Page images
PDF
EPUB

be a mere man in the sense of the modern Unita

rians.

It will be conceded, that they did not mean to speak as polytheists: and many passages were adduced in my former work, as well as in the present, which are sufficient to shew that they were not Arians. They expressly denied, that there was a time, when the Son did not exist; and they as expressly asserted him to be of one substance with the Father. These were the two tests, which were always applied to persons suspected of Arianism; and if they are applied to the writings of the AnteNicene Fathers, they will be found to remove them altogether from the suspicion of Arianism.

There are also many other expressions in their writings, (beside those which assert the eternity and consubstantiality of the Son,) by which we might argue that they could not have agreed with the sentiments of Arius. Such are all those passages, in which they speak of the Son being in the Father, and the Father in the Son; of the Son being one with the Father; and of Christ being the begotten Son of God. These expressions are of frequent occurrence in Ante-Nicene writings, and many instances may be found in this and my former work. Any one of them, as I conceive, is sufficient to prove, by legitimate and necessary inference, the doctrine of the Trinity. We will take the assertion of Christ being the begotten Son of God. words begotten Son are either to be interpreted

The

literally or figuratively. If they are taken figuratively, they may merely mean, that Christ was beloved by God; that he was God's minister or messenger, like any other of the prophets, but that he received preeminent tokens of love and affection from Goda. It is in a sense somewhat similar to this, and evidently in a figurative sense, that all Christians are called sons of God, and even said to be begotten by God. But if Christ is the Son of God merely in this figurative sense, as being an adopted Son, the epithet of only begotten could not apply to him: for upon this hypothesis all Christians are equally begotten sons of God; and therefore the term povoyens, only begotten, must lead us to infer, that Christ is the Son of God in a different sense from those, who are called sons by adoption. Christians are made sons by adoption; Christ is the only Son, who is begotten by God.

[blocks in formation]

St. John was as good a judge of this as Mr. Lindsey; and if only begotten is improper in English, μovoyers is equally improper in Greek; for μονογενὴς can have no other meaning than only begotten; and if we translate it only, we must still mean only begotten. The use of the term in Luke vii. 12, ix. 38. leaves no room for doubt and when it is applied to Isaac, (Heb. xi. 17.) it evidently means, that Isaac was the only son of Abraham, begotten of Sarah.

:

This distinction between begotten and adopted sons seems clearly marked in the Epistle to the Hebrews, where Moses is said to have been faithful as a servant, but Christ as a Son. (iii. 5, 6.) There are also passages in the New Testament, where the argument is wholly illogical and inconsecutive, if we do not understand Christ to be the begotten Son of God, according to the analogy of human fathers and human sons. Thus in the parable of the householder and his vineyard, (Matt. xxi. 33—39,) the words, they will reverence my son, and this is the heir, require us to make a marked difference between the son, i. e. Jesus Christ, and the servants, i. e. all other prophets and teachers. The son in the parable is literally a begotten son, and the application of the parable requires us to believe the same of Jesus Christ. So also when St. Paul says, He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things? (Rom. viii. 32.) the inference is not true, that God will certainly give us all things, if we understand by his own Son a mere human prophet or teacher, whom God sent into the world, and permitted to be put to death. Though it was an act of mercy on the part of God to send such a teacher, and we might perhaps infer from one such act of mercy, that others might be expected, yet we should not be justified in arguing, that God would therefore freely give us all things. The argument would then be a minori ad majus, and would not

be consecutive. But if God literally spared not his begotten Son, but delivered him up for us all, we may then argue a majori ad minus, that God will freely give us all things b; for there is nothing, which can be so dear to God as his own begotten Son.

Having thus attempted to shew from the plain words of scripture, that Christ is literally the begotten Son of God, I shall not proceed to consider the mode of the divine generation, but merely to remark, that human language must be interpreted according to the analogy of human ideas. We know what is the relation of father and son, when we are speaking of men; and the scripture tells us to apply the same analogy to the relation which subsists between God and Jesus Christ. But since our ideas do not allow us to conceive of a son, that he is of a different nature from his father, we are compelled to form the same conception of God and his Son: both of them must be of the same nature; and since the Father is God, the Son, who is begotten by him, must be likewise God.

I was led into these remarks by considering the

b I follow our version, which translates τὰ πάντα ἡμῖν χαρίGeTaι, he will freely give us all things but the words may perhaps mean, he will freely forgive us every thing. XapiLeota has this sense in Eph. iv. 32. Col. ii. 13; iii. 13; and

it is perfectly just to argue,

that God will forgive us all our sins, if it was his own Son who made atonement for them; but the expectation would not be well grounded, if God merely sent a human teacher to instruct us in our duty, and to prove his sincerity by his death.

expressions in the writings of the Fathers, which speak of Christ as the begotten Son of God. The modern Unitarians interpret these expressions figuratively, and so did the Arians in the fourth century; but both of them came to very different conclusions. The Arians believed Christ to be a created God: the Unitarians believe him to be a mere human being; and these opposite conclusions perhaps furnish a strong reason against having recourse to figurative interpretations. The orthodox party, or the Athanasians, as they have been termed in contempt, did not seek to be wise above what is written, but interpreted the words of Scripture literally they believed that Christ is really the begotten Son of God: and this belief, as I have already observed, requires us to acknowledge the Son to be of the same nature with his Father, and therefore to be verily and truly God.

We are brought to the same conclusion by considering those expressions, which speak of the Son being in the Father, and the Father in the Son. It is true, that we read in the New Testament of God and His Son dwelling in all believers: and all Christians are said to be one with the Father and the Son hence it has been contended that Christ is one with the Father in the same sense that all Christians may be said to be one with God. The reader will judge from the following quotations, whether this was the sense in which the Ante-Nicene writers spoke of the unity of the Father and the Son. I

« PreviousContinue »