was sent into the world," p. 241; a species of logic which would prove that John the Baptist, who was "a man sent from God," was a man when, and consequently before, he was sent. Many of the arguments of Mr. Watson resolve themselves into mere assumptions; and this fault, occurring in the writings of so clear a thinker, creates strong suspicion that his theory cannot be sustained by valid evidence. He cites the confession of Nathaniel "Rabbi, thou art the Son of God, thou art the king of Israel," and contends that as he thought our Lord to be of Nazareth, he was ignorant of the circumstances of his birth; and called him Son of God, because he had been convinced of his omniscience, and therefore of his divinity by his saying, "I saw thee under the fig-tree," pp. 222, 4. Now it is not likely that Nathaniel was ignorant of John the Baptist, and his ministry. To two great truths did John bear witness; that the kingdom of heaven was at hand, and that Jesus was the Son of God. Moved by the manifestation made to himself, Nathaniel avowed his conviction. that Jesus was, as John had borne record, the Son of God. He received the testimony of John; but that he had the remotest conception of the doctrine of the Nicene fathers, is a purely gratuitous assumption: and yet his confession is about as good evidence as any Mr. Watson has adduced.

Without controversy, great is the mystery of the incarnation of the eternal Word: but not greater than the mystery of the incarnation of our own spirits. The former surprises us much more than the latter, but is not more truly out of the reach of our understanding. Mr. Watson pleads warmly against the notion that the Sonship of our Lord is a merely human distinction; or, to use his own words, against the

supposition that it refers to the immediate production of the humanity by divine power." And so far he has scripture to sustain him. The flesh is not the Son of God. That designation denotes the Word made flesh. But there is no part of scripture which says that the Word of God was the Son of God. Of the origin of the existence of the Word of God, by whom the Father made the worlds, we are left in ignorance. It may be given us in another world to know that the Nicene inquirers came as near to the truth as in this world men can; or we may hereafter find that their theory of eternal sonship is wholly baseless. On such a subject, unless revelation be indisputably plain, man cannot innocently be confident. Deeply therefore is it to be regretted that the bald dogmatism of the Nicene era should be thrust into popular confessions of faith; or indeed into any confessions. How long will the people parrot-like follow the priest as he says "I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, begotten of the Father before all worlds." Let all who are alive to their own responsibility to God, as the God of truth, remember that the standard of faith is the Bible, not the Bible supplemented by the Nicene creed. If the doctrine of eternal sonship be not taught in scripture, the utterance of that creed is superstition and sin.

It perhaps deserves serious consideration, whether the Nicene dogma have not the effect of thrusting out of sight one of the most wonderful facts disclosed by divine revelation: for the testimony of scripture is that the human body born of Mary was, through the wonder-working power of God to whom all things are possible, animated by the Word of God. "The Word was made flesh ** and we beheld ** the glory as of the only begotten of the Father." Men have

added to this statement, and maintained that our Saviour had not only a body made in the likeness of sinful flesh, but a human soul; whereas, according to scripture, Jesus of Nazareth was not the son of Joseph and Mary, but the incarnation of the Word which was in the beginning with God. How the two, the human and the divine, should dwell together in such combination, we know not; but we may reasonably expect to gain some further light on this mysterious subject, as the result of our future experience, and while we are here, let our faith firmly grasp such suggestions as the word of God contains, and wait for the grand discoveries of eternity. There is "one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus:" which must not be interpreted to mean that the mediation is by humanity alone; for the man Christ Jesus was the Word made flesh. So when we read that he who was in the form of God, was made in the likeness of man, we have probably before us the most wonderful of all facts. It was not in a figure, but really, that "he who was rich, for our sakes became poor": nor is the Immanuel of scripture two persons, but one person. In the beginning was the Word; by him the Father made the worlds; without him was not any thing made that was made. He, the Word divine and everlasting, was made in the likeness of sinful flesh. In him dwelt all the fulness of the Godhead bodily: and having given himself for our sins, he rose to reign "God over all things." Without controversy great is the mystery of godliness, the Word was made flesh.

SECTION 4.

On the orthodox theory of three persons in the Trinity. By the orthodox, we do not mean the scriptural theory; but that which has been maintained by the body calling itself "the church." Of that theory, we may take Pearson, in his noble treatise on the creed called the Apostles'; Bull, in his admirable work on the Nicene creed; and Burton, in his learned digests of the testimonies of the Ante-Nicene fathers to the Trinity and the divinity of our Saviour, as the representatives. According to that theory, the Father only is self-existent: the Son derives his divine existence from the Father, and as divine is inferior to the Father, though not in nature; inferior, in that he is the Son, and not the Father: and the Holy Spirit derives his divine existence -according to the eastern Christians from the Father, according to the western Christians from the Father and the Son-not by generation, but procession.

"This is not to be denied, that there can be but one essence properly divine, and so but one God of infinite wisdom, power, and majesty; that there can be but one person originally of himself subsisting in that infinite Being, because a plurality of more persons so subsisting would necessarily infer a multiplicity of Gods; that the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is originally God, as not receiving his eternal being from any other. Wherefore it necessarily followeth that Jesus Christ, who is certainly not the Father, cannot be a person subsisting in the divine nature originally of himself; and consequently, as we have already proved, that he is truly and properly the eternal God, he must be understood to have the Godhead communicated to him by the Father, who is not only eternally but originally God....In that perfect and absolute equality there is, notwithstanding, this disparity, that the Father hath the Godhead, not from the Son, nor from any other, whereas the Son hath it from the Father.... From whence he which is equal, even in that equality confesseth a priority, saying 'the Father is greater than I'; the Son equal in respect to his nature, the Father greater in reference to the communication of the Godhead."-Pearson on the Creed.-Article 2.

"The very words, son and generation, manifestly imply the sub

ordination of the Son to the Father begetting him *** He who is, God of God, cannot be said to be God of himself (a seipso) without manifest contradiction. *** Under this head we assert two things, first, that the ancients decided that God the Father is, even in respect to his divinity, greater than the Son; then, that they taught nevertheless that the Father is greater than the Son in respect to his original alone, but that in nature both are equal."-Bull on the Nicene Creed, Sec. 4, c. 1, §2.

"What he (Origen) says of nothing being unproduced (dyévvnrov) except the Father, is strictly orthodox, and has always been the doctrine of the catholic church. The Son and the Holy Ghost have always been said to be derived from the Father; the one by generation, the other by procession. Neither of them is self-existent, and therefore neither of them is unproduced. But this doctrine was never considered to be incompatible with the eternity of the Son or the Holy Ghost."-Burton's Testimony of the Ante-Nicene Fathers to the Trinity, p. 101.

“The catholic church has always held that as a Son begotten by the Father, Christ is so far inferior to the Father."-Burton's Testimony of the Ante-Nicene Fathers to the Divinity of Christ, p. 16.

The most questionable of these statements is that which denies the self-existence of him whose "name is called the Word of God." Admit the doctrine of eternal Sonship, and it would seem indeed to follow that we must ascribe to the second person in the Trinity a derived existence: but, as has been shewn, that doctrine is not affirmed in scripture, and, as an inference from scripture is, at best, very doubtful. It receives, however, some countenance from the manner in which scripture uses the prepositions é, dɩá, and eis, meaning of, through or by means of, and to or into. Paul says there is "one God, the Father, of whom are all things; ** and one Lord Jesus Christ by whom are all things.' Throughout the New Testament this distinction is preserved; but though the Son is of the Father, it is nowhere said that "the Word" is of the Father. And there are parts of scripture which cannot be easily reconciled with the orthodox theory of divine Sonship: