Review. LETTERS ON THE ETERNAL GENERA- REV. PROFESSOR STUART, OF AN- PROFESSOR STUART, in his letters to the Rev. William E. Channing, on the doctrine of the Trinity, and of the divine nature of Christ, had used very strong language in expressing his dissent from the doctrine of the Son's eternal generation; asserting not only that he could not conceive any definite meaning in the terms, but that he could regard them in no other light than as a palpable contradiction of language. PROFESSOR MILLER, in his Letters on Unitarianism, addressed to the First Presbyterian Church in Baltimore, openly avowed his belief of the eternal generation of the Son of God, and represented those who regard this doctrine "as implying a contradiction in terms," as reasoning on "a presumptuous assumption of the principle, that God is a being altogether such an one as ourselves." The remarks of Dr. Miller on this subject, led Professor Stuart, as he informs us, to a new examination of it, and to publish the result: and as his publication appeared in the form of letters addressed to Dr. M., that VOL. I. Ch. Adv. gentleman felt himself bound to reply in a series of letters addressed to Mr. S. The writers will not allow us to call their discussion a controversy, or even a debate, though we can easily conceive of a controversy or a debate conducted on Christian principles, as well as a discussion. The parties address each other with entire respect, and profess and appear to feel toward each other as fellow disciples of the same Lord. They have, we think, set an excellent example of the manner in which theological disputants should canvass the opinions of their brethren who differ from them. Having expressed our commendation of the temper with which they have treated each other, we may be allowed to say, that their respective publications would not have been injured, if they had been a little more sparing in their professions of esteem and respect. Where these really exist we would rather not see them so repeatedly and emphatically announced. The truly Christian example, however, of these writers, in guarding against every unkind feeling, and in wishing to avoid every form of expression that might occasion any unnecessary pain, is well worthy of imitation by every theologian who may publish any thing in defence of what he deems the truth, and in opposition to a brother whom he regards as holding the essentials of religion. The point of difference between these two respectable writers ought to be distinctly noticed. They are not at issue in regard to the existence of three persons in one Jehovah; nor in regard to the Godhead of our Lord Jesus Christ; nor in regard to the atonement made by him for sin. Both profess to believe these fundamental doctrines with the heart, and to embrace them as the hope of their souls. They differ in respect 3 M to the import only of the phrase SON OF GOD, as applied to the second person in the sacred Trinity. Dr. Miller believes that it refers to his divine nature, and is intended to designate that eternal relation which he bears to the first person in the Godhead; but Professor Stuart denies this to be its scriptural import, and contends that this name was given to him in consequence of his assumption of human nature, and his official character as Mediator. Dr. M. maintains that it is an appellation that would have belonged to the second person, if he had not become man, nor undertaken our redemption: but Professor S. contends that in this case it would have been wholly inapplicable to him. Dr. M. considers it as a proper name, expressive of his mode of subsistence in the divine nature: but Professor S., while he allows it to have become a proper name, yet considers it as derived from the manner in which his human nature was received, and the honours to which he was exalted in his mediatorial character. This we think a fair statement of the point at issue between the two professors. But that there may be no mistake, and that on a subject which we consider as highly interesting and important, the writers may be fully understood, we shall allow them to make their own statement, and to make it fully. This, of course, we cannot continue to do; as it would require us to quote, in turn, nearly the whole of their letters. But in laying out the ground of the discussion-since it is not to be called controversy we think it will be most fair, and we apprehend most useful, and most agreeable to our readers, to let the parties measure it themselves, and in their own way. Dr. M., in his "Letters on Unitarianism," had said (page 91) "Concerning this eternal generation of the Son, the early Christian writers constantly declared that it was firmly to be believed; but, at the same time, that it was presumptuous to attempt to inquire into the manner of it." Professor Stuart enters on the subject with questioning the fact asserted by Dr. M. in this sentence. He says, "As a preliminary step then to the discussion which is to follow, and for the sake of preparing the way for an unprejudiced judgment respecting the point in whether the declaration which you have question, you will permit me to examine made, in p. 91, respecting the unanimity of the early Christian writers in the belief of eternal generation, is well grounded. "We shall doubtless be agreed, that by the early Christian writers is meant, of Nice or during the three first centuries. This is a fair construction of the term early, and one which is generally admitted. At any rate, we