611

say, that God has constituted man a freeagent? There is nothing necessarily incompatible in the two terms thus understood. Where then is the difficulty? I leave the reader to make his own inference.

66

Euphronius denies that the Calvinist says, "God must know as necessary, what in his own eternal counsel he has made contingent." I shall endeavour to shew the contrary, though not in just so many words. It is a conclusion rather than a quotation, which I logically drew from a syllogism composed of Calvinian materials. And to verify the truth of my position here, I shall again refer to Mr. Buck:" The antinecessarians," says Mr. Buck, suppose that the doctrine of necessity charges God as the author of sin; that it takes away the freedom of the will, renders man unaccountable, makes sin to be no evil, and morality or virtue to be no good; precludes the use of means, and is of the most gloomy tendency. The Necessarians deny these to be legitimate consequences, and observe, that the Deity acts no more universally in decreeing vicious actions, than in permitting all those irregularities which he could so easily have prevented. necessity, say they, doth not take away freedom. The actions of a man may be at once, and the same time, free and necessary too." Buck's Dict. art. Necessity. In proof of the latter part of this, we are referred to Hobbes, Collins, Leibnitz, Kaimes, Edwards, Toplady, &c.

All

As Euphronius requires line upon line, and precept upon precept, I must shew him how and why I attributed this contradiction to the Calvinist. 1. Both Calvinists and Arminians employ the term 'contingent, when applied to human actions, to denote their freedom. 2. Both parties allow that God knows things as they are, and not as they are not. 3. The Calvinist says, God has made all things for his own glory, and that human actions may be at once and the same time free and necessary too. But if human actions sustain at once and the same time this two-fold character, and if God has ordained them, and if he knows them as they really are; then the compound inference is, that God must know as necessary, what in his own eternal counsel he has made free, and vice versa. This is precisely what I asserted, and which I have proved to be no creation of the fancy, no mis-statement, but the genuine doctrine of Calvinism.

In my letter to Dr. Clarke, I quoted a passage of scripture in support of a certain view of the Divine existence, which seems to have confounded Euphronius, by reason

612

of its amazing simplicity and force. I shall quote the passage, and give Euphronius's comment upon it entire. "When the apostle John speaks of God as He who is, and who was, and who is to come,' I should understand him merely as asserting, that as God now exists, and has always existed, so he will always continue to exist; and not that the apostle intimates, that the Divine subsistence has any relation to past, present, and future, which are terms applicable only to finite creatures." But who says these are terms applicable only to finite creatures? Certainly not the inspired writers. If the doctrine of Euphronius be the true faith, then St. John has given us a false idea of the Divine subsistence. But who shall dare to bring any charge of this kind against God's inspired apostle? We are told St. John wrote the Apocalypse in Greek. It will not be suggested, I presume, that the modern idea is too ponderous or too magnificent for that tongue to express. "During the apostolic age," says Mr. Parkhurst, "Greek was the most universally spoken and understood of any language upon earth." But can it be true, that with reference to the Divine subsistence we are to conceive of God as "actually dwelling in every point of eternity;" that God is not He who is, and who was, and who is to come, his mode of existence having no sueh relation to past and future? If it were so, is it not probable, nay rather, certain, that the apostle would have sought means to convey this idea through the medium of a language affording so great facilities, at once copious, and so universally understood? The presumption then is, that the fact, as it is laid down in the letter to Dr. Clarke, is in perfect harmony with revelation; and that the doctrine, as it stands in the revela. tion, is the true doctrine. The comment of Euphronius on the above passage in the Apocalypse, is too recondite to be disregarded, and too important to be passed over in silence. He first gives the true meaning of it, and then takes it away again; or, in other words, he represents the apostle as saying what he means, but not meaning what he says. I remain, Mr. Editor, yours very respectfully,

Barnsley, 1828.

ONESIMUS.

SO

Erratum, vol. ix. col. 724, line 16, for invisible, read indivisible.

The preceding article would have appeared much sooner, but for its great length. It now occupies more room than was expected, though it has been greatly reduced.-EDITOR.

things sometimes ascribed to him, which refer solely to the Divine Nature; at other

A work conducted on such principles is well adapted to bring to light lurking errors, the tendencies of which are to fetter the mind, darken the understanding, and corrupt the truth. Such, in my humble opinion, is the tendency of the doctrine of the Eternal Sonship of Jesus Christ.

