IX. ON THE SONSHIP OF CHRIST.

Various opinions on this subject. Dr. A. Clarke on Luke i. 35.

Strictures on Dr. Clarke's opinion by several Wesleyan ministers. Observations on their strictures. Mr. Wesley on Heb. i. 5. Arm nian Magazine. Dr. Clarke's remarks on Wesley's opinion. Imperial Magazine admits of discussion on this question. The Eternal Sonship is a philological question, rather than doctrinal. Albert Barnes on several passages which relate to the Sonship of Christ. The phrase Son of God refers to his human and divine natures, unitedly considered. Remarks on Mr. Benson's comment on Heb. i. 2. Dr. Pye Smith on the Sonship. Summing up of the arguments, and conclusion. Treffry on the Sonship.

CHRIST is expressly designated "The Son of God" upwards of forty times in the New Testament; and in many other places there are expressions of similar import, such as the Father calling him "My Son." But I have not incorporated this title given to the Saviour with those facts and arguments adduced in proof of the Divinity of Christ, because it is a disputed question amongst those who believe in the Deity of the Saviour, and who hold that he is the second person in the Holy Trinity, whether the appellation, or phrase "Smy God," relates to his Divinity or his humanity, or to both. Men of profound literary attainments, distinguished for their theological research and biblical knowledge, have differed materially in reference to the precise signification of the phrase "Son of God," and in what sense it is applicable to the Saviour of

the world. Some suppose that it expressly denotes and sets forth his divine nature, and is used in contradistinction to the phrase, "Son of man," which sets forth his human nature; others say it can only with safety and propriety be applied to his human nature; while others argue that it denotes and implies his divine nature exclusively, when in connection with his humanity; others again are of opinion that it applies to both his humanity and Divinity, but to neither of them separately considered. Dr. A. Clarke expresses his opinion very clearly and explicitly on this subject, in his notes on Luke i. 35, in the following language:

Here, I trust, I may be permitted to say, with all due respect to those who differ from me, that the doctrine of the eternal Sonship is, in my opinion, anti-scriptural, and highly dangerous. This doctrine I reject for the following reasons:

"1st.

I have not been able to find any express declaration in the Scriptures concerning it.

"2dly. If Christ be the Son of God, as to his divine nature, then he cannot be eternal; for son implies father; and father implies, in reference to son, precedency in time, if not in nature too. Father and son imply the idea of generation, and generation implies a time in which it was effected, and time also antecedent to such generation.

3dly. If Christ be the Son of God, as to his divine nature, then the Father is of necessity prior, consequently superior, to him.

66

4thly. Again, if this divine nature were begotten of the Father, then it must be in time; i.e. there was a period in which it did not exist, and a period when it began to

exist; this destroys the eternity of our blessed Lord, and robs him at once of his Godhead.

66

5thly. To say that he was begotten from all eternity, is, in my opinion absurd, and the phrase "eternal Son," is a positive self-contradiction. Eternity is that which has had no beginning, nor stands in any reference to TIME; Son supposes time, generation, and father, and time also antecedent to such generation. Therefore the conjunction of these two terms, son and eternity, is absolutely impossible, as they imply essentially different and opposite ideas. This doctrine of the eternal Sonship destroys the Deity of Christ; now, if his Deity be taken away, the whole gospel scheme of redemption is ruined. On this ground, the atonement of Christ cannot have been of infinite merit, and consequently could not purchase pardon for the offences of mankind, nor give any right to, or possession of, an eternal glory. The very use of this phrase is both absurd and dangerous; therefore, let all those who value Jesus and their salvation abide by the Scriptures.

"This doctrine of the eternal Sonship, as it has been lately explained in many a pamphlet, and many a paper in magazines, I must and do consider as an awful heresy, and sheer Arianism; which, in many cases, has terminated in Socinianism, and that again in Deism. From such heterodoxies and their abettors, may God save his Church! Amen."

After reading the above quotation, there can be no misunderstanding as to Dr. Clarke's opinion on this important subject. But whether his illustrations and deductions are equally clear and conclusive, is not so readily admitted. Several eminent Wesleyan ministers severely

criticised, and strongly animadverted on, the Doctor's opinions, and their strictures appeared in the Wesleyan Magazine, edited by the able hand of the Rev. J. Benson. Among those who offered strictures on the peculiar notions of Dr. Clarke, may be mentioned the Rev. H. Moore, the Rev. Messrs. Watson, West, and Boyd. These gentlemen condemned the notions of the Doctor in his own language, as being "anti-scriptural and dangerous." Clarke took but little notice of these strictures; but they were somewhat severely handled by one Mr. Brunskill, a local preacher, who was a man of some ability and literary research. Some of their critical remarks, on both sides of the question, are valuable and interesting, while others are absurd, and approach the contemptible.

In 1820, we find the subject was discussed in the Imperial Magazine, (vol. II.) A person who signed himself Tyro, wrote in favour of the doctrine of the eternal Sonship, and in my opinion it is one of the best articles ever written on that side of the question. The editor, Mr. Drew, treated the subject as a purely philological question, and very seasonably reproved some who wrote on it for making it a matter of doctrine, and regarding it as affecting the Divinity of Christ, and the doctrine of the Trinity.

The Rev. J. T. Miller, in his, "Epitome of Christian Theology," page 101, in defending the doctrine of the eternal Sonship, contends, that with as much propriety we might object to the eternity of the WORD as the eternity of the Sonship. He asks: "Can the declaration or expression of the mind be as old as the mind that gave it birth? for the WORD implies a speaker, who in reference to time implies precedency, and the speaker being prior must be

superior," &c. It is rather surprising that a respectable author like Mr. Miller should so unguardedly confound the personal Word of the Trinity with a word spoken, which is a mere effusion of the mind expressed by articulation. THE WORD that was with God in the beginning, and which was God, the maker of all things, was not a mere "declaration or expression of the mind" of God, but a distinct person in unity with the Father and the Holy Ghost, possessing all the attributes and perfections of Deity; and therefore, to confound this Divine Person with " a declaration or expression of mind," is erroneous and unsound theology. His remarks on "The express image of his person" are liable to similar objections. Hence, Mr. Miller's analogical reasonings, founded on the above passages, do nothing towards proving the eternity of the Sonship of Christ. He next appeals to the commentary and poetry of Mr. Wesley; and if Mr. Wesley's theology and hymns were uniformly and infallibly true, the matter might soon be decided in favour of the eternal Sonship. But Mr. Wesley, though a great and good man, was liable to err in judgment. And it is rather remarkable that both parties appeal to the writings of Mr. Wesley, in confirmation of their notions and sentiments, though it is sufficiently clear, to any person conversant with Mr. Wesley's writings, that he held the doctrine of the eternal Sonship; but sometimes he did not write sufficiently clear, so as to be distinctly understood.

In his note on Heb. i. 5, he gives us the following paraphase: "Thou art my son, God of God, Light of light; this day have I begotten thee-I have begotten thee from eternity; which, by its unalterable permanency of