Dear Brother: The copy of Mr. Grant’s new book you sent has reached me, and I have looked over it to ascertain its main points. I have made a few simple notes on it which I now copy for you.
The first chapter is entitled “Life in Christ.” It is not a question of our being in Christ, or of our having all our blessings in Him; but of how we are in Him. Mr. Grant’s first proposition is that “we are in Christ by virtue of the life we have in Him.” Let this statement be weighed, and kept well in mind; for it is the keystone of the arch on which his system rests, and if it fails the system built on it fails also. He has definitely formulated a proposition to express a subject in controversy. Others have taught that life, immense blessing that it is, does not, considered in itself, give us position in Christ. Hence the author’s proposition might be stated in stronger language without doing him any injustice. He really affirms that we are only in Christ by virtue of the life we have in Him. It is admitted that we are in Christ; he affirms that we are in Him by virtue of life, as against those who would say that we are in Him by some other of the divine acts.
I have gathered most of the passages in the epistles in which persons are said to be in Christ. They are Rom. 8:1,16:7; 1 Cor. 1:3030But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption: (1 Corinthians 1:30); 2 Cor. 5:17,12:2; Gal. 1:2222And was unknown by face unto the churches of Judea which were in Christ: (Galatians 1:22); Eph. 1:1,2:13; Phil. 1:1,141Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons: (Philippians 1:1)
14And many of the brethren in the Lord, waxing confident by my bonds, are much more bold to speak the word without fear. (Philippians 1:14) [in the Lord], 4:21; Col. 1:2; 12To the saints and faithful brethren in Christ which are at Colosse: Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. (Colossians 1:2) Thess. 1:1,2:14 [assemblies]; 2 Thess. 1:11Paul, and Silvanus, and Timotheus, unto the church of the Thessalonians in God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ: (2 Thessalonians 1:1); 1 Peter 5:1414Greet ye one another with a kiss of charity. Peace be with you all that are in Christ Jesus. Amen. (1 Peter 5:14). There may be some others, but these suffice my present purpose.
My first remark on these passages is, that there is not a syllable to indicate that persons are said to be in Christ by virtue of the life they have in Him. I need not quote them, for you can easily examine them for yourself. I only take one or two as an illustration. “There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus” (Rom. 8:11There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. (Romans 8:1)). I understand the phrase, “them which are in Christ Jesus,” to mean simply Christians in the ordinary sense in which God’s Word describes a Christian. I see them described very sweetly in Romans 1:6-76Among whom are ye also the called of Jesus Christ: 7To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ. (Romans 1:6‑7). The author, as we know, is very fond of talking about life, and quickening; would he, or any other, venture to put “quickened ones” instead of “them which are in Christ Jesus”? I venture to say he would not do so. No one with the Word of God before him would venture to say a quickened one and a Christian are synonymous. Take also 1 Corinthians 1:3030But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption: (1 Corinthians 1:30), “But of Him are ye in Christ Jesus.” It is simply Christians. So also “a man in Christ” (2 Cor. 12:22I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) such an one caught up to the third heaven. (2 Corinthians 12:2)), is Paul’s description of himself as a Christian. So much for the passages which speak of persons being in Christ.
I am aware that the author takes his stand on Romans 6, and finds in it the stronghold of his system. He says of his first proposition: “It is plainly stated, ‘Reckon yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, and alive unto God, in Christ Jesus’ “ (Rom. 6:1111Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord. (Romans 6:11), Greek); and again, “ ‘The gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord’ (Rom. 6:2323For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. (Romans 6:23)).” I ask, is it not plainly stated here? “Reckon yourselves... alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord,” or “in,” as it may be rendered from the Greek. “In,” or “through,” is perfectly immaterial to me for my present purpose. Is reckoning ourselves alive unto God in Christ Jesus the new birth, and our being in Him? I answer most assuredly it is not. First, as to life through new birth, it is not a matter of reckoning at all. We are born of God, and know it; and humbly and thankfully confess it. We have only to compare many passages which speak of this subject, to see that reckoning does not come in at all. To introduce it would pervert their meaning. The Holy Ghost has put the language of certainty and divine assurance into the mouths of believers. Second, as to our being in Christ, reckoning is again out of place. “No condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus.” “But of Him are ye in Christ Jesus.” It is not a matter of reckoning at all. I am a man in Christ, and so describe myself, just as Paul describes himself.
Reckoning has its divinely appointed place and meaning, and is the right word in Romans 6:1111Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord. (Romans 6:11); yet, as we have seen, it does not apply either to the new birth, or to our being in Christ. If God is speaking to us as saints, as believers, and the question is, shall we continue in sin, or get the victory over it, He tells us that we died with Christ as to sin, and are alive unto God in Him, and here the reckoning of faith comes in. It is a truth we receive on His testimony. It is not experience, or knowing that we have passed from death unto life because we love the brethren. In spite of my experiences that may go to contradict it, I make this reckoning, and by it get power over sin.
Romans 6:2323For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. (Romans 6:23) does not touch our author’s proposition at all. We must recall it for the sake of clearness. It is, “that we are in Christ by virtue of the life we have in Him.” The apostle says: “For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through [or in] Jesus Christ our Lord.” Now this affirms nothing about our being in Christ at all. Eternal life and all God’s good gifts are certainly in Christ, even to the supply of our creature needs. Philippians 4:1919But my God shall supply all your need according to his riches in glory by Christ Jesus. (Philippians 4:19), “But my God shall supply all your need according to His riches in glory by [in] Christ Jesus.” With a concordance one can find an immense number of passages which speak of our blessings in Christ. I once saw it stated that there are nine hundred such. Hence it is not in dispute that eternal life is God’s gift through or in Christ; for surely it is. But how are persons in Him? Of this Romans 6:11,2311Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord. (Romans 6:11)
23For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. (Romans 6:23) say nothing.
Again eternal life in this epistle is looked at, not as a present possession, but as something we are going on to at the end. See Romans 2:7; 5:17-21; 6:227To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life: (Romans 2:7)
17For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.) 18Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. 19For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. 20Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound: 21That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord. (Romans 5:17‑21)
22But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life. (Romans 6:22).
