Chapter XXIV: Part 24

“This plurality appears still more expressly, when the sacred
historian gives an account of the creation of man: ‘And God said, Let
_us_ make man in _our_ image, after _our_ likeness.’ But it is a
plurality in unity: ‘So God created man in _his_ own image.’ It has
been justly observed, that to this the language of Elihu, and of the
royal Preacher, agrees: ‘None saith, Where is God my _Makers_;’ and,
‘Remember now thy _Creators_.’ Nothing can be more absurd than the
various attempts which have been made to shew, that this language may
be otherwise understood. God could never speak in this manner to
angels, or to any second causes. For to whomsoever these words were
addressed, they must have been co-operators with God in this divine
work. They must have assisted him in making man. Philo the Jew
expressly says that these words, _Let us make_, declare a plurality.
That the Jewish writers in general view this language as including a
mystery, not to be made known to the vulgar, and indeed studiously
concealed by them, from their abhorrence of Christianity, has been
elsewhere demonstrated. It is therefore unnecessary to enlarge here. I
shall only add, that the modern Jews are so fully convinced that the
doctrine of a plurality is contained in these words, as to wish to
alter the reading. Instead of _Let us make man_, they incline to read,
_Let man be made_; although the Samaritan text, the Septuagint, the
Talmudists, and all their translations, whether ancient or modern,
express the language in the same manner with our version.

“The same important doctrine is introduced in the history of the
_Fall_. That three-one God, who said, ‘Let us make man after our
image,’ in the same character laments the loss of this image. ‘JEHOVAH
God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us;’ or, as some read
the passage, ‘Behold the man, who was as one of us!’ Here Philo
observes; ‘These words, _as one of us_, are not put for one, but for
more than one.’ The learned Allix has remarked that the ancient Jewish
writers maintain, that God ‘speaks not this to the angels, who had no
common likeness to the unity or essence of God, but to Him who was the
celestial Adam, who is one with God.’ To whom this character applies,
we learn from the Targum of Jonathan on the place, who here speaks of
‘the only begotten in heaven.’

“This doctrine is also taught in the history of the _Confusion of
Tongues_. ‘JEHOVAH said,—Go to, let us go down, and there confound
their language.’ Here the Jews repeat their contemptible subterfuge,
that God addresses his ‘house of judgment,’ that is, created angels.
For it is an established doctrine with them, that ‘God does nothing
without previously consulting with his family above.’ But it has
justly been observed, that these words, if spoken to angels, would
imply that God were one of them, or that he descended in the same
manner with them, by a real change of place. Besides, in a moment to
change one language into many, and to infuse these into the minds of
men, who were utter strangers to them before, so that they should
entirely forget their former modes of speech, is a work that far
surpasses the power of angels, and can be accomplished by no being but
that God, with whom to will and to do is the same.

“It must be evident to every one, who reads the history of the Old
Testament with any degree of attention, that an _Angel_ is often
introduced as speaking the language, performing the works, and
accepting the worship, which exclusively belong to the Supreme Being.
In other words, one, who is undoubtedly a divine person, often appears
in a delegated character. Now, while it was the will of God in this
manner constantly to remind his Church of the economy of redemption,
he at the same time taught her a distinction of persons in the divine
essence. It was this Angel who appeared to Abraham on different
occasions, to Hagar, to Jacob, to Moses, to Joshua, to the Israelites
at Bochim, to Gideon, to Manoah and his wife. But I enter not into a
particular consideration of these appearances, having endeavoured to
illustrate the character of this divine Messenger in another place.
There it has also been proved, that the law was given to the
Israelites at Mount Sinai by the second person of the adorable
Trinity, in the character of the Angel of JEHOVAH. It deserves
particular attention, that at the very time that the God of Israel
gave his people a law, by which they were to be distinguished from all
the idolatrous nations around, one special design of which was to
preserve the doctrine of the divine unity;—at the very time that he
pronounced that leading precept, ‘Thou shalt have no other gods before
me;’ he, according to the Sacred History, viewed in its connexion,
sustained the character of an Angel, and was pleased to communicate
the knowledge of this fact to his people. How can these apparent
contradictions be reconciled, but by admitting that it was the will of
God to reveal himself to his church, as at the same time possessing
essential unity and personal plurality?

