Question: In  loliat  sense  is  the  will  of  God  said  to  he  eternal?

Answer: It is one eternal, unsuccessive, all-comprehensive act, abso- lutely determining either to effect or to permit all things, in all of their relations, conditions, and successions, which ever were, are, or ever will be. 58. In loliat sense may the will of God he said to he the rule of righteousness ? It is evident that in the highest sense, with respect to God willing, his mere will can not be regarded as the ultimate ground of all righteousness, any more than it can be as the ultimate ground of all wisdom. Because, in that case, it would follow, first, that there would be no essential difference between right and wrong in themselves, but only a difference arbitrarily constituted by God himself; and, second, that it would be senseless to ascribe righteousness to God, for then that would be merely to say that he wills as he wills. The truth is, tliat his will acts as his infinitely righteous wisdom sees to be right. On the other hand, God's revealed will is to us the absolute and ultimate rule of righteousness, alike when he commands things in themselves indifferent, and thus makes them right, as wdien he commands things in themselves essentially right, be- cause they are right. The Absolute Justice of God. 59. What is meant hy the distinctions, absolute and relative, rectoral, distributive, and punitive or vindicatory justice of God? The absolute justice of God is the infinite moral perfection or universal righteousness of his own being. 154 THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD. The relative justice of God is his infinite!}' righteous nature, viewed as exercised in his relation to his moral creatures, as their moral governor. This last is called rectoral, when viewed as exercised gen- erally in administering the affairs of his universal government, in providing for and governing his creatures and their actions. It is called distributive, when viewed as exercised in giving luito each creature his exact proportionate due of rewards or punishment. It is called punitive or vindicatory, when viewed as demanding and inflicting the adequate and proportionate punishment of all sin, because of its intrinsic ill desert. 60. Wliat are the different opinions as to the nature of the punitive justice of God, i. e., ivhat are the diffeyxnt reasons as- signed ivJiy God p)iinishes sin ? The Socinians deny the punitive justice of God altogether, and maintain that he punishes sin simply for the good of the individual sinner, and of society, only so far as it may be inter- ested in his restraint or improvement. Those theologians who maintain the governmental theory of the Atonement, hold that God punishes sin not because of a changeless principle in himself demanding its punishment, but for the good of the universe, on the basis of great and changeless principles of governmental policy. Thus resolving justice into a form of general benevolence. Leibnitz held that "justice is goodness conducted by wisdom." This pi'inciple assumes that happiness is the chief good. That the essence of virtue is the desire to promote happiness, and that consequently the end of justice can only be to prevent misery. This is the foundation of the Governmental theory of the Atonement. See Chapter XXV. See Park on the " Atonement." Some hold that the necessity for the punishment of sin is only hypothetical, i. e., results only from the eternal decree of God. The true view is that God is immutably determined by his own eternal and essential righteousness to visit every sin with a pi'oportionate punishment. ■ 61. Prove that disinterested benevolence is not the ivhole of virtue. 1st. Some exercises of disinterested benevolence, for example, natural parental affection, are purely instinctive, and have no positive moral character. 2d. Some exercises of disinterested benevolence, such as the w^eak yielding of a judge to sympathy with a guilty man or his friends, are positively immoral. THE JUSTICE OF GOD. 155 3d. There are virtuous principles incapable of being resolved into disinterested benevolence, such as proper prudential re- gard for one's own highest good; aspiration and effort after personal excellence ; holy abhorrence of sin for its own sake, and just punishment of sin in order to vindicate righteousness. 4th. The idea of oughtness is the essential constitutive idea of virtue. No possible analysis of the idea of benevolence will give the idea of moral obligation. This is simple, unresolvable, ultimate. Oughtness is the genus, and benevolence one of the species comprehended in it. ^^. State the evidence derived from the universal principles of human nature, tJiat the justice of God must be an ultimate and unchangeable princij)le of his nature, determining him to punish sin because of its intrinsic ill desert. The obligation of a righteous ruler to punish sin, the intrin- sic ill desert of sin, the principle that sin ougJd to be p)unished, are ultimate facts of moral consciousness. They can not be resolved into any other principle whatsoever. This is proved — 1st. Because they are involved in every awakened sinner's consciousness of his own demerit. — Ps. li. 4. "1 have done this evil in thy sight ; that thou mightest be just when thou speakest, and clear when thou judgest." In its higher degree this feeling rises into remorse, and can be allayed only by ex- piation. Thus many murderers have had no rest until they have given themselves up to the law, when they have experi- enced instant relief And millions of souls have found peace in the application of the blood of Jesus to their wounded consciences. 2d. All men judge thus of the sins of others. The con- sciences of all good men are gratified when the just penalty of the law is executed upon the offender, and outraged when he escapes. 3d. This principle is witnessed to by all the sacrificial rites common to all ancient religions, by the penances in some form universal even in modern times, by all penal laws, and by the synonyms for guilt, punishment, justice, etc., common to all languages. 4th. It is self-evident, that to inflict an unjust punishment is itself a crime, no matter Iioav benevolent the motive which prompts it, nor how good the effect which follows it. It is no less self-evident that it is the justice of the punishment so de- served which renders its effect on the community good, and not its efiect on the community which renders it just. To hang a man for the good of the community is both a crime and a blunder, unless the hanging is justified by the ill desert 156 THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD. of the man. In tliat case his ill desert is seen by all the com- mnnity to be the real reason of the hanging. 63. Prove the same from the nature of the divine laio. Grotius in his great work, ^'■Defensia Fidel Catholicce De Sa- fisfactione Christi" in which he originates the Governmental Tlieory of the Atonement, maintains that the divine law is a product of the divine will, and therefore at the option of God relaxable, alike in its preceptive and its penal elements. But the truth is (a) that the penalty is an essential part of the divine law; (/>) that the law of God, as to all its essential prin- ciples of right and wrong, is 7iot a product of the divine will, but an immutable transcript of the divine nature; (c) therefore the law is immutable and must needs be fulfilled in every iota of it. This is proved — Ist. Because fundamental principles must have their changeless ground in the divine nature, or (a) other- wise the distinction between right and wrong would be purely arbitrary — whereas they are discerned b}^ our moral intuitions to be absolute and independent of all volition divine or human; (h) otherwise it would be meaningless to say that God is right- ous il righteousness be an arbitrarj^ creature of his own will; (c) because he declares that he ^'can not lie," that "he can not deny himself" 2d. The Scriptures declare that the law can not be relaxed, that it must be fulfilled. — John vii. 2o, and x. 35; Luke xxiv. 44; Matt. V. 25, 26. 3d. The Scriptures declare that Christ came to fulfil the law not to relax it. — Matt. v. 17, 18; Rom. iii. 31; x. 4. 64. Hoiv may it he argued from the indepeiidence and absolute self-sufficiency of God, that imnitive justice is an essential attribute of his nature ? It is inconsistent with these essential attributes to conceive of God as obliged to any course of action by the external exi- gencies of his creation. Both the motive and the end of his action must be in himself — Col. i. 16; Rom. xi. 36; Eph. i. 5, 6; Rora. ix. 22, 23. If he punishes sin because determined so to do by the principles of his own nature, then he acts independ- ently. But if he resorts to this merely as the necessary means of restraining and governing his creatures, then their actions control his. 65. Hoiv may it he 2^^'oved from God's love of holiness and hatred of sin ? God's love for holiness and hatred of sin is represented in THE JUSTICE OF GOD. 157 Scripture as essential and intrinsic. He loves holiness for its own sake. He hates sin and is determined to punish it be- cause of its intrinsic ill desert. He hates the wicked every- day.— Ps. V. 5; vii. 11. "To me belongeth vengeance and recompense." — Deut. xxxii. 