But the author’s system requires that it be introduced into chapter 6 as a present possession; and if what he says be not well founded, his system falls to the ground. Again when Scripture speaks of our being in Christ, either plainly or by implication, it seems to me that it mentions our being in Him where He now is, not risen only, but ascended also. And if this be so, Romans 6 would not apply to our being in Him thus, for He is only spoken of here as risen. See verse 4. He is only spoken of as ascended, in Romans 8:3434Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us. (Romans 8:34).
What then is to be our judgment of a system of doctrine founded on a misapplication of the very passages which are alleged to plainly state it? It fails at the very outset, for it will not bear the light of a very simple analysis and examination. Romans 6 neither states plainly nor by implication “that we are in Christ by virtue of the life we have in Him.” It might be said that it is elsewhere found in the Word. But even if we should admit the possibility of finding it elsewhere, that would not relieve the author’s system of the charge I am making against it. He affirms that it is plainly stated here, and makes two quotations as being the main proof of his first proposition; but neither of them contains anything of the kind. I have no thought of following him in his after reasonings on this subject. He has based his doctrine on Romans 6, and affirmed it to be plainly stated there. And if this be not correct, he has in my judgment forfeited our confidence in him as a teacher, at least on this subject; and, if wise men, we should follow him with caution in the development of a system which so manifestly fails to support its first and main proposition.
I am aware that he does not pause to comment on Romans 6, but hastens on to find in 1 John 5:11,20 a parallel doctrine as to our having life in the Son. But if one is going to find or draw a second line parallel to another, must he not find or establish the bearings of the first? Now here is an alleged line of doctrine as to our being in Christ by virtue of the life we have in Him, said to be characteristic of Paul’s teaching, and affirmed to be plainly stated in Romans 6. We have looked at it, and found nothing of the kind. How then can we affirm that John’s is parallel to it, while different? We have as yet no basis for making a comparison, for the first line does not exist, save in imagination. James and Paul both teach justification by faith; and I can open Romans 3, and James 2, and find it plainly stated. Spiritual discernment is needed for me to see wherein they differ, without any contradiction; but the subject is there. The author says: “The parallelism of these passages it is hardly possible to doubt.” It seems to me he never loses anything by want of boldness when uttering most questionable propositions. But whatever 1 John 5 may mean, I doubt its parallelism with Romans 6. In fact the two subjects are as different as can be.
Again he says: “In the same sense in which Paul affirms that we have life in Christ, John affirms that it is in the Son.” Nov will you pause with me for a moment, and observe how completely the author has shifted his ground, and introduced another proposition altogether? It is done so quickly the reader would scarcely mark it, unless he paused to weigh the force of words and analyze the proposition.
“Paul affirms that we have life in Christ; John, that we have it in the Son.” I do not inquire where Paul affirms that we have life in Christ; for he doubtless does so: but I ask did anybody ever doubt this? This is not in controversy at all. We have life in Christ, and we have it in the Son too. But this is not the author’s proposition at all. He started out to prove to us from Paul’s writings “that we are in Christ by virtue of the life we have in Him.” I have stated repeatedly that we have life and every other blessing in Christ, and should not value anything we could have out of Him. But the real question is, how, or by virtue of what, are we in Him? Some one might say that we are in Him by faith; another, by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit; and still another, that we are in Him as Christians; that is, that all the divine acts and operations that constituted us Christians or saints placed us in Christ where He is before God. But the author’s proposition in opposition to all this is, “that we are in Him by virtue of the life we have in Him.” His whole system rests on this, and yet he fails to bring forward one proof of it. In fact he shifts his ground, as we have seen, and brings in another proposition, and argues on that as though it were the one in question. This is not handling the Word of God faithfully. I am willing to believe he was not aware of the sophism. I judge he fell into it from having a theory as to life which required a perversion of Scripture to gain for it even a semblance of support. In fact, the title of his tract, “Life and the Spirit, and what is associated with each in the Scripture,” is itself a fallacy. For Scripture does not give us one class of blessings associated with life, and another associated with the Spirit. It is not even decent theology. For, to be that, it ought at least to be capable of a logical division.
But our author has said, that “In the same sense in which Paul affirms that we have life in Christ, John affirms that it is in the Son.” I repeat, it is not in question at all that we have life in Christ, and that we have it in the Son, but when he says “in the same sense,” I do not accept his statement at all. He quibbles on the expression “in the same sense,” but he would not dare to say plainly that the passages in Paul’s writings have the same sense those in John’s have. And yet this is the meaning of his statement. The misleading character of this is plain enough.
I remark here also, that I use the term “life” as we are accustomed to use it; but our author, while he says “life” means by it, “life,” “eternal life,” “life in the Son,” “life in Christ,” life such as the old saints could have, and our Christian life, in fact a regular fox — like statement, that you can take as you please, or rather that he can use as he pleases. There may be logic in this, but it is not logic such as the Spirit of God could use in the unfolding of truth, though it be such as his system requires. There is method in his system, but it is the method of deceit as Ephesians 4:1414That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; (Ephesians 4:14) (JND Trans.). I know that his subject is “Life in Christ,” or “life in general,” or life in all its different states and characteristics and spheres of action and affection and objects, all reduced in his crucible to a conglomerate mass. But notwithstanding it was not by chance that he boldly starts out with what he calls “my first proposition”; for this is absolutely necessary to his system. Upset this, and the base of the system is gone. For with him “life” must do duty on every occasion, instead of faith which gives us an object, instead of the Holy Spirit also; and this “life” may be something dormant, only to be conceived of and reasoned about, without knowledge, and without affections; or, when the exigencies of his system require it, it is the very reverse of all this. And the effect of this mode of handling Scripture is to plunge souls into confusion, and toss them about on the uncertain waves of mere human reasoning. Divine certainty is gone; and the soul is either puffed up by some supposed new and wonderful development of truth, or made to feel its leanness while feeding upon the vapid speculations of a mind that has wandered from the certain and divine landmarks of God’s Word.
II.
