What are Mr. Newton's Present Doctrines
as to the Human Nature and Relationships of the Lord Jesus Christ?
by W. Trotter.
Publishers: James Nisbet, London, J. B. Rowe, Plymouth.
1850.
CBA6375
Introduction.
One word of explanation as to the origin of the following papers, is due to the reader. They are no volunteer attack of mine, upon the system against which they are directed. I was unexpectedly brought into contact with it, in the prosecution of my daily service to the Lord, in the sphere in which He has been pleased to place me. Having been led to write certain letters on the subject of Mr. N.'s doctrines, to one whose soul was being exercised respecting them; those letters were forwarded by a third party to him. He wrote a letter in reply, the whole of which is given, with strictures upon each paragraph, in the second part of this pamphlet. Mr. N.'s letter was not printed by him; but he sent a copy of it for the use of a congregation in the west of England; and a glance, moreover, at the contents of the letter, will satisfy the reader, that it is not at all of a private character. It is Mr. N.'s latest defence of, and apology for, his published writings on the subject in debate; and as such I felt it to be the fairest course to him, to give the whole of his letter, rather than extracts from it.
Finding that other souls are exercised on these subjects, and being fully satisfied that many, who are doubtless God's children, are still led away by the doctrines in question, without fully understanding what they are, and what they involve; I have been induced for their sakes, to send the following papers to the press.
May I ask of God's dear people, to implore his blessing on this feeble effort? And may He graciously use it to the deliverance of many souls, for the Lord Jesus Christ's sake.
W. Trotter. York, August 17th, 1850.
I would just add, that in the second part of this pamphlet, the successive paragraphs of Mr. N.'s letter, are distinguished from the strictures upon them, as well as from extracts from his other writings, by inverted commas.
What are Mr. Newton's present Doctrines as to the Human Nature and Relationships of the Lord Jesus Christ?
__________________
Circumstances as much unsought as unanticipated by me, having afresh forced upon me the above inquiry, the following sheets exhibit the form in which it has been prosecuted, as well as the results to which it has conducted me. I began by reading again the paper in the second edition of the Christian Witness, in which his unsoundness first appeared. I then re-read his retractation of this doctrine, or of part of it, sent forth in 1847. I next gave a serious perusal to his Letter on the Humanity, in which he details the legitimate results of the doctrine he had retracted, but re-affirms the principles of the two tracts, which, at the date of his retractation, he withdrew for reconsideration. Last of all, I reperused these tracts, to compare their statements with those of the paper in the Witness; Mr. N. having affirmed in the Letter on the Humanity, that these two tracts are free from the unsound doctrine contained in that paper. The inquiry and results are as follow: I have added an examination of Mr. N.'s recent letter to -, -, giving throughout, first, his statements; then, my replies. The whole of the letter is thus examined.
God grant to the reader a willingness to know the truth.
_____________________
In the introduction to the paper entitled "Doctrines of the Church in Newman Street considered;" which introduction was prefixed to the original article, in the second edition of the Christian Witness, Mr. N. says, "In order to form a scriptural judgment on these things, it is needful to consider attentively, the state in which we, as the descendants of Adam, are placed before God. There are three particulars which mark our condition as sinners before Him: — First, original, or vicarious guilt, imputed (or reckoned) to us on account of the transgression of our first parents, of which the 5th chapter of the Romans treats. Secondly, original sin, or indwelling corruption. And, thirdly, actual transgression."
The distinction between imputed transgression, and indwelling corruption, Mr. N. proceeds to illustrate as follows: "The children of an exile in Siberia, though innocent of rebellion themselves, might yet be involved in all the penalties of their parent, and be punished for, and on account of him. Even so, the one transgression of Adam in the garden, exposes all his posterity to be treated by God as transgressors, on account of him. The penalty of death would still have impended over them, even though they could have been born pure as angels in themselves."
But instead of being born thus pure, Mr. N. goes on to remark, that all Adam's natural descendants derive from him a corrupted nature; and thirdly, that in such, we have besides, "multiplied personal transgressions, — the foolish thought, and word, and action: and he that offendeth in one point is guilty of all."
Then comes the statement as to our blessed Lord. "The Lord Jesus was as free from indwelling sin, as from actual transgression; yet, nevertheless, He was a member (so to speak) of the exiled family, and was therefore born subject to their penalties. But He was made under the law; and being essentially holy, He was able to fulfil the law, and so to rise above the penalties to which He had become subject on account of Adam's guilt. He was able to enter into life by keeping the commandments; and the very same law which had been death to every other, was unto Him life, even as it is written, "If there could have been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law." On account of our sinful flesh, to us the law was weak; but strong unto Him, because He had no sinful flesh, but was essentially the Holy One. He learned obedience in the midst of suffering, and was proved to be the righteous One who might have entered into life by Himself alone, but who preferred to lay down His life that He might take it again, that so, through the knowledge of Him, many might be justified."
Having thus introduced the subject, the writer proceeds. "All that the soul of a saint recognizes as true in the writings of Mr. Irving, respecting Christ being in 'that condition of being and region of existence which is proper to a sinner,' will be found to be altogether comprised in the fact of His being born under the curse of the exiled family, vicariously incurred. But He rose out of this 'region' through the power of his own inherent holiness; and therefore never would have come 'into that experience into God's action which is proper for a sinner,' unless He had chosen to abide it for the sake of others."
All this is very plain. The writer attributes neither indwelling corruption, nor actual transgression, to our Lord, but he does attribute to him, "original or vicarious guilt." He says that "He was a member (so to speak) of the exiled family, and was therefore born subject to their penalties." Christ is said by the writer, to have been "in that condition of being and region of existence which is proper to a sinner" in the sense of His having been "born under the curse of the exiled family, vicariously incurred;" and it is said that "He rose out of that region through the power of His own inherent holiness." The expression "vicariously incurred" has always, to my own soul, abated the grievousness of this doctrine as then held and taught by Mr. N. But on once more reading the whole paper, it becomes a question with me, whether the words just quoted, "vicariously incurred" mean any thing more than what he defines at the outset, as the first particular in our condition as sinners before God. This, he states to be "original, or vicarious guilt, imputed (or reckoned) to us, on account of the transgression of our first parent, of which the 5th chapter of the Romans treats." If this be the sense in which he afterwards says, Christ was" born under the curse of the exiled family, vicariously incurred," it makes his views appear more consistent (in evil, alas!) throughout. But if they be understood in the ordinary sense of the word "vicarious" we shall still see how he alters this in his later publications.
The paper from which the above passages are extracted, was published in 1835, or early in 1836; — and it is important to bear in mind that the doctrine stated in those passages, was the one held by Mr. N., till near the date of is retractation, Nov. 26th, 1847. He says, (page 5 of that document, — "Statement and Acknowledgment, etc.") "Recent circumstances having necessitated a careful review of the whole subject, I have been led, etc." It is clear from this, that during the whole period from 1835 or 6, to 1847, his views as to our blessed Lord, were those above stated; and it was during this period that his ideas respecting the sufferings of Christ, and the interpretation of the Psalms, etc., became matured; and to those views which are still held by him, he gave expression first, in the Lecture on Psalm 6, and further in his two tracts, "Remarks and Observations." Did those views receive no tinge from the doctrine, according to his own confession, held by the writer while they were being formed and matured? Was it possible that on a subject so connected with this doctrine, his views could be uninfluenced by it, during the very period in which it was held by him as the truth of God? Let any one judge whose eyes are not blinded by prejudice, whether those views on the sufferings of Christ were not the genuine fruit of the doctrine, or rather part and parcel of the doctrine, first stated as above, in the second edition of the Christian Witness.
