1 Therefore being justified by faith [ekpisteou: "out of faith"], we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:

But how doth the God-instructed and gospel-believing sinner "from faith," as the motive principle pass "into faith?" Answer: "In delivering his self-condemnatory verdict according to the divine testimony, which convinces him of sin, of righteousness, and of judgment to come." He sentences the thing styled "self" and "me," that is, "the flesh, in which dwells no good thing," to crucifixion, death and burial; that a new and self-denying character, styled "the new man" and "the new creature," may thenceforth come into living manifestation.

... No believing sinner ought to be buried till he is "dead to sin." by the water-burial he enters "into faith;" "into Christ," "into the Yahweh-Name," and his believing is counted to him for righteousness; he is therefore in faith, in Christ, in the Name, in God; and no longer an uncleansed, naked, sinner; but a purified, pardoned, sanctified, man, or saint, clothed with the Christ-Name as with a garment, waiting for the wedding.

Bro Thomas, The Ambassador of the Coming Age, April, 1869

3 And not only so, but we glory in tribulations also: knowing that tribulation worketh patience;

Tribulation is a moral necessity

àWe cannot be brought into a reasonable state without it. Paul defines its mission thus:

"Tribulation worketh patience;"

And through much tribulation it is appointed we must enter the kingdom of God. The wisdom of it is not difficult to see. Humility and patience are indispensable attributes of excellence of character. They are characteristic of the angels, to equality with whom the gospel invites us, and who have known evil in their day. They come only with tribulation.

They do not come with luxury and indulgence. The silver spoon usually generates pride and impatience. Tribulation drives those out of the natural man, and helps us to come more and more into that state in which God will be able to find pleasure in us, and forgive us for Christ's sake, and give us an abiding place in the glorious household of His Son.

Recognition of this will enable us to take trouble with a little more composure than if we supposed it were a pure and aimless evil. It is by no means such. It is pre-eminently among the "all things" which

"work together for good for those who love God, who are the called according to his purpose."

Seasons 1.98.

4 And patience, experience; and experience, hope:

The future is too great to realize.

à...in the future, we get into a region beyond experience, and, therefore, beyond our grasp, though it may come into the compass of our knowledge by faith.

Yet, let us glance at it for a moment. We know that in a short time, the state of things on the face of the earth will be completely changed. Human soeiety, as now constituted, will be broken up; all the laws men have made for themselves—political, municipal, social, and domestic will be blown to the winds by the breath of God in Jesus Christ, and an entirely new system will be established, based upon perfect holiness, perfect right-eousness, perfect neighbourly feeling, perfect brotherly love; and all who stand in the way of the great revolution will be broken to pieces.

Those who will carry out this revolution will be those of all ages whom Jesus shall pronounce worthy, by reason of their faith and obedience.

These, made in nature equal with the angels, will have the wealth of the whole world placed in their hands, and armed with power to execute the will of their captain, such as no human being ever had before—a power that will be superior to all the armour-plated ships and fields of rifled ordnance that may be brought against them, and with which they will break in pieces every obstruction to the divine government.

Their mission will be to bring everything into subjection to God's king—to exact from every tongue, and every knee, and everything that breathes upon earth that homage due to the man whom God has ordained to rule the world.

Those only will be admitted to association with the great fraternity who have chosen now, in this present time, when there is darkness and night brooding over all, to identify themselves with the preliminary and humble form in which this work exists.

Sunday Morning 20

The Christadelphian May, 1870

7 For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die.

"Made Sin for US"

Christ was "made sin" in being born into a sin-constitution of things—a state in which evil prevails because of sin, for the cure of that evil and the removal of that sin in being treated as a sinner when he was not a sinner.

He was "made a curse for us" (a synonymous expression) in becoming subject on our account to a curse to which he was not individually liable—namely, the curse of the law to which he was obedient in all things, but under which he came in the mode of his death;

"for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree" (Gal. 3:13).

Undeserving of curse, and guiltless of sin, he was "made a curse," and "made sin," in dying as one under curse and a sinner. He did this for his brethren, who were sinners and accursed. He did it by coming under the curse himself, for he could not otherwise remove it.

"He bare our sins in his own body on the tree" (1 Peter 2:24),

and the testimony that "he died for us" Rom. 5:8) is equivalent to the affirmation that he was "made sin for us, " and "made a curse for us."

