APPENDIX

An Historical Sketch Of The Controversy Concerning The Sonship Of Christ.

As it is usual to plead, in support of the doctrine of the Eternal Sonship of Jesus Christ, the opinions of the Jews, and of the ancient Fathers of the' Christian church, the following sketch of the history of the controversy may, perhaps, show the respect to which these opinions are entitled.

It may be observed, in passing, that, on this subject, the opinion of the Jews, and the opinion of Christ himself, did not coalesce. This is clear from two facts: First, when Christ asked the Pharisees, why their expected Messiah should be at the same time David's Son and Lord? they were confounded and could not tell. Second, there is not recorded in the Gospel of St. John, one case of open persecution, to which Christ was subject, but which is found to have arisen from the fact, that he claimed the character of the Son of God, in a sense which was decidedly at variance with the commonly received opinion. The notion of the Jews was, that God had a Son in His own nature; or, as it is expressed now, the term "Son of God referred distinctly and exclusively to the Divinity, which was in the same nature both God and Son of God." Christ was understood to claim this high character in reference to His human nature, or, more correctly, in reference to the union of both; and, for this, he was subjected to the charge of blasphemy. It is, therefore, clear, that the hypostatical union in the person of Christ, which made him at once both David's SON and LORD, was not understood by the Jews; and that they put him to death for no other reason, than because he claimed that relation to God, in the union of the human nature with the divine, which, they believed, belonged to the Divinity exclusively. As, then, their notions were in opposition to the notion maintained by Christ himself, the question is, whence did they derive them?

"About the time of Christ's appearance upon earth," says Mosheim, "there were two kinds of philosophy, which prevailed among the civilized nations. One was the philosophy of the Greeks, adopted also by the Romans; and the other, that of the Orientals, which had a great number of votaries in Persia, Chaldea, and Egypt. The former was distinguished by the simple title of philosophy, or love of wisdom:-- the latter was honored with the more pompous appellation of science, or knowledge; since those who embraced this latter sect pretended to be the restorers of the knowledge of God, which was lost in the world. The votaries of this philosophy were unanimous in acknowledging the existence of an eternal nature, in which dwelt the fullness of wisdom, goodness, and all other perfections, and of whom no mortal was able to form a complete idea. This great being was considered by them as a most radiant light, diffused through the immensity of space, which they called plerorna, a Greek word which signifies fullness; and they taught concerning him and his operations, the following things: That eternal nature, infinitely perfect, and infinitely happy, having dwelt from everlasting in a profound solitude, and in a blessed tranquillity, produced, at length, from itself, two minds of a different sex, which resembled their supreme parent in the most perfect manner. From the prolific union of these two beings others arose, which were also followed by succeeding generations, so that, in process of time, a celestial family was formed in the pleroma. This divine progeny being immutable in its nature, and above the power of mortality, was called by the philosophers, ænon, a term which, in the Greek language, signifies an eternal nature. How many in number these ænons were, was a point much controverted among the oriental sages.

Beyond the mansions of light, where dwells the Deity with his celestial offspring, there lies a rude and unwieldy mass of matter, agitated by innate, turbulent, and irregular motions. One of the celestial natures, descending from the pleroma, either by a fortuitous impulse or in consequence of a divine commission, reduced to order this, unseemly mass, adorned it with a rich variety of gifts, created men and inferior animals of different kinds, to store it with inhabitants, and corrected its malignity, by mixing with it a certain portion of light, and also of a matter celestial and divine. This creator of the world is distinguished from the Supreme Deity by the name of Demiurge. His character is a compound of shining qualities and insupportable arrogance; and his excessive lust of empire effaces his talents and his virtues. He claims dominion over the new world he has made, as his sovereign right; and, excluding totally the Supreme Deity from all concernment in it, demands from mankind, for himself and his associates, divine honors.

Man is a compound of a terrestrial and corrupt body, and a soul which is of celestial origin, and, in some measure, an emanation from the Divinity. This nobler part is miserably weighted down and encumbered by the body, which is the seat of all irregular lusts and impure desires. It is this body that seduces the soul from the pursuit of truth, and not only turns it from the contemplation and worship of the Supreme Being, so as to confine its homage and veneration to the Creator of this world, but also attaches it to terrestrial objects, and to the immoderate pursuit of sensual pleasures, by which its nature is totally polluted. The sovereign mind employs various means to deliver his offspring from this deplorable servitude, especially the ministry of divine messengers, whom he sends to enlighten, to admonish, and to reform the human race. In the mean time, the imperious Demiurge exerts his power in opposition to the merciful purposes of the Supreme Being, resists the influence of those solemn invitations by which he exhorts mankind to return to him, and labors to efface the knowledge of God from the minds of intelligent beings. in this conflict, such souls as, throwing off the yoke of the Creator and Ruler of this world, rise to their supreme parent, and subdue the turbulent and sinful motions which corrupt matter excites within them, shall, at the dissolution of their mortal bodies, ascend directly to the piennne, Those, on the contrary, who remain in the bondage of servile superstition and corrupt matter, shall, at the end of this life, pass into new bodies, until they awake from their sinful lethargy. in the end, however, the Supreme God shall come forth victorious, triumph over all opposition, and, having delivered from their servitude the greatest part of those souls that are imprisoned in mortal bodies, shall dissolve the frame of this visible world, and involve it in a general ruin. After this solemn period, primitive tranquillity shall be restored in the universe; and God shall reign with happy spirits in undisturbed felicity, through the everlasting ages.

"Such were the principal tenets of the oriental philosophy. The state of letters and philosophy among the Jews comes next under consideration. The leaders of the people, and the chief priests, were, according to Josephus, profligate wretches, who had purchased their places by bribes, or by acts of iniquity, and who maintained their ill. acquired authority by the most flagitious and abominable crimes. The subordinate and inferior members were infected with the corruption of the head; the priests, and those who possessed any shadow of authority, were dissolute and abandoned to the highest degree. Errors of a very pernicious kind had infected the whole body of the people; and the more learned part of the nation were divided upon points of the highest consequence. The supercilious doctors, who vaunted their profound knowledge of the law, and their deep science in spiritual, and divine things, were constantly showing their fallibility and their ignorance by their religious differences, and were divided into a variety of sects. Of these sects, three have, in a great measure, eclipsed the rest. These were the Pharisees, the Sadducees, and the Essenes. None of these sects, indeed, seemed to have the interests of real and true piety at heart; nor were their principles and discipline at all adapted to the advancement of pure and substantial virtue. The Pharisees courted popular applause by a vain ostentation of pretended sanctity and an austere method of living, while, in reality, they were strangers to true holiness, and were inwardly defiled with the most criminal dispositions, with which our Saviour frequently reproaches them. They also treated with more veneration the commandments and traditions of men, than the sacred precepts and laws of God.

The Saddueees, by denying a future state of rewards and punishments, removed at once the most powerful incentives to virtue, and the most effectual restraints upon vice, and thus gave new vigor to every sinful passion, and a full encouragement to the indulgence of every irregular desire.

As to the Essenes, they were a fanatical and superstitious tribe, who placed religion in a certain sort of seraphic indolence, and, looking upon piety to God as incompatible with any social attachment to men, dissolved by this pernicious doctrine all the great bonds of human society.

To all these corruptions, both in doctrine and practice, which reigned among the Jews at the time of Christ's coming, we may add the attachment which many of them discovered to the tenets of the oriental philosophy concerning the origin of the world, and the doctrine of the Cabbala, which was undoubtedly derived thence. That considerable numbers of the Jews had imbibed the errors of this fantastic system, appears evident both from the books of the New Testament and the ancient history of the Christian church; and it is certain that many of the Gnostic sects were founded by the Jews. Those among that degenerate people, who adopted this chimerical philosophy, must have differed vastly from the rest, in their opinions concerning the God of the Old Testament, the origin of the world, the character and doctrine of Moses, and the nature and ministry of the Messiah: since they maintained, that the Creator of this world was a being different from the Supreme God, and that his dominion over the human race was to be destroyed by the Messiah. Every one must see that this enormous system was fruitful of errors, destructive of the very foundations of Judaism. "But whence such enormous degrees of corruption in that very nation which God had, in a peculiar manner, separated from an idolatrous world to be the depository of divine truth. Various causes may be assigned, in order to give a satisfactory account of this matter. First, It is certain that the ancestors of the Jews, who lived in the time of our Saviour, had brought from Chaldea, and the neighboring countries, many extravagant and idle fancies, which were utterly unknown to the original founders of the nation. The conquest of Asia by Alexander the Great, was also an event from which we may date a new accession of errors to the Jewish system; since, in consequence of that revolution, the manners and opinions of the Greeks began to spread themselves among the Persians, Syrians, Arabians, and also among the Jews, who, before that period, were entirely unacquainted with letters and philosophy. We may, further, rank among the causes that contributed to corrupt the religion and manners of the Jews, their voyages into the adjacent countries, especially Egypt and Phoenicia, in pursuit of wealth. For, with the treasures of those corrupt and superstitious nations, they brought home also their pernicious errors and idle fictions, which were imperceptibly blended with their religious system. Nor ought we to omit in this enumeration, the pestilential influence of the wicked reigns of Herod and his sons, and the enormous instances of idolatry, error, and licentiousness, which this unhappy people had constantly before their eyes in the religion and manners of the Roman governors and soldiers, which, no doubt, contributed much to the progress of their national superstition and corruption of manners. We might add more facts and circumstances to illustrate further the matter under consideration; but these will be readily suggested to such as have the least acquaintance with the Jewish history from the time of the Maccabees." -- Cent. 1.

As it is so clearly shown in these extracts, that the oriental philosophy, which inculcated the doctrines of divine generation in the Godhead, and the transmigration of the human soul, was made part and parcel of the Jewish creed, we cannot wonder at the fact, that Christ and the Jews were always in opposition; and hence the folly and weakness of appealing to the authority of these Jews on doctrinal subjects. But to proceed.

"It was from this oriental philosophy, that the Christian Gnostics derived their origin. The notions of this sect concerning Jesus Christ, were impious and extravagant. For, though they considered him as the Son of the Supreme God, sent from the pleroma, or habitation of the everlasting Father, for the happiness of miserable mortals; yet they entertained unworthy ideas both of his person and offices. They denied his deity, looking upon him as the Son of God, and consequently inferior to the Father. There is no sort of doubt, but that Cerinthus may be placed among the Gnostics; though the learned are not agreed whether he belonged to the heretics of the first or second century. This man was by birth a Jew, and, having applied himself to letters and philosophy at Alexandria, attempted, at length, to form a new and singular system of doctrine and discipline by a monstrous combination of the doctrines of Christ with the opinions and errors of the Jews and Gnostics. From the latter he borrowed their plerome, their ænons, and their demiurge, and so modified and tempered these fictions, as to give them an air of Judaism, which must have considerably favored the progress of his heresy. He taught that the Creator of this world, whom he considered also as the Sovereign and Lawgiver of the Jewish people, was a being endowed with the greatest virtues, and derived his birth from the supreme God that this being fell by degrees from his native virtue and primitive dignity; that the supreme God, in consequence of this, determined to destroy his empire, and sent upon earth, for this purpose, one of the ever happy and glorious ænons, whose name was Christ; and this Christ chose for his habitation the person of Jesus, a man of the most illustrious sanctity and justice, the son of Joseph and Mary, and, descending in the form of a dove, entered into him while he was receiving baptism in the waters of Jordan; that Jesus, after his union with Christ, opposed himself with vigor to the God of the Jews, and was, by his instigation, seized and crucified by the Hebrew chiefs that, when Jesus was taken captive, Christ ascended up on high, so that the man Jesus alone was subjected to the pain of an ignominious death. Cerinthus required his followers to worship the Father of Christ, even the supreme God, in conjunction with the Son; that they should abandon the lawgiver of the Jews, whom he looked upon as the Creator of the world; that they should retain a part of the law given by Moses, but should, nevertheless, employ their principal attention and care to regulate their lives by the precepts of Christ. [48]

It was to refute this sublimated philosophy that St. John wrote his Gospel. [49] In doing this, this apostle, 1, states a distinction of persons in the Godhead, prior to the incarnation, without saying anything about their mutual relations; 2, in speaking of Christ in his anterior state, he describes him as the eternal, omnipotent God, the Creator of all things; 3, when speaking of the incarnation, he immediately changes the terms; and the union of divinity with humanity forms a person who is called the only-begotten of the Father. It seems that his intention was to exhibit Christ as the subject of generation and sonship, in his incarnate state only. Unless this be admitted, his language is unintelligible; and, thus understood, it supplies an antidote to the Gnostic heresy. But, whatever effects it might produce in the first instance, it is certain that these effects were but transient; the heresy soon revived, and was circulated with tenfold vigor. The circumstances which gave rise to this, are the following:

"Towards time close of the second century, a new sect of philosophers arose on a sudden, spread with amazing rapidity throughout the greatest part of the Roman empire, swallowed up almost all the other sects, and was extremely detrimental to the cause of Christianity. Alexandria in Egypt, which had been long the seat of learning, and the center of all the liberal arts and sciences, gave birth to this new philosophy. Its votaries chose to be called Platonies, though, so far from adhering to the tenets of Plato, they collected from the different sects such doctrines as they thought conformable to truth, and formed thereof one general system.

"This new species of Platonism was embraced by such of the Alexandrian Christians as were desirous to retain, with the profession of the Gospel, the the, dignity, and habit of philosophers. It is said to have had the particular approbation of Athenagoras, Pantanus, Clemens the Alexandrian, and all those who, in this century, were charged with the care of the public schools, which the Christians had at Alexandria. This philosophical system underwent some changes when Ammonius Saccas, who taught with the highest applause in time Alexandrian school, about the conclusion of this century, laid the foundation of that sect which was distinguished by the name of New Platonics. This learned man was born of Christian patents, and never, perhaps, gave up entirely the profession of that religion in which he had been educated. As his genius was vast and comprehensive, so his projects were bold and singular for he attempted a general reconciliation of all sects, whether philosophical or religious, and taught a doctrine which he looked upon as proper to unite them all, the Christians not excepted, in the most perfect harmony.

"This species of philosophy, imprudently adopted by Origen and many other Christians, was extremely prejudicial to the cause of the Gospel, and to the beautiful simplicity of its celestial doctrines. hence it was, that the Christian doctors began to introduce their subtle and obscure erudition into time religion of Jesus, to involve in time darkness of a vain philosophy some of time principal truths of Christianity, that had been revealed with the utmost plainness, and were, indeed, obvious to the meanest capacity; and to add, to the divine precepts of our Lord, many of their own, which had no foundation in the sacred writings. From the same source arose that melancholy set of men, who have been distinguished by the name of Mystics. Nor did the evil end here. For, under the specious pretext of the necessity of contemplation, it gave rise to that indolent course of life, which continues to be led by myriads of monks retired into cells, and sequestered from society, to which they can neither be useful by their instructions nor examples. It would be endless to enumerate all the pernicious consequences that may justly be attributed to this new philosophy; or, rather, to this monstrous attempt to reconcile falsehood with truth, and light with darkness. Some of its most fatal effects were, its alienating the minds of many, in the following ages, from the Christian religion; and its substituting, in the place of the pure and sublime simplicity of the Gospel, an unseemly mixture of Platonism and Christianity."

In consequence of the Christian Fathers adopting these philosophizing tenets, and mixing them up with the Gospel of Jesus Christ, their writings were soon filled with notions of celestial generations and productions in almost endless succession. Here we have the origin of the Eternal Sonship theory in the Christian church. What was taught of the generation and production of ænons by the oriental philosophers, was retained by these accommodating Christian Fathers, under the character of Eternal Sonship, and taught as the divine generation of the Son of God. They applied to the Godhead, exclusively, the terms which are applied to Christ in his incarnate state only; and thus established what they denominate his eternal generation.

The doctrine, however, was not introduced into the church without some opposition; and its abettors were viewed with suspicion. Justin Martyr, who flourished 140 years after Christ, speaking of one of them, says,

"And one Marcion, of Pontus, who now at this time teacheth his followers, and instructs to believe there is another God, greater than he that made the world:-- this man also, assisted by devils, hath persuaded many throughout the world to speak blasphemy, to deny the Maker of the universe, and to affirm that there is another greater than he that made it." [50]

But it is a singular fact, that the doctrine of an inferior Deity, owing his existence to another, a doctrine against which St. John wrote his Gospel, and which Justin denounces as blasphemy, became, in about forty years from the time when the latter wrote, the orthodoxy of the day.

Among those who held and taught this notion, we may notice Theophilus. He became Bishop of Antioch in the year 168. To this Father we are indebted for the term Trinity. In speaking on the Divine Being, he describes the supreme God as unbegotten, immutable, and immortal. He then explains the generation of the Word, and informs us, that,

"The Word eternally existed, laid up in the heart of God; but, when God resolved to form what he had within himself designed, he brought forth his Word, the first-born of every creature; not emptying himself of the Word, but having begotten the Word, still perpetually associated with his Word." "He afterwards bestows upon the Word locality."

Tertullian, who flourished A. P. 200, says,

"Before the creation God was alone, because there was nothing without him; but in him were at the same time his wisdom and his reason, which the Greeks call Logos. This internal Logos, or Word, God produced from himself; and hence he was no longer alone, this becoming his external Word, which is produced from the Father as a plant from its root, a flower from its stalk, a river from its spring, and a ray from the sun."

Methodius, bishop of Tyre, A. P. 290, thought that the Word was incarnated in Adam. He says,

Thus was the Christ, man filled with pure and perfect Deity, and God contained in man: for it was highly becoming that the most ancient of ænons, and the first of archangels, should inhabit the most ancient and first of men, that is, Adam."

Origen flourished A. D. 230:

"According to Epiphanius, he taught, that the Word was created. The Son cannot see the Father. The Holy Spirit cannot see the Son. Angels cannot see the Holy Spirit. Men cannot see angels. Satan shall be restored to his lost dignity, and reign in heaven with the saints."

In his Stromata, Book x., he expresses himself in the following manner:-

"The source of many evils lies in adhering to the carnal or external part of Scripture. Those who do so shall not attain to the kingdom of God. Let us, therefore, seek after the spirit and the substantial fruit of the Word, which are hidden and mysterious. The Scriptures are of little use to those who understand them as they are written."

Eusebius, bishop of Cesarea, flourished A. D. 320. Speaking of the Logos, he says,

"God produced him from himself, as the sun produces its light, or the flower its scent. The Father receives nothing from the Son as to his nature; but the Son derives not only his existence, but also the mode of his existence, from the Father." [51]

These quotations show the notions generally held and taught upon this subject, by the most learned and orthodox of the ancient Christian Fathers. From them we learn the following particulars

1. One Deity existed, in an embryo state, in the heart of another, until brought forth and made a local Divinity. 2. Theophilus and Tertullian, though both orthodox, contradict each other. The former says, God retained the divine production internally; the latter, that he became God's external Word.  3. We are flatly told, that Christ is the most ancient of ænons, and was incarnated in Adam. 4. Christ himself is detected in a tissue of errors. He speaks of seeing the Father, John v. 19. Origen shows, that the Son cannot see the Father. Christ speaks of the wicked and devils being punished with everlasting fire, Matt. xxv. 41. Origen shows, that the devil shall be restored, and reign with saints in heaven. 5. To receive the Scriptures in their native, literal meaning, is fatal. It excludes from heaven. 6. That Christ is not the eternal, self-existent Jehovah manifested in the flesh, as the Scriptures so clearly teach, Isaiah vi. 10; John xii. 41; but the first ænon that God produced or created:-- as much a produced, dependent creature, as the meanest reptile. 7. It is clear, that, on this, and many other subjects, we must either dissent from the orthodox Jews, and primitive Fathers, or reject the testimony which God has given of his Son. But a dispute now arose, which proved the means of giving existence to a form of faith which defined the orthodoxy of the day.

