die as the Lord saw fit. After his pastor had retired, he observed to those who were with him, 'Now, I hope I have expressed what is right, and nothing more than what I have really felt.' During the day and the evening of the 18th of January he was in extreme pain, and while writhing in agony he exclaimed, O, why does not the Lord come and take me to himself? Being told that he ought to wait patiently, be immediately answered, so I ought-I will endeavour to.' The next day his pain still continued, and when it was supposed that he was almost exhausted with it, he suddenly broke into the following strain. O Lord, bless my dear parents, and my dear little sisters-the Lord has strengthened me, and I want to tell all to love Jesus.' A pious friend asked bim, if he loved Jesus? Yes,' said he, 'I do love him-I can trust him soul and bodyI can wait patiently for his coming. Turning to his parents he said, "O you must bring up my little sisters in the fear of the Lord-you must take them to church-you must teach them divine truth-you must love Jesus. O, for my sake love himdeath is rapidly approaching, but I do not fear its terrors, for the Lord is my support. Often have I thought on death, and now I feel its realities.' His father, being amazed, asked him if he should not send for his pastor. Howard continued, 'Yes-I love him -I wish to see all my friends-I want to tell them all to love Jesus. In the course of the same day he was asked, whether he thought that he could be happy in heaven without a change of heart. He instantly answered, O no. I cannot be happy in heaven without I love Jesus.' His strength was much exhausted, and he was able to speak but little during the remaining part of the day and evening. In the night he was heard, in a low voice, to say, ' Come Jesus, come quickly.' His pain was exceedingly severe during the night and the following day. At times his spirits would almost sink, then he would collect himself and say, 'Now I will try to bear it.' In one of the seasons of his extreme distress his pastor came into the room, and seeing him, he exclaimed, 'O-you see I have my pain yet-your prayer that God would grant me a more easy passage to the grave is not heard"—I don't know when I shall * For some time, his pastor had not petitioned the Lord in express terms to re tor. die.' His pain was so severe that he was obliged to scream out. Instantly he col. lected himself and said, 'I know it is right that I have such severe pain. Why do you think it is right, Howard?' said his pas Why-because, just now, I was complaining of the Lord. I won't do senow I will bear it-and you shall not see a wrinkle on my face.' He then was quiet and appeared as in a sweet sleep. His pastor sat by him for some time, and supposing that be was actually asleep, whispered to his father, that the room ought to be kept perfectly still lest Howard should awake. O, said Howard, 'I am not asleep, my pain will not allow me to rest.” He continued quiet, and though in great agony, he joined with his pastor in prayer in a very composed and solemn manner. Soon after this he overheard his mother speaking of his great patience and fortitude. He whispered her- O mother. don't speak of my patience.' January the 21st.-A pious neighbour standing by him and witnessing his great agony felt disposed to speak to him, but scarcely knew what to say-at length observed, Howard, do you think that you can now say that you love Jesus?' 'Yes, I love him dearly.' And clasping his hands, exclaimed, 'There is glory in heaven, and I shall soon be there.' On the 23d of January his pastor asked him if death had any terrors now, when he was assured that it was near at hand. He answered, No-Jesus is precious to me, and I feel willing to leave death, and every thing else with him.' On the 24th, his mother asked him if he had really given up all hopes of recovery, and if he was willing, now, to die. He answered, ' O yes, Mother---I am too weak to talk any more now.' About 9 o'clock in the evening, he said. 'I am going soon.' A little afterwards, he cryed out, I am called for.'-And a little after I am called for.These were about the last words which he was understood to utter. Thus died Howard F. Randolph, aged 12 years, 4 months, and 5 days. store him to health-but that he would grant him all possible ease and relief in life. On this idea he dwelt the last time he prayed for him, before the interview here mentioned.-This will account for the sudden burst of his mind. Answers to Correspondents. B. C. D.; SIMPLICIUS; and PETITIONER, have been received. D. S. T.; and W. H.; will be inserted. Errata -In a part of the impression, on page 200, col. 1st. for excited, read exerted and col 2d. for animosities, read anomalies. THE CHRISTIAN SPECTATOR. No. V.] MAY, 1820. Keligious Intelligence. For the Christian Spectator. On the Sonship of Christ. It seems to be of primary importance to determine, whether the phrase "Son of God" properly belonged to the personality of Christ previously to his incarnation. Many passages of scripture seem to place this beyond all reasonable doubt. Such are the following: In a very interesting conversation which Jesus held with the Pharisees, recited in the 8th chap. of John, his relation to the father is discussed at considerable length. In the 36th verse he says, "If the Son, therefore, shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed;" in the 38th, "I speak that which I have seen with my father;" in the 42d, "If God were your father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me." John 1, 18th. "No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the father, he hath declared him," compared with 1 John 1, 2. "For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the father, and was manifested unto us." Gal. 4, 4. "God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law." Heb. 5, 8. 