:7 /?/-) TETTERS 'N T'tE / OF CHRIST: AODKESSRD TO THE REV PRO! ESSOR STUART, Cy ANDOVER, BY SAMUEL MILLER, D D. PH0I2330B OF ECCtESf ASTICAL HISTORT ASD CaUIlCH G-ivEH.VMEE I JT* ISU- THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY OP THE PRESBXTEWAH chl. ¦», at rniircETOKr. PHJTADELPHl' 8LISHED BY W. ' WOODWARD, Np, 53, SOTiTH-WEsT ' r.i.:TM "i' CSE^VWT ASD SECOSD STREETS, 1823. 30$i$i$O! DE \r -"I%ivz;th;ftBvoks:-;\. Tr ford, Zobtl}" Gift of M. RAY SANBORN LETTERS ON THE OF CHRIST. LETTERS ON THE !£W]£I&S9&tb b opposed than yourself to the idea of a derived or inferior God. The very thought is not only inadmissible, but abhorrent. But in your zeal to recede from a doctrine of this kind, you appear to me to fall into a mistake scarcely less hostile to the scriptural doctrine of the 106 TESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE, &C. Trinity. You appear to me to maintain that if the Logos be God, equal with the Father, he must be a completely separate, independent Being, and that each Person of the adorable Trinity, must be possessed of a separate and complete divine character, independently of the other two. But, as I hinted in a preceding Letter, I cannot perceive how this can be maintained without believing in three Gods. Bishop Horsley speaks of " certain injudicious " antagonists of Sabellius, who, to avoid his " error, divided the Holy Trinity into three " persons unrelated to each other, and dis- " tinct in all respects. These, he observes, u Dionysius Romanus condemned, and Atha- " nasius quotes his censure with approbation; " as well, the Bishop adds, he might ; for the " opinion of three Persons in the Godhead, " unrelated to each other, and distinct in all " respects, is rank Tritheism ; because what " are unrelated and distinct in all respects, " are many in all respects, and being many in " all respects, cannot in any respect be one."* As I understand this subject, the three Per sons of the blessed Trinity together constitute One self- existent, independent, and infinitely perfect God. Each of the Persons is to be con* * Tracts in controversy with Priestley, p. 97. TESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE, &C. 107 sidered as equally and completely possessing the same Divine Essence and perfections ; but surely we cannot say, that each Person pos sesses in himself complete, separate, and inde pendent Divinity ; for if we could, then each Person would be a perfect God, independently of the other two ; and of course, might exist with every infinite perfection without them, Whereas, we suppose that the three Persons are essential to the perfect and independent Godhead; that the Godhead could not be what it is, if either Person was wanting; and, conse quently, that no One of them can be said to be, (speaking after the manner of men) abso lutely independent of the other two. Yet you say, (p. .92.) " The Logos is really and verily " divine, self- existent, uncaused, immutable " in himself." Now, I suppose, the phrase " in himself," must mean, as distinguished from, or independently of, the Father, and the Holy Ghost. If this be true of the Logos, it is also true of each of the other Persons. But if this be so, are there not three Gods ? I think proper to state the above considera tion in this place, as forming one of my diffi culties with respect to your system. You will see, in a future Letter, that it stands closely connected with one of your main objections to 108 TESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE, &C my doctrine ; and that until this difficulty is removed, your objection must be considered as divested of the greater part, if not the whole, of its force. III. In my " Letters on Unitarianism," I had urged the following query — " If the se- " concj. Person of the Trinity is not to be dis- " tinguished by the title of Son, what is his " distinguishing title ? By what appropriate " name are we to know him as distinguished il from the other .Persons?" In answer to this question, you say, the term Logm is the title for which I inquire. You declare your full belief that the Logos is, and, of course/ ever was, God, as such. That this term is a title expressive of the Diyine and eternal naiure of the Second Person. " Here, " then," you say, " is a name for the second " distinction of the Trinity, as such, which is " of apostolic authority — of inspired origin." I am not, my dear Sir, by any means satis fied with this answer. I do not, indeed, deny that Logos is a scriptural term ; or that it is a title expressive of true and proper Divinity, and consequently of eternity. But I am con strained to deny that your representation of this matter either relieves any difficulty, or solves my question in a manner which can be TESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE, &C. 109 deemed at all satisfactory. In support of this denial, I beg your attention to the following considerations. 1. In the first place, the term Lqgps, or Word, though repeatedly used in the New Testament, to designate the Saviour, does by no means appear to be the favourite expres sion, if I may so speak, of the inspired writers, to point out his personal and distinctive glory. It is employed only a few times, and almost exclusively by the apostle John, with this meaning. Whereas the term Son, occurs with a frequency and a tenderness which shew that it is the chosen expression of the Spirit of God, to convey the idea of his closest and most endearing relation to the Father. 2. It appeal's to me that the term Logos, or Word, is quite as expressive of derivation and posteriority as the term Son can be said ttA" be ; and quite as liable to objection on this ac count. I may resort to the same mode of meta physical reasoning with respect to this title, to which you resort in reference to the title of Son : and if so, I should say, the term Word signifies something uttered or spoken. But the speaker must be conceived of as always exist ing before the word spoken by him. .Therefore to speak of an eternal Word, is a contradic- K 110 TESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE, &C. tion in terms. I do not admit this method of reasoning ; but it is your method. And if you object to the term Son, as expressive of an eter nal relation, on this ground, I see not but that you must, on precisely the same principle, dis card the term Word, as designating an eternal and necessary Person of the adorable Trinity. 3. The term Logos, or Word, though evi dently applied in scripture to the Divine and eternal nature of Christ, is certainly not ex pressive, so far as we can discern, of any close, and endearing relation to either of the other Persons. The idea of relation between the Persons of the blessed Trinity, as I before in' timated, has generally been considered as es* sential to that perfect unity which the scrip' tures every where represent as existing in the eternal Godhead. It was long ago observed by Calvin, as I had occasion to notice in a pre ceding Letter, (nor was it an idea by any means confined to him) that by Persons in the Godhead, we mean subsistences ineffably re lated to each other, and yet each distinguished from the rest by a peculiar and incommunica ble property. Now, I ask, which of the terms, \Word, or Father, is most expressive of such in timate and endearing relation? Which of them is most frequently brought forward, in such < TESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE, &C. Ill connections as appear intended to be expres sive of this relation to the other Persons. The answer is obvious. Where the term Word is employed to express this relation once, I had almost said the term Son is employed for that purpose fifty times. Indeed, I recollect but a single instance in all the New Testament, in which the term Word is introduced in a man ner which directly marks the relation of Per sons in a Trinity ; and that is in the celebrated passage, 1 John v. 7. which I have reason to believe you do not consider as genuine scrip ture. But in how many instances the term Son is introduced to express this most intimate and essential union, I need not say to those who are familiar with the Bible. 4. I object to the allegation that the term Word, is more strictly expressive of a divine and eternal nature than that of Son ; because, in sundry places, they are used in a manner which evinces that they are of the same im port as to this point. It is said, in 1 Timothy iii. 16, that God was manifested in the flesh ; in John i. 14) that the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us; and it is also said in Romans viii. 3, that God sent his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh. These parallel passages, I should think, would naturally lead 112 TESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE, &C. us to conclude, that there was no reason to con sider the term Word as expressive of a Divine and eternal nature, and the term Son as ex pressive of something inferior. On the con trary they evidently appear to me to mark identity of nature and character. Again ; we are told that the Word was in the beginning with God, and was God; and that all things were made by him, and that without him was not any thing made that was made. And in like manner, we are informed, Hebrews i. that by the Son the worlds were made ; that he laid the foundation of the earth, and that the heavens are the work of his hands. From these and similar passages, I infer that Son and Word are terms equally expressive, not indeed of relation, but certainly of Divine and eternal character. IV. I object to the manner in which you speak of the opinion, that the Son of God ap peared to the Patriarchs, &c. under the old dispensations. You do not, indeed, explicitly deny that Christ did thus appear to the fathers of the ancient church ; but you evidently draw it into' question, and intimate a strong doubt respecting it; (p. 139.) and, if I do not mis take, the whole tendency of the general sys tem which you adopt, in relation to the Son- TESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE, &C. 113 ship of Christ, is to lead to a denial of the fact in question. I have long been a firm be liever in this fact ; and cannot deem it wholly without importance. The proof that Christ did appear to the an cient Patriarchs; that he was the Jehovah, who led the church in the wilderness ; that he was the Angel of the Covenant, who appeared on a great variety of occasions, to instruct, warn, protect, chastise, and guide his people, especially prior to the giving of his written word to be a light to their feet, and a lamp to their path, appears to me to be fairly contained in a great number of scriptures, particularly in Hosea nii. 4, 5. in Acts vii. 30 — 40, and in 1 Cor. x. 4.9. I cannot possibly interpret these scriptures in any other way, than as plainly and decisively teaching the fact referred to. And in the same manner I explain 1 Peter i. 11. Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, fyc. Here the apostle speaks of the Spirit of Christ working in the ancient Jewish Prophets, a number of centuries before he be came incarnate. And although you seem to quote this text (p. 136.) for a very different purpose, it appears to me to fall in entirely k2 114 TESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE, &C with the fact which I am now endeavouring to maintain. Accordingly a number of the early christian Fathers unequivocally assert this fact. Irenseus says, " Jesus Christ was the God who interro gated Adam ; who conferred with Noah, and gave him the dimensions of the Ark; who spake to Abraham ; who brought destroying judgments on the inhabitants of Sodom ; who directed Jacob in his journey, and addressed Moses out of the burning bush at HorebP And Tertullian declares — " We believe that Christ was the Word, by whom God made the "" worlds, and who at various times appeared to the patriarchs and prophets." Unitarians have generally thought it incum bent on them to shew that this is a ground less opinion ; and indefatigably indeed have they laboured for that purpose ; well knowing that the fact in question, if established, would be most unfriendly to their cause. I lament that any countenance should be given by an Orthodox Brother, to the smallest portion of their unhallowed system. But your remarks on this subject appear to be intended to bear particularly on the doctrine of the eternal Sonship of Christ, by showing, that if this doctrine be true, insuperable diffi- TESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE, &C. 115 culties attend the interpretation of Hebrews i. 1, 2. God who at sundry times, and in divers manners, spake unto the fathers by the pro phets, hath, in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, fyc. You ask (p. 139.) " Does " this seem to recognize the fact, that the Son " of God addressed the ancients ?" I answer, it certainly does not deny it. The apostle does not, I apprehend, mean to say, that the Fa ther never spake by the Son before ; but that, in these last days, he spake by him pecu liarly, i. e. more clearly, expressly, and openly than in preceding times. In addition to the scriptures before quoted, we are told that Christ spake by the ancient prophets. 1 Peter i. 11 ; and that he preached to the antediluvian world. 1 Peter iii. 19. But how could he have done either, if your question with respect to the Son has any force? As I have long had some doubt whether Psalm ii. 7. ought to be deemed a decisive warrant for the doctrine of eternal generation, I did not assign it a place among the list of texts produced for that purpose. But I feel very confident, my dear sir, whatever may be the meaning of that passage, that your inter pretation of it cannot stand. The passage in question is this — / will declare the decree: 116 testimony of scripture, &c. The Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my Son ; this day have I begotten thee. You say, (p. 121.) "What is -the decree? " why, plainly that which makes or con- " stitutes him king." I cannot think so. It appears equally plain to me that the seventh verse, though included in the general article commonly called the decree, really makes no part of the decretory clause, properly speak ing ; but that it rather refers to the ground or reason of the decree. I suppose the spirit of it to be exhibited in the following paraphrase : " Thou art my Son ; from eternity have I be- " gotten thee : therefore, ask of me, and I will " give thee the heathen, &c." This interpre tation, if admitted, will of course, set aside your first criticism. You say further, (p. 121) " 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 explains the very passage " in question, in Acts 13 ; accommodating it have laboured in vain ; and, ' what is more, that they have been often and triumph antly refuted. And I have no doubt that you entertain the same opinion. My second remark is, that I do not deny, that some of the Ante-Nicene Fathers do occa sionally speak in a manner which would seem, at first view, to justify the charge which you have brought against them. A few of them are found, no doubt, to express themselves in a way sufficiently fanciful and repulsive concern ing the Aoyog evh'iafletog, and the Aoyog noo^o- pixog : a notion which has been animadverted on by a number of writers within the last two centuries, and on which Bishop Horsley deli vered the following opinion, in his controversy with Dr. Priestley, nearly forty years ago. " If any thing be justly reprehensible in the " notions of the Platonick Christians, it is " this conceit, which seems to be common to " Athenagoras with them all, and is a key to " the meaning of many obscure passages in "• their writings — That the external display " of the powers of the Son in the business of u creation, is the thing intended in the scrip- THE EARLY FATHERS. 153 " ture language under the figure of his gene- " ration. A conceit which seems to have no " certain foundation in holy writ, and no au- " thority in the opinions and doctrines of the " preceding age. And it seems to have be- " trayed some of those who were most wedded " to it, into the use of a very improper Ian- " guage ; as if a new relation had taken place " between the First and Second Persons, when " the creative powers were first exerted."* My third remark is> that, although it must be confessed there is something in the writings of a few of those venerable ancients, to counte nance the _ representation you have made ; yet I cannot think that you have by any means done them justice in the exhibition of them which you have given, in reference to this subject. If it be meant to impute to them the opinion which I before stated, viz. that the Logos immanent or endiathetick, was not a Person, but an attribute of the Godhead ; mere intellect or reason, or wisdom, existing from eternity ; and that the Logos prophorick was considered by them as the formation of this attribute, just before the creation of the world, into a Person, by an act of the Divine will ; * Tracts in Controversy with Dr. Priestley, p. 63, 154 TESTIMONY OF that they called this act the generation of the Son ; and that they believed in no other gene ration ; — I say, if it be meant to impute to them this opinion, — I do verily believe that the imputation is unjust. I cannot,- indeed, claim so extensive an acquaintance with the early Fathers, as I wish it was in my power to claim ; yet I have read enough in them to be very confident that there were very few, if any of them, who really entertained such an opinion as has been just stated. And in this judgment I am supported by the decision of such men as Dr. Waterland, and Bishop Horsley. The latter, while he acknowledges the distinction which some of them make be tween the endiathetick and prophorick Logos, speaks in the following decisive language- — " The conversion of an attribute into a Person, •' whatever Dr. Priestley may imagine, is a " notion to which they were entire strangers. " They held, indeed, that the Son was neces- " sarily and inseparably attached to the at- " tributes of the Paternal mind ; insomuch " that the Father could no more be without " the Son, than without his own attributes. " But that the Son had been a mere attribute " before he became a Person, or that the Pa- " ternal attributes were older than the Son's THE EARLY FATHERS. 155 " personal existence, is a doctrine which they " would have heard with horror and amaze- " ment. With horror as Christians ; with " amazement as philosophers." And after wards, when called to re-consider this deci sion, he still pointedly insists — " For the con- " version of an attribute into a substance, I " abide by my assertion, that it is the offspring " of your own imagination ; and can only have " arisen from a misapprehension of the lan- " guage of the Platonick Fathers."* You are the first Trinitarian that I remember to have heard of, since the days of Petavius and Huet, who ascribed such an opinion to the early wri ters of the Christian church. My fourth remark is, that, with regard to Petavius and Huet, when they are brought forward to prove thatthe early Fathers believed in the simply ante-mundane generation of the Son, their testimony ought to be understood. Petavius, a learned French Jesuit, who flour ished about two hundred years ago, was a firm believer, both in the doctrine of the Trinity, and in that of the eternal generation of the Son. But being greatly incensed at the sepa ration of the Reformed churches from the * Tracts in Controversy with Dr. Priestley, p. 64. 260. 156 TESTIMONY OF Catholick communion; and finding that the Protestant cause was considered as receiving very important support from the writings of the Fathers of the first three centuries; he was anxious to take every method of degrading those Fathers, and destroying their authority. In order to do this most effectually, he en deavoured to shew that they were deeply er roneous with respect to doctrines which the Protestants and Catholicks alike held precious. With regard to Huet, Bishop Horsley observes, that he was the mere " echo of the very learned Jesuit." Of course, so far as authority goes, we have here only the authority of a sin gle man. His arguments, which Unitarians who came after him, borrowed and urged, are supposed by some of the most competent judges in the christian world to be examined and re futed with great learning and force by Bishop Bull, in his Defensio Fidei Nicsense. My fifth remark is, that of the eighteen or twenty Fathers whom you quote, a large num ber afford you no kind of aid ; some, as I hope to prove, are decisively against you; and others are inaccurate only in phraseology. The solitary one or two, — for I think there are no more, — who seem to assert what you impute to them,. if they really do so, ought to THE EARLY FATHERS. 