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 26
LETTER III.
TO THE BAPTIST CHURCH AT OXFORD, OHIO.
Dear Brethren,
I am sorry to expose in a Baptist church a fault so base as yours; but it was the apostolic practice to publish the defects as well as the virtues of their best friends; and my duty imperiously demands of me to notice a letter which you sent to the Whitewater Association in 1822, and although I believe you were no more than an amanuensis in that affair, yet as your signature was to it, I must treat you as the author, and hold you accountable to the public for the spleen, want of decorum, and anti-scriptural doctrine contained in it, which you imprudently sent out against me. If any should think I use too hard terms in the description of your conduct, I invite them to the letter, and especially to some sentences which I shall proceed to notice. You say, "By the doctrine of the Trinity we understand the unity of three in one; the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, there is but one God; The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God, and these three are one God, one essence; the Father is not the Son, nor is the Son the Holy Ghost; this is the doctrine of the Trinity , is it scriptural?" I answer; No, for it is a pointed contradiction of scripture as words could make. Isaiah says; his [Christ's] name shall be called the everlasting Father, but you say he is not; Christ says, I and my Father are one; you say the Father is not the Son; and without mentioning the many other passages which you have boldly contradicted, I leave you to debate the point with Christ and the prophet, and if you should gain the victory over them, you may wear the laurel. Again you say, "Nor is the Son the Holy Ghost." Here by the Son, you mean the divinity of Christ; this is as flat a contradiction to Paul as the above was to Christ; for he says, "The second man [Christ] was made a quickening Spirit," and Peter seconds him, and calls the Holy Ghost, which was in the prophets, the Spirit of Christ. I have nothing to do in this debate; until you and the apostles have settled your contradictions, and if they should be esteemed by the public as the best guides, I may live in peace after all.
You say, "The Father is God," -I mark 1. "The Son is God." I mark 2. "The Holy Ghost is God." I mark 3. "There are three Gods!" Do you mean what you say? You say, "The Father is not the Son, nor is the Son the Holy Ghost;" then this is your meaning, "The Father is God," but he is not the Son, "The Son is God," but he is not the Holy Ghost, "The Holy Ghost is God," but distinct from the other two Gods! Now if this is not the English way of demonstrating three Gods, I am mistaken. Be astonished, O heavens, at this! This is your definition of the doctrine of the Trinity. I don't much wonder after this, that because I spoke of but one God, you should cry out against me for opposing the doctrine of the Trinity , since by that term you meant three distinct Gods, each one truly God, and not the same God. This is new theology in the Baptist Church; but anon, you say, "There is but one God." What, first say the Father is God, and he is not the Son, the Son is God, and he is not the Holy Ghost, the Holy Ghost is God, distinct from both the former, and then say there is but one God; but you add and say, "one essence;" essence signifies the nature of any being; then the three Gods above demonstrated, you believe to be of one nature; that is, you think they are all divine beings of one nature, but three distinct Gods, and so you say, the Father is God, but he is not the Son; the Son is God, but he is not the Holy Ghost; the Holy Ghost is God also, and all three of these separate Gods, which are not the same, are one in essence or nature. Now you have demonstrated three Gods, and have declared that they are not the same, "The Father is not the Son, &c.," but they are all three of the same nature, "one essence;" this is equally true with any species of beings. All men are of one essence, but as men the father is not the son, and this seems to be your definition of the Trinity; but you soon contradict it again, and say, "If the three were three persons in the same sense, that three men are three persons, it were impossible that the three should be either one name, one God, or one person." In this we agree, and I therefore reject your definition given above; for every discerning reader must know that three men are three persons of one essence or nature, and after you have defined the Trinity to be three Gods of one essence, you contradict your own words, and in effect say, if the definition you have given be true, "It were impossible that the three should be either one name, one God, or one person." Well, as you have effectually refuted yourself, and find it impossible for your definition of the doctrine of the Trinity to be true, unless there are more Gods than one, you must not blame me for condemning your definition. Now although you have contradicted your own definition of the doctrine of the Trinity , yet you turn to it again and say, you think it to be "the very foundation of the Christian church!" What, an impossibility the foundation of the Christian church! This is very strange; in this we differ greatly, for I do not believe your definition, which you have seen involves an impossibility in it, ever did belong to the Christian church. You say your view of the Trinity "has always been deemed by every Baptist Association in the United States and in Europe, a fundamental article of the Christian faith." If this be correct, I have been quite unacquainted with the articles of faith as held by the Baptist denomination, for I find the good old Baptist authors differ on the doctrine of the tri-personality of the Trinity , and Christ and his apostles as we have seen, are flatly contradicted by your definition and if they opposed a fundamental article of the christian faith, I am much mistaken in the matter.
