Biblical standpoint : views of the sonship of Christ, the Comforter, and Trinity. With an appendix on the atonement

Preface

The sentiments presented to the Christian public in the following little work are not the result of hastily or recently adopted conclusions. For more than forty years they have existed as settled convictions in the author's mind.

They have been a solace and satisfaction to him in no ordinary sense.

They have been a triumphant support under all the vicissitudes of a protracted life ; not, indeed, to the exclusion or disparagement in any wise of any one of the great vital Scriptural truths essential to true discipleship and practical godliness : indeed, he maintains that these fundamental doctrines themselves are more clearly seen, and their simplicity and consistency better 'understood and more truly appreciated, from the point of view set forth in the following pages, than from the usual exposition of them.

It has seemed to the writer well nigh unaccountable, that what appear to him to be the plain teachings of the New Testament, and especially those of Christ personally, should have been misapprehended, and theories adopted in their place which certainly are unnatural, and confessedly shrouded in impenetrable mystery.

Should the question be asked, Why have not these sentiments, these long-cherished convictions, been sooner made public ? The reply is, An extreme reluctance at the thought of advancing doctrines the writer knew would not be fully in accord with those of his brethren, with whom he has so long and so happily toiled, to advance the kingdom of their common Redeemer. He shrunk from exciting their apprehensions and suspicions, which he well knew would be the natural result. These, with some minor considerations, have hitherto prevented his views from being publicly known. It would not be strange if misconceptions of the course of thought, or, indeed, a full sense of the author's meaning, should excite opposition. He is aware of the position he has taken ; but an assured sense of fidelity to the simple teachings of the Saviour of men abundantly

PREFACE. 5

sustains him as he ventures out of his usual pursuit in life, and commits himself to his Master and the public.

He is conscious that what is brought forward in the following treatise, is but an outline of what might and what ought to be said on the subjects treated.

That the " Spirit of truth," the Comforter, whose prerogative it is to " guide into all truth," may en- - lighten and conduct the reader as he contemplates these important subjects, is the prayer of

The Author.

SONSHIP OF CHRIST, THE COMFORTER, AND THE TRINITY.

Statement of Views.

Before the creation of any object, there existed the one almighty, omniscient, self-existent Deity, who filled all space, having cognizance of all objects and actions.

At a period in the existence of this eternal God, before any other creative act known to us, he brought forth, or begot, a being of the nature, powers, and senses, such as he afterwards breathed into the body of Adam when he became a " living soul." In other words, he begot a perfect human soul.

Thus there were in existence before the creation of the world two beings, — one the self-existent God, the other the begotten being ; or, as we will now call them, Father and Son. Each has his own will : these wills being not at variance,

IO BIBLTCAL STANDPOINT.

but in perfect harmony ; for, in the nature of things, a holy being could not beget an unholy.

Before this period, God existed as only God ; but, so far as we know, not as Father, because there was no Son. The begotten being was Son — " the only begotten Son."

The next act of the eternal God was to take this begotten being into perfect union with Jiimsclf ; in other words, he incorporated this human soul into his own being, so that the two beings, with their distinct natures and wills, became by this union one. Separately they were two, but by this union One. A being thus constituted must necessarily have the nature, faculties, and powers belonging to each before their union. Thus there was in heaven, before the creation, a complex being, divine and human, — divine, because one of his component parts is the eternal God ; human, because the other part is the begotten human s6ul or Son.

The nature or manner of this union we do not attempt to explain ; but its reality is conceivable, and no more mysterious than our own constitution. We are composed of spirit and matter, each as really unlike the other as deity and humanity ; and yet these two, matter and spirit, are so united as to constitute one person, yet acting in perfect harmony, each retaining its distinctive properties. But the manner or nature of this union is inex-

STATEMENT OF VIEWS. II

plicable. Now, as we can conceive of, but cannot explain, this union of our own nature, even so we may conceive of, but cannot explain, the union of deity and humanity. The fact is as reasonable and admissible in the one case as in the other.

