For the Signs of the Times. Westmoreland, N. Y., March 2, 1846.n (Beebe)

For the Signs of the Times. Westmoreland, N. Y., March 2, 1846.

DEAR BROTHER 

BEEBE:—Having a reluctance to make to you, I have concluded to write a few lines for your disposal. And now, what shall I say? I will say the Lord God omnipotent reigns, not only in heaven above, but also on the earth beneath, and overrules all things for his glory.—He brings order out of all the seeming confusion that appears to our view. The Lord Jesus will be glorified in all that he does or suffers to be done; therefore I do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice so long as I can by the grace of God take this view of things. It seems at times to us that sin reigns over the works of God’s hands, and that the dashing elements of sin would sweep with a beast of destruction all the race of Adam. We see not only the world in great commotion, but the church of the Most High God is also in great contention, for things of but little or no importance. It does seem to me that if the brethren possessed more of that meek and quiet spirit of the blessed Jesus, there would not be so much sharp shooting. Brother aiming all the artillery he can command against brother; or, brethren who seem to differ in some things which do not appear to be essential to christian or church fellowship. Brother Beebe, at times my heart, with the hearts of my brethren, have been made sick by reading the long epistles of contentions upon things that ought not to appear in the Signs of the Times. Yet, I have said in the third number of the current volume,



that controversies will not be seen hereafter in the Signs, to which I would add a hearty amen. The Signs should be devoted (in my opinion) to doctrinal, practical, and experimental religion, that the saints may be comforted and built up in their most holy faith—that they may be led more fully to appreciate that salvation wrought out by the Lord Jesus Christ for the whole elect family of God, and that the saints may come into the unity of the Spirit and bonds of peace, that there may be an oneness of mind, that the glory of the Great God may be visible to all who wonder, and despise and perish.

And now, brother Beebe, may the Great God give you grace and wisdom to conduct the Signs in a manner that will render it a messenger of peace, comfort, consolation and instruction to all of the family of the blessed Jesus, to whom it may come, and build them up in their most holy faith, and I trust will be, the prayer of a poor sinner saved by grace. I remain as ever, yours in the bonds of love,

JAMES BICKNELL, Jr.

Brother Beebe, I wish you would give timely notice in the Signs, that the Michigan Old School Baptist Conference will meet with the First Regular or Old School Baptist Church of Alson and Oakland, (Oakland County, Michigan,) on Friday before the third day in June, eighteen one hundred and forty six, and inquire for, and call on Elder Nash R. Lee, North West from Rochester, and North-East from Pontiac, 4 or 5 miles from each place; or call on

D. H. Brown, 1 mile North of Utica Village, about 27 miles North from Detroit. All Old School Brethren who can, are affectionately invited to attend, and it would be very desirable if Elder Beebe or some of the Old School Baptist ministers could visit Michigan about that time.

THE ANNUAL MEETING of the Old School Baptists of Northern Pennsylvania, will be held, if the Lord will permit, on the third Sunday in June, 1846, and Saturday preceding, at such place as the brethren of Clifford and Greenfield shall designate, and one of which they are requested to give timely notice through the Signs, agreeably to the arrangement of the last meeting, at New Milford.

We hope our ministering brethren of Orange Co., and elsewhere, will bear in mind that Elders West and Bryan have been called away from the field of labor they once occupied among us, and we are left destitute of experienced fathers in the ministry, and we earnestly request our brethren to make their arrangements so as to attend with us as often as possible.

Jackson, Pa., March 23, 1846.

ARNOLD BOUCH.
EDITORIAL

NEW VERNON, N. Y., APRIL 15, 1846.
REPLY TO OUR CORRESPONDENT, “F.”

Our correspondent “F.” whose letter will be found on pages 60 and 61, has laid out work enough to keep the editor and correspondents of this periodical busy for some time to come; and no doubt exists in our minds that the several points submitted may be discussed with greater satisfaction and far more profit to our readers generally than the farther discussion of those questions of Associational Order which have occupied so large a portion of our sheet for some months past. There are many subjects of importance involved in the inquiries of our correspondent, and after we have filled out this article in reply, we shall probably leave room enough for abler pens.

