header image
Home arrow Griffin's History arrow Led By A Way I Knew Not-Chapter 17
Led By A Way I Knew Not-Chapter 17 PDF Print E-mail
Written by R. Anna Phillips   


Chapter VXII-The New Man

Jesus is the way, truth and life to the new man whose elementary parts comprise body, soul, and spirit: and these respectively must follow him, as the way, in death, burial and resurrection. The soul as the leading, ruling responsible element holding the destiny of the other two, and as the first to die, come to divine quickening and resurrection to eternal life first and thus is “born again,” while the spirit renewed by the process passes with the soul from death to life and translation into the kingdom of heaven: but the body--its members remains dead. For every element must die to its first, natural state and generation, to be regenerated or resurrected to newness of life: and corporal death to his body would end the earthly existence of the man.

But as the militant organism of the church must be perfect, so the soul must be perfect or made whole in organism. Therefore while the soul is born into the kingdom--as dead to, and regenerated from his first state--and this death to the body would end it to time, it must be admitted into the kingdom or militant church by adoption--a law measure sealed by water baptism; yet as figurative of the same one way as planted together in the likeness of his (Jesus) death and raised up again in the likeness of his resurrection; at the same time representing--thus pledging its virtue--its own actual death and resurrection. And by this impress of its prospective regeneration and seal of virtual accomplishment it is presented holy, acceptable to God; that is, holy in a legal sense. And as such may “eat of the sacrifice as made partaker of the altar:” and “whatsoever toucheth the altar must be pure”--pure in a legal sense.

The soul born of God in time “because a son” in covenant, could not be adopted---a man cannot adopt his own born son, and only one not his son. Hence the body--necessary to organic perfection--must come in upon the principle of adoption; and as the “creature” or still natural. yet expectant, “wait for the manifestations of the sons of God,” or actual resurrection to spiritual life or redemption. upon the divine promise that the “creature [body] shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.” 1Cor. 8:21, 3 I mean the literal body, and not as including the lusts  of the flesh, &c. For this body, as a subordinate member of the soul, so to speak, follows it. Just like every subordinate member of Jesus Christ, as constituting the entire church, shall follow after him the “first fruits,” or first principle holding the destiny, whether for weal or woe, of all secondary parts.

The body is, in one sense, a member of the soul; and hence its redemption is not primary, but a result --a secondary result. To explain by another illustration, the soul stands to the body just as faith does to works And faith stands relatively to works, just like Christ, as Head and Husband, does to the church. Hence, Christ and faith, respectively, hold the redemption to each of these. The redemption-right found in Christ secures to unconditional eternal salvation, while that of faith secures to conditional “timely salvation.” The former pertains to eternal, the latter to militant life. But does this exclude Christ as the Savior of the body, from whence spring works, or as the source of gospel works? No more than the redemption of the soul found in Christ excludes God as the author,--of eternal salvation. But work is legalized by faith, and faith by Christ, and Christ by God. God accepts no faith out of Christ: and Christ accepts no work out of faith. “But all things are of God.” And upon the same principle no body can be accepted out of the soul.

Then as Christ, in actually and primarily effecting the eternal salvation of the soul, becomes also the Savior of the body (as a result), so the promise to the soul is that his body shall eventually actually arise with Christ from the dead, be raised a spiritual body. Rom. 8: 11.

As said, the soul is found dead and made alive with Christ in time. But the body, before actual resurrection, must also die to its original state, and in its order, which is corporeal. As that cannot be in time, for time ends to that man in corporeal death, the principle of adoption admits the body into the militant kingdom, and the perfect organism is preserved. And the principle of adoption is legally sealed in literal water-baptism to the body, as planted in the likeness of the same baptism unto death to the soul (and that as after Christ), and raised to newness of life (walk) in the same resurrection (spirit). This is a pledge at the same time of the body’s virtual redemption. The body thus comes in upon the same principle, as dead foreign works, under faith, to serve the living God.

