OEii at o^ ^::a. .^i^i. i^ "^:2^ 
 
 (IK TUK 
 AT 
 
 PRINCETON, N. J. 
 
 u «3 :>! jK. "X- 1 o :v of- 
 
 SAMUEL AaNE:\V, 
 
 OF PHILADELPHlvi, PA. 
 
 BX 6593 .17 H35 '^'"" 
 Haldane, J. a. 1768-1851 
 Answer to Mr. Henry 
 Drummond's defence of the 
 

I 
 
ANSWER 
 
 TO 
 
 MR HENRY DRUMMOND'S 
 
 DEFENCE 
 
 OF THE 
 
 HERETICAL DOCTRINE PROMULGATED 
 
 BY MR IRVING, 
 
 RESPECTING THE 
 PERSON AND ATONEMENT OF THE LORD JESUS CHRIST; 
 
 AND TO HIS 
 
 DENIAL OF ORIGINAL SIN, 
 
 AND OP THE 
 
 IMPUTATION OF CHRIST'S RIGHTEOUSNESS. 
 BY J. A.'haLDANE. 
 
 EDINBURGH : 
 
 PUBLISHED BY WILLIAM OLIPHANT; 
 
 AND SOLD BY WILLIAM COLLINS, GLASGOW ; HAMILTON, 
 ADAMS & CO,, LONDON ; W. M'COMB, BELFAST ; AND 
 W. CURRY & CO. DUBLIN. 
 
 1830. 
 
EDINBURGH : 
 
 rRINTKD BY ANDERSON ANP BRYCK. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 Page. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 On the Style and Character of Mr Drummond's Candid Ex- 
 amination, -._»_--- 7 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 Mr Drummond's Definitions, _ > _ _ . 41 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 Mr Drummond's Denial of Original Sin, Substitution, Im- 
 putation, and the Atonement, _ - _ _ . 76 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 Mr Drummond's Arguments, _ - _ _ _ 125 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 Mr Drummond's Authorities, - - - - - \8\i 
 
 CONCLUSION, -...--. 227 
 
 — *■ 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 Testimonies from Standard Writers, _ _ _ _ 255 
 
ERATTA. 
 
 Page 31, line G from bottom, for now read more. 
 Page 177j li'ie 2 from top, delete that. 
 Page 187, line 6 from bottom, for //read when. 
 Page 202, last line, for 05 // read which. 
 Page 253, line 4 from top, (in some copies), for 
 co7iclnsion read middle. 
 
ANSWER, &c. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 ON THE STYLE AND CHARACTER OF MR DRUMMOND'S 
 " CANDID EXAMINATION." 
 
 Some montlis ago, I publisbed " A Refutation of 
 the Heretical Doctrine Promulgated by Mr Irving, 
 respecting the Person and Atonement of the Lord 
 Jesus Christ." Under the signature of a Layman, 
 Mr Henry Drummond has published " A Candid 
 Examination of the Controversy between Messrs 
 Irving, A. Thomson, and J. Haldane, respecting 
 the Human Nature of the Lord Jesus Christ." Dr 
 Thomson, I have no doubt, vpill vindicate what he 
 has published. It is my intention in the following 
 pages, to correct Mr Drummond's misrepresenta- 
 tions of my arguments, and to oppose a system 
 which is subversive of the gospel of Christ. 
 
 His not having put his name to his Pamphlet, is 
 no reason for my affecting ignorance of my oppo- 
 
 A 
 
o 
 
 nent, for the Author of the " Candid Examina- 
 tion" is well known. Besides, as he has chosen to 
 bring forward my name so prominently, he has no 
 right to expect that I should treat him with greater 
 reserve. He miglit have examined the controversy 
 respecting the human nature of the Son of God, 
 without personality, and in that cas3 he might have 
 been entitled to retain his disguise ; but he has 
 chosen another course. He has not crly attempted 
 to support Mr Irving's doctrine, but has endea- 
 voured to defend him, by depreciating his oppo- 
 nents. In vuidication of this method of conducting 
 the controversy, he may allege that we are taught 
 by the highest authority, that, in oppoGing false doc- 
 trine, it is not improper to advert to the conduct of 
 those by whom it is held. Tho Lord net only con- 
 demned the doctrinal errors of those Vv'ho misled the 
 people, but exposed their hypocrisy and wickedness. 
 His apostles, in opposing the Judaizing teachers, 
 did not fail to shew that their doctrine was not 
 more erroneous, than their practice was defective. 
 These may be thought extreme cases, but their be- 
 ing recorded is calculated to guard us against that 
 false liberality and candour which would lead us 
 to be more concerned for the feelings of others than 
 for the truth of God. The gospel is a mould into 
 which believers are cast, and the habitual defects 
 of our conduct are connected with erroneous views 
 of the gospel, as certainly as the flaws in the image 
 ure occasioned by the imperfection of the mould ; 
 
9 
 
 hence it is said of false teachers, " by tlieir fruits 
 ye shall know them," 
 
 In opposing Mr Irving's views of the human na- 
 ture of Christ, I termed them heretical, because, as 
 I proved, they are inconsistent with the doctrine of 
 the Atonement ; — I termed them novel, because I 
 have not been able to leara that they have hitherto 
 been advanced, except by Madame Bourignon, and 
 a few obscure individuals. I pointed out repeated 
 contradictions in his staterr onts, and condemned his 
 bold and unfounded assertions, as well as his daring 
 speculations. Mr Drumniond has very ingeniously 
 endeavoured to turn the force of thase remarks from 
 Mr Irving, and to bring them to bear against me. 
 He has collected tiiem in one page, to exliibit the 
 " injurious allegations," and *• gros mcts," which I 
 have employed. Every one must see the palpable 
 unfairness of taking particular expressions out of 
 their conr action, and representing them as pro- 
 ceeding from irritation. For instance, I charged 
 Mr Irving with " flagrant self-contradiction," but 
 not without shewing in what it consisted. I charged 
 him with " trifling," and substantiated the charge. 
 I call on Mr Drummond to give one instance in 
 which I have used lightness in this matter, or laid 
 any thing to Mr Irving's charge, which I did not 
 prove. But this is not all ; this fearful list some- 
 times contains a single word ; for instance " false- 
 '' hood," p. 23. Not recollecting having used such 
 language in reference to Mr Irving, I turned to 
 
10 
 
 p. 23, and found I had said, that to represent " the 
 ** great Creator as dwelling in personal union with 
 " every thing that is impious, ungodly, and blas- 
 " phemous in fallen man," would go far to demon- 
 strate the falsehood of revelation, by what logicians 
 term reductio ad absurdum. I do not at present stop 
 to vindicate this remark, the truth of which is in- 
 deed self-evident. I quote it, to shew how unfair 
 it is to select from this passage the word " false- 
 " hood," and to place it under the head of " inju- 
 " rious allegations," against Mr Irving, to whom 
 it had no reference. Again, we meet with the 
 term " presumption," p. 14. I turn to it, and find 
 the folloAving passage. " Mr I. presumes to main- 
 " tain, that when Christ prayed in the garden, " If 
 " it be possible let this cup pass from me," he was 
 " in ' his sinful flesh,' rebelling against God." 
 Having fairly quoted the passage, I ask every im- 
 partial reader, if the word " presumes," was inap- 
 propriate ? I could go over the whole list, but the 
 specimen I have given of Mr Drummond's candour 
 is sufficient. 
 
 He is shocked at my applying the term heresy to 
 Mr Irving's doctrine, and yet he sets out, by in- 
 forming his readers, that " a habit of calling things 
 ** by their right names, has grown up with" hira. 
 I still think heresy the right name for the doctrine 
 promulgated by Mr Irving, and defended by Mr 
 Drummond, respecting our Lord's human nature ; 
 and I used it with the full conviction, that " if Mr 
 
li 
 
 Jrviag's opinions were found conformable to the 
 word of God, I should " stand convicted of he- 
 « resy." 
 
 Were I to collect the " injurious allegations" 
 contained in Mr Drummond's Pamphlet, they 
 would far exceed in number as well as in degree 
 those which he has collected ; but this I shall not 
 do ; if I had not known it before, Mr Drummond's 
 list would have convinced me, that such a selection 
 of words forms no criterion of the spirit in which a 
 work is written. Let Mr Drummond apply the 
 same test to the word of God. Let him collect 
 what he terms " gros mots'' in some of the Psalms 
 or Epistles, or in our Lord's discourses, such as 
 Matthew xxiii. and then proceed to descant on the 
 " list of injurious allegations against his opponent." 
 There are, however, some things of a personal 
 nature to which I must advert, because they are 
 calculated, as doubtless they were intended, to ex- 
 cite prejudice against the doctrine which I have 
 maintained. 
 
 Mr Drummond ascribes my way of speaking of 
 Mr Irving's doctrine, to bad iemper, and to my 
 " ire," being " roused." I never received from Mr 
 Irving any provocation, nor have I any personal 
 feeling against him ; but I remember who has said, 
 " It is good to be zealously aifected always in a 
 " good cause." I consider Mr Irving as a man 
 whose conduct is at once calculated to cast a stumb- 
 ling-block in the way of the world, and to mislead 
 the simple. 
 
12 
 
 Since his first appearance in London, he has been 
 like a reed shaken with the wind. His eccentri- 
 city, his boldness, his professed admiration of the 
 old Scotch Worthies, attracted much attention, and 
 people flocked to a preacher who seemed to have 
 come in the spirit and power of the Covenanters. 
 But, alas ! there was only the lion's skin. There 
 was a magnifying of the ministerial office, as 
 entitling those who hold it, to reprove kings and 
 magistrates ; but the powerful doctrine of (Calvin 
 and Knox was exchanged for a cold, though high 
 sounding Arminianism, and such gross ignorance 
 of the gospel, as led him to talk of being convinced 
 that many of " the evangelical part of men are 
 " pillowing their hopes upon something else than 
 " the sanctification and changed life which the 
 " gospel hath wrought." * 
 
 What difference is it whether the active spirit of a 
 man is laid asleep by the comfort of the holy wafer, and 
 extreme unction, to be his viaticum and passport into hea- 
 ven, or by the constant charm of a few words sounded and 
 sounded, and eternally sounded about Christ's sufficiency 
 to save. — p. 364. 
 
 " Why then," he asks, " do I hear the constant babbling 
 about simple reliance and simple dependance upon Christ, 
 instead of most Scriptural and sound-minded calls to ac- 
 tivity and perseverance after every perfection." — p. 384-5. 
 
 Soon afterwards came ultra Calvinism, con- 
 nected with speculations on the prophecies, and 
 
 • Orations, 2nd Edit. p. 363. 
 
IS 
 
 the Second Advent of Christ, which he expected to 
 witness. This was followed by the pronuilgation 
 of his heresy, respecting the human nature of 
 Christ, and his denial of the Atonement. 
 
 Amidst all his changes, one feature remained 
 unaltered ; the most insufferable dogmatism, the 
 most decided contempt of, and bitter railing against 
 those who differed from him. His former errors 
 never seemed to induce a suspicion, that he might 
 still be wrong, and all his language unavoidably 
 led to the conclusion, that he either believed him- 
 self to be inspired, or that he wished to give others 
 that impression. 
 
 All this was connected with the most daring 
 speculations and an attempt to be wise above what is 
 written. For instance, he asserts " that the infi- 
 " nite God, who is also invisible and incomprehen- 
 " sible, cannot communicate himself, or the know- 
 " ledge of hi^mself unto his creatures, without assum- 
 " iug to himself a finite form. Again, in order to be 
 " visible and comprehensible, nay, we may go a step 
 " higher, and say, that in order to fashion finite 
 " creatures, in order to do a finite action, it is neces- 
 '* sary that the actor should assume a finite form."* 
 
 The Scriptures caution us against being spoiled 
 through philosophy and vain deceit, they teach us 
 to receive the kingdom of God as little children, 
 and to become fools that we may be wise. Mr 
 
 • Discourses, vol i. (328) iii. (328) Iv. 
 
14. 
 
 Irving inculcates the very rGVcrse. In a fr.st-ctay 
 sermon, preaclied 1st January, 1828, lie says- 
 There is indeed a controversy still maintained for the 
 divinity of Christ by the quotation of texts, but seldom 
 by any deep arguments drawn from the nature of the 
 Godhead itself, or from the work of the redemption and 
 regeneration of the creature, and it is maintained net so 
 much for its own dignity and use in theology, as for se- 
 curing of the doctrine of the Atonement which hath 
 swallowed up almost every other doctrine, and become 
 the great indulgence of ignorance and idleness, which, 
 in a selfish age, will ever be the case. 
 
 Here we are taught that the divinity of Christ 
 should be maintained, not by the express declara- 
 tions of the unerring word of God, but by deep 
 arguments drawn from the nature of the Godhead 
 itself, of which we know nothing, except from 
 those despised texts; and of which, froi^*- iis nature, 
 we can know but little. Had Mr Irving never 
 published any thing but the first clause of the above 
 sentence, it would have furnished a sufficient proof 
 that he had erred from the faith. Although we 
 might not have known in what his error consisted, 
 we might have been assured that his wisdom and 
 knowledge had perverted him, and that he had fallen 
 into Ihc snare of the devil ; but the conclusion, in 
 which he speaks in a way so derogatory of the Atone- 
 ment which the apostle declares was his exclusive 
 theme, demonstrates that he has stumbled on the 
 
15 
 
 stone laid in Zion, and that in him is fulfilled what 
 is written, " He taketh the wise in their own 
 " craftiness." 
 
 When Mr Irving came to Scotland last year, 
 I heard him publish the doctrine of the depravity 
 of our Lord's human nature. Considering this 
 sentiment subversive of the gospel, and having 
 afterwards seen his Discourses, in which he fol- 
 lows it out to its proper consequences by set- 
 ting aside the Atonement, I published the Re- 
 futation, not one word of w^hich I " wish to 
 blot." I used the term heresy, I charged Mr Ir- 
 ving with daring speculations, with setting aside 
 the Atonement, and I wrote advisedly. I had no pre- 
 judice against him, but thought it my duty to call 
 " things by their right names," for the purpose of 
 guarding others against error. I considered him 
 to be sapping the foundation of the gospel of 
 Christ, and this conviction is confirmed by what 
 Mr Drummond has written. 
 
 I pointed out some particulars in which Mr Ir- 
 ving's system corresponds with Socinianism. Mr 
 Drummond supposes this was done, " for the un- 
 " worthy purpose of raising a clamour against an 
 " opinion which he was not sufficiently skilled 
 " to refute," — p. 57. He tells us the sentiment, 
 " that Christ only attained the dignity of our 
 " High Priest after his resurrection — has no more 
 " necessary connection with Socinianism, than it 
 " has with Presbyterianism or Independency." A 
 
1/^ 
 J 
 
 little consideration might have preverted Mr Drum- 
 mond's making such an assertion. The Socinian 
 maintains that the death of Christ was not a sacri- 
 fice for sin. Mr Irving says he was not a priest 
 till after his resurrection, consequently his death 
 could not be a sacrifice. And how does Mr Drum- 
 mond endeavour to vindicate Mr Irving ? by affirm- 
 ing that " the highest act of his priestly office v/as 
 " the entering with his own blood within the holy 
 " of holies, that is in heaven." But was the act of 
 entering into the holy of holies in Icrael, that v/hich 
 constituted a man High Priest ? Was not this act 
 the consequence of having r.ttainsd the dignity, r^ot 
 the means of attaining it ? Had he not ?>re- 
 viously in the character of High Priest, offered the 
 sacrifice with the blood of wirlch he entered the 
 holy of holies ? and this was a figure for the time 
 then present, of the sacrifice to be offered by our 
 Great High Priest, with the blood of which ho en- 
 tered into heaven itself, there to appear in the pre- 
 sence of God for us. This defence of his friend is 
 rather a curious snecimen of Mr Drummond's lc:-ic; 
 but every man has his proper gift, and if v/o n:ay 
 judge by the " candid examination," reasoning is 
 not his forte. 
 
 If Clirist performed any part of the priestly oifice 
 on earth, he was certainly a priest, ?.na that he did 
 so, we have the express testimony of the Koly 
 
 Ghost, — " such an high priest became us v/ho 
 
 " needeth not daily as those high priests to ofter up 
 
I'y 
 
 '* sacrifices— —for this he did once, when he offer- 
 ed up himself," Heb. vii. 26, 27. I again affirm, 
 and I challenge Mr Druminond or Mr Irving to 
 disprove it, that the denial of Christ's attaining the 
 dignity of our High Priest, till after his resurrec- 
 tion, is justly characterized as a Socinian senti- 
 ment, and in calling it so, I only followed Mr 
 Drummcnd's laudable example, " of calling things 
 *' by their right names." 
 
 Mr Drummond is much displeased at my having 
 quoted, " the Pamphlet of a person of the name 
 *' of Cole," whose conduct, in regard to Mr Irving, 
 he characterizes as " so deliberate a breach of com- 
 " raon honesty." — p. S5. I am not acquainted with 
 Mr Cole, nor did I ever hear his name lill I saw 
 his letter to Mr Irving ; but so far from agreeing 
 with Mr Drummond on this subject, I hold Mr 
 Cole's conduct to be not only perfectly justifiable, 
 but praise- worthy. He went to Mr Irving's meet- 
 ing-house, he heard the most unscriptural doctrine 
 publicly delivered, and to prevent the possibility of 
 mistake or misrepresentation, or of attaching undue 
 importance to an unguarded expression, he re- 
 quested permission to speak with Mr Irving, and 
 being admitted into the vestry, he inquired whether 
 what he had said in the discourse was his " real 
 " and considerate belief." Where then was there 
 any " breach of common honesty ?" He did not 
 intrude on Mr Irving's privacy for the purpose of 
 eliciting his opinions. Mr Irving had openly pro- 
 
 / 
 
18 
 
 claimed, his sentiments which appeared to Mr Cole 
 so grossly heretical, that he wished to ascertain 
 whether he had not misunderstood them. Mr Irving 
 assured liim his impression as to the doctrine deliver- 
 ed was correct. And where, I ask, was the most dis- 
 tant approach to " so deliberate a breach of common 
 <« honesty," or to — " the betrayal of unauthorized 
 " private intercourse." — p. 36. There was no abus- 
 ing of confidence — no underliand dealing — no " sin 
 " of backbiting." All was fair and open. Has Mr 
 Irving alleged that Mr Cole misrepresented the 
 conversation which passed in the vestry ? No : 
 Mr Cole appeals to Mr Irving's " moral integrity" 
 for an acknowledgment that he has given the 
 " true substance'' of the conversation. But Mr Ir- 
 Ting and his friends exclaim, that he has been be- 
 trayed. It would seem, to use Mr Drummond's 
 words, that this has been done, " for the unworthy 
 " purpose of raising a clamour against an opinion 
 " which" they were " not sufficiently skilled to re- 
 " fute." So far from repenting my having quoted 
 Mr Cole, I most decidedly approve of his conduct 
 in publishing the result of his conversation with 
 Mr Irving ; and in doing so, I am quite unbiassed 
 by personal considerations, as I never heard of Mr 
 Cole before I saw his Pamphlet. 
 
 Mr Drummond having expressed his hope that 
 I might retract my opinion on the point at issue, 
 says,— 
 
19 
 
 Our cliief apprelionsions are derived from the branch of 
 divinity to which lie has mostly addicted himself; we 
 mean church discipline and government ; for a man may 
 be very learned in the proper forms of social worship, and 
 in terms of communion ; upon the due qualifications of per- 
 sons to be baptized, and to receive the Lord's Supper ; 
 upon the quantity of water, whether by sprinkling or im- 
 mersion ; upon the right hands of fellowship, and kisses of 
 charity ; and yet be utterly incompetent to discuss a ques- 
 tion in the deeper theology." — p. 78. 
 
 Where Mr Drumraoud olDtained his information, 
 I know not, but his statement is unfounded. I 
 have not " mostly addicted" myself to " church 
 " discipline and government ;" and Mr D. is the 
 more inexcusable in having asserted this, because 
 previously to its being published, he was told it was 
 untrue. Twenty-five years ago I published " a 
 " View of Social Worship," in which publication I 
 considered the various ordinances which believers 
 are commanded to observe. Since that time there 
 has been no change in my sentiments, except on 
 the subject of baptism. The grounds of this change 
 I stated in a pamphlet published in 1808, but 
 neither at that time, nor at any ^bsequent period, 
 did I " mostly addict" myself to such matters. I 
 always considered the ordinances of Christ, as the 
 means appointed by infinite wisdom, for keeping 
 our minds fixed on those great truths which are re- 
 vealed in the word of God, and was convinced that 
 they are important, only when viewed in connec* 
 
 £ 
 
20 
 
 tion with those doctrines of which they are intend- 
 ed to remind us, and that if separated in our minds 
 from those doctrines, they become not only useless, 
 but pernicious. For what purpose then did Mr D. 
 bring forward this charge, of the falsehood of which 
 he had been previously warned ? Was it not for 
 " the unv/orthy purpose of raising a clamour against 
 " an opinion which he was not sufficiently skilled 
 " to refute." 
 
 Had I for so long a time " mostly addicted" my- 
 self to this " branch of divinity," it would, at least, 
 have entitled me to the praise of steadiness. It 
 would have proved, that, having chosen a " branch 
 " of divinity" of which Mr D. tells us he does " not 
 " mean to speak slightingly," I had sufficient 
 perseverance to prosecute it. But I apprehend my 
 still holding the views which I adopted more than 
 twenty years ago, is the ground of the charge. Mr 
 Drummond's practice has been very different. It 
 has been observed, that he may be said to have 
 " boxed the compass" of religious belief — to have 
 passed through all the various stages of opinion, 
 both as to church discipline and doctrinal faith. 
 He renounced the baptism of the Church of Eng- 
 land — he publicly avowed his sentiments. He 
 may now talk of schismatics, but he once spoke as 
 strongly against the bishops and dignitaries of the 
 Church of England. I have no doubt that these 
 subjects then chiefly occupied his attention. When 
 assisting in baptizing in the Lake of Geneva, I 
 
£1 
 
 dare say he was engrossed with " the due qualifica- 
 tions of persons to be baptized," and " upon the 
 " quantity of water, whether by sprinkling or im- 
 " mersion," and judging of me by himself, he sup- 
 poses that my mind must all along have been 
 chiefly occupied with these subjects. He is how- 
 ever mistaken. Many years ago I learned that 
 the " kingdom of God is not meat and drink, but 
 " righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy 
 " Ghost." I endeavour to keep the ordinances as 
 delivered by the apostles, 1 Cor. xi. 2. and if I am 
 reproached for this, I shall not be ashamed ; but at 
 no period since I believed the gospel, did I hold 
 any ordinance to be profitable, except as it stood 
 connected with the truth as it is in Jesus, and 
 tended to impress this truth more deeply on our 
 hearts. The following extract from the preface to 
 the first edition of the " View of Social Worship," 
 dated, June 1805, will put Mr D. in possession of 
 what are still my sentiments on the subject of the 
 ordinances of Christ : — 
 
 The religion of Jesus, in its doctrines, precepts and in- 
 stitutions, is one connected whole ; in proportion as one 
 part is overlooked, the force of all will be weakened. He 
 who feels, as every Christian mu8t, his pronenese to let 
 slip the most important truths of the Word of God, will 
 be thankful that the Lord has graciously employed vai'ious 
 means to preserve in our minds the remembrance of them. 
 He has revealed his will in the most engaging and affect- 
 ing manner, and has also instituted vaiious ordinances of 
 
^2 
 
 worsliip, all which represent, and are memorials of the 
 doctrines of his word.* 
 
 If, in reading the history of the life of a gieat man, we 
 had at the same time an opportunity of seeing his actions 
 delineated in the most beautiful and coiTect paintings, it 
 would make a far deeper impression on our minds, than the 
 mere narrative. — The ordinances of Christ are just so 
 many sensible images of the doctrines he taught. When 
 these are observed as he delivered them, they greatly tend 
 to impress us with just views of the truih ; and when they 
 are in any measure corrupted, they naturally lead us into 
 error and misapprehension. Error and misapprehension in 
 sentiment, must always produce error in practice ; for it is 
 certain from the Word of God, that holiness springs from 
 the knowledge and belief of the truth. 
 
 Mr D's instability has not been confined to a 
 " particular branch of divinity," but on this it is 
 not necessary to enter. Of late he has " mostly 
 " addicted himself" to the study of the prophe- 
 cies, where he has ample scope for indulging his 
 love of novelty; and in connection with this, he 
 has not only adopted Mr Irving's heresy respect- 
 ing the human nature of Christ, but denies origi- 
 nal sin, substitution, and imputation. And this is not 
 all ; so ultra-zealous has the cl devant Antipgedobap- 
 tist become for the alliance of church and state, 
 that he considers the British Constitution to be vio- 
 lated, because the Lord's Supper is no longer pro- 
 
 • " Scgnius irritant animos demissa per aurem 
 Quam qua; sunt occulis subjecta fidelibus." 
 
£3 
 
 faned, by its observance being made a qualification 
 for civil offices, and tells us, that " America is the 
 " only nation in the world without a God. America 
 " has no national God." * 
 
 In immediate connection with his assertion that 
 I have mostly addicted myself to " church disci- 
 " pline and government," he says, " Perhaps there 
 " is nothing upon which Mr Haldane piques him- 
 " self more than an accurate and clear statement of 
 " the gospel," — p. 79. This is not very consis- 
 tent; the gospel, according to Mr Drummond, did 
 not come under the branch of divinity to which I 
 had " mostly addicted" myself. No; — it was 
 " church discipline and government." How then 
 should I pique myself upon " an accurate and 
 ** clear statement of the gospel," which is certain- 
 ly a question in '' the deeper theology." 
 
 I do not know on what authority Mr Drummond 
 states that Mr Haldane piques himself " on an ac- 
 *' curate and clear statement of the gospel ;" but I 
 am sure if he does so, it is a proof of his ignorance, 
 1 Cor. viii. 2. 
 
 The more our views of the gospel are enlarged, the 
 more shall we feel the deficiency of our knowledge 
 of the unsearchable riches of Christ. " I count 
 " not myself to have apprehended," said one who 
 was not a whit behind the chiefest apostles. The 
 following quotation will enable the reader to judge 
 
 • A Defence of the Students of Prophecy, &c. p. 110. 
 
24 
 
 of the accuracy and clearness of Mr Drummond's 
 " statement of the gospel." Refei ring to a passage 
 in the Refutation, in which I said that the " gospel is 
 " the revelation of that divine righteousness hy which 
 " the sinner is justified," he replies, "Indeed, worthy 
 " Sir, ' the gospel is no such thing ' The ' gospel' 
 " is per syncope an expression for the ' good news 
 " of the kingdom ;' the divine righteousness is the 
 " title to the possession of the kingdom, but it is no 
 " more the gospel than a title-deed is an estate; 
 " and if Mr H. has been all his life preaching the 
 " title, and not the kingdom, he has never, up to 
 " this hour, preached ' the gospel' at all."~p. 79. 
 While writing this sentence, Mr D. was sensible 
 that the statement oa which he animadverts, is 
 very nearly a quotation from an inspired apostle ; 
 to avoid coming into actual collision with the 
 Scriptures, he adds a sentence by no means remark- 
 able for perspicuity, in which he informs his readers, 
 that " even at Rom. i. 16, IT, the apostle uses the 
 " term as pars pro toto ,- he refers to the word as 
 " used by our Lord, just as our Lord himself refers 
 " to the word ' kingdom,' and indeed the word 
 " * glad tidings' also, as used by the more ancient 
 " prophets. See Isa. lii. T. Dan. ii. 44. vii. 27." — 
 p. 79. 
 
 In Rom. i. 16, 17, the apostle gives as his reason 
 for not being ashamed of the gospel, that in it is re- 
 vealed the righteousness of God. That a man who 
 considers imputation to be no more than a figure, 
 
25 
 
 should dislike tljls statement, is what might be ex- 
 pected. But it is rather bold to affirm that not to 
 be the gospel, which the apostle describes as the 
 very essence of the gospel, on account of which it 
 is the " power of God unto salvation, to every one 
 " that believeth." If the revelation of the right- 
 eousness of God be not the gospel, what is it which 
 deserves the name ? When Philip went down to Sa- 
 maria, he preached Christ to the people ; the apostle 
 determined to know nothing save Jesus Christ and 
 him crucified; in other words, he preached Christ 
 as " Jehovah our righteousness," but according to 
 Mr Drummond, this was not the gospel ! When 
 the angel announced to the shepherds the Saviour's 
 birth, he declared that he brought them " glad tid- 
 " ings of great joy." According to Mr Drummond's 
 " accurate and clear statement," this was a mis- 
 take ; the angel did not preach " the gospel at all !" 
 When the apostle preached in the synagogue at 
 Antioch, he informed his hearers that he declared 
 to them glad tidings, namely, the fulfilment of the 
 promise of a Saviour made to the fathers, and pro- 
 ceeded to preach through him forgiveness of sins. 
 Acts xiii. 32 — 39. Was not this the gospel ? But 
 since Mr D. thinks the apostle gives a partial state- 
 ment in Rom. i. 16, 17, let us turn to another passage, 
 in which he expressly states what he understood by 
 the gospel. " Moreover, brethren, I declare unto 
 " you the gospel which I preached to you, which 
 " also ye have received, and wherein ye stand — for 
 
26 
 
 " I delivered unto you first of all that which also 
 " I received, how that Christ died for our sins, ac- 
 *' cording to the Scriptures, and that he was bu- 
 *' ried, and that he rose again tlie third day, accor- 
 " ding to the Scriptures." 1 Cor. xv. 1,3, 4. Now, 
 this is the gospel which I preach, and it is a reve- 
 lation of the righteousness of God. In consequence 
 of the fall, all mankind are by nature the children 
 of wrath ; they are under the curse of a holy God. 
 If any of them escape the wrath to come, it must 
 be in a way consistent with his character, who 
 will neither justify the wicked, nor condemn the 
 just, Prov. xvii. 15. Christ hath brought in 
 everlasting righteousness, by which all his people 
 shall be presented faultless before God, and this 
 is the subject of the gospel which is therefore 
 the revelation " of the righteousness of God, 
 " by faith of Jesus Christ, unto all, and upon all 
 " them that believe." In it Christ is set forth to 
 " be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to de- 
 " clare his (God's) righteousness — that he might be 
 "just, and the justifier of him which believeth in 
 *' Jesus." Rom. iii. 22 — 26. Hence, to the apostles 
 was committed " the ministry of reconciliation." 
 As the ambassadors of Christ, they besought men 
 to be reconciled to God, " for he hath made him 
 " to be sin for us, who knew no sin, that we might 
 " be made the righteousness of God in him." Their 
 office is therefore called^ the " ministration of 
 " righteousness.'' This righteousness was first re- 
 
27 
 
 vealed in the promise, that the seed of the woman 
 should bruise the head of the serpent. Of this 
 righteousness Noah was a preacher, 2 Pet. ii. 5. 
 It was a theme on which the prophets delighted 
 to dwell, " My salvation," saith the Lord by 
 Isaiah, " is near to come, and my righteousness to 
 " be revealed." As to this righteousness being " no 
 " more the gospel than a title-deed is an estate," it is 
 a mere quibble ; the possession of a valid title is 
 the possession of the estate : by the title-deed the 
 estate is conveyed. " He that believeth on the Son 
 " of God, hath the record in himself ;" he is 
 clothed with the robe of righteousness, he is cover- 
 ed with the garments of salvation, and consequently 
 shall receive the crown of life. Mr Drummond is 
 rather concise in his criticism, but I presume he 
 means, that if I have not preached Christ's perso- 
 nal reign on earth for a thousand years, I have 
 never preached the gospel at all ; and I will fairly 
 tell him, I have not preached this doctrine, because 
 I believe that Christ has gone to prepare a place 
 for his people, and that he will come again to re- 
 ceive them to himself, that where he is, there they 
 may be also. 
 
 The style of the examination is highly improper, 
 there is a degree of levity and flippancy which is 
 the more inexcusable, as Mr Drummond tells us 
 that the subject " is one of those technical * wind- 
 " ingsin divinity' that requires the clearest head and 
 ** coolest temper." If so, his examination ought to 
 
$s 
 
 bave been conducted with gravity. Tbls, bowever, 
 is far from being the case, and it seems to arise in 
 part from Mr D.'s desire toappear acquainted with 
 every tiling. His self-sufficiency is really amusing, 
 and is naturally connected with the greatest con- 
 tempt for the attainments of others. Having stated 
 that Jesus lived a life of faith in the promise of his 
 Father, he proceeds, — p. 42. " It is to be appre- 
 " bended that neither Mr Haldane nor Dr Thom- 
 *' son ever thought of Christ living a life of 
 *' faith." Dr Thomson and Mr Haldane dare not 
 make themselves of the number, or compare them- 
 selves with some that commend themselves ; but 
 they have read the apostle's words, in which he 
 proves Christ's unity, with his brethren, by his living 
 a life of faith, Heb. ii. 13, and notwithstanding 
 the contempt with which Mr Irving treats the quo- 
 tation of texts in proof of doctrines, they have been 
 taught to prefer that method to " deep arguments 
 ** drawn from the nature of the Godhead, or the 
 *' work of redemption and regeneration of the crea- 
 « ture." 
 
 Mr Drummond repeatedly informs us of his 
 knowledge of mysteries ; no secret seems to trouble 
 him, Dan. iv. 9 : he refers to several with which 
 he takes care to tell us he is acquainted, although 
 he does not explain them, p. 34 — 43. There are, 
 however, many plain passages of Scripture to which 
 he has ]m\d very little attention, for instance, Rom. 
 xii. 3, " For I say, through the grace given unto 
 
29 
 
 " me, to every one that is among you, not to think 
 " of himself more highly than he ought to think, 
 " but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt 
 " to every man the measure of faith." It is impos- 
 sible to read IVIr Irving's works, or Mr Druni- 
 mond's Examination, without perceiving that they 
 are elated with the idea of their own attainments, 
 and consequently are always disposed to intrude 
 into those things which they have not seen. 
 
 But Mr D.'s desire of displaying his knowledge 
 is not confined to one subject. From " Plato" to 
 " Partridge," from " Hooker" to " Holy Willie," 
 from " Athanasius" to " Abernethey," from the 
 height of Mr Pitt's nose, to the " piper's man's wee 
 laddie," every thing is familiar to him, and perhaps 
 it is from the difficulty of managing such a mass of 
 discordant materials that he has not always time to 
 weigh the arguments which he undertakes to ex- 
 amine. 
 
 One of the bad effects of the style of the Exami- 
 nation is, that the reader is sometimes at a loss to 
 know whether the Author is in jest or earnest. For 
 instance, when he writes of the " technical wind- 
 ings in divinity," he might be supposed to be sneer- 
 ing at those strifes of words which are condemned 
 by the apostle, and which have been so frequent 
 among those who professed the faith of Christ. 
 But, from the connection, it appears he is speak- 
 ing of " the difficulty of giving accurate utterance 
 " to the deep things of God, increased in a rapidly 
 
30 
 
 " accelerating ratio, as we approached tlie point in 
 " which all contrarieties centre, the Deity with the 
 
 " creature." — p. 1 1. 
 
 This he improperly applies to the subject of con- 
 troversy. The assumption of the human nature 
 into union with the divine, is one of those things 
 into which the angels desire to look, and in con- 
 sidering which " our eyes become dark with exces- 
 " sive brightness," but this is not the subject of con- 
 troversy. The question is, was the human nature 
 which the Son of God assumed, a holy or an un- 
 holy natui-e? There is nothing here to dazzle us. 
 It is a question of a matter of fact on which the 
 Scripture is perfectly explicit. It tells us, that 
 which was born of the virgin was a holy thing, a 
 temple in which all the fulness of the Godhead dwelt 
 bodily ; that Satan had nothing in Christ. Mr Ir- 
 ving tells us that our Lord's human nature was a 
 "shiful substance;" that every variety of human 
 wickedness was " inherent in his humanity," and 
 that he communed with every impious, ungodly, 
 and blasphemous chamber of the fallen intellect 
 
 and feeling of men. 
 
 Mr Drummond professes to write for those 
 whose minds are harrassed by the mutual charges 
 of heresy which the two parties in the controversy 
 respecting the human nature of our Lord have 
 brought against each other. The truth on this 
 subject can only be ascertained by the authority of 
 the word of God. In the Refutation I adhered 
 
31 
 
 closely to Scripture, and had Mr Drummond in- 
 tended candidly to examine the controversy, he 
 would have particularly considered the passages 
 to which I referred ; and had he been able to 
 shew that they were misapplied, it would have 
 proved that I at least was not sufficiently skilled to 
 refute Mr Irving. But although Mr Drummond 
 would thus have acted on the principles of the 
 " novum organon,^^ of which he professes himself 
 an admirer, he has adopted a different plan. Like 
 the philosophers whom Bacon condemns, he has 
 proceeded to lay down a theory founded on prin- 
 ciples not only false but absurd. It is doubtless 
 more gratifying to the pride of the human intel- 
 lect to proceed in the way of deduction from as- 
 sumed principles, than, under a consciousness of 
 our ignorance, to sit at the feet of Jesus, and to 
 become fools that we may be wise. There is " a 
 shew of wisdom" in laying down axioms derived 
 from the treasures of our own understanding, and 
 arguing on them as if they were incontrovertible. 
 This method has also another advantage, when un- 
 happily we have undertaken the defence of error ; 
 it enables us to involve and perplex the subject, 
 so that the error into which we have fallen is now 
 plausibly defended. Hence I have long observed, 
 that in any religious question, the person who is 
 right generally keeps by the Scriptures, while his 
 opponent uniformly endeavours to take refuge in the 
 obscurity of general reasoning; and such as mi^ht 
 
 c 
 
3% 
 
 have been anticipated has been Mr Drummond's 
 conduct on tlie present occasion. 
 
 He either altogether overlooks the passages of 
 Scripture referred to in the Refutation, or very 
 slightly notices them. He says nothing of the dif- 
 ferent species of temptation to which I referred. He 
 evades my argument from the impossibility of the 
 Son of God dwelling in personal union with every 
 Species of inherent wickedness, by representing me 
 as maintaining that the holiness of the human na- 
 ture was " the procuring cause, or worthiness for" 
 — " its union with the Creator." — p. 20. 
 
 He does not reply to my assertion, that to love 
 God with ALL our heart, is inconsistent with the 
 slightest propensity to evil. I quoted John xiv. 30, 
 " the Prince of this world cometh and hath nothing 
 " in me." I asked, how could Satan have nothing 
 in him whose human nature was sinful. I shewed, 
 from the necessity of the priest under the law be- 
 ing free from every defect and blemish, and also 
 from the necessary perfection of the sin-offering, 
 in which, if there was any natural defect, no pro- 
 cess of purification could render it meet to be offer- 
 ed, that there could be no original defilement in 
 the body prepared for our Lord, for the purpose of 
 being made a sin-offering. I referred to the declara- 
 tion, — " God hath made him to be sin for us, who 
 " knew no sin ;" I observed, it is not said, who did no 
 sin, but who knew no sin, and asked how could 
 this be said of him, in whom all wickedness was 
 
33 
 
 inherent? I noticed that Mr Irving considers those 
 passages in the Psalms which describe the iniqui- 
 ties of Christ as taking hold of him, to be proofs of 
 the corruption of his human nature, and shewed 
 that they must equally be proofs of his actual 
 transgression. All these things are passed over in 
 the " Candid Examination." If Mr D. did not 
 think the Refutation required an answer, or felt 
 that " he was not sufficiently skilled to refute" it, 
 he should have let it alone ; but certainly it was 
 not candid to profess to examine the controversy, 
 to quote passages from my Pamphlet, to misre- 
 present my sentiments, and then to conclude that 
 '' Mr Irving has unquestionably maintained the 
 *' correct doctrine." — p. 71. 
 
 Mr Drummond stumbles at the very outset, and 
 evidently misunderstands the controversy which 
 he undertook to examine. After a similitude of 
 an old woman and a gill of gooseberries, which 
 *' halts piteously," and which, if it were worth 
 while, might be easily turned against him, besides 
 being shewn to be merely a revival of one of the 
 *' technical windings" of the Athenian sophists, he 
 proceeds, — 
 
 It is necessary to premise, that upon the perfect imma- 
 culacy of Jesus Christ, God and man in one person, there 
 is not the smallest diifererice of opinion between Messrs 
 Irving, Haldane, and Thomson ; that the expressions of 
 one are quite as clear and as strong as the expressions of 
 the other upon that subject. Whoever denies that ?vlr 
 
34 
 
 Irving has so written, and so said, (as I, hisce aurihus^ 
 have heard him say from his pulpit many hundreds of 
 times), declares that which he knows to be a wilful and 
 premeditated falsehood. With wilful sinners, with persons 
 living (in) a pertinacious course of malevolent slander, I 
 will not argue ; we are required to treat them as heathen 
 men and publicans, and to hold them not as brethren, but 
 as the enemies of the Lord Jesus. — p. 13. 
 
 I am by no means disposed to deny, that innu- 
 merable contradictions will be found in all whicb 
 Mr Irving publishes, either from the pulpit or the 
 press ; but in the above passage, Mr Drummond 
 has used language to which he is not entitled. 
 With all due acknowledgement for the courtesy of 
 this language, which, from a professed advocate 
 for charity and good temper is sufficiently strong, 
 I most decidedly maintain, that there is a radical 
 difference of opinion between Mr Irving and my- 
 self, on the perfect immaculacy of our Lord Jesus 
 Christ, I affirm from the word of God, that in 
 his human nature, there was no taint of sin ; while 
 Mr Irving affirms, that every species of wickedness 
 was inherent in his humanity. I affirm that he 
 knew no sin, — that it was his meat and drink to do 
 the will of his Father in heaven. Mr Irving says that 
 there was in him a continual conflict arising from the 
 power of corruption^ — a law in his members warring 
 against the law of his mind, which was only pre- 
 vented from bringing him into captivity, and lead- 
 ing him to open acts of rebellion, by the power of 
 
35 
 
 the Holy Ghost, ^* subduing, restrainhig, conquer- 
 " ing, tlie evil propensities of the fallen manhood.'* 
 I shall not be deterred, by any language which 
 Mr Drummond can use, or by any estimate which he 
 may form of my conduct, from asserting that these 
 are directly opposite, and perfectly irreconcilable 
 statements. I shewed from Scripture, that the 
 thought of foolishness is sin ; that the desire of what 
 is contrary to the will of God, is a breach of the 
 law, and therefore that a creature possessing a 
 sinful nature, — a nature which desires what God 
 prohibits, must of necessity be a sinner ; or in 
 other words, guilty of actual sin. Had our Lord 
 possessed such a nature, there could not be in 
 him " perfect immaculacy." Mr Irving, in stating 
 that there was a law in his members, warring 
 against the law of his mind, represents sin not in a 
 dormant and torpid state, but in a state of constant 
 activity, against which the Lord did " toil, and 
 " sweat, and travail in exceeding great sorrow, in 
 " this mass of iniquity, with which I and every 
 " sinful man are oppressed."* And as if both 
 he and Mr Drummond were sensible that this was 
 inconsistent with perfect immaculacy, they main- 
 tain that his being " holy, harmless, undefiled, 
 " separate from sinners," refers to him, not while 
 on earth, but after his death and resurrection. I 
 noticed that Mr Irving endeavoured to palliate his 
 heresy, by admitting that Christ did no sin, and 
 
 • Morning Watch, p. 421. 
 
36 
 
 shewed that this was founded on the defective mo- 
 rality of the heathen philoscpliers, and not on the 
 law of God, which is exceeding broad, and is a dis- 
 cerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart, — 
 which denounces lust to be sin as well as robbery. 
 I asked how one could take " the sinfulness, the 
 " fallenness of flesh and blood," and yet be said to 
 know no sin ? I observed, that instead of Christ 
 having no concord with Belial, as the apostle 
 teaches us, Belial, according to Mr Irving's theory, 
 was a component part of what was born of the 
 virgin. Mr D. undertook to examine the contro- 
 versy ; but he cautiously avoids fairly meeting my 
 arguments, and on this, as on other occasions, sa- 
 tisfies himself with asserting, in opposition to the 
 clearest evidence, that 
 
 Upon the perfect immaculacy of Jesus Christ, God and 
 man, there is not the smallest difference of opinion between 
 Messrs Irving, Haldane, and Thomson, — that the expres- 
 sions of the one are quite as clear and as strong as the ex- 
 pressions of the other upon that subject. — p. 13. 
 
 The whole point at issue therefore is, hoia was the man 
 the creature which the Son of God assumed into union 
 with himself, immaculate? Was it by innate and essen- 
 tial, that is, an underived or inherent immaculacy ? or was 
 it an immaculacy prese\'ved only by the'power of Deity 
 working in the creature ? — p. 13, 14. 
 
 If Mr D. would have spared time to consider 
 what he undertook to examine, he would have seen 
 that this is no part of the point at issue. No one 
 said that the immaculacy of Christ's human nature 
 
37 
 
 was underived. So far from this, I argued its im- 
 maculacy because it was produced by him, all whose 
 works are holy. I observed, that " to represent the 
 " human nature of Christ as sinful, is representing 
 " him who is glorious in holiness, to be the author 
 " of sin."— Ref. p. 27. 
 
 In another passage Mr Drummond says, — 
 
 Uniting in one person God and man, the Scriptures al- 
 ways speak of him as spotless ; and in every expression 
 which can be used to denote the perfect absence of the 
 --smallest taint of sin in the compound person of the Lord 
 Jesus Christ, Mr Irving is quite as strong, decisive, and 
 cleai", as either Dr T. or Mr Haldane. — p. 34-5. 
 
 Certainly the Scriptures speak of the absence of 
 the smallest taint of sin in the Lord Jesus Christ ; but 
 Mr L'ving, iji opposition to the Scriptures, affirms 
 that the Lord's human nature was alienated from 
 God and righteousness, and that it communed 
 " with every impious, ungodly, and blasphemous 
 " chamber of the fallen intellect, and feeling of men;" 
 that the same conflict which takes place in every 
 believer, was maintained in the heart of Immanuel. 
 This makes the manhood of Christ " exactly like 
 " ours," but it precludes the possibility of imma- 
 culacy in one who possessed such a nature. It is im- 
 possible there could at once be immaculacy and in- 
 herency of " every variety of human wickedness 
 " which hath been realized, or is possible to 
 " be realized ;" that there could at once be im- 
 
38 
 
 maculacy and the lawof sin warring in his members. 
 As to having " broaclied the new doctrine, that 
 " the manhood was holy, immortal, and incorrnp- 
 " tible, per 5g," I never uttered such a sentiment. 
 I stated that the manhood was a creature, and con- 
 sequently, it could not be independent ; the man- 
 hood was like that of Adam, created upright, and 
 its not being liable to sin as he was, arose from its 
 being in conception united with the person of 
 the Son of God. The question between Mr Irving 
 and myself is simply this ; I affirm that the Lord's 
 human nature was in its creation like that of Adam, 
 sinless, and in virtue of its union with God, was 
 never liable to sin. Mr Irving maintains, that in 
 it, all wickechiess was inherent, although it was 
 prevented from being brought into action, by the 
 irresistible power of the Spirit, or, as I expressed it 
 in the Refutation, — 
 
 He r.dmits tliat in Christ these abominations were never 
 brought into action, but still they all dwelt in Him ; so 
 that the heart of the beloved Son of God, in whom he de- 
 lighted, was a mass of corruption — a cage of every unclean 
 bird, struggling for liberty to go forth to the perpetration 
 of the grossest wickedness. It was a corrupt fountain, 
 full of deadly poison, although the torrent, according to 
 Mr Irving, was checked and rolled back by t!ie power of 
 the Holy Ghost, as by an overwhelming tide. The heart 
 of the only begotten Son of God, " full of grace and truth," 
 is thus represented as full of vileness and corruption. 
 How (lifi'erent is the representation of Scripture ! *' I de- 
 
39 
 
 " light to do thy will, O my God : yea, thy law is within 
 " my heart," Psalm xl. 8.— Ref. p. 30. 
 
 I might have added, that according to Mr Ir- 
 ving, so far from sin not being " brought into 
 " action," it was continually in action, warring 
 against the law of his mind, and consequently, he 
 was a violator- of the law of God which requires 
 truth in the inward parts ; which not only demands 
 clean hands, but a pure heart. After affirming 
 that the Lord had a law in his members, warring 
 against the law of his mind, that is to say, that the 
 natural enmity and corruption of his heart main- 
 tained a constant and violent struggle against the 
 holy law of God, which is a discerner of the 
 thoughts and intents of the heart ; it is palpably 
 absurd to represent him to be without sin. Paul 
 once maintained the same error. He was '* alive 
 " without the law — touching the righteousness 
 " which is in the law, blameless ;" but " when the 
 " commandment came, sin revived," and he felt 
 himself to be guilty, condemned by the law, in con- 
 formity to which he had gloried. The law, as it 
 were, raised sin from the dead, because it made 
 Paul conscious of its power in his heart. 
 
