Chapter 32

86.Vid. Forbes. Instruct. Hist. Theol. Lib. I. cap. 2 §. 8.

87.Vid. Curcell in Quattern. Dissert. de Voc. Trinit. personæ ge.

88.Vid. Calv. Institut. Lib. I. cap. 13. §. 5.

89.“The doctrine of a plurality appears in the very first words of inspiration. God would not record the history ofcreation, without informing the Church that the character of Creator was by no means to be confined to one person. It has often been observed, that this is taught in the words renderedGod created, where we have a noun in the plural joined with a verb in the singular number, plainly expressing a plurality in unity. That this is the genuine sense of the passage appears from the work ascribed, in the next verse, to the Spirit of God, who is said to have ‘moved on the face of the waters.’ By modern Jews, whom some Christians have followed, this expression has been rendered, ‘a wind of God,’ or ‘a mighty wind.’ But the firmament, or expanse, was not created till the second day. This includes the atmosphere which surrounds our earth: for the fowl is said to ‘fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.’ Now, it cannot reasonably be supposed that there could be a mighty wind, or any wind at all, before the existence of an atmosphere.“If we turn to the gospel-history, we find a third person mentioned as engaged in the work of creation. ‘All things were made by’ that Word, who ‘in the beginning existed with God.’“This plurality appears still more expressly, when the sacred historian gives an account of the creation of man: ‘And God said, Letusmake man inourimage, afterourlikeness.’ But it is a plurality in unity: ‘So God created man inhisown image.’ It has been justly observed, that to this the language of Elihu, and of the royal Preacher, agrees: ‘None saith, Where is God myMakers;’ and, ‘Remember now thyCreators.’ Nothing can be more absurd than the various attempts which have been made to shew, that this language may be otherwise understood. God could never speak in this manner to angels, or to any second causes. For to whomsoever these words were addressed, they must have been co-operators with God in this divine work. They must have assisted him in making man. Philo the Jew expressly says that these words,Let us make, declare a plurality. That the Jewish writers in general view this language as including a mystery, not to be made known to the vulgar, and indeed studiously concealed by them, from their abhorrence of Christianity, has been elsewhere demonstrated. It is therefore unnecessary to enlarge here. I shall only add, that the modern Jews are so fully convinced that the doctrine of a plurality is contained in these words, as to wish to alter the reading. Instead ofLet us make man, they incline to read,Let man be made; although the Samaritan text, the Septuagint, the Talmudists, and all their translations, whether ancient or modern, express the language in the same manner with our version.“The same important doctrine is introduced in the history of theFall. That three-one God, who said, ‘Let us make man after our image,’ in the same character laments the loss of this image. ‘JehovahGod said, Behold, the man is become as one of us;’ or, as some read the passage, ‘Behold the man, who was as one of us!’ Here Philo observes; ‘These words,as one of us, are not put for one, but for more than one.’ The learned Allix has remarked that the ancient Jewish writers maintain, that God ‘speaks not this to the angels, who had no common likeness to the unity or essence of God, but to Him who was the celestial Adam, who is one with God.’ To whom this character applies, we learn from the Targum of Jonathan on the place, who here speaks of ‘the only begotten in heaven.’“This doctrine is also taught in the history of theConfusion of Tongues. ‘Jehovahsaid,—Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language.’ Here the Jews repeat their contemptible subterfuge, that God addresses his ‘house of judgment,’ that is, created angels. For it is an established doctrine with them, that ‘God does nothing without previously consulting with his family above.’ But it has justly been observed, that these words, if spoken to angels, would imply that God were one of them, or that he descended in the same manner with them, by a real change of place. Besides, in a moment to change one language into many, and to infuse these into the minds of men, who were utter strangers to them before, so that they should entirely forget their former modes of speech, is a work that far surpasses the power of angels, and can be accomplished by no being but that God, with whom to will and to do is the same.“It must be evident to every one, who reads the history of the Old Testament with any degree of attention, that anAngelis often introduced as speaking the language, performing the works, and accepting the worship, which exclusively belong to the Supreme Being. In other words, one, who is undoubtedly a divine person, often appears in a delegated character. Now, while it was the will of God in this manner constantly to remind his Church of the economy of redemption, he at the same time taught her a distinction of persons in the divine essence. It was this Angel who appeared to Abraham on different occasions, to Hagar, to Jacob, to Moses, to Joshua, to the Israelites at Bochim, to Gideon, to Manoah and his wife. But I enter not into a particular consideration of these appearances, having endeavoured to illustrate the character of this divine Messenger in another place. There it has also been proved, that the law was given to the Israelites at Mount Sinai by the second person of the adorable Trinity, in the character of the Angel ofJehovah. It deserves particular attention, that at the very time that the God of Israel gave his people a law, by which they were to be distinguished from all the idolatrous nations around, one special design of which was to preserve the doctrine of the divine unity;—at the very time that he pronounced that leading precept, ‘Thou shalt have no other gods before me;’ he, according to the Sacred History, viewed in its connexion, sustained the character of an Angel, and was pleased to communicate the knowledge of this fact to his people. How can these apparent contradictions be reconciled, but by admitting that it was the will of God to reveal himself to his church, as at the same time possessing essential unity and personal plurality?“The more ancient Jewish writers declare, that two persons were engaged in promulgating the law. They say; ‘The two first precepts were spoken by the Supreme Spirit, but he spoke all the rest by his Glory, who is calledEl Shaddai, known to the fathers; by whom the prophets foretold future events; who is calledJah: in whom the Name of God is; the Beloved of God who dwelt in the temple; and the Mouth of theLord; and the Face of theLord; and the Rock; and that Goodness which Moses saw, when he could not see God.’ Elsewhere they call him ‘theSchechinah, by whom we draw near to God, and present our supplications to him; who is that Angel in whom the name of God is, who is himself called God andJehovah.’ The change of person, in the promulgation of the law, asserted by these writers, is evidently a mere fancy. But their language deserves attention; as it shews how fully they were convinced of the doctrine of a plurality in unity, when they introduced it in this manner.“It has been universally admitted by the friends of revelation, that the great end which God hath in view in the work ofRedemptionis the display of his own adorable perfections. But there is doubtless another, although less attended to, nowise incompatible with this, nay, itself an eminent branch of the supreme end. This is the manifestation of the mystery of the Trinity, and of the mode of subsistence peculiar to each person in the divine essence. This must undoubtedly be viewed as included in the one great design of the all-wise God in our redemption; and it is evident that he hath still kept it in eye, in the revelation given to the Church, and especially in the history of that work, as it is recorded in the gospels. We may trace the doctrine of a Trinity in the accounts given of the old creation; but it appears with far superior evidence in the history of the new. This corresponds to the superior greatness of the work, and to the brighter and more extensive display of divine perfection.“Such was the state of the Church, as to admit of a more full manifestation of this mystery. It was more obscurely revealed to the patriarchs, and under the Mosaic economy. This was analogous to the general character of the revelation then made; as well as to the state of the Church, yet in her infancy, and exposed to constant temptations to polytheism, from the situation of all the surrounding nations. But ‘when the fulness of the time was come,’ that the gospel should be preached to every creature, and the kingdom of Satan fall as lightning from heaven, in the overthrow of heathen darkness; there were no such impediments to the more clear revelation of this mysterious doctrine. The rest of the divine conduct indeed rendered this necessary. God had now ‘sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law.’ The ends of this mission could not be accomplished, without a full revelation of the character of this illustrious Messenger. He could not otherwise receive that homage from the Church, which he merited as her Redeemer, and which was necessary, in order to her salvation. Now, his character, as essentially the Son of God, and at the same time a divine Messenger, could not be properly unfolded, without a declaration both of the paternity of the First Person, and of that wonderful dispensation, according to which the Second, although equal in power and glory, voluntarily ‘emptied himself.’ Nor could the unity of the work of redemption, as pervading all the dispensations given to the Church, and the beautiful harmony of the law and the gospel, be otherwise displayed. Without a full revelation of this mystery, how could it have been known that he, who appeared in the end of ages as sent of God, was the very same person who had formerly led the Church, as the Angel of his face; that He, who now brought spiritual redemption to his folk, was no other than that Angel-Redeemer, who had already so frequently delivered them from temporal calamities?“If this mystery be unknown or disbelieved, there can be no faith in Christ as the Mediator between God and men. For he who believes not that the Son is in the Father, and the Father in the Son, as to identity of essence, while at the same time there is a distinction of persons, denies the voluntary subjection of the Son to the Father in the eternal covenant, and thus the whole foundation of his merit and of our salvation. In relation to the work of our redemption, and in the history given of it, are revealed various internal actings of the divine persons towards each other, as well as those of an external nature. The Father appoints, gives, sends, prepares a human nature for his Son; the Son undertakes, gives himself, comes, assumes this nature.“From the history given of the conception of Christ, we find that three divine persons were engaged in the creation of this ‘new thing in the earth.’ The Father appears in the character of ‘the Highest;’ the Third Person, as ‘the Holy Ghost,’ and ‘the Power of the Highest;’ and the Second, as ‘the Son of God.’ When this wonderful Person, the incarnate Word, was to be manifested to Israel at his baptism, each divine Person concurred in the work. The Father testified his presence and approbation by a voice from the excellent glory, announcing Jesus as his beloved Son; and the Holy Ghost descended like a dove, and rested on him. The history of his death, viewed in its connexion, affords a proof of a similar kind. As ‘it pleasedJehovah,’ in the person of the Father, sustaining the character of Judge, to bruise the Son as our Surety; and as he, having power over his own life, commended his spirit into the hands of his Father, thus presenting unto him a sacrifice of a sweet-smelling savour; he did so ‘through the Eternal Spirit.’ The same thing appears from the resurrection of Jesus. He was ‘powerfully declared to be the Son of God in his resurrection from the dead;’ for he had ‘power to take again’ that which no one could take from him. This work is frequently ascribed to God, where the term evidently denotes the First Person. ‘God hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.’ As he was ‘put to death in the flesh, he was quickened by the Spirit,’ by that Spirit of holiness, ‘by which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison.’ Nor is this less evident from the account given of the effusion of the Spirit. This is undoubtedly a divine work; and it is described as belonging to each adorable Person. Jesus had foretold that the Comforter should come, that himself should send him, and that he should at the same time be sent by the Father. Accordingly, from the account given of this wonderful event by the apostle Peter, which is left on record for the instruction of the Church, we find that each divine Person was engaged in accomplishing it: ‘Jesus, having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, hath shed forth this which ye now see and hear.’