What Did the Pioneers
Believe?
“As fundamental errors, we might class with this counterfeit sabbath other errors which Protestants have brought away from the Catholic church, such as sprinkling for baptism, the trinity, the consciousness of the dead and eternal life in misery. The mass who have held these fundamental errors, have doubtless done it ignorantly; but can it be supposed that the church of Christ will carry along with her these errors till the judgment scenes burst upon the world? We think not.” (James White, September 12, 1854, Review & Herald, vol. 6, No. 5, page 36, par. 8)
This book is a compilation of quotes from Adventist Pioneers which reflect the unanimous position of the early Adventist Church. Many are unaware of the teachings of the Adventist Pioneers. After reading this book, you will see for yourself what they believed. Has the Adventist Church, as a whole, shifted away from the truth revealed in Scripture, and taken up doctrines of the Catholic church, which are held by all of her daughters, the apostate Protestant churches. May God help us to “earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. For there are certain men crept in unawares,… denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.” (Jude 4, 5) “Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.” (1 John 2:22)
“Most of the founders of Seventh-day Adventism would not be able to join the church today if they had to subscribe to the denomination’s Fundamental Beliefs.
“More specifically, most would not be able to agree to belief number 2, which deals with the doctrine of the Trinity.…” (Famous author and Andrews University seminary professor, George Knight, Ministry Magazine, October, 1993, page 10)
This book is almost exclusively quotations, and therefore quotation marks
are not used. My own writing stands out in a different type style.
Here
is an example!
Italicized, underlined, and bold text emphasis is supplied by the compiler except where [Emphasis in Original] is found.
Compiled August, 1996, and updated January, 2006
by Lynnford Beachy
HC 64 Box 128 B
Welch, West Virginia 24801, USA
Phone: (304) 732-9204 Fax: (304) 732-7322
E-mail: berean@presenttruth.info
Web sites: www.smyrna.org; www.presenttruth.info
Sixth printing by Smyrna Gospel Ministries
Table of Contents
Ellen G. White: 1827-1915 1
Our Periodicals 1
Early Experiences 1
Salvation in the Truth 2
Protest against Removing Landmarks 2
Vindication of Our Message 3
Misunderstandings About God - New 4
The Son of God - New 4
Christ’s Equality with God - New 4
Christ’s Humanity - New 5
The Death of Christ - New 5
The Holy Spirit - New 6
Three Highest Positions in Heaven - New 7
Only Two - New 7
The Plan of Redemption - New 7
Creation of the World - New 8
Seemingly Contradictory Statements - New 8
Joseph H. Waggoner: 1820 - 1889 (father of E. J. Waggoner) 8
Doctrine of a Trinity
Subversive of the Atonement 8
Joseph Bates: 1792 - 1872 10
W. W. Prescott 11
Merritt E. Cornell: 1827 - 1893 11
Who are Mormons? 11
Scriptural Investigation 12
James Springer White: 1821 - 1881 13
Catholic Reasons for Keeping Sunday 14
The Position of the Remnant 14
Alonzo T. Jones: 1850 - 1923 15
A. J. Dennis 16
John Matteson 16
J. M. Stephenson 16
Note: Although Stephenson made a statement promoting the idea that Christ is a created being (with which the publishers cannot agree and therefore it has been deleted), his article is included for its valuable Bible teachings. He, along with Uriah Smith and one statement by J. N. Loughborough in 1855 are the only early Adventists I know of who put this idea in print. In 1855, one year after Stephenson wrote this article he left the movement. Uriah Smith in his first printing of Thoughts on the Revelation in 1867 taught that Christ was created, but he soon revised his understanding, and in later printings of Daniel and Revelation he deleted all such statements and added strong statements against this idea, bringing him in harmony with the rest of the brethren.
Uriah Smith: 1832 - 1903 23
God The Father, And His Son Jesus Christ 24
J. N. Andrews: 1829 - 1883 26
Melchisedec 26
R. F. Cottrell 27
D. W. Hull 28
Bible Doctrine of the Divinity of Christ 28
S. N. Haskell 34
J. N. Loughborough: 1832 - 1924 35
Questions for Bro. Loughborough 35
E. J. Waggoner: 1855 - 1916 36
Is Christ God? 37
Christ As Creator 37
Is Christ a Created Being? 37
M. C. Wilcox 38
G. W. Amadon 39
How Shall We Explain it? 39
Miscellaneous Writers 39
The Sunday God 40
Heathen and Orthodox Christian 40
Importance of a Correct System of Belief 41
Protestants not Guided by Scripture 42
Proved by Butler’s Catechism 42
Fundamentals Beliefs of SDAs in 1889, 1931,
and 1981 Yearbooks 42
The Seventh-day Adventist
Church Hymnal 44
The 1909 and 1941 Versions of
Holy, Holy, Holy 44
The 1985 Version of Holy, Holy, Holy 45
Position of SDA Pioneers on the Trinity 45
Letter by J. S. Washburn 46
An Additional Bible Study
by Lynnford Beachy 47
The Biblical View of God - New 47
Note: All article titles and subheadings are in the original except for
the section dealing with the
Seventh-day Adventist Hymnal and the NEW subheadings
in Ellen White’s quotations.
Ellen G. White: 1827-1915
Our Periodicals
God has given me light regarding our periodicals. What is it?—He has said that the dead are to speak. How?—Their works shall follow them. We are to repeat the words of the pioneers in our work, who knew what it cost to search for the truth as for hidden treasure, and who labored to lay the foundation of our work. They moved forward step by step under the influence of the Spirit of God. One by one these pioneers are passing away. The word given me is, Let that which these men have written in the past be reproduced. And in The Signs of the Times let not the articles be long or the print fine. Do not try to crowd everything into one number of the paper. Let the print be good, and let earnest, living experiences be put into the paper.
Not long ago I took up a copy of the Bible Echo. As I looked it through, I saw an article by Elder Haskell and one by Elder Corliss. As I laid the paper down, I said, These articles must be reproduced. There is truth and power in them. Men spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.
Let the truths that are the foundation of our faith be kept before the people. Some will depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils. They talk science, and the enemy comes in and gives them an abundance of science; but it is not the science of salvation. It is not the science of humility, of consecration, or of the sanctification of the Spirit. We are now to understand what the pillars of our faith are,—the truths that have made us as a people what we are, leading us on step by step.
Early Experiences
After the passing of the time in 1844 we searched for the truth as for hidden treasure. I met with the brethren, and we studied and prayed earnestly. Often we remained together until late at night, and sometimes through the entire night, praying for light and studying the Word. Again and again these brethren came together to study the Bible, in order that they might know its meaning, and be prepared to teach it with power. When they came to the point in their study where they said, “We can do nothing more,” the Spirit of the Lord would come upon me. I would be taken off in vision, and a clear explanation of the passages we had been studying would be given me, with instruction as to how we were to labor and teach effectively. Thus light was given that helped us to understand the scriptures in regard to Christ, his mission, and his priesthood. A line of truth extending from that time to the time when we shall enter the city of God, was made plain to me, and I gave to others the instruction that the Lord had given me.
During this whole time I could not understand the reasoning of the brethren. My mind was locked, as it were, and I could not comprehend the meaning of the scriptures we were studying. This was one of the greatest sorrows of my life. I was in this condition of mind until all the principal points of our faith were made clear to our minds, in harmony with the Word of God. The brethren knew that, when not in vision, I could not understand these matters, and they accepted, as light directly from heaven, the revelations given.
Many errors arose, and though I was then little more than a child, I was sent by the Lord from place to place to rebuke those who were holding these false doctrines. There were those who were in danger of going into fanaticism, and I was bidden in the name of the Lord to give them a warning from heaven.
We shall have to meet these same false doctrines again. There will be those who will claim to have visions. When God gives you clear evidence that the vision is from him, you may accept it, but do not accept it on any other evidence; for people are going to be led more and more astray in foreign countries and in America. The Lord wants his people to act like men and women of sense.
Salvation in the Truth
In the future, deception of every kind is to arise, and we want solid ground for our feet. We want solid pillars for the building. Not one pin is to be removed from that which the Lord has established. The enemy will bring in false theories, such as the doctrine that there is no sanctuary. This is one of the points on which there will be a departing from the faith. Where shall we find safety unless it be in the truths that the Lord has been giving for the last fifty years? (Ellen White, Review & Herald, May 25, 1905)
Let Pioneers Identify Truth.—When the power of God testifies as to what is truth, that truth is to stand forever as the truth. No after-suppositions, contrary to the light God has given are to be entertained. Men will arise with interpretations of Scripture which are to them truth, but which are not truth. The truth for this time, God has given us as a foundation for our faith. He Himself has taught us what is truth. One will arise, and still another, with new light which contradicts the light that God has given under the demonstration of His Holy Spirit.
A few are still alive who passed through the experience gained in the establishment of this truth. God has graciously spared their lives to repeat and repeat till the close of their lives, the experience through which they passed even as did John the apostle till the very close of his life. And the standard-bearers who have fallen in death, are to speak through the reprinting of their writings. I am instructed that thus their voices are to be heard. They are to bear their testimony as to what constitutes the truth for this time. Preach the Word, p. 5. (Ellen White, 1905, Counsels to Writers and Editors, pages 31, 32)
Protest against Removing Landmarks
When men come in who would move one pin or pillar from the foundation which God has established by His Holy Spirit, let the aged men who were pioneers in our work speak plainly, and let those who are dead speak also, by the reprinting of their articles in our periodicals. Gather up the rays of divine light that God has given as He has led His people on step by step in the way of truth. This truth will stand the test of time and trial. Ms 62, 1905, p. 6. (A Warning Against False Theories, May 24, 1905.) (Ellen White, 1905, Manuscript Releases Volume One, page 55)
The Testimony of Pioneer Workers.—I have had presentations regarding the deceptions that Satan is bringing in at this time. I have been instructed that we should make prominent the testimony of some of the old workers who are now dead. Let them continue to speak through their articles as found in the early numbers of our papers. These articles should now be reprinted, that there may be a living voice from the Lord’s witnesses. The history of the early experiences in the message will be a power to withstand the masterly ingenuity of Satan’s deceptions. This instruction has been repeated recently. I must present before the people the testimonies of Bible truth, and repeat the decided messages given years ago. I desire that my sermons given at camp meetings and in churches may live and do their appointed work.— Letter 99, 1905. (Ellen White, 1905, Counsels to Writers and Editors, page 26)
I long daily to be able to do double duty. I have been pleading with the Lord for strength and wisdom to reproduce the writings of the witnesses who were confirmed in the faith in the early history of the message. After the passing of the time in 1844, they received the light and walked in the light, and when the men claiming to have new light would come in with their wonderful messages regarding various points of Scripture, we had, through the moving of the Holy Spirit, testimonies right to the point, which cut off the influence of such messages as Elder A. F. Ballenger has been devoting his time to presenting. This poor man has been working decidedly against the truth that the Holy Spirit has confirmed. When the power of God testifies as to what is truth, that truth is to stand forever as the truth. No after-suppositions contrary to the light God has given are to be entertained.…
We are not to receive the words of those who come with a message that contradicts the special points of our faith. They gather together a mass of Scripture and pile it as proof around their asserted theories. This has been done over and over again during the past fifty years. And while the Scriptures are God’s Word, and are to be respected, the application of them, if such application moves one pillar of the foundation that God has sustained these fifty years, is a great mistake. He who makes such an application knows not the wonderful demonstration of the Holy Spirit that gave power and force to the past messages that have come to the people of God.
Elder Ballenger’s proofs are not reliable. If received, they would destroy the faith of God’s people in the truth that has made us what we are. We must be decided on this subject, for the points that he is trying to prove by Scripture are not sound. They do not prove that the past experience of God’s people was a fallacy. We had the truth: we were directed by the angels of God. It was under the guidance of the Holy Spirit that the presentation of the sanctuary question was given. It is eloquence for everyone to keep silent in regard to the features of our faith in which they acted no part.
God never contradicts Himself. Scripture proofs are misapplied if forced to testify to that which is not true. Another and still another will arise and bring in supposedly great light, and make their assertions. But we stand by the old landmarks. [1 John 1:1-10 quoted.]
I am instructed to say that these words we may use as appropriate for this time, for the time has come when sin must be called by its right name. We are hindered in our work by men who are not converted, who seek their own glory. They wish to be thought originators of new theories, which they present, claiming that they are truth. But if these theories are received, they will lead to a denial of the truth that for the past fifty years God has been giving to His people, substantiating it by the demonstration of the Holy Spirit.
Let all men beware what is the character of their work. They would better be falling into line for their own souls’ sake and for the sake of the souls of others. “If we walk in the light as He is in the light, the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanseth us from all sin” (1 John 1:7). It is nothing to the credit of any man to start on a new track, using Scripture to substantiate theories of error, leading minds into confusion, away from the truths that are to be indelibly impressed on the minds of God’s people, that they may hold fast to the faith.—Letter 329, 1905. (To J. A. Burden, December 11, 1905). (Ellen White, 1905, Manuscript Release No. 760: The Integrity of the Sanctuary Truth, pages 18-20)
The leading points of our faith as we hold them today were firmly established. Point after point was clearly defined, and all the brethren came into harmony. The whole company of believers were united in the truth. There were those who came in with strange doctrines, but we were never afraid to meet them. Our experience was wonderfully established by the revelation of the Holy Spirit.—MS 135, 1903. (Ellen G. White, The Early Years Volume 1— 1827-1862, page 145)
The record of the experience through which the people of God passed in the early history of our work must be republished. Many of those who have since come into the truth are ignorant of the way in which the Lord wrought. The experience of William Miller and his associates, of Captain Joseph Bates, and of other pioneers in the advent message, should be kept before our people. Elder Loughborough’s book should receive attention. Our leading men should see what can be done for the circulation of this book. (Ellen White, Counsels to Writers and Editors, page 145)
Vindication of Our Message
Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron. 1 Tim. 4:1, 2.
I am instructed that the Lord, by His infinite power, has preserved the right hand of His messenger for more than half a century, in order that the truth may be written out as He bids me write it for publication, in periodicals and books, Why?—Because if it were not thus written out, when the pioneers in the faith shall die, there would be many, new in the faith, who would sometimes accept as messages of truth teachings that contain erroneous sentiments and dangerous fallacies. Sometimes that which men teach as “special light” is in reality specious error, which, as tares sown among the wheat, will spring up and produce a baleful harvest. And errors of this sort will be entertained by some until the close of this earth’s history.
There are some, who upon accepting erroneous theories, strive to establish them by collecting from my writings statements of truth, which they use, separated from their proper connection and perverted by association with error. Thus seeds of heresy, springing up and growing rapidly into strong plants, are surrounded by many precious plants of truth, and in this way a mighty effort is made to vindicate the genuineness of the spurious plants.
So it was with the heresies taught in Living Temple. [* A BOOK EXPRESSING PANTHEISTIC SENTIMENTS PUBLISHED BY J. H. KELLOGG.] The subtle errors in this book were surrounded by many beautiful truths.… The seductive fallacies of Satan undermined confidence in the true pillars of the faith, which are grounded on Bible evidence. Truth is sustained by a plain “Thus saith the Lord.” But there has been a weaving in of error, and the use of scriptures out of their natural connection, in order to substantiate fallacies, which would deceive, if possible, the very elect.…
Let not the days pass by and precious opportunities be lost of seeking the Lord with all the heart and mind and soul. If we accept not the truth in the love of it, we may be among the number who will see the miracles wrought by Satan in these last days, and believe them.—Letter 136, April 27, 1906, to Brethren Butler, Daniells, and Irwin. (Ellen White, 1906, This Day with God, page 126)
Misunderstandings About God
After the passing of the time in 1844, we had fanaticism of every kind to meet. Testimonies of reproof were given me to bear to some holding spiritualistic theories.
There were those who were active in disseminating false ideas in regard to God. Light was given me that these men were making the truth of no effect by their false teachings. I was instructed that they were misleading souls by presenting speculative theories regarding God.…
This is only one of the instances in which I was called upon to rebuke those who were presenting the doctrine of an impersonal God pervading all nature, and similar errors. (Ellen White, Testimonies for the Church, vol. 8, pages 292, 293)
In her mission to correct those who held false theories about God, Ellen White never corrected her brethren for boldly denouncing the trinity doctrine. Her own husband was one of the most vocal.
The Son of God
A complete offering has been made; for “God so loved the world, that he gave his only-begotten Son,”—not a son by creation, as were the angels, nor a son by adoption, as is the forgiven sinner, but a Son begotten in the express image of the Father’s person, and in all the brightness of his majesty and glory, one equal with God in authority, dignity, and divine perfection. In him dwelt all the fullness of the Godhead bodily. (Ellen White, The Signs of the Times, May 30, 1895) Compare this with the following:
Before Christ came in the likeness of men, he existed in the express image of his Father. (Ellen White, Youth’s Instructor, December 20, 1900)
The Eternal Father, the unchangeable one, gave his only begotten Son, tore from his bosom Him who was made in the express image of his person, and sent him down to earth to reveal how greatly he loved mankind. (Ellen White, Review and Herald, July 9, 1895, par. 13)
Christ is the Son of God in deed and in truth and in love, and is the representative of the Father as well as the representative of the human race. (Ellen White, Manuscript Releases, vol. 14, page 83)
In Him [Christ] was life, original, unborrowed, underived. This life is not inherent in man. He can possess it only through Christ. He cannot earn it; it is given him as a free gift if he will believe in Christ as His personal Saviour. (Ellen White, Signs of the Times, April 8, 1897; also in Selected Messages, book 1, pages 296, 297)
Modern spiritualism, resting upon the same foundation, is but a revival in a new form of the witchcraft and demon worship that God condemned and prohibited of old.… Peter, describing the dangers to which the church was to be exposed in the last days, says that as there were false prophets who led Israel into sin, so there will be false teachers, “who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them.… And many shall follow their pernicious ways.” 2 Peter 2:1, 2. Here the apostle has pointed out one of the marked characteristics of spiritualist teachers. They refuse to acknowledge Christ as the Son of God. Concerning such teachers the beloved John declares: “Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father.” 1 John 2:22, 23. Spiritualism, by denying Christ, denies both the Father and the Son, and the Bible pronounces it the manifestation of antichrist. (Ellen White, Patriarchs and Prophets, page 686)
Christ’s Equality with God
The great Creator assembled the heavenly host, that he might in the presence of all the angels confer special honor upon his Son. The Son was seated on the throne with the Father, and the heavenly throng of holy angels was gathered around them. The Father then made known that it was ordained by himself that Christ should be equal with himself; so that wherever was the presence of his Son, it was as his own presence. His word was to be obeyed as readily as the word of the Father. His Son he had invested with authority to command the heavenly host. (Ellen White, The Signs of the Times, January 9, 1879; also in Spirit of Prophecy, vol. 1, pages 18, 19)
The Scriptures clearly indicate the relation between God and Christ, and they bring to view as clearly the personality and individuality of each. [Hebrews 1:1-5 quoted.] God is the Father of Christ; Christ is the Son of God. To Christ has been given an exalted position. He has been made equal with the Father. All the counsels of God are opened to His Son. (Ellen White, Testimonies for the Church, vol. 8, page 268)
Christ’s Humanity
Those who claim that it was not possible for Christ to sin, cannot believe that He really took upon Himself human nature. But was not Christ actually tempted, not only by Satan in the wilderness, but all through His life, from childhood to manhood? In all points He was tempted as we are, and because He successfully resisted temptation under every form, He gave man the perfect example, and through the ample provision Christ has made, we may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption which is in the world through lust. (Ellen White, S.D.A. Bible Commentary, vol. 7, page 929).
Christ’s overcoming and obedience is that of a true human being. In our conclusions, we make many mistakes because of our erroneous views of the human nature of our Lord. When we give to His human nature a power that it is not possible for man to have in his conflicts with Satan, we destroy the completeness of His humanity. (Ellen White, S.D.A. Bible Commentary, vol. 7, page 929)
The obedience of Christ to His Father was the same obedience that is required of man. Man cannot overcome Satan’s temptations without divine power to combine with his instrumentality. So with Jesus Christ; He could lay hold of divine power. He came not to our world to give the obedience of a lesser God to a greater, but as a man to obey God’s holy law, and in this way He is our example. The Lord Jesus came to our world, not to reveal what a God could do, but what a man could do, through faith in God’s power to help in every emergency. Man is, through faith, to be a partaker in the divine nature, and to overcome every temptation wherewith he is beset. (Ellen White, S.D.A. Bible Commentary, vol. 7, page 929)
When Jesus was awakened to meet the storm, He was in perfect peace. There was no trace of fear in word or look, for no fear was in His heart. But He rested not in the possession of almighty power. It was not as the “Master of earth and sea and sky” that He reposed in quiet. That power He had laid down, and He says, “I can of Mine own self do nothing.” John 5:30. He trusted in the Father’s might. It was in faith—faith in God’s love and care—that Jesus rested, and the power of that word which stilled the storm was the power of God. (Ellen White, Desire of Ages, page 336)
Divinity and humanity are blended in him who has the spirit of Christ. (Youth’s Instructor, June 30, 1892 par. 3; also in Sons and Daughters of God, page 24)
The Death of Christ
In the death struggle the Son of God could rely only upon His heavenly Father; all was by faith.… Manuscript 125, Dec. 9, 1901. (Ellen White, Upward Look, page 357)
Jesus said to Mary, “Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father.” When He closed His eyes in death upon the cross, the soul of Christ did not go at once to heaven, as many believe, or how could His words be true —“I am not yet ascended to my Father”? The spirit of Jesus slept in the tomb with His body, and did not wing its way to heaven, there to maintain a separate existence, and to look down upon the mourning disciples embalming the body from which it had taken flight. All that comprised the life and intelligence of Jesus remained with His body in the sepulcher; and when He came forth it was as a whole being; He did not have to summon His spirit from heaven. (Ellen White, S.D.A. Bible Commentary, vol. 5, pages 1150, 1151)
Men need to understand that Deity suffered and sank under the agonies of Calvary.… (MS 153, 1898). (Ellen White, S.D.A. Bible Commentary, vol. 7, page 907)
He humbled himself, and took mortality upon him. As a member of the human family, he was mortal. (Ellen White, Review & Herald, September 4, 1900)
When Jesus had opened before his disciples the fact that he must go to Jerusalem to suffer and die at the hands of the chief priests and scribes, Peter had presumptuously contradicted his Master, saying, “Be it far from thee, Lord; this shall not be unto thee.” He could not conceive it possible that the Son of God should be put to death. Satan suggested to his mind that if Jesus was the Son of God he could not die. (Ellen White, Spirit of Prophecy, vol. 3, page 231)
The Holy Spirit
Sin could be resisted and overcome only through the mighty agency of the Third Person of the Godhead, who would come with no modified energy, but in the fullness of divine power.… Christ has given His Spirit as a divine power to overcome all hereditary and cultivated tendencies to evil, and to impress His own character upon His church. (Ellen White, Desire of Ages, page 671)
The Saviour is our Comforter. This I have proved Him to be. (Ellen White, Manuscript Releases, vol. 8, page 49)
The nights are long and painful, but Jesus is my Comforter and my Hope. (Ellen White, Manuscript Releases, vol. 19, page 296)
Christ is everything to those who receive Him. He is their Comforter, their safety, their healthfulness. Apart from Christ there is no light at all. (Ellen White, Manuscript Releases, vol. 21, page 372)
There is no comforter like Christ, so tender and so true. He is touched with the feeling of our infirmities. His Spirit speaks to the heart.… The influence of the Holy Spirit is the life of Christ in the soul. (Ellen White, Review & Herald, October 26, 1897)
On June 11, 1891, Ellen White wrote to Brother Chapman in regard to his belief that the Holy Spirit is a separate being from Christ, namely, the angel Gabriel. She wrote, in part:
Your ideas of the two subjects you mention do not harmonize with the light which God has given me. The nature of the Holy Spirit is a mystery not clearly revealed, and you will never be able to explain it to others because the Lord has not revealed it to you. You may gather together scriptures and put your construction upon them, but the application is not correct.… It is not essential for you to know and be able to define just what the Holy Spirit is. Christ tells us that the Holy Spirit is the Comforter, and the Comforter is the Holy Ghost, “the Spirit of truth, which the Father shall send in My name.” “I will pray the Father, and He shall give you another Comforter, that He may abide with you for ever; even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth Him not, neither knoweth Him: but ye know Him, for He dwelleth with you, and shall be in you” [John 14:16, 17]. This refers to the omnipresence of the Spirit of Christ, called the Comforter.… There are many mysteries which I do not seek to understand or to explain; they are too high for me, and too high for you. On some of these points, silence is golden.… I hope that you will seek to be in harmony with the body.… You need to come into harmony with your brethren. (Ellen White, June 11, 1891, Manuscript Releases, vol. 14, pages 175-180)
Here Ellen White endorsed the teachings of her brethren in regard to the Holy Spirit in 1891. See pages 25 and 38 of this book to see what they taught in 1891 and beyond.
The reason why the churches are weak and sickly and ready to die is that the enemy has brought influences of a discouraging nature to bear upon trembling souls. He has sought to shut Jesus from their view as the Comforter, as one who reproves, who warns, who admonishes them, saying, “This is the way, walk ye in it.” (Ellen White, Review & Herald, August 26, 1890, also in Reflecting Christ, page 21)
True faith and repose in God are always accompanied by the illumination of the Holy Spirit, whose temple we are. The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Christ; it is His representative. Here is the divine agency that carries conviction to hearts. (Ellen White, Manuscript Releases, vol. 13, pages 313, 314)
God help us that we may be sanctified through the truth; and that sanctification shall have its influence to leaven those that are around us. Not the leaven of malice; not the leaven of jealousy; not the leaven of evil surmisings, but it is the leaven of the spirit of Jesus Christ, which is sent down from heaven, called the Holy Ghost, and that Spirit affects the heart and the character. (Ellen White, Sermons and Talks, vol. 1, page 210)
Cumbered with humanity, Christ could not be in every place personally; therefore it was altogether for their advantage that He should leave them, go to His father, and send the Holy Spirit to be His successor on earth. The Holy Spirit is Himself divested of the personality of humanity and independent thereof. He would represent Himself as present in all places by His Holy Spirit, as the Omnipresent. (Ellen White, Manuscript Releases, vol. 14, pages 23, 24; written February 18 and 19, 1895)
According to The American Heritage Dictionary the word “divested” means, “to strip, to dispossess, to free of; to rid.” If the Holy Spirit is a third being it is certain that he never was a human, and therefore it would be impossible for him to strip, or rid himself of humanity. Sister White said the Holy Spirit is Christ Himself, divested of humanity. He [Jesus] would represent Himself by His Holy Spirit.
