There are some characters which always denote persons, and some works performed which are properly personal, which can be performed by none but persons. Thus the character of a father, or a son; so a Creator, a Redeemer, a benefactor, a Mediator, an advocate, a surety, a judge, a lord, a law-giver, and many others of the like nature, are all of them personalcharacters. So that whoever acts with design, and has such-like characters attributed to him, according to the proper acceptation of the word, him we call a person; and these characters we shall endeavour to apply to the Persons in the Godhead, to prove their distinct personality.
But since we are at present only considering the acceptation of words, we shall briefly observe the difference between a divine and a human person, when some personal properties, characters, or works, are attributed to each of them. And,
(1.) Human persons are separated one from the other: thus, for instance, Peter, James, and John, were three persons, but they were separated one from the other; whereas the Persons in the Godhead, however distinguished by their characters and properties, are never separated, as having the same divine essence or nature. As for human persons, one of them might have had a being and personality, had the other never existed, because it exists by the will of God; but the divine persons have a necessary existence and personality, as being, in all respects, independent, so that as they could not but be God, they could not but be divine Persons; the personality of the Son and Spirit are equally independent with that of the Father, and as much independent as their being and divine perfections.
(2.) Human persons have only the same kind of nature, which is generally called a common specific nature, but not the same individual nature with another person; so that though every man has a nature like that of the rest of mankind, yet the human nature, as attributed to one person, is not the same individual human nature that is attributed to another, for then the power and understanding, or the ideas that there are in one man, would be the same individual power and ideas, that are in another, which they are not. Whereas, when we speak of the Persons in the Godhead, as having the divine nature and perfections, we say that this nature is the same individual nature in all of them, though the persons are distinct, otherwise the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, could not be said to be truly and properly God, and to have the same understanding, will, and other perfections of the divine nature.
(3.) When we speak of human persons, we say, that as many persons as there are, so many beings there are; every human person has its own proper being, distinct from all other persons or beings; but we do not say so with respect to the divine Persons, for the divine Being is but one, and therefore the Godhead of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, is the very same; which is what we understand when we say, that though there are three Persons in the Godhead, yet they are the same in substance, or the one only living and true God.
This leads us to consider in what respect the Father, Son,and Holy Ghost, are said to be one; by which we mean, that the Son and Holy Ghost have all the perfections of the divine nature, in the same sense as the Father has; to say less than this, is to assert no more than what our adversaries will allow; for they will not deny them perfections, nor would they be thought to deny them to have divine perfections; yea, many of them will not stick to say, that they are truly and properly God; by which they mean, that whatever deity is attributed to them in scripture, by the appointment of the Father, that is, whatever divine authority they have, this properly belongs to them: but, I think, they will none of them allow that they have the divine nature in the same sense in which the Father is said to have it. This is what we shall endeavour to prove; and more need not be said concerning them, in order to establish that supreme worship which is due to them, as well as the Father; and, in order hereto, we shall consider the force of those arguments contained in one of these answers, and, together with them, the sense of that scripture, John x. 30. in which our Saviour says,I and my Father are one; as also that other scripture, 1 John v. 7. thatthe Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, who bear record in heaven, are one; the consideration whereof we shall reserve to a following head.
And inasmuch as they are said to be equal in power and glory, we may observe, that there are two expressions, which we often use, to set forth the deity of the Son and Spirit; sometimes we say they are God, equal with the Father; at other times, that they have the same essential perfections. To which, it may be, some will reply, that if they are equal, they cannot be the same; or, on the other hand, if they are the same, they cannot be equal. For the understanding what we mean by such-like expressions, let it be observed, that when we consider them as having the divine essence, or any of the perfections thereof, we do not chuse to describe them as equal, but the same; we do not say that the wisdom, power, holiness, &c. of the Son and Spirit are equal to the same perfections, as ascribed to the Father: but when we speak of them as distinct Persons, then we consider them as equal: the essential glory of the Father, Son, and Spirit, is the same; but their personal glory is equal; and in this sense we would be understood, when we say the Son and Holy Ghost are each of them God, or divine Persons, equal with the Father.[89]
III. We shall prove that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, are distinct persons in the Godhead, by applying what has beenbut now observed, by which any one may, by our common mode of speaking, be denominated a person; and to this weshall add something concerning those personal properties, mentioned in one of the answers we are explaining, with respect tothe eternal generation of the Son, and the procession of the Holy Ghost. And,
1. To prove the personality of the Son. If this be reckoned needless, inasmuch as the Arians and Socinians never yet called it in question, we own that it is not necessary, when we dispute with them, to prove it: but inasmuch as the Sabellians deny it, as a late writer[90]has done, who plainly gives in to that scheme, and concludes the Son of God to be no other than the eternal reason of God; and so he renders that text, John i. 1.In the beginning was the word, that is,reason, and by him, that is,by it, were all things made; and when it is objected, that this mode of speaking signifies nothing more than a quality in God, the only answer he gives to it, is, that it signifies no more a quality, than if we should translate it,The word, as it is generally done: I say, if persons, whether they pretend to be Sabellians or no, express themselves in such a manner, it is certainly necessary for us to prove the personality of the Son.
It appears, therefore, that the Son is a distinct Person from the Father,
(1.) Inasmuch as we often read, in scripture, of two divine Persons speaking to, or of, one another, the distinguishing personal characters,I,thou, andhe, being applied to them: thus it is said, Psal. cx. 1.The Lord, that is the Father,said unto my Lord, namely the Son,sit thou at my right-hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool: this may be observed throughout the whole Psalm; thus, ver. 3.Thy people shall be willing; and ver. 6.He, meaning the Son,shall judge among the heathen; and ver. 7.He shall drink of the brook in the way; so Psal. xlv. 2. speaking of the Son,Thou art fairer than the children of men; and ver. 6.Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever. The places of scripture, which have such modes of speaking concerning the Son, are almost innumerable; and therefore we proceed to consider,
(2.) Other personal characters given him; thus, when he is called the Son of God, whatever we are to understand by that relation or character, of which more under a following head, it certainly denotes him a Person distinct from the Father; so does his being sent into the world by the Father, which expression is frequently used in the New Testament; now a quality, relation or property, cannot be said to be sent as the Son is. So when he is described as a Redeemer, a Mediator, a Surety, a Creator; and when he is styled, by the prophet,the everlasting Father; and often described as a prophet, priest, or king; orLord of all, or thePrince of peace, or thePrince of the kings of the earth; all these characters sufficiently prove his personality; and all those works which he performs, as sustaining these relations or characters, are properly personal; and some of them are never ascribed to any other person. Thus the Father, or Holy Ghost, are never said to assume the human nature, or to become sureties for the salvation of men, or to execute mediatorial offices, subservient thereunto; from all which it evidently appears, that the Son is a distinct Person: that he is a divine Person, will be proved under a following head: we shall therefore proceed,
2. To prove the distinct personality of the Holy Ghost. This is denied, not only by the Sabellians, but by some of the Socinians; yea, even by Socinus himself; who describes the Holy Ghost as the power of God, intending hereby, as his mode of speaking seems to denote, the energy of the divine nature, or that whereby the Father, who is the only one, to whom, according to him, the divine nature is attributed, produces those effects which require infinite power; so that they call the Spirit the power of God essentially considered; these set aside all those proofs, that may be produced from scripture, to evincehis personality, which are so plain and evident, that many of them have dissented from Socinus herein, and owned the Spirit to be a person. Accordingly some of them have described him as the chief of created spirits, or the head of the angels, because they deny his divine nature. Thus a bold writer expresses himself; “I believe that there is one principal minister of God and Christ, peculiarly sent from heaven, to sanctify the church, who, by reason of his eminency and intimacy with God, is singled out of the number of other heavenly ministers, or angels, and comprised in the holy Trinity, being the third person thereof; and that this minister of God and Christ is the Holy Spirit.[91]”
Now we shall prove the personality of the Holy Ghost, by considering some personal characters ascribed to, and works performed by him. Thus there are several such characters, by which he is denominated a person; particularly when he is called a Sanctifier, a Reprover, a Witness, a Comforter, it evidently appears from hence that he is a person: thus when it is said, in John xvi. 8. thatwhen he, to wit,the Comforter is come, he will reprove the world of sin, of righteousness and judgment; and also, thathe will guide you into all truth; he shall shew you things to come, &c. And in John xiv. 16, 17. there is the distinct personality of the three persons, and particularly of the Holy Ghost, asserted;I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, even the Spirit of truth; and also in ver. 26.The Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things.[92]
It is certain, that to be said to teach, or to instruct, is a personal character; so it is to speak, or to dictate, to another what he should say; but this he is said to do, as our Saviour says to his disciples,Whatever shall be given you in that hour, that speak ye; for it is not you that speak, but the Holy Ghost, Mark xiii. 11.
