REPLY TO ELDER GOLDSMITH’S LETTER. (Trott) 1842)

REPLY TO ELDER GOLDSMITH’S LETTER.

BROTHER BEEBE:—I am not disposed to call in question the propriety or the advantage in your publishing Elder Goldsmith’s letter (in No. 23, Vol. 9,) but for myself, I would rather not have seen it. As it has, however, been published, I feel bound to reply to some of its leading points. The subject of a future judgment, I had hoped was disposed of, unless someone was prepared to show that the scriptures, according to the plain, natural and candid construction of them, do not declare such an event. As to prejudice, I do not pretend to exemption from it, though I would be truly glad to be rid of it: I have felt too often the galling nature of its chains, to desire its influence. But that which Elder Goldsmith, I presume, considers the prejudice in me, is, if it be prejudice, a most inveterate one: I mean the principle which I have long cherished, viz: that the meaning of any portion of scripture, is to be taken, according to the plain natural reading thereof, with a due regard to the connexion, and the several circumstances related to it, such as, who is the speaker, who is spoken to, or spoken of, and what is the subject, whether typical, figurative or literal, &c.; and the import of the words to be taken according to the scriptural use of them. When it can be shewn that the reading is a false or strained translation of the original, that of course forms an exception. It was in defence of this principle, together with the other, viz: that the scriptures in the manifest construction of them, constitute the only correct and divine rule of faith and practice, that I took to me the weapons of warfare when I enlisted in the Old School stand. And I am not yet disposed to ground my weapons, even though an Old School brother may appear in the field to advance, or contend for an opposing principle. My zeal in defence of these principles, whether true or false, (and of this Eld. G. and others will form their own opinions,) has led me so often to the combat, and with so many different ones, that I need not think strange should my brethren pronounce me an Ishmaelite, as having my hand against every man; and every man’s hand against me. And indeed, a view of my apparent single-handed position in several cases, and a consideration of who are arrayed against me in these cases, would be well calculated to lead me to the conclusion, that I am truly an Ishmaelite according to the spiritual import of the term; were it not for the confidence which the plain import of the scriptures on those points give me, and also the recollection that even an Apostle had on one occasion to complain that no man stood with him; but all men forsook him. 2 Tim. iv. 16. I have, however, taken up too much paper on this point.

Eld. Goldsmith says, “Every one knows that judgment precedes justification or condemnation.” This point I will let stand. He then quotes the declaration, that, “By the offence of one, judgment came upon all men to condemnation.” And this, I perhaps as fully believe as does Eld. G., and that this judgment took place upon Adam in the garden with all his posterity in him. But may I not speak with as much confidence as does Elder Goldsmith, and say, that, Every body knows that what is past is not future? If the scriptures spoke only of that one past judgment, it would be truly blind prejudice in me to contend for a future judgment. But when I had produced so many texts to show that the scriptures develop a future judgment, one which is after death, and in which the dead are to participate, whereas the one to which Eld. G. referred was according to his own showing before death, I do think he might have found other grounds than that of prejudice for my believing in a future judgment; one distinct from the one unto condemnation, especially until he can show that I have not read those texts right, or that they do not mean what they say. I will not now again quote those texts, but will just refer to them, viz: Acts x. 42; xvii. 31; Rom. ii. 12—16; Acts xxiv. 25; Heb. ix. 27; and Rev. xx. 11—15, to which I will add, John v. 27—30. It is true that brother Klipstine has helped brother G. to an exposition of Heb. ix. 27, to which he is welcome, if such suits him.