“The more ancient Jewish writers declare, that two persons were
engaged in promulgating the law. They say; ‘The two first precepts
were spoken by the Supreme Spirit, but he spoke all the rest by his
Glory, who is called _El Shaddai_, known to the fathers; by whom the
prophets foretold future events; who is called _Jah_: in whom the Name
of God is; the Beloved of God who dwelt in the temple; and the Mouth
of the LORD; and the Face of the LORD; and the Rock; and that Goodness
which Moses saw, when he could not see God.’ Elsewhere they call him
‘the _Schechinah_, by whom we draw near to God, and present our
supplications to him; who is that Angel in whom the name of God is,
who is himself called God and JEHOVAH.’ The change of person, in the
promulgation of the law, asserted by these writers, is evidently a
mere fancy. But their language deserves attention; as it shews how
fully they were convinced of the doctrine of a plurality in unity,
when they introduced it in this manner.

“It has been universally admitted by the friends of revelation, that
the great end which God hath in view in the work of _Redemption_ is
the display of his own adorable perfections. But there is doubtless
another, although less attended to, nowise incompatible with this,
nay, itself an eminent branch of the supreme end. This is the
manifestation of the mystery of the Trinity, and of the mode of
subsistence peculiar to each person in the divine essence. This must
undoubtedly be viewed as included in the one great design of the
all-wise God in our redemption; and it is evident that he hath still
kept it in eye, in the revelation given to the Church, and especially
in the history of that work, as it is recorded in the gospels. We may
trace the doctrine of a Trinity in the accounts given of the old
creation; but it appears with far superior evidence in the history of
the new. This corresponds to the superior greatness of the work, and
to the brighter and more extensive display of divine perfection.

“Such was the state of the Church, as to admit of a more full
manifestation of this mystery. It was more obscurely revealed to the
patriarchs, and under the Mosaic economy. This was analogous to the
general character of the revelation then made; as well as to the state
of the Church, yet in her infancy, and exposed to constant temptations
to polytheism, from the situation of all the surrounding nations. But
‘when the fulness of the time was come,’ that the gospel should be
preached to every creature, and the kingdom of Satan fall as lightning
from heaven, in the overthrow of heathen darkness; there were no such
impediments to the more clear revelation of this mysterious doctrine.
The rest of the divine conduct indeed rendered this necessary. God had
now ‘sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to
redeem them that were under the law.’ The ends of this mission could
not be accomplished, without a full revelation of the character of
this illustrious Messenger. He could not otherwise receive that homage
from the Church, which he merited as her Redeemer, and which was
necessary, in order to her salvation. Now, his character, as
essentially the Son of God, and at the same time a divine Messenger,
could not be properly unfolded, without a declaration both of the
paternity of the First Person, and of that wonderful dispensation,
according to which the Second, although equal in power and glory,
voluntarily ‘emptied himself.’ Nor could the unity of the work of
redemption, as pervading all the dispensations given to the Church,
and the beautiful harmony of the law and the gospel, be otherwise
displayed. Without a full revelation of this mystery, how could it
have been known that he, who appeared in the end of ages as sent of
God, was the very same person who had formerly led the Church, as the
Angel of his face; that He, who now brought spiritual redemption to
his folk, was no other than that Angel-Redeemer, who had already so
frequently delivered them from temporal calamities?

“If this mystery be unknown or disbelieved, there can be no faith in
Christ as the Mediator between God and men. For he who believes not
that the Son is in the Father, and the Father in the Son, as to
identity of essence, while at the same time there is a distinction of
persons, denies the voluntary subjection of the Son to the Father in
the eternal covenant, and thus the whole foundation of his merit and
of our salvation. In relation to the work of our redemption, and in
the history given of it, are revealed various internal actings of the
divine persons towards each other, as well as those of an external
nature. The Father appoints, gives, sends, prepares a human nature for
his Son; the Son undertakes, gives himself, comes, assumes this
nature.

