S. A. PAINE’S WRITINGS

The Writings of

Elder S. A. PAINE

1874-1910

Part One: Campbellism, A Religious Deformity

Part Two: Miscellaneous Writings and

Clippings from Religious Papers

Republished 2009

Elder Harold Hunt

P 0 Box 5353

Maryville TN 7802

PREFACE

Being actuated by an expressed desire of so many of his brethren and friends, together with an inclination of my own, I have arranged for publication in book form much of the unpublished writings of our son, Elder S.A. Paine, deceased, together with letters and extracts from many others, expressing their profound love for him, and admiration of his life and labors, together with expressions of their deep grief at his death. I here copy an expression from pages of his book, Campbellism: A Religious Deformity. ” I am sure, if I am what I profess to be, he will never forsake me, but will continue his loving benefits until he shall have conducted me home to glory.” These were his expression in life, and in death, “Oh how sweet it is to die!”

It appears, as Brother Phillips has expressed it, that “the dead which he slew at his death were more than they which he slew in his life.”

I very much desired to insert all the letters of condolence which we have received, but they are so numerous we can not do so without augmenting the price of the book beyond what we believe the friends would wish to pay for it. The proceeds from the sale of the book will go exclusively to the support of his dear family, which he left poor as to the goods of this world.

His Sorrowing Father.

PART ONE

CAMPBELLISM, A RELIGIOUS DEFORMITY

CHAPTER I

“The Scriptures teach that faith, repentance, confession and baptism in water are necessary conditions to be complied with by alien (dead) sinners in order to spiritual or eternal life.”

The above is an exact duplicate of a proposition affirmed by a number of the divines of Campbellism in debate with me at different times and places. Of course then, none could complain of the statement I have made of their doctrine, when such men as J. W. Chism, C. R. Nichol, and a number of others have vehemently labored in public debate trying to prove it. Now I shall be very plain in my treatise of this subject, but in a perfectly good humor. Those with whom I have debated know that, while I pity their judgment, I admire and commend their courage and pluck, where it doesn’t culminate in too much egotism. I think they have some pure egotists who are striving for notice and think a spute the shortest route to the station. This class are perfectly willing to take a skinning every week for the name of de-ba-ting. Such as that I avoid, for it is no credit to them to take their flogging; neither is it any credit to me or my brethren to flog them. Generally, the laity of these people are good citizens and neighbors, and among some of the best friends I have on earth are identified there, but it is generally conceded, and I can cheerfully subscribe to the concession, that among their ministry are some of the most conceited people in the wide world; but I am proud to find even exceptions to that rule. As a denomination, I have utmost respect for them, but their doctrine certainly does need undressing that the Lord’s people may see its nakedness and take warning. To this end my effort shall be devoted.

The statement of their doctrine on the important question of salvation, as stated and affirmed in their proposition, is a palpable contradiction and denial of every essential element of salvation. In the first place it denies flatly, the depravity of the one to be saved. About this depravity they have a great deal to say, and often present the advocates of it in a very wrong light, and for this reason I will give that subject a short treatise.

The depravity of sinners is hereditary, entire and universal.

This they deny, and of course if successfully so, they could make some show in their affirmation. I do not mean now, by saying that depravity is entire, that the sinner is entire depravity, but the sinner is entirely depraved, entirely affected with depravity, which I will fully explain later.

We will now take the assertion in its order. First, depravity or sin is hereditary, i.e., we are born into this world having a sinful nature which invariably develops into sinful practice, for the reason that a tree bears fruit after its kind. We do not mean that at birth the child is as corrupt as it can be, but “sin is cast and mingled in our frame; it grows with our growth and strengthens with our strength” is a fair statement of the disease.

Take a pint cup full of water, drop into it ten drops of arsenic, the poison will so completely permeate the water until every molecule of water will be affected by the poison, hence totally or entirely poisoned; but will one dare say that because it is totally poisoned that it can not be made more poison? Then would it not be as absurd for one to insist, that if an infant is totally affected with the poison of sin that it can not become more sinful? That is a fudge to deceive the unguarded.

But is sin or depravity hereditary? I believe I will give them their father’s testimony for them to masticate first. You will observe, when I give it, that the boys have made a gross departure.

Hear him: “The stream of humanity, thus contaminated at its fountain, can not in this world ever rise of itself to its primitive purity and excellence. We all INHERIT a frail constitution physically, intellectually, but especially morally frail and imbecile. We have all inherited our father’s constitution and fortune; for Adam, we are told, after he fell, ‘begat a son in his own image,’ and that son was just as bad as any other son ever born into the world, for he murdered his own dear brother because he was a better man than himself.”

Notice, dear reader, humanity is here compared to a stream which is corrupted at its fountain. Could anything be plainer? But again he declares that “we INHERIT a constitution that is morally imbecile,” “Especially” so, he says.

Now, remember that Campbell understood the meaning of language and of course used words that expressed his idea. Remember they INHERITED moral imbecility.

To inherit, Webster says, is “to take by descent from an ancestor, to receive by nature from a progenitor.”

Imbecile, says Webster, means “impotent, destitute of strength either of body or mind.” Could an Old Baptist present hereditary depravity any stronger?

By descent we inherit moral imbecility. Well we are making good progress even our enemies being judges.

But we hear him further:”Because in him (Adam) they have all sinned, or been made mortal, and consequently are BORN under condemnation to that death which fell upon our common progenitor because of his transgression.” Stronger still! They have all sinned in Adam. Then they must all be sinners, or else how could one sin without being a sinner? And “consequently,” i.e., for that reason; what reason? For the reason they are sinners “they are born under condemnation.”

If that doesn’t affirm sin before birth I would like for some one to state it. But it is too plain to need any comment. So we try him again. “In Adam all have sinned; therefore in Adam all die.” Your nature, gentle reader, not your person, was in Adam when he put forth his hand to break the precept of Jehovah.

You did not personally sin in that act; but your nature then in the person of your father, sinned against the Author of your existence.

There is therefore a sin of our nature as well as personal transgression. Some inappositely call the sin of our nature our original sin, as if the sin of Adam was the personal offence of all his children.

“True indeed it is; our nature was corrupted by the fall of Adam before it was transmitted to us.

Well, well, boys, what now? Our nature was in Adam and sinned against God, and corrupted, and then transmitted to us! What does that lack proving that “we are by nature (inheritance) the children of wrath even as others?”

This is all any informed Baptist has ever claimed, that we get our depravity as a result of our corrupt nature which was in Adam, being entailed upon or transmitted to his offspring in their natural conception and birth.

Be careful, boys, how you open your mouth against this, for your founder said: “Let no man open his mouth against the transmission of a moral distemper, until he satisfactorily explains the fact, that the special characteristic vices of parents appear in their children as much as the color of their skin, their hair or the contour of their faces.”

You will find these quotations in A. Campbell’s Christian System, pp. 27, 28.

This is one time that Campbell told the truth and his admirers must subscribe to all we claim on depravity or denounce him as an heretic on this point. Come, friends, what will you do? But now we appeal to better and more

unerring testimony than Campbell or any other uninspired man— the Bible.

Paul declares that sinners before quickening are “by nature the children of wrath even as others (the rest).” Eph. 2:3.

This has been fully explained by the quotation from Campbell.

David, on inherent sin, says, “Behold I was shapen in iniquity and in sin did my mother conceive me.” Psa. 51:5.

But they say, that only proves that David’s parents were sinners. If so, then you tell us, “Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean?” Job 14:4.

I have had them try to impeach Job as a witness. They say if that be true, then Jesus Christ was depraved, because he was born of a woman, hence came from the unclean. They forget, or rather ignore, the fact that God was His Father and that his mother, Mary, was divinely prepared and made a clean source from which the babe sprang. When the angel told Mary that she should “conceive and bring forth a son,” she replied and said: “How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?” “And the angel answered and said unto her, the Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee; therefore (notice, therefore, because of the power of the Highest) also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.” Luke 1:35.

Any one, who wants to, can see how the conception and birth of Jesus differs from the common or regular process of generation. The power of the Highest is able to reverse any law of nature at His option.

Having moved the trash from over the text we pass to another on hereditary sin. David says again, Ps. 58:3,

“The wicked are estranged from the womb, they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies. Their poison is like the poison of a serpent; they are like the deaf adder that stoppeth her ear.”

This text is very conclusive in the establishment of hereditary sin. It will bear the closest scrutiny and the most skillful criticism falters when confronted by it. They will always avoid answering until pressed to it, and then ’tis simply amusing to see the repulse and their humiliation over the defeat.

The thought I wish to emphasize first is that David has for a subject, the wicked, not the innocent that afterwards become wicked. He says: “The wicked are estranged from the womb.” This shows that the wicked are at first directly associated with the womb and are estranged, withdrawn from the womb and hence alienated, held at a distance from the original possessor (the womb). Webster defines estrange, thus: “to withdraw, to keep at a distance, to alienate, to divert from its original possessor,” etc.

How then could the wicked be estranged from the womb, if the wicked were never in the womb?

If the womb was always a stranger to the wicked and the wicked always a stranger to the womb, then tell me how the wicked are estranged from the womb? Of course there is impudence enough somewhere to deny this fact if they have to ignore the text to do it. But be still and hearken further: “They go astray.” Who goes astray? The text says “the wicked.” Wicked is the antecedent of the pronoun they. What wicked is it that goes astray? They that are “estranged from the womb” of course. But one says, “I thought they came from the womb innocent and holy, and at the age of accountability went astray and became wicked as a result.

Yes, we knew you thought that, but the proof is what we want. What does David say? Did he tell the truth? If so, can you find a Bible witness that will contradict him. Of course they were not wicked by practice in the womb; only a wicked nature, “by nature a child of wrath;” this is the sinful nature that Campbell says is transmitted to us before we are born.

They go astray because of the wicked nature or tendency which we sometimes call depravity, and which Campbell calls “moral imbecility.” If it is “moral imbecility” then they go astray, do wrong because they have no power to do that which is morally right; and if they have not the power to do the moral right, it is because of “moral imbecility,” and that hereditarily.

Right here Campbellism is bottled and I propose to drive the cork so tight the thing will smother to death, if indeed it has any life to begin with.

But notice the next clause: “As soon as they be born speaking lies.” What is the antecedent of the pronoun they this time? I know an answer to this is a death knell to Campbellism, but it should not be in the path of divine truth, so let it come.

Wicked, of course is the antecedent and is equivalent to “As soon as the wicked be born.”

If the wicked are born, have not I proven my position?

The Bible says the “wicked are born,” therefore every claim of infantile purity is subverted forever.

Campbellism says: “The holy are estranged from the womb, they (the holy) go astray as soon as they reach the line of accountability and as a result become wicked.”

Friendly reader, which will you have, the Bible or Campbellism? I speak of Campbellism in its latter day dress, as it is today.

Tradition may tell you to choose the latter, but which is true? Remember “If the truth make you free you shall be free indeed.”

The only turn our friends endeavor to make here is to charge infant damnation upon the advocates of depravity, not because we believe or advocate it, but to prejudice the minds of others against us. Is it conclusive that because an infant is by nature a sinner, that those of them that die, die in their sin and go to torment? By no means. While we believe in original sin we also believe there is a reigning, all-prevailing remedy for sin, which is sent to the heart of every infant that dies in infancy, preparing it for glory. This is sovereign grace.

Grace saves every infant that is taken from us. The child, is saved like the adult and the adult like the child.

Proof. “Verily (truly) I say unto you, whosoever shall not receive the Kingdom as a little child, shall in no wise enter therein.” Luke 18:17.

If the child receives it upon its original purity, so does the adult. And if the adult receives it conditionally on their part, so does the little child. The Bible declares they must receive it alike. As the adult can not receive the Kingdom upon inherent purity, and the child can not receive it conditionally, we conclude that neither plan is correct, as neither can save both classes.

But God’s plan can and will save both classes, which plan is grace. Grace is so well adapted to the needs of sinners that it is like a mighty river, flows to the hearts of all for whom it was prepared, regardless of their conditions, stations, or environments of life. It saves heathens, idiots, infants, yea, all the Son received in the gift of the Father. “All the Father giveth me shall come to me,” says Jesus.

But back to our subject. Is sin hereditary?

“What is man that he should be clean? And he which is born of woman that he should be righteous?” Job 15:14. On the same subject, Job asks: “Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean?” Job 14:4. Again, “Man is born unto trouble as the sparks fly upward.” Job 5:7.

Again, “How can he be clean that is born of a woman?” Job 25:4.

“For he knoweth vain man; he seeketh wickedness also. Will He not then consider it? For vain man would be wise though man be born like a wild ass’s colt.” Job 11:12.

Do these texts seem to lend any sympathy to the thought of infantile purity?

The man who would vehemently in the face of all this testimony, contend for infantile purity has made but little, if any, advancement beyond the wild ass’s colt, which was his original condition at birth.

The wild ass’s colt is very noisy, and very wild and reckless. Think of his stubborn, reckless disposition! He wouldn’t know an ear of corn if he were to see it. A stable or a stall would be prison to him. He wouldn’t know a man from a beast. The woods is his home and he delights in it. So sin is the home of all born in the world, and they love their home, until God shines in their heart to give them a nobler life and higher conception of the things of His Kingdom. They are just as unconscious of the blessings and joys of the Kingdom as the wild ass’s colt is of the food, shelter and comfort of the barnyard. As it is unreasonable to think of the wild ass’s colt of his own volition, coming to the barn-yard and taking his place there; even more unreasonable is it to think of the depraved sinner, of his own volition, taking a place quietly and humbly in the assembly of God. The colt must be tamed and domesticated before he will love his Master and His Kingdom.

And like the Gadarene, “whom no man could tame,” the poor sinner, who is the Gadarene, must have a visitation of Jesus, in His love and power, to clothe him and put him in his right mind, to love, and serve the Lord. Then you find him so tame that he falls at the feet of his Master, full of praise and adoration.

We now conclude this chapter by giving a quotation from the New Testament.

“For as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.” Rom. 5:12.

Notice, “all have sinned,” then all are sinners until that sin is removed and that is done by the “Reigning grace of God through Jesus Christ our Lord.” Rom. 5:21.

In Rom. 3 it is said: “They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable.” But the objector says, I believe they are GONE out of the way and become unprofitable, but they are not born thus, but GO and BECOME thus, at a certain age after birth. But, I ask, had you noticed it says ARE gone? The present tense copulative and past participle represent the act of going as complete. Your position is that some have gone, others are going, and others will yet go. But the text says, “All are gone.” If “all are gone,” who is it that yet remains to go?

Come, boys, let us reason together. Don’t you see your dodge smacks of ignorance?

Notice the other: “They (all) are together become unprofitable.” The same form of the verb again which shows the act of becoming unprofitable as complete. And besides, it says they became unprofitable together. You say they do this one at a time. They became such in Adam, hence together. Right where Campbell said “our nature was,” and when he says, “our nature sinned against the Author of our existence.”

Where do waters mingle together except at the fountain head?

We now leave this part of the subject, and will see in our next whether depravity is entire or not.

CHAPTER 2

Is depravity total, entire, i.e., is the sinner entirely depraved or affected with sin? To find out we will at once analyze or give the Scriptural anatomy of him, and by the rule of exclusion, see whether we can find any thing morally good about him; or whether, as Campbell says, “He is a moral imbecile.” We use the word moral as it relates to divine and not human.

So we proceed, beginning with Rom. 3:13: “Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongue they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips; whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness: their feet are swift to shed blood: destruction and misery are in their ways: and the way of peace have they not known; there is no fear of God before their eyes.” Well, we are making a good start. But, says one, you have not finished; try his heart, mind and conscience, as that is the seat of all service to God. Very well. “Because sentence is not executed speedily against an evil work, therefore the hearts of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil.” Eccl. 8:11.

Again, “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?” Jer. 17:9.

Again, “And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thought of his heart was only evil continually.” Gen. 6:5.

How is that for the heart? Could language be stronger? The heart is deceitful “above all things”; its imaginations and thoughts are “only evil”, and that “continually”. Where will you find a time or place for something good to come from the depraved heart?

But what about the mind, the seat of intellect, upon which our friends so heavily rely?

“The carnal mind is enmity against God; it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be,” Rom. 8:7.

“But the natural (unsaved) man receiveth not the things of the spirit of God; for they are foolishness unto him; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” I Cor. 2:14.

Why is it that the carnal mind is “enmity against God,” and the natural mind “receiveth not the things of the Spirit?” Paul says, because they are “spiritually discerned;” and the sinner has no spiritual mind with which to discern them.

Another reason, “Unto the pure, all things are pure but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving (unsaved) is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled.” Titus 1:15.

We have found nothing good about him yet, but for fear some one will claim that I have overlooked some good function or organism, we will now make a clean sweep.

“The whole head is sick, and the whole heart faint. From the sole of the foot even unto the head there is no soundness in it; but wounds, and bruises, and putrifying sores.” Isa. 1 5,6

Wonderful, wonderful condition! What can reach him?

Let us turn a Campbellite preacher loose on him, with his method, and see if there be any hope for the poor fellow. Let us remember now that the sinner can do nothing with his heart, mind, or conscience until that particular organ is purified or prepared; for the Saviour declares: “Out of the treasure of an evil man’s heart proceedeth that which is evil.” “A corrupt tree can not bear good fruit.”

So we see the sinner could not prepare himself, for that would be “something clean resulting from the unclean.” The preacher can not prepare his heart, for that would make the preacher the Saviour and would work God out of a job; for a pure, prepared heart is all the sinner needs to “see God.” Matt. 5:8.

Now we have certainly proven that the sinner is not only born depraved but is totally depraved. So now we pass and see whether or not this is universal, i.e. peculiar to all the race.

So if that is the best the sinner has, the wheels are locked and the sinner’s case is hopeless. But we will see more fully about this as we proceed.

CHAPTER 3

The same law that makes hereditary sin true of one would make it true of all. Plant a grain of corn, cultivate it, gather it and replant, i.e., plant its production, and continue that process for thousands of ages, and at the end you have just what you started with— corn. So it is in the progeny of Adam. If the sin of Adam was entailed upon his immediate family, their sin was entailed upon their children, and so on down the line to the present. So it is Adam’s sin and our sin, as we are Adam multiplied. To prove your freedom from the Adamic sin, would be to disprove any relation to Adam; and if you are not the offspring of Adam, the Lord only knows what you are and from whence you came. That would be nearing a demonstration of Darwinism in part at least, after all— that man sprang from a monkey. I don’t belong to that class.

“By the disobedience of one man, many were made sinners.” Rom. 5:19. How many? “By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; so death passed upon ALL men for that all have sinned.” Rom. 5:12.

Now if you can prove that you are not a man, do not belong to mankind, then I admit you are exempt from this “transmitted distemper,” as Campbell denominates it. But one says, “That only says men, not babies.”

Well, well, what will people resort to next? Then it leaves out the women too, does it? The word men is, of course, used in a generic sense, embracing all of mankind, that particular specie of God’s creation, and hence embraces women and children.

But we give another text that clearly proves the extent of depravity as respects mankind.

“What then? Are we better, than they?” Are some by nature better than others? “No, in no wise: for we have before proven both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin.” Rom. 3:9.

If all the Jew ands and all the Gentiles were under sin, who was left to be innocent? Of course we would all agree that Paul is here referring to the human family before changed, by the grace of God in regeneration.

He says further: “They are all gone out of the way.”

“There is none righteous.” “There is none that doeth good.” “There is none that understandeth.” “There is none that seeketh after God.”

John says, “The whole world lieth in wickedness.”

1 John. 5:19. The world mentioned refers to the unregenerate; for John says, “We are of God,” and then says, “and the whole world lieth in wickedness.”

Now in conclusion I wish to again repeat the charge of Campbell, “Let no man open his mouth against this moral distemper” until he feels that he really can tell what all this train of scripture means, if indeed it does not mean what I contend it does.

This booklet, no doubt, will provoke some man to reply, for I know them. But that is all right with me. All I ask of him is to be as careful as I have been, to give his readers an analyzed presentation and disposition of all the foregoing scripture upon which I rely, in part, to prove my position. If they do this, it is my confidence that he will be buried in the effort. I now bid you adieu on this part.

CHAPTER 4

Elder W. A. Bentley’s testimony.

Question 1. Is the lost sinner dead in sin? Ans. Yes.

Q. 2. Does life precede action? Ans. Not with the sinner, he must come to Christ for life.

Q. 3. Can the dead act in order to get a life they do not possess? A. Yes. Eph. 1:13.

Q. 4. Is performing a condition an act? A. Yes.

Q. If so, by the power of what life is it performed? A. Gospel is the power to save. Sinner hears, believes, obeys.

Q. 5. Is the alien sinner a good or a corrupt tree? A. As a corrupt tree it represents the deeds of man.

Q. 6. Is the alien sinner in the flesh or in the Spirit? A. He is composed of both spirit and flesh. Heb. 12:9.

Q. 7. Does the alien sinner possess Christ? A. No.

Q. 8. Does the alien sinner believe without the Spirit? A. Yes. Rom. 10:13, 17.

Q. 9. What kind of life does an alien possess? A. Physical.

Q. 10. Does a sinner receive a new life in regeneration? A. Yes. John 3:4, Rom. 6:4. If yes, what kind of life? A. Spiritual or salvation for past sins.

Q. 11. Is performing a condition an act? A. Yes.

If so, by the power of what life is it performed? A. By the alien sinner believing, repenting, confessing, and being baptized into Christ. Rom. 10:10; Acts 11:18; Rom. 6:4.

Q. 12. Is being baptized a physical act? A. It is an act of obedience to the gospel. Mark 16:16; Rom. 16:25.

Q. 13. Is regeneration a Spiritual effect? A. Yes.

Q. 14. Will a physical act or force produce a Spiritual effect? A. No, but a faithful act does.

Q. 15. Is baptism a cause of regeneration? A. No, but an act in regeneration. 17

Q. 16. Can an effect be of a higher order than the cause producing it? A. No.

If not, and baptism is a cause of regeneration, does it not follow that baptism that saves is spiritual in as much as the salvation is spiritual? A. No.

Q. 17. Will baptism that is not administered in order to remission of alien sins save? A. No. Acts 2:38.

Q. 18. Will you explain how that a begetting or a birth can be conditional? A. The sinner is begotten by the gospel or word of truth. Cor. 4:15; Jas. 1:18. He must hear the gospel. Rom. 10:17.

Q. 19. If “born of water” in John. 3:5: refers to water baptism, tell us who the mother is? A. Gal. 4:26.

Q. 20. What or who is the Christian’s spiritual mother? A. Gal. 4:26.

Q. 21. If we are born of “Jerusalem Above,” Gal. 4:26, and also of the water, have we not two mothers, one above and one below? A. No.

Q. 22. How and by whom are sinners begotten? A. Paul says, “I have begotten you through the gospel.” 1 Cor. 4:15. Did you ever do likewise, Mr. Paine? If not, why not?

Q. 23. Is one a new creature out of Christ? A. No.

Q. 24. Are those who are in Christ, new creatures? A. Yes. 2 Cor. 5:17.

Q. 25. Is getting into Christ a creative process? A. Yes. Gal. 3:26, 27.

Q. 26. Does the thing created perform conditions in order to creatureship? If so, explain, remembering the meaning of create. A. Yes. Matt. 7:2 1; 2 Cor. 4:4.

Q. 27. In regeneration, is God our Father? A. In the gospel we have many fathers. I Cor. 4:15

Q. 28. Are sinners begotten before born? A. Yes. James. 1:18.

Q. 29. Did Christ die for the sinless? A. He died for all. Heb. 2:9.

Q. 30. Did Christ die for infants that dies in infancy? A. He died for all. Heb. 2:9.

Q. 31. Are infants embraced in the expression “whole world” in 1 John. 2:2? A. Jesus said, speaking of infants, “Of such is the Kingdom of Heaven.”

Q. 32. If infants are sinless, explain how and when they become sinners. A. By transgressing the law of God as Adam did. 1 John. 3:4.

Q. 33. Are infants embraced in the expression, “Every man” in Heb. 2:9? A. Yes, he died for us before we were born.

Q. 34. Refer us to a scriptural cause of the death of an infant. A. The penalty of Adam’s transgression, not the sin of an infant as you teach.

Q. 35. Does the spirit of an infant go to God at death? A. Yes. Eccl. 12:7.

Q. 36. Will the infant’s body be resurrected? A. Yes.

Q. 37. Will the infant’s body receive life in the resurrection? If yes, what kind of life? A. Eternal life.

Q. 38. Are infants in any way sinners at birth? A. No.

Q. 39. If infants are in no way sinners, explain why many of them die, seeing the wages of sin is death? A. Death is the penalty of Adam’s sin, and not the sin of an infant.

Q. 40. Would it be possible for an infant to be reared to maturity without becoming a sinner? If not, why not? A. We separate from God by sin as Adam did. Isa. 59:2.

Q. 41. If one was reared to manhood without becoming a sinner, would you be willing to receive him without baptism? A. Baptism is for the remission of sin.

If you were to baptize such a one, why? Seeing you baptize to remit sin? A. I baptize the living and not the dead.

We now introduce a new witness, Elder Charley Nichol. You will observe that Charley is an expert in evading questions, or rather an open answer to them. His experience in debate with Old Baptists long since taught him to avoid an answer to their loaded questions.

Question 1. Do the dead ever act in order to life? If so by what power do they act? Answer., Acts 16:30, 31; John. 3:18.

Q. 2. Is the alien sinner in possession of a spiritual mind? If not, what kind of a mind does he possess? A. Rom. 8:7.

Q. 3. Has God ever changed his way of saving sinners? A. By faith and obedience on their part.

Q. 4. How did God save the first sinner saved? A. By faith and obedience. Q.

5. When is one born again? A. John. 3:3, 5.

Q. 6. Can one be begotten of God and yet be an alien sinner? A. Begotten before forgiven.

Q. 7. How does God save infants? A. They are not lost.

Q. 8. How does God save heathens? A. Rom. 2.

Q. 9. Is it possible that a child can be raised to maturity without becoming a sinner? A. Christ.

Q. 10. Is a penitent believer dead or alive? A. Quickened.

A child of God or a child of the devil? A. Begotten by the power of God, developing into life in Christ.

Q. 11. Is an alien in the flesh or in the spirit? A. Rom. 8:1, 8.

Q. 12. Is the alien sinner a spiritual or a natural man? A. 1 Thess. 5:23.

Q. 13. Does the alien sinner believe with the heart? A. Rom. 10:10.

Q. 14. Is the sinner’s heart clean or unclean? A. Acts. 15:9.

Q. 15. When do infants that die in infancy receive eternal life? A. They are holy and never lose the life they possess at birth, i.e., life of their spirit.

Q. 16. When does the body of the infant that dies in infancy receive eternal life? A. Body is immortalized. 1 Cor. 15:52, 54.

Q. 17. Give chapter and verse that proves, that the infant is infinitely holy. A. Zech. 12:11; Acts 17:29.

Q. 18. Did Jesus die for infants who die in infancy? A.

1 Tim. 2:6.

Q. 19. Is it possible for an infant to be reared to manhood without becoming a sinner? A. I John. 3. 4. If not, why not?

Q. 20. Has the infant life in this world? A. It has a spirit that will not cease to exist.

Q. 21. Will those who die in infancy have eternal life in heaven? Yes.

If yes, do they receive it conditionally? A. On their part, no.

Q. 22. Is an alien sinner condemned? A. Yes.

Q. 23. Can one die between confession and baptism? A. We have no account of such that I know of. If yes, would he be saved or damned?

Q. 24. Is one begotten and quickened before baptism? A. Yes.

Q. 25. After having been begotten and quickened, is that one still an alien sinner? A. Yes, till forgiven.

Q. 26. How were people saved before baptism had its beginning? A. By obeying God.

Q. 27. Is the alien sinner clean or unclean? A. Unclean, as respect to life of purity.

Q. 28. Does quicken in Eph. 2:1 mean to make alive? A. Active. If yes, what kind of life?

Active in doing right toward God.

Q. 29. Does Eph. 2:4 prove that God’s love was the cause of the quickening in 5th verse? A. Tit. 3:4. If yes, why did he love them, seeing they were “dead in sin,” and “walking according to the course of the world?”

Q. 30. Do scriptural subjects receive eternal life at baptism? A. The eternal life of my proposition, yes.

Q. 3 l. Does God give to any eternal life in this present world? A. Yes, as meant by my proposition.

Q. 32. Does God give eternal life to a sinner or a Christian? A. The E. L. of my proposition is given to man in the act of becoming a Christian.

Q. 33. When does the spirit in man receive eternal life? A. When forgiven.

Q. 34. (a) Is a penitent sinner before baptism a sheep or a goat? A. A goat is a man serving the devil. The man I baptize thus becomes a servant of God. (b) A child of God or a child of the devil? A. Child of the devil is a servant of the devil. Is not a child of the devil, for he has quit serving him.

Q. 35. Does John 10:11,15 tell who Jesus died for? Did he die for any more than he mentioned? If yes, did Jesus tell who he died for? A. He gave his life for his sheep, and the whole world. 1 John 2:2.

We now call another witness to the stand, Elder Coleman D. Nichols, of Johnsville, Texas.

Question 1. Is a believer born of God? Ans. Yes.

