I am currently trying to track down perhaps the rarest
publication in Christadelphian
history, John Birkenhead, Letters on the doctrine of God-manifestation, and
Extracts from the most recent and advanced writings of the late John Thomas,
M.D. (Manchester: John Heywood, 1877) (pamphlet). I have a few leads, which, with some luck, may result in finding this work or at least shedding some light on where an extant copy may be found (I was told by one biographer of John Thomas that he has been trying to find it for 50+ years).
It deals with the issue of “no-willism” and other issues
relating to the reception of the Phanerosis (“God-manifestation”)
doctrine of John Thomas. The following is taken from The Christadelphian 14, no. 153 (March 1877): 130-37 and contains
extracts of the writings of Birkenhead et al. debating this issue (for the few
who follow this blog who are interested in Christadelphian
issues):
The No-Will Nullification of
Christ’s Work & Mission
That Christ had a personality,
will, or character of his own, developed by trial, is one of the most obvious
facts of his case as narrated in the gospels, and as depicted in all the
allusions to him in the apostolic epistles. It is a self-evident necessity of
the case. We never heard it disputed by any class of professors of faith in
him. Whether it be the mere-manist, or the Trinitarian, or the believer in the
truth that Jesus was the exhibition in the seed of David of the divine
character which had been spiritually ingrained in his conception, and
afterwards developed by growth and experience and nurtured by assistance from
above; and afterwards the direct manifestation of the Father’s wisdom and power
by the descent and abiding presence of the Holy Spirit at his baptism, we never
until now met with the denial of his personal and independent volition except
in the pages of a remote ecclesiastical history. It has sprung up now through a
mistaken construction of the fact that he was God in manifestation. It has
ensnared some whom we regret: at the originator we are not surprised. It is an
obliteration of our Elder Brother; the eclipse of the captain of our salvation;
the blotting out of “the mediator between God and man.” As such, it is a
serious interference with the truth—the substitution of incomprehensible
phrases and embarrassing definitions for a glorious and practical fact: the
existence and submission and love of our personal head and friend, with whom we
hope shortly to be united.
In the intelligence from Sale two
months ago, we were obliged to indicate the reservation arising from the
acceptance of this error. Brother Birkenhead responded by requesting insertion
of the following notice:
“The brethren and sisters at Sale
wish it to be understood, that in relation to the doctrine of
‘God-manifestation,’ they believe that in accordance with Jehovah’s statement
to Moses, He caused a portion of His Spirit to become a flesh and blood body,
in which He veiled Himself, and through which He manifested Himself from its
birth, forward. The eternal Christ-power veiled in the flesh, and the flesh in
which the Christ Deity dwelt was known to men as Jesus Christ, was and is the true Deity. The side
which men saw was the flesh, which the indwelling and ever present Deity used
for the purpose of His manifestation of righteousness or character, which
character being produced by the Spirit or Eternal Christ-Power, was without
spot, and 33½ years from the birth of the flesh, the flesh was given by Deity
for the life of the world. Having provided and offered this spotless Lamb,
which took away our sins, the body was again vivified and raised to Spirit
nature, so that Jesus Christ, who was first God manifest in flesh, is now God
justified in Spirit, believing that the flesh and blood body seen by men was
prepared for the use of the invisible Deity dwelling therein (from the moment
of its formation, and not simply from the immersion of Jesus), and whose
intelligence, wisdom and power thus embodied, were manifested through the flesh
in the various words spoken and actions performed, we understand all scriptural
statements concerning Jesus Christ in harmony therewith, and give the glory
therewith to the Eternal Spirit, Jehovah, while at the same time we honour the
Son as we honour the Father, because the Son was the Father in flesh-manifestation,
His Spirit having become that flesh.”
To this the Editor returned the
following answer:
Birmingham, 14th Jan.,
1877.
