above our conception) may be brought down by _metaphors_, taken from
some things, that are _analagous_ in creatures; in which sense we may
allow _Father_ and _Son_ to be _metaphorical_ names, when applied to
God: not that God the Father is not, in the highest and most perfect
sense, a Father, and his Son a most proper, natural, and genuine Son;
but because the _divine generation_ is so perfect a communication of
the divine nature and being from Father to Son, that _human
generations_ are but obscure and imperfect _images_ and resemblances
of it. The truth is, when any thing is spoken _metaphorically_ of God,
the metaphor and image are always in the _creatures_; the truth,
perfection, and reality of all, in _God_: and if so, then if God be a
Father, and have a Son, an only-begotten Son, begotten eternally of
himself; though this eternal generation be infinitely above what we
can imagine or conceive, yet it is evident, that God the Father is
more _properly_ and _perfectly_ a Father, and God the Son more
properly and perfectly a Son, than any earthly fathers or sons ever
were. And if God the Father and his Son be truly and perfectly Father
and Son, they must be truly and perfectly _distinct_ beings; for the
Father cannot be the Son whom he _begets_; nor the Son the Father that
_begat_ him; nor the Holy Ghost either the Father or the Son, from
whom he _proceeds_: consequently, they must be distinct, and real, and
proper _persons_; for he that _begets_, and he that is _begotten_, and
he that _proceeds_ from both, cannot be one and the same person.
“And as this _difference_ of _relations_ makes a manifest distinction
between the three persons; so the different _offices_ and
_employments_, that are ascribed to them in scripture, is a farther
_note_ of discrimination. For who sees not, that the work of
_creation_ of all things at first, and ever since the just, and wise,
and merciful _disposal_ of them, are attributed to the _Father_; that
the great undertaking of our _redemption_ is the care and employment
of the _Son_; and the business of _enlightening_ and _sanctifying_
those, whom the Son redeemeth, the particular province of the _Holy
Ghost_? Without supposing them to be three distinct persons, I say, no
satisfactory solution can be given, why, in the great work of man’s
salvation, a distinct office and operation should be proper to each of
them; why the Father only should be said to _elect_; the Son only to
_have shed and sprinkled his blood_; and the Holy Ghost only to
_sanctify_ us unto obedience. So far then as a diversity of names,
offices, and operations, distinguishes one being from another, there
is plainly a distinction of persons subsisting in the Godhead. But
this is not all. Those, who pretend to state[95] the true notion of a
_person_ as a term made use of in this argument, tell us, that it is
_a being, which has understanding, and is a distinct, entire substance
of itself; an individual substance of a rationed nature, or a complete
intelligent substance, with a peculiar manner of subsistence_: so that
there is a _common_ nature, which must be joined by a _peculiar_
manner of subsisting, to make a person, otherwise it would be a mere
_mode_; for _we never conceive a person without the essence in
conjunction with it_. And this notion may haply be of use, not only to
_state_ the true _distinction_ of the Persons in the Godhead, but to
account likewise for some _dubious_ passages in the fathers, and
reconcile the different parties that contend about them: only we must
take care (as I said before) that, when we discourse of the sacred
_Trinity_, the word _person_ be not conceived in the same sense as
among men. The _persons_ of men are _distinct_ men, as well as
distinct persons; but this is no ground for us to affirm, that the
_persons_ in the divine nature are distinct _Gods_. The distinction of
the persons of men is founded in a _separate_ and divided subsistence;
but this cannot be the foundation of the _distinction_ of the _divine_
persons, because _separation_ and _division_ cannot belong to an
_infinite_ Being. In a word, three human _persons_ are three _men_,
because, though they have the same _specific_ nature, yet they have
not the same _numerical_ nature: but the three Persons in the Godhead
are not three _Gods_, because they have the same _numerical_ essence,
which belongs in common to them all: and since it is confessed on all
hands, that _nature_ and _subsistence_ go to the making up of a
_person_, why may not the way of their subsistence be as different as
the _human_ and _Divine_ natures (one _finite_, and the other
_infinite_) are confessed to be? Though therefore in things _created_
it is necessary for one single essence to subsist in one single
person, and no more; yet this does not at all prove that the same must
be necessary in _him_, whose _nature_ is wholly different from
_theirs_, and, consequently, may differ as much in the _manner_ of his
subsistence. For ’tis a thing agreeable even to the notions of bare
reason to imagine, that the _divine_ nature has a way of subsisting
very _different_ from the subsistence of any _created_ being, and
consequently, may have one and the same nature diffused into three
distinct persons: but _how_, and in what manner _this_ is effected;
how one substance in the Deity is communicated to more, and becomes
theirs; how of one and the same _essence_, there can be three persons
_numerically_ different; this is the _difficulty_, and what made the
holy father (writing upon the argument) confess, ‘That the _mystery_
of the Trinity is _immense_ and incomprehensible, beyond the
expression of words, or reach of sense; that it blinds our sight, and
exceeds the capacity of our understanding: I understand it not, says
he; nevertheless I will comfort myself in this, that angels are
ignorant of it, nor do ages apprehend it; that neither the apostles
enquired after it, nor the Son himself has thought fit to declare it.’