35. "According to their deeds accordingly he will repay." — Lsa. lix. 18; 2 Thess. i. 6. "See- ing it is a righteous thing with God to recomjjense tribulation to them that trouble you." — Rom. i. 32. " Knowing the judg- ment of God that they which commit such things are ivorthy of death." — Deut. xvii. 6; xxi. 22. (36. Hoio can this truth he proved from ivhat the Scriptures teach as to the nature and necessity of the atonement of Christ ? As to its nature the Scriptures teach that Christ suffered the penalty of sin vicariously in the place and stead of his elect people, and that he thus expiated their guilt, and recon- ciled God and redeemed their souls by giving himself the ransom price demanded in their stead. The Scriptures every- where, and in every way teach that the design of Christ's death was to produce a sin-expiating effect upon the Governor of the moral universe, and not a moral impression either upon the heart of the individual sinner, or upon the public conscience of the intelligent universe. All this will be proved at length under Chapters XXY and XXXIII. As to the necessity of the Atonement the Scriptures teach that it was absolute. That Christ must die or sinners perish. Gal. ii. 21, and iii. 21. But the propriety of producing a moral impression upon each sinner personally, or upon the public mind of the universe generally, can not give rise to an absolute necessity on the part of God — since God who created the uni- verse and all its members might, of course, if he so pleased, produce moral impressions upon them of whatever kind, either without means, or by whatsoever means he pleases. An abso- lute necessity must have its ground in the unchangeable nature of God, which lies back of and determines his Avill in all its acts. Therefore the eternal nature of God immutably deter- mines him to punish all sin. '' Political Science," Pres^ident Theodore D. Wookpif, vol. I., pp. 330-335. "The theory that correction is the main end of punishment will not bear examination. (1.) The state is not a humane institution. (2.) The theory makes no distinction between crimes. If a murderer is appar- ently reformed in a week, the ends of detention are accomplished, and he should be set free; while the petty offender must stay for months or years until the inoculation of good principles becomes manifest. (3.) What kind of correction is to be aimed at? Is it such as will in- sure society itself against his repeating his crime ? In that case it is society, and not the person himself who is to be benefited by the cor- 158 THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD. rective process. Or must a thorough cure, a recovery from selfishness and covetousness, an awakening of the higliest principle of soul be aimed at; an established church, in short, be set up in the house of correction? "The explanation that the state profec/.s its oioi existence, or the inno- cent inhabitants of the country, by striking its subjects with awe and deten-ing them from evil-doing through punishment, is met by admitting that, while this effect is real and important, it is not as yet made out that the state has a right to do this. Crime and desert of punishment must be pre-supposed before the moral sense can be satisfied with the inflic- tion of evil. And the measure of the amount of punishment, supplied by the public good for the time, is most fluctuating and tyrannical; moreover mere awe, unaccompanied by an awakening of the sense of justice, is as much a soiirce of hatred as a motive to obedience. " "The theory that in punishing an evil-doer, the state renders to him his deserts, is the only one that seems to have a solid foundation. It assumes that moral evil has been committed by disobedience to rightful commands, that according to a propriety which commends itself to our moral nature it is fit and right that evil, physical or mental, suffering or shame, should be incurred by the wrong-doer, and that in all forms of government over moral beings there ought to be a power able to decide how much evil ought to follow s^Decial kinds and instances of transgressions. The state is in fact, as St. Paul calls it, the minister of God to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. But only in a very limited sphere and for special ends. . . It punishes acts, not thoughts; intentions appearing in acts, not feelings; it punishes persons within a certain territory over which it has the jurisdiction, and perhaps its sub- jects who do wrong elsewhere, but none else; it punishes acts hurtful to its own existence and to the community of its subjects; it punishes not according to an exact scale of deserts, for it can not, without a revelation, find out what the deserts of individuals are, nor what is the relative guilt of diiferent actions of difi'erent persons." * ^^^^IwJjLo The Absolute Goodness of God. 67. What distinctions are signified by the terms benevolence, complacency, mercy, and grace ? The infinite goodness of God is a glorious perfection wliich pre-eminently characterizes his nature, and which he, in an nifinitely wise, righteous, and sovereign manner, exercises towards his creatures in various modes according to their rela- tions and conditions. Benevolence is the goodness of God viewed generically. It embraces all his creatures, except the judicially condemned on account of sin, and provides for their welfare. The love of complacency is that approving affection with which God regards his own infinite perfections, and every image and reflection of them in his creatures, especially in the sanctified subjects of the new creation. God's mercy, of which the more passive forms are 2^ify and * This extract is slightly condensed. THE GOOD.VESS OF GOD. 159 compassion, is the divine goodness exercised with respect to the miseries of his creatiu-es, feehng for them, and making pro- vision for tlieir reHef, and in the case of impenitent sinners, leading to long-suffering jjatience. The grace of God is his goodness seeking to commnnicate his favors, and, above all, the fellowship of his own life and blessedness to his moral creatures, — who, as creatures, must be destitute of all merit, — and pre-eminently his electing love, se- curing at infinite cost the blessedness of its objects, who, as sinful creatures, were positively ill deserving. 68. State a false definition of divine benevolence often given, and state hoiv it is rightly defined. The infinite Benevolence of God is often defined as that attribute in virtue of which he communicates to all his crea- tures the greatest possible amount of happiness, i. e., as great as they are capable of receiving, or as great as is consistent with the attaiinnent of the greatest amount of happiness on the ag- gregate in tlie moral universe. But this supposes that God is limited by something out of himself, tliat he could not have seciu'ed more happiness for his creatures than he has actually done. It also makes happiness paramount in the view of God to excellence. Benevolence should, on the other hand, be defined as that attribute in virtue of which God produces all the happiness in the universe, which is consistent witli the end he had in view in its creation. These ends stand in this order. 1. The mani- festation of his own glory. 2. The highest moral excellence of his creatures. 3. Their highest blessedness in himself — Dr. Charles Hodge's Lectures. 69. What are the sources of our knoivledge of the fact that God is benevolent ? 1st. Reason. Benevolence is an essential element of moral perfection. God is infinitely perfect, and therefore infinitely benevolent. 2d. Experience and observation. The wisdom of God in designing, and the power of God in executing, in the several spheres of creation, providence, and revealed religion, have evi- dently been constantly determined by benevolent intentions. 3d. The direct assertions of Scripture. — Ps. clxv. 8, 9; 1 John iv. 8. 70. How may it be proved that God is gracious and loilling to forgive sin ? Neither reason nor conscience can ever raise a presumption IGO THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD. on this subject. It is the evident duty of fellow-creatures mu- tually to forgive injuries, but we have nothing to do with for- giving sm as sin. It appears plain that there can be no moral principle making it essential for a sovereign ruler to forgive sin as trangression of law. All that reason or conscience can assure us of in that regard is, that sin can not be forgiven without an atonement. The gracious affection which should prompt such a ruler to provide an atonement, must, from its essential nature, be per- fectly free and sovereign, and therefore it can be known only so far as it is graciously revealed. The gospel is, therefore, good neios confirmed by signs and wonders. — Ex. xxxiv. 6, 7; Epli. i. 7-9. 71. What are the different tJieories or assumptions on loMch it lias heen attempted to reconcile the existence of sin ivith the goodness of God? 1st. It has been argued by some that free agency is essential to a moral system, and that absolute independence of will is essential to free agency. That to control the wills of free agents is no more an object of j'^oioer than the working of contradictions; and consequently God, although omnipotent, could not prevent sin in a moral system without violating its nature.— See Dr. N. W. Taylor's "Concio ad Clerum," 1828. 2d. Others have argued that sin was permitted by God in infinite wisdom as the necessary means to the largest possible measure of happiness in the universe as a whole. On both of these we remark — 1st. That the first theory above cited is founded on a false view of the conditions of human liberty and responsibility (see below, Chapter XV.); and, further, that it grossly limits the power of God by representing him as desiring and attempting what he can not effect, and that it makes him dependent upon his creatures. 2d. With reference to the second theory it should be remem- bered that God's own glory, and not the greatest good of the universe, is the great end of God in creation and providence. 3d. The permission of sin, in its relation both to the right- eousness and goodness of God, is an insolvable mystery, and all attempts to solve it only darken counsel with words without knowledge. It is, however, the privilege of our faith to know, though not of our philosophy to comprehend, that it is assur- edly a most wise, righteous, and merciful permission ; and that it shall redound to the glory of God and to the good of his chosen. THE TRUTH OF GOD. 161 72. How can the attributes of goodness and justice he shoivn to he consistent ? Goodness and justice are the several aspects of one un- changeable, infinitely wise, and sovereign moral perfection. God is not sometimes merciful and sometimes just, nor so far merciful and so far just, but he is eternally iniinitely merciful and just. Relatively to the creature this infinite perfection of nature presents different aspects, as is determined by the judg- ment which infinite wisdom delivers in each individual case. Even in our experience these attributes of our moral nature are found not to be inconsistent in ^principle, though our want both of wisdom and knowledge, a sense of our own unworthi- ness, and a mere physical sjunpathy, often sadly distract our judgments as well as our hearts in adjusting these principles to the individual cases of life. God's Absolute Truth.


