Another error peculiar to the teaching of "Millennial Dawn" is its view of the person of Christ; at least, the form given to the error is peculiar. There are many who deny the deity of Christ, but I do not know of any writings in which the denial is given the same development as in "Millennial Dawn." Briefly stated, the conception of the person of Christ which we find in this system is that He is a creature, who has passed through two forms of creature-being, and is now in His third and final form. In the first two forms of His existence He was not a partaker of the divine nature, did not share in the essence of divine being. In the last- the form in which He now exists-He has been exalted to the order of divine being. All this will be made abundantly clear by the quotations that I shall insert in the present article. To show how unscriptural this conception of the person of Christ is, I shall appeal to Scripture itself.

I will notice first Mr. Russell's view of what the person of Christ was before He became incarnate. In chapter X. of "Millennial Dawn" (Vol. I., 740th thousand, published in 1898), on page 177, he says:"We are told that our Lord, before he left his glory to become man, was in a form of God-a spiritual form, a spirit-being; but since, to be a ransom for mankind, he had to be a man, of the same nature as the sinner whose substitute he was to become, it was necessary that his nature be changed. And Paul tells us that he took not the nature of angels, one step lower than his own, but that he came down two steps and took the nature of men-he became a man; he was 'made flesh ' (Heb. 2:16; Phil. 2:7,8; John i :14)." Now here we have proclaimed the strange doctrine of a change of nature. It is evident Mr. Russell teaches that our Lord exchanged the spirit nature He had before His incarnation for a human nature-gave up the one for the other. That this is contrary to Scripture is plain, for it says:"And they shall call His name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us " (Matt. i:23). If He had given up the nature He had before He was born into the world, had exchanged that nature for a human nature, then it was not true that as a man in the world He was "Emmanuel-God with us;" He was not divine, but only human.

But Mr. Russell does not believe that our Lord had the divine nature before He became incarnate, for he goes on to say:"Notice that this teaches not only that angelic nature is not the only order of spirit being, but that it is a lower nature than that of our Lord before he became a man; and that he was not then so high as he is now, for ' God hath highly exalted him,' because of his obedience in becoming man's willing ransom (Phil. 2:8, 9). He is now of the highest order of spirit being, a partaker of the divine (Jehovah's) nature." It is impossible to misunderstand what is here meant. Our Lord is clearly looked upon as being, before His incarnation, a being higher in rank than the angels, but lower than God. If, then, He was lower in rank than God, had not the nature of the Creator God, He must have been a creature. Even though exalted to be in a rank above all other creatures, as being in a rank below the Creator God, He is degraded from being a Divine person to be merely in the chiefest rank among the creatures of God.

Now John i:i, 2 very simply declares that our Lord was a partaker of the divine nature before His incarnation. "In the beginning was the Word" expresses the eternity of His being; " and the Word was with God " affirms His distinct personality; '' and the Word was God " asserts His deity-His partaking of the divine nature and essence. " The same was in the beginning with God " declares that He subsisted as the eternal, personal, divine Word in the beginning with God. Mr. Russell admits He was indeed a being of a higher rank than the angels, but it is shocking blasphemy to say, '' He was not then so high as He is now." That in manhood He has been exalted to sit on the throne of God is no exaltation of His eternal, essential deity, nor does it imply that He was not eternally and essentially a partaker of the divine nature.

I must now call attention to the misquotation of Phil. 2 :6, "in a form of God."I am aware, of course, that Mr. Russell can plead that there is no article in the Greek before the word for "form;" nevertheless his insertion of the English indefinite article "a" before "form" is in violation of the rules of Greek grammar. The definite article in Greek indicates that the thing mentioned is the definite object that is before the mind; but when the article is wanting, it shows that what is mentioned is characteristic. Now, to be a good translator one needs to understand the spirit of both languages. "In a form of God" does violence to the spirit of the Greek. Instead of its being "a form of God," as if there were more than one form "of God,"i tis really "in divine form," and hence a very strong way of asserting that our Lord partook of the divine nature, or shared in the essence of divine being. Before His incarnation He "subsisted in divine form." "In the form of God" does not misrepresent the original in the least.

Another very serious matter is the implication that the Son of God, before incarnation, was mortal. It is true Mr. Russell does not say so in words, but he certainly implies it. He teaches that the angels are mortal (page 187), and this in the face of our Lord's assertion that they are immortal (Luke 20:36). While he grants that our Lord was in a higher rank than angels, yet he clearly denies Him immortality when he says, "Nowhere in the Scriptures is it stated that angels are immortal, nor that mankind, restored, will be immortal. On the contrary, immortality is ascribed only to the divine nature-originally, to Jehovah; subsequently, to our Lord Jesus in his present highly exalted condition; and finally, by promise, to the Church, the body of Christ, when glorified " (page 186). On page 211, he said,"Since the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, then, two beings are immortal." If "immortality is ascribed only to the divine nature," and our Lord did not have the divine nature, then it is clear He must have been mortal. If it is correct to say that "since the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, then, two beings are immortal," the implication is plain that the Lord was not immortal before His resurrection; 1:e., He did not have an immortal nature, not only during the time of His manifestation in human form, but also before that. However exalted a being Mr. Russell allows the Son of God to have been before His incarnation, he degrades Him to a rank inferior to God. What a revolting degradation it is of the Son of God of the Scriptures!

The word of God, instead of teaching that the Son of God was mortal, teaches that He had to assume humanity in order to pass through the experience of death. Heb. 2 :9 definitely states this. "But we see Jesus crowned with glory and honor, who was made a little lower than the angels on account of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God He might taste death for all." (See Numerical Bible, Hebrews to Revelation, page 20). He had to become incarnate in order to die. Scripture never speaks of the spirit of man even as dying, or as being capable of dying, much less of angels, and surely not of the Son of God before becoming man. How thoroughly antagonistic to Scripture is this Christ-dishonoring doctrine! How it destroys the foundation on which Christianity rests, the truth of the person of the Christ! C. C.

(To be concluded, D. V., in our next issue.)