“From the history given of the conception of Christ, we find that
three divine persons were engaged in the creation of this ‘new thing
in the earth.’ The Father appears in the character of ‘the Highest;’
the Third Person, as ‘the Holy Ghost,’ and ‘the Power of the Highest;’
and the Second, as ‘the Son of God.’ When this wonderful Person, the
incarnate Word, was to be manifested to Israel at his baptism, each
divine Person concurred in the work. The Father testified his presence
and approbation by a voice from the excellent glory, announcing Jesus
as his beloved Son; and the Holy Ghost descended like a dove, and
rested on him. The history of his death, viewed in its connexion,
affords a proof of a similar kind. As ‘it pleased JEHOVAH,’ in the
person of the Father, sustaining the character of Judge, to bruise the
Son as our Surety; and as he, having power over his own life,
commended his spirit into the hands of his Father, thus presenting
unto him a sacrifice of a sweet-smelling savour; he did so ‘through
the Eternal Spirit.’ The same thing appears from the resurrection of
Jesus. He was ‘powerfully declared to be the Son of God in his
resurrection from the dead;’ for he had ‘power to take again’ that
which no one could take from him. This work is frequently ascribed to
God, where the term evidently denotes the First Person. ‘God hath
raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou
art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.’ As he was ‘put to death in
the flesh, he was quickened by the Spirit,’ by that Spirit of
holiness, ‘by which also he went and preached unto the spirits in
prison.’ Nor is this less evident from the account given of the
effusion of the Spirit. This is undoubtedly a divine work; and it is
described as belonging to each adorable Person. Jesus had foretold
that the Comforter should come, that himself should send him, and that
he should at the same time be sent by the Father. Accordingly, from
the account given of this wonderful event by the apostle Peter, which
is left on record for the instruction of the Church, we find that each
divine Person was engaged in accomplishing it: ‘Jesus, having received
of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, hath shed forth this
which ye now see and hear.’

“It is undeniable, that one special end, which Christ had in view in
his miraculous works, was to confirm his doctrine with respect to his
equality with the Father. When he gave thanks at the tomb of Lazarus,
before raising him from the dead, it was because of the people who
stood by, that they might believe that the Father had sent him; and
sent him as a Messenger invested with divine power, because
essentially possessing divine perfection. For he had previously said
to his disciples: ‘This sickness is not unto death, but for the glory
of God, that the Son of God might be glorified thereby;’ and taught
Martha, that if she ‘would believe, she would see the glory of God,’
in seeing the manifestation of that power which essentially belonged
to himself, as ‘the Resurrection and the Life.’ When he cured the man
sick of the palsy, it was in order to prove that he had ‘power on
earth to forgive sin;’ while he admitted the principle held by the
scribes, that no one could forgive sins but God only. On different
occasions he refers to his miraculous works, as irrefragable evidences
of his having the same essence with the Father; and of the mutual
inexistence, as some have expressed it, of the Father in the Son, and
of the Son in the Father, in respect of this essential unity, while
there is at the same time a real distinction of persons. When his
enemies accused him of blasphemy, because he said, ‘I am the Son of
God,’ ‘making himself God;’ he replied, ‘If I do not the works of my
Father, believe me not. But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe
the works; that ye may know and believe that the Father is in me, and
I in him.’ To Philip, when desiring to see the Father, he said,
‘Believe me, that I am in the Father, and the Father in me; or else
believe me for the very work’s sake.’ The Evangelist John, when
referring to the signs recorded in the preceding history, subjoins
this declaration; ‘These are written, that ye might believe that Jesus
is the Son of God.’ That he appropriates this character to Jesus, as
expressive of supreme deity, is evident from the uniform tenor of the
gospel which bears his name.

“The doctrine of the Trinity is peculiarly elucidated by the history
of redemption; as it does not merely exhibit all the adorable Persons
as engaged in this work, but ascribes a peculiar operation to each
Person. The contrivance of our redemption is ascribed to the Father;
the purchase of it to the Son; and the effectual application of this
purchased redemption to the Holy Spirit. The Father sends his Son as
our Surety; the Son cheerfully comes in this character; and the Holy
Spirit is sent by both. The purpose of election is more immediately
ascribed to the Father; the objects of his love are all chosen in
Christ; and they, who were thus chosen from eternity, are in time
chosen out of the world, and separated for himself, by the renewing
and sanctifying work of the Spirit.