Question: What  is  truth  considei'ed  as  a  divine  attrihute?

Answer: The truth of God in its widest sense is a perfection which qualifies all his intellectual and moral attributes. His knowl- edge is infinitely true in relation to its objects, and his wisdom unbiassed either by prejudice or passion. His justice and his goodness in all their exercises are infinitely true to the perfect standard of his own nature. In all outward manifestations of his perfections to his creatures, God is always true to his nature — always self-consistently divine. This attribute in its more special sense qualifies all God's intercourse Avith his rational creatures. He is true to us as well as to himself; and thus is laid the foundation of all faith, and therefore of all knowledge. It is the foimdation of all confidence, first, in our senses; second, in our intellect and conscience; third, in any authenticated, su- pernatural revelation. The two forms in which this perfection is exercised in rela- tion to us are, first, his entire truth in all his communications; second, his perfect sincerity in undertaking and faithfulness in discharging all his engagements. 74. Hoiu can the truth of God he reconciled ivith the apparent non-j)erformance of some of his threatenings ? The promises and threatenings of God are sometimes ahso- lute, when they are always infallibly fulfilled in the precise sense in which he intended them. They are often also condi- tional., made to depend upon the obedience or repentance of the 162 THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD. creature. — Jonah iii. 4, 10; Jer. xviii. 7, 8. This condition may be either expi-essed or inipHed, because the individual case is understood to be, of course, governed by the general principle that genuine repentance and faith delivers from every threat- ening and secures every promise. 75. How can tJie invitations and exhortations of the Scriptures, addressed to those whom God does not propose to save, he reconciled with his sincerity ? See above (Question 42), the distinction between God's pre- ceptive and his decretive will. His invitations and exhorta- tions are addressed to all men in good faith: first, because it is every man's duty to repent and believe, and it is God's preceptive will that every man should; second, because nothing ever pre- vents the obedience of any sinner, except his OAvn unwilling- ness; third, because in every case in Avhicli the condition is fulfilled the promise implied will be performed; fourth, God never has promised to enable every man to believe; fifth, these invitations and exhortations are not addressed to the reprobate as such, but to all sinners as such, with the avowed purpose of saving thereby the elect. The Infinite Sovereignty of God.


Question: What  is  meant  hy  tJie  sovereignty  of  God  ?

Answer: His absolute right to govern and dispose of all his creatures, simply according to his own good pleasure, 77. Prove that this right is asserted in Scripture. Dan. iv. 25, 35; Rev. iv. 11; 1 Tim. vi. 15; Rom. ix. 15-23.


Question: On  ivhat  does  the  absolute  sovereignty  of  God  reM  ?

Answer: 1st. His infinite superiority in being and in all his perfec- tions to any and to all his creatures. 2d. As creatures the}^ were created out of nothing, and are now sustained in being by his power, for his owm glory and according to his own good pleasvn-e. — Rom. xi. 36. 3d. His infinite benefits to us, and our dependence upon and blessedness in him, are reasons why we should not only recognize, but rejoice, in this glorious truth. The Lord reign- eth, let the earth rejoice. 79. Is there any sense in luhich there are limits to the sovereignty of God? The sovereignty of God, viewed abstractly as one attribute among many, must of course be conceived of as qualified by all THE HOLINESS OF GOD. 163 the rest. It can not be otherwise than an infinitely wise, right- eous, and merciful sovereignty. But God, viewed concretely as an infinite sovereign, is abso- lutely unlimited by any thing without himself. " He doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth." — Dan. iv. 35.


Question: What  is  meant  by  the  holiness  of  God?

Answer: The holiness of God is not to be conceived of as one attri- bute among others; it is rather a general term representing the conception of his consummate perfection and total glory. It is his infinite moral perfection crowning his infinite intelli- gence and power. There is a glory of each attribute, viewed abstractly, and a glory of the whole together. The intellectual nature is the essential basis of the moral. Infinite moral per- fection is the crown of the Godhead. Holiness is the total glory thus crowned. Holiness in the Creator is the total perfection of an infinitely righteous intelligence. Holiness in the creature is not mere moral perfection, but perfection of the created nature of moral agents after their kind, in spiritual union and fellowship with the infinite Creator. — 1 John i. 3. The word holiness, as applied to God in Scripture, repre- sents, first, moral purity — Lev. xi. 44; Ps. cxlv. 17; second, his transcendently august and venerable majesty. — Isa. vi. 3; Ps. xxii. 3; Rev. iv. 8. To "sanctify tlie Lord," i. e., to make him holy, is to de- clare and adore his holiness by venerating his august majesty wherever and whereinsoever his person or character is repre- sented.— Isa. viii. 13; xxix. 23; Ezek. xxxviii. 23; Matt. vi. 9; 1 Pet. iii. 15.


