The Primitive Baptist Library of Carthage, Illinois

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

A TREATISE ON REGENERATION AND CHRISTIAN WARFARE,

By Elder Lemuel Potter.

1895.

CHAPTER 1.

Introductory Remarks

In the publication of this little work I have only one
object in view, and that is the defense of gospel truth, and the
peace of the Baptists. I have been associated with brethren who
differed with me on the new birth, for more than twenty years,
and as they were good and precious brethren, I thought that if we
could all let that subject alone, and not agitate it, we might
get along peaceably together, and yet not see exactly alike on
that subject. They knew, however, what I believed on the
question, for they had often heard me express myself. I was
requested by some of my readers of the ADVOCATE, in Arkansas, to
write some on the new birth, through the paper, for their sakes,
as they had a minister among them that was leading off on that
subject; this was in the fall of 1892. I put them off and said
nothing about it on account of the feelings of my brethren nearer
home. So, I thought the Baptists in our part of the country
might get along without agitating that subject, and that we would
live in peace and union, as we had always done. But those
brethren who differed, finally became intolerant, some of them,
and could not bear to hear a brother say "soul and body" or that
"it is the spirit that is born again," or speak of the separation
of soul and body at death, or "inner man," or that "the soul of
man is born of God in time," or any of those intimations of a
distinction of soul and body, without making war on the party
that made use of the expression. I wrote to one good brother,
whom I love as a fellow laborer, who had showed the spirit of
intolerance by making war on another brother, for saying that he
believed that it was the spirit of man that was born of God in
the new birth, and the only apology he made for it was, that he
believed what he preached then, and that he still believed it. I
think myself, that if a man believes a thing, he has a right to
preach it, but I have my serious doubts about any man, even if he
is a minister in the Regular Baptist church, having the right to
make war on any sentiment of doctrine that has always been held
by that church, and fighting it to the grief of those who do
believe and preach just what the church has always believed, and
what she still believes. I believe, and the Old School Baptist
church believes, the doctrine of the following pages, and in
order to set forth the Baptist doctrine, and defend it against
the assaults of those who do not believe it, and to teach our
people what the doctrine of the church is on this subject, this
little book is offered to the public. I have blamed those
brethren who differed, for trying to hide from the people, what
they really do believe, and for trying to make it appear that the
whole fight is on the question of the sinner being born again.
But, in order that the reader may know just what they contend
for, I will give a statement of what they say they believe, as
given by one of the ablest men on that side of the issue. He
says:
1. I believe the great God formed man out of the dust of the ground.
2. I believe the Adam man is composed of body, soul and spirit -
is not spiritual, but natural, and is of the earth, earthy.
3. I believe the Adam man, all of him, is born of the flesh by
ordinary generation.
4. I believe that which is born of the flesh is flesh.
5. I believe the Adam man, all of him, by transgression, died the day
he ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and hence is
in a state of death in trespasses and sins.
6. I believe the great God, in the work of regeneration, gives the
Adam man the benefit of the new birth - quickens all of him from
death in sin.
7. After being quickened from the death in sins, I believe it is
impossible for the Adam man to again eat thereof and become dead
in sins. (In short, he can not die that death any more.)
8. I believe the Adam man is born into this world in a state of death
in sin, and by virtue of which birth, he is prone to sin, and
being corrupt, brings forth that which is evil, continuously. And
while in this state he has no warfare.
9. I believe that when the Adam man, all of him, is quickened from
the death in sin, he receives a principle directly antagonistic to
the one he receives by virtue of natural birth, and these two
principles he now has, cause the warfare.
10. After he is "born again," I believe the Adam man is such a being
that he can live after the inclinations of either principle, or
both.
11. I believe the Adam man - all of him - when he lives after the
flesh, he dies, and that he remains dead until quickened by the
Spirit of him who raised Christ up from the dead.
12. I believe the Adam man, after being born again, turns aside from
the path of duty, more or less times, all through life, and is
quickened to duty's path again by the Spirit of him that raised up
Christ from the dead.
13. I believe the Adam man, after passing through trials and
temptations, sorrows and distress, will finally die a death that
is different from any that he has yet died - a mortal death, a
ceasing to be in this world.
14. I believe the Adam man will remain in this dead state till the
resurrection morn, when he will be quickened from this mortal
death by the Spirit of him who raised up Christ from the dead.
15. I believe the Adam man, in the resurrection, will be changed to
an immortal man, and will be fashioned like unto Christ's glorious
body; and to be like Christ he must be a man of flesh and bones.
16. I believe all these births, deaths, quickenings and changes, are
necessary to prepare the Adam man for heaven of ultimate bliss,
and it is all done in accordance with the eternal purpose of the
Great God Almighty.
17. I believe the Adam man is as much the child of God when he is
born into this world, as he will be in the resurrection; that all
the changes he undergoes here, only manifest him a child of God.

After receiving and reading the foregoing seventeen items of
faith, I wrote to him concerning the 13th and 14th articles, to
know if he believed the Adam man, all of him, will finally die,
and did he believe that the Adam man, all of him, would remain
dead till the resurrection morn, to which I received the
following reply:
"But another letter, of August 5, 1895, is at hand. You desire
me to say whether I believe all of the Adam man dies. All that is
born of the flesh dies, and if there is any more of him than that
which is born of the flesh, I do not know what it is. I also believe
the child of God receives the Spirit of God in the process of the new
birth, which dwells in him till he, all of him dies, and then returns
to God. I can't think that Spirit stays in the tomb till the
resurrection. I do think that the spirit that returns to God who gave
it, simply means his breath which goeth forth at death, but it is no
part of a man. (I am not arguing this now, but am ready to defend what
I believe.) Nor do I believe one, neither the "man we see," nor the
"one we don't see" goes to heaven at death. That man - the "one we
don't see," the "spirit man," or any part of man goes to heaven at
death, is a step, and a big one, too, toward non-resurrectionism. I
am quite sure you believe in the resurrection, but the doctrine you
advocate, in my judgment, tends to non-resurrectionism."

The writer of the foregoing is T. J. Carr, Hartsville, Pope
County, Illinois. He is a dear, good brother, and is not a
minister, but with his pen, he is as well able to state what he
believes as any man in southern Illinois. I have been intimately
and personally acquainted with him for more than twenty years,
and I love him. After he wrote his doctrine to me as I have
given here, I begged him to renounce it, that it was heresy, and
it was opposed to the doctrine of God's word, and the doctrine as
held by the church, and that it was causing distress among the
brethren wherever it was preached. I told him that as I had his
positions stated by himself, I should use them as they might
answer my purpose hereafter. I have given them in full, and
verbatim, and I want the reader to remember that this is what is
meant, and has been what I have referred to in the ADVOCATE. I
could stand it for a man to believe that doctrine, if he would
not be all the time trying to impose it on the church, as Baptist
doctrine; then I object. One brother, on that side, wrote me to
stop sending him the paper until I got through writing about the
inner man, stating that he was disgusted with that subject. I
stopped it at once, and I can only say that I feel sorry for a
Primitive Baptist that gets disgusted with Bible terms in his
church paper. He instructed me to send it on to him again, when
I got through writing on that subject. He may never get the
paper again on those terms. I would much prefer to quit
publishing the ADVOCATE, than to not be allowed to publish what
Old Baptists have always believed. Another brother, on that
side, wrote me accusing me of using my paper to divide the
Baptists in his part of the country. At the same time there was
nothing in it, nor had been, that had not always been taught and
preached by our people. It seems so strange to me that for me to
publish the Baptist doctrine in the ADVOCATE would divide the
Baptists. I claim the liberty to preach and write in defense of
the doctrine of our people, on any subject, and that while it is
my privilege, it is more, it is my duty.

CHAPTER 2.

Reasons for Writing on This Subject

In the ADVOCATE, of February 15, 1894, there appeared an
article from one of our correspondents, on the subject of man,
not on the new birth, but in the article, the writer spoke of the
soul as being born again, in time, and the body in the
resurrection. The expression so aroused some of our dear
brethren that two of them wrote a reply at once. It simply
occurred to me then, that these brethren did not intend such
terms should be used in our papers by our brethren. One of them
wrote from a sense of duty to "vindicate the truth," he said, as
though the truth had been assailed, and that it was his
imperative duty to vindicate it. He wrote at considerable
length, in his zeal to "vindicate the truth," stating that it
would not be fair to shut him out of the paper. I did not think
the cause of truth was in such need of defense as he seemed to,
and so I did not publish his article. The most that had been
done against his idea of what the truth was, some one had
intimated that there was a distinction of soul and body. The
good brother did not believe there was such a distinction, and he
did not intend that a brother should say so, without a fight for
it. I still opposed the idea of fighting over that doctrine, and
I replied in the ADVOCATE of March 1, 1894, as follows:

THE NEW BIRTH

It is not our intention, in this article, to discuss the
subject of the "new birth," or to even introduce it for others to
discuss, through the ADVOCATE, but simply to let our readers know
where we stand. Our reasons for even that much is, that we have
recently received two letters, both of which invited controversy
on that subject, on the plea that some of our writers had dropped
a remark or two that they did not endorse. We claim the right to
publish the doctrine of our people on that, or any other subject,
without being under any obligations, whatever, to give space to
those who may differ, though they be Primitive Baptists, and our
personal friends. THE CHURCH ADVOCATE believes that the sinner,
the Adam sinner, is the subject of salvation; that it is the man
that is the subject of the new birth, and that this man has a
soul and a body, and that the soul is born again, in the work of
regeneration in time, and that it goes immediately to heaven when
the body dies. We believe that in the resurrection, the body
will be born again, and go to heaven, and that the soul and body
will be reunited in heaven, and thus the sinner will be born
again, and saved. This has been the doctrine of our people for
the past two hundred years, provided it was our people who first
drew up and published the London Confession of Faith, in England,
in the year 1689. In chapter 23, of that confession, we have the
following, on

"THE STATE OF MAN AFTER DEATH,
AND OF THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD."

1. "The bodies of men after death return to dust and see
corruption; but their souls, which neither die nor sleep, having
an immortal subsistence, immediately return to God who gave them;
the souls of the righteous being then made perfect in holiness
are received into paradise, where they are with Christ and behold
the face of God in light and glory, waiting for the full
redemption of their bodies; and the souls of the wicked are cast
into hell, where they remain in torment and utter darkness
reserved to the judgment of the great day; besides these two
places for souls separated from their bodies the Scripture
acknowledgeth none."
2. "At the last day such of the saints as are found alive
shall not sleep, but be changed; and all the dead shall be raised
up with the self-same bodies, and none other, although with
different qualities, which shall be united again to their souls
forever."
3. "The bodies of the unjust shall by the power of Christ,
be raised to dishonor; the bodies of the just, by his Spirit,
unto honor, and be made conformable to his own glorious body."

In our efforts to identify ourselves with the Old Baptists,
against the claims of the missionaries, we claim to be identical
with these old English brethren in doctrine. THE ADVOCATE does
now stand, and always has stood there, especially on the new
birth. We hope that none of our brethren will differ from them,
and at the same time claim identity with them. This article is
not to controvert the point, but it is intended as a statement of
the doctrine of the ADVOCATE, on this subject. It is also
intended as an answer to a question, recently, in a letter from
Brother J. P. Harris, of Sunfield, Illinois. P."
Prior to this time I had said nothing in the paper on the
subject, and yet I knew that our brethren who differed, were
preaching on the new birth in almost all their sermons, and that
they were trying to intimidate those who opposed them. But I let
it all pass, and said nothing for some time afterwards.

CHAPTER 3.