These elliptical expressions are but another form of Isaiah's testimony:

"It pleased the Lord to bruise him; He hath put him to grief" (Is. 53:10).

He did so to magnify His own law and exhibit or declare His own righteousness as the basis of our forgiveness. We cannot and need not get nearer than this. It was an arrangement of love, in harmony with justice and wisdom, for the deliverance of such as come through that arrangement to God in humility for forgiveness, recognising themselves as crucified with Christ—by whom nevertheless they live, because he rose again.

The Christadelphian, Sept 1898

9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.

12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned :

In whom all sinned

àSin in the flesh is hereditary, and entailed upon mankind as the consequence of Adam's violation of the Eden law. The "original sin" was such as I have shown in previous pages. Adam and Eve committed it, and their posterity are suffering the consequence of it. The tribe of Levi paid tithes to Melchisedec many years before Levi was born. The apostle says,

"Levi, who receiveth tithes, paid tithes in Abraham."

Upon the same federal principle, all mankind ate of the forbidden fruit, being in the loins of Adam when he transgressed.

This is the only way men can by any possibility be guilty of the original sin. Because they sinned in Adam, therefore they return to the dust from which Adam came, says the apostle,

"in whom all sinned."

Elpis Israel 1.4.

à'...before sin entered into the world by Adam, the economy was "very good;" and God was "the all things for all" the living souls he had made. In this state of being there was no adversary, and no death, because there was no sin, and death being absent, there was no viceregal kingdom to make war upon hostile powers, for the purpose of subduing them, and substituting the power of God instead.

But when sin entered into the world, and death by sin, a rebellion commenced against God which has never been put down effectually from that day to this. It has ever gathered strength, and is at the present crisis more defiant of his authority than ever.

All was peace and harmony between God and man upon earth'.

Herald 03/53

àAdam, before transgression, though a living soul (or natural body—1 Cor. 15:44–5), was not necessarily destined to die, as obedience would have ended in life immortal.

After transgression, his relation to destiny was changed. Death (by sentence,) was constituted the inevitable upshot of his career. He was, therefore, in a new condition as regarded the future, though not in a new condition as regarded the actual state of his nature.

In actual nature, he was a corruptible groundling before sentence, and a corruptible groundling after sentence; but there was this difference: before sentence, ultimate immortality was possible; after sentence, death was a certainty.

This change in the destiny lying before him, was the result of sin. That is, his disobedience evoked from God a decree of ultimate dissolution. This was the sentence of death, which, though effecting no change as regarded his constitution at the moment it was pronounced, determined a great physical fact concerning his future experience, viz., that immortality, by change to spirit nature, was impossible, and decay and decease inevitable.

The sentence of death, therefore, appertained to his physical nature, and was necessarily transmitted in his blood, to every being resulting from the propagation of his own species....there was a change in Adam's relation to his maker (that is, in the purpose of God concerning the future of Adam's experience: immortality being made impossible, and death inevitable); but not in the nature of his organization.'

Again, 'it (sin in the flesh,) is not expressive of a literal element or principle pervading the physical organization,' but of the impulses which lead to sin, and sin (in the results it evokes from the mind of God,) re-acts upon the flesh in bringing upon it a condition in which it is mortal, and physically impure." bro Thomas 1869

The Christadelphian, Aug 1869

àThe imputation of Adam's crime to his offspring is a doctrine of the Apostacy.‭ ‬Adam's sin was his own,‭ ‬and no one else's.‭ ‬His sin has bequeathed to every man an evil and condemned nature,‭ ‬but not guilt‭; ‬no,‭ ‬not of any kind.‭

Any theory which makes man,‭ ‬and worse still,‭ ‬which makes Christ,‭ ‬an artificial criminal,‭ ‬and,‭ ‬as such,‭ ‬deserving of punishment,‭ ‬is a theory which should be promptly shown the door.‭

God is no juggler,‭ ‬nor is He an unreasonable avenger.‭ ‬He is good,‭ ‬and He is just.‭ ‬Man dies because he is sinful,‭ ‬and he is sinful as the outcome of Adam's rebellion.‭ ‬Christ‭ (‬who was more than a mere man‭) ‬was born under the Adamic condemnation,‭ ‬and cut off in the midst of his years,‭ ‬as a means of declaring the righteousness of God,‭ ‬and establishing a basis on which He could save a sinning and sinful race.‭

Christ's sacrifice was not a matter of paying‭ (‬by a method of legal fiction‭) ‬a debt incurred by sinners,‭ ‬but of solemnly showing forth the respective positions of God and the race—the purity and holiness and majesty of the one,‭ ‬and the corruptions of the other,‭ ‬and of providing a becoming platform on which He could dispense His inestimable mercy and favour.

