Lecture VI. God, Angels, Jesus Christ, and the Crucifixion

The Spirit

So much at this time concerning THE FATHER—the Root and the Rock of creation. We next introduce the subject of “the Spirit” for investigation. We have had to say much of this in speaking of the Father, but it calls for separate consideration. The Spirit is much spoken of throughout the whole course of Scripture. We are introduced to it as early as the first chapter of Genesis, and only part from its company in the last chapter of Revelation. We get a key to the subject in the fact testified, that the Father is “spirit” in His personal substance (“God is spirit”—Jno. iv. 24), and that the Spirit in its diffusion has to do with the Father, for He styles it “my spirit” (Gen. vi. 3). Nehemiah says, Thou “testifiedst against them (our fathers) by THY SPIRIT in Thy prophets” (Nehem. ix. 30). The Father and the Spirit are one. Yet there is a distinction between the Father and the Spirit as to the form in which they are presented to our apprehension. Of the former, as we have seen, it is testified that p. 123 He dwells “in heaven—in unapproachable light,” and is, therefore, located; while of the latter, it is declared that it is everywhere alike.

“Whither shall I go from Thy Spirit? or whither shall I flee from Thy presence? If I ascend up into heaven, Thou art there; if I make my bed in hell (or the grave, or unseen place), behold Thou art there; if I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea, even there shall Thy hand lead me, and Thy right hand shall hold me; if I say, Surely the darkness shall cover me, even the night shall be light about me. Yea, the darkness hideth not from Thee, but the night shineth as the day. The darkness and the light are both alike to Thee” (Psalm cxxxix. 7-12).

But, in addition to its universality of diffusion, the Spirit is also presented in the aspect of an agency used by the Father in the accomplishment of His designs. Thus, in speaking of the origin of the various tribes of living creatures that inhabit the earth, David says, “Thou sendest forth THY SPIRIT; they are created and Thou renewest the face of the earth.” Again, “By His spirit He hath garnished the heavens” (Job xxvi. 13). Again, “The spirit of God hath made me; the breath of the Almighty hath given me life” (chap. xxxiii. 4). “The Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters” (Gen. i. 2). Also, how frequently throughout the history of Israel we read the words that the “Spirit of the Lord came upcn” this and that prophet, when anything wonderful was accomplished (e.g., Jud. xv. 14). All prophecy and revelation were communicated in the same way. “Thou testifiedst by Thy spirit in Thy prophets” (Nehem. ix. 30). “I am full of power by the spirit of the Lord” (Micah iii. 8). “Holy men of old spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit” (2 Peter i. 21).

It will occur to every reflecting mind that if this spirit is an actual element in universal creation, its presence ought to be detected in the course of the extensive and relentless researches now and for many years going on, into the secrets of nature, in the laboratory of the experimental chemist. It may shock the current theological mind to suggest so intimate a relation between the Deity and His works. But the higher forms of intelligence cannot exclude the perception that if God has evolved the material universe out of His own energy, and sustains and controls it by His power, that energy cannot be a nullity, but must be an actually present force in the economy of things. Now, it is a fact that in our day, there has been discovered a subtle, unanalysable, incomprehensible principle, which, though inscrutable in its essence, is found to be at the basis of all the phenomena of nature—itself eluding the test of chemistry or the deductions of philosophy. Scientists have called it ELECTRICITY. This is everywhere, and is the foundation of all organization, in fact, p. 124 of all substance, whether organised or unorganised. MATTER in every form is but a combination of grosser elements held together by electricity. Electricity governs the laws of an animal’s life and a planet’s motion;—omnipotent under the hand of intelligence to destroy or build up. What is this? The name “Electricity” tells nothing; that really means “amber-icity” (electron being the Greek word for amber), and was adopted as the name of the inscrutable element from the circumstance that its existence was first discovered from the friction of amber. Could a better name be devised than what the Scriptures have given it—SPIRIT? It is one of the highest proofs of the truth of Jewish revelation, that its disclosure of the Deity in His relation to the universe coincides with the facts brought to light by the researches of the human intellect in the field of nature.

The employment of this element in accomplishing the designs of intelligence, is illustrated in the facts of animal magnetism, mesmerism, biology, table rapping, clairvoyance, and “spiritualism.” In these sciences and systems—(some of them ignorantly made the basis of pretensions to divine prescience and authority)—men make use of the divine “ruach” which they naturally possess, to accomplish results which cannot be developed apart from the action of will-power, Though animals have the same spirit, they lack the intelligence to use it in this form. They use it all up in the mere process of existence. Men having intelligence, find this wonderful agent at their command to a limited degree. One man can influence another by it. Inanimate objects can be moved. Distant facts and occurrences can, in a high state of nervous susceptibility, be perceived by it. Unopened letters can be read; and numberless other prodigies accomplished, made familiar by science and the facts of “spiritualism”—a false and absurd system, based upon misunderstood facts of nature.

We are thus enabled to comprehend the relation assigned in the Scriptures to this universal, invisible agent, in the operations of Deity. If a human being, who is but the faint image of the divine, can, in certain states, have his powers of cognition extended beyond his material person by the action of spirit, it is easy to conceive that the Deity’s observation and presence are as universal and infinite as spirit itself. If a human being can move a needle, lift a table, and compel another to act without the intervention of material instrumentality, by the employment of this invisible fluid as the medium of his will, what difficulty is there in understanding the Deity, who is infinite, doing anything he may will to do, and communicating a revelation of Himself to chosen men in the way recorded in the Scriptures? We can also understand how spirit thus concentrated under the Almighty’s will, becomes Holy Spirit, as distinct from spirit in its free, spontaneous form. In the one, we are in the domain of fixed law; in p. 125 the other, God is in communion with us for words of wisdom or works of power, independently of fixed law. It is given to but few to experience this form of the Spirit’s manifestation. It is given to none in the present day. The apostles were the recipients of it in the day of Pentecost. Its power was real and felt. Its influx was accompanied with the sound of a mighty wind, that shook the material fabric of the building in which they were assembled. Its results were manifest. God’s hand was upon the apostles, and they were endowed with powers above natural law. Their faculties were preternaturally exercised. They were enabled by the Spirit to speak fluently in languages, they had never learnt; not in unknown tongues, but words which were identified by the bystanders as the current languages of the time. These bystanders were Jews and proselytes from the various countries of the globe, assembled to keep the feast of Pentecost at Jerusalem. When they heard the apostles, they said—

“Are not all these which speak, Galileans? And how hear we, every man IN OUR OWN TONGUE wherein we were born? Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judea and Cappadocia, in Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes, Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God” (Acts ii. 7-11).

