come within their own comprehension. I allow that we are by
reason to judge of the evidence in favour of the Bible as the Book
of God, and also of the proper explanation of the terms used in that
blessed book. But when it is proved to be a Divine revelation,
we are bound to receive that revelation, though there may be mys-
teries in it which the human mind cannot fathom.
Some years
ago a celebrated Divine, who wished to comprehend the nature of
our Lord, embraced the strange and unscriptural opinion, that
the human soul of Christ was pre-existent; and he wrote a treatise
to prove that it was the first, and the most glorious part of the
creation of God. Other persons have recently revived an entirely
opposite scheme, but equally unscriptural, viz. that the Lord
Jesus Christ is termed the Son of God, only in reference to his
human nature.

In speaking or writing respecting the deep things of God, we ought to do it with much caution. The human mind is limited with respect to its powers, and though it may comprehend much with respect to arts and sciences, and be continually advancing in knowledge and information on a variety of subjects; yet, with respect to the things of God, it becomes us to speak with deep humility. But more especially when we attempt to define the nature of God, we must be careful not to make the reason of man the judge of that nature, for "Who by searching can find out the Almighty?" If the reason of man is to be the judge, and the definer of the nature of God, whose reason is to be the standard? The minds of men vary, and what one person may appear to prove to be the nature of the Divine Being, another may attempt to overthrow, and shew to be totally incorrect. If man is to be our guide, and mere human reason to be our standard in judging of the Divine Being, we shall be left in a chaos of confusion.In speaking thus of the reason of man, I do not mean to degrade it, or to suppose that we are not to use it even in spiritual concerns; but we should learn to know its province, and not to apply it as the rule of our faith, where the revelation of God is our only guide.

I would also notice another source of false reasoning and error, which is, when we imagine that the terms made use of in the sacred writings, by which it has pleased God to reveal himself to man, are used in that gross sense, in which the same terms are used, as applicable to man. Thus no person can reasonably suppose that the Divine Being has arms or feet; that he walketh, or rideth upon the wings of the wind. Those expressions, and many others, it it is well known, are used to convey to us the knowledge of the Divine power, goodness, justice, wrath, mercy, &c. So when the terms Father and Son are used, no person surely would apply them in the gross sense; but as it hath pleased God to make use of VOL. XLI. JANUARY, 1818.

*C*

those expressions as the most suitable, we are to receive them as they are given in the Sacred Writings. The terms Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, are there used to convey to us the doctrine of three persons in one Godhead. That those words are the most proper, we cannot doubt, because, they are the terms used by the Holy Spirit, and used in reference to the Triune God; not merely in reference to the incarnation of our Lord, but to the eternal Jehovah. If any person replies, "But I cannot comprehend how those terms can apply to a spiritual and Divine Being," we say, our reason is not to be the judge of the propriety of such expressions; but as it is the revelation of God, we receive it without attempting to fathom the mystery.

The primitive Christian Church undoubtedly received that doctrine; and the compilers of our Liturgy have interwoven it throughout their excellent work.

A few extracts from some of the ancient fathers, will be sufficient to shew what the doctrine of the primitive church was, on that important subject.

Justin Martyr, in his Apology for the Christians, has the following expression; "But now if we say, that the Logos of God, is properly the begotten of God, by a generation quite different from that of men, as I have already mentioned, yet even this, I say, is no more than what you might very well tolerate."

Again. "One article of our faith is, that Christ is the first begotten of God." Again, "For they who affirm the Son to be the Father, are guilty of not knowing the Father, and likewise of being ignorant that the Father of the universe has a Son, who being the Logos, and first begotten of God, is God."

Tertullian, in his Apology for the Christians, reasons largely on the subject, and at the close of one train of arguments, has the following expression: "Thus it is, that the Logos, which came forth from God, is both God, and the Son of God, and those two are one."

Vincentius Lirinensis wrote his Commonitory in the year 434, and clearly states the doctrine of the primitive church to be, that "there were two substances in Christ, one of which was Divine, the other human; one begotton of the Father, the other born of his mother." Again, "Thus in one and the same Christ, there are two substances, but one Divine, the other human. One from God the Father, the other from the virgin mother. One co-eternal and equal to the Father, the other temporary and inferior to the Father. One of the same substance with the Father, the other of the same substance with the mother; yet these two different substances make but one and the same Christ."

The errors which arose in the Christian Church, in the three first ages, were numerous, for one error generally opened the way for another. Sabellius began with denying Jesus to be the Son

of God as to his Divine nature; but at the same time allowed him to be God.

Dionysius, one of the Christian Bishops, in a letter which he wrote on that occasion, strongly reprobates the novel system of Sabellius, and speaks of Jesus as "the only begotten Son."

When the Arian heresy more fully and openly appeared, a council of the chief Christian Bishops was held at Nice, at which the Emperor presided, and where the Creed, generally termed the Nicene Creed, was formed, and was signed by three hundred and eighteen Bishops. In that Council the following articles were inserted in the Creed, as expressive of the faith of the Christian Church, and also as a bulwark against any future attacks on that faith. "And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, Begotten of his Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, Very God of very God, Begotten not made, Being of one substance with the Father, By whom all things were made."