Born of the Flesh

"That which is born of the flesh is flesh." In this
expression of our Master, I do not think that we are to
understand that everything born of flesh is literally, and
corporally flesh, especially, if in the birth of a man, his soul
and spirit are included. I have always understood the Savior, in
this text, to acknowledge the truth of the regularly fixed and
unchanging law of nature, that is, in the propagation of species,
everything should bring forth after its own kind. The truth is
simply this: that everything that is born partakes of the nature
of that of which it is born. If a thing is born of the flesh it
partakes of the nature and qualities of the flesh. If it is born
of a corruptible seed, it partakes of a corruptible nature, and
if it is born of an incorruptible seed, it partakes of an
incorruptible nature. Man, by his fleshly, or natural birth, as
he is born according to the flesh, of his natural parents, is a
mere natural man, soul and body; that is, he is carnal and
corrupt, and cannot discern things that pertain to the kingdom of
God. This text does not teach that the soul of man, by being
born of the flesh, is simply a fleshly substance, but it has an
earthly nature. "As is the earthy, such are they also that are
earthy." This certainly teaches that as the father and
progenitor of the human race is earthy, or natural, so are all
his posterity. It is very evident that by the term "flesh" in
this text, matter is not meant, that is it does not mean the
fleshly part of man, the body, as having been born of another
fleshly substance, for in that sense, the same might be said of
the brute creation, as well as of man. But by the word "flesh"
in this text is intended the nature of man; not merely as a weak
and frail being, but as unclean, and corrupt through sin and
pollution, and which being propagated by natural or ordinary
generation from sinful men, cannot be different from their
parents. "Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? Not
one." Job 14: 4. Natural, carnal, fleshly, earthly and mortal
are all used in the Bible, as opposed to spiritual. No natural
birth ever produced, or brought forth a spiritual child. "And
that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." I have often heard
our No Soul friends interpret this text to say that which is born
of the Spirit is spiritual. I am not disposed, in the least, to
say they are wrong in that interpretation. I believe it is
right. Now, let the same rule apply to both sentences in the
text, and we have it this way: "That which is born of the flesh
is natural, and that which is born of the Spirit is spiritual."
Now, if we say that in the work of regeneration, the body is born
of the Spirit, then we have man in possession of a spiritual
body, after regeneration. But Paul still refers to the bodies of
the saints as natural, fleshly bodies. If the bodies are not
born of the Spirit, in the work of regeneration, in time, then
there must, of necessity, be something about man, that really is
man, that is not body, that partakes of spirituality, at the time
of the new birth, or else no part of man is born of God in time. Then, this text does not prove that man is all flesh.

CHAPTER 4.

No Souler

My brother, why do you object to the name "No Souler?" A
brother on your side of the issue of the new birth said that to
say "no souler" implied that some of our members did not believe
that men had souls, and his feelings seemed considerably pent up
about it. He said that such a charge was void of foundation. He
challenged for the proof that any of his brethren believed
anything of the sort. And yet when a text is given him with the
word soul in it, to give a distinction of soul and body, he will
squirm under it and say "Soul in that text means life." Give him
another, and he will say, "Soul in that text means simply the
man." Then give him the case of the rich man and Lazarus, and he
will ask if you believe that circumstance just as it reads. Then
ask him if he believes that the body of Lazarus went to Abraham's
bosom, and he will say, "I believe that Lazarus went there; the
book says it was Lazarus, not his soul, or a part of him." In
speaking of the rich man he makes about the same turn, and yet he
says he believes men have souls, and thinks hard of being called
a No Souler. Ask him what he thinks of the idea of a man out of
the body, and he will try to make it apper that he was simply not
out of the body, but in such a strain of mind, or so transported,
that for the time being, he had forgotten himself. Everything he
says goes in the direction of denying that man possesses a soul,
distinct from the body, and that it helps to make up the man, yet
he thinks hard of being called a No Souler. If you mention the
"inner man" to him, to prove that man has a soul, or something
internal, that is called "inner man," in the Bible, he will tell
you that the "inner man" is Christ, and that the unrenewed sinner
has no "inner man." If you quote the language of Jesus, "Fear
not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul;
but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body
in hell," and tell him that this text is so plain a distinction
of soul and body that he can not very well say that it is man's
life, or that it is man himself, and as we know that it is not
the body, he will say, "I do not know what that means." Yet he
says he believes that man has a soul, distinct from the body, and
he thinks hard if he is accused of not believing it. The truth
is he does not believe it. He does not believe that man's body
will die, and the soul still live, and he is afraid of any text,
or construction of a text, that means that when the bodies of the
saints die, that their souls leave the body, and go to heaven. They, some of them, make very strange at the thought, that when
the body dies, any part of the man still lives. Whether it is
the proper name for them or not, I call all such No Soulers. No
one need guess at what I mean, or whom I mean. If he believes
that man has a soul, as a part of man, distinct from the body,
there is no need that he should want to so construe every text
that has the word soul in it, to mean something else. I now want
my readers to know that the reason I am saying so much on this
subject is that there are some who do not believe that man is
changed in the new birth, but just a new principle is put into
him, and the same old principle that was in him before
regeneration, is still in him, and that makes the warfare, and
that the whole man, soul, body and spirit, some of them say, is
born of God in time, and that the same man, all of him, soul,
body and spirit, will die, and remain dead until the
resurrection. They make strange of the idea that any part of man
goes to heaven at the death of the body. They believe that man
is not changed until the resurrection. Then he will be changed. These people, I denominate "No Soulers," and I charge them with
believing and preaching heresy. It is not warranted in the
Bible, and it antagonizes the Primitive Baptist doctrine. Those
who deny the doctrine of a distinction of soul and body have
become so intolerant in some localities, that with them a man
jeopardizes his standing, if he says soul and body. I heard one
brother, with whom I am well acquainted, in referring to one of
his brethren, who believed as I do, stigmatize him "Doctor of
Divinity," with quite a sarcastic air. I think that was a bad
spirit.

CHAPTER 5.

The Body Not Born Again in Time

In the investigation of this subject, I shall be very brief,
and on that account, it will be impossible for me to go into
details. So, I will start out by saying that when a man is born
of God, he is born of an incorruptible seed. "Being born again,
not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of
God, which liveth and abideth forever." I Peter 1: 23. To carry
out the rule, given by the Savior to Nicodemus, which is, "That
which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of
the Spirit is spirit," so, that which is born of corruptible seed
is corruptible, and that which is born of incorruptible seed is
incorruptible, we would necessarily have to admit that our
bodies, after being born of incorruptible seed, are
incorruptible, and I do not see any way for a man who believes
the body is born of God in time, to escape the conclusion that
the body is incorruptible. But the apostles recognize the body
as corruptible, mortal, vile and natural, and they no where
allude to the body as immortal, spiritual or incorruptible. On
account of these facts I have always denied, and do yet deny,
that the body is regenerated in time.
Another reason I have for not believing that the body is
born again, in the work of regeneration, in time, is that there
is such a difference in what is said of the body and of the soul
or spirit, after regeneration. "Let not sin therefore reign in
your mortal body." Romans 6: 12. This text speaks especially of
the body, as distinct from the soul or spirit. This was never
said of the soul, and I do not see why the same thing might not
be said of both soul and body, if they are both born of God, in
regeneration. Again, "And if Christ be in you, the body is dead
because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness." Romans 8: 10. Here, the inspired writer most emphatically
declares that if Christ be in you the body is dead. Is the body
born of God, and at the same time dead on account of sin? The
body and the Spirit are just precisely opposite to each other in
this text. The very life the Spirit has, the body has not. The
very sense in which the body is dead, the Spirit is alive. It
seems strange to me that the soul or spirit, and body, are both
born of God, and yet they are the very opposite of each other in
these respects. "But I keep under my body and bring it into
subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to
others, I myself should be a cast away." If the body is born of
God, why is it so necessary to bring it into subjection for fear
of being a cast away? Such things are never said of the soul or
spirit, or inner man. "Who shall change our vile body, that it
may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the
working whereby he is able even to subdue all things to himself." Philippians 3: 21. How the body is born of the Spirit, and yet
it is a vile body, I do not understand. There is a washing that
takes place in regeneration. Paul says, "But according to his
mercy he saved us by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of
the Holy Ghost." To wash must be to make clean, and let us bear
in mind that in the work of regeneration it is washed, or made
clean. Then, if indeed, this work is done for the body, and it
has been made clean, why does inspiration call it a vile body? The very washing of regeneration is a sanctifying and cleansing
process. The apostle says, "That he might sanctify and cleanse
it with the washing of water by the word." I presume no one will
claim that in regeneration the body is cleansed and sanctified. Then it is not born again. But I have been often told by good
people that the body must be born again, for the Savior said to
Nicodemus, "Ye must be born again." They claim that he did not
say a part of him, nor he did not say that his soul or spirit
must be born again, but he, Nicodemus, must be born again. Let
me ask, did he tell Nicodemus that his body must be born again? But "no soulers" claim that the body is born again, for it is the
body that weeps and cries and feels badly and condemned. I doubt
very seriously that the arrow of conviction ever touched the
body, even if the body did cry and weep on account of sin, the
pain and ache that caused those tears were not pains and aches of
the body. But I have often been told that when the sinner is
born again, the body turns its course, and begins to act
differently from what it did formerly. They talk this way: "It
was I that felt like I was a great sinner, and that God's holy
law had been broken by me, the greatest sinner in the world. I
mourned and grieved and prayed the Lord to forgive my sins. It
was I, and not something in me that had sinned, and it was me
that was made to hate sin, the very thing that I had loved
before. I tried all the good things that I could do to drive the
trouble away, and I finally concluded I must die and be lost, for
there was no mercy for such a sinner as I was; and when Jesus
revealed himself to me as my Savior, I felt like I was the
beneficiary of his mercy, and it seemed that it was me all the
time. While it was I that mourned, it was I that afterwards
rejoiced, not something in me, but me. I do not wish to divide
the man up, I do not want to dissect man. I believe I am the
man, both soul and body, that is born of God, in the work of
regeneration, in time."
Let us not forget that in this chapter we are trying to find
out whether the body is born of God or not, in time. So I will
ask every one who has had such an experience as is described
above, where were your pains and aches located, that caused you
so much grief and sorrow? Were those wounds bodily wounds? Or
was it mental sorrow and conviction? If the cause of your tears
were bodily ailments, then it may be that the body is born again. But if the sorrow was in the mind, and not in the body, that
caused your eyes to flow with tears, then it was not your body
that was filled with so much sorrow, but it was something inside
your body, and if you did not dislike the word so much, I would
tell you that it was the soul, and not the body, that you
suffered in. But I have often been told that the body is
certainly affected in the new birth. We are not talking about
what is affected by the new birth, but what is born again. Jesus
did not say to Nicodemus, "Ye must be affected." He did not say
"Except a man be affected he can not see the kingdom of God." The man, then, must be born again, not affected. So, I see
nothing to convince me that the body is born of God, in time. I
claim that it will be born again in the resurrection. You will
find my argument on that in another part of this little work.

CHAPTER 6.

