The following are two chapters from a work by noted Biblical scholar John
Gill on the Biblical doctrine of the Holy Trinity. Granted, it is quite
detailed, so I suggest saving the text to read slowly and carefully at
your
leisure.
May God bless,
Carl
my website -- http://www.nettally.com/saints/
my blog -- http://www.anniemayhem.com/cgi-bin/wordpress/
---
Of A Plurality In The Godhead;
Or,
A Trinity Of Persons In The Unity Of The Divine Essence
by John Gill
Having proved the unity of the divine Being, and explained the sense in
which it is to be understood; my next work will be to prove that there is
a
plurality in the Godhead; or, that there are more persons than one, and
that
these are neither more, nor fewer, than three; or, that there is a Trinity
of Persons in the unity of the divine essence. Some except to these terms,
because not literally and syllabically expressed in scripture; as Essence,
Unity, Trinity, and Person; of which see the Introduction, see topic
(point
5), 741, I shall,
1. First, Prove that there is a plurality of persons in the one God; or,
that there are more than one. The Hebrew word Mynp which answers to the
Greek word proswpa, is used of the divine persons, ynp "My persons shall
go
with thee", (Ex.. 33:14) and if Kynp "thy persons go not with me, (Ex..
33:15) and "he brought thee out wynpb by his persons", (Deut. 4:37). The
word is used three times in (Ps. 27:8, 9) and in each clause the
Septuagint
has the word proswpon, and which, as Suidas[1] observes, is expressive of
the sacred Trinity. That there is such a plurality of persons, will appear
more clearly,
1a. From the plural names and epithets of God. His great and
incommunicable
name Jehovah, is always in the singular number, and is never used
plurally;
the reason of which is, because it is expressive of his essence, which is
but one; it is the same with "I AM that I AM"; but the first name of God
we
meet with in scripture, and that in the first verse of it, is plural; "In
the beginning God (Elohim) created the heaven and the earth", (Gen. 1:1)
and
therefore must design more than one, at least two, and yet not precisely
two, or two only; then it would have been dual; but it is plural; and, as
the Jews themselves say, cannot design fewer than three[2]. Now Moses
might
have made use of other names of God, in his account of the creation; as
his
name Jehovah, by which he made himself known to him, and to the people of
Israel; or Eloah, the singular of Elohim, which is used by him, (Deut.
32:15, 16) and in the book of Job frequently; so that it was not want of
singular names of God, nor the barrenness of the Hebrew language, which
obliged him to use a plural word; it was no doubt of choice, and with
design; and which will be more evident when it is observed, that one end
of
the writings of Moses is to extirpate the polytheism of the heathens, and
to
prevent the people of Israel from going into it; and therefore it may seem
strange, that he should begin his history with a plural name of God; he
must
have some design in it, which could not be to inculcate a plurality of
gods,
for that would be directly contrary to what he had in view in writing, and
to what he asserts, (Deut. 6:4). "Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one
Lord": nor a plurality of mere names and characters, to which creative
powers cannot be ascribed; but a plurality of persons, for so the words
may
be rendered, distributively, according to the idiom of the Hebrew
language;
"In the beginning everyone, or each of the divine persons, created the
heaven and the earth". And then the historian goes on to make mention of
them; who, besides the Father, included in this name, are the Spirit of
God,
that moved upon the face of the waters, and the word of God, (Gen. 1:2)
which said, "Let there be light, and there was light"; and which spoke
that,
and all things, out of nothing; see (John 1:1-3). And it may be further
observed, that this plural word Elohim, is, in this passage, in
construction
with a verb singular, "bara", rendered "created"; which some have thought
is
designed to point out a plurality of persons, in the unity of the divine
essence: but if this is not judged sufficient to build it upon, let it be
further observed, that the word Elohim is sometimes in construction with a
verb plural, as in (Gen. 20:13; Gen. 35:7; 2 Sam. 7:23) where Elohim, the
gods, or divine persons, are said to cause Abraham to wander from his
father's house; to appear to Jacob; and to go forth to redeem Israel: all
which are personal actions: and likewise it is in construction with
adjectives and participles plural, (Deut. 4:7, 5:26; Josh. 24:19; 2 Sam.
7:26, 27; Ps. 58:11, Prov. 30:3; Jer. 10:10) in which places Elohim, gods,
or the divine persons, are said to be nigh to the people of Israel; to be
living, holy, and to judge in the earth; characters which belong to
persons;
and now, as a learned man[3] well observes, "that however the construction
of a noun plural with a verb singular, may render it doubtful to some
whether these words express a plurality or not, yet certainly there can be
no doubt in those places, where a verb or adjective plural are joined with
the word Elohim''. No such stress is laid on this word, as if it was the
clearest and strongest proof of a plurality in the Deity; it is only
mentioned, and mentioned first, because it is the most usual name of God,
being used of him many hundreds of times in scripture; and what stress is
laid upon it, is not merely because it is plural, but because it appears
often in an unusual form of construction; it is used of others, but not in
such a form; as has been observed. It is used of angels, (Ps. 8:5) they
being not only many, but are often messengers of God, of the divine
Persons
in the Godhead, represent them, and speak in their name. And it is used of
civil magistrates, (Ps. 82:6) and so of Moses, as a god to Pharaoh, (Ex.
7:1) as they well may be called, since they are the vicegerents and
representatives of the Elohim, the divine Persons, the Triune God; nor
need
it be wondered at, that it should be sometimes used of a single Person in
the Deity, it being common to them all; and since each of them possess the
whole divine nature and essence undivided, (Ps. 45:6, 7). The ancient Jews
not only concluded a plurality, but even a Trinity, from the word
Elohim[4].
With respect to the passage in (Num. 15:16) they say[5], "There is no
judgment less than three"; and that three persons sitting in judgment, the
divine Majesty is with them, they conclude from (Ps. 82:1) "he judgeth
among
the gods", Myhla. Hence they further observes[6], that "no sanhedrin, or
court of judicature, is called Myhla unless it consists of three". From
whence it is manifest, that the ancient Jews believed that this name not
only inferred a plurality of persons, but such a plurality which consisted
of three at least.
Another plural name of God is Adonim; "If I am (Adoaim) Lords, where is my
fear?" (Mal.. 1:6) now, though this may be said of one in the second and
third persons plural, yet never of one in the first person, as it is here
said of God by himself; "I am Lords"; and we are sure there are two, "The
Lord said to my Lord", &c. (Ps. 110:1). In Daniel 4:17 the most high God
is
called the watchers and the Holy Ones; "This matter is by the decree of
the
watchers, and the demand by the word of the Holy Ones"; which respects the
revolution and destruction of the Babylonian monarchy; an affair of such
moment and im****tance as not to be ascribed to angels, which some
understand
by watchers and Holy Ones; but however applicable these epithets may be to
them, and they may be allowed to be the executioners of the decrees of
God,
yet not the makers of them; nor can anything in this world, and much less
an
affair of such consequence as this, be said to be done in virtue of any
decree of theirs: besides, this decree is expressly called, the decree of
the most High, (Dan. 4:24) so that the watchers and Holy Ones, are no
other
than the divine Persons in the Godhead; who are holy in their nature, and
watch over the saints to do them good; and over the wicked, to bring evil
upon them: and as they are so called in the plural number, to express the
plnrality of them in the Deity; so to preserve the unity of the divine
essence, this same decree is called, the decree of the most High, (Dan.
4:24) and they the watcher and Holy One, in the singular number in (Dan.
4:13).
1b. A plurality in the Deity may be proved from plural expressions used by
God, when speaking of himself, respecting the works of creation,
providence,
and grace. At the creation of man he said, "Let us make man in our image,
after our likeness", (Gen. 1:26) the pronouns "us" and "our", manifestly
express a plurality of persons; these being personal plural characters; as
image and likeness being in the singular number, secure the unity of the
divine essence; and that there were more than one concerned in the
creation
of man, is clear from the plural expressions used of the divine Being,
when
he is spoken of as the Creator of men, (Job 35:10; Ps. 149:2; Eccl. 12:1;
Isa.. 54:5) in all which places, in the original text, it is my Makers,
his
Makers, thy Creators, thy Makers; for which no other reason can be given,
than that more persons than one had an hand herein; as for the angels,
they
are creatures themselves, and not possessed of creative powers; nor were
they concerned in the creation of man, nor was he made after their image
and
likeness; nor can it be reasonably thought, that God spoke to them, and
held
a consultation with them about it; for "with whom took he counsel?" (Isa.
40:14). Not with any of his creatures; no, not with the highest angel in
heaven; they are not of his privy council. Nor is it to be thought that
God,
in the above passage, speaks "regio more", after the manner of kings; who,
in their edicts and proclamations, use the plural number, to express their
honour and majesty; and even they are not to be considered alone, but as
connotating their ministers and privy council, by whose advice they act;
and, besides, this courtly way of speaking, was not so ancient as the
times
of Moses; none of the kings of Israel use if; nor even any of those proud
and haughty monarchs, Pharaoh and Nebuchadnezzar; the first appearance of
it
is in the letters of Artaxerxes, king of Persia, (Ezra 4:18, 7:23) which
might take its rise from the conjunction of Darius and Cyrus, in the
Persian
empire, in both whose names edicts might be made, and letters wrote; which
might give rise to such a way of speaking, and be continued by their
successors, to express their power and glory: but, as a learned man[7]
observes, "it is a very extravagant fancy, to suppose that Moses alludes
to
a custom that was not (for what appears) in being at that time, nor a
great
while after." The Jews themselves are sensible that this passage furnishes
with an argument for a plurality in the Deity[8]. A like way of speaking
is
used concerning men, in (Gen. 3:22). "And the Lord God said, Behold, the
man
is become as one of us"; not as one of the angels, for they are not of the
Deity, nor the companions of God, and equal to him; for whatever private
secret meaning Satan might have in saying, "Ye shall be as gods"; he would
have it understood by Eve, and so she understood it, that they should be
not
like the angels merely, but like God himself; this was the bait he laid,
and
which took, and proved man's ruin; upon which the Lord God said these
words
either sarcastically, "Behold the man whom Satan promised, and he expected
to be as one of us, as one of the persons in the Deity; see how much he
looks like one of us! who but just now ran away from us in fear and
trembling, and covered himself with fig leaves, and now stands before us
clothed with skins of slain beasts!" or else as comparing his former and
present state together; for the words may be rendered, "he was as one of
us"; made after their image and likeness: but what is he now? he has
sinned,
and come short of that glorious image; has lost his honour, and is become
like the beasts that perish, whose skins he now wears. Philo[9], the Jew,
owns that these words are to be understood not of one, but of more; the en
kai polla, the "one" and "many", so much spoken of by the Pythagoreans and
Platonists; and which Plato[10] speaks of as infinite and eternal, and of
the knowledge of them as the gift of the gods; and which, he says, was
delivered to us by the ancients; who were better than we, and lived nearer
the gods; by whom he seems to intend the ancient Jews; this, I say, though
understood by their followers of the unity of God, and the many ideas in
him, the same with what we call decrees; I take to be no other than the
one
God, and a plurality of persons in the Deity; which was the faith of the
ancient Jews; so that the polla, of Plato, and others, is the same with
the
plhyov of Philo, who was a great Platonizer; and both intend a plurality
of
persons.
God sometimes uses the plural number when speaking of himself, with
respect
to some particular affairs of providence, as the confusion of languages;
"Go
to, let us go down, and there confound their language"; which also cannot
be
said to angels; had it, it would rather have been, go "ye", and do "ye"
confound their language: but, alas! this work was above the power of
angels
to do; none but God, that gave to man the faculty of speech, and the use
of
language, could confound it; which was as great an instance of divine
power,
as to bestow the gift of tongues on the apostles, at Pentecost; and the
same
God that did the one, did the other; and so the us here, are after
explained
of Jehovah, in the following verse, to whom the confounding the language
of
men, and scattering them abroad on the face of the earth, are ascribed,
(Acts 2:8-11). In another affair of providence, smiting the Jewish nation
with judicial blindness; this plural way of speaking is used by the divine
Being; says the prophet Isaiah, "I heard the voice of the Lord saying,
Whom
shall I send, and who will go for us?" (Isa. 6:8) not the seraphim say
this,
but Jehovah; for to them neither the name Jehovah, nor the work agree; and
though there is but one Jehovah that here speaks, yet more persons than
one
are intended by him; of Christ, the Son of God no question can be made,
since the Evangelist applies them to him; and observes, that Isaiah said
the
words when he saw his glory, and spoke of him, (John 12:40, 41) nor of the
Holy Ghost, to whom they are also applied (Acts 28:25, 26). There is
another
passage in Isaiah 41:21-23 where Jehovah, the King of Jacob, challenges
the
heathens, and their gods, to bring proof of their Deity, by prediction of
future events; and, in which, he all along uses the plural number; "show
us
what shall happen, that we may consider them; declare unto us things for
to
come, that we may know that ye, are gods, and that we may be dismayed; ''
See also Isaiah 43:9.