Bro A Jannaway

The Christadelphian, Aug 1899

àAdam's nature was created "very good" (chapter and verse, Gen. 1:31). In the days of Paul, Adam's nature as handed down to his children had ceased to have any good in it and had become mortal, (chapter and verse, Rom. 7:18–23; 1 Cor. 15:53; 2 Cor. 5:4), or "dead because of sin" (chapter and verse, Rom. 8:10).

Consequently, somewhere between the one state and the other, a change had taken place. There is no difficulty in fixing the "when" and the "where." Paul says it was by one man that sin entered the world, and death by sin (Rom. 5:12), and that sentence came at that time upon all men to condemnation.

The Christadelphian, Oct 1898

Infant Sprinkling

àThere is one remarkable absurdity not to be pretermitted in this exposition of the Sign of Beast. Its "reverend" sorcerers say that the water they use is sanctified by the Holy Ghost to the mystical washing away of sin, and that the babe, sprinkled on the forehead with this sanctified water, is released from sin, and sanctified with the Holy Ghost!

Now, the question is, what sin is this ghostly sanctified babe released from?

The apostle saith "sin is the transgression of law;" what law has a babe transgressed who is without speech and without volition? Every one not drunk or insane knows that a babe is not an actual transgressor; and, therefore, has no sins to be released from.

But, as they refer to the fact, that "all men are conceived and born in sin," it is to be inferred that this is the sin to be released from - "original sin," as causing the flesh to be what it is.

There is no other sort of sin a babe can be released from. To be released from sin is to be released from subjection to it, and from the penalty thereby incurred. Does such a release result from the subjection of a babe to the "outward visible sign?" Is it released from sin's flesh and its "emotions?"

If so, how does it come to be sick or to die?

The punishment of sin is death, a sentence passed upon all the descendants of Adam, eph' hopantes hemarton, in whom all sinned-Rom 5:12. Upon this federal principle, the babe sinned in Adam, and, therefore, falls sick and dies, although it has committed no sins.

What a monstrous absurdity in the face of these stubborn facts, to say that sanctified water (supposing it were really sanctified) or the essence of holiness supposed to be in it, releases a babe from the only sin that can be imputed to it, seeing that it is released from none of the evils that sin entails!

If the inward spiritual grace said to be contained in the outward visible sign released the babe from sin, it would be freed from "all the ills that flesh is heir to," and live forever.

In such an event the Sign of the Beast would be a wonderful institution; but as it accomplishes nothing claimed for it by the "reverend divines" who practice it, there is no other conclusion that can be arrived at than that it is a sign characteristic only of those who obey and worship the Beast,

"of whom there has not been written the names in the book of life of the Lamb from the foundation of the world"-ch. 13:8; 17:8.

Eureka 13.33.

13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

àNevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the likeness of Adam's transgression. (Rom. v. 12-14. R.V.)

Verse fourteen is explanatory of verse twelve.

" Death reigned from Adam to Moses even over those that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression".

Inversely, therefore, all men may be said to be sinners in Adam, even though they do not sin personally. All are subject to death in consequence of Adam's sin, for a baby, incapable of doing good or evil, dies. If it may be said that

"Levi paid tithes in Abraham " because " he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him,"

so also it may be said that all Adam's descendants sinned in him, for they were yet in his loins when he sinned. Therefore all his descendants are subject to death, and to the same conditions which supervened when he sinned, i.e., they are naturally born in a state of sin and subject to death unless a way of escape is provided by the Father.

Yet Adam's descendants are not penalised for his sin. As his descendants they are excluded from the privileges which he possessed in Eden. In this respect they may be likened to the descendants of a prince who by some act has abrogated his title to freedom and becomes a slave.

In such case his descendants do not suffer a penalty, but the disability of their progenitor descends upon them. They never had what they would have enjoyed had not their father vitiated his title and by his misdeeds led them into slavery. This is their misfortune, not their

crime.

