the eternal sonship of the lord jesus christ - Paradise Primitive ...

Now look at another passage of almost similar character: "He that spared not His own Son, butdelivered Him up for us all, how shall He not with Him also freely give us all things?" Ro 8:32 Theexpression "spared not" is explained by the words which follow, "delivered Him up for us all," whichare again fully explained by the Lord’s own testimony before quoted, that God "gave His onlybegottenSon." When, then, did God not spare His own Son? When, He delivered Him up. When didHe deliver Him up? When He gave Him. When did He give Him; but when He gave Him out of His ownbosom to become incarnate? Thus by this connected chain it is most evidently shown that He was HisSon before He delivered Him up; in other words, before He came into the world; which is the verypoint that we are seeking to establish. But observe, also, the words, "His only-begotten Son," literally,His peculiar, His proper Son; and observe, too, that He was His own, His peculiar, and proper Sonbefore He spared Him not, but freely delivered Him. His delivering Him out of His bosom to becomeincarnate could not, and did not, make Him His Son any more than it made Him God. If words havemeaning, He was His own true, real and proper Son before He was delivered up. And if so, was He notHis own Son from all eternity, in other words, His eternal Son? the point of truth for which we arecontending.But see how all the force and beauty of the passage are destroyed if the Lord Jesus were not the trueand real Son of God before He was delivered up! The apostle wishes to show the certainty that Godwill freely give us all things. But why should we have this certainty that we may rest upon it as a mostblessed and consoling truth? It rests on this foundation, that God spared not His own in the original"idiou," that is, His proper and peculiar Son, but delivered Him up for us all. Here we have broughtbefore our eyes the personal and peculiar love of a Father towards a Son. But though this love to Himas His own peculiar Son was so great, yet pitying our case, He did not spare to give Him up tosufferings for our sake. But if He were not the true and real Son of God, but became so by beingincarnate, the whole argument falls to the ground in a moment. If Father, Son and Holy Ghost aremere names and titles, distinct from and independent of their very mode of subsistence, the HolyGhost might have been the Father and sent the Son, or the Son might have been the Father and sentthe Holy Ghost; for if the three Persons of the Trinity are three distinct subsistences, independent ofeach other, and have no such mutual and eternal relationship as these very names imply, there seemsto be no reason why these titles might not have been interchanged.But take another passage of similar strength and purport: "In this was manifested the love of Godtowards us, because that God sent, His only-begotten Son into the world, that we might live throughHim". 1Jo 4:9 God is here declared to have "sent His only-begotten Son into the world that we mightlive through Him." If men were but willing to abide by the plain, positive declarations of the HolyGhost, and not evade them by subtleties of their own reasoning mind, this passage would of itself