By
Elder John Clark 

            We now proceed to adduce the proof by documentary evidence that they have published sentiments that are strictly Arian.  We shall give literal extracts from their writings and refer to the numbers and pages where they can be found; and we shall consider the editor responsible, of course, for his own productions, and also for what he endorses in others.  To this none have any right to object, as we do them no injustice by quoting their own words, and if they are found in company with old Arius the fault is theirs not ours. 

     I. – “Bro. Hood views Christ as possessing two whole and complete natures – human and divine – so do we; but much of the difficulty involved, as we conceive, with our esteemed brother, and with many others – is in restricting him to his two natures – human and divine; and so losing sight of his mediatorial nature altogether, as being a mediator between those two natures.  Now brother Hood, we trust, will unite with us in searching for that golden link which unites these two natures in Emanuel.  Paul says, “For there is one God, and one Mediator, between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Tim. ii. 5).  Then to unite these two natu res which distinctly considered are as wide apart as heaven and earth, ‘there is one Mediator.’  Now this mediatorial existence of Christ is that to which we have understood such terms as set up, begotten, first-born, together with every other name or title which expresses or implies derivation, or inferiority, to be applied in the scriptures, excepting only such names or terms as are applied strictly to his humanity….Christ as the Life and seminal Head of his own Church or body, dwelt in the bosom of the Father, was the begotten, and only begotten of the Father, and the begetting and setting up of that Head was the begetting and setting up of which he is the Head and Life.  And when that Head was put to death in the flesh, the Life of the body or church was taken away, and all her members were dead, as long as he remained in the grave; but when he was raised up together with his dead body, did all his members arise from death, and were quickened together with him.”

            NOTE 1st – The Apostle’s doctrine is that there is one Mediator, and he is the man Christ Jesus.  The editor is not being satisfied with that invited bro. Hood to go with him in search of the “link,” the third nature in Christ, for a Mediator, &c.          

Upon this particular point we ask attention to the editorial response to E.V. White of Loudoun Co. Va. published with Mr. White’s letter that he had been charged with preaching or writing certain doctrines, and one specification was, that Christ had three natures.  To this he responded as follows: -

II. – “The first of the charges is that we are accused of ascribing to our blessed Lord three natures.  To this charge we plead, not guilty.  When?  Where?  To whom did we ever make such a declaration?  We have no recollection of ever on any occasion attempted to tell what were the number of his natures, or to ascribe to him any other than what the Bible declares.”  “But our brother White says that our accusers charge that we hold that he is 1st God; 2d man; and 3d an eternal created existence.  The first and second, that he is God, and man, is admitted.  We most positively deny that we have uttered the sentiment, or made the assertion of the third specification.”

            NOTE 2d – We will not undertake to characterize this demonstration.  Our readers, after comparing it with the preceding selections from the same author, will know what it is, and therefore will not be at a loss for the proper term to express it.          

In 1836 the editor wrote a circular letter for the Warwick Association, from which the following is an extract, by which it will be seen that he has departed from the faith he then professed. :-

III. – “The Apostle to the Gentiles informs us that godliness is a great mystery (1 Tim. iii. 16), not to be solved by philosophers, or the literati of this world.  Flesh and blood cannot reveal it; none can understand its nature but such as have heard and learned of the Father, and are come to Christ (John vi. 45 – see also Matt. xvi. 17).  It is exemplified by an exhibition of divinity in humanity: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit; seen of Angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the wo rld, received up into glory.  Here we have the whole mystery, it is truly sublime and unsearchable.  In it Deity and humanity are linked together; eternity and time are joined; heaven and earth are connected, and in it, too, Christ and his people are identified.”

            NOTE 3d – The italics are our own.  The doctrine is sound, and the sentiments well expressed in this extract, but it is as diverse from the doctrine of the Warwick Circular of 1852, and from the sentiments in his reply to bro. Hood, as light is from darkness, as truth is from error.          

But we proceed with the extracts: -

IV. – “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 self-existent God, in the most absolute sense of the word, but we allude to what he was in 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 all embodied in that meditorial existence.”

             NOTE 4th – The intelligent reader will very readily see the position he assigns the Son of God, as he says when we speak of Christ as the Son of God, “we do not allude to his absolute Godhead.”  In that lies the deadly poison, no matter about the affirmation of his absolute Godhead.  It was not God manifest in the flesh, and therefore it is a distinct denial of his claim of being equal with God.  It is God, man and Mediator, and the latter is the created existence, the beginning of the creation of God; that is, the first creature that God made – “the first production of divine power” – as they interpret that scripture. That is the Son of God existed before he became incarnate we believe, as he is before all things, and by him all things consist, and he is therefore, as such, “the true God and eternal Life.”

V. – “In my communication, 10th No. present volume ‘Signs,” in replying to bro. Barton’s query concerning the church being created in Christ Jesus before the foundation of the world, I took the ground that the expression, ‘created in Christ Jesus,’ naturally involved the idea that the church was created in his creation, as the Head of his church, and of course, as far back as he stood, as her Head.  I refer to 1 Cor. xv. 45, as sustaining the same idea, and also Rev. iii, 14, and Col. i, 15, as further justifying the application of the idea of creatureship to our Lord in reference to his headship….Though they have dealt so summarily with that portion of God’s word, I will in candor answer the question they put to me.   The first is, whether the quickening and life-giving spirit of God is a created existence?  I answer, decidedly, yes.  The text under consideration, I think, gives me full authority so to answer.  It says, ‘The last Adam was made a quickening spirit.’  A quickening spirit, I presume they will admit, must be a life-giving spirit.  And to be made is equivalent to being created, as I before showed, by reference to Eph. ii. 10.  That a creation in Christ Jesus naturally implied a creation of them in him as a head, and therefore a creation of him as the Head of that life they derive from him, I may still appeal to that text as confirming the truth of my answer….But notice, I am aware of the drift of their question, and I am not a going to be led by it to say that the essential Holy Ghost is a creature.  He is God.  But I know of no authority in the scriptures to believe that it is his province to quicken or first regenerate dead sinners; although the idea that it is has been so prevalent among us….
   
They again ask, If the Scriptures give any information of anything being created before the beginning?  If they mean by beginning, the beginning of the creation of God, I answer no; for Christ is that beginning.  But if they mean by it, the beginning of time, as in Gen. i, 1, I say yes; for in that beginning God created the heavens and the earth, but Christ being the Beginning of the creation of God, and the First-born of every creature, must in this sense have been created or brought into existence before these, and therefore before time. . . . Will any person, after candid reflection, say of this life that is so particularly spoken of as distinct from the word as being declared to be in the word; and again, as if to prevent mistake, it is said, and the life was in the light of man, not simply it was the light, &c., that it is itself the word of the essential Godhead?  If not, must they not admit that this life was a produced, that is, begotten or created existence in the word, or to be driven to the necessity of admitting that there are other self-existences than God, and therefore other gods?  If, then, this life is not a self-existence, then it may properly be termed a creature as being produced of God.  Remember that Christ is that life. . . . They ask, in reference to declaration, ‘Who is the image of the invisible God,’ (former part of verse 15,) ‘Can a creature be the image of God, (Gen. i, 27,) and so is the new man renewed after the image of him that created him. (Col. iii. 10.)  But wishing to answer them more fully on this point, I will ask the, if according to their views the Son, as such, does not exist as God, and only as God?  If so, is he not the invisible God equally with the Father?  And, third, Can the invisible God be an image of the invisible God?  I say, no; for an image, according to the general and natural import of the word, means a visible representation formed of some person or idea; as the image of liberty, &c.  I do not believe that the self-existence, as such, of God was ever represented in an image, but all the attributes of God I believe are expressly represented in and through the Son, or Christ.  And I know not that God has ever been represented, or declared, to men but by Christ. (John i. 18.)  If God is declared in the works of creation, all things were created by the Son, (Col. i. 16,) but then God made the world by him, as Solomon made the vessels of the temple through Hiram. (1 Kings, vii. 14-18.  See Heb. i. 1,2.) . . . Whereas we have never admitted that as a person he is a creature, but on the contrary, whilst we say that as man he was a creature, and that as a Son, or as the Head of his church, or as Mediator, and Christ, he is a creature, that is, the existence in him which constituted him these, was not self-existent, but was brought into existence of God, yet that he took both of these existences in union with him as God, the latter in eternity, the former in time, thus existing as God, as the Son of God, and as the son of man, in one complex person.”

