The Primitive Baptist Library of Carthage, Illinois

Organized June 8, 1988
A Conservative, Old-Line Primitive Baptist Website

UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION STATED AND DEFINED;

OR, A DENIAL OF THE DOCTRINE OF ETERNAL CHILDREN,

OR TWO SEEDS IN THE FLESH,

by Elder Lemuel Potter,

1880.

PREFACE

For the past fifty years there have been so many vain speculations among the brethren of the Baptist family on the subject of what is known as "Two Seedism," and the advocates of the doctrine having become so badly confused among themselves as to what the Two Seed doctrine is, it has caused the author of this little work to begin to investigate the subject for himself, which has resulted in the conclusions found in the following pages. Some brethren, when speaking or writing on the apostle's writing relative to the vessels of mercy and the vessels of wrath, seem to make it appear that God had made the vessels of wrath and hardened them in order that they should be wicked, and then he would be glorified in their destruction. We find no account of his ever hardening any man to make him wicked, but because they were already wicked. Pharaoh, King of Egypt, was a wicked tyrant, and the Lord hardened him. He had a just right to harden him and punish him for his wickedness. The Lord hardened the hearts of the Israelites for their rebellion. See Isa. lxiii, 17. Also John xii, 40. We might refer to many instances where the Lord hardened the hearts of men as punishment for their wickedness, but we deem it unnecessary to do so. Suffice it to say that this he might justly do with all mankind if it was his will. But in Rom. ix, he is represented as having mercy on whom he will, and whom he will he hardeneth. Our Savior, in his prayer, thanked the Father for making this distinction, and all the reason he assigns is, "It seemeth good in Thy sight." Matt. xi, 26. Again, we hear it said by some that the non-elect are not under the law. If they are not, we come to the conclusion they cannot be condemned, as condemnation is the work of the law. In harmony with this idea, we have been told that Christ redeemed all that were under the law, because he came to redeem them that were under the law, and them that were under the law must mean all that were under the law, as he did not say a part of them. Jesus says, "The Son of man is come to save that which was lost." He did not say a part of them that were lost. Paul says, "It is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptation that Christ Jesus
came into the world to save sinners." He did not say a portion of them, and if the rule is a good one, that because he did not say a part he means all, then he must have saved all the lost - all sinners.
Hence we believe that the whole family of Adam stood in him, and by his transgression fell under the law. Out of Adam's posterity, God chose a people for his name as the objects of his mercy and grace, for whom he made all the rich provisions of his grace in Christ before the world began; not because they had any right to be chosen, or that he was under any obligations whatever to choose them, only his own eternal purpose to do so.
Hoping that the reader will not think us egotistic or insincere in this little effort to give our views of the points noticed, but will look over blunders and make all due allowances for imperfections, and that it may prove beneficial to the cause of truth, we submit it to you for your
perusal.

AUTHOR.

WHAT IS A MAN REQUIRED TO BELIEVE IN ORDER TO BE A SOUND BAPTIST?
_________

This may be thought a foolish question, but we think, dear reader, if you will read the following you will not be so much surprised at it after all.
We have been asked as often as any one man, in all probability, in this country, "Do you believe the Two Seed Doctrine?" and in order that we be considered sound among some of our brethren, we must be a "two-seeder." Among others, we must not be if we are considered sound. We have been questioned by our brethren on both sides of this question in a manner that seemed to us to fear that we might not be exactly square-toed on the subject of "Two-Seedism." We have always thought best not to name a doctrine, and then condemn it for its name, or believe it for its name. We never felt willing to say we believed the two seed doctrine, and then let some man tell us what it was, so we have generally called for a definition of the terms before we could answer.
In order to be a sound Two Seed Baptist, we are required to believe:
1. - "Now, dear sister, we agree with you, that God has no partnership with the devil. Nor do we believe that God created or made bodies for the devil or his children, or that the devil draws upon Eve for bodies. We believe that every seed produces its own body." - Herald of Truth, by Anderson Gordon, January 1878, p. 201.
2. - "We affirm the following: Unconditional election and final redemption of all that God made, blessed and called Adam." - Herald of Truth, by the Editor, Jan. 1878, p. 206.
3. - "No man will be taken to eternity of bliss or sent to an eternity of woe for what he does in this world. But those that are accounted worthy of an eternity of bliss, will receive
it on the principle of heir-ship, as an inheritance, for what they are, and not for what they do. So, also, those sent to the region of endless misery will be sent there for what they are, and not for what they do. We say, without the fear of successful contradiction, that our doings in this life only affect us in this life." - Herald of Truth, Editor, Dec. 1878, pp. 69-70.
4. - "Are the serpent's seed accountable beings to God, and on what principle will they be judged, condemned and punished? The serpent's seed are accountable to God, because they are in His rightful dominion, came into action in the world by way of God's creation, and live in this world on the bounties of heaven, and they will be justly condemned, not because they are the
serpent's seed, or that God reprobated them to destruction before they were born, but because of their sins and acts of wicked rebellion against God, for they shall be judged according to their works." - Daniel Parker, Church Advocate, Vol. 2, No. 9, June, 1831, editorial.
5. - "Are the serpent's seed human beings? If they are, how did they partake of humanity? The serpent's seed are human beings; they partook of their humanity by means of the creation which God had made. Creation was made good; the serpent corrupted and got into it, for which cause God yet multiplied its conception and made it capable of bringing forth the serpent's seed, and thus the children of the multiplied conception, coming through the created stock, are equally human beings with the children of creation, or divinely appointed conception, and the old serpent, the devil, is also the father of the wicked, corrupt nature that is in man, or in the world." - Church Advocate, Vol. 2, No. 9, June 1831, editorial.
6. - "Two seeds manifest in the flesh." - Herald of Truth, Vol. 3, No. 6.
7. "Hence I will say without any fear of successful contradiction from the Word of God, that if the greatly multiplied stood in Adam before the curse was pronounced in consequence of the transgression, the non-elect are safe, for what God blessed in Adam He could not curse; for James informs us that every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning." - Herald of Truth, by M. Loveridge, Vol. 3, p. 5.
8. - "The non-elect are no more related to the elect than the cocklebur is to the corn, both growing in the same field." - Elder G. Dalby, in Herald of Truth.
9. - "God's throne and footstool are eternal; and create does not mean, in scripture, what men think it does." - Samuel Clark, in Herald of Truth, Vol. 1, No. 1.
10. - "Then there is a man from heaven and a man from earth, and the earthly man is made in the image and after the likeness of the man from heaven." - Martin Ellis, in Advocate, March 1, 1879.
11. - "Then I ask the question: which is the oldest in substance, Christ or his bride? If the figure that Paul uses in the earthly Adam shows anything, it shows they were the same age." - Ellis, in Advocate, March 1, 1879.
Can any one man believe all that is set forth in the above eleven extracts, in order to be considered sound in the faith? Surely that would be requiring a great deal of a man. The first and fifth contradict each other so pointedly that we cannot believe both, and we wish to be excused from the belief of both those items. The first says, the devil does not draw on Eve for bodies, but that every seed produces its own body. The fifth says, the devil's seed partook of their humanity by means of the creation that God had made. Instead of every seed producing its own body, as per first item, the fifth says, God multiplied the conception of His creation, and made it capable of bringing forth the serpent's seed. He also says, the serpent's seed are equally human beings with the children of the creation.
The third and fourth contradict each other. The third says, "those sent to the region of endless misery will be sent there for what they are, and not for what they do." The fourth says, "and they will be justly condemned, not because they are the serpent's seed, or that God reprobated them to destruction before they were born, but because of their sins and acts of wicked rebellion against God, for they shall be judged according to their works."
We might go on and point out more contradictions, but we leave our readers to do that. We now propose to notice each one separately, and see how they corroborate with the Bible. We begin with the first and take them in their order, and we desire the brethren to study them carefully.
1. In this item we read, "Nor do we believe that God made or created bodies for the devil or his children." The Bible says, "God hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil." Prov. xvi. 4. If the wicked are not the children of the devil, we doubt his having any. "And hath made of one blood all nations of men to dwell on the face of the earth." Acts xvii, 25. Are the devil's children included in all nations of men? If so, God made them; if not, they are not men. So the Bible being right, the first item is wrong. We might multiply quotations to this point, but our space will not allow us to do so.
2. This item affirms the election and final redemption of all that God made, blessed and called Adam. This does not merely include those that God blessed; but it includes all that he made. Then surely it embraces the wicked. It embraces all nations of men that dwell on all the face of the earth. Is not this two-seeder a Universalist? Excuse us from believing the second extract.
3. There are two points in this we want to call attention to: the first is, that we receive an eternity of bliss on the principle of heirship as an inheritance. That is all good enough, if it does not carry with it the idea that we were eternally heirs, and consequently eternally children. The Bible says, "That being justified by His grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life." Tit. iii, 7. "And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed and heirs according to the promise." Gal. iii, 29. Not that we were eternally heirs, in consequence of which the promise was made, but we are heirs according to the promise. "Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will." Eph. i: 6. Not that we were eternally children, but God predetermined to adopt us children. The next is those that are sent to the region of endless misery, will go there for what they are, not for what they do. That our works only effect us in this life. The Bible says, "And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life, and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works." Rev. xx: 12. The next verse closes by saying, "and they were judged every man according to his works." The writer was speaking of the dead, and he certainly does hold forth the idea that the wicked are punished for what they do, and that their works do effect them after this life. Our sins affect us after this life to the extent that none could go to heaven until their sins are forgiven, hence the use of redemption from sin by the Great Redeemer.
4. We endorse the idea that the wicked will be punished for their wickedness and rebellion against the government of God. By their sins they incur the just penalty of God's law, and they
will be judged and condemned by it, just as the elect of God would without redemption from the curse of the law. Gal. iii: 13.
5. So far as the manner of the serpent's seed partaking humanity is concerned, there are only three positions for us to take, provided they are human beings, and this item says they are; one is that God made them when he made Adam, or he made them after he made Adam, or he did not make them at all. If they are the wicked he made them, and if they are men and women he made them, as we have already shown above. We have no account in the Bible that God made any man but Adam. To say that the devil is the father of the wicked and corrupt nature that is in man or in
the world, and that that makes some of them his seed, would be to make all of them his seed that possess the wicked and corrupt nature; and to take the wicked and corrupt nature out of all of them would leave him with no seed, and we would have the same men and women in the world; for the corrupt and wicked nature in man is no part of man.
6. Two seeds manifest in the flesh would make a difference in the flesh; so that some men would be good seed in consequence of their natural birth. This would make flesh and blood inherit the kingdom of heaven. The Bible says, "Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God." I. Cor. xv: 50. Those that were admitted to John's baptism were not admitted because of their fleshly birth, but they must have other qualifications. Those who received Jesus when he came into the world were not different from those did not, by virtue of their natural birth; but they were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. It is being born of God that makes a difference between them and others, and even makes the same man different from what he was before. If the natural, or fleshly birth made a man a child of God, there would be no need of him being born again to entitle him to enter the kingdom of God. "That which is born of the flesh is flesh." John iii, 6.
7. We presume this item was intended for two seed doctrine; and we have frequently been asked the question, "Do you believe the two seed doctrine? If the above is two-seedism, we do not now, nor never did believe it. We believe that the children of God, or the elect transgressed the law, which brought them under the curse. This item denies the curse being pronounced on the elect. We do not believe the law holds any claims on a people who never transgressed it. The above places the curse on "the greatly multiplied," and yet denies their being in the transgression. We believe the objects of God's redemption to have been under the curse. We read in the Bible, "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree." Gal. 3: 13. We cannot divine how they could be redeemed from the curse, if they were never under it. We do not believe the non-elect were redeemed, yet the above would necessarily make them the subjects of redemption; for the elect could not be cursed because God had blessed them, so the curse must have been placed on the non-elect, and they that were under the curse were the ones Christ redeemed. This makes the non-elect safe any way you turn it according to the writer above quoted.
8. Cain is considered one of the non-elect, and the Bible recognizes Cain and Abel as brothers. Every Bible reader knows that after Cain had killed Abel, the Lord inquired of Cain where his brother was. Gen. 9: 9. "Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil and his brother's righteous." I. John iii, 12. To be brothers, is to be children of the same parents. There must be quite a similarity, or a oneness in the nature of two brothers, if they both partake of the nature of their parents; and we can see no reason why Cain would not be as likely to partake of the nature of his parents as Abel. Jacob and Esau were brothers, as every one knows who is acquainted with the Bible. Matt. i: 2. They must be more related and more alike than corn and cockleburs.
9. The Lord has said, "Heaven is my throne, the earth is my footstool," and the idea that the earth is eternal, and that create in the Bible does not mean what men think it does, is only a foundation for an argument that God's children are as old as eternity itself. Our readers will see our views on that subject in "What is man?" The two last we have already replied to in another place, and it is not necessary to make a reply now.
But some one is ready to ask, Do you not believe in the doctrine of two seeds? We answer, we do, most assuredly believe that the Bible speaks of two seeds; but we want it according to the Bible, instead of the imaginations of ourself, or any other man, or set of men. We are not willing to foster the idea of two seeds to the extent that we will gulp down anything that men see fit to hand us, simply because they wrap it up with the name two seed. We believe that God eternally loved his people, and that there never was a beginning of that love; and that in consequence of his immutable love for them, he chose them in Christ before the world began. In the covenant made in eternity, the objects of God's love were given to Christ, and they have sustained a covenant relationship to him ever since. They did not sustain a spiritual, or fleshly relationship to Christ from eternity, but they were in the covenant, and God has known them as his from all eternity. They belong to Christ in the covenant by gift, and not because he was an eternal seed and naturally produced them, as the seed of vegetation produces the plant. He says, "Thine they were, and thou gavest them me." John xvii, 6. "Behold, I, and the children which God hath given me." Heb. ii, 13. "All that the Father giveth me shall come to me." John vi, 37. They are his now by gift, and not only were they given to him before the world began, but he was fore-ordained before the foundation of the world to be their Redeemer, but was manifest in these last times. They were all written in his book, which in continuance they were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them. God knew them just as well before there was any of them as He ever will. After he made them he did not know them any better than He did before; and after they became sinners he did not know any more about them than he did before they had a being. Hence, as he foreknew them, with all the circumstances with which they would be surrounded as fallen sinners here in the world, he gave them grace in Christ Jesus before the world began. After he had made them, and they had become sinners, he made a covenant with Abraham, in which he promised, "In thee, and in thy seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed." The seed of Abraham here, embrace the same that were chosen in Christ before the world began. They are among all the nations of the earth; yea, among all the families of the earth. This will surely include one family as well as another, and give none any preference according to the flesh. Here is a seed, and it is the seed that shall serve him, and be accounted to the Lord for a generation. These are the people that Christ came into the world to save. "He shall save his people from their sins." They are sinners, and are under the curse of the law, and are not able to meet its demands against them, and Christ according to the covenant comes under the law by taking upon him their nature, the seed of Abraham, and this makes a flesh and bone and blood relationship between him and them. He now redeems them from under the curse of the law, being made a curse for them. There has been a covenant relationship between them all the time, and as soon as he took on him the seed of Abraham, whose seed they already were, then there was a fleshly relationship between them. Then in the work of regeneration, or new birth, they partake of his spirit, and from that birth there is a spiritual relationship between them that never existed before. "If any man hath not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his." Here is one seed that we believe the Bible sets forth clearly. They are the Lord's all the time, even from eternity, and will ultimately all be made spiritual. They are men and women of Adam's family, and never had any actual being till Adam was made of the dust of the ground. This seed is often spoken of in both the Old and New Testament as the sheep of the Lord. They are called sheep, even in their lost and unregenerated state. See Ezekiel 34 and John 10. This seed were unconditionally chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world, not because they were holy, or that they naturally possessed any of the nature of God that others did not possess,
for that would have been a conditional choice. The choice would be controlled by that nature, in which there would have been no sovereignty of God; no mercy, and no grace. These people we can
only know when they are manifested in the work of the new birth. God knows them as His just as well before regeneration as he does afterward. "In this the children of God are manifested, and the
children of the devil." As to the devil's seed, we do not realize a great deal of comfort from talking about them, and will not have space here to give them a very extended notice. As representatives of this seed brought to view in the Bible, we have Cain, Ishmael and Esau; not that their generations, according to the flesh, all belong to the devil, for if they do, then Abraham's seed would have to include only his literal seed, or fleshly posterity. But as all the families of the earth are blessed with the seed of Abraham, so we find among the very same nations and families, even among the literal seed of Abraham, the seed of evil-doers. Those people among all the families of the earth, that are not the seed of Abraham, are the non-elect. They are called "the seed of the wicked" in the Bible. They are called tares, in the parable, Matt. 13, and a seed of evil doers, Isaiah 1. Generation of vipers, Matt. 3; of your father the devil, John 8. These are also men and women of Adam's race. They help to make up the nations of men that God made to dwell on all the face of the earth. We take Parker's position as quoted above, that the devil is the father of the wicked and corrupt nature that is in them, and that were it not for the provisions that God has made for the objects of his love, to redeem them from sin, and rid them of the wicked and corrupt nature, they would be fit for nothing but to live in the service of sin in this world, and at last to make their home eternally among the demons of eternal despair. Their works of iniquity justly deserve the indignation of God's justice, but the grace given them in Christ before the world began saves them from it. God loved these people, and determined to save them. He did not love the others, and left them out of the rich provisions of his grace. He chose his people, and left the others out, on the same principle that he loved Jacob and hated Esau.

UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION
__________________

The doctrine of the unconditional election of God's people to salvation is a sentiment that all Old School Baptists seem to take pride in; and so far as we are concerned, we make no hesitation in affirming and undertaking to prove it by the Bible, fearless of successful contradiction. But it is not as much our object now to state and defend that doctrine in this article as to define it. It is always consistent, at least, to define what we undertake to prove before proving it, and then our readers and hearers will know better whether we have proven it or not.
Unconditional means not conditional, without conditions. Absolute unconditional election, then, means election that is not conditional. There are considerations on which unconditional election is suspended, and no cause of that election on the part of the elected. If there is any it is not unconditional. It would, no doubt, be an easy matter for us to satisfy our brethren that God's election of his people is unconditional, and that their obedience is not the cause of election. This is unconditional as far as it goes, but while we are particular to believe in an election that is not suspended on the good works of the elected, we should be very careful not to take a position
that involves the very same principle. If, after we have shown that our election is not the result of our good works, and thereby demolish the dogma of Arminianism, we assume a position which involves the very same principle of choice, we have failed to get very far from the ashes of the same dogma we opposed. Arminians say they believe in election, but they believe that every man that will obey the gospel will be numbered with the elect, and they that refuse to obey will be the non-elect, that God makes choice of character, and the reason he chooses one and not another, is because of the difference between them, and that this difference is in consequence of obedience and disobedience. Old School Baptists fight this idea as heterodoxy, and say that God's choice is absolute, and does not depend on conditions at all. Some of them try to fix up a difference in men before the choice as a reason why God chose one and did not choose the other. The Arminians say that if God choses one man unconditionally and leaves another out, he is unjust. How much better is our position if we try to fix up a reason why he chose one and not another, by making it appear that there was a difference between them before the choice, or outside of the choice? Both these positions are upon the same principle and for the same purpose, which is to screen the Lord from being charged with injustice from choosing one and not the other.
In all probability, if we could convince the Arminian that there was naturally a difference between the elect and non-elect, and that is the reason he chose one and not the other, the Arminian would cease saying that the doctrine of unconditional election made God unjust. We look upon both these positions as Arminianism.
We understand that all men in nature are alike, outside of election, so that the difference between them was not the cause of election, but election made the difference. If there was a difference between them that caused God to choose one and not the other, then election is not unconditional, but depends on the difference, which would make it conditional.
When the apostle wrote the letter to the Roman brethren, he made use of the case of Jacob and Esau, to show the absolute sovereignty of God in his own purpose of election. He seemed to be well enough acquainted with the disposition of man to know that some might accuse God of unrighteousness in the case of those two brothers, because there was no difference between them
so far as their works were concerned. If there was anything in Jacob that rendered him more worthy of God's love than Esau, the apostle had a splendid opportunity to let it be known here, and we take the fact that he did not as evidence that there was nothing. If there was, then God loved Jacob and hated Esau because Jacob was better. This would be conditional. All who are contending for an election of this sort should give it another name besides unconditional election. In that case God's love to Jacob is not unconditional, but depends on Jacob possessing that peculiar nature or something else that makes the difference between them.
But such a reason is not unintentioned in all that is said on the subject, and yet this is used to illustrate God's purpose according to election. If it is a fair illustration of God's plan of election, then God chose his elect in Christ and left others out on the same principle that he loved Jacob and hated Esau.
"What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. For he said to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have
compassion. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy."
The writer is certainly laboring to establish the fact that God's election is independent of any difference between men. If there had been a difference between them he could have met the anticipated objector this way: "God forbid. There was naturally a difference between the two that rendered one of them worthy of his love and the other entirely unworthy that God should love
him." We have no recollection of a more suitable place in the Bible for such an answer as this, and we certainly think that the only reason why he did not take advantage of that opportunity, and give that as an answer, was because it was not the truth. Such an answer would have been easily understood by all, and would have forever put a quietus on the most popular objections of the world to the doctrine of election. But the reason that Paul assigned for not attributing unrighteousness to God in this case is founded on the absolute right of God to do as he pleases.
"I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion."
On this principle God chose his people in Christ before the foundation of the world, that they should be holy and without blame before him in love. He did not choose them because they were better in any sense whatever than others. If he did, then the choice was conditional. It depended on the difference between those chosen and the others.
"Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will hardeneth. Thou wilt say unto me then, Why doth he yet find fault? for who hath resisted his will?"
Why should it be expected that such an objection as this would be introduced, if there was naturally a difference between the one he has mercy on and the one he hardeneth? If there is such a difference, which is the cause of him showing mercy to one and not the other, it would naturally be assigned as an answer to the objection. But instead of that the apostle says: "Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him who formed it, why hast thou made me thus?" It occurs to us that if there is a difference here the Lord has made it, and if he did, it was his own sovereign act of unconditional election.
"Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honor and another unto dishonor?"
The clay of the same lump must all be alike before it is made into vessels, or, if there was a difference in it so that when made into vessels there would of necessity be two sorts of vessels, the power of the potter has no weight in the argument, for the reason he made two sorts of vessels was because they were in the lump of clay and of necessity there had to be the two vessels, and the potter could not help it. He would have made all alike, vessels to honor, if all the clay had been the kind to make them out of. The very doctrine of a pre-existing difference between the two being the cause of the difference now, argues against the power of the potter instead of in favor of it, as the apostle does. It makes the very foundation of election depend on that difference instead of being unconditional.
Dear reader, if that is your view of election, you are an Arminian. There is no mercy in that choice, because its objects had an intrinsical right to be chosen.
"What if God, willing to show his wrath and make his power known, endured with much long suffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction, and that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy which he had afore prepared unto glory. Even us whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles."
We begin to see now why it is that the Lord has mercy on some and not on others. It is because he himself has prepared or ordained some unto glory and others he has not. Ever since that ordination, or foreordination, the vessels of mercy have been reckoned in the covenant of grace, not because there was a difference or would be a difference outside of any covenant, for it is of his mercy that any are in the covenant.
As this choice took place in eternity we call it eternal election, and as it was not made because of any difference between the elect and non-elect, outside of that choice, we call it unconditional election. The choice, then, was made entirely without any conditions; not because of foreseen goodness in the elect, nor because of any peculiar possession of their own they had a right to be chosen. Had either of these been the cause of the choice, the election would have been a necessity, which would not have been election. Then the Lord would have simply to bestow mercy, not on whom he will, but on these who in and of themselves were entitled to it, which would not be mercy. But as he has unconditionally chosen them in Christ before the foundation of the world and given them to Christ in the covenant of grace, he has always made a distinction between them and others, calling them his people.
"This people have I formed for myself. They shall show forth my praise."
"He shall save his people from their sins."
"For the transgression of my people was he stricken."
"Thine they were and thou gavest them me."
All these expressions show that there is a people that God calls his own.
"He calleth his own sheep by name and leadeth them out."
"And other sheep I have which are not of this fold, them also I must bring."
"I lay down my life for the sheep."
In Ezekiel, 34th chapter, we have the sheep brought to view as being all over the inhabited earth; but they are his all the time, and sustain a covenant relationship to him, because they were unconditionally chosen in him before the world began. Being thus chosen, they become the happy beneficiaries of every provision made in Christ for the salvation of sinners.
All the provisions of salvation in Christ were made and are for the chosen people of God. They are called in Scripture a seed and a generation.
"A seed shall serve Him; it shall be accounted to the Lord for a generation." - Psalms 22: 30.
This seed, or generation, was chosen in Christ before the world began, from the rest, on the same principle that God loved Jacob and hated Esau. Now, if we can find a difference between
them that moved Him to love one and hate the other, we may then be able to give a reason why it pleased Him to choose some men in Christ and not choose others outside of his own sovereign act.
It would be as inconsistent in us to say He must have had some other reason or cause for His act of choosing His own people, as for the thing formed to say to Him that formed it why hast thou made me thus? He either loved Jacob and hated Esau, thus making the discrimination between them, without any reason outside of His own independent act, or it must have been for some other reason, which would be a condition.
There was no difference in their fleshly or natural birth, for they were twin brothers. It was not in their works, for they had done neither good nor evil. Jacob had done nothing good to induce God to love him, nor Esau had done nothing evil to cause God to hate him. Then, if there was a difference between them before God made a distinction between them, what was it?
Convince the Arminian world that there would have been two classes of mankind in the world without election, and that one of those classes is in and of itself entitled to salvation, and that this is the cause of the distinction that God makes, and they will cease to tell you that the Lord is partial for choosing one and not the other. But you tell them that there is naturally only one class of men, and that they are all sinners alike, and yet God has mercy on some and does not have mercy on others, and they begin to cry a partial God. But Paul forbids them to say there is unrighteousness with God, on the ground of His absolute right to do as He pleases in the matter. Then let us be careful in our efforts to sustain an unconditional election, not to take a position which involves the very same principle, by trying to show up some reason for the election we contend for, and that reason be in the two between which the choice was made. The election of God's people to eternal life is an act of His mercy, and we think surely that none of our brethren and sisters will presume to say that they were any more worthy of God's mercy than others.
Dear reader, do you think the Lord was under any obligation to have mercy on you in preference to other sinners of your race? If you are ever tempted to think there is naturally something about the elect outside of election that entitled them to it, just tell us what peculiarity you possessed in a state of nature to cause God to elect you in preference to others. Did they possess any more the nature of sin than you did? If there was a difference between you and others that caused God to love you and hate them, you can easily answer the question of the poet:

"Why was I made to hear His voice,
And enter while there's room?
When thousands made a wretched choice,
And rather starve than come."