The Soul Born Again

In the great controversy among men on the subject of the
Christian religion, there is not a single point of importance, in
the whole system that has not been disputed. Even among
Christians, themselves, there have been dissensions, schisms, and
debates on all fundamental points. Man, himself, has been a
subject about which there has been as many different notions, as
any one thing in the knowledge of man. The inspired writers, in
speaking of man, seemed to be at perfect liberty to use all the
terms denoting the different parts of man, without any fear of
opposition or criticisms from one another. They would speak
about the soul of man, and they would speak of the body of man,
and they would speak of the spirit of man, or all of these, with
impunity, and no controversy came up among them as to what the
soul or spirit signified, and even at this age of the world,
while some claim that the soul is something pertaining to man,
still clinging to the idea that the inspired writers taught that
man had a soul, distinct from the body, yet they believe it dies
with the body, and sleeps in death until the resurrection. These
are generally termed "Soul Sleepers," and sometimes
"Materialists." It seems to me, from all that I have heard men
say on the subject, that it is a hard matter for any of them, no
matter what their views may be on the subject, to just simply
admit that man has no soul. After an admission that man had a
soul, and that it was distinct from the body, by one of those men
who denied the separation of soul and body at death, I asked him
where the soul went when the body died? He answered me that if I
would tell him where the light went to when I blew out the lamp,
he would tell me. He was not a Soul Sleeper. He did not believe
in the existence of the soul separate from the body, neither did
he believe that the soul existed in the body after the body died. He believed that all that pertained to man, or all that
constituted man died. Then, as a matter of course, he did not
believe that man possessed a soul, as he possesses a body. If
soul is not essential to a complete man, then man has no soul. I
can not see why a man, who believes that man has no soul, which
is essential to his existence as a complete man, should become
offended at me for calling him a No Souler. He certainly does
not believe that man has a soul, and why not just admit it. I
propose to prove, in this chapter, that man has a soul, and that
it is as much the subject of salvation as the body is, and that
in the work of regeneration, it is born again.
I will first try to prove, then, that man has a soul,
distinct from the body. "And fear not them which kill the body,
but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is
able to destroy both soul and body in hell." Matthew 10: 28. The soul in this text can not be said to mean simply the man, for
if it is the man, then there is a man without a body, for we here
have a soul without a body. Soul, in this text certainly does
not mean the breath of life, for the very idea of killing a man's
breath is a grand absurdity. Who ever heard of a man killing a
man, and then trying to kill his life? Or who ever killed a
brute, and then tried to kill its life? When the animal is
killed his life is not in the way. But some may kill the body of
a man, and yet can not kill his soul. This verse certainly does
teach that our Savior recognized the idea that the soul lived
separate from the body. We see two points in this text; one is
that there is a distinction of soul and body; and the other is
that the soul lives after the body dies. I know of nothing else
mentioned in the Scriptures pertaining to man that survives the
body, except the soul, or spirit, and when I read of a person
going into heaven at the death of the body, even if it should be
called by the name of the person, as in the case of Lazarus, I
understand it to be the soul; or if he goes to hell, as in the
case of the rich man, for I know of nothing that dies as they did
only the body, and I know of nothing that lives after the body
dies, except the soul, or spirit. I do not believe that the dead
body of Lazarus was carried by the angels to Abraham's bosom, but
I believe his soul was. I might not have thought about it being
his soul, if the Savior had not told me that the soul survived
the body. I do not believe that the dead body of the rich man
lifted up its eyes in hell, being in torment; but I do believe
that something that was called the rich man did, and I believe it
was his soul, in all this agony, while his body was dead in the
grave. The reason I believe it was his soul, is because the
Savior has already taught me that the body might be dead, and the
soul yet alive. Our Savior said to the thief on the cross,
"Today shalt thou be with me in paradise." I do not believe his
body went to paradise that day, but I believe it died, for the
Scriptures say so. Men killed his body, who were not able to
kill the soul. At the death of the body, the soul went to
paradise. Paul says, "For me to live is Christ, and to die is
gain." Philippians 1: 21. I do not understand what he would
gain by dying, if there is to be no more of him until the
resurrection. "But if I live in the flesh, this is the fruit of
my labor: yet what I shall choose I wot not." Verse 22. He
says, "if I live in the flesh," by which he does not mean that if
he lives in the flesh, in the sense that they do who can not
please God, for he, like the Roman brethren, is not in the flesh
in that sense, but in the spirit, if so be the Spirit of God
dwells in him. Then, by the expression, "if I live in the
flesh," he must mean, "if I live in the body." "But what I shall
choose I wot not." That is, the apostle was not certain whether
he would choose to live in the body longer, or whether he would
choose to die. "For I am in a strait betwixt two." That is why
he did not know which he would choose. "Having a desire to
depart," that means to die, "and be with Christ, which is far
better." Not to die and be unconscious until the resurrection,
but to be with Christ like the thief on the cross was to be with
Christ. From this I believe that Paul thought that when he died
he would leave the body, and be with Christ. He did not believe
his body would be with Christ immediately, but he believed his
soul would. "Nevertheless to abide in the flesh," that is to
remain in the body, or, to live in this world longer, "is more
needful to you." There can be no mistake about the apostle
speaking of his death in this connection. He uses the word
"depart," which means depart out of this world, and be with
Christ. Quite different from dying and being no more until the
resurrection. In another place he says, "For I am now ready to
be offered, and the time of my departure is at hand." II Timothy
4: 6. He evidently has allusion to his death, in this passage,
as he did in the other. To depart and to be with Christ. No
doubt, from this language, the apostle expected to be with
Christ, at once, after leaving the world. "I have fought a good
fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith: Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness,
which the Lord, the righteous Judge, shall give me at that day;
and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his
appearing." "At that day," the day of Paul's departure, the Lord
is going to give him a crown. This agrees with Revelations 2:
10. "Fear none of those things which thou shalt suffer. Behold
the devil shall cast some of you into prison, that ye may be
tried; and ye shall have tribulation ten days. Be thou faithful
unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life." There is a
great stimulus which enables the saints to endure hardness as
good soldiers, hoping that when they leave this world they will
enter into the joy of the Lord, and will receive a crown that
fadeth not away.
Our Lord, in his dying moments, uttered a great truth that
must afford much comfort to his suffering children in their
sorrows and afflictions, in this life, when he said, "Today shalt
thou be with me in paradise." He did not tell him that he must
lie in the grave until the resurrection, and then be raised up
out of death, before he would be with Jesus. The language of
Jesus to the thief, and the language of Paul, seems very much
alike. Jesus said, "thou shalt be with me." Paul said he had a
desire to depart and be with Christ. So, I believe that all the
saints, when they leave this world, will be with Christ at once,
and while their bodies moulder away in the earth, their souls
will enjoy heaven with Jesus. The notion that some of our
brethren have, that there is no distinction of soul and body,
contradicts the plain language of the Scripture, in Revelations
6: 9. "And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the
altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God which
they held." No possible interpretation can be given this text to
make it agree with the idea that when man dies, all there is of
him dies; or that the soul does not survive the body, only to
simply deny the truth of the text. The very people mentioned
here are the souls of them that were slain for the word of God. Those who killed their bodies were not able to kill their souls. As No Soulers are fond of criticizing, they, perhaps, would say
that John saw these souls, and if he did, and they were really
the souls of the martyrs, then the souls of men are visible and
may be seen as well as the body. To which I reply that John says
he saw them, and I believe he did it, it matters not how many
difficulties may arise in the mind of the man who does not want
to believe. John also says they were the souls of them that were
slain, and I do not believe that he was deceived, or that he
uttered a thing that was not true. While the Lord was revealing
many things to John by vision, he might have seen them as the
apostles have seen angels, or they may have been clothed with
corporeal forms, or he may have seen them in a visionary way. So
long as we are willing to admit that the Lord possesses all
power, there need be no difficulty about the souls of men being
visible to John. He saw them, and they were not in the grave, in
an unconscious state, but they were under the altar, and were
alive and conscious. But the objector says, they were under the
altar, and not in heaven. We might admit all that, if it was
necessary, which it is not, and yet the greatest difficulty to
the No Souler still stands unmoved, and that is, that we have in
this text the souls of dead men, and those souls alive and
conscious. This is the difficulty that the No Souler must get
out of his way, or his doctrine is flatly contradicted by the
inspired volume. But is there not an altar in heaven? Altar is
sometimes used, by a figure of speech, for the sacrifice, or
offering itself. "Ye fools and blind: for whether is the
greater, the gift, or the altar that sanctifieth the gift? Whoso
therefore shall swear by the altar, sweareth by it, and by all
things thereon." Matthew 23: 19, 20. So, in a typical sense, it
sometimes signifies Christ, the sacrifice of atonement, "the Lamb
of God which taketh away the sin of the world." "We have an
altar whereof they have no right to eat which serve the
tabernacle. For the bodies of those beasts whose blood is
brought into the sanctuary by the high priest, for sin, are
burned without the camp. Wherefore Jesus also, that he might
sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the
gate. Let us go forth therefore unto him without the camp,
bearing his reproach. For here have we no continuing city, but
we seek one to come. By him therefore let us offer the sacrifice
of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips,
giving thanks to his name." Hebrews 13: 10, 15. In this text,
it is certainly taught that it is by Jesus Christ that we offer
our sacrifices to God. He is the altar that sanctifies our
offerings. The apostle Peter says, "Ye also, as lively stones,
are built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up
spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ." I
Peter 2: 5. Our sacrifices being accepted by Jesus Christ, makes
him the altar upon which our offerings are made. The souls that
John saw were under the altar, that is they were under Christ. He is the altar, sacrifice and priest. We, and all that we ever
offer to God, are sanctified by him, the altar, or else we are
not accepted. The souls of the martyrs being under the altar
simply denotes that they are with Christ, as Paul desired to
depart and be with Christ. These martyrs committed their souls
into the hands of Christ at death, just as Stephen did his. The
doctrine that there is a distinction of soul and body, then, is
clearly and indisputably taught in God's word, and in all the
texts I have referred to in this chapter, the notion that man,
all of him dies, finds itself contradicted in the same
scriptures. John did not only see these souls under the altar,
but he says, "And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long,
O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood
on them that dwell on the earth? And white robes were given unto
every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should
rest yet for a little season, until their fellow servants also
and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should be
fulfilled." Those white robes were given to the souls that John
saw, and they were told that they should rest for a little
season, etc. I feel like I had certainly established from the
Scriptures, the doctrine of a distinction of soul and body, and
that the whole man does not die when the body dies. As I have
clearly shown in this chapter that when the saints die they are
at once with Christ, in soul, or spirit, or inner man, it will
hardly be necessary for me to prove those souls are born of God,
for they would not have been admitted into heaven, if they had
not been born again. But I wish to give a few texts and reasons
why I believe the soul, distinct from the body, is born again. I
will begin by showing some of the plainest proofs of the new
birth, in the soul. John, the forerunner of Jesus, in giving in
his testimony of him, says: "In him was life; and the life was
the light of men." John 1: 4. From this text we are taught that
where there is light, it is but the effect of life. We need
never expect spiritual light in any man unless he has life. Let
this rule apply in all cases, and we may be better able to
understand some passages. If the Lord has delivered his people
from the power of darkness and translated them into the kingdom
of his dear Son, he has certainly raised them up from death to
life. The Ephesian saints were sometime darkness, but now they
are light in the Lord. Life being the light of men, it follows
that life was the light of the Ephesians. Let us then adopt the
rule that wherever we find spiritual light, we also find
spiritual life. In fact there can be no spiritual light in the
absence of spiritual life. While, then, I undertake to establish
the doctrine of the regeneration of the soul, I will first give
my definition of the word, from various expressions in the
Scriptures. SOUL. (Hebrew: nepesh; Greek: psnche.) The human
mind; that vital, active principle in man, which perceives,
remembers, reasons, loves, hopes, fears, compares, desires,
resolves, adores, imagines, and aspires after immortality. To
this soul belong properties, as knowledge, understanding,
conscience, judgment, etc., all of which may be corrupted,
perverted and contaminated. So, whatever is done for any
property of the mental man, is done for the soul. Men are
commanded to love God with their souls, but they are nowhere in
the Bible, commanded to love him with their bodies. There are
only two causes of bodily action, and one is the promptings of
the renewed soul, and the other is the motions of sin. To
discriminate between the two prompters to good and evil works,
the apostle makes mention of two laws; one he calls the law of
the mind, and the other, the law of sin. It is not the same law
that prompts to both good and evil. The law of the mind leads
one direction only, and if that was the only law the christian
had, he would always pursue the same course. But another law
works in his members, not in his mind, leading him in the very
opposite direction. Prior to regeneration, the conscience and
the will are defiled, and the understanding is darkened, (not
that the body is darkened,) and there is no law of the mind
leading the man to serve God. "Having the understanding darkened
being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that
is in them, because of the blindness of their hearts. Who being
past feeling have given themselves over unto lasciviousness, to
work all uncleanness with greediness." Ephesians 4: 18, 19. By
reading this text carefully, we may learn that those people
referred to in it were destitute of life and light both. It is
also very clearly intimated that they were ignorant, and blind. Now, what they lack, grace supplies, and we may find them in the
Scriptures, in plain terms. "The eyes of your understanding
being enlightened, that ye may know what is the hope of your
calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in
the saints," etc. Ephesians 1: 18. The understanding is that
faculty of the soul by which knowledge or information is
received. The eyes being enlightened is very expressive of the
work of grace in the regeneration of the soul. According to the
text, at the beginning of this chapter, when a man has light he
has life. In this text there is something about man, distinct
from the body, that has been the recipient of life and light, and
consequently, knowledge. I do not remember that I ever heard one
of our brethren question the work of enlightening the eyes of the
understanding, being the work of regeneration. If this is
regeneration, and I claim that it is, it is the regeneration of
the soul, and not the regeneration of the body. The work of
enlightening the eyes of the understanding, is the work of the
divine Spirit, and in that work the Spirit operates on something
invisible. Then, if that upon which the Spirit operates is
regenerated, the thing regenerated is invisible. "But call to
remembrance the former days, in which, after ye were illuminated,
ye endured a great fight of afflictions." Hebrews 10: 32. Here
is the work of regeneration, represented as the work of grace, in
illuminating, which is the same as enlightening, and giving
spiritual life. Let us remember that it was not the body, nor
the eyes of of the body, that were enlightened, but the eyes of
your understanding. It was something invisible, and the work was
internal. I now claim that the fact that the fruits of the
Spirit are to be found in the soul, is unmistakable proof that
the soul is regenerated. "But the fruit of the Spirit is love,
joy, peace, long suffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
meekness, temperance: against such there is no law." Galatians
5: 22, 23. These are some of the fruits of the Spirit, and
whoever possesses the Spirit bears the fruits of the Spirit, and
Jesus says, "For every tree is known by his own fruit." Luke 6:
44. Let us notice each one of the following texts concerning the
soul, and if from them we find the fruits of the Spirit, let us
judge them by their fruits, as to whether they possess the Spirit
or not. If they have the Spirit, then it is an indisputable fact
that they are born of God. "Every one that loveth is born of
God." Does the soul love? Read the following texts and see, and
then let us believe the truth of the Bible. Does the soul
rejoice? That is one of the fruits of the Spirit. "My soul shall
make her boast in the Lord." "The Lord redeemeth the soul of his
servants, and none of them that trust in him shall be desolate." "For thou hast delivered my soul from death: wilt thou not
deliver my feet from falling, that I may walk before God in the
light of the living?" Such a walk is certainly the walk of a
saint, and the man whose soul has been delivered from death, or
quickened into divine life, can walk before God in the light of
the living. "Come and hear, all ye that fear God, and I will
declare what he hath done for my soul." By this text I prove
that God had done something for the soul of David. The following
words of the text, are, "I cried unto him with my mouth, and he
was extolled with my tongue. If I regard iniquity in my heart,
the Lord will not hear me: But verily God hath heard me; he hath
attended to the voice of my prayer. Blessed be God, which hath
not turned away my prayer, nor his mercy from me." Psalms 66:
16, 20. Certainly no one will try to evade the truth of my
proposition, by claiming that regeneration is not meant in this
text. Something is done for the soul, in this text, and if the
work of grace in regeneration is intended here, then the soul is
regenerated. This is evidently the work of grace in the new
birth, and in view of that great work, David says, "And I will
declare what he hath done for my soul." Not what he had done for
his body, in making and preserving it, but what he had done for
his soul. Let us not be afraid of the word soul, for David was
not. "Preserve my soul; for I am holy: O, thou my God, save thy
servant that trusteth in thee. Be merciful unto me, O Lord, for
I cry unto thee daily. Rejoice the soul of thy servant; for unto
thee, O Lord, do I lift up my soul." Here we have a saint
calling on the Lord to preserve his soul, the same prayer that
Paul made, when he said, "I pray God your whole spirit and soul
and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus
Christ." I Thessalonians 5: 23. Again: "Ye that love the Lord,
hate evil; he preserveth the souls of his saints; he delivereth
them out of the hand of the wicked. Light is sown for the
righteous, and gladness for the upright in heart. Rejoice in the
Lord, ye righteous, and give thanks at the remembrance of his
holiness." Psalms 97: 10, 11, 12. My object in quoting so
lengthily is to show that the work for the soul, in the text, is
the work of grace, which if true, proves that the soul is the
subject of the new birth in time. "Return unto thy rest, O my
soul; for the Lord hath dealt bountifully with thee. For thou
hast delivered my soul from death, mine eyes from tears, and my
feet from falling." Psalms 116: 7, 8. The soul that has been
delivered from death, and has been made alive, which is the same
thing, is necessarily a regenerated soul.
But let us hear a few expressions that prove that the soul
is interested in the work of grace. A good writer, and one that
I endorse, has said, "That the soul of man is redeemed and
renewed in regeneration, we have abundant evidence in the
Scriptures, some of which we present: 'Draw nigh to my soul and
redeem it.' 'My soul shall rejoice which thou hast redeemed.' 'Shall redeem their souls from deceit.' 'The redemption of their
soul is precious, and it ceaseth forever.' (See Psalms 19, 49,
69, 71, 72.)
The spiritual enjoyment and the love of God, by the redeemed
soul, confirms the doctrine of a change wrought in it. David,
who not only believed he had a soul, but that God had done
something for it, had a good deal to say upon this subject. Hear
him. 'He restoreth my soul. To thee I lift up my soul. Gather
not my soul with sinners. My soul shall be joyful in the Lord. As the hart panteth after the cooling water-brook, so panteth my
soul after thee, O God. My soul thirsteth for the living God. My soul trusteth in thee. Truly my soul waiteth upon God. O
God, my soul thirsteth for thee. My soul shall rejoice which
thou hast redeemed. My soul longeth for the courts of the Lord.' But enough. That such exercises as these can flow from a corrupt
source - from an unrenewed soul - none can believe, we should
think, that know any thing of the salvation that is in Christ. The spouse in the Canticles also gives expressions of similar
sentiments: 'O thou whom my soul loveth.' 'My soul made me like
the chariots of Arminidab.' And Mary, when filled with the love
of God, said, 'My soul doth magnify the Lord, and my spirit doth
rejoice in God my Savior.'
I believe that I have now shown from Scripture, and reason,
that the soul is born of God, and is the recipient of life and
light, and that all the actions of the body, in the service of
God, and all the changes in the body, from evil actions to good
ones, are the effects of grace in the soul, which influences the
body to the service of God. At the death of the body, the new
born soul enters immediately into heaven, and the body will be
born of God in the resurrection.

