02.09. The Holy Trinity.
Chapter 9 The Holy Trinity.
1. What is the etmology(linguistic development) and meaning of the word Trinity, and when was it introduced into the language of the Church? The word trinity ( Trinitas) is derived either from tres–unus, trinus, or from
Substantia as now used, is equivalent to essence, independent being. Thus, in the Godhead, the three persons are the same in substance, i. e., of one and the same indivisible, numerical essence. The word was at first used by one party in the church as equivalent to subsistentia(subsistence), or mode of existence. In which sense, while there is but one essence, there are three substantiae or persons, in the Godhead.––See Turretin, Tom. 1., locus 3., quest 23.
3. What other terms have been used as the equivalents of substantia in the definitions of this doctrine? The Greek
4. What is the theological meaning of the word subsistentia (subsistence)?
It is used to signify that mode of existence which:distinguishes one individual thing from every other individual thing, one person from every other person. As applied to the doctrine of the Trinity, subsistence is that mode of existence which is peculiar to each of the divine persons, and which in each constitutes the one essence a distinct person.
5. What is the New Testament sense of the word v~rodror~zS (hypostasis)? This word, as to its etymology, is precisely equivalent to substance; it comes from
1st. Figuratively, for confidence, or that state of mind which is conscious of a firm foundation, 2 Corinthians 9:4; Hebrews 3:14, which faith realizes, Hebrews 11:1.
2nd. Literally, for essential nature, Hebrews 1:3.—See Sampson’s “ Commentary on Heb.”
6. In what sense is this word used by the ecclesiastical writers?
Until the middle of the fourth century this word, in connection with the doctrine of the Trinity, was generally used in its primary sense, as equivalent to substance. It is used in this sense in the creed published by the Council of Nice A. D. 325, and again in the decrees of the Council of Sardica, in Illyria, A. D. 347. These agreed in affirming that there is but one hypostasis in the Godhead. Some, however, at that time understanding the word in the sense of person, its usage was changed by general consent, chiefly through the influence of Athanasius, and ever since it has been established in theological language in the sense of person, in contradistinction to
7. What is essential to personality, and how is the word person to be defined in connection with the doctrine of the Trinity? The Latin word, “suppositum,” signifies a distinct individual existence, e. g., a particular tree or horse. A person is “sup–intellectual,” a distinct individual existence, to which belongs the properties of reason and free will. Throughout the entire range of our experience and observation of personal existence among creatures, personality rests upon and appears to be inseparable from distinction of essence. Every distinct person is a distinct soul, with or without a body. That distinguishing mode of existence which constitutes the one divine essence coordinately three separate persons, is of course an infinite mystery which we can not understand, and therefore cannot adequately define, and which we can know only so far as it is explicity revealed. All that we know is, that this distinction, which is called personality, embraces all those incommunicable properties which eternally belong to Father, Son, or Holy Ghost separately, and not to all in common; that it lays the foundation for their concurrence in counsel, their mutual love and action one upon another, as the Father sending the Son, and the Father and Son sending the Spirit, and for use of the personal pronouns I, thou, He, in the revelation which one divine person gives of himself and of the others. In relation to this great mystery of the divine trinity of persons in the unity of essence Calvin’s definition of Person is better because more modest. “By person. then, I mean a subsistence in the divine essence––a subsistence which while related to the other two, is distinguished from them by incommunicable properties.”––“ Institutes,” Book 1., Chap. 13, §6.
8. What other terms have been used by theologians as the equivalent of Person in this connection?
Greek,
9. What is meant by the terms
1st. The orthodox party, who maintained the opinion now held by all Christians, that the Lord Jesus is, as to his divine nature, of the same identical substance with the Father. These insisted upon applying to him the definite term
2nd. The Arians, who maintained that the Son of God is the greatest of all creatures, more like God than any other, the only–begotten Son of God, created before all worlds, through whom God created all other things, and in that sense only divine. They held that the Son was
3rd. The middle party, styled Semiarians, who confessed that the Son was not a creature, but denied that he was in the same sense God as the Father is. They held that the Father is the only absolute self–existent God; yet that from eternity he, by his own free will, caused to proceed from himself a divine person of like nature and properties. They denied, therefore, that the Son was of the same substance homoousion with the Father, but admitted that he was of an essence truly similar, and derived from the Father ( homoiousion,
10. What are the several propositions essentially involved in the doctrine of the Trinity?
1st. There is but one God, and this God is one, i.e., indivisible.
2nd. That the one indivisible divine essence, as a whole, exists eternally as Father, and as Son, and as Holy Ghost; that each person possesses the whole essence, and is constituted a distinct person by certain incommunicable properties, not common to him with the others.
3rd. The distinction between these three is a personal distinction, in the sense that it occasions (l) the use of the personal pronouns, I, thou, he, (2) a concurrence in counsel and a mutual love, (3) a distinct order of operation.
4th Since there is but one divine essence, and since all attributes or active properties are inherent in and inseparable from the essence to which they pertain, it follows that all the divine attributes must be identically common to each of the three persons who subsist in common of the one essence. Among all creatures every distinct person is a distinct numerical substance, and possesses a distinct intelligence, a distinct will etc. In the Godhead, however, there is but one substance, and one intelligence, one will, etc., and yet three persons eternally co–exist of that one essence, and exercise that one intelligence and one will, etc. In Christ on the contrary, there are two spirits, two intelligences, two wills, and yet all the while one indivisible person.
5th. These divine persons being one God, all the divine attributes being common to each in the same sense, nevertheless they are revealed in the Scriptures in a certain order of subsistence and of operation.
(1.) Of subsistence inasmuch as the Father is neither begotten nor proceedeth, while the Son is eternally begotten by the Father, and the Spirit eternally proceedeth from the father and the Son;
(2.) of operation, inasmuch that the first person sends and operates through the second, and the first and second send and operate through the third.
Hence the Father is always set forth as first, the Son as second, the Spirit as third.
6th. While all the divine attributes are common equally to the three persons, and all divine works wrought ad extra such as creation, providence, or redemption, are predicated alike of the one divine being––the one God considered absolutely––and of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost severally; nevertheless the Scriptures attribute some divine works wrought ad intra, exclusively to each divine person respectively, e. g., generation to the Father, filiation to the Son, procession to the Holy Ghost; and there are likewise some divine works wrought ad extra which are attributed pre–eminently to each person respectively, e. g., creation to the Father, redemption to the Son, and sanctification to the Holy Ghost. In order, therefore, to establish this doctrine in all its parts by the testimony of Scripture, it will be necessary for us to prove the following propositions in their order:
1st. That God is one.
2nd. That Jesus of Nazareth, as to his divine nature, was truly God, yet a distinct person from the Father.
3rd. That the Holy Spirit is truly God, yet a distinct person.
4th. That the Scriptures directly teach a trinity of persons in one Godhead.
5th. It will remain to gather what the Scriptures reveal as to the eternal and necessary relations which these three divine persons sustain to each other. These are distributed under the following heads:(1) The relation which the second person sustains to the first, or the eternal generation of the Son; (2) the relation which the third person sustains to the first and second, or the eternal procession of the Holy Ghost; and, (3) their personal properties and order of operation, ad extra.
I. GOD IS ONE, AND THERE IS BUT ONE GOD. The proof of this proposition, from reason and Scripture, has been fully set forth above, in Chap. 8., on the Attributes of God, questions 12–18. The answer to the question, how the co–ordinate existence of three distinct persons in the Trinity can be reconciled with this fundamental doctrine of the divine unity, is given below in question 94 of this chapter.
