William Gadsby’s Sentiments On The Eternal Sonship

Gospel Standard 1860:

My dear Friend,—It is not a little which surprises me now-a-days; but I certainly was surprised to hear from you, on my return from Egypt, that persons were going about circulating the report that my late dear father did not believe in the Eternal Sonship of the Second Person in the Trinity; and, had I not known something of the pride and doggedness of the parties making the remark, that surprise would have been greatly increased upon hearing, as I did a few days ago, that at an assembly of “divines” at Hitchin it was asserted that “Mr. Gadsby had more sense than to believe such nonsense.”

Now, there was no doctrine in the whole Bible about which my father was more tenacious than that of the glorious doctrine of the Trinity. His soul was instantly on fire when he heard any one, “directly or in­ directly, nibbling at it.” This we shall see from his Works, Vol. II., pp. 21, 22:

“The glorious doctrine of the Trinity has been openly opposed by some and artfully opposed by others among ourselves; and in each case it has proved a cause of distress. It therefore behoves us to be watchful, upon a subject of such moment. It is in itself a subject that needs no covering nor any artful explanations; therefore be upon your guard. If any of us have exercised a false charity towards those who have opposed this grand truth, let the past be sufficient wherein we have thus wrought the will of the Gentiles; and as the enemy makes further advances, may we be able to detect his designs; and, in the strength of the Lord, stand up for the truth of our blessed God. Some of us have felt the dreadful weight, not only of an open denial of this glorious truth, but of artful nibblings about it; therefore we should be the more upon our guard, and take care that we are not captivated with good words, and fair speeches, and artful explanations.”

What my father understood by the Trinity we find in his Catechism, as in Works, Vol. II., p. 62:

“Q. How many Persons are there in the Godhead?—A. There are Three Persons in the Godhead,—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit; and these Three are One, the same in essence, and equal in power and glory.”

In the year 1842, the friends at Manchester were making a new trust deed for their Sunday School. My father and the late Mr. M’Kenzie were spending a few days with me in some apartments which I had engaged at Blackpool, on the West coast, and I put before them a form of deed which appeared in the “Gospel Standard” for August, 1839. In that form, first and foremost are the following words: “The glorious Trinity of three Persons in one undivided Godhead.” Well do I remember my father’s exclamation when he had read the sentence. “Doctor,” said he, addressing Mr. M’Kenzie, whom he always styled Doctor, because he had some knowledge of medicine; “Doctor, this will never do. It is not half strong enough!” and he forthwith sat down and wrote as follows: “The glorious doctrine of Three Persons, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Spirit, equal in nature, power, and glory, in one undivided Jehovah.” “There,” said my father, “I think these nibblers can’t gnaw that to pieces.” No; impossible; for if the Father in his nature be eternal, the Son in his nature must be eternal also.

Some persons have endeavored to draw a distinction between the “Word” and the “Son;” but that such were not my father’s views will be seen from the following:

“Ask them these important questions: Do you believe in three distinct Persons in one undivided Jehovah? and do you believe it becomes the people of God to say, God the Father, God the Son, (or Word,) and God the Holy Ghost, both in vindicating your doctrine and in your so­ lemn addresses to Jehovah? and do you believe it is the duty and privilege of the believer to worship each glorious Person distinctly? If they shrink from any part of this, they cannot firmly believe in the glorious doctrine of Three Glorious Persons in One undivided Jehovah.”—Works, Vol. II., p. 22.

Now it was the “Word” who was made flesh, and that “Word,” in the estimation of my father and, I must add, of every sound Trinitarian in the world, was the Son; and as the “Word,” the same who took flesh, was with God in the beginning, and was God, (John 1:1,) the Son must have been eternal, with the Father. And not only so, but in 1:14 John expressly calls the Word “the only-begotten of the Father.” Unless, therefore, we are prepared to argue that there are four persons in the Godhead, we must admit that the Son was the Word and was “in the beginning with” and “the only-begotten of the Father.”

