Page images
PDF
EPUB

short of being in the BOSOM OF THE FATHER, a distinction which the exposition in question attributes to him in respect of his pure humanity. The love of God is said to have been peculiarly manifested in the gift of the Only Begotten. But it is no evidence of the divine benevolence that the redeeming work was undertaken by one whose human nature was miraculously produced. Nor is this incident, as the singular geniture of the Son is represented, any aggravation of the guilt of unbelief.

In short, there is not one of these emphatic passages which is not weakened or rendered absurd by confining the characteristic epithet to the miraculous conception. Nor would the conclusion be much improved, were we to allow what, in fact, is altogether inadmissible, that the subject of reference is the complex person of our Lord. For in his mixed nature he was not sent and given, nor from the presence of the Father, nor existing in the bosom of the Father. So that it is not enough to say that such an exposition enfeebles the texts to which it is applied. With one exception, it renders them all unfaithful to fact. Rhetorical license is out of the question, since the expression throughout is uniform; and a glaring catechresis in every case is a conception absolutely preposterous.

Here then we take our stand. Either the epithet before us describes our Lord's divine relation to the Father, or his own statements and those of the Evangelist are untrue. Let all subtilities be discarded, with all evasive and strained interpretations, and—for they are equally concerned in the argument-let the Socinian and the denier of eternal filiation

fairly meet the case. Here is an epithet plainly indicative of generation, which must be explained literally, and which, with such an explication, is inappropriate and false, except as descriptive of the Deity of Christ.

Yet while, on the one hand, it is steadfastly maintained that the testimony of Scripture allows us no alternative but the acknowledgment of our Lord's divine generation, it is readily conceded, on the other, that the doctrine is associated with many difficulties, and that of these some are unusually weighty and embarrassing. Yet this is no more than may be affirmed of every truth connected with the modus of the divine essence; and were it possible to place this or any other tenet of the same class in a position as accessible as are topics of ordinary

observation, such a fact alone would be a decisive evidence against it. Even the internal being of man presents a thousand phenomena which baffle the most penetrating and patient science; and it were presumptuous to suppose the divine nature susceptible of an exposition clearer than our own. In controversies of this order, the utmost that can be hoped for, apart from the testimony of Scripture, is an alleviation of difficulties; and very serious mischief has ensued upon the transgression, by orthodox divines, of this important and salutary restriction. They have thus allowed themselves to be beguiled from the simple statements of the word of God, to which, on subjects that concern the divine essence, is the only lawful appeal; and have given their sanction to speculations which, at best uncertain, are always perilous, generally hurtful, and often fatal.

But although to truth of this order Scripture testimony is the only certain guide, yet arguments of an independent character, especially if much vaunted, may occasionally be subjected to profitable examination, with the distinct understanding, however, that the proof of doctrines purely divine is wholly unaffected by the success or failure of any such scrutiny. In the case before us, for example, the doctrine of divine generation being certainly taught in Scripture, we are not permitted to disturb the process of evidence by which we have arrived at this conclusion. The question of fact is decided. But the subject presents many difficulties; and if these can be in any degree lightened, the progress and reception of truth may perhaps be assisted, though its certainty cannot be increased.

Of these the most formidable, and indeed the only one which seems to require especial notice, is the following. It is argued that the generation of the Son must be either past, or still going on. If the one, then it cannot be eternal; if the other, then it is not yet complete. In other words, "this act of generation must either be immanent or transient; if immanent, then the Son is not yet begotten; for immanent acts in God are the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever: if transient, then the person of the Son is not eternal; for transient acts have both a beginning and an end.” (Antiq. no Guide, &c., p. 14.)

The fallacy of this argument lies in confounding the completeness and the cessation of production; two things which, as every day's experience shows, are perfectly distinct. Thus in the vegetable kingdom there are processes of production continually complete, and yet continually going on; nor is the animal kingdom without examples of analogous phenomena. So also the flow of light from the material sun is every moment perfect, yet never interrupted. In the divine essence, therefore, there may be an immanent generation,—and immanent it is, if it exist at all,—which yet shall be absolutely and infinitely perfect. The Son may be perfectly begotten, yet it does not follow that the geniture shall cease; since derivation may be at once complete and continuous. Perhaps the word emanation approaches as nearly to the correct idea of such a relation as human language will allow.

The contrary conclusion, like all the other errors with which this subject has been encumbered, results from a want of discrimination between what is accidental and what is essential; and from the application of circumstances which pertain exclusively to a physical nature, to explain the operations of an infinite and eternal Spirit. As far as we understand the subject, all that is essential to generation is vital production, in which one animate being communicates his nature to another. In physical generation, with which alone we are familiar, it is true that the generative process terminates immediately upon its completion. But the reason of this is, that it is effected by division, and not by emanation; and the generator and the generated, though of one nature, which is essential to generation, are yet two distinct essences, which is one of its accidents. For example, David begets Solomon, but this is by division of the substance of David. The nature is the same, but the essences are separate. Both are human beings; but David is one human being, and Solomon is another human being. Purely in consequence of this division of substance and distinction of essence the generation of Solomon is completed, and in one and the same moment at an end. But this division of the substance of the generator, this consequent multiplication of essences, and simultaneousness of completion and cessation in the generative process, are accidents of generation of which the Deity is incapable.

These two positions are therefore fairly tenable,—that there may be a production at once perfect and immanent, and that the only argument against such a vital production in the Deity is derived from physical generation, and is wholly inapplicable to a hyperphysical and indivisible essence. Hence, from all that we can discern, we infer that in the nature of things there is no objection to the doctrine of a divine and eternal generation. Reason allows that it may be; Revelation assures us that IT IS.

NOTE (K), p. 245.

On the Divine Power exhibited in the Miracles of Christ.

UPON this subject there is some diversity in the statements of Scripture. Sometimes the miracles of our Lord are attributed to the power of the Father, sometimes to that of the Spirit, sometimes to his own divine power, and sometimes to his delegated mediatorial authority. The several representations of the New Testament on his resurrection from the dead will illustrate this remark. (See Acts iii. 15; Rom. viii. 11; John ii. 19; x. 17, 18. Also CHAP. III., sect. ii., note (H), above.) It is of some importance that we should ascertain the harmony of Scripture testimony upon this subject, and that to each of these doctrines we should assign its correct relative position. To effect this is the purpose of the present note.

To begin with the last. We are not to regard the mediatorial authority as identical with that of the Prophets under the former dispensation. They had the authority to work miracles, but in their case it was unaccompanied by any inherent qualifications. The power-between which and mere authority or right of commission we must carefully distinguish, -was wholly extrinsic from themselves. Both the miraculous commission and the miraculous qualification came directly from God, and were absolutely independent of their own wills. But though the delegation and commission of our Lord came from the Father, whose servant he condescended by his incarnation to become, yet the qualification of inherent ability he had of himself. The one resulted from his assumed mediatorial character, the other was the attribute of his eternal Godhead.

Yet we are not to regard the power displayed in the miracles of Christ as that possessed in the right of personal divinity. On the contrary, we have the most distinct assurance that they were effected through the agency of the third Subsistence in the Trinity, the Holy Spirit. Jesus was "anointed with the Holy Ghost and with power," and therefore "went about,— healing all that were oppressed of the devil." (Acts x. 38.)

« PreviousContinue »