By the same power, the apostles were instructed in things they did not know naturally, according to the promise of Christ. “When he, the Spirit of Truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth; for he shall not speak of himself, but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak, and he will show you things to come” (John xvi. 13). It also endowed them with miraculous power, evinced in the instantaneous cure of disease, the raising of the dead, and other wonderful works. The Spirit was the medium, instrumentality, or power by which these things were done. It was a reality, a palpably present something pervading the persons of the apostles. Thus, “from the body of Paul were brought unto the sick, handkerchiefs and aprons, and the disease departed from them, and the evil spirits went out of them” (Acts xix. 11-12). The healing Spirit-power in Paul could be conveyed in conducting media, and brought medically to bear on the afflicted. Thus also, the shadow of Peter crossing the sick was efficacious for cure (Acts v. 15). The same peculiarity is apparent in the case of Jesus, to whom the Spirit was given without measure (John iii. 34). When a certain afflicted woman in a crowd came stealthily behind him and touched the hem of his garment, that she might receive benefit, Jesus “perceived that virtue had gone out of him” (Luke viii. 46; Matt. xiv. 35, 36).

p. 126 These miraculous powers were necessary to qualify the apostles for the performance of the work they had to do. That work was to bear witness to the resurrection of Christ (Acts i. 22), as the basis of the truth built upon that fact. Now, how could they have done this with any effect if their testimony had not been miraculously confirmed? How could they have obtained credence to the naturally incredible announcement that a man publicly executed by the Romans had been secretly raised from the dead, unless their words had been confirmed by the power alleged to be on their side? It is true the apostles were witnesses, in a natural sense, of the fact that Christ was alive, and would have steadily maintained their testimony to the fact, even if God had not worked with them, but how could the work of getting many to believe their testimony have been accomplished? The earnest protestation of belief on the part of the apostles, though it might have influenced a few, would not have produced that wide-spread conviction which was necessary to the creation of the body of Christ. The effusion of the Holy Spirit did this. By the manifestation of supernatural powers, it bore witness to the truth of what the apostles declared. It is said, “They went forth, and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them, and confirming their word with signs following” (Mark xvi. 20). Paul describes the case in similar terms:—“The great salvation which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him, God also bearing them witness with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit” (Heb. ii. 4). In this sense, the Holy Spirit is styled a witness of Christ’s resurrection; “The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree, . . . . and we are His witnesses of these things, and so also is the HOLY SPIRIT, which God hath given to them that obey Him” (Acts v. 30-32). This is in accordance with what Christ had said:—“When the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of Truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me. And ye, also, shall bear witness, because ye have been with me from the beginning” (Jno. xv. 27).

The power granted to the apostles for the confirmation of their testimony, was deposited in them as heavenly treasure in an earthen vessel, and they had the power of imparting it to others. This is evident from an incident recorded in Acts viii. Philip, the evangelist, went down to Samaria, and so proclaimed the truth (of which miraculous attestation was produced by him), that many believed and were baptised; but these did not at that time receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

“Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the Word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John, who, p. 127 when they were come down, prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit (for as yet he had fallen upon none of them, only they were baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus). Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.^a And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles’ hands the Holy Spirit was given, he offered them money, saying, Give me, also, this power, that, on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Spirit” (Acts viii. 14-19).

This power of bestowing the Spirit was invariably exercised where the truth was received. In almost every case recorded, the reception of the Spirit followed the reception of the truth. It was, indeed, a matter of promise that this should be so. On the day of Pentecost, Peter said “Repent and be baptised, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit; for the promise is unto you and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call” (Acts ii. 38, 39). This promise was realised in the experience of the churches founded in the days of the apostles. The spirit distributed to believers its preternatural powers in different forms and degrees. Paul says—

“There are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all. But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal. For to one is given by the Spirit, the word of wisdom; to another, the word of knowledge by the same Spirit; to another, faith by the same Spirit; to another, the gifts of healing, by the same Spirit; to another, the working of miracles; to another, prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another, divers kinds of tongues; to another, the interpretation of tongues. But all these worketh that one and the self-same spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will” (1 Cor. xii. 6-11).

The object of this general diffusion of spiritual power in apostolic times, is thus stated by Paul—

“He gave some apostles; and some prophets; and some evangelists; and some pastors and teachers, for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, till we all come in the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ, that we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness whereby they lie in wait to deceive” (Eph. iv. 11-14).