This is the nature of the literal water baptism to that body. The soul, as a spiritual principle, is baptized into Christ, spiritually, and is risen to newness of life in the invisible spiritual kingdom: Christ is the door here. While the body, as a material visible substance, receives literal visible baptism, enters by the visible door, and forms the visible house, or kingdom; and finds heirship to the house as in vital union with the spirit-born element of soul: and by unity of body, soul and spirit comprises the perfect one new man in Christ. And this material forms the perfect militant kingdom.

And, as illustrative of the same fact, the seal of adoption admitting into the organic building, also corresponds to the anointing of the soul, the promise of which is eternal life. See 1st, John 2:25,27. Also in correspondence to that anointing of Jesus’ body “against the day of its burying,” and which should be spoken of as a memorial wheresoever this gospel was preached; and is true in that it is preached that this building is not complete without the body--the resurrection of the body.

And this seal (impress of literal baptism) is, moreover, the pledge to the union and oneness of soul and body in a newness of organic state. Both have become dead to a former, as of that wherein they were held, and are now joined in newness of spirit, and no more in oldness of letter, as it were. They are no more twain: and the law of grace generally speaks to them as one--”ye are dead and your life is hid with Christ in God.” “Knowing this that our old man is crucified with Christ that the body of sin might be destroyed [in this figure of Christ’s death] that henceforth we should not serve sin: for he that is dead is freed from sin.”

And the baptism that thus joins soul and body in the visible organization is :is the marriage ceremony of faith and works. For without this baptism there could be no legal union of faith and works. And without this legal union there could be no gospel works, no legitimate fruits unto holiness (as of offspring or children). For as “faith without works is dead, being alone;” so “whatsoever is not of faith is sin.” Hence, how could a man, however born of God in spirit or soul, without this purification or body by water, washing away his sins or stain of illegality, dare touch the internal altar of God’s temple? Or the church extend to him the things of the altar? For that man stands as imperfect. But being “by one spirit baptized [in all parts into one body”] he is “made perfect.” I speak of organic perfection.

I pause here to say (and in which I am answering a special question) that the perfect state of complete gospel organism of the triune elements, constituting the one new man in Christ, is absolutely essential to church fellowship and communion: and communion (as an ordinance of the Lord’s Supper) rests in this principle of unity, and unity is secured alone in a sonship, and this sonship comes about as described. And this is the premise and principle upon which Primitive Baptists reject this ordinance and practice “closed communion.” Baptism is the door and only door to the militant visible kingdom of God: and is—in gospel order—the only authority demanding, or by right legally claiming, or by law of Christ extending church fellowship: and which fellowship alone insures and authorizes the amenities and privileges in church. The visible element of the church is composed of tangible material; and church fellowship must embrace this, and extend to it visible elements of the ordinance. Which, however, to be valid in spirit must be confirmed by the corresponding witness of the spirit. Herein is the consistency of closed communion, to which I shall again refer.

I shall now notice another idea in connection, or as involved in the new man; and shall dwell at length for the benefit of those who, like myself are perplexed in mind about the principles involved as comprising the new man. Many questions been asked me, and several have asked me this one that I shall now attend, and then proceed to others: no doubt in an irregular manner; but I am not writing for a name.
The question before me calls for a continuation of that nice discrimination between soul and body--”is the new man wholly sprung from God, and divine: or is there a principle of life or anything sprung from the original man?” I know that some object to a discrimination between body and soul; and some--generally I believe these, object to any but the divine spirit comprising the new man. From this I dissent for the following reasons:

In the first place, the new man (perfect in organism is a three-one man and that while the spirit of life in that man is divine, yet the body--and there is a natural body and there is a spiritual--the visible body forming a part is not divine, but entirely mortal: and then the soul in substance is sprung from what might be termed a human or natural soul; any how, from that principle called at first “a living soul;” that soul that “the spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made free from the law of sin and death.” The spirit of life in Christ Jesus, given that soul, raising it from the dead, is divine; and the soul itself, so far as disconnected from, or is independent of the body, is divine, but made so, just like the body will be, in the resurrection.