The extracts already given, are from the preface to the article. But in the body of the article itself, we have the following. "But in the treatise above referred to, (one of Irving's, it is stated that these sufferings were not inflicted upon Him because He was considered that which, really He was not, viz., a sinner; in other words, that He was not punished exclusively for our sins, but because of that condition of being into which He had come. Now, (says Mr. N.) it is fully allowed, as has been stated in the preface, that He was born into 'our condition of being,' in the sense of being born out of Paradise. And also, that He exposed Himself to the danger of receiving all the punishment which followed upon the imputation of Adam's offence; but though exposed to it, yet He rose above it all, because He was by birth the Holy One, made under the law; who did not, as we, find it weak through the flesh, but effectually ordained unto life, because His flesh was holy. 'This do, and thou shalt live,' was unto Him, a word of delivering power. So far, therefore, from His having been punished on account of the condition of being into which He had come; He would not have been punished at all, unless He had freely chosen, whilst standing as the 'justified One' to offer atonement to the Father, and to become the substitute and sin-bearer of all who believe in His name." The doctrine, as further stated here, is, (1) That Christ was born into our condition of being. (2) That he exposed himself to the danger* of receiving all the punishment following upon the imputation of Adam's offence. (3) That he rose above it all, because he was by birth, the Holy One, made under the law. (4) That "this do, and thou shalt live," was to him a word of delivering power. (5) That therefore He was not punished at all because of the condition of being into which he had come. And (6) That he would not have been punished at all, unless he had freely chosen, whilst standing as the 'justified One' (by his obedience to the law, as above, I suppose) to offer atonement, and become our substitute. That is, in short, as plainly as words can express it, that Christ had to be justified by his obedience to the law, from the imputation of Adam's offence, under which (according to the writer) He was born, before he could offer himself in atonement for others. The question as to whether any one born under this imputation could justify himself from it, is one that must be considered in its place.
*The italics are Mr. N.'s.
I would take no further notice at present of Mr. N.'s tracts on the sufferings of Christ, than again to call to mind that they were written prior to his renunciation, (at least openly) of any part of the doctrine already stated. The first, as is well known, was not published by Mr. N., but consisted of Notes of a Lecture delivered by him, and published, with strictures on it, by Mr. Harris. The horror which was caused in the souls of many by these Notes, led Mr. N. to publish his two tracts, "Remarks" and "Observations," in the preface to the latter of which, the writer says, "this tract and another which has been already published will, I trust, sufficiently show what my doctrines really are, they will show to what I object, and what I avow in the notes." The date of this is September 1, 1847. It was nearly three months after this, viz., Nov. 26th, 1847, that a short tract was issued, signed by Mr. N., purporting to be a retractation of the doctrine taught in the extracts already given. He first describes the controversy which arose about Irvingism, and how he sought to meet its false doctrines in the paper on Newman-street, in the first edition of the Christian Witness. He then proceeds. "To this it was objected, that we, in a sense, deified the humanity of Jesus, and virtually denied that He was really man. Many passages were quoted by the defenders of Mr. Irving's doctrine, to prove that Jesus was not only man, but man in weakness, that He had a mortal body, unlike to that which Adam first had in Paradise; and they added that the cause of His body being mortal was, that sin (as they said) inhered in it."
"In order to meet this," he further says, "it was felt to be a solemn duty to endeavour to own, as far as possible, the truth that might be mingled with the error, and to seek to disentangle it from its evil connections. It was on this account that I wrote a preface, and made some additions to the paper above referred to; and in an attempt to meet as far as possible the minds of others, I have gone too far, and myself transgressed by overstepping the bounds of truth."
"In allowing," Mr. N. proceeds, "that the Lord Jesus had a body different from that of Adam in Paradise, I was right. I was right also in saying that inherent corruption is not the originating cause of mortality, but the one sin of Adam, — 'by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin;' I was right also in stating that the Lord Jesus partook of certain consequences of Adam's sin, of which the being possessed of a mortal body was one."
"It was this that first introduced Rom. 5 into the controversy, as showing that death of the body resulted from that which one man had done; and if due care had been taken to discriminate between the mode in which the consequences of Adam's transgression reached mankind through federal headship, and the manner in which the Lord Jesus took certain of those consequences upon Himself, but not through federal headship, the error which I now have to confess, would have been avoided."
Further on, the writer says, "my error in this resulted in my holding that the Lord Jesus, while perfectly free from all, even the slightest taint of sin, either original or actual, yet was under Adam, as a federal head, and thus was exposed by his position to the imputation of Adam's guilt, as is taught respecting mankind in the 5th of Romans.
Now what is taught respecting mankind in the 5th of Romans is this; — "that through the offence of one many are dead:" v. 15; that "the judgment was by one to condemnation" v. 16 that "by one man's offence death reigned by one" v. 17 that "by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation:" v. 18, that "by one man's disobedience many were made sinners;" v. 19. This is what is taught respecting mankind in the 5th of Romans; and it was under this that Mr. N.'s doctrine represented our blessed Lord as being placed.
"Recent circumstances," he goes on to say, "having necessitated a careful review of the whole subject, I have been led, as I have above stated, to see that I was distinctly in error in holding that the Lord came by birth under any imputation of guilt or the consequences of such imputation. I see that results altogether contrary to christian doctrine are involved in, and may fairly be deduced from this error, which I now desire explicitly to renounce; and I desire to acknowledge my error in having thus held and taught on this subject; and I hereby withdraw all statements of mine, whether in print or in any other form, in which this error or any of its fruits may be found."
It will have to be considered anon whether the Notes of the Lecture on Ps. 6, and the two tracts on the sufferings of Christ, are not full of the "fruits" of this error. Suffice it for the present once more to recall the fact that they were written while the author of them held, or at least, a good while before he renounced the error above confessed. All he says of them in his retractation is, "with regard to the two tracts recently published by myself on 'the sufferings of Christ,' I also request that they may be withdrawn for reconsideration." The result of this reconsideration we have in "a Letter on subjects connected with the Lord's humanity." In it the writer says, p. 15, "such then are my principles, and I may add the principles on which my two recent tracts are based;" and he goes on to assert their general soundness; that is, he re-affirms the principles of the two tracts he had withdrawn for reconsideration, and not only does he re-affirm, he vindicates them, and insists upon them. On pages 30, 32, he specifies the results altogether contrary to christian doctrine involved in, and fairly to be deduced from, the error which he had confessed in Nov., 1847. He enumerates them, however, not to confess himself covered with shame, and unable to lift up his head, for having held and taught a doctrine from which such consequences inevitably follow. One might have expected this. But no; he specifies those results of the false doctrine he held, to show that his tracts written while he held it, are clear from any such deductions. Let us look at the results, however, as stated by himself, leaving out for the present, his reasonings to clear his tracts. The tracts I have not yet gone into here at all. All I have done thus far is to give, 1st, the doctrine itself in Mr. N.'s own words; 2nd, his confession of his having held it, and his account of the way in which he was led into it. Hear now, his own statement of the legitimate results of this doctrine that "Christ was under Adam as a federal head." It is as follows:
"Federal imputation of sin places him who is under it in the same relation to God as the person who has originally sinned; and all the consequences of that sin, past, present, and to come, rest on the person under imputation, and cannot be removed except through redemption. He is under a load from which he can never be relieved, even for one moment, either here or hereafter, except through redemption."
"He who is under federal imputation of sin is exposed, and that not by voluntary election, but by involuntary necessity to all the consequences of sin and that for ever. There can in such case be no partial exposure — no exposure to some, and not to others."
"Again, he who is under imputation, must also be in moral distance from God."
"He who is under imputation could never (unless through that capacity of action which God only has through redemption,) be visited by any mercy, or receive any relief from God. If therefore Christ had been under imputation, seeing that there was no redemption through which he could have been regarded, he never could have received one blessing from the hand of God."
"He who is under imputation could have no personal position before God, which God could acknowledge in blessing."
"He who is under imputation could never for one moment occupy a relative position. so as to suffer exclusively because of others; for his own personal position would merit suffering."
"He who is under imputation could never work out a righteousness for others."