66 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience, by the things which he suffered," compared with 3, 6. "But Christ as a Son over his own house," and 7, 28. "For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath which was since the VOL. 2-No. V. 29 [VOL. II. Mc law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore." From the scope of these passages it would seem that there was a peculiar diguity belonging to the Son, as such, previous to his becoming obedient to the law, that is to his incarnation, so as to render this an act of great condescension in him. Again, Heb. 1, 4. "Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they." 5. "For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.” Knight, renders the 4th verse, thus, "he is by so much better than the angels, by how much he hath inherited a more excellent name than they." The drift of the apostle's argument seems to be, to prove the superiority of Christ over the angels, not only from the fact, that he hath obtained a more excellent name than they, but that he had obtained it in a peculiar manner, by inheritance, thus evincing, that a peculiar relation of Sonship existed between him and the father, so as to exclude the idea of his possessing it by creation or adoption, in which way even angels themselves might become entitled to it. That the inheritance here spoken of does not relate to his exaltation in the character of mediator is evident from the fact, that the name which he was to possess on this account is "Jesus,” as we read in Philippians 2, 10."That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth." Again, John 17, 5."And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self, with the glory which I had with thee before the world was." Christ here in the character of Son addressed God as his Father, and speaks of having possessed, as his Son, a glory with him before the creation of the world. Again, Rom. 1, 4. in McKnight's translation, "But was declared the Son of God with power, with respect to the spirit of holiness, (that is, as McKnight paraphrases it, with respect to his holy spiritual nature) by his resurrection from the dead." The term "Son of God," then belongs exclusively to the divine nature of Christ, for it is said in the preceding verse, that with regard to the flesh, or his human nature, he was made of the seed of David. From the texts which have been quoted, it is manifest, that Christ was truly the Son of God previously to his incarnation; and if so, he could not have been thus called on account of the excellence of his moral character, his being born of Mary, his unction from the Holy Spirit, his resurrection from the dead or his Messiahship; unless indeed these characteristics, taken collectively, together with his peculiar relation to the father before the world was, all unite in making it proper for him to be called "the Son of God," an opinion which, I think, it would be difficult to support either from reason or scripture; for his incarnation, unction from the spirit, and resurrection, were but proofs of his being the Son of God, not the reasons of his having that title. The excellence of his moral character would indeed have entitled him to the epithet "Son of God," but not in a peculiar and exclusive sense. That his Messiahship was distinct from his Sonship I shall attempt to prove in the sequel. I have said that his incarnation was but the proof of his Sonship This I think will appear evident from an examination of the passage in Luke, where this event is related. The angel tells Mary that she shall conceive and bring forth a Son, and call his name Jesus; that he shall be great and be called the Son of the highest ; (that is, according to a Hebrew idiom, shall really be the Son of the highest,) that the Lord God shall give 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. Mary wonders, how, in her circumstances, she could become a mother, and the mother too of so august a personage. The heavenly messenger resolves her doubts. "The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the highest shall overshadow thee; therefore also, that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called" (that is, shall be)" the Son of God." "As if he had said," Mary thou wonderest both how thou canst conceive, and, even if that were possible, how thou canst become the mother of the Son of God. I will tell thee. The power of the highest shall overshadow thee, therefore or this is a good reason why thou shalt conceive and give birth to this divine person, and the event will be to thee a proof of the truth of what I have told thee concerning the character of thy Son." Again, Jesus was proved to be the Son of God, by the descent of the Spirit upon him at his baptism, and finally, with great power, by his resurrection from the dead, as appears from a part of St. Paul's sermon at Antioch, in which he explains the seventh verse of the second Psalm, by making it relate to this wonderful event. Much labour has been spent, and it would seem but to little purpose, by Mr. Locke in his "reasonableness of Christianity," to prove that the phrase "Son of God" is synonymous with that of "Christ," and thus descriptive merely of office.—Unfortunately, however, for his argument, this ingenious author in one place says, "how calling him the Son of God came to signify that he was the Messiah, it would not be hard to shew;" thus confessing that in its origin it had a different meaning. Indeed it is abundantly evident from the Gospel that these epithets marked different parts of our Saviour's character, although both so exclusively belonged to him, as that either was sufficient to designate him; else, why are these phrases so often used together, as if one were exegetical of the other, or how came the Jews to charge Christ with blasphemy for making himself the Son of God, or why were two distinct questions asked him by the Sanhedrim at his trial, the one, "Art thou the Christ?" the other, "Art thou the Son of God ?" To illustrate this last circumstance, and for another purpose which will appear in the sequel, it may be worth while to state what appears to me to be a satisfactory harmony of the several passages in Matthew, Mark and Luke, in which our Saviour's examination before the Jewish council is recited, especially as Mr. Locke contends from a collation of these passages which are indeed difficult to be reconciled, that Christ did not confess that he was the Messiah; an opinion which it seems to me is far from being well founded. Matthew and Mark's accounts agree almost verbatim; so that it will only be necessary to compare Matthew with Luke. After the false witnesses had given in their testimony, of which Luke makes no mention, it would seem from the latter, that the whole Council put this question to our Saviour. Luke 22, 67. "Art thou the Christ? tell us. And he said unto them, If I tell you, ye will not believe, and if I also ask you, ye will not answer me, nor let me go. 69. Here after shall ye see the Son of man sit on the right hand of the power of God. Matthew 26, 63. And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the the Christ, the Son of God. 64. Jesus saith unto him, thou hast said; nevertheless (or as it might be rendered, moreover; for has this signification) I say unto you, here after shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven. 65. Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, he hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy. 66. What think ye? Luke 70. Then said they all, art thou then the Son of God? and he said unto them, ye say that I am. 71. And they said, what need we any further witness? for we ourselves have heard of his own mouth. And in Matthew 66.—they answered and said, he is guilty of death." From all which it is evident, that Jesus did acknowledge himself to be the Messiah, and that it was not for this, but for calling himself the Son of God, that the Jews considered him guilty of blasphemy; thus shewing that in their opinion, at least, his Messiaship was distinct from his Sonship. That it was thus distinct is manifest from these passages which have been cited to show that the Son was sent into the world, and also from Heb. 4, 14. "Seeing then that we have a great High Priest that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession." From which verse it would seem that his mediatorial office so far from constituting his divine Sonship, did itself derive dignity and efficacy from it. To have proved that Jesus was the Son of God previously to his incarnation, is also sufficient to show that he did not possess this name on account of his investiture with the Holy Spirit. I shall now attempt to show that the title Son of God belonged to Christ in a peculiar and exclusive sense. This is manifest from John 5, 18-where our Saviour in the opinion of the Jews, called God his own father.The Greek word is do, the same which is used in Rom. 8, 32, "he that spared not his own Son."Campbell I think shows satisfactorily that this word implied a peculiar relation, so as to exclude all other persons from having the same. Indeed if it were not so, how came the Jews to be offended at it, and on other occasions to charge Christ with blasphemy for claiming it. In the Sth chap. of John, a great part of which as I before ob served, relates to Christ's Sonship, Abraham is claimed by the Jews as their father, and so also is God: and yet when Jesus alludes to his relation to the father as conferring authority upon his mission, they charge him with having a devil, and attempt to stone him. Christ is said to possess his Sonship by inheritance. From what has been said on the passage in Hebrews where this truth is asserted, it is manifest, that a relation between the Father and Son is intended, which is peculiar and sui generis.-That the Jewish Sanhedrim also understood this to be the case, is evident from their charging Christ with blasphemy for calling himself the Son of God, and from their telling Pilate that for this very reason, not for calling himself the Messiah, as Locke contends, he deserved death by their law, which could be no other than the law against blasphemy. Some contend that this peculiar re lation between Christ and his Father, consists in his being derived or produced from him in some such sense as Isaac was derived from Abraham; others that it is intended to designate his eternal generation, so that, in the words of the Nicene confession of faith, Christ is God of God, not being God as many of the fathers explain it, à seipso, but eternally begotten of the Father, who is the a, fons, auctor, (the beginning, author, or fountain of his divinity.) The first of these opinjons I shall not now consider. With respect to the last, I would observe, that all those texts which are brought forward to support it, appear to me to prove nothing more than that a peculiar relation has eternally existed between the Father and the Son, without at all explaining the mode of it, either literally or analogically, directly or in an implied manner. Neither do they mean to assert, that the existence of the Father in any sense preceded that of the Son, either in the order of nature or of time. I use this last expression out of deference to those who think that there is a distinction between the order of nature and of time, though I confess it seems to me to be a distinction without a difference. From all that has been said, it would seem that Christ is called the son of God, not on account of his miraculous conception, his unction with the Holy Spirit, his resurrection from the dead, his Messiahship, or the purity of his character, but on account of an eternal and peculiar relation existing between him and the Father, which does not consist in his derivation from the Father, or imply his eternal generation. Still there must be, it would seem, some analogy between this relation, and that existing between a father and son, unless indeed the phrase "Son of God," is used in scripture like the phrase "Jehovah," arbitrarily, as a proper name intended to designate a person known to us by other names, and by the phenomena which he has exhibited, without illustrating at all his being, mode of being, or any relation or characteristic belonging to him. But that this is not the case, is, I think, evident, from the fact, that a word has been used, viz. "Son," which is often applied to other persons, and which would therefore naturally lead us to conclude that it has some analogical meaning. In attempting to ascertain this meaning, it is no more than what correct philosophy, as well as christian faith, requires, that we should not infringe upon those characteristics of Christ, and relations between him and the Father, which are clearly taught us in scripture. Christ's Sonship, therefore, must be so explained as not to confound his filiation with the Father's fraternity, which Sabellians do, nor so as to destroy his co-eternity with the Father, which it appears to me they do who hold his eternal generation, nor his equality with the Father, which is Arianism, nor yet a certain ineffable relation between him and the Father, which rendered it proper for him to become subordinate to the Father in the work of redemption, rather than the Father to him, which I suppose |