This is perfectly intelligible. If the early churches, consisting of men and women fresh from the abominations and immoralities of heathenism, and without the authoritative standard of the completed p. 128 Scripture which now exists, had been left to the mere power of apostolic tradition intellectually received, they could not have held together. The winds of doctrine, blowing about through the activity of “men of corrupt minds,” would have broken them from their moorings, and they would have been tossed to and fro on the billows of uncertain and conflicting report and opinion, and finally stranded in hopeless shipwreck. This catastrophe was prevented by the gifts of the spirit. Properly qualified men, as to moral and intellectual parts, were made the repositories of these gifts, and empowered to “speak and exhort, and rebuke with all authority.” They “ruled” the communities over which they were placed, feeding the flock of God over which the Holy Spirit had made them overseers, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly, not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind, neither as being lords over God’s heritage, but being ensamples to the flock (Acts xx. 28; 1 Pet. v. 2, 3). In this way the early churches were built up and edified. The work of the apostles was conserved, improved, and carried to a consummation. The faith was completed and consolidated by the voice of inspiration, speaking through the spiritually-appointed leaders of the churches. By this means the results of gospel-preaching in the first century, when there were no railways, telegraphs, or other means of a rapid circulation of ideas, instead of evaporating to nothing, as, otherwise, they would have done, were secured and made permanent, both as regards that generation and succeeding centuries.

But it must be obvious that the case stands very differently now. There is no manifestation of the Spirit in these days. The power of continuing the manifestation doubtless died with the apostles; not that God could not have transferred it to others, but that He selected them as the channels of its bestowment in their age, and never, so far as we have any evidence, appointed “successors.” There are many who claim to be their successors; but it is not the word but the power of a man that must be taken as the test in this matter. Let those who think they have the Spirit produce their evidences. There is a great outcry about the Holy Spirit in popular preaching; but nothing more. There are phenomena which are considered outpourings of the Holy Spirit; but they bear no resemblance to those of apostolic experience, and, therefore, must be rejected. They are explicable on natural principles. When an exciting and highly mesmeric preacher gets a crowded audience, it is not a great wonder if his inflammatory exertions are successful in stimulating the susceptible among his hearers, to a state of mind corresponding with his own. He but uses a natural means, which evokes a natural result. If any of the natural conditions are awanting, the result is impaired to that extent. The “spirit,” for instance, never descends to the same extent at an out-door meeting as in a crowded chapel, p. 129 especially if the day be windy. It is not dispensed so liberally to a half-filled as to well-occupied pews. It does not come so quickly at the bidding of a dull temperament and barren imagination, especially if the man be of small stature—as it does at that of a lusty, excitable well-built man, or a nervous, wiry, emphatic man. The reason is that all these conditions are unfavourable to the play of the latent magnetism of the human system. Were it the Holy Spirit that attended these operations, it would overleap all barriers, and not only so, but its result would be of a more worthy and permanent character than the impressions made at “revival meetings,” and rather more in harmony with what the Spirit has said through its ancient media, than the sentiments induced at these gatherings. But the fact is, it is not the Holy Spirit at all. It is the mere spirit of the flesh worked up into a religious excitement, through the influence of fear—an excitement which subsides as rapidly as the agency of its inception is withdrawn.

The result of an intelligent apprehension of what the word of God teaches and requires, is different from this; this has its seat in the judgment, and lays hold of the entire mental man, creating new ideas and new affections, and, in general, evolving a “new man.” In this work, the Spirit has no participation, except in the shape of the written word. This is the product of the Spirit—the ideas of the Spirit reduced to writing by the ancient men who were moved by it. It is, therefore, the instrumentality of the Spirit, historically wielded: the sword of the Spirit by a metaphor which contemplates the Spirit in prophets and apostles in ancient times, as the warrior. By this, men may be subdued to God—that is, enlightened, purified, and saved, if they receive the word into good and honest hearts, and “bring forth fruit, some thirty-fold, some sixty, and some a hundred.” By this they may become “spiritually minded,” which is “life and peace” (Rom. viii. 6). The present days are barren days, as regards the Spirit’s direct operations. They are the days predicted in the following language:—

“I will send a famine in the land; not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the Lord. And they shall wander from sea to sea, and from the north even to the east; they shall run to and fro to seek the word of the Lord, AND SHALL NOT FIND IT” (Amos viii. 11-12).

“Therefore, night shall be unto you, that ye shall not have a vision; and it shall be dark unto you, that ye shall not divine; and the sun shall go down over the prophets, and the day shall be dark over them. Then shall the seers be ashamed and the diviners confounded; yea, they shall all cover their lips, for there is no answer of God” (Micah iii. 6-7).

p. 130The Angels

Jesus says, “No man hath seen God at any time;” yet in Genesis xxxii, 30, Jacob says, “I HAVE SEEN GOD FACE TO FACE, and my life is preserved.” There are other places in Scripture in which God is said to have appeared, and to have been seen and talked to, which is in seeming contradiction to the statement of Jesus, and requires explanation. The explanation introduces us to THE SUBJECT OF ANGELS: for it so happens that the difficulty has been created by the improper translation of terms employed in connection with God’s angelic manifestations. God’s manifestations have chiefly been by angelic mediumship. This will be evident to the ordinary New Testament reader from Paul’s description of the law given to Moses as “the word spoken by angels” (Heb. ii. 2); and Stephen’s remark that God, who spoke to Moses in Sinai, was “the angel that spake to him” (Acts vii. 38). This feature will be found constantly recurrent. Now, the names by which these angelic beings are designated are appropriate to them as the subordinate agents of the Deity. But this fact is concealed in the English version of the Scriptures by the translation of all divine names uniformly by the terms “Lord” and “God.” Dr. Thomas says—

“The names of God which occur in the Bible are not arbitrary sounds; and one of the chief imperfections of the English authorised translation, or rather version, is the slovenly manner in which all the names by which God has been pleased to make Himself known to His people, have been rendered after the fashion of the Septuagint, by the two words, ‘Lord’ and ‘God.’ These words do not convey the ideas of the spirit in its use of terms. ‘Lord’ is of Saxon origin, and signifies monarch, ruler, governor, something supreme or distinguished . . “It fails to represent the meaning of Ail, Eloah, Elohim, Shaddai, and Yehowah; for all of which it is often, or rather most frequently, and almost generally used. The word Adon [another of the names of God employed in the original] is properly enough rendered by ‘Lord,’ but not the other words, for which it should never be used. The common use of God in the English language is as little justifiable as that of the word Lord. God, in Saxon, signifies good, a meaning which cannot possibly be extracted from any of the names recited above; God is indeed good, but that word is not a translation of any of the words before us, and when used in their stead, leaves the mind in the dark concerning the things which they were intended to convey.”