We are now prepared to look at the accounts of the creation ; and we must not lose sight of the character of the being who is the Creator. It is the complex being, — Father and Son, divine and human, i. e., human soul. The begotten Son, of himself, had no more power to create than Christ, as a mere man on earth, had power to do God's works : according to his own declaration, " The Son can do nothing of himself" (John v. 19) ; but, being one with the Almighty, by and with His power he could create. Hence the harmony of the two following passages : " In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." " By him [Christ] were all things created that are in heaven and that are in earth " (Gen. i. 1 ; Col. i. 16). It was proper, therefore, to say God created and the Son created ; because they were united as one in the creation, the Father operating with and in the Son, and the Son by and through the power of the Father.

On this principle Jesus performed his miracles when on earth. He said to the leprous man, " I will ; be thou clean." There is no more mystery in this case than in that of the creation. All will see that it as really required divine power to heal the leper as to produce the light, or gather the waters together ; yet it is properly said that Christ healed the leper, though in reality God the Father performed the cure through his Son, according to the words of Jesus, " The Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works."

After the material world was created, and the grand crowning work of the creation was to be accomplished, for the first time we hear of a communication between the two wills, or two beings, Father and Son, in heaven. It runs thus : " Let its make man in our image, after our likeness ; " that is, as we understand it, " Let us make a being of the same nature, faculties, and senses, and of the same purity and holiness, as the begotten being which forms a part of Ourself." The being that was to inhabit the earthly body was to be in all respects " in the image and likeness " of the first-begotten Son, who had been united with his Father.

First, a tenement formed from the earth was prepared, adapted to the being who should inhabit it, in which he might develop and exercise himself in his appointed sphere. Into this tenement God then breathed the breath of life, and man became a living soul ; not, however, a begotten Son united to the Father ; for God, in company

STATEMENT OF VIEWS. 1 3

with the pre-existing Son, created this human soul in the likeness of the one united to himself. It matters not which word is used — " breathed/' " created," or " said : " the work was the act of this complex being. All must see that the " breathing " needed an accompanying divine power ; for not only was a soul imparted, but animal life was given, and the earthly body made complete with its almost innumerable functions and powers.

Thus man was formed and placed on earth by the same power and the same beings (for the word " us " is used by them) that formed whatever else was created.

Hence there was placed on earth a being fitly emblematical of his Creator ; the spirit of the man corresponding to the deity of the Creator, the body corresponding to the begotten human soul, and the two natures in each case so united as to make one. In speaking of them, we call the Being in heaven " God," " Lord God," " God of Jacob," " God of Israel," and so on, each name including both natures acting together. The being on earth we call " man," the term also including the two natures of which he is composed acting together : and, as the spirit of man never communicates except through the organs of the body, the inferior part acting with it, so the eternal Deity communicates with man only by and through the begotten human Son, the inferior part united with him.

In this arrangement we see wisely established, before man was placed on earth, a channel or medium of communication between God in heaven and man on earth ; a being of the same species and nature as the human race, whose natural sympathies would be with his brother on earth, and so united to the eternal God that the divine sympathies, also, through him, could flow to man even in his fallen state. Apart from such union, we see not how God could have shown more sympathy towards rebellious man than towards rebellious angels.

With this agree the words of the Lamb of God : " I am the way ; " and, " No man cometh unto the Father but by me" (John xiv. 6).

After the lapse of about four thousand years from the creation of Adam, this begotten being, human soul, or Son, — by whichever term expressed, — who had dwelt " in the bosom of the Father," in happy union with him, from before the foundation of the world, and " by whom God created all things," left his celestial abode, and came down to earth ; where, by the divine energy, through the virgin Mary, a body was prepared for him. In this body, according to its capacity, he developed his knowledge and wisdom. In leaving heaven, however, the Son did not cease to be united with his Father ; nor was this union less perfect on earth than it had been in heaven.

STATEMENT OF VIEWS. 1 5

But, " though he was rich, he became poor : " that is, he was divested of the glory and majesty which he had with his Father in heaven. This divesting was necessary, that he might appear as a servant, become familiar with his brother man in his fallen state, dwell with him as one of them, and " be tempted in all points like as we are, yet without sin."