157 be deemed hereticks, and of course, to be placed out of the question in this correspon dence. Yet, I remark, in the sixth place, that, after all, I do seriously doubt whether any one of the Fathers whom you have cited, when the testi mony drawn from his whole writings comes to be impartially canvassed and compared, can be convicted of holding the opinion which you ascribe to them generally. Even Tertullian, (whom, of the whole number, I feel most in clined to give up) was, I firmly believe, a Trinitarian ; and, consequently, not an advo cate of mere ante-mundane generation, as you have represented it. When I find some of those early writers showing, by decisive pas sages, that they are, in the main, right ; and at other times using language (which must be at all times figurative when applied to pure spirit) in an unskilful and incorrect manner; — what am I to infer? Certainly, as it seems to me, that their apparent errors are rather to be ascribed to crudeness of thought, or loose ness of expression, in unguarded moments, ra ther than to any fixed or deliberate system of erroneous thinking. My last remark is, that, in order to make a proper estimate of what is said by the Fathers O 158 TESTIMONY OF on this subject, it is necessary to bear in mind, as Dr. Waterland observed, more than a cen tury ago, that there is a three-fold generation of the Son of God frequently mentioned by those early writers. (1.) The. first is, his eternal generation, or filiation, that is, his eternally existing in and of the Father ; the eternal Logos, or utterance of the eternal Mind. It is in reference to this, primarily and essentially, that they represent him as the only begotten, and a distinct Person from the Father, but of the same substance with him. (2.) His second generation, of which they speak, was his coming forth, from the Father, to exert his power in the work of creation. This is the ante-mundane generation, of which you say so much. It is, of Gourse, represented, by those who speak of it, as taking place in time, and as taking place according to the good pleasure, or will of the Father : and it is in reference to this generation, as some of them supposed, that he is said, by the apostle, to be npcytotoxog Ttaxsriq xtucfsag — First born be fore every creature. (3.) His third generation, or filiation, was when he condescended to be born of a virgin, and to become man. This third, as well as the THE EARLY FATHERS. 159 first, is repeatedly referred to in the sacred scriptures. The second, represented as a birth, appears to be entirely destitute of any scrip- tural, warrant. Sometimes the early Fathers refer to one of these generations, and sometimes to another. But that a number of them, and especially of those quoted by you, fully believed, aad con stantly maintained them all, I hope to produce satisfactory evidence, before I take leave of the subject. When, therefore, you show that a number of those Fathers used language, which can apply only to the second of the genera tions mentioned, you show what I pretend not to disprove or deny. But if my position be cor rect, this can avail you nothing, as to the sub stance of your argument from the Fathers. Whatever fanciful and unscriptural notions some of them might have taken up ; yet if the great body of them evidently believed in a divine and eternal filiation besides; and if even some of those who talk of an ante-mun dane Sonship, in other places speak in a way which can only be interpreted of a Sonship which had no beginning ; then it is manifest that all the speculations concerning the endia- thetick and prophorick Logos which can be quoted, even if they were tenfold more mime- 160 TESTIMONY OF rous than they are, can answer no other pur pose than to prove that those venerable men sometimes wrote in a very weak and injudi cious manner. With these remarks in view, I shall now pro duce some of those passages from the Fathers who lived before the Council of Nice, which have convinced me that the foregoing repre sentation is a simple statement of facts respect ing them. I begin with the Greek Fathers of that period, with the consideration of whose testimony I propose to employ the remainder of this Letter. And here I shall pass over Barnabas and Hermas with very slight notice. I find no thing in either of them decisive of the question at issue between us. Yet two or three short quotations will -show that they speak of the Son of God very much in the Scriptural style, and evidently mean to include in this title, his divine and eternal character. Barnabas says — " For this cause, the Lord " was content to suffer for our souls, although " he be the Loud of the whole earth ; to " whom God said before the beginning of the " world, Let us make man, 6rc. — For thus " saith the scripture concerning us, where it "introduceth the Father speaking to the THE EARLY FATHERS. 161 "Son, Let us make man, fyc. — Then he " clearly manifested himself to be the Son nf " God ; for had he not come in the flesh, how "should men have been able to look upon him " that they might be saved ?— Wherefore the " Son of God came in the flesh for this cause, " that he might fill up the measure of their ini- " quity, &c. If, therefore, the Son of God, "who is the Lord of all, and shall come to "judge both the quick and dead, &c." " Be- " hold, again, Jesus, not the son of man, but " the Son of God, made manifest in the flesh" (ev aapxt, tpavEpa&eig.)* I shall 'leave these ex tracts to speak for themselves. On the last only I shall offer a single comment. The strik ing similarity of expression between the man ner in which Barnabas speaks of the Son as manifested in the flesh, and that in which the apostle (1 Tim. iii. 16.) speaks of God mani fest in the flesh (deog e he displays but little theological accuracy. Yet I am wholly unable to put any rational construction on such passages as those which I am about to exhibit, which does not make the Sonship of Christ, to be properly Divine and eternal. "Having plainly shewn," says Irenseus, " that the Word, which was with God in the " beginning, by whom all things were made, " and who was always present with mankind, " was, in the last times, according to the pre- " determination of the Father, united to his " own creature, being made man, capable of " suffering : there is no room for the contra* " diction of those who say, if Christ was then " born, he did not exist before. For we have " shewn that the Son of God did not then begin " to be, having always existed with the Fa- " ther ; but when he was incarnate and made " man, he took upon himself the sad forlorn " condition of man, compendiously procuring THE EARLY FATHERS. 175 " salvation for us ; that so what we had lost in " Adam, the likeness and similitude of God, " we might recover in Jesus Christ. For since " it was impossible, that he who was once sub- " dued, and cast off by disobedience, should be " renewed, and receive the reward of victory ; " and since it was also impossible that he who " had fallen under si|J, shpuld obtain salvation; " the Son, who was the Word of God, descend- ." ing. from the Father, submitting even to " death, and perfecting the dispensation of our " salvation, accomplished both."* Again, the same Father asserts — " the " Son, from eternity^ co-existed with " the Father ; and from the beginning he " always revealed the Father to angels and " archangels, and principalities and powers, " and all to whom it pleased him to reveal « him."f Again, (Lib. iv. cap. 20.) he says, "That il the Word, that is the Son of God, al- " WAYS EXISTED WITH THE FATHER, I have " largely demonstrated." Again, in the same chapter, he says — " The " Father made all things by himself, that is by " his Word and his Wisdom. For his Word * Irencsi {Benedict. Edit.) Lib. iii. cap. 18. f Ibid. Lib. ii. cap. 30. 176 TESTIMONY OF " and Wisdom, that is, his Son and Spirit, " have been always present with him, and by " them and in them, he freely and sponta- " neously made all things." In another place, Irenseus thus speaks to the Gnosticks — " A certain Prophet says of him " (the Son of God) Who shall declare his "generation ? But ye, conjecturing the man- " ner of generation from the Father, and " transferring the utterance of a word, made " by the tongue of men, to the Word of God, " are justly detected by us in. gross ignorance " both of things human and divine. Being " unreasonably puffed up, ye boldly profess " to know the unspeakable mysteries of God. " Although even the Lord himself, the Son of " God, hath granted that the Father alone knows "the day of judgment, expressly declaring — " Of that day and hour knoweth no man, " neither the Son, but the Father only. If, " then, the Son was not ashamed to refer the " knowledge of that day to the Father, neither " do we blush to reserve to God things more " difficult with respect to us. For no one is "above his Master. If any one, then, shall " ask us, How is the Son produced by the " Father ? We answer him, that no man " knows that production, or generation, or THE EARLY FATHERS. 177 " utterance, or revelation, or whatever you " please to call it, since it is inexplicable. It " is understood by no man ; neither by Valen- " tinus, nor Marcion, nor Saturninus, nor " Basilides, nor angels, nor archangels, nor " principalities, nor powers, nor any one, ex- " cept the Father alone who begat, and the " Son who is begotten of him. Since, then, " his generation is inexplicable, they who at- " tempt to explain the generations, or produc- " tions, are beside themselves, promising to " explain things inexplicable ; for that a word " is produced by thought and sense, all men " know."* In another place, Irenseus, describing the faith of a true spiritual man, a real christian, concerning the holy Trinity, expresses himself thus — " He has all things ; he has an entire " faith in the one Almighty God, from whom " are all things ; a firm persuasion in our Lord " Jesus Christ, the Son of God, by whom are " all things ; and in his dispensations by which " the Son of God was made man ; and a true " knowledge of the Holy Spirit of God, who, " through every age represents to men, ae- " cording to the will of the Father, the dis- " pensations of the Father and the Son."f * friEKJii oper. Lib. ii.eap. 28. p. 158- f Lll>' iv- caP- 33, P- 272' 178 TESTIMONY OF The conclusion from these passages, I ac knowledge, strikes me as irresistible. If the Son of God, as Son, never began to be, but always existed with the Father ; if he was al1 ways present with the Father, in the same manner as the Holy Spirit was, that is dis tinctly and personally, which one of the ex tracts seems to declare ; if the Word, (which you grant the Ante-Nicene Fathers consider as divine and eternal) was, according to Ire- nseus, begotten, and on that account compared to the utterance of a word by the mouth of man ; — if the Son of God was made man, and of consequence was Son before he became incarnate ; — then the Son was meant to be re presented by this Father as Divine and eternal. THeophilus, pastor of Antioch, lived about the same time with Irenseus. He not only ex pressly calls Christ God, and declares that the world was made by him; but he also goes on to say, " When the Father said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness, He spake to no other but to his own Word, his own Wisdom, that is to the Son, and the Holy Spirit." These he styles a " Trinity in the Godhead."* * Theofh. ad Autolyc^ Lib. ii. p. 106, 114, 13Q, the early fathers. 179 Here, again, we have the Word and the Son represented as the same—" The Word, that is the Son :" and we have the Son, as such, •represented as one of the " Trinity in the Godhead" — Expressions, I should think, very unequivocally importing the doctrine of eter nal Sonship. The testimony of Athenagoras, who flou rished about A.D. 175, I can by no means consider as speaking the language which you ascribe to him. I will begin with the same ex tract which you give, as your only specimen of his manner of writing on this subject. " I have sufficiently demonstrated that we " (Christians) are not atheists, since we be- " lieve in one God, unbegotten, eternal, invisi- " ble, impassible, incomprehensible, known " only by reason and the Logos, surrounded " by light and beauty, and spirit and power " ineffable ; who by his Logos created, " adorned, and upholds the universe. We ac- " knowledge also a Son of God. Nor let any " one consider it as ridiculous that I should " attribute a Son to God : not as the poets, " who in forming their fables, exhibit gods in " no respect better than men : we do not thus " think concerning God the Father, or con- " cerning the Son. But the Son of God is the 180 TESTIMONY OF " Word (Aoyog) of the Father in manifestation " ('tSea) and energy. Because for him, and by " him were all things made, the Father and " the Son being one ; and the Son is in the " Father, and the Father in the Son, by the " unity and power of the Spirit ; the Son of " God being the mind and Aoyog of the Father. " But if, by reason of the excellence of your " understanding, you should still further in- " quire what we are to understand by the Son, " I will briefly declare it to you. He is the " first offspring of the Father ; not as made ; " (for from the beginning God, being an eter- " nal Mind, had in himself the Logos, being " from eternity (Jtoyi^og) possessed of the Lo- " gos.) But of all gross matter, and unformed " nature, &c- ; he came forth, that he " might be the idea and energy. With this " account the prophetick Spirit agrees ; for " he says, The Lord created me in the begin- " ning of his progress to his works. And " even this Holy Spirit, who energized in the " prophets 'when they spoke, we say is an " emanation from God. Like the rays of the " sun, it emanates from, and is borne back to " him. Who, then, is not astonished, that we, " who say that there is God the Father, God " the Son, and the Holy Spirit; — that we THE EARLY FATHERS. 181 " who represent their power in unity, and " their distinction in order, should hear our- " selves called atheists."* In the same work, a few pages afterwards, Athenagoras, addressing the Emperor and his Son, who were sharers in the throne, ex presses himself thus. " I entreat you, Supreme " Rulers, to bear with me, if in my discourse, " I should bring forth true reasons : for I do " not propose to myself to make an attack "upon idols;. but my object is to repel ca- " lumnies, and to offer the reasons of our per- " suasion. You have in yourselves the means " of conceiving of the celestial kingdom ; for " as to You, Father and Son, all things are " subject, having received the empire from " above (for the heart of the king is in the " hands of God, saith the prophetic Spirit) ; " so also to the one God, and his Logos, the " intelligent and inseparable Son, all things " are subjected."! One extract more from this Father. " For " we assert, that God, and the Son, his Logos, " and the Holy Spirit, considered in regard " to power, are (three) Father, Son, and Spi- " rit. But the Mind, and Logos, and Wisdom * Mhenag. Legatio pro. Christ, p. 10, 11. Edit. Colon. Syl- burgh. 1686. -j Ibid. p. V. 182 TESTIMONY OF " are the Son of the Father, and an emanation " from him; so also is the Spirit, as light from " flame."* The translation Which I have given of the first of these extracts, does not differ materially from yours : yet I confess I am not able to read it with your eyes. To me its natural, direct construction appears very different from the interpretation of it which you have given. Athenagoras constantly represents the Son and the Logos as one and the same ; using the two titles interchangeably, — " The Son of God is the Logos"—" The Son of God is the Mind and Logos of the Father" — " The Logos, the intelligent and inseparable Son," &c. He ascribes Divinity to the Son, as such ¦ — using this expression— God the Son. And he, most distinctly, places the personality of the Son and of the Holy Spirit upon the same footing; representing them both as flowing from the Father, or as " an emanation from him." But as he evidently considered the Holy Spirit as an eternal Person, so we may also conclude he considered the Son. Besides, the " coming forth" (Ttposhdav) ascribed to the Son, is not called by Athenagoras a genera- * Mhenag. Legatio pro. Christ, p. 27, THE EARLY FATHERS. 183 tion of the Son. Of course, the passage in which this expression occurs, makes nothing in favour of the position for which you con tend ; as all agree that when creation took place, there was what might be called a com ing forth of the Divine Agent. Clemens Alexandrinus comes next in order. You acknowledge, that this Father cannot be quoted with confidence as in your favour. But you seem to think at the same time, that he cannot be adduced as a decisive witness in support of my creed. I am glad to have from you so explicit an acknowledgment that you can find nothing in him that is point edly against me ; for, unless I am deceived, I have found several passages in this writer, which it would be difficult to construe in any other way than as supporting my doctrine. The first which I shall quote, is that which occupies the first place in your list of citations from this author. It is in these words — " The " image of God is his Logos ; and the Divine " Logos is the genuine Son of understanding " (or intellect), the original Light of Light."* Here Clemens calls the Logos, the image of God; the very language of the apostle con- ' Admonitio ad Gentes. p. 62. Edit. Sylburg. Colon. 1688, 184 TESTIMONY OF cerning the first-begotten Son ; Col. i. 15. Again ; he calls this very Logos the Son, the genuine Son of intellect — A mode of expression in which he is literally followed by Basil and Cyril, who of all the Post-Nicene Fathers, were among the most decisive and zealous ad vocates of the eternal generation of the Son. They both speak of the Son familiarly, as " coming forth {ex tov Nov) from intellect"* And, with respect to the phrase " original Light of Light," it is in itself so expressive of underived glory, and so remarkably similar to the language of the Nicene Creed itself, that I imagine most readers will consider it as designating the divine generation which that Creed maintains. The next passage to which I would refer you, is the following—" The Divine Word, " most manifestly the true God, who was equal " to the Lord of all things ; for he was his " Son, (otL y;v viog avrov) and the Word was " m God."f Stronger terms could hardly have been used. Here Clement declares that the Saviour is truly God ; that he is the Di vine Word ; that he is equal to God the Fa- * Basil. Itamil. in Johan. i. Tom. i. p, 506. Cyril in Thetaura. Tom. v. p. 45. 48. ¦j- .idmonitio ad Gentes, p. 68. THE early fathers. 185 ther ; for this reason, because he is the Son of God. This appears to me perfectly decisive evidence that he believed in a divine and es sential Sonship. The third passage on which I rely is one to which you allude, in which Clement expressly ascribes eternity to the Son. " The eternal " Son {viog cu&og) overcoming is a lovely spec- " tacle to the Father."* This language I con sider as requiring no comment. Again, Clement says, " The Son is the per- " feet Word, born of the perfect Father." And again, " The God of all things is only " one good and just Creator, the Son in the " Father."f From these expressions we may undoubtedly gather, that in the view of this Father, the Son and the Word were regarded as the same ; and as he, in a number of places, declares that the Word was eternally with God, and that this eternal Word was begotten of the mind, or substance of the Father ; so we may infer that he considered the Son as eternal, agreeably/ to his express declaration in a passage before cited. Nor is the next clause less decisive. When he says that " God is one good and just Creator, the Son in * Admonitio ad Gentes, p. 75. t Pedagog. Lib. i. cap. vi. 93. Q2 186 TESTIMONY OF the Father," could he employ language more strongly to convey the idea that the Sonship was essential and eternal in the Godhead? You have quoted a passage from the sixth book of the Stromata of Clement, your version of which I would request you, for a moment, to reconsider. In the edition of Clement which I use, it stands thus, as nearly as I can give it. " There is one unbegotten Being, the Al- " mighty God. And there is one begotten be- " fore all things, by whom all things were made " and without whom nothing was made. For " there is one true God, who created the be- " ginning of all things, by whom is meant the " first -begotten Son, as Peter writes, who " accurately understood that passage, In the " beginning God created the heavens and the " earth. This is he who is called Wisdom by "all the Prophets, &c."* It does appear to me that this translation gives the sense of Clement more perspicuously, to say the least, than your's ; and that the ge nuine aspect of it, as thus exhibited, is alto gether in favour of my doctrine. Indeed, if the doctrine of eternal Sonship be not taught in this passage, I must despair of finding it in * Stromata, Lib, vi. p. 644. THE EARLY FATHERS. 187 any document of antiquity. For I cannot per ceive that any of those whom you acknowledge to be its advocates, present it a whit more clearly or strongly than Clement. Hippolytus, who flourished about A.D. 220, commenting on that strong declaration concerning the Son of God, which is found in Philip, ii. 9. writes thus — " He, (the Son) is " said to be exalted, as having wanted that ex- " altation before ; but this is said in respect " only of his humanity. And he has also a " name given him, as a matter of favour, which " is above every name, as the blessed Paulex- " presses it. But in truth and reality, this " was not the giving him any thing which he " HAD NOT NATURALLY FROM THE BEGINNING. " So far from it, that we are rather to esteem " it his returning to what he had in the be- " ginning, essentially and unalterably : " on which account it is, that he, having con- " descended to put on the humble garb of " humanity, said, Father, glorify me with " the glory which I had with thee before the " world was. For he was always invested " with Divine glory, having been co-exis- " tent with his Father before all ages, and " before all time, and the foundation of the 188 TESTIMONY OF " world."* Again, the same writer says — " We can have no right conception of the One " God, but by believing in a real Father, " Son, and Holy Ghost"t In the days of Gregory Thaumaturgus, oc curred the Council of Antioch, which was convened with a principal reference to the heresy of Paul of Samosata. At this council, six Bishops, probably with the full concurrence of all the rest of the members, addressed a Letter to Paul, which was intended to discoun tenance and put down his heresy, and which appears to me clearly to evince that the wri ters fully believed the doctrine of the eternal Sonship of Christ. Among other passages in that letter the following occur.