A Book of Christian Sonnets

by William Allen

2. God has a Son in heaven, by whom he made the worlds, and whom he sent from heaven to earth, to tabernacle for a while in human flesh, voluntarily abased in his powers to the condition of a man, to be a Mediator and Savior. In John, chapter 1, Jesus Christ is called "the Son of God," "the only-begotten of the Father," "the Lamb of God," who was "in the beginning with God," and "by whom all things were made."

3. That the Son of God is a being distinct from God is most obvious from the whole New Testament. In Phil. I, Paul prays for grace and peace "from God our Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ." He adds, "I thank my God upon every remembrance of you." So throughout his epistle God and Jesus Christ are most plainly distinct beings. He says, that Christ condescended to come in fashion "as a man," on which account God highly exalted him: here are two beings: and Christ will be extolled at last to "the glory of God the Father."—He "worshipped God in the spirit and rejoiced in Christ Jesus."—Here are again two beings. Near the close of the epistle he says—"my God shall supply all your need according to his riches in glory by Christ Jesus." How strange to Paul must have been the doctrine, that Christ was one of several beings making up one God?

But the same distinction is clearly and fully set forth by Paul in all his other epistles as well as in that to the Philippians. He begins most of them with a prayer like that in the epistle to the Romans,—"Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ." Then he "thanks God through Jesus Christ for them all;" the God, whom he serves "in the gospel of his Son." Read also,—"the righteousness of God by faith of Jesus Christ;"—"we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ;"—"we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son;"—"the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord;"—nothing can "separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord;"—Paul prays, that his brethren may "glorify God even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ;"—and after more of similar language he ends this epistle,—"To God only wise be glory through Jesus Christ forever. Amen."

If it be asked, in what sense is Christ God's "Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds?" I answer, the word doubtless means, that he was derived from God, that he sprung from God, that he received his being from God before the creation of the universe. He is called God's "first-begotten" and "only-begotten." It is unnecessary and may be useless for us to enter into any inquiries and discussions concerning hypostasis, person, nature, being, essence, substance, and other logical and metaphysical terms employed by theologians, which do not afford a particle of light; but we must believe, that Christ was derived from God and possesses the very attributes and endured the sufferings, ascribed to him in the scriptures. If we ascribe to him a nature not ascribed to him in the Bible, one incapable of suffering, and then deny the sufferings, which are ascribed to him; what do we but contradict the word of God and reject the doctrine of the Atonement by the sufferings of Christ, which is the foundation of the sinner's hope? If a learned doctor should assert, that if Christ was the agent of God in the creation of the universe, and is his agent in its government, then he could not be derived from God; the learned man puts forth only the words of folly. As derived from God, why might not the Son be as much superior to the highest angel, as man is superior in knowledge and powers to the beetle under our foot? Why could he not derive from God and exercise under God the powers of creation?

"He is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of every creature; for by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities or powers: all things were created by him and for him:"—"it pleased the father, that in him should all fullness dwell." Col. 1:15, 16. So in Heb. 1:3, Christ is called "the express image of God's person;" where the Greek word, translated person, means nature, essence, or being, and the assertion is, that Christ is "a clear and strong image of the essence or nature of the divine majesty." It may be, that for this reason the title of god is given to him; and with very obvious propriety may we ascribe to him divinity or call him a divine being, without contending for the impossibility that he is the very being, whose image he is, or that his own is the very nature, person, hypostasis, or substance, of which he stands the express character.

According to our English Bible the Son of God under the name of the Word seems to be called God by the apostle John, ch. 1, v. 1. But it was not the purpose of John to represent the Word as the infinite, supreme, almighty God. Origen, who wrote in Greek, in the third century, and understood the language better than any modern critic, says, that John's assertion is that, "the logos, or word, was a god," using the word god in its inferior, well-known sense, as is proved by his omission of the article. If he had inserted the article, he would have said, that "the logos was the God, the supreme God, Jehovah." The plain teaching is, there is one God. With him was the logos in the beginning, an exalted, glorious being; a second, inferior God; a being derived from God; and in this sense a divine being.—Besides Origen, Philo and several other fathers of the three first centuries speak of John's omission of the article here as a proof that by the word god he did not mean the Supreme God. Consider also, that if the logos existed "with God," then he was not the very God, with whom he existed.—On the other hand, it is a matter of no weight that when the supreme God is meant, yet the article is often omitted; for it is an established principle that it may be omitted when the name of God is sufficiently definite without it. In John 1:6,—"a man sent from God:" here is an omission of it as unnecessary. So v. 12, 13, 18. Origen again says,—"Angels are called gods because they are divine; but we are not commanded to worship them in the place of God, and hence they are not really gods." He says, the article is withheld, when what is called god is a being different "from the self-existent God, having a communicated divinity, being a divine person." Such also was the opinion of Clemens Alexandrinus and Eusebius; and they were men more competent to decide a matter concerning the construction of the Greek language than any modern critic.—In several of the first centuries it was the judgment of such Fathers as Justin, Athenagoras, Tatian, Theophilus, Clemens, Origen, &c., that the word god as applied to Christ denoted a celestial nature, superior to all creatures, but inferior to the Supreme God. But the authority of Christ himself is more decisive,—"My Father is greater than I:" and the whole of scripture shows, that the one perfect God and his Son are two distinct intelligent Beings. As the word in Greek, Acts 28:6, has no article our translators have very properly said "a god." If any one will look at 2 Thess. 2:4, he will see, that the word God occurs four times and undistinguished in the English Testament, but in the Greek the word for God appears once—"in the temple of God"—with the article, showing that the true Supreme God is meant,—and three times without the article, showing, that the word is used in an inferior sense, that a false god was intended. Dr. Macknight's translation is as follows,—"above every one, who is called a god or an object of worship. So that he, in the temple of God, as a god sitteth, openly shewing himself, that he is a god." It is thus, that the Word in John 1st is called a god, and not God the Supreme, the Almighty Jehovah.

When Tatian, about A. D. 165 speaks of "a god, who was born in the form of man" and of "the suffering God," he certainly did not mean, that Christ was the Supreme God, incapable of suffering. It was the doctrine of Apollinaris, two hundred years later, that Christ assumed a human body with a sentient soul like that of the inferior animals, but not assuming an intelligent or rational human spirit. He could see no reason why Christ should have two intelligent natures and two free wills. In his judgment the Son of God, who came down from heaven, was the only rational tenant of his human body, and the only rational sufferer on the cross, making a real atonement for sin. For scriptural proof he rested on John 1:14, "the Word was made flesh." His doctrine was doubtless this,—that the Son of God in his high spiritual nature, in which he came down from heaven in order to suffer, was the real sufferer on the cross: not that he was God incapable of suffering, and incapable of making any atonement.

On the distinction between Almighty God and his Son, derived from him before the creation, the Creed of the Church of England is very explicit:—"I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible: and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, begotten of his Father before all worlds, &c."—"Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven, &c."

The doctrine of the New England Synod at Boston in 1680 was the same: "The Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father." If many of our American theologians at the present day reject the doctrine of the derivation of the Son from God, they are not responsible to the Synod's Confession or Creed, but certainly they are to holy Scripture and to Reason.