But what was this judgment, mentioned in Rom. v. 16, to which Eld. G. refers? That this judgment was not a final decision, upon the case of man, assigning him at once over to eternal perdition, is manifest from the fact that Israel and the Gentiles, the elect and non-elect, were all alike included in the same decision, and judged to the same condemnation, all being in Adam, and concerned in the one offence by him, their common head. And Israel, Eld. G. very inconsistently admits, according to his position in reference to that judgment, had a farther trial assigned them, under a second administration of the law, were again judged, and had the sentence of this second judgment immediately executed upon them in the destruction of their city, &c. Neither was this judgment merely a decision passed upon the body, that it should return to dust, as the Methodist ruling Elder supposed. But it was emphatically a judgment to condemnation, and what this condemnation is, the Master himself informs us, John iii. 19. “And this is the condemnation; that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.” This judgment was in accordance with the declaration going before, that, “In the day thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die.” It is perpetual and universal, so that not an individual of the human family ever has been or ever will be able to be justified by the deeds of the law, but as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse, all are concluded in unbelief, concluded under sin, or dead in sin. The situation of national Israel under the new administration of the law, though a state of trial, and in reference to the enjoyment of the land of Canaan, &c., may be called a state of probation, yet it was very far from being similar to the state of Adam before his fall. In reference to their individual relation to God, it was an illustration of the immutability of the judgment to condemnation. But if this judgment was not so final a decision upon the everlasting destiny of Adam and his posterity, that the Jews could not have another judgment passed upon them, that Christ could not be judged, when standing in the law place of his people, and that his people could not be justified and tried at the bar of conscience, I cannot conceive why it should debar Christ, as the appointed judge of quick and dead, from executing a further and more final judgment upon impenitent gentiles.—And how with a becoming reverence for the plain declarations of scripture, any one can, confine all future judgment spoken of in the scriptures to the judgment executed upon the Jews in the destruction of Jerusalem, is as inconceivable to me as the other. For such texts as the following, as clearly threaten a future judgment upon Gentiles, as they declare the former judgment unto condemnation, yea, a judgment alike upon Jews and Gentiles, and, therefore, one distinct from the special judgment upon the Jewish nation. In Rom. ii. 1, “Therefore, thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art,” &c. Verse 2, “But we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against them which commit such things.” Verse 3, “And thinkest thou, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God.” Here then is a judgment of God, spoken of with reference to the special actions of men, and, therefore, is distinct from the judgment referred to by Eld. G., for that was by the offence of one. By one offence, Rom. v. 18. Besides, the threatening is addressed to individuals, to Thou, O man, whosoever thou art, and, therefore, must be a judgment distinct from the judgment threatened and executed upon the Jewish nation as such. It alike involves Jews and Gentiles individually. Again, verse 5, “But after thy hardness and impenitent heart, treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God.” Here is a day of wrath, and a revelation of the righteous judgment of God, which was clearly future, as well as threatened upon individuals as such; and according to verse 9, it is to be, “Upon every soul of man that doeth evil, upon the Jew first, and also upon the Gentiles.” See further, verses 11, 12 & 16. If Eld. Goldsmith can throw these texts away, which so clearly speak of a future day of wrath, and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, which is to come upon the souls of men individually, both Jews and Gentiles, that do evil, and of God’s judging the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, I cannot; neither can I disregard them. And remember this is a day of wrath, and, therefore, cannot mean the gospel day, which is a day of good news, of peace on earth, and good will to men. Eld. Goldsmith speaks of my referring to certain parables, and of my forgetting that goats were clean animals, &c. I did refer to the one parable contained in Matt. xxv. 31—46. But in what way did I refer to it? its having been remarked on by brother Beebe; and instead of giving my own views of it, I simply remarked that I do not in general object to his view, if so and so understood. Strange that he should learn from this that I had forgotten goats were clean animals. And strange that he should censure me for not objecting to those views, whilst he seems to speak as though what brother Beebe wrote was correct. This looks like giving a cake to one and a blow to another, for the same thing. The reason I did not object to brother Beebe’s views of this parable was, that I considered the ideas, with the specified modifications, were correct in themselves; though I did not then, neither do I now, believe that the design of that parable was to teach those ideas. But Eld. G. manifests in this case, a boldness in bringing the scriptures to his own standard which truly astonishes me.—He says, that parable was spoken about Jews, and could represent none but Jews, when Christ’s own declaration makes this parable relate to all nations. His words are, “And before him shall be gathered all nations, and he shall separate them one from another,” &c. To whom does the them refer, that Christ shall separate one from another according to his own words, but individuals of all nations? I think it would be a more consistent course to bring our views to correspond with the language of scripture, than thus to make the scriptures bend to our notions, especially as Old School Baptists.—That goats were clean animals, and that they were often flocked and folded with sheep, I admit; but I cannot admit that they ever were, or will be sheep; neither can I admit that they thereby any more correctly represented the Jews as such, than they do the professed members of the visible church, or what claims to be the visible church of Christ, and who in truth are not sheep. It is of the professed visible church among all nations, that I have for several years, understood this parable to be spoken. And my opinion is, that we see the division now going on among all nations, where the religion of Christ is professed.