shall agree, that the opinions of the Fathers, during this period, are more important in regard to the doctrines of the Church, than those of a subsequent date. the Fathers who lived before the Council "I begin, then, with giving the result of my investigations respecting the three first centuries. It is this; viz. that the great body of the early and influential Christian Fathers, whose works are extant, believed that the Son of God was begotten at a period not long before the creation of the world; or, in other words, that he became a separate hypostasis, at or near the time, when the work of creation was to be performed. If this can be shown, the fact that they believed in the eternal generation of the Son of God, or at least, their unanimity in receiving this doctrine, cannot surely be admitted. "Before I proceed to adduce testimo nies in support of this allegation, it will be proper to remark, that l'intend to confine myself solely to the testimony, which relates to two inquiries; viz. Is the generation of the Son of God eternal? And is that generation voluntary, or necessary? The reason why I comprise the latter inquiry is, that in your Letters, p. 87, you have laid such important stress, (as many others have done,) upon necessary generation, as helping to remove the difficulties that lie in the way of admitting the doctrine in question. "With the question, whether the Fathers believed Christ to be truly a divine person and worshipped him as such, I am not now at all concerned. Of course, I shall adduce no testimony which respects their opinion on that point, except what may be necessarily adduced, in conse quence of its connexion with other testimony relative to the subject before us. "The historical questions before us are, Did the early Fathers believe the filiation or generation of the Son of God to be eterOr, in other words, Did they believe that nal, in the proper sense of the word eternal ? the Logos was not only eternal, but that he was Son eternally? And did the early Fathers believe this generation to be necessary? "That the Logos is truly eternal, I believe with all my heart, because, as it appears to me, the testimony of Scripture is so plain and unequivocal on this point, as to admit of no reasonable doubt, in the mind of a man who receives the Bible as the word of God, and the unerring rule of faith. That the Logos was eternally the Son of God, I doubt; for reasons which will hereafter be stated. "I have made this statement merely to show, in what manner the testimony of writers relative to the point in question is to be estimated. To say of Christ, or of the Logos, that he is eternal, is saying nothing more, than what all who acknowledge the divine nature of the Saviour of course must say. But if this should be said a thousand times, it would not of itself prove any thing in respect to the doctrine of eternal generation. It would only prove, that the writer or speaker, who asserts it, believes Christ to possess a divine nature; inasmuch as he assigns to him one of the attributes of the Deity. "This very plain but important principle, which should be applied in estimating the testimony to be adduced, has been entirely overlooked by Bishop Bull, in his Defensio Fidei Nicæna. We shall find frequent occasion to acknowledge the importance of the principle, in judging of patristical testimony; for many of the leading Fathers, while they believed fully in the eternity of the Logos, considered as the reason or understanding of the Divine Nature, which they name hoyos Evdiaderos i. e. the internal Logos, maintained that he became Son, (λoyos gopopixos, external, produced, or generated Logos,) at or near the time, when the creation of the world took place. Now so long as this distinction was adopted, and became the common sentiment of the Ante-Nicene fathers, merely an assertion that Christ, or the Son, or the Logos was eternal, cannot be regarded as testimony adequate to prove a belief in the doctrine of eternal generation; unless it appears, from other parts of a writer's works, that he really maintained this doctrine. Above all, such testimony is entirely nugatory, in regard to establishing the point in question, if the writer has expressly declared his views, in regard to the simple antemundane (not eternal) generation of the Son," pp. 16-19. Doctor Miller, after remarking that with all his veneration for Bishop Bull and Turretine, he is not willing that either of them, or that Gerhard, or Brettschneider, or Reinhard, should be "his representative on this subject," proceeds thus "They may all be erroneous; and yet the doctrine which they advocate be a real and important article of the Christian faith. "Permit me, then, to state, in a few words, the doctrine, as to this point, of which I am willing to be considered as the advocate. And I attempt this, as the venerable Augustine declares he undertook to discuss an allied subject-Not so truth, as of avoiding silence respecting it, much for the purpose of explaining the and thus keeping back the truth.' "I suppose, then, not only that there are three persons in the adorable Godhead, and that these Three are One, the same in substance, equal in power and glory; but that these three Persons exist in a state of mysterious and ineffable relaillustrious Calvin expresses it, is divinely tion to each other; that each,' as the related to the others, and yet distinguished from them by an incommunicable property; and that, unitedly, these Persons constitute the only