II. JESUS OF NAZARETH, AS TO HIS DIVINE NATURE, IS TRULY GOD, AND YET A DISTINCT PERSON FROM THE FATHER.
11. What different views have been entertained with respect to the person of Christ? The orthodox doctrine as to the person of Christ, is that he from eternity has existed as the co–equal Son of the Father, constituted of the same infinite self–existent essence with the father and the Holy Ghost. The orthodox doctrine as to his person as at present constituted, since his incarnation, is set forth in chap. 23. An account of the different heretical opinions as to his person are given below, in questions 96–99, of this chapter.
12. To what extent did the Jews at the time of Christ expect the Messiah to appear as a divine person? When Christ appeared, it is certain that the great mass of the Jewish people had ceased to entertain the Scriptural expectation of a divine Saviour, and only desired a temporal prince, in a pre–eminent sense, a favorite of heaven. It is said, however, that scattered hints in some of the rabbinical writings indicate that some of the more learned and spiritual still continued true to the ancient faith.
13. How may the pre–existence of Jesus before his birth by the Virgin be proved from Scripture?
1st. Those passages which say that he is the creator of the world.––John 10:3; Colossians 1:15-18.
2nd. Those passages which directly declare that he was with the Father before the world was; that he was rich, and possessed glory.––John 1:1; John 1:15; John 1:30; John 6:62; John 8:58; John 17:5; 2 Corinthians 8:9.
3rd. Those passages which declare that he “came into the world” , “came down from heaven.”––John 3:13; John 3:31; John 13:3; John 16:28; 1 Corinthians 15:47.
14. How can it be proved that the Jehovah who manifested himself as the God of the Jews under the old economy was the second person of the Trinity, who became incarnate in Jesus of Nazareth? As this fact is not affirmed in any single statement of Scripture, it can be established only by a careful comparison of many passages. The evidence, as compiled from Hill’s Lects., Book 3., ch. 5., may be summed up as follows:
1st. All the divine appearances of the ancient economy are referred to one person.––Compare Genesis 18:2, Genesis 18:17, Genesis 28:13, Genesis 32:9, Genesis 32:31, 31; Exodus 3:14-15; Exodus 13:21; Exodus 20:1-2; Exodus 25:21; Deuteronomy 4:33; Deuteronomy 4:36; Deuteronomy 4:39; Nehemiah 9:7-28. This one person is called Jehovah, the incommunicable name of God, and at the same time angel, or one sent.––Compare Genesis 31:11; Genesis 31:13; Genesis 48:15-16; Hosea 12:2; Hosea 12:5. Compare Exodus 3:14-15, with Acts 7:30-35; and Exodus 13:21, with Exodus 14:19; and Exodus 20:1-2, with Acts 7:38; Isaiah 13:7; Isaiah 13:9.
2nd. But God the Father has been seen by no man (John 1:18; John 6:46):neither could he be an angel, or one sent by any other; yet God the Son has been seen (1 John 1:1-2), and sent (John 5:36).
3rd. This Jehovah, who was at the same time the angel, or one sent, of the old economy, was also set forth by the prophets as the Savior of Israel, and the author of the new dispensation. In Zechariah 2:10-11, one Jehovah is represented as sending another. See Micah 5:2. In Malachi 3:1, it is declared that “ the Lord I, the messenger of the covenant,” shall come to his own temple. This applied to Jesus (Mark 1:2).––Com– Psalms 97:7, with Hebrews 1:6; and Isaiah 6:1-5, with John 12:41.
4th. Certain references in the New Testament to passages in the Old appear directly to imply this fact. Compare Psalms 28:15,16, 35, with 1 Corinthians 10:9.
5th. The Church is one under all dispensations, and Jesus from the beginning is the Redeemer and Head of the Church; it is, therefore, most consistent with all that has been revealed to us as to the offices of the three divine persons in the scheme of redemption, to admit the view here presented. See also John 8:56; John 8:58; Matthew 23:37; 1 Peter 1:10-11.
15. In what form are the earliest disclosures made in the Old Testament of the existence and agency of a Person distinct from God and yet as divine? In the earlier books an Angel is spoken of, sent from God, often appearing to men, and yet himself God.––Genesis 16:7-13. The Angel of Jehovah appears to Hagar, claims divine power, and is called God.––Genesis 18:2-33. Three angels appeared to Abraham, one of whom is called Jehovah, 5:17.––Genesis 32:25. An Angel wrestles with Jacob and blesses him as God, and in Hosea 12:3-5, that Angel is called God.––Exodus 3:2. The Angel of Jehovah appeared to Moses in the burning bush, and in the following verses this angel is called Jehovah, and other divine titles are ascribed to him. This Angel led the Israelites in the wilderness.––Ch. 14:19; Isaiah 63:9. Jehovah is represented as saving his people by the Angel of his Presence Thus Malachi 3:1––“The Lord, the Angel of the covenant shall suddenly come to his temple.”, This applied to Christ.––Mark 1:2.
16. What evidence of the divinity of the Messiah does the 2d Psalm present?
It declares him to be the Son of God, and as such to receive universal power over the whole earth and its inhabitants. All are exhorted to submit to him, and to trust him, on pain of his anger. In Acts 13:33, Paul declares that Psalm refers to Christ.
17. What evidence is furnished by the 45th Psalm? The ancient Jews considered this Psalm addressed to the Messiah, and the fact is established by Paul (Hebrews 1:8-9). Here, therefore, Jesus is called God, and his throne eternal.
18. What evidence is furnished by Psalms 110:1-7? That this Psalm refers to the Messiah is proved by Christ (Matthew 22:43-44), and by Paul (Hebrews 5:6; Hebrews 7:17). He is here called David’s Lord (Adonai), and invited to sit at the right hand of Jehovah until all his enemies be made his footstool.
19. What evidence is furnished by Isaiah 9:6? This passage self–evidently refers to the Messiah, as is confirmed by Matthew 4:14-16. It declares explicitly that the child born is also the mighty God, the everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace.
20. What is the evidence furnished by Micah 5:2? This was understood by the Jews to refer to Christ, which is confirmed by Matthew 2:6, and John 7:42. The passage declares that his goings forth have been from ever of old,,, i. e., from eternity.
21. What evidence is furnished by Malachi 3:1-2? This passage self–evidently refers to the Messiah, as is confirmed by Mark 1:2. The Hebrew term (Adonai), here translated Lord, is never applied to any other than the supreme God. The temple, which was sacred to the presence and worship of Jehovah, is called his temple. And in verse 2d, a divine work of Judgment is ascribed to him.
22. What evidence is afforded by the way in which the writers of the New Testament apply the writings of the Old Testament to Christ? The apostles frequently apply the language of the Old Testament to Christ, when it is evident that the original writers intended to speak of Jehovah, and not of the Messiah as such.
Psalms 102:1-28 is evidently an address to the supreme Lord, ascribing to him eternity, creation, providential government, worship, and the hearing and answering of prayer. But Paul (Hebrews 1:10-12) affirms Christ to be the subject of the address. In Isaiah 14:20-25, Jehovah speaks and asserts his own supreme Lordship. But Paul, in Romans 14:11, quotes a part of Jehovah’s declaration with regard to himself, to prove that we must all stand before the judgment of Christ.—Compare also Isaiah 6:3, with John 12:41.
23. What is the general character of the evidence upon this subject afforded by the New Testament? This fundamental doctrine is presented to us in every individual writing, and in every separate paragraph of the New Testament, either by direct assertion or by necessary implication, as may be ascertained by every honest reader for himself. The mass of this testimony is so great, and is so intimately interwoven with every other theme in every passage, that I have room here to present only a general sample of the evidence, classified under the usual heads.