Moreover, to witness, or testify, is a personal character; especially when the testimony is not merely objective, as when Job calls hiswrinkles and his leanness a witnessagainst him, Job xvi. 8. But when there is a formal testimony given, hethat gives it is, according to our common way of speaking, generally considered as a person; and thus the Holy Ghost is described, Acts v. 32.We are his witnesses of these things, and so is the Holy Ghost, whom God has given to them that obey him.Here the Holy Ghost’s being a witness is as much a personal character, as their being witnesses; and, Acts xx. 23. it is said,The Holy Ghost witnesseth in every city, that bonds and afflictions abide me.
Again, dwelling is a personal character; no one ever supposes that any thing that is in a house dwells there, excepting persons; but the Holy Ghost is said to dwell in believers, John xiv. 17. and alluding hereto, as also connoting his divine personality, it is said, 1 Cor. vi. 19.Your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost; as a house is the dwelling-place of a person, so a temple is the dwelling-place of a divine person.
Again, to send any one is a personal character; but this is attributed to the Holy Ghost, Acts xiii. 4.The apostles being sent forth by the Holy Ghost, departed.
Again, acting with a sovereign will and pleasure is what belongs only to a person; but this is applied to the Holy Ghost, Acts xv. 28.It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us.
Again, prohibiting, or forbidding, a person to act, is a personal character; but this is applied to the Holy Ghost, Acts xvi. 6.The apostles were forbidden of the Holy Ghost to preach the word in Asia.
Again, to constitute, or appoint, any one to execute an office is a personal character; but this the Holy Ghost is said to do, Acts xx. 28. he is said to havemade them overseers. There are several other personal works and characters, which might have been mentioned; but these are, I humbly conceive, sufficient to prove the thing intended, that the Holy Ghost is a person. I have no more than mentioned the scriptures, which contain these personal characters, because I shall have occasion under a following head, to refer to some of them for the proof of his deity.[93]
Object.It will be objected, by those who are favourers of the Sabellian scheme, that the characters which we have laid down,to prove the personality of the Son, and Holy Ghost, are not Sufficient to answer that end; inasmuch as they are oftentimesapplied, in a metaphorical way, to those things which no one supposes to be persons, and therefore that they may be takenin this sense, when applied to the Son and Spirit. To support this objection, they produce several instances out of the book of Job, and some other parts of scripture, where things are described with personal characters, which are not really persons. Thus Job xxxix. 11, 12. speaking concerning the unicorn, it is said;Wilt thou trust him? Wilt thou leave thy labour to him? Wilt thou believe him, that he will bring home thy seed, and gather it into thy barn?So concerning the horse, it is said, as though he acted with design, as an intelligent creature, ver. 21. &c.He goeth on to meet the armed men; he mocketh at fear; neither believeth he that it is the sound of the trumpet; he saith among the trumpets, Ha, ha!And concerning the eagle, ver. 28.She dwelleth in the rock.And concerning the leviathan, chap. xli. 3. &c.Will he make many supplications to thee? Will he speak soft words unto thee? Will he make a covenant withthee? He esteemeth iron as straw, and brass as rotten wood. Darts are counted as stubble; he laugheth at the shaking of the spear.And ver. 34.He beholdeth all high things; he is a king over all the children of pride.There are many other personal characters given to brute creatures, which are taken in a metaphorical sense; and sometimes they are applied to inanimate creatures. Thus Job xxxviii. 28, &c.Hath the rain a father? and who hath begotten the drops of dew? Out of whose womb came the ice? and the hoary frost of heaven, who hath gendered it? Canst thou bind the sweet influences of Pleiades, or loose the bands of Orion? Canst thou bring forth Mazzaroth in his season, or canst thou guide Arcturus with his sons?By which nothing is intended but the signs in the Zodiack, or some of the constellations, together with the particular stars of which they consist; yet these are described, as though they were persons. So ver. 35.Canst thou send lightnings, that they may go, and say unto thee, here we are?Again, the powers and faculties of the soul of man have sometimes personal characters ascribed to them. Thus, conscience is saidto bear witness, Rom. ix. 1. And some instances may be brought from scripture of a person’s speaking to himself; yet this doth not connote two persons in man, one speaking, and the other spoken to. It is therefore inferred from hence, that we cannot prove the personality of the Son and Holy Ghost from those personal characters ascribed to them, which may be taken in a metaphorical sense, as well as in the instances but now mentioned.
Answ.In answer to this objection, several things may be considered.
1. Though the scripture often uses figurative, and particularly metaphorical, ways of speaking, yet these may be easily distinguished from the like phrases used elsewhere, concerning which we have sufficient ground to conclude that they are to be taken in a proper sense; therefore, though it is true that there are personal characters given to things which are not persons, yet we are not to conclude from hence, that whenever the same modes of speaking are used, and applied to those who are capable of performing personal actions, that therefore these must be taken in a metaphorical sense; which is a known exception from the common idea contained in the same words.
2. Most of those passages of scripture, where personal characters are attributed to things which are not persons, in a metaphorical sense, are in the poetical books thereof; or in some particular places, where there is a peculiar beautiful mode of speaking taken from thence; will it therefore follow, that these personal characters are used in other parts of scripture, in which the Holy Ghost does not think fit to express himself in such an elegancy of style? Now it is certain, that the personal charactersbefore mentioned are given to the Son and Holy Ghost, throughout the whole scripture, without designing to use a lofty, figurative, or uncommon way of speaking, as in the instances before mentioned.