 Mr Drummond tells us the question is, " whether 
 " the human nature which the Son of God as- 
 " sumed, in order to becoming the Christ, was 
 " liable to sin, if it had not been energized in by 
 " the Holy Ghost ; or whether it was essentially 
 
40 
 
 " without this liability, and independent of the 
 " support of the Deity."— p. 58-9. 
 
 This is not the question at all ; the question is, 
 Was the human nature of Christ alienated from 
 God and righteousness, or was it holy and upright ? 
 I have proved the latter from its being prepared by 
 God the Father, for the incarnation of the Son ; 
 ii om its subsisting in personal union with Deity, 
 and from its being expressly declared to be holy ; 
 as to its being essentially without liability to sin, 
 independent of the support of the Deity, I never 
 said any thing of the kind : it was united, in its 
 formation, with the Godhead, and therefore, al- 
 though never liable to sin, was not independent of 
 the support of the Deity. Mr Drummond alleges 
 that " both Dr Thomson and Mr Haldane perpe- 
 " tually make a confusion of the natures of the 
 " God-man, and assert that of one, which is only 
 ** true of both conjoined ; and in this confusion, 
 " most of the fallacies they have put forth are 
 '' bottomed." — p. 59. I call on Mr Drummond to 
 produce 07ie passage in which I have made a con- 
 fusion of the natures of the God-man. If he is 
 unable to answer the call, what shall we say of his 
 assertion, that I " do this perpetually." 
 
 Such then is the style and character of Mr 
 Drummond's Candid Examination. I do not com- 
 plain of his personalities ; if he could have served 
 the cause of God and truth at my expence, he was 
 right in doing so. Besides those personal attacks 
 
41 
 
 to which I have adverted, I could have referred to 
 many others scattered through his work ; hut this 
 would answer no good purpose; and had I not 
 wished to shew that the system which he has 
 undertaken to defend, is utterly subversive of 
 the gospel, I should not have vindicated myself 
 from any charge which he has advanced. The 
 levity which he has discovered, and the want of at- 
 tention to what he professed to examine, which has 
 led him entirely to mistake and misrepresent the 
 question at issue, are still more reprehensible. I 
 trust he will yet see the error into which he has 
 fallen, for it is inseparably connected with erro- 
 neous views of the Atonement, and of all the lead- 
 ing doctrines of the gospel of Christ. 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 MR DRUMMOND S DEFINITIONS. 
 
 Mr Drummond begins with defining the terms 
 God, creature, and holiness, which he considers 
 more especially necessary " upon a subject on 
 " which there is not only great real difficulty, but 
 ** where terms are to be used, to wliich the writers. 
 
42 
 
 " wliose works we are examining, have affixed 
 " no accurate ideas," — p. 14. The value of our 
 opinion in regard to accuracy, depends on our own 
 accuracy; and while Mr D. holds the ideas pro- 
 mulgated in his definitions, few men of sound mind 
 would wish to obtain from him a favourable deci- 
 sion. His definition of " the word God" is short 
 and unobjectionable, although it will not convey to 
 those whose w^orks he is examining, any new or 
 more accurate idea on the subject. In his defini- 
 tion of the word creature, however, he quits the 
 beaten track, and discovers a strong leaning to the 
 Manichaean system. 
 
 ■ By the word creature we mean whatever has been cre- 
 ated ; powerless, changeable, ignorant, Hmited to a portion 
 of space and time. Some parts of creature, as angels and 
 men, are responsible for their actions, and, therefore, have 
 wills, that is, have the power of volition. 
 
 It being, therefore, the essential property of all creatures to 
 be more or less ignorant, and more or less mutable, it fol- 
 lows, that its volition will be influenced by its ignorance and 
 mutability, and, consequently, will not act exclusively in con- 
 formity with, and subserviency to, the will of the only wise 
 and immutable Creator. — p. 15. It being the nature, that is, 
 the essential characteristic of every responsible creature, to 
 act independently of the will of God, each act, whether of 
 its will or body, is an act of sin, or rebellion, or unholiness,or 
 foolishness, let it be called by what term it may ; and the in- 
 dividual so willing, or acting, is called a sinner, rebel, &c. 
 &c. — p. 16. The second person in the Triune Godhead 
 united himself to manhood ; that is, to a reasonable and re- 
 
43 
 
 ftponsible creature, which, like every other reasonable and 
 responsible creatnre, would exercise its will in independency 
 and self-confidence, and therefore, in some mode other than 
 in conformity to thq will of the Creator. — p. 34. 
 
 These passages let us into the secret of Mr Ir- 
 ving's doctrine. It is founded on the vain tradition 
 that it " is the essential characteristic of every re- 
 " sponsible creature, to act independently of the will 
 *' of God," and that " each act, whether of its will 
 *' or body, is an act of sin." — All admit that the hu- 
 man nature of Christ was created, and man being 
 intelligent, is of course responsible. Hence, accor- 
 ding to the definition, it inevitably follows that the 
 human nature of Christ was sinful. But the pre- 
 mises are false and absurd, and the conclusion falls 
 to the ground. 
 
 Mr Drummond does not profess to derive the 
 sinfulness of the nature of every responsible crea- 
 ture from Scripture, but lays it down as a meta- 
 physical axiom. It must then be self-evident, or at 
 least it must rest on self-evident principles. But 
 how is it self-evident that the nature of every 
 reasonable and responsible creature must be sin- 
 ful ? Dr Johnson defines sinfulness, " alienation 
 " from God ; neglect or violation of the duties 
 " of religion ; contrariety to religious goodness." 
 According to this definition, every reasonable crea- 
 ture is not sinful, for all creatures are not alienated 
 from God. 
 
44 
 
 ^ If the body had no senses to be gratified, and no means 
 of enjoying pleasure, then indeed there would be no in- 
 ducement in the creature to satisfy those faculties of the 
 body : but as the nature of the body admits of gratifica- 
 tion as well as the will, it becomes necessarily an incen- 
 tive to its possessor to gratify its inclinations, and the pos- 
 sessor doing so, without reference to the will of God in 
 the matter, commits an act of sin. — p. 39. 
 
 Hence it would appear that the body is the great 
 incentive to sin, and this corresponds with the 
 theory of the lale Mr Vaughan, from whom I 
 believe Mr Irving borrowed his doctrine of the 
 sinftdness of oar Lord's human nature. Mr 
 Vaughan held, that the manhood of Christ con- 
 sisted of " a pure, spotless, sinless spirit, inhabit- 
 '' ing (in the days of his flesh, and whilst yet it 
 " was flesh and blood,) a sinful body."* Again, 
 speaking of Jesus Christ, he says, " who taber- 
 " nacled for a season in a body of sinful flesh ; 
 " his pure begotten human spirit meanwhile re- 
 " ceiving no contamination from it."f A body 
 is not a moral agent ; without the spirit it is dead 
 matter ; by the spirit it is animated and controlled, 
 and if the spirit be pure and sinless, the members 
 of the body must be used as " instruments of righ- 
 " teousness unto holiness." " Shun," says the 
 apostle, " profane and vain babbling ; for they will 
 " increase mi to more ungodliness." Thus it has 
 
 • Preface to Luther's Bonflajje of the Will, lix. 
 t God the Doer of all Things, p. 32. 
 
4 
 
 K 
 
 been with Mr Vauglian's speculation, — be calls 
 Jesus *' the sinless sinner." He says, " bis body 
 *' was sinful," Mr Irving teacbes tbat " be con- 
 " descended tbrougb tbe faculties of tbe buman 
 " soul, to commune witb every impious, and un- 
 " godly, and blasphemous character, of tbe fallen 
 " intellect and feeling of men," and Mr Drum- 
 mond, in farther developing the system, tells us 
 tbat sin is the essential characteristic of every re- 
 sponsible creature. What a comment on tbe 
 apostle's words, '' Foolish and unlearned questions 
 " avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes !" 
 
 In entering on the consideration of this subject, 
 I would refer Mr D. to some observations of 
 Hooker respecting the will, which shall be quoted af- 
 terwards, and which, if marked, learned, and inward- 
 ly digested, will correct the crude system of meta- 
 physics which be has adopted. Adam, in his first 
 estate, had senses to be gratified, but be bad no 
 natural incentive to gratify them, " without refer- 
 " ence to the will of God," till bis nature was cor- 
 rupted, by admitting the falsehood of Satan. The 
 change which then took place, did not consist in 
 bis being deprived of any of bis appetites or facul- 
 ties, but tbe grand principle by which all were 
 completely subordinated to the will of God, was 
 destroyed. He no longer felt bis entire and abso- 
 lute dependence on bis Maker ; be no longer felt 
 that in his favour is life. He was alienated from 
 tbe life uf God originally implanted in bis soul, by 
 
46 
 
 which every thought was retained in captivity to the 
 ohedience of God. We are unahle to define this life 
 of God in the soul, of which man was at first possess- 
 ed, and was in consequence the willing servant of God ; 
 we can only desciibe it by its effects. In like man- 
 ner we must be contented to describe the life which 
 fallen man naturally possesses. But that the life 
 of God was originally implanted in the soul, and 
 was lost by the fall, and that in consequence we 
 are all dead in sin, is clearly taught in Scripture. 
 
 When Adam cast off his allegiance, the curse of 
 God made his ears to tingle ; he had no more hope 
 from that quarter, and was therefore filled with 
 enmity against his Maker. The only enjoyment 
 of which he was now capable was the gratification 
 of the lusts of the flesh and of the mind, and in 
 this consisted the difference between his originally 
 holy, and subsequently sinful and fallen state. Man 
 is now the servant of sin, for he is without God ; 
 there are still indeed the remains of the law originally 
 written in his heart ; his conscience accuses him, 
 and to still its voice he occasionally resists temp- 
 tations to gratify his desires, but he is too " far 
 " gone from original righteousness" to turn to God: 
 he is in fact dead while he liveth. Hence it is, that 
 men's natural conscience prompts them to do many 
 things, but it can never lead them to God. So 
 darkened is the. human understanding, that while 
 the abundant evidence of the truth of the gospel 
 may silence, it can never satisfy the mind, because 
 
47 
 
 the things of which it is the evidence are foolish- 
 ness to the natural man, and can only be spirit- 
 ually discerned. 
 
 The exercise of our natural powers is, however, 
 sufficient to produce great concern about a future 
 state, and hence we not unfrequently see men 
 anxiously inquiring after additional evidence of the 
 truth of Scripture. Still their uncertainty conti- 
 nues, and, like the Jews, they ascribe it to want of 
 evidence. " How long dost thou make us to doubt? 
 " If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly." That which 
 prevented the minds of the Jews from being sa- 
 tisfied by all the mighty works which Jesus wrought 
 among them, was their inabilty to reconcile his ap- 
 pearance and doctrine with their preconceived ideas 
 of thekingdom which they expected Messiah to esta- 
 blish; and that which prevents meninev^eryagefrom 
 receiving the things of the Spirit of God, is, that 
 they are alienated from the life of God through the 
 ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness 
 of their heart. Hence, although the language of 
 Scripture is plain and simple, 2 Cor. iii. 12. and 
 the evidence with which the truth of Scripture is 
 confirmed, would on any other subject be over- 
 whelming, men remain in ignorance, and doubt, 
 and perplexity, until he who caused the light to 
 shine out of darkness shines into their hearts, and 
 gives them the light of the knowledge of the glory 
 of God in the face of Jesus Christ. Thus is the 
 life of God restored to the soul of man by union 
 
48 
 
 with Christ, and those are quickened who were 
 dead in trespasses and sins, 
 
 Jesus possessed all the affections and passions of 
 which human nature is composed. He came into 
 this accursed world in the form of a servant, that, 
 by bearing the curse, he might redeem his people. 
 Hence he experienced the consequences of sin ; 
 for instance, the pain of hunger, which afforded 
 Satan an opportunity of tempting him, but it was 
 his meat and drink to do the will of God. This 
 was a stronger principle in his holy soul than the 
 calls of hunger. Although we have no reason to 
 suppose that a holy creature was ever before sub- 
 jected to pain, yet the desire of the approbation of 
 God is the ruling principle of every intelligent 
 creature till it falls, till it becomes the servant of 
 sin, which it can only do by committing sin ; it 
 then ceases to be the servant of God, and, by the 
 curse of his broken law, is cut off from the foun- 
 tain of holiness. 
 
 Mr Drummond, after very needlessly quoting 
 the Helvetic Confession, to prove that the manhood 
 of Jesus was not incapable of affections and pas- 
 sions, and referring to his being tempted to sin by 
 hunger, proceeds, — " We, therefore, perceive, that 
 " in this sense, a sinful nature is not only an es- 
 " sential part of human nature, but it is an essen- 
 " tial part of the nature of every responsible crea- 
 " ture of which we can form an idea." — p. 40. 
 Should the " Candid Examination" reach a second 
 
49 
 
 edition, I would strongly recommend that a single 
 syllable should be added, which will greatly im- 
 prove this sentence. It is not true, in any sense, 
 that sinfulness is " an essential part of the nature 
 " of every responsible creature." This can only be 
 predicated by that figure to which rhetoricians 
 have appropriated the name of nonsense. But af- 
 ter all, I am afraid the sentence will not mend, " a 
 " sinful nature is an essential part of the the 
 " nature," &c. ; in other words, a whole is part 
 of a whole ! Doubtless, every responsible creature 
 may be tempted. God also may be tempted, but 
 as he cannot be tempted with evil, because he 
 is necessarily and essentially holy, neither can 
 any creature be thus tempted till it has fallen, and 
 ceased to be holy. While it continues in its first 
 estate, evil may be presented to it, but it is not till 
 the temptation has taken effect that it is drawn 
 away of its own lust and enticed ; in other words, 
 that it has any inclination to sin. Till then, the 
 prince of evil has nothing in it, nor has it any com- 
 munion with him. 
 
 " A sinful nature is that quality in the nature 
 " which disposes or entices it to commit acts of 
 " sin. — p. 39. A sinful nature a quality in 
 the nature ! A nature is not a quality either of 
 itself or of any thing else, but passing this, cove- 
 tousness is an act of sin, against which, as well as 
 against murder, the law of God denounces a curse ; 
 and yet, according to this most extraordinary theory, 
 
50 
 
 it was an act wliich the constitution of Adam uti- 
 avoidably compelled Inm to commit, for God had 
 given him a sinful nature. If the nature of Adam's 
 body was necessarily an incentive to its possessor, 
 to gratify its inclinations, *' without reference to 
 " the will of God," and if " the individual so will- 
 " ing, or acting, is called a sinner, rebel," &c. 
 &c. — p. 16. then Adam was necessarily a sinner, 
 and God who gave him this sinful nature, is the 
 author of sin. 
 
 Is it then beyond the power of God to impress 
 on the mind of a creature, such a sense of the good- 
 ness and power of his Creator, as to swallow up every 
 disposition to gratify his appetites, without reference 
 to the Divine will ? What sacrifices do not men make 
 to obtain the applause of their fellow- creatures? 
 what self-denial do they not practise; hunger, thirst, 
 and fatigue are cheerfully endured : no bodily grati- 
 fication is for a moment put in competition with the 
 object in view. And was it impossible for God to 
 confer on a creature so strong a desire to preserve 
 its Maker's approbation, that it should be satisfied 
 with the ample provision he had made for it, with- 
 out preferring the unlawful gratification of its ap- 
 petites, in defiance of his authority ? 
 
 A mother naturally loves ease, but does she put 
 it in competition with the comfort of her child ? 
 She esteems it no sacrifice ; it is her joy and de- 
 light to watch over it. If we have such instances 
 of the selfishness of a fallen creature being over- 
 
51 
 
 come by the force of natural instinct, is it a thing 
 incredible that God should bestow on an intelligent 
 creature such delight in doing his will, as should pre- 
 vent it from disobeying his holy and righteous law? 
 
 In what does Mr Drummond imagine the image 
 of God consisted, in which man was created? 
 Was it in a nature which " disposes or entices us 
 " to commit acts of sin ?" 
 
 " Sin, therefore, is the act committed ; a sinner 
 " is one who has committed an act of sin ; a sinful 
 " nature is that quality which disposes or entices 
 ** it to commit acts of sin." — p. 39. And after in- 
 forming us that infants, idiots, and maniacs do not 
 commit sin, Mr Drummond adds, " they have not 
 " the power, though they have the nature. Now, 
 " we affirm this to be the way in which the nature 
 " of every responsible creature is sinful, whether 
 *• the creature has committed acts of sin or not.'' 
 Infants, idiots, and maniacs, in consequence of 
 Adam's sin, are under the curse, and possess a sin- 
 ful nature. But in asserting, that because infants 
 and idiots, who are not responsible, possess a sin- 
 ful nature, therefore the nature of every responsible 
 creature is sinful, Mr Drummond has " jumped 
 " to a conclusion" which is palpably absurd. I 
 have already remarked on his saying, " that a sin- 
 " ful nature is that quality in the nature ;" but 
 taking it for granted, that by a sinful nature, he 
 means sinfulness in the nature, I deny that any 
 creature as it comes from the hands of God, has 
 
5^ 
 
 Rny quality in its nature which disposes or entices 
 it to commit acts of sin. Such a quality may be 
 superinduced by the creature's forfeiting God's fa- 
 vour, and coming under his curse. The creature 
 is mutable ; its nature may be changed, and then 
 it will be drawn away of its ow?i lust and enticed, but 
 in its original state, integrity and truth preserve 
 it. Thus it was with Adam; he was not sinful, 
 but mutable, and became sinful ; thus too it was 
 with the fallen angels ; but there is nothing in the 
 nature of the holy angels which entices them to 
 sin. The assertion that the nature of every re- 
 sponsible creature is sinful, is not only a perversion 
 of language, but contrary to the express testimony 
 of Scripture, that God is holy in all his works. 
 
 The supposition that God can only create sinful 
 beings, is monstrous, and is founded on a fallacy. 
 
 It being therefore tlie essential property of all creatures 
 to be more or less ignorant, and more or less mutable, it 
 follows tliat its volition will be influenced by its igno- 
 rance and mutability, and consequently, will not act ex- 
 clusively in conformity with, and subserviency to, the will 
 of the only wise and immutable Creator. — p. 15. 
 
 Every creature is necessarily mutable ; hence 
 the fall of men and angels ; but according to Mr 
 Drummond, all creatures are immutably sinful; but 
 the sophism lies in the assertion, " that its volition 
 " will be influenced by its ignorance and mutabi- 
 " lity/* Mutability is not an agent; it is the pus- 
 
53 
 
 fiibility of change, not change itself, and it cannot 
 influence the conduct till it terminate in actual 
 change. Equally unfounded is the allegation, that 
 " its volition will be influenced by its ignorance," 
 so as not to obey its Creator. No creature is om- 
 niscient ; but a creature is not necessarily ignorant 
 of dufi/, and this only is sinful ignorance, and 
 exclusively belongs to fallen creatures. It is not 
 sinful to be ignorant of what God has not revealed; 
 nor is it sin to do what God has not intimated to 
 be improper. God may, and does reveal to all in- 
 telligent creatures, every part of duty. Originally 
 they know this fully ; and they can only be respon- 
 sible for what is revealed to them. A creature 
 may also feel, that it is its highest privilege to be 
 entirely guided by its bountiful Creator ; and such 
 is the original feeling of all intelligent creatures, 
 although being mutable, they may lose this feeling. 
 Mr Drummond says, being influenced by its 
 ignorance, it will not act in conformity to the will 
 of God. Does he mean the unrevealed will of God ; 
 if so, it is not sin, not to be conformed to it. Sin 
 is the transgression of the law ; where there is no 
 law there is no transgression. The unrevealed 
 will of God is not the rule of duty to any creature. 
 Mr Drummond confounds ignorance of unrevealed 
 truth with ignorance of revealed duty, and supposes 
 the mind to be in rebellion against the unknown 
 unrevealed truth, which is the case only with the 
 fallen corrupt mind in regard to the revealed will 
 
54 
 
 of God. It is only true of fallen creatures that 
 their volitions will be influenced by their ignorance, 
 and that they will not act exclusively in conformity 
 with the will of God. There may be innumerable 
 orders of creatures, perfectly knowing, and doing 
 all revealed duty. The highest archangel cannot 
 be guilty for not knowing what is not revealed, 
 more than the brutes are guilty for not knowing 
 whrt God has revealed to man. No creature is 
 guilty in regard to any thing in which it has not 
 means of instruction, or to the knowledge of which 
 its faculties are unequal. Nothing can be more 
 absurd than to argue, that because a creature is 
 not omniscient and essentially perfect, that there- 
 fore it cannot serve God with all its heart and 
 mind, and soul, and strength, which is all the con- 
 formity required by the law of God. 
 
 What a view does this system give of the crea- 
 tion of God ? All his creatures are formed sinful, in 
 astate of alienation from their Maker ! There is then 
 no room for a moral law, since no responsible crea- 
 ture is subject, or can be subject, to its Creator. 
 The power of God extends no farther than to the 
 creation of sinful creatures, and the doctrine of the 
 Manichaeans is true ! 
 
 And on what is this monstrous system built? 
 Not on Scripture ; but on a crude, metaphysical 
 theory, and mere assertion. Here is an example 
 of " science, falsely so called." So far from being 
 self-evidently true, it is self-evidently false. That 
 
55 
 
 God could give a creature a holy, uncorrupt na- 
 ture, is self-evident. Dr Campbell observes, that 
 absurdity cannot always be refuted, but it may be 
 exposed. 
 
 The Word of God distinguishes between holy 
 and sinful responsible creatures. It informs us 
 that God made man upright, in his own image, 
 and that his propensity to evil, his being the ser- 
 vant of sin, does not arise from sinfulness being an 
 essential property of his nature, but from his 
 hearkening to the voice of the tempter. It informs 
 us, that there are angels in a state of rebellion un- 
 der the curse of God, but it also tells us the cause, 
 — " they kept not their first estate, but left their 
 " own habitation." Hence it appears that sin is 
 not " the essential characteristic of every responsible 
 creature," but only becomes so when it leaves its 
 first estate, and casts off its allegiance to God. 
 
 Nothing can be more shocking than the sentiment, 
 that to act independently of the will of God, is the es- 
 sential characteristic of every responsible creature. 
 It is contrary to the common sense of mankind, 
 whose consciences accuse them when they do 
 wrong. We have seen that it receives no counte- 
 nance from the word of God, which tells us of the 
 existence of holy angels, who cannot therefore have 
 a sinful nature. On what then does the sentiment 
 rest ? " We affirm," says Mr Drummond, " this 
 '• to be the way in which the nature of every re- 
 " sponsible creature is sinful, whether the creature 
 
 E 
 
56 
 
 " has committed acts of sin or not.'* — p. 39. The 
 common sense of mankind affirms the contrary. 
 According to a certain philosopher, madness consists 
 in a person " being in a minority of one against his 
 " neighbours ;" he affirms, and they deny till the 
 altercation ends in his being put under restraint. 
 This, however, is only necessary where his own 
 safety, or that of others is concerned. In questions 
 which do not lead to the injury of person or pro- 
 perty, men are allowed to pursue their own specu- 
 lations however extravagant. 
 
 In proceeding with his definitions, Mr Drum- 
 mond is somewhat puzzled to define holy and holi- 
 ness, and exemplifies his own remark, that " the 
 " terms admit of some confusion." " But," says 
 he, " the terms holy and holiness, are never used 
 " to denote that in a creature, which Mr Haldane 
 '' and Dr Thomson use it to express, namely, some 
 " underived quality ; and reason is sufficient to tell 
 " us, that no creature can possess any such thing." 
 p. 17. Will MrDrummond be kind enough to men- 
 tion, where either the one or the other has thus used 
 the terms holy and holiness ? Neither of them ever 
 dreamed that a creature could possess any " unde- 
 '• rived quality." The very supposition is the 
 height of absurdity. 
 
 To Mr Drummond, the idea of a holy creature 
 seems ridiculous. He says, " it appears that Mr 
 " Haldane teaches us that there was a holi/ crea- 
 " ture, and that this holiness was innate and essen- 
 
57 
 
 " tiiil." — p. 20. I never said that holiness was an es- 
 sential property of any creature ; but holiness was 
 innate in Adam ; and it was also innate in the hu- 
 man nature of Clirist. From tlie character of God, 
 all his intelligent creatures must be originally holy. 
 He is of purer eyes than to behold iniquity, he 
 cannot look upon sin, far less could he create be- 
 ings in whom sin was an essential characteristic. 
 In the account of creation, we find it repeatedly men- 
 tioned that God saw that his works were " good,'' 
 but when he had made man in his own image, he saw 
 that all was " very good." Was this because a 
 creature was made, whose essential characteristic 
 it was " to act independently of the will of God." 
 The whole of Mr Drummond's system is found- 
 ed on a sophism. All creatures are absolutely and 
 entirely dependent on their Creator for every faculty 
 which they possess. Were God to withdraw his 
 sustaining power from the creature, it would sink 
 into its original nothing. Were God to withdraw 
 from a responsible creature that sense of his good- 
 ness, and power, and glory, which he originally 
 imparted, it would necessarily become regardless 
 of God. On this absolute dependence of the crea- 
 ture on God, Mr Drummond has founded the as- 
 sertion, that sin is an essential characteristic of 
 every responsible creature. He means that it is 
 not independently holy. Certainly not ; nor is it 
 independently existent ; nor does it, nor can it pos- 
 sess any independent property. If God had with- 
 
68 
 
 drawn from Adam the knowledge and love of his 
 Creator, which he originally bestowed upon him, 
 he would necessarily have become sinful, just as he 
 would necessarily have become blind, if God had 
 deprived him of eye-sight ; or mad, if he had been 
 deprived of reason. But will any one maintain 
 that on this account blindness or madness was an 
 essential characteristic of Adam's nature ? He 
 owed his eye-sight and his reason solely to the 
 continued exercise of his Creator's power. Adam, 
 like every other creature, lived and moved, and had 
 his being in God, Had God withdrawn his breath, 
 he would have returned to the dust, and conse- 
 quently, on Mr Drummond's principles, we may be 
 gravely told, that non-existence was an essential 
 characteristic of Adam's nature. 
 
 God having created Adam in his own image, 
 which the Apostle tells us consists " in righteous- 
 " ness and true holiness," revealed himself as the 
 great proprietor and sovereign of all. He placed 
 Adam in the garden — permitted him to eat of the 
 fruit, with one exception, gave him dominion over 
 the animals, and made an help-meet for him. His 
 safety and happiness, like that of every other intel- 
 ligent creature, depended on his retaining the feel- 
 ing of his absolute dependance on his Maker. By 
 the subtilty of Satan, this feeling was destroyed, 
 and Adam cast off his allegiance ; he chose a new 
 God, and plunged himself in sin and misery : the 
 image of God was now effaced from his soul. He 
 
.59 
 
 may be compared to a mirror which reflects the 
 object placed before it. Originally he beheld the 
 glory of God ; and like God, he was upright and 
 holy. Satan contrived to turn the mirror ; he re- 
 presented God as false, deceitful, and jealous ; he 
 exhibited himself to Adam under the name of God ; 
 and man, admitting the false representation into 
 his heart, became earthly, sensual, and devilish. 
 
 The fallen angels in their first estate, stood un- 
 der a full conviction of their absolute dependance 
 on God. We are told of their chief, that " he 
 " abode not in the truth." Whether this means 
 the truth that the happiness of the creature must 
 of necessity proceed from entire submission to its 
 Creator, or whether it refers, as some suppose, to 
 the revelation of God's eternal purpose, that angels, 
 principalities and powers, should be placed under 
 the Son of man, who is eminently the truths it is 
 unnecessary to inquire; but he presumed to act in 
 independence, and came under God's righteous 
 curse, and sin is now an innate characteristic of 
 fallen men and fallen angels, but they are sinful as 
 fallen, not as responsible. 
 
 I have already observed, that according to Mr 
 Drummond, God is the author of sin. The follow- 
 ing is the account which he gives of the fall : — 
 
 Adam was doubtless not only equally a man before and 
 after his fall, but the same identical rjian, with the same 
 faculties, powers, kc. The difference was simply in their 
 
60 
 
 direction : before his fall, they were used in harmony with, 
 and subserviency to, the will of God : he was left to him- 
 self by God, in order to be the means of exhibiting to all 
 creation, that no creature could preserve its fealty, but by 
 the continued support of Deity itself. No sooner was he 
 left to liimself, than he gratified the desires of tlie flesh and 
 of the mind, and ate the fruit : the act of eating was that 
 which constituted him a sinner ; the flesh which lie had be- 
 fore he sinned, prompted him to do so ; it was his sinful 
 flesh, that is, flesh as well as mind, always ready to be gra- 
 tified, and to call for gratification without reference to God. 
 God left him to himself, and he sinned : God has ever since 
 withdrawn the sustaining power of his visible presence 
 from this globe, and from all its inhabitants, who have been 
 continually pursuing the desires of the flesh and of the mind, 
 irrespective of Him. — p. 40-41. It is very possible, that the 
 sensible presence of God to Adam, was sufficient to pre- 
 vent his acting otherwise than in obedience to his will, and 
 in that way, the corporeal senses may have been the chan- 
 nel of preserving him sinless^ without any power of the 
 Holy Spirit being put forth into his soul, just as we may 
 conceive, that the presence of a superior prevents the in- 
 subordination of an inferior, whilst he is before him. But 
 as soon as the sensible presence of God was withdrawn, 
 those very same senses which were the channels of his 
 obedience, became then the channels of disobedience, by 
 soliciting a gratification for themselves. — p. 42 — 43. 
 
 According to this theory, the fall of Adam was 
 the effect of God's changing his mode of proceed- 
 ing. God at first supported Adam, and afterwards 
 left him to himself. But wliile creatures are mu- 
 table, there is no variableness or shadow of turn- 
 
61 
 
 iiig with God. To represent him as withdrawing 
 from Adam before the fall, for any purpose whatever, 
 is representing him to be variable. Doubtless God 
 could have prevented Adam's being tempted, or 
 have enabled him to bear the temptation ; but 
 although he did neither. His procedure was not 
 the cause of Adam's sin. It originated in Adam's 
 acting in opposition to those principles which were 
 originally implanted in his heart ; but according to 
 this system, the reverse is the case. Adam was 
 tempted by the sinful nature which God gave Jiim. 
 He was " tempted of evil," and this evil, whicli 
 either from want of power or inclination in his 
 Maker, was inherent in him, proceeded from God ! 
 In consequence of Adam's mutability, it was pos- 
 sible that he might cease to be holy ; that he might 
 be deluded, and be made to desire what his Crea- 
 tor had prohibited ; that yielding to this desire to 
 which he was before a stranger, sin might obtain a 
 lodgement in his heart, and that, under its influence, 
 he might perform the overt act which was chosen 
 by God as the index of the state of his mind. All 
 this actually took place ; man fell, and became the 
 servant of sin, the lawful captive of Satan ; but this 
 gives no countenance to Mr Drummond's theorv, 
 that the fall was occasioned by God withdrawing 
 his sensible presence from Adam's corporeal senses. 
 Mr Drummond makes the fall of man an act of 
 pure sovereignty. I am not disposed to question 
 the sovereignty of God, but his sovereignty, as de- 
 
6e 
 
 scribed in the Scriptures, is very different from the 
 sovereignty here described. In the Scriptures, 
 even fallen men are always represented as inexcus- 
 able in the commission of sin, and the sovereignty 
 of God is never made the smallest palliation of 
 their guilt. Mr Drummond represents the sin of 
 Adam as unavoidable. God had given him " sin- 
 " ful flesh, that is, flesh as well as mind, always 
 " ready to be gratified, and to call for gratification 
 " without reference to God." The presence of 
 God, however, restrained him for a time, but this 
 was withdrawn for the purpose of reading a lesson 
 to creation on the creature's absolute depen dance 
 on its Creator, and he immediately fell, " he grati- 
 " fied the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and 
 " ate the fruit," not through any fault ofhis own, for 
 circumstanced as he was, how could he do otherwise? 
 This account of the fall, corresponds with the asser- 
 tion in the Dialogues on Prophecy, " To establish 
 " election it was necessary that the ichole world 
 " should worship the creature, which is the wor- 
 " ship of the devil. It is a necessary truth, that 
 " the creature, before it can worship the Creator, 
 " must pass into the bondage of sin, and be deliver- 
 "ed out of it."* 
 
 Those who hold such doctrines, err, not knowing 
 the Scriptures. When the mystery of God shall be 
 finished, the perfect rectitude of the divine govern- 
 
 • Dialogues on Prophecy, viii. 221, 222. 
 
63 
 
 ment shall be manifest. The fallen angels, not 
 liaving kept their first estate, and man having 
 transgressed, will be found to have proceeded, not 
 from unavoidable circumstances, not from God ar- 
 bitrarily withdrawing from them, but from their 
 having wickedly withdrawn from him — not from 
 their having been created with sinful flesh or sinful 
 minds, but from their having acted in opposition to 
 that principle of love to God, and that holiness of 
 nature originally imparted to them by their Crea- 
 tor, which ought to have retained them in their al- 
 legiance. In short, sin will appear not to have 
 been in any respect the doing of God, but the act 
 of the creature ; for which it was mthout excuse. 
 Mr Drummond tells us in the above passage, that 
 " the corporeal senses may have been the channel 
 " of preserving him (Adam) sinless" — but that " as 
 " soon as the sensible presence of God was with- 
 " drawn, those very same senses, which were the 
 *' channels of his obedience, became then the chan- 
 " nels of disobedience, by soliciting a gratification 
 " for themselves." Was God then visible to the 
 eye ? This might do very well for a materialist, 
 who considers man to be only an exquisitely fram- 
 ed piece of matter, and that God is also material ; 
 but holding, as I presume Mr Drummond does, 
 that man is composed of soul and body, and that 
 God is a spirit, who cannot be seen with eyes of 
 flesh, it seems extraordinary that he should think 
 it necessary for the invisible God to be seen in or- 
 
64 
 
 del* to preserve man from sin. And after all, what 
 kind of obedience did man render ? The obedience 
 of a slave, awed by the presence of his master, and 
 the momentthat presence was withdrawn, he acted in 
 accordance with the sinful nature with which he had 
 been endowed by Him, who is glorious in holiness ! 
 
 We are told " the sensible presence of God was 
 " withdrawn." Has God then a bodily presence 
 which can be seen and felt? Is not God infinite and 
 unchangeable? Is he not immense ? How then can 
 liis presence be withdrawn from this world ? What 
 is his presence but himself, his very being, his 
 essence? How can God himself be withdrawn from 
 this world ? " Whether shall I go from thy spirit ? 
 *^ Or whether shall I flee from thy presence ? If 
 ** I ascend up into heaven, thou art there ; if I 
 ^^ make my bed in hell, thou art there. If I -take 
 *' the wings of the morning, and dwell in the ut- 
 " termost parts of the sea, even there shall thy 
 " hand lead me, and thy right hand shall hold 
 « me." 
 
 How Adam was acquainted with the immediate 
 presence of God we know not, but certainly it 
 was not by his senses, for God is invisible. His 
 mind was the chaiSnel of obedience, not his senses ; 
 he did not fear God with his senses, but with his 
 mind. God has employed various symbols of his 
 presence, such as the Shekinah, the pillar of cloud, 
 the devouring fire on Mount Sinai, but these were 
 only emblems of his presence, not his presence it- 
 
0< 
 
 self, wliicb never was nor could be withdrawn. 
 These symbols did not communicate the knowledge 
 of God to those who beheld them, because they 
 were only addressed to the senses. When Christ 
 was on earth, although he was the brightness of 
 the Father's glory, yet many saw no form nor 
 comeliness in him. God may have given Adam 
 some sensible token of his presence. While Adam's 
 heart was right with God, any symbol which 
 might be employed would impress him with love 
 and awe, but, had Adam's nature been corrupt, no 
 sensible emblem would have kept him from sin. 
 This we are taught by the history of Israel ; they 
 had not eyes to see, nor a heart to understand the 
 power and goodness of God, notwithstanding all the 
 sensible manifestations with which they were fa- 
 voured. Even the sight of the glory of God on 
 the Mount Sinai did not prevent their making 
 the calf, in direct ™lation of his authority, com- 
 municated to them by a voice which shook the 
 earth. But Adam's nature was holy, he was 
 created in the divine image ; God having com- 
 municated to him the knowledge of himself, he 
 retained this knowledge, till, through the power 
 of sin, the light that was in him became darkness. 
 The presence of God is not withdrawn from this 
 world, and the reason why it is not " sensible," is, 
 that mankind are dead in trespasses and sins, 
 " having the understanding darkened, being alienat- 
 " ed from the life of God through the ignorance 
 
66 
 
 " tliat is in them, because of tlie hardness of their 
 " hearts. Who being past feeling,^' &c. — Eph. iv. 
 19. 
 
 But this is not all, — 
 
 A creature can have no knowledge but through its 
 senses ; the sensible presence of God is i-emoved from this 
 world, the creatures see him not, and therefore know him 
 not, and take up the things which they do see as the ex- 
 clusive objects of their hopes and fears, and love. — p. 53. 
 
 We shall afterwards see that Mr Drummond 
 denies original sin, and indeed it is not surprising. 
 According to his system, the, change which took 
 place on Adam was the result of his circumstances 
 being changed; his nature was originally sinful, and 
 the change was merely external. But when God 
 withdrew his " sensible presence," when Adam no 
 more saw him with his eyes, had he no recollec- 
 tion of the presence of God ? Did every idea of the 
 " superior," whose presence had awed him, fade from 
 liis mind ? And where did Mr Drummond learn 
 tliat " a creature can have no knowledge but 
 " through its senses." It is very presumptuous to 
 use such language. We know very little of our 
 own constitution, far less of the constitution of all 
 orders of creatures. But it is not true even of 
 man, that he can have no knowledge but through 
 his senses. The knowledge of the powers of our 
 mind is derived, not from our senses, but from re- 
 flection on these powers and their operations, and 
 
67 
 
 were a creature possessed of human intellect with- 
 out our five senses, although it would be cut off 
 from communication with the material world, it 
 would obtain some knowledge of itself. The 
 knowledge of our own existence is the effect of 
 consciousness, independently of the senses. Every 
 being that thinks must be conscious of existence 
 and of thought. This knowledge is a sufficient 
 ground for the belief of a first cause. If, as the 
 apostle tells us, Rom. i. 20. the eternal power of 
 God is manifest from the works of creation, the 
 same may be seen in the existence of mind which 
 we learn from consciousness. 
 
 While all oiir knowledge of external things is 
 communicated through the senses, it is absurd to 
 say that tliis could not be otherwise. Had it pleased 
 God, we might have received knowledge as well 
 without senses as with them. The most enlight- 
 ened philosopher can discover no reason why we 
 perceive objects by our senses. No reason can be 
 given why we see with the eye rather than with 
 the hand, except that so it pleased God. 
 
 The senses, by the appointment of God, are in- 
 struments v/ith which we are furnished, but which 
 require the constant operation of divine power. It 
 is then utterly unwarrantable to say that " a crea- 
 ture can have no knowledge but through its 
 senses." 
 
 Though man receives the greater part of his 
 knowledge through the senses, we have no reason 
 
 F 
 
68 
 
 to believe that other orders of beings have senses 
 at all. The angels are spirits, and have no bodily 
 senses ; have they no knowledge ? We know no- 
 thing of senses but as a part of our own constitu- 
 tion ; with us they haA^e external organs, without 
 which there is no sensation. We have seen that 
 it is not true even of man, that he has no know- 
 ledge but through his senses, and how extravagant 
 and unphilosophical is it to make such an assei*- 
 tion of all orders of creatures, respecting whose 
 constitution we know nothing. 
 
 By the divine appointment, we receive the 
 knowledge of God as a Saviour through the me- 
 dium of sense, but if God had so pleased, he could 
 have communicated the knowledge of himself im- 
 mediately to the intellect, entirely independent of 
 the senses, without any alteration of our present 
 constitution. Faith cometh by hearing; so it 
 pleased God ; but faith might have come without 
 hearing. A complete knowledge of the whole 
 plan of redemption might as easily have been com- 
 municated to every individual, immediately by the 
 Spirit, as through the instrumentality of the word. 
 While we obtain the knowledge of God as a Sa- 
 viour through the senses, they are no more than 
 instruments. The sense of hearing conveys the 
 words to the mind. It is the mind which under- 
 stands their import, and believes them. Accord- 
 ingly, it is the understanding, not the senses, 
 which are opened by the Spirit to receive the truth. 
 
69 
 
 It is the understanding of fallen man that is dark- 
 ened, not his senses. The senses of the unbeliever 
 are as perfect as those of the believer ; it is the 
 mind, not the senses, that is injured by the fall ; 
 and the reason why fallen man does not see God, 
 is not that his presence is withdrawn, for every 
 thing around us attests his presence ; the heavens 
 declare his glory, and the firmament sheweth his 
 handiwork ; nay, the work of the law is written 
 in the heart of fallen man, Rom. ii. 14, 15. and, 
 amidst all his wickedness and ungodliness, is a 
 powerful restraint on his actions. 
 
 One of the infirmities which we inherit from Adam's 
 transgression is ignorance of God. Do these gentlemen 
 mean to say, that the manhood of Christ was omniscient, 
 as well as immortal, and incorruptible ? If it were not 
 omniscient, how was liis human soul instmcted ? Is not 
 ignorance a source or occasion of sinning to every crea- 
 ture, and is it not also an infirmity inherited from Adam's 
 fall?— p. 45. 
 
 It is very true that ignorance of God is a source 
 or occasion of sin, and it is also an infirmity which 
 we inherit from Adam's transgression. This ig- 
 norance, however, does not proceed, as Mr Drum- 
 mond alleges, from God having withdrawn his 
 sensible presence from this world, it is the con- 
 sequence of the corruption of our nature. Men 
 are " alienated from the life of God through the 
 " ignorance that is in them, because of the blind- 
 
70 
 
 ness of tlieir heart," but " ignorance is not a 
 source or an occasion of sinning to every creature." 
 Many creatures have not sinned, yet none of them 
 are omniscient. But perliaps the question means, 
 does it not argue ignorance in any creature to re- 
 bel against God ? Certainly it does ; but this ig- 
 norance is produced by the creature's not keep- 
 ing its first estate, by its coming under the power 
 of sin ; and, consequently, let its powers of intellect 
 be what they may, it blindly and ignorantly rushes 
 to its own destruction, on the thick bosses of Jeho- 
 vah's buckler. 
 
 According to Mr Drummond, that ignorance is 
 sin, " was shewn by God's appointing atonement to 
 " be made for involuntary transgression, arising 
 " from infirmity." — p. 44. God did not appoint 
 atonement to be made for ignorance, but for siti- 
 ing through ignorance, to which only a fallen 
 creature is liable. There is a sinful ignorance, 
 and an ignorance that is not sinful, just as there 
 are sinful infirmities, such as pride and malice ; 
 and infirmities not sinful, such as lameness and 
 blindness. Our moral ignorance is sinful, our na- 
 tural ignorance is not sinful. No deficiency of 
 knowledge is sinful which is not the consequence 
 of sin. Ignorance of God, proceeding from alien- 
 ation, is sinful, but want of knowledge, from the 
 limitation of our faculties, is not sinful. Our ig- 
 norance of God, surrounded as we are with the 
 manifestations of his glory, is sinful ; our igno- 
 
71 
 
 ranee of the truth which he has revealed, is sinful, 
 but our ignorance of what we have not seen, and 
 what he has not revealed, is not sinful. Our ig- 
 norance of God, with all the means of knowing 
 him which we possess, is sinful ; and the greater 
 those means the more aggravated our guilt. Our 
 ignorance is the effect of the blindness cf our mind 
 superinduced by sin; it arises from our natural 
 aversion to the truth, and our enmity against 
 God. 
 
 This is the ignorance of God which we inherit 
 from Adam's transgression ; in consequence of it 
 we are cursed with blindness. It is the pure in 
 heart who see God, and till our hearts are purified 
 by union with Christ, we live without God in the 
 world. By beholding, as in a glass, the glory of 
 the Lord, we are changed into the same image 
 from glory to glory, as by the spirit of the Lord. 
 It is not because there is no light that a blind 
 man cannot see, but because he has not the faculty 
 of sight. It is not because " the sensible presence 
 of God was withdrawn" that men walk in dark- 
 ness, " they meet with darkness in the day time, 
 " and grope in the noon-day as in the night." — Job 
 V. 14. " The light shineth in darkness, and the 
 " darkness comprehendeth it not ;" they love *• the 
 " darkness rather than light, because their deeds 
 " are evil." 
 
 Mr Drummond speaks of the life of faitli, " that 
 " hard life which no man can sustain, nor any 
 
72 
 
 " creature, but by the power of the Holy Ghost, 
 " himself residing in it." — p. 42. The life of faith is 
 indeed a hard life to fallen man, because he loves the 
 darkness, and hates the light. " No man can say 
 " that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost. 
 As nothing could give man life at first, but the 
 creative power of God ; so his power alone can im- 
 part to us the life of God in the soul which Adam 
 lost. We were all created in Adam, and from him 
 we derive our natural life ; but like him we are 
 fallen and depraved. iJVhen God reveals his Son 
 in us, we derive from Am a new and divine life ; 
 and as this life is at first imparted to us by union 
 with the Son of God, it is maintained by the com- 
 munication of the Spirit, received through faith. 
 With tKis Spirit, as the head of his body the 
 church, Christ was anointed beyond measure ; and 
 as the precious oil poured on the head of Aaron, 
 ran down to the skirts of his garments, this Spirit 
 is poured on all his people. 
 
 " The manhood of Jesus" was not " omniscient," 
 or it would not have been manhood. Mr Drum- 
 mond asks, " How was his human soul instructed." 
 It was instructed by the glory of God in creation 
 and providence, by the Scriptures and by the Spi- 
 rit given him beyond measure. But there was in 
 him no repugnance as there is in us to receiving 
 the knowledge of God. His hands were clean, 
 and his heart was pure, and consequently, his 
 whole body was full of light. The law of God 
 was within his heart. 
 
73 
 
 • 
 
 Mr Irving's whole system is more nearly allied 
 to the doctrine of the ancient Manichaeans, than to 
 Christianity. Indeed it would appear that there 
 is a considerable leaning-, in his mind to a part at 
 least, of that most absurd and atheistical system. 
 I quoted in the Refutation a remarkable passage 
 from his Discourses respecting a power " so near" 
 to the power of God ; and I heard him in the 
 pulpit on his first visit to Edinburgh, speak of 
 the stubbornness of matter in a way which for- 
 cibly suggested to my mind, that there was some- 
 thing deeper in his system, which was not yet im- 
 parted to the uninitiated. It is now making its 
 appearance. *' It is an eternal and necessary truth, 
 " that the creature, before it can worship the Crea- 
 " tor, must pass into the bondage of sin, and be 
 " delivered from it."* Have the elect angels also 
 fallen and been restored, or do they not worship 
 God ? Mr Irving in a paper on the humanity of 
 Christ, concludes his introduction by a prayer to 
 the Lord, whose perilous work in the flesh he 
 is defending, f I have no doubt that there will 
 yet be a further development of this new and 
 strange doctrine. Mr Drummond's definitions have 
 given us a glance of it, sufficiently distinct to shew 
 that in some important particulars, it accords with 
 the sentiments of the Manichaeans respecting the 
 
 • Dialogue on Prophecy, f Morning Watch, p. 422. 
 
74. 
 
 primeval necessary corruption of created sub- 
 stances. 
 
 There is another thing in the definitions to which 
 
 it may be proper to advert. It is said, 
 
 This acting of itself in independency, and in non-con- 
 formity to the will of God, is represented by various terms 
 or figures, which are relative to some corresponding pro- 
 perty in the Creator. With respect to his stability, it is 
 called falling ; with respect to his wisdom, folly ; with re- 
 spect to his sovereignty, rebellion ; with respect to his good- 
 ness, evil ; with respect to his self-existence, hell. — p. 15. 
 
 Mr Drummond is very fond of figures ; except 
 " falling," there is not one of the terms referred to 
 above, which can be called a figure ; folly, rebel- 
 lion, eyi\, sin, and hell, are no figures ; they are 
 plain and literal terms, descriptive of man's fallen 
 and miserable condition, with its consequences. 
 But what are we to understand by " hell," being 
 a figure relative to the " corresponding property 
 " in the Creator" of self-existence ? Does it mean 
 annihilation or non-existence ? Again, we are told, 
 " infirmities of body are the incipient acts of death, 
 " which is consummated in the grave, as infirmity 
 " of soul is the incipient act of sin, which is con- 
 " summated in hell." — p. 29. I have no wish to 
 misrepresent Mr Drummond's sentiments, but I 
 consider it highly important that his whole sys- 
 tem should be known. 
 