24. Prove that the New Testament ascribes divine titles to Christ.
John 1:1; John 20:28; Acts 20:28; Romans 9:5; 2 Thessalonians 1:12; 1 Timothy 3:16; Titus 2:13; Hebrews 1:8; 1 John 5:20.
25. Prove that the New Testament ascribes divine perfections to Christ.
Eternity.––John 1:2; John 8:58; John 17:5; Revelation 1:8; Revelation 1:17-18; Revelation 22:13.
Immutability.––Hebrews 1:11-12; Hebrews 13:8.
Omnipresence.––John 3:13; Matthew 18:20, Matthew 28:20.
Omniscience.––Matthew 11:27; John 2:23-25; John 21:17; Revelation 2:23.
Omnipotence.––John 5:17; Hebrews 1:3; Revelation 1:8; Revelation 11:1-19 :
26. Prove that the New Testament ascribes divine works to Christ.
Creation.––John 1:3; John 1:10; Colossians 1:16-17.
Preservation and Providence.—Hebrews 1:3; Colossians 1:17; Matthew 28:18.
Miracles.—John 5:21; John 5:36.
Judgment.—2 Corinthians 5:10; Matthew 25:31-32; John 5:22. A work of grace, including election.—John 13:18.
Sanctification, Ephesians 5:26; sending the Holy Ghost, John 16:7; John 16:14; giving eternal life, John 10:28; Turretin, Tom. 1., 50. 3, Q. 28.
27. Prove that The New Testament teaches that supreme word should be paid to Christ.
Matthew 28:19; John 5:22-23; John 14:1; Acts 7:59-60; 1 Corinthians 1:2; 2 Corinthians 13:14; Php 2:9-10; Hebrews 1:6; Revelation 1:5-6; Revelation 5:11-12; Revelation 7:10.
28. Prove that the Son, although God, is a distinct person from the Father. This fact is so plainly taught in Scripture, and so universally implied, that the Sabellian system, which denies it, has never obtained any general currency.
Christ is sent by the Father, comes from him, returns to him, receives his commandment, does his will, loves him, is loved by him, addresses prayer to him, uses the pronouns thou and he when speaking to and of him. This is necessarily implies also, in the relative titles, Father and Son. See the whole New Testament. In establishing the doctrine of the Trinity, as far as the Second Person is involved, the stress lies altogether in proving the absolute Divinity of Christ, his distinct personality being so obvious as to be practically beyond dispute. While in vindicating the truth of the doctrine as it respects the Third Person the whole stress lies in proving His distinct personality, his absolute divinity being so clearly revealed as to be unquestionable.
III. THE HOLY GHOST IS TRULY GOD, YET A DISTINCT PERSON.
29. What sects have held that the Holy Ghost is a creature? The divinity of the Holy Ghost is so clearly revealed in Scripture that very few have dared to call it in question. The early controversies of the orthodox:with the Arians precedent and consequent to the Council of Nice, A. D. 325, to such a degree absorbed the mind of both parties with the question of the divinity of the Son, that very little prominence was given in that age to questions concerning the Holy Ghost. Arius, however, is said to have taught that as the Son is the first and greatest creature of the Father, so the Holy Ghost is the first and greatest creature of the Son; a
Some of the disciples of Macedonius, bishop of Constantinople, A. D. 341–360, are said to have held that the Holy Ghost was not Supreme God. These were condemned by the second General Council, which met at constantinople A. D. 381. This council defined and guarded the orthodox:faith, by adding definite clauses to the simple reference which the ancient creed had made to the Holy Ghost.––See the Creed of the Council of Constantinople, Chapter 7.
30. By whom has the Holy Spirit been regarded mercy as an energy of God?
Those early heretical sects, generally styled Monarchians and Patripassians, all with subordinate distinctions taught that there was but one person as well as one essence in the Godhead, who, in different relations, is called Father, Son, or Holy Ghost. In the sixteenth century Socinus, who taught that Jesus Christ was a mere man, maintained that the term Holy Ghost is in Scripture used as a designation of God’s energy, when exercised in a particular way. This is now the opinion of all modern Unitarians and Rationalists.
31. How can it be proved that all the attributes of personality are ascribed to the Holy Ghost in the Scriptures? The attributes of personality are such as intelligence, volition, separate agency. Christ uses the pronouns, 1, thou, he, when speaking of the relation of the Holy Spirit to himself and the Father:“ I will send him.”“ He wilI testify of me.”“Whom the Father will send in my name.” Thus he is sent; he testifies; he takes of the things of Christ, and shows them to us. He teaches and leads to all truth. He knows, because he searches the deep things of God. He works all supernatural gifts, dividing to every man as he wills.––John 14:17; John 14:26; John 15:26; 1 Corinthians 2:10-11; 1 Corinthians 12:11. He reproves, glorifies, helps, intercedes.––John 16:7-13; Romans 8:26.
32. How may his personality be argued from the of– fices which he is said in the Scriptures to execute? The New Testament throughout all its teachings discovers the plan of redemption as essentially involving the agency of the Holy Ghost in applying the salvation which it was the work of the Son to accomplish. He inspired the prophets and apostles; he teaches and sanctifies the church; he selects her officers, qualifying them by the communication of special gifts at his will. He is the advocate, every Christian is his client. He brings all the grace of the absent Christ to us, and gives it effect in our persons in every moment of our lives. His personal distinction is obviously involved in the very nature of these functions which he discharges.––Luke 12:12; Acts 5:32; Acts 15:28; Acts 16:6; Acts 28:25; Romans 15:16; 1 Corinthians 2:13; Hebrews 2:4; Hebrews 3:7; 1 Peter 1:21.
33. What argument for the personality of the Holy Ghost may be deduced from the form of baptism?
Christians are baptized “in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.” It would be inconsistent with every law of language and reason to speak of the name, of an energy, or to associate an energy coordinately with two distinct persons.
34. How may his personality be proved by what is said of the sin against the Holy Ghost? In Matthew 12:31-32; Mark 3:28-29; Luke 12:10, this sin is called “blasphemy against the Holy Ghost.” Now, blasphemy is a sin committed against a person, and it is here distinguished from the same act as committed against the other persons of the Trinity.
35. How can such expressions as “giving” and “pouring out the Spirit,” be reconciled with his personality?
These and other similar expressions are used figuratively to set forth our participation in the gifts and influences of the Spirit. It is one of the most natural and common of all figures to designate the gift by the name of the giver. Thus we are said “to put on Christ,”“to be baptized into Christ,” etc.–– 5:30; Romans 13:14; Galatians 3:27.
36. Show that the names of God are applied to the Spirit.
Compare Exodus 17:7, and Psalms 95:7, with Hebrews 3:7-11.— See Acts 5:3-4.
37. What divine attributes do the Scriptures ascribe to him?
Omnipresence.—Psalms 139:7; 1 Corinthians 12:13. Omniscience.—1 Corinthians 2:10-11. Omnipotence.—Luke 1:35; Romans 8:11.
38. What agency in the external world do the Scriptures ascribe to him?
Creation.—Genesis 1:2; Job 26:13; Psalms 104:30. The power of working miracles.—Matthew 12:28; 1 Corinthians 12:1-31 :
39. How is his supreme divinity established by what the Scripture teach of his agency in redemption?
He is declared to be the immediate agent in regeneration, John 3:6; Titus 3:5; and in the resurrection of our bodies, Romans 8:11. His agency in the generation of Christ’s human nature, in his resurrection, and in the inspiration of the Scriptures, were exertions of his divine power in preparing the redemption which he now applies.
40. How can such expressions as, “he shall not speak of himself,” be reconciled with his divinity? This and other similar expressions are to be understood as referring to the official work of the Spirit; just as the Son is said in his official character to be sent by and to be subordinate to the Father. The object of the Holy Ghost, in his official work in the hearts of men, is not to reveal the relations of his own person to the other persons of the Godhead, but simply to reveal the mediatorial character and work of Christ.