3. We must not suppose that the Holy Ghost uses any figurative ways of speaking, so as to cast a veil on plain truths, or to endanger our being led hereby out of the way, as we should certainly be, if so many hundred places of scripture, in which these personal characters are applied to the Son and Spirit, were to be taken in a metaphorical sense, without any intimation given in the context that they are so to be understood. And it will be certainly very difficult to find out any place in scripture, that may serve to direct us in our application of these characters,viz.when they are to be taken in a metaphorical sense, when applied to the Persons in the Godhead, and when not.
4. Though we find many metaphors in scripture, yet we observe that the most important truths are laid down in the plainest manner; so that the injudicious and unlearned reader, who understands nothing of the art of rhetoric, or criticism, may be instructed thereby; at least they are not universally wrapt up in such figurative ways of speaking; and it would be strange, if the account we have of the Personality of the Son and Holy Ghost, which is a doctrine of the highest importance, and such as renders them distinct objects of worship, should be expressed in such a way, as that we should be at the greatest uncertainty whether they are persons or not.
5. If these personal characters are not metaphorical, when applied to men or angels, who are subjects capable of having personality attributed to them, why should they be reckoned metaphorical, when applied to the Son and Spirit, who, though they are not distinct beings, yet they have a divine understanding and will, and therefore are not rendered incapable of having personality ascribed to them, as signified by these characters.
6. The asserting that personal characters attributed to the Son and Spirit are always to be understood in a metaphorical sense, would give equal ground to conclude that they are to be so taken, when applied to the Father; and accordingly, while we militate against the Personality of these, we should, at the same time, overthrow his Personality: and while we deny that there are three Persons in the Godhead, we should, in effect, suppose that there are no Persons in the Godhead, any otherwise than as the Godhead, which is common to be Father, Son, and Spirit, is often described as though it were a Person; and if everPersonalityis used or applied in a metaphorical sense, it must be when the Godhead is described as though it were a Person.
7. Though some personal characters are occasionally applied,in a metaphorical sense, to things that are not persons, yet it is not usual for them to be described as performing personal works, and these not occasionally hinted at, and joined with other metaphorical ways of speaking, but a long series of action referred to, and variety of works performed, which must certainly be taken in a most proper sense. Thus, when the Son and Spirit are set forth in scripture as performing those works, which are expressive of their personal glory; the one in what respects the purchase of redemption; and the other in the application thereof: and when each of them is described as standing in those relations to men, which are founded in the performance of these works for them; certainly this must be taken in a most proper sense; and we must take heed, lest, while we attempt to prove that the Persons in the Godhead are to be taken in a figurative sense, we do not give occasion to any to think that the great benefits, which we receive from them, are to be understood in the same sense.
We shall now take notice of some other personal properties, whereby the Son and Spirit are distinguished from one another, and from the Father; particularly, as they are expressed in one of the answers under our present consideration; it is proper to the Father to beget the Son, or, as it is sometimes expressed, to be unbegotten; and to the Son, to be begotten of the Father; and to the Holy Ghost, to proceed from the Father and the Son, from all eternity. This is certainly one of the most difficult heads of divinity that can be insisted on; and some have made it more so, by their attempting to explain it. I have sometimes thought that it would be the safest and most eligible way, to pass it over, as a doctrine less necessary to be understood; but since there are several scripture-expressions, on which it is founded, which we ought to pay the greatest deference to, much more than to those explications which are merely human; and inasmuch as these properties plainly prove the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, to be distinct Persons, therefore we must humbly enquire into the meaning of those scriptures, wherein they are contained; and so to speak something as to what is generally called the eternal generation of the Son, and the procession of the Holy Ghost; and I hope, through divine assistance, we shall advance no doctrine that is either subversive of our faith in the doctrine of the Trinity, which we are endeavouring to maintain, derogatory to the essential or personal glory of the Father, Son, and Spirit, or altogether contrary to the sense, in which many Christians, who are unacquainted with those modes of speaking, used by the fathers and schoolmen, understand those scriptures upon which this doctrine is founded.
And here we shall give a brief account of what we apprehendto be the commonly received sentiments of divines, who, in their writings, have strenuously maintained, and judiciously defended, the doctrine of the Trinity, concerning the eternal generation of the Son, and the procession of the Holy Ghost; which I shall endeavour to do with the greatest deference to those who have treated of these subjects, as well as with the greatest impartiality; and shall take occasion to shew how far the Arians conclude that we give up the cause to them, and yet how little reason they have to insult us upon this head.
(1.) As to the eternal generation of the Son, it is generally explained in this manner; the Father is called, by some, the fountain of the Godhead, an expression taken from some of the fathers, who defended the Nicene faith: but others of late, have rather chose to call the Father the fountain of the Trinity; and he is said to be of himself; or unbegotten; which they lay down as his distinct Personal character, from that of the Son.
On the other hand, the Son, as to his Personality, is generally described as being from the Father, and many chuse to express themselves about this mystery in these terms; that the Father communicated the divine essence to the Son, which is the most common mode of speaking, though others think it safer to say, that he communicated the divine Personality to him; though I cannot tell which is least exceptionable.
But when I find others calling it the Father’s giving the divine essence to the Son, their mode of speaking being founded, as they apprehend, on that scripture, John v. 26.As the Father hath life in himself so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself, I cannot but think it an unguarded expression, and foreign to the design of the Holy Ghost in that scripture, as will be hereafter considered. The Arians are ready to insult us upon such modes of speaking, and suppose that we conclude that the Son receives his divine perfections, and therefore cannot be God equal with the Father: but, however, none of them, who use this expression, suppose that the Son’s Deity is founded on the arbitrary will of the Father; for they all assert that the divine nature is communicated necessarily, and from all eternity, as the sun communicates its rays necessarily, which are of equal duration with it; so that while they make use of a word, which, according to its most known acceptation, seems subversive of the truth, they happily, for truth’s sake, explain away the proper sense thereof; so that all they can be blamed for herein, by the adversary, is impropriety of expression.
Again, others speak a little more exceptionally, when, explaining the eternal generation of the Son, they say that the Father produced him: but this idea they also happily explain away; and therefore say it is not such a production, where thecause produces the effect, though some of the fathers, who have been in the Trinitarian scheme, have unwarily called the Father the cause of the Son; yet our modern divines seldom, or never, use that expression, or if they speak of an eternal production, they suppose it vastly differs from the production of all creatures, or from that sense in which the Arians suppose the Son to be produced by him; but certainly this expression had better be laid aside, lest it should be thought that we conclude the Son not equally necessary, and, from all eternity, co-existent with the Father, which our divines, how unwarily soever in other respects they may express themselves, are very far from denying.
(2.) We shall now proceed to consider how some divines express themselves, concerning the procession of the Holy Ghost, which they generally do in this manner, as though the divine essence were communicated by the Father and the Son to the Holy Ghost; and so they suppose that the Holy Ghost, at least as he is a divine Person, or has the divine nature communicated to him, cannot be said to be, any more than the Son, of himself, but from the Father and the Son, from whom he proceeds, or receives, as some express it, the divine nature, and others the divine personality.