One thing is certain, that as one element is, so are all: to deny the resurrection of the soul--(and it is to deny it, to say it is the divine spirit of Christ alone that comprises the new man} which is the “first resurrection”--is to deny the resurrection of the body. And to admit the resurrection of the body is to admit that of the soul; and that upon the same principle as to the process; for all must follow Jesus in the regeneration and be baptized withal with the same baptism; for Jesus Christ is the one way, truth: and life. If one element falls into the ground and dies, and is the same changed and raised again, so ARE ALL.

Then Jesus is the way, truth and life; and his soul and body are the true ensamples in the way, truth and life. Then look at the body of Jesus as slain through weakness and raised by the power of God. It was, by the wound-mark--the same body raised that was slain: and yet changed in that it can die no more. “In that he died, he died unto sin once; but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God--death hath no more dominion over him.” Rom.6. Look at the corroborating testimony of inspiration. 1st Cor. 15; and elsewhere, concerning these vile bodies that shall be changed--these human mortal bodies sown in corruption, weakness and vileness as natural bodies, and raised as incorruptible, immortal, spiritual bodies to eternal life. And that, as springing from a principle of original nature in Adam, as from a germ according to the given figure (lst Cor. 15), as of any grain; which, to quicken and reproduce, must first fall into the grand and die, and thus become the germ of that raised. While we know the identical grain is not that raised, yet we know the identical grain sown has the principle of germ from which sprang--by the almighty power of God--the answering fruit. Nor is this fruit independent of germ principle. “But God giveth it a body as it pleaseth him, and to every seed HIS OWN BODY.” 1st Cor. 15: 2-4.

Now, just so sure as the resurrected body of Jesus was the same body “slain through weakness of the flesh,” just so sure as a grain of wheat (or chance of any grain), springs from a wheat grain sown; just so sure shall these vile bodies be the germinating principle sown in death from which to spring the same, changed to immortal and spiritual bodies, by the same glory of the Father. And just so sure as this, so sure the spiritual principle of soul, now risen with Christ from the dead, and breathing the immortal, resurrection life of Christ, was changed in like manner from a human principle of spirit, naturally, to a divine principle of life spiritually; and as sprung from the, original germ as sown in death in Adam. Hence, “you hath he quickened who were dead in trespass and in sins;” wherein in time past ye 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: among whom we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh; fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath even as others. But God, who is rich in mercy, for the great love wherewith he loved us, even when we were dead in sin. hath quickened us together with Christ [by grace ye are saved], and hath raised us up,” &c. Eph. 2:1,6. “Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law--that the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the spirit through faith.” Gal. 3:13,14. That this was spoken of the soul let the promise and the faith mentioned, that spring alone in the soul, answer. And, too, it was not spoken of a divine spirit, but to a principle dead, and under the curse of the law, once. but now changed and raised, in Christ.
Why do some object to a soul being changed, or to a principle of the Adamic man, originally, being born again because a human principle? Who was “dead in trespasses and in sins,” if not a human? Who was under the curse of the law, given alone to Adam, if not Adam? We contend for a change to mortal human body, we admit the same body of Jesus dead was that raised; and yet we will not hear to a soul being raised from the dead; as if God could not give eternal life to a soul raised from death as to a body. And it is as honoring to God, and as glorifying to his grace, to bring to death. then quicken and raise to divine life, a human soul. as a human body. If redemption should exclude any principle because human, then all of Adam is excluded, and man can have no interest whatever in it.

