LONDON : 
 R. CLAY, PRINTER, DEVONSHIRE STREET, BISHOPSGATE- 
 
LETTER! 
 
 ON THE 
 
 s^^^ir^m (0Bsr^^a.ii©ar 
 
 OF THE 
 
 SON OF GOD, 
 
 ADDRESSED TO THE 
 
 REV. SAMUEL MILLER, D. D. 
 
 BYy 
 
 MOSES STUART, 
 
 ASSOCIATE PROF. OF SACRED LITERATURE IN THE THEOL. SEMINARY, 
 ANDOVER. 
 
 ANDOVER. 1822. 
 
 PUBLISHED AND FOR SALE BY MARK NEWMAN. 
 
 FLAGG AND GOULD, PRINTERS. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 LETTER I. Introductory Remarks 1 
 
 LETTER IL Opinions of the early Fathers 14 
 
 LETTER in. Remarks on the opinions of the early Fathers 62 
 
 LETTER IV. Particular definitions of eternal generation 
 
 examined 77 
 
 LETTER V. General idea comprised in all the particular 
 
 definitions examined 88 
 
 LETTER VI. Use of the word So7i in the Oriental languages 94 
 
 LETTER VII. Various meanings of the phrases Son arid 
 
 Sons of God in the Scriptures 100 
 
 LETTER VIII. Meaning of the appellation Son of God, as 
 
 applied to Christ 108 
 
 LETTER IX. Arguments in favour of the doctrine of eter- 
 nal generation examined 125 
 
 LETTER X. Concluding Remarks 163 
 
LETTER I, 
 
 Rev. and Dear Sir, 
 
 The occasion of addressing the present letters to 
 you may be briefly stated. A passage in the third of 
 your Letters on Unitarianism, addressed to the first 
 Presbyterian Church in the city of Baltimore, in which 
 you have stated your feelings and views in regard to 
 the eternal generation of the Son of God, led me to a 
 re-investigation of this subject, so often agitated by the 
 church in ages past. The design of the present letters 
 is to submit to you, and to the Christian public, the result 
 of this investigation, with the reasons by which it ap- 
 pears to me to be supported. 
 
 In my letters to the Rev. William E. Channing, on 
 the doctrine of the Trinity, and of the divine nature of 
 Christ, I have said, (p. 31. 2d edit.) "lam unable to 
 conceive of a definite meaning in the terms eternal gene- 
 ration ; and I cannot regard them in any other light, 
 than as a palpable contradiction of language." On this 
 subject, however, your views appear to be very differ- 
 ent, as they are presented in the following passage from 
 your third letter. 
 
 " Nor ought it to give rise to the least difficulty in the minds of 
 any, that the second Person of the Trinity is called the So7i of God ; 
 that He is said to be the only Begotten Son^ and the eternally Begot- 
 ten. I know that the doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son of 
 
 2 
 
2 INTRODUCTION. [LeT. I. 
 
 God is regarded by many as implying a contradiction in terms. But 
 here again is a most presumptuous assumption of the principle, that 
 God is a being altogether such an one as ourselves. Because genera- 
 tion among men necessarily implies priority^ in the order of time as 
 well as of nature, on the part of the father, and derivation and poste- 
 riority on the part of the son, the objection infers that it must also be 
 so in the Divine nature. But is this a legitimate, is it a rational in- 
 ference ? It certainly is not. That which is true, as it respects the 
 nature of man, may be infinitely removed from the truth, as it re- 
 spects the eternal God. It has been often well observed, that, with 
 regard to all effects which are voluntary^ the cause must be prior to 
 the effect ; as the father is to the son, in human generation : But 
 that in all that are necessary^ the effect must be coeval with the cause ; 
 as the stream is with the fountain, and light with the sun. Has the 
 sua ever existed a moment without sending out beams ? And if the 
 sun had been an eternal being, would there not have been an eter- 
 nal, necessary emanation of light from it? But God is confessedly 
 eternal. Where, then, is the absurdit}'^ or contradiction of an eternal, 
 necessary emanation from Him, or, if you please, an eternal generation^ 
 — and also an eternal procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father 
 and the Son ? To deny the possibility of this, or to assert that it is a 
 manifest contradiction^ either in terms or ideas, is to assert that, al- 
 though the Father is f>om all eternity, jet He could not act from all 
 eternity ; which, I will venture lo assert, is as unphilosophical as it 
 is IMPIOUS. Sonship, even among men, implies no personal inferiority. 
 A son may he perfectly equal, and is sometimes greatly superior to 
 his father, in every desirable power, and quality : and, in general, 
 he does in fact partake of the same human nature, in all its fullness 
 and perfection, with his parent. But, still, forsooth, it is objected, 
 tbat we cannot conceive oi generation in any other sense than as im- 
 plyins; posteriority and derivation. But is not this saying, in other words, 
 that the objector is determined, in the face of all argument, to per- 
 sist in measuring Jehovah by earthly and human principles ? Shall 
 we never have done with such a perverse begging of the question, 
 as illegitimate in reasoning, as it is impious in its spirit ? The scrip- 
 tures declare that Christ is the 60/1, the only begotten Son of the Fa- 
 ther; to the Son the Father is represented as saying, l^iy throne^ O 
 God^ is forever and ever: and concerning himself the Son declares, 
 / and my Father are one. This is enough for the christian's faith. 
 He finds no more difhculty in believing this, than in believing that 
 there is an eternal, omniscient and omnipresent Spirit, who made all 
 worlds out of nothing, and upholds them continually by the word of 
 his power. 
 
 '' 1 am aware that some who maintain, with great zeal, the Divini- 
 ty and atonement of Christ, reject his eternal Sonship^ or generation, 
 as being neither consistent with reason, nor taught in scripture. It 
 does not accord, either with my plan or my inclination, to spend much 
 time in animadverting on this aberration, for such I must deem it, 
 from the system of gospel truth. I will only say that, to me, the 
 
Let. I.] INTRODUCTION, 3 
 
 iloctrine of the eternal Sonship of the Saviour appears to be plainly 
 taught in the word of Gotl, and to be a doctrine of great importance 
 in the economy of salvation. Of course, I view those who reject it, 
 not merely as in error, but in very serious error ; an error which, 
 though actually connected with ardent piet}^, and general orthodoxy, 
 in many who embrace it, has, nevertheless, a very unhappy tenden- 
 cy, and cannot fail, I fear, to draw in its train many mischievous con- 
 sequences. If the title Farmer, be the distinctive title of the first 
 Person of the adorable Trinity, as such., does not the correlative title 
 of Son seem to be called for by the second Person, as such? If the 
 second Person of the Trinity is not to be distinguished by the title of 
 Son^ what is his distinguishing title ? By what appropriate name are 
 we to know Him, as distinguished from the other Persons? In the 
 form of Baptism, all the friends of orthodoxy grant that the Father 
 and the Holy Ghost are expressive of divine personal distinctions ; 
 but if so, what good reason can be given why the Son should be un- 
 derstood differently? In short, my belief is, that the doctrine of the 
 eternal generation of the Son, is so closely connected with the doc- 
 trine of the Trinity, and the Divine character of the Saviour, that 
 where the former is generally abandoned, neither of the two latter 
 will be long retained. I must therefore, warn you against the er- 
 ror of rejecting this doctrine, even though it come from the house of 
 a friend. It is a mystery, but a precious mystery, which seems to 
 be essentially interwoven with the whole substance, as well as lan- 
 guage, of the blessed economy of mercy. 
 
 '^ Concerning this eternal generation of the Son, the early Christian 
 writers constantly declared that it was firmly to be believed ; but, 
 at the same time, that it was presumptuous to attempt to inquire in- 
 to the manner of it. 
 
 " Irenmis asserts, that ' the Son, from eternity, co-existed with 
 THE Father ; and that from the beginning, he always revealed the 
 Father to angels, and archangels, and principaUties and powers, anti 
 all to whom it pleased him to reveal him.'* 
 
 '^ Lactantius^ in his fourth book De vera Sapientia^ says ' How, there- 
 fore, did the Father beget the Son ? These divine works can be 
 known of none, declared by none. But the holy scriptures teach 
 that He is the Son of God, that He is the Word of God.' 
 
 '' Ambrose^ in his treatise, De Fide^ ad Gratianum^ speaks in the 
 following decisive and eloquent strain — I inquire of you ' when and 
 how the Son was begotten? It is impossible for me to know the mys- 
 tery of this generation. My mind fails ; my tongue is silent ; and not 
 only mine, but the tongues of angels : it is above principalities, 
 above angels, above the Cherubim, above the Seraphim, above all 
 understanding. Lay thine hand upon thy mouth. It is not lawful 
 to search into these heavenly mysteries. It is lawful to know that 
 he 'was born, but not lawful to examine how he was born. The for- 
 mer I dare not deny ; the latter I am afraid to inquire into. For if 
 
 * Contra H^reses, Lib. 11. cap 30. 
 
4 INTRODUGTION. [LeT. I. 
 
 Paul^ when he was taken up into the third heaven, affirms that the 
 things which he heard could not be uttered, how can we express the 
 mystery of the Divine Generation, which we can neither understand 
 nor see?' 
 
 " Let not, then, my Christian Brethren, the charge of ' mystery,' 
 or the cant proverb, that 'where mystery begins, faith and religion 
 end,' in the least move you. That mystery should be readily allow- 
 ed to exist every where in God's Creation^ and in God's Providence, 
 and at the same time be unceremoniously rejected from God's Reve- 
 lation^ is indeed more than strange ! That creatures who acknow- 
 ledge that the nature of God is infinitely unlike, and infinitely above, 
 that of any other being in the Universe ; and that their own share 
 of reason is so small that they can scarcely think or speak intelligi- 
 bly about it, or so much as define their own faculties of reasoning ; 
 should yet refuse to believe any thing of Jehovah which does not 
 accord with human notions ; is, surely, as weak and irrational as it is 
 presumptuous. But that creatures who confess themselves to be 
 miserable sinners, lying at the footstool of mercy, and standing in 
 need of a revelation from God, to teach them, what they could not 
 otherwise know, concerning his perfections, and the way of accep- 
 tance with Him ; should yet, when they acknowledge that such a 
 Revelation has been given, undertake to sit in judgment upon it, and 
 to reject such parts of it as are above the grasp of their disordered 
 and enfeebled reason ; argues a degree of daring and infatuated im- 
 piety, which, if it were not so common, we should be ready to say 
 could not exist. Wherein does it essentially differ from that temper by 
 which * angels became apostate spirits ? " pp. 86 — 93. 
 
 I must frankly acknowledge to you my regret, that I 
 have expressed myself on this subject, in terms so 
 strong. The only apology for this which I can make, 
 is, that at the time when I wrote my Letters, I was 
 not at all apprehensive that the doctrine o( eternal gene- 
 ration was looked upon, by Christians in our country, to 
 be so precious and important a truth, as your ihird Let- 
 ter represents it to be. I knew, indeed, that there were 
 theologians, who received and maintained the doctrine. 
 But I was not conscious that it was regarded in such a 
 light as to call for zealous effort to defend it, or that the 
 denial of it would make any breach of entire confidence 
 and charity between Christian brethren. Nothing was 
 more natural than for me to have felt thus. During all 
 
Let. I.] INTRODUCTION. 5 
 
 my theological life, I had never once heard the doctrine 
 of eternal generation seriously avowed and defended. 
 Nearly all the ministers in New England, since I have 
 been upon the stage, have, so far as I know their senti- 
 ments, united in rejecting it, or at least in regarding it as 
 unimportant. Our most distinguished theologians, for 
 forty years past, have openly declared against it. Mul- 
 titudes of ministers among us, of distinguished talents 
 and theological knowledge ; men of eminent piety, and 
 whose labours have been blessed with such revivals of 
 religion as have scarcely appeared in any countrv ; men 
 whom the cliurch will honour, long after they are dead, 
 as some of her brightest ornaments, as diadems in her 
 crown of glory ; men who are not only orthodox, but 
 distinguished champions of orthodoxy; reject, as I have 
 done, the doctrine of eternal generation. Many who 
 are fallen asleep in Jesus, and have gone to be rewarded 
 by that Saviour whom they loved and honoured, were of 
 the same sentiments and character. 
 
 i( you add to this the consideration, that all my con- 
 victions, springing l>om former examinations of the sub- 
 ject, were, at the time when I wrote, really and truly 
 what my language imports, you will not be surprised, 
 perhaps, that I expressed myself as I have done. But 
 I had no individual, nor any particular class of men in 
 our country, in view, when I thus wrote. Of designed 
 rudeness, then, or disrespect to any particular man, or 
 body of men, I feel myself in no measure conscious. Yet, 
 as some of my Christian brethren appear to have been of- 
 fended by the strength of my expression on the subject 
 in question, it is matter of regret to me, that I did not 
 make use of terms less adapted to wound the feelings 
 of those, who may differ from me. 
 
6 INTRODUCTION. [LeT. I. 
 
 I know your excellent character and benevolent spirit 
 too well, to believe that you would write one line in 
 order to wound the feelings of the great body of your 
 clerical brethren in New England, (and of many out of 
 it also,) who reject the doctrine of eternal generation. 
 I will not, therefore, take exceptions at the charge of 
 impiety^ and of verging to Unitarian sentiments^ which 
 you have connected with rejecting this doctrine. Though 
 I have the pleasure of only a moderate personal ac- 
 quaintance with you, I know enough concerning you to 
 believe, that strong as your language is, and high as the 
 nature of the charge might seem to be against your 
 Christian brethren and fellow labourers in the gospel, it 
 proceeds from no ill-will to them ; nor from any cause 
 but an honest and well meaning zeal, for what you be- 
 lieve to be truth. I have no disposition to ring the 
 charges about abuse, which the Latitudinarians of our 
 country are continually ringing, merely because a person 
 speaks out his honest feelings respecting their views. 
 They must needs make persecution of it. They seem 
 to me, to court persecution with great greediness ; for 
 one cannot seriously say that he believes them to be in 
 dangerous error, without exciting complaint of abuse, and 
 that the spirit of the dark ages is reviving in our coun- 
 
 try- 
 
 With jealousies like these I am not agitated. I love 
 to hear men honestly and frankly speak out their real 
 feelings. How can truth undergo a fair discussion, on 
 any other ground ? And if, in the warmth of honest 
 feehng, some expressions a little too highly coloured es- 
 cape from them, a generous man, knowing that he him- 
 self " is compassed with infirmity," will not dwell with 
 eagerness upon such expressions, nor take any pleasure 
 in imputing to them a wrong spirit. 
 
Let. I.] INTRODUCTION. 7 
 
 Whether the rejection of the doctrine o( eternal gene- 
 ration be so important, and so fraught with danger, as 
 you seem to think, is a proper subject of examination. 
 The doctrine must first be proved to be true, before the 
 inference can be fairly drawn, that the rejection of it is 
 impious. But unless it can be made very plain — unless 
 it can be irrefragably proved, perhaps it is not expe- 
 dient to pronounce the rejection of it to be impious and 
 heretical; specially if, as is probable, a majority of or- 
 thodox Christians in this country reject it. 
 
 My great respect and affection for you induced me, 
 when I saw the passage in your Letters above extract- 
 ed, to pause, and ask ; Have I not been rash, in rejecting 
 a doctrine, which so dear a friend and so excellent a 
 minister of Christ regards as thus highly important, and 
 intimately connected with his best hopes and highest 
 happiness ? — I was not long, in deciding that it was my 
 duty to reexamine the question. This I have done, so 
 far as my time occupied with pressing official duties 
 would enable me to do ; and I now beg the liberty of 
 submitting the result of this investigation to your eye, 
 and to that of the Christian public. 
 
 I rejoice that I can engage in this investigation, with 
 the full persuasion, that our difference of opinion about 
 the doctrine in question is not essentially concerned ei- 
 ther with piety or Christian brotherhood. With all my 
 heart, 1 love and honour you as a sincere and eminent 
 Christian, although you differ from me in your views re- 
 specting the point before us ; and if you cannot return 
 this fraternal feeling, (which however I am not at all 
 inclined to suppose is the fact,) I am well satisfied that 
 it is only because you are honestly and sincerely con- 
 vinced that I am in an error, which you think danger- 
 ous to the best interests of religion. 
 
8 INTRODUCTION. [LeT. I. 
 
 I approach the subject before me, then, with no oth- 
 er feelings than those of kindness and respect. If I have 
 come to an erroneous conclusion, after a pretty thorough 
 reexamination, it will be matter of gratitude, should you 
 or any other Christian brother show me reasons to be- 
 hove that my conclusion is groundless. 1 profess to 
 seek for truth ; and if my heart does not deceive me, 1 
 do sincerely wish to know the truth, on this subject. I 
 doubt not that you can reciprocate these feelings ; and 
 that you will consider with candor what I may allege, 
 in support of the opinion which 1 have formed. 
 
 We will not dispute ; but it is lawful and Christian to 
 investigate and to discuss. Truth cannot suffer by this, 
 if we act soberly and with kind feehngs, while engaged 
 in discussion. 
 
 i am fully aware that some friends, for whom I have 
 a high respect, and to whom I am attached by every 
 tender tie of Christian brotherhood and affection, are 
 apprehensive of evil from a discussion of this subject. I 
 ought rather to say, in justice to them, they are appre- 
 hensive that it may turn out to be dispute instead of dis- 
 cussion. They are afraid that some breach of confidence 
 and affection between the Christian brethren of the 
 North and South, may be the consequence of it. It is 
 impossible for me not to respect such kind and peaceful 
 feelings. And if I thought that they judged rightly of 
 the influence of discussion, I should feel myself bound to 
 acquiesce in their views. But I have not been able, for 
 a single moment, to suppose that our brethren at the 
 South, are not sincerely desirous of having every subject 
 of religious opinion undergo a fair and thorough scruti- 
 ny. A man may, indeed, forfeit their good opinion, who 
 wantonly assails any principles which they regard with 
 
Let. I.] INTRODUCTION. 9 
 
 serious approbation; or who treats sacred subjects with 
 irreverence and levity ; or disputes in a dogmatical, or 
 disrespectful manner. It is proper that they should 
 withhold their confidence from such a man. But that 
 they are unwilling or afraid to discuss any of the prin- 
 ciples which they adopt, cannot, for a moment, be cred- 
 ited by any one, who is acquainted with them, and seri- 
 ously considers the nature of the Protestant principles 
 which they embrace. 
 
 Even if this could be supposed of any individuals 
 among them, I am sure that no one, who is well ac- 
 quainted with you, can suppose that you would either 
 shrink from investigation, or regard it with a jealous or 
 an unfriendly eye. Nothing is more unlike you. I cannot, 
 therefore, feel that there is any hazard in submitting to 
 your eye considerations respecting the subject in ques- 
 tion, which are purely historical and theological, and 
 have nothing in them of the nature of personal dispute. 
 
 The opponents of orthodox principles have, I well 
 know, often sugrorested that those who embrace them are 
 afraid of investigation, lest the consequence should be 
 the downfall of their system. I hesitate not to say, that 
 they are very much mistaken. There is another topic, 
 also, on which they love to dwell. When we refrain 
 from discussion, they charge us with fictitious, dissem- 
 bled unity of sentiment, and give us no credit for real 
 agreement. When we discuss our differences of opinion, 
 they triumphantly allege that the orthodox are no bet- 
 ter agreed among themselves, than they are with them. 
 Satisfy them therefore we cannot, neither by our si- 
 lence, nor by our discussions; unless indeed, they may 
 hope, in case we should fall out among ourselves, that 
 3 
 
10 INTRODUCTION. [LeT. 1. 
 
 their own parfy would chance to gain some accession to 
 it from our numbers. 
 
 I will not allege, that it is unbecoming to regard what 
 thej may say of our discussions. But as a Protestant I 
 may say, that the love of truth ought to be a considera- 
 tion predominant over all others. I must say, that the 
 supposition we cannot and may not discuss theological 
 questions, about which different opinions are entertain- 
 ed among us, is in fact, (though our friends certainly do 
 not design it to be,) reproachful to us, and to the cause 
 of truth, which we profess above all things to love. 
 What! Have not good men, in every age, differed in 
 regard to their views of some things not fundamental in 
 religion ? And are we to suppose, that the period is 
 now come, when even the nicer shades of sentiment ei- 
 ther must be, or must be professed to be, the same in 
 all ? It is useless to claim an imaginary perfection, 
 which does not, and never did, and never will exist, in 
 the present world ; and to the cause of truth it would 
 be deleterious, in a high degree, to suppress in any way, 
 or discourage the spirit of inquiry, when conducted with 
 sobriety and decorum. 
 
 I am so well persuaded of the truth and propriety of 
 these sentiments, that 1 cannot hesitate to lay before 
 my Christian brethren, who believe in the doctrine of 
 the eternal generation of the Son of God, the following 
 considerations, to invite their examination of this sub- 
 ject. If any of them should think proper to reply to 
 what I may suggest, I can anticipate, with confidence, 
 that it will be done in a friendly and Christian manner. 
 The opponents of our common faith shall not be gratifi- 
 ed with our disputes. We hope to set them a good ex- 
 ample of sober and temperate discussion', and to show 
 
Let. I.] INTRODUCTION. 11 
 
 them that the orthodox, while they sincerely believe 
 the doctrines which they profess to believe, are ready 
 to discuss, and desirous to illustrate every principle 
 which they receive. 
 
 Instead of making divisions between those who love 
 and worship the same God and Saviour, I fully believe 
 that discussion, (such as it ought to be,) will always tend 
 to prevent it ; and this, in exact proportion to the light 
 which may be thrown by it upon any topic in theology. 
 If our reasons for rejecting the doctrine now to be dis- 
 cussed are valid, can I hesitate to believe that you will 
 incline to our opinion ? If you, on the other hand, find 
 them insufficient, and shew them to be so, are we so un- 
 reasonable as to persevere in our opinion? I answer^ 
 No ; and I confidently answer so, because, although I 
 may not be permitted to say it of myself, I can say it of 
 my brethren beloved in the Lord, that they love truth 
 more than they do party-opinions ; and that they only 
 need to have the truth clearly developed, in order to 
 embrace it. 
 
 On the other hand, if the subject in question should 
 sleep, differences of opinion will still continue to exist, as 
 they now do, respecting it ; and the danger that, in such 
 circumstances, this topic will be magnified, and be the 
 occasion of alienated feeling, is certainly not to be over- 
 looked. 
 
 I am satisfied that the time has come, when it is 
 necessary to examine well the doctrines which we be- 
 lieve and Inculcate. The watchful opponents of our 
 common faith have their eyes on all the steps of its ad- 
 vocates, and will demand a reason for all that they in- 
 culcate. But independently of this, the love of truth 
 should be enough to stimulate us to the highest efforts, 
 in order to know what we ought to believe and teach. 
 
12 INTRODUCTION, [LeT. I. 
 
 We ought highly to venerate the pious fathers in 
 the Church, who have given us summaries of Chris- 
 tian doctrine, which they sincerely believed; but as the 
 ministers of truth, we are obliged to call no man mas- 
 ter upon earth. We have a heavenly master, who has 
 made his word the supreme and only rule of faith and 
 practice. That word we must investigate, to know 
 whether the doctrines of our Symbols are true ; and not 
 taking those doctrines as already established, bring the 
 word of God to their test. Thus lived and acted Lu- 
 ther, Zuingle, Calvin, and all that blessed host of wor- 
 thies, who burst asunder the bonds of tradition and hu- 
 man authority ; and we, their children in respect to 
 professed principles, may venture to walk in their steps. 
 
 It is just as much our individual duty now, to bring 
 every principle of the creed of the Protestant Churches 
 to the test of the divine word, as it was the duty of the 
 Reformers to bring that of the Catholics to the test of 
 Scripture. This position is absolutely certain; unless 
 we can prove that the formers of Protestant Symbols 
 were inspired. If they were not, they may have erred 
 in some things ; and if so, it is important to us, if possi- 
 ble, to know in what they have erred. But how shall 
 we, or how can we know this, unless their creeds are 
 subjected, anew and repeatedly, to the test of the 
 Scriptures? 
 
 Will it be said, that the dwarfs of modern days only 
 exhibit their pride and self conceit in attempting a com- 
 parison Avlth those giants of yore ? If it should, my 
 answer would be ; That dwarfs as we are in modern days, 
 we stand, at least, upon the shoulders of those ancient 
 giants, and must needs have a somewhat more extended 
 horizon than they. To speak plainly, the whole word 
 
Let. 1.] INTRODUCTION. 13 
 
 of God represents the path of the Church, hke that of 
 the just, to be as the light, which shineth more and more 
 unto the perfect day. The Kingdom of God always 
 has been, and still is progressive. Glory is bursting in 
 upon the Church, in various ways intimately connected 
 with making her light to shine still more brightly. Is 
 she yet perfected in doctrine ? Are all the treasures of 
 the divine word yet unlocked? Are her fairest days 
 past, and her brightest constellations set, to rise no more ? 
 The " thousand years'' of glory yet to come, will supply 
 a ready answer to these questions. 
 
 So long as we profess to be Protestants, and of course 
 profess to believe that the Bible is the svj^cient and only 
 rule of faith and practice, so long, if we act consistently, 
 we believe in the Symbols of faith which we receive, 
 only because we find them supported by the Scriptures. 
 It is not only lawful then to put them to this test ; but 
 it is an imperious duty for every man to do it, who is 
 able to do it. There may be a show of modesty and hu- 
 mility in receiving what others have believed, without ex- 
 amination and without scrutiny ; but in every case, where 
 there is ability to investigate and bring to the Scripture 
 test, a failure to do it must arise from undue regard to 
 the authority of fallible men, or from mere inaction — from 
 absolute sloth. 
 
 Such are the sentiments, which, with all my rever- 
 ence for the Reformers and for our Symbols of Faith, I 
 entertain ; and which I do not hesitate openly to avow, and 
 am not unwilling to defend. And such, I doubt not, are 
 your views and feelings. Such, indeed, are the senti- 
 ments which you have expressed ; and to which I shall 
 have occasion to advert, in the commencement of my 
 next Letter. 
 
14 OPINIONS OF THE EARLY FATHERS. [LeT. U. 
 
 I cannot close the present without adding, that, placed 
 in the situation where you and I are, with our responsi- 
 bilities for what we teach, Scriptural investigation of 
 every doctrine connected with the Christian religion, 
 becomes doubly a duty. 
 
 LETTER II. 
 
 Rev. and Dear Sir, 
 
 It is grateful to find that your sentiments, in respect 
 to the real foundation of Christian doctrines, agree so 
 entirely with mine ; and I trust I may add, with the 
 fundamental principles of the Protestant religion. In 
 pp. 100, 101, &c, of your Letters, you have undertaken 
 to show and reprove the " weakness" of Unitarians, in 
 attempting to support their views by the authority of 
 great names. You say, p. 101, "The weakness of this 
 plea is so obvious, that a formal refutation of it will not 
 be thought necessary, by any impartial reader." In the 
 sequel, you say very justly, that Transubstantiation and 
 and other "gross errors and most wretched supersti- 
 tions" might be proved to be true, if this mode of argu- 
 ment could be adopted. 
 
 In Letter IV, p. Ill, you say, "The word of God, as 
 the orthodox believe, is the only certain test of divine 
 truth; the only infallible rule of faith and practice. Of 
 course, that which is not found in Scripture, however 
 extensively and unanimously it may have been received 
 by those who love the Christian name, must be reject- 
 ed, as forming no part of the precious system, which 
 God has revealed to man for his salvation." You then 
 
Let. II.] OPINIONS of the early fathers. 15 
 
 proceed to observe, that still there Is consolation as well 
 as duty in walking in the steps of the pious, who have 
 agreed in the doctrines of the gospel. 
 
 All this I most freely and fully admit. I will only 
 add, that the fact of Christians having been agreed in a 
 doctrine, is not sufficient of itself to make the reception 
 of it consolatory. It must prove, on examination, to be 
 really a doctrine of the gospel, in order to afford the con- 
 solation which we may receive from union of sentiment ; 
 for as you say, however extensively and unanimously those 
 who bore the Christian name have received error, it is 
 no reason for our admitting it. 
 
 So far then as the simple investigation of the truth is 
 concerned, in respect to any point in theology, the au- 
 thority of great names is not to be regarded as obliga- 
 tory. And in respect to the doctrine of the eternal 
 generation of the Son of God, it will not prove the cor- 
 rectness or incorrectness of it, to show that the early 
 Christian fathers admitted or rejected it. In discussion 
 purely theological, therefore, any appeal to the fathers 
 might well be spared. 
 
 My reasons for a historical investigation, at present, 
 of what the early fathers did really believe and teach 
 in regard to the point in question, may be briefly stated. 
 You have appealed to them, with full persuasion that 
 their sentiments harmonized with yours. Others have 
 often done the same ; and specially since the publica- 
 tion of Bishop Bull's learned work, entitled Dcfensio Ft- 
 dei JVicaenae, I am prepared to admit, that if it could 
 be shewn that the early fathers, as you have said, p. 91, 
 " C07i5^an^/i/ declared that the doctrine of eternal gene- 
 ration was to be believed," it would be an additional 
 confirmation of the doctrine ; because it would serve to 
 
J6 OPINIONS OF THE EARLY FATHERS, [LeT. II, 
 
 evince, that the arguments bj which it is supported 
 were so plain and cogent, that a general assent had been 
 compelled to them, in very ancient times. But since my 
 persuasion is, that the doctrine cannot be established 
 either by the Scriptures, or by principles of reasoning 
 deduced from the essential predicates of the Deity; with 
 my present views I should decline to follow the opinion 
 of the fathers, provided it is in unison with yours. Stilly 
 I feel it to be a very interesting topic of examination. 
 It is more specially so, because, although as Protestants 
 we do not admit the binding authority of the fathers, 
 yet the belief that they received the doctrine of eternal 
 generation, has had no small influence in fostering a con- 
 fidence in that doctrine, and a repugnance to any opin- 
 ion subversive of it. It is on this ground, I must beg 
 the liberty, in the present letter, to lay before you the 
 results of a patristical investigation somewhat extensive ; 
 in order that I may remove, if possible, from the 
 minds of those who may read these letters, the ap- 
 prehension that I am endeavouring to overthrow the 
 faith of the ancient Church, and to establish a novel or 
 heretical opinion, while I examine the doctrine of eternal 
 generation, and endeavour to show that it will not bear the 
 test of either Scripture or reason. 
 
 As a preliuiinary step then to the discussion which is 
 to follow, and for the sake of preparing the vv?,y for an 
 unprejudiced judgment respecting the point in question, 
 you will permit me to examine whether the declaration 
 which you have made, in p. 91, respecting the unanimity 
 of the early Christian writers in the belief of eternal 
 generation, is well grounded. 
 
 We shall doubtless be agreed, that by the early Chris- 
 tian writers is meant, the Fathers who lived before the 
 
Let. II ] OPINIONS of the early fathers. 17 
 
 Council of Nice or during the llirce first Centuries. 
 This is a fair construction of the term early^ and one 
 which is generally admitted. At any rate, we shall 
 agree, that the opinions of the Fathers, during this peri- 
 od, are more important in regard to the doctrines of the 
 Church, than those of a subsequent date. 
 
 I begin, then, with giving the result of my investiga- 
 tions respecting the three first Centuries. It is this; 
 viz. that the great body of the early and influential Chris- 
 tian Fathers^ whose works are extant, believed that the 
 Son of God was begotten at a period not long before the 
 creation of the world ; or, in other words, that he became 
 a separate hypostasis, at or near the time^ when the work 
 of creation was to be performed. If this can be shewn, 
 the fact that they believed in the eternal generation of 
 the Son of God^ or at least, their unanimity in receiving 
 this doctrine, cannot surely be admitted. 
 
 Before I proceed to adduce testimonies in support of 
 this allegation, it will be proper to remark, that I intend 
 to confine myself solely to the testimony, which relates 
 to two inquiries ; viz. Is the generation of the Son of God 
 eternal ? And is that generation voluntary, or necessary. 
 The reason why I comprise the latter inquiry is, that 
 in your Letters, p. 87, you have laid such important 
 stress, (as many others have done,) upon necessary gene- 
 ration, as helping to remove the difficulties that lie in the 
 way of admitting the doctrine in question. 
 
 With the question, whether the fathers believed 
 Christ to be truly a divine person and worshipped him 
 as such, I am not now at all concerned. Of course, I 
 shall adduce no testimony which respects their opinion 
 on that point, except what may be necessarily adduced, 
 in consequence of its connexion with other testiuiony 
 relative to the subject before us. 
 4 
 
18 OPINMONS OF THE EARLY FATHERS. [LeT. IL 
 
 The historical questions before us are, Did the early 
 fathers believe the filiation or generation of the Son of God 
 to be eternal, in the proper sense of the ivord eternal'? Or 
 in other words, Did they believe that the Logos was not 
 only eternal, but that he was Son eternally ? And did the 
 early fathers believe this generation to be necessary ? 
 
 That the Logos is truly eternal, I believe with all my 
 heart, because, as it appears to me, the testimony of 
 Scripture is so plain and unequivocal on this point, as to 
 admit of no reasonable doubt, in the mind of a man who 
 receives the Bible as the word of God, and the unerring 
 rule of faith. That the Logos was eternally the Son of 
 God, I doubt ; for reasons which will hereafter be 
 stated. 
 
 1 have made this statement merely to show, in what 
 manner the testimony of writers relative to the point in 
 question is to be estimated. To cay of Christ, or of the 
 Logos, that he is eternal, is saying nothing more, than 
 >vhat all who acknowledge the divine nature of the Sa- 
 viour of course must say. But if this should be said a 
 thousand times, it would not of itself prove any thing in 
 respect to the doctrine of eternal generation. It would 
 only prove, that the writer or speaker, who asserts it, 
 believes Clirist to possess a divine nature ; inasmuch as 
 he assigns to him one of the attributes of the Deity. 
 
 This very plain but important principle, which should 
 be applied in estimating the testimony to be adduced, 
 has been entirely overloooked by Bishop Bull, in his 
 Dcfensio Fidei JYicaenae, We shall find frequent occa- 
 sion to acknowledge the importance of the principle, in 
 judging of patristical testimony ; for many of the lead- 
 ing Fathers, while they believed fully in the eternity of 
 the Logos, considered as the reason or understanding of 
 
 ( 
 
Let. II.] Opinions of the eaulv fathers, 19 
 
 the Divine Nature, which they name Xoyog ev^ia&eiog 
 i. e. the internal Logos, maintained that he became Son, 
 (^Aoyog npo(popi)cog, eternal, produced, or generated Logos,) 
 at or near the time, when the creation of the world took 
 place. Now so long as this distinction was adopted, and 
 became the common sentiment of the Antenicene fa- 
 thers, merely an assertion that Christ, or the Son, 
 or the Logos was eternal, cannot be regarded as testi- 
 mony adequate to prove a belief in the doctrine o( eter- 
 nal generation ; unless it appears, from other parts of a 
 writer's works, that he really maintained this doctrine. 
 Above all, such testimony is entirely nugatory, in regard 
 to establishing the point in question, if the writer has 
 expressly declared his views, in regard to the simple an- 
 temundane (not eternal) generation of the Son. 
 
 Let us now proceed to adduce our testimony. In the 
 Epistles of Clemens Romanus, (only one of which how- 
 ever is genuine ;) and in the letter of Barnabas, I find 
 nothing which has any bearing upon the point under ex- 
 amination. Indeed, Bishop Bull himself, familiar as he 
 was with the Fathers, and strenuous as he was, in the 
 highest degree, respecting the point in question, has 
 brought forward in his famous chapter De Filio owa'C- 
 dtoi cum Patre, but one solitary passage in favour of eter- 
 nal generation, from any of the Fathers, who preceded 
 Justin Martyr, This is from the epistles of Ignatius. 
 In its proper place, I shall examine it. 
 
 In the Shepherd of Hernias, a writer cotemporary 
 witii Clemens Romanus, there are some passages which 
 seem to relate to the point in question, but which 
 Bishop Bull has omitted. "God," says he, "placed 
 that holy Spirit,^ which was created first of all, in the 
 
 * Maoy of the early Fathers called the exalted nature, which 
 they attributed to Christ, nvivf^iu dytov. 
 
so OPINIONS OF THE EARLY FATHERS. [LeT. H. 
 
 body in which he might dwell, in the chosen body 
 which seemed proper to him."* Again; ''The Son of 
 God is more ancient than every creature, so that he was 
 present in council with his Father, when the world was 
 created."t 
 
 That the phrase holy Spirit, in the above quotation, 
 means the exalted nature which dwelt in Christ, there 
 can be no doubt ; inasmuch as the context clearly de- 
 scribes the incarnation of the Saviour. The second quo- 
 tation seems pretty plainly to intimate what we are to 
 understand by the affirmation of Hermas in the first, 
 when he says that the exalted nature of Christ was cre- 
 ated first of all ; viz, he was created more anciently than 
 every creature, ita ut, so that, {so anciently that,) he was 
 present in the counsels of the Father, at the creation, &:c, 
 
 I make but one remark on the word created, as appli- 
 ed to the more exalted nature of the Son. The early 
 Fathers were not grammarians nor philologists. Nothing 
 is more evident, as we may have opportunity to see in 
 the sequel, than that many of the Fathers made no dif- 
 ference between the words creation and generation, when 
 applied to the Son. It was not until near the time of 
 Arius, that the word creation became limited to a strict 
 sense in relation to the origin of the Son of God, and be- 
 came the subject of warm and protracted dispute. 
 
