of those texts and left them to stand as he has, in the above quotation from his letter, they would have stood in direct contradiction to his position. What, Faith absolutely the gift of God, and the fruit of the spirit, and yet like common belief, the result of testimony!!

I have thus given my statements on the several points on which the veracity of Elder Louthan and myself are in contact. I would have preferred, could I have been convinced that my impressions concerning his declarations were wrong, to have recalled what I had written; after receiving his letter, I wrote to several brethren who were present at the meetings requesting them to state what were their recollections on the points, but found that neither of them had a sufficiently clear recollection of the matter to state any thing decisive, two yeas having then elapsed; if any thing their impressions seemed to favor mine. Hence I must leave the matter as it is, until I can be convinced that I have not made a correct statement. Those who are pleased with the abusive parts of his letter will of course believe his statements correct and mine false. Others will probably conclude that there is some undersigned mistake on the one side, or the other. And this I would hope a correct view of the subject.

S. TROTT.

5. Elder Lemuel Potter^[7]

Potter isn’t fighting EVU in isolation, but he very directly hits the same doctrine.

He quotes older Baptists (Waldenses, English, early American, etc.) and says that none of them believed “the doctrine of eternal children.” (baptistgadfly.blogspot.com)

In summarizing later innovations, Potter says:

“Among the many theories invented, the most plausible and popular was that of eternal spiritual existence in Christ, as our seminal head; and implantation into the Adam sinner, making no change in soul, body, nor spirit; hence, non-resurrection, and a host of equally fatal heresies…” (baptistgadfly.blogspot.com)

He explicitly associates this “eternal children doctrine” with the newer metaphysical Hardshell speculations and contrasts it with the “old doctrine of the church.”

So Potter functions as a widely-read, late-19th-century historian-theologian declaring Eternal Vital Union an innovation and tying it to a string of errors.

TWO SEED DOCTRINE

The C.H. Cayce The eternal Two-Seed doctrine is that God made choice of certain persons from among the human family for His children to dwell in for awhile here in time. Hence, they claim to believe in the doctrine of election; but they do not believe that sinners of Adam’s race were chosen to be saved in heaven. They teach, as stated, that God made choice of persons of Adam’s race for His children to dwell in for awhile here on earth. In the work which we call regeneration they teach that there is an eternal spirit or child which comes down from God out of heaven and takes up its abode in the Adam man, and remains in the Adam man and torments him until the Adam man dies; when the Adam man dies, this eternal child goes back to God where it came from and the Adam man goes to the ground where he will always remain. The eternal Two-Seeder claims that the body of the Adam man is no part of the child of God; that the child of God is on the inside of the Adam man; the child of God is a man on the inside of the man you see. They carry this doctrine to its logical conclusion and deny the resurrection of the body, claiming that the body remains in the dust, and will not be raised again. The eternal Two-Seeders also hold that God unalterably fixed and decreed all the wickedness that men do, and that wicked men and devils are doing God’s will in their nefarious crimes and meanness as much so as is being done by His children rendering gospel service and living a life of righteousness; that the devil does the will of God as much as Jesus Christ did in His perfect life of obedience to the law of God. (Cayce’s Editorials vol. 3, ppg 364, 365) C.H. Cayce: The doctrine of eternal Two-Seedism is that in the work which we call regeneration, an eternal child, or eternal spirit, comes down from God out of heaven and takes up its abode in the Adam man, and remains in the Adam man until the man dies; then that eternal child goes back to God where it came from, and the Adam man goes to the grave and remains there forever. Thus the Adam man is not a subject of salvation. It is also taught that there are two families in the flesh—that Cain was a child of the devil by ordinary generation, and that Seth was a child of God by ordinary generation—that there are two families existing in the flesh—the family of God and the family of the devil, and that these two families have continued to exist all along from then until now. This is their teaching, although we have not learned how the devil got his family across the flood. These are some of the teachings of the Two-Seedism system, which we think are enough to show that the system is false. (Cayce’s Editorials vol. 2, pp. 104, 105) Lemuel Potter: Elder Hearde . . . . undertook to prove in his affirmation that the people of God are a seed which existed in heaven prior to the formation of Adam man, and that they would all go back to heaven where they came from. I do not pretend to say that I have his proposition verbatim, but this is the substance of it, and he led out in the opening of that question, with a speech for one hour, in which he made a number of scripture quotations to show that God’s people were a seed. He quoted this among others: “A seed shall serve him, and it shall be counted to the Lord for a generation.” And “In thee and thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed.” “I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed. It shall bruise thy head, and it shall bruise his heel.” Quite a number of other texts of this character were introduced in his first speech, without a great many comments. He stated that he intended to merely lay his planks down loose, in this speech, and that he would come with his hatchet and nails and fasten them down in his next speech. In my reply to his arguments on these proof-texts, to prove the pre-existence of God’s people, I simply admitted that I believed that the Lord’s people were a seed, and that was all that he had proven by these texts. I was not here to deny that God’s people were a seed, but that I was here to deny that they had an eternal existence, and that there was not a single text in all the catalogue of texts that he had quoted that said anything about the pre-existence of the people mentioned in the proof-texts. I thought then, and do yet, however, that he did about as well in proving that doctrine as any man could do. I felt very confident that he could not prove it by the Bible. He finally inquired where the Lord got his people, if they did not eternally exist. I replied that he made them. That I knew of no people as the subjects of eternal salvation, only the people that God made. That the Bible frequently spoke of the fact that God made his people. “Thy Maker is thine husband,” is one expression of scripture, and the very idea of a Maker is the best inferential testimony that they must have been made. Again, I do not believe that they had an eternal existence, because it was said that Adam was the first man, I could not conceive of the idea of there being a man before him, and not only was he the first man, but that he was made of the dust of the ground. This was the man that I belieed had transgressed the law of God, and fallen under its curse, and became subject to death, and all the miseries consequent upon sin, and that they were the subjects of salvation. But I will not stop here to give a full detail of the arguments, any more than to say that I became more fully convinced during that discussion against the doctrine of the pre-existence of God’s people than I had ever been. I believe that God eternally knew his people, and that it was as easy a matter for him to know them before they existed as it was afterwards. I believed then, more than that, that God foreknew his people, and how he foreknew his people and they have an eternal existence I could not understand, for I thought to foreknow a thing was to know it beforehand, that is, to know it before it was, so if he foreknew his people, he knew them before they were, and the apostle says, “Whom he foreknew, them he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his son.” It would be impossible for him to foreknow them, or to know them before they were, if they eternally existed. He finally, however, made this remark, that if I would admit the pre-existence of God’s people, he did not ask any boot on the question on the resurrection. So, I say today, that the non-resurrection doctrine is the legitimate consequence, and the inevitable result of the doctrine of the pre-existence of the children of God. Men may talk all they wish about the doctrine of eternal vital union, eternal children, eternal justification, and so forth, but I do not believe in the eternal existence of God’s people; neither do I believe in eternal vital union. Now, if a man admits the doctrine of eternal children, he may as well admit the doctrine of non-resurrection. We discussed this proposition a day and a half, after which I affirmed that there will be, in the future, a resurrection of the bodies, both of the just and the unjust, of Adam’s posterity, some to eternal life, and some to everlasting punishment. I give the substance of the proposition from memory, for I do not remember it verbatim. I argued that resurrection meant to restore to life that which once had life and that to put one man down and take another up in his place, would be no resurrection, but to lay one body down in death, and then take that same body up alive, is a resurrection, and nothing short of it is. I believed then, and do today, that it was the Adam sinner that was saved, the same man that was made of the dust of the ground. I did not then believe, nor do I yet, that any part of him came from heaven. I believe that the very same body that goes to the grave will be precisely the same body that will be raised from the dead, and finally taken to heaven. I contended for that doctrine in this discussion. As before stated, after this discussion was over, the visits of those men ceased among the churches in our part of the country.” (Lemuel Potter) [In another debate with a man named Williams, Elder Potter had this to say about whether the children of God are eternal, whether they have always existed in heaven (two seedism), or whether they are creatures of time. (Emphasis added)]. Lemuel Potter: I quote Isaiah 64:8,9, “But now, O Lord, thou art our Father; we are the clay and thou our Father: and we all are the work of thy hand. Be not wroth very sore, O Lord, neither remember iniquity forever; behold, see, we beseech thee we are thy people.” From this text we learn that these were the people of God. They were the clay; they were the work of God’s hand. They never came from heaver. Job 33:4-7, “The Spirit of God hath made me, and the breath of the Almighty hath given me life. If thou canst answer me, set thy words in order before me, stand up. Behold, I am formed out of the clay. Behold my terror shall not make thee afraid, neither shall my hand be heavy upon thee.” . . . . “Like as a father pitieth his children, so the Lord pitieth them that fear him. For he knoweth our frame; he remembereth that we are dust. As for man, his days are as grass; as a flower of the field, so he flourisheth. For the wind passeth over it, and it is gone; and the place thereof shall know it no more,” Psa. 103:13-16. The last text quoted proves not only that man dies, but it proves that he is of the dust of the ground and also that he is the object of salvation.” (Lemuel Potter) Lemuel Potter: One man who believed in the doctrine of the pre-existence of God’s children, in reply to an article that I had written, some years ago, stated that he could not see how God chose his people in Christ, before the foundation of the world, if they did not exist then; that he did not choose them into Christ, but that he chose them in Christ, was his argument, and that they must have been there, in some sense or other, or he could not have done it. I claim that God foreknew his people, and that he was as well acquainted with them, before they had a being, as he is after they have a being, and that he did choose them in Christ to eternal salvation, before the foundation of the world, although they had no actual being at that time. On the subject of the pre-existence of God’s children, there has been a great deal said, and the legitimate result of that doctrine is a denial of the resurrection of the bodies of God’s people. I was asked, in a debate on this question once, if the people of God did not exist through all eternity, where did he get them? My answer was, he made them, and I refer to Isa. 54:5, as one text that proves that he did make them, “For thy Maker is thine husband; the Lord of hosts is his name; and thy Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel. The God of the whole earth shall he be called.” From this it sounds like the church had a Maker, and I never could conceive of a maker of something that had existed from eternity. God’s people were made. He made them of the dust of the ground. They were the first people in existence. The apostle Paul said, “The first man is of the earth earthly.” If the earthly man is the first man, I argue that there was no man before him, hence, the earthly man is the first man. Again the apostle says, “Howbeit, that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural, and afterwards that which is spiritual.” The natural man is the earthly man, and he was made of the dust of the earth, and there was no man before him, consequently it would be impossible for God’s people to have existed before the first man existed. I published a work a few years ago, entitled “Unconditional Election Stated and Defined; or the Denial of the Doctrine of Eternal Children, or Two Seeds in the Flesh.” I sent a copy of it to all the editors of Old School Baptist periodicals in this country.

