vations on the Sonship of Christ. The remark 1 have made on Psalm ii. 7. I perceive is rather out of place; and it appears to me to be necessary to add a few observations on that passage, to prevent misconception. That the second Psalm refers to the Messiah is an opinion very generally held, both by Jews and Christians; and many believe that the decree contained in it, was not spoken to David by Jehovah himself, but by Nathan the prophet, and that the purport of the promise was not made to David, but to some one of his seed. (2 Sam. xii. 14-16.) It is perhaps impossible for us to determine whether the Psalmist has a reference to what Nathan said to him, or whether Jehovah declared these words to him in a more immediate manner; the variation in the phraseology, seems to favour the latter opinion. But be this as it may, the author of the epistle to the Hebrews, considers these words as immediately applicable to Christ, and uses them as an argument of his superiority to angels, Hebrews i. 5. In a literal sense, the 7th verse, no doubt, referred to David, or to his seed; but as its meaning was not fully unfolded until a voice from the most excellent glory was heard, saying, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased;" Matthew iii. 17.* it is probable that David in a certain sense, like Daniel in one instance, heard but understood not, Daniel xii. 8. But however far the Psalmist might fall short in comprehending the full import of the words in question, we have a right to connect them with the Personage to whom they directly refer, and to understand them as the first dawnings of a truth, which, in the New Testament, is written as with a sun-beam. That I have not affixed an unnatural meaning to the term begotten, by understanding it as denoting a manifestation of a relation, will appear from the sense in which it is used by one of the inspired writers. In 1 Peter, i. 4. believers are said to be begotten again unto a lively hope, by the resurrection of Christ. What the Apostle means is, that as the resurrection of Christ demonstrated the

divinity of his mission, and the reality of an immortal state, it excited in their minds a hope of future blessedness. They were begotten again, i. e. a manifestation of truth to their minds, had animated their feelings, by giving them a sublime object on which they might fix their hopes. Other instances might be adduced, in which the term begotten does not imply commencement of existence. In all cases its meaning must be determined by the manner in which it is employed.

4th Question." In what manner can eternal existence be predicated of any being or person who is begotten?”`

Eternal existence cannot be predicated of any being or person who is literally begotten. If Christ as a being were begotten, he could not be eternal. It was not however his assumption of human nature that constituted his personality; and therefore, though we should allow that the body prepared for him was, figuratively speaking, begotten; yet, eternal existence may be predicated of him, as one of the Trinity. I think, however, that the term begotten was not used to denote the creation of his human nature; if it were, I see not with what propriety he is called the only begotten, as Adam was immediately created; and therefore it appears more rational to understand the title only begotten, as expressive of the dignity of his Sonship, rather than of its origin or cause. Some persons may contend, that the term begotten expresses something positive in the divine nature, even the ground of the relation between the Father and the Son. If it does, we are utterly incapable of forming any conception of this subject; and it is therefore highly absurd, if not presumptuous, to make the attempt. However tenacious such persons may be for their opinions, they will do wisely by refraining from all endeavour to explain what is necessarily incomprehensible and ineffable. It is in consequence of such efforts, that this subject is so generally associated with a heterogeneous mass of empty or contradictory words.

5th." Can the word Eternal be united with Son or begotten Son, without involving contradictory ideas?”

In the sense for which I contend, no opposition of meaning is involved by their union. Between eternity and an eternal being, there can be no opposition of ideas; and if the being in

tended by the term Son be eternal, where is the impropriety in calling him the eternal Son? Will those who object to this phraseology, object to the following, "The Son is eternal?" and is there more impropriety in one assertion than in the other?

Having thus endeavoured to answer the five questions in as concise a manner as I possibly could, I beg leave to subjoin a few remarks, before I conclude. The points at issue between the opposers and defenders of the eternal Sonship of Christ, have been grossly mistaken; the two following contain the quintessence of the controversy.

1. Does the term Son, in the singular, refer exclusively to Christ in his incarnate state? 2. If it does not, is his eternal existence affected by it? My object has been to shew, that the term Son does not necessarily imply subsequency of existence.

The cur

rent opinion is, that the term Son refers to Christ in his pre-existent state; and the structure of the language of revelation, certainly favours the opinion. This being the case, it is natural to suppose that it will be difficult to erase this sentiment from certain minds. And as the inferences deduced from the word Son are very imposing, there is reason to believe, that some may admit the legitimacy of the conclusions drawn from this word, and yet retain their opinion that it applies to Christ before his incarnation, and thus, by an easy transition, such persons would be almost imperceptibly landed on the shores of Arianism.