“It is undeniable, that one special end, which Christ had in view in his miraculous works, was to confirm his doctrine with respect to his equality with the Father. When he gave thanks at the tomb of Lazarus, before raising him from the dead, it was because of the people who stood by, that they might believe that the Father had sent him; and sent him as a Messenger invested with divine power, because essentially possessing divine perfection. For he had previously said to his disciples: ‘This sickness is not unto death, but for the glory of God, that the Son of God might be glorified thereby;’ and taught Martha, that if she ‘would believe, she would see the glory of God,’ in seeing the manifestation of that power which essentially belonged to himself, as ‘the Resurrection and the Life.’ When he cured the man sick of the palsy, it was in order to prove that he had ‘power on earth to forgive sin;’ while he admitted the principle held by the scribes, that no one could forgive sins but God only. On different occasions he refers to his miraculous works, as irrefragable evidences of his having the same essence with the Father; and of the mutual inexistence, as some have expressed it, of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Father, in respect of this essential unity, while there is at the same time a real distinction of persons. When his enemies accused him of blasphemy, because he said, ‘I am the Son of God,’ ‘making himself God;’ he replied, ‘If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works; that ye may know and believe that the Father is in me, and I in him.’ To Philip, when desiring to see the Father, he said, ‘Believe me, that I am in the Father, and the Father in me; or else believe me for the very work’s sake.’ The Evangelist John, when referring to the signs recorded in the preceding history, subjoins this declaration; ‘These are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Son of God.’ That he appropriates this character to Jesus, as expressive of supreme deity, is evident from the uniform tenor of the gospel which bears his name.“The doctrine of the Trinity is peculiarly elucidated by the history of redemption; as it does not merely exhibit all the adorable Persons as engaged in this work, but ascribes a peculiar operation to each Person. The contrivance of our redemption is ascribed to the Father; the purchase of it to the Son; and the effectual application of this purchased redemption to the Holy Spirit. The Father sends his Son as our Surety; the Son cheerfully comes in this character; and the Holy Spirit is sent by both. The purpose of election is more immediately ascribed to the Father; the objects of his love are all chosen in Christ; and they, who were thus chosen from eternity, are in time chosen out of the world, and separated for himself, by the renewing and sanctifying work of the Spirit.“Nor is this all. The peculiar operation of each Person, in the work of our salvation, is perfectly analagous to the order of subsistence in the Holy Trinity; and thus beautifully illustrates the mutual relations of the divine Persons. All the external works of God, indeed, are common to each Person; as the divine nature is the same indivisible principle of operation. Yet these works are distinctly ascribed to the three Persons, because each Person operates according to the order of subsistence. In the old creation, the Father called all things into being by his co-essential Word, communicating life immediately by the Spirit, as exercising a generating power on the unformed mass. When God created man, the First Person formed him by the Second, as his essential Image, giving him life, both natural and moral, by the Third, as ‘the Spirit of life.’ Yet this implies no inferiority, or mere instrumentality, in any of the adorable Persons; but only the most perfect order and harmony. The case is the same in the new creation. It seems most consistent with divine wisdom, that he who is first in the order of subsistence should rathersendthan besent; that the Son, who is ‘the image of the invisible God,’ should procure the restoration of that blessed image lost by sin; and that he, who proceeds from the Father and the Son, should be sent by both, to quicken those who are spiritually dead. This distinct operation indeed, as it corresponds with the order of subsistence, beautifully harmonizes with the distinguishing character belonging to each Person. He, who is essentially the Father, assumes the character of paternity, in a federal respect, towards those who are orphans and aliens. The only begotten Son of God is sent forth, made under the law, that they may ‘receive the adoption of sons,’ and appears as ‘the first-born among many brethren.’ The adorable Spirit, ‘the breath ofJehovah,’ breathes on the slain, that they may live; giving them a new heart and a right spirit. He, who proceeds from the Father and the Son, unites the sinner to both.“Is it ‘life eternal to know the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom he hath sent?’ Hath no one the Father, who ‘denieth the Son?’ Can no one honour the Father, ‘who honoureth not the Son?’ Is it the Spirit alone who quickeneth, and who teacheth us to ‘know the things that are freely given us of God?’ Can no man ‘say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost?’ Is it through Christ that ‘we have access by one Spirit unto the Father?’ Let us bless God for the revelation of the mystery of a Trinity in unity; and especially because he hath revealed it so clearly in the history of our redemption, in relation to that work in which a peculiar operation belongs to each adorable Person, in which the love of a three-one God is so wonderfully displayed, in which we discern so blessed a harmony, not only of divine perfections, but of divine Persons! In all our worship, let us view God according to this revelation, ascribing glory to him ‘who is, and who was, and who is to come, and to the Seven Spirits which are before his throne, and to Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first-begotten from the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth.’ Let us earnestly desire communion with this three-one God; with the Father, in his love as the spring of our salvation; with the Son, in all that grace which he hath purchased by his blood; and with the Holy Ghost, in the whole extent of his efficacious operation. In order to this, let us press after union with Christ, that in him we may be united to the Father by that one Spirit who proceeds from both, and who is conferred by both as the Spirit of adoption. Let us cultivate love to the brethren, as members of the same mystical body, desiring to be ‘one heart and one soul;’ that although many, we may be one, and thus be assimilated, in our weak measure, to the blessed Trinity in respect of unity; as Jesus prays in behalf of his Church;—‘That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee; that they also may be one in us.—I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.’”Jamieson.