Question: In  what  sense  is  this  word  used  by  the  ecclesiastical  writers?

Answer: Until the middle of the fourth century this word, in con- nection 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 theolog- ical language in the sense of 2xrson, in contradistinction to 6v6ia, essence. It has been transferred into the English lan- guage in the form of an adjective, to designate the hypostatical or personal union of two natures in the God-man. 7. What is essential to personality, and hoiv is the word per- son to be defined in connection with the doctrine of the Trinity ? The Latin word, '■'■ snppositum" signifies a distinct individual existence, e. g., a particular tree or horse. A person is ^^snp- positum intellectuale'' 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 166 THE HOLY TRINITY. 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 co-ordinately three separate persous, is of course an infinite mystery which we can not understand, and therefore can not adequately define, and Avhich we can know only so far as it is explicitly 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 com- mon; that it lays the foundation for their concurrence in comi- sel, 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. Person is defined by Gerhard — " Persona est substantia individua, intelligens, incommunicabilis, quoe non sustentatur in alio, vel ab alio." In relation to this great mystery of the divine trinity of persons in the unity of essence Calvin's defi- nition 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 I., Chap. 13, § 6. 8. What other terms have been used by theologians as the equiv- alent of Person in this connection ? Greek, v7t66Ta6ii, and 7tp66conov — aspect; Latin, |}er.so?ia, hypo- stasis, subsisfenfia, aspectus: English, person, hypostasis. — Shedd's " Hist. Christ Doc," B. III., C'h. 3, § 5. 9. What is meant by the terms d/toovdiov (of the same substance), and oMuiovdiov {of similar substmice)? In the first general council of the church which, consisting of three hundred and eighteen bishops, was called together by the Emperor Constantine at Nice, in Bithynia, a. d. 325, there were found to be three great parties representing difterent opinions concerning the Trinity. 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 tei^ra duoovdiov (ho- mo(uision), compounded of ujud?, same, and ovdia, suhsfance, to teach the great truth that tlie three persons of the Godhead are one God, because they are of the same numerical essence. THE SEVERAL PROPOSITIONS INVOLVED. 167 2d. 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 srspoovdioy of different or generi- ically unlike essence from the Father. 3d. 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, u/ioiovdiov, from, u/uoioi;, like, and 6v6ia, substance), generically though not nu- merically one. The opinions of the first, or orthodox party, prevailed at that council, and have ever since been represented by the technical phrase, Jiomoousian. For the creed promulgated by that council, see Chapter VII. 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. 2d. 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 consti- tuted a distinct person by certain incommunicable properties, not common to him with the others. 3d. The distinction between these three is a personal distinc- tion, in the sense that it occasions (1) 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 attri- butes 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 per- sons who subsist in common of the one essence. Among all creatures every distinct person is a distinct numerical sub- stance, 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 ^vill, etc. In Christ on the contrary, there are two 168 THE HOLY TRINITY. spirits, two intelligences, two wills, and yet all the while one, indivisible person. 5tli. These divine persons being one God, all the divine attributes being common to each in the same sense, never- theless they are revealed in the Scriptures in a certain order of subsistence and of operation. (1.) Of suhsistence insomuch 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, in- somuch 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 sever- ally ; nevertheless the Scriptures attribute some divine works Avrought ad intra, exclusively to each divine person respect- ively, e. g., generation to the Father, filiation to the Son, pro- cession 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, redemp- tion 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. 2d. That Jesus of Nazareth, as to his divine nature, was truly God, yet a distinct person from the Father. 3d. 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 Avhat 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 sus- tains 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 per- sonal 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, THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST. 169 has been fully set forth above, in Chap. VIIL, 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, 11. Jesus of Nazareth, as to his divine nature, is truly God, and YET A distinct PERSON FROM THE FaTHER. 11. Wliat different views have been entertained tvith 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, con- stituted of the same infinite self-existent essence with the Father and the Holy Ghost. The orthodox doctrine as to his person as at present consti- tuted, since his incarnation, is set forth in chap. XXIII. An account of the different heretical opinions as to his person are given below, in questions 96-99, of this chapter. 12. Hoiu far did the Jews at the time of Christ expect the Mes- siah 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 ex- pectation 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 rablnnical writings indicate that some of the more learned and spiritual still continued true to the ancient faith. 13. Hoio 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 i. 3; Col. i. 15-18. 2d. Those passages which directly declare that he Avas with the Father before the world was; that he was rich, and pos- sessed glory. — John i. 1, 15, 30; vi. 62; viii. 58; xvii. 5; 2 Cor. viii. 9. 3d. Those passages which declare that he " came into the world," "came down from heaven." — John iii. 13, 31; xiii. 3; xvi. 28 ; 1 Cor. xv. 47. 14. How can it be proved that the Jehovah ivho manifested him- self as the God of the Jeivs 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 170 THE HOLY TRINITY. Scripture, it can be established only by a careful comparison of many passages. The evidence, as compiled from Hill's Lects., Book 111., ch. v., may be summed up as follows: 1st. All the divine appearances of the ancient economy are referred to one person. — Compare Gen. xviii. 2, 17; xxviii. 13; xxxii. 9, 31; Ex. iii. 14, 15; xiii. 21; xx. 1, 2; xxv. 21; Dent, iv. 33, 36, 39 ; Neh. ix. 7-28. This one person is called Jeho- vah, the incommunicable name of God, and at the same time angel, or one sent. — Compare Gen. xxxi. 11, 13; xlviii. 15, 16; Hosea xii. 2, 5. Compare Ex. iii. 14, 15, with Acts vii. 30-35; and Ex. xiii. 21, with Ex. xiv. 19 ; and Ex. xx. 1, 2, with Acts vii. 38 ; Isa. Ixiii. 7, 9. 2d. But God the Father has been seen by no man (John i. 18; vi. 46): neither could he be an angel, or one sent by any otlier; yet God the Son has been seen (1 John i. 1, 2), and sent (John V. 36). 3d. This Jehovah, who was at the same time the angel, or one sent, of the old economy, was also set forth by the proph- ets as the Saviour of Israel, and the author of the new dis- pensation. In Zech. ii. 10, 11, one Jehovah is represented as sending another. See Micah v. 2. In Mai. iii. 1, it is declared that "the Lord," "the messenger of the covenant," shall come to liis own temple. This applied to Jesus (Mark i. 2). — Com- pare Ps. xcvii. 7, with Heb. i. 6; and Isa. vi. 1-5, with John xii. 41. 4th. Certain references in the New Testament to passages in the Old appear directly to imply this fact. Compare Ps. Ixxviii. 15, 16, 35, with 1 Cor. x. 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 viii. 56, 58; Matt, xxiii. 37; 1 Pet. i. 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. — Gen. xvi. 7-13. The Angel of Jehovah appears to Hagar, claims divine power, and is called God. — Gen. xviii. 2-33. Three angels appeai'ed to Abraham, one of whom is called Jehovah, v. 17. — Gen. xxxii. 25. An Angel wrestles Avith Jacob and blesses him as God, and in Hosea, xii. 3-5, that Angel is called God. — Ex. iii. 2. The Angel of Jehovah appeared to JMoses in the burn- THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST. 171 ing bush, and in the following verses this angel is called Jeho- vah, and other divine titles are ascribed to liim. This Angel led the Israelites in the wilderness. — Ch. xiv. 19 ; Isa. Ixiii. 9. Jehovah is represented as saving his people by the Angel of las Presence. Thus Malachi iii. 1 — "The Lord, the Angel of the covenant shall suddenly come to his temple." This applied to Christ.— Mark i. 2. 16. Wlmt evidence of the divinity of the 3Iessiah does the 2d Psalm iJtesent ? It declares him to be the Son of God, and as such to receive universal power over tlie whole earth and its inhabitants. All are exhorted to submit to him, and to trust him, on pain of his anger. In Acts xiii, 33, Paul declares that Psalm refers to Christ.