The Baptist denomination, both in Europe and America do believe that the Father, Word and Spirit are but one God, and you say they are not one, "The Father is not the Son," &c. The only unity of God is in nature or essence, but as Gods, the three are distinct according to your words. I appeal to every Baptist Association in Europe and the United States, and ask them if they do believe this to be a fundamental article of the Christian faith; and I am sure their answer, as taken from all their written confessions of faith, is, that as God, these three are one; if so, you have misrepresented them most basely.
You say, "We were all baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." The commission given to the Apostles was to baptize in this name, and I should think if these three names designated three distinct Gods, or even three distinct divine persons, so that the name of one could not apply to either of the others, that the apostles were very disobedient to their master's last command, for in every place where the words are recorded in which they baptized, it was, "In the name of the Lord Jesus." See Acts 2:38, 10:48, 22:16, 8:16, &c. There is not one instance recorded in the whole history of the apostles, where they used the three names mentioned in the commission; and if we take their practice as an evidence of their understanding these three names used in the command of Christ, we must believe that they thought the names Father, Son, and Holy Ghost were all proper to, and were couched in the name Lord Jesus; and so to baptize in the name of the Lord Jesus, was in their judgment fulfilling the command and as the whole Trinity in unity was proper to the character of the Lord Jesus, and the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost were three names designating the same God, and the name Lord Jesus designated the same God, I cannot condemn them in their practice; but if the Father, Son, and Spirit were each a God, and not the same God as you think; you and they may dispute the point, and when you shall have convinced them of their disobedience to Christ in this matter, I will receive a part with them in your reproof. In speaking on I John 5:7, I have, asked, does this text say one word about persons in the Godhead, and you answer, "It does not," and continue, "neither does it say one word about names, or offices." Strange infatuation! Is not the term Father a name? Is not the appellation Word a name? Is not the phrase Holy Ghost a name? And are not these three several names expressed in the texts referred to? Then how could you say in the face of the public that this text said not one word about names; O fie! You have been too hasty. When you come to make remarks on the above text, which you say says not one word about names, you call these three names; what, three names in a text that says nothing about names? This is strange enough; but we will attribute this blunder to a defect in your memory; for now you seem to be convinced that the text does say something about names, and so you say, "When we hear the name Father, we conceive in our minds the idea of one that has a Son;" and again you say, "When we hear a name we immediately conceive the idea of a person, a name without a person is nonentity/nothing." Then we may all know from this, that the church at Oxford have such masculine judgment and scientific knowledge, and withal so fruitful in conception, that they never can hear a name without immediately conceiving the idea of a person. They are surely very fruitful in conception, as they think that a name without a person is non-entity/nothing; the name Father must stand for a cypher until they can conceive a person, but if they should hear the name, East, West, North, South, black, white, sea, sound, or any other name of a place, thing or number, I wonder if they could conceive a person, or whether they would call it non-entity/nothing. O what logic, learning, and conception is here displayed! I ask the learned and the wise, if strange things are not conceived at Oxford? Shall I quote your words once more? "When we hear the name Father, we in our minds conceive the idea of one that has a son;" why not a daughter? The name implies an offspring, but not always a son, for many fathers have no son, and your conception might be false. God is called Father in relation to our spirits -to the fatherless -to the human race, Mal.2: 10 -to his servants, Psalm 103:13, and to the man Christ Jesus, John 5:19, 20, 22, 26, &c., but never with reference to the divinity of Christ, distinct from his manhood. The term Son and the term Father are both applied to Christ with equal propriety , because his human nature was begotten, brought forth, ordained, appointed, &c., and the divine nature was the first cause, who brought him forth, set him up, ordained and appointed him; and as both these natures were proper to the same person he is properly called by every name appropriate to either, or both of these natures; therefore he is the everlasting Father, the Word [or Son] and a quickening Spirit. Your remarks seem to be of a piece with that old musty notion of eternal generation, which holds that the first divine person existed of himself, and begot the second divine person, and the third divine person came into being by procession from them both. This I think to be so low and diminutive an idea of the divinity of my Lord, that I cannot believe it to be any better than some of your other conceptions. For if the divinity or divine person of Christ was dependant on the begetting power of the Father for his very being, and the Holy Ghost only exists by procession from them, and these are so distinct that the Father is not the Son, nor the Son the Holy Ghost, then the idea of equality between them is lost; for while the first person exists of himself, the other two are dependent for their existence, the one as being begotten, and the other as proceeding from them. Now I appeal to the religious world to know which of us holds Christ in the highest light, and wait for their answer.