We come now to the chapter on Sealing. My first general remark is, that I have looked over the chapter with some care, and failed to find a clear, definite answer to his question, “What is sealing?” If anyone who has the book has found the answer, and will be kind enough to point it out to me, I will gladly stand corrected. The reader thinks he is going to get the answer at once in plain, definite statements; but after a few remarks, and a quotation from Kitto as to the original use of a seal, the author proceeds to what I must call a very miscellaneous discussion, without telling us what he understands by sealing as taught in the Word of God; so that we could consider his discussion in connection with the proposition laid down. It is not for me as a reviewer to supply so great an omission. But in order to have the subject before us with some definiteness, I will say that our being sealed by the Holy Ghost is mentioned in 2 Corinthians 1:2222Who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts. (2 Corinthians 1:22); Ephesians 1:1313In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, (Ephesians 1:13) and 4:30. I will further say that I have always understood that we use the expression, sealing by the Holy Ghost, conventionally; that is, we refer to the indwelling of the Holy Ghost in believers by using an expression which refers to only one aspect of it. It would be just as correct to say the baptism of the Holy Ghost, or the gift, or the earnest, or the anointing. The great foundation truth is that God has given to us, as believers, the Holy Ghost as a definite and specific gift which characterizes us as Christians. It is not the foundation, for it is given to us as already in relationship with God. It has to do with our state, to form and characterize it as Christians. Men may not be able to understand the force of the figure in the word sealing; or they may make a mistake, as I judge both Grant and Kitto do in their remarks about the original use of the seal and its import abstractly; but no Christian can afford to make a mistake as to the great fact that the Holy Ghost has come, and that He has been given to us to dwell in us. No doubt His work in us is manifold, for He is the agent of all the divine operation in us; but the first great fact is that we have the Holy Ghost. Sealing, as I have generally understood, expresses the fact of His having been given to us, to dwell in our bodies. Or if one does not wish to be so specific, He is God’s mark set upon us; we are persons characterized by having His Holy Spirit. There may be the collateral idea of security, as the author suggests when speaking of the use of a seal abstractly. But I do not know that we are entitled to take that out of the figure of the seal.
The use of the seal is quite common here. I go to the market and buy some goods. I first make them my own by purchase; and then as a mark of public appropriation I put my seal on them. Anybody who sees them can see whose they are. Whether I am able to preserve them inviolate is another question, and depends on other means I may have at my disposal. Still I do not question that all sealed will be kept till the day of redemption. In fact all God’s acts of grace for us and in us involve security, from the fact that He is the actor. But the Holy Ghost is also the earnest. 2 Corinthians 1:22;5:522Who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts. (2 Corinthians 1:22)
5Now he that hath wrought us for the selfsame thing is God, who also hath given unto us the earnest of the Spirit. (2 Corinthians 5:5); Ephesians 1:1414Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory. (Ephesians 1:14). We have not the inheritance yet, but we have the pledge or earnest of it. It is said (2 Cor. 1:2222Who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts. (2 Corinthians 1:22)) that God has given us the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts. It seems to me “the earnest of the Spirit” is the Spirit Himself, but considered in this one aspect of His indwelling and work. He assures our hearts with reference to the inheritance, and molds our affections accordingly. He is also the “anointing” (1 John 2:2727But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him. (1 John 2:27)). And this, it seems to me, is explained in the context. It is the Holy Spirit given to us, to abide and teach us all things. He is elsewhere called the “Spirit of truth.” Here He is said to be “truth and no lie.” For it is He who communicates truth effectually and gives us divine certainty: so that we can say, “We know,” in the presence of all that would seduce us. This is one means of security against false teaching, according to John.
I have said that the author has omitted to answer categorically his own question, “What is sealing?” as he should have done in a word like this. And I look also in vain through the following pages of this chapter for any plain statements as to the great truth and fact of the presence of the Holy Ghost and His indwelling in us individually. Let the reader here, if he will, refer to the well-known tract of Mr. Darby on Sealing by the Holy Ghost, which Mr. Grant aims to disprove, and he will see a perfect contrast as to the method of treatment. Although he entitles his tract “Sealing,” etc., it is at once apparent that he only adopts this title conventionally, for he proceeds at once to discuss and establish the great fact of the Spirit’s presence and indwelling.
But our author does not do so. He refers to Romans 8 and Galatians 4:66And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father. (Galatians 4:6) for the Spirit’s witness of Sonship — important texts, but far from covering the ground in question. Godly men of all ages, ignorant of the Spirit’s presence and indwelling, have dwelt much on these texts, and have seen truly a part of His work in God’s children, but not the distinctness of His presence in the Church, and indwelling in the saints. I may be pardoned for asking if the author sees any further than they saw. And if I were to answer from what is before me, I should say that he does not. This, however, is a case for spiritual discernment, and I admit that I may be mistaken. I must make another remark in passing. Godly men, as John Owen, who wrote much on the Spirit of God and His operations, were confessing what light they had, and the Lord used much of what they wrote for edification. We, however, have been favored with more light; and hence, if we refuse it, or obscure it, can the Lord bless our ministry? I judge He cannot.
The author plunges, I must say, into a mere side issue, or collateral question that really does not seriously affect the great question at issue. He discusses the question of how sealing is effected. Is it by special faith in Christ’s work? or is it by faith in His Person? He, of course, rejects that it is by faith in Christ’s work. I do not wish to enter into this question, but only remark that the means by which God is pleased to impart His Spirit, is to be kept separate from the great fact of His being imparted. I should certainly object to discussion of the means with anyone, until I knew certainly just where he stood as to the great and fundamental fact of the actual presence and indwelling of the Holy Ghost. And, indeed, if I saw that he held to the distinctness and order of that, I for one would not wish to enter into controversy about the means of it, although I certainly hold this to be important in its place. And a deliberate denial that the Spirit is imparted in connection with an apprehension of Christ’s work is to reject what characterizes Christianity on its subjective side. I said its distinctness, that is, that it is not to be confounded with the impartation of life, or with anything else not itself: and its order, that is, that it is a gift bestowed on us subsequent to our believing, and given to us as believers. The time, long or short, that may elapse, is not of vital importance to any who hold to the distinctness and order of it.