“Nor is this all. The peculiar operation of each Person, in the work
of our salvation, is perfectly analagous to the order of subsistence
in the Holy Trinity; and thus beautifully illustrates the mutual
relations of the divine Persons. All the external works of God,
indeed, are common to each Person; as the divine nature is the same
indivisible principle of operation. Yet these works are distinctly
ascribed to the three Persons, because each Person operates according
to the order of subsistence. In the old creation, the Father called
all things into being by his co-essential Word, communicating life
immediately by the Spirit, as exercising a generating power on the
unformed mass. When God created man, the First Person formed him by
the Second, as his essential Image, giving him life, both natural and
moral, by the Third, as ‘the Spirit of life.’ Yet this implies no
inferiority, or mere instrumentality, in any of the adorable Persons;
but only the most perfect order and harmony. The case is the same in
the new creation. It seems most consistent with divine wisdom, that he
who is first in the order of subsistence should rather _send_ than be
_sent_; that the Son, who is ‘the image of the invisible God,’ should
procure the restoration of that blessed image lost by sin; and that
he, who proceeds from the Father and the Son, should be sent by both,
to quicken those who are spiritually dead. This distinct operation
indeed, as it corresponds with the order of subsistence, beautifully
harmonizes with the distinguishing character belonging to each Person.
He, who is essentially the Father, assumes the character of paternity,
in a federal respect, towards those who are orphans and aliens. The
only begotten Son of God is sent forth, made under the law, that they
may ‘receive the adoption of sons,’ and appears as ‘the first-born
among many brethren.’ The adorable Spirit, ‘the breath of JEHOVAH,’
breathes on the slain, that they may live; giving them a new heart and
a right spirit. He, who proceeds from the Father and the Son, unites
the sinner to both.

“Is it ‘life eternal to know the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom
he hath sent?’ Hath no one the Father, who ‘denieth the Son?’ Can no
one honour the Father, ‘who honoureth not the Son?’ Is it the Spirit
alone who quickeneth, and who teacheth us to ‘know the things that are
freely given us of God?’ Can no man ‘say that Jesus is the Lord, but
by the Holy Ghost?’ Is it through Christ that ‘we have access by one
Spirit unto the Father?’ Let us bless God for the revelation of the
mystery of a Trinity in unity; and especially because he hath revealed
it so clearly in the history of our redemption, in relation to that
work in which a peculiar operation belongs to each adorable Person, in
which the love of a three-one God is so wonderfully displayed, in
which we discern so blessed a harmony, not only of divine perfections,
but of divine Persons! In all our worship, let us view God according
to this revelation, ascribing glory to him ‘who is, and who was, and
who is to come, and to the Seven Spirits which are before his throne,
and to Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the
first-begotten from the dead, and the prince of the kings of the
earth.’ Let us earnestly desire communion with this three-one God;
with the Father, in his love as the spring of our salvation; with the
Son, in all that grace which he hath purchased by his blood; and with
the Holy Ghost, in the whole extent of his efficacious operation. In
order to this, let us press after union with Christ, that in him we
may be united to the Father by that one Spirit who proceeds from both,
and who is conferred by both as the Spirit of adoption. Let us
cultivate love to the brethren, as members of the same mystical body,
desiring to be ‘one heart and one soul;’ that although many, we may be
one, and thus be assimilated, in our weak measure, to the blessed
Trinity in respect of unity; as Jesus prays in behalf of his
Church;—‘That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I
in thee; that they also may be one in us.—I in them, and thou in me,
that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that
thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.’”

JAMIESON.

