OF THE PERSONAL
RELATIONS;
OR, RELATIVE
PROPERTIES WHICH DISTINGUISH
THE THREE
DIVINE PERSONS IN THE DEITY
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", #Tit 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, #1Pe 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", #Re 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", #Joh 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 2Th 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 supports 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 Joh 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, #Mt 3:17 #Mt 17:5 Ps 2:7 89:27 the Word, or Son of
God himself, #Joh 19:7 5:17,18 10:30 Mr 14:61,62 #Joh 8:13-18 and the Spirit, #Mt
3:16,17 it is testified and acknowledged by angels, the good angels, #Lu
1:31,35 Heb 1:6 evil angels, the devils, #Mt 8:29 Mr 3:11 #Lu 4:41 by men of all sorts; by good men, #Joh 1:6,7,33,34,49 #Mt 16:15,
16 Joh 6:67 11:27 Ac 8:37 by bad men, #Mt 27:54. So that he is on all hands
acknowledged and owned to be the Son of God. The Sonship of Christ is an
article of the greatest importance 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",
#Mt 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",
#Mt 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", #Ac 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, #Ac 9:20 #2Co 1:19 and, indeed, it
is the distinguishing criterion of the Christian religion, and what gives it
the preference to all others, and upon which all the important doctrines of it
depend; even upon the Sonship of Christ as a divine person; and as by
generation, even eternal generation.
Without this the doctrine of the Trinity can never be supported; 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 Sonship, 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, #Ga 4:4 #Ro 8:3,4 Heb
1:2,3 1Jo 1:7.
I cannot see there is any
reason to object to the use of the phrase "eternal generation", as
applied to the sonship 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", #Joh 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 #Pr 8:24,25
and there, in some ancient versions, rendered "begotten", as Nwma
"brought up", #Pr 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 #1Jo 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 corporal 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. #Joh 1:1 and this same Word is
expressly said to be "the only begotten of the Father", #Joh 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 sonship 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 sonship 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, #Ro
5:12 1Co 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 Sonship 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 sex,
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 circumstances, especially in the former
part of life;
as, for the care of him, provision for him,
assistance
and protection given him; circumstances 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 Sonship 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 sonship 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 worship; 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 #1Co 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 Sonship 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 Sonship
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
#Joh 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 Sonship 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 Sonship; 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
Sonship 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
6b3b.
Sometimes they ascribe the Sonship 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
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
Sonship 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
Sonship; and
this is founded on #Lu 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 #Isa 9:6 1Jo 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 #Isa 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 #Joh 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,
#1Jo 5:7 Mt 28:19. Besides, the Father of Christ is,
in many
places, distinguished from the Spirit, and therefore
cannot be the
same, #Joh 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, #Ga 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
Sonship, 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
#Heb
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, #Ro 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,
#1Jo 1:1 2
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,
#Ga 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, #Da 3:25
#Eze
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, #Pr 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 worship 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 #Ps 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 Sonship
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,
#Lu
3:38 Ac 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 Sonship, 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 Sonship, 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, #Joh 2:19 10:18.
6b3e3. If so,
his Sonship 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, #Ro
8:3,32 Joh 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 Re 1:5 1Co 15:20
yet cannot be
called the only begotten, since many of the
saints rose
with him at his resurrection; and all men will
6b3e5. If the
resurrection of the dead entitles to Sonship, 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, #Da
12:2 Joh 5:28,29 Ac 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", #Lu 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
6b3e6. The
resurrection of Christ from the dead, is only a
manifestation
of his Sonship; he was "declared to be the Son
of God with
power, by the resurrection from the dead",
#Ro
1:4 and hence it is that the words in #Ps 2:7. "Thou
art my Son,
this day have I begotten thee", are applied to the
resurrection
of Christ, #Ac 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 Sonship 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
support this:
the text which they build this notion on is
#Joh 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 Sonship 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, #2Jo 5:3 most
truly and
properly his Son; his own, his only begotten Son,
the
Son of himself, #Ro 8:3 his proper Son, #Ro 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 Sonship, that it is his Sonship that
is
the ground of his mediatorship; 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,
#Joh 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", #Ac 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", #Ac 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 #1Jo 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 Php 2:7,8. A servant and a son
are very
different relations, and convey very different
ideas; our
Lord observes the distinction, #Joh 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 Sonship 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
Sonship 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", #1Jo 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 Sonship of Christ is made use of to express
and enhance
the love of God, in the gift of him to the sons
of men, #Joh
3:16 1Jo 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 Sonship, 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 Sonship,
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 #Isa 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 #Mic 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, #Joh 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 sonships, 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, #Ge 46:26 Isa 11:1 #Isa
48:1,19 and, indeed, in the very text itself. But,
The text in #Ps 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, #Ac 20:27 for this respects not
what follows, the sonship 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 #Heb 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 #Mic 5:2 as the eternal God himself is called the
Ancient of days, #Da 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 Joh 3:8 and at his baptism and transfiguration,
#Mt 3:17 17:5 as it is to the time of his resurrection; when he was declared to
be the Son of God, #Ac 13:33 Ro 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, #Ro 1:8,9 and, is represented as the object of religious worship
and adoration, and of trust and confidence, #Ro 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 #Pr 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, #Joh 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, #Lu
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", #Pr 8:12
"the Lord
possessed
me", #Pr 8:22 "I was set up", #Pr 8:23, &c.