Q. 2. Is a believer condemned? A. No.

Q. 3. Is a believer justified? A. Yes.

Q. 4. Is faith a fruit of the Spirit? A. Yes.

Q. 5. Can one believe without the Spirit? A. No.

Q. 6. Can one believe without testimony? A. No. If not, what is the first witness? A. God.

Q. 7. Does the Spirit operate directly? A. No.

Q. 8. Does the Spirit operate indirectly? A. No.

Q. 9. Does the Spirit of the Lord lead or prompt the sinner to obedience? A. Yes.

Q. 10. Does the Spirit of God dwell in a believer? A. Yes.

Q. 11. Tell us just how the Spirit quickens dead sinners? A. Through the gospel.

Q. 12. Can a sinner be saved without the Spirit? A. No.

Q. 13. Will God save all He desires to save? A. No. If not, does He do His pleasure? A. Yes.

Q. 14. Is the quickening power of the Spirit confined to the realm of gospel preaching? A. Certainly.

Q. 15. Is the sinner a natural or a spiritual man? A. Neither.

Q. 16. Is the sinner in the flesh or in the Spirit? A. In body, and if holding to the law of Moses in the flesh.

Q. 17. Does the Spirit, itself, quicken? A. Yes, through means.

Q. 18. If the gospel quickens, why does it not quicken all to whom preached? A. They reject it. Matt. 13.

Q. 19. Can one believe on Christ without the Spirit? A. No.

Q. 20. Does one believe with the heart? A. Yes.

Q. 21. Is the heart of a believer pure or impure? obedient.

Q. 22. Does one believe on Christ with a natural or a spiritual mind? A. Neither.

Q. 23. Does godly sorrow work the repentance of your proposition? A. Yes.

Q. 24. Can one have a godly sorrow without a knowledge of God? A. No.

Q. 25. What is the condition of the one who knows God? A. Saved.

Q. 26. Is saving faith a dead or a living faith? A. Living faith.

Q. 27. Is saving faith a perfect or an imperfect faith? A. Perfect.

Q. 28. Is salvation by works? A. Yes, by God’s works.

Q. 29. When and how is a sinner begotten? A. By gospel.

Q. 30. When is a sinner born again? A. When he obeys God.

Q. 31. Can a sinner be saved without baptism? A. No.

Q. 32. Is baptism a cause of salvation? A. No.

Q. 33. Can an effect be of a higher order than the cause producing it? A. No.

Q. 34. Do you baptize a sheep or a goat? A child of God or a child of the devil? A. Child of the devil.

Q. 35. If one believes, repents, and confesses Christ and dies happy, will he be damned? A. Not righteous to say.

Q. 36. Does life precede action? A. Yes.

CHAPTER 5

In the preceding chapter we have endeavored to show, with the Bible as our authority, the real condition of sinners in an unregenerated state. From that description, if it be true, it is easy to see the impossibility of their salvation being suspended upon something good coming, or proceeding from them; hence the impossibility of their salvation being conditional on their part. We will now proceed to take up the conditions in their order, as submitted by “Campbellism” and show scripturally and logically, its false claims.

While we admit that the Bible teaches faith, repentance, confession and baptism in water, and the essentiality of each and all of them for the purpose they were intended, but we do most earnestly deny that they are to be complied with by alien sinners, or that they are in order to spiritual life. But insist that it is a regenerated living child of God that is capacitated and required to do them. If this is true, then Campbellism has God’s order reversed, and hence, is squarely arrayed against God and His adorable truths. We now begin our proof that all those things mentioned are proofs and not causes of a gracious state.

We begin with faith. When we say faith we mean the faith of the creature. We mean that exercise of the heart or mind that lays hold of and confides in Jesus as the “Son of God,” as the “Christ” as his “Saviour.”

Faith is sometimes spoken of as the “faith of God,” as in Rom. 3:3. There it refers to the work of God as embraced in His immutable “promise.” It is by this faith, and not the faith of the creature, that the heart is purified. God has promised eternal life and that before the world began, Tit. 1:2. The promise is to as many as the Lord shall call. Acts 2:39.

Notice, eternal life is that that was promised. To have eternal life is to be a “child of God”; to be a child of God is to be an heir of God.” Rom. 8:16, 17.

The apostle in speaking of this heirship says: “Therefore it is of faith (God’s promise), that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed.” Rom. 4:16.

This shows how sonship, heirship, or eternal life comes, by the faith (promise) and grace of God. It is not that faith of which I speak as being subsequent to regeneration, but the faith of the creature.

Of the creature’s faith, the apostle says: “With the heart man believeth unto righteousness.” Rom.10:10. Now we have a premise. Faith of the creature is with or from the heart. If it is with the heart, is it with the wicked depraved heart, or is it with a pure heart? If with the wicked or corrupt heart, then I ask, “Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? Not one.” Job 14:4. Would that not be a corrupt tree bearing good fruit? Is such a thing possible? If not, is it not impossible for a saving faith to proceed from the corrupt heart? But if, on the other hand, you admit that the heart of the one who believes is pure, is it not then too late for this faith to purify his heart? If it is a pure heart that believes, could repentance or baptism, which follow, possibly be a factor in the process of purification? It is easy to see that “Campbellism” will not bear the test when measured by Rom. 10:10, which is a pet text of theirs. If the heart is wicked, it can not produce a clean faith, and if the heart is pure the one is already saved; so faith of the sinner can not be the means of saving him.

I remember that I was once debating with one of these people, and on the subject of faith. I asked the question: “Does one believe with a pure or an impure heart?” Dreading the consequences of saying with an impure heart, he finally said, “with a pure heart.” I then dug a hole and buried my good honest friend, for he killed himself. I have never heard from my friend since, only that he had caught up with his debating with “Hard-shells.”

Jesus says, “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see (enjoy) God.” The question, if they are pure in heart before faith, and the “pure in heart shall see God,” where was the necessity of such an one performing any of the conditions? Besides, if as their proposition says, it is the alien sinner that performs conditions, and the one who performs them is pure in heart, it follows that alien sinners are pure in heart, Jesus says, “they shall see God,” hence, we would have heaven filled with alien sinners, according to “Campbellism.” Their stovepipe is hard to joint up; put it together here and it pulls loose yonder, and visa versa.

Another one told me, in answer to the same question, that a believer’s heart was pure only from the practice of sin. Well, that puts him in exactly the same dilemma; for if the heart’s practice is pure the heart is pure, or else we have “good fruit from a corrupt tree.” Jesus says: “An evil man, out of the evil treasure of his heart, bringeth forth that which is evil.” So if the heart is evil and its practice good, Jesus was mistaken in what he says. “Campbellism” puts a falsehood in the mouth of Jesus Christ; it perjures the Apostles and prophets, and therefore is not the truth and should be exposed.

Again, the Apostle declares that faith is a “fruit of the Spirit.” Gal. 5:22. If the faith is a fruit of the Spirit, the sinner must have the Spirit before faith, as the fruit can not exist before the tree. If the Spirit, with the sinner, precedes faith, then the sinner is free before faith; for “where the Spirit of the Lord is there is liberty.”

If one has liberty he is no longer an alien; therefore, it is not an alien that believes.

Again, the one who has the Spirit is a child of God. Rom. 8:14. If the one who has the Spirit is a child of God, and one must have the Spirit before faith, it follows that one is a child of God prior to faith. If one is a child of God before faith, then faith is not a condition in order thereto, but an evidence or proof that one is a child of God.

Belief is based upon testimony. Hence, for one to believe, in Christ he must have the testimony in his heart, as it is the heart with which they believe. Rom. 10:10.

It is said, 1 John 5:10, “The witness is within you.”

Again, “It is the Spirit that beareth witness, for the Spirit is truth.” 1 John 5:6. Then, the one who believes in Jesus Christ has the Spirit of God in their heart as a witness to them. What does the witness testify? “The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit that we are the children of God,” etc. Rom. 8:16.

When the Spirit thus testifies, faith springs up and we rejoice in Christ as our Saviour. Faith did not make Him our Saviour, but told us that He was our Saviour. But what about “baptism?” If faith recognizes Him as our Saviour then baptism, which is a subsequent act of obedience, could not be a condition in making Him our Saviour.

“Faith works by love.” Gal. 5:6. If faith works by love it follows that none except those who love have faith. Those who love “Are born of God, and knoweth God, they dwell in God and God in them.” 1 John. 4:7, 16.

If one who “loves” is “born of God,” and “dwells in God,” and one must love before faith, it follows that one is “born of God” and “.dwells in God” before faith. If so, then faith can not be a condition, but a proof, of the new birth.

1 st. “Faith works by love.” Gal. 5:16.

2nd. “Those who love are born of God.” 1 John. 4:7.

3rd. Therefore one is born of God before faith.

Paul declares that we are “saved,” “not according to our works,” “not by works of righteousness which we have done,” “not of works lest any man should boast.” 2 Tim. 1:9; Tit. 3:5; Eph. 2:22.

But, if it is by faith, it is also by works, for it is “by works that faith is made perfect.” Jas. 2:22.

If by faith, it must be by a perfect faith, or we have a perfect effect (salvation) suspended upon an imperfect cause or condition.

If faith is made perfect by works, and a perfect faith is a condition of salvation, it follows that works is also. But the Bible declares it is not by nor of works, therefore the theory of “faith a condition” can not be true.

Again: We are saved, “not by works,” “not of works.”

Then, if by faith, it is by faith without works. But “faith without works is dead.” Jas. 2:20. Therefore, if by faith, it is by a dead faith. Preposterous!!

Think of a dead faith exercised by a dead man producing a living, new creature in Christ! Quite an improvement on the law of cause and effect.

“By Him, all that believe are justified from all things, from which they could not be justified by the law of Moses.” Acts 13:39.

If one believes before baptism, and a “believer is justified from all things,” will some skillful “Campbellite” tell us what is left to be done in baptism? Their proposition says that alien sinners believe. The Bible says that “believers are justified from all things;” therefore if each be true, alien sinners are justified from all things.

This is a ridiculous landing, but it is where their current of theology and logic lands them. Their doctrine does not only, and ridiculously, admit that alien sinners are justified from all things, but that they are justified before and without baptism. Here it is:

lst. Believers are justified from all things. Acts 13:39.

2nd. Alien sinners believe before baptism. -Campbellism.

3rd. Therefore alien sinners are justified from all things, and that before baptism! !

There is your medicine. I know it’s a bitter dose, but you prescribed it, and I am the nurse in this case and will see that you try a course. What makes that ridiculous conclusion to the above syllogism? It can not be due to the major premise, for it is Bible, but that second or minor premise is the trouble. It is “death in the pot.” It is “Campbellism,” the antithesis of all truth, and by the power of the major premise, is held up in its ridiculous consequence for every, fair minded Christian to disdain.

Now we build in keeping with our foundation, and see how consistent the conclusion.

1st. Believers are justified from all things. Acts 13:39.

2nd. Alien sinners are not justified from all things.

3rd. Therefore alien sinners do not believe.

That is better. I challenge any of their lights to find a defect in the syllogism. If he denies the first or major premise, he denies the Bible, for that is what the Bible says. He can not deny the 2nd or minor premise without admitting that alien sinners are justified from all things, and that before baptism. So we saddle the conclusion upon him whether he likes it or not.

They also teach that the sinner, by the gospel, is taught to know God but John declares that “He that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us.” 1 John 4:6.

We have it thus: One must know God in order to hear the gospel. To know God is life eternal. John 17:3. Therefore one has life eternal before they can hear.

How then do we know God? Let’s go to the pattern. Paul said he was a “pattern to all that should hereafter believe on Him.”

Go to the 9th chapter of Acts and find out just how Paul received a true knowledge of Christ. It was by revelation.

Jesus said: “No man knoweth the Son save the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal Him.” Matt. 11:27.

Campbellism denies the positive injunction of the new covenant. It positively forbids just what Campbellism is endeavoring to do—teach people to know God. “And they shall not teach every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, know the Lord, for all shall know me from the least to the greatest.” Heb. 8:11.

This, our friends are trying and claiming to do— teach their neighbors to know the Lord, but the Bible positively forbids. They are therefore unscriptural on that point.

But they ask, “How do they know him?” “It is written in the prophets, and they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard and learned of the Father cometh unto me.” John 6:37.

Then all the Father gave the son shall “hear and learn of the Father and come to Him.” Then we have it demonstrated, that the way we know God is by hearing and learning of Him. But one says: you have surrendered all, for it is by the gospel they hear and learn.

Mistaken again, for it says: “Everyone that hears and learns, comes.” But our friends will preach to sinners for days and days: teach them, and they learn, but fail to come. What’s the trouble? They are mistaken or the Bible is untrue, for it declares that all who “hear and learn come.”

How often, the preachers in the conclusion of a series of efforts to save in their revivals, in their final appeal to sinners, say: “We have preached to you the way of salvation. You now know the way. You have heard and learned of God but you refuse to come, and will, therefore, be lost in your sins.”

Does that sound like the hearing and learning of our text? Saul, while a heedless sinner, was journeying to Damascus with murder in his heart. Suddenly the light shined, and he heard a voice from heaven, saying, “Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me.” He said, “Who art thou Lord?” The voice said, “I am Jesus of Nazareth whom thou persecutest.” Acts 9. Paul heard and learned and came; for he said. “Lord what wilt thou have me do?”

There is the way that “all are taught of God.” When they are thus taught they always come.

I wish now to show you a palpable contradiction by two of their leading lights on the subject of faith.

Question. Does the alien sinner believe without the Spirit? Bentley, in question 8, says, “Yes.” Coleman, in question 5, says, “No.”

Can they both be right? Who then is right? They contradict each other, yet they represent the same cause — Campbellism in all its deformities.

But, to dodge and cover up the truth of the Bible, they sometimes contend that if a believer is “born again,” justified, etc., that Devils are “born again” justified etc.; for the reason that “Devils believed and trembled.” But they always omit the following verse, which reads, “But wilt thou know, 0 vain man, that faith without works is dead?” Jas. 2:19, 20. This shows that the devil’s faith was a dead faith; and was not from a good and honest heart, only a profession, and hence is not admissible as an argument. If they accept the devil’s faith as identical with the faith of their proposition, then reason as they may, it admits devils as scriptural subjects for baptism.

Coleman says, question 26, that saving faith is a perfect faith. The Bible says, “By works is made perfect.” Jas. 2:20. But the devil’s faith was without works, (proof), Jas. 2:22. Therefore the devil’s faith is not a saving faith and, hence, is not identical with the faith of their proposition. If not identical, but a perversion, that proves their effort to meet logic by sophistry, which is really the summit of their reasoning. Again, if as in Rom. 10:10, faith is from the heart, and as Coleman says, with a PURE heart, it follows that if the devils believe with the heart, it is with a pure heart; if they have a pure heart they are embraced in the promise: “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.” Matt. 5:8. There it is again.

By their sophistic reasoning they locate devils with the pure in heart and embrace them in the promise, “They shall see God.” That’s a fair sample of Campbellite twisting, but very obnoxious to a sober mind.

So, friendly reader, you see that such unfair retaliation is only a result of emergency and when fairly criticized makes their theory more intolerable than ever.

As we discuss faith, as an item of issue between us, we, of course, mean the genuine, and the issue is, who is the believer? And what is his condition? Is it a cause or an effect of regeneration? We contend that it is an effect and our friends say it is a condition to be complied with by alien sinners in order to regeneration. OUR PROOF:

1. Believers are born of God. 1 John 5:1.

2. Alien sinners are not born of God.

3. Alien sinners do not believe.

The premise of the above syllogism proves our position and the process of reasoning embodied in it, reaches a conclusion which forever subverts their claim. The same is equally true of the following syllogisms.

1

1. Believers are not condemned. John 3:18.

2. Alien sinners are condemned. John 3:18. 3. 3.

3. Therefore, alien sinners do not believe.

2

1. Believers are justified from all things. Acts 13:39.

2. Alien sinners are not justified from all things.

3. Therefore alien sinners do not believe.

3

1. Believers are passed from death to life. John 5:24.

2. Alien sinners are not passed from death unto life.

3. Therefore alien sinners do not believe.

We claim the above syllogisms to be true, both in major and minor premise. But we will now use the Bible as the major premise and Campbellism as the minor premise, that our readers may be refreshed with a season of amusement at the ridiculous conclusions:

1. Believers are born of God. 1 John 5: l.

2. Alien sinners believe. Campbellism.

3. Therefore alien sinners are born of God!!!

Friendly reader, look at that! Look at the conclusion! Do you believe it? Is it not a legitimate deduction from the foundation used? Where is the defect? Is it in the first premise? It certainly can not be, for that is God’s word. “Let God be true and every man a liar.” Where, oh where, is the trouble? Right where you always find it, in Campbellism! Look at the second premise and you will find the hidden wedge, it is marked Campbellism. It makes the conclusion contradict the first premise which is the plain word of God. That is what the religious dogma will do for you, friendly reader; it will divert your mind from the simple word of God, swallow you up in conclusions diametrically opposed to the word of revelation.

Here is some more of it:

1

1. Believers are not condemned. John 3:18

2. Alien sinners believe. Campbellism.

3. Therefore alien sinners are not condemned.

2

1. Believers are justified. Acts 13:39.

2. Alien sinners believe. Campbellism.

3. Therefore, alien sinners are justified.

3

1. Believers are passed from death unto life. John 5:24.

2. Alien sinners believe. Campbellism.

3. Therefore, alien sinners are passed from death unto life!!

These latter syllogisms put Campbelusm into a dilemma from which all the brain, and wisdom and sophistry of the fraternity can not redeem it. I have seen it tried too much.

The one great reason why many people are honestly deceived upon the subject of faith as well as the other conditions in the catalog is because they often find faith or belief used in the Bible as a cause or condition of salvation not realizing that there are many salvations subsequent to regeneration or the new birth. Faith saves, repentance saves, and even baptism saves; but neither nor all of them combined, saves an alien sinner, but they save the child of God; and the salvation produced pertains to their joy and happiness in this life only. The new birth which precedes them all, and absolutely essential to either, prepares the sinner for glory; and as this is done by the spirit of God without a preacher, it follows that sinners are born again where there are no preachers.

The system that says the Spirit can not save without the preacher, makes the preacher the Saviour and the Spirit the means; or else the Holy Spirit is making poor progress or use of the means, inasmuch as a large majority of the family of Adam have never heard the gospel, and a majority of those who have are not saved by it. How long, Oh Lord, before thy people will all make the good confession Jonah made: “Salvation is of the Lord.”

I will prove that the salvation, which is by the faith of the creature, is not regeneration, but a salvation of those already born of God.

We refer you first to Romans 1:16 “1 am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.”

This shows that the gospel is the power of God in the salvation of a believer. Who then is a believer? As we have proven, they are “born of God,” “justified” etc. Then the gospel saves those who are born of God. It does not born them nor put them in a position where baptism borns them. The question is often asked, if they are already born how and in what way does the gospel save them?

The gospel is to God’s children what your father’s teachings, corrections and reproofs are to you that they, by obedience, may reverence their heavenly Father and save themselves from many things He would not approve, and thereby save themselves from the lash or chastening of God for their disobedience. There is a practical or gospel faith that no one can have without the gospel. Romans 10. “How can they believe on Him of whom they have not heard, and how can they hear without a preacher? This is the message that Cornelius needed after that God had “cleansed” and “justified” him. It was by Peter’s mouth that the Gentiles were to hear the gospel and believe. Acts 15:7. It was not by the message of Peter’s mouth that the Gentiles were to be cleansed or justified, but to believe.

Men believe only as they have been given the ability. God gives the ability in regeneration to believe the gospel.

This is proven in 1 Cor. 3:5. “Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man?” This shows that God gives the ability before the gospel makes a believer.

This is proven in the case of Cornelius. Acts 10. By reading we find that Cornelius was visited by the God of heaven in the form of an angel, that he was a devout man, that he feared God, that he was a praying man, that he was a just man, he was a cleansed man, that he worked righteousness; all of this was true of Cornelius before the preacher ever reached him, as is so plainly taught in the chapter. Then Peter did not go that this man might be justified for it is stated in verse 22 that he was a just man. Nor did he go that this man might be a righteous man or that he should be born of God, for he worked righteousness, verse 35; and it is plainly stated that “He that doeth righteousness is righteous.” I John 3:7. Also “everyone that doeth righteousness is born of God.” 1 John 2:29. It is, therefore, plainly proven that Cornelius was a child of God before Peter reached him. Yet it is stated that Peter was to “tell him words whereby he and his house should be saved.” Acts 11:14.

Saved how? In the sense of being born again or being justified or being cleansed? No, for we have before proven all those things true prior to his coming. He was to hear, believe, and obey the gospel and be saved from idolatry, and every false way; from “cunning craftiness of men whereby they lie in wait to deceive.” So you can plainly see what kind of characters “believe with the heart unto righteousness” or that are commanded to “believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and be saved,” “They believed even as God gave to every man.”

So it is with every bible subject; you find one that believes and I will show you a justified man, hence a proper subject for baptism, and, I, like Peter, would say “who can forbid water?”

Elder Coleman D. Nichols said, in debate with me, that a sinner was purified in heart at faith, but when I asked him if he baptized a child of the devil, he said yes. A child of the devil with a pure heart? That’s theology of an inviting nature. It must, at least be encouraging the devils for it gives them a clear title to heaven, for Jesus says “Blessed are the pure in heart for they shall see God.” Matt. 3.

The trouble with Campbellism on this subject is, they apply the scriptures wrongly. They have the wrong character believing, and the wrong salvation resulting. Sinners are saved “not according to their works, but according to God’s purpose and grace which was given them Christ before the world began.” 2 Tim. 2:9.

The purpose and grace was in Christ, and is administered to sinners here in time, hence saved according to the grace. The sinner being saved by grace is enabled to then believe in Christ and rejoice in the salvation so graciously bestowed. Precious theme!

CHAPTER VI

Repentance

We now turn from the subject of faith to that of repentance. Repentance is also a Bible subject and an interesting and delightful one when properly understood and applied.

In “The Christian System” on page 53, we have a definition of repentance as given by A. Campbell, which serves a purpose at this particular juncture. He says, “Repentance is an effect of faith: for who that believeth not that God exists can have repentance toward God?” If I have proven in the preceding chapter that the believer is a child of God, and Campbell is correct in saying that repentance is an effect of faith, then Campbell and I together have proven that repentance (evangelical) is confined to the children, the family, of God. This is exactly our contention. This was completely admitted by Elder C. D. Nichols in the following answers to questions I submitted in debate with him:

Question 1. Does Godly sorrow work the repentance of your proposition? Answer. Yes.

Q. 2. Can one have a Godly sorrow without a knowledge of God? A. No.

Q. 3. What is the condition of the one who knows God? A. Saved.

In the above, gentle reader, you see an unqualified admission that one is saved before repentance. If one is saved he is a child of God, which conclusively proves that it is a child of God, that repents, and not an alien. He is not repenting because he is a child of God, but because the light and consciousness of the new life enables him to see the corruption of his past life in nature; the love and grace shed abroad in his heart produces an abhorrence and hatred for sin and with sorrow for sin and love to God he resolves, and puts into practice the resolution, to refrain from evil and do service to God which constitutes Bible repentance.

Campbellism would not be so detestable in doctrine if they would, rightly apply it.

But we continue the quotation from Campbell.

“Repentance is sorrow for sins committed; but it is more. It is a resolution to forsake them; but it is more. It is actual “ceasing to do evil and learning to do good:” This is repentance unto life or what is truly called reformation. Such is the force of the commandment, ‘repent every one of you.’ * * True repentance is, then always consummated in actual reformation of life. It therefore carries in its very essence the idea of restitution.”

Mr. Campbell very orderly mentions the steps of constituents culminating in repentance, which he calls “reformation.” True, repentance is a reformation; but what is reformation?

Reformation, let it be borne in mind, always relates to the life already possessed! Reformation is practical betterment or improvement of a life possessed, but is never a means of procuring a new life; if so “Darwinism” is true as well as “Campbellism” for they are identical on this point. Men can form and reform good habits in life, but they must first possess the respective life, inasmuch as, reformation is improvement rather than the acquisition of life. Man, in his natural state, may reform and live a better man morally, and thus adorn the life possessed; so may a man in his spiritual state, if he neglect of duty, reform his life by closer obedience and thus adorn that life. But the everlasting task our friends have, is to show how that repentance or reformation is a means in the production of a new order of life. This, I fear, will stand against them, unproven through the cycles of time.

But Mr. Campbell goes further and says: Repentance carries in its very essence the idea of restitution. We therefore sum up his idea thus: The alien sinner by repentance restores unto God an equivalent for all that God holds against him for sinning, for that is what restitution is. This, it seems to me, is a very great blunder for a man of scholarship to give to the public. The impossibility of this rests upon the insolvency, and, as Mr. C. has previously stated, the “moral imbecility” of the sinner. If I had been in the habit of telling my wife a lie ever since we were married, but I today reform and tell her, the remainder of my life the truth and nothing but the truth, what is the result? Will the truths I tell atone for and make innocent of the lies already told? Reformation will clean the present and future but never cancel back indebtedness. Suppose I contract a debt for $1000. It is a just debt, but before maturity I become insolvent, financially “imbecile.” Now when that debt becomes due I wish my friends to tell us how the debtor is to pay it?

Their doctrine is, let him become very sorry for that failure, resolve to pay all debts contracted in the future, and carry out the resolution and that will restore all injury done to his first creditor.

I wish to tell you, if it were possible for a sinner to be saved by that system, he would necessarily be saved with all his sins, before repentance, hanging over him. It is impossible for us to undo a single crime committed, and unless the blood of Christ covers and redeems from that sin, all the reformation on earth could not liquidate a single one.

To be justified, or a son of God, is one thing, and to enjoy all the forsaken comforts to which a son may be entitled is another. The blood of Christ applied to our hearts justifies and cleanses from sin, so that there can be no charge laid to God’s elect. It liquidates every trace of obligation in view of our ultimate glorification in heaven.

But the happiness of a of saint of God on earth depends in a measure upon their repentance— turning from the evil and meekly obeying their Heavenly Father. Their obedience did not make them children nor does their disobedience s destroy their sonship.

I remember, and so do you, gentle reader, when I was a child under the guidance and supervision of my father and mother, and often I would do that which they had forbidden, which would incur their displeasure and punishment. I loved my parents and realized and hated the wrong I had done; hence a sorrow would arise in my heart, accompanied with a resolution to do better, and when that resolution was carried out, everything was peace. That reformation was commendable and my efforts were augmented; but the reformation did not make me a child of that parentage, nor did my disobedience destroy my life relation to them. In all our relations of life every deviation demands a reformation, but the reformation never changes the primary order of life.

Most of the repentance mentioned in the Bible referred to an amendment in form of worship. When God’s people reached the end of types and shadows and came to the church of the “first born” it was a very hard matter to wean those who had come up under the law from its forms and ceremonies, and hence it was very needful to preach repentance. They having been married to the law, it was difficult to convince them of the death of the law as their ‘husband, and of necessity of them being “married to another, even unto Christ.”

John the Baptist was “sent from God” to “make ready a people prepared for the Lord.” Notice he was not sent to prepare, but to make ready those who were prepared. He was to make them ready by teaching them the sublime truth that the Kingdom was at hand. Christ was soon coming to plant his church on earth and would demand that they follow Him in the ordinances of His house. By this warning, those who were prepared (children of God) could be ready for the Bride-groom, by repenting, forsaking the shadow (law), and adhering to the substance which was Christ. Hence John “came preaching in the wilderness of Judea, saying ‘repent for the Kingdom of heaven is at hand.” The repentance found in John’s ministry had not the remotest reference to sinners repenting in order to their eternal salvation. Everyone who is adhering to any form of worship other than the gospel form need to repent, not in order to be regenerated or born again, but that they may become loyal subjects of the church of Jesus Christ. In fact, all of God’s children, who are not in the church, as they hear the gospel admonition should repent, turn from their manner of life and seek and enter the Kingdom. On Pentecost, those who were pricked in the heart were commanded to “repent and be baptized” etc. But remember that the “pricking” did not prepare the heart but only evidenced the fact of its former preparation. Neither were the hearts of all present pricked by the apostle’s preaching, for some “mocked saying, these men are full of new wine.” You can not by preaching prick a heart of stone, and such is the sinner’s heart. But the heart must be mellowed by a touch of God’s power, and then and not till then, can a gospel impression be made. It is said that God gave Saul “another heart,” and that he was “turned into another man.” 1 Samuel 10.

Job said, “God maketh my heart soft, and the Almighty troubleth me,” Job 23:16. God said by way of promise, “I will take the stony heart out of their flesh and will give them an heart of flesh: that they may walk in my statutes and keep mine ordinances and do them.” Ezek. 11:19. This was demonstrated on Pentecost as on other occasions.

Our friends say that the sinner must keep the com-mandments and ordinances in order to get the new heart, but God says He gives the new heart that they may do them. The very fact that Peter’s preaching reached the hearts of some, was proof they had a God-given heart in regeneration, a heart of flesh: and predicated his command to repent upon that fact. Remember that the Epistles of Christ as ministered by, the Apostles were “not upon tables of stone, but upon the fleshly tables of the heart.” 2 Cor. 3:3. So the repentance of Acts 2:38 was not to prepare but to make ready those God had prepared to live in the church.