 * Ilhira spiritum Sanctum, qui creatus est omnium primus, in cor- 
 pore in quo habitaret deus collocavit ; in delecto corpore quod ei 
 vidcbatur. Simil. V, § 6. Such is the reading which Roesler gives, 
 from a choice of the varieties in the best MSS. (Bibhoth. B. I.) In 
 Cotelerius, (Tom. I. p. 107) the text stands somewhat differently . 
 but the varieties of the principal MSS. are exhibited in the margin, 
 the best of which give the text above. 
 
 t Filius quidem Dei omni creatura antiquior est, ita ut in consilio 
 Patri suo adfuerit, ad condendam creaturam. Simil IX. §12. Co- 
 teler. Tom. I. p. 118. 
 
Let. II.] OPINIONS of the early fathers. 21 
 
 I will not say, that the sentiments of Hernias are al- 
 together clear, in respect to the simple antemundane^ 
 generation or creation of the Son of God. Thus much 
 however is clear, that they appear to be irreconcileable 
 with the absolute eternity of filiation. We shall see, in 
 the sequel, that the natural explanation which they ad- 
 mit coincides altogether with the predominant opinion 
 of the Antenicene Fathers. 
 
 IGISrATIUS. 
 
 We come next to the Letters of Ignatius, bishop of 
 Antioch, who flourished about the close of the first cen- 
 tury. Of the fifteen letters which bear his name, only 
 seven have met with reception among the learned as 
 genuine. These also have been doubted by some of the 
 I most able critics and ecclesiastical historians. Calvin, 
 ' the Magdeburg Centuriators, Blondell, Salmasius, Daille 
 i Semler, Ernesti, Roesler, and many others have rejected 
 i them as spurious; and, to say the least, their authentic- 
 ity is altogether of so doubtful a nature, that no certain 
 I reliance can be placed on them. Of course, we cannot 
 I be sure that we have, in them, the real views of Igna- 
 1 tius himself. 
 
 I I will limit myself to a few remarks on the passage 
 
 I quoted from them by Bishop Bull, in commenting on 
 
 j which he has occupied twelve folio pages. The passage 
 
 follows : " There is one God who revealed himself by 
 
 Jesus Christ his Son, who is his eternal Logos, not pro- 
 
 * I use the word aniemundane^ to signify what took place within 
 some limited period before the creation, but not to designate, even 
 by imphcation, what is properly eternal. I do tiiis merely to avoid 
 circumlocution, and to save time. 
 
 V 
 
22 OriMON5 OF THE EARLY FATHERS. [LeT. II. 
 
 ceeding from Silence."* If we grant that the latter 
 clause, " not proceeding from Silence," is opposed, as 
 the Bishop has endeavoured to show, to some of the 
 Gnostic doctrines, which taught that the Logos was a 
 secondary emanation from -iV//; or Silence ; the objec- 
 tion to the genuineness of the passage, made because it 
 has been supposed to refer to the errors of Valentine, 
 who was of a later age than Ignatius, may be removed. 
 But whether this is to be granted, is matter of contro- 
 versy. 
 
 That the Logos is eternal, {(aSto?^^ the writer of this 
 Epistle plainly asserts; but that the generation or pro- 
 cession of the Logos Is eternal. Is not asserted. Wheth- 
 er he supposed him to be eternal as immanent [evdiatha- 
 lOQy) or as emanated {nQo(poQixoQ^) does not appear from 
 this passage. From another passage In the same Let- 
 ter, cited In the note below, the former is the most pro- 
 bable. 
 
 Two special difficulties lie In the way, then, of finding 
 among the early fathers support for the doctrine in 
 question, from the passage under review. The first, 
 that the great majority of the ablest patrlstlcal critics 
 deny or strongly doubt the genuineness of the Epistles 
 ascribed to Ignatius ; the second, that admitting their 
 genuineness, the proof from the passage quoted can, at 
 best, be regarded as only of a very doubtful nature. 
 
 \i there be any doubt as to the sufficiency of the rea- 
 sons why the passage in question should receive such a 
 construction, as I have given to it, the testimony hereaf- 
 
 * 'Ei? dfog ((Tztv. 6 q^ai'focoGccg tavrov dta /tjaov Xqcgtov tov vtov 
 avTOv, og aonv ccvrov loyog a'idtog, ov/, ccrco ^tp]? TiQoeXdojv. Epist. 
 ad Mugnes. § 8. In another place, (§ 6 of the saaie Letter,) he says, 
 Xgiarog og ttqo unovov nocgoi naxoL ijv. 
 
Let. II.] OPINIONS of the early fathers. 23 
 
 ter to be adduced from other Fathers will probably dis- 
 sipate this doubt. 
 
 JUSTIN MARTYR. 
 
 This distinguished Father, a native of Flavia Neapo- 
 lis in Samaria, and a heathen philosopher before his 
 conversion to Christianity, flourished about the middle 
 of the second Century, and died in A. D. 165, as a mar- 
 tyr to the Christian religion. Of the various works at- 
 tributed to him, his two Apologies for Christianity, and 
 his Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, are the most im[)or- 
 tant, and the only ones of which the genuineness is in 
 any good degree certain. 
 
 I proceed to develope the evidences of his opinion, in 
 respect to the generation of the Son. " God," says he, 
 " in the beginning, before any thing was created, begat 
 a Rational Power, [dWa^iv Aoyix?jv) from himself; which 
 is called by the Holy Ghost, Glory of the Lord, and 
 sometimes Son, Wisdom, Angel, God, Lord, Logos. 
 Sometimes also he calls him Leader, {ap/toTpanfyoy.) 
 In the form of a man he appeared to Joshua, the son of 
 Nun. All the above names he bears, because he min- 
 isters to the will of the Father, and was begotten by the 
 will of the Father,^''* To show the probability of this, 
 
 * — f^QXV^'i '^Q^ 7iC(VT0)v Tojv HTiG^aT(ov, 6 Giog ytyavvri'/.i: dvvafiiv 
 
 Tivu {'^ iavzov koyi'/.tjv ^Z***' y^Q tiuvtu ■nQOGOvo^o.^ioOui, 
 
 «>c te TOV vnijQiTiiv to> nciTQi'Ab) (3 ovhji^i art, y.uc 6X zov uno xov 
 nargog &ih]aic y^yevviioSuL. Dialog, cum Try phone, § 61, p. 
 157. edit. Ib4^. it may be proper to observe here, once for all, that 
 (to save time and paper) only the more important parts of the origi- 
 nals are quoted in the Notes. Of parts omitted, notice is given by a 
 Dash. If any reader doubts the correctness of the translation, as to 
 passages the original of which is omitted, he has the means of cor- 
 recting it placed in his power, by uniform retcrence to the place", 
 where the whole passages extracted may be found. 
 
24 OPINIONS OF THE EARLY FATHERS. [LeT. II. 
 
 he then proceeds ; " Something Hke this, we see hap- 
 pens to ourselves. When we utter a reasonable word, 
 we beget reason (^Aoyoi^ y) but not by abscission (or/ioro- 
 f^tp'y) so that our reason is diminished. Another thing 
 like this we see, in respect to fire ; which sutlers no di- 
 minution by kindling another fire, but still remains the 
 same."* 
 
 Two points are here clearly asserted. First, the Lo- 
 gos^ before creation, icas produced or generated from God, 
 e^ iavTov ; and secondly, he was begotten (not necessari- 
 ly, but) by the will of the Father. The simile which fol- 
 lows the first statement, makes Justin's conceptions on 
 the subject of the Logos very plain. He was in the 
 Father, before his birth or generation, as reason is in 
 us, which originates language ; i. e. he was originally 
 Logos immanent, (Aoyog erdiaOfrog, as he w^as soon after 
 called by other Fathers, who adopted Justin's views;) 
 but before the creation, he was begotten, produced out 
 of the Father, as a word which originates from reason 
 is uttered; and thus became Son of God, or Aoyog ngo- 
 (fo^aiog. 
 
 The Logos was undoubtedly believed by Justin to be 
 eternaL But he was eternal as the Reason or Under- 
 standing of the Father ; not eternally begotten. If there 
 be aiiy doubt left here, as to Justin's views, the follow- 
 ing passage will dissipate it. " The Father of the uni- 
 verse, who is unbegotten, has no name; for to have a 
 proper name, implies that there is one antecedent to the 
 
 * As this is mere explanation, it is unnecessary to cite tiie Greek. 
 The all' of, which stands at the beginning of the Greek of this pas- 
 sage, is undoubtedly spurious ; or if not so, it is to be read interrogative- 
 ly, as in the London edition. See the Note on it in the Benedictine 
 edition, from which I g^uote. 
 
Let. II.] OPINIONS of the early fathers. 35 
 
 person named, who has given the appellation. For the 
 titles, Father, God, Creator, Lord, Sovereign, are not 
 properly names, but appellations deduced from his be- 
 neficence and his operations. But his Son, v^ho only is 
 properly called Son, the Logos, who existed with him Ae- 
 fore the creation, and was generated when (ot^) in the be- 
 ginning he created and adorned all things by him, is called 
 Christ, because God anointed and adorned all things by 
 him. 
 
 95^ 
 
 This passage leaves no room for doubt. The Father 
 can have no name, because no being existed before him 
 to give it. The Son can properly have a name ; for he 
 was begotten in time, i.e. at or near the creation of the 
 world, which was accomplished by him. The immanent 
 Logos seems to be acknowledged as eternal^ but his 
 generation is definitely stated tobeonly antemundane. He 
 was avvcov, coexisting with the Father, or existing in 
 him, before the creation ; but yevvcofievog begotten in time, 
 or when (oxa) the act of creation was about to be per- 
 formed. 
 
 In conformity with this, Justin, in his second Apology, 
 speaks of the Logos GnepfiaTixog, i. e. begotten, seminal^ 
 in distinction, as it would seem, from the Logos in his 
 previous state, or before his birth. The passage, in 
 which the appellation stands, is one where Justin de- 
 clares that the Logos, or rather portions of the Logos 
 or Reason, have dwelt in all distinguished men of eve- 
 ry age and nation, who have spoken or written well. 
 " It is the Christ, the first-born of God who is the 
 
 * Sf viog eTitivov, 6 fiovog Xfyofievog nvgiojg viog, 6 Xoyog ttqo 
 Tcov nGi}]fAaTO)v xuL Gvvojv, '/Mi yivvojfiivog 6t€ xriv ag^^^v dt au- 
 Tov Tiavxa eaxKie 'AOf.i iY,o(5^ri(ii, Xoiatog, n. z. A. Apol. II. § 6. 
 5 
 
26 OPINIONS OF THE EARLY FATHERS. [LeT. II' 
 
 Logos, of wliich all men are partakers."* ^Tifp/uariTtog, 
 then, is evidently an epithet intended to designate the 
 Logos as begotten, or the Jirst born of God. 
 
 One other passage, to conlirm the fact that Justin 
 viewed the generation of the Son as proceedingyrom the 
 ivlll of the Father, and therefore not as necessary, " We 
 have the Son of God described in the memoirs of the 
 Apostles ; and we call him the Son of God, and consid- 
 er him as coming forth (irpofAO^ovra, issuing out) from 
 the Father, before the creation, by his power and wilL^^t 
 
 With Justin's sentiments on the real and proper di- 
 vinity of the Logos, I am not now concerned; and shall 
 not therefore say any thing here respecting them. My 
 business is not to examine his creed in general ; but on- 
 ly whether he believed in the eternal and necessary gen- 
 eration of the Son. It is very remarkable that Bishop 
 Bull should have quoted the passage just cited above 
 from the Second Apology of Justin, (§ 6,) to prove that 
 this father believed the doctrine of eternal generation^ 
 which clearly establishes the fact, that he was of the 
 opposite opinion. But there is, indeed, no difficulty in 
 coming to such a conclusion, if one may take the liber- 
 ties, which the Bishop has taken, with the text of his 
 author. The words, 6 de viog cxsivovy 6 fjLovog Asyofxsrog 
 7<vpioK vioQ^ &c, he translates, " Porro filius ejus, qui so- 
 lus proprie dicitur filius, Verbum simul cum illo ante cre- 
 aturas et existens et nascens, quoniam primitus per eum 
 cuncta condidit," &:c. And in his comment he says, " In 
 his verbis docet Justinus, Deo Patri et Filio nullum pro- 
 prie nomen competere, sed tantum appellationes quas- 
 
 * Apol. II. § 13. 
 
 t v£voi]'AUf.iev y.ac ttqo ttuvtov tioiij^iixtmv ano tov nargog 8v- 
 vafiei avTOv zuc ^ovh] nQotldovra' z. i. K. Dial, cum Trypho. 
 § 100. 
 
Let. II.] OPINIONS of the earlv fathers. 27 
 
 dam ab ipsorum beneficlis et operibus pctltas, ipsis a no- 
 bis tribui. Hujus autem assertlonls ratlonem banc af- 
 fert, quod Deus Pater ingenitus atque eternus sit ; Fil- 
 ius vero ut Verbum ejus ipsi coexistat, ac prolride uter- 
 que neminem habeat so antiquiorem, qui ipsi nomeii 
 imposuit." 
 
 Very different from the Bishop's translation is that of 
 the learned Benedictine, the editor of Justin. Instead 
 of " Verbum simid cum illo ante creaturas existens et 
 nascens, quoniaim primitus per eum condidit," we have 
 nearly an exact version of the Greek;" Verbum antequam 
 mundus crearetur, quod et una cum eo aderat, et geni- 
 tum est, CUM per illud initio omnia condidit," &c. Instead 
 of translating, then, as the Greek runs, begotten when 
 {ois) in the beginning he created all things by him, the 
 Bishop has contrived to throw back the word begotten 
 upon the preceding clause, for the sake of joining it with 
 npo Tcov noii^fiaicov, and so rendered ante creaturas et ex- 
 istens et nascens, both existing and born bejhre creation ; 
 while OT6 has been converted by him into on, and ren- 
 dered by the patristic Latin conjunction quoniam in the 
 sense of because or since. For his manner of pointing 
 the sentence some apology might be made ; because, by 
 itself considered, it is a possible construction. For 
 changing the text without any authority or necessity, all 
 apology is out of question. 
 
 But the comment is, if possible, more against the 
 spirit of Justin, than the version. Justin says that the 
 Father has no name, because he is unbegotten and has no 
 predecessor to name him ; but, on the other hand, the 
 Son has a name, as he is begotten in time, and his name 
 is derived from his anointing the creation. The Bishop 
 says, " By these words Justin teaches, that no name 
 
28 OPINIONS OF THE EARLY FATHERS, [LeT. IK 
 
 properly belongs to the Father and the Son, but that 
 onlj certain appellations are attributed to them by us, as 
 derived from their beneficence and their operations." — 
 But Justin says this only of the Father ; and places the 
 case of the Son in direct antithesis to all this. 
 
 Again ; the reason why no name is given to the Fa- 
 ther and the Son, the Bishop represents to be, that " the 
 Father is unbegotten and eternal — and the Son is his 
 coexistent Word ; and therefore, neither has any one 
 more ancient than himself, who could impose a name 
 upon him." Whereas Justin Martyr not only asserts 
 that the Son is properly named, but assigns the reason 
 of it, by alleging the fact, that he was " begotten when 
 the world was created." 
 
 The Bishop then proceeds to quote a long passage from 
 Justin's Cohortatio ad Graecos, (the genuineness of the 
 Cohortation is disputed,) the object of which is to show, 
 that when Jehovah revealed himself to Moses, he did 
 not call himself by any name, and properly could have 
 none. He only said, 1 am that I am. Now as Justin, in 
 his Dialogue with Trypho, maintains that the Logos only 
 was revealed to the Patriarchs, Bishop Bull concludes 
 that Justin must have held, that the unknown Name, 
 (if I may so speak) belonged to the Son, and that there- 
 fore he was regarded by Justin as eternal. 
 
 If the passage were known to be genuine ; and Justin 
 could be proved to be always a reasoner, whom later 
 writers, with more purified and elevated ideas of the 
 nature of the divine Being, would call consistent ^ the 
 conclusion of Bishop Bull might be admitted. But if we 
 do admit it, it does not touch the point in question. 
 That the Logos was eternal as immanent, there can be 
 little or no doubt Justin believed. But that he was 
 
Let. II.] OPINIONS of the early fathers. 29 
 
 generated from eternity, never, I apprehend, once entered 
 Justin's mind; or if it did, his hinguagc appears to speak, 
 by every fair rule of construction, an opinion directly 
 the reverse. 
 
 One other passage the Bishop has quoted, from the 
 Epistle to Diognetus ; (the authenticity of which epistle 
 is generally denied, or doubted.) In this, it is said of the 
 Son, ovios 6 aaiy a^^fifpov vtog AoytoOeig, In the same 
 passage, a few words before, it is said of this same Lo- 
 I gos, xaivoQ fav6i?y who appeared anew ; how or where is 
 I not declared, for there is a hiatus in the text immedi- 
 I ately after. But the words immediately antecedent are 
 j 6 an ccQ'/^i^g ', so that the sense seems to be. He who was 
 \ from the beginnings appeared anew, (probably to the pa- 
 ! triarchs, kc.) The sequel is, For he is continually produced 
 [or begotten] anew in the hearts of the saints. Then fol- 
 ) lows 6 ovTog aei^ cT^/uepov vtog Aopio&eig ^ from which I 
 should derive, as before, a view of the sentiments of the 
 writer, directly opposite to that which the Bishop has 
 derived — viz, the Logos {evdiad^eiog) is eternal, as to his 
 existence; but in regard to his Sonship, vtog Aoytoi^eig 
 he is reckoned Son oi^fxegov, at present, to-day. This senti- 
 ment coincides, whoever was the writer, with the views 
 of Justin as already given. 
 
 Such are Bishop Bull's proofs of eternal generation 
 from Justin. Why he should have passed over in si- 
 lence all the passages which militate so directly, or at 
 least seem to militate so directly, against the assertion 
 that Justin held this doctrine, is a question which I shall 
 not undertake to answer. 
 
 The principal passage of Scripture, which seems to 
 have led Justin to his views respecting the generation of 
 the Logos, is found in Prov. 8 : 22 ; for of the ^c\y 
 
30 OPIMONS OF THE EARLY FATHERS. [LeT. II. 
 
 Testament, he has made no use in proving his doctrines. 
 This passage, according to the Septuagint translation 
 which Justin used, runs thus ; " In the beginning of his 
 Avajs, the Lord created me for his works." It is a part 
 of the beautiful prosopopeia of wisdom, which the chap- 
 ter contains to which this verse refers ; and which Jus- 
 tin, with almost all the Christian Fathers, applied to the 
 Logos. As Justin knew nothing of the original Hebrew, 
 he possessed no means of correcting the Septuagint ver- 
 sion of this passage ; and therefore built his speculations 
 about the generation of the Logos upon it. He appears 
 to have taken no offence at the word created {exnae) 
 here ; nor did the early Fathers consider it a matter of 
 importance, v»^hether they used the word exrtoe or eyer- 
 I'ifae ; for they had not yet learned the art of logoma- 
 chy, so well as it was understood in after ages. 
 
 The Hebrew of this passage runs thus ; " Jehovah 
 POSSESSED me in the beginning of his way; before his 
 works, even from ancient time (^i^!D)." Even after Ori- 
 gen had shown the diiference between the Septuagint 
 and the Hebrew, the Fathers still continued to use the 
 Greek text with ^xjiae in it ; a proof that speculation on 
 the definite sense of this word, had not yet come into 
 vogue ; but not a proof, as any one versed in a moderate 
 degree with the patristical dialect will see, that the Fa- 
 thers believed as Arius did, that the Logos was properly 
 a created being. In the same passage, they use indis- 
 criminately exiiof, and eytwrjuej as applied to the Son^ 
 commuting the one for the other. 
 
I 
 
 Let. II.] OPINIONS op the early fathers. 31 
 
 ATHENAGORAS 
 
 was at first an Athenian philosopher. He became a 
 convert to Christianity about A. D. 150 ; and wrote his 
 Apology, (//^£(7/?6«a, Legatio,) addressed to the Empe- 
 ror Marcus Aurelius and his son Commodus, about A. 
 D. 177. 
 
 In this Apology, § 10_, stands the following remarka- 
 ble passage. " I have sufficiently proved that we 
 (Christians,) are not atheists, who believe in one eternal 
 God, unbegotten, invisible, impassible, incomprehensible, 
 known only by reason and understanding, surrounded 
 by light, and beauty, and spirit, and indescribable power; 
 who by his Word, created, adorned, and preserves all 
 things. We acknowledge also, a Son of God. Nor must 
 any one think it ridiculous, that God should have a Son. 
 For not as the poets feign, who exhibit gods nothing 
 better than men, do we think, either concerning God the 
 Father, or concerning the Son. But the Son of God is 
 the Word of the Father, in idea and in operation ; for 
 by him and through him were all things made, inas- 
 much as the Father and Son are one. The Son, more- 
 over, being in the Father, and the Father in the Son, 
 by a oneness and energy of spirit ; the Son of God 
 is the understanding and reason {voug Teat /oyog) of the 
 
 Father. What the Son is, I will briefly declare. He 
 
 is the first progeny {yevvr^}.ia) of the Father, not as made, 
 (for God, from the first, being eternal understanding, 
 vovQy had the Logos in himself, being eternally a reason- 
 able Intelligence ;) but he came forth to be the idea and 
 operation of all material things . With this account. 
 
32 OPINIONS OP THE EARLY FATHERS. [LeT. 11. 
 
 agrees the Spirit of prophecy. The Lord, saith he, 
 created mc in the beginning of his ways, for his works."* 
 
 If some parts of this be unintelligible, I hope the 
 fault is not in the translator, who has endeavoured, as 
 closely as possible, to follow his original. The Bene- 
 dictine Editor, Roesler, Martini, Lindner, all complain 
 of the obscurity of some of the phrases in the original. 
 What concerns us, however, is sufficiently plain ; at 
 least, as it appears to me. The first born of God is not 
 to be considered as made^ like the creation, or other in- 
 tehigences; for he existed eternally in God as his vovq 
 7(ai Aoyog, understanding and reason. But he came forth 
 {TT^oaXi^cov) to be the idea and operation, i. e. the devi- 
 ser and maker, of all material things. In proof of this, 
 the same passage is cited, from Proverbs 8 : 22, to which 
 Justin appeals, for confirmation of his views ; a passage 
 which, supposing wisdom to mean the Logos, and that 
 the Septuagint Version is correct, (as Justin, Athenago- 
 ras, and other Christian Fathers believed,) is well adapt- 
 ed to give countenance to their theory respecting the 
 generation, or hypostatical origin of the Son. 
 
 Bishop Bull has made strenuous efforts, (0pp. pp. 203 
 — 208,) to vindicate the passage in question from the 
 sense just given of it. But Petavius, Huet, and many 
 
 * iOTiv 6 viog Tov 660V Xoyog rov nargog sv idfcc -aglv iveyytia, ngog 
 avTOv [avTOv] ycg, aav do avTOv, navxa eysv€TO, ivog ovrog tov ncc- 
 TQog ^cii TOV vtov. OvTog de tov viov 6v nuTgi, v.aL noLTgog fv vuOf 
 ivoTi]Ti ^av dvi'dif-iei nvm^aTog, vovg yiui loyog rov Tcaxgog 6 viog tov 
 
 deov naig tv (jovXeTUi, sgco dice ^(jux^lmv. TIgoiTOv yivvrjf.ia 
 
 aval TQ> nuTgt, ov/ cog y^.vof.i€vov, if'S ug^ng yag 6 6(og, vovg u'l'dtog 
 oji/, ir/ev avTog ef tavTta tov koyor, ai'dtojg loyiv.og o)v) u)X (og twv 
 
 vXtiiOiv ^v^inuuTOiv idfu accc 6fegyeta eivui ngoiXdtav^ y.. t. A, 
 
 Athenag-. Leg'atio, § 10. p. 286, 287. 
 
Let. II.] OPINIONS or the early fathers. 33 
 
 others, who have maintained tlie doctrine of eternal 
 generation, have accused Athenagoras of heresy, on ac- 
 count of the passage just quoted, because, as they aver, he 
 plainly teaches that the generation of the Son was sina- 
 ply antemundane. The principal part of the Bishop's 
 defence of Athenagoras' orthodoxy, rests on some hy- 
 percritical distinctions of a speculative and metaphysical 
 nature, which he contends Athenagoras must have had 
 in his mind. They amount to this. In every reasona- 
 ble being who thinks, mental words are the necessary 
 accompaniment of the act of thinking; i. e. they are, so 
 to speak, the sons of the faculty of reason. Words spok- 
 en are only external copies of internal mental words. 
 Like to this, is the origin of the Logos. He was from 
 eternity the mental ivord^ and therefore distinct from the 
 vovg which produced this word, (i. e. a separate hypos- 
 tasis ;) while, at the creation, he was revealed or made 
 his appearance externally. 
 
 The the theory is ingenious enough; and seems to 
 have been first hit upon by Tertullian, in his book 
 against Praxeas, chap. 5. But I am unable to find any 
 support of it, in the passage of Athenagoras, under con- 
 sideration. On the contrary, he expressly declaree, that 
 the Son of God is the voug Ttai Aoyog of the Father; and 
 that God being eternally vovg had therefore the Aoyog in 
 himself, who came forth, npoeAd^cor, at the formation of the 
 Avorld. Then he was the ifha, pattern, type, deviser 
 of the creation ; and the a^cpyua, operation, i. e. operat- 
 ing power which effected the work ; for so, with the 
 Benedictine editor, Roesler, Martini, and Muenscher, I 
 believe this apparently obscure phrase is to be explained. 
 6 
 
34 OPINIONS OF THE EARLY FATHERS. [LeT. II. 
 
 TATIAN. 
 
 This father was an Assyrian by birth, and was devot- 
 ed, in early life, to the study of the Greek philosophy. 
 After becoming a convert to the Christian religion, he 
 wrote his Address to the Greeks, about A. D. 172. From 
 this work, the following passage is extracted. 
 
 " God was the beginning. By a^y^v we understand 
 the power of the Logos. For the Lord of the universe, 
 being himself the substance of all things, whilst as yet 
 nothing was created, existed alone. In so far as he pos- 
 sessed all power and was the substance, [vRoaxaoiQ, the 
 original cause or ground) of things visible and invisible, 
 all things were with [in] him. With him, also, by vir- 
 tue of his rational power^ existed the Logos himself, who 
 ivas in him. But by his ivill, the Logos leaped Jorth from 
 his simple being ; and not going into an empty sound, he 
 became the first born work of the Father. This we 
 know to be the beginning of the world. He became 
 [the first born work] by communication, not by abscis- 
 sion ; for what is abscinded, is separated from that 
 whence it is abscinded. But that which is derived by 
 
 communication does not diminish that from wiiich 
 
 it is taken. From one torch we may light many torch- 
 es, and still the light of the first torch is not diminished. 
 So when the Logos proceeded [came forth] from the 
 power of the Father, it did not deprive him who begat 
 the Logos of reason. Even so, I speak and you hear 
 me ; and yet by the transition of my word to you, I who 
 speak am not at all deprived of the faculty of reason."* 
 
 * Biog '/.ara (.i^v ficdrino) y{yivv7]fiev7jv noLtiavv fxovog t]v. 
 
Let. II.] OPINIONS of the early fathers. 35 
 
 I have given as literal a translation as I was able to 
 make. The necessity of all comment on this passage is 
 superseded. The similies made use of show, beyond a 
 doubt, that Tatian had uttered something respecting 
 the rise of the Logos, which he supposed his readers 
 would, without some explanation, view as interfering 
 with the doctrine of the divine immutability. The ex- 
 istence of the Logos in God from eternity, his leaping 
 forth, (^iiponeda) by the divine will, and becoming the 
 first born work of God^ are drawn in colours so graphic, 
 that all the zeal, ability, and learning of Bull (Opera pp. 
 209 — 213,) and the etforts of the Benedictine editor 
 himself, have not been able to obscure the fact, that 
 Tatian was no believer in the doctrine of eternal gene- 
 ration. 
 
 In confirmation of this, besides the passage itself, 
 (the text of which the Benedictine has altered, without 
 authority, and the translation of which Bishop Bull has 
 accommodated to his own purposes,) the additional con- 
 sideration may be stated, that Tatian was a disciple of 
 Justin Martyr, and most probably agreed with his mas- 
 ter. And Justin so clearly teaches the antemundane 
 generation of the Son, that the Benedictine editor is 
 candid enough to acknowledge it, in his notes to some of 
 the passages above cited. 
 
 Ka&o Se nuaa Swafiig, OQttxwv re aai aogarcov avrog vnoaraGig tjv, 
 (jvv aiTW ra navra. Hvv uvtm yuQ dia loyia^g dvvufifojg, avtog xai 
 6 loyog, 6g nv iv avuo, vntorriGe, Sihif^aTi da Trjg dnloTfjiog avrov 
 TiQomjda Xoyog. ' O df Xoyog ov Ttatcc afvov yMQ^aag egyov nQwro- 
 
 Toxov Tov Tcargog yi^vfiai,. Tovtov lOiufvTOV xoa^iov Tt;i/ (xqxv^ 
 
 ovTCo xac 6 Xoyog uQoeXi^Mv en tov nuxQog dvva/Aioyg, ova aloyov nt- 
 noifjKS TOV ye ytw^jnoTa. x. t. A. Tatiani Orat. contra Graecos, § 5. 
 pp. 247, 248. 
 
36 OPINIONS OF THE EARLY FATHERS. [LeT. 11. 
 
 THEOPHILUS. 
 
 This writer was Bishop of Antioch, and wrote three 
 books in defence of Christianity, which he addressed to 
 one Autoljcus. Shroeckh assigns these books to the 
 {3eriod between A. D. 170 and 180; Wolf to 180—183. 
 
 The following passages relate to the subject in ques- 
 tion. 
 
 " Tliej', (the prophets) have harmoniously taught us, 
 that God made all things out of nothing. For nothing 
 is coeval with God. But he, being his own place, and 
 in want of nothing, and existing before the worlds, was 
 desirous to make man, by whom he might be known. 
 For him he prepared the world. Now he who is creat- 
 ed is exposed to want ; but he, who is uncreated, needs 
 nothing. God, then, having his Logos immanent in his 
 own bowels, begat him with his own wisdom, emitting 
 him {(^epcv^auero^) before all things. This Logos he had 
 as an assistant in the work of creation, and by him he 
 made all things, (S:c." 
 
 "And his Logos, who was always with him."* 
 
 Here, then, we have the doctrine of Justin brought 
 forward in a form sufficiently repulsive. Theophilus is not 
 content, like his predecessors, to represent the Logos as 
 the immanent reason or understanding of the Deity ; hut 
 he says, in somewhat offensive terms, that he was evd'ia- 
 Oeiov ev roig Ldioig onkaryyoig ; and that at his birth, he 
 
 f/wi' ovv Otoq xov tavTOv loyov evdcux^exov av rocg idtoig 
 
 anXav/yvoig, eyevpy^ouv avxov (.ura rijg iavxov aoqjiag eleQevlufievog 
 TiQo Ttoi^ oAcoi/. 7bvT0v Tov ).oyov, y,. T. A. 
 
 Aai loyog 6 ayiog uvtov 6 aiec gviittccqojv avio). Ad Au- 
 tolycum, Lib. II. § 10. p. 355.- 
 
Let. IL] opinions of the early fathers. 37 
 
 was e^f^ev^af-tevov cast forth fiorn his place, in order to 
 assist ill creating the world. 
 
 Even Bishop Bull's courage fails him here. " Fateor, 
 jcp Aoym et Filio Dei generationem f^?/a/?,6Zrt?7i a Theophilo 
 tribui, quae creationem mundi paullo antecessit." But 
 what kind of generation ? Certainly not, he answers, of 
 a person who did not actually exist before — but it was a 
 generation non veram ac propriam sed fgiirate ct meta- 
 phor icus sic dictam, 0pp. p. 215. 
 
 Is then, the generation of the Son of God a proper 
 one? Has it any concern with sex? No, the Bishop 
 would say; but there is a real procession or emanation 
 from God the Father, as the original source of all Being. 
 But this, I reply, is just what Theophilus asserts. The 
 diiference, however, between him and the Bishop is, 
 that Theophilus asserts the generation or procession of 
 the Son to have been merely antemundane; while his 
 commentator asserts that it was from eternity. 
 
 That he declares the Logos to have been ahvays with 
 the Father is plain ; and this is in perfect concord with 
 Justin, Athenagoras, and Tatian. It is indeed a neces- 
 sary consequence of his assertion, that the Logos was 
 evdcaij^eiov €v roig onAay/i^otg tov narpog. But the birth, 
 the generation, the existence ad extra, or the hypostati- 
 cal existence of the Aoyog, most undoubtedly is asserted 
 to be only antemundane. 
 
 If, however, there be any doubt as to the opinion of 
 Theophilus, another passage will serve to remove it. 
 "God, the Father of the universe," says he, " is incom- 
 prehensible, and cannot be contained in any place. — But 
 his Logos, by whom he made all things — assuming the 
 person of the Father — came into paradise in his per- 
 son, and conversed with Adam. For the holy Scrip- 
 
S8 OI'INIONS OF TUIL EARLY FATHERS. [LeT. II. 
 
 tiire teaches us, that Adam said he heard a voice. 
 Now what else is a voice, but the Word of God, who is 
 his Son ; not as poets and mjthologers speak of the 
 sons of God, born from carnal intercourse; but, as truth 
 declares, the Logos who was always immanent {evdiccOe- 
 jov laid vp^ deposited) in the heart of God. Before any 
 thing was made, he had him for a counsellor, who was 
 his understanding and his reason. But when God desir- 
 ed to make what he had purposed to make, he begat this 
 Logos produced, {nQocpo^ixov, apparent, prophoric), the 
 first born of all creation. Not that the Father depriv- 
 ed himself of reason ; but having begotten the Logos, he 
 converses always with his Logos, (or reason.) This, the 
 holy Scriptures and all inspired men teach; of whom 
 John says, In the beginning was the Logos, and the Lo- 
 gos was with God ; shev»^ing that, at first, God was alone, 
 and his Logos in him. Afterwards he says. And the 
 Logos was God. All things were made by him ; and 
 without him was nothing made. The Logos, therefore, 
 being God, and produced from God, when it seemed good to 
 the Father of the universe, he sends him to any particular 
 place, &c.* 
 
 * 'O ,<J6i' 060^ '/Ml 7iai},Q TMV oloiv u^aoof^TO? iGlC, v.ai tv TOno) 
 
 ovx eu()i(jy.fTui (J df Xoyug ccviov ava}.aii(javoiv to ixgoaoi- 
 
 nov zov naTQOQ ixfxQtyav^TO eig top IIuQudeinov 6g iotl 
 
 'AUL viog aviov, ovv. cog oi ■jioii]iat leyovGiv ctXlu oj? alt]- 
 
 Oata di,}]yeiTai top Xoyov, top opia dianapiog fpdiadizop 6p accgSta 
 "O^fov. IJqo yuQ XL yivtad^ai, tqvtop er/ov GVfA^ovXov, iavrov vovv 
 xat qQ0P7]Gip opra. 'Onoxe di t]d6h](Jfv 6 S^eog noifjaai oaa (^ov- 
 levaccio, tovtov top koyop {yivv7]0i TiQoqoQi^ov, TrgcoToroicov naoTig 
 
 y.TiGfcDg diixpiig on epTT^onoig fiovog 6 deog, aai sv av- 
 
 T(o 6 Xoyog Oeog oin> mp 6 ).oyog, aai eyt Otov mcpvy.wg, ottot av 
 
 §ovXeTu.i 6 7iuT)]o Ttop olojp, K. T. A. A(l. Autoljcum, Lib. II. § 22. 
 
