SUPPORT GSPS |
The Gold, Silver, Precious Stones team appreciates your contributions in support of this work. Please send your correspondence to:
Gold, Silver, Precious Stones
P.O. Box 240
Harvest, AL 35749
|
|
|
|
Triumphs of Truth
Chapter 25
APPENDIX (continued.) - LETTER II.
TO ELDER SPENCER CLARK.
Dear Sir,
It is a painful task to me to enter upon a controversy with any man, but more so with one who is of the same denomination with myself; yet painful as it is, and with all the reluctance I feel on the occasion, I am bound in duty to you, to my brethren and to myself, to correct some of the mistakes which you have made in examining Simple Truth.
This little volume was written with an honest intention; it was not designed to produce strife and war, but to help the pilgrims in their march to the heavenly world, to understand the glorious system which sovereign grace had devised, to secure to them the enjoyment of the eternal inheritance, and to wrest from their feet as much as possible, every clog and fetter, and to furnish them with a key to the rich treasure of the word of God, that they might rejoice and walk in the truth. The Baptist church in all countries, and in all the confessions of faith which they have published, have always been careful to recommend the scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, as the word of God, and the only safe rule of faith and practice; and their own confessions as no more than human productions; bearing the print of man's hand. I know not but the Baptist confession is the best extant, and in the general I am well pleased with it, but I do not believe it to be infallible, nor did the authors of it ever desire me to receive it as such. Where I have discovered defects in it, I have tried too expose them as defects, and I think I had liberty as a Baptist to take the scripture for my only guide in all things.
Before I come to any strictures on your letters, I shall correct a few mistakes which brother H. and yourself have made in your prefatory address "to the reader." Here you say; "The doctrine of the Trinity, Justification by Faith, and the Covenant of Redemption, are articles of faith, of primary importance. These articles brother Thompson has written against, and represents them as having sprung from the Mother of Harlots, as mischievous traditions of men." Now these things I deny, and call on you both, in the face of an enlightened public, to make good your words; for I do here declare that I have never written against either of these articles. I do most firmly believe, and constantly preach and defend these points .I have written against the tri-personality of the Trinity, as a defect in the Trinitarian's plan of reasoning, but not against the doctrine of the Trinity as an article of faith! No; I believe in the doctrine of the Trinity as firmly as my brethren H. and C. do, and here they made a great mistake, which they may account for if they can. Justification and the covenant of redemption are articles of my faith, but I believe with our confession which says, "Those whom God effectually calleth, he freely justifieth, not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins , and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for anything wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ's sake alone; not by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness, but by imputing Christ's active obedience unto the whole law, and passive obedience in his death for their whole and sole righteousness; they receiving and resting on him and his righteousness by faith; which they have not of themselves; it is the gift of God." If I can understand this article of our confession, it is in substance this: The righteousness of Christ alone can justify us; this righteousness is our justification; faith, nor any other evangelical obedience can justify us, but the active and passive obedience of Christ is the whole and sole righteousness which can be the justification of a sinner, and the office of faith is to receive, rest on, and confide in this righteousness. Now I demand of you both to make good your words, and show if you can, the sentence in Simple Truth that stands in opposition to this article. I have, in agreement with the Baptist Confession of Faith, written in opposition to your notion of justification, for brother C. says, page 32, "It is the duty of all men to repent and believe the gospel." Now all I have written on this subject, goes to show that we are justified by the blood and righteousness of Christ, and that all this was complete before we had faith, and that by faith we are led to trust in, rest on, and approve of this righteousness as the only grounds of our justification. Christ's righteousness, both active and passive, is held forth in the gospel as the only justifying righteousness, and faith adds nothing to it, but it is revealed to faith, is viewed by faith, and faith trusts in it, and while it pleads no merits of its own, it leads the soul oppressed with sin to trust in the righteousness of Christ for justification. Now faith, the act of believing, never wrought our justification, but saw it in Christ; made ready to its hand; and seeing it, believed it under the warrant of the gospel, and the soul by the eye of faith, seeing the fitness of this righteousness, and that the gospel afforded the most ungodly sinner a sufficient warrant to trust in it, ventures on it as all his hope for justification. Therefore the righteousness of Christ is declared to be the justifying righteousness; the gospel is the warrant to the sinner to trust in it, and faith acts upon this warrant, and enables the soul to recognize it as its justification. This is in substance what I have written, and this you have accused as being opposed to the article of justification by faith, as held by the Baptist church. Let the reader judge whether this charge is just, or whether it is not in greater agreement with our confession of faith than to say as you do, that faith is the duty of all men, and then argue that faith, the act of believing justifies us, which the above cited article of our confession denies in plain terms. On the covenant of redemption, I have only written against its being construed into the notion of a bargain, or traffic, and have showed that the word covenant did not necessarily mean a contract, but a constitution, testament, or dispensation, and I have written against this erroneous construction of the covenant of redemption, making a bargain of it, but I have never written against the covenant of redemption, only against an abuse of that covenant. Let brother H. and C. deny this if they please, and substantiate their threefold charge if they can; for I now call on them to do it, or by their silence confess that they have misrepresented me.