Three Highest Positions in Heaven
The Son of God was next in authority to the great Lawgiver. He knew that His life alone could be sufficient to ransom fallen man. (Ellen White, Spirit of Prophecy, vol. 2, page 9, also in Lift Him Up, page 24)
Satan’s position in heaven had been next to the Son of God. He was first among the angels. (Ellen White, Selected Messages, book 1, page 341)
Satan, the chief of the fallen angels, once had an exalted position in Heaven. He was next in honor to Christ. (Ellen White, Review & Herald, February 24, 1874)
Speaking of Satan, our Lord says that “he abode not in the truth.” He was once the covering cherub, glorious in beauty and holiness. He was next to Christ in exaltation and character. It was with Satan that self-exaltation had its origin. He became jealous of Christ, and falsely accused him, and then laid blame upon the Father. He was envious of the position that was held by Christ and the Father, and he turned from his allegiance to the Commander of heaven and lost his high and holy estate. (Ellen White, Review & Herald, October 22, 1895)
Only Two
In order that the human family might have no excuse because of temptation, Christ became one with them. The only being who was one with God lived the law in humanity, descended to the lowly life of a common laborer, and toiled at the carpenter’s bench with his earthly parent. (Ellen White, The Signs of the Times, October 14, 1897 par. 3)
The Sovereign of the universe was not alone in His work of beneficence. He had an associate—a co-worker who could appreciate His purposes, and could share His joy in giving happiness to created beings. ‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God.’ John 1:1, 2. Christ, the Word, the only begotten of God, was one with the eternal Father—one in nature, in character, in purpose—the only being that could enter into all the counsels and purposes of God. ‘His name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.’ Isaiah 9:6. His “goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.” Micah 5:2. And the Son of God declares concerning Himself: “The Lord possessed Me in the beginning of His way, before His works of old. I was set up from everlasting.… When He appointed the foundations of the earth: then I was by Him, as one brought up with Him: and I was daily His delight, rejoicing always before Him.” Proverbs 8:22-30. (Ellen White, Patriarchs and Prophets, page 34)
By the power of His love, through obedience, fallen man, a worm of the dust, is to be transformed, fitted to be a member of the heavenly family, a companion through eternal ages of God and Christ and the holy angels.…—Manuscript 21, Feb. 16, 1900. (Ellen White, The Upward Look, page 61)
Let the brightest example the world has yet seen be your example, rather than the greatest and most learned men of the age, who know not God, nor Jesus Christ whom he has sent. The Father and the Son alone are to be exalted. (Ellen White, The Youth’s Instructor, July 7, 1898)
The Plan of Redemption
The plan of redemption was arranged in the councils between the Father and the Son. (Ellen White, Review & Herald, May 28, 1908 par. 12)
Even the angels were not permitted to share the counsels between the Father and the Son when the plan of salvation was laid. (Ellen White, Ministry of Healing, page 429)
The plan of salvation devised by the Father and the Son will be a grand success. (Ellen White, The Signs of the Times, June 17, 1903 par. 2)
Before the fall of man, the Son of God had united with his Father in laying the plan of salvation. (Ellen White, Review & Herald, September 13, 1906 par. 4)
The great plan of redemption was laid before the foundation of the world. And Christ, our Substitute and Surety, did not stand alone in the wondrous undertaking of the ransom of man. In the plan to save a lost world, the counsel was between them both; the covenant of peace was between the Father and the Son. (Ellen White, The Signs of the Times, December 23, 1897, par. 2)
By Christ the work upon which the fulfillment of God’s purpose rests, was accomplished. This was the agreement in the councils of the God-head. The Father purposed in counsel with his Son that the human family should be tested and proved,… (Ellen White, The Gospel Herald, June 11, 1902, par. 6)
Creation of the World
After the earth was created, and the beasts upon it, the Father and Son carried out their purpose,… And now God said to His Son, “Let us make man in our image.” (Ellen White, The Spirit of Prophecy, vol. 1, pages 24, 25)
Seemingly Contradictory Statements
You may have read statements from Ellen White that seem to contradict her plain statements given here. Please do not lose faith in God’s leading of Ellen White. All of these statements can be harmonized. Every statement from the Bible and the SOP on this subject must be given the chance to speak, and we must go with the weight of evidence. “Those who desire to doubt will have plenty of room. God does not propose to remove all occasion for unbelief. He gives evidence, which must be carefully investigated with a humble mind and a teachable spirit, and all should decide from the weight of evidence.” (Testimonies for the Church, vol. 3, page 255)
Joseph H. Waggoner: 1820 - 1889 (father of E. J. Waggoner)
Doctrine of a Trinity
Subversive of the Atonement
It will no doubt appear to many to be irreverent to speak thus of the doctrine of a trinity. But we think they must view the subject in a different light if they will calmly and candidly examine the arguments which we shall present. We know that we write with the deepest feelings of reverence for the Scriptures, and with the highest regard for every Scripture doctrine and Scripture fact. But reverence for the Scriptures does not necessarily embrace reverence for men’s opinions of the Scriptures.
It is not our purpose to present any argument on the doctrine of the trinity, further than it has a bearing on the subject under consideration, namely, on the Atonement. And we are willing, confidently willing to leave the decision of the question with all who will carefully read our remarks, with an effort to divest themselves of prejudice, if they unfortunately possess it. The inconsistencies of Trinitarians, which must be pointed out to free the Scripture doctrine of the Atonement from reproaches under which it has too long lain, are the necessary outgrowth of their system of theology. No matter how able are the writers to whom we shall refer, they could never free themselves from inconsistencies without correcting their theology.
Many theologians really think that the Atonement, in respect to its dignity and efficacy, rests upon the doctrine of a trinity. But we fail to see any connection between the two. To the contrary, the advocates of that doctrine really fall into the difficulty which they seem anxious to avoid. Their difficulty consists in this: They take the denial of a trinity to be equivalent to a denial of the divinity of Christ. Were that the case, we should cling to the doctrine of a trinity as tenaciously as any can; but it is not the case. They who have read our remarks on the death of the Son of God know that we firmly believe in the divinity of Christ; but we cannot accept the idea of a trinity, as it is held by Trinitarians, without giving up our claim on the dignity of the sacrifice made for our redemption.
And here is shown how remarkably the widest extremes meet in theology. The highest Trinitarians and lowest Unitarians meet and are perfectly united on the death of Christ—the faith of both amounts to Socinianism. Unitarians believe that Christ was a prophet, an inspired teacher, but merely human; that his death was that of a human body only. Trinitarians hold that the term “Christ” comprehends two distinct and separate natures: one that was merely human; the other, the second person in the trinity, who dwelt in the flesh for a brief period, but could not possibly suffer, or die; that the Christ that died was only the human nature in which the divinity had dwelt. Both classes have a human offering, and nothing more. No matter how exalted the pre-existent Son was; no matter how glorious, how powerful, or even eternal; if the manhood only died, the sacrifice was only human. And so far as the vicarious death of Christ is concerned, this is Socinianism. Thus the remark is just, that the doctrine of a trinity degrades the Atonement, resting it solely on a human offering as a basis. A few quotations will show the correctness of this assertion. (J. H. Waggoner, 1884, The Atonement In The Light Of Nature And Revelation, pages 164, 165)
We trust that we have shown to the full conviction of every one who “trembles at the word” of the Lord, that the Son of God, who was in the beginning, by whom the worlds were made, suffered death for us; the oft-repeated declarations of theological writers that a mere human body died are, by the Scriptures, proved untrue. These writers take the doctrine of a trinity for their basis, and assume that Christ is the second person in the trinity, and could not die. Again, they assume that death is not a cessation of life; and between the two unscriptural assumptions they involve themselves in numerous difficulties, and load the doctrine of the Atonement with unreasonable contradictions. We would not needlessly place ourselves in opposition to the religious feelings of any class, but in order to clear the doctrine of the Atonement from the consequences of these assumptions, we are compelled to notice some of the prominent arguments presented in favor of the doctrine of a trinity.
In the “Manual of Atonement,” 1 John 5:20 is quoted as containing most conclusive evidence of a trinity and of the Supreme Deity of Christ. It is there claimed that he is called “the true God and eternal life.” The whole verse reads thus: “And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life.” A person must be strongly wedded to a theory who can read this verse and not see the distinction therein contained between the true God and the Son of God. “We are in him that is true.” How? “In his Son Jesus Christ.” The distinction between Christ and the true God is most clearly shown by the Saviour’s own words in John 17:3: “That they might know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.”