The descendants of Adam also suffer all the consequences of his transgression which are transmissible through their physical relationship to him; much more so than the son of a leper who becomes leprous, or the son of a syphilitic who is syphilitic. By nature they

inherit the natural impulses of the flesh set in motion by Adam's disobedience. This would have been an unmitigated evil had not a covering for sin and "a way" to the tree of life been provided.

The Temple of Ezekiel's prophecy 5.6.7.

14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

A Renunciationist Leaflet

àC. R. having sent a Renunciationist leaflet, entitled "To the Point," with a request to have its flaws pointed out, if there were any, the Editor wrote the following answer:

I cannot spare time for all that might be said in exposure of the sophistry pervading the paper you have sent me. It is a piece of assertion from beginning to end, and contradictory all through. It starts with a juggle.

What is the meaning of Christ not being "in Adam's transgression?" If Christ was not "in" it, we are not; for we are both of the same stock as concerns the flesh. Does it mean we are guilty of Adam's offence? Absurd! We are no more individually responsible for Adam's offence than Christ was; yet we inherit the consequence; so did Christ as the seed of Abraham according to the flesh.

It was "by the offence of one that all have been condemned:" but Renunciationism makes this read, "By the offence af all, all have been condemned;" for it makes "all" parties to the offence, which is an absurdity. By this, of course, it tries to exempt Christ, who was without sin, from a result that came by sin. But, the argument is pure sophistry.

We inherit the result by physical extraction, not by moral responsibility. God is just, and does not hold us morally responsible for another man's offence. But still we are mortal, because propagated from a condemned man, who could not do otherwise than transmit the mortal quality of his being to offspring.

Again, the statement that "Christ's life was not uncertain, as ours;" while in a sense true, is not true in the sense intended, viz.:—as regards nature. "Oh, no, I don't mean nature," says the paper; "I mean relation." This is an impossible distinction in such a matter. We are related to mortality by being mortal in nature. We are related to death by inheriting a nature given over by sentence to death. To separate the one from the other is one of the fallacies which impose on undiscerning minds, and which opens the door for a difference between Christ's flesh and ours, which Paul says are "the same."

If Christ had not been sent to Egypt, Herod's fury would have included him among the baby-victims of Bethlehem, which shows he was equally with us exposed to the peril of circumstances. "Death has no legitimate claim but upon sinners:" so says the paper, upon which it has to be asked, "Why, then, do infants die, who have committed no sin?"

Death reigns over the descendants of Adam who have not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression (Rom. 5:14), on the principle that they are the offspring of a condemned man, whose condemnation laid hold on his physical nature, like the curse on the ground, and was consequently transmitted to the inheritors of his being.

Then says the paper, "Mortal men can live in an uncondemned state." This contradictory proposition shows the writer of it does not understand what he has undertaken to write about. You might as well say that mortal men can live in a non-mortal state, for what does "mortal" mean? Subject to death. And what does "condemned" mean? Made subject to death. How can those who are subject to death live in a state not subject to death?

The "proof" of this contradictory proposition is as contradictory as the proposition itself. A "flesh and blood body" free from condemnation, as Adam was in his innocence, is not a "mortal body, " as you find carefully maintained by Renunciationists, whose case the writer of this paper has undertaken incompetently to expound. It is a natural body, free from sin-caused tendency to dissolution.

But Christ's body was of the same nature as ours, which is one under the dominion of this inherited tendency. Hence he was mortal. Renunciationists have renounced this. The leaflet - writer says Renunciationists believe so. This is a misrepresentation. It is their denial of Christ s natural relation to mortality that has created the difficulty. "Adopted sons . . are free from condemnation.—(Rom. 8:1.) Therefore, Jesus was free."

Adopted sons are free, in the sense in which they have passed from death unto life, which is not yet a real transition, but one of prospect only. The body is still "dead because of sin" (Rom. 8:10), and will continue so until the adoption, to wit, the the redemption of our body (23.) But even so much of present freedom from condemnation as they may have is no clue to the position of the Lord before that freedom was purchased. Adopted sons attain to this freedom because of their participation by faith, in what was wrought out by Christ.

To argue that because we are free in him after his achievement of our freedom, therefore he was free before the freedom was achieved, is as reasonable as it would be to argue that because a son is rich in the inheritance of a fortune made by his father, therefore his father was rich before the fortune was made.