Others speak of the Spiration of the Holy Ghost, which they suppose to be the same with his procession; but the world is much at a loss to understand what they mean by the wordSpiration: it seems to be a mere metaphorical expression, as when they call him the breath of the Father and the Son, and, if so, then it will not prove his proper personality: but since we are pretty much in the dark about the reason of this mode of speaking, it would be much better to lay it aside, as many modern writers have done.
As to the manner of the procession of the Holy Ghost, there was, about the eighth and ninth centuries, a very warm dispute between the Greek and Latin church; whether the Spirit proceeded from the Father only, or from the Father and the Son; and the controversy arose to such a height, that they charged one another with heresy and schism, when neither side well understood what they contended about; and if they had agreed to the healing expedient, afterwards proposed, that they should mutually acknowledge that the Holy Ghost was from the Father by the Son, the matter would have been left as much in the dark as it was before.
Some speak of the procession of the Holy Ghost, as though he was produced by the Father and the Son, as the Son, as was before observed, is said, in his eternal generation, to have been produced by the Father; yet they suppose that neither of them were so produced, as that they may be called effects; and theyterm it the production of a person in, and not out of, the divine essence, for that would be to give away the cause we contend for: but which way soever we take it, it contains such an impropriety of expression, as can hardly be defended; and it is much better to explain away the proper and grammatical sense of words, than to corrupt the truth; however, I would not copy after them in this mode of speaking.
Moreover, some have pretended to determine the difference between the eternal generation of the Son and the Spirit’s procession; to which they have, with modesty, premised, that it is not to be explained; but, as far as they enter into this matter, they suppose that they differ in this; that in the eternal generation of the Son, the Father communicated the divine essence, or, at least, personality to him, which is his act alone, and herewith he communicated a property, or power, to him, to communicate the same divine essence to the Holy Ghost; whereas, when the Holy Ghost is said to proceed from the Father and the Son, there is no power therewith conveyed to him to communicate the divine essence to any other, as a fourth person in the Godhead. These things may be observed in the writings of those who treat of this subject; but it is to be feared, they enter too far into the explication of this unsearchable mystery; and some will be ready to conclude that they attempt to be wise above what is written. And,
If I may be allowed to give my sense of the communication of the divine essence, though it will probably be thought that I do not say enough concerning it, yet I hope that, in other respects, none will conclude that I advance any thing subversive of the doctrine of the Trinity, when I assert that the divine essence is communicated, not by the Father to the Son and Holy Ghost, as imparting or conveying it to them; but take the wordcommunicatein another sense, namely, that all the perfections of the divine nature are communicated, that is, equally attributed to, or predicated of, the Father, Son, and Spirit; this sense of the word is what some intend when they say the human nature is communicated to every individual, upon which account they are denominated men; and, as the word is used in this sense, sometimes, by logicians and schoolmen, so it seems to be taken in the same sense, in Heb. ii. 14. where the Greek words, τα παιδια κεκοινωνηκε σαρκος και αιματος, which we render, the children were partakers of flesh and blood, might be rendered, as in the vulgar Latin version,Communicaverunt carni & sanguini,i. e.they have the human nature communicated to, and predicated of, them, or they are truly and properly men. And it is in this sense that we use the word, when we say that the different properties of the divine and human nature are communicated to, that is, predicated of, the Person of Christ, which divinesgenerally call a communication of properties. In this sense I would be understood, when I say that the divine perfections are communicated to, or predicated of, the Father, Son, and Spirit; and this all who maintain the doctrine of the Trinity will allow of. The other sense of communication,viz.imparting, conveying, or giving the divine essence, I shall be very ready to fall in with, when the apparent difficulties, which, to me, seem to lie in the way thereof, some of which have been already considered, are removed.
As to what concerns the farther explication of this mystery, we may observe, that the more nice some have been in their speculations about it, the more they have seemed bewildered: thus, when some have enquired whether the eternal generation is one single act, or an act continued; or whether, when it is said, This day have I begotten thee, the meaning is, that the divine nature was communicated at once, or whether it is perpetually communicating.[97]And the difficulties that attend their asserting either the one or the other of them, which they, who enquire into these matters, take notice of, I shall entirely pass over, as apprehending that this doctrine receives no advantage by such disquisitions.
Neither do I think it tends much to our edification to enquire, as some have done, whether, in the eternal generation, the Father is considered as acting, and the Son as him on whom the action terminates, as the subject thereof; which, when they suppose it does, they farther enquire, whether, in this respect, he is said to be passive, which they are not willing to assert.
And I cannot but take notice of another nicety of inquiry,viz.whether, in the eternal generation, the Son is considered as co-existent with the Father, or as having the divine essence, and hereby only deriving his Sonship from him, from all eternity; or whether he derives both his Sonship and his essence; the former of which is the most generally received opinion. But I am not desirous to enter into this enquiry, especially without first determining what we mean by Sonship.
There is indeed one thing that must be enquired into, and that is, whatever be the explication given of the eternal generation of the Son, and procession of the Holy Ghost, whether they are each of them self-existent, or, as some call it, αυτοθεος; and it is generally determined, that the Son and Holy Ghost have the same self-existent divine nature: but with respect to their manner of having it, some say the Son has his divine nature from the Father, and the Holy Ghost from the Father and Son; or that the Father only is self-existent, as some speak; or, as most others say, that he is self-subsistent; and that this is hispersonal property, as he is distinguished from the Son and Holy Ghost, whom they conclude not to be self-subsistent, but the one to subsist from the Father, and the other from the Father and the Son. This is a generally received opinion; notwithstanding I must confess myself to be at a loss to account for it: so that the principal thing, in which I am obliged, till I receive farther conviction, to differ from many others, is, whether the Son and Spirit have a communicated or derived Personality: this many assert, but, I think, without sufficient proof; for I cannot but conclude that the divine Personality, not only of the Father, but of the Son and Spirit, is as much independent, and underived, as the divine essence.
Thus we have considered how some have embarrassed this doctrine, by being too nice in their enquiries about it: we shall proceed to consider how others have done prejudice to it, by pretending to explain it; and when they make use of similitudes to that purpose, have rather prejudiced the enemies of this doctrine against it, than given any conviction to them. I shall only mention what I have found in some of their writings, whom, in other respects, I cannot but exceedingly value, as having deserved well of the church of God, in defending this truth with good success, yet, when they take this method to explain this doctrine, to say the best of it, they have done but little service to the cause which they have maintained: thus we find them expressing themselves to this purpose; as the soul of man sometimes reflects on itself, and considers its own nature, powers, and faculties, or when it is conversant about itself, as its object, this produces an idea, which contains the moral image of itself, and is like as when he sees his face in a glass, and beholds the image of himself; this, say they, illustrates the eternal generation of the Son, as God beholding himself, or his divine perfections, begets an image of himself, or has an eternal idea of his own perfections in his mind, which is called his internal word, as opposed to the word spoken, which is external; by this they express the generation of the Son, for which reason he is called, in Heb. i. 3.The brightness of the Father’s glory, and the express image of his person, as the wax expresses the character or mark of the seal that is impressed on it.
