fore' that holy thing which should be born of the Virgin was to be the result of his Ascension. While, however, we recount these modes of the filiation of Christ, we must remember that there is yet a higher one which governs them all, and through which alone they derive their efficacy. He who acted for a while in a visible and delegated manner, was the son of God from the beginning, through the eternal communication of his divine essence-John v. 26. Hence we find, that when Christ was born, it was the word which was made flesh,'-that word which had ever been with God,' and 'was God.' Hence it is too, that, in the course of his mission, he displayed so much personal authority; that he forgave sins, and imparted the Holy Ghost, not in the name of another, but as God. The same distinction applies to his resurrection, and it is as expressly said that he raised himself from the dead, as that he was raised by. God. Nor did he ascend to heaven for the purpose of receiving only those rewards which were to be bestowed on his followers; but we have all the sanctity of his own character for the assertion, that he went to that glory which he had with the father,' before the worlds began. Though called the Son of God therefore, in a peculiar manner during his earthly mission, the title is due to him in that higher, and more proper sense in which we acknowledge him the Son of God by eternal generation. All things whatsoever the Father hath, are mine'-John xvi. 15. And hence it is, that in ascertaining the whole signification of this important phrase, we do not stop till we have traced it into the divine nature itself, and are led to confess that unspeakable communication which Christ had with paternal Deity from all eternity. Should any reader wish for some higher and fuller authority than ours, we intreat him to refer to a single section in Bishop Pearson's invaluable treatise on the Creed, that which discusses the meaning of the words' his only Son.' There he will see a statement of the inferior modes of filiation noticed by Mr. le Courayer and others. But besides these, he will find a more peculiar ground of our Saviour's filiation, totally distinct from any which belongs to the rest of the sons of God. For although to be born of a virgin be in itself miraculous, and justly entitles Christ unto the Son of God, yet it is not so far above the production of all mankind, as to place him in that singular eminence which must be attributed to the only-begotten. Besides, there were many, while our Saviour preached on earth, who believed his doctrine, and confessed him to be the Son of God, who in all probability understood nothing of his being born of a virgin; much less did they foresee his rising from the dead, or inheriting all things. Wherefore, supposing all these ways by which Christ is represented as the Son of God, we shall find out one more yet, far more proper in itself, and more peculiar to him, in which no other son can have the least pretence of share or of similitude.' And this is done by proving that Christ had a subsistence before the 'power of the Highest' was announced to the virgin,—that his subsistence was not that of any created being, but essentially divine,-that the divine essence was communicated to him by the Father, and that such communication was never made to any other, and consequently, that Christ was, by that divine generation, most properly and perfectly the only-begotten Son of the Father.' If the reader wishes for farther authority, he will find it in the judgment of a great and kindred genius, Dr. Barrow. In his exposition on the Creed, he allows that Adam is called the son of God; that the angels are so entitled; and princes are somewhere stiled the children of the Most High; but all these, if we compare them with Christ's relation, are improper and inferior.' He then mentions the modes already stated, in which Christ may be called the son of God, and concludes with that which is 'the more excellent and proper foundation of his sonship.' It may be sufficient to have adduced these authorities. To the latter part of Mr. le Courayer's statement, we will reply by an argument of our own. St. John begins his Gospel with the positive and direct assertion of the doctrine in question- In the beginning was the word; and the word was with God, and the word was God.' This is his fundamental position; nor can it be denied, that whatever he declares concerning the character or mission of Christ in the subsequent parts of his Gospel, must be reconciled with this. It is the parent proposition which governs every other, and under which the remaining descriptions of Christ must be arranged. But St. John, who, at the first, asserts the divine nature of the Saviour, speaks of him under different relations, in the same manner with the other Evangelists, who are yet supposed by Mr. le Courayer and others not to teach his Deity. He speaks, as they do, of that incarnation by which Christ is said to be the Son of God, i. 4. He mentions, as they do, that mediatorial office, superior to the office of Moses, to which the same title is annexed, i. 17. He dwells, as they do, on the resurrection and ascension of Christ, events to which, together with the former, certain writers would confine the appellation of the Son of God. But it is obvious, that when St. John speaks of these events, he declares them to have taken - taken place in Him, for whom he had, in the first instance, made the express claim of Godhead. It follows then, that when the other inspired writers represent Christ under the modes which have been just enumerated, the sense in which they speak cannot be exclusive of that high and transcendent sense in which Christ is declared to be eternal and divine. This primary and larger declaration may well comprehend the inferior steps or stages of that economy which was carried on by Christ on earth for the benefit of mankind: but these cannot, without the plainest contradiction of the rules of reasoning, be allowed to invalidate the great, original, and sovereign property of Christ, a property prior and superior to every mode of his agency on behalf of man. Unless, therefore, the inspiration of St. John be disallowed, or unless it can be proved, that his declaration concerning the Saviour is to be understood in a lower sense, it must be conceded, that Christ was of the divine nature: and this being so, it follows, that his divinity is a necessary article of Christian faith. It may be well supposed indeed, that this inconvenient consequence has been foreseen by the enemies of this doctrine. Without this apprehension, we should not perhaps have witnessed so many efforts to discredit the authority of the first part of the Gospel of St. John, nor would Mr. le Courayer have made so aukward an attempt to prove, that the word being somewhat more intimately united with Jesus than with Moses or any other prophet, he might, in this qualified sense, be called God.