"Jesus did not turn to dust;" true, but he would have done, if the natural course had not been interrupted. The statement, that God did not suffer him to see corruption, implies that if He had not interposed, corruption would have set in. To say that because this was not allowed, therefore he was not naturally mortal, is to affirm a paradox. The argument proves just the opposite.

And as to his not bearing "the full weight of the curse" because he turned not to dust, the suggestion is childish. A literal turning to dust is but a corollary of death, and is figuratively used to express death. The real curse is death. It matters little what becomes of a man's body after he has died. He is none the better for being embalmed like an Egyptian mummy.

In the case of Jesus, the Father suffered not his holy one to be subject to more indignity than the vindication of His law absolutely required. This was amply vindicated in his death: he was preserved from unnecessary decomposition against the appointed resurrection on the third day.

The difference between Christ and the ordinary sons of Adam lay in his obedience; and this difference was due to the fact that though of identical nature and relation, (for the one is involved in the other,) Christ was an Adamic body formed by and for the Spirit, and employed by the Spirit in working out deliverance from death, upon the Spirit's principle of God's supremacy in all things. This is not comprehended by those who write or believe the dogmatic inconsistencies set forth in the paper with a pointedness entirely away from the point.

The Christadelphian, Jan 1874

15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.

àThe great point of Paul's argument is,‭ ‬that if death justly entered the world by Adam's one act of disobedience,‭ ‬how great is the Divine favour which offers to pass by the myriad offences that have since submerged his descendants as in a hopeless sea of death.‭ ‬This is lost sight of in the treatment that deals with the chapter as if it were a lawyer's treatise on Edenic pains and penalties.

The Christadelphian, Oct 1896. p381

DEATH is hateful—it is a curse.

àSobbing friends at the grave-side are an evidence of this. Even Jesus wept in the presence of death. Some people may affect to smile at death, but the smile is not sincere. No amount of laugh can alter the sad nature of death. We may pile our beautiful flowers on the coffin lid, but these only increase the tears. The faithless infidel doesn't laugh when brought face to face with death. On the platform he may talk glibly of death, but for this allowances have to be made.

How genuinely pathetic was the account by the daughter of the late Charles Bradlaugh of her father's dying hours. How touchingly she related how she watched sorrowfully and hopelessly at the bedside, and saw her parent's life slowly but surely ebb away. Yes, father dies, mother dies, children die, valued friends die. And why? There must be an explanation. There is. Where are we to find it? In the Bible, and nowhere else.

What is the explanation? Sin—rebellion against God on the part of man. Oh! say some, such a cause is not equal to what we see—the rebellion of one is not sufficient to account for the universality of death. This is foolish talk, and against facts. Let such rather open their eyes to the heinousness of sin, as evidenced by the institution of death, and to the purity, holiness, and majesty of God, who cannot pass by it without notice.

Adam's sin has filled the earth with helpless transgressors. God is not angry with us because of our helplessly sinning condition, but He cannot overlook it. And His recognition of it necessitates the accompaniment of death with sin. We must not separate ourselves from Adam—we are the offspring of a sinner.

The reign of sin is the evolution of transgression. But in the Scriptures there is not only light, but hope and comfort. God intends to abolish sin, and take away death. God has provided Christ, who, by a life of absolute sinlessness, and a death which exhibited the righteousness of God, has made a way of salvation for all who will come to God through him.

Bro AT Jannaway

The Christadelphian, Nov 1902

Why do we die?

Death - a sentence which defiled and became a physical law of his (Adam's) being, and was transmitted to all his posterity - Birmingham Amended Statement of Faith Clause 5.

"Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned... through the offence of one many be dead"

- Rom 5: 12.

16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.

The Sins Forgiven at Baptism

àHave we any actual sins of our own to be forgiven at our baptism? or is the effect simply to free us from the law of sin and death which we inherit from Adam?

Answer.—Jesus, on sending Paul to the Gentiles, said he sent him

"to open their eyes, and turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they might receive forgiveness of sins, an inheritance," &c.—(Acts 26:18.)

Concerning any one of this class failing to conform to the law of righteousness, Peter says

"he is blind, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins."—(2 Pet. 1:9.)

Finally, John, speaking to the seven-church portion of the people taken from every kindred, tongue, and nation, says of the Lamb,

"He hath washed us from our sins in his own blood."—(Rev. 1:5.)

Whence it follows that the answer to the question is "Yes," to the first part of it. We need not this evidence, however, to justify the answer. We know experimentally the truth of Paul's statement, that, apart from the gospel, both Jews and Gentiles are all under sin.

"All have sinned and come short of the glory of God."—(Rom. 3:23.)

Every man is conscious of many pre-baptismal offences; and it is from these "many offences" that we are justified by the free grace that comes in the gospel.—(Rom. 5:16.) The words of Paul addressed to the Ephesians are true of all who submit to the righteousness of God.

"You hath he quickened who were dead in trespasses and sins, wherein in time past ye walked . . . fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind."—(Eph. 2: 1–2.)

How could any doubt exist on the point? Why should it be necessary to put such a question? Presumably because some one has suggested that as the Gentiles are without God, and not under law to Christ, they cannot commit sin, which is the transgression of the law. This is a mistaken application of truth. Though the Gentiles are not accountable, because helplessly what they are, they are none the less transgressors, who must be forgiven before they can obtain favour.

Lev. 20:23 shows that nations not under law are odious, because of their wickedness.

The Christadelphian, May 1873

Renunciationism

...Suffice it for your own sake, in answer to the question, "how comes the existing variance between Christadelphians and Renunciationists," and whence the name "Renunciationists," to say that the first comes from former friends having "renounced" (their own word) a doctrine of Scripture, the discovery of which has removed one of the greatest stumbling blocks in modern times, out of the way of the reception of the gospel of Jesus crucified; and the second (the name) originates in and describes the fact of their having so done.

As to the printed proposition which you forward, its unscripturalness lies in the following sentence:

"That though bone of our bone and flesh of our flesh, he was not a 'constitutional sinner,' or a sinner in any sense whatever; but the Son of God, not under sentence of death, or included in the judgment that came upon all men unto condemnation."—(Rom. 5:18.)

It is true that Jesus was, in no sense, a transgressor; in no act or sense did he disobey God; but he was hereditarily related to sin in his birth, in so far as he inherited the weak, defiled, mortal nature resulting from the introduction of sin by Adam. This was a necessity before he could take that sin away; for otherwise, an angel or a beast would have sufficed.

This being the sense of the phrase "constitutional sinner," that is, a man made subject to the consequences of sin in being born of a sinpolluted mother, it is a contradiction in terms to say that he was bone of our bone and flesh of our flesh, and yet not a constitutional sinner.

Our being constitutional sinners is an affair of inheriting certain bone and flesh, which have come under the operations and condemnation of sin, and if Jesus had this bone and flesh, how could he be otherwise than what the printed proposition denies him to be? It would be a permissible parody of the printed words to say, "Though bone of our bone and flesh of our flesh, Jesus was not a man or a member of the human race in any sense whatever."

But though constitutionally related to the consequences of sin, Jesus was no transgressor. On the contrary, he was "holy, harmless, undefiled, without sin." He was absolutely and without qualification, "separate from sinners" as regards moral characteristic.

Herein—(without considering the secret cause of his sinlessness, viz., his relation to the Father whose manifestation he was)—lay the great difference between him and us. It is this difference which gives point to the repeated declaration that he "died for us." It was our "many offences" that made our case hopeless. It is the forgiveness of these for his sake that constitutes the great feature of proffered mercy.

This is manifest from many Scriptures that you will be able to call to mind if you are a constant reader of the Word. Now of these transgressions, iniquities, sins, Jesus had none. He was morally without spot; though physically, he was the flesh of David in all its hereditary relations. This was the great difference between him and us.

The mistake of former friends lies in confounding his character with his physical nature. His character was without spot; his physical substance was the same as our own; and since the mortality we inherit from Adam resides in our physical substance, Jesus in partaking of our physical substance necessarily partook of our mortality, and was, therefore, fitted to endure in himself that condemnation of sin which the law of God required on the cross as the foundation of a return to favour on the part or all the sons of Adam who should place their faith in the offered Lamb of God.

On such a sin-bearer, our actual sins could be laid in their effects without any departure from the divine modes of operation. It was not the substitutionary atonement taught by orthodox christianity which has stumbled thoughtful minds so long. Jesus does not turn away anger or pay a debt by suffering instead of others. This substitutionary doctrine is the most hideous part of Renunciationism. It is a return to the apostasy in this particular.