Let. 11.] OPINIONS of the early fathers. 39 
 
 After the remarks which have been already made, 
 further comment on this passage is unnecessary. The 
 points in question — viz. antemundane and voluntary gener- 
 ation, (not that which is eternal and necessary,) are too 
 plain not to be perceived, by every intelligent reader. 
 
 IREN^US. 
 
 This writer was probably a native of Asia Minor; 
 for as he himself informs us in his letter to Florinus, he 
 was the disciple and friend of Polycarp. He came to 
 Lyons, in France, where he was first a Presbyter under 
 Photinus ; whom as bishop, he succeeded, about A. D. 
 177. His work against the Gnostics, written originally 
 in Greek, has come down to us, with the exception of 
 the principal part of tha first book, in a literal and bar- 
 barous Latin translation. 
 
 The controversy with the Gnostics, in which this fa- 
 ther was so deeply engaged, naturally led him to reject 
 with warmth the emanation-philosophy, which is the 
 distinguishing trait of this sect. 
 
 In doing this, he manifests his disapprobation of any 
 attempt to explain the generation of the Son, by such 
 comparisons as were common, in the age when he lived. 
 "God," says he, " being all mind and all Logos, what he 
 thinks he speaks, and what he speaks he thinks. His 
 thought is Logos ; and his Logos, mind ; and the Father 
 himself is the Mind which comprises all. Whoever 
 therefore speaks of the mind of God, as if externally 
 produced, (prolationem propriam menti donat) makes 
 him composite ; as if God were one thing, and his essen- 
 tial mind another." 
 
40 OPINIONS OF THE EARLY FATHERS. [LeT. H 
 
 Shortly after, speaking of the production (prolatio- 
 nem) of the Logos, which the Gnostics maintained, he 
 rephes, " But the prophet says concerning him, Who 
 shall declare his generation ? But you, divining about 
 his birth of the Father, and transferring the utterance 
 of words by the human tongue to the Word of God, are 
 justly detected by us, as not understanding either human 
 or divine thinofs/** 
 
 In like manner he casts away the favorite compari- 
 son, drawn from the irradiation of light from the Sun. 
 '• If, says he, they (the Gnostics) speak of an emission 
 [emanation] of God's understanding, they separate and 
 divide the understanding of God. Where and whence 
 did it emanate? Whatever emanates is received by 
 something; but what was there more ancient than the 
 mind of God, by which it could be received, when it 
 was sent forth." He then goes on to state, that if the 
 emission of the Logos be compared to the irradiation of 
 light, which is received by the air that must exist an- 
 tecedently to the irradiation ; then the emission of the 
 Logos would render necessary a subject to receive it, 
 which is more ancient than itself.t 
 
 More fully still, does this father express his aversion 
 to the belief of any emanation from God, in the follow- 
 ing passage. " Since the Supreme God is all mind, and 
 all Logos, as we have before said; and nothing in him 
 is more ancient, or later, or anterior; but he remains 
 entirely equal, and alike, and one ; no emission of this 
 nature can take place."J 
 
 In chap. 23, Lib. II, he rejects the simile of one 
 
 * Irenaeus in Biblioth. Patrum. Tom. II. P. li. c. 48. p. 210. 
 t Ibid. p. 256. Lib. II. c. 17. t Il'it^ c 18. E. F. 
 
OPIN'IOXS OF THE LARLV FATHERS. 41 
 
 torch kindling another without any diminution of its 
 light, which was so often apphed, by the early fathers, 
 to explain the generation of tlie Son of God. Other 
 passages of a similar nature might be produced ; but 
 these are sufficient to developc his opinions respecting 
 these points. 
 
 After such declarations against the speculating phi- 
 losophy of the age, we cannot expect to find this father 
 explicitly avowing any theory about the doctrine of the 
 generation of the Son. I have searched his writings in 
 vain to find a direct avowal. There is no doubt of his 
 belief in the proper divinity of Christ. He calls him 
 " truly God and truly man ;"* true God;t God, and 
 Lord, and eternal King :J &;c. Nor is there any doubt 
 of his belief in the eternity of the Son, considered as di- 
 vine ; for he speaks of the Son as seinper existens apud 
 Patrem ;^ and often uses expressions respecting him 
 equivalent to this. But the question still left unexplain- 
 ed is, did he believe in an eternal Logos evdiadeioQ^ or in 
 an eternally begotten, prop/ionc Logos or Son .^^ The 
 latter, says Bishop Bull, with the greatest confidence. 
 But I am not able to satisfy myself that he has suffi- 
 cient grounds for this confidence. Certainly there is 
 nothing in the declaration that the Son is eternal, which 
 will prove this; for so would Justin, and Athenagoras, 
 and Tatian have spoken. But is he eternal as imma- 
 nent or prophoric ; as the reason or Logos of God inter- 
 nal, or as existing in a separate hypostasis? While the 
 Bishop would assert the latter with confidence, I feel 
 obliged to adopt the former as the more probable opin- 
 ion of Irenaeus, for two reasons. 
 
 * Ibid. Lib. IV. c. 11. D. t Ibid. c. 22, ad finem. 
 
 X Ibid. Lib. HI. c. 21. F. § Ibid. Lib. HI. c. 2Uv 
 
 7 
 
42 Ol'INIONS OF THE EARLY FATHERS. [LeT. IL 
 
 1. The current opinion of the fathers both before 
 and after Irenaeus, was in unison with the former. Cae- 
 teris paribus, the probability is, that Irenaeus agreed 
 with the general body of the Churches. 
 
 2. I have found one passage in this writer, which 
 seems to me to recognize the common opinion of the 
 fathers, about the Logos immanent. " The Word," 
 says he, "glorified his Father, dwelling in him (manens in 
 eo abiding in him,) not only before Adam, but before 
 any order of beings."* » 
 
 What other meaning can we attach to manens in co, 
 except the one which is conveyed by evdiaOeiog ev avxq)^ 
 And though this is an expression overlooked by Muen- 
 scher, and even by Martini ; I cannot help thinking that 
 it developes, in an indirect way, the real sentiments of 
 this writer under examination. 
 
 I undertake not to say, that no other expressions of 
 this writer can be found which may seem to indicate a 
 ditlerent opinion, on the first examination. But with 
 the fact in view, that the phrase Son of God is used as 
 a proper name, and commuted by Irenaeus with the 
 term Logos, I have found no real difficulty in the belief 
 that the views of this Father are consistent with each 
 other, and consistent with the common opinions of his 
 
 CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS. 
 
 flourished at Alexandria, first as a catechist, and then 
 as a presbyter, near the close of the second Century. 
 (Fl. A, D. 192, ob. circa 220.) His works still extant are 
 
 * Ibid. Lib. IV. c. 28. ad init. 
 
Let. II.] OPINIONS of the early fathers. 43 
 
 his Mdress to the Heathen^ IJpoTpsjiJiTeog Aoyog ^ his Peda- 
 gogue ; and his ^iQcofiaTa or JUiscellanics, 
 
 Clemens speaks often and \eiy copiously of the Lo- 
 gos ; but in terms so loose and undefined, that hitherto 
 all attempts to make a representation out of his writ- 
 ings, which would exhibit him as consistent in respect to 
 his views of the person of Christ, or the subject of the 
 Logos, have failed ; at least, where impartiality has been 
 shewn in the collection of testimonies from him. Martini, 
 in his History of the Doctrine of the Logos during the four 
 first Centuries, does not hesitate to say, that the repre- 
 sentations of Clemens on this subject are irreconcileable. 
 Of the same opinion is Miinscher, in his History of Chris- 
 tian Doctrine ; and Miinter in his Manual of the History 
 of ancient Christian Doctrine. With these excellent 
 patristical critics agrees Roesler, in his Bibliotheca of 
 the Fathers; a writer by no means inferior to any, who 
 have appeared in the department of patristical lore. 
 
 A brief sketch of the grounds, on which such an opin- 
 ion is built, may be found in the following passages. 
 
 " The image of God is his Logos ; and the divine Lo- 
 gos is the genuine Son of understanding {you)^ the origin- 
 al light of light.* 
 
 Again; "Plato in his Phaedrus, speaking of truth, ex- 
 plains it as an idea. An idea is the thought [or concep- 
 tion] of the Divinity, which barbarians call the Logos of 
 
 * f] f^6v yag tov Oeov emoyv 6 loyog avTOv^ acci vcog xov vov 
 
 yvtjacog 6 Oiog loyog, q)coTog aQy^fjTvnov fpcog. Cohort, ad Graec. 
 c. 10. Sanct. Patt. Edit. Oberthur, Vol. IV. p. 157. If the reading 
 aQp]Tvnov be g-enuine, the meaning of Clemens doubtless is, that the 
 Logos is the source of light to man, i. e. the original whence their 
 light is derived. For Clemens immediately adds, "• The image of the 
 Logos is man ; for there is a real vovg in man, who was formed in 
 the image of God, &c." 
 
44 OPINIONS OF THE EARLY FATHERS. [LeT. II, 
 
 God. [By barbarians, he means the heathen Greeks.] 
 Tlie Logos coming Jorth, (npoeAd^cov) became the 
 creator of the world. Afterwards, when the Logos be- 
 came flesh he begat himself."* 
 
 "There is one unbegotten Being, the Almighty God. 
 And there is one begotten before all things, by whom all 
 things were made. For Peter truly says,t there is one 
 God, ivho created the beginning (^a^yj^v) of all thmcrs ^ by 
 which [^ocpyr^y'\ he means the first begotten Son^ and he acra- 
 rately understood the meaning of £V apyj^ enonjoe 6 6eog 
 tov ovgavov vat u^v yqv. This is he, who is called W is" 
 dom by the prophets, the teacher of all creatures, the 
 counsellor of God, who from ancient time, from the 
 foundation of the world, at divers times and in various 
 ways, instructed and perfected [mcn.]J 
 
 In another place, he calls the Logos, the first created 
 wisdom. Strom. Lib. V. 
 
 It is on account of these and such like passages in 
 Clemens, that Martini, Miinscher, and Miinter all unite 
 in declaring their entire conviction, that Clemens har- 
 monized with .Justin and other early fathers in the be- 
 lief, that the Logos existed in God, as his reason or un- 
 derstanding from eternity, and that his generation was 
 only antemundane. And yet, they all admit, that there 
 are other passages, which seem to be at variance, (they 
 hesitate not to say that they are at variance) with the 
 opinion just advanced. Among such have been reckon- 
 ed the following. 
 
 * nQoiX{>(i}v da 6 loyog, dtjf-iiovQy tag atrtog. ineira y.ai iavTOv 
 
 yfvv(x, oral/ o koyog aag'^ (yevezo, n. z. A. Strom V. c. 2. 
 
 t The quotation by Clemens is from the KriQvyfia of Peter, an 
 apocryphal book, which Clemens quotes as genuine. 
 
 + Ibid. Strom. Lib. VI. c. 7. p. 242. 
 
Let. 11.] OPINIONS of the early fathers. 45 
 
 "The Logos of the Father Is not npocpopi^ogy^ Whe- 
 ther he means to contradict the representation of Theo- 
 philus, who distinguished the Logos into n^ocpopiHog and 
 evdcaO^fioQ^ may perhaps be a question; but he aj)pcars 
 to me to assert only that the simile drawn from a word, 
 uttered by the human voice, is inadequate to describe 
 the Logos ; for as he proceeds to say, '^ He [the Logos] is 
 the manifest wisdom and goodness of God, his omnipo- 
 tent power, and truly divine ;" i. e. he is not like an emp- 
 ty prophoric sound. 
 
 Again ; he describes the Logos as omniscient and omni- 
 present; and as the most perfect, holy, and exalted na- 
 ture, and who approximates the nearest to the only Al- 
 mighty. Ibid. Vol. VI. p. 385. 
 
 In another passage, he calls the Son "the older by birth 
 among mtelligible thmgs; the timeless beginning and 
 firstling of beings, by whom we must learn the original 
 cause ; the father of all, the most ancient and most bene- 
 ficent of all, &:c."t 
 
 Both opinions ascribed to Clemens, seemed to be com- 
 prized in this passage. In one moment, the Son is 
 7ip6GiSvTepov ev Toig vor^ioig ^ in the next he is np' cc'/Qo- 
 vov Tcac avagyov a^yrjv tlov ovtcov. The solution of this 
 apparent inconsistency lies, probably, within our reach. 
 In respect to the generation of the Logos, he w as Trgeo' 
 fiuTC^ov {y yEViG€Ly while in regard to his preceding ex- 
 istence, as the reason or understanding of God, he was 
 the timeless and beginningkss (pardon the word) begin- 
 nings and original of existences. 
 
 * Ibid Strom. V. c. 1. Vol. IV. p. 12. 
 
 t ^v TOig vor,TOig TTQiO^vifQov ev yu'eofi, ti]v aygovov v.uu 
 
 (xvuQ'/ov a(j'/})vza -/.ul U7iu(j)[t]v to)p outmv, tov viov, nuQ ou f'Xfuav- 
 
 d^UViLV TO 67ie'A6ll'U UlTVOV, TOV TCaiiQa TOJV 6lo)V, TO TlQeCi^lGTOV Y.ai> 
 
 ncKi'TMv evegyiTr/.ojTUTOv, x. r. A. Ibid. Strom. VII. c. 1. p. 380. 
 
46 OPINIONS OF THE EARLY FATHERS. [LeT. II. 
 
 In hisCohortatloaclGraecos, he calls the Logos aidws ; 
 and again he speaks of the ai'^iog viog. But whether he 
 used these words, with the intention only to convey the 
 idea just expressed above, or whether he meant more 
 bj them, some may, no doubt, regard as uncertain. 
 
 For my own part, I feel that it would be a very diffi- 
 cult thing to make out and establish a definite statement 
 of Clemens' opinion, on the point in question. He is so 
 loose and declamatory a writer, that he seems to elude 
 all effort to find any thing systematic and well defined, 
 on points that are more nice and difficult. As it ap- 
 pears to me, the praise oi consistency can hardly be giv- 
 en him, by a sober and impartial inquirer. And though 
 the 'predominant evidence respecting his opinion appears 
 to be in favour of the supposition that he believed in the 
 simple antemundane generation of the Logos ; yet the ap- 
 peal cannot be made to him as a clear example of this 
 view of the subject, with the same confidence that it 
 may be made to some of the preceding Fathers, who 
 have been quoted ; or io some whose testimonies still 
 remain to be recited. 
 
 TERTULLIArv. 
 
 This father was born at Carthage, about the middle 
 of the second Century ; educated as a heathen ; and 
 converted to Christianity, one knows not with certainty 
 in what year. His writings were composed about the 
 end of th(3 second century and the beginning of the third. 
 
 TertuUian has left us no reason to doubt what his 
 opinions were, in respect to the point in question. "God," 
 says he, " before the creation, was alone, his own world 
 and place; alone, because there was nothing extrinsic to 
 
Let. II.] OPINIONS of the early fathers. 47 
 
 him. Yet not alone, for he had with him what he 
 had in him, viz, his own reason. For God is a rational 
 being, and his reason was in him first, and so all things 
 were derived from him ; which reason is his under- 
 standing. The Greeks call this Logos, and we, Sermo. 
 On this account, we are accustomed, by merely inter- 
 preting the word [Logos,] to say, that the Word was in 
 the beginning icith God : when we should say, to speak 
 correctly, Reason was first ; for God from the beginning 
 was not sermonalis but rationalist* 
 
 Here is the existence of the Logos in his first state 
 in God, as his reason or understanding. Next as to his 
 generation. 
 
 " As soon as God had determined to bring into sub- 
 stance and form those things, which he had arranged 
 within himself by his reason and his Logos (Sermone,) 
 he first produced the Word himself, having in him his 
 own reason and wisdom, that the universe might be 
 made by him, &c."t 
 
 Again ; " Then the Word himself assumed his 
 form and beauty, sound and voice, when God said, Let 
 
 * Caeterum ne tunc quidem solus; habebat enim secum, 
 
 quam habebat in semetipso, rationem suam scilicil. Rationalis 
 enim Deus, et ratio in ipso prius, et ita ab ipso omnia; quae ratio 
 sensus ipsius est. Hunc Graeci ^oyov dicunt, quo vocabulo etiam 
 sermonem appellamus. Ideoque in usu est jam nostrorum, per 
 simplicitatem interpretationis, Sermonem dicere in primodio apud 
 Deiim fidsae ; cum majus rationem competat, antiquiorem haberi; quia 
 non sermonalis a principio, sed rationalis Deus, &c. Advers. Praxe- 
 am. c. 5. 
 
 t Ut primum Deus voluit ea, quae cum sophiae ratione et sermone 
 disposuerat intra se, in substantias et species suas edere,r/)5wmpnmK/AJ 
 protulit Sermonem^ habentem in se individuas suas rationem et sophi- 
 am, ut per ipsum fiercnt universa, &c. Advers. Prax. c. 6. 
 
on!nOT$ OF THS KAKLT PATHKftS. FLtt. II 
 
 there be light Tbk is the perfect natiritv of the Word, 
 when he proceeds irom God. formed by him hrsi mental- 
 
 ]T(ad cogitatum.) br the oame o\ wisdom thengenerot- 
 
 €d im fad (ad edectum.) k.c" Bv this procession became 
 he the nrst bom Son, before anj thiiig else was bom; 
 and the only beffotteD."* 
 
 To aiKirer the objeciiODs, which might be made 
 a«aiiKt the e^Deraiion cf the Word when G<xl s?-id 
 LdEi thtrt be lighL he =©od after ssts : - But I repij, that 
 Dothii^ can proceed from God which is inane and void ; 
 so that what proceeded from him does not relate to ai.j 
 thing ioaoe and roid : nor could that tctuU suhstaucu urkich 
 proccedfdjrom htm. who made so manr sobstacces, and is 
 himself so ^rf i: i snbstance-"^ 
 
 I -.-.z igainst Hermogenes, who maintained the 
 
 * ' ' = cause, as he asserted- God had ai- 
 : — - ^ of course there must have altca^ 
 
 been somethii]^ oyer which he exercised dominion.) 
 Tertullian, after denying this, goes on to explain in the 
 following words. *■ He (God) is not Father — always, be- 
 cause he is always God. For he could not be a Father 
 before he had a Son : as there cannot be a judge, before 
 there b a crime. There si^ - :^. when the Son was 
 ne: ' - ^ ' — ::,: .'. cjike th*^ L; vr."! 
 
 ?Tinm somit. 
 
 -itas per- 
 
 T.noi ad 
 
 4^ 
 
 prodire j 
 re sdntantia. 
 - fe€iL Adw^ 
 r*£TS semper. 
 
Let. II.] opiitioss of the easlt fathkbs* 4S 
 
 A^^in : " Let Hermogenes ackDowledee, that the 
 Wisdom of God is spoken of as bom and formed ; lest we 
 should believe that aoj ihin^ besides God onlj was ud- 
 bom and unformed- For if within God, what was from 
 bim and in him. vas not idthout a hegimmimg. name I v bb 
 Wisdom, born and formtd from tht time ichen th^ mind of 
 God began to bi agitated about theformatiom ^thi, yyorid : 
 much more must we deny that what was without God 
 is eternal."* 
 
 Other passages might be adduced ; bat it would be su- 
 perduous. It is impossible that Tertullian should be 
 misunderstood, in regard to the point in question, how- 
 ever obscure some parts of his phraseology may be. 
 
 Compare now this father with the Greek writers, 
 who have been quoted in the preceding pages, and he 
 will be found to exceed them, in the repulsive style of 
 his laoofuasB, and (mav I not add ?) gross materialism of 
 his speculations. He even lixes upon the very moment 
 when the Logos was s^enerated. The voice of God, 
 when he said L/tt there be light, was not a vacant empty 
 sound, but became a hypostatical substantial bemg. the 
 Son of God. and Creator of the world. No wonder 
 Bishop Bull is greatly troubled to manage this Father; 
 as any one may see. who will read Bullii Opp. pp. 235 — 
 246. If he read with an impartial eye, he will be sat- 
 isfied, I think, that Martini is guilty of no slander, wheo 
 
 potoit e^e ante 6Unm : nee JTidei ante delictum. f »« mmiem wem- 
 
 pm* cmm ef Jtika mo% fmi qci patrem Dowmm (dL Deaa) &• 
 
 ceret. Cootra Hemiogeoeai, c o. 
 
 * Si eDim intra DoaMBvoa, qpod ex ipso et m ipso §mX mmt imkit 
 nonfns. sophia scilicet ejis exinde nata et con&ta, ex ^oo in seasa 
 Pel ad opera mmdi di^MMienda coepit i^nari ; Mvlto ■Mgis mm ca- 
 pii, sine intio qnkqiiaiii fbisse, quod extra DoMhma liient dmin 
 Hermo*. c. IS. 
 
 8 
 
50 OPINIONS OF THE EARLY FATHERS. [LeT. iI» 
 
 he says, " If any one is desirous to see how the most ex- 
 plicit assertions of a writer can be perverted by an er- 
 roneous explanation of particular words, by arbitrary 
 interpolations, &;c, let him read Bull ;" [viz, on the two 
 passages last quoted.] 
 
 ORIGEN-. 
 
 This father, who has so often been the subject of 
 severe remark, by modern critics and divines, for his 
 mystical exegesis and the extravagance of his theological 
 opinions, was born at Alexandria, about A. D. 185. He 
 yields to none of the fathers, except Jerome, in a knowl- 
 edge of the Scriptures ; and he has left very numerous 
 writings behind him, most of which are in our hands. 
 
 No doubt can fairly be entertained, that Origen be- 
 lieved in the eternal generation of the Son. For the 
 hypostatic existence of the Logos, he strongly contends ; 
 and as clearly declares, that he was Son from eternity.* 
 He unequivocally rejects all similies, drawn from human 
 generation or production ;t and takes a decided stand 
 against any application of the emanation-philosophy or 
 the doctrine of emanation, prolation, or emission from 
 God, to the explanation of this subject.J The immuta- 
 
 * Vide apufl Athanas. decret. Synod. Nicaen. § 27. Tom. I. p. 
 233j, edit Montfaucon. Also a quotation from Origen by Marcellus, 
 (in Eusebius contra Marcell. 1. c. 4. p. 22. edit. Paris. 1628,) in 
 which passage he thus argues. " If God was always perfect, and 
 had power to be a father, and it was good that he should be the 
 father of such a Son ; why did he put off and deprive himself of this 
 good, and, as one may say, after that he could be the father of a 
 Son, did not become so?" See also Comm. in Johann. pp. 49 and 
 50, also 33 ; and TleQi CLQXoiv Lib. I. c. 2. 3. IV. 28. 
 
 t TJeQi uQXMv, Lib. IV. 28, and L c. 2. 4. plhld. I c. 2. 6. 
 
Let. II. ] OPINIONS of the early fathers. 51 
 
 h'lVity of the divine nature was a truth which he regard- 
 ed with strong approbation ; and every thing which 
 seemed to interfere with it, he rejected. So great a 
 change as the Deity must suffer, by the generation of a 
 Son in time, appeared therefore irreconcilable with his 
 views of the divine nature. And on the same general 
 ground of reasoning, he maintained the eternity of the 
 world. "As there cannot be," says he, " a Creator with- 
 out a creation those thing's made by God must ne- 
 cessarily have existed always, and there was no time 
 when these things were not; for if there ever was a 
 time when these things were not, then there was a time 
 when there was no Maker, &c."* 
 
 The gross material ideas conveyed by some words, 
 which were used respecting the generation of the Son 
 of God, and were common in the time of Origen, were 
 very offensive to his ear. " Begotten of the being ot 
 the Father," was a phrase, which he could not tolerate 
 at all. " Some," says he, understand the phrase, (John 
 8: 42,) E^i]Wov ano tov Geov, of the generation of the 
 Son ; from which, they say, it follows that the Son was 
 
 begotten from the being of the Father, It follows, that 
 
 they must describe the Father and Son as corporeal, 
 and that the Father is divided. These are the dog- 
 mas of men, who never even dreamed of an invisible and 
 incorporeal nature."! 
 
 Origen himself, however, adopted a tenuious specula- 
 tion, on the subject of the generation of the Son. He 
 borrowed an intellectual or metaphysical similitude, to 
 designate his view of it, " Sicut voluntas procedit e 
 
 * Apud Methodium, in Photii Biblioth. cod. CCXXXV. p. 93S. ed. 
 -Schott. 
 
 t Comm. in Johann. p. 306. 
 
52 OPINIONS OF THE EARLY TATHERS. [LeT. II. 
 
 mente, (sajs he,) so is the Son begotten of the Fa- 
 ther."* So he compares the generation or rather the 
 eternity of the generation of the Son, with the splen- 
 dour that is coetaneous with hght. t 
 
 In another place, he guards against any interference 
 with the immutability of the Father, by representing 
 the generation of the Son as always continuing, " The 
 Father," says he, " did not beget the Son, and dismiss 
 {aneXvoev) him after his birth; but he always is beget- 
 ting him."J 
 
 It was Origen's philosophy, therefore, which led him 
 to embrace the doctrine of eternal generation ; the same 
 philosophy which led him to maintain the eternity of 
 the world, or of the creation. 
 
 To defend the immutability of God he took the 
 strange position, that a change in his relation in respect 
 to dependent beings, necessarily implied a change in the 
 creator and governor of them ; or that all the relations 
 implied by the names of God, which are found in the 
 Bible, must have been eternal. That he embraced the 
 doctrine of eternal generation, in consequence of being 
 guided by such philosophy, will not serve much to recom- 
 mend this doctrine to considerate inquirers of the pre- 
 sent day. 
 
 DIONYSIUS, 
 
 Bishop of Alexandria a little after the middle of the 
 2nd Century, from his learning and fame was surnamed 
 the Great. He has been claimed by both parties, the 
 
 * UeQL aQ%Mv, Lib. I. c. 2. 6. 
 
 t Ibid. lib. IV. 28. Lib. \. c. 2. 4. 
 
 X Comm. in Jerem. Homil. IX. Oberthiir. 0pp. Pat. T. XV. p. 478. 
 
Let. II.] OPINIONS of the early fathers. 53 
 
 orthodox, and the heterodox. Two quotations from him, 
 as his sentiments are recorded by Athanasius, will suffice 
 to exhibit his views. 
 
 " The Son of God is created and made and as he 
 
 is a created being, he existed not before he was made."* 
 
 Again: "God was not always Fatlier ; the Son was 
 not always : but the supreme God was once without the 
 Logos, and the Son Avas not, before he was begotten; 
 for he is not eternal, but came into being afterwards."t 
 
 I pass by this Father, without further remark; as hi^ 
 authority will not probably have much weight with 
 sober inquirers ; because his opinions are not very per- 
 fectly developed, nor his real character well ascertained. 
 
 Of Theognostus, a man of distinguished character at 
 Alexandria, whom Athanasius calls avr^Q Aoyiog — 6 Oav- 
 (.laotog Tcai anovdacog ; of Pierius, a presbyter at Alexan* 
 dria; of Gregory Thaumaturgus bishop of New Cassa- 
 rea in Pontus; all disciples of Origen, and all living in 
 the latter part of the third century ; I have been unable 
 to trace any certain information, which would show what 
 they held relative to the point under examination. In 
 regard to Gregory Thaumaturgus, however, it should be 
 mentioned, that if the Creed attributed to him by Gre- 
 gory of Nyssa be genuine, there can be no doubt but 
 that his belief comported altogether with the Athana- 
 sian Symbol. But there are strong reasons for believing 
 that this creed is not the work of the bishop of Nova- 
 
 * Apud Athanas. Expos. Fidei. p. 2 4G. 
 
 t Apud Athanas. Expos. Fid. § 14, p. 253. Athanasius says that 
 the Arians asserted these were the sentiments of Dionysius ; but as 
 he does not deny the truth of their allegation, it may be presumed 
 to be correct. 
 
54 OPINIONS OF THE EARLY FATHERS. [LeT. II. 
 
 Caesarea ; although Bishop Bull has, without any hesita- 
 tion, received it as genuine. I cannot stop here to re- 
 peat the reasons for mj opinion on this point ; they may 
 be found at large, in Martini's Geschichte der Gotheit 
 Christi, pp. 232, 233. 
 
 LUCIAN, 
 
 A presbyter of Antioch, flourished at the close of the 
 third Century. A creed is still extant, ascribed to him 
 by a council assembled at Antioch in A. D. 341, in which 
 he very fully ascribes divine attributes to Christ ; but in 
 respect to the generation of the Son, he only asserts that 
 he was yavm^ihevia npo naviojv rcov atcovcov begotten before 
 all ages^ [or worlds,] and that he was uqotojoxov naar/s 
 xitaecog, the first born of every creature, [or of all crea- 
 tion.]* 
 
 After this follows a formula of baptism ; and the 
 whole closes with an anathema against those who main- 
 tain, that " there was a time, when the Son was not be- 
 gotten ; or that the Son was a created being, like other 
 created belnofs." 
 
 Both Ariaris and Athanasians have claimed the 
 creed of Lucian, as favouring their sentiments. There 
 is nothing in the expression begotten before the ages, 
 or the first born ofi every creature, which Justin or Tatian, 
 or Tertullian would have rejected ; and if the anathe- 
 ma be the work of Lucian, (more probably it belongs to 
 the Council of Antioch, A. D. 341) still it may mean noth- 
 ing more, than that the Son could not have been begotten 
 
 * Soc. Hist. Eccles. Lib. U. c. 10. In Sozomen Ecc. Hist. Lib. IIL 
 c. V, it is s?iid that the Council of Antioch ascribed this creeu to Lu- 
 cian, and declared that they found it in his hand-writing. 
 
Let. II.] OPINIONS of the early fathers, 55 
 
 since time began. Bishop Bull himself has omitted Lu- 
 cian, in his list of writers who testify in favour of eter- 
 nal generation. 0pp. pp. 200 — 203. 
 
 METHODIUS 
 
 was bishop of Tyre about the end of the third Century. 
 Only fragments of his works are preserved ; and these 
 principally by Photius, in his Bibliotheca. (Cod. 234 — 
 237.) 
 
 In his Treatise Ilegi jcov yevvr^jcov^ he says, "The be- 
 ginning we must say, is the Father and Maker of all ; 
 ^rom which sprung the most just Logos."* 
 
 In his Symposium, he call the Logos " the first begot- 
 ten of God who was before the ages," [or ivorlds, or 
 
 perhaps Eons.l^t 
 
 In another passage, he speaks of him, as " the most 
 exalted and ancient of the Eons, and the first [or head] 
 of archangels."J 
 
 Yet this same Methodius, who speaks so exactly in 
 the dialect of Justin, Athenagoras, and others of like 
 sentiments, is cited by Bishop Bull, as clearly teaching 
 
 the doctrine of eternal generation. " Methodius 
 
 aeternam Filii ex Patre generationem, verbis veluti So- 
 lis radio descriptis, praedicat." 0pp. p. 200. § 7. 
 
 What is the evidence ? After quoting the passage 
 
 * T7]v fisv ocQiYiv, aqj* 7]g ava(3XaGTrjG6v o ood^orccrog loyoQ, tov 
 naT7]Qu aat noirjrr^v xmv oKmv qaxiov. Photii Bibloth. ed. JSchott. 
 p. 939. 
 
 t HQMToyovog tov Beov 6 ttqo tojv aiojvcov. Sympos. p. 79. edit. 
 
 Combetisii. 
 
 + }]v yao ngciKtideaiazov tov uqig^vtoltov xiiiv (xtoiVMV, ytuL 
 
 TiQODTOv tojv 0LQiayyiX(}iV. Ibid. Sympos. p. 79. 
 
56 OPINIONS or THE EARLY FATHERS. [LeT. If. 
 
 from the second Psalm, Thou art my Son, &:c, Methodius 
 adds ; " We may observe, that the Son is here spoken of 
 indefinitely and without limitation as to time ; For thou 
 art my Son, said the Father to him, not Thou hast be- 
 come so -y thus shewing that his filiation was not newly 
 acquired^ and also that he who before existed would not 
 come to an end, but that he always is existent.* 
 
 But how he found here the verba veluti Solis radio de- 
 scripta, I am unable to say. I find no more than what 
 Justin or Tertullian asserts; viz, that his filiation was 
 very ancient, i. e. antemundane ; and that he always ex- 
 isted, i. e. as Logos evdicx&^Tog. The passage first cited 
 shows, with much probability, that Methodius embraced 
 the scheme of the innate Logos, and of his antemundane 
 birth ; and if so, what he has said, in the passage cited 
 by Dr. Bull, is easily explained, without any recurrence 
 to the doctrine of eternal generation ; while on the other 
 hand, all the quotations from him compared together, 
 render it quite improbable that he embraced the opin- 
 ion, which the Bishop ascribes to him. 
 
 Turning now to the Latin Church again, we light first 
 upon 
 
 CYPRIAN, 
 
 A distinguished orator and bishop at Carthage, about the 
 middle of the third Century. This father was much 
 more engaged about practical piety than doctrinal know- 
 ledge ; and his works seldom present us with any close 
 investigation. He calls the Word and Son of God, " his 
 power, his understanding, his wisdom, and his glory.''t 
 
 * Photii Biblioth. Cod. 237. 
 
 t De Idolorum vanitate, p. 228. edit. Baluz. 
 
[ 
 
 Let. IL] opinions op the earlV fathers. 67 
 
 The only passage, that I have been able to find, where 
 is any direct intimation of Cyprian's opinion in respect to 
 the generation of the Logos, is the application to him of 
 a quotation out of Sirach 24 : 3 ; (which book he regard- 
 ed as canonical.) He quotes it thus : " I came forth from 
 the mouth of the most High, the first born before every 
 
 creature."* 
 
 The manner in which he has turned this passage, and 
 the fact that he cherished a high respect for Tertullian, 
 and a warm attachment to him, renders it not improba- 
 ble, as Martini supposes, that he entertained sentiments 
 similar with his. 
 
 ARNOBIUS, 
 
 Who wrote a little after the close of the third century, 
 testifies abundantly to his belief that Christ is truly God ; 
 but has no passage that I am able to find, where his 
 opinion respecting the point in question is stated. 
 
 Passing now from the African Churches to the Ital- 
 ian, we find 
 
 NOVATIAN, 
 
 Who composed a treatise, about A. D. 256, against Sa- 
 bellianism. Cyprian, who was very strongly opposed 
 to him, in so far as he embraced the opinion that lapsed 
 Christians were not to be readmitted to Christian com- 
 munion, concedes, at least tacitly, that he was not hete- 
 rodox, in his view, on the subject of the Trinity. (Epist, 
 
 * E^-o ex ore Altissimi prodii, primogenita ante oranem creaturam. 
 Testim. adv. Jud. Lib. II. c. 1 . In the Greek, the passage runs thu« ; 
 Eyoi UTLO OTOfiUTog vipiGTOV ilriXOovn 
 
 9 
 
58 OPINIONS OF THE EARLY FATHERS. [LeT. !!• 
 
 76.) Sozomen testifies directly, that he was heretical on- 
 ly on the point already mentioned.* 
 
 We may well suppose, then, that he has represented, 
 in the Treatise just mentioned, the usual opinions of his 
 time, among the Latin Churches. Let us hear him. 
 
 "God the Father — creator — unoriginated, invisible, 
 
 immense, immortal, eternal, the only God from 
 
 whom, when he pledsed, the Word his Son was born; 
 which one must not understand of a sound from the per- 
 cussion of the air, nor of a voice forced from the lungs, 
 but of a power (virtutis) substantially produced from 
 God Therefore, when the Father ivilled it, he pro- 
 ceded from the Father who was in the Father, 
 
 &c."t 
 
 This is in entire accordance with Tertulllan, and the 
 earlier Greek Fathers already quoted. 
 
 Among the writers of the Italian Church, 
 
 LACTANTIUS 
 
 Is probably to be reckoned. It is a common opinion 
 that he originated from Numldia ; principally because 
 Jerome aserts, that Arnoblus was his teacher. But his 
 Latin style seems strongly to vouch for It, that he was 
 a native of Italy ; for It Is very refined, compared with 
 that of the African writers. He was a teacher of rheto- 
 ric In.NIcomedia, for a considerable part of his life ; and 
 in A. D. 314 or 315, was called by the emperor Con- 
 stantlne the Great, to be the tutor of his son Crispus. 
 Let us hear him, respecting the point in question. 
 
 ♦Sozomen, Lib. VI. c. 24. NovaTog rovg fifTaf^ielofievovg 
 
 em TOig a,«apT>;juc<fft ecg noivcoviuv ov ttqoguto. Aac tovto /.lovov 
 
 eUCClVOTOfAfL. 
 
 t 0pp. edit. Rigalt. Cap. 31. p. 740. 
 
