Joseph Forsyth - Three Letters
THREE LETTERS, &c.
LETTER I
..........
TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE WESLEYAN-METHODIST CONFERENCE.
" Thou art weighed in the balance, and art found wanting." -DAN. vi. 27.
SIR,
A press of engagements, growing out of the proceedings of the late Conference, and especially out of your visit to Gateshead, has prevented, until now, that expression of regard to which yourself and your friends are justly entitled: you will not, therefore, attribute to negligence of disposition that seeming inattention which is owing to the want of opportunity alone.
It may not have escaped your memory, that I have been subject to expulsion from your venerable body: first, by a unanimous vote of the Conference; and, secondly, by the decision of that memorable committee which sat at Leeds, on Thursday, August 28th, --for refusing to conceal or disguise certain views of the Sonsbip of Jesus Christ, which clash with these which you and your brethren pronounce orthodox.
To refresh your memory, however, you will allow me to set once more before you the facts which have already been set before the public repeatedly. By this means your own mind will be stirred up by way of remembrance, and others will be enabled to understand more clearly the question between us.
By the celebrated Test Act, made at the Conference held in Manchester in 1827, one of Mr. Wesley's Notes is made the standard of orthodoxy upon this subject ; and xxxx? but such as assent to the doctrine of the said Note, as a truth expressly revealed in the inspired oracles, can be admitted into your Connexion.
The text, which that Note is intended to explain, is a quotation from the second Psalm; and is found, in the New Testament, in the three following places :- Acts xiii. 33; Heb. i. 5, and v. 5.
On the first of these quotations, Mr. Wesley's Note is, "The meaning therefore is, I have this day declared thee to be my Son. As St. Paul elsewhere, declared to be the Son of God with power, by the resurrection from the dead. And it is with peculiar propriety and beauty, that God is said to have begotten him on the day when he raised him from the dead, as he seemed then to be born out of the earth anew."
On the second, the Note is, " Thou art my Son, God of God, Light of Light: this day have I begotten thee from eternity, which, by its unalterable permanency of duration, is one continued, unsuccessive day."
The same text, by one of these Notes, is explained as a prediction of the resurrection of Christ from the dead ; by the other, as a proof of the generation of his divine nature from eternity.
Do the raising of the human nature of Jesus from the dead, and the generating of his divine nature from eternity, mean one and the same thing? If not, the Notes contradict each other; and, therefore, they cannot both be true. If the meaning of the passage be, that God, by raising the humanity of Christ from the dead, proved him to be his Son, it cannot possibly signify the generation of his divinity from eternity. By Mr. Wesley's own showing , then, the Note on Heb. i. 5, which you have made the standard of orthodoxy, is flatly contradicted by its fellow Note, and by the sacred text also. This fact was proved in an eloquent and a luminous manner by the Rev. James Bromley, at the District Meeting held at Manchester in 1833.
Should you doubt the accuracy of this statement, allow me to remind you, that the Hebrew word, translated in the text to-day, does not signify eternity, permanency, or anything that is unalterable. It signifies agitation, tumultuous motion, like that of the sea in a storm; something that is always changing and never at rest. It is, therefore, just the reverse of eternity, permanency, or anything which is unalterable. This you will see clearly by consulting a lexicon.
Besides, Sir, should you ever employ yourself in meditating upon the law of the Lord, and turn to Acts xiii. 33, you could not fail to see, that St. Paul explains the quotation before us to be a prediction of the resurrection of Christ from the dead: consequently, not a proof of his eternal generation. These facts will convince you, and every reasonable man, that the first Note above mentioned, gives the clear sense of the text; and that the second is in direct opposition to it. And yet, strange to tell, that very Note which both Wesley and Paul prove to be a fiction, was, at the Conference held in Manchester in 1827, made the sum and substance, standard and measure, of Conference orthodoxy; and, by reason of this Test Act, none but such as prefer fiction to truth can be admitted into connexion with your venerable body.
The doctrine of this Note, as explained by your writers, is, that the filial character, or Sonship, of Jesus Christ belongs to his divine nature exclusively. The late Rev. Richard Watson says, " Jesus is a designation of his humanity , Christ is the official name ; but the term Son of God denotes his divine personality."*
" Messiah is the official term ; Son, a personal one %
" 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.~
" 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 be, 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."*
By these passages, and many others which might be adduced, we are taught to divide the Saviour of the world into two parts; to apply some terms to one nature, and other terms to the other nature; and also to believe that the phrase Son of God signifies neither the human nature, nor the union of the two natures, but the divine nature separately and exclusively considered. The supposition of the humanity of Christ being in any sense the Son of God, is rejected as error and heresy; and the
' Remarks. p. 89. 1 Institutes, vol. ii., p. 40. 11b. page 45. * Notefmm Kidd.
doctrine of his Sonship including the union of divinity with humanity, is said to be a mere assumption, opposed to the plain and obvious import of the oracles of God.*
We are divinely commanded to prove and try all things. Let us endeavour, in obedience to this command, to ascertain how far these statements are warranted by the oracles of God.
Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel-Isaiah vii. 14.
And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shall call his name Jesus : for he shall save his people from their sins.-Matt. i. 21.
And behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son and shall call his name Jesus. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest ; and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David : and he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever ; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man ? And the angel answered and said onto her, 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 -Luke i. 31-35. In these passages the terms Jesus, Son of God, and Immanuel, are used synonymously ; and are applied to the child born of Mary indifferently, without distinguishing one nature from the other. Unless, then, we are prepared to charge the inspired writers with error or negligence, we must admit, that the practices of dividing Christ into two distinct parts, and of applying one name to the human nature and another to the divine, were unknown to them. Mr. Watson's division of the person of Christ, and his application of different names to his two natures distinctly and separately considered, are alike unwarranted and discountenanced by Holy Writ.
We are also furnished with the reason why the child born of Mary should be called the Son of God. The angel does not say, because of an eternal generation in the divine nature, nor because he was begotten of the Father before all worlds ; but because of a divine influence exerted upon the Virgin, which caused the conception to take place. This he states in terms so clear as to bid defiance to sophistry. Do, Sir, just try the question, and revolve it in your mind for a moment. What reason does the celestial messenger assign, why the holy thing born of Mary should be called the Son of God? Just this. The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee; therefore, also (xai, even), that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. The supernatural conception is the reason, the only reason, given by the angel for this divine Sonship.
Again, we are furnished with a definite idea of what constitutes the person of the Son of God. The Hebrew word Immanuel is descriptive of his identity; This term signifies neither the human nature nor the divine nature, taken separately ; but the union of the two. God incarnate, or united with man, is its proper meaning. In a scriptural light, Christ cannot, be contemplated but as a complex character, both human and divine; and the terms, Jesus, Son of God, Son of man, only-begotten Son, and Immanuel, are applied to him in this character only. They are never applied to the one nature so as to exclude the other.
To set the question in a stronger light, let us try Mr. Watson's other
* Jackson's " Life of Watson,"p. 241.
postulatum (namely, that the term Son of God signifies the divine nature exclusively) by the plain letter of the Holy Scriptures.
Behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name Jesus. He shall be great, and shall he called the Son of the Highest. -Luke i. 31, 32.
