Translate

Monday, 27 July 2015

A criticism of Stephen Palmer's talks at the Coventry Creation Day - 3

As I pointed out in the introductory post, fifty years ago, the then-arranging brothers of the Watford Ecclesia excommunicated bro. Ralph Lovelock for his views on how to reconcile the evidence of pre-Adamic human fossils with Christadelphian theology. However, it is a mistake to read this as a binding, ex-cathedra statement proscribing evolutionary creationism for all time. Even if it was, the Watford statement reminded us to acknowledge that such scientific problems exist, and need to be confronted honestly, with a view to look after 'those of tender years'

Unfortunately, it is common for anti-evolutionists in our community to appeal to the Watford decision and claim that this means our community rejected evolutionary creationism fifty years ago - ecclesial autonomy alone would ensure that local decisions remain local, so Watford's decision is anything but binding on the entire ecclesial world. Furthermore, the use of emotional language such as calling it "inimical to our faith" and a "threat" not only is a poor substitute for rational, informed commentary, but is hard to reconcile with the Watford statement's call to discuss things in a calm manner.

A tale of two Adams – misrepresenting evolutionary creationism

What is particularly disappointing to see in special creationist attacks on evolutionary creationism is a misrepresentation of what evolutionary creationists in our community actually think about the historical Adam. While evolutionary creationists recognise that the fossil and genetic evidence rule out the possibility of the entire human race descending exclusively from two people living a few thousand years ago, they regard Adam and Eve as historical individuals who are also archetypes. Any special creationist attack on evolutionary creationism, which asserts that they do not believe in a literal Adam, is false.

Furthermore, evolutionary creationists do not believe that Adam and Eve were two humans selected from the existing population of humans, but were specially created.  This view is consistent with a reading of Genesis 2 as a ‘sequel’ to Genesis 1 which in its reference to the creation of ‘male and female’ human beings implies the creation of many humans, thus precluding any attempt to harmonise Genesis 1 with Genesis 2, as well as Genesis 4, which neatly alludes to the reality of a population of humans outside the Garden of Eden, who both supplied Cain with a wife, and those whom Cain feared would kill him. As Old Testament scholar Michael Heiser reminds us:
  1. Genesis 1 describes the creation of human beings. (The process is put in pre-scientific or supernatural terms, and so doesn’t give us a scientific perspective on how this happened).
  2. The human beings of Genesis 1 are God’s imagers (again, which I take to mean God’s representatives) on earth.
  3. The human beings of Genesis 1 are not in a garden in Eden (there is no garden of Eden in Genesis 1; the command to “subdue the earth” would speak of the whole earth, wherever humans are, not Eden, which is nowhere in view).
  4. Genesis 2 describes a distinct and separate creation of two humans. (Again, the process is put in pre-scientific or supernatural terms, and so doesn’t give us a scientific perspective on how this happened).
  5. The two humans of Genesis 2 are in a garden in a place called Eden (which is clearly not synonymous with the earth since it has specific geography on the earth).
  6. Since the two humans created in Genesis 2 are not the humans created in Genesis 1, the two humans in Genesis 2 cannot be seen as the progenitors of the humans of Genesis 1. The humanity of Genesis 1 was to image God in all the earth, not Eden, and so the Genesis 1 creation speaks of a divine origin (by whatever means) of human life on the planet. The humans of Genesis 2 are parallel to and consistent with those goals, but their story is more specific. They have a more particular purpose, which is revealed in Genesis 3.
  7. The humans of Genesis 1 and 2 are qualitatively the same. That is, the two humans in Genesis 2 are no more human than those of Genesis 1. There is nothing in either chapter that differentiates the humans in either chapter. The only thing that distinguishes them are the sequence of creation (two separate acts in an order) and where they live. All the humans in view are (!) human.[1]

This view is consistent with what evolutionary creationists believe, and stands independent of the mechanism employed by God to create the humans in Genesis 1.

This of course raises the question of why special creationists in our community are desperate to preserve monogenism. Certainly, the Reformed doctrine of Original Sin teaches that the guilt and consequences of Adam’s sin were genetically transmitted to the entire human race, a view which of course is falsified if monogenism is false. This is arguably why Evangelical Christianity, which tends to inherit the Reformed view of Original sin, and is one of the main engines driving the modern creationist movement is bitterly opposed to evolution, as it completely undermines the basis for Original Sin. Given that our community rejects Original Sin,[2] there would certainly appear to be no theological imperative to defend monogenism. The problem appears to lie in the mistaken belief that Adam pre-sin was not capable of dying, and therefore needed to be genetically altered to make him physically capable of dying.