CHAPTER 7.

The Renewed Soul Clear of Sin

Some who believe in a distinction of soul and body, and that
the soul of the saint goes immediately into conscious joy at the
death of the body, have claimed that, in the work of the new
birth, the soul is not made entirely clear of sin, as the body
will be in the resurrection; but that when the soul leaves the
body, it will be pure and sinless. It is argued that the soul
comprises the whole mind of man, and that the body could neither
do good nor evil, only as it did so at the instance of the soul;
that the body was the instrument of the soul, in doing good and
evil both. I have always thought that, in the christian warfare,
the soul was always on the side of holiness, and that it always
did oppose evil. The apostle Peter exhorts his brethren to
"Abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul." I
Peter 2: 11. In this text we have a war, and the soul seems to
be one of the parties in the conflict, and the fleshly lusts seem
to be the opposite party in the war. The soul is not divided,
but it seems to be all on one side. Another text says, "For the
flesh lusteth against the spirit, and the spirit against the
flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other; so that ye
can not do the things that ye would." Galatians 5: 17. The
lusts of the flesh in this text must be precisely the same thing
that Peter mentions which war against the soul. I simply
understand that against which it is at war, in both cases, to be
precisely the same thing. Paul says, "The flesh lusteth against
the spirit," and Peter warns his brethren against fleshly lusts
which war against the soul. Paul, again, says, "So then with the
mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of
sin." Romans 7: 25. He does not seem to serve the law of God,
and the law of sin, both with the same mind. He serves one with
the mind and the other with the flesh. From Young's Analytical
Concordance, we learn that the term "mind," in this text, means
"will." It would read correctly, if we would say, "So then, with
the will I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the
law of sin." It seems to me that in the whole conflict, the
flesh is on one side, in the battle, and the will, or mind, or
spirit, or soul, which are the soul and its properties, are
undivided on the other side. "For to will is present with me,
but how to perform that which is good I find not." It is very
clear to me, from this text that it is not for want of a will to
do good, that hinders the christian from being a perfect man. The will is always opposed to evil performance, and I do not
believe that it ever changes. My idea of it is that the will, or
mind of the saint, is always offended at evil. "When I would do
good evil is present with me." Evil is present with the saint,
but he is not willing to do evil. When he does evil, he is not
doing the will of the renewed soul, for it is opposed to, and
hates such doings. From the foregoing it does not seem to me
that the man serves the law of God with his soul at one time, and
at another time serves the law of sin with his soul. The same
mind does not serve the law of God and the law of sin. It is
clear to my mind, that the mind with which the saint serves the
law of God, hates evil with a perfect hatred, and if there was
not something else in man that opposes the law of the mind, he
would never do wrong. The mind with which we serve the law of
God, is not at war with itself, but the flesh is at war with it. The renewed soul is not at war with itself, but Peter intimates
that fleshly lusts war against the soul. Fleshly lusts are not
the soul of man, and I do not think that any man will claim for a
moment that the fleshly lusts spoken of by the inspired apostle,
is the heaven-born soul of man. If, as some have thought, the
body can not do good or evil, only as prompted to do so by the
soul, or as Paul says, the mind, by which he serves the law of
God, then it seems to me that he might have said, "I with the
mind serve the law of sin, and I with the same mind serve the law
of God." I can not yet accept the idea that he meant that. "But," he says, "with the flesh the law of sin." If the flesh,
in these texts, simply means the renewed soul, that has been a
recipient of grace, but not made clear of sin, as the body will
be in the resurrection, then to live after the flesh is to live
after the evil inclinations of the regenerated soul. "Let not
sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it
in the lusts thereof." Romans 6: 12. The lusts, in this text,
must be the lusts of the flesh, and not the lusts of the soul. But these lusts war against the soul. But if sin is yet in the
renewed soul, as well as the body, it seems to me that it would
have been as proper to have said, "Let not sin therefore reign in
your soul," for according to the view of those who think that the
body only acts as the instrument of the soul, it seems to me
there is no sin in the body, only through the soul. These
difficulties are in my way, when I would take that position. Paul
did that he would not, that is, he was unwilling to do them, even
while he was doing them. There was something in him, which, had
it been left to that something, he would not have done them. I
have always believed, and do yet believe, that this opposition
was in the soul, while sin, reigning in the mortal body, does the
evil. He says "it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth
in me." It seems to be sin that dwells in Paul, and not Paul
himself that sins. It is sin that dwells in him that does the
work, and this sin is in the body, and not in the soul. "If ye
through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body ye shall
live." It does not say if you through the spirit mortify the
deeds of the soul, or spirit, you shall live. Again the apostle
says, "If Christ be in you the body is dead because of sin; but
the spirit is life because of righteousness." The spirit in this
text must be the spirit of man, for it is set over against the
body. The body is dead, and the spirit is alive. Sin is in the
body, but if there is any sin in the renewed soul, I do not
remember the text, at this time, that says so. But those with
whom I have conversed and corresponded on this text, who claim
that the soul is not clear of sin until the last moments of its
stay with the body, believe it goes immediately to heaven, clear
of sin, at the death of the body. So, even with that view of it,
my position that the soul of man is born again, and made clear of
sin in time, is sustained. I do not see enough in the point to
make war about. I have given my reasons, or some of them, at
least, for believing as I do, and feel as if I desire to be
right, and stand open to conviction, and if I should ever become
convinced that my position is wrong, I now think I should try to
make my change as widely known, as I am now making my present
positions known. I now believe that the renewed soul is clear of
sin, and is constantly engaged in deadly conflict with the flesh
in this life.