Question: What  evidence  is  furnished  hy  the  4:5th  Psalm  ?

Answer: The ancient Jews considered this Psalm addressed to the jSIessiah, and the fact is established by Paul (Heb. i. 8, 9). Here, therefore, Jesus is called God, and his throne eternal. 18. What evidence is furnished by Psalm 110.'* . That this Psalm refers to the Messiah is proved by Christ (Matt. xxii. 43, 44), and by Paul (Heb. v. 6; vii. 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.


Question: WJiat  evidence  is  furnished  by  Isaiah  ix.  6  ?

Answer: This passage self-evidently refers to the INIessiah, as is con- firmed by Matt. iv. 14-16. It declares explicitly that the child born "is also the mighty God, the everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace."


Question: What  is  the  evidence  furnished  by  Micah  v.  2  ?

Answer: This was understood by the Jews to refer to Christ, which is confirmed by j\Iatt. ii. 6, and John vii. 42. The passage declares that his goings forth have been " from ever of old," i. e., from eternity.


Question: What  evidence  isfurnisJied  by  Malachi  iii.  1,  2  ?

Answer: This passage self-evidently refers to the Messiah, as is con- firmed by Mark i. 2. The Hebrew term (Adonai), here translated Lord, is never applied to any other than the supreme God. The temple, which w^as sacred to the presence and worship of Jehovah, is called 172 THE HOLY TRINITY. his temple. And in verse 2d, a divine Avork 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 tJie Old Testament to Christ ? The apostles frequently apply the language of the Old Tes- tament to Christ, when it is evident that the original writers intended to speak of Jehovah, and not of the Messiah as such. Psalm 102 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 (Heb. i. 10-12) affirms Christ to be the subject of the address. In Isa. xlv. 20-25, Jehovah speaks and asserts his own supreme Lordship. But Paul, in Rom. xiv. 11, quotes a part of Jeho- vah's declaration with regard to himself, to prove that we must all stand before the judgment-seat of Christ. — Compare also Isa. vi. 3, with John xii. 41. 23. What is the general character of the evidence upon this sttbject afforded by the New Testament ? This fundamental doctrine is presented to us in every indi- vidual writing, and in every separate paragraph of the New Testament, either by direct assertion or by necessary implica- tion, as may be ascertained by every honest reader for himsel£ The mass of this testimony is so great, and is so intimately in- terwoven 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 Neiv Testament ascribes divine titles to Christ. John i. 1; xx. 28; Acts xx. 28; Rom. ix. 5; 2 Thess. i. 12; 1 Tim. iii. 16; Titus ii. 13; Heb. i. 8; 1 John v. 20. 25. Prove that the New Testament ascribes divine -perfections to Christ. Eternity. — John i. 2; viii. 58; xvii. 5; Rev. i. 8, 17, 18; xxii. 13. Immutability. — Heb. i. 11, 12, and xiii. 8. Omnipresence. — John iii. 13; Matt, xviii. 20; xxviii. 20. Omniscience. — Matt. xi. 27; John ii. 23-25; xxi. 17; Rev. ii. 23. Omnipotence. — John v. 17; Heb. L 3; Rev. i. 8; xi. 17. DIVINITY AND PERSONALITY OF THE HOLY GHOST. 173 26. Prove that the New Testament ascribes divine works to Christ. Creation.— John i. 3, 10; Col. i. 16, 17. Preservation and Providence. — Heb. i. 3; Col. i. 17; Matt, xxviii. 18. Miracles. — John v. 21, 36. Judgment— 2 Cor. v. 10; Matt. xxv. 31, 32; John v. 22. A work of grace, including election. — John xiii. 18. Sanctification, Eph. v. 26; sending the Holy Ghost, John xvi. 7, 14; giving eternal life, John x. 28; Turretin, Tom. I., L. 3, Q. 28. 27. Prove that the Neio Testament teaches that supreme ivor- ship should be paid to Christ Matt, xxviii. 19; John v. 22, 23; xiv. 1; Acts vii. 59, 60; 1 Cor. i. 2; 2 Cor. xiii. 14; Phil. ii. 9, 10; Heb. i. 6; Kev. i. 5, 6; V. 11, 12; vii. 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 univer- sally 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 im- plied, 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 prov- ing 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 person- ality, his absolute divinity being so clearly revealed as to be unquestionable. in. The Holy Ghost is truly God, yet a distinct person.


Question: What  sects  have  held  that  the  Holy  Ghost  is  a  creature  ?

Answer: 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 174 THE HOLY TRINITY. the divinity of the Son, that very little prominence was given in that age to questions concerning the Holy Ghost. Arins, how- ever, 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 tlie Son ; a MTid^a uri6i.iaxo<i, a creature of a creature.— See Neander's " Ch. Hist," Vol. I., pp. 416-420. Some of the disciples of Macedonius, bishop of Constanti- nople, 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, Avhich met at Constantinople, a. d. 381. This council defined and guarded the orthodox faith, by adding de- finite 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 tlie Holy Spirit been regarded merely 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 exer- cised in a particular way. This is now the opinion of all mod- ern Unitarians and Rationalists. 31. Hotv 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, voli- tion, separate agency. Christ uses the pronouns, I, thou, he, when speaking of the relation of the Holy Spirit to himself and the Father: "I will send him." "He Avill 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 tiiem to us. He teaches and leads to all truth. He knows, because he searches the deep things of God. He works all supernat- ural gifts, dividing to every man as he Avills. — John xiv. 17, 26; XV. 26; 1 Cor. ii. 10, 11; xii. 11. He reproves, glorifies, helps, intercedes. — John xvi. 7-13; Rom. viii. 26. 32. Hoio may his personality be argued from, the offices 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 THE HOLY SPIRIT. 175 work of the Son to accomplish. He inspired the prophets and apostles; he teaches and sanctifies the church ; he selects her of- ficers, qualifying them by the commnnication 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 ns, and gives it effect in our persons in every moment of our lives. His personal dis- tinction is obviously involved in the very nature of these func- tions which he discharges. — Luke xii. 12; Acts v. 32; xv. 28; xvi. 6; xxviii. 25; Rom. xv. 16; 1 Cor. ii. 13; Heb. ii. 4; iii. 7; 2 Pet. i. 21. 33. What argument for the personality of the Holy Ghost may he deduced from the formula 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 co-ordinately with two distinct persons. 34. Hoiv may his personality be j^roved by ivhat is said of the sin against the Holy Ghost ? In Matt. xii. 31, 32; Mark iii. 28, 29; Luke xii. 10, this sin is called " blasphemy against the Holy Ghost." Now, blas- phemy is a sin committed against a person, and it is here dis- tinguished from the same act as committed against the other persons of the Trinity. 35. Hoiv can such expressions as ^^ giving" and ^^ pouring out the Sjnrit" be reconciled with his personcdity ? These and other similar expressions are used figurativel}'' 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. — Eph. V. 30; Rom. xiii. 14; Gal. iii. 27. 36. Shoio that the names of God are applied to the Spirit. Compare Ex. xvii. 7, and Ps. xcv. 7, with Heb. iii. 7-11. — See Acts v. 3, 4.