You say, "It confounds all language, and even common sense to suppose that the term Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, do not have reference to real persons;" -you say, if they do not, "Then God does not exist, the Father does not exist, the Son does not exist, the Holy Ghost does not exist; there is no God." Brethren, is not this going too far? God does exist, whether these terms refer to any real persons that exist as such or not; for these names may be used as a figure of speech, with great propriety , and neither destroy good language, or common sense, and these terms may not refer to any real persons, and yet God may exist. You have said in the same letter that "all the names of God found in the old and new Testament do not make God;" that "he must have existed before all names," &c. This is very true, and if so, how can you make his existence dependent on his names; so that, if those names do not refer to real persons, God does not exist, is very strange to me; for if he existed prior to all names, he still exists whether these names refer to real persons or not, for hearing the name caused you to conceive of the idea of a person, then as the name seems to have begotten the idea of a person, but God existed before all names, therefore before, before any persons were conceived, and still exists if all names or persons conceived by you were in nonentity. Again you say, "God is not like anything that exists. We are commanded not to liken God to anything in heaven above or on earth beneath." O! if you had only thought of this command a little sooner, you might have learned from it the impropriety of likening him to real persons, for these do exist both in heaven and earth, yet you seem to think if God is not like them, nay, if he is not three real persons, he does not exist.
Again you say, "We are allowed to draw no comparison as it respects the mode of his existence; nor even conceptions in our minds, for God is above our thoughts." O; what will you do now when you hear a name, for you have hitherto on hearing a name on all occasions immediately conceived in your minds the idea of a person; and now you are not allowed to draw any such comparisons, nor even such conceptions in your minds; well, as your conceptions are forbidden, perhaps we may come together, for you now say, "There is that in the Godhead which for want of a better term we call person, to which personal properties are ascribed." In this we are not so far apart, and the greatest defect which I see in this is in your poor compliment to the Holy Ghost, as if you were not satisfied with his selection of words, and so you must supply its defects by a word a little better than he has chosen to use. But we must differ again, for you say, "This doctrine was delivered to us by the apostles themselves." In this you are wrong, for you never have found a place in all the writings of the apostles, that said anything about three persons in the Godhead, for such a phrase is not to be found in the old or new testament, nor have they authorized you to select better words than they have used; and this is a groundless charge which you have brought against the holy apostles, and to them I refer your case.
Now if you can reconcile the following sentences, taken from your letter, it might be useful to your readers, they are as follows, "If the three were three persons in the same sense that three men are three persons, it were impossible that there should be either one name, one God, or one person. It confounds all language and even common sense to suppose that the term Father; Son, and Holy Ghost, do not refer to real persons .If they do not, God does not exist. There is no God. There is but one God. The Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Ghost is God. These three are one God. The Father is not the Son, nor is the Son the Holy Ghost. God is not like anything that exists in heaven above or on earth beneath. When we hear a name we immediately in our minds conceive the idea of a person. We are allowed to draw no comparison, nor even conceptions in our minds, for God is above our thoughts."
These are a few of your paradoxical sentences, and if you can reconcile them it will be well; but as you would deny the very being of God, rather than give up the existence of three real persons, I will do with you as was done in the case of Ephraim, for you have said there is no God, if there is not three real persons.
If the Oxford church will deny the existence of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and declare that there is no God, rather than give up their favorite plan; we will hear them handle the apostles awhile, and see how they will fare in their hands. They attack them in these bold words, "If it [the definition you have given of the Trinity] be a mischievous tradition, it was delivered to us by the apostles themselves." Hold! You must be wrong, look at your words, see what a charge you have brought against the apostles. Might you not have been mistaken; if this should be a mischievous tradition; I do believe your charge against the apostles is groundless, for they have never said that they either believed it, or delivered it to anyone. And in behalf of these holy men, and the church of God which believes their writings, I challenge the Oxford church and all their compeers to support this charge against the apostles.
