A Letter to Revd Mr. J. D. (1763)

To the Editors of the Spiritual Magazine. A Letter to the Rev. Mr. J. D. in Answer to his last, inserted in the Spiritual Magazine, for September, 1763.

Rev. and dear Sir,

         Permit my humble thanks to wait on you, for the favour of your last, inserted as above. I join with you, Sir, to bless the Lord, that you received any profit by my letters on Christ’s Advocateship. I am glad that “you desire to be led into, and believe every gospel truth, and to find the efficacy of Christ’s intercession in your soul, to have his pleading love manifested in your mind by the Holy Ghost, and to exult in his love, which is now interceding in Heaven for you.” For though it is a great mercy to have our judgments informed, yet, as it is said by a great servant of Christ, “We know no more spiritually, than we know transformingly.” If you take me, Sir, to be a Minister of the Gospel, you are in that under a mistake, for I am a little, unworthy worm, and all my attempted service for Christ and his, is in a far lower sphere of action. Indeed I have obtained mercy of the Lord to be a little errand-goer in his great house, to carry now and then a message from the Prince of peace, to his tender lambs, and sometimes to his upper-servants; and this mercy is my ineffable felicity! and your prayers for me, as a Minister, shall be answered by the God of all grace in the success of my attempted service, in my proper sphere.

