« PreviousContinue »
in what that difference consists-namely, in that it was generated holy, as no other flesh ever was, and consequently never needed nor was ever susceptible of regeneration.'
The glaring, flat contradiction between this passage and our former quotation should have led the writer to suspect an error ; and we now proceed to shew him that his error is twofold: first, in applying the term "holy thing" solely to the flesh of Christ, when it includes his whole personality ; secondly, in assuming that any flesh is changed in its nature by regeneration. That the “holy thing.” spoken of by the angel was not merely the body of Christ, is manifest in the name given, it “shall be called the Son of God." Flesh-a body-cannot be called by this glorious name; but the whole being--the temple, and the God who made it his tabernacle. The neuter gender, which, misunderstood, has given rise to the error, ought to have guarded against it. The Holy Ghost to ayov, in the neuter, has just been mentioned : " therefore also” the holy birth shall be called the Son of God. The whole person, the God-Man, and nothing less, was the Son of God; nothing less was the "holy thing "announced by the angel. But Mr. Dods assumes that the mere flesh, the body, was the holy thing--not even the whole manhood, consisting of body and soul; still less the whole person, of Divine and human natures conjoined, though it, and nothing less, was the Son of God. Mary might well expect that the Son of God would differ in appearance from other children ; and therefore such an assurance was necessary, that, when she beheld the helpless infant without any external sign of Divinity, and in revolving years watched him growing in wisdom and stature and in favour with God and man, but under obedience in all things, like the rest of mankind, she might still remember the words of the angel, and feel assured that he would reveal himself in due time, because he was the Son of God. That Christ was holy, we have ever most strenuously maintained ; and that he was generated holy we also most firmly believe, and most stedfastly assert, he receiving in all fulness at generation that holiness which we receive at regeneration. But just as in our regeneration there is no physical change in the flesh itself, but a new power implanted, by which that which before was unholy is kept holy, that which before rebelled against God is made obedient to his will; so the holiness of Christ came not from the flesh, but from the Spirit; needed not better flesh than ours, but came from the union of the Godhead with the manhood in his person—the fulness of the Holy Ghost he in the Father, and the Father in him. We are“ called to be. saints" now, to " be perfect” as Christ was, in these our sinful bodies, through the Holy Ghost dwelling in us: and as we are expected to attain this perfection of holiness through the Spirit alone, without any change in the flesh, so do we maintain that
perfect holiness was exhibited in our flesh by our Pattern and Captain, who was perfected through sufferings, and has called us to walk in his footsteps : and as he exchanged suffering for glory at bis ascension, so does our mortal never put on immortality till the resurrection : never till then shall our corruptible put on incorruption.
This is the place for saying a few words on the reproach cast upon us for considering the human nature of our Lord apart from his Divine nature. We have always affirmed that they never were separated in him; and even that the human nature had no existence, except in his mother, till the moment he took it. But while it was hers it had the common properties of her nature, the common properties of ours. These properties were not destroyed by being taken into union with Deity; they were only consecrated ; and in Christ, man again became the image of God. Christ's generation, we have said, answers to our regeneration; and it is this which has made it necessary to consider his human apart from his Divine nature: for though they never existed apart in him, the things to which they correspond in us do always exist apart; and we cannot apply the doctrines practically to ourselves without considering them apart. We are all found by nature in that state of misery and alienation from God which the sin of Adam has entailed, and the practical question is, How are we to get deliverance from bondage into the glorious liberty of sons of God ? 'If he took not his fleshly substance of the flesh of his mother, then, not being as truly man as we are, he could not fairly meet and conquer our oppressor, or, at least, his victory can give no assurance of victory to us. Had ' he not been man who conquered our enemy, he would not have 'been fairly conquered ; and, on the other hand, had he not been 'God who gave us the victory, we could hold it upon no secure * tenure.' p.
