necessary to strain the language of revelation to support any such doctrine; for, should we deny "that the Son is eternal as Son," and consequently "that the Father is not eternally Father," there is neither heresy nor absurdity in the denial, nor any thing in the least derogatory from the real inherent dignity, and eternity of both; which, for my own part, I stedfastly believe, and can defend without such extraneous aid.

There is another title equally belonging to God, and which, in every ancient creed, whether orthodox or heretical, I find annexed to the title of Fatherviz. the title of Creator: Will it be said, that denying the eternity of the creature is denying the eternity of the Creator? Why not grant the same latitude in the case of Father? We scruple not to say “eternal Creator" in himself, not as Creatorand we scruple not, in the same way, to say, " eter"nal Father." But as no christian ever uses the term "eternal creation," why should we be called upon to say "eternal generation?" This is not a new mode of reasoning; it is as old as the venerable Father Tertullian, who, when Hermogenes asserted matter to be coeval and coeternal with God, thus disputes with the heretic—“ Quia et pa“ter deus est, et judex deus est, non tamen ideo pater et judex semper-quia deus semper: nam nec pater potuit esse ante filium, nec judex ante delic"tum fuit autem tempus, cum et delictum et filius "non fuit, quod judicem, et qui patrem dominum

86

B 2

"face

"faceret." And though Dr Bull, in his Defensio, &c. is very angry with Tertullian for this "mon"strous effatum," as he calls it, "that there was

a time, when the San was not;" yet, that this primitive writer was, on the whole, staunchly orthodox in this fundamental article, may be proved from the whole tenour of his other works, as well as from the elaborate work just quoted, where, in his usual energetic manner, he thus argues" Ita "et hoc nomine materiam Deo præponit Hermogenes, præponendo eam filio: Filius enim sermo, et Deus sermo, et ego et pater unum sumus: nisi "quod sustinebit æquo animo filius eam præponi sibi, quæ patri adæquatur"."

66

There are however, in the scriptures of the New Testament, two epithets ascribed to the Son, which are held to affix " Deity" to that appellation. The one epithet is "," proprius-the other " μονο "Yes," unigenitus, or only begotten. "God," as St Paul affirms-" spared not rou die vi8-proprio

"filio

"Although God be a father, and God be a judge, yet was he not always a father and judge, because he was always God; for neither could he be father, before there was son, nor judge before there was crime; but a time there was, when neither son nor crime existed, that could make God a father or judge." Contra Hermogen. cap. 1.

2" Thus it is, that Hermogenes places matter before God, by placing it before the Son; for the Son is the Word, and the Word is God, and I and the Father, says he, are one, as if the Son will be well pleased to have that placed before himself which is coeval with the Father." Contra Hermogen. cap. 9.

.

filio, his own Son," &c. from which it is deduced, that he is God, because he is God's proper Son, of the same nature with him; making, in fact, Christ's divine nature to be the consequence of his being '', God's proper Son. Let the same expla nation be given to that other text of the same apostle" the church of God, which he purchased " —dia T8 id18 "aiμar per proprium sanguinem, with "his own blood," and, I think, it will follow, as an incontrovertible position, that God may have a Son, in the same sense in which he may have blood. I need not waste your time in noticing the Arian cavils against the genuineness of "," instead of Kupi&," " in this text of the Acts, the present reading being admitted by the writers whom I have in my eye.

66

I proceed to consider the other epithet μovoyens, only begotten, as it is sometimes used by itself, at other times in conjunction with 'u, son". Indeed St Paul uses it in a case perfectly unrestricted, when he says-that " Abraham offered up Tov μvoye "the only begotten"-assuredly not true, in a literal sense, of the offering up of Isaac. And I find a Dr Knight, though an advocate for the current doctrine, observing in his Sermons, that the " μονογενης υιο of St John may signify the same with the varyabeloved Son, of St Matthew, as the Hebrew

66

66

66

word "Ihid, is by the Septuagint rendered both povoyens only begotten," and aya belovedμονογένης αγαπητο "For now I know that thou fearest God, seeing "thou hast not withheld thy son, 7 Ihidka,—thine only son, 78'α σ8, from me'." 78'αjaπnts from me'." And again, They shall mourn for him as one mourneth for an only son-yol Ihid, αуαTM”;” while μovoyevns" is the rendering in the following passages" deliver my darling (margin" only one") Ihidki-Tov μovoryev-(feminine) from the pow"er of the dog'." And again, Turn unto me, " and have mercy upon me, for I am desolate-D Ihid, povoyens and afflicted:" and that this is admissible according to the Greek idiom appears from that passage in the Iliad of Homer, where, Astyanax being termed “ Εκτορίδην αγαπητον," his scholiast and translators render these epithets—“ only son of "Hector." If therefore there be such a sameness between 66 μονογένης” and αγαπητα, no good reason can be assigned for appropriating pavo"yes" to our Saviour's divine nature, since it can be proved from parallel places of Scripture, that "aya" is applied to his humanity, and particularly belongs to it." Behold my servant," exclaims Isaiah, "mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth;" referring to the Septuagint translation of which passage, St Matthew writes, "Be"hold my servant, ('o as μ-puer meus) my be

66

1 Gen. xxii. 12.

66

4 Psalm xxv. 16.

παις

αγαπη

loved, in whom my soul εudono (as in the bap"tismal voice) is well pleased'." The aуαTor beloved, in the second clause, is certainly the Tais or servant in the first; and servant is certainly a term inapplicable to Deity-although he, who was God by nature, did become a servant by choice, that he might be "obedient unto death, even the death of the cross "."

LETTER III.

HAVING shewn, that if the doctrine of Eternal Generation be supposed to originate from Scripture, it is, at best, but the semblance of such an origin which can be adduced for it, there is, in my estimation, an unsurmountable difficulty, which I could wish that the maintainers of the doctrine would solve; as hitherto I have neither seen a solution attempted, nor the difficulty itself so much as noticed. It is this: "Son of God" is an expression frequently to be met with in Scripture. But according

St. Matt. xii. 18.

See the original in all its strength, Phil. ii. 6. 7.