            NOTE 5. – The intelligent reader cannot fail to see the position assigned the Son of God, and the character given him, by this writer.  We have given full extracts, so that his true sentiments might be stated in his own words.  The sum of which is, that the SON OF GOD is not equal to and one with the Father, is a creature, differing only from other creatures in that he was created before time, or in eternity.  That he has three natures or existences, one self-existent and the Creator, one in eternity, the other in time.  Also that sinners are not regenerated by the Holy Ghost.        

But we proceed:

[From “Signs,” Vol. xvii, No. 20, pages 154 and 155.  Circular Letter, Licking Association, by Eld. T. P. Dudley.]

VI – “Is it not evident, then, that all ‘living souls’ were created in and simultaneously with the first man Adam, and they all being born of him, necessarily partake of his nature, ‘and he called their name Adam?’  And that all ‘quickened spirits’ were created in and simultaneously with the ‘last Adam’ – that they all, being born of him, ‘Born of God,’ as necessarily partake of his nature?  That all living souls, no more necessarily descend from the first Adam, than all quickened spirits necessarily descend from the last Adam. . . .

     . . . . We should not forget that Adam the first is said to be the ‘figure of him that was to come.’  What, then, do we learn from the figure?  That the bride and all the spiritual children were created in and simultaneously with the last Adam.  That they are of the same nature with him.”

            NOTE 6. – The head and progenitor of the human race – Adam the first – was created and all his seed or posterity created in him; and so the Head of the church was in like created, and the quickening spirits, or his family, created in him, - the former in time, the latter in eternity, is the theory developed in the foregoing extract.

VII – “This mediatorial qualification, we believe, is found in his peculiar Sonship, as the son or descendant of God, in which he is declared in the scriptures to be ‘the only begotten of the Father,’ ‘the first-born of every creature,’ ‘the beginning of the creation of God,’ &c.  We cannot understand that any of these terms which imply derivation or dependence, to be applicable to his essential Godhead; neither can we see how they can apply to his humanity; but we do understand them as applicable to him in his mediatorial headship, and as the spiritual Life of his body, the church. . . . . As God, he is not between God and man, for he is God; as man, he is not between God and man, for he is man.  But as Mediator he is between God and man.  The Godhead and humanity represent fully the parties between which a mediator was required.”

            Again:

VIII – “We do believe that Chirst, as the foundation and source of all life to his saints, was so constituted, made or created by God; for these are scriptural 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.”

            NOTE 7. – We call your especial attention, dear reader, to a specimen of what we may call clerical legerdemain, that some may be surprised at.  You have not only noticed in the last preceding extracts the term created used in reference to the being of Christ, the Son of God, but in all the foregoing extracts have seen, no doubt, the same and relative terms employed to express the same idea or sentiment, that the Son of God was created; but in the 4th No. of the Signs of 1856, the editor, in answer to the question propounded to him by E. Whatley, of Texas, Whether the S on of God is a created being, replied:

IX – “We do not believe that the Son of God is a created being, nor have we ever expressed an idea implying such belief.”
 

           NOTE 8. – Again, to the question that Christ and his people were created simultaneously in eternity? he responds:

X – “We have already answered this question in part; we do believe that Christ, as a Son, is the begotten of the Father, not created.”
 

            NOTE 9. – We will not characterize this, - but Solomon said: “The legs of the lame are not equal.”
 


XI – “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 ch. Rom., 1st ch. Col., and 3d ch. Rev.,) the church was brought forth with him and in him, as Eve was brought forth in Adam, and who is said to be ‘the figure of him that was to come.’”

            NOTE 10. – The Son of God, the first production of divine power! that is, the first creature that God made.  It will require a greater display of jugglery than has ever yet been witnessed, to defend that sentiment from the charge of Arianism.  Indeed, it is nearly in the express words of the Arian creed.
 


XII – “As a son he was sent into the world, and came not of himself, as before proved by his own words, ‘For I proceeded forth and came from God, neither came I of myself, but he sent me.’ (John viii. 42.)  And in this very chapter he asserts that his existence, in his mediatorial subordination of the Godhead, was anterior to Abraham’s day, - verse 58.  In this he was not speaking of his Godhead, for in his Godhead he was in no sense subordinate, or dependent on another to send him into the world, neither was he speaking in regard to his humanity, for in that he was ‘not yet fifty years old.’  But as the Mediator he did come, in subordination to his Father, to do not his own will, but the will of him that sent him, and to finish his work. . . . . It is therefore clear that whatever constituted him the Son of God, was delivered up for the offenses of the people.  And if, as we think none will contend, that his Godhead died, and something more than humanity was delivered up, the conclusion seems to be unavoidable that Christ, in his mediatorial life, and headship of the church, suffered, died, and arose from the dead, ascended up into heaven, and sits at the right hand of God, and that he ever liveth to make intercession for and in all those for whom he acts as Mediator.”

            NOTE 11th – While there is one truth interspersed throughout the first part of this extract, yet it is expressly stated that the Son of God is not equal to and one with the Father; whatever constituted him the Son of God died, and as the Godhead did not die, of course the Son of God is not Jehovah.  There is no escape from this conclusion, as the construction upon his words is legitimate and fair – they cannot be otherwise construed to make sense.
 


XIII – “We know of no nature derived from Mary, above the nature which Mary herself possessed.  Nor do we know how any thing could be derived from any source which did not previously possess that thing, and if Mary possessed a nature, or was capable of imparting a nature which could, if offered, take away the sins of all the election of grace, we cannot perceive why God ‘spared not his own Son,’ or why Mary’s body would not have answered the same purpose.”

            NOTE 12th – Of all that they have written upon their new theory nothing has appeared so abhorrent, so distinctly suggestive of the carnal mind, and of total ignorance of the truth as it is in Jesus, as this extract.  Is it not counting the blood of the covenant an unholy thing?  Can any one that ever felt the heavenly influence of the grace and love of Christ, and who has felt the application of the blood of the covenant in the forgiveness of sins, thus reason about the body of Christ, as the sacrifice for sins?  But what has God said upon this subject?  “The SEED OF THE WOMAN shall bruise the serpent’s head.”  “Wherefore, when he cometh into the world, he saith, sacrifice and offering, thou wouldst not, but a BODY hast thou prepared me….By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the BODY of Jesus Christ once….But this MAN, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins, forever sat down on the right hand of God.” – Gen. iii. 15.  Heb. x. 5-10-12.

            Again:-

            “I am the living bread, which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread he shall live forever: and the bread that I will give is my FLESH, which I will give for the life of the world….Except ye eat the FLESH of the Son of man, and drink his BLOOD, ye have no life in you.  Whoso eateth my FLESH, and drinketh my BLOOD, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.  For my FLESH is meat indeed, and my BLOOD is drink indeed.”  “And the Word was made FLESH and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.”  “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.”  “For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death IN THE FLESH, but quickened by the spirit.” John vi. 51-58, i. 14.  Heb. ii. 14.  1 Pet. Iii. 18, iv. 1.  We close this note with the Apostolic testimony concerning those who deny that Christ has come in the flesh, and in it suffered as a sacrifice for sin.  “And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ has come in the FLESH, is not of God: and this is that spirit of antich rist, whereof ye have heard that it should come, and even now already is it in the world.”  “For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the FLESH.  This is a deceiver and an antichrist.” 1 John iv. 3-2 John 7.
 


XIV. – “Two errors prominently appear in his description of the origin of the parties, a refutation of which I shall attempt, viz: first, that the elect of God, as such, were created in Adam: and second, that the non-elect were not created in Adam.  First.  It is not true that the elect as such were created in Adam.  That portion of the human family which God has denominated the elect, have received nothing from or in Adam than what is common to every other member of the human race.” . . . . “Christ, as the Head of his Church, is the beginning of the creation of God, and the First Born of every creature .  In his Godhead he is not numbered with, nor compared to creatures, for his Godhead is self-existent, and therefore not begotten, created or derived.  But in his Mediatorial office, or Headship of his Church, he was set up, created and begotten; and all his children was set up in him, created in him, and begotten in him, so far as relates to their spiritual condition.” . . . . “The spiritual and the natural creations of God seem to be confusedly blended together in his theory.  By the spiritual creation, I mean the creation in Christ Jesus; and, by the natural creation, all that properly belongs to this world, including the creation of al the human family, as such, in Adam.” . . . . “Christ, as Mediator and Head of the Church, “The beginning of the creation of God, and the first born of every creature.” . . . . “As God, Christ is uncreated, underived, self-existent and independent; but, as the Life of his people and Head of his Church, he proceeded forth and came from the Father – was created, begotten, and born.  Not in the natural creation; for, as Head of his church, he is before all things and by him all things consist.  His derivation was prior to the natural creation.  The only begotten of the Father, and the first born of every creature.  In him as the spiritual Head, all the members of his mystical body had their spiritual creation before there were any fountains abounding with water, or ever the earth was.  The same spiritual creation which set up our Daysman, our spiritual Head, gave actual being to all the elect of God in him.”