 Such, then, are Mr Drummond's definitions: 
 
75 
 
 and what can we expect from pursuing an argu- 
 ment, founded on such principles. Under this 
 impression, having pointed out the unsoundness of 
 the foundation of the " Candid Examination," I 
 should feel myself at perfect liberty to proceed no 
 farther, but as it will afford an opportunity of 
 vindicating many important parts of truth, I shall 
 go on to take a view of the superstructure which 
 Mr Drummond has attempted to rear. 
 
 There is one remark, however, which I cannot 
 help making, before concluding this chapter. Mr 
 Irving was charged with heresy, for asserting that 
 the Son of God assumed our " sinful flesh," our 
 " fallen nature," — " the nature of Adam before 
 " and not after the fall." Mr Drummond comes 
 forward as his adv^ocate, and tells us that Adam^s 
 nature was equally sinful before and after the fall ; 
 that the fall was merely the effect of his being 
 placed in a new situation, and that to act in oppo- 
 sition to the will of God, is the essential characte- 
 ristic of every reasonable and responsible creature ; 
 " and so," it has been observed, " the bubble 
 " bursts." 
 
 At the close of his definitions, Mr Drummond 
 apologizes for the want of perspicuity in his state- 
 ments, which he could not remedy without extend- 
 ing his tract to an inconvenient length. When he 
 has leisure, I hope he will endeavour to render it 
 perspicuous, and perhaps the attempt may be use- 
 ful to himself, by convincing him how far he has 
 
76 
 
 departed from the Scriptures, by leaning to bis 
 own understanding, or to the speculations of those 
 who endeavour to be wise above that which is 
 written. 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 MR DRUMMONd's denial OF ORIGINAL SIN, SUBSTI- 
 TUTION, IMPUTATION, AND THE ATONEMENT. 
 
 The more I consider this controversy, the more 
 I see its connection with Socinianism, both in re- 
 gard to the doctrines at issue, and to the arguments 
 by which the heresy is defended. We have many 
 instances in Scripture of actual possessions, but So- 
 cinians tell us it is all a figure — ^an Eastern meta- 
 phor ; and Mr Drummond tells us that Substitution 
 and Imputation are figures. I have no intention of 
 exciting clamour against him as a Socinian. He 
 disclaims it, and I give him full credit for since- 
 rity ; but I would remind him that there are two 
 roads which lead with almost equal certainty to 
 that gulph. The one is by rejecting tlie doctrine 
 of the Trinity as contrary to reason, and proceed- 
 ing to set aside the doctrine of Original Sin, Substi- 
 
77' . 
 
 tution, Imputation, and tlie Atonement. The other 
 is by explaining away these great truths which are 
 so clearly revealed, and which are so inseparably 
 connected with God being manifest in the flesh, 
 and thus arriving at the conclusion, that the incar- 
 nation was not necessary, but was merely a mani- 
 festation of the goodness of God. Still the doctrine 
 of the Trinity, and of the divinity of Christ, may 
 be retained, but the conviction of this truth is not 
 founded on the authority of Scripture, but on " deep 
 " arguments drawn from the nature of the God- 
 ** head itself, or from the work of redemption and 
 ** regeneration of the creature,"* and this being at 
 best a very sandy foundation, the edifice which it 
 supports may be expected to fall. The violence 
 done to the plain declarations of the word of God, in 
 getting rid of original sin, substitution and imputa- 
 tion, receives the recompense which is meet, and 
 prepares those who have thus trifled with Scrip- 
 ture, for every delusion. 
 
 In considering the views which Mr Drummond 
 has advanced, I shall begin ^vith original sin, be- 
 cause it lies at the foundation of the whole. 
 
 It is bad enough to speak of actual sin, as if it were a 
 thing, but it is quite intolerable to find a writer, who lays 
 claim to the accuracy of a first class boy in the High 
 School, speak of original sin in the same way. — The ierm 
 original sin is said to have been first used by St Augns- 
 
 • Irving's Fast -day Sermon, 182C, 
 
78 
 
 tine. Many subsequent writers, instead of getting hold 
 first of that author's idea, and then adopting, or modifying 
 the term, as the sliape of their discourse, or line of their 
 argument required, have clung to the term, as if their sal- 
 vation depended upon the very characters and ink which 
 marked it, and have then hunted about to find a meaning 
 for it. Father Malebranche seems to be the leader in ab- 
 iurdities on the subject, aud the expression imputed origi- 
 nal sin is neither more nor less, than pure unmingled non- 
 sense. — p. 52. 
 
 Having stated that all Adam's posterity inherit 
 his dispositions, infirmities, pains, desires, &c. — 
 that Adam is the origin of this condition of his de- 
 scendants, and that this condition incites them to ac- 
 tual sin, he proceeds, — " But the absurdities which 
 " have been broached upon this subject of original 
 " sin, hy men whom we would esteem on otliers, 
 " have heen so extravagant, as hardly to make 
 " Burns' prayer of Holy Willie a burlesque." 
 
 It would be much for Mr Drummond's advan- 
 tage, if he would attend to tlie exhortation, " Cease 
 " from thine own wisdom," and if, when writing 
 on subjects into which angels, conscious of tlieir ig- 
 norance, " desire to look," he were more careful of 
 the language which he uses. " Be not mockers, 
 " lest your bands be made strong." Every one has 
 his own peculiar temper, but we ought especially to 
 watch against the sin which more easily besets us. 
 In his reply to Dr Hamilton, Mr Drummond says, 
 " If you ask me how original sin is to be got out 
 
79 
 
 " of the world, I will answer you when you have 
 '* told me how it got into the world." This infor- 
 mation the Scripture most distinctly imparts. " By 
 " one man sin entered into the world, and death by 
 " sin ; and so death passed upon all men, for that 
 " all have sinned," Rom. v. 12, and this is after- 
 wards five times repeated in the same chapter. If 
 Mr Drummond does not know how original sin got 
 into the world, it is not because he is not told, but 
 because he will not receive instruction ; " If they 
 " hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will 
 " they be persuaded though one rose from the 
 *' dead." The doctrine of original sin lies at the 
 foundation of the gospel ; and till we know how it 
 got into the world, our views of the gospel must 
 necessarily be erroneous. 
 
 If it be not a fact that Adam's transgression is 
 imputed to us, what is it which deserves the name ? 
 In consequence of his rebellion, we are born un- 
 der the curse of God ; for it will not be disputed 
 that we are born under the law, and as many 
 as are of the works of the law, are under the 
 curse ; we are by nature children of wrath ; we go 
 astray from the womb, speaking lies; we are 
 wicked, and God is angry with us every day ; we 
 are born to pain, and sorrow, and death, without 
 hope, and yet the imputation of Adam's sin is only 
 a figure ! Doubtless, many questions may be ask- 
 ed on this subject, which we cannot resolve, but 
 the day of the revelation of God's righteous judg- 
 
80 
 
 ment is approacliing, when he will be justified in his 
 sayings, and will overcome when he is judged. We 
 may say to every one who stumbles at the doctrine 
 of original sin, Does this offend you ? Did you 
 expect to meet with nothing which you could not 
 comprehend, in a revelation which tells you that 
 you are blind, and ignorant : that if you will be 
 wise, you must become a fool, and that except you 
 receive the kingdom of God as a little child, you 
 shall not enter therein ? 
 
 Mankind were created, not individually and se- 
 parately, but in Adam, who was not only their pro- 
 genitor, but their covenant head and representa- 
 tive, in whom they were to stand or fall. Adam 
 disobeyed, and came under the curse, and in this 
 curse, from the constitution which God gave to 
 mankind, all his posterity were necessarily involv- 
 ed. Mr Drummond says, they " inherit the dis- 
 ** positions of Adam ;" but this is the consequence 
 of their being condemned in Adam, on which ac- 
 count they are all " children of wrath," Having 
 forfeited the favour of God in Adam, and being 
 separated from him by the curse, they are the ser- 
 vants of sin. Hence original sin has been divided 
 into imputed and inherent ; the former means our 
 participation of the guilt of Adam's transgression, 
 the latter the consequence of this guilt, in the utter 
 depravity of our nature. 
 
 " No privation," says Charnock, " can be removed, but 
 by the introduction of another form : as when a man is 
 
81 
 
 blind, that blindness wliich is a privation of sight, cannot 
 be removed, without bringing in a power of seeing again. 
 Original sin is a privation of original righteousness, and an 
 introduction of corrupt principles, which cannot be remov- 
 ed, but by some powerful principle contrary to it. Since 
 the inability upon the earth, by reason of the curse, to 
 bring forth its fruits in such a manner as it did, when man 
 was in the state of innocency, the nature of it must be 
 changed, to reduce it to its original fruitfulness. So must 
 man, since a general defilement from Adam hath seized up- 
 on him, be altered before he can bring forth fruit to God. 
 We must be united to Christ, ingrafted upon another 
 stock, and partake of the power of his resurrection : with- 
 out this, we may bring forth fruit, but not fruit to God. 
 There is as utter an impossibility in a man, to answer the 
 end of his creation, without righteousness, as for a man to 
 act without life, or act strongly without health and strength. 
 It is a contradiction, to think a man can act righteously 
 without righteousness ; for without it, he hath not the be- 
 ing of a man ; that is, man in such a capacity, for those 
 ends for which his Creation intended him." * 
 
 How can man's depravity be accounted for, but 
 by the fact of our being involved in Adam's guilt 
 — our being condemned in him, and consequently 
 being cut off from the fountain of purity by the 
 curse of God ? How otherwise could death, the 
 wages of sin, pass upon infants who have not sinned 
 after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who 
 were never guilty of actual sin ? 
 
 • Vol. ii. p. 11. London 1684. 
 
82 
 
 Ausfustine is said to have first used the term ori- 
 ginal sin in opposing the Pelagians. It means the 
 sin which we derive from om* original, Psal. li. 5 ; 
 but the holy apostles and prophets had previously 
 established the doctrine. Instead, however, of 
 submitting to the apostles, Mr Drummond, trust- 
 ing to the vain speculation of its " being the na- 
 " ture, that is, the essential characteristic of every 
 " responsible creature to act independently of the 
 " will of God," pronounces the expression, " im- 
 " puted original sin," to be " pure unmingled non- 
 " sense," and with perfect consistency holds that 
 Substitution and Imputation are nothing more than 
 figures. Of course the Atonement, of which Mr 
 Irving cannot speak with patience, is also a figure. 
 " This doctrine," (the Atonement) Mr Irving tells 
 us, " hath swallowed up almost every other doc- 
 " trine, and become the great indulgence of igno- 
 ** ranee and idleness, which in a selfish age will 
 " ever be the case."* The disciples of Christ may 
 well glory when they are reproached as babes and 
 idiots, by a man holding such sentiments ; who 
 is labouring with all his might to bring in another 
 gospel, which is not another, but a perversion of 
 the gospel of Christ. 
 
 Let us now attend to Mr Drummond's view of 
 original sin. 
 
 The fact that all the descendants of Adam inlierit the 
 dispositions of Adam ; that the infirmities, sicknesses, 
 
 • Fast-day Sermon, 1828. 
 
83 
 
 pains, weariness, tempers, desires, which ho had, have been 
 transmitted to his posterity ; that these manifest themselves 
 in various degrees in different individuals, while all are in 
 some measure partakers of them, and end in death, is 
 scai'cely more a matter of revelation, than of obvious, ocu- 
 lar, undeniable fact. Adam is the origin of this condi- 
 tion of bis descendants, and this condition incites them to 
 actual sin. — p. 52-3. 
 
 Mr Drummond complains, that the system of his 
 opponents destroys " the justice of God ;" but if he 
 takes time for reflection, he must see that the 
 charge is most justly applicable to his own. I 
 have already shewn, that he represents the fall of 
 Adam to have been occasioned by God having 
 given him a sinful nature : it was his essential cha- 
 racteristic " to act independently of the will of 
 '* God." Adam's propensity to rebellion was for a 
 time restrained by the sensible presence of God, 
 which was withdrawn in order that he might grati- 
 fy the evil propensities of his nature. The con- 
 sequence of this was his condemnation, and trans- 
 mitting to his posterity a " condition" which " in- 
 " cites them to actual sin." In this there is no mani- 
 festation of divine justice ; on the contrary, there is 
 a direct opposition to all those ideas of justice which 
 God has implanted in our minds. It is admitted, 
 that the introduction of sin under the government 
 of a Being infinitely good and infinitely powerful, 
 is a great deep which we cannot fathom; but in the 
 account given in the word of God, there is nothing 
 
S4f 
 
 opposed to our sense of justice. In virtue of our 
 connection with Adam, " judgment came upon all 
 " men to condemnation," and it is as fallen crea- 
 tures, 7ws% condemned, that we are exposed to the 
 calamities described by Mr Drummond, and also 
 to the wrath to come. Christ as the surety of his 
 people, satisfied justice on their behalf, and brought 
 in everlasting righteousness; he unites them by him- 
 self to the fountain of holiness, from which they had 
 been separated by the curse of the broken law, and 
 thus having ransomed them by his blood, makes 
 them meet for the heavenly inheritance. As they 
 incurred the curse in Adam, and in consequence of 
 the curse, partook of that wickedness which indi- 
 cates their alienation frcm God, so they receive the 
 blessing in Christ, and partake of those holy dispo- 
 sitions which indicate their reconciliation to God. 
 There is nothing here subversive of justice ; but the 
 scheme of Mr Drummond is opposed to every prin- 
 ciple of justice. According to it, there is neither im- 
 putation of sin nor of righteousness. Adam's dispo- 
 sitions and miseries are gratuituously communicated 
 to us, by which, in addition to his originally sinful 
 nature, we become doubly guilty, and doubtless in 
 correspondence with this, the elect become right- 
 eous, by inheriting Christ's dispositions ! Such is 
 not the doctrine of Scripture, nor is it a doctrine ac- 
 cording to godliness. 
 
 Here it may not be improper to glance at the ac- 
 count Mr D. gives of sin. He seems to consider sin 
 
85 
 
 also as a figure, for this is one of the " various 
 terms or figures," by which the creature, " acting 
 " of itself in independency, and in non-conformity 
 " to the will of God is represented." — p. 15. 
 
 — sin is not an adjunct to liuman nature, but a deficiency :" 
 As Bishop Hall says, well, " there is a kind of not being 
 " in sin ; for sin is not an existence of somewhat that is, 
 " but a deficiency of that rectitude that should be." — Vol. 
 vi. 282. Which, indeed, is so obvious, that even a heatlien, 
 unenlightened by revelation, could discover it ; for Plato 
 defines sin to he something void both of number and mea- 
 sure : A/xa5r/a 'roa^ig rrccocc rov o^&ov Xoyi(S[Mv Def. And this 
 definition has never been objected to, and is generally ac- 
 knowledged to be just by many of the schoolmen of the middle 
 ages. Moreover, the Greek word a/xapr/a, expresses the 
 same idea, which is that which falls short of the mark, 
 whereas Mr H. invariably speaks of it as a thing, a being, 
 a substance. — p. 46. 
 
 If by saying, I speak of sin as a substance, Mr 
 Drummond means that I do not consider it to be 
 a figure, he is correct, but I have not entered in- 
 to any metaphysical disquisition on the subject. I 
 am perfectly satisfied with the accurate definition 
 given by the Holy Ghost : " Sin is the transgres- 
 sion of the law." It is a deviation from the de- 
 clared will of God, whether in the way of defi- 
 ciency or excess ; it is a contrariety to the precepts 
 of the divine law. The law of God is the bound- 
 ary of our actions, and sin is overstepping the 
 boundary. I do not hold with Mr Drummond, 
 that sinfulness is an essential characteristic of bu- 
 
86 
 
 man nature ; this, I have shewn, makes God the 
 author of sin. 
 
 Sin must he distinguished from the suhstance of 
 human nature, as an accident or evil quality is dis- 
 tinguished from its subject. God created man 
 upright, but he became corrupt. Sin, however, 
 is not merely a deficiency, for the Scripture de- 
 scribes sin not only negatively, but positively. It 
 is not only represented as coming short of the 
 glory of God, but as working all manner of concu- 
 piscence. It is represented as dwelling in us, 
 Rom. vii. 17. warring in us, reigning in us, de- 
 ceiving and slaying us. Doubtless these are figures, 
 but every figure properly employed must have a 
 reality on which it is founded. So long as Mr 
 Drummond maintains a system founded on the de- 
 finitions which I have already examined, and 
 Avhich reduces substitution and imputation to figures, 
 I do not wonder that he should endeavour to escape 
 from the word of God, and resort to Plato for the 
 support of his scheme ; but the fact that he has 
 done so, is at once an evidence of the badness of 
 his cause, of his consciousness that it cannot be 
 maintained by the authority of the word of God ; 
 and I must add, of a state of mind very unsuitable 
 for an enlightened examination of a theological ques- 
 tion. Plato is one of those described by the apostle, 
 who " became vain in their imaginations, and their 
 " foolish heart was darkened. Professing them- 
 " selves to be wise, they became fools. — As they 
 " did not like to retain God in their knowledge, 
 
87 
 
 " God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do 
 " those things whicli are not convenient, being 
 " filled with all unrighteousness — haters of God — 
 " proud, — boasters — without understanding," &c. 
 and shall we turn from the Scriptures of truth to 
 get instruction from such blind guides in regard to 
 the nature of sin ? " Is it not,'' said the Prophet, 
 " because there is not a God in Israel that ye go to 
 " inquire of Baal-zebub, the god of Ekroii." We 
 have seen that it is an avowed principle of the new 
 school, to undervalue " the quotation of texts" in 
 proof of doctrines ; to prefer " deep arguments," 
 " drawn from the nature of the Godhead itself, or 
 " from the work of the redemption and regene- 
 " ration of the creature." With this it seems is 
 connected an attempt to prove doctrines by quo- 
 tations of heathens who knew not God. — " Be- 
 " ware," says the Scripture, " lest any man 
 " spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, 
 " after the tradition of men, after the rudiments 
 " of the world, and not after Christ." 
 
 The doctrine of imputation is much insisted on 
 in the word of God. " Christ bore our sins in his 
 " own body on the tree ; — he was made sin for us, 
 " who knew no sin, that we might be made the 
 " righteousness of God in him — Christ hath re- 
 " deemed us from the curse of the law, being 
 " made a curse for us, that the blessing of Abra- 
 " ham might come upon the Gentiles, that we might 
 " receive the promise of the Spirit through faith." 
 
88 
 
 In short, tlie substitution of Christ in our stead, 
 the imputation of our sins to him, and of his right- 
 eousness to us, are constantly represented as the 
 ground of all our hopes. 
 
 Let us hear Mr Drummond's views on the sub- 
 ject :— 
 
 One source of this confusion is, from Mr H. having 
 taken but one figure out of the Scriptures, which is the 
 figure of substitution, on which figure he argues, as if it 
 were a fact, and not a figure, and carries all the ramifica- 
 tions of it to the most unbounded length. Timco homi- 
 nem U7iius libri, said Erasmus, and we have reason to 
 dread a controversialist who has but one idea, and that 
 idea a figure ; under this figure, it is necessary to speak 
 of sin as it were a lump, or thing, which could be taken 
 from one place and put upon another, as we might take 
 this paper off one table and place it on another. As a 
 figure, this does very well to express the transfer of the 
 dements of us sinners, to the spotless Jesus, and the trans- 
 fer of his merits to us : but when sin is spoken of, as a 
 thing to which God could, or could not be united, it 
 marks a confusion of ideas, as great as if a man were (to 
 use again the illustration of Locke in speaking of the will) 
 to talk of blue sin or green sin. — p. 50-1. 
 
 It is true, sin is not a being or thing, it is a 
 quality or property, but the guilt of sin is trans- 
 ferred in reality, not in figure. In the above pas- 
 sage, Mr D. admits, that there is a transfer of de- 
 merits and merits. How can there be a transfer- 
 encej without a real substitution and imputation ? 
 
89 
 
 Can there be a real transference, and merely a figu- 
 rative substitution ? His illustration of blue and 
 green sin is absurd, because colour has no relation 
 to sin. But there is no confusion of ideas in 
 affirming that God could not be personally united 
 to a sinful nature. The Scripture says evil shall 
 not dwell with God. Mr Irving represents the 
 Deity as dwelling in personal union with corrupt 
 human nature, consequently, corruption was inhe- 
 rent in the Son of God ; he represents light and 
 darkness as having fellowship together, which the 
 word of God declares to be impossible ; and thus we 
 have not only a confusion of ideas, but an absolute 
 contradiction representing things as being united, 
 which are necessarily destructive of each other. 
 
 " To whatever Mr Haldane, or any other per- 
 " son, can say of substitution and imputation, we 
 " will gladly subscribe ; but we protest against 
 " considering these terms as any thing more than 
 " figures ; and still more against being compelled, 
 *• to confine all theology within these limits." — p. 53. 
 I cannot omit noticing the flippancy of this remark. 
 If these terms are only figures, why subscribe to 
 what is said of them by those who hold them to 
 be facts ? We ought to subscribe to nothing in re- 
 ligion for which men cannot adduce divine autho- 
 rity. Nothing is more calculated to lead us into 
 error than this light and irreverent way of speak- 
 ing of revealed truth. The doctrine of the sinful- 
 ness of Christ's human nature may be represented 
 
90 
 
 as " an abstruse and highly metaphysical point of 
 " speculative theology." — and be therefore treat- 
 ed as a strife of words ; but let us observe the effect 
 it has had on Mr Drummond and Mr Irving. 
 " Imputation," says the latter, " was not the faith 
 " of the primitive saints, but introduced by Coun- 
 " oils which were held after the times of the 
 *' apostles." Yet with the same breath, he says, 
 " I admit Imputation in its fullest extent." — Ref. 4. 
 I noticed this contradictory statement; but Mr 
 Drummond has cleared up the mystery; Imputa- 
 tion is not a fact, but a figure. As such, although 
 it was not the faith of the primitive saints, Mr 
 Irving admits it in its fullest extent ; and Mr 
 Drummond will gladly subscribe to what any per- 
 son can say of it. 
 
 Never was an assertion more unfounded, than 
 that in the Scriptures, substitution and imputation 
 are figures. There is nothing figurative in the 
 terms. Substitution means a person or thing be- 
 ing put in place of another. Now, when Christ 
 was wounded for our transgressions, — when the 
 Lord made to meet upon him the iniquities of us 
 all, there was a real, not a figurative substitution ; 
 he was put in our place. When we say one man is 
 substituted for another, that he takes the place of 
 another, what figure do we use ? We state a 
 fact; and how can it be stated more literally? A 
 man enlists in the army ; he repents, and applies 
 for his discharge ; he is told he must find a substi- 
 
91 
 
 tate ; he procures one, who is accepted, and the 
 man is free. Where is the figure in all this ? it is 
 a simple fact — a plain unvarnished tale from which 
 we learn that another took the place of the man 
 who had enlisted. When Christ hore our sins in 
 his own body on the tree — when by his stripes we 
 were healed — when we had gone astray like lost 
 sheep, and the chastisement of our peace was laid 
 upon him, there is nothing akin to figure : it is a 
 fact which God hath revealed, that Christ took our 
 place, and suffered the just for the unjust. Mr 
 Drummond says it is a figure. I ask him what 
 figure is here used? I ask him to give an example 
 of the literal use of the word substitution ? and I 
 maintain, that in no case can the word be more 
 literally used than in reference to the substitution 
 of Christ. He may as well say, that Christ was 
 figuratively a man, was figuratively born, figura- 
 tively ate and drank, figuratively died and rose 
 again, for the terms substitution and imputation 
 are as literal as any of these terms. 
 
 No proof of the assertion, that the terms substi- 
 tution and imputation are figurative, is attempted ; 
 Mr Drummond ojgirms it. It would be satisfac- 
 tory to learn h9w he ascertains that a word is fio-u- 
 rative. The assertion, that substitution and im- 
 putation are figures, seems to rest not on the na- 
 ture of figures of speech, but on the supposition of 
 the Neologians, that the Scripture facts are fables. 
 They admit that the things are literally true, but 
 
 H 
 
9^ 
 
 maintain they are told as fables which carry a mo- 
 ral. No passage of the word of God can be de- 
 pended on, if such a mode of interpretation be ad- 
 mitted. God's creating the world may be termed 
 a figure, which means no more than his having 
 given it its present form. 
 
 Mr Drummond confounds substitution and im- 
 putation with the figures employed to represent 
 them. There is as literal a substitution of Christ 
 in the room of sinners, as ever there was substitu- 
 tion of one man for another, in the case of debt, or 
 in any other case. Is a surety among men only a 
 figure ? Many have found the contrary to their 
 cost. The sins of his people were as truly imputed 
 to Christ, as the debts of a person are imputed to 
 his surety. Sin is figuratively represented as a 
 burden taken off the sinner, and laid on the Sa- 
 viour. It is figuratively represented as a debt, and 
 the punishment of it is spoken of as the payment ; 
 yet this figure, although in some respects accurate, 
 is in others inadequate ; for sin is not altogether 
 like a debt. It matters not who pays a debt ; if it 
 be paid, justice is satisfied, and discharges the 
 debtor ; but it is not so with regard to sin. If a 
 man owes a sum of money, his creditor cannot 
 refuse payment from another, but the law will not 
 admit a substitute for a murderer. It was an act 
 of sovereignty in God to accept payment from ano- 
 ther in our stead ; it was the result of infinite wis- 
 dom, that, in the exercise of this sovereignty, the 
 
93 
 
 rights of justice were preserved inviolate, by the 
 unity of the debtor and his surety. But whatever 
 figures are used, the substitution and imputation 
 are literal. If sin be represented as a burden trans- 
 ferred, the guilt of sin must be really and literally 
 transferred ; if it be a debt paid, the penalty must 
 be really endured ; if there be a redemption, there 
 must be an equivalent to justice, and a deliverance 
 from guilt and bondage. All the figures used in 
 Scripture, imply a real substitution and impu- 
 tation. 
 
 Hooker, of whom Mr Drummond speaks with 
 respect, had no idea of imputation being a figure. 
 
 From hence it is, that they wliich helong to the mystical 
 body of our Saviour Christ, and be in number as the stars 
 of heaven, divided successively by reason of their mor- 
 tal condition into many generations, are, notwithstanding", 
 coupled every one to Christ the head, and all unto every 
 particular person amongst themselves, inasmuch as the 
 same spirit which anointed the blessed soul of our Sa- 
 viour Christ, doth so formalize, unite, and actuate his 
 whole race, as if both he and they were so many limbs 
 compacted into one body, by being quickened all with one 
 and the same soul. That wherein we are partakers of 
 Jesus Christ by imputation, agreeth equally unto all that 
 have it. For it consisteth in such acts and deeds of his, 
 as could not have longer continuance than while they were 
 in doing, nor at that very time belong unto any other but to 
 him from whom they come ; and therefore how men, either 
 then or before, or sithence, should be made partakers of 
 
94 
 
 them, there can be no way imagined, but only by impu- 
 tation.* 
 
 Mr Drummond observes that the consequence of cany- 
 ing tlje figure of imputation farther than is warrantable, 
 involves the serious absurdity, and even blasphemy of de- 
 stroying the justice of God : for it makes him to treat his 
 creatures, neither according to their deserts, nor accord- 
 ing to what he has revealed to be the law of divine juris- 
 prudence ; but according to that which they are not, and 
 according to what they do not deserve. — p. 51. 
 
 Is Mr Drummond a competent judge of the di- 
 vine conduct ? God's ways are not our wa)s, nor 
 Lis thoughts our thoughts. What is meant by 
 carrying the figure farther than is warrantable I do 
 not know, but I maintain there is no figure in the 
 case. Whatever meaning he may attacli to the 
 expression, lie says it makes God treat his crea- 
 tures not according to their deserts. This observa- 
 tion applies to his own system, not to mine. If there 
 be no sucli thing as imputation, whence proceed the 
 suflferings of infants ? 1 hold that they are treated 
 according to their deserts ; imputed sin is our sin ; 
 it is not ours because it is imputed, but it is im- 
 puted because it is ours. Adam's sin is imputed 
 to us because, by the original constitution of our 
 nature, we subsisted in Adam, and were guilty in 
 him. This constitution was perfectly just and 
 right, although we cannot fathom the depth of the 
 
 • Hooker, b. v. § 50. p. 227-8. 
 
95 
 
 subject. So it is with respect to the righteousness 
 of Christ. In botli cases union or oneness is tlie 
 ground of imputation. When the Lord imputes 
 iniquity to the transgressor, he does not make it 
 his, and then proceed to punish him, but he who 
 " is excellent in power and in judgment, and in 
 " plenty of justice," finds it to be his, and treats 
 him accordingly. Imputation is not an arbitrary 
 act ; God does not impute either sin or righteous- 
 ness to any till they are really sinners, or righteous. 
 By the first covenant or constitution which it pleased 
 God to give to the human race, all became really 
 guilty through the fall of Adam. By the new 
 covenant or constitution, which, according to God's 
 eternal purpose, has been established, all believers 
 are righteous in virtue of union with Christ. There 
 is much here beyond our comprehension, but no- 
 thing contrary to our reason. Granting that all 
 are guilty in Adam, which is a matter, not of ar- 
 gument, but of express revelation, which those who 
 tremble at the word of God must receive, it is per- 
 fectly just that all should be punished. Granting 
 that as all Adam's children are partakers of his 
 guilt, so all believers partake of Christ's right- 
 eousness, which is also a matter of express re- 
 revelation, — their acquittal is strictly just and 
 proper. Hence we see how erroneous is the as- 
 sertion that the doctrine of imputation makes 
 God treat his creatures not *' accordincr to what 
 *' he has revealed to be the law of divine jurispru- 
 
 i 
 
0() 
 
 dence." The revealed law of divine jurisprudence 
 to fallen man is, " as in Adam all die, so in 
 " Christ shall all be made alive." — Christ the 
 first fruits, afterwards they that are Christ's at bis 
 " coming," and so far from making void the law, 
 it is established by this constitution. " Now, the 
 " righteousness of God without the law is mani- 
 " fested, being witnessed by the law and the pro- 
 " pliets ; even the righteousness of God, which is 
 " by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all 
 " them that believe, for there is no difference." 
 In the gospel this righteousness is revealed, and 
 that which appears to Mr Drummond as " destroy- 
 ing the justice of God," was intended by him 
 whose purpose shall stand " to declare — his rigbt- 
 " eousness, that he might be just, and the justifier 
 " of him that believeth in Jesus ;" and however 
 men may stumble at the doctrine of substitution 
 and imputation, the manifold wisdom of God is 
 thus known to the principalities and powers in 
 heavenly places by the church, all whose mem- 
 bers are justified by the imputation of Christ's 
 righteousness. 
 
 The Son of God was manifested in our nature 
 as the second Adam, of whom the first Adam was 
 a figure. He is the head of the Elect. — Is. xlii. 1. 
 He took part in flesh and blood with those whom 
 the Father had given him, and whom he is not 
 ashamed to call brethren. They are members of 
 his body, of his flesh, and of his bones ; they are 
 one spirit with him. " He suffered for us, the 
 
97 
 
 *' just for the unjust, that he might bring us unto 
 " God. — Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of 
 " the law, being made a curse for us ; in him we 
 " have redemption tlirough his blood, the forgive- 
 " ness of sins." If imputation is denied, why are 
 Adam's posterity punished for a sin of which tliey 
 were not guilty, and why were the sins of believers 
 punished in the person of Christ ; as it is written, 
 " he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no 
 " sin, that we might be made the righteousness of 
 " God in him." If imputation is not a reality, 
 human language is inadequate to convey to our 
 minds the idea of a reality. 
 
 " He cannot well he supposed to suffer for our sins,"' 
 says Charnock, " if our sins in regard of tJieir guilt be not 
 supposed to be charged upon him. How could he die, if 
 he were not a reputed sinner? Had he not first had a re- 
 lation to our sin, he could not in justice have under<Tone 
 our punishment. He must in the order of justice be sup- 
 posed a sinner really, or by imputation ; really he was not, 
 by imputation then he was. How can we conceive he 
 should be made a curse for us, if that which made us ac- 
 cursed, had not been first chai'ged upon him ? It is as 
 much against divine justice to inflict punishment where 
 there is no sin, as it is to spare an offender wlio hath com- 
 mitted a crime, or to clear the guilty, which by no means 
 God ivill do, Exod. xxxiv. 7. The consideration of a crime 
 precedes the sentence, either upon an offender or his surety. 
 We cannot conceive how divine justice should inflict the 
 punishiLent, had it not first considered him under guilt. 
 Though the first designation of the Redeemer to a sureti- 
 
98 
 
 ship or sacrifice for us, was an act of God's sovereignty ; 
 yet the inflicting punishment after that designation, and 
 our Saviour's acceptation of it, was an act of God's justice, 
 and so declared to be, llom. ill. 2G. to declare his right- 
 eousness that he inigJii be just ; that he miglit declare his 
 justice in justification, his justice to his law. Can this 
 highest declaration of justice be founded upon an unjust act ? 
 Had that been justice or injustice to Christ, to lay bis 
 wrath upon the Son of his love, one whose person was al- 
 ways dear to him, always pleased him, had he not stood as 
 a amwQY juridicaUij in our stead, and suffered that sin, 
 which was the ruin of mankind, to be cast with all the 
 weight of it, upon his innocent shoulders ? After by his 
 own act he had engaged for our debt, God injustice might 
 demand of him every farthing, which, without that under- 
 taking, and putting himself in our stead, could not be 
 done : which submission of his, and com])liance with it, is 
 expressed twice, Isa. liii. 7. by his not opening his mouth ; 
 and no wrong is done to a voluntary undertaker. Add 
 this too. It is from his standing in our sttad as guilty, that 
 the benefit of his death doth redound to us. His death 
 had had no relation to us, had not our sin been J icridicallg 
 adjudged to be his, nor can we challenge an acquittance at 
 tlie hands of God for our debts, if they were not our debts 
 that he paid on tlie cross. lie icas wounded for our trans- 
 gressions^ he was bruised for our i?iiquities, Isaiah liii. 3. 
 The laying hands upon the head of the sin-offering, was 
 necessary to make it a sacrifice, for the offender, without 
 which ceremony, it might have been a slain, but not a sa- 
 crificed beast. The transferring our iniquities upon him, 
 must in some way precede his being bruised for them, 
 which could not be any other way than by imputation, 
 whereby he was constituted by God a debtor in our stead, 
 
99 
 
 to bear the punishment of our sin ; he being raaile sin for 
 us, our sin was in a sort made his ; he was made sin with- 
 out sin ; he knew the guilt, without knowing the filth ; he 
 felt the punishment, without being touched with the pol- 
 lution- Since death was the icarjes of sin and passed as 
 a penalty for a violated law, Rom. vi. 23, it could not 
 righteously be inflicted on him, had not sin first been im- 
 puted to him. In his own person lie was in the arms of 
 his father's love ; as he represented our sinful persons, he 
 felt the strokes of his Father's wrath."* 
 
 The denial of substitution and imputation has al- 
 ways been one of the great points in the Socinian 
 controversy. Socinians admit that the sufferings 
 and the death of Christ were for our benefit and 
 advantage ; but they deny that he was our substi- 
 tute, charged with our guilt, and bearing the pun- 
 ishment due to our sins, that he might make a full 
 and proper satisfaction to divine justice. " I do 
 " not now," says Witsius, " insist on Socinus, who, 
 " denying the satisfaction of Christ, and the impu- 
 " tation of his righteousness, perverts the whole 
 " gospel." f 
 
 The whole sacrificial system in the Mosaic eco- 
 nomy necessarily involves substitution and impu- 
 tation. The sins of the worshipper were figurative- 
 ly transferred to the victim, and figuratively expi- 
 ated by its blood ; and this was not a figure of a 
 figure^ but of the fact of Christ bearing our sins in 
 
 • Vol. ii. p. 807-8. 
 •j-Irenicum, p. 112, Glasgow 1807. 
 
100 
 
 Lis own body on the tree, redeeming us from the 
 curse of the law, by being made a curse for us. 
 For the purpose of prefiguring this glorious atone- 
 ment, the tabernacle was reared, and the temple 
 built. These were prefigurations of the incarna- 
 tion, but they included the altar of burnt-offering, 
 and consequently the substitution of the victims in 
 the place of the offerers. These typical sacrifices, 
 for the sake of which the tabernacle and temple 
 were reared, included the idea of real, although 
 typical atonement, satisfaction and reconciliation ; 
 and the type was accomplished by the sacrifice of 
 the Redeemer, As the tabernacle and temple were 
 reared for the purpose of typical atonement, so did 
 the Redeemer become incarnate, that he might 
 make a real atonement, by the offering of his body 
 once for all. 
 
 For some time after reading the Candid Examina- 
 tion, I did not know what was meant by the figure 
 of imputation. It is however explained in a paper 
 in No. 3, of the Morning Watch, where we are 
 told, " that imputation is a figure to express a rea- 
 " lity, and that that reality is the incarnation of the 
 " second person in Deity." This is certainly a new 
 doctrine, and o\ight not to have been advanced 
 without proof, but no proof is attempted ; not one 
 passage of Scripture is quoted in defence of this 
 most extraordinary proposition. If it were substan- 
 tiated, it would go far to prove that the Scriptures 
 are written in a style so completely different from the 
 
101 
 
 ordinai-y language of mankind, that it is vain for us 
 to expect to decipher their meaning. " David de- 
 ** scribeth the blessedness of the man to whom God 
 " imputeth righteousness without works." Doubt- 
 less, this is the righteousness of Christ; but if im- 
 putation here is " a figure to express a reality — 
 " the incarnation of the second person of Deity," 
 it must be a hopeless task to interpret the language 
 of Scripture. On what authority, then, are we to 
 receive this dictum ? On the authority of an anony- 
 mous writer in the Morning Watch, who has been 
 pleased to affirm it. A iaw lines before we are told, 
 — " under Christ's work as Redeemer, we must 
 " speak of redemption, relationsliip, union, identity 
 " with all human nature, and with the whole globe." 
 This coincides with Mr Irving's sentiment of Christ 
 partaking " in the fallen state of all the material- 
 " ism of the world," and with a passage of Mr 
 Drummond's, in the Candid Examination, where he 
 supposes that Dr Thomson had " been driven to 
 " perceive, that it was by the union which subsisted 
 " between the man Jesus, and all other creatures, that 
 " the redemption of creation was effected." — p. 64. 
 Does Mr D. hold that Christ redeemed all crea- 
 tures ? This is the fruit of Mr Irving's maxim of 
 establishing truth by '• deep arguments drawn from 
 " the nature of the Godhead itself, or from the 
 " work of redemption and regeneration of the crea- 
 " ture," rather than by the " quotation of texts." 
 On such subjects, all our wisdom is folly. The na- 
 
102 
 
 tiire, extent, and Issue of redemption are not to be 
 determined by metapbysicks, but by revelation. 
 Tbe angels of God know nothing of redemption, 
 but by revelation. 
 
 The Scriptures never speak of Christ's relation- 
 ship, union, identity with the whole globe, nor of 
 " all human nature" being redeemed ; they speak 
 of his union with his people. It was with the chil- 
 dren whom God had given him, that the Redeemer 
 took part in flesh and blood ; it was for their sakes 
 he sanctified himself; it was for the transgression 
 of God's people that he was smitten. This separa- 
 tion of mankind into two classes, the seed of the 
 woman and the seed of the serpent, was announced 
 when the promise of the Saviour was first given. 
 Mr Irving and his followers may represent the man 
 Jesus as united and identified " with all other crea- 
 " tures," " with the whole globe," with " all the ma- 
 " terialism of the world," but this is not the union 
 and identity spoken of in the Scriptures. There we 
 are taught that " both he that sanctifieth, and they 
 " that are sanctified, are all of one ; for which cause 
 " he is not ashamed to call them brethren. Saying, 
 " I vvdll declare thy name unto my brethren, in the 
 " midst of the church I will sing praise unto thee." 
 Christ is head over all things, but in a different 
 sense from that in which he is head of his body, 
 the church. He rules with a rod of iron in the 
 midst of his enemies, and will execute on thefti the 
 " judgment written," but from this he has redeem- 
 ed the phurch by his own most precious blood. 
 
103 
 
 After all, there is no new thing under the sun. 
 When Mr Drummond tells us that substitution 
 and imputation are not facts but figures, he only 
 follows the example' of some of old, " who," says 
 the apostle, " concerning the truth, have erred, 
 " saying tliat the resurrection is past already, and 
 " overthrow the faith of some," — 2 Tim. ii. 18. 
 That the apostles preach.ed Jesus and the resurrec- 
 tion, was as indisputable, as that the Scriptures 
 contain the doctrines of substitution and imputa- 
 tion ; and Hymeneus and Philetus would " gladly 
 " subscribe" to what any person could say on the 
 subject ; but they protested against considering the 
 term " as any thing mor^" than a figure. The 
 same error had crept into the church at Corinth. 
 " How say some among you, that there is no re- 
 " surrection of the dead," — 1 Cor. xv. 12. The 
 apostle shews that this error is subversive of the 
 gospel. It seems too, that it was defended pre- 
 cisely in the same way as the error of Mr Drum- 
 mond, by forsaking revelation, and having recourse 
 to metaphysicks. " How are the dead raised up, 
 " and with what body do they come ?" and we may 
 suppose, that the opponents of the apostle were not 
 at all pleased at their metaphysicks being derided. 
 " Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quick- 
 " ened except it die." How can these things be, 
 has in cA^ery age been the inquiry of vain man, 
 who is born like the wild ass's colt ? Thus he re- 
 sists every part of the truth, till, by the word com- 
 
 I 
 
101- 
 
 ing to liim, not in word, but in power, and in the 
 Holy Ghost, and in much assurance ; his high 
 imaginations are cast down, and every thought is 
 brought into ciiptivity by the obedience of Christ. 
 
 Mr Irving has published a paper in No. 3, of 
 tlie Morning Watch, in v/hich we have a farther 
 development of his views of Atonement. While 
 he defends the sentiment of the corruption of our 
 Lord's human nature, describing his flesh as 
 sinful, and his soul as fallen ; he insists on the 
 Lord's freedom from actual sin, but he will never 
 escape from the charge of making Christ actually 
 a sinner, so long as he holds that there was a law 
 in his members warring against the law of his mind, 
 thus representing sin in a state of constant activity 
 in his heart. Sucb a struggle is sinful ; it is incon- 
 sistent with supreme, undivided love to God. He 
 \vho througli the. faculties of the human soul com- 
 muned " witli every impious, ungodly, and blas- 
 " phemous chamber of the fallen intellect and feel- 
 " ing of men," must be a sinner. 
 
 — " I believe," says Mr Irving, " that my Lord did corue 
 down, and toil and sweat, and travail, in exceeding great 
 sorrow, in this mass of iniquity with which I and every 
 sinful man are oppressed ; that this was his great work of 
 humiliation and suffering." — p. 421. 
 
 I have no intention, however, of following Mr 
 Irving througli the sophistry by which he attempts 
 to defend the heresy which he has adopted, or to 
 
105 
 
 point out the contradictory statements contained in 
 the paper in the Morning Watch ; but I cannot al- 
 low this farther development of his system to pass 
 unnotico.d. 
 
 He attempts to prove that the object of the 
 miraculous conception was to avoid Christ's be- 
 ing a human person. " If any one ask, and why 
 " should a responsible personality depend upon 
 " ordinary conception ? I answer, because God 
 " willeth it to be so." — p. 428. That the two na- 
 tures of Christ subsisted in one person is true, but 
 to say that this could only be avoided by miracu- 
 lous conception, is perfectly gratuitous and un- 
 founded ; according to the constitution given by God 
 to mankind, every human being was to be pro- 
 duced in a particular way, Gen. i. 28. and all thus 
 produced, were represented by Adam, and fell in 
 him, but the human nature of Christ was produced 
 in a new and extraordinary manner, because he 
 Avas to be the head of a new family, taken from 
 among the old, and who like him, were to be born 
 of the Spirit. With God nothing shall be impos- 
 sible ; and although he had limited the production 
 of human beings to a specific mode, he was not 
 himself limited by this appointment ; and from the 
 manner in which the human nature of Christ was 
 produced, it was apparent that he was completely 
 free from Adam's sin ; and although related to his 
 people by assuming their nature in the womb of 
 the virgin, that he might have the right of redemp- 
 
lOG 
 
 tion, he was necessarily excepted from the conse- 
 quences of the fall, which was essential to his soul 
 being made an offering for sin. There is not the 
 shadow of argument in Mr Irving's assertion, that 
 it was to avoid there being two persons in Christ, 
 that recourse was had to the miraculous conception. 
 Had it pleased God, there might have been but one 
 person, although the human nature had been pro- 
 duced in the ordinary way, but as I have repeat- 
 edly shewn, this was impossible on another account, 
 for light and darkness can have no communion to- 
 gether, and all mankind, produced by the Divine 
 blessing, be fruitful and multiply, Gen. i. 28. were 
 implicated in Adam's guilt. 
 
 Again, after all that he and MrDrummond have 
 said of the man Jesus, being necessarily mortal, 
 Mr Irving is now compelled to admit that his death 
 was voluntary. 
 
 We have seen, from the passage quoted above, that he 
 (Christ) could have prevented his life being taken if be had 
 pleased; just as he could have made the stones of the vi'ilder- 
 ness bread if he had pleased ; but how then would the Scrip- 
 tures have been fulfilled ? How would he fulfil the re- 
 vealed will of his Father ? He had a baptism to be bap- 
 tized with : it was written for him : it pleased the Father 
 to bruise him, and to put him to grief: it pleased tlie Fa- 
 ther to make his soul an offering for sin : he had received 
 the commandment from his Father, and therefore he did 
 it ; not under compulsion, but under obedience. This is 
 the plain, straight forward meaning of the passage. Now, 
 
107 
 
 • 
 
 if I were to argue upon it, I would say, that because lie 
 was in fallen humanity, and liable to death, he could thus 
 speak ; and otherwise he could not have spoken it. For 
 otherwise than in obedience to the commandment of God, 
 which imposed death on fallen manhood, could he not have 
 died ? The commandment o: his Father to die, was 
 spoken in paradise upon Adam, and upon all Adam's seed ; 
 and to tlie obedience thereof Christ willingly submitted 
 liimself when he took flesh ; ami so he found power to lay 
 down his life. But where, I ask, is the commandment of 
 God that a person in unfallen humanity should die. It 
 existeth not in the written word of God ; but the contrary 
 of it existeth implicitly, in making disobedience the con- 
 dition unto death. The notion I have myself expressed, 
 that if a man could keep the law perfectly, he would not 
 die ; and that on this account, Christ might have claimed 
 exemption from death. I begin to doubt the premises, 
 and am at a loss for the proof. We die, not for any sin 
 of our own, but for Adam's sin ; else why do children die? 
 And thus doth this passage not only admit an easy ex- 
 planation, but recoileth upon the head of the adversaries 
 of the truth. — p. 439. 
 
 I have quoted this long passage for several rea- 
 sons ; first, It is creditable to Mr Irving to retract 
 his errors, and it would give me real satisfaction 
 to see him employed in defending the truth once 
 delivered to the saints. Secondly, It contains an 
 admission of the rashness of the assertion in his 
 discourses, quoted In the Refutation, — 
 
 . " The man who says that Christ did not die by the 
 common property of flesh to die, because it was accursed 
 
108 
 
 in the loins of our first parents, that man doth deny that 
 Christ was under the curse, he doth deny that Christ was 
 made a curse at all ; yea, he doth deny that the word was 
 made flesh at all. — Ref. 6. 
 
 Mr Irving now admits that Christ died, not under 
 compulsion, but under obedience, and consequently 
 he died not by the common property of flesh to die, 
 because it was accursed in the loins of our first 
 parents; his death was a voluntary act. Tfdrdly^ His 
 argument in the latter part of the quotation is 
 erroneous. Certainly the Lord would not have 
 said I have power to lay down my life, had he 
 not been " liable to death," in other words, ca- 
 pable of dying. But he did not die in obedience 
 to the commandment upon Adam, and upon all 
 Adam's seed, spoken in Paradise. He died in vir- 
 tue of the covenant between the Father and the 
 Son. He came into the world to do his Father's 
 will, by " which will we are sanctified through the 
 " oflforing of the body of Christ once for all." There 
 is indeed no commandment for a person in un fallen 
 humanity to die, death is the wages of sin, but it 
 was the eternal purpose of God that Clirist should 
 suffer, the just for the unjust, and enter into his 
 glory. For the accomplishment of this pui-pose, a 
 body was prepared for the incarnation of the Son,. 
 and the end of the incarnation was attained by 
 that body being willingly offered as a sacrifice of 
 a sweet smelling savour, acceptable unto God. 
 