Dear Brother Birkenhead,—Your
letter deals only with points of agreement. I should have been glad if you
could be equally satisfactory as to the conclusions you draw from the premisses
laid down. If you can say “yes” to each of the following questions our
difficulty will be at an end:
1.—Had Christ, the manifestation
of God, a will of his own, which he voluntarily subjected to the requirements
of his Father who sent him?
2.—Did Christ undergo probation
before exaltation?
I should feel unspeakable relief
if you could answer these questions affirmatively. God forbid I should
misrepresent you. It goes hard with me I assure you to be at issue with those
with whom I have been in so much unity in the truth as with you; but you leave
me no alternative if you cease to confess the truth in that element of it which
you now call in question. Relieve me of my embarrassment by saying “Yes” to the
questions. I will then know how to deal with the statement which you desire to
be published.—Faithfully yours in the hope of present and future unity,
Robert Roberts.
P.S.—Loveto all of your house.
Sale, Jan. 15th, 1877.
Dear Brother Roberts,—Yours of
yesterday is to hand, in which you ask me to give an answer to two questions. I
will willingly do so, but must trouble you to write me again before I do it.
The matter at issue is of the greatest importance, therefore we shall do well
to avoid doing anything hastily, and we must strive to avoid misunderstanding.
For these reasons I think it well that, in the words of the Dr., “The first
thing we ought to do is to arrive at a distinct comprehension of what each one
understands by the phrase Jesus Christ,”
and in addition to this also, what each one understands by the words “will,”
“voluntary” and “probation.” As these words occur in your questions, I must ask
you to write me again, when I will gladly answer you. This is certainly
necessary, as they are all words having various meanings. (Here followed
lengthy extracts from writings on the subject by Dr. Thomas and the Editor).
Excuse me writing at such length. Please to give me the necessary assistance
that I may know what you mean in the questions by the words “Christ,” “the
manifestation of God,” “will,” “voluntary” and “probation,” and I will
immediately reply.—In the hope that we may all be found prepared to enter the
presence of Jehovah’s glory in Christ at his coming, and reciprocating your
love expressed for us, believe me to remain, yours faithfully,
J. Birkenhead.
Birmingham, 22nd January,
1877.
Dear Brother Birkenhead.—I have
been too busy with a pamphlet on the Eastern Question and with the coming Christadelphian to answer your letter.
In doing so now, I must be very brief.
1.—By “Christ” I mean that
individual personage whom Paul describes as “the man Christ Jesus;” and of whom
Peter says “God anointed him with the Holy Spirit and power.”
2.—By “will” I mean individual
volition or power of choosing according to the ideas before the mind.
3.—By “voluntary” I mean the
exercise of this power.
4.—By “probation” I mean proof,
trial, temptation.
I hope these definitions will
enable you to say “Yes” to the questions I have propounded, and which I here
repeat. 1.—Did Christ, the manifestation of God, have a will of his own which
he voluntarily subjected to the requirements of the Father who sent him? 2.—Did
Christ undergo probation before exaltation?
I would remark with regard to
your quotations from the Dr. and myself, that while quoting one part of our
statements, you leave out of account and object to other parts. This ought to
suggest to you that your treatment of the Scriptures, which cannot stand up and
speak for themselves as living writers can, may be of the same one-sided
character. Hoping we may not be separated, I remain, with love to all, your
brother in the hope.
Robert Roberts.
P.S.—I have no sympathy or
connection with any who say Christ was a mere man.
In answer to this, a long letter
was sent, from which we subjoin extracts sufficient to indicate the nature of
the reply as follows.
Sale, January 25th, 1877
Dear Brother Roberts.—Your note
came duly to hand, but great pressure of business has prevented me answering
sooner, which, however, does not much matter, as it is too late for anything I
may have to say to influence you in regard to putting or not putting my former
communication in the February Christadelphian.
I regret that what you have
further said in your last letter in explanation of terms used in your first
one, is not such as we can heartily say Yes to. We may misunderstand you; but
some of the expressions used convey ideas which we cannot endorse, while others
are still indefinite.