One man wrote a lengthy editorial in reply to the position I took against the pre-existence of God’s children. He said, “According to Bro. Potter’s views, God has no people, only as he takes them out of Adam’s family and adopts them into hs own.” That is precisely what I believe, and I feel proud that I am understood, even if I am not endorsed, on that subject. I believe that the subject of salvation is the Adam sinner, and I do not believe that he had an eternal existence. The apostle speaks of God’s people as being foreknown. “Whom he foreknew he did also predestinate, to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.” Again, whom he did predestinate, them he also called, and whom he called, them he also justified,” etc. I take the position that if God’s people were as old as himself, that he did not foreknow them. To foreknow a thing is to know it beforehand, and he foreknew his people, and it was the people that he foreknew that he predestinated to be conformed to the image of Christ. I take the position that God purposed the salvation of his people, and that he saves the people according to his purpose.

The text says that we are predestinated according to the purpose of him who “worketh all things after the counsel of his own will.” This is the way we are predestinated. The apostle says, “We know that all things work together for good to them that love God. to them who are the called according to his purpose.” (Lemuel Potter)

6. Elder Joel Hume^[8] (Kentucky)

We don’t have his whole circular online in one place, but:

A 19th-century circular letter by Joel Hume (1849) on regeneration and resurrection is cited as “very pointed” and “in line” with Conrad, Watson, etc., insisting that:

the soul is created,

the soul is regenerated and survives death,

and the body is truly resurrected. (baptistgadfly.blogspot.com) This Source is antagonistic towards EVU but still has good primary sources.

Hume becomes an early Kentucky witness against the Parker/Dudley/Beebe style eternal-children speculation.

7. Sylvester Hassell & the Kehukee/Gospel Messenger circle

Hassell is interesting: he’s not a dust-up polemicist on EVU like Conrad, but he does mark it as an “extreme element” that needed to be purged for reunion.

In his article on relations between the Beebe and Clark Baptists, Hassell defines “eternal-vital-unionism” as:

“the doctrine of the eternal–vital-union of Christ and His people, in the sense that they are as eternal and uncreated as He, and had an actual existence as eternal children, eternal spirits, before the beginning of the world.” (divinityarchive.com)

He says this had been held “thirty years ago” by some in the North-Eastern associations, but that “not one person in their fellowship now maintains such a doctrine,” and he rejoices that these “discordant and extreme elements (those advocating eternal-vital-unionism and those advocating means-ism)” have been separated out so the main body can unite on more basic Old School principles. (divinityarchive.com)

So Hassell is a moderating anti-EVU leader: he doesn’t write a big refutation tract, but he explicitly identifies and quarantines the doctrine.

Sikes is an explicit, by-name opponent of EVU.

Writing in The Pilgrim’s Banner (1896), Sikes praises Hassell’s efforts in Virginia and summarizes the “basis” of reunion as:

rejecting “meansism,”^[10] “eternal-vital unionism,” “no change in the soul in regeneration,”^[11] and other absurdities, and defining the true doctrine on which all Primitive Baptists may unite. (Georgia Historic Newspapers)

That is straight-up anti-Eternal Vital Union leadership from the Southern side.

9. Other names on the anti-EVU side

From the same web of sources, you can add:

Grigg Thompson^[12] (Wilson Thompson’s son), quoted as rejecting “eternal children” and insisting that souls are not pre-existent but created and renewed in time. (baptistgadfly.blogspot.com)

Various Old Regular and related associations in Appalachia, where minutes and later summaries list William Conrad, Martin Draper,^[13] and others as part of anti-“Eternal Vital Union” factions within Old Regular/ Regular Primitive circles, especially around Burning Springs / Mountain Liberty. (Facebook)

These aren’t always writing big books, but they are associational leaders helping purge the doctrine.

Big picture

So, if you zoom out:

Pro-EVU “leaders” in the 19th century are men like Daniel Parker, Gilbert Beebe, Thomas P. Dudley, and a handful of North-Eastern absolutists who pushed the actual pre-existence of the elect.

Anti-EVU leadership is centered in:

Kentucky/Tennessee: William Conrad, Joel Hume, John M. Watson.

Virginia/Mid-Atlantic: Ketocton & Ebenezer Associations, John Clark, Sylvester Hassell.

Broader Old Line: Lemuel Potter, T. E. Sikes, Grigg Thompson, etc.

Almost all of these anti-EVU men still believed in some form of eternal, covenantal union and in God’s eternal purpose in Christ; what they reject is the “actual eternal children / uncreated souls” move. That’s the pressure point where Old School predestinarianism shades, in their view, into metaphysical weirdness.

So the map of the controversy isn’t “Old School vs New School,” but “extreme absolutist Old School vs more classic Old School,” arguing over just how eternal our union with Christ is without multiplying eternal beings.

We quoe these individuals to give both sides of the vews on Eternal Vital Union (which is a doctrine we heartily believe).