Digressing a little from the opinions of my father, I will tell you an anecdote. Last Christmas Day I attended service with Mrs. Gadsby, at Cairo. A converted Jew preached, taking for his text Isa. 9:6: “For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given,” &c. “Here,” said the preacher, “as in every other part of the Hebrew, we see a distinction made between the child and the son; the child is born, the son is given.” And this is in perfect agreement with the New Testament: “For God so loved the world that he gave his only-begotten Son.” (John 3:16.) And he not only gave him, but sent him, as in 1 John 4:9. In John 6:38, we find Christ himself saying he came down from heaven—not his human body, surely, nor yet his human soul, but his Godhead. God sent many servants before he sent his Son; but this Son was in existence the whole time. Hence we read in Mark 12:6, “Having, therefore, yet one Son, his wellbeloved, he sent him,” &c. There was the Son before he was sent.

Such was the purport of the Jew’s remarks on the former part of the text; and I cannot help adding one or two of his remarks on the latter part, as I am sure they will be interesting to you: “His name shall be called ‘Wonderful, Counsellor, the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father,’ &c. There ought not to be a point, said the preacher, between ‘Wonderful’ and ‘Counsellor.’ The passage should read thus: ‘His name shall be called The Wonderful Counsellor.’ And is he not a Wonderful Counsellor? Who can plead the cause of poor sinners as he can?…’The Everlasting Father.’ This means the father, or creator, of all worlds. Such is the distinct meaning of the original, the language being purely Hebraic. So that in the text we have his Eternal Godhead and Sonship and his humanity all affirmed, yet distinctly expressed.”

I assure you, my friend, the Jew’s remarks had such an abiding place in my heart, and so served me for meditation many a day when on the Nile, that I could not help writing to a friend upon the subject. As Dr. Hawker says, if there had ever been a time when there was not a Son, there must have been a time when there was not a Father. Is the one eternal? So is the other; and who will dare to pry into so great a mystery? It is a doctrine for faith, not reason, any more than the doctrine of the Trinity itself.

I have also heard it asserted that the doctrine of the Eternal Sonship of Christ was never introduced into the “Gospel Standard” until Mr. Philpot became the editor of the work. Here again these people are at fault; for if we turn to the Dec. No., 1838, when my father and the late Mr. M’Kenzie were the editors, we shall find the following:

“My mind has been led out of late in contemplating upon the complex person of our adorable Jesus, as made known to me by the Spirit of truth, having met with some who have militated against the glorious person of the God-Man Christ Jesus. It is not my intention to show the absurdity of the doctrine they promulgate. I believe the word of God does not contain it, and my soul abhors it; but rather, as the Spirit may enable me, say a little, (and but little, for at most we see but as through a glass darkly,) of what I trust the Holy Spirit has shown me of the God-Man Christ Jesus. First, he is the eternal Son of God, underived and self-existent, co-equal and co-eternal with the Father and the Holy Ghost. (See Zech. 13:7; John 1:1; Phil. 2:6; Dan. 3:25.)”

Indeed, my father did not give up the actual supervision of the “Gospel Standard” to the very last. Only a short time before he died, he approved of and passed for insertion a letter on the Eternal Sonship, by Mr. Philpot, which appeared in the Number for Feb., 1844, and was printed some days before he died.

Nor was my father a Sabellian, as will be seen from the following: “Some will say, ‘Yes, there are three characters, not persons! But if characters are all that are intended, why confine them to three? The Lord has made himself known by scores of characters in the great economy of salvation, such as King, Captain, Man of War, Rock, &c.; but his Persons are three, only three.”—Works II., 23.

I hope this will set the matter at rest, so far as my father is concerned. Some persons are exceedingly fond of speaking well of him now he is no more, who never could give him a good name when he was alive. A friend of mine in the country told me that some ministers from London were at his house at an Anniversary, shortly after my father’s death, when all present, with one exception, were lauding my father to the skies, until the one who had remained silent said, “it’s all very well for us to speak well of him now he is out of the way; but some of us did not like him when he came amongst us.” As soon as I heard the anecdote, I exclaimed, “Well done, honest John!”

Yours sincerely,

John Gadsby

June 7^th, 1860