Again, they farther add, that there is a mutual love between the Father and the Son, which brings forth a third Person, or subsistence in the Godhead, to wit, the Holy Ghost; so that as there is in the divine essence an infinite understanding reflecting on itself, whereby it begets, a Son, as was before observed, and an infinite will, which leads him to reflect on himself, with love and delight, as the chief good, whereby he brings forth a third Person in the Godhead, to wit, the Holy Ghost, accordingly they describe this divine Person as being the result of the mutualjoy and delight that there is between the Father and the Son: these explications many are at a loss to understand; and we humbly conceive it would be much better to let them alone, and confess this doctrine to be an inexplicable mystery, or else some other way may be found out, which is less liable to these exceptions, while we explain those scriptures, which speak of the generation of the Son, and the procession of the Holy Ghost.
The scriptures generally brought in defence of this doctrine are such as these.
1. To prove the eternal generation of the Son, there are several scriptures referred to, particularly that in which the Father is represented as speaking to him, in Psal. ii. 7.Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee; that is, say they, I have, in my eternal, unsuccessive duration, communicated, or imparted, the divine essence, or, at least, personality, to thee.
Another scripture brought to this purpose is that in Prov. viii. 22, 23, 25.The Lord possessed me, speaking of his eternal Word, or Son,in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was; before the mountains were settled; before the hills was I brought forth.Where they suppose that God’s possessing him, which is certainly to be taken in a different sense from his being the possessor of all creatures, is to be understood of his being God’s proper Son by nature; and his being said to be brought forth, they suppose, proves his eternal generation.
Another scripture brought to the same purpose is that in Micah v. 2. speaking of the Son, it is said,His goings forth have been of old, from everlasting; by which they attempt to prove his being begotten in the divine essence: but how that can be called his going forth, I do not well understand.
Moreover, that scripture before mentioned, in Heb. i. 3.Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person.And another parallel scripture, in Col. i. 15.Who is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of every creature; where, by first-born, they understand, that he was begotten before all worlds: the divine essence, or, at least, personality, being communicated to him from eternity.
Another scripture, which we before referred to, brought to prove this doctrine, is John v. 26.As the Father hath life in himself, so he hath given to the Son to have life in himself; that is, say some, as the Father hath all divine perfections in himself originally, so the Son hath these perfections, by communication from him; which they suppose not to be an arbitrary, but a necessary, donation.
Again, this is farther proved, from John i. 17. where he issaid to bethe only begotten Son of the Father. And ver. 18.The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father.From the former of which scriptures they prove the eternal generation of the Son; and from the latter, his being begotten in the divine essence, which distinguishes it from all finite productions, which are out of himself.
Moreover, there are many other scriptures that speak of our Saviour as the Son of God; and particularly in Matth. xvi. 16. he is called,The Son of the living God; and in Rom. viii. 32.his own Son, ἱδιος υιος, which some render,his proper Son, that is, not only his Son, who has the same divine nature with himself, but as implying also the manner of its communication; and in Mat. iii. 17. he is called hisbeloved Son.
2. We shall now consider the scriptures that are generally brought to prove the procession of the Holy Ghost, in the sense before explained. Thus he is said, in John xv. 26. to besent by the Son from the Father; andto proceed from the Father; where they suppose that this proceeding from the Father signifies the communication of the divine essence, or, at least, his personality; and his being sent by the Son, implies, that this communication is from him, as well as the Father. So in Gal. iv. 6. it is said,God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son; and, in John xvi. 7. our Saviour says,I will send him unto you, and ver. 14.He shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you; these scriptures, if not brought directly to prove this doctrine, are, notwithstanding, supposed sufficient to evince the truth thereof, inasmuch as the Son could not send him, if he had not proceeded from him; nor could he have received that which he shews to his people, if he had not, from all eternity, received his divine essence, or personality, from him.
There is another scripture, brought by some very valuable divines, to prove the Spiration of the Holy Ghost, which is so termed, either as supposed to be expressive of the manner of his having his personality as a Spirit, or else it is taken from those words of scripture, brought to prove this Spiration, John xx. 22. in which our Saviour is said to have breathed on his disciples, saying,Receive ye the Holy Ghost; which external sign, or symbol, used in the act of conferring him on them in time, proves his procession from him from eternity; as a temporal procession supposes an eternal one.
These are the scriptures which are generally brought to prove this doctrine. But we shall take occasion to enquire, whether there may not be another sense given thereof, which is less liable to exception, as well as more intelligible. It is to be owned, that they contain some of the deep things of God; and therefore it is no wonder, if they are reckoned among those scriptures that are hard to be understood: but so far as I have any light,either from the context of the respective scriptures, or the analogy of faith, I cannot but conclude that these, and all others of the like nature, that are brought to prove the eternal generation, or Sonship of Christ, respect him as God-man, Mediator;[98]and those other scriptures, that speak of the procession of theHoly Ghost, respect the subserviency of his acting as a divine Person to the Mediator’s glory, in applying the work of redemption.
And here we shall consider these scriptures in particular; and then answer some objections that may be brought against this sense thereof, whereby, I hope, it will appear, that we assert nothing but what tends to the glory of the Son and Spirit, establisheth the doctrine of the ever-blessed Trinity, and agrees with the commonly received faith, so far as it is founded on scripture, without being tenacious of those modes of speaking, which have the sanction of venerable antiquity, and are supported by the reputation of those who have used them; though it may be, those scriptures will be otherwise understood by them, who regard explications that are merely human, no farther than they are defensible.
The first scripture before mentioned, which was brought to prove the eternal generation of the Son, was Psal. ii. 7.Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.This cannot, I humbly conceive, respect the communication of the divine nature, or personality to the Son, as appears from the words immediately foregoing, in which it is said,I will declare the decree, or what I had before decreed, or determined. Far be it from us to suppose that the divine nature, or personality, of the Son was the result of an act of the divine will: and, indeed, the whole Psalm plainly speaks of Christ as Mediator; as such he is said, ver. 6.To be set as God’s king, on his holy hill of Sion, and, as such, he is said to intercede with, or ask of God; and, as the result hereof, the Father is said, ver. 8. to give himthe heathen for his inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for his possession; and all this is spoken of him, as a farther explication of those words,Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. And the apostle, in Heb. i. 5. refers to this scripture, when speaking of him as Mediator, and ashaving, by inheritance, obtained a more excellent name than the angels; which he has done, as he is constituted heir of all things: and he subjoins that promise,I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son, that is, he shall perform that obedience that is due from him as a Son; and I will give unto him those rewards, which are due from a Father, who has committed this work to him, with a promise of the conferring those revenues of Mediatorial glory on him, that should ensue on his fulfilling it. Moreover, this scripture is referred to, by the apostle, in Acts xiii. 32, 33. when he says,That the promise, which was made to the fathers, God hath fulfilled the same unto their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again, as it is written in the second Psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. So that it is plain the Psalmist speaks of him as having finished his workof redemption, at which time he was raised from the dead; and then, in the fullest sense, he had theheathen for his inheritance. And, upon this account, he is also called, in Rev. i. 5.The first begotten of the dead; and, in Col. i. 18.The first-born from the dead.
