CHAPTER XI.

Mr. Watson's Pamphlet on the Eternal Sonship of Christ-Extracts on the Use of Reason in Religion-Mr. Robert Hall's Opinion of Mr. Watson's Pamphlet Unkind Reply to it-Consequences of Dr. Clarke's Theory-Resolution of Conference in regard to the Doctrine of the Eternal Sonship of Christ-Plan of the General Wesleyan Missionary Society-Arrival of two Priests of Budhoo from India-Letter to Mr. Walton-Conference of 1818-Formation of the General Chapel Fund-Mr. Watson's removal to the London West Circuit-Preaches before the Sunday School Union-Extracts from his Sermon-Attends an Ordi. nation of Missionaries at Bristol.

EARLY in the year 1818 Mr. Watson published one of his most important theological works: an elaborate dissertation on the Divine and eternal Sonship of Christ, and on the use of reason in matters of revelation. As a preacher he had attained the highest rank in the public estimation; the single sermons and the missionary reports which he had published showed to great advantage his abilities in that species of composition which combines argumentation with rhetorical embellishment; and his answer to Mr. Roscoe, and Defence of the Wesleyan Missions, demonstrated that his powers in political disquisition and general controversy were of no common order: but he was yet comparatively unknown as a divine; and in what manner he could grapple with the more profound questions in theology was yet to be determined. An opportunity now offered; the occasion was momentous; and the. call of duty appeared to be obvious and urgent. Dr. Adam Clarke's very elaborate Commentary on the Holy Scriptures was then in a course of publication; and was read very extensively, and with great avidity, especially in the Methodist connection, of which the author had long been a distinguished ornament. In this work the doctor strenuously contends for the true and proper Divinity of Jesus Christ; but at the same time maintains that he is the Son of God merely in regard to his human nature; and that he is so denominated because of the manner in which that nature was produced in the womb of his virgin mother. This opinion was not new; though it does not appear that Dr. Clarke had adopted it from any other writer. It was, however, at variance with the tenets of Mr. Wesley and of the Methodist body; and was clearly opposed to almost every orthodox confession of faith, and to the general sense of the Christian Church in every age. The learned commentator does not oppose the doctrine generally held, because in his judgment it contradicts the plain and obvious meaning of Holy Scripture; but because he could not reconcile it with his philosophy: and hence the argument upon which he rests his cause, and which is contained in his note on Luke i, 35, is deduced entirely from human analogies. Having enumerated, at the conclusion of his work, the leading principles which he believed and advocated, he says, "The doctrine which cannot stand the test of rational investigation cannot be true.The doctrines or principles already enumerated have stood this test; and those which shrink from such a test are not doctrines of Divine revelation. We have gone too far when we have said, such and such doctrines should not be subjected to rational investigation, being doctrines of pure revelation. I know no such doctrine in the Bible. The doctrines of this book are doctrines of eternal reason; and they are

revealed because they are such. Human reason could not have found them out; but, when revealed, reason can both apprehend and comprehend them."

Against these principles Mr. Watson felt it his duty to raise the warning voice. He thought that, however innoxious they might be in the mind of Dr. Clarke, a man of established piety and orthodoxy, their influence upon young persons of limited reading, of speculative habits, and superficial religious experience, would be very injurious. At the same time, to oppose Dr. Clarke was painful and hazardous. The doctor was venerable for his years and learning; he was one of the fathers of the connection to which he belonged; the deference paid to his opinions in many quarters was profound; his peculiar views were somewhat extensively entertained, and any thing published in opposition to them was likely to raise a considerable clamour. Mr. Watson was by far Dr. Clarke's junior; he had once left the connection, and had but recently returned; and although he had given indications of great powers, and had rendered important services to the Wesleyan body, yet at that time his character did not stand so high in the public estimation as that of the eminent man with whom he was about to enter the lists. Under all these disadvantages, and with these discouragements before him, he committed to the press a large pamphiet entitled, "Remarks on the Eternal Sonship of Christ; and the Use of Reason in Matters of Revelation: suggested by several passages in Dr. Adam Clarke's Commentary on the New Testament. In a Letter to a

Friend."