And now we have before us Christ as he was in Palestine, — truly God and truly man. Being, as to his soul, the " beginning of the creation of God," and as to his body, being " begotten of the Holy Ghost," he is in a twofold sense " the Son of God." Born of a woman as other men, he was placed by birth " under the law," and was naturally " the Son of man." And since, as before stated, he is so united to God that he and his Father are One, we have God and man, divinity and humanity, complete in the person of Jesus Christ. Thus we see the divinity of the eternal God is the divinity of the Son.

We have thus stated, as clearly and simply as we can, our views of the origin of the divinity and humanity of the Lord Jesus Christ. Are these views in accordance with the word of God ? are they taught in that sacred volume ? If so, they are true, and must ultimately prevail, all conflicting theories on the subject, ancient or modern, to the contrary notwithstanding.

It is not at all improbable that many, on reading thus far, will cast this little treatise aside, denouncing it as heretical, and unworthy of further attention. They have been taught, and believe, that the divinity of Christ, his sonship, &c, are a mystery, utterly incomprehensible by human reason. Multitudes of Christ's children, learned and unlearned, past and present, have stilled their inquiries with this conclusion.

Would it not be well that the Christian reader should carefully examine the subject before pronouncing judgment? The Bereans "searched the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so ; " and all know the beneficial result.

Before proceeding to an examination of the Scriptures, let us quote the language of one of our theological professors, whose sentiments we most heartily adopt.

" Our fundamental principle is, that the Scriptures alone arc our guide in all matters of faith and practice. To this principle we should unhesitatingly conform, whatever may be the result. We should not shrink from its application, even if it should overturn customs which have been most venerated by us, and should lead us to act contrary to all the teachings of our fathers." — Bib. Sacra, p. 29, vol. 30.

On just this " fundamental principle" we have endeavored to study the Scriptures ; and it has

PRE-EXISTENCE OF CHRIST. \J

constrained us to adopt the doctrines herein presented. If the reader will adhere to this principle in examining these subjects, we shall have no fears for the truth.

Once more: in the examination of Scripture now to be made, we adopt and recommend another undoubted rule of interpretation, as follows : —

" We should never have recurrence to a strained or metaphysical sense, but when we know, that, either from the nature of the thing, or f win some other revelation of Scripture, it will not admit of a proper one. We must ttnderstand words in their proper and natural sense, when there is no apparent reason for a figure!1

Pre-existence of Christ.

We will now take up the sacred volume, confidently believing that the writers thereof wrote as they were moved by the Holy Spirit ; and we will look to the same Guide to direct us in our examinations.

That Christ, as the Son of God, did exist before his incarnation, is admitted by all or nearly all evangelical Christians. One would suppose that the assertion of Christ, "Before Abraham was, I am " (John viii. 50), would be decisive, and convince the most scrupulous of the fact. He 2 evidently intended to convey the idea that he existed before the days of Abraham. He was so understood. If he thus intended, and did not so exist, he was either a lunatic or guilty of falsehood ; and the Jews were right in rejecting him. But we "believe and are sure that he was the Christ, the son of the living God," and that he did exist before Abraham.

Again he says (John xvii. 5), " Now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self, with the glory which I had with thee before the world was." Here Jesus appeals to the Almighty God as to the truth that he was with Him before the creation. Paul taught the same to several of the churches. To the Colossians he says (chap. i. 17), " He was before all things," &c. On this point we need not quote further, as it is not generally disputed by evangelical believers.

Sonship of Christ.

Having treated of the Pre-existence of Christ, the question now is, In what character did he exist ? The usual answer is, As the divine, eternal Son of God ; or perhaps as the second person in the divine Trinity.

In answering this question, our first point will be to show that the Scriptures chiefly relied on to prove the eternal existence of the Son do not sustain that doctrine ; but that many of them, as well as others, fully show that his existence had a beginning. But, before proceeding further, let us ask ourselves, Can we lay aside preconceived views in examining this subject, and take the sacred volume as addressed to us personally, from our heavenly Father, for the purpose of teaching us his will and the principles of his kingdom ? Only in this spirit can we hope to succeed in our inquiries after truth.

We can be sure of getting correct information only when willing to surrender, if needful, any previously formed doctrinal opinions. No person finds Christ to be a Saviour to himself personally, until he makes a complete surrender of all things else. Even so in learning " the things of Christ." However wise, we must become " fools " as to our wisdom, for Christ's sake. We must accept the inspired word as a child would take a lesson from his father ; and seek the enlightening aid of the Comforter, the Holy Spirit, who, the Saviour promised, should " guide us into all truth."