"The subject of this fatal controversy was, the doctrine of three persons in the Godhead; a doctrine which, in the three preceding centuries, had happily escaped the vain curiosity of human researches, and been left undefined by any particular set of ideas. The church, indeed, had frequently decided against the Sabellians and others, that there was a real difference between the Father and the Son, and that the Holy Ghost was distinguished from both: or, as we commonly speak, that three distinct persons exist in the Deity but the mutual relation of these persons to each other, and the nature of that distinction that subsists between them, are matters that hitherto were neither disputed nor explained, and with respect to which the church, consequently, observed a profound silence. Nothing was dictated to the faith of Christians in this matter, nor were there any modes of expression prescribed as requisite to be used in speaking of this mystery. Hence it happened that Christian doctors entertained different sentiments upon this subject, without giving the least offense, and discoursed variously, concerning the distinction between Father, Son, and holy Ghost; each one following his respective opinion with the utmost liberty. [52]

The circumstances which led to the dispute were these:-- Alexander, bishop of Alexandria in Egypt, was one day discoursing in the presence of his presbyters, upon the doctrine of the Trinity, when he let fall some expressions, which led Anus, one of them, to reason thus:-- " If the Father begat the Son, then he that was begotten, hath a beginning of existence. And from hence it is apparent, that there was a time when he was not. Whence, this is a necessary consequence, that he derives his being from nothing." Mosheim adds,

"He first treated as false the assertion of Alexander, on account of its affinity to the Sabellian errors, which hall been condemned by the church; and then, running into the opposite extreme, he maintained, that the Son was totally and essentially distinct from the Father; that he was the first and noblest of those beings whom God time Father had made out of nothing; the instrument by whose subordinate operation the Almighty Father formed the universe, and, therefore, inferior to the Father both in nature and in dignity." [53]

These sentiments were entertained by several persons of distinction in the church. Alexander, on hearing of this, became enraged, called a council of bishops, degraded Anus and his followers, and wrote a circular to different churches, in which he denounced the degraded parties as usurpers, apostates, and audacious heretics; and anathematized them accordingly. The following letter, written by Anus to Eusebius, bishop of Nicomedia, contains the subject in dispute between Anus and Alexander

To my most desirable lord, the faithful man of God, the orthodox Eusebius: Anus persecuted by father Alexander unjustly for the sake of truth, which conquers all things, of which you are the defender: joy in the Lord. My father Ammionius coming to Nicomedia, it appeared to me my duty to address you by him, and at the same time to inform your rooted charity and kind disposition, which you have towards the brethren, for the sake of God and his Christ, that the bishop harasses us, and persecutes us greatly, and moves every machine against us, so as even to expel us from the city as Atheists, because we agree not with him, who publicly says, 'Always God, always the Son; at the same time the Father, at the same time the Son; the Son co-exists with God, without being begotten; he is always begotten, yet unbegotten; God does not precede the Son in thought, not for a moment: always God, always the Son: the Son exists from God himself.' And, when Eusebius, your brother in Cesarea, and Theodotus, and Paulinus, and Athanasius, and Gregory, and Actius, and all the bishops in the East, said, That God, who had no beginning, existed before the Son, they were condemned, excepting only Philogonius, and Ellanicus, and Macanus, heretical, unlearned men, some of whom call the Son an eructation, others a projection, others begotten together with him, We cannot bear to hear these impieties, though the heretics should threaten us with a thousand deaths. But what we say and think, we have both taught, and do teach; that the Son is not unbegotten, nor a part of the unbegotten, by any means, nor of the subject matter; but that, by will and council, he existed before the times and the ages, full God, only begotten, not mixed with anything heterogeneous; and, before he was begotten, or created, or defined, or formed, he was not; for he was not unbegotten. We are persecuted, because we say, the Son hath a beginning; but God is without a beginning. For this we are persecuted, and because we say, That the Son is from non-existence; and thus we said, because he is not a part of God, nor of any subject matter: for this we are persecuted; and the rest you know. I pray that you may be strong in the Lord, remembering our afflictions." [54]

As no analysis would make this intelligible, it is useless making any remark upon it. It is no wonder such disputants should resort to violence. The appeal, however, which was made to the feelings and judgment of others, raised the Christian world into a flame. Constantine, the emperor, who was a catechumen in the church, blamed both parties, and kindly strove to effect a reconciliation. His well-meant efforts were abortive; and, to put an end to the contention, a general council was held in the year 325, at Nice, in Bithynia.

At this famous council, Constantine presided. The language of Scripture being found too meager to express the notions of the orthodox party, they found it necessary to fabricate new terms. Now it was, that the word homoousios was brought into use, and made the Shibboleth of right opinions. It is singular that the disputants came literally within a single iota of each other. The orthodox contended, that Christ was homoousios, of the same substance with the Father; the others, that he was homoiousiou, of the like substance with the Father. This notable distinction, made by the addition of a single letter, and that letter the smallest in the Greek alphabet, divided the church world, and drew the line of demarcation between the heterodox and the orthodox. Neither party would yield to the other. At length, Constantine, to make an end of the unavailing dispute, appointed Hosius, bishop of Corduba, in Spain, to draw up the creed, commonly called the Nicene Creed, and declared that all who refused to subscribe to it, should be banished.

Eusebius of Cesarea, the historian, had some doubts of the propriety of the term consubstantiation, and observed, in a letter to his church, that all the mischief had arisen from the use of unscriptural terms, and that he had subscribed at last, for the sake of peace. [55] Anus and others professed themselves ready to subscribe to what the Scriptures taught of Jesus Christ, reserving the right of understanding and explaining these Scriptures for themselves; but hesitated to subscribe to terms which were not Scriptural. Of course, they were banished. Thus orthodoxy was established by imperial mandate; and the doctrine of a generated Deity became the orthodoxy of the day.

The following extracts will show, that the doctrine of the Eternal Sonship did not come into the church of God alone; it was connected with several other curious doctrines --

Origen maintained the Eternal Sonship, the restoration of fallen angels, and forbade marriage.

Cyril, bishop of Jerusalem, A. D. 348, taught the Eternal Sonship, transubstantiation, praying for' the dead, and made mediators of departed saints.

Gregory Nazianzen taught, that, as Adam was the means of being to Eve, and as both produced Seth, so the Father produces the Son, and then Father and Son produce the Holy Ghost. To this he added monkery, purgatory, supplicating the Virgin, and praying to saints.

Gregory, bishop of Nyssa, A. D. 371, taught purgatory, the real presence in the sacrament, monastic life, celibacy and virginity, sufficiency of tradition for the ground of faith, perpetual virginity of time mother of God, baptism as expiatory and destructive of sin, that Peter is the foundation of the church, relics, and purgatory. [56]

The Council of Nice, at one sitting, established time doctrine of the Eternal Sonship, and the celibacy of the clergy; at another, confirmed the worship of images. [57]

But, though Constantine adopted the orthodoxy of the day, and banished the men who were too honest to subscribe to dogmas which they did not believe, yet his decision tended but to increase the ferment which the dispute occasioned. After some time, Arius was recalled. The Emperor was persuaded that the orthodox party was actuated by malice, rather than by zeal for the truth. He, therefore, repealed the sentence which had been passed against them. Being at liberty, they began to harass the orthodox party. The struggles between these contending factions were conducted with the greatest asperity, and afford a melancholy instance of the unhappy consequences of substituting authority for evidence in matters of faith. Socrates says, "But, as to ourselves, we have found from several letters, which the bishops wrote to one another after the Synod, that the term homoousios disturbed some men's minds. Whilst they were busying themselves about the word, and made too curious inquiries into its meaning, they raised an intestine war among themselves. And what was done herein, was not unlike a fight in the night. For neither party seemed to understand perfectly why they reviled one another. They had an aversion to the term homoousios, looked upon them that approved of it as introducers of Sabellius and Montanus' opinion, and, therefore, called them blasphemers, as being persons that destroyed the existence of the Son of God. On the other hand, they that were maintainers of time term homoousios, supposing the other to be introducers of the worship of many Gods, abominated them as bringers in of Gentilism. For these reasons, every one of the bishops wrote volumes, as if it had been against the most bitter enemies. And, although both sides asserted that the Son of God had a proper, real, and peculiar person and existence, and confessed that there was one God in three persons; yet, how it came to pass, I know not, they could in no wise agree among themselves; and, therefore, would by no means be quiet." [58]

These factions opponents are seldom found appealing to the Scriptures as the standard of their faith. The dictum of a semi-babarian emperor, and not the word of God, was to determine what was heterodox, and what was orthodox. The party, therefore, that stood highest in the emperor's favor, was sure to triumph. This led them to adopt every possible means to supplant each other in the esteem of the court. Some of the means adopted for this purpose, were of such a nature, as to lead us to detest the principles and characters of those who employed them.

Twelve years after the Council of Nice, Constantine died, leaving his empire to be governed by his three sons. The eldest, who, like his father, was called Constantiun, ruled in Spain; Constantius, in the East; and Constans, in the West. The first was favorable to Athanasius, and restored him to the church, from which he bad been banished through the intrigues of the Arian party. The second was attached to the Arians. Constantine, invading his brother's dominions, was slain. This was a severe blow to the homoousian party, and, by consequence, a pleasing circumstance to their opponents; because, as both parties were fighting for opinions which had no foundation in the Scriptures, their strength lay in the favor of the reigning emperor, and not in the force of divine' truth. The death of their patron, therefore, 'was little less than the ruin of their system. The Arians now began to lift up their heads, and struggle for the ascendancy. At a council, held about this time, at Antioch, the creed underwent a revision; and the noxious clause, of the substance of the Father, was left out; and a copy of the amended version was sent to the bishop of each city. So little confidence, however, did the council repose in the truth of the document which they had fabricated, that, before they broke up, they made another, published it, and anathematized all whose opinions differed from it. It should be observed, that the makers of this version declared,

We have neither been Arius' followers, nor have we embraced any other faith than that which was from the beginning set forth." The controversy produced dreadful commotions. Riots and slaughters were not unusual. Armies were employed in deposing one bishop and setting up another. When Paulus, bishop of Constantinople, was thrust out of his see, and Macedonius put in his room, a contest between the military and the populace took place, in which three thousand, one hundred, and fifty persons lost their lives. This was not a solitary work of blood. The political commotions which have at times convulsed our own country, bear only a faint resemblance to the calamities produced by these Christian bishops and their infatuated votaries. [59]

A few months after the council at Antioch, the emperor of the West, Constans, interposed to put an end to the tumults occasioned by the deposing of Athanasius and Paulus. In consequence of this, another draft of the creed was drawn up, and the former suppressed. The new version, like its predecessors, maintained that the Son of God was begotten before all worlds, and declared those to be aliens from the church who denied that dogma.

Three years after this, the bishops in the East called a council, and drew up a new edition of the creed, of considerable length. Among other things, it contains the following:--"Nor must it be thought that the Son is without an original, or unbegotten, as the Father. For no Father and Son can properly be said to be coinoriginate and unbegotten. In like manner we determine those persons most impious, and strangers to truth, who irreligiously assert that Christ was begotten, not by the will and pleasure of the Father, attributing to God an unwilling and involuntary necessity, as if he had begotten the Son by constraint; because they have audaciously determined such things as these concerning the Father, which are contrary, both to the common notions of God, and also to the sense and meaning of the Scripture given by divine inspiration."

About A. D. 348, another council was called in the West, to settle the doctrine of the church. It was held at Serdica. Three hundred bishops from the western parts were present, and seventy from the East. in consequence of a dispute about admitting Athanasius and Paulus into the assembly, the eastern bishops withdrew, and formed a council by themselves. They anathematized the term homoousios, of the same Substance, and substituted anomian, of a different substance, in its stead. The other party adopted homoousios, and rejected anomian. After denouncing each other, and each other's creed, they returned home, maintaining that what they had done was right and true. This quarrel divided the Greek from the Roman church.

Some time about the year 351, another council was held at Sirmium. Photinus, the bishop of that city, was accused of Sabellianism: this occasioned the assembly. After deposing the culprit, they thought it right to have two new versions of the creed; one in Greek, the other in Latin; anathematizing all who should not adopt them. Indeed, one of them contains twenty-eight anathemas. An extract or two will show the genius of the writers.

"If any one say, that the Son was of Mary according to prescience, and that he was not with God, born of the Father before ages, let him be anathema.

"If any one, terming the Holy Ghost the Paraclete, shall call him the unbegotten God, let him be anathema.

"But, whereas very many are disturbed about the term, which in Latin is called substasuia, and in Greek ousia, that is, that it may be more accurately understood, the word homoousion, or homoiousion, these terms ought in no wise to be mentioned, nor discoursed of publicly in the church, for this reason, and upon this account: because there is nothing recorded concerning there in the Divine Scriptures, and in regard these things are above the reach of human knowledge and the mind of man." The historian adds,

"Moreover, you must know that the bishops convened at Sirmiam were afterwards displeased with that draught of the creed published by them in Latin. For it seemed to them, after its publication, to contain many contradictions. Wherefore, they earnestly endeavored to get it out of their hands who had transcribed it. But, in regard many hid it, the Emperor, by his edicts, ordered that all the copies of it should be diligently searched for and gathered up, threatening to punish those that should be found concealing it. But his menaces were unable to suppress it when once published, in regard it had fallen into many men's hands."

About A. D. 356, a council was held at Ariminum, at which another form of the creed was presented. It was proposed, that all the forms previously exhibited should be counted null and void; and the one, now presented, adopted as the standard of orthodoxy. This version was drawn up at Sirmium five years before, but concealed. In form and meaning, it resembled those which preceded it, and concluded with the following passage:

" But for the term ousia, substance, in regard it has been used by the Fathers in a more plain and ordinary sense; and not being understood by the people, gives offense to many; and inasmuch as it is not contained in the Scriptures, we thought it good to have it wholly removed, and in future to make no mention at all of this term ousia when God is spoken of, in regard the Sacred Scriptures have no where mentioned the substance of the Father and the Son. But we do assert that the Son is in all things like the Father, as the Sacred Scriptures do affirm and teach."

This passage rent the council asunder. The orthodox party contended, that it was favorable to the Arians, and intended for their gratification; if this was not the case, those who proposed it, must demonstrate the soundness of their own faith, by openly anathematizing the Arian heresy. These men's orthodoxy consisted in clinging to the use of terms, confessedly unscriptural and injurious, and in a readiness of mind to denounce and curse all who should differ from them.

Councils were afterwards held at Seleucia and Constantinople. A new version of the creed was fabricated in each place. Both councils agreed to lay aside the use of the terms which had produced so much dissension and confusion: first, because they were unscriptural; secondly, they were found of such mischievous tendency. [60] This famous creed changed its form nine times, and filled the church with controversy, cruelty, and blood; and yet, after all its tragical consequences, it is recognized in its original form, at the present time, as the sum and substance of the orthodox faith.

Having traced the origin of this doctrine, its introduction into the Christian church, and the circumstances connected with its establishment, it would answer no good end to pursue its history, in relation to the ancient church, any farther. It will now be clearly seen, that the supreme, eternal, unoriginated Godhead of' Jesus Christ, was no more understood and believed by the orthodox party, than by the Arians. The only difference between them was this: the orthodox believed, that God produced the divine nature of Christ out of his own substance; the Arians, that God produced him out of nothing. The notion of God producing the divine nature of his Son out of his own substance, is adopted by the late Richard Watson: Institutes, vol. i. p. 504. On this subject, Mr. Stuart, on Heb. i. 3, says,

"There can be no doubt in the mind of any man who carefully examines, that the Nicene Fathers and the Greek commentators, one and all, held that Christ, as to his divine nature, was derived from the Father. So the Nicene creed, 'God of God, Light of Light.' Yet we may ask the question, we cannot help asking it, Is, then, the Son, who is God over all and blessed for ever, -- is he, in his DIVINE nature, derived and dependent? Has he, as very God, a cause and beginning? And is it possible for us to make the idea of true and proper divinity harmonize with that of derivation and consequent dependence? No; it is not. The spiritual views of the nature of God, which are now generally entertained by enlightened men, forbid this in fact, they render it absolutely impossible. But not so in the days of the Nicene council, and of the Greek commentators. That they believed in the divine nature of Christ, I consider as altogether certain; but that their views of what is necessary to constitute a rational and defensible idea of a nature truly divine, were correct, is what no one, I think, who has read their writings and judged for himself, will now venture to maintain. Their views of the divine nature, were built an the metaphysical philosophy of their day; but we are not bound to admit this philosophy as correct; nor is it, indeed, possible, now, for our minds to do it."

Of the councils to which we are indebted for the establishment of the orthodox faith, Gregory Nazianzen, in writing to a friend, says,

"To tell you plainly, I am determined to fly all conventions of bishops; for I never saw a council that ended happily. Instead of lessening, they invariably augment the mischief. The passion for victory, and the desire of power, are not to be described in words. One present as a judge will more readily catch the infection from others, than be able to restrain it in them. For this reason, I must conclude, that the only security of one's peace and virtue, is in retirement."

On this subject, the Rev. John Wesley says,

I read Mr. Baxter's History of the Councils. It is utterly astonishing, and would be wholly incredible, but that his vouchers are beyond all exception. What a company of execrable wretches have they been, who, almost in every age since St. Cyprian, have taken upon them to govern the church! How has one council been perpetually cursing another, and delivering over to Satan, whether predecessors or contemporaries, all who did not implicitly receive their determinations, though generally trifling, sometimes, false, and frequently unintelligible, or self-contradictory! Surely Mahometanism was let loose to reform the Christians! I know not but Constantine has gained by the change." [61]

The doctrine of God producing the divine nature of Christ out of his own substance, is now generally discarded, as incompatible with the supreme Godhead of Christ, which is so clearly taught in the Scriptures; and the filial relation is considered as belonging to his complex character, as God and man united in one person. This view of the subject is taken by Ridgely and Buck, among the Dissenters in England; by Dr. Wardlaw, and the Independents generally, in Scotland; and, it may be added, by the Wesleyan Methodists for the most part, throughout the world. It cannot be successfully denied, that the writings of Wesley, Coke, Drew, Benson, Robinson, and Dr. Adam Clarke, upon the divinity of Christ, have been so extensively read by this community, that they are incapable of receiving the semi-Arianism of the late Richard Watson; or that of the editor of the Wesleyan-Methodist Magazine. A controversy, however, has existed in the Wesleyan-Methodist Connection for some years; and some of the leading men in the Conference, have labored hard to establish the doctrine of what is called the eternal generation, or Sonship, of Christ, as a doctrine of the Holy Scriptures. In tracing this controversy, it is necessary to turn to the history of the late Dr. Adam Clarke.