— Speaking ®f the Son, they say " He is the Wisdom, the " Word, and the power of God, existing be- " fore ages, not in foreknowledge, but in es- " sence and subsistence, God and the Son of " God" — —"We believe him always to have " existed with the Father, and to have ful- " filled the Father's will in the creation of all " things."t * Hippoltt. Tom. ii. p. 29. Fabric, edit. ¦jf Hipp, contra JVbet, p. 16. \ BMiotheca Patrum. Tom. ii. quoted from Bum, JJef. Fid. Mc. THE EARLY FATHERS. 189 The celebrated Confession of Faith, by Gregory Thaumaturgus, who flourished about A.D. 235, was given at, large, in my " Letters on Unitarianism ;" and there would be no need of repeating it here, were it not probable that this page may be perused by some who have never seen my former publi cation. It is in the following strong language. " There is one God, the Father of the living " Word, of the subsisting Wisdom and Power, " and of Him who is his eternal image : the " the perfect Begetter of Him that is Perfect, " the Father of the only begotten Son. There " is one Lord, the Only of the Only, God of God^ " the Character and Image of the Godhead ; " the powerful Word, the comprehensive " Wisdom, by which all things were made, " and the Power that gave being to the whole i€ creation: the true Son of the true Father, " the Invisible of the Invisible, the Incorrupti- " ble of the Incorruptible, the Immortal of the " Immortal, and the Eternal of Him that is " Eternal. There is one Holy Ghost, having " its subsistence of God, which appeared " through the Son to mankind, the perfect " image of the perfect Son ; the Life giving " Life ; the holy Fountain ; the Sanctity and " the author of Sanctification ; by whom God 190 TESTIMONY OF " the Father is made manifest ; who is over " all, and in all ; and God the Son, who is "through all. A perfect Trinity, which " neither in eternity, glory, or wisdom is di- " vided, or separated from itself."* You call in question the genuineness of this creed ; and refer to Martini for your reasons. I have had no opportunity of seeing what that writer has said on this point ; but have cer tainly never met with any thing which ap peared to me sufficient to lead to a denial, or even a serious doubt, that it is the genuine work of Gregory. Not only Gregory of Nyssa^ who is a high authority, but also Basil, who is at least as high, vouch in the most, decisive manner for its authenticity. The learned Bingham, too, and Bishop Bull, among the jnoderns, have vindicated the credit of this creed, in a very satisfactory manner, f The greater part, if T mistake not, of those who have endeavoured to decry it as spurious, have been Arians or Socinians. Origen is unquestionably a very decisive advocate of the eternal Sonship of Christ. The * Gregoii. JVeoctcsar. Oper. p. 1. apud. Ghegoe. JVyes. Tom. iii. p. 546. ¦j- Bingham's Origines Ecclesiastics ; Book s. Chap. 5. Bclli DefensiFid-Mc. Sect. 2. Cap. 12. 2. THE EARLY FATHERS. 191 following passages, I should suppose, could leave no one in doubt as to this fact. Athana- sius cites him as saying — " If he is the Image " of the invisible God, the Image is invisible ; " and I dare add, if he is the likeness of the " Father, no time ever was when he was not. " For when was God, who by St. John is 11 called Light, without the splendour of his " own glory, that any one should presume to " assign a beginning to the Son, before which " he was not ? Let him who dares speak " thus — " There was a time when he was " not" consider what he says, namely, that " there was a time when Wisdom and Reason " and Life was not"* The same Father, in his commentary on those words in the second Psalm — Thou art my Son, this day have I be gotten thee, expresses himself thus — " It is - " said to him by God, with whom all time is " to-day. For he, I suppose, hath neither " evening nor morning ; but time, if I may so " speak, co-extending itself with his unbe- " gotten and eternal life, is the to-day in which " the Son was begotten ; so that we find no be- " ginning of his generation any more than " of the " to-day." Again ; the same Father, in writing to Celsus, says, " Let those our ac- * Atkanasii Oper. Tom. i. p. 277. 192 TESTIMONY OF (l cusers know, that this Jesus whom we be- " lieve, to have been God, and the Son of " God, from the beginning, is no other than " the Word himself."* And, in another part " of the same work, remarking on those words " of our Lord, Matt. xi. 27. No man knoweth " the Son, save the Father, $*c. he says, " For " it is impossible that he who was begotten " from eternity, and who was the first-born " before every creature, should be known, as " to his real dignity, by any but the Father " who begat him."f Accordingly, Socrates, the ecclesiastical historian, after expressing his wonder how it could have happened, that a certain great ad mirer of Origen, could persist in retaining the Arian heresy, gives this reason for his surprize, " that Origen every where confesses the Son " to be co-eternal with the Father." The following Creed, delivered by Origen, in his work entitled, Of First Principles, not only ascertains his own belief on this subject, but also the doctrine of the church in his day. " The things which are manifestly handed " DOWN TO US BY THE APOSTOLICAL PREACH-, " ing are these ; First, that there is one God, * Contra Celsvm. 1. 3, p. 135. Cantab. Edit. 1677. t lb. lib. 6. p. 287. THE EARLY FATHERS. 193 " who created and formed all things, &c. The " next article is, that Jesus Christ, who came " into the world, was begotten of the Fa- " THER BEFORE EVERY CREATURE, and who " ministering to his Father in the creation of " all things; (for by Him all things were made,) " in the last times made himself of no reputa- " tion, and became man. He who was God was " made flesh; and when he was a man, he con- " tinued the same God that he was before. " They also delivered unto us that the Holy " Ghost was joined in the same honour and " dignity with the Father and the Son."* Again ; Origen, in his commentary on John, says, " The Sabellians did not only make the " Father and the Son one in essence (which " the church also did ;) but they carried " it so far as to make them one subject, or hy- " postasis, having only a nominal, not a real " distinction." Here Origen not only tells us what he thought correct ; but he also informs us what the church in his day believed — and that the Son, as Son, was one in essence with the Father ; and, of course, Divine and eternal. Again, in his work on First Principles (Lib. * Origen. Tom i. p. 665. R 194 TESTIMONY OF i. cap. 2.) he expresses himself thus-^-" Now1 " that you may know the omnipotence of the " Father and the Son to be one and the same, " as he is one and the same God and Lord " with the Father, hear what John saith in " the Apocalypse-~These things, saith the " Lord, which is, and which was, and ivhich " is to come, the Almighty, For who is the " Almighty that is to come, but Christ ?" In commenting on those words in the Epistle to TituS'-^An heretick, after the first and se cond admonition, reject, fyc. Origen says — " Let us describe as well as we can, what an " heretick is. Every one who professes to be- " lieve in Christ, and yet says, there is one " God of the law and the prophets, and ano- " ther of the Gospels, &c. Our opinion must " be the same concerning those who have any* " false notions of our Lord Jesus Christ ; whe- " ther according to them who say he was born " of Joseph and Mary; such are the Ebionites " and Valentinians : or according to them who " deny him to be the First-bOrn, the God " of The whole creation, the Word, and " Wisdom, which is the beginning of the ways " of God, begotten before any thing was " made, before the foundation of the worlds, THE EARLY FATHERS. 195 •• before all the hills ; and those who say that " he is only man."* The only remark which I shall offer on this extract is, that Origen, while, according to your own acknowledgment,'' he maintained the eternal generation of the Son, yet expresses himself on the subject in exactly the same Ian guage with most of the other Ante-Nicene Fa thers. He says the Son was begotten before any thing toas made — before the foundation of the worlds, &c. -.« But there is no need of dwelling on the tes timony of this father, since you freely acknow ledge that he decisively maintained the doc trine of eternal generation. You attempt, how ever, to take away the force of this concession, by alleging " that it was Origen' s philosophy " which led him to embrace this doctrine ; the " same philosophy which led him to maintain. " the eternity of the world, or of the crea- " tion." I shall not now undertake to discuss the subject of Origen' s philosophical opinions, on which so much has been written, and so many different judgments pronounced. I have never yet seen any thing, however, to convince me that his views of the Redeemer's Person * Pamphili. Apologia. Ap. Hieronymi. op. Tom. ix. p. 117. Edit. Victor. 196 TESTIMONY OF were materially modified by his philosophy* But, be this as it may, I think that any one who glances at the preceding extracts will be of the opinion, that Origen speaks on the sub ject of the Sonship of Christ, very much in the same language with the great body of the Ante-Nicene Fathers, . who certainly did not adopt the singular opinions to which you re fer: Besides ; Origen, in telling us what he believed on this subject, more than once de clares, that HIS DOCTRINE WAS THAT OF THE cjhjrch in his day ; that it was " manifestly " handed down by apostolical tradition, &c" But if, as you agree, and no doubt correctly, he really believed and taught the doctrine of the eternal Sonship of the Saviour, I see not but that you will be obliged to grant that it was the general doctrine of the church of that age, and understood to be the doctrine taught by the apostles. Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, who flourished about A.D. 250, is a very decisive witness on this subject. You observe that he has been claimed by both parties, and seem to place but-little reliance on his authority. You give,; however, two extracts from his writings, which would seem to indicate pretty strongly that he was no believer in the doctrine of THE EARLY FATHERS. 197 eternal generation. These it is not necessary to repeat. I acknowledge that if we were to judge solely from these passages, my side of the question could hope for little aid from this father. But it escaped your recollection, that this same Dionysius, afterwards finding, that the very passages which you quote, and others like them, which he had written, had given great offence to the orthodox, and encourage ment to the hereticks, and were likely very seriously to impair his ecclesiastical standing ; he explained, retracted, and left it no longer doubtful what he considered as orthodox, and what was generally considered so in his day. The following extracts, derived from the same source with those which you make use of, will, I think, preclude all uncertainty as to the light in which Dionysius ought to be regarded in reference to the subject under review. Having been charged with believing and saying, that there was a time when the Son was not, and that God the Father was not al ways Father, he professes that he did from the heart acknowledge, and always had acknow ledged, the co-eternity of the Son. In the first Book of his Refutation and Apology, he ex pressly says — " There never was a time when r2 198 TESTIMONY OF " God was not a Father." And soon after he expresses himself thus concerning the Son of God — " Since he is the Effulgence of the eter- " nal Light, he himself is altogether eternal ; " for since the Light is always, the Effulgence, " it is manifest, must also be always." Again, he says-^-" God is an eternal Light, without "beginning or end ; and therefore an eternal " Effulgence is projected by him, co-exists " with him without beginning, and always " born."* Further he -says, " The Son alone "t is always co-existent with the Father, and is " filled with the existent being, and is himself " existent from the Father." Dionysius also se verely censures Paul of Samosata, because he would not call Christ the co-eternal character of God the Father's Person. And, in the same work, he thus declares the eternity of the Son- — " As " then we perceive, when one takes from one " of our material fires, and neither affects nor " divides it in the kindling of one light from " another, but the fire remains; so, incompre- " hensibly, is the eternal generation of Christ "from the Father."' Finally, he expresses himself in these very decisive words — " I have " written, do write, confess, believe, and * Athanasii Oper. Tom. i. p. 559, 560, Edit. Paris 1627. THE EARLY FATHERS. 199 " preach, that Christ is co-eternal with " the Father, the only begotten Son " and Word of the Father."* On these extracts I only stop to offer two remarks. The first is, that they are incom parably moVe explicit* and unequivocal than those which you quote ; inasmuch as they are professedly intended to exculpate the writer from the charge of holding the very opinion which you ascribe to him. There is, therefore, in these passages an explicitness which cannot be exceeded. The second remark which I have to make is, that these extracts do not merely prove, in the most conclusive manner, that Dionysius Alexandrinus was a firm ad vocate of the doctrine of eternal generation ; but they prove much more. They prove that it was the current doctrine of the Orthodox of that day. The very suspicion, it seems, that Dionysius was not sound as to this point, drew down upon him such general and severe censure, that he was constrained to defend himself by making the solemn declarations which have been mentioned. A Synod was called at Rome to consider the accusation against him, and it was to satisfy the members * Bibliotheca Patrum.Tom. ii. p. 276. 284. 287. 299. as quoted by Bishop Bull in his Def, Fid, Nic. Sect. iii. cap. iv. § 3. 200 TESTIMONY OF of that Council, that he wrote his " Apolo- " getical and Refutatory Epistle" to Dionysius Bishop of Rome. In his case, then, we have not only the solemn opinion on the subject un der consideration, of Dionysius of Alexandria, and Dionysius of Ronte, but also of an impor tant ecclesiastical Council. This single record, it appears to me, does more to establish the fact, that the doctrine of the eternal Sonship of Christ was reckoned the orthodox doctrine in the Ante-Nicene Church, than many scores of ordinary quotations could countervail. With respect to Dionysius Bishop of Rome, who was contemporary with his namesake of Alexandria, you candidly acknowledge that his authority is against you ; that he unequi vocally maintained the doctrine of eternal generation. This is undoubtedly a fact. And when it is recollected that he held so conspi cuous a place in the church, and possessed such a commanding influence as history informs us he did possess, his opinion is surely of much more than ordinary weight in the scale, in examining what was accounted orthodoxy at that time. As there is no dispute about him, a single extract is sufficient. In his Epistle against the Sabellians, he says — " It is no " common blasphemy, nay it is the greatest, to THE EARLY FATHERS. 201 " say that the Lord was, after a sort, made " with hands. For if he was made, there was " a time when he was not. But he always was." Again — " If then the Son was made, there " was a time when these things were not, yea " there was a time when God was without " these. But this is very absurd."* Lucian, a Presbyter of Antioch, who flou rished nearly half a century before the Coun cil of Nice, and who was greatly distinguished as a student of the scriptures, as well as a martyr to the cause of Christ, is an important and very unequivocal witness on this subject. I really think you have not done justice to the testimony of this Father. Let me beg you to review the following Creed, which we are as sured was drawn up by him. " We believe, " agreeably to evangelical and apostolical tra- " dition, in one God, the Father Almighty, " creator and maker of all things ; and in one " Lord, Jesus Christ, his only begotten Son, " God ; by whom all things were made, be- " gotten of the Father before all worlds, God " of God, Whole of Whole, Alone of Alone, " Perfect of Perfect, King of King, Lord of " Lord, the living Word, Wisdom, Life, the " true Light, the way of Truth, the Resur- * Atuanasii Oper. Tom. i. 276. 202 TESTIMONY OF " rectkm>the Shepherd, the Door, immutable " and unchangeable, the exact Image of the " Godhead, the Essence, Power, Counsel and " Glory of the Father, the first-born df every " creature, who was in the beginning with " God, God the Word, as it is written in the " Gospel, The Word was God, by whom all " things were made, and in whom all things " consist, who in the last days came down " from heaven, and was born of the Virgin, " according to the scriptures. And in the " Holy Ghost, who was given to believers for " their comfort, sanctification and perfection, " as our Lord Jesus Christ commanded his " disciples, saying, Go ye, therefore, disciple " all nations, baptizing them in the name of " the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy " Ghost; namely, of the Father, who is truly " Father, of the Son, who is truly Son, and " of the Holy Ghost, who is truly Holy Ghost. " The words not being simple words, of no " signification, but accurately denoting the " subsistence of every one named, and their " glory and order ; so that they are in sub- " sistence Three, in consent One." This Creed is distinctly recorded by Atha- nasius, {De Synod. Arimin. et Seleuc. Tom. i. p. 875.) ; by Socrates, the ecclesiastical his- THE EARLY FATHERS. 203 torian {Lib. ii. cap\ 10.) And by Hilary, {De Synodis, p. 107.) who comments upon it, and Vindicates it from the objections which some made against it as favouring the Arians. He not only speaks of it as the genuine work of Lucian, but also as having received the sanc tion of the Council of Antioch, which met A. D. 341 ; " a Synod, as he says of ninety- " five holy bishops, who intended thereby to " establish the Catholick faith, chiefly against " the Sabellians, though not without a suffi- " cient guard against the Anomseans, or " Arians." You remark, that Bishop Bull has omitted Lucian in his list of writers who testify in favour of the doctrine of eternal generation. If the fact had been so, it would afford no small presumption that the Bishop did not consider him as a witness of much value., This, how ever, is not exactly the case. It is true that the learned Bull has not adduced the testimony of this Father in that particular chapter which treats of the co-eternity of the Son of God; but he has very carefully and pointedly brought it forward in a preceding chapter, to which he refers his readers in the commencement of the subsequent one, as not needing to be repeated. He evidently lays great stress upon the ex- 204 TESTIMONY OF tract which he gives from Lucian, and with great confidence decides, that there is every reason to consider it as genuine. Pamphilus, the martyr, a Presbyter of Cesarea, a little after Origen, has also left ample evidence that he was a firm believer in the doctrine of eternal generation. In his Apology for Origen, he strenuously defends that Father against some who doubted or de nied his orthodoxy; and affirms that his, {Ori gen' s) firm belief was, that " The Father was " not before the Son, but the Son co-eternal " with the Father, and that the generation ".of the Son was without a beginning."* Here is a testimony of peculiar value. It not only tells us what Pamphilus thought, of this matter ; and renders assurance doubly sure, that Origen was of the same mind ; but it also gives us to understand that this was the Or thodox doctrine of that day; inasmuch as pamphilus considered it as a slur on the cha racter of Origen to impute to him any other doctrine, and thought proper to defend him from the charge, as likely, if believed, to do him a serious injury in the estimation of the church. * Quoted from Boll. Def. Fid. JVic. Sect, iii, cap, iv. § 8. THE EARLY FATHERS. 205 Theognostus, of Alexandria, who lived about the middle of the third century, in his second Book of Instructions, expresses himself thus. " The substance of the Son is not some- « thing brought in from without. He was not " produced out of nothing ; but was begotten. " of the substance of the Father, as the ray is " of the light, or as vapour is of the water ; " for the vapour is not water, nor is the ray " light ; but neither the one nor the other is " foreign to that which produces it. Thus the 4i Son is, as it were, the gentle flowing of the " substance of the Father ;* yet so that the Fa- " ther suffers no division. For as the sun is not " diminished, though it produces rays con- " tinually$ so likewise the Father is not di- " minished in begetting the Son, who is his " image."* Surely, as Bishop Bull justly ar gues, if the Sonship of Christ was not some thing superinduced, or " brought in," it was eternal. The same thing is also implied in the declaration, that the Son is begotten from the Father's substance, as light from light. And all these conclusions are rendered more certain from the consideration that Theognostus was a disciple of Origen, whom you acknowledge * Athakasii Oper. Tom. i. p. 274. s 206 TESTIMONY OF to have been a firm believer in the doctrine of eternal generation. Methodius, also, notwithstanding what you have said of him, I cannot but consider as a good and undoubted witness for the doctrine of eternal Sonship. Your first three quotations from him, furnish, in my opinion, no proof whatever, not even plausable presumption, of his belief in the notion of mere ante-mundane generation. They are plainly reconcileable with the doctrine for which I plead. But the fourth, which you find in Bishop Dull, and on which you think that learned and able writer has laid much more stress than he ought, I must believe, with him, to be very clear in favour of eternal filiation. Methodius, in commenting on those words of the Psalmist, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee, expresses himself as follows — " It is ob- ' servable, that his being a Son is here ex- 1 pressed indefinitely and without any limita- 1 tion of time. For He (the Father) said to * him, Thou art my Son, not, thou hast 1 been made so ; signifying, that he did not i ACQUIRE ANY NEW FILIATION, nor should < ever have an end of his existence ; but that ' he is always the same."