It is innocent and beautiful on the surface, but it mars the wisdom of God in the gospel, and insults Him in its logical results. It destroys the doctrine of forgiveness by favour. It makes Him exact a debt and then speak of having forgiven it. It obscures the fact that Christ's death is God's own gracious act by which our affections are engaged, our will constrained and our haughtiness humbled that we may receive the forgiveness offered over the body of the Slain Lamb in whom, as one of ourselves, there was endured what the Father's honour requires in His dealing with a sinful race.

Rescued from death by the Father, because of his obedience, this slain lamb revived is offered to us as the dispenser of the Father's favour in the Father's name.

The teaching of the printed proposition makes Jesus a substitute instead of our elder brother, and denies he came in our flesh, which compels those subject to apostolic teaching to stand aside from all who uphold it.

The Christadelphian, Nov 1874

17 For 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.)

18 Therefore 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.

àQuestion:‭ ‬"Was Jesus born under condemnation‭?"

Answer.‭—"‬In the scriptural sense of hereditary condemnation,‭ ‬the answer is yes‭; ‬but this requires to be fenced against the misunderstanding natural to the terms employed.‭ ‬Condemnation in its individual application implies displeasure,‭ ‬which cannot be affirmed of Jesus,‭ ‬who was the beloved of the Father.‭ ‬But no one is born under condemnation in its individual application.‭ ‬That is,‭ ‬no one is condemned as an individual until his actions as an individual call for it.‭ ‬But hereditary condemnation is not a matter of displeasure,‭ ‬but of misfortune.‭

The displeasure or wrath arises afterwards when the men so born work unrighteousness.‭ ‬This unrighteousness they doubtless work‭ '‬by nature,‭' ‬and are therefore‭ '‬by nature children of wrath‭'—‬that is,‭ ‬by nature they are such as evoke wrath by unrighteousness.‭ ‬It was here that Jesus differed from all men.‭ ‬Though born under the hereditary law of mortality as his mission required,‭ ‬his relation to the Father as the Son of God exempted him from the uncontrolled subjection to unrighteousness.‭"

‭— ‬Christadelphian,‭ ‬1874,‭ ‬page‭ ‬526.

Adam's Offence and Our Condemnation

If men are not condemned either individually or collectively for Adam's sin, what can be the meaning of the words,

"Therefore as by the offence of one, judgment came upon all men to condemnation."—(Rom. 5:18.)

Answer.—The facts of the case supply the answer. Adam was condemned for his own sin (see the sentence, "Dust thou art," &c.), but because the condemnation became in his nature a law of physical dissolution, it passed on all his offspring who inherited that nature; not because they were "held guilty" of his offence, but because they could not, as partakers of his flesh and blood, escape the consequences that had become implanted in his flesh and blood.

It was by the offence of one—not by the offence of all—that death came. The "all" were in the "one" at the time of the offence, in the sense that propagation had not commenced, and what affected the one affected the "all," not on the principle of holding the "all" guilty of the offence of the one, but because death being an infixed physical law, could not pass on the one (before propagation had commenced) without being transmitted to the "all," his offspring.

Paul implies and nearly states this distinction in saying,

"Death reigned over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression."

The theory that makes them to have all sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression is not Paul's, but a theory of those who wrest Paul's words, for though Paul said "in whom all sinned," he did not mean to teach that men can sin who have no existence, but that all being as yet in Adam at the time he sinned, they became partakers of the death that came by his sin, and might, therefore, by the liberty of a figure, be considered as having sinned with him.

The Christadelphian, Oct 1874

19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

àThe two Adams are two federal chiefs; the first being figurative of the second in these relations. All sinners are in the first Adam; and all the righteous in the second, only on a different principle. Sinners were in the loins of the former when he transgressed; but not in the loins of the latter, when he was obedient unto death; therefore, "the flesh profiteth nothing." For this cause, then, for sons of Adam to become sons of God, they must be the subjects of an adoption, which is attainable only by some divinely appointed means.