         As to what you mention, Sir, about the pre-existence of the human soul of Christ, please to excuse me that I cannot think with you in this, but am unto it all-averse. I am so far from taking it to be a truth of Christ, that it appears to me, to be an error of great importance; and that wherever it is advanced, with awful consequences it is usually attended. My thoughts on that subject, I lately published in a Letter to a Friend, but have not room to transcribe a copy in this, or would submit them to your consideration. I think with you, Sir, that the prejudices of education are great hinderances to many of the Saints, as to the receiving gospel doctrines and ordinances.” But though it is a mercy to have our judgments lie open to conviction by any truth that we have not yet been taught; we should beware of giving into any new opinion, that hath not in the unerring word a solid foundation: For error may be so dressed up, that at first appearance it may wear the face of truth. You say, Sir, from John xviii. 5. “I considered who was the person praying in the text, not the eternal Logos or Word, no, but the man Christ Jesus, or the human soul of Christ; for as God he is equal with the Father, and therefore had no need to pray in the character to the Father.” I grant, Sir, that it was the man Christ Jesus, and his human soul that prayed; but not that his human soul, nor yet his entire human nature, consisting of soul and body, in both of which he prayed, did constitute his person; for the human nature in Christ, had no personal subsistence of its own, but subsisted solely in God the eternal Son, as being assumed by him, into personal union; so that I think, it is not according to truth, to say, that Christ prayed either as God, or as man, in either of his natures, in an abstract consideration; [122] but that he prayed as God-man, under that complex character, as the great Mediator, and head of the church, for that glory which he had with his Father before the world was. And this glory, I take to be, 1. His personal glory, as God the eternal Son, which was veiled upon his assumption of our nature, that servant’s form, in his state of humiliation. And thus he prayed for its manifestation, that though God the Son, was to appear on his Father’s throne, as clothed with the human nature, the glories of his Godhead, which he had, as a divine person, with the Father before the world was, might shine resplendently through his humanity, and fill all Heaven with wonder, joy and praise. And 2. His mediatorial glory as God-man, as he was set up in covenant, he had a glory settled upon him, and promised unto him, as Mediator, to be the reward of his mediatory work; and in that respect, he prayed for the communication of that glory which he had with the Father, as Mediator, by covenant-constitution, and in covenant-transaction, before the world began. In both these respects, to be glorified, he prayed; and the supposed glory of his pre-existent soul, I utterly reject; it is far from being an article of my faith. But, Sir, you add, “for I apprehend that when we meet with any expressions in Scripture, that suit not the divine nature, they are always to be understood of his human nature only.” As to this, Sir, I should rather have closed with distinctly, than only; because a distinction of natures is, and ought to be, made in his persons, and so in those things which are proper to either nature, in the unity of his person. But to say, that which is not proper to his divine nature, doth properly belong to his human nature only, I think is not safe; for instance, as God, he could not die; it was the human nature that died; but if his death was to be spoken of, as in the human nature only, how could “God be said to purchase the church with his own blood?” And, “herein perceive we the love of God, in that he laid down his life for us?” It was the Son of God, the second divine person in the Godhead, that assumed our nature into personal union with him, and that in our nature, gave his life, his blood, as a ransom-price for the church; but as his death was in the human nature distinctly and properly, it was not in the human nature only; for had he only thus died, he could not thereby have satisfied for our sin. The torments of the damned in Hell, though to eternity perpetuated, can never satisfy for their guilt which is objectively infinite, because, they being but finite creatures, what compensation can their death make for their injury done by sin, to the life of the infinite Creator? Alas, in their sufferings, there is no proportion to the guilt of their sinning! And thence, impossible it is, that finites should ever make an infinite satisfaction. And had our Lord, in his death, died only in his human nature, what satisfaction could have been made thereby for our sin, and unto God the Father? Suppose his human nature to have had ever such a glory due to it, though all-transcendent to that of mere finites, by virtue of its personal union with God the Son; yet that glory, had he laid it aside, as he did, and died in the human only, would not reach infinity, nor have been an infinite compensation for the injury done by our sin to infinite glory! Indeed our [123] sin brought the curse of death upon us; “In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” And our Lord, to redeem us from that curse, assumed our nature, and died therein for us, but not in that nature only, in which separately he could not have satisfied fully. But he gave himself, his life for us, in both his natures; in his human nature properly, and in his divine nature relatively; for by his death in the human nature, by virtue of the personal union, there was such a vail cast upon the glory of the divine nature in his person, that it was the deepest humiliation the Godhead was capable of, and by this it was, that he made a full satisfaction for our sin: By our sin, we vailed the glory of God, the manifestative glory of God the Father, which was our slaying the life of it, and was of an infinite guilt; we could not by sin slay the life of God’s essence, or his essential glory; for the Godhead, in this respect, could not die; no, this was far out of sin’s reach, but we thereby slew the life of his manifestative glory. And in order to make satisfaction for our guilt, God the Son, in his assumed human nature, not only laid down all that glory which was due to him as man, by virtue of the personal union, and his human life, but also by it vailed the glory of his Godhead, all his manifestative glory as God, he then gave to a total eclipse by his death; and it was by this infinite gift, that an infinite satisfaction was properly and formally made. The whole of Christ’s actions and the whole of his sufferings, or passion, were the actions, the sufferings, of his person, by virtue of the personal union of the divine and human nature in him, and each nature suffered in its proper sphere. And so in his praying, he must not be thought to pray as God abstractly, nor yet as man in an abstract consideration, but as God-man in the unity of his great person entirely. You further add, Sir, “Taking it then for granted, that it is the human soul of Christ praying in the text, glorify thou me, &c. you thence conclude that it must evidently prove, that the human soul of Christ did exist before the world was, at least it appears so to me.” I suppose, Sir, you will not say, that Christ prayed in his soul only, and not his body; while divine record tells us, “These words spake Jesus, and lift up his eyes to Heaven, and said, &c.” And if he prayed in his entire human nature, for that glory which he had with the Father before the world was, might you not as justly conclude from thence, that his whole human nature, soul and body, had an actual existence, and an actual glory, before the world was; since when, God the Father answered this his prayer, he was glorified actually both in soul and body? And was you to make that conclusion, it would be an untruth so glaring, that you must needs shudder at its reception. I beseech you, therefore, think again before you give into that notion, of his human soul’s pre-existence, however specious might be its first appearance; for it was not one part of his human nature that was glorified before the other, but his whole human nature, as in covenant union to his divine person, that was glorified with the Father, by covenant-settlement before the world began. And as his divine person then existed in the covenant-capacity of Mediator, he then had all that glory with the Father, which was settled upon him as such; but no actual existence, either in soul or body, nor any actual glory [124] conferred upon him from eternity. He was first to assume our nature in the womb of the Virgin, to have an actual existence therein, and to run through his course of obedience and sufferings, before God the Father actually glorified him, “Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?” It was his glory, by nature, as God the Son; it was his glory, as Mediator, by covenant-settlement, before he had finished his work; it became so, in the latter respect, by the Father’s grant, upon his engagement to perform it; but he entered not into it until his work was completed. And when he prayed be glorified, he took into his consideration, his work’s completion, and thereon sounds his prayer for glorification: “I have glorified thee upon the earth, I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do. And now, O Father, glorify thou me, with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.” The work of glorifying God on the earth, in the salvation of sinners by his obedience unto death, was not given to his human soul only to perform, nor yet to his entire human nature alone, but to his person as God-man; as such he performed it, and as such he prayed to be glorified, with that glory which he had with the Father as such before the world was. The glory which he then had as God the second person, which was veiled by his incarnation and humiliation, he prayed for its manifestation upon his ascension; and the glory promised him in covenant as Mediator, upon his finished work of redemption, he prayed for its communication, or actual collation; and in both respects it was the glory of his person, and not that of his human soul only, for which he prayed. It was not the glory of that only, which in his prayer he respected, nor the glory of that only which his Father gave; so that it was not the glory of his soul as pre-existent, but the glory of his person for which he prayed in the respects mentioned. And if this supposed pre-existent soul, is said, as it has been, “To come down from Heaven at the fulness of time, to take on it a human body:” I leave you, Sir, to judge if it is not put in the place of the eternal word, that was made flesh, or in the room of that Son of God, which he sent forth in the fulness of time, to be incarnate, or made of a woman. And were we to lose the divine person of God the son, by a created human soul’s substitution in his place, how ineffable would be that loss! Is not the foundation God has laid in Zion destroyed doctrinally thereby? Let us beware then of such a dangerous notion; let us “try the spirits, whether they are of God, and if they speak not according to his word, it is because ther eis no light in them.” And now, Sir, to your Query, which is,