IV. THE SCRIPTURES DIRECTLY TEACH A TRINITY OF PERSONS IN ONE GODHEAD.
41. How is this trinity of persons directly taught in the formula of baptism?
Baptism in the name of God implies the recognition of God’s divine authority, his covenant engagement to give us eternal life, and our engagement to render him divine worship and obedience. Christians are baptized thus into covenant relation with three persons distinctly named in order. The language necessarily implies that each name represents a person. The nature of the sacrament proves that each person must be divine.––See Matthew 28:19.
42. How is this doctrine directly taught in the formula of the apostolic benediction?
See 2 Corinthians 13:14. We have here distinctly named three persons, and each communicating a separate blessing, according to his own order and manner of operation. The benevolence of the Father in designing, the grace of the Son in the acquisition, the communion of the Holy Ghost in the application of salvation. These are three distinct personal names, three distinct modes of personal agency, and each equally divine.
43. What evidence is afforded by the narrative of Christ’s baptism?
See Matthew 3:13-17. Here also we have presented to us three persons distinctly named and described as severally acting, each after his own order. The Father speaking from heaven, the Spirit descending like a dove and fighting upon Christ. Christ acknowledged as the beloved Son of God ascending from the water.
44. State the argument from John 15:26, and the context. In this passage again we have three persons severally named at the same time, and their relative action affirmed. The son is the person speaking of the Father and the Spirit, and claiming for himself the right of sending the Spirit. The Father is the person from whom the Spirit proceeds. Of the spirit the Son says that “ he will come,”“ he will be sent,”“ he proceedeth,”“ he will testify.”
45. What is the state of the evidence with regard to the genuiness of 1 John 5:7?
1st. The disputed clause is as follows, including part of the eighth verse:“in heaven , the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth.”
2nd. Learned and pious men are divided in their opinions as to the preponderance of the evidence; the weight of opinion inclining against the genuineness of the clause.
3rd. The doctrine taught is so scriptural, and the grammatical and logical connection of the clause with the rest of the passage is so intimate, that for the purpose of edification, in the present state of our knowledge, the clause ought to be retained, although for the purpose of establishing doctrine, it ought not to be relied upon.
4th. The rejection of this passage does in no degree lessen the irresistible weight of evidence of the truth of the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity which the Scriptures afford.
46. What passages in The Old Testament imply the existence of more than one person in the Godhead?
Mark the use of the plural in the following passages.––Genesis 1:26; Genesis 3:22; Genesis 11:7; Isaiah 6:8; Compare the three–fold repetition of the name Jehovah (Numbers 6:24-26) with the apostolical benediction—2 Corinthians 13:14. Mark also in Isaiah 6:3, the threefold repetition of the ascription of holiness.
47. What passages in the Old Testament speak of the Son as a distinct person the Father and yet as divine? In Psalms 14:6-7, we have the Father addressing the Son as God, and anointing him.––See also Psalms 110:1; Isaiah 44:6-7; Isaiah 44:14. The prophecies always set forth the Messiah as a person distinct from the Father, and yet he is called “ Mighty God,” etc.––Isaiah 9:6; Jeremiah 23:6.
48. What passages of the Old Testament speak of the Spirit as a distinct person from the Father, and yet as divine?
Genesis 1:2; Genesis 6:3, Psalms 104:30; Psalms 139:7; Job 26:13; Isaiah 48:16.
V. IT REMAINS FOR US TO CONSIDER WHAT THE SCRIPTURES TEACH CONCERNING THE ETERNAL AND NECESSARY RELATIONS WHICH THE THREE DIVINE PERSONS SUSTAIN TO EACH OTHER.
(1.) THE RELATION WHICH THE SECOND PERSON SUSTAINS TO THE FIRST, OR THE ETERNAL GENERATION OF THE SON.
49. What is the idiomatic use of the Hebrew word 13 (son)?
It is used in the sense––
1st. Of Song of Solomon 2:1-17 d. Of descendant; hence in the plural “children of Israel,” for Israelites. Also when joined to a name of place or nation to denote inhabitants or citizens thereof, as “sons of Zion,” etc. 3d. Of pupil, disciple, worshipper; thus,‘ sons of the prophets,’ (1 Kings 20:35); and ‘ sons of God,’ applied, (1) to kings, Pa. 2:7; (2) to angels, Genesis 6:2; (3) to worshippers of God, his own people, Deuteronomy 14:1; (4th. In combination with substantives, expressing age or quality, etc.; thus, “sons of years,” for aged, Leviticus 12:6; “son of Belial,” for worthless fellow, Deuteronomy 13:13; “son of death,, for one deserving to die,”1 Sam. 20:31; “a hill son of fatness,” for a fruitful hill. The same idiom has been carried into the Greek of the New Testament.—See Gesenius’ “Heb Lex.”
50. In what sense are men called “ sons of God ” in Scripture? The general idea embraced in the relation of sonship includes, lst., similarity and derivation of nature;
2nd., parental and filial love; and
3rd, heirship. In this general sense all God’s holy, intelligent creatures are called his sons. The term is applied in an eminent sense to kings and magistrates who receive dominion from God (Psalms 82:6), and to Christians who are the subjects of spiritual regeneration and adoption (Galatians 3:26, the special objects of divine favor (Matthew 5:9), and are like him (Matthew 5:45). When applied to creatures, whether men or angels (Job 1:6), this word is always used in the plural. In the singular it is applied only to the second person of the Trinity, with the single exception of its application once to Adam (Luke 3:38), when the reason is obviously to mark the peculiarity of his derivation from God immediately without the intervention of a human father.
51. What reasons do Scoinians assign for the application of the term Son of God to Christ?
1st. Some Socinians hold that he is called Son of God only as an official title, as it is applied in the plural to ordinary kings and magistrates.
2nd. Other Socinians hold that he was called Son of God only because he was brought into being by God’s supernatural agency, and not by ordinary generation. To maintain this they appeal to Luke 1:35.
52. How can you. answer the Socinian argument derived from Luke 1:35; to the effect that Christ was called “Son of God” because of his miraculous birth alone?
We answer––
1st. If that reason is the fundamental one why the phrase “Son of God,” is generally applied to Christ it should render him the “ Son of the Spirit,” who overshadowed the Virgin, and not the “ Son of the Father.” But he is never once so called, nor is any such relation ever indicated in Scripture.
2nd. Even if this was one reason for the application of the phrase it would not follow that there are not other and deeper reasons for its use revealed in Scripture—which will be proved below to be the fact.
3rd. Probably the real design of the passage was simply to convey to Mary the knowledge that in consequence of his supernatural generation her son, that is the man child born of her, is to be called “the Son of God.” It was not a common child—the thing born of her was to be regarded as peculiarly related to God, until the complete revelation of his eternal Sonship as a divine person.
53. What reason do Arians assign for the ascription of this title to Christ?
Arians hold that he is so called because he was created by God more in his own likeness than any other creature, and first in the order of time.
54. What reason do some Trinitarians, who at this point depart from the orthodox faith, give for the application of this title to Christ, and to what passages do they appeal?
They hold that the title “Son of God ” applies to Christ not as Logos, the eternal Second Person of the Trinity but as Theanthropos. They object to the orthodox doctrine of the eternal Sonship of Christ.
1st. That sonship implies derivation and hence inferiority.
2nd. That the term “Son” in many passages is applied to him interchangeably with the term “ Christ ” and other official titles, belonging to his Mediatorial office and not to his eternal relations within the Godhead. They refer to Matthew 16:16; John 1:49, etc.