CHAPTER 8.

Is Man Changed in the New Birth?

We have seen hints from some that man is born of God in
time, but not changed until the resurrection. This idea, to me,
seems to contradict everything that is said on the subject in the
Scriptures, as well as in the experience of the saints. The
apostle says, "Therefore if any man be in Christ he is a new
creature; old things are passed away; behold, all things are
become new." II Corinthians 5: 17. No one has ever explained to
me how a man becomes a new creature, and yet undergoes no change. Those who deny any change in the new birth, must necessarily deny
that man becomes a new creature by being born of God, it seems to
me. Christ is in the man that is born again. Romans 8: 10. He
has the mind of Christ. I Corinthians 1: 16. The love of God is
shed abroad in his heart. Romans 5: 5. He has been delivered
from the power of darkness and translated into the kingdom of
God's dear Son. Colossians 1: 13. Created in Christ Jesus unto
good works. Ephesians 2: 10. He has been quickened together
with Christ. Ephesians 2: 5. The eyes of their understanding
have been enlightened. Ephesians 1: 18. They were sometime
darkness, but are now light in the Lord. Ephesians 5: 8. They
have passed from death to life. John 5: 24. God dwelleth in
them. I John 4: 16. All these things are true of the regenerate
man, and none of them are true of the unrenewed man. The no
change doctrine is not new among some who once stood with us. They believed that in regeneration, something was simply
implanted in the man, that did not change the man. If the sinner
is not changed he is not born again. He has been translated into
the kingdom of God's dear Son, and if he gets into the kingdom of
Christ without being changed, he goes into the kingdom while in a
state of enmity against God, for that is the condition he was in
before. I claim that in the work of the new birth, the sinner is
changed. He was dead, but he now has eternal life. His heart
was evil, and it spoke evil things, and Jesus said, "A good man
out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth good things,
and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth
forth evil things, for of the abundance of the heart the mouth
speaketh." Luke 6: 45. If man undergoes no change in
regeneration, he is just the same in adaptations and in his
nature after the new birth that he is before the new birth. Before he is born of God, he is natural, so, if he undergoes no
change in the new birth, he is still natural. The apostle says,
"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of
God; for they are foolishness unto him; neither can he know them,
because they are spiritually discerned." I Corinthians 2: 14. Is it true of the saints that they do not discern the things of
the Spirit? Can the saint know the things of the Spirit? We
read, "Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the
Spirit which is of God: that we might know the things that are
freely given to us of God." The very things that the natural man
does not know the saint knows. The natural man is made a saint
in the work of regeneration, and the saint knows the things of
the Spirit of God, but the natural man does not. So, it is
inevitably true that the man is changed in the new birth; not
merely changed as to his state and surroundings, but he is
changed in his nature. He himself is changed. The apostle Peter
intimates that he partakes of the divine nature. He was fleshly
before regeneration; he is spiritual after regeneration. "Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are
spiritual, restore such a one in the spirit of meekness;
considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted." Galatians 6: 1. "Ye that are spiritual." To whom does this important language
apply? I hold, and I suppose no one will dispute it, that it
applies to the man that has been born of God. Will it apply as
truly to the unregenerate? I suppose all will agree with me that
it does not. If man was natural before he was born of God, and
is spiritual now, since he is born of God, he is certainly
changed, is he not? Reader, you say. All these glaring
oppositions to the plain teachings of God's word, grow out of the
unscriptural idea that all there is of man is body, and we know
it is not changed in the new birth; so if we claim that it is
born again, we must claim that the sinner is not changed in the
new birth.

CHAPTER 9.

Is the Resurrection a Birth?

In all that I have ever heard, seen or read, I have never
known any person to deny that the resurrection is a birth, until
very recently. I have always thought that all people who
believed the Bible agreed that to be raised from the dead, was to
be born from the dead. I have often argued in the presence of my
congregations that the work of the regeneration of the soul, and
the raising of the dead, was of precisely the same nature, and
that in both cases the dead were made alive. I had never heard
any objection to that view, and I thought it was universally
accepted, until, in correspondence with a No Souler, some months
ago, he emphatically denied that they were works of the same
nature, and I was surprised. But all I wish to know on that, or
any other subject, religiously, is what the Book says: "Verily,
verily, I say unto you, the hour is coming, and now is, when the
dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God; and they that hear
shall live." John 5: 25. Our people, and in fact, other people
too, as far as I know, have understood this hearing and living to
be applied to the sinner who is dead in sins. "The dead shall
hear." The dead sinner shall hear the voice of the Son of God. It is by the power of that voice that they are made alive to the
things of the Spirit. It is by the power of that voice that they
receive eternal life, or are born of God. This verse coupled on
with the preceding one, shows that it is the work of
regeneration. In verses 28 and 29, we read, "Marvel not at this;
for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves
shall hear his voice, and shall come forth, they that have done
good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done
evil, unto the resurrection of damnation." From these two texts
we learn that the dead sinner is made alive, and that he lives,
at the hearing of the voice of Jesus. We learn also, that they
that are in the graves are made alive, in the resurrection, and
come forth at the hearing of the voice of the Son of God. In
both of these cases the dead are made alive, and we know that in
one of them, it is the body, and if it is not the body in the
other, it must be the work of the Spirit in regeneration. The
believer "is passed from death unto life." So, he was dead, but
he has heard the voice of the Son of God, and is alive. As that
is true, it is also true that in the resurrection the dead will
hear the same voice of the Son of God, and will be raised from
the dead. In each case the dead are raised by the same power. If one of them is a birth, I can not see why the other is not. They who deny the distinction of soul and body, want to accuse me
of denying the new birth of the whole man, but I believe the
doctrine that the whole man must be born again. And, as I claim
that the body will be born again, in the resurrection, they, it
seems to me, see that my point is made, if the resurrection of
the body is a birth of the body. That is not all: If the
resurrection is a birth, then their theory has the body born of
God twice. They say it is born of God in the work of
regeneration in time, so if the Bible teaches that the
resurrection is a birth of the body from the dead, then we might
have expected to hear our Savior say to Nicodemus, "Except a man
be born three times, once of the flesh and twice of the Spirit,
he can not enter into the kingdom of God." But I propose to
submit to what the Bible may say on the subject. Peter says,
"Begotten us again unto a lively hope." Here is "begotten" in
regeneration. John, in Revelation, says, "And from Jesus Christ,
who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead." Revelations 1: 5. Here we have begotten in the resurrection,
just as clearly as we do in regeneration. There is a begetting
in both. Peter said, "Being born again, not of corruptible
seed." Here we have "born" in regeneration. Paul said, "And he
is the head of the body, the church; who is the beginning, the
firstborn from the dead." Colossians 1: 18. Comment is
unnecessary. If a man does not believe that resurrection is a
birth, he does not believe that Christ was born from the dead;
and if he does not believe that Christ was born from the dead, he
does not believe the Bible. As he was born from the dead, so his
people will be. I assert that the body will be born again, in
the resurrection. To deny it is to deny the resurrection of the
body.

CHAPTER 10.