Your answer could consistently be that there was a difference between you and others, and therefore you were made to hear His voice because you were intrinsically entitled to it.
When we come to examine the family of Adam, we find them all to be sinners, and not one of them righteous - none of them entitled to the love and mercy of God for what they do or are. To say that the people of God once lived in heaven, and that they came down from heaven into this world, in consequence of which they were eternally heirs of God, and for that reason they will be saved, destroys every idea of mercy. It is not an act of mercy to give a man what he is legitimately and justly entitled to. Mercy is a disposition to overlook injuries; to treat an offender better than he deserves; inclination to forego justice; to remit penalty; to forgive obligation, out of compassion to the offender or debtor.
Is there a man of Adam's polluted family on earth that would dare to say that he or any other sinner could be saved without mercy? If one man is guilty of sin, so are all. If the sins of one man is the transgression of law, so the sins of any other man is the transgression of law. If the transgression of one man would condemn him justly, so the sins of any other man would condemn him justly; and as all men have sinned, so they are all justly condemned for their sins, and justice would punish all alike, and none of them have any claims upon the Lord for their safety from that punishment. Yet the Lord has made choice of a portion of the guilty race to be the subjects of His mercy. We did not deserve it and there was nothing in us to make us worthy of it.
The apostle says, "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ; 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 will." Ephesians 1: 3-6.
The cause of our being the beneficiaries of God's grace is in His choice. He chose us to be His children, and ever since that choice we are His - the objects of His love, mercy and salvation.
If any of our readers should believe in the doctrine of eternal children, and consequently eternal heirs, allow us for a moment to call to mind your experience. What had you been engaged in all your life? Will you not agree with the apostle that you were dead in trespasses and sins? Were you not walking according to the course of this world, the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience? Why are you not pursuing the same course yet? Many others are still going the same way yet.
Can you think, dear reader, that you are better than others as a reason why God had mercy on you and withheld it from them? Your will to do good was no better; your disposition to sin was
as great; for your sins you thought in your experience that you deserved punishment. You were by nature a child of wrath even as others. Not a child of the devil, but you were as justly exposed to wrath for your sins and transgressions as any others be, and you thought so yourself.
Let us make a remark that there seems to be some misunderstanding among some of our brethren on this expression of Scripture, one taking the position that the text means that all are the children of the devil in a state of nature, and others denying that the elect ever were the children of the devil, and hence they deny that the text means that all alike are the children of the devil. If wrath in the text means devil, then they are all alike children of the devil. But we do not think
that the term wrath could be properly read devil in this text; but we do believe that it teaches that they were, like others, exposed to God's wrath for their sins.
It has been said that God's people were never exposed to wrath. If that be true, then as a natural consequence, they have never been saved from wrath; but the text does say they were the children of wrath, and if being the children of wrath does not mean the children of the devil, and the doctrine be true that the elect were never exposed to wrath, please tell us what the text does mean.
"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."
What do we need mercy for, only to save us from the very thing our sins have exposed us to? We could not be saved in our sins, but we must be saved from them. Our guilt must be removed,
and every claim must be met satisfactorily for our sins before we can be saved from wrath. We, as rebels against the government of high heaven, are blameable for our sins; that is, we have done wrong, and are guilty. But God chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love. The Lord intended before the world began
that we should be without blame, and this very fact certainly teaches that while in sin we are to blame, and that to the extent that without the mercy of God we could not be saved. If we are
not exposed to wrath we could not be saved from wrath. Then what does the apostle mean?
"But God commendeth His love toward us that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us. Much more then being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through
Him." - Romans 5: 8, 9.
What wrath could we be saved from only that due to us for sin? If sin only effect us in life, as some argue, why does Paul put our salvation from wrath in the future? We believe that Christ came into the world to save His people from their sins, and in saving a sinner from sin He saves him from wrath. We do not believe He saves them from anything they are not exposed to.
"Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, by the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost." - Titus 3: 5.
Here is an expression of mercy, and O how unworthy of such mercy we are! If we deserved it, it would fail to be mercy. If we did not deserve it and yet it was according to His mercy He saved us, it was surely something we had no title to outside of Christ. This act of mercy to us is on the same principle of God's election - it is unconditional.
"Therefore He will have mercy on whom He will have mercy, and whom He will He hardeneth."
It may be asked: "Why does He have mercy on some and not on others, if they are both alike outside of election?"
All the answer the Bible gives to that question is, "God's will." He had before prepared or ordained them to be vessels of mercy, that is, to be the ones He would have mercy on.
"So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy."
Mercy is what the Publican asked the Lord for. The mercy of God to a poor guilty, unworthy sinner is so universally prayed for by every mourner in Zion that the Lord has said, "Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy."
The covenant says, "I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember against them no more."
The same God that saves the elect through the tenderness of His mercy, is the one who inflicts the punishment on the non-elect for their unrighteousness. If it be true that the wicked in hell are not punished there for their wickedness in this world, then they are not punished for crime at all. Then God, as a matter of consequence, does not inflict the punishment. If that doctrine be true, as we have known some to argue, in their efforts to set up a theory of unconditional election on the ground of a natural difference between men, we can not see that God would have any more to do with the wicked in hell than the devil would with the righteous in Heaven. It is God's law they have violated. The devil would take no pleasure in punishing the wicked for violating God's law, so they must be punished for what they do in this life, and the punishment is just, because they
had violated God's just and holy law. We hold that the wicked will be punished hereafter for their wicked works here, and that so far as the justice of the matter is concerned, if the Lord had sent all the race of men to hell for their sins, without making any provision for the salvation of any, he would have remained just, and no man could have justly claimed that his punishment was unjust. One would have had no more reason to claim salvation than another. They would have all been upon an equality, receiving justice for their sins. In that sense we were by nature the children of wrath, even as others. God's just and righteous law would have demanded that we be punished, but His mercy intervened, and He gave Christ to die for us. He did not die for His own sins, but He died for our sins. It pleased God to lay on Him the iniquity of us all. Our sins were imputed to Him, and His righteousness was imputed to us. "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us, for it is written, cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree."
All we need to save us is freely given us through Christ, in mercy, in consequence of our having been chosen in Him, unconditionally, before the foundation of the world. It is hardly necessary for us to argue here that election is of grace, which, if it is it is unconditional, and if unconditional, then it is not a necessity. If it was in consequence of a difference in men, then it was a necessity; for according to that doctrine he must, of necessity, choose that special character of men that were in possession of something or other that the others did not have. If election is a necessity, it is not of grace; there is no grace in it, and in such a case there would be no need of
grace. The very term grace in the Gospel excludes every idea of worthiness in the recipient of it. If election is of grace, no person ought to claim for a moment that God's people are elected to salvation on the ground of anything they possessed in and of themselves that rendered them any more worthy of that grace than others. If we were elected because of a difference between us and others, that difference, whatever it was, must have made us better than others. This would destroy every idea of grace, for just to the extent of worthiness in the receiver, just to that extent the favor fails to be grace. If men are elected because they are in any sense entitled to it, it is not grace; neither is it unconditional, but they were elected because they were entitled to it. That is a conditional election, just as Arminians teach. Let us not fight the Arminians, and then be Arminians ourselves. Some men, and men of no ordinary talent, have labored so ardently to fix up a good excuse for the Lord for electing some men to eternal life, and leaving others out that they destroyed the doctrine of grace in their theory entirely. One position taken is, that there were no non-elect where God made choice of His people. They claim that the non-elect were an extra production after Adam fell under the law; that all that were created in Adam are embraced in God's elect, and that in the multiplication of the sorrow and conception of the woman, there was an addition to the race of men, which made another people outside of the elect. It is claimed that this extra production embrace the non-elect, and that they are all naturally the children of the devil, and the others are naturally the children of God. If this position be true we see no need of election at all; as God would naturally have his own, and the devil his own without election.
Of those who maintain this doctrine, we find about as many different positions on it as we find men who advocate it. Their tongues are as badly confused as those of the builders of the Tower of Babel. For the benefit of our readers we will give some of their positions here in their own language. In a paper called The Herald of Truth, edited by Elder G. W. Payne, we find from a correspondent whose name is Andrew Gordon, the following, in reply to Sister R. Anna Phillips: "Now, dear sister, we agree with you, that God has no partnership with the devil. Nor do we believe that God created or made bodies for the devil or his children, or that the devil draws upon Eve for bodies. We believe that every seed produces its own body." - Herald, Jan. 1878, p. 201. In the same paper, page 206, we have the following from the editor, who makes loud pretentions to "Two Seedism:" "We affirm the following: Unconditional election and final redemption of all
that God made, blest and called Adam." From the above we might be able to assign a reason why God loved Jacob and hated Esau. It was because he made Jacob and did not Esau. But if he did not make Esau, and yet has no partnership with the devil, neither makes bodies for the devil or his children, and the devil does not draw on Eve for bodies, how is it that Jacob and Esau are twin brothers? Some men seem to think that the belief of the above is a good test for the soundness of an Old Baptist. If it is, we presume there are very few sound ones among us. If God
did make Jacob and Esau both, then the editor above quoted affirms the unconditional election of Esau as well as Jacob. If God loved Jacob because he made him, and hated Esau because he did not make him, and one of them was the offspring of God, and the other the offspring of the devil, then the choice between the two was not unconditional. If Esau received his body from
Rebecca, and yet God did not make him, it is strange if the devil did not draw upon Eve for Esau's body, at least, and Jacob being in the womb with Esau, looks as much like partnership work as
anything we could think of.
In the same paper, of December, 1878, pages 69 and 70, we have the following: "No man will be taken to an eternity of bliss, or sent to an eternity of woe, for what he does in this world. But those who are accounted worthy of an eternity of bliss, will receive it on the principle of heirship, as an inheritance, for what they are, and not for what they do. So also those sent to the region of endless misery will be sent there for what they are, and not for what they do. We say, without the fear of successful contradiction, that our doings in this life only effect us in this life."
The above utterly destroys every idea of being saved for what God does for them unconditionally, and if this is correct idea of the matter, we should say that God chose his people for what they were, and not unconditionally. The above is thought by a great many to be Parkerism; but we have already observed that we find about as many positions on this point as we find men that
believe it. Let us hear Parker on the same subject, and then compare. In the Church Advocate, Vol. 2, No. 9, June 1831, page 210, he says: "Are the serpent's seed accountable beings to God, and on what principle will they be judged, condemned and punished? The serpent's seed are accountable to God, because they are in his rightful dominion, came into action in the world by way of God's creation, and live in this world on the bounties of heaven, and they will be justly condemned, not because they are the serpent's seed, or that God reprobated them to destruction before they were made, but because of their sins and acts of wicked rebellion against God, for they shall be judged according to their works." Parker says they shall be punished for what they do, and not for what they are; Payne says they are punished for what they are and not what they do.
We would advise Payne, if we are capable of giving advice, to study Parker closer if he wishes to be his disciple. We have heard him say that if he understood anything correctly, he had thought he understood the Two Seed doctrine; but we cannot fail to see that he or Parker one has missed it. If being a Two Seeder is to be a test of soundness, which one of the above are we required to believe? Or are we required to believe both? We believe the doctrine that the wicked will be punished for their wickedness is Bible; but we doubt the position of either so far as it relates to the origin of the wicked. But let us see if Parker thinks the Lord and the devil are partners. In the same number of his Church Advocate above quoted, on the same page, he says, "Is the serpent's seed human beings? If they are how did they partake of humanity? The serpent's are human beings; they partook of their humanity by means of creation which God made. Creation was made good; the serpent corrupted and got into it, for which cause God yet multiplied its conception, and made it capable of bringing forth the serpent's seed, and thus the children of the multiplied conception, coming through the created stock, are equally human beings with the children of the creation, or divinely appointed conception, and the old serpent, the devil, is also the father of the wicked and corrupt nature that is in man, or in the world." Parker does not seem to think that the devil's seed would naturally produce its own bodies, but that in order that the devil might have bodies for his seed, God multiplied the conception of Eve, and made it capable of producing an extra set of bodies for the accommodation of the devil and his seed. It seems from this that there would have been no non-elect if there had been no addition made to the original stock that God created. If there had not there would have been no election, for to choose between two is not to take both. There was no choice at all in this doctrine, much less unconditional choice, for it represents God as taking all there was when the choice was made. Adam and Eve were only capable of bringing forth the elect in their creation. They are the offspring of God while the others are the offspring of the devil. If Parker was correct, none should ever charge God with unrighteousness for loving his own offspring, and hating the devil's, as in the case of Jacob and Esau.
But Paul should have given that as a reason why God should not be charged with unrighteousness, and as he did not we take it for granted that was not the reason. Strange that men of great ability should go to work to screen the Lord from hard charges, and get him into worse difficulty than he was before. It is also strange that men will undertake to establish unconditional election with the very essence of Arminianism.
Instead of a portion of the race of men being the offspring of God, and others the offspring of the devil, Paul argued to the Athenians that God had of one blood made all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth - that one of their own poets had said, we are also his offspring. "Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God," &c. Acts xvii. If he has of one blood made all nations of men, then all nations of men are of the same blood; and this ought to forever hush into silence such a doctrine as two seeds in the flesh. It includes Cain and his posterity, as well as Seth and his; Ishmael and his generation as well as Isaac and his; Esau and all the Edomites as well as Jacob and all the Israelites. All are offspring of God. If the devil has an offspring, the Bible never says so. Parker says the serpent's seed are equally human beings with others, and that the
devil is the father of the wicked and corrupt nature that is in man, or in the world. If the devil being the father of the wicked and corrupt nature should constitute some of them his offspring, why not all who have that nature?
The wicked and corrupt nature is no part of the man, and it might all be taken out of him, and he would still be a man. Take the wicked and corrupt nature out of all the elect, and then take it out of all the serpent's seed, and would they not all be alike? Would one of them possess any more of the nature of the devil than others? Would one of them possess any more of the nature of God than others?
But while in possession of this wicked and corrupt nature, and actuated by it, our Lord should say to the Jews, "Ye are of your father, the devil." John viii. Paul would tell us that we were by nature the children of wrath, even as others. Eph. ii. Then take this wicked and corrupt nature out of all mankind, and the devil would have no seed, or children. Give it to all mankind, and they are all his, according to the position quoted above.
They are all human beings alike, and God has made them all. So take this wicked and corrupt nature out of all of them, and we are not able to see why the non-elect would not stand on an equality with the elect, but for the doctrine of unconditional election. Are the elect any better while in possession the wicked and corrupt nature than the non-elect are, in and of themselves? If as some tell us, God has blessed some and cursed others, thereby making a difference, that is evidence there was no difference before. We believe he blessed some by choosing them to be the beneficiaries of all the provisions of his grace in Christ, and withheld that blessing from others, and that made a difference. This blessing on some was God's grace, hence grace is the cause of the distinction. This is unconditional election. There being no distinction between them without the wicked and corrupt nature, it of necessity follows that if all mankind have it, there would be no distinction with it. So if one man being in possession of a wicked nature is exposed to God's wrath and indignation, the same thing would expose all who have it. We hold that every sinner, whether elect or non-elect, is justly exposed to eternal death for his sins. This being true, and the Lord intending to save the elect, sent his Son into the world to atone for their sins, without which they would have been consigned to a home among demons with the non-elect.
But we sometimes hear it argued that in the Bible distinctions between Cain and Abel, Isaac and Ishmael, Jacob and Esau, and other representative characters, that in giving the generations of Adam, Cain, Ham, Ishmael and Esau, with their generations, are left out; showing that God does not reckon them as the race of Adam, and that those that are left out of the genealogy are evidently the devil's seed, while the others are the children of God. Thus a fleshly two-seedism is fully set up to the entire satisfaction of its advocates. The Israelites are received in the genealogy, and if they are the elect and others are not, and the distinction is in the flesh, then there should be no children of the devil among the Israelites, nor any of the children of God in any of the other families. But if we should find both kinds among all of them, then it is settled that two-seed doctrine in the flesh is a whim.
Some difficulties arise here, and one is, that it is by their fleshly birth that they are made the recipients of God's grace and mercy, and another is that the fleshly birth does not answer the purpose; for the generation of vipers that John the Baptist denied, were not admitted on the plea that they were Abraham's children. Also when the Saviour said, "Ye are of your father the devil;" he was talking to Abraham's literal seed, and not to the descendants of Esau. There was not an Edomite there. Yet in the genealogy given by Matthew and Luke, that we are so often referred to in order to find that Cain nor any of his posterity are embraced in the generation of Adam, all the Jews, even the generation of vipers, and those who were of their father, the devil, are embraced. No man who is acquainted with his Bible believes any others were there, only the descendants of Isaac. Another difficulty is, that if Cain and his posterity being left out of the genealogy is evidence that they are the non-elect, then they do not constitute a portion of all the
nations of the earth; for the promise to Abraham was, "In thee and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed." The seed of Abraham, in this promise, we understand to be the elect of God. Abraham and his literal seed were a figure of God's elect; so Cain, Ishmael and Esau were figures, or representatives of the non-elect.
We now wish to notice a text that is often quoted, to prove that Cain was a child of the devil. "Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother!" I. John, iii. 12. This is thought to forever settle the question that Cain was a child of the devil, because it says he was of the wicked one. If the logic be good, then we presume the devil had a larger family than any of us would be willing to admit of. Read the 8th verse of the same chapter: "He that committeth sin is of the devil." How many men of Adam's fallen family are not of the devil, according to the text? "For this purpose the Son of God was manifest, that he might destroy the works of the devil." Here is the errand of Jesus plainly told; as he that committeth sin is of the devil, and the devil is the father of the wicked and corrupt nature that is in man, Jesus has come to take that wicked nature out of the elect. "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." He now becomes in possession of the divine nature, and is born of a parentage that entitles him to the riches of the kingdom of God. He now has an inheritance that his fleshly birth gave him no title to at all. If men are to be known as the children of God by not being the descendants of Cain, or if the distinction is in the flesh, we would have a knowledge of our ancestry in order to know whether we were entitled to the enjoyments of the kingdom of Heaven.
But as it is not of blood nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God, we can tell as easily whether we have an interest in the matter, as we can tell that we are born of God.
But some one may be ready to inquire, "Do you not think the children of God, and the non-elect are men and women?" We do most certainly think they are men and women of Adam's race, but
their natural birth is not what makes them heirs of glory, but it is being born of God. The divine nature is implanted in the new birth, which they did not possess in the fleshly birth, nor in the creation. They had none of the nature of God until they partook of it in the new birth; neither did they possess anything in and of themselves that entitled them to the new birth. It is the work of grace in Christ, not in themselves. In the new birth he partakes of the good seed, and that seed remaineth in him, and by its renovating powers he will ultimately be of the same nature of the seed; soul, body and spirit.
But let us examine what seed it is in him that remaineth. Is it a seed he possessed in nature? Or one of which he became possessed in the new birth? If he is born of God in consequence of his being of the good seed originally, and that the reason he does not sin now, is, because his seed remaineth in him, it is strange that the seed did not prevent him from sin before. We are told that Christ is a seed, and that being a productive seed he produced all the elect, and that on account of having been produced by him, they naturally possess the nature of the seed that produced them, that is Christ, and in consequence of that natural affinity they are the recipients of grace. If this logic be good, then the elect must be born of God twice: first, when they are first brought into being, and second, when they are born again, not of corruptible seed, but by incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and *abideth forever.
But we must pass on to some other texts which are used to prove the devil's offspring. We are often referred to the expression, "Seed of evil doers." O, yes, this is satisfactory evidence that the devil has a seed. But let us go to the text and learn the truth. "Ah, sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity, a seed of evil doers, children that are corrupters: They have forsaken the Lord, they have provoked the Holy one of Israel unto anger." Isa. i. 4. If this text proves that the
devil has an offspring, it is evident that he has made a heavy draw on the Lord's elect to get them; for those evil doers are Israelites. If the texts above referred to prove the offspring of the devil, he must have about all the race now, for at first he had Cain, Ishmael and Esau, and their posterity, and now he has the Israelites. Another text often used to prove the same point is the same expression, "Cursed children." This with the others only go to prove the two-seed doctrine, to the satisfaction of many, that the devil has a legitimate offspring that are not now, nor ever have been anything else but wicked. We do not deny that there are such men known in the Bible as
children of the devil, but we do deny the doctrine that they came from the devil, or that the devil produced them. We do not believe that as a people they are the natural product of the devil. But the wicked nature that they possess is of the devil, as Elder Parker has truly said.
Whenever we see this wicked nature manifested in man, we have evidence that there is something in that man of the devil. It was in this sense that Cain was said to be of the wicked one;
in the same sense it is said, he that committeth sin is of the devil. From this standpoint all those expressions of scripture are used. Jesus would say to the Jews, "Ye are of your father the devil." John would say, "O, generation of vipers." Isaiah would call the children of Israel, a "seed of evil doers." Peter would say of false teachers, "Cursed children." "But these are natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil things they understand not, and shall utterly perish in their own corruption; and shall receive the reward of unrighteousness, as they that count it pleasure to riot in the day time. Spots they are and blemishes, sporting themselves with their own deceivings
while they feast with you; having eyes full of adultery, and that cannot cease from sin; beguiling unstable souls: a heart they have exercised with covetous practices; cursed children: which have forsaken the right way, and are gone astray, following the way of Balaam, the son of Bosor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness." II. Pet. ii. 12.
We have now given the full quotation in which the expression "cursed children" occurs, and it seems to us that it is clear to the mind of the reader now, that men go a long way out of the way to prove an offspring for the devil, when they quote this for that purpose.
We have referred to one writer in a previous article, who argued that the people of God would enjoy the happiness of future bliss as an inheritance, for what they are, and not for what they do. Also that men will be sent to woe for what they are, and not for what they do; and that our works only affect us in this life. With this view of the matter before us, let us take a short notice of these "cursed children." One thing affirmed of them is, they have forsaken the right way. To forsake a thing or place is to leave or quit it. Then they have left the right way, or quit it. How could they forsake a way they had never been in? Another thing affirmed is that they have gone astray. To go astray is to go out of the right or proper way. What member of the family of Adam has not gone astray? The Apostle in proving both Jews and Gentiles under sin, says, "They are all gone out of the way." Romans iii. 12. If they are all gone out of the way, they have all gone astray; and the apostle here makes no difference between nations. The cursed children are included among those that are gone astray; we understand by that, that they strayed from their state of innocence in which they were created, and in that strayed condition they do wicked works for which they will be punished. Were it not for God's purpose of unconditional election, which results in the redemption of the elect, and brings them back from the strayed course, they would
all suffer the just penalty of God's law that is due them for their sins.
Of these cursed children, it is affirmed, they shall receive the reward of unrighteousness. Not that they will be sent to woe merely because they are naturally heirs of that place, but they shall suffer for unrighteousness, just what all mankind are exposed to for sin.
Having said so much on this subject of the children of God, and the children of the devil, it will naturally be expected that we give some notice to the parable of the wheat and tares. We are well aware of the great stress laid on this portion of our Lord's gospel to prove that God had a good reason for choosing some of the human family to salvation, without choosing all.
It is argued that this text does prove that there is a difference in men in nature, and we believe there is, but we do not believe there is a difference in the nature of men's nature. A man is as much the elect of God before he is regenerated as he ever is, and a man is as much the non-elect before it is manifest as he ever is.
But the origin of the good seed and the tares is the bone of contention, and it is thought this parable illustrates the matter. To this we wish to pay some attention at present. We may not be able to give complete satisfaction to the reader, or make the matter so clear that we will meet with no opposition. But we intend to notice the text in the light of the Bible, to the best of our ability, and leave the result with the Lord.
"Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is like unto a man which sowed good seed in his field; but while men slept his enemy came and sowed tares among the
wheat, and went his way. But when the blades were sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also. So the servants of the household came and said unto him, Sir, didst not
thou sow good seed in thy field? From whence then hath it tares? He said unto them, an enemy hath done this. Then the servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up? But he said: Nay, lest he root up the wheat also with them. Let both grow together until the harvest; and in the time of the harvest I will say to the reapers, gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them; but gather the wheat into the barn." Matthew 13: 24-30.
We have heard a great many expostulate on this text in a manner that seemed to indicate, at least, that a correct view of this parable, and a comment on it occasionally, was a good test of the soundness, and depth of the minister of the gospel. If our Lord had not given his own expose of it, he would not have been contradicted on it quite as often as he has. In explaining this parable, some have tried to apply every word in it. For instance, some undertake to tell us what the Lord meant in the use of the expression, "But while men slept." It is strange to us, if that expression makes up any part of the parable that he did not explain it in his explanation of the parable. If the
disciples had been as inquisitive as some of our teachers now, they surely would have asked him what that meant.