Here are Mr. N.'s own words. Now think of any one who had held and taught, that Christ "was under Adam as a federal head;" who, while he held this doctrine, delivered lectures, and published tracts, on subjects closely allied to this, to say the least; who, having been obliged to confess that he had held and taught this doctrine; now publishes a pamphlet in which he details its legitimate results; think, I say, of any one under such circumstances, enumerating seven such conclusions as the above, NOT to take on himself the shame of having held and taught the doctrine which involves them; but to shield his tracts from the charge of having maintained the doctrine, by affirming that they do not contain these seven deductions from it! "The real doctrine of imputation therefore," he says. "is at utter variance with the radical principle of the tracts." "Nor is it possible that the REAL doctrine of imputation could be held by any Christian who understood what it involved." The writer was never charged with holding all the consequences of this doctrine. He was charged with holding the doctrine itself, and this he was obliged, however reluctantly to confess. He was also charged with delivering lectures, and writing tracts in which statements were made involving the same consequences as this doctrine of federal imputation. In the very paper (that on Newman-street) in which he taught the doctrine of federal imputation of Adam's sin to our Lord, he taught the opposite of some of those very deductions which he now says legitimately flow from it. Does this self contradiction prove that he did not hold the doctrine? No such thing. He had to confess, as we have seen, that he did hold it; and if he had never confessed it at all, the proof of the fact is such as cannot be gainsayed. Then as to the tracts. He says of this and that result of the doctrine of imputation, that they are not to be found in the tracts, but that the tracts teach the opposite. This is just as true of the paper on Newman-street, as of the tracts, and yet the former of these confessedly contains the doctrine. Alas! for the writer who could seek to shield himself and his publications from the shame of having taught a doctrine which he confesses no Christian could hold who understood what it involved, and which he confesses to have held himself, by endeavouring to show that he had not followed it out to all its blasphemous consequences, and taught these as well! Enough, one would suppose, to have taught the doctrine that confessedly involves these; enough it surely ought to have been, to have so bowed down the soul of the writer, as to have made a thought of self-vindication the very last thought he could entertain.
____________________
And now as to the tracts. I begin with the Notes of the Lecture on Psalm 6. And when we bear in mind that the Author published two tracts, "Remarks," and "Observations," on purpose to show "to what he objected and what he avowed in the Notes," it will be evident that so long as nothing is quoted which was disclaimed by him in these tracts, it is as fair to quote from the Notes as from any of his own publications. First of all then, what is Psalm 6 itself?
"O Lord rebuke me not in thine anger, neither chasten me in thy hot displeasure. Have mercy upon me, O Lord; for I am weak; O Lord heal me; for my bones are vexed. My soul is also sore vexed; but thou, O Lord, how long! Return, O Lord, deliver my soul: O save me for thy mercies sake. For in death there is no remembrance of thee; in the grave who shall give thee thanks. I am weary with my groaning: all the night make I my bed to swim; I water my couch with my tears. Mine eye is consumed because of grief; it waxeth old because of all mine enemies. Depart from me, all ye workers of iniquity: for the Lord hath heard the voice of my weeping. The Lord hath heard my supplication; the Lord will receive my prayer. Let all mine enemies be ashamed and sore vexed; let them return and be ashamed suddenly."
On this Psalm, Mr. N. is reported in the Notes to have said, (and I know not of his having anywhere disclaimed this) "But another interesting and important question is, the manner in which Christ was personally chastened and afflicted, whilst the servant of God in the earth; for it was not merely the sufferings he had, because his soul entered into the condition of things around him, but there was quite another question (mark this, reader,) the relation of God to him whilst thus suffering. For a person to he suffering here, because he serves God is one thing, but the relation of that person to God, and what he is immediately receiving from his hand while serving him is another; and it is this which the sixth Psalm and many others open to us. They describe the hand of God stretched out as rebuking in anger and chastening in hot displeasure, AND REMEMBER THIS IS NOT THE SCENE ON THE CROSS." Is it not stated here as plainly as possible, (1) that the subject treated of is, God's relation to Christ, and Christ's relation to God? (2) That this is what the sixth Psalm opens to us — that it describes the hand of God stretched out as rebuking in anger etc. (3) That this is not the scene on the cross. And to impress this upon his hearers, we are told in the same paragraph "in this Psalm Christ is not at all standing in the place of sacrifice for sin."
In the Letter on the humanity, where he is describing the legitimate results of the doctrine of federal imputation, Mr. N. mentions as the first of these, that "federal imputation of sin places him who is under it in the same relation to God as the person who has already sinned." What now is the relation to God in which he represents Christ as placed in the passage just cited? And what is God's relation to Him represented to be? They are both represented to be of such a nature as to expose him to the hand of God stretched out as rebuking in anger and chastening in hot displeasure.
So that here, at least, we have, if not the doctrine of Christ's subjection to the federal imputation of Adam's sin, one of its consequences as stated by Mr. N. himself. And here let me ask, if Christ's relation to God, and God's relation to Christ, were such as to subject Christ to anger and hot displeasure on the part of God, how was this to be averted? Is God angry except with sin? Does He chasten in hot displeasure except for departure from Himself? And if Christ "not at all as standing in the place of sacrifice for sin" was subject to such inflictions, how was He to be released from His subjection to them? How, save by redemption? And who was to be His redeemer? Alas! alas! the notes bring us to the same point as the paper on Newman-street in the Witness. Nay worse: for while the paper on Newman-street says "vicariously incurred" (whatever that may have been intended to mean) the notes say distinctly, that in this relation of Christ to God, and of God to Christ, he, "Christ, is not at all standing in the place of sacrifice for sin."
But again, it is said, page 11 of the notes. "The next question is, how did he suffer? The moment He came into the world, He was a part of mankind in it; He was born a man: therefore in that sense became a part of the human family. If He had been born in Paradise, He would not have found sorrow by becoming a part of it, but being born out of it, and seeing He was born into the world, under the curse; it brought Him under all the sorrow and affliction which pertain to the human family, as such."
"Supposing," he proceeds, "we belonged to a family which was banished to a distant land, and there subject to every hardship and sorrow, and we were to go and form a part of that family; we must of course drink of the same cup, and partake of their sufferings: this was what Christ did. I do not refer to what were called his vicarious sufferings, but to His partaking of the circumstances of the woe and sorrow of the human family, and not only of the human family generally, but of a particular part of it, of Israel, etc." Here it is distinctly affirmed, (1) that Christ suffered, because the moment He came into the world, He was a part of mankind — a part of the human family. (2) That He was born into the world under the curse, and so brought under all the sorrow and affliction, which pertain to the human family, as such. Besides, we have (3) an illustration of the ground on which Christ suffered, as nearly as possible identical with that employed in the paper in the Witness, to show the distinction between imputed transgression, and indwelling corruption. Then (4) the speaker distinctly avows here, that he does not refer to what are called the vicarious sufferings of Christ.
Again, page 15 of the notes, we are told, that "He heard (John the Baptist's word) with a wise and attentive ear, and came to be baptized, because He was one with Israel; was in their condition, one of wrath from God."
I am aware that in chap. 2 of "Observations" as also on page 11 of "Remarks," the writer seeks to distinguish between "the wrath of God," as it might fall on such a person as Jehoshaphat, to whom it was said, (2 Chr. 19: 2.) "therefore is wrath upon thee from before the Lord," and the same expression as used elsewhere of the doom of the finally impenitent. In the Remarks, page 11, he tells us that "on the cross, He (Christ) endured wrath, infinite wrath; not wrath in chastisement, but wrath in vengeance." But then, I would remark in the first place — that in the notes we have a distinction made, quite opposite in its bearing. "We are chastened, but not in displeasure. "As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten;" there is SOMETHING DISSIMILAR in that; it comes to us as under the dealing of LOVE, and THAT makes a wide difference." Notes, p. 19. But even if the full benefit of the distinction between "wrath in chastisement" and "wrath in vengeance," be allowed to the writer, of what avail is it? Does wrath of either kind come on any except for sin? Can wrath of either kind be averted, except through redemption? Was Jesus under wrath of either kind, save as our substitute? If so, how could he save by redemption, and that the writer allows would have been impossible for him, be freed therefrom? Let it be borne in mind that according to Mr. N., it is Christ's relation to God, and God's relation to Christ, which subjected him to chastening in wrath, to anger, and to hot displeasure.