The "friend" to whom this letter was originally addressed was the Rev. Thomas Galland, M. A., of Queen's college, Cambridge, then recently admitted into the Wesleyan itinerancy. The passages in the doctor's commentary just referred to had engaged the attention of this excellent man, who was startled by their boldness and peculiarity; and he solicited Mr. Watson's help in solving the difficulties which were presented to his mind. In answer to his inquiries, Mr. Watson says, "You request my opinion on those passages of Dr. Clarke's Commentary, in which he has rejected a doctrine received in all ages, and by every Church reputed orthodox,-the eternal filiation of the second person of the holy trinity; and also on those principles which he has laid down in support of his own views; views not new, but which have of late been almost peculiar to those who entirely reject the essential Divinity of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

"I should have been very unwilling to be the first to excite a controversy on these subjects. Had the notions in question passed off, as certain peculiarities of opinion in Dr. Clarke's Commentary have done, -noticed only for the moment, and now almost forgotten,-I would not have recalled to them the attention of his readers, better employed, I hope, on the many excellent illustrations of Scripture which his work contains. But from their notorious opposition to the sentiments most commonly received among Christians, and in that religious body to which Dr. Clarke belongs, they have been the subject of much and serious discussion: they have made some converts, and have mooted subjects which have never been put into discussion in any Church without considerable mischief. This was the case before any reply was made to them. Since then a written controversy has commenced; and

my reasons for engaging in it may be briefly stated. I consider it a very serious one. I think a clearly revealed truth has been given up by Dr. Clarke; and that he has defended his opinions by arguments, and on principles, which, however innocently held by himself, as to their practical influence upon his own thinkings on religious subjects, are very capable of being turned against doctrines which he reveres in common with all orthodox Christians. I would, however, premise,

"1. That I approach the subject merely as a matter of theological inquiry. The notes objected to are before the world; they are proposed, as other writings, to the judgments of men, and lie open to

remark and criticism.

"2. That I have no feeling but that of respect toward Dr. Clarke. My personal acquaintance with him is but slight; and what I know of him by his writings has impressed me with a high sense of his talents and virtues.

"3. That I have not taken up the subject under the idea that the learned annotator does not most firmly believe in the essential Divinity of Christ. Of this doctrine his notes afford ample proof; and in support of it they contain masterly and irrefragable arguments: and I am farther persuaded that at the time he wrote those passages, in which he restricts the application of the term Son of God, as it occurs in the New Testament as an appellation of Christ, to his human nature, he conscientiously believed that he was removing an objection to the doctrine of our Lord's Divinity: and,

"4. That, though I shall have occasion to remark that he has, in some instances, adopted Arian and Socinian rules of interpreting Scripture, and, as I conceive, very dangerously, I strongly protest against this being construed into an insinuation that I associate Dr. Clarke with the theologians of either class: at the same time, honesty obliges me to confess, that though the doctor's great qualities may keep him secure upon those premises which on some subjects he has assumed, yet they appear to me to have produced contradiction and inconsistency in his comments. It is seriously to be apprehended, that many of his readers will be greatly bewildered by them in their religious opinions; and that their direct tendency is to lead to errors which Dr. Clarke himself would be the first to condemn.

"These particulars being premised, I hope that it will appear to you and to others, that I enter upon the discussion with that respect for Dr. Clarke' which his learning and talents demand; and that it is quite consistent with this respect, to feel that we owe, more than to any man, a deference to truth. The one is propriety; the other is imperative duty."

After these preliminary observations Mr. Watson enters upon his subject, stating, "The present inquiry respects, first, the eternal Sonship of Christ, which Dr. Clarke denies; secondly, the principles by which he has corroborated his negation of that doctrine."

In the former part of his work Mr. Watson shows that the title Son of God is applied to our Lord throughout the New Testament, not with an exclusive reference to his miraculous conception, but as the appropriate designation of a Divine person. It does not, indeed, appear that the fact of the miraculous conception was known beyond the limits of the holy family till after our Lord was raised from the dead. John the Baptist was raised by a special providence as the forerunner of our

Lord; he declared him to be the Son of God; and his powerful ministry was felt in the length and breadth of Judea; yet he left the people ignorant of this fact; for when Jesus entered upon his ministry it was the current opinion that he was "the son of Joseph." The evangelists introduce many persons who acknowledged Jesus to be the Son of God; but no intimation is given that they applied to him this title with any reference to the manner in which his human nature was produced. The title was understood by the Jews especially to imply an equality with the Father; and when they charged him with blasphemy, and clamoured for his crucifixion, because he said he was the Son of God, and that God was his Father, thus, according to their apprehensions, "making himself equal with God," he gave no intimation that they were in error in affixing this meaning to the terms which he used. Having adduced many passages of Scripture, and shown their bearing upon the argument, Mr. Watson contends that, whatever may be the deductions of philosophy, the legitimate inference to be drawn from the inspired records is, that the second person of the Godhead stands in a filial relation to the first, independently of all reference to his incarnation. To use the beautiful language of the Nicene Creed, he is "the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of his Father before all worlds, God of God, light of light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father." As to the manner of the Son's generation, Mr. Watson wisely forbears all attempts at explanation. The Holy Scriptures are silent on the subject; and all analogies derived from created nature must for ever fail to convey adequate ideas of the mode of the Divine existence. It was sufficient for him to rest in the fact, as revealed by God himself; waiting till his arrival in the world of spirits for those farther discoveries which the Almighty, in the plenitude of his wisdom and love, may see good to make. The opposite theory, he perceived, when pushed to its consequences, must either lead to an acknowledgment of three co-ordinate Deities, or to a denial of all personal distinction in the Godhead.