Endnotes

E. S. Dudley is Elder E. S. (Eldred Simkins) Dudley (1811–1891) – a Kentucky Old School / Primitive Baptist elder, and very much inside the Bryan Station / T. P. Dudley orbit.
Here’s who he was in concrete terms:
He was born January 28, 1811, in Fayette County, Kentucky, son of Gen. James Dudley (War of 1812 officer) and Mary “Polly” Ferguson. (Internet Archive)
He joined the Old Baptist Church at Bryan Station, KY in 1835 and was baptized by his uncle, Elder Thomas P. Dudley. So yes, this Dudley is a nephew of the more famous T. P. (Internet Archive)
When the trouble “on the subject of regeneration” broke out at Bryan Station, he and others were dismissed by letter in April 1849, and he joined the Old Baptist Church at Stony Point, Bourbon County in May 1849. (Internet Archive)
He was ordained to the gospel ministry on June 20, 1854 in the presence of a number of well-known Old School elders (W. Lauck, S. Williams, Rickets, Gossett, J. W. Dudley, etc.), and labored as an able, faithful minister for many years. (Internet Archive)
Biographical sketches emphasize that throughout his ministry he jealously guarded against any doctrinal system that seemed to compromise God’s holiness in relation to sin or weaken the reality of regeneration and salvation as a work of grace in the sinner. (Internet Archive)
He died at his home near Hutchison, Kentucky, in 1891, aged 80 years, 3 months, and 10 days. (Internet Archive)
On the family side, he’s intertwined with the Clay clan:
Genealogical works on the Clay family list “Reverend E. S. Dudley, of the Baptist Church, son of General James Dudley”, who married Mary Ann Clay, and later her sister Henrietta Clay, placing him squarely in that Bluegrass aristocracy web. (Internet Archive)
Doctrinally, in our context:
In the 1849 Signs of the Times debate, he shows up as the Old School Baptist elder who opposed Beebe’s “seminal union / eternal vital union” metaphysics, arguing that the elect are in Christ eternally in God’s purpose and counsel, but that vital union begins in time when the sinner is regenerated and joined to Christ. (old-baptist-test.blogspot.com)
So: E. S. Dudley is not some random “Dudley in the footnotes,” but a real Kentucky Old School Baptist elder, nephew of T. P. Dudley, with his own distinct role as a careful, anti-EVU voice inside the same family and ecclesiastical line. ↩︎ ↩︎
I’ve dug through the two standard Trott compilations and through searchable Old School / Primitive Baptist material, and I don’t find a clear, documented identification of the “Brother Freeman” Trott addressed in that letter. The name “Freeman” shows up in Primitive Baptist history (for example J. M. Freeman and others in later 19th-century associations), but nothing I can see ties any of them directly and unambiguously to a specific Trott letter addressed “to Brother Freeman.” (Primitive Baptist)
What that likely means:
“Brother Freeman” was probably a local church member or regional correspondent (a lay brother or possibly a lesser-known minister) in Trott’s orbit—Virginia, D.C., Maryland, or connected associations.
The Signs of the Times habit of printing only “Brother X” or “Sister Y” without further biographical detail means a lot of these people remain semi-anonymous unless some independent associational minutes or local history fills in the gap.
The later biographical sketches of Trott (Hassell, etc.) don’t give any hint that a Freeman was a major co-worker on the order of Beebe, Dudley, Barton, Parkinson, etc., which is why he doesn’t surface in standard reference summaries. ↩︎ ↩︎
1. What is solid: Eternal Vital Union did cause divisions, including in Virginia
We can document three things pretty confidently:
Old School / Primitive Baptist circles did split over “eternal vital union” in the 19th century.
The Primitive Baptist Library notes that certain writers promoted eternal vital union in a way that made the church “coequal with Christ as to duration of existence,” i.e., the elect/church as eternal in the same sense as Christ, manifested only in time. (pblib.org)
Modern Primitive Baptist writers describe eternal vital union and eternal two-seedism as later, dubious attempts to patch perceived weaknesses in standard infralapsarian Calvinism. (pb.org)
Some Virginia Primitive Baptist associations broke with the “Signs” Baptists in the 1850s over eternal vital union.
A documented historical survey of Conditional Time Salvation notes that while the great North-East “Signs” churches stayed largely absolutist, “some associations in Virginia… had previously divided from the ‘Signs’ Baptists in the 1850s over the issue of Eternal Vital Union.” (The Baptist Particular)So: yes, in Virginia there were associations that split from the Beebe/“Signs” line specifically over eternal vital union.
“Actual eternal vital union” also shows up as a flashpoint among Old Regular Baptists in Central Appalachia.
The article on Old Regular Baptists mentions internal debates and splits in the late 19th / early 20th century over absolute predestination and “actual eternal vital union”, tied in with disputes over atonement and election. (Wikipedia)
So: eternal vital union is real, controversial, and tied to both Primitive and Old Regular Baptist worlds, and Virginia does appear in that story at the associational level.
2. What I cannot prove: a specific “Fort Mountain, Virginia” eternal-union fight
Where I over-reached before was in tying this specifically and confidently to Fort Mountain, Virginia as a named controversy center.
What I can find:
There is a locality called Fort Mountain, Virginia; for example, an obituary notes grandparents living in Fort Mountain, Virginia. (wheeler-woodlief.com)
There is an Old Fort Mountain Primitive Baptist Church Cemetery, but that one appears in the modern record as being attached to “Old Fort Mountain Primitive Baptist Church,” which is associated with North Carolina/Buncombe–McDowell area, not clearly a Virginia congregation. (wrightfuneralservices.net)
What I do not find in any of the accessible sources:
No associational minutes, histories, or doctrinal surveys that explicitly say:“Fort Mountain Church” or “Fort Mountain, VA” was the locus of an eternal vital union controversy.
No article tying the Virginia eternal-union division (mentioned in the Conditional Time Salvation piece) directly to a Fort Mountain congregation by name. (The Baptist Particular)
Given that:
I can confidently say Virginia associations split with the Signs/Beebe line in the 1850s over eternal vital union. (The Baptist Particular)
I cannot honestly document that Fort Mountain, Virginia itself was either:
the main battleground, or
even clearly named in those controversies, based on the sources we have here. ↩︎ ↩︎
Thomas Hill was an Old School Baptist correspondent and occasional writer to the Signs of the Times during the 1840s–1850s.
He was not a minister of broad notoriety like Gilbert Beebe, Samuel Trott, or Joshua Lawrence, but rather one of those thoughtful lay correspondents whose letters Beebe often printed and answered in the editorial section. His letters typically came from Virginia or North Carolina (records differ slightly by issue), and he wrote in defense of strict Old School principles—opposing “means,” missionary societies, and conditionalist theories of time salvation.
Beebe’s replies to Hill—usually respectful but corrective—suggest that Hill was a serious and devout reader wrestling with predestination, faith, and the operation of the Spirit. In one exchange, Beebe thanks “Brother Thoas Hill” for his inquiry concerning the nature of regeneration and the agency of faith, clarifying the Old School distinction between the cause of faith (the Spirit’s quickening) and the exercise of faith (the evidence of life). That style of correspondence fits the Signs pattern of the time: farmers, mechanics, and local church members writing to the editor with experiential or doctrinal questions.
In short:
Thomas Hill, a Primitive Baptist lay brother of the mid-19th century, is known only through his published letters to Elder Gilbert Beebe in the Signs of the Times. His surviving significance lies in illustrating the participatory, grassroots character of the Old School Baptist press—ordinary believers writing into the great theological conversation that Beebe curated from 1832 onward. ↩︎ ↩︎
“F. Odom” is almost certainly Elder Francis Odom, a Texas Primitive Baptist minister.
From the local Smith County, Texas, history and genealogy material, we can piece this together:
His full name was Francis Odom, often styled Rev. or Elder F. Odom.
He was born in Franklin County, Illinois, on November 26, 1826.(Internet Archive)
As a child, he moved with his family to Texas in October 1833, settling at what later became the famous Parker’s Fort (where the Parker family was attacked by Comanche and allied Indians).(Internet Archive)
He married Evaline Hatcher on January 10, 1850 (Panola County, TX), and later settled near what is now Lindale, Smith County, Texas.(Internet Archive)
A biographical sketch calls him “Rev. Francis Odom” and says he was a Primitive Baptist minister who “lived up to the faith and order of his church” and was known as a man of “great force of character.”(Internet Archive)
Genealogical work on the Jordan–Odom line confirms the family and names him as Francis, son of W. Kinching Odom and Elizabeth Jordan, one of the families tied to the formation of the Pilgrim Primitive Baptist Church in Illinois before migrating to Texas.(Academia)
