Sidor som bilder
PDF
ePub

sentiments or practices differ from his own, as he would have to punish a Pagan or Mahommedan. If the magistrate's jurisdiction extend to his exercising a control over the human mind in one instance, it will be impossible consistently to deny it to him in any other; and as his own judgment is, in all cases, the authorized standard of what is truth and error, in religion, he bears the sword, on this principle, to punish every deviation from that standard which he has erected, whether found in Christian, Jew, or Pagan. Thus, if Constantine and his bishops were justified in abolishing heathenism by the civil power, because they believed it erroneous, Diocletian and Gallienus with their priests, were equally right in prohibiting Christianity by civil laws, because they believed it to be not only false and impious, but blasphemy against their gods, and even as bordering upon atheism itself.

It has been well remarked by a sensible writer, that "men have been very long in discovering, and even yet seem scarcely to have discovered, that true religion is of too delicate a nature to be compelled, by the coarse implements of human authority and worldly sanctions. Let the law of the land restrain vice and injustice of every kind, as ruinous to the peace and order of society; for this is its proper province; but let it not tamper with religion, by attempting to enforce its exercises and duties. These, unless they be free-will offerings, are nothing; they are worse [than nothing.] By such an unnatural alliance, and illjudged aid, hypocrisy and superstition may, indeed, be greatly promoted; but genuine piety never fails to suffer."*

The sentiments of the primitive Christians for the first three centuries, in reference to the divinity of the Saviour, were, generally speaking, pretty uniform, nor do there appear to have been any public controversies regarding this leading article of the Christian faith. But a dispute now arose, which may be said to have involved all Christendom

*Campbell's Lectures on Eccles. Hist. vol. 1. p. 73.

in a flame. It originated in the church of Alexandria, in Egypt, between Alexander and Arius, two of the pastors of that church, and soon spread itself into other churches, enflaming bishops against bishops, who, under the pretext of supporting divine truth, excited tumults, and fomented the most deadly strifes and hatreds towards each other. These

divisions of the prelates set the people together by the ears, and the dispute was managed with such violence, that it involved the whole Christian world, and gave occasion to the heathen to ridicule the Christian religion upon their public theatres.*

The occasion of this dispute, which is well known by the name of " THE ARIAN CONTROVERSY," seems to have been simply this. Alexander, one of the prelates of that church, speaking upon the subject of the Trinity, had affirmed that there was "an unity in the Trinity, and particularly that the Son was coeternal, and consubstantial, and of the same dignity with the Father." Arius objected to this language, and argued that "If the Father begat the Son, he who was begotten must have a beginning of his existence; and from hence, says he, 'tis manifest that there was a time when he (the Son) was not," &c.

It is wholly incompatible with the object of this history to discuss points of Christian doctrine; but the reader will, probably, excuse a few remarks on this extraordinary controversy. It is scarcely possible for any one who entertains a reverential regard for the great God, not to be struck with the presumption of poor, finite, erring mortals, daring to investigate, in the rash and inconsiderate manner that was now done, a subject of such awful import as the modus of the divine existence. We no sooner turn our thoughts to this question than our feeble capacities are overwhelmed with the immensity of the subject. Reason, in its most improved state, can carry us but a little way in our discoveries of God; and, if we are wise, we shall re

* Socrates's Eccles. Hist. b. i. ch. 6.

ceive in simplicity of mind, every information which the great First Cause hath been pleased to afford us concerning himself in his holy word. There, indeed, we learn with certainty, what may be also inferred from the works of creation and providence, that there is a God, who at first called the universe into being, and who still upholds and governs all things. But the works of creation and providence could never teach us, what the scriptures make abundantly plain,-that there is in this one immense being, a distinction of Father, Word, and Spirit-a distinction which lies at the foundation of the whole economy of our redemption. Men, in the pride of their hearts, may ask, how can these things be? But we are under no obligation to explain that point to them. And, indeed, it will be early enough for them to put the question, when they shall have explained how body, soul, and spirit constitute one individual human person. Every child may see that this distinction pervades the whole of divine revelation, and especially the New Testament. The FATHER is always represented as sustaining the majesty of the Godhead; as the great moral governor of the world, giving laws to his creatures, enforced by the sanctions of the rewards and punishments of a future state. The WORD is described as becoming incarnate to accomplish the purposes of the Father's love in the redemption of the guilty. And the HOLY SPIRIT as the efficient agent, carrying into effect the purpose of the Father and the grace of the Son, on the hearts of the elect. But then it never leads us to conceive of the SoN OF GOD, abstractedly from his incarnation. THE WORD WAS MADE FLESH, or assumed a human body, and thus "that holy thing which was born of the virgin, was THE SON OF God."* The doctrine of "eternal generation" was unknown to the inspired writers, and, unquestionably, hatched in the school of Alexandria.† Happy had it been

*Luke i. 31-35. John i. 14.