The apostle then brings to light two sentences, which are co-extensive, but not co-etaneous in their bearing upon mankind. The one is a sentence of condemnation, which consigns "the many," both believing Jews and Gentiles, to the dust of the ground; the other is a sentence which affects the same "many," and brings them out of the ground again to return thither no more. Hence, of the saints it is said,

"the body is dead because of sin; but the spirit (gives) life because of righteousness" (Rom. 8:10-11);

for

"since by a man came death, by a man also came a resurrection of dead persons . For as in the Adam they all die, so also in the Christ shall they all be made alive. But every one in his own order: Christ the first fruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming" (1 Cor. 15:21-23).

It is obvious that the apostle is not writing of all the individuals of the human race; but only of that portion of them that become the subject of "a pardon of life,". It is true, that all men do die; but it is not true that they are all the subject of pardon. Those who are pardoned are "the many," oi polloi, who are sentenced to live for ever.

Elpis Israel 1.4.

20 Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:

To everything there is a time and a season.

The law of Moses was an absolutely divine institution, established for a purpose (Rom. v. 20).

While it was in force, Jesus conformed to it. and under it, was aiming, by obedience, to develop the righteousness by which he was to abolish it in the sense of superseding it by realising the end of it.

The leaders of Israel could not understand this, but supposed he set himself against the law as a thing he wished to overturn: and against Moses as one whom they were not to follow. He sought to correct their misapprehension:

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law and the prophets; I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil."

The case of the cured leper presented an opportunity of illustrating his true attitude. He embraces it.

"Go thy way, show thyself to the priest, and offer the gift that Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them."

Nazareth Revisited Ch 18

21 That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.

àThe destruction of the antediluvians by the flood,‭ ‬the perdition of Sodom,‭ ‬the desolations of Israel are but so many illustrations of the great fact that the wages of sin is death‭; ‬and how blessed a fact is this‭!

While punishing,‭ ‬it cures.‭ ‬While judicially dealing with evil,‭ ‬it extinguishes it.‭ ‬While vindicating the dishonoured majesty of the heavens and repaying the malice of wicked men,‭ ‬it allays the suffering caused to God and man by human perversity,‭ ‬and brings the blessed guarantee that at the last,‭ ‬good will prevail,‭ ‬and the earth be filled with glory and everlasting joy,‭ ‬when the tabernacle of God shall be with men,‭ ‬and there shall be no more curse and no more death.‭—(‬Rev.‭ ‬21:4‭; ‬22:3.‭)

‭...‬Experience of men is not accordant with the notion that they are of celestial origin and nature.‭ ‬Persons exclusively moving in cultivated society,‭ ‬or surveying the world from the‭ "‬country-seat‭" ‬point of view—young ladies living in refinement,‭ ‬and knowing nothing of the world but what they learn from morocco-bound editions of the poets—may dream themselves into harmony with the notion that man is an immortal‭ "‬creature of the sky‭;" ‬but very different feelings are engendered by contact with the great,‭ ‬coarse,‭ ‬selfish,‭ ‬unprincipled work-a-day world,‭ ‬or ...‭ ‬with savage man in the dark places of the earth.‭

By such contact we are made to feel instinctively how degraded a creature he is,‭ ‬when left to the resources of his own nature,‭ ‬and how much he is‭ "‬of the earth,‭ ‬earthy‭;" ‬and how true are the unsentimental descriptions of the Bible which tell us that‭ "‬all flesh is as grass‭;" ‬that

‭ "‬man hath no pre-eminence above a beast‭" (‬Eccles.‭ ‬3:19‭)

‭The Christadelphian, March 1871

àTHOSE who speak of the righteousness of Christ as a kind of make-weight—as a quantity to be drawn upon to bring up their own deficiencies to the perfect standard—show very clearly that they have not yet learned the truth as it is in Jesus. The righteousness of Christ must be received in its entirety or not at all.

Salvation is a free gift—not of works lest any man boast. Christ is the alpha and omega of the righteousness which justifies. Those in Christ have united themselves to that righteousness and because of it are accepted—are accounted perfect or complete (Ephes. 1:6; Rev. 16:15; Col. 2:11).

The act of union has cleansed them, and they remain clean to the end (if faithful) through the advocacy of their Great High Priest. Enlightened men speak of Christ as "our righteousness"—not as part of our righteousness. Personal righteousness is essential, but only in the sense that before God will endorse a man's union with Christ, or acknowledge its continuance, the man must be an admirer and willing follower of Christ.

But it should ever be borne in mind that Christ's righteousness is available only for those who "abide in him."

Bro AT Jannaway

The Christadelphian, Mar 1888