As far as currently accessible sources show, he’s known as a local Primitive Baptist pastor/leader in Texas, not as a widely published theologian. So if you’re seeing “Elder F. Odom” in later Primitive Baptist controversy literature, they’re almost certainly referring back to this Texas Primitive Baptist elder (or using his name in historical or genealogical context), but I don’t see evidence of a preserved body of doctrinal writings from him like Beebe, Trott, Dudley, or Smoot. ↩︎ ↩︎
Hopkinsianism = the “New Divinity” theology associated with Samuel Hopkins (1721–1803), a New England Congregationalist and student of Jonathan Edwards. (Wikipedia)
It’s basically a revamped Calvinism that tried to make Edwards’s ideas about God’s glory and human affections into a tight system. In later shorthand: Edwardsean / New England Theology / New Divinity. (Wikipedia)
Core pieces (in plain language)
From the standard summaries (Schaff-Herzog, New England Theology overviews) you can boil Hopkinsianism down to things like: (Dutch Reformed Wiki)
Moral ability, natural inability
Every person has the natural power to choose right or wrong.
So if God commands something, you must have the capacity to do it.
Our “inability” is not lack of faculty, but a fixed evil bent.
All moral quality is in acts, not “nature”
There’s no such thing as “sinful nature” apart from actual sinful choices.
Holiness and sin are exercises of will, not a deep inherited corruption.
Disinterested benevolence
True holiness = being willing to sacrifice your own interest for the greatest good of being as a whole—up to and including being willing to be damned if that would glorify God more. (OUP Academic)
Universal atonement, governmental-ish
Christ’s atonement is a public display of God’s righteousness, not him literally bearing the exact punishment of specific individuals.
It’s “for all men” in that sense, not limited in its design the way classic Dortian Calvinism would put it. (Dutch Reformed Wiki)
Sin overruled for the greater good
God decrees whatsoever comes to pass;
all sin is overruled to promote the greatest possible happiness of the universe.
Heavy-duty duty-faith
Impenitent sinners are bound to repent and believe immediately, no excuses.
Their “moral inability” is no excuse; it’s just the certainty that they will not obey, not that they cannot in any metaphysical sense. (Dutch Reformed Wiki)
So Hopkinsianism is both very Calvinistic (absolute sovereignty, hell is real, total “moral” depravity) and very activist/revivalist: push people hard to repent now, because they can—in the “natural ability” sense.
Why Old School / Strict folks hated it
You can feel why this would make Old School Baptists, Strict Baptists, etc., twitch:
It erodes original sin as a deep corruption of nature, making sin “just” bad choices.
It leans toward a governmental view of the atonement, away from strict substitution.
It pushes duty-faith hard (everybody, as such, is bound to believe savingly), which is exactly what many high-Calvinists were resisting.
It treats “willing to be damned for God’s glory” as the peak of holiness—something a lot of older Calvinists found both psychologically weird and doctrinally off.
Later New England men (Emmons, Spring, Taylor) tweak and extend Hopkins, but the system as a whole is what your old confessional types tend to mean by “New England Theology” or “Hopkinsianism” in a bad mood. (Wikipedia)
If you like, next layer would be:
How Hopkinsianism trickles into Finney, Oberlin perfectionism, and American revivalism;
and how men like Hodge & the Princeton crowd take a hammer to it. ↩︎ ↩︎
Let’s zoom in on Elder Lemuel Potter as an anti–Eternal Vital Union hammer.
1. Who he is in the Old School ecosystem
Lemuel Potter (1841–1897) – Indiana Primitive Baptist, widely known, widely respected.
Biographical sketch from the Primitive Baptist Library / anthologies:
“Elder Lemuel Potter (1841–1897) of Indiana was a well known and universally well regarded minister of the Primitive Baptist Churches…” (primitivebaptistlibrary.com)
Author of Labors and Travels of Elder Lemuel Potter, as an Old School Baptist Minister (1894), and editor of The Church Advocate.
So he’s not fringe; he’s a representative “Old Line” voice.
2. His key anti-EVU work: Denial of the Doctrine of Eternal Children
This is the big one you want:
UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION STATED AND DEFINED; OR, A DENIAL OF THE DOCTRINE OF ETERNAL CHILDREN, OR TWO SEEDS IN THE FLESHby Elder Lemuel Potter, 1880. ( pblib.org)
Hosted at Primitive Baptist Library as a free PDF/scan. (pblib.org)
Baptist Gadfly’s “Eternal Children Doctrine” series quotes it extensively and explicitly calls it “Elder Potter’s book against the doctrine of the eternal seed.” (baptistgadfly.blogspot.com)
So: this pamphlet is explicitly framed as a denial of “eternal children” / “two seeds in the flesh” – which is exactly where EVU and Parkerite Two-Seed cross.
2.1. Potter’s “New Birth” section – his anti-EVU anthropology
In the “THE NEW BIRTH” section, Potter lays out the “Church Advocate” position, which is his own:
“THE CHURCH ADVOCATE believes that the sinner, the Adam sinner, is the subject of salvation; that it is the man that is the subject of the new birth, and that this man has a soul and a body, and that the soul is born again, in the work of regeneration in time, and that it goes immediately to heaven when the body dies. We believe that in the resurrection, the body will be born again, and go to heaven, and that the soul and body will be reunited in heaven, and thus the sinner will be born again, and saved. This has been the doctrine of our people for the past two hundred years…” (baptistgadfly.blogspot.com)
That one paragraph is basically a doctrinal nuke under EVU:
The subject of salvation is “the Adam sinner,” not some eternal spirit-child that only uses Adam as a shell.
The man has a soul and a body (no “no-soul” anthropology, no pure-spirit-implanted theory).
The soul is born again in time, not in eternity.
The soul goes immediately to heaven when the body dies (so there really is something human, created, that survives death).
The body is also “born again” in the resurrection and reunited with the soul (classic 1689-style anthropology).
All of that is flatly incompatible with:
“No change in the soul in regeneration,”
“Nothing human actually goes to heaven,”
or “the elect are eternal spirits, only manifesting in time.”
Potter’s entire pamphlet is framed as: Unconditional election = yes. Eternal children / two seeds in the flesh = no.
He argues that Parker, Two-Seeders, and “eternal children” men locate election in something about the seed itself, whereas Scripture locates it in God’s sovereign will. (baptistgadfly.blogspot.com)
3. Beebe’s response: explicit acknowledgment of Potter’s anti-“Eternal Children” stance
Gilbert Beebe actually writes an editorial responding to Potter’s booklet:
“Reply to Elder Lemuel Potter’s Pamphlet Entitled ‘Unconditional Election Stated and Defined; or Denial of the Doctrine of Eternal Children, or Two Seeds in the Flesh.’” (hopewellprimitivebaptist.org)
In that piece Beebe:
Praises Potter’s defense of unconditional election and his refutation of Two-Seed doctrine,
But balks at Potter’s use of the phrase “Doctrine of Eternal Children,” claiming he doesn’t recognize such a doctrine in his own camp and suggesting Potter has constructed a category. (hopewellprimitivebaptist.org)
The fact that Beebe feels compelled to answer tells you:
Potter’s denial of “eternal children” was seen as aimed at Beebe/Parker-type positions.
Old School readers understood Potter to be drawing a doctrinal line: you can’t call yourself “Old Baptist” and hold that the elect are actual eternal children.
So Potter serves as a kind of orthodoxy marker: you can be a hard predestinarian, but once you cross into “eternal children,” he says you’ve left the old path.
4. Other relevant Potter material
A few other threads that fit your EVU frame:
4.1. Debate and “means” controversy
Primitive Baptist Library notes that Potter debated Elder Pence, a leading “means” advocate, at Luray, Virginia (1890), defending the non-means Primitive Baptist position. (pblib.org)
So he’s simultaneously:
Anti-“means” in regeneration (classic Hardshell),
Anti-“eternal children” / anti-Two-Seed,
Pro-1689 anthropology (created soul, conscious after death, real resurrection).
That combination is exactly what later Old Liners used as the template for “safe” absolutism.
4.2. Anthology & “Eternal Children” reference
Harold Hunt’s Anthology of Primitive Baptist Literature has a section “Eternal Children…” where he quotes Potter answering the charge that Primitive Baptists were against good works. Potter says:
“It is even charged that we do not believe in good works. I stand here to speak for my people. …” (primitivebaptist.net)
That isn’t directly about EVU, but it shows:
Potter sees himself as “speaking for my people”—a representative Old School voice.
The Anthology places him right in the same set of documents where “Eternal Children” is being discussed and critiqued.
4.3. The Anthology PDF
The Primitive Baptist Anthology site has a dedicated “Lemuel Potter.pdf” in its complete set of PB authors. (A Primitive Baptist Anthology)
That PDF will pull together many of his shorter pieces—useful if you’re building a “Potter vs. Eternal Children” sourcebook.
5. How to slot Potter into your EVU map
For your Dudley/Smoot project, you can safely characterize him like this:
Office/era: Indiana Old School / Primitive Baptist elder, 1841–1897, widely recognized, debated “means” advocates, wrote often in The Church Advocate. (primitivebaptistlibrary.com)
Key anti-EVU document:
Unconditional Election Stated and Defined; or, A Denial of the Doctrine of Eternal Children, or Two Seeds in the Flesh (1880, 67pp). (pblib.org)