         Query, “How may the believer distinguish between the full assurance of hope, mentioned Heb. vi. 11. And the full assurance of faith, mentioned, Heb. x. 22. How may he know when the former and when the latter are differently in exercise in his soul?” I attempt an answer as the Lord shall enable me, as briefly as I may.

         Answer. Faith and hope, as I humbly think, are here to be considered both objectively and subjectively. Faith, objectively taken, is put for the doctrine of faith, or all the declarations and promises of grace, in the word of God. And faith, subjectively taken, respects the grace of faith in the heart, which receives all the doctrines of [125] faith in the word; and the assurance of faith in the text referred to, respects the assurance of faith in the heart, upon faith’s reception of the assurance given of the doctrines of faith by God himself in his word, and is more or less full, as the Holy Spirit reveals the doctrine of faith in the mind, with greater or lesser degree of evidence, shining upon them in the heart, and presenting them to it in his own light, in a sovereign way, just as he pleases; Hope, objectively considered, is put for all those great blessings contained in the promises of grace in the word, with respect to the absence of their performance. And hope, subjectively taken, respects the grace of hope in the heart, which looks for those choice blessings promised by God in his word; and the assurance of hope is more or less full, as the promises of grace are presented to the heart, in the Spirit’s light, with more or less evidence; and it is this assurance of hope, as a grace in the heart, that is to be understood in the text referred to for that. And a believer may know these distinct graces when they are differently exercised in his heart, by the distinct nature of their exercise. If he is in the exercise of faith in the promise, he then sees the fulness, the grace, the glory of it, unto soul-rest, and complacence in it. And if he is in the exercise of hope for promised blessings, he looks upon them as desirable things that are absent, and expects their enjoyment. The assurance of faith consists in a persuasion of the promise in its truth and goodness; and when this is without hesitation, or diffidence, it is full assurance. The assurance of hope consists in an expectation of desirable promised blessings with regard to their present absence, and when this is without interruption, or non-expectance, it is full assurance. And assurance of faith, and assurance of hope, may be considered more strictly, as it regards the promise, and the promised blessings, the former in its present existence, and the latter in their future bestowment, as things which can and shall exist in themselves. With respect to all the heirs of promise, and more largely, as it contains in it so wise a persuasion of the believers personal interest in the promise, and an expectance of the promised blessings, to his own personal bliss. And as a believer’s assurance of faith, as to personal interest, has for its ground, declared and promised grace; we are exhorted to duty, “to draw nigh to God, in full assurance of faith.” And as his assurance of hope, in personal expectance, has for its foundation, primarily, the blessings promised; and secondarily, by way of evidence, has faith’s acceptance of the promise, and the fruit of his faith, or his labour of love, in all holy obedience; it is in this latter respect, that we are desired to shew the same diligence, to the full assurance of hope unto the end. As, if a believer is remiss in his obedience, he thereby clouds his evidence, and impedes his full assurance, as to personal expectance, which the powers of darkness will not fail to improve to his great disadvantage.