In early life, he fell in with a person of the Arian, or Socinian, school, who told him, that "the Methodists were guilty of idolatry: for they gave that worship to Jesus Christ, which belonged to the Father only." He went home, distressed and confounded; asked pardon of God for the sin which he supposed he had committed; and resolved, in future, to leave the name of Christ out of his prayers. The consequence was, "darkness now entered his mind, his spiritual fervor gradually diminished, till it was at last entirely gone." In this dark, melancholy state, he had no counselor, no friend, to whom he could reveal the sorrows of his heart. He retired into solitude, fell prostrate before his Maker, and presently detected himself pleading for mercy for the sake of Jesus Christ. He started, alarmed and horror-struck at the thought of being again guilty of idolatry. "Immediately, his soul was filled with light." He was able to say, "Yes, my Lord and Saviour, thou hast died for me; by thee alone, I can come unto God. There is no other name given from heaven among men, by which we can be saved. Through the merit of thy blood, I will take confidence, and approach unto God." This distressing event "led him to examine the reputedly orthodox, but actually spurious, doctrine of the Eternal Sonship of Christ; which he soon found, and subsequently demonstrated, that no man can hold, and hold the eternal, unoriginated nature of Jesus Christ. For, if his divine nature be, in any sense whatever, derived, his eternity, and, by consequence, his Godhead, is destroyed; and, if his Godhead, then his Atonement. On this point, he has produced a simple argument in his Note on Luke i. 35, which argument is absolutely unanswerable. Attempts have been made to confute the true doctrine; but that argument is still unanswered. The argument is simply this:-

1. If Christ be the Son of God, as to his divine nature, then he cannot be eternal, for son implies a father and father implies, in reference to son, precedence in home, if not in nature too. Father and son imply the notion of generation, and generation implies a time in which it was effected and time, also, antecedent to such generation. 2. If Christ be the Son of God, as to his divine nature, then the Father is of necessity prior, consequently, in Godhead, superior, to him. 3. Again, if this divine nature were begotten of the Father, then it must have been in time; i. a., there must have been 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. 4. To say that he was begotten from all eternity, is absurd; and the phrase eternal Son is a positive self-contradiction. Eternity is that which has no beginning, and stands in no reference to time. Son supposes time, generation, and Father, and time also antecedent to such generation; therefore, the theological conjunction of these two terms, Son and eternity, is absolutely impossible, as they imply essentially different and opposite ideas." Such was the way in which his mind was directed to this subject; and such were the reasonings which led him to discard the opinion then commonly received. It was not on the Doctor's mind only, that this argument told with powerful effect. Some years before the death of the Rev. John Wesley, the Doctor was in his company, and showed him the above argument in writing. After perusing it, Mr. Wesley allowed that it was CONCLUSIVE; adding, that he had known eminent divines who took the same view of the subject. This fact was published by the Doctor in his notes on the first chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews. It is true Mr. Moore enters his caveat against admitting this fact as a matter of any consequence in the controversy; and says, those who knew Mr. Wesley will not wonder that he did not enter into a controversy with his son in the Gospel, at that time very young. To this it may be replied, Would Mr. Wesley see his son in the Gospel in an error, upon an important subject, and not show him his error, especially when that error was likely to affect very seriously the whole Connection? Would Mr. Wesley, in opposition to every dictate of integrity, tell the Doctor, that his argument was conclusive, unless convinced that it was so? Who could libel the memory of Wesley more foully than Mr. Moore (unwittingly, no doubt) has done?

This argument, however, did not produce the same effect upon the minds of all Mr. Wesley's brethren, that it did upon his own. As soon as it appeared in the form of a note upon Luke

i. 35, many of them took the alarm. It is said that the Doctor was impeached at the London District Meeting, by the late Rev. Joseph Benson, upon the charge of heresy; and that means were used to induce him to acknowledge himself in, error. As his brethren failed to convince him that he was really the subject of error and mistake, he remained inflexible, and would make no other concession than, "What I have written, I have written." On bringing forward the charge, Mr. Benson shed tears, and lamented the necessity which was laid upon him thus to appear in opposition to his friend; and the Doctor appeared equally affected, because obliged by the force of conviction to dissent, on this subject, from many of his brethren. But expressions of regret did not prove convincing arguments to the mind of the Doctor; and he was more confirmed in his own view of the subject, by the weakness of the reasons which were produced against it. As, therefore, they could not convince him of his supposed aberration from truth and orthodoxy, and had not courage and ability to procure his expulsion from the Connection, it was found necessary to raise an alarm about his "awful speculations" through the press, and to proclaim his dangerous heresy to all the world; and, at the same time, to be very careful in admitting no candidates for the ministry, who were tainted with his heterodoxy. These measures lead us to a review of the controversy which followed, and the conduct of the Conference in relation to it. Mr. Henry Moore has published upon this subject. The proofs he gives of the truth of his opinion are quotations from Mr. Wesley's hymns, the Nicene creed, and a few texts of Scripture. To the proofs drawn from the first and second of these sources, it may be replied, that, though they prove the doctrine to be found in the hymn-book and the creed, yet they afford no evidence that it exists in the Scriptures: and though the hymnbook and the creed seem, in Mr. Moore's judgment, to be equal in authority to the Holy Scriptures, yet they have not been thought to be so by the generality of his readers. It would be useless to attempt to refute Mr. Moore's proofs drawn from these sources, when every one, except the writer, considers them cyphers. Neither are his attempts to prove his point from Scripture more happy. He adduces Proverbs viii. for this purpose. But it has been replied:--1. The Hebrew word, rendered wisdom, is never used in Scripture to denote Jesus Christ; and, of course, it proves little of his Eternal Sonship. 2. The inspired writers teach us, that, by wisdom, they mean the fear of the Lord. 3. As the word, both in the original and in the versions, is in the feminine gender, it is like throwing an air of ridicule over the subject, to make it signify the eternal Son of God. Chap. xxx. 4, is another of Mr. Moore's proofs. In reply, it has been maintained, that neither God nor his Son is intended by the person there mentioned. See Benson's Commentary in loco. Mr. Moore's next Scriptural proof is John x. 30; upon which he says, "We see here, that the Jews knew there were a Father and a Son in the Godhead, abstractedly from every thing creaturely." That the Jews had notions of this sort, is granted; but they and our Lord were at issue upon this subject. They understood him to claim the filial relation to God with express reference to the human nature. Their own words are proof of this:-- " Because thou, being a man, makest thyself God." And it is clear that Christ unites the filial character with that nature which was subject to death, which had power to lay down life and to take it again. This power, he says, was given to him as the Son of Man, a term which, according to the late Richard Watson, is a Hebraism, denoting a real human being. John v. 27. It is clear from this part of the New Testament history, that the Jews believed the Sonship to relate solely to the divine nature; that Christ claimed this character in his human nature; and, for so doing, was pronounced a blasphemer, and threatened with stoning. How strange that Mr. Moore should suppose these Jews to be right, and Christ to be wrong! And yet we must either admit, that he did suppose this; or, that he did not understand the subject.

There is but one more quotation from Scripture, in Mr. Moore's pamphlet, which seems to have any bearing upon the question. It is John xvii. 5, "And now, O, Father, glorify thou me with thine own self, with the glory which I had with thee before the world was." This passage proves nothing of an eternal filiation. The same inspired writer tells us, that "in the beginning was the Word; and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." A distinction of persons in the Godhead is clearly stated; but not a syllable about one of these persons generating or producing the other. At the incarnation, the Word was so united with human nature, that the union of the two constituted one person; and this person is called the only-begotten Son. In this character, Christ prayed that his suffering humanity might be rewarded, in being made partaker of that glory which was essential to his divine nature, which is called the Word. This is the only mode of interpretation which the letter of the Scriptures allows us to adopt.

Mr. Moore derides the phrase, Eternal Word. The Apostle tells us, that the Word was God; but Mr. Moore assumes this to be a statement decidedly untrue, and will have it to signify something which God spoke or said; and, on this ground, he makes merry with the supposed anomaly. Again, he insinuates that the safety of the Connection depends upon maintaining the doctrine which he advocates. To this notion he will make few converts. Not many persons, except those who consider the Nicene creed and the Hymn-book to be of equal or higher, authority than the Holy Scriptures, will very readily allow, that the stability of any religious community depends upon rejecting the testimony of Christ, and adopting that of the stupid Jews. Because, then, Mr. Moore affects to prove his doctrine by quoting texts which have no relation to it; identifies himself with the opposing Jews; assumes as false what an apostle so clearly states; and casts a foul imputation upon Methodism, by making the rejection of that view of his Sonship which was taught by Christ himself, necessary to its existence he has injured the cause which he intended to support. For a more extended view of the case, see Mr. Moore's pamphlet, and the reply of Messrs. Thomas Exley and Stephen Brunskill.

About the same time as the preceding, a pamphlet was published as the production of the late lamented Edward Hare. This is no other than a playful letter, written by the author, a very few days before his death. to the late Rev. Jos. Benson, and was not at all intended for publication in its present form. Few, who have read Mr. Hare's Preservative against Socinianism, fail to regret this posthumous publication, as the production of his pen. As, however, this pamphlet has often been held up as the most decisive defense of the doctrine in question, a remark or two concerning it may not be amiss.

Mr. Hare argues the truth of the doctrine from four passages of Scripture:-- John i. 1-14; Col. 1. 15; Phil. ii. 5; and Heb. i. 2. On the first of these passages, the author fails to distinguish between the language used by the apostle in speaking of Christ prior to the incarnation and subsequent to it; and, by rather a strange oversight, unites the posterior appellation with the anterior state. By this means, a plausible argument is found for the Eternal Sonship.

In Col. i. 15, Christ is called the first-born of every creature. Mr. Hare seems to understand the passage as signifying that Christ was the first thing which the Father produced, and thinks that any other signification is far-fetched. But, in the " Preservative," he allows that the word sometimes signifies first producer, bringer forth, or cause. Mr. Parkhurst shows, that this is the radical meaning of the word, and that, by a slight variation in the tense, it is used to signify, "to be brought forth." As, then, the word has two meanings, in which are we to understand it in this passage? If we say, Christ was the first thing produced, and by him were all things made, or produced; then, of course, we say, that he produced himself, which involves the absurdity of agency and action prior to existence. If we say, he is the first producer of all things, for by him were all things created which are in heaven and earth, visible and invisible, the sense is good, and the meaning clear. We are driven to the adoption of this last rendering; and this sets aside the apparent proof of Eternal Sonship.

In Phil. ii. 5, and Heb. i. 2, the apostle is speaking of Christ in his mediatorial character, and not of his Godhead. Christ is obedient unto death; rewarded with a name which is above every name; constituted heir of all things; made the object of angelic worship; anointed with the oil of joy above his fellows; and placed at his Father's right hand, until his enemies become his footstool. How can these things he applied, with any shadow of propriety, to Christ, in that nature which is God over all, blessed for ever? How contrary to Scripture and common sense to say, The only God is made heir of all things; sits at his own right hand till some one has subdued his enemies; and is anointed with the oil of joy above his fellows? Because, then, a distinction made by the apostle is overlooked; a word used in one sense, when the writer shows in another publication, that it ought to be understood in a different sense; and a train of absurdities involved in the application of passages to the Godhead of Christ, which belong to his mediatorial character, Mr. Hare's letter has failed to produce the effect intended.

Mr. Robert Martin published a book, which he advertised as a work in which the Eternal Sonship of Christ was fully proved to be a doctrine of the Scriptures. This work underwent a severe review by Mr. Stephen Brunskill, a gentleman of Orton, in Westmoreland. A very brief notice will be sufficient to show the genius of the disputants. On page 24, Mr. Martin quotes Rom.

i. 4, Declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead, as a decisive proof of the doctrine in question. On this Mr. Brunskill remarks, " How the Divine nature could be declared to be the Son of God by being raised from the  dead, I know not; for, as the eternal God himself could not die, of course it must be the human nature of Christ which was raised from the dead, and declared to be the Son of God with power."

"In page 33," observes Mr. Brunskill, "Mr. Martin tells us, that "no man hath seen God at any time, that is, the Father;' yet, in the same page, he informs us, that 'the Son, who declared the Father to the Old Testament saints, and was seen by them, must have been that only-begotten Son, who was in the bosom of the Father.' On page 67, he states, that 'the only begotten Son of the Father, is the same God as the Father.' I therefore ask Mr. Martin, if no man hath seen God the Father at any time, how came the Old Testament saints to see him? Or how came he to know that the divine nature, which is the eternal God, is in the bosom of God? Who can be so properly said to be in the bosom of God as his Son Jesus, whom he hath taken into union with himself?' Page 26, on Psalm ii. 12, Kiss the Son,' Mr. Martin says, Unto all the people of the Mosaic dispensations, to David and all his contemporaries of the favored Israelitish tribes, this command was given; and also to all their successors under that dispensation, and upon them all was it binding; consequently, there must have been in the days of the Psalmist a Son to kiss. But, if he were not the Son of God before he was a man, the son of Mary, this command could not be binding upon the people of God till then.'

To this Mr. Brunskill replied,

"Was not the Psalm a prediction of the opposition which would be made to the establishment of the kingdom of Christ, the holy child Jesus, in the world? St. Peter shows it was; Acts iv. 25. Again, do we not see, in the example of Abraham, Moses, and Job, that the Old Testament saints had an eye to the Son of God by anticipation? and was not faith in him, as a Saviour, the homage which he required?"

It seems to have escaped the notice of both parties, that the injunction was given neither to Old Testament saints, nor to New Testament saints; but to the public opposers of the kingdom of Christ, referring solely to the Gospel times.

On John xvii. 24, "For thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world," Mr. Martin argues, "If he became the Son of God first when the human nature of Christ was created of Mary by the Holy Ghost, then he first became the object of the Father's love. Therefore, the Father's paternal love could not be called forth eternally by a Son, and, consequently, that peculiar quality of that infinite perfection of the Deity could not be exercised towards a Son before the world was created, or the Messiah was born,"

To this Mr. Brunskill replies,

"It Mr. Martin be correct in saying that God can love nothing till it actually exists, was not the Almighty mistaken in saying by Jeremiah to Israel, 'I have loved thee with an everlasting love: therefore, with loving-kindness have I drawn thee.' And was not St. Paul mistaken, when he said believers were 'chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world?' Were not the sufferings of Christ foreseen by God from all eternity? And are not future things present with the Almighty? Mr. Martin's argument is, in effect, a denying of the fore-knowledge of God. But this reasoning is set aside by Scripture. By the prophet Isaiah, God says, 'Behold my servant whom I uphold; my elect in whom my soul delighteth,' chap xlii. 1. This passage is applied, Matt. xii. 18. In that nature only, in which Christ sustained the character of the chosen servant, was the subject of Divine influence and support, and laid down his life, is he represented, in Holy Writ, as the object of the Father's love."

Mr. Martin's crowning proof, however, is found in the confession of our Lord, upon oath, before the Jewish high-priest. He says,

"If any doubt should still exist in any mind whether Christ be the divine, eternal Son of God, or not, his own express declaration, upon oath, that, in his divine nature, he is the true and proper Son of God, should silence for ever such a doubt. When the high priest said to him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God? Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said, i. e., I am that which thou sayest. The high priest understood him to declare, without any allusion to the miraculous conception, that he was truly and properly the Son of God; for he rent his clothes, saying, 'He hath spoken blasphemy: what further need have we of witnesses? Behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy, what think ye?' The whole court answered and said, 'He is guilty of death;' and it was for this declaration, which they considered blasphemy, that they condemned and put him to death. Here, then, he declares that he is the Son of God, by an oath; so that he has attested the truth of this doctrine, of the divine Sonship, not only by express declaration, but by solemn oath. 'Men verily swear by the greater, and an oath for confirmation is to them an end of all strife.' The Son of God, therefore, 'willing more abundantly to show unto the heirs of promise' the eternity and immutability of his Sonship, 'confirmed it by an oath; that, by two immutable things in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold on the hope set before us.'

Will you not his word receive? Will you not his oath believe?"

Mr. Brunskill replies,

"I shall now proceed to make some remarks upon the preceding quotation. Mr. Martin says, 'If any doubt should still exist in any mind whether Christ be the divine, eternal Son of God, or not, his own express declaration upon oaths should silence for ever such a doubt.' Indeed, so it should. But when did he do this? When did he take a solemn oath, that he, in his divine nature, was the Son of God? If the divine nature be God, it undeniably follows, according to Mr. Martin, that God has a Father. If the divine nature is not God, what becomes of the divinity of Christ? But how did Christ swear before the high priest, that he was the eternal Son of God? The high priest said, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God? Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said nevertheless, I say unto you, hereafter shall ye see the SON OF MAN sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven." Mr. Martin quotes the first sentence, and then leaves off, and begins to comment, and tells us that the high priest understood our Lord to refer to a divine Sonship. This is impossible. Our Lord uses the term Son Of Man, which signifies the human, not the divine, nature. A few passages will show this. He is not man that he should lie; neither the SON OF MAN, that he should repent, Num. xxiii. 19. The Son of Man which is a worm, Job xxv. 6. Put not your trust in the Son of' Man, Psalm cxlvi. 3. Who art thou, that thou shouldst be afraid of a man that shall die, and if the Son of Man, which shall be made as grass, Isaiah li. 12. The Son of' Man came eating and drinking, Matt. xi. 9. These passages, with multitudes besides, forbid us restricting the term Son of' Man to the divine nature of Christ. It belongs to his humanity; and to this, we are obliged to apply it. Christ maintains, upon oaths, that he is the Son of God, with express reference to the human nature: about divine, Eternal Sonship, he says not one word, nor gives any intimation. As, then, Mr. Martin fails in proving his point, through not understanding the phrase, Son of Man, does he not bring a false accusation against our Saviour, and charge him with an oath which he never took? And are not such publications a disgrace to the Methodist Book-Rooms?"

Mr. Brunskill's acute pamphlet exists, we believe,. in manuscript only. Dr. Clarke dissuaded him from sending it to the press, because, by the Wesleyan-Methodist Magazine, and the different publications which had issued front the Book-room, its defense of the Eternal Sonship theory, people generally were convinced that it was unscriptural; and refutations of it were unnecessary.

Mr. Richard Watson wrote repeatedly in defense of this false doctrine. He is allowed to be the ablest advocate that it has had in modern days; and to this honor he is justly entitled, His writings have not, however, always produced Conviction, because they are sometimes at variance with themselves, as well as with the Holy Scriptures. A brief notice will be sufficient to demonstrate the truth of this assertion.

In his Institutes, Vol. I. p. 522, we are told that the name "Jehovah signifies to be, and to cause to be; that it signifies a Being existing from himself, from everlasting to everlasting." Then we have a whole chapter written to prove, that the divine nature of Christ is the Jehovah of the Old Testament.

In Vol II. p. 60, we learn, that Christ, in his divine nature, exists of the Father, deriving existence and deity from him. In his Remarks, p. 43, we read, that, in the same nature, " it was given him to have life in himself. Who can reconcile these passages? In the first, we are taught that Christ is, in his divine nature, the self.existent, eternal Jehovah; in the others, that, in the same nature, he receives life and deity from another, and is no more self-existent than the meanest reptile.

In his Institutes, Vol. I. p. 498, we are told, that the "various perfections of self-existence, immensity, eternity, omniscience, and omnipotence, are incommunicable." On p. 505 of the same volume, it is stated, that " the whole divine nature is communicated from the Father to the Son, and from both to the Spirit." Thus we are driven to the conclusion, that the Son and Spirit have the divine nature, while destitute of the perfections and properties by which that nature is distinguished; or, that Mr. Watson again contradicts himself. As the former cannot be admitted without rejecting the clearest declarations of Scripture, the latter follows as a matter of course.

In the same work, Vol. II. p. 53, the writer says, if Christ, in his divine nature, were "co-ordinate and independent, in no good sense could he be the effulgence and luster of the glory of the Father." On page 89 of this volume, he expressly maintains, that angels are dependent, but that Christ is independent; and that his existence is necessary and eternal. In the former passage, Christ, in his divine nature, is allowed to be no more than a produced, dependent creature; in the latter, he is declared to be the independent, self-existent, eternal God.

In " Remarks on the Eternal Sonship," p. 84, quoting from the Editor of Doddridge's Lectures, Mr. Watson says, "The terms generation and begetting, do not include any voluntary act, ad extra: for, if so, they who use them would have no cause of difference with the Arians; but those terms rather denote a necessary act, ad infra. They hold, that, as the divine existence, life, and activity, are independent on the will, so is personality." On page 87, we are told, that the existence of Father and Son in the Godhead implies no voluntary act.

In the Institutes, Vol. II. p. 65, Mr. Watson rather chides Mr. France for saying, "He is the natural, and necessary, and therefore eternal, birth of the divine fecundity;" and maintains that the generation of the Son was the product of God's will and wisdom.

Whatever may be thought of the subject on which these men wrote, is it not very clear, that, in chiding Mr. France, Mr. Watson contradicted what he himself had formerly published? And is it not equally clear, that, by his own statement, he had no cause of difference with the Arians? Discrepancies, of this kind, might be pointed out in great numbers, in the writings of Mr. Watson;

but we have adduced sufficient to show, that some of Mr. Watson's readers have seen reason to peruse his productions with caution and mistrust, and carefully to guard against being led, through deference to his authority, to renounce the proper Divinity and Godhead of the Redeemer of mankind.