3rd. That in Psalms 2:7 it is expressly declared that Christ is constituted “Son of God” in time, instead of his co–existing as such from eternity with the Father by necessity of nature.
4th. The same is argued from Romans 1:4.
55. Show that the orthodox doctrine is not open to the objection that it represents the Second Person as inferior to the First. This objection derives all its plausibility from unduly pressing the analogy between the human relations of Father and Son and the divine relations signalized by the same terms. The one may be so far the best existing analogy of the other known to us, as to lay the foundation for the proper application of the terms derived from the known relation to designate the unknown, while we must remember that the two things are necessarily as different as the material is from the spiritual, as the temporal is from the eternal, as the finite is from the infinite. Besides it rests upon a misapprehension of the orthodox doctrine as to the following particulars:
1st. The church doctrine is that the Person, not the essence of the son is generated by the Father. The self–existent essence of the Godhead belongs to the Son equally with the Father from eternity.
2nd. That the Father begets the Son by an eternal and necessary constitutional (not voluntary) act. This prevents the Son from being in any sense dependent upon or inferior to the Father, an:distinguishes the church doctrine from Semiarianism, see below, Question 97.
56. Show that their objection to the church doctrine based upon Matthew 16:16; John 1:49, etc., does not hold good. In none of these passages is it affirmed that he is Son as the Christ, i. e., as Mediator, but that being the eternal Son of God he is the Christ, the King of Israel, etc.
57. Prove that neither Psalms 2:1-12 nor Romans 1:4, teach that Christ was made Son of God.
Dr. Alexander says (see “Commentary on Psalms”) with relation to Psalms 2:7, that it means simply, “Thou art my Son, this day I am thy Father now always eternally thy Father. Even if ‘this day ’ be referred to the inception of the filial relation, it is thrown indefinitely back by the form of reminiscence, or narration, in the first clause of the verse. Jehovah said to me,‘ but when’? If understood to mean from everlasting the form of expression would be perfectly in keeping with the other figuratively forms by which the Scriptures represent things really ineffable in human language.”
Romans 1:4–“And declared
It is very, evident that Christ called himself Son of God, and was so recognized by his disciples before his resurrection, and, therefore, he might have been revealed or manifested to be the Son of God, but could not have been constituted such by that event.
58. Show that Acts 13:32-33, does not prove that Jesus was made Son of God.
It is argued from this passage that Jesus was constituted Son of God by his resurrection, as the first stage of his official exaltation. This can not be—
1st. Because he was sent into the world as Son of God.
2nd. Because the word
59. State the orthodox answer to the question why Christ is called “Son of God.” The orthodox doctrine is that Christ is called “Son of God” in Scripture to indicate his eternal and necessary personal relation as the Second Person of the Godhead to the first Person, who is called Father to indicate the reciprocal relation.
60. How is the doctrine stated in the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds and in the Westminster Confession?
Nicene Creed.–“ Son of God, begotten of his Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten not made, being of one substance with the father.”Athanasian Creed.––“The Son is from the Father alone, neither made, nor created, but begotten.”
Westminster Confession.––“ The Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son.,”
61. What is the common statement and explanation of this doctrine given by orthodox writers? The eternal generation of the Son is commonly defined to be an eternal personal act of the Father, wherein by necessity of nature, not by choice of will, he generates the person (not the essence) of the Son, by communicating to him the whole indivisible substance of the Godhead, without division, alienation, or change, so that the Son is the express image of his Father’s person, and eternally continues, not from the Father, but in the Father, and the Father in the Son.––See particularly Hebrews 1:3; John 10:38; John 14:11; John 17:21. The principal Scriptural support of the doctrine of derivation is John 5:26.––Turretin, Tom. 1., L. 3, Q. 29.
Those theologians who insist upon this definition believe that the idea of derivation is necessarily implied in generation; that it is indicated by both the reciprocal terms Father and Son, and by the entire representation given in the Scriptures as to the relation and order of the persons of the Godhead, the Father always standing for the Godhead considered absolutely; and they hold that this theory is necessary to the vindication of the essential unity of the three persons. The older theologians, therefore styled the Father
They at the same time guarded the essential equality of the Son and the Holy Ghost with the Father, by saying, 1st, that the whole divine essence, without division or change, and, therefore, all the divine attributes, were communicated to them; and, 2d, that this communication was made by an eternal and necessary act of the Father, and not of his mere will.
62. State how they endeavored to guard their doctrine from all anthropomorphic grossness. In order to guard their doctrine of derivation and eternal generation from all gross anthropomorphic conceptions they carefully maintained that it was—(1)
63. What is essential to the Scriptural doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son? In the above rendered account of the orthodox doctrine there is nothing inconsistent with revealed truth. The idea of derivation, as involved in the generation of the Son by the Father, appears rather to be a rational explanation of revealed facts than a revealed fact itself. On such a subject, therefore, it should be held in suspense. All that is explicitly revealed is, 1st, the term Son is applied to Christ as the second person of the Godhead.
2nd. This term, and the equivalent one, “only begotten,” reveal some relation, within the Godhead, of the person of the Son to the person of the Father; the designation Father being reciprocal to that of Son.
3rd. That this relation is such that Father and Son are the same in substance, and are personally equal; that the Father is first and the Son second in the order of revelation and operation, that the Son is the express image of the Father’s person, not the Father of the Son’s and that the Son is not from the Father, but in the Father, and the Father in the Son.
64. How may it be shown that the common doctrine is not self–contradictory?
There is evidently no inconsistency in the simple Scriptural statement given in the answer to the last question. Heterodox controversialists, however, have claimed that there is a manifest inconsistency in the orthodox theory that the Father communicates to the Son the whole divine essence without alienating it from himself, dividing or otherwise changing it. This subject does not fall within the legitimate sphere of human logic, yet it is evident that this theory involves no contradiction and no mystery greater than that involved in the whole essence of God being at the same time present, without division or diffusion to every point of space.
65. By what terms, besides that of “Son” is the personal character of the Second Person, and his relation to the First Person designated?
66. What is the distinction which some of the fathers made between the eternal, the ante–mundane, and the mundane generation of the Son?
1st. By his eternal generation they intended to mark his essential relation to the Father as his consubstantial and eternal Son.
2nd. By his ante–mundane generation they meant to signify the commencement of the outgoings of his energy, and the manifestation of his person beyond the bosom of the Godhead, in the sphere of external creation, etc.––Colossians 1:15.
3rd. By his mundane generation they intended his supernatural birth in the flesh.––Luke 1:35.
67. What is the distinction which some of the fathers made between the
68. If God is “ ens a se ipso ,” self–existent, how can the Son be really God, if he be“
69. What argument for the eternal sonship of Christ may be derived from the designation of the persons of the Trinity as Father, Son and Holy Ghost? In the apostolical benediction and the formula of baptism the one God is designated as Father, Son, and Holy ghost. The term Son can not here be applied to Christ as an official title, or as a miraculously generated man, because, 1st, he is so called as one of the three divine persons constituting the Godhead.
2nd. The term Son is reciprocal to the term Father, and therefore designates the relation of the second person to the first. Whatever this relation may involve besides, it evidently must be eternal and necessary, and includes paternity on the part of the first person, and filiation on the part of the second.
70. What argument in support of this doctrine may be derived from the use of the word son in Matthew 11:27 and Luke 10:22? In both of these passages the term Son is used to designate the divine nature of the second person of the Trinity in his relation to the first. The Son, as Son, knows and is known by the Father as Father. He is infinite in knowledge and therefore knows the Father. He is infinite in being and therefore can be known by none other than the father.