The personage alluded to by Paul
when he said “the man Christ Jesus,” is certainly the one whom he, in the
chapter following that from which the phrase is quoted, speaks of as “God who
was manifested in the flesh,” but, at the time he wrote was “God justified in
Spirit,” the same personage throughout. So also the personage whom Peter speaks
of as being “anointed with Holy Spirit and power” is the same he speaks of as
“our God and Saviour Jesus Christ.” . . You ask, “Had this personage a will of
his own or independent volition? Independent of the flesh in which he was
manifested? Yes. Independent of the Eternal Christ Power? No. Had he the power
of choosing according to the ideas before his mind? Yes, as God unmanifested
has; but that the Son could have chosen to do evil we do not believe any more
than he unmanifested could have so chosen. The word “subjected” also implies
the idea of “opposition” on the part of the will existing in the Son, which we
cannot endorse for the reasons given above.
That in the living flesh and
blood man, existed, as in us, impulses and natural inclinations, which required
keeping within legal bounds, we fully recognise; but this was done by the
eternal Christ Power dwelling in the Son, and constituting him Jesus Christ, or
God manifest in flesh, and not by the good organisation of the Son as a man
merely. I need scarely say that after the Eternal Spirit, in accordance with
the oracle, “I will be who I will be,” became Jesus of Nazareth, there were
steps of progression in the manifestation of himself. Just so much of his
intelligence, wisdom and power were manifested through the body preprepared” as
he, the Christ Deity, thought proper, so that the Son spoke and acted according
to the wisdom and power dwelling in him; so that while the Son, as a second intelligence,
was ignorant of various things during the days of his flesh, he was at the same
time as Jesus Christ, or the human and divine in combination—the personage by whom the worlds were
made—the true Deity, whom to know is life eternal, and such we cannot recognise
as having a volition independent of the Father.
The “subjection” of “the man
Christ Jesus” to the requirements of the Father, was the result not of the good
intentions of the human, carried out by the assistance of the Divine Spirit,
but the result of the divine intelligence, wisdom and power of the Spirit,
which was the directing and controlling power embodied. Without this we say
“the man” would not have been “Christ Jesus”—in combination they were Jesus
Christ.
To your second question, did “the
man Christ Jesus” undergo trial, or temptation before exaltation? we answer
Yes, as Christ before he clothed himself with our sinful flesh, was tried,
tempted and proved by the Israelites in the wilderness 40 years. So when he
became “the man Christ Jesus,” he was tried, tempted and proved by the
Israelites again.
With reference to your remark
that our quotations from the Scriptures may be as one-sided as those from the
Dr.’s and your own writings, we would say that we can understand and harmonize
all the statements of the Scriptures upon both the sides of this glorious
subject, which, however, we are unable to do with the Dr.’s and your own; and
while we can heartily endorse many things you both have written, there are
others we cannot. The first we quote, because we believe them to be the
exposition of Scripture; the others we leave alone for the opposite
reason.—That you and all truly desirous of God’s glory, with us, may then be
accepted, with love from those associated with me, I remain, dear brother,
yours fraternally,
J. Birkenhead.
Remarks on the Foregoing
The confusion apparent in the
foregoing is the simple result of failing to distinguish between God and the
manifestation of God. This distinction is visible in all the information we
have of Christ or allusion to him. It is involved in the very fact that he is
the Son of God. It is a distinction so constantly conspicuous in the New
Testament, that we shall not cease to hope concerning our friendly
correspondent, that in the continuous and contemplative reading of it, the
distinction will so dawn upon him and those with him, as to compel them to
recognise it and to throw down the barrier which the denial of Christ’s
voluntary obedience at present interposes.