Paul while at Athens beheld the city given to idolatry; he saw people worshiping at a human shrine, bowing to the workmanship of their own hands. In the face of all this Paul stated that they were worshiping God but ignorantly. God had given them a heart of worship and now gives them the truth by the mouth of Paul, telling them both how He is, and is not worshiped to divine acceptance. This is the beauty of the gospel, it tells the anxious ones just how to serve God. In this connection, comes that wonderfully emphasized text! “And the times of this ignorance God winked at but now commanded all men everywhere to repent.” Acts 1:7.

We know that the repentance of this text relates to form of worship on the part of God’s people, with no allusion to dead sinners or those who are not exercised by the Spirit of worship. The gospel appeals to every ignorant worshiper to repent. That is all that any man can legitimately draw from the proposition. Remember that every time that evangelical repentance is required it is at the hands of a child of God. No matter what his deviation may be he needs to repent. The child of God out of the church needs to repent and be baptized and live with God’s people, and then to repent of every subsequent sin of his life.

CHAPTER VII

Confession

The subject of confession needs but little comment to prove all that we claim for it and to disprove the claims of our friends.

To confess a thing, in its primary meaning, is to acknowledge that thing as your own. To confess Christ, then, is to acknowledge Christ as yours.

Before one can truly confess Christ they must possess him. If they have Christ they have life. “He that hath the Son of God hath life.” Therefore it can not be an alien sinner that confesses Christ, unless the alien sinner has life. We all agree that the alien is without Christ, but our friends say they must confess Him (acknowledge him as their own) In order to be saved. Therefore the sinner must confess a falsehood in to their salvation!! Confessing an untruth will never make it a truth. We read, “Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I also confess before my Father which is in heaven,”Matt. 10:32.

Our friends say that it is the alien sinner that confesses Christ. If so, it follows that Christ confesses alien sinners before the Father in heaven. That proves too much. We must accept Christ and to do that, sounds a death knell to Campbellism. It is the Lord’s people that confess Christ, and it is also such that Christ confesses before his Father in heaven.

Syllogisms

1

1. One can not confess Christ without first believing that he is Christ.

2. Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, 1 John 5:1.

3. Therefore, it is those who are born of God and not alien sinners that confess Christ.

2

1. In order for one to confess Christ he must first know Christ.

2. Alien sinners do not know Christ.

3. Therefore, alien sinner do not confess Christ.

3

1. Only those who dwell in God confess Christ, 1 John 4:15.

2. Alien sinners do not dwell in Christ, 2 Cor. 5:17.

3. Therefore alien sinners do not confess Christ.

4

1. Only those that have the Father acknowledge the Son, 1 John 2:23.

2. Alien sinners do not have the Father.

3. Therefore alien sinners do not acknowledge (confess) the Son.

5

1. Only those who are of God confess that Jesus Christ came in the flesh, 1 John 4:2.

2. Alien sinners do not confess that Jesus came in the flesh.

3. Therefore alien sinners do not confess that Jesus Christ came in the flesh.

John declares that “Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him and he in God, 1 John 4:15.

If the above is true, and it also be true that alien sinners confess, would it not follow that alien sinners dwell in God and God in them? That is the ridiculous conclusion into which the wave of Campbellism lands you.

The fact that those who confess Christ are children of God is too plain to admit of any tedious or lengthy argument. The duty or obligation to confess Christ is beyond question confined to those who are the happy recipients of his salvation. So until they find just one text or example where a sinner was ever authorized or commanded to confess Christ in order to salvation, their claims for confession crumble and are driven to utter defeat.

We now close this chapter which brings us to a consideration of baptism. This is their all-important theme, the darling of their theology, the culminating point in salvation. Yea, it is the acme of all virtue in the salvation of sinners.

Chapter 8

Baptism

Let us remember the issue between our friends and myself does not involve all the elements constituting scriptural baptism. We agree as to what the elements are, but differ as to what constitutes some of those elements.

Baptism, if scriptural, requires:

1. A proper subject.

2. A proper administrator.

3. A proper mode.

4. A proper design.

Upon the 3^rd item we all perfectly agree that immersion or burial of the subject is the only mode, hence no issue there, and for that reason we will eliminate that item from the discussion.

On the second item we agree that the administrator must be a member of the church of Jesus Christ, but differ as to where the church is. These people are more consistent on that point than some others who claim to be the church, and at the same time receive baptism at the hands of other orders. But, if I were to go to my friend and say, while I was baptized by Elder J.G. Webb, a Baptist preacher, yet I had remission of sins in view of the act, they would overwhelmingly take me in. That shows, after all, their boast of administratorship, that they attach no importance to that, further than it is associated with design upon the part of the candidate. They care nothing really for any item only the design, which they say is to save the lost.

The first and fourth items bring war when mentioned.

There we can find the real vital difference.

I^s‘. A proper subject.

Now we will agree just as far as we can. We agree that it is a believer who has repented of his sins, and confessed Christ before men; but we very materially differ as to the condition of a penitent believer. I claim that all such are born again, but our friends contend that all such in an unbaptized state are alien sinners, and must be born again.

There is the issue. Now to prove that the believer is in a saved state, we refer you to a list of proofs in our treatise on faith. 1 John 5:24; Act 13:39; John 3:18. These texts show in the order given that a believer is “born of God,” “has everlasting life,” “justified from all things,” and “not condemned.” We, in those quotations, have the believer (whom we both agree is a proper subject) described; but the description, by no means, favors Campbellism. If a believer is “justified from all things,” baptism can not be a means of justification. If a person is “born of God,” baptism, a subsequent act can not be a means of the birth.

No man on earth can admit that faith in Christ is a qualification for baptism and make any start to prove water baptismal regeneration. The limb breaks behind him and lets him down, and that very abruptly.

Water baptism had its beginning with the ministry of John the Baptist. By a brief review of his ministry we might find some fact that would break some light upon the question as to who is a proper subject for baptism.

But before we do that we wish to deny, or rather subvert that old Campbellite dogma, or phantom— that John’s baptism was not gospel baptism. To deny the validity of John’s baptism is to surrender the claim of having this solemn example in the person of Jesus, for he was baptized by John. If Christ was baptized by John, for us to follow him must we not be baptized with the same baptism that he was? If John’s ministry was under the law, before the gospel, and Christ was baptized under the law, could we who are under the gospel, and baptized by church authority be consistent in claiming Christian baptism? i.e. we must be baptized like Christ was baptized. John’s ministry, was not under the law, for he preached saying, “Repent.” He did not say repent after awhile, but repent now, present tense. “Repent for the Kingdom is at hand.” He came to make people ready and readiness consisted in repentance turning from the law and its ceremonies, for the “Kingdom is at hand.” Do you suppose John could have material ready for Christ by encouraging them in the law? That is too absurd to deserve more than a passing notice. “The law and the prophets were until John; since that time the Kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it,” Luke 16:16.

Notice the “law and prophets were until John.” The law did not embrace John, but was until John. John came to condemn the law service, and to introduce the Christian service “since that time the Kingdom is preached.” Since what time? Since “until John,” not since the close of John’s ministry, but since its commencement. Things which are equal to the same thing are equal to each other. If Christ was baptized under the law and our friends are baptized under the gospel, it is conclusive proof that they have not Christian baptism; or if Christ was baptized under the law and they are baptized like Christ, they are baptized under the law and they, therefore, have not gospel baptism.

Their own contentions declare them destitute of Christian baptism. But if Christ was baptized under the gospel (which he was), and we are baptized like Christ, then we both have Christian and gospel baptism. The very introduction of his administration shows to any fair minded person that he was not under the direction of the law, for under the law, its blessings flowed to its subjects, primarily as the lineage of Abraham. Being the seed of Abraham entitled them to all the blessings of the law when honored by them. But when the Pharisees; who, no doubt, like Campbellites, thought John was an officer of the law, and went to John demanding baptism, and basing that demand upon their lineage to Abraham, he renounced them as a”generation of vipers,” saying, “who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Bring forth, therefore, fruits meet for repentance; and think not to say within yourselves, we have Abraham to our father; for I say unto you that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.”

John here shows conclusively that he positively disclaims any connection with the law, as a guide in his ministry, for he eliminates in his demands the very basis of the law, which was inheritance by natural descent; and preaches the miraculous power of God in preparing material for the ordinances of his ministry to his reference to God’s ability to convert stones into children of Abraham. To be an heir under the law, was to be the literal seed of Abraham, but now under the gospel and reign of grace, “If ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed and heirs according to the promise.” Just as those under the law had to be the children of Abraham to share of the law, so it is under the gospel, that one must be Christ’s to share with the “saints in light.” As the observing of ordinances and ceremonies under the law did not produce a child of Abraham, so it is that, under the gospel the observing of ordinances and ceremonies does not produce a child of God.

But we are so often referred to Acts 19 to prove that John’s baptism was repudiated. But when we turn and read we find no such intimation. We do find some people who, no doubt, had been baptized by a man (Apollos) who, like the Campbellites knew only the baptism of John i.e. knew nothing but water baptism. He, like some of our friends, was “mighty in the scriptures” (the letter of them with no scriptural understanding of them). Acts 18:25.

This man was at Ephesus just before Paul, teaching water baptism only. Acts 18:24,25.

When Aquilla and Priscilla heard him they expounded unto him the way of the Lord more perfectly, and he departed into Achaia. Acts 18:26,27.

Paul came to Ephesus, where Apollos had been, and found certain disciples, Acts 19:1.

Who could doubt for a moment that these were Apollos’ disciples? Such circumstantial evidence pointing to a crime would convict any man in our courts of justice.

Remember now that these people had only been taught the baptism of John, as a consequence, when Paul asked if they had received the Holy Ghost, the answer was, “We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.” That was a new word to them. They had heard nothing under that name.

Well, says one, that proves they had never been baptized by the Holy Ghost or they would know something about it. They did not know it by name, but did know it in its effect. Just as well say that a heathen that never heard the word electricity, when suddenly brought in contact with the battery and thoroughly shocked, if he could not name the power that shocked him, that it would not be proof he was not shocked. Do you suppose that if that man never heard of electricity, and someone were to ask him if he was ever electrified that he could honestly and intelligently answer yes? Certainly he would not be like the untaught disciples at Ephesus, they would not as much as know whether there be any electricity. But would that prove they were never shocked.

Those people were children of God and needed to be taught and baptized by one properly authorized. One who knew something of Holy Ghost baptism as well as John’s baptism. Paul told them that “John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people that they should believe on him that should come after him, that is, on Christ.” In regard to the one that should come after him, John had before said that, “He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire,” Matt. 3:11.

Where is the proof that in the baptizing of these people that Apollos had baptized that John’s baptism was repudiated? They were not baptized again because they were baptized upon John’s baptism, but because they were not baptized in the name of the Holy Ghost.

We will now return and further demonstrate that John baptized only those who were born again. If he had been a Campbellite preacher, instead of renouncing these Pharisaic vipers, he would have said, “Come on boys, and let me baptize you and all the viper disposition or nature will be gone.” But John says, “Bring forth fruits meet for repentance.” Prove to me that God has prepared you for this solemn duty, for I have come to “make ready a people prepared for the Lord.” God never sent his ministry into the world to doctor snakes, but to feed the sheep. But our friends have the science of snakeology down so perfectly they by their skillful treatment, can convert a snake into a sheep.

When John shrank at the thought of baptizing the Savior, Jesus said unto him, “Suffer to be so now, for thus it becometh us to fulfill all righteousness,” Matt. 3:15.

I introduce this to prove that baptism is an act of righteousness. “Little children, let no man deceive you; he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous,” 1 John 3:7.

Our friends declare that the unrighteous (sinner) must do righteousness (be baptized) in order to become righteous. Those who believe their teaching on this are deceived, says John, and he commands us, “Let no man deceive you.”

If, as the Savior says, baptism is a righteous act; and as John says, those who do righteousness are righteous, it follows conclusively that only the righteous are to be baptized. If it is the righteous who are to be baptized, baptism makes no one righteous and Campbellism falls.

Read 1 John 2:29. “If ye know that he is righteous, ye know that every one that doeth righteousness is born of him.”

Question, is God righteous? If yes, the text says just as true is it that those who do righteousness are born of him. If that is true, just that certain is Campbellism false. If Campbellism is true, God is unrighteous according to the text; but if God is righteous, Campbellism is false. Which, friendly reader, do you prefer to believe?

If, as the Savior says, baptism is a righteous act, and those who do righteousness are born of God, it follows that only those who are born of God should be baptized. If only those who are born of God are subjects for baptism, it forever paralyzes the idea that alien sinners are baptized in order to be born of God.

But I have had them try to evade the force of the Savior’s expression by saying that the righteousness fulfilled in baptism was only on the part of the administrator; but the Savior said, “It becometh us to fulfill all righteousness.”

It becometh you and me, both of us. John was the administrator and Jesus was the subject, and the subject said to the administrator, “It becometh us.” But this is only a demonstration that a drowning man will grab at a straw. Unrestrained, these people would trample the simplest English to carry a point.

Here are some statements, in his own hand writing, from C.D. Nichols in debate with me last August.

Do you baptize a child of God, or a child of the devil? Ans. Child of the devil.

Isn’t that enough to make angels blush, and to make humble children of grace hang their heads in disgust?

Who did John baptize? Did our great Head and Exampler give a pattern for devils to follow? Does he say to devils, follow me? Or does he say, “Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of our father ye will do?” John 8:44.

Does that ally the Savior very closely to Campbellism?

Nay, but it puts his living veto to the infidelity. My brethren reprove me sometimes for my severity on the heathenish dogma, but I expect to slay the beast, whenever it gets in my path as long as God gives me life and strength to do so. Some good people are ensnared by it. I love them, but abominate the web they are in.

Not only their ridiculous positions render it odious, but their ridiculous contradictions render it so.

“Child of devil is servant of devil. Is not child of devil for he has quit serving him.”

There is what Charley said about it. Coleman said the opposite, and they are representatives of the same people, both debating and defending the same crowd over here in Texas. Now they must not say that Paine has lied on them, for you know that Paine would be, under those circumstances, as amenable to the libel laws of Texas as any other man; and you know if these people had any strings to pull, they would pull them. We have documentary proof of everything we shall lay to their charge.

Now, if Elder J.S. Newman, my brother and yokefellow in the ministry, were to write on paper in debate with one of our friends, that he baptized children of God, and I were to claim the opposite, to baptize children of the devil, there would be a cleaning up in camps and ought to be.

Every text they undertake to use on baptism proves too much for them. Take, for instance, the language of Ananias to Paul, “Why tarriest thou? Arise and be baptized and wash away your sins.”

It is impossible to believe that command without believing that baptizes away sins, and that Paul was to wash them away by his own act— baptism. But if washing there is regeneration, then Paul regenerated himself, for it was he that was to wash away his sins.

But they squeal at that, saying, we don’t believe that the sinner saves himself. Then, you don’t need that text, for it was Paul that was to wash himself with his own act.

We get a similar example in 1 Peter 3:2 1. “The like figure where unto even baptism doth also now save us.” They use this to prove that baptism is a condition in order to salvation, but the text says, “baptism saves.” But you will notice that Elders Bentley and Nichols both declared that baptism is not the cause of salvation, yet they say one can not be saved without baptism. The truth or Bible on the subject is that baptism “Saves.” Acts 3:21.

Baptism is an act of ours, and hence it can appropriately be said, as on Pentecost, “Save yourselves from this untoward generation.” But if baptism is a figure, as Peter says it is, and baptism saves, it follows that the salvation is figurative. If it is figurative, it suggests or points to, or represents the real. So if one is in possession of the real, he can and ought to indicate it by a figure. To prove my position, Peter says, “not the putting away the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God.” Baptism, then, is the answer or expression of a good conscience. Then, the conscience is good before baptism.

The blood of Christ makes the conscience good, Heb. 9:14. Therefore the blood of Christ, which really saves is applied before and prepares one for baptism. That is the Bible and, therefore, the truth of the matter and Campbellism falls as a struggling victim.

Those who have the experience of Paul, Cornelius, the jailer, and the Pentecostians, we say to all such be baptized and wash away your sins (figuratively); baptism “saves,” baptism “remits sins.” But we never say that baptism gives life, or that it regenerates.

I will now close by giving a quotation from A. Campbell. I believe they all take him as authority. “The Christian System” page 207, you find the following, “Being born imparts no new life; but is simply a change of state, and introduces into a new mode of living.” Now we have the boys bottled, both with A. Campbell and the Bible. Campbell declares that the birth occurs at baptism, “born of water,” and that the birth only “introduces into a new mode of living.” Again on page 201, he says, “A child is alive before he is born, and the act of being born only changes its state, not its life.” Now if in the plan of salvation one is born at baptism, and the child is alive before born, then it follows that the sinner is alive before baptism. If the sinner is alive before baptism, our contention in full is proven, unless as Coleman D. Nichols said, those who are begotten may never be born.

Now, we dismiss the subject of baptism for another topic.

Chapter 9

The Gospel

Our friends with their conditional system are consistent in contending that the gospel is indispensable in salvation of sinners, for if faith is the condition, and as they contend that there is no faith without the gospel, they must, to be consistent, maintain that the gospel is the necessary means. Mind you, they must not only hear the gospel, but obey it also. They also claim that none obey the gospel, only those who obey their teaching.

The gospel, like baptism, saves but does not regenerate. It saves the living, and not the dead.

“The gospel is the power of God unto salvation to ever one that believeth,” Rom. 1:16.

We agree that the gospel saves a believer. We have proven repeatedly the condition of a believer, that he is “born again,” “has everlasting life,” not “condemned,” “justified.”

But our friends say that the gospel is the means God uses in quickening the dead sinner.

Well, that puts salvation on a very narrow basis. It does not promise salvation on what Jesus does, but on what the disciples of Alexander Campbell do. It also promises damnation on what they fail to do; for if they fail to preach, the people, of course, fail to obey. If they fail to obey, they are gone, world without end, regardless of what Jesus may have done for them. Talk about a selfish narrow-contracted theory! We certainly have it in the superlative degree in the above. That’s considerably narrower than election, and grace could possibly be; for grace will save in every nation, kindred, tongue, and people.

The promise of election is that “all families of the earth shall be blessed.” Campbellism is, that all families have a chance provided we preach to them. Their system gives a chance to the very few that they preach to. The Bible system makes salvation sure to all the seed, to all to whom salvation was promised, whom God declares are as innumerable as the “sand of the sea” or as the “stars of heaven.”

On the gospel, they miss the mark just as they do on everything else, mistake God’s purpose or design in it.

By examining the question and answers you will observe that their position is that the gospel begets or quickens the sinner, and that baptism borns them.

“Thy word hath quickened me.” Ps. 119:50. This, they claim refers to David while a sinner and that the word was the gospel. David said “thy word” not the “preachers words”— God’s “words,” Jesus says: “The dead shall the voice of the son of God and live.”; There is the word that quickened David and every other one quickened from Abel to the present. Jesus says: “The words I speak unto you they are spirit and life.” John 6:63. When Jesus speaks the sinner lives. When Jesus asked the twelve if they would also go away Peter answered and said: “Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life.” John 6:68.

Jesus said to the Jews “Search the scriptures for in them ye think ye have eternal life, and they are they that testify of me.”

The Jews thought that eternal life was in the scripture (written word); but they like our friends thought wrong. Eternal life is in Jesus, and “God gives eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” Rom. 6:23.

Suppose the gospel does quicken, and it was preached to a sinner and he quickened by it, yet refused to be baptized, would that sinner ever be born? Elder Nichols says no; but others with whom I have conversed say it would be a case of abortion. What awful straits they are thrown into. It may be that some of their divines can give a more respectable hue to this awful picture. If so the quicker done, the quicker an awful horror will be removed from the minds of many.

Just as they give their doctrine to me, I reduce it into rhyme, and give it to you:

1

With a mighty fuss, they say, by us,

The sinner is begotten,

But all in vain the birth to gain.

If by us forgotten.

2

But, if again we go, to the “Embrio,”

And it will gladly greet us.

We’ll do more than we did before,

And it will be a “fetus.”

3

If the preacher will come again as teacher,

And the ‘fetus’ will obey with caution,

There will be on earth, another lively birth,

But otherwise-Abortion.

Does the above exaggerate the theory? Dear reader, do you believe it? Is it not human from center to circumference? Begotten by the preacher, born by the preacher of the water! Look at it. Who could have the hardihood to denominate that subject a child of God? Is God its father and “Jerusalem above which is free” its mother? “Call no man on earth father, for one is your Father, even God.”

If I believed that doctrine I would, like an obedient child, imitate mother, have my priests and bow to them saying “father.”

Preaching is teaching, and in order for one to be taught they must of necessity have life and a mind peculiar to that life. That is true in nature and is equally true in the spirit. Teaching does not give life, but cultivates and contributes much to the life already possessed. The natural mind is susceptible of being taught natural things, but cannot know the things of the spirit. “The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God for they are foolishness unto him; neither can he know them, for they are spiritually discerned.” 1 Cor. 2:14.

The sinner is evidently the natural man referred to, and preaching the gospel is certainly a thing of the Spirit. If so, then it follows that the gospel is foolishness unto them, and they cannot receive it. That truth is recorded in the preceding chapter, 1 Cor. 1:23. “We preach Christ crucified unto the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness; but unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.” This proves conclusively two things.

First, the gospel is foolishness to the uncalled; second, the gospel did not call them. Verse 18 of the same chapter says: “The preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.” God saves and calls the sinner “according to His own purpose and grace which was given us in Christ before the world began.” 2 Tim. 1:9.

Then the gospel is the power of God unto them. It takes that saving and calling by grace to enable one to believe the gospel and to be saved in a practical way by it. Paul, in speaking of the gospel to the church (children of God at Corinth), says: “By which also are ye saved if you keep in memory what I preached unto you unless you have believed in vain.” 1 Cor. 15:2.

We should not become confused, over the term “salvation,” and mistake the gospel salvation of God’s people for the salvation (regeneration) of the sinner. The sower in the parable unquestionably represents the true minister. He sows the seed broadcast, but the sowing never did prepare the stony ground. The ground represents the hearts of the people. The position of our friend is that the gospel, which is the seed, prepares the hearts, which is the ground. Jesus in speaking to the ungodly said: “ye seek to kill me because my word hath no place in you.” Again he says: “Why do you not understand my speech? Even because ye can not hear my words.” John 8:43.

Why do they not hear His words? Let him answer: “They that are of God heareth God’s word; ye therefore hear them not because ye are not of God.” Our friends say that one must hear and obey, in order to be of God, but the Bible (Jesus) .declares, they must be of God in order to hear.”

Now, of course, there is a practical or gospel coming that follows. That was done when Ananias preached to him. But remember Ananias did not teach Paul to know God, for he said to Paul: “The Lord, even Jesus that appeared unto thee in the way hath sent me that thou mightest receive thy sight.” Paul already knew Jesus, whom to know is life eternal.” John 17:3.

Then the gospel does not give life but “brings life and immortality to light,’ 1 Tim. 2:10.

The gospel in its effect is compared to the rain, “My doctrine shall drop as the rain, my speech shall distill as the dew, as the small rain upon the tender herb and showers on the grass.” Deut. 32:2.

The gospel is to affect the people as the rain effects the grass. If our friends will demonstrate that the rain gives life to vegetation then we will concede that an argument is made in proof that the gospel gives life to sinners. The rain does administer to the living vegetation, by way of feeding or nourishing it and brings the life more vividly to light but to the dead vegetation, the effect is quite different. So it is with the gospel. While the gospel shower is falling, you can see a marked difference in the effect on different people. Some will melt in tears of rejoicing while others will mock. Some will say “men and brethren what must we do?” while others will mock and say, “These are full of new wine.”

The gospel did not make the difference in the material, but only brings to light the difference already existing. I once heard a brother make a beautiful illustration of this, he said: “Take two toys, one of wax; and the other of earth; shape and color them just alike, until the natural eye could discern no difference; then place them near each other with a torch of fire between them, and you will soon see the difference in the effect produced by the same cause. The wax will soften while the earthen one will harden; and hence different effects. Fire only proved the difference. So the gospel does not make a saint or sinner, but manifests them. It is a “savor of life unto life and death unto death.”

Glorious gospel! While it does not rob Jesus of the glory in the salvation of sinners but does contribute glory to Him in ascribing all honor to his matchless name. While it does not give life to sinners, yet it does “feed the sheep,” and brings “life to light,” “perfect the saints,” “edifies the body of Christ” brings them to the “unity of the faith”, “strengthens the weak”, “comforts the mourner,” “saves the believer,” yea, it serves as a faithful index hand, pointing us on to the final day.

The glorious gospel is so adapted to the struggling, fearful ones, it says to the mourner, “you shall be comforted;” to the weary and heavy laden, “come to Jesus for rest;” to those who feel cast down and forsaken, Jesus loves you and has borne all your grief and will never forsake you. It tells us all about Jesus, how he loved us and gave himself for us, and how he now reigns to intercede for us until he comes to take us unto himself.

To those who have a heart open by God’s power and love, as Lydia of old; rejoice in these things; to them it is “glad tidings;” but to those in sin it is an idle tale and repulsive to their very nature. Dear reader, if you love the gospel and feast on its fruits, heaven will be your home for your love of the truth is proof of a change of heart, and if your heart is changed, God’s grace wrought the change.

I love the glorious theme of grace, for it embraces all who love the Lord; all that are of a fearful heart or a contrite spirit. Yea it will save all in heaven that solemnly think upon His name. “And a book of remembrance was written before Him for them that feared the Lord, and that thought upon His name, and they shall be mine, saith the Lord of hosts in that day when I make up my jewels; and I will spare them as a man spareth his own son that serveth him.” Mal. 3:16, 17.

But on the other hand this ridiculous heresy which we have been exposing speaks in thunder tones, utter condemnation to every one of the earth that does not think and go their way. It needs only to be stated or rejected.

Friendly readers, let me turn from this humanism and speak to you of Jesus. Jesus was the promised seed, the seed of the woman that was to “bruise the serpent’s head.” Gen.3:15. He it was that was promised in the language ‘Behold the Lord God shall come with a strong hand,. His arm shall rule for Him, His reward is with Him and his work) before Him.” Isaiah 40.

In this we see a wonderful provision, a mighty Saviour, clothed with authority and power, and His work (salvation of sinners) is before Him. In the purpose of God, all was as certain as after it occurred. The Prophet asserts this when he says: “Unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given, and the government shall be upon His shoulder; and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace,” Isa. 9:6.

Again, the prophet saw him in His holy attire and character when he says: “Who is this that cometh from Edom with dyed garments from Bozrah? this that is glorious in His apparel, traveling in the greatness of His strength, I that speak in righteousness mighty to save.” Isa. 63:1.

Friendly reader, will this Jesus fail, all because Campbellite preachers will not help or that sinners won’t let Him? Will the “work before Him” fail for the want of aid or permission? Or will “He do His will in the army of heaven and on earth none can stay His hand?” This is the wonderful Saviour of whom the angel spoke when He said, “Fear not for thou shalt bear a son, and thou shalt call His name Jesus for He shall save His people from their sins.”

Remember that His “work was before Him” and that was to “save His people from their sins.” The prophet declares that “He is a rock and His work is perfect.” Again, “He shall not fail nor be discouraged, until judgment is set in the earth and the isles shall wait for His law.”

Paul declares, “Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners.” If He came to save sinners and He “shall not fail” it follows that all he came to save will be saved. The reason why there is no failure is because the whole affair rests upon the faithfulness of the Trinity and nothing depending upon an arm of flesh.

Christ was born according to promise, an all sufficient Saviour. The Shepherds received the message from heaven at His birth “Unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, Christ the Lord.” Luke 2:11. “And this shall be a sign unto you: Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes and lying in a manager. vs. 11.

Though he was a “babe” yet He was the “Saviour, Christ the Lord.” How wonderful, and how greatly to be admired is the promised Messiah as He was given to us! He was God and yet as perfectly man. Why is this? While it is beyond our power to fully analyze the Holy One, we can only say, “Where reason fails let faith adore.” Yet we can understand why he was manifest in the flesh. This must be in order for Him to be adapted as mediator between God and man.

It is God and man at variance. God is a Spirit, man is flesh, and Jesus is both, and therefore complete within Himself as mediator. If He is complete as mediator, He needs not any human aid to reconcile men to God. For one to insist that any human agency other than the humanity of Jesus is employed in redemption is to deny that Jesus came in the flesh.

“According to the word of Heaven, The child is born, the son is given, And in a manger lies, He sleeps as other infants sleep, And weeps as other infants weep Though Lord of earth and skies.

“The Godhead is not laid aside, The manhood is not defied In Him they both combine; Flesh of our flesh, bone of our bone, He’s David’s Lord and David’s son, Both human and divine.

“In vain may human reason try, To comprehend the mystery, Of God and man in one; The eye of faith alone can see The glory and the mystery Of Mary’s infant Son.”

The eye of faith pierces into the inexplainable, yet glorious, character of our Lord, and enables us to rejoice in Him as the “Only name under heaven, among men, whereby we must be saved.”

The babe grows in years and at the age of 12 years is found in the temple confounding the wise with strong reason and hard questions. When He was reproved by His parents for lingering he replied, “Wist ye not that I must be about my Father’s business.” His history now becomes very obscure until he is found on the bank of Jordan demanding baptism at the hands of John his harbinger.

This, it seems, was a solemn separation and consecration of himself to the work that lay before Him.