The next scripture brought to prove the eternal generation of the Son, in Prov. viii. 22, 23, 25. refers to Christ, as Mediator; when God is said topossess him in the beginning of his way, the meaning is, that in his eternal design oi grace relating to the redemption of man, the Father possessed, or laid claim to him as his Son, or servant, appointed in the human nature, to bring about that great work; and accordingly it follows,I was set up from everlasting, that is, fore-ordained of God, to be the Mediator and head of his elect: and this agrees very well with what follows, ver. 30, 31.I was daily his delight, that is, God the Father was well pleased with him, when foreseeing from all eternity what he would do in time, to secure the glory of his perfections in the redemption of man, as God publicly testified his well-pleasedness in him, when he was actually engaged in this work. And it is farther added,That he was always rejoicing before him; rejoicing in the habitable part of his earth, and his delights were with the sons of men; which signifies the great pleasure Christ had, in his eternal fore-sight of what he would do for the sons of men, whom he is elsewhere said tohave loved with an everlasting love.
The next scripture is in Micah v. 2. where speaking of the Son, it is said,Whose goings forth have been of old, from everlasting. For the understanding of which scripture, let us consider, that God’s goings are sometimes taken in scripture for what he does, whereby he renders himself the object of his people’s astonishment and praise; these are his visible goings. Thus, Psal. lxvi. 24.They have seen thy goings, O God, even the goings of my God, my King, in the sanctuary; that is, they shall see the great things which thou wilt do for man, in the work of redemption: so in this scripture, the sense whereof we are considering, we read of Christ’s goings forth, his invisible goings, as we may call them, or his secret purposes, or designs of grace, relating to the redemption of his people:His goings forth were from everlasting; that is, he did, from eternity, design to save them; the outgoings of his heart were towards them, and, as the result hereof, he came into the world according to this prediction, and was born in Bethlehem, as in the foregoing words.
The next scripture is in Heb. i. 3. where he is said to bethe brightness of his, that is, his Father’sglory, and the express image of his person. By the former expression, I humbly conceive, is meant, that the glory of the divine perfections shinesforth most illustriously in Christ, our great Mediator, as the apostle expresses it elsewhere, 2 Cor. iv. 6.God hath shined in our hearts, to give the knowledge of his glory, in the face of Jesus Christ.By the latter expression, in which Christ is calledthe express image of his Person, I humbly conceive, is meant, that though his divine nature be the same with the Father’s, yet his Personality is distinct; and therefore it is not said to be the same, but theimage of his Father’s; and it also proves his proper divine Personality, as being, in all respects, like that of the Father, though not the same.
The next scripture is in John v. 26.As the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself.We cannot think that the Father’s havinggiven to the Son to have life in himselfimplies his giving him the divine perfections, for the propriety of that mode of speaking cannot be defended consistently with his proper underived Deity. But I humbly conceive that the meaning of it is this; thatas the Father hath life in himself, that is, as he has eternal life, or that fulness of grace and glory, which his people are to be made partakers of, at his own disposal, and has designed to give it, in his eternal purpose; so hath he given to the Son, as Mediator, to have life in himself, that is, that, as such, he should be the treasury of all this grace, and that he should have life in himself to dispense to them. This is very agreeable to his character and office, as Mediator, and with what follows, ver. 24. where it is said;Verily, verily, I say unto you, he that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation, but is passed from death unto life; and ver. 27. it is farther added, that He, to wit, the Father,hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man; which plainly denotes, that this life, which he has received from the Father, is that eternal life, which he is impowered or commissioned to bestow on his people, as Mediator; this he has in himself, and accordingly he is said, John i. 14. to befull of grace and truth; and Col. i. 19.It pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell.
The next thing to be considered, is the sense of those many scriptures, in which our Saviour is described as theSon of God, or theSon of the living God, orhis only begotten Son, orhis ownorproper Son, as distinguished from all others, which, I humbly conceive, sets forth his glory, as Mediator, which we shall endeavour to prove. But, to prepare our way for the prosecution of this argument, as well as to prevent any misconstruction that might give prejudice thereunto, we shall take leave to premise,
1. That when we read of the Son of God, as dependent on the Father, inferior and obedient to him; and yet, as beingequal with him, and having the same divine nature, we cannot conceive of any character which answers to all these ideas of sonship, unless that of a Mediator. If we consider the properties of sonship among men, every one who stands in this relation to a Father is dependent on him. In this respect, the father is the cause of his son, and it is not like other productions, for no effect can, properly speaking, be called a son, but that which hath the same kind of nature with his father; and the relation of sonship always connotes inferiority, and an obligation to yield obedience. I do not apply this, in every respect, to the Sonship of Christ, which no similitude, taken from mere creatures, can sufficiently illustrate; but his character, as Mediator, seems to answer to it, more than any thing else that can be said of him, since he has, as such, the same individual nature with the Father, and also is inferior to, and dependent on him. As a son, among men, is inferior to, and dependent on, his father, and, as the prophet speaks, Mal. i. 6.Honoureth his father; so whatever Christ is, as Mediator, he receives it from the Father, and, in all that he does, hehonoureth his Father, as he says, John viii. 49. As the whole work of redemption is referred to the Father’s glory, and the commission, by which he acts as Mediator, is received from the Father, so, as a Son, he refers all the glory thereof to him.
2. This account of Christ’s Sonship does not take away any argument, by which we prove his Deity; for when we consider him as Mediator, we always suppose him to be both God and man, which is what we intend when we speak of the Person of Christ in this respect; so that, as God, he is equal with the Father, and has an equal right to divine adoration. This belongs to him as much, when considered as Mediator, as it can be supposed to do, if we consider his Sonship in any other respect.
3. It does not take away any argument to prove his distinct Personality from the Father and Holy Ghost, or, at least, if it sets aside that which is taken from the dependence of his Personality on the Father, as received from him by communication, it substitutes another in the room of it, inasmuch as to be a Mediator is, without doubt, a personal character; and because neither the Father, nor the Holy Ghost, can be said to be Mediators, it implies, that his Personality is distinct from theirs; likewise his acting as Mediator from the Father; and the Holy Spirit’s securing the glory which arises to him from hence, and applying the redemption purchased by him, is a farther proof of this distinction of the Persons in the Godhead.
4. Since we consider the Mediator as both God and man, in one Person, we do not suppose that this character respects either of his two natures, considered separately.
(1.) Not his divine nature. It is true, that his having the same nature with the Father might be reckoned, by some, a character of Sonship, as it contains one ingredient in the common idea that we have among men. They, as sons, are said to have the same kind of nature with their fathers; so our Saviour’s having the same individual nature with the Father might give occasion to some to denominate him, for that reason, his Son; but though this may be the foundation of his being called God’sproper Son, ιδιος υιος, yet this is not his distinguishing character as a Son: for it would follow from hence, that the Holy Ghost, who has the same nature with the Father, would, for that reason, be called his Son, which is contrary to the scripture-account given of him, as proceeding from the Father and the Son.
(2.) This character of Christ, as God-man, Mediator, does not respect his human nature, considered separately from his divine, nor any of those peculiar honours conferred upon it, beyond what any mere creatures are made partakers of.
This leads us to consider the difference between this notion of his Sonship, and that which was generally assigned, as the reason of his being so called, by the Socinians; these generally speak of Christ, as being denominated the Son of God, because of the extraordinary and miraculous conception, or formation, of his human nature in the womb of the Virgin; and for this they refer to that scripture in Luke i. 35.[101]The Holy Ghostshall 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. The sense, in whichthey understand this text, is, that Christ is called the Son of God, because of this extraordinary event: But we cannot think that a miraculous production is a sufficient foundation to supportthis character, and therefore must conclude, that the glory of Christ’s Sonship is infinitely greater than what arises from thence: therefore, I humbly conceive that this scripture is to be understood, with a small variation of the translation, in this sense,The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, &c.because that Holy Thing, which shall be born of thee, shall be called, as he really is,the Son of God; that is, he is as Mediator, an extraordinary Person appointed to execute a glorious office, the Godhead and the manhood being to be united together, upon which account he is called the Son of God: and therefore it is expedient that the formation of his human nature should be in an extraordinary way, to wit, by the power of the Holy Ghost.
Again, there is a very wide difference between our account of Christ’s Sonship, as Mediator, and theirs, as taken from this scripture, in that they suppose that his being called the Son of God, refers only to some dignities conferred upon him, whom they suppose to be no more than a man. This is infinitely below the glory, which we ascribe to him, as Mediator, since their idea of him, as such, how extraordinary soever his conception was, argues him to be no more than a creature; but ours, as has been before observed, proves him a divine Person, since we never speak of him, as Mediator, without including both natures.
Having premised these things, to explain our sense of Christ’s being called the Son of God, as Mediator, we proceed to prove this from scripture. And here we are not under a necessity of straining the sense of a few scriptures, to make them speak agreeably to this notion of Christ’s Sonship; but, I think, we have the whole scripture, whenever it speaks of Christ, as the Son of God, as giving countenance to this plain sense thereof; so that I cannot find one place, in the whole New Testament, in which Christ is called the Son of God, but it is, with sufficient evidence, proved, from the context, that it is applied to him, as Mediator. Here we shall refer to several scriptures, in which he is so considered: thus that scripture before-mentioned, in Matth. xvi. 16. where Peter confesses,Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God; in which, speaking of him asChrist, or the Mediator, that is, the Person who was invested in the office, and came to perform the work of a Mediator, he is, in this respect,the Son of the living God; so when the high priest asked our Saviour, Matth. xxvi. 63.Art thou the Christ, the Son of God?that is, art thou the Messiah, as thou art supposed to be by thy followers? Our Saviour, in ver. 64. replied to him,Thou hast said, that is, it is as thou hast said; and then he describes himself in another character, by which he is often represented, as Mediator, and speaks of the highest degree of his Mediatorial glory to which he shall be advanced at his second coming, ver. 64.Nevertheless, I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.And, doubtless, the centurion, and they who were with him, when they confessed thathe was the Son of God, in Matth. xxvii. 54. understood by it, that he was the Messiah, or the Christ, which is a character by which he was most known, and which had been supported by so many miracles, and was now confirmed by this miracle of the earthquake, which gave him this conviction; also in Luke iv. 41. when the devils are represented as crying out,Thou art Christ, the Son of God, it follows,that they knew that he was Christ; so that the commonly received notion of our Saviour’s Sonship was, that he was the Christ. And in John xi. 3. when Jesus says concerning Lazarus,that his sickness was not unto death, that is, not such as that he should continue in the state of the dead,but for the glory of God, that the Son of God might be glorified thereby, the meaning is, that he might give a proof of his being the Christ, by raising him from the dead; therefore, when he speaks to Martha, with a design to try whether she believed he could raise her brother from the dead, and represents himself to her as the object of faith, she replies, ver. 27.I believe that thou art the Christ the Son of God, which should come into the world.Again, it is said, in Acts ix. 20. that Saul, when converted,preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God, that is, he proved him to be the Messiah; and accordingly, ver. 22. when he was establishing the same doctrine, it is said, thathe proved that he was the very Christ.
Moreover, our Saviour is farther described, in scripture, as executing some of his mediatorial offices, or as having received a commission to execute them from the Father, or as having some branches of mediatorial glory conferred upon him, at the same time that he is called the Son of God, which gives us ground to conclude, that this is the import of his Sonship. Thus we read, Heb. iv. 14. thatwe have a great High Priest that is passed into the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God; and in John i. 29. John the Baptist gives a public testimony to him, as sustainingsuch a character, which belongs to him, as Mediator, when he says,Behold the Lamb of God which taketh away the sins of the world; and afterwards, referring to the same character, he says, ver. 34.I saw, and bare record, that this is the Son of God; and at another time he gives a noble testimony to him, as God-man, Mediator, John iii. 29, &c. when he calls him,The Bridegroom which hath the bride, that is, who is related to, and has a propriety, in his church, and thathe testifies what he has seen and heard, and that it ishe whom God hath sent, who speaks the words of God, for God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him; and then, as a farther explication hereof, he says, ver. 35.The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand.This is, in effect, the same, as when he is called elsewhere,his beloved Son; and, in Heb. iii. 6. Christ is said to bea Son over his own house, whose house are we; which denotes not only his propriety in his church, but his being the Head thereof, as Mediator; and the apostle, 1 Thess. i. 10. speaks of him, asthe Son of God, whom we are to wait for from heaven; whom he has raised from the dead, even Jesus, which delivered us from the wrath to come; and, Gal. ii. 20. he speaks of the Son of God, as one wholoved him, and gave himself for him; and Col. i. 13. he is spoken of asGod’s dear Son, and, at the same time, as having a kingdom, into which his people are translated; and in the following verse, as the personin whom we have redemption, through his blood, who is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of every creature; which seems to be taken in the same sense as when he said, Heb. i. 2. to have beenappointed Heir of all things, and so referring to him as God-man, Mediator.
Moreover, when he is considered as a Son related to his Father; this appears, from the context, to be a description of him as Mediator. Thus, John xx. 17. he says,I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; to my God, and your God; that is, my Father by whom I am constituted Mediator, and your Father, namely, the God who loves you for my sake: he is first my God, as he has honoured, loved and glorified me; and then your God, as he is reconciled to you for my sake; so the apostle says, 2 Cor. i. 3.Blessed be God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ; the Father of mercies, and the God of all comfort.
Object.1. In these scriptures, and others of the like nature, there are two ideas contained; namely, one of our Saviour, as the Son of God, by eternal generation; the other of him, as Mediator; whereas we suppose that one contains only an explication of the other.