109 
 
 Hence the Lord said, " therefore doth my Father 
 " love me, because I hiy down my life that I may 
 take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I 
 " lay it down of myself." The sentence of death 
 pronounced on fallen man could only affect the man 
 Christ Jesus through his own voluntary act ; for, 
 although he had taken part with his brethren in 
 flesh and blood, it is evident he was not represent- 
 ed by Adam, — was not condemned in Adam, — 
 did not fall in Adam, for the soul and body of 
 Jesus were not created under the operation of the 
 law by which all Adam's natural posterity receive 
 existence. — Gen. i. 28. He appeared as the second 
 Adam, the Lord from heaven, the head of the 
 new and spiritual creation, as the first Adam had 
 been the head of the natural creation. — 1 Cor. xv. 
 44, — 49. As to the declaration, " that if a man 
 " could keep the law perfectly he would not die," it 
 is impossible that the condition could be fulfilled 
 by any descendant of Adam. All his posterity 
 were condemned in him, are under the curse, are 
 alienated from God, and cannot be subject to his 
 law. 
 
 Mr Irving then goes on to explain more fully 
 the unscriptural views of the atonement into which 
 he has been led. He speaks of " Imputation of 
 " guilt, or a constitution of dependence on the 
 " work of another," but his views on this subject 
 are very different from what is taught in the word 
 of God! 
 
no 
 
 It is the pleasure of God that every human person should 
 come into being under those same conditions of sin and 
 misery into which Adam was brought by the fall. God 
 would liave the experiment made upon Adam, to serve 
 and satisfy for all persons in Adam's likeness formed. 
 Therefore Adam was placed in the best condition possi- 
 ble for standing, that there might remain no doubt upon 
 the mind of all persons in his likeness created, that had 
 they in his place stood, they would in like wise have fall- 
 en. God would not give every creature the anguish of 
 tasting and drinking such a cup as fell to Adam's share ; 
 but having justified himself, his own holiness, his own 
 goodness, in Adam's person, he did mercifully — I say, 
 most mercifiillj^ — bring the rest of the family into being 
 under the condition of soul, body, and estate under which 
 Adam was jjlaced after Adam fell. — I do not say that 
 conception by natural means is the cause of our original 
 guiltiness in God's sight : I merely say, that it is a sign and 
 seal of God's will and purpose. — But as to a cause for 
 the constitution of man's being, or the constitution of any 
 creature's being, I hold that cause to be nowhere save in 
 the good pleasure of God himself." — 429, 430. 
 
 Here we learn that God created all the children of 
 Adam in a state of guilt and enmity against himself ! 
 I have already noticed that there is a depth in the 
 creation of all mankind in Adam, and their subse- 
 quent fall in him, which we cannot fathom. We are 
 sure the Judge of all the earth has done right, but 
 Mr Irving's system is equally in direct opposition 
 to all our views of divine justice and goodness, and 
 to the plainest declarations of the word of God, 
 
Ill 
 
 " By one man's disobedience many were made 
 " sinners ;" but, according to Mr Irving, our con- 
 nexion with Adam is not the cause of our original 
 guiltiness in God's siglit, it is only a sign and seal 
 of God's will and purpose. This is indeed a new 
 and strange doctrine. Mr Irving talks much of 
 the signs of the latter days, but if the views he 
 advocates make any considerable progress, I have 
 no doubt the issue will be tlie very general spread 
 of avowed infidelity. Mr Irving's progress is, 
 however, calculated to afford to all a salutary and 
 important lesson. We see in him how one error 
 produces another, and how a man may be led by 
 one false doctrine to the denial of all the funda- 
 mental paths of revelation. 
 
 I shewed in the Refutation that Mr Irving's 
 views of our Lord's human nature were subversive 
 of the atonement, and now he has advanced to an 
 open denial of any satisfaction being made for sin. 
 
 But what a system of theology is that which represent- 
 eth God as in himself implacable to the sinner, until his 
 Son, by bearing the sinner's strokes, doth draw off the re- 
 venge of God. Then, God is changed in his being with 
 respect to a few ; but with respect to the many, his implac- 
 able nature worketh on in its natural course. Such a God 
 cannot be the object of love ; and upon such a system the 
 object of love he never is. And all this ihey represent as 
 needful for the glory of his holiness and justice. — In 
 whatever light these remarks may appear to others, to my- 
 self they have brought this solid conviction, that whila 
 
112 
 
 the present \iews of atonement continue to be cloated on 
 by the churcli, it is in vain to attempt to cany any point 
 of sound doctrine. Atonement and redemption are the 
 names for the bearing of CInist's work upon tlie sinner, 
 and have no respect to its bearing upon the Godhead, nor 
 upon the CInist, the God-man. — p. 444. 
 
 Thus the atonement is avowedly set aside ; 
 atonement liad no bearing upon the Godhead, nor 
 upon the Christ the God-man ; its bearing is only 
 upon the sinner. When the Scripture speaks of 
 Christ being " set forth as a propitiation through 
 *' faitli in his blood, to declare his righteousness — 
 " that he might be just, and the justifier of him 
 " that believeth in Jesus," it is all figurative, and 
 means no more than that God has given an exhibi- 
 tion of his love to the world, by which, without 
 any satisfaction to justice, he reconciles sinners, 
 who, according to Mr Irving, for God's good plea- 
 sure, were created in a state of guiltiness and en- 
 mity against their Maker. But this is not all ; God 
 laying upon Christ the iniquity of us all, our being 
 healed by his stripes, if understood in their plain 
 and obvious sense, is representing " God as himself 
 " implacable to the sinner, until his Son," &c. 
 The Scriptures represent God as of purer eyes than 
 to behold iniquity ; had he not in his infinite wis- 
 dom found a ransom, mankind, as well as the rebel 
 angels, would have perished without mercy. But 
 by the church ransomed by the most precious blood 
 of his Son, he has made known to the principalities 
 
11, 
 
 and powers in Ijcavciily placos, liIs manifold wis- 
 dom ; he has opened an inexhaustible treasure, from 
 which the whole intelligent and obedient creation 
 shall obtain everlasting happiness in contemplating 
 tlie depth of the riches both of the wisdom and 
 knowlod"re of God. It is in God sendins: his Son 
 to be the propitiation for our sins, that we perceive 
 the love of God, 1 John iv. 9, 10. And this which 
 is the unceasing subject of the admiration of the 
 apostles, speaking as they were moved by the Holy 
 Ghost, Mr Irving presumes to censure, as repre- 
 senting God as " in himself implacable." The So- 
 cinian is more excusable in using this blasphemous 
 language. Being ignorant of the unity of the Fa- 
 ther and the Son, he speaks of them as two sepa- 
 rate beings, the one of whom can only be a])peased 
 by the sufferings of the other. But Mr Irving 
 ought to have considered, that as the Father and 
 Son are one, it is not another being " drawing 
 " off the revenge of God," but God purchasing 
 the church with his own blood, and by the inex- 
 pressible act of condescension, in taking upon him 
 the form of a servant, and suffering, and bleeding, 
 and dying as the covenant- head of his people, 
 bringing the highest glory to himself, and open- 
 ing a channel in which grace flows through right- 
 eousness, to an innumerable multitude of our ruin- 
 ed race. It is true the divine nature could not suf- 
 fer, but the redemption of man was too precious.to 
 be accomplished by any but a divine person. If 
 
the pfoof of tliis assertion be asked, I refer to the 
 incarnation of Clirist. God does nothing in vain ; 
 the means wliich he uses are exactly adapted to the 
 end he has in view; and liad a less valuable sacri* 
 fice been sufficient for man's redemption, the Sou 
 of God had never appeared in our nature. 
 
 This subject is too vast for tlie mind of man, or 
 of any creature, fully to comprehend. Faith cannot 
 be produced by human reasoning, but by the light 
 of the word of God we may see, that no creature 
 could merit any thing at the hands of its Creator. 
 It can do no works of supererogation ; its obedi- 
 ence cannot extend to another ; after it has done all, 
 it is no more than fulfilling the law of its creation. 
 It could neither make atonement for sin, nor bring 
 in everlasting righteousness ! Again, no creature 
 has power over its own life. It holds its life by the 
 supreme will of God, — it is bound to use it in his 
 service, and it cannot part with it. Men do com- 
 mit suicide, but in attempting it, they only use the 
 means which they learn from experience, are effec- 
 tual; after all, they are often disappointed, and their 
 lives preserved. But Immanuel had power to lay 
 down his life, and power to take it again, and by 
 willingly obeying his father's commandment, by 
 willingly receiving the stroke of justice, the man 
 who was the fellow of the Almighty, Zech. xiii. 7, 
 caused mercy and truth to meet together, right- 
 eousness and peace to kiss each other. Mr Irving 
 
115 
 
 tells us that Christ could only reach death by tak- 
 ing the nature of a sinful creature. 
 
 He could not reach it by coming in a sinless and uh- 
 fallen nature, sucb as Adam's : for such a nature, not hav- 
 ing sinned, could not die, without making death void as the 
 great sign of God's holiness. 
 
 But Mr Irving has forgot the unity between 
 Christ and his people, so that he died for their sins, 
 which, in virtue of that union were properly his, 
 and accordingly were laid on him who knew no sin. 
 
 " His taking the similitude of weak flesh," says Char- 
 nock, " and running through all the degrees of reproaches 
 and punishment, even to the grave itself, were voluntary 
 acts, the workings of his love, that he might rescue us from 
 a deserved hell, to advance us to an undeserved heaven, 
 and make us partakers of that hlessedness he had volunta- 
 rily quitted for our sakes. He willingly put himself into 
 the condition of a servant, which is to he at the beck of 
 another, and to have no will but that of his Master's. He 
 submitted his reason and affections to God, to be employed 
 in his work, according to his will. * 
 
 Mr Irving represents God as creating all man- 
 kind, with the exception of Adam, without any 
 fault of their own, under the conditions of sin, and 
 misery, and death, and yet he thinks it impossible 
 that the Son of God could take part with his people 
 in flesh and blood, assume their nature in a body 
 prepared by the Father for that purpose ; that he 
 should be holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate 
 
 • Charnock, vol. ii. p. 876. 
 K 
 
116 
 
 from sinners, and yet have power to lay down his 
 life a ransom for many ! He thinks it impossible 
 that he should be made sin for us, who knew no 
 sin, that we might be made the righteousness of 
 God in him : but whatever Mr Irving may think, 
 this actually took place. Had the Lord taken fal- 
 len humanity, — had every variety of human wicked- 
 ness been inherent in his humanity, — had he com- 
 muned with every blasphemous chamber of the 
 fallen intellect and feeling of men, he could not 
 have taken away the sin of the world ; for he 
 would have been a breaker of the law which re- 
 quires truth in the inward parts — which condemns 
 the first rising of desire after what is forbidden, 
 and which declares the thought of foolishness to 
 be sin. In this case he would have required an 
 atonement for himself; and I have no doubt that 
 the perception of this has led Mr Irving to deny 
 the atonement. Having denounced " the present 
 " views of atonement," let us see what Mr Irving 
 would substitute in their place. 
 
 ''■ The other ohjection wliich is now taken against the doc- 
 trine of Christ's true liumanity is, ' How could he offer an 
 atonement for sin, who himself took that which needed to 
 be atoned for,' if so be, as we say, he took sinful flesh ? 
 This objection requires that we should first consider what 
 is the meaning of atonement. If it be, as the English 
 word plainly imports, the condition of being at one with 
 God ; then is there no such atonement wrought, or pro- 
 cured, or exhibited as done in Christ, unless he did join in 
 personal union, and harmony, and oneness, for ever, the 
 
117 
 
 two several and separated, and discordant things, namely, 
 the nature of God, and the nature of the apostate sinful 
 creature. If his human nature differed, by however little, 
 from ours, in its alienation and guiltiness, then the work of 
 reducing it into eternal harmony with God hatli no bearing 
 whatever upon our nature, with which it is not the same, 
 —p. 434. 
 
 We have no such metaphysical subtilties in the 
 word of God; there, atonement does not mean 
 joining together natures in the abstract ; all is 
 plain, and palpable, and practical. " For the life 
 " of the flesh is in the hlood ; and I have given it 
 " to you upon the altar, to make an atonement for 
 " your souls ; for it is the hlood that maketh an 
 " atonement for the soul," Lev. xvii. 11, and this 
 was a figure for the time then present, of the one 
 offering of the hody of Jesus, Heb. x. 10. 
 
 Mankind fell in Adam ; believers are raised in 
 Christ; the former by disobedience brought his 
 posterity under the curse, the latter redeemed his 
 children by bearing their sins in his own body on 
 the tree. Having taken part with them in flesh 
 and blood, — having by his obedience magnified the 
 law which they had broken, and endured the pe- 
 nalty of their transgressions, he received power 
 over all flesh, that he might give eternal life to as 
 many as the Father had given him. As the re- 
 ward of his amazing condescension, of his merito- 
 rious obedience, he sees of the travail of his soul, 
 and is satisfied ; he has become the inexhaustible 
 
118 
 
 fountain of eternal life to all his people. But, ac- 
 cording to Mr Irving, there was no satisfaction to 
 divine justice. He is shocked at such an idea 
 " which representeth God as in himself implacable 
 " to the sinner, until the Son," &c. According to 
 his doctrine, the incarnation was a contest between 
 God and the power "which is nearest to the power 
 " of God — so near," &c. IMoreover, it was a 
 " PERILOUS work."— p. 422. The Son of God did 
 obtain the victory ; but it was not without " toil, 
 *' and sweat, and travail," — p. 421. Ay, and dan- 
 GEH OF FAILING ! It is difficult to decide whether 
 this system is most opposed to Scripture or reason. 
 To use Mr Drummond's energetic language, it is 
 " neither more nor less than pure unmingled non- 
 '* sense." Mr Irving talks much of orthodoxy, but 
 his is the orthodoxy of Manichaeism. 
 
 The work of Christ on earth is represented as 
 having been accomplished amidst strong crying and 
 tears ; but it was so because power alone was in- 
 adequate to man's redemption. The honour of the 
 divine law was to be restored, the penalty of sin to 
 be paid, and this could only be done by the suffer- 
 ings of Immanuel. Creation would have sunk un- 
 der the load which he stooped to bear. He came 
 not to contend with a creature whose power was 
 " nearest to the power of God," but to bear the 
 stroke of justice, whose unalienable rights had been 
 violated by rebellious man : he came to vindicate 
 the truth of the unchangeable Jehovah, to open a 
 
119 
 
 channel in which liis love might flow, in consis- 
 tency with his purity and the honour of his govern- 
 ment, to the lost and ruined. 
 
 Mr Irving talks of manifestation of the grace of 
 God, but it is unwortliy of divine wisdom to do 
 more than is necessary for tlie accomplishment of 
 its purposes ; and since, according to Mr Irving, 
 justice required no satisfaction, since power alone 
 was requisite to accomplish man's salvation, why 
 was not that power put forth while the Lord con- 
 tinued to sit on his throne in heaven ? In giving be- 
 ing to creation, " he spake and it was done ; he 
 " commanded and it stood fast." Had creation be- 
 come so unmanageable, tliat God must stoop from 
 his throne for the purpose of reducing it to order ? 
 This system gives a false view of the divine charac- 
 ter ; it lowers our ideas of the power of God ; it 
 represents it as limited, as if he could not overcome 
 without severe conflict, and even peril. 
 
 This is absolute atheism ; it is a denial of the 
 omnipotence of God. There can be no doubtful 
 conflict between finite and infinite, and to talk of 
 God engaging in a perilous work, is open blas- 
 phemy. The victory of the seed of the woman, 
 over the serpent, was announced in Eden by him 
 whose " purpose shall stand." It was foretold by 
 the holy prophets ; Jehovah is introduced exhibit- 
 ing to the universe his " righteous servant," pledg- 
 ing his veracity and power, for the successful issue 
 of the work in which he was to engage. " Behold 
 
120 
 
 " my servant, wliom I uphold — he shall bring 
 " forth judgment to the Gentiles," Isaiah xlii. 1. 
 and yet it was a " po'ilous work !" This is the 
 fruit of Mr Irving's* bombast style, of his great 
 swelling words of vanity. " Death and life," says 
 the Scripture, " are in the power of the tongue, and 
 " he that loveth it, shall eat the fruit thereof," 
 Prov. xviii. 21. Thug we are taught to be careful 
 of the manner in which we utter our thoughts, for 
 the style we adopt, has a powerful influence in 
 forming our character. 
 
 How different from Mr Irving's is the represen- 
 tation given in Scripture of the irresistible power 
 of God. " Who would set the briers and thorns 
 " against me in battle ? I v/ould go through them, 
 *' I would burn them together," — Isaiah xxvii. 4. 
 Mr Irving's scheme may be said to manifest the 
 love of God, but even among men, doing wh^t 4s 
 unnecessary, for the sake of appearances, is justly 
 deemed ostentation, — not love. In short, Mr Ir- 
 ving's scheme of atonement is both irrational and 
 in direct opposition to the word of God. We learn, 
 however, from his Reply to the objections, that he 
 has been driven from " the present views of atone- 
 " raent," by perceiving that they are incompatible 
 with his new and strange doctrine of the corrup- 
 tion of our Lord's human nature. In such a na- 
 ture, he could not have offered a sacrifice for our 
 sins. 
 
 Mr Irving tells us, " of this (the nature of man) 
 
121 
 
 " he (Christ) partook not its unfallen state, but in 
 ** its fallen state, and in the fallen state of all the 
 " materialism of the world, in order that he might 
 " enter into the weakness of every thing, and add to 
 " it regenerating strength," &c. — Ref. 10. Speak- 
 ing of the cause of the sufferings of Christ, in the 
 Morning Watch, he asks, 
 
 " Wherefore ? for any sin he had done ? vefily, verily, 
 No. Because the Father loved to see his Son suffer, and 
 was satisfied therewith ? Oh ! verily No. Why then ? 
 Because the Father v/ould prove how far down the grace 
 of God can go: that there is not an abject, miserable 
 wretch whose condition it will not reach down unto ; 
 whose very being it will not embrace ; whom Le loveth 
 not ; whom he doth not very greatly lov^e ; so very much, 
 that Godhead, in the person of the Son consented to prove 
 the fellowship of it, the Father to raise him thus abased 
 unto the right hand of the Majesty on High. — From this 
 basis of universal love Election also takes its glorious ele- 
 vation : for now indeed, when all have been shewn to be 
 eligible, by all being shewn to be beloved, yet all justly 
 worthy of condemnation, the choice truly appeareth of whom 
 he pleaseth to choose ; and God's free-will, unhampered by 
 creation, and his glory to save, is also illustrated by the 
 same act of election." — p. 444, 445. 
 
 lam informed that Mr Irving once held the doctrine 
 of universal restoration ; it was not less Scriptural, 
 andfar more rational than his present scheme, whicli 
 is more nearly allied to the ravings of insanity, tlian 
 to the words of truth and soberness. In i\ie first place, 
 
u^ 
 
 this basis of universal love is confined to mankincl, 
 he says, "in virtue of tliis self-contracting power, 
 " belonging only to a Divine person, he doth con- 
 " descend out of the Godliead, into the bounds and 
 " condition of fallen manhood, to act unto the re- 
 '' demption of that form of creation, and all crea- 
 *' tures dependent upon it." — p. 446. Secondly, On 
 this basis of universal love, election also takes its 
 glorious elevation. The Scriptures represent the 
 distinguishing love of God to his people as the 
 cause of their salvation. " God, who is rich in 
 " mercy, fcr his great love wherewith he loved us, 
 " even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened 
 " us together with Christ — and hath raised us up 
 " together, and made us sit together in heavenly 
 *' places in Christ Jesus ;" but the exceeding and 
 universal love of God, according to Mr Irving, is- 
 sues in the reprobation of the greater part of its 
 objects. He teaches us that it was the good plea- 
 sure of God to create all the children of Adam in 
 a state of guiltiness and enmity against himself, on 
 which account they were " all justly worthy of 
 " condemnation ;" he loved them all, however, 
 " very greatly," so very much, that the Son of God 
 took their sinful nature. " He was a holy one, in 
 " spite of unholy creation," p. 441 ; and having 
 proved the fellowship of this abject, miserable con- 
 dition, and having been raised by the Father unto 
 the right hand of the Majesty on high, " the hate- 
 " fulness of sin is shewn out tremendously, the 
 
us 
 
 '' nature of holioess and justice most awfully^ 
 *" when, notwithstanding this love, he judgeth them 
 " to eternal wrath, for the guilt of their sins ;" 
 and now all, " every one of the family," " being 
 " shewn to be beloved," the choice of the elect, 
 " truly appeareth of whom he pleaseth to choose ; 
 " and God's free-will, unhampered by creation, and 
 " his glory to save, is also illustrated by the same 
 " act of election." 
 
 This is the same Mr Irving who tells us, that 
 according to " the present views of atonement," 
 " God is changed in his being with respect to a 
 " few, but with respect to the many, his implac- 
 " able nature worketh on in its natural course ;" 
 yet, according to his own system, " the many are 
 "judged to eternal wrath for the guilt of their 
 " sins," and these sins he holds to be the necessary 
 effect of the sinful nature which God gave them, 
 and the condition in which they were placed by 
 God. Very different indeed is the account which 
 the word of God gives of the mystery of redemp- 
 tion. It teaches us, that all men fell in Adam, in 
 whom they were justly condemned, that in conse- 
 quence of their connection with him, they are all 
 children of wrath, but that when no eye pitied, nor 
 could any help them, it pleased God, who is rich 
 in mercy, to give his only begotten Son to redeem 
 from the curse of the holy law, an innumerable 
 multitude of the fallen race, every one of whom he 
 will raise to the enjoyment of eternal glory with 
 
lU 
 
 himself. Such are " the present views of the 
 " Atonement," which stand so much in the way of 
 Mrlrving's system, that while they " continue to be 
 doated on by the church, it is vain to attempt to 
 carry any point of sound doctrine." 
 
 I am bound to suppose that Mr Irving is acting 
 bona fide, and is desirous of diffusing the know- 
 ledge of wliat he esteems to be the gospel, but I 
 firmly believe that it would be less injurious to the 
 cause of truth, were he to become a preacher of in- 
 fidelity, than to persist in the promulgation of such 
 Antichristian sentiments. The tone in which he 
 speaks of his opponents ; the confidence with which 
 he maintains his opinions ; the bold and unfounded 
 appeals which he makes to the sentiments of the 
 orthodox in every age, in support of his novel and 
 extravagant statements, are much calculated to 
 mislead the simple. " Boldness of statement ; an 
 " intrepid disregard of consequences ; contempt 
 '' and neglect of opposing argument and of oppo- 
 *' nents ; personality and self-consequence will raise 
 *' followers and stir up acclamations, so long as 
 *' man is what he is." * It is however to be hoped, 
 that all will now take warning, and perceive the 
 marked difference between the apostolic doctrine so 
 wonderfully exhibited in the writings of the Re- 
 formers, who had just emerged from the darkness 
 of Popery, and that system which Mr Irving is so 
 zealously attempting to disseminate. 
 
 • Vaughan's Life of Robertson, p. 196. 
 
125 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 MR DRUMMONd's arguments. 
 
 Mr Drummond twice complains of the small- 
 ncss of the Refutation, he calls it " a little pamph- 
 " let," " printed in a large type," p. 9. ; and again, 
 p. 56. " this little pamphlet." I will tell him the 
 secret of its size. In reasoning on the subject I 
 adhered to the Scriptures, and having brought for- 
 ward abundant evidence, I had no wish to en- 
 large. One proof, that I attained the object 
 which I had in view, is, that although Mr Drum- 
 mond has devoted a large pamphlet, printed in a 
 still larger type, to examine the controversy, with 
 every disposition to detect my errors, there is not 
 a single argument which I have used to which he 
 has given even a plausible answer. The only one 
 with which he has grappled is my exposition of 
 Rom. viii. 3. which I shall afterwards consider. 
 So far as argument is concerned, his Examination 
 resembles a harp with only one string. He stre- 
 nuously maintains that the manhood of Christ was 
 not a self-holy and self-immortal creature. This 
 appears to him the sum of what I have written, 
 and page after page he descants on its fearful con- 
 sequences. — It is a denial of the Lord's human na- 
 
1^6 
 
 ture being a creature, it destroys ledemption, the 
 work of the Holy Ghost, and the example to be 
 drawn from the life of Christ. It also endangers 
 the doctrine of our Lord's deity, for if his human 
 nature is in fact not human nature, then neither 
 can we be assured that his divine nature is really 
 divine. 
 
 In considering the Examination, we shall find 
 that I never supposed our Lord's human nature to 
 be either self-holy or self-immortal, so that Mr 
 Drummond has all along been contending with a 
 phantom, — a chimera of his own creation. 
 
 I said Adam's nature was originally holy, but 
 he fell, and that the human nature of Christ was 
 also created holy, and remained untainted by sin. 
 Mr Drummond tells iis, " he says the holiness of 
 " the man Jesus was an essential independent pro- 
 ** perty in that creature." — p. 19, 20. I never said 
 any thing of the kind. In Adam's nature there 
 was no bias to sin, no evil propensity ; he was 
 made in the image of God, which the apostle tells 
 us consists in righteousness ^nd true holiness, but 
 he was mutable, and lost this image. I said, that 
 which was born of the virgin was a holy thing, 
 and that it could not be otherwise, because it was 
 created by Him who is holy in all his works ; in 
 other words, all whose works are originally holy. 
 Mr D. inquires how the devil was able to destroy 
 holiness in Adam, and not in Jesus ? Because Jesus 
 was the Lord from heaven, because bis human na- 
 
127 
 
 ture subsisted In the person of the Son of God, 
 and therefore his original lioliness could not be 
 destroyed. As to his second question, " How an 
 " essential characteristic of any thing can be de- 
 "stroyed,and yet that thing remain the same ?" — p 20. 
 It only proves his inattention to what he undertook 
 to examine. Neither holiness nor sinfulness is an 
 essential characteristic of human nature. They 
 are accidents or qualities of which a man may or 
 may not be possessed, as appears in Adam, who 
 was created holy, and afterwards became sinful. 
 
 He says, I state " the holiness of the human na- 
 " ture to be the procuring cause, or worthiness for, 
 " and not the consequence of its union with the 
 " Creator." — p. 20. This is of a piece with his 
 other random assertions. I said that it is absurd to 
 suppose the great Creator dwelling in personal union 
 with every thing that is impure, ungodly, and blas- 
 phemous in fallen man ; but I never spoke of the 
 holiness of our Lord's human nature as " the 
 " procuring cause" of its union with the Crea- 
 tor. I did not represent the holiness of our Lord's 
 human nature as superior to the holiness of Adam's 
 nature. Both were the work of God, and both were 
 holy. The human nature of Christ was inconcei- 
 vably exalted by personal union with Deity, but nei- 
 ther its original purity, nor its exaltation, was the 
 procuring cause of the union. Believers are made 
 meet for the inheritance of the saints in light; but 
 this meetness is not the cause of their obtaining the 
 
 L 
 
128 
 
 inheritance. In the perfect holiness of our Lord's 
 human nature consisted its meetness to be united to 
 Deity, but tliis lioliness was not tlie procuring 
 cause of the union. The indwelling of the Holy 
 Ghost in believers has been adduced in proof of 
 the possibility of the nnion of Deity and humanity, 
 although our Lord's human nature had been corrupt. 
 Those who use such an argument, forget that be- 
 lievers are not personally united to Deity, so that 
 the cases are not at all parallel. It should also be 
 remembered, that the indwelling of the Holy Ghost 
 in believers is the effect of the atonement, in virtue 
 of whicb they become the temple of the Holy 
 Ghost. — Psalm Ixviii. 18. Eph. iv. T — 13. It was 
 necessary in Israel to make an atonement for the 
 holy place in whicb God was typically to dwell. 
 Although the Tabernacle was made of the most 
 costly materials, as every thing connected with fallen- 
 man is polluted, all things were, by tbe law, purg- 
 ed with blood. But the personal union of the di- 
 vine and human natures was not the effect of atone- 
 ment. The temple, in which all the fulness of the 
 Godhead dwelt bodily, was boly ; it was prepared 
 by the Father for tbe incarnation of his only be- 
 gotten Son. 
 
 Mr Drummond represents me as finding " fault 
 " with Mr Irving, for saying that the manhood of 
 " Christ was mortal." — p. 21. I found fault with 
 the assertion that Christ died " by the common 
 *' property of flesh to die, because it was accursed 
 
129 
 
 " in the loins of our first parents," but I never de- 
 nied that the manhood of Christ was mortal. He 
 actually died for our sins, and therefore must have 
 been mortal, but I denied that he was naturally 
 or necessarily mortal. I stated that his death was 
 I>erfectly voluntary, and I still maintain that Mr 
 Irving's statement is subversive of the atonement ; 
 and accordingly we have seen, in the preceding 
 chapter, that he now positively disclaims the idea of 
 any satisfaction having been made to justice by the 
 death of Christ. It is evident that if Christ died 
 " by the common property of flesh to die, because it 
 " was accursed in the loins of our first parents," 
 his death was not an atonement, but a debt which 
 he owed. Mr Drummond might therefore have 
 spared his capitals, in which he represents me as 
 teaching that the manhood of Jesus was an essen- 
 tially self- holy and self-immortal creature. 
 
 In another part of the Examination, Mr Drum- 
 mond tells us, that the whole issue of the con- 
 troversy rests on the simple question, " whether 
 " the human nature which the Son of God assum- 
 " ed was, or was not, mortal ?" — p. 67. But how 
 comes it that he does not advert to the proof which 
 I gave from the word of God, that the death of 
 Christ was perfectly voluntary, not merely because 
 his assumption of our nature was voluntary, but 
 because his suffering of death was an act of obe- 
 dience to his heavenly Father. No man took his 
 life from him, not even the law under which ha 
 
130 
 
 was made, for be laid it down of himself. There 
 was a necessity that he should die, in consequence 
 of his covenant engagements, but these were vo- 
 luntarily fulfilled. The cords by which the sacri- 
 fice was bound to the altar were cords of love, and 
 this made it a sacrifice of a sweet smelling savour. 
 It was not only in the everlasting counsel that the 
 Son of God said, " lo I come to do thy will," but 
 after he had taken our nature, and appeared in the 
 form of a servant, it was his meat and drink to do 
 his Father's will, with whatever natural suffering 
 it was attended. He was not born under a natural 
 necessity of suffering and dying, but having become 
 his people's surety, he received this commandment 
 from his Father, and he obeyed it by voluntarily 
 laying down his life. Of this I gave a conclusive 
 proof in our Lord's assertion, that he could have 
 called legions of angels to deliver him out of the 
 hands of his enemies. 
 
 In the six subsequent pages, Mr Drummond ex- 
 hibits this man of straw to the admiration of his 
 readers, and having arrived at the idea " which 
 '* these two great divines inculcate of the creature, 
 " the man Jesus ; namely, that he was holiness, 
 " immortal, and immutable ;" — p. 24. he finds it 
 " clear beyond the possibility of doubt, or honest 
 *' debate, or question, that Mr Haldane and Dr 
 " Thomson do not believe, but, on the contrary, 
 " deny that Christ was a man." — p. 25. Supposing 
 the premises to be good, the conclusion is unde- 
 
131 
 
 niable. Such a being as lie describes is neitlier a 
 man nor a creature, but the idea of attributing 
 such properties to any but the eternal God, never 
 entered my mind, nor is there a passage in the 
 Refutation which gives ground for such a surmise. 
 In reasoning against the phantom which he has 
 conjured up, Mr Drummond says, a creature " of 
 " independent holiness is, 1st, absurd ; 2ndl2/, 
 " true Socinianism ; Sdli/, makes God the author 
 " of sin." — p. 23. The idea of a creature being 
 independent is certainly absurd, but what follows 
 is not so luminous; " 2. it makes Christ only a crea- 
 " ture, for if he were holy and immortal, without 
 " the support of the spirit, he possessed all that 
 " Deity could effect for him, or for any other 
 " creature." The possessor of independent holi- 
 ness must be God ; and I am quite unable to 
 see the force of the argument that to predicate this 
 of Christ, makes him only a creature. As to mak- 
 ing God the author of sin, it is one great objection 
 to Mr Drummond's definitions, that this conse- 
 quence is necessarily implied in their admission ; 
 but the reason here given is curious, " if it were 
 " possible that such a thing could exist as a crea- 
 ^* ture in self-existent holiness, and immortality, 
 " then the creation of any other creatures in- 
 " volves also the necessity of creating that siu 
 *' under which they should fall." That such a 
 creature should exist is impossible, — " a creature 
 ^* in self-existent holiness and immortality, " \^ 
 
132 
 
 a chimera, but as to " the necessity of creating 
 ** that sin under which they shoukl fall," it is a 
 proof of that tendency to Manichaeism to which I 
 have formerly adverted. 
 
 Mr Drummond quotes the following sentence 
 from the Refutation : — 
 
 Christ knew no sin, he had not, he could not have ex- 
 perience of it, although he had experience of its effects, 
 being touched with a feeling of our infirmities. Although 
 he assumed our nature, and was surrounded with sin in 
 every shape, although the prince of this world came to him 
 in all his power, there was not a chord in the heart of the 
 holy Jesus, which responded to the temptations with which 
 he was surrounded. — Ref p. 59. 
 
 , This sentence he sets himself to decipher, and af- 
 ter various suppositions, concludes that it contains 
 a denial *' that the man Jesus had any struggle in 
 '' his breast, by reason of the difficulty of submit- 
 " ting his creature will to the divine will," and 
 tells us this was the heresy of Eutyches. Let the 
 first four verses of the epistle to the Hebrews be 
 read in the same captious spirit, and the result will 
 be similar. The apostle will also be charged with 
 " the fallacy" of " shifting the subject of the man- 
 " hood, the creature — to the complex person of the 
 " God-man." But in the above sentence, there is 
 neither change nor fallacy. It refers throughout 
 to Jesus Christ, God and man in one person. Had 
 his human nature been corrupt, it could not have 
 
133 
 
 been said tliat he knew no sin, for liis I;unian na- 
 ture was a component part of tlie God-man. lie 
 luid not, lie could not have experience of sin, for 
 liis human nature, like all God's works, was origi- 
 nally holy, and never had a subsistence except in 
 the person of the Son of God, and was thus effec- 
 tually secured against the possibility of sin. But 
 this, it seems, is " denying that the man Jesus had 
 " any struggle in his breast, by reason of the diffi- 
 " culty of submitting his creature will to the divine 
 " will." Here is indeed a " fallacy." It consists 
 in shifting the subject from sin, to difficulty of sub- 
 mitting his will to the divine will. There was 
 great difficulty in doing so, as may be seen in the 
 garden of Gethsemane. 
 
 I observed in the Refutation, 
 
 — If the Son of God assumed human nature at all, he must 
 have shrunk from suffering, for this is an essential part 
 of human nature; but over this and every other feeling, 
 Christ's desire to promote his Father's glory rose trium- 
 phant, and instead of there being any thing a-kin to rebel- 
 lion in his prayer, ' If it be possible, let this cup pass from 
 me ; nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt,' it was 
 such a display of the beauty of holiness, that no parallel 
 can be found to it in the annals of created intelligence. — - 
 Ref. p. 14. 
 
 The following quotation from Hooker on this sub- 
 ject, well deserves Mr D.'s attention, and 1 quote it 
 the rather, because Hooker is one of those writers by 
 whose authority he endeavours to prop his system. 
 
134 
 
 The worJ\s and operations of the Saviour's human will, 
 were all subject to the will of God, and framed according 
 to his law, / desire to do thy wdl, O God, and thy Icnu 
 is wit/iin mine heart. Now, as man's will, so the will of 
 Christ hath two several kinds of operation ; the one natu- 
 ral and necessary, whereby it desireth simply whatsoever is 
 good in itself, and shunneth generally all things wliich 
 hurt ; the other deliberate, when we therefore embrace 
 things as good, because the eye of understanding judgeth 
 them good to that end which we simply desire. Thus in 
 itself we desire health, physic only for health's sake. 
 And in this sort, special reason oftentimes causeth the will 
 by choice to prefer one good thing before another ; to leave 
 one for anothar's sake ; to forego meaner, for the attiiiri- 
 ment of higher desires, which our Saviour likewise did. 
 These different inclinations of the will considered, the rea- 
 son is easy, how in Christ there might grow desires seem- 
 ing, but being not indeed opposite, either the one of them 
 unto the other, or either of them to the will of God. For 
 let the manner of his speech be weighed. My soul is nmo 
 troubled^ and what should I say ? Father, save me out of 
 this hour. But yet for this very cause I am come into this 
 hour. His purpose herein was most effectually to propose 
 to the view of the whole world, two contrary objects, the 
 like whereinto in force and efficacy, were never presented 
 in that manner to any but only to the soul of Christ. 
 There was presented before his eyes in that fearful hour, 
 on the one side God's heavy indignation and wrath towards 
 mankind as yet unappeased, death as yet in full strength, 
 hell as yet never mastered by any that came within the 
 confines and bounds thereof, somewhat also peradventure 
 more than is either possible or needful for the wit of man 
 to find out ; finally himself flesh and blood, left alone te 
 
135 
 
 enter into conflict with all tliese ; on the other side, a worhi 
 to be saved by one, a pacification of wrath through the dig- 
 nity of tliat sacrifice which should be otfered, a conquest 
 over death, through the power of that Deity which would 
 not suffer the tabernacle tliereof to see corruption, and an 
 utter disappointment of all the forces of infernal powers, 
 tlirough tiie purity of that soul which they should have in 
 their hands, and not be able to touch. Let no man marvel 
 that in this case the soul of Christ was much troubled. 
 For what could such apprehensions breed, but (as their na- 
 ture is) inexplicable passions of mind, desires abhorring 
 what they embrace, and embracing what they abhor ? In 
 which agony, Jioio should the tongue go about to express 
 what the soul endured ? When the griefs of Job were ex^- 
 ceeding great, his words accordingly to open them were 
 many ; howbeit, still unto his seeming they were undiseo* 
 vered : Though my talk, (saith Job) be this day in bitter^ 
 ness, yet my plague is greater than my groaning. But 
 Iiere, to what purpose should words serve, when nature 
 hath more to declare than groans and strong cries, more 
 than streams of bloody sweats, more than his doubled and 
 tripled prayers can express, who, thrice putting forth his 
 hand to receive that cup, besides which there was no other 
 cause of his coming into the world, he thrice pulled it back 
 again, and as often even with tears of blood craveth, If it 
 be possible, O Father, or if not, even what thine own good 
 pleasure is, for whose sake the passion that hath in it a 
 bitter and bloody conflict, even with wrath, and deaih, and 
 hell, is most welcome. Whereas, therefore, we find in God 
 a will resolved that Christ shall suffer ; and in the human 
 will of Christ two actual desires, the one avoiding, and the 
 other accepting death ; Is that desire which first declareth 
 itself by prayer, against that wherewith he concludcth 
 
13G 
 
 prayer, or either of them against his mind to whom prayer 
 in this case seeketh ? — Consider death in itself, and nature 
 teacheth Clnist to shun it. Consider death as a mean to 
 procure the salvation of the world, and mercy worketh in 
 Christ all willingness of mind towards it. Therefore, in 
 these two desires, there can be no repugnant opposition. 
 Again, compare them with the will of God, and if any op- 
 position be, it must he only between his appointment of 
 Christ's death, and the former desire which wisheth deli- 
 verance from death. But neither is this desire opposite to 
 the will of God. The will of God was that Christ should 
 suffer the pains of death. Not so his will, as if the tor- 
 ment of innocency did in itself please and delight God ; 
 but such was his will, in regard of the end whereunto it 
 was necessary that Christ should suffer. The death of 
 Christ in itself therefore, God willeth not, which to the 
 end we might thereby obtain life, he both alloweth and ap- 
 pointeth. — We are therefore taught by his example, that 
 the presence of dolorous and dreadful objects, even in 
 minds most perfect, may as clouds overcast all sensible joy, 
 that no assurance touching future victories, can make present 
 conflicts so sweet and easy, but nature will shun and shrink 
 from them, nature will desire ease and deliverance from op- 
 pressive burdens; that the contrary determination of God is 
 oftentimes against the effect of this desire ; yet not against 
 the affection itself, because it is naturally in us; that in such 
 cases our prayers cannot serve us as means to obtain the 
 thing we desire ; that notwithstanding they are unto God 
 most acceptable sacrifices, because they testify we desire 
 nothing but at his hands, and our desires we submit with 
 contentment, to be overruled by his will ; and in general 
 they are not repugnant unto the natural will of God, which 
 wisheth to the works of his own hands, in that they are 
 
137 
 
 IjI-; own liandi work, all happiness, altliougli perhaps for some 
 f-peci;il cause in our own particular, a contrary determina- 
 tion have ssemed more convenient; Bnally, that thus to 
 propose our desires which cannot take such effects aa we 
 fj)ecify, shall notwithstanding otherwise procure us his hea- 
 vt^iily grace, even as this very prayer of Christ ohtained 
 HMjiels to be sent him as comforters in his agony.* 
 
 Mr Drummond quotes two passages from tlie Re- 
 futation, denying that the human nature of Christ 
 was corrupt, and proceeds, " but Hooker in his 
 " Eccl. Pol. says, his hody^ which by natural con- 
 " dition, was corruptible, wanted the gift of ever- 
 " lasting immunity from death, passion, and dissolu- 
 <' ^/072."— p. 30. That the body of Christ had 
 not the gift of immunity from death, we learn from 
 the fact of the Lord's death and burial. The ob- 
 servation of Hooker, that Christ's body was, by 
 natural condition, corruptible, simply means, that 
 his body was capable of death, not that it had any 
 tendency to it, as is evident from what he says 
 within a few pages, — " and as Christ took man- 
 " hood, that by it he might be capable of death, 
 " whereunto he humbled himself. f" Again, " the 
 " Son of God, which did first humble himself, by 
 " taking our flesh upon him, descended afterwards 
 " much lower, and became, according to the flesh, 
 " obedient so far as to suffer death, even the death 
 " of the cross, for all men, because such was his 
 
 • Eccl. Pol. b. 5. § 48 p. 208.9. f Ibid, § 51. p. 214. 
 
1^8 
 
 *' Father's will."* Here Hooker speaks of two dis- 
 tinct acts of humiliation, Jirst^ Taking flesh ; se- 
 condly, Being obedient, so far as to suffer death, 
 not because it was now unavoidable, but " because 
 " such was his Fatlier's will." This is precisely 
 what I maintained. Again, speaking of the exer- 
 cise of that " dominion, wherein the manhood of 
 " Christ is joined and matched with the Deity of the 
 " Son of God," Hooker says, " Not that his man- 
 " hood was before, without the possession of the 
 " same power, but because the full use thereof was 
 " suspended, till that humility which had been 
 " before, as a vail to hide and conceal majesty, 
 "were laid aside. "f The human nature of 
 Christ in its conception, was indissolubly unit- 
 ed to the Divine nature, in the person of the 
 Son of God, and therefore, was not naturally liable 
 to death. The Lord Jesus indeed, was made in 
 the likeness of sinful flesh, he voluntarily subjected 
 himself to all the consequences of sin, so far as was 
 necessary to make atonement for his brethren. 
 Had the returning of his body to the dust been 
 necessary, in order to complete the atonement, it 
 would have taken place, but this was not necessary, 
 and the Holy One of God saw no corruption. As 
 the leprous house in Israel was to be taken down, 
 so do our bodies return to the dust; but Christ was 
 holy in body, soul, and spirit, and he saw no cor- 
 
 * Eccl. Pol. b. 5. § 55 p. 223. f I^id. 
 
139 
 
 tuption. Hooker tells us, " these (the divine and 
 '' human) natures, from the moment of their first 
 " combination, have been, and are for ever inse- 
 " parable. For even w^lien his soul forsook the 
 *' tabernacle of his body, his Deity forsook neither 
 " body nor soul."* Had Mr Drummond read a 
 few pages more of Hooker, he would have found 
 the following decisive testimony against the doc- 
 trine which he advocates. 
 
 " Adam is in us as an original cause of our nature, and 
 of that corruption of nature which causeth death ; Christ 
 as the cause original of restoration to life ; the person of 
 Adam is not in us, but his nature, and the cormption of 
 his nature derived into all men by propagation ; Clu-ist 
 having Adam's nature as we have, but incorrupt, derivetli 
 not nature, but incorruption, and that immediately from 
 his own person, into all that belong unto him. As there- 
 fore we are really partakers of the body of sin and death 
 received from Adam ; so except we be truly partakers of 
 Christ, and as really possessed of his Spirit, all we speak 
 of eternal life, is but a dream. That which quickeneth 
 u-* is the Spirit of the second Adam, and his flesh that 
 wherewith he quickeneth. That which in him made our 
 nature uncorrupt, was the union of his Deity with our na- 
 ture. And in that respect, the sentence of death and con- 
 demnation, which only taketh hold upon sinful flesh, could 
 no way possibly extend unto him. This caused his volun- 
 tary death for others, to prevail with God, and to have the 
 force of an expiatory sacrifice. — For dcih any man doubt 
 
 • Ecc. Pol. § 52, p. 216. 
 M 
 
140 
 
 but that even from the flesh of Christ, our very bodies do 
 receive that life whicli shall make them glorious at the latter 
 (lay, and for wliich they are ah-eady accounted parts of his 
 blessed body ? Our corruptible bodies could never live 
 the life they shall live, were it not that here they are joine<l 
 with his body, which is incorruptible, and that his is in 
 ours as a cause of immortality, a cause, by removing 
 tjnough the death and merit of his own ;flesh, that which 
 hindered the life of ours. Christ is therefore both as God 
 and as man, that true vine whereof we both spiritually 
 and corporally are branches."* 
 
 Here we have the orthodox faith in every agCj 
 " Christ having Adam^s nature, as we have, but in- 
 
 " CORRUPT." 
 
 Mr Drummond also quotes an article of an old 
 Confession of Faith of the Church of Scotland, in 
 which Mr Irving glories much. But it is not the 
 Confession of the Church of Scotland. It was 
 liastily drawn up, and was afterwards altered. 
 " The eternal Godhead has given to the flesh of Jesus 
 " Christ, which of the own condition and nature 
 *' was mortal and corruptible." — p. 30. The flesh 
 of Jesus, considered in itself, might, no doubt, like 
 the flesh of Adam, have become mortal and cor- 
 ruptible, but it never had an existence, except in 
 union with the eternal Godhead, and therefore 
 could not be properly said to be " of the own condi- 
 " tion and nature, mortal and corruptible." But no- 
 thing more was meant by the Authors of the Con- 
 
 * Ecd. Pol. § 50, p. 22C. 
 
in 
 
 fessiou, than that Christ assumed a nature which 
 was capable of death. " He had an absolute poicer 
 " over his own body," says Charnock, " John x. 
 " 18. yet he made a free offer of it, and subjected 
 " it to the penalty to be inflicted on him."* 
 
 " Sinful flesh" says Mr Drummond, " is not the 
 " flesh of a sinner, but flesh which, asking gratifi- 
 " cation, tempts the wearer to sin, and this flesh is 
 " what Mr H. and Dr T. deny that Christ took, and 
 " which all the orthodox affirm that he took." — 
 p. 32. Three pages of the Refutation were occupied 
 in illustrating the nature of Christ's temptation. 
 Having referred to the two species of temptation 
 decribed in Scripture, I said, " In this sense, (put- 
 ting a person to the proof,) " our Lord in the days 
 " of his flesh, was exposed to every temptation to 
 " which we are liable ; and this was a part of his 
 " humiliation — an inevitable consequence of his as- 
 *' suming our nature. — Thus, in his history, who 
 " hath left us an example that we should follow his 
 " steps, we have an epitome of all the temptations 
 " to which we are exposed, and are taught to 
 " overcome them all by the sword of the Spi- 
 " rit, which is the word of God."— Ref. 12, 13. 
 Mr Drummond may sport himself with his own 
 deceivings, representing the Almighty as incapable 
 of creating responsible creatures, who are not sinful. 
 He may represent a disposition to act " indepcn- 
 
 ♦ Cliarnock's Works, vol. iii. p. 87G. 
 
U2 
 
 *' dcntly of the will of God," (which is the very es- 
 sence of sin) as their " essential characteristic," 
 but this is opposed both to reason and revelation. 
 Every responsible being is created holy ; its will is 
 conformed to the will of God, until it leaves its 
 first estate. Tlicn and not till then, it is " drawn 
 " away of its own lust and enticed ;*' it has fallen, 
 has become the servant of sin, whereas, in its ori- 
 ginal state, it was the servant of God. 
 