-p. 265. If from this brief view of the nature of such opinions as are professed by Mr. le Courayer, we pass to a moment's consideration of their history, we shall find perhaps that they have derived their principal credit and currency among us from the authority of the too celebrated Episcopius. If the reader shrinks from so bulky a volume as that of the Institutes, he may satisfy himself in a more expeditious manner by perusing the summary which is given by Bishop Bull, in his admirable treatise, De Necessitate credendi, quòd Dominus noster Jesus Christus sit verus Deus. There he will find an enumeration of the modes, already noticed, in which Christ may be called the Son of God. But the peculiarity of Episcopius consists not in this: he goes farther, and, in words apparently of the catholic faith, finally allows that mode of filiation for which we contend, a mode which does not belong to Christ as man, but as the only begotten of the Father before the worlds began, as the maker of the worlds, and therefore as also God. The passage is of too much importance not to be quoted. Ex Scriptura S. id liquere arbitror, et ex rationibus scriptura nixis, quia ea de Jesu Christo, i. e. de eo qui Jesus Christus postea dictus fuit, sic non rarò loquitur ut dubitari vix possit, quin Jesus Jesus Christus reverà extiterit, et substiterit, tanquam vera atque unica Patris sui proles, antequam ex Marià matre suâ homo nasceretur; atque adeò ante rerum omnium creationem, idque ita, ut per ipsum condita fuerint universa, ac proindè Deus ipse fuerit. The latter part of this paragraph is summarily given by the Bishop; but that it is the substance of the opinion of Episcopius will be obvious to any one who compares it with the comment on the opening of St. John's Gospel, in the 33d chapter of the Institutes, lib. 4. sect. 2. Notwithstanding this confession, however, Episcopius deserts the consequence which ought to arise from it. If he really believed the doctrine which he thus states, or if he reasoned rightly from his own premises, he must have maintained the necessity of faith in an article so fully taught in the scriptures, and admitted by himself. But unfortunately he took a middle course, and became the father of the modern indifferents. He descended to meet the scruples or the perverseness of the schismatics who denied the divinity of Christ, and finally determined that though the orthodox doctrine were true, it was not necessary to be received as an article of faith essential to salvation! And this strange decision rests on the dangerous and untenable assertion, that our acceptance of this primary and supreme filiation of the Son of God is no where positively required; but that all the expressions of this kind, with which the New Testament abounds, are confined to the other modes; those which relate to the appearance of Christ on earth for the welfare of mankind. There remains only one more reference to the history of the church. Mr. le Courayer, who professes to argue from the scriptures alone, disclaims the authority of the Fathers: but while he does this, he expressly charges them with having corrupted the genuine practice of the Gospel, and added to the simplicity of the scriptures the incomprehensible dogma of the divinity of Christ. This is as unfair as it is false; and notwithstanding his disavowal of the Fathers, we have the right of arguing from them in defence of themselves as well as of scripture. And this has been done in the most satisfactory manner by the same great writer who refuted Episcopius. It is in vain, therefore, at this late time to assert (as Mr. le Courayer does in common with our Socinians) that Christ was not supposed to be of the divine nature, till the notion was introduced into the church in the second century. It is now an exploded calumny that the doctrine of his godhead was first communicated through Justin Martyr; that he was infected with the opinions of Simon Magus, and that the source of our orthodox faith was no other than the Gnostic philosophy. In the treatise of Bishop Bull-Primitiva et Apostolica Traditio de Jesu Christi Divinitate,' is a complete exposure of the ignorance ignorance or malevolence of those who gave currency to this notion. Justin is vindicated from the meaning which they have attempted to fasten upon him; and the doctrine of our church is traced back through the fathers who preceded Justin, through Ignatius, Barnabas, and the earliest apologists of the faith to the age of the apostles themselves, and to the very commencement of the Christian church. In all these writings the divinity of Christ was substantially maintained. Many of them (we speak of the apologies) were directed against the Gentiles; and the assertion of the doctrine in question was a necessary and essential part of their argument. The Christians had been upbraided with idolatry. Their reply was, that the charge was founded in ignorance of the true nature of Christ. That they offered divine worship to him they joyfully confessed; and they were ready to die in that confession: but that their worship was idolatrous they constantly denied; for he who had appeared on earth as man had descended from heaven, where, before all ages, he had been in the form of God.' This is their regular tone; nor does there appear to have been any difference in this respect between the arguments of Quadratus or Aristides, and the later statements of those who are allowed by all to have maintained the doctrine of the divinity of Christ. If, however, any bosom, uninfluenced by ecclesiastical history, is open to conviction concerning the early opinions of Christianity from the unsuspected testimony of a heathen writer, that testimony is offered, with sufficient plainness, by Pliny. Affirmabant autem, hanc fuisse summam vel culpæ suæ, vel erroris, quòd essent soliti stato die ante lucem convenire, carmenque Christo, quasi Deo, dicere secum invicem.' Lib. 10. Ep. 87. This evidence of the Christian Fathers, which Mr. le Courayer has disingenuously employed for his own purpose while he professes to disclaim it, terminates in the Gospel itself. There divine worship is claimed for Christ on repeated occasions, and in the most express and pointed manner: but there too, Christ himself repeats and enforces the original command, that God alone is to be worshipped. Hence it follows that the worship demanded for Christ is the proof of his divinity. It is in vain that Mr. le Courayer endeavours to reconcile this demand with the admission that Christ did possess a divinity 'de quelque sort.' Nothing but the deity, properly and distinctly understood, can be the object of legitimate worship. If, therefore, Christ was not of the divine nature, he could not be worshipped without idolatry. In this attempt against the evidence of the early church, we suspect that Mr. le Courayer was swayed by the corrupt practice of those whom he calls the masters of religion;' those Romish writers, whose summaries and arbitrary systems had been allowed, by degrees, to supersede the genuine use of the Bible and the Christian |