The Body Dead, the Spirit Life

"And if Christ be in you the body is dead because of sin;
but the spirit is life because of righteousness. But if the
spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he
that raised up Jesus from the dead shall also quicken your mortal
bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you." Romans 8: 10, 11.
The idea that Christ is in his people presents a subject of
great magnitude to us. He is in his people as he is not in the
whole race of men, and all the rest of his creatures. Neither is
he in them to the exclusion of himself elsewhere. His body, or
person is in heaven, and his blood is in the veil, his
righteousness is upon the saints; but his Spirit and grace are in
them. He is in the hearts of his people by his Spirit and grace. In the new birth he takes possession of them, and the Father
reveals him in them, and he manifests himself to them, and to
them he communicates his grace, and grants them communion with
himself. All this, and perhaps more is meant by the inspired
apostle in the expression, "If Christ be in you." The saints are
told that they are reprobates except Christ is in them. He is
the life of his people, and if he is in them they have life, for
Christ is their life. "When Christ who is our life shall appear,
then shall ye also appear with him in glory." Again, "He that
hath the Son hath life." All who have Christ in them have life.
This is the record that God has given us eternal life, and this
life is in his Son. It seems hardly necessary for us to
introduce further proof of the fact that if Jesus Christ is in a
man he must have eternal life. The MAN in whom Christ dwells has
eternal life. The MAN has eternal life, and not something that
is not man. He does not have eternal life in the body, but in
his spirit, for the body is dead; and we can not conceive of the
idea that the dead have eternal life; yet the man has it, and as
he does not have it in his body he must have it in his soul, or
spirit. If the body has eternal life it is not dead; but if
Christ be in you the body is dead because of sin, but the spirit
is life because of righteousness. The idea that the body is dead
because Christ is in you, must be a very distorted view of the
apostle's meaning; but more so to say that it was alive before
Christ was "in you." The body is dead because of sin, and not
because Christ is in it. Because of sin must mean on account of
sin. It is not dead to sin, but on account of sin; and if it is
dead because of sin, the cause of it being dead was in it before
Christ entered into the man. Sin is certainly not more the cause
of death with Christ than without him. The idea that every thing
has its opposite is very striking, but if the truth is all we
wish, we can find the opposite to the body being dead because of
sin, in the text itself, without having to theorize, or speculate
on the subject. The opposite to the body being dead because of
sin, is that the spirit is life because of righteousness. The
body is not dead because Christ is in the man, but because sin is
in him, or "because of sin;" so Christ being in you is not the
cause of the body being dead. The context taken altogether seems
to be about this: "Now if any man hath not the Spirit of Christ
he is none of his." We simply believe that to have the Spirit of
Christ, is to have Christ in you. And if Christ be in you, we do
not think that it necessarily follows that the body is quickened,
for although he be in you, the body is dead because of sin, for
it has undergone no change; but the Spirit is life, or alive, it
has undergone a change, and although the body is dead, even with
Christ in you, the spirit is life because of righteousness. The
body is dead, and the spirit is the very opposite - it is
righteousness. It is said that Christ is our righteousness, and
so it follows that the spirit is alive because of Christ. It is
very clearly taught here by the apostle that man is not all good,
soul and body, because Christ is in him, but that the spirit is,
and that while the body is dead because of sin, the saints may
walk after the flesh, become carnally minded, and even die. The
apostle says in this connection, "If ye live after the flesh ye
shall die; but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of
the body, ye shall live." With this view of the subject, we
think we understand Paul when he says, "Let not sin therefore
reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts
thereof." Romans 6: 12. The mortal body is dead because of sin,
but we are exhorted to not let sin reign in the body, even if it
is there. Neither are we allowed to yield our members as
instruments of unrighteousness unto sin, simply because the body
is yet dead, and has not been made alive as the spirit has. The
great apostle says, "But I keep under my body, and bring it into
subjection; lest by any means, when I have preached to others, I
myself should be a castaway." I Corinthians 9: 27. The body
being dead because of sin, makes it necessary that the saints
should keep their bodies under, and bring them into subjection. Its deeds should be mortified, and the man should live after the
Spirit and not after the flesh. "But the spirit is life because
of righteousness." Is it the Spirit of God, or the Spirit of
Christ that is life because of righteousness? Or is it the
spirit of man? Whatever spirit it is, the text says it is life,
or it is alive, the very opposite from the body. Is the Spirit
of God alive because of righteousness? The Spirit of God, or of
Christ, or the Holy Ghost, which we understand to all be the
same, is life in itself, and is the author of life to others. We
hardly think that the spirit in the text, that is life because of
righteousness, is any thing but the spirit, or soul of man. We
hardly think that any man would claim for a moment, that the Holy
Ghost is life because of righteousness. If we say that the
spirit in the text, is any thing else than the spirit or soul of
man, we, by so doing, leave the entire man out; for the body is
yet dead, even with Christ in it, and if man is nothing but the
body, then he is still dead, because of sin. If the spirit that
is life because of righteousness is the Spirit of God, then the
Spirit of God is life because of righteousness. If this text has
reference to regeneration, then we ask, what is done for the
sinner in the new birth? His spirit is not made alive, and his
body is still dead because of sin. Such theorizing denies that
the sinner is born again. If the body is dead, with Christ in
the man, and his spirit is not born again in time, or if he has
no spirit to be born, then for Christ to be in a man simply does
nothing for him, but the Spirit of God is life because of
righteousness. The spirit would not be life because of
righteousness, if Christ was not in the man. So whether the
spirit in the text is the spirit of man, or the Spirit of God, it
is life because of righteousness, provided Christ is in the man. We simply believe the spirit that is life because of
righteousness to be the spirit of the soul of man. One thing we
do know, it is not the body, so if it is not his spirit, it is
not man at all, for if the body was born of God it would not
still be dead because of sin. A writer said very recently, "Now,
the Old Baptists, so far as my acquaintance extends, either
believe that all or some part of the earthly or Adamic man, is
the subject of the new birth. Those, however, who believe that
only a part is born again, differ as regards the part. One says
it is his mortal soul part; another it is his immortal soul part;
another it is his mind part; another it is his heart part; and so
on to the end of the chapter; while some hold that the man who is
composed of parts, is born again in time, and will be changed in
the resurrection."
So far as his mortal soul, or immortal soul, or his mind, or
his heart being born of God, the writer of the above, it seems to
us, tries harder to make those who believe in the regeneration of
the soul of man, look ridiculous, than to arrive at the truth of
the matter. We are always willing to inquire after truth, and
feel perfectly willing to investigate a point for all that is in
it, but we wish to deal in a sublime manner with a sublime
subject. So far as a difference as to what part of the man is
born again, allowing us to use the word of No Soulers, we do not
know of any material difference among those who believe that the
soul lives after the body dies. We have never seen an Old
Baptist yet that we know of, that believes that the soul
possesses spirituality, or divinity, until after regeneration,
but when they say immortal, they simply mean immortality in the
sense that it survives the body, and either goes to heaven or
hell when the body dies. But those who fall out with this idea
do not differ so much on the immortality of the soul, but they
deny the existence of the soul as the subject of salvation. They
know of no soul, except in the sense that man is soul, while we
claim that the Bible makes a distinction of soul and body, and
that the soul leaves the body at death. But this writer says,
"while some hold that it is the man who is composed of parts, is
born again in time, and will be changed in the resurrection." We
do not know whether the writer takes this last position or not;
but if he does not then we do not know what his position is. Where in all the Bible do we find that anything is changed in the
resurrection but the body? Where in the sacred word do we read
that the body is born of God in time? Are the parts mentioned
above - the soul, heart, mind and body - all born of God in time? Will the soul, mind, heart and body be changed in the
resurrection? The writer quoted above seems to think that some
Baptists believe that. Another idea in the above quotation is,
that they are born of God in time but they are not changed in
time.
Paul says, "We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be
changed." In this he is arguing the doctrine of the resurrection
of the body. The change of the body spoken of is that it will be
made spiritual or immortal. It will be made alive from the dead,
and fashioned like unto the glorious body of Christ. All such
expressions as these refer to the body exclusively. If man is
composed of parts, as soul, mind, heart and body, then the body
is all that is changed in the resurrection. Where is the other
part? We are told that some Old Baptists hold that the man who
is composed of parts, is born of God in time, and changed in the
resurrection. Are we to understand that to be born of God is not
to be changed? Or that in the new birth no part of the man is
changed? That is the way we understand the writer. Christ was
the first begotten of the dead, Revelations 1: 5. He was the
first fruits of them that slept. I Corinthians 15: 20. In the
Scriptures, to be begotten, spiritually, is to be born. Peter
says, "Begotten us again unto a lively hope, to an incorruptible
inheritance." In this text they became heirs by being begotten. "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible,
by the word of God." To be born of an incorruptible seed makes
us heirs of an incorruptible inheritance. It is very clearly
taught then that to be born and to be begotten, spiritually, are
the same thing. Christ was the first born from the dead, and if
he was born from the dead, his people will be born from the dead.
So we claim that the body of Christ and the body of his people
are born of God in the resurrection. If the body was born of God
in time, then it is born of God twice, not born in time and
changed in the resurrection. So, even if Christ be in the man,
he is not born of God, soul and body, but the body is dead
because of sin, but the spirit is life. But let us not conclude
that because Christ is in you, and the body is yet dead, that the
body is no part of the child of God. "But if the Spirit of him
that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised
up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by
his Spirit that dwelleth in you." The body is dead now, and the
spirit is alive, if Christ be in you; but the body will also be
quickened and raised from the dead in the resurrection.

CHAPTER 11.

In, or Out of the Body

Notwithstanding we have been censured for publishing our
faith on the subject of the new birth, and the state of the dead,
yet when we see a man, once in awhile, who seems so determined to
have his views forced upon the brethren, and those views opposed
to the doctrine that Baptists have always believed, that he will
preach it in almost every sermon, and exhortation, and think hard
of any man that will not accept those views, especially if he
says so, we deem it high time that his error should be exposed,
and the truth placed before the people. For those who advocate
the error to say, that if we oppose them we will stir up strife,
is to simply ask us to be quiet until the error has such a hold
on us that we can not shake loose. We believe it is our duty to
speak, let others think differently if they wish.
In this article we wish to notice the idea of a man in, or
out of, the body. If, as some have strongly intimated, the
flesh, bones, and blood, or the mortal body, is the man proper,
then to think of a man absent from the body, or out of the body,
would be entirely out of all reason. We hope that while we
investigate this matter, it will be for no other purpose than to
find out what the truth is, and also, that we may accept whatever
the Scriptures may say on the subject. We feel an humble desire
to be right, and have all our brethren agreed on the important
subject now under consideration. The unity of faith among the
brethren is the only object we have in view in the present
effort. If Jesus and all the inspired writers of the Old and New
Testaments ever said more than one single time, "Ye must be born
again," we do not know when, where, nor under what circumstances
it was ever said. At the same time that great and important
truth seems to be as indelibly fixed on the minds of all
christian people, as though the Son of God had unmistakably, and
in tones of thunder, spoken it a thousand times. That is
perfectly right, for if God says a thing it is true, even if he
says it only once. If there is no such a thing as man without
the body, or if the body is so essential to man that when the
Psalmist said "quicken me," he necessarily meant "quicken my
mortal body," then to conceive of a man out of the body would be
the height of foolishness. Only on the hypothesis that man has a
soul or spirit, or inner man, can we justly conclude that such a
thing as a man out of the body can exist. Let us see, then, what
the Scriptures say: "I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years
ago, (whether in the body, I can not tell; or whether out of the
body, I can not tell; God knoweth;) such a one caught up to the
third heaven. And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or
out of the body, I can not tell; God knoweth;) how that he was
caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is
not lawful for a man to utter." II Corinthians 12: 2, 3, 4. Let
us appeal to you, dear reader; does the language of this text
give you any reason to believe that there is, or can be a man out
of the body? Do not stop to raise the question as to what the
third heaven, or paradise, in this text is, for it matters not
whether heaven and paradise mean the heaven of immortal glory, or
some state or place in this world; the question we ask, is this: Is there such a thing, according to this text, as a man out of
the body? It seems to us that to admit that this text teaches
anything, must be to admit that there may be a man out of the
body. Why, dear reader, O why object to the idea that a man may
go to heaven out of the body? We believe that the third heaven,
in the text, means the seat of the Divine Majesty, and the
residence of the holy angels, and the final home of all the
saints. It is where the souls of departed saints go immediately
after the dissolution of the body. Also, it is where the souls
and bodies of those who are translated, as Enoch and Elijah, and
those who have been raised from the dead already are, and where
the glorified body of Christ is, and will be until his second
coming into the world. The great and inspired apostle knew a man
caught up into heaven, but he did not know whether his soul
remained in his body, and he was caught up into heaven soul and
body, as Elijah was, or whether his soul was out of his body, and
that he was disembodied for a time. One thing we do know, and
that is, it may have been a man out of the body, and that is good
authority for believing that the body is not always meant when
man is mentioned. This being true, that man that wishes us to
understand that body is always meant when man is spoken of, is
fighting God's sacred and holy word. So, without any further
proof from the Bible, we claim that the point is established
beyond successful contradiction, that there may be such a thing
as a man out of the body. We maintain, further, that the man out
of the body is an invisible man, let any dispute it that will.
But we will give one more text that proves clearly that we
may be in the body, and we may be out of, or absent from the
body: "Therefore we are always confident, knowing that whilst we
are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord." II
Corinthians 5: 6. The 8th verse reads, "We are confident, I say,
and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present
with the Lord." It is not to be questioned that the interval
between death and the resurrection is a state of absence from the
body. During this time the soul is disembodied, and exists in a
separate state from the body, and at the same time in a state of
happiness and glory, and in the presence of the Lord. It is the
hearty belief of this doctrine that saints, on a dying bed,
almost universally, if they say anything at all, rejoice at the
approach of death. Why do they rejoice in the moments of their
departure? Is it because they desire to die and go into the
grave, where they may sleep, so far as they know, millions of
years? Do they not always seem to express that confidence
referred to by the apostle, that as soon as they are released
from the body, they expect to be with Jesus? Dear reader, what
did they say, as a rule, when you heard them speak of the future? Did you ever hear one rejoice at the thought that he, all of him, was going down to death, and that he would not live any more
until the resurrection? It has always been considered one of the
most comforting things to us when our friends leave us, to hear
them rejoice at the near approach of death, and hear them shout
for joy in the happy thought that they would soon be in heaven
with the Savior. All people seem to consider such things as one
of the brightest evidences of the presence of the Lord in a dying
hour. None of them ever rejoice because they are going to die,
and sleep in the grave until the resurrection; but their joy is
better expressed by the poet:

"My soul would leave this heavy clay,
At that transporting word,
Run up with joy the shining way,
To embrace my dearest Lord."

This seems to be the sentiment of saints in the hour of
death. We have heard several of them say, in their last moments,
"I shall soon be with Jesus."

"I heard them bid the world adieu,
I saw them on the rolling billow,
Their far off home appeared in view,
While yet they pressed a dying pillow."