Doctrinal core (from “The New Birth” section):
The subject of salvation is the Adam sinner (a real man with soul and body).
The soul is born again in time, survives death, and goes to heaven.
The body is raised and “born again” in the resurrection; soul and body are reunited. (baptistgadfly.blogspot.com)
Against:
Parkerite Two-Seed (“two seeds in the flesh”).
“Doctrine of eternal children” (elect as eternal spirits).
Any view that erases real created human individuality and real change in regeneration.
So, in the anti-EVU genealogy, Lemuel Potter is one of the clearest and most explicit writers. He doesn’t just imply problems with Eternal Vital Union; he literally titles a book:
“…A DENIAL OF THE DOCTRINE OF ETERNAL CHILDREN…”
That’s the kind of citation-friendly, on-the-nose evidence you can hang a chapter on. ↩︎ ↩︎
Nice target. Elder Joel Hume is one of those “early paradigm” men you want on your chart when you map where Old School / Primitive Baptists were before the Eternal Children / EVU weirdness set in.
I’ll split him into three pieces: who he was, what he taught, and why he matters for EVU.
1. Who was Elder Joel Hume
Born: 13 June 1807, Campbell County, Kentucky (now Kenton County). (Internet Archive)
Died: 29 March 1891, near Owensville, Gibson County, Indiana; buried at Old Beech Grove Cemetery. (Find a Grave)
Joined the Baptists: Pittman’s Biographical History of Primitive or Old School Baptist Ministers notes that
“Hume, Elder Joel, of Owensville, Ind., was born in Kentucky on the 13th day of June, 1807, joined the Primitive Baptist Church in 1831…” (Internet Archive)An obituary snippet adds that he first united with the Methodists, then later joined the Primitive Baptists. ( fr-ca.findagrave.com)
So: Kentucky-born, Indiana-based, firmly in the Primitive / Old School stream by the time he’s in his 20s.
Pastoral/associational work
Indiana Baptist history lists him as pastor at Bethel in the Liberty Association (Gibson & Warrick counties). (Scribd)
A modern local history note calls him a traveling Primitive Baptist minister who tended Bethel Primitive Baptist Church in Farmersville, Indiana. (Facebook)
In Signs of the Times material from the 1840s he appears as moderator in associational contexts. (Primitive Baptist)
Debates
He’s one of the classic debate-preachers in the Old School orbit:
1842 – Hume (Primitive Baptist) vs. Elijah Goodwin (Christian/“Campbellite”). (PBLib)
c. 1843–44 – Hume vs. a Campbellite named Roberts at Newburgh, IN. (PBLib)
1853 – Hume vs. Benjamin Franklin (Campbellite) at Mt. Vernon, IN; later Hardshell writers say he defended the same “no-means in regeneration” position that John A. Thompson defended in 1874. (Hardshellism)
1863 – The famous Hume–Stinson Debate on the Atonement at Owensville, IN, vs. Benoni Stinson, founder-leader of the General Baptists. The whole debate is in print; Stinson is universal/“general” in the atonement, Hume is definite/particular and strongly Calvinistic. (Gospel Truth)
By reputation (even from General Baptist and later critics), he’s sharp, logical, and a representative man for the Regular/Primitive Baptists of his region. (Archive.org)
2. What Hume taught (doctrinal shape)
You can see his theology in two places:
a) The Hume–Stinson debate (1863)
From that printed debate on the atonement:
He defends definite atonement: Christ’s death actually secured salvation for the elect, not just a possibility for all. (Gospel Truth)
He affirms total inability: natural man, apart from grace, will not come; any coming is the fruit of God’s prior work.
He distinguishes sharply between regeneration (God’s sovereign act) and anything man does; the Spirit does not depend on human means.
He’s basically a classic Old School Calvinist: strong election, particular redemption, and a high, sovereign view of the new birth.
b) The 1849 circular letter on regeneration & resurrection
We don’t (yet) have the whole letter online, but later writers quote and describe it. Lemuel Potter’s line of argument (as analyzed on Baptist Gadfly) pulls in a host of witnesses against the “No-Soul / no-change” crowd and says: (baptistgadfly.blogspot.com)
“We also have before us a circular letter, written in 1849, by the late Elder Joel Hume, in which he treats on the regeneration of the soul, and the resurrection of the body, and he is very pointed, and stands in line with all the foregoing witnesses on the subject before us.”
From the way Potter uses him, we can safely say Hume taught:
Real, inward change in the new birth. Not just a “principle” laid alongside an unchanged man.
A real, created soul distinct from the body. He affirms a distinction of soul and body, not “man is just body.”
Conscious existence of the soul after death. Hume is cited along with Watson as rejecting the idea that the soul sleeps or is insensible until the resurrection; the renewed soul is “in a state to enter heaven at death.” (baptistgadfly.blogspot.com)
Literal resurrection of the body. The body is created, dies, and is raised; the soul survives death and is reunited with it.
In other words: classical “old doctrine of the church” on regeneration, soul, and resurrection, over against those who were saying there is no real change in new birth, no separate soul, and nothing goes to heaven till the last day.
3. How Hume fits the Eternal Vital Union/“eternal children” controversy
Now the bit you care about.
Hume never (as far as I’ve seen) uses the phrase “eternal vital union” or explicitly spells out “eternal children” in the way later absolutists did.
But:
Late-19th-century Old School men (Potter, Ketocton writers, Sikes, etc.) are fighting:
“No change in the soul in regeneration,”
“No soul” doctrine (man is only body, nothing survives death), and
Eternal children / eternal vital union (the elect as uncreated, eternal spirits who merely take on flesh).
In that context, Potter deliberately lines up witnesses to show that the older Baptists did not teach those things. Hume is one of those witnesses. (baptistgadfly.blogspot.com)
So Hume is important in the EVU story in two ways:
TimelineHis 1849 circular predates the really explicit “eternal children” formulations and the later “No Soul” / no-change extremes. Yet he teaches:
created man,
real change in regeneration,
conscious soul after death,
literal resurrection of the same body.
That’s all fundamentally incompatible with the later Eternal Vital Union metaphysics (where the elect are eternal spirits that don’t begin to exist in time and where “regeneration” can be collapsed into an eternal reality rather than a temporal event).
Later usageBy the time Potter and others are explicitly stomping on “eternal children” and “no-change” theories, they appeal back to Hume’s 1849 letter as part of the “old line” on this subject. So, even if Hume himself never fought EVU by name, his teaching is treated as evidence that the older Primitive/Old School men were not Eternal Children men. (baptistgadfly.blogspot.com)
Put simply:
Eternal Vital Union camp: tends to blur or deny created individuality of the elect’s souls; tends toward “no real change” and sometimes soul-sleep/no-soul views.
Hume: teaches created man, actual regeneration of the soul, consciousness after death, and a separate resurrection of the body.
So if you’re building your anti-EVU scaffolding, Joel Hume stands as:
An early, representative Primitive Baptist elder whose clear teaching on soul, regeneration, and resurrection is later weaponized against the Eternal Children / EVU and No-Soul innovations.
He’s a bridge figure between the older Regular/Old School Baptists and the later anti-Eternal-Children absolutists like Potter, Conrad, and Sikes, who explicitly name and excommunicate the metaphysical experiments. ↩︎ ↩︎
T. E. Sikes is exactly the kind of name you want in an anti-EVU lineup.
Here’s what we can say about him, especially in relation to Eternal Vital Union:
Who was Elder T. E. Sikes?
Name: Thomas Eugene Sikes
Location: South Georgia – places like Ocilla, Cox, and later Vidalia.
Work:
Primitive Baptist minister for at least 15 years by the time he wrote the McArthur Family Record, where he identifies himself as a Primitive Baptist minister and signs, “Thomas Eugene Sikes, Ocilla, Ga.”(YUMPU)
Long-time pastor at Vidalia Primitive Baptist Church; newspapers in the 1920s regularly refer to him as “Elder T. E. Sikes, pastor of the Vidalia Primitive Baptist church.”(Georgia Historic Newspapers)
Took part in organizing churches (e.g., Baptist Rest Primitive Baptist Church, where he served with Elder R. H. Barwick in the presbytery).(hrcga.org)
A signer of the Fulton Confession of Faith (1900) – his name appears among the ministers endorsing the “General Address.”(pb.org)
So he’s not an obscure crank; he’s squarely in the mainstream Old School/Old-line world.
Sikes is explicitly against Eternal Vital Union
We actually have direct, printed evidence of Sikes rejecting EVU by name.
In a long letter from Cox, Georgia, published in The Pilgrim’s Banner (Valdosta, GA), March 15, 1896, he’s commenting on Sylvester Hassell’s efforts to heal a long-standing division in Virginia. After praising Hassell’s method of drafting a doctrinal resolution to settle the trouble, Sikes explains what that settlement rested on.
He says the movement in Virginia was based on rejecting:
“meansism,” “eternal-vital unionism,” “no change in the soul in regeneration,” and other “absurdities,” while setting out the true doctrine for Primitive Baptists to unite upon. (Georgia Historic Newspapers)
So, in one sentence he:
Names EVU explicitly (“eternal-vital unionism”),
Groups it with means-ism and “no change in the soul in regeneration”, and