But the admission of any time is fatal to Mr. Grant’s system; and he feels this and passes it by, by saying that the well-known cases recorded in the Acts have no representative value for us in our day. In his tract he left no room for time, but in his book, I believe, he admits that there may be a brief interval of no practical importance. He repeats that it is the sinner that is quickened, and the saint who is sealed. But a man may say this, and still have a theory which confounds the communication of life with the gift of the Spirit; or in fact may have a system in which there is no room for the gift of the Spirit, save in words only. And this is my judgment of Mr. Grant’s system. It is a system in which sealing, as it is called, forms no part. I am quite aware that he uses the term, but I have failed to find that he attaches a clear and definite meaning to it. I believe he fell into a mistake about life, making that the basis of everything, and that led him in spite of himself into a system in which there is no room for what is distinctly Christian relationships, and Christian state. In fact the very life he speaks about so much, and drags into the discussion of almost every point, is to me a very low life indeed, without knowledge, without affections, without proper relationships, and in fact, shorn of all that characterizes Christian life, as I have understood it. And I judge it will sink lower still, if he attempts to vindicate his system against the objections now being urged against it by many.
I think I can say that I have not been prejudiced, save what we all have against a new system. Mr. Grant has a new system and avows it. They are views, he says, that have long been maturing into conviction in his own soul. And certainly he himself has taught differently at one time on some of the points now raised. He ought to have fairly stated this, and the reasons that led him to change. But it seems to me that he has not fully, as it is said, “the courage of his own opinions”: for when challenged at Montreal he attempted to alternate by quotations from others, to show that what he had was not new. His use of the writings of others has been exposed. I only allude to it in connection with my above remark. He has issued a system which must stand or fall by its own merits.
It has been intimated that his writings have been misunderstood and misjudged. We know that this may take place, especially when some truth heretofore unknown to the Church of God is first brought to its attention. But in this case it seems to me that the very allegation of having been misunderstood is not to Mr. Grant’s credit as a teacher. For his system covers ground perfectly familiar to us all: it contains not one new truth, but undertakes a new grouping of known truths; and, I believe, erroneously. This is why I call it a system; it professes to group and arrange certain truths.
I believe in the definiteness of truth. I have no creed-book, nor do I use Scripture as one. We are supposed to know the truth, and be able to say “we know.” It is not a question of being able to teach. I may know the truth, and reject what obscures it, or denies it, without pretending to teach others. I may give my reasons, but that is not teaching. Mr. Grant ought to have been able to express himself so as to leave no room for being misunderstood. But I believe he has been understood, and I have seen some answers to what he has taught, which I believe are intelligent. No one writer has professed to take up all its points (for the author has been maturing it for years); but I see great unanimity in the different answers, although they have not been prepared in concert.
I believe that Mr. Grant’s doctrine is heresy, and that the Church of God has only done its duty in rejecting both him and his doctrine. It traverses truth we have been holding with God. I understand that doctrinal heresy, as to its nature, may be new opinions of any kind. In Scripture it is set down among the works of the flesh (Gal. 5:2020Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, (Galatians 5:20)), and we are expected to judge it, just as any other of the flesh’s works when they appear in the saints. I have no more uncertainty in rejecting as error a system founded on a wrong use of Romans 6, than I have in rejecting one that perverts Romans 3.
As to the plea that Mr. Grant did not press his doctrine on anyone until he was violently attacked, and then published it in self-defense, I think this, too, has arisen from the fact that he got a little frightened when he found himself challenged by those who were determined to deal with him. What struck me was that his book was published by our brethren, Loizeaux Brothers, and came out with their imprimatur. This has never been done by brethren. Even printing establishments, not helped by contributions, have felt the importance of not knowingly issuing matter that would cause controversy. I am sorry for our two brethren. I do not believe they knew what they were about. I believe they were deceived in Mr. Grant whom they thought to be a great and wonderful teacher. They are themselves most useful men in their own line. But alas! they are sadly astray. May the Lord in His great grace do for them what He has had to do so often for us, restore them.
I consider that Mr. Grant’s system has been exposed, and his book answered. As a system it is not likely to take deep hold on men’s minds. It is too negative and metaphysical. A system to get a hold on men must be simple and positive, and meet, to some extent, practical wants and cravings of minds and hearts. Many, I judge have been carried away by the ecclesiastical part of the movement, and really as yet knew but little of the doctrine. Now that the breach has taken place, there will be a reaction. Some, “after vows, will begin to make inquiry.” A painful process, no doubt, but it will take place. Many at least will see and hear enough to get their confidence in Mr. Grant as a teacher, shaken. Even if pride and other motives keep them with the party, it will check his active influence over them. Satan has long been weaving his spell over a good many, and even those who have rejected Mr. Grant’s system and party have been intimidated. For intimidation is one of Satan’s most powerful weapons. But by degrees you will see this fear removed. Many yet yield far too much to Mr. Grant, rather admitting that he was wrongly put out. I am not blaming them, for they have been passing through a terrible ordeal. But when Satan is attacking we never gain by temporizing and desiring half and half measures. For my part I am thankful that any have stood fast. Satan’s spell is broken, and the error in doctrine he has been seeking to patch on by degrees to the truth, has been cast out; and many will be delivered and restored.