He then goes on to give a definition of each of the various words referred to. Ail, signifying strength, might, or power: Eloah, having the same signification; and Jehovah, or, more properly, Yahweh, literally I-shall-be, are all names appropriated to the uncreated Deity; but Shaddai and Elohim are plural names otherwise applied. Shaddai signifies mighty or powerful ones, from Shahdad, to be strong or powerful; while Elohim is the plural of Eloah, and means gods or p. 131 powerful ones. Now these plural names are very frequently employed in the record of God’s transactions with men; and it will be found they are descriptive of the angels. In Hebrews i. 6, Paul quotes a statement from Psalm xcvii. 7, in which the word “Elohim” occurs. In the Psalm it is rendered “gods”—“Worship him, all ye gods;” in Hebrews, it is rendered as follows:—“Let all the angels of God worship Him.” Here, to Paul’s mind, Elohim represented angels.

Again, in Exodus iii., we have an account of the unconsumed burning bush, which God selected as a medium of communication with Moses. It is stated that Moses hid his face, and was afraid to look upon God, who announced Himself from the bush as “the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob;” yet in the second verse, we read that “the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in the flame of fire out of the midst of the bush;” so that the agency was angelic, though the power was of God.

Again, in the instance already cited, Jacob says that he had “seen God face to face;” while from Hosea we find that it was not the Most High God that Jacob saw, but one of the Elohim, or angels. The prophet (Hosea xii. 4) referring to the incident, says “Jacob by strength had power with God; yea, he had power over the angel, and prevailed.”

These instances prove that “Lord” and “God,” as employed in the English version, do not always signify the great Increate, but sometimes, in fact almost generally, those glorious beings who act and speak in His name and with His authority. Keeping this in view, many seeming difficulties made much of by unbelievers entirely disappear.

The angels are referred to by David in these words: “Bless the Lord, ye His angels that excel in strength, that do His commandments, hearkening unto the voice of His word” (Psalm ciii. 20), Who are these angels? Popular theology represents them in books and on hearses, tombstones, &c., as baby cherubs with wings. Many believe that their ranks are greatly recruited, from time to time, by arrivals from earth of baby-spirits, who, thenceforth, become their mothers’ guardians—a beautiful poetical fancy, and very pleasing to maternal instincts; but as a matter of serious teaching. to be dismissed from the rational mind. It is simply untrue. The whole of popular belief concerning the nature of angels, is characterised by the same mysticism and misconception which we have seen to pertain to other doctrines. The angels of the Bible are as real as ourselves, though of a much more exalted order of being; and, instead of babyhood, are distinguished by all the maturity and dignity which belong to perfect intelligence. Three of them appeared to Abraham (Gen. xviii. 2-5).

“He sat in the tent door in the heat of the day, and he lifted up his eyes, and looked, and lo! three men stood by him, and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed himself toward the p. 132 ground, and said, my Lord, if now I have found favour in thy sight, pass not away, I pray thee, from thy servant. Let a little water, I pray you, be fetched, and wash your feet, and rest yourselves under the tree; and I will fetch a morsel of bread, and comfort ye your hearts; and after that ye shall pass on.”

Abraham thought they were ordinary wayfarers, and desired to extend his hospitality towards them. Paul referring to the circumstance in Heb. xiii. 2, says: “Be not forgetful to entertain strangers, for thereby some have entertained angels UNAWARES.”

“And the men said unto Abraham, so do as thou hast said. And Abraham took butter and milk, and a calf which he had dressed, and set it before them; and he stood by them under the tree, and they did eat.”

In the next chapter, we read—

“Two angels came to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom: and Lot seeing them, rose up to meet them, and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground, and he said, Behold, now, my lords, turn in, I pray you, into your servant’s house, and tarry all night, and wash your feet; and ye shall rise up early and go on your ways. And they said Nay, but we will abide in the street all night. And he pressed them greatly, and they turned in unto him, and entered into his house; and he made them a feast, and did bake unleavened bread, and they did eat.”

Lot, also, like Abraham, supposed his angelic visitors to be ordinary men, and was among the number of those who “entertained angels unawares.” He was only brought to a knowledge of their true character when they said—

“Bring all that thou hast out of this place, for we will destroy this place, because the cry of them is waxen great before the face of the Lord; and the Lord hath sent us to destroy it.”

Manoah, the father of Samson, fell into a similar mistake—(Judges xiii. 15). He pressed an angel-visitor to partake of his hospitality; and it is added (ver. 16), “for Manoah knew not that he was an angel of the Lord.” These narratives prove that the angels of God are like ourselves, so far as figure is concerned; and that they are not the ethereal beings of popular theology. Eating and having their feet washed takes them out of the category of “orthodox” angels. They are as real and substantial as mortal men, but of a higher nature. Like the glorified righteous of the future age, they are incorruptible in substance, and, therefore, immortal, and luminous in appearance when that quality is not restrained. We read in the account of Christ’s resurrection (given by Matthew, chap. xxviii. 2, 3), that “the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it; and his countenance was p. 133 like lightning, and his raiment white as snow;” and Cornelius, when describing the vision of an angel which he had seen, says (Acts x. 30), “A MAN stood before me in bright clothing.”