Answ.If Christ’s Sonship, in the sense in which it is generally explained, were sufficiently proved from other scriptures,which take no notice of his mediatorial character, or works, or could be accounted for, without being liable to the difficulties before-mentioned, and if his character, as Mediator, did not contain in it an idea of Personality, the objection would have more weight than otherwise it seems to have.
Object.2. It is said, Gal. iv. 4.God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law; therefore he was the Son of God before he was sent into the world, when made of a woman, and under the law, that is, his Son by eternal generation.
Answ.The answer I would give to this objection is,
1. It is not necessary to suppose that Christ had the character of a Son before he was sent, though he had that of a divine Person; since the words may, without any strain, or force, upon the sense thereof, be understood thus; when the fulness of time was come, in which the Messiah was expected, God sent him forth, or sent him into the world, with the character of a Son, at which time he was made of a woman, made under the law; the end whereof was, that he might redeem them that were under the law.
2. If we suppose Christ had the character of a Son before he was sent into the world, it will not overthrow our argument: since he was, by the Father’s designation, an eternal Mediator, and, in this respect, God’s eternal Son; and therefore, he who before was so by virtue of the eternal decree, is now actually sent, that he might be, and do, what he was from all eternity designed to be, and do: he was set up from everlasting, or appointed to be the Son of God; and now he is sent to perform the work which this character implies in it.
Object.3. It is farther objected, that his Sonship is distinct from his being Mediator, inasmuch as it is said, Heb. v. 8.Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered.Now it cannot, in propriety of speech, be said, though he were Mediator, yet he learned obedience, since he was under an obligation to obey, and suffer as Mediator; therefore the meaning must be, though he were a Son by eternal generation, yet he condescended to put himself into such a capacity, as that he was obliged to obey, and suffer, as Mediator.
Answ.The stress of the objection lies in the word which we renderthough, Και περ ων υιος &c. which may be rendered, with a small variation,though being a Son, he learned obedience by the things he suffered;but being made perfect,viz.after his sufferings, he became the author of eternal salvation, unto all them that obey him; and then it takes away the force of the objection. However, I see no absurdity if it be rendered, as it is in the vulgar Latin version,And, indeed, being a Son, helearned obedience[102], and then it proves the argument we are endeavouring to defend,q. d.it is agreeable to the character of a son to learn obedience; it was with this view that it was conferred upon him, and in performing obedience, and suffering as Mediator, and thereby securing the glory of the divine perfections in bringing about the work of our redemption, he acted in pursuance of that character.
Object.1. It will be farther objected, that what we have said concerning the Sonship of Christ, as referred to his being Mediator, has some consequences attending it, which seem derogatory to his Person; particularly, it will follow from hence, that had not man fallen, and stood in need of a Mediator, our Saviour would not have had that character, and therefore never have been described as the Son of God, or worshipped as such. And our first parents, while in the state of innocency, knowing nothing of a Mediator, knew nothing of the Sonship of Christ, and therefore could not give him the glory, which is the result thereof. Moreover, as God might have prevented the fall of man, or, when fallen, he might have refused to have recovered him by a Mediator; so our Saviour might not have been the Son of God, that is, according to the foregoing explication thereof, a Mediator between God and man.
Answ.This objection may be very easily answered, and the charge, of Christ’s mediatorial Sonship being derogatory to his glory, removed; which that we may do, let it be considered,
1. That we allow, that had not man fallen, our Saviour would not have been a Mediator between God and man; and the commonly received notion is true, that his being a Mediator is, by divine ordination and appointment, according to the tenor of several scriptures relating thereunto; and I see no absurdity in asserting, that his character, as the Son of God, or Mediator, is equally the result of the divine will, or decree. But this I hope, if duly considered, will not contain the least diminution of his glory, when we farther assert,
2. That though our Saviour had not sustained this character if man had not fallen, or if God had not designed to bring about the work of redemption by him, yet he would have been no less a distinct Person in the Godhead, and, as such, would have had a right to divine glory. This appears from what hath been before said, concerning his personality being equallynecessary with his Deity, which, if it be not communicated to him, certainly it has not the least appearance of being the result of the divine will; and, indeed, his divine personality is the only foundation of his right to be adored, and not his being invested in an office, which only draws forth, or occasions our adoration. When we speak of Christ’s being adored, as Mediator, it is his divine personality, which is included in that character, that renders him the object of adoration, and not his taking the human nature, or being, or doing, what he was, or did, by divine appointment; and I question whether they, who assert that he had the divine nature, or personality, communicated to him, will lay the stress of his right to divine adoration, on its being communicated, but on his having it, abstracting from his manner of having it; so when we speak of Christ as Mediator, it is his having the divine glory, or personality, which is included in that character, that renders him the object of adoration; therefore, if man had not fallen, and Christ had not been Mediator, he would have had a right to divine glory, as a Person in the Godhead. And I doubt not but that our first parents, before they fell, had an intimation hereof, and adored him as such; so that if Christ had not been Mediator, it would only follow from thence, that he would not have had the character of a Son, but he would, notwithstanding, have had the glory of a divine Person; for though his sonship be the result of the divine will, his personality is not so.[103]
Having enquired into the sense of those scriptures which treat of the Sonship of Christ, we shall next consider those that are generally brought to prove the procession of the HolyGhost; the principal of which, as has been before observed, are in John xiv. 26. and chap. xv. 26. and xvi. 7. in which he is saidto proceed from the Father, or to besent by the Fatherin Christ’s name, or to besent by the Son. We have already considered the most commonly received sense hereof, as including in it an eternal procession,viz.the communication ofthe divine essence, or personality to him, as distinguished from the eternal generation of the Son; but now we shall enquire whether there may not be another sense given of these scriptures,agreeable to the analogy of faith, that may be acquiesced in by those, who cannot so well understand, or account for, the common sense given thereof, which, I humbly conceive, isthis: that the Spirit is considered not with respect to the manner of his subsisting, but with respect to the subserviency of his acting, to set forth the Mediator’s glory, and that of the Fatherthat sent him. I chuse to call it a subserviency of acting, without connoting any inferiority in the agent; or if we suppose that it argues any inferiority in the Holy Spirit, this isonly an inferiority in acting, as the works that he does are subservient to the glory of the Mediator, and of the Father, though his divine personality is, in all respects, equal withtheirs. This explication of these texts, is allowed of by many, if not by most, of those who defend the doctrine of the Trinity, notwithstanding their maintaining another notion of the Spirit’sprocession from the Father and the Son, from all eternity, in the sense before considered. I need only refer to that explication which a great and learned divine gives of these, andsuch like texts, notwithstanding his adhering, in other respects, to the common mode of speaking, relating to the eternal generation of the Son, and procession of the Holy Ghost. Hiswords are these[106]: “All that discourse which we have of the mission, and sending of the Holy Ghost, and his proceeding and coming forth from the Father and Son, for the ends specified, John xiv. 26. and xv. 26. and xvi. 7, 13. concerns not at all the eternal procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and Son, as to his distinct personality and subsistance, but belongs to that œconomy, or dispensation of the ministry, that the whole Trinity proceedeth in, for the accomplishment of the work of our salvation.”