At verse 35, the angel adds, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow the ; therfore, also (xai, EVEN), that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
1. Was it the human nature of Christ, or the divine nature, exclusively, that was conceived and born of the Virgin ? Your scribes maintain, that in his divine nature only Christ is the Son of God; and the Scriptures teach us, that, in the same nature, he is the " only God," " over all, God blessed for ever." It is therefore clear, I think, either that the divine nature was conceived and born of the Virgin, and, consequently, that the only God owes his existence toa 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. I am quite perplexed with the opposition of the parties ; an angel, and the orthodox writers of the Wesleyan Conference, contradicting each other most pointedly, and no means of reconciling them! If the Scriptures had not said that this angel was Gabriel, who stood in the presence of God, and was sent by him, I should have been led to think that he was a character of a different description, who, for the purpose of deception, sometimes transforms himself into an angel of light. As the office you sustain among your brethren proves you to be a person of superior discernment, I earnestly beg you to inform myself and the public, whether of the two, the angel or the Conference, is entitled to credit. The question is proposed in its present form, on the supposition that you will not maintain that the divine nature exclusively, which is the only true God, was in debted to the Virgin for existence. Should you, however, prove this to have been the case, the complexion of the matter will be changed.
2. In the confession of Peter, we have no intimation of the question proposed by our Lord being understood in any sense but that which is expressed. The question is, Whom do men say that I, the SON of MAN, am? The answer is, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. The rejoinder of our Lord is, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjonah ; for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. Does Christ, by the phrase Son of man in this passage, refer to the divine nature, separately and exclusively? Certainly he does not. In his divine nature, he is the only God; and the Scriptures declare, that God is not man nor the son of man. One of your writers, Mr. Watson, tells us that the term is a Hebraism, which signifies a really human being. But we have seen that the inspired writers do not contemplate one nature of Christ as separate and distinct from the other. This term, then, like other terms applied to Christ, signifies his whole person as Immanuel: the complex character of our Lord is here meant. To cause this passage to harmonise with your orthodoxy, we must either make some addition to the text, and read, Whom do men say that I, the Son of man, am--in my divine nature exclusively? and thus become guilty of adding to the word of God; or, we must understand the text by the rule of contraries, and believe that it means exactly 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. Without the adoption of one of these rules, the text will always stand in opposition to the opinion which you call orthodox. The Conference are here found as pointedly in opposition to God himself; as, in the preceding passage, to the angel whom God sent to Mary and Joseph.
You will not fail to observe, that Christ pronounced Peter blessed in consequence of this confession ; and further declared, that upon this confession he would build his church. Christ and you are at issue in this matter. He blesses men for believing and confessing that in the same nature in which he was the Son of man, he was the Son the living God: for the same reasons, you charge men with heresy, curse them, expel them from your community, and consign them, without pity or remorse, to the empire of Satan.
3. When our Lord was questioned, upon oath, by the Jewish high priest, whether he was the Son of God, he answered, I am. But he certainly did not mean in his divine nature exclusively. He took especial care to name himself the Son of man, which epithet does not signify the Godhead exclusively. Now, as your writers have shown so clearly that Christ is the Son of God in his divine nature only and exclusively, in contradistinction to the human nature and the union of both, does it not follow that Christ was either opposed to the orthodox faith of the Conference, or chargeable with dissimulation? The Jews, like the Conference, held the notion, that God had a Son in his own nature; and any one in human form, claiming this character, was considered a blasphemer, and judged to be deserving of death. But Christ did claim this honour in human form; and in the same nature that he designated the Son of man, he maintained upon oath, that he was the Son of God. For doing this, his orthodox murderers denounced him as a blasphemer, and condemned him to death. If, Sir, the weightier meditations connected with your station would afford you the opportunity of taking the New Testament and collating Matthew xxvi. 63, 64, Mark xiv. 61-64, Luke xxii. 69, 70, 71, with John xix. 7, you would see at once the truth of this. The Jews, like the Conference, did not relish having their orthodoxy called in question, and would not allow it to be done. Christ did happen to contradict their views of the subject. They believed and taught a Sonship which was exclusiver divine: Christ maintained a claim to be Son of God in his cmnplex character as Immanuel ; and, therefore, to punish the blasphemy, and prevent it from spreading farther, they condemned him to death. For exactly the same reasons, the, Wesleyan Conference have been displeased with Dr. Clarke and myself. Him they persecuted to the grave with charges of heresy and false doctrine; myself they expelled from the Connexion. How strange, Sir, that the enlightened body of which you are so distinguished an ornament, should, on this subject, identify itself in doctrine, and, as far as possible, in practice, with the betrayers and murderers of the Son of God!
I ought, in this place, to inform you, that some of your friends have suggested to me the probability, that Christ might think it right to dissemble when he stood before the high-priest, for the purpose of facilitating the accomplishment of his Father's purposes. Yes, Sir, it has been supposed that the Redeemer of the world did not hesitate to do evil that good might come. I do not know how the matter may appear to your enlightened mind : but I must confess, that I felt horrified when it was submitted to me. When contending that Christ was charged with blasphemy, and condemned to death, for nothing else but claiming the title Son of God in the same nature in which he was the Son of man, I have been astounded with the question, " Might he not see good to conceal or disguise the truth of the case for the purpose of fulfilling his Father's designs?" Before your orthodox men will admit the force of divine truth, they will suppose the immaculate Son of God to have been a perjured dissembler. Had not the dreadful expedient been associated with long standing and high office in the Wesleyan Connexion, had it been the result of youth and thoughtlessness, or could it have been considered as one of those unguarded expressions which a candid opponent will always allow to be recalled, I should not have noticed it.
4. 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. -John xx. 31.
Your writers tell us, that Jesus signifies the humanity, and that Son of God signifies the divine nature exclusively. They divide the person of the Saviour into two parts, and make a distinction where God has made none. In this they are blameable: this unwarrantable procedure betrays them into direct opposition to the Scriptures. They maintain, that neither the human nature, nor the union of the two natures, has any connexion with the term Son of God. This, they say, is exclusively divine. Therefore, Jesus (which, they inform us, signifies the humanity) is absolutely no more the Son of God, than the coat which a man wears is a part of his person. In the face of these things, St. John says that his Gospel was written for the express purpose of bringing men to believe that Jesus is the Son of God; that is, according to your scribes, to make all men heretics. You are here found in opposition to the inspired Apostle, as well as to the Angel, to God himself, and to his dying Son. Either the Conference or the Apostle is most seriously at fault. Which of the parties is to be blamed, I leave you to determine.
5. Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God ?-1 John v. 5.
On this text, the late Rev. Joseph 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 couldnot have reckoned Jesus a blasphemer for calling himself Christ, the Son of God."
This Note contains two facts. First, we are informed that the Jews believed the God had a Son; and that his Sonship was exclusivelv divine: God and Son of God in the same nature. Secondly, we are reminded that these Jews denounced Jesus as a blasphemer, because he called himself the Son of God. If, then, these Jews admitted that God had a Son, and that their Messiah was to be the Son of God, how was it that they disallowed the claim of Jesus Christ to this appellation, and condemned himto death as a blasphemer? The answer is easy. Christ always connected his Sonship with his complex character, or with the inferior nature. The Jews considered that Sonship to be exclusively divine. He and they were always, therefore, at issue : his life was frequently in danger; and ultimately it was sacrificed in support of that view of the subject which they saw proper to reject.