 Mr Drummond proceeds to give a garbled ex- 
 tract from the Refutation, which he thus charac- 
 terizes : " This long extract may be divided into 
 " three parts ; the largest part consisting of gratui- 
 " tons and unjustifiable abuse of his antagonist ; 
 " next an erroneous assertion ; and last, an un- 
 " sound argument. The first we leave to be atoned 
 " for by the repentance of the Author, and say, 
 
 " Blot out his sin, confessed, deplored, 
 
 " Against thine image in thy saint, O Lord. — p 37." 
 
 As he intended to bring against me the charge 
 of " gratuitous and unjustifiable abuse," founded 
 on an extract, " common honesty," not to say can- 
 dour, required that he should have quoted what I 
 said ; but while he has given the conclusion which 
 I drew, he has most unfairly suppressed my quo- 
 tations from Mr Irving, on which this conclusion 
 was founded. He must have been aware, that no 
 candid reader, had the case been fairly stated, 
 could have considered my language, either gratui- 
 
143 
 
 tous or unjustifiable. I have no doubt he omitted 
 my quotations from Mr Irving, because he was 
 iishamed of them, as well he miglit be ; but in act- 
 ing in this manner on tliis and other occasions, lie 
 has quitted the field of open and manly controversy, 
 and betaken himself to a species of bush-fighting, 
 which seems to indicate a secret consciousness of 
 the weakness of his cause. 
 
 The proof which I gave from Mr Irving's writ- 
 ings, of the justice of my assertion, that he had 
 been deluded by speculations about spirit and mat- 
 ter, was contained in the following extract : — 
 
 Had he (Christ) been destined to be Lord of spirit only, 
 lie would have partaken of the angelic nature : but having 
 to be the Lord of matter also, he partook of the nature of 
 man, which is composed of both. And of this he partook, 
 not in its unfallen, but in its fallen state, and in the fallen 
 state of all the materialism of the world ; in order that li« 
 might enter into the weakness of every thing, and add to 
 it regenerating strength, become the uplifter of its state, 
 and being, and its support through all eternity. 
 
 This I observed was of a piece with his absurd 
 conclusion. 
 
 That the infinite God, who is also invisible and incom- 
 prehensible, cannot communicate himself, or the know- 
 ledk"e of himself unto his creatures, without assuming a fi- 
 nite form. In order to be visible and comprehensible, nay, 
 we may go a step higher, and say, that in order to fashion 
 finite creatures, in order to do a finite action, it is necee-i 
 «ary that the actor should assume a finite form. 
 
144 
 
 Again, 
 
 It is, moreover, a false idea conceiiiing the divine na- 
 ture, to speak as if it could do a finite action, let that be 
 ever so stupendous, even as creation itself, without assum- 
 ingr a finite form. 
 
 'O 
 
 My remark on these passages was, " surely the 
 " Scripture testifieth not in vain, that there is no 
 " new thing under the sun. In every age, men 
 " have plunged into the grossest absurdity, by 
 " seeking to intermeddle with Avisdom. Profes- 
 " sing themselves to be wise, they became fools," — 
 Ref. 11; and I do not now think the language I 
 used, stronger than the case demanded. I have 
 nothing therefore to confess or deplore. I consi- 
 dered Mr Irving to be deluded by vain specula- 
 tions, and I thought it my duty to caution others 
 against being misled by what may justly be term- 
 ed " great swelling words of vanity." There 
 is an observation which I would particularly re- 
 commend to Mr Irving, which is quoted by Mr 
 Drummond in a very unsavoury note, page 3(3 : 
 '* Really, Sir, there is such a thing as common 
 " sense." The exercise of this would lead him to 
 confess and deplore the introduction of such crude 
 speculations into his writings. 
 
 I sliall now consider the erroneous assertion 
 whicli Mr Drummond fancies he has detected in 
 the above extract. '' Sinfulness is not an essen- 
 " tial part of human nature, but an accident, or 
 
145 
 
 " quality, of which a man may either be possessed or 
 not." — p. 37. Mr Driimniond asks, " if a man may 
 " or may not be possessed of sinfulness, how comes 
 " it to pass that no man was ever without it. Should 
 " it be answered, the man Jesus was without it, 
 " tliat is begging tlie question in dispute." I an- 
 swer, it is not begging the question, it is stating a 
 matter of fact which God has revealed. He de- 
 clares, that what was born of the Virgin was a holy 
 thing, tliat in Christ was no sin, which is equi- 
 Vk'.ant to saying, that he had not a sinful nature. 
 Jesus declares, that the prince of this world came 
 and had nothing in him, and therefore I say with 
 Hooker, without fear of contradiction, that '' Christ 
 " had Adam's nature, as we have, but incorrupt." 
 I also deny that " the combustibility of the body 
 " in burning flames," is " an essential property" of 
 human flesh. It is an essential property of sinful 
 human flesh, but it does not follow that human 
 flesh had any such property before the fall. Adam's 
 body was not liable to dissolution by fire, or by any 
 other material agent, till he rebelled against God. 
 Will the saints be more holy after the resurrec- 
 tion than Christ was upon earth ? Is the human 
 nature of Christ, since his exaltation, sinful ? Will 
 his saints be sinful after the resurrection ? If not, 
 sinfulness is not an essential part of human nature. 
 The truth of my assertion, which Mr Drummond 
 has termed " erroneous," is thus established, " with 
 *' the clearness and cogency of a geometrical de- 
 
146 
 
 " monstration." If Christ is now at tlie riglit hand 
 of God in Imman nature, without sinfuhiess, (and 
 this is admitted by Mr Irving) ; if his saints shall 
 be like him, seeing him as he is, — there never was 
 a demonstration more clear and cogent than the 
 proof that sinfulness is not essential to human 
 nature. Mr Drummond calls for an instance of 
 human nature without sinfulness. I give him 
 *' the man Christ Jesus ;" but an example is not 
 necessary to establish a self-evident truth, and no- 
 thing can be more self-evident than that a holy 
 God could not create a sinful creature, or that God 
 could not assume a sinful nature into personal 
 union, a union so close and intimate, that the acts of 
 the humanity never had any moral agency or in- 
 dividual responsibility separate from that of a di- 
 vine person. 
 
 Flesh and blood shall not inherit the kingdom 
 of God ; our bodies shall be like the glorious body 
 of Christ. Mr Drummond may allege that flesh 
 and blood are essential to human nature, and he 
 may ask for an instance of the contrary. I give 
 him the example of the man Christ Jesus. He 
 may call this begging the question, but it is only 
 repeating what God has been pleased to reveal. It 
 is Mr Drummond who begs the question, by as- 
 serting contrary to the express and oft repeated 
 declarations of the word of God, that the human 
 nature of Christ was not free from all sinfulness. 
 
 After stating that the law extends to the will 
 
147 
 
 and affections, as well as to the outward actions, 
 Mr Drummond tells us, " he who does not love 
 " and serve God exclusivelv with all the continu- 
 " ed strength of his intellect and affections, is 
 *' alienated from God to all intents, as much as he 
 " who offends outwardly against his written pre- 
 " cepts." — p. 39. What then does he think of one 
 in whom every variety of human wickedness was 
 inherent, who had a law in his members warring 
 against the law of his mind ? If tliere was in Christ 
 the same sinful conflict as in Paul, he did not " love 
 " and serve God exclusively with all the strength 
 " of his intellect and affections." According to 
 Messrs Drummond and Irving, his human intel- 
 lect and affections were corrupt, — were enmity 
 against God. In this case he was a breaker of the 
 law, which condemns the desire of evil. This de- 
 sire might be restrained, it might not proceed to a 
 "Visible breach of the law ; but, according to Mr 
 Drummond, it was an essential part of Christ's 
 human nature, that his sinful flesh should seek 
 gratification, independently of the will of God, and 
 consequently he was not only " accursed in the 
 loins of our first parents," but cursed for actual 
 violation of the law, which prohibits and con- 
 demns what is an essential characteristic of fallen 
 human nature. 
 
 But it seems clear, says Mr Drummond, that Mr Hal- 
 dane does not accurately distinguish between a liability to 
 Bin, which is an essential property in every fallible and 
 
148 
 
 responsible creature ♦ and the actual committal of sin, 
 which only occurs when the creature is left unsupported 
 by the Creator. — p. 40. 
 
 According to Mr Irving and Mr Drummond, 
 the " actual committal of sin" was continually oc- 
 curring in our Lord, for they maintain he had a 
 law in his members warring against the law of his 
 mind, which I have proved to be sin, because the 
 law is spiritual. As to the distinction between 
 liability to sin, and the actual committal of sin, it is 
 too obvious to be overlooked by any one. To the 
 former every creature is necessarily exposed, unless 
 preserved by its Creator. This is only saying in 
 other words, that no creature is immutable. But 
 to use Mr Drummond's own very expressive words, 
 " however dimly" Mr Haldane's light may burn, 
 it is not the candid Examiner who " will snuff" 
 it. He seems unable to distinguish between a pro- 
 pensity to sin, which belongs to fallen man, and a 
 liability to sin from external influence which be- 
 longed to our unfallen nature. 
 
 After informing us that infirmities are not only 
 the consequence, but also the cause of sin, which 
 is true, he says, " In strict language, it is as absurd 
 *' to talk of sinless or sinful infirmities, as it would 
 " be (to use Locke's illustration of the will) to say 
 '' blue or green infirmities." Is there then no such 
 thing as the distinction between natural and moral 
 infirmities? All our infirmities are the consequence 
 and frequently the cause of sin, but they are not all 
 
149 
 
 sinful. Sin consists in a man being enticed by his 
 owji lust, wljicli, according to Mr Irving, was ha- 
 bitually the case with the Lord Jesus. Every sin 
 is an act of the will, but the consequences of sin, 
 such as pain and sickness, are most repugnant to 
 the will ; there is not in the mind the slightest de- 
 sire of such things, and therefore they are sinless. 
 Jesus bore our sins, and carried our sorrows ; 
 Hence it is written, " Yet we did esteem him, 
 *' stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted." Suffer- 
 ing is the consequence of sin, and the sufferings of 
 Christ appeared to mark him out as a sinner : but, 
 says the prophet, he was wounded for our trans- 
 gressions. In him was no sin. Speaking of the 
 exaltation of Christ, Charnock says, " How glo- 
 " rious is this for us, that the Son of God should 
 " take our nature, our dusty humanity, all our in- 
 " firmities, except sinful, to clear our natures from 
 " all penal infirmities, to transform our clay (if 1 
 ** may so say) into virgin's wax, and wear it as a 
 " pledge, that the members of his body shall at 
 " length be brought to him."* Thus we see Char- 
 nock makes a distinction between sinful and penal 
 infirmities. 
 
 The following observations of Calvin's, on 
 Christ being touched with a feeling of our infirmi- 
 ties, Heb. iv. 15, exactly correspond with the doc- 
 trine I have maintained. 
 
 • Vol. ii. p 1101. 
 
150 
 
 It may be asked what is meant by iiifirmities, for tbls 
 word is taken in different ways,- Some understand cold^ 
 heat, liunj^er, and other corporal necessities, and also con- 
 tempt, poverty, and other such things as we see in St Paul, 
 in several passages, and principally in the 2nd epistle to 
 the Corinthians, ch. xii. 10. But the best opinion is that 
 of those, who, besides poverty and external miseries, also 
 understand affections of the mind, as fear, sadness, horror 
 of death, and other such feelings. And in fact this restric- 
 tion " without sin," would have been added in vain, if he 
 had not spoken of those affections which are always vi- 
 cious in us on account of the perversity of our nature ; 
 but in Christ they are exempt from all vice, inasmuch as 
 there was in him a sovereign uprightness and perfect pu- 
 rity. It is certain that poverty and diseases, and those 
 tilings that are without us, are not accounted sin. There- 
 fore, when he speaks of those infirmities which have the 
 slightest tendency to sin, we must not doubt that he refers 
 to those affections of the mind to which the nature of man 
 is subject, and this on account of his infirmity. For the 
 condition of the angels is better than ours, inasmuch as they 
 are not subject to sadness or fear, that they are not tor- 
 mented with divers cares and fear of death. Christ wil* 
 lingly took these infirmities, and consented to struggle 
 against them, not only to give us the victory over them, 
 but also that we may be persuaded tliat he is really near 
 us, however frequently and powerfully wo feel them. By 
 this means, he has not only been made man in essence, but 
 also has taken on himself the qualities of liuman nature. 
 There is always one restriction added, yet iciiliout si?i, be- 
 cause this distinction between the affections of Christ and 
 ours, it must always be observed, that those of Christ have 
 always been conformable to the true rule of righteousness ; 
 
1,51 
 
 but ours wliicli proceed from a corrupt source, always par- 
 take of tlieir original nature, inasmuch as they are corrupt 
 and profligate. 
 
 It may suit Mr Druniniond's purpose to confound 
 moral and natural infirmities, but the distinction is 
 maintained by every orthodox writer. Dr Owen 
 on Heb. vii. 28, says, — 
 
 — The law made men priests, s;)^o>rfit$ ackmav, that had in- 
 infirmity, ' subject to infirmities.' And these were of two 
 sorts, moral and natural, neither could they be freed from 
 either of them during the whole time of their priesthood. 
 The first were their sins; hence they were obliged contin- 
 ually to offer sacrifices for their own sins, and that to the 
 very last day of their lives. The sum and issue of their 
 natural weakness was death itself. — In opposition hereunto, 
 it is said, the word of the oath made the Son. — That which 
 the apostle intends here, in an especial manner, is his ab- 
 solute freedom from the infirmities which those other 
 priests were obnoxious unto, namely, such infirmities in 
 the first place as with respect whereunto, sacrifice was to 
 be offered unto God, that is their own sins. — And if he 
 had offered for his own infirmities, the apostle could not 
 have objected it as the weakness of the law, that it made 
 priests which had infirmity ; for in that sense, the word 
 of the oath should have done so also. But whereas his ex- 
 altation into heaven, for the discharge of the remaining du- 
 ties of his priesthood, in his intercession for the church, 
 belonged unto the perfection of his consecration, he was 
 therein also freed from all those natural infirmities which 
 were necessary unto him, that he might be a sacrifice. 
 
 N 
 
152 
 
 With respect to Mr Haldane's remark, says Mr D. that 
 shi is an accident wliich human nature may or may not 
 want, and t!ie nature remain the same, it is true in a cer- 
 tain sense ; but the question is. When is human nature 
 without it, and wlien does it possess it. — p 45. 
 
 Human nature was without it at first, and every 
 child of Adam possesses it, except God's holy child 
 Jesus. He adds, " We should have thought he 
 " would have been one of the last persons not to have 
 " admitted that human nature can only be without it 
 " when preserved from it by the sustaining power of 
 " the Deity." No creature can exist, or possess any 
 faculty whatsoever, without the sustaining power 
 of the Deity. I never said that the human nature 
 of Christ was preserved from sin without the sus- 
 taining power of the Deity. Like every other crea- 
 ture, it lived, and moved, and had its being in God. 
 But I said, and I repeat it, that it was originally 
 sinless, and was in its formation inseparably united 
 to Deity, and was never liable to sin, like Adam, 
 who was also originally holy. 
 
 I enter not into the question, whether sin is " an 
 " adjunct to human nature," or " a deficiency," — 
 p. 46. It is the transgression of the law, and I i*e- 
 peat, " to speak of a being possessed of a sinful na- 
 " ture, yet without sin, is a contradiction in terms." 
 Mr D. denies this, and tells us, " the bush possessed 
 " a combustible nature, and yet did not burn." I 
 answer, the bush was not at that time combustible, 
 God had suspended that quality. Without a mi- 
 
1.53 
 
 racle, a combustible substance must be consumed 
 in the degree of heat in which it is combustible. 
 On this, as on other occasions, Mr D. confounds 
 moral and natural qualities. God may suspend the 
 latter according to his pleasure, but he cannot sus- 
 pend the former, — he cannot be tempted with evil, 
 neither tempteth he any man. 
 
 Referring to our Lord's being hungry and tempt- 
 ed by Satan to do what was not his duty to do, it 
 is said, " Here is an example of a sinful nature, 
 " yet without sin, a nature liidile to sin, but not al- 
 " lowed to fidl into sin."— p. 47. It is no example 
 of a sinful nature. The appetite for food is one 
 part of human nature, and it is not sinful because 
 it was implanted by God ; but the law of God ori- 
 ginally written on the heart, was sufficient to re- 
 strain this and every other appetite within the 
 bounds which he had prescribed, and therefore hu-. 
 man nature was not sinful, although liable to be- 
 come so. 
 
 I said that Christ could not have made an atone- 
 ment for sin, had his human nature been unholy. 
 " Nobody says, or has said, that the offering made 
 " for sin is unholy,"— p. 47. Yes, Mr Irving has 
 said it. Christ oifered his body on the cross. Mr 
 Irving says, it was " a sinful substance," " sinful 
 " flesh," and that every species of wickedness was 
 inherent in his humanity, and he has inconsequence 
 been driven to deny that any satisfaction to justice 
 was requisite. Mr Drummond has also said it ;— 
 
154 
 
 He tells us, " — the nature of every responsible 
 " creature is sinful," — p. 39. If this be true, 
 Christ could not, by offering himself, make an 
 atonement for others, — he needed an atonement for 
 himself. 
 
 I have not " transferred the properties, or na- 
 " ture of the Godhead to the humanity ;" I said, 
 " if Christ's human nature was necessarily mortal, 
 " his death could not be voluntary, and there could 
 " be no atonement." " But," says Mr D. " if his 
 " human nature was not mortal, it was not human 
 " nature." — p. 48, Adam was not mortal till he 
 sinned ; for the wages of sin is death, and in Christ 
 was no sin, therefore death had no claim on him. 
 According to Mr D. mortality as well as sinfulness 
 is an essential part of human nature. If so, the 
 man Christ Jesus the Mediator, is not possessed of 
 human nature, and the saints after the resurrection 
 will not possess human nature, for the Lord says, 
 " neither can they die any more." 
 
 Mr Drummond quotes, " all flesh is grass," but 
 it only became so after the fall. It was originally 
 " very good." It was not " vile flesh." Like 
 every other creature, it was mutable, and is now 
 vile flesh, in which " no good thing" dwells ; but 
 this is a superinduced property, — Christ took on 
 him our nature with its natural, but not its sbiful 
 properties. He took part with his people in flesh 
 and blood, but the law of God was written on his 
 heart. " There would be no marvel nor mysterys" 
 
155 
 
 says Mr Drumrnond, " in his being sinless, if in- 
 " habiting a nature which never disposed liim to 
 " be the reverse." — p. 50. Here he expressly as- 
 cribes a sinful disposition to Christ ! 
 
 Mr Drumrnond appears to feel the weight of the 
 argument against the sinfulness of the humanity of 
 Christ from its miraculous conception, but at- 
 tempts to evade it, by telling us it involves an as- 
 sumption, " that souls as well as bodies are pro- 
 '' duced by ordinary generation ; for if they be not, 
 " there is no more force in the argument as applied 
 " to the human soul of Christ, than to that of every 
 " other human being." — p. 55. I have nothing to 
 do with this question ; it is a question on which the 
 Scripture is silent, and by its silence virtually says, 
 " What is that to thee." But the production of the 
 manhood of Christ by the Holy Ghost is perfectly 
 conclusive on the subject, " being an exception to 
 " the physical law of our species, which forms the 
 " basis of the Adamic constitution, he was neces- 
 " sarily excepted from the consequences of the fall. 
 " The soul and body of Jesus Christ were not 
 " created under the operation of the same physical 
 " law, by which we receive existence — its operation 
 *' would never have brought them into being — their 
 " existence was extra- legal — miraculous. Adam 
 " could not possibly, therefore, be the federal re- 
 " presentative of what in the course of nature could 
 ** never exist."* 
 
 • Christian Instructor, October, p 708. 
 
156 
 
 Instead of examining wliat I had advanced 
 on this subject, Mr Drumniond has "jumped'* 
 to another subject, on which he lias kindly 
 favoured us with his opinion with more than 
 his usual modesty ; and, amidst the astonishment 
 which this could not fail to create, has con- 
 trived to escape without answering " the most 
 " specious reason which Mr Haldane has advanced 
 " in defence of his error." I shall therefore trans- 
 cribe the conclusion of what I said on Luke i. 35. 
 " The untainted purity of Christ's human nature 
 " is here established in the most conclusive and 
 " indisputable manner. First, It is ascribed to the 
 " immediate exercise of his power, all whose works 
 " are necessarily holy and good. Second, It is de- 
 " clared to be a holy thing in the Scriptures, 
 " which cannot be broken. In opposition to this 
 " demonstrative evidence, Mr Irving maintains the 
 " corruption of Christ's human nature, thus de- 
 " grading the character of the Father, who pre- 
 " pared it for his Son, Heb. x. 5. — of the Son who 
 *' assumed it into personal union with himself — 
 " and of the Holy Ghost, who formed it in the 
 " womb of the Virgin."— Ref. 52-3. Mr Drum- 
 mond says, " tlie whole force and power of the 
 " work of redemption seems to consist exactly in 
 " the parallel between Adam and Christ." — p. 55. 
 He then describes Adam as never having experien- 
 ced pain or infirmity with abundance to gratify his 
 desires ; yet he was not satisfied, and was punished 
 
1^7 
 
 with death, and death's beginnings, pain, weak- 
 ness, and infirmities. Cliiist experienced weak- 
 ness, pain, and infirmities, and yet " the Holy 
 " Ghost operating in his soul, made him satisfied, 
 " and have no delight so great as doing, not his 
 " own will, but the will of God."— p. 56. As Mr 
 Drummond denies the imputation of Adam's sin? 
 and Christ's righteousness, I am unable to see 
 how the force and power of redemption consists 
 in this. Adam and Christ were two individuals, 
 the one fell, the other stood; but if there is no im- 
 putation, what connexion has this with redemp- 
 tion ? 
 
 It is praiseworthy in Mr Drummond not to be 
 " disposed to quarrel for the mere love of conten- 
 " tion ;" but the illustration of his remark is rather 
 indicative of his prudence than of his love of peace. 
 He says he will " let the question pass," whether 
 the words holy, harmless, and undefiled, and se- 
 parate from sinners, are applicable to Christ while 
 he was on earth ; but he cannot refrain from tell- 
 ing us, in the end of the sentence, that the Apostle 
 uses the words " with reference to his state 7ioiv'in 
 " Heaven." The contrary is self-evident ; it would 
 be absurd to say that Christ was holy and separate 
 from sinners in Heaven, for neither sinners nor 
 any thing unholy can enter Heaven. — p. 56. 
 
 Dr Owen ably exposes the Sociniau interpreta- 
 tion of this passage, which Mr Drummond and Mr 
 Irving have adopted. He observes, 
 
1^8 
 
 They (the Sochiians) contend that this wliole descrip- 
 tion of our High Priest, doth not respect his internal 
 qualifications in tiiis world, before and in the offering him- 
 self by his blood, but his glorious state and condition in 
 Heaven. For they fear (as well they may) that if the 
 qualifications of a Friest were necessary to him, and re- 
 quired in liim whilst he was in tins world, ^ that then 
 he was so indeed. He who says such a High Priest 
 became us as is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from 
 sinners, doth affirm, that when he was so, he was our High 
 Priest. In that state wherein these thingfi were neces- 
 sary unto him, he was a Priest. To avoid this ruin unto 
 their pretensions, they offer violence unto the text, and 
 the signification of every word in it, and dangerously 
 insinuate a negation of tlie tilings intended, to be in Christ 
 in this world. 
 
 After a most pointed and explicit testimony to 
 the purity and holiness of our Lord's human na- 
 ture, which I shall afterwards quote, he says, 
 
 And such an High Priest became us, as was so. Had 
 he had a nature touched with sin, he had not been meet 
 either to be a Priest or sacrifice. This holiness of nature 
 was needful to him, who was to answer for the unholi- 
 ness of our nature, and to take it away. Unholy sinners 
 do stand in need of a holy Priest, and a holy sacrifice. 
 What we have not in ourselves, we must have in him, or 
 we shall not be accepted w^ith the holy God, who is of 
 purer eyes than to behold iniquity. — 'O6iog, holy, is his 
 epithet with respect to his nature ; axazog, harmless, re- 
 spects his life. The first includes all positive holiness ; 
 the other an abnegation of all unholiness. As he was 
 bCioij he had not pcaxov 'jaoamiiMzvov^ sin present, as we have 
 
159 
 
 with us. — Rom. vii. 18. 21. or aiiaQrica iu-7r£^/<Jrarov, sin 
 easily besetting. — Heb. xii. ]. Ashe was UTcuxog, be was 
 free from every effect of such a jirinciple. 
 
 On the clause, separate from sinners, he observes, 
 that, 
 
 He was not separate from sinuers. JFirst, As to com- 
 munity of nature. For God sent his own Son in the Uke- 
 ness of sinful flesh. — He was not therefore really separate 
 from sinners as they were flesh, but as they were sinful 
 flesh. — It is equally destructive to our faith and comforts, 
 to suppose our High Priest not separate from us in point 
 of sin, and to be separate from us as to his nature. Se- 
 cond, He was not separated from sinners as to the duties 
 of outward conversation. — Third, He is not said to be 
 separate from sinners, so in state and condition, as kings 
 and potentates are from persons poor and mean. — Fourth, 
 He is not said to be separate from sinners, as though he 
 had been even in any communion with them, in any thing 
 wherein he was afterwards separated from them. — It appear- 
 eth hence plainly wherein it was that he was separate from 
 sinners ; namely, in sin, in its nature, causes and effects. — 
 He was every way in the perfect holiness of his nature, 
 and his life distinguished from all sinners ; not only from 
 the greatest, but from those who ever had the least taint 
 of sin, and who otherwise were most holy. And so it be-^ 
 came us that he should be. He that was to be a middle 
 person between God and sinners, was to be separate from 
 those sinners, in that thing, on the account whereof ho 
 undertook to stand in tlieir stead. * 
 
 ■ Owen on Hebrews, cIi. yii. 26, 
 
160 
 
 " Mr Haldane likewise argues as if the liuman 
 " nature which the Son of God assumed was a new 
 " creation, and that he did not take or assume the 
 " nature of man, which aheady existed." — p. 57* 
 Christ is called the second Adam, he was the head 
 of tlie new and spiritual, as Adam was of the old 
 and natural creation. His miraculous conception is 
 called " a new thing in the earth." It was by a 
 special and immediate act of Almighty power, and 
 therefore I was perfectly entitled to call it a new 
 creation, althougli the matter of which it was formed 
 was already in existence, just as God created man of 
 the dust, to which he had ah*eady given being; on 
 this subject Mr Drummond's heart seems to have 
 failed him. Referring to it, he says, " more of this 
 hereafter." — p. 20. In this passage he merely 
 states what I had asserted. The subject is again 
 introduced still more cautiously; " it might be 
 " shewn perhaps, also, that Mr Haldane teaches 
 " that the humanity of Christ was a new creation 
 " altogether." — p. 75. But although he repeated* 
 ly alludes to this error, and undertakes to refute it, 
 he never grapples with it. He says that I argue as 
 if the Son of God did not " assume the nature of 
 " man, which already existed." He did assume 
 the nature of man, but not his sinful nature. I 
 before proved that sin was not essential to his 
 being really a man, and if Mr Drummond denies 
 this, he must hold either that Christ is not now a 
 man, or that he is still sinful. 
 
161 
 
 Mr Drummond attempts to find a contradiction 
 between my assertion that the word of God is not 
 written in the guarded formal style of an act of 
 Parliament, and my speaking of the scrupulous 
 caution uniformly observed in Scripture, when the 
 infirmities of Christ are spoken of, but in this there 
 is not the shadow of contradiction. The general 
 assertion is strictly true, yet there are exceptions, 
 where there was danger of our being led into error. 
 
 In page 26, he (Mr H.) says, that the incarnation of Christ 
 v.-asin consequence of the fall, that is, I suppose, an expedient 
 to meet an accident, for, " bad not Adam fallen, Christ 
 would not have been born, he was born by a distinct pro- 
 misee, after tlie fall," See. A more accurate theology would 
 teach Mr Haldane that the fall was appointed as a neces- 
 sary step to the before ordained birth." — p. 38. 
 
 Mr Drummond is very unhappy In his supposi-- 
 tions. The world was made by and for Christy 
 but it is not the less true, that had not Adam fallen, 
 Christ would not have been born, and that he was 
 born by a distinct promise after the fall. What 
 does ]>'Ir Drummond think of Paul's theology, when 
 he blamed the owner and master of the ship for all 
 they had suffered, although he knew it " was ap- 
 pointed ;" and, when speaking of the sailors, he said, 
 " except they abide in the ship, ye cannot be 
 " saved," although he had assured the passengers, 
 by the word of the Lord, that they should be 
 saved. 
 
162 
 
 III page 29, he (Mr II.) says, that of the human nature 
 of Clirist believers participate in the day of regeneration, 
 and argues against their participation of the divine nature, 
 80 that Mr Haldane really maintains, that by the preach- 
 ing of tlie gospel, which is the means by vi'hich men be- 
 come regenerate, they get new bodies ! 
 
 I said, Christ's divine nature " is incommuni- 
 " cable," and that " bis holy human nature is the 
 " model, or pattern, of the holy nature which all 
 " his people derive from him." Christ is the se- 
 cond Adam, the Father of eternity, and it is solely 
 through their union with him that believers get 
 new bodies, and shall be raised spiritual and in- 
 corruptible, and this union is formed by his dwell- 
 ing in their hearts by faith. 
 
 Life, says Hooker, as all other gifts and benefits, grow- 
 eth originally from the Father, and cometh not to us but 
 by the Son, nor by the Son to any of us in particular, but 
 through the spirit. For this cause the apostle wisheth to 
 the church of Corinth the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, 
 and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy 
 Ghost. Which three St Peter comprehendeth in one, the 
 participation of the divine nature. * 
 
 Charnock, speaking of believers being born of 
 God, says — 
 
 Now, to be born of any thing, is to receive a form like 
 • Book V. Sect. 5G. p. 225. 
 
163 
 
 that, whicli tlie generating person hatli. But 'tis not a 
 likeness to God in essence, 'tis no participation of tlie 
 essence of God. 'Tis a nature, not tlie essence ; a likeness 
 in an inward disposition, not in the infinite substance. — 
 The divine essence is iuconmiunicahle to any creature. — 
 Man is no more renewed according to God's image, than 
 he was at first created according to it ; which wajs not a 
 communication of the (hvine essence, but of a righteousness 
 resembling the righteousness of God, according to the 
 capacity of Adams nature ; which image of God in Adeun, 
 is, by the apostle, restrained to that of righteousness and 
 true /ioliness.-^Theve can be no participation of the sub- 
 stantial perfections of God, which are incommunicable ; 
 for then it would not be a participation, but an identity, 
 oneness, or equality — get it is a real participation. 'Tis 
 not a picture but a nature, — 'Tis a likeness not only in 
 actions, but in nature — There is a nature, for there is 
 something whereby we are constituted the children of 
 
 God : a bare aft'ection to God doth not seem to do this. 
 
 Vol. 11. p. 101. 
 
 " But," says Mr Drummond, ** of instances like 
 ^' tliis (he means of objectionable sentiments), there 
 " is no end." Amidst such variety, it is strange 
 that he could not fix on one sentiment really ob- 
 jectionable. 
 
 We now come to the examination of my obser- 
 ^-ations, on Rom. viii. 3, and I do it with the 
 greater pleasure, because it is the only point on 
 which he has fairly met any of my argiiments. 
 The Son of God, we are told, came in the likeness 
 of sinful Jlesh. When the Scriptures speak simply 
 
 o 
 
164 
 
 of Christ's incarnation, they say he came in the 
 flesh ; but in Rom. viii. 3, where the epithet sinful 
 occurs, he is said to have come in the likeness of 
 sinful flesh. In opposition to what I said on the 
 subject, Mr Drummond quotes Basil and Tertul- 
 lian, "authorities equally powerful as Mr Haklane," 
 who assert the necessity of the Redeemer's work 
 being performed in the nature, and in " the same 
 "' flesh as that which had sinned." — p. 61. I shall 
 afterwards attend to his quotations from Basil and 
 Tertullian ; but when did I deny that Christ came 
 in our nature ? He was born of a woman, and 
 was partaker of flesh and blood like his bretliren : but 
 his human nature was not produced by ordinary ge- 
 neration, and therefore he was not accursed like those 
 whom he came to redeem. In its formation Ins hu- 
 man nature was inseparably united to Deity, and 
 therefore necessarily retained the most perfect free- 
 dom from every corrupt bias. Yet it was like ours, 
 capable of suffering pain, hunger, and death, and 
 therefore he is said to be made in the likeness of sin- 
 ful flesh. In short, he was liable to all our natural 
 infirmities, which are the consequences of sin, but 
 not to our moral infirmities which are essentiallv sin- 
 fuL " The words of the original," says Mr Drum- 
 " inond, are sv ojjjOiM^aTi ea^zog afia^rtag, literally in the 
 " identity of flesh of sin ; and that the true meaning 
 " of the word, ofMioj^a, is identity or oneness, is clear 
 '' from the other places, in which the word occurs in 
 " the New Testament." — p. Gl. On this I would re- 
 
165 
 
 mark, that it makes tlie Apostle guilty of a very 
 needless tautology ; why say that he came in the 
 identity of sinful flesh, and not that he came in 
 sinful flesh ? 
 
 The first passage referred to is Rom. i. 23. which 
 he renders, the " identity of an image of corrup- 
 *' tible man." Johnson defines identity^ sameness ; 
 not diversity ; now, what the identity of an image 
 may be, unless it be the image itself, in which case 
 it is unmeaning tautology, I presume not to con- 
 jecture. The next is Rom. v. 14. where we retid 
 of those who have not sinned after the similitude 
 of Adam's transgression, which is sufficiently plain; 
 but Mr Drummond renders it, " in the identical 
 '* manner of Adam's transgression," but the iden- 
 tical manner of Adam's transgression was eating of 
 the forbidden fruit. The next is Rom. vi. 5. which 
 he renders, " the oneness of his resurrection," and 
 adds, " If, as Mr Haldane says, this is not identity, 
 " but only likeness, then the resurrection is only 
 " likeness also, and the whole of Christianity is 
 " turned into a phantasmagoria, or system of op- 
 " tical deceptions." — p. 62. There is a sense in 
 which the resurrection of Christ and believers is 
 " identical," for they are members of his body, of 
 his flesh, and of his bones, and are said to be rais- 
 ed and seated in heavenly places in him, Ephes. ii. 
 6 ; but their actual resurrection is not identical with 
 Christ's ; it only resembles it, as their glorious body 
 is not identical with his, but fashioned like Iiis 
 
166 
 
 body. The less Mr Drunimond says about " a 
 *• phantasmagoria," the better, after his abortive 
 attempt to make the substitution of Christ, in our 
 stead, and the imputation of his righteousness to 
 us, to be not facts, but figures. Next comes the 
 passage in question, " where," says Mr Drummond, 
 " the entire argument requires that the word 
 " should be rendered that which it is literally, 
 " oneness." This rendering is proved to be ab- 
 surd by his former examples, not one of which will 
 bear to be thus rendered, and by the tautology which 
 it introduces into the passage itself. "It must," says 
 Mr D. " be the same flesh as that which was weak, 
 " in which God sent his Son, and not a better flesh, 
 *' or the reasoning of the Apostle is futile." — p. 62. 
 Doubtless, it was the same flesh of which his 
 brethren were partakers, the human nature of 
 Christ was really human nature, or he could not 
 have been our kinsman Redeemer, 
 
 " The incarnation of the Son of God," says Hooker, 
 " consisteth merely in the union of natures, which union 
 doth add perfection to the weaker, to the nobler ; no alte- 
 ration at all. — The very cause of his taking upon him ouf 
 nature, was to change it, to better the quality, and to ad* 
 vance the condition thereof, although in no sort to abolish 
 the substance which he took, nor to infuse into it the na- 
 tural forces and properties of the Deity." — p. 219. 
 
 We have no reason to suppose, that after the 
 fall; any new dispositions or faculties were imparted 
 
1G7 
 
 to Adam, or that he was deprived of any which he 
 original ly possessed. But the grand regulating 
 principle by which the whole were subordinated to 
 the will of God, was gone, so that the law which 
 was ordained to life, which was calculated to re- 
 tiiin man in his allegiance, could now only curse 
 and condemn him as a transgressor. In the hu- 
 man nature of Jesus were all those dispositions 
 which originally belonged to man, tind consequently 
 all which are essential to human nature. We are 
 now shapen in iniquity ; but he was born a holy 
 thing; and although in virtue of this holiness, 
 he was exempted from all involuntary suffering, 
 yet, " himself took our infirmities, and bare our 
 " sicknesses ;" he endured the consequences of sin, 
 and thus was made " in the likeness of sinful flesh," 
 althouo^h " in him was no sin." It was the same 
 flesh, but it was not sinful flesh ; according to Mr 
 Drummond, Adam's flesh was originally sinful ; 
 he maintains that it is beyond the power of God to 
 give being to creatures who have not a sinful na- 
 ture, and he tells us, " a sinful nature is that qua- 
 " lity in the nature, which disposes and entices it to 
 " commit acts of sin," p. 39. that is to say, the qua- 
 lity which precludes the possibility of any creature 
 obeying the commandment, " thou shalt not covet." 
 I have already said, that if this were admitted, doubt- 
 less our Lord's human nature must of necessity have 
 been sinful, and he must have been also a breaker 
 of the law, but the theory from which such con- 
 
168 
 
 sequences result, is equally absurd, unscriptural, 
 and profane. Had our Lord come in the iden- 
 tity of sinful flesh, he could not liave offered his 
 body as an atonement for sin ; a sin-offering must 
 be " perfect to be accepted." This however will 
 be no objection to Mr Drummond, for he protests 
 against our considering the declaration, that Christ 
 bore our sins in his own body on the tree, as any 
 thinof more than a fi«:ure. 
 
 Mr Drummond concludes his criticism on &/x<j<w^a, 
 by referring to Rev. ix. 7. which he declines dis- 
 cussing, in consideration of the time which it would 
 occupy. He tells us however, " that the locusts 
 were the symbols of actual and real horses, and not 
 something like them." It is quite sufficient that 
 they are the symbols^ not actual horses, in other 
 words, that locusts and horses are not identical. 
 
 This subject, however, deserves a fuller conside- 
 ration. I would ask any candid reader, how it 
 happens, that in this passage alone, Christ is said 
 to have come in the likeness of flesh. The Apostle 
 tells us, " Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus 
 *' Christ is come in the flesh, is of God : and every 
 *' spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is 
 " come in the flesh, is not of God," 1 John iv. 2, 3. 
 *' God was manifest in the flesh — the word was 
 *' made flesh," not in the likeness of it. Why then 
 is it said, " God sent his Son in the likeness of 
 *' sinful flesh," but beciuise of the epithet, sinful. 
 His flesh was not a resemblance, but a reulity ; yet 
 
1G9 
 
 he did not come in the reality, but in tlie resem- 
 bhmce of sinful flesh, for he was lioly, harmless, 
 undefiled, and separate from sinners. 
 
 Mr Driimmond confounds likeness and identity) 
 tlian which no two ideas can be more distinct ; 
 they exist separately in every degree, from the 
 lowest to the higliest. In every instance where 
 likeness is asserted, there must be distinction. 
 Things are never said to be like, without implying 
 that in some respects they differ. When things 
 tliat are in most respects the same are said to be 
 like, the design must be to suggest the difference. 
 Likeness and identity, then, are not only ideas es- 
 sentially distinct; but incongruous. That which is 
 like cannot be the same in the point of view in 
 which it is like : that which is the same, cannot be 
 like in the point of view in which it is the same, 
 although things that are like in one respect, may 
 be the same in another respect. Two men may be 
 like each other. In that respect they are different, 
 although their nature is the same, they differ in per- 
 sonality. 
 
 In John ix. we have an account of the eyes of a 
 blind man being opened. His appearance excited 
 astonishment among his neighbours. " Some said 
 " this is he : others said he is like him." o/^«<o? ^^^^ 
 srTo-. Tiie former said he was the identical person, the 
 latter that he only resembled him. The Son of God 
 is the perfect image of the Father. This imph'es 
 that they are distinct as to personality, while they 
 
170 
 
 possess the same nature. Likeness always supposes 
 distinction, and if the Son is like the Father, there 
 must be something- in which they are different. 
 
 Mr D. refers to Phil. ii. 7, " where," he says, 
 " the antithesis lies in He who was God becoming 
 " actual man ; not something like one," — p. 62. 
 This however is incorrect; the antithesis lies in one 
 who was in the form of God taking the form of a 
 servant, by being made in the likeness of men. 
 That he who was God became actually man, is 
 true, but in Phil. ii. 7. as elsewhere, the word like- 
 ness implies that there is something in which the 
 resembling objects are not identical. When Christ 
 is said to be like men, it is necessarily implied that 
 there is something in which he differs from other 
 men. This is only suggested in Phil. ii. 7, but is 
 expressed, Rom. viii. 3. If in all respects Christ 
 possessed the properties of fallen human nature, it 
 would be absurd to say he was made in the likeness 
 of men. If he was made sinful flesh, it would be 
 absurd to say he was made in the likeness of sinful 
 flesh. This last expression, though in reality it co- 
 incides with the expression likeness of men, is much 
 more explicit : One man may be said to be like an- 
 other man, but a man of a sinful nature cannot be 
 said to be like sinful flesh. He is " sinful flesh," 
 and that which is the same cannot be said to be like 
 that with which it is the same. The assertion then, 
 that God sent his Son in the likeness of sinful fleshy 
 stultifies the assertion that Christ's flesh was sinful. 
 
171 
 
 The phrase likeness ofmen^ is equivalent to likeness 
 of sinful fleshy because fallen men are sinful flesli, 
 hut Jesus was not sinful flesh, he was only in the 
 likeness of it. His body had all the degraded ap- 
 pearance of the sons of fallen Adam, Isaiah lii. 14. 
 he was subject to their natural infirmities. This is 
 exactly what is meant by being made in the like- 
 ness of men. Phil. ii. 7, would not, however, of 
 itself be sufficient to jn'ove that Christ was actually 
 man. When tl i people of Lycaonia took Barna- 
 bas and Paul f^^r gods, they did not consider them 
 to be men, they said, " the gods are come down to 
 " us in the likeness of men." When it is said, 
 Christ was made in tJte likeness of men, it implies a 
 resemblance, and consequently a diversity, although 
 we do not learn from this passage how far the re- 
 semblance extends, and in what the difference con- 
 sists. This we learn from other passages, such as 
 Rom. viii. 3. 
 
 Adam begat a son in his own likeness ; this is 
 not identity. Adam's son was indeed of his nature, 
 but this is not what is asserted ; of this there could 
 be no question, nor could the son of Adam be said 
 to be in the likeness of his father's nature^ for it was 
 the same. When it is asserted that Adam begat a 
 son in his own likeness, after his image, it means 
 that he resembled him, fallen as he now was, and 
 not as he was at first. Does Gen. i. 26, imply that 
 Adam was identical with God? Is it not palpably 
 absurd to confound likeness with identity in that 
 
172 
 
 passage ? Does Exod. xx. 4, mean, that the like- 
 ness of any thing is the identical thing which it is 
 like? Thus we see how completely Mr Drummond 
 has failed in replying to the only argument which 
 he has fairly met. What shall we say of the me- 
 taphysicks of those who would confound likeness 
 with identity, and of the " theology" of those, who, 
 by maintaining that the human nature of Christ 
 was sinful, represent him as requiring a sacrifice 
 for himself, instead of being able to make atone- 
 ment for others. 
 
 In his critical remarks on o/xo/(w/;t-a, Mr Drummond 
 seems to have forgotten the difference between 
 ofMonffwg and ofio/ami. Had the Arians (whose know- 
 ledge of Greek is indisputable) been aware that 
 0/X0/W//-C6 meant identity, they would have objected to 
 o,(Moi8c(iog as much as to ou.os6iog. " By the insertion 
 " of a single letter," says Milner, " they reserved 
 " to themselves their own sense, subscribing not 
 " that the Son is the same, but only of a like es- 
 " sence with the Father."* 
 
 If the manhood of the Mediator were only tlie likeness 
 nfjlesh of sin, in tlie sense wliich Mr J. H. teaches us, 
 the word would convey no other idea than if it were said 
 in the shape qx figure of a man, as a statue might be ; for 
 the manhood of Christ wants, according to the notions of 
 Mr J. H. every essential characteristic of ordinary man- 
 hood, except the shape. — p. 63. 
 
 • Church History, vol. ii. p. 62. 
 
173 
 
 I have repeatedly proved that the manhood of 
 Christ wanted no essential characteristic of human 
 nature. Sin cannot he an essential characteristic 
 of human nature, for Adam was once without sm. 
 lam aware that, according toMrDrummond,thc na- 
 " turc of every responsihle creature is sinful ;" hut 
 Mr Drummond says many things which he cannot 
 prove, and I have already shewn that this assertion 
 is equally opposed to reason and to revelation. 
 When the Scriptures assert that Christ came in the 
 flesh, and that he came in the likeness q/* sinful 
 flesh, they teach us with the utmost clearness that 
 he reallv assumed human nature, but not in its 
 
 sinful state. 
 
 " We have seen that these gentlemen maintain 
 " that the man Jesus was not like any other man, 
 " nor like any other creature which ever appeared 
 <« on this globe."— p. 69. 70. In some respects 
 the man Jesus was not like any other man, rior 
 like any other creature which ever existed either 
 on this globe or in the universe of God. " God," 
 ^ays Hooker, " hath deified our nature, though not 
 '' by turning it into himself, yet by making it his 
 " own inseparable habitation ;* but notwithstand- 
 '' ing this, in all things, it behoved him to be made 
 *' like unto his brethren." 
 
 " As, therefore," says Hooker, " we have sliewed bow 
 the Son of God, by his incarnation, hath changed the 
 
 • B. 5. sect. 54. 219. 
 
174. 
 
 manner of that personal subsistence, wlilch before was soli- 
 tary, and is now in tlie association of flesh, no alteration 
 thereby accruing to the nature of God ; so neither are the 
 properties of mail s nalure in the person of Christ, })y force 
 and virtue of the same conjunction so much altered, as not 
 to stay within tiiose limits which our substance is bordered 
 withal .'*]- 
 
 We have already seen that Hooker holds that 
 Christ had Adam's nature, as we have, but incor- 
 rupt, so that he did not consider sinfulness as 
 " within those limits which our substance is bor- 
 " dered withal ;" in other v/ords, he held that sin- 
 fulness is not essential to human nature. If it were 
 so, tiot only would Christ's human nature he still 
 essentially sinful, but through eternity all his re- 
 deemed must be sinful, for it is enough for the ser- 
 vant to be as his master. 
 
 " We have seen, that to deny the man Jesus to 
 " be exactly like every other man, has been con- 
 " demned as heresy by the church, and is in con- 
 " tradiction to the opinions of orthodox writers." — 
 p. 70. I ask by what church is it asserted that the 
 " man Jesus was exactly like other men, in regard 
 '^ to sinfulness. Not by the church of Rome which, 
 *' in order to prevent the possibility of supposing any 
 " original impurity in him, has asserted the immacu- 
 " late conception of the virgin. — Not by the church 
 " of England, or any church of which I ever heard. 
 
 • B. 5. sect. 54. 21 9» 
 
175 
 
 Mr Drummond rather falters in the last part 
 of the sentence ; two pages before, be speaks of 
 it as a thing " calculated to excite the gi'eatest 
 " surprise," that Dr T. and Mr H. should have 
 " shewn themselves so ignorant of theology, as not 
 " to know, at least, that their opinions were cou- 
 " trary to almost every sound divine for the last 
 ** thousand years. If we could have predicated such 
 'Vignorance," &c. ; here, be only says, the opinion 
 be is combating " is in contradiction to the opi- 
 " nions of orthodox writers." This is but a poor 
 test ; there are many absurd sentiments sanction- 
 ed by writers, who, in other respects may be term- 
 ed orthodox : but I believe this to be an excep- 
 tion : I question if Mr Drummond can produce 
 one reputed orthodox writer who holds this opi- 
 nion. I shall afterwards shew that none of those 
 whom he has quoted actually held it, and I do not 
 believe he can produce one authority on the subject 
 deserving of consideration. 
 
 It now remains, says Mr Drummond, to examine 
 the consequences of admitting this heresy into our 
 creeds. 1st. It destroys redemption. This propo- 
 sition he illustrates by the right of redemption in 
 Israel. 
 
 — If the church, consisting of frail, mortal, fallible men, 
 were to be redeemed by one who was neither frail, mortal, 
 nor fallible, then it clearly follows that the instruction con- 
 veyed by the institution of the Redeemer would want all pro- 
 priety and exactitude, the antitype would not resemble the 
 type in any particular, it would be a type of nothing." — 
 p. 70, 71.' 
 