Referring to your definition of the Trinity , you ask, "If this doctrine be the truth, can it lead to Arianism, to Idolatry , to Infidelity?" I answer No, but if it be false, as I believe it to be, then may it not lead to all these evils? We have seen above, that it holds Christ as God, or a divine person, to be a begotten divine person, or a begotten God; and distinct from the Father, so that the Father is not the Son, nor the Son the Holy Ghost, and yet they are each one a distinct God; the one self existent, the other begotten of him, and the third exits by procession. Now can this never lead to Idolatry , and Arianism? Nay is not this in close relation to both? I confess that I can see but little difference in these systems; for one holds Christ to be God by being begotten, or by derivation from the Father and the other holds him to be God by delegation from the Father.
These notions I think are unworthy of my Lord and Master, who is the First and the Last, the Alpha and Omega, the everlasting Father, without delegation, filiation, or in any sense dependant on any other person, for his existence or dignity. Now I appeal to all the Baptists in Europe and America, nay, even to the church at Oxford itself, to say, who is nearest Arianism, those who believe that Christ as God, or in his divine person was begotten, or he who holds him to be the self -existent, unbegotten, independent God? I wait for an answer.
If my views of the Trinity, had been as base as Thomas Paine's, and I had published them to the world, it would have been no cloak for you to have treated me in the manner you have done. The Baptist church has a discipline according to the gospel, and as you say that my writings are "false," "highly sinful and deserving the severest censure of the church, &c.," why did you not take the gospel steps with me, and bring me before the church? But no, not one of you ever hinted to me, that you had ought against me; and as I was in fair standing in the Miami Association, and was appointed by her, to bear a letter of friendly correspondence to the Whitewater Association, I was there to hear your letter read on the stand, in presence of some hundreds of people. Here I was, about sixty miles from home, among strangers, and no liberty to reply to my charge, although it was said to be highly sinful; every one who saw me might say, there is the highly sinful monster. If this is not as great a breach of good order, as ever was committed by a Baptist church, either in Europe or America, I am much mistaken. And I now ask the Baptist community , if ever they heard of any other man, bearing a corresponding letter from one Association to another, being treated in such a manner, from the days of John the Baptist until now! But this plan of discipline was conceived at Oxford, and like one of the Pope's thundering bulls, discharged its invectives in the most cruel manner from the stand at the Association. I ask, is this the regular Baptist form of government? No, but this is the way that the Oxford church seems to act the part of an inquisition, and displays an insatiable thirst for the destruction of others. But I hope God, and his people will forgive them, and I will bear it.
I am yours in defense of the gospel of Christ,
WILSON THOMPSON .
THE END .
Zion's Advocate-February 4, 1860
ELDER WILSON THOMPSON AND THE ARIANS.
We make the following extract of a letter from Elder Wilson Thompson addressed to his son, Elder G. M. Thompson, and published in the "Herald of Truth," which shows very conclusively how he stands towards the Arian party of the present day. The Arians, on the occasion referred to, were as much puzzled by the question propounded to them by Eld. T. as their "illustrious predecessors" were in the days of our Immanuel, when he interrogated them concerning David's testimony of the Son of God :-" if David in Spirit called him Lord, how is be his Son?" (Matt. xxii. 41, 46), and they answered, consequently, in a similar way-by SILENCE. But there is a part of Eld. T's. communication which we do not understand, and therefore would respectfully turn upon him his address to Johnson and his party, before propounding to them the several questions found in his letter, and we hope he will enlighten us upon the subject; as we can truly say that we desire to know what he means. For until we understand him, we cannot tell whether we believe what he has written or not. The point about which we seek information is what he says upon the subject of the "ADAMIC MAN." He says "I have no warfare with the ADAMIC MAM, if by him you mean, the man of flesh and bones, muscles and nerves, and mind and soul," &c." If by this Adamic man, we would again inquire, is meant the "OLD MAN" as defined by Paul, which is corrupt with his deeds, we cannot conceive how it is that a Christian has no warfare with him, nor how it is that he has no warfare with the FLESH, since the apostle says, '' With the MIND I myself serve the law of God; but with the FLESH the law of sin," (Rom. vii. 25), and another apostle admonishes us to " abstain from FLESHLY LUSTS, which war against the soul". (1 Pet. ii. 11). If we have read the Scriptures correctly and understandingly, and have an experience in harmony with the teachings therein, the parties to this warfare will be saved; that Christ died for, and therefore will as certainly redeem the BODY as the SOUL-that be will redeem his people FROM THE POWER OF THE GRAVE; for as our bodies are embraced in the PURCHASED POSSESION, we have the assurance that he will CHANGE OUR VILE BODIES, &c. We cannot see how sin in itself can be detached from the SINNER, and therefore embodied as a distinct man. That Christ has put away the sins of his people by the sacrifice of himself, and will in due time effectually cleanse them from iniquity, and wash them and make them white in his blood, we most assuredly believe, and rejoice in that assurance, yet we have no knowledge of sin, of its existence, except in connection with the sinner. If this should meet the eye of Eld. Thompson, (be is not a subscriber to the Advocate, and never has been,) we shall be pleased to hear from him upon the subject. (John Clark)
DEAR CHILDREN: With feelings of deep parental affection we acknowledge the receipt of your kind letter, We feel much comfort in hearing of your good health.- We should have replied sooner, but the Associations were near at hand and we have been constantly on the move, and no time to write. Whitewater Association met with the Shiloh church, Hancock county Ind. on the 2nd Friday in August. The session was all in peace, and unanimity and harmony, and all the churches reported peace.