And as in the affairs of creation and providence, so in those of grace,
and
with respect to spiritual communion with God, plural expressions are used;
as when our Lord says, "If a man love me, he will keep my words; and my
Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with
him", (John 14:23) which personal actions of coming and making abode,
expressive of communion and fellow****p, are said of more than one; and we
cannot be at a loss about two of them, Christ and his Father, who are
expressly mentioned; and hence we read of fellow****p with the Father, and
his Son Jesus Christ; and also of the communion of the Holy Ghost, (1 John
1:3; 2 Cor. 1:14). To all these instances of plural expressions, may be
added (Song 1:11; John 3:11).
1c. A plurality in the Deity may be proved from those passages of
scripture
which speak of the angel of Jehovah, who also is Jehovah; now if there is
a
Jehovah that is sent, and therefore called an angel, and a Jehovah that
sends, there must be more persons than one who are Jehovah.
The first instance of this kind is in Genesis 16:7, where the angel of
Jehovah is said to find Hagar, Sarah's maid, in the wilderness, and bid
her
return to her mistress; which angel appears to be Jehovah, since he
promises
to do that for her, and acquaints her with future things, which no created
angel, and none but Jehovah could, (Gen. 16:10-12) and what proves it
beyond
all dispute that he must be Jehovah, is, what is said, (Gen. 16:13) "She
called the name of the Lord, or Jehovah, that spake unto her, thou; God,
seest".
In Genesis 18:2 we read of three men who stood by Abraham in the plains of
Mamre, who were angels in an human form, as two of them are expressly said
to be (Gen. 19:1). Dr. Lightfoot[11] is of opinion, that they were the
three
divine Persons; and scruples not to say, that at such a time the Trinity
dined with Abraham; but the Father, and the Holy Spirit, never assumed an
human form; nor are they ever called angels. However, one of these was
undoubtedly a divine Person, the Son of God in an human form; who is
expressly called Jehovah, the Judge of all the earth, (Gen. 18:13, 20, 25,
26) and to whom omnipotence and omniscience are ascribed, (Gen. 18:14,
17-19) and to whom Abraham showed the utmost reverence and respect, (Gen.
18:27, 30, 31) and now he is distinguished, being Jehovah in human form on
earth, from Jehovah in heaven, from whom he is said to rain brimstone and
fire on Sodom and Gomorrah, (Gen. 19:24) which conflagration was not made
by
the ministry of created angels, but is always represented as the work of
Elohim, of the divine Persons (Jer. 50:40; Amos 4:11).
An angel also appeared to Abraham at the offering up of his son Isaac, and
bid him desist from it; and who appears plainly to be the same with him
who
ordered him to do it; expressly called God, (Gen. 22:11, 12 compared with
Gen. 22:1, 2) and Jehovah, who swore by himself, and promised to do what
none but God could do, (Gen. 22:16-18; Heb. 6:13, 14) where what is here
said is expressly ascribed to God. Add to this, the name Abraham gave the
place on this occasion, Jehovah-Jireh, because the Lord had appeared, and
would hereafter appear in this place.
The angel invoked by Jacob, (Gen. 48:15, 16) is put upon a level with the
God of his fathers Abraham and Isaac; yea, is represented as the same; and
the work of redeeming him from all evil, equal to that of feeding him all
his life long, is ascribed to him; as well as a blessing on the sons of
Joseph, is prayed for from him; all which would never have been said of,
nor
done to, a created angel.
The angel which appeared to Moses in the bush, (Ex. 3:2) was not a created
angel, but a divine person; as is evident from the names by which he is
called, Jehovah, God, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, "I AM that I
AM", (Ex. 3:4, 6, 14) and from the things ascribed to him; seeing the
afflictions of the Israelites, coming to deliver them out of Egyptian
bondage, and promising to bring them into the land of Canaan, (Ex. 3:7, 8)
to which may be added, the prayer of Moses for a blessing on Joseph,
because
of the good will of him that dwelt in the bush, (Deut. 33:16) and the
application of this passage to God, by our Lord Jesus Christ, (Mark
12:26).
Once more, the angel that was promised to go before the children of
Israel,
to keep and guide them in the way through the wilderness to the land of
Canaan, is no other than Jehovah; since not only the obedience of the
children of Israel to him is required; but it is suggested, that should
they
disobey him, he would not, though he could, pardon their iniquities; which
none but God can do: and also it is said, the name of the Lord was in him;
that is, his nature and perfections; and since it is the same the children
of Israel rebelled against, he could be no other than Christ, the Son of
God, whom they tempted; the angel of God's presence; who, notwithstanding,
saved and carried them all the days of old (Isa. 63:9; 1 Cor. 10:9).
Again, we read of the angel of the Lord, before whom Joshua the high
priest
was brought and stood, being accused by Satan, (Zech. 3:1) who is not only
called Jehovah, (Zech. 3:2) but takes upon him to do and order such
things,
which none but God could do; as causing the iniquity of Joshua to pass
from
him, and clothing him with change of raiment (see Isa. 61:10).
To these may be added, all such scriptures which speak of two, as distinct
from each other, under the same name of Jehovah; as in the above mentioned
text, (Gen. 19:24) where Jehovah is said to rain fire and brimstone from
Jehovah, out of heaven; and in Jeremiah 23:5, 6, where Jehovah promises to
raise up a righteous branch to David, whose name should be called "Jehovah
our righteousness"; and in Hosea 1:7 where Jehovah resolves he would save
his people by Jehovah their God. Other passages might be mentioned, as
proving a plurality in Deity; but as some of these will also prove a
Trinity
in it, they will be considered under the following head; where it will be
proved,
2. Secondly, That this plurality in the Godhead, is neither more nor fewer
than three; or, that there is a Trinity of persons in the unity of the
divine essence: this I have before taken for granted, and now I shall
prove
it. And not to take notice of the name Jehovah being used three times, and
three times only, in the blessing of the priest, (Num. 6:24-26) and in the
prayer of Daniel, (Dan. 9:19) and in the church's declaration of her faith
in God, (Isa. 33:22) and the word holy repeated three times, and three
times
only, in the seraphims' celebration of the glory of the divine Being,
(Isa.
6:3) and in that of the living creatures, in Revelation 4:8 which may seem
to be accidental, or the effect of a fervent and devout disposition of
mind;
but there is not anything, no not the least thing, that is said or written
in the sacred scriptures, without design.
I shall begin with the famous text in 1 John 5:7 as giving full proof and
evidence of this doctrine; "For there are three that bear record in
heaven,
the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one": which
is
not only a proof of the Deity of each of these three, inasmuch as they,
are
not only said to be "one", that is, one God; and their witness is called
the
witness of God, (1 John 5:9) but of a Trinity of Persons, in the unity of
the divine essence; unity of essence, or nature, is asserted and secured,
by
their being said to be one; which respects not a mere unity of testimony,
but of nature; for it is not said of them, as of the witnesses on earth,
that they "agree in one"; but that they "are one". And they may be called
a
Trinity, inasmuch as they are "three"; and a Trinity of Persons, since
they
are not only spoken of as distinct from each other, the Father from the
Word
and Holy Ghost, the Word from the Father and the Holy Ghost, and the Holy
Ghost from the Father and the Word; but a personal action is ascribed to
each of them; for they are all three said to be testifiers, or to bear
record; which cannot be said of mere names and characters; nor be
understood
of one person under different names; for if the one living and true God
only
bears record, first under the character of a Father, then under the
character of a Son, or the Word, and then under the character of the Holy
Ghost; testimony, indeed, would be bore three times, but there would be
but
one testifier, and not three, as the apostle asserts. Suppose one man
should, for one man may bear the characters, and stand in the relations of
father, son, and master; of a father to a child of his own; of a son, his
father being living; and of a master to servants under him; suppose, I
say,
this man should come into a court of judicature, and be admitted to bear
testimony in an affair there depending, and should give his testimony
first
under the character of a father, then under the character of a son, and
next
under the character of a master; every one will conclude, that though here
was a testimony three times bore, yet there was but one, and not three,
that
bore record. This text is so glaring a proof of the doctrine of the
Trinity,
that the enemies of it have done all they can to weaken its authority, and
have pushed hard to extirpate it from a place in the sacred writings. They
object, that it is wanting in the Syriac version; that the old Latin
interpreter has it not; that it is not to be found in many Greek
manuscripts; and is not quoted by the ancient fathers who wrote against
the
Arians, when it might have been of great service to them. To all which it
may be replied; that as to the Syriac version, though an ancient one, it
is
but a version, and till of late appeared a very defective one; the history
of the adulterous woman in the eighth of John, the second epistle of
Peter,
the second and third epistles of John, the epistle of Jude, and the book
of
Revelation, were all wanting, till restored from a copy of archbishop
Usher's, by De Dieu and Dr. Pocock; and who also, from an Eastern copy,
has
supplied the version with this text, so that now it stands in it. And as
to
the old Latin interpreter, it is certain that it is to be seen in many
Latin
manuscripts of an early date, and is in the Vulgate Latin version of the
London Polyglot Bible; and the Latin translation which bears the name of
Jerom has it; and who, in an epistle to Eustochium, prefixed to his
translation of those canonical epistles, complains of the omission of it,
by
unfaithful interpreters. As to its being wanting in some Greek
manuscripts,
it need only be said, it is found in many others; it is in the
Complutensian
edition, the compilers of which made use of various copies; out of sixteen
ancient copies of Robert Stephens's, nine of them had it; and it is also
said to be in an old British copy. As to its not being quoted by some of
the
ancient fathers, this can be no proof of its not being genuine; since it
might be in the original copy, and not in that used by them, through the
carelessness and unfaithfulness of transcribers; or through copies erased
falling into their hands, such as had been corrupted before the times of
Arius, even by Artemon, or his disciples, who lived in the second century;
who held that Christ was a mere man; by whom it is said[12], this passage
was erased; and certain it is, that this epistle was very early corrupted;
as the ancient writers testify[13]: or it might be in the copies used by
the
fathers, and yet not quoted by them, having scriptures not without it, to
prove and defend the doctrine of it; and yet, after all, it appears
plainly
to be quoted by many of them; by Fulgentius[14], in the beginning of the
sixth century, against the Arians, without any scruple or hesitation: and
Jerom, as before observed, has it in his translation, made in the latter
end
of the fourth century: and it is quoted by Athanasius[15], about the
middle
of it; and before him by Cyprian[16], in the middle of the third century:
and is manifestly referred to by Tertullian[17], in the beginning of it;
and
by Clemens of Alexandria[18], towards the end of the second century: so
that
it is to be traced up within a hundred years, or less, the writing of the
epistle; which is enough to satisfy anyone of the genuineness of this
text.
And, besides, it should be observed, that there never was any dispute
about
it, until Erasmus left it out in the first edition of his translation of
the
New Testament; and yet he himself, upon the credit of the old British
copy,
before mentioned, put it into another edition of his translation. Yea, the
Socinians themselves have not dared to leave it out in their German
Racovian
version, A. C. 1630. To which may be added, that the context requires it;
the connection with the preceding verse shows it, as well as its
opposition
to, and distinction from, the following verse; and in 1 John 5:9 is a
plain
reference to the divine witnesses in this; for the inference in it would
not
be clear, if there was no mention before made of a divine testimony. But I
shall not rest the proof of the doctrine of the Trinity on this single
passage; but on the whole current and universal consent of scripture,
where
it is written as with a sunbeam; according to which, a Trinity of Persons
in
the Godhead appears in the works of creation, providence, and grace; in
all
things respecting the office and work of Christ; in God's acts of grace
towards and upon his people; and in their wor****p and duties of religion
enjoined them, and practised by them.
2a. In the works of creation: as by these the eternal power and Godhead
are
made manifest, so in them are plain traces of a Trinity of persons; that
God
the Father made the heavens, earth and sea, and all that are in them,
under
which character the apostles addressed him as distinct from Christ his
Son,
(Acts 4:24, 27) none will doubt; and that the divine Word, or Son of God,
was concerned in all this a question cannot be made of it, when it is
observed that it is said, "All things were made by him, and without him
was
not anything made that is made" (John 1:3). And as for the Holy Spirit he
is
not only said to move upon the face of the waters which covered the earth,
and brought that unformed chaos of earth and water into a beautiful order,
but to garnish the heavens, to bespangle the firmament with stars of
light,
and to form the crooked serpent, the Leviathan, which being the greatest,
is
put for all the fishes of the sea; as well as he is said to be sent forth
yearly, and renews the face of the earth at every returning spring; which
is
little less than a creation, and is so called, (Gen. 1:2; Job 26:13; Ps.