And then as to the question of how he is represented to have come into this place of suffering under the hand of God, in wrath and hot displeasure; turn to page 9 of Observations. "And is it a new doctrine that Jesus by His birth became obnoxious, that is, exposed to all the sinless penalties of fallen man? I do not say that they all fell upon Him. Some did not. He was exposed, for example, because of His relation to Adam, to that sentence of death, that had been pronounced on the whole family of man. Relatively, He was exposed to that curse; personally, He evidenced His title to freedom from it, and His title to life, by keeping that law of which it had been said, 'this do, and thou shalt live.' And if He was exposed to the doom of man, was He not equally exposed to all the sinless penalties that had fallen upon Israel, as dwelling under Sinai? I do not say that they all fell upon Him. Some did, others did not. But He was not on this account accursed." No, nor did you say that he was accursed, when you distinctly held and taught, that he was under the federal headship of Adam, and so exposed to the imputation of his guilt. Your denying then, that personally he was accursed, did not prevent you holding a principle, from which this inevitably flowed. Nor does your disclaiming such a thought, in the passage just quoted, clear the passage from the imputation of teaching what involves it. Let us look at the passage more particularly.
It teaches (1) that Jesus by his birth became obnoxious to all the sinless penalties of fallen man. (2) That, as an example, he was exposed, because of his relation to Adam to that sentence of death, that had been pronounced on the whole family of man. So that, according to the writer, death is one of the sinless penalties. (3) That relatively, (i. e. because of his relation to Adam,) he was exposed to that curse; though, just as is taught in the paper on Newman-street, he evidenced his title to freedom from it, by keeping the law. (4) That if he was exposed to the doom of man, (are sinless penalties the doom of man?) he was equally exposed to all the sinless penalties that had fallen upon Israel. Such is the plain, unmistakeable doctrine of the passage before us.
I am well aware of its being urged that the use of the term "sinless penalties," limits the meaning of such passages. But what is the meaning of the expression? We have no scripture to guide us to the meaning of it, for it is not a scripture expression. It is one of the author's own terms. Turn to a dictionary for the words, and what do you find? The first that comes to my hand gives the sense of the words thus; "Sinless, exempt from sin." "Penalty, punishment, censure, judicial infliction." The phrase "sinless penalties," is therefore, strictly speaking, a paradox. To our blessed Lord, as being himself perfectly sinless, and yet as standing in our stead on the cross, receiving the "punishment, censure, judicial infliction," due to our sins, it might perhaps be applied. Even here however, it would not be strictly proper. Though sinless himself, it was for sin, as standing in the stead of sinners, that he was punished. But it is not to the cross, but to other sufferings of our Lord distinct from the cross, and prior to it, that Mr. N. applies the phrase. I can only conceive of three senses in which the writer can use the term "sinless penalties." First, he may mean that the act of inflicting those penalties is a sinless one. If this be his meaning, I can only say with another, that in this sense "damnation is not a sinful thing, it is very righteous." But, secondly, he may mean that Christ's endurance of these penalties was unattended by any personal sin on his part — that he who suffered was sinless. But this is just as true of the cross; he was personally sinless there, when suffering the full penalty of our sins. Besides, Mr. N. as strongly asserted the personal sinlessness of Christ, when he held the doctrine that Adam's guilt was imputed to him, as now. Thirdly, the only other use he can intend to make of the expression is to distinguish between the sufferings of Christ on the cross, where, though absolutely sinless in himself, he took our place and endured what was due to our sins, and those sufferings which he is said by the writer to have endured during his life, because of his relation to Adam, But what can be the effect of this, except to delude? Does God inflict any penalties, except on account of sin? Are not the curse upon the ground and the death of the body as truly on account of sin as eternal damnation? The writer distinctly includes the death of the body among those "sinless penalties," and gives it as an example of what he means by the phrase. "He was exposed for example, because of His relation to Adam to that sentence of death, that had been pronounced on the whole family of man." And was it as a "sinless penalty" that sentence of death came upon all men. So far from this, the apostle proves the universality of sin by the universality of death. "By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, and so death passed upon all for that all have sinned." This is what Mr. N. used to put our Lord under, in plain terms applying it to him. And where the difference is between this and the doctrine of the passage I am considering, (page 9, Observations) I am utterly at a loss to perceive.
I am quite aware that in the Letter on the humanity, page 29, Mr. N. says, "the tracts speak of relation to Adam, but they do not speak of federal relation to Adam." Here let me say, the word "federal" no more occurs in scripture than the phrase "sinless penalties." But the writer allows that the subject of federal relationship between Adam and his offspring is treated of in the fifth of Romans. This is the chapter to which he used to refer as illustrative of our Lord's position under Adam. He refers to it in the paper on Newman-street. But now what does the fifth of Romans teach as to what the writer terms "federal relation to Adam" I will exhibit for facility of comparison, the teaching of the fifth of Romans as to all the rest of Adam's offspring, and Mr. N.'s teaching on page 9, Observations, as to our blessed Lord.
FIFTH of ROMANS.
"By one man sin entered into the world and death by sin,
and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned."
Mr. N.'S OBS. PAGE 9.
"He (Jesus) was exposed, for example, because of His relation to Adam
to that sentence of death that had been pronounced on the whole family of man."
FIFTH of ROMANS.
"By one man's offence death reigned by one."
Mr. N.'S OBS. PAGE 9.
"Relatively, He (Jesus) was exposed to that curse."
FIFTH of ROMANS.
"By the offence of one, judgment came upon all men to condemnation."
Mr. N.'S OBS. PAGE 9.
"And if He (Jesus) was exposed to the doom of man,
was He not equally exposed etc.?"
I am not ignorant of the fact that there is a further statement in Rom. 5, which the writer used to apply to our blessed Lord, and which I suppose he would not now: viz., "as by one man's disobedience many were made (or constituted, as he used to render it) sinners." This, he would not now say of Jesus. But let me ask, what is death, as a penalty but the wages of sin? How can there be liability to death where there is no sin either actual, indwelling, or imputed? What relation to Adam is there spoken of in scripture which could make any one "because of" it, exposed to the sentence of death, save the federal relation? Where is the scripture to show that a person might be in such a relation to Adam as to be "because of" it, exposed to the sentence of death pronounced on the whole family of man — exposed to that curse — exposed to the doom of man, — and yet not be in federal relation to Adam? The distinction is a pure invention of the writer to screen his character, and at the same time maintain his doctrine — between which, and that of federal imputation which he has repudiated, there is not any distinction supported by a single passage of scripture, or by a single consideration to commend it to the unbiassed spiritual judgment of any one. A relation to Adam which exposes a person to the sentence of death — to that curse — to the doom of man, is what christians have always understood by federal relationship, and is the relationship treated of in the fifth of Romans.
_____________________
The several pleas urged by the writer of these tracts to show that they cannot contain any thing subversive of the faith; or, in other words, that the doctrine they teach on the above subject is accompanied by such other statements as to make the whole innoxious, have been already examined by others. A passing notice of the principal points may still not be out of place here.
1. The writer maintains that he cannot be unsound in the faith, because he teaches among other doctrines, that of atonement, of substitution. Now I am not aware that he has ever been charged with denying this. He was charged with holding a doctrine, which, could it have been true, would have shown our Lord to be incapable of making atonement. He confesses now that he did hold such a doctrine, but that he did not draw this deduction from it: and it is well known that he taught the doctrine of atonement in the very paper on Newman-street, which contains the heresy I refer to. His entertaining the doctrine of atonement then did not hinder him from holding a view completely subversive of it, if followed out to its consequences. Neither can his maintaining the doctrine of atonement now disprove the charge still brought against him, that he still holds what, if true, would show the blessed Lord Jesus to have been unfit for the great work of atonement.
2. His strong and oft repeated assertions of the personal sinlessness of Christ, no more prove that the writer is sound in the faith than what I have just considered. He made the same assertions when he did hold what he now confesses to be untrue, and if carried out to its consequences, blasphemous and heretical.