Much stress is laid on Isa. 9:6, as proving a trinity, which we have before quoted, as referring to our High Priest who shed his blood for us. The advocates of that theory will say that it refers to a trinity because Christ is called the everlasting Father. But for this reason, with others, we affirm that it can have no reference to a trinity. Is Christ the Father in the trinity? If so, how is he the Son? or if he is both Father and Son, how can there be a trinity? for a trinity is three persons. To recognize a trinity, the distinction between the Father and Son must be preserved. Christ is called “the second person in the trinity;” but if this text proves a trinity, or refers to it at all, it proves that he is not the second, but the first. And if he is the first, who is the second? It is very plain that this text has no reference to such a doctrine. (J. H. Waggoner, 1884, The Atonement In The Light Of Nature And Revelation, pages 167-169)
As before remarked, the great mistake of Trinitarians, in arguing this subject, is this: they make no distinction between a denial of a trinity and a denial of the divinity of Christ. They see only the two extremes, between which the truth lies; and take every expression referring to the pre-existence of Christ as evidence of a trinity. The Scriptures abundantly teach the pre-existence of Christ and his divinity; but they are entirely silent in regard to a trinity. The declaration, that the divine Son of God could not die, is as far from the teachings of the Bible as darkness is from light. And we would ask the Trinitarian, to which of the two natures are we indebted for redemption? The answer must, of course, be, To that one which died or shed his blood for us; for “we have redemption through his blood.” Then it is evident that if only the human nature died, our Redeemer is only human, and that the divine Son of God took no part in the work of redemption, for he could neither suffer nor die. Surely, we say right, that the doctrine of a trinity degrades the Atonement, by bringing the sacrifice, the blood of our purchase, down to the standard of Socinianism. (J. H. Waggoner, 1884, The Atonement In The Light Of Nature And Revelation, page 173) (This is also found in Review & Herald, November 10, 1863, vol. 22, page 189)
The divinity and pre-existence of our Saviour are most clearly proved by those scriptures which refer to him as “the Word.” “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him, and without him was not anything made that was made.” John 1:1-3. This expresses plainly a pre-existent divinity. The same writer again says: “That which was from the beginning,… the Word of life.” 1 John 1:1. What John calls the Word, in these passages, Paul calls the “Son,” in Heb. 1:1-3. “God… hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power.” In other places in this letter this same exalted one is called Jesus Christ. In these passages we find the divinity or “higher nature” of our Lord expressed. Indeed, language could not more plainly express it; therefore it is unnecessary to call other testimony to prove it, it being already sufficiently proved.
The first of the above quotations says the Word was God, and also the Word was with God. Now it needs no proof—indeed it is self-evident—that the Word as God, was not the God whom he was with. And as there is but “one God,” the term must be used in reference to the Word in a subordinate sense, which is explained by Paul’s calling the same pre-existent person the Son of God. This is also confirmed by John’s saying that the Word “was with the Father.” 1 John 1:2; also calling the Word “his Son Jesus Christ.” Verse 3. Now it is reasonable that the Son should bear the name and title of his Father, especially when the Father makes him his exclusive representative to man, and clothes him with such power—“by whom he made the worlds.” That the term God is used in such a sense is also proved by Paul, quoting Ps. 45:6, 7, and applying it to Jesus. “But unto the son, he saith, Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever,… therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.” Heb. 1:8, 9. Here the title of God is applied to the Son, and his God anointed him. This is the highest title he can bear, and it is evidently used here in a sense subordinate to its application to his Father.
It is often asserted that this exalted one came to earth and inhabited a human body, which he left in the hour of its death. But the Scriptures teach that this exalted one was the identical person that died on the cross; and in this consists the immense sacrifice made for man—the wondrous love of God and condescension of his only Son. John says, “The Word of life,” “that which was from the beginning,” “which was with the Father,” that exalted, pre-existent One “which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled.” 1 John 1:1, 2. (J. H. Waggoner, 1884, The Atonement In The Light Of Nature And Revelation, pages 152-154)
Ques. What is Sunday, or the Lord’s Day in general?
Ans. It is a day dedicated by the Apostles to the honor of the most holy Trinity, and in memory that Christ our Lord arose from the dead upon Sunday, sent down the holy Ghost on a Sunday, &c.; and therefore it is called the Lord’s Day. It is also called Sunday from the old Roman denomination of Dies Solis, the day of the sun, to which it was sacred.— Douay Catechism, page 143. (J. H. Waggoner, July 18, 1854, Review & Herald, vol. 5, no. 24, page 86, par. 16-18)
Joseph Bates: 1792 - 1872
My parents were members of long standing in the Congregational church, with all of their converted children thus far, and anxiously hoped that we would also unite with them. But they embraced some points in their faith which I could not understand. I will name two only: their mode of baptism, and doctrine of the trinity. My father, who had been a deacon of long standing with them, labored to convince me that they were right in points of doctrine.… Respecting the trinity, I concluded that it was an impossibility for me to believe that the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, was also the Almighty God, the Father, one and the same being. I said to my father, “If you can convince me that we are one in this sense, that you are my father, and I your son; and also that I am your father, and you my son, then I can believe in the trinity.” (Joseph Bates, 1868, The Autobiography Of Elder Joseph Bates, page 204)
One thing more: Much derision is made about those of our company that have joined the Shakers. I say it is a shame to them first, to have preached so clearly and distinctly the speedy coming of our Lord Jesus Christ personally to gather his saints—and then to go and join the Shakers in their faith, that he (Jesus) came spiritually in their Mother, Ann Lee, more than seventy years ago. This, without doubt in my mind, is owing to their previous teaching and belief in a doctrine called the trinity. How can you find fault with their faith while you are teaching the very essence of that never—no never to be understood, doctrine? For their comfort and faith, and of course your own, you say “Christ is God, and God is love.” As you have given no explanation, we take it to come from you as a literal exposition of the word;…
We believe that Peter and his master settled this question beyond controversy, Matt. 16:13-19; and I cannot see why Daniel and John has not fully confirmed that Christ is the Son, and, not God the Father. How could Daniel explain his vision of the 7th chapter, if “Christ was God.” Here he sees one “like the Son (and it cannot be proved that it was any other person) of man, and there was given him Dominion, and Glory, and a kingdom;” by the ancient of days. Then John describes one seated on a throne with a book in his right hand, and he distinctly saw Jesus come up to the throne and take the book out of the hand of him that sat thereon. Now if it is possible to make these two entirely different transactions appear in one person, then I could believe that God died and was buried instead of Jesus, and that Paul was mistaken when he said, “Now the God of peace that brought again from the dead out Lord Jesus that great shepherd of the sheep” &c., and that Jesus also did not mean what he said when he asserted that he came from God, and was going to God, &c.&c,; and much more, if necessary, to prove the utter absurdity of such a faith. (A letter written by Joseph Bates to William Miller, 1848, Past And Present Experience, page 187)
W. W. Prescott
As Christ was twice born, once in eternity, the only begotten of the Father, and again here in the flesh, thus uniting the divine with the human in that second birth, so we, who have been born once already in the flesh, are to have the second birth, being born again of the Spirit, in order that our experience may be the same, the human and the divine being joined in a life union. (W. W. Prescott, April 14, 1896, Review & Herald, page 232)
Merritt E. Cornell: 1827 - 1893
Protestants and Catholics are so nearly united in sentiment, that it is not difficult to conceive how Protestants may make an image to the Beast. The mass of Protestants believe with Catholics in the Trinity, immortality of the soul, consciousness of the dead, rewards and punishments at death, the endless torture of the wicked, inheritance of the saints beyond the skies, sprinkling for baptism, and the PAGAN SUNDAY for the Sabbath; all of which is contrary to the spirit and letter of the new testament. Surely there is between the mother and daughters, a striking family resemblance. (M. E. Cornell, 1858, Facts For The Times, page 76)
Who are Mormons?
SOMETIMES our opponents, failing in argument, for effect, raise the cry of “Mormonism.” They cannot show that our views of spiritual gifts are unscriptural, or unreasonable, but because the Mormons professed to have those gifts, they think it a happy hit to excite prejudice against us, by calling us Mormons. But this charge loses all its force when we consider that faith in spiritual gifts is not peculiar to the Mormons. The most devoted and learned men of the Protestant sects have claimed the same thing both in theory and practice. [See work entitled “Miraculous Powers,” published at Review Office.] The truth is, we do not believe with the Mormons on a single point that is peculiar to them. But if to agree with the Mormons on leading points of doctrine, makes a man worthy of their name, then, verily the orthodox churches of the day are full of Mormons.
1. The Mormon Creed teaches the doctrine of the Trinity. “That Christ was the God, the Father of all things.” Mormon Bible, Book of Mosiah, par. 5.
“Behold! I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son.” Book of Esther, ch. 1, par. 3.
“Is the Son of God the very Eternal Father?
“Yea, he is the very Eternal Father.” Book of Alma, ch. 8, par. 7.
2. They believe in an immaterial God. “It is truth, light, and love, that we worship and adore; these are the same in all worlds; and as these constitute God, He is the same in all worlds; wherever you find a fullness of wisdom, knowledge, truth, goodness, love and such like qualities, there you find God in all his glory, power, and majesty—therefore if you worship these adorable qualities you worship God.” Mormon Seer pp. 24, 25.
Compare the above with Mr. H. W. Beecher in the Independent A. D. 1859. “A dim and shadowy effulgence arises from Christ, and that I am taught to call the Father. A yet more tenuous and invisible film of thought arises, and that is the Holy Spirit. But neither are to me aught tangible, restful, accessible.”
That Christ is the very and eternal God, and that God is immaterial, without body, parts or passions, is the teaching of most of the church creeds.
3. They believe in rewards and punishments at death.
“Immortal spirit joined with the choir above at Benjamin’s death.” Book of Mosiah, ch. 1, par. 8.
4. They believe the second death is endless torment.
“Then cometh a death, even a second death, which is a spiritual death. They cannot die seeing there is no more corruption.” Alma, ch. 9, par. 2, 3.