43. A large portion of this book-namely, 220 pages-is occupied in arguing that Christ was always Prophet, Priest, and King, and exercises the three offices conjointly in the salvation of every believer. Into this part of the argument we do not mean to go: it would take more space than we can give, and it would be superfluous; for the common sense of ordinary readers will reject the crude and contradictory statements without our help. Mr. Dods seems not even to know the meaning of the terms. He says (p. 55), “We must be enlightened by him as our Prophet, before we can see our need of being pardoned by him as our Priest, or sanctified by him as our King. We all know that pardon is of the Kingly, sanctification of the Priestly office. And it is said (p. 56), Christ was Prophet, Priest, and • King from the beginning. He was so in the purpose of God; and in the same sense he was the Lamb slain from the foundation
of the world: but the incarnation of the Eternal Word and the slaying of the Lamb became real facts in time; and so do the several offices of Prophet, Priest, and King, already complete in the purpose, become facts in due time in the Christ. Till the incarnation the several offices were performed by Christ as Jehovah, not as God-Man; and at the incarnation they were not entered upon by the God-Man at his birth, but in the maturity proper to each. Was the Babe in the manger a Prophet, before he could speak ? a Priest, before he had a sacrifice to offer? a King, when he expressly declares “ My kingdom is not of this world ?" All these he had de jure, and predestinately, from the foundation of the world; but de facto, and actually, in due order and fulness of time. “ If he were on earth he should not be a Priest." “ To him that overcometh I will give to sit with me on my throne, even as I have overcome and am set down with the Father on his throne..... Yet have I set my King on my holy hill of Zion ;”—a time yet future, when the King of kings is revealed.
There is a very strange chapter on the phrase Fallen Nature, wherein it is attempted to be shewn, by Edinburgh logic, that a nature cannot fall, or change. It is but quibbling for a word : every plain person knows the sense intended to be conveyed; and the juggle consists in taking both words in a sense not intended, but which they do sometimes bear. We constantly speak of good-natured, and ill-natured ; and by fallen nature we mean depraved kind, as by renewed nature we mean the restored kind. It is mere trifling.
We ought to notice some strange fancies about the Millennium, which are scattered through the work, and given with some formality in a note in the Appendix, p. 555; but this would require also more space than we can command. We can only at present say, that we protest as strongly as Mr. Dods can do against that Millennium which he imputes to us. The Millennium will exhibit the triumph of Christianity, but it will be Christianity in its most glorious form ; not an invisible Head and suffering members, but the whole body complete and united to the Head, in that glory which the Eternal Son had with the Father before the world began. And this highest glory of the Millennium shall never end : for this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal immortality; and to us death shall have been swallowed up in victory. But the glorified saints, who reign with Christ as kings and priests in the new Jerusalem, shall have subjects to rule ; and it is to these subjects that the Millennial dispensation, as distinct from the Christian, belongs; and in this respect alone does the Millennium exhibit the changes and the termination which are so often mistaken and scorned. Our own views of Scripture are very
definite and detailed on these subjects; but we must defer their exposition till another opportunity, contenting ourselves with this short protest against misrepresentation.
We now come to the particular testimonies from the Fathers; and never, we believe, was there a more futile and ridiculous display than that now made. In turning over the remains of the Fathers, how great must have been the disappointment of Mr. Dods to find literally nothing, in any of the orthodox Fathers, in support of a doctrine which he had expected to find
a inculcated in every page of their writings. But it is a curious fact, that, with all his industry, he has not found any thing like what he was expecting and looking for, except in some whom he cannot rank with the Fathers, but against whose errors in other points he is obliged to protest, while quoting their authority in support of his own errors in this one point. From Barnabas he quotes,
quotes, ““ Behold, I lay in Zion a sure foundationstone. Does our hope rest upon a stone, then? far from it; but ' because the Lord placed his flesh in power; for he saith, I have placed myself as a solid rock.”' He goes on to say,
"What • follows is very fanciful, but it is to the same purpose.:-What purpose ? we can discover none. He finds the Incarnation
of our Lord to be expressed by the entrance of Israel into the • land flowing with milk and honey. Then, “" Increase and ' multiply and replenish the earth. These things he saith to the ! Son." “ But why was the wool placed upon wood ? Because the kingdom of Jesus was upon wood”--namely, upon the cross.'