3. His distinctions between the personal and relative positions of Christ, are really worth no more than the pleas already noticed. Page 23 of the Letter on the Humanity, — he says, and that, too, where he is specially labouring to make this point clear: "The personal position of the Lord Jesus, and that which was due thereunto, may perhaps be best judged of, by considering His relation to the Father before the world was. It was a relation of unchanging and unchangeable perfectness. As God and as the Eternal Son of the Father, He had an unalterable title to all blessing — a title which neither incarnation, nor the cross could change." Thus far all is true, and what all christians agree in. There has never been any question, that I am aware of, between the writer and others as to this. But he proceeds.
"In heaven the circumstances or position* of the Son, had been in accordance with that which was due to Him. He was there seen standing in all the excellency of his personal position, and until He took flesh He was receiving all that was due to that position." Now the whole question between the writer and orthodox Christians, is, as to the position assumed when he took flesh. The asserted excellency and perfectness of his personal position, before the world was, or, after his incarnation, — says nothing to the question. This, he says, and rightly, did not change, even at the cross. He would have said all this when he held the imputation to Christ of Adam's guilt. The question is, as to the new position assumed, when he took flesh. As to this, the writer goes on to say, "But when it pleased Him to assume flesh, instead of assuming it under circumstances, which would have been in accordance with that which was due to His personal position; He assumed it in a condition of weakness etc., which was not in accordance with the blessedness due to His personal position. This, therefore may be said to be the assumption of a relative position; because He voluntarily forewent that which was due to His personal position, and placed Himself under circumstances of weakness and sorrow; which only pertained to Him so long as He was pleased to continue in a certain relation to those, with whom He had chosen thus to associate Himself."
*Another has noticed the confusion here in the use of the word "position." Let the reader inquire each time it is used, — in what sense?
But here let us pause a little, and inquire, (1) Who were those with whom he chose thus to associate himself? According to the writer's oft-repeated statements, — the family of man, and the nation of Israel. (2) What was that relation to these parties, which he was pleased to assume? It was such a relation to Adam, as exposed him to that sentence of death that had been pronounced on the whole family of man. (3) What was the relation to God, which he then entered on? His personal position was that of the Eternal Son, with an unalterable title to all blessing. But we are told, he forewent that which was due to his personal position, and at his incarnation assumed a relative position. Relative to whom? Not Adam merely, nor man, nor Israel. What was the relation to God, which then commenced? "For a person to be suffering here, because He serves God, (says the writer) is one thing, but the relation of that person to God, and what he immediately receives from His hand while serving Him, is another; and it is this which the sixth Psalm an many others open to us. They describe the hand of God stretched out as rebuking in anger, and chastening in hot displeasure." Notes, page 7. (4) These then, are the "circumstances of weakness and sorrow, which only pertained to Him so long as He was pleased to continue in a certain relation to those, with whom He had thus chosen to associate Himself," But how could this be? If the relations to Adam, man, and Israel, which Christ assumed at his incarnation, had the effect of placing him in a relation to God, and God in a relation to him, which subjected him to "the sentence of death" — "the curse" "the doom of man," and which brought him under "rebuking in anger, and chastening in hot displeasure" from the hand of God himself; how could it be matter of choice with him, whether he would continue in this relative position he had assumed? If the position he had assumed, call it relative or what else you may please, was one of being under "sentence of death" exposed to that "curse" - "exposed to the doom of man," and that not substitutionally; it was one in which he could not but continue. God suspends the "sentence of death" — "the curse" — and "the doom of man," unjustly over no one. If this was Christ's relation to God, and God's relation to Christ, "because of His relation to Adam," then there must have been in his relation to Adam, that which justly exposed him to the sentence of death — the curse — the doom of man. And does it need to be proved to any one, that a person justly exposed to the sentence of death, the curse, the doom of man; and that not in the stead of others; can neither deliver himself from these inflictions, or endure them in the place of others?
There is a passage in the Letter on the Humanity, pages 27 and 28, which I must be excused for saying, does produce the worst fears in my mind, that the writer knew when he wrote it, that he was misrepresenting the facts of the case. It begins thus, "It has also been said, that the tracts teach that it was necessary for the Lord Jesus to free Himself from this relative position, or to extricate Himself from its circumstances, before He was fit to be the Lamb slain. But the tracts teach no such thing. They expressly teach that He was always fit to be the sacrifice, and therefore, seeing there was always fitness, there could be no unfitness to be delivered from. What they state, is, that He 'evidenced' His title to life, by His keeping the Law; and they teach that this was necessary by the appointment of God, — not essentially necessary. They state also that the relative position of suffering which he held, was one out of which 'He was able' to extricate, and from which He 'proved' that he could extricate Himself by His own perfect obedience."
Now as to this passage, I do not deny that the writer's later tracts teach, as he says, that Christ was always fit to be a sacrifice; and that when certain statements in the earlier tracts were objected to, he explained them in the later ones, (as he here says) to mean that certain things were necessary by the appointment of God, not essentially. But what I would solemnly urge is this, that both in the earlier and later tracts there are passages which teach that Christ had to extricate himself from the relative position in question and from its circumstances ere he made atonement for others. The original statement was (and I do not refer to it here as proof of what I say, but that it may be compared with the subsequent statements,) that though Christ was exposed to the danger of receiving all the punishment which followed upon the imputation of Adam's offence, that "though exposed to it, yet he rose above it all," — not that he was able to do it — or evidenced that he could — but that actually "he rose above it all;" that "this do, and thou shalt live, was to him a word of delivering power." In short, that being born under the curse of the exiled family "He rose out of this, region through the power of his own inherent holiness, and therefore (mark that word) never would have come into that experience of God's action which is proper for a sinner, unless he had chosen to abide it for the sake of others." Paper on Newman-street. Now what is the doctrine of the Notes? They define the period at which he did, according to the writer, rise out of this region. Speaking of the ministry of John the Baptist, he says, "Here was a door opened to Israel at once, they might come and be forgiven; so He was glad to hear that word; He heard it with a wise and attentive ear, and came to be baptised because He was one with Israel, was in their condition, one of wrath from God; consequently, when He was baptised, He took new ground; but Israel would not take it, He stood alone nearly, and the moment He took that ground, the Holy Spirit was sent down, God's seal was set upon Him, This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased."
All this is fully repeated and defended in the "Remarks etc." It is more carefully worded indeed, but the doctrine is all there. Let it be remembered that the question is whether the writer teaches in these tracts, that "it was necessary for the Lord Jesus to free Himself from the relative position" He had assumed, and "from its circumstances" ere He became the sacrifice for sin! Also, whether they only teach that "the relative position of suffering which He held was one out of which 'He was able' to extricate Himself, and from which He 'proved' that He could extricate Himself, by His own perfect obedience?" or, on the other hand, that he did actually, as originally taught, rise out of this region and its circumstances. Now turn to "Remarks" page 18 to 24. On page 18, the writer is distinguishing between the personal and relative position of our Lord. "The bosom of the Father was essentially His place as the Eternal Son; yet He was not hereby delivered from the most bitter experiences of human anguish. His being that which we read of in the first of John did not prevent Him from feeling and saying, I am afflicted and ready to die from my youth up; while I suffer thy terrors I am distracted; thy fierce wrath goeth over me, thy terrors have cut me off. They came round about me daily like water; they compassed me about together, (Ps. 88: 15, 17.") This, according to the writer, was Christ's relative position, and these were his circumstances.
"It was, (he proceeds) as I believe, after many years of sorrowful experience in the midst of transgressing Israel, had thus (observe this) passed over the head of the Lord Jesus, that a great intervention of Divine mercy on behalf of that people occurred. This was by the mission of John the Baptist, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. It opened an opportunity for Israel to confess; to quit the place in which they had been standing; a place already visited, and yet more severely threatened by the curse of the broken law, and to take new ground before their God. The Lord Jesus welcomed that message; He heard it with a wise and understanding ear. He had, indeed, no sins of His own to confess: (no that is not the question,) but the sins of the nation in the midst of which He had placed Himself, and of which He formed a part, were countless as the sand upon the sea shore. He did, therefore, what Israel ought to have done, but which they would not do, (i.e., He quitted the place in which He, with them, had been standing, and took new ground before God:) He confessed and humbled Himself before heaven and before men, and received the baptism of repentance, not as the substitute of Israel, for it was on the cross alone He took the vicarious place; but as one of them, and doing as a righteous Israelite though alone, what they ought nationally and individually to have done; and God owned His obedience in thus fulfilling all righteousness. The heavens were opened over His head; Himself owned as the beloved Son, and anointed as the servant of God with the Holy Ghost and with power."