You say, on your 4th page, "Brother Thompson is a Unitarian. He appears to be partly Arian and partly Sabellian." Well, call me what mixture you please. If by the term Unitarian you would designate me to believe in one God, I confess the charge is just so far; but if you wish to insinuate by this term that I denied the Trinity, the divinity of Christ, of the Holy Ghost, or the Father; I deny the charge, and demand of you both to support it if you can. As to the charge of my having a mixture of Sabellianism, it may be true, for perhaps there is no religious sect but what holds to something that is good, and it may be that I may have a mixture of these two sects, and yet hold nothing but what you could subscribe to; but your insinuation is that I agreed with these sects in rejecting the doctrine of the Trinity, the divinity of Christ, &c. These things I deny, nor can you or any other man support these charges from anything in any of my writings, and this you must know. You rank me with heretics, and say, "It is impossible that the orthodox and heretics should long remain in the same communion." Then you anticipate a division of the Baptist denomination into parties. "The one [you say] will be the whole Baptist denomination, and the other the followers of brother Thompson." I have never anticipated this division, nor have I ever set up any party , or insinuated anything like a desire to draw a party after me, or that I could not live comfortably with the Baptists, yet you say, "It is he [Thompson,] who has assailed the doctrines of the church -it is he who is drawing a party after him, producing divisions, and rending the church." Let me ask you, Where is my party? What church have I rended? I demand of you to make good your words, for I do deny that I have ever rent any church, or that I am drawing any party from the Baptist communion.
You say, "This scene of contention and division has been presented before our eyes with all its mournful consequences. It has touched our hearts with the most serious grief." These things I call on you to demonstrate if you can, for I have never yet heard of any such division in the church, nor of anytime when such a scene was presented before your eyes with all its mournful consequences; be so good as to tell me where this tragical scene presented itself, what church was the theatre in which it was displayed? Can you name the contending parties? I do protest that this is a rending of the church which I never heard of except through the medium of your pamphlet, and if I am the leader of such a factious party , it must live beyond my personal acquaintance, for I have never heard of such a party .I have never been denied any privilege in the communion of the Baptist church, and where my party is, which I am drawing off, I think will be hard to tell, or what church I have rent will be hard to designate; but as your eyes witnessed the scene, and all its mournful consequences, and your hearts were touched with the most serious grief on the occasion, you can surely tell us what church it was that was rent? What were the mournful circumstances attending it! And what were the names of these partizans! I am compelled to say, that this is all new matter to me, and I believe I never should have heard of it if your pamphlet had not informed me; and of you as the authors of this report; I demand a proof of it; not in the newspapers, [in which I am informed you are using my name pretty freely] but in some way that I shall be benefited by it; either in a private letter, or anyway that your prudence may dictate.
