Imagini ale paginilor
PDF
ePub

66

fleshly sentimentalism, and shadowy mysticism. It is this which he esteems the place of living power," and it seems not only to give its possessor a light on divine subjects which the Scriptures do not give, but also empowers him, where their dicta are against him, either to remodel or set them altogether aside; and to class as mere 66 reasonings," and "the region of notions and theories," the opinions of those who soberly prefer their express letter. If he seems thus to depreciate adherence to the mere letter of the sacred pages, it is only to pave the way for a fatal departure from both letter and spirit. This object he has veiled under a profusion of sanctimonious expressions, and of earnest solicitude for the glory of God and of Christ. His zeal indeed is so great, as to lead him to the expressed opinion that "little or no mercy" ought to be shewn to such as derogate from that glory: and it is this apparent sincerity, which, while it serves to make the real tendency of his opinions the more hateful, will nevertheless not be without its effect of deceiving those who look at the outside only, and have not been accustomed to weigh all things by "the word" and "by the testimony." "The Son of God" has been made the subject of an article, in two parts. The object of the first of them is to prove that Christ was, "from eternity, in the bosom of the Father." This idea, as it is developed by the writer, seems calculated to sap the very foundations of truth. He does not refer to the many proofs, existing in the Scriptures, that Christ was personally "God from eternity; that then is by no means his object. He notices none of those Scriptures, but abstracts a few words-part only of a sentence, from John i. 18,-" the only-begotten Son which is in the bosom of the Father," in order to make them mean to "the affections," that which they certainly do not convey to the reason, ,"viz: that the apostle declares the Son's existence in the Father's bosom alone from eternity The verse itself simply states, that since no man had ever seen the Father, but one, it was impossible that any but that one could reveal him; and that one, the apostle says, who is (that is, is now) in the bosom of the Father, hath declared him. But what is the import of the words "in the bosom of the Father?" Let the Scriptures decide. In John xvi. 28, we find Christ saying, "I leave the world and go unto the Father."-In Acts i. 2, that " going" took place before the eyes of the disciples, and the angels said to them, that he had gone into heaven. Next, in Acts iii. 21, we are informed that "the heavens" which have received, are to retain him until the times of restitution. Then in Acts vii. 56, we find Stephen declaring he saw the Son of Man standing at the right of God. And finally, in Hebrews x. 12, we read, "This man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins, for ever sat down at the right of God." From all which, reason, speaking by the framers of certain creeds, affirms that Christ sitteth at the right hand of God the Father Almighty.

66

But this is much too matter-of-fact for our author, who is pleased to declare that Christ existed in the Father's bosom, only and precisely as a babe is said to be in the bosom of its earthly parent-and this from eternity. We find the author thus stating and answering what appears to have been objected to by some "It was asked me, Had the Father no bosom, till the babe was born in Bethlehem? Indeed, fully sure I am, as that inquiry suggests (?) he had from all eternity. The bosom of the Father was an eternal habitation, enjoyed by the Son in the ineffable delight of the Father, the hiding place of love,' as one has called it, of inexpressible love, which is beyond glory; for glory

one.

[ocr errors]