As the venerable John Brown of Haddington said, on completing his Family Bible, " I have learned more of the true meaning of the Bible on my knees before God, than from all the commentaries I ever consulted." ,

Following strictly the rules of interpretation to which we have referred, we think we are prepared to show, that the commonly received doctrine of an eternal divine sonship having no sanction in the Bible, must consequently have been of men ; and that the Son must be a distinct, derived being, as set forth in our first statement.

The first eighteen verses of the first chapter of John's Gospel are much relied on as proving the eternity of the Logos or Son. Let us examine this passage, " In the beginning — " In the beginning of what ? we ask. Surely not the beginning of eternity : eternity has no beginning ; otherwise it is not eternity. It is observable that John begins his history of Christ with the same words with which Moses commences his account of the creation of the world. " In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth " (Gen. i. i). John's "beginning," therefore, was evidently the same as that of Moses : most assuredly, then, they both refer to the beginning of the visible creation.

Do these words in John's Gospel show that the Word, or Logos, was from eternity ? Do they bear a different meaning when used by John than when used by Moses ? Where is the authority for such difference ? How is it, then, that these three words have been relied on for these hundreds of years, and quoted by so many writers, as decisive proof that the Word or Son was from all eternity ? Placing these two narratives side by side, do they not teach that there was a period in God's existence when he commenced the creation of the world, and that the Word or Son was with him at that period ? Do they take us beyond that period ?

It will be seen that these narratives agree also in recognizing two beings — a plurality — present on the occasion. Moses says in verse 16, as has been noted, " And God said, Let us make man," &c, showing that two, at least, were employed in the formation of man : and it is noticeable that the original Hebrew word translated " God " is in the plural. We hence reasonably infer that there were two in the previous creation, — an inference that John supports when he says, " and the Word was with God" (showing that there were two : otherwise it could not with propriety be said that one was with another) ; which is also abundantly supported by other Scriptures, to which we shall hereafter refer.

We see, then, that, if our views as to the period intended by John be correct, this strongest passage in the hands of those who believe in the eternal generation of the Son proves nothing more than that the Son existed and was with God at the beginning of the creation, — a view to which we heartily subscribe.

John does not say that the Word was or was not eternal. All he affirms is, that he was with

God #t a certain period. One may infer that he had been eternally with him ; another, that he was with him just before the commencement of the creation. Both are inferences ; but neither, proof.

The idea that all before the " beginning " of which John speaks must be eternal, has so long prevailed in the evangelical Church, that if one should inquire of a theologian whether there is Scripture evidence of the eternity of the Son of God, he would with much assurance refer to the first two verses of John's Gospel as settling the question. Should the authority of such a rendering be disputed, he would call to his support the great body of writers of the evangelical Church on the subject, from the early fathers down to the present day.

Commentators generally, following each other's sentiments, if not words, in their expositions on these verses, become so fixed in the belief that this passage supports the doctrine in question, that they unhesitatingly assert it as a fact. We will quote some modern writers in confirmation of this statement.

Dr. John Gill, a learned English commentator, says of the second verse, " This is a repetition of what is before said, and is made to show the eternity of Christ ; and so proves not only the eternal existence, but his eternal existence with his Father, and also his eternal deity." Does the text warrant such a statement ?

Matthew Henry says, in his remarks on this Scripture (and we would say that no writer we have known appears so m\ich at home in the Bible as he), " The beginning of time, in which all creatures were produced and brought into being, found this eternal Word in being." Note, it is Mr. Henry, and not the apostle, who calls the Word eternal. He adds, " He that was in the beginning never began." Mark this logic. Was there not a period in God's existence when he began to create the world ? Did not God exist before he began this or any other creation ? Could not the Word have been begotten at some period prior to the commencement of the creation ? If Mr. Henry means any other beginning than the creation of our world, we cannot follow him, for we know of no other beginning except Jesus, who tells us he was " the beginning of creation " (Rev. iii. 14).

Mr. Henry again says, on verse 2, " The same, the very same that we believe in and preach, was in the beginning with God : that is, he was from eternity!'

