Christian Classics
‹ A Body of Doctrinal Divinity
Contents
Chapter 1. Of the Being of GodChapter 2. Of the Holy Scriptures · Part 1Chapter 2. Of the Holy Scriptures · Part 2Chapter 2. Of the Holy Scriptures · Part 3Chapter 3. Of the Names of GodChapter 4. Of the Nature of GodChapter 5. Of The Attributes of God In General, and of his Immutability In ParticularChapter 6. Of The Infinity Of God, His Omnipresence And EternityChapter 7. Of The Life Of GodChapter 8. Of The Omnipotence Of GodChapter 9. Of The Omniscience Of GodChapter 10. Of The Wisdom Of GodChapter 11. Of The Will Of God, And The Sovereignty Of ItChapter 12. Of The Love Of GodChapter 13. Of The Grace Of GodChapter 14. Of The Mercy Of GodChapter 15. Of The Longsuffering Of GodChapter 16. Of The Goodness Of GodChapter 17. Of The Anger And Wrath Of GodChapter 18. Of The Hatred Of GodChapter 19. Of The Joy Of GodChapter 20. Of The Holiness Of GodChapter 21. Of The Justice Or Righteousness Of GodChapter 22. Of The Veracity Of GodChapter 23. Of The Faithfulness Of GodChapter 24. Of The Sufficiency And Perfection Of GodChapter 25. Of The Blessedness Of GodChapter 26. Of The Unity Of GodChapter 27. Of A Plurality In The Godhead; Or, A Trinity Of Persons In The Unity Of The Divine EssenceChapter 28. Of The Personal Relations; Or, Relative Properties Which Distinguish The Three Divine Persons In The Deity · Part 1Chapter 28. Of The Personal Relations; Or, Relative Properties Which Distinguish The Three Divine Persons In The Deity · Part 2Chapter 28. Of The Personal Relations; Or, Relative Properties Which Distinguish The Three Divine Persons In The Deity · Part 3Chapter 28. Of The Personal Relations; Or, Relative Properties Which Distinguish The Three Divine Persons In The Deity · Part 4Chapter 29. Of The Distinct Personality, And Deity Of The FatherChapter 30. Of The Distinct Personality, And Deity Of The SonChapter 31. Of The Distinct Personality, And Deity Of The Holy SpiritChapter 1. Of The Internal Acts And Works Of God; And Of His Decrees In GeneralChapter 2. Of The Special Decrees Of God, Relating To Rational Creatures, Angels, And Men; And Particularly Of Election · Part 1Chapter 2. Of The Special Decrees Of God, Relating To Rational Creatures, Angels, And Men; And Particularly Of Election · Part 2Chapter 2. Of The Special Decrees Of God, Relating To Rational Creatures, Angels, And Men; And Particularly Of Election · Part 3Chapter 3. Of The Decree Of Rejection, Of Some Angels, And Of Some MenChapter 4. Of The Eternal Union Of The Elect Of God Unto HimChapter 5. Of Other Eternal And Immanent Acts In God, Particularly Adoption And JustificationChapter 6. Of The Everlasting Council Between The Three Divine Persons, Concerning The Salvation Of MenChapter 7. Of The Everlasting Covenant Of Grace, Between The Father, And The Son, And The Holy SpiritChapter 8. Of The Part Which The Father Takes In The CovenantChapter 9. Of The Part The Son Of God, The Second Person, Has Taken In The CovenantChapter 10. Of Christ, As The Covenant Head Of The ElectChapter 11. Of Christ, The Mediator Of The CovenantChapter 12. Of Christ, The Surety Of The CovenantChapter 13. Of Christ, The Testator Of The CovenantChapter 14. Of The Concern The Spirit Of God Has In The Covenant Of GraceChapter 15. Of The Properties Of The Covenant Of GraceChapter 16. Of The Complacency And Delight God Had In Himself, And The Divine Persons In Each Other, Before Any Creature Was Brought Into BeingChapter 1. Of Creation In GeneralChapter 2. Of The Creation Of AngelsChapter 3. Of The Creation Of ManChapter 4. Of The Providence of God · Part 1Chapter 4. Of The Providence of God · Part 2Chapter 4. Of The Providence of God · Part 3Chapter 4. Of The Providence of God · Part 4Chapter 4. Of The Providence of God · Part 5Chapter 5. Of The Confirmation Of The Elect Angels, And The Fall Of The Non-ElectChapter 6. Of the Honour and Happiness of Man In a State of InnocencyChapter 7. Of the Law Given to Adam, and the Covenant Made with him in his State of Innocence; in which he was the Federal Head and Representative of his PosterityChapter 8. Of the Sin and Fall of our First ParentsChapter 9. Of the Nature, Aggravations, and Sad Effects Of the Sin of ManChapter 10. Of the Imputation of Adam’s Sin to All his PosterityChapter 11. Of The Of The Corruption Of Human NatureChapter 12. Of Actual Sins and TransgressionsChapter 13. Of the Punishment of SinChapter 1. Of the Manifestation and Administration of the Covenant of GraceChapter 2. Of the Exhibitions of the Covenant of Grace in the Patriarchal StateChapter 3. Of the Exhibitions of the Covenant of Grace Under the Mosaic DispensationChapter 4. Of the Covenant of Grace, as Exhibited in the Times of David, and the Succeeding Prophets, to the Coming of ChristChapter 5. Of the Abrogation of the Old Covenant, Or First Administration of it, And the Introduction of the New, Or Second Administration of it.Chapter 6. Of the Law of GodChapter 7. Of the GospelChapter 1. Of the Incarnation of ChristChapter 3. Of Christ’s State of HumiliationChapter 3. Of the Active Obedience of Christ in His State of HumiliationChapter 4. Of the Passive Obedience of Christ, or of His Sufferings and DeathChapter 5. Of the Burial of ChristChapter 6. Of the Resurrection of Christ from the DeadChapter 7. Of the Ascension of Christ to HeavenChapter 8. Of the Session of Christ at the Right Hand of GodChapter 9. Of the Prophetic Office of ChristChapter 10. Of the Priestly Office of ChristChapter 11. Of the Intercession of ChristChapter 12. Of Christ’s Blessing His People as a PriestChapter 13. Of the Kingly Office of ChristChapter 14. Of the Spiritual Reign of ChristChapter 1. Of Redemption by ChristChapter 2. Of the Causes of Redemption by ChristChapter 3. Of the Objects of Redemption by ChristChapter 4. Of those Texts of Scripture which seem to Favour Universal RedemptionChapter 5. Of The Satisfaction of ChristChapter 6. Of Propitiation, Atonement, and Reconciliation, as Ascribed to ChristChapter 7. Of The Pardon of SinChapter 8. Of Justification · Part 1Chapter 8. Of Justification · Part 2Chapter 8. Of Justification · Part 3Chapter 9. Of AdoptionChapter 10. Of the Liberty of the Sons of GodChapter 11. Of RegenerationChapter 12.Of Effectual CallingChapter 13. Of ConversionChapter 14. Of SanctificationChapter 15. Of the Perseverance of the Saints · Part 1Chapter 15. Of the Perseverance of the Saints · Part 2Chapter 15. Of the Perseverance of the Saints · Part 3Chapter 15. Of the Perseverance of the Saints · Part 4Chapter 1. Of the Death of the BodyChapter 2. Of the Immortality of the SoulChapter 3. Of the Separate State of the Soul until the Resurrection, and its Employment in that StateChapter 4. Of the Resurrection of the BodyChapter 5. Of the Second Coming of Christ, and His Personal AppearanceChapter 6. Of the Conflagration of the UniverseChapter 7. Of the New Heavens and Earth, and the Inhabitants of themChapter 8. Of the Millennium, or Personal Reign of Christ with the Saints on the New Earth a Thousand Years · Part 1Chapter 8. Of the Millennium, or Personal Reign of Christ with the Saints on the New Earth a Thousand Years · Part 2Chapter 8. Of the Millennium, or Personal Reign of Christ with the Saints on the New Earth a Thousand Years · Part 3Chapter 8. Of the Millennium, or Personal Reign of Christ with the Saints on the New Earth a Thousand Years · Part 4Chapter 8. Of the Millennium, or Personal Reign of Christ with the Saints on the New Earth a Thousand Years · Part 5Chapter 9. Of the Last and General JudgmentChapter 10. Of the Final State of the Wicked in HellChapter 11. Of the Final State of the Saints in Heaven