Nor is it unlikely that others may infer, that if the term Son does not express a personal distinction in the Divine nature, and if by the term Logos, or Word, they are to understand eternal Reason, then there is no such doctrine taught in the scriptures as a personal distinction in the Trinity. Some men's minds are so organized, that they generally push principles to their consequences; and seldom rest until both lie snugly in their heads together. If these consequences are not fairly deducible from the opinion I oppose, as there is a possibility of their resulting from it, it is certainly a matter of importance that the opinion be so stated as to guard against them.

That truth ought to be separated from error, when both are blended together, few persons will deny. This,

however, is by no means an easy task, it requires not only a clear head but a steady hand. Most men think by words, instead of contemplating things in their own natures; and they are so accustomed to connect their religious opinion with the language of their creeds, that to deprive them of their favourite expressions is, in their estimation, to rob them of their faith. On this account, when words are not evidently improper, it is perhaps better to curtail and fix their meaning, than to reject them.*

I trust that nothing which I have advanced, will be considered as conveying the slightest reflection on the persons who have felt it their duty to oppose what to them appears a scholastic dogma. I venerate the man whose mind is too independent to be awed into a belief of absurdities by fallible authorities, and who has firmness enough to oppose what he deems popular errors. It is to such men and to such minds, that we owe the Reformation from Popery, to say nothing of those few great men, who, in the last century, were the means of diffusing knowledge through this kingdom. It is in vain that we look to bodies of men, to have the scales of ignorance removed from the human mind. This is generally the work of individuals. The wise and the brave are always the first to storm the bulwarks of error, and after a breach is made, then follow the simple and the cowardly.

66

While I admit that there is a possibility of some danger resulting from the agitation of this question, I confess, Sir, that I expect it will be very little. Some persons seemed to expect that the whole Trinitarian system was likely to come rattling, cracking, crashing, thundering down;" but of this there is little to apprehend. Should the subject be calmly discussed in your impartial Magazine, and of this I have no doubt, truth will be elicited, evil will be prevented, and much good will result. That these effects will be produced, I am fully persuaded; and under this impression have presumed to offer my thoughts. I am, Sir,

Your's respectfully,

TYRO.

*See the exception to the rules for the definition of words in Watts's Logic. Part I chap. 6, section 3, direction 7.

"Geologists," he goes on to say, "have lately brought to light a number of important facts regarding the strata composing the outer shell of this globe, and the remains of organized bodies which are found in them. It is ascertained that these remains do not occur promiscuously, but in a determinate order, corresponding with that which is given in the first chapter of Genesis. Thus, human bones are found only in the uppermost, or very newest alluvial soil. Further down are found the remains of quadrupeds, belonging to species now extinct; these are mixed with sea shells and marine petrifactions. At a still lower depth are found the exuviæ of alligators and other amphibious animals, of an appearance unlike any species that now exist; for they seem to have been deposited while the laws of nature in the animal kingdom, admitted the metempsychosis (alluded to in ancient tradition) anterior to the introduction of death. Deeper still, are found immense beds of carbonaceous matter, which we know is the base of vegetable substances. Lowest of all are found strata of solid rocks, containing no petrifactions, nor traces of carbon. These rocks seem to have been formed when the world was covered by an uninhabited sea."+

With these curious facts in view, Mr. Macnab attempts to make the Scripture account of the creation and them perfectly to quadrate, by extending the period it occupied to immeasurable ages, or aiwveç.

By this ingenious device, he seems to think he shall make every objection to the Scripture account fly before him. For he traces in that account, as others pretend to do, the very order of the strata, as geologists have furnished them to his hand; and his aiōns, or periods of immeasurable duration, afford sufficient time for their formation. What, therefore, with geolo

* See Macnab's Theory, art. 21.

+ Jbid. art. 30.

No. 14.-VOL. II.

But as our author seems to rest the whole of his hypothesis, respecting the protraction of the work of creation to such lengthened-out periods, on the single word avec, as used by the apostle, Heb. i. 2. xi. 3. let us, before implicitly receiving it, first inquire whether his foundation be sufficiently secure to support all the weight he seems disposed to lay upon it?