104:30) and all three may be seen together in one text, (Ps. 33:6) "By the
word of the Lord were the heavens made, and all the host of them by the
breath of his mouth"; where mention is made of Jehovah, and his Word, the
eternal Logos, and of his Spirit, the breath of his mouth, as all
concerned
in the making of the heavens, and all the host of them. And as in the
creation of man, in particular, a plurality has been observed, this
plurality was neither more nor fewer than three; that God the Father is
the
maker of men, will not be objected to; "Have we not all one father? hath
not
one God created us?" (Mal. 2:10) and the Son of God, who is the husband of
the church, and the Redeemer of men, is expressly said to be their maker,
(Isa. 54:5) and of the Holy Spirit, Elihu in so many words says, "The
Spirit
of God hath made me, and the breath of the almighty hath given me life"
(Job
33:4).
2b. A Trinity of persons appears in the works of providence. "My father",
says Christ, "worketh hitherto and I work", (John 5:17) that is, ever
since
the works of creation were finished, in which both had an hand, they have
been jointly concerned in the works of providence, in the government of
the
world, and in ordering and disposing of all things in it; and not to the
exclusion of the Holy Spirit, for, "Who hath directed the Spirit of the
Lord, or being his counsellor hath taught him?" that is, in the affair of
the government of the world, as follows; "With whom took he counsel, and
who
instructed him and taught him in the path of judgment, and taught him
knowledge, and showed to him the way of understanding?" to manage the
im****tant concerns of the world, to do everything wisely and justly, and
to
overrule all for the best ends and purposes (see Isa. 40:13,14). And
particularly the three divine persons appear in that remarkable affair of
providence, the deliverance of Israel out of Egypt, and the protection and
guidance of them through the wilderness to the land of Canaan. Whoever
reads
attentively (Isa. 63:7-14) will easily observe, that mention is made of
Jehovah, and of his mercy, lovingkindness, and goodness to the children of
Israel; and then of the Angel of his presence, as distinct from him,
showing
love and pity to them, in saving, redeeming, bearing, and carrying them
all
the days of old; and next of his Holy Spirit, whom they rebelled against,
and whom they vexed, and yet, though thus provoked, he led them on through
the wilderness, and caused them to rest in the land of Canaan.
2c. The three divine persons are to be discerned most clearly in all the
works of grace. The inspiration of the scriptures is a wonderful instance
of
the grace and goodness of God to men, which is the foundation and source
of
spiritual knowledge, peace, and comfort; it is a divine work: "All
scripture
is given by inspiration of God", (2 Tim. 3:16) of God, Father, Son, and
Spirit; and though it is particularly ascribed to the Holy Spirit, "holy
men
of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost", (2 Peter 1:21) yet no
one surely will say, to the exclusion of the Father; nor is there any
reason
to shut out the Son from a concern herein; and we find all three dictating
the writings David was the penman of: "The Spirit of the Lord spake by me,
and his word was in tongue; the God of Israel said, the Rock of Israel
spake
to me", (2 Sam. 23:2, 3) where, besides the Spirit of the Lord, who spake
by
every inspired writer, there is the Father, the God of Israel, as he is
commonly styled, and the Son, the Rock of Israel, the Messiah, often
figuratively called the Rock; and in the same manner, and by the same
persons David was inspired, all the other penmen of the scriptures were.
Those writings acquaint us with the covenant of grace, no other writings
do,
made from everlasting before the world was; this covenant was made by
Jehovah the Father, and was made with his Son, who condescended and agreed
to be the surety, mediator, and messenger of it; yea he is said to be the
covenant itself; and in which the Holy Spirit is promised, and whose part
in
it is, and to which he agreed, to be the applier of the blessings and
promises of it to those interested therein; see (Ps. 89:3; Isa. 42:6; Mal.
3:1; Heb. 7:22, 12:24; Ezek. 36:27; John 16:14, 15) and they are all three
mentioned together as concerned in this covenant, in (Hag. 2:4, 5) where,
for the encouragement of the people of Israel to work in rebuilding the
temple, it is said, "For I am with you, saith the Lord of hosts",
according
to "the word that I covenanted with you"; or rather, as Junius renders it,
"with the Word" by whom I covenanted "with you, when ye came out of
Egypt",
(at which time the covenant of grace was more clearly and largely
revealed;)"so my Spirit remaineth among you": where may be observed,
Jehovah
the covenant maker, and his Word, in, by, and with whom he covenanted; and
the Spirit standing, as it may be rendered, remaining and abiding, to see
there was a performance and an application of all that was promised. In
the
sacred writings, the economy of man's salvation is clearly exhibited to
us,
in which we find the three divine persons, by agreement and consent, take
their distinct parts; and it may be observed that the election of men to
salvation is usually ascribed to the Father; redemption, or the
impetration
of salvation, to the Son; and sanctification, or the application of
salvation, to the Spirit; and they are all to be met with in one passage,
(1
Peter 1:2) "Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father,
through
sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood
of
Jesus". The same may be observed in (2 Thess. 2:13, 14) where God the
Father
is said to choose men from the beginning unto salvation; and the
sanctification of the Spirit, is the means through which they are chosen;
and the glory of the Lord Jesus Christ, the end to which they are chosen
and
called: but no where are these acts of grace more distinctly ascribed to
each person than in the first chapter of the epistle to the Ephesians,
where
God the Father of Christ, is said to bless and choose his people in him
before the foundation of the world, and to predestinate them to the
adoption
of children by him, in whom they are accepted with him, (Eph. 1:3-6) and
where Christ is spoken of as the author of redemption through his blood,
which includes forgiveness of sin, and a justifying righteousness; which
entitles to the heavenly inheritance, (Eph. 1:7, 11) and then the Holy
Spirit, in distinction from them both, is said to be the earnest of their
inheritance, and by whom they are sealed until they come to the full
possession of it (Eph. 1:13,14). The doctrine of the Trinity is often
represented as a speculative point, of no great moment whether it is
believed or not, too mysterious and curious to be pried into, and that it
had better be let alone than meddled with; but, alas! it enters into the
whole of our salvation, and all the parts of it; into all the doctrines of
the gospel, and into the experience of the saints; there is no doing
without
it; as soon as ever a man is convinced of his sinful and miserable estate
by
nature, he perceives there is a divine person that he has offended, and
that
there is need of another divine person to make satisfaction for his
offences, and a third to sanctify him; to begin and carry on a work of
grace
in him, and to make him meet for eternal glory and happiness.
2d. A Trinity of persons in the Godhead may be plainly discovered in all
things relating to the office and work of Christ, as the Redeemer and
Saviour. In the mission of him into this world on that account: he, the
Son
of God, was sent by agreement, with his own consent, by the Father and the
Spirit; this is affirmed by himself, (Isa. 48:16) "Now the Lord God, and
his
Spirit, hath sent me"; even he who says, (Isa. 48:12, 13) "I am the first
and the last", and whose hand laid the foundation of the earth, and whose
right hand spanned the heaven, and who is continued speaking to (Isa.
48:16)
and must be a divine person; the mighty God, who is said to be sent by
Jehovah the Lord God, and by his Spirit; who therefore must be three
distinct persons, and not one only; or otherwise the sense must be, "now I
and myself have sent myself", which is none at all. Christ the Son of God,
sent to be the Saviour, in the fulness of time was made of a woman, or
became incarnate; and though he only took flesh, the three divine persons
were concerned in this affair; the Father provided a body for him in his
purposes and decrees, council and covenant; the Word or Son was made
flesh,
and dwelt among men, and that which was conceived in the Virgin, was of
the
Holy Ghost, (Heb. 10:5; John 1:14; Matthew 1:20) and in the message to the
Virgin, and the declaration of this mysterious affair to her by the angel,
mention is made distinctly of all the three Persons; there is the
"highest",
Jehovah the Father; and "the Son of the highest", who took flesh of the
Virgin; and the Holy Ghost, or "the power of the highest", to whose
overshadowing influence, the mysterious incarnation is ascribed (Luke
1:32,35). Christ, the Son of God, being incarnate, was anointed with the
Holy Ghost, his gifts and graces without measure; whereby, as man, he was
fitted and qualified for his office as Mediator. The anointer is said to
be
God, his God, the great Jehovah; the anointed, the Son of God in human
nature, called therefore the Christ of God, the true Messiah; what he was
anointed with was the Holy Ghost, his gifts and grace, signified by the
oil
of gladness; see (Ps. 45:7; Isa. 61:1; Acts 10:38) when he was thirty
years
of age he was baptized of John in Jordan, where all the three divine
persons
appeared; the Son in human nature, submitting to the ordinance of baptism:
the Father, by a voice from heaven, declaring him to be his beloved Son;
and
the Holy Spirit, descending on him as a dove (Matthew 3:16, 17). This was
always reckoned so full and clear a proof of the Trinity of Persons in the
Godhead, that it was a common saying with the ancients, go to Jordan, and
there learn the doctrine of the Trinity. Before our Lord's sufferings and
death, he gave out various promises to his disciples, that he would send
the
Holy Spirit, the Comforter, to them; in which there are plain traces of a
Trinity of Persons; as when he says, "I will pray the Father, and he shall
give you another Comforter" (John 14:16). Here is God the Father of
Christ,
who is prayed unto, who is one Person; and here is the Son in human
nature,
praying, a second Person, the Son of God; and because he was so, his
prayer
was always prevalent; nor could he be a mere creature, who speaks so
positively and authoritatively, he shall give you; and then there is
another
Comforter prayed for, even the Spirit of truth, distinct from the Father
and
the Son; the same may be observed in and in (John 15:26, 16:7). Christ by
his sufferings and death, obtained eternal redemption for men. The price
that was paid for it, was paid to God the Father so it is said, "hath
redeemed us to God by thy blood" (Rev. 5:9). What gave the price a
sufficient value was, the dignity of his person, as the Son of God, (1
John
1:7) and it was "through the eternal Spirit" he offered himself to God,
(Heb. 9:14) which some understand of the divine nature; but it is not
usual
to say, Christ did this, or the other thing, through the divine nature,
but
by the Spirit, as in (Matthew 12:28; Acts 1:2) besides, in some copies of
(Heb. 9:14) it is read, "through the Holy Spirit". Again, Christ having
suffered and died for men, he rose again for their justification; in which
all the three persons were concerned; God the Father raised him from the
dead, and gave him glory, (1 Peter 1:21) and he raised himself by his own
power, according to his own prediction, (John 2:19) and was "declared to
be
the Son of God with power, according to the Spirit of holiness" or the
Holy
Spirit, "by the resurrection from the dead" (Rom. 1:4, see also Rom.
8:11).
2e. This truth of a Trinity in the Godhead, ****nes in all the acts of
grace
towards or in men; in the act of justification; it is God the Father that
justifies, by imputing the righteousness of his Son, without works, (Rom.
3:30, 4:6, 8:33) and it is not only by the righteousness of Christ that
men
are justified; but he himself justifies by his knowledge, or by faith in
him, (Isa. 53:11) and it is the Spirit of God that pronounces the sentence
of justification in the conscience of believers; hence they are "justified
in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God", (1 Cor.
6:11)
in the act of adoption; the grace of the Father in bestowing such a favour
on any of the children of men, is owned, (1 John 3:1) and through the
grace
of Christ, a way is opened, by redemption wrought out by him, for the
reception of this blessing; and he it is that gives power to those that
believe in him, to become the sons of God, (Gal. 4:4, 5; John 1:12) and
the
Holy Spirit witnesses, their adoption to them; hence he is called the
Spirit
of adoption, (Rom. 8:15, 16) and all three appear in one text, respecting
this blessing of grace; "Because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the
Spirit
of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father", (Gal. 4:6) where the
Father is spoken of as distinct from the Son, and the Son from the Father,
and the Spirit from them both, and all three bear their part in this
wonderful favour. Regeneration is an evidence of adoption; and an instance
of the great love and abundant mercy of God; and which is sometimes
ascribed
to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, (1 Peter 1:3) and
sometimes
to the Son of God, who regenerates and quickens whom he will, (John 5:21;
1
John 2:29) and sometimes to the Spirit of God, (John 3:3, 5) and all three
are mentioned together in (Titus 3: 4-6) where God the Father called our
Saviour, is said to save by the wa****ng of regeneration, and the renewing
of
the Holy Ghost; which grace of his is shed abroad in men through Jesus
Christ our Saviour. Once more, their unction, or anointing, which they
receive from the Holy One, is from God the Father, in and through Christ,
and by the Spirit; "Now he which establisheth us with you in Christ, and
hath anointed us, is God; who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest
of
the Spirit in our hearts", (2 Cor. 1:21, 22) where God the Father is
represented as the establisher and anointer, and Jesus Christ, as a
distinct
person, in whom the saints are established and anointed; and the Spirit,
distinct from them both, as the earnest of their future glory.