71. State the argument from John 1:1-14.
Here the eternal Word, who was God, discovered himself as such to his disciples by the manifestation of his native divine glory, “ the glory as of the only begotten of the Father.” He was “ only begotten Son”, therefore as God, and not either as Mediator or as man.
72. State the argument from the application in Scripture of the terms
Although many of God’s creatures are called his sons, the phrase, Son of God, in the singular, and when limited by the terms “ own ” and “ only begotten,” is applied only to Christ.
Christ is called “only begotten Son of God.”––John 1:14; John 1:18; John 3:16; John 3:18; 1 John 4:9. In John 5:18, Christ calls God his own Father (see Greek). He is called the own Son of the Father.—Romans 8:32. The use of these qualifying terms proves that Christ is called Son of God in a sense different from that in which any other is so called. Therefore it designates him as God and not as man, nor as the bearer of an office.
73. What is the argument derived from John 5:22, and context, and from John 10:33-37? In the first passage the terms Father and Son are used to designate two divine and equal persons. As Son, Christ does whatsoever the Father doeth, and is to receive equal honor. In the second passage, Jesus assumes the title, “Son of God,” as equivalent to asserting that he was God. The Jews charging it upon him as blasphemy.
74. What is the evidence furnished by such passages as speak of the manifestation, giving or sending of the Son?
See 1 John 3:8; Romans 8:3; John 3:16, etc. To say that the Son was sent or manifested implies that he was Son before he was sent or manifested as such.
75. State the argument from Romans 1:3-4. The argument from this passage is twofold:
1st. The Son of:God is declared to have been made flesh, and therefore must have pre–existed as Son.
2nd. By the resurrection he was powerfully manifested to be the Son of God as to his divine nature. The phrases, according to the flesh, and according to the spirit of holiness, are evidently antithetical, designating severally the Lord’s human and divine natures.
76. State the argument from Romans 8:3.
Here God’s own son was sent in the likeness of sinful flesh. Obviously he must have pre–existed as such before he assumed the likeness of sinful flesh the assumption of which certainly could not have constituted him the own Son of God.
77. State the argument from Colossians 1:15-21. In this passage the apostle sets forth at length the nature and glory of him whom, in the thirteenth verse, he had called God’s dear Son. Thus he proves that Christ as Son is the image of the invisible God, and that by him all things consist, etc.
78. State the argument from Hebrews 1:5-8.
Paul is here setting forth the superiority of Christ as a divine person. As divine he calls him “the son”, “the first begotten.” This Son is brought into the world, and therefore must have pre–existed as such. As son he is declared to be God, and to reign upon an everlasting throne.
79. How can those passages which speak of the Son as inferior and subject to the Father be reconciled with this doctrine?
It is objected that such passages prove that Jesus, as Son, is inferior and subject to the Father.
We answer that in John 3:13, the “ Son of Man ” is said to have come down from heaven, and to be in heaven. But surely Jesus, as Son of Man was not omnipresent. In Acts 20:28 God is said to purchase his church with his own blood; but surely Christ, as God, did not shed his blood. The explanation of this is that it is the common usage of Scripture to designate the single person of the God–man by a title belonging to him as the possessor of one nature, while the condition, attribute, relation, or action predicated of him is true only of the other nature. Thus in the passages in question he is called “ Son of God,” because he is the eternal Word, while at the same time he is said to be inferior to the Father, because he is also man and mediator.
(2.) THE RELATION WHICH THE THIRD PERSON SUSTAINS TO THE FIRST AND SECOND, OR THE ETERNAL PROCESSION OF THE HOLY GHOST.
80. What is the etymology (linguistic development) of the word Spirit, and the usage of its Hebrew and Greek equivalents? The English word spirit is from the Latin spiritus, breath, wind, air, life, soul, which in turn is from the verb spiro, to breathe. The equivalent Hebrew word,
1st. Its primary sense is wind, air in motion, Genesis 8:1; then, 2nd, breath, the breath of life, Genesis 6:17; Job 17:1;
3rd, animal soul, vital principle in men and animals, 1 Samuel 30:12;
4th, rational soul of man, Genesis 12:8, and hence, metaphorically, disposition, temperament, Numbers 5:14;
5th, Spirit of Jehovah,, Genesis 1:2; Psalms 2:11.––Gesenius, “ Lex.” The equivalent Greek word,
81. Why is the third person of the Trinity called the Spirit? As the one indivisible divine essence which is common to each of the divine persons alike is spiritual, this term, as the personal designation of the third person, can not be intended to signify the fact that he is a spirit as to his essence, but rather to mark what is peculiar to his person, i. e., his personal relation to the Father and the Son, and the peculiar mode of his operation ad extra. As the reciprocal epithets Father and Son are used to indicate, so far forth, the mutual relations of the first and second persons, so the epithets, Spirit, Spirit of God, Spirit of the Son, Spirit which proceedeth from the Father are applied to the third person to indicate, so far forth, the relation of the third person to the first and second.
82. Why is he called Holy Spirit? As holiness is an attribute of the divine essence, and the glory equally of Father, Son and Holy Ghost, it can not be applied in any pre–eminent sense as a personal characteristic to the third person. It indicates, therefore, the peculiar nature of his operation. He is called the Holy Spirit because he is the author of holiness throughout the universe. As the Son is also styled Logos, or God, the Revealer, so the Holy Spirit is God, the Operator, the end and glory of whose work in the moral world is holiness, as in the physical world beauty.
83. Why is he called the Spirit of God? This phrase expresses his divinity, his relation to the Godhead as himself God, 1 Corinthians 2:11; his intimate personal relation to the father as his consubstantial spirit proceeding from him, John 15:26; and the fact that he is the divine Spirit, which proceeding from God operates upon the creature, Psalms 104:30; 1 Peter 4:14.
84. Why is the third person called the Spirit, of Christ?
See Galatians 4:6; Romans 8:9; Php 1:19; 1 Peter 1:11. As the form of expression is identical in the several phrases, Spirit of God, and spirit of the Son, and as the Scriptures, with one exception, John 15:26, uniformly predicate everything of the relation of the spirit to the Son, that they predicate of the relation of the Spirit to the Father, it appears evident that he is called Spirit of the Son for the same reason that he is called Spirit of God. This phrase also additionally sets forth the official relation which the Spirit in his agency in the work of redemption sustains to the God–man, in taking of his, and showing them to us, John 16:14.
85. What is meant by the theological phrase, Procession of the Holy Ghost?
Theologians intend by this phrase to designate the relation which the third person sustains to the first and second, wherein by an eternal and necessary, i. e, not voluntary, act of the Father and the Son, their whole identical divine essence, without alienation, division, or change, is communicated to the Holy Ghost.
86. What distinction do theologians make between “procession” and “generation?” As this entire subject infinitely transcends the measure of our faculties, we can do nothing further than classify and contrast those predicates which inspiration has applied to the relation of Father and Son with those which it has applied to the relation of the Spirit to the father and Son.
Thus Turretin, Vol. 1., L. 3., Q. 31. They differ, “
1st. As to source, the Son emanates from the Father only, but the Spirit from the Father and the Son at the same time.
2nd. As to mode. The Son emanates in the way of generation, which affects not only personality, but similitude, on account of which the Son is called the image of the Father, and in consequence of which he receives the property of communicating the same essence to another person, but the Spirit, by the way of spiration, which effects only personality, and in consequence of which the person who proceeds does not receive the property of communicating the same essence to another person.
3rd. As to order. The Son is second person, and the Spirit third, and though both are eternal, without beginning or succession, yet, in our mode of conception, generation precedes procession.”