The question has been asked, “If the tract contains the heresy charged, why not leave saints to judge the doctrine on its own merits, instead of judging the person first, etc.?” And more than one has pressed this point. That is, spread challenged doctrines far and near under our imprimatur, and ask for a kind of plebiscite of the saints! This is not even good independency, for even Independents have their convocations, etc. But the answer seems to me to be simple. Heresies are set down among the works of the flesh which any assembly of God is supposed to be able to judge; nay, is solemnly bound to judge. All these fleshly fruits differ, no doubt, in character and the degree of aggravation of guilt. We have no need to make an extraordinary case of alleged heresy at all. I put myself deliberately in print, and give cause for questioning. I put myself in correspondence with saints in, and when the assembly is in anxiety present myself there. The assembly is perfectly competent to deal with me. I mean not the question of jurisdiction technically; but their ability spiritually. If I act as a man of God, I recognize that I am in the position of an accused person. I do nothing but simply state clearly what I teach, and whether I am open to conviction or not, I leave it to them to fully investigate the case. I want no party, and would not have one. They act on their responsibility, and condemn me. I now take my place in silence and under suspension. If I do so, that will of itself assure them, and saints elsewhere, that I am not wishing a party; and if they have been hasty or prejudiced, the door is now open for them and all to consider the condemned doctrines. And the Lord is over all too. And if there be such a thing as truth, and the certain knowledge of it, it will be arrived at. But submission is not in the program of many in our day. I repeat, every assembly, in principle, is supposed to know the truth. If the assembly at, for instance, after twenty or thirty years of being taught is not able to judge doctrine, it speaks badly for its teachers. If we teachers, with all the facilities afforded us, have brought assemblies into such an unchristian state of ignorance, small loss if they silence us all. But to allege that any one assembly, in principle, is not able to discern sound doctrine, and maintain it, is really to deny it to all. Hence you must have a Synod, or a Pan Assembly, or what in itself is ridiculous, a plebiscite, or sort of people’s judgment. An assembly will bind all who own its authority, but a plebiscite would bind none. But I add not. B. F. Pinkerton.
Further Remarks on the Subject of the Foregoing Letter Scarcely anything could be added to the foregoing letter, to show more clearly how untenable is the position of Mr. Grant in what he calls “My first proposition.” Yet I feel so much the importance of seeing clearly the fallacy that underlies this “proposition” that I venture a further word.
The author says this proposition is plainly stated in Romans 6:11,2311Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord. (Romans 6:11)
23For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. (Romans 6:23). I have sought in vain to discover any such statement, or even any such thought in the verses, either directly or indirectly. I will give the two verses as he translates them, and will ask the reader to note them well, and see if any such proposition is in them as the author states; that is, “that we are in Christ by virtue of the life we have in Him.” The words are these: “Reckon yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, and alive unto God in Christ Jesus.” “The gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” These are the scriptures that he gives as the foundation for his first proposition, which is the basis of his system. If the reader can gather from these that we are in Christ by life, he will do more than I have been able to do. I have tried to look at them every way, both separately and together, and have utterly failed to discover in them the author’s proposition, “that we are in Christ by virtue of the life we have in Him.” Surely the author must have been strangely prepossessed — infatuated, may we not say? — with his system, to find a foundation for it in these scriptures! To have plainly stated his proposition, the scriptures ought to have read, “Reckon yourselves alive unto God, in virtue of which life you are in Christ Jesus,” and “The gift of God is eternal life, in virtue of which life you are in Christ Jesus our Lord.” But the author with all his ingenuity cannot make them so read. He would have been just as near the truth, and as logical, had he said these scriptures plainly state, that we have life by being in Christ, instead of that we are in Him by virtue of life. But they affirm neither the one nor the other, and to bring into them any such thought is to bring into them what does not belong to them at all. The strange thing is that any person of ordinary mind and intelligence should have imagined he had made such a discovery.
We may now look at several scriptures which will illustrate the fallacy of Mr. Grant’s mode of interpreting Romans 6:11,2311Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord. (Romans 6:11)
23For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. (Romans 6:23). Let the reader mark the following passages: “For in Him we live, and move, and have our being.” “For in Him were all things created.” “And in Him all things consist.” Acts 17:2828For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring. (Acts 17:28); Colossians 1:16,1716For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: 17And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. (Colossians 1:16‑17). In these passages and many others which might be quoted, we have the same mode of expression as in Romans 6:11,2311Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord. (Romans 6:11)
23For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. (Romans 6:23). I have translated the preposition uniformly “in,” because in the Greek it is the same in all these cases. Now according to Mr. Grant’s mode of interpretation, Acts 17:2828For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring. (Acts 17:28) would prove that as God’s creatures we are in Him by life, by motion, and by existence, because it is said we live, move, and have our being in Him. And Colossians 1:16,1716For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: 17And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. (Colossians 1:16‑17) would prove that “all things” are in Christ, or rather in the Son, by creation, and in Him by their subsisting together. The folly of all this is plain. It may seem unkind to speak or write in this way about the teaching and interpretation of one who has been so highly esteemed as a teacher. It is no pleasure to do so, but only pain, and my only excuse is the desire to preserve others from falling into this pernicious system which we are invited to receive as a new development of “truth for the Church of God.”
What then, may be asked, is the force of the expression “in Him,” in these passages? I answer, whatever may be its force, it is worse than folly to apply to it any such thought as position or standing, such as we have where it is said, “them which are in Christ Jesus.” I may say, however, “in Him” in Acts 17:2828For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring. (Acts 17:28), seems to me to characterize our living, moving, etc. Our life and existence are dependent on His power, and it is “in Him,” or “by Him,” as the One on whose intrinsic power all hangs. It is substantially the same in Colossians 1:16-1716For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: 17And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. (Colossians 1:16‑17). It is in the power of the Son that the whole creation took its existence, and in the same intrinsic power in Him it subsists together. And as to Romans 6:1111Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord. (Romans 6:11), I would suggest, without dogmatizing, that a similar thought underlies the expression “in Christ Jesus.” In verse 10 we read, “For in that He died, He died unto sin once: but in that He liveth, He liveth unto God.” He no longer lives in the sphere in which He had to say to sin. All this is left behind, and He now lives in resurrection life, outside of, and forever beyond, the region of death. Resurrection has introduced Him into a new sphere, where there is no sin to have to say to, no death to meet, where God is everything, and where He lives unto God.
But all this displays God’s working for us, to deliver us from the position and condition in which sin had dominion over us. Christ died unto sin; it was for us, and we account ourselves to have died with Him — to have died to sin — to the whole condition in which we were sin’s slaves. But Christ who died for us, to deliver us, lives again — lives unto God in resurrection life beyond death and having to do with sin. It is all for us, and we account ourselves alive unto God in Him. We live to God in this new character of life. It is not only that we live; the life which we live is characterized in that way, that it is “in Christ Jesus,” that character of life in which He lives unto God in resurrection. No doubt we are in Christ as living this life. This I fully admit; but it is not the question here. Here it is the character and power of the life in which we account ourselves alive unto God, and by which we gain liberty as those who were slaves to sin. And blessed it is to the soul to enter into this divine reckoning, and by it to refuse sin’s reign in our mortal bodies and to yield ourselves up to God as alive from the dead.