We now see the meaningp of the text. The Jews scouted the idea of Jesus (which, your writers say, signifies the humanity, but which, it is shown above, cannot be applied to Christ but in his complex character) being the Son of God. in opposition to their idle fictions and inveterate prejudices, God has made it the duty of men to believe that Jesus, the complex person, is the Son of God ; and, upon believing this, they overcome the world : that is, notwithstanding the allurements and oppositions which it presents, they prove themselves faithful to God, and secure everlasting life.
This, Sir, is an awful text for you. You have adopted the Jewish notion of a Sonship in Deity exclusively divine, have rejected as heresy the Scriptural view of the subject, and by your conduct towards Dr. Clarke, myself, and others, have shown that the faith which overcomes the world is incompatible with Conference orthodoxy.
6. Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God -1 John iv. 15.
I need not inform you that dwelling in God signifies, in Scripture language, the highest attainments in Christian holiness. It is presumed that you will admit the fact, without any proof from me. All that I am concerned about at this time is, inquiring by what means is this high state of holiness to be attained? To this question the text replies, By confessing that Jesus is the Son of God.
It is a settled point with you and the Conference, that Jesus, whether taken to signify the human nature of Christ or his complex nature, is no more the Son of God than the garment which a man wears is the man himself : you insist upon it that the Sonship relates to pure Deity alone.
In opposition to this theory of yours, men are divinely commanded, in order to the attainment of holiness in this life, and glory hereafter, to believe and confess that Jesus, the complex person, is the Son of God.
I now ask, what was the cause of the cruel expulsion from the Wesleyan Connexion to which I have been subjected? You, Sir, shall have the honour of answering this question. I give your own words, spoken in the Leaders' Meeting at Gateshead, on Tuesday evening, September 2, 1834, and taken down by a person who was present :=" The Committe would gladly have retained Mr. Forsyth, if he had given them any ground to stand upon ; but, as he refused to give any pledge, they were left without any alternative ; THEY WERE OBLIGED TO EXPEL HIM."
The pledge you demanded was a promise, that I would never CONFESS, either publicly or privately, in conversation, in preaching, in writing, by publishing, or by any other means, that Jesus, the complex person, was the Son of God. This was the pledge, the dreadful PLEDGE, demanded at a meeting of Wesleyan Preachers in the town of Leeds, composed of Joseph Taylor, Edmund Grindrod, Richard Reece, William France, George Morley, William Leach, John Rigg, and Thomas Eastwood. And, because this pledge was not given; because I did not choose to renounce as heresy the dying confession of the Saviour of the world; or, like a despicable hypocrite, promise to disguise or conceal my belief of it, you had no alternative, but to expel me at once as an heathen or a publican, consign me to Satan, and doom a helpless family to want and wretchedness. This is the truth of the matter; and, of this, you convinced the friends at Gateshead clearly by your attempts to gloss it over. The proceedings of you and your brethren bring to mind a former case. It is recorded John xii. 42, 43 :- Nevertheless, among the chief rulers also many believed on him ; but, because of the Pharisees, they did not confess him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue; for they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God. Here we have characters who believed in Christ, but dared not confess him. This is precisely the character of many of the Wesleyan preachers. Of all that I have known, five out of every six are chargeable with the heresy in support of which the Saviour died, and for maintaining which you have expelled me. Even the Rev. Valentine Ward, who was officially appointed to cure me of heterodoxy, acknowledged that he no more believed in the orthodoxy of the Conference than myself. It will be useless to deny the fact : the Rev. Thomas Ingham was present, heard the acknowledgment, and circulated it far and wide. How is it, then, that Mr. Ward and Joseph Forsyth, equally chargeable with the same heresy, are so differently treated? He made Bishop of Jamaica; I expelled from the Body? The only reason to be assigned is that given by you: I refused to conceal for the purpose of pleasing men, what was acknowledged to be the truth of God. Your brethren, to please a set of men who govern the Connexion, do this. The do not, they dare not CONFESS, that Jesus is the Son of God, because their rulers disallow it. By this means, they prove themselves more anxious to please men than to please God; more fearful of the displeasure of the Conference than of the frown of the Almighty.
But confessing that Jesus is the Son of God is the appointed means, according to the text, of dwelling in God, and of being filled with the fulness of God. This is a state of blessedness which no Wesleyan preacher can hope to enjoy. The very confession upon which it is suspended, is prohibited by Conference; so much so, that, by your own declaration, I have been expelled from your venerable body for not pledging myself never to make it. All your brethren are reduced to the state signified at the head of this letter ; for, if they believe that Jesus is the Son of God, they are denounced as heretics ; if they CONFESS this truth, they are EXPELLED. As Wesleyan Methodism is now administered, no man living can come up to the Scriptural standard of faith and holiness, and be retained as a preacher in the body.
Appalling as the case is, it is undeniably true; and awful are the consequences. Christ declares, Whosoever, therefore, shall be ashamed me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful geeneration, of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels -Mark viii. 38.
You may scoff; but remember who it is that says, Whoso despiseth the word, shall be destroyed. You have despised the word of the Lord, and rejected the testimony which God has given of his Son. You confine the Sonship to pure Deity exclusively; God, Christ, the Angel, and Apostles, all concur in uniting it with the complex person of the Saviour. On this point the parties are at issue : God and the Conference are in pointed opposition. And not only so ; but you are determined that none but those equally guilty with yourselves shall have a place among you. Thus you have made Wesleyau Methodism decidedly antichristian ; a formal disavowal of divine truth being the test of the orthodoxy of every candidate admitted into the Body. No individual that dwells in God by faith and love, and in whom God dwells by his Holy Spirit, can now have a place in Methodism as a preacher.
7. I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God -Acts viii. 37.
This was the confession of the Ethiopian officer to Philip the Evangelist, upon making which he was baptized, and made a member of the church of Christ. He both believed and CONFESSED, that Jesus, the complex person, was the Son of God. And this was the reason, the SOLE REASON, why he was baptized, and made a member of the Christian church. I, Sir, have been charged with the heresy of believing, and with the crime of CONFESSING, that Jesus, the complex person, is the Son of God; and the latter of these, by your own statement, at the Leaders' Meeting in Gateshead, was the reason, the SOLE REASON, why you had no alternative but to proceed to an act of expulsion. Thus the very confession of faith which, in the days of the Apostles, admitted into the church of Christ, is now considered a heresy so vile as to justify and require an act of expulsion from your venerable body. How singular that the faith and practice of the primitive church, and those of VVesleyan Methodism, should be in such furious opposition ! What admitted into the former, excludes from the latter.