         You know, Sir, that faith is to be taken, both objectively, and subjectively, in many texts. Objectively, we are to understand it where it was said of Paul, “he now preacheth the faith which once he destroyed.” And thus, “the spirit is received by the hearing of faith.” And subjectively, where Paul to Timothy says, “When I call to remembrance the unfeigned faith that is in thee.” And to the [126] Galatians, “but the fruit of the spirit is faith.” And the nature of this subjective faith, he tells us, Heb. xi. 1. “now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” The things hoped for are those things which have an existence in the promise, and to these faith gives a substance, or makes them real to the soul, which else would appear to be meer shadows, by reason of their non-appearance to sense. And of these things not seen, as to their performance, faith is the evidence, that they shall have a certain accomplishment, and the soul of them a full enjoyment. And thus the old Testament Saints, “saw the promises afar off, were persuaded of them, and embraced them.” They saw the promises by faith in the present exhibition of the promises to them; they saw them afar off, as to their fulfilment, were persuaded of them in their truth, and embraced them in their goodness; and thence, after the promise, in the course of obedience, they went forth, “confessing that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.” And thus it is with the New Testament Saints, with respect to the full accomplishment of the promises, or their inheriting the promise. And hope, is to be taken objectively, where Paul to the Colossians says,”We gave thanks to God, for you, for the hope which is laid up for you in Heaven.” And to the Galatians, “we thro’ the spirit wait for the hope of righteousness.” And hope is to be taken subjectively, where he says to the Romans, “experience worketh hope.” And prays for them that they might abound, in hope, through the power of the Holy Ghost.” Hope is to be taken objectively, where he says, “but hope that is seen, is not hope:” That is, our full salvation, as declared in the promise which our faith receives, is the object of hope; and when we are blest with the full enjoyment of it, it will cease to be the matter of our expectance. And subjectively, in what follows: “For what a man seeth, i.e. enjoyeth, why doth he yet hope for? But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it.” And the assurance of hope, as they arise primarily from the written and applied promise, under the Holy Spirit’s witness, more or less, to the believer’s personal interest; and as they spring in a secondary way, of subordinate evidence, from his gospel obedience, are more or less full, just as the Holy Ghost reveals and assures of the promise, and of the promised blessings; and shining on the believer’s faith and obedience, causeth them to give a joint subordinate evidence, unto assurance, and full assurance, which causeth soul-complacence in the promise, and a joyful expectance of its performance. And we may know if faith, or hope, is in exercise, by our persuasion of the promise, or expectation of the promised bliss. And tho’ most believers now say, “they hope they have an interest in the promise;” what they intend by it is some degree of persuasion, though it be not without hesitation of interest. And the word hope, is thus used in an improper sense; but if it is applied to that weak hope, or expectance, which they have that they shall enjoy promised blessings for time and eternity, it is then used properly, though it amounts not to full assurance of hope as to their personal enjoyment. Thus, Sir, you have my weak answer to your Query.

         And from hence may we, and all the Saints, in all holy obedience of faith and love, follow after assurance, and full assurance of faith, and [127] hope unto the end! For much will it redound unto God’s praise, and to our bliss. None are such God-glorifying, soul-rejoicing, and fruit-bearing Christians, as those who are blest with full assurance of faith, of hope, and this unto the end. Wishing a rich descent of the Holy Spirit, in all his gifts and graces, to assist and succeed you in your great Lord’s service, and a massy crown of righteousness at his appearance, and requesting your prayers for the least in your Father’s house; with all affectionate esteem, I am, Rev. Sir, Your most obedient Servant, in our most precious, glorious Lord,

A.    D.

P. S. If you desire, Sir, to see my weak Essay against Pre-existence, in the Letter mentioned, you may please to send for Mrs. A. D.’s 11th volume of Letters, sold by G. Keith, at the Bible and Crown, in Grace-Church-Street, London. Price One Shilling. I had not wrote, Sir, against pre-existence, but from my grief for its appearance in a performance that I highly prized; and I heartily wish it may there again have no place.

Below is J. D.'s Letter in response to Dutton’s previous letter on Christ’s Advocateship, to which she has responded above:

To the Editors of the Spiritual Magazine.

Gentleman,

         I again return you thanks for favouring me with another place in your pious work, please to indulge me with a word more to my much honoured and reverend Friend Mr. A. D. and I must always be,

                     Your obliged Friend,

                                 J. D.

Rev. and dear Sir,

         I take this opportunity to acknowledge my obligations to you for the two letters you was pleased to favour me with. I have reason to bless God for putting it in my heart to communicate my tho’ts in publick, and also to be thankful to him for inclining an able minister of the gospel to answer them, in such a way as brought conviction, and illumination to my soul. Blessed be God, dear Sir, your labour has not been in vain in the Lord. I desire to be led into, and believe every gospel truth. Lord help my unbelief. I want to find now the delicacy of that intercession in my soul, and to feel our Lord’s pleading love manifested in my mind by the Holy Ghost, that I may not only rejoice in his dying merits, but also exult in his love which is now interceding in Heaven for me. I would give him all that glory that is his meritorious right, not only for making full satisfaction on the cross to the law and justice of God for me, but also for his cleansing love, by virtue of his advocateship now in Heaven. Your observation concerning the Old Testament Saints having an advocate to plead for them in Heaven, &c. I must approve of, and think your arguments from scripture authority are all well grounded. By viewing the Saints of that dark dispensation in this light, I am the more confirmed in the privilege of the New Testament Saints, having an advocate for them now in Heaven, under the meridian sun of the gospel: on the whole, I am no longer left to doubt concerning the advocateship of Christ in heaven; I pray the good spirit of God would be graciously pleased to enlighten my dark understanding in what I am yet ignorant of, and incline my perverse will to follow him in every ordinance and duty agreeable to his word, and warm my cold affections with more love to blessed Jesus, his commands, word, worship and people; that every thing of Christ may be more precious to my soul, and may all the children of God have a part in those great blessings.