* That Son who was * Photh Biblioth. Cod, 237, THE EARLY FATHERS. 207" NEVER MADE SUCH, who REqEIVED NO NEW filiation, and who has been always the same, has surely an eternal Sonship. But it is more than time that I should close this long Letter. The few Fathers that remain to be examined, are those of the Latin class. The consideration of these, together with some general remarks on the testimony of the' whole number adduced, will form the subject of the next Letter. LETTER VI. Testimony of the Fathers continued. BEVEBEND AND BOBAH BROTHElt, • Let us now turn to the Latin Fathers, and see how far their language accords with that of their Grecian brethren. If the East and the West, the Greek and the Latin, should be found to agree in this matter, it will afford strong presumption, that neither the mistakes of superficial and blundering individuals, nor the speculations of a local philosophy, gave origin to the passages which have been pro duced. Tertullian is one of the Fathers whose testimony you seem to think cannot be claimed in behalf of the doctrine of eternal generation. I am far from considering this Father as either a consistent theologian, or an accurate writer. TESTIMONY OF, &C. 209 Nor shall I attempt to defend every thing which he has written on the subject under consideration. Perhaps, indeed, it would be difficult to find any subject which he has un dertaken to discuss, on which he has not some times expressed him crudely and erroneously, if not contradictorily. Yet, after all, I must be lieve that he is a good witness, as far as his character goes, in favour of the Redeemer's Divine and eternal Sonship. Such passages as the following appear to me to place this fact beyond all reasonable doubt. In his Apology, he says — " We affirm that " he was produced from the Father, and by " production begotten ; and that he, therefore, " is the Son of God, and called God, from the " unity of his substance, for God also is a " Spirit." — " and because he proceeded from " God, he is God, and the Son of God, and " both are one — He is Spirit of Spirit, and " God of God, as light is kindled of light."* The striking similarity of this language to that of the Nicene Creed, will not be overlooked. Again ; in his work against Praxeas, he says concerning the Son of God, — " He is the first- " begotten, as being begotten before all things; " and the only-hegotten, as being alone be- * Apaloget. cap. xxi. p. 19, 20. Edit. Rigalt. S 2 210 TESTIMONY OF " gotten of God properly in the womb of his " heart." And again ; " This is the true pro- " lation, the preserver of unity, when we say " that the Son is produced by the Father, not " separated from him. For God produced the " Word,' as the root produces a branch, the " fountain a stream, the sun a ray."* Again; " As he is made of the seed of David, accord- " ing to the flesh, he is man, and the Son of " man; as he is declared to be the Son of God, " according to the Spirit of holiness, he is " God, and the Word, the Son of GoD."t Again ; " I will follow the apostle, so that if " the Father and Son must be named together, " I will call the Father God, and Jesus Christ, " Lord. But I can call Christ alone God, as " the same apostle ; Of whom is Christ, who " is over all God blessed forever. For I shall " call the ray of the sun, by itself, the sun ; " but when I name the sun whose ray it is, I " shall not at the same time call the ray the " sun. For although I do not make two suns, " I shall as much account the sun and his ray " two things, or two species or appearances of " one undivided substance, as God and his " Word, as the Father and his Son."J Again, * Advers. Pracceam. cap. vii. p; 503, and cap. viii. 504. f Ib. cap. xxvii. p. 516. + Ib. cap. xi'ti. p. 507. THE EARLY FATHERS. 211 he observes, " I derive the Son from nothing " but THE SUBSTANCE OF THE FATHER."* And again ; " I every where hold one sub- " stance, and three coherents."! In an other place he says, " The Father is God, and " the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is " God, and every one of them is God." J Further ; he declares, " The names, Father, " God Almighty, the Most High, Lord of " hosts, King of Israel, He who is, as the " scriptures teach us ; — these, we say, are " claimed by the Son likewise ; and that the " Son came in these characters, and always " acted in them, and so manifested them in " himself to men. All that the Father hath, " said he, is mine. Why not, then, his names? " Wherefore, when thou readest, Almighty " God, the Most High, and the Lord of hosts, " and the King of Israel, and He who is — " consider whether the Son be not demon- " strated thereby, who. is, in his own right, " the Omnipotent God, as he is the Word " of the Omnipotent God."§ And, to give but one extract more- — " There is, therefore, " one God, the Father, and there is no other * Contra Marcion. Lib. iii. cap. 6. ¦j- Advers. Praxeam. cap. iv. p. 398, and cap. xii. p. 403. $ Ib. cap. 13. § Ib. cap. xviii. p. 510. 212 TESTIMONY OF " besides %im; by which expression it is not " meant to exclude the Son, but another God. " But the Son is not another from the Father. " Furthermore ; do but observe the drift and " tendency of this kind of expressions, and you " will find, for the most part, that they con- " cern only the makers and worshippers of " idols ; that polytheism may be rooted out by " that sense of the Divine unity which, never- " theless, includes the Son ; who, inasmuch as " he is undivided and inseparable from the " Father, is to be understood as implied in the " Father, though he be not particularly named. " And further, had he named the Son in this " case, it had been equivalent to separating " him from himself. Suppose he had said, " there is none other besides me, except my " Son, he would thereby, in effect, have de^ " clared his Son to be another, by excepting " him, in this manner, out of others. Suppose " the sun were to say, I am the sun ; and there " is not another besides me, except my own " ray. Would you not have marked the ab- " surdity of the observation, as if the ray " were not to be reckoned as included in the "sun?"* Taking these extracts, either separately or * Advers. Praxeam, cap, xviii, p. 510. THE EARLY FATHERS. 213 together, I am not not able to interpret them upon any other principle than that of Tertuh Han having fully believed that the Sonship of the Saviour was Divine and without beginr ning. It is evident that he teaches, in the first place, that the Word and the Son are titles of the same import, or at least that they are to be applied, as convertible terms, to the same Being. It is, plain, in the second place, that he represents this glorious Word, or Son, as begotten; that as the begotten Son he is God, and of one substance with the Fa ther. It is evident, further, that he repre sents him as the Son of man, in virtue of his incarnation ; but the Son of God in virtue of a much higher generation or birth. It is plain, also, that he considers the Son as essentially and eternally one with the Father, and as no more separable from him than a part of the Divine nature can be torn from itself. And, finally, it is to be recollected, that almost all these statements and reasonings are employed for the purpose of opposing the error called Sabelliamsm; the substance of which was taught by Praxeas, against whom Tertullian wrote. Surely these passages do not very well comport with the doctrine which you ascribe to the Ante-nicene Fathers. Nor can I admit 214 TESTIMONY of that the force of such declarations is set aside by alleging or proving, that TertulUan, in other places, expresses himself inconsistently with the foregoing statements. The general scope of such a writer is to be estimated, rather than the exact import of his theological lan guage. I should not be afraid of engaging to produce from the pages of this Father, a hun dred passages, in which he ascribes to the Word Divine perfections, while, in the same passages, or others, he represents the Son as the same with the Word, and speaks of that which is true of the one, as true of the other. Novatia*n also, who was contemporary with Cyprian, in bis treatise On the Trinity, expresses himself in a manner which, taking all the parts of the work together, cannot, I think, leave any doubt that he believed and meant to teach, the doctrine of eternal gene ration. Indeed the only extract from this Father which you have given, and which you seem to consider so decisive the other way, really appears to me to intimate nothing more friendly to your doctrine than this, that the Son was begotten when the Father willed ; in other words, that the generation in question was voluntary. This, however, as I hope to THE EARLY FATHERS. 215 make apparent hereafter, does not materially affect the question. Novation expresses himself thus — " As na- " ture itself declares that Christ is to be be- " lieved to be man, because he is of man ; so " the scripture declares that he is to be be- " lieved to be God, because he is of God ; for " if he is not to be regarded as God who is " of God, so neither as man, although of man." Again, he says ; " Christ is not only proved " to be a man because he is the son of man ; " but he is also proved to be God, because he " is the Son of God." Again, he says, " If " Christ was only man, how doth he say, / " came forth from God? Whereas it is plain " that man was made by God, and did not " proceed from him. But though man did " not proceed from God, the Word did pro- " ceed from him." Still further, he says — " Therefore God proceeded from God ; whilst " the Word that proceeded is God, who " proceeded from God." A few lines fur ther on, he says — " If Christ be only man, " what is that which he means when he says, / " and my Father are one ? For how can land " the Father be one, if he be not both God and " the Son, who, therefore, may be called one, " as being of him, and being his Son, and 216 testim&ny of " being born of him, and found to have pro- " ceeded from him, by which he is God.'' Finally; speaking of the angel who appeared to Hagar, Sarah's maid, he says — " Where- "fore, if the present passage cannot agree with " the Person of the Father, whom it would " not be proper to call an angel; nor to the " person of an angel, whom it would not be " proper to call God; still it may. comport " with the person of Christ, both to be God, ff as the Son of God, and to be an angel " too, as sent to reveal his Father's will."* What can be more clear ? If Christ be God, and necessarily God, as Son ; if he be God because he proceeded from God, then his Son- ship is Divine and eternal. There is na evading this consequence, but by supposing that Novatian did not mean as he said, either through ignorance or dishonesty. Cyprian comes next in order among the Latin Fathers. He was contemporary with Origen, and was probably one of the best theologians and pastors of the third century. You observe that very little is found in his works, which can be considered as belonging to the subject under consideration. This is true. He often, indeed, speaks of the Son and * Novat. De Trinitaie cap. xi. xvi, xxiii. xxvi. THE EARLY FATHERS. 217 the Holy Spirit, as Persons in the Trinity, and clearly teaches the Divinity of each ; but he never expresses himself in a way which renders him a very explicit witness on the point before us. Yet we .find, I think, some short passages which deserve to be noticed ; and which, if I do not mistake, are in favour of my creed. The quotation from his work De Idolorum Vanitate, of which you take a small part, a little more enlarged runs thus. " Therefore " the Word and Son of God is sent as the ar- " bitrator and master of this indulgence, grace te and discipline, who was preached by all the " ancient prophets to be the enlightener and " teacher of mankind. This is the Power, " the Reason, the Wisdom, the Glory of God. " He came down into the Virgin. The Holy " Spirit was closed with Flesh."* In the second Book of the Testimonies against the Jews, Cyprian, intending to prove that Christ was the First-begotten, the Wis dom of God, by whom all things were made, adduces Proverbs viii. 22 — 30, in support of his position ; and then quotes a passage out of the 24th chapter of Ecclesiasticus, in which are these words — / ( Wisdom) came out of * Cipkiani Oper.p. 11. Edit. Amstel. 1700. T 218 TESTIMONY OF the mouth of the Most High, the first-torn before every creature. And in two places, he quotes 1 John v. 7. excepting that, in both in stances, instead of Word, he reads Son, and declares that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit ARE ONE.* On these extracts I have but few remarks to make. I see nothing in them which seems to me to give the remotest countenance, either to your creed on this subject, or to the ante- mundane scheme. On the contrary, every thing looks to me like a belief in eternal Son- ship. Cyprian\ evidently considered the Word and the Son as the same. He evidently ap plies Proverbs viii. to the Son, or First-be gotten of God, and represents his goings forth as from everlasting. And in quoting 1 John v. 7. I know not how to account for the fact that he is so careful, in both cases, to substitute Son in the place of Word, unless it be in tended to show that he considered the former as expressive of the same divine and eternal character as the latter, and considered the Son, as such, as one of the Persons of the ever^blessed Trinity. Lactantius is the last Father that I shall allow myself to add to the present list of au- * Ctpbiani Oper. p. 24 t **"?• P- 79. 310. the early fathers. 219 thorities. The quotation which you have made from him, does indeed present a humi liating view of the grossness of his conceptions concerning the Divine Being ; but still, I ap prehend, it leaves the main point under dis cussion between us untouched, especially as all grant that Lactantius, as a theological writer, is remarkably loose and crude. He speaks, in this passage, of the Word of God as pro ceeding from the mouth of God with " a noise " and sound;" but he does not say when it proceeded, whether from eternity, or in time. Nothing decisive, then, can be inferred from this language against what you call the Nicene doctrine. But I should certainly be altogether at a loss to interpret the following passage upon any other principle than that of the Divine and eternal Sonship of the Saviour. " When " we speak of God the Father, and God the " Son, we do not speak of different natures ; " or separate the one from the other ; for " neither can there be a Father without a Son, " nor can the Son be divided from the Father: " forasmuch as he cannot be called a Father " without a Son, nor the Son be begotten " without a Father. Seeing, therefore, a " Father makes a Son, and a Son makes a " Father, they have both one mind, and one 220 TESTIMONY OF " Spirit, and one substance : but the Father " is as the Fountain and Original, and the " Son as the stream flowing from the Foun- " tain ; ; the one is like the sun, the other as a " ray projected from it ; who, because faithful " and dear to his Father, is not separated as ." the river is not from the fountain, nor the " ray from the sun ; because both the water " of the fountain, is in the river, and the light " of the sun in the ray," A little afterwards, he explains the unity of the Father and the Son by the following similitude. " When any " one hath a Son, who is his dearly beloved, " as long as he is in his Father's house, and " under his hand, although he allows him the " name and power of Lord, yet, by right it is " called but one house and one Lord. So this " world is one house of God ; and both the " Son and the Father who with one mind " dwell therein, are but one God ; because " the one is as two, and the two as one."* Could any man who weighed the import of language, and. who thought of what he was saying, speak thus, unless he had considered this ineffable relation of Father and Son as Divine, as implying unity of essence, and con sequently as eternal ? * I.actant. Instit, Lib. iv. cap. 29. THE EARLY FATHERS. 221 Lactantius, in another place, says, " As " the Mother (the Virgin Mary) did in an un- " paralleled manner, bring forth her Maker ; " so is the Father to be believed ineffably " to have begotten one co-eternal."* And immediately afterwards he speaks thus, " Therefore also the Son must be born twice, " that He might be without father, and with- " out mother. For, in the first spiritual " nativity, he was without mother, because " BEGOTTEN BY GOD THE FATHER ALONE, " without the office of a mother ; but in the " second, carnal nativity, he was without *'¦ father, conceived in the Virgin's womb, " without the office of Father." The expression, " the Father ineffably ii begot one co-eternal," taken in connec tion with the thought that the Son of God was twice born, once in a carnal, and once in a spiritual and divine manner, satisfies me that Lactantius really held to a divine and eternal generation. Again, in his fourth Book, entitled De Vera Sapientia, he says — " How, therefore, did the " Father beget the Son ? These divine works " can be known of none, declared by none, . * Instit. Lib. ii. cap. 9; t2 222 TESTIMONY OF " But the holy scriptures teach that He is the " Son of God, that He is the Word of God." When I find this eloquent Father expressing himself as he does in this last extract, concern ing the Son, I cannot help thinking that he refers to some more wonderful and incompre hensible generation, than that which consisted in a mere ante-mundane, coming forth, to en gage in the work of creation. If he had in tended to speak of this " projection of energy" only, he would certainly, I think, have adopted very different language. But supposing him to speak of a Divine and eternal generation, the language which he employs, appears to me the most apt and suitable that can be imagined. In reviewing the foregoing extracts, as well from the Greek as the Latin Fathers, there are several considerations which appear to me to show conclusively that I have not mistaken their general import ; considerations drawn from the extracts themselves ; and which, though in some instances derived from inciden tal circumstances, are certainly not on that ac count, the less valuable. (1.) The first is, that in the extracts which have been given, and in other passages of the same writers almost innumerable, the words THE EARLY FATHERS. 223 Logos or Word, and Son, are used inter changeably for each other, as of precisely the same application. The writers quoted speak as familiarly and frequently of the generation of the Logos, as of the generation of the Son. Ignatius says the Son is the eternal Logos. Justin Martyr speaks again and again of the Logos as begotten, and the Son as begotten ; he speaks of the Logos or Son ; and after men-* tioning both these titles, as well as those of Wisdom, Angel, &c. he says he (the Son) bears them, because he administers the coun sel of the Father, and was born of the will of the Father, before all creatures. Irenseus says, " The Son, who was the Word of God, de- " scended from the Father;" and again, " The " Word, that is, the Son of God, always ex- " isted with the Father." Clemens Alexan- drinus says, " the Word of God is most mani- " festly himself the true God, for he is the " Son of God." Similar language might be cited from a number of others. Now these men either understood the import of the lan guage which they used, or they did 'not. If they did, and were honest men, it is evident that they could not have made that distinction between Logos and Son which you represent them as having done. If they did not under- 224 TESTIMONY OF stand the import of their own language, then their testimony on such a subject, is unworthy of confidence in any respect. (2.) The second consideration worthy of notice, is, that a number of the early writers from whom we have seen quotations, as well as others, lay much stress on the fact, that the First Person in the Trinity, had always been Father, and that the Second Person had al ways been Son. We have seen, that the charge brought against Dionysius of Alexan dria, was, that he had denied that the Father had always been a Father, and the Son always a Son ; a charge which he solemnly denied, and declared himself ever to have been of a different mind. Sometime afterwards, Alex ander of Alexandria, speaks of it as among the singularities of Arius, that he would not own the Father to have been always so ; but alleged- that he was once no Father, and that the Logos was produced in time.* In short, as Dr. Waterland observes,f it seems to have been established as a kind of grand theological maxim, among the orthodox, for a number of years before the Council of Nice, * Socbat. Eccles. Hist. lib. i. cap. 6. t Vindication of Christ's Divinity against Clarke. Query viii. p. 144. THE EARLY FATHERS. 