Audio Video Library
General Beliefs Site Search Time Line
E-Mail Us Web Links Home

Most of the articles on these WebPages have been written by godly men with a central belief in the Lord Jesus Christ. However as with most of us, they may have different beliefs concerning some particular doctrines. These articles have been made available for the purpose of “gleaning the good” where good can be found. I do not necessarily endorse all that is written by others, anymore than I expect others to endorse all that I write.

Regeneration, Christian Warfare, and State of the Dead


Elder Lemuel Potter


   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

     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.  




     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:


     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,


     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 , 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. 



      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    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.  



     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    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 appear 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  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.



     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." 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  did not say to Nicodemus, "Ye must be affected."  He did not  say "Except  a  man be affected he cannot 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 ave 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,  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.  Imight 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 ."  I do not believe  his body  went to 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 .   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, 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 ."  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  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, 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 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, itis 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."  Hebrews10:32.   Here is the work of regeneration, represented as the work of grace, in illuminating,  which  is  thesame 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 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 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 anything 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. 




     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 beall 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 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 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.



     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 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  




     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  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.





     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   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    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    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    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.





     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 , and heard unspeakable words, which it is    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 , in this text is, for it  matters  not  whether heaven and 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 her one rejoice at the thought that he, all of  him, was  going  down to death, and that he would not  live  any  more    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    ."   He did not tell him that he must die and go  to  the grave, and wait until the resurrection.





     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  , 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, 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    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 ;" 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    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.

     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 that subject causes unpleasant feelings in some places.  Men have always  said soul and body without thinking of hurting  anybody's  feelings.    




     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 .

      "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 innerman, 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  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.    




     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    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.