Footnote 90:

_See Le Clerc’s Supplement to Dr. Hammond on the New Testament,
preface to John i._

Footnote 91:

_See Biddle’s Confession of Faith, touching the holy Trinity, Article
VI._

Footnote 92:

_Some have thought, that_ εκεινος _being of the masculine gender,
because it refers immediately to_ πνευμα, _which is of the neuter,
implies, that the Spirit is taken personally, which is the reason of
this grammatical construction; but if it be said that the reason why
it is masculine is, because it agrees with_ παρακλητος, _it,
notwithstanding, proves the Personality of the Holy Ghost, since a
Comforter is a personal character. The same thing is observed in the
grammatical construction of that scripture, Eph. i. 13, 14. speaking
concerning the Holy Spirit of promise_, το πνευμα της επαγγελιας; _it
is said_, ὁς εστιν αρῥαβων, _which denotes the personal character of
the Spirit, otherwise it would have been_ ὁ εστιν αρῥαβων, _unless you
suppose_ ὁς _agrees with_ αρῥαβων, _which seems to be a more strained
sense of the grammatical construction than the other, which proves his
personality._

Footnote 93:

“THAT the Holy Scriptures make mention of _Three_ by way of great
_eminence_ and _distinction_ may appear from many passages, out of
which I shall only produce some. At the Prediction of the blessed
Virgin’s conception, which was to be without the concurrence of a man,
the divine message is delivered in these words: _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_. Here are plainly distinguished from each
other, the _Holy Ghost_, or _Power_ overshadowing; the _Highest_,
whose Power that Spirit is; and the _Holy Thing_, or _Person_, who is
_called the Son of God_, because born of a mother, impregnated by that
Divine Power. At our Blessed Lord’s Baptism, _the Spirit of God_, we
read, _descended like a dove and rested upon him, and a voice from
Heaven_ declared him to _be the Son of God_: Nothing can be plainer
than three _Personalities_ in this transaction; the _Father_ speaking
from Heaven, the _Son_ coming out of _Jordan_, and the _Spirit_
descending from above. In the Promise, which our blessed Saviour makes
his disciples, to comfort their hearts against what was coming upon
them, _I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another
comforter, that he may abide with you forever, even the Spirit of
Truth_; and _when the comforter is come, whom I will send unto you
from the Father, even the Spirit of Truth, which proceedeth from the
Father, he shall testify of me_, there are manifestly Acts, and
Persons, and capacities, different. The _Father_, from whom the Spirit
_proceeds_, whom the Son _prays_, and by whom, at the Son’s Request,
the _Comforter was given_: The _Son, praying_ the Father; _sending_
the Comforter from the Father, and _testified_ of by the _Spirit_ so
sent: And the _Spirit, given_ by the Father, _sent_ by the Son,
_testifying_ of the Son, and, upon the Son’s Departure, _abiding_ for
ever with the Disciples.

“The great Apostle of the Gentiles, to enforce the Doctrine of the
resurrection, tells the _Romans, that if the Spirit of him, who raised
Jesus from the dead, dwelt in them, he that raised Christ from the
dead would also quicken their mortal bodies by his Spirit, that
dwelled in them_; where he evidently refers to _Jesus_, the Son of
God; raised from the Dead; to the _Spirit_ of God, by which he was
raised; and to _him_ that raised _Jesus_, and at the last great day
shall raise all others, in whom his Spirit dwells. The same apostle,
to satisfy the _Corinthians_ of the benefits of their _conversion_,
after having enumerated several ranks of sinners, _and_ such _were
some of you_, says he, _but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but
ye are justified, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and by the
Spirit of our God_, _i. e._ God the Father. It cannot be denied that
_Sanctification_ and _Justification_ are the gifts of God alone; for
none can absolve us from the Guilt and pollution of sin, but he only:
But then the Apostle tells the _Corinthians_, that this benefit they
received not only from God the _Father_, but from the _Lord Jesus_
likewise, and from the Holy Spirit: Analogous to which is that other
Passage in the same epistle; _There are diversities of gifts, but the
same Spirit_, (there is the _third_ Person in the Trinity) _there are
differences of Administration, but the same Lord_, (there is the
_second_ Person) _and there are diversities of operations, but it is
the same God_, (or _first_ person in the _Trinity_) _that worketh all
in all_. Once more, the same Apostle, in his prayer for the
_Thessalonians_, directs his devotion to the ever blessed Trinity:
_Now God himself, even our Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, direct
our way unto you, and the Lord_, (_i. e._ the Holy Ghost) _make you to
increase and abound in love one towards another_: For that by the
_Lord_ we are here to understand the Holy Ghost, I think is very plain
from the next verse; ‘_to the end, that he may establish your hearts
unblameable in holiness before God, even our Father, at the coming of
our Lord Jesus Christ with all his saints_;’ since he is the
_Sanctifier_, and to _establish our hearts in holiness_ is his proper
work and office: And if so, then is there a plain _enumeration_ of the
three Persons of the _Trinity_ in this passage.