Question: What  divine  attributes  do  the  Scriptures  ascribe  to  him  ?

Answer: Omnipresence. — Ps. cxxxix. 7; 1 Cor. xii. 13. Omniscience. — 1 Cor. ii. 10, 11. Omnipotence. — Luke i. 35; Rom. viii. 11. 38. What agency in the external world do tlie Scriptures ascribe to him? 176 THE HOLY TRINITY. Creation. — Gen. i. 2 ; Job xxvi. 13 ; Ps. civ. 30. The power of working miracles. — Matt. xii. 28; 1 Cor. xii. 9-11. 39. Hoiv is Ms supreme divinity established hy what the Script- ures teach of his agency in redemption ? He is declared to be the immediate agent in regeneration, John iii. 6; Titus iii. 5; and in the resurrection of our bodies, Rom. viii. 11. His agency in the generation of Christ's human nature, in his resurrection, and in the inspiration of the Script- ures, were exertions of his divine power in preparing the re- demption which he now applies. 40. Hoiv can siich expressions as, "/ie shall not speak of himself" he reconciled ivith 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 Matt, xxviii. 19. 42. Hoio is this doctrine directly taught in the formtda of the apostolical benediction ? See 2 Cor. xiii. 14. We have here distinctly named three persons, and each communicating a separate blessing, accord- ing to his own order and manner of operation. The benevo- lence of the Father in designing, the grace of the Son in the acquisition, the communion of the Holy Ghost in the applica- tion of salvation. These are three distinct personal names, . DIRECT STATEMENTS OF THE DOCTRINE. 177 three distinct modes of personal agency, and each equally- divine. 43. What evidence is afforded hy the narrative of Christ's baptism ? See j\Iatt. iii. 13-17. Here also we have presented to us three persons distinctly named and described as severally act- ing, each after his own order. The Father speaking from heaven, the Spirit descending like a dove and lighting upon Christ, Christ acknowledged as the beloved Son of God ascend- ing from the water. 44 State the argument from John xv. 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 Fatlier is tlie 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 icith regard to the gen- uineness of 1 John V. 7 ? I have not room in which to present a synopsis of the argu- ment for and against the genuineness of the disputed clause which could be of any value. — See " Home's Intro.," Vol IV., Part II., chapter iv., section 5. It will suffice to say — 1st. The disputed clause is as follows, including part of the eighth verse: "i;'?i heaven., the Fcdher, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one. And there are three that hear witness in earth." 2d. 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. 3d. The doctrine taught is so scriptural, and the grammat- ical 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 establishiru/ 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. 178 THE HOLY TRINITY. 46. What passages in the Old Testament imply the existence of more titan one person in the Godhead ? Mark the use of the plural in the following passages. — Gen. i. 26; iii. 22; xi. 7; Isa. vi. 8; Compare the three-fold repeti- tion of the name Jehovah (Num. vi. 24-26) with the apostol- ical benediction — 2 Cor. xiii. 14. Mark also in Isa. vi. 3, the threefold repetition of the ascription of holiness. 47. What passages in the Old Testament speak of the Son as a distinct person from the Father, and yet as divine? In Ps. xlv. 6, 7, we have the Father addressing the Son as God, and anointing him. — See also Ps. ex. 1; Isa. xliv. 6, 7, 14. The prophecies always set forth the ]\Ies.siah as a person distinct from the Father, and yet he is called " Mighty God," etc. — Isa. ix. 6; Jer. xxiii. 6. 48. What passages of the Old Testament speak of the Spirit as a distinct person from the Father, and yet as divine ? Gen. i. 2; vi. 3; Ps. civ. 30; cxxxix. 7; Job xxvi. 13; Isa. xlviii. 16. V. It remains for us to consider what the Scriptures teach con- cerning THE Eternal and Necessary Kelations which the Three Divine Persons sustain to each other. (I.) The Relation which the Second Person sustains to the First, or the Eternal Generation of the Son.


Question: IJliaf  is  the  idiomatic  use  of  the  Hehreio  ivord  I?  {son)?

Answer: It is used in the sense — 1st. Of son. 2d. 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 xx. 35); and "sons of God," applied, (1) to kings, Ps. ii. 7; (2) to angels, Gen. vi. 2; (3) to worshippers of God, his own people, Deut. xiv. 1. 4th. In combination with substantives, expressing age or quality, etc.; thus, "sons of years," for aged. Lev. xii. 6; "son of Belial," for worthless fellow, Deut. xiii. 13; "son of death," for one deserving to die, 1 Sam. xx. 31; "a hill son of fatness," for a fruitful hill. The same idiom has been car- ried into the Greek of the New Testament. — See Gesenius' "Heb. Lex."


Question: In  ivhat  sense  are  men  called  "  sons  of  God  "  in  Scripture  ?