Let. II.] OPINIONS of the early fathers. 59 
 
 -" In what manner did God procreate [the Son ?] 
 
 The divine work cannot be understood and fully ex- 
 plained by any one ; but still, the holy Scriptures teach 
 us, by admonishing us, that the Son of God is the Word 
 of God, and that other angels are spirits [breaths.] For 
 a word is breath uttered with a voice signifying some- 
 thing. But since a word and a breath are uttei-ed through 
 different organs, (e. g. the breath proceedst hrough the 
 nostrils, and the word through the mouth,) there is, a 
 great difference between the Son of God and the other 
 angels. They proceeded from God as silent breaths ; for 
 they were not created to instruct, but to perform min- 
 isterial service. He, indeed, although a spirit too, yet 
 proceeded from the mouth of God, with a noise and sound, 
 i. e, as a word, for the reason he was about to use his 
 voice in addressing the people, i. e. he was to be a 
 teacher of divine doctrines. With propriety, therefore, 
 he is called the Word of God, because God, by his in- 
 describable power, formed into the image of his own 
 majesty, the vocal spirit which proceeded from his 
 mouth, who was conceivedj not in the womb but in the 
 mind, and who flourishes with his own understanding 
 and wisdom, &;c."* 
 
 * Quomodo ig-itur procreavit? ilium Dei filium Dei esse ser- 
 
 monem, itemque cacteros angelos Dei spiritus esse. Nam sermo est 
 spiritus cum voce aliquid signiricante prolatus. Sed tamen, quoniam 
 spiritus et serrao diversis partibus proteruntur, (siquidem spiritus 
 naribus, ore sermo procedit,) magna inter hunc Dei filium et caeteros 
 angelos differentia est. Illi enim ex Deo taciti spiritus exierunt; 
 quia non ad doctrinam Dei tradendam, sed ad ministerium creabantur. 
 Ille vero, cum sit ipse spiritus, tamen cum voce et sono ex Dei ore 
 processit sicut verbum, scilicet ea ratione, quia voce ejus ad populum 
 fuerat usurus, i. e. quod ille magister futurus esset doctrinae Dei, 
 &c." Institutt. IV. c. 8. 
 
go OPINIONS OF THE EARLY FATHERS. [LeT. II. 
 
 Who does not recognize in this, the grossness of Ter- 
 tulHan made still grosser ? It is not enough to say, with 
 Tertullian, that the Logos was produced in that mo- 
 ment, when God said Let there he light ; but the fact 
 that the breath of God was propelled from the mouth, 
 in an audible word, instead of flowing silently through 
 the nostrils, makes the difference in nature, between the 
 Son and the angels. 
 
 In respect to spiritual ideas of the divine Being, we 
 may well ask. How much had Lactantius advanced, by 
 his profession of Christianity, beyond his previous hea- 
 then condition ? 
 
 But I find myself already in the fourth century, and 
 with unfeigned pleasure recur to my original design, to in- 
 vestigate the opinions of only the early fathers. Here 
 then I stop ; and here I will end this long letter, and 
 tedious, but I hope not useless investigation, after two 
 or three remarks. 
 
 I have forborne to recite the testimonies of 
 
 DIONYSIUS, 
 
 Bishop of Rome, A. D. 255 — 269 ; not because I intend- 
 ed to pass him by, but to continue unbroken the testi- 
 monies of those, who appeared to be of an opinion, simi- 
 lar to that of Justin and others before cited. I take this 
 opportunity of saying, that Dionysius appears, from the 
 fragment of his address to the Sabellians and their op- 
 ponents in Africa, preserved by x\thanasius,* to have 
 been very nearly, if not quite, of the same opinion witlx 
 that expressed in the creed of the Council of Nice. 
 
 ♦Athanas. de decret. Synod. Nic. § 26. Tom. I. p. 231. 332. edit. 
 Beoedict. 
 
Let. 11.) OPINIONS of the early fathers. 61 
 
 With the exception of this single father, I have not 
 been able to find testimonies in any other early writer 
 of eminence, in favour of the doctrine of eternal genera- 
 tion, as stated in the Nicene creed. Origen, and 
 probably some of his immediate disciples, maintained 
 this doctrine ; but on different grounds from those of the 
 Council of Nice. Their ground of argument was rather 
 philosophical than Scriptural ; believing that a genera- 
 tion in time, would detract from the immutability of the 
 divine nature. The creed attributed to Lucian is Indefi- 
 nite; the anathema added at the close of the baptismal 
 formula, somewhat uncertain in its origin. The genuine- 
 ness of the creed attributed to Gregory Thaumaturgus, 
 is very suspicious ; altogether too much so to be relied 
 on. Irenaeus, more scriptural and less tainted with 
 philosophy than any of the early fathers, Greek or Ro- 
 man, has forborne, in any special manner, to explain his 
 views on the point in question, holding all speculations 
 about it to be unlawful; although from one of his ex- 
 pressions, it appears probable that he embraced the comraon 
 doctrine. 
 
 But waving all the difficulties which lie in the way 
 of obtaining satisfactory evidence in favour of the doc- 
 trine of eternal and necessary generation^ from the opin- 
 ions of the fathers and creeds just named ; and conced- 
 ing that they are to be reckoned in favour of this doc- 
 trine ; can I say with you, that " the early Christian wri- 
 ters constantly declared that it was firmly to be believ- 
 ed ?" With the evidence before me, which the preced- 
 ing pages develope, it is impossible for me to say this. I 
 retire then from the investigation of the historical fact, 
 which has thus far occupied me, with overwhelming 
 doubts of the position which you have advanced in re- 
 
62 REMARKS ON THE EARLY FATHERS. [LeT. III. 
 
 gard to it ; and sick, to the bottom of my heart, of all 
 the philosophical speculations among the fathers, on the 
 manner in which the distinctions or persons of the God- 
 head are related to each other. 
 
 LETTER III. 
 
 Rev. and Dear Sir, 
 
 Having completed my investigation of the opinions of 
 the early Fathers, I might now proceed to the scriptu- 
 ral investigation of the doctrine in question. But there 
 is an inquiry which has occurred to my own mind, and 
 which I presume will naturally occur to the mind of oth- 
 ers, respecting the rise of the Nicene Creed, that ought 
 not to be passed in silence. If the predominant opin- 
 ion of the leading Fathers, in the second and third cen- 
 turies, be such as has now been represented ; how came 
 it to pass, that a general Council of several hundred bish- 
 ops, assembled at Nice in A. D. 325, should by an over- 
 whelming majority adopt and sanction the doctrine of 
 eternal generation ? 
 
 A protracted and laboured answer to this question, 
 would be out of place here. I shall only state in a 
 few words, the views which, so far as I am acquainted 
 with the subject, I have been led to entertain. 
 
 (1.) The Arian party had made a great schism in 
 the church ; and the natural consequence of the strong 
 opposition to it, which arose from some of the most 
 distinguished divines of that time, was a revolt to an 
 opinion, which seemed to be very conspicuously oppo- 
 
Let. III.] REMARKS ON THE EARLY FATHERS. 63 
 
 site. Arlus maintained that Christ was a created beinor 
 
 o 
 
 and produced in time. His opponents took opposite 
 ground in both these respects ; averring that he was be- 
 gotten and eternally begotten. 
 
 (2.) The difficulties, which continually arose out of 
 the opinions of Justin, Tertullian, and others of the same 
 sentiments, became more and more palpable, as the 
 church became more enlightened in respect to the true 
 nature of the divine Being, and of the doctrines of 
 the New Testament, and were farther removed from 
 the religion and philosophy of the heathen. How 
 the Logos could be God and yet be begotten in 
 time, was a difficulty at which multitudes were stum- 
 bled ; and if this were in truth conceded, the way to em- 
 brace Arianism seemed to be open, and accompanied 
 with little difficulty. It was the natural effect of more 
 enlightened ideas of the divine Nature, and of a wish to 
 remove a stumbling block from the path of plain Chris- 
 tians, that the generation of the Son should come to be 
 regarded as eternal. 
 
 The Nicene Creed is unquestionably a very great 
 advance, in respect to rational views of God, upon the 
 predominant speculations of the second and third Cen- 
 turies, in regard to this subject. Whatever difficulties 
 may attend it, I think no one, enlightened in regard to 
 the spirituality and immutability of the divine Nature, 
 can now hesitate to say, that it is incomparably prefera- 
 ble to the sentiments of most of the fathers whose 
 views have been developed in the preceding pages. The 
 Son, who is acknowledged as God, has divine honours 
 and attributes ascribed to him. He differs from the 
 Father, only in the fact that he is begotten, or derived 
 from him ; but still is represented as always coexistent 
 
64 REMARKS ON THE EARLY FATHERS. [LeT. Ill, 
 
 with him. To all who believe in the true divinity of 
 Christ, this must appear incomparably more consistent 
 than the doctrine of simple antemundane generation. And 
 indeed, so satisfactory has this view been to the Church 
 in general, that ever since the time of the council of 
 Nice, with the exception of the occasional predominan- 
 cy of Arianism, it has been acquiesced in by far the 
 greater part of the Christian world. In respect to this 
 fact, I have no doubt ; and I most cheerfully concede it. 
 I acknowledge that I feel strongly moved by its influ- 
 ence ; and I hesitate whether it would not be adven- 
 turous, and whether it may not subject me to the impu- 
 tation of hankering after new and paradoxical opinions, 
 to endeavour to establish the correctness of a sentiment, 
 which differs from that which has been so generally re- 
 ceived. But of this more hereafter. 
 
 After all, the fact that the>Nicene creed maintains the 
 doctrine of eternal generation, cannot prove, by itself, 
 that the leading fathers of the two preceding centuries 
 actually maintained this sentiment. We know that the 
 Church has changed its opinions on various points of re- 
 ligious doctrine, at ditferent times, by the influence of 
 popular and learned men, and powerful reasoners. The 
 works of the Antenicene fathers must speak for them- 
 selves ; and to them I have already made the appeal. 
 Until the testimonies which have been adduced arc 
 shown to be irrelevant, or nugatory, whatever may be 
 the difliculties of accounting for the sentiments of the 
 Council of Nice, I must believe, that the Antenicene 
 fathers, in general, did not maintain the doctrine of e/er- 
 nal and necessary generation. 
 
 Having expressed with so much freedom my views re- 
 specting the sentiments of most of the early fathers, I 
 
Let. III.] REMARKS ON THE EARLY FATHERS. 65 
 
 cannot help feeling, that it would be doing those distin- 
 guished men (raanj of whom sealed with their blood the 
 sincerity of their Christian profession) great injustice, to 
 pass on without making some apology for them in re- 
 spect to their opinions, and endeavouring to show how 
 they were led to embrace them. This I will do, in as 
 brief a manner as the nature of the case will permit. 
 
 1. Every man, in all his reasonings about psychologi- 
 cal and metaphysical subjects, is influenced more or less 
 by the current philosophy of the times in which he lives. 
 In cases where he is no devotee to any system of phi- 
 losophy, or not particularly given to the study of it, this 
 influence, though insensible to him, is still very consid- 
 erable. Who, for example, in the English world, is not 
 influenced in whatever he says about the intellectual 
 and metaphysical nature of man, by the philosophy of 
 Locke, or Stewart, or Brown? And in all our final 
 views of the nature and operations of the divine Being, 
 are we not greatly influenced by the previous deduc- 
 tions of pure reason, in respect to his nature and attri- 
 butes ? 
 
 Such too was the case of the fathers, whose senti- 
 ments have been produced in the preceding pages. 
 Most of them had been, in earlier life, Platonic philoso- 
 phers ; at least, they were adherents to the New Pla- 
 tonic School, which by a selection from various systems 
 of philosophy, and a combination of them with some of 
 the leadmg doctrines of Plato, had formed what is call- 
 ed Syncretism, i. e. mixed or eclectic Philosophy. 
 
 The charge has been often made against these fa- 
 thers, of corrupting the Christian religion by the intro- 
 duction of Platonic philosophy. They have had some 
 learned vindicators also. Both sides have gone to ex- 
 10 
 
66 REMARKS ON THE EARLY FATHERS. [LeT. 111. 
 
 tremes : as it often happens In disputes, not among the 
 unlearned only, but among the learned; specially when 
 men of ardent feelings become engaged in them. More 
 recent, thorough, and impartial investigation has shewn, 
 I believe to the general satisfaction of the learned, that 
 the fathers cannot be justly charged with designed cor- 
 ruption of the doctrines of Christianity, in any respect, 
 through the introduction of Platonic philosophy. The 
 late Professor Keil, of Leipzick, has nearly put an end 
 to this question.* 
 
 But still, as the great body of the Antenicene fathers 
 were attached to the Platonic philosophy, like all other 
 men who reason on subjects where an appeal to philos- 
 ophy is made, they were unquestionably influenced in 
 thclv modes of explanation, by the philosophy which they 
 had cultivated. 
 
 2. In answering the objections that are made to the 
 system of religion which men embrace, an appeal is usu- 
 ally made to those arguments^ which will put to si- 
 lence tlie opponents of it ; and of course, to those prin- 
 ciples of philosophy or reasoning, which both parties 
 hold in common. Even in silencing the speculative ob- 
 jections which arise in our minds, we appeal to princi- 
 j)les of reasoning that have usually satisfied us ; and 
 when we have done this, it is common to rest contented 
 with it, and to push our inquiries no farther. 
 
 Let us now go back, and place ourselves, if possible, 
 in the condition of the Antenicene fathers. They lived 
 at a time, when the doctrines of the New Platonic School 
 had an almost universal influence, in all the countries 
 where they resided. If now this philosophy admitted 
 
 * Keil, de Doctoribus Vet. Eccles. culpa corruptae per Platonicas 
 Sententias Theologiae liberandis Exercitationes. 
 
Let. III.] REMARKS ON THE EARLY FATHERS. 67 
 
 and advocated a Logos, which emanated from God, was 
 the creator of the world, and possessed divine attrlhutes, 
 nothing was more natural than to fall into the belief, 
 that the same Logos was intended by John in his writ- 
 ings : although he was revealed by this apostle as they 
 all believed, in a manner far more perfect than what 
 was known to the philosophers ; and as clothed with 
 attributes far more noble and exalted, than they in gen- 
 eral assigned to him. 
 
 Plato himself often speaks of a Loc^os or JYous, to 
 which he ascribes the creation of the world, and which 
 he calls 6 navioDv deioTaioCy the most divine of all things. 
 His poetic personifications of this Logos have been un- 
 derstood by many of his interpreters, both in ancient and 
 modern times, as representations of a real hypostasis. 
 But thouo^h more recent investiorators have shewn that 
 this is not his real meaning, but that he merely designs 
 to personify the attributes of the Deity ; still, his lan- 
 guage is such as might easily give rise to the belief, that 
 he viewed the Logos as a real hypostasis. No wonder, 
 then, that when the oriental emanation-philosophy came 
 to be intermixed with his system, (as it did after the con- 
 quests of Alexander, and in consequence of the frequent 
 intercourse that followed of the Greeks with the East,) 
 that the New Platonics, or Eclectic philosophers should 
 maintain the real personality of Plato's Logos. The 
 Oriental philosophy inculcated, as a first principle, the 
 doctrine of emanation from the Deity. God was repre- 
 sented as original light; and from him, as beams from 
 the Sun, flowed subordinate divinities or Eons, who cre- 
 ated and governed the world. The Platonic school of 
 Alexandria amalgamated this principle, in part, with 
 their own philosophy. It is found most fully develop- 
 
68 REMARKS ON THE EARLY FATHERS. [LeT. III. 
 
 ed, in the works of Plotinus and Porphyry, New Plato- 
 nics of the third century. But Numenius of Apamea, a 
 Syrian by birth, who Hved in the time of the Antonines, 
 was undoubtedly a disciple of this school; which shows 
 that the sentiments are of much earlier date than the 
 time of Porphyry. Numenius speaks of a second God, 
 "whom he calls Aoyog and dt^ixiovgyogy and whom he rep- 
 resents as an emanation from the supreme God. And 
 to prove that the supreme God suiFered no change by 
 such an emanation, he employs the very same meta- 
 phors or comparisons, that were so commonly employed 
 by the Antenicene fathers " A torch," says he, " still 
 remains the same, although it kindles another torch. In- 
 struction can pass from a teacher to his pupils, and yet 
 the teacher suffer no change. So the dj^i^iovgyog could 
 emanate from the supreme God, and yet the latter re- 
 main unchanged in his perfections.'"^ 
 
 There are abundant proofs, that this mode of repre- 
 senting the Logos as an emanation from God, was much 
 older than Numenius ; and that it was not by any means 
 confined to heathen philosophers. The book of Wis- 
 dom, written before the Christian era, (which most of 
 the Antenicene fathers received as canonical,) repre- 
 sents Wisdom or the Logos as the breath of the Al- 
 mighty, an emanation of the Godhead, the pure radi- 
 ance of the majesty of the Almighty, the irradiation of 
 the eternal light, the spotless reflection of divine ope- 
 rating power, the image of the All-Good. By it is every 
 thing created ; it overlooks and penetrates through all 
 things ; it preserves and directs all things, in the best 
 
 * Vide in Euseb. Praep. Evang. Lib. XI. c. 18 ; who has g-iven a 
 long extract from Numenius, that deserves to be read throughout. 
 
Let. hi.] remarks on the early fathers. 69 
 
 manner. It knows the secret thoughts of God, and Is 
 the leader In all his works.*" 
 
 If here be not an absolute hypostasis of wisdom or the 
 Logos, (as most of the learned have been inclined to be- 
 lieve,) there is certainly so close an approximation to it, 
 that the fathers might easily mistake it for one, and ap- 
 ply it (as they did) to the explanation of the Logos of 
 John. 
 
 But in a special manner, the writings of the cele- 
 brated Alexandrine philosopher, Philo Judaeus, a co- 
 temporary during the latter part of his life with the 
 apostles, contributed to spread wide the speculations of 
 the New Platonics about the Logos. Philo amalgamat- 
 ed the Jewish with the Platonic philosophy ; so that 
 being a writer more rational. Scriptural, and elevated in 
 his moral and religious maxims, than the heathen phi- 
 losophers, his works would necessarily be read with 
 more avidity, by that class of the new Platonists, who 
 admitted the authority of the Jewish Scriptures. Philo 
 distinguishes between the Aoyog evdiat^erog and Aoyog npo- 
 (popi7(og ^t the latter of which he represents as a being 
 emenated or begotten, not uncreated like the great Su- 
 preme, nor created like other beings, but a medium be- 
 tween the two.J This Logos he calls first born Son,§ 
 and represents all things as created, preserved and go- 
 verned by him. II This is he, who appeared to the pa- 
 triarchs of the Old Tesament ; for the Supreme God, 
 
 * Vid. Chapters VII. VIII. IX. 
 
 tDe vita Mosis, III. 672. C. edit. Paris. 
 
 I Q,uis rer. div. haeres ? Tom. IV^ p. 90. edit. Pfeiflcr. 
 
 § De Agricult. Tom. III. p. 26. I)e Somn. Tom. V. p. 98. Vide 
 Euseb. Evang. Praep. Lib. VII. c 13. — extracts from Philo. 
 
 II De Mundi Opific. Tom. II. p. 66. Ibid. p. 20. De Somn. Tom. 
 V. p. 272. 
 
70 EEMARKS ON THE EARLY FATHERS. [LeT. ITL 
 
 who cannot be limited by any place, could not appear in 
 a visible form.* From this time the Logos became the 
 advocate of men with God.t God sends him into virtu- 
 ous souls, who are instructed by him. J He is the secon- 
 dary God, who is subordinate to the Supreme.§ 
 
 Here then, before the new Testament was written, 
 we find nearly every speculation, which was adopted by 
 the early fathers and applied to the Logos of the Evan- 
 gelist John. The philosophy which presented these 
 speculations, had a predominant overwhelming influence, 
 in their times. Most of them had not only been disci- 
 ples, but teachers of it. And besides this, it was the 
 universal belief among speculating Christians of that pe- 
 riod, that the Logos of whom John speaks was the very 
 same spirit of wisdom, which operated partially in all 
 the better part of the heathen philosophers, and that 
 these had borrowed all their most valuable truths from 
 the sacred writings of the Jews. 
 
 What now could be more natural, than for these fa- 
 thers to apply the attributes of their philosophical Lo- 
 gos to the Logos of John ? And specially so, when one 
 and all agreed, that Wisdom, as described in the eighth 
 ciiapter of Proverbs, must be the same as the Logos 
 mentioned by the Evangelist. The predicates of wis- 
 dom, mentioned in this chapter, certainly bear a very 
 strong resemblance to those ascribed to the Logos, by 
 the book of Wisdom, and by Philo Judaeus in his works. 
 
 *Legg. Alienor. Tom. I. p. 362, 3G3. Be Somn, Tom. V. p. 30. 
 104. 
 
 t Quis rer. divin. haeres ? Tom IV. p. 90. 
 
 + De Somn. Tom. V. p. 204. Comp. De Gigant. T. II. p. 3G6. 
 
 § Lpg<^. AUegor. T. I. p. 228. lb. pp. 362, 363. Vide etiam in 
 Euseb. Praep. Evang. Lib. VII. c. 13. 
 
Let. IIK] remarks on the early fathers. li 
 
 Specially is the reseaiblance strong, when the Septuagint 
 Version is regarded as the true text of the Scriptures; 
 and it is almost superfluous to say that this was the Bi- 
 ble of the Antenicene fathers, for none of them could 
 read the original text, if Origen be excepted. Even 
 his personal knowledge of the Hebrew is very question- 
 able. 
 
 One remarkable mistake either in the original Ver- 
 sion itself of the Septuagint, or in those MSS. which the 
 fathers used, contributed greatly to encourage the spec- 
 ulations of the Antenicene fathers about the orioin of the 
 
 o 
 
 Logos (jLQocpoQLTtog.^ Instead of translating as the He- 
 brew runs, "The Lord possessed me in the beginning of 
 his way," (^Hvgiog exir^Gajo jU€ jr^v agyi^^/v ri^? odou ccviovy) 
 they read in their copies, " The Lord created [emiae) 
 me in the beginning of his ways." 
 
 Moreover, it is afterwards said, in the same chapter, 
 (v. 25,) " Before the mountains were settled, before 
 the hills, was 1 brought for th,'^'' The question does not 
 seem even to have been debated, whether the Logos of 
 John was actually the same as this Wisdom; or whe- 
 ther a mere poetic personification of Wisdom, and not a 
 real hypostasis is meant ; all taking it for granted, that 
 the point admitted of no debate. What then could be 
 more natural, than to apply the doctrines of the philoso- 
 phy, which then prevailed so generally, to the explana- 
 tion of the New Testament Logos ; when they thought 
 themselves fully authorized to do it, by tfie according 
 voice of the Jewish Scriptures? It would have been 
 next to miraculous, if they had not done so. 
 
 3. One other consideration should be stated. Most of 
 the early fathers were employed, more or less. In defend- 
 ing Christianity against the attacks of heathen philoso- 
 
72 REMARKS ON THE EARLY FATHERS. [LeT. III. 
 
 phers, or in recommending it to the consideration of the 
 heathen. The polytheistic philosophers were con- 
 tinually reproaching Christians, with reverencing and 
 adoring only a crucified malefactor. The reply to this 
 was very natural. " We adore no mere mortal. The 
 Logos incarnate, is what we adore. The existence of 
 this very Logos, your best philosophers and you your- 
 selves admit. You cannot, therefore, reproach us with 
 forming an imaginary being, whom we hold to be the 
 object of religious reverence. On your own principles, 
 our religion contains nothing that is absurd." 
 
 How natural and acceptable such a reply was to the 
 fathers, may be easily understood from the nature of the 
 case, and specially trom the frequency with which it was 
 used. Almost every man in vindicating his side of a dis- 
 puted question, is satisfied if he can find arguments pro 
 re nata. If they are effectual to silence his opponent, 
 they must needs be a good kind of arguments. The fa- 
 thers, in the full sincerity of their hearts, checked the 
 contumelies of the heathen in such a way ; and as they 
 felt themselves to be building on the Jewish Scriptures, 
 they hardly could have a suspicion, that there was any 
 thing improper, in accepting all the aid which Platon- 
 ism offered. Thus they at once stopped the mouths of 
 gainsaycrs, and commended the religion which they had 
 embraced to the heathen, who loved the study of philo- 
 sophy. 
 
 4. One other suggestion must not be omitted. The 
 great body of the Antenicene fathers were, in early life, 
 educated as heathen. The genealogies of the gods had 
 made a deep impression on their minds; and they were, 
 before conversion to Christianity, at a great remove from 
 rational and spiritual ideas of the divine nature. After 
 
Let. III.] REMARKS ON THE EARLY FATHERS. 73 
 
 conversion, we cannot suppose that all the remains of 
 their former notions and habits would at once be com- 
 pletely annihilated. Emanation or generation, applied 
 to the divine nature, presented nothing revolting to them ; 
 as all their old habits of thinking had been in that way. 
 Removing, then, from the generation of the Logos all 
 that was carnal and corporeal, and understanding it on- 
 ly in a spiritual, mental, or metaphysical sense, there 
 was nothing repulsive to their minds in it ; even after 
 they were taught by Cliristianity better views than they 
 had formerly entertained, respecting the nature of the 
 Divinity. Can we wonder at this, when we know how 
 long the Apostles persisted in their Jewish notions about 
 the temporal kingdom of the Messiah, and how far re- 
 moved they were, for a long time, from admitting either 
 the necessity or the possibility of his death ? 
 
 Thus prepared by early education, by all the preju- 
 dices of youth, and by all the influence of philosophy to 
 admit of derived Divinity, and to find it in the Logos, 
 as the philosophers themselves had done ; it would have 
 been truly wonderful, if they had not been tinctured with 
 the views which they did entertain. They did indeed 
 believe that God was a Spirit. But a Spirit, in the 
 view of that age, was far less removed from a corpore- 
 al being, than we are accustomed to believe. Let us 
 hear Tertullian, for a moment on this subject. "Quis ne- 
 
 gavit Deum corpus esse, etsi Deus spiritus est spiri- 
 
 tus enira corpus sui generis in sua efligie.* In like man- 
 ner he asserts that souls are corporeal.t The ditference 
 between spiritual and material beings, seems, in that 
 ao-e, to have been considered as rather modal than es- 
 sential. Spirits were regarded as bodies impalpable to 
 
 * Lib. advers. Prax. c. 7. t De anima. c. 7. 
 11 
 
74 REMARKS ON THE EARLY FATHERS. [LeT. III. 
 
 corporeal view, and made up of infinitely attenuated 
 particles of matter, too subtile to be detected by the 
 senses.* 
 
 With such views of the nature of God and of spirits, is 
 it strange that they admitted the notions respecting the 
 Logos, of which an account has been given in the pre- 
 ceding letter ? 
 
 We, who are taught from infancy to believe in the 
 simplicity, spirituality, self-existence, independence, and 
 immutability of the divine nature, can be brought only 
 by violence to reason as the fathers did. Still this does 
 not criminate them. With all our light and all our 
 privileges, it is very doubtful whether we exhibit more of 
 the Christian temper, and more devotedness to the ser- 
 vice of the Redeemer, than they did. 
 
 It must be remembered, however, that the philosophi- 
 cal speculations of the fathers about the nature and ori- 
 gin of the Logos, or Son of God, never affected the mass 
 of unlearned Christians. They continued in the more 
 simple belief of Father, Son and Holy Ghost ; as all the 
 popular Creeds, before the council of Nice, abundantly 
 testify. It would be just as rational, to suppose that 
 the metaphysical subtilties of the School-divines and of 
 philosophizing theologians affect the great mass of the 
 common peoj)le now, as that the subtilities of the Fa- 
 thers affected the unlearned at that period. How oft- 
 en this obvious principle has been overlooked by modern 
 disputants, must be evident to every one, who is well in- 
 formed of the state of polemic theology. 
 
 A moderate acquaintance with the sacred exegesis 
 
 * See Travels of younger Anacharsis, Part VII. note 1. Muen- 
 scher, Dogmengeschichte, Th. I. S. 364, &c. Martini, Geschichte des 
 Logos, S. 100, 
 
Let. III.] REMARKS ON THE EARLY FATHERS. 75 
 
 of the early fathers will suffice to convince any one, that 
 the sound principles of this art were very imperfectly un- 
 derstood by them. We need not be surprised, then, that 
 they found the Logos of John, in the 8th chapter of 
 Proverbs. At the present hour, after the lapse of more 
 than fifteen centuries, and with all the advantages which 
 commentaries and lexicons can now offer to the interpre- 
 ters of Scriptures, there are mulitudes of expositors, who 
 still find the Logos in the same passage of Solomon's writ- 
 ings. Shall it be thought strange, then, that the Fathers 
 did so; when it was in perfect consonance with the 
 reigning philosophy of the age in which they lived ? 
 
 Permit me, after thus endeavouring to show how we 
 may account for it that the early fathers reasoned as 
 they did about the Logos, to add a few remarks, on the 
 abuse of their opinions ; which has often happened among 
 those, who have been more zealous to promote party 
 sentiments, than to obtain simple views of truth. 
 
 It has often been said, that " any thing can be proved 
 from the fathers." And this is really true, provided one 
 may be permitted to use them in the way in which those 
 have done, who wished to prove any thing i^vom them. I 
 could refer to Dr. Priestley's History of Corruptions as 
 a striking example. There can be nothing more certain, 
 than that the great body of the Fathers never dreamed 
 of defending sentiments such as those of Priestley. And 
 yet, with profound unacquaintance with the nature and 
 spirit of the times in which the fathers lived, and of the 
 exegesis which must be applied to them, he has contriv- 
 ed to make them say many things, which, he would fain 
 have us believe, accord with his own views. I cannot 
 do better justice to such an effort, than in the words of 
 Dr. Muenscher, a consummate patristical scholar, and at 
 
7G RExMARKS ON THE EARLY FATHERS. [LeT. III. 
 
 least, one whose testimony will not be thought to be 
 warped by any attachment to orthodoxy. " A late 
 work," says he, (Dogmengeschichte, Band ]. s. 80.) 
 "wherein the celebrated Dissenter, J. Priestley, aimed 
 to shew the corruptions of Christianity, has, through the 
 fame of its author, excited greater attention than its 
 superficial contents^ and its ignorance of the sources of his- 
 tory, which every ivhere betrays ilsclf, deserve." 
 
 So judges one of the best patristical scholars now liv- 
 ing, from a mere sense of literary justice. And so might 
 he judge of many others, who have walked in Priestley's 
 steps ; and of not a few, who have been his opposers. 
 
 Nothing is more evident, than that to form a correct 
 judgment of the language of the early fathers, we must 
 have a good acquaintance with their modes of reasoning 
 and philosopliizing. Having most of them been educat- 
 ed with polytheistic notions, they did not take offence, 
 as we now do, at many things, which evidently appear 
 to us to detract from the spirituality and immutability of 
 the diviijc nature. We should make these allowances when 
 we read them ; and making these, we sliall be disposed 
 to think more favourably of their real sentioaents in re- 
 spect to religion, than we otherwise could do. Of their 
 sincere attachment to Christianity, the testimony is writ- 
 ten in blood. That they worshipped the Saviour — that 
 they paid him religious homage — that they, in geiieral, 
 regarded the Logos or divine nature in the Saviour, as 
 having in some manner or other existed from all eter- 
 nity — I cannot doubt. I say this, after repeated and 
 somewhat extensive examination. But that they taught 
 what agrees with the Scriptures, or v/nh reason, respect- 
 ing the generation of the Son of God, is what I do not 
 believe ; and cannot, until the whole ground of my present 
 convictions is removed. 
 
LETTER IV. 
 
 Rev. and Dear Sir, 
 
 If possible, I now more than ever feel the truth of 
 your just and tru!y Protestant sentiment, that •' what is 
 not ffjund in Scripture, however extensively and unani- 
 mously it may have been received by those who bore 
 the Christian name, must be rejected, as forming no part 
 of that precious system which God has revealed to man 
 for his salvation." After passing through an investiga- 
 tion, such as that which is exhibited in the two preced- 
 ing letters, I cannot but feel gratitude to God, that he 
 has ordered my existence in an age, when more scriptu- 
 ral and rational views of his perfections are entertained, 
 than were cherished by many of the distinguished wri- 
 ters, which have been passed in review. Not that I 
 undervalue them, or feel in any measure disposed to 
 treat them with contumely, or even with indifference. 
 Bat I do feel, that it is a privilege to know and believe 
 more fully and clearly than they appear to have done, 
 that "God is a spirit ;" and that all his nature and attri- 
 butes must be regarded in such a way, as never to ob- 
 scure this plain and most interesting as well as awful 
 truth. 
 
 But I have done with the fathers, and now proceed 
 to the most important part of my object, viz, to inquire 
 
 First, What is meant by the doctrine of eternal genera- 
 tion ? And 
 
 Secondly, Is this doctrine taught in the Scriptures ? 
 
78 DEFINITIONS EXAMINED. [LeT. IV. 
 
 The present Letter will be devoted to the first of 
 these questions. 
 
 You have not told us expressly what we are to un- 
 derstand by eternal generation. I cannot complain of 
 this ; for you did not undertake, in your Letters, to the- 
 ologize on this point. But there are two passages, 
 which indirectly develope your conceptions, or at least 
 your mode of expressing yourself, relative to the point 
 in question. In p. 84, you say, " We find a certain three- 
 fold mode of existence in the Deity, frequently referred 
 to in the Scriptures, but not explained ;" and in p. 87, 
 you ask," Where is the absurdity or contradiction of an 
 eternal or necessary emanation from Him, (God the Fath- 
 er,) or if you please, an eternal generation ?^^ 
 
 The Scriptures then, as you aver, have left the three- 
 fold mode of existence unexplained. May I be permit- 
 ted to ask, now, if teaching the doctrine of the eterncd 
 and necessary emanation or generation of the Son of God, 
 (whom as Son you view to be the second person in the 
 Trinity,) be not attempting an explanation of a subject, 
 which the sacred writers leave unexplained ? Is not ex- 
 istence or subsistence by emanation, a mode of existence ? 
 And does not the original and underived existence of the 
 Father, differ in mode, from the emanative existence, or 
 existence by generation of the Son ? 
 
 It is not my design, however, to suggest difficulties 
 in regard to particular positions which you have advanc- 
 ed. An examination of the subject itself, as it is devel- 
 oped in the leading orthodox writers, systematic and po- 
 lemic, is my aim. 
 
 You will not understand me as engaging to pass in 
 review, the great body of the theologians just named. 
 This would be a task, tedious on account of the protract- 
 
Let. IV.] DEFINITIONS EXAMINED. 79 
 
 ed discussion which must necessarily ensue ; and useless, 
 because the leading writers have, for the most part, 
 been the models of all the rest. 
 
 Turretine may be selected from the Reformed or 
 Calvinistic churches, as a fair and very distinguished 
 representative of them. His extensive knowledge, his 
 ardent piety, and his unblemished reputation, have verv 
 justly given great influence to his character and wri- 
 tings. Let us hear him. 
 
 " This wonderful generation, [the eternal generation 
 of the Son,] is rightly explained as a communication of 
 essence from the Father, by which the Son possesses 
 without division the same essence with him, and becomes 
 most like to him."* 
 
 Again; "In that [generation] the same numerical es- 
 sence is communicated, without abscission and without 
 alienation."! 
 
 Again ; " In this, [the Father] generates within him- 
 self, and not without himself"^ And in the next sec- 
 tion; "The Son is of the Father, but not posterior to 
 the Father."§ 
 
 The generation of the Son, then, according to this 
 celebrated divine, consists in the eternal communication 
 of the same numerical essence, without division or aliena- 
 tion, (i. e. the whole of the essence, as it is very often ex- 
 pressed) by the Father to the Son, 
 
 * Generatio ista admirabilis recte exponitur, per communicationem 
 essentiae a Patre, per quam eandem cum iilo essontiarn Filius indivisi- 
 biliter possidet, illi fit simillimus. Turret. Inst. Theol. p. 322. § 4. 
 edit. Traj. ad Rhenum, 1734. 
 
 t In ista [generatione] communicatur cadem nuniero essentia, sine 
 abscissione et alienatione. Ibid. 
 
 X In ista [Pater] in se, sed non extra se generat. Ibid. 
 
 § Filius est a Patre, sed non post Patrem. Ibid. § 5. 
 
80 DEFINITIONS EXAMINED. [LeT. IV. 
 
 Some difficulties present themselves, in regard to this 
 definition. 
 