In clearing up confusion that exists on this subject, it is critical that we differentiate between death (Gk: thanatos) and mortality (thnētos). In Romans 5:12, 5:21, 6:16, 6:21, 6:23 and 1 Cor 15:21, Paul refers to death, not mortality. As the early Christadelphians recognised, physical death and corruption was part of creation, not a penalty of sin. Romans 6:23 alone is enough to make this point clear:
For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
What the verse does not say is “the wages of sin is mortality’. I die because I am an organic creature with a finite lifespan. If I sin and knowingly spurn the offer of salvation, then I will be judged and sentenced to eternal death. The parallelism in Rom 6:23 makes this clear:

Wages of sin: à Eternal Death
Gift of God: à Eternal Life

John Thomas is worth quoting on this point as he is careful to differentiate between mortality and death as a punishment for sin.

The wages of sin is death. Wages are paid only to those who labour: those who in their toil sow to the flesh, will be paid for the labour they perform; and the pay for this kind of labour is corruption, or death unto death ending in corruption, as the apostle saith, shall of the flesh reap corruption, and of such he says, in another place, whose end is destruction; so that death, corruption, and destruction are the wages of sin, which everyone is fairly entitled to who loves darkness rather than light, and refuses to accept the gospel of Jesus Christ.[3]

True; no wicked man can claim to be made alive in Christ that he may live for ever; but he will certainly be made alive that he may be judged and consigned to the dire severities of the Second Death, which is the wages of sin, the first death being the common lot of all, both saints and sinners.[4]

Roberts also made this point, that the wages of sin is eternal death – not mortality – and stands in contrast with eternal life:

Death as the wages of sin is a definition used by Paul in contrast with everlasting life as the gift of God. Therefore it means death, under the divine anger, inflicted for the extinction of the sinner.[5]

In his the article ‘The Bible Doctrine Concerning the Tempter Considered. No. II.’, he unambiguously states that both Adam and Eve would have eventually died in time:

‘Adam's nature was animal. Very good of its kind, as was the nature of all the other creatures. These did not sin, yet they returned to dust whence they came. So probably would Adam, if he had been left to the ordinary course of things as they were. But he would not have returned to dust if he had continued obedient.

He would doubtless have been “changed in the twinkling of an eye" on eating of the Tree of Life. But, being disobedient, his sin determined his fate, and that of the creatures. It doomed them all to death according to law, and "nature" unchanged was permitted to take its course.’[6]

In his article Our Terrestrial System Before the Fall Thomas, in response to a correspondent who argued that death and corruption entered the entire world after Adam's sin forcefully rebutted this argument:

‘OUR friend says, that his notion is that all creation became corrupt at the fall, even to the elements. This is the general idea. Moses tells us very plainly, that when the terrestrial system was completed on the Sixth Day, that God reviewed all that He had made, and pronounced it "very good."

'But, in what sense was it very good? In an animal and physical sense; for it was a natural and animal system, not a spiritual one. Such a system is essentially one of waste, and reproduction; and was organized with reference to what God knew would come to pass.’[7]

Thomas argued that seasonal variation would have provided Adam and Eve with enough evidence of natural decay and death to impress on them the reality of death as a natural part of creation:

‘This is implied in the placing of the earth in such a position with respect to the sun, moon, and stars, that there should be a diversity of seasons, &.c. Thus, fall and winter, seasons of decay and death, were institutions existing before the Fall; and presented to Adam and Eve phenomena illustrative of the existence in the physical system of a principle of corruption, the extent of which, however, they might not have been fully apprized of.’[8]

Thomas explicitly argued that far from being elements introduced into creation as a consequence of Adam's sin, death and decay were a fundamental part of creation from the beginning. Significantly, he did not exclude Adam and Eve from this:

‘Death and corruption, then, with reproduction, the characteristic of spring and summer, is the fundamental law of the physical system of the Six Days. Adam and Eve, and all the other animals born of the earth with themselves, would have died and gone to corruption, if there had been no transgression, provided that there had been no further interference with the physical system than Moses records in his history of the Six Day.’[9]

Given this, his explanation of the Pauline statement that death entered the world through sin was a recognition that the consequence of Adam's sin was for the innate process of death and decay to be allowed to take its natural course:

‘True; the death principle was an essential property of their nature; but as they did not die till after their transgression, death did not enter in till after that event. But, the inquirer means, “If they would have died anyhow under the proviso, how can death be said to be the consequence of sin?"