6b2. The
human soul of Christ is only a part of the human nature;
whereas
Christ has assumed a whole human nature, a true
body, and a reasonable soul; and both were necessary to
become a
sacrifice; as they have been, #Isa 53:10 Heb 10:10.
According to
this notion, Christ assumed the human nature by
parts, and
these as widely distant as eternity and time; one
part assumed
in eternity, another part in time; what a sad
mangle is this of our Lord's human nature! is this to be
made in all
things like unto his brethren? of the two, it
would be more
agreeable that the whole human nature was
assumed so
early; but was that the case, it would not be the
seed of the
woman, nor the seed of Abraham, nor the son of
David, nor the son of Mary; nor would Christ be a partaker
of
"our" flesh and blood; and it should be considered, whether
this would
have been of any avail to us.
6b3. But what
of all things is most absurd, this human soul is
said to be created in eternity, or before time; which is a
contradiction
in terms, time being nothing else but the
measure of a
creature's duration; as soon as a creature was,
time was;
time begins with that, let it be when it will; and
therefore
cannot be before time: suppose a creature to be
made millions of ages before the common date of time, the
creation of
the world, time must be reckoned from the
existence of
that creature; but what is worst of all, is the
fatal
consequence of this to divine revelation; for if there
was anything
created before time, or before the world was,
whether an angel or a man, or a part of man, the human
soul,
or the whole
human nature of Christ, our Bible must begin
with a
falsehood; and then who will believe what is said in
it
afterwards? which asserts, "In the beginning God created
the heaven
and the earth"; that is, in the beginning of
time, or when time first began. And this is so agreeable
to
reason, that
Plato {27} says, time and heaven were made
together; and
Timaeus Locrus {28}, God made the world with
time; and
Plato defines time thus {29}, Time is the motion
of the sun,
and the measure of motion; which was as soon as
a creature was made; the first things that God made were
the
heavens and
the earth; and therefore if anything was
created
before them, this must be an untruth. How careful
should men be
of venting their own whims and fancies, to the
discredit of
the Bible, and to the risk of the ruin of
divine Revelation. Should it be said, Were not the angels
created
before? I answer, No {30}: surely no man, thinking
soberly, will
assert it: how can it be thought, that the
angels of
heaven, as they are called, should be made before
there was a
heaven for them to be in? Should the text in
#Job 38:7 be produced in proof of it, let it be observed,
that it is
far from being clear that angels are there meant,
since they
are never elsewhere compared to stars, nor called
the sons of
God; rather good men are there meant, to whom
both epithets
agree; but be it understood of angels or men,
it is not to be connected with #Job 38:6 nor respects the
time of
laying the foundation and cornerstone of the earth;
but the
phrase in #Job 38:4 is to be repeated at the
beginning,
"Where wast thou when the morning stars sang
together?"
&c. and so refers to some time soon after the
creation of the heavens and the earth; and to a meeting,
whether of
angels or men, in which the praises of God, on
account of
his works, were celebrated, before Job had a
being. No,
neither angels nor men, nor any other creature,
were before
time; this is peculiar to Jehovah; this is a
claim he makes, and none else can put in for it;
"Before the
day was, I am
he", #Isa 43:13 that is, before there was a
day, before
time was, I existed, when none else did; none
existed in
and from eternity but Jehovah, Father, Son, and
Spirit; not
an angel nor an human soul: it is a notion of
Origen, condemned by Jerome {31} as heretical, that the
soul
of the
Saviour was, before he was born of Mary; and that
this is that
which, when he was in the form of God, he
thought no
robbery to be equal with God.