“Lake of fire is endless torment.” Book of Jacob ch. 4, p. 140.
5. The Mormons keep the Pagan, Sunday, so do Protestants in general. But why go farther? There is not a class of religious people in the world that differ with the Mormons in both theory and practice more widely than the Seventh-day Adventists. Those very men who charge us with “Mormonism,” agree with the Mormons in ten points to our one. We conclude therefore that such persons have simply mistaken the parties, and raise a charge applicable to themselves alone, to create prejudice against another class to whom it does not apply. (M. E. Cornell, April 7, 1863, Review & Herald, vol. 21, page 149, par. 5-16)
Scriptural Investigation
WHILE at West Union, I noticed that the doctrine of man’s mortality produced a great stir among the people. In a discussion with Eld. R. Swearagen (Methodist) on the nature of man, the truth shone brighter for the scouring it received.
Proposition. Do the Scriptures teach that man possesses an immortal, conscious principle?
This question was discussed before Judge McClintock as moderator, for seven evenings. The investigation made sale for books and tracts, and I think the result is as good as the generality of discussions. The brethren thought we could not well avoid it, as the cause might suffer if we appeared to be afraid to meet their positions. As a full report would be tedious, I give but a brief selection from the many positions and arguments.…
Swearagen. Christ gave up his soul, not merely his breath. He says, “I have power to lay down my life, and have power to take it again.” Something was conscious to take the life again.
Reply. His soul was the offering. “Hath poured out his soul unto death.” Isa. 53:10-12. The offering must die. The Son could take his life again when his Father gave it to him. “We have testified of God that he raised up Christ.” 1 Cor. 15:15. “Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death.” Acts 2:24. “Thou (God) wilt not leave my soul in hell (hades or grave) neither wilt thou suffer thy Holy One to see corruption.” Verse 27.
S. He is not satisfied when he says the soul of man dies with the body, but he rises higher in his blasphemy, and says, The soul of Christ died—that divinity died! He even kills a part of God! What awful blasphemy!!
R. If it be blasphemy to say that the divine Son of God died, how much greater blasphemy is found in the Methodist Discipline—“Very God and very man, who truly suffered, was crucified, dead and buried,” &c. Watson, speaking of Christ’s death, says, “The death of One who partook of flesh and blood,” “in that lower nature he dies.” “Sufferings and death of the incarnate Deity.”—Institutes, pp. 219, 259.
Dr. Clarke says, “A body was prepared for the eternal Logos, and in that body he came to do the will of God, that is, to suffer and die.” Com. on Heb. 10:6.
This charge of blasphemy is not only against his own Discipline, and principal theologian, and commentator, but his hymn book is full of such blasphemy.
“The incarnate God hath died for me.”
—Hymn 133, revised ed.
“Christ, the mighty Maker, died.”—146.
“The rising God forsakes the tomb.”—148.
“Down from the shining seats above,
With joyful haste he fled;
Entered the grave in mortal flesh,
And dwelt among the dead.”—131.
But worst of all, this awful charge is against the Bible. In John 1:2, 14, we learn that the “Word” which “was in the beginning with God,” “was made flesh.” And in Heb. 1:2, 3, the Son of God, who was the “express image of his person,” did “by himself purge our sins.” That which was “the express image” of God, was the sacrifice, and of course had to die. In Phil. 2:5-8, “Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus; who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God; but made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men; and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.”
There is nothing more clearly taught in the Scriptures than that he that came down from heaven died; that he “was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death,” and was “put to death in the flesh.” Heb. 2:9; 1 Pet. 3:18. “He hath poured out his soul unto death.” Isa. 53:12.
If Christ died, soul and body, and was raised, soul and body, then man will be raised from the dead, soul and body, for Christ in his resurrection was the first-fruits (or sample) of them that slept.” 1 Cor. 15:20.
If, as Clarke says, the “Eternal Logos” did “suffer and die,” it is folly to talk about an essential part of man not being subject to death. Such talk sounds much like the echo to that lie of the old serpent, “Thou shalt not surely die.” (M. E. Cornell, December 23, 1862, I vol. 21, no. 4, pages 25, 26)
James Springer White: 1821 - 1881
Jesus prayed that his disciples might be one as he was one with his Father. This prayer did not contemplate one disciple with twelve heads, but twelve disciples, made one in object and effort in the cause of their master. Neither are the Father and the Son parts of the “three-one God.” They are two distinct beings, yet one in the design and accomplishment of redemption. The redeemed, from the first who shares in the great redemption, to the last, all ascribe the honor, and glory, and praise, of their salvation, to both God and the Lamb. (James White, 1868, Life Incidents, page 343)
“Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for THE faith which was once delivered unto the saints…” (Jude 3, 4) …The exhortation to contend for the faith delivered to the saints, is to us alone. And it is very important for us to know what for and how to contend. In the 4th verse he gives us the reason why we should contend for THE faith, a particular faith; “for there are certain men,” or a certain class who deny the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ.… The way spiritualizers have disposed of or denied the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ is first using the old unscriptural Trinitarian creed, viz., that Jesus Christ is the eternal God, though they have not one passage to support it, while we have plain scripture testimony in abundance that he is the Son of the eternal God.” (James White, January 24, 1846, The Day Star)
The inexplicable Trinity that makes the Godhead three in one and one in three, is bad enough; but that ultra Unitarianism that makes Christ inferior to the Father is worse. Did God say to an inferior, “Let us make man in our image?” (James White, November 29, 1877, Review & Herald)
The Father was greater than the Son in that he was first. (James White, January 4, 1881, Review & Herald; found in EGW Review and Herald Articles, vol. 1, page 244)
We are told by those who teach the abolition of the Father’s law, that the commandments of God mentioned in the New Testament, are not the ten, but the requirements of the gospel, such as repentance, faith, baptism and the Lord’s supper. But as these, and every other requirement peculiar to the gospel, are all embraced in the faith of Jesus, it is evident that the commandments of God are not the sayings of Christ and his apostles. To assert that the sayings of the Son and his apostles are the commandments of the Father, is as wide from the truth as the old trinitarian absurdity that Jesus Christ is the very and Eternal God. And as the faith of Jesus embraces every requirement peculiar to the gospel, it necessarily follows that the commandments of God, mentioned by the third angel, embrace only the ten precepts of the Father’s immutable law which are not peculiar to any one dispensation, but common to all. (James White, August 5, 1852, Review & Herald, vol. 3, no. 7, page 52, par. 42)
Bro. Cottrell is nearly eighty years of age, remembers the dark day of 1780, and has been a Sabbath-keeper more than thirty years. He was formerly united with the Seventh-Day Baptists, but on some points of doctrine has differed from that body. He rejected the doctrine of the trinity, also the doctrine of man’s consciousness between death and the resurrection, and the punishment of the wicked in eternal consciousness. He believed that the wicked would be destroyed. Bro. Cottrell buried his wife not long since, who, it is said, was one of the excellent of the earth. Not long since, this aged pilgrim received a letter from friends in Wisconsin, purporting to be from M. Cottrell, his wife, who sleeps in Jesus. But he, believing that the dead know not anything, was prepared to reject at once the heresy that the spirits of the dead, knowing everything, come back and converse with the living. Thus truth is a staff in his old age. He has three sons in Mill Grove, who, with their families are Sabbath-keepers. (James White, June 9, 1853, Review & Herald, vol. 4, no. 2, page 12, par. 16)
Catholic Reasons for Keeping Sunday
1. Because “it is also called Sunday from the old Roman denomination of Dies Solis, the day of the sun, to which it was sacred.” “Sunday was a name given by the heathens to the first day of the week, because it was the day on which they worshipped the sun.”