 1. li'Ahe same numerical essence without division, is 
 imparted by the Father to the Son, which he himself 
 possesses, it follows, that the essential power or virtue 
 of the Father, by which he produces or generates the 
 Son, (a power which you, with Turretine, hold to be 
 necessarilij not voluntarily exercised,) must also be com- 
 municated to him ; consequently, by virtue of this com- 
 munication, the Son must produce another person of the 
 same condition, or homoousian with him ; this third per- 
 son, a fourth; and so on, without end. \( this be deni- 
 ed ; then it follows, that one essential power or virtue 
 of the Father is not communicated to the Son, viz, the 
 power of ?2ecc55«r?/ eternal generation. Tfie definition, 
 then, seems either to be inconsistent with itself, or to 
 imply an infinite number of generations in the Godhead. 
 In cither case, it must be untenable. 
 
 I see no way of avoiding this conclusion, unless it be 
 said, that Turretine has affirmed a communication of the 
 essence of the Father to the Son, but not of his attributes. 
 Should any one take refuge here, to defend tlie views 
 of Turretine, lie may be asked, What is known of the 
 essence of God, when his attributes are subtracted ? Did 
 Turretine, or any one else, in reality ever attach any 
 other idea to the term divine essence, than that which is 
 the result of a union of those qualities, attributes, or 
 predicates which are necessary to constitute the God- 
 head ? Or did the Father communicate his essence to 
 the Son, and not communicate his attributes ? And if the 
 generating power or attribute of the Father be, as Tur- 
 retine and most who speculate with him maintain, neces- 
 sarily exercised, it falls, of course, under the category of 
 
Let. IV.] DEFINITIONS EXAMINED. 81 
 
 the essential predicates of the Deitj ? Must the Father, 
 in communicating his ichole essence to the Son, commu- 
 nicate his essential 'predicates^ or not ? The answer to 
 this question, leaves the definition of Turrctlne liable to 
 all the objections that have been suggested. 
 
 2. The definition asserts, that the same numerical essence 
 is communicated to the same numerical essence^ (for Father 
 and Son have, as Turretine avers, the same numerical 
 essence ;) which, after all the efibrts I can make to un- 
 derstand it, is, as yei^ absolutely unintelligible to me. 
 To understand how the same numerical essence can be 
 said to COMMUNICATE the wJiole of itself to the same numer- 
 ical essence, I must give over in despair, to intellects of 
 a different order from that which I possess. 
 
 To change the terms, and to say that the same nu- 
 merical essence generates the same numerical essence ; 
 or emanates from it ; is equally impossible for me to un- 
 derstand. I do not complain of it because the subject 
 may be obscure, and above my comprehension as to the 
 manner in which the communication may take place ; 
 but I complain that the proposition itself is, to my mind, 
 unmeaning and unintelligible. I can easily admit, that 
 while the numerical essence of the Godhead is one and 
 the same, there may be a distinction in it, the nature of 
 which is above my comprehension, (for numerical unity 
 of essence by no means precludes the idea of distinction 
 in some respects ;) but that one distinction in the God- 
 head should communicate the whole essence of the God- 
 head to another, and yet retain the ichole, without divis- 
 ion and without alienation, if it be not a contradiction of 
 terms, is, at least, a use of language, which I have no 
 capacity to decipher. 
 
 If there be any intelligible meaning, which Turretine 
 12 
 
82 DEFINITIONS EXAMINED. [LeT. IV. 
 
 designed to convey, I think it must be, that the Son is 
 eternally derived from the Father in an inscrutable man- 
 ner, while he is still of the same numerical essence with 
 him. Of this general idea of derived existence or subsis- 
 tence, in respect to the Son, 1 shall say more, in another 
 place. 
 
 After all, Turretine limits the generation of the Son 
 to the production of his personality^ and does not extend 
 it to his essence^ "for this," says he, " would prepare 
 the way for trithelsm."* This view of the subject, 
 however, does not relieve the difficulties. Generation 
 by the Father he has defined to be, the communication of 
 the same numerical essence which he possesses to the Son, and the 
 communication of the whole of it without division. But sure- 
 ly the whole essence o^ the Father does not consist mere- 
 ly in his personality. At any rate, Turretine himself 
 has denied this ; as he makes an important distinction, 
 in the place just cited, between person and essence. How 
 then can the generation of the Son consist in the com- 
 munication of the whole essence of the Father to him ; 
 and yet the generation be limited to the production of 
 mere personality ? " Generatio," says he, " ut a persona 
 fit originaliter, ita ad personam terminatur.'\ It would 
 not be decorous in me to aver, that Turretine has "dar- 
 kened words by counsel without knowledge." But if 
 his words are really light, or have a meaning that is not 
 contradictory, it must, I think, be a transcendental one, 
 altogether too elevated for me to think of aspiring to 
 reach it. 
 
 Turn we now from this excellent divine, (who gen- 
 erally shines with lustre not enfeebled because he now 
 and then passes through an atmosphere somewhat nebu- 
 
 * Ibid. § 6. t Ibid. 
 
Let. IV.] DEFINITIONS EXAMINED, 83 
 
 lous,) to one of the noblest representatives of the Evan- 
 geh'cal or Lutheran Churches ; I mean Gerhard, whose 
 Loci Theologici are comprised in above twenty quarto 
 volumes. In discussing the question Whether the Fa- 
 ther begat the Son of his own essence^ he has developed 
 his view of the doctrine before us, " Observe," says 
 he, " that the Father is said to have begotten the Son 
 from his substance, not from any alienation or division 
 of his essence ; (for neither did he deprive himself of 
 his essence, nor give a part of it to the Son ;) but by 
 the communication of his whole essence^ because by gene- 
 ration he communicated his whole and perfect essence to 
 the Son, and retained the whole of it to himself because it 
 is infinite."* 
 
 This definition agrees entirely, as to substance, with 
 that of Turretine ; and therefore the same objections 
 may be made to it. What idea can be conveyed to 
 the human mind, by saying that the Father " communi- 
 cated his whole and perfect essence to the Son, and retain- 
 ed the whole of it to himself I am not competent to un- 
 derstand. I will not aver, that when the venerable 
 author in question wrote this, he had no idea in his 
 mind which he meant to communicate ; but I am obliged 
 with pain to confess, that after repeated eiforts to elicit 
 an intelligible idea from his language, I have utterly 
 failed to effect it. 
 
 Let us now come down to more recent divines, and 
 select some of the most acute and metaphysical among 
 them, who have been taught by the reiterated objec- 
 tions of opponents, to be much more cautious in their 
 definitions than the older divines. 
 
 " Generation," says Brettschneider, " is that rela* 
 
 * Gerhard, Tom. III. Loc. IV. Cap. V. § 75. 
 
84 J')EFIN1T10\S EXAMINED. [LeT. IV. 
 
 tion of the Father to the Son, by which the Father 
 contains the reason of the subsistence (not the exist- 
 ence) of the Son."* 
 
 According to this definition, the Son exists of him- 
 self; but does not subsist, except by the Father. I 
 have difficulties as great in understanding this defini- 
 tion, as that of Turretine or Gerhard. Of subsistence^ 
 I cannot form any definite idea, in reference to this 
 subject, except that o[ continued existence. Are we then 
 to understand, that the Son exists of himself or is self- 
 existent, but continues to exist only by and through the 
 Father ? Can we form an idea of a self-existent being, 
 which continues to exist in and by another ? 
 
 But perhaps Brettschneider means, that the Son 
 subsists as Son, i. c. his filiation, or hypostatical subsis- 
 tence as Son, is only through or by the Father. If this 
 be his meaning, there is yet so much obscurity, that 
 I am not able to comprehend it. For the question 
 is. What is generation, as applied to this subject? 
 What is it which makes the Logos Son? If the an- 
 swer be. It is that he derives his filiation from the Fa- 
 ther; the question must still be put. Wherein does this 
 filiation consist? — If the answer be. It consists in deri- 
 vation from the Father ; then we may still inquire, In 
 what i^espects does derivation apply to the Logos ? And 
 to this question, Brettschneider has already answered, 
 In respect to subsistence. This of course involves the 
 difficulties already stated. 
 
 Let us hear the celebrated Reinhard, late court 
 preacher of the king of Saxony, and an admirable schol- 
 ar as well as very acute reasoner and theologian. "• The 
 Father generates the Son," says he, '' means that he is 
 * Systemat. Entwickelung der Dogmatik, § 68. 
 
Let. IV.] DEFINITIONS EXAMINED. 85 
 
 in part the reason why divine perfections belong to lilm, 
 in this rather than another manner."* 
 
 But if this be generation^ may not the Son with 
 equal propriety be said to generate the Father; since 
 being co-equal and co-eternal, he cannot be conceived 
 of without at the same time admitting the apprehen- 
 sion, that the perfections of the Father, all of which 
 have so high a relation to him, are modified by him ? 
 And indeed, according to the definition just given, I am 
 unable to perceive any analogy to the meaning of the 
 vv^ord generation^ in the connexion of the Son with the 
 Father ; or any [)ropriety in using this word In prefer- 
 ence to a multitude of others which might easily be se- 
 lected. 
 
 Of the attempts of the early fathers to define what 
 they meant by the generation of the Son of God, I have 
 already taken sufficient notice. To the famous attempt 
 in the Nicene Creed to make a standard definition, it is 
 proper that I should now advert. 
 
 " We believe," say the Nicene Fathers, — " in the 
 Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only begotten 
 of the Father, that is, of the substance {ovijiag) of the 
 Father, God of God, light of light, very God of very 
 God, begotten not made, of the same substance with 
 the Father, by whom all things were made, &:c."t 
 
 These accumulated expressions are not designed 
 to be mere tautologies. They are all significant of sen- 
 timents opposed to various parties, (specially the Ari- 
 an,) who denied the divinity, or distinct personality, or 
 generated nature of the Son of God. The term only 
 begotten they have attempted to explain, by adding that 
 
 * Do^matik, S. 151. 
 
 t Nicene Creed, in Bullii 0pp. p. 5. 
 
86 DEFINITIONS EXAMINED. [LeT. IV. 
 
 the Son is produced /rom the substance of the Father ; 
 and produced in such a way as to be God. Light of 
 light only presents an image, by which they meant at 
 once to defend and explain the assertion, God of God. 
 It is as if they had said, The light which proceeds from 
 the sun is of the same nature with the sun itself; and 
 the procession of light is coeval with the existence of 
 the sun. Very God of very God, is meant only to ex- 
 press their belief in the real divinity of the Son ; for 
 the Arians who did not at all scruple to call him God, 
 would still deny that he was really and truly divine. 
 Begotten not made was directly opposed to the Arians, 
 who maintained that the Son was, properly speaking, a 
 created beino\ 
 
 In the Nicene Creed, then, the generation of the 
 Son is defined to be a production from the substance of 
 the Father — an eternal production* — while the Son, in 
 all respects, except that of derivation, is represented a3 
 possessed of equality with the Father. 
 
 But this creed does not attempt to define, wheth- 
 er the production was voluntary or of necessity; and 
 it cost Athanasius great exertions to procure a general 
 admission of the idea, tliat the generation of the Son 
 was necessary. It seemed to be a common apprehen- 
 sion, that this view of the subject limited the capacity 
 or power of the Father. 
 
 It is disputed among the best patristical critics, 
 whether numerical unity of essence belongs, according 
 to the Nicene Creed, to the Father and the Son. Be 
 
 * At the close of the Creed, — " And those who say, there was a 
 time when he [the Son] was not, and before he was made he was 
 not ; or that he was made out of nothing", or out of any other hy- 
 postasis or substance, [than that of the Father] — the Catholic 
 Church anathematizes.'" Ibid. 
 
Let. IV.] DEFINITIONS EXAMINED. 87 
 
 this as it may, the distinguishing trait of filiation is re- 
 presented by it, as derivation from the substance of the 
 Father. I have reserved the examination of this gene- 
 ric idea, which lies at the basis of nearly all the defini- 
 tions that have ever been given of eternal generation, 
 for the subject of discussion in another letter. 
 
 I have referred back to the famous Nicene Creed, in 
 the present Letter, merely to show, that however vari- 
 ous the descriptions of the generation of the Son may 
 have been, in some minute particulars, as given by those 
 who hold that the Logos himself is the Son of God, yet 
 there is a central point, in which they all meet ; viz, the 
 Logos is derived [eternally derived^ say most orthodox di- 
 vines since the Council of Nice,) /rom the Father^ and de- 
 pends on him, as some s^y, for existence ; others, for sub- 
 sistence; the majority of later divines, for personality. 
 
 Without occupying myself any longer then, by de- 
 scending into the minutiae of differences in the modes of 
 definition found in different writers, I will pass, at once, 
 to the consideration of the main point which is common 
 to them, viz, that of derivation or dependence (in any re- 
 spect whatever) as Logos, or a being truly divine. This I 
 shall endeavour to do, in the succeeding Letter. 
 
LETTER V. 
 
 Rev. and Dear Sir, 
 
 I begin the present Letter, by saying that I fully ac- 
 cede to your views respecting the unreasonableness of 
 those, who demand that the manner of every fact which 
 is affirmed should be explained, before they feel them- 
 selves obliged to believe the fact itself. I go so far here 
 as to say, that a great part of all the facts with which 
 we are acquainted, either in the natural or spiritual 
 world, are of such a nature, that the manner in which 
 they become facts, or exist as such, is utterly beyond the 
 reach of our investigation. The manner in which a spire 
 of grass grows, is as really beyond the reach of our 
 knowledge, at present, as the sublime mysteries of the 
 Godhead. The cry o[ mystery, mystery, which is so oft- 
 en raised against certain doctrines of the Scriptures, can 
 never influence the real lover of truth to reject them. 
 The fact that the doctrines are true is the only thing 
 which claims his serious attention; the mamier in which 
 these truths come to exist, or continue to do so, is not 
 what a rational philosopher expects to understand, in his 
 present imperfect state. 
 
 But what is unintelligible or surpasses our compre- 
 hension, belongs to things and not to words. What we 
 express respecting things, must of course be intehigible ; 
 for language is merely the vehicle by which our thoughts 
 are conveyed to others. What we understand in our 
 own minds, we can express to the minds of others; and 
 what we do not understand, of course we cannot ex- 
 
Let. v.] eternal generation examined. 89 
 
 press, because our language, which is only the vehicle 
 by which our thoughts are conveyed, cannot convey 
 thoughts or conceptions which do not exist. 
 
 It is very easy then to draw the line of distinction, be- 
 tween mystery which is connected with things or phe- 
 nomena, and mystery which belongs only to lamruage. 
 The latter, I take it, always proceeds either from want 
 of skill, or crafty design, or an intention to S[)eak enigmas. 
 
 We are not allowed, therefore, by the common laws 
 of language, to assert any thing which, when examined, 
 proves to be either a contradiction, or an incongruity; 
 and then to take refuge from objections Avhich may be 
 made to our language, under the pretence that the sub- 
 ject is mysterious, and consequently it is improper to 
 urge investigation respecting it. It may be true, indeed, 
 that the subject of which we speak is mysterious. But 
 what I have expressed about such a subject, if I have 
 used language with any propriety, is, of course, only what 
 I knew or conceived about it in my own mind. This can 
 certainly be made intelligible to another mind ; and there 
 is, therefore, no mystery in my expression ^ at least there 
 oujrht to be none. 
 
 The propriety of these distinctions will not, I appre- 
 hend, be called in question. Let me make the applica- 
 tion to the subject before us. 
 
 If it be true, that the Logos is Son of God, {cle facto 
 not simply de nomine,) the manner of his generation may 
 be, and no doubt is, inscrutable by us. 1 ask for no ex- 
 planation of this. \{ the fact can be proved, those who 
 believe it are not at all obliged to explain tiie manner in 
 which it takes place. But if, in defining the eternal gen- 
 eration o{ iho, Son, divines have made statementb, which 
 are inconsistent with the perfections of God, or incon- 
 13 
 
90 GENERIC IDEA OF [LeT. V. 
 
 gruous, or injurious in their legitimate consequences t6 
 the proper divinity of the Logos ; then they cannot re- 
 treat from examination, and find shelter for such state- 
 ments under the allegation, that the subject is mysteri- 
 ous. This may be very true ; but what they have stat- 
 ed concerning it is, or at least may be, no more mysteri- 
 ous to my mind than it was to theirs ; and consequently 
 I may understand it. If they have stated something 
 which they did not, and do not, and cannot know, a seri- 
 ous and rational man surely will not undertake to de- 
 fend such a statement. 
 
 Is the eternal (reneration of the Son of God asserted in 
 the Scriptures ? No direct assertion of this kind can be 
 found. Those who believe the doctrine, deduce it con- 
 sequentially from certain passages of the Bible. Is this 
 phraseology or doctrine any where defined, in the word of 
 God? No one will venture, at the present day, to as- 
 sert this. We are cast, then, for the meaning of the 
 terms in question, upon the definitions of divines, who 
 have laboured to prove the doctrine. Those definitions 
 have been produced ; and as they are not of inspired au- 
 thority, it is doubtless lawful fully to examine them. 
 
 As I have already intimated, they all concur in the 
 general idea of derivation and dependence, in some re- 
 spect or other, of the Logos upon the Father. Is such 
 an idea consistent with the truly divine nature of the 
 Logos? Is it consistent with the fundamental predicates 
 of the divine Being? 
 
 Bishop Bull, at the close of his work on the testimo- 
 nies of the Antenicene fathers, has undertaken to show, 
 that all who lived before the Council of Nice, as well as 
 the members of that Council, and all the fathers who 
 succeeded them, utterly disclaimed (prorsus repugnare) 
 
Let. v.] eternal generation examined. 91 
 
 the idea that the Son of God is avrod^eos or self exist- 
 ent. A second thesis advanced bj him is, that " the an- 
 cient Fathers, with one voice, taught that God the Fa- 
 ther is greater than the Son, inasmuch as [or because 
 that] he is the origin and primary cause (principium) of 
 him ; but that still the Son, by nature (^xaia (pvaiv,) is 
 equal to the Father."* 
 
 The matter of fact, or in other words, that the class 
 of fathers of whom he asserts this, did in realitv believe 
 and teach thus, I do not feel disposed to call in question. 
 But whether the doctrine itself comports with the fun- 
 damental predicates of the Divinity, may be examined 
 from the nature of the divine attributes, and from the 
 Scriptures. With an examination of this doctrine, in re- 
 spect to the nature of the divine attributes, the remain- 
 der of the present Letter is designed to be occupied. 
 
 That God is a being self-existent^ immutable^ and indepen- 
 dent^ is a truth conceded by all, who have any proper 
 knowledge of the Deity, as revealed in his works and in 
 his word. Nor is it the case that mere simple assent is 
 given to these truths. They constitute the basis, the 
 fundamental part of our notion of the Supreme Being. 
 Self existence or uncaused existence is necessary to in- 
 dependence and immutability ; nor is it possible for my 
 mind to conceive of a being, who is in any sense depend- 
 ent for any of his essential attributes or predicates on 
 another, who is at the same time independent and im- 
 mutable. 
 
 If then the Logos be dependent for existence, sub- 
 sistence, or personality, on another, in that respect where- 
 in he is dependent, he is not independent ; nor, so far as 
 his own power is concerned, can he be immutable ; nor 
 can he be self existent, 
 
 * BuUii 0pp. p. 258. 
 
92 GENERIC IDEA OF [LeT. V. 
 
 Will any of the advocates of eternal generation saj, 
 that dependence for existence, or subsistence, or person- 
 ality, is not dependence in respect to an essential predicate 
 of the Logos? I think not. And if not, is not the Son, 
 according to their mode of representation, wanting in an 
 essential predicate of true and proper Divinity, viz, 
 ^vanting in independence and self-existence as to an es- 
 sential predicate or attribute? 
 
 For my own part, after the most anxious and painful 
 scrutiny of this subject, I feel compelled to say, that 
 self-existence, or uncaused existence, as to all essential 
 predicates of Divinity, is fundamental, in my view of the 
 Godhead. I can concleve it possible, that a derived be- 
 ing may have such an unlimited communication of pow- 
 er, and knowledge, and wisdom, that he may govern 
 worlds ; I say it may be possible, though I do not believe 
 it actually to be the case. Such a being too may be 
 perfectly just, and holy, and benevolent, and merciful. 
 But a distinguishing mark, which of necessity would for- 
 ever separate such being or beings from the Great Su- 
 preme, Is found In uncaused existence, God has and can 
 have no equal, no competitor, no representative, in this re- 
 spect. He remains, and must eternally remain distin- 
 guished here, infinitely distinguished in the view of all 
 rational beings, from every derived intelligence. 
 
 Any theory, then, respecting the person of the Sen of 
 God, which make the Logos a derived being, destroys the 
 radical principle — an elementary ingredient, of his true 
 and proper Divinity. I believe that the Logos is really 
 and verily divine — self-existent, uncaused, independent, 
 immutable in himself. Derivation in any shape, or in 
 any measure ; as to all or part of his essential predicates 
 as God — whether you apply to it the name generation, 
 
Let. v.] eternal generation examined. 93 
 
 emanaiion, creation, procession, or anj other term which 
 
 has been used derivation, I say, appears essentially 
 
 incompatible with proper divinity. And so plain does 
 this appear to my mind, that if 1 once admit the proper 
 derivation of the Logos, (be the derivation eternal, or in 
 time,) the idea o( supreme Divinity vanishes in a moment ; 
 and the Logos ranks with those who are called God, only 
 from some resemblance either of station, or office, or of 
 moral or intellectual qualities, to the self-existent Deity. 
 
 I have undertaken only to state my own views, and 
 the reasons of them. If any of my brethren can relin- 
 quish the self-existence of the Logos, and yet hold the 
 true and proper divinity of Christ, and worship him as 
 very Gcd, I can only say, that with all my heart I can 
 give them the hand of a brother, as disciples of the 
 same Saviour. But my mind utterly refuses, on this 
 point, to speculate with them. God the maker of all 
 things, has no cause of existence, i. e. no dependence 
 for it, 30 far as I am able to learn any thing of his true 
 nature. 
 
 If the question, whether this be a correct view of 
 the nature of the Logos, is to be decided by patristical 
 or ecclesiastical authority, or by the voice of the major- 
 ity in times past, I frankly acknowledge that you will 
 have an advantage over me. But you and I have re- 
 nounced such authority, if it decides against reason and 
 Scripture. I have made the appeal to reason, as con- 
 cerned with deducing consistent conclusions from the na- 
 ture of the divine attributes, i come now to the ulti- 
 mate arbiter of all religious questions — to the Scrip- 
 tures themselves. 
 
LETTER VI. 
 
 Rev. and dear Sir, 
 
 It is very possible that you may think I have express- 
 ed myself too confidently, in the preceding letter, res- 
 pecting the validity of the argument derived from the 
 essential predicates of God, against the derivation of 
 the Logos ; and that you will say, I ought not to have 
 attributed so much efficacy to an argument, that is not 
 directly drawn from the express decisions of the Scrip- 
 tures. I should feel the force of such an allegation, if 
 the argument had been made out, without having first 
 examined the Scriptures, to see if there were any thing 
 there which would militate against it. This I did; and 
 first satisfied my mind^ that the sacred writers have not 
 taught the generation or derivation of the Logos. In 
 consequence of this, I felt more at liberty to argue in 
 the manner I have done. A reader of my Letters 
 might possibly thiiik, that I first decided against the 
 possibility of eternal generation, by reasoning indepen- 
 dently of the Scriptures; and then brought this decis- 
 ion along with me, to the investigation of the Bible. 
 This, liowever, I have not in fact done ; nor, believing 
 as I do that the Bible is the word of God, can I think 
 it proper or lawful for me to do this. I would sooner 
 distrust my own reasoning or deductions from what I 
 believe to be the divine attributes, than distrust the de- 
 cisions of the Scriptures on any point whatever, and 
 specially on the awful mysteries of the Godhead. 
 
Let. VI.] USE of the word son. 95 
 
 I come now to develope the process of investigation, 
 which has led me to a real belief, that the doctrine of 
 eternal generation is not contained in the Scriptures. 
 
 The present Letter will be occupied with an investi- 
 gation of the usns loquendi, in the Hebrew and its kin- 
 dred languages, and also the Hebrew-Greek of the New 
 Testament, with respect to the word Son. 
 
 It is sufficiently plain, that the great body of those, 
 who have admitted the doctrine of eternal generation, 
 have been more or less moved to do it, on account of 
 the appellation Son of God, which is in a special sense 
 given to Christ by the sacred writers. 
 
 Our first inquiry, then, is into the nature of Oriental 
 or Shemitish usage, in regard to the term Son. When 
 we have obtained general views of this usage, we may 
 descend to particular investigations with much more ad- 
 vantage. 
 
 1. It is too obvious to need any proof, that the term 
 Son, throughout the Scriptures Old and New, is employ- 
 ed, so often as is needed, in its primary and literal sense, 
 viz, as designating the lineal descendent by corporeal 
 generation of human parents. It designates, in this 
 sense, not only the immediate descendent, as David the 
 Son of Jesse ; but any descendent however remote. E.g. 
 the sons of Israel may mean the Jews at any period; 
 and the sons of Adam the world of mankind, at any 
 stage of their existence. 
 
 All other uses of the term Son, except the one just 
 named, are of course figurative. And even the use of 
 it to designate any but the immediate male progeny of 
 human parents, is in a certain sense a figurative or sec- 
 ondary use of it. 
 
 The word Son was a favorite one among the Hebrews ; 
 
96 USE OF THE WORD SON [LeT, VI. 
 
 and was employed by them, to designate a great variety 
 of relations. The son of cmy thi'no\ accordins; to oriental 
 idiom, may be either what is closely connected icith it, de- 
 pendent on it, like it, the consequence of it, icorthy of if, 
 kc. But this view of the subject must be explained, by 
 actual examples from the Scriptures. The followmg I 
 have selected from the Old and New Testaments. 
 
 TJie son of eight days, i. e. the child that is eio^ht days 
 old : the son of one hundred years, i. e. the person who is 
 one hundred years of age ; the.^o// of a year. i. e. a year- 
 hno; : the son of my sorrow, i. e. one who has caused me 
 distress ; the son of my right hand, i. e. one who will as- 
 sist or be a help to me ; son of old age, i. e. begotten in 
 old age : son of valour, i. e. bold, brave ; son of Belial, 
 [lit. son of good-lbr-nothmg.] i. e. a worthless man; son 
 of wickedness, i. e. wicked ; son of a murderer, i. e, a mur- 
 derous person ; son of my vows, i. e. son that answers to 
 my vows ; son of death, i. e. one who deserves death ; 
 son of perdition, i. e. one who deserves perdition : son of 
 smitincr^ i. e. one who deserves stripes ; son of Gehenna, 
 i. e. one who deserves Gehenna ; son f consolation, i.e. one 
 fitted to administer consolation; son of thunder, i. e. a man 
 of powerful, energetic eloquence or strength : son f peace, 
 i. e. a peaceable man ; son of the morning, i. e. moi^ning 
 star; sons of the burning coal, i. e. sparks of fire ; son f the 
 bow, i. e. an arrow; son of the threshing floor, i. e. grain; 
 son of oil, i. e. fat ; son f the house, i. e. doniostic or 
 slave ; son of man, i. e. man, as it is usually applied ; but 
 perhaps in a sense somewhat diverse, in several respects, 
 as applied to the Saviour. 
 
 Such is the wide extent of relation, similarity, connec- 
 tion, (^c. which the term son is emploved to designate in 
 the Hebrew, and in the Hebrew idiom of the New Tes- 
 tament ; a latitude far greater than is given to it in the 
 
Let. VI. J IN THE oriental languages. 97 
 
 Occidental languages; and which no one, who is not con- 
 versant with the Hebrew, can scarcely estimate in an ad- 
 equate manner. 
 
 In collecting and translatincr these idioms, I have, of 
 course, followed the phraseology of the original languages 
 to which they belong, and not our Entrlish \'ersion ; which 
 not unfrequently paraphrases them, in order to render 
 them intelligible to the English reader. 
 
 Nor are the Hebrew of the Jewish Scriptures and 
 Hebrew-Greek of the New Testament, the only languag- 
 es which exhibit this latitude of construction in re-j,ect to 
 the word son. The same idiom runs through all the 
 Shemitish languages. In the Syriac Version of the Scrip 
 ture?, made, as is most probat3le, not long after the death 
 of the Apostles, and in a languaore which approximates 
 nearest of all to the vernacular dialect of the Jews in our 
 Saviour's time, the word in question is used in a still great- 
 er latitude. The following: instances are collected fi'om 
 this Version. 
 
 Jl son of trade, i. e. ouojeyroPj or one of the same trade, 
 fellow workman : son c>f a great fcnnUn. i. e. a nobleman ; 
 son of ray yoke, i. e. my companion: son cf fosterfa'Jurs, 
 i. e. GvvT^ocfog, an associate in education or pupilage ; son 
 of flesh, i. e. a relative ; son cf adultery^ i. e. a person of 
 illegitimate birth; son of his day. i. e, a coteraporary ; son 
 of his hour, i. e. forthwith, immediately: son of the neel\ 
 i. e. a collet : sons of inheritance, i. e. heirs ; so7is of 
 the place, i. e. dwelling together: sons of the city. i. e. 
 fellow citizens : sons of the tribe, i. e. members of the 
 same tribe ; sons of the people^ i. e. Gentiles ; sons of the 
 company, i. e. fellow travellers ; sons of my years, i. e. 
 mv equals in age : sons of the nobles, i. e. free-men : sons 
 of Crete, i.e. Cretans; sons of idols, i.e. idolaters. 
 
 To these idioms, taken from the Svriac Version of the 
 14 
 
98 USE OF THE WORD SON [LeT. VI. 
 
 Scriptures, may be added others belonging to the language ; 
 e. g. the son of secrecy^ i. e. privy counsellor ; son of the 
 oaks, \. e. of noble progeny; the son of similitude^ i.e. 
 most like ; son of heresy, i. e. a heretic ; son of nature, 
 i. e. of the same nature ; a son of two portions, i. e. one 
 who receives a double portion of inheritance ; son of the 
 leopards, i. e. Bacchus; son of dividing, i. e. one who di- 
 vides the inheritance with another ; son of the month, 
 i. e. of the same month ; son of the year, i. e. a cotempo- 
 rary ; son of opinion, i. e. one holding the same senti- 
 ments- 
 
 Besides these, most of the instances already adduced 
 above from the Hebrew idiom, are found in the Syriac; 
 together with other cases of a similar kind, which I for- 
 bear to cite. 
 
 In the Arabic language, the idiom in question is still 
 more striking ; because we have the language in much 
 fuller extent than either the Syriac or the Hebrew. 
 Here we find, besides many of the idioms already quot- 
 ed, sons of the land, i. e. strangers ; son of familiarity, i. e. 
 intimate friend; son of moonshine, i. e. a night resplen- 
 dent with moon-beams; son of the night, i, e. a dark 
 night; son of misfortune, i. e. in trouble; son of the days, 
 i. e. unfortunate ; son of destroying, i. e. warlike ; son of 
 freedom, i. e. innocent ; son of the way, i. e. a traveller ; 
 son of the sun, i. e. Aurora, or morning light; son of the 
 clouds, i. e. rain, also, coolness ; son of time, i. e. a day and 
 a night ; son of the night, i. e. the moon ; son of the day, 
 i. e. a day. 
 
 These are only a part of the instances which occur, 
 of the idiomatic use of the word son in Arabic. More 
 might easily be added ; but I deem it unnecessary. 
 
 The object of all the specimens which I have exhib- 
 
Let. VI.] IN THE ORIENTAL LANGUAGES. 99 
 
 itcd of the use of the term son, in the Shemitlsh lan- 
 guages, is to make it evident how very vague, indefinite, 
 and extensive, the secondary significations of this word 
 arc ; and how different the p'cifius of the oriental Ian- 
 guages, which thus employ it, is, from that of our own 
 language, or from those of Europe in general. 
 
 Every kind of relation or resemblance whether real 
 or imaginary, every kind of connexion, is characterised 
 by calling it the son of that thing to which it stands 
 thus related, or with which it is connected. 
 
 Very diiferent is the genius of the western languages. 
 We have, indeed, borrowed from the Scriptures many 
 expressions, where son is employed in a manner agreea- 
 ble to their idiom ; and from poetry — from Homer (him- 
 self probably an Asiatic,) we have borrowed many more 
 which resemble them. But our own language, in itself 
 and apart from these sources of expression, is barren in 
 respect to the idiom in question. And such is the gen- 
 eral fact, in regard to all the occidental languages, an- 
 cient and modern. 
 
 It is obvious, now, that there would naturally be a 
 great tendency in occidental readers, to understand the 
 word son in a literal sense, or in a sense as near as pos- 
 sible to a literal one, wherever they found it employed. 
 I have little doubt that the emphasis placed by many 
 divines, in ancient and modern times, on the phrase son 
 of God, as a proof of the generation or derivation of the 
 Logos, has been owing, in part, to this difference of idi- 
 om between the East and West. It has operated insen- 
 sibly^ but not with the less certainty or effect, on that 
 account. 
 
 It will be remembered, however, that vt^hen we in- 
 vestigate the meaning of the phrase Son of God^ in the 
 
100 SIGNIFICATIONS OF THE TERMS [LeT. VII. 
 
 Scriptures, we are investigating the usus loquendt of a 
 Shemitish dialect. This will of course be conceded, in 
 regard to the phrase in the Old Testament ; and I may 
 add, that all critics are now agreed, that although the 
 words of the New Testament are Greek, the idiom is 
 Hebrew. 
 
 LETTER VII. 
 
 Rev. and Dear Sir, 
 
 Almost any one who is conversant with the study of 
 languages, would expect, from the usus loqxtendi of the 
 Hebrew as already exhibited in respect to the word 
 son^ that the phrase son or sons of God, would be em- 
 ployed with considerable variety and latitude of mean- 
 ing. It is the object of the present letter, to investi- 
 gate the various senses in which this phrase is employ- 
 ed by the sacred writers. 
 
 To begin with the Old Testament. I find the phrase 
 son of God, in the singular number, and in this form, on- 
 ly once in the Hebrew Scriptures ; and this instance is 
 in Daniel 3: 25. Nebuchadnezzar sees four men loose, 
 in the fiery furnace, and the form of the fourth, he says, 
 is like a son of God or the gods, i. e. like a supernatural 
 being, angel or spirit, viz, resplendent, majestic. The 
 rendering of our Version, the Son of God, obscures the 
 sense, and, as I must think, misleads the common rea- 
 der. It conveys a meaning entirely destitute of probabil- 
 ity ; for the words were uttered by an idolatrous hea- 
 
Let. \ II.] SON AND SONS OF GOD. 101 
 
 then prince, who does not seem to have had, at least 
 as yet, any knowledge of the Son of God. 
 
 In the plural number, used as a generic noun to de- 
 signate the pious, sons of God is probably employed in 
 Gen. 6: 2 and 4 ; The sons of God saw the daughters of 
 mcn^ (fcc. To apply the phrase here, as most of the 
 ancient fathers did, to the angels, seems sufficiently ab- 
 surd ; and to apply it, as the Targum of Onkelos and 
 many translators and commentators after it have done, 
 to the sons of princes or noblemen (i^^!3"l!}1 '^DS), seems 
 to be very unsatisfactory ; for why should the mixture 
 of noolemen and common people occasion all that ex- 
 cess of wickedness, which followed the intercourse spok- 
 en of in the text ? I must believe that here, then, for 
 the first time in the Scriptures, sons of God is used to 
 describe those, who professed to be pious or the chil- 
 dren of God. 
 
 In Job 1: 6, and 2: 1, sons of God seems to mean 
 angels ; for the congruity of the representation is de- 
 stroyed, unless we suppose, that those with whom Sa- 
 tan came to present himself, were of the same order of 
 beings with him. 
 
 In Job 38 : 7, When all sons of God shouted for joy, is 
 probably descriptive of the angels; so that the iism lo- 
 quendi of this book is uniform, in respect to the mean- 
 ing of the phrase. 
 
 Hosea 1: 10, " In the place where it was said unto 
 them, [the children of Isra(;ll ye are not my people, 
 there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the 
 living God.'''' This is a clear case, again, of the use of 
 the phrase to designate the pious. 
 
 In a similar way, God confers on the whole nation of 
 Israel, who were his chosen people, and professed to 
 
102 SlGXiFICATIOKb OF THE TER3IS [LeT. VII. 
 
 love and serve him, the title Son. Hosea 11: 1, When 
 Israel was a child I loved him ; and called my son nut of 
 Egypt, Exod. 4 : 22, and 23, Thus salth the Lord, 
 Israel is my son, even my first horn. St. Paul, proba- 
 bly in allusion to this passage, speaks of the adoption 
 of the Israelitish nation, as one of their privileges, in 
 Rom. 9:4. In Deut. 4 : 1, it is said of Israel, Ye are 
 the children of Jehovah. 
 