What has led men into this notion of the human nature of
Christ,
either in part, or in whole, being created before
time, or in eternity,
is another error, or mistake, as one
error
generally leads to another; and that is, that Christ
could not
take upon him, nor execute the office of Mediator,
without it; whereas, it is most certain, that a divine
Person can
take upon him an office, and execute it, without
assuming an
interior nature; as the Holy Spirit of God has;
he, in the
covenant of grace, took upon him the office of
applying the
grace and blessings of the covenant, the things
of Christ in it, to the covenant ones; in doing which he
performs the
part of a comforter to them, and a glorifier of
Christ; and
yet never assumed any inferior nature; and this
without any
degradation of his person: and it is easy to
observe,
among men, that when two powers are at variance,
one, even superior to them both, will interpose as a
mediator,
without at all lessening his dignity and
character.
Christ, as a divine Person, could and did take
upon him the
office of Mediator, without assuming human
nature; it
was sufficient for his constitution as such, that
he agreed to assume it in time, when it was necessary; and
there are
various parts of his mediatorial office, which he
could and did
execute in eternity without it; he could and
did draw nigh
to his divine Father, and treat with him about
terms of
peace and reconciliation for men; he could and did
covenant with him on the behalf of his elect; which to do,
no more
required an human nature in him, than in the Father;
he could and
did become a Surety for them in the covenant,
and receive
promises and blessings for them; and agreed to
do all for
them that law and justice could require: and to
make such terms, agreements, promises, &c. of what use
and
avail would
an human soul, or the whole human nature, have
been unto
him? There are other parts of his office, indeed,
which
required the actual assumption of the human nature;
and when it
was proper for him to perform them, then, and
not before, was it necessary for him to assume it; such as
obedience to
the law, shedding of blood, and suffering death
to make
peace, reconciliation, and atonement for his people.
Wherefore, if
this translation of #Pr 8:22. "He created
me", is to be retained, it is better to interpret it
of the
constitution
of Christ in his office, as Mediator, as the
word
"create" is used in common language, of making a king,
peer, judge,
or one in any office: but this is rather meant
in the
following verse, "I was set up, or anointed",
invested with the office of Mediator; anointing being used
at the
investiture of kings, priests, and prophets, with
their office,
is put for the act of investiture itself; for
Wisdom, or
Christ, proceeds in this account of himself, in a
very regular
and orderly manner; he first gives an account
of his eternal existence, as the Son of God, by divine
generation;
and then of constitution, as Mediator, in his
office
capacity; this latter is expressed by his being "set
up", and
the former by his being "possessed" or "begotten";
so the same
Greek version renders this word in #Zec 13:5
and it may be rendered here, "the Lord begat
me", and so
possessed him
as his own Son, laid a claim to him, and
enjoyed him
as such; for this possession is not in right of
creation, in
such sense as he is the possessor of heaven
and earth,
#Ge 14:19,22 but in right of paternity, in
which sense the word is used, #De 32:6 as a father lays
claim to,
possesses and enjoys his own son, being begotten
by him, or
signifies possession by generation, #Ge 4:1
the following
phrase, "in the beginning of his way", should
be rendered
without the preposition in, which is not in the
text; for Wisdom, or Christ, is not in this clause,
expressing
the date of his being begotten, but describing
him himself,
who is the begotten of the Father; as "the
beginning of
his way", of his way of grace; with whom God
first begun,
taking no one step without him, nor out of him;
his purposes of grace being in him, the scheme of
reconciliation
formed in him, the covenant of grace made
with him, and
all grace given to the elect in him; in whom
they were
chosen: and all this "before his works of old",
the works of
creation; of which Christ is the beginning; the
first and co-efficient cause, #Re 3:14 and this sense of
the words, as
understood of the begetting of Christ, is
confirmed by
some other phrases after used, as of being
"brought
forth", #Pr 8:24 as conceived, as the Vulgate
Latin
version; or begotten, as the Targum and Syriac
version; so the Greek version, of #Pr 8:25 is, he
"begat"
me; and the word is used of generation in
#Job 15:7 Ps
51:5 and is repeated, #Pr 8:25 partly to
excite
attention to it, as being of great moment and
importance,
and partly to observe the certainty of it; the
eternal generation of Christ being an article of faith,
most
surely to be
believed: Wisdom further says of himself; "Then
was I by him,
as one brought up with him", #Pr 8:30
being
begotten by him, and being brought forth, he was
brought up
with his Father; which expresses the most tender
regard to him, and the utmost delight in him. The word
Nwma may be
rendered, carried in his bosom {32}, as a
son by a
nursing father, #Nu 11:12 Joh 1:18.