Death is not the consequence of sin, sin being the original physical cause—but the physical consequence of a moral act. If thou doest thus and so, dying thou shalt die; "but just reverse this saying, and let it read, “if thou doest thus and so, "dying thou shalt NOT die." Here are moral acts with diverse physical results.’[10]

The genius of this explanation was in his recognition that death entered the world of Adam and Eve following their sin not by the introduction of decay and death, but by the denial of an opportunity for eternal life. Thomas again:

‘Now, if these two results are ordained upon two essentially dying creatures, because animal creatures, what is implied? Why, that in the one case the dying process shall not be interrupted, and therefore death would follow: while in the other, the process should be interrupted, and therefore life should be established.

'In the former case, all that would be necessary would be to let things take their natural course; but in the latter, this would not do; and therefore it would be necessary to bring into play a transforming force which should change the very good animal nature into a very good spiritual , or incorruptible nature, which latter formed no part of the system of the Six Days.’[11]

In fact, Thomas was explicit in asserting that the pre-fall nature of Adam was mortal, capable of corruption and decay: 

‘It is certain, therefore, that the animal nature they possessed was essentially a mortal nature, and required to be physically operated upon by the power transmissible through contact with the tree of lives to change it into a nature constitutionally capable of enduring forever; which the animal nature is not.’[12]

As far as Thomas was concerned the consequences of the fall were moral, rather than physical, and he expressed himself unambiguously:

‘From these premises it will be seen, that we dissent from our correspondent's “notion" that all creation became corrupt (by which we understand him to mean, constitutionally impregnated with corruptibility) at the Fall. We believe that the change consequent upon that calamity was moral, not physical. The natural system was the same the day before the Fall as the day after.”[13]

The first point is that death, not mortality is the consequence of Adam’s sin. I do not die because I sin. I die because I am made of corruptible material. I remain dead as a punishment for sin if I choose to reject the offer of salvation, and that is the point Paul is making here – death as a punishment for sin was introduced into the world when the first sin was committed. Prior to Adam’s sin, humans lived and died as the ‘beasts that perish’ but as God’s law was unknown, sin as a concept did not exist and therefore death as a punishment for sin simply did not apply.

Differentiating between death as the inevitable end-point of organic, corruptible creatures, and eternal death as a punishment for sin is crucial in pointing out why the special creationist insistence on universal human descent to inherit a physically changed nature altered to make it capable of dying is wrong. Death as a punishment for sin is not something that one inherits. Irrespective of whether we all descended exclusively from Adam, or have common ancestry with apes, we will remain dead forever if we sin, and do not seek repentance. John Thomas puts it well:

“The wages of sin is death. Wages are paid only to those who labour: those who in their toil sow to the flesh, will be paid for the labour they perform; and the pay for this kind of labour is corruption, or death unto death ending in corruption, as the apostle saith, shall of the flesh reap corruption, and of such he says, in another place, whose end is destruction; so that death, corruption, and destruction are the wages of sin, which everyone is fairly entitled to who loves darkness rather than light, and refuses to accept the gospel of Jesus Christ.”[14]

This differentiation between death as punishment for sin, and corruptibility is also made by Robert Roberts:

“True; no wicked man can claim to be made alive in Christ that he may live for ever; but he will certainly be made alive that he may be judged and consigned to the dire severities of the Second Death, which is the wages of sin, the first death being the common lot of all, both saints and sinners.”[15]

“By a simpler set of terms, it is said, they shall die (Rom. 8:13); the end of these things is DEATH (Rom. 6:21); the wages of sin is death. (Ibid. 6:23.) The wicked rise, are confronted by the Judge, condemned, and put to shame (Dan 12:2; 1 Jno. 2:28); they receive in body according to their deeds (1 Cor. 5:10); having sown to the flesh, they reap corruption (Gal. 6:8).”[16]

“Therefore, there is a death not realised by the wicked in their lifetime, and how can there be any argument from present experience to a result not yet experienced? Is this death (which is the wages of sin) destruction or torment? Dr. Angus says it cannot be destruction.”[17]

“Death as the wages of sin is a definition used by Paul in contrast with everlasting life as the gift of God. Therefore it means death, under the divine anger, inflicted for the extinction of the sinner.”[18]

“Our friend imagines there was a change in the nature of Adam when he became disobedient. There is no evidence of this whatever, and the presumption and evidence are entirely the contrary way.