Next you have published an extract of a letter sent to the Whitewater Association by the Oxford Church as an expression of their disapprobation to the sentiments in my book. In your apology for this letter you confess it was disapproved by the Association, and say that the church did not design this letter as an answer to Simple Truth, "neither did she intend her letter should be considered as an impeachment." You state that I was at that Association as "a messenger from another Association," that I took my seat in the Association; and was invited to preach on Sabbath. All this was true, except where you say, that this letter was not designed either as an answer to Simple Truth, or as an impeachment; if it was no impeachment why do you implicate the conduct of the Association, for inviting me to a seat with them, and to preach on sabbath, without making any inquiry whether I was guilty of publishing "the doctrines with which I was charged in this letter." What! Charges without impeachment? I may say with Campbell, O for a new Dictionary , for Walker says, the word impeachment means, "hindrance, public accusation, charge;" but here is a letter, not designed to be considered as an impeachment, yet the same men say, that there was no inquiry made to know whether I "had published the doctrines with which I am charged in this letter." And again, page 12, you say, "In this letter brother Thompson is charged of having denied the doctrine of the Trinity;" but all these charges are not to be considered as an impeachment. In this letter you may see these words: "We believe these assertions are untrue." "We say they are untrue." And referring to some things in Simple Truth, this letter says, "We believe to be highly sinful, and deserving the severest censure of the church." I ask the public, if all these charges can be contained in a letter, and yet not be designed as an impeachment? This was a very great mistake to say the least of it. As you say, "We are informed that brother Thompson at the Association publicly declared that in the following letter [the letter from Oxford] he was misrepresented, and that he was accused of holding and propagating doctrines which he disavowed." I wonder at you to publish this letter in your "candid refutation of my errors," and you have repeatedly accused me of the very same things which you had heard that I had publicly declared my disavowal to. Now as you knew from information at least, that I had publicly declared a disavowal to the doctrine which that letter charged me with, you must have been conscious that you were misrepresenting me when you charged me with the same; but regardless of this information, you have represented me as being guilty of the same charges. Is not a man's public disavowal of a sentiment enough to satisfy any reasonable man that he does not believe it? Then why should you still charge me with it? This is very illiberal to say the least of it.
Now upon these strange assertions of yours, which appear to me to sound more like the bitterness of a fratricide, than the charitable heart of a friend, you have predicated your censorious letters. To them I shall now turn your attention, not to controvert your doctrine contained in them, but to correct some of your mistakes, and clear myself of some of the charges which Brother C. has brought against me.
After some preliminary remarks, in which you state the slight personal acquaintance we have had, &c., you commence your strictures on my book, and your first quotation is from my 38th page, where I have said, "We do not believe there ever was a contract made between the Father and the Son, &c." Here you have added by way of parenthesis, to the end of the word contract [covenant. ] This is a perversion of this first quotation, which you state as my "first and principal objection." This is true, it is my whole objection, and all I have written against with regard to the covenant is, the notion of a contract or bargain; and this is all I have ever opposed in the doctrine of the covenant of redemption, and because I have said, "We do not believe in such a contract, you must change the word contract into the word covenant, and then commence a dispute with me for denying the covenant. This is an unjust charge, and I think you cannot deny it.
