justification relates to Christ's adjudication and approbation of their conduct before a congregated world, at the last great day of account, when he will say unto each, 'Well done, thou good and faithful servant; thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy Lord." " On the Eternal Sonship of Christ. MR. EDITOR, SIR,-It appears that the controversy on the Eternal Sonship of Christ, is not likely to cease until that subject has undergone a closer investigation than it has yet received; and, on the propriety of its being continued, there can, I think, be but one opinion among persons who know the present state of the dispute. As you seem determined to attend to the real question only, it probably will not be long before this war of words will be brought to a satisfactory issue. Truth has nothing to fear, either from exposure or opposition. When beheld without disguise, her attractions are irresistible. It is only when she is disfigured by meretricious ornaments, that there is little perceptible comeliness in her form. And if she ever suffers, it is not from the opposition of her avowed enemies, but from the mistaken modes of defence adopted by her friends. The only prayer she has ever any occasion to use, is, " Heaven save me from my friends; I can manage my enemies myself." The manner in which the Sonship of Christ is generally stated, is highly objectionable: many absurd expressions are employed; and words are occasionally united together, which reciprocally destroy each other's meaning. Such modes of speech are utterly indefensible; but in giving up these, we must take care not to lose a single particle of truth with them. The phrases eternally begotten," "eternally derived," eternally generated," and all such senseless and contradictory jargon, I cheerfully abandon to the tortures inflicted by the opponents of the Eternal Sonship. Thus far, at least, they have truth on their side, and are entitled to the thanks of the Christian Church, for exposing scholastic nonsense. But beyond these expressions, I consider that concession would be dangerous. The term, "Son," and the phrase "Eternal Son," are not liable, I think, to the same objections as those are to which I have referred. The decision of this subject certainly depends upon a question of sacred philology: it is still, however, of a doctrinal nature; as much so, as the distinction of persons in the Godhead, or the eternal perpetuity of future torments. Both these doctrines depend entirely on the meaning we affix to the terms by which they are expressed: so that the subject is not the less important, because it depends on the meaning given to a word. I now proceed, Sir, to answer the questions inserted in No. 12 of your Magazine, column 95. 1st Question." If human relationship had not existed, what idea would have been attached to the word Son?" If generation had succeeded generation by immediate creation, instead of being produced by human agency, no such relations as those of Father and Son would have existed; and if these had not existed, it is probable that language would not have contained any such terms. It is possible, however, that such a word as Son might have been invented; but then the idea that would have been attached to it, would have depended on the object for which it was used as the sign. It might have stood for a house, or a tree, or any object whatever; and then the idea attached to it, would have been the idea of whatever thing it represented. Words, strictly speaking, have no natural meaning; they derive their import from men's having agreed to adopt them as the signs of certain objects and conceptions; and it is this agreement that fixes their signification. Before creatures were formed, and endowed with the powers of perception, or language was contrived to express human thought, the incomprehensible Jehovah eternally existed. What he is in himself, no finite mind can directly comprehend; and what no mind can adequately conceive, no language can fully express. His unity and distinction, are fully known only to himself. But then, as the terms Father and Son, which express a certain relation among creatures, are, by the Holy Ghost, employed in reference to the persons in the Godhead, we may rest assured that they are as proper as any terms | reason away the Eternity of the Son. which language can supply. They must not indeed be understood in the same sense as when applied to creatures. If they were intended to express nothing else, they certainly express with much propriety a relation of equality between the persons in the Godhead. "There can be no other purpose,” says Mr. Wesley, "in revealing all things concerning him, (Christ,) under the character of a Son, and only begotten Son, but to convince us, that he has all the natural essential attributes of his Father; that as a human son possesses the entire human nature, so the Son of God possesses the entire divine nature." 2. “Does the term Son, necessarily imply commencement of existence, in that being or person to whom it is justly applicable?" By no means. A word may be justly applied, without being used literally. The immediate residence of the Deity is very justly called a house, but it is not so literally. And St. Paul says, "every house is builded."