Believing that he gave a full exposition of the whole parable, and left that out, let us be satisfied with it. As some, however, apply the parable to the introduction of men and women in the world, and that the men that slept were Adam and Eve, which gave the devil a chance to sow the tares, or introduce another set of men and women in the world, we will remind the reader that it was not the wheat that slept, which would have been Adam and Eve, if they are the wheat. It must have been those who had charge of the field, and the wheat. We are also frequently told what the servants of the householder represent. If that is necessary to the parable, the Saviour did not give a full expose of it, for he did not tell us what they were.
The most popular error we have ever heard made in expounding the parable, was that it illustrated God's election. There is certainly a wrong somewhere about this, for the word election, or anything of the kind never occurs in the parable, nor in the explanation of it. How men can get an idea from scripture, of what the scripture does not say a word is strange. The Lord did not say that election is like unto a man that sowed good seed, but he said the kingdom of heaven was. This parable, then, illustrates the Kingdom of Heaven and not God's election.
But we are told that if it applies to the church, it is wrong to expel members from the church, no matter what they do. But the Lord did not say one word about that in his explanation, and it seems to us the great effort is to explain what the Savior had no use for in the parable; besides if the parable does not apply to the church, it has no application, for he said, "The Kingdom of Heaven is likened unto a man that sowed good seed in his field." He did not say something else was.
And where men get their authority to apply a parable of the Lord's to anything only where he himself applied it is a question. We hope, dear reader, that when you hear them at that hereafter, you will demand their authority for such a thing, that you also can enjoy the benefits of it.
We also hear it argued that they were not known apart until they brought forth fruit. This is evidence of itself, if it is any portion of the parable, that it does not apply to the world of mankind, in the world, for the fruit of all is alike in the state of nature. "We were by nature the children of wrath, even as others." Hence it must be in the church where they are distinguished. When they first entered the church, they were all supposed by the servants to be good, for that is the place for
good people; but when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also.
Let us have the Savior's explanation of it. "He answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man; the field is the world; the good seed are the children of the Kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one; the enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are angels. As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of the world. The Son of man shall send his angels, and they shall gather out of his Kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; and shall cast them into a furnace of fire; there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the Kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear." Matt. xiii. 37-43. We presume no one will deny this being a proper rendering of the parable, and as such, we wish to notice it with a desire to elicit truth; in that alone can we be benefitted. The most controverted part of the parable is that the good seed are the children of the Kingdom, and the Son of man sowed them. And that the tares are the children of the wicked one, and the devil sowed them. And that the field is the world. And that the harvest is the end of the world.
The first thing we wish to know is, what is illustrated by the parable? Is it the introduction of mankind into the world? If not, then sow does not mean to bring into the world; if it is, then the Son of man is still bringing men into the world, for in his explanation of the parable, he says, he that soweth, not he that sowed, the good seed is the Son of man. He that soweth means the same as he that sows, which is that the sowing is going on now. He sows the good seed. Our Two-seed brethren are very particular to have it understood that they believe the wheat and tares are men and women; we believe they are ourself; but if sowing here means bringing men and women into the world, then we have the Son of man sowing men and women all the time. We also have it that after the Son of man had sowed men and women, that the devil went to work and sowed men and women among the men and women that the Son of man sowed. Who believes such a doctrine as
this? But if the parable illustrates the creation of the elect and the non-elect, then the Son of man created the elect men and women, and placed them here in the world, and then the devil created other men and women, and placed them here in the world with the elect. Are we to believe this, any of it, in order to pass all over the country as sound Baptists? We wish to be excused.
The Anti-resurrectionists tell us that the world is Adam's race, and that the good seed are the children of God, and that the Lord sows them in man, and at the dissolution of the body the good seed will go back to heaven where they came from. That the tares are the devil's seed, and they are also sowed in the Adam man, which is the world, and at the death of the body they go back to the devil where they came from, and that the death of the body is the end of the world with each one. That the race of Adam are neither wheat nor tares; but that they go back to the earth where they came from, and remain there forever.
If the Savior was giving an illustration of how the wicked and the righteous got into the world, we greatly mistake his language. He is telling us what his kingdom is like, and not what the race of men is like. He does not design by this parable to tell how the wicked got into the world, or how the world was made; but he is telling what the Kingdom of Heaven is like. He does not intend by this parable to show the manner of the creation of the elect and non-elect. So away with all such applications of it.
Did the devil create men and women? All deny that he did. Then if sowing tares means bringing men and women into the world, where did he get his men and women to sow? Did he gather on the Lord's creation, the wheat, and begin to sow them? If sowing means to bring into the world, that would not do, for the wheat was already sowed.
But some say he sowed a seed in man when he beguiled Eve. Then he did not sow men and women, and the tares are not men and women at last.
It is out of the question for us to say that the sowing here means putting the righteous and wicked into the world, without having both the Son of man, and the devil sowing men and women into the world, if the tares and wheat are men and women. To say that each one is represented as sowing seed, and that seed producing men and women, each after its kind, is to say that there are two races of men and women in the world, one from God, and the other from the devil. It is argued, sometimes, that the Lord sowed his seed, that is, he created Adam, and his posterity in him, and blessed them, and called their name Adam; and that when Adam sinned, there was an extra production of human beings brought into the world that were not in the first creation.
This position is said to be derived from the expression, "I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow shalt thou bring forth children, and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." This is said to be the way the devil got his seed; that when man sinned that this multiplication of the conception of the woman made it capable of bringing forth the tares, and that they are men and women, and this is what is meant by the devil sowing the tares.
This makes everything all satisfactory to some, but we find at least two difficulties with it. The first is, that God himself is the one that did the multiplying, and if the sentiment be true, the devil did not sow them at last, but God did, in the work of multiplication; and the devil would have no seed without the Lord's work. The next difficulty we meet in this theory, is that the wrong one was multiplied, for the seed was in the man and not in the woman. They tell us that the non-elect did not stand in Adam in the fall; if so, then surely the multiplying the woman's conception would not put them there, and the Lord should have multiplied the seed of the man as well as the conception of the woman, if he intended to add to the number of human beings that way. If the seed was not in Adam, he could never beget the children, no matter how great the conception of the woman. If they were already there without being multiplied, then they stood and fell in him. What advantage then do we get from this argument?
Then let us apply the parable to the Kingdom, where it belongs, and not to election, or creation. This will save us all those difficulties, that we are certain to get into when we try to make it appear that there was a difference in men, the reason God chose one and not another; thus building up one of the purest Arminian theories we ever thought of.
We now propose to give our views of the doctrine of the Bible on two seeds, or generations. Or, in other words, the Bible doctrine of unconditional election, more extensively. We have already intimated that in nature, there is no difference in men; that is, there is no difference in the nature of man so far as their creation is concerned. God made all mankind, or else there is a portion of them that were never made. Proof: "In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made." John i. 1-3.
Now, if there is such a thing as a generation of people that he did not make, they were not made at all. If Christ is a seed, and has been eternally, with his people in him, seminally, and create and make man, in the Bible, means to produce, as the seed produces the plant in the vegetable kingdom, then Christ has produced all mankind, and from the logic of Elder Ellis (and he is not alone), they are represented as having been hewn out of a rock, and that rock was Christ, and they partook of the nature of Christ, as the plant does the seed from which it sprang, then all the race of men belong to Christ; for he made them all.
This would leave the devil without any seed at all. "God has made all things for himself; yea, even the wicked, for the day of evil." Proverbs xxi. 4.
Then the wicked are not an emanation from the devil, as men, or produced, or brought forth by or from the devil, as the plant comes forth from the seed. For God made them, and he either made
them when he made Adam, or he made him afterwards; or before. All the man the Bible gives any account of being made, was Adam, and it is generally conceded that when the Lord made him, he made all his posterity in him. God, then, made the wicked; not that he made them wicked, but he made them, and they became wicked. If the Bible ever says one word about the people of God pre-existing the creation and formation of Adam, we have so far failed to find it. But we wish to notice the origin of man a little farther. We are frequently told that Adam was a figure of Christ, and that as Adam possessed Eve, his bride, in himself, so the church of Christ, or his bride stood in him, before the world began. If Adam and Eve are ever mentioned in scripture as being a figure of Christ and the church, we have failed to see it. So, such a foundation as that for the doctrine of eternal children is unwarranted in the scripture.
Elder Hearde, with whom we held a discussion on the doctrine of the resurrection, obligated himself in the discussion, to prove, "The subjects of salvation are a seed that existed with God, before the creation and formation of the earthly Adam, and they will all return back to heaven."
We presume that he was as well calculated to prove the pre-existence of such a seed as most men, and before the discussion of that proposition was over, he remarked that if we would admit
their pre-existence he would ask no difference on the question of the resurrection. This is legitimately true; if the people of God existed before Adam was made of the dust of the ground, Adam is not one of them. If the people of God, or the elect, were made, so the wicked, or non-elect were made. It is agreed by all that Cain was of the wicked one; especially are we referred to him by Two Seeders, for one of the devil's children. Cain's posterity were among the Ante-diluvians, were they not? "And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created, from the face of the earth." Gen. vi. 7. Here is a clear intimation that God made the people that he destroyed with the flood for their wickedness.
"And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth." Acts xvii. 26. "As certain of your own poets have said, 'For we are also his offspring.'" vs. 28. "For as much then as we are the offspring of God." vs. 29.
In a sense that God made, and created all mankind, we are his offspring; if it is to be taken in any other sense, then the whole family of man belong to him in that sense.
But we simply learn from the Bible that God made the family of Adam out of the dust of the ground, and that they are earthly; and that there is no part of that man that came from heaven; not
even his nature. The nature of man is that which elevates him above the other creatures that God has made. When God made man, he was simply a natural man, just suitably adapted to the garden
of Eden. In that state, he was perfectly innocent. He was not subject to death, or pain of any kind whatever, while he remained in that innocent state. God looked upon what he had made, and behold it was very good. To this man God gave a law, and the law prohibited him from eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Man did eat of this fruit; the law said he should not. Hence, he violated that law, and fell under its curse; justly exposed to its penalty. In this he involved his posterity. Some tell us that God gave him the permission to eat. If he did, he repealed his law. The legislature enacts a law prohibiting murder, and if a man murders, the legislature does not permit him to. If God gave man permission to eat the forbidden fruit, he exonerated him from blame in so doing. The law is not supposed to have power to prevent its violation. Adam had no permission to eat the forbidden fruit. If he had, it would not be forbidden after that permission was given. God did not compel him not to eat, but he gave him a law not to. If there was ever a time that man was capable of keeping the law, Adam certainly was before he transgressed. But it is argued that God knew he would violate the law; that we do not deny, but he did not force him to do so by decree. Man did the deed himself.
Having committed this violation of law, he brought death upon all his posterity. "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned." Romans v. 12. All the race of man die, and from the time they are born into the world, they are subject to disease and death. Well, then, they have sinned. They sinned in the federal head, Adam. Find a man that is subject to death, elect or non-elect, and do you suppose the cause of death is the same in one case as another. "The wages of sin is death." Romans vi. 23. Wherever we see death we see the wages of sin; and all men die alike, and are subject to the same
diseases here in the world. Hence, they must all sin. "Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law, for sin is the transgression of the law." I. John iii. 4. A man cannot sin, then, without transgressing the law. Can he transgress the law without falling under its curse?
You men that are holding out the idea that Christ redeemed all that were under the law, are you not Universalians? We now have all mankind under the law, if all mankind sin, and if all were redeemed that were under the law, then Universalism is inevitable. But it is said that the non-elect did not stand and fall in Adam, for none but the church stood and fell in him; but he did not see how that affects their redemption, if he redeemed all that were under the law, for if they did not fall in Adam, they fell some other time, and when they did fall, they were under the law, and are embraced in the expression, "all that were under the law."
But we are met with this text, "But when the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law." Gal. iv.
4-5. Them that were under the law must mean all that were under the law. We have heard this argument many times, and have a knowledge of how well it satisfied the advocates of that theory. In the first place, the text does not say all that were under the law; and in the second place, we have already shown that every man that sins is under the law. So we see no better way to explain it than this way, "To redeem such as were under the law." The people that he came to redeem were under the law, and in order to meet their case, and redeem them, he must come under the
law where they are.
But we are met with another text, to prove that the church alone stood and fell in Adam. "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." I. Cor. xv. 23. They tell us that one and all here is just as large as the other, and surely none but the church are embraced here. We admit that in this, and the following verse, the church is exclusively mentioned. But turn back to the previous verse, and we have this, "For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead." Who is it that died? The church exclusively? Or the elect and the non-elect both? They all die, and by man that death came. That man was Adam, and we can not see how he could have brought death upon a people that did not stand in him; and they must stand in him when he sins, if his sins affect them. Then turn to the 47th and 48th verses of the same chapter. The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven. As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy; and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly." Who is the earthy man here but Adam? Are not all earthy men like him? Is one earthy man more like Adam than another? The elect and non-elect are all earthy; hence they are like Adam. Would not that make them all alike, so far as relates to their earthy nature?
Then we have them all under the law, justly condemned. They have all sinned and incurred the just penalty of the violated law. None of them have any right to call upon the Lord, in their own name, for any provisions of grace to save them. He can inflict the penalty of his law upon them for their sins, justly, which would cut them, all of them, off without mercy, and damn the whole race, and not one of them have a right to claim anything else.
This is not news to the Lord, he knew this would be the state of mankind, as well, in the very dawn of eternity, so to speak, as he does now, and he made a choice in Christ before the world began, of a people for himself, out of the polluted race of Adam. In this, he showed mercy to the objects of his choice. Hence, he chose them in Christ before the foundation of the world, not because they were holy, or possessed any degree of holiness; but that they should be holy, and without blame before him in love. In the covenant of grace, in Christ, before the world began, all the means necessary to their redemption, and final salvation, were ordained in Christ, and this is what the Apostle means, when he says, "Who hath saved us, and called us with a holy calling; not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace given us in Christ Jesus before the world began." II. Tim. i. 9. Those people were given to Christ in the covenant, and have sustained a covenant relationship to him ever since; or from all eternity. They are his by gift, not that they are his because they were in him as the plant is in the seed, and have emanated from him in that sense. This people are a special people to the Lord, all through the Bible, and as a distinguishing mark between them and the others, he calls them sheep, and the others goats. This difference is made between them by the mercy of God in choosing them to salvation. In the covenant with Abraham, they are embraced in the promise, "In thee, and in thy seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed." This is the seed that David speaks of: "A seed shall serve him, and it shall be accounted unto the Lord for a generation." Here is the Lord's seed, and the fact that they are called a seed does not argue that they are as old as the Lord. But we are told that they must be everlasting children, for Christ is said to be an everlasting Father, and there could not have been an everlasting Father without everlasting children. "And his name shall be called, Wonderful, Counsellor, The Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace." Isa. xl. 6. This is a prophecy, and a prophecy is not telling of what has been, but what shall be. He shall be called the everlasting Father; not has eternally been. The believer in Christ shall have everlasting life; or hath everlasting life. Does that argue that he eternally had everlasting life? Then, those people are called sheep, and they are in every inhabited portion of the earth. "My sheep wandered through all the mountains, and upon every high hill; Yea, my flock was scattered upon all the face of the earth, and none did search or seek after them." Ezek. xxxiv. 6.
Here are the Lord's sheep, and in this lost and scattered condition, they are sheep. "For thus saith the Lord God; Behold, I, even I, will both search my sheep, and seek them out. As a shepherd seeketh out his flock in the day that he is among his sheep that are scattered; so will I seek out my sheep, and will deliver them out of all places where they have been scattered in the cloudy and dark day." Ezek. xxxiv. 11-12.
Here are the Lord's people, and they are the objects of his eternal love. There was no beginning of his love to them. Thus, love is the foundation of all the provisions of grace that have been made for them in Christ. Having been given him in the covenant of grace, he calls them his. "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. And I give unto them eternal life, and they shall never perish. Neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father which gave them me is greater than all; and no one is able to pluck them out of My Father's hand." Then, surely this seed shall serve him. He was made of a woman, made under the law to redeem them. He took their nature, or seed. He did not eternally have it. "He took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham." They were already the seed of Abraham, and when he took on him that seed, there was a flesh and bone relationship between them that never existed before.
The seed of Abraham, then, being among all the families of the earth, does not give one family any preference to another, on account of their fleshly origin. The apostle says, "And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." But we are told that Christ is a seed. This is true, Christ is called a seed in the Bible, more than once. "Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, and to seeds, as of many; but as one, and to thy seed which is Christ's." Gal. iii. 17. He was made of the seed of David according to the flesh. He took not on him the nature of angels, but he took on him the seed of Abraham. In this sense he was the seed of the woman that should bruise the serpent's head. This alludes to his humanity; for the woman possessed no divinity. Then, as the children are the seed of Abraham and Jesus is the seed of Abraham, they are alike in that particular, sin excepted. This constitutes a flesh and bone relationship that did not exist between them before.
But we are often told that he was an eternal seed. If he was, he was not eternally the seed of Abraham; nor did he eternally possess the seed of Abraham, or he could not have taken it upon him, as the Bible says he did. As the eternal word, we believe he was a seed, but this seed was so far from being anything like the seed of Abraham, that they have to be born again before they possess it or any of its nature. "Being born again not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth forever." I. Pet. i: 23. This is a seed no sinner possesses until he is born again. He possessed the seed of Abraham before. Then away with the idea, that because Christ was, in his divinity, a seed eternally, that his children were. Why do they have to be born of the same seed the second time? By being born of this incorruptible seed, sinners are made partakers of the divine nature, which they never possessed before. "Whereby are given to us exceeding great and precious promises; that ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust." II. Pet. i. 4. In this birth a spiritual relationship is made that never existed before. It is a grand pity, we think, that some men among us are contending for this relationship to have eternally existed.
It is further argued that the Bible says, "For both he that sanctifieth, and they that are sanctified, are all of one." This certainly proves a relationship. It does not prove an eternal flesh and bone, or spiritual relationship. Indeed, it does not prove anything eternal. They are both of one in a flesh and bone sense, for they are of the seed of Abraham, and so is he. After they are born again, they are both of one in a spiritual sense. If the children of God were eternally just what will they be
after they are redeemed, born again, cleansed from sin, and made holy and taken to heaven, how much better off will they be when all this work is done for them than they would have been without
it? There are only two sides to the issue. They eternally possessed the spiritual nature of Christ, or it is given to them in time. If the former, they need not to be born again to possess it; if the latter, then it must begin when they are born again. Jesus says, "Except a man be born again." The marginal reading has it from above. Then men must be born from above; not that they have been from above in order to see the kingdom of God.
It is also argued that the Bible says, "As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy; and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly." I. Cor. xv. 48. They tell us that this text proves two families; one of heavenly origin, and the other of earthly origin. This theory leaves men and women out entirely, and is one of the strong-holds of non-resurrectionism. This, however, is the ultimatum of the doctrine of eternal children. But it is very clear to us that if one of Adam's family is born of God, or from above, he will be heavenly that far. The text does not teach that the heavenly originated in heaven; but is simply teaching that being born of earthy parentage is to be earthy; and to be born of heavenly parentage is to be heavenly. Adam is of the earth; so are his posterity; they who are born of him. Christ is heavenly; so are those who are born of him. But hear the next verse: "And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly." We here have the very same people who had been earthy, to become heavenly. Let it be remembered that the apostle was treating on the doctrine of resurrection. He says nothing about the pre-existence of a heavenly family; but he anticipates the future state of a heavenly family, and this heavenly family is to be made up of men and women of the earthly family, made heavenly.
It is the work of God, then, to choose men in Christ Jesus before they existed, and make every provision necessary to their redemption from the curse of the law, that he knew they would fall under, by their transgressions, and cleanse them from all their sins, and give them eternal life, something they never possessed before; impart his Spirit to them in the work of regeneration in this world, and in the resurrection to raise their bodies from the dust, and fashion them like unto the body of our Lord. Then they will be like Jesus, and not before. They bear the image of Adam here, they will bear the image of Christ there.
Another argument is common used, that grace was given those people in Christ before the world began, and the people must of necessity have been there to receive it, or it could not have been given to them. This certainly proves that they were there, and consequently proves the pre-existence of the people of God. Then we are to understand that they have received grace twice, once in eternity and once in this world. Was it the same grace actually and personally given? Grace given us in Christ before the world began, does not necessarily require the recipient to be there. A man makes a will years before he dies, in which he gives his heirs, each one, a portion of his estate. It is not necessary for the children to be present when the will is made, and there may be heirs unborn who receive a legacy in that will. None of them can get any of it until they are of lawful age. Yet, the whole thing was given them in the will. Just so, the grace of God was given in Christ before the foundation of the world, and now they are saved according to that gift.
This is the apostle's argument of the matter: "As the people of God were chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world, and every provision was made for their salvation from sin and its effects, the apostle could truly and consistently say that we are saved according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ before the world began. In obedience to that heavenly purpose, Jesus made his advent into the world; and we are informed that the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ." John i. 17. Here we are taught that the grace that was given us in Christ was brought to us, and bestowed on us through him, according as it was given us in him before the world began.
Let us now introduce a few expressions that show that the actual reception of grace is in time instead of eternity.
"Paul, a servant of Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God, which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures, concerning his Son, Jesus Christ, which was made of the seed of David, according to the flesh, and declared to be the Son of God, with power, according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead, by whom we have received grace and apostleship, for obedience to the faith among all nations, for his name." Romans i. 1-5.
"By whom also we have access by faith into his grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God." Rom. v. 2.
"For if by one man's offense death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace, and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ." Rom. v. 17.
"Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints is this grace given, that I should preach among the gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ." Eph. iii. 8.
"But unto every one of us is grace given according to the measure of the gift of Christ." Eph. iv. 7.
There is no grace only in Christ, and the grace we receive during our lives in this world, is the same that is given us in Christ before the world began, or else we receive grace twice. The apostle, in the use of the expression, let us know that God hath saved us, called us, not according to our works, but according to something else, is to be in harmony with something else. He says it is according to his own purpose and grace which was given us in Christ before the world began. It was not necessary that be actually there to receive that grace, as it is provided for us in heaven, and is brought down to us in this world, and we are made the happy recipients of it, and are saved
by it.
To say that there are two first great and grand causes of everything, and that one of them is diametrically opposed to the other, so that all that is caused by one is opposed by the other, so that all that is caused by one is opposed by the other, and that each of them has produced all the good and bad there is in the world, and the Lord has produced his own people, by sending them forth as seed of vegetation produces the plant, and that after this manner God's people have a beginning, and that the devil also caused his people to be in the same manner, is to give the devil the same power to produce people that the Lord has; and it denies the Lord having power to make his people, but that they are simply developed here in the world, as an evidence that they existed before.
We sometimes hear it said, that as Adam was the figure of Christ, and that when he was first formed out of the dust of the ground Eve was in him, that Eve is also the figure of the church. On this it is claimed that Adam and Eve are a figure of Christ and the church. We have been wonderfully surprised at the universal acceptation of this idea among our brethren. But as we must be allowed to believe for ourself, regardless of the numbers that are against us, we now take the liberty to say, that there is not a solitary text in the whole volume of God's word that proves Eve to be a figure of the church more than any other lawful wife.
After assuming the positions that Adam and Eve are a figure of Christ and the church, then, the next thing is to show that Adam's wife was in him before she was developed, so the bride of Christ, in order to be a true antitype of Adam and Eve, must have been in him before she was developed. In this state she existed in Christ in heaven before the world began, and grace was given her in Christ before the world began. There is only one text in the Bible that says Adam was the figure of Christ, and that has no allusion to the relation between Christ and the church. The apostle is merely showing the manner of the introduction of sin and death into the world. He is not speaking of Adam in any other sense only to show that by his transgression, he involved his posterity in sin and death. The sin and transgression of Adam proved as effectual in bringing condemnation upon his family, as the obedience and righteousness of Christ would be in bringing justification and salvation, and eternal life upon his. Each one represented his own people; the act of Adam effected all his people because he represented them; so the act of Christ effected all his people because he represented them. This is the matter, and the only sense in which Adam was a figure of Christ,
and Eve is not mentioned in the whole connection. Hence it is unreasonable as well as unjust to draw such conclusions as many do from such premises as this. Let us always limit our conclusions to what the Bible says, on the subject we treat on, and if we are taking a position that is not at all sustained by the Bible, we had better give up the idea than to misconstrue scriptures.