“If we turn to the gospel-history, we find a third person mentioned as engaged in the work of creation. ‘All things were made by’ that Word, who ‘in the beginning existed with God.’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jamieson.

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

91.See Biddle’s Confession of Faith, touching the holy Trinity, Article VI.

92.Some have thought, thatεκεινοςbeing of the masculine gender, because it refers immediately toπνευμα,which is of the neuter, implies, that the Spirit is taken personally, which is the reason of this grammatical construction; but if it be said that the reason why it is masculine is, because it agrees withπαρακλητος,it, notwithstanding, proves the Personality of the Holy Ghost, since a Comforter is a personal character. The same thing is observed in the grammatical construction of that scripture, Eph. i. 13, 14. speaking concerning the Holy Spirit of promise, το πνευμα της επαγγελιας;it is said, ὁς εστιν αρῥαβων,which denotes the personal character of the Spirit, otherwise it would have beenὁ εστιν αρῥαβων,unless you supposeὁςagrees withαρῥαβων,which seems to be a more strained sense of the grammatical construction than the other, which proves his personality.

93.“THAT the Holy Scriptures make mention ofThreeby way of greateminenceanddistinctionmay appear from many passages, out of which I shall only produce some. At the Prediction of the blessed Virgin’s conception, which was to be without the concurrence of a man, the divine message is delivered in these words:The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee; Therefore, also that Holy Thing, that shall be born of thee, shall be called the Son of God. Here are plainly distinguished from each other, theHoly Ghost, orPowerovershadowing; theHighest, whose Power that Spirit is; and theHoly Thing, orPerson, who iscalled the Son of God, because born of a mother, impregnated by that Divine Power. At our Blessed Lord’s Baptism,the Spirit of God, we read,descended like a dove and rested upon him, and a voice from Heavendeclared him tobe the Son of God: Nothing can be plainer than threePersonalitiesin this transaction; theFatherspeaking from Heaven, theSoncoming out ofJordan, and theSpiritdescending from above. In the Promise, which our blessed Saviour makes his disciples, to comfort their hearts against what was coming upon them,I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another comforter, that he may abide with you forever, even the Spirit of Truth; andwhen the comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of Truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me, there are manifestly Acts, and Persons, and capacities, different. TheFather, from whom the Spiritproceeds, whom the Sonprays, and by whom, at the Son’s Request, theComforter was given: TheSon, prayingthe Father;sendingthe Comforter from the Father, andtestifiedof by theSpiritso sent: And theSpirit, givenby the Father,sentby the Son,testifyingof the Son, and, upon the Son’s Departure,abidingfor ever with the Disciples.“The great Apostle of the Gentiles, to enforce the Doctrine of the resurrection, tells theRomans, that if the Spirit of him, who raised Jesus from the dead, dwelt in them, he that raised Christ from the dead would also quicken their mortal bodies by his Spirit, that dwelled in them; where he evidently refers toJesus, the Son of God; raised from the Dead; to theSpiritof God, by which he was raised; and tohimthat raisedJesus, and at the last great day shall raise all others, in whom his Spirit dwells. The same apostle, to satisfy theCorinthiansof the benefits of theirconversion, after having enumerated several ranks of sinners,andsuchwere some of you, says he,but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and by the Spirit of our God,i. e.God the Father. It cannot be denied thatSanctificationandJustificationare the gifts of God alone; for none can absolve us from the Guilt and pollution of sin, but he only: But then the Apostle tells theCorinthians, that this benefit they received not only from God theFather, but from theLord Jesuslikewise, and from the Holy Spirit: Analogous to which is that other Passage in the same epistle;There are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit, (there is thethirdPerson in the Trinity)there are differences of Administration, but the same Lord, (there is thesecondPerson)and there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God, (orfirstperson in theTrinity)that worketh all in all. Once more, the same Apostle, in his prayer for theThessalonians, directs his devotion to the ever blessed Trinity:Now God himself, even our Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, direct our way unto you, and the Lord, (i. e.the Holy Ghost)make you to increase and abound in love one towards another: For that by theLordwe are here to understand the Holy Ghost, I think is very plain from the next verse; ‘to the end, that he may establish your hearts unblameable in holiness before God, even our Father, at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ with all his saints;’ since he is theSanctifier, and toestablish our hearts in holinessis his proper work and office: And if so, then is there a plainenumerationof the three Persons of theTrinityin this passage.“The great Apostle of theJewsbegins his first Epistlegeneralto hisdispersedBrethren with a declaration of the same article, when he calls themelect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through Sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience, and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus; for there we may observe, that the threePersonsare not only expresslynamed, but their distinctemployments, with reference to man’s salvation, are particularlyspecified, while the Father is said toelect, the Spirit tosanctify, and the holy Jesus toshed his blood. The beloved ApostleSt. John, in hisSalutationto the Churches,Grace, and Peace from him, which is, and which was, and which is to come, and from the seven spirits which are before his Throne, and from Jesus Christhas given us a distinct enumeration of the three Persons in the Deity, if we will but admit, (as most interpreters have done) that by theSeven Spirits, which was asacrednumber among theJews, thatonePerson (viz.the Holy Ghost) is to be understood, from whom all that variety of gifts and operations, which were then conspicuous in the Christian Church, did proceed. But however this be, ’tis certain, that the passage in his Epistle of theThree which bear record in Heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, are as full and plain aTestimonyand declaration of thisMystery, as can be cited in words; and though some have endeavoured to invalidate the authority of this passage, as not extant in some ancient copies, and seldom appealed to by the first defenders of the catholick faith against theAriansandMacedonians, yet the contrary to this is most evident.Tertullian,St. Cyprian, andFulgentiusquote it in their writings:Athanasiusmade use of it in the council ofNiceagainstArius; and the reason why it was left out in some ancient copiesSocratesacquaints us with in hisEcclesiasticalhistory, when he tells us, ‘That theChristianChurch had all along complained, that the Epistle ofSt. Johnhad been corrupted by the first adversaries of the doctrine of Christ’s divinity.’ ’Twas by their artifice therefore that it was omitted; for several learned pens, both of our own and other churches, have made it very manifest, that it was[94]originallyin the text, and that the most and ancientestcopiesalways had it.