+ What then, are we to infer, that commencement of existence is necessarily included in the term house, and consequently that heaven is not eternal? Were we to do this, we should invert all order, and reason from the meaning of a word to the nature of an object, while we ought to determine the sense of the word by the nature of the thing for which it stood. The following observations are thought to be of importance on this subject. 1. Language was originally invented to express natural things. 2. Language was formed before a revelation was given. 3. In giving to us a revelation, God did not communicate a new language; words already in use, were employed to express heavenly things. As the words of revelation are employed only in a secondary sense, it follows, that they necessarily undergo a change of import. ort. Some of the ideas and notions usually associated with them, when they refer to natural things, must be rejected when they are transferred to heavenly. Some persons maintain, that the Holy Spirit is not a person, but an emanation, because the name by which he is designated, originally signifies breath or wind; and in the same manner, they * John xiv. 2. † Hebrews iii. 4. We are too apt to forget first principles. Every one knows that the barrenness of language frequently renders it necessary for us to use a word sometimes with a greater, and sometimes with a less degree of latitude; and that when the signification of a word is varied, it is the thing for which it stands that controls its meaning. These remarks may be illustrated by the term Son. When it is used to denote a proper human son, we associate with it the notions of derivation, subsequence, subordination, and sameness of nature, with the being who stands in the relation of father. When it stands for an adopted son, we exclude the notion of derivation, and retain only the latter. When it is employed simply to express created beings, (as Angels and Adam,) we annex to it the notions of dependence and inferiority. But when it is applied to the second person in the Godhead, who possesses all the sublime perfections of Deity, we drop all but the notion of eternal equality. And those who infer priority of existence in the Father, and subsequency of existence in the Son, from the terms Father and Son being employed, deduce an inference which is not justified by the laws of language. The preceding remarks are sufficient to show, that the word Son does not invariably imply a definite number of ideas and notions; and also, that some part of its meaning may be safely rejected, without abandoning the use of the term. Literally, the word Son denotes a person who has derived his being from, and who possesses the same nature as his father. In both these senses it cannot be applied to Christ. If he possess the nature of the Father, he must be eternal; because eternal existence is inseparably associated with our conception of God. If his being were derived, he could not be eternal: these two senses therefore destroy each other, and only one of them can be true. The question is, which must be rejected? The scripture declares, he was before all things," and " by him all things consist." This decides the point of analogy intended by this term, namely, that he is equal with the Father. 66 The term Word, used in a personal + Colossians i. 16, 17. sense, stands on precisely the same |able mode. In his pre-existent state, footing as the term Son; and so indeed must every personal term which language can supply. pply. 3. "What is the meaning of the terms Son, and begotten Son, when commencement of existence is ex cluded?" This question is in fact already answered. The meaning of every accommodated term, must be regulated by the thing for which it stands; and all such words are used in an accommodated sense, when applied to the persons in the Godhead. From what I have advanced it will be seen, that by the word Son, I mean nothing more than a person in the Godhead possessing every perfection of Deity. he could not therefore be begotten; and therefore these words only begotten, must be understood as a title, and not as denoting an act. It is observable, that the New Testament no where calls him a begotten Son; nor does it any where say that he was begotten. The titles given him in the volume of inspiration, we may apply to him; but we have no authority to say he was a begotten Son. This title, I doubt not, was borrowed from Psa. ii. 7. He had been revealed as the memra or word; but in this Psalm, he is for the first time revealed as sustaining a higher relation; that name is given to him which is above every name. The language is remarkable, "Thou art my Son," not, Thou shalt be; "this day have I begotten thee;" (i. e.) this day have I manifested thee under a different relation. But the words begotten Son, demand particular attention. Whatever the word begotten may mean when used in reference to Christ, it certainly must be understood in a sense very different from that which it bears, when human generation is denoted by it. Even those who conceive that it applies to Him only in reference to his human nature, do not take it literally; for Answer to a Query on the Abode of in its unbodied state, is capable of en-ment, or waited till the great judgment they think it denotes creation, or miraculous production. But whatever other persons may intend by it, I claim for myself the right of understanding it according, as I conceive, to the analogy