Mr. Watson's first publication on this subject is entitled, "Remarks on the Eternal Sonship of Christ, and the Use of Reason in matters of Revelation, in a Letter to a Friend." This production bears date 1818: it was designed to counteract the tendency of that view of the subject which was taken by Dr. A. Clarke, in his Notes on Luke i. 35. It was quickly followed by a "Reply," by Thomas Exley, A.M., of Bristol. As these two publications contain nearly all of consequence that can be said on either side of the question, they are deserving of examination.

Mr. Watson sets out under the impression, that Dr. Clarke considers the term, "Son of God," and others of similar import, as designations of the human nature of Christ exclusively, in contradistinction to the divine. Hence he says,

The inquiry is precisely this:-- Are the appellations, Son, Son of God, and others of similar import in the New Testament, to be considered, in every instance, designations of our Lord's human nature? He (Dr. Clarke) restricts the application of the term Son of God, as it occurs in the New Testament, as an appellation of Christ, to his human nature." "Dr. Clarke contends (Son of God) is the appellation of the human nature, the man ONLY." Rem. pages 4, 5, 23.

Mr. Exley contends, that Mr. Watson, by these statements, attributes to Dr. Clarke, opinions which he never held; and that the Doctor never uses the terms in this restricted sense; but considers them as signifying the complex nature of Christ as Immanuel; or God and man united in one person. And the Doctor himself declares the same thing in the following passage:-

"But, while we distinguish the two natures in Jesus Christ, we must not suppose that the sacred writers always express these two natures by distinct and appropriate names. The names given to our blessed Lord are used indifferently, to express his whole nature. Jesus Christ; The Messiah; Son of Man; Son of God; Beloved Son; Only-begotten Son; Saviour, &c., are all repeatedly and indiscriminately used, to designate his whole person, as God and man, in reference to the great work of human salvation, which, from its nature, could not be accomplished but by such an union. All who are taught of God use these terms in the same way. When we speak of Jesus Christ, we do not mean the man Christ Jesus, born of the Virgin Mary; nor him who is the fullness of the Godhead bodily; but we mean both; the great God, even our Saviour, Jesus Christ; who, for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnated by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man. In this sense I invariably use the terms, when the contrary is not specified." -- Sermon on John iii. 16.

Proceeding on this mistaken notion of the Doctor's views, Mr. Watson argues, that," if the term, only-begotten Son, signify the human nature only, the text, 'No man hath seen God at any time: the only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him,' contains a contradiction." To this Mr. Exley replies, "That, as the term is used to signify the complex mediatorial character of Christ, as God and man, and not man merely, Mr. Watson's argument is a glaring sophism, and that, being built upon false premises, necessarily, it falls to the ground. The text, according to Jewish idiom, signifies no more than this- Neither Moses, nor any of the Old Testament prophets, was so well qualified to make known the will of God, as our Lord Jesus Christ, who enjoyed the highest intimacy and union with him."

Thirdly, Mr. Watson contends, that the disciples saw in Christ a glory which was superhuman; this glory is called the glory of the only-begotten of the Father. It is, therefore, in exclusive reference to the divine nature of Christ that he can be entitled, the only begotten of the Father. Mr. Exley sets this argument aside by showing ,that the Apostle, in speaking of Christ before the assumption of humanity, calls him the Word; but, upon the assumption of human nature, the term is changed; and he is called the only-begotten Son. This change was not accidental, but designed to mark some circumstance, relating to the being of whom the Apostle is discoursing. This circumstance, so marked, was the incarnation of the Word, and the change of the appellative, having relation to this circumstance, and following in consequence of it, must have some reference to the human nature, and not, as Mr. 'Watson says, to the divine nature exclusively. Unless this he admitted, the Scriptures are more adapted to mislead than to instruct.

Fourthly, Mr. Watson contends, that, if the term Son of God signifies the production of the body of our Lord, it is a false term, and the son of Mary is not the only-begotten of the Father; for Adam was also immediately formed by God; and, for that reason, is called the son of God. Mr. Exley shows, that Christ is not called the only-begotten on this account merely; but, if he were, still Mr. Watson could never prove the term to be a false one. Between forming Adam out of the dust of the earth, and producing the humanity of Jesus in the person of the Virgin, there is a difference and this difference constitutes a peculiarity in him which belongs to no one besides, and is quite sufficient to justify the appellation of only-begotten Son.

Fifthly, Mr. Watson maintains, that we must believe that the Sonship relates to the divine nature of Christ, in order to have proper conceptions of the love of God, His words are, "It would be nothing in reply to urge, that the divine nature of Christ could not suffer pain, and therefore his being given as a divine Son, implies no violation of the tenderness of a father. If it suffered no pain, it suffered something; of this there are mysterious, and, from the nature of the thing, only mysterious indications in Scripture but, brief as these notices are, they are strong and emphatic. he emptied himself; made himself of no reputation and, though equal with God, became obedient, and, therefore, truly a servant."

On Hebrews v. 8, Mr. Watson says,

"The very stress of the Apostle's argument compels us to conclude, that, in the use of this term in this passage, he must refer distinctly and exclusively to the divine nature of Christ. In other words, the Son stands there as a designation to be taken in the exclusive sense of positive divinity."

To the first of these passages, Mr. Exley replies,

Such language, thus antiscripturally applied, grates on common sense, contradicts reason, and approaches to a profanation of the Godhead. I should have thought even the most indifferent reader could not but perceive, that the Apostle St. Paul, in writing this passage, had immediate reference to the incarnation of the Deity, and, consequently, to the fulfillment of the purpose of that incarnation. He laid aside his grandeur, which was the proper right of his spotless humanity, as well as the glory appertaining to that nature, considered in its connection with the Divine nature. And does not the antithesis between what Christ divested himself of, and what he submitted to, plainly show the same thing? Undoubtedly, it does; and can any man, then, imagine, that these expressions of suffering, humiliation, and servitude, are spoken of the Divine nature exclusively?"

Three facts set aside Mr. Watson's notion, that the divine nature of Christ suffered. 1. The divine nature of Christ is the self-existent, eternal Jehovah and to believe that the self-existent Jehovah suffered for the sins of men, is to believe in opposition to the Scriptures, which teach that the Son of the self-existent Jehovah is the sacrifice for sin. 2. The sufferings of Christ are invariably associated, in holy writ, with his manhood. By turning to Matt. xxvi, '24, and referring to parallel passages, it will be seen, that, as the Son or Man, he was to go as it was written of him. " It is written of the Son or Man, that he must suffer many things." 3. It was in his human nature that he was rewarded for these sufferings. "But this Man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins, for ever sat down on the right hand of God; from henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool." Heb. x. 12, 13; Acts ii. 35. In this way the Scriptures always speak; about the divine nature suffering, they give no intimation,

Sixthly, Mr. Watson adduces the baptismal form as a proof, that the terms Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, are expressive of the original mode of the divine existence; and that to deny the eternal filiation of the second person, is to deny the essential paternity of the first. To the first of these, Mr. Exley replies, that these relations are announced subsequently to the incarnation, not prior to it; and that they, therefore, prove nothing of the original relations of the persons in the Godhead. In the second place, the humanity of Christ is included by name, repeatedly, in the Scriptures; baptizing in the name of Jesus, which, according to Mr. Watson, signifies the humanity. Acts viii. 16; xix. 5. Respecting the other, he observes, the doctrine of essential paternity is unknown in Scripture, and contrary to it. The same terms are used to denote the ground of God's paternal relation both to Christ and to Solomon; and we have no intimation that they are used in a different meaning. As, then, they teach nothing of essential paternity in relation to Solomon, of course they neither do, nor can, teach anything of the kind in relation to Christ.

A seventh argument used by Mr. Watson is, "But of the human nature of Jesus, the first person is not the Father; for the sacred temple of our Lord's hotly was produced by the Holy Ghost." This declaration of Mr. Watson's is denounced as precipitate and presumptuous, and is shown to be in direct opposition to the literal sense of Rom. xv. 6; 2 Cor. i. 3; xi. 31; Eph. i. 3; 1 Pet. i. 3; Acts ii. 33; and Heb. x. 5; and, indeed, to the Scriptures generally. Secondly, Mr. Exley shows that the production of the humanity of Jesus was not the work of the Holy Ghost, separately considered. In Luke i. 35, we read of "the Holy Ghost coming upon the Virgin, and the power of the Highest overshadowing her." Here are the operations of the first and third persons. Heb. ii. 14, the Apostle, speaking of Christ, says, "Forasmuch, then, as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same." 'The incarnation, then, was the work of the whole Godhead; and the production of the humanity of Christ included the mutual cooperation of the three Persons; and was not, as Mr. Watson teaches, the production of the Holy Ghost, separately and distinctly considered.

In the eighth place, Mr. Watson adduces Rom, i. 4, as an indisputable proof of the Eternal Sonship. Mr. Exley replies, that, to make the divine nature, exclusively, the Son of God in this passage, would involve the absurdity, that the divine nature rose from the dead; because both St. Peter, Acts iii, 26, and St. Paul, I Thess. i. 10, declare that the Son of God was raised from the dead, The consequence is irresistible: Mr. Watson maintains, that Christ, in his divine nature only, is the Son of God; the inspired writers declare, that the Son of God was raised from the dead; the divine nature, therefore, was thus raised from the dead.

Mr. Watson adduces several passages, in which Christ was acknowledged to be the Son of God, in consequence of miracles and displays of divine power. Mr. Exley replies, these facts prove, that Christ was divine as well as human; but they do not prove, that his divine nature was the subject of an eternal generation. The divinity of Christ appears clearly; but not his Eternal Sonship.

In the ninth place, Mr. Watson brings forward the opinions of the Jews in support of the doctrine for which he contends. It has been shown, however, that these men, and our Lord, were at variance in their views on this subject; and, unless we suppose that they were right, and he was wrong, Mr. Watson's view can derive no effectual support from their opinions.

Tenthly, Mr. Watson adduces Psalm ii. 7.; Heb. i. 3; and Phil. ii. 5, as irresistible proofs of the Eternal Sonship. The first of these is explained by an inspired Apostle, Acts xiii. 33, to be a prediction of the resurrection of Christ from the dead; it can, therefore, be no proof of Eternal Sonship. On the second Mr. Exley says, " A little reflection will, I think, teach us, that this image and brightness are attributed neither to the divine nor to the human nature alone, but to the human nature in its connection with the divine." And he points out a tissue of absurdities involved in the contrary supposition. Respecting the third, it is a remarkable fact, that the Scriptures never speak of Christ as equal to God, with exclusive reference to the divine nature. The reference is, invariably, to the human nature in its connection with the divine. Hence we read, Zech. xiii, 7, "Awake, O sword, against my shepherd; and against the MAN that is my fellow, saith the Lord of

hosts." In John v. 19, we read, that " the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment to the Son; that nil men should honor the Son, even as they honor the Father. For, as the Father hath life in himself, so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself; and hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the SON OF MAN." See also the marginal references. This equality is not a natural one. In this respect, God has no equal. Isaiah xl. 18-25; Deut. iv. 15. It is purely official, and temporary in its duration. Christ, in his mediatorial and judicial character only, is equal with the Father; and, when his mediatorial and judicial work is done, he wilt resign his delegated authority back to the Father, and become subject to him. He will then stand at the head of the human race, as the first-born, or greatest in dignity, among many brethren. God will take the reins of government into his own hands, and receive the homage of his redeemed creatures, without any of the official distinctions which exist in the Godhead at present. 1 Cor. xv. 24-28; Heb. ii. 11, 12, 13; and Rem, viii. 28-30.

Again, Mr. Watson contends, that Christ must necessarily be the Son of God, in his divine nature, because appointed to be heir of all things. This argument is futher, Christ is made heir of nothing but that of which his faithful followers are made heirs, "The glory which thou gavest me, I have given them." John xvii. 22. "And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me." Luke xxii. 29. "And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations; and he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers, even as I received of my Father." Rev. ii. 26, 27. " To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne." Chap. iii. 21. "He that overcometh shall inherit all things." Chap. xx.

7. "If children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint heirs with Christ." Rom. viii. 17. It will not be contended, on the part of believers, that these declarations prove an Eternal Sonship: how, then, can the same things prove one on the part of Christ himself? This controversy is of an unhappy character. No one can read what Mr. Watson has written upon this subject, and not feel sensibly that a gigantic mind has put forth all its energies, to prove a blasphemous doctrine; and no one can read the Replies of Mr. Exley, and others, without feeling as deeply that Mr. Watson has attributed to Dr. Clarke, opinions which he never held; -that every argument which he uses is a glaring sophism;-- and that every passage of Scripture which he adduces in support of his views, is flagrantly perverted. No one can wonder why he quarrels with the Doctor for recommending the exercise of reason and understanding in reading the Scriptures. The Replies of Mr. Exley, and others, to the pamphlets of Messrs. Moore and Watson, having extinguished all hope of retaining the doctrine of the Eternal Sonship, on the grounds of Scripture and argument, it was found necessary to have recourse to other methods. These consisted in branding as heresies those who dissented from it, who were already admitted into full connection with the Conference; and in keeping those out who were not thus admitted.

In consequence of these methods being adopted, many young men of piety and talent, were found ineligible to be recommended as candidates for the regular work of the ministry. Others were tortured, upon their examination at District Meetings, until they reluctantly yielded a modified assent. This, in some cases, proved a source of misery afterwards; and, in others, induced the candidate to withdraw from a connection which he could not hold with a good conscience. Some instances are subjoined.

The first case is that of a young gentleman who filled a respectable and lucrative situation, and who was highly esteemed as a local preacher in the Whitehaven District, he felt an impression upon his mind that it was his duty to relinquish his business, and offer himself as a candidate for the work of the ministry. His situation being comfortable, and his prospects of a flattering character, it was felt no trifling matter to give them up; and it was not until after long and severe exercise of mind that he could fully determine to make the sacrifice. Whilst anticipating the ordeal through which he must pass, the Sonship question was felt by him, as by many others, a serious obstacle. To get his scruples removed, and his mind reconciled to the notion, recourse was had to the best writers on the subject; and, after some research, he found himself just as wise as before. At his examination, the question was proposed, "Do you believe in the Eternal Sonship? " Inability to understand the Subject was pleaded. This roused the suspicion of latent heresy; and the examination was carried on with rigor. He was assured, that the question was not concerning the divinity of Christ, nor the eternal existence of his divine nature; but did he believe that the divine nature of Christ was the Son of God by eternal generation? The note of Mr. Wesley, which, as Mr. Bromley clearly showed at the last Manchester District Meeting, was proved, by Mr. Wesley himself, to be contrary to the doctrine of the text, and which was declared by Mr. Watson to be bewildering and pernicious, was read; and he must declare his assent to the doctrine it contained, or the case was decided: they could have nothing to do with him. After some hesitancy, a modified assent was reluctantly yielded and he was nearly allied to the ranks of the orthodox, In every other respect, the examination was satisfactory; and it was pronounced to be a clear case. But a secret fear remained, that he was hardly so sound in the faith as he should be. After one examination, which lasted about three hours, he was called again to the board; and the inquisitorial process commenced the second time, He was required solemnly, and in the fear of God, to declare that he believed in the Eternal Sonship with all his heart. He professed to assent to their requisition, and was accordingly acknowledged as an eligible character to labor among them. The confession thus extorted from him, proved a source of misery to him afterwards. The more he read and thought upon the subject, the less he found himself able to reconcile the doctrine of the Eternal Sonship with the Scriptures. The more he strove to persuade himself, that a young man ought to give up his own judgment to that of men older than himself, the more distant such conduct appeared from that freedom of inquiry which is necessary to elicit truth. At length, he came to the resolution of revoking the concessions which he had made, and of not entering upon the ministry by means which clashed with the dictates of conscience and truth.

His services were, consequently, lost to the Connection and his confidence withdrawn from those who required a compromise of principle as a term of admission among them. On a brother preacher remonstrating, privately, with Mr. W. Tranter, the Chairman, for pestering the young man with the subject, he replied, in substance," If young men were admitted, who disbelieved the doctrine, there might perhaps, some time, be as many in the Connection on the one side as on the other this would make a division, if, then, the doctrine were only obscurely revealed, and perhaps not revealed at all, they must assent to it, if not as an article of faith, yet as an article of peace." This was from an orthodox Chairman of a District. The following case occurred at Aberdeen, in 1826, John Shipman, Chairman:-- The question to the candidate was, "What is your opinion upon the disputed point?" " I believe, (he answered,) Son of God means neither the divine nature nor the human, but both united in one person." "That is not Methodism." "it certainly appears to me to be Scriptural." Edmund Grindrod, who was there on a visit, observed, "Our brother will not pass the Conference with such a view of the subject." " I am sorry for that, (said the candidate,) but cannot help it." Mr. Grindrod, " Our brother had better retire, review the question, and come to a better mind." "The subject, (rejoined the candidate,) has been reviewed repeatedly; with the light I have, I cannot profess to have any other view of the question; I must submit to consequences." "It is a pity, (said the Churchman,) such a young man should be lost to the Connection." Mr. Grindrod," Do you believe the doctrine of the Trinity?" " Yes, oh yes, certainly." " Do you believe the second person in the Trinity is called the Son of God?" " Yes." "Do you allow that he is eternal?" " Yes." " Then why object to call him the Eternal Son?" " Because St. John, before the incarnation, calls him the Word; but, afterwards, calls him the Son, and only-begotten Son; and I find no passage in Scripture which says, that the divine nature of Christ was produced or begotten." Mr. Grindrod, " You are wrong: leave the notion of begetting or producing out of the case; it has nothing to do with it. The term, Son, is a personal term, and signifies the second person in the Trinity. You are to believe that the second person is eternal." "I never thought otherwise, and that was my reason for not connecting the filial relation with the divine nature." Mr. Grindrod, " Then you would not object to call Christ the Eternal Son of God?" " In the sense you give, the more objectionable part is removed: I shall not dispute about the mere use of a term." "I am glad that our brother is convinced." "And so, (added the chairman,) am I. If he continue to improve, he will prove an acquisition to the Body."

The dread of the dragooning on these occasions, produces baneful consequences. The young man, when upon trial, confessed that he durst not read any work on the Divinity and Sonship of Christ, lest he should obtain information which would embarrass him, when he came to be examined. Another made a similar confession. A third told his colleague, that he did not know what to do. He had labored to get light upon the question; but, by reading the controversy, he was puzzled and confounded, and felt horrified at the thought of being obliged to assent to what he could not perceive to be true. But it would be endless to go into detail, and enumerate one-tenth part of the embarrassed situations in which candidates have been placed.

The Conference examination of Daniel Chapman, one of those who were supposed to have imbibed Dr. Clarke's views of the Sonship of Christ, may here be introduced. It is more amusing than most things on the same subject. It occurred at the Leeds Conference, in 1831, Mr. George Morley, President, and is given from memory, by an ear-witness. It contains as much talk about modern " fathers," as we sometimes hear about " ancient fathers." The good-tempered President conducts himself in such a manner, that one is led to believe that he thinks the whole business "much ado about nothing."