225 that the Father was always Father, and the Son always Son, and those who refused to ¦ confess this, were branded as hereticks. The evidence of the fact which appears in a num ber of the extracts just given, I deem too clear to need further comment. (3.) Some have supposed and insisted, that when the Ante-Nicene Fathers speak, as it is acknowledged they often do, of the Son as being begotten before all creatures, before all ages, &c. and when they speak of the Father, as the eternal Father, and of the Son, as the eternal Son, they only meant to speak of an ante-mundane relation, or of a relation commencing when the Logos went forth to exert his power in the work of creation. But against this interpretation of such language. I have very strong objections. It is the very language in which the sacred Scriptures fre quently speak of God, and of his plans and counsels, which are confessed to be eternal. Of this no one who is familiar with the Bible, will need to have examples cited. He will rea dily call to mind many examples of Jehovah being said to have existed before the moun tains were brought forth — before the founda tion of the world, &c. ; and in which he is re presented as having chosen his people in Christ 226 TESTIMONY OF before the foundation of the world, that they might be holy, &c. Do these expressions de signate eternity, or do they not ? Further ; it is plain that the post-Nicene Fathers, whose opinions on this subject, are, surely, not du bious, have expressed themselves concerning the eternal relation of both the Father and the Son in precisely the same language. They say, that the Son was begotten " before all crea- " tures," " before all worlds," " before all " time," &c. But we are certainly to interpret these phrases as expressive of a strict and proper eternity. Besides, what is the differ ence between ante-mundane and eternal ? How is eternity ab ante divided and mea sured? Is not the ante-mundane system liable to the obvious objection of making a division in eternity, before time itself began ? — an ab surdity which ought not to be lightly charged on respectable men. (4.) The fourth fact which I shall mention, as evidently, in my view, fixing the sense in which the early Fathers speak of the generation of the Son, is that which is drawn from the similies by which they attempt to illustrate it. These, you will recollect, are, the sun and his rays; a fountain and its stream; one fire lighted from another fire, &c. The question THE EARLY FATHERS. 227 is not now whether these similies are happy, or unhappy, adequate, or inadequate : but what was their evident scope and design? Now they all appear to me to be expressive of something strictly co-eval with that from which it flows. Nay, they seem to be selected with the most studious care to convey this precise idea, and indeed to be in a great mea sure, if not entirely destitute of meaning upon any other principle of interpretation. Of course, however gross or inadequate their ideas of the generation of the Son ; yet if they did think and speak of it as eternal, that is, as strictly co-eval with the existence of the eter nal Father, it follows, inevitably, that they maintained the doctrine of the eternal genera tion of the Son. (5.) The last consideration which I shall now stay to urge as proof that the early Fa thers believed and taught the doctrine which I maintain, is, that they uniformly represent the Son as included in the one Godhead with the Father. That is, while they contend that there is only one God, they uniformly repre sent the Son as possessing a Divine nature equally with the Father, and as ever included in that Godhead, which comprehends, if I may so express it, the Father also. But if they 228 TESTIMONY OF constantly believed the Son, as Son, to be one substance with the Father ; to be always in cluded in the one Godhead ; and at the same time, to be a distinct Person from the Father ; — that is of the same substance, but not the same Person with the Father ; distinguished, yet inseparable from him ; then it appears to me to follow, of course, that the doctrine of eternal Sonship was an article of their creed. Yet it is certain that the great body of the early Fathers united in giving this representa tion of the Tri-une God. I might appeal to all the most conspicuous names that have been mentioned, in proof of the fact. In connection with this fact, it ought to be recollected too, for what purpose the great body of these writers so zealously contended, as they did, for an essential unity of sub stance, between the Father and the Son, and at the same time an essential and eternal dis tinction between them. To this they were led by the two constant objections made by the hereticks, against the Orthodox doctrine of the Trinity. The Praxeans, Noetians, and Sa- bellians alleged that it implied a division of the Father's substance. While the Arians, and all their predecessors, who, in, substance, agreed with them, charged the Orthodox with THE EARLY FATHERS. 229 Tritheism. It does appear to me that the manner in which the Fathers answered these hereticks, from the time of Justin Martyr, to the Council of Nice ; — the manner in which they spoke of the eternal unity and the eter nal distinction, subsisting between the Father and the Son, must evince to every impartial reader, that the'y did not, and could not hold the doctrine concerning the Sonship of the Second Person of the Trinity which you ascribe to them, I have not room to enter on the illustration of this point in detail. It is well treated in Waterland's Vindication against Clarke ; and in Bishop Bull's Defen- sio Fidei Nicxnse, and also in his Judicium Ecclesix Catholicse. One method, and a very decisive one, of as certaining what was held and preached as truth, in a- given period of the Church, is to ascertain, if we can, what was condemned, during that period, as heresy. Now, we know, that Paul of Samosata, a heretick, who was contemporary with Dionysius of Alexandria, and his namesake of Rome, among other errors concerning the person of Christ, denied his eternal generation and Sonship; — in other words, he asserted, that he was not the Son of theFather by nature and from eternity ; but only U 230 TESTIMONY OF Son by adoption, and by his birth of the Vir gin. Two, if not three Councils were convened, a little after the middle of the third century, to deliberate and decide on the heresy of this man. The last, a large and respectable one, assembled A. D%269, by which Paul was con demned, deposed from the ministry, and ex communicated from the church. That the above stated opinion was one on account of which he was pronounced heretical, is evident from a comparison of the accounts given of him and his heresy by Eusebius, Epiphanius, Philastrius, Athanasius, Socrates, and others ; and especially from the original documents re lating to the case, preserved by Eusebius, and in the Bibliotheca Patrum Parisiens. Tom. xi. And it may hot be amiss to add, that the Magdeburgh Centuriators, and Dr. Mosheim, in his work De Rebus Christianprum ante Constantinum Magnum, concur in this state ment. Here, then, we have a large and respecta ble Synod, pronouncing the denial of Christ's Divine and eternal Sonship a heresy. Surely nothing can be more unlike the opinion which you have represented as generally prevalent among the Ante-Nicene Fathers. Another source of proof, as to the opinions the early fathers. 231 of the Ante-Nicene Fathers on this subject, appears to me worthy of particular notice. The Arians, in the earlier stages of their pro gress, found it necessary, especially in those parts of the Church in which their numbers were very small, to conceal their sentiments, and for this purpose to adopt modes of expres sion calculated to persuade the people that -they adhered to the old creeds, which had been received from the days of the Apostles. Accordingly they sent, from time to time, to the Emperors and other publick authorities, confessions of faith, which they alleged were precisely in the old language, which had been handed down in ecclesiastical formularies from the time of the apostles, and universally re ceived ; and which they declared their entire readiness to subscribe. Athanasius has pre served a number of these Arian confessions, which, while they are monuments of Unitarian duplicity and falsehood, are, at the same time, incontrovertible evidence of the sentiments and language universally current among the Ante- Nicene Christians, on the subject of this cor respondence. Take the following specimen of these Con fessions. One contains these words — " And " in one only-begotten Son of God, who ex- 232 TESTIMONY OF " isted before all ages, and was with the -Fa- " ther that begat him, by whom all things " were made." Another has the following clause-^-" And in one Lord Jesus Christ, his " only-begotten Son, God, by whom are all " things, God, begotten of his Father before " ages." A third reads thus — " And in one " only-begotten Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, "by whom are all things, begotten, perfect " God of the Father before ages." A fourth thus — "And in his only begotten Son, our <* Lord Jesus Christ, begotten God of the Fa- " ther before all ages, by whom all, things were " made." -Each of these confessions was pre faced by declarations or acknowledgments on the part of the Arians, that they had, in draw ing thfem up, carefully adhered to the rule of faith received from the beginning. Thus, as a preface to one, they say — " We have not " received any other faith than that which " was delivered from the beginning." As in troductory to another, .they declare, " We be- " lieve, agreeably to evangelical and apostoli- " cal tradition." Here, then, we have evidence of the most unexceptionable kind, the confessions of adver saries, that the uniform and universal faith of the Ante-Nicene Church distinctly recognized the early fathers. 233 that the Second Person of the Trinity was the Son of the Father, begotten before all ages, that is, from eternity ; for, as I observed be fore, the Post-Nicene Fathers, whom all agree to have been believers in the doctrine of eter nal generation, use the very same language to express that which had no beginning; — that which was before all time. Will any man, after reading testimony of this kind, be able to persuade himself, that the Nicene Creed did not accord with the Ante- Nicene opinion, but was an innovation ? With such evidence before me, it is impossible for me thus to believe. But, after all, the true sentiments of the whole Church on this subject, before the Coun cil of Nice, may be best learned from the decision of the numerous, aged, andvenerable men, both from the East and West, who sat in that Coun cil, and who, with a most remarkable degree of unanimity, voted its final judgment on the doctrine under consideration. Had that Coun cil been composed of young men, who knew nothing of the writings or feelings of those pious divines who had governed the church toward the close of the preceding century ; or had the Emperor Constantine dictated its de cision in conformity with his own prejudices u2 234 TESTIMONY OF or caprice ; or were there the smallest evidence of their being impelled by a spirit of opposition to Arius, to maintain something before un known ;--— were any one of these suppositions supported by even tolerable evidence, your mode of accounting for the decision of the Council might be admitted. But I think, my dear Sir, you have entirely failed of solving the difficulty which, on your principles, that decision presents. Let me beg you to pause a moment, and re-consider the circumstances of the case. The Nicene Council was composed of a large number of bishops, and other ecclesias tical men, to the amount of six or seven hun dred at least, and probably many more ; col lected from all parts of the christian world. A large number of them were as venerable for years, influence, and authority, as any in, the church. If there were honest, independent, consistent divines, then on earth, they were to be found, it may be presumed, among those who were there convened. And, although the ecclesiasticks in the immediate neighbourhood of Alexandria, might have been agitated and blinded by personal feelings ; yet where have we a particle of evidence that such feelings extended to the remotest extremes of the THE EARLY FATHERS. 235 church ? It is known, too, that the Emperor left the members of the Council entirely un biassed as to his influence in relation to the doctrine then in controversy. For, whatever he might have said and done after their judg ment was announced, before it was formed, he entreated the principal disputants to lay aside all strife and be reconciled, and severely re primanded both of them for disturbing the church with their disputes " concerning things " small, and to the last degree frivolous." And, accordingly, when the Council convened, and the members of opposite parties put into the hands of the Emperor papers containing mutual complaints and recriminations ; he tore them in pieces, and threw them into the fire, declaring that he had read, and would read none of them ; earnestly exhorting both par ties to exercise a spirit of forbearance and peace; and expressing an entire willingness to acquiesce in whatever decision the Council might think proper to adopt. In conformity with this recommendation, the Council sat a considerable time; deliberated cautiously and carefully; canvassed every part of the creed which they drew up with the most eager attention and vigilance; and, at length adopted it by nearly a unanimous vote. 236 TESTIMONY OF It was solemnly subscribed by every member present, excepting four, one of whom was f Arius himself. Does this look like a set of men impelled by heated feeling, rather than a sacred regard to scriptural truth ? Besides ; what reason can be given for the remarkably pointed and decisive manner in which the Nicene Creed maintains the eternal Sonship of the Saviour, if it had not been firmly be lieved and- settled as a doctrine of the church? If they had believed, with you, in a Logos, co-essential and co-eternal with the Father, and a Son, deriving his title of Son from his incarnation and resurrection, could they not, in your opinion, just as well have defended themselves against the Arians, by exhibiting that creed, as by taking the ground which they did? My own opinion, indeed, is, that they could not. But you, doubtless, think other wise ; nay, you certainly suppose, that upon such grounds they could have defended themselves much better ; and you are there fore bound, upon that principle, to account for the course which they took. — I have never seen any solid evidence ; nay, I have never seen evidence which I thought plausible, that the Nicene Creed was an innovation on the preceding creed of the church. If it was hot, THE EARLY FATHERS. 237 then my point is gained : the Nicene Fathers did not innovate on that creed which they found established. But, if it was an innova tion, then we have the strange spectacle of, probably, more than one thousand ecclesias- " ticks, coming from every part of the christian world, and some of them among the most pious, honest, and independent men then living> nearly unanimously consenting to abandon their old ground, and to take a novel one, out of pure spite against Arius and his followers ; and that at the very time, when the plea, that they were contending for the " old and hal- *" lowed doctrine of the church" was precisely that which they most zealously urged. But I have another consideration to urge, which appears to me to carry with it very strong presumption against the correctness of your statement, and in favour of mine. I refer to the indubitable fact, that the Nicene Fa thers, in defending the doctrine of their Creed against the Arians, constantly appeal to the authority of the Fathers who flourished and wrote before their time, and declare that they coincided with them in opinion concerning the Sonship of the Saviour. Athanasius, after having cited in defence of the Nicene Creed, the testimonies of some distinguished writers 238 TESTIMONY OF who had preceded him, thus addresses the Arians — " Behold, we show you that our opi- " nion has been handed down from Fa- " thers to Fathers ; but you, novel Jews, " and disciples of Caiaphas, what Fathers can " you produce for your forms ? You cannot " name to us one wise or prudent man. All " abhor you excepting the Devil. He only " was the author of such an apostacy."* This testimony is in itself a host. Athanasius had, no doubt, seen and read the writings of many Fathers who lived before the Council of Nice, which are now lost. But speaking of these, as well as of those which have come down to us, he declares that he was not able to name one Father who was not on the side of the Nicene Creed. Would any man in his senses (to say nothing of honesty) have dared to write thus, if he had not known the fact to be as he so confidently stated? The same thing is asserted by Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria, in a letter to his name sake, Bishop of Constantinople. He declares, that the Arians refused to appeal to the Fa thers who had gone before them ; that they rejected their testimony ; and maintained that * Athanasii Oper. Tom. i. p. 277. the early fathers. 239 the opinions which they (the Arians) held were communicated to them by immediate in spiration. The same general fact was evinced a few years afterwards, in the same century, during the reign of Theodosius the great. The em peror, being greatly at a loss for some means of putting an end to the ferment which the Arian controversy had so long kept up, con sulted with some of the leading clergy on the subject. While this consultation was going on, Sisinnius, an orthodox man, of great piety, learning and prudence, but in an humble sta tion; advised, that in order to stop the mouths of the Arians, an appeal should be made to the testimony of the Fathers from the time of the Apostles down to their day ; and the Arians be asked, whether they were willing to abide the issue of such an appeal? Theodosius adopted the plan proposed, and offered to place the decision of the controversy on this footing. But the Arians, with one voice, re fused to abide by the judgment of the Fathers. — These facts are minutely related by Socrates, the historian, and the whole story is amply confirmed by his contemporary, Sozomen.* * Socrat. Hist, Eccles. Lib. v. cap. 10. Sozomen. Hist. EccV- Lib. vii. cap. 12. 240 TESTIMONY OF The former of these writers also tells us, that, after the Nicene Creed was drawn up, and about to be subscribed, the emperor Con- stantine asked Acesius, a Novatian Bishop who was present in the Council, whether he was willing to subscribe the Creed ? on which Acesius replied — " The Synod, O King, has " defined nothing new. I have read this " definition of faith, and find it to be the an- " CIENT TRADITION, EVEN FROM THE BE- " GINNING, FROM THE VERY TIMES OF THE. " APOSTLES." Another method of ascertaining what the Ante-Nicene christians believed, on the sub ject of this correspondence, is to trace the charges brought against their doctrine by the opposers and scoffers among the Pagans of that day. Among these Lucian held a conspicuous place. He flourished about 170 years after Christ. From the talents and learning which he manifests, he could not fail of knowing what the christians of his day believed ; more espe cially, as Jerome tells us, in his Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Writers, that he was once him self a professing christian, but afterwards be came an apostate. Among other reproaches which he throws out against the christians and their faith, the following passage occurs in his THE early fathers. 241 Philopatris. " God, reigning on high, great, " eternal, heavenly, the Son of the Father, " the Spirit proceeding from the Father, One " of Three, and Three of One, — I know not " what you say— One that is Three, and " Three that are One." Here is not only clear evidence, that Lucian considered the christians in his day as main taining the doctrine of the Trinity in Unity ; but it seems to be equally evident, that he con sidered the title Son, or Son of The Father as the appropriate title of the Second Person of the Trinity, as such, and expressive of his Divine and eternal nature, just as much as the " Spirit proceeding from the Father" was expressive of the Divine nature of the Third Person. But you still insist, as a very serious deduc tion from the enlightened orthodoxy of the Nicene Fathers, that, although they were much nearer the truth than the Arians ; yet that they differed from those hereticks much less than they themselves imagined, or than many modern advocates of the Nicene Creed are ready to suppose. I do not contend, my dear Sir, that the Fathers of the Council of Nice se lected, in all cases, the most appropriate and happy language to express their opinions. It X 242 TESTIMONY OF / would have been strange indeed, if, in speaking on a subject so sublime and mysterious, they had in no instance employed terms liable to be misinterpreted, and even positively un happy. I am not able to name a single writer who, in treating of a subject of much delicacy or difficulty, has wholly avoided this infelicity. Still, I think such expressions ought never to be charged against any one, when his language, taken altogether, and comparing the several parts of his discussion or illustration, exhibits, on the whole, a distinct and correct sense. To give an example of my meaning — When, in the 80th page of your Letters, you speak of the Divine essence as " the result of a union of certain qualities, attributes, or predicates," I take for granted that, if called to reconsider the word result, you would not attempt to de fend it, as either metaphysically or theologi cally accurate ; nay, you would instantly per ceive that it must be given up, as equally ex ceptionable with derivation, emanation, or any of those words against which you have so zealously protested. Yet, I take for granted, that, as to the point intended to be expressed by that word, no candid reader would think of either charging you with heterodoxy, or say- THE EARLY FATHERS. 