A SERMON.

Delivered at the Regular Baptist Church, at La Fountain, Wabash County, Indiana, on the second Sunday in December, 1876, by Elder Lemuel Potter, of Grayville, Illinois.
_____________

"Blessed is the man whom Thou choosest, and causest to approach unto Thee, that he may dwell in Thy courts: we shall be satisfied with the goodness of thy house, even of thy holy temple." Psalms lxv. 4. This portion of scripture leads our mind to the subject of God's choice, or the subject of election. The Bible so abundantly teaches the doctrine of election that there are very few who read the Bible that do not believe that the doctrine is taught there; yet there are many confused notions about it. All have to confess that it is taught there in some way. I remember a conversation I had once with a Methodist friend, in which conversation he did most of the talking himself, and that in opposition to Campbellism, but finally he told me that he did not believe the Baptist doctrine either. Said he, "the doctrine of election is a doctrine I do not believe, yet it
is a hard thing to get around, for the Bible is chug full of it, but I do not believe it, nor they cannot make me believe it." I did not undertake to make him believe it for a moment, for when a man will acknowledge that the scriptures abound with a sentiment he does not believe, I never take much pains to convince him. I only propose at this time to examine the doctrine in the light of the Bible, presuming that you will acknowledge the divine authority of that book. According to the text God is the one that chooses, and man is the subject of the choice. It is not the man that chooses the Lord, but the Lord chooses the man. He does not choose him because he becomes a good man, and comes to God, but God chooses him and then causes him to approach unto Him. Let me make one remark right here for the doctrine of election. I am aware that there are many objections to it, and in all probability there may be some in this congregation who think it is a dangerous thing to teach. Some seem to think it will do harm; but I take the position that it hurts no one, for if you
are not a christian, there is no system that does embrace you. All the systems of the world will miss you as far as the system of election will, if you are not a christian. Then as God is the chooser, as the text shows him to be, let us notice his character for a moment. And in order to find his true character, let us go to the Bible, and let us agree that whatever it says is absolutely true. Does He know all things? Is He infinitely wise? Does He know the future as well as the past? One writer says, "Known unto God are all His works, from the beginning of the world." Now let us just conclude that this is the truth, and that He is just as wise today as he will be after the consummation of all things, and that he was as wise before the world began, as He is today. There is not something new turning up to His mind every day as it is with us. He is not like one of us, "for as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts, than your thoughts, saith the Lord." Isaiah, iv. And one of the most fruitful sources of error, is that we fail to place a proper estimate upon the Lord, and upon ourselves. If we do not view God to be higher than one of us, our devotions will never ascend higher than we think He is, for if they did they would miss the object intended. But He is higher than we are as much so as the heavens are above the earth. Is there any comparison between us and him? There can be no comparison, for He is not only above us as high as the heavens are above the earth, but as we have already shown, He is infinite in wisdom. He says, "I am God, and beside me there is none else. Having declared the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure." He can see the future as well as the past. Can you tell anything about the future? Can you tell where you will be in an hour from now? Can you see even
one minute or second into the future? No, you cannot tell where you will be in the future even one minute. Can you tell what is going on in the world? Even one hundred yards from you? Can one
of you tell what another is thinking about? What short-sighted creatures we are! Yet God knows all things in the future as well as the past, and He knows all that is going on in the world everywhere, and He knows our most profound secrets. We need not try to keep our secrets from the Lord, for He knows all things. He is not only infinite in wisdom, but He possesses all power. Jesus says, "All power both in heaven and in earth, is given unto Me." "He doeth His will in the armies of heaven, and upon the earth none can stay His hand." With these two attributes we might reasonably conclude that He will do as He pleases, for He knows how, and has the power. Give us the power and wisdom, and we will do as we please. But God fills immensity. He is in heaven and earth at the same time, and He is at every place in the earth that we can think of. If we have met in His name today, He is here, and so in every congregation that are now together in His name today, He is here, and so in every congregation that are now together in His name, all over the inhabited earth. Think of His being in all the congregations in all the cities and countries of the world, and hearing the prayers of all His children at one time without any confusion. Then "great is His name, and greatly to be feared." At the same time He is a God of Justice. "Just and true are Thy ways, Thou King of saints." He is the only absolute sovereign in the whole universe. Then let us consider that as this is His character, that He saves sinners only on the very strictest principles of justice. Let me say to you today that if it is not exactly just that you should go to heaven you will never get there. If there is any just reason why you should not go to heaven, you will not be admitted there. If God is anything short of what we have already shown, He ceases to be God. But He is also immutable, and never changes. "He is in one mind, and none can turn Him." Any system of doctrine taught in the world must harmonize with the perfection of God in all His attributes, or be wrong. God could choose and predestinate to save His people, and in harmony with that choice cause them to come to Him and be satisfied with the goodness of the house of the Lord. And as we believe, the Bible teaches the doctrine of election, let us conclude that the work is such as will reflect honor on the character of the Lord. When did He choose His people? He either chooses the sinner and afterwards saves him, or else He saves him, and afterwards chooses him; or, He saves him without choosing him at all. I know that the most popular idea of the doctrine of election is, that if a man will come to the Lord and comply with the requisition of the gospel, he will become one of the elect, and that any man can be one if he will, but I had rather believe the Bible than anything else on the subject. The text has the choosing first, and approaching unto God second. God knew just as well, who would be saved from all eternity, as He will know at the end, and all that He knew would be saved will be saved, and all the combined powers of opposition are not able to prevent one from being saved, that He knew would be. "For whom He did foreknow, He also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of His Son, that he might be the first born among many brethren. Moreover, whom He did predestinate, them He also called, and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom He justified, them He also glorified. What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us?" Is it not very clearly shown here that the very ones that He foreknew will be saved? Let me say to any of you, that if God did not foreknow you, that you are not meant in any part of the above quotation. If he did foreknow you, he also predestinated you to salvation. And it is certain that he foreknew and predestinated some, and if he has one, he may have all that will be saved. Do you think for a moment that some men are saved upon the principle of election, and that God
intended beforehand to save them, and then left the rest to be saved or not as they chose? If so, then your system teaches that God made a difference, for you know the text already quoted, speaks of those he foreknew, and predestinated, which would be nonsense if there were no such people. Then as we must acknowledge that some are justified and glorified according to foreknowledge and predestination, let us conclude that the doctrine of God's choice is Bible doctrine, and that it was made before the sinner did anything as a condition of such choice. But when was the choice made? The apostle in addressing his brethren at Ephesus, says that God has blessed them with all spiritual blessings in Christ "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." Not because we were holy, but that we should be holy. This was the end to be reached. "Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will." Let me ask you if you had done anything as a condition of salvation before the foundation of the world? Here was a choice before the foundation of the world, and if you did not comply with conditions before you were chosen, the choice must have been unconditional. It was before the foundation of the world. David says, "In Thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them." How many conditions could they perform before there was any of them? I have heard men appeal to ungodly sinners, in their excited meetings, when they seemed determined to convert the whole community, to come up and have their name registered in God's book. But let me tell you that if your name is not yet registered in his book, it is too late now, for all his members were written there before there was any of them. Now let "all" mean as many for an Old Baptist as any one else, and then tell me if you think that all the missionary efforts that are, or have
been, or will be in operation will ever add one to all that are written in God's book. Is there one in this congregation whose name was not written in God's book before you existed? If so, you are not one of his members; for all his members were written there. If you were not, you will have to worship the beast that John saw. For he says, "And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of the Lamb slain, from the foundation of the world." Rev. xiii. 8. From this text, we only have three chances. One is to take the universal side of the question, and say that all the race of men were written in that book; and that would leave none to worship the beast: or to take the Arminian side of the question, and say that none of the race of men were written in the book; and that would leave all the race to worship the beast: or take our side of the question; and say that all God's people were written in the book, and that only embraces a portion of the race of men, and that portion will be saved, while all others are left to worship the beast. How true then the language of the text, "Blessed is the man whom thou choosest." For the Lord not only chooses him, and leaves him in sin and rebellion against God, but he also causes him to approach unto him. As he says by one of the prophets, "This people have I formed for myself, they shall show forth my praise." I know that the objection is often urged against the doctrine of election, that it is licentious. But the language just quoted says, "This people have I formed for myself, they shall" - DO WHAT? sit down upon the stool of do nothing? Is that it? If not, how then? "They shall show forth my praise." They shall do something. Do you think it would inspire you to rebel against God if he were to make known the fact to you that he chose you in Christ before the foundation of the world, and that he blessed you according to that choice, and intended to save you because he chose you? Do you think it would corrupt the morals or your community to have the doctrine taught in it that God chose all his people in Christ before the foundation of the world? Peter says, "But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should" DO WHAT? commit sin, and rebel against God? O, no, that is not it, but "that ye should show forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light." This is the object of God's choice, and I know of no christian that believes in election but who desires to glorify the Lord. I find in the Bible that this doctrine caused the servants of God to be thankful that it was so. Paul to the Thessalonians says, "But 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." They were chosen from the beginning, and they were chosen to salvation; and it caused Paul to be thankful. He also exhorts them to good works. If then, the doctrine of election is the truth, will it harm the christian to tell him so? Will it be any advantage to him to keep him ignorant of it if it is true? Will the ungodly sinner be on any more favorable terms with the Lord if we keep the doctrine of election hid from him if that doctrine is true, than to tell him the truth about it? Surely God's truth will not hurt any one. And as the Bible so clearly teaches the doctrine of election, and the Lord requires us to believe and teach his word, leaving the result with him, let us do so, and not go about making apologies for the Lord for anything he has said in his word. I have never yet seen any authority for any man to make an apology for him. He needs none. And I do certainly think a man bears poor testimony of his call to the ministry that, instead of faithfully proclaiming the truth of God's word, is trying to sustain a system to screen the Lord from unjust charges. But there is an idea that the Bible does teach the doctrine of election, but the twelve apostles are the elect, and that they are the only elect God has. Now if that is the Bible doctrine of election, we all ought to know it, and that is what every man should preach when he says anything on the subject of election. Let us go to the Bible and see, and if that is it, let us have it that way. Who does Peter write to in his general epistles? Does he write to the apostles, or others? If the apostles are the only elect, then of course it was to the apostles exclusively. Listen to him. "Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatian, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia. Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ." If this epistle is addressed to the twelve apostles exclusively, and Peter one of them himself, they have become wonderfully scattered have they not? They are not only in those different countries, but they are scattered throughout all these countries. Just think of twelve men being so badly scattered! Is there any one here today so unreasonable as to claim for a moment that Peter in this letter is writing to the apostles and no one else? Yet he calls them the elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father. Then there must be more embraced in election than the twelve apostles. And be they who they may, they are called by the same writer a chosen generation. And not only this, but there are elders among them. Not that they are all elders, but says Peter, "The elders which are among you I exhort," &c. It occurs to my mind that we may readily conclude that the apostles are not the only elect of God. Was the apostle Paul writing to the apostles when he wrote to the Thessalonians? If so, then they were all apostles. If not, there are more embraced in God's choice than the twelve, for he says to them, "But we are bound always to give thanks unto God for you brethren, beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation." Paul did not simply thank the Lord for choosing twelve apostles, but for choosing the Thessalonians. Not to apostleship, but to salvation. Now let me ask every one here today, if I have not conclusively shown that there were more embraced than the twelve apostles in God's choice? Paul to the Ephesians says, "According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world." What for? Let us stop and ask what did he choose them for? Was it to be apostles? O, no, it was "that we should be holy and without blame before him in love." We have now found that God chose his people in Christ before the foundation of the world, and that they were written in his book before there was any of them. They were given to his Son, and were the objects of his love. If there was ever a time when he began to love them the Bible has not given the date of it. But Jesus says to the Father, in speaking of them, "Thou lovest them as Thou lovest me." By reading on down in the same chapter, he says, "Thou lovest me before the world was." Then if he loved Jesus before the world was, and loved them as he did Jesus, he must have loved them before the world was. And as he loved them and chose them in Christ before the world began, and predestinated their salvation, he also ordained Christ to redeem them from sin, and give them eternal life according to the choice and predestination. They were given to the Son, and he says, "All that the Father giveth me shall come to me, and him that cometh unto me, I will in no wise cast out. For I come 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 of all he hath given me I should lose nothing, but raise it up again at the last day." Here are embraced all that he gave to Jesus, and he says he came down from heaven to raise them up at the last day, and he says all that the Father giveth him shall come to him. Do you believe that they will all come to Jesus that the Father gave him? Do you believe all the race of men will come to Christ? If there is one of Adam's race that never has and never will come to him, then there is one that the Father never gave him, for all that he gave him shall come. It will not do to say that the Father gave him all the race of men, and then say they will not all come; for the Savior says they shall all come, and I believe it. Do you? God's system of salvation is such as to meet every circumstance of man. None can get out of his reach, it matters not where, who, how nor when. The Saviour calls them his sheep, and says, "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me, and I give unto them eternal life, and they shall never perish. Neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father which gave them me is greater than all, and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand." Are they not safe? Are they not all safe? No matter where they are, they belong to Jesus, and he knows them, and they shall never perish. They are not simply the Jews, the literal descendants of Abraham, but they are embraced in the covenant made with him, four hundred and thirty years before the giving of the law. In that covenant the Lord makes a promise
which embraces more than the law does. "In blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thee; and in thee and thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed." Again, "In thy seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed." Hence the chosen of God are among all the families of the earth. They are as well among the Gentiles as the Jews; and among the heathen as well as among the enlightened. They are all over the inhabited earth. Not among the circumcision only, for the promise was made to Abraham while he was yet in uncircumcision,
that he might be the Father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised, that righteousness might be imputed to them also. Are you a believer in Christ? Then you are the seed of Abraham. The apostles are plain upon this subject, and Paul says, "Then if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." Now do you not see that more are embraced than merely the Jews? You are embraced if you are Christ's, and that is not all, you are an heir of God's according to the promise. It matters not what you may think you have done to be made a child of God, nor how much you may hate the doctrine of election, it is according to that, that you are an heir of God today, if you are Christ's. Peter so understood this matter on the day of Pentecost, when he said, "The promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call." This promise embraces all that believe in Jesus. All the faithful in every nation and family of earth in every country. Hence the language of Jesus: "Other sheep I have which are not of this fold. Them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice, and there shall be one fold and one shepherd."

"There is a period known to God,
When all his sheep, redeemed by blood,
Shall leave the hateful ways of sin,
Turn to the fold and enter in."