“The schoolmen vainly attempted to found a distinction between generation and spiration upon the different operations of the divine intellect and the divine will. They say the Son was generated per modum intellectus(through the mind), whence he is called the Word of God. The Spirit proceeds per modum voluntatis(through the will), whence he is called Love.”
87. What is the Scripture ground for this doctrine?
What we remarked above (Question 53), concerning the common theological definition of the eternal generation of the Son, holds true also with reference to the common definition of the eternal procession of the Holy Ghost, viz., that in order to make the method of the divine unity in Trinity more apparent, theologians have pressed the idea of derivation and subordination in the order of personal subsistence too far. This ground is at once sacred and mysterious. The points given by Scripture are not to be pressed nor speculated upon, but received and confessed nakedly. The data of inspiration are simply as follows:
1st. Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, three divine persons, possess from eternity the one whole identical, indivisible, unchangeable essence.
2nd. The Father from his characteristic personal name, and the order in which his name uniformly occurs in Scripture, and from the fact that the Son is called his and his only begotten, and that the Spirit is called his, the one proceeding from him, and from the order of his manifestation and operation ad extra, is evidently in some way first in order of personal subsistence relatively to the Son and Spirit.
3rd. For the same reason (see below, Question 89) the Son, in the order of personal subsistence, is before the Spirit. 4th. What the real nature of these distinctions in the order of personal subsistence may be is made known to us only so far––
(1.) That it involves no distinction as to time, since all are alike eternal.
(2.) It does not depend upon any voluntary action, for that would make the second person dependent upon the first, and the third upon the first and second, while they are all “equal in power and glory.”
(3.) It is such a relation that the second person is eternally only begotten Son of the first, and the third is eternally the Spirit of the first and second.
88. What was the difference between the Greek and Latin churches in this doctrine? The famous Council of Nice, A. D. 325, while so accurately defining the doctrine of the Godhead of the Son, left the testimony concerning the Holy Ghost in the vague form in which it stood in the ancient creed, “in the Holy Ghost.” But the heresy of Macedonius, who denied the divinity of the Holy Ghost, having sprung up in the meantime, the Council of Constantinople, A. D. 381, completed the testimony of the Nicene Creed thus, “I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord, the Author of Life, who proceedeth from the Father.”
There subsequently arose a controversy upon the question, whether the Scriptures do or do not represent the Holy Spirit as sustaining precisely the same relation to the Son that he does to the Father. This the Latins generally affirmed, and at the third ecclesiastical assembly at Toledo, A. D. 589, they added the word filioque(and the Son) to the Latin version of the Constantinopolitan Creed, making the clause read “Credimus in Spiritum Sanctum qui a Patre Filioque pro cedit.” The Greek Church violently opposed this, and to this day reject it. For a short time they were satisfied with the compromise, The Spirit proceeding from the Father through the Son,,, which was finally rejected by both parties. The Constantinopolitan Creed, as amended at the Council of Toledo, is the one now adopted by the Catholic Church, and recognized by all Protestants, currently bearing the title of “Nicene Creed.”
89. How may it be proved that, as far as revealed, the Spirit sustains precisely the same relation to the Son which he does to the Father? The epithet “ Spirit” , is the characteristic personal designation of the third Person. Whatever is revealed of his eternal and necessary personal relation to either the Father or the Son is indicated by this word. Yet he is called the Spirit of the Son, as well as the Spirit of the Father. He possesses the same identical essence of the Son as of the Father. The Son sends and operates through the Spirit as the Father does. Wherever their Spirit is there both Father and Son are revealed, and there they exercise their power.–––John 14:16; John 14:26; John 15:26; John 16:7. With the single exception of the phrase, “which proceedeth from the Father” (John 15:26), the Scriptures apply precisely the same predicates to the relation of the Spirit to the Son that they do to his relation to the father.
90. What office does the Spirit discharge in the economy of redemption? In the economy of redemption, as universally in all the actings of the Godhead upon the creature, God the Son is the revealed God, God as known, and God the Spirit is that divine person who exerts his energy immediately upon and in the creature. He is styled in this relation in the creed
III. THE PERSONAL PROPERTIES PECULIAR TO EACH OF THE THREE PERSONS OF THE GODHEAD, AND THEIR ORDER OF OPERATION AD EXTRA.
91. What is the theological meaning of the word property as applied to the doctrine of the Trinity? And what are severally the personal properties of each Person of the Godhead. The attributes of God are the perfections of the divine essence, and therefore common to each of the three persons, who are “the same in substance,” and therefore “equal in power and glory.” These have been discussed under Chapter 8. The properties of each divine person, on the other hand, are those peculiar modes of personal subsistence whereby each divine person is constituted as such, and that peculiar order of operation whereby each person is distinguished from the others. The peculiar distinguishing properties which belong to each Person severally is called technically his charater hypostatus––personal character. As far as these are revealed to us the personal properties of the father are as follows:He is begotten by none, and proceeds from none; he is the Father of the Son, having begotten him from eternity; the Spirit proceeds from him and is his Spirit. Thus he is the first in order and in operation, sending and operating through the Son and Spirit. The personal properties of the Son are as follows:He is the Son, from eternity the only begotten of the Father. The Spirit is the Spirit of the Son even as he is the Spirit of the Father, he is sent by the Father, whom he reveals:he, even as the father, sends and operates through the Spirit. The personal properties of the Spirit are as follows:He is the Spirit of the Father and the Son, from eternity proceeding from them:he is sent by the Father and the Son, they operating through him; he operates immediately upon the creature.
92. What kind of subordination did the early writers attribute to the second and third persons in relation to the first?
They held, as above shown, that the eternal generation of the Son by the Father, and the eternal procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son involved in both instances the derivation of essence. They illustrated their idea of this eternal and necessary act of communication by the example of a luminous body, which necessarily radiates light the whole period of its existence. Thus the Son is defined in the words of the Nicene Creed, “God of God, Light of Light.” Thus as the radiance of the sun is coeval with its existence, and of the same essence as its source, by this illustration they designed to signify their belief in the identity and consequent equality of the divine persons as to essence, and the relative subordination of the second to the first, and of the third to the first and second, as to personal subsistence and consequent order of operation.
93. What is expressed by the use of the terms first, second, and third in reference to the persons of the Trinity.
These terms are severally applied to the persons of the Trinity because––
1st. The Scriptures uniformly state their names in this order.
2nd. The personal designations, Father and Son, and Spirit of the Father and of the Son, indicate this order of personal subsistence.
3rd. Their respective modes of operation ad extra is always in this order. The Father sends and operates through the Son, and the Father and Son send and operate through the Spirit. The Scriptures never either directly or indirectly indicate the reverse order. As to the outward bearing of the Godhead upon the creature it would appear, that the Father is revealed only as he is seen in the Son, who is the eternal Logos, or divine Word, the express image of the Father person. “No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.”––John 1:18. And the Father and Son act immediately upon the creature only through the spirit.
“The Father is all the fullness of the Godhead invisible, without form, whom no man hath seen or can see.”
“The son is all the fullness of the Godhead manifested.”
“The Spirit is all the fullness of the Godhead acting immediately upon the creature, and thus making manifest the Father in the image of the Son, and through the power of the Spirit.”––“Higher Christian Life,” by Rev. W. E. Boardman, p. 105.