“The only valid objection (and to which all others are reducible)
against these _personalities_, so often occurring in scripture, is
taken from the _simplicity_ of the divine nature, which, in the
opinion of some, will not admit of any _distinction_. But though the
simplicity of God excludes all _mixture_, _i. e._ all composition of
things _heterogeneous_ in the Godhead, (there being nothing in God but
what is God) yet, notwithstanding this, there may be a distinction of
_hypostases_ in the Godhead, provided they are _homogeneous_, and of
the same nature. Nay, the simplicity of the divine nature, if rightly
considered, is so far from excluding, that it necessarily infers a
distinction of _hypostases_ in the Godhead: for, since the simplicity
of the Godhead consists chiefly in this, that God is a pure eternal
Mind, free from the mixture of all kind of matter whatever; an eternal
Mind must needs have in it, from all eternity, _a notion or conception
of itself_, which the schools call _verbum mentis_; nor can it, at any
time, be conceived without it. Now this _word_ cannot be in God, what
it is in us, a _transient vanishing_ accident; for then the divine
nature would be compounded of _substance_ and _accident_, which would
be repugnant to its _simplicity_; and therefore must be a _substantial
subsisting word_, and though not divided, yet distinct from the
eternal Mind, from whence it proceeds. This is no _novel subtlety_ of
the _schools_, but a notion, that[96] runs through all the Fathers of
the first ages, and is not destitute of a sufficient foundation in
scripture. It proves indeed only two Persons in the Godhead, not a
_Trinity_; but then it proves, that a _distinction_ of persons in the
Godhead is very consistent with its _simplicity_; nay, that from the
true nature of the simplicity of the Godhead, such a distinction
necessarily follows; and if there is a distinction of _two_, there may
be of _three_; and that there is of _three_, the full evidence of
scripture (as I have already shewn) abundantly assures us.”
STACKHOUSE.
Footnote 94:
To confirm this we may add, that, if the difference of copies happened
by the negligence of transcribers, such a mistake is much more easily
made by _omitting_ a clause, than by _inserting one_, especially when
the same words occur twice very near together, which is the present
case: and that, without this clause, the next verse is maimed, and
hardly good sense, the words, _in earth_, standing disjointed by
themselves; whereas the words, _in heaven_, (as we now read them) make
a clear, strong, and elegant antithesis: and for these reasons, those
copies, in which this passage is found, are more likely to be true,
than those in which it is wanting.—_Trapp’s Doctrine of the Trinity._
Footnote 95:
A late learned author has given us this definition of a _single
person_, “That it is an intelligent agent, having the distinctive
characters of _I_, _thou_, and _he_, and not divided or distinguished
into more intelligent agents, capable of the same characters.”
[_Waterland’s_ second Defence,] and thereupon he thus argues in
another place, “Our ideas of person are plainly taken from our
conceptions of human persons, and from them transferred to other
subjects, though they do not strictly answer in every circumstance.
Properly speaking, _he_ and _him_, are no more applicable to a divine
person, than _she_ or _her_;” but we have no third way of denoting a
person, and so, of the two, we choose the best, and custom
familiarizes it.—_His Sermons at Lady Moyer’s Lectures._
Footnote 96:
It has, with good reason, been supposed by the _Catholick_ writers,
that the design of the word Λογος was to intimate, that the relation
of Father and Son hears some resemblance and analogy to that of
_thought_, _viz._ that as thought is _co-eval_ with the mind, so the
Son is co-eval with the Father; and that as thought is closely united
to, proceeds from, and yet remains in the mind, so also may we
understand that the Son is in the bosom of the Father, proceeding from
him, and yet never divided or separate, but remaining in him and with
him.—_Waterland’s Sermons at Lady Moyer’s Lectures._
Footnote 97:
_Some, who take delight in darkening this matter, by pretending to
explain it, call the former a_ το νυν, stans; _the latter_, fluens.
