THE ETERNAL SONSHIP OF CHRIST.

My dear Friend,-I am_exceedingly averse to controversy, more especially with friends, as I think it usually ends in each party being more rooted and confirmed in his own belief, and scarcely ever tends to soul-profit or spiritual edification.

I have had so little experience of dreams and visions, such as you speak of having lately had to illustrate your views of the Trinity, that I can say little about them; but I confess I do not place much dependance upon them. One "Thus saith the Lord" in the Scriptures of truth weighs more with me than any dream or vision. I believe, however, we are agreed on the main fundamental points of the glorious mystery of a Triune God, and abhor all Arianism, Sabellianism, or Tritheism. We believe that there are three distinct Persons in one undivided Godhead; that these three co-eternal and co-equal Persons are but one God; and that these three Persons are called, in the word of truth, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Our only point of difference is, whether the term Son be one of nature, or one of office. I believe that, primarily and essentially, Christ is a Son by nature; and that Sonship is, so to speak, the very nature and essence of his being.

66

We must bear in mind that, in discussing these sacred subjects, we must leave our natural reason at the foot of the mount with the servants and asses. Thus, in the sacred mystery of the blessed Trinity, reason would say, How can three be one, and one three?" but you justly and wisely, in this matter, discard reason, and answer, "What is impossible with man is possible with God." Now, apply this, which you admit in the case of the Trinity, to the eternal Sonship of Christ. You say, "Sonship by nature implies inferiority; therefore, I cannot receive it." I admit that it does, according to natural and merely rational views. But we agree to discard nature and reason in the mystery of the Trinity; and why should we not equally discard them in the mystery of the mode of subsistence of the three separate Persons in the Godhead ? All language is necessarily borrowed from human, natural, and temporal things. Words, therefore, borrowed from such limited and carnal subjects cannot adequately set forth heavenly and supernatural mysteries. Remove, then, priority, (and in eternity there can be neither prior nor posterior,) and the term Son conveys no inferiority. Nay, rather, it implies equality; for the very essence of the idea Father and Son is, that they partake of one common nature. But in Deity there must be equality. The idea of inferiority in Godhead cannot be admitted. I believe, therefore, that the Son of God is and must be the brightness of his Father's glory, and the express image of his Person, because he is his Son, and, therefore, one with him in nature, essence, and being. I have seen an idea upon this point, which I think much to the purpose, taken from the sun, and the ray that proceeds from the sun. These are of the same nature, and co-existed at the same moment. The sun generated the ray, and yet did not exist before it. Could we conceive the sun to be eternal, the ray

would be eternal too; and thus we should have what some so much object to,-"eternal generation." And this is a scriptural figure; for the word (Heb. i. 3) rendered "brightness," literally signifies "the off-shining," or "off-ray," and contains an allusion to the sun. Generation, then, does not necessarily imply priority, or inferiority. Analyze your ideas of inferiority as attached to Sonship, and I believe you will find them all turn upon something merely natural and rational, something usually accompanying the idea of generation, but not necessarily or essentially belonging to it. I trust this may be a help to remove any stumblingblock derived from inferiority.

But it seems to me that there are many texts of scripture which would lose much of, if not all, their force, were Christ a Son only by office. For instance, look at the parable Matt. xxi. 33—41. "Last of all, he sent to them his son." (37th verse.) Was this son the householder's own literal son, or a friend who had assumed the name? That he was his own proper, true, and literal son, makes all the beauty and force of the parable. So, Matt. xxii. 2, we read of "a certain king who made a marriage for his son." Was not this his true, proper, and real son? If Christ is not the true, proper, and real Son of the Father, the meaning of the parable is lost.