He was, baptized, and went his way teaching his own precious gospel, doing good, working miracles, and thus demonstrating that he was the “very Christ.” He was reviled, yet he reviled not again. He was “rejected of men,” “a man of sorrow and acquainted with grief.” Yet there were always a few that clung to Him, loved Him, and delighted in following Him. So it is till this good day. Only a few are contented with the sure mercies of David, coming through the exalted Jesus.

The multitudes have ever been against Him and His humble followers. While his followers were few they were devoted; they looked to Him for all blessings and not to man. They believed He was the Saviour and was able to keep them.

To show the weakness of man, we have only to refer you to the fact that even his disciples forsook Him in the death agony, notwithstanding Peter had declared he would go with Him even unto death.

Finally the hour comes; Jesus is betrayed and falls into the hands of murderers, tried, condemned and crucified. See Him, dear reader, in the judgment hall, innocent, harmless, and undefiled! Listen to His wicked conspirators as they maliciously swear falsely against Him. Apparently He is without a friend or a witness or an attorney. He must bow to their mandates. The picture is dark indeed and if there was no help higher than man indeed it would be. But the scene grows darker. They place upon Him a purple robe, and upon His innocent head a crown of thorns, they lead Him to Calvary, they strip Him, and nail His hands and feet to the rugged wood. They make bare His innocent breast and pierce His side.

See the lovely Saviour as He hangs upon the cross, the blood flowing from His wounded side. His life ebbing out until He says “I thirst.” Oh is there no heart to pity? No hand to lovingly administer? His disciples are fled, He is left alone. “He trod the wine press alone.”

Instead of water, a sponge of vinegar is pressed to His dying lips by a fiendish hand. God withdraws His divine protection and our Saviour dies. This picture is sad, but it is glorious to feel in one’s poor heart that He died for me.

The sun ceased to shine, and darkness prevailed, the earth rocked, the veil of the temple was rent from top to bottom.

Dear reader, do you believe that such a death could be for a sinner, and that sinner robbed of its benefits all because some Campbellite preacher fails to reach him and convert him to his selfish creed? Nay, but “He suffered the just for the unjust that He might bring us to God.” It is Christ’s suffering that brings, by redemption, the sinner to God.

Something was accomplished by the death of Jesus. If so what ever that something was is not left to be accomplished by the Campbellite or any other fraternity. Let’s see if we can find what that something was.

“He appeared once m the end of the world to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself.” If Christ put away sin by the “sacrifice of Himself’ it follows that the sin He put away is not yet left to be put away by baptism. If Christ put your sin away by his death, then you could not be lost because of your refusal to be baptized unless you are lost with your sin put away.

Again, “If when we were enemies we were reconciled by his death, much more being reconciled, we shall be saved by His life. Rom. 5:10.

If His death reconciled us to God it follows that baptism, or any other act of ours, does not reconcile us to God.

Again, “Who His own self bore our sins in His own body on the tree,” 1 Pet. 2:24. If Jesus bore our sins in His own body on the tree, must we bear them in hell because we refuse to suffer a Campbellite preacher to baptize us?

Here is what the Bible declares that Jesus accomplished in His death, viz: “Redeemed us from all iniquity.”

“Reconciled us to God.” Rom. 5:10. “Put away our sins.” Heb. “Bore our sins in His own body.” 1 Pet. 2:24.

“Redeemed us to God.” Rev. “Justified by His blood.” Rom. 5. “Perfected forever them that are sanctified.” Heb. 10.

If Jesus did all of this for sinners, the question remains unanswered “Who can lay anything to the charge of God’s elect? It is God that justifieth, yea it is Christ that died.” etc. Christ did not only die but is risen again, and “because He lives we shall also live with Him in glory.”

Yes, “much more being reconciled we shall be saved by His life.” Jesus lives and reigns today to save all that He redeemed. Paul declares: He must reign until all enemies are put under His feet.” No enemy can prevail in the capturing of a single one of His redeemed people. He is “The Lion of the Tribe of Judea.” The Shepherd of the Sheep. He “gives unto them eternal life and they shall never perish.” Grace reigns unto eternal life by Jesus Christ.” “He has power over all flesh that He should give eternal life to as many as the Father hath given Him.” 0 precious Redeemer, blessed Saviour. He has saved me from a state of ruin, he has filled my heart with love to Him and His dear people. He gently and prevailingly leads me along life’s rugged pathway. He makes the rough places smooth and crooked places straight. He exalts the valley and makes the rugged mountain low.

When I pass through the fire and water I am not destroyed. When I am low down in despondency and trouble, I have only to make my requests known unto Jesus. When I am heavy laden with care and crushed down with the load, I have only to cast my cares upon Him and realize that He cares for me. When I am racked with pain or scorching with fever, his precious spirit whispers consolation to me, sweetly resigning me to all my trouble, “If we suffer with Him we shall also reign with Him.” All my sufferings are nothing to compare with the Saviour’s agonies here on earth.”

I am trusting in Him to go with me even unto death. I am sure, if I am what I profess to be, He will never forsake me, but continue His loving benefits until He shall have conducted me home to glory.

Dear reader, if Jesus is not my all I have no hope, I have no Saviour. “I commend you to Him and to the word of His grace.” He is your lawgiver and you shall obey Him. If a tender lamb should chance to read this that loves Jesus and His flock, my admonition is, “Come home to your friends.” Prove your love for your King by living in sweet obedience to his commands and loving fellowship with His people. This will bring joy to you through life and a sweet comfort in death.

CHAPTER 10

Objections in General

Our friends claim that infants are pure, born in the family of God, and as proof refer us to Acts 17:29. But they declare that the devil gets the last one of them at the line of accountability. The devil, captures all, so that none live to maturity without becoming sinners.

Now we want our friends to tell us how the devil manages to get them. Take the heathen for example. There neither God or the devil have preachers or Bibles. But the devil captures them all just the same. He must, therefore capture them by direct work or influence.

But the Lord cannot rescue a single one without a preacher or a Bible, and then fails on a vast majority with his ordained means. Think of God first possessing all, but unable to retain a single one, and also unable to rescue only those where preacher aide is accessible.

If that is true, I had much rather have the favor of the devil than the Lord, for of the two he is superior. The devil works directly and captures all, but the Lord can only rescue those having access to the means, and none have that access only as some Campbellite preacher carries it to them.

I don’t wonder at them believing in the possibility of apostasy, for if I had no higher conception of God I would be forced to believe in the certainty of apostasy. The devil must defeat God to capture His possession. If he does that, he certainly can hold what he captures, and for that reason none can finally be saved.

Again, if all are born pure and none can live to maturity without becoming a sinner, there is certainly, a cause for it, and for my life, I cannot get these people to assign the cause.

If they say the devil captures them, they ignore the power of God, and assert the superiority of the devil in power. If they say it is because of a disposition of the child to go astray, that’s depravity, and so they can’t tell why they all become sinners without springing a leak in their craft.

They cannot afford to say that the little fellow can be reared to maturity without sin, for that would be an adult saved without baptism, which they declare impossible.

Again, “Without faith it is impossible to please God.” Heb. 11:6. “All man have not faith.” 2 Thess. 3:2.

If none can please God without faith, and all men have not faith, it follows that all men cannot please God. If all men cannot please God it follows that such cannot be saved conditionally, in as much as the performance of these conditions must be pleasing to God.

Again, “faith” is a “fruit of the Spirit.” Gal. 5:22. If faith is a fruit of the Spirit, it follows that one must have the Spirit before faith, as the tree must exist before its fruit.

If one must have the Spirit before faith, and none can please God without faith, we want our friends to tell us what the sinner must do in order to get the Spirit? What the sinner might do to get the Spirit is without faith, seeing faith follows as a fruit. If that something is done without faith it is displeasing to God. Therefore according to the heresy, a man must displease God in order to get the faith and then please Him by faith in order to get salvation.

The sinner does not get the Spirit by faith, seeing “faith is a fruit of the Spirit” yet he must have the Spirit to produce the faith by which he may please God.

Will our friends tell us how the sinner gets the Spirit, and what the condition is of one who has the Spirit? Our friends say that sinners must hear in order to be saved. Jesus said to a certain class “ye cannot hear my words,” John 8:43. Then we have found a class that can not be saved according to their theology.

Those people, to whom Jesus spoke, were children of the devil. John 8:44. Our friends claim that the children of the devil are those who hear and obey them. Their preaching then is not in line with Christ for they could not hear His words.

Our friends say that sinners must hear in order to be saved. Our Saviour says “they cannot hear.” Therefore if our friends are right none can be saved.

Our friends claim that sinners must hear in order to know God, but John says they must know God in order to hear. 1 John 4:6.

Again, “We preach Christ crucified unto, the Jews a stumbling block, and unto the Greeks foolishness, but unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.” 1 Cor. 1:23.

From the above we see that Paul “preached Christ” and that his preaching unto the “uncalled Jew and Greek” was a “stumbling block and foolishness.” But the preaching of our friends (they say) is not foolishness and is not a stumbling block to the uncalled, but a means of calling sinners. They, therefore, do not preach Christ, for that was what Paul preached.

If the preaching or Christ crucified is foolishness unto the uncalled, and I preach something that is not foolishness unto them. does it follow that I failed to preach Christ?

Our friends claim that the natural man must hear, receive and obey all their teachings in order to be saved, Paul says: “The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit, for they foolishness unto him, neither can he know them for they are spiritually discerned.” 1 Cor. 2:1

If the natural man can not receive, know or discern the things of the Spirit; but does receive, know and discern the preaching of our friends does it not follow that their preaching is not a thing of the Spirit?

Also, if their preaching is a thing of the Spirit, and, sinners are saved by it, it follows that they are saved by something they can neither receive, know or discern. Again, if preaching is a thing of the Spirit, and the natural man (sinner) can neither receive, know or discern it, it follows that sinners can not be saved by it and Campbellism fails.

The third chapter of Romans fully describes the unregenerate, unsaved. Our friends say that the sinner must “understand” in order to be saved by the gospel. Paul says: “There is none that understandeth.” Then by the theory of our friends, none can be saved. Talk about a hard doctrine, that does not only rob a few of what they call a chance, but absolutely makes salvation impossible for any one.

1

1. Sinners must understand in order to be saved. Campbell)

2. “There are none that understandeth.” Bible

3 Therefore none can be saved.

2

1. Sinners must seek God in order to be saved. Campbell

2. “There is none that seek after God.” Bible

3. Therefore there will be none saved.

Our friends also say that sinners must o good in order to be saved. Paul declares: “There is none that doeth good, no not one.” Rom. 3:12. Then none will be saved according to their claims.

If salvation is conditional, performing the conditions would be doing good. But there is none (in a state of nature) that doeth good. Therefore, there is none, in a state of nature, that can perform conditions. If none can perform conditions then sinners can not be saved conditionally, and Campbellism is false.

Jesus says: “Without me ye can do nothing.” John 15. But our friends say that the sinner who is without Christ must do something in order to possess him. The one who possesses Christ possesses life, and the one who is without Christ is without life. 1 John 5:12.

If those who possess Christ possess life, and without Christ we can do nothing, it follows that without life we can do nothing. But, in the face of all this, Elder Bentley says that life does not precede action with sinners. But any man who advocates conditionalism in regeneration, must of necessity contend that action precedes life. This is a contention that is absurd and too weak for a sound mind to entertain.

Jesus says that “an evil tree cannot bear good fruit.” What we do is certainly our fruits. But the alien sinner is a corrupt or evil tree and cannot, therefore, bear good fruits. But our friends declare that the sinner is saved as a result of what they do and are, therefore saved as a result of bearing evil fruit. Campbellism declares that an evil tree must bear good fruit in order to be saved; but the Saviour declares that such is impossible, therefore, salvation is impossible by their theory.

Paul says: “They that are in the flesh cannot please God.” Rom. 8:8. Our friends say that sinners must please God in order to salvation. They, therefore deny that the sinner is in the flesh. Will they tell then who is in the flesh?

Those in whom the Spirit does not dwell are in the flesh. Rom. 8:9. The Spirit does not dwell in the sinner. Rom. 8:9-14.

Therefore the sinner is in the flesh. If the sinner is in the flesh he cannot please God, and cannot therefore be saved conditionally, unless God saves them for displeasing Him.

Our friends say that those in the flesh are saved for what they do. Paul says what they do is displeasing to God.

They are, therefore saved for displeasing God. If I was advocating a theory that could be twisted in so many shapes I would want to make an effort to reduce the elasticity.

The Bible declares that “the Lord redeemed Jacob from the hands of him, that was stronger than he.” Sinners are in the hands of the devil. The devil is stronger than they. The sinner cannot loose himself, for the devil is the stronger. He must be loosed either by the power and favor of God, or by the favor of the devil. Our friends deny that the sinner is loosed by the direct power of God; therefore it is by the grace of the devil. Rather improbable for one to depend upon.

The work of salvation has a beginning. The sinner cannot begin it, for the devil is stronger and of course would not permit it. Our friends deny that God begins it. Therefore it has no beginning according to their theory. But the Bible declares that “He which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ.” Phil. 1:6.

Remember, that He who begins the work performs it. God, of course, begins it, and therefore performs it.

Again, his work is begun within the sinner. Our friends begin on the outside. Their system cannot, therefore be God’s system. God prepares the heart by His Spirit’s power.

There are so many contradictions and hard-pressed absurdities in their answers as given and published in this book, that we cannot refer to them with comment for the world would not contain the book. But they are so glaring I give them to the reader that they may see their resorts in debate.

But one thing I must emphasize in Mr. C. R. Nichol’s answers. You, know Charley is considered a power among them and really is the most successful debater they have within my knowledge, and I have heard most of them in Texas.

You know, it is a particular tenet in their creed, that none receive eternal life until the world to come; but after two debates with Charley and pressing this heresy good and tight, he very cunningly and reluctantly surrenders the whole thing, and I suppose we have the honor of setting him right on that.

So, if we never do any more than that, we have one of their leading lights admitting that we receive eternal life in this world. See questions 30, 31, 32 and 33 as answered by C. R. Nichol.

I now give another list of questions submitted to Coleman D. Nichols at Chalk Mountain, Texas, together with his answers:

1. Does the Spirit quicken? Ans. Yes.

2. Does the Spirit prompt or lead one to obedience? A. Yes.

3. Is the operation of the Spirit confined to the gospel realm? A. Yes.

4. Does the Spirit use means in quickening or do the means use the Spirit? A. Spirit uses means.

5. Can a sinner be saved without the Spirit? A. No.

6. How are heathens saved? A. By the gospel.

7. Is it the spirit or the means that quickens? A. The Spirit quickens through means.

You will notice in question 1 he says the Spirit quickens, but in question 2 he says the Spirit operates only in the gospel realm; and in question 5 he says none can be saved without the Spirit; therefore none can be saved without the gospel. If none can be saved without the gospel, it follows that wholesale heathen damnation is true.

But in question 4 he says that the Spirit uses the means in the quickening of sinners. If the Spirit uses means, and means is the gospel and the means fail to reach the heathen, why does it fail? There can be but two reasons, God either does not want the means there or else He undertakes to get it there and the means will not go. The preacher has control of the means (gospel) in as much as he preaches it.

If, as they say, there is no salvation where there is no Spirit, and no gospel where there is no preacher, it follows that salvation and damnation are in the hands of the preacher. Salvation if he goes, and damnation if he stays: so the whole thing is controlled by him at his option. God looks with pity upon the heathen, but the gulf is too wide. The Holy Spirit grieves over their condition but cannot reach them. All they need is the gospel, but that stubborn obstinate preacher says “no.” God is a “weakling” and can’t. The preacher is obstinate and won’t. I see God in tears, Jesus Christ entreating, and the Holy Spirit beseeching, but that stubborn, selfish-hearted man says “no” and sinners are being dragged down to hell by the thousands every day because God can’t and the preacher won’t. Dear reader, does that remind you very forcibly of the text “For he is in one mind and who can turn Him? And whatsoever His soul desireth even that He doeth?” Does it remind you of the expression “I will do all my pleasure?” Or “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy?” Read God’s fiery condemnation of such. “Vain is the help of man.” “Cursed is the man that trusteth in man or maketh flesh his arm.” Nations are counted as “grasshoppers” as “nothing” yea “less than nothing.” How can it be that God’s people can be caught by such God-dishonoring pretentions?

We will now give the reader the benefit of some questions we recently presented to Elder D. D. Rose in debate with him, together with his answers.

Q. Of what did the blessing that Christ conferred upon infants consist? A. Recognition of their purity.

I contend that if the infant was infinitely holy or pure, that there was no room for a blessing. But Campbellism, when pressed, resolves a blessing into a recognition of purity. I always thought the blessing was that that purified.

Q. 2. Is it possible for an infant, which you claim is pure, to be reared to maturity without becoming a sinner? If not, why not? A. No.

You will notice he says “no” but fails to tell us why not. This, no man can do without admitting an inherent tendency or disposition to sin, which is depravity. We are yet waiting for our friends to explain.

Q. 3. Will the infant that dies in infancy have eternal life in heaven? A. Yes.

Q. 4. Does the infant possess eternal life in this world? A. No.

Now, we want our friends to tell us how the infant receives eternal life. Does it receive life by the performance of conditions? They say “no.” Then neither do adults, for Jesus says: “Verily I say unto you, whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall not enter therein.” Mark 10:15.

Q. 5. Is the sinner a natural man or a spiritual man? A. Neither.

The reader, of course, would like to know, then what the sinner is. Our friends say however, that the “natural man” 1 Cor. 2:14 is the uninspired man. Very well, Paul says the natural man can not receive, know or discern the things of the spirit. We have no inspired men now, hence there are none now who can receive or discern the things of the spirit according to the contention of our friends.

The Bible is a thing of the Spirit and was given by the inspiration of God. 1 Peter 1:21, “For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man; but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.” If the natural man is the uninspired man, and none are inspired, it follows that none can receive or discern the Bible seeing it is a thing of the Spirit.

Q. 6. In the new birth, is the sinner born again in his entirety? A. Yes.

Then he is absolutely holy in his entirety, and cannot sin. 1 John 3:9 “Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for His seed remaineth in him and he cannot sin because he is born of God.” This proves too much or our friends. It proves, first, that those who are born again are absolutely holy, and that they cannot sin. Our friends do not believe that they are holy, but do believe that those who are born again, may sin, apostatize and be finally lost.

Q. 7. Is the sinner in the flesh or in the Spirit? A. In the flesh.

We call your attention to Rom. 8:8 “So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.”

Our friends say the sinner is in the flesh, and that it is for what they do that God saves them. If, as Paul says, they cannot please God, and if they are saved for what they do, would it not be for displeasing God?

It is yet to be explained just how a dead man can exercise a living faith. When I asked Mr. Rose and others if an effect could be of a higher order than the cause producing it, they said No. But now they have a dead man exercising a living faith in order to life.

Q. 9. Do sinners believe with the heart? A. Yes.

Q. 10. Is faith from a pure or impure heart? A. Pure.

Our friends acknowledge that faith precedes baptism, and that faith is from a pure heart, therefore one has a pure heart before baptism. If a pure heart before baptism they have the promise of seeing God without baptism, see Matt. 5:8 “Blessed are the pure in heart for they shall see God.”

Q. 11. Is the sinner a corrupt tree? A. Yes.

Jesus says “A corrupt tree cannot bear good fruit.” What the sinner does is certainly his fruit and if he is a corrupt tree his fruit (what he does) would be corrupt. His salvation could not, therefore, depend upon what he does unless God saves him doing wrong or evil.

Q. 12. Do you baptize a child of God or a child of the devil? Sheep or goat? A. Neither.

If it is “neither” we would be glad for our friends to tell us what they do baptize.

You remember C. D. Nichols said “A child of the devil.” Coleman is more consistent of the two. It must be one of the other. There is no substitute or immediate space. If the penitent believer is “neither” and should die (which many do) what could be his destiny? He could not go to God for he does not belong to Him. He could not go to the devil for he does not belong to him. This is yet to be explained. They would have to join the millennial Dawnists in the second-chance-reign of Christ on earth, I suppose, and finish their obedience then.

These little matters all go to show that Campbellism is without a substantial basis. They don’t even understand each other.

CHAPTER 11

The Church

Our friends are not only wrong in doctrine but also in origin. On the church question, their claims are altogether unfounded. In fact they do not claim church succession for themselves and of course could not concede it to others. They deny that the Campbells were, the founders of the church but that they did restore what was lost during the dark ages, and to that extent recognize them (especially Alexander) as their originator. Well, the question naturally arises what was lost? The claim the church became extinct, and all that was preserved was the Bible or the “seed of the kingdom.” God preserved it and committed it, with special revelation of its teachings to Alexander Campbell and he sowed the seed into the hearts of men, and thereby produced children of God. These newly begotten ones were brought together by his ministry into the capacity of the original church or kingdom; and from the standpoint they claim to be the original.

The character of their origin, of course had a great deal to do in molding their doctrinal sentiments. They must have some basis for a starting, and knowing they could not hitch on to the original by succession they fall upon the plan of gospel production.

But we see a discrepancy in that, which is, to our mind inexplainable. If the church was lost for ages, and as they, say there is no salvation out of the church, who sowed the seed into Campbell’s heart that he should be a child of God and thus capacitated to minister to others? Here they must falter, or look to the Lord for a direct impact in shaping Campbell for his work. If God saved Campbell by a direct impact of His Spirit, then He saves others the same way or else His method is changed. Again, if God saved Campbell before he restored the church, then He saved him out of the church. But our friends claim there is no salvation out of the church, and there was no church until Campbell restored it, it follows that Campbell, while in an unsaved state, restored the church.

Strange logic that says an unsaved man restores the church and then gets salvation by securing membership in that which he restores. If there was no church and baptism puts one into the church, how could Campbell or any other man baptize one into some thing that did not exist? He must first reproduce the church by baptism, and then baptize others into that which baptism reproduced.

If, during the dark ages, there was no church and none are saved out of the church, it follows that universal damnation prevailed during the dark ages.

If there was a time when there was no kingdom, was the word then the seed of the kingdom? If so explain how there could be a seed of that which did not exist? This idea that God’s church or kingdom apostatized and became extinct is infidelity. It impeaches the testimony of heaven. It was hatched in the mind of an ambitious seeder in a rage for prominence and ascendancy to give his cunningness a basis upon which to operate.

God says: “In the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed, and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all other kingdoms and it shall stand forever.” Dan. 2:44.

Again, “He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the highest; and the Lord God shall give unto Him the throne of His Father David; and He shall reign over the house of Jacob forever; and of His kingdom there shall be no end.” Luke 2:32,

Again “And I say also unto thee that thou are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my house and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it,” Matt. 16:18.

Again, “Wherefore we receive a kingdom which can not be moved, let us have grace whereby we may serve God acceptably with reverence and Godly fear. Heb. 12:28.

Notice God says in His word of this kingdom “shall never be destroyed,” “shall stand forever,” “the gates of hell shall not prevail against it,” “can not be moved,”It seems to me that men who would in the face of such testimony claim that the church did apostatize so as to be extinct, have, to say the least, very little regard for God’s immutable promises. But they must do this to have any show at a claim for church identity.

The church of God originated with Christ and His apostles, and has stood until this good hour, and will continue to remain until Christ shall come again to receive His own. The Campbellite church originated with the Campbells less than a century ago. It can trace its identity that far, and absolutely has no claims to antiquity either in origin or doctrine. This we will now proceed to prove.

In the memorable year of 1809 was the beginning of the Campbellite effort of reformation in an organized form. It was in the month of August of that year that the “Christian Association” was formed at Washington, Pa.

Sept 8th, of the same year, was read and adopted the “Declaration of Address” of that body. Dr. Richardson, in his “Memoirs of A. Campbell” pg. 237 says: “It was from the moment the significant words were uttered and accepted that the more intelligent ever afterward dated the formal and actual commencement of the reformation.”

In the constitution of this association, after having agreed on its name, motive, etc., in the 4th item of resolution says: “That the society, by no means considers itself a church, nor does it at all assume to itself the powers peculiar to such a society.” (Mem. A. C. vol. 1, pp 243-4).

Notice dear reader that the first move, in a formal way, toward establishment of what we now call the Campbellite church was on Sept. 8, 1809. While he declared at that time that it was not “A church,” much less THE Church, nor did they begin with a view of resolving it into a church, but with a view of reforming others. Their effort to reform from others being so abortive, forced them to assume the attitude of an independent community or church. We can, then truthfully say, that non-recognition of this society by other religious bodies contributed principally in the establishment of the Campbellite church as an independent ecclesiastical body. The biographer, on pg. 324 says: “His (Campbell’s) overture appeared to meet with but little response, and no effort was known to be making anywhere to form as proposed societies, auxiliary to the “Christian Association.” On the other hand, the association itself seemed to be insensibly assuming a somewhat different character from the one originally contemplated; and under the regular administrations of Campbell and himself to be gradually taking the position of a distinct religious body.” This was a matter which occasioned Thomas Campbell great uneasiness; though it was a natural consequence of the antagonism which existed of necessity between the society and all the religious parties since its avowed object was to put an end to partyism.”

There is what Dr. Richardson, their historian has to say. But hear him again. On pg. 342, vol. 1 Mr. Richardson, quoting Campbell says: “It is in their (the parties) power to verify their own predictions by forcing us into a party.

It seems that the religious bodies had prophesied that the Association would be forced into a separate church or party, and Campbell, while meeting with such little encouragement and so much resistance, said, that they could “verify their predictions.”

Again on pg. 348, Mr. Richardson says: “They clearly anticipated the probability of being compelled, on account of the refusal of the religious parties to accept their own overture, to resolve the “Christian Association,” “into a distinct church in order to carry out for themselves, the duties and obligations enjoined on them in the Scriptures.”

Again, says the historian, “Thomas Campbell had, by this time become fully convinced that on account of the continued hostility of the different parties, it was necessary that the “Christian Association” should assume the character of an independent church in order to the enjoyment of those privileges and, the performance of those duties which belong to the church relation. It was with great reluctance that he finally concluded to take this step, and to separate himself from those whom he desired to recognize as brethren.”

Again, “At the next meeting of the (Christian) Association, accordingly, the matter was duly considered and agreed to, as the attitude which the religious parties had assumed, seemed to leave no other alternative. Before entering into this sacred relation, Thomas Campbell deemed it proper that each member should give some evidence of a fitting knowledge of the way of salvation; and he proposed, therefore, that each should be required to give a satisfactory answer to the question: “What is the meritorious cause of a sinner’s acceptance with God?”

“Jas. Foster happened not to be present at the above meeting and, when on Saturday the 4th of May (1811) he with the other members assembled at Brush Run for the purpose of organizing the question arose: is Jas. Foster a member, not having been present at the time the text question was expounded?” (Mem. A. C. vol. 1, ppg. 365-6-7).

Again, “On the following day (May 5th) being the Lord’s day the church held its first communion service.

Alexander preached from John 6:48, “I am the bread of life,” and verse 58, “He that eateth of this bread shall live forever.” (Mem. A. C. vol. 1 ppg. 368-9.)

We have seen, from Dr. Richardson just when and how the Campbells began their reformation, the failure of its purpose; and the result of that failure giving existence to the Campbellite church.

It started Sept. 8th, 1809 and reached the altitude of a church in May 1811. Just about 1800 years too young to be the church of Jesus Christ. In the face of all this, our friends contend that the church of God was set up on Pentecost. If it was, one thing is certain, the do not belong to it, for they were set up (established) pm May 4, 1811, at Brush Run, Pennsylvania, by Alexander Campbell.

It is said in the Bible that Christ is “Head” and “foundation” of the church. But these people have Alexander Campbell as “head” and “founder” of the institution of which they conferred by the great statesman Henry Clay to Alexander as members. Shall I prove that? Here is a recommendation of Campbell when he was about to sail for Europe: “Dr. Campbell is among the most eminent citizens of the U. S., distinguished for his great learning and ability, for his successful devotion to the education of the youth, his piety, and as the head and founder of one of the most important and respectable religious communities in the United States.” (Mem. A. C. pg. 548, vol 2).

Dear reader, who would question the intelligence and veracity of Henry Clay? His career was contemporary with Campbell, and hence was capacitated to know and of too pure a character to misrepresent. Frederick J. Haskins, a writer of eminence and whose writings, says the Dallas News is altogether “impartial and reliable” said in that paper of Oct. 15, 1907:

“To Thomas and Alexander Campbell, former citizens of Ireland, the church, known as the disciples of Christ owes its origin * * * Campbell’s first church had twenty-seven members “* * * Sept. 8, 1809 is a memorable date in the history of the Christian Church, for on that day was published the `Declaration of Address’ of the Christian Association of Washington, Pa., an association which had been formed about two weeks before. This event the church will fittingly celebrate with a Centennial Ceremony at Pittsburg in1909.

How compatible and identical the testimony of Richardson, Clay and Haskins.

“In the mouth of two or three witnesses, shall every word be established.” We could make a great volume of quotations from various sources showing, that these quotations are true, but this is enough from an historical standpoint to convince any reasonable man that, what is denominated the “Campbellite church” is purely of human origin. Campbell is “head and founder.”