2f. It plainly appears that there is a Trinity of persons in the Godhead,
from the wor****p and duties of religion enjoined good men, and performed
by
them. The ordinance of baptism, a very solemn part of divine wor****p, is
ordered to be administered, and is administered, when done rightly, "in
the
name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost", (Matthew
28:19)
which are to be understood, not of three names and characters, but of
three
persons distinctly named and described, and who are but one God, as the
singular word "name", prefixed to them, signifies; men are to be baptised
in
one name of three persons; but not into one of three names, as an ancient
writer[19] has observed; nor into three incarnates; but into three of
equal
honour and glory. God alone is to be invoked in prayer, and petitions are
directed sometimes to one Person, and sometimes to another; sometimes to
the
first Person, the God and Father of Christ, (Eph. 3:14) sometimes to
Christ
himself, the second Person, as by Stephen, (Acts 7:59) and sometimes to
the
Lord the Spirit, the third Person, (2 Thess. 3:5) and sometimes to all
three
together, (Rev. 1:4, 5) and whereas the saints, who are made light in the
Lord, need an increase of light, prayer is made for them, that the God of
our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, would give unto them the
Spirit
of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him, that is, of Christ,
(Eph.
1:17, 18) where the Father of Christ is prayed to; the Spirit of wisdom is
prayed for; and that for an increase in the knowledge of Christ, distinct
from them both: and whereas the saints need an increase of strength, as
well
as light, prayer is made for them, that the Father of Christ would
strengthen them by his Spirit in the inward man, (Eph. 3:14-16; Zech.
10:12)
and in a formentioned text, prayer is made to the divine Spirit, to direct
the hearts of good men into the love of God, and patient waiting for
Christ,
(2 Thess. 3:5) where again the three divine Persons are plainly
distinguished; and who may easily be discerned as distinct Persons, in the
benedictory prayer of the apostle, (2 Cor. 13:14) with which I shall
conclude the proof from scripture, of a Trinity of Persons in the unity of
the divine essence; "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of
God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all". Amen. To which
may be added; that a plurality of Persons in the Godhead, seems necessary
from the nature of God himself, and his most complete happiness; for as he
is the best, the greatest and most perfect of Beings, his happiness in
himself must be the most perfect and complete; now happiness lies not in
solitude, but in society; hence the three personal distinctions in Deity,
seem necessary to perfect happiness, which lies in that most glorious,
inconceivable, and inexpressible communion the three Persons have with one
another; and which arises from the, incomprehensible in being and
unspeakable nearness they have to each other (John 10:38 14:10, 11).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ENDNOTES:
[1] In voce agiov.
[2] Vid. Alting. Dissert. Philolog. 4. s. 6, 7, 8.
[3] Allix's Judgment of the Jewish Church, p. 124.
[4] See my Doctrine of the Trinity, p. 30.
[5] Gloss. in T. Bab. Yebamot, fol. 46. 2.
[6] T. Bab. Betacot, fol. 6. 1. & Gloss. in ibid.
[7] Kidder's Demonstration of the Messiah, part 3. p. 90. edit. fol.
[8] See my Doctrine of the Trinity, p. 35, 36.
[9] tou poihswmen plhyov emfainontov, De Confus. Ling. p. 344, 345.
[10] In Philebo, p. 372, 378. Ed. Ficin. Vid. Parmenidem, p. 1111, 1112,
1117, 1120, 1122.
[11] Works, vol. 1. p. 13.
[12] Vid. Wittichii Theolog. Pacific. c. 17. s. 254.
[13] Vid. Socrat. Eccl. Hist. l. 7. c. 32.
[14] Respons. contr. Arian. Obj. 10. & de Trinitate, c. 4.
[15] Contr. Arium, p. 109. de Unit. Deitat. Trin. ad Theoph. l. 1. p. 399.
[16] De Unitat. Eccles. p. 255. & in Ep. 73. ad Iubajan. p. 184.
[17] Adv. Praxeam, c. 25.
[18] Paedagog. l. 3. in fine.
[19] Ignat. Epist. ad Philip. Ascript. p. 100/ Ed. Voss.
------------------------
Of The Personal Relations;
Or,
Relative Properties Which Distinguish The Three Divine Persons In The
Deity.
by John Gill
Since there are Three who are the one God; and these Three are not one and
the same Person, but three different Persons, there must be something
which
distinguishes them from each other; and the distinction between them is
not
merely "nominal", which is no distinction at all; as when the Sabellians
say, God is one Person, having three names, Father, Son, and Spirit; here
is
no distinction; just as when a man has three names, they no more
distinguish
him than one would; be he called William, Henry, Frederic, William would
not
distinguish him from Henry, nor Henry from William, nor Frederic from them
both, he being one man, having these several names: nor is the distinction
merely "modal"; rather real modal; for though there are three modes of
subsisting in the Deity, and each Person has a distinct mode, yet the
phrase
seems not strong enough; for the distinction is real and personal; the
Three
in the Godhead are not barely three modes, but three distinct Persons in a
different mode of subsisting, who are really distinct from each other; so
that the Father is not the Son, nor the Son the Father, nor the Holy
Spirit
either the Father or the Son; but the difficulty is, what that is which
gives or makes the distinction between them? Now let it be observed,
1. Be it what it may, which distinguishes the divine Persons, it must be
as
early as the existence of God itself: God is from everlasting to
everlasting; what God is now he ever was; he is the eternal and immutable
"I
AM"; he is what he was, and will be what he is; he is he "which is, and
was,
and is to come"; he is eternally and invariably the same: if the one God
existed from eternity; and if the three Persons are the one God, they must
exist from eternity, and exist as distinct Persons; and consequently what
gives them their distinction must exist as early. Wherefore,
2. Whatever distinguishes them cannot arise from, nor depend upon any
works
done by them in time, since their distinction is from eternity; and
besides,
the works of God "ad extra", or his external works, are common to all the
three Persons; for though one may be more commonly ascribed to one Person,
and another to another, yet the three Persons have a concern in each; and
therefore they cannot distinguish them one from another. Creation is
commonly ascribed to the Father of Christ, who is said to make the worlds,
and create all things by him his Son; not as a mere instrument of action,
since he is a co-efficient Cause of them; "without him is not anything
made
that is made"; and the Holy Spirit has a concern in the same; as has been
observed (see Ps. 33:6). The salvation of men is commonly attributed to
the
Son, and he is called Jesus Christ our Saviour; and yet, in the same
place,
God the Father is called God our Saviour, and is said to save "by the
renewing of the Holy Ghost" (Titus 3:4-6). Regeneration is more commonly
said to be the work of the Spirit; and yet men are said to be born of God,
of the Father, and of Jesus Christ, as well as of him; and God the Father
is
expressly said, to beget men again, according to his mercy (1 Peter 1:3).
I
have made use of the works of God, both to prove the Being of God, and to
illustrate and confirm the doctrine of a Trinity of Persons in the
Godhead;
but these do not make God to be, but to appear to be what he is; had they
never been wrought, he would have been just the same as he is in his
Being,
Perfections, and Persons; for,
3. His works are arbitrary, depending upon his pleasure: thus of the works
of creation it is said, "For thy pleasure, or by thy will, they are and
were
created", (Rev. 4:11) and as all things in providence, so all things in
grace, are done according to the counsel of his will; it is of his will he
has mercy on men, is gracious to them, regenerates and saves them;
wherefore
these are things that might or might not be, just as he thought fit; but
not
so his Being, the Persons in the Deity, and their manner of subsisting in
it; for if there had never been a creature made, nor a soul saved, nor a
sinner sanctified, God would have been the same he is, three Persons in
one
God. In the economy of man's salvation, to which some ascribe the
distinction of Persons, as taking its rise from thence; the three divine
Persons are manifested, but not made, nor made distinct; but were so
before,
and would have been so, if that had never taken place, as it might not
have
done, since it flows from the goodwill and pleasure of God; whereas,
4. What gives the distinction, be it what it may, is by necessity of
nature;
God exists necessarily, and not by choice and will, as has been before
argued; for if his existence is owing to will and choice, it must be
either
the will and choice of another, or his own; not another's, for then that
other would be prior and superior to him, and so be God, and not he; not
his
own will, for then he must be before he was; have will and choice before
he
existed, which is an absurdity not to be endured: if the one God then
necessarily existed, and the three Persons are the one God, they must
necessarily exist; and if they exist as three distinct Persons, that which
gives them the distinction, must be necessary also, or arise from the
necessity of nature; as God is, and the manner in which he is, so the
distinction in him is by necessity. But,
5. When I say it is by necessity of nature, I do not mean, that the divine
nature, in which the divine persons subsist, distinguishes them; for that
nature is one, and common to them all; the nature of the Son is the same
with that of the Father; and the nature of the Spirit the same with that
of
the Father and the Son; and this nature, which they in common partake of,
is
undivided; it is not parted between them, so that one has one part, and
another a second, and another a third; nor that one has a greater, and
another a lessor part, which might distinguish them; but the whole fulness
of the Godhead is in each.
6. To come to the point; it is the personal relations, or distinctive
relative properties, which belong to each Person, which distinguish them
one
from another; as paternity in the first Person, filiation in the second,
and
spiration in the third; or, more plainly, it is "begetting", (Ps. 2:7)
which
peculiarly belongs to the first, and is never ascribed to the second and
third; which distinguishes him from them both; and gives him, with great
propriety, the name of Father; and it is being "begotten", that is the
personal relation, or relative property of the second Person; hence
called,
"the only begotten of the Father", (John 1:14) which distinguishes him
from
the first and third, and gives him the name of the Son; and the relative
property, or personal relation of the third Person is, that he is breathed
by the first and second Persons; hence called, the breath of the Almighty,
the breath of the mouth of Jehovah the Father, and the breath of the mouth
of Christ the Lord, and which is never said of the other two persons; and
so
distinguishes him from them, and very pertinently gives him the name of
the
Spirit, or breath (Job 33:4; Ps. 33:6; 2 Thess. 2:8). Those men I have now
respect to, hold that there are three distinct persons in the Godhead, or
divine nature; and therefore it must be something in the divine nature,
and
not anything out of it, that distinguishes them; not any works "ad extra",
done by them; nor their concern in the economy of man's salvation; nor
offices bore by them, which are arbitrary things, which might, or might
not,
have been, had it pleased God; and what that is in the divine nature that
can distinguish them, besides what has been mentioned, let it be named if
it
can. If one of these distinct Persons is a Father, in the divine nature,
and
another a Son in the divine nature, there must be something in the divine
nature which is the ground of the relation, and distinguishes the one from
the other; and can be nothing else than generation, and which
distinguishes
the third Person from them both, as neither begetting nor begotten. From
generation arises the relation, and from relation distinct personality.
And
as an ancient writer[1] says, "unbegotten, begotten, and proceeding", are
not names of essence, (and it may be added, nor of office) but are modes
of
subsistence; and so distinguish persons.