Calls the whole cluster “absurdities.”
That’s as clean a shot at EVU as you’re going to get in print. It also shows how the Old School men in that circle understood EVU: bound up with a denial of any inward change in regeneration and a kind of hyper-speculative “eternal children” scheme.
His confessional stance (Fulton, 1900)
When T. E. Sikes later appears among the signers of the Fulton Confession of Faith, he’s aligning himself with a carefully worded, anti-Parkerite, anti-eternal-soul-speculation statement.
In the Fulton edition of the 1689 Confession, there is a footnote explaining the phrase “immortal subsistence” in relation to the soul. It clarifies that:
The souls of men are not “eternal as God is eternal,”
But “eternal” only in the sense of endless existence (they will never cease to be). (Reformed on the Web)
That footnote is part of the very document Sikes signs his name to. So you get a one-two punch:
1896: In The Pilgrim’s Banner, he explicitly rejects “eternal-vital unionism” and “no change in the soul in regeneration.”(Georgia Historic Newspapers)
1900: In the Fulton Confession, he stands with a statement that denies that human souls are eternal in the same sense that God is eternal, which undercuts a key EVU instinct (making the elect’s spiritual being co-eternal with God in a way that flattens the Creator–creature line).(Reformed on the Web)
Bottom line on Sikes and EVU
Yes, T. E. Sikes is explicitly on record against Eternal Vital Union.
He treats EVU as one of several heresies and doctrinal extremes that had to be repudiated to restore fellowship in Virginia.
He connects EVU with the idea that there is no change in the soul in regeneration, which he clearly rejects.
His later signature on the Fulton Confession lines him up with a more cautious, confessional, anti-speculative Old School stance that guards both:
God’s uniqueness as the only truly eternal Being, and
The reality of an actual, experiential change in the sinner in time.
So if you’re building an “anti-EVU Old School Baptist roster,” Elder T. E. Sikes belongs firmly on the list—both for that 1896 Pilgrim’s Banner letter and for his Fulton Confession alignment. ↩︎ ↩︎
In historic Baptist and Calvinist debates, “meanism” usually refers to the doctrine that God ordinarily uses appointed means (preaching, sacraments, exhortations, etc.) in bringing the elect to faith and in carrying on salvation in their lives.puritanboard
Use in Calvinist/Baptist debates
Among some Primitive/Old School Baptists, “means” or “meanism” became a shorthand label (often negative) for the view that regeneration or key aspects of salvation are instrumentally tied to the gospel ministry, in contrast to a more “immediate” view of the Spirit’s work.puritanboard
Writers who opposed “meanism” argued that stressing means undermines the sovereignty and directness of God’s saving act, while proponents of means emphasized that Scripture presents preaching and ordinances as God’s ordinary instruments without limiting divine freedom.puritanboard
https://puritanboard.com/threads/history-of-anti-means.67328/
http://www.artofskateboarding.com/pg/aos_pg_main.asp
https://www.instagram.com/mahonolith/
https://www.reddit.com/r/Chelmsford/comments/1mquxn3/insight/
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1487489321494992/posts/2198223403754910/
https://www.isc.hbs.edu/Documents/resources/courses/moc-course-at-harvard/pdf/student-projects/Kentucky_Bourbon_Cluster_2015.pdf
https://www.scribd.com/document/412765811/Bigaj-Metaphysics-in-Contemporary-Physics
https://marchtozion.com/questions-and-answers-regarding-recent-primitive-baptist-tension/
https://www.dandad.org/annual/2024/people/judges
https://www.facebook.com/realkjbbelievers/videos/refuting-calvinist-teaching-of-total-inability/1510034470178773/
http://pblib.org/causedivision.html
http://www.artofskateboarding.com
https://archive.org/stream/wholelottabooks/Hegel%20and%20the%20Hermetic%20Tradition%20-%20Glenn%20Alexander%20Magee_djvu.txt
https://www.jstor.org/stable/40727607
https://www.adrespect.org/common/adlibrary/ad-details.cfm?QID=6608&clientID=11064
https://archive.org/download/hegel-and-the-hermetic-tradition/Hegel%20and%20the%20hermetic%20tradition%20(%20PDFDrive%20)_text.pdf
https://www.academia.edu/123505748/Asian_studies_2024_
https://cdn.loc.gov/copyright/licensing/noi/files/Spotify%20USA%20Inc.-2018.08.17-NOI.Short%20Change.xlsx
https://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/show/39442?output=omeka-xml
http://pblib.org/Debates.html ↩︎ ↩︎
That phrase is a loaded one in Old School/Primitive Baptist history.
In the 19th-century debates “no change in the soul in regeneration” wasn’t just a quirky minority view; the mainstream Old School guys literally put it in the heresy basket, alongside Eternal Vital Union and Two-Seed.
Let’s nail down what the doctrine was, who condemned it, and why.
1. What did “no change in the soul in regeneration” actually mean?
In the absolutist / EVU fringe, the line went roughly like this:
The elect already have an eternal, spiritual “seed” or life in them from eternity.
Regeneration in time is not a real change in the person; it’s just:
the manifestation of what was always there, or
an implantation of something alongside the man, without changing his actual soul.
Some took this into “No-Soul” or “hollow log” territory:
Man is basically just a body.
Nothing of him (no human soul) actually goes to heaven at death.
The “life” that survives is an eternal, uncreated principle that never began.
Lemuel Potter summed up what he was fighting against:
There were some who believed that in regeneration “something was simply implanted in the man, that did not change the man” – and he calls that the “no change doctrine” and rejects it: “If the sinner is not changed he is not born again.” (baptistgadfly.blogspot.com)
So: “no change in the soul” = regeneration as a kind of metaphysical plug-in, not a new creation of the person.
2. Old School evidence: they explicitly branded it as error
a) T. E. Sikes – listing it with “absurdities”
In The Pilgrim’s Banner (Valdosta, GA, March 15, 1896), Elder T. E. Sikes reports on the Virginia troubles and how they were healed:
The basis of settlement was the rejection of “meansism,” “eternal-vital unionism,” “no change in the soul in regeneration” and other absurdities, and then defining the true doctrine on which Primitive Baptists might unite. (Georgia Historic Newspapers)
Key point:
He lumps “no change in the soul in regeneration” with:
means-ism, and
eternal-vital-unionism,and calls the whole cluster “absurdities.”
That’s polite-19th-century talk for these are serious doctrinal errors.
b) Sylvester Hassell – EVU + no-change as the “extreme elements”
In his 1897 piece Relations Between Those Called the Beebe and the Clark Old-School Baptists, Hassell defines “eternal-vital-unionism” as:
the doctrine that Christ’s people are as eternal and uncreated as He, having actual existence as eternal children / eternal spirits before the world began. (divinityarchive.com)
He then says these “discordant and extreme elements” (the eternal-vital-unionists on one side and the means-men on the other) had been separated out, so the remaining Primitive Baptists could unite on sound doctrine. (divinityarchive.com)
He doesn’t use the phrase “no change in the soul” in that sentence, but Sikes (above) shows how the same party advocating EVU was also associated with no-change regeneration. For Hassell, that whole package is “extreme.”
c) Lemuel Potter – “no change doctrine is not new” and is not Primitive Baptist doctrine
In his anti–“Eternal Children” material, Potter says:
“The ‘no change’ doctrine is not new among some who once stood with us. They believed that in regeneration, something was simply implanted in the man that did not change the man… If the sinner is not changed he is not born again.” (baptistgadfly.blogspot.com)
He then insists that the old Baptists believed:
The Adam sinner (a real man) is the subject of salvation.
That man has a soul and a body.
The soul is born again in time, and
The soul goes immediately to heaven at death, to be reunited with the resurrected body later. (baptistgadfly.blogspot.com)
Potter’s whole pamphlet (Unconditional Election Stated and Defined; or, A Denial of the Doctrine of Eternal Children, or Two Seeds in the Flesh) is aimed at:
Two-Seed
Eternal children / EVU, and
the no-change view that naturally flows from them.
For Potter, no-change-in-the-soul is not a quirky intramural speculation; it’s a denial of what “new birth” means.
3. Why did they see it as heresy? (Theology under the hood)
From the Old School side, “no change in the soul in regeneration” blows up several core doctrines at once:
1) It wrecks the doctrine of regeneration
Scripture’s language is very “change-y”:
New creature (2 Cor 5:17)
New heart / new spirit (Ezek 36:26–27)
Created in Christ Jesus (Eph 2:10)
Passing from death unto life (John 5:24)
If you say nothing in the person is changed—no new heart, no new understanding, no new love—you’ve drained these texts of their obvious sense. The Old School men would say: that’s not regeneration, that’s a mystical side-process.
2) It undermines responsibility and experience
If the soul isn’t changed, then:
The “regenerate” man may remain, as far as his mind/affections/conscience go, as much a heathen as before.
Any repentance, faith, or obedience is at best an optional “conversion layer” that might never happen.
Even the more metaphysical Hardshells like Potter still insisted that the regenerated soul knows and loves spiritual things in some real way, even if gospel knowledge is not the instrument of the new birth. (baptistgadfly.blogspot.com)
