effect, however, resulted from these controversies, that the church has been driven from one unguarded mode of expression to another, until it has come back to the simple statement of the word of God, and consented to leave the inexplicable unexplained. It is to be remarked too, that this advantage has been derived mainly from the opposers of the doctrine in question. They have seen and exposed the difficulties attending the various definitions of the doctrine of the Trinity, and have falsely imagined, that in showing the inconsistency of a theological definition, they have thereby refuted the doctrine itself. It would certainly be very unjust to accuse the modern defenders of the doctrine of the Trinity, of having renounced the faith of the Church, because in their statement of this article, they abstain from the exceptionable or unintelligible terms, which in former times, have been employed to set it forth. The Bible-fact has ever been, and still is, by the great body of the Christian community, maintained and defended, although we have been taught to confine ourselves more closely to what the Scriptures more immediately teach.

The same series of remark, may be applied with equal propriety, to the doctrine of the Sonship of Christ. With regard to this doctrine, even in a greater degree than the one just alluded to, it is true that the explanations and definitions of which it has been the subject, have obscured the great truth, meant to be taught. It may be stated with the consent of the opposers of what is called the eternal generation of the Son, that in every age of the church, the great body of Christians have believed that Christ is called the Son of God, on account of the relation existing between him as God, and the first person of the Trinity. Whether this doctrine is taught in the word of God, is disputed, but that it has been the faith of the church, is admitted. In the early ages, it is not impossible that the ideas attached to the expression, were more vague even than those, which from the

nature of the case, are still entertained by those who maintain the common doctrine on this point. Christians were taught to believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and they were led to consider these terms, as the appropriate names of the several persous of the Trinity as such. As soon, however, as men began to ask what was the nature of the relation indicated by these terms, we find the same variety of modes of thinking, and the same diversity of language, which have been exhibited in the explanation of most other leading doctrines of the Scriptures. In the first few centuries, almost every mode of explanation and illustration was adopted, which has ever been employed since. Some of the Fathers had recourse to the distinction between the Logos ἐνδιάθετος, and the Logos προφορικός. Το what extent this philosophical theory prevailed in the church, it is not our object to enquire. We merely wish to note the diversity which obtained among those who all united in believing that Christ as Logos, was the Son of God. Ireneus objected to this, and all other explanations of the doctrine, while he maintained the doctrine itself. What the nature of Christ's Sonship, or generation was, he pretended not to say, and complained of those who did. "When any one asks us," he says, "how the Son is produced from the Father? we answer, no one knows. Since his generation is inexplicable, they who pretend to explain it, know not what they say. That a word proceeds from the understanding, every body knows. What great discovery then, is made by those who apply what is familiar to every one, to the only begotten word of God, and undertake to explain so definitely, his incomprehensible generation.'

Origen's explanation was derived from the Platonic doctrine of the relation of the vous to the iv, as the latter was always revealed in the former, so the Father is from eternity.

*Adv. Hær. L. II. C. 28.

exhibited in the Son, as the effulgence of his glory. He maintained an eternal generation of the Son, but rejected every mode of expression, and every illustration borrowed from material objects, as utterly inconsistent with the spirituality of the Supreme Being. He objected to the expression, "generation from the divine essence," (yevnois èx sns odias ou cou,) as implying that God was capable of division. Tertullian's mode of thinking, was far less refined. "He could," as Neander (Kirchengeschichte, p. 1035,) says, "very well conceive, according to his emanation theory, how a being could emanate from the Godhead, possessed of the same substance, though in a less degree; just as a ray emanates from the Sun. He maintained, therefore, one divine essence in three intimately united persons.' Una substantia in tribus cohaerentibus. And says of the Son, Deus de Deo, modulo alter, non numero.

The mode of explaining this doctrine, adopted by the Nicene Fathers is familiar to every one. -"We believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only begotten of the Father, that is, of the essence of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, of one essence with the Father, by whom all things were made, &c." Since this period, this has been the general, though by no means, the universal, method of speaking on this subject.

