7 JULY 1894, Page 24


SPEOTATOR."] SIR,—Will you allow me to suggest two considerations bearing on this subject which have apparently not received so much attention as they deserve :—(1.) It will be admitted that there are some subjects upon which we can have no information,. except by revelation from God. And that, as to some of these subjects, it has pleased God not to give us any such informa- tion. I would ask, is not the nature and the extent of the interaction between the two natures of our Lord, one of these subjects ? If so, have we any ground for asserting that our Lord's human nature was, or that it was not, at all times, or indeed at any time, "perfectly illuminated" by his divine. nature P—whatever "perfect illumination " may mean. Would it not be wise to abstain from making " declarations" on a matter of which we are, and must remain, wholly ignorant P (2.) Have we any ground for asserting, or even supposing, that our Lord ever " taught " anything except in the fullness of his indivisible personality, which was divine P Or, in other words, have we any right to assert, or any reason to believe, that our Lord ever " taught " anything " as man " P If not, then the question whether he could, as man, have been ignorant of historical, or critical, or other matters, becomes a purely speculative question, which does not in the least degree affect the trustworthiness of his teaching. Recent discussions however warn us that there is great peril in asserting that our Lord certainly did mean to teach this, or that; when he may, at least possibly, have had no such intention.—I am, Sir, &c.,