            NOTE 13th – We were forcibly reminded while glancing over the pages of this pamphlet of the case recorded in Acts xix. 13-16 verses, as the author of the pamphlet undertook to correct the error of Eld. Parker, as to the origin of the two classes of the human race, by the introduction of an error as great as the one charged upon Eld. Parker.          
He charges Eld. Parker with maintaining that the elect were created in Adam, but the non-elect were not, and his theory is that the elect were not created in Adam, but the non-elect were.  Alas, for our old father; if both these theories are true he is childless – he has no posterity upon earth.  But admitting that all that he has charged against Eld. Parker’s Two Seed doctrines is true, wherein would any Parkerite be benefited by being converted to his theory?  If his satanic majesty is capable of merriment, he must have been amused at the contention of these doctors over him and his seed.           

But passing from this particular point, the reader will notice interspersed throughout, as far as we copied from the work, the same baneful heresy that is prominent in all that we have quoted from their works, that the Son of God, the Head of the Church, the Mediator, was created, and his people created in him, before the natural creation.  No matter what is said about the Godhead, and the divinity, &c., it is not the Son of God, as such, that is self-existent, underived, and independent.  Our brethren and all who feel any interest in, or have any concern about these things, will make a note of that.           

The three that bear record in heaven is the Father, Son, and Spirit, and these three are one; and the Son said, I and my Father are one; but if he is “the first production of divine power,” if he was created, as they affirm, must not the Father and the Holy Ghost have been created also?  As one they must have the same origin.  In baptism the ordinance is administered in the name, not names, of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost, which attests the truth that the three are one, and that all the fullness of the Godhead dwells bodily in the Son, so that he thought it not rob bery to claim equality with the Father.  He is God and man, no more, no less.  He is the root and offspring of David.  He is David’s LORD and David’s Son.  “David in spirit called him Lord,” or Jehovah; and “no man can call Jesus Christ Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.”           

Their theory is as strictly a Two Seed system as Elder Parker’s, and of a worse type, for Eld. P. never degraded the Son of God to the level of creatures.  On another page in Eld. B.’s pamphlet – it is stated as follows:-

XV. – “As Eve was created in Adam, as identical with and a part of him – the bone of his bones and flesh of his flesh; so the church, the elect of God, the Lamb’s wife was, as I have before shown, created in Christ – existed in him, as one with and a part of him – bone of his bones and flesh of his flesh.”

            NOTE 14th – This, so far as it relates to the creation of Christ and the church in him in the sense stated, is not only false doctrine, but it is the greatest absurdity that we have noticed.  The reader will bear in mind that the creation in Christ, of which they speak, was before the natural creation, consequently, before time and in eternity, and was a spiritual creation, yet it has bones and flesh, as Adam and Eve had!           

The Master said: “A spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see me have.”  But as these eternal created spirits are of a different order of beings from those that Christ meant, or had any knowledge of, perhaps they may have flesh and bones.           

We hope we shall not become obnoxious to the charge of being uncharitable if we suggest that there is a spirit advertised in the scriptures that perhaps had something to do in bringing these spirits with flesh and bones into the churches, to trouble Israel , and to “cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which we have learned.”
 


XVI. – “Creation is a first bringing into existence, as if, as is evident, an existence in Christ was necessary to constitute him the Head of his people, as an existence in Adam was necessary to constitute him a head, then they must have been created in him just so long ago as he has stood as their Head.    

So Paul in drawing a parallel between Adam and Christ, says: ‘And so it is written, the first man, Adam, was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit, 1 Cor. xv. 45.  Here, by the construction of the passage, the words, was made, apply equally to the latter and first clauses, and so the translators have applied it.  What is this being made a quickening spirit, but being MADE THAT SPIRIT WITH WHICH THE CHILDREN OF GOD ARE QUICKENED SPIRITUALLY?&nbs p; And if he was made, or which is the same thing, CREATED AS SUCH, was not that quickening spirit which is the new man, the new creature in his people, then created in him?  And if brother Barton, or those Ketoctan brethren will point out any definite period in time when Christ was first made a quickening spirit, and then first stood as the head of spiritual life in believers, then I shall have to give up that they were not in that life created in him before the foundation of the world; otherwise I must still contend that they were thus created in him in eternity.”

            NOTE 15th – This is without disguise or ambiguity, the avowal, not only that Christ, the Son of God was created, but that the quickening spirit was also created.  But this is in harmony with the declarations of this writer quoted elsewhere, that the life-giving Spirit of God is a created existence.  We will quote a few more sentences from the same letter:-

XVII. – “The following propositions which I presume will be admitted to be self-evident, will, I think cover the whole ground: 1st, if there is not in the believer another existence, another life distinct from that which is born of the flesh, then the new birth, the new man spoken of, is no other than a new formation of the Adamic nature in whole or in part.  And as this new man ‘is after God created in righteousness and true holiness,’ so far as this change has taken place in our nature, it must have been made truly holy and heavenly.  2d, If a distinct life is imparted in regeneration, and that life is a creature, a new creature, THEN CHRIST, AS THE HEAD OF THAT LIFE, IS A CREATURE; FOR HE IS IT.  3d, Or if Christ as the Head of that life, is not a creature, he is self-existent, and the life therefore is self-existent, for he is it, and being self-existent, it must be independent in its action.”

            NOTE 16th – This is bad logic and worse divinity.  The gist of the proposition is, first, that if the man, the sinner, is the subject of the new birth, it can only be a new formation of the flesh or nature; and secondly, if Christ, the Head and life, is self-existent, then those to whom that life is communicated, must be self-existent too!  That is, as that writer wrote in another place, “they would be born little gods.”  Alas for us, for the Church of God , for all mankind, if wisdom is to die with these people.           

It is God that quickens sinners dead in trespasses and sins.  The dead hear his voice and live.  And all that are in their graves shall hear his voice.  “Why should it be thought a thing incredible with you, that God should raise the dead?”  But what apostle, or whoever before in the church of God since the apostolic dispensation, ever conceived that God could not impart life either in regeneration or in the resurrection, without making the subjects self-existent and independent like himself?
 


XVIII. – “We have declared that we know not what the soul, literally is, that we find no scriptural authority for the assertion, ‘The soul (literally) is born again’ – the term quicken, regenerate, born again, made partaker of the divine nature, and resurrect; where they occur in the scripture of truth, have reference to MEN and WOMEN, and not to souls, literally.” . . . . “We have constantly and consistently maintained, that ‘except a MAN be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God .’”  “We have asked our adversaries for their int erpretation of that, to us, deep, mysterious, indefinable something, called the soul.  They confess they know not what it is, yet they denounce us as heretics, because we cannot say, it is regenerated.”
 

XIX. – “Now, we have searched, closely, the word of the Lord for proof to sustain the notion; ‘the soul, is regenerated;’ ‘the soul, is born again;’ ‘the soul, is quickened;’ ‘the soul, is resurrected;’ ‘the soul, in regeneration, becomes the new man;’ and reading the scriptures, or disregard of the lessons they teach; and is consequently, nothing more nor less, than human tradition: and that those who are engaged in propagating that notion, are, emphatically, ‘teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.’  We are aware, that because of our dissent from the notion, ‘the soul is born again, resurrected, and becomes the new man,’ we have been denounced from Maine to Georgia ; and from the Atlantic to the Pacific, as heretics; and as having ‘left Old Baptist ground.’    

But allow us to reply, if Old Baptists leave the word of God, we have no wish to follow them.  We may be allowed to say, we sincerely regret, that Old Baptists, here and elsewhere, have suffered themselves to be imposed upon by these new theorists, who disregard the authority of ‘him who speaks from heaven.’”    