“But we need not be so tenacious of onetext, when, besides these already mentioned, and many more that might be produced upon a farther enquiry, the very form of ouradmissioninto the Christian covenant isin the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; the form of ourprayersis thus directed, thatthrough the Son we have an access by one Spirit to the Father; and the form of ourdismissionfrom them is, every day, with thisbenediction,The grace of the Lord Jesus, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Ghost, be with us all evermore; as if the Wisdom of God had intended to inculcate this notion of theTrinity, and, in every act of our religious worship, to remind us of the manner of hissubsistence.“Thus it appears that there areThree, very often occurring in scripture, under the different appellations ofFather,Son, andHoly Ghost: and that these three are notoneand thesame Being, underdifferent respectsand considerations, butthreereal and distinctpersons, with apeculiarmanner ofsubsisting, is plain from the very names ofFather,Son, andHoly Ghost, if we understand them in a proper and natural sense; because these are oppositerelations, which can never meet in the samesubject: for aFathercannot be Father to himself, but to hisSon; nor can aSonbe Son to himself, but to hisFather; nor can the Holy Ghostproceedfrom himself, or (in this sense) be his ownSpirit, but the Spirit of the Father, and Son, from whom he proceeds: and therefore the Father is not the Son, nor the Holy Spirit; nor the Son the Father, or Holy Spirit; nor the Holy Spirit either Father or Son. The only question is, whether thesenames, when spoken of the Trinity have aproperandnatural, or only anallusiveandmetaphoricalsignification.“The divine nature and perfections indeed, (as they are far exalted above our conception) may be brought down bymetaphors, taken from some things, that areanalagousin creatures; in which sense we may allowFatherandSonto bemetaphoricalnames, when applied to God: not that God the Father is not, in the highest and most perfect sense, a Father, and his Son a most proper, natural, and genuine Son; but because thedivine generationis so perfect a communication of the divine nature and being from Father to Son, thathuman generationsare but obscure and imperfectimagesand resemblances of it. The truth is, when any thing is spokenmetaphoricallyof God, the metaphor and image are always in thecreatures; the truth, perfection, and reality of all, inGod: and if so, then if God be a Father, and have a Son, an only-begotten Son, begotten eternally of himself; though this eternal generation be infinitely above what we can imagine or conceive, yet it is evident, that God the Father is moreproperlyandperfectlya Father, and God the Son more properly and perfectly a Son, than any earthly fathers or sons ever were. And if God the Father and his Son be truly and perfectly Father and Son, they must be truly and perfectlydistinctbeings; for the Father cannot be the Son whom hebegets; nor the Son the Father thatbegathim; nor the Holy Ghost either the Father or the Son, from whom heproceeds: consequently, they must be distinct, and real, and properpersons; for he thatbegets, and he that isbegotten, and he thatproceedsfrom both, cannot be one and the same person.“And as thisdifferenceofrelationsmakes a manifest distinction between the three persons; so the differentofficesandemployments, that are ascribed to them in scripture, is a farthernoteof discrimination. For who sees not, that the work ofcreationof all things at first, and ever since the just, and wise, and mercifuldisposalof them, are attributed to theFather; that the great undertaking of ourredemptionis the care and employment of theSon; and the business ofenlighteningandsanctifyingthose, whom the Son redeemeth, the particular province of theHoly 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 toelect; the Son only tohave shed and sprinkled his blood; and the Holy Ghost only tosanctifyus 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 apersonas a term made use of in this argument, tell us, that it isa 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 acommonnature, which must be joined by apeculiarmanner of subsisting, to make a person, otherwise it would be a meremode; forwe never conceive a person without the essence in conjunction with it. And this notion may haply be of use, not only tostatethe truedistinctionof the Persons in the Godhead, but to account likewise for somedubiouspassages 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 sacredTrinity, the wordpersonbe not conceived in the same sense as among men. Thepersonsof men aredistinctmen, as well as distinct persons; but this is no ground for us to affirm, that thepersonsin the divine nature are distinctGods. The distinction of the persons of men is founded in aseparateand divided subsistence; but this cannot be the foundation of thedistinctionof thedivinepersons, becauseseparationanddivisioncannot belong to aninfiniteBeing. In a word, three humanpersonsare threemen, because, though they have the samespecificnature, yet they have not the samenumericalnature: but the three Persons in the Godhead are not threeGods, because they have the samenumericalessence, which belongs in common to them all: and since it is confessed on all hands, thatnatureandsubsistencego to the making up of aperson, why may not the way of their subsistence be as different as thehumanandDivinenatures (onefinite, and the otherinfinite) are confessed to be? Though therefore in thingscreatedit 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 inhim, whosenatureis wholly different fromtheirs, and, consequently, may differ as much in themannerof his subsistence. For ’tis a thing agreeable even to the notions of bare reason to imagine, that thedivinenature has a way of subsisting verydifferentfrom the subsistence of anycreatedbeing, and consequently, may have one and the same nature diffused into three distinct persons: buthow, and in what mannerthisis effected; how one substance in the Deity is communicated to more, and becomes theirs; how of one and the sameessence, there can be three personsnumericallydifferent; this is thedifficulty, and what made the holy father (writing upon the argument) confess, ‘That themysteryof the Trinity isimmenseand 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 thesepersonalities, so often occurring in scripture, is taken from thesimplicityof the divine nature, which, in the opinion of some, will not admit of anydistinction. But though the simplicity of God excludes allmixture,i. e.all composition of thingsheterogeneousin the Godhead, (there being nothing in God but what is God) yet, notwithstanding this, there may be a distinction ofhypostasesin the Godhead, provided they arehomogeneous, 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 ofhypostasesin 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 callverbum mentis; nor can it, at any time, be conceived without it. Now thiswordcannot be in God, what it is in us, atransient vanishingaccident; for then the divine nature would be compounded ofsubstanceandaccident, which would be repugnant to itssimplicity; and therefore must be asubstantial subsisting word, and though not divided, yet distinct from the eternal Mind, from whence it proceeds. This is nonovel subtletyof theschools, 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 aTrinity; but then it proves, that adistinctionof persons in the Godhead is very consistent with itssimplicity; nay, that from the true nature of the simplicity of the Godhead, such a distinction necessarily follows; and if there is a distinction oftwo, there may be ofthree; and that there is ofthree, the full evidence of scripture (as I have already shewn) abundantly assures us.”Stackhouse.