 In Ps. 82 : 6, princes or magistrates are called y\rV>^ ""D^^ 
 sons of the most high, vlol viiuotov. The same designa- 
 tion, in the singular number, is applied by the angel Ga- 
 briel to the Saviour, who was to be born of the virgin 
 Mary ; Luke 1 : 32. 
 
 In the New Testament, the phrase sons of God is so 
 often applied to Ciiristians, or pious persons, that it 
 ■would be a waste of time to repeat all the instances in 
 which this phraseology occurs. Peacemakers are called 
 the sons of God, and the sons of the most high ; those 
 who bless their persecutors are sons of their heavenly 
 Father; the i?:ood seed are the sons of the Kingdom; 
 saints at the resurrection are the sons of God, and 
 the sons of ihe resurrection ; as raanj as are led by the 
 spirit of God are the sons of God ; those who are born 
 in a spiritual manner have the privilege of being the 
 sons of God ; God will be a Father to Christians, and 
 they shall be the sons and daughters of the Lord Al- 
 mighty; those who have faith in Christ Jesus are the 
 sons of God ; Christians are exhorted to be harmless, 
 that they may be the sons of God without rebuke ; the 
 Fathers great love has made Christians the sons of 
 God ; they are now the sons of God, but will be ad- 
 vanced in holiness and ha[)piness hereafter. 
 
 It should be remembered here, (what however I have 
 
Let. VII.] SON and sons or god. 103 
 
 not found remarked in any of the Lexicons or Commen- 
 taries which I have consulted,) that the phrase is never 
 used in the singular number and applied in this way to 
 designate an individual saint. When God calls Israel 
 his Son and his first born, (in Ex. 4: 22, 23, and Hosea 
 11 : 1,) the singular number is plainly generic, or a noun 
 of multitude ; just as the name Israel or Judah common- 
 ly is. It is rather remarkable, that in both the Old and 
 New Testament, this usage should reign without excep- 
 tion. At least, after diligent investigation, I have not been 
 able to find an exception, when it is applied simply to 
 designate the character of a saint, or a professed disciple of 
 Judaism or Christianity. Man of God we find applied 
 to designate a prophet, and perhaps a pious man simply ; 
 but child of God^ or son of God, in the singular number, 
 and with a singular sense, is applied by the sacred wri- 
 ters themselves, only to Christ; with the exception of a 
 single instance, which I shall soon notice. A'id this ap- 
 pellation we find given to him_, both in prophecy and in 
 history. 
 
 The exception to which I have just referred, is found 
 in Luke 3 : 38; which contains the genealogy of Jesus 
 traced back to Adam, who is called the son of God. The 
 obvious reason of the appellation here, is the immediate 
 derivation of Adam from the creative power of his 
 Maker. 
 
 In a sense kindred to this, all men are sometimes re- 
 presented as standing in the relation of ciiildren to God, 
 both in the Old and New Testaments. 
 
 In respect to the pious, God is styled their father on a 
 double account; viz, as the author of their being, or as 
 Paul calls bin] in Heb. 12:9, the Father of spirits ; and 
 because they stand in a spiritual relation to him. in which 
 
104 SIGNIFICATIONS OF THE TERMS [LeT. VII, 
 
 thej are named and treated as children. Thus our Sa- 
 viour has taught Christians, when praying, to say, Our 
 Father, But instances of this usage are so common, and 
 so universally acknowledged, that detailed proof is un- 
 necessary. 
 
 In cases, however, where the rebellious Israelites and 
 the lieathen are spoken of, God is styled their father^ 
 because that he is the author of their being. Thus Moses, 
 predicting the future corruption and perverseness of Isra- 
 el breaks out into remonstrance with them ; " Do ye thus 
 requite the Lord? O foolish people and unwise! Is he 
 not tlvj father^ that redeemed thee [from Egypt?] Hath 
 he not made thee V Deut. 32 : 6. So the prophet, plead- 
 ing with God for apostate Israel, says ; " But now, O 
 Lord, thou art o?/r FoV/icr; we are the clay, and thou 
 our Potter ; and we are all the work of thine hand." 
 Isaiah 64 : 8. So Malachi expostulates with the wicked 
 priests of his time, in behalf of God; '*If I be a father, 
 where is mine honour ?" And in the same manner, re- 
 bellious and apostate men, under the image of the prodi- 
 gal son, are represented as wandering from their Father^s 
 house ; and when penitent, they are permitted to come 
 and say, ^'Father, we have sinned." 
 
 The apostle represents God as sustaining the same re- 
 lation to the Gentiles, as their maker and preserver, 
 which he sustained toward the Jews. '• Is he the God of 
 the Jews only ? Is he not of the Gentiles also ? Yes, of 
 the Gentiles also." Rom. 3 : 29. And as he has made 
 of one blood all nations of men, for to dwell on all the 
 face of the earth, and hath determined — the bounds of 
 their habitations; so all ''live and move and have 
 their being" in him, "and — are also hi-? offspring." 
 Acts 17 : 26. 2a. 
 
Let. VII.] SON and sons of god. 105 
 
 In other senses than those now exhibited, I find not 
 the term son of God applied in the Scriptures ; with the 
 exception of its meaning when applied to the Saviour, 
 and which will be the subject of inquiry in the succeed- 
 ing Letter. 
 
 Let us now take a summary view of the various mean- 
 ings of the phrase in question. 
 
 (L) Sons of God means the pious, or those who profess 
 to love and obey God. (2.) It means angels, or superna- 
 tural spiritual beings. (3) It means kings, and perhaps 
 their vicegerents i. e. magistrates. (4.) It designates the 
 relation in which all men stand to God, as the author of 
 their being. 
 
 The reason of the appellation in this last case is so 
 obvious, and the analogy which leads to it so plain and 
 striking, that it is unnecessary to say more than has been 
 already said, to illustrate the ground of it. But it may 
 not be useless to add a few remarks, which may serve 
 to explain the grounds of this appellation, in the three 
 first of the cases just mentioned ; for as all the uses of it 
 just exhibited, are of a figurative or secondary nature, 
 so the ground of such usage, it is probable, may be satis- 
 factorily traced. 
 
 Sons of God, as a designation of the pious, may easily 
 be explained. The Hebrew idiom calls him the son of any 
 person or thing, who exhibits a resemblance in disposi- 
 tion or character. Thus our Saviour says to the malignant 
 and persecuting Jews, who assailed him, " Ye are of your 
 father, the devil, and ye are desirous to accomplish his 
 wishes." So in the first Epistle of John; '• By this the 
 children of God and the children of the devil are mani- 
 fest. Every one who doeth not righteousness is not of 
 God, &c." Agreeably to this idiom, our Saviour says to 
 15 
 
106 SIGNIFICATIONS OF THE TERMS [LeT. VII. 
 
 the Jews, " If ye were the sons of Abraham, ye would 
 do the works of Abraham." 
 
 In hke manner, in the sermon on the mount, Christ 
 exhorts his disciples to show benevolence towards their 
 enemies and persecutors, that they might be the chil- 
 dreti of their Father in heaven, who dispenses his bless- 
 ings to the just and the unjust ; i. e. that they might be 
 imitators of his conduct. 
 
 Another reason why the pious are called sons of God, 
 is, that they receive divine instruction, or are his disci- 
 ples. In conformity with this idiom, Paul says to the 
 Corinthians, " Ye have not many fathers, for in Christ 
 Jesus / have begotten you through the gospeV 
 
 " Those who are of God," says the Saviour, " hear the 
 words of God ;" i. e. those who are his children, listen 
 to his instructions. 
 
 A third reason seems to be exhibited in Rom. 8 : 17. 
 " For if we are children, then are we heirs of God, and 
 joint heirs with Christ." The "inheritance of the saints 
 in light" is an expression, founded on the recognition of 
 their character as children. 
 
 Lastly, Christians are said to be horn of God, on ac- 
 count of the regenerating influences of his Spirit on their 
 souls. Is it any wonder, then, that they are called the 
 sons or children of God? 
 
 Uniting all these reasons, it is very easy to perceive 
 how natural it was for Hebrew writers to designate the 
 pious, by the title sons of God, 
 
 The application of the phrase to designate angels, is 
 also easily to be accounted for. Angels are the minis- 
 ters and vicegerents of the Deity, to execute his will. 
 They are of a rank elevated far above men, in their 
 present state ; and their appearance to men, in ancient 
 
Let. VIL] son and sons of god. 107 
 
 times, was, no doubt, attended with striking indications of 
 splendour and glory. To call them sotis of God, as spe- 
 cial representatives of the Deity, and bearing a high re- 
 semblance in holiness to him, was very natural to a 
 Hebrew. 
 
 Finally, that kings and superior magistrates should be 
 called the sons of God, or the sons of the most High, can 
 create no wonder in the mind of any one, who has at- 
 tended to the usus loquendi of the word son. The idea 
 of a king or chief magistrate in the East was, and still 
 is, very different from that which we form in a land of 
 Christian freedom. Prostration in the dust before 
 kings and nobles, is the common token of repect paid by 
 all inferiors. The subject feels that there is an immea- 
 surable distance between him and his prince. Hence the 
 highest titles of honor and reverence are applied to him. 
 Sons of the most high, spoken by a Hebrew to designate 
 princes, would mean elevated to the highest dignity, con- 
 trolling with absolute sway ; and thus bearing a resemblance 
 to God, in respect to the dominion which he exercises as 
 Lord of the Universe. It is on this same ground, that 
 the Hebrew Scriptures call kings or princes, gods, 
 (D'Tl'pJjt) ; a title perhaps of a still higher nature, than 
 sons of God ; but perfectly in accordance with the ori- 
 ental views of the station and majesty of an absolute 
 monarch. Being once applied to such a personage, it 
 would naturally pass to his vicegerents; and so we find 
 it used by the Hebrew writers. 
 
 In my investigations, thus far, I have foreborne to 
 touch upon the phrase son of God as applied to Christ. 
 We are prepared for a proper investigation of this sub- 
 ject, only when we come to it with correct general 
 views of the latitude and peculiarities of the phrase in 
 
108 SON OF GOD, [Let. VIII. 
 
 question, as exhibited bj the sacred writers. The way 
 I trust, is now prepared, to proceed with the hope of 
 acquiring satisfaction respecting the great question ; 
 What idea do the sacred writers attach to the phrase 
 Son of God, as applied to Christ ? But the investigation 
 of this must be reserved for another Letter. 
 
 LETTER VIII. 
 
 Rev. and dear Sir, 
 
 After the investigation of the preceding Letter, I 
 think it can easily be made to appear, that the name Son 
 of God has, in some respects, a speciality of meaning 
 when applied to the Saviour. We have seen that it is 
 only the plural word sons, or the singular used as a col- 
 lective noun, which is applied to designate believers ; 
 and that it is said of no believer, individually considered 
 merely as a believer, that he is the son of God, 
 
 I cannot help remarking here, that the same is the 
 case, in regard to magistrates or princes. It is collec- 
 tively, or as a body, that they are called D'TlV*??. gods ; 
 and no single magistrate is ever saluted with this appel- 
 lation. The case where it is said of Moses that he 
 should be made a god to Pharaoh, is no exception to this 
 remark ; as the sense plainly amounts to no more, than 
 that Pharaoh should be submitted to the controul or dis- 
 posal of Moses, while acting as the ambassador of God. 
 The case which occurs in the forty fifth Psalm, is not 
 one in point to disprove what I have alleged ; as the 
 
Let. VIII.] AS applied to christ. 109 
 
 Apostle has told us this compellation is addressed to the 
 Son of God, i. e. Christ. 
 
 But to return, I find no case, where the term Son of 
 God appears to be applied to Christ, simply on the 
 ground of his moral resemblance to the Father. And 
 though he often speaks of himself as having been instruct- 
 ed by the Father; yet I am unable to find any passage, 
 in which the appellation of Son is represented as be- 
 stowed upon him on this account. There remains, there- 
 fore, if I am correct here, but two of the senses in which 
 the term is elsewhere used, that are applicable to 
 Christ; viz, that of derivation from the Father; and 
 that of kingly office, or of the dignity of the Messiah. 
 
 It is unnecessary to seek for a sense wholly new, of 
 the phrase Son of God when it is applied to Christ. 
 Son of God used in the sense of derivation from God^ 
 would agree either with the theory of those who hold 
 the human nature only of Christ to be generated ; or of 
 those who believe his divine nature to be begotten. In 
 either case, the phrase has a sense analogous to that 
 which it bears, when Adam is said to be the son of God^ 
 or when all men are represented as the children of God, 
 I say analogous ; for certainly in all respects the sense 
 couid not be the same. Neither is it when applied to 
 Adam, or to all mankind. But the idea of derivation 
 in some way or other, (leaving the particular manner in 
 each case to be defined by its peculiar circumstances,) is 
 an idea equally common to all the three cases. 
 
 But although I admit, as will speedily appear, that 
 Christ is called the Son of God, on account of a nature 
 derived from God ; yet I do not think this to be the 
 only or the predominant reason, why this appellation is 
 given to him. He is called Son^ also, because he is the 
 
110 SON OF GOD, [Let. VIII, 
 
 Messiah, the Anointed One, the King and Lord of the 
 Universe, exalted over all creatures and all worlds. 
 Whether the evidence of what I have now stated is 
 found in the Scriptures, is the inquiry on which, of course, 
 the whole question turns. And to the investigation of 
 this, we may now proceed. 
 
 /. Christ is called the Son of God, because, in respect to 
 his HUMAN NATURE, he is derived from God, 
 
 You and I are agreed in respect to the twofold nature 
 of the Messiah, a nature truly divine and truly human, 
 united in the person of Christ. In respect to his human 
 nature, we are agreed that it is derived from God. And 
 this derivation is one reason, as I now propose to show, 
 why Christ is called the Son of God, If this be express- 
 ly taught \n the Scriptures, and it be not taught that he 
 is as to his divine nature derived, then I cannot help 
 feeling that I am bound to acquiescence in the ground of 
 the appellation as stated by the sacred writers ; with- 
 out alleging a reason for the appellation, which I can- 
 not find in the Scriptures. 
 
 Luke 1 : 35. '• The angel said to her, divine influence 
 shall come upon thee, and the power of the most High 
 shall overshadow thee ; wherefore (d^^o) that holy [child^ 
 which shall be born, shall be called the Son of God," 
 
 Here then the angel of God himself has stated the 
 ground of the appellation Son of God, as given to the Sa- 
 viour, to be the production of his human nature by di- 
 vine supernatural influence. " Wherefore the holy 
 child shall be called the Son of God." Whatever oth- 
 er reasons then we admit, this must not be excluded. 
 It stands here with a prominence and a clearness, which 
 render it impossible to obscure it. 
 
 The resemblance between the appellation here, and 
 
Let. VIII.] AS applied to christ. Ill 
 
 that given by Luke to Adam, In his chapter of geneal- 
 ogy, Is sufficiently obvious. Adam Is called the son of 
 God^ because divine and supernatural power was imme- 
 diately exerted, in his creation " The holy child" is 
 called the Son of God, because the " power of the most 
 High" Is supcrnaturally exercised to produce his con- 
 ception, A common principle led to the appellation, in 
 both cases ; viz, the principle that God was, by his 
 power or influence, In an Immediate and supernatural 
 sense, the author or father of both Adam and the 
 "Holy Child." 
 
 Now if the divine Logos was derived from the Fa- 
 ther, was begotten from eternity, and was therefore Son, 
 in the highest sense, before the birth of Jesus, I am not 
 able to understand how this birth could be the reason, 
 why Christ should be called the Son of God. The an- 
 gel does not say, that the child should be called Son of 
 God, because the Logos who was eternally Son should 
 be united with him or dwell In him ; but he should be 
 called Son, because of supernatural divine power exer- 
 cised to produce his conception. 
 
 The manner in which Turretine disposes of the tes- 
 timony just adduced, is remarkable. " Partlcula (J'^o," 
 says he, " est nota cotiseqitentiae, non conseqiientis, signi 
 cur sit vocandus Fillus, non causae, quia antequam con- 
 clperetur, jam fulsse dicltur, Jo. 1 : L Phil. 2 : 6. Un- 
 de non dicit simpliciter, erit, sed xAf^Of^oeiaiy id est, man- 
 ifest abitur.^^ Tom. I. p. 331. 
 
 In respect to the passages cited ; John 1: 1, asserts 
 that the Logos was in the beginning, and was God ; but 
 John says not a word concerning Son, it should be noted, 
 until he has mentioned the incarnation of the Logos. It 
 is then that he speaks of the glory of the only begotten* 
 
112 SON OF GOD, [Let. Vlll. 
 
 The passage in Philippians speaks of Christ as hav- 
 ing, previously to his incarnation, been in the form of 
 God (ev (jLopcprf &£ov.) and equal with him, but as having 
 assumed our nature, suffered in it, and in consequence 
 of this, as having a name given to him above every 
 name, and being highly exalted. As God or divine Lo- 
 gos, surely he was not capable of exaltation ; but as 
 Messiah, triumphant over death and hell, as the incar- 
 nate Saviour, he could be exalted from his state of hu- 
 miliation and suffering to one of supreme dignity and 
 glory. 
 
 All then that the passages prove, which Turretine 
 has cited, is merely that the Logos, or the /uo^jfr^ Sfov 
 existed, antecedently to the incarnation. But who, ex- 
 cept Socinians, denies this ? Beyond all reasonable 
 question the pre-existence of the Logos is established 
 by these passages ; but not his eternal Sonship. Of 
 this, neither text says any thing. 
 
 The criticism of this learned divine on the particle 
 dio is very extraordinary. He represents it as a parti- 
 cle transitive^ but not illative here. To express his 
 views, we must translate the verse in question thus; 
 "The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the pow- 
 er of the highest shall overshadow thee, in consequence 
 of which, [or, so that] the holy [child,] which shall be 
 born of thee, shall be revealed as the Son of God." A 
 translation without usage to support it ; against the laws 
 of the language ; and without any parallel, with which 
 I am acquainted. Jio is simply an abridged form of 
 writing dta o, and means, as Schleusner expresses it, 
 quare^ quo prater^ ideo, propter ea. In Hebrew-Greek, it is 
 twice a transitive particle ; viz. in Rom. 2 : 1, and 
 James 1:21. But the meaning of it here, and the sit- 
 
Let. Vlfl.] AS APPLIED TO CHRIST. 113 
 
 uatlon In which it stands, are both entirely diverse from 
 the meaning which Turretine assigns It, and the situa- 
 tion of it in Luke 1 : 35. In Rom 2 : 1, and James 1: 
 21, it is by necessity of the context, and by this only, 
 rendered transitively. That necessity springs from the 
 fact, that what succeeds the word dio, in both cases. Is 
 matter entirely diverse from what precedes ; so that to 
 render the particle dm by moreover, or further^ besides, 
 &;c, is forced upon us ab exigentia loci. 
 
 In Luke 1 ; 35, a similar translation of dio would 
 make a mere frigid sense, or rather little short of non- 
 sense. And what is most conclusive against any at- 
 tempt to change the usual sense o( dco here, Is^ that this 
 particle instead of standing at the commencement of 
 a new subject, (as It does in the cases noted above,) 
 stands between the protasis and epitasis of a sentence; 
 in which position it Is always and necessarily illative. 
 Accordingly, neither Scapula nor Schneider assign to It 
 any other sense than the Illative one. zAo, says Scapu- 
 la, guamobrem, quocirca, proinde : and Schneider says, 
 propter quod, propterea, desivegen, weswegen^ daher. In 
 fact, to assign It any other sense than this. Is out o{ ques- 
 tion ; unless In a case of absolute compulsion, Avhere a 
 new subject is commenced. And of this, two Instances 
 only are produced, in all the Lexicons ; both of which 
 differ widely In respect to circumstances and meaning, 
 from the case under consideration. 
 
 I take It for granted, that a priori reasoning cannot 
 determine the laws of philology, nor prove the usiis 
 loqiiendi of language as to Sio. That Turretine felt the 
 necessity of doing violence to the laws of usage, in the 
 case under consideration, can not appear strange, to 
 any one who considers how incompatible the usual sense 
 16 
 
114 SON OF GOD, [Let. VIIL 
 
 of the word would be with his theory, and how difficult 
 it is to submit a favourite dogma to the simple language 
 of the Scriptures. But that we are obliged to philolo- 
 gize as Turretine does, is a position which we are at 
 liberty to doubt, without peril of the greater excom- 
 niunication. 
 
 The violence done to (^w, however, is not more 
 remarkable, than that which is done to xh^i^jjueiai, 
 " Non dicit (says he) simpliciter en7, sed TtAt^d^r^afiat, 
 
 i. e. MANIFESTABITIJK." 
 
 First, then, that xaAeiot^at in Hebrew-Greek often 
 signifies the same as esse to be, is a thing too well known 
 and obvious to require any proof here. See Schleus. 
 Lex. in voc. KaAeco, No. 10. It is an idiom, which ex- 
 tends even to the native Greek ; as Schleusner has 
 shewn, on the word just cited; and Schneider, on the 
 same word. It is therefore a version perfectly justi- 
 fiable by the usiis loquoidL if we translate, '^''Therefore shall 
 t!ie holy [child] be fche Son of God." 
 
 Sut secondly, the common sense of xaXeco is to name 
 or surnarne, to give any person or thing a title or designation ; 
 and agreeably to this, have our English translators, 
 faithful to the Original, rendered the verse in question. 
 But for the sense manijestabitur, there is no example. 
 It is a mere arbitrary sense imposed upon the passage 
 by Turretine, to avoid the contradiction of his favour- 
 ite theory. 
 
 But to return from this examination. We have then 
 one express reason for the appellation Son of God, as giv- 
 en to Christ; a reason too which has analogy to sup- 
 port it. But, in analogy with other cases also, there is 
 more than one reason why he is thus named. Chris- 
 tians are the sons of God, as the author of their being. 
 
Let. VIII.] AS applied to christ. 115 
 
 But thej are his sons also for other reasons; viz, 
 from moral resemblance to him ; from being taught or 
 guided by him; from the filial blessings which thej re- 
 ceive ; and from their spiritual birth or change. Kings 
 are the sons of God in common with all men, as he is 
 the Father oC their spirits ; but they are also the sons 
 of the most High, on account of their dignity or eleva- 
 tion. Christ is called the Son of God in like manner on 
 several accounts. His derivation, as to the human na- 
 ture which he possessed, is from God the Father; al- 
 though it is a derivation exceedingly diverse from that 
 of kings; as Christ had no natural father. And even 
 so is it, in respect to his kingly office or dignity as Mes- 
 siah ; this dignity being incomparably higher than that 
 of any earthly monarchs. But this brings me 
 
 H. To the second reason, which the inspired apostles 
 have given, why Christ is called the Son of God : viz, 
 the elevated dignity, that was conferred on Mm as the Messiah, 
 
 In Acts 13: 32, 33, Paul in addressing the Jews at 
 Antioch, says, " We declare unto you glad tidings, how 
 that the promise which was made unto the fathers, God 
 hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he 
 hath raised up Jesus again ; as it is written in the second 
 Psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee:'' 
 
 The resurrection of Christ from the dead, then, is the 
 accomplishment of that prediction in the second Psalm, 
 which speaks of Christ as Son, and of h\s generation. But 
 why should the resurrection of Jesus constitute a reason 
 for the appellation in question? Others have been 
 raised from the dead besides Jesus. The answer, as it 
 seems to me, must be, that the resurrection of Jesus 
 was the commencement of his elevation to supreme dig- 
 nity — a pledge, an earnest of all which was to follow. 
 
116 SON OF GOD, [Let. VIll. 
 
 It is thus that the same Apostle seems to view the 
 subject, in Romans 1:4. "Constituted the powerful 
 
 Son of God by his resurrection from the dead." 
 
 The word oQiaOevioQ^ which in our Version, and even by 
 Schleusner, is translated declared or demonstrafed, I can- 
 not think to be susceptible of this meaning. The prop- 
 er meaning of o^^^'oj is to limits define^ determine, decree ; 
 and secondarily to constitute, because many things are 
 constituted by determining or decreeing. Thus, in Acts 
 10: 42, Christ is said by Peter to '' be constituted (oJ^^a- 
 ixevog) by God the judge of the living and the dead." 
 And thus in other cases, as may be seen in Schleusner. 
 
 It is sufficient to remark here, in justification of the 
 translation which 1 have given, that with the exception 
 of the case in question, no instance can be produced, in 
 which the word has the sense assigned to it in our 
 Version. It always has respect to something, which is 
 prospective at the time when the action indicated by 
 6^)ilco took place, not to any thing then retrospective, 
 Storr, many years since, made this remark upon the force 
 of the word op<>j ; a remark, like most others vvhich he 
 has made on the subject of philology, proceeding from a 
 nice discrimination of the force of language. 
 
 But be this criticism as it may, it is not very impor- 
 tant to my design. '' Declared or demonstrated to be the 
 powerful Son of God, by his I'esurrection," may still have 
 respect, (and if this be the sense, I doubt not it has re- 
 spect,) to Christ as l\\e Messiah. The sense is more 
 congruous, however, which the version above gives ; and 
 then the passage, taken in connexion with the words of 
 Paul in the Acts, indicates that the resurrection was the 
 commencement of that elevation to which Christ was 
 raised; and being a part of his elevation was therefore 
 a reason, why he is called the Son of God. 
 
Let. VIIL] as applied to christ 117 
 
 There is I think an additional reason why he is so 
 called, the mention of which ought not to be neglected. 
 When Christ was raised from the dead, there was the 
 commencement of a neiv life, i. e. something analogous to 
 birth or generation. The lowest point of his humilia- 
 tion, was that of death and burial in the tomb. From the 
 moment the new life or resurrection commenced, his ele- 
 vation began. All in future was to be exaltation. Bj 
 the resurrection, therefore, he was Son of God on ac- 
 count of a reproduction or reanimation ; as well as con- 
 stituted Son by being placed in the exalted state of Mes- 
 siah, or made head over all things to the Church. 
 
 That the sacred writers do apply to him the title 
 Son of God, because he is the Messiah i. e. the Christ or 
 Anointed One ; in other words, because he is the King, 
 Head, or Lord of all things, in his capacity as the Messi- 
 ah or Saviour; may be shewn by other evidence, than 
 that which has been already adduced. Nay, that after 
 all, this is the principal or predominant reason for giving 
 him this apf)ellation, will appear, as it seems to me, from 
 the following passages. 
 
 When the Saviour appealed to his disciples, and ask- 
 ed them, " Whom say ye that I am? Simon Peter an- 
 swered and said. Thou art the Christ (the Messiah,) the 
 Son of the living God." Matt. 16: 15, 16. 
 
 In Mark 8: 29, the same reply is recorded in the fol- 
 lowing words ; " Thou art the Christ." Now if" Son of 
 the living God," which is mentioned by Matthew, con- 
 veyed a meaning different from that of Christ or Messi- 
 ah, wl^y should Mark omit so important an addition to 
 that part of Peter's reply which he has recorded ? 
 
 Luke has given us a form different from both the oth- 
 ers. (9: 20.) " Thou art the Christ of God." I say a 
 
118 SON OP GODj [Let. VIII. 
 
 different form ; for this is all. To saj, "Thou art the 
 Christ," or " Thou art the Christ of God," or " Thou 
 art the Christ, the Son of the living God," conveys, as 
 I think will be satisfactorily evinced, the same idea in 
 each case. 
 
 This confession Jesus highly approved, pronounced 
 his blessing upon it, and then "charged his disciples 
 that they should tell no man, that he was Jesus the 
 Christ." (v. 20.) That he was the Christ or Messiah, 
 then, appears to comprehend the essential p«r/ of Peter's 
 confession, and to convey the same idea, to the mind of 
 Jesus and his disciples, as to say that he was the " Son 
 of the living God." The parallelism, indeed, between 
 Christ and the Son of the living God is so apparent, in 
 the very mode of the expression, as well as from the 
 nature and genius of the Hebrew language, that we can 
 hardly doubt that the one phrase is, in this case, equiv- 
 alent to the other. 
 
 But if we doubt that Son of God is hero equivalent to 
 Messiah or King of Israel, those doubts may be remov- 
 ed by further examination of the Jewish usus loquendi, 
 "Rabbi," said the Israelite without guile, to his divine 
 Master, " thou art the Son of God, thou art the King of 
 Israel." John 1: 49. As in the case above. Son of God is 
 explicative of Christ ; so here, King of Israel is explica- 
 tive o^ Son of God; and if so, then the two phrases are 
 suhstantially equivalent to each other. 
 
 On another occasion, when some who had professed 
 to be the disciples of Jesus had left him, he said to the 
 twelve apostles," Will ye also go away? Then Simon 
 Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou 
 hast the words of eternal life. And we believe and are 
 sure, that thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.'' 
 
Let. VIII.] AS applied to christ. 119 
 
 John 6:68,69. Tlie two expressions here are the 
 same, as in the case of Peter's confession already pro- 
 duced. I cannot but feel that they constitute a parallel- 
 ism, in the view of the apostle who uttered them ; just 
 as when Thomas said. My Lord and my God, he meant 
 substantially the same thing by both phrases. 
 
 In like manner, when Jesus asked Martha whether 
 she believed in his power to save from death those who 
 trusted in him, she replied, "Yea, Lord; I believe that 
 thou art the Christ, the Son of God, which should come 
 into the world ;" i. e. thou art the Messiah, the expect- 
 ed deliverer and the king of the Jews. John 11 : 27. 
 
 The woman of Samaria uses another expression, as 
 parallel to, or exegetical of, the word Messiah or 
 Christ. " We know this is indeed the Christ, the Sa- 
 viour of the world.'''' John 4 : 42. 
 
 But to show how common the idiom was among the 
 Jews of our Saviour's time, by which Christ and the Son 
 of God were used as parallel expressions, other instances 
 may be adduced of its usage, out of the circle of the 
 disciples. Thus the demons say, '-Thou art the Christ, 
 the Son of God,^'' Luke 4: 41 ; if the common copies of 
 our Greek Testament be correct. Griesbach has, how- 
 ever, rejected the word 6 X^tojog here from the text ; 
 while Titmann has admitted it, but not without an index 
 that it is suspected. 
 
 The Sanhedrim, who examined Jesus previously to 
 his condemnation, asked him, "Art thou the Christ?" 
 He replied by saying, that the Son of Man should here- 
 after be seated on the right hand of the power of God. 
 They repeated the question, with earnestness, l^v ow ei 
 6 vlog lov Oaov ; " Art thou then {ovv then, indeed, verily 
 then) the Son of God?'' Luke 22 : 67, 70, Here it is 
 
120 SON or GOD, [Let. Vlll. 
 
 evident that the same question, so far as the essential 
 meaning of it is concerned, is repeated in the second in- 
 stance as in the first ; although the words differ, and the 
 intensive ow is added to the second question, in order to 
 show the earnestness of the speakers. 
 
 In like manner the high priest, during the trial of Je- 
 sus, said, " I adjure thee by the Hving God that thou tell 
 us, whether thou art the Christy the Son of God^ Matt. 
 26 : 63. Here both expressions meet in the same ques- 
 tion ; as in the case above, they followed each other in 
 different questions ; and both are plainly designed to 
 make the inquiry, Art thou the promised, the expected 
 Messiah of the Jews? Surely the high priest and the 
 Sanhedrim did not mean to ask Jesus^ whether he was 
 eternally and necessarily begotten of God. 
 
 FroQi the friends and the enemies of Jesus, then, we 
 have one and the same use of the phrase Son of God, viz. 
 to designate the Christ or Messiah, the expected King of 
 Israel. The beloved disciple, who leaned on Jesus' bosom, 
 has added his own testimony to this usage. Speaking 
 of his gospel he says, "These things are written, that 
 ye might believe that Jesus is the Christy the Son of God. 
 And in the same manner, Paul in his Epistles says; 
 '' For the Son of God^ Jesus Christy who was preached by 
 us ;" i. e. the Son of God, viz, Jesus the Messiah. 2 Cor. 
 1:19. 
 
 More cases of a similar nature might be added ; but 
 I forbear. Enough has been adduced to shew the usii^ 
 loquendi of the apostolic age, among the Jews. Let it 
 now be called to mind, that every wTiter or speaker, 
 who means to be understood, must necessarily use lan- 
 guage in the same sense, in which the age and nation to 
 which he belongs use it. And if this be admitted, how 
 
Let. VIII.] as applied to christ. 121 
 
 shall we avoid the conclusion, that Son of God was the 
 designation of Ciirist as the expected Messiah of the 
 Jews, as the King who was to subdue all nations, and 
 reduce them under his government ? 
 
 That the phrase So7i of God pertains to Christ as Mes- 
 siah or incarnate Saviour and exalted head over all 
 things, and not to the Logos considered simply in respect 
 to his state before the incarnation, may be rendered still 
 more probable, from those prophetic texts in the Old 
 Testament, whicli describe the future birth of the Son 
 of God. 
 
 To begin with the famous passage in Ps. 2:7. " Thou 
 art my Son ; this day have I begotten thee." What is 
 then the subject of this Psalm, and in what attitude 
 does it place the personage, who is styled Son ? A rea- 
 dy answer is afforded by the preceding verse, and by 
 the whole context. " Yet have I set my King upon my 
 holy hill of Zion. I will publish the decree." What de- 
 cree ? Why plainly that which makes or constitutes hira 
 King, And what Is it? "The Lord hath said to me, 
 Thou art my Son ; this day have I begotten thee.'^^ This is 
 the decree or sentence, which constitutes him King in 
 Zion. What follows this elevation ? Why, that all nations 
 shall come under his dominion, and that his enemies shall 
 be dashed in pieces. 
 
 Surely no other generation of the Son is intimated 
 here, but his exaltation to the dignity of King and Lord. 
 And It is in exact consonance with this, that Peter ex- 
 plains the very passage in question, In Acts 13 ; accom- 
 modating it to the resurrection of Christ, which was the 
 very circumstance that commenced his elevation to the 
 throne of supreme dominion. 
 
 Let me present the subject in another light. The 
 17 
 
122 SON OF GOD, ' [Let. VIIL 
 
 second Psalai is prediction ; and prediction concerning 
 the future Messiah; (v. 2, 'in^Ili^.) As Messiah he is 
 King ; and as Messiah he is Son, " But if he had been 
 Son from eternitv, could it be prophesied that he was yet 
 to be a Son^ and to be begotten at a future period ? Or shall 
 we with Clemens Alexandrlnus saj, that after the Son 
 was begotten previously to the beginning of the world, 
 he begat himself again in the womb of the Virgin ? 
 
 In regard to the exegesis, which makes this day to 
 mean eternity, because one day is with the Lord as a 
 thousand years, and a thousand years as one day, I can- 
 not feel that it deserves a serious refutation. It is so 
 unexampled, so evident a perversion of the design of 
 the writer, and so plainly the result of being pressed 
 with difficulty by tlie text as it stands, that it needs only 
 to be read with candour to be rejected. 
 
 Two other passages in the Old Testament contain 
 the phrase in question, and relate, as I believe, to Christ 
 or the Son of God. The first, in 2 Sam. 7: 14, ex- 
 hibits a promise, that God at some future period would 
 raise up of the seed of David (v. 12) a King, (v. 13) re- 
 specting whom it is said, '^ I will be his Father, and he 
 shall be my Son." The same sentiment is recognized by 
 the Psalmist, Ps. 89: 3, 4, 20—27. In the latter pas-- 
 sage, it is said, " He shall cry to me. Thou art my Father 
 ■ And I will make him my first bokn." 
 
 Here we have predictions^ not only of a future Son, 
 but of ?i future first born. I am unable to conceive, how 
 that which existed from all eternity, should be thus 
 spoken of as yet to exist, at di future period. 
 
 If I am correct then, the Logos, before his incarna- 
 tion, was not, strictly speaking. Son of God, but only to 
 become so by union with the person of Jesus. And is it 
 
Let. VIIL] as applied to christ. 123 
 
 not thus, that the apostle John represents the subject, 
 when he introduces the Logos to our consideration, as 
 he existed in a previous state ? Then he was npog rov 
 Geov, and was Geog. But it was only after " he became 
 flesh and dwelt among us, that the apostle speaks of 
 '^ the glory of the only Begotten, full of grace and 
 truth," which the disciples saw. It is the " only begot- 
 ten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, (1. e. most 
 dear to him or beloved by him.^Y ^^^^^ \^^i\\ declared him." 
 Surely it is the Messiah, and he only who has made such 
 a revelation; not the Logos before the incarnation. 
 