243 ing that you had not, on the whole, with great clearness, expressed your opinions. On the same principle we ought, in my opinion, to interpret the language of the Coun cil of Nice. That the members of that Council, in their Synodical capacity, as well as in their writings as individuals, did really mean, and unceasingly strive, to convey the idea, that the Second Person of the Trinity, whom they called the Son, and whom they represent as begotten of the Father ; was, nevertheless, in their view, strictly and eternally divine ; a CO-EQUAL, CO-ESSENTIAL, and CO-ETERNAL Person with the Father ; is what, I presume, none will hesitate to admit. If they have suc ceeded in making this perfectly plain, I think that the remotest alliance in sentiment with the Arians, is one of the last things with which they ought to be charged. If the foregoing statements be correct, then the doctrine of the eternal Sonship of Christ, is a doctrine in which the great body of the Ante-Nicene Fathers harmoniously and deci sively concurred ; which the whole assembled Church, in the fourth century, solemnly pro fessed to believe, with the exception of a few acknowledged Arians ; which was unani mously received by all the orthodox in the 244 TESTIMONY OF christian world, from that time till near the close of the seventeenth century ; and which has been since opposed by none but Unitarians, and a very small section, compared with the whole body, of Trinitarian believers. Indeed you yourself, I presume, will not hesitate to acknowledge, that, from the Council of Nice to the first publication of Roell, in 1689, for thirteen hundred years, among all the Wit nesses of the truth in the middle ages, your doctrine had not probably a single Trinitarian advocate on earth. And even if this latter be so, to say nothing of the Ante-Nicene period, ought not a prudent, sober minded christian— I appeal to your judgment — to be cautious and slow in abandoning a doctrine which held, for so long a time, an undisputed and elevated place, among the best friends of the Redeemer? For my part, if the evidence from scripture were much more dubious than I think it is, I should certainly feel extremely reluctant to discard a doctrine, which has so long and so generally been considered as making a part of the form of sound words once delivered to the saints, and which has been incorporated with all the creeds and confessions of the orthodox, so far as I can now call to mind, at least from the Council of Nice to the present day. THE EARLY FATHERS. 245 Nor will it be forgotten, that the doctrine thus maintained by all the early Fathers, and by all the Witnesses for the truth, from the time of the apostles, at this hour makes a part, not merely of the articles of faith adopted, by the Presbyterian Churches in the United States, and in Scotland; but also of those pro fessed by the Churches of England, Holland, France, Germany, and I believe, by all the Churches of Protestant Christendom. That this will have some weight with all reflecting persons, I cannot for a moment doubt. Here I take leave of the Fathers. Not, I confess, " sick from the bottom of my heart," even of what they say on the subject of the Godhead, and the Person of the Redeemer. The more I read them, the more I respect them for their piety, their talents, and their learning. From the time of Justin Martyr, indeed, to the time of Augustine, every branch of theological doctrine was at a low ebb ; and scarcely a single article of it can be considered as taught with uniform and consistent accuracy. If they sometimes talked crudely, and even er roneously, on the Persons in the Godhead, it is no more than they often did on almost every doctrine that I can now call to mind. Yet, after all I find in them so rich a fund of instruc- x2 246 TESTIMONY OF tion, even on those subjects on which they ex press themselves weakly and erroneously, that I cannot help lamenting, that I did not begin to study them earlier in life ; and that from the time I began to look through their volumesr I have not had enough either of health or of leisure to admit of obtaining a profound ac quaintance with them. I feel constrained, however, to take this op- -, portunity of saying, (in which I am sure you will concur with me) that if I were to se lect any doctrines, out of the whole christian system, in support of which the great body of the Fathers, for the first three hundred years, taking them together, speak more clearly, more unequivocally, with more studied variety and decision of language ; — in short, concern ing which there is less doubt as to what they really received, and meant to teach, than any others, I should, without hesitation, select the doctrines of the Divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ, and of the Trinity in Unity. I will venture to say, that whoever examines the early Fathers impartially, will find, amidst their multifarious, and often very crude lucu brations, more precision, more decisively ac curate discussion, more pointed conformity with orthodoxy, more harmonious agreement, THE EARLY FATHERS. 247 more constant care to maintain fundamental and exact truth — in reference to these doc trines, than any others that can be named. In one word, if I were left at liberty to select any doctrines, which I would be more willing, than with respect to any others, to prove, under the heaviest penalties, that the Ante-Nicene Fathers, believed and taught, I should cer tainly fix, at once, on those which I have just mentioned. I know there is no need of my asking you to pardon me for this digression. But I must hasten to another department of my under taking. LETTER VII. Objections answered. BEVEBEND AND DEAR BROTHE'R, I propose to devote this Letter to the consideration of the principal objections which you make to the doctrine maintained in the foregoing pages. I say the principal ones ; for I am obliged, on this as well as on other branches of the general subject, to make a selection of topicks, out of the great number which invite attention. Some of the objec tions about to be noticed, have been hinted at in the preceding letters ; but they are entitled to more particular and careful examination. I. The first and most serious of all your ob jections is, that you cannot understand the doctrine of eternal generation; nay, that it contradicts all your ideas of the Divine na- OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 249 ture ; and that, therefore, if you were to find ' passages of scripture which seemed to assert that the Son of God was eternally begotten, you could not interpret such passages literally, but must suppose that they meant something different from a true and proper generation. You acknowledge that you have no right to demand that the nature of this generation it self be explained ; but you insist that you have a right to demand that the language used to express it be altogether intelligible. You un dertake, therefore, to pronounce, that when the term " generation" is applied at all to a Person of the Godhead, it appears to you either an " unmeaning term," or " flatly con tradictory to every notion of Deity that you can form ;" and that you are, of course, con strained to reject it as unintelligible. This is a radical objection, to which you frequently recur, and which no explanation seems to be capable of diminishing. I acknowledge, my dear Sir, I was not pre pared to expect this objection from an ortho dox Brother. Had I been called, indeed, to maintain my creed against one who excluded from his theological system all mysteries, I should have anticipated meeting him on this ground, and have seen him, without surprise, 250 OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. advancing to occupy it. But in a discussion with one who embraces your general creed, I must say, I had no expectation of being called to answer the objection which has been- just stated, especially under the aspect in which you have placed it. You profess to believe many things, which you can no more understand, than the doctrine for which I plead. You acknowledge, without difficulty, that there are three Persons in one God, " the same in substance, equal in power and glory." And you profess to believe this, not because you have any distinct notions of the fact which these terms express, but simply because you consider that fact as taught in scripture. You also admit, no doubt, the Di vine Omnipresence; that is, you admit, that not merely a part, but the whole of God is present in heaven ; and at the same time, not merely a part, but the whole of God is present on earth, and in every portion of the universe. But is this intelligible to creatures of our small capacity? Nay, is it wholly free from the charge of apparent contradiction and impos sibility? Yet no one who hopes to escape the charge of atheism, thinks for a moment of de nying it. I acknowledge my inability to per ceive, why one who receives these doctrines OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 251 without difficulty, should be stumbled at the doctrine of eternal Sonship, as too mysterious to be admitted. But, you say, (p. 88.) " What is unintelli- " gible, or surpasses our comprehension, be-. " longs to things, and not to words. What " we express respecting things, must of course " be intelligible; for language is merely the ve- " hide by which our thoughts are conveyed to " others." And again— '' It is very easy to " draw the line of distinction between mys- " tery which is connected with things, or " phenomena, and mystery which belongs only " to language. The latter, I take it, always " proceeds either from want of skill, or crafty " design, or an intention to speak enigmas." This is setting up a distinction, my dear sir, which I am inclined to think more mature con sideration will constrain you to abandon as untenable, or, at any rate, to regard as of no value. If I understand the spirit of the argu ment founded on this distinction, it is pre cisely that which our Unitarian neighbours employ against the doctrine of the Trinity. They say, " It is impossible that three should " be one, or one three. To assert it, is a con- " tradiction in terms. The doctrine involves " such a palpable absurdity, that no species of 252 OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. " evidence can render it credible." In vain we tell them, that the Persons in the Trinity are not three and one in the same sense; but that the Unity relates to one aspect of the divine subsistence, and the Trinity to another; both of which are alike beyond our compre- hension. They are deaf to every explanation, and repeat the charge of absurdity and con tradiction the thousandth time, with as much confidence as if no answer had ever been at tempted. Now, permit me to ask, — upon the principle which you have laid down, what would you reply to such an objection ? When you say there are three Persons in one God, you certainly do not use the word Person in any sense which you are accustomed to recog nize as applicable to human persons. What do you mean, then, by the term, as applied to the Divine Being ? You say, you " do not know." That is, the word, as thus employed, is incomprehensible, as well as the thing. Wherein this differs, in any essential respect, from the case in hand, I confess my utter in ability to perceive. I know, indeed, that the term Person is not a favourite one with you. But still you use it, and seem to admit that it must be used, until a more eligible one can be found. But take any other that you may OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 253 please to select — the term " distinction," for example, and say whether you do not employ it without any definite idea whatever of the nature of that peculiarity in the Divine exis tence which it is intended to express ; in other words, without any definite idea of the mean ing of the term ? Nay, in all cases whatsoever, when we apply language borrowed from sen sible objects, to a spiritual and infinite Being, does not a measure of the same incomprehen sible character which attaches to the great Being himself, attach to much of the language in which we speak of his glory ? If so, then the distinction, on which you appear to lay so much stress, between what is incomprehensi ble in things and in words, must, I think, be considered, in this case, as of no importance. The application of these remarks to the sub ject under discussion, is obvious. When you confidently pronounce that the phrases " eter nally begotten," " eternal generation," and " eternal Son," must necessarily imply both derivation and inferiority, and, therefore, " flatly contradict all your ideas of the Divine nature ;" you appear to me evidently to as sume, as the foundation of your whole argu ment, that Sonship with God, and sonship among men, must be essentially the same. You Y 254 OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. virtually reason thus — "We are acquainted " with no paternity or sonship among men, " which does not imply priority on „ the part " of the father, and posteriority on the part " of the son ; therefore it must be so with " respect to the relation of Father and Son in " the Godhead." But can reasoning founded on such principles be sound? Have we any right to take for granted that the relation of father and son among men, is the highest model, the most perfect exemplar of that relation in the uni verse; to which every thing else that bears the name must be conformed ? How know we but that sonship among men, is a distant and ob scure adumbration of something Divine and eternal ; of something as much above it in glory, as the eternal Mind is above the feeble, grovelling mind of man? You not only cannot demonstrate that this is impossible ; but I will venture to say, that neither you nor any other man can demonstrate, that it is evenimprobable. But until you do demonstrate that it is not only improbable, but also impossible, I must i consider your whole reasoning founded on the objection which I am now answering, as, sim ply, a petitio principii, or, which is the same thing, a gratuitous assumption, that, as son- ! ship among men implies attributes inconsistent OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 255 with Divinity ; so Sonship in the Godhead mustneeessarily imply attributesof precisely the same kind. Would it not be just as logical to argue, that because God is said in scripture to " rest from labour," to " repent," and to be " angry," therefore these expressions must bear exactly the same meaning when applied to, the Divine nature, as when spoken of men ? But, if it be supposed that the expressions, begotten, generation, Son, are applied, as we believe, to the Second Person of the Trinity in condescension to human weakness; that they express a necessary and eternal, and, at the same time, an ineffable and incomprehensible relation ; that there is the same immeasurable distance between the import of fehese terms when applied to human beings, and their im port when applied to the Infinite and Eternal One, as there is between earth and heaven ; then, surely, we must be able to comprehend God, before we can safely pronounce that the terms' in question cannot, in any sense, ex press a relation in the Godhead. Yet this, it appears to me, is the sentence which you do pronounce, whenever you urge the objection which I am now attempting to obviate. In fine, on this objection : — the eternal Son- ship of Christ is, undoubtedly, a great mys- 256 OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. tery. But if the fact itself be of a nature far beyond the comprehension of men, perhaps of angels ; why need we wonder, if the language which infinite Wisdom has chosen to use for expressing it, (being necessarily the language of mortals) should convey very inadequate ideas to our minds ? -Is not this, in fact, the case with respect to all that language by which we attempt to lisp our ideas concerning the Infinite One? Nay, when we know so little concerning generation among creatures ; and are so totally incapable of tracing the real nature of the relation between father and son even among men ; I cannot conceive how it should be reasonably objected, that Sonship in the eternal Godhead cannot be comprehended by us ; or how we can be prepared to pro nounce, with intelligence, that the title of Eternal Son, can in no proper sense apply to the Second Person in the Trinity, without destroying his Divine nature. II. Another objection to the doctrine for which I plead, which you seem to consider as of very serious import, is, that if the gene ration of the Son were necessary and eternal, it could not be voluntary ; and if not volun tary, that I must then be deprived of the tes timony of several of the Fathers, who repre- OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 257 sent the Son as begotten when the Father . pleased, or according to his will. But that, on the other hand, if, as those Fathers asserty the Son were begotten voluntarily, or with - the will of the Father, his generation could not have been eternal. This is precisely the old Arian objection, which was urged fifteen hundred years ago, by the adherents to that heresy, and, I think, "satisfactorily answered by the Orthodox of that day. The Arians stated the objection thus — " The -Father either begat the Son with " his consent and will, or against his consent " and will. If the former, then that act of " the Divine will was antecedent to the Son's " existence, and therefore, the Son was not " eternal. The latter was evidently too absurd " for any christian to admit." They urged this objection with great confidence,, and thbught that they had reduced the Orthodox to a dilemma, from which they could not pos sibly escape. The Orthodox, however, retorted the ar gument, and reduced the Arians, on their own principles, to a similar difficulty in their turn. They answered, " Does God the Father exist " with his own consent and will, or against " his own consent and will? If the former, Y, 2 258 OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. " then we have an act of the Divine will an- " tecedent to the Divine existence. Of course, " the Father is not eternal. The latter, no " one who believes in God at all will think of " maintaining." The Arians were silenced by their own reasoning. The Orthodox had another answer, equally conclusive. They admitted that the generation of the Son was voluntary, that is, with the consent and will of the Father; in the same manner that the Father possessed all his per fections, necessarily, and yet not against his will. They stated the argument in the fol lowing manner. "God the Father is good, " infinitely good ; necessarily and eternally " good ; he could not be God without this at- " tribute. Yet, surely, he is not good against " his will; but in the fullest sense of the word, " voluntarily. It appears, therefore, that that " which is voluntary may yet be necessary " and eternal." Now, if this reasoning be sound, and to me it appears perfectly conclusive, then it is evi dent, that the Son might have been begotten from eternity, and necessarily begotten ; that is, that his relation of Sonship with the Fa ther might have been necessary and eternal; in other words, quite as essential to the Divine OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 259 nature as any thing that can. be predicated of it ; and yet that this relation might be with the consent and will of the Father. If so, your whole objection, so far as I can see, falls to the ground. Take another illustration of the subject, under a somewhat different aspect. All grant that the Decrees of God were eternal; and yet I know of no christians who deny that they were perfectly voluntary. They all flowed from the " mere good pleasure of his will." There could have been no higher or pre ceding motive. But what would you think of any one who should attempt to cavil against the eternity of the Divine decrees by such an argument as the following — " The decrees of " God are acts of the Divine mind ; but every " mind must exist before it can act: therefore " God existed before he decreed; of course his " decrees were subsequent to his existence ; " but that which is subsequent to any thing " cannot be co-eval with it. Therefore the " decrees of God were not eternal." Would you not reprobate such reasoning, as absurd in itself, and as not sufficiently respectful to that glorious Being, whose perfections present a subject infinitely too deep for us to fathom? O how incompetent are we -to comprehend the 260 - OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. wonders, or to measure the counsels and the glories of Him who is without a parallel in the universe ! You say, (p. 161.) " Take the favourite " simile of light proceeding from the sun. Is " not the irradiation of light, it is asked, co- " eval with the sun? As a philosopher, I " should surely answer, No. For if the sun is " the cause of irradiation, in the order of time " and of nature, the cause must precede the " effect." I am humbly of opinion, my dear Sir, that if you should answer so, whether " as a philosopher," or in any other capacity, you would answer erroneously. If it be one of the essential qualities of the sun to be radient, I should no more think of doubting, that irra diation is co-eval, in the strictest sense, with the sun, than I should think of denying that fluidity is co-eval with water, or ponderosity and impenetrability with marble. If the reasoning sometimes employed on this subject were admitted, it would prove, as it appears to me, that there could have been no such thing as an eternal act. In other words, it would go to establish the principle, that al though the Father existed from eternity, he could not have acted from eternity. But can this conclusion be admitted? Does it not re- OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 261 volt every thinking mind ? Is not God ne cessarily and- essentially active ? Was his ex istence, prior to the work of creation, an eter nal sleep, or repose ? If it 'may be made a question, whether the human soul thinks al ways ; surely it admits of no question, whether the infinite and eternal God thinks always, and has done so from eternity, and done it voluntarily ; and yet, at the same time, from a necessity of his nature. Wherein does this differ from an eternal emanation or genera tion ? Nor is this suggestion, that the generation of the Son may be necessary and eternal, and at the same time voluntary, a mere notion of my own, to evade a difficulty. The following quotation from the learned Stapfer — a divine who is quoted so frequently, and with so much respect and approbation, by the venerable President Edwards, — will show that the opi nion rests on very high authority. "Of the • " Father it is declared, that he imparted di- " vine life, and so the divine essence, to the " Son; Psalm ii. 7. By which he possesses a " most active existence in himself, even as the " Father has the same in himself. Whence " arises the relation of Father and Son. — " Since the Father has given his essence to 262 OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. " the Son, they both possess a common essence.. " And so the Father can be said to have com- " municated his essence to the Son. Hence " that generation is rightly termed the com- " munication of the Divine essence. Seeing " it is one thing to generate, and another to " be generated, the first belongs to ;the Fa- " ther, the latter to the Son. Hence it is ap- " parent that the Father possesses a property " which the Son has not; and as to that par- " ticular, they differ from each other." " Because the' Son is true God, the Divine " essence belongs to him, which. he has from " himself. Hence he exists necessarily, not " contingently. Whence it follows that it is " impossible that he should not have thus ex- "isted; his generation, therefore, is absolutely " necessary. But God is independent, and " therefore, can do nothing, unwillingly, or " by compulsion, but always acts voluntarily; " the generation of the Son, then, was volun- " tary. But it has been proved to be ne- " cessary ; therefore it follows that this will of " generating the Son was absolutely necessary. " Whatever is absolutely necessary is eternal, " must be eternal ; but the generation of the " Son is necessary, therefore eternal." 