? — These are all the testimonies from Barnabas; in which if any man can see the shadow of a proof that Barnabas held the flesh which our Lord took to be a new creation, or unfallen flesh, or different from the flesh of other men, he has very different organs of perception from the rest of mankind. The testimony of Hermas has been unfortunately mislaid, but it is probably much the same as the last; and we quite agree with Mr. Dods, that it is not worth while to waste much time in seeking for it.
467. Clement of Rome comes next, and his testimony runs thus : “Ye were all of a lowly mind; not puffed up; subject, rather 'than subjecting others; rather giving than receiving; contented
with the provision of God, and carefully keeping his words; having your hearts enlarged, and his sufferings before your eyes. Very good instruction this; but we humbly conceive that it says nothing in support of the doctrine that the flesh of Christ was a new creation, different from the flesh of other men: yet this is the only testimony from Clement. The Apostolical Constitutions are next referred to, for the confession of the thief on the cross. !“ All which things when the malefactors saw, the one of them indeed blasphemed; as if Christ, through weakness, had been
"unable to help himself: but the other rebuked his ignorance, &c. But what has this to do with the question ?--Another quotation follows: "" He was baptized and fasted; not that he had
; need of any washing away of filth, or of fasting, or of purification, ' who was by nature pure and holy; but that he might testify the 'truth of John, and furnish an example to us.” This seems to be more to the purpose, but is not so in reality; for no one whom Mr. Dods opposes denies that Christ was by nature pure and holy, nor even that his body was pure and holy: but we say that this holiness came from the indwelling Spirit; our opponents make it to be derived from the creature. The Clementine * Homilies, and the Recognitions, are still more palpable forgeries, and are full of heresies : yet upon this subject, if they were worth quoting, they would be found as far from admitting the sinfulness of our Lord's humanity as possible. Leaving them, there'fore, I proceed to Ignatius” (p. 471). Ignatius is first referred to in proof that the body which our Lord shewed to the disciples at his resurrection was the same identical body. But who denies this? The body was the same, but its conditions were altered, Christ had led captivity captive, triumphing over death and hell. Having conquered the chief enemy, he was no longer assailed by the lesser evils of hunger and thirst, of agony and bloody sweat; no more the Man of sorrows, but the Man of God's right hand. This, with the doctrine which follows, on the propriety of using, concerning Christ, such expressions as “the blood of God,” we have never opposed; but, on the contrary, quoted language from Barrow much stronger and more direct than any thing said by Ignatius. Some pages follow, on the ignorance of Satan that our Lord was the Christ, with which we have no concern: and the only other passage from Ignatius is, " “Crucifixus est vere, ' * voluntarie complacens, non phantastice”-a mere truism now. -Polycarp is passed by, saying, 'I observe nothing particularly
bearing on the subject' (p: 480). Justin Martyr is referred to, as understanding the text, “The government shall be upon his shoulders," as referring to the cross which our Saviour carried upon his shoulders....they imagined not that he was overcome on
the cross, but that there he reigned.' We leave Mr. Dods and Justin to settle this. The remainder of the reference to Justin is just to say, that he had, in the argument before him, a fair opportunity of saying what Mr. Dods wishes him to have said ; but as Justin did not say it, Mr. Dods steps in and says it for him !-Irenæus, the great Irenæus, ought not to be touched by “ these slovenly theologians. His glorious views of the person of Christ, as the only perfect image of God, are thus spoken of, p. 484: But he entertains a view upon the subject so singular,
‘ though not quite peculiar to himself, that I should be doing “injustice to the subject were I to pass it unnoticed. His view
VOL. IV.NO. II.