 Consonant with this mode of speaking Is the language 
 of Paul, when he has occasion to make a distinction be- 
 tween the divine and human natures united in Christ. In 
 Rom. 9 : 5, he speaks of the descent of Christ karcc 
 aapxa, as to his human nature, from the Jews ; but how 
 does he characterize the divine nature which dwelt in 
 Jesus? By saying that this divine nature was the Son of 
 God ? No; but by calling him " God over all, i. e. su- 
 preme God, blessed forever." Such I believe the Lo- 
 gos to be ; supreme God, not derived ; not secondary, as 
 Justin and other fathers call him ; not begotten, not ema- 
 nated, not subordinate. That the Son (as Son) is subordi- 
 nate and derived, I most freely grant is a doctrine of 
 Scripture ; but that the Logos is so, I have found no 
 satisfactory evidence. 
 
 I must not omit a passage in Paul's writings which 
 stands a few verses preceding the one just quoted. "All 
 things," says the apostle, "shall work together for good 
 
 to those who love God whom he did predestinate 
 
 to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he (the 
 
 * Compare the passage respecting the beloved disciple, who lean- 
 ed on the bosom of Jesus. To explain the idiom, see also 2 Sam. 12 : 3- 
 
124 sox\ OF GOD, [Let. VIII. 
 
 Son) might be the first born, {jigcomToxog^ 'preeminent^ first 
 in rank or dignity^) among many brethren." Rom. 8 : 29. 
 Now in what sense is the Son a brother of the saints? Is 
 it as the divine and eternal Logos ; or as the Logos in- 
 carnate, who had " become a partaker of flesh and blood, 
 because the children partake of the same ?" Heb. 2 : 14. 
 The answer may be given in tUc words of Paul, in anoth- 
 er passage. "He that sanctifieth, (Christ, the captain 
 of our salvation,) and tiiej who are sanctified, (Chris- 
 tians,) ARE ALL OF ONE; for ickick causc, he is not ashamed 
 to call them brethren ; saying, I will declare thy name 
 unto my brethren, &;c. Hcb. 2 : 11, 12. 
 
 Saints, then, are the brethren of Christ, because they 
 are the sons of God and he is the Son of God ; but can 
 we draw the inference from this, that they have a na- 
 ture really divine, because they are his brethren? Can 
 the title, then, in itself considered, prove that Christ is a 
 divine person ; or can it be assumed, that the title neces- 
 sarily imports this? — I know the Jews, in one instance, 
 argued in this way ; but of this more hereafter. 
 
 Finally if the title Son necessarily imports eternal 
 generation and divine nature, I am utterly unable to 
 make out any exegesis of the 1 Corinth. 15: 28. Thus 
 the passage stands ; " When all things shall be subdued 
 unto him [the Son] then shall the Son himself he sub- 
 ject unto him that put all things under him, that God may 
 be ALL IN ALL. If Son then be (as such) the divine Lo- 
 gos, be eternally begotten, and very God of very God, 
 what is this subjection ? And how is he, who in his divine 
 nature is "God over all," and immutable, to become 
 subject to the Father, in order that God may be all in 
 ALL? I will not say, it is impossible to solve these ques- 
 tions ; but I must say, I can find no solution of them on 
 
Let. VIII.] AS APPLIED TO CHRIST. 125 
 
 the ground, which refers the appellation Son of God, to 
 the eternal generation of a nature divine. 
 
 I have produced the ground of mj dissent from the 
 doctrine of eternal generation. It will be incumbent on 
 me, before I take leave of the subject, to notice the ar- 
 guments which are adduced in support of it. But this 
 must be reserved for another Letter. 
 
 LETTER IX. 
 
 Rev. and dear Sir, 
 
 In considering the arguments adduced to support the 
 theory o[ eternal generation, I will first follow Turretine, 
 who certainly is one of the ablest advocates of this doc- 
 trine, and who has laid out very much of his strength in 
 its defence. 
 
 He begins with the passage from the second Psalm ; 
 but as I have already examined this, I will not again 
 dwell upon it. In commenting on this passage, he ad- 
 verts to another in Hebrews, 1: 5 ; which has often been 
 adduced, and which claims an examination. The wri- 
 ter of this Epistle is here endeavouring to prove the su- 
 periority of Christ over the angels. He represents 
 him as exalted above them, because he has obtained a 
 more excellent name than they. " For," says he, " unto 
 which of the angels said he [the Father] at any time, 
 Thou art my Son ; this day have I begotten thee ? And 
 again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me 
 a Son." 
 
^^Q EXAMINATION OF ARGUMENTS [LeT. IX. 
 
 It needs no argument, I suppose, to prove that the 
 naine obtained by inheritance cannot be literally under- 
 stood. For then it would necessarily imply the death 
 of the Father, in consequence of which his title descend- 
 ed to the Son. The whole difficulty in the passage is 
 made by inadequate versions of it, TtexAi^poyo/ut^xev being 
 translated as signifying, obtained by inheritance. Now 
 nothing is plainer, than that the word xA)^povoficco, as em- 
 ployed by the Hebrew-Greek, corresponds exactly to 
 the Hebrew word "0")^; which means to gel, acquire, ob- 
 tain possession of, in any manner, or at any time. It was 
 thus that the Israelites inherited the land of Canaan, 
 from its heathen inhabitants. 
 
 Christ then is exalted above the angels, because he 
 has obtained a more honorable title than they. But 
 what is this title ? Angels too are called sons of God, 
 God is the author of their being. They are a bright 
 reflection of his moral perfections. They are most like 
 to him of all his rational creatures, of which we have 
 any knowledge. It is not then, because Son designates 
 DERIVATION from God, that Clirist has a higher title than 
 the angels, when he is called Son. For a similar reason 
 they too might be called Sons, What then is the ground 
 of preference ? Why plainly the one which has already 
 been assigned, viz, that Son designates Christ as King, 
 the Messiah, the Hsad over all things, the agxn ruler of 
 the creation of God. In both the passages which the 
 apostle quotes, the context evidently shews that the ti- 
 tle Son is given to Christ, as the constituted King of 
 Zion. 
 
 But farther. How could he obtain a better title than 
 the angels ? If he were Son eternally, did he obtain a fil- 
 iation ? And could the prophecies quoted, speak of his 
 filiation as future ? 
 
Let. IX.] IN FAVOUR of eternal generation. 127 
 
 The angels are all ministering servants;" but Christ, 
 the " head of the creation of God, and preeminent over 
 every creature (npanoToxog jr^gnaaj^g xt/(J6«?,") Christ the 
 Son of God, has a rank and dignity far above them. 
 
 The second argument of Turretine is derived from 
 Prov. 8:22; the chapter which contains a beautiful and 
 poetic personification of divine wisdom. It would lead 
 me into too wide a field, to discuss the subject of this 
 text at length ; a text on which all the Fathers, who 
 held to the antcmundane or to the eternal generation 
 of the Son, placed so much reliance ; in the interpre- 
 tation of which they have been followed too, by the 
 great multitude of divines in later ages. I will only 
 say, that the preceding and succeeding context shows, 
 that wisdom is an attribute and not a person, a virtue 
 and not a concrete being. A better understanding of 
 the nature of Hebrew poetry and of poetic language in 
 general, would have saved, as I must believe, all the 
 speculations that have been indulged, respecting this 
 celebrated passage. 
 
 But if one must needs have it, that it shall be under- 
 stood of the Logos, and his eternal generation ; then 
 there lies an insuperable difficulty in the way, from the 
 lan2:uao:e. " When there was no depths ^TI^PIH 1 was 
 brought forth ; — before the hills ^rpy^ri was I brought 
 Jorth.^^ It is the action o( parturition and not of genera- 
 tion, which is indicated by this language. 
 
 Excepting the figurative sense o( creating or of form- 
 ing, the verb in question has no other meaning that 
 classes under this category. Neither of these meanings 
 however^ would comport with the Nicene Creed any 
 better than " brought forth."^^ 
 
 3. Turretine adduces the passage in Micah 5: 1, in 
 
128 EXAMINATION OF ARGUMENTS [LeT. IX. 
 
 which it is said of a personage (the Messiah, who is to 
 spring from, or as the Hebrew runs to come out o/" Beth- 
 lehem Euphratah,) that his goings forth are of old^ even 
 from the days of eternity. In Turretine's ap[)rehension, 
 this characterises the generation of the Son of God, and 
 plainly represents it as eternal. 
 
 But the phrase is, at least, susceptible of two mean- 
 ings, which differ from this ; either of which appears 
 to me more probable than this. The first is, that 
 the Messiah should descend from a very ancient and il- 
 lustrious house. For the words Sip. ^^d ^>", rendered 
 by Turretine eternity, are like the Greek enow., that 
 also signifies an)^ thing ancient, which has endured, or is 
 to endure for a long period. The question when these 
 words are to have the meaning of absolute eternity, and 
 when the sense of ancient or very old^ is always to be 
 determined by the nature of the case, i. e. by the con- 
 text. But the context, in the present case, is not suffi- 
 ciently specific to determine with certainty. Of course, 
 I must concede that the meaning of the phrase, as I 
 have just given it, (though so interpreted by Rosen- 
 mueller,) remains somewhat uncertain. 
 
 A second meaning may be, (and most probably it is 
 the real one,) that the personage, who was to be born, 
 should unite with him or in him an eternal nature, one 
 which did not commence with his birth in Bethlehem, 
 but one which was eternal, or which had no beginning. 
 Exactly correspondent with this sentiment, is that of 
 Isaiah, in Chap, ix ; where speaking of the Son who 
 was to be born, and to be made universal King, he calls 
 him, among other names, the mighty God, the father of 
 eternity (iy_ *^DN ), which I understand, with Rosenmuel- 
 ler, to be an idiomatic phrase, simply meaning eternal. 
 
Let. JX.] in favour of eternal generation. 129 
 
 This child was to be not onlj a Son and a King^ but 
 the mighty and eternal God ; i. e. in this personage, these 
 natures were to be combined. 
 
 The same sentiment I take to be expressed by Ml- 
 cah. " Out of Bethlehem," says he, " shall issue (wV2^) 
 a King over Israel, whose fllXI^I^ issues, goings Jorth, 
 origines, are eternal." The latter part of the verse, in 
 respect to form^ is an antithetic paronomasia of the form- 
 er. As if we were to say, in English, A ruler shall go 
 forth from Bethlehem, whose goings forth are eternal; 
 i. e. a ruler shall be born there, who shall possess a na- 
 ture that is incapable of birth ; in other words, an eter- 
 nal and divine nature. 
 
 Such is the natural exegesis of the passage, accord- 
 ing to the spirit of Hebrew parallelism and poeti**, ex- 
 pression. But in this, I find no support for the doc- 
 trine of eternal generation.* 
 
 4. Turretine, and most who agree with him in senti- 
 ment respecting the doctrine in question, deduce argu- 
 ments in support of it, from the epithets which are com- 
 bined with the word Son. These are tdiog own ; ay a-' 
 nffiog beloved ; fiovoycvt^g only begotten ; and tiqojioioxos 
 firstborn, I will now examine these in their order. 
 
 1. Idiog own. This epithet is applied by the sacred 
 writers, in only one instance, to Christ. Paul says, " He 
 that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for 
 us all, &;c." Rom. 8: 32. In one other case, the Jews 
 aver, that Jesus " not only profaned the Sabbath, but 
 asserted that God was his own father (^Lt^tov nan^pa,) 
 making himself equal to God." John 5: 18. But that 
 
 * What Turrctine can mean, when, in commenting on this verse 
 in Micah, he says, '' Nee potuit [Filius] prodiisse a Patre nisi per 
 generaiionem substantialem^'^'' I will not attempt to conjecture. 
 
 18 
 
130 EXAMINATION OF ARGUMENTS [LeT. IX. 
 
 a claim to equality ivith God is not made out from this 
 assertion, bj anj force of the word idios, is sufficiently 
 plain from comparing the tenth chapter of this same 
 Evangehst, (verses 24 — 39 ;) where the Jews are de- 
 scribed as having made the same accusation, on the 
 ground that Ciirist had declared himself to be the Son 
 of God, (v. 36,) or that God was his Father, (v. 29.) 
 
 And that no such stress can be laid on the word idiog, 
 to prove the " real and substantial generation of the Lo- 
 gos," as Turretine lays upon it, is sufficiently evident 
 from the manner in which the word is employed, in 
 other cases. Christ is said to have entered the holy 
 place once by his own blood, Heb. 9: 12; and to have 
 washed us from our sins in his own blood, Rev. 1:5. In 
 these and a multitude of other cases, where own (^k^loq) is 
 used, it is cither employed as an intensive, to add 
 force and emphasis to the meaning o[ his, that, Sic, as his 
 own, their own, &lc ; or it is placed in opposition to some- 
 thing that is strange, foreign, or that belongs to another. 
 Thus, his own city means the city of which one is a 
 native, or where he habitually resides, in distinction 
 from other cities. And thus, Christ entered into the 
 holy place by his own blood, means that he did not, like 
 the Jewish priests, enter in with the blood of animals, 
 &c. 
 
 It is however the emphatic sense of own, perhaps, 
 which the passage from Paul's Epistle requires ; al- 
 though the sense is good \( oivn here be opposed to that 
 which is foreign, or another's. The meaning then would 
 be, ' God did not make atonement for sin, by exacting 
 the blood of bulls and goats, or of human victims ; but 
 he gave his own Son to die for us.' 
 
 At any rate, Paul applies a still stronger epithet than 
 
T. IX.] IN FAVOUR OP ETERNAL GENERATION. I3l 
 
 i^iog to Timothy, who stood in no other relation to him, 
 than that of one of his converts. " To Timothy a genu- 
 ine Son in the faith, yvt^oicp lexvcp^^'' 1 Tim. 1:2; which, in 
 2 Tim. 1:1, he varies, by calling him my son. 
 
 But in whatever sense Christ is Son of God, whether 
 his fihation be eternal, or in time he is God's own Son ; 
 and the epithet own cannot possibly have any bearing on 
 the question of eternal generation. The Son of God, if 
 begotten yesterday, would be as truly God's own Son, 
 as if begotten from eternity. To call him idcog viog then, 
 determines nothing respecting the point in question. 
 
 2. AyoiRi^Tog, beloved, A formal examination of this 
 really seems to me needless. Is not Christ all perfect, 
 lovely, glorious, exalted as he is — God's beloved Son ? 
 And God's beloved Son in a peculiar sense ; for the rea- 
 son that his character and attributes are peculiar? Yet, 
 I could not argue the peculiarity of divine love toward 
 him, merely from the fact that the epithet beloved is ap- 
 plied to him. Daniel is not only called beloved, but a 
 m3.n greatly beloved ; David was a man after God's own 
 heart; Solomon was beloved of God ; the church is his 
 beloved; but these are not therefore eternally begotten. 
 It is then the circumstances under which ayaarfiog is ap- 
 plied to Christ, and the manner of the application, that 
 intimate a peculiarity of meaning in his case. But this 
 peculiarity has no concern, nith any argument in favour 
 of the doctrine of eternal generation. 
 
 3. Movoysvt^g^ only begotten, I cannot help thinking it 
 somewhat singular, that any argument should ever have 
 been drawn from this epithet, to prove the eternal gen- 
 eration of the Son. Is not that generation in the womb 
 of the virgin, by supernatural miraculous power, and on 
 account of which the angel says he should be called the 
 
13^ EXAMINATION OF ARGUMENTS [LeT. IX. 
 
 Son of God, the only generation of the kind, which has 
 ever taken place ? Has God any other Son, who was 
 thus produced ? 
 
 Or if you understand the term Son as characterising 
 the incarnate Logos, the Messiah, the supreme King; 
 is there more than one such King ? And is not fLioroyevf^g 
 the very adjunct which may properly be connected with 
 vlog^ used in cither of the above senses? 
 
 Here I might stop, then, with having shewn, that in 
 whatever way you understand the phrase Son of God 
 as applied to Christ, only begotten is strictly applicable 
 to him. But my examination of the term fiovoyevi^g has 
 ended in the conviction, that as applied to the Saviour, 
 it is a mere parallelism of ayamixog. It may be proper 
 to state the reasons of this conviction. 
 
 In the Hellenistic Greek, both ayanf^rog and fAovoye- 
 1^;;^ correspond to the Hebrew word ^^n"^ only begotten. 
 Thus Gen. 22: 2, " Take now thy son, thine only son, 
 Hebrew ^"^H"^, Sept. ayam^Tov^ Aquila (Liovoyevif ; all in 
 the same sense. So "l^U^ is rendered by ayam^xog in 
 Gen. 22:12,16. Jud. 11:^34. Jer. 6:26. Amos 8: 10. 
 Zech. 12: 10. Ps. 22: 21. It is thus too that Hesychius 
 explains ayanr^iovy in his Glossary. Ayocm^iov, says he, 
 fxovoyev}]y TteyaQLofxevov, So Pollux ; " A beloved and only 
 son, or a beloved daughter, is called fiovoyavt^g^ by Hesi- 
 od." So in Homer's Iliad, {^.v. 401) the term ayant^iov 
 is explained by the Scholiast, {noroyev}^. 
 
 As applied to Christ, we find the epithet fiovoyevj^g 
 used only by John; a writer whose tender heart every 
 where flows out, in epithets of endearment. That the 
 term indicates special endearment cannot be doubted ; 
 nor can we doubt that the Son of God was specially 
 dear to the Father. 
 
Let. IX.] IN FAVOUR of eternal generation. 133 
 
 Supported by such authorities, and sucli usnis^e, I hes- 
 itate not to say, it is my full belief, that fwroyeri^Q as ap- 
 plied to the Saviour is merely a term of special endear- 
 ment But if it be more; then, as [ have already shewn, 
 it applies to the peculiar and unique j^eneration of the 
 Son, in the womb of a viro-m, by divine power; or to 
 the peculiar and unique exaltation of the incarnate Lo- 
 gos. 
 
 4. llgcoiojoxog first born. This appellation has often 
 been adduced, to confirm or prove the doctrine of eter- 
 nal o-pneration. But it would prove a great deal too 
 much, if the term is to be literally applied. Christ is 
 called the first born of every creature, nQcoroxoxog naar^g 
 xitaecog. Is the difference then between him and others, 
 only that he was born first? He is called the first horn 
 among many brethren ; (Rom. 8: 29) those brethren 
 then are horn as well as he ; but he is the first in point 
 of time. 
 
 This sense will not bear. We come, then, by neces- 
 sity to the figurative sense of the word; where we find 
 the meaning to be, chief pre-eminent, first in dignity, com- 
 mand, honour, S^c ; a very natural meaning, derived from 
 the rights and privileges of primogeniture among the 
 Hebrews. And now we have the sense of all those 
 passages, where Christ is called the first horn ; viz, he 
 is the head of all creation ; he is Lord over the church ; 
 he is the^r5^ horn from the dead, i. e. the Lord of those 
 who will die no more, &c. But none of all these mean- 
 ings have any bearing, that I can perceive, on the doc- 
 trine of eternal generation, 
 
 5. The fifth argument of Turretine is drawn from 
 Col. 1:15; " Who is the image of the invisible God ;" 
 and from Heb. 1 : 5," Who being the effulgence [irradia- 
 
154 EXAMINATION OF ARGUMENTS [LeT. IX. 
 
 tion] of his [the Father's] glory, and the express image 
 of his substance, &:c." 
 
 As to the first of these passages, the context immedi- 
 ately going before affords an easy solution of the mean- 
 ing. " In whom [Christ] we have redemption through his 
 blood, even the forgiveness of our sins ; who is the im- 
 age, &:c." Now who is the image ? He by iDhose, blood 
 we have redemption. And who is it, that shed his 
 blood?" The preceding context tells us, that it was 
 God^s dear Son, Was it tlien the eternally begotten and 
 coequal Son that shed his blood ? Or was it the incar- 
 nate Logos i. e. the Messiah, who made atonement by 
 suffering ? 
 
 In exactly the same strain is the passage in Hebrews. 
 " Who, (being the irradiation of his glory, and the ex- 
 press image of him,"* and directing all things by his om- 
 nipotent control.) having made expiation by himself for 
 our sins, sat down at the right hand of the majesty on 
 high." 
 
 Who then made expiation by suffering for our sins? j 
 Surely the Messiah, not the eternal Logos. The same 
 person then is the irradiation of the Father's glory, and 
 his peculiar image. 
 
 I have reviewed the arguments, on which Turretine 
 depends, to prove the doctrine in question from the 
 Scriptures. I find in most of them confirmation of an 
 opinion very diverse from his. 
 
 Some other arguments must be noticed, before I leave 
 the subject ; for 1 would not wittingly leave any im- 
 portant argument unexamined, which is brought to es- 
 tablish the doctrine in question. 
 
 * Tr]g V7ToaTUG6(x)g uvtov 1 take to be simply a translation of the 
 Hebrew 1-5:, so often used to designate him, himself^ kc. 
 
Let. IX.] IN FAVOUR of eternal generation. 135 
 
 Much reliance has been placed, on a passage in Heb. 
 1:2; "By whom he made the worlds," i.e. by the 
 Son, the Father made the worlds. Now if the Logos 
 was not Son before the creation of the worlds, how could 
 the Father make the worlds by him ? 
 
 I am rather surprised that Turretine should not have 
 made an argument of this ; for it really seems to me 
 much more specious, than any which he has produced. 
 I will not attempt to show that the passage is capable 
 of a different translation ; although I might say some- 
 thing in behalf of this. For the preposition c)V«, when 
 governing the Genitive as here, does not always mean 
 hy^ in the sense oi cause, or instrumental cause, but plain- 
 ly means, in some cases, on account of. See Rom. 5 : 19. 
 8:3. 2Cor. 9:13, 14. So in Gen. 8: 21. 12: 13, 16, in the 
 Septuagint, being a translation of the Hebrew ^^^^'^l he- 
 cause of, on account of So also in Schneider's excellent 
 Lexicon, under No. 2 of dm, he gives wegen, on account 
 of It might be said too, since the tenth verse describes 
 the creative power of Christ as Jehovah, that the 
 repetition of the same sentiment in the verse in question 
 is rather improbable ; ai-d that a more probable version 
 of it therefore is, " on account of whom, he created the 
 worlds;" which would comport very well with the ele- 
 vation and glory of the Mossiah, as displayed in the rest 
 of the chapter. 
 
 But omitting to urge this, I am content to take our 
 Version as it stands, acknowledging that it accords well 
 with the predominant meaning of dia, when placed be- 
 fore the Genitive. Does the apostle, then, mean to as- 
 sert or even to imply the fact of eternal generation, or 
 eternal Sonship ? 
 
 The answer to this question brings me to the consid- 
 
136 EXAMINATION OF ARGUMENTS [LeT. IX. 
 
 eration of a special principle, in regard to the appella- 
 tions occasionally given to the Messiah. It is this, that 
 designations originally descriptive merely of quality, 
 rank, &;c, in process of time, by frequent usage, become 
 proper names, and are very commonly substituted for 
 them, so as to be descriptive of the whole person, or 
 being. Such is the case with several of the names giv- 
 en to Christ. The very appellation Christ, signifies 
 anointed ; 6 ^pioTog the anointed one, the king, the special 
 supreme ruler of God's people. Yet this name, (the 
 same as Messiah, being merely a Greek translation of the 
 Hebrew H'^'ipS) originally applicable only to the incar- 
 nate Logos, or the Logos as dwelling among men, and 
 afterwards reigning over them in a nature like theirs, is 
 used also to describe either part of this compound per- 
 son ; the human nature, or the divine. '• Of whom, as 
 concerning the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, God 
 blessed forever." Here Christ is used to designate both 
 the human and divine natures. So the Spirit, which 
 wrought in the ancient Jewish prophets, is called the 
 spirit of Christ, 1 Pet. 1: 11; although strictly speak- 
 ing, Christ did not appear until many centuries after- 
 wards. On the other hand, the word Christ designates 
 the human nature in countless instances. When it is j 
 said that Christ was born, that he laboured, suffered, ' 
 died, rose again, &:c, all this evidently pertains of neces- 
 sity to that nature, which was capable of these changes, j 
 In nearly all the cases that occur of the use of the word, 
 respect is had entirely to his mediatorial state, i. e. either 
 to the humble, or to the exalted part of it. But, as the 
 instances above produced show, ihe word in process of 
 time became a proper name, which was ca[)abie of de- 
 scribing both natures; and was occasionally used, ulien 
 the Saviour is spoken of as divine and nut as human. 
 
Let. IX.] IN FAVOUR of eternal generation, 137 
 
 Such is the case with another term of designation, 
 which the Saviour applied to hiaiself more frequently 
 than any other; I mean Son of 7nan. According to 
 the idiom of the Shemltish languages, Son of man means 
 simply man^ a man descended from human parents. But 
 as applied to the Saviour, it means, most probably, the 
 seed of the woman who should bruise the serpent's head ; 
 the seed promised to Abraham ; the son who was pro- 
 mised to David, as the heir of his throne ; the son who was 
 to be born of the virgin^ whose name was to be Wonder- 
 ful, &c. In all these promises, there is special refer- 
 ence to that nature, which was to be born or generated. 
 But notwithstanding the evident import of the title Son 
 of man ^ according to its original use; yet it \?> sometimes 
 employed in such a sense, as necessarily to designate a 
 nature preceding the human one, i. e. a nature divine. 
 " What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up, 
 where he was before ?" John 6: 62. " The Father hath 
 given the Son to have life in himself (1. e. to call the 
 dead from their graves, to give life to the dead, com p. 
 vs. 28, 29 ;) and hath given him authority to execute 
 judgment also, because he is the Son of man^ John 5: 
 26, 27. 
 
 Surely as Son of man, or a descendant of Mary, he 
 had not lived in heaven before his birth ; nor simply as 
 such a personage, is judgment committed to him, and the 
 power of raising the dead. It was a more exalted na- 
 ture which dwelt in heaven, before the birth of Jesus ; 
 and it was for a higher reason than that Jesus was of 
 human origin, that he is enabled to raise the dead, and 
 is commissioned to judge the world. 
 
 Now just what happens In respect to the titles Christ 
 and Son of man, happens in regard to the title Son of 
 19 
 
138 EXAMINATION OP ARGUMENTS [LeT. IX. 
 
 God. It desl^ates the Messiah, the incarnate Lo^os, 
 in its proper and original use as applied to Christ. But 
 in after times, it was occasionally used to describe either 
 nature. So in the Epistle to the Hebrews, it is said, 
 "They crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh." 
 Heb. 6. And in Acts 3:26, Peter speaks of God's hav- 
 ing raised up his Son. Many other passages of the same 
 tenor might easily be produced, if it were necessary, in 
 order to show that the term Son is occasionally employ- 
 ed to designate only the human nature of Christ ; for 
 surely the divine nature was neither crucified nor rais- 
 ed up. 
 
 In a similar way, also, the term Son of God is em- 
 ployed to indicate the divine nature ; as in the passage in 
 question. The sentiment is, that the Logos created the 
 world ; and so says John, in the first chapter of his gos- 
 pel. That God created the world by the Logos imports, 
 I think almost necessarily, a distinction in the Godhead. 
 Does not John imply the same when he says the Logos 
 was with God? But I shall not attempt to describe the 
 nature of this distinction. The form of expression, which 
 we are examining, does not present any more real diffi- 
 culty than is presented when Moses says, ''Jehovah 
 rained from Jehovah fire and brimstone upon Sodom and 
 Gomorrha, &c." And at most, the use of the term Son 
 here would no more prove the eternal generation of the 
 divine nature, than the use of the term Son of man would 
 prove that Christ had been Son of man in his pre-exist- 
 ent state. (See John 6: 62.) 
 
 Indeed the very first verse of the Epistle to the He- 
 brews, seems pretty plainly to intimate, that the specu- 
 lations of the Fathers, about the manifestations of the 
 Son of God to the ancient patriarchs and prophets, are 
 
Let. IX.] IN FAVOUR of eternal generation, 139 
 
 not well grounded ; although these sy)eculations are still 
 very common among Christians. "God, who at sundry 
 times and in divers ma/i/ier5, spake to the fathers by the 
 prophets, hath in these last days spoken to us by his 
 Son.^^ And on the ground, that these last days enjoy 
 the preeminence of being addressed by the Son^ the apos- 
 tle urges the danger of more severe condemnation, in 
 case the word spoken is rejected ; Chap. 2: 1 — 4. Does 
 this seem to recognize the fact, that the Son of God 
 addressed the ancients ? That the Logos inspired the 
 prophets, and appeared to the patriarchs, may be true, 
 (though I do not assert it ;) but to later times was reserv- 
 ed the peculiar privilege of being addressed by the Son 
 of God, the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and 
 truth. 
 
 In the succeeding context, moreover, Paul says ; 
 " When he bringeth his first begotten into the world, 
 he saiuh. Let all the angels of God worship him." From 
 what Scripture the apostle selected this passage, cannot 
 now be shewn, if the quotation is designed to be a ver- 
 bal one. No such words are now extant in any part of 
 the Hebrew Scriptures; and although in the Septuagint 
 Deut. 32: 43, words nearly the same in sound occur, the 
 sense appears to be very different from that given by 
 the apostle. Be this as it may ; the introduction of the 
 first begotten into the world, whether it refer to his 
 birth, or his official introduction, necessarily imports a 
 time subsequent to the formation of tijc angels, who, 
 as already existing, are commanded to worship him. If 
 therefore it apply at all to the point in question, it is 
 clearly against the doctrine o[ eternal generation. 
 
 In the fourth chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews, 
 is a passage, which has appeared to some, to import that 
 
140 EXAMINATION OF ARGUMENTS [LeT. IX. 
 
 the title Son is descriptive of the original nature, and 
 not the official character of Christ. The writer repre- 
 sents Moses as entrusted with the house or family of 
 God, as his servant, in order to instruct them. Bat 
 Christ possessed authority over this house as B.Son ; i. e. 
 as they explain it, as one who inherits ; — who has a su- 
 perior claim by virtue of his derivation. 
 
 But the question, which the Apostle is endeavouring 
 to illustrate here, is not concerning the origin of Moses 
 and of Christ. The inquiry is not. Who possesses a dig- 
 nity by derivation^ which is superior. It is simply wheth- 
 er Moses and Christ were at the head of their respec- 
 tive dispensations,'in the same capacity; and so wheth- 
 er they are officially entitled to equal honour and re- 
 spect. Moses, says the apostle, was entrusted with his 
 house, simply as a servant; he was, in no sense rccd 
 lord over it, but only the steward of another. But 
 Christ was Lord over his house ; he was supreme arbi- 
 ter, governor, judge ; he acted not in a mere subservient 
 capacity, but as a Son, (who is virtual owner of the pa- 
 ternal state,) he claimed and exercised dominion over it. 
 
 Exactly in conformity with this, is the sentiment of 
 the same writer, in Chap. 1:2 ; which asserts that God 
 has constituted the Son -nAtj^ovofjiov navrcov heir of the 
 universe^ i. e. lord, possessor of it. Now here is evidently 
 the same property in the universe, which is described in 
 Chap, iii, where his possession is represented as that 
 of a Son. But could and did God constitute the eter- 
 nal and necessarily begotten and coequal Son, the pos- 
 sessor of the Universe ? Or was this done, when 
 the Messiah was exalted to the throne of universal do- 
 minion ? 
 
 There is still another class of passages that often oc- 
 
Let. IX.] IN FAVOUR of eternal generation. 141 
 
 cur, in which the sacred writers speak of God's sending 
 his Son into the world; giving his Son for us ; sending 
 forth his Son made under the law, &c ; and Christ is re- 
 presented as coming from God, coming into the world, 
 Sic. Passages of this class, I apprehend, produce more 
 effect upon the belief of a common reader of the bible, 
 in respect to the doctrine in question, than almost any 
 other; for to one unacquainted with the original idiom 
 of the Scriptures, such passages seem to import that 
 Christ was Son. before he came into the world, i. e. as 
 they understand it, before he was born of the Virgin 
 Mary. On this account, I must take special notice of 
 this class of texts. 
 
 First, then, I would observe, that one general objec- 
 tion lies against interpreting any of these texts in the 
 manner described ; for if filiation be understood of the 
 Logos himself, it would imply, of course, that he had 
 been twice Son — Son in his divine nature, and Son in his 
 human nature ; a doctrine which, although believed by 
 some of the Fathers, and advocated in this form, is not, 
 so far as I can perceive, taught in any part of the Bible. 
 
 On the other hand, if we suppose that Christ is call- 
 ed Son, as it were in the literal sense, on account of his 
 supernatural birth ; and Son in a figurative sense on ac- 
 count of his office ; this involves nothing of the difficul- 
 ties of two literal filiations ; a doctrine which, I cannot 
 think, will now be seriously defended. 
 
 But to review some of the passages in question. John 
 3: 16, "God so loved the world, that he gave his only 
 begotten Son." The sense of this passage, I take not 
 to be, " He sent him to men ;" or, " He gave him to 
 men ;" for then after the verb edcoxev^ it would have been 
 necessary to insert avtcp or xoa/bKp, to designate the per- 
 
142 EXAMINATION OF ARGUMENTS [LeT. IX. 
 
 Sons for whose benefit the gift was made. The mean- 
 ing is, " God gave up his Son to death on acconnt of 
 men. Conip. Luke 22: 19. Gal. 1:4. Rom. 8:32. John 
 6: 31. But it was not an eternal Son, who died for men. 
 
 If any, however, are disposed to call in question the 
 interpretation just given; no advantage can be gained 
 for the doctrine of eternal generation, by denying it. 
 That God gave his Son for the salvation of men, is ade- 
 quately explained by the fact, that the Logos became 
 incarnate ; that Jesus the Saviour was born, lived, suf- 
 fered, and died for men. God did indeed give his Son 
 for our salvation. 
 
 In verse 17, however, we have the formula in its full 
 strength, on which the argument for eternal filiation is 
 built. " God sent not his Son into the world, to con- 
 demn the world, &c." The sending of the Son into the 
 world, and his coming into the world are correlate terms, 
 both having reference to the same fact, namely the divine 
 mission of Christ; the one designating the part which 
 God performed in respect to this mission ; the other 
 the part performed by the Son. The question in both 
 of these cases is, Does the action o[ sending the Son in- 
 to the worlds or of the Son'^s coming into the world relate 
 to the birth of the Christ, or to his mediatorial ojice 
 amono; men? If the former, it is possible that texts of 
 this class may imj)ly a filiation previous to his birth of 
 Mary ; if the latter, then nothing is added to the argu- 
 ments in favor of the doctrine of eternal generation. 
 It is said, John 1 : 9, that the Logos " was the true light, 
 which coming into the world enlighteneth every man." 
 This form of expression, in general, seems more favor- 
 able to the doctrine which I am opposing, than the one 
 in John 3:17, God sent — his Son, 
 
Let. IX.] IN FAVOUR of eternal generation. 143 
 
 I will not deny, that in the Hebrew dialect, or rather 
 in the Rabbinical, the phrase to come into the world fre- 
 quently has reference to the birth of men. iDxI^D i^lS 
 is said of men, who enter upon the stage of terrestrial 
 existence. But in the New Testament, the same phrase, 
 or substantially the same, is often used in the sense of 
 entering upon the duties of any public office^ specially the pro- 
 phetic office. Thus in John 1 : 6, it is said of John Bap- 
 tist, " There was a man sent from God ; (v. 7) The 
 same came to testify, &;c." So in Matt. 11: 18, it is 
 said of the same John ; " He came neither eating, nor 
 drinking, &c ;" and in v. 14, "This is Elijah, who was 
 to come, 6pX€a&ai,^^ In John 7 : 28, Jesus says, " I came 
 not of myself, but he who is worthy of credit sent me ;" 
 in which, most evidently his mission as Messiah, and not 
 his birth is referred to. So in John 5 : 43, '^ I have 
 
 come in my father's name, if another come in his own 
 
 name, &c." Hence 6 cp/o^f^o^ was a common title 
 bestowed by the Jews on the Messiah ; or its equiva- 
 lent, 6 eX{>cov. Matt. 3:11. 1 John 5 : 6. But the pas- 
 sage, which of all makes it most clear what coming into 
 the icorld means as applied by Jehovah to the Messiah, 
 is found in John's Gospel, ch. 18: 37, " Then said Pilate 
 to him, Art thou a King? Jesus replied, it is as thou 
 sayest. I am a King. For this end was I born ; and 
 for this purpose came I into the worlds in order that I 
 might publish the truth." The latter clause, appended 
 to coming into the world in order to show the object of 
 his public appearance, makes it absolutely necessary to 
 distinguish between his birth and his coming into the 
 world. 
 
 Rabbinic usage, also, justifies this explanation, l^^ni^ D"! 
 the master has come, means that he teaches, or is teaching. 
 
