Testimony Of Robert Hawker, To The True, Proper, And Eternal Sonship Of Jesus Christ

Gospel Standard 1860:

Testimony Of Dr. Hawker, To The True, Proper, And Eternal Sonship Of Jesus

That Dr. Hawker should be claimed as denying the true, proper, and eternal Sonship of our blessed Lord must surprise all who are at all acquainted with his works; for, if there be one author more than another who is sound and clear on that vital point, it is the good old Doctor. The doctrine of the Trinity, it is well known, was one of the chief features of the Doctor’s preaching; and in this Trinity, he always speaks of the Three persons as being God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost, which in itself is a sufficient declaration of Jesus being the Son of God as God the Son, distinct from and independent of his complex Person as God-man. Take the following instances:

“But we must not stop here; for blessed be our God, in his Trinity of Persons, he hath not stopped here. Acts of unparallelled grace are unfolded of this distinction of Persons in the Godhead, and as particularly made known to the church, in the several manifestations of love from each, and to every individual of Christ’s mystical body. It is the Father, of whom the whole family, the church, is named, in heaven and in earth. (Eph. 3:15.) His is the choice of their persons; his, the adoption of them as children; his, the acceptation of them in Christ. (Ephes. 1:4-10.) It is God the Son, who hath espoused them to himself; taken their nature, and redeemed them from the Adam-fall transgression ‘by the sacrifice of himself.’ (Isa. 54:5; Hosea 2:19; Heb. 2:10, &c.) It is God the Holy Ghost, who hath anointed them together with Christ; and, by his own personal work, carries on the whole process in the renewal of our nature from the fall, from grace to glory. (Titus 3:4-6.)”—Vol. I., p. 3.

And again:

“Now the Scriptures, which are the only data from whence we can derive any fixed and undeniable rule of knowledge on this important topic, have revealed to us this great and august Being, under certain eminent properties; the sum and substance of whose exalted character, taken in a collected point of view, is, that in the unity of a divine nature, or essence, there are three distinct persons, hypostases, or subsistences, existing in a manner inconceivable by human comprehension. We are taught to regard one, who, by way of distinction, is called the Father, as a Being possessed of every attribute which constitute Godhead. We are informed also of another, called the Son, who equally participates in all the essential perfections of the Godhead. And in the same sacred records we read of a third, distinguished by the name of the Holy Ghost, in whom we trace, as clearly defined, all the characters of Godhead. And while to each is distinctly ascribed every possible quality which defines the nature of God, and can belong to none but him, we are carefully instructed to consider that the sacred Three, by a mysterious unity of essence, in a manner transcending human intellect to conceive, form but the one Jehovah.”—Vol. I., p. 208.

Once more:

“There is a glory in Jehovah, which may be called his essential glory, arising from his very nature and being, which is perfectly incommunicable to, and altogether incomprehensible by, any mere creature. This is that glory in which he dwells, in Unity of the Divine Essence and Trinity of his Persons, in which the Holy Three in One, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, possess alike and in common all divine perfections; and in the mutual enjoyment of each other, have existed from all eternity, and to all eternity, in one unceasing and never to-be-ended state of holiness, blessedness, and glory. Now with this essential glory no mere creature ever hath or ever can have, communion. Angels or men are alike precluded all approach, for so saith the scripture: ‘He is the King eternal, immortal, invisible: who only hath immortality:’ that is, per se in himself. ‘Dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto, whom no man hath seen, or can see.’ (1 Tim. 1:17; 6:16.) The very nature of those perfections, here described, implies as much. His invisibility, his incomprehensibility would cease if discoverable. Hence John saith, ‘No man (the word is oudeis, no one, that is, not man only; but all mere creatures, whether angels or men) hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.’ (John 1:18.) It is the Son of God only, who came forth from the bosom of the Father, and assuming our nature into union with the Godhead, which made God in any manner visible.”—Vol. I., p. 488.