“The great Apostle of the _Jews_ begins his first Epistle _general_ to
his _dispersed_ Brethren with a declaration of the same article, when
he calls them _elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father,
through Sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience, and sprinkling
of the blood of Jesus_; for there we may observe, that the three
_Persons_ are not only expressly _named_, but their distinct
_employments_, with reference to man’s salvation, are particularly
_specified_, while the Father is said to _elect_, the Spirit to
_sanctify_, and the holy Jesus to _shed his blood_. The beloved
Apostle _St. John_, in his _Salutation_ to the Churches, _Grace, and
Peace from him, which is, and which was, and which is to come, and
from the seven spirits which are before his Throne, and from Jesus
Christ_ has given us a distinct enumeration of the three Persons in
the Deity, if we will but admit, (as most interpreters have done) that
by the _Seven Spirits_, which was a _sacred_ number among the _Jews_,
that _one_ Person (_viz._ the Holy Ghost) is to be understood, from
whom all that variety of gifts and operations, which were then
conspicuous in the Christian Church, did proceed. But however this be,
’tis certain, that the passage in his Epistle of the _Three which bear
record in Heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost_, are as
full and plain a _Testimony_ and declaration of this _Mystery_, as can
be cited in words; and though some have endeavoured to invalidate the
authority of this passage, as not extant in some ancient copies, and
seldom appealed to by the first defenders of the catholick faith
against the _Arians_ and _Macedonians_, yet the contrary to this is
most evident. _Tertullian_, _St. Cyprian_, and _Fulgentius_ quote it
in their writings: _Athanasius_ made use of it in the council of
_Nice_ against _Arius_; and the reason why it was left out in some
ancient copies _Socrates_ acquaints us with in his _Ecclesiastical_
history, when he tells us, ‘That the _Christian_ Church had all along
complained, that the Epistle of _St. John_ had been corrupted by the
first adversaries of the doctrine of Christ’s divinity.’ ’Twas by
their artifice therefore that it was omitted; for several learned
pens, both of our own and other churches, have made it very manifest,
that it was[94] _originally_ in the text, and that the most and
ancientest _copies_ always had it.

“But we need not be so tenacious of one _text_, when, besides these
already mentioned, and many more that might be produced upon a farther
enquiry, the very form of our _admission_ into the Christian covenant
is _in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost_;
the form of our _prayers_ is thus directed, that _through the Son we
have an access by one Spirit to the Father_; and the form of our
_dismission_ from them is, every day, with this _benediction_, _The
grace of the Lord Jesus, and the love of God, and the fellowship of
the Holy Ghost, be with us all evermore_; as if the Wisdom of God had
intended to inculcate this notion of the _Trinity_, and, in every act
of our religious worship, to remind us of the manner of his
_subsistence_.

“Thus it appears that there are _Three_, very often occurring in
scripture, under the different appellations of _Father_, _Son_, and
_Holy Ghost_: and that these three are not _one_ and the _same Being_,
under _different respects_ and considerations, but _three_ real and
distinct _persons_, with a _peculiar_ manner of _subsisting_, is plain
from the very names of _Father_, _Son_, and _Holy Ghost_, if we
understand them in a proper and natural sense; because these are
opposite _relations_, which can never meet in the same _subject_: for
a _Father_ cannot be Father to himself, but to his _Son_; nor can a
_Son_ be Son to himself, but to his _Father_; nor can the Holy Ghost
_proceed_ from himself, or (in this sense) be his own _Spirit_, but
the Spirit of the Father, and Son, from whom he proceeds: and
therefore the Father is not the Son, nor the Holy Spirit; nor the Son
the Father, or Holy Spirit; nor the Holy Spirit either Father or Son.
The only question is, whether these _names_, when spoken of the
Trinity have a _proper_ and _natural_, or only an _allusive_ and
_metaphorical_ signification.

“The divine nature and perfections indeed, (as they are far exalted
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.