The angels, in form and feature, resemble human beings. They eat and drink, and walk and talk, and deport themselves in general like ourselves; but unlike us, they are incorruptible, deathless, perfect, and strong in the might with which God has invested them for the execution of His purposes. They have power to traverse space; but it does not require wings to do this, for the Lord Jesus ascended to heaven without the aid of such appendages. It is only necessary to possess power to counteract the influence of physical gravitation, and the ability to command it at will. This power dwells in the angels and in the Lord Jesus Christ, and seems generally to be the characteristic of spirit-bodies. In the angels we behold an exemplification of what the saints will be after the resurrection; for Jesus says—

“They that shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage; neither can they die any more; FOR THEY ARE EQUAL UNTO THE ANGELS, and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection” (Luke xx. 35, 36).

At present, the righteous are “a little lower than the angels”—(Heb. ii. 7); then, they will be on the same level. This is a confirmation of all that was advanced in the last lecture regarding the state of the righteous after they have attained to immortality. It is a state in which they will be real, substantial, human-like in form, of flesh and bone, yet incorruptible, glorious, powerful, never-dying, perfect in happiness, uncloyed in the exercise of the functions of their exalted condition.

On the Nature of Jesus Christ

If Christendom is astray as to the Father and the Holy Spirit, it is not wonderful that we should find it astray in its conception of the Lord Jesus who is the manifestation of the Father by the Spirit. Christendom believes Christ to be the incarnation of one of three distinct essences, or personalities, which are supposed to constitute the Godhead; and that though clothed in human form, he was God in the absolute sense of being the Creator. This is the doctrine of the Trinitarian section of Christendom, in opposition to which, another section believes that Christ was a mere man, begotten in the ordinary process of generation, and distinguished above his fellows by a pre-eminent endowment of the “virtues” of human nature, which fitted p. 134 him to be an example to mankind. This (the Unitarian) view regards him as a teacher sent from God, and in some sense the Son of God; but denies the essential divinity of his nature. Both these views will be found equally removed from the truth. The truth lies between, as usual.

The testimonies which teach the indivisible unity of the Deity, as the One Father, out of whom ALL things have proceeded, and who is supreme above all, even above Christ (1 Cor. xi. 3), are inconsistent with the Trinitarian representation of God. The supremacy and unity of the Father would not be affirmable if there were three co-equal personalities in His One personality—a doctrine which presents us with a contradiction in terms as well as in sense. Jesus emphasises on the distinction between himself and the Father, in the following statements—

“I can, of mine own self, do nothing: as I hear I judge, and my judgment is just, because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father who hath sent me” (John v. 30).

Again,

“My doctrine is not mine, but His that sent me” (John vii. 16).

Again,

“It is written in your law that the testimony of two men is true. I am one that bear witness of myself; and the Father that sent me (the other witness), beareth witness of me” (John viii. 17-18).

Again,

“This is life eternal: that they might know Thee, the only true God, AND Jesus Christ whom Thou hast sent” (John xvii. 3).

The marked distinction recognised and affirmed in these statements is incompatible with the doctrine which regards the Son as an essential constituent to the one “triune” Father. There are “the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.” The question is, what is the relation between the three, as taught in the Scriptures? The objection now urged is against the relation which Trinitarianism teaches to exist between these three. The endeavour is to show that they are not three co-equal powers in one, but powers of which one is the head and source of the others. The Father is eternal and underived; the Son is the manifestation of the Father in a man begotten by the Spirit; the Holy Spirit is the focalisation of the Father’s power, by means of His “free spirit,” which fills heaven and earth. There is, therefore, a trinity of existences to contemplate, and a certain unity subsisting in the trinity, inasmuch as both Son and Spirit are manifestations of the p. 135 one Father; but the Trinitarian conception of the subject is excluded.

But the Unitarian view, still more so. Joseph was not the father of Jesus. He himself repudiated his paternity, and was about to put away Mary, his betrothed, when an angel came to him with this message—

“Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife. For that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit” (Matt. i. 20).

This marvel had been previously intimated to Mary by the angel Gabriel, as recorded in Luke i. 35—

“The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee; therefore, also, that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.”

The Unitarian evades these testimonies by denying the authenticity of the first two chapters of Matthew and Luke. The reasons for this denial are altogether flimsy and insufficient: nay, they are bad. The evidence in proof of the genuineness of the (by them) rejected chapters is more than decisive: it cannot be answered: it is irresistible. It leaves no room for doubt or gainsaying. There is the united evidence of all the accessible ancient MSS. and versions, supported by the recognition of the very earliest Christian writers, confirmed by the internal character of the chapters and the necessity for the event which they narrate, to explain the character and mission of Jesus of Nazareth. Against this, there is the merely negative fact that the disputed chapters are absent from the Ebionite gospel, which at the time of its production was pronounced a corruption; and from the Evangelium of Marcion, a gospel which he wrote to suit his own heathenish notions, and from which he recklessly omitted, not only the disputed chapters, but everything that interfered with his peculiar ideas.

