Page images
PDF
EPUB
[ocr errors]

REMARKS.

The object of these passages is to shew that the same Christ, Word-God" that dwelt in Adam and in all men, dwelt afterwards in the Man Jesus. Wherein then did Adam and the Lord Jesus differ? for Adam once had a holy body, and it is said that the same Word- God dwelt in them both. Moreover, Christ the Word-God must have been separate from Adam in whom He is said to have been; and so Christ is spoken of as equally separate from the holy manhood of Jesus. We trust that nothing more need be said to shew how entirely the true doctrine of the incarnation is denied. "Christ" is not the name of any "light, spirit, nature or principle" which was in Adam and afterwards clothed itself, dwelt in, or resided in the body of Jesus; but it is the title of a Man even that Man who is Jehovah and Man in one Person* These figures of "clothing itself, residing in," &c. (expressions universally used by Penn, Pennington, Fisher, and other early Friends) as in Irvingism, so also here, are only a cloak for the denial of the great truth that the Word ". was made or became flesh" (John i.) in such a manner as for God and Man to become

* We need not perplex ourselves, as some have done, with metaphysical difficulties about the word Person. When any one performs actions for which he is responsible as HIS actions, that Being is a Person in the practical sense of the word. The Lord Jesus was responsible for His actions; He was responsible for what He said and did when conversing with the Doctors in the temple. He had distinct responsibility! But who had this distinct responsibility? In other words, who was this Person? Not God simply, neither man simply, but Immanuel-i. e. God and Man in one Person. It will be obvious how the above extracts take the personality from Immanuel and ascribe it to Christ IN Jesus, making the "holy manhood" not distinct (for that would be trne) but separate from the Word Christ-just as a garment is from the Person whom it clothes. This is just the doctrine of Mr. Irving, whereby the Incarnation, and consequently the Atonement, is virtually denied.

C

one Person, to which Person alone, as anointed with the Holy Ghost, the title Christ belongeth, and not to any power or principle distinct from Jesus of Nazareth.

Secondly-the whole testimony of revelation is to the wonderful truth, that salvation is the work of a Man."There is one Mediator between God and man, a Man (av0owToç) Christ Jesus." It was the subject of the first prophecy of scripture-"The Seed of the woman shall bruise the serpent's head." And I need not recal to remembrance the many texts respecting the Son of David, the Second Adam, &c. all ascribing PERSONALITY and the WORK of salvation not to Christ IN Jesus, but to Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ. But we are taught by Penn, that it is "Christ, the Word-God, who is by sin grieved and burthened and bears the iniquities of such as so sin and reject His benefits;" (Penn, vol. i, p. 256.) and that this bearing of iniquity was true of the Word-God, previous to the time (p. 255)-during the time (p. 257)-and since the time (p. 256) when He "inhabited that holy person who was born at Bethlehem ;"" and therefore" (he continues) "we ought chiefly to appropriate salvation to Christ as the Word-God, and to the holy manhood but secondarily and instrumentally, I mean as it was a chosen instrument or vessel, in and by which God declared the blessed glad tidings of love, and His message of reconciliation to the world; in which He gave the most heavenly example of purity, and through whose whole life, doctrine, and death, did shine forth the clearest evidences of truth, goodness, mercy, patience, deep travail for the world, self-denial, holiness, and triumphant martyrdom." (vol. i, 258.)

We need not be surprized that we find no mention of the "blood of the cross," when the truth of the Incarnation is denied, and when that is ascribed to the Word which only belongs to the "Word made flesh." The offering or the cross must necessarily be regarded as the offering of the body of a holy Person born at Bethlehem, instead of the offering of the body of Immanuel.

Lastly-Instead of saying, according to the scriptures, that God anointed Jesus with the Holy Ghost and with power, and confessing that the Person so anointed was Immanuel, God and Man in One Person, from the moment of His birth,-Christ, the anointed One, is not distinguished from the Spirit whereby He was anointed; and thus the divinity of Jesus is made to depend upon His being "dwelt in' by the same light or power which afterwards dwelt in Paul-i. e. as was taught by the Gnostics, the divinity of Jesus depended on His being dwelt in by Christ.

I earnestly hope that none who value the gospel of Jesus Christ, will seek to throw a vail over these things, but will candidly and openly acknowledge the deadly error. "Every spirit that confesseth not Jesus Christ come (ελnλvora) in the flesh is not of God." Penn may acknowledge the Word-God, but I find no acknowledgment of the "Word made flesh," which is the mystery of godliness, and the centre of every doctrine, without which, truth will become deranged truth, and work with the power of

error.

But this doctrine respecting the Incarnation is not confined to Penn. The titles Christ, Messiah, and even Jesus Christ, are throughout the writings of Fisher and

66

Whitehead applied to the Word in His eternal state, evidently without prospective reference to His Incarnation; and Isaac Pennington writes as follows:-"Now the scriptures 'do expressly distinguish between CHRIST and the garment which He wore, between Him that came and the body in "which He came, between the Substance which was vailed "and the vail which vailed it. 'Lo! I come, a Body "hast thou prepared me.'* There is plainly He, and "the body in which He came. There was the outward "vessel and the inward life. This we certainly know, and

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

can never call the Bodily Garment, Christ, but that which "appeared and dwelt in the body. Now if ye indeed 'know the Christ of God, tell us plainly what that is "which appeared in that body? whether that was not the "Christ before it took up the body, after it took up the "body, and for ever?" (Pennington's Questions to Professors, p. 33, cited in Besse's Defence of Quakerism, p. 155.)

The following are the words of Elias Hicks :-"What "was it that was a Saviour? Not that which was outward; "it was not flesh and blood: it was that Life that was IN

[ocr errors]

Him, and which lighteth every man, and consequently "every woman, that cometh into the world." We earnestly request the Reader to refer to Crewdson's Beacon, Sermon ii, Ex. i, and also Sermon iii, Ex. v.

There was, doubtless, a time when the Word was NOT-incarnate. But the question is this, when Peter said "THOU art the Christ," to whom did "THOU” refer? was it to the Man who then stood before him, or was it to a Substance, Life or Light, IN that Man?

CHAPTER XI.

THE SAME DOCTRINE TAUGHT BY BARCLAY.

"Though we affirm that Christ DWELLS IN us, yet not imme "diately, but mediately, as He is in that seed which is in us; "whereas He, to wit, the Eternal Word, which was with God "and was God, DWELT immediately IN that holy Man. He then "is as the Head, and we as the members-He the vine and we "the branches. Now as the soul of man dwells otherwise, and in "a far more immediate manner, in the head and in the heart, "than in the hands and legs; and as the sap, virtue, and life of "the vine lodgeth far otherwise in the stock and root than in the branches, so God dwelleth otherwise in the Man Jesus than in us." (Barclay, p. 139.)

66

REMARKS.

I earnestly request attention to this passage. It is denied

First-That God dwelleth IMMEDIATELY in believers, although it is written, "Your bodies are the temples of the Holy Ghost." "Whosoever shall confess that JESUS

is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him."

Secondly-The Holy Spirit is not distinguished from the Eternal Word,

Thirdly-The manner in which Christ dwelleth in believers is said to be not essentially, but only circumstantially

« PreviousContinue »