Some time afterwards, the Creed which is generally termed the Creed of St. Athanasius, was formed, still more effectually to explain and guard the important doctrine of the Trinity. The following parts of the Creed, fully prove what was then the catholic doctrine: "The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created, but begotten.-For the right faith is, that we believe and confess: that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man; God, of the Substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds: and Man, of the Substance of his Mother, born in the world; Perfect God and perfect Man: of a reasonable soul, and human flesh subsisting; Equal to the Father, as touching his Godhead: and inferior to the Father, as touching his Manhood."

The same doctrine runs through every part of the Liturgy, and proves that the venerable Reformers stood firm on that important ground. In the articles of religion which were drawn up by them, they have particularly stated that sacred truth, "The Son, which is the Word of the Father, begotten from everlasting of the Father, the very and eternal God, and of one substance with the Father."

The venerable founder of Methodism, who appears to have been particularly directed of God, did not neglect to state that sacred truth. In his notes on the first chapter of the epistle to the Hebrews he says, "Thou art my Son, God of God, Light of Light. This day have I begotten thee. I have begotten thee from eternity, which by its unalterable permanency of duration, is one continued, unsuccessive day. I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son. I will own myself to be his Father, and him to be my Son, by eminent tokens of my * It is in general well known to the Methodists, that his notes on the New Testament, and Sermons, are the legal standard of our doctrines.

peculiar love. The former clause relates to his naturel Sonship, by an eternal inconceivable generation; the other to his Father's acknowledgment, and treatment of him, as his incarnate Son." Again, "By whom also he made the worlds; therefore the Son was before all worlds. His glory reaches from everlasting to everlasting, though God spake by Him to us only in these last days." Such was the view which Mr. Wesley had of that truth, and it is well known that in many of his hymns, and those of his brother Charles, the same doctrine is clearly stated:

"Thy co-eternal Son display,
And call my darkness into day."
"Thou art the co-eternal Son,
In substance with thy Father one;
In person different we proclaim,
In power and majesty the same!"
"For all the plenitude Divine,
Resides in his eternal Son."

"He spake the word and it was done,
The universe his word obey'd;

His word is his eternal Son,

And Christ the whole creation made."

"From thee through an eternal now,
The Son, thine offspring flow'd;
An everlasting Father thou,

As everlasting God."

"Thy wond'rous love the Godhead show'd

Contracted to a span:

The co-eternal Son of God,

The mortal son of man."

To transcribe all the verses which are on that important subject is unnecessary, for the same sound doctrine runs through the whole.

When we turn to the Sacred Writings, we find a variety of passages, which can bear no other construction than that, which has been uniformly given to them by the orthodox part of the Christian church. Our Lord is repeatedly spoken of as the only begotten of the Father, perfectly distinct from all created beings. In the conversation which our Lord had with the Jews, he said, "My Father worketh hitherto and I work." The Jews immediately sought to kill him, because he said that "God was his Father, making himself equal with God." If the Jews had mistaken the meaning of our Lord, why did he not correct their error; but so far was he from informing them that they had mis

taken his meaning, that he even confirmed it by saying, "That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father." St. John says, "No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him." Surely he could not speak of the human nature of our Lord, being in the bosom of the Father; of its having seen God, and having declared him; the passage applies to him who was one with the Father, before his incarnation.

Our Lord says, "I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world; again I leave the world, and go to the Father." Of the human nature of our Lord, it could not be said, “I came forth from the Father," in the same sense in which it is immediately added, "Again, I leave the world, and go to the Father."

In our Lord's address to his heavenly Father, as recorded by St. John, in the 17th chapter, there are many expressions which cannot be applied to the human nature of Christ: "And now, O Father, glorify thou me, with thine ownself, with the glory which I had with thee before the world was." Father I will that they also whom thou hast given me be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me, for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world."

St. Paul, in his epistle to the Romans, says, "For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God, sending his own Son, (his own proper Son,) in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh." As also in his epistle to the Galatians, "When the fulness of time was come, God sent forth his Son, (his proper Son,) made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law." Both passages evidently implying, that Jesus was the Son of God prior to his incarnation.

The author of the epistle to the Hebrews uses clear and decisive language also on that important subject, in that sublime passage, "But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever; a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom." He also ascribes the work of creation to Jesus Christ as the Son: "Whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;" and as the Son, he is the brightness of his Father's glory, and the express image of his person.

Such, Sir, are the express testimonies of the ancient fathers; of the venerable Reformers who were the compilers of the Liturgy; of the Rev. Mr. John Wesley, the founder of Methodism; and, above all, of the Sacred Writers.

Shall we leave those testimonies, and enter on the doubtful field of theory? Or leave the old way-marks, and enter into the trackless desert? Certainly not; millions of Christians have followed the ancient guides, and have entered the gates of the heavenly