The ground assumed for this opinion is, God must necessarily produce a Son. As the Sun cannot but shine; as the fountain cannot but flow; and as the mirror cannot but reflect; so the Divine Being, we are taught, cannot exist, but as a Father. Hence the advocates of this theory tell us "The Son of God is no voluntary effect of the Father's power and wisdom”— "he is the natural and necessary, and therefore eternal birth, of the Divine fecundity." "To deny the eternal filiation of the Second Person in the Trinity, is to deny the essential paternity of the First."* Such are the assumptions on which the doctrine rests.

To a person who considers the Scriptures as a revelation of God, as well as from God, such things appear in their proper light. To say nothing of the impiety of comparing the Deity to an inanimate thing, where, I ask, is this doctrine taught in the Bible? The Deity is there represented as free in all his acts and productions. The Scriptures teach us that "He doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth," that "He worketh all things after the counsel of his own will." "Of his own will begat he us,"† &c. The assumption, therefore, to say the least of it, is antiscriptural and absurd.

Persons, who cannot receive the doctrine of the Eternal Sonship, believe the term Son refers to Christ in his incarnate state; and, under that appellation, find

France's Three Discourses. Watson's Remarks. Moore's Thoughts on the Eternal Sonship. † Dan. iv. 35. Eph. i. 11. James i. 18.

humanity; and again, they find works attributed to him, which can belong to him in no other character than God and Man, united in one person. As God, they adore him as the Creator of all things. As God and Man united in one, they trust and hope in him as their Redeemer and Saviour. But those who hold the opposite theory, contend that the term Son is a personal one, belonging solely to the Divinity of the Second Person in the Trinity, abstractedly from every thing creaturely. We may just remark here, that the Second Person in the Trinity is called by St. John, " God," by St. Paul, “Over all, God blessed for ever," The great God," by the prophet Isaiah, he is called the Mighty God."* To him are attributed eternity, omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, and immutability. But the doctrine of eternal Sonship, as explained by these gentlemen, absolutely robs the Redeemer of these high attributes.

66

We read John v. 19, 20. "The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for whatsoever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise. For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel." Restrict the term Son to the divine nature, and the text is made to declare, that the "Mighty God" can do nothing of himself. Again, we read, Mark xiii. 32. "But of that day, and that hour, knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father only." By the same mode of interpretation, this passage, and the foregoing, are made to declare the approach of a period unknown to the "Great God" himself; and that his Father will shew him greater things than he had seen before: thus he is deprived of omnipotence and omniscience.

St. Paul speaks of "Jesus Christ the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever;" and yet we are told that "even as to his divine nature he emptied himself." In other words, God emptied himself of his Godhead. What then becomes of his immutability? According to this doctrine, Christ is God, and not God, at the same time. Again, he says "As the Father hath life in himself, so hath he given to the Son

1 John i. 1. Rom. ix. 5. Tit. ii. 13. Isaiah ix. 6. Theological Insti. vol, i. p. 513.

615

"

Writers in favour of the eternal Sonship contend, that the "Word," before he was made flesh; Eternal Son, Divine Son, Only-begotten Son, Mighty God, &c. are all expressions of exactly the same import; referring solely to the divinity or Godhead of Christ. Hence they tell us, "Therefore He, who is the only-begotten Son of the Father, has the self-same nature and essence, and is the same God." This statement is partly true; the Son has the same nature and essence as the Father, because in him divinity and humanity are united; but the impropriety of saying "the only begotten Son," as Son, "is the same God as the Father," will appear by substituting the words "God," "Mighty God," &c. in those passages which are usually adduced as proofs of the doctrine in question. Instance, Psalm ii. 7. should read thus, "I will declare the decree, the Lord said unto me, Thou art the Mighty God, this day have I begotten thee." 1 John iv. 10. "Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent the Great God to be a propitiation for our sins." Heb. i. 1, 2. "God, who at sundry times and in divers places spake unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by him, who is over all, God blessed for ever, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds." Chap. v. 8. "Though he were the supreme eternal God, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered, &c. It is useless to bring forward more passages to shew the absurdity of thus understanding and interpreting the Scriptures. Every

Mortin on the Sonship.