But no, almost all claim redemption to the human body (but upon what principle, excluding the soul, I could never see). To that extent one admits the same human body raised to eternal life that was sown a human body, he admits, however inadvertently, the same soul raised to eternal life that was sown a human soul in death. There is but the one process of regeneration. The one three days burial of Jesus in the grave was the one burial. The three days were in representation of the three prime elements comprising the three-one new man. The three days show that these elements must also come in the same one way; one Lord lay there, in the same, as the way; one faith saves the whole; and one baptism receives the whole. Jesus had said that the third day I shall be perfected. So the new man---answering in body to the third day--is “made perfect in one.” John 17:23. One baptism, applicable alike to all parts, receiving the one Lord, is death, burial and resurrection to newness of life.

And what is resurrection, but a rising up again of something laid down? And what is a newness of life, but a translation from one life to another? Who is “Ye that are risen with Christ from the dead,” if not the soul ? Certainly not the body ‘till the last general resurrection! Certainly not the divine spirit that was never dead nor buried!

Do not those, who say that “Christ in you the hope of glory” is all of the new man, deny the resurrection, and newness of life, from the fact of its being divine and eternal, if nothing else? “Christ in you the hope of glory.” Christ in whom? Certainly not the natural man; for he is without God and hope: and if it were possible Christ was in him, he could not discern him, to base a hope. But “the natural man receiveth not the things of the spirit, neither can he know them. because spiritually discerned.” Certainly not the carnal mind, for it stands an inveterate enemy to Christ, as an Ishmael to be cast out, as not an heir of promise. Certainly not the literal body, that has of itself, abstractly, no faculty of discernment, whether for natural or spiritual things.  Then who is it to whom Christ is the hope of glory, if nothing of the Adamic man, “neither mental nor physical” (as I have heard) is changed or comprises in any part the new man? To me the assertion seems to claim a life, Present and abiding, and denies and excludes any person breathing that life. And yet can you conceive of a life finding local abode in a man, and sending out to him (or somebody) its graces of spirit in faith, hope, love, peace, &c., in the Holy Spirit, without any organic connection, any spiritual agreement, or affiliating complication of parts whatever, with the principle, or man as the recipient? As well might you call a dead body living because a detached and foreign principle lives. If this were my hope of Christ in me, how sad my state.

No, Christ in you the hope of glory, Christ in you--the soul once dead, now quickened into, and breathing the resurrection life of Christ, which is his hope indeed of eternal, immortal glory; you hath he quickened and given the hope. The very nature of quickening is to impart life to something without it, to something dead, devoid of life, and causing it to live. Life is one thing and the person breathing it another. But would those making the divine spirit the new man make that life breathe itself; and the life become the hope to life? Why, the divine spirit never needed a hope of glory! But a redeemed resurrected soul does, and this is his hope of glory, of final deliverance. And this hope extends to the body also, which is ,’saved by hope:” and that by which the soul waits, earnestly desiring, and expecting the promise contained in the hope of eternal life to it (body) also, when he shall, by this same spirit of life given him, be raised and receive the full fruition of promise in a body--a body like unto Christ’s glorious body, and be made actually perfect in one. This is the “hope of glory” to the soul by Christ.