144 EXAMINATION OF ARGUMENTS [LeT. IX- 
 
 One other consideration must not be omitted. If the 
 hirth of Jesus be meant here, by his coming into the worlds 
 in what sense can it be said that he was the true light 
 ((pcog aAr^&tvov) that enlightencth every man ? Was he 
 indeed so by his simple birth, and his thirty years resi- 
 dence In private life, and in obscurity? Or was he the 
 true light then, and only then, when he came Into the 
 world so as to become the teacher of mankind ? 
 
 Uniting all these considerations, the proof becomes, 
 to my mind, irresistible, that the Son's coming into the 
 worlds and being sent into the worlds relates to his pub- 
 lic and prophetic office, and not to his birth. 
 
 In Rom. 8: 3, God's sending his Son in the likeness of 
 sinful men, is so plainly an instance which relates to the 
 incarnate condition of Christ, that comment is unnecessa- 
 ry. In Rom. 8: 23, " God give up his Son for us all," is a 
 clear case of devoting him to an expiatory death; which 
 was not suffered by a nature immutable and divine. 
 
 In Gal. 4: 4, it is said, "God sent forth, [£h,a7ieaTei^ev) 
 his Son, born of a woman, and born under the law, in 
 order that he might redeem. &c." Here it is the Son 
 horn of a woman^ and born under the law, who is sent forth, 
 and who redeems; not a Son eternally begotten. 
 
 In Acts 3: 215, Peter speaks of God's sending his Son, 
 after he had raised him from the dead. But what Son 
 died; and what Son was raised from the dead ? 
 
 In 1 John 4 : 9, it is said, " God sent his only begotten 
 Son into the world, that we might live by him ;" and in 
 the next verse, " He sent his Son to be a propitiatory 
 sacrifice for us ;" and in v. 14, "The Father sent his 
 Son, to be the Saviour of the world." Comment on these 
 verges is unnecessary, after what has been already ex- 
 hibited, in respect to the idiom of John. 
 
Let. IX.] IN FAVOUR of eternal generation. H3 
 
 These passages exhibit^ as I believe, all the varieties 
 of the phraseology in question. If there be any that 
 have escaped my notice, I think they will present no 
 more difficulty, than those which have already been ex- 
 amined. 
 
 Two passages of a peculiar complexion, in the Gospel 
 of John, remain yet to be examined. John 5: IS, it is 
 said, " The Jews souglit to kill him (Christ) because he 
 not only violated the Sabbath, but said that God was his 
 own father, making himself equal to God." 
 
 The first question that arises here, is, Does the Evan- 
 gelist mean to aver, that saying God was his own Fa- 
 ther, was making himself equal to God ? Or does he 
 mean to state this, as the conclusion of the Jews from 
 the words of Jesus ? Most evidently the latter; for in the 
 very clause before, we find " because that he (Christ) 
 profaned the Sabbath," which surely we are not to un- 
 derstand as the allegation of the Evangelist, but of the 
 Jews. 
 
 The Jews, then, said that Christ made himself equal 
 to God, by asserting that he was the Son of God. But 
 did the Jews, in their zeal to ensnare the Saviour by his 
 language, and in their bitter persecuting fury, always 
 act the part of candor, in deducing conclusions from 
 what he said? Nothing can be more unsafe, than to 
 trust to such expositors of the Saviour's words. 
 
 In the very case under consideration, the context (v. 
 16) informs us, that the Jews "persecuted Jesus and 
 sought to kill him," because he had healed the sick man 
 at the pool of Bethesda, on the Sabbath. "Jesus repli- 
 ed, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work. On this 
 account the Jews souo:ht still more to kill liim, because 
 20 
 
146 EXAMINATION OP ARGUMENTS [LeT. IX. 
 
 he not only profaned the sabbath, but said that God was 
 his own Father, making himself equal with God." 
 
 Observe now, how they pervert the expression Tny fa- 
 ther^ so as to make the intensive accusation, " Said that 
 God was his own Father." And what follows? Why that 
 if he said God was his own Father, he claimed a spe- 
 ciality ofSonship, which was supernatural ; and therefore 
 made himself equal to God. 
 
 The reply of Jesus to this embittered accusation is 
 such as was calculated to abate the force of that con- 
 clusion, which they had drawn from his calling God his 
 Father, "Jesus answered, I solemnly assure you, the 
 Son can do nothing of himself but what the Father 
 does." (v. 19) That is, the appellation Son of God does 
 not mean, of course, as you have interpreted it, a claim 
 to full equality with God, you deduce more from my 
 words than they will bear. Your accusation of blasphe- 
 my is not well grounded. 
 
 That the nature of this reply has been correctly re- 
 presented here, is very strongly confirmed by a similar 
 passage in John 10: 33 — 39. 
 
 The Jews had taken up stones to cast at Jesus, be- 
 cause he had called God his Father. Jesus inquired 
 what reason they had for doing so? They replied," be- 
 cause that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. Je- 
 sus answered. Is it not written in your Law, I have said, 
 ye are gods? Now if those are called ^0^5, to whom the 
 word of God was addressed, (and the Scriptures cannot 
 be disannulled,) Say ye of him whom the Father hath 
 consecrated and sent into the world. Thou blasphemest, 
 because I said I am the Son of God T'' 
 
 That is ; " If princes, who were addressed in the 
 82d Psalm, were called gods^ by the inspired writer, 
 
Let. IX.] IN FAVOUR of eternal generation. 147 
 
 (and surelj you will not call in question the propri- 
 ety of what is contained in your own Scriptures ;) is it 
 blasphemy for me, who have been consecrated by most 
 special acts on the part of God the Father to the duties 
 of my office, and sent forth among men to fulfil them, as 
 the Messiah, the great Prophet who was to be raised up 
 among you ; — is it blasphemy for me, to call myself the 
 Son of God T^ In other words; If worldly rulers and 
 Kings are called gods, with propriety called so, is it then 
 blasphemous for me, who am King of kings, and Lord 
 of lords, the Messiah of whom all the prophets have 
 spoken such great things, to call myself the Son of God ^ 
 Surely I may, without any blasphemy, ascribe to my- 
 self a title lower than that which the Scripture bestows 
 upon them ? 
 
 It is very evident, in this case, as in the parallel one al- 
 ready noticed, that the simple design of Jesus, in his an- 
 swer, is to repel the unjust accusation of the Jews ; un- 
 just, because that calling God his Father gave them no 
 ground to draw the conclusions which they did. By 
 giving himself the title Son of God, he did not, according 
 to the usus loqnendi of the Jews, expose himself to any 
 such conclusions as his malignant accusers drew from 
 it. Hence in both cases, he repels the accusation, by al- 
 leging that they have deduced more from his words, 
 than they had any right to do ; that if rulers may be 
 called gods, with more propriety still may he appropri- 
 ate to himself the title. Son of God. 
 
 In fact, the Jews were not offended that the title Son 
 of God should be given to the Messiah. They surely 
 expected this ; as appears from the manner in which 
 they understood the passages in the second Psalm, in 
 2 Sam. 7 : 12 — 14, and in the 89th P:jalm ; for they con- 
 
148 EXAMINATION OF ARGUMENTS [LeT. IX. 
 
 strued these as predictions of the Messiah. But they 
 -were offended, that a Galilean, a person of obscure 
 birth, who originated from a despised village, and was 
 of a humble appearance, who rejected all claims to 
 worldly splendor and power, and submitted to the Roman 
 despotism which oppressed his country, should arrogate 
 to himself the titles and honors of the Messiah. — This 
 was what they could not endure. Their malignity to- 
 wards Jesus, on account of their disappointed worldly 
 hopes, was so great, that it exhibited itself in every 
 shape ; and in no way more frequently, than in endea- 
 vouring to entrap him in his words, and to deduce from 
 them matter of accusation. Nothing then, can be more 
 hazardous to sound interpretation, than assuming the 
 position, that they construed the language of Jesus in a 
 right and candid manner. 
 
 In aiiswering them,, and repelling the force of their 
 accusations, I regard the Saviour as neither renouncing 
 nor asserting his proper divinity. He simply used such 
 arguments as were founded in truth, and which repelled 
 the attacks of his adversaries. Farther than this pru- 
 dence w^ould not permit hira to go, at such a time. If 
 the Jews were so violently enraged, because he had 
 claimed the character and name of the Messiah, as 
 exhibited in their Scriptures ; would they have borne 
 with his advancing claims to a truly divine character; or 
 were they in a condition to hear these claims advanced, 
 and to examine them with candour.^ 
 
 Is it probable too that Jesus, who so often exhibited 
 himself as a preacher of truth not only forcible, but well 
 timed and exactly adapted to the circumstances of his 
 hearers; who so frequently charged his Apostles not to 
 publish among the Jews that he was the Christ ; and so 
 
Let. IX.] IN TAvouR of eternal generation. 149 
 
 frequently enjoined upon those whom he had healed of 
 distressing maladies, that they should not make him 
 known; and this because of some peculiar prejudice 
 among the Jews at that time against him, or special ex- 
 asperation of mind towards him, so that they were not 
 In a condition to hear and candidly examine the declara- 
 tion that he was the true Messiah ; is it probable, 
 
 that Jesus would have then produced his most exalted 
 claims before the Jews, when they were so much enrag- 
 ed, as they plainly were, in each of the cases which we 
 have just been considering ? The answer, to every one 
 who well understands the character and conduct of the 
 Saviour during his mission among the Jews, cannot be 
 difficult. 
 
 But there is another circumstance, in the passage from 
 John X, which must not be passed in silence. This is, 
 that the reason which Jesus gives why it was pro[)er for 
 him to call himself the Son of God, is, that " the Father 
 had consecrated him, and sent him upon his mission;" 
 i. e. the Father had consecrated him to the office of 
 Messiah, and had sent him to fulfil the duties of it. But 
 this Is surely a very different reason from that which the 
 Jews assigned; and very different from his being called 
 Son, because he was eternally and necessarily begotten. 
 
 One other argument employed to defend the doctrine 
 of eternal generation, but not drawn immediately from 
 the Scriptures, I must not omit to notice. In substance It 
 is this. ''''Father is the distinctive title of the first Person 
 in the Trinity, as such; consequently the correlative 
 title of Son seems to be called for by the second per- 
 son 05 such. And unless the second person of the Trin- 
 ity be distinguished by such a title, by what appropri- 
 ate name are we to call him ?" 
 
150 EXAMINATION OF ARGUMENTS [LeT. IX. 
 
 The first part of this argument, if I rightly under- 
 stand it, is a petitio principii in respect to the point in 
 question. Is God the Father so called in respect to his 
 relation to the other persons of the Godhead, or, if you 
 please, to the eternal Son; or is he styled Father, on 
 account of his relation to his creatures, and to the Son 
 supernaturally conceived in the womb of the Virgin, and 
 exalted to the Messiah's throne ? Here is surely a 
 question ; the answer to which cannot be assumed, but 
 must be supported by arguments. 
 
 On p. 84, you have said, very justly, that " the kind 
 of distinction expressed by the word person in the God- 
 head — we do not know ; and that it is not explained in 
 the Scriptures." How then can it be said, (as in p. 90) that 
 Father is the distinctive title of the first person in the 
 Trinity, as such? If we neither know what the distinc- 
 tion is, nor have it explained by the Scriptures, how can 
 we affirm, that the terms Father and Son are used as 
 a characteristic designation of original relations in the 
 Godhead. The Scripture that would support this, must 
 be the Scripture which would prove the Son to have 
 been eternally generated ; and as I have already exam- 
 ined this subject, it would be improper for me to repeat 
 my views of it in this place. 
 
 There is surely no more necessity of supposing that 
 God always existed as a Father, than that he always ex- 
 isted as a Creator, or Governor. Surely he was not a 
 creator before he created ; nor a governor before he 
 had subjects. Nor is it any more congruous, to sup- 
 pose that he was a Father before he had a Son. The 
 question then returns ; When was the Son, as such, 
 (not as Logos but as Son) generated } To assume, 
 that it was from eternity, and that Father expresses 
 eternal relation, is therefore petitio principii. 
 
Let. IX.] IN FAVOUR OF ETERNAL GENERATION. 151 
 
 On the other hand ; if Father, Son, and Holy Spirit 
 are words, which designate the distinctions of the God- 
 head as manifested to ks in the economy of redemption, 
 (which after the preceding investigation I cannot doubt;) 
 and are not intended to mark the eternal relations of 
 the Godhead, as they are in themselves, and in respect 
 to each other; then we may easily account for these 
 designations, without being obliged at all to recur to the 
 supposition, which you seem to think inevitable. 
 
 As to the rest of the difficulty proposed by the argu- 
 ment ; no great effort surely could be necessary to sub- 
 stitute other names for those of Father and Son, if it 
 were expedient. Doubtless it is not expedient ; for 
 shall not Christians use, and delight to use, those appel- 
 lations, by which God, in the economy of redemption, 
 has revealed himself to us.^* And may they not view 
 them, (the names and the relations revealed to us, not 
 the actual distinctions of the Godhead) as springing out 
 of the economy of redemption ? I see no more difficul- 
 ty in it, than in supposing that the name Creator sprung 
 from the act of Creation ; or Lord from the act of gov- 
 erning all things created. 
 
 But while I believe this, I have no imaginable objec- 
 tion to speaking of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in such 
 a way now, as to designate the distinctions of the God- 
 head thereby. My reason is, that they have become, 
 hy usage, proper names ; and therefore no objection can 
 lie against such usage. But when the inquiry is, wheth- 
 er these names originally came from internal distinctions 
 in the Godhead, or from the manner in which the God- 
 head is revealed to us in the economy of redemption, 
 something more than a popular view of the names be- 
 comes proper. 
 
152 EXAMINATION OF ARGUMENTS [LeT, JX, 
 
 But to the question, What title distinguishes the sec- 
 ond person of the Trinity as such, (i. e. as the Godhead 
 is in itselQ an answer may surely be given ; and a Scrip- 
 tural one too. John tells us that the Logos was in the 
 heginning, and loas God ; and that when he became flesh, 
 we beheld the glory of the Only Begotten. Here then 
 is a name, for the second distinction of the Trinity as 
 such, which is of apostolic authority — of inspired origin. 
 
 After all, it seems to me that things rather than 
 names, are the principal subject of our inquiry. If I 
 might insist on names, I would ask, how can Christ be 
 called the everlasting Father, as he is by Isaiah ? How 
 can the Son be the Father ? But in doing this, I should 
 think myself employed in a manner that would not well 
 comport with sincere desires, to find what is true rather 
 than what would perplex. 
 
 But it is time to bring this long letter to a close. I 
 do not pretend to have examined in it all the texts or 
 arguments, which have ever been adduced to support 
 the doctrine in question ; but I have not purposely neg- 
 lected any that are known to me, which I have deem- 
 ed of sufficient importance to notice. My aim is to find 
 what is true ; not to use the art of a disputant, who is 
 merely desirous to maintain that side of a question which 
 he has espoused. 
 
 And now, in view of this examination by the light of 
 vScrlpture and reason, what says conscience to the doc- 
 trine of eternal and necessary generation ? I am very 
 far from undertaking to speak for others ; but for my- 
 self, I cannot, in conscience, admit the doctrine in ques- 
 tion. I do sincerely believe it is not only inconsistent 
 with the fundamental predicates of that awful Being, 
 
 who is SELF EXISTENT and INDEPENDENT and IMMUTABLE ; 
 
 s 
 
Let. IX.] IN FAVOUR of eternal generation. 153 
 
 but I must believe, after as thoroutrh an examination as 
 I have been able to make of the Scriptures, that it lias 
 no support in the word of God. Nay, so far from this 
 is it, that it does contra(hct and oppose the iisus loqucn- 
 di of the sacred volume. With such views, can I follow 
 the Council of Nice ; or must I follow what I regard as 
 the plain dictates of Scripture and reason ? f cannot hes- 
 itate a moment which to do ; nor, with my convictions, 
 would you hesitate a moment in rejecting the doctrine 
 in question. Whether the reasons which satisfy my 
 mind will be sufficient to satisfy the minds of others, is 
 more than 1 would venture to predict, and can be known 
 only from the result of experiment. That experiment, 
 the love of truth (unless I deceive myself) Induces me 
 to make, in submitting these reasons to your eye and to 
 that of the public. It is time the question were settled 
 in the minds of those who love the Saviour, and that it 
 should no more be a cause of difference or alienation be- 
 tween them. If these Letters should contribute to 
 elicit a discussion, in which truth, whatever it is, may be 
 developed in a manner satisfactory to the minds of all, 
 it will not be in vain that they have been written. 
 
 21 
 
LETTER X. 
 
 Rev. and dear sir, 
 
 The design of the present Letter is to make several 
 miscellaneous observations, which seem to me expedi- 
 ent, before I take my leave of the subject. 
 
 The strength with which you have stated your con- 
 viction of the error of those who reject the doctrine of 
 eternal generation, when you sav, " It is a most pre- 
 sumptuous assumption of the principle, that God is a 
 being altogether such an one as ourselves /" that it is " as 
 UNPHiLosopHiCAL as it Js IMPIOUS ;" and that *• where thia 
 doctrine is abandoned, neither the doctrine of the Trin- 
 ity nor the Divine character of the Saviour will be long 
 retained ;" (pp. 86, 88, 90,) induces me to solicit your 
 attention, for a few moments, to some considerations re- 
 specting this aspect of our subject. 
 
 With you, I can easily admit that it is philosophical^ 
 to suppose that God, who has existed from eternity, may 
 have acted from eternity. There can be no objection 
 to this. But is it philosophical^ first to lay down the po- 
 sition, that it is an essential characteristic of God to be 
 independent and self existent, and then to say that an em- 
 anated, derived, generated being is or can be really God, 
 in this high and only true sense ? If it be replied, that 
 the manner of generation, emanation, or derivation is to- 
 tally different, in the case under consideration, from any 
 thing of this nature, in respect to what is created or 
 human; I accede. About the manner, I have not one 
 word to say. Let it be as mysterious, or as different 
 
Let. X.] CONCLUDING remarks. 155 
 
 from human or created productions or emanations as 
 can be imagined, and I have nothing to oppose. But 
 the manner must not be confounded with the fact itself. 
 If generation^ or (to use the word which you seem to 
 prefer, p. 87,) emanation from God do not mean deriva- 
 tion, in some sense or other, as a fact ; then, without the 
 fear of being unphilosophical, 1 make bold to say that 
 to my mind it appears an unmeaning term. But if it do 
 mean derivation, in any method, then it is impossible, 
 for me, with the views which I now have of the nature 
 of things and of language, to see, that a being derived 
 can be a being self existent and independent ; and impos- 
 sible for me to regard as God supreme, a being that is 
 not self existent and independent. These predicates en- 
 ter essentially into your definition and mine of Godhead ; 
 at least they do in every case, where we are not in a 
 polemic attitude. 
 
 May I now be indulged in a few remarks, on the alle- 
 gation that those who reject the doctrine of eternal 
 generation will not long hold to the doctrine of the 
 Trinity and of the Divine character of the Saviour? 
 
 I know not what ground, in point of fact, there is to 
 draw this conclusion. The second generation of minis- 
 ters is now passing from the stage in New England, 
 who have rejected this doctrine ; and apostasy has been no 
 more frequent among them, than among their brethren, 
 who have embraced it. It is indeed irue, that the strong 
 hold of Unitarianism, in this country, is in the heart of 
 New England. But it is not true, that one third of the 
 clergymen even in Massachusetts belong to the Unitari- 
 ans ; and without the pale of Massachusetts the number is 
 too small to be worth computing, in comparison with 
 the orthodox. But it remains to be shewn, that the re- 
 
156 CONCLUDING REMARKS. [LeT. X. 
 
 jectlon of the doctrine of eternal generation was the 
 leading or introductory step to our Unitarianlsm. Far 
 different causes have operated, in producing this effect; 
 causes which it is not my object now to describe; and 
 the consideration of which should not be mingled with 
 the present discussion. 
 
 I am unable to see any approximation in our opinions 
 to Unitarianism. We do believe there is a distinction 
 in the Godhead, the nature of which, as you yourself 
 justly state, p. 84, the Scriptures have not explained. On 
 this distinction, (whicli we can hardly venture witii you 
 to explain as merely a threefold mode of existenct^^ \). 84, 
 but which we suppose may be something more than 
 mode of existence,') are founded the various appellations 
 and exhibitions of the Godhead, in the Scriptures. We 
 believe that the Logos is truly divine ; divine in a sn- 
 preme^uoi in a secondary sense ; and that the Logos did 
 unite himself with " the holy child, that was called the 
 Son of God," so as to form, in a manner inscrutable to 
 us, one person ; of whom could be predicated, with 
 equal truth, a nature human and divine. 
 
 Does your sentiment, now, olTer any advantas^es to 
 those who believe in the essential divinity of Christ, 
 either in comprehending this truth, or in defending it, 
 which are not offered by the sentiment which we em- 
 brace ? I confess, for myself, I cannot help feeling, 
 that the idea of a derived God is, in reality, a vastly 
 greater approximation to Arianism, than that which we 
 adopt ; and that the antagonists of Arius had much less 
 reason to dispute with him than they apprehended. 
 For one, 1 am altogether inclined to say, with good Ire- 
 naeus, " There is nothing in God which is previous or 
 subsequent, or more ancient; consequently no emanation 
 
Let. X.] CONCLUDING remarks. 157 
 
 of this kind can take place." (Lib. IL c. 13.) I cannot 
 but rejoice, at finding in the disciple of Polycarp, the 
 intimate friend of the apostle John, ideas of God which 
 appear to nie so rational and Scriptural. 
 
 The fathers in general, nurtured in the bosom of 
 heathenism and emanation philosophy, and beino- con- 
 cerned with those to whom an emanated God would not 
 be objectionable, do not appear to have apprehended 
 any thing repulsive in the doctrine of generation as to 
 the divine nature. I am unable to accord with them 
 here. The pure, and spiritual, and immutable nature 
 of God, (a truth equally consonant with the Scriptures 
 and with reason,) is so deeply impressed upon me, that 
 I feel an instinctive repulsion to any approximation to- 
 wards such an idea of the Godhead, as interferes with 
 these essential predicates. And I must confess, that 
 with the views which 1 now entertain, if I could be per- 
 suaded that the doctrine of eternal emanation or genera- 
 tion is true, I should ieel that the first step was taken 
 towards embracing the Arian system. 
 
 I am no Subordinarian, in any shape whatever, as it 
 respects the Logos, previously to the incarnation and in 
 himself considered. A subordinate God is, to my mind, 
 a contradiction of terms ; unless the word God is used 
 in a metaphorical sense. I believe in the Jldl, proper, 
 sinireme divinity of the Logos ; that he is self-existent, un- 
 created, mibcgotten, not emanated. Is this approxima- 
 tion to "denying the Trinity and divinity of the Sa- 
 viour?" If it be, I am greatly in error, and wholly un- 
 able at present to discern it. 
 
 Supposing now I were to accuse my Brethren, who 
 embrace the doctrine of eternal generation, of verging 
 to Arianism ; would it be a well grounded accusation ? 
 
158 CONCLUDING KExMARKS, [LeT. X. 
 
 By no means. They assign to Christ the attributes 
 which make him the object of their religious homage, 
 gratitude, and love. They worshiji him sincerely. I 
 would aim to do the same ; but I cannot speculate with 
 them, in every respect, about his nature. I go farther 
 than they do. As God, I assign him self existence and 
 independence. They refer these only to the Father; at 
 least if they speculate with Bishop Bull, and Subordina- 
 rians in general, they do so. Now which of these spe- 
 culative views attributes the highest honour to the Sa- 
 viour? But I forbear to press this question. With all 
 my heart I believe them to be sincere disciples and wor- 
 shippers of the Saviour, and esteem and love them as 
 such. I say only, that with my views of the nature of 
 the Godhead, the doctrine of eternal generation would 
 be the first step for me towards Arianism ; and that it 
 appears to me in reality to differ much less from it, than 
 has been generally supposed. 
 
 I would not intimate a doubt that the Nicene fathers 
 meant, with full and sincere purpose, to oppose the doc- 
 trines of Arius. But in what respects was the opposi- 
 tion made? Oa what points did it light? The answer 
 is not diiTicult to any one who reads attentively and un- 
 derstandingly the history of those times, when the dis- 
 putes with Arius were carried on. The great fact, that 
 the Son of God, in respect to his nature as Logos, was 
 a derived Beings both parties fully acknowledged. In 
 regard to i\riu3, this will not be questioned; and in re- 
 gard to his opponents, the Nicene creed is demonstra- 
 tive evidence of this. The point mainly disputed was, 
 whether Christ was derived from God hy generation and 
 from eternity ; or whether he was produced by creative 
 ■poicer, and was <* the beginning of the creation of God.'' 
 
Let. X.] CONCLUDLN'G REMARKS. 159 
 
 I am not supposed to call in question the comparative 
 superiority of the Nicene doctrine, over that of Arius, 
 in respect to spiritual ideas of the divine nature j or in 
 respect to consistency. Both believed Christ to be the 
 creator of the world, and the object of religious worship. 
 With what consistency Arius could maintain this, is a 
 question that can be solved, only by a view of the im- 
 perfect notions of the divine nature, that pervaded the 
 age in which he lived. And the Nicene fathers (more 
 consistent and more spiritual in their views, because 
 they represented the Creator of the world as eternal^) 
 fell far short of ascribing that exalted character to the 
 Logos, which he truly sustains. While both parties, then, 
 acknowledged a derived Divinity ; while both agreed to 
 call him God; and to represent him as the creator of 
 the world, and the object of religious worship ; and only 
 disputed about the manner and time of his generation ; I 
 have felt it to be no presumption to say, that Arius and 
 the Nicene fathers differed much less, in real senti- 
 ment, than is generally supposed. 
 
 What was wanting in respect to cause of dispute, 
 however, they supplied by vehemence of manner, and 
 warmth of feeling. Both parties were bent on carry- 
 ing their point. That the Nicene fathers succeeded, is 
 matter of sincere joy to me. I look on Arianism as a 
 very great advance towards heathenish ideas of the na- 
 ture of the Divinity. The Nicene fathers were surely 
 more rational, in maintaining that the Creator of the 
 world and the object of religious homage must be eter- 
 nal, and homoousian with the Father. But after all, to 
 represent him as derived and dependent} what is this but 
 to stop short of assigning /w//, essential^ supreme divinity 
 to the Logos ? 
 
160 CONCLUDING REMARKS. [LeT. X. 
 
 If you or others should understand any thing which 1 
 have said on this subject, as designed to convey the most 
 distant reproach, to those who embrace the doctrine of 
 eternal generation, it would be a subject of sincere mor- 
 tification and regret to me. Nothing is farther from my 
 intention than this. But in shewing what reasoub I have, 
 to believe that your fears about the rejection of the doc- 
 trine in question are not well grounded, it seemed to me 
 unavoidable to state my views in respect both to the 
 Nicene creed, and to the sentiments of those who oppos- 
 ed it ; and to endeavour, if possible, to convince you that 
 we are in reality farther from rejecting the proper di- 
 vinity of Christ, than our brethren who adopt the Ni- 
 cene creed. 
 
 I cannot but feel that it is important, also, (if you 
 will permit me to turn your attention to a diiTerent 
 topic,) that we should unite in some plain and obvious 
 principles, in respect to the interpretation of all those 
 passages of Scripture, w^hich speak of the being and 
 j)redicates of God. This is essential to unity of senti- 
 ment, in the result of our investigations. 
 
 With regard to some obvious principles, we are un- 
 doubtedly in perfect unison. We believe that God is a 
 being purely spiritual and incorporeal. Of course, all 
 those parts of Scripture, (and they arc very numerous,) 
 which attribute to him eyes, (eet, hands, and heart ; or 
 walking, moving, ascending, descending, approximating, 
 and receding ; or which attribute to him anger, vengeance, 
 fury, hatred repentance, &c ; or exhibit him as whet- 
 ting his sword, bending his bow, preparing his arrows, 
 brandishing his spear, &;c ; we agree to construe 2isJigU' 
 ratlve language. I'hey indicate, in our view, only some- 
 thing possessed, performed, or threatened, on the part of 
 
Let. X.] CONCLUDING remarks. 161 
 
 God, which has some analogy to like things among men, 
 but which must never be so understood, as to interfere 
 with the idea of his pure and perfect, spiritual and im- 
 mutable nature. The Anthropomorphltes, in the time 
 of Origen, argued from the passage in Gen. 1:26, which 
 speaks of man as made in the likeness of God, that God 
 had a bodily form and organs ; as do the Swedenbor- 
 gians of the present day. But Origen, who had clearer 
 notions of the spirituality of the divine Being than most 
 of his cotemporaries, in reply to this argument, asks 
 them whether men have seven eyes ; as the prophet as- 
 serts that Jehovah has seven. The spirit of this reply 
 is sufficient to meet all the objections that Anthropomor- 
 phltes can bring, to the principle which we admit. 
 
 Let us now proceed one step further. On the suppo- 
 sition, that there are passages of Scriptures, which speak 
 of the Logos as eternally begotten, (which you seem to 
 assert on p. 86, but which I find not in the Scriptures,) 
 would it of course follow, that a real and 'proper genera- 
 tion was intended to be indicated, as Turretine, Ger- 
 hard, and many others have asserted ? I think not : 
 and my reason is, that the nature of God, as a self 
 existent, independent, and immutable Being forbids us to 
 apply such an exegesis; provided we admit that the 
 Logos is, as the Scriptures assert, supreme God, Deri- 
 vation is incompatible with these predicates. All the 
 similles used to illustrate the nature of it. and to justify 
 the opinion in question, are essentially defective ; or else 
 convey notions utterly inconsistent with the doctrine of 
 Christ's true divinity. Take the favourite one of light 
 proceeding from the sun. Is not the irradiation of light, 
 it is asked, coeval with the existence of the sun ? As a 
 philosopher, I should surely answer. No. For if tlio sun 
 
162 CONCLUDING REMARKS. [LeT. X- 
 
 is the cause of irradiation, in the order of time and of na- 
 ture the cause must precede the eff'ecL But dismissing 
 this, and admitting that they are coeval; are they ho- 
 moousian — the same substance — numerically the same ? 
 Turretine, Gerhard, and others who agree with them, 
 represent the Son as having the same numerical essence 
 as the Father. But is the light, which flows from the 
 sun, is the effect of it, and spreads itself over the uni- 
 verse, the same numerical substance as the sun, which 
 remains a solid substance, the cause of light, and undif- 
 fused ? 
 
 With venerable Irenaeus, I protest against all such 
 similies, as amounting to nothing but specious deception, 
 in our reasonings about the nature of the Deity. They 
 are utterly incompetent to answer the object for which 
 they are designed. 
 
 I should feel compelled, therefore, to assign some oth- 
 er meaning to the word Son, than the literal or prop- 
 er one, if I should find it in Scripture, in such a connex- 
 ion as 1 have above stated. I should think it to be ei- 
 ther an appellation of endearment, or of oflice, or of 
 dignity, or of equality. 0( derivation as applicable to a 
 God supreme^ I could not well think. 
 
 There is yet another point, on which I must say a 
 (e\\ things, before I take my leave of the subject. 
 
 It has hitherto been a very severe task for those, who 
 believe in the doctrine of eternal generation^ and of course 
 understand the term Son of God as in itself implying a 
 nature divine, to explain those passages of the New 
 Testament, which speak of the Son as not knowing the 
 day nor the hour, when the destruction of Jerusalem 
 would take place, Mark 13:32; which represent the 
 Father as greater than the Son, John 14:28; which 
 
Let. X.] CONCLUDING remarks, 163 
 
 speak of God as exalting hltn above every creature, 
 Phil. 2: 9 ; and which represent him as finally becom- 
 ing subject to the Father, that God may be all in all, 
 1 Cor. 15: 28. 
 
 I will not undertake here to criticise on the interpre- 
 tations which they have proposed ; but one thing must 
 be plain to the reader who is not biassed by the senti- 
 ments, which the authors of them adopt: 1 mean, that 
 they do, and must do, great violence to the obvious im- 
 port of the language ; which is irreconcileable with the 
 idea that Son of itself indicates a nature truly Divine. 
 On the ground where I stand, the difficulty vanishes, if 
 the double nature of the person of Christ be admitted. 
 The Son of God i. e. the Messiah was in a humble sta- 
 tion, he suffered, he died, he rose from the dead, he 
 was exalted to supreme dominion, he holds it still as the 
 vicegerent of God, governing the world in our nature 
 exalted ; he will continue to do this until the mediatori- 
 al work is finished; and then the duties of the office which 
 he sustained being all accomplished, the office itself will 
 no more be needed. Son, therefore, does primarily in- 
 dicate the inferior nature as united to the divine ; a na- 
 ture that could suffer and could be exalted ; a nature, of 
 course, inferior to that of the Father. But, as happens 
 in other cases and as I have already stated, it sometimes 
 is used as a proper name, to indicate the whole person of 
 Christ. This, however, as I have also endeavored to 
 show, is very far from justifying the use made of this 
 term, to prove the doctrine of eternal generation. 
 
 But I must hasten to take my leave of this protract- 
 ed discussion. Will you permit me, with the most sin- 
 cere respect and fraternal affection to say, that in times 
 like these, which " try men's souls," and promise to exa- 
 
iG4 CONCLUDING REMARKS, [IjET. X. 
 
 ccrbatc the trial, it bodes well to the cause of truth, if 
 those who worship the same God and Saviour, who flee 
 for refuge from the consequences of their guilt, and for 
 dehverance from the power of corruption, to the atoning 
 blood of Jesus and the sanctifying influences of the Holy 
 Spirit, forgetting the lesser diiferences which may de- 
 vide them in regard to the manner of certain truths, 
 unite heart and hand in promoting the kingdom of that 
 vSaviour whom they adore. Sure I am, that it is not a 
 subject of any unkind feelings, of any suspicion, nor the 
 occasion of any want of entire confidence and cordiality 
 in me towards my Christian brethren, that they believe 
 in the doctrine of eternal generation ; and it is not to 
 oppose them, nor to urge them into dispute, that I have 
 thought it proper to publish the preceding Letters. My 
 motives, if I know my own heart, have been, the desire 
 of having truth developed, and of using Diy feeble ef- 
 forts to prevent a breach of perfect cordiality, between 
 brethien who agree in doctrines that are essential ; and 
 whose disagreements consist princi[)ally in ivords, or at 
 most in wdiat is speculative rather than in what is prac- 
 tical. If I have expressed myself with freedom, it aris- 
 es from the strength of my own convictions, in regard to 
 the views which I entertain. But I trust that freedom 
 has been guided by respect to those who differ from me, 
 and wlio are entitled to my fraternal atfection and Chris- 
 tian confidence. 
 
 Was it improper to make an effort to convince you, 
 that, so far as our principles are concerned, we are not 
 so near to Unitarianism as you seem to apprehend ; or 
 to show the Christian public, that we are, in reality, no 
 nearer than those who differ from us, in regard to the 
 doctrine in question ? If you or they can be convinced 
 
Let.X.] concluding remarks. 165 
 
 of this, the danger of division among brethren will be 
 lessened, and the bonds of fraternal and Christian affec- 
 tion cemented. 
 
 But if, after all, joii still think we deserve the re- 
 proof which jou have administered, I shall greatly re- 
 gret it. 1 desire ever to say, " Let the righteous smite, 
 it shall be excellent oil to my head." But when he 
 smites for that which is a matter of conscience and de^ 
 liberate conviction with me, I must have, at least^ the 
 privilege of saying, Ilaxa^ov fiev^ axovoor de. 
 
 And now I have only to add, that if what I have 
 written can be shewn to be inconsistent with the Scrip- 
 tures, with the natural attributes of the divine Being, 
 and with Christian piety, I will blot it out forever, and 
 weep in secret places over an error which contributed, 
 in any way, to dishonour that Saviour, in whom are all 
 my confidence and hope. Show me and my brethren 
 our error, and we will never cease to thank you for a 
 kindness so important to our welfare and usefulness. If 
 we are not deceived, we hold our minds open to exami- 
 nation, j^udi alteram partem is a maxim which a Chris- 
 tian, who earnestly seeks for truth, is bound never to 
 forget. To show us what the Nicene fathers believed 
 will not — cannot satisfy us. The fact we can easily 
 admit ; but the inference, that we are to believe as they 
 did, and because they so believed, neither you would 
 urge, nor we admit. 
 
 Nothing but the respect and affection which I have 
 for you, would have induced me, at present, to under- 
 take the laborious investigation through which I have 
 passed. But 1 acknowledge, that the manner in which 
 you spoke of the sentiments that 1 embrace, did con- 
 strain me to re-investigate them, from a sense of Christian