Strong and decisive as is Mr. Watson's reasoning on the eternal Sonship of Christ, the second part of his pamphlet, in which he endeavours to ascertain the use of reason in matters of revelation, is still more valuable and important; as it not only detects the origin of the contrary opinion, but of nearly all the doctrinal errors that have bewildered the minds of men, and afflicted the Church of God. The principles laid down by the author are defended and illustrated with great eloquence and force of argument. They display no ordinary soundness and vigour of intellect, and cannot be too widely disseminated.

"The conclusion of these observations on the office of reason in religion," says Mr. Watson, "may be thus summed up: the office of reason is, to judge of the evidence of the record professing to be a revelation from God. When we are satisfied of the Divine authority of Scripture, our understanding is to be employed humbly, and with dependence upon God, in ascertaining its sense: and whatever doctrinę is there stated, or necessarily implied by the harmony of its different parts, is to be admitted, believed, and held fast, whether it corroborate or contradict the notions which our previous or collateral reasonings have led us to adopt.

"I know that there is nothing here so dazzling as in the principles. VOL. I.

12

on which I have animadverted. It is more flattering to the human mind to be accounted a judge, than to be reduced to the rank of a scholar; to be placed in a condition to summon Divine wisdom to its bar, and oblige it to give an account of the reasons of its decisions, than to receive them upon authority; but this is the safe, because the humble, path and I greatly mistake, if it be not also the true way to high illumination in the things of God. It is to the patient, prayerful study of Divine truth, by its own light, that its harmonies, and connections, and beauties most freely reveal themselves; as the bud discloses to the solar light the graces it refuses to the hand of violence.

"I am not unaware that the learned commentator on whom I have so freely remarked will, at least partially, demur to the view I have given of the principles he has laid down in the conclusion of his valuable work. I have drawn them out to a length to which he probably did not mean them to extend. This I am anxious to believe; but my business is with what he has said, and not with what he might intend: for it is by what he has said that his opinions will influence and direct others in their religious inquiries. The principles have been taken in their true logical sense, and in the meaning of the terms in which they are expressed, as those terms are and must be understood in the conventional language of mankind. There are great errors, in my view, in the principles themselves, after every explanation which can accord with the meaning of language has been given; but there are still greater, arising out of the loose and even contradictory manner in which they are expressed. If followed out as they stand in the commentary, they would inevitably lead to the greatest errors; and if by some subtlety Dr. Clarke can himself accommodate them to correct views on religious subjects, he ought certainly to have remembered that his readers have not generally that adroitness. If he can poise himself in walking the bridge he has thrown over the gulfs of error, a bridge narrowed to greater sharpness than that which Mohammed is said to have laid for the transit of the faithful from earth to heaven, he would have done well to consider how many, less experienced than himself, would also venture upon it, and be probably plunged into a gulf of too hopeless a depth to admit return. This is a serious consideration, which he has too much regard for the truths he holds sacred, and too much love to the souls of men, not to be impressed with. He has authority; but that imposes the obligation of severe caution upon the writer who possesses it; and I do hope, though what I can say on the subject cannot be supposed to have great weight with him, that when he reflects upon the number of his readers, and the extent of influence which his commentary possesses; that the opinions of so many of our young people will be formed upon it, and that it is in the nature of man to overlook the good principles in such a work, and to fix chiefly on those which are exceptionable; and especially that the turn of thinking among the young men who are introduced into the ministry, in that body of which he is so distinguished an ornament, will probably be greatly determined by their constant recourse to his Biblical labours; that he will feel greatly anxious to remove from a work which will carry down his name to posterity with honour, any principle which, however innocently held by himself, can by probable construction lead to Arian and Socinian errors, and smooth the path to