So there are texts which speak of God's "own Son," as Rom. viii. 3: "God sending his own Son," &c. But if Christ is God's Son only in virtue of the covenant, what is meant by his own Son; i.e., his proper, peculiar Son? The expression, "his own Son," seems to me to convey that he is his Son by essence and nature. So the expression, "the only begotten Son of God," (John iii. 16, 18,) seems to me to imply something more than Sonship by office. It is true that in his human nature he is sometimes called "the Son of God," (Luke i. 35,) but, I think, never in this sense," the only begotten Son of God." Again, we read, "And we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father," &c. (John i. 14.) But this glory was not that of his human nature, which was without form or comeliness, and his visage more marred than any man. It must therefore be the glory of his divine nature, and that is called a begotten nature. Now, does not that at once imply Sonship by nature? Again, what great stress is laid in the Scriptures upon believing that Jesus is the Son of God. (See John ix. 35; Acts viii. 37; 1 John v. 5, 10, 13, &c.) And what is meant by this believing that Jesus is the Son of God? Does it not refer to his divine nature? The Jews understood it so. (See John xix. 7; v. 18.) It was for this that Christ was crucified. Now there surely must be some meaning in the word Son analogous to and agreeing with our ideas of the term Son, or the Holy Spirit would have misled us in the Scriptures. When Christ said, "I and my Father are one," if God is not really and truly his Father, we are deceived by the words employed. Has the blessed Spirit ever explained them in your sense? Or has he ever cautioned us that the word " Son" does not mean Son, nor the term " Father" mean Father? I therefore believe that God the Father is really the Father of Christ, as he said, "I ascend to my Father and your Father;" and I confess I am very

jealous of any departure from the express words of the Holy Ghost. And is it not far better, laying aside our own wisdom, to receive what God has said because he has said it, than wrest and misinterpret the plainest declarations of scripture merely because we cannot make them square with our natural, rational views? There is something so endearing and affectionate, something which so heightens the love and enhances the sacrifice, something which so emboldens the soul to come to the Father, through the Son of his love, in my view of the subject, that I cannot describe, but which I cannot see nor feel in yours. There seems a greater reality in the faith and confession, "Thou art the Son of God," when his Sonship is viewed as a real and actual one, than were it merely assumed as a covenant title. Besides, what confusion does your view introduce into the Trinity! If "Father," Son," and "Spirit" are merely covenant characters and names of office, and are not essential modes of existence, I see no reason why the Father might not have been "the Son," and the Son" the Father," and the Spirit" either. I think I need not say how every spiritual feeling that we have toward the blessed Trinity revolts from such an idea. But when we view their covenant characters flowing out of, and necessarily connected with, their mode of existence, it sheds a beauty and glory upon them.

66

Your view, again, to my mind quite neutralizes what is so often said in the Scriptures of the peculiar love of God: "He that spared not his own Son;" (Rom. viii. 32;) “In this was manifested the love of God, because that 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 iv. 9, 10.) The peculiar tenderness of Paternal love, and the sacrifice, if I may so speak, that it cost the Father to give up his own dear Son is destroyed, or certainly very much weakened, if Christ be a Son merely by office.

When at Christ's baptism there came a voice from heaven, “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased;" and again, on the mount of transfiguration, "This is my beloved Son; hear him;" (Luke ix. 35;) if it were merely a covenant title, I see no reason why some other covenant office might not have been testified to, as, "This is the Saviour." But no; "This is my beloved Son," my own dear Son whom I have sent forth from my own bosom.

So in that divine prayer which Jesus offered up before he was betrayed; how tender and how touching is the way in which he speaks: "Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee." "And now, O Father, glorify thou me." "Holy Father, keep through thine own name," &c. "As thou, Father, art in me.' Father, I will," &c. "O righteous Father," &c. What sweet filial confidence does the Lord here show! Does not he approach the Father as his own Father? A Son by office or mere name could not, would not approach the Father thus. There must be a reality in his Sonship, or he could not thus have the feelings of a Son. How low, how poor, how forced is Sonship by office, compared with Sonship in reality! And to my feelings the real, true,

and proper Sonship of Christ shines with such a ray of light through the New Testament, that I could no more give it up than I could his blood and righteousness. Nay, I consider the denial of it to be a serious and dangerous error, and not very far removed from that solemn passage, "Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father." (1 John ii. 23.)

All the saints, too, from Athanasius to Hawker, (Romaine, I believe, excepted,) have strongly contended for this doctrine of the actual and proper Sonship of Jesus. I do not indeed mean to say we should servilely adopt the creed of others, but I should greatly fear if on any one point of my creed I found the church of God against me.

The Lord, according to his gracious promise, guide us into all truth, and show us light in his own light. Yours in gospel bonds, Stamford, Feb. 28, 1843.