Footnote 98:
“In the Saviour’s exalted relation to his Father, the name Son of God
comes chiefly under observation. It is known that in the sacred word,
rational creatures are often dignified with the honorary title of Sons
or Children of God; and that in various respects, and for obvious
reasons. But certainly that name in Christ signifies something higher.
John x. 35-38. He is not only _a_ Son of God, but _the_ Son, by way of
eminence above all ο υιος: So that he is by this, as a peculiar and
proper denomination, distinguished from other subjects. We know, that
the Son of God is come. 1 John v. 20. John viii. 36.—He is God’s
only-begotten Son. John i. 14, 18. iii. 16. God’s own Son. Rom. viii.
32. ‘To which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this
day have I begotten thee?’ Heb. i. 5. When Christ spoke to his
disciples concerning the Father, he never said, _our Father_, (as he
had taught them to pray;) but always with an express distinction _my
Father_. Luke ii. 48, 49. John ii. 16. chiefly John xx. 17.——From the
prophetic doctrine, that name was known in Israel, as in its full
force applicable to the Messias; which can be clearly evinced from
various passages. Mat. xvi. 15, 16. xxvi. 63. Mark iii. 11. John vi.
69. xi. 27. x. 36. Amidst all the confusion of their apprehensions,
they found so much emphasis in it, that the acknowledgment of it was
among them a ground of _adoration_, Mat. xiv. 33. John ix. 35-38.; so
that when Jesus, with the distinction and appropriation of the divine
works, called God _his Father_, they thence concluded, which the
Saviour did not contradict, that he held God for his own Father, and
thus made himself equal to God. John v. 18. x. 33-36. Indeed, however
intimate the connexion is betwixt being the Messias, the Christ, and
being the Son of God, this last signifies still something different,
something more original. For Paul preached Christ, that he was the Son
of God[99]. In the love of the truth, let us observe the divine
testimony, he did not become the Son of God by or after his coming in
the flesh, by or after the execution of his ministry; but herein is
God’s great mercy celebrated, that ‘he sent him who was his Son, made
him under the law, and delivered him up for us all.’ This is evident,
from a variety of passages. Gal. iv. 4. Rom. viii. 32. Heb. v. 8. 1
John iv. 9, 10. It is plainly supposed in the parable, the lord of the
vineyard sent to the husbandmen many servants, some of whom they beat,
and others they slew. Having therefore yet one son who was dear to
him, he sent him last of all to them, saying, ‘they will surely
reverence my son.’ Mark xii. 6.——In his supreme excellence, as the Son
of God, lies the reason of punishing unbelief. As the Son of God, ‘he
is the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person.’
Heb. i. 3. On the self-same account, he is, according to the language
of men, his heir, that is, has a natural right to all the works of
God, especially to his church; which are also made by him, in
communion with the Father. See this described in a lofty strain by the
apostle, Heb. i. 1-3. iii. 3-6. Col. i. 15-17. and also by Jesus
himself. Mark xii. 6, 7.——Though, therefore, a further theological
illustration of Christ’s divine sonship should best be preceded by the
proof of his true Deity, yet in the meantime, the name Son of God, as
ascribed to him, points us not only to his distinguished elevation
above all creatures, which Arius acknowledged, but also to his unity
of nature with the Father,[100] and to the ground of his existence in
the eternal and necessary existence of the Father.”
WYNPERSSE.
Footnote 99:
Acts ix. 20.; see also chap. viii. 37. In both these places, however,
there is a different reading in the Greek. But compare Jesus’ first
accusation before Pilate, that he said he was the Christ. (Luke xxiii.
2.) with a new and a later, that he made himself the Son of God. (John
xix. 7.
Footnote 100:
_Unity of nature with the Father._ In the original it is equality of
his nature. But apprehending that, by an error of the press, gelykheid
is put for eenigheyd, I have adventured to translate the passage as
above; and that in the fullest consistency with the design of the
worthy author, in the whole of this treatise, and with his express
words in the close of the second paragraph of this very section, where
he says, “we dare not esteem Christ less than ὁμοουσιος, that is, of
the _same nature_ or essence with God.”