8. For my Father is greater than I.
Your writers inform us that the Sonship of Jesus Christ belongs to his divine nature, or Deity only, and exclusively. In this passage Christ speaks of himself as the Son God; and in this character declares, My Father is greater than I. If, then, the Sonship, or filial character, of Christ belongs to Deity exclusively, it is clear that we have two Deities, a filial one and a paternal one; and that the latter is greater than the former. Here we find ourselves floundering in the depths of Arianism; If you say, It was in his human nature that he was inferior to the Father, then what becomes of the position so confidently assumed; namely, that the filial character belongs to Deity exclusively? for it cannot be denied that he speaks in the filial character. Whatsoever nature it was to which the character of Son belonged, in that nature Christ maintains, My Father is greater than I. Unless, then, we suppose this declaration of our Lord to be decidedly untrue; or make, in idea. or in words, some addition to it, so as to alter its meaning, we must either admit the doctrine of an inferior Deity, which, Mr. Wesley says, " shocks our sense," or reject the notion of the Sonship belonging to Deity exclusively, as being unscriptural and absurd.
9. The Son can do nothing of himself; but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these doeth the Son likewise. For the Father loveth the Son, and showeth him all things that himself doeth : and he will show him greater works than these, that ye may marvel. --John v. 19, 20.
Are we to explain this passage by the postulatum which forms the basis of your orthodox faith? namely, that Son of God signifies the divine nature exclusively. If so, we must again adopt the notion of an inferior Deity, and believe that this inferior Deity can neither know nor do anything, but as actuated and taught by the Supreme --a Deity as helpless as ourselves ! This is the inevitable consequence of restricting Sonship to Deity exclusively.
10. And to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead.--1 Thess. i. 10.
Was it in the divine nature exclusively that God raised his Son from the dead? Your writers teach us, that, in his divine nature only, Christ is at once, naturally and exclusively, the Son of the living God. In whatever nature he was the Son of God, in that nature God raised him from the dead. Unless, then, we suppose that Deity itself was subjected to death, and raised from the dead, we must renounce the orthodox notion of the Sonship of Christ belonging to the divine nature exclusively.
And now, Sir, what have you to say to these plain statements? I do not ask you to disprove them. You will never attempt to do it. They are clear; they are unanswerable ; they are level with the meanest capacity. Every attempt to evade their force would only prove the hopelessness of the undertaking. And yet, Sir, you must refute them. or stand chargeable, before God and man, with having rejected the truth of God and the confession of his dying Sun ; with having misled the simple, unsuspecting followers of the Redeemer of the world, by teaching them to despise as heresy and blasphemy that truth, THAT VERY TRUTH, which the dying Saviour maintained upon OATH, and sealed with his PRECIOUS BLOOD. In this you are verily guilty. And you are conscious of it. Your error has been pointed out ; and by your invariable refusal to allow your orthodoxy to be tried by Scripture, you have shown a consciousness that it would not abide the test. As to the flimsy excuse that this truth is not Methodistical, it is nonsense. What, Sir! is the truth which stands thus prominently on the sacred page, no part of Methodism ? Cannot Methodism be supported but by making God a liar, and the Saviour of the world a blasphemer ? So you say. Well, Sir, if this is true, God will destroy you and your Methodism. That God may give you repentance to the acknowledging of the truth, and recover you from the snare of the devil, are the desire and prayer of
Yours truly,
JOSEPH FORSYTH.
------------
LETTER II.
TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE WESLEYAN-METHODIST CONFERENCE.
Harken not unto the words of the prophets that propphesy unto you: they make you vain : they speak a vision of their own heart and not out of the mouth of the Lord -JER. xxiii. l6.
SIR,
Having shown you, that the great truth, for adhering to which you persecuted Dr Clarke and expelled me, was taught by an angel from heaven, revealed by God to Peter, maintained by Christ upon oath, and made the means of admission into the Christian church, of overcoming the world, and of dwelling in God, I think that little more need be said upon the subject; but, as some of your followers have told me that " vevy strong things have been wrztten on the other side of the question," I beg permission to trouble you with another letter, hoping that you will allow me to put these " strong things" to the test.
The test by which I shall try these strong things is, the Holy Scriptures. I do this, because, though you have rejected as heresy and false doctrine that particular truth in defence of which the Saviour died, yet I have not learned that you have rejected the whole of the Scriptures , and, until you do this, I presume you will not deny that the test is legitimate. I now take up your writers on the subject, seriatim, and shall endeavour to treat them with candour and fairness.
Mr. Moore has written in support of this doctrine, and proved its truth chie?y by Mr. Wesley's Hymns and the Nicene Creed. These things, however excellent, are not the Holy Scriptures; and, though the doctrine is certainly found in these hymns, it does not follow that it is found in the Word of God.
He then adduces Proverbs viii. 22, and gravely teaches that the wisdom there mentioned is the eternal Son of God. But, first, it never has been, it never can be proved, that the original word is used to signify the Son of God at all. It is used to signify that property by which we ascertain the best end, and are led to adopt the best means to secure it. Secondly, the inspired writers tell us, that by this property they mean the fear of the Lord. This is not the same thing as Eternal Sonship. (Job xxviii. 28; Psalm cxi. 10; Prov. ix. 10.) Thirdly, 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.
Proverbs xxx. 4, is adduced as a further proof. A little attention, however, to the passage, will convince any one that it speaks of neither God nor his Son. Your commentator, Mr. Benson, has proved this in his Notes on the place.
We are then directed to John x. 30, in reference to which Mr. Moore informs us, that " the Jews knew that there were a Father and a Son in the Godhead, abstractedly from every thing creaturely."
We know the Jews believed in a Sonship which was exclusively divine ; and we also know, that, because our Lord united the character of Son of God either with the complex or with the inferior nature, he and they were always at issue. In this chapter he claims the lofty character in the nature in which he laid down his life for the sheep, which could not be the divine. At his doing this, they took umbrage, and began to stone him. How strange that Mr. Moore should suppose these ignorant Jews to be right, and Christ to be wrong! And yet we must admit, either that he did suppose this, or that he did not understand the subject.
Another proof of Eternal Sonship Mr. Moore finds in 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 Eternal Sonship. 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 of one of these persons generating or producing another. 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. Does the letter of Scripture allow us any other mode of interpretation ?
Mr. Moore treats the phrase Eternal Word, with what appears to me unbecoming levity. The sacred writer tells us, " the Word was God." Mr. Moore disallows this, and will have it that the term merely signi?es something that God spoke or said, and then makes merry with the supposed anomaly. Whether such a way of perverting the Scriptures, and then laughing at the absurdities which such a perversion involves, is becoming in a professed minister of the Gospel, I leave you to determine.
Mr. Moore also informs us that the safety of the Connexion depends upon maintaining this doctrine. Pray, Sir, what kind of a connexiom must that be, the safety of which depends upon rejecting the testimony which God has given of his Son ? The safety of a religious connexion, like that of our souls, depends upon the divine blessing; and we shall hardly I secure that by attributing falsehood to the God of truth.
Because, then, Mr. Moore adduces passages of Scripture, in support of this doctrine, which have no relation to it, disallows the truth of what the Apostle so clearly states, and makes the rejection of the truth of God necessary to the existence of Methodism; the " strong things" which he has written upon the subject serve but to convince me that he is decidedly at variance with the word of God.