To these
proofs might be added, all those scriptures
which speak of Christ as the begotten, the only begotten
of
the Father;
which have been referred to, #Joh 1:14,18 3:16
#1Jo 4:9
which cannot be understood of him as a man, for as
such he was
not begotten, and so was without father, the
antitype of
Melchizedek; and whose generation must be
understood not of his nature; for his nature is the same
with the
nature of the Father and Spirit, and therefore if
his was
begotten, theirs would be also; but of his person;
as in
natural, so in divine generation, person begets
person, and
not essence begets essence; and this begetting
is not out of, but "in" the divine essence; it
being an
immanent and
internal act in God; and in our conception of
it, as has
been already observed, we are to remove every
thing impure
and imperfect, division and multiplication,
priority and
posteriority, dependence, and the like; and as
for the modus, or manner of it, we must be content to be
ignorant of
it, as we are of our own generation, natural and
spiritual; and
of the incarnation of Christ, and of the
union of the
human nature to his divine Person. If we must
believe
nothing but what we can comprehend, or account for
the manner, or "how" it is, we must be obliged
to disbelieve
some of the
perfections of God; as eternity, immensity, and
omniscience,
&c. yea, that there is a God, or that there are
three
distinct Persons in the Godhead; which, however,
clearly
revealed in scripture "that" they are, yet the
manner, or "how" they are, how they subsist
distinctly as
three
Persons, and yet but one God, is incomprehensible and
inexplicable
by us: and at this rate, there are many things
in nature,
and in philosophy {33}, which must be given up,
which yet are
certain; since the manner how they be, cannot
be explained; it is enough, that it is plain they are,
though
"how" cannot be said; as the union of our souls and
bodies; and
the influence that matter and spirit have on
each other;
and in the present case, it is enough that
Christ is
revealed as begotten of the Father; though the
manner how he is begotten, cannot be explained: Athanasius
{34}
expresses the thing well;
``"How" the Father
begat the Son, I do not curiously inquire; and "how" he sent forth
the Spirit, I do not likewise curiously inquire; but I believe that both the
Son is begotten, and the holy Spirit proceeds, in a manner
unspeakable and impassable.''
And says {35} Gregory
Nazianzen,
``Let the generation of God be
honoured in silence; it is a great thing, (abundantly so)
for thee to learn or know, that he is begotten; but "how" he is
begotten, is not granted to thee to understand, nor, indeed, to the angels.''
``It is enough for me, says
the same ancient divine {36}, that I hear of the Son; and that he is
"of" the Father; and that the one is a Father, and the other a Son:
and nothing besides this do I curiously inquire after. Do
you hear of the generation of the Son? do not curiously inquire the to pwv, the
"how" it is: Do you hear that the Spirit proceeds from the Father? do
not curiously inquire the to opwv, the "manner" how he does {37}; for
if you curiously inquire into the generation of the Son, and the procession of
the Spirit; I also, in my turn, will curiously inquire of thee,
the temperament of soul and body; how thou art dust, and yet the image of God;
what it is that moves thee, or what is moved; how it is the same that moves,
and is moved; how the sense abides in one, and attracts that which is without;
how the mind abides in thee, and begets a word in another mind; and how it
imparts understanding by the word: and, not to speak of greater things, what
the circumference of the heavens, what the motion of the
stars, or their order, or measure, or conjunction, or distance; what the
borders of the sea; from whence the winds blow; or the revolutions of the
seasons of the year, and the effusions of showers? If thou knowest not any of
these things, O man--of which sense is a witness, how canst thou think to know
God accurately, "how" and "what" he is? this
is very unreasonable.''