The letter draws metaphysical
distinctions between the Spirit that formed and fashioned the man Christ Jesus,
and the flesh-nature in which the form was exhibited. It is this that creates
the difficulty. It is an unscriptural way of dealing with the subject. We are
not to speak of Christ as if he were a compound of two chemical substances; we
are to look at him as a whole—the Word made flesh—the man Christ Jesus—the Son
of God. If we do this, we can have no difficulty in recognising his independent
volition and his individual distinction from the Father, to whom he was
obedient. His manifestation of God and his individual compliance with the will
of God are facts, and they are consistent facts to those who take the subject
in its practical New Testament form, without seeking to square it in its
abstract elements. We ought not to distress ourselves with abstractions. They
are beyond the range of the human intellect. It is facts we have to deal with,
and the facts in this case are matters of testimony. We must receive all
matters of testimony. It is a mistake to discard a testified fact, because we
are unable to reconcile it with some other fact. It is a testified fact that
Christ obeyed, that he obeyed for the joy set before him; that he was tempted;
that though he were a son, he learned obedience, and with strong crying and
tears, he made supplication to the Father, and was heard in that he feared
(Phil, 2:8; Heb. 12:2; 2:18: 4:15; 5:7, 8.) To say that these things are not so
because he was the Word made flesh, is to reason against the testimony. It is
not for us to say what the effect of the incarnation of Jehovah’s word must
have been; it is ours to receive the testimony of what it was. The letter,
under a wrong guidance, fails to do this, but makes use of the God side of
Jesus to blot out the obedient and well-beloved Man of Sorrows. The letter
makes the obedience of Christ the act of God in the Son, instead of the act of
the Son to God. It does this from a fear that to say it was the Son’s
obedience, would be to say it was the obedience of the “man merely.” There is a
wholesome fear of mere-manism; but it is misplaced here. You cannot have the
obedience of a “mere man” where no mere man was. The man Christ Jesus was not a
mere man, but the exhibition of the divine character by the means employed in
bringing him into the world. After his anointing, he was the exhibition of the
Father’s power and wisdom, as well as character.
Take away the individual volition
of the man Christ Jesus, and you destroy the beauty of this most blessed
matter. This is done in the well-meant but misleading definitions of the
foregoing letter. The answer to the second question, for instance, completely
nullifies the fact of the Father’s subjection of Christ to trial. It says
Christ was “tried, tempted and proved” as God was “tried, tempted and proved by
the Israelites in the wilderness for forty years.” Now, the testimony of Paul
is that he was “tempted in all points like
as we are.”—(Heb. 4:15.) The letter says he was tempted like as God was. Can God be tempted with
evil? James says No.—(Jas. 1:13.) It is testified that Christ was
faithful.—(Heb. 3:2.) To whom was he faithful? According to the
indiscriminating language of the letter, he was God faithful to himself or
faithful to the Israelites. Paul’s representation of the matter is, “He was
faithful to Him that appointed him, as
also Moses was faithful in all his house.”—(Heb. 3:2.) This is the
completest condemnation of the No-will theory. It takes away Christ’s
faithfulness to God: it hides the Son of God and destroys the relation between
our Elder Brother and our common Father. It is testified that the Father “scourgeth
every son whom he receiveth.” That
Jesus was no exception is expressly testified in the declaration that “though he were a Son, yet learned he
obedience by the things that he suffered.”—(Heb. 5:7, 8.)
The writer cannot harmonise his
theory with these testimonies. He says he can; no doubt he thinks so, but true
discrepancies remain in logic, even if a man be not able to see them. The
writer cannot reconcile what Dr. Thomas has written on the subject, and he
finds the same difficulty in what the Editor has written. One of these writers
is alive, and asserts harmony to exist where the writer of the foregoing letter
sees contradictions. What does this mean, except that the latter is not
accurately putting all parts of the subject together. An argument against the
view that Christ is a mere man necessarily lays stress and emphasis on the
divine side of the case; but there is no exclusion (though there may be no
mention) of co-ordinate truth. Christ is the Spirit’s work, but an argument to
prove this is wrongly construed if it is construed to exclude the Spirit’s mode of doing the work. This
mistake has been made—we doubt not in good faith on the part of some. We are
sorry for it, but we are not at liberty to partake in the error resulting from
this mistake. We pray that God may restore unity among all who, in sincerity
and truth, seek to do His will and to uphold the glory of his name in the
earnestness and simplicity of childhood.
