Part 52

“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_.