“The great Apostle of the Gentiles, to enforce the Doctrine of the resurrection, tells theRomans, that if the Spirit of him, who raised Jesus from the dead, dwelt in them, he that raised Christ from the dead would also quicken their mortal bodies by his Spirit, that dwelled in them; where he evidently refers toJesus, the Son of God; raised from the Dead; to theSpiritof God, by which he was raised; and tohimthat raisedJesus, and at the last great day shall raise all others, in whom his Spirit dwells. The same apostle, to satisfy theCorinthiansof the benefits of theirconversion, after having enumerated several ranks of sinners,andsuchwere some of you, says he,but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and by the Spirit of our God,i. e.God the Father. It cannot be denied thatSanctificationandJustificationare the gifts of God alone; for none can absolve us from the Guilt and pollution of sin, but he only: But then the Apostle tells theCorinthians, that this benefit they received not only from God theFather, but from theLord Jesuslikewise, and from the Holy Spirit: Analogous to which is that other Passage in the same epistle;There are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit, (there is thethirdPerson in the Trinity)there are differences of Administration, but the same Lord, (there is thesecondPerson)and there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God, (orfirstperson in theTrinity)that worketh all in all. Once more, the same Apostle, in his prayer for theThessalonians, directs his devotion to the ever blessed Trinity:Now God himself, even our Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, direct our way unto you, and the Lord, (i. e.the Holy Ghost)make you to increase and abound in love one towards another: For that by theLordwe are here to understand the Holy Ghost, I think is very plain from the next verse; ‘to the end, that he may establish your hearts unblameable in holiness before God, even our Father, at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ with all his saints;’ since he is theSanctifier, and toestablish our hearts in holinessis his proper work and office: And if so, then is there a plainenumerationof the three Persons of theTrinityin this passage.