Upon the whole, it is easy to observe, that the distinction of Persons in
the Deity, depends on the generation of the Son; take away that, which
would
destroy the relation between the first and second Persons, and the
distinction drops; and that this distinction is natural and necessary, or
by
necessity of nature, and not arbitrary, or of choice and will; which, if
it
was, it might not have been at all, or have been otherwise than it is:
those
who place it to the economy of the Persons in the redemption of men, have
been urged with this, that if it was so, he that is called the Father,
might
have been called the Son; and he that is called the Son, might have been
called the Father[2]; which has so pressed them, that they have been
obliged
to own, that so it might have been, if it had so seemed to God, and been
agreeable to his will[3]. Moreover, those who are in this way of thinking,
and explain away the generation of the Son, and make it no other than a
communion of nature, and a co-existence with the first Person, though they
profess there are three Persons in the Godhead, they are not able to prove
it, nor to point out that which distinguishes one from another; and
besides,
are not able to call them by any name, only say, the one is the first
Person, the other the second, and the other the third; and even the reason
of this order they cannot account for; for if they have their names and
distinction from the economy of man's salvation, and the part they take
therein, these cannot be given them antecedent to the said economy; and
yet
they must exist, and be considered as existing previous to it: if the
first
Person has the name of a Father, from his constituting and appointing
Christ
to be the Mediator and Saviour; and the second Person the name of a Son,
from his constitution as such; though the reason of such names from hence
does not appear; and the third Person has the name of Spirit, from any
office or work undertook by him, to breathe into men in creation or
regeneration; these names cannot be given them antecedent to such economy,
constitution, and agreement, taking place; and yet they must be considered
antecedent thereunto, in some view or another. To such straits are men
reduced, when they leave the form of sound words, which to do is
dangerous,
and generally leads into one error or another. But all this will more
manifestly appear, by considering each divine person particularly, his
relative property, and name pertinent to it. I shall begin with,
6a. First, The first Person; whose distinctive relative property is
"begetting", and who is very pertinently called, the Father, which
distinguishes him from the second and third Persons: and here let it be
observed, that it is not his being a Father with respect to the creatures,
that distinguishes him; not a Father in creation, providence, and grace:
not
in creation; he is a Father as the Creator of all; all his creatures are
his
offspring; and he is particularly the Father of spirits, of angels, and
the
souls of men; but this does not give him the name of Father in the
Trinity;
so he would have been, if not one man had ever been made, or an angel
formed; nor does his being a Father to creatures distinguish him from the
second and third Persons, for they are equally concerned with him in
creation; and being the one God that has made us, they are the one Father
of
us, even the second and third Persons, as well as the first: nor in
providence; God is the Father that provides for all his creatures,
supplies
them with things necessary, and sup****ts them in their Beings; but this is
not peculiar to the first Person; in this the second Person jointly and
equally operates with him, by whom all things consist, and by whose power
all are upheld; and so the third Person; and therefore on this account
equally entitled to the character of Father: nor in grace, in adoption,
and
regeneration; in which all the three Persons have a concern: in adoption,
as
the Father bestows the wonderful grace on the sons of men, the son gives
to
them that believe in him power to become the sons of God; and the Spirit
has
so much to do with it, that he is called the Spirit of adoption: in
regeneration, the Father of Christ begets men again to a lively hope of an
inheritance; the Son quickens and regenerates whom he will; and those that
are born again, are born of the Spirit: it is not therefore what the first
Person does in either of these respects, that entitles him to the
character
of Father in the Godhead, and distinguishes him from the others; but it is
his being the Father of the second Person, or the Father of Christ, as he
is
often called, and very emphatically and significantly, God the Father,
(Gal
1:1; Eph 1:3, 3:14) and this name he has from begetting the Son, who is
therefore called his Son, his begotten, his only begotten Son, (Ps. 2:7;
John 1:14, 18) and this personal relation, or relative property, is what
distinguishes the first Person in the Trinity, it being never attributed
to
any other.
6b. Secondly, The second Person, whose distinctive relative property and
character is, that he is "begotten", which is never said of the other two
Persons, and so distinguishes him from them, and gives him the name of
"Son"; and that he is the Son of God, there is abundant proof; all the
three
Persons bear testimony of it; the Father at the baptism and
transfiguration
of Christ, (Matthew 3:17, 17:5; Ps. 2:7, 89:27) the Word, or Son of God
himself, (John 19:7, 5:17, 18, 10:30; Mark 14:61, 62; John 8:13-18) and
the
Spirit, (Matthew 3:16, 17) it is testified and acknowledged by angels, the
good angels, (Luke 1:31, 35; Heb. 1:6) evil angels, the devils, (Matthew
8:29; Mark 3:11; Luke 4:41) by men of all sorts; by good men, (John 1:6,
7,
33, 34, 49; Matthew 16:15; 16 John 6:67, 11:27; Acts 8:37) by bad men
(Matthew 27:54). So that he is on all hands acknowledged and owned to be
the
Son of God. The Son****p of Christ is an article of the greatest im****tance
in the Christian religion; it has a very great concern in, and connection
with the ordinance of Christian baptism; it was declared by a voice from
heaven, at the baptism of our Lord, "saying, This is my beloved Son, in
whom
I am well pleased" (Matthew 3:17). That ordinance is ordered by our Lord
himself to be administered "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and
of the Holy Ghost", (Matthew 28:19) considered as in their natural
relative
characters to each other, equally divine persons, and not as sustaining
any
office, which no one name or term used is expressive of; and it is
mentioned
in the first confession of faith, and as the sum of it, in order to an
admission to that ordinance the scripture gives an account of; "I
believe",
says the eunuch desiring baptism of Philip; who required an express
declaration of his faith; "I believe", says he, "that Jesus Christ is the
Son of God", (Acts 8:37) and this was the sum and substance of the
ministry
of the apostle Paul, with which he first set out, and continued in, that
Christ is the Son of God, (Acts 9:20; 2 Cor. 1:19) and, indeed, it is the
distingui****ng criterion of the Christian religion, and what gives it the
preference to all others, and upon which all the im****tant doctrines of it
depend; even upon the Son****p of Christ as a divine person; and as by
generation, even eternal generation. Without this the doctrine of the
Trinity can never be sup****ted; of this the adversaries of it are so
sensible, as the Socinians, that they have always set themselves against
it
with all their might and main; well knowing, that if they can demolish
this,
it is all over with the doctrine of the Trinity; for without this, the
distinction of Persons in the Trinity can never be maintained; and,
indeed,
without this, there is none at all; take away this, and all distinction
ceases. A writer of the present age, and who was the first among us who
objected to the eternal generation of the Son of God, though Roell, a
Dutchman, before him, attempted to explain it away; or, at least, to a
different sense; deed, pretends to hold the doctrine of three distinct
Persons in the Deity, and yet explodes this: a strange paradox! He owns[4]
some divines have strenuously maintained, and "judiciously defended", the
doctrine of the Trinity, who held the eternal generation of the Son, and
the
procession of the Holy Ghost. Why then should this judicious defence be
deserted by us? he owns that these properties, begetting, begotten, and
proceeding, "plainly prove" the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, to be
distinct
Persons; why then should they be laid aside? and especially, since without
them there is no proof to be made of their being distinct Persons "in the
divine nature". He says[5], that his account of Christ's Son****p, that is,
by office, and not by nature, does not take away any argument by which we
prove his Deity. But without his eternal generation no proof can be made
of
his being a distinct divine Person "in the Godhead", and so not of his
Deity: he farther says, that it does not take away any argument to prove
his
distinct personality from the Father and the Holy Ghost; whereas it takes
away that which is the only proof of it, without substituting a sufficient
one in its room; and, indeed, no other in the divine nature can be
substituted in its room; not the office of Christ, as Mediator; for he
must
first be proved to be a distinct divine Person, before he can be
considered
as Mediator. The doctrines of redemption, justification, atonement, and
pardon of sin, depend upon the divinity of the Person of Christ, as the
Son
of God, (Gal. 4:4; Rom. 8:3, 4; Heb. 1:2, 3; 1 John 1:7).
I cannot see there is any reason to object to the use of the phrase
"eternal
generation", as applied to the son****p of Christ, since one divine person
is
said to "beget", (Ps. 2:7) and therefore must be a Father; and another
divine person is said to be "begotten", (John 1:14, 18) and elsewhere, and
therefore must be a Son; and if a begotten Son, as he is often said to be,
then he must be a Son by generation: for he must be a very illiterate man
indeed who does not know that to "beget" and "generate" are the same; and
that also to be "begotten" and "generated" are the same; and therefore
generation, with great propriety, may be used of the divine persons; and
if
used of the divine persons as in the divine nature, as if of the Father in
the divine nature, then of the Son in the divine nature; and there being
nothing in the divine nature but what is eternal, then this generation
must
be "eternal generation"; there are no persons in the divine nature but who
are eternal, the eternal Father, the eternal Son, and the eternal Spirit;
nor is there anything in it but what is eternal; every attribute in it is
eternal, as eternal power, eternal wisdom, &c. every will, decree, and
purpose in it is eternal, the eternal birth of the eternal minds[6]; why
not
then the Son of God, the Word and Wisdom of God? and indeed Wisdom, or
Christ, is expressly said to be "brought forth", ytllwx, a word expressive
of generation, twice used in Proverbs 8:24, 25, and there, in some ancient
versions, rendered "begotten", as Nwma "brought up", (Prov. 8:30) is in
some
later versions rendered carried in the bosom, as a son in the bosom of the
Father; all which is spoken of as done in eternity: now if Christ was
begotten from everlasting, or ever the earth was, before there were any
fountains of water, or mountains and hills, and was as early as a son in
the
bosom of his Father, one would think there can be no difficulty in
admitting
his eternal generation. To which may be added, that if no moment or
instant
can be given or pointed at, neither in eternity nor in time, in which
Christ
was not the begotten Son of the Father, then he must be eternally begotten
of him, or be his Son by eternal generation; but no moment and instant can
be given or pointed at, neither in eternity nor in time, in which Christ
was
not the begotten Son of the Father; therefore he must be eternally
begotten
of him; or, in other words, be the Son of the Father by eternal
generation.
The phrase "eternal generation" is said to be a contradiction in terms;
surely, not more so, than "eternal creation", and an "eternal creature":
it
may be thought so by those who will say the same of a Trinity in Unity, or
of three being one, though expressly asserted in 1 John 5:7 and so is no
more a contradiction than a Trinity of persons in one God. Indeed if the
phrase was used of human generation, and applied to that, it might well be
thought to be a contradiction in terms; but not as used of divine
generation, and as applied to that; the one being in a nature finite, the
other infinite. Perhaps the distinction of a priority of order, and a
priority of time, may serve to remove the seeming contradiction; the
former
may be in things eternal, but not the latter. Thus, for instance, God is
eternal, and so are his decrees; as the decree of election, or rather
God's
act of choosing men before the foundation of the world; now God may be
conceived of as previous to his act of choosing in priority of order,
though
not in priority of time, which cannot be admitted in eternity. So the
Father
generating the Son, may be considered in priority of order previous to the
Son generated by him, though not in priority of time, of which there can
be
none in eternity; considering therefore the Son's generation of the Father
from eternity, in a priority of order, though there can be none of time,
it
will not appear to be a contradiction in terms.
When the scriptures ascribe generation to the Divine Being, it must be
understood in a manner suitable to it, and not of carnal and cor****al
generation; no man in his senses can ever think that God generates as man
does; nor believe that ever any man held such a notion of generation in
God;
yet Socinus[7] has the impudence to say, that some called Evangelics, hold
that God generates in the divine essence one like himself, "more
animantium", as animals do. But generation must be understood of such
generation as agrees with the nature of a spirit, and of an infinite
uncreated spirit, as God is; that spirits generate we know from the souls
or
spirits we have about us and in us; our minds, which are spirits, generate
thought; thought is the "conception" and "birth" of the mind; and so we
speak of it in common and ordinary speech, "I conceive", or such a man
"conceives" so and so; this is my "conception" of things, such are the
"conceptions" of others, &c. So with the Platonic philosophers, thought is
the birth of the mind; they call it the mind begotten by the mind, as it
were another like itself[8]; now as soon as the mind is, thought is, they
commence together and they co-exist, and always will; and this the mind
begets within itself; without any mutation or alteration in itself. Now in
some respect these answer: the mind to God who is nouv, the eternal mind,
and thought, the birth of the mind, to Christ, the eternal logov, word and
wisdom of God; who is in some sort represented by logov endiayetov, the
internal mental word. So Plato[9] says, "thought is logov, word or speech,
by which the soul declares and explains to itself what it considers"; or
elsewhere[10], "thought is a discourse within the soul to itself, without
a
voice". Aristotle[11] somewhere calls it the logov, or word, tw noi
sunaidion, co-eternal with the mind. Now if our finite created spirits, or
minds, are capable of generating thought, the internal word or speech, and
that without any motion, change, or alteration, without any diminution and
corruption, without division of their nature or multiplication of their
essence; then in an infinitely more perfect manner can God, an infinite
uncreated spirit, beget his Son, the eternal Word, wisdom, reason, and
understanding, in his eternal mind, which he never was without, nor was he
before it: "In the beginning was the word", &c. (John 1:1) and this same
Word is expressly said to be "the only begotten of the Father", (John
1:14)
and this perfectly agreeable to the sense and language of the old Jewish
church, as appears from the ancient paraphrases, and from Philo[12], who
says of the logov, or Word, that it is not unbegotten as God, nor begotten
as men, and that it is the first begotten Son, with other expressions of
like nature: these things considered, may serve in some measure to relieve
our minds, and make it more easy to us to conceive of this wonderful and
mysterious affair.