of faith; and if my views are erroneous, every one is at liberty to reject them. The phrase only begotten Son, I consider as a title of eminence. Adam was a son of God by creation, and angels in this sense are sons. Believers are the sons of God by adoption. But Christ possessing the nature of the Father, his Sonship is raised as much above theirs as a proper human sonship is above that of an adopted one. He is the Son in the highest possible sense. Mr. Baxter, commenting on Colossians i. verse 15, observes, "This (first-born) numbereth him not with the creatures, but sets him above them." And in this sense I take the title only begotten. It teaches us that he was neither created like Adam, nor adopted like believers; but that he is higher than they, (i. e.) equal with the Father in nature, perfections, and duration. It is a good rule in divinity, to interpret that which may appear obscure, by that which is plain; and as the scriptures ascribe eternal existence to the Son, this excludes production in every conceiv In your next number, I hope to offer a few more thoughts on this important subject. TYRO. STATE OF DISEMBODIED SPIRITS. Disembodied Spirits. Leeds, Jan, 7, 1820. In reply to your correspondent J. F. of London, who in No. 11, of the Imperial Magazine, col. 1072, Vol. I. asks, "Where does the soul go, on its separation from the body? and does it receive judgment immediately, or wait till the last day?" I shall be happy to see inserted the following observations, if you think them worthy a place in your Magazine. Yours, respectfully, L. R**. There are four considerations which suggest themselves, in considering the first part of the question proposed by J. F. and which, in my opinion, put the immediate glorification of the departed souls of believers beyond all doubt. 1st. Heaven is as ready and fit to receive them as ever it shall be. 2d. They are as ready and fit for Heaven as ever they shall be. 3d. The Scripture is plainly for it. And, 4th. There is nothing in reason against it. 1st. Heaven is as ready and fit to receive them as ever it shall be. Heaven is prepared for believers. 1st. By the purpose and decree of God, and so far it has been prepared from the foundation of the world, Matthew xxv. 34. 2d. By the death of Christ, whose blood made the purchase of it for believers, and so meritoriously opened the gates thereof, which our sins had barred up against us, Hebrews x. 19, 20. 3d. By the ascension of Christ into that holy place, as our representative and forerunner, John xiv. 2. This is all that is necessary to be done for the preparation of Heaven; and all this is done, as much as ever God designed should be done to it, in order to its preparation for our souls. So that no delay can take place on that account. 2d. The departed souls of believers are as ready for Heaven as ever they shall be. For there is no preparationwork to be done by them, or upon them, after death, John ix. 4. Ec cles. ix. 10. Their justification was complete before death, and now their sanctification is so too; sin, which came in by the union, going out at the separation of their souls and bodies. They are spirits made perfect. The 3d. The Scripture is plainly for their immediate glorification: Luke xxiii. 43. To-day shalt thou be with me in paradise. Luke xvi. 22. The beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom. Phil. i. 21. I desire to be dissolved, and to be WITH CHRIST, which is far better. Scripture speaks but of two ways, by which souls see and enjoy God, viz. faith and sight: the one imperfect, suited to this life; the other perfect, fitted for the life to come; and this immediately succeeding that, for the imperfect is done away by the coming of that which is perfect, as the twilight is done away by the advancing of the perfect day. 4th. To conclude: there is nothing in reason lying in bar to it. The soul, It is, I believe, admitted on all hands, (or at least disputed by few) which makes it unnecessary for me to refer to passages in the Scripture in support of it;-that the souls or spirits of all men who die in a state of unbelief and disobedience, are immediately committed to the prison of hell, there to suffer the wrath of God due to their sins. The second part of the question put by J. F. stands thus; "Does the soul, on its separation from the body, receive judgment immediately, or wait till the last day?" which I beg leave to answer in the words of a good old divine, who, in speaking of the general judgment, says, "Before the general judgment, every soul comes to its particular judgment, and that immediately after death: of this (he says) I apprehend the apostle to speak, in Hebrews ix. 27. It is appointed for all men once to die, but AFTER THAT THE JUDGMENT. The soul is presently stated by this judgment,' in its everlasting and fixed condition. The soul of a wicked man, appearing before God in all its sin and guilt, and by him sentenced, immediately gives up all its hope. Prov. xi. 7. When a wicked man dieth, his expectation shall perish: and the hope of unjust men perisheth." From another Correspondent we have received, on the preceding question, the following remarks: I was somewhat surprised, that any one professing the Protestant Religion could ask such a question as that which appeared in col. 1072, Vol. I. namely; Whether the soul, immediately after its separation