Editor.
Anonymous Letter on the Subject
An anonymous writer has printed
and circulated a letter on the subject of the pamphlet, from which the
following are
EXTRACTS.
Brethren,—The theory advocated in
a pamphlet on the subject of God-manifestation recently published, is an
evidence that there are men in the ecclesias now, as in the days of the
apostles, “who are ever learning, but never able to come to a knowledge of the
truth;” and who merit the rebuke of the apostle, “when ye ought to be teachers
ye have need that one teach you which be the first principles of the oracles of
God; and are become such as have need of milk and not of strong meat.” It is
deeply to be regretted that through the action of these “unstable souls,” the
ecclesias should be distracted by the discussion of a metaphysical quibble
which savours of the jargon of the schools rather than of the truth, and which
will retard the growth in spiritual things of those entangled by it. The
effects of the controversy have already been disastrous; but whilst we mourn
this we remember that the Highest Authority has said, “offences must come,” and
we can only reiterate the warning, “Woe unto that man by whom they come.”
We endorse the opinion brother
Roberts has expressed concerning the pamphlet, that “it is an incompetent
manipulation of the divine word;” and we think the most cursory perusal of it
must convince the reader that the champions of the theory advocated therein
lack that essential qualification of the “workman that needeth not to be
ashamed,” the ability to “rightly divide the word of truth,” and that their
present action entitles them to a position among those “who strive about words
to no profit.” We have yet to learn that salvation depends either upon the
discussion or belief of such speculations as those raised in the tract; if it
does, very few of the poor of this world, for whom the gospel is specially
designed, will stand at the last among the redeemed.
The present controversy is an
illustration of the truth of the proverb, “History repeats itself;” for in the
days immediately subsequent to the times of the apostles, when truth was
displaced by error, and when, as had been predicted, men began to turn from the
simplicity of the gospel to indulge in the various speculations which were
raised by men of perverse minds, great distraction resulted from the discussion
of the questions whether there existed in the Christ a human and a divine will,
or whether the human was not altogether absorbed by the divine? and also
whether the “human will of Christ sometimes acted from its own impulse, or
whether it was always instigated by the divine nature?” “Upon these questions,”
says Mosheim, “arose severe contests which divided the Commonwealth as well as
the Church into two parties.”—(Mosheim’s
Ecc. His., Mundock’s Trans., pp. 256–257.) “This controversy,” he adds, “is
a striking illustration of the fallacious and hazardous nature of every
religious peace which is made to rest on ambiguous phraseology.”—(Mosheim’s Ecc. His., Mundock’s Trans.,
pp. 256, 258, sec. 10.) When it is stated that the above questions were
preceded by a denial, on the part of some, that the body of Christ was mortal
(or under the Edenic law), we have evidence from the past and present
experience of the brethren that these “last days” of the Gentiles have seen the
revival of two forms of ancient error.
The two writers are in antagonism
to each other, and this proves that they do not understand the abstractions
which they discuss. The very fact that certain desires existed which could not
be gratified, and appetites which could not be indulged without sin, is
evidence that the “impassive Jesus” of the pamphlet, is not the Jesus who “gave
us an example that we should follow in his steps,” in the fact “that though he
were a son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered.”
Moreover, “if the flesh was dead all the way through” we fail to perceive the
relevancy of the contrast which the apostle draws between the first and second
Adams. “As by one man’s disobedience
many were made sinners; so by the obedience
of one shall many be made righteous.” From this we learn that death was the
consequence of disobedience or sin, which resulted from “the will of the flesh
which existed as desires or appetites, obtaining the supremacy and not being
subordinated to the will or law of God. Life is obtained through one, who
“loved righteousness and hated iniquity,” and who was successful in subordinating “the will of the flesh” to
the will of God. This is the plain scriptural statement of the matter; but it
is to be feared that the clouds of philosophical dust which have been raised
will have disordered the mental vision of some, and thus prevent them perceiving
the simplicity of the apostle’s teaching; however, the application of the
Spirit’s eye salve will speedily restore such injured organs to their wonted
clearness. We thank you, brother Birkenhead, for your admission, although we do
not suppose that when you penned the words you understood their purport, or
knew that in your admission you conceded the point at issue. We say, blessed be
God “the will of the flesh” in our “Elder Brother” never became a controlling
power in him, but your confession of his victory we heartily endorse; and we
find consolation in the thought, while enduring this present evil world, that
our “Great High Priest”
“Knows what sore temptations mean
For he has felt the same.”