Your next quotation is from Simple Truth, page 39, where I have said, "Again, the idea of a covenant under the notion of a bargain made between the Father and the Son, or the divine nature of Jesus Christ, pre-supposes that God did not know from eternity what would be the terms on which man should be redeemed." Here you comment on the word covenant, and leave the notion of a bargain out, which is all that I have opposed in the covenant, and this is the way you have misrepresented all I have said on the covenant. Your 4th quotation is from my 40th page, where I have said, "There is not one text in the Bible to prove, nor favor the idea of such a bargain or contract, as this is." Here again you change the word bargain or contract, into the word covenant, and say, "There is one text in the Bible which will favor and even prove the existence of an eternal covenant, &c." This was not denied; the proof of a bargain or contract was what I challenged, and this you deny in as hard terms as I could possibly have used, for you have said in your 9th and 10th pages, "Though we call this agreement, the covenant of redemption, we cannot suppose with any degree of propriety, that a bargain or contract, such as exists among men, in which there are propositions made, and terms proposed and acceded to, was ever made between the Father and the Son, without admitting the supposition of imperfection in the divine nature." Now you have denied the covenant as much as I have, and if I should change your words in the above quotation, and instead of your words, bargain and contract, read covenant, then the sense would be: "We cannot suppose that a covenant was ever made between the Father and the Son, without admitting the supposition of imperfection in the divine nature." If I should thus mangle and pervert your writings, and then lampoon you for denying the covenant of redemption, what would you think of my candor? In this very way you have mangled my words, and where I have expressed my objections to the notion of a bargain or contract, you have changed my words, either by interpolation or in your strictures into an appearance of a denial of the covenant. This I think does not well agree with the philanthropy of a brother, but I feel more disposed to pray for you, that God may not lay this to your charge, than to retaliate on you. On your fourth page you pass some very illiberal censures on me, for treating you and other great men with contempt, because I have not refuted your arguments in support of the covenant; your words are as follows: "No, you pass over our arguments with admirable ease, and look on them as altogether puerile, the mere invention of men, or something worse. Such men as Gill, Scott, Hervey, Newton, and Fuller, possessed minds too effeminate, and presented demonstrations too feeble to require from you a serious refutation." Did these men ever argue or demonstrate the existence of the covenant under the notion of a bargain or contract? If they did, you have contradicted them as well as I, and have passed over their demonstrations as easy, and have looked on them with as much contempt; but they nor yourself could not admit the existence of such a bargain or contract, without the supposition of imperfection in the divine nature. I have not dissented from them on this subject, and so have no need to refute either their demonstrations or yours. I have read with attention some of each of these authors, and I have not found any arguments to demonstrate such a bargain or contract, and as I have denied nothing in the covenant but the notion of a bargain or contract, and you all deny the same, why do you try to insinuate that I have looked with contempt on these men. You ought to blush before the public for such insinuations.
How much better it would have become you as a Baptist, to have stated that I had denied the covenant of redemption as a bargain or contract between the Father and the Son, and that you denied the same, and let us differ as we may on other matters, this is a point of agreement between us. This would have been the truth, and would well have become you as a candid writer; but instead of this you have joined with me in rejecting the notion of a bargain or contract, and then reproach me for this rejection, and ludicrously and tauntingly represent my book as performing "the funeral service of so many learned and popular volumes." Look at your picture, stepping up with all that sarcasm and ridicule which you could exercise; and saying, in a way of scorn, "Permit us to take a peep at the grave," and then with a sneer say, "Indeed the hole is dark and profound as chaos; no ray from the sun penetrates its gloom; no gentle zephyrs fan the mournful cypress by which it is over-shadowed; no music of sweetest melody cheers the drear abode -all is dark, solitary , and haunted by fearful apparitions." Then to close your derision, you say, "Farewell, ye once beloved and once admired authors! Ye are now no more! A tomb is erected to your memory, and ye may now pass into the abodes of the blessed." I had almost given way to a temptation here, and was about to pay you in your own change; but I remembered that when my master was reviled, he reviled not again; when he was buffeted he threatened not. In old times it was said, an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth, but Christ taught his followers to pray for them who persecute them and say all manner of evil of them falsely, &c. O that I may ever feel willing to suffer evil, rather than to do evil, and never recompense evil for evil to any man, but to labor to overcome evil with good. Let me ask you; what I have done to incur your displeasure so much as to cause you to make me the object of your ridicule and sport? How does it look to see one Baptist minister in public loading another with contempt and calumny? After you have vented your spleen, amused yourself in this scene of orgies, you start with all the vain parade of a braggadocio and say," Since our pious and learned authors are dismissed to the shades, and we are returned from the funeral solemnities, permit me, though not so renowned for battles fought and victories won, to arm myself for the field. Anon I come forth in the cause of God and of truth. With weapons not more formidable than those by which Jesse's son slew Philistia's champion, I stand prepared for the contest." O fie! You swagger too much; did you ever learn this conduct in the closet on your knees? Did you learn it from the good example of the meek and lowly Jesus, or from his apostles? O no, they never acted so. All this puffing revelry was designed to sink me into disrepute, and cause your readers to suppose that I was some diminutive poltroon, who had denied the covenant of redemption, when every attentive reader of Simple Truth must see that I have never denied it, but have only endeavored to clear it of the confused notion of a bargain or contract, and for doing this, [although you oppose the very same thing] you treat me with all this ridicule, and humble yourself down to the low desk of a lampooner! Would it not have been much better for you to have been in the pulpit, preaching to sinners the gospel of peace, and feeding the sheep and lambs of Christ, and directing poor mourning, wounded souls to the good physician, than to be acting the humorist in this ludicrous manner! You surely had forgotten that I was a fellow-laborer in the Lord's vineyard. But if God in his providence will overrule this, so that the wrath of man shall praise him, and the remainder of wrath he will restrain, I will patiently bear my reproach.