But the completest proof that Dr. Hawker held the true, proper, and eternal Sonship of our blessed Lord will be found in a work which the Doctor published, entitled, “The Personal Testimony of God the Father to the Person, Godhead, and Sonship of God the Son. From this we make the following extracts:

“And I pray the reader yet further to observe with me, that it is the person of God’s dear Son which is above every other consideration in the esteem and affection of God the Father. God indeed loves his dear Son, in having become the Mediator. He loves him for having taken into union with himself our nature; marrying our nature; redeeming our nature; living for us; dying for us; washing us from our sins in his own blood; and, in short, for the whole of what he hath done, is now doing, and will to all eternity do, for his body the church. All are precious acts in God the Father’s esteem, and for which he loves his dear Son, the Son of his love. (Col. 1:13.) But all these are secondary and subordinate considerations in the love and affection of the Father to what love he hath to the Son, as he is in himself. It is the Son of God as Son of God; his person, and not his works, which fills the heart of the Father with delight. For the Father is not benefited, neither indeed can be benefited, by all that the Son hath done or suffered in our nature for his people. And to this unquestionable truth the Son of God himself bears testimony, when he said, ‘My goodness extendeth not to thee, but to the saints that are in the earth, and to the excellent in whom is all my delight.’ (Ps. 16:2, 3.)”—Vol. III., p. 568.

“There is somewhat very delightful even in the bare contemplation of it. For the consideration of the person of the Son of God, as he is in himself, and independent of his relationship to his people, opens to a subject at once both sublime and blessed. For it is the infinite dignity of his person, which gives infinite value and preciousness to that relationship. And as God the Father is more glorious in what he is in himself than in all his ways and works towards his creatures, so God the Son is more glorious in himself, and his own personal glory, in common with the Father and the Holy Ghost, in the essence of the Godhead, than in all the grace and love he hath manifested to his people. His love to us is indeed precious, yea, very precious; and as the apostle saith, ‘We love him because he first loved us.’ (1 John 4:19.) Nevertheless, had he never loved us, had he never taken our nature, nor done and suffered for us what that love prompted him to do and suffer; yea, had we never been, the Son of God, as Son of God, would have been what he is in himself, in his divine nature, from all eternity and to all eternity, being ‘ One with the Father, over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.'”—Vol. III., p. 560.

“I have but one point more to finish the subject; namely, the Personal testimony of God the Father to the Sonship of his dear Son: and this is as sweet and as interesting as either of the former; and, together with both, gives a finishing beauty and loveliness to the whole. Indeed, if I may venture so to speak, the Sonship of the Lord Jesus hath a certain claim on our affections, peculiarly endearing and of inexpressible sweetness. For all those blessings which How to us from God our Father in his relation as Father, flow to us in and through his dear Son, and from our union with him. And so infinitely important is this doctrine in the covenant of grace, that if it were to be relinquished, the church must relinquish with it also all those great and exceeding precious promises given by the Father to the Son, and the church in him. And there is, according to my apprehensions, somewhat so truly blessed in the relationship of the Father to the Son, and the Son to the Father as our Father in Christ Jesus, that methinks I would not part with the precious doctrine, no, not for the world. And though I dare not, because in truth I cannot, enter into the lull apprehension of the subject myself, much less describe it to others, (indeed the relationship subsisting between the persons of the Godhead is not our province to explain,) yet it is our mercy to receive it; and being so plainly revealed, and so fully confirmed in Scripture, under the blessed and familiar terms of Father and Son, I can, and do, accept and believe it, with the most cordial and heartfelt satisfaction.” Vol. III., p. 519.

“I begin with observing, that from the general statement of the Scriptures on this sublime subject, we are so accustomed to the names of Father and of Son, that it were a violence to our feelings to admit, even for a moment, their reality to be questionable. And as these distinctions are personal, and not simply confined to the nature and essence of the Godhead, it were impossible to relinquish the one, without giving up with it at the same time the other. For if the Sonship of the Son of God be no more, the appellation of the Father is alike no more; the relation of both depending (as necessarily they must depend) upon each other. And in this case, what a chasm would be made in Scripture if both were done away! Where would a child of God go to find his Father, from the relationship to the Son, if these connections iu the Godhead had no existence? And what would become of all those great and glorious promises of our God and Father, as our God and Father in the person of his dear Son before the world began, if the church hath no relationship through the Son, neither the Spirit witnessing to our spirits, ‘that we are the children of God?’