may be revealed, this cannot." (p. 183.) It is difficult to handle such a subject with delicacy and reverence, but regard to truth necessitates it. Of itself this passage indicates mere fleshly sentimentalism; but taken in connection with his subsequent declarations, it gives colour to the fear that this writer harbours a far deeper evil in his heart. The very question put to him was suggested by analogy of known phenomena, which argue non-existence prior to the appearance of those phenomea-and should have awakened the writer to the real tendency of his thoughts. The qualification, too, that Christ had existence from eternity in the Father's bosom, is afterwards defined to mean "in the God-head," -an expression which, as this writer uses it, leaves ample room to doubt if he, at the bottom of his heart, believes that there was one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost," from eternity. These are his words, "The Spirit was given, breathed out, by Jesus risen (John xx). The Holy Ghost then proceeded from him, and in that way became the Spirit. But will it be thought that he was not the Spirit in the Godhead before? Never by a saint. And so the Son. He was born of the overshadowing of the Holy Ghost, and so became Son of God; but in like manner shall that affect the thought that he was the Son in the Godhead before? (p. 190.) The course of events among the Brethren prove that such statements as these are subsequently taken up and made the basis of further evil. They involve the virtual denial of the personality of the Son and Spirit from eternity; for while there is admission that both were in the Godhead, it is also implied that until the Son was born, he was not personally, i. e. had not personal existence as the Son, and until the Holy Ghost was breathed forth, he had not personal existence as such-indeed there seems small foundation of personal existence in him even now! Coming, as these statements do, from one whose sole object was to represent the crucifixion as illusory and unreal, we are warranted in the fear that he conceives of the Son and Spirit, as of a mystic avatar-expressing only certain emanations of the will of the supreme being, and nothing more.

But it is with his thoughts on the crucifixion we have to do, and he has left nothing to conjecture there. He does not, however, come to them at once, but in a very roundabout way. Divested of his very mystic and perplexing oratory, they are to be summed up in few words. He begins thus," Touching the promised seed of the woman-it was said to the serpent, 'thou shalt bruise his heel.' The death of this seed was thus to be as peculiar as his birth. He was, in birth, to be the woman's seed; in death, he was to have his heel bruised." (p. 193.)

We have here the admission that death and the bruising of the heel, mean the same thing, and the necessary inference seems to be that in death the bruising of the heel would find its literal accomplishment. But such is not the conclusion he draws from his own premises. He says, "had death, I ask, any title? None whatever. Whatever title the everlasting covenant had on his heel, death had none on his flesh and blood." (Ibid.) He does not explain what the heel was over which he admits death had a title, but denies that the heel meant the flesh and blood of the promised seed. The heel, being that part of man which touches the earth, fitly typified the human body of Christ,- -a body which he derived from his mother, (man of the substance of his mother,-Athanasian creed,) who derived that substance from Adam, who was made of the earth. Wherefore, if bruising that heel imported its death,

then surely death had a title, even by the very words of the everlasting

covenant.

If not, there must indeed be something peculiar in those words, and it is this writer's province to unfold that peculiarity, and reconcile these seeming contradictions. He thus proceeds to do it. "In this blessed one, if I may so express it, there was a capability of meeting the divine purpose that his heel should be bruise, but there was no exposure to death in any wise." (Ibid.) In other words, it was possible for Christ to meet the divine purpose that his heel should be bruised in death, without being, in fact, put to death at all! But can that be his meaning? Is it possible he can mean to prepare us to expect not literal fulfilment of the terms of the everlasting covenant of the living God, but some way by which its literal fulfilment may be evaded and yet seem to have been a reality! It is even so. He says, "The Jews are again and again charged with being his murderers." Surely they are, and rightly so. We are all in the same condemnation. It is the guilt of murder that lies at our door. The Jews took his blood on them and on their children. To all moral intents, and in a full judicial sense, they were "His betrayers and murderers," though it was neither their spear, nor the pressure of the cross, nor the yielding of nature, which took that life away. He gave it up himself. No man took it from him. He laid it down of himself. (p. 206.)

of

We have it here plainly stated, that in point of fact, they who actually crucified the Lord, were in no respect more guilty of that act, than we, who were not born at the time; and indeed, how could they be so, for if their spear and cross did not take his life away, it is evident they did not put him to death, for he has never suffered death!

That there may be no mistake in this latter point, viz. that the writer does really mean to say he has not suffered death, he has twice repeated that his explanation of the mystery is the only way to account for the fact that so much surprised Pilate. It seems Pilate was quite right in supposing it was impossible death could have taken place. He says, "Pilate marvelled that he was dead already : he would not believe it; no time had been passed on the cross sufficient to extort life.". "The thought we claim is thus the only interpreter of the strict literal history of the fact." (The italics are his own.)