“There was a change in Adam’s relation to his maker, but not in the nature of his organization. What are the facts? He was formed from the dust a “living soul,” or natural body. His mental constitution gave him moral relation to God.”[19]

“Death and corruption, then, with reproduction, the characteristic of spring and summer, is the fundamental law of the physical system of the Six Days. Adam and Eve, and all the other animals born of the earth with themselves, would have died and gone to corruption, if there had been no transgression, provided that there had been no further interference with the physical system than Moses records in his history of the Sixth Day…

“It is certain, therefore, that the animal nature they possessed was essentially a mortal nature, and required to be physically operated upon by the power transmissible through contact with the tree of lives to change it into a nature constitutionally capable of enduring forever; which the animal nature is not.

“From these premises it will be seen, that we dissent from our correspondent's “notion" that all creation became corrupt (by which we understand him to mean, constitutionally impregnated with corruptibility) at the Fall. We believe that the change consequent upon that calamity was moral, not physical. The natural system was the same the day before the Fall as the day after.”[20]

In citing Roberts I am not attempting to appeal to him as authoritative, if only because he changed his mind on the subject, as one can see by looking at works such as The Blood of Christ that post-date these references.[21] Rather, I am pointing out that any perception that early Christadelphians were unanimous in their belief in a physically changed nature after Adam’s sin is incorrect. (I am also citing these passages because I believe they are correct on this point, but I believe them to be correct because the points are logical and based on sound evidence.)

Ultimately, the question is answered not by appeal to authority, but appeal to the scriptural evidence, and here it is clear that Romans 5:12, one of the key passages cited as proof that humans genetically inherit the consequence of Adam’s sin does not say what opponents of evolution allege it does. Unfortunately, Romans 5:12, one of the more difficult passages to interpret, not only has suffered more than its share of flawed exegesis, but carries the legacy of Augustine’s deeply flawed reading. Romans 5v12 has traditionally been read as proof that all humanity sinned in Adam, and therefore genetically inherited the consequences of Adam’s sin. This cannot be sustained as this reading stems from the Old Latin text, which is regarded as inferior. A comparison of a representative modern version with the Douay-Rheims, which follows the Vulgate, makes this clear:

NRSV: Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death came through sin, and so death spread to all because all have sinned.
Douay-Rheims: Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world and by sin death: and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned.

The flawed nature of the Old Latin rendering of Romans 5v12 was recognised around half a millennium ago by the Dutch Biblical scholar Desiderius Erasmus (1466-1536) who acknowledged that the Greek was better translated “because all have sinned.” The Council of Trent, the official Catholic response to the Reformation was aware of this, but still used the Latin!

Tellingly, contemporary Catholic theologians acknowledge Erasmus’ point. Jack Mahoney, in a recent book on Original Sin notes:

“The formal teaching of the Council of Trent, then, is that Adam’s original sin is inherited by everyone through procreation and that its guilt is forgiven by the conferring of baptism, yet something of its results remains even in the baptized, experienced as concupiscence or sinful desires, fomenting or fueling sin in each of us. On this several comments can be offered, the first crucially relating to where it all starts, namely, to what Paul meant in Romans 5:12 when he used the Greek phrase eph’ hō relating to Adam’s action. Augustine and others, including the council fathers at Trent, relying on the Old Latin translation, took this to mean in Latin in quo, or “in whom,” with the clear implication that everyone had sinned in Adam. Most exegetes today understand this phrase as using the common Greek preposition epi to imply succession rather than inclusion, thus giving the meaning “since when” all have sinned rather than “in whom” all have sinned. We must conclude that if this is the original Pauline meaning, it removes from divine revelation any reference to Adam’s descendants being incorporated in solidarity “in him” (in quo), and as a result it dispenses with the conclusion that the whole of succeeding humanity has been condemned en masse as a sort of “condemned mass in Adam,” as Augustine and others explained. J. N. D. Kelly delivers his considered verdict in explaining how the Old Latin version of the New Testament (which had influence only in the West) gave “an exegesis of Rom 5:12 which, though mistaken and based on a false reading, was to become the pivot of the doctrine of original sin.”