Answer: THE ETERNAL SON'S HIP OF CHRIST. 179 The general idea embraced in the rtdation of sonship in- chides — 1st, similarity and derivation of nature; 2d, parental and filial love; and 3d, 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 (Ps. Ixxxii. 0), and to Christians who are the subjects of spiritual regeneration and adoption (Gal. iii. 2(3), the special objects of divine favor (Matt. v. 9), and are like him (Matt. v. 45). When applied to creatures, whether men or angels (Job i. 6), this word is always used in the plural. In the singular it is applied only to the second person of the Trinity, Avith the single ex- ception of its application once to Adam (Luke iii. 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 Sodnians assign for the application of the term Son of God to Glirist ? 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. 2d. 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 i. 35. 52. Hovj can you ansiver the Socinian argument derived from Luke i. 35; to the effect that Christ was ccdled "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 overshad- owed 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. 2d. 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. 3d. 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 ISO THE HOLY TRINITY. related to God, until the complete revelation of his eternal Son- ship as a divine person. 53. JFhat reason do Avians assign for the asa^iption 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 appilication of this title to Christ, and to lohat 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 The- aiithropos. They object to the orthodox doctrine of the eternal Sonship of Christ. Ist. That Sonship implies derivation and hence inferiority. 2d. That the term "Son" in many passages is applied to him interchangeably with the term "Christ" and other official titles, belonging to his jNIediatorial office and not to his eternal relations within the Godhead. They refer to Matt. xvi. 16; John i. 49, etc. 3d. That in Ps. ii. 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 Fatlier by necessity of nature. 4th. The same is argued from Rom. i. 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 press- ing 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 un- known, 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 ortho- dox 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. 2d. Tiiat the Father begets the Son by an eternal and nec- essary constitutional (not voluntary) act. This prevents the THE ETERNAL SONSHIP OF CHRIST. 181 Son from being in any sense dependent upon or inferior to the Father, and distinguishes the church doctrine from Semi- arianism, see below, Question 97. 56. Slioio that their ohjedion to the church doctrine based upon Matt. xvi. 16; John i. 49, etc., does iwt hold good. In none of these passages is it affirmed that he is Son as the Christ, i. e., as JMediator, but that being the eternal Son of God he is the Christ, the King of Israel, etc. 57. Prove that neither the 2d Psalm nor Rom. i. 4, teach that Christ ivas made Son of God. Dr. Alexander says (see "Com. on Psalms") with relation to Psalm ii. 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 iijdefinitely back by the form of reminiscence, or narra- tion, 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 figur- ative forms by which the Scriptures represent things really ineffable in human language." Rom. i. 4 — "And declared (^dpidSevro?) to be the Son of God with power according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrec- tion from the dead." The word 6pi6fjEvroi everywhere else in the New Testament signifies to constitute, to appoint, but here it is insisted that it signifies to manifest. The word strictly means to hound., to dfne, and may naturally mean to set forth, to characterize. This sense is said (Dr. Charles Hodge, "Com. Rom.") to be adopted by the great majority of commentators, including some of the ancient Greek Fathers. Besides, even if our opponents' interpretation of this passage were allowed, the indubitable evidence afforded to our position by other passages would remain. The two reasons for calling Christ Son are not inconsistent. 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. Shoiu that Acts xiii. 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 182 THE HOLY TRINITY. world as Son of God. 2d. Because the word dradrrjda?, having raised up, refers to the raising np Christ at his birth, and not to his resnrrection (there is nothing in the Greek corresponding to the word again in the English). When this word is used to designate the resurrection it is usually qualified by the phrase from the dead, as in verse 34. "On di avedrr/dev avrov en vshpcSv. Verse 32 declares the fulfillment of the promise referred to in verse 23. — See Alexander's " Com. on Acts." 59. Sfafe the orthodox ansioer to the question lohy 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 rela- tion as the Second Person of the Godhead to the First Person, who is called Father to indicate the reciprocal relation. 60. II021J 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, nei- ther 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." 6L What is the common statement and explanation of this doc- trine given by orthodox loriters ? 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, aliena- tion, or change, so that the Son is the express image of his Father's person, and eternally continues, not from the Father, bi;t in the Fatlier, and the Father in the Son. — See particularly Heb. i. 3; John x. 38; xiv. 11; xvii. 21. The principal Scrip- tural support of the doctrine of derivation is John v. 26. — Tur- retin, Tom. I., L. 3, Q. 2^i). 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 THE ETERNAL SONSHIP OF CHRIST. 183 Father always standing for the Godhead considered absohitely; and they hold that this theory is necessary to the vindication of the essential unity of the three persons. The older theo- logians, therefore, styled the Father itrjyi] Oeor^^ros, fountahi of Godhead., and dizia viuv, prhiciple or cause of the Son, while the Son and Holy Ghost were botli called ditiaroi (those depend- ing upon another as their principle or cause). They at the same time guarded the essential equality of the Son and the Holy Ghost witli 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. In all the early Creeds this identity as to essence, and subordination as to mode of subsistence and operation, is ex- pressed by the phrases as above. Qedi kx Beov, cpcSi ek (pc^ro?; £H Tov itatpoi ; QedS d^.TfQivo'S eh Beov dXr]Bivdv ; ysyvr/QEii 6v TtoirjBEii ; oMOOvdiov TOO Ttavpi. 62. State how tliey endeavored to guard their doctrine from aU antliropomorphic grossness. In order to guard their doctrine of derivation and eternal generation from all gross anthropomorphic conceptions they carefully maintained that it was — (1) dxpoyai?, timeless, eterncd; (2) ddooiiazooi, not bodllij, spiritual; (3) ad/jaro?, invisible; (4) dxoo- pidrcoi, not a local transference, a communication not ivithout hut icithin the Godhead; (5) aVaQcJ?, ivithout passion or change; (6) navreXooi duardXyjittoi, altogether irucomprehensible. 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. 2d. 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 designa- tion Father being reciprocal to that of Son. 3d. That this re- lation is such that Father and Son are tlie same in substance, and are personally equal; that the Father is first and tlie Son second in the order of revelation and operation, that the Son 184 THE HOLY TRINITY. is the express image of the Father's person, not tlie Father of the Son's, and that the Son is not from the Father, but in the Father, and the Father in tlie Son. 64. How may it he shown tJiat 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 mani- fest inconsistency in the orthodox theory that the Father com- municates to the Son the whole divine essence Avithout alien- ating 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 contradic- tion and no mystery greater than that involved in the whole essence of God being at the same time present, without divi- sion or diffusion, to every point of space. 65. By u'Jiat terms, besides that of ">S'o%" is the personal char- acter of the Second Person, and his relation to the First Person designated? Aoyoi npoi ruv Qsoi'^xat 6s6? t}v 6 XoyoZ. The Word icith God, and who is God — John i. 1. EIkc^v tov Beou rov dopdrov. The Image of tlie invisiUe God — 2 Cor iv. 4; Col. i. 15. Xapaxzrjp rijz v7to6Tcx6Eooi avrov. " The image or impression of his being or sub- stance"— Heb. i. 3. Ev /lopcpy Oeov. Tlie form, of God — Phil. ii. 6; 'ATtavya6i.ia rt/i doii/i dvrov. '•''The shining forth of his glory" — Heb. i. 3. &Q. What is the distinction which some of the fathers made be- tween 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 eter- nal S(jn. 2d. 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 tlie sphere of external creation, etc. — Col. i. 15. 3d. l^y his mundane generati(m they intended his supernat- ural birth in the flesh. — Luke i. 35. 67. What is the disfiiiction which some of the fathers made be- tween the Xoyoi avdidfjF.roi {rcftio insita, reason), and the Ao>o? TtpoqtopiKo'i {ratio prolata, reason brought forth, or expressed)? THE ETERNAL SONSHIP OF CHRIST. 185 The orthodox fathers used the phrase locjo^ endiatlictos to designate the Word, whom they held to be a distinct person, dwelling- from eternity with the Father. The ground of their use of this phrase was a fanciful analogy which they conceived existed between the relation which the eternal hxjos (word, or reason) (John i. 1) sustains to the Father, and the relation which the reason of a man sustains to his own rational soul. Thus the logos endiathetos was God's own reflective idea hypos- tatized. They were led to this vain attempt to philosophize upon an incomprehensible subject by the influence exerted upon them by the Platonic philosophers of that age, who taught a sort of metaphysical trinity, e. g., that in the one God there were three constituent principles, rJ dya^jov, good- ness, vovi, intelligence, ipvxV) vitality. Their immediate object was to . illustrate the essential unity of the Trinity, and to prove, against the Arians, the essential divinity of the Son, from the application to him by John of the epithet Xoyoi 6sov. By the phrase logos proj^Jtoficos they intended to designate him as the reason of God revealed, when he proceeded from the Father in the work of creation. — See Hill's " Lectures." The Arians, taking advantage of the essential inadequacy of this language, confused the controversy by acknowledging that the phrase logos prophoricos did truly apply to Christ, since he came forth from God as the flrst and highest creation and image of his mind. But declaring, with some color of truth, that the phrase logos endiathetos, when applied to Christ, taught pure Sabellianism, since it marked no personal distinction, but signified nothing else than the mind of the Father itself 68. If God is " ens a se ipso,'' self -existent, how can the Son he really God, if he he "Baoi sk Osov,'' God from the Father? The objection presented in this question does not press against the Scriptural statement of the eternal generation of the Son presented above (Question 63), but solely against the theory of derivation as involved in the ordinary definition (see Question 61). Those who insist iipon the validity of that view rebut the objection by saying that self-existence is an attribute of essence, not of person. The Father, as a person, generates the person, not the essence of the Son, whose person is consti- tuted of the very same self-existent essence with the Father's. Thus the Son is avroOsoi, i. e., Deus a se ipso as to his essence, but Oeoi EH 6eou, God from God, as to his person. 69. What argument for the eternal sonship of Christ may he derived from the designcdion of the persons of the Trinity as Father, So7i, and Holy Ghost? 18G THE HOLY TRINITY. In the apostolical benediction and the formnla 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 God- head. 2d. 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 he derived from tJie use of the ivord-son in ]\Iatt. xi. 27 and Luke x. 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 i-e- lation to the first. The Son, as Son, knows and is known by the Father as Father. He is infinite in knowledge and there- fore knows the Father. He is infinite in being and therefore can be known by none other than the Father, 71. State tJie argument from John i. 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 /.lovoyEvrji, {only begotten) and i'Sioi, {oitii) to the Sonship of Christ. Although many of God's creatures are called his sons, the phrase, Son of God, in the singular, and when limited b}' the terms " own " and " only begotten," is applied only to Christ. Christ is called "only begotten Son of God." — John i. 14, 18; iii. 16, 18; 1 John iv. 9. In John V. 18, Christ calls God his oion Father (see Greek). He is called the own Son of the Father. — Rom. viii. 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. IFhat is the argument derived from John v. 22, and con- text, and from John x. 33-37 ? In the first passage the terms Father and Son are used to THE ETERNAL SONSIIIP OF CHRIST. 187 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 hy such passages as speak of the manifestation, giving or sending of the Son ? See 1 John iii. 8; Kom. viii. 3; John iii. 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 Kom. i. 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. 2d. By the resurrection he was pow- erfully 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 anthithetical, designating severally the Lord's human and divine natures. 76. State the argument from Eom. viii. 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 Col. i. 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 im- age of the invisible God, and that by him all things consist, etc. 78. State the argument from Heb. i. 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 niust have pre-existed as such. As Son he is declared to be God, and to reign upon an everlasting throne. 79. Hoiv can those passages which speak of the Son as inferior and subject to the Father he reconciled tcith 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 iii. 13 the "Son of Man" is said to have come down from heaven, and to be in heaven. But surely 188 THE HOLY TRINITY. Jesus, as Son of 3Ian, was not omnipresent. In Acts xx. 28 God is said to purchase his cliurch 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 pass'ages in question he is called " Son of God," because he is the eternal Word, while at the same tinje he is said to be inferior to the FatliA*, because he is also man and mediator. (II.) 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 of the icord Spirit, and the usage of its Hebreio and Greek equivalents? The English word spirit is from the Latin spiritus, hreath, ivind, air, life, soul, which in turn is from the verb spiro, to breathe. The equivalent Hebrew word, n^n. has a perfectly analogous usage. 1st. Its primary sense is wind, air in mo- tion. Gen. viii. 1; then, 2d, breath, the breath of life. Gen. vi. 17; Job xvii. 1; 3d, animal soul, vital principle in men and animals, 1 Sam. xxx. 12 ; 4th, rational soul of man. Gen. xli. 8, and hence, metaphorically, disposition, temperament, Num. v. 14; 5th, Spirit of Jehovah, Gen. i. 2; Ps. li. 11. — Gesenius' "Lex." The equivalent Greek word, Ttrevjaa, has also the same usage. It is derived from Ttveao, to breathe, to hlou: It signifies, 1st, breath, Kev. xi. 11; 2d, air in motion, John iii. 8; 3d, the vital principle. Matt, xxvii. 50; 4th, the rational soul, spoken (1) of the disembodied spirits of men, Heb. xii. 23; (2) of devils, Matt. x. 1; (3) of angels, Heb. i. 14; (4) the Spirit of God, spoken of God, a, absolutely as an attribute of his essence, John iv. 24; and h as the personal designation of the third person of the Trinity, who is called Spirit of God, or of the Lord, and the Holy Spirit, and the Spirit of Christ, or of Jesus, or of the Son of God, Acts xvi. 6, 7; Eom. viii. 9; 2 Cor. iii. 17; Gal. iv. 6; Phil. i. 19; 1 Pet. i. 11.