Nor should
the phrase, "eternal generation", be objected to,
because not
syllabilically expressed in scripture; it is
enough that
the thing is which is meant by it: nor are the
words, a "Trinity of Persons", or three distinct
Persons in
one God; nor
the word "satisfaction", expressive of a
doctrine on
which our salvation depends. It is most certain,
that Christ
is the Son of God; and it is as certain, that he
is the
"begotten" Son of God; and if begotten, then the word
generation may be used of him, for what is begotten is
generated;
and since he is God's own Son, or his proper Son,
he must be so
by proper generation, and not by improper, or
figurative
generation, which must be the case if a Son by
office; and
if he is the Son of God by proper generation, he
must be so either as man, or as a divine Person; not as
man,
for as such
he was not begotten at all; but was made of a
woman, and
born of a virgin: it remains, that he must be so
considered,
as a divine Person; and since it was from
everlasting,
before the earth was, or any creature had a
being, that he was begotten, and brought forth, and as
early
brought up,
as a Son with his Father; with the utmost safety
and propriety
may eternal generation be attributed to him;
and, indeed,
in no other sense can he be the Son of God.
To close all; this phrase, "the Son of God",
intends what
is essential
and natural to him; and suggests to us, that he
is the true
and natural Son of God; not a Son in an improper
and figurative
sense, or not by office, but by nature; that,
as such, he
is a divine Person, God, the true God, #Heb 1:8
#1Jo 5:20 that he is equal with God, as the Jews
understood
him; in which
they were not mistaken, since our Lord never
went about to
correct them, which he would have done had
they
misunderstood him, #Joh 5:17,18 10:30 and it is to be
observed,
that he has been concluded to be the Son of God
from his divine perfections and works; from his
omniscience,
#Joh 1:48,49
from his omnipotence, #Mt 14:33 and from
the
marvellous things that happened at his crucifixion,
#Mt 27:54. In
short, as the phrase, "the Son of man",
denotes one
that is truly man; so the phrase, "the Son of God",
must intend one that is truly God, a divine Person; and as
Christ is
called the Son of man, from the nature in which he is
man; so he is
called the Son of God, from the nature in
which he is
God. I have been the longer upon the Sonship of
Christ,
because it is that upon which the distinction in the
Godhead depends; take that away, and it cannot be proved
there is any
distinction of persons in it. I proceed,
6c. Thirdly, To consider the
third Person, and his personal relation; or distinctive relative property;
which is, to be "breathed", or to be the "breath" of God;
which is never said of the Father and Son; and which, with
propriety, gives him the name of "Spirit", or "Breath", as
he is called, #Eze 37:9. I shall treat of this very briefly, since the
scriptures speak sparingly of it. It should be observed, that though he is most
frequently called, the Holy Spirit, yet it is not his being of an holy nature,
and of a spiritual substance, which distinguishes him from the Father and the
Son; for since they are of the same nature, which is
perfectly pure and holy, they must be equally holy, as he is: and since God,
essentially considered, is a Spirit or spiritual, such is God, personally
considered; or such is each person in the Godhead. Nor does he take his name of
Spirit, or Breath, from any actions of his, on, in, or with respect to
creatures; as in breathing into Adam the breath of life, #Ge 2:7 or in
breathing the breath of spiritual life, in the
regeneration and conversion of men, #Eze 37:9 Joh 3:8 nor from his inspiration
of the scriptures, #2Ti 3:16 2Pe 1:21 nor from the disciples receiving the Holy
Ghost through Christ's breathing upon them, #Joh 20:22. Though all these are
symbolical of, analogous to, and serve to illustrate his original character,
and personal relation and distinction, which denominates him the
breath of the Almighty, #Job 33:4 and distinguishes him from Jehovah the
Father, the breath of whose mouth he is called, #Ps 33:6 and from Christ the
Son of God, the breath of whose mouth he is also said to be, #2Th 2:8 and the
Spirit, or breath, of the Son, #Ga 4:6 and as Jehovah the Father was never
without his Word, the Son, so neither the Father, nor the Word, were ever
without their Breath, or Spirit: let none be offended,
that the third Person is called Spirit, or Breath, since this suggests not, a
mere power, or quality, but designs a Person; so an human person is called, #La
4:20 and here a divine Person; to whom personal acts, and these divine, are
ascribed; such as the establishing of the heavens, the making of man, the
editing of the scriptures, and filling the apostles with extraordinary gifts, #Ps 33:6 Job 33:4 2Pe 1:21 Joh 20:22 whose distinct
personality, and proper Deity, together with the personality and Deity of the
Father and Son, will be more particularly considered in the next chapters. I
take no notice of the procession of the Spirit from Father and Son, which,
though it illustrates his distinction from them, yet rather seems to be
understood of his coming forth from them, not with respect to his
Person, but his office, in a way of mission by them, to be the Convincer and
Comforter of men, and the Applier of all grace unto them; see #Joh 15:26
16:7,8.