“The great Apostle of theJewsbegins his first Epistlegeneralto hisdispersedBrethren with a declaration of the same article, when he calls themelect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through Sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience, and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus; for there we may observe, that the threePersonsare not only expresslynamed, but their distinctemployments, with reference to man’s salvation, are particularlyspecified, while the Father is said toelect, the Spirit tosanctify, and the holy Jesus toshed his blood. The beloved ApostleSt. John, in hisSalutationto the Churches,Grace, and Peace from him, which is, and which was, and which is to come, and from the seven spirits which are before his Throne, and from Jesus Christhas given us a distinct enumeration of the three Persons in the Deity, if we will but admit, (as most interpreters have done) that by theSeven Spirits, which was asacrednumber among theJews, thatonePerson (viz.the Holy Ghost) is to be understood, from whom all that variety of gifts and operations, which were then conspicuous in the Christian Church, did proceed. But however this be, ’tis certain, that the passage in his Epistle of theThree which bear record in Heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, are as full and plain aTestimonyand declaration of thisMystery, as can be cited in words; and though some have endeavoured to invalidate the authority of this passage, as not extant in some ancient copies, and seldom appealed to by the first defenders of the catholick faith against theAriansandMacedonians, yet the contrary to this is most evident.Tertullian,St. Cyprian, andFulgentiusquote it in their writings:Athanasiusmade use of it in the council ofNiceagainstArius; and the reason why it was left out in some ancient copiesSocratesacquaints us with in hisEcclesiasticalhistory, when he tells us, ‘That theChristianChurch had all along complained, that the Epistle ofSt. Johnhad been corrupted by the first adversaries of the doctrine of Christ’s divinity.’ ’Twas by their artifice therefore that it was omitted; for several learned pens, both of our own and other churches, have made it very manifest, that it was[94]originallyin the text, and that the most and ancientestcopiesalways had it.

“But we need not be so tenacious of onetext, when, besides these already mentioned, and many more that might be produced upon a farther enquiry, the very form of ouradmissioninto the Christian covenant isin the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; the form of ourprayersis thus directed, thatthrough the Son we have an access by one Spirit to the Father; and the form of ourdismissionfrom them is, every day, with thisbenediction,The grace of the Lord Jesus, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Ghost, be with us all evermore; as if the Wisdom of God had intended to inculcate this notion of theTrinity, and, in every act of our religious worship, to remind us of the manner of hissubsistence.

“Thus it appears that there areThree, very often occurring in scripture, under the different appellations ofFather,Son, andHoly Ghost: and that these three are notoneand thesame Being, underdifferent respectsand considerations, butthreereal and distinctpersons, with apeculiarmanner ofsubsisting, is plain from the very names ofFather,Son, andHoly Ghost, if we understand them in a proper and natural sense; because these are oppositerelations, which can never meet in the samesubject: for aFathercannot be Father to himself, but to hisSon; nor can aSonbe Son to himself, but to hisFather; nor can the Holy Ghostproceedfrom himself, or (in this sense) be his ownSpirit, but the Spirit of the Father, and Son, from whom he proceeds: and therefore the Father is not the Son, nor the Holy Spirit; nor the Son the Father, or Holy Spirit; nor the Holy Spirit either Father or Son. The only question is, whether thesenames, when spoken of the Trinity have aproperandnatural, or only anallusiveandmetaphoricalsignification.

“The divine nature and perfections indeed, (as they are far exalted above our conception) may be brought down bymetaphors, taken from some things, that areanalagousin creatures; in which sense we may allowFatherandSonto bemetaphoricalnames, when applied to God: not that God the Father is not, in the highest and most perfect sense, a Father, and his Son a most proper, natural, and genuine Son; but because thedivine generationis so perfect a communication of the divine nature and being from Father to Son, thathuman generationsare but obscure and imperfectimagesand resemblances of it. The truth is, when any thing is spokenmetaphoricallyof God, the metaphor and image are always in thecreatures; the truth, perfection, and reality of all, inGod: and if so, then if God be a Father, and have a Son, an only-begotten Son, begotten eternally of himself; though this eternal generation be infinitely above what we can imagine or conceive, yet it is evident, that God the Father is moreproperlyandperfectlya Father, and God the Son more properly and perfectly a Son, than any earthly fathers or sons ever were. And if God the Father and his Son be truly and perfectly Father and Son, they must be truly and perfectlydistinctbeings; for the Father cannot be the Son whom hebegets; nor the Son the Father thatbegathim; nor the Holy Ghost either the Father or the Son, from whom heproceeds: consequently, they must be distinct, and real, and properpersons; for he thatbegets, and he that isbegotten, and he thatproceedsfrom both, cannot be one and the same person.