Footnote 101:
“The meaning of the terms, _Son of God_, _only-begotten Son of God_,
must needs be of importance, inasmuch as the belief of the idea
signified by them was made a leading article in the primitive
professions of faith. John vi. 69. iii. 18. xx. 31. Acts xviii. 37. 1
John iv. 15. Whatever disputes have arisen of late among christians,
there seems to have been none on this subject in the times of the
apostles. Both Jews and Christians appear to have agreed in this: the
only question that divided them was, whether Christ was the Son of
God, or not? If there had been any ambiguity in the term, it would
have been very unfit to express the first article of the christian
faith.
“It has been frequently suggested, that the ground of Christ’s sonship
is given us in Luke i. 35, and is no other than his miraculous
conception: _The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the
Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which
shall be born of thee, shall be called the Son of God_.
“It is true that our Lord was miraculously conceived of the Holy
Spirit, and that such a conception was peculiar to him; but it does
not follow that by this he became the _Son_, or _only-begotten Son of
God_. Nor does the passage in question prove any such thing. It has
been thought that the phrase _Son of God_, in this place, is used in a
peculiar sense, or that it respects the origin of Christ’s human
nature, as not being by ordinary generation of man, but by the
extraordinary influence of God; and that he is here called the Son of
God in the same sense as Adam is so called, (Luke iii. 38.) as being
produced by his immediate power. If this be the meaning of the term in
the passage in question, I should think it will be allowed to be
peculiar, and therefore that no general conclusion can be drawn from
it, as to the meaning of the term in other passages. But granting that
the sonship of Christ, in this place, is to be understood in the same
sense as it is commonly to be taken in the new testament, still it
does not follow that the miraculous conception is the origin of it. It
may be a reason given why Christ is _called_ the Son of God; but not
why he _is_ so. Christ is called the Son of God as raised from the
dead, and as exalted at the right hand of God. Acts xiii. 33. Heb. i.
4, 5. Did he then become the Son of God by these events? This is
impossible; for sonship is not a progressive matter. If it arose from
his miraculous conception, it could not for that reason arise from his
resurrection, or exaltation: and so on the other hand, if it arose
from his resurrection, or exaltation, it could not proceed from his
miraculous conception. But if each be understood of his being hereby
_proved_, _acknowledged_, or, as the scriptures express it, _declared_
to be the Son of God with power, all is easy and consistent.
“Whether the terms, _Son of God_, and _only-begotten Son of God_, be
not expressive of his divine personality, antecedent to all
consideration of his being conceived of the holy Spirit, in the womb
of the Virgin, let the following things determine.
“_First_: The glory of the _only-begotten of the Father_, and the
glory of the _Word_, are used as convertible terms, as being the same:
but the latter is allowed to denote the divine person of Christ,
antecedent to his being made flesh; the same therefore must be true of
the former. _The Word was made flesh, and we beheld his glory_; that
is, the glory of the Word, _the glory as of the only-begotten of the
Father, full of grace and truth_. John i. 14. It is true, it was by
the Word being _made flesh, and dwelling amongst us_, that his glory
became _apparent_; but the glory itself was that of the eternal Word,
and this is the same as _the glory of the only-begotten of the
Father_.
“_Secondly_: The Son of God is said to _dwell in the bosom of the
Father_; that is, he is intimately acquainted with his character and
designs, and therefore fit to be employed in making them known to men.
_The only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath
declared him._ John i. 18. If this be applied to his divine person, or
_that eternal life which was with the Father, and was manifested to
us_, 1 John i. 2. it is natural and proper; it assigns his omniscience
as qualifying him for making known the mind of God: but if he became
the only-begotten of the Father by his miraculous conception, or by
any other means, the beauty of the passage vanishes.
“_Thirdly_: God is frequently said to have _sent_ his Son into the
world: John vii. 17. x. 36. 1 John iv. 9, 10. but this implies that he
was his Son antecedent to his being sent. To suppose otherwise, is no
less absurd than supposing that when Christ is said to have sent forth
his twelve disciples, they were not disciples, but in consequence of
his sending them, or of some preparation pertaining to their mission.
“_Fourthly_: Christ is called the Son of God antecedently to his
miraculous conception, and consequently he did not become such by
it.—_In the fulness of time God sent forth his Son, made of a woman,
made under the law, that he might redeem them that were under the
law—God sent his own Son, in the likeness of sinful flesh._ Gal. iv.