. . . . “If the soul is the subject of regeneration, and the new birth, is man not as incapable of sinning, subsequently to the new birth, as he was antecedently to the ‘breathing into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul?’  Or will our opponents have it, that this soul, which they say, is regenerated and born again, and resurrected, and becomes the ‘new man,’ ‘which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness,’ blows hot and blows cold; or exercises wicked volition, for the ‘old man,’ and holy volition for the ‘new man?’  But, our opponents have found out, that the wicked propensities and vile affections within, compose the old man.’  We do not so understand the apostle.  He says, ‘The old man is corrupt with his deeds.’  ‘The old man is a distinction between the man and his deeds, lusts, and wicked propensities; by which he is made known.  Deeds, whether mental or physical, do not give being to the agent by whom they are performed; but only develope the nature of the agent who performs them.”
 

            NOTE 17th – The reader will have discovered from the preceding extracts from the circular letters of the Licking Association, that they deny in unequivocal terms the doctrine of the regeneration of the soul, but explain with the quibble that the MAN is regenerated, as if they had found a man who has no soul!  There is no contention about the regeneration of the body in time, as none contend for that, and so if the soul is not regenerated, there is nothing left about the man to regener ate, and therefore the whole secret of the matter is that men – sinners of Adam’s posterity, are not regenerated at all.  They have no part or lot in the matter, as “Christ no more came from heaven to earth after his children, or family, than Adam went to heaven after his,” as they have taught in their ministry.
           

Before introducing the scriptural testimony to prove that our views of regeneration is according to the word of God, we will present a scrap of history to show that they have departed from what they originally professed to believe upon this point.
           

This association in 1854, republished a circular letter written by Elder John Gano, in 1796, for the Elk Horn Association of that year; which they prefaced with flattering words of commendation, in which is found the following sentence:-
 

XX. – “Light, life, repentance for sin, and joy in the Holy Ghost, are wrought in the regenerated soul.”
 

            NOTE 18th – They appended a note in this sentence, explaining what they mean by the phrase, regenerated soul, that is, regenerated man; but that they had no right to do.

           

They introduced Elder Gano as a witness for them, and after they put him up on the stand they had no authority to change the phraseology of his testimony, and as he testified, and the Elk Horn Association also, in adopting the circular, they are our witnesses.           

But we have greater Witness than this JOHN, surnamed Gano, and to him we would take heed.          

Designing to append an article to this work upon the subject of regeneration, we need only say here that the denial of the regeneration of the soul, or the denial of regeneration, absolutely, which is the same thing, is subversive of the whole work of salvation, and is a denial of the words of the Apostle that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners.  Upon that plan, if there are sinners at all of Adam’s posterity, they are not saved, as the Church of Christ is not made up of his race, and especially as no change is ever effected in any of them, either in soul, body or spirit.           

If any of the Adamic race get to heaven, they must go there in their sins, and without regeneration.           

But in the proper place we will attend to this question in order.

History of the Schism in Va. , Report of Com. Of Ketoctan Association, 1853

            We would call the particular attention of our readers to some significant facts in relation to the history of this schism in Virginia , and especially in the Ketoctan Association.           

The first distinct development of the heresy in the ministry within the bounds of that Association, was on the stand at the session in 1850, at Water Lick Church , with which the Association convened.           

Elder R.C. Leachman declared from the stand that Christ would not come again to this earth, - he came once, then he had something to do, but having finished that work, he would not come again, &c., - and demanded to know who believed he would ever come again.  Whereupon, Eld. Thomas Buck spoke from his seat behind, I believe he will come again, and this was re-echoed by Elders Marvin, Louthan, and several other ministers who were present, and Elder Buck left the stand.           

The Association was held in 1852, at Zion Church , and we find the following proceedings reported in the minutes, viz:

“Whereas, A letter was received on yesterday, by the hands of Bro. Lynn, from Chappawamsic Church, setting forth and declaring non-fellowship for certain doctrinal sentiments which have been advanced and inculcated by certain Elders or Ministers, with whom the said Church has recently had correspondence, such as ‘the life-giving Spirit of God is a created existence,’ – ‘the Son of God, as the Head of the Church, is a creature, &c.;’ – and whereas, the said Church asks us, through her Messenger aforesaid, whether we hold and believe the said doctrine, and others of a kindred character, referred to in her letter, that the said Church may be governed in her future action in reference to her correspondence with us by the answer we n ow give thereto;

     Resolved, therefore, That we most unhesitatingly reject those sentiments as being heretical, and that we have no fellowship for them or those who believe them.

     Resolved, also, That we have no fellowship for sentiments advocated  in the presence of the Association this day, to wit: ‘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 during that time, - that Christ will not come a second time to this world,’ – were put and adopted.

            This was substantially a declaration of non-fellowship for Arianism, and the editor of the Signs of the Times characterized the proceedings of the Association as “proscriptive,” while certain preachers – Elders Trott, Leachman and Clipstine – and churches, withdrew from the Association on account of such declaration, asserted they were cut off thereby; called a meeting and passed resolutions of non-fellowship against Ketoctan, and yet affirmed that they did not hold the doctrines condemned by the Association! !  They non-fellowship Ketoctan for rejecting doctrines which they say t hey do not believe!           

At the session of the Ketoctan Association in 1853, a committee was appointed, consisting of Elders William C. Lauck, John Clark and Abrose C. Booton, upon the minutes of the following Associations, which were presented to the Association, viz.: Baltimore , Delaware , Delaware River, Warwick , Chemung and Lexington , to be investigated by them and report to the Association.           

The next day, the second day of the session, the committee presented the following report, which was read and adopted by the Association, and ordered to be printed in the minutes, viz.:

“The Committee, to whom were referred the minutes of the above-named Associations, made the following report through Elder William C. Lauck:
 

REPORT.

“Your Committee, to whom was referred the propriety of receiving the minutes from the Baltimore, Delaware, Delaware River, Warwick, Chemung and Lexington Associations, and to report thereon, beg leave to state, that they discover in the minutes of the Warwick Association, that whilst they refused to admit queries ‘for discussion or decision by the Association’ from the churches, she, nevertheless, assumed authority to denounce Elder B. Pitcher, as ‘malicious and calumniating,’ and ‘that it is highly improper that he should, under any circumstances, occupy a seat with us,’ (them,) and, also ‘to drop from their minutes the Hardiston Church, for sustaining the same Elder Pitcher,’ and by so doing they have exercised authority over the churches contrary to the gospel and Baptist usages; because the Hardiston church had charged that Association with having sent out false doctrine in the circular of last year, viz.: ‘Of a mediatorial Christ without deity or humanity,’ and ‘a mediatorial Christ out of the Lord,’ &c.  Your committee conceive the charges aforesaid to be clearly deducible from the circular referred to; but the Warwick Association is pleased to assert that the said charges are ‘totally unfounded in truth.’  From the Warwick circular we make the following quotations, which fully sustain the Hardiston Church, and falsifies the recent issues of her minutes, viz: ‘In this He was not speaking of His Godhead; for, in His Godhead, He was in no sense subordinate, &c.  Neither was He speaking in regard to His humanity; for, in that He was not fifty years old.  But, as a Med iator, He did come in subordination to His Father, to do, not His own will, but the will of Him that sent Him – and to finish His work.’”

            We report, furthermore, that since our last Association, some three Churches have withdrawn from and declared non-fellowship for this Association, doubtless because they substantially maintained certain heretical sentiments against which we declared non-fellowship last year, or there could have been no cause given by us for their procedure.  The Convention of the Messengers from the said Churches, held at Ebenezer M. H., nevertheless asserted as the cause of their withdrawal and disfellowship for us, were issues between us, which had never occupied the attention of the Association in discussion or otherwise – and they hav ing withdrawn from us, are in correspondence and fellowship with the Associations above-named.           

Now, therefore, whilst we do not charge the Baltimore, Delaware, Delaware River, Chemung and Lexington Associations, with holding the sentiments and approving the conduct of the Warwick Association and the Churches referred to, we cannot consistently hold fellowship and correspondence with those who hold in their fellowship and correspondence the Warwick Association, and the Pastors of the three Churches referred to, as we believe the said Pastors have been the instruments of their withdrawal and declaration of non-fellowship for us.           

Your Committee, therefore, recommend that we discontinue our correspondence with the Warwick Association, and suspend our correspondence with the Baltimore , Delaware , Delaware River , Chemung and Lexington Associations, for the reason above assigned; and we recommend, also, that the Associations do not receive their minutes, nor read their letters of correspondence.”           