``Mental or metaphysical generation, as a learned divine[13] observes, is
a
similitude and adumbration of divine generation; as the mind begets by
nature, not by power, so likewise God; as the mind begets a birth
co-essential and co-eternal, so God; as the mind simple and perfect begets
a
birth simple and perfect, so God; as the mind begets immutably (or without
mutation) so God; as the mind begets of itself in itself, so God; as the
mind does not beget out of matter without itself, so neither God: as the
mind always begets and cannot but beget, so God the Father; as
metaphysical
generation abides, so the divine.''
Not but that there is in some respects a great dissimilitude between
these,
as the same writer observes; for the mind begets only a faculty, or an
inexistent propriety, but God the Father begets a person existing by
himself; the mind begins to beget in time, but God begins not to beget,
but
always begets from eternity, &c. To this may be added another similitude,
which may help us in this matter, and serve to illustrate it; and that is
the sun, to which God is sometimes compared; the sun generates its own ray
of light, without any change, corruption, division, and diminution; it
never
was without its ray of light, as it must have been had it been prior to
it;
they commenced together and co-exist, and will as long as the sun endures;
and to this there seems to be an allusion, when Christ is called the
"brightness", apaugasma, the effulgence, the beaming forth "of his
Father's
glory", (Heb. 1:3) "ut radius ex sole", as the ray from the sun, as
Tertullian[14] expresses it. Though such allusions are not to be stretched
too far, nor admitted where they imply any imperfection.
It will be granted that the phrases "begetting" and "begotten", as
attributed to the divine persons in the Godhead, are used in reference to
human generation; between which and divine generation there is some
resemblance; as likeness, sameness of nature, personality, &c. and as we
consider divine generation, it comes nearer to generation, properly so
called, than any scheme or hypothesis opposed to it; but then care must be
taken to remove from our minds everything carnal and impure; and what
implies an imperfection; as division of nature, multiplication of essence,
priority and posteriority, motion, mutation, alteration, corruption,
diminution, cessation from operation, &c. to reason from the one to the
other, as running parallel to each other, is unreasonable; to argue from
human to divine generation; from that which is physical or natural, to
that
which is hyperphysical or supernatural; from what is in finite nature, to
that which is in a nature infinite, unbounded, and eternal, is very
irrational; and to reason from the one to the other, without limitation,
restriction, care, and caution, is very unsafe and dangerous; since it may
lead unawares into foolish and hurtful errors; and when objections of this
sort are made, as they too often are, in a vain, ludicrous, and wanton
manner, they are to be rejected and detested, as impious and blasphemous;
and they that make them are not to be disputed with, but despised: what is
objected in a modest and decent way may be attended to; and the chief that
I
have met with are, that the son****p of Christ by generation makes him to
be
later than the Father, to be dependent on him, and subordinate to him; or,
in other words, that it seems to be contrary to his eternity,
independence,
and equality. Let us a little consider each of these objections.
6b1. It is urged, that he that generates must be before him that is
generated; a father that begets must be before the son that is begotten by
him; and putting the son****p of Christ on this foot, he cannot be
co-eternal
with the Father, but must have a beginning. This is the old stale
objection
of the Arians, and of Arias[15] himself, who stumbled at this, and set out
with it, reasoning thus: ``If the Father begat the Son, he that is
begotten
must have a beginning of his existence; and from hence it must be evident
that there was a time when he was not a Son; and therefore it must
necessarily follow, that he has his subsistence out of nothing''.
And so Aetius[16], a follower of his, could not understand how that which
is
begotten, could be co-eternal with him that begets. But a little attention
to a plain rule will set this matter in a clear light, and remove this
objection: the rule is, and I think it is a good one, and will hold good,
that "correlates mutually put or suppose each other"; that is, they
commence
together, they exist together, they co-exist, and that one is not before
the
other, nor the one after the other. Now father and son are correlates,
they
suppose each other; a father supposes a son, and a son supposes a father;
they commence and exist together, they co-exist, they are not one before
nor
after another: the father, as a father, is not before his son, as such;
nor
the son, as a son, is not later than his father, as such; let a man have a
firstborn son, as soon as he has one he becomes a father, and not before;
and his son is as early a son as he is a father; and supposing they live
together a term of years, be it an hundred years if you please, which is
not
an unreasonable supposition, since it has been a fact that father and son
have lived together a longer term of time; now at the end of these hundred
years, the father, as a father, will not be a moment older than the son as
such; nor the son, as a son, one moment younger than the father, as such;
their relations rise and continue together till one or other of them
cease.
There is no priority nor posteriority, no before nor "after" in these
relations; and so, as an ancient writer says[17], "with God there is no
post
existence of him that is begotten, nor pre-existence of him that begets;"
if
there is an eternal Father, there must be an eternal Son, and therefore
must
be co-eternal; there cannot be a Father without a Son, that would be an
absurdity, and therefore not before him.
Should it be said, that though these mutual relations exist together, and
that one is not before the other; yet surely he that is a father, though
not
as a father, must exist before him who is his son. As plausible as this
may
seem to be, it may not appear so plain when examined; for this objection
may
arise from a false notion of animal generation. Generation is not a
production of a non-entity into being, or a bringing into existence what
did
not exist before; for to bring that into being which was not in being
before, is nothing less than a creation, and creation is too much to
ascribe
to the fathers of our flesh; they are not our creators, they do not give
us
our being; they do not bring us out of a state of non-existence into a
state
of existence; God only is the creator. According to the later discoveries
in
natural philosophy respecting generation, it appears that every man is
born
of an animalcule; that generation, so called, is no other than a motion of
the animalcule into a more convenient place for nourishment and growth.
All
generation, say our modern philosophers, is with us nothing, so far as we
can find, but "nutrition", or "augmentation" of parts[18]: they conclude,
that the "animalcule" of every tribe of creatures, were originally formed
by
the almighty Parent, to be the seed of all future generations of
animals[19]; and that it seems most probable, that the "semina", or
"stamina", as of all plants, so of animals that have been or ever shall be
in the world, have been formed "ab origine mundi", by the almighty
Creator,
within the first of each respective kind[20]; and that these are no other
than the entire bodies themselves "in parvo"; and contain everyone of the
same parts and members, with the complete bodies themselves, when grown to
maturity[21]; all which, they say, evidently appears, by the help of
microscopes: and this is the rather to be attended to, because it so
greatly
agrees with the sacred scriptures, by which it appears, not only that
Levi,
the great grandson of Abraham, was in his loins, that is, seminally in
him,
before his father Jacob was born; but that all mankind were in Adam, that
is
seminally in him, as well as representatively; the former being the
foundation of the latter (Rom. 5:12; 1 Cor. 15:22). If, therefore, the
"semina" of all mankind were created together in the first man; and all
men
were seminally, and in "animalculo" together in Adam, then not one before
another, no priority nor posteriority among them: so that these things,
rightly considered, instead of weakening, serve to strengthen and
illustrate
the doctrine pleaded for[22]. How far this philosophy is defensible, I
will
not say; I only observe it to abate the force of the objection; and the
confidence of those who make it, it being not easy to disprove the said
hypothesis.
6b2. As to the objection taken from dependence, suggesting that the
doctrine
of Christ's Son****p by generation is contrary to the independence of
Christ
as a divine Person. It may be asked, what dependence has a Son upon a
Father, in animal generation? Does he depend upon him as the cause of his
existence? He does not. He does not bring him into being. God only is the
efficient Cause and Author of his Being. He is, at most, only an
instrument
of removing the animalcule, created of God, into a more convenient
situation
for nourishment and growth; in order, at a proper time, to come forth into
the world, according to the above hypothesis: a parent has no concern in
the
formation of his child; it is formed without his knowledge, and without
asking his consent and will; he knows nothing of its shape, features, and
***, until its birth; and when it is born, its life, and the continuance
of
its being, do not depend upon him; a son lives when a Father dies, and
often
many years after him: it is true, in some sense, he may be said to depend
upon him with respect to some cir***stances, especially in the former part
of life; as, for the care of him, provision for him, assistance and
protection given him; cir***stances which argue weakness in the human
natnre; but not to be found in the divine nature, nor anything analogous
to
them; and does not a father oftentimes depend upon his son, as in case of
distress, sickness, penury, and old age? But be these things as they may,
Christ, as all sound divines hold, is autoyeov, "God of himself", and
independent of any other, though he is the Son of the Father; and as the
distinct personality of the Son of God arises from his relation to his
Father as such, so the distinct personality of the Father arises from his
relation to his Son as such; hence the distinct personality of the one, is
no more dependent, than the distinct personality of the other; and both
arise from their mutual relation to each other; and both arise and
commence
together, and not one before the other; and both are founded in eternal
generation.
6b3. As to subordination and subjection, and inequality, which it is
supposed the Son****p of Christ by generation implies; it may be answered,
that Christ in his office-capacity, in which he, as Mediator, is a
Servant,
and as he is man, and appeared in the form of one; it will be
acknowledged,
that he is subordinate and subject to the Father; but not as he is the Son
of God: and whatever inequality son****p may imply among men, it implies no
such thing in the divine nature, among the divine persons; who in it
subsist
in perfect equality with one another; and in particular, the Scriptures
represent the Son of God as equal to his Father, as one who thought it no
robbery to be equal with God; being of the same nature, and having the
same
perfections with him, and that he is equal to him with respect to power
and
authority; for with respect to power he says, "I and my Father are one";
and
they represent him as having the same claim to equal honour, homage, and
wor****p; since all men are "to honour the Son, as they honour the Father";
not as in subordination to him, but as equal with him. There is a passage
which is perverted by some to the sense of subordination and subjection of
the Son of God to the Father, which is in 1 Corinthians 15:24, 28. "Then
cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even
the
Father and when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son
also himself be subject unto him; and put all things under him; that God
may
be all in all". It should be observed, that all this is said of something
that is future; and which, as yet, is not, and so no proof of what is, or
has been. Besides, there is a twofold Son****p of Christ, divine and human;
from the one he is denominated the Son of God, and from the other the Son
of
man. Now Christ in the text, is only called "the Son", which does not
determine which Son****p is meant. This is to be learnt from the context,
where he is spoken of throughout as man, as man who died, and rose again
from the dead; from whence, by various arguments, is proved the general
resurrection; and so he is continued to be spoken of to the passage under
consideration; the plain and easy sense of which is, that at the end of
the
world, at Christ's second coming, when all the elect of God shall be
gathered in, and Christ shall have completely finished his work, as
Mediator, he will deliver up the mediatorial kingdom complete and perfect,
that is, the whole body of the elect, the kingdom of priests, to the
Father,
and say, "Lo, I, and the children whom thou hast given me"; and then the
delegated power under which he acted, as the Son of man, will cease, and
be
no more; and that sort of rule, authority, and power, will be put down;
and
he, as the Son of man, be no longer vested with such authority, but shall
become subject to him that put all things under him; and then God, Father,
Son, and Spirit, will be all in all; and there will be no more distinction
of offices among them; only the natural and essential distinctions of the
divine Persons will always continue. There are various passages of
scriptures in which Christ, as the Son of God, addresses his divine
Father,
without the least appearance of any subordination or subjection to him,
but
as his equal, as Jehovah's fellow, particularly John 17:24. But I shall
proceed to examine more particularly, in what sense Christ is the Son of
God, or what is the true cause and reason of this relation. The Socinians,
unwilling to own the eternal Son****p of Christ, or that he was the Son of
God before he was the Son of Mary; and not caring to acknowledge the true
cause and reason of it, which is but one, have devised many; which shows
the
puzzle and confusion they are in; Calovius[23] has collected out of their
writings, no less than thirteen causes, or reasons of Christ's Son****p;
some
of them are so weak and trifling, as not deserving to be mentioned; and
others require but little to be said to them: I shall take notice of some
of
the principal ones: and then proceed to place the Son****p of Christ on its
true basis, and assign the proper sole cause and reason of it; his being
"begotten" of the Father.
6b3a. They say he is called the Son of God because of the great love of
God
to him, and make beloved and begotten to be synonymous terms; that Christ
is
the object of the love of God, the Son of his love, his dearly beloved
Son,
is most certain; but then it is not his love to him that is the foundation
and cause of relation to him; he is not his Son because he loves him; but
he
loves him because he is his Son; it is not love among men that produces
such
a relation; there may be great love where there is no such relation;
Jonathan loved David as his own soul; but this strong love bore to him,
did
not make him nor denominate him his son. On the other hand, there may be
relation and not love; a father may not love his own son; neither love nor
hatred effect relation; the one does not make it, nor the other destroy
it.