Another of your friends, the late Edward Hare, wrote on the subject. The proofs of this doctrine adduced by Mr. Hare, are, John i. 1--14; Col. i. 15; Phil. ii. 5; and Heb. i. 2.
On the first of these passages, the author fails to distinguish between the language employed by the Apostle in speaking of Christ prior to the incarnation and subsepuent to it; and, by rather a strange oversight, unites the posterior appelation with the anterior state. By this means, a plausible argument is found for the Eternal Sonship. You will. allow, Sir, that this is not a legitimate mode of procedure.
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 being which the Father produced; and thinks that any other signi?cation is far-fetched. But, in the admirable work entitled " A Preservative from the Errors of Socinianism," he allows, that the some word, in the original, signifies first-producer, bringerforth, or cause of all things. Mr. Parkhurst shows that this is the radical meaning of the word, and that, by a slight variation in the tense, it is also used to signify to be brought forth. As, then, the word has two meanings, in which of these are we to understand it in this passage? If we say, Christ was the first thing produced, and allow, that by him all things were made or produced, then, of course, we say that he produced himself, which involves the absurdity of supposing agency and action prior to existence. But, if we understand the word in an active rather than a passive sense, and read, 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 obliged to adopt this rendering, and this sets aside the apparent proof of Eternal Sonship. It is useless to object. We must either reject the notion of Christ being, in his divine nature, the first thing produced, or deny that he produced all things, or plunge into the absurdity of supposing that he produced himself. You may adopt which of these alternatives you please.
In Phil. ii. 5, the Apostle is not speaking of Christ in his divinitv, or Godhead, only: he speaks of him here, as in every other place, in his complex character. Jesus the Christ, born of the Virgin, was the representative of the invisible God. As such, he exercised divine authority in forgiving the sins of the guilty, and exhibited all the attributes of God in his own person. If it should be still contended, as it has been by commentators generally, that in this passage the inspired writer speaks of Christ in his pre-existent state, then it must be admitted, that the phraseology of the test is flatly against it. The Apostle does not use the term Son of God, which. your scribes say, signi?es the divine nature exclusively; but he uses the terms JESUS CHRIST, which, they inform us, relate to the humanity; but which terms, in the Holy Scriptures, signify neither the one nature nor the other, but the union of the two. In his pre-existent state, he is the invisible God: in his incarnate state, he is God manifest in the ?esh, or shown to mortals in human form. In this state only, he is called the image of the invisibla God, the express image of his person, and represented as being in the form of God.*
Heb. i. 9, By whom also he maade the worlds. A great stress is laid upon this passage, and it is pronounced a clear proof that God had a Son before the creation, and, consequently, from eternity. Did it never strike your mind, Sir, that there is no such passage as our translators have made of this, in the Holy Scriptures? The word, in the original, is not (greek), world; but (greek), ages. The term is used to denote the Jewish and Christian dispensations. By his Son, God completed these ; ful?lled the former, and founded the latter. Now, Sir, if you, like some of your brethren, should charge me with Socinianism, Arianism, and semi-in?delity, however painfully such unkind, unfair charges, may be felt, yet it is certainly true that ages, not worlds, is the word in the original text. But I feel satis?ed that you will not act the part that some of your brethren have acted. Your office in the Connexion obliges me to a admit, that, with talents of the first order, you combine learning suf?cient to examine the text for yourself; and, upon doing this, you will at once be satis?ed that I speak the truth.
But, Sir, anxious to allow you every apparent proof of the truth of your orthodoxy, I will even suppose that the text is correctly translated, though you know the supposition is contrary to fact, and compare it with a few others. Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him, 1 Cor. viii. 6; God, who created all things by Jesus Christ, Eph. iii. 9. I will not multiply passages, but just ask, do not your writers tell us that Jews signifies the humanity of our Lord ? And yet, in these passages, we read of Jesus creating all things. Well, Sir, does it not follow, then, that the human nature of Christ, as well as the divine, existed before creation, and consequently from eternity? I know that your better judgment will unhesitatingly say,-No. Well, but you must allow, that, "at all events, if to say that God made the worlds by his Son, necessarily proves that the Logos was then a Son when he made the worlds ; the same reasoning will, of course, prove that he was then Jesus and Christ also, that is, a complex person having a human nature, because it is said God created all things by Jesus Christ."
I am persuaded that a person of your candour and intelligence will, by this time, acknowledge, that, in the person of Christ, godhead and manhood were united ; and that, under the terms Jesus and Son of God, the inspired writers speak of him, whether they mean the man of sorrows, or the Divinity which dwelt in him. I shall, therefore, only add, that, because Mr. Hare has overlooked a distinction made by the Apostle,
" ' (greek), in the classical sense anciently attached to it, means (I) Foundation, substratum; (2) steadfastness, courage; (3) purpose, determination: (4) substance, essence, being. In the sense of person. it first began to be used by the Greek writers, till offer the Arian controversy commenced. It was employed particularly in this way by Athanasius, in order that he might make a distinction between (greek): and (greek), while he maintained that the person: in the Trinity were of one substance, but were (greek). The sense of person, then, being attached to this word long after the New Testament was written, it cannot be properly assigned to the word here. It plainly retains the more ancient meaning of substance or essence. " " If God be represented under the image of substance, essence, than is Christ the developement of that substance to our view; he is the image, representation, or delineation of it "--Stuart on Heb. i. 3. The old Syriac version renders (greek) by his substance. The term, person, then, on which so much stress is laid by the Conference writers, is found to be a perversion of holy writ, invented solely for party purposes.
used a word in one sense which he shows includes another, and applied to the godhead of Christ passages which refer to his incarnate state only, the "strong things" which he has written have not convinced me that he is not mistaken.
The late Mr. Robert Martin wrote to establish this doctrine of the Eternal Sonship. He cites Rom. i. 4 :-- Declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit holiness, by the resurrection from the dead. This passage is pronounced by Mr. Martin and others an unanswerable proof of the Eternal Sonship of Jesus Christ. They talk a good deal about the antithesis between according to the spirit and according to the ?esh. Now, Sir, with all deference to these antithetical gentlemen, it is a certain fact, that, in whatever nature Christ was the Son of God, in the same nature, both Peter and Paul declare, God raised him from the dead. God having raised up his Son Jesus, Acts iii. 26 ; And to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, even Jesus, which delivereth from the wrath to come- 1 Thess. i. 10. In these passages, we have two facts. (l) The term Jesus. which, your writers tell us, signi?es the human nature, is identi?ed with the Son of God; his Son JESUS. (2)This Son was raised from the dead. Was it the human nature of Christ, or the divine, that was raised from the dead? Will you answer this question? if you say the human, then you must either reject the sacred text, or abandon the orthodox notion of Christ being the Son of God in his divine nature only ; because, in the same nature in which he rose from the dead, he is declared to be the Son of God. If you say the divine, then you contradict the Scriptures, because they teach, that, as MAN, God raised him from the dead. (Acts xvii. 31.) There is no alternative. To preserve your orthodoxy, you must reject the sacred text, and thus become chargeable with in?delity; or you must relinquish your orthodoxy, in admitting the truth of Scripture ; and then your brethren will serve you as you have served me, cast you out as an heretic. To maintain both, is impossible; because they are contradictmy. The Holy Scriptures and your orthodoxy cannot exist together.