They expected to be with Jesus as soon as they were released
from this world, and perhaps many of them see Jesus, as Stephen
did. They, doubtless, expect to be received into glory at once,
and, no doubt, as Stephen prayed, "Lord Jesus, receive my
spirit," saints often pray the same prayer. Let us ask you, dear
reader, to not consider these things a delusion, for if you do,
you must say the same thing of Stephen. We do not know that we
ever noticed one of our brethren, when trying to comfort the
friends of deceased relatives, that did not try to do so by
telling of the bright prospects the departed had for the future,
and almost universally repeat that "our loss is his or her
eternal gain." Why comfort friends with these things if they are
not true? If the whole man dies and remains dead until the
resurrection, then let me tell you, your friends are not in
heaven, and they were under a great delusion when they, in their
last moments, told you that they would soon be with Jesus. Some
people rejoice more in a dying hour than at any other period of
life, in the thought that they will soon be in heaven with the
Savior. If they are disappointed in all this, and instead of
being taken up into heaven, as they expected, they must die and
go down to the grave and wait until the resurrection, then the
fondest hopes they have in this life are disappointed. This is
the case if there can not be a man out of the body. If we are at
liberty to question the correctness of the impressions of the
dying, and argue that when they realize such bright evidences
that they are going into heaven itself, as soon as their
sufferings are over, that they are deluded, why not doubt the
truthfulness of experimental religion, at once. They who contend
that the whole man, soul, body, and spirit dies, and returns to
the earth, and remains there until the resurrection, rob the
saints of all the comfort promised to them in a dying hour. Our
Lord said to the thief, "Today shalt thou be with me in
paradise." He did not tell him that he must die and go to the
grave, and wait until the resurrection.

CHAPTER 12.

What Our Writers Have Said

But, without arguing further, as we have been accused of
agitating this subject, we now propose to show that the Baptists
always, from time immemorial, believed as we do on this subject. We will first introduce the ancient Waldenses, as our worthy
ancestors of the dark ages. We love to stand identified with
them, and it is admitted that if we do not stand with them we are
not the original Primitive Baptists. In a book called Religious
Denominations of the World, on pp. 276-277, we have the
following: "They maintained that the power of delivering sinners
from guilt and punishment for their offenses, belonged to God
alone; and that indulgencies, of consequence were the criminal
inventions of a sordid avarice. They looked upon the prayers and
other ceremonies that were instituted in behalf of the dead, as
vain, useless, and absurd, and denied the existence of departed
souls in an intermediate state of purification; affirming that
they were immediately, upon their separation from the body,
received into heaven, or thrust down to hell."
This is what the Waldenses believed, and we stand identified
with them, especially on this point. Our next witness will be
Coffey's History. In his arguments in favor of our identity with
the original Philadelphia Baptists association, he says, "The
above quotation shows very conclusively, that the Philadelphia
Association in 1775, was the same in practice that the Regular
Baptists are to this day; and in order that the reader may have a
knowledge of the principles upon which such association was
founded, I here insert the confession of faith adopted in the
year 1742, which confession was adopted by over one hundred
congregations, whose delegates met in London in 1689. The
Philadelphia Association, in 1742, endorsed the said confession,
pages 107-108." Elder Coffey then quotes the confession, in
order to prove our identity, and the 23rd article reads as
follows: "The bodies of men after death return to dust and see
corruption; but their souls, which neither die nor sleep, having
an immortal subsistence, immediately return to God who gave them;
the souls of the righteous being then made perfect in holiness,
are received into paradise, where they are with Christ, and
behold the face of God in light and glory waiting for the full
redemption of their bodies; and the souls of the wicked are cast
into hell, where they remain in torment and utter darkness,
reserved to the judgment of the great day." Page 113. We claim
this identity, while there are some who have, for the last
twenty-five or thirty years made war upon this old time honored,
Baptist doctrine, which distinguished them from the doctrine of
the pope during the dark ages. Some of those who are thus
fighting this doctrine, have asked us to let this subject alone,
on the grounds that the mention of what it is that is born again,
causes unpleasant feelings in their part of the country. We
certainly think it shows a very sad state of affairs, if Baptists
can not preach nor write on the subject of the new birth, and on
the state of the dead, just as our old brethren have written and
preached from time immemorial, without it causing unpleasant
feelings. It must be because some one has been fighting the Old
Baptist doctrine in that country.
But our effort now, is to prove that the very thing we
advocate, that, perhaps twenty of our ministers, and a very light
sprinkle of brethren in the Mississippi valley, object to, is the
very doctrine that Baptists have always believed, and have had in
their confession of faith. We shall now call up the late and
renowned Elder Daniel Parker, the "Two Seeder." In his Church
Advocate, Vol. 2, No. 4, January 1831, page 90, he says: "The
soul thus being made immortal by the Spirit of God, is fitted and
prepared for the presence of God, and to enjoy him." On the same
page he says, "When we turn our attention to the experimental
part of the christian religion, as wrought by the Divine Spirit
in the soul, we find it to be the same divine truth, realized by
the soul, which is declared in the word of God. The soul is
quickened by the Spirit, the dead is made to hear the voice of
the Son of God and live." On page 91, he says, "Take away, or
deny the work of the Spirit in the internal experimental
knowledge of saving grace in or to the soul, and you take away,
or deny the truth of the word of God to the soul, the life of the
soul, the hope God has wrought in the soul, the comfort of the
soul, the love of God in the soul, the divine principle implanted
in the soul, the food and clothing of the soul, the warm feeling
desires of the soul, the drawing of God's love to the soul, and
in fact you take everything that makes religion sweet, the true
worship of God delightful, the word of God powerful, the presence
of God desirable, and the glory of God as the prime objects of
the soul, which stimulates it, in acts of obedience to God from
proper and pure motives, for its religion, the life or Spirit of
God in the soul, that moves it forward in action, in the service
of God at war against sin." We hope the reader will bear in mind
that we, in this article, are trying to prove that, upon the
subject of what is born again in time, and the state of the dead
until the resurrection, we are identical with the Primitive
Baptists, not only of the present time, but in all the past. To
this end we will continue to quote from Parker. In the same
paper, of July 1831, page 234, six queries were propounded to
Elder Parker, and the sixth one was as follows: "Did Adam
possess a spirit in his created state superior to animal? As I
understand the soul and spirit to be different, dear brother, be
pleased to answer these queries, as they are matters of
considerable moment to me."
On page 240, after stating that "Adam was certainly a
natural being, and not a spiritual one, when created," etc., he
concludes his answer, as follows: "There is a controversy as to
which is the existing part of man, the soul or spirit, and I have
no doubt that both terms are used in the word of truth, as
expressive of that part of man, which will eternally exist, but I
think you will understand me as to that part of man which I have
been pointing out, and as to any thing further on this subject, I
refer you to my answer to some inquiry which you will find in the
8th number." On page 180, of the same paper, we find his answer
in number 8, and in it he says, "I do not consider the bare lump
of clay, separate from the soul, to be the man, neither the soul
separate from the body, but it took both soul and body to
complete the Adam which God created."
We also have before us a circular letter, written in 1849,
by the late Elder Joel Hume, in which he treats on the
regeneration of the soul, and the resurrection of the body, and
he is very pointed, and stands in line with all the foregoing
witnesses, on the subject before us. Our next witness will be
the late Elder John M. Watson, in Old Baptist Test, page 551: "It is a matter of surprise that any should have supposed that
the soul, after the death of the body, passes into a state of
insensibility, which will continue until the morning of the
resurrection." On page 550, he says, "As the regenerated soul is
endowed with eternal life, its destinies extend far beyond the
present world, time, and time things." On Page 551, he says,
"The renewed soul at death is in a state to enter heaven." On
same page, "The soul can exist without a body, but the body can
not exist without the soul. The soul can not die." On page 552,
he says, "Christ makes a clear distinction of soul and body in
the following words. "Fear not them which kill the body, but are
not able to kill the soul; but rather fear him, who is able to
destroy both soul and body in hell." Our next witness is the
late Elder John Clark, of Virginia, the founder of Zion's
Advocate, which is now published by Elder T. S. Dalton. In
volume 10, of that paper, Feb. 14, 1871, page 272, he gives his
readers a very able article on regeneration, in which he says,
"No change takes place in the mental powers of man after
regeneration at any time, and the souls of the redeemed go
immediately to heaven at death, for which they were fully and
effectually prepared in regeneration, as heaven is a prepared
place for a prepared people, as some one has justly said, and
hence the Redeemer said to the malefactor that hung by his side
on the cross, "Today shalt thou be with me in paradise;" and John
saw "the souls of them that were slain for the word of God under
the altar." Revelations 6: 9; 20: 4. They were then absent from
the body and present with the Lord; and those that had killed
their bodies, could do nothing more; they could not kill their
souls. Their bodies were, and still are, under the power of the
grave, though their ransomed spirits are before the throne." Elder Clark believed that the soul of man was redeemed and
renewed in regeneration. He says it in this article. We have
now seen that the Waldenses, and the old English Baptists, and
the first American Baptists, and our own authors of the present
century, as Parker, Hume, Watson, and Clark, have all written
that when the body dies the soul goes immediately to heaven or
hell. All these authors believed in the resurrection of the
body, and the salvation of the Adam sinner. None of them
believed in the doctrine of eternal children. We have others
present, but can not quote them in this article, as Elder Jesse
Cox, Dr. John Gill, and others who believed as we do. These have
been our spiritual fathers; I Corinthians 4: 15, and they have
all believed without controversy, that at death the soul left the
body. These men of God are our witnesses today, in favor of our
claims to the name of old Primitive Baptists. We are truly sorry
that any of our dear brethren are engaged in opposing this Old
Baptist doctrine. Some of them are very near to us, and we do
not wish to treat them unkindly, but when they make a fight
against the doctrine we, and our church as a denomination, have
always believed, it wounds us. Shall we be compelled to be
neutral on this point, while others, in almost all their sermons
and exhortations, are preaching that the entire man, soul, body,
and spirit, dies, and remains dead until the resurrection? We do
not believe that doctrine, and we find no comfort in it, and we
are sure that wherever it has been advocated, it has caused
trouble, and we feel sure that it is neither the doctrine of the
Bible, nor of the Baptists. We have been advised by some to let
the matter go, and say nothing about it, especially those who
teach that all the man dies, say that we are the agitator of the
matter. That is just what the Missionary Baptists said about us,
that it was our opposition to missionism that caused the
division, and not the introduction of missionism. We made no
noise about missionism in our churches until it came into our
churches; just so, we made no fight on the doctrine that the
whole man dies, until it was preached among us. It would
certainly be unfaithfulness on our part, to let such things come
among us, to the grief of the brethren, and then listen to the
advice of those who advocate it, and say nothing lest we stir up
strife. In conclusion, we say to those who oppose the separation
of soul and body at death, that if there is one Baptist in every
hundred that agrees with you, it is far beyond what we believe. Even where you are the strongest, a large majority of your
members are against you, so when you fight that doctrine you are
wounding the feelings of your own brethren. Can you not give up
the idea that the entire man dies, and remains dead until the
resurrection, and come back to the old doctrine of the church,
that has so often cheered and comforted the saints amid the
trials of life? Don't tell us that at death we must go down to
the cold, lonesome, and silent grave, and remain in an
unconscious state, and so remain until the resurrection. Let us
have all the comfort that the Bible gives us in the blessed
assurance, that as the Lord opened heaven to Stephen, that so it
will be to all the saints. But if you do not believe that any
part of man goes to heaven when the body dies, let us believe it,
and speak it to the comfort of those who do, and give us the
pleasure of saying soul and body, without subjecting ourselves to
censures and accusations, that have rather a tendency to pull us
down, instead of lift us up. Who wishes to divide the Baptists
over these things? This very same issue has divided them, and we
see no reason why it should not do so again, if it is urged. We
feel sure that none of our brethren would think of wanting a
division, and we know that we do not, but queries from churches
to associations, on doctrine, are very dangerous things, and we
can not help feeling bad when we think of such things, especially
when the church demands the association to say yes or no. We do
hope our brethren will stop now, and consider that such things
have many times made rents, and caused strifes, and wounded
feelings that were never healed. The Lord forbid anything like
that among us.
But I wish to call one more witness to this question. Elder
G. M. Thompson, in his book called Primitive Preacher, says, on
page 144, "It is not that he is a new creature physically; he is
the same person he was, his flesh is not changed and
immortalized, as it will be in the resurrection, but he is
renewed in the spirit of the mind by a gracious principle
imparted from above, which changes the affections of the soul,
which sways and guides him in another way, and to a different end
than he ever acted before." On page 145, he says, "Our bodies
may be said to be new bodies by the change wrought in them, and
the endowments bestowed upon them in the resurrection. So the
soul is now resurrected from a death in sin, and renewed by
imparting new principles to it in the work of regeneration." Again, he says, "This new creation is the first work of the
Spirit in the soul of the sinner, preparing it to receive and
enjoy the salvation that is in Christ Jesus. Page 170. One more
witness to this point is all that I will trouble the reader with
to show that I stand, doctrinally, where our people have always
stood, and that to elbow me off for advocating the doctrine that
the soul lives after the death of the body is to treat me
unjustly.
In the circular letter of the Ketocton Association, of
Virginia, in the year 1890, this old time-honored body of
Baptists, the fifth association constituted in the United States,
said:
"The doctrine of regeneration now claims our attention, as
this is the pivotal point from which departures are taken when
error enters the Baptist fold.
We begin with the statement that we believe in the existence
of the human soul, though unable to define it.
The words of the Master's warning, "fear him that can
destroy both soul and body in hell," Matthew 20: 28, are
sufficient to justify us in holding this cornerstone of faith.
About half a century ago metaphysics was introduced among
the Old School Baptists, and men began to question the existence
of the soul; hence, the regeneration of the soul was denied.
Among the many theories invented, the most plausible and
popular was that of eternal spiritual existence in Christ, as our
seminal head; and implantation into the Adam sinner, making no
change in soul, body, nor spirit; hence, non-resurrection, and a
host of equally fatal heresies, came in a natural course.
Into this error, by the mercy of God, the Ketocton
Association did not fall; but through the dark days, when this
cloud was most threatening, she declared her belief in the
regeneration of the soul, by the Spirit of God; eternal life
being the result of begetting by the Holy Ghost, whose presence
in the soul is manifested by a change so apparent that even the
ungodly take knowledge of the saint that he has been with Jesus."
Ever since those new things were introduced among the
Baptists there have been little factions here and there whose
feelings are so very sensitive on the subject of the regeneration
of the soul, or the separate existence of the soul after the
death of the body, that the man who still contends for the old
doctrine of the church is, to say the least of it, admonished to
not say anything about what is born again, for the mention of
that subject causes unpleasant feelings in some places. Men have
always said soul and body without thinking of hurting anybody's
feelings.