I do not enter into the shades of difference between what we have presented here in Romans 6, and what is presented in Ephesians and Colossians in connection with our being quickened together with Christ, etc. But I would press the point that new birth is not the subject, important as it is in its place. This matter of being “dead to sin and alive unto God in Christ” is made a matter of reckoning, because it is something that may contradict our experience, while the new birth is never made a matter of reckoning at all. New birth is a subjective work wrought in us by the power of the Holy Ghost through the Word; and no doubt new birth is involved in our being quickened together with Christ, but the latter is much more than new birth, because it is our association with Christ in resurrection life. This life is presented objectively in Christ raised up from the dead, and seated in the heavenly places, and the quickening and raising up are seen as effected in Him. It is all presented to faith, and made good to us-realized in the soul — by the power of the Holy Ghost through faith. The power of life and resurrection is realized now in us, though we are not yet seated, save as Christ is seated, and, to faith, we in Him.
I repeat, this life, which is distinctively the Christian life, is much more than new birth, though we must be born again to enter into it. It is presented to us objectively in Christ who died and is risen again, and now lives to God, all question of sin and death left behind forever. Faith lays hold of it in Christ risen, and its characteristic power and blessing are realized in the soul through faith, by the power of the Holy Ghost dwelling in us, and acting in us according to the object in which faith rests, the blessed Son of God, who loved us and gave Himself for us. When faith enters into this, it sets us, not only as to our position in Christ, but as to our state of soul also, entirely and forever beyond the dominion of sin and death, in the cloudless region of divine love and favor, in the liberty also, and joy of the Holy Ghost. This, new birth never could do. The necessity of the new birth, and its importance, I have no desire to undervalue. But there is no necessity for confounding things which in Scripture are distinct, and have their own characteristic force and meaning. Rightly dividing the Word of truth is needful to the understanding of it, either in whole or in part.
As we have already seen, the dogma that we are in Christ by life is a pure assumption on the part of the author, without any proof whatever. But this is not all. It is made the basis of a system which teaches that O. T. (Old Testament) saints were in the Son, and had eternal life in the Son; and that the only difference between life as possessed of old, and life as possessed now, is, that as possessed of old it was “life in the Son” simply, while now it is “life in Christ” also, who endows its possessors “with the value of His accomplished work.” This we must now look at a little.
I would remark that it seems a little strange that the author should connect “have it abundantly” with “life in Christ” instead of “in the Son.” According to his own statement “life in the Son” is John’s doctrine, while “life in Christ” is Paul’s. Yet Paul says nothing of this, while the Lord Himself, the Son of God, says, not in Paul, but in John, that He had “come that they might have life, and... have it more abundantly.” But this is just what might be expected of a system that requires the warping and disjointing of Scripture to give it even a semblance of support. The simple fact is we do not need to go outside of John’s Gospel to find this life more abundant. It is simply that life which was manifested in Jesus, the Son of God, here below — that eternal life which was with the Father, and was manifested unto the apostles, and which was given to His sheep in the power of resurrection. “For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that He might destroy the works of the devil.” This He did in the power of a life the devil could not touch, even though He passed through death, the stronghold of Satan’s power. His death laid the basis for our receiving the life, and “the Spirit, and the water, and the blood” all bear witness. “And this is the witness, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. He that hath the Son hath the life (R. V.); he that hath not the Son of God hath not the life” (1 John 5:11-1211And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. 12He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. (1 John 5:11‑12)). The Son has been manifested — manifested in flesh, and accomplishing redemption — and is presented to faith according to this manifestation. Faith receives Him, and “he that hath the Son hath the life.” This is life as revealed in Christianity, life in the Son, and life possessed by everyone who has the Son, and only by such.
But this brings us to the question, “Had the O.T. saints life in the Son?” Now it is surely plain from the passage we have been looking at, that having life in the Son is connected with having the Son in whom the life is. “This life is in His Son. He that hath the Son hath the life.” I ask, then, had the O.T. saints the Son? Neither the Son, nor the life, had been manifested. God had not yet even given His Son, nor had He yet been presented as the Son to faith. How then could they have either the Son, or life in the Son, when the Son had neither been given nor presented to faith? Let the reader note well the simple fact, that in 1 John 5:11,1211And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. 12He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. (1 John 5:11‑12), having life in the Son is connected with having the Son Himself — the Son given as the gift of God — the Son manifested in flesh, and accomplishing redemption, and he will easily see how groundless is the assumption that the O.T. saints had life in the Son, and that it is a misleading dogma, forming an integral part of an utterly false and unscriptural system.
And if we cannot say scripturally that the saints of old had life in the Son, much less can we say they were in the Son, as the teaching of the author assumes. “ ‘In the Son’ means life ‘in the Son,’ “ he says, thus linking the two things together; in fact, making them the same thing. But he gives us not a word of proof for this. He assumes and asserts it, and if positiveness of assertion were proof not to be questioned, his book would surely be proven, for of this there is no lack. But we have already seen that there is absolutely no proof that the saints of old had life in the Son, and if it were true as the author asserts, that this is the same as being in the Son, it follows that both these propositions fall to the ground together.