6b3b. Sometimes they ascribe the Son****p of Christ to his likeness to God,
and make that to be the cause of it: that Christ is the image of the
invisible God, the express image of his Father's Person, and so like him,
that he that has seen the one, has seen the other, because the same nature
and perfections are in both, is true; yet the reason why Christ is called
the Son of God, is not because he is like him, but he is like him because
he
is his Son; of the same nature and essence with him.
6b3c. At other times they tell us, he is the Son of God by adoption; of
which the Scriptures give not the least hint. To which may be objected,
that
Christ is God's own Son, his proper Son, the Son of himself; and therefore
not adopted: whoever adopts an own son? or what reason can there be for
it?
adoption among men, is not of their own sons: but usually when they have
none of their own; as the instances of the adoption of Moses by Pharaoh's
daughter, and of Esther by Mordecai show: besides, Christ is the begotten
Son of God; and if begotten, then not adopted; these are inconsistent;
yea,
he is his only begotten Son; whereas, if he was his Son by adoption, he
could not be said to be his only Son, since he has many adopted ones; even
as many as are predestinated to the adoption of children, by Christ; as
many
as the Father gave unto him; as many as he has redeemed, "that they might
receive the adoption of children"; as many as receive him, that is,
believe
in him, "to whom he gives power to become the sons of God"; even as many
sons as he brings to glory; which is a number no man can number: but the
more principal causes of Christ's Son****p they insist upon, and which seem
to have the most countenance from scripture, are as follow, and which I
shall more particularly and largely consider.
6a3d. The miraculous conception and birth of Christ, or his wonderful
incarnation, is assigned as the reason of his Son****p; and this is founded
on (Luke 1:35) the words of the angel to Mary, in answer to the
difficulties
objected by her, to Christ being born of her; "The holy Ghost shall come
upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee; therefore,
also, that holy Thing that shall be born of thee, shall be called the Son
of
God". Now let it be observed, that the angel does not say the holy Thing
born of the virgin should "be", but should be "called" the Son of God; for
though sometimes the sense of such a phrase is the same as to "be", as in
Isaiah 9:6; 1 John 3:1, yet seems not intended here; since this
appellation,
the Son of God, is a name which Christ has been, and is usually called by;
and the angel is not giving a reason of Christ's being the Son of God; for
he was so before his incarnation; but of the manifestation and declaration
of him as such in the human nature; nor does the angel predict that Christ
should be called the Son of God, for "this reason", because of his
miraculous birth; for either he was to call himself so, or others were to
call him so, for this reason, which neither have been; or else the angel's
prediction must be false, which cannot be admitted. Moreover, the particle
therefore, is not causal, but consequential; the angel is not giving a
reason why Christ should be called the Son of God, but why he should be
received and owned as such by his people; who would infer and conclude
from
his wondrous birth of a virgin, that he must be the Immanuel, the child to
be born, the Son given, &c. prophesied of in Isaiah 7:14, 9:6 where he is
called the "child born", with respect to his human nature, and the "Son
given", with respect to his divine nature[24] (see John 3:16 4:10). Once
more, the particle "also", ought not to be neglected; "Therefore, also,
that
holy Thing", &c. not only the divine person of Christ should be owned and
called the Son of God; but also the human nature of Christ, thus
wonderfully
produced, being taken up into personal union with him, should bear the
same
name: so that it is not the wonderful birth of the human nature, that so
much as gives the name; but the union of this nature to the person of the
Son of God; whence it is called by the same name he is. The reasons why
Christ cannot be the Son of God, on account of his wonderful incarnation,
are the following.
6b3d1. If so, then the Holy Spirit must be the Father of Christ, since he
had such a special and peculiar concern in it; as the above passage shows;
and then there must be two Fathers in the Trinity; which would introduce a
wretched confusion there. But there is but one, distinct from the Word and
Spirit (1 John 5:7; Matthew 28:19). Besides, the Father of Christ is, in
many places, distinguished from the Spirit, and therefore cannot be the
same
(John 14:16, 17, 26, 15:26; Eph 1:17, 3:14, 16). To which may be added,
that
the Spirit is called the Spirit of the Son, (Gal. 4:6) whereas, if this
was
the case, rather the Son should be called the Son of the Spirit; which he
never is.
6b3d2. If the incarnation of Christ is the cause of his divine Son****p,
then
there was no God the Father of Christ under the Old Testament; this was
what
the Marcionites of old asserted; which put the ancient writers[25] on
proving, as they did, that it was the Father of Christ who made the world,
gave the law, spoke by the prophets, and edited the books of the Old
Testament; all which appears from Hebrews 1:1, 2. Besides, God existed as
the Father of Christ, before the foundation of the world; for so early as
such he blessed his people, and chose them in Christ (Eph 1:3, 4).
6b3d3. If Christ was the Son of God, with respect to his human nature
only,
the distinctive phrase "according to the flesh", when used in speaking of
him, would be quite impertinent; for it is never said of any mere man,
that
he is the son of such an one according to the flesh, but only, that he is
his son; but the phrase is very pertinently used to distinguish Christ,
the
Son of God, according to his divine nature, from his being the Son of
David,
and of the fathers, according to his human nature, (Rom. 1:4, 9:5).
6b3d4. The incarnation of Christ is not the reason of his being the Son of
God, but the manifestation of him as such; he was not made, but manifested
thereby to be the Son of God (1 John 1:12, 3:8). In the fulness of time
God
sent forth his Son--for what? not to be made a Son; he was so before he
sent
him; but that this Son might be made of a woman, or be made man; that the
Word might be made flesh, or become incarnate; and so God, the Son of God,
be manifest in the flesh (Gal. 4:4). For,
6b3d5. It is certain that Christ existed, as the Son of God, before his
incarnation; and is spoken of in the Old Testament as such; even
Nebuchadnezzar, an heathen prince, had a notion of the Son of God; which
he
might have from Daniel, and other Jews in his palace; for he had many in
his
dominions, from whom he might learn that there was a glorious Person, who
would appear in human nature, under the name of the Son of God; and seeing
four persons in the fiery furnace, when only three were cast into it, and
the form of the fourth remarkably glorious, he concluded him to be one
like
him, who had been described to him, (Dan. 3:25; Ezek. 21:10). Agur long
before knew that a divine Person existed, as the Son of God; for speaking
of
the Almighty, and incomprehensible Being, he asks, "What is his name, and
what is his Son's name, if thou canst tell?" suggesting that as the name,
that is, the nature of God is ineffable, he had a Son of the same nature
with himself, equally so (Prov. 30:4). Earlier than he, David speaks of
the
Son of God, begotten by him; whom he calls all the Kings and Judges of the
earth to pay divine homage and wor****p to; and pronounces them blessed
that
trust in him, (Ps. 2:7, 12) and speaks of him also as his firstborn, who
should call him his God and Father, (Ps. 89:26, 27) yea, Christ existed
as
a Son, not only before Solomon and David were, but before Melchizedek was,
for he is said to be made like unto the Son of God, (Heb. 7:3) yea, he
existed as such at the creation of the world; for God, by him his Son,
made
the worlds, (Heb. 1:2) before any creature was in being he was the Son of
God; and so the words may be rendered in Psalm 72:17. "Before the sun was,
his name was the Son", the Son of God.
6b3d6. If Christ is only the Son of God as he was man, and so called
because
made man, then he would be in no other class of Son****p than creatures be.
Adam being wonderfully made and created out of the dust of the earth, is
called the son of God, and all his posterity are the offspring of God,
(Luke
3:38; Acts 17:28). Angels are also the sons of God, by creation; but "to
which of the angels said he (God) at any time, Thou art my son, this day
have I begotten thee?" (Heb. 1:5) and if not to them, much less to any of
the sons of men; and therefore Christ's filiation must be in an higher
class
than theirs; and not to be ascribed to his incarnation; but must be placed
to another account.
6b3e. Another cause or reason assigned by the Socinians why Christ is
called
the Son of God, is his resurrection from the dead; which cannot be the
true
reason of it; because,
6b3e1. He was the Son of God before; as has been proved, and they
themselves
acknowledge; for if he was the Son of God, through his incarnation, as
they
say, though wrongly, then before his resurrection; and so not on that
account: the mission of Christ into this world, as the Son of God; the
testimony bore to his Son****p, at his baptism and transfiguration, by his
divine Father; the confession of men and angels, good and bad, already
observed; show him to be the Son of God before his resurrection, and so
not
by it.
6b3e2. If he was the Son of God on that account, he must beget himself,
and
be the author of his own Son****p, which is notoriously absurd; for he
raised
himself from the dead, as he predicted he would; and as he had power to
do,
as he declared, and did it (John 2:19, 10:18).
6b3e3. If so, his Son****p must be metaphorical and figurative, and not
proper; whereas, he is often called God's own Son, his proper Son, the Son
of himself; and God his own proper Father (Rom. 8:3, 32; John 5:18).
6b3e4. On this account, he cannot be called the only begotten Son of God;
for though he may, indeed, on account of his resurrection, be called, as
he
is, the firstborn from the dead, and the first begotten of the dead, and
the
firstfruits of them that sleep, (Col. 1:18; Rev. 1:5; 1 Cor. 15:20) yet
cannot be called the only begotten, since many of the saints rose with him
at his resurrection; and all men will be raised at the last day.
6b3e5. If the resurrection of the dead entitles to Son****p, then wicked
men
would be the sons of God; since there will be a resurrection of the unjust
as well as of the just; of some to shame and damnation, as well as of
others
to everlasting life, (Dan. 12:2; John 5:28, 29; Acts 24:15) yet these are
never called the sons of God; as not on any other, so not on this account;
indeed, the dead in Christ, who will rise first, are said to be the
"children of God being the children of the resurrection", (Luke 20:36) not
that they then become the children of God, and are so for that reason; for
they are so before; but being raised, and put into the possession of the
inheritance, they will be manifested, and declared the children of God,
"heirs of God, and joint heirs with Christ"; and so,
6b3e6. The resurrection of Christ from the dead, is only a manifestation
of
his Son****p; he was "declared to be the Son of God with power, by the
resurrection from the dead", (Rom. 1:4) and hence it is that the words in
Psalm 2:7. "Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee", are applied
to
the resurrection of Christ, (Acts 13:25) not that he was then begotten as
the Son of God, for he was so before, as has been proved; but he was then
manifested to be the only begotten Son of God; and which words are
applicable to any time when Christ was declared and manifested to be the
Son
of God.
6b3f. The last reason I shall take notice of, which the Socinians give of
the Son****p of Christ, is his office as Mediator; they say he is called
the
Son of God, because he was sanctified, or set apart to his office, as
such;
and was sent into the world to do it, and has executed it, and is now
exalted in heaven. And it is not to be wondered at, that they should
assert
Christ to be the Son of God by office, when it is a notorious sentiment of
theirs, that he is only God by office; for the sake of which they
endeavour
to sup****t this: the text which they build this notion on is John 10:36.
"Say one of him whom the Father hath sanctified and sent into the world,
thou blasphemest, because I said I am the Son of God?" That Christ is the
Son of God, may be concluded from his sanctification and mission; because
no
other was prophesied of, or promised to be sent, and no other expected to
come, but he who was the Son of God; but that his sanctification and
mission
are the reason of his being so called, cannot be from hence concluded;
because he was the Son of God before he was sent. Christ had, in the
preceding verses, asserted his equality with God, saying, that he and his
Father were one; upon this the Jews charged him with blasphemy; to
vindicate
himself from this charge, he first argues from his inferior character, as
being in office; that if magistrates, without blasphemy, might be called
gods, and children of the most High, much more might he be called the Son
of
God, who was in such an eminent manner sanctified, and sent into the world
by the Father; but then he let not the stress of the proof of his Deity
and
Son****p rest here; but proceeds to prove the same by his doing the same
works his Father did; to which he appeals. But that Christ is not the Son
of
God, by his office as Mediator, the following reasons may be given.
6b3f1. Because if Christ is the Son of God, not by nature, but by office,
then he is only the Son of God in an improper and metaphorical sense; as
magistrates are called the children of the most High, or sons of God,
being
in an office under him: whereas, Christ, in a true and proper sense, is
the
Son of God; he is the Son of the Father in truth, (2 John 5:3) most truly
and properly his Son; his own, his only begotten Son, the Son of himself,
(Rom. 8:3) his proper Son, (Rom. 8:32) therefore not so in an improper
sense.