We find the following testimony, also, against them and their heresies in the minutes of the Ebenezer Association, at the session in 1853:

ITEM 3.  “Elder John H. Menefee and Bro. H. H. Hess were appointed a Committee to examine minutes of Corresponding Associations, and Elder Menefee shortly afterwards reported that they had made such examination, and that they had found, from the minutes of Rappahannock and Ketoctan Associations, that they had discontinued their correspondence with certain Associations, in consequence of heretical opinions, and Messengers from Patterson’s Creek and Juniata Associations having also given similar information in relation to the action of those bodies, the Committee were of opinion that the subject required the consideration of this Association.  Whereupon, Elder Wm. C. Lauck presented the fol lowing preamble, &c., which was unanimously adopted:

Whereas, We have learned from the Messengers and minutes of Juniata, Patterson’s Creek and Rappahannock Associations, that they have discontinued their correspondence with certain Associations with whom they formerly corresponded, in consequence of their connection with the Warwick and Baltimore Associations, and the corresponding meeting of Virginia, which are understood to hold heretical sentiments, against which the Ketoctan Association, at their last session, passed resolutions of non-fellowship, - and whereas, we have great confidence in the sound scriptural faith and practice of the Ketoctan, Rappahannock, Patterson’s Creek and Juniata Associations, and love them for the truth’s sake; there fore, be it.

Resolved, That we discontinue our correspondence with the Corresponding Meeting of Virginia, the Baltimore, Warwick, Delaware and Delaware River Associations; not that we would be understood as charging all of the Associations named, and those in correspondence with them, or the members thereof, with holding the vain opinions that the Eternal life died on Calvary, - was  created or produced existence, - the Son of God is a creature, &c. – there is no change wrought in the soul in regeneration, - the life-giving Spirit of God is a created existence. &c. – and many other kindred heresies recently preached and published by professed Old School Baptists.  But so long as Associations, or brethren whom we love as the chosen and peculiar people of God, do thus continue to identify themselves with others who disseminate heresy by holding correspondence and fellowship with them, we feel it a duty, devolved upon us by the Gospel of Christ, to discontinue our correspondence with them; but shall, nevertheless, most gladly renew our correspondence with either of said Associations, or with individual Churches, or members thereof, whenever they shall withdraw their connection and fellowship from the Associations who tolerate the heretical opinions complained of, and shall signify a desire to be in fellowship with us.”

            We have thus presented the testimony of six Associations, all uniting, with marked unanimity, in a verdict of guilty of the charges of heresy preferred against them.  The following are the names of the preachers in attendance at the Ketoctan Association in 1850, viz.: Elders Thomas Buck, Wm. C. Lauck, Wm. Marvin, A. C. Booton, Z.J. Compton, Walter McCoy, Benjamin Cornwell, R.C. Leachman, G. Beebe, P. Hartwell, S. Trott, P.A. Clipstine, Henry Louthan.  Marvin, Booton, Lauck and Leachman were appointed to preach on Saturday, and the latter named preachers avowed the sentiments named in the foregoing account of that Associa tion.  There was but little said or done about those doctrines at the session in 1851.           

The following ministers were present in 1852, when the division ensued, viz.: Thomas Buck, A.C. Booton, Wm. C. Lauck, Walter McCoy, Wm. Marvin, J. Corder, Wm. Howsell, P.A. Clipstine, R.C. Leachman.  The three preachers who left the Association at that session were Trott, Leachman and Clipstine, and the four churches made their charge, reported through their meeting at Fryingpan, reasons for leaving the Association which were not before the body at all.  The only question before them was the resolutions of non-fellowship reported, and their withdrawal in consequence of the adoption of those resolutions was conclusive proof that they held in the sentiments condem ned in them.        

In the 20th Vol., 18th No. of “The Signs of the Times,” (1852,) page 143, we find the following editorial notice:

XXI. – “APPOINTMENTS. – We received, too late for insertion in this number, a notice for a meeting appointed by the Ebenezer Baptist Church of Loudoun County, Va. , for preaching and consultation, in regard to the proscriptive measures adopted by Ketoctan Association, at her last session.  Churches aggrieved are invited to send messengers to participate in the consultation, and Old School Brethren in general, of both parties, are invited to attend.  The meeting is to be held at the Meeting House of the Ebenezer Church , on Friday before the third Sunday in November (1852) next, at 11 o’clock, A.M.”

            NOTE 20. – It is strange logic, that when an Association, or any other body, shall make a declaration of what they believe, or do not believe, it shall be stigmatized as proscriptive.  When the Ketoctan Association declared non-fellowship for Arminianism, as developed in Benevolent Institutions, &c., the editor chronicled it with approbation, as can be seen in the 18th No., 3d Vol., page 317, of his paper; but when she, in 1852, declared non-fellowship for Arianism, he stigmatizes the act as proscriptive.  In the latter case the Association got into his household, decapitated his god – his “first production of divine power,” the “created existence.”           

If the sentiments named in the resolutions of the Association was a MISONSTRUCTION or a misrepresentation of their views, as they affirm, why did they leave?  What harm can a declaration of non-fellowship do any person if it is not against sentiments held by him?
           

We have thus shown the true cause of their leaving the Association, and which also is additional proof that they hold the sentiments imputed to them.
           

In this connection we publish a letter written by Elder Thomas Buck, that dearly beloved brother in Christ, to Elder William C. Lauck, who has kindly submitted it to our disposal.  Elder Buck was a firm and bold defender of the faith once delivered to the saints, whose face was set as a flint, and he could neither be terrified or bribed.  He lived in faith and died in faith, and though dead, he yet speaketh.  The following is the letter referred to:

“MOUNT PLEASANT, Warren Co., Va. , JUNE 1st, 1850.

DEAR BRO. LAUCK – I have had           in contemplation, for some ten or twelve days, to express to you my great pleasure on reading your reply to Brethren Trott and Beebe; for I think, to the question in controversy, you have answered them plainly, forcibly and scripturally; and notwithstanding they complain so grievously of being either ignorantly misunderstood, or willfully misconstrued, by Bro. Clark, you and him, and I believe all candid, unprejudiced readers, or brethren, have construed the mystified and unmeaning arguments of Bro. Trott to be, and to mean just what our dear Bro. Clark understood them to mean, and what I assuredly did understand by them.&n bsp; First, that their system of eternal union was the same, in substance, with Bro. Dudley’s eternal new creation, and that the body of Christ, the Church, was entirely complete eternally, not in the purpose or design of God, but really and properly so.  Second, that Christ, as the Head of the Church, is a creature, and that created thing is neither human nor divine.  Third, that there are two spirits, the Holy Ghost, or Spirit of Truth, and the Spirit of Life; and that this created spirit is the quickening spirit, and created in Christ Jesus, and, of course, God created a new creation in himself, and this new creation is what constitutes Christ the Son of God.  Mystery of mysteries! instead of explaining the inexplicable mysteries of the Godhead, he has really mystified it.  I only designed by this communication to express, not only my own understanding of the explanation you have made in the ‘Signs,’ but that the brethren about ‘Fort Mountain’ are unanimous in the belief of the same doctrine; for your piece in the ‘Signs of the Times’ was read in Waterlick Church meeting with great satisfaction, and approval, and they say you are right in saying that they believe that doctrine.    

I write so seldom that I can scarcely write intelligibly.  I find myself to have failed in my mental as well as physical abilities; but I rejoice in my God that there are some young brethren in the ministry in whose ability and faithfulness I have great confidence and comfort.    

I am, as ever, your unworthy brother in Christ,

THOS. BUCK.”

 

            Many letters of like import with this can be produced; and we wish to call the reader’s attention to an important fact in the rise and progress of these heresies, and consequent division among us, that, while the authors and propagators of these heretical doctrines have constantly affirmed that we have originated all the opposition to them and to their doctrines which have been exhibited in any section of the country, and that instead of laboring to arrest the division among the O.S. Baptists we have labored to promote it, &c.  The truth of history, and the honor of Christ, require that we should correct this very err oneous statement and perversion of truth in the case.           