When the Lord gives me a spirit of prayer for my enemies, I will not forget dear brother C., who has strangely erred from the right ways of the Lord; but I hope he will do so no more.
On the 11th page of your first letter, you say that, "In the first part of your fourth chapter you deny the existence of the covenant altogether, and attempt to show us what you do not believe." Now sir, if you will show me such a word in the first part of the fourth chapter, I will say you have written like a candid man, but if not, I now call on every reader of Simple Truth to bear record against you, for I do here state in positive terms, that the first part of the fourth chapter contains no such a sentence. Reader, look for yourself. In the first part of this fourth chapter I have showed that I did not believe in a trade, bargain, or contract, in which there were parties proposing and acceding to terms, &c. , and this you disavow as well as I, and why will you so frequently make such unaccountable mistakes? It must have been done to make your readers, who had never seen Simple Truth, believe that I had denied the existence of the covenant of redemption, but to those who have my book, you may account for this mistake if you can.
You say on the same page of your letter, that I, "to be plain on the subject, have given a learned interpretation of the word covenant in Hebrew, Latin, and Greek." This is true, and I believe you will not dispute the propriety of it; for instead of doing this, you have slid over it with an air of contempt, and referred the reader to a note at the bottom of the page, that I believed the covenant of grace to be the invention of Antichrist and the Pope. The note is another sentence of my book, and in its mangled form you have it thus, "I believe that this contract [covenant of grace] was more likely made between Antichrist and the Pope of Rome than between two distinct persons in the Trinity." If the reader will turn to page 40, he will see that the words "covenant of grace" are not in my book, and that it is only the notion of a bargain that I attribute to the Pope and Antichrist; but this is the unjust and illiberal method in which friend C. has used me, in order to impress the public with an idea that I was guilty of the charge of denying the covenant of grace. Reader, is this an evidence that friend C. is a candid writer? Christian reader, will it be too hard to say, that friend C. did originate this denial of the covenant? We cannot find it in Simple Truth! Something is wrong; but let him account for it or bear it, for we cannot help him.