living and true God, so constantly declared in Scripture to be One, in distinction from all the false and multiplied gods of the benighted heathen. So far, if I do not mistake, you and I are substantially agreed. selves concerning the distinctive titles, by "But when we come to explain our which the First and Second Persons of the Trinity are to be designated, we mathe first two of these related Persons are terially differ. We find in Scripture that distinguished from each other, and from the Third, by the titles Father and Son. Now, the question is, of what are these titles properly expressive? You maintain, that they are not intended to designate the necessary and eternal relation between these two Persons, but refer to an official character assumed in time. While I maintain, that the necessary and eternal relation just alluded to, is immediately intended to be expressed by these titles; that this relation is essentially and eternally such as to afford ground for applying to the First Person, as such, the title Father, and to the Second Person, as such, the title Son. What may be the precise nature of the relation intended to be expressed by these titles, I do not profess to know. They are, no doubt, used in condescension to the limited faculties of man, as most of those terms are, and must ever be, which are employed to tell us what is, of course, very different, nay, infinitely God is. The relation expressed by them different from that which is expressed by the same terms when applied to men: and yet we may suppose, so far resembles it, as to render the use of these terms to ex press it, proper, and more proper than any other. But, however we may speculate on this point, my belief is, that the titles in question are used in Scripture to express, not any official investiture, or event, which took place in time; but the eternal relation of the First and Second Persons in the Godhead. That the First Person was from eternity Father, and the Second Person from eternity Son: Son, not by creation, or adoption, or incarnation, or office; but by nature; the true, proper, co-equal, co-essential, and co-eternal Son of the Father, because from eternity possessing the same nature, and the same plenitude of Divine perfection with himself. "I suppose, further, that the terms, begotten and generation, are intended by the Spirit of God to refer to the same relation which the titles Father and Son express. If so, and if the Father was eternally Father, and the Son eternally Son; then the latter, in the sense meant to be conveyed by the term begotten, was eternally begotten. In one word, the generation of the Son was eternal. This language, I believe, is to be understood in a Divine and ineffable sense; in a sense as much above its earthly sense, as the heavens are higher than the earth. I do not, I repeat-admit that they imply derivation, inferiority or subordination on the part of the Son. Do you ask me, What they do imply? I might answer, ‘I do not know,' and yet stand upon equally firm and tenable ground with yourself, when you give this answer to Dr. Channing, in reply to the question-'What is that distinction in the Godhead which the term Person is intended to designate?' But I will not, at present, answer exactly thus; because I think there are several things which the Scriptures enable us, with some degree of intelligence, to say, that the language in question does imply. It implies that the Son does, in a sense analogous to, but infinitely above, that which is applicable to a human son, possess most perfectly, the same nature with his Father; that he is the brightness of his Father's glory, and the express image of his Person. It implies, too, that there is between these ever blessed Persons an intimacy and endearment of affection, which passeth knowledge, and which can be expressed by no terms in use among men so properly, as by that love which subsists between a beloved Father, and an only Son. And, finally, it implies, that, in the onder of subsistence, in a sense also analogous to, but infinitely above, what takes place among men, the Son is second to the Father; that is, second in such a sense as to be always named, when a systematick arrangement of the Persons is intended, in the second place;-second in order, though not in perfection or in time. I designate the relation which these divine Persons bear to each other by the terms begotten and generation, because I think the Holy Spirit uses these terms to express that relation: and because these are the terms used for expressing that relation among men, from which the whole of this language has been borrowed. I call it also, without scruple, eternal generation, because the relation which it designates is eternal; and I call it necessary, because I do not suppose that it is something contingent, or that it might have been different from what it is; but that it could no more have been otherwise, than we can suppose it possible for the character of the Most High to have been essentially different from that which is revealed. "I contend not, then, for any of those terms or phrases, which systematick writers have been wont to use when treating of this subject. I will not say a word in favour of eternal communication,-eternal emanation,-eternal procession, or any other forms of expression which Divines have been fond of employing in their attempts to illustrate the mysterious doctrine under consideration; although it ought to be recollected that no rational advocate of the doctrine