And because “he was tempted in
all things like unto his brethren” “he is able to succour” the toilers who are
endeavouring to win a place in the kingdom of God. Herein is the true sweetness
of his victory, and we are content to rest in the assurance that while fighting
to win the stephan of an endless life, his loving heart is full of sympathy
towards us, and his grace is promised to help us, because he has experienced
the fierceness of the battle, and hence it is that he has given that
heart-cheering promise which has oft infused renewed vigour into weary strugglers,—“To
him that overcometh will I give to sit down on my Father’s throne, even as I
also overcame, and am set down with my Father on his throne.”
“We believe,” says D.B., “that
Jesus Christ was the Lord of Hosts himself;” and if dogmatic assertion was
proof, then the statement would be firmly established. But the proof has not
been furnished, and until it is given we must reject the assertion as teaching,
which is not warranted by the form of words “which the Spirit teacheth.”
Meanwhile we shall be glad to have answers to following questions:—
If the Jesus Christ of the New
Testament was “the Lord of Hosts himself,” the “Holy One of Israel that
inhabiteth eternity,” how could he be begotten?—(page 26.) How could he be son
to “the Lord of Hosts?” How could he be inferior to his Father?—(John 14:28.)
Would not the glory be equal, the majesty co-eternal? Are not the same things
equal? How could the Lord of Hosts, who knoweth the end from the beginning, be
limited in knowledge?—(Mark 13:32.) How could the Lord of Hosts be wiser than
the “Lord of Hosts?” Yet Jesus Christ was ignorant of some things known to his
Father.—(Acts 1:7.) If he was the “Lord of Hosts,” why that wailing agonised
cry from the cross, “My God! my God! why hast thou forsaken me?” Did God
forsake the Lord of Hosts? Was “the Lord of Hosts crucified through weakness?”
Did “the Lord of Hosts” die?” if he did, he was not the “King Immortal;” if he
did not the definition is false; its originator is at liberty to seat himself
on the horn of the dilemma he finds most comfortable. Christ died and was buried (1 Cor. 15:3, 4, ) and raised (Acts 13:37, ) by “the Lord of
Hosts,” but, if Jesus Christ was “the Lord of Hosts himself” we are called upon
to believe that “the Lord of Hosts” required to be perfected “for Christ was
made perfect through suffering.” That he required to be made obedient, “for
Christ learnt obedience by the things which he suffered.” That he had “desires
and appetites” which were in antagonism to his own law, for Christ’s were
subordinated thereto; and finally we are gravely asked to believe that in
Gethsemane’s garden “the Lord of Hosts himself” prayed that “not his own will,
but the will of the Lord of Hosts might be done.” These considerations
abundantly prove how far the Spirit’s teaching is the theory under
consideration. Another advance and its upholders will be landed in the mazes of
Trinitarianism; even now the conclusion irresistibly follows from their
premisses, that Mary was the “Mother of
God, ” for she was the Mother of Christ, and Christ, say they, is the Lord
of Hosts himself.
How startling is the following
extract when we remember the source from which it emanates. “The Spirit of God,
powerful and glorious, came down from heaven, was made flesh, and became a Jewish child, and thus left its glory and became poor, that by his righteousness and shedding of blood,
he might remove the curses . . and
being raised from the dead, was received back again to glory, even the glory he had before the world was.”