41 From what has been said, it appears that OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 263 41 although Christ has his essence from him- " self, and so is self- existent ; yet as to the " mode of possessing that essence, he has it ""from the Father. But the Father has not " only his essence, but the mode of possessing " it from himself. Whence the Father is al- " ways said to act from himself, and the Son " to operate from the Father."* You will readily perceive, my dear sir, that the scope of the foregoing remarks is, not to explain how it is, that what is necessary and eternal may yet be voluntary. But it is to show how little qualified we are to explore or comprehend such subjects. Truly such know ledge is too wonderful for us ; it is high; we cannot attain unto it! But perhaps you will be disposed to ask, whether the tenour of the foregoing remarks is entirely consistent with the manner in which I expressed myself on the same subject in my " Letters on Unitarianism ?" I must say, in candour, it is not. In those Letters (p. 87.) the following sentence occurs. " 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 * Stapfeb. Instit, Polem. Tom. i.p. 318. 264 OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. " that are nectary, the effect must be co-eval " with the cause ; as the stream is with the " fountain, and light with the sun." . This was an unguarded sentence. I do not, upon more mature reflection, defend it ; being per suaded that voluntary and necessary are not ' always inconsistent with each other, and that what is perfectly voluntary may yet be strictly eternal. III. You further object, (p. 80.) that, ac cording to the representation usually given of this subject by orthodox divines, " the Father " imparts to the Son, the same numerical es- " sence which he himself possesses, without di- " vision. Now, if this be the case, you say, " it follows, that the same numerical essence " communicates the whole of itself to the same " numerical essence ; but if so, you allege, it " follows, that the essential power or virtue of " the Father, by which he produces or ge- " nerates the Son, must also be communicated " to him ; consequently, by virtue of this " communication, the Son must produce ano- " ther person of the same condition or ho- " moousian with himself; this third person a " fourth, and so on without end. If this be " denied, then it follows that one essential " power or virtue of the Father is not com- OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 265 " municated to the Son, viz. the power of ne- " cessary eternal generation. The definition, " then* seems either to be inconsistent with " itself, or to imply an infinite number of ge- " nerations in the Godhead. In either case, " it must be untenable." — In answer to this objection, I would remark, (1.) That this, again, is an old Arian ob jection, urged with great zeal by Dr. Clarke, and his adherents, more than an hundred years ago ; and satisfactorily answered by Dr. Waterland, and others, who lived at the same time. But, (2.) I know of no one who holds the opi nion here objected to, as the "objection ex presses it. I know of no one, for example, who asserts or believes, that " the same numerical " essence communicates to itself the same nu- " merical essence." And when you ascribe this opinion, by inference, to Turretine, I sincerely think you do him injustice. That profound Divine, means to assert no more, as I understand him, than that the Second Per son of the Trinity bears a relation to the First, which the scriptures express by the terms Son and generation ; and that, in virtue of this generation, the Son possesses the same complete and perfect Divine nature with the Z 266 OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. Father. I will not undertake, as I observed in a former Letter, to be the apologist of Tur retine' s phraseology, as in all cases the most correct and happy ; but, unless I am greatly deceived, his meaning is what I have just stated : and, if so, I think it may be justified. (3.) Does not precisely the same difficulty, in this respect, attach to your system, which you impute to mine ? You profess to believe that the Logos is Divine and eternal ; that is, that the Second Person of the Trinity pos sesses the same Divine nature, complete and perfect as the First. Is this unity of nature, or essence, a. numerical, or only a specifick unity ? If the former, the same objection may be made to it, which you urge against my doc trine ; if the latter, then I see not how you will avoid the charge of Tritheism. But you do not leave me in doubt on this subject You say, in your Letters to Dr. Channing, that the Father and the Logos have each, " nu merically, the same essence." But the essence of any being, you say in your Letters to me, (p. 80.) cannot be considered as a dif ferent thing from those attributes or predicates which constitute it what it is. Therefore, it follows, that all the predicates of the Logos are exactly the same with those of the Father; OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 267 and, of course, the predicate of being the Fa ther's Logos, by whom he made the worlds, must be one of the essential predicates of the Father himself. Suppose I were to adopt such reasoning; what would you think of it? Could you imagine that it was intended to be se riously urged, or that it required a serious answer? But wherein does it differ from the argument which you confidently adduce, in the page last mentioned, respecting the gene ration of the Son ? (4.) I have still another difficulty to state. You acknowledge that between the First and Second Persons in the Godhead, there is a distinction ,•— -a distinction which we are not capable of explaining ; — a distinction the na ture of which is not revealed to us, — perhaps because we are not capable, in the present state, of being made to comprehend it. Still, however, you expressly grant that there is a real distinction between these mysterious and ever blessed Persons. But if there be a dis tinction, there is a difference; that is, the One is not the Other. The Logos is not the Fa ther, nor the Father the Logos. In other words, if there be a real and eternal distinc tion between the Persons of the Trinity, then that which distinguishes the First from the 268 OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. Second, and the Third from both, is something peculiar to each, and not possessed by others. Now this peculiar personal property is either a perfection, or it is not. If it be not a per fection, then each Person of the Trinity pos sesses a property which is not a perfection — a conclusion too shocking to be admitted. But if it be a perfection, then there is in each one of the Divine Persons a perfection which is not in the rest, and consequently each does not possess precisely the same predicates in all re spects. I merely make use of this argument, my dear Sir, as an argumentum ad hominem, to show that you neither gain any advantage, nor get rid of any difficulty, by rejecting the doctrine of eternal Sonship. Precisely the same difficulties occur in your own system. I infer, then, yourself being judge, that the objection which I am combatting must fall to the ground. But this is not all ; for, (5.) By reasoning of the same kind, pre cisely, we should strike, not merely at the doctrine of the Trinity, in any form; but also at some of those perfections of God, which even natural religion teaches. Let me select, as an example, the attribute before alluded to. The Bible teaches that God is omnipresent ; and the Deist acknowledges the same thing. But, OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 269 suppose I were to assail the doctrine of the Divine omnipresence thus — " God, you say, " the same individual God, is every where " present ; and the substance of God, is God. " Now, is that Divine substance, which fills " heaven, the same individual Divine sub- " stance which fills earth, hell, and every part " of the universe? If it be not the same indi- " vidual substance, then it is only specifically, " and not numerically the same : and then, " the consequence must be that the substance " of God is not one, but many, the parts of " which are specifically alike, but not identi- " cally the same. But further ; the Divine " substance is in heaven. This no one will " deny. Now I ask whether the substance " which fills heaven, be part only of the Di- " vine substance, or the whole ? If it be a " part only, then God is not in heaven, but a " part of God only. If it be the whole, then " how can God be omnipresent ? Can the " whole of the same individual substance be in " heaven, and at the same time diffused over " the universe ? Can the whole of God be in " heaven, and at the same time, the whole of " God be every where else?" But you will say, that this is an unwarrantable application of the mathematical principles of space, and z 2 270 OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. part and whole to an infinite Spirit, to whom they cannot with propriety be applied. — I know it ; nor should I dare to employ such reasoning, even by way of illustration, did I not hope to show by it, that a mode of arguing which proves too much, or which seems to lead to the most shocking consequences, cannot be sound. But precisely similar, in my opi nion, is the reasoning which forms the essence of the objection which I am now answering. My respected Brother will not imagine, for a moment, that I charge him with the shocking consequences which have been mentioned. — Far from it. The consequences which he who holds an opinion draws from it are one thing; those which appear to others naturally and necessarily to flow from it, may be quite ano ther. I am endeavouring,' as far as I am able, to trace your objection to its elementary prin ciples : and my deliberate persuasion is, that if the doctrine of the Trinity, or any, doctrine respecting the nature of God, is to stand or fall by argumentation of the kind in question, we may bid farewell to all theological truth. IV. Another objection, which appears to weigh not a little in your mind, is, that, if the doctrine which I maintain respecting the Son be correct, then there must necessarily be some OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 271 dependence of the Son on the Father ; which you insist is utterly incompatible with all your ideas of supreme Godhead. In answer to this objection, it would be quite sufficient, in my opinion, to say, that the con sequence with which you charge my doctrine is one which I do not admit. The generation — the Sonship for which I contend^ I suppose to be, as has been before repeatedly said, so per fectly unique, so infinitely and sublimely pe culiar, as not to imply either inferiority or subordination. And until you can prove (which I am sure you never can) that it is im possible there should be a generation, a Son- ship of this ineffable character, in the infinite and incomprehensible God, I must consider the objection as having no real force. But let us see whether this very objection does not lie equally, on your principles, against your own doctrine, of the Divinity of the Logos. You say that the Logos is Divine and eternal ; that he is self- existent, indepen dent, and possessed, equally with the Father, of, every Divine perfection. Now, I ask, agreeably to a suggestion in my fourth Letter, do you maintain that the Logos has a divine nature altogether and strictly independent of the Father and the Holy.Spirit ? Do you sup- 272 OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. pose that the Second Person of the adorable Trinity has, in himself, a separate and com plete Divinity, which might exist without the First and Third ? Those who admit this idea, appear to me to overlook the important fact, that the essential predicates of Divinity, as self- existence, independence, &c. belong not to any one of the Persons of the Trinity, con sidered absolutely independently of the other two ; but they belong to the Divine Being. The Tri-une Jehovah is self- existent, inde pendent, &c. In this Jehovah there are three Persons, partaking equally, and without limit, of these predicates or attributes. The fact, then, (if it be a fact, as I believe it is) that the Second Person of the Trinity is necessa rily and eternally begotten by the First ; that is, necessarily and eternally bears that relation to the First Person which is called Sonship, and possesses the same nature with him — will not at all affect the predicates which belong to the infinitely perfect and glorious Divine Being as such. If it do, then I think it may be shown, that the same difficulty, to precisely the same extent, will apply to the doctrine of the Trinity as stated by yourself, in your Let ters to Dr. Channing ; You say, you "be- " lieve that God is one ; that the Father, the OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 273 " Logos, and the Holy Ghost, have, numeri- •'•' cally, the same essence, and the same per- " fections ;" and that each of these Persons is truly God. Now, suppose an objector were to ask you, whether, when you say the Father is truly God, you mean, that the Father possesses the essence and the perfections of Divinity, altogether independently of the Logos and the Holy Ghost? What would you say? You would not, I presume, say, yes ; for that would be to avow a belief in three separate, indepen dent Gods. You would probably say, no ; the Sacred Three do not possess, each alone, com plete Divinity. They possess it conjointly and equally. But the objector would proba bly reply. If this be so, then the Father is, in some sense, (that is by his equal, perfect, necessary, and eternal communion in these at tributes with the other two Persons) dependent on the Logos, and the Holy Spirit He is not, he cannot be God without them ; and, therefore, he is not, as a distinct Person, abso lutely, and in every sense, independent, and, consequently, is not alone the Supreme God. Perhaps you would have much more to say to such an objector than I can think of. But I acknowledge, my dear Sir, if I took the ground on which some of your objections to my creed 274 OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. appear to rest, the reasoning of such an ob jector would not a little perplex me. Allow me, then, most respectfully, to ask you, what your ideas are respecting the relation which the Persons of the Trinity bear to each other? I am induced to ask this, from my being really at a loss to interpret some of your reasoning, without resorting to principles which, I suspect, neither you nor I would be willing to adopt. If, on the one hand, you suppose that each Person of the adorable Trinity has, in himself, a complete, separate, independent, Divine existence, in such a sense as to be alone, the infinite Jehovah, then, I see not, as I have already intimated, how you are to avoid the charge of Tritheism. On the other hand, if you admit, with me, that three incomprehensibly related Persons, con stitute the one, self existent, independent, and glorious Jehovah ; that no one of these Per sons, (though all equally possess the same Di vine nature,) can alone have the predicates of the Godhead ascribed to him ; and that it is the mysterious union of all which constitutes the self-existent and independent God : then it appears to me that all that reasoning which you offer by way of objection to the doctrine of eternal Sonship, as if the Son, according to OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 275 that doctrine, must necessarily be a dependent being, may be offered, on exactly the same principle, and lies with just as much force, against your doctrine of the eternal Logos. Perhaps, however, you can give such an ex planation of your views on this subject, as tD divest them of all that difficulty with which they appear to me to be attended. V. Finally ; you object, that the doctrine I maintain, instead of being friendly, as* has been commonly supposed, to an enlightened defence of the Divinity of Christ, and the doctrine of the Trinity, is really. hostile to both; and though generally held by persons who abhor Arianism, yet bears an alliance with that heresy, by no means remote. Nor is this a new objection, or confined to yourself. It has been, long since, frequently made by others with great confidence. It appears to me a sufficient answer to this objection to remark, that the genuine and na tural tendency of any doctrine is, undoubtedly, to be decided by matter of fact. What, then, I ask, has been found, in fact, to be the in fluence of the doctrine of the eternal Sonship of Christ, among those who have embraced it, in reference to the point of this objection ? Is it common for the strenuous defenders of the 276 OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. doctrine of the eternal generation, to fall into Arianism ? Or, did you ever hear of a case in which the two doctrines were found together in the same individual ? A few Semi-arians, indeed, have professed to believe in the eter nal generation of the Son, and, at the same time, in his inferiority to the Father ; but ex amples of this kind are so very rare, that it is hardly necessary to take them into the ac count. Where, then, is the evidence of na tural alliance ? I doubt whether any two doc trines are, either in principle or in feet, more remote or abhorrent feom each other, than the doctrine for which I plead, and the Arian heresy. On the other hand, I ask, whether the opi nion that the Sonship of Christ is not divine and eternal, but constituted by his incarnation and resurrection, is not often found in con nection with Arian principles ; and whether it does not appear to have a natural alliance with them ? Have not Unitarian sentiments, manifestly, had most prevalence in those parts of our country, in which these ideas of the Sa viour's Sonship have been most widely dif fused? You explicitly acknowledge that the fact is so ; but at the same time contend that it is to be ascribed to other causes than those OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 277 which imply an alliance between these two classes of opinions. I have no doubt, my dear Brother, that in saying this, you express your sincere convictions. But I have quite as little doubt that you are mistaken ; and that one great reason why so many of the clergy of New-England have " turned aside to fables," in reference to the person of the blessed Re deemer, is, that large numbers of them have been so long in the habit of speculating on that mysterious subject with an unguarded freedom, that, before they were aware, they became inextricably entangled in the toils of fatal error. And I trust I do not forget the profound re spect which is due to Fathers and Brethren, at whose feet it would be a privilege to sit and learn, when I venture to add a prediction, that, if the same species of speculation should continue to operate and to spread, the cause of Unitarianism will gain ground in a corres ponding proportion. Not that I consider the prevalence of the doctrine under consideration, as the sole cause — perhaps not even the prin cipal one, — of the spread of Unitarian opi nions in