Amongst Protestant divines, there is a general coincidence as to the manner of explaining the generation of the Son of God. It is commonly defined to be, "an eternal and incomprehensible communication of the same numerical essence, from the Father to the Son."* Not that the divine essence produces another divine essence, but the Father, as a Person, communicates the same divine essence to the

* Eterna et incomprehensibilis, ejusdem numero divinae essentiae communicatio a Patre facta Filio. De Moor Com. in Markii Comp. Tom. I. p. 742.

Son.* It will be seen at once, that this is not a simple statement of a Bible-fact, but a philosophical explanation of what the Scriptures are supposed to teach, viz. that Jesus Christ is the eternal Son of God. This definition is founded almost exclusively on the idea of generation itself, and has arisen from urging unduly the analogy of the relation between Father and Son, among men, when applied to God. De Moor expressly says, we must consider the generation of Christ, as including all that is essential to the idea of generation; and as among men, generation is the communication of life, therefore, there must be a like communication in the case of the Son of God. See De Moor Tom. I. p. 736. This analogy, and the passage in John v. 26, in which the Father is said to have given the Son to have life in himself,(which some of the advocates of this doctrine explain as referring to Christ in his divine nature,) are almost the only grounds, as far as we know, for this particular view of the subject. It should be remarked, however, that the venerable men, who felt themselves constrained to present the doctrine in question, in this light, were very far from attaching any of those gross ideas, to the phrase "communication of the divine essence," which have been supposed to be necessarily included in it. They expressly state, in what sense they use the expression; that all ideas, inconsistent with the spirituality and infinite perfection of God, are to be excluded from it; and consequently, all idea of posteriority, dedependence, or change. Generatio, non nisi summa iregon Deo tribuitur, ita omnes imperfectiones, quae finitam creaturarum generationem sequi solent a generatione hac divina longissime sunt removendae, nimirum dependentia, successio mutatio, divisio, multiplicatio, &c., De Moor, p. 736. If it be said, that the ideas of posteriority, dependence, and mu

Generatio inquam Filii à Patre, non enim essentia gignit essentian- sed Persona generat personam. De Moor Commentarius in Joh. Markii Compendium, Theol. Christ. Caput V. 8.

tability are necessarily included in this phrase, and that if these be denied, the very thing asserted is denied; the friends of this definition would say, that all such objections arise from transferring the gross ideas which we derive from sensible objects, to an infinite spirit. That it is just as impossible to conceive how the Father and Son should have the same divine essence, and yet remained distinct persons, as that this essence should be communicated from one to the other. And we are free to confess that if the à priori objections urged against this doctrine, are to be considered valid, we cannot see how we can consistently remain believers in God's omnipresence, eternity, or any other doctrine which is confessedly incomprehensible. We are not, however, the advocates of this definition, nor do we consider it, as at all essential to the doctrine of Christ's divine and eternal Sonship. It has never secured the favor of many who are firm believers in this doctrine. Lampe, in his Commentary on John v. 26, expressly rejects the interpretation of the passage, which is considered as the chief ground of this particular view of the Sonship of Christ. The life there said to be given to the Son, cannot, he maintains, be referred to his divine nature; because such a gift would be inconsistent with his independence and necessary existence. He opposes strenuously, the idea of any communication of essence, and yet declares, se Generationem Filii Dei naturalem, ad ipsam divinam essentiam pertinentem, unicam, aeternam absolute necessariam, sancto agnoscere, libere confiteri masculeque asserere. See Preface to Vol. III. of his Commentary. It is true that Lampe, by many of his Brethren, was blamed for taking this course, and they accused him of thus committing an "atrocious injury," on the cause of orthodoxy. This, however, does not alter the case, nor affect the correctness of our position, that the doctrine of Christ's divine Sonship does not consist in this idea of the communication of essence. The same view of John v. 26,