“As a consequence of this reflection, it follows that there is now no need for theology to find a method by which to explain how all Adam’s offspring inherit his original sin. Trent’s insistence that Adam’s original sin was transmitted among all subsequent human beings by propagation, or by generation, rather than simply by imitation (which Pelagius was considered to have maintained) was clearly due more to the theological polemic of Saint Augustine against Pelagius and his supporters than to Paul’s writing centuries earlier.”[22]

Support for the view that physical death not only was unknown prior to Adam’s sin, but was genetically transmitted to his descendants as a punishment for sin is alien to the Bible:

1 Cor 15:21-22: “For since death came through a human being, the resurrection of the dead has also come through a human being; for as all die in Adam, so all will be made alive in Christ.

Note that it is death, and not mortality that comes through human sin. Failure to properly differentiate between these terms results in a confused understanding of the verses. It is nonsensical to read 1 Cor 15 as saying that mortality came through human action. Humans were created mortal – as bro. Thomas said earlier, ““Death and corruption, then, with reproduction, the characteristic of spring and summer, is the fundamental law of the physical system of the Six Days.” What came though human action was the introduction of eternal death as a punishment for sin, which is effected by letting people die, and not raising them from the dead. Needless to say, this answers perfectly with the second part of the verse – resurrection from death comes through human action.

The reference in verse 22 to dying ‘in Adam’ needs to be read in parallel to being made alive ‘in Christ’. Being ‘in Adam’ has nothing to do with being physically descended from Adam, and remember, the genomic data rules out universal human descent from Adam, so this interpretation is impossible. Rather, being in Adam refers to following his example of disobedience. The way in which we are made alive in Christ gives us the context to properly interpret the reference to being in Adam. Put simply, we are dealing with two different paths to follow. One leads to eternal death. The other leads to eternal life. Confusing death as a punishment for sin with mortality, which as bro Thomas noted was part of the original ‘very good’ creation results in confused exegesis, and sets us up for a pointless conflict between religion and science.

The implication of this is that there was no physical change in Adam after his sin, and therefore no altered nature that had to be genetically transmitted to the entire human race. This, as I've said elsewhere is the fundamental reason behind opposition to evolution as it rules out monogenism, the belief that the entire human race descended exclusively from Adam. On this point, it is worth noting that L.G. Sargent, writing in 1941 pointed out that:
The difficulty arises not from any lack of essential clarity in Dr. Thomas’s thought, but from an ambiguity in the term “mortal”. The word “immortal” is taken to mean “incapable of death”; and “mortal” might be expected to mean its simple opposite, “capable of death”: whereas in fact it is used in the sense of “subject to death, destined to die”—a more restricted meaning which has the support of dictionaries. 

It was owing to this ambiguity that Dr. Thomas could write: “But, if they were not mortal in their novitiate, it is also true that they were not immortal. To say that immortals were expelled from the garden of Eden, that they might not live for ever by eating of the tree, is absurd”. It is indeed. He then continues cogently: “The truth is in few words, man was created with a nature endued with certain susceptibilities. He was capable of death; and capable of endless life; but, whether he should merge into mortality; or, by a physical change be clothed with immortality, was predicated on his choosing to do good or evil. Capacity must not be confounded with impletion”.
The bare terms, stripped of the qualifying and amplifying phrases with which Dr. Thomas defines his meaning, have sometimes been thrown into the bald proposition that “Adam before the fall was neither mortal nor immortal”; which (to quote Euclid and Dr. Thomas) is absurd. A thing is either X or not-X: there can be no “neutral” position between. 
A man cannot be neither mortal nor not-mortal; and he cannot be neither not-mortal nor not-not-mortal. A thing is either black or not black, white or not white; it is either in the class of objects which have in common the quality of blackness, or it is in the class “not-black” which includes every other kind of colour, shade or tone. But it must come in one class or the other: there can be no neutral position between those two classes.
If, then, we take “immortal” to mean “incapable of dying” (as Dr. Thomas does in the passage quoted), we must say that Adam in his novitiate was not incapable of dying, therefore capable of dying, and therefore “mortal” as a simple antithesis to immortal, and using the widest sense of an ambiguous term.
  