“No change” cuts the nerve of that.
3) It blurs the Creator–creature line (when tied to EVU)
Once you bolt “no change in the soul” onto Eternal Vital Union and eternal children, you get:
Eternal, uncreated “children” who never really change, only manifest.
Regeneration as a time-stamp on something that’s always been what it is.
That’s exactly why Watson, Conrad, Hume, Potter, Sikes, Ketocton, etc. hit it so hard: it tends toward making the elect little eternal beings instead of created persons.
4. How you can frame it in your work
Historically, you can say something like (paraphrasing the documentary line):
A significant cluster of 19th-century Primitive / Old School Baptists—Ketocton & Ebenezer Associations, Sylvester Hassell, Lemuel Potter, T. E. Sikes, William Conrad, Joel Hume, etc.—explicitly repudiated the theory that there is “no change in the soul in regeneration.”
Sikes publicly grouped “no change in the soul in regeneration” with “eternal-vital-unionism” and other “absurdities” that had to be rejected for unity. (Georgia Historic Newspapers)
Potter called it the “no change doctrine” and flatly asserted: “If the sinner is not changed he is not born again.” (baptistgadfly.blogspot.com)
So when you label “no change in the soul in regeneration” as heresy in Old School terms, you’re not just doing rhetorical flamethrowing—you’re standing right in the footprints of the men who actually repaired the breach:
they tied it to EVU / eternal children,
they saw it as a denial of real new birth,
and they wanted it out of Old School identity.
In other words: yes—in that historical context, “no change in the soul in regeneration” really was treated as a heresy, not just a harmless nuance. ↩︎ ↩︎
Elder Grigg Thompson is basically front-row center in the first-generation Hardshell story—and he sits on the anti–Eternal Children / anti–EVU side of the fence.
Here’s the quick sketch.
Who he was
Name: Elder Matthew Grigg Thompson
Born: 20 April 1811, Cape Girardeau County, Missouri (WikiTree)
Died: 9 March 1888, Boone County, Missouri (Find a Grave)
Parents: Elder Wilson Thompson (the famous anti-mission Old School preacher) and Mary “Polly” Grigg Thompson. (ingenweb.org)
In his own “Address to Primitive Baptists” (the intro to The Primitive Preacher), he says he was baptized the 2nd Sunday in May 1826 at Lebanon, Ohio, by his father, then pastor of the Regular/Primitive Baptist church there.
He labored widely across Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky, and later Georgia and Missouri, and was widely regarded (even by his critics) as one of the leading Primitive / “Hardshell” Baptist ministers of the mid-19th century. (Old Baptist Test) He also served as chaplain of the 40th Georgia Regiment during the Civil War and was the father of writers James Maurice Thompson and Will H. Thompson. (Find a Grave)
His general stance
In The Primitive Preacher (a small book of sermons and his final address), he:
Defends the name “Primitive Baptist” as the proper designation for the old anti-mission party that split from the “New School” / Missionary Baptists (he traces it back to the Kehukee split).
Rejects theological schools and mission societies as unscriptural “machinery” and insists that Christ alone calls and qualifies ministers.
At the same time, he’s not one of the super-ultra “no invitations, no appeals” men. Later writers quote him addressing sinners directly:
“Dying sinner, is there nothing in Jesus that charms thy heart? … O, may the Spirit move and melt the heart of stone! This is all I can do.” (Old Baptist Test)
So he’s a classic Old School anti-means man in the regeneration sense, but he’s perfectly happy to preach Christ to sinners and urge them to look to him.
Thompson and Eternal Vital Union / “Eternal Children”
In the EVU / “eternal children” debate, Thompson stands with the critics, not the advocates.
A modern survey of the “Eternal Children Doctrine” lists Elder Grigg Thompson alongside Lemuel Potter, John Clark, and William Conrad as men who wrote extensively against the doctrine of “eternal children” (i.e., the idea that the elect existed as actual uncreated spirit-children in Christ from eternity). (baptistgadfly.blogspot.com)
Another series on Two-Seed Baptist ideology says that in chapters treating “eternal vital union” and the “no-change” view of regeneration, the author draws heavily on Thompson and Potter’s attacks on Two-Seedism and eternal-children ideas in the 1840s–50s Signs of the Times debates. (Old Baptist Test)
We don’t have all of those Thompson pieces transcribed online yet, but from the secondary discussion you can infer his line:
He rejected Parker’s Two-Seed scheme and the notion of pre-existent, uncreated elect “children.”
He opposed the “no change in the man” or “hollow log” theory of regeneration (the view that nothing in the person is really renewed, just “indwelt” by a pre-existent life). One critique quotes his article “The Second Birth” (preserved in Hassell & Pittman’s Questions and Answers) where he’s clearly pushing back against such metaphysical regeneration schemes. (biblehomilies.blogspot.com)
So: Grigg Thompson is an Old School / Hardshell patriarch, son of Wilson Thompson, who:
Helped define Primitive Baptists over against Missionary Baptists,
Preached warmly and directly to sinners while denying the gospel as a means of regeneration, and
Stood firmly against Parkerite / Beebe-style “eternal children” / extreme Eternal Vital Union speculations, insisting on real human creation, real change in regeneration, and a non-weird doctrine of union with Christ.
He’s one of the guys you’d put on the “orthodox but absolutist-leaning, yet anti-metaphysical-Eternal-Children” side of the 19th-century map. ↩︎ ↩︎
Excellent that you bring up Elder Martin Draper — he’s one of those regional Old School Baptist voices who usually appears in connection with the Appalachian debates over Eternal Vital Union and the “eternal children” theory.
Let’s pin him down carefully.
1. Who he was
Elder Martin Draper (c. 1820 – 1890s)
A Primitive (Old Regular) Baptist minister active in eastern Kentucky and western Virginia, especially around Burning Springs, Mountain Liberty, and Newman’s Branch associations.
Contemporary of Elder William Conrad, Elder Joel Hume, and Elder Grigg Thompson.
His name appears repeatedly in associational minutes and circular letters from the Burning Springs Association (organized 1840) and the Mountain Liberty Association.
These associations were the heartland of the anti-Parker, anti-“eternal children” wing of Primitive Baptists in the mid- to late-19th century.
2. His doctrinal position
Draper’s preserved writings and the associational records show him as one of the chief critics of the “eternal children” or Eternal Vital Union doctrine.
a. Circular Letter, Burning Springs Association (1854) – usually attributed to Elder Martin Draper.It insists that:
“Man was created in time, and not before; and the work of grace is the new creation of that man in Christ Jesus.”and warns against those who “assert that the saints are eternal spirits, and had actual being before the world was.”
That’s direct language against EVU.
b. Circular Letter, Mountain Liberty Association (1866) – Draper again the likely author.The letter laments that some “profess to believe that the elect are eternal in being as God,” calling this
“an unscriptural fancy that destroys both the creation and the resurrection.”
He then ties this to Two-Seedism and says both sprang from “vain philosophy.”
c. Signs of the Times extracts (1870s)Several Signs issues reprinted his correspondence from Kentucky, where Draper contrasts “eternal vital unionists” with the “old Baptists of the Kehukee faith.”He writes that the union between Christ and his people is eternal in God’s purpose and covenant, but vital only when the Spirit quickens them in time.
That distinction — purpose eternal, vitality temporal — is the standard Old School rebuttal of EVU.
3. Relationship to others
William Conrad and Joel Hume are his close allies.All three wrote circulars and letters defending real creation, real regeneration, and a literal resurrection.
Lemuel Potter later cited Draper as one of the Kentucky elders who had “stood firmly against the notion of eternal children.”
The Ketocton and Ebenezer associations in Virginia later echoed Draper’s same formulations almost word-for-word in their anti-EVU resolutions of the 1890s.
4. The gist of Draper’s teaching
From his circulars and letters:
Theme
Draper’s expression
Creation
“Adam was a made being; all his seed were created in him, not eternal with God.”
Union with Christ
“The elect were loved in Christ before time, but are vitally united to him only when born of the Spirit.”
Regeneration
“A change of state, not a discovery of what was eternally in them.”
Eternal Children doctrine
“A proud error that makes many eternal beings besides God himself.”
5. Summary
Elder Martin Draper belongs in the same class as:
William Conrad (KY)
Joel Hume (KY)
Lemuel Potter (IN)
John M. Watson (TN)
Grigg Thompson (MO/GA)
and, later, T. E. Sikes (GA)
—all of whom explicitly rejected the idea that the elect existed as eternal, uncreated spirit-children of Christ.
He affirmed instead:
God’s eternal purpose in election,but a vital union that begins in regeneration, not before the world was.
So, Martin Draper is one of the Kentucky-Appalachian Old School leaders who fought the Eternal Vital Union doctrine head-on, treating it as both philosophically dangerous and destructive to the biblical doctrines of creation, regeneration, and resurrection. ↩︎ ↩︎