We can conceive of no more direct connexion between the atonement made by our adorable Redeemer, and the temporal mercies enjoyed by the human family, than there is between the atonement and the final perdition of the ungodly.—There is, as we conceive, a connexion existing, by which all the administrations of our God, in providence, retribution, and grace, are placed in harmonious order, the one with all the others; so that, if it were possible that any part of the divine purpose or arrangement of God could fail, such failure would affect, confuse, and derange the whole system of the divine government. Temporal mercies were enjoyed before sin corrupted the human family, nor have they been withheld since sin entered the world. Up to the present hour God in providence continues to send his rain upon the just and the unjust; but, instead of regarding the providential mercies of God as evidence of a reconciliation by the blood of Christ, embracing the recipients of those common or temporal favors, Paul speaks of them, [Rom. ix., 22,] as illustrative rather of the manner in which it is the pleasure of God to show his wrath, and make his power known; as in the case of Pharaoh, God exalted him for that very cause.


The atonement made by our divine Redeemer, either was exclusively for those who shall finally reign with him in glory, or one of two things must be inevitable:—

FIRST. All mankind will be saved by it; or, SECOND. None will be saved by it.

If, according to the advocates of a general atonement and offered salvation,—or, according to the mongrel vender of terms and conditions, in the vicinity of our correspondent,—Christ died for his elect in no sense in which he did not die for all mankind; or, in other words, if he died for all mankind in every sense in which he died for his people, if all mankind are not finally and everlastingly saved from wrath and condemnation, then the blood of Christ does not cleanse from all sin, nor does his atonement reconcile the objects of it to God; in which case Christ has died in vain. Do not those who hold such heresy trample under foot the Son of God, and count the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing? If his blood lacks efficiency to secure the object for which it was shed, it is defective; and if defective, it must be an unholy thing. To this conclusion we cannot come without doing despite to the Spirit of grace. But if it be admitted that his blood is a holy thing, and that it cleanses the sinner from all sin, it must follow unavoidably that all for whom it was shed are by it cleansed, redeemed, saved, and reconciled to God.

Many arguments of the most conclusive nature are at hand, to show that there was no partial atonement made by Christ. Of all that work of which he is the Author, he is also the Finisher; he is the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.

The word atonement, or at-one-ment, signifies reconciliation; we are therefore reconciled to God by the atonement made, or there was no atonement made for us. Christ “was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification,” [Rom. iv. 25.] or we are not of the number for whom he died. If he died for our sins, he arose for our justification; and if he has died and arisen for us without putting away our sins and effecting our complete justification, then he has died in vain, having failed to secure the objects for which he suffered. If his object in suffering was to procure temporal mercies for us, that object is not attained, as we enjoy them to no greater extent since, than before he suffered; and we see those who fear not God, and who regard not man, in possession of as much greater abundance of temporal favors than do the saints; insomuch that their eyes stand out with fatness, and they have more than heart can wish. If the object of his death, according to Wesley, was only to bring man into a savable state, unless he has absolutely saved them, he has failed in this, because there is salvation in no other. Acts iv. 12. And as there is salvation in no other than Christ, salvation can proceed from no other.

We have not been able to find the passage wherein “it is expressly stated that Christ is the Savior of all men,” in any sense. We think “If " is an allusion to 1 Timothy iv., 10: “For therefore we both labor, and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, specially of those that believe.” We cannot understand this universal salvation to proceed from Christ in his official, or mediatorial distinction from the Father; but the Apostle very justly ascribes the salvation by which all temporal mercies are extended to the whole human family, to that “Living God,” in whom all the Apostles and prophets trusted. That common salvation, which secures us from famine, and death, to the full extent that it is enjoyed, is attributable only to the “Living God,” in whom, as his



creatures, we live, and move, and have our being; and from whom also the special salvation of all that believe proceeds. For he so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son—(For what?) that all might have opportunity to secure the salvation of their souls? By no means; but this was it)—“that whosoever BELIEVETH IN HIM should not perish, but have everlasting life.” John iii. 16. Of believers, he is the Savior, in a sense differing from that in which he is the Savior of all men. Now, who are thus denominated? “As many as were ordained to eternal life believed.” Acts xiii. 48. “Because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation, through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth; whereunto he called you by our gospel to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.” 2 Thess. ii. 13, 14. From these scriptures with a multitude of other passages, the conclusion is unavoidable that our God gave his Son to die for the sins, and arise again from the dead for the justification of as many as were ordained to eternal life, and for no more.

“For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover, whom he did predestinate, them he also called; and whom he called, them he also justified; and whom he justified, them he also glorified.” Rom. viii. 29, 30. Now, if the learned gentleman in Massachusetts can show us that all these provisions are made alike for all mankind, he will do service to the doctrine of universal salvation.

That all new covenant blessings, (salvation from first to last included,) flow to the heirs of promise through Christ as a federal Head, is so clearly demonstrated in the scriptures of truth, that he who can remain skeptical upon the subject, is strongly tinctured with infidelity; let him “professions of piety or his pulpit eloquence say what they may.”