To “Thomas and Alexander Campbell the church owes its origin” say our witnesses. It certainly does take a bulk of impudence and presumption to claim for such an institution church identity. Jesus is “Head and founder” of the Church of God, and established it while on earth and the gates of hell have never prevailed against it and will remain till time shall be no more. This church is a “house” for God’s people, a quiet habitation” a “tabernacle which shall not be taken down.” Men have become dissatisfied with God’s ways, and the goodness of His house, until the earth dotted with concubines, and virgins without number; but God’s “love, dove, and undefiled is but one, She is the one of her mother, and the choice of Her that bear her.” I thank the God of grace that He has counted me worthy to live and suffer with humble devoted people in the holy precincts of His Kingdom on earth.

While she is tortured and reviled on earth, but one sweet day Jesus will come and “present her to the Father without spot, wrinkle or any such thing.”

CHAPTER 12

Salvation Unconditional

In the preceding chapters we have endeavored to show that eternal salvation was not, and could not be suspended upon conditions to be complied with by the receiver. In this we propose to prove that this salvation is unconditional, a sovereign gift of God.

The Trinity, Father, Son, and Spirit, is the exclusive Saviour of sinners. “There are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one.” 1 John. 5:7.

They are “three” and yet they are “one.” They are not distinct from each other, but yet they are referred to as filling their respective functions in the perfect chain of salvation. In this they are in perfect harmony, they are a oneness, and their work, in their respective offices, exactly commensurate one with the other.

God made choice of, and predestinated sinners unto the adoption of children, Christ redeemed them, and the Holy Ghost makes them alive by applying the blood in salvation.

Everyone chosen and predestinated by the Father was redeemed by the Son and all redeemed by the Son have and will be made alive by the Spirit.

This we propose to prove as we proceed, and if proven, it follows that unconditional salvation will have been proven. Our friends try to regenerate the soul by washing the body. The Pharisees tried the same thing—cleansed the outside of the cup when inwardly it was full of corruption.”

The Bible declares that God gives eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. Rom 6:23. Our friends say that God will give eternal life through the obedience of the creature. The Bible declares that “grace reigns through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord,” Rom. 5:21. Our friends say that grace offers eternal life suspended upon conditions.

Remember, dear reader, that grace reigns. To reign means to prevail, to predominate over all opposition. The reason grace reigns is “by Jesus Christ our Lord. If grace exists for all of Adam’s race, and they are not all saved, does grace reign? In fact if a single one for whom grace was prepared were lost, it follows that grace did not reign.

If grace does not reign then the Bible is untrue. But the Bible is true, grace does reign and our friends are wrong.

Jesus says He has power to give eternal life to as many as the Father gave him. John 17:2.

Our friends say that he only has power to give eternal life to those who hear and obey their teaching.

Jesus says, “All that the Father giveth me shall come to me.”

Our friends say “only those who hear us and obey our teachings can come to Jesus.” Therefore wholesale heathen and infant damnation is the result, according to their creed.

Paul says: “Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners.” Our friends say that Jesus saves only those who do good. Therefore Jesus saves a good man and not a sinner. If Jesus saves a man who has quit sinning He does not have the one He came to save for “He came to save sinners.”

By reading Eph. 2:1-9 you will find that the Lord saves the one “dead in sin,” while “walking according to the course of this world.” He does not save them for their sinful walk, but while thus engaged, and “for (because of) His great love wherewith He loved us, even when we were dead in sin.” Not for anything good they had done. He, therefore, saved the class He came to save— “sinners.”

Paul says, “When we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son.” Rom. 5:10. Our friends declare that there is no reconciliation out of the church. If we are reconciled by Christ’s death, and there is no reconciliation out of the church, it follows that Christ did not die until after the establishment of the church. Our friends claim that the church was set up, established, on first Pentecost after the resurrection of Christ. Therefore Christ did not die until after His resurrection, according to the position of our friends.

Again, if we were reconciled by the death of Christ, and reconciliation puts us in the church, it follows that Christ’s death puts us into the church. If Christ’s death puts us into the church, baptism does not put us there. What a tangle their presumption weaves. The truth is, Christ’s death reconciled us to God, and by the obedience of those thus reconciled by His death, and saved by His life, they are added to the church.

Again, Christ reconciled “enemies.” Our friends say that one must become a friend to Jesus and prove that friendship by obedience in order to be reconciled. If Christ reconciles “enemies” as Paul says He does, and that reconciliation is in the church, it follows that enemies must get into the church in order to be reconciled to God. If they become a friend to Jesus before getting into the church, and, as they say, reconciliation is in the church it follows that friends and not “enemies” are reconciled. But Paul says “enemies” and Campbellism is therefore false.

Our friends claim that Christ died for all of Adam’s race and refer us to 1 John 2:2 to prove it “And he is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but for the sins of the whole world.” They also admit, of course, that the infant is part of the whole world.” Now what we want is for our fiends to explain how the infant can be a component part of the “whole world” and not be a partaker of the sins of the whole world.” Notice it is the “sins of the whole world.” The infant is a part of the “whole world” and is therefore in some way, a sinner.

The Apostle declares that “he (Christ) suffered the just for the unjust.” If Christ suffered for the “whole world” and those for whom he suffered were unjust, and the infant is a part of “the whole world” it follows that the infant, in its state of, nature, is “unjust.”

Again, “Christ died for the ungodly.” Rom. 5:6. If Christ died for’ the “whole race” (Adam’s race) and those for whom He died were “ungodly” and the infant is a part of the “whole world” it follows that infants (unchanged by grace) are ungodly.

Still our friends claim that the infant needs no salvation. See questions and answers.

If infants need no salvation they need no Saviour and Christ did not die for them. Another mountain our friend will never be able to climb. I don’t know just how they do others, but with me, they always play “dummy” a1ong this line. The truth of the matter is, infants are by nature sinners, and Christ is the Saviour of all who die in that state.

Our friends claim that God sets good and evil before the sinner, and gives him the privilege of making his own choice. He may choose the good and be saved, or the evil and be lost. I would like to know the condition of the fellow before he chooses.

He is neither saved nor lost, for choosing the good saves him, and choosing the evil loses him or causes him to be lost. But again he chooses the evil after God giving him that privilege, would there be any equity in God damning the fellow for doing that which He gave him the privilege of doing?

I tell you, dear reader, the more you examine that theory the more vivid its deformities.

Our friends say that the life of an alien is “physical” that the alien in regeneration, receives a new life “spiritual,” that the dead act in order to get a life they do not possess; that life, with the sinner does precede action. W. R. Bentley in questions 9, 10, 3 and 2. He also says in question 11 that performing a condition is an act of the sinner, and of course is in order to spiritual life.

He says in question 13 that regeneration is a spiritual effect and in question 14 says “a physical act or force will not produce a spiritual effect.” Also, in question 16, declares that an effect can not be of a higher order than the cause producing it. Now, I contend there is not enough brain and ingenuity in their camp to put all that together without palpable contradictions.

Notice, the sinner is physical, he must be spiritual, that change is suspended upon acts (conditions performed) by the physical man. Yet he declares that the effect can not be of a higher order. But in that case the effect is spiritual and the cause physical.

Do you see the discrepancy? The idea of life not preceding action is too preposterous to demand our attention. Read C. D. Nichols’ answer to question 35. He as an intelligent, honest-hearted man says boldly “yes” life precedes action.

Election and predestination is conceded by all to be a Bible doctrine, but they differ as to when it occurred, how many were embraced, and unto what they were chosen or predestinated.

Some claim that it only dates back to the beginning of the gospel dispensation, and embraces only the apostles, and that it was only to the office of apostles and not “unto salvation.”

Others claim that this election is unto salvation, but conditional, and that the one, therefore, becomes an elect when he performs the conditions. If this is true, either of the above, then it should be preached that way, but if it is false it should be exposed.

I want to believe the doctrine of election and predestination, just as it occurs in the Bible, and be reconciled to God’s way instead of undertaking to apologize to Him or revise His method.

Election is choice, hence God’s election is God’s choice. God’s choice embraced a people. But the question is, when did He choose them? I here assert that God chose them before there were any of them. But this strikes with consternation, the minds of many for they cannot conceive just how God could choose a people before there were any people. This was done upon the basis of God’s knowledge. God knew that He would make man. He knew that man would transgress and fall into a state of sin. He knew that, for any to be saved in heaven they would have to be born again, made spiritual.

Thus upon the basis of foreknowledge of all things, “All things being naked and open before Him,” He could make choice of a people to be saved in time. Peter, in addressing the “strangers” said “Elect according to the foreknowledge of God.”

This shows conclusively, the principle upon which the choice was made “the foreknowledge of God.”

David, in speaking of the relation of Christ and His members (people) says: “My substance was not hid from thee * * * thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect, and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as, yet there were none of them.” Psa. 139:16.

This shows that the names of all of Christ’s members were written in God’s book before there were any of them. The people were not there, for they did not exist, but God in His infinite wisdom saw them, chose them and hence their names were written in His book, which book was His choice of them and predestination of them unto glory.

Paul said to the church at Corinth, “Ye are the body of Christ and members in particular.” These as well as “all His members” were written in God’s book before there were any of them.

John in speaking of the city of God, in which the nations of them that are saved are to walk, says “And there shall in no wise enter into it anything that defileth, neither anything that worketh abomination, or maketh a lie, but they which are written in the Lamb’s book of life.” Rev. 21:27.

This proves the salvation of all who were written in the book of life, and remember they were written there before there were any of them; then it must have been unconditional.

But some one might ask, were not all the offspring (members) of Adam written there? I answer no. For if they were written there they will all be saved, and there would be none to worship the beast and none to cast in the lake of fire. All Christ’s members were written there, and if any man can find any others it is his privilege to do so and then I am ready to hear him.

John, in speaking of the resurrection and general judgment says, “And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.” Rev. 20:15.

Oh, but says one, that makes God unjust to select a portion and leave the others. But we are not settling this question by your perverted, depraved judgment, but by the Bible. Were any of them, and that all who are not written there shall “worship the beast,” and be “cast into the lake of fire.” You must not array your judgment against God’s Word. The Bible declares this to be true and at the same time says that His “ways are just and right.” So you see God can do this and still be just. His own word brings the proof.

I could reason at this from human channel and make negative of this ridiculous, and convict God with injustice and as a tyrant. Suppose we say that God has arranged the plan of salvation so as to make salvation suspend upon one’s obedience to the gospel. Now we know that at least seven tenths of the human family have died without the gospel, hence died without any opportunity of salvation and, of course, must go to hell. Well, if God is an all-wise God, of course, He knew how the matter would turn out. He knew that all those heathens would die without the means of salvation, and He had the power to have arranged it so that all would have had a chance of salvation, but did not do it. Now, who is responsible for the damnation of the heathen? But one says, Oh the blame lies on us who have the gospel, for refusing to send it. Then the wrong man is damned. The heathen did the best he could and was damned for not doing better. But we knew better, yet failed to do what was enjoined upon us, and still we are saved. What a selfish God-dishonoring dogma. So we had better take God’s word and let every man who would call it in question be a liar.

Paul says “Who (God) hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in Christ Jesus according as He hath chosen us in Him before the foundation of the world; that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love. Eph. 1:3-4. This was addressed to the “Saints at Ephesus” and to all the faithful in Christ Jesus.” It shows they were chosen (written in the book) before the foundation of the world and that they should be made holy and without blame.

The people were not in eternity, only in the mind and purpose of God, as David says, this was done before there were any of them. Hence they were holy there in the mind and choice of God. But remember that in God’s choice and predestination they were then embraced. If so this choice and predestination of them was not conditional.

Another idea I wish to refute by this text. Our Campbellite friends and sometimes others, when pressed, claim that the pronouns “us” and “we” in this and succeeding Scripture embrace only the apostles and the choice was only to the office of apostles.

Then it should have read: “Who hath made us ‘apostles’ in Christ Jesus, according as He hath chosen us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be ‘apostles’ before Him in love.” How does this sound, gentle reader? Such a twist is preposterous and only evidences a hard pressed condition. Let us read on to suit them. “Having predestinated us (apostles) unto apostleship by Jesus Christ our Lord,” etc. Reader, does that sound like Bible, or does it rather have the ring of “Campbellism?”

When we read it right it gives us the truth, which is always a death blow to every false way. Let us have it as it is, “Who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings, according as He hath chosen us in Him before the foundation of the world; that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love. Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to Himself according to the good pleasure of His own will.” He chose us that we should be holy and without blame not apostles. He “predestinated us unto the adoption of children,” not unto apostleship. This is too plain for further argument, however we give one or two additional texts.

Peter, in His first general epistle and first chapter addressed himself to the “strangers.” He says “to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia.” He then says, “Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father,” Etc.

Peter was one of the apostles, but the elect mentioned here were the ones addressed. They were called strangers, not apostles. The apostles were not strangers to Peter, but these people were; but still they were “elect.” Besides these people were too badly scattered for the twelve apostles. They were not only in those five provinces, but scattered throughout them.” Too badly scattered for 12 men.

Paul says to the Thessalonians 2 Thess. 2:13, “We are bound to give thanks always to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth.” You will observe in this instance), it was the brethren at Thessalonica and not apostles that were chosen, and that choice was to salvation, and not to apostleship.

So the claim that election was confined to the apostles, we consider, is subverted by plain statements of God’s word. So the doctrine of election is, beyond question, established and that, too, as held by the Primitive Baptists.

God is a God of love, of knowledge, of choice, of purpose, of power. He is immutable and will, therefore, do whatever He purposes to do. He purposed to save sinners, and therefore will, according to that purpose, save them with an everlasting salvation.

Paul says: “Who (God) hath saved us and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works but according to His own purpose and grace which was given us in Christ before the world began.” God, before the world began, purposed our salvation and gave us grace in Jesus Christ to that end and then declares: “As sin hath reigned unto death even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by one, Jesus Christ.” Rom. 5:21. If that grace which was given us in Christ reigns unto eternal life then all for whom it was prepared will receive it and be saved by it; but if that grace depends upon any human agency it will not reign because of the failure of the means. I am glad that grace reigns by Jesus Christ for it is said: “He shall not fail nor be discouraged.” “All power is given unto Him both in heaven and on earth.” A sinner thus saved by grace can truly sing “Amazing grace how sweet the sound,” etc.

Then God foreknew His people in the sense of choosing them. “Moreover, whom He foreknew them He also did predestinate (not to be apostles) to be conformed to the image of His Son that He might be the first born among many brethren. Whom He did predestinate, them He also called, and whom He called them He also justified; and whom He justified He also glorified.” Rom. 8:30. No wonder he would say: “What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us who can be against us?” If God’s choice and predestination be for us, everything will come all right, and no “power or weapon formed against us shall prosper.” The beauty is that this plan of salvation saves sinners in every clime or nation under heaven. It does not depend upon man or the powers of men, but upon the faithfulness and power of God. God is not confined in His triumphant work of salvation to the operation of money and men, and the man who would intimate that God was powerless to save in the absence of his aid would steal from the glory of God.

Remember, we stated in the beginning that the work of the Father, Son and Spirit was commensurate, one with the other. We have proven already that God foreknew, chose and predestinated a people in Jesus Christ to be saved, adopted as children and conformed to the image of Jesus. Now, election and predestination did not save them, but they are to be saved according to that choice, by the perfect offering or atonement of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the cleansing process of the Holy Spirit. Now, the work of God in choosing and predestinating us unto salvation was of course a sovereign act of His and unconditional on our part. So also was the atonement by Christ an unconditional benefit to us. The atonement made by the Lord Jesus was a perfect one and for all that were chosen in Him. Hence Christ died for all the elect which makes His work commensurate with that of the Father. This we will now prove in the following chapter.

CHAPTER 13

The Atonement

Having briefly discussed election and predestination, we now come to the atonement, the office-work of the second in the Trinity. This is the work of Jesus as the Redeemer of sinners.

We begin by asking the question: “What think ye of Christ?” Matt. 22:42. This is the question asked the Pharisees by Christ Himself. They said: “He is the son of David.” Jesus then asked: “How then doth David in Spirit call Him Lord, saying, the Lord said unto my Lord, sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool? If David then call Him Lord, how is He his son?” To this, “no man was able to answer Him a ward.” So it is today. A failure to understand and recognize the true character of Jesus, is the fruitful source of so much error and misconception of His perfect work as Mediator between God and man. We often hear it stated that the Old Baptists preach with power and precision the God-side of salvation, but absolutely disregard the human side. They mean by this that Christ met all the demands of the divine side, and that it is now left to sinners to comply with the demands of the human side. If that were true it would depose Christ of His humanity. It denies that Jesus came in the flesh. Indeed, we would like to know why Jesus represented us in the flesh, if it was not to meet human obligation in the scheme of redemption. They forget that Jesus was both “David’s son and David’s Lord, both human and divine. They forget that Jesus was the son of Mary and the son of God; that “He was put to death in the flesh”; that “He bear our sins in His body on the cross.”

Let us in our investigation endeavor to view Him in His fullness, for the apostle declared: “It pleased the Father that in Him should all fullness dwell.” What a wonderful Savior! All the essential elements of salvation are blended in Him. It is said of Him: “He shall save his people from their sins;” “He is full of grace and truth;” “He came to save sinners”; “He shall not fail”; “He is a rock, and His work is perfect;” “All power is given unto Him both in heaven and earth;” “He is the only Mediator between God and men.”

All of this before us, we can but look upon His work as a perfect work. Whatever He came to do, of course, must be done or else He is a failure. What then was His mission? Now we all believe He came according to prophecy; that He came for a purpose, and whatever that purpose was, of course, will be or rather was served.

Our friends claim that He only came to prepare or open up a way whereby sinners, by the performance of certain conditions, might be redeemed. For the want of proof, I have never been able to believe that. That would, to say the most of it, be only an experiment, effort, or offer of salvation. I read nowhere that Christ, or God, or the Spirit, ever tried to do anything.

The angel tells us: “Thou shalt call His name Jesus, for He shall save His people from their sins.” He was worthy of the name “Jesus,” for it means Saviour, and the “shall” rings out a divine certainty which fills my heart with rapture and unshaken confidence in Him.

It is said: “He that believeth in Him shall not make haste,” i.e. they are willing to confide in Him and never be so presumptuous as to undertake to help Him. How could one, realizing the weakness and depravity of human flesh, tender such weakness, as help to such an exalted One? “Vain is the help of man,” and “cursed is man that trusteth in man or maketh flesh his arm.”

“What think ye of Christ?” From whence did He come? He says, “I came down from Heaven.” This is He “that was in the beginning with God.”

This was the divine and eternal character and existence of Christ in Spirit. The Lord from heaven was a “quickening spirit”. Still He is the “root and offspring of David”; “The seed of Abraham,” “The Son of Mary,” “Made like unto His brethren,” “Made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law.”

For what purpose does He come down from heaven, and why is He manifest in the flesh? Let Him testify. Hear Him. “I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of Him that sent me. And this is the Father’s will which hath sent me, that all of which He hath given me I shall lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.” John 6:36-37.

Notice, He came down from heaven. He came for a purpose. That purpose was to do the “will of God”. You remember we said that the work of each in the Trinity were commensurate one with the other, that there was, in that way, a oneness. Jesus says: “I and my Father are one.” Again, “My Father worketh hitherto and I work.” Again, “I come to do thy will, Oh God.”

Notice, Jesus came to do the will of God. Paul says: “He came to save sinners.” Then we conclude that the will of God was that He should (not try) save sinners. Now it was either God’s will that He should save all sinners or a portion of them. If all, then all will be saved, or else Jesus does not do the will of God. But Jesus did the will of God, and still all are not saved Therefore, God did not will the salvation of all, and for that reason Jesus did not come to save all, for He came to do the will of God.

I use the expression “all” in the sense of the Adamic race. He did come to save “all,” but it is the “all” the “Father gave Him”.

“He came to do the will of God.” That will was, “that of all He had given Him He should lose nothing.” Jesus says, verse 37, “All the Father giveth me shall come to me.”

If the Father gave Him all the race of Adam, then they will all come to him. But they do not all come. They, therefore, were not all given to Him. If they were not all given, then we have a special atonement proven, for He came and died for them that were given to him.

Remember, dear reader, that the coming depends upon the giving, “All given shall come.” Remember also that the gift did not in any way depend upon conditions performed by the one given, for they were given to Christ before He came down from Heaven. John. 6:39.

When then were they given, and upon what principle were they given? All that were chosen in Christ and predestinated unto the adoption of children. Then we link the election and atonement as commensurate upon the basis that Christ died for those given Him, and of course, it would be preposterous to think of God giving a people to Christ without a previous choice of them and some purpose in view. Then as they were chosen before given and given before Christ came down from heaven, we, of course, conclude they were chosen before He came down from heaven. Paul says, “Chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world.” Then when Christ came into the world He had a people, but remember they were only His by gift or covenant. From the standpoint the angel said: “He shall save His people from their sins.”

In His death, those who were His by gift became His by purchase or by redemption. Redemption implies prior ownership. They were Christ’s by covenant or gift before they became involved in sin, and He comes to redeem them and give them “double for all their sins.” Can, we prove that He died for those given Him? See John 10:15. “As the Father knoweth me, even so I know the Father, and lay down my life for the sheep.” Did Christ tell for whom He died? Did He die for any except the sheep If yes, did He undertake and fail to tell for whom He died?

Remember now that He died for the sheep, and that there is no text in the Bible that contradicts this one. Who, then, are the sheep? See John 10:29. My Father which gave them me is greater than all.” Then we see that the sheep are the ones the Father gave. He died for the sheep.

Therefore He died for the ones the Father gave Him. The ones the Father gave Him are the ones the Father chose in Him before the foundation of the world. Therefore it is the ones chosen, or the elect for whom Christ died.

All were not given Him. Therefore all were not sheep, for the sheep are those given Him. John 10:29. If all were not sheep, then He did not die or all, but for the sheep. But the objector often refers us to Isaiah 53:6. “An he hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all.” They emphasize the expression “us all” as though it meant all the race. If the iniquity of all the race was laid upon Him, then I ask, upon what principle could any be lost? Paul says, “He gave Himself for us that He might redeem us from all iniquity.” If He redeemed all the race from all iniquity, what is left to damn a single one? Absolutely nothing.

You will notice in the above that the expression “all” is qualified by the pronoun “us”, which restricts its meaning to a specific people. Those people are mentioned in verse 8, where He says, “For the transgression of my people (us all) was He stricken.” This shows it was God’s people (chosen ones) for whom He was stricken. In verses 11 and 12 we find, “By His knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many.” “He shall bear the sin of many.” Does the word “many” mean here, all the race of Adam? If so, all the race will be justified.

Is it not a fact that the expressions “us all, “my people”, and “many” are all synonymous expressions embracing the same people? If so, then all mentioned will be justified, and as “my people” and “many” can not be all the race, it follows that a universal atonement is not taught in that chapter. “My people” as mentioned there, is the same as “all the Father giveth me” in John 6:29. Also in John 10:23. “My Father which gaveth them me,” etc.

But we are often referred to 1 Tim. 2:6. “Who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.” All of who? Why, “all the Father gave Him,” of course. All of His. If you make the “all” mean all the race then I insist that all will be saved, for the text says: “To be testified in due time.”

Then all for whom He gave Himself a, ransom will receive the testimony in due time. But our friends are scared to death for fear that millions will die and go to hell for the want of it. “He that believeth in Him shall not make ,haste.”

The Holy Spirit is the witness that testifies to all the race, for it says: “To be testified in due time.” If the Spirit testifies to all the race, then the race will be saved. But the Spirit does not testify to all the race. Therefore, Christ did not give Himself a ransom for all the race. Isaiah says: “The ransomed of the Lord shall return, and come to Zion with songs, and everlasting joy upon their heads; they shall obtain joy and gladness, and sorrowing and sighing shall flee away”‘ Isaiah 35:10. The entire race will not return and come to Zion, etc. Therefore the entire race was not ransomed by Christ. But all the Father gave Him were ransomed, and they all shall come. John 6:37.

But we are, without exception, referred to John 2:2,”And He is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.”

Our friends claim this as a universal propitiation because it says, “for the sins of the whole world.” But when we examine, it proves too much for them.

To propitiate means to satisfy, or to appease one offended. Hence, propitiation is the act of satisfying or appeasing wrath and conciliating the favor of an offended person— see Webster.

If Christ is the propitiation for the sins of all the race, then the wrath of God, who is the offended, is appeased and He is satisfied. If satisfaction has been made to God for the entire race, will not the entire race be saved? If not, why not? Propitiation for our sins does not place us where we can satisfy God and appease His wrath but the propitiation itself is the satisfaction. Then none can be damned for whom Christ propitiated, unless God damns them with satisfaction made. We know the Bible teaches that some will be damned, hence, Christ did not propitiate for all the race.

If I argue that the “whole world” in the passage means all the race because of the expression, then the same logic would say that the same expression always means the whole race. If I can find where it does not mean the entire race, then it devolves upon our opponent to prove that it means all the race in the above mentioned scripture. If I find one place where it does not embrace all mankind, then it may not in this text. We refer you to 1 John 5:19. “And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness.” If the “whole world” here was all of the Adamic race, it follows that John and those to whom he was writing were not of the race of Adam, for he uses it as an expression of distinction between himself and others.

Again, Jesus says: “If the world hate you, ye know it hated me before it hated you,” John. 15:18. If the “whole world” means all the race, it follows that all the race hated Jesus. We know that there were always some who did not hate but loved Jesus; therefore, the whole world did not mean all the race of Adam, unless those who loved Jesus were not part of the race.

Again, John the Baptist said: “Behold the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world.” John. 1:29. If the whole world here means all the race, then Jesus takes away the sin of all the race, if so, all the race would be saved. We, therefore conclude that the “whole world” here mentioned is not all the race, but the people given to Him and saved by Him. The expression “whole world” is a collective term and always means all under consideration; sometimes means all created things, e.g., John 1:10; sometimes put for the wicked, John 15:18; John. 14:17; John 14:22; 1 John 5:19; sometimes for God’s people, e.g., 2 Cor. 5:19; John 3:16; John 1:29; John 4:42; John 6:63; sometimes for the Gentiles, e.g. Rom 11:12; once for the Roman Empire, Luke 2:1.

It is more frequently the case that the expression expresses a portion than it does all the race. Then if it does not always mean all the race, it may not in 1 John. 2:2. Let our friends prove that it does, and I will prove universalism, and go to preaching the same. It does prove that Christ was a propitiation for the sins of all embraced, and therefore proves to a certainty that all embraced will be saved. But one more and then we will pass this part of the subject. Someone inquires about Heb. 2:9. “We see Jesus * * * who, by the grace of God, should taste death for every man.” Now if “every man” always means “all the race”, then I grant the argument that Jesus tasted death for all the race. Let them find the text that says Jesus died for all the race. Please run the references here given, on the expression “every man”, and if you prove that they mean all the race, I will concede an argument. Gen. 7:2 1. “All flesh and every man died.” Were there not eight saved m the ark? If so, were they not a part of the race? Judges 7:16; 2 Sam. 13:29; Mark 8:25. “And he was restored and saw every man clear.” Did this man, when his sight was restored, see all the race of man? If not, did “every man” mean all the race? If not, how do you know but that it does not mean all the race as mentioned in Heb. 2:9? If it does not mean it here, it may not there. Again, Mark 13:34; Mark 15:24; Luke 16:16; John 1:9; Acts 2:8. Many others could be adduced, but this is sufficient.

Well, if in Heb. 2:9 “every man” does not mean all the race, who then does it embrace? Very well, turn with me and read. Begin at verse 11. “For both He that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified, are all of one; for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren, saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren; in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee.” And again, “I will put my trust in him.” And, “Behold I and the children which God hath given me.”

Now we have the “every man” in the text under the appellation of “brethren,” “sanctified,” “church,” and “children which God gave Him.” Christ “sanctified by one offering,” and that in a forever perfected manner. See Heb. 10:14, “For by one offering He hath perfected them that are sanctified.” He also purchased the “church,” which was the every man, in the text. See Acts 20:28. “Feed the church of God which He hath purchased with His own blood.” He died for those that God gave Him” See John 10:15, “Lay down His life for the sheep.” The sheep, as before shown were those God gave Him, See John 10:29.

So we have shown from the text that “every man” does not mean all the race as it was the “sanctified” “church,” and those “God gave Him.” As the “sanctified, the church, and those given” were not all the race, so also, the “every man” was not all the race, for they are used interchangeably.

Christ’s death was for a purpose, and that purpose was certainly accomplished when He died. He died to reconcile sinners to God. Did He do that? See Rom. 5:10. “If when we were enemies we were reconciled to Him by the death of His Son, much more being reconciled, we shall be saved by His life.” Notice, enemies were reconciled to God by Jesus’ death, but, all the race was not reconciled; for if they were, then the text says, “they shall be saved His life.” He died for all the Father gave Him. John 10:15-29. All He died for were reconciled, Rom. 5:10. All He reconciled shall be saved, Rom. 5:10. It, therefore, follows that all the Father gave Him shall be saved. But all the race will not be saved. It, therefore, follows that all the race was not given to Christ. “Christ put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself,” Heb. 9:26.

Christ either put away the sins of all the race or a part of the race. None could be lost with their sins put away; but some will be lost, which proves that their sins were not put away.

His sacrifice did put away sin. Therefore, all for whom the sacrifice was made will be saved unless they are damned with their sins put away. We, therefore, conclude that the sacrifice was not made for all the race.