I as much believe that all the chosen of God will be brought to the Saviour, as I do that the Bible is true. Notwithstanding they are among all the families of the earth, they are given to the Saviour, and he has redeemed them, and says, "All that the Father giveth me shall come to me." Do you believe they will all come that Jesus says will? Do you believe that all the missionary efforts with all their christian making machines will ever add one to the number that the Father gave to Jesus? Suppose the missionaries were to bring one more to the Lord than Jesus said should come to him, whose will that one be? He would not belong to Christ, for the Father gave him all he has a right to claim. I know the missionaries are claiming to teach men to know the Lord, and that by their operations, hundreds and thousands are being saved, that otherwise must have been lost;
but let me tell you they are mistaken, for Jesus glorifies the Father because the Father hast given him power over all flesh, that he (the Son) should give eternal life to as many as the Father hath given him. Now to know the Father and the Son is eternal life. Have preachers the power to give eternal life? If not, then they have no power to give the knowledge of God; for the Saviour says, "This is life eternal, that they might know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent." Do all men and women in your community have eternal life? They have had the Bible all their lives, and in addition to that, they have heard preaching all their lives. Besides, I presume they have had the advantage of Sunday Schools, and everything that you call the means of grace. Then let me ask you, do they all know the Lord? You had better be a little careful how you answer that question, or you will get caught. If you say they do all know the Lord, Jesus says it is eternal life; and if you say they do not all know him, then you must admit that your so-called means of grace of have failed. They are not doing what you claim for them. "Glorify Thy Son, that Thy Son may glorify thee. As thou hast given him power over all flesh that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him. And this is life eternal that they might know thee, the only true God and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent." Let me make a proposition right here. Just show me a man that knows the Lord, and I will show you one that has eternal life. Show me one that is destitute of eternal life, and I will show you one that does not know the Lord. He may have read the Bible all his life, and heard preaching every day, and attended Sunday School every Sabbath; yet if he is today destitute of eternal life, he does not know the Lord. For "this is life eternal, that they might know thee." In speaking of this knowledge, God introduces his new covenant, in which he says, "They shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying know the Lord, for they shall all know me from the least to the greatest." This is the covenant under which we are today, and it positively says, "They shall not teach every man his neighbour and every man his brother to know the Lord." Yet they shall all know him. The Lord says by the prophet, "And all Thy children shall be taught of the Lord, and great shall be the peace of Thy children." Jesus quotes this in connection with "all that the Father giveth me." We cannot but reasonably conclude that the same children are under consideration all the time in these expressions. "As 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, and I will raise him up at the last day." Then it is clear to my mind that God's elect or choice embraces all that the Father gave to Christ, and as those that are Christ's are the seed of Abraham, they are among all the families of the earth, and shall all come to Christ, possess eternal life, and finally land home in heaven as God intended before the foundation of the world that they should. "Behold I and the children which God hath given me." Are you a child of God? You were chosen in Christ before the world began, and were embraced in the covenant with Abraham, and are his seed, and an heir of God, according to the promise. You are "saved and called, not according to your works, but according to his own purpose and grace which was given us in Christ before the world began." Can you think of any other system that is taught among men that will save sinners of all the families of the earth? Does not every man have to confess that if the Lord does all for the sinner that he has promised to do, that they will be saved out of every nation, kindred, tongue and people under heaven? Is the system of the missionary able to do it? Does not every man that is informed know that generation after generation in many nations have passed away without hearing the gospel preached at all? Let me ask the missionary a question or two. If those who never have the gospel are all lost, as you say they are, what are they lost for, according to your system? You certainly will not say that they are sent to hell to suffer eternally, for not obeying the gospel; for if you do, you will send more people to hell without a chance to be saved by your system than the doctrine of election will. And that is one of the serious objections you have to the doctrine of election, it fails to give all a chance. Now let me ask you, are all the heathens, who have not the gospel preached to them, saved? If they are, why are you publishing to the world in your papers, and urging in every Bible lecture that the heathens are going to hell by the thousands for want of the Bible? If they are saved, what are they saved for? Have they complied with the conditions of salvation as proposed in the gospel? Now I know that if the missionary takes either horn of this dilemma, it will gore him to death. The system of election, and salvation by grace, will save from all the families of the earth, in heathen lands as well as anywhere else, and it will save as many where the Bible is, and the gospel preached, as any system taught in the world on conditions. Then let me appeal to you to know if this system that chooses men from all the families of the earth, and saves all that are chosen, is not the most liberal system. It saves more than any conditional system. Then let us conclude that David understood himself when he made use of the language of the text. "Blessed is the man whom thou
choosest, and causest to approach unto thee." But how do we know them? Who are they? They are all believers. There is not a believer in the world, nor ever has been, nor ever will be, but who is embraced. Not only the Jews, but all that believe, of both Jews and Gentiles. For in the covenant with Abraham there is no difference between Jew and Gentile. But God has concluded
all under sin, that he might have mercy on all. "Putting no difference between Jew and Gentile, purifying their hearts by faith." Acts xv. 9. But I am aware that it is held by some that faith is the only condition of salvation, and that all the race of men might comply with that condition and be saved if they would. Hence the reading of their confession of faith. "That men are justified only in a wholesome doctrine and very full of comfort." Let me ask what is faith? With the Bible closed we get the answer that faith is the act of the creature. That faith is a work, is a current idea among men. But as we have agreed to examine the subject in the light of the Bible, let us see what it says, and if we find it to be the act of the creature, then let us have it that way. Does the Bible give the definition of faith? The apostle tells us, "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Does it look much like an action? It is a substance, and there is surely a great difference between a substance and an act. And as the Bible never says that faith is an act, let us conclude that we are under no obligations to believe it is. We can, in all
probability understand the matter better if we can decide whether faith is a work or not. Do you think faith is a work? Can you do a work and not work? Walking out of this house is a work; can
you walk out and not work? Can you think of any work so small that you can do it and not work? We know that it is the man that believes; but it does not necessarily follow that to believe is to work. The Lord does not come down and believe for man, for the Bible says, "With the heart man believeth unto righteousness." And I do not wish to be understood by any that the Lord believes for the sinner, for I believe no such thing. Yet faith is not a work. "Faith without works is dead, being alone." There could be no such thing as faith without work, if faith was a work. "Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness." Here is a man that believes and does not work, which could not be the case if believing was a work. He is said to be the man to whom the Lord imputed righteousness for that work. "For by grace are ye saved, through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God. Not of works,
lest any man should boast." Notice it is through faith, but not of works. Then surely be the gift of God according to the text already quoted. Not of yourselves, it is the gift of God. We are referred to Jesus, who is the author and the finisher of our faith. Then if he is, are we? Did you begin your own faith? Did you finish it? If you did, you had better look to yourself as the apostle tells us to look to the author and finisher of our faith. "Let no man think more highly of himself than he ought to think, but think soberly according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith." We now conclude that instead of faith being a work, it is the gift of God. "It is given unto us in behalf of Christ, not only to believe on his name, but also to suffer for his sake." "Contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints." All these scriptures show faith to be a gift of the Spirit of God. Now if faith is a gift, is it not grace? And is not grace the only system that will meet the case,
and make heirs of all the promised seed? "For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise become of none effect." If the promise is not fulfilled it is void, and it will not be fulfilled, and some of the seed left out. "Therefore it is of faith that it might be by grace to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed." There is no system that is all of grace, while it has the least work in it. Then it being of faith, could not be by grace, if faith is a work. But it is claimed that "faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." And most men forget that this text proves that hearing comes as well as faith. A man must have a hearing, or in other words, he must have the ability to hear, that is, he must be capacitated to hear, before he can hear anything. This text does not say that faith cometh by hearing the word of God. But that hearing must come as well as faith. The sinner is said to have ears, and hear not, and the Bible abounds with the expression, "Who hath ears to hear, let him hear." Now if a man has ears and hears not, is it not necessary that he receive a hearing before he can hear? Does hearing come by hearing? Think what nonsense that would be. Hearing comes by the word of God, and if a man is not able to hear, you might preach to him a lifetime, and your preaching would never give him faith. Jesus
said to the Jews in the 8th chapter of John, "Why do ye not understand my speech? Even because ye cannot hear my words." The Lord alone can give a hearing, that is, make the sinner hear, and he says, "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." Jesus is the word of God. Now do not think I have no use for preaching, for it is of a noble purpose. But to say that no man has faith, only where the gospel is preached, is to contradict the Bible. And to say on top of that, as the Reformers do, that
the gospel was never preached until the day of Pentecost, is to say that there were no believers until that day. Did not Abel have faith? Who was his preacher? What Bible did he read? There is only one faith, and he had that, and if your faith is not like his, it is not faith at all. If it is the same, it is the gift of God, and therefore is grace. Grace is calculated to reach all circumstances of men, while works are not. Now if the seed of Abraham are among all the families of the earth, and God has chosen his own manner of reaching that portion of them which are not of the law, and he calls it grace, that the promise might be sure to all the seed, and has taught us in his word, that
faith is a gift, and that his servants have been blessed with that gift in all ages of the world, and tells us in his word that the promised seed are all over the inhabited earth, and shall all be brought in, shall we stop and say that no man can have faith unless he hears the gospel? We dare not say that he cannot give faith, neither dare we say he will not, while we believe it is of faith that it might be by grace to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed. Now I desire to be understood, that the elect of God will be saved from every nation. Jesus will send his angels to gather his elect from the four quarters of the earth, and from every wind under heaven. Not merely where the gospel is preached, but everywhere. All nations are to be gathered before him, when he will divide them as a shepherd divideth the sheep from the goats, and if he turns one whole
nation from him without saving some of them, he does not say so; or if he saves a whole nation universally, he has not said so. After he divides them, he will say to them on the right, "Come,
ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world." Then, well could David say, "Blessed is the man whom thou choosest, and causest to approach
unto thee; we shall be satisfied with the goodness of Thy house, even of Thy holy temple.

WHAT IS MAN?
________

"What is man, that thou art mindful of him?" - Heb. ii. 6.

In answer to this question, even volumes might be written, and all possible testimony introduced to prove his origin and nature, together with his disposition and destiny, and yet leave
the question in a manner unanswered, so that it would yet remain a mystery as to what man is. But feeling satisfied with what light the scriptures give on the subject, we shall not undertake, in this chapter, to gratify the curious minded by resorting to cold reason in answer to any dogma that may exist in the fruitful imagination of any who may be skeptical on the subject, and thereby have a desire to know more than is revealed, or to become wise above what is written. There are some controversies in the minds of some theologians as to what man the Bible treats of. It is thought by some that the man known as the child of God is an eternal seed, or substance that had a being in eternity with God, and was never made at all. That there are at least three generations of men, one of Adam, which is of the earth, one of Jesus Christ, which is from heaven, and one of the devil, which is from hell; and that each generation will return to where it came from and remain there. When they say man, alluding to the child of God, they take pains to be understood that they do not
mean Adam, or any of his posterity. In order that the reader may be able to judge of the correctness of this theory, we propose to give a few simple, and yet positive declarations of scripture. "And so it is written, the first man Adam was made a living soul, but the last Adam was made a quickening spirit." I. Cor. xv. 45. If Adam was the first man, then the man of earth was the first man, and it is a matter of utter impossibility for any to exist prior to the first. This itself ought to be sufficient to satisfy even the most curious that there was no man existing before Adam was made. "Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and after ward that which is spiritual." Verse 46. The natural man here is Adam, and the spiritual is, not a generation that eternally existed, but something that was made a quickening spirit. It is no more or less than Christ. Then we shall take the position boldly that the people of God are of the race of Adam, and that they did not eternally exist; but that they were made. Hence when we speak of the children of God, we mean men and women of Adam's family. How well we may be able to substantiate this position with scripture evidence, the reader must be his own judge. We hope all will be willing to humbly accept whatever inspiration may say on the subject. Then the man of which the text at the head of this chapter inquires, being the child of God, and the subject of salvation, is no doubt the Adam man. "What is man that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man that thou visitest him? Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honor, and didst set him over the work of Thy hands." Hebrews ii. 6, 7. This so beautifully harmonizes with the history of the creation of Adam, that it would seem that none but an unbeliever would question for a moment that it was him the inspired writer alluded to. What other man did God make? Does the Bible give an account of God making any man but Adam? Did he not set Adam over the work of his hands? "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him, male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth." Gen. i. 26-28. Here is man that inspired writer was inquiring of in the text. In fact this is the man that is the subject of God's address all through the whole volume of inspiration. After all other things were created, God made man, and made him above or superior to anything else he had made. The chief object of his care, the joy of his heart, the image of himself. He forms him out of the dust of the ground, and makes him a living soul. To this man God gave his law, and required his allegiance strictly to it. And in tracing the history of his transgression of God's law, and of the curse of God upon him for
disobedience, we do not find the history to change from the same Adam man to some other being that had a being with God in eternity, before the world began; but the whole history keeps before the reader the posterity of Adam, the man that God made. All the curses for disobedience were inflicted upon him, and he suffers the penalty of the law himself, because he is the transgressor himself. And when the Bible speaks of the transgressors of God's law, and of those that disobey his commands, it invariably has allusion to the man that was made of the dust of the ground. On the other hand, when a promise of salvation was made, it was promised to this man. In fact the Bible knows of no other man, than the one that was made. After man was made, and had transgressed the law of God, the Lord first reckons with the man, then the woman, and then turns to the serpent, and says, "Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field, upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life. And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head and thou shalt bruise his heel." Gen. iii, 14-15. Here is the first promise of salvation. Who is it for? The woman was alluded to, and undoubtedly concerned, and she was taken out of Adam, and acknowledged by him to be "bone of his bone, and flesh of his
flesh." It was she that had been beguiled by the serpent, and being deceived was in the transgression. And while she suffers the penalty of a violated law, she is to be benefitted by a redeemer. Adam, by his transgression could not involve any but his own posterity under claims of law. Now reader, at this juncture, stop and see if anything has ever yet been said about a people, separate and apart from Adam, coming down from heaven, and becoming in need of salvation. If they have not come down yet, when will they? Salvation is promised to the fallen man that God has made, but nothing yet said concerning those imaginary people, of which we often hear men talk. Another important item for us to think of, is, even if there should be such a people, what benefit will you derive from it? The old servants of God anciently alluded to themselves in all their sufferings and servitude, and not to something that no man can give an intelligent idea about. "The spirit of God hath made me, and the breath of the Almighty hath given me life. If thou canst answer me, set Thy words in order before me; stand up. Behold, I am according to Thy wish in God's stead: I am also formed out of the clay." Job. xxxiii, 4-6. Was Job a child of God? If not, does he say anything about the child of God? He was certainly speaking of himself, and had no allusion to any man but the one that was made. How much sense is there in even thinking of making something that eternally existed? The very idea itself, in the very nature of things is preposterous. If the child of God is not the man that God made, then he is not mentioned in the text above quoted, for Job declares that he is formed of clay. He says, the spirit of God made him. We know what man was made of the dust of the ground, and, so far we have had no account of any other. "But now, O Lord, thou art our Father, we are clay, and thou art our potter; and we all are the work of thy hand. Be not wroth very sore, O Lord, neither remember iniquity forever; behold, see, we beseech thee, we are all Thy people." Isa. lxiv., 8-9. Here we have a people that were made, and a people who claim to be the people of God. If they were made, then they did not eternally exist, neither are they of any other generation than Adam's, for we fail to find that God ever made any other man. How many families of children has the Lord? It is inevitably true that he has a people that were made of the earth, and if he has a people that were not made of the earth, it matters not whether they were made at all or not, he has two families. And if this be true, it seems to be mysterious that the earthly family should be so much concerned about the other as some men of earth manifest. "He hath not dealt with us according to our sins; nor rewarded us according to our iniquities. For as the heaven is high above the earth, so great is his mercy toward them that fear him. As far as the east is from the west, so far has removed our transgressions from us. Like as a father pitieth his children, so the Lord pitieth them that fear him. For he knoweth our frame; he remembereth we are dust." Psalms ciii, 8-14. Here we have the child of God exalting in the confidence of the forbearance of the Lord toward his children, remembering that the Lord is merciful, having great compassion on them that fear him. And let us stop and praise his holy name for his goodness and mercy. Dear reader, you are the one that can exalt in the mercy of the Lord, you who were made of the dust. And not an invisible something that has come down from heaven, and taken up its abode in you to drag you around and make you a slave to it all your days of this life. It is you that can expect mercy and pity from the Lord, knowing that he is not forgetful of your weakness, that you are dust. Then let us take courage, and be admonished by the Psalmist. "Make a joyful noise unto the Lord; all ye lands. Serve the Lord with gladness: come before his presence with singing. Know ye that the Lord he is God: it is he that hath made us, and not we ourselves, we are his people, and the sheep of his pasture." Psalms c: 1-3. We have now abundantly proved by the book of inspiration that the people
were made, and that they were made of the dust of the ground. Let us remark here that everything that it takes to constitute man was made. We have no account of God bringing a part of man from heaven; but that he made him of the dust of the ground. It matters not under what name they may be called, or whether they be spoken collectively or individually, they are always reckoned to have been made. "Remember ye not the former things, neither consider the things of old. Behold, I will do a new thing; now it shall spring forth; shall ye not know it; I will even make a way in the wilderness, and rivers in the desert. The beasts of the field shall honor me, and the dragons and the owls; because I give waters in the wilderness, and rivers in the desert, to give drink to my people, my chosen. This people have I formed for myself; they shall shew forth my praise." Isa. xliii. 18-21. Look at the inconsistency of saying that the servants of God, or the children of God were never made, but had an existence with God in eternity, before the man of the earth was made, and then resort to a book to establish the fact, and that book know of no man only the one that was made. The people who shew forth the praise of God were formed by him, and for him. Find a people praising God in the Bible that never was made, will you? Tell us when they came from heaven, and what purpose God had in view when he opened heaven's doors, and turned his children out of the climes of eternal felicity, where they had existed as long as the Father himself, and where they never could come in contact with sin or any other influence that would hinder or impede their perfect praise of God. Dear reader, do you think you came down from heaven? If so, can you give an account of how or when you did come down? If children of God did come from there and you did not, are you a child of God? If you think that God's children existed with him in eternity, and were not made, what comfort can you claim from any of the scriptures quoted in this
chapter? Are you a member of the bride the lamb's wife? If so then he made you. The husband, in his address to his children collectively, under the character of a woman, says, "Fear not; for thou shalt not be ashamed: neither be thou confounded; for thou shalt not be put to shame; for thou shalt forget the shame of thy youth, and shalt not remember the reproach of thy widowhood any more. For thy Maker is thy husband. The Lord of hosts is his name, and thy Redeemer the Holy one of Israel, the God of the whole earth shall he be called." Isa. liv., 4-5. Could language be plainer? Is it not an undeniable fact that the people of God, or church of Christ, the objects of his love were made? Are they not creatures? They cannot possibly be creatures, if they were never made, or created, for a creature is a thing created; and the term creature applied to something that was not created is a gross misapplication of terms. But we feel an interest in a people that were made, who are the only people of God as described in the Bible. We join them in their praise and adoration to the Lord. We, in their language, ascribe greatness unto his holy name. "In his hand are the deep places of the earth; the strength of the hills is his also. The sea is his, and he made it; and his hand formed the dry land. O, come and let us worship and bow down: let us kneel before the Lord our maker. For he is our God; and we are the people of his pasture, and the sheep of his hand. Today if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts." Psalms xcv. 4-7. This idea seems to be the key note of the servants of the most high, and the tenor of their joy to look unto the Lord, that, in the beginning created the heaven and the earth, as their maker and great creator. The very thought that they were made by him even inspires them to give him glory. When they behold all the splendor and grandeur of nature, all working in perfect concert one with another, they only look on them as the creatures of the Great I Am, and glory in the very thought that he is our maker; that he is the author of our being, and that he made us in his own image, and after his likeness. To be able to look unto him as our Father and maker is indeed an exalted privilege. "In that day shall a man look to his Maker, and his eyes shall have respect to the Holy one of Israel. And he shall not look to the altars, the work of his hands, neither shall respect that which his fingers have made, either the groves, or the images." Isa. xvii. 7-8. How can the man that was never made, praise his maker? What man is it that looks to his maker, and in his praise, ascribes greatness to his name? Is it any other than the one that was made? Here is the man of whom our text inquires, that was made a little lower than the angels. He was taken from the earth, and made in the image
of God. He is above every creature, because he was made after the likeness of God. When he surveys the earth with all that is in it, either great or small, he only beholds what is to come to an
end, and when he looks into the starry heavens, he looks upon living testimonies of a Great author of all things. He does not look upon this great being as though he had once enjoyed the realms of eternity with him, and for some reason unknown to him, he is placed here on the earth, but as one that is superior to all things else that God has made, and although made of the dust of the ground, he hopes to live with God in heaven. Then what is man?
But as we have said this much, some one may be ready to ask, is there nothing about men but flesh, bones and blood? Our readers have a right to know our position. We believe man - the man that is made - is possessed of soul, body and spirit, and we do not believe flesh and bones are regenerated in time, but the body will be changed in the resurrection. In every instance, in the Bible, where the change of the body is mentioned, the change is put in the future. But that the Adam sinner is the subject of salvation, we believe and contend for.