Such is the statement of the writer. Until then, Christ's being what we read of in the first of John did not hinder him from feeling and saying, I am afflicted and ready to die from my youth up, thy fierce wrath goeth over me. Until his baptism, that was his relative position — his relation to God — not indeed because of his own sins, for it is admitted that he had none — but because "he formed a part of" Israel, whose sins were countless as the sand. The ministry of John opened to Israel a door by which they might "quit the place in which they" — and Christ as a part of them — "had been standing," and "take new ground before their God." They would not do this, but he, Christ, did not as their substitute, "but as one of them;" and so instead of the continuance of wrath and terror from God, such as he had endured till then, the heavens were opened over his head, and he was owned and anointed of God. But the writer proceeds.
"This was indeed, a separate and a peculiar place." He had quitted, as Israel might have done, the place in which he had been standing, and had taken new ground before God. What is this but the old doctrine of rising out of the region of being into which He was born? And see what follows; "doubtless, he might have retained, if He had so pleased, that separate place for ever; but how then could the scriptures have been fulfilled? He might have left Israel in their iniquities, and stood for ever separate in his own integrity; but then Israel would have been lost, etc., and this could not be. He had come to be obedient unto death, even the death of the cross." Now let any one compare this with the paper on Newman-street, and remember that when the above was written, the author had not renounced any part of the doctrines of the paper on Newman-street, and let him say whether the drift of the one be not identical with that of the other. Is there not in both (1) exposure to wrath, (2) a rising out of, or deliverance from this by virtue of His obedience: and (3) instead of the "retaining this separate place," the going again under wrath — now substitutionally — in the stead of others? And now what shall be said to the author's disclaiming of any such doctrine as taught in the tracts, in the passage already quoted from page 27 of the Letter on the humanity
The writer proceeds, in the passage under consideration, Remarks, page 20, to describe the joy to our Lord which ensued on the transition from wrath and terror to being owned and anointed of God. Then, on page 21, he carefully distinguishes between substitution, which he rightly limits to the cross, and the identification with Israel which he says was expressed in the act of His being baptised. He then observes, page 22, "the period of His baptism may be considered the great turning point in the life of the Lord Jesus," and proceeds to illustrate the difference between the preceding and succeeding periods by the "difference between Sinai, the mount of blackness, and Zion, the mountain of light, and grace, and blessing." We then get the following, statement, "And as if in token of this great change in His dispensational relations, for I anxiously repeat, that there was no change in Him personally, heaven which had not before been opened over Him, was opened over His head, and the Holy Ghost descended and abode upon Him. He stood in a new position, etc." Now the whole question is as to those very relations. Mr. N. affirms in the passage, page 27, of the Letter on the humanity, that "they — the tracts state also that the relative position of suffering, which He held, was one out of which 'He was able' to extricate Himself, and from which He 'proved' that He could extricate Himself by His perfect obedience." But the passage we have been examining in one of these tracts states a great deal more. It states that a transition actually took place. That he quitted the place in which He had been standing, and took new ground before God. That He had stood in a place where wrath and terror were what He received from God, and this position the writer illustrates by Sinai, the mountain of fire, and blackness, and tempest. The new ground he took at his baptism, he compares to Zion, the mountain of light, and grace, and blessing, and says that "in token of this great change in His dispensational "relations" though there was no change personally, "heaven was opened over His head," and "He stood in a new position." This "new position" — this "separate and peculiar place" we are told, "He might have retained" — but "then, how could the scriptures have been fulfilled? He had come to be obedient to death, even the death of the cross." Where the difference is in principle, between this and the doctrine as originally propounded in the paper on Newman-street, I am at a loss to understand.
Should it be alleged that though this passage does affirm that a great change took place in the relations to God, of the Lord Jesus, at his baptism; yet there is no statement that such a change was needed, that it is not said, He had to undergo this transition, — I admit it, at once, as to this passage. But I turn to another in the same tract, where the necessity of such a transition is affirmed, though inconsistently enough, it is there said to be, not at his baptism, but at his death. I have myself supposed, that in writing the passage I am about to quote, — the truth must have flashed upon the mind of the author, that really nothing less than death could extricate any one from such a position as that in which he represents our Lord to have been placed for the first thirty years of his life; and so he passes over his baptism, and fixes the moment of this mighty transition at his death, forgetting, however, that if his death were needed for this, it is impossible it could avail for others. Forgetting also, that even the death of one standing in such relations to God as he describes, could not avail; no, not for himself. I refer to pages 31, 32, of "Remarks," etc., We have the first distinction "between the person and the dispensational, or relative positions of our Lord." The former, as in passages already quoted is his sonship and Godhead. "But yet," the writer says, "during his ministry on earth, He stood in a place dispensationally lower than that into which He has now brought us His church. Man was yet in his distance from God. There was as yet no glorified humanity on the right hand of the throne of God. The mighty power whereby God raised Jesus from the dead, and set Him at his own right hand in the heavenly places, was not yet put forth. The Spirit had not yet become the present unfolder and seal, (though He might be the prophetic testifier) of these things." All this, I suppose, beginning at "There was as yet, etc.," is intended to distinguish our place, — the place of the church. But Christ's place, the writer says, was lower than this. What was his place? "Man was yet in his distance from God." Now proceed. "And Jesus, as man, was associated with this place of distance in which man in the flesh was; and He had through obedience, to find His way to that point where God could meet Him, as having finished His appointed work, — glorify Him and set Him at His own right hand in the heavenly places; and that point was death, — death on the cross, death under the wrath of God Was it then Christ's association as man, with man's place of distance from God, which made it needful for him, through obedience to find his way to that point where God could meet him, viz. death under wrath? Where then is substitution? And what can we think of a writer, who, having penned and never recalled a passage like the above, could still coolly write the exculpatory passage quoted from pages 27, 28, of the Letter on the Humanity?
There is but one passage more I would notice in this part of my observations. It occurs in Mr. N.'s recantation of his error, as to placing Christ under the federal headship of Adam. "Many passages were quoted," he says, by the Irvingites, "to prove that Jesus was not only man, but man in weakness; that he had a mortal body, unlike to that which Adam first had in Paradise; and they added that the cause of his body being mortal, was that sin (as they said) inhered in it."
Now before proceeding to the words on which I am wishful to comment, let us understand the meaning of the words we use. Mr. N. says here, that the Irvingites affirmed that Christ had a mortal body, unlike to that which Adam first had in Paradise. Adam had a body, I suppose, in Paradise nor am I aware that any one has imagined that he brought any other body out of Paradise, than that which was originally formed out of the dust of the earth, and placed in Paradise. His body was not immortal before he fell, if by immortal be meant, incapable of death. It did actually die. So that in the sense of its being capable of death, — of its being possible that it should die, — Adam's body was mortal before he fell. In what other sense was it mortal afterwards? In what sense are our bodies mortal? Clearly in this sense, that they are under the necessity of dying, Sentence of death was pronounced on Adam's body when he had sinned, and it was that sentence, under which we are all born, that placed his and our bodies not in a capacity of dying merely, (that was the state of his before) but under the necessity of dying. There can but be these two senses of the word mortal. In the one sense, that of capacity of dying, both Christ's body, and Adam's in innocence, were mortal. Both did die, thus proving that they could. But Adam's body was under no necessity of dying before he fell. Nor was Christ's. Else, how could he say, "I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No one (see the Greek) taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again." But now mark Mr. N.'s words. "In allowing that the Lord Jesus had a body different from that of Adam in Paradise, I was right. I was right also in stating that the Lord Jesus partook of certain consequences of Adam's sin, of which the being possessed of a mortal body was one."