The doctrine of "eternal generation," or, in other words, "the divine and eternal Sonship of Christ," was not only known, but, in my

for the Christian world, could they have rested satisfied with the simple doctrine of divine revelation on this sublime subject; not seeking to be wise beyond what is written. Much as I dislike the character of Athanasius, it is only due to him to say, that he hath in a few words said all that can with propriety be said on this subject. "The Father," says he, "cannot be the Son, nor the Son the Father; and the Holy Ghost is never called by the name of the Son,

judgment, clearly and amply taught "by the inspired writers." It is admitted that this is not the place "to discuss a point of Christian doctrine;"-it is also freely admitted that the modus of the divine existence is far above our thoughts, as the heavens are higher than the earth;-yet it may neither be inappropriate nor useless, to refer to a few of those passages of Scripture which irresistibly lead us to conceive of the Son of God, abstractedly from his incarnation. “ "I and my Father are one. Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. Unto the Son he saith, thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever. Father glorify thou me, with the glory which I had with thee before the world was. We know that the Son of God is come. God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son. Though he were a Son yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered. God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh. He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all," &c., &c. These Scriptures need not be examined in detail, nor shall we attempt their full explication. It is sufficient for our present purpose, that they prove explicitly;-the proper and essential deity of the Son-his equality, As SON, with the Father; that the Son had a glory with the Father, before the world began;-that he was a Son, before he came into the world; before God sent him in the likeness of sinful flesh; before he learned obedience, &c. If these inferences be correct, and we see not how they can be fairly and scripturally obviated, it remains;-that though the world had never been created, or sinners redeemed, or the Word made flesh, the second person in the Godhead must, by necessity of nature, be the coequal, coessential, and coeternal SON OF GOD; the only begotten of the Father; the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person. The Bible appropriates the title FATHER to the first, Son to the second, and HOLY SPIRIT to the third, person, in the adorable Trinity, and this order is uniformly observed. We conclude, therefore, that these distinctions in Deity are essential, relative, ineffable, and incommunicable; and that the economy of redemption, instead of originating, in any sense the title, SON OF GOD, or creating a new official relationship, was intended to display the manifold glories of Jehovah, and to reveal the character of Him who is the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever. AM. ED.

[blocks in formation]

but is called the Spirit of the Father and of the Son. The Holy Trinity is but one divine nature and one God. This is sufficient for the faithful; human knowledge goes no further. The Cherubim veil the rest with their wings."

But let the reader mark how these ecclesiastical combatants represent each others' opinions. Arius, in a letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia, thus states the sentiments of Alexander. "God is always and the Son always-the same time the Father, the same time the Son-the Son coexists with God unbegottenly, being ever begotten, being unbegottenly begotten-God was not before the Son, no not in conception, or the least point of time, he being ever God, ever a Son-For the Son is out of God himself." Alexander, on the contrary, in a letter to the bishop of Constantinople, gives us the doctrine of Arius in the following words. "There was a time when there was no Son of God, and that he who before was not, afterwards existed, being made, whensoever he was made, just as any man whatsoever; and that therefore he was of a mutable nature, and equally receptive of vice and virtue," &c.

If these things were publicly taught and avowed, by these men, as each represents the other's sentiments, every sober man will surely think that they both merited severe reprehension, for leaving the plain language of Scripture, and introducing terms of their own invention into a doctrine of pure revelation, and at last dividing the whole of Christendom on account of it.

Numerous expedients were tried to bring Alexander and Arius to one mind; the emperor himself condescending to become a mediator between them; but all attempts proved fruitless. He wrote letters to them at Alexandria, exhorting them to lay aside their differences and become reconciled to each other. He informs them that he had diligently examined the rise and progress of this dispute, and that he found the occasion of the difference to be very trifling and not worthy such furious contentions; and that therefore he promised himself, his mediation for peace would have its

« FöregåendeFortsätt »