Your 12th and 13th pages are nearly made up of quotations from the Koran; by this stratagem you wish to make your readers to look on me as a Turkish Mussulman, who rejects the doctrine of the Trinity , the divinity of Christ, &c. Now sir, you never once thought that I had embraced the Koran, then why will you let yourself down so low, in order to cast an odium on me? You knew that the majority of your readers had never read the Koran, [ or expected they had not, as it is not in common circulation in a christian country;] and so you would effect your purpose by accusing me of writing in agreement with the Koran, and your readers, by this stratagem would be led to look on me as a Mussulrnan! Well, call me Mussulman, Turk, or Jew, while the charge is not true, I will not count even my life dear; the loss of friends, of a good name, and reputation in this world are but small considerations to me, if I may serve my God and his people acceptably, and be found clothed in the spotless robe of Christ's perfect righteousness, and always feel a disposition to forgive from the heart every one who trespasses against me, and like my master and his servant Stephen, be enabled from the heart to say, "Father forgive them, lay not this sin to their charge." Brother Clark, if ever you had read the second discourse of Simple Truth, you well knew that I believed that Christ as God was the only proper object of worship; and how could you treat me in this unfriendly and unfair manner, by ranking me with "millions who perish," [page 11;] and on the same page declare, that my denial of the Trinity led me to the rejection of the covenant, and allege that this was the commencement of my "departure from the faith of the gospel," and then affirm that my "idea of the unity of God bears a greater resemblance to Mohammed, than to the primitive christians." Did you not know that by such unqualified invectives you would wound many of the Lord's people, who would mourn for your folly? Now, as I said before, so I say once more, that those charges are fabulous, for I never denied the Trinity, or rejected the covenant, and your whole complaint in your first letter is belched out in hard sentences against me for denying these two points and I now before angels and men call on you to support these charges, if you can, and if not, confess like a christian ought to do, that you either misunderstood my book, or willfully perverted the sense of it. One or the other you have done, and I ask you which is the fact? Answer as you please, but not in the newspaper. As to the Trinity, you and brother H., and I can travel together as far as the scripture goes, and we all as with one mouth say, "There are Three that bear record in heaven, the FATHER, the WORD, and the HOLY GHOST, and these THREE are ONE." We all believe in a Trinity in a unity. But here I stop; and you and brother H. take a leap from me, and become so wise as to explain the very mode of God's existence, and tell us that he exists in unity of essence, but of this essence there are three distinct persons. I ask for the scripture proof. You refer me to plural and personal pronouns, and a whole round of learned criticisms, and strange inferences, and I refuse, not being willing to venture with you, without positive scripture, and as you cannot furnish me with one text to set the sole of my foot upon, I refuse to go with you into your conjectures, and you ask me what are the three that bear record in heaven? I say, "The Father, Word, and Holy Ghost." You say these are mere names of God, and commence upbraiding me for my incredulity , and then represent me as a Muslim, Arian, Sabellian, Socinian, Deist, and Bramin, equally hostile, with them to the doctrine of the Trinity , and this hostility led me to reject the covenant of redemption, and here was the commencement of my departure from the faith of the gospel, and then treat me with all the contempt and lampoonery you are master of. Let me suffer wrongfully, rather than do wrong. I must still stand on the old book, and when you shall show me a positive, Thus saith the Lord, that there are three distinct persons in the Trinity, I will go with you both hand and heart; if not, I shall still stop where revelation stops, and content myself to bear the reproaches of you both. But when we are done with a state of imperfection, and get safe to the happy climes of perfect bliss and knowledge, there I hope to see brother H. and C., and at their feet, or in some other humble place where I can see my God, spend a sweet eternity in concert with them, in praising my Saviour. But I think brother H. and C. will have lost all their hard, censorious feelings in that state. O that they would loose them now, and let me, though very unworthy, travel with them here as far as I can, and when I cannot feel safe in going further, and assign my reasons for stopping, call me little faith, and pray that it may be increased. You can read my views of God and the Trinity in this book, and if there is anything erroneous in it, pray for me, that God may show me the good way of the Lord more perfectly.
In your second letter, you commence by reminding me, that in your first you had "gave a few quotations from the Koran and the writings of the primitive christians." I have noticed these quotations with great attention, and not a little surprise; first, you quote Mohammed to show that the Koran and Simple Truth are in agreement, but your quotations were no proof of it, and secondly you quote the writings of ancient christians to show that they believed very differently from what I had written; but they spoke the same things which I had written substantially, and will not use your language, and I wonder at you to suffer them to speak in your book; but as you have presented them to me, I thank you for their testimonies, and believing them worthy of handing down to future generations, I will here transcribe a few of them.