2. Because it is “in honor of the blessed Virgin Mary.”
3. Because “it is a day dedicated by the apostles to the honor of the most Holy Trinity.” (James White, April 4, 1854, Review & Herald, vol. 5, no. 11, page 86, par. 16-18)
The Position of the Remnant
As fundamental errors, we might class with this counterfeit sabbath other errors which Protestants have brought away from the Catholic church, such as sprinkling for baptism, the trinity, the consciousness of the dead and eternal life in misery. The mass who have held these fundamental errors, have doubtless done it ignorantly; but can it be supposed that the church of Christ will carry along with her these errors till the judgment scenes burst upon the world? We think not. “Here are they [in the period of a message given just before the Son of man takes his place upon the white cloud, Rev. 14:14] that keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus.” This class, who live just prior to the second advent, will not be keeping the traditions of men, neither will they be holding fundamental errors relative to the plan of salvation through Jesus Christ. And as the true light shines out upon these subjects, and is rejected by the mass, then condemnation will come upon them. When the true Sabbath is set before men, and the claims of the fourth commandment are urged upon them, and they reject this holy institution of the God of heaven, and choose in its place an institution of the beast, it can then be said, in the fullest sense, that such worship the beast. The warning message of the third angel is given in reference to that period, when the mark of the beast will be received, instead of the seal of the living God. Solemn dreadful, swiftly approaching hour! (James White, September 12, 1854, Review & Herald, vol. 6, no. 5, page 36, par. 8)
Here we might mention the Trinity, which does away the personality of God, and of his Son Jesus Christ, and of sprinkling or pouring instead of being “buried with Christ in baptism,” “planted in the likeness of his death:” but we pass from these fables to notice one that is held sacred by nearly all professed Christians, both Catholic and Protestant. It is, The change of the Sabbath of the fourth commandment from the seventh to the first day of the week. (James White, December 11, 1855, Review & Herald, vol. 7, no. 11, page 85, par. 16)
The “mystery of iniquity” began to work in the church in Paul’s day. It finally crowded out the simplicity of the gospel, and corrupted the doctrine of Christ, and the church went into the wilderness. Martin Luther, and other reformers, arose in the strength of God, and with the Word and Spirit, made mighty strides in the Reformation. The greatest fault we can find in the Reformation is, the Reformers stopped reforming. Had they gone on, and onward, till they had left the last vestige of Papacy behind, such as natural immortality, sprinkling, the trinity, and Sunday- keeping, the church would now be free from her unscriptural errors. (James White, February 7, 1856, Review & Herald, vol. 7, no. 19, page 148, par. 26)
Alonzo T. Jones: 1850 - 1923
He who was born in the form of God took the form of man. “In the flesh he was all the while as God, but he did not appear as God.” “He divested himself of the form of God, and in its stead took the form and fashion of man.” “The glories of the form of God, He for awhile relinquished.” (A. T. Jones, General Conference Bulletin 1895, page 448)
He was born of the Holy Ghost. In other words, Jesus Christ was born again. He came from heaven, God’s first-born, to the earth, and was born again. But all in Christ’s work goes by opposites for us: He, the sinless one, was made to be sin in order that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him. He, the living One, the Prince and Author of life, died that we might live. He whose goings forth have been from the days of eternity, the first-born of God, was born again in order that we might be born again. (Christian Perfection, paragraphs 53, 54 A Sermon By A. T. Jones, Review & Herald, July 7 - August 1, 1899) (This is also found in Lessons on Faith, page 154)
11. “In accordance with this opinion” then, what has been done? “The Christian religion,” that is, “Christianity, general Christianity,” is legally recognized and declared to be the established religion of this nation, and that consequently “this is a Christian nation.” With this also, “in language more or less emphatic,” there is justified as the “meaning” of the Constitution of the United States, (1) the maintenance of the discipline of the Churches by the civil power; (2) the requirement of the religious oath; (3) the requirement of the religious test oath as a qualification for office; (4) public taxation for the support of religion and religious teachers; (5) the requirement of a belief in the Trinity and the inspiration of “the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments;” (6) the guilt of blasphemy upon everyone who speaks or acts in contempt of the established religion; and (7) laws for the observance of Sunday, with the general cessation of all “secular business.”
12. Now what more was ever required by the papacy, and all phases of the old order of things, than is thus brought within the meaning of the national Constitution by this decision? What more was ever required by the papacy itself than that “the Christian religion” should be the national religion; that the discipline of the Church should be maintained by the civil power; that the religious test oath should be applied to all; that the public should be taxed for the support of religion and religious worship; that there should be required a belief in the doctrine of the Trinity, and the inspiration of the “Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament;” that the guilt of “blasphemy” should be visited upon everyone who should speak or act “in contempt of the religion professed by almost the whole community;” and that everybody should be required by law to observe Sunday? Indeed, what more than this could be required or even desired by the most absolute religious despotism that could be imagined? (A. T. Jones, 1901, Ecclesiastical Empire, pages 837, 838)
Here is a distinctly religious qualification required. The applicant shall prove that he is a regularly ordained minister of some religious denomination and must be recommended by some authorized ecclesiastical body. It is true that he is not required directly by this law, to declare that he believes in the Trinity, or the communion of saints, or the resurrection of the dead. It is true he is not required to pass such a direct test as that. But he is required to be religious and to belong to a religious denomination. If he is not this, he cannot be appointed. This is nothing else than a religious test as a qualification for office under the United States, and is clearly a violation of that clause of the Constitution which declares that “No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification of any office of public trust under the United States.”
More than this: although, as stated above, no direct test as to a belief in the Trinity, etc., is required, the same thing is done indirectly. For in order to be an ordained minister in good standing in some religious denomination, he must necessarily pass a close and searching test upon many religious points. Therefore this requirement does indirectly what it does not do directly, and is just as certainly a violation of the Constitution, as though it were done directly. (A. T. Jones, 1891, The Two Republics, page 801)
Another, and the most notable of all the victims of Calvin’s theocracy, was Servetus, who had opposed the Catholic doctrine of the Trinity, and also infant baptism; and had published a book entitled “Christianity Restored,” in which he declared his sentiments. At the instance and by the aid of Calvin, he had been prosecuted by the papal Inquisition, and condemned to death for blasphemy and heresy, but he escaped from their prison in Dauphine, in France, and in making his way to Italy, passed through Geneva, and there remained a short time. He was just about to start for Zurich, when at the instigation of Calvin, he was seized, and out of the book before mentioned, was accused of blasphemy. The result, as everybody knows, was that he was burned to death. The followers of Servetus were banished from Geneva. (A. T. Jones, 1891, The Two Republics, page 590)
A. J. Dennis
What a contradiction of terms is found in the language of Trinitarian creed: “In unity of this head are three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.” There are many things that are mysterious, written in the word of God, but we may safely presume the Lord never calls upon us to believe impossibilities. But creeds often do. (A. J. Dennis, May 22, 1879, Signs of The Times)
John Matteson
Christ is the only literal son of God. “The only begotten of the Father.” John 1:14. He is God because he is the Son of God; not by virtue of His resurrection. If Christ is the only begotten of the Father, then we cannot be begotten of the Father in a literal sense. It can only be in a secondary sense of the word. (John Matteson, October 12, 1869, Review & Herald, page123)
J. M. Stephenson
In reference to his dignity, he is denominated the Son of God, before his incarnation. Hear his own language: “He that speaketh of himself, seeketh his own glory: but he that seeketh his glory that sent him, the same is true.” John 7:18. “Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God.” Chap. 10:36. “In this was manifest the love of God toward us, because God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him. Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.” 1 John 4:9, 10. The idea of being sent implies that he was the Son of God antecedent to his being sent. To suppose otherwise is to suppose that a father can send his son on an errand before that son has an existence, which would be manifestly absurd. “To say that God sent his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh,” is equivalent to saying that the Son of God assumed our nature; he must therefore have been the Son of God before his incarnation. (J. M. Stephenson, November 7, 1854, Review & Herald, vol. 6, no. 13, page 99, par. 10)
But in the last place, on this point, What was the origin of this nature; or in other words, the origin of the Son of God. It is admitted by Trinitarians that the pre-existence, simply considered, does not prove his eternal God-head, nor his eternal Son-ship. Says Watson, a standard writer of the Trinitarian School, “His pre-existence, indeed, simply considered, does not evince his God-head, and is not therefore, a proof against the Arian hypothesis; but it destroys the Socinian notion, that he was a man only. For since no one contends for the pre-existence of human souls, and if they did, the doctrine would be confuted by their own consciousness, it is clear, that if Christ existed before his incarnation, he is not a mere man, whatever his nature, by other arguments may be proved to be.” This is an honest acknowledgment plainly expressed. And in reference to his nature, it has been shown to be Divine; and being such, it must have been immortal. Indeed this proposition is self-evident; for he who is Divine, must be immortal.
We cannot suppose that Christ was mortal, and, as such, would have been subject to death, had not the plan of redemption been devised; he must, therefore, in his original nature, have been deathless.
The question now to be considered, then, is not whether the only begotten Son of God was Divine, immortal, or the most dignified and exalted being, the Father only excepted, in the entire Universe; all this has been proved, and but few will call it in question; but whether this August Personage is self- existent and eternal, in its absolute, or unlimited sense; or whether in his highest nature, and character, he had an origin, and consequently beginning of days. The idea of Father and Son supposes priority of the existence of the one, and the subsequent existence of the other. To say that the Son is as old as his Father, is a palpable contradiction of terms. It is a natural impossibility for the Father to be as young as the Son, or the Son to be as old as the Father. If it be said that this term is only used in an accommodated sense, it still remains to be accounted for, why the Father should use as the uniform title of the highest, and most endearing relation between himself and our Lord, a term which, in its uniform signification, would contradict the very idea he wished to convey. If the inspired writers had wished to convey the idea of the co-etaneous existence, and eternity of the Father and Son, they could not possibly have used more incompatible terms.
And of this, Trinitarians have been sensible. Mr. Fuller, although a Trinitarian, had the honesty to acknowledge, in the conclusion of his work on the Son-ship of Christ, that, “in the order of nature, the Father must have existed before the Son.” But with this admission, he attempts to reconcile the idea of the Son’s being “properly eternal,” as well as the Father; two ideas utterly irreconcilable. The idea of an eternal Son is a self-contradiction. He must, therefore have an origin. But what saith the Scriptures? They speak right to the point. The apostle Paul says, speaking of Christ, “Who is the image of the invisible God, the first born of every creature.” Col. 1:15. Notice, 1st. This cannot refer to his birth of the Virgin Mary, in Bethlehem of Judea, because millions of creatures, in connection with this world, had been born previous to that time. Cain and Abel had been born more than four thousand years previously.