Now if there be one thing more plainly revealed in scripture than another, it is that "the wages of sin is death." "By one man sin entered into the world and death by sin, and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned." Exposure to death, the being under the necessity of dying, mortality in that sense, there cannot be, apart from sin either inherent or imputed. To say that there could, would be to impute to God the injustice of placing the party concerned under a sentence which had not been deserved. Besides, who is it that is spoken of as having had "the power of death?" "Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, He also Himself likewise took part of the same; that through death He might destroy Him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; and deliver them who through fear of death were all their life time subject to bondage." Now what does our Lord say? "The prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me." Could he have said this, had Satan, who had the power of death been able to find in him mortality in the sense of being under the necessity of dying, as we are. It avails nothing to say that his personal glory as the Son, and the appointment and power of God his Father, infallibly preserved his life till he was made sin and thus died as a sacrifice. The prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me. In me. It is not he hath nothing in my Divinity — nothing in my character — nothing in my soul. If Satan could have found in the body of our Lord what Mr. N. asserts was there, our Lord could not have said "findeth nothing in me." Nay, Satan, in that case, would have found all that he could desire. He would have found in the body of our Lord a necessity for dying, which would have effectually hindered his voluntarily laying down a life on which Satan had no claim, over which death had no power — it being "impossible that he should be holden of it;" thus setting aside all the power of the enemy, destroying him that had the power of death, that is, the devil, and delivering from their bondage, them who through fear of death had been all their life time subject thereunto.
Remarks on Mr. Newton's Letter to --. [July 11th 1850.]
"If it could be of any real service to you for me to toil through the long letters of accusation, I trust I would not refuse; but I cannot see that any advantage could result from doing it. Any definite question on any of my own authorised statements, or on scripture, or any interrogation as to what I do or do not believe, I am quite willing to answer; but I assure you all my days would be spent in "perverse disputings," if I were to follow out from time to time, the crooked reasonings of my enemies, who seem to have no greater pleasure than "to strive to entangle me in my words, or prove me to be in any thing wrong, showing certainly very little disposition to "hope all things."
"There are some subjects, which from their very nature, do not admit of being treated of in language, which the ingenuity of the caviller cannot instantly misrepresent and pervert. If I had said, "that hour knoweth not the Son" my enemies would instantly have declared that I denied Christ to be God, because God must know every thing. If I had said that the Lord submitted to the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins, they would immediately have declared that I represented him as a sinner who needed remission of sins. If I had said that Christ was "in the likeness of sinful flesh," they would have insisted on attaching a moral instead of a physical sense to the expression, and would have declared that I ascribed sin to the Lord Jesus."
Ans. I do not doubt that whatever the writer says on these subjects is viewed with more suspicion than the statements of others, and with more than at one time attached to his own. But whence has this arisen? Has he not assuredly taught what he himself confesses to be erroneous, and if followed out to its consequences, blasphemous and heretical? And have not his confession of this, and his subsequent writings, been characterised by such a jealousy over his own reputation, as to beget a well grounded fear that he is much more inclined to spare his errors than to sacrifice his reputation by confessing them? Can he wonder that all he says should be rigorously examined? Had he made full and open confession of his error in such sort as to satisfy his brethren that his soul was really humbled before God on account of it, he would not have had to utter such complainings as the above.
"If I had said that the Lord submitted to the baptism of repentance, for the remission of sins." — Who has said this? Not scripture. We are told in scripture that he submitted to what was in the case of all others the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. But in his case, it is explained that it was the fulfilling of righteousness. "John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptised of thee, and comest thou to me? and Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now, for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness." Then he suffered him.
"There are therefore many reasons why the controversy must be given up as hopeless. Even if my opponents did not wrest my words from their context, and pervert their meaning; yet it is very evident that they do not receive the primary declarations of Scripture as to the person and work of the Son of God. Some deny that he had a body of flesh like ours, sin excepted; — others disbelieve that he had strictly a human soul; — others declare that it is heresy to say that his human nature was as distinct from the Divine as the gold was from the wood in the boards of the tabernacle — others regret the statements of Bishop Pearson as heresy, because they secretly believe that something divine commingled with the human nature of the Lord — others reject the thought of vicarious suffering even on the cross; — others virtually deny it by representing Christ as "becoming sin" or brought into the actual condition of the sinner on the Cross, instead of being judicially treated as if sin on our account."
Ans. It is no new thing for a person charged with unsoundness in the faith, to endeavour to create a diversion in his own favour by retorting the charge on his accusers. Still, considering who Mr. N.'s opponents have been, and the well known sentiments of the principal of them, it goes far to stamp unsoundness on Mr. N.'s views to hear him say of them as above — "they do not receive the primary declarations of Scripture as to the person and work of the Son of God." As to what he charges on his opponents, Mr. N. gives no names, quotes no words. As to the two first charges, I have never heard of any who hold any such thoughts. With regard to the third, we may well ask, where is the scripture which distinctly authorises the statement as to the wood and gold in the boards of the tabernacle? "No one knoweth the Son but the Father," ought, as it appears to me to repress such thoughts. Bishop Pearson's thought has been already weighed, and saints must judge. Great names add nothing to the force of truth, and can give no real sanction to error. As for any who reject the doctrine of vicarious suffering on the cross, woe to them! Gal. 1: 8, 9. The statement that some virtually deny it, is directed against Mr. Harris and others, myself included, and will be weighed anon.
"How could any one who rejects the primary truths of prophecy, expect to understand the Revelation? much less can any who are heretical on the primary truths which concern the Lord, understand any thing revealed in the Psalms respecting Him. He, for example, who believes that Christ was in unfallen Adamic humanity, and not "in the likeness of sinful flesh," can surely understand nothing in the Psalms aright. Therefore it is worse than useless to argue about them, until the previous points are settled. He who is unable to explain the reason of Christ's baptism, will be equally unable to comprehend the Psalms."
Ans. Then was Christ in fallen humanity? Is this what the writer understands by the scripture statement, that he was sent "in the likeness of sinful flesh?" Christ himself explains the reason of his own baptism. Not as the writer, who says that in it he quitted the place in which he had been standing — one of wrath from God — and took new ground before God, in token of which heaven was opened over his head; but simply "for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness." Would that his words contented us,
I do not doubt that it would be much more agreeable to the writer to engage those whom he calls his opponents in abstract discussions on what he terms "the previous points," than to have his own printed statements on the Psalms, compared with each other and compared with scripture. But the question is not so much whether his opponents understand the Psalms — we all have need to learn; — as, whether he has not so interpreted many of the Psalms as to teach deadly heresy? But then he says;
"Moreover any one who makes this a question of heresy as regards me, must be incapacitated either by prejudice or by ignorance from entering on the consideration of the question — because I have always in the most unequivocal language averred that ALL the sufferings of the Lord, from the cradle to the tomb, were sacrificial, and fell on Him entirely because He was working out, in the appointed way, the redemption of His people."
Ans. I suppose ninety-nine persons out of a hundred reading this, would understand the writer to say that he had always averred in the most unequivocal language that ALL the sufferings of Christ were vicarious or expiatory. i.e., they would understand the word sacrificial which he uses, in this sense. But is this the sense in which he uses it? If it was, I don't know how many passages of his tracts might be brought in flat contradiction to the above statement. But this is just a specimen of the sort of "unequivocal language" employed by the writer. The word "sacrificial" may be understood in the sense in which we speak of the death of Christ as a sacrifice — "to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself" — or it may be understood in the way in which his whole life, all his active obedience, was a sacrifice; and in which sense though in a subordinate way, we are exhorted to present our bodies "a living sacrifice." The writer does not hold that ALL the sufferings which Christ received direct from the hand of God, were sacrificial in the sense of atoning or substitutional. He maintains that at least until Christ was thirty years of age, he was enduring from the hand of God "rebuking in anger and chastening in hot displeasure," not substitutionally, but as the result of his relation to God, and God's relation to him, because of his relation to Adam and to Israel. Now the whole question is this — if Christ's relation to God, and God's relation to Christ, because of his (Christ's) relation to Adam and to Israel were such as to expose him (Christ) to rebuking in wrath, and chastening in hot displeasure, — if they were such as to expose him to the sentence of death — to that curse — to the doom of man — to the inflictions that had fallen on Israel — how could he either in life or death present any sacrifice acceptable to God?