“And as thisdifferenceofrelationsmakes a manifest distinction between the three persons; so the differentofficesandemployments, that are ascribed to them in scripture, is a farthernoteof discrimination. For who sees not, that the work ofcreationof all things at first, and ever since the just, and wise, and mercifuldisposalof them, are attributed to theFather; that the great undertaking of ourredemptionis the care and employment of theSon; and the business ofenlighteningandsanctifyingthose, whom the Son redeemeth, the particular province of theHoly 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 toelect; the Son only tohave shed and sprinkled his blood; and the Holy Ghost only tosanctifyus 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 apersonas a term made use of in this argument, tell us, that it isa 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 acommonnature, which must be joined by apeculiarmanner of subsisting, to make a person, otherwise it would be a meremode; forwe never conceive a person without the essence in conjunction with it. And this notion may haply be of use, not only tostatethe truedistinctionof the Persons in the Godhead, but to account likewise for somedubiouspassages 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 sacredTrinity, the wordpersonbe not conceived in the same sense as among men. Thepersonsof men aredistinctmen, as well as distinct persons; but this is no ground for us to affirm, that thepersonsin the divine nature are distinctGods. The distinction of the persons of men is founded in aseparateand divided subsistence; but this cannot be the foundation of thedistinctionof thedivinepersons, becauseseparationanddivisioncannot belong to aninfiniteBeing. In a word, three humanpersonsare threemen, because, though they have the samespecificnature, yet they have not the samenumericalnature: but the three Persons in the Godhead are not threeGods, because they have the samenumericalessence, which belongs in common to them all: and since it is confessed on all hands, thatnatureandsubsistencego to the making up of aperson, why may not the way of their subsistence be as different as thehumanandDivinenatures (onefinite, and the otherinfinite) are confessed to be? Though therefore in thingscreatedit 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 inhim, whosenatureis wholly different fromtheirs, and, consequently, may differ as much in themannerof his subsistence. For ’tis a thing agreeable even to the notions of bare reason to imagine, that thedivinenature has a way of subsisting verydifferentfrom the subsistence of anycreatedbeing, and consequently, may have one and the same nature diffused into three distinct persons: buthow, and in what mannerthisis effected; how one substance in the Deity is communicated to more, and becomes theirs; how of one and the sameessence, there can be three personsnumericallydifferent; this is thedifficulty, and what made the holy father (writing upon the argument) confess, ‘That themysteryof the Trinity isimmenseand 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 thesepersonalities, so often occurring in scripture, is taken from thesimplicityof the divine nature, which, in the opinion of some, will not admit of anydistinction. But though the simplicity of God excludes allmixture,i. e.all composition of thingsheterogeneousin the Godhead, (there being nothing in God but what is God) yet, notwithstanding this, there may be a distinction ofhypostasesin the Godhead, provided they arehomogeneous, 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 ofhypostasesin 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 callverbum mentis; nor can it, at any time, be conceived without it. Now thiswordcannot be in God, what it is in us, atransient vanishingaccident; for then the divine nature would be compounded ofsubstanceandaccident, which would be repugnant to itssimplicity; and therefore must be asubstantial subsisting word, and though not divided, yet distinct from the eternal Mind, from whence it proceeds. This is nonovel subtletyof theschools, 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 aTrinity; but then it proves, that adistinctionof persons in the Godhead is very consistent with itssimplicity; nay, that from the true nature of the simplicity of the Godhead, such a distinction necessarily follows; and if there is a distinction oftwo, there may be ofthree; and that there is ofthree, the full evidence of scripture (as I have already shewn) abundantly assures us.”

Stackhouse.

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 byomittinga clause, than byinserting 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.

95.A late learned author has given us this definition of asingle person, “That it is an intelligent agent, having the distinctive characters ofI,thou, andhe, and not divided or distinguished into more intelligent agents, capable of the same characters.” [Waterland’ssecond 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,heandhim, are no more applicable to a divine person, thansheorher;” 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.

96.It has, with good reason, been supposed by theCatholickwriters, that the design of the word Λογος was to intimate, that the relation of Father and Son hears some resemblance and analogy to that ofthought,viz.that as thought isco-evalwith 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.

97.Some, who take delight in darkening this matter, by pretending to explain it, call the former aτο νυν, stans;the latter, fluens.

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 onlyaSon of God, buttheSon, 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 distinctionmy 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 ofadoration, Mat. xiv. 33. John ix. 35-38.; so that when Jesus, with the distinction and appropriation of the divine works, called Godhis 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.

Wynpersse.

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.

Back to Index Next