The sins of all, for whom Christ died, were borne in His body on the cross. 1 Pet. 2:24. “Who His own self bare our sins in His own body on the tree, that we should live unto righteousness, by whose stripes we are healed.” What did Christ accomplish in bearing our sins?

“Reconciled us to God.” Rom. 5:10. “Redeemed us from all iniquity,” Tit. 2:14. “Obtained eternal redemption for us,” Heb. 9:12. “Purged our sins,” Heb. 1:3. “Put away our sins,” Heb. 9:26. “Redeemed us to God,” Rev. 5:9. This is what Jesus did for those for whom He died.

Then if one for whom He died goes to eternal perdition, he must go “redeemed from all iniquity,” with his sins “purged,” and “put away,” “reconciled,” and “redeemed to God.” Such a thought is preposterous.

Jesus “loved the church,” “gave Himself for it,” and “purchased it with His own blood”. Eph. 5:25; Acts 20:28, 9. When He comes again, having “given Himself for it”, He will present it to Himself, a glorious church not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing, but holy and without blemish. Eph. 5:25.

What a glorious rapture and praise that morning will bring, when Jesus shall descend from heaven and the holy angels with Him and at His life-giving word see all His redeemed and purchased possession rise triumphant from the graves to meet the Lord in the air.

By an eye of faith I can see them now, coming from the east, west, north, and south, all centering around the great magnet that will draw all men unto Him. Their bodies are in the heathen lands, in the sea and in all dark places of the earth, but they will all come forth alike then.

The bodies, now resting in the marble vaults, decorated with flowers and evergreens, will then have no advantage over those in the sea, or the rude soldier pit, or those whose graves are lost and forgotten.

We will all then be equal heirs to that eternal inheritance. Our tongues equally tuned to chant His everlasting praise. The grandeur is that all for whom Jesus suffered will be there.

Oh, blessed Lamb of God, can it be that thou didst suffer for me? May I claim one sweet promise that I shall share the glory of that happy world? If so, then let my poor servant depart and be at rest. Oh, that I may have strength to proclaim thy riches while I live, and share the same in glory.

CHAPTER 14

Regeneration

We now come to the subject of regeneration, the purifying process which brings us into the actual benefits, as the recipients of the perfect atonement. The atonement as shown was made on the cross by the death, or perfect offering of Jesus. In salvation from sin, we receive the atonement, i.e. the blood applied to our heart or conscience, which purges the same from dead works to serve the living God. Heb. 9:14.

The atonement of Jesus redeemed or reconciled sinners to God; but before they are prepared for the spiritual world they must be made spiritual. Jesus calls this, a new birth, “born again.”

Sinners are not only in debt to the law, and condemned under its curse, but “by nature the children of wrath.” Thev are, by nature, corrupt, and while the atonement covers all sins of the elect people of God, yet they must be made spiritual; their nature must be changed from sinful to the divine. This is done in the name and for the sake Jesus, and by the spirit of our God. See 1 Cor. 6:11.

“Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived; Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you; but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified; but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.”

You will notice this “washing” and “justifying” was “in the name of Jesus,” but “by the Spirit.” Jesus redeemed them by His blood, hence paid the debt, and made them free, by meeting all demands of justice, and thereby secured salvation for them; but the Holy Spirit makes the application in the name of Jesus.

Regeneration consists in a renewing of our nature. It elements us into a higher state than ever by man. It does not stop by simply placing us where Adam was before he fell, for Adam was only a natural man; but in regeneration we become spiritual, 1 Cor. 15:46. “Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.” While Adam in his primitive state, he was without sin, yet he was only a natural man; but in regeneration the Spirit’s work does not stop at cleansing us from sin, but makes us spiritual; it gives us the life and mind of Christ; makes us partakers of the divine nature, 2 Pet. 1:4, wherein we receive double at the Lord’s hand for all our sins.

We have heard the argument that there could be no regeneration without first a degeneration; and that regeneration carries us no higher than degeneration brought us down. This is either weakness, or simply begging the question. Generate means to produce, to cause to be, to cause to exist, etc. God first created or generated man, caused man to be or to exist. He was a natural production, of a spotless character. When he sinned he degenerated, i.e. fell from morals, or character, or quality. Degenerate never means the loss of existence, or ceasing to be, but always means a decline in quality, i.e. to grow worse, to fall from a higher to a lower degree in quality or conduct. See Webster.

When a man fell into sin he was still a natural man but his nature is poisoned with sin, hence a worse man— he is degenerated; but when God saves him he does not only take away his sins but regenerates him, i.e. there is a new generation, a new production, a new— creature. He is now born of the Spirit, hence spiritual. So you see, dear reader, that regeneration gives more than was lost in degeneration. To simply restore what was lost in degeneration would only place us back where Adam was before the fall. Simply a replacement would not prepare one for heaven, but would only prepare us for the element where man was created and placed— the Garden of Eden.

Jesus says: “Except a man be born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” He calls it “born of the Spirit.” In regeneration all that was lost in Adam is restored and the sinner is carried even higher than Adam was: he is made spiritual; he is a new creature. “If any man be in Christ Jesus he is a new creature, 2 Cor. 5:17.

Notice he is a new creature, something he never was before. There has been another creation. The first creation gave man a natural existence; the second a spiritual existence. The first is the old man; the second the new man.

Then, if the salvation of a sinner is a regeneration or a creation, how could it be conditional on the part of the one thus saved? in order to creatureship, two things are indispensable: First, a creator: second, a creation. As the creature is the product of the creation, pray tell me how the creature is to perform conditions in order to his creatureship That would be conditions performed after he was saved in order to his salvation. If he performs the conditions before he is a creature, that would be the performance of conditions by that which does not exist in order to existence which is preposterous. If you become a new creature, you then have the cause quite inferior to

the effect. Remember that an effect cannot be of a higher order than the cause producing it.

The old creature is natural, mortal, human, earthly, and sinful; the new creature is spiritual, immortal, divine, heavenly, and holy. Just the opposite to the old man and of an entirely higher order. So we see that condition proceeding from the lower could not be the cause of producing its opposite, which is of a much higher type.

You see, friendly reader, that new creatureship in the Lord must be by the exclusive, divine power of the one and only Creator. If so, the Primitive Baptists, and they only, are correct on the plan of salvation, for they are the only people that base the salvation of sinners exclusively on the direct power of God.

We also find this lesson taught by the Savior under the figure of a birth. He says to Nicodemus, “You must be born again.”

Question arises, why did Jesus speak of salvation under the appellation of birth? As He was never strained for words to express his ideas and lessons intended, we conclude that it exactly taught the lesson He desired. Jesus well knew that we were all sufficiently acquainted with the figure (natural birth) to know that it was not conditional.

If our adversaries will show what conditions Adam had to perform in order to his, existence (creation), or what condition the child performs in its natural birth or existence, we will then concede that an argument is made in proof of the new creatureship in Christ or the new birth being conditional. As Adam was passive in his spiritual creation; and as the child is passive in its natural begetting and birth, so also is the sinner passive in his spiritual begetting and birth.

In our natural birth we received capacity to know and act in the element to which we were born; so also in the spiritual birth were receive capacity to know and act in the element into which we were born. The apostle explains this when he says: “Now we have received, not the spirit which is of the world (we received that in our natural birth), but the Spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given us of God,” 1 Cor. 2:12. But before we received the Spirit of God we could not know the things of God, for “The natural man (unsaved man) receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness unto him; neither can he know them for they are spiritually discerned.” 1 Cor. 2:14.

The gospel is a thing of the Spirit which is given to us of God, but the natural man can not discern it for the lack of spiritual life and a spiritual mind; he must therefore have the Spirit which is of God (be born of the Spirit) before he can know it. Regeneration can not therefore be suspended upon obedience to the gospel. But much of the time the happiness of those who are regenerated depends upon their obedience to the gospel. I hereby boldy affirm that every text in the Bible that has salvation associated with the preached gospel is applied to God’s people, and not to alien sinners. It is always a salvation of a believer, and a believer is said to born of God,” “not condemned,” “justified,” “passed from death unto life,” etc.

The child in nature is taught the things in nature, and its mind gradually increases in knowledge, in the things of nature; but its knowledge and its observing the laws of nature do not constitute it a child, for it is a child by birth, and that birth is that which enabled it to know. The way a child, in nature, is taught has a great deal to do in molding its belief. If it is taught wrong, it will believe wrong, if taught right, it will believe right. Then how careful we should be to teach our children right.

So it is with a child of God, if you teach them wrong they are apt to believe that way. This is the way I account for so many of God’s children being swallowed up in error. I never have much trouble in teaching God’s people to believe salvation by grace when I can get it to them, but reaching them is the trouble. They have been taught to believe that the doctrine the Old Baptists preach is dangerous, and hence pass judgment before they know what it is, and often refuse to avail themselves of an opportunity to hear it. I will here say to any seeker after truth, don’t be afraid to hear any man preach, they might have just what your soul is longing for. I have baptized many who had spent a great deal of their life persecuting the Old Baptists, all because they “knew not what they did,” but when they heard it, it was just what their spiritual appetite was craving.

Salvation of sinners is by grace and not of works. See Eph. 2:8; 1 Tim. 1:9; Tit. 3:5; Rom. 11:6. If it is by grace and not of works, it is therefore unconditional, for certainly performing conditions would be works.

Salvation of sinners is according to and by the mercy of God. Tit. 3:5; Rom. 9:16; Eph. 2:4. “Eternal life is the gift of God through Jesus Christ our Lord.” Rom. 6:23. “Grace reigns through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.” Rom. 5:2 1.

“As the Father raiseth up the dead and quickeneth them even so the Son quickeneth whom He will.” John 5:2 1. “The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God; and they that hear shall live.” John 5:25. “I give unto them eternal life and they shall never perish.” John 10:28. “As thou (God) hast given Him (the Son) power over all flesh, that He (the Son) should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given, Him.” John 17:2. “All the Father giveth me shall come to me.” John 10:37. “No man can come to me except the Father which sent me draw him.” John 6:44. What can such as the above mean, if they are not to teach that salvation is unconditional?

God begins the work of salvation and performs it. Phil. 1:6. “Being confident of this very thing, that He which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ. If God begins it and performs it, it is, therefore, unconditional. Notice, He begins it within you. Job says: “There is a spirit in man, and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding.” Job 32:8. Paul says: “If Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin, but the spirit is life because of righteousness,” Rom. 8:10. This shows what is done for the sinner in the first fruits of the Spirit. They are made alive in spirit, but the body is yet dead because of sin. God has begun the good work in preparing the soul for glory, and the promise is that He will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ. The completion of this work will be in the resurrection when our vile bodies will also be made spiritual and conformed to the image of the Savior. Paul, in expressing his confidence in the promise, says: “But if the Spirit of Him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, He that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies, by His Spirit that dwelleth in you.” Rom. 8:11.

The little word “also” in the text proves first, that something has already been quickened, which Paul said, in Rom 8:10, was the “spirit”; and second, that the body has the promise that it shall be quickened. This is the Christian’s hope. We are hoping that this vile body “shall be changed.” Job says, “My flesh shall rest in hope.” Again, “Though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God.” Again, “If a man die shall he live again? All the days of my appointed time will I wait till my change come. Thou shalt call, and I will answer thee.” Job 14:14,15. Oh, that glorious day, when the call shall be made and all the Lord’s people shall answer Him.

Daniel says: “Many that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake; some to everlasting life, and some to everlasting shame and contempt.” God’s people can now rejoice in spirit, and, by the anchor of hope, patiently wait for the fullness of joy, in body and spirit, in the glory world. We have eternal life in spirit now, but the frailty of the flesh renders our joy and pleasures very imperfect, but “In the Lord’s presence is fullness of joy, and at His right hand are pleasures forever more.” There, we will possess eternal life in soul and body. God, in His mercy and love, will preserve His people amidst the conflicts and troubles of this life, feed them like a good shepherd, carry the lambs in His arms, and bear them in His bosom.

Nothing can separate them from the love of God. When they pass through the fire they shall not be consumed; when they pass through the waters, the waves shall not overthrow them. He will “exalt the valleys”, and “bring the mountains low”; “make the crooked places straight, and rough places plain”. Realizing the greatness of God’s love and benefits to us, “what manner of persons ought we to be?”

Dear saints of God, if God has shed abroad His love in your hearts, given you this sweet hope, and a desire to serve Him; suffer me to admonish you to make that first in all your duties of life. If any should chance to read this, who are lingering around the fold, my sympathy is with you, for I know you feel to be alone and forsaken, too unworthy for a home with God’s people. Oh, that I could speak a word that would encourage you to come. The church is your home, Jesus has prepared it and preserves it for you, and beckons unto you to come and take His yoke upon you, with the promises that His yoke is easy and His burden is light. If you want the burden lightened, do your duty; live with God’s people, and share with them the joys of obedience. Since I have been (though unworthy I be) with the saints of God, they have been a great help to me. When I meet with trouble they speak words of comfort; when I err they correct me; when I fall they help me up; but above all, I feel that dear Jesus has led, strengthened, and administered in ways past numbering. Oh, Lord, give me thy hand to guide me and thy grace to enable me to walk worthy of the vocation wherewith I have been called. Oh, that I may prove faithful to my Lord, and serve His poor and afflicted people in ways that would redound to His glory, and to the peculiar needs of His people.

Dear reader, I close by commending you to God and to the word of His grace, which is able to keep you, and give you an inheritance with them which are sanctified. If I have said anything that has been helpful, or comforting to you, give God the praise; if anything herein contained has offended any, rest assured it was not the author’s purpose. May the Holy Spirit guide us in the way of all truth is our prayer for Jesus’ sake.

PART TWO

MISCELLANEOUS WRITINGS AND CLIPPINGS

FROM RELIGIOUS PAPERS

Establishment of the Church

I have written that I neither believe that the church was established on the mountain, when Jesus went there and appointed His apostles, or Pentecost, as our Campbellite friends claim.

We wish first to offer some of our objections to the idea that the church was established on the mountain. Isa. 2:2 is relied upon as a proof of that position by its advocates, which reads;”And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the Lord’s house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow into it.”

In Micah 4:1, we have almost the same words as in Isa. 2:2.

This is only an emphatic way, by figure of speech, asserting the pre-eminence of Christ’s Kingdom over all other kingdoms, even from the lowest to the highest— you remember that the stone, in Dan. 2:34, that smote the image, “became a great mountain and filled the whole earth.” The stone represented the power of the promised kingdom which, in verse 44, is declared that the God of heaven would set up. The elements of gold, silver, iron, and brass represent the full extent of the powers of earthly kingdoms. The stone with one stroke forever crumbled all the boasted power of earthly kingdoms, and it “became a great mountain.” Thus you can see that it occupied a much higher plain than the elements in the image, hence was established in the top of them all— above them all. Remember that “the mountain of the Lord’s house” is in the singular, just one mountain, but it was to be established in the top of the mountains.” Here, mountains is in the plural, meaning more than one. Jesus did not go up into mountains— just one mountain, Isa. 2:2 and Mic. 4:1 could not refer to that act or Jesus, for the reason that the “mountain of the Lord’s house” was to be established in the top of the mountains, not “a mountain.”

The prophet was only, by the use of the figure, showing that God’s Kingdom should tower, in glory and power, above all other kingdoms.

His mountain was to be higher and possessed with more sublimity than any earthly hill or mountain.

Inspiration, in speaking of the Lord’s house, often refers to it as being “up.” After we have ascended the highest earthly pinnacle, we must yet look up to see the Lord’s house, Isa. 2:3. “And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob, and He will teach us of His ways, and we will walk in His paths.”

Notice they go up to the house of God.

Isaiah says that those who walk righteously “shall dwell on high”. Then says: “Look upon Zion, the city of our solemnities,” etc. Isa. 36:16-20.

It is called “an highway,” and declared to be the way of holiness, and that “the redeemed shall walk there.” Isa. 3 5:8.

But we are met with this inquiry or objection: Did the Savior not ordain the twelve men when He went up into the mountain? To this I answer, Yes. Mark 3:14.

I am then asked: Did He not call or name them, Apostles? To this I answer, Yes. Luke 16:13.

I am then referred to 1 Cor. 12:28 as proof that there was no church until these twelve disciples were thus ordained, and named apostles:

The text reads, “And God hath set some in the church first, apostles, secondarily, prophets,” etc.

The argument is that there were no apostles until Jesus ordained them in the mountain, and as the apostles were the first to be “set in the church”, there could not, therefore, have been any church before there were any apostles, as they were first to be set in the church.

If this “setting in the church” referred to getting membership in the church, or getting into the church, there would be a shade of argument. Paul was having no allusion, in Cor. 12, of the body, but was treating in the entire chapter upon the peculiar gifts that God set in the church to the office or function of Apostles and ordained some to fill that place, etc.

So the idea of the church being established on the mountain, I think, is clearly proven to be a mistaken one; but instead of that, it was simply the office of apostleship established in the church.

But now we must turn our attention to the “Pentecost theory.”

Our Campbellite friends are the principle ones who advocate this lap-link system. Of course, they have a reason. They know they must do this, or land right into John’s baptism as genuine, and that would forever paralyze their water salvation slide.

We wish to notice some of the strongest objections or arguments they make against the principle of the church being established before Pentecost. Remember we do not say it was a church or kingdom in all its present relation, i.e. it did not possess all of the principles, laws, and ordinances, but was capable of exercising all the rites, observing all the commandments and executing all the laws as they were committed.

During Christ’s ministry, while He as King, was teaching and committing to His subjects, “precept upon precept; line upon line, here a little and there a little,” of the principles, laws, and duties enjoined, which were indispensable elements in the process of completion of the kingdom, then, existed in its primary elements, and hence was spoken of as kingdom or church in the present; but when its completion was referred to, it was spoken of as future. In the 18th chapter of Matt. Christ is telling the disciples how to deal with certain transgressors. He says: “If thy brother trespass against thee, go and tell him his faults between thee and him alone.” Then He tells them, “if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more.” Then in verse 17 says: “And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church; but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.”

This chapter begins with an inquiry from the disciples: “Who is the greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven?” This all goes to prove that there was at that time a kingdom or church, else the disciple’s question would have been spurious. Neither would Christ have told the disciples to tell, the matter of the trespass to the church, when there was no church. Our Campbellite friends tell us that this command of the Savior was only prospective as it relates to the church. That there was no church then, but that the Savior was only telling them how to act after the church was established, which they say was then, in the future.

They make the argument on the basis that Jesus put the act of trespassing in the future “if thy brother shall trespass,” etc. True, the verb “shall trespass” expresses a future tense act, but it is the act of trespassing and not the act of God in establishing the church. The idea of church existence in the expression, and also the idea of probable future violation of church government, in the form of a trespass, and hence the command.

So we have proven, by this, that there was at the time a church; not complete in all its elements, but complete in all the elements given up to that time.

The church of Jesus Christ in its establishment began with the ministry of John, and was complete in all its functions, laws, and ordinances, as an organization, when the last ordinances were set in it, which was the communion and washing the saints feet just before His (Jesus’) betrayal.

We will now give proof of our statement. We call your attention to Luke 16:16. “The law and prophets were until John; since that time the kingdom of God is preached and every man presseth into it.

Notice, the kingdom is preached since “until John”, not since the close or after the close of John’s ministry, but it was since “until John”, the early part of his ministry. Not only the Kingdom preached but men pressed into it. How men could press into something that has no existence, is a problem too deep for me. John came preaching, “Repent for the Kingdom is at hand.” The time was near, at his coming, when the church was to be established in its incipiency. So it is said that he was sent to “make ready a people prepared for the Lord.” He was not to prepare (regenerate) any one, but to make those, already prepared, ready for the eventful occurrence which was about to take place, i.e., was to wean them from the law, and the ceremonies under it and implant the principles of the anti-type (church) in their stead. While John was teaching and baptizing in Jordan, making people ready; he was then fulfilling the prophecy concerning him. Mal. 3:1. “Behold I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me.” Here was John, the messenger, sent to prepare the way before the Savior. He was not sent to prepare the people, but the way. This was done by making the people ready, and only those who were prepared for the Lord. God prepared the heart, John “made them ready” by going before the Savior and proclaiming His coming, and the coming of His Kingdom.

In Mal. 3:1, same verse referred to, it is said, “And the Lord whom ye seek shall suddenly come to His temple even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in; behold He shall come, saith the Lord of hosts.”

Who is this but the Savior coming to John on the bank of Jordan? And in coming to him He comes to, or confronts those whom John has made ready. He calls this, coming to His temple. Here is where the marriage occurs.

We hear John exclaiming: “Behold the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world.” Here is the midnight cry: “Behold the Bridegroom cometh, go ye out to meet Him.

Those who were ready, who were prepared in heart, and had obeyed the teaching of John, were admitted to the marriage:

Hence Christ suddenly came to His temple, even the messenger of the covenant “whom ye delight in.” This was fulfilled in Jesus’ approach to John and those whom he had baptized, here the union of Bride and Bridegroom was effected, and the church, there began in its incipiency began to be builded. That is just how near the kingdom was, as expressed by John, when he says: “The kingdom is at hand.” The chapter explains itself, and so our friends gain nothing, there, in support of the setting up of a Pentecost church. Remember, we have not said that the kingdom was then complete in all its functions but begun. And from that time on Jesus is Builder until the house is complete.

Then next is Matt. 6:9-10, “Thy kingdom come, thy will be done,” etc. This is a part of what Jesus taught his disciples to pray. Our friends say, if here had, then, been a kingdom, Jesus would not have taught His disciples to pray, “Thy Kingdom come.” Hence, they say that the kingdom was altogether in the future of that expression.

Now, let’s try their logic by the remainder of the prayer. Jesus also taught them to pray, “Thy will be done; Give us this day our daily bread”, “Forgive us our debts”. “Lead us not into temptation”, etc. Now, if the expression “thy kingdom come , puts the entirety of the kingdom in the future, and destroys any idea of its beginning or existence prior to the expression; then the following portion of the prayer destroys the fact that God’s will was ever really done prior to the expression, or that our daily bread had ever been given, or that our debts (sins) had ever been forgiven, or that we had ever been delivered from evil; but that we had been led, by the Lord, into temptation. The truth of the matter is, that all of these things mentioned in the prayer had been truly shared by the disciples as blessings from God, and the prayer is only a petition for a continuance of them. If the prayer locates the beginning of the church at Pentecost, it also locates the beginning of all the blessings asked for, at Pentecost.

I would say to our antagonists, here, as Paul said to the sorcerer: “Wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord,” Acts 13:10.

I read in “Campbellism— What Is It,” by J. V. Chism, the following: Matt. 11:l l; We have another bearing mark. Jesus says, “Verily, I say unto you, among them that are born of woman there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist; Notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.’ From this it is plain that there was no one in the kingdom of heaven at that time who had been born of women; hence no kingdom as yet.” Poor deluded man! After his long experience in debate, he publishes himself to the world in the above light. I wonder how he, as a scholar, overlooked the fact that Jesus said: “He that is least in the kingdom.” He did not say, He that shall be least in the kingdom, after it is established at Pentecost, but he that is least in the kingdom.” This shows that there was, then, a kingdom, and also “he that was least in it.” Jesus is simply showing that the plane occupied by one in the church is, by far, higher or greater than the natural birth (of woman) can possibly place one. The natural birth entitles no one to church membership, but the new birth does prepare, and thus entitle one for the kingdom. If one is scripturally in the church, he is born again, and even though he be the very least in the kingdom, he is greater than the noblest of earth, who have only been born of woman— never been born again. In the new birth and in the kingdom, the least is greater, (receives a higher, nobler standing) than John did by reason of his natural birth. The spiritual birth is greater and confers more than the natural. That’s all any man can legitimately deduce from the text. Hence, there was, then, a kingdom, and people in it and the least of them was greater than John, restricting his qualifications to his nature or natural birth.

What God did for John in his mother’s womb was distinct from his natural conception and birth, hence, that is not considered as any part conferred by the natural birth.

To show now, conclusively, there was at that time a kingdom, read the following verse. “And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force,” vs. 12.

When did the kingdom suffer violence? “From John the Baptist until now”. NOW is used as an adverb of time, embracing the time Jesus used the language. The suffering of the kingdom began with the days of John the Baptist, and had continued up to the time Jesus used the language. Now we will ask our friends, if there was no kingdom during that period, we wish to know how that a thing could suffer and be taken by force that did not exist? Why did Chism, and why do they all skip that declaration of truth, uttered by the Savior? The reader knows it annihilates their Pentecost creed.

But they refer to Matt. 18:3: “Except you be converted and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.” They use this to prove the disciples were not in the kingdom, because the text says: “Except you be converted”, etc., ye shall not enter into the kingdom. Now, remember we do not claim the kingdom to be complete as a building at that time. There were yet other ordinances or functions to be inserted that would require humility upon the disciples’ part to enter into.

This was the communion and washing the saints’ feet. The disciples had not yet entered into that phase of the kingdom, hence the language of the text. The disciples asked in verse 1: “Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” Does that sound like there was no kingdom? The disciples believed there was and wanted to know. “Who is greatest in it.” Notice, “Who is”, not who will be greatest.

Jesus believed there was then a kingdom, for He says in verse 4, “Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.” Jesus says the one who shall humble himself is in the kingdom, and the greatest there. But if our friends had been there they would have, I guess, challenged, the Savior for a “de-bate” on the church question. They would have said to the disciples, don’t you know there is no kingdom yet? You are trying to take the last lesson first. You wait till Pentecost to ask, `who is the greatest in the kingdom.’ If you ask now, say, `Who shall be the greatest?’ But that is the difference between our friends and God’s word.

But it is argued that there was no kingdom prior to Pentecost, because Christ was not King, hence, no Kingdom without a king. Now if it is true that Christ was not King before His ascension, then an argument could be made; but we propose now to show that Christ was King while on earth. Please read Luke 19:37-38. We see that while Jesus was riding the colt upon which never man sat, on His journey to Jerusalem, that the whole multitude of disciples began to rejoice and praise God with a loud voice, for all the mighty works that they have seen, saying, “Blessed be the King that cometh in the name of the Lord; peace in heaven, and glory in the highest.” Does that sound like there was no Kingdom till Pentecost? Our Campbellite representatives would rebuke one of their brethren should they assert the truth, declared in that text— that Christ was King.

So it was then; there were some self-righteous Pharisees there who said unto the Savior, “Master, rebuke thy disciples.” But Jesus said, “I tell you that, if these should hold their peace the stones would immediately cry out.” The exalted truth, that Jesus was King, had to be published, and had the disciples not recognized Him as such, the stones themselves would have uttered it. I know our friends had rather this fact had never been published, but inspiration hath published and those who deny it are only fighting against God.

Again, in Luke 23:2, we find his conspirators trying to convict Him before Pilate for saying He was “Christ a King.” If our antagonists had been there, and of the same opinion they are now, the conspirators would have been wonderfully strengthened, for their doctrines are identical. I would be ashamed to occupy the exact grounds, on this question, that the murderers of Jesus occupied. They denied that Jesus was King; so do the Pentecost church people.

Again, we have in Zech. 9:9, “Rejoice greatly, 0 daughter of Zion; behold, thy King cometh unto thee; He is just, and having salvation; lowly and riding upon an ass, and upon a. colt the foal of an ass ” Notice, the King was to come Zion, or Jerusalem, as described. Now, if we can find the fulfillment of this, and it dates beyond Pentecost, then we will have proven that He was King before Pentecost, for it was their King that was to ride the colt unto them. Now turn to John 12:12, 13, 14, and see its fulfillment. “On the next day much people that were come to the feast, when they heard that Jesus was coming to Jerusalem, took branches of palm trees, and went forth to meet Him, and cried, Hosanna! Blessed is the King of Israel that cometh in the name of the Lord. And Jesus, when he had found a young ass, sat thereon; as it is written, Fear not, daughter of Zion; behold, thy King, come sitting on an ass’s colt.” Will any dare say this is not a fulfillment of the prophecy? If it is a fulfillment, we have Jesus coming to Jerusalem as King. Who in the face of all this could have the brazonry and hardihood to say Jesus was not king until after His resurrection?

Pilate said to the wicked Jews, who were conspiring against Jesus, “Behold your King,” but they said; “Away with Him, crucify Him. We have no King but Caesar.”

Just what the Campbellites say of Jesus at that time.

We find, in Acts 17, where Paul came to Thessalonica and into the synagogue of the Jews, alleging that “this Jesus whom I preach unto you, is Christ,” that some of those disbelieving Jews, moved with envy, drew certain of those who believed unto the rulers, saying: “These that have turned the world upside down are come hither also; whom Jason hath received: and these all do contrary to the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another King, one Jesus.”

If our antagonists had been there, of course, they would have been Caesarites, and a part of the band to punish those who believed Paul’s preaching, because they recognized that Jesus was Christ, and King.

If one would not believe, from this array of testimony in proof that Christ was King before His death, he has beyond question an incurable case of “will nots”. So we will leave this, believing that we have established, by the prophets, by Jesus’ disciples, by His enemies, and by Jesus Himself, that He was King before His death. Then we have that objection out of the way.

But in reading on ppg. 33, and 34, of “Campbellism-What Is It.” by J. W. Chism, we find the following objects to a church before the death of Jesus.