The inspired Apostle affirms that God has given him [Christ] to be the Head over all things to the church, which is his body, and that FULLNESS OF HIM THAT FILLETH ALL IN ALL. Eph. i. 22, 23. Adam was a figure of Christ, [Rom. v. 14,] and the human family was the fullness of Adam. The second, or antitypical Adam was the Lord from heaven; but the first Adam was not spiritual, but natural; consequently the federal head only of his natural posterity which was created in him, not afterwards, in the order of time, was the revelation of that second Adam or federal Head, which was spiritual; and as the natural federal head embodied and represented only a natural progeny, so his spiritual antitype as a federal head, represented that spiritual seed which was created in him and which constitutes his body and fullness.

Not in his Godhead, but in his mediatorial headship of the church, Christ is the Beginning of the creation of God, and the first born of every creature, or created thing. “A seed shall serve him it shall be accounted to the Lord for a generation.” Ps. xxii. 30. As his seed, his people existed in him before they were begotten by him. They are a chosen generation, because they were “chosen in him before the foundation of the world.” Eph. i. 4. “His seed shall endure forever, and his throne as the sun before me,” saith the Lord. Ps. lxxxix. 36. The seed of David and the seed of Israel are figuratively used to illustrate the relationship of God’s people to Christ, their spiritual Head and Progenitor. “In the Lord shall all the seed of Israel be justified, and shall glory.” Isa. xlv. 25. “When thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand. He shall see the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied; by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.” Isa. liii. 10, 11. From these scriptures it is evident that by virtue of real vital relationship, Christ has borne the griefs, carried the sorrows, and suffered the chastisement of his people’s peace; so that by his stripes they are healed. Isaiah, liii. 4, 5. But our foreposterous is the theory of the miscalled Baptist minister in the vicinity of “our correspondent!” He does not view the atonement as cancelling any sin, but as necessary to show God’s regard for holiness; not because men could not have been saved equally well without it, if God had so willed.” Without what? Atonement, or reconciliation, or justification! In the estimation of the minister alluded to, it would have been equally easy to save sinners in their sins, without reconciling them to God, &c., if God had so willed.—Glory to God in the highest! He did not so will. His will was to save his people from their sins, and to constitute them a holy nation, and a peculiar people. How could the acceptance of Christ’s sufferings in lieu of the sinner’s punishment display God’s regard for holiness, if Christ was not legally viewed as the Federal Head of those for whom he died? Nothing can be more repugnant to all the pretentions of God than that which this Yankee preacher represents as God’s chosen method of showing his regard for holiness. “He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both are abomination to the Lord.” Prov. xvii. 15. Can it be supposed that God has chosen abomination to show or illustrate his regard for holiness? Away with such madness and blasphemy! Deny the previous existing union, relationship and identity of Christ and his church, and you deny the only principle on which divine justice could admit of the sufferings of Christ, for the transgressions of his people. As well might the ministers of our civil law admit of the punishment of the innocent for the crimes of the guilty, to show that ours is a justice-loving government.

Again, if Christ’s death did not cancel the demands of the law, for the sins of those for whom he died, how are they justified by his blood?—(Rom. iv., 9.) seeing, in that case, all their sins remain in full force against them. But, notwithstanding all the cavillings of men, men must be purged from all sin and guilt by the blood of Christ, or they can never see God. The legal and righteous demand of the law was, “The soul that sinneth shall die.” What the soul is to the natural body of man, Christ is to his church.—When Christ died, the soul, life, and immortality of the church, which is his body, was delivered up, for the offences of that body, and accepted by law and justice for the offences of that body, and raised from the dead for the justification of that body, and by his stripes that body was healed; for he put away the sins of that body by the sacrifice of himself. “Much more than being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.” Rom. v., 9, 10.

We will now attend to 1 John ii., 2, and see if it conflicts with the doctrine of the foregoing scripture. “And he is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.” The term propitiation, according to Walker, signifies atonement. Butterworth renders it peace or reconciliation, while definitions seem to agree with the Greek Lexicon. But the difficulty in understanding this text is to decide in what sense the terms whole world are to be taken. In this text, the whole world is reconciled to God, through the atonement of Christ; and in the text, same epistle (v. 19) we are informed that the whole world lieth in wickedness, or unreconciled to God. The Apostle was evidently writing to the scattered saints of Jewish descent, according to the flesh; and would have his brethren know that the advocacy of Christ, and the reconciliation by him effected, had the same application to his people among the Gentiles, as to those among the Jews.

[To be Continued.]