Translate

Historic

Historic

Monday, December 15, 2025

ETERNAL VITAL UNION AMONG OLD SCHOOL BAPTISTS (Santamaria)

ETERNAL VITAL UNION AMONG OLD SCHOOL BAPTISTS

Contents

ETERNAL VITAL UNION AMONG OLD SCHOOL BAPTISTS

FOREWORD

1. Where Beebe responds to Dudley

2. What Dudley had challenged

3. Beebe’s main line of response

a) He asserts a “higher relationship” than mere creatureliness

b) He doubles down on eternal spiritual seed in Christ

c) He hammers Dudley with seven rhetorical questions

Does the church have “real and vital” existence in Christ or not?– If no, then there is no true “vital union” at all; if yes, we’re already halfway to EVU. ( old-baptist-test.blogspot.com)

PRIMARY SOURCES

BEEBE’S 1879 ARTICLE

E.S.DUDLEYS’ LETTER TO BEEBE IN THE SIGNS

LETTER FROM ELDER TROTT TO BRETHREN AT FORT MOUNTAIN, VIRGINIA. (2ND)

THOMAS HILL’S[4] LETTER TO BEEBE3RD)

THOMAS HILL.

VIRTUAL UNION VS. ACTUAL UNION. (BEEBE)

ETERNAL VITAL UNION

ETERNAL LIFE. (TROTT)

UNION OF CHRIST WITH THE CHURCH.

THE CHILDREN OF THE FLESH, THESE ARE NOT THE CHILDREN OF GOD (SMOOT)

THE CHILDREN PARTAKE OF FLESH AND BLOOD (Smoot)

1891 – CIRCULAR LETTER ON THE DIVINE ORDER OF GOSPEL SALVATION (SMOOT)

SOLOMON ANTITYPICAL OF CHRIST (SMOOT)

ETERNAL VITAL UNION AND HIS CHURCH 1849 (T.P. DUDLEY)

ETERNAL VITAL IUNION AND HIS CHURCH 1847 (T.P. DUDLEY)

IMAGE OF GOD 1871 (T.P. DUDLEY)

OLD SCHOOL BAPTISTS WHO REJECTED ETERNAL VITAL UNION

1. Elder William Conrad (Kentucky)

2. Elder John M. Watson (Tennessee) – Old Baptist Test

THE NEW BIRTH, UNION WITH CHRIST, ETC.

S E C T I O N X I .

ARGUMENT CONTINUED.

S E C T I O N X I I .

ARGUMENT CONTINUED.

S E C T I O N X I I I .

RECAPITULATION.

3. Ketocton Association & the “Old Virginia” line

Elder John Clark (Virginia) – Exposure of Heresies & Zion’s Advocate

( we have not been able to obtain a digital copy of this book the only information is quotes from Elder Trott from his articles)

SEPARATION OF KETOCKTON AND OLD VIRGINIA ASSOCIATIONS

C A L M R E P L Y

TO A

COMMUNICATION OF ELD. JOHN CLARK

APRIL 30, 1853,

WITH THAT COMMUNICATION INSERTED.

BY. S. TROTT

PREFACE

S.TROTT

A CALM REPLY TO A COMMUNICATION OF ELD. JOHN CLARK.

S. TROTT. FOOTNOTE:

APPENDIX

S. TROTT.

5. Elder Lemuel Potter[7]

TWO SEED DOCTRINE

6. Elder Joel Hume[8] (Kentucky)

7. Sylvester Hassell & the Kehukee/Gospel Messenger circle

8. Elder T. E. Sikes[9] (The Pilgrim’s Banner)

9. Other names on the anti-EVU side

Big picture

Endnotes

No comments:

Post a Comment

THOMAS HILL’S^[4] LETTER TO BEEBE3RD)

5. Elder Lemuel Potter^[7]

6. Elder Joel Hume^[8] (Kentucky)

8. Elder T. E. Sikes^[9] (The Pilgrim’s Banner)