"Jabez Bunting: Have our venerable fathers questioned this young man about the doctrine of the Eternal Sonship? -- President: Thank you, Mr. Bunting, for the hint: the thing had quite escaped my recollection but, now you have mentioned it, the brethren, no doubt, will ask him any question they may deem expedient and necessary. -- George Maraden My dear brother, do you believe devoutly in that solemn and important doctrine, the Eternal Sonship of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ 1-Candidate: The Eternal Sonship, sir 1-George Marsden: Yes, my dear brother, the eternal generation of the Son of God. -- Candidate: Why, sir, I do believe that Jesus Christ is really the Son of God, and that the Son of God, who came into die world for our salvation, is really divine and I believe that his divinity and his humanity have both been equally attested in the sacred volume. -- Jabez Bunting The young man is rather slow of apprehension, Mr. President do ask him if he believes that Jesus Christ was the begotten Son of God before he came into the world, and from alt eternity 1 -- candidate: Why, sir, I do believe that his existence before he came into the world was a divine existence; and, therefore, I suppose that it was unoriginated and I believe that his human nature was generated in the Virgin Mary by the miraculous interposition of Almighty power. -- Gaulter I am afraid this dear young man has been dipping too deeply into Dr. Clarke to understand the subject of the Eternal Sonship.- Reece: The young man is not clear, I think, on that important point. I wish that brother France would try to set him right about that matter; for it would be a charity to do so.-France: Young man, do you hearken to me a moment. -- Candidate: Very gladly, sir, if you will only make me understand the matter.- France Understand the matter? That is not the way to get through such a subject: you must answer me my questions. Do you believe in the eternal filiation of the Son of God? Now, only just say yes or no. -- candidate: Must I, then, believe that the divinity of Christ was generated by the Father? France: Don't ask me questions, sir, answer my inquiries. -- J. Stanley: Gently, my brother, don't confuse the poor young man: his views, no doubt, are right enough, if he could only state them to your satisfaction. Now, my dear young man, you do believe, I make no doubt, in the divinity of Jesus Christ, and, of consequence, in his divine eternity. -Candidate Oh yes, sir, most devoutly. -Jabez Bunting: Believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ? and pray, sir, what has that to do with his believing in the Eternal Sonship? Young man, do you believe in the Eternal Sonship? -- candidate: Pray, sir, be so good as to inform me what I am required to believe about the Eternal Sonship. -- Bunting Mr. President, I am quite astonished at the ignorance of this young MAN about our doctrines.. Pray with whom has this young man traveled? -- With Jonathan Barker, reply many voices. -- President: Why then, brother Bunting must allow that brother Barker is an able man and very orthodox. -Barker: I could teach him nothing: he would not hearken to what I said: he thought he knew a great deal better than I did. -- president: Nay, brother Barker, you might be mistaken: it might be nothing but the young man's modesty -Rob. Martin: Mister President, I will thank you just to ask the young man if he has read my book on the Eternal Sonship: THAT, I Think, would set him right. -- President: I beg your pardon, brother Martin, for my omission to call in your important help but it did not happen, at the moment, to be present to my recollection. My dear young man, have you read brother Martin's very able work on the Eternal Sonship? --Candidate: No, sir, I must confess I never did: indeed, I have not been aware that such a book was in existence.-- President: Alas, my brother, then I must inform you that you have lost an intellectual feast. -- H. Moore: Now, you have got into the way of asking questions, will you be so good as to inquire if this young man has ever read my book on the Eternal Sonship? It gave me a world of trouble to compose it. -President: Have you ever read, my dear young man, the work of Father Moore 2-Candidate: Yes, sir, I have read the work with all the care I could, but could not comprehend it: it was too profound for me.- Moore: Understand it, brother? why, you might just as well imagine you could understand the raising and allaying of the storm, as think of understanding the Eternal Sonship. The thing must be received by faith, by simple faith. We do not, therefore, ask you if you understand it, but only whether you believe it? -candidate: I do believe in the divinity of Christ; and I believe, that, in the office of our Redeemer, he is called the Son of God. -- France: Do you believe in the Eternal Sonship? that is the question which you have to answer. -- Candidate: I would very gladly answer it, my dear sir, if you would only have the goodness to inform me what you mean by the Eternal Sonship.- Moore: This young man asks questions only, instead of answering our own inquiries. Now, though I wish for all our young men to be very clear, and very orthodox, about these weighty things, yet I wish, in all these things, to act with charity and, therefore, I will not now move that we reject him, but I think it would not be amiss if he were kept another year on trial. It would do him good, and give him time to read and think, and to make up his mind before another Conference. Burdsall: Now, my dear fathers, suffer me to mediate, by speaking just a word or two. I am no lengthy speaker: my brethren will keep in mind, that the young man has been confused a little in his mind, and has not spoken with that clearness he would probably have spoken with, if he had been in some more private place. Do try to calm his feelings, and perhaps he may be able to reply a little more to your wishes: besides, you know that he is young, and, therefore, tender dealing may do better with him than abrupt interrogations. 'Will you suffer me to ask him a few questions, Mr. President? I never saw his face before, but feel a tender sympathy with him; for I was young myself some forty years ago. -President: By all means, Mr. Burdsall. -- Burdsall: Well, then, my dear young brother, you do, I know, believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ. -- Candidate: I do, assuredly. -- Burdsall: And you believe that his divinity is really eternal 2-Candidate: Most assuredly I do. -- Burdsall And you believe, that, in the very same sense of the word in which the Son of God is divine, he is, of consequence, eternal? -- Candidate: I do, devoutly. -- Burdsall: Than you believe that the Son of God was generated by the Father 2 -- Candidate: Most assuredly. -- Burdsall: Then do you not believe in the eternity of Jesus Christ, as you believe in his divinity 2-Candidate: Yes, sir, I do. -Burdsall: Now, Mr. President, I beg to move, that our dear brother here be now admitted into full connection.- Daniel Isaac: And I beg leave to second it, with all my heart. -- Edmondson: This young man, Mr. President, will be none the worse for this examination twenty years to come. he may not be quite so clear at present in his views as some of my clear-headed brethren could wish; but I do think the lad is quite as orthodox as some of us were at his age. -- Entwisle: Mr. President, I have listened very patiently to this examination, and, I will humbly hope, with some improvement to my own mind; and, on the whole, I now feel quite at liberty to give this dear young brother the right hand of fellowship, and to admit him into full connection.

The motion! Let us have the motion, we are satisfied! resounded from all corners of the house. -- France: I am not satisfied. 'When were you satisfied? The motion, Mr. President, the motion, sir Do let us have the motion, if you please, resounded long and loud. -President: Well, then, my brethren, the motion before you, moved by brother Burdsall, and seconded by brother Isaac, is, that this young man be now received into your Body, and be acknowledged as a member of this Conference; and, therefore, as many of you as are of opinion that he should be so received, will have the goodness to signify your approbation by a show of hands. I see the approbation of the Conference is very general. Now, on the contrary, as many of you as disapprove of the admission of this young man, will be pleased to signify your disapprobation by a show of hands. The motion has been carried by a large majority.

Some cases, however, involved this peculiarity: Candidates had been admitted upon trial, without being tested upon this question; and it was not until the examination, connected with admission into full connection with the Body, that they were found dissentients from the orthodox faith. Among these, Mr. Samuel Dunn, styled, by Dr. Clarke, the father of Methodism in Shetland, has acquired considerable notoriety. This gentleman, after establishing Methodism, in the Shetland Islands, in conjunction with Mr. Raby, was obliged, upon leaving them, to attend the Conference at Bristol, for the purpose of being fully recognized as a member of the Body. Upon examination, however, he was found wanting in the orthodox faith; and, if report is true, several others were found to be of a similar way of thinking. These, yielding to explanations and modifications, offered for the purpose of removing their scruples, made shift to get through; though some of them, afterwards, complained of the misery which they felt on the occasion. Mr. Dunn, resolving not to appear to assent to a doctrine which he did not believe, " stood out," and remained firm; in consequence of which, he was not admitted into the Body. After remaining another year upon trial, the President of the Conference, the late Richard Watson, was directed to correspond with him on the subject, and to endeavor to remove his objections, so far as to prepare him for admission at the following Conference. As it was necessary that he should be recommended by the District Meeting preceding the Conference, the question was mooted at the meeting of the preachers in the Newcastle District, in which Mr. Dunn was stationed. At this meeting it seems to have been agreed upon, to recommend to the Conference the adoption of some decisive measure upon the subject; at least, it was understood in the District, prior to the assembling of Conference, that they were to legislate upon the case. This understanding produced a masterly letter, extending to several sheets, addressed to the Conference, by John Ward, Esq., of Durham. This gentleman showed, very clearly, that the doctrine could not be proved, either from Scripture or from antiquity. It is true that it was taught by Eusebius and several other of the ancient fathers. But their views were so indistinct, and their statements so vague and contradictory, that their authority was equally pleaded by Dr. Priestley, with many others of the same school, and by those who were generally reputed orthodox. From such men as these, nothing more was to be learned, than that they had no clear, decided ideas on the subject. Mr. Ward then combats the notion, that the maintenance of this doctrine is necessary to the safety of the Chapel Trusts. In Mr. Wesley's days, the religious world was distinguished by a sapless morality on the one hand, and a rigid Antinomianism on the other. To prevent Methodism from degenerating into either of these, and to keep the great doctrines of justification by faith alone, the regeneration, witness, and sanctification of the Spirit, always in sight, he embodied his views, at length, on these momentous subjects, in the first four volumes of his Sermons, and in his Notes upon the New Testament. So long, therefore, as the ministry of the Connection was distinguished by the preaching of these doctrines, Mr. Wesley's intention was fully accomplished. And, if the Conference were determined to enact, laws upon the subject, and make assent to doctrines which could not be shown to be Scriptural, the test of admission into the Body, he (Mr. Ward) must, as a matter of course, withdraw from them. This letter was given to the late Rev. Thomas Mollard, to be taken by him to the Conference, held at Manchester, in the year 1827. When, however, the case of Mr. Dunn was brought forward, such was the violence by which the proceedings of Mr. Bunting and his friends were marked, that Mr. Mollard's heart failed, and he had not the courage to read or present the letter. On this occasion, Mr. Dunn showed the Conference, that the view of the subject, for which he was treated as an heretic, was actually published by Mr. Wesley himself, in the Arminian Magazine, and he read the article, which Mr. Wesley, at that time sole editor, had inserted. He also showed, that Mr. Watson, in his Theological institutes, had denounced one part of the objectionable Note, to which Mr. Dunn was required to subscribe, as bewildering and pernicious. Notwithstanding these things, Mr. Bunting carried his point Mr. Dunn was not admitted; and, when the Minutes of the Conference appeared, they contained the following law, generally known by the name of the Test Act:-

The Conference resolve, That it is the acknowledged right, and, under existing circumstances, the indispensable duty, of every Chairman of a District. to ask all candidates for admission upon trial amongst us, if they believe the doctrine of the Eternal Sonship of our Lord Jesus Christ as it is stated by Mr. Wesley, especially in his Notes upon the First Chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews, to be agreeable to the Holy Scriptures; and, that it is also the acknowledged right, and, under existing circumstances, the indispensable duty, of the President of the Conference for the time being, to examine particularly upon that doctrine every Preacher proposed to be admitted into Full Connection, and to require an explicit and unreserved declaration of his assent to it, as a truth revealed in the inspired Oracles."

It is a positive fact, that many preachers, who attended that Conference, not only disclaim all participation in the enactment of this law, but all knowledge of an intention that such a law should be enacted. They, therefore, attribute it to Mr. Bunting and his friends, who made shift to foist it in, without the knowledge, and in opposition to the judgment, of many of the preachers. On the appearance of this Test Act, Mr. Ward renounced all further connection with the Methodist body. Several others withdrew with him, and formed the nucleus of a separate Society, which still continues. Symptoms of dissatisfaction appeared in different parts of the Connection and apprehensions were entertained, that the right of judgment was to be altogether set aside by arbitrary men. Mr. Brunskill addressed the following letter to the Rev. John Stephens, then President of the Conference, copies of which letter were sent to Mr. Bunting and Dr. Clarke:-

Reverend Sir, -Being an entire stranger to you, I have to apologize for the freedom I have taken of addressing you upon a subject which appears to me of importance; and the only apology I can make for doing this is, your being President of the Methodists' Conference; and, therefore, cannot but be interested in the peace and prosperity of the whole Connection. I am now in my eightieth year, and have long been in connection with the Methodists, and feel myself greatly interested in their peace and prosperity. This has led me to address you on a passage in the Minutes of the last Conference, p. 77 which requires every preacher that is admitted into full connection, To give an explicit and unreserved declaration of his assent to the doctrine of the Eternal Sonship,' as a truth revealed in the inspired Oracles.' I ask, can a truth be revealed in the inspired Oracles, which is not mentioned there? Is this not being wise above what is written, and adding to the word of God? and charging our Saviour and his Apostles with a very important and criminal omission. And is it not surprising, that, however respectable our young men may be for moral conduct, talent, and usefulness, they cannot be received as itinerant preachers, without giving an unreserved declaration of their assent to the truth of a doctrine, as a truth revealed in the Holy Scriptures, which the Holy Scriptures never mention? I have been a local preacher among the Methodists fifty-three years; and do not recollect, in all that time, to have neglected one appointment, without being fully persuaded, in my own mind, that I had a sufficient reason for so doing. And, although I never believed in the doctrine of the Eternal Sonship, I have neither run nor labored in vain. The Lord has blessed my labors, so that, through my instrumentality, Societies have been formed before ever any traveling preachers came, and chapels have been erected. In one populous town, which is now a Circuit town, I preached in the street, and joined eighteen in Society, before it was visited by a traveling preacher. In that town they now have some hundreds in Society; and also hundreds of Sunday-school scholars. I have had the honor and pleasure to dine with Mr. Wesley; but little did I then think, that, after our Joshua, and most of our elders that outlived him, were gone to their reward, a set of men would rise up, and glean up Mr. Wesley's weaknesses, and hold them up as the essential doctrines of the Methodists. I cannot but think that the doctrine of the Eternal Sonship is utterly irreconcilable, both to the writings of Mr. Wesley and the word of God. As for the writings of Mr. Wesley, they are, in general, completely at variance with the doctrine of the Eternal Sonship. Only to notice a few instances: From his hymns -- "I caused those mortal groans and cries; I killed the Father's only Son.' Who knows, thy only Son hath died, to make that pardon sure.' In his Notes on Acts ii. 23, he says, Because it was the determinate counsel of his love, to redeem mankind from eternal death, by the death of his only-begotten Son.' If the only-begotten Son did die, could he be eternal? And in the third volume of his Journal, pages 166, 167, in answer to a Circular, which Mr. Wesley had addressed to several clergymen, in order to promote union amongst ministers of the Gospel, one of them addressed to him a letter, which concludes thus:-- 'Let every one consent to renounce every favorite phrase, term, or mode of speech, that is not Scriptural, if required so to do by those who dissent from him; because, whatever doctrine cannot maintain its ground, without the aid of humanly invented words, is not of God.' Would the Methodists agree to act according to this rule, our jars would cease; and it would be pleasant to see the brethren dwell together in unity. As it respects the word of God, our Saviour says, The Son can do nothing of himself. My Father is greater than I. Of that day and hour knoweth no men, neither the Son. He hath committed all judgment to the Son. Then shall the Son also; himself be subject to the Father. Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered. in Rom. v. 10, we read, If where we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son. In 1 Thess. i. 10, To wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead. He must be a genius indeed, who can reconcile these passages with the doctrine of the Eternal Sonship. But, if none are received to travel but those who believe in this doctrine, it is an excellent way to make hypocrites: and would debar some of the most gifted and useful young men we have, from traveling. This would be the case with us: and, should this minute be acted upon, I cannot but think the consequences would be serious. I know of none either in our circuit, or the adjoining one, who believes the doctrine of the Eternal Sonship, except our two traveling preachers. Our Superintendent is so very careful that the Methodists' Connection be not tainted with a heterodox ministry, that, at the last Quarterly Meeting, when one young man was proposed to be put on the local preachers' plan, who had been on trial half a year, and was in general well received, he asked, ' Do you believe in the doctrine of the Eternal Sonship?' But he was cut short by the meeting; for they would not hear him: so he was obliged to desist. But, should that minute be acted upon who can tell what would be the consequences? For, should a division take place, which is no way unlikely, what would become of all our flourishing missions? And, as I am fully persuaded that the writings of Mr. Wesley are in general utterly at variance with the doctrine, it might occasion lawsuits and contentions without end. Do you ask, what would you advise? My advice is, Let the Conference make a law to bind all our preachers, when they treat upon a subject so deeply interesting and mysterious as the Sonship of Christ, to do it in the words which the Holy Ghost teacheth. And that every preacher who introduces the subject, and raises disputes either for or against it, shall be immediately expelled from the Connection. So shall the unity of the Spirit be kept in the bond of peace. For my part, I cannot sec how any man, who loves his Bible, can object to this. The Scriptures teach, "If any man speak, let him speak as the Oracles of God;' and, "If any man speak other wise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the doctrine which is according to godliness, he is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strife of words.' By not attending to the word of God, National Assemblies, Synods, and Councils have erred; and, if the Conference do not attend to the word of God, they will err. Of late, some writers have been so taken up with the Eternal Sonship, that the words ' beloved Son,' and 'well-beloved Son,' have been almost entirely omitted; and a divine Son, or a divine and eternal Son, substituted in their place. I ask, do not such writers reflect upon the wisdom of their Maker? and proclaim their own folly by attempting to mend the word of God, and render themselves contemptible in the eyes of every serious thinking person who loves his Bible? What account such men can give to God for requiring all, whom they receive to labor among them, explicitly and unreservedly to declare their assent to the doctrine of the Eternal Sonship as a truth revealed in the inspired Oracles, when it is not mentioned there, I know not. Should this feeble attempt be conducive to unite the people of God, and to put a stop to doting about questions and strife of words, my end will be answered. If not, it will leave with me a consciousness that I have followed peace, and appear for me at the bar of God, as proof, that I have done all in my power to promote it. I need not apologize for the defects you will find its the above, when I inform you that my memory and recollection have almost forsaken me, and that I have nothing left entire but my understanding. Wishing you prosperity in all your laudable undertakings, I remain, with due respect and esteem,

Yours, &c. "A Lover Of Concord And Peace."

"PS. Living in a remote part of the Circuit, we have the itinerant preachers only on the week evenings, and then but very seldom, as the congregations were but small; but the Lord has lately blessed the labors of the local preachers, so that, on the Sabbaths, our congregations have been greatly increased, and the Society more than doubled: which, so far as I know, is the only revival we have had in the Circuit for some years. Since the above letter was written, our Superintendent, who is also Chairman of the District, and who, though contrary to the wishes of the majority of the members, yet at least honorable to the preacher, has been appointed to labor amongst us a third year, sent as a line to let us know that he would preach to us twice on the Sabbath, but not oftener. At night we had, as usual, a very full meeting; and the preacher, being shielded under the wing of the Conference, gave us a sublime discourse on the Eternal Sonship, -the first I ever heard from the pulpit, in any place, on that subject. Unfortunately, his hearers were not skilled in theology. The hungry sheep looked up, but were not fed; for they wanted milk, and not strong meat. I verily believe that there was but one person, besides myself and daughter, who had any understanding of the subject. However, if he does not make proselytes, he is not blamable; for he labors faithfully. both in public and in private, to accomplish it. You will judge of the propriety of his conduct, when I inform you, that the chapel is my own private property. I was sitting close by the pulpit; and he well knew that my sentiments were opposed to the Eternal Sonship theory. I keep both preacher and horse at my own expense; and I believe that I have been more out for the support of Methodism than I had to begin the world with. If such conduct is sanctioned by the Conference, many of the stakes of our Zion will be rooted up. 1 feel that, with me, life is drawing to a conclusion; and I long to see the people of God united. I entreat you to promote that union so far as you can consistently with a good conscience; for blessed are the peacemakers."

To this letter Dr. Clarke wrote an answer, which will be found in page 284,

The following letter was addressed to the late Mr. Richard Watson, previous to the sittings of the Manchester Conference, at which the Test Act was smuggled through.

Newcastle, July 21, 1827. Sir, -- As the question of Eternal Filiation has, of late, assumed a very important bearing, and seems somewhat to threaten the peace of the Methodist Societies, -- more especially should the conduct of some late Quarterly and District Meetings, be adopted and followed up by the preachers when assembled in Conference, which there is reason to bear may possibly be the case, -- no apology can scarcely be deemed necessary from any one, interested in the peace and prosperity of the church of Christ, for addressing a few lines to you who have taken so decided a part in this question; previous to the meeting of that assembly, on whose decisions, should it be agitated, the most important consequences may depend.