On Sunday J. F. Johnson preached his doctrine of non-regeneration, and said that the words, "a man must be born again," did not mean a Second birth, or that the child born had ever been born before. Then he said that the spiritual seed or child was preserved in Christ its spiritual head as a woman preserves her fruit in a jar, so that no taint or sour could ever tinge it in the least degree. This holy immortal, incorruptible, spiritual child was the elect, and thus was chosen in Christ, and was in union with him in eternal oneness, and this Seed was never in Adam, never fell, and was never tainted with sin in the least degree. The Adamic man, he said was quite of another family, of another stock, of another kindred, and was not in any relation to Christ, the spiritual head of the church, nor was any change effected on any part at this Adamic man by regeneration or the birth of the spirit, &c. The most of the people left their seats and scattered through the woods while he was at it, and I have not heard of one person in the bounds of this Association who believed this doctrine.
Lebanon Association met in Allen county, Ind., 10 miles west of Ft. Wayne, over our hundred mites from where ours sat.- We went to it. Some little sparring in the business matters and some difference of doctrine appeared on the stand. Evidently, the most of the preachers of Concreek and Lebanon Associations are deeply in Johnson's doctrine.
On Sunday night Joseph Johnson, son of J. F. Johnson, took up the new doctrine in full. He is a talented young man. He took the same position of his father, and said that this spiritual seed was the elect-that God never elected arty one of Adam's race-that to be born again did not mean to be born a second time. He roundly asserted that no part of the Adamic man, neither soul, body, nor spirit, mind nor matter, nor any faculty belonging to him, was changed in the least degree, except as they were partially controlled and held in check by surrounding circumstances exercised by the indivelency of this new man. This he said was revealed to every Christian by the spirit, and to none but Christians.
After meeting Elders A. B. Nay, J. A. Johnson, Tyler, J. A. Williams, and other elders, with many brethren present, I put many questions to them, all in the following manner;
I have heard much preaching of late which if I understand I do not believe.- But I am old, and my mind and memory is fast failing me, and I cannot learn new words, names and ideas as readily as formerly, and I may not properly understand or comprehend your meaning, and perhaps if I did I might believe it. I do therefore wish to know fully what you do wish to preach, and then I can say positively whether I believe it or not. All I can now say is, if I do understand and comprehend your meaning I do not believe the doctrine.-- Brother Johnson this night has told us that this is the very point, which God by his spirit has revealed to every Christian and to no others, and I well knowing that it has never been revealed to me, if I understand it, I am cut off. It is therefore a matter of great importance to me to know whether I do understand your meaning or not, for if I do new understand your real meaning, I do not believe it, and it has never been revealed to me by the spirit either in the word or any part of my experience. This brings me before you now as an earnest enquirer after truth, and not as a debater. I simply wish to know what you mean, and whether I correctly comprehend your meaning or not. Therefore, please to answer some quest ions plainly to the point:
1st. What do you mean by the Adamic man? Do you mean the man that God created with his body, mind and all included, and called them Adam with all his descendants in him seminally-are these all your Adamic man or men?
Answer-Yes.
2nd. If this union was between a spiritual, immortal, incorruptible seed and head, could it embrace any of the non elect strangers of Adam's race, and effect their redemption; and if the spiritual seed was never involved or tainted by any of its effects, did it ever need any redemption, and if the Adamic seed was not in the Union, and of course could not be redeemed, was there anything redeemed by Christ?
No one answered.
3rd. Must I not be prepared to renounce all that I have preached or written, or experienced through the first seventy years of my life in order to embrace this new system, if it be a new system?
No answer.
4th. If no part or any of the Adamic man is changed or born of the spirit and no part or faculty of the spiritual, immortal man ever needed any change or birth of the spirit, what man is it that must be born again, or is anything born again, either of the old or new man?