Mr. Martin adduces Psalm ii. 12, as a further proof of his doctrine. Now, Sir, if you will only examine Arts iv. 23-28, with xii. 33, you will see clearly that the Psalm is a prediction of Gospel times, and says no more about Eternal Sonship than about the diameter of the moon. Mr. Martin then adduces John xvii. 24, For thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world. Is this passage a proof of Eternal Sonship? I ask this question, because Christ himself assigns a reason different from eternal generation as the cause of his Father's love. Therefore doth my Father love me, because I laid down my life, that I might take it again -John x. 17. Again, Sir, if you compare Isaiah xlii. l, with Matt. xii. 18-21, you will see clearly, that, in the same nature in which Christ was the Father's servant, he was the object of the Father's delight and love. Mr. Martin's theory, then, though very ingenious, is certainly at variance with Scripture.
Mr. Martin's great proof of the Eternal Sonship, however, is found in the confession of our Lord before the Jewish high-priest. He here triumphs like one who has won the battle. Now, Sir, I have shown you, in my former letter, that our Lord does not, in that confession, refer to the divine nature exclusively, but either to the complex or to the human nature. He distinctly named himself the Son of man; and, as such, maintained the claim to the title Son of God. By this he was understood to claim, in human nature, a title which the Jews, as well as the Wesleyan Methodist Conference, supposed to be exclusively divine. And for this, and this only, he was charged with blasphemy, and condemned to death. What notion, Sir, will the public form of the learning, ability, and consistency, of Wesleyan-Methodist Preachers, after witnessing such a proof of sagacity as this? A man writing to correct such a scholar as Adam Clarke, and enlighten the world with his orthodoxy! A man, honoured by his brethren with appointments to the first Circuits in the Connexion, and yet this man so profoundly ignorant as not to know that the phrase Son of man neither does nor can signify pure, essential Deity ! I have no wish to violate the dictates of that charity which ought to cover the failings of the dead; but writers live in their works : though dead, they speak. And not only so, but they live in the consequences produced by their writings; and, by such authors as this, the simple are perverted from the ways of truth, when the writers are mouldering in the grave. There is nothing in this writer's performance deserving of farther notice: his work may, therefore, be dismissed: Because, then, this writer proves himself incapable of understanding the meaning of a single passage of Scripture, the " strong things" which he has written are lost upon me.
The late Richard Watson took much pains to demonstrate the Scriptural character of the Eternal Sonship. I believe him to have been the most powerful writer you ever had on this subject. Let us, therefore, proceed to examine his writings.
1. Mr. Watson tells us, that the disciples saw in the glory of the only begotten of the Father, a glory beyond that of human nature merely. This is a mere truism: the only-begotten of the Father is Immanuel, and, as far as a person, whose descriptive name is Immanuel, transcends in dignity a mere mortal, so far must his glory exceed the glory of a mortal. But what has this to do with Eternal Sonship? This argument, like many others, is built upon the supposition, that those who reject the eternal generation theory, make the Son of God to he a mere man.
2. Mr. Watson informs us, that, if Christ was not the Son of God in his divine nature, he could not be the Son of God at all, because his human nature was produced by the Holy Ghost.
In the Scriptures we read, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee. Here we ?nd the first and third persons in the Trinity acting. In Heb. ii. 14, the Apostle says. Forasmuch, then, as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same. in this passage the second person is described as acting. The incarnation, then, was not the work of the Holy Ghost merely, but of the whole Godhead. The objection thus disappears; because it arises solely from the supposition of this work being, done by the Holy Spirit only, distinctly and separately considered. Is it not rather strange, Sir, that a writer of Mr. Watson's repute for Biblical information, should prove so de?cient in his acquaintance with the Scriptures? And is it not still more strange, that this ?ction, should have found its way into almost every publication which has since appeared on that side of the question? Such quibbles as this are enough to excite suspicion of the intentions of the men who resort to them, and to lead us to suppose that they intend to burlesque the doctrines which they profess to maintain.
3. Mr. Watson lays much stress upon thé notion of essential paternity and informs us, that " to deny the eternal filiation of the Second Person in the Trinity, is to deny the essential paternity of the First."
The essential paternity of the First Person in the Trinity is nowhere taught in the Scriptures. The ground of God's paternal relation to Christ is exactly the same with that of his paternal relation to Solomon ; God says, I have chosen him my son, and I will be his father.-1 Chron. xxxiii. 6. This is not the language of essential paternity; what is the matter of choice is not essential, nor, by any possibility, can be. God's will and pleasure are the only reasons assigned for his relation of father to either Solomon or Christ. How singular, that men should take for granted, as indisputable axioms, notions which are ?atly contradictory to the Holy Scriptures !
4. Mr. Watson contends, that it is necessary to believe that Christ was given in his divine nature for the sins of men, in order to have right conceptions of the love of God.
To have right conceptions of the love of God, we must attend to the statements of Scripture upon this subject. By them we are taught, that, as the SON of MAN, he was to go as it was written of him, " It is written of the SON of MAN that he must suffer many things; and the SON of MAN shall be delivered unto the chief priests, and unto the scribes; and they shall condemn him to death, and shall deliver him to the Gentiles, and they shall mock him, and shall scourge him, and shall spit upon him, and shall kill him, and the third day he shall rise again. The hour is come, that the SON of MAN should he glori?ed." These passages might be greatly multiplied ; and they all connect the sufferings of Christ with the nature in which he was the Son of man. The language of the Scriptures is extremely guarded upon this subject; and it invariably unites the sufferings of the Redeemer with the inferior nature. Mr.Watson. however, is of a different mind, and expressly informs us, that, " though he were a Son, a divine person, and under no obligations, yet even he, identi?ed with a suffering nature, learned obedience by the things, which he suffered." And, to prevent mistakes, he adds, " The Son stands there as a designation to be taken in the exclusive sense of positive divinity." As, then, the Scriptures always connect the sufferings of Christ with his human nature, and Mr. Watson connects them with the divine nature, it is clear that he and they are again at issue.
5. Mr. Watson cites the following passage:- And 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 —Micah v. 2?.
This is considered an important passage in proof of eternal generation ; and yet it really says nothing about it. It is contended, that the Hebrew word, rendered goings forth, is frequently used to denote a birth. This is allowed; but still the word cannot mean eternal generation in this place :—-First, because its plural form signifies a. succession of acts; and eternal generation admits of no succession, of no repetition; Secondly, its grammatical form restricts these successive acts to Christ himself, not extending them to the Father. To make this passage, then, a proof of eternal generation, is to make it signify an eternal generation often repeated ; and, What is equally repugnant to Scripture and common sense, the person, thus repeatedly the subject of an eternal generation, is made to generate himself. I appeal to you whether the original word will bear any other construction. You know it will not,- and, therefore, you must admit, that pressing this passage into the support of Eternal Sonship, is a ?agrant perversion of the Holy Scriptures.