The writer, Sir, has read, with considerable attention, what you have written on the subject; both in your letter on Dr. Clarke's Commentary, and in your Theological Institutes; and, as he is persuaded that you possess considerable influence in the Conference, and that whatever affects your views of the question, will produce corresponding effects in that assembly; he has taken the liberty of submitting to your candid consideration, a few of his thoughts on the disputed point; chiefly suggested by reading your own productions. he is far from being so vain as to expect to make you a convert to his views on the question at issue; nor, indeed, is he anxious about it; his utmost ambition being to lead you to use your influence to induce your brethren assembled wise you to view the subject as a matter of theological inquiry only, which it certainly should be; and not as ' an article of faith necessary to be believed;" as it requires no great share of discernment to foresee, that, should the latter unfortunately be adopted, the results may be very serious.

"To be brief -- the question, in its naked merits, is:-- Do the relations of Father and Son stand revealed in the Sacred Scriptures, as existing in the Holy Trinity hams eternity? This, I apprehend, to be the pure question, the affirmative of which you labor to establish. The Eternal Sonship of Christ is, strictly speaking, a contradiction in terms: the Christ of the Scriptures is exclusively 'God manifest in the flesh;' the eternal Logos' made flesh, and tabernacling amongst us,' either in fact, or prophetically by anticipation. Humanity is as essential to the person and character of the Christ as divinity; and, as this was an event and union which took place in rinse, the eternal relations of the Christ, as such, are evidently out of the question; so far, at any rate, as eternity in parte ante is concerned. This is a view of the subject, which has been too much lost sight of by the parties in this controversy; and, without adopting the heresy of the Monophsysitcs, I may be permitted to say that I think there is as much of heresy in the attempts that have been made to 'divide' the Lord Christ, by setting the two natures in him 'in opposition' to each other, and affirming that this or that is said in exclusive reference to his human or divine nature, which is predicated of him as 'the Christ,' 'God with us;' see, amongst many others, vol. ii. pp. 46 and 47. This is a mode of treating the subject, which is utterly indefensible on Scripture principles; for, if we separate, even in idea only, the two natures united in his person, we lose the glorious peculiarities of his character, 'the man, the fellow of Jehovah,' 'the root and thin offspring of David;' ' David's son, and David's Lord,' in one. Such is 'the Christ' of the Scriptures; not in reference to the divine or to the human nature separately, but to both, inseparably joined by divine power and grace. What God, therefore, hath joined together, let no man put asunder.'

In reading your 'Institutes,' I have been particularly struck with the very different mode pursued by you when vindicating what are very properly considered 'the doctrines of revelation,' from that which you save adopted when contending for the question of 'eternal filiation.' In the former case, your appeals to the word of God are numerous and powerful-to human opinions few and select; but, in supporting the latter dogma, the case is reversed, and your appeals to human authorities are numerous, and often highly objectionable; occupying, in the text, the place of divine authority; or thrown into notes, to attract more attention: whilst your references to the Scriptures are few, and ambiguous at best! Alas, for us! Did the grand truths of the Gospel stand on such a foundation, we should soon become the sport and derision of Socinians and other Deists. In supporting æ the doctrines of revelation,' you omit ten times more evidence, from its abundance, than you are able to collect in favor of this particular question: you are evidently quite aware that æ the divine Sonship of Christ' is only a partial view of it; and that the establishment of the full question, ' eternal filiation,' requires a kind of evidence which you would gladly have produced, had you known where to find it, namely, that in the Holy Scriptures the ' Maleak Jehovah' is called ' the Son of God;' irrespective of his union with humanity. This would have made it a ' doctrine of revelation;' and it may be questioned if any thing less could make it such; but this is totally wanting. I cannot observe that you openly avow this difficulty, though you labor hard in search of such evidence, when Seeking ' for the origin of the title, the Son of God, in the Old Testament Scriptures,' vol, ii. p. 31, et seq.: ' where a DIVINE SON is spoken of, in passages, same of which have reference to him as Messiah also, and in others which have no such reference,' &c. Now, this is certainly coming to the point -- let us see how it is borne out.

"Your first passage is the 2d Psalm, ' The Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my son; this day have I begotten thee.' You are obliged to allow, ' from apostolic authority,' that this ' baa reference to him as the Christ;' and, therefore, does not meet the question; admitting it to be a personal title. Your inferential reasonings and human authorities I pass for the present, merely observing that they appear to be an abortive attempt to set the Scriptures at war for the sake of a theory.

"Your second ' passage' is, Proverbs viii. 22-24. But here ' the title' is not found, though you boldly assert that ' Solomon introduces the personal wisdom of God, under the same relation of a Son;' whilst your utmost authority is Holden's bold and unjustifiable translation of the last clause of verse 24, I was BORN! and the entire of your assertions on that passage are of such a character, and founded on such principles, as, if admitted, would overturn the foundations of the Christian faith; and, therefore, your being compelled to call such witnesses, is strong presumptive proof that you have no legitimate evidence to produce.

"Your third ' passage' is, Micah V. 2, ' But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me, that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting;' or margin, ' from the days of eternity.' This is in the same predicament as the last, ' the title, Son of God,' not being found in it; whilst it is certain that it relates to ' the Christ.' Yet you again boldly assert, ' this relation (i. e. Father and Son, in essential deity) IS most unequivocally expressed in this prophecy.' When you can hazard such assertions as the above, and expect them to be taken as proofs, you need never be at a loss to prove any thing. That the 'passage' teaches the eternity and essential deity of him, who, in the fullness of time, became ' the Christ, the Son of the living God,' there can be no doubt with any who believe the divine inspiration of the Scriptures; but you say ' the term used, and translated his "goings forth," conveys precisely the same idea as the eternal generation of the Son of God;' and, as in all such cases, the want of divine authority is supplied by that of Dr. Pocock; whilst a learned note, at foot of page 38, again betrays the absence of legitimate evidence; for it is not by ' precisely the same idea,' that the ' doctrines of revelation' are taught us; but by ' thus saith the Lord,' and ' thus it is written.' But, if you believe that ' he whose goings forth (Egodon, lxx.) have been from of old, from the days of eternity,' ' by a natural birth came forth from Bethlehem of Judah,' or that the Virgin Mary is truly ' the mother of God,' which is ' precisely the same idea in other words, -- why do you object to the sentiment of those who consider ' the title, Son of God,' as personally belonging to ' the Christ,' from the act of incarnation? Yet you say, vol, ii. p. 57, ' It is impossible to maintain this, because it has no support from Scripture;' whilst, in fact, it is the only thing that is taught, either in that Scripture, Luke i. 35, or any other, on the subject; the dio kai, therefore, of the Evangelist, noting as clear and as distinct an inference from the preceding premises as can be expressed by words; (compare Romans i, 24, and iv, 22, and Heb. xiii. 12;) whilst your assertions and reasonings on the pass age will prove to any impartial person that you deeply felt its force, for it is hard to conceive how you could allow yourself to assert that ' the holy offspring should be called the Son of God,' not because a divine person assumed humanity, but because that divine person was antecendently the Son of God, and is spoken of as such by the prophet.' But you have not produced one solitary text where he is ' spoken of an such,' to screen yourself from a very serious charge; and the total of your arguing on it, evinces a strong desire to be' wise above what is written;' and, if it have any force, it is derived solely from our ignorance of the subject-' the mystery of godliness-God manifest in the flesh.' Your note, at foot of that page, is of the same character; and, with ' the remarks of Professor Kidd,' which is a mere pet iris principii, and what you have written on the text, goes directly, on the dividing plan, to darken the subject. The Professor says, amidst several bold assertions, ' the question to be decided is, what object was termed the Son of God? Was it the human nature considered by itself?' &c. Now, this is a very impertinent question, though put by a ' professor;' for it is distinctly answered, more than a hundred times, in the Scriptures; and is, ' without controversy -- the Christ -- Emmanuel -- God with us,' and neither his human, not his divine nature, 'considered by itself.' The answer to that question is written in the Scriptures as wish a sunbeam: whilst the numerous impertinencies and bold assertions that have been written, out of the Scriptures, on the question of 'eternal filiation,' demonstrate that it has no foundation in them.

"In proceeding to examine your fourth and last ' passage,' I would ask if you think it ingenuous to mix up Socinian or Arian objections to the divinity of Christ, with the question of ' eternal generation?' You constantly do this; whilst you are so perfectly aware of the essential difference between them, that you could only have allowed yourself in this from feeling your inability to maintain the pure question on its own merits, from the word of God. This ' passage ' is Prov. xxx. 4: ' Who hath ascended 'up into heaven, or descended? Who hath gathered the winds in his fists? Who hath bound the waters in a garment? Who hath established all the ends of the earth? What is his name, and what is his Son's name, if thou canst tell?' On this you assert, ' Here the Deity is contemplated, not in his redeeming acts, in any respect or degree, but in his acts of creative and conserving power only,' &c. Now, Sir, if you compare the question, ' Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended?' with our Lord's words to Nicodemus, John iii. 13, ' And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven; even the Son of Man, which is in heaven;' and with St. Paul's inspired exposition of a strikingly parallel passage, Psalm

lxviii. 18, in Eph. iv. 8-10, ' Now that he ascended, what is it but that he descended first into the lower parts of the earth? He that descended in the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things;' -- and if you add to this what you have written on the 560th page, vol. i., on the 7th and 9th chap. of Isaiah, ' The Messiah predicted is he who is known under the titles, Angel, Sane of God, Word of God, in the Old Testament: and, if Jesus be that Messiah,  he is that Son, that Word, that servant, that messenger,' &c.; and, on the 68th Psalm, ' the apostle Paul, Eph. iv. 8, &c,, applies this Psalm to Christ, and considers this very ascent of the angel Jehovah to Mount Zion as a prophetic type of the ascent of Jesus to the celestial Zion: they are, therefore, the same person; and it is determined by apostolical authority to be a prophecy of Christ,' &c. -- now, if you consider and compare these passages and comments of your own, your confidence, that ' the Lord's redeeming acts are not in any respect contemplated' in Prov. xxx. 4, may possibly he a little shaken.

"Moreover, there is no proof that the writer of that passage was not intimately acquainted with the second Psalm, which, of itself, is decisive on the 'divine Sonship of the Messiah;' and also with the seventh or ninth of Isaiah; but strong presumptive evidence that he was. You do not name these 'two passages,' when seeking for the origin of the title, 'Son of God,' in the Old Testament, though they are ten times, I might say ten thousand times, more to that point than either the 8th Prov. or 5th Micah; only they so completely restrict the title to the Messiah, that they were not for your purpose. In this ' fourth passage' there is nothing predicated of the Son, but what the Christ affirms of himself, John iii. 13, as above, and Matt. xi. 27, ' All things are delivered unto me of my Father; and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father,' &c,; or what Paul affirms, 1 Tim. iii. 16, ' Great is the mystery of godliness; God was manifested in the flesh,' &c.; and, had you produced it in proof of the difficulty of the subject with which you profess to be so intimately acquainted, it might have passed as a very legitimate application of it; and there is great propriety in Dr. Clarke's 'caveat against building doctrines on doubtful texts;' and especially such high doctrines as 'Eternal Sonship and Eternal Generation,' on such very doubtful texts as those four, which, alone, you have been able to scrape together for their support. I repeat that ' the great doctrines of revelation' do not rest on such foundations, not are you ever driven to such for their support.

"It surely must have appeared very remarkable to you, when proving the doctrine of a Trinity in unity from the Old Testament, that in the numerous ' passages' in which the ' Maleak Jehovah,' or ' Dabar Jehovah,' is introduced as speaking, or spoken of, he is not even once called ' the Son of God;' a most marvelous circumstance, if the doctrine of Eternal Sonship and Generation be true; and he, as you assert, 'authoritatively and doctrinally stated in Scripture;' nor yet do either the Targumists or the Talmudists appear to have ventured to apply that title to him in his essential Deity, hold and fanciful as they confessedly are; though you have boldly asserted that it belongs to him from eternity. But, powerful as this is against yen, there is yet another fact, bearing directly on the subject, which is, if possible, still more decisive-one which you appear to have entirely overlooked, and to which I beg pointedly to call your attention, It is this-that, in those very few passages in the New Testament in which the Lord Christ is spoken of, in exclusive reference to his ' antecedent,' essential, unmingled Deity, he is never called ' the Son of God;' but, on the contrary, the inspired writers appear to step aside, to go out of the way, as it were, and adopt peculiar modes of expression, evidently to avoid a consequence which seems to you to be ' unavoidable.'

"There are three passages of this kind, which you repeatedly bring forward, but without noticing this singularity, The first is the introduction to John's Gospel, 1-13 verses. You show clearly enough that, from the Old Testament Scriptures, John derived the term ' Logos;' confirmed also by the regular reading of the Targums, vol. ii. pp. 67-74; and you say, p. 68, ' It is not, indeed, frequently used in the Old Testament, which may account for its not being adopted as a prominent title of Christ by the other Evangelists and Apostles; but that it is thus used by St. John, has a sufficient reason,' &c. It is not easy to conceive how you could allow yourself so to write, when investigating the subject; for it is never once applied to ' the Christ,' as such, but is restricted by this Evangelist, and only used by him, exclusively to the essential, pre-existent, unmingled Deity of the Lord; for the moment that his union with humanity is announced, ' the Word was made flesh, and tabernacled amongst us,' the title is discontinued, and never once used to designate ' the Christ' during the whole term of his humiliation; though twice or thrice given to him again after he was ' glorified with the glory which lie had with the Father, before the world was.' You assign no reason for this restriction, so perfectly in accordance with the Old Testament Scriptures, though you were evidently aware of it; for you say, p. 78, ' Celebrated as this title of the Logos was in the Jewish theology, it is not, however, the appellation by which the Spirit of inspiration hiss chosen that our Saviour should be principally designated;' and you could not avoid knowing that ' our Saviour was never so designated,' either in his state of humiliation, or in prophetic anticipation of that state; whilst the restriction of the title, 'Son of God,' to him in that state, is equally marked and unequivocal throughout the entire Scriptures of truth: and no sooner does this Evangelist declare the fact of ' the Logos' being enshrined and tabernacling amongst us, than he immediately lays aside that tithe, announces him as " the only begotten of the Father,' and invariably styles him ' the Son of God;' not again, in his whole Gospel, using the title by which its introduction is distinguished. And if this ' passage' he compared with Luke i. 26-35, and Matt. i. 21-23, and the word of God be permitted to speak in its own plain and obvious language, these passages will afford, in connection wish preceding remarks, decisive evidence that the title, ' SON OF God,' is appropriated and restricted to him, who ' by a natural birth came forth from Bethlehem of Judah,' whether we can assign any ' cogent reason' for it, or not; and your ' probable reason,' from Whitaker, on your 79th p age, like a host of such reasons and authorities, adduced by you from a total want of better, is unworthy of notice, when compared with the evidence of the Scriptures.

"Your 'cogent reason,' pp. 79 to 82, from the traditional account of Cerinthus and the Gnostics, affords no reason for the marked restriction of the two titles, nor is it either satisfactory or convincing fat their use; for the opinions of Irenaeus and Jerome - especially the latter - are very objectionable in themselves, as placing St. John's Gospel on mere human, instead of divinely inspired, foundations; for ' Jerome says, that John wrote his Gospel, at the desire of the Bishops of Asia, against Cerinthus and other heretics,' &c,; but, were it true, it is highly probable that the title Looos, would have been of frequent occurrence in that Gospel, as well as the other, ' Son of God;' and, had the doctrine of ' Eternal Generation, and Filiation,' been also true, no reason can be assigned why this should not have been the case, or why the terms might not have been convertible also; or why we might not have read [change the following to Symbol font for the Greek. -- These were done by Dorothea Maxey -- our apology if there are errors here in the Greek -- she did not take Greek. -- DVM] 'Es' apxn nv o Yios,' instead of 'o logos;' which would have read equally smooth, and secured both points at once; and you will be quite aware, that, had we so read, your triumph would have been complete; but you must be equally aware, that some such reading, or readings, in the Old or New Testament, or in both, are essentially necessary to constitute a 'doctrine of revelation,' whilst such constitution, for your doctrine, is totally wanting.

"The second passage, in which the essential, pre-existent, and unmingled Deity of the Lord Jesus Christ is spoken of, is Phil. ii. 6, " Who, existing in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God; but emptied himself,' &c, As there has not been so much learned labor bestowed on this passage -- except a fair defense of it against Socinians, Vol. II. pp. 127 to 132- it is only needful to observe, that it stands unequivocally in the same order and circumstances as the former, the language being choice and peculiar; and the restriction and appropriation of terms, singular and definite: the apostle adopting an unusual and extraordinary mode of expression. when contrasting the eternity and essential deity of him who, ' in the fullness of time,' became 'the Christ, the Son of the living God,' with that state of humiliation. And, had there' been a shadow of truth in " the doctrine of Eternal Filiation,' no conceivable reason can he assigned why we might not have read ' 'Os ev 'Yiq Oonev vzrapxm, mv,' 'who, existing as the Son of God,' &c.; but we find no such reading in the Scriptures, in reference to ' Eternal Godhead;' on the contrary, the writer evidently labors to avoid an application and conclusion, which you labor in vain, by an abundance of highly censurable verbiage, to show is the only just One,

"The third passage in which this distinction and 'opposition' are clearly noted, is Hebrews

i. 1,2, ' God, who, at sundry times and in divers manners, spoke in times past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath, in these last days, spoken unto us by a Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things,' &c. Here we have the term " Ev 'Ymq,' ' in, or by a Son;' but used to contra-distinguish 'the Christ,' in his humiliation, from the ' Maleak Jehovah;' who ' in time past spoke unto the fathers by the prophets;' and again restricted to him in that state, and ' in these last days.' Of the bearing of this important passage, you evidently are quite aware, and much afraid; and on it you have written some highly objectionable and contradictory things, Vol. 1. pp. 565, 566, compared with 561, 562, with the hope of neutralizing the restriction and ' direct opposition intended in the text.' You say, p. 565, 'God the Father is certainly meant by the Apostle;' and " the Spirit sent by the Father qualified the prophets to speak unto our Fathers;' whilst your 11th Chapter, pp. 545 to 567, proves to a demonstration that it was the Maleak Jehovah himself, who, ' at sundry times and in divers manners, spoke by the prophets;' for, " there he speaks and acts as God himself,' p. 548, note. And you quite forget, hoc the time, that ' St. Peter calls the Spirit of Jehovah, by which the prophets prophesied, the Spirit of Christ;' and that the ' Jehovah, who said, My Spirit shall not always strive with man,' was Christ; see especially, pp. 560 to 563. And had it not been for the theory of Eternal Filiation standing in the way, you would have experienced no difficulty in perceiving the 'direct opposition in the text' nor the marked distinction in terms, when speaking of the same person, as ' the Angel Jehovah' of the Old Testament, and ' the Son of God manifested in the flesh,' of the New: a distinction in both Testaments impossible to account for, if the theory of " Eternal Generation' be a true one.

"In order to show that points of great moment are involved in the denial or maintenance of the doctrine of Eternal Filiation,' you propose five ' considerations' to those who 'acknowledge the Divinity of Christ,' but deny that doctrine: pp. 58 to 61, Vol. II. But ' the ' loose and general manner in which' your ' considerations' are worded, and in which you confound " the doctrine of Eternal Sonship ' with ' the Divine Sonship of Christ,' proves either that your own views of the subject are very indefinite, or that you write to perplex your readers; for none can deny that Jesus is ' the Christ, the Son of the living God, ' and, therefore, a Divine Son, without denying ' the record that God has given of into SON, and adopting the Socinian heresy: unless, with you, they take the unwarranted liberty of splitting him in two, and turn their attention from ' the Christ of God ' to a creature of their own imagination: God's Christ - God's proper Son - being God-Man in One Person indivisibly united, And that you do this, and that you are perfectly aware of the difference between ' Eternal Filiation ' and ' the Divine Filiation of Christ,' is evident from the laborious and unavailing efforts you have made to neutralize the texts of Luke i. 32 and 35, and to show that ' the Christ' cannot be considered ' the Son of God,' either from the fact there recorded or from his resurrection. And, on pp. 57, 58, Vol. II., you assert that ' he was antecendently the Son of God, and is spoken of as such by the prophets;' though without the least authority for the assertion; and that the act of incarnation cannot constitute him ' the Son of God, for it was an act of the Son alone,' ' foreamuch as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, HE ALSO TOOK PART of the same;' and, 'as his own act, it could never place him in the relation of a son to the Father.' ' Here you put the truth of' Christ coming in the flesh,' in capitals, to cover the falsehood of that being ' an act of the Son alone:' by which you, first, palpably contradict the texts of Luke i. 32 and 35, ' The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shell overshadow thee,' &c. (see verse 32): and, secondly, you deny the unity of the Divine Essence, and represent ' the Son as acting alone,' and independently of the Father and the Holy Spirit h Thus assuming the doctrine of ' Eternal Sonship' to be true, by way of proving that it is so: and teaching the heresy of separate, independent acts, where essential Deity in engaged! For the support of what? An unscriptural dogma!