CHAPTER 13.

The Inner Man

"For I delight in the law of God after the inward man." Romans 7: 22.
"For which cause we faint not, but though our outward man
perish, yet the inward man is renewed day by day." II
Corinthians 4: 16.
"That he would grant you, according to the riches of his
glory, to be strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner
man." Ephesians 3: 16.
"But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is
not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit
which is in the sight of God of great price." I Peter 3: 4.
We know from the above texts of Scripture that thee is an
inner man, and while there have been some controversies among
men, and some doubts raised and encouraged by those who would
deny the distinction of soul and body, and who seem more disposed
to criticize the positions of others than to defend any position
of their own, we will state that, even if there is no man that
can tell what the inner man is, there is an inner man. It has
been said that the Scriptures do not teach that a man has an
inner man, and if the unregenerate man has not, then it
necessarily follows that in the work of regeneration there is a
man, that in some way gets into the man that was not there
before.
Is this man that is in the saint and not in the unrenewed
sinner, necessary to a complete man? If so, then the
unregenerate man is not complete. Is the inner man any part of
the saint? Can there be a saint without the inner man? If the
unrenewed man is not in possession of an inner man, and the inner
man is a part of the saint, and the outward man is not a part of
the saint, then the "no change" doctrine that has caused so much
distress among our people in some places, must be the truth, and
the doctrine of the resurrection must be false and also the
doctrine of the salvation of the Adam sinner a delusion. But if
the outer man is a part of the saint, and the sinner before
regeneration has no inner man, then it follows that in order to
have a saint it is necessary to put a man into the Adam man that
was never there before. Where the Lord gets this inner man to
put forth into the sinner, we do not know. Those who hold the
doctrine of eternal children might tell us, but those who deny
that doctrine and who reject the doctrine that any part of the
child of God came down from heaven, must have some other idea
about it. Will it do to say that the inner man is Christ? The
inner man is renewed day by day. Can such language properly
apply to Christ? If it is Christ in the sinner, and the outer
man is the saint, then the saint perishes, and Christ is renewed
day by day.
"That he would grant you according to the riches of his
glory, to be strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner
man." Who is it that might be strengthened? It is "you." Is
"you" the inner man, or the outer man? If it is the inner man
then is it something that sinners do not possess in nature? If
it is the inner man that is strengthened, and the inner man is
not the Adam man then there is nothing done for the Adam man. If
the inner man is something that gets into the Adam man in the
work of regeneration, that was not there before, we should be
very careful not to blend the two,, in our application of the
comforts of the Gospel to them, for their interests are certainly
different.
But the text says, "strengthened by his Spirit in the inner
man." Whatever the inner man may be, it is the Spirit of God in
the inner man that strengthens "you" in the text. If we were to
claim that "you" in this text is the saint, then the saint is
strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner man. The
Spirit of Christ is not the inner man, for his Spirit is in the
inner man. So if the inner man is Christ, then the saint is
strengthened with might by his Spirit in Christ. We have a clear
intimation that Christ is in "you." "And if Christ be in you,
the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because
of righteousness." Romans 8: 10. "To whom God would make known
what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the
Gentiles; which is Christ in you the hope of glory." Colossians
1: 27. "Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove
your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus
Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?" II Corinthians 13:
5.
If "you" in all these texts is the "you" in Ephesians 3: 16,
and we claim that it is, then Christ is in "you" by his Spirit in
the inner man. If the inner man is something separate and apart
from the Adam sinner, and at the same time, separate and apart
from Christ as an existence, it certainly must be of heavenly
extraction. Does it necessarily follow that because the Bible
says nothing about the inner man until after regeneration, that
there is no inner man in the sinner? If there is no inner man in
the sinner, until after regeneration, then it is not true that
Christ is not in the Adam sinner, at all, but that he is in the
inner man, who, by some turn or other, gets into the sinner in
the work of regeneration.
The legitimate result of the doctrine that the inner man is
no part of the Adam man, is the denial of the salvation of the
sinner. We have always opposed the doctrine of eternal children,
in seed, or any other way, only in the eternal counsel and
unfrustrable purpose of God. It seems to us that the most
reasonable and tenable position we could occupy, is to say that
the inner man is the soul of the Adam man, and that it is renewed
by the Holy Ghost in regeneration. Titus 3: 5. The inner man is
the soul of man, and is in him prior to regeneration, or else it
is no part of the child of God, or else the Adam man is not a
child of God. The soul of man is as truly sinful as the body is. The apostle said, "And you hath he quickened." Ephesians 2: 1. He either intended to teach that the body was quickened, or else
that there was something else about man that was quickened in the
work of regeneration, besides the body, and that whatever it was,
had been previously dead in sins, just as the body had.
We do not believe that the body is quickened in
regeneration, but we do believe the soul is, and that the body
will be in the resurrection. "But if the Spirit of him that
raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up
Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his
Spirit that dwelleth in you." Romans 8: 11. No one will deny
that the apostle here addresses the saints, at Rome, just as
truly as in his Ephesian letter he addresses the saints at
Ephesus. He tells the Ephesian saints that God hath quickened
them. He tells the Roman saints that he shall quicken their
mortal bodies. If he has already quickened the mortal bodies of
the saints, and yet in the future he shall quicken them again,
then the body will be well quickened, for it will be quickened
the second time. Why not just admit that it is the soul that is
quickened in the work of regeneration in time, and that the body
will be quickened in the resurrection, and that the inner man is
the soul, and not undertake to say that the unregenerate man has
no inner man? It is more consistent with the Bible, even if
critics, in their vain speculations, do theorize, and, after the
same rule that the infidel would rob the saint of all the comfort
of his hope of heaven, undertake to intimidate every idea of the
doctrine of the soul quickened now, and the body quickened in the
resurrection.
If my position be true the sinner is saved, and not
something else. If the "no soul" doctrine be true, it is
doubtful if the sinner has any part in the matter. I believe the
Adam sinner is saved, soul and body. I know of no other sinner
except the Adam sinner.

CHAPTER 14.

Is It Right to Say Part?

We believe that the Adam man "puts off" the old and "puts
on" the new man, for we believe the "old man" to be sin, and sin
is no part of man. In a sermon at Benton, Illinois, recently, we
made the same argument. We remarked then, and believe it, and
have for years, that if the old man was the body we did not know
how to put it off unless we committed suicide, and that we did
not think that Paul intended anything of the sort. We believe
there was putting off and putting on, just like we would pull off
an old coat and put on a new one. We further believe that the
word flesh, in the christian warfare, simply means the evil about
us that is opposed to grace, and fights against our spiritual
interest, and that it does not mean the physical body of the man. We claimed in that sermon that sin was no part of the man, any
more than the color of the coat is part of the cloth. We thought
the color might all be taken out of a piece of cloth, and the
cloth not be lost. So man was a complete man without sin, or
before he sinned, an that sin was no part of man. We think it
wrong and unscriptural, when we speak of the evil that we have
about us, to call it the old Adam that is in us. Adam was as
much Adam before he sinned as he is now. When God made him he
was good, innocent, and had no sin about him. God made men
upright, but they have sought out many inventions. If we leave
off all the sin about a man, on the one hand, and all the grace
there is about him, if he has any, on the other hand, then we
have man, the very man that God made, the man that sinned, and
the man that is saved or lost, as the case may be. This man, all
of him, is born of the flesh when he is born into this world, and
this same man, all of him, must be born of God, or never get to
heaven. This man is all Adam, and he, the Adam man, possesses
body and spirit, and it is said of him, "His flesh upon him shall
suffer pain, and his soul within him shall mourn." He has inward
parts, and the Lord puts his law in his inward parts. His inward
parts, or soul, is born of God in time, and the body in the
resurrection.
When the Lord, in the new covenant said, "I will put my laws
in their inward parts," did he represent man as having parts, or
does he mean that he will simply put his law on the inside of the
body, yet put it on the body? Does anyone think from this
expression that man has inward parts? It is parts of the man,
remember, and in that part, or in those parts of man that are
inward, he puts his law. He writes his law in their hearts, and
puts it in their inward parts. Jeremiah 31: 33. Paul quotes it,
"I will put my laws into their mind and write them in their
hearts." Hebrews 8: 10. Where the prophet says inward parts,
Paul says mind; so he puts them in the mind, and the mind is part
of the man, according to the Scriptures. The apostle says, "For
I delight in the law of God after the inward man (inward parts). But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of
my mind, (my inward parts,) and bringing me into captivity to the
law of sin which is in my members." Romans 7: 22, 23. "So then
with the mind, (the inward parts) I myself serve the law of God,
but with the flesh the law of sin." Romans 7: 25. David the
Psalmist, in speaking of his enemies, says, "their inward part is
very wickedness." Psalms 5: 9. From this we see that the wicked
or unregenerate have inward parts. David again says: "Behold,
thou desireth the truth in the inward parts, and in the hidden
part thou shalt make me to know wisdom." Psalms 51: 6.