But we must look a little at the author’s reasoning on this point; for it seems to me that he seeks by a deceitful and pernicious handling of Scripture to prove his point. He quotes John 17:20,2120Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; 21That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. (John 17:20‑21) as a “direct and conclusive statement” which “necessitates our saying that as the Father is in the Son and the Son in the Father, so are we in the Father and in the Son.” There is no lack of confidence here in his own statement, and the reader naturally looks for a very direct and plain proof of what is asserted, but, as usual, is doomed to disappointment. The Lord’s words are as follows: “Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on Me through their word; that they all may be one in Us: that the world may believe that Thou hast sent Me.” I would beg the reader to notice that the Lord is here speaking of unity, and a unity that was to be manifested, so that the world might believe. There was a unity between the Father and the Son; and the Lord says “that they also may be one in Us.” Mark the word also. The Father and the Son were one; and He desires that they also should be one. But it is a special character of oneness, not merely oneness among themselves, but “one in Us,” the Lord says. This oneness had been revealed; it shone out in the revelation of the Father in the Son. In the Son down here in flesh the characteristics of the divine nature shone out revealing perfect oneness between the Father and the Son; and the Lord desired that this oneness should characterize the saints; so He says “that they may be one in Us.” No doubt divine life possessed by the saints underlies this oneness, for that which gives it its character is a revelation, the knowledge of which is eternal life, a life possessed in the Son, and in the power of the Holy Ghost, giving common thoughts, desires, affections and joys with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ. But we must not overlook the fact that it was a oneness to be manifested by the saints in communion with the Father and the Son. This the Lord prays for, that the world might believe. But our author would have us believe that the Lord is saying that we are in the Father and in the Son, as the Father is in the Son and the Son in the Father. This I do not accept at all. He leaves out the question of oneness, and plays on the expression “in us.” And then he tells us that we find “this very expression” in 1 John 2:2424Let that therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning. If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the Father. (1 John 2:24): “If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall abide in you, ye also shall abide in the Son and in the Father.” Then he passes on to John 15, to find another similar expression, “abide in Me and I in you,” to make this chain of false reasoning complete. It is no matter about the context or about the real meaning of these scriptures, if only he can get expressions to fit together to weave a specious argument that will drag souls into the net the enemy has spread through him.
These scriptures are all dragged out of their proper connections and fitted together, to prove that we are in the Father and in the Son as the Father is in the Son and the Son in the Father, and that this was true of the disciples while Christ was on earth before the cross, since John 15 had its application to the disciples then. If we can use John 15, associated with these other texts, to prove that the disciples were then in the Son, it will make an easy task for him to convince people that “At that day ye shall know that I am in My Father, and ye in Me, and I in you,” John 14:2020At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you. (John 14:20), was “a future knowledge of a present thing”; and this done, he can then assert in the most positive way, “Life they had then, and in the Son,” as applying alike to the disciples and all the saints of old, and this too in the face of the Lord’s express declaration which absolutely contradicts his whole doctrine, “Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone.” John 12:2424Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit. (John 12:24). But even this scripture must pass through his theological mold, and appear distorted and disfigured, in order to fall into rank and do duty for this perverse system which must be maintained at all hazard. It is explained to mean that, “Life must spring out of death, always out of death at least foreseen, as now it does out of death accomplished.” Now no one doubts that the death of Christ is the meritorious ground on which God bestows, or ever could bestow, blessing on guilty man. But is this what the Lord here asserts? Assuredly not. He tells us the corn of wheat must abide alone until it dies. Only in resurrection can fruit be associated in life with it. But according to our author’s system the saints of old were in the Son, had life in the Son, and thus the corn of wheat was laden with fruit before it fell into the ground. Is not this handling the Word of God deceitfully? The Lord’s statement is plain enough as showing that Jesus must abide alone until redemption was accomplished in His death, and then, on the ground of this, He could take the saints into living association and relationship with Himself as risen from the dead; but the statement stands in the way of this new system, and so must be distorted, and shorn of its meaning, to make the system easy for souls who want Scripture for what they believe.
We must not, however, pass over the author’s use of John 15 without a further notice. He quotes “Abide in Me, and I in you” as if it meant the same thing as being “in the Son.” Yet I doubt if he would dare say they are the same. In this chapter Christ replaces Israel as a vine. Israel had not borne fruit for Jehovah, and Christ takes this place, and says, “I am the true vine, and My Father is the husbandman. Every branch in Me that beareth not fruit He taketh away; and every branch that beareth fruit, He purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit.” Then in verse 5 He says to the disciples, “I am the vine, ye are the branches.” But in His very first statement it is plain that there might be a non-fruit-bearing branch in the vine, to be taken away and burned. “Every branch in Me that beareth not fruit He taketh away,” and in verse 6, “If a man abide not in Me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.” This language is used of one who might be in Him as a branch in the vine. Would the author dare to say this of one “in the Son”? And if not, why bring forward such a passage to prove that the disciples were then “in the Son”? The fact is, this passage does not treat the question of “life in the Son” at all. It is Christ as the true vine replacing Israel, and men attached to Him, instead of Israel, by profession as branches in the vine. It is in this sense that they are in Him. It is something for earth and time, and not our eternal relationship to God and Christ, although the life which underlies fruit bearing is, no doubt, eternal. Fruit bearing would be the proof of life and communion, but the possession of life is not what is meant by “in me,” which is said of one who had no life at all.
The author concludes that “they were in the Son, although not yet had the Spirit of God come,” etc. But I ask where is it said in Scripture, that they were in the Son? We look in vain for a single hint of it anywhere. The author’s conclusion is based wholly upon false reasoning in which we find a wretched garbling of Scripture in order to carry the point. He labors hard to establish that John 14:2020At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you. (John 14:20) was “a future knowledge of a present thing.” He will not have it that “ye in Me, and I in you” was a future thing to be realized and known as the fruit of accomplished redemption, and by the Holy Ghost sent down to be with and in them. He tells us that it might as well be contended that Christ being “in the Father” was a future thing. But I reply that Jesus had expressly stated that He was in the Father, but had neither said nor implied that they were then in the Son. He had said to Philip, “Believe Me that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me.” This was a positive statement of what was true then.