94. How can the assumption of personal distinctions in the Godhead be reconciled with the divine unity?
Although this tripersonal constitution of the Godhead is altogether beyond the capacity of reason, and is ascertained to us only through a supernatural revelation, there is evidently no contradiction in the twofold proposition, that God is one, and yet father, Son, and Holy Ghost are that one God. They are one in one sense, and threefold in an entirely different sense. The eternal, self–existent, divine essence, constituting all those divine perfections called attributes of God is, in the same sense and degree, common to all the persons. In this sense they are one. But this divine essence exists eternally as Father, and as Son, and as Holy Ghost, distinguished by personal properties. In this sense they are three. We believe this, not because we understand it, but because thus God has revealed himself:
95. How can the separate incarnation of the Son be reconciled with the divine unity? The Son is identical with the Father and Spirit as to essence, but distinct from them as to personal subsistence. In the incarnation, the divine essence of the son was not made man, but as a divine person he entered into a personal relation with the human nature of the man Christ Jesus. This did not constitute a new person, but merely introduced a new element into his eternal person. It was the personal union of the Son with a human soul and body, and not any change either in the divine essence, or in the personal relation of the Son to the Father or the Spirit.
HERETICAL OPINIONS.
96. What are the three great points which together embrace the mystery of the Trinity as revealed in Scripture, and the apparent irreconcilability of which, with each other, occasions the great objection to this doctrine in the minds of heretics of all classes? The three great points are as follows.
1st. There is absolutely but one God, but one self–existent, eternal, immutable, spiritual substance.
2nd. Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are each equally this one God—are each in common constituted of the whole of this inalienable indivisible essence, having the same identical numerical essence, and the same identical attributes.
3rd. Nevertheless father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three distinct persons, distinguished each by his several personal properties. The difficulty is, that in the case of the only created spirits of which we know anything, every person is a separate spiritual essence, and distinct personality is definitely discriminated by numerical difference of attribute. We can not conceive how three persons can have among them but one intelligence and one will.
Hence all heresies on this subject have sprung from one or other of three distinct tendencies, or efforts to disembarrass this doctrine of its apparent inconsistencies by the denial or abatement of one or other of its three constituent elements.
1st. One tendency is to cut the knot of the difficulty by denying the divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the personality of the Holy Ghost. This makes God the Father the only divine Person and the possessor of the only divine substance.
2nd. A second heretical tendency is to deny the divine unity and to maintain the co–existence of three distinct Gods, distinct in essence as well as in person.
3rd. The third heretical tendency is to press the divine unity so far as to make Father, Son, and Holy Ghost on and the same identical Person as well as the same divine essence, admitting them only to be different names, or different aspects or functions of the one divine Person.
97. What different opinions have been held by those who deny the divinity of Christ, and either the divinity or personality of the Holy Ghost?
1st. That of the Humanitarians, or those who maintain that Christ is a mere Man. These in the early Church were known by the name of Ebionites, and Alogi—the deniers of the Logos, while in the Modern Church they are known as Socinians. For a statement of the History and Doctrine of the SOCINIANS, see above, Chapter 6., Ques. 11 and 13. Those who have held that Christ is a mere man have differed among themselves as to whether he was miraculously conceived in the womb of the Virgin or not, and as to the question of his supernatural endowments as a prophet, and as to the degree of honor and obedience owed from us to him. Some admit that he possessed a supernatural divine commission and qualification beyond that vouchsafed to any other prophet. Others deny the supernatural element altogether, and regard him as a mere man naturally endowed with a very superior moral and religious genius.
All of this class, of course, hold that God is one Person as well as one essence, and for the most part they regard the term Holy Ghost as only a designation of the divine energy exercised in human affairs. Some of the German Rationalists, who for the most part agree with the Socinians, hold that the phrase Holy Ghost properly designates the one divine person working in the world of nature––Creation and Providence. Others hold it designates God in the church.
2nd. The Gnostics, as a general class, held that the supreme God is one alike in essence and in Person, and that from him emanates different orders of spiritual beings, none of them in any proper sense God, yet all divine, since they all proceeded by way of emanation from him. These are called Aeons. The Old Testament Jehovah, or Creator, was one of these Aeons, of which class Christ was one of the greatest. The entire sum of these Aeons constituted, in the view of the Gnostics, the entire sum of all the actual or possible self–revelations, or self–communications, of the unapproachable Godhead, which the Apostle Paul declared to be alone and fully realized in Christ.–––Colossians 2:9.
3rd. The earlier Nomin Trinitarians.“In their construction of the doctrine of the trinity, the Son is not a subsistence
4th. The Arians, so called from Arius, a presbyter of Alexandria during the first part of the fourth century, the great opponent of Athanasius. He maintained that the Godhead consists of one eternal person, who in the beginning, before all worlds, created in his own image a super–angelic being
5th. The doctrine of the Semiarians. This party was so called as occupying middle ground between the Arians and the Orthodox. They held that the absolute, self–existent God was one person, but that the Son was a divine person of a glorious essence, like to
98. What was the position of those who sought to relieve the difficulty of the doctrine by denying the divine unity?
These were the TRITHEISTS, who admitted that there were three
99. What was the position of those who pressed the divine unity in opposition to the Tritheists so far as to make Father, Son, and Holy Ghost one Person as well as one essence? The Monarchians, so called because they rejected the Triad and maintained the Monad, or absolute unity as to person as well as to essence in the Godhead, were of several kinds; some, as the Alogi, were very much the same as the modern Unitarian, which term is intended to express the same idea. Others, as Praxeas of Asia Minor, circum. A. D. 200; Noetus of Smyrna, circum. A. D. 230, and Beryl of Bostra in Arabia, circum. A. D. 250, held that this one single divine Person became incarnate in the man Christ, and hence they were called Patripassians. “ Sabellius, a presbyter of Ptolemais, who lived about the middle of the third century, adopted the notions of the earlier Monarchians, and maintained in opposition to the doctrine propounded by Origen and his followers, that the appellations Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were only so many different manifestations and names of one and the same divine being. He thus converted the objective and real distinction of persons (a Trinity of essence) into a merely subjective and moralistic view (the Trinity of manifestation).” Smith’s edition of Ha– “Hist. of Doctrine,” Vol. 1., p. 246. “They affirmed that there is only one divine Person. This one only Person conceived of in his abstract simplicity and eternity was denominated God the Father; but in his incarnation, he was denominated God the Son. Sometimes a somewhat different mode of apprehension and statement was employed. God in his concealed, unrevealed nature and being was denominated God the father, and when he comes forth from the depths of his essence, creating a universe, and revealing and communicating himself to it, he therein takes on a different relation, and assumes another denomination; namely, God the Son, or the Logos.”–––Shedd’s “History of Christian Doctrine,” Book 3., Ch. 2, § 2.
100. By what considerations may it be shown that the doctrine of the Trinity is a fundamental element of the Gospel?
It is not claimed that the refinements of theological speculations upon this subject are essential points of faith, but simply that it is essential to salvation to believe in the three persons in one Godhead, as they are revealed to us in the Scriptures.
1st. The only true God is that God who has revealed himself to us in the scriptures, and the very end of the gospel is to bring us to the knowledge of that God precisely in the aspect in which he has revealed himself. Every other conception of God presents a false God to the mind and conscience. There can be no mutual toleration without treason. Socinians, Arians, and Trinitarians worship different Gods.
2nd. The Scriptures explicitly assert that the knowledge of this true God and of Jesus Christ whom he hath sent is eternal life, and that it is necessary to honor the Son even as we honor the Father.–––John 5:23; John 14:1; John 17:3; 1 John 2:23; 1 John 5:20.
3rd. In the initiatory rite of the Christian church we are baptized into the name of every several person of the Trinity. Matthew 28:19.
4th. The whole plan of redemption in all its parts is founded upon it. Justification, sanctification, adoption, and all else that makes the gospel the wisdom and power of God unto salvation, can be understood only in the light of this fundamental truth.
5th. As an historical fact it is beyond dispute that in whatever church the doctrine of the Trinity has been abandoned or obscured, every other characteristic doctrine of the gospel has gone with it.