(1) Arius thus speaks, "If <strong>the</strong> Fa<strong>the</strong>r begat <strong>the</strong> Son, He that is be-gotten must have a beginning <strong>of</strong> Hisexistence, from whence it is manifest that <strong>the</strong>re was a time when <strong>the</strong> Son was not: and<strong>the</strong>refore it necessarily follows that He had His subsistence from things that are not," or wasbrought out <strong>of</strong> a state <strong>of</strong> non-existence into a state <strong>of</strong> existence.(2) It must be ei<strong>the</strong>r great ignorance or gross disingenuousness to impute to <strong>the</strong> advocates <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><strong>eternal</strong> Sonship <strong>of</strong> Jesus that <strong>the</strong>y deny His co-eternity and co-equality with <strong>the</strong> Fa<strong>the</strong>r, when<strong>the</strong> term, "<strong>eternal</strong> generation" was first used against <strong>the</strong> Arians, who held that heresy, and for<strong>the</strong> very purpose <strong>of</strong> declaring that as being <strong>the</strong> <strong>eternal</strong> Son <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>eternal</strong> Fa<strong>the</strong>r, <strong>the</strong> Son wasco-equal and co-<strong>eternal</strong> with <strong>the</strong> Fa<strong>the</strong>r.(3) Basil, who was a great champion for <strong>the</strong> truth against <strong>the</strong> Arians, about <strong>the</strong> year A.D. 330, thusexpresses himself: "As <strong>the</strong>re is one God <strong>the</strong> Fa<strong>the</strong>r, always remaining <strong>the</strong> Fa<strong>the</strong>r, and who is forever what He is; so <strong>the</strong>re is one Son, born by an <strong>eternal</strong> generation, who is <strong>the</strong> true Son <strong>of</strong> God,who always is what He is. God <strong>the</strong> Word and Lord; and one Holy Spirit, truly <strong>the</strong> Holy Spirit."Having thus seen <strong>the</strong> origin and reason <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> expression, and that it was especially directed against<strong>the</strong> Arian heresy, let us now examine a little more closely its meaning, for we may be sure that <strong>the</strong>ancient Fa<strong>the</strong>rs meant something by it. The great leaders <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Council <strong>of</strong> Nice, at which <strong>the</strong> Arianheresy was condemned, such as Athanasius, etc., knew what <strong>the</strong>y were about, for <strong>the</strong>y had tocontend with men <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> most daring audacity and <strong>the</strong> subtlest intellect, backed by an army <strong>of</strong>adherents all over <strong>the</strong> <strong>the</strong>n known world, and at one period with <strong>the</strong> whole temporal power against<strong>the</strong>m. It was, <strong>the</strong>refore, a common saying at that time, "Athanasius against all <strong>the</strong> world, and all <strong>the</strong>world against Athanasius." Now, if <strong>the</strong>se mighty champions for <strong>the</strong> truth adopted <strong>the</strong> term "<strong>eternal</strong>generation" to express <strong>the</strong> true filiation <strong>of</strong> Jesus, we may be sure that <strong>the</strong>y had some good groundsfor its adoption. By it, <strong>the</strong>refore, <strong>the</strong>y meant this great and glorious truth, that Jesus is "<strong>the</strong> Son <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>Fa<strong>the</strong>r in truth and love" 2Jo 1:3; "<strong>the</strong> only begotten Son, who is in <strong>the</strong> bosom <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Fa<strong>the</strong>r" Joh 1:18;"His own Son" Ro 8:32; "His only begotten Son" Joh 3:16; that He was this from all eternity; and that,not by virtue <strong>of</strong> any compact, or covenant, or foreview, or constitution <strong>of</strong> His complex Person as Godman,but by His very mode <strong>of</strong> subsistence as a Person in <strong>the</strong> Trinity. They did not attempt to explain<strong>the</strong> mystery <strong>of</strong> His <strong>eternal</strong> generation, for "who shall declare His generation?" Isa 53:8 And <strong>the</strong>y mightwell say to those who would fain bring such a deep, incomprehensible subject to be tried and judgedat <strong>the</strong> bar <strong>of</strong> human reason, "Who hath ga<strong>the</strong>red <strong>the</strong> wind in His fist? Who hath bound <strong>the</strong> waters in agarment? Who hath established all <strong>the</strong> ends <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> earth? What is His name, and what is His Sonsname, if thou canst tell?" Pr 30:4. Nei<strong>the</strong>r His name, nor His Son’s name, that is, nei<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> being andperfections <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Fa<strong>the</strong>r, nor <strong>the</strong> being and perfections <strong>of</strong> His dear Son, can be comprehended byhuman intellect any more than a man can ga<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> winds in his fists, or wrap up <strong>the</strong> Atlantic in hiscloak. They were content to believe and declare <strong>the</strong> truth, without venturing to comprehend, much