616

one must clearly see that the mistake consists in confining solely to the divinity, what strictly and properly belongs to the humanity, to which the Godhead united.

was

It is amusing to see what arts are used to make the Scriptures countenance this opinion: hyper-criticism; misty, unintelligible argumentation; appeals, without end, to authority; divesting words of their proper signification, &c.; are all resorted to, to gain the point; and after all, the subject is neither proved to be a Scripture truth, nor made to appear plausible. The doctrine of a derived Deity, or begotten God, is one at which the thinking mind revolts. Its advocates have shewn into what wild extravagancies men may run, in support of a favourite error. It is almost impossible to read their elaborate productions, without calling to mind the mournful exclamation of the prophet, "We have been with child, and brought forth wind." Indeed they have done worse, they have induced darkness instead of light; bewildered and unsettled the minds of thousands; brought into the church of God a doctrine, which, as they explain it, places the Almighty under an irresistible necessity; robs the Saviour of his attributes as God; and sinks the Scriptures into a heap of the grossest absurdities. To this doctrine must all subscribe, who become preachers among the Methodists!

Dr. Clarke informs us, that being in Mr. Wesley's company about three years before his death, he shewed him the argument, which now stands as a note in his commentary on Luke i. 35. Mr. Wesley allowed the argument was conclusive. This was giving up the doctrine in toto. But Mr. Moore replies, "Those who knew Mr. W. 'will not be surprised at hearing he did not enter into any controversy with his son in the gospel; at that time very young." Mr. Wesley's Seventh Rule of a Helper is, "Tell every one what you think wrong in him, and that plainly." I ask, are we to believe that Mr. W. would violate his own rule, by not telling the Dr. he was wrong, if he really thought he was? Are we to suppose that Mr. W. would see "his son in the gospel" in an error, and not caution him against it? Would he violate the bounds of truth, and flatter the. Doctor by telling him that his argument was conclusive, unless he really saw and felt its force? It has been asserted and maintained, that a private conversation was not to be noticed. This is understood as an insinuation, either that Dr. Clarke has published a statement which is decidedly

untrue, or that Mr. Wesley had one opinion for the parlour, and another for the pulpit. I should not have noticed these cases, but to shew the shifts and degrading methods resorted to by men, otherwise eminent, to uphold and support this more than doubtful doctrine.

The passing of this "New Test Act," by the Conference, is really unaccountable. The professed principle of admission into the Wesleyan Ministry, is a Divine call to the work, proved on the part of the candidate by the purity of his moral character, possessing suitable talents, and being successful in turning sinners from Satan to God. But now a man may give full proof of all these, and yet he must not preach, unless he declare his assent to a doctrine, which to him may be as contrary to the word of God, as darkness to light: a doctrine given up by Mr. Wesley, and believed by very few of his followers. What is this but opposing God, and declaring that he may call and qualify whom he pleases, but his purposes shall be frustrated, unless his servants will assent to what many of them cannot believe.

The case of a valuable young preacher whom I could name, is much to the point. He is not forbidden to preach, it is true; but he is not admitted into full connexion: the reason is, he has not found the doctrine of eternal Sonship in the Bible, and will not assent to it as a Scripture truth till he does. Where is there any thing in the Scriptures, or Large Minutes published by Mr. Wesley, to warrant such a procedure as this? I have been asking an old preacher who resides in this town, whether any thting of the kind was a test formerly? He replied, "No: very far from it. Mr. Bradburn used to call it eternal nonsense." How long shall we see in the religious world a disposition to "bind heavy burdens, and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders?" How long will men exalt themselves above all that is called God? However, every generation grows wiser, it is said. There was a time when Christ was proclaimed as the "Mighty God," "God manifest in the flesh," &c. But prophets and apostles are detected in their errors. Their God is now found to be merely the effect of the Divine fecundity. Mr. Wesley was so far in the error of these men, that he declared the "Word was God, supreme, eternal, independent." But now the Word,' is found to be "subordinate and dependent." If prophets and righteous men wished to see what the disciples saw, how would they rejoice to behold the discoveries 115.-VOL. X.

which are now made: surely we live in a land of vision.

A WESLEYAN METHODIST.

Manchester.

THE MISER.

Quid non mortalia pectora cogis
Auri sacra fames ?"
Æ. 3d. 56.

In the suburbs of a populous city resided an old man, at least such was his appearance. A mean hut, that seemed to tremble in the blast, was his abode. The court, or garden which surrounded it, was almost impassable, from the overgrown state of the shrubs, brambles, and weeds, which had woven one with another into an impervious thicket. The ivy, that overspread the cottage, trailed carelessly along the loose fragments, and clung unpruned to the tottering casements which rocked in the wind. In short, all the wretchedness that appears united in an untenanted spot, was here displayed in the very acme of desolation. A road, which passed through the forest at a little distance, was visible from this dwelling. Many a traveller had turned aside from his path, to contemplate the misery of a man who was secluded in misanthropic gloom from his fellow-creatures. To those with whom he was constrained to hold intercourse, to prolong his existence, he was known by the name of the Miser.