176 
 
 Let us then compare the type and the antityjiei^ 
 Was it requisite that the typical Redeemer should 
 be drowned in debt, or have lost his own freedom, 
 to qualify him for redeeming his kinsman ? No- 
 thing so absurd is enjoined. It was necessary 
 that the Redeemer should be his kinsman, Lev. 
 XXV. 48, 49. Now Christ became a member of the 
 human family, and thus had the right of redemp- 
 tion. His NOT being frail, mortal, nor fallible, was 
 precisely what enabled him to redeem others, as a 
 man being possessed of property in Israel, was 
 alone capable of redeeming the inheritance of hia 
 poor kinsman, or as a man who had not forfeited 
 his own freedom, was alone capable of purchasing 
 the freedom of another. Mr Drummond's mode of 
 reasoning arises from unscriptural views of the a- 
 tonement, and from his denial of substitution and im- 
 putation. It was the original purity of the human 
 nature of Christ which rendered him a meet sac- 
 rifice for sin ; but even this would have been in- 
 sufficient, had this nature not subsisted in the per- 
 son of the Son of God. " Concerning the grace 
 of unction," says Hooker, " wherein are contain- 
 " ed the gifts and virtues which Christ, as man, 
 " hath above men, they make him really and ha- 
 " bitually a man more excellent than we are, they 
 " take not from him the nature and substance that 
 " we have, they cause not his soul nor body to be 
 " of another kind than ours is."* Redemption, ac- 
 cording to Mr Drummond and Mr Irving, was a 
 
 • B. 5. Sect. 55. p. 222. 
 
177 
 
 contest for victory between God and Satan, and 
 the field of that controversy was the human nature 
 of Jesus Christ, in which all evil " was inherent," 
 but this is not the redemption of the Scriptures. 
 
 Mr Drummond's views are farther developed in 
 his remarks on the union between the Lord Jesus 
 and his redeemed ; he tells us that his opponents 
 say, " that the man Jesus was not at all like other 
 " creatures," and although they could prove that 
 they consider him not to be " another Deity," they 
 " have repeatedly asserted, and argued upon the 
 " point, that the man Jesus, though a creature, 
 " was not a creature who was separated from the 
 " Creator, and therefore the creatures who are 
 " separated by their nature from the Creator, are 
 " still unredeemed, that is, unreconciled to the 
 " Creator." — p. 72. I have already shewn that the 
 charge of confounding the properties of the human 
 and divine natures of Christ is completely unfounded. 
 It is most true, that the man Jesus was not sepa- 
 rated from God by his nature ; that there was not 
 a particle of alienation from God in his heart ; but 
 he assumed the nature of those who were thus 
 alienated, by leaving their first estate; and by re- 
 storing what he took not away, he magnified the 
 law which they had broken. By voluntarily bear- 
 ing the curse which he had not incurred, he re- 
 deemed his people from the curse, and became to 
 them the fountain of every spiritual and heav enly 
 blessing ; creating them anew by union with him- 
 
178 
 
 self, that lie miglit finally present them without 
 spot to God. This redemption he could not have 
 accomplished, had he heen possessed of the fallen 
 nature of man, which, according to Mr Irving, 
 requires to be divested of " that diabolical feeling 
 " of self-sufficiency and independency upon God 
 " and other creatures, which, as it is the greatest of 
 " falsehoods, so it is the most fruitful source of 
 " misery." — Last Days, p. 44. 
 
 The second consequence of admitting " this 
 " heresy into our creeds," is, " that it denies 
 " not only the true humanity of the Mediator, 
 " but the work of the Holy Ghost in the work of 
 " redemption. Both Mr HaldaneandDr Thomson 
 *• reject the Holy Ghost from having any part in sus- 
 *' taining the man Jesus in his purity ,^^0^' they assert 
 " that he was pure without his assistance.' — p. 72. 
 I never for a moment thought of denying the work 
 of the Holy Ghost in the work of redemption. 
 The human nature of Christ was formed by the 
 power of the Holy Ghost, and the union of the di- 
 vine and human natures necessarily supposes the 
 influence of the Holy Ghost. 
 
 Thus much, says Hooker, no Christian man will deny, 
 that when Christ sanctified his own flesh, giving as God, 
 and taking as man the Holy Ghost, he did not tliis for 
 himself only, hut for our sakes, that the grace of sancti- 
 lication and life, which was first received in him, might 
 pass from liim to his whole race, as malediction came from 
 Adam unto all mankind. — p. 227, 
 
179 
 
 I cordially agree with the remarks of Edwards, 
 quoted by Mr D. p. 30. and I never inferred, as he 
 alleges, " that the energizing of the Holy Ghost can- 
 " not be true," but in both the passages quoted 
 by Mr D. I did and do distinctly and positively 
 deny, " that the evil principles of the fallen man- 
 " hood (of Christ) were only subdued, restrained, 
 " and conquered by the Holy Ghost," that his 
 " flesh disposed him to act in opposition to the 
 " will of God, and that he was only preserved from 
 " sin by the power of the Holy Ghost.— Rcf. 26. 53. 
 I admit, in the fullest sense, the power of the Holy 
 Ghost in supporting and strengthening the human 
 nature of our Lord. This, as I have said, is ne- 
 cessarily im])lied in the personal union of the di- 
 vine and human natures, but there was no restrain- 
 ing of wickedness, for there was none in him 
 to restrain. To talk of his flesh, disposing him to 
 act in opposition to the will of God, is a quibble. 
 He was hungry, and consequently disposed to eat; 
 but in him, hunger and every other desire in man, 
 was in complete subordination to the will of God, 
 as it was in Adam before he fell. 
 
 Doubtless Jesus was exposed to many tempta- 
 tions to which x\dam in his unfallen state was a 
 stranger, but the union of the divine and human 
 natures, as Hooker says, " doth add perfection to 
 " the weaker ;" and in a nature which is perfect, 
 there is no wickedness to be restrained. Christ is 
 indeed said to be made perfect through suffering, 
 but this does not mean moral perfection which he 
 
180 
 
 always possessed. He was made perfect as our 
 Redeemer when he entered into his glory, when, 
 having fulfilled all righteousness, he received power 
 over all flesh, that he might give eternal life to as 
 many as tlie Father had given him. But, accord- 
 ing to Mr Irving, " the evil principles of the fallen 
 *' manhood " were not even " subdued, restrained, 
 " and conquered." Tlie Apostle tells us that lust 
 or propensity to evil is sin, and this sin Mr Irving 
 affirms dwelt in Jesus; there was a law in his mem- 
 bers warring against the law of his mind. There 
 was in him " this mass of iniquity with which I 
 '* and every sinful man are oppressed ;" against 
 this he did " toil and sweat and travail." Sin then 
 was not subdued ; it warred in the heart of Jesus, 
 from which it could not be expelled by his toil and 
 sweat and travail, nor by the power of the Holy 
 Ghost ! 
 
 Jesus, as our great High Priest, was anointed 
 with the Holy Ghost, and from him alone it de- 
 scends on us. By this unction he was visibly seal- 
 ed at Jordan, and declared to be the Son of God. 
 Has Mr Drummond reflected on the reason why 
 the Spirit descended on Jesus in the shape of a 
 dove, and on his apostles in the form of fire, and is 
 also promised to us under the same emblem ? The 
 answer to this question is thus given by Archbishop 
 Lcigliton. 
 
 Christ is a living- sprinj? of that, (sanctification) anoinU 
 ed above his fellows. In him is no mixture of any iniquity. 
 
181 
 
 The Holy Ghost descended on the apostles in the shape 
 of fire* Tiiere was somewhat to be purged in them ; they 
 are to be quickened and enabled by it for their calling : 
 but in him as a dove there was no need of cleansing or 
 purging out any thing ; that was a symbol of the spotless 
 purity of his nature, and of the fulness of the Spirit dwell- 
 ing in him.* 
 
 Tlie Archbishop, it seems, was one of the babes 
 and heretics who held the spotless purity of Christ's 
 human nature. Yet lie was not inferior either to 
 Mr Drummond or Mr Irving, in the knowledge of 
 theology, and of the writings of the fathers. 
 
 The third consequence of " admitting this he- 
 " resy," is, that " it destroys the example to be 
 " drawn from Christ's life to us,"— p. TO. " But 
 " as according to the system which these gentle- 
 " men would teach us, the man Jesus endured no 
 " struggle, he cannot sympathize with us, for lie 
 " knows not, but in theory, what we experience." — 
 p. 74. Nothing can be more fallacious than such 
 reasoning. There was in Christ no struggle aris- 
 ing from indwelling sin, but there was a struggle 
 between the natural desire to avoid pain and sor- 
 row, and his paramount desire to do the will of 
 God. Here then we have a perfect example ; the 
 example of a man after God's own heart — of a man 
 whose every thought, feeling, word, and action, in 
 circumstances the most trying, he approved. If 
 
 • Sermon on 1 Cor. i. 30, p. 52G. 
 
18*2 
 
 Christ's liiiman nature bad been constramed by tbe 
 Holy Gliost, contrary to its own natural volitions 
 to comply with the will of God, there would have 
 been something in the example which it would 
 have been our duty to avoid, for resistance to the 
 will of God is sinful. As to Christ's living a life 
 of faith, and being upheld by the Holy Ghost 
 which was given to him without measure, I have 
 no controversy with Mr Drummond ; but while it 
 is only by the power of the Spirit, that sin has not 
 dominion over believers, there is not, in the word 
 of God, the slightest foundation for representing 
 the Holy Ghost as restraining sinful propensities 
 in Christ. Mr Drummond, however, dares to as- 
 sert the contrary. After saying that the Holy 
 Ghost " can perform nothing in, and for, us, which 
 *' he did not primarily perform in, and for, the man 
 *' Jesus ;" and after stating that it first enabled 
 liim to live a life of faith, he adds, " if he upholds 
 " us, and prevents our sinful nature from having 
 " dominion over us, it is because He enabled Jesus 
 " to have dominion over all sinful nature, and to 
 " destroy sin in the flesh." Why does he thus 
 falter ? Why does he not fairly state what is evi- 
 dently implied? " If he upholds us and prevents our 
 *' sinful nature from having dominion over us, it 
 *' is because he enabled Jesus to have dominion 
 '' over" HIS sinful nature. I am glad of this symp- 
 tom of his being ashamed to look his system in the 
 face ; but when I recollect the bold and thorough 
 
183 
 
 paced language of Mr Irving, and when I find Mr 
 Drummond asserting, that " Mr Irving has un- 
 *' questionably maintained the correct doctrine," 
 I confess I perceive no very great prospect of 
 amendment. 
 
 As to our natural infirmities, Jesus has a 
 fellow-feeling with us; in this respect he was 
 tempted in all things like as we are, yet without 
 sin. But he had no moral pollution ; there was 
 no concord between Christ and Belial ; and is mo- 
 ral pollution necessary to produce sympathy ? Do 
 the abandoned and profligate, when suffering for 
 their crimes, meet with the greatest sympathy from 
 their companions in guilt ? Sin hardens the heart ; 
 hence sinful men live in malice and envy. By going 
 to the house of mourning, the heart is made better, 
 but it is vitiated by every unholy disposition. 
 " Such an high-priest became us, who is holy, 
 " harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners," and 
 who was at the same time " touched with a feeling 
 " of our infirmities." What is sin ? Want of confor- 
 mity to God : now God is love, and wherever sin 
 enters, it casts out love, and therefore the perfect 
 purity of Christ's human nature, connected with 
 his being a man of sorrows, secures for us the high- 
 est degree of sympathy. But let the principle be 
 followed out : if it was necessary that Christ 
 should have a sinful nature, in order to sympathize 
 with us, why not affirm that he must also be an 
 actual breaker of the law, that his sympathy with 
 
184 
 
 einners may, in this respect, be experimental, and 
 not merely theoretical. This is actually included 
 in Mr Irving's system, although he does not admit 
 it. According to his doctrine, Christ habitually 
 violated the law which condemns lusting after what 
 is prohibited. 
 
 While Christ has left us an example, the Scrip- 
 tures never represent, as Mr Irving does, the true 
 end of his advent or incarnation to be to give the 
 example of a man, who as man, should overcome 
 all the enemies of man.* I exposed this doctrine in 
 the Refutation, and shewed that it utterly made 
 void the atonement. I did not then know that 
 this new theological school avowedly sets aside 
 original sin, substitution, and imputation as figures, 
 and that they affirm, " that while the present views 
 " of Atonement continue to be doated on by the 
 ** church, it is vain to attempt to carry any point 
 " of sound doctrine."! And what are these " pre- 
 sent views ?" that the sufferings of Christ were ne- 
 cessary to satisfy divine justice, in order that God 
 might shew mercy to sinners. All this only con- 
 firms the observation which I made, that " were 
 " tlie doctrine opposed in the preceding pages ge- 
 " nerally adopted, it would be the first step in a 
 ** new apostacy."-— Ref. p. 68. 
 
 Whether it proceeds from a secret apprehension, 
 that after all he may be in the wrong, or from some 
 
 ■ Discourses, vol. i. p. 21, 22. f Mr Irving, M. W. 445, 444. 
 
185 
 
 other cause, Mr Drunimond in reviewing his argu- 
 ment, says, " Mr Irving has unquestionably niain- 
 " tained the correct doctrine; but are Mr J. Ilaldane 
 " and Dr Thomson lieretics? By no means." — p. 76. 
 This is passing strange. In a preceding passage, 
 he affirms that it is clear that these individuals 
 " deny that Christ was a man." Is not he a heretic 
 who, on this fundamental point, opposes the word 
 of God? The apostle says, " every spirit that 
 *' confessetli not that Jesus Christ is come in the 
 " flesh is not of God ; and this is that spirit of Anti- 
 " christ whereof ye have heard that it should 
 " come."* Is he not a heretic who holds a doc- 
 trine which " destroys redemption — destroys the 
 " work of the Holy Ghost in the work of redemp- 
 " tion," who teaches that the manhood of Christ is 
 
 " AN ESSENTIALLY SELF-HOLY AND SELF-IMMORTAL 
 
 " CREATURE." I presume all these ^ve figures^ not 
 facts, else they would stamp the character of a he- 
 retic on those who hold " a heresy of the most de- 
 " structive nature to the souls of men." — p. 91. 
 
 Mr Drummond proceeds to criticise Mr Irving; 
 he condemns his artificial style, and admits that his 
 expressions are objectionable. I am glad even of 
 this admission. I had observed that Mr Drummond 
 uses different language, but the great difference 
 seems to be, that Mr Irving boldly and consistently 
 brings forward his system, while Mr Drummond 
 
 • Mr Drummond afterwards quotes this passage, and intimates 
 that this is the heresy which he is opposing. — p. yi,92. 
 
186 
 
 lias not nerves to view it in all its naked deformity, 
 although he holds Mr Irving's doctrine to be cor- 
 rect. 
 
 He seems afterwards disposed to retract his cen- 
 sure on Mr Irving. He tells us " it is a nice point 
 " to determine where the line is to be drawn, since 
 " men were quite steeled against the ordinary 
 '* terms." He says, " It is to be remembered, also, 
 " that wherever heresy was to be met, it has been 
 " always done in the church by an ultra-counter 
 " statement." This may sometimes have been done, 
 but it was very improper ; we ought to contend 
 earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints, 
 but not to oppose one error by another. If Mr D, 
 differs from Mr Irving he should have stated where 
 the difference lies. Does he hold that Christ died 
 *' by the common property of flesh to die, because 
 " it was accursed in the loins of our first pa- 
 " rents,"* — that " he condescended through the fa- 
 " culties of the human soul to commune with every 
 " impious, ungodly, and blasphemous chamber of the 
 " fallen intellect and feeling of men, "f — " that every 
 " variety of human wickedness wliich hath been rea- 
 " lized, or is possible to be realized, was inherent 
 " in his humanity,"! — that he possessed a diabolical 
 " feeling of self-sufficiency and independency upon 
 " God," § — that he had a '' law in his members, war- 
 " ringagainstthelawof hismind."|l Ifnot, why does 
 
 * living's Discourses, vol. i. (140) xxxi. f ib. 155. | ib. 1G4. 
 § Last Days, p. 44. || Mr Cole's Letter, p. 8. 
 
187 
 
 lie not disclaim such sentiments, instead of affirming 
 that '' Mr Irving has unquestionably maintained 
 *' the correct doctrine." — p. 71. 
 
 Did Mr Drummond intend to bring in privily 
 the heresy of the corruption of Christ's human na- 
 ture ? Did he intend to do what the apostle so 
 loudly disclaims, to catch men with guile, and is he 
 displeased with Mr Irving for at once laying oj>en 
 the secret chambers of imagery ? I hope Mr Drum- 
 mond is incapable of this, but I am at a loss to under- 
 stand how he can hold that Christ's human nature 
 is no better than ours, which is enmity against God, 
 and yet blame Mr Irving for the very apposite terms 
 in which it is described. 
 
 He tells us, " Many expressions in the Athana- 
 " sian creed, as well as in Mr Irving's writings, nay, 
 " even in the Bible itself, are not true, (as ' there 
 " is no God,') when taken by themselves," — p. 83. 
 This remark, as applied to the Bible, is worse than 
 trifling : indeed I hardly know how to characterize 
 it. '' The fool hath said in his heart, there is no 
 *• God," and Mr Drummond gravely brings the 
 proposition which is thus branded with folly, to 
 shew that " many expressions — even in the Bible 
 '' itself, are not true, if taken by themselves." 
 
 He has not been happy in his illustration of " the 
 " justice of the remark, that a subtle heresy is only 
 " to be met by an ultra-counter statement," from the 
 proceedings of the Council of Kicc. " They col- 
 " lected together the passages of Scripture, which 
 
 8 
 
188 
 
 " represent the divinity of the Son of God, and ob- 
 " served that, taken together, they amounted to a 
 " proof of his being of the same substance with the 
 " Father, oimhcio;'' — p. 85. Was this an ultra-coun- 
 ter statement? Milner, from whom he quotes, 
 says, " the Council was convinced that this w^as a 
 " fair explanation." 
 
 He charges me with criticising the language, and 
 treating " the substance of Mr Irving's statement 
 " as a matter of minor consideration," — p. 86. It 
 is true he retracts the charge, or rather makes a 
 counter-statement in the next page. " We must 
 " not, however, forget, that Mr Haldane and Dr 
 " Thomson have not objected to the expressionsj 
 *' whilst consenting to the doctrine, but have at- 
 " tacked the expressions only as a mean of attack- 
 " ing the doctrine." Mr Irving's quaint and affected 
 style is simply ridiculous, unless it be considered as 
 the means of misleading others by an appearance of 
 depth, or that it is employed to cast a veil over senti- 
 ments, the whole bearings of which he does not 
 choose explicitly to avow. I referred to his style, 
 as being calculated to have a bad effect on his own 
 mind, and as being in part the occasion of that self- 
 contradiction of which I gave several instances ; 
 but I consider the faultiness of the style as trifling, 
 in comparison of the pernicious tendency of his 
 doctrine. 
 
 Mr Drummond applies to Mr Irving an observa- 
 tion made by Lord Wellesley of Bonaparte, " that 
 
189 
 
 " he was of a class of minds to make to himself 
 " great reverses." Were we to admit the justice of 
 the comparison, we might suppose that tlie great 
 political blunders of the one would accord with the 
 wild heresies promulgated by the other ; but the 
 comparison issues in Mr Irving furnishing "the theo- 
 " logical babes of the present generation with abun- 
 " dant ground of petty attacks." Parturiuntmontes. 
 Except we receive the kingdom of God as little 
 children, we shall in no case enter it ; and perhaps 
 Mr Drummond and Mr Irving will find, that after 
 all, the babes were instructed in that of which the 
 wise were ignorant. 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 MR drummond's authorities. 
 
 Mr Drummond classes Mr Irving with" the 
 orthodox church," and expresses the greatest sur- 
 prise that " Dr T. and Mr H.— should have shewn 
 *' themselves so ignorant of theology, as not to 
 " know, at least, that their opinions were contrary 
 " to almost every sound divine for the last thou- 
 " sand years." — p. 6T. No assertion was ever more 
 unfounded ; it is impossible to read it without " the 
 " greatest surprise," and I am utterly unable to 
 account for it. I do not wish to suspect Mr Drum- 
 
190 
 
 mond of endeavouring to impose on liis readersj 
 but I cannot vindicate his honesty without the 
 supposition of absolute infatuation. 
 
 This may be considered strong language, but an 
 examination of the authorities to which he refers 
 will prove that it is not stronger than the case 
 demands. Besides quoting various autliors, Mr 
 Drummond refers to several heresies with which 
 he endeavours to identify my sentiments. It is 
 necessary to glance at these, in order to point out 
 his inaccuracy. 
 
 He first mentions the heresy of the Monothe- 
 lites. " They denied not directly the two natures 
 " personally united, but only affirmed, that after 
 " the union of the natures, there was only one 
 " will and one operation in Christ. — Thus Dr T, 
 " and Mr H. do not den^ directly the humanity, 
 " but assert the only 07ie ivill which is incompatible 
 " with it." — p. 27. I never thought of maintaining 
 that there was only one will in Christ. As there 
 were two natures, there must have been two wills, 
 and this is repeatedly stated in the Refutation. 
 Having mentioned that if the Son of God assumed 
 human nature at all, he must have shrunk from 
 suffering; I added, " that over this and every 
 " other feeling, Christ's desire to promote his 
 " Father's glory, and his love to his people, rose 
 *' triumphant, — he voluntarily took the cup, al- 
 " though a word would have brought legions of 
 " angels to his assistance." — Ref. 14. 15. I also 
 
191 
 
 quoted our Lord's words, not as I will, but as 
 tliou wilt. Where then is Mr Druminond's can- 
 dour in saying I assert but one will ? 
 
 " Another branch which sprung up from the root 
 " of Eutyches's heresy, was the error of those who 
 " supposed that the flesh of Christ was void of all 
 " human infirmity." — p, 29. I clearly stated in 
 the Refutation, p. 59, that Christ experienced the 
 effects of sin, being touched with a feeling of our 
 natural infirmities, but I maintained that he had no 
 moral infirmities, and " Symson's History " will 
 not furnish Mr Drummond with an instance of 
 this sentiment being branded as heresy by the or- 
 thodox church. 
 
 " The present form of the heresy as inculcated 
 " by Messrs H. and T. is a branch of the Euty- 
 " chian, or Monophysite which was advanced by 
 " Julian of Halicarnassus in 519, who ' aflirm- 
 " ed that the divine nature had so insinuated itself 
 " into the body of Christ, from the very moment 
 " of the Virgin's conception, that the body of our 
 " Lord changed its nature, and became incorrup- 
 " tible.' " — p. 54. I clearly shewed in the Refu- 
 tation that 1 held there was no mixture in the na- 
 tures of our Lord Jesus Christ. He was at once 
 truly and perfectly God and man in one person. 
 The followers of Julian were charged with holding 
 that Christ did not suff*er in reality^ but only in 
 appearance^ hunger and thirst, pain and death. 
 This seems naturally to follow from his doctrine. 
 — " tlie ortliodox church has ever held that Christ's 
 
19^ 
 
 " manhood was the same as our manhood, namely, 
 " a manhood capable of sinning." — p.28. This ob- 
 servation is supported by a reference to four authors. 
 The first is from " Notes to Barker's Bible, on Rom. 
 " viii. 3. Christ did take flesh, which of nature 
 " was subject to sin." Mr Drummond ought to 
 have told us what edition of Barker's Bible he 
 means, for there are many, and the notes vary con- 
 siderably. My copy, 1599, has not the passage 
 quoted by Mr Drummond ; but in another edition, 
 1608, I find the words quoted, only he has quoted 
 partially. That his readers may judge of the sen- 
 timents of the annotator, I shall give the whole 
 note. " Christ did take flesh which of nature was 
 " subject to sin, which, notwithstanding he sancti- 
 " fied even in the very moment of conception, and 
 " so did appropriate it unto him that he might 
 " destroy sin in it." The same annotator says 
 on Luke i. 35, " He must be pure, and without 
 " sin, which must take away the sins of the 
 world." Thus we find that the " notes to Barker's 
 " Bible " teach the doctrine which I maintain in 
 opposition to Mr Irving, that while human nature 
 is subject to sin, Christ's human nature was sanc- 
 tified in the very moment of conception, and that 
 in his human nature he was pure and witljout sin. 
 In my edition, the note on " that holy thing, Luke 
 " i. 35," is still stronger. " That pure thing, and 
 '* void of all spot and uncleanness ; for he that was 
 " to take away sinne, must needs be voide of 
 " sinne." 
 
193 
 
 The second author quoted is Hooker. " Wisdom 
 — took that nature which is common to all'' Mr 
 Drummond ought to have specified from what parts 
 of the works of the authors liis quotations are taken. 
 Hooker, in the passage to which, I presume, refe- 
 rence is here made, although there is some varia- 
 tion, is proving that the word or wisdom of God 
 did not take to itself some person amongst men, 
 but " that nature which is common unto all." 
 That distinguished writer was very far from hold- 
 ing, that Christ's manhood was " a manhood cap- 
 able of sinning." He carefully distinguishes be- 
 tween Adam's nature, and the corruption of his 
 nature. 
 
 Adam is in us as an original cause of our nature, and of 
 that corruption of nature which causetli death ; Christ as 
 the cause original of restoration to life ; the person of 
 Adam is not in us, but his nature, and the corruption of 
 his nature derived into all men by propagation ; Christ hav- 
 ing Adam's nature, as we have, but incorrupt, deriveth 
 not nature but incorruption, and that immediately from 
 bis own person, into all that belong unto him. As therefore, 
 we are really partakers of the body of sin and death, received 
 from Adam ; so except we be truly partakers of Christ, 
 and as really possessed of his Spirit, all we speak of eter- 
 nal life is but a dream. That which quickeneth us, is the 
 Spirit of the second Adam, and his flesh that where- 
 with he quickeneth. That which in him made our 
 nature uncorrupt, was the union of his deity with our na- 
 ture. And in that respect, the sentence of deatli and con- 
 demnation, which only taketh hold upon sinful flc^sh, could 
 
no way possibly extend unto liim. This caused his vo- 
 luntary death tor others, to prevail with God, and to have 
 the force of an expiatory sacrifice. — p. 226. 
 
 Here we have in one of Mr Drumraond's authori- 
 ties, the doctrine for wliich I contend, that Christ 
 having Adam^s nature, as we haA^e, but incorrupt, 
 communicates incorruption from liis own person 
 to all wlio belong unto him. Mr Drummond quot- 
 ed Hooker to shew tliat Christ took that nature 
 which is common to all, and that this was " a man- 
 " hood capable of sinning." " By no means," 
 says Hooker, " Christ had Adam's nature, but in- 
 " corrupt, — the sentence of death and condemnation 
 " which only taketh hold upon sinful flesh, could 
 " no way possibly extend unto him." Is it pos- 
 sible more directly to contradict Mr Drummond's 
 statement ? Perhaps Hooker is one of the writers 
 to whom Mr Drummond refers, when he says, 
 
 Nor would any authorities have been brought forward, 
 seeing that confused expressions seeming to warrant a con- 
 trary conclusion, might be adduced also, had it not been 
 for the flippant manner with which they cry out " heresy," 
 as if their views had the undisputed sanction of every age 
 of the church, instead of having been formally and re- 
 peatedly condemned as heretical." — p. 54. 
 
 I ask in vain for an instance of these formal and 
 repeated condemnations. The fact is, that all the 
 writers quoted by Mr Drummond, condemn the 
 
195 
 
 sentiments which he defends in language the most 
 explicit and unambiguous ; but the same writers 
 speak of Christ taking on him our nature, our 
 flesh ; and Mr Drummond having arrived at the 
 conviction, that " the nature of every responsible 
 " creature is sinful,"— p. 39. immediately ranges 
 them on his side, and modestly tells us " that con- 
 " fused expressions, seeming to warrant a contrary 
 " conclusion, might be adduced also." The diffe- 
 rence between these seemingly contrary expressions, 
 is this : — These writers maintain the purity and in- 
 corruptness of our Lord's human nature, in terms 
 the most explicit; but on other occasions, when 
 they are merely referring to the reality of his man- 
 hood, they s}>eak of his assuming our flesh ; and 
 Mr Drummond taking advantage of their not on 
 every occasion insisting on the purity of his hu- 
 man nature, claims them as defenders of this novel 
 heresy, which is founded on the vain assumption, 
 that sin is an essential property of human nature. 
 
 Jerome, as quoted by Mr Drummond, says, that 
 Christ had taken flesh, which was disposed, or sub- 
 ject, to sin. " Suscepta postea came, qucB ad pec- 
 " candim esset proclivior" That our fallen nature 
 is disposed to sin, and that Christ took part with 
 his brethren in flesh and blood, is certain, but there 
 is nothing in this quotation to lead us to suppose 
 that Jerome held, that Christ's nature was dispo- 
 sed to sin. 
 
 But it will appear as we proceed, that Mr Drum- 
 
196 
 
 mond's quotations require to be scrutinized. Mr 
 Drunimond puts a full stop at prodivior. I turn to 
 Jerome, and I find only a comma, proclivior, ipse ta- 
 men absque peccato earn susceperit. So that instead 
 of saying that tlie flesh of Christ was sinful, Jerome 
 expressly informs us in the sentence quoted by Mr 
 Drummond, that he assumed flesh ivithout siyi. 
 What shall we say of such an artifice of contro- 
 versy ! It is impossible that Mr D. could have been 
 ignorant of the part of the sentence which is only se- 
 parated by a comma, from what he has transcribed. 
 But this is not all ; in the next sentence, Jerome 
 goes on : '^ Et idcirco dicitur in similitudinem car- 
 " nis peccati suscepta came venisse et peccatum in ea- 
 " dem came da?nnasse, quoniam carnem, qiiam susce- 
 " peratinnoxia servaveritab omni contagione peccati,^* 
 Again, " Dlcens in similitudinem carnis peccati os- 
 " tendit enim eandem quidem carnem; sed absque pec- 
 " cato portasse.^^ For by saying in the likeness of 
 sinful flesh, he shews that he bore the same flesh 
 indeed, but without sin. 
 
 The next authority is D. Heinsius, " Caro quce 
 " peccavit — eadem quce in nobis peccarat^ This quo- 
 tation is also adduced to prove " that Christ's man- 
 " hood was the same as our manhood, namely, a 
 " manhood capable of sinning." — p. 28. Any one 
 unacquainted with Heinsius, and judging by what 
 Mr Drummond chooses him to say, might doubtless 
 suppose that Heinsius maintains that Christ came 
 in sinful JlesJt, but let that author speak for himself. 
 
197 
 
 He says in reference to Bom. viii. 3. " e/ndtaux 
 " c-a^xo? est ipsa caro : etiamsi non nnn peccafo. The 
 " likeness of flesh is flesh itself, although 7wt iciih 
 " 5?/i," which is precisely the view I took of the 
 ])assage. I observed that the word likeness exclu- 
 sively applies to the epithet sinful, not to the word 
 flesh ; he came in real flesh, but only in the like- 
 ness of sinful flesh. Heinsius then refers to the 
 language of the Old Testament in proof of what he 
 had asserted, and proceeds, " '(jfAoiu^ot,(rgo a-oc^xos kf^u^- 
 " T<«5, similitudo carnis peccati, caro, qu(B peccavitr 
 Mr Drummond quotes the three last words of this 
 sentence separated from their connection, to lead 
 ns to believe that Heinsius held that the flesh of 
 Christ was sinful, although that author expressly 
 declares the contrary only two lines before ; and al- 
 though the words quoted by Mr D. contain Hein- 
 sius' explanation of similitudo carnis peccati. He 
 says, the likeness of sinful flesh means " of flesh 
 " which has sinned," and Mr D. quotes " caro quae 
 " peccavit," as the testimony of Heinsius to his 
 doctrine, that " Christ's manhood was the same as 
 " our manhood, namely, a manhood capable ofsin- 
 " ning." After these words, caro quse peccavit 
 quoted by Mr Drummond, Heinsius goes on : — 
 " Missus ergo Alius Dei iv of^oiui^cocvi c-x^x-oq, in simili- 
 " tudine carnis peccati ; id est in carne non pecca- 
 " trice, eadem tamen quae in nobis peccarat sive, 
 " polluta, non in ipso, sed in nobis. Naturam pec- 
 " cati, hoc est, peccatorum, Dei Alius suscepit pu- 
 
198 
 
 " ram quldem, seel ut iiostram, qua3 peccarat ex- 
 " piaret." Here we are told that tlie Son of God 
 was sent in tlie likeness of sinful flesh, that is in 
 flesh NOT SINFUL, yet the same which had sinned 
 in us : or flesh polluted not as it was in himself^ but 
 in us. The Son of God assumed the nature of sin, 
 that is of sinners ; pure indeed, but tliat he might 
 make expiation for our nature wliioh had sinned. 
 Can there be a more explicit testimony in favour of 
 the doctrine which Mr Drummond opposes? In 
 the course of seve?i lines, Heinsiusycz<r times repeats 
 that Christ's flesh was not sinful ; \st, he says it was 
 real flesh, but 7iot with sin ; 2nd, flesh not sivfid ; Bd, 
 polluted not in himself, but in us ; ^th, a pure na- 
 ture, that he miglit make atonement for ours ; and 
 from these seven lines, containing these four ex- 
 plicit declarations, has Mr Drunjmond quoted 
 eight words for the purpose of making us believe 
 that Heinsius maintains that Christ's flesli was 
 flesh which has sinned, — the same which had 
 sinned in us, " caro quae peccavit — eadem quae in 
 " nobis peccarat !" That this should be done by 
 any writer would almost appear incredible ; yet 
 such is the fact. Mr D. gives the three last w^ords 
 of a sentence, and then five words of another sen- 
 tence, passing over what is between, which con- 
 tains a positive contradiction of the doctrine which 
 Heinsius is quoted to establish. True, he puts a 
 hyphen between the three concluding words of the 
 one sentence, and the five of the other ; but the 
 
199 
 
 keeping out of view the testimony of tlie author, 
 given both positively and negatively against the 
 meaning which would naturally be attached to Mr 
 Drummond's garbled quotation, is altogether inex- 
 cusable. To this we may add, that he stops in the 
 middle of a sentence, the conclusion of which again 
 condemns the doctrine which Heinsius is called to 
 prove. Nor is this all ; Mr Drummond has omitted 
 the word tamen which occurs in the clause which he 
 quotes. " Eadem" tamen quce in nobis peccaraf' 
 The reason of this omission is obvious. Mr Drum- 
 mond wished us to believe, that according to Hein- 
 sius, Christ came in sinful flesh. This Heinsius 
 had expressly denied, saying, that the Son of God 
 came in flesh not sinful, yet, tamen, in the same flesh 
 which had sinned in us ; but as Mr Drummond had 
 omitted the clause to which tamen refers, he omit- 
 ted it also. Heinsius goes on to quote two passages 
 from Augustine, in one of which it is affirmed that 
 Christ's flesh was not sinful, " caro erat sed peccati 
 " caro non eratJ' In the other passage, Augustine 
 affirms that Christ did not transfer sin into his 
 flesh — but, notwithstanding, he transferred death, 
 that the punishment without the guilt might be in 
 the likeness of sinful flesh, " nt esset in similitU' 
 " dine carnis peccati, poena, sine culpa, Uiide in 
 " came peccati, et culpa solveretur et pcena'' 
 
 Mr Drummond also quotes Basil and TertuUian, 
 p. 60. as contradicting my statement, although Basil 
 merely says that God sent his Son in the likeness 
 
 R 
 
200 
 
 t>f sinful flesh, of the nature of man wlilcli had hcon 
 corrupted by sin, on account of that sin, that he 
 might abolish sin in our flesh : that he might con- 
 demn sin in his flesh. There is nothing here op- 
 posed to my statement. Mr Drummond has not 
 mentioned from what part of the works of Basil 
 his quotation is taken, or probably we should have 
 found a contradiction of his doctrine in the con- 
 text, but in looking for it I found the following 
 passage : " /^ sanctitate namque caro conglutinata 
 " dlgna quidemunigeiiiti divinitati fuit^^ which shews 
 that this Father considered sinful flesh unsuitable 
 for the divinity of the only begotten. Basil is also 
 quoted by Heinsius in the same page from which 
 Mr Drummond has taken his garbled quotation. 
 *' Ideo in similitudine carnis peccati natus dicitur, 
 " no7i enim in similitudine carnis, uf illis videtur, 
 " sed in similitudine carnis peccati^ Here Basil 
 opposes those v/ho said that Christ came in the 
 likeness of flesh, and states that likeness refers not 
 to flesh, but to sinful flesh. I find another passage 
 in which Basil says, " corpus assumpsit in virginali 
 " utero ut per carnem in similitudine esset peccati J* 
 He assumed a body in the womb of the virgin, that 
 through the flesh he might be in the likeness of sin. 
 " Basil," says Mr Drummond, " is quite as much 
 " to be followed as Mr Haldane." I shall be glad 
 to see Mr Drummond in this matter become a fol- 
 lower of Basil, as he was of Christ. Basil holds 
 that Christ came in the likeness of sinful flesh, to 
 
201 
 
 remove our sin, by the condemnation of sin in his 
 flesh, or by giving himself for us a sacrifice of a 
 sweet smelling savour. 
 
 Tertullian, as quoted by Mr Drummond, after 
 ha^ing said that it was no great thing, if in better 
 flesh, and of another, that is not of sinful nature, 
 he had removed the stain of sin, proceeds to guard 
 his readers against the very error which Mr Drum- 
 mond defends. " It may be said, if he assumed our 
 " flesh, was the flesh of Christ sinful? Do not strain 
 " the obvious sense ; for by assuming our flesh, he 
 *' made it his own ; making it his own, he made it 
 " not sinful. — In this flesh, like our sinful flesh, he 
 " accomplished salvation, for in this appears the 
 " power of God to accomplish salvation in a like 
 " substance." 
 
 Ergo inquit, si nostiam induit peccatrlx fuit caro 
 Christi? Noli constringeie explicabilem sensum ; nos- 
 tram enim induendo suam fecit : suam faciens non pecca- 
 tricem earn fecit. — In liac carrie, peccatrici nostrae simili, 
 salutem perfecit, nam et liaec eiit Dei virtus, iu substantia 
 pari perticere salutem. 
 
 I should have been surprised at this quotation, 
 which guards us against the very error which Mr 
 Drummond is endeavouring to establish, but we 
 shall see, as we proceed, that he repeatedly quotes 
 authorities which contradict his statements in the 
 most direct terms. This, however, is more ex- 
 
202 
 
 cusable than garbling Lis quotations, of which we 
 have another instance in what he adduces from 
 Tertullian. Mr Drummond says, hear again Ter- 
 tullian ; " defendimus autem non carnem peccati 
 " evaciiatam esse in Christo, sed peccatum carnis : 
 " non materiam sednaturam: non snbstantiam sedcul- 
 " pam — " and then goes on " nam neque ad pro- 
 " positum, &c. I turn to Tertullian and find, non 
 " materiam sed culpam ; secundum Apostoli au- 
 " toritatem dicentis ; evacuavit peccatum in carne. 
 " Nam et alibi, in similitudinem inquit carnis 
 " peccati fuisse Christum : non quod similitudinem 
 " carnis acceperit, quasi imaginem corporis et non 
 " veritatem, sed similitudinem peccatricis carnis 
 " vult intelligi. Quod ipsa non peccatrix caro 
 " Christi ejus fuit par, cujus erat peccatum ; 
 " gerere non vitio Adse quando hinc etiam con- 
 " firmamus eam fuisse carnem in Christo cujus 
 " materia est in homine peccatrix. Et sic in ilia 
 " peccatum evacuatum, quod in Christo sine pec- 
 " cato habeatur quae in homine sine peccato non 
 " habebatur." Then follows Mr Drum mond's next 
 quotation, " nam neque ad propositum." In the 
 passage omitted, we have the most explicit testi- 
 mony, that Tertullian understood the Apostle's 
 words, in the likeness of sinful flesh, to mean, not 
 the likeness of flesh, as an image is the likeness of 
 a body, but the likeness of sinful flesh, and that 
 sin was put away in that flesh which was sinless 
 in Christ, as it is not without sin in man. Tor- 
 
203 
 
 tullian also tells us that Christ took true flesh, 
 although not sinful, not by ordinary generation 
 " semine." He was disputing against those who 
 thought the flesh of Christ fantastical or side- 
 real. 
 
 Mr Drummond's next authority is Flavel, from 
 whom he quotes the following passage. " Jesus 
 " Christ did not only neglect the angelical, and 
 " assume the human nature, but he also assumed 
 <• the human nature after sin had blotted the original 
 " glory of it, and withered up the beauty and ex- 
 " cellency thereof. For he came not in our nature 
 «« before the fiill, whilst as yet its glory was fresh 
 " in it."— *Sm?i. 18. Fountain of Life. " These ex- 
 ''- pressions," says Mr Drummond, " as well as 
 " those of other authors which have been adduced, 
 " are as clear and decided as it is possible they 
 " should be upon a point to which the/^attention of 
 " the writers was not particularly called, by a 
 *« heresy having been broached in their days which 
 " required a direct refutation." — p. QQ» What 
 Flavel says is very true ; Christ did not come in 
 our nature before the fall, else he would not have 
 been a man of sorrows, nor would he have been 
 without form or comeliness. But does Flavel say 
 any thing of his human nature being corrupt, of his 
 flesh beins- sinful ? According to Mr Drummond 
 this could not be expected, because his attention 
 was not particularly called to the subject by the 
 lieresy which consists iu maintaining tluit Christ 
 
204 
 
 had " Adam's nature, but incorrupt." But the 
 matter is not so ; Flavel was aware that lie might 
 be misunderstood, and represented as holding the 
 very heresy which Messrs Drummond and Irving 
 have undertaken to defend, and he proceeds to 
 guard against such a misrepresentation. The first 
 sentence from Flavel, quoted by Mr Drummond, 
 is correct, excepting the italics with which he has 
 illustrated it, hut as he has stopped in the middle 
 of the second sentence, I shall transcribe the whole. 
 
 For he came not in our nature before the fall, whilst, as 
 yet, its glory was fresh in it ; but he came, as the Apostle 
 speaks, Rom. viii. 3. hi the likeness of sinful Jlesh, i.e. in 
 flesh that had the marks, and miserable effects, and conse- 
 quents of sin upon it. I say not that Christ assumed sin- 
 ful flesh, or flesh really defiled by sin. That which was 
 born of the virgin, was a holy thing. For by the power 
 of the highest (whether by way of manufacture, as some ; 
 or the energetical command and ordination of the Holy 
 Ghost, as others ; or by his benediction and blessing, I 
 liere dispute not) that whereof the body of Christ was to be 
 formed, was so sanctified, that no taint or spot of original 
 pollution remained in it. But yet though it had not intrin- 
 sical native uncleanness.in it, it had the effects of sin upon 
 it ; yea it was attended with the whole troop of human in- 
 firmities, that sin at first let into our common nature, such 
 as hunger, thirst, weariness, pain, mortality, and all those 
 natural weaknesses and evils that clog our miserable na- 
 tures, and make theni groan from day to day under them.* 
 
 • Flavel's Works, vol. i. p. 83. London, 1701 
 
205 
 
 Mr Drummond classes Flavel among tlie writera 
 whose attention had not been particuUirly called to 
 the subject, and yet bad he finished the sen- 
 tence which he began to quote, his readers would 
 have seen that the very reverse is the case. I sin- 
 cerely desire to justify Mr Drummond. I should 
 be glad to be able to reconcile such conduct with 
 the principles of " common honesty," but I am un- 
 able to do so. He has brought forward a writer 
 to oppose my sentiments, with whom I cordially 
 agree ; and in quoting his words, has stopped in 
 the middle of a sentence, alleging, that the testi- 
 mony of Flavel is as strong as could be expected, 
 since his attention had not been particularly called 
 to the subject, w^hile the conclusion of the sentence 
 demonstrates that he had it fully in view, and held 
 precisely those views of it which Mr Drummond 
 condemns as heretical ! 
 
 Archbishop Tillotson is another of Mr Dnim- 
 mond's authorities. He says, Christ " assumed 
 '' our vile, frail, and mortal nature. — He took hold 
 " of human nature when it wds/alling, — The Son 
 " of God caught hold of mankind, which was ready 
 '' to sink into eternal perdition." Mr Drummond 
 prefaces the quotation, by informing us, that frailty 
 " relates to the necessary quality in the soul of 
 " every creature, which, leads it to sin, as infirmity 
 denotes the same necessary quality in the body 
 *^ of every creature, which by that inlet, also leads 
 the man, body and soul, to sin." — p. 32. We hava 
 
206 
 
 already considered Mr Drummond's views on tbls 
 subject, and have only to observe, that, although it 
 is evident to him, that sinfulness is an essential 
 characteristic in every responsible creature, the 
 " march of intellect" in the Archbishop's days, was 
 not so advanced; and we learn from the Arch- 
 bishop himself, that by frailty, he means nothing 
 more than the natural weakness incident to fallen 
 man, of which we have an example in Christ 
 " being wearied with his journey," John iv. 6. I 
 shall quote some passages from Tillotson, which 
 will more clearly teach us how we are to under- 
 stand Mr Drummond's quotations. 
 
 He did not assume the angelical nature, but was con- 
 tented to be clothed with tlie rags of humanity, and to be 
 made in the likeness of sinful fleshy that is, of sinful man.* 
 
 Speaking of Christ as our judge, 
 
 — one in our own nature, who %vas made in all things like 
 nnto us, that only excepted, which would have rendered 
 him incapable of being our judge, because it would have 
 made him a criminal like ourselvep.f 
 
 So that two things were requisite to qualify him for this 
 purpose ; perfect innocency and obedience, and great suffe- 
 rings In our nature, even to the suffering of dea^).:}: 
 
 After quoting, 1 Peter i. 18, 19. 
 
 • Tillotson's Works, vol. iii. p. 72. 12mo. Edinburgh and 
 Glasgow, 1748. 
 
 I lb. p. 04, 105, 107. I The Italics are not mine, but the author*"*.. 
 
 I 
 
?07 
 
 Hereby intimating, that nothing less tlian the perfect 
 innocency and holiness of him who was to be a sacrifice 
 for us, could have expiated the guilt of our sins, and pur- 
 chased eternal redemption for us. — He voluntarily assum- 
 ing it, (our nature) and submitting to the condition of hu- 
 manity in its lowest and most miserable state, sin only 
 excepted.* — Why? did he not appear the first time without 
 sin ? Yes, certainly, a8 to any inherent guilt : for tho 
 Scripture tells us, he had no sin. — And if herein God hath 
 expressed his hatred of sin in such a wonderful way of 
 love and kindness to the sons of men, as looks almost like 
 hatred of innocency and his own Son. — As he was the 
 Son of Man, though he had natural frailties and infirmi- 
 ties, and was subject to hunger and thirst, weariness and 
 pain, like other men ; yet he had all the moral perfection* 
 belonging to human nature, without any of the evil incli- 
 nations and sinful frailties to which it is iucident.f 
 
 Sucli were Archbishop Tillotson's sentiments. 
 He tells us, Clirist was made in the likeness of sin* 
 ful men ; he had no inherent guilt ; he had every 
 moral perfection belonging to human nature, al- 
 though he had natural frailties and infirmities. 
 
 I have already remarked on Mr Drummond's 
 interpretation of the word frailty, as used by the 
 Archbishop. In the above quotations from his 
 works, thejustice of my observation is established ; 
 he explains frailties and infirmities as sjTiony- 
 mous, meaning weariness, pain, &c. while he main- 
 tains that he had every moral perfection. The 
 
 • Tillotson'u Works, p. 108. 115. 120. f Vol. viii. p. 235, 
 
208 
 
 quotations from Tillotson, who was so decided in 
 his opposition to the corruption of our Lord's hu- 
 man nature, would excite astonishment in an ordi- 
 nary case, but after what we have seen in the 
 quotations from Jerome, Heinsius, and Flavel, 
 Mr Drummond's conduct in quoting the Arch- 
 bishop excites no surprise. 
 