In the first place, it is known and written in the history of the introduction of these heresies among us, that Ministers, Churches and Associations, in every state and territory in the United States, and some in Canada and in England, have taken decided position against them, and declared non-fellowship for them, many of whom, at the time, had never seen a line from our pen, nor, indeed, had ever heard of us in connection with these things.  And as to the insinuation that we suffered these things to proceed and to culminate in division without moving a finger to prevent it, &c., we will in answer to this refer the reader to a letter addressed to the editor o f the “Signs of the Times” in 1849, and published in the 23d number of the paper of that year, Vol. xvii. beginning on the first page, and which occupies two whole pages, of three columns, and one column on the third page.  After calling his attention to these novel doctrines, and the inevitable consequences that must ensue in the churches and denomination, if the advocates of them persist in pressing them upon us, and agitating them in the papers and from the pulpit, we close in the following words:

“And, brother Beebe, I must candidly own, that, with all due deference to the wisdom and experience of brethren who are understood to favor these views, as I now understand it, if that is the gospel I never preached it, never knew it, and don’t now know it.  And may we not ask that, if these things be so, has the gospel ever been preached since the apostolic age?  Can it be shown in ecclesiastical history that this view of the character of Christ was ever held by any branch of the church of Christ ?  My pathway, brother Beebe, has be en in a great measure strewed with thorns, but I know of nothing that has given me more unfeigned sorrow, more poignant distress, than the clouds which seem to hang over our sky at present.  I have been in two wars, first with the Campbellites, and secondly with the New School Baptists, and I once believed I knew how to fight them, at least I have had some experience at it, but I do not know how to fight my brethren.  It pains me sorely to see them contend and strive, especially about words to no profit.  And I would say to them: ‘Sirs, ye are brethren, why do ye wrong one to another?’  Are we to be guilty of the folly of turning our arrows from anti-Christ, to shoot at each other? SPAN style="mso-spacerun : yes">  Shall it be that the people, against whom all the powers of earth and hell are combined, shall so far forget their high calling as to bite and devour one another, and therefore be consumed one of another?  May the Lord deliver us from such a calamity!  And, my brother, I think I speak advisedly when I say, that if there is not an end to these things in the Signs, there will be an end to the Signs.    

I remain yours in tribulation,

JOHN CLARK.

BELLEFAIR MILLS, Stafford Co., Va. , Sept. 11th, 1849.”
 

            The editor reviewed this letter at length, but it was only to repeat, in changed phraseology in some things, the same doctrines, and the prediction has been literally fulfilled, that, as they did not cease these things in the Signs, there has been an end to it so far as the doctrine upon which it was stated is concerned.  Articles furnished for its columns by correspondents holding our views give it some credit among sound Baptists, but so far as the doctrines of the leaders are interspersed in it, there is poison enough in them to pollute a fountain as large as the Atlantic Ocean .  Breth ren in every section of the country have seen and understood their doctrines without our aid, and have pronounced against them without being prompted by us, and the plea of not being understood, or of misrepresentation, will not avail them, as they are regarded as sensible men, and if they do not mean what they say, why do they not say what they mean?  We have been charged (which is a small matter and only evidence of our ignorance,) but with misrepresenting and even slandering them, when we have stated verbatim what they have written; and that of itself is sufficient justification for us in this expose from the record they have made.  Our law doth not judge any man before it hears hi m and knows what he doeth, but when we have heard and seen, it is lawful to judge righteous judgment.  The Lord is our judge, and he knows that we have never labored to pervert the meaning of their words, or to misrepresent them in any way, and now if what we have selected from their written works do not bear us out in the indictment, and sustain the charges of heretical doctrines preferred against them, we shall cheerfully acknowledge it when it is so made to appear according to the scriptures.  We have imputed no sentiment to them only what they say they believe, and by quoting their own words, and if our comments are inharmonious with the text, our intelligent readers will detect it, and no injury will ensue to them by it, but it will recoil upon us.           

We could furnish additional evidence against them from their writings, and from brethren who have heard them preach, and also from unpublished letters in our possession received from some of their preachers, with the additional testimony of Churches and Associations in every section of the country, which have pronounced against their doctrines, but what we have produced is sufficient for all who have ears to hear what the Spirit saith unto the Churches.           

We now submit an exposition of the particular verses of scripture upon which they rely to prove the creature-ship of the Son of God, to show from these passages, and from other portions of scripture, that they prove the very reverse of their theory; that, instead of Jesus, the Life and Head of the Church, being a creature, he is the Creator.  Following this we present the scriptural view and illustration of REGENERATION, considered doctrinally and experimentally, and conclude with the treatise on the REGENERATION OF THE SOUL.

 

CHAPTER FIFTH

            “Who is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of every creature.”  Col. i. 15.

            “And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write: These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true Witness, the Beginning of the Creation of God.”  Rev. iii. 14.

            It has been well said by a distinguished historian, that “no real Christian can think it unimportant whether his Saviour be believed to be the Creator or a creature;” and the questions therefore propounded to the Pharisees by the Son of God himself (Matt. xxii. 42), “What think ye of Christ?  Whose son is?” are the first and greatest importance.  They present indeed in the churches the test question; for the Spirit of truth and the spirit of error are abroad in the earth; and as Christians have ever been under the influence and guidance of the former, they have been at the same time annoyed and perplexed by the latter, especially in its insidious movements and attack upon the character of Christ.

           

These, however multiform they may be, can always be detected when brought to the touchstone of truth – the infallible standard of God’s word.  Some particular passages of scripture are always selected by schismatics, which have the semblance of favoring their dogma when detached from the connection in which God has placed them.  The Arminians and the Calvinists, the Arians, and the Unitarians, &c., all have their favorite texts; and the verses at the head of this article have been used by the Arians, since the rise of that sect in the third century to the present time, to sustain their heresy.  They form the very bulwark, behind which they have fortified themselves, and from which they imagine they can never be dislodged.  No matter when or where they show themselves, these are the scriptures they bring forward to support the idea, that the Son of God is a creature, and the first production of divine power; and we have taken the liberty to place in italics the particular parts of the verses chiefly relied upon by them to prove their theory of the creature-ship of the Son of God.  In engaging, as we now do, to defend and maintain the true character of the Son of God, we shall undertake to prove the very reverse of their theory; and the person, or character, the Son of God, whom they represent to be a creature, is the Creator, and that too by the very scriptures which they adduce, with collateral passages, which abound in the scriptures.  And we particularly request all those who have earnestly inquired to know what is the difference between us, to accompany us into the investigation, by which they will see that the difference is just the difference between the thing formed, and He that formed it – between the creature and the Creator – and that it is impossible to conceive of extremes farther asunder.           

In the first place, we deny that the expression, “The first-born of every creature,” considered simply in the connection in which it is found, conveys the idea, or that the apostle designed to teach the doctrine, that He of whom this was said was created, or made, either first or last.  That the Son of God is the character spoken of in that verse, is evident from the close of the 13th verse; and the 16th verse is a lucid elucidation of the 15th, or of what is said of Christ in that verse, especially that of his being the first-born of every creature, as the apostle adds – “For by him were all things created that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: and by him all things consist.”           

Now, if the apostle meant, by the expression, “first-born of every creature,” that the Son of God was the first creature made, as the Arians affirm, where is the force, or sense, in the affirmation that follows, and by the conjunction, for, pointing directly to what precedes it?           

And how could he maintain in one member of the sentence (for the sentence includes all between the 9th and 20th verses) that the Son of God was a creature, and in the next, that he was the Creator?  And how could it, in truth, be said of one that was himself created, that he created all things?  And how could the very phrase, or revelation of his creature-ship, be pointed to as illustrative, or as evidence, that he created all things?  The 16th and 17th verses show him to be the Creator, and in the beginning of the 16th th e apostle refers to what he had said of him in the preceding verse, to prove him to be such.  It is remarkable, that the apostle claims for the Son of God the prerogative of being the Creator, upon the ground of his being the first-born of every creature!  He is the first-born of every creature, for he created every creature.  He created all creatures, and therefore is the first-born of every creature.  Strange that the very argument which the apostle made to prove the Son of God to be the Creator, should be wrested and perverted by men to try to prove that he was himself created!  We need not therefore go from the Epistle to the Col., to prove all that we need in support of the di vine and glorious character of the Son of God, as the first-born of every creature; and those who take the opposite ground, can take either alternative presented before them, either to maintain that after he himself was created, he created every thing else, and consequently, that he was created a creator; or else, that after he was created he became “the subordinate instrument by which God created the world,” &c., that “God made the world by him, as Solomon made the temple by Hiram,” that is, as his instrument or servant.  But we know which horn they take of this dilemma.  True to the spirit and instincts of the ancient prototype, they talk of a first production of divine power, and of a priority of existence with the Father, &c.           