Irenaeus, a disciple of Polycarp, who in A.D.202, suffered martyrdom, in the fourth book of his work against the Heretics, begins by asserting that "God was made Man." Does this prove three persons in the Trinity; or only that God was manifested in the flesh? In the second book of that work, and towards the close of the thirteenth chapter, he says, "The Son from eternity coexisted with the Father, and from the beginning he always revealed the Father to angels and archangels, and principalities and powers, and to all whom it pleased him to reveal Him." I ask the public, does not this show that Christ pre-existed? Next you give us Theophilus, bishop of the church at Antioch. He expressly acknowledged "Christ to be GOD," and says the world was made by him. For when the Father said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness, " He spake to none other but his own Word and his own Wisdom, that is, to the Son and Holy Spirit. Now this ancient author and Simple Truth speak as near the same words as could be expected, considering the lapse of time between them, and the doctrine is the very same, but these authors say no more about three persons in the Trinity, than if they had never heard of such a thing, and as they were expressing their faith, they surely would have mentioned it, if they did believe it. Tertullian, who flourished about A.D.200, says, "The name of the Father is God Almighty, Most High, Lord of Hosts." In Simple Truth it is said, "The Father is a name by which we understand God as being the first cause of all created things. " Are not these quotations in agreement?
But how widely they differ with yours, where it says [referring to this very place in my book,] "We think this to be a perversion of the scriptures." Let the world judge who is in the greatest agreement with the martyrs. All the other quotations from the martyrs are the same in substance with the above, and do not prove the tri-personality of the Trinity, but they only prove a Trinity , and this I have never denied, and their not using the term three persons, convince me that they did not believe it.
You next express your sympathies for me, as a man who has become a dupe to the devil, and my brethren as being his agents to harden my heart against the force of your argument. These are your words: "Every man who may oppose your creed will be represented to you, either by Satan or some of your brethren, as your personal enemy, or at least as unsound in the faith. And your own inward feelings will favor the suggestion." I ask you who are my brethren that you rank with Satan. I have no brethren in the gospel but the Baptist people. Are these in league with the devil to support me in heresy? O sir, remember that it would be better for a man, "that a millstone was hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than to offend one of these little ones." Your censures are indeed very hard against my brethren, the Baptists.
You then [page 21] contend that what I have said on the subject of union between Christ and the church before faith, is untrue, and represent me in a very unjust manner in that matter. I suppose you forgot those celebrated authors, Gill, &c. , whom you dismissed to the shades amidst the mournful cypress, in the chaotic region, and gloomy retreat of ghastly apparitions, without melody or even the fan of Zephyr's gentle breeze. If their hoary ghosts frightened you from their tombs, their pens have left a magazine in the house of the Lord, which, was I a warrior who had stepped out with a drawn sword of tried metal, and had compared myself to king David, and had challenged every Goliath to meet me for battle, I might let you witness the force of Gill's artillery, on the subject of union before faith. But as I am enlisted under the banner of the Prince of Peace, I will only quote a few sentences for my readers to look at, and compare with our little books, and they can judge which of our pamphlets looks most like performing the "funeral solemnities" of those popular volumes. The following quotations are from Dr. Gill's Body of Divinity: "The union of God's elect unto him, their adoption by him, justification before him, and acceptance with him, being eternal, internal, and eminent acts in God, I know not where better to place them than next to the decree of election. I shall consider the union of the elect to God as it is in its original, and as an eternal eminent act in God. The love of Christ to the elect is as early as that of his Father's love to him and them. This bond of union is indissoluble by all the joint power of men and devils. Now of this union there are several branches, or which are so many illustrations and confirmations of it, and all in eternity. Election gives a being in Christ, how they can be said to have a being in Christ, and yet have no union to him I cannot conceive. There is a conjugal union between Christ and the elect, which also flows from love, and commenced in eternity. There is a federal union between Christ and the elect, and they have a covenant subsistence, in him as their head and representative. There is a legal union between Christ and the elect, the bond of which is his suretyship for them, flowing from his strong love and affection to them. In this respect Christ and they are one in the eye of the law, as the bondsman and debtor are one in a legal sense; so that if one of them pays the debt bound for, it is the same as if the other did. " On eternal union I will ask the public if you were not very wise to bury the Doctor in a hole profound as chaos, before you unsheathed your sword and came forth into the field! The above quotation was the sentiments of Dr. Gill. The following are the articles which brother C. adduces from Simple Truth, and opposes with warmth and bitterness.