 I had said that Christ did not die by the common 
 property of flesh to die. — Ref. p. 68, To this Mr 
 Drummond opposes the words of Pearson on the 
 Creed, who affirms that he underwent a true and 
 proper death. I never doubted this ; I stated that 
 the end of his incarnation could only be attained 
 by his death. But as Mr Drummond has appealed 
 to Bishop Pearson, let us hear his sentiments on 
 the question at issue. Having said that no part of 
 the flesh of Christ was formed of any other sub- 
 stance than that of the Virgin, he proceeds, — 
 
 Whatsoever our original corruption is, however dis- 
 pleasing unto God, we may be from hence assured that 
 there was none in him, in whom alone God hath declared 
 himself to be well pleased. ' Who can bring a clean 
 thing out of an unclean,' saith Job ; a clean and undefiled 
 Redeemer out of an unclean and defiled nature? He whose 
 name is Holiness, whose operation is to sanctify, — the 
 Holy Ghost. Our Jesus was like unto us in all things as 
 born of a woman, sin only excepted, as conceived by the 
 Holy Ghost This original and total Banctification of the 
 human nature was first necessary to fit it for the personal 
 union with the word, who, out of his infinite love, hum* 
 
 I 
 
209 
 
 bled liimself to become flesh, and at the same time, out of 
 bis infinite purity, could not defile himself by becoming 
 sinful flesh. Secondly, The same sanctification was as ne- 
 cessary in respect of the end for which lie was made man, 
 the redemption of mankind : that, as the first Adam wai 
 the fountain of our impurity, so the second Adam should 
 also be the pure fountain of our righteousness. God send- 
 ing bis own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, condemned 
 sin in the flesh, (Rom. viii. 3.) which he could not have 
 condemned had he been sent in sinful flesh. The Father 
 made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin, that we 
 might be made the righteousness of God in him, (2 Cor. 
 V. 21.), which we could not have been made in him, but 
 that he " did no sin," (1 Peter ii 22.) and knew no sin. 
 For whosoever is sinful wanteth a Redeemer ; and he could 
 have*!'redeemed none, who stood: in need of his own re- 
 demption. "We are redeemed with the precious blood of 
 Christ, (1 Peter i. 19.) therefore precious, because of a 
 Lamb without blemish, and without spot. Our atonement 
 can be made by no other High Priest than by him who i« 
 holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate from sinners. 
 (Heb. vii. 26.) We cannot know that he was manifested 
 to take away our sins, except we also know that in him is 
 no sin. Wherefore, being it is so necessary to believe the 
 original holiness of our human nature in the person of our 
 Saviour; it is as necessary to acknowledge that way by which 
 we may be fully assured of that sanctity, his conception 
 by Holy Ghost.* 
 
 Here is the testimony of another orthodox writer 
 
 • Pearson on the Creed. Art. iii. p. 292-3. 8vo. London, 
 1821. 
 
210 
 
 " of eminence," quoted by Mr Drummond, who 
 uses almost precisely the same language which I 
 did in the Refutation, with which Mr Drummond 
 finds so much fault. 
 
 His next authority is Archbishop Usher, p. 68. to 
 prove that Christ must have had a human nature, 
 which might he subject to dissolution. This I never 
 doubted, and shall afterwards advert to Usher's 
 testimony on the question of our Lord's human 
 nature. 
 
 Mr Drummond also quotes Mr M'Lean of Edin- 
 burgh, p. 68. " to see whether he will bear Mr Hal- 
 ** dane out in saying that the. humanity of the Lord 
 " Jesus Christ was an immortal humanity." If 
 Mr Drummond does not know that I never said 
 this, he cannot have read the Refutation, but I 
 fully agree with Mr M'Lean, as quoted by Mr 
 Drummond, that Christ " assumed into personal 
 " union with himself a true human nature with all 
 " its essential properties, and natural, though sinless 
 " infirmities." Another passage from M'Lean, 
 which I would recommend to Mr Drummond, is 
 taken from the same Commentary, which he has 
 quoted, " He" (Christ) " was perfectly free of that 
 " depravity of nature which we derive from fallen 
 Adam." — Heb. iv. 15. 
 
 In the Appendix, Pvlr Drummond has given some 
 farther extracts, which it will be proper to examine. 
 The first is from Augustine which, so far as the 
 doctrine at issue is concerned, is very unobjection- 
 
211 
 
 able, and perfectly agrees with what I have main- 
 tained. 
 
 The second is from Archbisliop Usher. — " God 
 " and we were enemies before we were reconciled 
 " to him by his Son. He that is to be our peace, 
 " and to reconcile us unto God, and to stay this 
 " enmity, must have an interest in both the parties 
 " that are at variance^'' &c. Then follows Mr 
 Drummond's comment. 
 
 Oh, no, say jMessrs Haldane and Tliomson, tlie human 
 nature of Christ was never at variance with God ; they do 
 not deny that he had flesh and blood indeed, but assert 
 that it was much better flesh and blood than ours, and that 
 which was never at variance ; and argue at length, to prove 
 that if Christ had taken our nature, he could not have been 
 a Mediator, because he would have united sinfulness to 
 Deity.— p. 97, 98. 
 
 With the quotation from Usher, I perfectly agree. 
 Fallen man is alienated from God ; and in order 
 to reconcile us, the Son of God assumed our na- 
 ture, so that lie had an interest in both parties. But 
 I agree with Tillotson, Pearson, &c. that had the 
 human nature of Christ been accursed, and sinful, 
 and at variance with God, he would have needed 
 an atonement for himself, and could not liave made 
 atonement for others ; and I still affirm, that to 
 represent a corrupt and polluted nature to have 
 been brought into personal union with the divine 
 nature, is blasphemous and absurd. Mr Drum- 
 
 s 
 
212 
 
 mond also quotes the following passage from 
 Usher. 
 
 Again, if our Mediator — were a mere man, although he 
 liad been as perfect as Adam in his integrity, or the angels 
 themselves ; yet being left to himself, amidst all the tempta- 
 tions of Satan, and this iciched world, heshould be sub- 
 ject TO FALL as they were; or, if he should hold out, as the 
 elect angels did, that must have been ascribed to the grace 
 and favour of another : whereas the giving of strict satis- 
 faction to^God's justice, was the thing required in this 
 behalf. But being now God, as well as man, he by his 
 own eternal Spirit preserved himself without sp)ot ; pre- 
 senting a far more satisfactory obedience unto God, than 
 could have possibly been performed by Adam in his in- 
 tegrity. 
 
 " But," says Mr Drummond, " Mr Haldane, p. 
 " 49, directly censures Mr Irving, for saying, that 
 " the human nature of Christ was preserved pure 
 " and holy hy the power of the Holy Ghost." I 
 did, p. 49, censure Mr Irving for saying that all 
 wickedness was inherent in Christ, that his human 
 nature was fallen and corrupt, and that, conse- 
 quently, he had in him the root of all evil, although 
 it was repressed by the power of the Holy Ghost. 
 But notwithstanding this, I heartily subscribe to 
 the words of the Archbishop, illustrated as they 
 are, by Mr Drummond's italics and capitals. 
 
 We have seen that every one of Mr Drummond's 
 authorities have hitherto been most decided in con- 
 demning his doctrine. We shall now attend to 
 
213 
 
 the judgment of Archbishop Usher, in a passage 
 not quoted by Mr Drummond. 
 
 How manifold is the righteousnesse of our Saviour? 
 Twofold : original, and actual. What is his original 
 righteousnesse ? The perfect integrity and pureness of 
 his human nature, which in himself was without all guile, 
 and the least stain of corruption. Being very man, how 
 could he he without sin ? The course of natural cornip- 
 tlou was prevented, because he was not begotten after 
 the ordinary course by man, but was conceived in the 
 womb of a Virgin, without the help of man, by the imme- 
 diate power and operation of the Holy Ghost ; forming him 
 of the only substance of the woman, and perfectly sancti- 
 fying that substance in the conception. — Luke i. 34, 35, 
 42. So was he born holy, and without sinne ; whereunto 
 all other men by nature are subject. 
 
 "VVliy was it necessary that Christ should be conceived 
 without sin.** First, Because otherwise the Godhead and 
 manhood coyld not be joined together, for God can have 
 no communion with sinne, much less be united unto it, 
 which is sinful, in a personal union. Secondly^ Being our 
 Priest, he must be holy, harmlesse, undefiled, and perfectly 
 just without exception. — Heb. vii. 26. 1 John iii. 5. For 
 if he had been a sinner himself, he could not have satis- 
 lied for the siime of other men, neither could it be that 
 an unholy thing could make us holy. 
 
 What fruit then and benefit have we by his original 
 righteousnesse ? 
 
 First, His pure conception is imputed unto us, and 
 the corruption of our nature covered from God's eyes, 
 while his righteousness, as a garment, is put upon us.* 
 
 * Usher's Body of Divinity, p. 175. London, 1G53. 
 
214 
 
 In liis Immanuel, from which Mr Drummond 
 has quoted, the Archbishop says, — 
 
 And this also (his being born of a Virgin) was most 
 requisite as for other respects, so for the exemption of the 
 assumed nature from the imputation and pollution of 
 Adam's sin. For sin having by that one man entered in- 
 to the world, every father becometh an Adam unto his 
 child, and conveyeth the corruption of his nature unto 
 all those whom he doth beget. Therefore our Saviour 
 assuming the substance of our nature, but not by the or- 
 dinary way of natural generation, is thereby freed from all 
 the touch and taint of the corruption of our flesh, which, 
 by that means only, is propagated from the first man unto 
 liis posterity. Whereupon, he being made of man, but not by 
 man, and so, becoming the immediate fruit of the icomb.^nd 
 not of the loynes^ must of necessity be acknowledged to be 
 that HOLY THING, which so was born of so blessed a 
 mother * 
 
 Seven closely printed pages are next given from 
 Calvin's Institutes, entitled " Christ's Assumption 
 " of Real Humanity." Mr Drummond carefully 
 marks, by italics, or capitals, community of nature^ 
 REAL MAN, &c. as if those who deny the corruption 
 of our Lord's human nature, called in question his 
 assuming our nature, and being really a man. 
 
 In regard to Mr Drummond's former quotations, 
 it has been necessary to refer to the works of the 
 authors whom he has quoted, but the opinion of 
 
 * Usher's Imrnanuel, p. 5. London, 1G53. 
 
S15 
 
 Calvin is expressed with sufficient clearness in the 
 quotation with which Mr Drummond has furnish- 
 ed us, — 
 
 The absurdities with which these opponents wish to 
 press us are replete with puerile cavils. They esteem it 
 raean and dishonourable to Christ, that he should derive 
 his descent from men, because he could not be exempt 
 from the universal law, which concludes all the posterity 
 of Adam, without exception, under sin.* But the anti- 
 thesis which we find in Paul easily solves this difficulty ; 
 as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by 
 sin, even so by the righteousness of one, the grace of God 
 hath abounded.-]- To this the following passat^e corres- 
 ponds, the first man is of the earth earthy, the second man 
 is the Lord from heaven.:}: Therefore the same apostle, in 
 another place, by teaching us that Christ was sent in the 
 likeness of sinful flesh, |1 to satisfy the law, expressly distin- 
 guishes him from the common condition of mankind. So that 
 he is a real man, and yet free from all fault and corruption. 
 They betray their ignorance in arguing that if Christ be per- 
 fectly immaculate, and was begotten of the seed of ]Mary 
 by the secret operation of the Spirit, then it follows that 
 there is no impurity in the seed of women, but only in 
 that of men. For we do not represent Christ as perfectly 
 immaculate, merely because he was born of the seed of a 
 woman unconnected with any man, but because he was 
 SANCTIFIED BY THE SPIRIT. So that his generation was 
 pure and holy, such as it would have been before the fall 
 of Adam. And it is a fixed maxim with us, that wheu- 
 
 • Gal. iii. 22. t Rom. v 12, 15, 16. | I Cor. sv. 4^. 
 H Rom. viii. 3. 
 
ever the Scripture mentions the purity of Christ, it relates 
 to a real humanity, because, to assert the purity of Deity 
 would be quite unnecessary.— -Nor do we, as they pretend, 
 imagine two kinds of seed in Adam, notwithstanding 
 Christ was free from all contagion. For the generation of 
 man is not naturally and originally impure and corrupt, 
 but only accidentally so, in consequence of the fall. There- 
 fore we need not wonder that Christ, who was to restore 
 our integrity, was exempted from the general corrup- 
 tion.* 
 
 Really Mr Drummond is unfortunate in his 
 choice of friends. In the above passage, Calvin an- 
 swers an objection to Christ's deriving his descent 
 from men, because in that case " he could not be 
 " exempt from the universal law, which concludes 
 '' all the posterity of Adam, without exception, un- 
 " der sin," which he holds to be futile. He says, 
 that the apostle, by teaching us that Christ was 
 sent in the likeness of sinful Jiesh, to satisfy the law, 
 expressly distinguishes him from the common con- 
 dition of mankind, so that he is a real man, and 
 
 YET FREE FROM ALL FAULT AND CORRUPTION. 
 
 — " We do not," says Calvin, " represent Christ as 
 " perfectly immaculate, merely because he was 
 " born of the seed of a woman unconnected with 
 " any man, but because he was sanctified by 
 '' THE SPIRIT." Mr D. has printed the conclusion 
 of this sentence in capitals, as if it coincided with 
 his doctrine, that the power of the Spirit restrained 
 
 * Candid Examination, &c. p. 104, 105. 
 
217 
 
 tiie corruption of the human nature. But Calvin 
 maintains, that the human nature of Christ had no 
 corruption^ although he was a real man ; and this is 
 justly ascribed to his being conceived of the Holy 
 Ghost; he affirms that his generation was pure 
 and holy, such as it would have been before the fall 
 of Adam. I never dreamed of Christ's being im- 
 maculate, because he was born of a woman uncon- 
 nected with any man. I argued for the immacu- 
 lacy of his human nature, because it was produced 
 by the Holy Ghost, of the substance of the Virgin. 
 It is impossible to find a more explicit testimony 
 against Mr Drummond's doctrine, than is here 
 borne, by one whom he brings forward as an autho- 
 rity in his favour. But if on this occasion, Mr D. 
 has not acted wisely, he has acted honestly. He has 
 not, as in the case of Flavel, stopped in the middle 
 of a sentence, the latter part of which as fully con- 
 demns his system, as any thing which has been 
 said by his opponents. 
 
 Mr D.'s next quotation is from Matthew Henry, 
 which is brought forward " because the writer has 
 " a great reputation amongst Dissenters." After 
 saying that flesh is the meanest part of man, and 
 speaks man weak, and mortal, and dying, nay, 
 tainted with sin, he proceeds, "And Christ, though 
 " he was perfectly holy and harmless, yet appeared 
 " in the likeness of sinful flesh, Rom. viii. 3, and was 
 " made sin for us, 2 Cor. v. 6." Hence we learn, 
 that Henry held Christ to be perfectly holy, but 
 
218 
 
 that he appeared in the likeness of sinful flesh. Yet 
 Mr D. thinks this so much to his purpose, that he 
 confirms his authority by that of his editors, " who 
 " are therefore as justly cliargeable with heresy as 
 " their text, if the doctrine of Messrs H. and T., of 
 " Christ's coming in holy and immortal flesh be 
 " true." The rest of the quotation is very good, so 
 that both Henry and his editors are cleared of the 
 charge of heresy. 
 
 Let us now turn to Henry's note on Luke i. 35. 
 After stating that the formation of the child Jesus 
 was a new thing in the earth, Jer. xxxi. 22, he pro- 
 ceeds, — " The chikl she shall conceive, is a holy 
 ' thing, and therefore must not be conceived by 
 ' ordinary generation, because he must not share in 
 ' the common corruption and pollution of the hu- 
 ' man nature ; he is spoken of emphatically, that 
 ' holy ilmig, such as never was. — His human na- 
 ' ture must be so produced as it was fit that should 
 ' be, which was to be taken into union with the 
 ' divine nature." Again, " She shall conceive by 
 
 * \\\Q power of the Holy Ghost, whose proper work 
 
 * it is to sanctify, and therefore to sanctify the vir- 
 ' gin, for this purpose the Holy Ghost is called the 
 ' power of the Highest."'^ The same author on 
 
 Rom. viii. 3, in the likeness of sinful flesh, — " He 
 took upon him that nature which was corrupt, 
 though perfectly abstracted from the corruptions 
 
 * Henry's Commentary on Luke i. 35. 
 
21!) 
 
 » of it •• Here then we have Henry's explicit testi- 
 mony on the question at issue, whieh entirely com- 
 cides with what I have stated in the Refutation. It 
 MrDrummond thought proper to quote Henry, why 
 did he not quote what he says on the expression sin- 
 ful flesh 9 There is no dispute about the Lord com- 
 ing in the flesh, but this is of a piece with too many 
 of his other quotations. I am really at a loss to ac- 
 countTor Mr Drummond's conduct. He may say 
 that Calvin, Hooker, Usher, Pearson, and Henry 
 are liable to err ; but to give quotations from them 
 in opposition to the doctrine which they strenuously 
 defended, is really inexplicable. 
 
 The Appendix concludes with extracts from 
 
 Goode's Essays. 
 
 Mr Goode was Rector of Blackfnars. After 
 mentioning that Mr Saunders was his successor, 
 and Mr Howels his curate, Mr D. adds,-" These 
 " gentlemen must no doubt be exceedinglysurpnsed 
 " to hear the sentiments of their late friend, when 
 " brought forward by Mr Irving, branded as he- 
 " resy by the ignorance of this generation."— p. 94- 
 Here we are told that Mr Ir^'ing holds the same sen- 
 timents as Mr Goode on the subject of controversy. 
 Let us observe how Mr D. is borne out .n this as- 
 sertion, by his own quotations from Goode's Essays. 
 Of his mode of entrance into tins state of existence 
 and ours, the difference, which indeed is a very important 
 one, and which was necessary for its deliverance from the 
 contamination of our natural corruption, was his m.racu- 
 
2^20 
 
 lous conception by the power of tlie Holy Ghost, and not 
 by tlie common order of nature.* — When it is said, He 
 shall appear again without sin, it certainly implies that his 
 first appearance was, in some way, with sin, though not his 
 own.f — As the Lamb of God, he was without blemish 
 and without spot. In him there was no sin. This, in- 
 deed, was necessary to his taking upon him the sins of his 
 people ; for he who was exposed to death, as the conse- 
 quence of his own sin, could never have offered himself to 
 death for the sins of others. He, therefore, by his imma- 
 culate conception, was brought into the world without any 
 stain of sin ; nor can any sin rest upon him, but by way 
 of imputation, and as he voluntarily takes it upon himself 
 by way of mediation ; viewed however as our surety, our 
 sins lay upon him, and being in the fulness of time made 
 of a woman, made under the law, as soon as he appears in 
 such a character, in our nature, he appears with all the sins 
 of his people upon himself, and might well say, innume- 
 rable evils have compassed me about ; mine iniquities have 
 taken hold upon me, so that I am not able to look up : 
 they are more than the hairs of my head, therefore my 
 heart faileth me. These were the sins which he bore in 
 his own body on the tree, &c.| — The term (brother) is 
 no doubt expressive of the relation which he bears to his 
 people, by taking a body and soul of the very same nature 
 as theirs, in the very same state of debasement, alike in all 
 things but its pollution. § 
 
 Many other passages from Goode's Essays might 
 be quoted. 
 
 • Candid Examination, p. 107. f lb. p. 100. | lb. p, 110. 
 
 § lb. p. 112. 
 
221 
 
 The simple garment of pure linen, in which the priest 
 performed the great work of this day, represented the low- 
 liness of his human nature ; and at the same time, its un- 
 spotted purity, in which he offered himself the atonement for 
 our sins,* — the innocent lamb, which was the most usual 
 offering, represented the purity of his nature, which consti- 
 tuted his fitness for the work of atonement, and where, by 
 being sinless himself, he became a suitable offering for the 
 sins of others.-j- — As the Lamb of God, he is fitted by the Spi- 
 rit of God for his work, in the perfection and purity of his 
 human nature.^ — In his human nature, he possesses all the 
 excellencies and beauties of its perfect state. § — He, alone, 
 since the first man, Adam, ever bore the perfect proper- 
 ties and characters of human nature ;|| — 
 
 Thus we see that Mr Goode, so far from consi- 
 dering sinfuhiess as an essential property of human 
 nature, maintains that Christ alone, since Adam, 
 hore the perfect properties and characters of hu- 
 man nature, because he was pure and holy. The 
 same doctrine of the unsullied purity of our Lord's 
 human nature, is taught throughout Goode's Es- 
 says. I cannot help referring to the manner in 
 which Mr Drummond quotes him and other au- 
 thors, marking in italics and capitals, such pas- 
 sages as suit him, and not putting italics and capi- 
 tals, where they were used by the author. 
 
 Mr Drummond informs us, that the character of 
 
 * Goode's Essays, vol. vi. p. 267. t lb. vol. iv. p. 71. 
 
 t lb. p. 75. § lb. p. 86. II lb. vol. i. p. 443. 
 
222 
 
 INJr Goode was that of a " solid, plain, sensible di- 
 vine ;" I would therefore particularly recommend 
 his Essays to Mr Drummond : they are quite deci- 
 sive, as we have seen, against the heresy of the 
 pollution of our Lord's human nature, which has 
 been brought in " by the ignorance of this genera- 
 tion," not privily, but ostentatiously. Mr Drum- 
 mond may also profit much by his remarks on Im- 
 putation, which Mr Goode was too " solid" and 
 " sensible" to consider to be a figure. 
 
 This " Candid Examination" of Mr Drummond's 
 authorities, will enable his readers to form a more 
 accurate judgment of those who have " shewn 
 " themselves so ignorant of theology, as not to 
 " know, at least, that their opinions are contrary to 
 " almost every sound divine for a thousand years." 
 For my part, I could not " have predicated this 
 " ignorance ;" and really I shall not now be sur- 
 prised at " any other heresy being produced." 
 "When men quote authors as being favourable to their 
 views, who in the passages which they quote, con- 
 demn them as strongly as human language can do, 
 we need not be surprised at any thing which pro- 
 ceeds from the same quarter. If Mr Drummond 
 has supported heresy, alleging that it has been the 
 orthodox faith for a thousand years, he has fur- 
 nished an antidote in his quotations from Calvin 
 and Goode. He has summoned other witnesses, 
 who, understanding that the old heresy of the der 
 nial of our Lord's real humanity was revived, 
 
223 
 
 clicerfully came forward to defend tlie truth as it 
 is in Jesus ; but when they found tliat they were 
 called to support the novel heresy of the pollution 
 of the human nature of the Son of God, they in- 
 dignantly turned from those who had summoned 
 them, and with all the weight of their character, 
 their knowledge oC Scripture and of antiquity, bore 
 testimony to the faith once delivered to the saints, 
 that the human nature of Christ was equally free 
 from original impurity, and actual sin. It remains 
 to be seen what effect this will have on those who 
 have so unadvisedly entered the lists, and who have 
 attempted to defend a heresy, not only absurd in 
 itself, but opposed to every important doctrine of 
 the gospel of Christ. 
 
 The reader will now be prepared to form a due es- 
 timate of the accuracy of the following paragraph : 
 
 Other passages have been quoted in the course of this 
 Examination, and more will be found in the Appendix, and 
 then it will be seen, that on this single point of the raor- 
 taiitv, we have on one side, Mr J. Haldane, Dr A. Thorn- 
 son, Mr Cole, and Mr Came ; and on the other, St Augus- 
 tine, St Jerome, Hilary, Tertullian, Basil, Calvin, Usher, 
 Flavel, Henry, Maclean, Pearson, Hooker, Goode, &c. — 
 p. 69. 
 
 This is indeed a most respectable list. I have 
 not had an opportunity of consulting Hilary; a 
 single sentence of his is quoted by Mr Drummond, 
 
 T 
 
2^2i 
 
 p. 65. to which I see no objection : with regard to 
 every one of the others, they decidedly maintain tlie 
 sentiments for which I contend, and condemn Mr 
 Drunnnond's as clearly as it is possible. I once heard 
 it observed, that " any thing might be done by talk- 
 " ing ;" and on this principle, Mr Drummond and 
 INIr Irving appear to proceed. They have talked 
 themselves into the belief of a heresy, subversive 
 of the doctrine of Christ, and they seem to imagine 
 that their affirmations will prevail on others, not 
 only to forsake the doctrine of the word of God, 
 but in opposition to the clearest evidence to be- 
 lieve that all " orthodox writers" have held this 
 new and strange doctrine. 
 
 The following extract from " Dialogues on Pro- 
 phecy," will farther illustrate the system pursued 
 by this new school, for the dissemination of their 
 sentiments. 
 
 But by far the greatest and most important in that 
 itjai'ful catalogue, is the heresy wljich tlenies that tlie Son 
 of God became incarnate in flesh like oma, and asserts 
 that he took a better kind of flesh ; — 
 
 This heresy against the proper humanity of Christ is of 
 far more importance than any of, or tlian all, the absurdi- 
 ties which have been broached against the doctrine of the 
 kingdom of our Lord. It is a heresy with which the 
 church has not been infested since the destruction of the 
 (jreek branch of it by the Saracens, and that judgment 
 may teach us its exceeding hatefulness in God's sigljt. Is 
 is a heresy springing out of ihe church itself, and therefore 
 
QQ5 
 
 far more subtle than" the counterpart to it, which denies 
 the proper divinity of Christ, and which is found chiefly 
 amongst men who make no profession of orthodoxy. Those 
 who profess this latter, the orthodox have never been 
 glack in excommunicating; and all believers who will de- 
 liver tlieir own souls, must cast out those who profess 
 the former also. As yet only two clergymen of the Church 
 of England have been found publicly to espouse it ; and it 
 will make less progress there, because, for the most part, 
 they are better instructed; in the Church of Scotland it 
 has been avowed by two also ; but among the heads of 
 the dissenters it is making much more fearful progress.* 
 
 The boldness and recklessness of this language 
 are indeed astonishing. In the preceding pages 
 ample evidence has been adduced from the Fathers, 
 the Reformers, and various standard writers, that 
 the moral purity of our Lord's human nature has 
 been constantly and decidedly maintained by " or- 
 " thodox writers." We shall afterwards see that 
 Mr Vaughan admits Luther's ignorance of Christ 
 having a sinful body, and pretty plainly intimates 
 that the secret had been revealed to himself. We 
 need not, however, be surprised at what is said of 
 the dead, when we find it stated that only two 
 clergymen of the Church of England have espous- 
 ed the doctrine of the untainted purity of our 
 Lord's human nature. I have no doubt the clergy 
 of the Church of England will vindicate themselves 
 
 • Dialogues on Prophecy, vol. iii. Preface. 
 
'226 
 
 from the foul aspersion. We are also informed that 
 " in the Church of Scotland it has been avowed 
 " by two also." 
 
 Was the writer of the Preface ignorant that 
 every minister of the Church of Scotland has dis- 
 owned this heresy under the name of " Botirirpi- 
 " ioJiiS7n.^' I have not heard of one clergyman of the 
 Established Church in this country who disavows 
 what he so solemnly professed, and on the faith of 
 which profession he obtained ordination ; nor have 
 I heard of a minister of the Secession Church, or 
 of any other denomination, who has on this sub- 
 ject departed from the faith once delivered to the 
 saints : but I have heard many reprobate Mr Ir- 
 ving's sentiments in the strongest terms. How 
 desperate must be the cause which compels its 
 supporters to have recourse to a system of down- 
 right deception ? We have seen that all the au- 
 thorities claimed by Mr Drummond, as favourable 
 to this pernicious heresy, are decided in condemn- 
 ing it ; and here it is gravely asserted that ttvo have 
 avowed that doctrine to which «// have solemnly sub- 
 scribed. The cause of truth neither requires nor 
 admits of such a mode of defence. " We have re- 
 " nounced," says the apostle, " the hidden things 
 " of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness ; — our 
 " rejoicing is this, the testimony of our conscience, 
 " that in simplicity and godly sincerity, not with 
 " fleshly v/isdom, but by the grace of God, we 
 " have had our conversation in the world." Those 
 
227 
 
 who publish siicli statements as that contained 
 in tlie Preface, presume too far on what Mr Drum- 
 mond terms " the ignorance of this generation." 
 
 CONCLUSION. 
 
 I liave now considered Mr Drummond's " Can- 
 " did Examination" of this Controversy, which it 
 will not be easy to match in the history of pole- 
 mics. From beginning to end he has mistaken, or 
 misrepresented, the sentiments of his opponents. 
 It is hard to say whether his theology is most er- 
 roneous, or his metaphysicks most absm'd. In de- 
 fending Mr Irving's degrading and most unscrip- 
 tural view of Christ's human nature, he has main- 
 tained that sin is an essential characteristic of every 
 responsible creature. This is repeated in the paper, 
 No. 3, Morning Watch, which I have already no- 
 ticed. That paper is also anonymous, but botli 
 the style and the arguments prove its " identity" 
 in regard to authorship with the Candid Examina- 
 tion, and indeed both are well known to proceed 
 from the pen of Mr Drummond. He says^ — 
 
 Sin, tlierefore, is a nece&sary quality of creature, a« 
 much as conuntibiliTy is a necessary property ia iratter. 
 
228 
 
 In this way it is that ignorance and involuntary acts are 
 sins. When a responsible being proceeds to act, tlien lie 
 commits actual transgression. — Morning Watch, 494'. 
 
 Tliis is directly charging sin upon the Creator. 
 All his creatures are necessarily sinful ! Another 
 error in the above quotation is, that " corruptibility 
 " is a necessary property in matter." The mat- 
 ter of this world is under the curse of God, on ac- 
 count of sin, but matter, as produced by God, has 
 not the property of corruptibility ; like all his other 
 works, it was originally good. The following ex- 
 tract from Arrowsmith's " Chain of Principles, " 
 will shew that men " without a well-regulated 
 " head" have formerly advocated this blasphemous 
 absurdity, that God is the author of sin. 
 
 In the year of our Lord 1645, there was published in 
 London an English book, wherein God was expressly 
 made the author of his people's sins, though not without 
 Rome limitations. The Assembly of Divines, then sitting 
 at Westminster, took offence at this, (though some of 
 them being acquainted with the man whose name it bore, 
 were ready to say of him, as Bucholcerus did of Swenck- 
 feldius, that he had a good heart, yet without a well re- 
 gulated head,) complained of it to both Houses of Parlia- 
 ment. They both censured the said book to be burned 
 by the hand of the common hangman, and the Assembly 
 of Divines agreed upon a short declaration, neinine contra- 
 flicente, by way of detestation of that abominable and 
 blasphemous opinion, which was also published under 
 
229 
 
 that title, July 17, 1645, and in which we meet with 
 these amonf( other expressions. 
 
 That the most vile and blasphemous assertion, whereby 
 God is avowed to be the author of sin, hitherto by the 
 general consent of Christian teachers and writers, both an- 
 cient and modern, and as well Papists as Protestants, hath 
 been not disclaimed only, but even detested and abhorred. 
 — We are not for the reverence or estimation of any man's 
 person, to entertain any such opinions as do, in the very 
 words of them, asperse the honour and holiness of God, 
 and are by all the churclies of Christ rejected. * 
 
 This the Doctor inserts in perpetiiam ret memo- 
 riam. Can any words more directly asperse the 
 honour and holiness of God, than representing all 
 the creatures to whom he has given being, as ne- 
 cessarily sinful. This must proceed either from 
 deficiency of power, or from want of hatred of sin. 
 It does not signify whether sin is " an adjunct or 
 " a deficiency ;" if " sin is a necessary quality of 
 " creature," the Creator is the author of sin ; in 
 creating sinful creatures, he gave being to sin ! We 
 may judge of Mr Drummond's theology by his de- 
 nial of the reality of Christ's substitution for his 
 people ; of the imputation of their sins to him \ and 
 of his righteousness to them. He has thus done 
 wliat he could to remove the very foundation of 
 the gospel, and to destroy the ground of the be- 
 liever's hope. There was nothing in my Refuta- 
 
 • Chain of Principles, p. 3oy. Edinbur-h, 1823. 
 
230 
 
 tion more important tlian the statement that Mr 
 Irving's heresy was necessarily subversive of the 
 atonement. I quoted liis own words in proof of 
 this assertion, and shewed that he completely set 
 it aside. Why did not Mr Drummond examine 
 this part of the controversy ? Was he afi-aid that 
 believers were not yet prepared to follow him so 
 far; that some who had been led to deny the un- 
 sullied purity of our Lord's human nature, miglit 
 shrink from the next link of the " Chain of Prin- 
 " ciples ?" But to do Mr Drummond justice, in 
 denying substitution and imputation, he has sufli- 
 ciently discovered his opposition to " the present 
 " views of atonement." And in Mr Irving's paper in 
 the Morning Watch, the new system is exhibited in 
 all its naked deformity. This is one fruit of the 
 present controversy, and if any thing in the Refu- 
 tation has aided in the developement of this heresy, 
 I am thankful it was published. Those who hold 
 " the present views of atonement," must now be con- 
 vinced that Mr Irving preaches another gospel, and 
 it is no small matter in opposing error, to get to 
 the bottom of the system, which heretics, with 
 gi-eater prudence than honesty, generally endeavour 
 to conceal. 
 
 There is another subject on which candour ouglit 
 to have led Mr Drummond to shew his opinion. I 
 stated in the Refutation, that Mr Irving had dared 
 to charge him who is in the bosom of the Father, 
 with iGNORANTLY representing liis Second Coming 
 
Q31 
 
 as near at hand. I quoted the following passage 
 from Mr Irving : — 
 
 A little time he (Christ) thought it was to be, and a 
 little time his disciples expected it to be, and a little time 
 it is twice called in the Apocalypse ; but for our faithless- 
 ness have we been kept so long wandering in the wilder- 
 ness, because of the long-suffering of God, not willing that 
 any should perish, but that all should come to him and live. 
 
 My observation on this passage was, — 
 
 ' Here we are informed that Christ tlwught it was a little 
 time, and by the expression of this thought, misled his 
 apostles, and that the mistake is twice repeated in the 
 word of God. Mr Irving, however, makes the best of % 
 ascribing it to our faithlessness, and the long-suffering of 
 God, that the Lord's conjecture was not realized, that the 
 expectation of his disciples founded on his declaration, were 
 not fulfilled, and that the sacred record was at least twice 
 falsified, and, consequently, that all our confidence in what 
 Christians have hitherto believed to be a revelation from 
 the God of truth, is utterly subverted. — Ref. p. 67, 68. 
 
 It is true our Lord's human nature was not om^ 
 niscient; that he grew in wisdom, and in stature, 
 and that he tells us, " of that day and that hour 
 " knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are 
 " in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father," 
 Mark xiii. 32; but he also tells us, " He that rc- 
 *' jecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one 
 " tliatjudgeth him — ^ov I have not spoken of myself j 
 *' but the Father which sent me, he gave me a com,^ 
 
Q32 
 
 " mandment ivhat I should say, and lohat I should 
 ** speak,'' John xii. 48, 49. In obedience to this 
 commandment, Christ said to his apostles, " A 
 " little while and ye shall not see me ; and again a 
 " little while, and ye shall see me, because I go to 
 " the Father," John xvi. 16, and Mr Irving dares 
 to pronounce this declaration to have been made in 
 ignorance ! It was an ordinance in Israel, " When 
 *' a prophet spcaketh in the name of the Lord, if 
 " the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the 
 " thing which the Lord hath not spoken, but the 
 *' prophet hath spoken it presumptuously : thou 
 " shalt not be afraid of him," Deut. xviii. 22. The 
 Lord Jesus Christ, speaking in his Father's name, 
 declares that in a little while his disciples shall seci 
 him, and Mr Irving comes forward to tell us he be- 
 lieved what he said, that the apostles also believed it, 
 that it was twice given by the inspiration of the Holy 
 Ghost to the writer of the book of Revelation, (for 
 I presume he holds that book to have been inspired) 
 and yet it was untrue ! ! ! I cannot use language 
 sufficiently strong, to express my detestation of such 
 an infidel sentiment. 
 
 Why did not Mr Drummond advert to this part 
 of the controversy which he professed to examine? 
 Did he think his friend in the wrong, and on that 
 account did not notice it ? If so, it was not candid. 
 Perhaps, however, he thought him right, but that it 
 would be better not to enter on the subject. I can- 
 pot but suspect that this is the case, for Mr Drum- 
 
e33 
 
 mond avowediy liolds that thore were many tilings 
 of which our Lord was ignorant ! I liave already 
 adverted to liis denial of original sin, so that there 
 is hardly a fundamental doctrine of the gospel 
 which is not impugned hy this wild and unscriptu- 
 ral theory. 
 
 In the Append! V, Mr Druramou^ endeavours to 
 make the controversy a party question — " to the 
 " credit of the Church of England be it acknow- 
 " ledged, that no minister within her pale has been 
 " hitherto found so ignorant as not to know at least 
 " the orthodox creed upon this subject." — p. 94. It 
 IS one of the worst features in the management of 
 this controversy, that in defiance of evidence, Mr 
 Irving and his coadjutors affirm in the most confi- 
 dent manner, that the inherent corruption of the- 
 human nature of the Son of God has been held by 
 the orthodox in every age. If they really believe 
 this, it affords a most striking proof of the power 
 of prejudice, in blinding men on subjects the most 
 plain. We have seen that Mr Drummond quotes 
 Hooker, Usher, and Pearson, in support of Mr Ir- 
 ving's doctrine, thus endeavouring to persuade his 
 readers, that they must either embrace it, or op* 
 pose the most distinguished supporters of the 
 Church of England. By a reference to these au- 
 thors, I have shewn, that so far from giving coun- 
 tenance to the doctrine of the corruption of our 
 Lord's human nature, they maintain the very re- 
 verse in the most decisive terms. After this, al* 
 
^34 
 
 lliougli Mr Drummond had canvassed tlie wliole 
 body of the clergy, and reported that lie had not 
 found one so ignorant as not to agree with him, it 
 would not make the slightest impression on my 
 mind. He has quoted passages to support his sys- 
 tem, the language of which is not less strong than 
 that employed by his opponents. Wliile this gives 
 avery unsatisfactory view of the attention with which 
 he has examined the subject, it must weigh in favour 
 of his honesty, against which, other parts of his 
 Pamphlet, such as stopping in the middle of sen- 
 tences, and garbling his extracts, are calculated to 
 excite serious suspicions. 
 
 Were he to ask a clergyman, do you believe that 
 the Son of God actually assumed human nature ? and 
 received an answer in the affirmative, Mr D. would 
 immediately conclude, that as he must certainly 
 be aware that " sin is a necessary quality of crea- 
 ture," he could not but hold that Christ's human 
 nature was sinful. Mr Drummond brought for- 
 ward Hooker, Usher, Pearson, Flavel, and Hen- 
 ry, as witnesses in his favour; but on being cross 
 questioned, they gave evidence against him, as 
 distinctly as his opponents could have wished. 
 Was Mr Drummond aware of the consequence of 
 their testimony being sifted ? It would give me 
 *yreat pleasure to know, that this was not the case, 
 for although I should hold him to be very blame- 
 able for not having more carefully examined their 
 works, before quoting them in vindication of his 
 
235 
 
 sentiments, this is a far lighter charge than deli- 
 herately quoting authors as favourable to his views, 
 who, to liis knowledge, directly opposed them. 
 
 After this, the following sentence of Mr Drum- 
 mond's will weigh little with his readers. 
 
 Indeed, it is not long since a clerpryman of my acquaint- 
 ance, liaving occasion, within a very short period, to con- 
 verse with two bishops upon the subject, he could not in- 
 duce either of them to believe that there was any ordained 
 minister of the Church so ill instructed, in the mere ele- 
 ments of theology as to say that Clirist took unfallen, and 
 not fallen humanity; both of tliese Prelates justly observ- 
 ing, that such an opinion destroyed the work of the atone- 
 ment. — p. 94. 
 
 The opinion of counsel, however eminent, would 
 have little weight, unless we saw the case which 
 had been submitted for their consideration. If it 
 be a fact, that two Bishops hold that the human 
 nature of Christ w^as corrupt like ours, the Scrip- 
 ture furnishes us with a sufficient answer. " Great 
 " men are not always wise ;" but I am unwilling 
 to believe that either of the two Bishops referred 
 to, is so ignorant of the Scriptures, and of the 
 standard w^ritcrs of their Church, as to hold a doc- 
 trine which destroys " the work of the atonement." 
 After the experience we have had of Mr Drum- 
 mond's system of misquotation, the alleged opinion 
 of two anonymous Bishops, can have very little 
 weight. He has quoted two Archbishops in fa- 
 
 u 
 
'236 
 
 vourof his system, but having given their names, it 
 was speedily found that they utterly disclaimed 
 the alliance which Mr Drummond had courted. 
 Could we hear the real sentiments of the two 
 Bishops, I have little doubt the result would bo 
 the same. 
 
 In consequence of finding tliis heresy, as well as other 
 false doctrine, advanced in tlie Dissenting Magazines, many 
 orthodox Churchmen are refusing to contribute to the sup- 
 port of missions, and schools, wliich are uuder the direc- 
 tion of Dissenters. However highly we may value the 
 Church of England, it is our duty, likewise, to supj)ort 
 many Dissenting institutions, because, owing to the neglect 
 of our rulers, both temporal and ecclesiastical, there is no 
 possibility of the great body of the poor being taught 
 Christianity at all but by means of Dissenters. It has be- 
 come necessary, therefore, to distinguish between Dissen- 
 ter and Dissenter ; not to support any without ascertaining 
 the doctrines they inculcate ; and decidedly to refuse aid 
 to all who deny the true divinity of Christ, or who call 
 themselves the brethren of such as do ; or who dqny the 
 true humanity of Christ. — p. 94. 
 
 It is certainly proper to refuse all aid or co-ope- 
 ration with those who deny either the true Deity 
 or Humanity of Christ ; but the denial of the 
 true humanity of Christ, in Mr Drummond's vo- 
 cabulary, means, denying that his human nature 
 was corrupt, and in this sense, I maintain, no or- 
 thodox Churchman is of his opinion. 
 
 There is a circumstance mentioned by Mr Drum- 
 
 i 
 
^2Tl 
 
 mond, which will be very grratif) ing to the lovers 
 of truth. He not only disapproves of " Mr Ir- 
 " ving's expressions" on this subject, but tells us, 
 that he " never met with one of his friends who 
 *' did not lament over them ;" and that others, 
 " though fully agreeing with his doctrine — have 
 " dissuaded all persons wliom they could influence, 
 " from reading his Sermons upon the Incarnation 
 " at all."— p. 81. This is not a little mortifying; 
 Mr Ir ving's great theological work on the Incarna- 
 tion, was announced; expectation was on tiptoe 
 among his admirers ; at length the production of 
 three ponderous octavos, relieved the groaning 
 press; and, lo ! — all his friends lament over his ex- 
 pressions, and some of them use all their influence 
 to prevent the work being read. " The wise men 
 " arc ashamed, they are dismayed and taken ; they 
 " have rejected the word of the Lord, and what 
 " wisdom is in them ?" — Jer. viii, 9. 
 
 Mr Drummond disapproves of Mr Irving's style, 
 and classes him, on account of it, wiih the servile 
 herd of imitators. This, however, is but a foil, by 
 which his merits are illustrated, " he never handles 
 " a subject upon which the stamp of a great mind 
 " is not impressed, nor in a manner not to furnish 
 *• ' the theological babes' of the present generation, 
 " with abundant ground of petty attacks." — p. 81. 
 He even retracts his censure on Mr Irving's style. 
 " The Arians were very angry with the expressions 
 " of Athanasius, because their heresy was thereby 
 
238 
 
 " elicited, while tliey escaped detection by ordinary 
 " words." — p. 85. " It is perfectly obvious, that he 
 " (Mr Irving) has been enabled to develope, or rather 
 " so to write, as to make some professors of what is 
 " called evangelical religion, manifest a mass of in- 
 *' fidelity upon almost all the great essentials of re- 
 " velation, that no one would have believed to ex- 
 " ist, had it been previously asserted :" — p. 87. 
 This is all very well ; the system of puffing is per- 
 fectly understood. Mr Drummond puffs Mr Ir- 
 ving, and Mr Irving puffs Mr Drummond, and this 
 might be very harmless, and withal, very amusing, 
 were it not that the hearts of the simple are de- 
 ceived by these fair speeches. 
 
 In taking leave of Mr Drummond, I can assure 
 him, I have not been actuated by personal feeling 
 in replying to his Pamphlet. I consider him to be 
 engaged in opposing the doctrine of Jesus, and I 
 thought it my duty to warn believers against a no- 
 vel and destructive heresy, which is subversive of 
 the gospel of Christ. The arguments by which it 
 is defended are futile and inconclusive, but still 
 in some cases they may mislead " the ignorance of 
 this generation." The greatest danger of the he- 
 resy making progress, arises from the utterly 
 groundless but confident assertions of the antiquity 
 of the doctrine. 
 
 Never was an allegation more unfounded ; it has 
 not even the sliadow of truth. Not a respectable 
 witness can be produced in favour of this heresy. 
 We search for it in ancient times ; we arrive at 
 
^39 
 
 the period of the Reformation ; we descend to the 
 days in whicli we live, and no trace can be found 
 of such a doctrine, except among a few obscure 
 individuals. Not so liowever wlien we seek 
 authorities to rebut the daring assertions of our 
 opponents. In confutation of their heresy respect- 
 ing tlie humanity of our Lord, the stream of anti- 
 quity runs clear and undisturbed. We turn to the 
 Fathers ; in their eyes the idea of impurity, as con- 
 nected with the flesh of Chri-t, is blasphemous. 
 We turn to the Reformers, and we find them re- 
 pel with indignation ti.e thought tlutt even as 
 to his flesh, the man Christ Jesus was sinful, 
 except by imputation ; v^^e turn to that Church of 
 which Mr Irving slili calls himself a minister, and 
 by whose standards he is sworn to abide, and we 
 see how decidedly his error is condemned, and 
 stigmatised under the name of BGurlgnionism, which 
 all her ministers are required to renounce. 
 
 In 1701, Dr George Garden of Aberdeen, was 
 deposed for " being led away by the spirit of error 
 " and very gross delusion, and being infected with 
 *' the impious, blasphemous, and damnable doc- 
 " trines "of Madam Bourignon. His book was 
 entitled " an Apology for Madam AntoniaBourig- 
 " non." The commission in 1700 suspended him, 
 and their sentence was ratified by the Assembly, 
 which also deposed him. The seventh error of 
 Madam Bourignon was " asserting tite shiful cor- 
 ' ruption of Chrisfs human nature, and a rebellion 
 
 a 
 
'HO 
 
 " 171 Christ's natural ivill to the icill of God:' The 
 General Assembly earnestly recommended to all 
 Presbyteries to use all effectual means " to prevent 
 " the spread of the dangerous errors of Bourig- 
 " nionism." They directed all ministers to preach 
 against these errors where they exist, and Presby- 
 teries are enjoined to take care tbat all teachers 
 subscribe the Confession of Faith as their faith, and 
 failing to do so, they are to be declared incapable. 
 But this is not all. By an act of Assembly 1711, 
 the following question is to be put at the ordination 
 of every minister. " Question third. — Do you 
 " disown all Popish, Arian, Socinian, Arminian, 
 " Bowignianj and other doctrines, tenets, and opi- 
 " nions whatsoever, contrary to, and inconsistent 
 " VA^ith the foresaid Confession of Faith ?" This 
 question was answered in the affirmative by Mr 
 Trying, and yet he defends one of the most perni- 
 cious errors of this heretical lady. We open the 
 writings of the fathers of the Secession in Scot- 
 land, and with one voice they testify against the 
 heresy. 
 
 In vain will Mr Drummond look to the Church 
 of England for support. Her ablest and most ap- 
 proved writers bear ample testimony to the un- 
 sullied purity of our Lord's human nature. Of 
 this I have already given proof, and additional evi- 
 dence will be found in the Appendix. 
 
 We turn to the Dutch Church in the time 
 of its prosperity, before it sunk under the infidel 
 
2U 
 
 Neology, and its champions expressly, and by 
 name, denounce such notions as are now main- 
 tained by INIr Irving. We appeal to the Puri- 
 tan and Non-conformist Divines, and all without 
 exception, concur iii maintaining the true scriptu- 
 ral doctrine of the purity of Christ's humanity, in 
 opposition to llic unwarranted, not to say uncandid 
 and dishonourable appeal of our opponents. 
 
 The appeal to antiquity has proved indeed a 
 miserable refuge to Mr Drummondand Mr Irving. 
 Like a broken reed it has not only failed them at 
 the hour of need, but pierced them with a deep 
 and deadly wound. So far as regards the question 
 of antiquity, their cause is hopeless and irretriev- 
 able, and what but infatuation could induce them to 
 claim for themselves the approval of the church for 
 a thousand years— what but the same infatuation 
 viphich led the opponents of Luther — the upholders 
 of the Papacy, to quote Augustine as hostile to the 
 doctrines of grace ? 
 