         I have also the pleasure to inform you, that by reading the 213th page of the Grand Treasure,[1] concerning the pre-existence of the human soul of Christ, one of the ten scripture proofs gave me full satisfaction, John xvii. 5. Glorify thou me, O Father, with thine own self, with the glory which I had before the world was. I was struck with conviction of the truth of the doctrine at the first reading of it, I considered who was the person praying in the text, not the eternal Logos or Word, no, but the man Christ Jesus, or the human soul of Christ; for as God he is equal with the Father, and therefore had no need to pray in that character to the Father: for I apprehend when we meet with any expressions in scripture which suit not the divine nature, they are always to be understood of his human nature only. Taking it then for granted that it is the human soul [106] of Christ praying in this text, glorify me, &c. it must evidently prove that the human soul of Christ did exist before the world was, at least it appears so to me. I am surprized that among so many pious divines as I have read on this subject, I never had a full conviction before, this observation in page 213 is very just, “but such is the force of education, and the prepossession of our minds to the ideas which we have imbibed, and are settled in, that we cannot immediately yield to the force of truth.” This I have sad experience of, for the principles of education are so strong that they are rivetted in the mind, witness the Jews that believed in Christ, how were they wedded to the ceremonial law many years after our blessed Lord’s ascention! thou seest brother, says James to Paul, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe, and they are all zealous of the law. I believe education to be the grand reason why the children of God are ignorant of, and prejudiced against gospel doctrines and ordinances. I know it was my case some time. The Holy Ghost has given the appellation of noble to the Bereans, because they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily whether those things were so. And by comparing the promises and prophecies of the Old Testament concerning the Messiah to come, with the doctrine of the Apostle, they, by the spirit’s assistance, found that Jesus whom Paul preached was the identical Messiah so long expected in the Old Testament, and as such believed on him for salvation, when many of the Thessalonians at that time refused the gospel.

         And now, dear Sir, as in answer to my last, I found you ready to communicate instruction, I would propose the following Query, which I shall be glad to see answered for spiritual edification to myself and others, viz. “How may the believer distinguish between the full assurance of hope, mentioned Heb. vi. 11. and the full assurance of faith, mentioned Heb. x. 22. How may he know when the former and when the latter are differently in exercise in his soul?” As I believe it is a pleasure to you to be employed in your master’s work, for the good of souls, should be glad, when you have an hour to spare from your more important work, that you would give this some consideration. With this I take my leave of you, praying that the Lord of the harvest would send many such able, faithful labourers into his harvest; may you have much of the presence of God in your private studies, and many seals to you public administrations, many that may be a crown of rejoicing to you in the great day of our Lord.

                     I am,

                                 Rev. and dear Sir,

                                             with all humility,

                                                         your unworthy Servant

                                                                     in our dear Lord,

                                                                                                         J. D.

[1] This is a reference to p. 213 in the Royal Spiritual Magazine, or Christian’s Grand Treasure, vol. 2 (London: Printed pursuant to His Majesty’s royal license for J. Fuller, bookseller in Newgate Street near Cheapside; & T. Luckman, bookseller and printer in Coventry, 1762). It was a companion volume to the Divine Miscellanies, printed (and probably edited) by the same individuals associated with the Divine Miscellanies. The Spiritual Magazine also appeared in 1761-63, copies of  which are extremely rare.

Text: Divine and Moral, Miscellanies, in Prose and Verse. Containing many Valuable Originals, Communicated by various Correspondents, and other Pieces extracted from different Authors, and antient Manuscripts. The Whole being such a Collection of Miscellaneous Thoughts, as will tend not only to please, but enlighten and profit the Reader, Vol. 3 (London: Printed for J. Fuller, in Newgate-Street, London; and T. Luckman, in Coventry. 1763), pp. 121-27;  105-06.