6. For, as the Father hath life in himself , so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself—John v. 26. r. "Watson says this can only refer to the divine nature. Our Lord, however, was of a contrary way of thinking. He says it was because he was the SON quAN. 7. Whom he hath appointed heir of all things.—Heb. i. 3. By turning to Rev. xxi. 7, we read, He that overcometh shall inherit all things. Does this prove an eternal generation on the part of the faithful followers of Christ? If not, how can it prove one on the part of their Saviour P 8. But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is jar ever and even- Heh. i. 8. Does this text apply to Christ in his divine nature exulusivcly, or to him in his kingly state as the Messiah P It can only apply to him in the latter sense; because the king here called God has for him self a god. (2.) The same king has associates or fellows. The whole psalm, from which the text is quoted, treats of the Messiah in his kingly of?ce only, and can be understood in no other sense. The word elohim is a title given to earthly kings in Scripture, (Psalm lxxxii. 1—6, comp. John x. 35,) and therefore cannot but be properly applied to Christ in his of?cial or mediatorial character. (5.) The perpetuity of the kingdom here mentioned is connected with the Saviour's character by Daniel vii. 13) as the Son ofman; and by Luke (i. 33) with the holy child esns, born of Mary. These things show that the passage cannot be applied to Christ in his divine nature exclusively, without involving a multiplicity of deities, and going contrary to the sense of the Holy' Scriptures. It contains, strictly speaking, no direct proof of the deity of Christ, much less of his Eternal Sonshipf
9. Moses, verily, was?ti?ful in (1/1 his house as a SERVANT, but Christ as a SON over his own home - Heb. iii. 6. With thispassage I and all the critics perplexed - not one of them is satisfied about its particular meaning. I shall not, therefore, attempt what so many have failed to accomplish ; namely, to give a satisfactory interpretation of it. It may be just observed, however, that, in whatever things Christ was superior to Moses, the Apostle certainly does not mention eternal generation as one of them. Mr. Watson informs us, that to be a Son in this passage is to be a Creator. Suppose we allow that the character of Son is here associated with that of Creator, what do we gain? Is not the character of Jews Christ, which, the same writer con tends, signifies the humanity, associated with that of Creator . 9 (I Cor. viii. 6; Eph. iii.‘9.) Now, Sir, you will not maintain that these passages prove the Logos to have been incarnate before the Creation ; and, con sequently, you cannot maintain that the others prove him to have been a Son before that period, 10. Much stress is laid upon such passages as, The Father SENT the Son ; and it is contended, that, if God had not a properly only-begotten Son before the incarnation, and consequently from eternity, there would have been no Son to send. Hence an argument for the Eternal Sonship. T his argument, however, proves too much. “70 read, “ Anal Jesus Christ whom thou hast SENT ;" “ There was a man SENT from God, whose name was John." Does the fact of Jams, which your writers say “‘Stuartlnlm The deity of Christ is taught clearly in verse: 10 and it 5 but not in the new: passage.signifies the humanity, and of John the Baptist, being sent by God, prove them to have been the subjects of an eternal generation I? If not, how can the same expressions prove an eternal generation on the part of the Son of God? Is not such arguing like a drowning man catching at straws ? . ll. Baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. On this and such-like passages, it is contended, that the term Son must be understood in the exclusive senseqfcliz'inity, because it w- 'nld be idolatrous to perform a religious rite in the name of an inferior being. This is the meaning of the argument, allowing that it has any meaning. This argument, like others, proves too much. \Ve rend, Rel/em. and be baptized el'ery one quou, in the name quems Christ,_fhr the remission qfsins; and ye shall receive the gift qfthe Holy Ghost—Acts ii. 38. Pray, Sir, (lo the terms Jesus Christ in this passage signify exclusive divinin ? H0, certainly. Your writers make them to signify the human nature of our Lord. According to these gentlemen, then, an act of idolatry is enjoined by divine authority, and the pardon of sin and the gift of the Spirit are connected with doing it. Allow me to set down a few more passages. 4 Only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.—Acts viii. 16. When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jams—A cts xix. 5. Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death iii—Rom. vi. 3. Now, Sir, you cannot but see, that, however contrary to the orthodox faith, or to orthodox practice, the fact may be; yet it is undeniably true, that the Apostles baptized, not in the name of the Son of God, as signifying Deity exclusively, but in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, signifying his complex character,—-the onfy meaning in which the terms are used in Scripture.As a. general truth, it may be stated, that the Holy Scriptures af?rm nothing of Christ, as the Son of God, but what they equally u?rm of him as the Jesus of Nazareth, born of the Virgin. This is a truth, Sir, which you cannot deny without risking your credit for Biblical know ledge. Nothing, thcrefore, can be proved of him by those records under the one appellation, but what, by the same authority, can be proved of him under the other. This lays the are to the root of your orthodoxy, and proves that it has no foundation, but in giving a di?'eremre ofsign? Gil/i073 tn terms, which, in the Holy Scriptures, are perfeolly synonym-"us. This is an incontrovertible fact; and, as it sets aside all possibility of showing that Eternal Sonship has any countenance from Holy \Vrit, the “strong things" which Mr. \Vatson has written will never weigh one iota with those wno patiently. investigate and virtually believe the Scriptures. Others have written upon the same subject, and have exhibited con siderable dexterity in conducting the argument; but, as they ailvav 0 nothing beyond what I have noticed above, you will not wish me to enter upon a formal analysis of their productions. At the same time, anxious to direct you to every needful source of information, I would just recom mend to your notice a work lying before me, bearing the following title :— "l‘he lVor/zs of ISAAC A MBRosE, acme lime M'inisler of Gnntnng, in [mm cashire ; to which is prc?wed, some Account of his Life. A new edition, revised and corrected. By JOHN Wasnm', M.A., late Fellow of Lincoln College, Oxford. Fifth Edition. _ . ,In this volume, the doctrine of the Trinity is stated in a clear and Scriptural manner. The Eternal Sonship is also considered; and per haps every argument and passage of Scripture that have been adduced in support of it are fairly examined. With a few extracts from this admi rable and unanswerable work, I conclude this letter :— “ If eternal generation be a truth, it requires empress revelation to support it: nothing short of a divine discovery could possibly make it known : without this, every thing concerning the Trinity is beyond the reach of the most intelligent to investigate by reasoning and implication. Here created capacities are limited, and at their ne plus ultra. This is one glory of divine revelation, that it discovers things otherwise un searchable. But where is that tart which teacheth us Eternal Sons-hip ? Or that the divine person of the Lord Jesus Christ was begotten by an act of eternal generation ? Had God made known the truth of it, we‘ were bound to believe it, though we could not de?ne the manner of it. But, for my own parthI freely confess, after many years' search, I never could, and I suppose it would puzzle the world, to ?nd the least hint of any eternal generation in all the word of God. There is not one text, where the Lord Jesus is called the eternal Son of God, or where it is said that he was begotten from eternity. That he is the eternal Goal, is manifest from abundance of Scriptures ; but that he is an eternal Son, the divine oracles no where insinuate. Eternal generation is merely the product of man's invention; for it cannot be gathered from the reVe— lation by the remote-st consequence. Now, as this doctrine is not taught in the word of God, and is even contrary to reason and cOmmon sense; must it not be adults/rating the precious truths of Goal, abusing the