from the body, received its sentence, and went either to its place of rest or punish joying blessedness, and can perform its acts of intellection, volition, &c. not only as well, but much better than it did when embodied. I conclude therefore, that seeing Heaven is already as much prepared for believers as it need be, or can be; and they as much prepared, from the time of their dissolution, as ever they shall be; the Scriptures also being so plain for it, and no bar in reason against it, -that the spirits of the just go immediately to glory, from the time of their separation from the body. day? Now I think it is very clear from Scripture, that immediately after the death of the body, the soul receives its reward, whether it be good or bad. I shall just offer one or two scripture proofs of this assertion. First, In Luke, chap. xxiii. verse 43, we read as follows, "And Jesus said unto him, Verily, I say unto thee, to-day thou shalt be with me in paradise." Secondly, On the martyrdom of Stephen, in the viith chapter of Acts, we read, that Stephen, at his death, "saw the heavens opened, and the angels waiting to receive him;" and in the Old Testa- | Moon, which begins at seventeen ment, we read of Enoch, who was translated, and of Elijah, who was carried to heaven in a chariot of fire; and again, the Apostle Paul "desired to depart and be with Christ, which was far better." I think that these few passages are a sufficient proof of what I have advanced; but at the same time, I conceive that at the great day of our Lord Jesus Christ, the union of the body with the soul will cause an increase either of happiness JUVENIS. or woe. Pancras, Jan. 24, 1820. ASTRONOMICAL OCCURRENCES FOR THE Sun enters Aries on the 20th, at eighteen minutes past four in the afternoon, when the spring quarter commences. The Moon enters her last quarter on the 7th; she is new on the 14th; enters her first quarter on the 21st, and is full on the 29th. She will pass the Georgian planet on the 8th, Jupiter on the 12th, Saturn on the 14th, Mercury on the 15th, Venus on the 16th, and Mars on the 22d. Venus is an evening star, setting on the 1st about half-past eight, and on the 31st about twenty nty minutes past ten. She is first seen under the fifth and sixth of the Fishes, passing the fifth soon after sun-set on the 1st, and under and near to the sixth on the 4th. She then directs her course through a barren space, passing between the fifteenth and sixteenth of the Fishes on the 10th. She continues her course between the Ram and the Whale, passing between the first of this constellation and the first of the Ram on the 21st, but nearest to the latter star. She then directs her course to the small stars in the tail of the Ram, passing above and near to the fourth on the 27th, and still nearer to the sixth on the 28th, and she finishes it under the Pleiades. Mars is on the meridian on the 1st about half-past eight in the evening, and on the 31st about seven. He is seen on the 1st, under and nearer to the ninth of the Twins, the first being higher up to the east of it, and he moves slowly under the two first, passing the second on the 22d, directing his course to the nebula in the Crab, but finishing it nearly in a line with the two first of the Twins. On the 29th, there is an eclipse of the minutes past five in the evening; but she does not rise until seventeen minutes past six, when she will appear nearly half eclipsed, and the earth's shadow will gradually advance towards her western limb till thirtyeight minutes past six. The visible part of the shadow then gradually diminishes till fifty-nine minutes past seven, when it will leave the Moon, making its last impression on the eastern side of her northern limb. REVIEW.-HORE BRITANNICE, OR STUDIES IN ANCIENT BRITISH HISTORY. [Concluded from col. 72.] ADVERTING to the language originally spoken by our barbarous ancestors, Mr. Hughes varies but little from the generally received opinion, the substance of which he comprises in the following paragraph. "It is admitted, that the language spoken by the natives of Wales, is the same as was spoken in this island previous to the establishment of the Romans. It is equally true, that the language used by the natives of Ireland, is the same that was spoken by the most ancient inhabitants of that island. The language of the Albanian Scots, or Highlanders, called Erse and Gaelic, is the same as the language in which Ossian sung and Galgacus harangued his troops. We have still some remains of the language spoken in Cornwall in ancient times, and which bears a striking affinity to the Cymraeg spoken in Wales; and is probably only a dialect of the Armoric, or the language of the Bretons of France." pp. 72. a That the ancient Britons were acquainted with the use of letters, is point which will admit of no dispute, the fact being supported by evidence which is incontestable. This acquirement seems, however, to have been confined almost exclusively to the Druids; and even among these, none but those of the higher order were permitted to participate in the knowledge of this sublime acquisition. Mr. Hughes, on the authority of Cæsar, contends, that the characters which they employed, bore a strong resemblance to those of the Greek alphabet; but he conceives that their uses were confined chiefly to civil transactions, as the dogmas of philosophy, |