New-England. I am aware, as you suggest, that others also, of no small force, may be assigned. But that it is one, and by no means the least, of the real causes, I cannot A a 278 OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. possibly doubt, when I attend to the history of theological sentiments in that section of our country. I have thus attempted, in a cursory manner, to examine and to answer the principal ob jections urged in your pamphlet. Some others might be noticed ; I shall not, however, pur sue this branch of the subject further, but pro ceed to what remains of my task. In general, your objections to my creed appear to me to present no greater difficulties, than those mys teries of our holy religion, which you profess ,to receive, every where present : — no greater, and, in some respects, notso great, as attend your own system : — and certainly not greater than are presented by several of those attributes of the Most High, which natural religion teaches, and which all who are not atheists agree in re ceiving. Indeed I deliberately think it would not be difficult to show, that much of the rea soning which you employ against the eternal Sonship of Christ, might with equal force be directed against the self-existence and eternity of God. If " eternal Son" be a contradiction, I see not but that " eternal purposes" are a contradiction, — and that an " eternal cove nant" is a contradiction ; nay, I see not but OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 279 that eternal existence, in any form, is an ab surdity ! Before I close this letter, allow me in the fullness of a respectful and fraternal heart, tc offer to your consideration one query. — Are not some of the speculations and rea sonings in which you have indulged, especially in your fourth Letter, and in which I have at tempted to follow you in the present, rather calculated to make the mind irreverent, and even profane, than to nourish pious feeling ? I do seriously doubt, from my own experience, whether it is possible for almost any man to pursue such speculations to any great extent, without being sensible of a very undesirable influence resulting from them. If I know my self, I do not say this from a wish to skreen any of my opinions from thorough investiga tion ; but from sincere doubt whether it is for edification to be much engaged in such in quiries. I am not afraid of their logical re sult, but of their practical impression on the mind. It is possible to speculate on the most awful of all subjects in such a manner as toJba- nish every reverential and devout feeling. If I were to judge from the effeet of it on my own heart, I certainly should not be willing to recur to it frequently, or to continue it long. 280 OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. I commit these remarks, my dear Sir, with affectionate freedom, to your candour. If they have been dictated by a morbid sensi tiveness, or by something less excusable, on my part, forgive them. If there is any just ness in them, you will, no doubt, be disposed to appreciate and apply them aright. In the mean time I hasten to my closing letter. LETTER Vm. Concluding Remarks. REVEREND AND DEAR BROTHER, I have now completed the task which I prescribed to myself in entering on the dis cussion of this subject. I have given a brief exhibition of that evidence on which I have been accustomed to rest my belief in the doc trine of the eternal Sonship of the blessed Re deemer. How the considerations offered may appear in your view, or in that of others, un der whose inspection they may come, is not for me to conjecture. I can only say, they. have satisfied me that the old and commonly received doctrine among the Orthodox, is the doctrine of the Bible,, and ought to be held fast. It is not improper to remind you, my dear A a 2 282 Concluding remarks. Sir, of what your own similar situation will enable you easily to appreciate; — that the foregoing Letters have been prepared in those small fragments of time which the daily re curring duties of a most laborious station, per mitted me to redeem, for the purpose ; and that, of course, scarcely a single line has been written without the pressure either of that haste or that weariness, which those who are similarly situated know well how to estimate. If, in these circumstances, in attempting to run a race with my engagements, I should have, in any case, misapprehended your mean ing ; or failed of hitting the point of your argu ment; or expressed my own meaning vaguely; or, above all, approached to any thing like acerbity of manner ; — I trust you will be ready to assign and admit the proper apology for it. It is literally true, that my discussion is long, because " I have not had time to make it shorter." And it is equally true, that, after all my prolixity, I have been constrained to wave the consideration of a number of things, which it was desirable to have noticed, by the fear that your patience would be exhausted ; and that even if your's was not, that of my other readers could hardly be expected to concluding remarks. 283 hold out through a more protracted corres pondence. This discussion, indeed, has grown under my hands to an extent greatly beyond my ori ginal plan. That plan, as I intimated to you, in a private communication, was simply to state, in^a single Letter, my general views of the subject of our correspondence, and to as sign, with as much brevity as possible, my principal reasons for dissenting from you in opinion on that subject But I have been in sensibly led on from argument to argument, and from authority to authority, until the re sult is — a little volume. And here, allow me, my dear Brother, un, feignedly to thank you for inviting me to re examine this subject. — I will confess, that it had never, until now, fallen in my way to in vestigate the doctrine before xiSTvith more than the ordinary attention with which I had gone over this with the other Loci Communes of the system of didactick and polemick Theo logy. I am indebted to you for an inducement to review and extend my inquiries on the sub ject. For the . impartiality with which these inquiries have been conducted, I cannot un dertake to vouch. But with respect to the great addition to the satisfaction and confidence 284 CONCLUDING REMARKS. with which I rest in my old opinion, which have resulted from them, I cannot easily be mistaken. But you will, perhaps, ask me, what degree of importance I attach to the question under discussion ? In answer to this inquiry, I will unveil to you my whole heart, as I have so constantly charged myself to do, on every point in the preceding pages. I do not suppose, then, that it ought to be ranked among the fundamentals of Chris tianity. If a brother maintain faithfully the doctrine of the Trinity in Unity ; — avoiding Sabellianism on the one hand, and Tri-theism on the other. If he maintain the strict Per sonality and Divinity of the Second and Third Persons, as well as of the First, in the adorable Godhead : if, disliking the phrase, eternal ge neration or SonskipybG -maintain the doctrine of. an eternal Word, intead of an eternal Son; meaning thereby a distinct Person, one with the Father, " the same in substance, equal in power and glory;" and if he suppose that the terms Son, generation, and begotten refer to the incarnation of this eternal Word, or his investiture with office: — I say, if any one should prefer this view of the doctrine con cerning the Personality and Divinity of the CONCLUDING REMARKS. 285 Saviour, rather than that which has been ex hibited and defended in the preceding pages ; — though I must regret his embracing what I deem an error, and an error by no means likely to be harmless ; yet it would never oc cur to me to think, for one moment, of placing it in the list of radical errors. For example, no candid inquirer, I should suppose, would hesitate to acknowledge the general orthodoxy of the pious and venerable Dr. Ridgley, or would venture to brand him as a heretick, for the doctrine which he has so zealously taught on the subject of this correspondence. Yet, as I said, I must deeply regret the propagation of such a doctrine, and cannot consider it as by any means likely to be inno cent ; nay, it does strike me as likely to exert a pernicious influence. My reasons for making this estimate are the following. In the first place, all departures from the simplicity and purity of Gospel truth are to be regretted ; and especially those which have a reference to a subject so all-important as the Person of the Redeemer. If, therefore, the doctrine which I oppose be really a departure from truth, though by no means a destructive error, it cannot, I take for granted, be deemed entirely harmless, 286 CONCLUDING REMARKS. Again ; if the doctrine which I maintain be the doctrine of scripture, then you, and those who think with. you, are chargeable with in troducing not only a new doctrine, but also a new phraseology into the Church, which will not well comport with established theological language, and, of course, will be likely both to perplex and mislead. Nor is it easy, in my opinion, to estimate the mischief which such a derangement- of current language, as to im portant subjects, would be apt to produce. I am under the impression, that if the mass of plain unlettered christians were made to be lieve that the title Son, in the form of Bap tism prescribed by our Saviour, and in other parts of scripture, did not properly express an eternal relation and Person in the Godhead, as such, but something else, and something less ; no criticism or explanation that you, or any other man could give, would be likely to prevent their faith in the Divinity of the Sa viour, and in the Trinity generally, from being seriously shaken. Further ; if the phrase, Son of God, be de nied to import a divine and eternal relation, the denial cannot fail, as it appears to me, to render a number of passages of scripture, in which the Saviour is called Son, much less CONCLUDING REMARKS. 287 pointed and decisive as proofe of his Divinity, than they have been generally considered by the Orthodox, and certainly are, on the old, and long established ground. I have long thought, and am still constrained to believe, that some of the strongest passages in the New Testa ment in favour of the Divinity of Christ, are among those which ascribe Divine attributes to him as Son. A number of these have been re cited in preceding Letters. But if it be as sumed that his Sonship is not Divine and eter nal, will not the argument commonly drawn from these passages be impaired, if not de stroyed ? If I know my own heart, I am not desirous of claiming a single text in support of the Divinity of Christ, which does not clearly teach the doctrine : but neither am I willing to relinquish any which do really teach that pre cious truth, which lies at the foundation of all my hopes. Finally ; if the Lord Jesus Christ may be Sonby office, and not by. nature and eternally ; will not many be ready to suppose, upon simi lar principles, that he may be God by office ? The Socinians, you know, contend, that this is the only sense in which he is called God in scripture. And, really, I cannot help think ing, that, if the doctrine which I oppose be 288 CONCLUDING REMARKS. once admitted, it will prove, in this wayj no small concession to the Unitarian cause. This, I know, is far from being intended by those who hold the doctrine in question. Nay, they insist, and no doubt sincerely believe, that its tendency is directly of the opposite kind. But my impression is, that they are deceived, and that the result will prove the fact to be so. Such is my estimate of the unfavourable in fluence of this doctrine, even when held in the least exceptionable form, and when vindicated upon the plan of the pious and valuable Dr- Ridgeley, and those of his school. Not that I suppose, by any means, that it is always pro ductive of these effects. For I have no doubt that it is held, and zealously held, by some, who set as illustrious an example of eminent piety, and maintain the Divinity of the Sa viour with as much decision, as any other classes of believers. But the question is, whether the genuine tendency of the doctrine which I op pose, is not, as I have suggested, unfriendly, in a variety of respects, to the Divine dignity and glory of Him who is the Foundation of our hope, and the Life of our souls ? If it be, what ever may be the piety, the learning, or the usefulness of some who may appear as its ad vocates, no wise man will be reconciled to their CONCLUDING REMARKS. 289 error on this account. The question is, not, how great may be the personal worth, or the ministerial services, of particular individuals who espouse it ; but whether it accords with the word of God, and is adapted to honour the Saviour. I will not undertake to say, that no one can hold the doctrine in question, without doing or suffering an injury by means of it ; but I will venture with confidence to decide, that, if it be a departure at all from the purity of gospel truth, it cannot circulate generally through the mass of a religious community, without mischief, and probably very serious mischief. But, my dear brother, I hope you will not ascribe it to the least unfriendliness of feeling, when I say, that the doctrine which you main tain on the subject of this correspondence, con sidered in itself, does not by any means excite so much apprehension in my mind, as the means to which you resort for its support. The doctrine itself I cannot, indeed, contemplate wholly Without fear, in any form ; but the me dium of proof which you employ, I regard with much more uneasiness. A number of your ar guments; the strain of your principal ob jections ; and the license which you indulge, in many cases, in the interpretation of scrip- B b 290 CONCLUDING REMARKS. ture,-1— all savour so much of a school with which I should abhor the thought of associating your respected name, that I read them with not a little pain ; a pain altogether uncon nected with the circumstance of their coming from an opposer of my creed. Yes, my dear Sir, though I know you abhor the sentiments of that school, from your heart ; yet, if your name were removed from the title page ; and if the several passages in which you profess your firm belief in the Divinity of Christ, were ex punged from your pamphlet, I should really suspect that it had come from some member of the Unitarian ranks, rather than from the midst of the Othodox camp. I again deprecate any misconstruction of this remark : but it is the simple truth ; and I know it to have been made by a number of others, as well as my self. Notwithstanding all this, however, I con sider you as a sincere Trinitarian, and as a truly pious Christian. I can as cordially reciprocate this acknowledgment, as you kindly make it in my case. I go farther ; and hesitate not to say, that I entertain the same opinion of the great body of my fathers and brethren in New England, who agree with you in respect to this doctrine. I believe them to be faithful CONCLUDING REMARKS. 291 ministers, daily doing good, and leading souls to glory. Yet, with my views of the subject, I cannot but tremble for the next generation. It is common to say that a stream can never rise higher than its fountain : and, in the natural world, this is ordinarily true. But not so in the intellectual and moral world. As a literary and scientifick teacher may put others in the way of being far more learned than himself ; so ecclesiastical history furnishes many examples of Theologians, who, though substantially or thodox, and fervently pious themselves, did, in fact, so conduct their instructions, as to send out pupils, many, if not the larger portion of whom were grievously heretical. This is said to have been in a measure the case with the pious and eminently useful Dr. Doddridge, of Great Britain, and it may be, to a still greater extent, the case again, with men whose praise is, deservedly, in all the churches. Say, not, my respected Friend, that in making these remarks, I undertake to " ad minister a reproof" to you, or to others who adopt the same opinion. Far from it. I feel that I have no title to assume the character of a " reprover" of brethren, who have not only the same right to the free exercise of pri vate judgment with myself; but who, also, as 292 CONCLUDING REMARKS. I am bound to believe, have inquired with at least as much intelligence, industry, and can dour as myself. In the exercise of the right alluded to, I have come to certain conclusions Concerning the importance of the doctrine of the Saviour's eternal Sonship; and the ten dency of the opposite doctrine. These I have ventured to express, — I hope with calmness and decorum, — certainly with sincerity. I ask for no further attentibn to them than their intrinsick character demands. When you ad dress me, therefore, in the language of the Gre cian chief — " Strike, but hear me ;" — my re ply is — Hear you, most respectfully and cheer fully, I will ; but strike you, I will not We are near enough to walk together in love. Cer tainly too near to allow of hard thoughts or speeches of each other. I will now, my dear Friend, bring this cor respondence, on my part, to a close. — I hope a final one. For although I have too much respect for the reverend Brother whom I ad dress, to resolve, even in my own mind, that I will not reply to any thing he may hereafter write on this subject ; and, I trust, too much love of truth to retreat from the defence of it, when there is the least prospect of saying a word usefully in its support; yet the idea of CONCLUDING REMARKS. . 293 being engaged in a publick " discussion" with you, in amanner involving difference of opinion, ( — and which others will assuredly call a "con troversy," in spite of us) — is so painful to me, that I shall not for any light reasons take up my pen on this subject again. I would much rather that we should spend our leisure hours in the culture of that brotherly love which, it is my earnest hope, may ever subsist between us ; and in recommending to our Pupils, and supporting before the world, those great fun damental and practical principles of our com mon salvation, in which we are substantially agreed, and which we concur in regarding as of infinite importance. Verily, my Brother, there is enough in these principles to engage the whole of the best acquirements, and the best energies, that we can summon to their defence. I especially feel that this is the case now,- when a spirit of unhallowed speculation has extensively gone forth; a spirit which, while it calls itself Christian, is employed in denying or perverting every thing worthy of the name. Infinitely rather would I join with you, in devoting myself,\ such as I am, to the diffusion of a counter spirit; to the dissemina tion of that precious Gospel,i which is* the power of God unto salvation to every one that 294 CONCLUDING REMARKS. believeth. In such a conflict, however irksome in some respects it may be, there is a consola tion not to be described ; and a never-failing benefit to the cause of the Redeemer, which it is not for us to attempt to measure. But from the continuance of the present discussion, I acknowledge that my anticipations of either pleasure' or advantage, are few and small, I even doubt, as I suggested in the preceding Letter, whether it can ever minister much to " godly edifying," for those who are in the main agreed respecting the Divine character of theJRedeemer, to spend much of their time in speculating, if I may so express it, about the philosophy of his Person. On this subject, and on similar subjects, to walk in the plain light of scripture, and in the footsteps of the flock, is the wisest as well as the safest course. In bidding you farewell, allow me to add, as one more tribute to that cordial amity which I wish to subsist between us, that if I have writ ten a word which is, in the remotest degree, inconsistent with a fraternal spirit, it is my earnest hope that you will forgive it, and set it down to the score of pure inadvertence. I certainly am not conscious of having written such a word ; and if, on various occasions, when I was led to state my diversity of im CONCLUDING REMARKS. 295 pression from your's, or my surprise at your opinions, — I had known how to express my self less pointedly, without impairing both the perspicuity and force of my meaning, I should certainly have used in many instances, lan guage of a still more reduced character. It has been my wish to remember, in every word that I wrote, that I was addressing One whom I regarded as a faithful and devoted Servant of Christ, and with whom I hope, through the riches of sovereign grace, to dwell forever in a more enlightened and a more happy world. I am, Reverend and Dear Brother, Yours in the best of bonds, SAMUEL MILLER. Pbincetok, Feb. 20th, 1823. ^£3$ mr >3§^ alu?bie work. Buck's complete Works, 6 volumes, M*Euen on the Typesi Ridgeley's Body of Divinity, with valuable rou ' the Re,-. Dr J.P. Wilson, :n 4 octavo volumes. Rev Dr. Scott's complete Works, including V ',-. Life, in • 8 octavo vols. Dr. Scott's Reply to Tomline, in h;s Rp.fntatio;. vinism, - \ octavo.J-' Songs in t, U 9 pi,- Po iiet Compan; 7 Village Se u,< . . • \ vluniss.eonaplete. Scott's Essaj --u important subjects of Scripturt. riuck's Tfcologicp.Mj. 'ionary^au improvedgdicion C;Q pages. . . Rippon's Hytnns, neat editiuj'i Charabck or Diviiie Providence, ; ;-;i Judgment and Mercy ior afflicted Souls, b rle. Piou? Selections, from a variety of authors I- Vv/ V.W. Dr. Scott's Marginal Reference Bibk, iat ;> oc; vo, in various bindings. Scott's Family Bible, in 3 vols, quarto, vari Very few left of ft > <*$ ion. Dr> Gill's Com -i,snt,.ry, 9 viis ™-iarto, various1 n-jings. "-•WTO ;' i.ir K i xSOBiME. - CLASSICAL PU8LICAT , X \\ . '. »'. ", ¦'. i$ sell" xiks on the most rea W" jle for qash i' iv^0S@$IC