LETTER II.

Statement of the Doctrine, with Remarks.

REVEREND AND DEAR BROTHER,

BEFORE I proceed to inquire whether the Eternal Generation of the Son of God is taught in Scripture, and was believed by the early Fathers, I wish to make a few remarks on the doctrine itself. As you appear to have misapprehended my views of it, in several respects, I am desirous of stating explicitly, in the outset, not so much what I suppose the doctrine to mean, as what I do not mean, in declaring my belief of it, and under what aspects I have been accustomed to regard it, as an article of my creed.

I begin, then, with declaring, that, in receiving the doctrine of the eternal Sonship of Christ, I do not admit into my views of the subject, any ideas of creation, on the part of the Father, or of derivation, inferiority, or

subordination, on the part of the Son. The idea of a derived or inferior God is quite as abhorrent to my feelings, and as alien from my creed, as it can be from yours. I know, indeed, that some zealous and able advocates of the general doctrine for which I plead, while they maintained the strict and proper Divinity and eternity of the Son, have used language concerning him as if he were to be regarded as a produced and subordinate Being. The learned and powerful Bishop Bull, admirably as he has written on the Trinitarian controversy, and in support of the doctrine which forms the subject of this correspondence, has yet expressed himself in a way concerning the subordination of the Son, in which I cannot entirely follow him. For, if I understand him, he not only maintains an official subordination, as Mediator, which I readily admit; but also a personal and eternal subordination, which I am by no means prepared to adopt. It ought, indeed, in justice to this learned and able Divine, to be stated, that similar language is found in writers who flourished long before him, and even in some of the most learned and zealous of the post-Nicene advocates of the doctrine for which I plead. But I consider speculations of this kind, as really forming no just objection to

the doctrine of the eternal Sonship of Christ, any more than the different, and ever varying speculations of philosophick divines on the doctrine of the Trinity, ought to shake our belief in what the Scriptures have revealed to us on that subject; or any more than the diverse, and very unhappy illustrations, which truly pious and ingenious men, have sometimes attempted to give of the doctrine of Election, or of the Holy Spirit's influence, or of the Divine Omnipresence, ought to tempt us to discard them all as inventions of human folly. Allow me to say, then, once for all, that when, in speaking of a Divine Person as eternally begotten, you are perplexed yourself, or would press me, with the idea of a derived or inferior God, I utterly protest against the imputation. It appears, as I said, as incongruous in my view, as it can appear in yours. It makes no part of the doctrine of which I would offer myself as the advocate.

You not only appear to take for granted, that the learned and able Professor Turretine, in the chapter in his Theologiæ Elencticæ, which treats of the doctrine of eternal Generation, will be acknowledged as a fair representative of the advocates of that doctrine; but you also intimate, that he is to be considered

as having "laid out very much of his strength" on that chapter, so that it may be supposed to contain the substance of what can be said in support of the doctrine in question. This, I believe, is not the opinion of the greatest admirers of that profound and illustrious divine. It is true, such were his talents and erudition, that few writers can safely promise themselves, in common cases, to make very advantageous additions to any discussion, in which he really ❝laid out his strength." But the fact is, that many warm friends of Turretine's system consider his chapter on the subject under consideration, as by no means among the most complete and satisfactory in his work. Nor, indeed, could it reasonably be expected to be so, in reference to the controversy as it exists in our day, among different portions of the Trinitarians. Every writer will be apt to lay out the greatest portion of his strength upon those subjects which are most controverted, and deemed most important, at the time in which he writes. Now it is well known, that the doctrine of the eternal Generation of the Son of God, in the days of Turretine, was scarcely at all, and certainly not in any prominent or interesting degree, a matter of dispute among the Orthodox. None who, at that time, ac

knowledged the Divinity of Christ, ever thought of denying his eternal Sonship. The celebrated Herman Alexander Roell, of Holland, before alluded to, was, if I mistake not, the first Trinitarian who ever distinguished himself by embracing and publishing the doctrine on that subject which you now hold. And he did not bring his opinions before the publick until after Turretine's death. Hence the latter, in illustrating and defending the orthodox doctrine in relation to this point, speaks of none as opponents but Arians and Socinians; and in his mode of treating it, certainly evinces nothing more than his ordinary degree of attention and effort. Indeed I should think most readers would judge that his chapter on this subject was below, rather than above, his usual grade of fulness and ability.

I am not, therefore, willing to acknowledge even the venerable Turretine, highly as I esteem him, as my representative on this subject. His language may all be very justifiable; but I do not adopt it; neither do I, at present, impugn it. Nor am I at all more disposed to allow Gerhard, or Brettschneider, or Reinhard, whom you quote, to speak for me on the subject of eternal generation. I will not stop to canvass their respective modes of speaking.