The first writer who mentions the Ebionites is Irenæus, who speaks of them as a sect not only separated from the general body of Christians, but who opposed the doctrines preached by the Apostles, and rejected, not only the disputed chapters, but the greater part of the books of the New Testament, rejecting all the epistles of Paul, whom they called an apostate from the law. They only made use of a Hebrew gospel, which they called Matthew’s, but which differs from Matthew in many particulars besides the two chapters. Here is a sect which rejected whole books of authentic Scripture, because they were inimical to their notions. How can a reasonable man accept such a sect as affording guidance on the question of the authenticity of two particular chapters absent from their version, but present in almost all other MSS. throughout the world? Their “Matthew” was impugned p. 136 at the time. It was proclaimed a corruption of the genuine gospel, while the “canonical” Matthew, as we have it, was never called in question. Epiphanius thus speaks:—“In that gospel which they (the Ebionites) have called the gospel according to Matthew, which is not entire and perfect, but corrupted and curtailed, and which they call The Hebrew Gospel, it is written (and he quotes)” “Thus,” says he, “they change the true account into a falsehood . . . They have taken away the genealogy from Matthew, and accordingly begin their gospel with these words: ‘It came to pass, in the days of Herod, King of Judæa.’” Origen alludes to it thus:—“It is written in a certain gospel, which is called ‘according to the Hebrews,’ if indeed any one is pleased to receive it, NOT AS OF AUTHORITY, but for illustration of the present question” (and then he quotes). He afterwards quotes this as a specimen of the same gospel according to the Hebrews: “Just now my mother, the Holy Ghost, took me by one of my hairs, and carried me to the great mountain Tabor.” This absurdity, and another passage, quoted by Origen, prove that the text of the Hebrew gospel, read by Origen, was not the same as our Greek gospel of Matthew, with which its friends suppose it to be identical. It differed on many points besides the first two chapters. The absence of the first two chapters of Matthew from the Ebionite and Nazarene gospels is of no weight in view of their rejection of Paul’s epistles, which even the Unitarians accept. The omission is accounted for in the way the rejection of Paul’s epistles is accounted for; the two first chapters did not coincide with their notions, and therefore they struck them out. The Nazarene and Ebionite copies of Matthew’s gospel not only omit the first two chapters, but in several instances they contradict the other three gospels of Mark, Luke, and John, whereas the corresponding passages in our Greek copy of Matthew agree with them, which shows which way the tampering has occurred.

As to Marcion, he omitted the two disputed chapters; but he also rejected the whole of the Old Testament, both the law and the prophets, as proceeding from the God of the Jews, whom he regarded as the creator of this world, in contrast to a higher Creator. As to the New Testament, he made one for himself, consisting of only one gospel, supposed to be compiled chiefly from Luke, and only ten of Paul’s epistles, which are altered from the received version in numerous instances, in order to make the text more pliable to his gnostic notions. People who quote him against the miraculous conception are bound consistently to follow him in these variations as well. He did not admit Christ to have been born at all. Consequently, he begins his gospel thus: “In the 15th year of the reign of Tiberius, God descended into Capernaum.” He not only omits the first two chapters of Luke; he omits also the account of John the Baptist, the baptism of Christ, and his visit to Nazareth. p. 137 He also omits part of chapter viii. 19; x. 21; xi. part of verse 29, and all of verses 30, 31, 32, 49, 50, 51; xii. 6, 28, part of verses 8, 30, 32; xiii. 1-5; altered verse 28, omitted from 29 to end of chapter; xv. 11-32; xvii. part of 10-12; whole of verse 13; whole of xvii. 31-33; xix. 28-48; xx. from 9 to 18; also 37, 38; xxi. 18, 21, 22; xxii. 16, 35, 37, 50, 51; xxiii. 43; xxiv. 26-7, and verse 25 altered.

Those who quote Marcion as an authority in the case of the first two chapters, ought to accept him as such in all these cases. That they disregard him in these cases is a proof that, even in their opinion, his authority is of no weight.

The divine paternity of Jesus would stand an unassailable truth, even if the records of Matthew and Luke had no existence. These records are, however, invaluable. They are the circumstantial illustrations of a truth which, though the nature of the case, and the prophetic testimony necessitate it, we could not have so clearly and satisfactorily comprehended without them. They explain to us the appearance and character of Christ, and make us privy to the divine method of procedure, from its incipiency onwards, in the most wondrous works of God among men.

That Christ was an example in the sense of being “holy, harmless, and undefiled,” is beyond doubt; but it is also true that he was a great deal more. The speciality of his mission is so plainly stated as to leave no room for the Unitarian doctrine of moral example. “Behold the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world,” said John the Baptist, on seeing Jesus (John i. 29). How did he take it away? The answer is in the words of the apostle Paul: “He put away sin by the sacrifice of himself” (Heb. ix. 26). Jesus himself had said “I lay down my life for my sheep.” Paul also says to Timothy, in the 2nd epistle, 1st chap., 10th verse, “Jesus Christ hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel;” a fact which is stated by Christ himself in this form—“God sent His Son, that the world through him might be saved” (John iii. 17). Furthermore, Peter says “There is none other name given under heaven whereby we must be saved” (Acts iv. 12). Salvation is thus directly connected with the first appearing of Christ, and with what he accomplished then; not on the principle of moral stimulus supplied, but in virtue of the essential result secured by the course he fulfilled.