reason of mankind, and doing violence to the rights of conscienre, to press upon men, who will not be ruled in matters of faith by the dictatesof men, such a notion as a fundamental article of the Christian faith ? “ Now, though both the Apostles and other converts freely, and very frequently, confessed their faith in the Son of Goal, which is proved above to be the same with believing in Jesus Christ, in New Testament language, yet it is strange, that neither Christ, his Apostles, nor any other, whose souls were filled with the spirit and grace of God, ever gave the least" hint about eternal generation ; or, that the divine person of Christ was begotten, and that he had the divine nature communicated to him from the Father .' Is not the doctrine of Christ, and the Apostles, sufficient ground for our faith, without so many ditferent ideas as the wisdom of men has presumptuously added thereto? “ Though the divinity of Christ shines clearly in every age of the New Testament, and must be included in his character as the all-sufficient Saviour, by every one that believeth in him; yet the wisdom of God directed the Apostles net to break in upon the prejudiced Jews and blinded Gentiles with the blaze of the deity of Christ; but to lead them by degrees from the knowledge of Jesus of Nazareth, the Son of Man, to the knowledge of Jesus the Messiah, the Son of God, their prophet, priest, and king from the revelation of Christ the Saviour to the revelation of Christ the TRUE Gon' anal eternal life—from the dis covery of the presence of God with him, as sent for the salvation of men, to the doctrine of himself being the true and eternal God. Thus they taught."aud thus they believed, without limiting his character as a Son to his rur'tr. nsi‘rv, much less to an eternal generation. “ [Eternal generation if an invention of men, who pretend to be smbassadors of Christ, that they may rank with the Apostles; and, not content with this, they will assume the power of dictating articles of faith, and introducing their mysteries into religion, besides the myste ries and counsel of God, which the Apostle had in commission to Open up and declare to the churches. Paul tells the Corinthians, that the Apostles were stewards of the ntysteries of God, and in a very solemn manner declares to the elders of the church of Ephesus, that he had kept back nothing that was pro?table to them, but had declared to them ALL the counsel of God. Now, as the Apostle never mentions eternal generation, nor any thing like it, in his epistles to those 01' any other of the churches, it must be concluded by every one who is disposed to believe the Apostle, that eternal generation is none of the mysteries of God, no part of HIS counsel made known to men, nor any way profitable to them. The making it an article of faith, must therefore be a proud attempt to add to the counsel of God, and an impeachment of the Apostles with the crimes of falsehood and un?iithfulnnss, in affirming that they had declared ALL the counsel of God, while they kept back that momentous point, eternal generation. “ It is a suf?cient reason to reject any human scheme introduced into religion, which hath not the stamp of divine authority, when it is used with more advantage by adversaries against the truth, than it can he by friends in defence thereof. What countenance those of the Aria» per suasion have in this scheme, is evident from the advantage they have taken from it to dishonour the Lord of Ii e. To this is curing their success, since some of their modern advocates have re?ned the Arian hypothesis, by grafting on a stock so near of kin to this scheme, that they take occasion from it to insult the faith of Christians, and reproach the doctrine of the Deity of our Lord Jesus, as if it had no better argu ments to su port it.“ The a nity betwixt this scheme and the Arian hypothesis, shows it to be a very unnecessary opposition which the Ariana have maintained for many years against it, which is only founded on the different ideas the contending parties aflix to the same words. For, there is very little in what is called the orthodox explanation of the Trinity, to hinder the strictest Arian in the world to subscribe it. The words used in it, can not, by the unprejudiced, be understood in any other sense, than the Ariam contend. And, perhaps, the most intelligent amongthem, would ?nd some diliiculty to express their own sentiments in stronger terms, than theprelended onruooox have done for them,- which incoherent, unscriptural notions, have contributed more to the growth of Arianism than all other means besides." Now, Sir, I have examined the “ strong things" which your orthodox writers have ublished in proof of the Eternal Sonship, and found them unscriptural £031 first to last ,- and no wonder. Whoever would‘have dreamed, orthodox men excepted, of proving by Scripture, that the doetrine revealed by God to Peter, and maintained upon oath in the good confession of the dying Redeemer, was error, heresy. or blarph emy 5’ And yet, Sir, your writers have done this. it is true that they have pro fessedly directed their strong things against the supposed errors of Dr Adam Clarke; but, until it is shown that God did not reveal to Peter, that Christ, in the some nature in which he was the Son of man, was also the Son of God, and that Christ, in maintaining his claim to the title Son of God, did not particularly name himself the Son of man, it mustbe admitted that Adam Clarke, Jesus Christ, and his HEAVEN LY FA THER, are mutually implicated in your charges of error and heresy. You maintain this antiscriptural dogma because, you say, “ It is Wes leyan." And yet from a volume purporting to have been ‘_‘ revised and corrected by JOHN WESLEY," I have adduced testimony that it is un scriptuml, an invention of men, and'cannot be made an article of faith without impeaching the Apostles of falsehood and unfaithfulness ; that it is Arion in its character, and has done more, in the hands of orthodoa.‘ men, to contribute to the growth of Arianism, than all other means be sides. And yet, in the face of these testimonies, you assert, that you are only, as faithful men, preserving \Vesleyan doctrine in its purity, by persecuting and expelling from your venerable body, the men who prefer the truth of God to the inventions of men. You boast wonder fully hecause the dogma is found in Mr. Wesley’s Notes and Hymns. The fact is admitted; and you will also admit that Mr. Wesley published to the world, that “ our Redeemer from everlasting had not the inferior name of Son.” On this subject he certainly is found maintaining both sides of the question ; sometimes supporting the scriptural \iew of the question with clearness and point; at other times bewildered and misled by what you call orthodoxy. But, Sir, is it either wise or dutiful, or even humane, to treat Mr. ‘vVesley as you treat him ? His deference to orthodox creeds misled him ; and induced him, undesignedly no doubt, to appear like the patron of a dogma which in his happier moments he rejected as a dogma repugnant to Scripture, a mere human invention, and the stronghold of Arianism. When thus misled, you lay hold of him, expose his weakness to all the world, and do all you possibly can to invite attention to a proof of human frailty, which all who truly revere his memory, wish to keep in the shadeI admit, that, in doing this, you are only doing as one, at least, had done before. A younger son did sport with a parent's weakness, and thus set the example which you have not failed to imitate. But, Sir, that younger son became the subject of a dreadful curse in consequence ; and, as you, and your friends, like him, delight in exposing to view a parent’s frailty, you will do well to cease to do evil before you be in volved in a. similar calamity. In pretending to maintain this dogma under the plea that it is either Scriptural or Wesleyan, you are charge able with collusion, and justly so. The Scriptures teach nothing of the kind; and the writings of John Wesley can only he made to teach it, by setting them at variance with themselves, and with the book of God. Should the members of your Connexion be ever brought so far to the knowledge of the truth, as to be able to take ?rth the precious?om the vile, and distinguish between the truths of God and the sayings of men, they will rise in the mass, and banish for ever from their pulpits the men who abuse them by teaching for doctrines the traditions of men. That you may be saved from the condemnation of persisting to pervert the Scriptures and persecute your brethren, is the prayer of
Yours, &c.
JOSEPH FORSYTH.