WHAT IS MAN?
______

Noticing an article in the Church Advocate, of December 16, 1878, on the subject of "What is Man," I, by your permission, wish to present your readers a few thoughts on the same subject, but refer you to a different text, which you will find in Paul's first letter to the church at Corinth, 15th chap. and 47th verse. "The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven." I wish to be understood that when Paul penned the text, he was moved by the Holy Spirit and wrote the truth. Then there is a man from heaven and a man of earth, and the earthly man is made in the image and after the likeness of the man from heaven. Paul says to the church at Rome, 5th chapter and 14th verse, that the earthly man is the figure of Him that was to come. In the 15th chapter and 45th verse of 1st Corinthians, Paul calls this heavenly man and this earthly both Adam, bearing the same name.
The question is, is there any relationship between the two men. I take the ground there is. What is it? says one. The prophet Isaiah says to Israel "Look to the rock from whence you were hewn; which rock is Christ. Now anything hewn from out of anything must be of the same substance as that from which it is hewn. I will tell you what Paul says about it. He says to the Church "ye are of his body, of his flesh and of his bones," I will here say that all that stood in Adam, when God blessed him were the children of God, and fell in transgression in Adam, in the character of a seed. David says in the 22nd Psalm, 30th verse, "A seed shall serve him; it shall be accounted unto the Lord for a generation." Now, as we have come to this point, I ask did David have reference to the Adam family when he was talking about a seed to serve the Lord? I say yes; that is just what he calls a generation. Paul called Christ a seed in writing to the Galatian Church, 3rd chapter, 16th verse. He says, "Not unto seeds, as of many, but as of one and to thy seed which is Christ." Now this is the woman's seed which bruised the serpent's head. When we speak of seed it is that (if it is a good seed) which will produce.
Then I reckon no one will try to deny that Christ is a good seed. Then he is productive, and produced Adam. And when Adam was produced he was "good and very good." Now we go to the 13th chapter of Matthew, 37th verse; Christ there says, "He that sowed the good seed is the Son of Man." In the next verse he says, "the field is the world," the good seed are the "children of the
kingdom." The tares are "the children of the wicked one." The enemy that sowed them is the devil. There are two generations brought to view in the scriptures. There is the generation of Jesus Christ and the generation of vipers.
Oh, yes, says one, I know the Bible brings to view two generations, but they are principles or spirits, they say.
When I hear men begin to talk in this light, I am made to stop and inquire, do spirits die, and are buried in graves? I say no. It is beings in human form that die and are buried. But to the text, "The first man is of the earth, earthy." As he is the figure, let us examine him, to see what we can find in him. We find in Genesis, 2nd chapter, 21st verse, that God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam. He took one of his ribs and made it a woman, and Adam says, "this is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh." We there find her first existence in her husband, and she existed in substance as soon as her head, and husband existed.
I hope none will be so simple as to try to deny the relationship that did exist between Adam and his wife. Can we find in the scriptures that Christ, or the second man or Lord from heaven, has a wife? Yes, we find in John, the revelator, 21st chapter and latter clause of the 9th verse, "Come hither and I will show you the bride the Lamb's wife." I understand the Lamb is the second man, or Lord Jesus Christ that came down from heaven, as in the text.
Then he has a wife, and the wise man Solomon, in portraying the words that Christ spoke to his lady, in the Song of Solomon, 4th chapter and 12th verse, says, "A garden enclosed is my sister, my spouse." Is there any one so ignorant as to deny the relationship between Christ and his bride when he calls her his sister and spouse?
If there are, I shall have to believe he is as green as they are made. I will bring one more witness on the stand and let him testify.
The prophet Isaiah, 54th chapter and 5th verse says, "Thy maker is thy husband," (not going to but is the husband). Who was the maker? Christ, the second man, the Lord from heaven. Who
was made? Adam, the earthly man. Then the heavenly man is the husband of the earthly man. Then, as this is true, Christ is bound for her debt, by law. To pay the debt he died on the tree of the cross. There is no man that has a wife that contracts a debt, but the law holds her husband responsible for the payment of it. Now did the bride of Christ exist in Christ before the world began? I will tell you what Paul says, Eph. 1st chapter, 4th verse, "According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world." This choosing, then, must have been before Adam was formed. I believe the bride of Christ was chosen in Christ at the same time in good seed. If the good seed did not exist before Adam was formed, how could they have been sown? Again, Paul says in the 5th chapter, 29th and 30th verses of Ephesians, "For no man ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes it and cherishes it." "For we are members of his body, of his flesh, of his bones." This is the same relation that Adam, in the figure, bore to his wife. Which is the oldest in substance, Adam, the earthly man or his wife? Both are the same age. How did they exist at first, before the rib was taken and made a woman? We find she was in Adam and a living rib, for death had not yet come. Paul, then is one of the members of the body of Christ or Lamb's wife, and was chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world. Now this same man that is called Paul,
says he was the chief of sinners. Where did he get into sin? In Adam, his earthly head.
Paul says in Corinthians, 15th chapter and 21st verse. "For as in Adam all die." Then the bride of Christ, or Lamb's wife died in earthly Adam. Then as sin did not destroy the flesh and bone relation, nor could not, it still remains. Then if sin could not destroy the relation, it cannot be destroyed. Then this being true, the flesh and bone relation between Christ and his bride is not destroyed. Then I ask the question which is the oldest in substance, Christ or his bride? If the figure that Paul uses in the earthly Adam shows anything, it shows they were the same age.
Then the objector will say, what did God do that for? It was for the purpose of multiplying them. The earthly Adam never would have multiplied had not God taken the wife out of him. Now
recollect that Christ is but one seed, and as seed is a productive article, he, Christ, formed the first seed Adam, of the dust of the ground.
In the 3rd chapter and last verse of St. Luke, this man Adam is the Son of God, and if he is God's Son, God must be his father. There is a relation that cannot be severed; this is the seed that David speaks of, Psalms 22: 30. "A seed shall serve him; it shall be accounted unto the Lord for a generation." This is the people that Christ redeemed. Isaiah 51 and 11. "Therefore the redeemed of the Lord shall return and come with songs unto Zion, and everlasting joy shall be upon their heads." Could I return to a place I never was? I think not. Then the redeemed people must have been there before their return. As they are defiled and dead in sin, in their earthly Adam, then in order to quality them to come with songs to Zion, they must be quickened into life. Christ says I give unto them eternal life, and when life is given that light that shines in the heart of the poor awakened soul, reflects on the eye of the understanding, he can by this understanding see that he is a poor lost creature. It is the goodness of God that leads him to repentance. This is a godly sorrow that worketh a repentance unto salvation, that needeth not to be repented of. Now he can by a living faith, which is the gift of God, by the gift of life, light and faith, he now is enabled to see that Christ, or the second man bore his sins in his own body on the cross, which enables him to sing the songs of Free Grace and rejoice with that joy that is "unspeakable and full of glory."

MARTIN ELLIS.
Hardinsburg, Ind., January 27, 1879.

REPLY.
______

In briefly pointing out some things in the above, that we deem untenable by the scriptures, it shall be in kindness to brother Ellis, and all who endorse the above, but we must have the privilege of being our own judge of what we endorse.
We propose to make the Bible our umpire, and hope that we have no desire to appeal from its decisions on any subject that may come before us. Brother Ellis tells us that Adam, the earthly man, was made in the image, and after the likeness of the man from heaven. This is the first information we have had that Adam was made in the image and after the likeness of a man at all. The Bible says, "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him, male and female created he them." Gen. i. 27. From what Elder Ellis says, we suppose he must reckon God to be the man from heaven. We, however, are not ready to accept the position yet, until we can get it from better authority. We shall still adhere to the Bible on the subject, that Adam was made in the image of God and not man.
But he undertakes to prove a relationship between Christ and Adam on the ground that Adam was the figure of Christ. His being a figure of Christ constitutes no relation at all. A net cast into the sea is a figure of the kingdom; does that make a relation between the net and the kingdom? There is a similarity in some respect, but that similarity makes no relation at all. There is a similarity in the church and a mustard seed, but does that constitute a relationship between the mustard seed and the church? The blood of bulls and goats, and the ashes of a heifer, are figures of the blood of Christ; but that constitutes no relationship between them and the blood of Christ. If we had no better evidence that Adam and Christ are related to each other, than that Adam was a figure of Christ, we might begin to doubt that relation. In Romans v. and I. Cor. xv., we are told in what sense Adam is the figure of Christ. "As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy; and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly." Here is the figure expressed in very simple terms. Adam represents all the earthy, and Christ represents all the heavenly; and so far as being representatives are concerned they are alike. By Adam came death; by Christ came the resurrection from the dead. They are alike, or similar to each other in each one representing his people. If Adam is the figure of Christ in any other sense, we have not learned it. There is more harping on Adam being the figure of Christ, and then the rib that was taken out of Adam, by some men, than there is on the crucifixion of Christ. Brother Ellis, what scripture do you rely on for proof that Eve was the figure of the church? The Bible does not say that Adam and Eve are a figure of Christ and the church. We hold that any woman that is a lawful wife is as much a figure of the church as Eve was. "Husbands, love your wives; as Christ also loved the church," etc. Husband and wife are one flesh. This is just as true in one case as another. Adam and Eve were no more one flesh than any other husband and wife. In this any husband and wife is a figure of the Lord and the Church. Does that show that all husbands and wives are related to Christ? We suppose not. But Elder Ellis asks, "Is there any relationship between us and Christ?" We say yes, since Christ took on him the seed of Abraham, there is a fleshly relationship between him and the seed. But to show how that kinship came about, he quotes, "Look to the rock whence ye are
hewn, which rock is Christ." Since we read the Elder's article we have thought that if the above is Bible, we are imposed on with the wrong book. Our book does not say that the rock whence you are hewn is Christ. "Hearken unto me, ye that follow after righteousness, ye that seek the Lord. Look unto the rock whence ye are hewn, and to the hole of the pit whence ye are digged. Look unto Abraham, your father, and unto Sarah that bare you." Isa. li. 1-2. This does not only fail to teach that the rock was Christ, but positively says it was Abraham. Brother Ellis, do you rely on such perversions of Scripture as that to prove your points? Does gospel truth demand such a thing? If so, we need a new Bible surely. If being hewn out of Christ would constitute them the seed of Christ, then being hewn out of Abraham, would constitute them the seed of Abraham. Then for Christ to take on him the seed of Abraham would make a relationship between him and them. But to say that they were hewn out of Christ, and for that reason are of kin to him, destroys the necessity of him taking on him the seed of Abraham. But that they are hewn out of Abraham, and thereby are the seed of Abraham, it is easily understood how the flesh and bone relationship comes about. It is by Christ taking on him the seed of Abraham. Then the apostle truly says, "We are members of his body, of his flesh and of his bones." Not that we are of his body, in a sense that we were produced by his body of flesh and bones. What text of scripture says we were made of Christ. We read that he was made of a woman - that he was of the seed of David according to the flesh - that the Virgin Mary brought him forth, that our Lord sprang out of Judah, etc. But that Adam is the natural product of the humanity of Christ, we do not learn from the Bible.
"A seed shall serve him, it shall be accounted to the Lord for a generation." Psalms xxii, 30. This text is often resorted to for the purpose of proving that God's people are a seed. Who denies that? The apostle says so in so many words, "And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed and heirs according to the promise." Surely if the children of God are the seed of Abraham, a seed shall serve him. But it is urged that this text proves the eternal existence of the seed. If it does, the fact that they are Abraham's seed proves their eternal existence. There is no text in the Bible that proves the pre-existence of the seed of Abraham.
But the Elder asks, "If the seed did not exist before Adam was formed, how could they have been sown?" He then says, in regard to the seed sown, "It is beings in human form, that die and are buried." How the seed could be in existence before Adam was formed, and yet be in human form, and at the same time be Adam we will let the Elder tell.
Again, he asks, "Which is the oldest in substance, Christ or his bride?" We will answer this by reference to one of his own quotations: "For thy maker is thy husband." Which is the oldest, the maker, or the thing that is made? If the seed in Matthew was beings in human form, they did not exist until Adam was made, and the substance of which Adam was made, for that is the substance
he was made of. The Bible says he was made of the dust of the ground, not made of the humanity of Christ.
Is the Lord older than the earth? Then, if he is, he is older than the man that is made of the earth, and they are not the same age. If Adam is the natural product of the humanity of Christ, then he did not make Adam any more than we make our children. Yet we find that man was created, which means he was brought into being; and this fact contradicts the idea that he eternally had a being. But in reference to the text, "The redeemed of the Lord shall return," etc., the Elder says, "Could I return to a place where I never was?" Certainly not. But, Elder, read that text again, and it says they shall return to Zion. Return is one thing they are to do, and come to Zion is another thing they are to do. This, then, does not show that they had been to Zion before.

HUMANITY OF CHRIST
_________

"In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely; and this is his name whereby he shall be called: The Lord our Righteousness" - Jeremiah xxii, 6.