J. C. P.

The substance of the above letter was written to a friend who seemed disposed to adopt the doctrine, that Christ was a Son by office only. As it was, I believe, blessed to convince him to the contrary, as I have been requested to send it to the Standard, as the real and true Sonship of Christ is a truth dear to my soul, and as I have reason to believe that some of God's family are in some measure tainted with the error I have endeavoured to expose,-for these reasons I have been induced to send it for insertion.

It is right to add, that I have enlarged the original letter, and introduced additional arguments to strengthen my point.

Jan. 9, 1844.

J. C. P.

A SECOND LETTER FROM THE LATE MR.

MARRINER.

Beloved of God,-I earnestly hope this will find you, and your family, and all friends, in good health, and your souls alive to God through faith of his own operation. Having felt the goodness of God to my soul, I am desirous to tell thee of it, well knowing that T― is not a stranger to these things.

On the 5th of September last I went down and heard Mr. S―, of W. In the morning and afternoon I was sensibly shut up, but in the evening the Lord was pleased to break in upon my soul in a wonderful manner. We went to supper at a farm house, where we lost all our comfort, through their carnal conversation. We then went to bed, where we had not been many minutes before I found enlargement of heart gradually growing upon me; and the dear Lord indulged my soul in such a way that I never felt before. Matter kept springing up in both our souls, so that we had but very little sleep. My undeserving soul saw and felt, without a shadow of doubt, my eternal justification through the finished work of my dear Lord. I fell asleep under a blessed sense of being a pardoned sinner through his precious blood. My soul blessed his dearest name, that I, the most vile and filthy wretch out of hell, was assured that neither sin, death, hell, nor the grave could ever pluck my soul from the hands of my covenant God, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. "Bless the Lord, O my soul, and all that is within me, bless his holy name." I awoke in the morning with a little of the savour on my spirits.

Mr. S-proposed to go and see two or three old friends at S-, and on our road thither we were tolerably comfortable. We spent a few hours with the people, but not altogether pleasantly. On our road from S― to B-, (Mr. S.'s home,) the dear Lord was pleased again to visit our souls in a most wonderful manner; and so powerful was the goodness of God felt in our souls, that we were too full for utterance; and sure I am, that had not Mr. S been with me, I must have gone under the hedge, and heaped a million blessings on the head of my dear Lord for such unthought-of, unsought-for, and unspeakable condescension. Mr. S declared to me that he never had such a visit in all his life. I have not altogether lost the remembrance of it to this moment; nor can I say that two days have passed away without some blessed intimation that my sins, which are many, are all put away by the sacrifice of Christ, which causes my soul to bow with adoration and wonder, so that I become even as a weaned child before him. The substance of these two lines by Mr. Hart is engraved as a sunbeam in my soul:

For

"Behold, thy bad works shall not damn,
Nor can thy good works save thy soul."

"The terrors of law and of God
With me can have nothing to do;
My Saviour's obedience and blood

Hide all my transgressions from view."

I bless his dear name, he is growingly precious. Every time he comes he shows himself mighty to save; and sure I am that no souls will prize him till they can acquit God in the damnation of their own souls; and when they are brought to feel themselves utterly lost, to all intents and purposes, every refuge failing them, being past all hope in and of themselves, till they are obliged to fall down, crying from their inmost souls, "Lord, if thou damn or save me, I can do nothing; I lie at thy sovereign disposal; if thou, dear Lord, wilt save my soul, I shall then be obliged to proclaim, 'Grace is free indeed;' but if thou damn me, I must say, Truly thou art all my desire; and if I perish, I will perish at thy blessed feet."" O T-! "Sinners can say, and none but they,

'How precious is the Saviour!""

You and I stand as monuments that He saves to the very uttermost. I have sometimes such a boiling up of corruptions within, that my flesh is made to tremble, and I am constrained to cry out, "Hold thou me up, and I shall be safe." I am often astonished at his preserving mercy. May the dear Lord preserve us to himself, and increase our faith in his precious blood from day to day, that our hearts may be sensibly sprinkled from an evil conscience, that we may serve him in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.

Give my love to poor old friend P-, whom I love in the Lord; and to all that love my dear Lord in truth. I suppose dear S-s have left before this; if not, give my kind love to them. We are all tolerably well in health. I shall be glad to hear from you or any of the friends, when you feel disposed. The Lord bless thee, T―,