The passage quoted from Rev., is the address to the angel of the church at Laodicea , the last one mentioned of the Seven churches in Asia ; and as a similar address, or communication, is made to each of the others, we will present them in the order in which they are revealed.  But first, we lay down, as a position that is self-evident and incontrovertible, that whatever may be meant by the phrase, “the beginning of the creation of God,” it must be consistent with what is said of the same person in the communications to the other churches, with what John said of him, and what he said of himself, in that boo k.  Four times in that book, he declares himself to be the Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the Ending, the First and the Last, and, in the last instance, links the three characters together, and which can apply to none but Jehovah.  No creature, no matter when or where made, can say, I am ALPHA, the Beginning.  But to suppose that the expressions, Alpha, Beginning, and First, refer to the order of God’s creation, what are we to understand by the terms put in contrast with them here?  If the term Beginning has reference to his own existence, what does the term Ending refer to?  Does it mean that he was the first thing or creature that wa s made, and the last that shall die?  So it would seem from the Arian notion.  But let us hear what he says himself, and of himself – “I am Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the Ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, THE ALMIGHTY” (Rev. i. 8).  There can be no mistake in this.  It is THE LORD – THE ALMIGHTY – that speaks, who gave all things a being and beginning.  Every tense of the verb is employed to express his eternity.  And he who speaks thus of himself reaffirms the same in his opening speech to John (v. 11), which he heard when in the Spirit on the Lord’s day, and closes the Revelation to John in the same divine asseveration, joining all the characters before given to him together – “I am Alpha and Omega, the Beginning, and the End, the First and the Last” (xxii. 13).  And farther, as it was the design of God, that the wayfaring man, though a fool, might not err herein, or be at a loss to know who it is that here speaks, and of whom these things were said, we read in the 6th verse – “And the Lord God of the holy prophets sent his angel to show unto his servants the things which must shortly be done;” also in the 16th verse, “I, Jesus, have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches.”  It is Jesus then, that is the Lord God of the holy prophets: that is, the Lord, the Almighty, the Beginning and Ending, &c.           

We now turn to the seven churches and what was said to each of them concerning the Son of God.  First, to the church at Ephesus , it was said of him – “He that holdeth the seven stars in his right hand, who walketh in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks.”  To the church in Smyrna – “The First and the Last, which was dead and is alive.”  To the church in Pergamos – “He which hath the sharp sword with two edges.”  To the church in Thyatira – “The Son of God, who hath his eyes like unto a flame of fire, and his feet like unto fine brass.”  To the church in Sardis – “He that hath the seven spirits of God, and the seven stars.”  To the church in Philadelphia – “He that is holy, He that is true, He that hath the key of David, He that openeth and no man shutteth, and shutteth and no man openeth.”  To the church in Laodicea – “The Amen, the faithful and the true Witness, the Beginning of the Creation of God.”           

Now it must be apparent to every one, it appears to us, who is not blinded by prejudice or ignorance, that it is the same divine and glorious character that speaks to all the churches here, and whose sovereign voice is heard throughout the whole Revelation there made to John.  It was Jesus, the Son of God, who could say – “I know thy works – I will come unto thee quickly – I have a few things against thee – I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews and are not, but are of the synagogue of Satan – I will keep thee from the hour of temptation – And all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts.”  And this none but Jehovah can do.&nb sp; Compare also the 8th verse of the 1st chapter with the 8th verse of the 4th chapter, if anything further is necessary to give an understanding of the character of him who is the Beginning of the Creation of God – who is the LORD GOD ALMIGHTY, who gave to all creatures and things began, or that had a beginning – the whole creation of God.           

We will now turn to the testimony of the holy prophets, his ancient witnesses, by which we shall see that the Beginning of the Creation of God, the Jesus of the New Testament, is the Jehovah of the Old; that he who was the Beginning and Ending, the First and the Last to John in Patmos, was the same to the prophets hundreds of years before he was manifested in the flesh.  We will call to the stand Isaiah, who saw his glory and spake of him. (John xii. 41.)  Let us hear what he says upon the subject – “Who hath wrought and done it, calling the generations from the beginning?  I the Lord, the first, and with the last: I am He.” (Isa. xli. 4.)  “Thus saith the Lord, the King of Israel , and his Redeemer, the Lord of Hosts; I am the first and I am the last, and besides me there is no God.” (xliv. 6.)  “Hearken unto me, O Jacob, and Israel , my called; I am he; I am the first, I also am the last.  Mine hand also hath laid the foundation of the earth, and my right hand hath spanned the heavens: when I call unto them they stand up together.” (xlviii. 12, 18.)           

Here we have concurrent testimony of the prophet confirming and establishing clearly the doctrine that the characters, Beginning and Ending, First and Last, &c., can apply only to the living God, to the Creator, whose hand laid the foundation of the earth, and spanned the heavens, and therefore He, who to the church of Laodicea was declared to be the Beginning of the Creation of God, is the true God and eternal life, and that declaration concerning Him, is one of the many evidences of that fact, one of the many scriptures that prove him to be divine, and the fountain of life, the author of all existences, the source from whence all creatures spring, the beginning of universal creation, and therefore gives to all life and breath, and all things.  It has been demanded of us to show the difference between the declaration, “The first production of divine power,” and the scriptures, “The First-born of every Creature, the Beginning of the Creation of God,” and for an answer we point to the foregoing, which shows, when summed up, the difference between the creature and the Creator, and a greater difference we have no conception of.

            But what shall we say more?  What need we say more?  Those that dwell in the congregation of the dead will hear not, neither understand or be persuaded, though one should arise from the dead.  Our hope, therefore, is only for those that are written among the living in Jerusalem ; for, the living, the living he shall praise thee – (Isaiah iv. 3: xxxviii. 19).   And to such we can confidently say, Suffer the word of exhortation.  See to it that you are not deceived, that you are not led astray, by such as lie in wait to deceive, that you are not blinded to your best interests, to search and investigate for yourselves, by the glare of seeming prosperity in the path of transgression, nor give heed to the loud professions of orthodoxy, and repeated protestations of innocency, in regard to errors in doctrine which come to you upon every wind.  Remember that the Lord Jesus, while he commended the church at Pergamos because she held fast his name, and had not denied his faith, &c., yet he censured her for having among them those that held the doctrine of Balaam, and the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes.  May he who is the Prince of the kings of the earth, and in whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge, guide his people into all truth, and bring them “to the acknowledgment of the mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ!”

 

CHAPTER SIXTH

            In this chapter the doctrine of regeneration is considered doctrinally and experimentally, and proven to be the work of God.
 

            The term regeneration occurs but twice in the Bible, but it is expressive of an influence, an operation, a work, which is performed in time in every individual that shall ever enter heaven.  None, in any age, or place, have ever been, or ever can be saved without it.  It is that that makes one man to differ from another, that makes manifest the line of distinction and discrimination between the precious and the vile, the righteous and the wicked.  How important, then, is it, that we should have a correct understanding of that doctrine; and especially that we should have an experimental knowledge of it!  although the term is but seldom in the scriptures, yet the idea is conveyed, or the doctrine maintained, in other forms of expression in many places.  The terms rendered born again, born of the Spirit, born of God, have the same root in the original, and according to its etymology it means, To be again; implying an existence antecedently, and this is to exist, or to be, again.  The first existence, or being, is in the flesh, and in the first Adam, who is of the earth, earthy; and the second existence, or being, is in the second Adam, who is from heaven; and consequently, to be born again, as stated by Christ to Nic odemus, literally means, born from above, in contradistinction to the birth from beneath, or of the flesh.  As we had no agency in giving ourselves an existence, or being in the flesh, so we have none in giving ourselves an existence in the Spirit.  And as that which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit, and they that are in the flesh cannot please God, it follows, as a necessary consequence, that to please Him we must be born of the Spirit – born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth forever (1 Pet. i. 23).  In this change, the faith, without which we cannot please God, is given, which is the fruit of the Spirit, and the vic tory  that overcomes the world; and hence those who have faith are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, for “Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ, is born of God.” (1 John 1.)  The whole human family are classified by this: In the flesh, or in the Spirit; under the law, or under grace; and the works of the flesh, and the fruit of the Spirit, are alike manifest (Gal. v. 19-23).  Now, as these two elements or principles are contrary the one to the other (17 v.), and as they that are after the flesh, do mind the things of the flesh, but they that are after the Spirit, the things of the Spirit (Rom. viii. 5), it follows, without doubt, that they that are in the Spirit have undergone a change; that they differ from themselves formerly, as well as from others who are yet in the flesh, and that old things have passed away with them, and all things have become new (2 Cor. v. 17).           