As to the day of the Holy Ghost’s presence, when the Son should have gone to the Father, He says: “At that day ye shall know that I am in My Father, and ye in Me, and I in you.” It is an additional thing, though connected with His being in the Father, and connected also with His going to the Father, and the coming of the Holy Ghost. At that future day they would not only know that He was in the Father, but they would also know the wondrous place and blessing He had acquired for them by redemption, and by His going to the Father. Redemption accomplished, He could say to them, “My Father and your Father, My God and your God,” and impart to them that life in which was displayed His victory over death — His resurrection life — and the Holy Ghost as the power of this life, thus setting them in the power of life beyond death, and giving them a new position in Himself in the power of the Holy Ghost, and in eternal relationship with the Father. It would no longer be the position and relationships of man in the flesh and under the law, but a new position altogether, with new relationships, outside this world, and characterized by the position and relationships of Jesus, the risen and ascended Son of God. But this could not be short of redemption, and the glorification of the Son on high. It is the fruit of redemption, not redemption “foreseen,” but redemption accomplished. Until this basis was laid for man’s blessing, Jesus, the Son of God, as the corn of wheat must abide alone. But this is what our author leaves out of his system. He will have it that the saints were in the Son, and, I suppose, in the Father too, before the work of the cross was done.
What this leads to is not difficult to see. According to this dogma, the O.T. saints were “in the Son” when He was only and absolute Deity, before the Word was made flesh, before He had taken His proper mediatorial character, or entered on His mediatorial work as the “one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” In short the O.T. saints were in abstract Deity. I know that Mr. Grant’s supporters deny that he teaches this. Well, I do not wish to affirm that he teaches this if he and his friends deny that he does; yet it seems to me clearly involved in his teaching, and in the plainest way. I quote from the “Statement” put out in defense of him and his followers. On page 8 Mr. Grant says: “We are in the Son of God, and in the Father; but we have not oneness with Deity.” Again, “The Gospel of John is the gospel of His Deity — the only begotten, not the first begotten. The former is exclusive, and that is the force of the Son of God all through John’s Gospel. Where He says ‘in Us,’ that is Deity.” Now in his book he makes “in Us” to mean that we are “in the Father and in the Son,” and here he says it is “Deity.” How can anyone resist the conclusion that this teaching involves the consequence that the O.T. saints were in abstract Deity? I know he tries to escape this dreadful conclusion, and denounces the teaching of such a thing as “blasphemy,” but in doing so he condemns himself out of his own mouth, and condemns his system as that which opens the door to this “blasphemy.”
And here again to maintain consistency in his system, he would have us believe that “Son of God” in John is only Deity. “The Gospel of John is the gospel of His Deity — the only begotten,” and this is “exclusive” and “the force of ‘the Son of God’ all through John’s Gospel.” I would ask then, when it is said, “God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life,” was it “exclusive” of incarnation that God gave Him? Is it “exclusive” of His incarnation that men are called on to believe in Him unto life eternal? John tells us in his epistle, that the “Son of God was manifested that He might destroy the works of the devil.” Is it only Deity here too? “The Son of God was manifested.” But how was He manifested? Was it not in flesh? In John the Son of God is constantly presented to us as manifested in the flesh, the only begotten Son in the bosom of the Father, indeed, yet manifested in flesh, and through this medium revealing the Father — true Deity, very God, but “God manifest in the flesh.” It is “in flesh” that we know Him, and have received Him as the gift of God. It is thus, and thus only that we are said to be in Him, only that for this, redemption was necessary. And it is only as in Him that in any sense we can be said to be in God. In Him, the Mediator, we are brought to God, and know God, and God dwells in us, and we in Him, and the Holy Ghost is the power of this, but all this is only as in Christ, or in the Son. “We are in Him that is true, in His Son Jesus Christ.” We are in the Son, and the Son is God, but we are “in His Son” characterized as “Jesus Christ.” It is only as become man that He is called by this name, and it is only thus that we can be in Him; yet “This is the true God and eternal life.”
I beg the reader to mark well, that Mr. Grant’s system, as far as it treats of “life in the Son,” leaves out altogether the mediatorial character and work of Christ (save that he says “life must spring out of death, always out of death at least foreseen, as now it does out of death accomplished”). He tells us “that as the Father is in the Son and the Son in the Father, so are we in the Father and in the Son,” page 10. Now according to his own teaching it is here the Son in His essential “Deity.” His humanity has no place in this statement. It is the Son in essential Deity in the Father; and then, mark, “so are we in the Father and in the Son.” If this is not mysticism, it involves the same blasphemous conclusions we have already noticed above, that is, the deification of the saints. I am sure the author would repudiate such a thought, and in writing had no such thought in his mind; but it is the consequence of his interpretation of Scripture, and of his system, as it respects life in the Son.
But I have no desire to follow out the details of this system. My only desire was to call attention to a few facts connected with its foundation, to show how far it is from the truth of God. I trust enough has been said to make plain to the simplest reader the dangerous tendencies of the system, as well as the utterly false foundation on which it rests. As a system I repudiate it with my whole soul in all its distinctive features, and regard it as a crafty attempt of the enemy to despoil the people of God, and rob them in a large degree of their rich heritage of blessing in Christ, especially in its distinctness from that of other ages. It reasons about divine life in a merely theological and abstract way, apart from its character and display in Christ. The unfolding and display of this life in the Person of the eternal Son in the flesh down here before the eyes of men, revealing the Father in all the outflow of divine affections, and bringing the fullness of grace and truth to men; and life as now seen in Christ, clothed in resurrection power and glory, and exalted in eternal victory over death and sin and Satan’s power, and now lived in men down here by faith of the Son of God who loved us and gave Himself for us, Christ as life formed in us by the power of the Holy Ghost who dwells in us not only as the “seal” and “earnest” and “anointing,” but also as “the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus,” characterizing and energizing this life in us, producing divine affections and joys in the soul in fellowship with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ — all this in great measure is left out of this system we are asked to receive as a fresh unfolding of divine life and truth. Its reception could only prove damaging to the soul in no small degree, to say nothing of the disastrous consequences in doctrine to which the system opens the door. Yet it seems there are those who are infatuated with this new teaching, and regard it as a wonderful discovery. I believe this only shows the darkening power the enemy has already gained over their souls through it. A present exhilaration is produced in the mind, and a puffing up of the flesh, but this is not Christ, nor the operation of the Holy Ghost, and will not endure. It may serve for the time to give heat in the conflict, but the real effect will be impoverishing of soul, the truth gradually slipping away, and leaving the soul barren and despoiled of its joy and comfort in the Holy Ghost.
May the Lord help us all to heed the closing admonition of Jude: “But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost, keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.”