less explain <strong>the</strong> mystery. (4) The Arians might argue that it was "a contradiction," an "impossibility,""an absurdity," for <strong>the</strong>se are not new charges against <strong>the</strong> true and real Sonship <strong>of</strong> our blessed Lord,but <strong>the</strong>ir strong, yet simple, faith was not moved by such arguments, for it stood not in <strong>the</strong> wisdom <strong>of</strong>men, but in <strong>the</strong> power <strong>of</strong> God, and firmly rested in <strong>the</strong> sure testimony <strong>of</strong> God as revealed in <strong>the</strong>Scriptures, and in <strong>the</strong> inward witness <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> blessed Spirit as sealing that testimony with a divinepower upon <strong>the</strong>ir heart. This was <strong>the</strong>ir sufficient, <strong>the</strong>ir only and all-sufficient answer to all <strong>the</strong> cavillingarguments and subtle reasonings <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> adversaries <strong>of</strong> truth. Milner well says <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>m; "To believe, tosuffer, and to love-not to write" and we might add, "not to argue"-"was <strong>the</strong> primitive taste;" for <strong>the</strong>ywere <strong>of</strong> that martyr band (5) <strong>of</strong> whom we read that "<strong>the</strong>y over-came" Satan and his accusations "by<strong>the</strong> blood <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Lamb, and by <strong>the</strong> word <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir testimony, and <strong>the</strong>y loved not <strong>the</strong>ir lives unto <strong>the</strong>death" Re 12:11.(4) Milner, in his Church History, treats this point with great clearness. Speaking <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Council <strong>of</strong> Nice,he says, "But it soon appeared that, without some explanatory terms, decisively pointing out what <strong>the</strong>Scriptures had revealed, it was impossible to guard against <strong>the</strong> subtilties <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Arians." Did <strong>the</strong>Trinitarians assert that Christ was God? The Arians allowed it, but in <strong>the</strong> same sense as holy men andangels are styled gods in Scripture. Did <strong>the</strong>y affirm that He was truly God? The o<strong>the</strong>rs allowed that Hewas made so by God. Did <strong>the</strong>y affirm that <strong>the</strong> Son was naturally <strong>of</strong> God? It was granted, For even we,said <strong>the</strong>y, are <strong>of</strong> God, <strong>of</strong> whom are all things. Was it affirmed that <strong>the</strong> Son was <strong>the</strong> power, wisdomand image <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Fa<strong>the</strong>r? We admit it, replied <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>rs; for we also are said to be <strong>the</strong> image andglory <strong>of</strong> God. Such is <strong>the</strong> account which Athanasius gives <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> disputations. He was at that timedeacon <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> church <strong>of</strong> Alexandria, and supported his bishop with so much accuracy and strength <strong>of</strong>argument as to lay <strong>the</strong> foundation <strong>of</strong> that fame which lie afterwards acquired by his zeal in thiscontroversy. What could <strong>the</strong> Trinitarians do in this situation? To leave <strong>the</strong> matter undecided was to donothing; to confine <strong>the</strong>mselves merely to Scripture terms was to suffer <strong>the</strong> Arians to explain <strong>the</strong>doctrine in <strong>the</strong>ir own way, and to reply nothing. Undoubtedly <strong>the</strong>y had a right to comment accordingto <strong>the</strong>ir own judgment as well as <strong>the</strong> Arians; and <strong>the</strong>y did so in <strong>the</strong> following manner. They collectedtoge<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> passages <strong>of</strong> Scripture which represent <strong>the</strong> divinity <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Son <strong>of</strong> God, and observed thattaken toge<strong>the</strong>r, <strong>the</strong>y amounted to a pro<strong>of</strong> <strong>of</strong> His being <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> same substance with <strong>the</strong> Fa<strong>the</strong>r."That creatures were indeed said to be <strong>of</strong> God, because not existing <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>mselves, <strong>the</strong>y had <strong>the</strong>irbeginning from Him, but that <strong>the</strong> Son was peculiarly <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Fa<strong>the</strong>r, being <strong>of</strong> His substance as begotten<strong>of</strong> Him.""It behoves every one who is desirous <strong>of</strong> knowing simply <strong>the</strong> mind <strong>of</strong> God from His own Word, todetermine for himself how far this interpretation <strong>of</strong> Scripture was true. The Council, however, was, by
- Page 1 and 2: THE ETERNAL SONSHIP OF THE LORD JES
- Page 3 and 4: whom Jesus has revealed Himself as
- Page 5 and 6: And yet, what possession can be so
- Page 7 and 8: question as a mere controversy of w
- Page 9 and 10: By acknowledging the first, he decl
- Page 11 and 12: cannot allow them to be real. If yo
- Page 13 and 14: But as it is necessary to point out
- Page 15 and 16: neither that by which He was manife
- Page 17 and 18: fully decide the whole controversy.
- Page 19 and 20: One more testimony may for the pres
- Page 21 and 22: 4. But there is another way in whic
- Page 23 and 24: glory. His glory is this, that thou
- Page 25 and 26: field, where any may roam and feed
- Page 27 and 28: Son of the Father. No sophistry can
- Page 29 and 30: But another may say, "I believe tha
- Page 31 and 32: But again. Have you ever looked at
- Page 33 and 34: But take another testimony to the s
- Page 35 and 36: the soundness of their views, or in
- Page 37 and 38: can we for a moment think that this
- Page 39 and 40: Well may God say to such, "If I be
- Page 41 and 42: an eternal Son, or make it square w
- Page 43 and 44: 1. You might not be able to answer
- Page 45 and 46: "Get thee behind me, Satan, for tho
- Page 47 and 48: the same thing with nature, is ascr
- Page 49 and 50: elation, or relative property of th
- Page 51: order. But if the doctrine be there
- Page 55 and 56: intimacy and inter communion betwee
- Page 57: {4} It must be either great ignoran