which many of the Fathers take notice of, and lay great stress upon, and which the writers, at present alluded to, are of opinion is always referred to in scripture, as contained in the plural appellation of ALEIM or covenanters (we read it GOD) by which the one Jehovah' is described. They consequently hope, that their explication, as it maintains a perfect equality in the personal subsistence, without ascertaining the mode of that subsistence, so is it free from any such implications, as attach to the scheme of eternal paternity, eternal generation, and eternal procession, and thus rids at once both scripture and scripture doctrine, of those inconsistencies, with which ancient and modern heretics have not failed to charge them. That those however, for whose edification the following Series of Letters is intended, may be fully apprized of the truth of these introductory remarks, and of the objections which assail, from various quarters, what is shortly termed "the doctrine of eternal generation," I shall now proceed, previous to developing the other essential branches of theological science, to discuss at some length the two schemes which have been adopted of illustrating a TRINITY in UNITY, that great and fundamental article of our religion; without an implicit belief in which, the profession of christianity is a mere delusion. LET Deut. vi. 4. LETTER II. 2 66 THE title "SON OF GOD" is frequent in Scripture. But we have the highest authority' to apply it to the human nature of our blessed Saviour and I can find no passage in Scripture which decisively restricts the title "Son of God" to Deity. To me therefore it appears a great stretch of interpretation (though I know some reputable names, who have gone that length) to draw the doctrine of eternal generation out of Jehovah's decree, * Thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee:" which very decree I find a divinely inspired commentator 3 referring to the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. We read, it is true, of that " dear Son," who is the image of the "invisible God, the "first-born of every creature." But, to say the least, this text is dubious, being claimed by the Arians; and it is strange from it to distinguish, as has been done, between priority of birth, as the principal meaning of the word πρωτοτοκος, and preeminence, when it is known, that a very little after s the apostle uses this word again, and draws the following inference from it, "that in all he might be TgWTEUW," which our translators render "have the 66 pre-eminence." Besides all the force of it, when supposed to favour the generation scheme, is set aside by giving an active sense to the verbal post-fix " TOX," a sense which it can well bear. Thus πρωτοτοκο will be found equivalent with " αρχη της NTITEWS'' the beginning (principium, principlenot commencement) of the creation." Indeed the active sense, when given to such terms as wоron, and agn, appears equally just and grammatical, as when applied to the terms 90oyos'—' nagπoog,' Θεολογος'omovoμ, &c. and would assign a peculiar emphasis of expression to the Aoy' of St. John, corresponding to the active Hebrew term, Dabar, "the SPEAKER"-which I cannot but think much eclipsed under the neuter and passive signification, implied by verbum, or the word. St. John no doubt has asserted, that "the Son abideth for ever. But this, from the context, appears to be spoken of the humanity, and is explained by St. Paul 3 。 de this (man being put in by the translators) because he continueth ever αιώνα, १ TOV &c. Even that text of St. John, on which particular stress has been laid, as being an address to the Father, is not so full and clear in their favour as its adducers may have supposed, when we compare it with an address in the same terms, but to another purpose, in the gospel of St. Matthew". For I ask, in what capacity does our Saviour here pray * Revel. iii. 14. St. John viii. 35. 3 Heb. vii. 24. 5 St Mat. xxvi. 39-42. pray to the Father? Certainly not in his divine capacity. Why then may not both addresses be considered, in this respect, on the same footing? Still however, it is assumed, that there is no other name for the first person in the Trinity, as distinguished from the Word and the Holy Ghost, but the name of Father; and it is alleged, that if it should be denied, that the Son was eternal, as Son-the very name of Father must have been unknown, until the Word was incarnate. It has been already remarked, that first, second, and third person is not scriptural language, and therefore, although sanctioned by long use, is not language fit to be argued from in a scriptural controversy. Such titles are not essential. They are merely œconomical or official-peculiar to the christian scheme, and explanatory of it. The title of " the Word," and that of the " Holy Spirit," are frequently to be met with in the scriptures of the Old Testament. But it is with me a matter of great doubt, whether the term " Father" be any where, in those scriptures, used in the restricted sense, for which some writers contend. Irenæus, an ancient critic of no mean repute, applies the title thus-" Pater "autem generis humani verbum Dei est, quemad" modum Moses ostendit, dicens"-" nonne hic ipse pater tuus possedit te, et refecit te, et creavit te ?" "But the father of the human race is the Word of O God, even as Moses has shewn, saying, Is not he 66 46 thy Father that hath bought thee, hath he not "made thee and established thee' ?" Nay, for this application of the title, there is no less authority than that of the prophet Isaiah, who expressly applies to the promised Messiah, the title of " the ever"lasting Father;" and who, in another place, declares," Thou, O Lord, art Our Father; our "Redeemer from everlasting is thy name 3." And where at any time the title is used, as relative to Son, it is only thus used in a future acceptation, as something afterwards to be realized. " I will be "to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son; and again, "He shall cry unto me, Thou art my Father," &c. also, "I will make him my first"born" promises these, which although literally made, the one to Solomon, the other to David, had yet a strong typical aspect and relation to One of more august character than either of them, who vouchsafed to become their descendant, and to whom St Paul exclusively appropriates the promise above alluded to". The passages now quoted do, I think, contain the only account of a divine paternity and filiation to be met with in the Old Testament. And certainly, on such passages, it will be no easy matter to found the doctrine now under discussion. Oper. Iren. Lib. IV. ch. 51. Deut. xxxii. 6. 2 Isaiah ix. 6. 3 Isaiah lxiii. 16. 4 2 Sam. vii. 14. repeated 1 Chron. xxii. 10. Heb. i. 5. compared with 2 Sam. vii. 18-29. Nor is it necessary |