But to say “Christ the hope of glory,” or that a divine sinless principle of the eternal God comprises the entire new man, and that without any change to the natural men, is to put new wine into old bottles. But Jesus said “no man putteth a piece of new cloth into an old garment,” else the rent is made worse: “neither do men put new wine into old bottles; else the bottles break and the wine runneth out, and the bottles perish. But new wine is put into new bottles, and both are preserved.” Mat. 9:16,17. But for all this that Jesus said, those men putting new wine into old bottles contend the bottle, in part at least, is preserved, or that the body is some how saved: and that while contending for no change, or renewing, in the Adamic man in any part or principle. But, as said, they claim a way of preserving the bottles, an unexplained way of saving the body at last, despite the LORD has said they shall perish, and the wine waste by the process.
But the Lord’s way is to put new wine into new bottles and preserve both at once and together: that a “new creature receives this resurrection life, and is so preserved unto the day of Jesus Christ”--”kept by the power of God, through faith, unto salvation ready to be revealed at the last time.” “For we,” says an apostle speaking to the new man, “are his workmanship created in Christ Jesus.” The divine spirit is no workmanship or creation: hence, “the new man which after God (triune in likeness) is created in righteousness and true holiness, for ye were sometimes darkness, but now light in the Lord.” “Which [the Father] hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light; who hath delivered us from darkness and translated us into the kingdom of God’s dear Son.” Was the divine spirit, or any principle of it, ever darkness, or delivered from it, or translated? “Howbeit, when ye knew not God, ye did service unto them which by nature are no Gods; but now after that ye have known God.” Can this apply to Divinity? Or any except as have been changed in nature, state, and condition ? Wherefore remember that ye being in time past Gentiles--that at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from ‘the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenant of promise; having no hope and without God in the world; but now ye who were afar off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.” Was the divine spirit ever a Gentile? alien, or stranger from God? Can the blood of Christ apply to it? “Buried with him in baptism wherein ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead; and you, blind eyes touched were the same eyes opened: the same matter of meal was that changed to leaven: the same liquid of water was the same liquid of wine--the same changed from water to wine.

“Destroy this temple [body of Jesus] and in three days I will raise it up again” “Now is Christ risen from the dead and become the first fruits of them that slept” in death: else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? Why are they baptized for the dead? Why is the body made subject to water baptism, as “alike figure whereunto” Christ’s death, burial and resurrection do save us, if the resurrection is false? Or as frustrating the principle of the resurrection by denying it to the soul, and making the new man a principle that was never dead, or can die, nor by organic right claim redemption for the body; why then is the body baptized for its own dead self, if the dead rise not at all. For remember that literal water baptism to the body is to be baptized for its own dead self and taken on the seal of its prospective redemption, resurrection and justification to eternal life; and in virtual fact of which--in like figure (of that of the ark, which was a type of Christ in the salvation of the soul) “whereunto baptism doth also now save us, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.” For as the soul must follow Jesus; so the body must follow the soul in the one way, like figure: and if the soul rise not, which alone can secure the resurrection of the body, why then is the body baptized in a pretended “like figure,” if the dead rise not at all? For if the soul is excluded, so is the body: in which case says the apostle to the new man “your faith is vain, ye are yet in your sins”--faith is the witness to the resurrected soul; but if the dead rise not--faith is vain, “ye are yet in your sins,” as this is the only way, truth and life of salvation. Why could any object to the dead being quickened and raised again? It is, or would be, if so, ruinous to sinners.

But Christ is risen, the soul is risen from the dead: and the body shall rise. The divine spirit is not the workmanship created, born again; the principle is not frustrated; neither is that soul still in sin nor is its faith vain: it is that by which he now lives in the flesh and breathes the resurrection life of his  risen Savior. Gal. 2:20. While the body is still as actually dead as yet to that life, but by the seal of adoption and baptism for the dead, it is virtually admitted into the kingdom of heaven by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. And by the living witness of the risen body of Jesus that was dead, by the living witness of faith to a soul risen that was dead, so these vile bodies shall be raised from the dead. No, the baptism for the dead is not in vain. It sets forth a true and vital principle of the salvation of God. And why should any seek to frustrate it by contending against a DEAD SOUL resurrection in Jesus Christ?

And this baptism for the dead (not the living, as the divine spirit is), in thus giving the external stamp, the spiritual principle operating within, gives the solitary impression of the way. So that if we would ask of the soul, “by what process, and with what body do you come in regeneration?” we have only to look at and ask of the body; and take up the principle as applied there, just as the apostle did. “Thou fool ! that which thou sowest is not quickened except it die;” answered he, in reply to the question of the general resurrection: he took up the body, as an element, to prove the resurrection of the new man: it necessarily follows that if the body is resurrected- the same body changed--from the dead; then the soul is also resurrected from the dead, else were :it yet in its sins with a vain faith. Then as it was the Adamic man--the human soul--that sinned, and not the divine spirit, and as this alone needs redemption and resurrection to another life to be saved; and as it must fall into the ground and die to be raised again; why do we, who have souls to be saved or lost object to the only plan of salvation? Do you suppose the soul, in being excluded, will be annihilated? If not, what will become of it? Shall the divine spirit take my body to heaven: and leave my soul, somewhere, behind?  By what organic law claiming, or other right, does the divine eternal spirit claim and carry my body--the element of dust, the lowest in my make--to the eternal abode of heaven?  And if this be so, why not wait for my body to be made new, actually new, in the actual resurrection to it? Why comes the “hope of glory,” before hand, when Jesus himself has said the bottle shall perish, by the process, and the wine waste?