This is a portion of the prophecy of Jeremiah, concerning the coming of the Messiah, the Lord Jesus Christ, and is doubtless in perfect harmony with all that is written in the law and in the Psalms and prophets concerning him. As there are some controversies in the present age about the humanity of Christ, and, we have often feared, many contentions by some without that strict and impartial investigation of the subject that every one should give before taking a permanent position, we have concluded not only to take a position, but to appeal to inspiration as the author of whatever position we may assume, as well as our warrant for opposing erroneous sentiments on this subject.
The first impression we wish to make is, that it is the humanity and not the divinity of Christ that this brief work will treat of; for while there may be a dissension between ourself and others on the eternal humanity of Christ, we presume all will agree on his eternal divinity. If, therefore, the eternal existence of Christ should be denied in this investigation of the subject, it will be his humanity. The doctrine of the eternal humanity of Christ, we expect to disprove in this work, and to this question the work is devoted.
The verse preceding the one at the head of this chapter will doubtless prove advantageous to the cause in which we now engage. "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will raise unto David a righteous branch, and a king shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment in the earth." We do not apprehend for a moment that any would deny that the prophet in this language has direct allusion to Christ. Being confident that there will be no dispute on that point, we will examine closely what idea the language conveys. In the first place, allow us to say, the branch here spoken of was something else. And while there are strong advocates for the doctrine that the body of Christ is eternal, and that at most he only received his blood from the Virgin Mary, his flesh and bone being eternal, we should notice very carefully what is said on the subject. Whatever it was that is so frequently called a branch of David, or seed of David, is what he took from his mother, whether it be blood exclusively, or flesh, bone and blood. We may also further consider that this branch came out of David, and not out of eternity. "And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a branch shall grow out of his roots." Isa. xi. 1. Let us not forget that
this is a prophecy, and that if it has ever been fulfilled, it has been since it was spoken by the prophets, and that the only existence this branch had at the time of the prophecy was in the loins of Jesse. If he did exist in eternity, in flesh and bone, he could not be of the seed of David according to the flesh. Neither could it be true that he is any way related to us in a fleshly relation. But, in the scriptural account of the succession of the kings of Israel, we have the following: "And when he had removed him (Saul) he raised up unto them David to be their king; to whom also he gave testimony, and said: I have found David the son of Jesse, a man after my own heart, which shall fulfill all my will. Of this man's seed hath God, according to his promise, raised unto Israel a Saviour, Jesus." - Acts. xiii, 22-23.
Let it be understood that in whatever sense Christ is related to David, is what is meant here. If he was not related to him at all, he is not of his seed; and more, to deny any relation is to deny the truth of the scriptures quoted. Of this man's seed God had promised to raise up a Saviour, Jesus. What are we to understand from the expression, "this man's seed?" Is it not plain to all that the manner in which it is used refers to his lineage, his posterity? Then Christ was of that particular
lineage, and as he himself declares, he is the "root and offspring of David, and the bright and morning star." Rev. xxii. 16. The seed of David is doubtless his offspring. It is in this sense that he is the Lion of the tribe of Judah. Rev. v. 5.
It is him that is spoken of in this language: "The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a law-giver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be." Gen. xlix, 10. Shiloh, in this text, simply means Christ, and Judah is one of the twelve sons of Jacob, the head of one of the twelve tribes of Israel; and by following the history of this tribe through to the coming of Christ we are assured that no law-giver came out of it until Christ came. "For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Judah; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood." Hebrews vii. 14. If the Lord sprang out of Judah and was so carefully preserved through all generations from Judah down to the time of his birth of the Virgin Mary, was he not properly of the lineage of Judah? It is, surely, in this sense that he is the seed of David according to the flesh. But the objector says that his flesh and bone and nature was in heaven, and was put forth in the womb of the Virgin Mary when she was overshadowed by the Holy Ghost, and then he took his blood. But a difficulty occurs in this. John, in his vision of the book sealed with seven seals, saw "a strong angel proclaiming with a loud voice, Who is worthy to open the book, and to loose the seals thereof? And no man in heaven, nor in earth, neither under the earth, was able to open the book neither to look thereon."
After John had wept, doubtless under the true conviction of his heart of the dreadful state of affairs, looking at and meditating upon the justice of God's wrath kindled against a ruined and wretched world, "one of the elders said, weep not; behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the root of David hath prevailed to take the book, and to open the seals thereof."
The difficulty is, where was the body of Christ at that time? It could not have been in heaven, nor earth, nor under the earth; for none was found in either that was able to do the work of opening the sealed book. But the branch of David, the son of man, the high Priest from the tribe of Judah comes up, according to prophecy, fully empowered and authorized to do the work. He, by being a near kinsman, can assume our debt, and is adequate to the task of paying them off for us. Divinity and humanity unite and compose a complete Son of God, and just as complete a son of
man.
But let us proceed with the scriptural testimony relative to his assuming humanity. The Apostle gives the following admonition: "Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ
Jesus; who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God; but made himself of no reputation, and took upon himself the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men. And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross." Phil. ii. 5-8. What was it that was made in the likeness of men? It could not have been his body, if it existed in eternity in the form of a man; for that which already existed could not be made. It could not have been human nature if he always possessed that,
and yet he was made in the likeness of men. In this it seems clear from the scriptures already quoted, that he became like a man by taking on him the nature and body of a man. Whatever the
nature of a man is, is the human nature, and it is strictly in this sense that he was of the tribe of Judah. But I am asked, what was it that took this nature? I answer, Divinity. And when Divinity took upon himself the form and nature of a man, he possessed two natures - human and divine. When the angel explained to Joseph the condition of Mary, he did not say that an eternal human body or nature had been put forth in the womb of the blessed Virgin, but that something was conceived or begotten in her; he did not say it was of humanity, but of the Holy Ghost. Matt. i. 20. Hence, the truth that he is begotten of God, and is known in scripture as the only begotten of the Father. John iii. 15-18. Jesus being thus begotten of God and born of the Virgin Mary, comes into the world just what had been promised from the time man needed a Saviour.
It is sometimes said that "necessity is the mother of invention," and the doctrine of the eternal humanity of Christ being an invention of some one, we have often wondered what was the necessity of it. For the Bible never mentions eternal humanity at all. Then let us ask all who may read this, and at the same time believe the doctrine of eternal humanity, what advantage is it to you? Is the doctrine of the perfection of God in all attributes easier established by assuming that position? Is the doctrine of election and salvation by grace through Christ more easily established by holding the doctrine of eternal humanity than it would otherwise be? Is it any more advantage to you in establishing any one or more of the doctrinal points in the Bible? If not, and you find nothing said about eternal humanity, why do you contend for it so earnestly to the great
grief of those who wish to have, at least, one "thus saith the Lord" for what they believe? But it is sometimes urged that God is immutable, yet "it repented him that he had made men on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart." Gen. iv. 6.
It is thought that as God never changes, that the one who repented of making man was the humanity of God, or it was Christ. It is further urged that to say otherwise would involve us in a
difficulty which we could not solve, for God never changes. But suppose we show that Christ as God is just as immutable as the Father, especially when spoken of as the Lord, as in this case, would not the same difficulty come up then? Would it be any easier solved then, by claiming the doctrine of eternal humanity? Let us see if the Son as well as the Father, is not unchangeable. "But unto the Son, he saith, Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is a sceptre of thy kingdom. Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows. And thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the work of thy hands. They shall perish, but thou remainest: and they shall all wax old as doth a garment. And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed; but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail." Heb. i. 8-12. In this quotation the Father addresses the Son. And it is certain the language of the
text is as emphatic on the immutability of the Son, as it ever occurs relative to the Father; but this is not all, for when we read in the Scriptures of the "three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost," he says emphatically, "and these three are one." I. John v. 7. If the three are one, we would think that they were all three immutable alike. One is not contrary to the other, so that one can be unchangeable and the other not. So, without introducing any further testimony to prove the immutability of Christ, it is plain to assume the doctrine of eternal humanity does not let us out of the difficulty introduced in the cases referred to. Hence, we now propose to notice him in his original capacity. In his original nature He is God. His name - Son of God - imports divinity; "the same in substance, equal in power and glory," with the Father and the Holy Ghost. He is called God in the highest sense; God over all; the true, the great God, Jehovah; Jehovah of hosts.
"In the year that King Uzziah died I saw also the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple." Isa. vi. 1. The Son of God, or "The Word," is equally holy with the Father. "And one cried unto another and said, Holy, Holy, Holy, is the Lord of Hosts; the whole earth is filled with his glory." Isa. vi. 3. The works of creation are ascribed to Him. "I said, O my God, take me not away in the midst of my days: thy years are throughout all generations. Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth; the heavens are the works of thy hands." Psalms cii, 24-25. How beautifully this language harmonizes with the first verses of St. John, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." We have known the position taken by those claiming eternal human nature, that there were two Words here; one that was God, which was divine nature, and the other that was with God, which was human nature. Such extremes are doubtless necessary in the work of advocating the doctrine of the eternal humanity of God. But in this text only one Word is mentioned, and that one is both God and with God. It is one of the three that bear record in heaven; and these three being one God, it is impossible to speak of one and not the others. If we call upon God in our petitions at a throne of grace, we address the Three; and so, if we call on the Word or Holy Spirit. Either of these is properly God. One of the three, to-wit: The Word is the one mentioned in the verse quoted. The Word was in the beginning, and was truly God; and also was just as truly with God, being with the Father and the Holy Ghost. "The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made."
Let us not forget that the subject here is the Word, one of the three that bear record in heaven; and that so far as his existence is concerned, he is co-eternal with the Father. We read on down to the 14th verse; it is said, "The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth." Here is when he assumes humanity. He was not flesh in eternity; but the Word that was in eternity was made flesh and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. But when we ask, how could that be made flesh that was always flesh? We are met with this answer: It does not say when it was made flesh. That indeed is masterly, as though it could be eternal at all, and yet be made. It does not matter when it was made flesh; but was it made flesh at all? If so, flesh is not eternal; for that which is made is not eternal. The Word was eternal, but flesh is not. Hence, when we speak of the Word that was in the beginning, we speak of the Son in the original capacity. We have already said that in
his original nature he is God, and that the works of creation are ascribed to him. "For thy Maker is thine husband. The Lord of hosts is his name; and thy Redeemer, the Holy one of Israel; the God of the whole earth shall he be called." Isa. liv. 5.
This quotation tells what he is, the nearness that he sustains to his bride, and what he shall be called in the future. We see all this verified; for after he had taken upon himself the form of a servant, and became obedient unto death, "God for that reason hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name; that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth. And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." Phil. ii. 9-10.
Although it was by him the worlds were made, and he is truly said to come down from heaven; yet his flesh and bone, or human nature, did not come down; for it was "made of a woman, made
under the law (not made in heaven), to redeem them that were under the law." Gal. iv. 4-5.
Notwithstanding he was in the fullness of time made of a woman, yet in his original state all the attributes of God belong to him. We have already shown that he was as unchangeable as the Father, so is he everlasting. "But thou, Bethlehem, Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be Ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from old, from everlasting." Micah v. 2. Again, "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty." Rev. i. 8. Also, "Thus saith the Lord the King of Israel, and his Redeemer the Lord of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last, and besides me there is no God." Isa. xliv. 6. "Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he; I am the first; I am also the last." Isa. xlviii. 12.
The foregoing scriptures doubtless refer to the Word that was with God, and was God; by whom the worlds were framed. Not only does it prove to us conclusively that he possessed the
attributes of God before he took our nature, but he still retains all the attributes while here in his humility. He is not only everlasting, but omniscient and omnipresent. "For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them." Matt. xviii. 20.
"And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven." John iii. 13. From this we are clearly taught that even when he was
in the flesh, he filled immensity. He was here teaching the people, and yet was in heaven. If it was necessary for him to have a body in eternity in order to exist as the Son of man, it would now become necessary for him to have two bodies; one on earth, and one in heaven. But this text is sometimes used to prove that he came down from heaven in a body, undertaking to show from it that whatever of Jesus ascends to heaven first came down from heaven. But it seems to always prove too much when it is all quoted, and according to the interpretation they give it, that nothing will go to heaven only what comes from there, the body of the Saviour will be excluded from heaven; for he is here in the body, and says no man has ascended up to heaven but the Son of man which is in heaven. His body is not in heaven when he makes use of the expression. This is not all that we may learn from this text; for something has descended from heaven, and whatever is called the Son of man now without a human body, may also have existed in eternity as the Son of man without a human body. But it seems that this is as good an opportunity as is afforded in the Bible anywhere for us to ascertain whether the body of Christ did come down from heaven or not. Whatever was in heaven, called the Son of man was that that had ascended; and that which had ascended, had come down from heaven. If the body had not ascended it had not come down from heaven, and yet something had come down from heaven, and that something had ascended while the body of Jesus was still on earth. Hence, it is easily understood from this that when the Bible gives any account of the Saviour coming down from heaven, it has direct allusion to something besides his body. It must, therefore, be understood to be that that was in the beginning with God, which is the Word. He, in this capacity, as the Son of man, held the office of Redeemer before the creation; for, in view of his fulfilling this office, and as a part of its work, the creation of other worlds, as well as our own, and all that it contains, was assigned him by the Father. He, therefore, existed before he appeared in the world; yea, he sat upon the mediatorial throne and executed his office from the beginning of time.
Divinity is essential to his office as Redeemer. His divinity lays the foundation and qualifies him for the assumption of the duties of his office. As divine he owes no obedience to that violated law under which sinners are condemned; on him, as the Son of God, that law has no claims whatever. As divine, he has a perfect right to undertake the office and work of the Redeemer if he shall so choose to do. As divine, he possesses every attribute of wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness and truth in an infinite degree to enable him without the shadow of failure, to meet every demand, and perform every duty required of him on behalf of God and man, and, finally, descend from heaven to earth, assumes human nature, takes upon him a body of human flesh, bone and blood, to which body his divinity adds an infinite dignity and value, and all to his obedience, sufferings and death. He is able to stand before the Eternal God, and bear all his just demands against his creatures, and he is also able to stand before men as "their Lord and their God," to deliver them from their enmity by his Holy Spirit, to raise up from corruption and misery, clothe them with his glorious righteousness, and reconcile them to God. Help is therefore laid on one, not only willing, but able to save. In his assumed nature he is man. He came not to assist angels but men; therefore, was he "the seed of the woman," "partaker of flesh and blood" and one "made under the law," for otherwise he could not have obeyed, suffered and died, nor been our example, and faithful sympathizing High Priest. "Wherefore in all things it
behooved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people." Heb. ii. 15-18. Two distinct natures, human and divine, are in a manner incomprehensible to us, united, and form one person, "Immanuel," God With Us. Everything belonging to God is ascribed unto and belongs to him; and everything belonging to man is ascribed unto and belongs to him, sin excepted.
Such is the scriptural account of our most glorious Redeemer.

CHRIST THE END OF THE LAW
______

"For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth." - Romans 10: 4.
Law is a rule of action, and God's law is founded upon justice and equity. A transgression of this law is wrong and unjust, and never fails to call forth the penalty. When God gave Adam the law of abstinence from the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, it was perfectly just and right that he should observe that law, and to violate it was absolutely wrong. Hence, when man sinned by transgressing that law it was perfectly just that the penalty be inflicted. It was
disobedience by which we were made sinners and transgressors of the same law. The law given to the children of Israel by Moses, did not abrogate the law given to Adam, nor lessen the debt
contracted by transgression of said law. The law of Moses was added because of transgression till the seed should come to whom the promise was made. And this law with all its ceremonies and
metaphors was just as binding on the people to whom it was given as the law given to Adam. It seems to me that for Christ to redeem his people from under the curse of the law, means more
than merely doing away with the types and figures under the Jewish economy. The gentiles did not have the law of Moses, and yet, they were under the curse, if he redeemed them. God's law is such as requires the strict observance of all men of every age and every place. And covers all the ground necessary to require everything that is right, and forbid anything that is wrong. Sin is the transgression of law, and every sin is worthy of punishment. "By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; so death passed upon all men for that all have sinned." All have transgressed, and consequently are under law. The law of Moses required a perfect adherence to good, and it was impossible to commit sin and not violate that law. Its rites and ceremonies were given to the people of Israel exclusively, and pointed forward to the coming of the Saviour and his great mission into the world, and notwithstanding it is true that he put an end to figures and shadows, and burnt sacrifices upon Jewish altars, yet he did not remove the moral force of the law. He says, "Think not that I am come to destroy the law and the prophets; I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. And until heaven and earth shall pass one jot nor one tittle of the law shall in no wise fail until all be fulfilled." This law required righteousness of men, and holds every sinner responsible for sin. "All have sinned and come short of the glory of God." All have transgressed the law and become unrighteous, and have fallen into condemnation, and the curse of the law hangs over them. They are under law and justly condemned, lost, ruined and undone. Jesus says, "God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world." Instead of coming to inflict the penalty of the law upon his people, as they justly deserve, he comes to meet the just demands of the law against us. He is the end of the law because the law finds perfect satisfaction in him. All the claims that the law holds against God's children are amply met and paid by him. When all demands are met the law can claim no more, and consequently the payment of the debt ends the claim of the law. We may call to mind the law of the Sabbath; that given to Adam in Eden; the law of Moses together with all the positive, moral and judicial laws that we could think of, and so far as a violation of any one of them is concerned, if the transgression is sin, which it undoubtedly is, it becomes necessary to the salvation of sinners to be redeemed from every claim of every law that they have transgressed. "Sin is the transgression of the law." And David says, "There is no man that liveth and sinneth not." Hence there is no man that liveth without transgressing the law. To be the end of the law is to redeem from sin, by making a full satisfaction to the law for sin. The law being founded upon the perfect principles of right, justice and truth, it is in full force so long as right and wrong are in the world. Sin being the transgression of the law is evidence that as there is a law that sin is the transgression of it. And believing that there is an embodiment of the whole thing in the law of Moses, I am led to believe that a perfect satisfaction of the law of Moses covers everything necessary to the redemption and salvation of sinners of every nation. The people of God were fallen under the curse and claims of law, "But when the fulness of time was come, God
sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law to redeem them that were under the law." Now whatever law his people were under, he was made under, whether Jews or Gentiles, bond or free. Prior to his birth of the virgin Mary the angel announced that his name should be called Jesus, for he shall save his people from their sins. The prophet says, "He was wounded for our
transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities, the chastisement of our peace is upon him, and with his stripes we are healed." Isa. liii, 5, 6. In all probability it would not be amiss for me to mention an idea here that I have often feared we as Baptist ministers were not as particular to make ourselves understood upon as we should be. When we in our ministrations represent the fallen sinner as he is brought to view in the Bible, and deny his ability to turn to the Lord, and comply with any terms of salvation, and use the language of Jesus, "No man can come unto me except my Father which hath sent me draw him," it is thought that we hold man as not responsible to God for his sins, that we believe in the doctrine of predestination, and they seem to think that we would say that God made him and gave him his sinful nature, so that man in his sin and rebellion is just what God made him. Brethren, is that the manner in which you wish to be understood? Job says, "God made man upright, but he has sought out many inventions." Man has sinned and brought ruin
upon himself, and his being unable to pay the claims that are against him does not lessen his obligation to pay. A man may become involved so that he is entirely unable to pay his debts, but he is under as much obligation as if he could pay it all. The creditor may forgive a part or all of it if he chooses, or he may hold the whole debt against him. He is under no obligations to forgive the debt, yet the debtor is under obligations to pay. Just so the sinner not being able to pay or atone for his sins is under just as much obligation to the law he has violated as if he could make satisfaction. The law demands full payment, and nothing short of that will ever justify a sinner. To meet the demands of the law is to atone for every sin and transgression that the sinner is or ever will be guilty of; and as he is not capable of satisfying the law, it becomes necessary for one to do it for him that is able. For this purpose Jesus came into the world, to do that that the sinner was unable to do for himself. The sinner that was justly condemned for his own transgressions
is now justly forgiven all trespasses through Christ. He suffered for the sins of his people that they might be acquitted of all sin. Hence, as soon as the law takes hold of Jesus and finds all its demands in him that puts an end to any further claims upon the sinner. In this he is the end of the law. He says, "I am the good shepherd, I lay down my life for the sheep." When the law got the life of the shepherd it had all it claimed. "He appeared once in the end of the world to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself." "Behold the lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world." He by this one offering hath forever perfected them that are sanctified." This ends all the curses of the law, and when Christ made an end of sin the law ceased saying, "Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things that are written in the book of the law to do them." But in order that sinners may be able to appreciate the mercy of God through our Lord Jesus Christ, it is necessary that they be made sensible of the fact that they are guilty rebels against a holy law, and feel the responsibility resting upon themselves. If sinners are not responsible for their sins their conviction for sin is wrong and teaches them wrong, for I have never heard one relate his experience that did not conclude that if God would send him to hell for his sins it would be just, for says every child of God, I had sinned, and gone contrary to the will of God, and it seems to me that there was no way for me to escape the just penalty of a violated law. When the poor thing gets to the end of his own strength he finds Jesus, who was "made to be sin for us, who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him." He takes the burden that crushes the poor sinner down, and bears it himself, and spreads his mantle of righteousness over the poor naked exposed sinner, and gives him faith to look to Jesus the righteousness of poor ungodly sinners. Here is where the sinner is made to realize that "Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth." And as he is the end of the law, and the poor sinner is made to once look to him and find in him all that sinners need, it is also necessary to still ask and call upon him every day we live, to keep us by his almighty power and grace from all evil that we may be calculated to glorify God in our spirits which are God's. But how often is the poor afflicted and tempest tossed child of God made to mourn on account of a hard heart, fearing I have never known the Lord. Often ready to sink in dark despair, feeling a deep sense of my weakness. Surely I am still a vile sinner, and I see so much corruption about me that I often feel ashamed to call one promise mine. But I feel encouraged when I read that "If any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous." He says, "Because I live ye shall live also." Then, children, let us take courage and be always ready to suffer whatsoever it may be the will of God that we
should for his sake.

FINAL NOTE
________

The original booklet contains an article on "The Gospel." However, since it was included, slightly revised, in Elder Lemuel Potter's autobiography, Labors and Travels, we have not included
it in this work.
For other writings by Elder Lemuel Potter, please write to:

The Primitive Baptist Library
416 Main Street
Carthage, IL 62321
(217) 357-3723