"Your 'considerations' are addressed, professedly, to those who ' believe in the Divinity of the Christ,' and that he is " the Son of the Highest;' yet you treat them as Socinians, Your first has nothing to do with " Eternal Filiation;' but with " those who deny the Divine Filiation of Christ!' Your second ingeniously confounds them; and you say, ' The denial of the Divine Sonship destroys all natural relation among the persons of the Godhead, makes them independent of each other, and endangers the unity of the essence:' thus charging others without proof, with the sin which you yourself are undeniably guilty of, as above; and the quotations you give, in a note, pp.59, 60, from Bishop Bull and Professor Kidd, speak the same language of Babel; and, if they reprove any one, it is yourself. But, what do, or can, we know, of ' natural relations,' as existing in essential and incomprehensible Deity, further than HE has been pleased to reveal himself, unless by ' humanizing the subject, and confounding time with eternity, the creature with the Creator?' It is a divine axiom that we cannot, But if the ' natural relation' of Father and Son, in essential Deity, be necessary to prevent two of the Divine Persons from being independent of each other; will it not be equally necessary, in order to perfect this ' family compact,' that the third should be considered the son of the second, and grandson of the first? ' The Christ' says of the Holy Spirit, ' I will send him unto you; he shall glorify ME; he shall take of MINE, and show unto you.' And if it he lawful thus to write on such high subjects, which it certainly is riot, except to expose the evil thereof, and thus ' to intrude into things which we have not seen,' or of which we have not even heard; may we not ask, who is the mother in this case? The essential, distinctive person of the Divine Father, is not more clearly stated in the word of God then is that of the human mother of ' the Christ, the Son of the living God.' Divine revelation is necessarily in accordance with the proper, essential ideas of man, crested originally ' in the image of God:' end, however its facts may transcend not only man's present lapsed powers, but even man's powers in their highest state of renovation, yet is there nothing, either in its facts or in its doctrines, which contradicts those essential ideas; but its truths are found to be in perfect harmony with the most vigorous exercise of his renewed powers; and his obedience to them, his highest reason. But the dogmata of ' an Eternal Filiation,' necessarily resulting from 'an Eternal Generation,' are palpable contradictions. in terms and in fact, to those essential ideas which God has given to us. And, as he has not so spoken of himself, but hiss by his servants, both in the former and in the latter covenant, carefully avoided all such terms, and all such ideas, in reference to spiritual, unmingled Deity; it is the extreme of presumption, not to say impiety, for any man, or any number of men, so to speak or write of him; as a thousand human opinions, unsupported by Divine testimony, must, with every sober and enlightened mind, amount just to a cipher.

"Your third and fourth ' considerations' are equally confused, and the two doctrines of 'Eternal Filiation' and 'the Divine Sonship of Christ,' are involved in the general terms of ' Divine Paternity' and ' Divine Sonship;' whilst the only evidence adduced is from the declarations of tine Christ, as such; and, therefore, defective: and your assertion, ' that the Eat her is the fountain of Deity,' is again incompatible with the Unity of the Divine Essence. Though you make a distinction, yet there is little or no difference in the ' two considerations;' the idea being the same, or closely connected, with that of the second, vir. that, unless ' the natural relations of Father and Son,' in essential Deity, be admitted, the order of the persons cannot be secured, but ' the Son might as well be the first as the second person in the Godhead.' But in the last four chapters of your Vol. I., especially the 8th and 11th, you have cut up all these ' considerations,' root and branch; and in proving that ' Jesus Christ in the Jehovah of the Old Testament,' you have shown i a Trinity in Unity, ' and the order of the persons; - Jehovah, the sender; Jehovah, the sent; and Jehovah, the Spirit; though you have not there found either Paternity or Filiation, And when you add to this ' the order' of the New Testament, you may clearly perceive that simple faith in divine revelation, will be a perfect preventative from this imaginary danger, without the aid of any human theory whatever. You say, ' These are most violent and repulsive conclusions.' True; but they are the conclusions of Richard Watson, the casuist and polemic; not of Richard Watson, the logician and theologian; not of those whose sentiments he was then opposing.

"Your fifth, end last, n consideration,' derives any seeming force it may have, from the dividing system; restricting ' the Sonship of Christ to his human nature only,' though you were not then arguing with Socinians. ' Professor Kidd' will tell you, p. 67, note, ' Our Lord's human nature never had subsistence - personality - of itself;' though, by following the same erroneous system of dividing, he runs into the opposite error. I again repeat- the union of Divinity and humanity, is essential to' the Christ of God;' and no man can innocently separate them, even in idea, But this ' consideration' will fall to the ground, if you consider what the Evangelists, Matthew, Luke, and John, have written on the incarnation: and, if you add to this what you have written of ' him whose goings forth have been from of old, from the days of eternity,- by a natural birth coming forth from Bethlehem of Judah,' what you have written on ' the Hypostatic Union,' and add also, the inquiry of Elizabeth, ' Whence in it that the mother of nay Lord should come unto me?' you may then clearly perceive, that in the very ' act of incarnation' something very superior to the mere ' formation of an inferior nature' is contemplated; and that the probability is, that from that Hypostatic Union alone, Jesus, the Son of Mary, is also ' the Christ-the Son of the living God,' especially as this is expressly stated by St. Luke; and no other Filiation is revealed in the Scriptures.

"But I am weary: these remarks are submitted to induce you to use all your influence to set the question aside, as a ' matter of faith, or test of orthodoxy.' It cannot consistently be made such in Conference, without being carried into the circuits, and there are members, discerning and conscientious men -- both itinerant and local preachers who may be disposed to admit your views as probable, while the question rests as ' one of theological inquiry only;' but who will he startled if it be proposed to them as ' an article of faith and teat of orthodoxy,' and will feel themselves obliged to examine its foundations, and oppose it as such: for this plain reason, that, if they do not, they may be guilty of placing human opinions or human errors, on an equality with ' the true sayings of God,' which is wickedness. And this plan, if unfortunately pursued in Conference, will moat certainly lead to ' strifes,' if not to ' divisions;' and it is a very serious thing for any man, or any number of men, to place themselves in the seat of infallibility, by legislating for the church of Christ, more especially in matters of doctrine. Methodism has continued to this time, a praise and blessing in the earth, without this: let it continue such, I hope my fears will prove groundless, at which I shall heartily rejoice. My only object is PEACE, May the God of peace be with you, and keep you in peace; sod enable you to glorify him, both in Conference and in your respective circuits, with your bodies and spirits, which are his! 1 remain, with every feeling of personal respect, your obedient servant, and brother in the Gospel of Christ,

"J. F. Grant."

Besides private correspondence upon this enactment, there was a warm controversy carried on for several months in the Imperial Magazine, In the letters that appeared, it was shown that glaring absurdities were involved in the doctrine as stated by Mr. Watson and several others; that one part of Mr. Wesley's writings was made to contradict another; that such an enactment was inconsistent with the assumed fact, that Methodist preachers were called by God to the work of the ministry; and that the Test Act was no better in its principles and bearings, than the Act of Uniformity, which passed in the reign of Charles II. This emptied the Church of nearly all those of its ministers who were men of piety and intelligence; and that would keep out of the Methodist ministry all young men of real worth, and admit only the ignorant and the dishonest. The controversy in the above-named periodical, was succeeded by a volume of letters on the same subject, addressed to the President of the Conference, by Mr. Samuel Tucker. Against the doctrine, and the way of supporting it, Mr. Tucker opens a battery which is allowed on all hands to be irresistible and overwhelming. But, in stating his own views, he falls into errors equal to those against which he writes. This mars his performance, and prevents it from being viewed as a work calculated to set the question at rest; and, while Mr. Exley's reply to Mr. Watson continues to be appealed to as a standard work, unanswered and unanswerable, Mr. Tucker's letters are but little noticed.

About the same time there appeared in the Pulpit a series of letters, on the same subject. These, without referring to any particular work, or controversy, contain, perhaps, with little exception, the most clear, scriptural statement of the Divinity and Sonship of Christ, that has appeared in the English language.

Though rather out of place, it may not be amiss to observe, that, while Messrs. Watson and Exley were contending, the Wesleyan-Methodist Magazine was supplying articles, almost every month, on the subject. These, of course, were all on one side of the question; and the ostensible reason for their appearing was, to preserve the Connection from being misled by Dr. Clarke. What reply these articles admitted, and required, was given by Mr. Exley, at the conclusion of his answer to Mr. Watson, These articles generally were so weak, that they carried their own refutation. The Connection grew sick of the dispute, and were disgusted with the impotent attacks which were made upon the Doctor's character and views. Complaints grew loud and frequent; and, had the Magazine been continued one year longer in the same manner, it would probably have ceased to exist, We find no more after this in the Magazine, until the Review of Nichols' Translation of the Works of Arminius. Then the editor, or probably Mr. Watson, who, at that time, wrote most of the reviews which appeared in the Magazine, could not deny himself the pleasure of transcribing what that author had published on this subject. This passed without any remark; and the Magazine was silent, or nearly so, until the appearing of the third volume of Dr. Clarke's Sermons. This volume was noticed; and the editor wrote some remarks upon what the Doctor had said upon the subject in the Sermon on John iii. 16. The strictures which the editor wrote called forth a letter, addressed to Dr. Clarke under the signature of Josephus, and dated Liverpool, December, 30, 1830. This is one of the most clear, cool, cutting pamphlets, that ever issued from the press. The weakness and folly of the editor, the unscriptural character, and absurd tendency, of the doctrine which he advocates, and the baneful consequences it produces, are pointed out in a striking manner.

On the absurdity of the doctrine, Josephus says,

"If the Godhead of our Lord stands in a filial relation to the Father, and is itself the Son; then, as the Son suffered, prayed, was inferior to the Father, and was offered a ransom for mankind, it follows, that all this was done by the filial Godhead; and, as the inflictor of the Lord's sufferings was, according to this writer's opinion, the paternal Godhead, the series of absurdities which I have deduced from the tenet are proved to be its legitimate consequences. But, if one Godhead did not pray to another; if one Almighty is not inferior to another; and if one eternal is not before another; then the Son who prayed, suffered, submitted, and died, was not the Godhead of our Lord; and, if not the Godhead, must be the humanity. Let the editor take his choice. He must either give up his doctrine, or adopt the grossest contradictions."

Upon the editor's manner of defending it, Josephus says,

"The writer seems anxious to establish a resemblance between himself and all opposers of the truth of God. ' We exceedingly deprecate,' says he, ' these attempts to unsettle the minds of ordinary Christians on subjects so sacred as that in question.' Past so did the Jewish priests exceedingly deprecate the attempt which our Lord made to unsettle the minds of their ordinary disciples, on a subject so sacred as the temporal reign of the Messiah. Just so did the priests of heathenism exceedingly deprecate the attempt of the Apostles, to unsettle the minds of their worshippers, on a subject an sacred as their plurality of Gods, Just in the same manner did the Christian church, a few Centuries ago, exceedingly deprecate the attempt of Martin Luther, to unsettle the minds of ordinary Christians, on a subject so sacred as indulgences and transubstantiation. And, later still, the greater part of the clergy and reviewers of this realm, exceedingly deprecated the attempt of the venerable Wesley to unsettle the minds of ordinary Christians, on a subject so sacred as baptismal regeneration. Wherever troth has appeared, the advocates of falsehood have exceedingly deprecated its appearance."

On the baneful consequences of this doctrine, Josephus says,

"I appeal to hundreds of pious and simple members of the Methodist Society, who have imbibed the editor's opinion, whether they have not, in prayer, in praise, and on sacramental occasions, felt their minds divided, and their souls distressed, lest, in honoring one part of the Divinity, they have neglected another. I know they have; I know many such, and have heard them lament their situation." The castigation which the editor of the Magazine received from this writer, induced many to believe that he was not so closely related to a character, mentioned in Proverbs xxvii. 22, as to meddle with the subject any more. It is, however, sometimes difficult to form a correct estimate of the characters of men, so as to avoid giving them credit for either more or less wisdom than they really possess. On the appearance of Dr. Clarke's Autobiography, the editor buckled on his armor again; and, like a giant armed, stepped into the field, brandished his weapons, and blustered wonderfully. Such were the effects of his review, that some threw up the Magazine in disgust; others withdrew their annual subscriptions from the Conference funds; others wrote privately to the editor upon the matter; others exposed his impotent malice by the "beastly press," and, in almost every part of the Connection, were heard murmurs and complaints; so much so, that Mr. Bromley told the Conference that eight out of every ten were dissatisfied throughout the kingdom. Notwithstanding that many expressed surprise at the editor's weakness, and the worthlessness of his production, yet others maintained that it was a masterly piece, and superior to any thing which had preceded it. As this sentiment was echoed by certain preachers both in the Conference and out of it, it may not be amiss to review the reviewer, and examine this wonderful document.

The first objection which the editor makes, is, that Dr. Clarke adopted his opinion in early life; and that it obtained such an ascendancy over him, that, in subsequent years, he could not detect its fallacy. On this ground, he insinuates that it was one of the toys of his childhood, and not the judgment of his mature age. Such insinuations as these neither prove the doctrine to be true nor prove it to be false; and the object of the editor, in making them, must have been to perplex and prejudice the case.

His second objection is, " that Dr. Clarke's theory does not profess to be derived from the Sacred Scriptures, nor to be directly supported by a single text of holy writ." This is not true. Dr. Clarke does profess to derive his views of the Divinity and Sonship from the Sacred Scriptures, and from these alone; and the reason for his rejection of the editor's notion is, as expressed by himself, " I have not been able to find any express declaration in the Scriptures concerning it." But, allowing that the Doctor had not adopted the best way of stating or defending his views, still this would not prove that they were unscriptural.

The third objection is, "the production of the human nature was the work of the Holy Ghost;" "and therefore in no direct and proper sense is he the Son of the Father." " Jesus Christ is directly and properly the Son of the Holy Ghost." For this objection the editor is indebted to the late Richard Watson; and, as it has already been shown, that it originates in inattention to the Scriptures, no further notice of it is necessary.

The fourth objection is, that John the Baptist, Nathanael, and the Disciples, allowed and confessed that Jesus was the Son of God, without making any reference to the miraculous conception; and that, therefore, they must, by the term Son of God, have meant a Divine person. This is readily granted. The Son of God is both human and Divine, Of his humanity, the Disciples bad every demonstration: and, in his human form, they saw him claim the high character of Son of God. When, therefore, they saw his miracles and Divine works, they were obliged to concede his claim, and allow that he was the Son of Gods because Divinity and humanity were united in his person. But, about eternal generation and Eternal Sonship, neither he nor they ever speak a word, As to the Jews believing that the Sonship of the Son of God related exclusively to the Divine nature, such a notion is futile in the extreme, They had no scriptural ideas of the subject; but absolutely charged Christ with blasphemy, and put him to death for no other cause, than that he maintained a view of the subject which was in direct opposition to their own, The editor adopts the supposition, that the Jews were right, and that Christ was in error.

In the fifth place, the editor combats the Doctor's argument, as stated in his note upon Luke i

-35, and endeavors to show, that it is equally as improper to use the phrase Eternal Word, as Eternal Son, St. John says, " The Word was God." He uses it as a personal designation. The editor takes for granted, that the Apostle is mistaken; and insists that the Word was not God, but something which God spoke or said; and that, as a speech presupposes a speaker, thought, and previous time to cogitate and mature the speech, so it must be absurd to call the speech or word eternal, This is the strongest argument in the review; and all its strength is derived from the assumption, that an inspired Apostle was mistaken, and, under the influence of his mistake, happened to make a statement the reverse of truth. In the sixth place, the editor points out what he conceives to be the dreadful consequences of the Doctor's opinion, The first of these is, that " it weakens the evidence for the Godhead of Christ." This is hardly correct. In his filial character, Christ says, " My Father is greater than I." Now, if we allow what Mr. Watson broadly states, and what the editor maintains, namely, that Christ is the Son of God, in his Divine nature exclusively, it is clear from the words of Christ himself, that, in this nature, he is inferior to the Father; and, therefore, neither is, nor can be, " over all, God blessed for ever." The Divinity of Christ is completely wrecked; and we plunge at once into downright Arianism, It was to avoid this, that Dr. Clarke, ignorant and imbecile as the editor supposes him to have been, was led to take his opinion upon the subject from the Scriptures alone, and not from orthodox creeds and learned men.

The second supposed fearful consequence of the Doctor's doctrine is, " It recognizes an authority in matters of revelation of a very dangerous kind." This objection is rather stale. All writers on the editor's side of the question, disallow the exercise of reason or understanding in this controversy, If they mean by this, the substitution of human opinion for the truth of God, they are right; but they do not mean this. They are conscious, that to test this doctrine by Scripture is fatal to its existence, They, therefore, quote from the hymn-book, the Nicene creed, and the writings of learned men, and forbid the liberty of asking, whether the doctrine, taught by these authorities, is agreeable or disagreeable with the written word. This is precisely the plan which is adopted by the editor in his review.

The third alarming consequence attributed to Dr. Clarke's opinion is, that it is " calculated to weaken the impression which the doctrine of the Holy Scripture tends to produce, of the greatness of God's love in the redemption of mankind." The doctrine of the Holy Scripture, upon this subject, is, that Christ, as the Son of Man, was betrayed, Mat. xxvi. 24; was to suffer many things, Mark ix. 12; to rise from the dead, verse 9; and was to sit down at the right hand of God, Heb. x. 12. In opposition to this, the doctrine of the editor is, that Christ, in his Divine nature, "which was begotten of the Father," (the human nature being begotten by the Holy Ghost,) "and" which was "the object of" his " ineffable delight and love from eternity," was given: the Father "spared him not;" "delivered him up;" "bruised him:" "put him to grief;" "made his soul an offering for sin;" and even "laid upon him the iniquities of us all." The editor, here, following Mr. Watson, clearly teaches, that Christ, in his Divine nature, which the Scriptures declare, is over all, God blessed for ever, has a father; that God over all was delivered up to suffering and to death, by his father; and that, unless we reject the testimony of Scripture, which invariably connects his sufferings with his human nature, we shall never have suitable views of the love of God.

In the fourth place, the editor insinuates, that, "upon the theory in question, our apprehensions of the Trinity are perplexed and confounding." That the editor may be perplexed and confounded, may be readily admitted; because, when men, like himself, reject the testimony which God has given of his Son, and prefer the dogmas of fallible men, he generally, in righteous displeasure, confounds and perplexes them, and makes their folly evident to all, To the minds of other persons, however, the doctrine is not so perplexing; for, if it be admitted, that a distinction in the Godhead, which is neither defined nor explained, is clearly indicated in the Old Testament; that this distinction was, after the incarnation, more strikingly developed, and manifested under the appellations of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; that, to each of these Divine Persons, the same properties and works are attributed; and that no inferiority or subordination is predicated of them, but what is purely official, which is exactly all that the Scriptures teach on the subject, -- the doctrine is held and maintained, without being perplexing or confounding.