Question: Why  is  the  third  person  of  the  Trinity  called  the  Spirit  ?

Answer: 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 opera- THE ETERNAL PROCESSION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 189 tion ad extra. As the reciprocal epitliets 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.


Question: Why  is  lie  called  Holy  Spirit  ?

Answer: 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 tliird 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.


Question: Why  is  he  called  the  Spirit  of  God  ?

Answer: This phrase expresses his divinity, his relation to the God- head as himself God, 1 Cor. ii. 11 ; his intimate personal relation to the Father as his consubstantial spirit proceeding from him, John XV. 26; and the fact that he is the divine Spirit, which proceeding from God operates upon the creature, Ps. civ. 30; 1 Pet. iv. 14.


Question: Why  is  the  third  person  called  the  Spirit  of  Christ  ?

Answer: See Gal. iv. 6; Eom. viii. 9; Phil. i. 19; 1 Peter i. 11. As the form of expression is identical in the several phrases, Spirit of God, and Spirit of the Son, and as the Scriptures, witli one exception, John xv. 26, uniformly predicate every thing of the relation of the Spirit to the Son, that they predicate of the rela- tion 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. Tliis 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 xvi. 14. 85. Whcd is meant hy the theological phrase, Procession of the Holy Ghost? Theologians intend by this phrase to designate the rela- tion which the third person sustains to the first and second, wherein by an eternal and necessary, i. e., not voluntary, act 190 THE HOLY TRINITY. of the Father and the Son, their whole identical divine essence, without alienation, division, or change, is communicated to the Holy Ghost- so. Wlxat distinciion 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 con- trast those predicates which inspiration has applied to the rela- tion of Father and Son with those which it has applied to the relation of the Spirit to the Father and Son. Thus Turretin, Vol. L, 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. 2d. 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. 3d. As to order. The Son is second person, and the Spirit third, and though both are eter- nal, without beginning or succession, yet, in our mode of con- ception, generation precedes procession." The technical terms used to express these two mysteries are FayyT/di?, generatio, generation. 'EmtopEvdii, emtEmpii, processio., missio, procession. "The schoolmen vainly attempted to found a distinction between generation and spn-ation upon the different operations of the divine intellect and the divine will. They say the Son was generated per modum ijitellectus, whence he is called the Word of God. The Spirit proceeds ^er modum voluntatis, whence he is called Love."