Leaving both Trinitarianism and Unitarianism, we may find the truth in the Scriptures for ourselves. The simple appellation of “Son,” as applied to Christ, is sufficient to prove that his existence is derived, and not eternal. The phrase, “Son of God,” implies that the one God, the eternal Father, was antecedent to the Son, and that the Son had his origin in or “out of” the Father, to whom he must p. 138 therefore be subordinate in a sense inconsistent with Trinitarian representation. “This day have I begotten thee” is the language of Scripture, clearly pointing to a commencement of days. This view is confirmed by the statement of Christ:—“As the Father hath life in himself, so hath he given the Son to have life in himself” (John v. 26). Christ, therefore, though now possessed of inherent life, has been invested with it; it is not in his case underived. It is only the Great Increate, the Father, that can say “I am, and there was none else before me.” Yet, though Christ’s is not an underived existence, it is more directly divine than the human. A man is an embodiment of his father’s mortal life-energy. Jesus was not born of the will of the flesh, but of God. He was begotten of Mary through the power of the spirit. This was the origin of his title, “the Son of God.” See the angel’s words to Mary:—“Therefore, also, shall that holy thing that shall be born of thee be called the Son of God” (Luke i. 35). But, though Son of God, he was flesh and blood. “Forasmuch, also, as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he, also, himself likewise partook of THE SAME. . . . He took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren” (Heb. ii. 14, 16, 17). He was made sin for us, who knew no sin (2 Cor. v. 21). As he was in character sinless, this could only apply to his bodily constitution, which, through Mary, was the sin-nature of Adam. As Paul says elsewhere (Rom. viii. 3), “God sent his Son in the likeness of sinful flesh.” “He was sent forth made of woman” (Gal. iv. 4), “of the seed of David, according to the flesh” (Rom. i. 3). Jesus was “a man approved of God by miracles and wonders and signs which God did by him (after his thirty years’ preparation) in the midst of Israel” (Acts ii. 22). This is Peter’s description of him. Paul speaks of him as “the man Christ Jesus” (1 Tim. ii. 5). He was tried and disciplined as Adam was, but succeeded where Adam failed. “Though he were a son, yet learned he obedience by the things that he suffered” (Heb. v. 8). This precludes the idea of his being “very God.” He was the Son of God, the manifestation of God by spirit-power, but not God himself. “The life was manifested,” says John, “and we have seen it, and bear witness, and show unto you that eternal life which was with the Father and was manifested unto us” (1 John i. 2). And again, in his gospel narrative (chap. i. 14), he says—“The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth,” from which it is evident that Christ was a divine manifestation—an embodiment of Deity in flesh—Emanuel, God with us. “God gave not to him the spirit by measure,” says the same apostle (chap. iii. 34). The spirit descended upon him in bodily shape at his baptism in the Jordan, and took possession of him. This was the anointing which constituted p. 139 him Christ (or the anointed), and which gave him the superhuman powers of which he showed himself possessed. This is clear from the words of Peter, in his address to the Gentiles in the house of Cornelius—(Acts x. 38)—“God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power; and he went about doing good, healing all that were oppressed.” This statement alone is sufficient to disprove the popular view of Christ’s essential Godhead. If he were “very God” in his character as Son, why was it necessary he should be “anointed” with spirit and power? He did no miracles before his anointing. He had no power of himself. This is his own declaration: “I can of mine own self do nothing” (John v. 30). “The Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works” (John xiv. 10). On Calvary, left to the utter helplessness of his own humanity, he felt the anguish of the hour, and cried out “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?”—(Mat. xxvii. 46). Before his anointing, he was simply the “body prepared” for the divine manifestation that was to take place through him. The preparation of this body commenced with the Spirit’s action on Mary, and concluded when Jesus, being thirty years of age, stood approved in the perfection of a sinless and mature character. After the Spirit’s descent upon him, he was the full manifestation of God in the flesh. The Father, by the spirit, tabernacled in Christ among men. “God was in Christ,” says Paul, “reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them.” When raised from the dead and glorified, he was exalted to “all power in heaven and earth;” his human nature was swallowed up in the divine; the flesh changed to spirit. Hence, as he now exists, “In him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily” (Col. ii. 9). He is now the corporealization of life-spirit as it exists in the Deity. But this change from what he was “in the days of his flesh” has not obliterated a single line of his human recollections. This is evident from Paul’s words in reference to his priestly function: “We have not an high priest who cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities” (Heb. iv. 15). This can only be on the principle that Jesus retains a memory of the infirmity with which he himself was encompassed in the days of his flesh career upon earth.

When Jesus said “He that hath seen me hath seen the Father also,” he did not contradict the statement that “no man hath seen God at any time,” but simply expressed the truth contained in the following words of Paul:—Christ is the image of the invisible God” (Col. i. 15). “the brightness of His glory, and the express image of His person” (Heb. i. 3). Those who looked upon the anointed Jesus, beheld a representation of the Deity accessible to human vision.

Jesus declares things of himself which are held to sanction the idea that he existed as a person before his birth of Mary; such as p. 140 that he came down from heaven to give life to the world (John vi. 33); that he proceeded forth and came from the Father (John viii. 42; xvi. 28); that he had power to lay down his life and power to take it again (John x. 18); that he had glory with the Father before the world was, and was loved of Him before the foundation of the world (John xvii. 4-24), &c. It is evident, however, that we must understand these expressions in the light of the undoubted facts of Christ’s life and mission. These literal facts are that he was begotten of the Holy Spirit, and born a baby at Bethlehem (Luke i. 35; ii. 5-7); grew up to be a man, increasing in wisdom with years, stature, and experience (Luke ii. 52); remained the private and undistinguished “son of Joseph the carpenter,” until the power of the Spirit was shed upon him at his baptism (Luke xxi. 23); AFTER WHICH, he did the works and spoke the words recorded; that he was put to death through weakness (2 Cor. xiii. 4); was deserted of the power of the Father when suspended on the cross; and that he was afterwards raised from the dead by the Father (Acts ii. 24, 32; iii. 15; iv. 10; v. 30; x. 40; xiii. 30, 37, and so on). With these facts in view, we are enabled to attach the proper sense to statements which, in a naked and detached form, would appear to teach a personal pre-existence. For instance, when Jesus said to the Pharisees that he came down from heaven, he could not mean that the person standing before them had bodily descended from the clouds, as his words, literally understood, would have taught, and as the Pharisees appeared to have understood; he meant to say that his origin was from heaven. The “Holy Spirit” that came upon Mary—the “Power of the Highest” that overshadowed her, came down from heaven; consequently, the resultant man could, without extravagance, say he came down from heaven. The sense was literal as applied to the Power of the Highest that produced “the man Christ Jesus;” both at the stage of his begettal and the stage of His anointing on the banks of the Jordan, when the Spirit descended in bodily form and abode upon him; but not literal as applied to the man Christ Jesus. When he said he proceeded forth and came from God, it was in the sense of these facts. He could not mean that as a person he had emanated from the very presence of the Almighty, but that the Father had sent him in the way disclosed in the record of his birth and baptism. John is described as “a man sent from God,” without meaning to suggest that John existed before he was born and sent. When Jesus said he had power to take up his life after it should be laid down, he expressed the confidence that God would raise him. It was not power in the dynamic sense; but authority (εξουσια): he immediately adds, “This commandment I HAVE RECEIVED OF MY FATHER;” that is, the taking up of his life would result from the Father’s power and authority, exercised in accordance with the pledge given by the Father.

p. 141 Literally, Jesus did not take up his life; the Father raised him (see references, line 17, p. 140); but because it was the Father’s purpose, and because the Father spoke through Jesus (John xiv. 10), Jesus could appropriately say that he had power to raise up himself. An example of this style of language, in which what a person has a relation to in the divine purpose, is considered as under his control and referable to his power, occurs in Jer. i. 10—

“See, I have this day set thee over the nations and over the kingdoms, to root out, and to pull down, and to destroy, and to throw down, to build, and to plant.”