 In 'the Morning Watch, Mr Irving quotes Luther 
 as agreeing with him in regard to the atonement, 
 than which nothing can be more unfounded. He 
 has not dared to say that Luther countenanced his 
 doctrine of the corruption of Christ's human na- 
 ture, but we have a very remarkable '• counter- 
 " statement " by the late Mr Vaughan, from whom 
 I believe Mr Irving got this, as well as most of the 
 other parts of his system, with which he has for 
 some time astonished his auditors. He informs 
 
212 
 
 us that " the Holy Ghost's impregnation gave him 
 " (Christ) a spotless soul ; the daughter of Adam 
 " gave him a sinful hod y ; thus he hccame the sin- 
 " less sinner." He proceeds, " into this depth of 
 " the mystery of Christ's person, of which the es- 
 " sential element is union, yet distinctness — it was 
 " not given to Lutlier to penetrate." Here we 
 find Mr Vaughan pretty clearly intimating that 
 the discovery of this mystery had been reserved for 
 himself. He was too honest to endeavour to sup- 
 port it by the authority of Lutlier ; he candidly 
 admits this was not Luther's doctrine. Mr Irving, 
 in the usual progress of error, has gone beyond his 
 teacher, and has discovered that Christ had not 
 only " a sinful body, but a fallen soul." 
 
 But tliis new and strange doctrine was not all 
 in which Mr Vauohan avowed that he differed from 
 
 CD 
 
 Luther, and, so far as appears, from all who pre- 
 ceded him. He tells us, 
 
 — he (Lutlier) was even obl'ged to give up the justice of 
 God (wliicli, both, verily and diyceniihly, is without a flaw in 
 this procedure) and to take refuge in a most pernicious false- 
 hood, that v/e know nothing- about God's justice, andinust 
 be contentto be ignorant wliat it is, till the day disclose it. 
 Why/ if justice, truth, and all other moral excellencies be 
 not in Him essentially v.hat they are in us, and according 
 to our spiritual conceptions of Him, Chaos is come again : 
 we know nothing — nothing of God — He has revealed hiiu- 
 eelf in vain.* 
 
 ♦ Preface to Luther on the Will, ?• Ix. 
 
X 
 
 Q4>3 
 
 The plain English of this language is, Luther 
 was content to be " a fool for Christ's sake." Mr 
 Vaughan was " wise in Christ." Luther was 
 " weak," he was " strong." Luther received the 
 kingdom of God " as a little child," believing, 
 that although God is possessed of truth, justice, 
 and every perfection, still his " judgments are a 
 " great deep," that he doeth great things past find- 
 ing out, having his way in the sea, and his path 
 in the great waters, so that his footsteps are not 
 known. He was satisfied that the Judge of all the 
 earth was doing all things well, and was contented 
 to wait for the day which shall fully declare his 
 righteousness. This system, however, did not suit 
 Mr Yaughan. Unless he understood every thing, 
 God " has revealed himself in vain." Mr Vaughan 
 has published a sermon, entitled " God the doer 
 " of all things," in which he tells us, that 
 
 God has brought certain of his moral creatures into a 
 8inful state, continues to stimulate tliem to the perpetra- 
 tion of sin, has wrought that they might fall, and wrought 
 so that they have fallen. 
 
 Such language is directly opposed to the infalli- 
 ble standard of truth. It is easy to get beyond 
 our depth on every subject, and then we flounder, 
 become the dupes of our own subtilty, and the 
 greater our acuteness, the more are we involved 
 in error. 
 
 In the hands of Mr Drummond and Mr Irving, 
 Mr Vaughan's system has become still more dis- 
 
gustlng. Mr Vaughan had also the candour to state 
 that his doctrine wasneiv. He did not attempt to sup- 
 port it bytheauthorityof Lutlier, whoheld "the pre- 
 sent views "of atonement," and had not learned that 
 imputation was a figure signifying that the Son of 
 God had partaken " in the fallen state of all the ma- 
 '^' terialism of the world;" " that it was by the union 
 " which subsisted between the man Jesus and all 
 " other creatures that the redemption of creation 
 " was effected ;" and that the atonement consisted 
 in reducing the Lord's human nature, which did 
 not differ, " by hov/ever little, from ours, in its 
 "alienation and guiltiness," into eternal harmony 
 with God. All this, " it was not given to Luther 
 '' to penetrate." The knowledge of these mys- 
 teries was reserved for our days. " Thus saith 
 " the Lord, stand ye in the ways and see, and 
 " ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and 
 " walk therein, and ye sljall find rest for your 
 " souls. But they said we will not walk there- 
 " in."_Jer. vi. 16. 
 
 This controversy involves all which is dear to 
 the Christian. Mr Irving's doctrine is calculated 
 to open the floodgates of infidelity. In the pre- 
 ceding pages I have noticed the striking similarity 
 of his system in various respects to that of the 
 Socinians. He denies that Christ was a priest while 
 upon eartl), and consequently he could not offer 
 a sacrifice for sin. Mr Irving has also adopted 
 the Socinian interpretation of what our Lord said 
 
245 
 
 to the dying thief, " Verily I say unto thee, to- 
 " day shalt tliou be with me in Paradise."* This 
 is one of these passages which clearly establishes 
 the consoling truth, that no sooner are believers 
 absent from the body than they are present with 
 the Lord, but the Socinians have represented our 
 Lord as saying, ''to-day, I say unto thee, thou shalt 
 '' be with me in Paradise." An interpretation ob- 
 viously so absurd and unnatural, could only be 
 adopted to countenance an unscriptural system. 
 Surely the thief did not require to be told that the 
 Lord's voice, which was sounding in his ears, was 
 uttered on that, and not on another dmj. Yet this 
 interpretation has been adopted by Mr L'ving. It 
 is unnecessary at present to enter on the erroneous 
 doctrine which he wishes to establish by the perver- 
 sion of this plain passage. 
 
 Mr Irving has affirmed that the Son of God as- 
 sumed our sinful nature— that every variety of hu- 
 man wickedness was inherent in his humanity— 
 that he had a law in his members warring against 
 the law of his mind, and consequently has repre- 
 sented him in whom the Father was always well 
 pleased, as habitually violating that law which 
 takes cognizance of the thoughts of the heart, as 
 well as of the external actions. Such a view of 
 the humanity of Christ is incompatible wilh his 
 making satisfaction for the sins of others, and this 
 
 • Lectures on the Book of Revelation. No. IV. p. 371. 
 
246 
 
 doctrine Mr Irving entirely rejects, alleging that it 
 represents God "in himself implacable to the sinner, 
 " until his Son, by bearing the sinner's strokes, 
 " doth draw off the revenge of God." Atonement, 
 he tells us, has no respect to the bearing of Christ's 
 work on the Godhead. He also maintains that our 
 connection with Adam is not " the cause of our 
 " original guiltiness in God's sight," but still the 
 rest of the family are brought " into being under 
 " the condition of soul, body, and estate, under 
 " which Adam was placed after Adam fell." He 
 teaches us that God shews by the death of Christ 
 for all men, " how much he loves mankind, and 
 " every one of the family. And then indeed the 
 " hatefulness of sin is shewn out tremendously, the 
 " natureof holiness and justice most awfully, when, 
 " notwithstanding this love, he judgeth them to 
 " eternal wrath for the guilt of their sins." From 
 these objects of God's very great love, he chooseth 
 " whom he pleaseth to choose ; and God's free will, 
 " unhampered by creation, and his glory to save, 
 " is also illustrated by the same act of election." 
 
 Mr Irving also denies that God could do a finite 
 action, such as the work of creation, without assum- 
 ing a finite form ; and seems to have adopted Mr 
 Vaughan's theory of the pre-existent humanity of 
 Christ. In addition to all this, he afiirms that 
 Jesus misled his disciples through ignorance, and 
 thus endeavours to falsify the Lord's declaration, 
 that he spoke as his Father gave him a commjind- 
 
ment. Finally, he describes the work of Christ as 
 PERILOUS ; after a severe and dangerous conflict, 
 God prevailed over the power " which is nearest to 
 " the power of God — so near to it," &c. Such is 
 this hideous and revolting system, it is " full of 
 " names of blasphemy." It is equally at variance 
 with reason and revelation, and is directly calcu- 
 lated to lead men to open infidelity. 
 
 When this Publication was on the eve of going 
 to press, I saw No. 4. of the Morning Watch, and 
 in the conclusion of the review of Dr Thomson's 
 Sermons, by Mr Drummond, I found the following 
 passage : — 
 
 — controversialists in general fasten upon some collate- 
 ral expression, to which a meaning is attached, directly at 
 variance, perhaps, with the main scope of the author, and 
 he is charged with holding opinions as ahhorrent to himself 
 as to his slanderous accuser. Of this we have a recent 
 example, in the dishonest attack upon Mr Irving by Mr J. 
 A. Haldane and his associate Cole. — p. 721. 
 
 I have repeatedly stated that I know nothing of 
 Mr Cole, except from his Pamphlet which I quoted 
 in the Refutation ; but I consider him to have been 
 most grossly and unjustly traduced, on account of 
 his conversation with Mr Irving, in regard to which 
 his conduct was unexceptionable. With respect to 
 this attack on myself, never was there a charge 
 more destitute of foundation. I began the Refuta- 
 tion, by stating what I had in view. " It is the 
 
 X 
 
^48 
 
 " object of tlie following pages to vindicate, by ati 
 " appeal to the word of God, the holiness and pu- 
 " rity of the human nature of Christ. This has 
 " been controverted both from the pulpit and the 
 " press, by Mr Irving, who affirms that the human 
 " nature of Christ was corrupt and sinful," — 
 Ref. p. 23. I then shewed, by quoting Mr Ir- 
 ving's writings verbatim, that I had not misrepre- 
 sented his doctrine, and proceeded to prove that 
 this was not the doctrine of the word of God. I 
 fastened on no " collateral expressions ;" I stated 
 " the main scope of the author," which was ex- 
 pressed in terms not to be misunderstood ; and in 
 proof that I did not misunderstand them, Mr Ir- 
 ving has since published a long paper in the Morn- 
 ing Watch, in defence of what I impugned. In 
 that paper he speaks of some who had surmised 
 that he leant " to Socinian views on the subject of 
 " the atonement." And probably Mr Drummond 
 refers to the same thing. But the charge, as it re- 
 respects me, is groundless : I surmised nothing ; I 
 quoted passages from Mr Irving's Discourses, 
 which I considered subversive of the atonement, 
 and gave my reasons for thinking so. And has Mr 
 Irving alleged that these were only " collateral ex- 
 " pressions" at variance " with the main scope of tlie 
 " author;" so far from it, that he now openly con- 
 demns " the sentiment, that the death of Christ was a 
 " satisfaction to divine justice," which, he says, re- 
 presents God ** as in himself implacable to the sin- 
 
249 
 
 " ner." This I consider a great approximation to 
 Socinianism ; but I never insinuated that Mr Irving 
 was unsound in regard to his faith of the union of 
 the divine and human natures in the person of 
 Christ. He professed to believe that the second 
 person in the Trinity became incarnate ; I never 
 suggested a doubt of his sincerity. He said Christ 
 did no sin : I charged him with no mental re- 
 servation ; but I shewed that the system which 
 maintained that there was a law in Christ's mem- 
 bers warring against the law of his mind, necessa- 
 rily involved his breaking the commandment which 
 enjoins on us not to " lust after evil things.''^ Mr 
 Drummond has attempted to answer my arguments 
 in his " Candid Examination," and now he resorts 
 to calling names, which I receive as an humble ac- 
 knowledgment of his conscious failure. 
 
 He shall not, however, escape so easily ; he has 
 brought against me a specific charge of slanderous- 
 ly and dishonestly misrepresonting Mr Irving's ar- 
 gument, fastening on collateral expressions, to which 
 I attach a meaning directly at variance with the 
 main scope of the author, and charging him with 
 holding opinions abhorrent to himself. If this 
 be true, the proof is easy, litera scrlpta manet. I 
 now call on Mr Drummond to substantiate his 
 charge. I affirm it is groundless, that it has not 
 the shadow of truth, that it is a fabrication, and I 
 challenge him to gainsay me. Mr Drummond, in 
 the course of his literary progiess, has come to a 
 
'250 
 
 point where three ways meet, and upon one of them 
 he must of necessity enter. There are doubtless 
 drawbacks and objections to each, but that is his 
 affair. He must either prove his assertion, or 
 publish a retractation, or bear the brand of deliberate 
 calumny. Of the comparative advantages of these 
 ways, he must judge. The first is not only ob- 
 structed, but impracticable ; the second looks rough 
 and uninviting ; and the third is at once disreput- 
 able and dangerous. 
 
 But there is something more connected with this 
 matter. Mr Druramond kneiv that I had detected 
 his misquotations and garbled extracts. He knew 
 I was about to publish on the subject ; he used every 
 means in his power to prevent the exposure ; he 
 offered to make a retractation of any thing in which 
 I considered myself improperly treated, and to stop 
 the sale of the " Candid Examination." This pro- 
 posal I declined, on the ground that the object of 
 my answer was not my own vindication, but to 
 counteract the erroneous doctrine published in the 
 Examination. I assured him at the same time, that 
 I never had any intention of descending to railing 
 or bitterness, although the style which he had 
 adopted, necessarily led me to repel personalities. 
 I stated, that had I been actuated by personal feel- 
 ings, the offer he had made of retracting what I 
 might point out, would at once have satisfied me ; 
 but that I considered the system which he upheld, as 
 a perversion of the gospel of Christ, which I would 
 
251 
 
 endeavour to counteract, although I felt it to be a 
 painful duty. It would now appear, that as soon as 
 he found he could not stop my publication, or induce 
 me to conceal the name of my opponent, he public- 
 ly charged me with slander and dishonesty. In 
 doing so, he has acted on the well-known principle 
 of a certain fraternity, who frequently attempt to 
 escape justice, by being first in the cry. 
 
 The whole of Mr Drummond's conduct in this 
 controversy has been very extraordinary. He seems 
 completely to have forgot himself. I have already 
 adverted to his personalities, and I have done so with 
 as great moderation and forbearance as I thought 
 consistent with duty. I denominated Mr Irving's 
 doctrine heretical, and I bore my testimony against 
 his extravagant speculations without any irritation 
 against him personally. Mr Drummond took up 
 the controversy, to which he gave a different turn, 
 intermingling the discussion of serious subjects 
 with the most disgusting levity, and with personal 
 taunts and reflections. After using the most inde- 
 cent freedom with the names of others, he attempt- 
 ed to prevent his own name from coming before the 
 public. Not that he concealed the circumstance of 
 his being the author of the " Candid Examination," 
 which doubtless he thought very clever. It had 
 the full benefit of his name ; it was sold as Mr 
 Drummond's Pamphlet, but he shrunk from the 
 thoughts of a Reply being addressed to Mr Drum- 
 mond. He and his friends argued that I had no 
 
252 
 
 right to name liim, because his Pamphlet was ano* 
 iiyraous ; as if he were entitled to attack me, and to 
 give his attack the influence of his name, although 
 it was not on the title-page, while I was to respect 
 the mask which he had assumed to stab me — as if 
 I were to compromise the interests of truth, by 
 foregoing the advantage of openly meeting my op- 
 ponent, instead of combating a shadow. Every 
 writer is responsible for what he sends to the press, 
 and if he dreads publicity, he ought to be particu- 
 larly cautious not to bring forward the names of 
 others, and also to conceal his own. 
 
 But to return to the charge of slander. Did not 
 Mr Drummond recollect, that if unable to substan- 
 tiate his charge, he would " stand convicted" of 
 slander? And by whom is the charge of dishonesty 
 advanced ? By a man convicted of the grossest un- 
 fairness in his quotations ; who stopped in the 
 middle of a sentence, observing that "these expres- 
 " sions are as clear and decided as it is possible they 
 " should be, upon a point to which the attention of 
 *' the writers was not particularly called, by a he- 
 " resy having been broached in their days, which 
 " required a direct refutation," while the conclusion 
 of the sentence condemns in the strongest terms, 
 the sentiments which Mr Drummond has advocated 
 on tlie point in question ! Here is a species of 
 *' dishonesty" the most unworthy and discreditable. 
 It admits of no apology ; it is a direct attempt to 
 impose on the public, and this in a controversy ou 
 
253 
 
 a religious subject ! Nor is tlic example which I have 
 given, the only one of the kind. In another quo- 
 tation, three words at the end of a sentence are 
 united to the conclusion of another sentence, while 
 the intermediate passage condemns what he wished 
 to impose on his readers, as the sentiments of the 
 writer whom he quoted. He has quoted Basil, and 
 Tertullian, and Jerome, as opposed to my views. 
 I have proved, however, that these writers held the 
 sentiments which I have advanced, and that Mr 
 Drummond must have known that tliey were di- 
 rectly opposed to him at the time he claimed them 
 as his allies. I have already adverted to these sub- 
 jects. I did it as temperately as was consistent 
 with regard to trutli, but INIr Drummond's last 
 attack has constrained me to state the matter fully, 
 that the public may judge of the weight of the 
 charge of slander and dishonesty which has been 
 brought against me by Mr Henry Drummond, 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 In the preceding pages, many testimonies have 
 been brought forward in proof of the immaculate 
 purity of our Lord's human nature, from the most 
 distinguished writers. A few additional passages 
 are now quoted, not to establish the truth of the 
 doctrine which stands upon the authority of the 
 word of God, but to prove, that, notwithstanding 
 the bold assertions of Mr Ir\nng and Mr Drum- 
 mond, this heresy may justly be termed novel. It 
 would be easy to swell this Appendix, but I have 
 confined myself to the testimony of a few well- 
 known writers. 
 
 LATIMER. 
 
 " You must not think, as the Arians did, that he was not 
 a very man, nor suffered very pains upon the cross, but had 
 a fantastical body. — Beware of this opinion, and believe 
 stedfastly that he was a very natural man, sin excepted. 
 
256 
 
 — Now I will shew you what man is of his own nature, 
 when left to himself; but I will not speak of that singular 
 Son of man which was Christ, for he had two natures in 
 unity of person. He was very God and very man, he was 
 a privileged man from all other men. That man never 
 sinned, therefore I speak not of him, hut of the nature 
 which mankind inherited of Adam after he had sinned. — 
 Now what is man, what is the nature of the son of Adam. 
 I speak not of Christ, for he was not born of the seed of 
 Adam." — Death had no right in him, because he was with- 
 out sin. 
 
 " Christ was born, as on this day, of the Virgin Mary, 
 and very man except sin : for sin had not defiled his flesh, 
 for he was not begotten after the manner of other men, but 
 by the power of the Holy Ghost." — Third Sermon on the 
 Birth of Christ. 
 
 CRANMER. 
 
 '^ " By this you may perceive how requisite it was that 
 Christ, God and man should be conceived by the Holy 
 Ghost, and born of a pure virgin. For if Christ should re- 
 deem us, and satisfy for our sins, then must he needs be 
 holy and without sin ; for if he had been guilty, and a sin- 
 ner, then could not he have holpen his own self, but he 
 must needs have had another Saviour and Redeemer for 
 him, as well as we have for us ; for wliatsoever he had 
 done or suffered, should have been worthily for his own of- 
 fences, and yet could he not have satisfied for himself, 
 much less then could he have satisfied for others. Where- 
 fore it was necessary (if he should satisfy for us) that he 
 ihould be conceived of the Holy Ghost, and born of a 
 
257 
 
 Virgin, that his nativity might be pure and not corrupt 
 as ours is-— that our corrupt and damnable nativity might 
 be purified and made holy by the lioly and pure nativity 
 of Christ. Tlierefore we say in the Creed, he ' was con- 
 ceived of the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary,' that 
 Christ being pure and clean from all sin, might redeem 
 dinners, and satisfy for them. 
 
 " —For seeing that Christ was that most innocent Lamb 
 that never was blotted with any spot of sin, and yet he suffer- 
 ed for us as a sinner ; it is evident hereby, that he died not 
 for himself, but took upon him our sins, and bore for us 
 the burden which we should have home." ~-Catechis?u, 
 A.D, 1548. Richmond s Fathers^ 8^^c. vol. iii. p. 223. 
 
 BISHOP HOOPER. 
 
 I believe that all this was done by the working of the 
 Holy Ghost, without the work of men, to the end°that ali 
 that was wrought therein, might be holy and without spot, 
 pure and clean, and that thereby our conception might be 
 made clean and holy, which, of itself, is altogether Spotted 
 and defiled with sin. I believe that Jesus Christ was born 
 of the Virgin Mary, without any manner of sin, and with- 
 out breach of her virginity; so that by his pure and holy 
 nativity, he hath purified and made holy ours, which, of 
 itself, is altogether unclean and defiled with sin. In thig 
 nativity of Chnst, I see and consider the first-estate and 
 condition of man, with his fall, which was the cause of 
 Christ's coming into this v^orU.-^BichmGJids Fathers 
 Tol. V. p. 441, 442. ' 
 
2SS 
 
 JOHN KNOX. 
 
 " And wliair hie inquyris what Chryst is, answer, he is 
 the seid of the woman promissit be God to break down 
 the serpentis hied, whilk hie hath done aheadie in him- 
 self, appealing iu this om' fleche, subject to all passiones 
 that may fall in this oure nature, onlie syn exceptit, and 
 after the death sufferit, he hath be power of his Godheid 
 risin agane triumpliant victour over deth, hell and syn, not 
 to himself, for thairto was he na dettour, but for sic as 
 thristis salvatioun by him only, whom he may na mair los, 
 nor he may ceas to be the Sone of God and Saviour of the 
 warld." 
 
 — For transgression of tlie commandement of God, cur 
 forefather Adam was exiled and banished forth of paradise, 
 and spoiled of the integrity, perfection, and all the excel- 
 lent qualities, dignities, and godlie vertues, with which he 
 was indued by his creation, made rebell, and disobedient 
 to God in his own default. And, therefore, he might not 
 fulfill the law to the perfection as the same required. For 
 the lawe remaining in the owne perfection, just, holye, and 
 oood, requireth and asketh the same at man, to be indeed 
 fulfilled. But all men proceeding from Adam, by natu- 
 rall propagation, have the same imperfection that bee had ; 
 the which corruption of nature resisteth the will and good- 
 ness of the law, which is the cause that wee fulfill not the 
 same, nor may not of our power and strength through the 
 infirmitie and weakness of our flesh, which is enemie to 
 the Spirit, as the Apostle saith." — M^ Cries Life of Knox, 
 Appendix, 534, 521, 1^^ JEdit. 
 
 It is evident that Knox, in speaking of all men proceeding from 
 Adam, by natural propagation, refers to the miraculous concep- 
 
250 
 
 tion of our Lord Jesus, who was free of the imperfection which 
 Adam had in consequence of his fall. 
 
 OWEN. 
 
 « It is therefore the holy purity of the nature of Christ 
 
 that is intended in this expression His nature was pure 
 
 and holy, absolutely free from any spot or taint of our 
 original defilement. Hence, as he was conceived in the 
 womb, and as he came from the womb, he was ro ctym, the 
 holy thing of God. All others, since the fall, have a pol- 
 luted nature, and are originally unholy. But his concep- 
 tion being miraculous, by the immediate operation of the 
 Holy Ghost, and his nature not derived to him by natural 
 generation, the only means of the propagation of original 
 defilement ; and as in the first instant of his being, he was 
 
 filled with all habitual seeds of grace, he was bm? holy 
 
 This holiness of nature was needful to him, who was to 
 answer for the unholiness of our nature, and to take it 
 away. — Had he not been innocent, and every way blame- 
 less himself, he would have had other work to do, than al- 
 ways to take care of our salvation." — On Heb. vii. 26. 
 
 God, in the human nature of Christ, did perfectly re- 
 new that blessed image of his on our nature, which we lost 
 in Adam, with an addition of many glorious endowments 
 which Adam was not ma Je partaker of. God did not re- 
 new it in his nature, as though that portion of it where- 
 of he was made partaker, had ever been destitute or de- 
 prived of it, as it is with the same nature in all other per- 
 sons. For he det-ived not his nature from Adam in the 
 same way that we do ; nor was he ever in Adam as the 
 public representative of our nature, as we were. But our 
 
 Y 
 
260 
 
 nature in him had the image of God implanted in it, which 
 was lost and separated from the same natme in all other 
 instances of its subsistence. — On tJie Person of Christ, 
 chap. XV. § 1. 
 
 WESTMINSTER CONFESSION. 
 
 " The Son of God — did, when the fulness of time was 
 come, take upon him man's nature, with all the essential 
 properties and common infirmities thereof, yet without 
 sin." — Chap. viii. § 2. 
 
 LARGER CATECHISM.— Question 37. 
 
 Christ, the Son of God, became man, by taking to him- 
 self a true body and a reasonable soul, being conceived 
 by the power of the Holy Ghost, in the womb of the 
 Virgin Mai'v, of her substance, and born of her, yet with- 
 out sin." 
 
 CALVIN. 
 
 " For as it behoved Him to be true man, that he might 
 expiate our sins, and overcome death and Satan in our 
 flesh ; in short, that he might be a true Mediator ; so it 
 was necessary that he might purify others, that he should 
 be without spot and impurity, Immunem esse ab omni 
 immunditia et macula,'^^Com. on Luke i. 35. 
 
 In answer to a question why the human nature of Christ 
 was not born according to the order of nature, it is an- 
 
261 
 
 swered, ' because that the seed ofman is of itself altogether 
 con-upted with sinne, it behoved that this conception of 
 Christ should be wrought by the power of the Holy Ghost, 
 whereby our Saviour might be preserved from all corruption 
 of sinne, and replenished with all manner of holiness.'" — 
 Catechism, Quest, 33. 
 
 WITSIUS. 
 
 " We observed that the second condition required in 
 the surety was, that he be a righteous and holy man in all 
 things, like unto his brethren, yet without sin. — Heb. iv. 
 15. This holiness required, that from the first moment 
 of his conception, be should be free from all guilt and 
 stain of sin of his own ; and, on the contrary, be endowed 
 with the original rectitude of the image of God." — Earn, 
 of Covenants, Vol. I. p. 251. 
 
 " We by no means intend that this holy conception and 
 nativity of Christ can suflfice to cover the impurity of our 
 nature, separately from the other parts of his obedience 
 and righteousness. But we consider it as the first part of 
 the entire righteousness of Christ." — On the Creed, Vol. II 
 p.3J. 
 
 GOMAR. 
 
 " Of whose righteousness, namely, that of Christ, there 
 are two parts, a habitual and original righteousness of 
 nature, and an actual and perpetual righteousness of life. 
 The former of these is opposed to our original, and the 
 
262 
 
 latter to our actual unrighteousness." — JVitsms on Creed, 
 Vol. II p. 29. 
 
 CLOPPENBURG. 
 
 " We have said, too, that this holiness of the human 
 nature, which was perfect from its conception, and exact- 
 ly holy according to the divine law, interposes, by its 
 merit, betwixt an offended and infinitely holy God and 
 sinful man, alienated from the life of God." — Witsius on 
 Creed, Vol. 11. p. 30. 
 
 MASTRICHT. 
 
 On the question, how Christ could be born pure from a 
 mother who was tainted with sin, he says, '•' he was free 
 of all taint of original sin, because he was not federally 
 in Adam "-^-TheoloffT/, p. 506. 
 
 " The flesh or human nature does not here signify car- 
 nal corruption, as John iii. 6. Rom. vii. 5. which can in 
 noway belong to the Mediator God-man." — Theologi/j 
 p. 36. 
 
 FRANCIS TURRETINE. 
 
 " Hence, though Christ was descended from sinful 
 Adam, he did not take sin from him, either imputed or 
 inherent : because he did not descend from him in virtue 
 
263 
 
 of the general promise, increase and multiply, but ia 
 virtue of the special promise concerning the seed of the 
 woman." — Listitutmies Theolog'xcc, p. ii. 3S7. 
 
 BUCER. 
 
 " The above doctrine of original sin condemns the 
 sentiments of the Flacians, who teach that original sin 
 is not an accident, but that it is human nature itself, 
 and that the substance is con-upted contrary to that of 
 Paul. — Rom. vii. 21. Sin clings to me, and, contrary to 
 those testimonies which teach that God, even after the 
 fall, is the author of human nature; also those passages 
 which teach that Christ took our nature and substance, 
 and that he redeemed man, not sin." — Institutions, 
 p. 167. 
 
 Here the fundamental error of Mr Irving 13 condemned, that 
 sin is not an accident of our nature, but the very nature itself. 
 A little before, Bucer asks, What does original sin deserve ? He 
 answers,— eternal damnation, with all the evils of this life, p. 166. 
 Now, let us recollect, that this is the language of a writer who, in 
 the title of his book, professes to expound the articles of the Chris- 
 tian religion, not only from the word of God, but in accordance 
 with the orthodox sentiments of the most excellent theolo^^ians. 
 
 PISCATOR. 
 
 '• Finally, the third requisite of the Mediator was that 
 he should be a holy man, free of all taint of sin, and this 
 that he might be both a holy priest and a holy victim. The 
 apostle lemarks this when he says that the Son of God 2oas 
 
26i 
 
 sent in the likeness of the flesh of sin, that is in flesh which 
 is indeed like to the flesh infected with sin, nevertheless is 
 not infected with sin, but pure and holy." — On Rain. viii. 3. 
 
 TILENUS. 
 
 " Had there been any sin (avofna) in Christ, the ana- 
 logy of the comparison which the apostle, Rom. v. 14, in- 
 stitutes between the first and second Adam would not 
 hold. Because as from the one is derived sin with destruc- 
 tion, so from the other righteousness with salvation. — Nor 
 could he have been a proper victim for the sins of others, 
 if he had needed any oblation and expiation for himself. — 
 He also says, that sin does not belong, (as an essential 
 property) to human nature, because the devil, not God, is 
 the author of sin. Again, he tells us that Christ received 
 no taint of original sin from the first Adam." — Disputa- 
 tions in tJie University of Sedan, 
 
 LAMPE. 
 
 '■■'■ Christ was made flesh because he appeared in the 
 humblest form of men, although not in sin, yet in a form 
 like flesh obnoxious to sin." — On John i. 14. 
 
 BODEUS. 
 
 " Christ is most holy and most pure {sanctissiimts et 
 purissimusJJ'-^On the Ephesians, 
 
265 
 
 BOSTON. 
 
 " The Redeemer of the world behoved to be so born, 
 as not to derive the stain of man's nature by his genera- 
 tion." — Body of Divinity^ vol. i. p. 439. 
 
 Speaking of the extent of Adam's sin. It extended not 
 to the man Christ. Adam's breaking of the covenant was 
 not his : he sinned not in Adam as the rest of mankind 
 did. Though he was born of a woman, he was born sin- 
 less. — He came to destroy the loorks of the devil, 1 John 
 iii. 8. and to take away si?i, John i. 29, which he could not 
 have been fit for, if he himself had been one of the sinful 
 multitude. If he had needed a sacrifice for himself, he 
 could not have been an atoning sacrifice for us. He was 
 indeed a son of Adam, — and it was necessary he should be 
 so, that he might be our near kinsman, to redeem us ; that 
 man's sins might be expiated by man's sufferings, and so 
 justice might be satisfied of the same nature that sinned- 
 But x^idam was not the man Christ's federal head, nor was 
 he comprehended with him in the covenant of works ; foras- 
 much as he did not come of Adam, in virtue of the blessing 
 of fruitfulness given to the man and woman before the fall, 
 but was the seed of the woman only, born by virtue of a 
 spiritual promise made after the breach of the covenant of 
 works. So the breach of that covenant could not be im- 
 puted to him, or counted his, by virtue of his relation to 
 Adam." — Covenant of Works, p. 100, Edin, 1798. 
 
 EBENEZER ERSKINE. 
 
 " If the human nature were a person, then he would 
 have two persons as well as two natures : but this is an 
 
^dd 
 
 error long since condemned ; and the expression in the 
 text bears that it was only the nature, therefore called the 
 seed of Abraham ; agreeable to this is that, Luke i. 35, 
 ' That holy thing which shall be born of thee :' It is not 
 that holy person, but that Jwly thing, viz. the innocent na- 
 ture of man, consisting in a true body and reasonable 
 soul." — Sermon xii. vol. ii. 
 
 FISHER. 
 
 '• Why was Christ born of a virgin ? That the human 
 nature miglit be found again in its primitive purity ; and 
 presented to God as spotless as it was in its first creation, 
 free from the contagion of original sin, which is conveyed 
 to all Adam's posterity, by natural generation. 
 
 Was it necessary that Christ should be conceived and 
 horn without sin ? It was absolutely necessary ; both be- 
 cause the human nature was to subsist in union with the 
 person of the Son of God ; and likewise because it was to 
 be a sacrifice for sin, and therefore behoved to be without 
 blemish, Heb. vii. 26"—Catechis77i, Quest. 23, 24, p. 133. 
 
 ADAM GIBB. 
 
 '' The human nature was assumed by him in a state of 
 ])erfect holiness — his human nature derived no corruption 
 from the first man ; it was absolutely holy in the concep- 
 tion thereof." — Sacred Contemplations. 
 
 BRADBURY. 
 
 " He (Christ) had no part in the defilement of our na- 
 
267 
 
 ture ; for though he was in all points tempted as we are, 
 yet sin is excepted. And therefore it is observed that he 
 was made sin for us, loJio knew nosing — Mystery of God' 
 linesSy vol. i. p. 215. 
 
 PICTET. 
 
 " It was absolutely necessary that the human nature of 
 Jesus Christ should be pure, and without sin ; how could 
 the most holy have dwelt in an impure habitation ? How 
 could he have united himself personally with a defiled na- 
 ture ? But above all, how could he have expiated our sins 
 by his sacrifice, if he himself had not been free from sin ? 
 And how could his sacrifice have been well pleasing to 
 God, if he had not been a lamb without spot ? There was 
 then an absolute necessity that the Holy Spu'it should pu- 
 rify the flesh of the virgin by his power, and that from that 
 substance thus purified, he should form the human nature 
 of Jesus Christ, and the everlasting tabernacle of the most 
 holy. It was Bezaleel who made the first ark, but it was 
 the Holy Spirit wlio constructed the second." — Chrisiian 
 Theology, vol. i. p. 573. 
 
 CHARNOCK. 
 
 " Christ had no sin, none actual, 7io guile was found in 
 his mouth, 1 Pet. ii. 22, nor original, that was stopt by his 
 extraordinary conception by the Holy Ghost, which ren- 
 dered him immaculate." — vol. ii. p. 865. 
 
 " He was like us, and in that had what was necessary 
 for a sacrifice ; but sin excepted, and in that he wanted 
 
26S 
 
 what would hare made him uncapable of effecting our re- 
 demption. It was necessary that we should have such a 
 surety and satisfier, as was not only innocent, but im- 
 mutably so ; that could not by any means be bespotted by 
 sin ; and that the apostle intimates, Heb. vii. 26, holi/, 
 harmless, undefiled, separate from sinnersy and from sin. 
 Had he only been holy, without being immutably so, the 
 election of God had not stood firm." — p. 941, 
 
 GILL. 
 
 " The effects of this union, (the divine and human na- 
 tures,)— .with respect to the human nature. — Perfect ho- 
 liness and impeccability: it is called the holy thing; it 
 is eminently and perfectly so ; without original sin, or any 
 actual transgression ; it is not conscious of any sin, never 
 committed any, nor is it possible it should." — JBodi/ of 
 Divinity, p. 275. 
 
 " — being produced in this extraordinary and supernatural 
 way, by the power of the Holy Ghost, that which was born 
 of the Virgin is the holy thing, free from all spot and 
 blemish of sin." — p. 276. 
 
 FLAVEL. 
 
 " His sanctifying himself, implies his pure and perfect 
 holiness ; that he Jutd no spot or blemish in him. — Every 
 other man hath a double spot on him ; the heart spot and 
 the life spot ; the spot of original, and the spots of actual 
 sins. But Christ was without either, he had not the spot 
 of original sin, for he was not by man : he came in a pe- 
 
269 
 
 culiar way into the world, and so escaped that; nor yet 
 of actual sins ; for as his nature, so his life was spotless and 
 pure. Is. lui. 9 He did m iniquity ; and though tempted 
 to sin externally, yet he was never defiled in heart or prac- 
 tice ; he came as near it as he could for our sakes, yet still 
 without sin, Heb. iv. 15. If he sanctify himself for a sa- 
 cnfice, he must be such as the law required, pure and 
 spotless. — 
 
 Let it be considered, that U was not offered up to God 
 for his oivn sins, for he was most holy. Isa, liii. 9 No 
 iniquity was found in him. Indeed, the priests under the 
 \B.w oflfered for themselves, as well as the people; but 
 Chnst did not so, Heb. vii. 27. He needed m>t daily, a, 
 those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own 
 Sim, and tJwnfor the people's. And indeed, had he been 
 a sinner, what value or efficacy could have been in his sa- 
 cnfice ^ He could not have been the sacrifice, but would 
 have needed one. Now, if Christ were most holy, and yet 
 put to death, and cruel sufferings, either his death and suf- 
 ferings must be an act of injustice and cruelty; or it must 
 respect others, whose persons and cause he sustained in 
 that suffering capacity. He could never have suffered or 
 died by the Father's hand, had he not been a sinner by im- 
 putation. And in that respect, as Luther speaks, he was 
 the greatest of sinners; or, as the Prophet Isaiah speaks, 
 all our sins were made to meet upon him : not that he was 
 80 intrinsically, but was made so by imputation, as is clear 
 from 2 Cor. v. 21."— Vol. i. p. 28. 
 
 Here we see that Flavel's " attention" was particularly called 
 to this point, not - by a heresy having been broached" in his days, 
 but by seeing, that if the immaculate purity of our Lord's human 
 nature was denied, it set aside the atonement. 
 
270 
 
 PALATINE CATECHISM, Question 35. 
 
 " That the very Son of God, who is, and abideth true 
 and everlasting God, did, through the working of the Holy 
 Ghost, take the very true nature of man, of the flesh and 
 blood of the Virgin Mary, so that he is also of the true 
 seed of David, like unto his brethren in all things, sin 
 excepted. 
 
 Dr hill. 
 
 " He is preserved (by the miraculous conception) from 
 the contamination adhering to the race, whose nature he 
 assumed." — Lectures, Vol. ii. p. 261. 
 
 BEART. 
 
 " His nature was every way conformed to the law, 
 psalm xl. 8. The law is within my heart ; than which 
 nothing could be more expressive of perfect rectitude of 
 nature, and that in conformity to the law. He was not 
 born in sin, as others are, Luke i. 35. because, not being 
 naturally in Adam's loins, he was no head to Christ, who 
 therefore was not concerned in Adam's covenant, or the 
 transgression of it." — Vindication of the Eternal Law, and 
 Everlasting Gospel, p. 80, London 1813. 
 
 ROMAINE. 
 
 " He was not only great and good, but had also one 
 thing peculiar to himself, that no sinful frailty or weakness 
 
^^71 
 
 ever sullied liis greatness or his goodness. He was a per- 
 fect man.— the holy Jesus had no sin ; and consequently, 
 none of the imperfections which sin has brought upon us. 
 — Judge, then, how perfectly immaculate be must have 
 been : for who is there among us, that has not had a thou- 
 sand, yea, ten thousand vain and wandering thoughts? 
 W ho does not find them passing through his mind against 
 his will. — But Christ's pure and spotless mind never ad- 
 mitted one vain thought. He was the very image of God, 
 in which the first Adam was made, and he did not deface it 
 as the first Adam did, but he kept it holy and undefiled.— 
 Happy for us, Satan could find in him no part of our fal- 
 len image."— PFor^^, Vol. v. p. 170, 171. 
 
 TOPLADY. 
 
 " Such is the heart of man, but not such is the heart of 
 Christ. Though he was tempted in all points, even to ido- 
 latry and self-murder, yet was he totally without sin. He 
 came forth brighter, but not purer, from the furnace; 
 brighter, because his gi-aces were rendered more conspi- 
 cuous by the fiery trial ; but not purer, because he had no 
 moral dross to lose. When Satan tempted Christ, it was 
 like striking fire upon ice ; or upon a wave of the sea ; 
 there was nothing in his sinless nature for the sparks to 
 ^ lay hold on ; but every thing that could resist and quench 
 them. All the adversary's efforts on the Messiah's integ- 
 rity, were like aiTOws shot at the firmament ; or as an ex- 
 cellent person expresses it, resembled ' the motions of a 
 ' 8ei7)ent on a rock ; where they can make no impression, 
 ' nor leave the least dent or trace behind them.— But on 
 * us they are as the trailing of a serpent on sand or dust, 
 
 z 
 
272 
 
 * they make a print, and leave some stain on the imagina- 
 ' tion, at least, if not on the heart." — GiirnalVs Christian 
 Armour, see Topladys Works, Vol. iii. p. 70. Lond. 1825. 
 
 BARROW. 
 
 " He did, I say, truly become man, like unto us in all 
 things, as the apostle saith, sin only excepted ; consisting-, 
 as such, of all the essential ingredients of our nature ; en- 
 dued with all our properties and faculties, subject to all 
 passions, all infirmities, all needs adherent or incident 
 to our nature and condition here. — 
 
 So it appeareth that the Son of God,) co-eternal and co- 
 essential with his Father,) became the Son of Man ; truly 
 and entirely partaking of the nature and substance of man, 
 deficient in no essential part, devoid of no property be- 
 longing to us ; exempt from no imperfection or inconve- 
 nience consequent upon our nature, except only sin ; the 
 which is not a natural, so much as a moral evil ; did not 
 arise from man's original nature, but proceedeth from his 
 abused will ; doth rather corrupt, than constitute a man." 
 IF(?r;fe^,Vol. iv. p.536,537. 
 
 PRESIDENT EDWARDS. 
 
 — " his conception being supernatural, by the power of 
 the Holy Ghost, he was both conceived and born without 
 sin." — History of Redemption, p. 199. Edinr. 1793. 
 
 — " his heart was perfect, his principles were wholly 
 right, there was no corruption in his heart." — Jb, 216. 
 
 " There are conjoined in the person of Christ, infinite 
 
273 
 
 worthiness of good, and tlie greatest patience under suffer- 
 ings of evil. He was perfectly innocent, and deserved 
 no suffering."— ^<>rw?o« on the Excellencij of Christ, 
 \>.211. Eclin. 17S0. 
 
 Dr ERSKINE. 
 
 " He assumed a true body, subject to hunger, thirst, 
 weariness, and other common sinless infirmities ; and a 
 reasonable soul, susceptible of fear, anger, sorrow, compas- 
 sion, and every other innocent affection and passion of hu- 
 manity." — Discourses, Vol. i. p. 333. 
 
 DWIGHT. 
 
 " The word /w/y, in this passage, (Heb. vii. 26.) natu- 
 rally denotes the positive excellence of Christ's character ; 
 the word Jiarmless, an absolute freedom from the guilt of 
 injuring and corrupting others ; the word undejiled, his free- 
 dom from all personal conniption ; and the phrase separate 
 or separated from sinners, the entire distinction between 
 him and all beings who are, in any sense or degree the sub- 
 jects of sin. The character here given of Christ by the 
 apostle, includes, therefore, all the perfection of which, as 
 an intelligent being, the Saviour was capable." — Sijstem of 
 Theology, p. 409. 
 
 SCOTT. 
 
 Speaking of the miraculous conception, he says, *' Thus 
 the promised seed would properly be made of woman. 
 
and partaker of human nature, without the pollution of 
 sin, which is common to all otliers descended from fallen 
 Adam." — Commentary on Luke i. 34 — 38. 
 
 " Though free from sin, he became subject to those in- 
 firmities to which, through sin, we are exposed — he was 
 punished by the Father as our surety, as if he had been 
 the greatest of sinners." — On Bom. viii. 3. 
 
 HAMMOND. 
 
 — " God sent his own Son in the likeness of flesh, that is, 
 in a mortal body, which was like sinful flesh, (and differ- 
 ed nothing from it, save only in innocence), and that on 
 purpose that he might be a sacrifice for sin." — Com. on 
 Horn. viii. 3. 
 
 GUYSE. 
 
 " As therefore the fruit of thy body, which thou shall 
 bring forth, shall be formed in this miraculous manner 
 out of thy flesh, that it may not come under the ordinary 
 law of generation, to involve it in the common apostacy 
 of mankind, under Adam, their public head ; and, as that 
 holy individual of human nature shall have its personal 
 subsistence only in union with the eternal Son of God, 
 it shall be called by his name." — Co?n. on Luke i. 23. 
 
 — " Christ appeared in the likeness of sinful Jiesh, as 
 he was attended with all the natural human infirmities of 
 infancy and weakness, pain and poverty, hunger and 
 thirst, mortality and death, which are the fruits of sin ; 
 and with external appearances of depravity in his circum- 
 
275 
 
 cision, legal purification, (see Note on Luke ii. 22. ) Bap- 
 tism and reproachful sufferings under the curse of the 
 law." — Note on Rom^ vfii. 3. 
 
 BISHOP BURNET. 
 
 ♦' That Christ was holy, without spot and blemish, 
 harmless, undefiled, and separate from sinners; that there 
 was no guile in his mouth ; that lie never did amiss ; but 
 ivent about always doing good, and was as a lamb without 
 spot, is so oft affirmed in the New Testament, that it can 
 admit of no debate. This was not only true in his rational 
 powers, the superior part called the spirit, in opposition 
 to the lower part, but also in those appetites and affec- 
 tions that arise from , our bodies, and from the union 
 of our souls to them, called the flesh. For though in 
 these Christ having the human nature truly in him, had 
 the appetite of hunger in him, yet the devil could not 
 tempt him by that to distrust God, or to desire a miracu- 
 lous supply sooner than was fitting ; he overcame even 
 that necessary appetite whensoever there -was an occasion 
 given him to do the will of his heavenly Father. He hac] 
 also in him the aversions to pain and suffering, and the 
 horror at a violent and ignominious death, which are 
 planted in our natures ; and in this it was natural to him 
 to wish and to pray that the cup might pass from him. 
 But in this his purity appeared the most eminently, that 
 thoudi he felt the weight of his nature to a vast degree, 
 he did, notwithstanding that, limit and conquer it so en- 
 tirely, that he resigned himself absolutely to his Fathers 
 will : not my will, but thy ivill be done — On Article kv. 
 
^276 
 
 Many other names might be added, but this is 
 unnecessary. Besides the aboA^e, I have given the 
 explicit testimony of Augustine, Jerome, Tertul- 
 lian, Basil, Heinsius, Hooker, Charnock, Usher, 
 Leighton, Tillotson, Henry, Pearson, M'Leau, and 
 Goode, on this most important subject. Yet Mr 
 Drummond tells us, that '' passages are to be found 
 *' abundantly clear to shew, that nearly all ortho- 
 '• dox writers of eminence have ever held, that the 
 " humanity of our Lord was not that of unfallen 
 " Adam, but that of his fallen mother," — p. 66. 
 There may be a quibble in this ; "all orthodox 
 " writers of eminence have ever held" that Christ 
 was a man of sorrows, enduring the consequences 
 of the fall, and in this respect he was not in the 
 state of " unfallen Adam;" but they have with 
 equal clearness affirmed, that he had in his human 
 nature no taint of pollution from his " fallen mo- 
 " ther." 
 
 The reader will now be able to estimate the ac- 
 curacy as well as modesty of a writer who could 
 indite the following sentence : — 
 
 In the examination of the differences betu'^een liim and 
 Dr T. on the one side, and Mr Ii'\'ing and the orthodox 
 church on the other, the tiling which is calculated to ex- 
 cite the greatest surprise, is, that such men as Dr T. and 
 Mr H. so long leaders of different sects of the religious 
 world, should have shewn themselves so ignorant of tiieo- 
 logy, as not to know, at least, that their opinions were con- 
 trary to almost every sound divine forthe last thousand years. 
 
277 
 
 It We could have predicated this ignorance, then we should 
 not have been surprised at this or any other heresy being 
 produced ; but we had no conception that the theology of 
 the leaders of the religious world had sunk to so low an 
 ebb. — p. 66, 67. 
 
 The language of this paragraph must excite the 
 astonishment of every reader, after the overwhelm- 
 ing confutation it has received in the preceding 
 pages. It argues a degree of recklessness of asser- 
 tion which is unaccountable. After all Mr Drum- 
 mond's vapouring, what is the result of his " Can- 
 did Examination" of this subject — that he has not 
 been able to produce one writer who sanctions 
 his system. 
 
 Another observation naturally arises from the 
 testimonies which have been adduced. Almost all 
 the writers connect the purity of our Lord's human 
 nature with the efficacy of his sacrifice, which they 
 unanimously held to have been a satisfaction to di- 
 vine justice, and thus they bear a decided testimony 
 to the truth of what Mr Irving sneeringly calls 
 " the present views of atonement." 
 
 FINIS. 
 
EDINBURGH : 
 
 raiXTKD BY ANDERSON AND BRYCE. 
 
^ 
 
 M^ 
 
 Princeton Ttie0lO9ical Seminary-Speef Library 
 
 ^ 1 1012 01008 3576