1. “If the church was established before Jesus was crucified, and He was the Head, then the head was cut off when He was slain, and the church became headless, hence dead.” That is, indeed, a mammoth argument! The divinity of Christ never died. He was only “put to death in the flesh.” Jesus lost nothing in His death except the life of His humanity, but in His God-character, He still had power over death. He says, “I and my Father are one.” He said, “I have power to lay down my life, and I have power to take it again.” So you see His power, as Head, was never destroyed. Instead of the death of Jesus destroying the life of the church, it only preserved her life by putting away the cause of death, which was sin.

Again, He says, “If the church was established before the death of Jesus, then it had no blood in it, and hence, no remission of sins— “And without the shedding of blood there is no remission.”

Well, that’s where Campbellism is too short for the demands. According to Mr. Chism, there never was any sin remitted before Jesus’ death, and hence, none ever saved before Jesus died. The text does not say that no sin could be remitted before the blood was actually shed, but “without the shedding of blood there is no remission.” In the eye and purpose of God, the blood was shed from the time God purposed salvation of sinners, and upon the basis of the certainty of the atonement, sinners were saved from Abel down to and subsequent to the cross. If, as they claim, the blood is reached through water baptism, we are waiting to learn how those who died before baptism, or before the blood was shed, reached the blood, and their sins remitted by it.

He also says that, if there was a church before Jesus’ death, it had no one made “both Lord and Christ” over it; that it had no “High Priest to intercede for it”; and no “Holy Spirit to guide its members into all truth.”

Well, we will see whether Jesus was Christ and Lord before His death. Read Luke 2:9.”And the angel said unto them, fear not; for, behold I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people, for unto you is born this day, in the city of David, a Savior, which is Christ the Lord.” Did the angel tell the truth? If so, it follows that Mr. Chism did not. The angel said the Saviour was “Christ the Lord at birth, but Mr. Chism said He was neither until after His ascension. Who will you believe? Of course, when He went to heaven He did not cease to be “Lord and Christ,” but we have the message direct from heaven, to the shepherds, that He was “Christ and Lord” on earth also even at His birth.

But what about His being an High Priest before His death and ascension? We refer you first to Heb. 4:14, “Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession.”

Question, Who was it that passed into heaven? The text says, “our High Priest.”. If He was not priest until He reached heaven, it could not have been a priest that passed into heaven. For a priest to pass into heaven he must, of necessity, be a priest before He reached heaven; hence, He was a Priest before He ascended.

Again, in Heb. 5:5, “And no man taketh this honor unto himself, but he that is called of God as Aaron was. So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but He that said unto Him, thou art my Son, today have I begotten thee.”

Our friends say that Christ was not an High Priest until He was glorified in heaven, but the text says, “He glorified not Himself to be made High Priest”, i.e. He was Priest before He was glorified before He entered heaven.

“This day have I begotten thee.” He was Priest from birth.

Remember, it is said: “No man taketh this honor (priesthood) unto himself, but he that is called of God as was Aaron.”

Of this High Priest, Paul says, in Heb. 7:26, “For such a High Priest became us, who is holy, etc.* * * Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins and then for the people’s, for this He did once when He offered up Himself.” This shows that Christ was Priest when He offered Himself a sacrifice for sin; and as that was done on earth, it follows that He was Priest on earth. But we are always encountered with the text, “For if He were on earth, He should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law; who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things,” etc.

This shows that He could not remain on earth and fill the priesthood unto which He was ordained, for He, as priest, was not to enter, with His own blood, into the tabernacle made with hands (which was on earth), but into heaven itself, there to appear in the presence of God for us,” Heb. 9:12, 14. Hence, He could not fill the priesthood on earth, in its continuance, was under the law (Heb. 8:4), and hence, a shadow of the true or heavenly. Heb. 9:24.

But remember, that as under the law, men were ordained unto the priesthood before they entered into the “holy place” (which was a figure of heaven), so also Christ was ordained unto His priesthood before He entered heaven (the holy place), which was the true or antitype. Christ could not have remained on earth and filled His office of priesthood, for there is where the priests serve under the law, “But the priesthood is changed, hence, a change of the law. Heb. 7:12. Christ did not, as other priests, inherit His priesthood by natural descent, for, “It is evident that our Lord sprang out of Judea, of which tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning priesthood. And it is yet far more evident, for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest, who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life.” Heb. 7:12-17.

This High Priest makes but one offering, Heb. 9:12, 25, 28; Heb. 7:27; Heb. 10:10, 12, 14. This offering was on earth, and “perfected, forever, them that are sanctified,” Heb. 9:4. This offering “obtained eternal redemption” for those for whom it was offered. Heb. 9:12. “With the blood of this offering, Jesus enters into the holy place (heaven).” Heb. 9:12. He will make no more sacrifice, “but this man, after He had made one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down on the right hand of God; from henceforth expecting till His enemies be made His footstool,” Heb. 10:12. So He, as Priest, made the one sacrifice on earth, and from His throne in heaven, is appropriating the blood of the sacrifice to the hearts of those for whom it was made. So this objection of “no Priest until Pentecost” is subverted.

But about “no Holy Spirit to guide them into all truth.” The disciples did not need the “guiding or comforting” influence of the Spirit while Jesus was with them, but that does not prove that the Spirit was not there in any of its benefits. This is all a presumption.

Now, we propose to prove, by the Bible, that there was not only a King, a Christ, a Lord, and Priest; but that there was a kingdom (church) before the death of Jesus.

We refer you first to Matt. 11:12. “And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence and the violent take it by force.” Did Jesus utter this before Pentecost? If so, there was a kingdom before Pentecost, for there was a kingdom when Jesus thus spoke, for He said it “suffered violence until now.” We want our objectors to tell us how that which has no existence could suffer. Here, they have Jesus’ own words condemning them, a wall of adamant they will never get over, through, under, nor around. They may foam, rage, and theorize all they please, but we have Jesus arrayed against them and He must prevail.

Again, in Matt. 12:24-29.

When Jesus was casting out devils, the Pharisees said: “This fellow doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub, the prince of devils.”

“Jesus knew their thoughts and said unto them, every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation * * * but if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you.” There are the two positions. Which will you take? Jesus either cast out devils by the Spirit of God or by the spirit of the devil. If you say, by the spirit of Satan, then you are a full grown Pharisee.

If you say “by the Spirit of God,” then Jesus says: “The kingdom of God is come unto you.” Jesus did cast out devils by the Spirit of God. Therefore, the kingdom of God had at that time come. Just here our friends must take backwater, or trace his ancient identity to the Pharisees, instead of to Christ.

When Christ was on His journey to Jerusalem, “They that went before and they that followed, cried, saying: Blessed be the kingdom of our father David that cometh in the name of the Lord; Hosanna in the highest.” Mark 11:10.

Luke 19:38 says, “Blessed be the King that cometh in the name of the Lord.” So we have plainly declared both King and Kingdom at that time. This was before Pentecost, so we have Christ the King and His kingdom seen and declared to be such before Pentecost.

In Matt. 6, beginning at verse 25, Jesus teaches His disciples the great lesson of making their Christian duties first of all duties. He says, “Take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or what shall we drink?” In verse 33 says: “But seek yet first (Don’t wait until after Pentecost) the kingdom of God and His righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.”

If these people had done without eating until after Pentecost they would have starved.

False theology and science have been trying from time immemorial to refute the doctrine of biogenesis, but the failure is as signal today as when begun. When life is produced by any other process, then will be time for Old Baptists to begin to feel an uneasiness.

In vain have the scientific laboratories struggled to discover and demonstrate a process for the production of artificial life, but every experiment adds intensity to their disappointment and emphasizes the impregnable doctrine of biogenesis which in theology is maintained by Primitive Baptists only.

Omne vivum ex vivo, i.g., Everything living comes from something living, is a truth invincible from any point of attack. In nature, every channel of reasoning concedes that the only medium for the animation of the inorganic matter is by a sovereign touch or contact of the organic, or living . matter. Thus, by direct touch and appropriation by the vegetable or animal organism, mineral matter, the inorganic is converted into living tissue. This is done wholly unconditional upon the part of dead matter. This is also true in passing from a lower to a higher order of life, e.g., the vegetable life or organism can pass to the animal order, which is a higher order of life, only by the animal sovereignly cutting it loose from its receptive element, then by the process of mastication, digestion, absorption, and assimilation (in which it is entirely passive), it becomes partaker of an entirely new order of life— new existence.

This any intelligent man will of necessity admit, but in the face of the admission many of them, passing as ministers of Christ, will, seemingly, in an unscrupulous manner spend his life in trying to get dead sinners (dead to all spiritual environment) to conditionally rise to that highest order of existence, or life, which is spiritual or eternal life.

The time has come however, when it is a very rare thing that talents of this monstrous deformity will risk themselves in an open defense of it. This is proof within itself that they are moved for money than sincerity. I often doubt the sincerity of men of opportunity and learning who would contend for such doctrine that has no basis from any standpoint of reasoning.

The contention that spiritual or eternal life is a sovereign gift of God is a safe one. While it robs men and societies of any praise and boast in the work and thereby (because of the greed of men) has rendered its advocates largely in the minority, yet there has always been and always will be faithful God-fearing and God-loving men who love the praise of God more than the praise of men and will therefore preach the doctrine of regeneration that ascribes greatness unto our God.

Life has been falsely defined as “correspondence with environment.” This correspondence is only a proof that one is living. Life is at the back of all correspondence and is that which enables us to correspond with our environment. The above unguarded definition takes an effect for the cause— just as every conditional system does. Life is the cause, and correspondence is the effect.

It is also true that one order of life cannot correspond with the environment of a life of a distinct and higher order. They must first be “raised up” by the gift of the higher life. Therefore, to correspond with spiritual environment necessitates first the gift of spiritual life which brings them to where the spiritual environments are. This accounts for such expressions as “The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” “They that are of God heareth God’s words. Ye therefore hear them not because ye are not of God.”

This is why the apostles call the gospel of Christ “foolishness” and a “stumbling block” to the “uncalled,” “unsaved”. This accounts for the order given by the apostle when he says “If ye then be risen with Christ seek those things which are above.” From this we can readily see that the raising up or resurrection from sin to a life in Christ precedes our “seeking” those things which are spiritual. Paul, in speaking of those yet “by nature children of wrath” says “There is none that seeketh after God.” These principles being true, we can readily see the weakness of Arminianism.

Conditionalism would lay as a premise: that sinners must seek God in order to salvation in heaven. The Bible declares that “none seek after God.” Therefore by their system none could be saved in heaven.

I have no fears about the Old Baptists having the truth on this proposition, and it is the basis that will condemn all humanism and bind together in a church capacity those who have tasted of the goodness of the Lord and are willing and content to ascribe greatness unto him, though it place us in the dust. Let us be bold, humble, and faithful unto death.

SALVATION CERTAIN

The Scriptures speak of the death of Christ, not as making salvation possible but certain. It does not speak of Christ modifying or lowering the demands of the law, so that sinners may satisfy its remaining demands, but a fulfilling the law, meeting all of its demands. Nor do we read anywhere an intimation that Christ only grappled with justice to the extent that sinners may by obedience to him be justified, but as having justified them. Not even does the sinner have to accept the perfect mediation or redemption in Jesus to make it effective, but on the other hand, they believe and accept it as true because of its effect. Salvation is an effect of the atonement made and when it is bestowed the recipient gladly and happily accepts and believes it as true. Salvation is an invariable effect of the atonement, faith an effect of salvation and obedience an effect of faith. So neither faith nor obedience are conditions of eternal salvation.

When Jesus died He redeemed, reconciled and justified. But we are asked, whom did He thus redeem, reconcile and justify? Our answer is, all for whom he died. But for whom did He die? Our answer is all that will ever be saved in heaven. But for none else? No, for if he died for any that will miss heaven it follows that Jesus’ death was a failure, seeing He died to save. It Jesus suffered and died for those who will be lost, it follows that Jesus’ suffering was not sufficient to pacify justice or you must admit that those lost will be unjustly punished. if you admit they will be unjustly punished, you blaspheme God. If you admit they are justly punished it follows, if your admission be true, that justice was not met in the suffering of Christ. If justice was not met in the suffering of Christ, then all will be damned, seeing that justice demands more than the sinner can pay. There is more theology today that slanders Christ and His work than any other age of the world.

Arminianism, which is humanism, appears in a greater diversity of attire, and one form is just as bad as another. Any theory that denies a home in heaven for all represented by Christ in His death slanders Christ, for that was His specific design in giving His life. Christ purchased all for whom He died; hence they are His purchased possession and will meet Him in glory. He gave Himself for them that He might redeem, sanctify, and cleanse them, that He might finally present them to the Father without blemish.

If you love Him and His people you are embraced. Faith, love, mourning for sin, poverty in spirit, a hatred for sin, and a craving for righteousness are only proofs that you are a partaker of Christ’s benefits and of your heirship to the heavenly inheritance.

May the Lord help us to so distinguish between cause and effect. The cause is in Christ and the effect is salvation in our souls which is the fountain of all spiritual impulse.

MY SENTIMENT

Nineteen years ago, if not deceived in my claims, the Lord extended His mercy to me, a poor reckless sinful boy, showing me my wretched condition—the exceeding sinfulness of a depraved sinner; nor did he stop at this, but led me by His unerring Spirit to “drink honey out of the rock and oil out of the flinty rock.”

From that good hour I have had a profound reverence and love for Him and His precious children, as well as His church and the glorious doctrine that ascribes greatness and glory unto Him.

I felt impressed to obey Him and to serve Him. I felt sure that He had living witnesses on earth in a church capacity, for the Lord had said, “Upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” I also felt sure that all who claimed the name could not justly deserve it; for here was too much conflict in the various institutions claiming to be the church. To make this matter short, will say that in all my earnest search that I found nothing that fitted my experience and satisfied my anxious thirsty spirit only doctrine, practice, love, and fellowship among the Primitive Baptists.

Their preaching gave glory to God and their devotion to His service and to each other was proof of a reality in what they professed. I was soon convinced that this is the house of God, and that if there is a home on earth for me this is it. I shall not endeavor to tell all my travail from the reception of a hope to my entrance into the church. Many things got in church. Many things got in.

I never did feel worthy of such an holy relation, and if ever I felt the great burden of preaching it came with my deliverance and grew with intensity as the days rolled by. It seemed to me that if that great obligation should be removed that I could easily and cheerfully knock for a home.

Finally I trust that the Lord made me willing to bear all things for His sake and to lean upon him for help to bear every cross, and as a result, presented myself and was received into fellowship of the Old Baptists at Mt. Peak, Ellis Co., Texas, in the year 1897. This is an act I have never regretted, but have often deplored my imperfections, mistakes, otherwise and unworthiness of such a home.

When and where I joined there was perfect peace and oneness of mind, and judgment, nor has there ever been a jar or discord among those precious brethren that received me.

The principles of that church I believed and loved when I joined them, and have had no disposition to change in my sentiment.

They disavowed any alliance with the world. They had no fellowship for the institutions and secret vanities of the world. They looked upon the church of Jesus as being the only divine institution upon earth and with her they were perfectly content. She was looked upon as being selfish and very strange and peculiar in her course. This only contributed more and more to my decision and satisfaction that these are the people of God. She believed that the commission to preach the gospel to every creature was given to the apostles and that they met its demands by preaching “everywhere,” “in all the world,” and “to every creature.” Mark 16:20; Rom. 10:18; Col. 1:23; and that the Lord’s servants now go by the direction of the Holy Spirit and that no man or set of men dare prescribe or molest in their loyalty to that call and direction. (Acts 13:4; Acts 26:16-19.)

They believed that the Lord would care for his servants who were loyal to their Master and His call by putting it into the hearts of His people to administer unto their actual needs, and held in abhorrence the idea of making a charge for the preaching of the gospel, and had but little faith in the man who will all the time make money a consideration for his preaching.

The idea of an organ or instrumental music in their church service would have been met with a unanimous revolt and veto as quickly as mentioned. They did not believe that the service of God could be improved (but impaired) by such humanly devised machinery. It grieves me to see so many brethren that are otherwise sound and noble Baptists persisting in this hurtful innovation and departure from the original order. The Baptists with whom I am connected have no tolerance for this nuisance in the churches and have managed so far to entirely avoid its introduction.

We have no tolerance for Arminianism in any form such as conditional election, universal atonement or the means doctrine in regeneration, believing that the “Three that bare record in heaven, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, is the only and exclusive power or means in the regeneration of sinners.

That this work is done in a direct sovereign way without human instrumentality in any way whatever, and would in a moment disown any connection for or fellowship for such doctrine.

The two seed, no change, whole man change, and non resurrection doctrine are looked upon as hurtful departures and heresies and are held in repudiation and have no recognition whatever.

The doctrine that God decreed or predestinated sin has been the most active and hurtful heresy that the Western Baptists have ever confronted. While its advocates have been by no means numerous, but very obstinate, so much so that it has brought a formal and a lasting division which will never be altered unless they confess their error and subscribe to the truth. And a host have returned since they went out from us, and are still coming. If all who do not believe this ruinous heresy would labor to save them from it instead of apologizing for them, the Baptists everywhere would be of one mind and judgment and peace like a river would link us from sea throughout the limit of our border.

The Baptists in Texas have done the very best they could to regulate this vital question and are better prepared to appreciate the result than those who were not in the fire.

I am sure that what they have done has been done for all time, i.e., disowning any connection with the doctrine and its advocates.

We have patiently borne many hard sayings and we are yet set in the firm belief and hope that time is near at hand when the Baptists throughout our union who are a unit on this vital question will be more closely and calmly bound together than ever before in the world’s history. One thing sure, God’s people cannot continue in love and peace where this heresy exists.

Now, these are some of the principles with which I have been associated since I have been a Primitive Baptist, and that I love with all my heart. I love the peace and welfare of our people everywhere, but have never seen it abounding only where they were agreed and united upon the cardinal principles of truth.

I greatly desire never to advocate and persist in a doctrine or practice either in writing or preaching that is not conductive to the comfort of the Lord’s people and that would produce distress and break the fellowship and confidence

which should exist and which can be maintained upon gospel and principle only.

I so need the guidance of the way to keep me in the right way. I trust I may have the prayers and brotherly counsel of all my dear brethren who may discover any hurtful mistakes in my life and work.

I desire to finish my course with joy, having the divine approbation of the great Judge before whom we are to be tried, which trial weighs and reveals motives as well as actions.

THE MISSION QUESTION

The reason so many of our Missionary Baptist brethren have become so enraged at their brother Tom Watson, and the Primitive Baptists in their faithful correction of the missionary craze and exposure of the corruptness of the enterprise is two-fold, a lack of knowledge and uneasiness.

Thousands of the more honorable and conscientious class of them owing to a lack of opportunity to look into the mission body, take it to be as pure and philanthropic as the name and public expression indicates.

The various “initial” organizations, foreign missions, evangelization of the world, uplift of humanity, saving the lost, giving God, and kindred expressions are very inviting and appealing advertisements especially adapted to human passion. I learned, when a boy, in my patronage given to side-shows, that the outward paintings on the canvass were by no means true expressions of what was within. If you want to go bankrupt just adopt the name, rather than the merit, of things and invest accordingly. A fraud will always depend upon name (and an assumed one at that) for progress rather than worth and merit.

Modern missions are a fraud, both in method and design, living upon name rather than merit, and if any of its recognized leaders will give the veterans of the cross an opportunity in public discussion and repeat the same to a finish, they will soon lead thousands out of the delusion. They have thrown God’s word at such a diverted angle as to produce a spiritual mirage by which thousands are deceived. This mirage is the lost heathen world to be saved by our giving and going. Like the tired and famishing pilgrim of the Sahara they have been toiling to that end for over one century with more heathens in a lost condition than in any other period of the world. So tired and discouraged have many become, with so little returns that many are learning how vain the method and how futile the effort until they are ready to say (and Thank God many are saying) “Vain is the help of man. Salvation is of the Lord.”

If they will not meet us in open fair battle it becomes our duty to expose the human invention with its unscriptural evils through the press. Designing men who will share the revenue will rage and say hard things to our back, but while this is going on many of the earnest children of God will be coming home to the old church or assembly of God that ascribes greatness to Him.

Unity in the house of God is one of the most adorning graces with which she can possibly be clothed. With this powerful virtue abounding she towers in glory above every earthly pinnacle; emits her full light in brilliant rays as a warmth to our hearts and a brightness to our pathway. By it, kindred spirits are bound and are strengthened and encouraged that they may mutually drink the cup of peace and rejoicing in the face of any, and are rendered impregnable in the face of any and every foe.

So profound and heart cheering is the scene that David under its impulse declared: “Behold how good and pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity.”

“God hath built this house.” “Wisdom hath builded her house; she hath hewn out her seven pillars; she hath killed her beasts; she hath mingled her wine; she hath also furnished her table.” So we have a basis for union. As long as we occupy on the foundation laid and as David said: “Satisfied with the goodness of the Lord’s house” there will be peace and unity.

It is asked by the pen of prophecy and inspiration, “How can two walk together except they be agreed?”

Disagreement and walking together are incompatible. Like clashing waves they destroy each other.

Doctrinally and practically, the inhabitants of Zion must be agreed, else she can never represent her original peace and purity. These are vital factors that cannot be honorably sacrificed. But where they exist, other differences which may be personal arising from so many sources all of which may be traceable to animal passion or motive, should be modified to a point of satisfaction of all concerned. Though it may be with difficulty and sacrifice that it is done, still it is honorable. In fact, could it be honorable without difficulty?

The cause we represent is too sublime and noble to allow some individual petty notion arising from human impulse to blur her glowing banner and to pierce her proud and anxious inmates with suspense and sorrow.

I desire to especially refer to some of the sacred relations and obligations of the ministry. The man who is a subject of the divine call to the ministry is clothed with the highest honor ever conferred upon man, our Saviour excepted; His responsibilities are also greater in the same proportion as the cause he represents is greater than any earthly cause. With these facts before us and remembering that he, as other men, is possessed with human weakness, that he is frail, that he is dust, how guarded and prayerful he should be. Oh how grateful he needs sustaining grace to warm his heart with fervent love; to check and modify selfish and all sinful motives; to guide his feet in the path of truth and light and his tongue that its words be truth—spoken with grace and seasoned with salt.

Envy, jealousy, revenge etc. produce spasmodic action and spasmodic results. It may exalt one for a moment until it, in its working, defines itself, when reaction claims its victim and lays such a one so low in the trench of abasement that if he ever rises it will be through many tears and much penitence.

I know men today that, at one time, were in the holy precincts fighting under the flag of our great Captain, whose apparent earnestness and valor commanded utmost truth and confidence of their fellow soldiers, but by giving over to their lust in a rage for leadership, in heeding seducing spirits and doctrines of devils, they have driven the dagger to the very vitals of confidence and fellowship and have fettered themselves with chains in outer darkness where there is indeed weeping and gnashing of teeth.” Such men could by proper steps and fruits of repentance be restored. But I doubt very much whether they could ever again in this life, rise to that confidence and unsuspicious attitude or plane they once occupied. How important that “we rise honorably if we rise at all,” for in that way only will the result be lasting.

I know that, among the flashes and vicissitudes and friction of life, it is hard to maintain deliberation and to govern animal passion, in its proudness of self, that it speculate not on the aims of others and thereby mistake their motives, resulting in unholy wars of revenge.

It is right and binding upon God’s ministers to be first established in truth and then unyielding upon any part of the ground; but we should oppose measures and not men, only to the extent that they relate to the measures that are hurtful.

God’s servants are said to be soldiers, witnesses, lights, ambassadors; yes, they are called by many names that indicate importance attached to their office. A soldier is one of a number whose interests are common, mutual. His qualifications, if a good one, are many. Patriotism is the first and most important. A love and devotion for the cause shapes his motives and contributes largely in giving vigor and endurance to the mechanical part. A soldier of Jesus Christ must first be overwhelmed with devotion to the cause of Christ. This enables him to endure hardness as a good soldier, bravely and vigorously facing the missiles of death, “counting not this life dear unto himself until the shout of victory is heard. What a feeling of rapture must have pervaded the heart of the apostle when in the late evening of his conflict on earth he could feel and speak in the presence of God and men, “I have fought a good fight, I have kept the faith. I am ready to be offered up.”

Such integrity as a soldier more beautifully adorned his life than any earthly dowry, more beautiful his grave than the most pathetic epitaph or the richest hues and perfumes of roses. Such striking examples inspire me with the sentiment of David: “Oh, let me die the death of the righteousness.” He who is “called to be a soldier” has received into his trust a priceless gem. Shall he give it up stained and mutilated? Shall he grasp it a pearl and give it up a stone? Shall he exercise such little discretion and appreciation of this unalloyed treasure as to mingle it with the dust and filth of human pride and ambition?

Dear brethren in the ministry, I feel unworthy to thus address you, but if I am what I profess to be, I am one among you, though I often think the very least. We who are allied in doctrine and practice, bound together by the sacred principles of the gospel, should we not be ensamples to the flock? If so, can we afford to hold aught against each other, at the same time piercing the hearts of our brethren with sorrow and suspense? Should we not rather be contributing to each other in the mutual struggle that is so fraught with severity? Can we afford to indulge envy or revenge when matters do not go all the way we think they ought? Shall I hold malice against you because we differ in a process but not in principle? Shall I persist in a notion of mine when pronounced wrong by a vast and overwhelming majority of my brethren, especially when nothing very vital could be lost in my defeat? Is variance and retaliation on our part, letting our light shine? Is it not rather blurring that light and causing many feeble ones to stumble and even fall?

My imperfections are great and I greatly fear that I have many times in many ways made myself repulsive to my yoke-fellows, but I can truly say, calling upon God as my witness that in my heart I hold nothing against any of God’s servants that are among us for any wrong they may have ever done me. In fact I feel determined that no personal difficulty with my brethren shall ever cause the churches trouble at my expense.

“In union there is strength.”

If regeneration is conditional I wonder why the strongest man of most denominations declare that it is not. If, as our Missionary brethren claim, obedience is not essential to salvation, why do they insist that repentance and faith are essential? Do they mean that repenting and believing are not acts of obedience, or is it because they care not for contradictions? If any want the proof that they teach both, they may have it for the asking.

HARDNESS

The eminent apostle speaking both by inspiration and experience, admonished his son Timothy to “endure hardness as a soldier of Jesus Christ.” While the pathway of Christ’s followers is a rugged one, still if we can only live close to our Captain, the hard places are made easy and rough place plain. With His love in our soul, the desert blooms as a rose and the parched ground becomes pools of water. “The most fragrant and beautiful flower grows upon a thorn stem.” The song of the bird in the tangled hedge sounds out a sweetness or pathos not felt when heard from the budding tress. If the Lord’s people are free from groans and sighs and tears. I have no right to claim him as mine. I go weeping daily yet rejoicing. I weep over my imperfections and blindness, and rejoice that I yet have hope and am counted worthy to live with His people. I am glad the dear Saviour feeds and comforts them that mourn: for all this I feel to be and have no hope of a freedom from them until I hear the call, “Come home”. I am so glad there is a home when reached will never be broken or molested. There will be no loneliness or sad forebodings there. There will be no parting from loved ones there. There will be no cross to bear or hardness to endure, but the glittering crown will display every sorrow, doubt or fear. The faithful servant of God will no longer with a heavy heart say to his sorrowing companion and little ones, “You stay here while I go yonder.” If I must spend my life in trying to comfort and encourage the Lord’s people I desire to do so cheerfully, but I am so imperfect I fear that the Lord has never laid such a duty upon me. I know that about all I have to live for is my little family and the cause of my Master, which I feel sure is committed to the Primitive Baptists. I am willing to go in bonds and affliction for their sakes. I will never be able to express to the household of faith my love for them and the gratitude of my heart for the care they have thrown around me. I have never been among them, where I did not receive a hearty welcome and have never met a band, that I did not want to meet again. Their interest is mine. I understand very well why I love them, but just how and why they can hold me in esteem is a problem I’ve never been able to solve. While it seems impossible yet I would not be an off-cast for worlds like this. I feel a desire to help them bear their burdens and endure hardness as a faithful soldier until my discharge comes. May the Lord be praised for every blessing and for the present prosperity of Zion.

MY SHEPHERD

“The Lord is my Shepherd; I shall not want.”

This is a matter of great importance with me. I am sure that Jesus is the Shepherd of the sheep and that they are altogether secure. But whether I am one of the flock is a question that I cannot so securely answer. I have a hope, however that the day will dawn when “that which is in part” will be done away, and I will “awake in His likeness and be satisfied.”

One thing, however, I am satisfied of, and that is that salvation is of the Lord, and if I am ever permitted to join the heavenly throng it will have been a sinner saved by grace. I now see Jesus “through a glass darkly” but I hope to see Him “face to face and be like Him.”

Our Campbellite friends tell us that everybody is born (in the natural birth) into the family of God. Hence all infants are holy and members of God’s family. They also tell us that God greatly desires, and is very anxious that none be lost.

But they say that none of these holy ones of God’s family can live to maturity without transgressing and becoming victims to the cunning ingenuity of Satan; hence all become children of the devil. So in the rivalry between God and the devil the latter has triumphed.