Literally, the prophet did none of those things, but was overpowered and slain, as nearly all the servants of God were; yet the things he predicted came to pass, and this is taken as a sufficient basis for the highly-wrought language above quoted, which imputes the result of Jeremiah’s predictions to Jeremiah’s individual operations.

Christ’s statement that he had glory with the Father before the world was, must in the same way be understood in harmony with the elementary facts of the testimony. The glorification of Jesus was a purpose with the Father from the beginning: and, in this sense, he had glory with the Father before the world was. This may appear a strained explanation; but a regard to the Scriptural habit of speech will justify it, in view of the testified facts of the case. The Lord said to Jeremiah (chap. i. 5): “Before I formed thee in the belly, I KNEW THEE; and before thou camest out of the womb I SANCTIFIED THEE; and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.” Now Jeremiah did not exist before his conception. Yet these words would seem to teach it, if understood as those understand the statements about Christ, who believe in his pre-existence. As a purpose, Jeremiah existed; his person was as clearly present to the divine mind as if he had stood before Him in actual fact. This is the explanation of words which, rigidly construed, would imply Jeremiah’s pre-existence. Look again at the words spoken of Cyrus, the Persian ruler, more than a hundred years before he was born (Isaiah xlv. 4):—“For Jacob my servant’s sake, and Israel, mine elect, I have even called thee by thy name; I have surnamed thee, though thou hast not known me.” The same remark applies here: Cyrus was present to the divine contemplation as really as if he existed. Hence a style of language which would seem to assume his existence before he was born. On the same principle, the purpose to raise a dead man is expressed by ignoring his death, and assuming his continued existence. Thus Jesus deduces the resurrection from the fact that God styled Himself the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, at a time when these men were dead. The Sadducees saw the force of the argument, and were silenced (Matt. xxii. 31-34). The principle p. 142 of the argument is expressed in the words of Paul (Rom. iv. 17)—“God who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not (but are to be) AS THOUGH THEY WERE.”

The words spoken of Jesus are of this order. When he said in prayer to the Father, “Thou lovedst me from the foundation of the world,” he did not teach that he existed from “the foundation of the world,” but that the Father regarded him with love from the beginning, and that, therefore, to the Father’s mind, he was present. In the words of Peter, “He was fore-ordained before the foundation of the world, and manifested in the last times” (1 Peter i. 20). The same style of language is adopted with reference to Christ’s people: “He hath chosen US in him before the foundation of the world.” Literally, this would prove the existence of believers before the world began, for properly, a thing must exist to be the object of choice; actually, it only proves divine foresight. The glory which Jesus had before the world was, was the glory which God purposed for him from the beginning. Literally, he had not the glory referred to before the world was. What was the nature of that glory—the glory Jesus received in answer to this prayer? HE—the bodily Jesus—the body prepared—that which was evolved from the substance of Mary and made the subject of the anointing—was made incorruptible in substance, and had the spirit shed upon that substance so abundantly, that it made him more luminous than the sun (Acts xxvi. 13), and gave him power to bestow the spirit, and control providence in heaven and earth. Was Jesus possessed of this glory before he was born? Was he a body anointed with the spirit before he was the body prepared? Was he a real resurrected Jesus before Jesus of Nazareth was born in Bethlehem? Yet this was the glory he had with the Father before the world was. It was a glory he had in the Father’s purpose, but in no other sense. In the same way are we to understand the words, “Before Abraham was, I am” (John viii. 58). This was Christ’s answer to the incredulity excited by his statement, “Abraham rejoiced to see my day, and he saw it, and was glad.” The Jews thought he meant to insinuate that he was contemporary with Abraham, whereas, he only meant to express the fact stated by Paul in the following words:—“These all (including Abraham—see verse 8) died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them AFAR OFF” (Heb. xi. 13). It was this seeing of the promise of Christ “afar off” that made Abraham glad. It was the day presented in the promises that he saw, but, as they almost always did, the Jews mistook Jesus, and, as he was prone to do, he deepened their bewilderment by using another form of speech, which still more obscured his meaning, on the principle indicated in Matt. xiii. 11-15: a form of speech which in one phrase expressed two aspects of the truth concerning himself, viz., that he was purposed p. 143 before Abraham existed, and that the Father, of whom he was then the manifestation, existed before all.

Jesus said, “I and the Father are one” (John x. 30). He could not mean, in view of all the testimony, what Trinitarians understand him to mean, that he and the Father were identically the same person (“the same in substance, equal in power and glory”), but that they were one in spirit-connection and design of operations. This is apparent from his prayer for his disciples “That they may be one EVEN as we are one.” The unity is not as to person, but as to nature and state of mind. This is the unity that exists between the Father and the Son, and the unity that will be ultimately established between the Father and His whole family, of whom Christ is the elder brother. When this unity is established, Christ will take a more subordinate position than he now occupies, in relation to the race of Adam. Paul says, “When all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto Him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all” (1 Cor. xv. 28).