66

It is to be remarked, that he employs no criticism in support of his opinion, but quotes Dr. Macknight on the passages; as if the barely mentioning of his name were sufficient to establish an article of such importance. But unluckily it happens, that in looking into Macknight, we find his interpretation running directly contrary to the hypothesis of our author. That celebrated writer, so far from giving the smallest hint that the word in question refers in these passages to time, restricts it exclusively to the material fabric of the universe. And this he confirms by the clause, so that the things which are seen, were not made "This of things which did appear." clause," says the learned Doctor, "determines its signification to the material fabric of the worlds, comprehending the Sun, Moon, Stars, and Earth, (called by Moses, the heavens and the earth, Gen. i. 1.) by whose durations and revolutions, time, consisting of days, and months, and years, and ages, is measured." On Heb. 1. 2. the Doctor even adds, "That the words Tovs auvas, are rightly translated the worlds, (and not the ages, as the Socinians contend,) appears from chap. xi. 3. where they denote the material fabric of the universe, called the things which are seen; and which are said to be formed by the word of God.” R

66

The sense of the passage seems plainly to be this. By faith in the divine revelations, we understand that the worlds, namely, the Sun, Moon, Stars, and Earth, were produced by the word or command, Pηpari Jes, of God, (see Gen. i. 1, 3, 6. Psal. xxxiii. 6, 9.) from nothing. Hence it follows, as the apostle says, so that the things which are seen, the things which compose this visible universe, were not made of things which then did exist, but were made in the manner which revelation describes, without any pre-existent matter to form them of."-Thus far the sense of the passage is clear. But upon the other plan of interpretation, it makes no proper sense at all. For how could the avec, if by them we are to understand ages, be produced by a word or command? Or how could the inference, so that the things which are seen, were not made of things which did appear, be drawn from such premises? Such an expression cannot apply to mere past duration, but to something material and presently existing.

Hence we read in various passages of Scripture, of the different aiōns or ages of the world thus constituted; but never of the aions or ages, as applied to the periods of its creation, except in Mr. Macnab's theory; which he would do well to re-examine and correct on so important an article. Is it not expressly said, that God created the heavens and the earth, or visible universe, in six days? No, says Mr. Macnab, not in six natural days, but in six aiōns, periods of immeasurable length; and here he leaves the matter to rest on the authority of his own naked assertion.

ages, or

He asks the philosophers to tell him, whether the days of the creation meant tropical or sidereal time? To which I would reply, though I profess to have no other method of ascertaining the fact, but the principles of common sense, that it would most likely be that time by which Moses, the author of the account, was in the habit of computing; and which it is highly probable was our common solar day, as there can be no proper reason assigned why it should be any

other.

With regard to the computation of time, it has likewise been objected, though by the inverse rule of these authors, against the longevity of the antediluvians, in order to correct the

sacred text, as it was supposed, and to make it tally with present appearances, that their time must have been computed differently from ours; that they must have reckoned by lunar and not by solar years. But there is a passage on this subject in the works of the famous Augustine* well deserving of notice in this place, and which I hope will work compunction in the minds of our no less unreasonable theorists respecting the days of creation. Speaking of the flood," How can it be said," he remarks, "that the waters (Gen. vii. 10.) were upon the earth in the six hundreth year of Noah's life, in the second month, and the seventeenth day of the month, unless the months were the same as they are now? And if the months were the same, why not the years ?-And afterwards in the end of the flood it is written (chap. viii. 4, 5.) the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat. And in the tenth month, upon the first day of the month, were the tops of the mountains

seen.

And this first month, second month, seventh month, and tenth month, happened in the same year of Noah's life, (comp. Gen. vii. 6. viii. 5, 13.) who lived nine hundred and fifty years (chap. ix. 29.) And in the second month, on the seven and twentieth day of the month, God spake again unto Noah, (chap. viii. 14, 15.) So that here are ten months in the same year, and seven and twenty days of the same month. If then there were ten months in the same year, why not twelve? And if seven and twenty days in the same month, why not thirty? So that if the years were twelve times as short as they are now, then the months also must be twelve times as short as they are now; and the same must be said of the days; since the tenth month is mentioned in one of the years of Noah, and the seven and twentieth day of one of the months."

"According to this strange way of reckoning, the flood, which, the Scripture says, was upon the earth forty days and forty nights, must be translated three days and eight hours. But who can endure such vanity and absurdity? Such a method, instead of confirming the Scriptures, will destroy them; and by attempting to solve one scruple,

* De Civitate Dei. lib. xv. cap. 14.