Putting the two rivals on an equal basis in power and tactics God had decidedly the advantage because His subjects were holy (they say) and hence had a holy disposition, because anyone that is holy would be disposed to holiness. The only conclusion is that the devil was mightier than God and His family combined. If God was not able to defend and retain His family in the face of the devil while they were possessed with a holy disposition, it would certainly be silly and worse than folly for Him, to undertake the task of rescuing them from the same foe while possessed with a Satanic nature and disposition.

They admit that God does not work directly, or by His direct power, in rescuing sinners, but through means of the Bible and the preacher He convinces sinners. To this we ask, didn’t the devil work without a bible? Did he not by a direct power or operation capture them? So we have Campbellism thus: The devil by a direct operation defeats the Lord and captures all and God’s only hope to rescue any is through the preacher as a means. If God by His direct power could not hold what He had, I am sure He can never rescue what He has lost by means of a few little quarrelsome Campbellite preachers.

The truth is, they admit that the devil occasionally captures some of the means (preachers). I suspect that the reason God don’t work directly any more is for fear that He will get caught Himself. I really feel sorry for their god anyway. He is very much concerned and anxious about sinners, but afraid to go, but sends a hand, and when his agent is missing, won’t even look after him. The devil simply has Him bluffed, confused and mortified.

If I believed that doctrine I would address all my prayers to the devil, for I would expect to fall into his hands, and would want to be at peace with him and share the lighter punishment.

I am glad God reigns, and does His will, in heaven and on earth, and that the devil can never triumph one inch over the Lord’s purpose to save.

PRESUMPTION

“Keep back thy servant also from presumptuous sins.” Psalms 19:13.

Presumption often brings the venturesome low. It hazards safety on very doubtful grounds or resources. It assumes to do more than there are capacities to do with. Conceit with a desire for prominence or excellence is the hot bed of presumption. I was engaged in a series of appointments in my town, and at the close of the first service a very conspicuous character confronted me with the inquiry “Have you any question box?” I of course had to tell him no. He seemed surprised that I was not ready to answer questions. The next service I related the matter and tried to explain why I had no query box. I told them that I had never acquired that much impudence or conceit. That I did not know very much, but was in advance of some who had never learned that there were some things they did not know. That the main reason I did not have the box was that some old Bible reader from the forks of the creek might slip in a question I couldn’t answer, and then I would feel bad. I told them I was not afraid of the Smart Alecks, I could answer fools according to their folly, but it was those solemn godly questions I dreaded “for without controversy, great is the mystery of Godliness.” Lord, keep us back from presumptuous sins.

PROPITIATION

He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but for the sins of the whole world.” 1 John 2.

This text certainly proves that sin is as universal as the “whole world,” for it is the “sins of the whole world.” If the “whole world” means all the race of Adam, it just as strongly proves the whole race to be sinners. The Campbellites and others who advocate infantile purity use this text to prove that Christ died for all the race. Very well, let us put them to the test, but substituting “all the human race” for the “whole world”.

Syllogism

1. Christ is the propitiation for the sins of all the race.

2. The infant is part of the race.

3. Therefore the infant is a sinner.

But we try it by this theory:

1. Christ is the propitiation for the sins of all the race.

2. But the infant is not a sinner.

3. Therefore the infant is not a part of the race.

How is that for theology?

Again. If Christ is the propitiation for all the sins of all the race, and propitiation means satisfaction, it follows that satisfaction was made for the sins of all the race. The entire race will therefore be saved unless they go to torment in spite of satisfaction made by Christ for their sins. Suppose we carefully study the text!

The educational question seems at present to be the prime factor of enthusiasm and necessity for some of our friends. Every paper teems with numerous and pressing pleas for more money for the education of more of our ministers for foreign work. Great heavens! What next? In these same papers comes the admission that men are ready to go, but no means with which to send them. Think of heathens going to hell for want of educated preachers. Some are ready to go, but can’t without money, and what money can be gotten is used to educate more. Better send what you have on hand for the heathens are multiplying faster than your clergy. Besides, the souls that are going to hell now are as precious as any other could be in the future. If their creed be true, God’s machinery is powerfully clogged. The thing is already running backward, because where they get one abroad, the Catholics likely get two here at home. “He that provideth not for his own, especially them of his own household, has denied the faith and is worse than an infidel.”

PREACHING

Depravity, of an inherent, hereditary type is universally or nearly so, admitted, and yet it is almost as extensively denounced. The Methodists, Missionary Baptists and Campbellites all avow it, but if you emphasize it in their pulpits they soon yell, “enough.” Have I told the truth on them? The Methodists say in their discipline “Original sin standeth not in the following of Adam (as the Pelagians do vainly talk), but it is corruption of the nature of every man, that naturally is engendered of the offspring of Adam, whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness, and of his own nature inclined to evil, and that continually,” Methodist Discipline. How is that for Methodists? Do you ever hear them talk that way from their pulpits? If so you have better ears than I.

What do you say, friend Missionaries? “We believe that man was created in holiness under the law of his maker; but by voluntary transgression fell from that holy and happy state; in consequence of which all mankind are sinners, not by constraint, but choice, being by nature utterly void of that holiness required by the law of God, positively inclined to evil; and therefore under just condemnation to eternal ruin, without defense or excuse.” Article 3, pg. 46 Manual by J. M. Pendleton, D D.

What about it, Mr. Campbellite? “Thus by one man sin entered into the world, and death by that one sin; and so death the wages of sin, has fallen upon all the offspring of Adam, because in him they all have sinned or been made mortal, and consequently are born under condemnation to that death which fell upon our common progenitor because of his transgression.” A. Campbell in Christian System pg. 28. Again, pg. 28 Our “nature was corrupted by the fall of Adam before it was transmitted to us; and hence all that hereditary imbecility to do good, and that proneness to do evil, so universally apparent in all human beings.”

How is that, kind reader for the Campbellites? Is that the way they talk in your community? They are trying all over the country to prove that the baby is holy, absolutely pure from this “universal hereditary proneness to evil” of which Mr. Campbell speaks.

There is not a guarded man on earth that could, in the face of an admission of either of the foregoing quotations, affirm a conditional salvation. He would spurn every principle of logic, brand every infant, idiot, heathen, and everyone else failing to perform the conditions, with eternal damnation, world without end, and they ought to know it.

ARMINIANISM

Arminianism is a broken chain that no living talent can put together. It is made up of fragments that will not unite, and hence, as a unit or a whole, it is a ridiculous mass of confusion.

As a whole, it denies the perfection of God and unity of His attributes.

In speaking of the love of God and trying to magnify it as being universal, it flatly denies that God very materially loved any one, and denies that He loved the great mess of sinners at all.

My proof of my first statement is that all you can deduce from the system is a chance of salvation for anyone, and the benefits of the chance to be derived by the effort and struggles of the sinner. If one of my family were in a critical, sinking, condition, their strength gone, their will perverted, their judgment dethroned— and I were to extend to that one only a means by which they could save themselves, leaving the matter to their own volition and effort do you consider that in the same would be displayed very much love on my part? Do you think if I loved that one very much and had the power that I would reach forth, embrace the subject and graciously and triumphantly deliver him? The above, however, is a sample of Arminianism in its great display of God’s wonderful love to those He gives a chance— calls on them to save themselves, or come to where God can save them.

But this is not the worst of it. They say God so loved all the race that He made provisions for all to be saved through the gospel. Now, we examine and see how much love is in that.

God arranged a plan (prompted by love) that would provide salvation for all. That plan was to save them or give them a chance of salvation through the gospel. Very well, let us proceed. God is all-wise, knew all things, and hence knew when He was arranging and adopting His plan that the great masses of sinners would never hear the gospel. They haven’t. So we have it that God loved every body with such intensity, and so greatly desired the salvation of all, that He adopted a plan that He knew very well would reach and give only a chance of salvation to the very few that hear the gospel. Wonderful love indeed that would prompt God to provide salvation in the gospel only, and then commit this matter into the hands of men, who He knew would never reach the sufferers for whom it was intended! I say that is love on a wonderful scale!

If my wife was dying and I had the remedy that would preserve her life and commit it into the hands of a man to convey it to her, knowing at the very time he would never reach her, I would display just such love for her as Arminianism displays of the love of God for sinners, that have never heard the gospel. And, upon the other hand, if I knew he would reach her perishing state, and instruct him to give her only a chance at it, and leave it to her own effort and volition in the matter would be a fair sample of God’s love for sinners to whom the gospel is sent.

The truth is, if I loved my wife and she was in a dangerous condition, and I had the remedy (as God has) I would not send some greedy weakling, but would, myself, rush to her rescue and relief. That would be proving my love, desire and power.

The chance system denies all the above. If God loved all the race, and wanted all saved, and arranged a plan to that end, and all are not saved, it follows that God did not know what it would require to save; hence away goes His foreknowledge. Again, if God knew what it would require to save sinners, and He arranged a plan to that end, and He is supreme in power and does the saving, and all are not saved, it follows that He did not desire salvation of all.

Again, if God loved all the race and desired the salvation of them all, and arranged a plan to that end, and all are not saved, He was powerless to execute His love, desire and plan; hence away goes His power.

But you say His plan is to use means in its execution.

Very well, who uses the means, and what are they? If God uses the means, and the means fail to reach the subject, who is responsible, God, the means, or the subject? It could not be the means, for it is passive and God is the actor. It could not be the subject, for he is ignorant and therefore helpless. Hence God is responsible after all. If God uses means, and desires the means to reach all, and it fails, does it not follow that God exercises poor management of His means? Why do the means not reach all? Not because God does not desire it; hence it follows that instead of God controlling His means, His means control Him. Then we had better be praying to the man, rather than the user.

This foolishness runs in infiniture; it’s a ridiculous deformity any way you view it and the farther you trail it the more ridiculous it becomes.

John T. Oakley told me in public debate that it was none of his, mine, or anybody’s business how an infant was saved. Jesus says, “Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom as (like) a little child can not enter therein.” If we receive the kingdom like a little child, and it is none of our business how the child receives it, then it necessarily follows that it is none of our business how we receive it. If it is none of our business about how we or the children receive it, we conclude that it is none of our business about how any one receives it. So we find quite a number earnestly in a business that does not belong to them. If I were teaching a system of theology that would force me to such ridiculous concessions, I would think it high time to make a change. No wonder the Missionary Baptists are so confused.

Is it an offense to God to do what He decreed that we should do? If yes, does it not follow that the only way to please God is to thwart His decree concerning us? Would that not make it a rather difficult matter to please God? If no, and as Paul declares, “By the offense of one judgment came upon all,” does it not follow that God did not decree or predestinate the act of the one (Adam)? We wait for some Can’t-help-it to tell us how it becomes an offense to God for His creature to do what He decreed and, therefore, wanted him to do. Take your time.

As a jewel of gold in a swine’s snout, so is a fair woman which is without discretion,” Prov. 11:22. The church of God is called a woman. See Rev. 12:1. She is called “fair” and “fairest among women”. See Songs 1:8; 5:9; 45:1; 6:10; also Gen. 24:6. There is nothing in all the world that more beautifully and appropriately represents the church of Jesus Christ than a pure woman. A woman of chastity and virtue, guided by utmost discretion, is indeed the fairest of God’s creation. The one who has a true and faithful husband that loves her as he does his own life is blessed; and where that love is reciprocated by her, adorned with modesty and discretion, there is mutual happiness. Christ is said to be the bridegroom, and the church is the bride. Christ is a true and faithful husband, who will never make a mis-step, who will never violate the marriage vow. The only indiscretion possible is on the part of the bride. “If we deny him, he is faithful; he cannot deny himself.” He loved His bride when in filth and sin, when in destitution and poverty’s rags. He sanctified her, and washed her in His own blood. He beautified her by conforming her spirit to His image, by placing upon her the “robe of righteousness” and the “garment of salvation.” He has clothed her with the “sun” and crowned her with the beautiful crown of twelve stars”. This is the needle work wrought with fine gold, an apparel that the world can not imitate. She is the Saviour’s “beloved”, “My love, my dove, my undefiled is but one. She is the only one of her mother, the choice one of her that bare her.” Not only is she “beloved”, but she is “but one”. She is the only one that Jesus loves and owns.

She is the “choice one”, the “beloved” and “Only one.” Truly she is blessed among women, the highly favored among the daughters. She has but one husband, and a parentage that no other woman can justly claim. They may and do come in His name, but eating their own bread and wearing their own apparel. They forge His name, not because they love Him or desire to be found with Him, but to take away their reproach. They appear on the streets and corners with false modesty, to lead the simple into their dwelling place, which is a bed of whoredom and abomination. Her ways are those of death and disgrace. “As a fine jewel in a swine’s snout so is a fair woman without discretion.”

Reader, please take the time to read the 7th chapter of Proverbs, and get a true picture of the false woman. After the description He says: “Hearken unto me, 0 ye children, go not astray in her paths, for she hath cast down many wounded.” These are the women (churches) that come in the name of Jesus, but deny Him in their works. They eat their own bread and wear their own apparel, but wear the dear name in order to take away their reproach. Indeed, it is a fine jewel in a swine’s snout. As certain as you place the jewel in the swine’s snout, just that certain will the jewel go at once into the filth of the earth. I love the bride of Jesus— the Old Baptist church— because she refuses to act so indiscreetly as to yoke up with the abominations of earth. She cannot be persuaded into a betrayal of the love of her husband. She is trusting Him for bread and apparel. She is continually “leaning upon her beloved.”

Dear kindred, we have a husband who is faithful, who loves us dearly. His ears are open to our cries, and His hands extended to our needs and wrought in our defense. He will never leave us comfortless, but in every sorrow He, too, partakes; in every bitter He sups with us; in the darkest moments He sheds forth a cheering ray of light to guide our tired and wandering feet; in hunger He feeds His flock like a good shepherd; in persecution He sets a table for us in the presence of our enemies; in loneliness

He cheers us with whispers of love; when fear comes upon us, ’tis sweet to hear the gentle voice, “Be not afraid, it is I;” when death fastens upon our mortal frame and all earthly hands can do no more, oh, how sweet ’twill be to hear the gentle voice, “Child, come home.” Oh, how wonderful to be found leaning upon His arm and feeling its loving and triumphant embrace bearing our bodies calmly over the dark valley and turbid waters of death with the faithful assurance that He will carefully watch our sleeping form until He comes without sin into salvation. Grant, dear Saviour, that I, a poor imperfect servant, may be found faithful through life, die the death of the righteous, and live with them and my dear Saviour forever. Surely His service is worth our while, even though it be through floods of tribulation here. If need be, it is far better to lose all else and have Christ, for He can feed the hungry, clothe the naked, anoint the suffering and wounded in this life, and above all will He crown them mighty conquerors in that life to come.

I am now one thousand miles from home trying to trust His grace to provide me and loved ones left behind. I have been blessed above measure and feel encouraged to battle on in His service as He gives me strength.

“Your love has a broken wing, if it cannot fly across the ocean,” is a saying of M. D. Babcock, and quoted in the Texas Baptist Standard. This is a way the Standard has of appealing to the people for more money with which to save heathens. This is a good place to add that the love of Christ has a broken wing, if it cannot fly across the ocean. If they admit that Christ’s love for heathens has two good wings that speeds it to them, but helpless to shed itself abroad in their hearts until the preacher arrives, we would necessarily conclude that His power has a broken engine. In fact, if Missionary preachers serve as God’s engine through which He communicates His power in salvation, He has had a broken engine all the time. When a wheel of the old machinery does turn with a view of business, it is attended with such a howling screech as renders it unbearable— out of grace.

So annoying does this grating noise become that many will give oil to hush the racket. But strange to say the more oil applied the more required, for the noise intensifies. What a pity God did not survey the oil prospects before constructing His machinery. God is always crowded with work; got the engine and power, but always out of grease. No wonder the old machinery makes so much and so many kinds of racket. Shame on such a concern! God’s machinery used for shaping the hearts of men for glory has never for one moment been out of repair; never stood idle nor an expense for want of anything. Its construction is perfect, its composition durable, and its supplies inexhaustible. It has never looked to man for wisdom or guidance, nor to money as a lubricator. In the Trinity we find the engine the wisdom, power, love, oil, and everything essential to a perfect unfrustrable work. “His praise will He not give to graven images, nor His glory unto another.” “In thee, 0 Lord, do I put my trust.”

Depravity and conditional regeneration are incompatibles. Our Missionaries admit that they are irreconcilable, but yet affirm each to be true. It is right amusing to see them in debate with the Campbellites, climb upon the old platform of sovereign grace to shield depravity, and in debate with Primitives swing out on the limb of obedience and works to shield conditionalism.

In the first they virtually surrender conditionalism, and in the second they virtually surrender depravity. They are like the bat— a mouse one minute and a bird the next. If the owl is hungry for the bird, the bat is a mouse; but if the bat is hungry for mice, the bat is a bird.

More inconsistencies and contradictions are found among them than any people on earth.

The issue is, as you can readily see, what is done for a sinner in regeneration? Is the entire Adam sinner quickened or is it the spirit only?

There might be some quibble on the term spirit. I mean by the spirit that is quickened, that inner integral component part. I do not mean by spirit that it is a factor or fraction of a part of man, but it is an integral part. It embraces the whole of a part. The flesh or body is a part of the man; and it is said to have a spirit which is only a fractional part of an integral part. That inner, integral part which is sometimes addressed as a person, is the spirit we speak of.

Man, as he relates to God before regeneration, is natural only. He must be made spiritual, i.e., be made partaker of the life and holiness of God’s Spirit.

Remember that the body (outer man) is sometimes, spoken of and to a person. The inner or spirit man, the same way, and sometimes they are taken in the aggregate as a person. This is clearly seen in the third chapter of Join. Jesus says, “Ye must be born again,” but He says, “That which is born of the Spirit is spirit.”

The whole man must be born, but the question is what “is born”? We agree that God’s people are “born of the Spirit”, but is it a personal integral part or a personal integral whole? If the latter Jesus would have said, “That which is born of the Spirit is flesh and spirit.

The apostle puts the quickening of the flesh or body in the future. See Rom. 8, “Shall also quicken your mortal bodies by His spirit that dwelleth in you.” He was speaking to His children, which proves their bodies were not then quickened. He says to the Corinthian brethren,

“We shall all be changed.” Notice, “shall be changed”. What shall be changed? The bodies that are asleep when Jesus comes, and also the bodies of those saints living at His coming.

He says, “We shall not all sleep (die) but we shall all be changed, in a moment,” etc. If it is the bodies that sleep (die), and that which is asleep will be changed, it follows that they are not changed (vitally) now.

The body is said to be “sown (buried) a natural body, but raised a spiritual body.” If the body is already quickened by the Spirit of God, it certainly would be spiritual. It, therefore, cannot be said to be now quickened.

If the entire man is quickened and made partaker of the divine nature, there could be no cross, but we are reminded of and commanded to “take up our cross and follow” Him. This cross is, no doubt, the conflicting natures of the flesh and the quickened spirit, for we are commanded to mortify and put under subjection the body.

The flesh is said to “lust against the spirit and the spirit against the flesh,” so much so that we “can not do the things that we would”. “The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak.” Why all this warfare between the integral parts if they be possessed with the same nature?

If the elder’s position be true, there could be no cross or warfare in one’s self, but the war would be between God and man, if the spirit in these texts refers to the personality of the Holy Spirit. If the war is between God and the man personally, the former is sure to triumph, and there would be an absolute perfection in our lives.

We are told that, “Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin, for his seed remaineth in him and he cannot sin because he is born of God.” If the whole man is born, it necessarily follows from the above that no part of man can sin; so Brother xxxx had better insist on his brethren, who agree with him, that they start an institution of “Holiness Baptists,” for that is where his position lands him, unavoidably so.

Again, if our spirits are prepared in the new birth to live with God without another change, why not our bodies also? But Paul declares “we shall all be changed”. Will Brother xxxx tell us what this change is, what is to be changed, and when?

Now I give Brother xxxx some logical deductions from plain Scriptural statement, and ask him to criticize by pointing out errors in premise or conclusion.

First

1. That which is born of the Spirit is spirit. John. 3.

2. The body is not spirit, for “spirits have not flesh and bone.”

3. Therefore the body is not born of the Spirit.

Second

1. Whosoever is born of God “doth not” sin and can not sin.

2. The body both can and does sin.

3. Therefore the body is not born of God.

Third

1. Whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world. John.

2. We, in our entirety, do not overcome the world.

3. We are not, therefore, in our entirety, born of God.

1. We are in our entirety already quickened or partakers of the divine nature, says Brother xxxx.

2. But we shall all be changed, says Paul.

3. Therefore, we would necessarily be changed the second time.

We ask Brother xxxx, if we are already, in our entirety, partakers of the divine nature, and in the future “shall be changed,” what will we then be?

That would necessarily reduce us back to the human. That would destroy the Christian’s hope. We hope for something better for this sinful, suffering mortal body. It is now human, but we hope for that change from human to divine in the glorious resurrection.

We have either been changed in our entirety, or in part, or we have had no change. Which will you take, Brother xxxx? We are changed to the extent that we see and, know, and Paul says that now we see in part and know in part. If we were changed in our entirety we would no longer “see through a glass darkly,” be no longer saved by hope,” no longer “walk by faith.”

While we are yet sinful and imperfect in the flesh, yet we trust in the blessed assurance that He who hath begun a good work in us will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ. With the Christian the work is only “begun”, and yet we are “complete in Him.” The work has begun and is complete in our spirits. So as the work relates to the aggregate, it is only begun, but as it relates to the integral part of the whole (spirit) it is both begun and complete.

We regret to hear that any of our Baptist brethren are advocates of the idea which our brother seems to be so absorbed, for I believe with all my heart it is a gross, hurtful and misleading error, with all due respect to the elder, however, as a man, but no sympathy for his pet.

THE TWO WAYS

In Matt. 7:13-14, we find an admonition of the Savior and that is to “enter in at the strait gate,” which He shows is the entrance into the narrow way, etc. Also, here is another WAY that is represented here which is called the broad way which leads unto destruction. I heard one of Uncle Alex’s boys use this as a premise upon which to base an argument to prove (or rather try to prove) that water baptism must be observed in order to reach Heaven and immortal glory. I will present the argument just as be presented it. He said: This broad and narrow way, as represented in Matt. by our Savior, was the only two ways the Bible spoke of, and that the broad way leads to hell, and the narrow way to Heaven. Now he says, baptism is a Bible command to be complied with by men and women.

Now, baptism, he says, is found in one of these ways and, of course, all agree that it is in the way that leads to Heaven. Now the question was, if baptism is in the way that leads to heaven, how are you going to travel that way, and at the same time shun baptism? Just here, his brethren seemed to be more thoroughly established in the doctrine of baptismal regeneration. Dear friends who read this, what do you think of a man who will scheme that way to carry a point? Did you ever notice how “Campbellism” so much resembles a rickety stove pipe, where you get one joint together, how it comes loose at another place? Now let’s find the broken joint.

I will take his own statement, that the two ways in Matt. are the only two ways mentioned in the Bible. The Savior says, in John 14:6, “I am the way.” Then Jesus must be one of those ways, else there would be three ways. Now, I know that Elder Denton (for that is his name) will not say Christ is the broad way, then He must be the narrow way.

Now what have we from one of Uncle Alex’s able defenders? (1) Baptism is in the narrow way. (2) Christ is the narrow way. (3) Therefore, baptism is in Christ. Away, away with this idea of water baptism putting us in Christ when this able defender of Campbellism has admitted that you must be in Christ before observing baptism. I wonder if the Elder knew that Paul has affirmed that if any man be in Christ he is a new creature? I hope this man will think about this statement of his when he is affirming that baptism is in order to the remission of all past sins, seeing that he places the sinner in the narrow way or in Christ before baptism. Oh, consistency, thou art a jewel.

“And this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith,” 1 John 5:4. It is a fact, invincible, that it is FAITH in God or Christ that enables anyone to overcome the world and to render service to God, but the blunder is so universally made, and so unwarranted, and hence, so uncalled for, people insist that it is the faith of the ungodly, unborn, and that their faith overcomes the world, and that their obedience prompted by faith is that that borns them into the family of God. By consulting the first clause of the verse referred to, you will observe that the apostle plainly states, “For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world,” and then adds, “And this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith.”

Notice, only those who are “born of God” are said, in the text, to “overcome the world,” and faith is said to be the “victory that overcometh the world.” We, therefore, unavoidably conclude that it is the faith of those who are born of God that overcomes the world.

We are taught that the birth precedes the faith, and that faith precedes the overcoming the world. In other words, the one born of God, by faith, overcomes the world. Now how are they born? That is the important question. See John 1:13, “Born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.”

The will of man is not consulted nor employed in effecting the new birth. This is the sovereign work of God. It produces a new life, gives new discernment, creates within us new and holy desires, causes us to love God and hate sins; gives us faith, a holy fruit of the Spirit, by which as a glorious victory we overcome the world in forsaking the world as a happy cheerful exchange for the service of God.

Faith is the motor power that enables us to subdue the foe and humbly follow Christ the Lamb. In fact, “without faith it is impossible to please God.”

But let us remember that, just as impossible as it is to please God without faith, that equally impossible is it to have faith until we are born again.

By faith men have done wonders, for faith is indeed powerful, but they never did anything by faith until they had the faith, and our text teaches beyond question, that none have this faith prior to the new birth. By faith kingdoms have been subdued, righteousness wrought, promises obtained, mouths of lions stopped, violence of fire quenched, the edge of the sword escaped, and many wonderful works done; but not a single instance where the alien sinner was ever by faith born again. The reason of this is in our text: “Whatsoever is born of God overcomes the world by faith.”

Lord, help thy children to know and reverence the truth.

I have recently been asked to tell through the paper why I believe that repentance is an evidence of life, instead of a cause or condition. As I believe this to be an easy task, I am willing to undertake it.

Repentance may be defined under two heads, first as a principle, feeling or impulse; second, as an act. It takes consciousness to produce an intelligent act. There can be no act in the absence of life, and no intelligent act in the absence of consciousness.

Repentance as an act is “turning from”. It is implied that this “turning from” is from wrong to right.

Take a man who possesses natural life only. He may be very immoral, possessed with bad habits, such as swearing, gambling, lying, or stealing. These habits he can and ought to quit. He can do this from a consciousness of its evils and by the power of natural life— natural will power. Should be do this, it would not produce a new order of life, but would make a practical improvement of the life already possessed, hence, all you could attribute to the change would be a moral reformation. But a moral reformation is one thing and regeneration quite a different thing.

As the receiving of natural life is unconditional on our part, and a right living in that sphere is conditional on our part, so is spiritual life unconditional on our part, and a right living in the Spirit is conditional on our part.

When one is born again they are brought to a consciousness of sin and the purity of God, and hence, feel condemned before a sin avenging God. They are made to abhor sin, and to thirst after righteousness. As a result they turn from wrong doing and endeavor to do that which is right.

The motive is planted in our hearts by the Spirit and grace of God and, hence, we act from that basis. All that can be said or claimed for spiritual repentance is a reformation (spiritual), or a practical betterment of the life with which we have been so sovereignly and graciously blessed.

Hence, the command to repent strikes, with deep conviction, the hearts of all who have been killed to sin and made alive to holiness.

“Godly sorrow works repentance.” “It is the goodness of God that leads to repentance.”

Neither “Godly sorrow” or the “goodness of God” repents for us, but they place us to where we do the repenting by turning in obedience to their dictations, but life is behind and underneath all. Life produces the “sorrow” and does the “leading,” and we repent as a result.

My mind this morning is directed to the fourth chapter of John, one which abounds with comfort to the lowly in heart by giving them bright evidences of their acceptance with the beloved. These evidences are those of love. Love is one of the characteristics of a child of God, which speaks more forcibly of a change of heart than any other.

First, we want to say that God is the great fountain source from which every principle that goes to make up this love of a godly sort is received, 1 John 4:7: “Beloved, let us love one another, for love is of God.” And we will say that no one ever possessed this love which is undefiled who had not previously been touched by the divine power of God in regeneration; for in the same verse as above, he says that, “Every one that loveth is born of God.” Then away with the idea that love is a condition for the ungodly to comply with in order to become a child of God, but the new birth endowing us with a new heart and mind and instilling in our souls the principles of love, we then love because we have been born again. 1 John 4:19, “We loved Him because He first loved us.” “Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His son to be the propitiation for our sins.”

Oh, dear reader, when did God love you, and what was the result of that love?

God, moved by love, sent His Son into this world as a Mediator, whose object it was to accomplish reconciliation for His people. Rom. 5:10, “For if, when we were enemies (then God loved us while enemies to Him), we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by His life. Also, Paul says in Eph. 2:4, 5, “But God, who is rich in mercy, for His great love wherewith He loved us, Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ.” This shows when God loved us, which was while dead in sins, while we were walking according to the course of this world, while we were by nature the children of wrath, even as others. Yes, while we were in open rebellion against Him. It also shows what was effected by that love, which was our being quickened together with Christ, or as the apostle has it, being saved by grace to the exclusion of all works of our own way of obedience, but centralizes the whole matter as a gift of God. “Beloved, if God so loved us, we ought also to love one another.”‘ By so doing the grace of God that bringeth salvation shall appear to all men, that is, they can see its effects. As our Saviour said, John 13:35, “By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one for another.”

Dear brethren, I trust I have found a fulfillment of this Scripture among the Old Baptists, hence, in the language of Ruth, “Entreat me not to leave you, nor from following after thee.” Then allow me to continue in the march with you for victory.

THE END