We could understand a Trinitarian
writing in such a strain; but how a Christadelphian could do so, is utterly
incomprehensible.
“The Spirit came,” “the Spirit
left,” &c. The only “Eternal Spirit” recognised by the Holy Oracles is “the
King Eternal,” but He did not become poor; He did not leave His glory; He did
not become a Jewish child; and, therefore, the exegesis given must be rejected.
The “son of His love,” made in all points like unto his brethren, “was content,
for the joy set before him, to endure the cross, despising the shame,” and,
although in the form of God, humbled himself unto the death of the cross. There
is apostolic authority for this, but there are no grounds for supposing that
Paul meant that “effluent matter” “was rich but became poor.” The teaching
leads logically to the unscriptural dogma of a co-eternal Son: its upholders
may deny this, but their denial will only prove that they do not understand the
meaning of their own words.
Is it not evident from the
foregoing that the pamphleteers do not perceive the distinction which the
Scriptures maintain between “the Lord of Hosts” and “his servant in whom he
delighted?” and, consequently, there is practically an entire obliteration of
the “Man Christ Jesus,” who, by loving obedience, wrought out the Father’s
will. Dr. Thomas taught not so. His language on the subject unmistakably proves
that he is at variance with the theorists: “The ‘grace of God’ was upon Adam,
and imparted to him much wisdom and knowledge, but still left him free to obey
the impulse of the flesh rather than the divine will. This was the case with
Jesus, who, in his discourses, always maintained the distinction between what
he called ‘mine ownself’ and the Father who dwelt in him by His effluence. ‘The
Son,’ said he, ‘can do nothing of himself,’ and this he repeated in the same
discourse, saying, ‘I can of mine ownself do nothing.’ He refers all the
doctrine taught, and all the miracles performed, to the Father, whose effluence
rested upon him and filled him. If this be remembered it will make the ‘hard
sayings’ of his teachings easy to be understood.”—(Phanerosis, p. 43.)
If Jesus had not the power to
disobey, how can we understand his own words to the official of the High
Priest: “Thinkest thou that 1 can not now
pray to my Father, and He shall presently give me more than twelve legions of
angels?” But how then shall the Scriptures be fulfilled?—(Mat. 27:53.) This
proves, beyond the possibility of cavil, that Jesus had the power to bring
about certain things which would have resulted in the non-fulfilment of the
Scriptures, and if they had been broken he would have sinned; he must,
therefore, have had the power, though not
the purpose, to escape from suffering and disobey. We think this cannot be
controverted. The distinction will be clear to minds of ordinary discernment.
We see no reason for believing that the great principle upon which God had
promised to exalt men to glory and immortality, viz., perfection through trial,
was violated or set aside in the case of Christ. The denial of this is
mischievous, and we are prepared to resist doctrines which teach that the human
was entirely absorbed in the divine. Whilst we firmly adhere to the “mystery of
Godliness,” and believe that God worked through Christ in a special manner, we
are not prepared to endorse other “mysteries” which render it impossible to
understand testimonies which teach Jesus Christ has been exalted to the
Father’s right hand, because in the exercise of his own choice he obediently
passed through the valley of death.
Many portions of the letters
manifest on the part of the writers a desire to be wise above what is written,
and to not only speculate upon the modus
operandi of Deity in the bringing of his Son into the world, but also to
explain it as though they had been present at the operation. The history of the
past, evidences the evil results which have flowed from such action. It is
surprising that men cannot be satisfied with scriptural explanations instead of
continually itching after fresh theories by which to explain the modes of
Divine working: the invariable result is a “darkening of counsel by words
without knowledge.”
We regret the circumstances which
have called it forth, but trust that the advocates of the doctrines combated
will abandon their unscriptural position and seek again “the old paths.” The
doctrine advocated is not advance in knowledge, but the reverse. We admit that
increased acquaintance with the word should produce clearer perceptions of its
teachings or growth in the truth, but this is very different to beginning in
“second childhood” to discuss what are the first principles of the faith into
which we have been immersed.