4. Rom. viii. 3.—The terms, _made of a woman_, _made under the law_,
are a parenthesis. The position affirmed is, that God sent forth his
Son to redeem the transgressors of the law. His being made of a woman,
and made under the law, or covenant of works, which man had broken,
expressed the necessary means for the accomplishment of this great
end; which means, though preceding our redemption, yet follow the
sonship of the Redeemer. There is equal proof that Christ was the _Son
of God_ before he was _made of a woman_, as that he was _the Word_
before he was _made flesh_. The phraseology is the same in the one
case as in the other. If it be alleged that Christ is here called the
Son of God _on account_ of his being made of a woman, I answer, If so,
it is also on account of his being _made under the law_, which is too
absurd to admit of a question.—Moreover: To say that _God sent his own
Son in the likeness of sinful flesh_, is equal to saying that the Son
of God assumed human nature: he must therefore have been the Son of
God before his incarnation.
“_Fifthly_: Christ is called the Son of God antecedent to his being
_manifested to destroy the works of the devil_: but he was manifested
to destroy the works of the devil by taking upon him human nature;
consequently, he was the Son of God antecedent to the human nature
being assumed. There is equal proof from the phraseology of 1 John
iii. 8. that he was the _Son of God_ antecedent to his being
_manifested to destroy the works of the devil_, as there is from that
of 1 Tim. iii. 16. that he was _God_ antecedent to his being
_manifested in the flesh_; or from 1 John i. 2, that _that eternal
life, which was with the Father_, was such antecedent to his being
_manifested to us_.
“_Sixthly_: The ordinance of baptism is commanded to be administered
_in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit_.
Matt. xxviii. 19. The terms, _Father_ and _Holy Spirit_, will be
allowed to denote divine persons; and what good reasons can be given
for another idea being fixed to the term _Son_?
“_Seventhly_: The proper deity of Christ precedes his office of
Mediator, or High Priest of our profession, and renders it an exercise
of _condescension_. But the same is true of his sonship: _He maketh
the Son a High Priest—Though he was a Son, yet learned he obedience_.
Heb. vii. 28. v. 8. His being the Son of God, therefore, amounts to
the same thing as his being a divine person.
“_Eighthly_: It is the proper deity of Christ which gives _dignity_ to
his office of Mediator: but this dignity is ascribed to his being the
_Son of God_. _We have a_ GREAT _High Priest; Jesus, the_ SON _of_
GOD. Heb. iv. 14. His being the Son of God, therefore, amounts to the
same thing as his being a divine person.
“_Lastly_: It is the proper deity of Christ which gives _efficacy_ to
his sufferings—_By_ HIMSELF _he purges our sins_. Heb. i. 3. But this
efficacy is ascribed to his being the _Son of God_—_The blood of Jesus
Christ_, HIS SON, _cleanseth us from all sin_. 1 John i. 7. His being
the Son of God therefore amounts to the same thing as his being a
divine person.
“Those who attribute Christ’s sonship to his miraculous conception,
(those however to whom I refer,) are nevertheless constrained to allow
that the term _implies_ proper divinity. Indeed this is evident from
John v. 18, where his saying that _God was his own Father_ is supposed
to be _making himself equal with God_. But if the miraculous
conception be the proper foundation of his sonship, why should it
contain such an implication? A holy creature might be produced by the
over-shadowing of the Holy Spirit, which yet should be merely a
creature; _i. e._ he might, on this hypothesis, profess to be the Son
of God, and yet be so far from making himself equal with God, as to
pretend to be nothing more than a man.
“It has been objected, that Christ, when called the Son of God, is
commonly spoken of as engaged in the work of mediation, and not simply
as a divine person antecedent to it. I answer; In a history of the
rebellion in the year 1745, the name of his Royal Highness, the
commander in chief, would often be mentioned in connexion with his
equipage and exploits; but none would infer from hence that he thereby
became the king’s son.
“It is further objected, that sonship implies _inferiority_, and
therefore cannot be attributed to the divine person of Christ.—But,
whatever inferiority may be attached to the idea of Sonship, it is not
an inferiority of _nature_, which is the point in question: and if any
regard be paid to the Scriptures, the very contrary is true. Christ’s
claiming to be the Son of God was _making himself_, not inferior, but
_as God_, or _equal with God_.