2nd. The following verse makes his birth antecedent to the creation of all things in heaven and on earth, including all worlds, all ranks and orders of intelligences, visible and invisible. “For by him.” By whom? Ans. By the first born of every creature. The pronoun him refers to this being for its antecedent. “For 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.” Verse 16. All things in heaven and in earth, visible and invisible, thrones, dominions, principalities, and powers, evidently include all the orders of created intelligences.
Now, he must have been born, i.e., had a real intelligent existence, before he could exercise creative power. But all the works of creation are ascribed to him as the “first born of every creature;” hence the birth here spoken of, must have been previous to the existence of the first creature in heaven or in earth. To be such, it must refer to his Divine nature, unless he had two distinctive natures before his incarnation; for which no one contends. But the 17th verse fixes the priority of the birth here spoken of. “And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.” Here the pronoun he refers to the same person for its antecedent, that the pronoun him does; and both refer to “the first born of every creature.” And the “all things, he is” before, in this verse, are evidently the “all things” named in the previous verse. Hence the point is fully established, that it is the Divine nature of our blessed Redeemer which is here spoken of; and that this nature was born: and in reference to his order, he was “the first born.”
Again, in John 1:1-3, 14, we have the same class of evidence. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.” “In the beginning,” evidently refers to the commencement of the series of events brought to view in these verses, which was the creation of all things. This gives “the only begotten of the Father” (see verse 14) intelligent existence before the first act of creative power was put forth, and proves that it is his Divine nature here spoken of; and that too, in connection with the creation of all things. In verse 14, this Word, who was “in the beginning” “with God,” who “was God,” and by whom “all things were made, that were made,” is declared to be the “only begotten of the Father,” thereby teaching that in his highest nature he was begotten; and consequently as such, he must have had a beginning.
Associate the many occurrences of the term, “only begotten Son of God,” with the person, nature, and time, brought to view in the foregoing verses; and if any doubts still remain, in reference to the Divine nature of the only begotten Son of God having had an origin, you may compare them with those texts which exclude the possibility of his being eternal, in the sense of his never having had a beginning of days; such as “The blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords,: who only hath immortality.” 1 Tim. 6:16. This cannot be understood in the sense of none having deathless natures, or being exempt from death, except the Father; for Christ at that time was immortal in this sense: so were all the angels who had kept their “first estate;” it must, therefore be understood in the same sense, that we all understand, his being the only Potentate; not that there are no other potentates; but that he is the only Supreme Ruler. There cannot be two Supreme Rulers at the same time.
Again, where it is declared, that there are none good except the Father, it cannot be understood that none others are good in a relative sense; for Christ and angels, are good, yea perfect, in their respective sphere; but that the Father alone is supremely, or absolutely, good; and that he alone is immortal in an absolute sense; that he alone is self-existent; and, that, consequently, every other being, however high or low, is absolutely dependent upon him for life; for being. This idea is most emphatically expressed by our Saviour himself; “For as the Father hath life in himself, so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself.” John 5:26. This would be singular language for one to use who had life in his essential nature, just as much as the Father. To meet such a view, it should read thus: For as the Father hath life in himself, so hath the Son life in himself.
If as Trinitarians argue, the Divine nature of the Son hath life in himself (.e., is self existent) just the same, and in as absolute a sense, as the Father, why should he represent himself as actually dependent upon the Father for life? What propriety in representing the Father as conferring upon him a gift which he had possessed from all eternity? If it be said that his human nature derived its life from the Father, I would answer, It does not thus read; or even if it did, I would still urge the impropriety of the human nature of the Son of God representing itself as being absolutely dependent upon the Father for the gift of life. Would it not be much more reasonable, in such case, for the human nature of Christ to derive its life, and vitality, from its union with the Divine nature, instead of from its union with the Father? I understand this passage according to the natural import of the language: “For as the Father hath life (i.e., existence) in himself, (i.e., self-existent,) so hath he given to the Son to have life (i.e., existence) in himself.”
I know I will be referred to the declaration of our Saviour, I have power to lay down my life, and to take it up again. John 10:18. Read the last clause of this verse: “This commandment (commission—Campbell) have I received of my Father.”
I will conclude the evidence upon this point by quoting one more passage. Paul says, “And again, when he bringeth the first-begotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.” Heb. 1:6. He must have been his Son before he could send him into the world. In verse 2, the Father declares that he made the worlds by the same Son he is here represented as sending into the world. His Son must have existed before he created the worlds; and he must have been begotten before he existed; hence the begetting here spoken of, must refer to his Divine nature, and in reference to his order, he is the first-begotten; hence as a matter of necessity he must have been “the first born of every creature.” Col. 1:15. “The first born of every creature.”…
Having investigated the original nature, glory and dignity of our Lord and Master; having gazed a few moments upon the face of him who is the fairest among ten thousand, and altogether lovely; having had a glance at the celestial glory he had with the Father, before the world was, and beheld that matchless form which is the image of the invisible God; and having looked with wonder and admiration upon this August personage, exalted far above angels and thrones and dominions, principalities and powers; we are prepared, as far as our feeble perceptions can comprehend, to appreciate that amazing love and condescension which induced our adorable Redeemer to forego all the glories and honors of heaven, and all the endearments of his Father’s presence.
Although all his Father’s treasures were his, yet he became so poor, that, he had not where to lay his head; oft-times the cold, damp earth being his only bed, and the blue heavens his only covering; a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief, scoffed at by the Jews, and mocked by the Gentiles; a houseless stranger, he wore out his life under the ignoble garb of a servant, and last of all “died, the just for the unjust,” and took his exit from the world under the infamous character of a malefactor. O! was ever love like this! Did ever mercy stoop so low?… (J. M. Stephenson, November 14, 1854, Review & Herald, vol. 6, no. 14, pages 105, 106)
I will select a few passages, in which, in the highest character ascribed to him [Christ] in the Bible, he is represented as humbling himself and becoming obedient unto death: where the same identical being who had glory with the “Father before the world was,” is represented as dying.
Paul, speaking of Christ’s highest nature, says, “Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God.” Phil. 2:6. That this verse refers to his Divine nature, all admit, who believe he had a Divine nature; yet it is emphatically declared in the two verses following, that he “made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men. And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death.” Here it is expressly declared that this exalted being who was “in the form of God,” humbled himself, 1st, by becoming man; 2nd, by becoming “obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.” (J. M. Stephenson, November 21, 1854, Review & Herald, vol. 6, no. 15, page 113)
We are prepared at this point of the investigation, to understand the relation the sacrifice of Christ, or the atonement, sustains to the law of God. In presenting this part of the subject, I shall compare what I understand to be the Bible view, with the two theories upon this point, believed by most of Christendom. They are the Unitarian and Trinitarian views. These views occupy the two extreme points. Many of the most eminent writers, in the Unitarian school, deny the pre-existence of the Son of God, as a real personality; but take the position that he was a good, yea, a perfect man.
I would look with the highest degree of admiration upon the magnanimity and self-sacrifice of a king of spotless purity, just and good, and loved by all his subjects, who, for the forfeited lives of a few rebellious subjects in a remote province of his kingdom, would voluntarily descend from his throne, and exile himself in the garb of the meanest peasant, wear out his life in acts of kindness toward them, and last of all, die the most infamous and ignominious death, to save their lives, and bring them back in allegiance to his throne. Such an act of disinterestedness and love would fill the world with the loudest songs of praise and admiration; but, however great and praise-worthy such an act might justly appear, it falls almost infinitely below the claims of Jehovah’s abused and violated law.
I cannot conceive how the life of one man, however good or perfect, or benevolent, could render an equivalent for the forfeited lives of all the millions of the human race, whose characters, in case of perfect obedience, would be equally exceptionless. I cannot conceive how the death of one good man could render an adequate atonement for the lives of so many millions. But, according to the views of these writers, we have only the death of a good man’s body, while all that is noble, dignified, responsible, and intelligent, survives death, nay, by this very act, is exalted to higher degrees of bliss and glory.
The Trinitarian view, I think is equally exceptionable. They claim that the Son of God had three distinct natures at the same time; viz., a human body, a human soul, united with his Divine nature: the body being mortal, the soul immortal, the Divinity co-equal, co-existent, and co-eternal with the everlasting Father. Now, none of the advocates of this theory, claim that either his soul or Divinity died, that the body was the only part of this triple being which actually died “the death of the cross;” hence, according to this view (which makes the death of Christ the grand atoning sacrifice for the sins of the world) we only have the sacrifice of the most inferior part—the human body—of the Son of God.
But it is claimed that his soul suffered the greater part of the penalty—yet it did not suffer “the death of the cross:” it deserted the body in its greatest extremity, and left it to bear alone the death penalty; hence, the death of the cross is still only the death of a human body. But even admitting that in his highest nature as a human being, he suffered, all of which his nature, as such, was susceptible, during his whole life, and then died the ignominious death of the cross—even then, such a sacrifice would come almost inf