6b3f2. Because the mediatorial office of Christ is so far from being the
ground of his Son****p, that it is his Son****p that is the ground of his
mediator****p; for antecedent to his investiture with his office, he must
be
considered as previously existing under some character or another, and
which
appears to be his relation to God as his Son. Thus in his inauguration
into,
and investiture with his kingly office, his Father, in the performance of
it, addressed him under this relative character; "unto the Son he saith,
Thy
throne, O God, is for ever and ever", (Heb. 1:8) and of his consecration
to
his priestly office we read, "The Lord maketh men high priests which have
infirmity: but the word of the oath which was since the law", (the eternal
council and covenant, made more clear and manifest since the law, Ps.
110:4)
"maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore"; that is, not makes the
Son a Son, but the Son a priest; (Heb. 7:28) so that he was the Son of God
before he was considered as a priest: and with respect to his prophetic
office, previous to his investiture with, entrance upon; and discharge of
that, he was the Son of God; and, indeed, his relation to God, and
nearness
to him, made him the only fit and proper Person for it; "No man hath seen
God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the
Father,
he hath declared him"; his nature, will, purposes, and promises; all which
he was privy to, as being the only begotten Son of the Father, and lying
in
his bosom, (John 1:18) so that previous to his office as Mediator, and
each
of the branches of it, he was the Son of God; and therefore not so by it:
when, I say, Christ, as the Son of God, must be considered previous to his
being the Mediator; though he is both from eternity; it must be
understood,
not of priority of time, of which there is none in eternity; but of
priority
of order; for Christ must be considered as existing as a divine Person,
under some character or relation, ere he can be considered as invested
with
an office; not in order of time, both being eternal; but in order of
nature;
even as the eternal God, must be considered as existing previous to any
act
of his; as of eternal election, not in priority of time, the eternal acts
of
God being as early as himself; but in priority of order, as one thing must
be conceived of and considered by our finite minds, before another.
6b3f3. Because he is frequently distinguished as a Son, from the
consideration of him in his mediatorial office; as in the eunuch's
confession of Faith; "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God",
(Acts
8:37) and in the ministry of the apostle Paul, who is said to preach
"Christ
in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God" (Acts 9:20). Now the phrase
"Jesus Christ" respects his office as the Saviour, the anointed Prophet,
Priest, and King; and if the other phrase, the Son of God, is a term of
office also, they coincide, and signify the same thing; and then the sense
of them only is, that Christ is the Christ, and the Mediator; the Mediator
confessed by the one, and preached by the other; which carry in them no
distinct ideas; whereas the meaning is, that the one believed, and the
other
preached, that Jesus, the Saviour and true Messiah, who had lately
appeared
with all the true characters of the promised one, was no less than a
divine
Person, the Son of God (see also 1 John 4:14, 15, 5:5).
6b3f4. Because Christ, as Mediator, is the Servant of God; and especially
so
he appears in the discharge of some parts of that his office; as in his
obedience and suffering death, see (Isa. 42:1, 49:3 53:11; Phil. 2:7, 8).
A
servant and a son are very different relations, and convey very different
ideas; our Lord observes the distinction, (John 8:35) and Christ, as a
Son,
is distinguished from Moses, as a servant, in the house of God, (Heb. 3:5,
6) whereas, if Christ was a Son by office, or as mediator, he would be no
other than a servant, as Moses was, only of an higher rank, and in a
greater
office; no one is ever called a son because he is a servant; one that is a
son may indeed be a servant, but is never called a son on that account; so
that this is to lessen the glory of Christ, as the only begotten of the
Father, and reduce him to the character and state of a servant.
6b3f5. Because the Son****p of Christ is sometimes spoken of as adding a
lustre to his office as Mediator; as when the apostle says, "Seeing then
that we have a great High Priest that is passed into the heavens, Jesus
the
Son of God, let us hold fast our profession", (Heb. 4:14) that which makes
this High Priest so great an one, and furnishes out so strong an argument
to
a constant profession of him, is his being the Son of God, not by office,
but by nature; for if this was only a term of office, it would not only
coincide with his being an high priest, but there would be no emphasis in
it, nor evidence of his greatness; nor such strength in the argument
formed
upon it. Likewise, the Son****p of Christ is represented as putting a
virtue
and efficacy into what he has done as Mediator, and therefore must be
distinct from his office as such; so particularly the apostle John
ascribes
the efficacy of his blood, in cleansing from sin, to his being the Son of
God; "And the blood of Jesus Christ his Son", (there lies the emphasis)
"cleanseth us from all sin" (1 John 1:7). Sometimes it is observed,
wonderful, that he who is the Son of God, should perform some parts of his
office as Mediator; as obedience and suffering death; "Though he was a
Son,
yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered", (Heb. 5:8) but
there would be nothing strange and wonderful, that, he, being the
Mediator,
should perform the part of one; but it lies here, that he, being the Son
of
God, in the form of God, and equal to him, should appear in the form of a
servant, and be obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
6b3f6. Because the Son****p of Christ is made use of to express and enhance
the love of God, in the gift of him to the sons of men, (John 3:16; 1 John
4:9) which would not be so strongly expressed, and so greatly enhanced,
and
appear in such a glaring light, if Christ, in such a gift, is considered
not
as a Son by nature, but as a Servant, and in an office capacity; God has
given what is more than men, or than people, for the life of his chosen;
to
do which would be love; but he has given his own Son; which is a far
greater
instance of love, (Isa. 43:4).
6b3f7. Lastly, If Christ is the Son of God, and may be called his begotten
Son, by virtue of his constitution as Mediator, it should be shown, that
there is something in that constitution which is analogous, or answers to
generation and Son****p, and lays a sufficient ground and foundation for
Christ being called God's own Son, his proper and only begotten Son; what
is
there in the first Person's appointing and constituting the second to be a
Mediator, that gives him the name of a Father? and what is that in the
constitution of the second Person in such an office, that gives him the
name
of the Son, of the only begotten Son?
Having removed the chief and principal of the false causes, and reasons of
Christ's Son****p, assigned by the Socinians; I shall proceed to establish
the true cause of it; and settle it on its true basis; by assigning it to
its proper and sole cause, his eternal generation by the Father; which I
shall attempt to do by various passages of scripture.
There are some passages of scripture, which have been made use of to prove
the eternal generation of the Son of God, I shall not insist upon,
particularly Isaiah. 53:8. "Who shall declare his generation?" which is to
be understood, neither of the human, nor of the divine generation of
Christ,
as it was by the ancient writers; not of his human generation; for that
the
prophet himself declared; as that he would be born, and be born of a
virgin,
(Isa. 7:14, 9:6, 7) nor of his divine generation, which is declared both
by
the Father and the Son; though, indeed, the manner of both generations is
inexplicable and ineffable, and cannot be declared by men: but the words
are
either to be understood of Christ's spiritual generation; the seed he
should
see, (Isa. 53:10) his spiritual seed and offspring; a generation to be
accounted of, but not to be counted by men, their number being not to be
declared: or, rather, of the wickedness of that age and generation in
which
Christ should appear in the flesh; called by him, a wicked, adulterous,
and
faithless generation; the wickedness then rife both in the Gentile and
Jewish world, was such as not to be declared; and particularly the
barbarity
and cruelty of the Jews, in putting Christ to death, and persecuting his
apostles, were such as no tongue and pen could fully declare.
I have not, in my Treatise on the Trinity, insisted on Micah 5:2 as a
proof
of the eternal generation of the Son of God; of whom it is there said,
"whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting"; though this
has been, and still is, insisted on by great and good men as a proof of
it:
but when he is said to go forth from the Father, it may seem, as it does
to
some, rather to intend his mission in time, or as coming into the world;
not
by change of place, but by assumption of nature, (John 16:28) besides, the
phrase is plural; "goings forth"; which seem to denote various acts;
whereas
that of begetting is a single act: to which may be added, that, that is an
act of the Father; these seem to be acts of the Son; and therefore may
seem
rather to be understood of his goings forth in the covenant, in acts of
grace and love towards his people, and delight in them; in approaching to
God in a covenant way, and asking them of his Father, and all blessings of
grace for them; in becoming their Surety, and engaging to be their Saviour
and Redeemer. However, these words are a full proof of the eternal
existence
of Christ; or otherwise these things could not be predicated of him and
his
existence so early, under the relation and character of the Son of God,
and
that previous to his goings forth in a mediatorial way; as before proved.
Yet, after all, I see not but that the divine generation of Christ may be
included in those goings forth; and be the first and principal, and the
foundation of the rest; since the contrast in the text is between the
Deity
and humanity of Christ; or, between his two births and son****ps, divine
and
human; and the phrase of going forth, suits very well with the modern
notion
of generation, before observed; and the word auy, is frequently used of
generation, (Gen. 46:26; Isa. 11:1, 48:1,19) and, indeed, in the very text
itself. But,
The text in Psalm 2:7 though some have parted with it, as a proof of this
point, I choose to retain; "The Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my Son;
this day have I begotten thee"; which are the words of the Messiah, the
Lord's anointed; against whom the kings of the earth set themselves, (Ps.
2:2) the King set and anointed over the holy hill of Zion, (Ps. 2:6) and
who
says in the beginning of this verse, "I will declare the decree"; which he
speaks either as King, signifying, that he would, as such, declare and
publish the laws, statutes, and judgments; so the word signifies; by which
his subjects should be ruled and governed: or as a Prophet, who would
declare the covenant, as the Targum, the covenant of grace, the things
contained in it; and none so fit as he, who is the messenger of it: or the
counsel and decree, as we render it, the scheme of man's redemption and
salvation by himself; or the gospel, called the whole counsel of God,
(Acts
20:27) for this respects not what follows, the son****p of Christ; though
that is the ground and foundation of the whole gospel scheme; but that
depends not on any decree, counsel!, or will of God, but is of nature; and
the mention of it is introduced, to show the greatness and excellency of
the
Person spoken of in the context; and so to aggravate the wickedness of his
enemies; since the King they opposed, is no other than the natural and
proper Son of God; and in like manner are these words quoted in Hebrews
1:5
to show the pre-eminence of Christ to the angels: and as for the date,
"this
day", it may well enough be thought to be expressive of eternity, since
one
day with the Lord is as a thousand years, and as eternity itself; and
which
is expressed by days of eternity in Micah 5:2 as the eternal God himself
is
called the Ancient of days, (Dan. 7:9) and, indeed, this passage is
applicable to any day or time in which Christ is declared and manifested
to
be the Son of God; as at his incarnation, (Heb. 1:6; John 3:8) and at his
baptism and transfiguration, (Matthew 3:17 17:5) as it is to the time of
his
resurrection; when he was declared to be the Son of God (Acts 13:33; Rom.
1:4). And agreeable to this sense of the words, as it respects his eternal
generation, and his being the natural and proper Son of God, he is after
treated as his heir, and bid to ask what he would for his inheritance,
(Rom.
1:8, 9) and, is represented as the object of religious wor****p and
adoration, and of trust and confidence, (Rom. 1:12) which belong to none
but
a divine person. So Justin Martyr[26] interprets this passage of the
manifestation of Christ's generation to men.
The text in Proverbs 8:22 though a glorious proof of Christ's eternal
existence, yet I formerly thought not so clear an one of his eternal
generation. But, upon a more close consideration of it, it appears to me a
very clear one; as the phrases in this, and some following verses, being
"possessed, brought forth", and "brought up", clearly show: much darkness
has been spread over it, by a wrong translation in the Greek version,
which
renders the words, "the Lord created me", &c. and which has led into more
errors than one. Arius from hence concluded, that Christ, as a divine
person, was created by his Father in some instant in eternity, and that he
was made by him, not of the same nature with him, but of a like nature to
him; and is his first and most excellent creature, and whom he made use of
in the creation of others: but if the Wisdom of God, the person here
speaking, was created by God, then God must be without his Logos, word,
and
wisdom, until he was created; whereas, he was always with him; and
besides,
he is the Creator, and not a creature; for all things were made by him
(John
1:1-3).
Some, of late, have put a new sense on these words, equally as absurd as
the
former, and interpret them, of the creation of the human soul of Christ in
eternity; which, they say, was then made and taken up into union with God.
But to this sense it must be objected,
6b1. That the human soul of Christ is not a person, nor is even the whole
human nature, which is called a thing, and not a person, (Luke 1:35) it
never subsisted of itself, but always in the Person of the Son of God; and
there are wise reasons in the economy and scheme of man's salvation, that
so
it should be; whereas wisdom here speaking is all along in the context
represented as a Person, "I Wisdom", (Prov. 8:12) & |