ever thought of applying these terms in their earthly and ordinary sense. I am content, however, with the language of the Bible in relation to this point; and will give as little trouble as possible, by attempting to introduce illustrations of human devising. "If you ask me to explain the Scriptural terms begotten, generation, &c. when used in reference to the Son of God, I must pause, and lay my hand on my mouth. Who, as the Prophet asks-Who shall declare his generation? I will only once more say that I protest utterly against attaching to the terms in question, any of those carnal and grovelling ideas which the same terms excite when applied to the affairs of men. It is certain that there can be no relation of father and son among men, without implying both derivation and posteriority on the part of the latter: but I should consider myself as indulging no little hardihood, if I should venture to assert, that there could not be such an eternal relation between the First and Second Persons of the adorable Trinity, as might with more propriety be expressed by the terms Father and Son, than by any other terms in the language of mortals, and yet not involve the least degree of either derivation or posteriority in time. No one, I suppose, ever thought of contending for the literal sense of these terms, in reference to the Persons of the Trinity: that is literal, when measured by their common, earthly sense. Their meaning, on this great subject, is not natural, but supernatural and Divine, and, of course, beyond the reach of our minds. I would say, with the venerable Ambrose, a pious Father of the fourth century, when speaking on this subject-It is impossible for me to know the mystery of this generation. My tongue is silent, and not mine only, but the tongues of angels. It is above principalities, above angels, above the Cherubim, above the Seraphim, above all understanding. It is not lawful to search into these heavenly mysteries. It is lawful to know that he was born, but not lawful to examine how he was born. The former I dare not deny: the latter I am afraid to inquire into. For if Paul, when he was taken up into the third heaven affirms that the things which he heard could not be uttered, how can we express the mystery of the Divine Generation, which we can neither understand nor see ?'* "In the same strain speaks the learned and pious Basil-Thou believest that he was begotten? Do not inquire how. For as it is in vain to inquire how he that is un begotten is unbegotten, so neither ought we to inquire how He that is begotten, was begotten. Seek not to know what it is impossible to find out. Believe what is written; search not into what is not written.'t "Such is the doctrine of which I profess my belief, and which it is my object in this correspondence to maintain. It shall be my endeavour to exhibit my reasons for believing it in the following Letters." pp. 36-43. Both writers, it will be observed, regard the sacred scriptures as the only final authority in this controversy; and yet they both endeavour to derive a confirmation of their respective opinions from the writings of the primitive Fathers. Professor Stuart examines the opinions of the early Fathers in the first place, and then considers the passages of scripture which bear on the point investigated. Dr. Miller prefers the inverse order. He endeavours first to show that the eternal generation of the Son of God is the doctrine of the New Testament, and afterwards that the Ante-Nicene Fathers, as well as those who composed the venerable Synod of Nice, were almost unani * De Fide, ad Gratianum. † Hamil. 29. mous in holding this doctrine. We certainly give a decided preference to the method pursued by the latter gentleman. In examining, however, this discussion, we made Professor S. our guide, and compared him as we went along with Dr. M. The same method we would recommend to those of our readers, who wish to understand the merits of this friendly debate, and to compare the several arguments urged by these writers, on the question at issue between them. After reading the introductory letters in both performances, let them next read what Professor S. says in regard to the testimony of one of the primitive Fathers, and then read what Dr. M. says in reply. In this manner let the examination be conducted in reference to the testimony of each of the Fathers, and in every subsequent part of the discussion. This plan, we think, will assist the reader in gaining a clear view of the subject, and will enable him fairly to weigh the arguments urged on both sides. Professor Stuart's examination of the testimony of the early Fathers is contained in his second letter; that of Dr. Miller in his fifth and sixth letters. Professor Stuart, in the review he takes of the primitive Fathers, endeavours to show that they spoke of the eyes evdiaderos, i. e. the internal Logos, and of the λoyos godoginos, external, produced, or generated Logos; and that by the Son they meant the latter and not the former. This generation of the Logos was antemundane, at or near the time when the creation of the world took place. p. 19. But Dr. M. shows that there was a threefold generation of the Son of God mentioned by these early writers: one eternal, another at the creation, and a third when he was born of the Virgin Mary; and therefore justly observes, that although Mr. S. were able to produce any given number of passages in which the second kind of generation was spoken of, it would not establish the |