There is a class, “incapable of dying”; all not included in it must be included in the class “capable of dying”; but the latter class may be divided into two sections: (A) those in whom death is only a capacity—a latent capacity, as we might say; and (B) those in whom it is an active condition. Both are included in one wide classification, “not-immortal”: but it is the sub-class in whom death is an active principle who are, on a stricter definition of terms, called “mortal”, because they are “subject to death, destined to die”.

Adam was always within the class, “capable of death”, but on the sentence of God he passed from the sub-class in whom it is a latent capacity to the sub-class who are actively subject to corruption as a law of their being; and in that class all his posterity have remained—all save One, who has been “made perfect” [23] (Emphasis mine)

L.G. Sargent was hardly writing to defend evolutionary creationism, but his dismissal of any 'half-way' state that was neither mortal nor immortal (the 'very good' state constantly hypothesised by those who believe in a physical change in Adam's nature inherited by all) not only is logical, but reminds us that if there was no physical change in Adam, there was no changed nature for us to inherit, and therefore the theological imperative for every physical human to descend from Adam (something that has been falsified comprehensively by the scientific evidence) vanishes. This is why evolution has no impact on our theology.




[2] The theological equivalent of Original Sin does exist both in micro-fellowships and members of the main Central fellowship who believe that Adam’s nature was made ‘prone to sin’ after the Fall and subsequently inherited by all humans, and advance the heretical notion of  ‘atonement for nature.’
[3] Thomas J, 'Immortality, Heaven, and Hell the Unscriptural Character and Heathen Origin of Popular Dogmas Demonstrated; and the Truth Concerning These Things Exhibited by Dr Thomas', The Christadelphian (1870) 7:228
[4] Thomas J, ‘The Wicked In the Resurrection’ The Christadelphian (1881) 18:197  
[5] Roberts, Answers to Correspondents The Christadelphian (1874) 11:526 
[6] Thomas J.  ‘The Bible Doctrine Concerning the Tempter Considered. No. II.’, The Herald of the
Kingdom and Age to Come
(1852) 2:181
[7] Thomas J. ‘Our Terrestrial System Before the Fall’, The Herald of the Kingdom and Age to Come (1855) 5:159
[8] ibid, p 159
[9] ibid, p 159
[10] ibid, p 159
[11] ibid, p 159-160
[12] ibid, p 160
[13] ibid, p 160
[14] Thomas J “Immortality, Heaven, and Hell the Unscriptural Character and Heathen Origin of Popular Dogmas Demonstrated; and the Truth Concerning These Things Exhibited by Dr Thomas” The Christadelphian (1870) 7: 228
[15] Thomas J “The Wicked In the Resurrection” The Christadelphian (1881) 18:197
[16] Roberts R “Future Punishment not Eternal Torments” The Christadelphian (1870) 7:368
[17] Roberts R “Future Punishment not Eternal Torments” The Christadelphian (1871) 8:15
[18] Roberts R “Answers to Correspondents” The Christadelphian (1874) 11:526
[19] Roberts R ‘The Relation of Jesus to the Law of Sin and Death” The Christadelphian (1869) 6: 85
[20] Thomas J “Our Terrestrial System Before the Fall’, The Herald of the Kingdom and Age to Come (1855) 5:159
[21] I would argue that Roberts’ early views were correct, and that in combatting Edward Turney’s flawed theological views he abandoned this position of theological strength and made errors of his own such as teaching a change of nature. On this point, C.C. Walker’s observations say much in what they imply rather than state, “Brother Roberts became much more conservative on this matter in after years, and so does everyone who, like him, has a great respect for the Word of God.”, Walker C.C. ‘Was the Nature of Adam Changed After He Sinned in Eden?’, The Christadelphian (1921) 58:258
[22] Mahoney J Christianity in Evolution: An Exploration (2011: Georgetown University Press) p 55
[23] Sargent L.G. "Adam in Innocence" The Christadelphian (1941) 78:14