"1. Christ and his church were eternally united. 2. Love is the bond of this union. 3. That in consequence of this union, Christ had a right to make the atonement. 4. That from the moment Christ was brought forth as the head and representative of the church, our sins were laid to his charge. 5. The punishment due to our sins must be inflicted on him."
Now is there not a complete agreement between Gill and these five articles? Let us see where brother C. stands as a warrior. The following is his warlike voice; "I cannot see how my being united to Christ gave him a right to atone for my sins. If Christ were brought forth from everlasting and his people in him, and their sins charged to his account, it will destroy all idea of grace in the Redeemer. Christ, if this system be true, had no choice nor election for whom he should suffer. If this doctrine be in the Bible it has escaped my observation. It does not appear reasonable." See pages 23, 24.
Now I submit the point of union before faith to the public, and ask them if brother C. has not done well to bury the doctor before he put on his war implements? I think brother C. was in a reverie, and his knowledge in optics being but superficial, it might have been some of the old Popes and Monks that were buried, at the funeral he attended.
Can you unsheathe your sword against Gill on the doctrine of justification? These are Gill's words: "Justification is an act of God's grace, flowing from his sovereign good will and pleasure. It does not begin to take place in time, or at believing, but is antecedent to any act of faith. Faith is not the cause, but an effect of justification; not the moving cause; that is, the free grace of God, Rom.3:24, nor the efficient cause, Rom.8:33, nor the meritorious cause, that is the obedience and blood of Christ, Rom.5:9, 19, nor even the instrumental cause. If faith was the instrument of our justification; is it the instrument of God or man; not of man, for justification is God' s act, he is the sole justifier, Rom.3:26; man doth not justify himself; nor of God, for it is not God that believes. Agreeably to this are the reasonings and assertions of Twisse, Macovius and others. Faith is the evidence and manifestation of justification, and therefore justification must be before it. Faith is the evidence of things not seen, Heb.11:1, but it is not the evidence of that as yet is not. The righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith, Rom.1:17, and therefore must be before it is revealed. Faith adds nothing to the esse, only to the bene esse of justification; for though we believe not, yet he abides faithful. All the elect of God, were justified in Christ, their head and representative when he rose from the dead; hence, when he rose, they rose with him, and when he was justified they were justified in him, for he was delivered for their offences, and was raised again for their justification, Rom.4:25; see I Tim.3:16; and this is the sense and judgment of many sound and learned divines, as Sandford, Dr. Goodwin, the learned Amesius, Hombeck, Witsius and others. Justification is not only before faith, but is from eternity." See Gill's Body of Divinity, from page 131 to 139.
I ask the public; who is in agreement with the Doctor, your letters, or Simple Truth? Well, as you were mistaken about being at the Doctor's funeral, and find you have to meet him in the field, perhaps you will put up your sword.
I believe the Baptist church have always held Dr. Gill to be an orthodox writer on justification, and I never remember of hearing of any sound Baptist charging the Doctor with writing against justification by faith, but if such a charge will not lay against him, you have misrepresented me; for the Doctor's words, in the above quotations, express the views which I have expressed in Simple Truth, and these are the views, as to union with Christ and justification by him which you oppose in your second letter. I therefore demand of you to support your charge against the Doctor, or confess that you have misrepresented me.
You accuse me of writing against the Trinity, the covenant of redemption, and justification by faith; of rending the church, of drawing off a party, of being in agreement with Mohammed's Koran, &c. I felt it my duty to correct these mistakes, as they were calculated to do much harm; this I have done with as tender a regard for your feelings as I could, but have been under the disagreeable necessity of denying many of your accusations, and of pleading not guilty to many of your charges; and now it remains for you to confess the illegality of your charges or support them.
Do all the good you can, preach the word, boast of nothing but the riches of Christ, glory in nothing but the cross of your Master, warn the world of sin, hold up the fulness of Christ, bid the wounded to look to him and live, feed the flock of God, avoid profane and vain jangling, strive not for the mastery, but serve your brethren, and live in peace with all men, and the God of peace shall be with you.
I am yours respectfully,
WILSON THOMPSON.
|
|