{1} Justin. Expos. Fid. p. 373.
{2} Vitring. Epilog. Disput, contr. Roel. p. 3, 4.
{3} Roel. Dissert. 1. s. 39. p. 40.
{4} Rideley's Body of Divinity, vol. 1. p. 121.
{5} Ibid. p. 127.
{6} Zeph. ii. 2. qx tdl Mrjb "antequam nascatur decretum",
Schindler. Lexic. col. 759. "antequam edetur edictum", Castalio: that
is, before the decree conceived or begotten in the mind of
God from eternity, is born or brought forth into open execution.
{7} Quod Regn. Polon. c. 4. s. 2. p. 698. Opera, vol. 1.
{8} Vid. Zanchium de Natura Dei, c. 7. p. 145.
{9} In Theaeteto, p. 138. Ed. Ficin.
{11} Apud Polan. Syntagm.
Theolog. l. 3. c. 4. p. 202.
{12} Quis Rer. Divin. Haeres.
p. 509. de Agricult. p. 195. de Confus. Ling. p. 341.
{13} Polanus ut supra, p. 204.
{14} Adv. Praxeam, c. 18. 22.
{15}
Socrat. Hist. l. 1. c. 5.
{16} Ib. l. 2. c. 35.
{17} Justin. Qu. et Respons.
qu. 16. p. 400.
{18} Whiston's New Theory of
the Earth, l. 4. c. 1. p. 299, 300.
{19} Wolaston's Religion of
Nature delineated, s. 5. p. 160, 164. Ed. 8.
{20}
Philosophical Transact. abridged, vol. 2. p. 912. Nieuwentyt's Religious
Philosopher, contempl. 23. s. 13. p. 711. Ed. 5. see vol. 3. contempl. 27. s.
9. p. 1019.
{21} Whiston. ut supra.
{22} See a further use made of
this philosophy in the articles of Original Sin, book 3. chap. 10. 921, and of
the lncarnation of Christ, part 2. book 2. chap. 1. 950.
{23}
Socinism, Profligat. art. 2. controv. 6. p. 201.
{24} Vitringa in loc.
{25} See Dr. Owen on the
Trinity, p. 27.
{26} Dialog. cum Trypho. p.
316.
{27} In Timaeo, p. 1052.
{28} De
Anima Mundi, p. 10. Ed. Gale.
{29} Definitiones, p. 1337.
{30} Vid. Theodoret. in Gen.
Qu. 3.
{31} Apol. Adv. Ruffin. fol.
73. A. tom. 2.
{32} Noldius, No 1884. Coccei
Lexic. col. 43.
{33} A
philosopher--------must not think he has a right to deny the action of powers,
because he cannot comprehend the "manner" after which things thus
happen; forasmuch as according to such notions, we might reject many things
likewise, which experience proves really to come to pass; who can conceive the
"how" of what has been shown to happen about percussion, or about the
operations of light? (in contempl. 24.) How many effects
are there in "chemistry", as likewise in "hydrostatics", of
which we have not yet been able to comprehend the manner how they come to pass?
no more than what has been said in contempl. 23. about the bodies and roots of
plants, which perhaps would be as hardly admitted----if nothing must be
believed to be true, but that of which we can understand the how and the manner. Nieuwentyt's Religious Philosopher, vol. 3. contempl.
26. s. 5. p. 897.
{34} De S. Trinitate. Dialog.
1. p. 154.
{35} Orat. 35. p. 567.
{36} Orat. 29. p. 492, 493.
{37} Like advice is given by
Cyril of Jerusalem, "that God has a Son believe, to de pwv,
"but how", or in what manner, do not curiously inquire, for seeking
you will not find it. "Cateches. xi. s. 7. p. 144.