"If my statements had been ambiguous on this point — if I did not distinctly assert that ALL His sufferings were solely on behalf of His people, and none on His own account in any sort whatsoever — there might have been some excuse for the charge of heresy; but to say of sufferings that He incurred of His own voluntary will, as the Redeemer, that such sufferings could unfit Him to be the Redeemer, is a contradiction in terms. How could He be at the same moment, by the Father's appointment engaged in the work of redemption — and be unfitted by what He was so doing or suffering, for the work of redemption?"
Ans. When the writer held the doctrine that Christ was "under Adam as a federal head," did he not aver in the same sense as he now does that all Christ suffered was sacrificial? Did he not believe that of his own voluntary will, Christ entered on that relationship to Adam, and that all the while he stood in that relationship to Adam, he was working out in the appointed way, the redemption of his people? And yet is it not now the writer's judgment that if any such relationship to Adam had really existed, it would have rendered Christ unfit to be a sacrifice — that it would have unfitted him to be the Redeemer? Why then should it be impossible for others to perceive the same inconsistency in the writer still? What impossibility is there in Mr. N. holding that certain relations existed between God and Christ, because of Christ's relation to Adam and Israel, which, if they had really existed, would have as surely unfitted him for the work of redemption, is the federal relation which Mr. N. once held was sustained by Christ to Adam, and which he now admits would have unfitted our Lord to be a sacrifice? The writer's inconsistency in maintaining all the while, that in the very sufferings which he says flowed from these relations, he (Christ) was engaged in the work of redemption, cannot in any wise affect the conclusion that these relations and their consequent sufferings did unfit him for that work.
"I must repeat, therefore, that any one, who overlooking the heretical statements of my opponents, consents to raise a charge of heresy on a question of this kind, is morally incapacitated from entering into the question at all. Such an one is trebly guilty — under the profession of being zealous for the truth, he refuses to recognize heresy where it really is — he strives to make an accusation of heresy out of statements which by their very nature should have rendered such a charge impossible — and lastly by false accusation, he divides and scatters the church of God."
Ans. The modesty of this statement in view of all that the author has written, renders remark upon it superfluous.
"The first of this series of letters contains I suppose the substance of all the others. The writer maintains that Christ did not suffer any thing under the hand of God, until the cross. In that case, He never suffered sweat of the brow — weakness of body — the scorching of the sun — the biting of the cold — the fury of the storm — the cravings of hunger — the oppression of the Gentiles — in a word, He received from God's hand, only what Adam received in Paradise. Am I asked to believe this? or am I to believe, that although all these things did fall on Christ, yet that none of them were the result of the operation of the hand of God? Am I to believe that God had left the world to itself, and that He had introduced no governmental arrangements into it? Am I asked to believe this — in other words, to become a deist?
Ans. No, you are not, and you know you are not. As to what the real difference is between your thoughts on these things and the doctrine of the letter you are commenting on, we shall see what it is ere long. First, let us hear your next paragraph.
"Indeed all this is wicked trifling, not only with the word of God, but with facts plain and palpable to the eyes of men. Was not Christ in unparadisiacal circumstances? Did not those unparadisiacal circumstances come from God? And were they not the consequence of Adam's having sinned? Will any one really dare to say that Christ did not suffer under governmental arrangements of God — which governmental arrangements were the consequence of Adam's sin?"
Ans. All this indignation, real or assumed, is, as any one may perceive, against a phantom of the writer's imagination. It is not directed against any thing that his opponents have said, but only against certain deductions of his own from what they have said. Because his doctrine that Christ was suffering under the hand of God for the first thirty years of his life, not hunger, thirst, weariness, etc. — as you would suppose from the above — but wrath, indignation, and hot displeasure; — because this doctrine of the author's is objected to, he would have it understood that those who object to it deny that Christ suffered from hunger, thirst, weariness and the like. But is there no alternative save these two conclusions? The paragraph last quoted would seem to imply this; and it is in fact so constructed as to induce the unsuspecting reader quietly to acquiesce in the whole of Mr. N.'s doctrine, while he supposes that he is only giving his assent to self-evident truths; the real question being silently assumed instead of being stated as the point at issue. Separately, each question has to be answered in the affirmative; but for want of a fourth, when an affirmative answer has been obtained to these three, Mr. N. assumes that his point is proved, and intends his reader to conclude so too. But let us look at this. Mr. N. asks;
1. "Was not Christ in unparadisiacal circumstances?" Ans. Yes, in unparadisiacal circumstances he was; but not in any relationship to God less acceptable than was that of Adam in paradise, before he fell. Adam by creation was the son of God. See Luke 3: 38. Jesus, as man, by miraculous, divine conception, was the Son of God also. See Luke 1: 35. His relation to God, therefore, as man, was not unparadisiacal, though his circumstances were.
2. "Did not those unparadisiacal circumstances come from God?" Undoubtedly they did. To Adam and all his natural descendants, they came from God as the expression of his holy, righteous displeasure against sin. "So he (God) drove out the man." To Christ, because of the entirely different relation existing between him as man and God, these circumstances came from God's hands to be by him endured, as a part of that service of love, in which it was his meat and drink to do his Father's will, and glorify him on the earth; besides being his appointed path to that blessed office he now fills as "a merciful and faithful high priest; for in that he himself hath suffered, being tempted, He is able to succour them that are tempted." Heb. 2: 10-17.
3. "And were they not the consequence of Adam's having sinned?" Undoubtedly they were; and all men save Christ, endured them as such. To him they only came as the consequence of Adam's sin, in the sense in which his whole mission and work were occasioned by it. The grace of God took occasion from the foreseen sin of Adam, and its results, to prepare from before the foundation of the world, the whole work of redemption; and in consequence, Christ came and suffered both in life, and to death. In no other way did "unparadisiacal circumstances" come on Christ, as the consequence of Adam's having sinned. They come on us as expressive of God's displeasure against Adam's sin, under the imputation of which we are all born.
4. There is a fourth question which it is well to consider. Was there any thing in Christ's relation to Adam, to bring him into such a relation to God, and God into such a relation to him, — as to make these "unparadisiacal circumstances" the necessary result of these relations? This is what the writer holds, and has taught plainly enough in all his tracts on these subjects; and he would have the reader, in giving an affirmative answer to the three questions he proposes, quietly to acquiesce in an affirmative answer to this fourth question as well.
I would notice here, a letter from one of Mr. N.'s fellow-labourers, Mr. Offord, in which the same stratagem is used. In employing the word stratagem, I do not mean that the writer consciously seeks to deceive. But the reader must judge of the fallacy involved, when he sees his words. They are as follow:
"The Scriptures teach various things as to man's condition, or rather conditions.
1st. — Moral, as depraved.
2nd — Physical, as marred by the fall.
3rd. — Circumstantial, as placed in a groaning creation.
In each and all differing from man in Paradise, as
1st. — Undepraved.
2nd. — Unmarred.
3rd. — Untroubled.
Or in Paradise, it was,
1st. — Innocence.
2nd. — Physical Beauty.
3rd. — Pleasantness of circumstances.
Now it is,
1st. — Depravity.
2nd — Infirmity.
3rd — Thorns and thistles."
Now in all this laboured statement of the contrast between fallen and unfallen man, the point on which this whole controversy hinges, is left out. That is, man's relationship to God. Mr. Newton's original statement as to this was sound. "There are three particulars," he says, "which mark our condition as sinners before God. First, original, or vicarious guilt, imputed, (or reckoned) to us on account of the transgression of our first parent. Secondly, original sin, or indwelling corruption. And, thirdly, actual transgression." Now the first of these is left out, in Mr. Offords statement. Depravity, infirmity, thorns, and thistles, are given as the opposites of innocence, beauty, and pleasantness of circumstances; but the whole question of relationship to him, who first placed man in Paradise, and then because of sin, drove him out, is omitted and passed by. The reason is obvious. The imputation of Adam's guilt to Christ, once held by Mr. N., is now repudiated by him. But he