Now, to answer another question relative to “close communion.” So sure as death and resurrection to the literal body of Jesus was entrance into the kingdom above; so sure is baptism planted in literal likeness entrance into the kingdom below. Church fellowship alone holds the right to the Lord’s table, and this fellowship together with this right, is the grant of the church--to an applicant--sealed in baptism: hence restricting this right to baptized persons. For the body without this seal of purification, however the soul may be “risen with Christ,” is in darkness and death; and what communion hath darkness with light, or death with life? We have Christian but not church, fellowship, for such.

To what purpose and import? In partaking we not only represent our faith, but show we live on the flesh and blood of Jesus, spiritually.

And as baptism was a like figure with the ark, showing the internal application of the principle of salvation. by their representative figure, and not the actual saving or putting away the filth of the flesh; so the Supper in literal eating and drinking has no virtue of itself in giving or sustaining eternal life, but prefigures that which does. No more is it the actual body and blood of the Son of man--transubstantiation is false--but, only a figure of the true. And as that in the literal partaking of the food follows a process of assimilation to blood and life; so the substance of these shadows may be assimilated to spiritual life to the spiritual man. And, unless he eats the flesh and drinks the blood of the Son of man, there is no life in him, as here alone is the life.

And as it is “the temple that sanctifieth the gold;” and the altar that sanctifieth the gift, “so temple and altar must be holy--”know ye not that your body is the temple of God”--then this temple must be sanctified, set apart in baptism, to holiness, ere it can receive the gold, even as the soul must be to sanctify the gift. Otherwise, to offer a gift, it would be as unholy as the first: to eat and to drink would be of no avail.

And here is based the principle of “closed communion.” And they that fault it fault God. And they that clamor for “open communion” might as consistently clamor for a seat in heaven, without passing the vale of death. There is but one door into the kingdom above, and that is mortal death; and there is but one door into the kingdom below, and that is the figure of that death. To claim the privilege of either, not coming in at the door, is to “climb up some other way;” and are by Jesus called “thieves and robbers,” from the fact they lay illegal claims. All claims, in a scriptural sense not legal. according to the letter and spirit of the gospel law, are by that law protested as illegal, and the claimant unholy-;-”thieves and robbers”--and no “unholy thing shall touch the altar” within his house.

“But,” says some one, “I have been baptized into our church.” There were many doors into houses in the days of Noah; but there was but the one door to the one ark. There is but the one church, Lord, faith and baptism. I suppose we all believe “our church” the true church; I am very sure I believe with all my heart the Primitive Baptist the true church; not mine, but Christ’s. But if your church is true, then all  others are false; and all I claim is yours. And you would assuredly do right to contend for what I do, and exclude as I do, in behalf of the church, all other baptisms.

Then while we may love you as born of God, and have spiritual fellowship for yon, at the same time we protest your claims and reject your baptism; nor permit you to touch our altar or gold upon it: for--if the true church--”we have an altar whereof they have no right to eat who serve the tabernacle,” or other than the gospel church.