So says Mr. Henry ; but is it in the text ? Again : " The history of man's redemption . . . was hid in God before all worlds /" and he quotes Eph. iii. 9. Thexommon translation reads thus :

" The mystery which from the beginning of the world [not ' all worlds '] hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ." Another translation which we have consulted reads, " from ages has been hidden," &c. Query : What ages before the world was created ?

Dr. Thomas Scott, in his commentary on this passage, speaks thus : " Nothing could exceed time but an immeasurable, incomprehensible eternity. Time began when the creation was called forth into existence by the Word himself : and in the beginning the Word was ; that is, from all eternity? Note, it is Dr. Scott who says " from all eternity."

Dr. Adam Clarke, in his comments, says, "What was before creation must be eternal: therefore Jesus, who was ' before all things,' and who made all things, must necessarily be the eternal God " (the Italicizing is ours).

These writers are selected because so well known and highly esteemed for piety and biblical knowledge.

Now, who could have supposed that men so pious, devotional, and biblically learned could have drawn such deductions from these two verses, asserting them as facts, even misquoting Scripture to support a preconceived doctrine ? But so it is ; and no doubt they thought they were renderins; service to the kingdom of Christ.

Let the reader turn to these two verses, and see if there is a word or a hint concerning an eternity in them.

It will be seen, the supposed proof for the eternity of the Son, drawn from the passage cited, rests on the assumption that whatever existed prior to the creation must be eternal. This is the only fair deduction we can make from these declarations. Now, does the narrative of Moses or of John express or imply such an idea ? Was not Moses speaking simply of the creation of our world ? Does any one who reads his history imagine he had any thought of what might have been previously created ? His object was to record the facts of the creation of the material world ; saying nothing, hinting nothing, concerning the origin of the Son of God : that was left for inspired writers of later days. Likewise with reference to the " beginning " of which John speaks : would any reader naturally, without prepossession, suppose anything intended by his word "beginning," other than that of which Moses had written ? A man can draw such inferences as he chooses ; but to assert an inference as a fact, and then deduce proof from it, is a course of reasoning we are unable to follow.

Let us now read the remainder of the verse : u and the Word was God." It will be remembered that in the third paragraph of our Statement of

Views on page 10, the position is taken that God united the begotten Son to himself in such a way that the two became one. We will, for the present, assume the correctness of this position with regard to the Father and the Logos or Son. The reality of this union will be considered hereafter.

If, then, the Logos or Word be a derived being, and if the Father took him into union with himself in the manner we have assumed, it would be in accordance with John's use of language to call him God, on the ground of this union. In the fourteenth verse of this chapter John says, "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us." No one from this statement supposes John to mean that the Word, who " was with God, and was God," was transformed into human flesh. All understand that " he was made flesh " by being united to flesh, so that- he and flesh became one by such union. Was it more singular for John to say that the begotten Son, united to God his Father, was God, than that he should say he became flesh because he was united to flesh ? But John adds, " And we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only-begotten of the Father."

What was this glory ? And to what does John refer when he says, " as of the only-begotten of the Father " ? Is the reference to the physical body of Christ ? True, that body was begotten of God ; but what glory was there of his mere

SONSHIP OF CHRIST. 2J

body, more than of the body of another man? Was it not the glory of the Father manifesting himself through the man Jesus, soul and body, that the apostles saw ? And this is according to Christ's words, "He that hath seen me hath seen the Father " (John xiv. 9). No one had seen the Father in any way but by his works which he had wrought in and by his Son. John uses similar language in his first Epistle, i. 1, 2 : "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life (for the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and show unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us)."

It is evident that John had never seen, heard, or handled anything of Christ except his human body, which of itself was merely flesh, blood, and bones ; and yet he says that he had seen, &c, the " Word of life," and " the eternal life which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us."

Here, then, we see his familiar manner of expression. What he had seen, heard, and handled could refer to one part only of Christ — his body ; and in this he is not misunderstood. Nearly all agree that that body which the apostles saw and handled was so united to the soul, and this soul and body were so united to God, that all three by this union became one person. We have thus three distinct natures joined in one person ; and, consequently, language applicable to any one of the three natures may include the whole person, — body, soul, and God.