“Moreover, the word of God hath in express terms given to the church the testimony of the Father to the Sonship of his dear Son, in not only declaring the oneness in nature and essence of the Father and the Son; but by expressions so near and tender, when at any time speaking of the Son, as most decidedly confirms the Father’s testimony on this point, and renders it unquestionable. The Son of God is called his own Son, his dear Son, his only begotten Son, the Son of his love, and the like. And all these distinctions are in a way and manner as none beside is or can be called. Not the Son of God by creation, as angels and men are; for all things are said to be created by him and for him, consequently he himself cannot be created. (Col. 1:16, 17.) Neither is he called the Son of God by adoption, as irs the church, (Eph. 1:5) for our adoption is by him; and consequently he himself is not adopted. Neither as Mediator, God and man in one person; for in this sense he is God’s servant. But he is called the Son of God, in a special, personal, and particular manner, as the only begotten of the Father, of the same nature with himself, ‘over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.’ (Rom. 9:5.)”—Vol. III., p. 600.

“I do not think it unimportant in this place to add, that the Jews themselves perfectly understood our Lord as giving his own testimony to this Sonship in nature, and for which they charged him with blasphemy; a term wholly inapplicable, according to their view of things, but on the presumption that this Sonship was assumed by the Lord Jesus as thereby declaring himself God, and of the same nature and essence with his Father. ‘There­ fore the Jews sought to kill him, because he had not only broken the Sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.’ (John 5:18.) These words, strong as they are to this Sonship of God’s Son, would yet have been stronger had our translators given the full sense of every word. But they have wholly left out a word, and that a most important word, which is in the original; namely, idion, and which shows that the Lord Jesus had called God his own Father. So that though our modern unbelievers in the Sonship of God’s dear Son, as Son of God, presumptuously deny this blessed truth, yet not so the Jews. They did not mistake our Lord’s meaning when he said that God was his own Father; for they took our Lord’s words just as they were, and declared him in consequence, accord­ ing to their views, a blasphemer, for ‘ making himself equal with God.’ But it will be for God himself to decide with whom is the greatest blasphemy; the Jews, in accepting the Son of God’s words as they really were, and through unbelief denying his Godhead; or those who call themselves Christians, while refusing to accept Christ’s own words as they truly are; but by a construction of their own denying his Sonship, and also ‘the record God has given to his Son.’

“Once more. The Sonship of God’s beloved Son derives another testimony from God our Father, in that he is called his ‘first born, his first begot­ ten, his only begotten;’ and is said’ to be in the bosom of the Father.’ (John 1:18.) Perhaps it may be said that the two former of those characters may be spoken of the Son of God as Mediator. And perhaps they may. Be it so. I will not stay to inquire. But the same cannot be said of the two latter. ‘Only begotten,’ and ‘to be in the bosom of the Father,’ can be applicable only to him as Son of God, and to the exclusion of every other. And let it be observed, (for it is a point of no small consequence to observe) this ‘only begotten’ is not only limited to the person of the Son of God; but his Godhead is more decidedly shown thereby, in that he is said to be in the bosom of the Father, and this even at a time when declaring him. He is not said to come forth from the bosom of the Father, but to be in the bosom, as one with him in heaven, when as Mediator he is declaring him in the earth.