It needs only to be added, that this doctrine also makes the entire Gospels give false testimony as to the reality of the obedience and sufferings of Christ; and in fact it is to destroy the belief in the real and true humanity of Christ, it has been invented. The ground on which the writer opposes this doctrine is replete with dishonour to God; it is that true humanity was capable of sinning: capable of sinning in a higher degree than capable of dying. These words infer bias to evil-a bias which falls upon the Creator;—a doctrine equal to the worst that has yet been put forth by the worst of infidels.

As we have said before, it was one of the purposes of God in the Incarnation of Christ, to meet and refute this horrible dishonour to his name. The real question at issue is whether true humanity was capable of obedience; and its solution depends altogether upon another question, viz., was the humanity of Christ true humanity? If it was, then he has, to the glory of God's name, evidenced that true humanity was capable cf obedience. Wherefore, to seek to destroy the testimony to that true humanity, is to throw back upon God the reproach of evil angels and evil men, which can be met only by the fact of the true humanity of Christ.

70

HERETICAL DOCTRINES OF THE PLYMOUTH BRETHREN.

In conclusion, let the reader but reflect on the evil tendency of the doctrines which have been presented to his consideration; let him then reflect what view the Almighty must needs have of them, the more especially as they have been solemnly put forth as written in express vindication of his glory, and by those who esteem themselves, in an especial manner, nigh to him, as his children; and will he be at all surprised that he has permitted the men who have put them forth, to fall into every sort of reproach? Is it not rather matter of increased faith in God that he has done so ? Does that fact not proclaim the reality of the nighness of God in chastisement, upon those who have thus given occasion for the blaspheming of his Name? And what does he say to them? His word is still the same to all his erring ones, "RETURN UNTO ME, AND I WILL RETURN UNTO YOU."

71

SKETCH

OF THE

PRINCIPLES AND RISE OF THE PLYMOUTH BRETHREN.

The fall of any considerable body of Christians has a very evil effect upon all classes of the community.

While the philosopher and mere man of the world regard it with a degree of interest, it is principally because such an event affords them fresh insight into the motives which influence the minds of men. It is therefore they delight to trace the steps by which men are led to adopt principles,-to carry them into practice at a considerable cost of self-denial, and perhaps much painful sacrifice, and are nevertheless by-and-bye seen to throw them to the winds, as if they had never been worth a thought! But the interest with which they regard the circumstance itself, is untinged by any shade of sorrow. On the contrary, accustomed to judge by outward results alone, they conclude from the fall of those who have professed to lean upon God and upon His Scriptures, that there is no truth in the fact of His support, and are thus fortified in the secret hope that the Creator does not concern himself in that which some call religion.

And if the Christian regards such an event in a very different light; if he feels a real sorrow at every fresh instance of dishonour done to the name of the Lord, still the failure of a body of sincere Christians is pregnant with evil even towards him. There is in the heart, even of the children of God, a chord which the great enemy of man well knows how to touch; and where the failure of some who have attempted it, leads others to the conclusion that it is vain to seek to embody and carry into practice pure principles of religious truth, the enemy has already touched that chord he has reaped the fruit of his labour in overthrowing such a body.

But towards the masses of men, the failure of a body of Christians has an aspect of pure evil alone. It is especially so when that failure has been attended by circumstances of moral obliquity and of indecent violence which even the most illiterate can appreciate in their true character of unmixed evil. The masses are (most unfortunately for themselves) in the habit of judging of God's truth rather by its results in those who profess it, than by His own declaration of what those results ought to be, and hence the misconduct of Christians has a twofold character for evil-it causes the name of God to be blasphemed; and it tends to harden in the ways of sin, those whom He desires to turn from sin by His children's means.

It is therefore ever desirable that when the failure of any considerable body of sincere Christians has become matter of notoriety, a clear and dispassionate

« ÎnapoiContinuă »