Lastly, the editor deplores the maintaining of this doctrine, "because of its opposition to the Wesleyan system of theology and worship." Unless it can be proved that the doctrine is unscriptural, this wailing only shows that "Wesleyan theology," like the sun, has its spots; and that concerning the works of men, whether consisting in liturgies or hymn-hooks, it is necessary to keep from the paths of the destroyer, and learn carefully to separate the precious from the vile.

Because, then, the editor taxes the Doctor, unfairly, with setting human opinion in opposition to the Holy Scriptures; confines to the Holy Ghost, singly, the production of the manhood of Christ, which, the Scriptures show, was the work of the whole Godhead; adduces texts, as proofs of the Eternal Sonship, which are no more than proofs of Christ's Divinity; assumes the declaration of an inspired Apostle to be decidedly untrue; and connects the sufferings of Christ with his Divine nature, when the Scriptures always connect them with his human nature; his review has only betrayed the unsoundness of his doctrine, and the weakness of its advocate.

It would be sickening to relate the proceedings of District Meetings, held at Shields, Newcastle, and Manchester, in relation to individuals, who have dissented from the view of this subject which is given by Mr. Watson and his disciple, the editor of the Wesleyan-Methodist Magazine. A fair specimen is given in the Christian Advocate newspaper, September 16, 1833; and, though many of the preachers have gone from house to house, and from circuit to circuit, denouncing the editors of that journal, as lying slanderers; yet some, who were immediately concerned in those proceedings, affirm, that every thing reported is not only perfectly true, but exhibited in the least possible offensive manner, The boast of many of the leading men in the Conference was, that they would soon rid the Connection of, all the noxious parties who differed in opinion, on this subject, from themselves. Their zeal, however, received a check from a letter addressed to the Rev. Robert Newton, as President of the Conference, and a few others, concerned in the proceedings of the East Manchester District Meeting. This letter, though neither adapted nor designed to give the Scriptural doctrine of the Sonship of Christ, but merely to show the tendency of the views which Mr. Watson, the editor, and others, had taken of the subject, is allowed, as an answer to their statements, to be decisive. Copies of it having got into several hands, it is no longer a secret document. The following is the substance of it, with a few trifling alterations:-

"Sir, -- As the debates of the last District Meeting are felt to be unsatisfactory. because the accused party was denied the right of defense, I trust you will excuse me if I address you in writing.

"On the subject in dispute. I find Mr. Watson, its ablest advocate, saying, ' Jesus is a designation of his humanity; Christ is the official name; but the term Son of God denotes his Divine personality.' -- Remarks, p. 89.

"The epithet, Only Son, can only be applied to the Divine nature of our Lord, in which alone he is at once naturally and exclusively the Son of the living God.' -- Institutes, vol, ii. p. 45.

"On page 57, of the same volume, quoting from Dr. Kidd, he says, ' The question to be decided is, what object was termed the Son of God? Was it the humanity considered by itself? This it could not he, seeing that the humanity never existed by itself without inhering in the Divinity, Was it the humanity and Divinity when united, which, in consequence of their union, obtained this as a mere appellation? We apprehend it was not. We conceive that the peculiarly appropriate name of our Lord's Divine person is Son of God.'

"These passages, which might be greatly multiplied, teach us, that the term, Sass of God, signifies neither the human nature of Christ, nor the union of his two natures, but the Divine nature exclusively, in contradistinction to both, As we are divinely commanded to prove all things, let us try the question by the Holy Scriptures.

"1. At Luke i. 31, 32, we find the angel saying to the virgin, Behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and shalt bring forth a son, and shalt call his name Jesus. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest.

"At verse 35 he adds, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee; therefore, also, that holy thing that shall be born of thee, shall be called the Son of God.

"Was it the Divine nature of Christ, or the human, that was conceived and born of the Virgin? It is shown above, that Christ, in his Divine nature only, and exclusively, is the Son of God; and the Scriptures teach us, that, in the same nature, he is the only God. Wesley's version of Jude 25. It is. therefore, clear, I think, either that the Divine nature was conceived and born of the Virgin, and that the only God owes his existence to a mortal; or, that the angel was mistaken in his message, and made a statement which is decidedly untrue. Whatever nature it was that was born of the Virgin, that nature, he affirms, should be called the Son of God.

"2. In the confession of Peter, we have no intimation, that the question proposed was understood in any meaning but that which is expressed. The question is, Whom do men say, that I, the Son of Mass, am? The answer is, Those art the Christ, the Son of the living God. Christ adds, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed this unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

"Did Christ, by the term, Son of Man, in this place, mean the Divine nature exclusively? Both Scripture and Methodism prohibit the supposition. It is, therefore, necessary to make some addition to the text, and add, after the words, Son of Man, in my Divine nature, and thus become guilty of adding to the word of God; or, we must understand the passage by the rule of contraries, and believe that it means the reverse of what it says; or, we must suppose that God imposed upon Peter's credulity, and revealed to him a doctrine which is contrary to truth. Unless we ado p tone of these rules, it is impossible to reconcile this revelation with the orthodox faith, as stated in the above quotations.

"3. When Christ was questioned, upon oaths, by the Jewish High Priest, whether he was the Son of God, he answered, I am; but he took especial care to connect with his answer the appellation of Son of Man, which term, according to Mr. Watson, ' is a Jewish phrase denoting a real human being.' Matt. xxvi. 64; Mark xiv. 62; and Luke xxii. 69. Now, as it is shown so clearly, that Christ is the Son of God, in his Divine nature only, in contradistinction to the human, and the union of both, does it not appear, that Christ was either opposed to the Jewish faith, or guilty of dissimulation? He maintained that he was the Son of God, with special reference to his human nature. 'I he Jews considered such a doctrine to be blasphemy; and, for maintaining it, Christ was condemned to death. As, then, the Son of God dissented from the notions of his countrymen, so far as to be charged with blasphemy, and counted worthy of crucifixion, is it not clear, either that their views of the subject were erroneous, or that Christ was justly put to death as a teacher of error and blasphemy?

"4. St. John says, chap. xx. 31, But these things are written that ye might believe that Jesus is the Son of God; and that, believing, ye might have life through his name.

*See Numbers xxiii. 19; Job xxv, 6; Psalm cxlvi, 12; Isaiah li, 12; and Wesley's Notes on John iii. 13.

"'Jesus,' we are told, 'is a designation of the humanity: but the term, Son of God, signifies the Divine nature exclusively.' It is, therefore, clear, that, according to the orthodox faith, Jesus, the humanity, is not the Son of God. ' Jesus is directly and properly the Son of the Holy Ghost,' who, it would seem from the editor's logic, is not God. As, then, the Apostle's avowed reason for writing his Gospel, was to induce men to believe that Jesus, the humanity, united with Divinity, was the Son of God, is it not clear, allowing these writers to be correct, that the inspired Apostle was either mistaken upon the subject, or intended to mislead his readers?

"5. The same writer says, This is his commandment, That we believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ. Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God? Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and be in God, I John iii. 23; iv; 15. v.5.

"The orthodox faith, as stated by Mr. Watson, prohibits us from believing, that Jesus, the humanity united with Divinity, is the Son of God; and teaches us that the term Son of God, signifies the Divine nature exclusively. It is, therefore, clear, either that the Apostle was greatly misled on this subject, or that God has made it our duty to believe a doctrine which is contrary to truth; or, that the orthodox faith, so called, is a bewildering, pernicious error. God commands us to believe that Jesus is the Son of God: the orthodox faith forbids this in toto. Is God or man to be obeyed?

"6. Besides these, there are, in the New Testament, more than twenty passages which directly state that Jesus is the Son of God; to say nothing of those which unite inferiority to the Father, dying for sin, and rising from thy dead, with the filial character. All these must be understood by the rule of contraries, or made subject to some material addition, to make them harmonize with the orthodox faith. Besides these, again, we find, that it was the leading article of faith in the apostolic church, 'I believe that Jesus is the Son of God.' Acts viii. 37.

"As, then, the doctrine of the Sonship of Christ cannot be maintained in the form above stated, without impeaching the truth of God. and the testimony of his dying Son, making angels and apostles false witnesses, and the Scriptures a mass of absurdities, it is worth inquiry, whence do we derive it?

"At the Meeting held on Tuesday evening, for discussing the subject, I think Mr. Grindrod kindly informed us, upon the authority of Dr. Kidd, that it was found in the Chaldee Paraphrase.

"In Thoughts upon the Eternal Sonship,' page 14, Mr. Moore says, ' The Jews knew there were a Father and a Son in the Godhead abstractedly from every thing creaturely. If this was an error, it certainly was a dangerous one. Did our Lord correct it? Would he not have done so, if it had been an error? But he did not do so."

"Mr. Watson says, ' The Jews recognized the existence of such a being as the Son of God; and that for any person to profess to be the Son of God in this peculiar sense, was to commit blasphemy.' Institutes, Vol. II. p 30.

"In his notes on 1 John v. 5, Mr., Benson says, 'The high priest, and council, composed of men of the highest learning and rank among the Jews, equally with the common people, believed that the Messiah was to be the Son of God; and that the Son of God is himself God; otherwise, they could not have reckoned Jesus a blasphemer, for calling himself Christ the Son of God.'

"By quotations, from the writings of Philo, in Dr. Clarke's Commentary on John i., we know that the Jews had such a notion; and Josephus and Mosheim inform us, that they had corrupted their theology by mixing with it the philosophy of the Arabians, Persians, Greeks, and Egyptians. -- Mosh. Cent. 1.

"We see in these quotations, that the notion of God having a Son in his own nature, or, in other words, that the term, Son of God, applies to the Divine nature exclusively, is derived from the theology of the Jews, when that theology was in a moat corrupt, loathsome condition; and, also, that, in consequence of holding this notion, they counted Christ a blasphemer, for calling himself the Son of God. How did this happen? "Mr. Moore tells us flatly, that our Lord did not correct these notions of his countrymen. Let us examine this matter. On four distinct occasions we find our Lord and the Jews at issue on the subject of his Sonship.

"The first of these is found in John v. 18, 27:-- The Jews sought to kill him, because he not only had broken the Sabbath, but said also that God was his Father. In what nature did Christ claim the filial character on this occasion?

"1. In that nature which could do nothing of itself, and which was taught and actuated by the Father. Verses 19, 20. Now, as, in his Divine nature, Christ is the only wise, almighty God, it could hardly be in this nature that he could do nothing of himself, and wanted to be actuated and taught by the Father, It surely must be in the human. 2. He claimed the filial character in that nature which was appointed to raise the dead and judge the world: the ability and authority to do these, he says, were given him because he was the Son of Man, And these offices are invariably associated with the epithet Man, or Son of Man, 1 Cor. xv. 21, 22; John xi. 25; Acts. x. 42; xvii. 31. It is, therefore, clear, that, on this occasion, our Lord exposed his life, by claiming that character, with express reference to the human nature, which, the Jews supposed, belonged exclusively to the Divine.

"2. In chap. viii. 54 and 58, he claims the character of Son of God, both in relation to the human nature and the union of both.

"He calls God his Father in that nature which did nothing of itself; and which was taught by the Father; verse 28; and which he expressly calls man, verse 40, and Son of roan, verse 28.

"Again, he maintains the union of the two natures, verse 58. Jesus, 'the humanity,' says, Before Abraham was, I am. This can only be true on the ground of his possessing a Divine nature as well as a human, These two were so united as to constitute one person, called Jesus or Son of God. What he did on this occasion so offended the Jews, that, out of pure zeal for the orthodox faith, they took up stones to stone him.

"3. In chap. x. 22, 42, we find these parties again at issue upon the same subject. On this occasion Christ claimed the filial character in that nature which sustains the office of Shepherd; and the Scriptures connect this office with the nature to which God, by Ezekiel, gives the title of my servant David. By Zechariah he calls him, man. And by St. Paul and Peter, he specifies that nature which was brought from the dead, and which shall judge the world. Ezek. xxxiv. 24; Zech.

xiii. 7; Heb. xiii. 20; 1 Peter v. 4. - 2. In that nature which laid down life, and took it up again. This nature, the Scriptures teach us, was the human. John x. 11; Heb. ii 14.- 3. Though Christ expressly refers to the human nature on this occasion, yet he refers to it only in union with the Divine, by pointedly declaring, I and my Father are one. Verse 30. His proper character, as Immanuel, or God united to man, is distinctly specified. - 4. It is clear that his opponents understood him to refer to the inferior nature. Their objection is a proof of this: 'Because thou, being a man, makest thyself God.' Their theology not distinguishing between the circumstances in which Christ was God, and Son of God, they supposed, that, in claiming to be the Son of God, he professed to be God himself, On this ground they took up stones to stone him.- 5. It is equally clear, that our Lord intended that the Jews should understand him precisely in this sense. He acknowledges that he claimed the  character of Son of God in that nature which God had sanctified and sent into the world; and this nature is expressly said to be Jesus of Nazareth, Acts x. 38; and required their assent to the truth of what he said, on the ground of the miracles. It is a singular fact, that there is not one instance of open persecution of our Lord, recorded in the Gospel of St. John, but which arose from his claiming that relation to God in human nature, or the union of humanity with Divinity, which, they supposed, belonged exclusively to the Divine.

"4. On three former occasions, the Jews understood our Lord to refer to the human nature, in claiming the character of Son of God. Can we now ascertain distinctly the nature of that imputed blasphemy for which he was condemned to death? By St. Luke, chap. xxii. 67, we are informed, that, in answer to the question, Art thou, then, the Christ? Jesus answered, Hereafter shall the Son of Man sit on the right hand of the power of God. This led them again to ask, Art thou, then, the Son of God? To this he replied, Ye say it; I AM. In the expression Son of Man, we see our Lord refer distinctly to the human nature: and, in express reference to this nature, he maintains, according to the other evangelists, upon oath, that he was the Son of God. This finished the matter. And they said, what farther need have we of evidence? For we ourselves have heard from his own mouth. They then led him to Pilate, and said, We have o law; and, by our law, he ought to die, because he made himself Sour of God.

"Now, if we take words in their proper meaning, it is certain that our Lord on three occasions exposed his life, and ultimately sacrificed it, for no other reason, than because he claimed that relation to God in reference to his human nature, which, the Jews believed. belonged to the Divine only.

"The question now is, which of the parties is right, and which is wrong? If we allow the Jews to be right, then Christ died justly charged with error and blasphemy; and the scheme of salvation is wrecked, If we allow Christ to be right, then the charges of error and blasphemy roll back upon his murderers, and upon those also, who, by their own confession, derive their orthodoxy from them.

"Another question is, with which of these parties has the Methodist Conference taken side? With the dying Son of God? Let us look at facts, By the acknowledgment of their ablest writers, they derive their doctrine upon this subject, from the Jews, who were his murderers. The view of the subject for maintaining which he sacrificed his life, they reject as heresy. A law exists, by which every candidate, who is not prepared to renounce, as error and blasphemy, the confession of the dying Son of God, and range himself on the side of the orthodox Jews, is sure to be rejected. And those who are admitted, unless they guard against the crime of believing, that Christ died for maintaining the truth, are subject to all the reproach that ignorance and intolerance can heap upon them.

"Now, which of the idle charges, brought against me, is it, which does not equally apply to Christ himself? You object to the doctrine as heterodox. Will you deny, that, for maintaining this doctrine, the Son of God was put to death? You say, ' Keep it secret.' Did Christ keep it secret? If not, why is such conduct recommended to me? Does not Christ declare, that whosoever shall be ashamed of me, and of my words, in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him also shall the Son of Man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels? It is said, ''The Conference will sacrifice you. ' Let them do it. They will only be acting like their orthodox predecessors the Jews, of whom an Apostle says, 'Who both killed the Lord Jesus and their own prophets, and have persecuted us.' To the charge of proselytizing people to this opinion, it ought to have been stated in reply, that the senseless babbling, which took place last year in the Stationing Committee, and in the Conference, became so notorious, as to make it sometimes necessary to rebut the charges of heresy and false doctrine. This fact, I suppose, is the ground of the worthless accusation. But, supposing the charge was well founded, is it any more than what Christ himself did? Did he not teach and maintain this doctrine publicly. and appeal to his miracles as a reason why men should believe it? And is it as heretical to imitate his example, as to believe his doctrine!

"But it is said, 'You belong to a religious body who have different views; and, if you cannot think with them, you ought to withdraw.' Indeed!!! Just so did Christ belong to a religious body, who thought on this subject differently from himself; but did he desert the post of duty, because he could not maintain the truth without suffering? If not, why is such cowardly conduct recommended to me? By what I believe to be the truth of God, I stand or fall; and, if anything wrung from me at the District Meeting, is supposed to indicate the contrary. I protest against it. What an acknowledgment is this to make! A religious body has different views of the Sonship of Christ from that view which be maintained at the cost of his life; and those views are confessedly derived from the ignorant, stupid Jews.

"It is said, 'The safety of the Connection depends upon maintaining this doctrine.' The safety of the Connection, hike that of our souls, depends upon the blessing of God; and we shall hardly secure that, by rejecting as error and blasphemy, the confession of his dying Son, and making common cause with his murderers.

"It is pleaded, that 'the doctrine is found in Mr. Wesley's Notes.' Very true; and you will not forget how clearly Mr. Bromley showed, that the doctrine of one part of the note in question, was denounced by Mr. Watson, as bewildering and pernicious; and that the other part was shown by Mr. Wesley himself, in his note on the same passage, in another place, to be contrary, and in direct opposition, to the meaning of the text. This fact speaks volumes for the sagacity and integrity of those men who dictate articles of faith to the consciences of others: they have made unqualified assent to a note, denounced, by such high authorities, as contradictory tin the text, and bewildering and pernicious, the test of admission into their Body.

"Now, what have you to set against these statements? Deny them you may, and will, But can you show them to be contrary to truth? You cannot. Do, then, be advised for once, Make no more efforts to oppose the wrath of God, It will assuredly triumph, and overwhelm its opposers with confusion. You may proceed to extremities; but you will only make yourselves ridiculous: you may beat your fellow-servants; but the day, the dreadful day, of reckoning will come.

"Regretting the occasion of this communication. I am, &c.,

"Joseph Forsyth."

Shortly after the death of Dr. Clarke, it was rumored that he had changed his opinion upon this subject. This rumor was sedulously circulated by the Rev. John Gaulter, who professed himself ready to attest it upon oath. It may be placed, as a fact, by the aide of this rumor, that, a few days only before his death, the Doctor was talking with a friend upon this subject, on which occasion he declared, not only that his views were unaltered, but that the only ground on which he could exculpate the Conference from the charge of blasphemy, was, that they did it ignorantly.

1. Upon reviewing the whole of this controversy, it is evident that the Oriental Philosophy is the source whence the doctrine of eternal generation and Sonship is derived. 2. That this doctrine was held by the Jews, in the days of our Lord; in consequence of which, he and they were always at issue upon the subject. 3. That this doctrine was introduced into the Christian church, by the Jewish Gnostics, through the Alexandrian School, and was established, as the orthodoxy of the day, by the threats and power of the semi-heathen Emperor, Constantine. 4, That to the same men, to whom the church is indebted for the introduction of this doctrine, it is also indebted for image worship, transubstantiation, monkery, purgatory, relics, and every corruption of Christianity.

5. That there is no real difference between the Orthodox and the Arians upon this subject. Both equally reject the testimony which God has given of his Son. Both equally deny the eternal Godhead and underived existence of the Divine nature of Jesus Christ. The Arians say, God produced it out of nothing; the Orthodox, that God produced it out of his own substance, This is all the difference between them. 6. That the doctrine on account of which Dr. Clarke has been denounced as a heretic, is the very thing on account of which Christ himself was denounced as a blasphemer; and that the very article of faith which admitted the Ethiopian Eunuch into the primitive church, now excludes from the Wesleyan-Methodist ministry. The principal modern writers, on behalf of the Eternal Sonship, are Messrs. Moore, Watson, Martin, Scott, and Dr. Kidd. Those who have written against it are Dr. Clarke, Messrs. Buck, Ridgley, Exley, Wardlaw, Tucker, Brunskill, and several who have published under fictitious names.

The End.

Printed by Stewart and Co., Old Bailey.