All the forms of speech employed in the scriptures, in allusion to, or illustrative of, the doctrine of regeneration, show that a change is wrought in the subjects of it, that it is instantaneous and supernatural, and that God is its author.  It is a passing from death to life, a translation out of darkness into light; it is compared to light struck out of darkness – the sun shining on chaos in the first creation, when God said, “Let there be light, and light was.”  So says the apostle, “God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts.” (2 Cor. iv. 6.)  It is a quickening, or giving life to the dead in trespasses and sins; and it is compared to a creation, and the subjects of it are the workmanship of God (Eph. ii. 10).           

It is obvious from the reading in this connection that the apostle had not in his eye the eternal created spirits when he wrote that, as he begins the chapter with the affirmation, that those who were dead in sins – who walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience, who were fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature the children of wrath even as others – had been quickened and raised up, according to God’s rich mercy and great love, wherewith he loved them; that they were saved by grac e – by grace through faith, and that not of themselves, but the gift of God; not of works, lest any man should boast; and then adds, in farther confirmation of the doctrine of salvation by grace, “For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works,” &c.  In the first chapter he treats of the purpose of God in their election in Christ, and of their being predestinated to the adoption of sons; and he here shows the mercy and love of God, in saving from sin, those who were so elected and predestinated, and, therefore, the quickening and the creation is of the same people, by the same power, at the same time, and is the same w ork; it relates to their salvation in time, and has no reference to their existence in Christ in covenant, before the world began, according to the purpose of God, and his choice of them in Christ, only so far as that all thus chosen or sanctified by God the Father, shall in time be saved and called and consequently quickened.

No greater absurdity was ever put forth by any sane man (if any such ever did advance such an idea), than to talk of an eternal creation, or a creation before creation!  And, moreover, it flatly contradicts the scriptural account of creation.  “In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth.” (Gen. i. 1.)  “And the heavens and earth were finished, and all the host of them.” (ii. 1.)  The created spirits of which we have heard, if they have an existence at all, received it at that tim e, and were embraced in the hosts, or armies, as the word means, either of the heavens or the earth, and could not have been created before there was a creation, or anything made.  But these speculators cannot, by their own theory, escape the dilemma, or obviate the difficulty that they seem to be so much afraid of, which is, that, if there was not always an actual vital union with Christ and his people – if they were not in him, in every sense, from everlasting, there is no way by which they could get in him afterwards.  Now, upon their scheme of a creation in eternity, there was a point even in that state of existence, compared with the being and existence of God himself, when that creation took place.  The very idea of a creation is that something has been produced, or brought forth, which did not previously exist, and antecedent to that, of course, they were not in Christ, and so must be considered as being put in him by creation.           

Creation is something done; an act, a work performed, and it is idle to talk of any such thing being done in eternity.  The performance of the work would show the intervention of time.  We readily admit, yea, contend, that, according to the doctrine of Divine predestination, and the purpose of God in election, his people were in Christ from everlasting – had grace given them in him before the world began, and that there are no after-thoughts or acts of God in regard to that purpose and grace of his, which is so gloriously displayed in his kindness towards them in Christ Jesus. SPAN style="mso-spacerun : yes">  But shall we contend from hence that they had actual existence in Christ as early?  If so, we might upon the same hypothesis contend for eternal regeneration – though that is not needed in the scheme; eternal faith, hope, and love; in short, every grace of the Spirit by which the saints are recognized and distinguished in time, as actually existing from eternity.  And according to this, there is no purpose of God at all for that, or predestination is a determination beforehand to do something, and presupposes that the thing is not yet done, but guaranties and gives assurance that it shall be done at the appointed time.           

But the worst feature in this theory of eternal creation is, that Christ himself was created at the same time, or that he was created in eternity, and his people created in him, and this is one of the passages referred to as proof of that doctrine.  As Adam was created, and all his posterity in him, so Christ was created, and all his seed in him.  Indeed, the creation of Christ is inseparable from the theory, without considering it amore unintelligible jargon that it really is.  And if the creation here spoken of was done in eternity, we cannot escape the conclusion that Christ himself was embraced in the work.  But t he apostle does not say, created in Christ Jesus before the world began; but put the word chosen in place of created, and it will be the apostolic testimony.  The people of God were in Christ before the world was, according to that choice, and they are in him in time by faith – become children of God by faith in Christ; and hence, some are in Christ, in this sense, before others, as the apostle stated on a particular occasion. (Rom. xvi. 7.)  This view is pertinently expressed by Watts in the following verse: -  

“Predestinated to be sons,

Born by degrees, but chose at once;

A new regenerated race,

To praise the glory of his grace.” 

As a farther evidence of a change in regeneration, we recur to the divine testimony concerning the work itself performed in them.  It is described as taking away a heart of stone, giving a heart of flesh – a new heart, and a new spirit. (Ezekial xi. 19, xxxvi. 26).  The subjects of this change are washed, cleansed, purified, and made white in the blood of the Lamb.  So David prayed, - “Wash me thoroughly from mine iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin.  Wash me and I shall be whiter than snow.  Create in a clea n heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me.” (Ps. li.)  Again, they are renewed in the spirit of their mind, and made meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light. (Eph. iv. 23, Col. i. 12.)  Now, upon the supposition that no change takes place in the sinner in regeneration, or that nothing is done in or for him as a sinner, these scriptures are utterly devoid of meaning, in fact the most unintelligible jargon of words that were ever put together.  There is not a single idea or reference in any of the foregoing passages that can apply to eternal created spirits who never sinned, and consequently never needed what we have the assurance in those scriptures is done for sinners.  Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners – to save them from their sins – to cleanse them from all iniquity, and purify them to himself, a peculiar people.           

But how is this change wrought? some inquire.  A distinguished man in Israel asked of Him who had power to produce it, “How can these things be?” and we have no answer to give to the querist now, but the one given by Christ to the Jew on that occasion: “The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell when it cometh, and whither it goeth; so is every one that is born of the Spirit.”  But it is lawful for us to inquire, what is changed in regeneration, since we have the revelation to guide us in such inquiry.  The revelation of God’s purpose of love and grace towards the children of men shows a design to glorify his name in redeeming to God, by the blood of Christ, out of every nation, kindred, tongue, and people, a great multitude, which no man can number; and these, in their nature, were like the rest of mankind – were all the children of wrath.  The very persons, the identical characters that were children of wrath, that were enemies to God by wicked works, and without hope and without God in the world, were redeemed – redeemed from among men, and out of every nation, and, of course, they were of those nations; and as men – sinners – they were subjects of this salvation.  In every part, soul, body, and spirit, the y were defiled, sinful, and unfit for heaven; and must therefore be washed from their sins in the blood of Christ, as well as redeemed by that blood.  Their redemption embraces the whole man; all that appertains to him as such; his powers, mental and bodily; and a change in each and every part is necessary to the enjoyment of God here and hereafter, for it is the same; and the redeemed sinner knows as much of heaven here as to its nature as he will know around the throne above.  What he knows in part here is of the same of what he will know in fruition, because it is the earnest, or foretaste of the inheritance; the pledge of joys to come: it is a draught of the stream that proceeds from the fountain well of water springing up to everlasting life; and when permitted to drink of this river the redeemed sinner can often say: -  

“If such the sweetness of the stream,

What must the fountain be?”

            The changes wrought in them by which they are qualified to dwell with God, are performed in regeneration and in the resurrection.  All that is necessary to make them meet, or fit for heaven in their mental powers, soul, mind or spirit, is done in regeneration; and the necessary change in the body will be made in the resurrection, as that part is embraced in the purchased possession as well as the soul. (Rom. c. 8, v. 24.)  That the soul of man is redeemed, and renewed in regeneration, we have abundant evidence in the scriptures, some of which we present: “Draw nigh to my soul and redeem it.  My soul shall rejoice which thou has redeemed.  Shall redeem their soul from deceit.  The redemption of their soul is precious, and it ceaseth for ever.” (See Ps. 19, 49, 69, 71, 72.)           

The spiritual enjoyment and the love of God, by the redeemed soul, confirms the doctrine of a change wrought in it.  David, who not only believed that he had a soul, but that God had done something for it, had a good idea to say upon this subject.  Hear him: “He restoreth my soul.  To thee I lift up my soul.  Gather not my soul with sinners.  My soul shall make her boast in the Lord.  My soul shall be joyful in the Lord.  As the hart panteth after the water-brooks, so panteth my soul aft