5th. Does not this new system, only ten years old, lay the axe at the very root of the Bible, Christian experience, and all that we have ever preached or believed?
Answer-We have thought much about this.
6th. If no part of the Adamic man, soul, body, mind nor matter, attribute or affection, is either changed or born by the spirit and never will be until the resurrection, what goes with it in God's people from the death of the body until the resurrection?
No answer.
7th. Brother Johnson this night has beautifully described a converted sinner, mourning on the verge of despair, under a load of conscious guilt, and crying, " God be merciful to me a sinner." Was this the sinless spiritual child or was it the unchanged, unborn Adamic man, or what man was it?
No answer.
8th. Did any of you, when you went before the church, to seek its fellowship and admission to its ordinances, say, "friends, I wish to join this church; I have never met with any change in soul, mind, body or affections, or anything else. Therefore as your preachers declare, that neither themselves nor any of you, nor any of Adam's race, are changed in any part, and I know I am not; I therefore wish to join your church." Did you so tell the church and be received, or would you now receive such an applicant? If not, why preach such doctrine?
No answer.
9th. Can any of you tell me of any benefit resulting from the life, death, burial and resurrection of Christ, except the resurrection of the body, according to your doctrine?
No answer.
10th Since there is no change in the sinner, and the scriptural man has no sin, is not the doctrine of pardon, forgiveness of sin, justification, with the exercise of mercy, of grace, all a nullity, since the Adamic man can never in this world enjoy any of them, and the sinless spiritual man does not need them?
Here they began to ask me the following questions
1st. Do you believe that the soul is changed in regeneration?.
Answer-I believe the Scriptures I will not set up metaphysics against metaphysics; your system is all metaphysical, mine is all positive scripture. We many differ widely about what the soul is. I believe the blood of Christ cleanses us from all sin, or purges the consciences to serve the living God, and so cleanses the heart from an evil conscience. I believe the heart is circumcised to love the Lord God. I believe that the eyes of the understanding, which were darkened and blinded, are enlightened and opened so that they may see. I believe they who were dead are quickened. I believe the dead hear the voice of the Son of God and live-call this soul, mind, spirit, or what you will, there is a change, and this change is not effected in the living, sinless, immortal, incorruptible man, but on the blind, dark, dead, corrupt, pointed heart, the evil conscience, and this is some part of the man. So there is a change, and this is all I contend for, and my bible declares it and I believe it.
2nd. If any part of the Adamic man is changed, what causes the warfare you daily feel?
Answer-We should call things by their proper name. Your new doctrine has new names unknown to the Bible. Your Adamic man is a new name. I have no warfare with the Adamic man, if by him you mean the man of flesh and bones, muscles and nerves, and mind and soul. I owe this man much, and many duties, and I should do all I can to sustain it, and also my Adamic neighbors around me, to clothe, feed, warm, visit them in sickness, &c. This man is the temple for the Holy Ghost to dwell in. God will save this body, this Adamic man, and I owe it my duty as a Christian according to the scriptures. My daily warfare is not with the Adamic man, whom God made, whom Christ redeemed, whom God will raise from the dead and eternally save. But sin and its train of evils and lusts, which war against the soul, these things make the body of the sins of the flesh. This man of sin, this son of perdition, this earthly sensual, devilish thing, which is of its father the devil, the very child of hell, an enemy of all good. God never made it. Christ never redeemed it and it will never be saved nor raised with the just. I owe it no duties I may do all I can to kill it, to starve it, to put it off, to crucify it. It lurks in the flesh the Adamic man, groans under the load and bondage of this corruption, pains, fevers, palsy aid lunacy, and innumerable woes and sufferings prey upon the body, mind, soul and spirit of the Adamic man, and Wars against the soul. This is the sin that dwells in me so that I cannot do the things that I would. This is the enemy of the Adamic man under which it groans, being burdened, and this is the belligerent and vigilant foe against every maim who is renewed in the spirit of his mind, and is led by the spirit, with his mind to serve the law of Christ, is in this incessant warfare. This is my warfare with this man of sin, and not with my Adamic man-no, but with the trains of evil, which lurk in, effect and punish him, and constantly keep up wars without and fightings within. When I call things by their proper names, this is the Christian warfare. But the Adamic man, soul, mind, saint and body shall be saved, but this old man of sin will never be saved. But God's people are redeemed, and will be all finally saved from all this evil.
Here the talk ended.
Connersville, Ind., Sept. 14, 1859.
|
|