Elder Goldsmith, as have some others, quotes a part of the passage found in 2 Thess. i. 9, 10, and refers it to the event of Christ’s executing judgment upon the Jews. As it is my privilege in this case to be replying to one, who, I presume, holds himself free from the influence of prejudice, I may venture to reason with him on the incorrectness of such vague applications of scripture, in hopes that he, and perhaps others, may be induced to consider the thing. Were it a manifest fact that the parable of the sheep and the goats was spoken with a distinct reference to the Jews, Eld. Goldsmith would no doubt consider it a perversion of that passage of scripture, to apply it to the gentiles.—If so, why is it not a perversion of this portion of scripture to apply it to the judgment executed upon the Jews as a nation, when it was so manifestly written with a distinct reference to the gentiles.—Perhaps Elder G. may doubt this distinct relation of this passage; we will, therefore, notice its attending circumstances. 1st. To whom was this epistle addressed? To the church of the Thessalonians; to those of course, who were citizens of Thessalonica, a city of Macedonia in Europe, and who, therefore, had no greater relation to the Jews, or to the destruction of Jerusalem, than we have; unless indeed, some of them may have been in the Roman army by which Jerusalem was taken and destroyed. 2nd. Who are they that the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven, with his mighty angels in flaming fire, taking vengeance on?—They who know not God, and obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. This declaration is, to be sure, unlimited as to national character; it is general as to nations and times, embracing those that know not God, &c., whenever and wherever they may have lived or may live. Have there not been those of various nations of the Gentiles, are there not those of these nations now living, and have we not reason to believe others will yet live, that fully answer the character of those on whom Christ is to be revealed as taking vengeance? If this declaration is thus general in its application to all that know not God, I ask by what authority does any one confine its application to the people of one nation, and one generation only, even if we consider it separate from its context? I further challenge them for any authority to assert that the Jewish nation and people were punished with everlasting destruction, &c. in Christ’s executing judgment upon Jerusalem, when Christ himself says of that event, “Except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved; but for the elect’s sake those days shall be shortened.” Matt. xxiv. 22. If the scriptures are to be used in this way, that is, in taking any passage we choose, and making what application we please of it, without any regard for the connexion, or for any divine authority for such application, how can the scriptures remain to be to us a perfect rule of faith and practice? And how is any point of faith and practice ever to be settled? But 3rd. The connexion in which this general declaration was made is to be considered. And by noticing the 6th and 7th verses in connexion with it, we shall find the whole to have been primarily written for the comfort of that church, in their tribulation, and for a warning to those that troubled them. And by turning to 1 Thess. ii. 14, we find that those who troubled them were not Jews, but their own countrymen. The text reads thus, “For ye brethren became followers of the churches of God which in Judea, are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews.” If this does not show a perversion of the passage under consideration in applying it to the destruction of Jerusalem, I shall despond of proving any text perverted. I have more fully examined it, because it has recently in several instances been so applied.

Elder Goldsmith’s queries concerning the resurrection will, if I am permitted, be noticed in another communication.

S. TROTT.