class of feelings which they excite with one interpretation is widely different from those which result from the other. It would anticipate the succeeding illustrations, were we, in this place, to cite the passages which would most fully impress this fact upon the reader's mind. But no reflecting Christian will have any difficulty in verifying it for himself.

It is also worthy of serious consideration, that the difference between those who affirm and those who deny the eternal filiation of our Lord, is not confined to that doctrine, but extends to the laws of scriptural inquiry and interpretation. We have not merely to examine the statements of the word of God, but to determine also on the means for ascertaining their signification. The same principles are here involved, as in the main branches of the Trinitarian controversy; and it may perhaps be safely affirmed, that no one ever denied the doctrine before us, who did not employ a style of reasoning which its advocates, in general, have regarded as forbidden. If the former be correct, the

other class are popishly exclusive in their mode of treating scripture; if the latter, then are their antagonists culpably latitudinarian.

By those who reject the divine filiation of Christ, it has been represented as a doctrine which directly tends to Arianism. The like charge has been retorted by its defenders, and in both cases, it may be believed, with equal sincerity. One or the other of these allegations is true; for he who on the subject of the Trinity makes one mistake, is naturally open to others; and that not merely from the generative power of error, but from the rupture of that harmony and proportion by which the subordinate truths of this doctrine are mutually upheld and defended. An incorrect judgment on the question before us, if regarded neither in its principles nor in its tendency, and considered as abso

lutely insulated, would be of less moment; but in its connexion with errors greater in themselves, and fatal to human salvation, it is obviously of very high consequence.

Indeed one of the most important aspects of which our present subject is capable, and one in which it probably has been treated with the smallest measure of justice, respects the controversy on the Deity of Christ. Almost all parties have united in abandoning the title before us, to the mercy of the most uncertain interpretation, and have thus given up what, to at least one class of expositors, would be an impregnable defence against the assaults of Socinianism. For if the term "Son of God" is precisely declarative of our Lord's eternal divinity, then is that great doctrine declared, I had almost said, in every page of the New Testament. a believer in this truth, it cannot be deemed a question of small moment, whether we shall thus accumulate its evidence, or whether we shall be compelled to decline a class of proofs so numerous, as such an exposition would supply.

By

The subject is too weighty for palliation or disguise. We must not attempt to conceal it, that the difference between those who hold and those who reject the doctrine of Christ's divine Sonship, is by no means inconsiderable. In some respects, it is extreme: as a natural consequence, we are laid open to the attacks of Socinianized infidelity, and in the same proportion are our defences enfeebled. Few things would be more desirable than unanimity upon this question; and the only unanimity which can avail us, is to be attained by careful and dispassionate investigation. The most humble efforts towards such an end, provided that, on the whole, they are not injudicious, will be valued by the sincere lover of divine truth; and to such it is that the present effort is commended.

There is one consideration which will dispose a benevolent mind to welcome the arguments in favour of the doctrine before us. I allude to its prevalence at all periods of ecclesiastical history. It is not, and it never was, characteristic of an isolated body of Christians: it belongs to the universal church. A particular part of the following treatise will be devoted to the illustration of this fact. It is sufficient here to remark, what indeed is well known, that the creeds and confessions of faith which obtain among British Christians, do unequivocally acknowledge Christ as the eternal Son of God; while the dissentients from this opinion, however eminent as individual Christians or theologians, are, after all, but exceptions. This is not alleged in proof of the doctrine; yet it would be a melancholy consideration that, in the present era of extensive inquiry, and with all the aids which the research and wisdom of ages can supply, we should yet, upon this point, be so generally in error.

Such considerations, cursorily suggested, with the hope that the reader will duly expand them in his own mind, may perhaps be sufficient to show, that the design of the present inquiry is one of no mean importance. The refusal to admit this fact may rationally be concluded to indicate the want of investigation adequate to the subject, and so far may lead us to distrust the soundness of a theology thus shortsighted. The alternative would be, the far more serious charge of disingenuousness.

SECTION II.

INQUIRY INTO THE ARGUMENT AGAINST THE DOCTRINE OF THE ETERNAL SONSHIP OF OUR LORD, WITH REMARKS UPON THE EVIDENCE PROPER TO THE SUBJECT.

THE main argument against the divine filiation of Christ is as ancient as the fourth century of the Christian era; and, down to our own times, it has been set forth in a variety of forms, and urged with a readiness and frequency, which indicate the utmost confidence in its conclusiveness. But by those who take the opposite view of the subject, both its legitimacy and its validity have been denied. In order to ascertain its real value and appropriateness, it will be proper, in the first place, to subject it to a calm and attentive examination. The necessity for this is evident; since, upon a disputed question, there is no probability of arriving at a satisfactory conclusion, unless the parties can agree on a common medium of proof.

That the reader may have as complete a view as the nature of the case requires, we annex a number of citations, illustrative of the argument in question.* These, it is apprehended, will sufficiently exhibit the variety of form of which it is susceptible, and at the same time will present it in its utmost force. The following paragraph, selected merely for the sake of brevity, gives its substance. "It is observed, that it is impossible that a nature properly divine should be begotten; since begetting, whatever idea is annexed to it, must signify some kind of production, derivation, and inferiority; consequently, that whatever is produced must have a beginning, and whatever had a beginning was not from eternity."†

* See note (A).

Buck's Dictionary. Art. Generation.

This piece of reasoning, it will be perceived, is wholly independent of Scripture testimony, being intended to show, that in the ideas severally of filiation and divinity, there is essential incongruity; that, in the nature of things, no such relation can exist as a proper divine Sonship; and, of consequence, that it is impossible that our Lord should be an eternal Son. Now without inquiring at present how far this argument is tenable, it is worthy of some consideration, as involving a principle of great importance to the correct apprehension of truth in general, and more especially of theological truth. It is founded upon the assumption, that, of all credible doctrines, the agreement is ascertainable; and that therefore, where we are unable mutually to reconcile two propositions, one or the other must be abandoned.

When,

It is proper, therefore, that we should inquire, how far a perceptible harmony is the test of truth? as in the present instance, we judge two propositions to be irreconcilable, does it necessarily follow that one of them is false? And are we, in all cases, justified in rejecting a doctrine, the agreement of which with other and ascertained doctrines we cannot discern? Whether our assurance of the latter be from reason, experience, or revelation, does not affect the principle. TRUth, through whatever medium we arrive at its knowledge, in its nature and relations is the same: and if it be lawful to reject a proposition, because we cannot make it harmonize with a statement of the Bible, it is equally so, where the testing truth is ascertained by reason or by experience. This inquiry, therefore, is one of great amplitude, comprehending the most important subjects of human credence. The present remarks, however, will be applicable principally to theological truth.

Our knowledge is of two kinds. With some subjects, in consequence of their accessible character, and the aptness of our faculties to their investigation, we are