“When I take into one mass of evidence the cloud of witnesses with which the church is encompassed, on this great truth of our most holy faith, I stand amazed that there should be found any, among those who admit the Bible as the standard of decision, who venture to call in question a doctrine so fully authenticated, and so essential to the being and well-being of the church, as is the Person, Godhead, and Sonship of God’s dear Son. That. Satan should tempt to this unbelief, is just as might be expected; for we know he had the impudence to tempt the Son of God himself to question his own Sonship. (Matt. 4:3, 6.) But it cannot be reconciled upon the principles of common sense, that men, who call themselves Christians, should take their stand upon the same ground, and by endeavouring to rob the Son of God of his dignity, rob the church of all comfort. Are such men aware, that while their quiver is bent against the Person, and Godhead, and Sonship of God’s beloved Son, their arrows are, in fact, directed against the buckler of the Father? For added to the testimony God the Father hath given from heaven to the Sonship of his beloved Son, did he not at the same time command the church to hear him? Hath he not held him forth, through all the sacred Scriptures of his word, as the great object of trust, and faith, and confidence? And would he be the suited object of either, but upon the presumption of his oneness with himself in all the divine essence? Nay, would God have said to the church as he hath done, ‘He is thy Lord, and worship thou him.’ (Psalm 45:11.) Yea, have commanded ‘all the angels of God to worship him,’ (Heb. 1:6.) had he not possessed in common with himself and the Holy Ghost, all those distinguishing attributes of Godhead, by which alone he becomes the suited object of adoration? Oh! what pale­ ness, what horror, what dismay will mark the Christ-despisers of this and every other generation, when the Sou of God shall come ‘in his own glory and to be glorified in his saints, and admired in all them that believe,'”— Vol. III. pp. 603-607.

“The Sonship of God’s dear Son, as the Son of God in nature, is of all subjects the most endearing to the church, who are sons by adoption and grace. It opens to the first of all enjoyments in life. Yea, the perfect know­ ledge and enjoyment of it will be among the highest felicities in the life that is to come. For heaven itself, with all its blessedness, be that blessedness what it may, can have nothing equal to that of the relationship into which the church is brought to all the persons of the Godhead, by virtue of our personal relationship with God’s dear Son.”—Pp. 607, 8.

“By that glorious act of God’s dear Son taking into union with himself our nature, he hath hereby opened a medium of communication to make known (what without such a medium never could be known; the being and nature of God. Hence, though ‘no man (or as it is in the original, oudeis, one, neither angel or man) hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.’ (John 1:18) And by making known to the church the personal acts of each, in each person of the Godhead, the people of God find somewhat for the mind to lean upon, for personal communion with each, and with all. So that the children of God, when quickened and regenerated by the Spirit, can and do know, and can and do sweetly and savingly enjoy, communion with the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, as the one united source of all grace and salvation. Hence they feel a blessedness and ‘a joy which is unspeakable, and full of glory, receiving the end of their faith, even the salvation of their souls.’

“I am well aware how galling these things are to all unrenewed minds. And should this little work fall into the hands of men of this complexion, I am sensible it will not fail to displease. Yea, it is possible it may provoke to many a bitter expression, such as I have heard, and heard indeed until my very flesh hath trembled. The Sonship of God’s dear Son, and particularly the atonement of his blood, hath called forth in the lightness of their minds such awful sentiments, as if that precious plan of grace represented God the Son as most amiable, and God the Father inexorable! But amidst this horrid blasphemy, the glorious truth itself stands where it always stood, ‘from the foundation of the world.’ (1 Pet. 1:19,20; Rev. 13:8.) The Rock of Ages feels no motion from all the dashing waves of the momentary ebbing and flowing of the tide below! Could these men see, (what indeed nothing short of divine illumination can enable them to see) the beautiful order in the economy of grace, they would discover both the original formation of the church in holiness, and the fall and recovery of the church from sin, are equally alike the result of one and the same Jehovah, in his Trinity of Persons; and that the whole is founded in the depth of divine wisdom, to minister equal glory and praise to the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.”—Pp. 611, 612.

These extracts will speak for themselves. We assent heart and soul to every one of them. They express with a clearness, a power, and a savour far beyond our pen the very faith of our heart, and the very feelings of our soul. O that it might please the Lord to open the eyes of those who deny the true, real, and eternal Sonship of Jesus, to see that glorious truth against which now they fight, and to bow down their hearts to believe it as it is revealed in the word of truth, and experimentally made known to the saints of God.