He was the son of an opulent merchant, who had amassed by industry, favoured with fortune, much wealth. This, in his youth, he sedulously squandered away in dissipation; for, strange as it may seem, this decrepit old man was once gay and frolicksome in every pleasure of luxury. Excesses, too gross to be named, at last brought upon him the severest displeasure of his parent, and he was disinherited. Thrown upon the wide world without the blessing of a father, penniless and wretched, he determined, by the most binding resolutions, to toil till a fortune might be accumulated, to restore him to his former circles. Endowed with an active mind, employment was soon procured. Frugality marked his path with its most rigid discipline. Years rolled round; his unremitting diligence still toiled, and he became at length possessed of wealth and avarice.

Dissipation had led him, as it still leads others, to practise that mean niggardliness which may ensure to them the means of pursuing pleasure. The love of gain was engrafted on his soul; it possessed his thoughts by day, and his dreams by night; it had blunted every other feeling, every principle of honour, and banished con

2 Q

science from his breast. Deceit, treachery, | and fraud, were put in requisition to obtain his beloved object. They had given to him a cunning heart, and a piercing eyean eye to which the only perspective was gain. Detection at length fixed upon his character that stain which could not be removed. His dealings were frustrated, and he himself was compelled to leave the seat of his iniquity.

To return to those who once knew him in the hey-day of pleasure, was impossible. His ideas had undergone a complete changehis conduct was branded with detestation. Besides, care had furrowed his brow, and brought upon him, in conjunction with the effects of dissipation, a premature old age. Thus compelled to quit the abode of men, he sought, at the entrance of the forest, the hut which has been described. Thither he secretly removed his coffers, and secluded himself from the world. Seldom seen, but by those who passed his dwelling, he existed in a mysterious manner. His stooping form, his tattered garb, and demoniacal aspect, had led many to suspect that he carried on an intercourse with some infernal agent. This was the fact, at least according to the report which has reached succeeding ages. To count his gold, and wallow in his riches, was his delight. But this was not all; he was still possessed with a covetousness nothing could satisfy. He could look upon his treasures with discontent, and wish for more. Then was the assistance of demons, though frightful with horror, called into requisition.

|

620

At length they came to a massy gate, which yielded at their approach, and closed immediately after their entrance. The roof, pillars, archways, and floor were all of solid gold. From each pillar, which was beautifully embossed, projected a hand of ghastly hue, to which was appended a lamp; and round the rim of every arch, ran a liquid stream of light, of a pale blue colour. At the foot of each pillar stood an immense coffer filled with gold, glittering and tempting to the sight. The old man started at the magnificence of this terrene palace, and was lost for a few moments in exclamations of delight. But the pale hands that supported the lustres sickened in the view. However, his eagle eyes rested with delight on the gold beneath.

"Here are treasures," said the mysterious guide, "which will satisfy the utmost wishes of the soul, and gratify every unbounded desire." "True!" was the reply. A death-like pause ensued."Know thou, then," rejoined the other, "this gold has cost me dear, and I am well aware of its value. Consider then, I expect a return.”

The tone in which these last words were uttered, had a terrifying influence over the mind of the miser. "If it must be so,-" said he. "If!" interrupted the other. "It is so he who bows to Mammon, can love no other god, can pursue no other pleasure than the advancement of his power. No! Mammon bears not a rival. I claim, then, for all this wealth, thy hap

The old man shuddered, but the gold glittered. “Are there none who have bartered happiness for gold?" He paused, struggled to answer, but the tempter overcame. His conductor resumed a more cheerful tone, and sealed the oath. He then led him onward to the folding doors at the extremity of the apartment, which opened as they drew near.

The scene was magnificent; its splendour infinitely surpassed the one they had left behind. The old man was dazzled, and contemplated with astonishment the grandeur of this enchanted region. In the middle of this palace was formed the Sun by a beautiful assemblage of precious stones. In the centre of it was a glittering light, round which was a circle of diamonds. From this diverged multitudinous rays, thickly studded with the emerald, topaz, ruby, and other jewels. These reflected a lovely rainbow, the beams of which melted away in glowing pearl. Round this dazzling splendour were suspended wreaths of pre