The door of the church is within her own wall. We have no right to omit or modify the law and order of Christ; it was himself who condemned the man daring to come in without the wedding garment, Yes, it is exclusive; it is of God, and God is exclusive; his ways are not our ways. If the world approved of this exclusive practice we might well doubt it. We obey God rather than man: for, says an apostle, “ye are God’s building, know ye not ye are the temple of God, and that the spirit of God dwelleth in you? if any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are;” “your bodies are the members of Christ.” The temple and tabernacle, under the legal ‘dispensation, with their three compartments of outer-court, sanctuary, and holiest of all, were figures of the gospel church. They admitted none--no not one --but a Jew, and a Jew must undergo certain essential purifications, &c. These compartments of the legal temple find answering antitype in body, soul and spirit respectively: and a practical process of purification and cleansing pertained to each respectively, as absolutely necessary in and to each, before acceptable offering.

And this brings me to, and reminds me of, another question I am requested to comment upon; “have we the scriptural right to discriminate so nicely between body, soul and spirit ?” I would ask, if we have not the right in theory, why do we practice it so generally, and particularly in those things involved in church fellowship? But Paul often made these “fine-spun” discriminations in himself: the whole tenor of Scripture warrants them. We say God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost, and why not so discriminate when we have to distinguish between their office work? This is absolutely necessary to define the separate office work. And it is often as necessary to define between the separate work of body, soul and spirit. It was so in the old tabernacle and temple work--”figures of the true” in gospel organism--and where we were taught to discriminate between that which pertained to each department respectively: and “see what ye make all things according to the pattern shown you,” is still as binding as then. And in a pattern--as of a garment-we may certainly discriminate between a sleeve and a skirt. Indeed how shall we proceed without this same discriminating distinction, as then? We see the human body takes the place of the material house, in the outer court of which water was used as a element of purification. While the soul takes up the service of the sanctuary; and the spirit, the holiest of all, where blood was had in use as the element of cleansing or purification, which last two, you will remember, were enfolded in the outer building, yet all one house.

God himself discriminates between soul and body in their very order and reception into the kingdom as upon separate and differing premises. The soul is first cleansed, the blood alone applies; it is resurrected from the dead, risen with Christ, and faith is its witness. And all this must be before the body can begin to prepare for the kingdom. What is this but a separating distinction, a division? And also how different the body: water is her cleansing and works are her witness.

And without this same discrimination how shall we, as a church, proceed in order respecting the same? Do we baptize the spirit? Do we baptize the soul? or do we say God has baptized them into Christ, and we, discriminating, baptize the body. The church must have the evidence that the soul is born again before she will grant baptism to the body. This is nice discrimination.

Reception discriminates between soul and body.

And without this, how shall we see, and tell of principles and practices in their inevitable resultings? How, for instance, shall we explain our reasons for close communion? Why do we contend for the practice? Let us reduce it to practical demonstration. “Well, because we consider those not of our faith and order, in disorder.” True, so far. But what is the exact principle and position constituting this disorder in the instance of a man, otherwise than not having been baptized. orthodox and orderly, and who has told you an undoubted experience of grace, and you fellowship as a child of God; why not admit him to the communion table? “He has never been baptized.” But his soul is risen with Christ, he has been baptized into Christ spiritually; will you so divide and sub-divide the man? Right here, those objecting to “fine-spun” discriminations, unwittingly, or otherwise, make the very strongest discrimination. and so fine-spun,. yet so common as rarely discerned between soul and body: for literal water baptism. by right of law, and by their own admission, claiming legal right to the Lord’s table for its subject, applies alone to the body. Soul and spirit have already been baptized; which you have recognized by a distinct spiritual fellowship. And now you actually recognize a separating, a discriminating distinction, so wide and so broad as to see, and by the important action involving church fellowship, establish a discriminating line between soul and body comprising the one new man. And the same fact is established by an inviolable practical rule.

Last Updated ( Thursday, 05 October 2006 )
< Previous   Next >


The Primitive or Old School Baptists cling to the doctrines and practices held by Baptist Churches throughout America at the close of the Revolutionary War. This site is dedicated to providing access to our rich heritage, with both historic and contemporary writings.