John Gill · 30 of 127

Chapter 28. Of The Personal Relations; Or, Relative Properties Which Distinguish The Three Divine Persons In The Deity · Part 1

Since there are Three who are the one God; and these Three are not one and the same Person, but three different Persons, there must be something which distinguishes them from each other; and the distinction between them is not merely “nominal”, which is no distinction at all; as when the Sabellians say, God is one Person, having three names, Father, Son, and Spirit; here is no distinction; just as when a man has three names, they no more distinguish him than one would; be he called William, Henry, Frederic, William would not distinguish him from Henry, nor Henry from William, nor Frederic from them both, he being one man, having these several names: nor is the distinction merely “modal”; rather real modal; for though there are three modes of subsisting in the Deity, and each Person has a distinct mode, yet the phrase seems not strong enough; for the distinction is real and personal; the Three in the Godhead are not barely three modes, but three distinct Persons in a different mode of subsisting, who are really distinct from each other; so that the Father is not the Son, nor the Son the Father, nor the Holy Spirit either the Father or the Son; but the difficulty is, what that is which gives or makes the distinction between them? Now let it be observed,

1. Be it what it may, which distinguishes the divine Persons, it must be as early as the existence of God itself: God is from everlasting to everlasting; what God is now he ever was; he is the eternal and immutable “I AM”; he is what he was, and will be what he is; he is he “which is, and was, and is to come”; he is eternally and invariably the same: if the one God existed from eternity; and if the three Persons are the one God, they must exist from eternity, and exist as distinct Persons; and consequently what gives them their distinction must exist as early. ,

2. Whatever distinguishes them cannot arise from, nor depend upon any works done by them in time, since their distinction is from eternity; and besides, the works of God “ad extra”, or his external works, are common to all the three Persons; for though one may be more commonly ascribed to one Person, and another to another, yet the three Persons have a concern in each; and therefore they cannot distinguish them one from another. Creation is commonly ascribed to the Father of Christ, who is said to make the worlds, and create all things by him his Son; not as a mere instrument of action, since he is a co-efficient Cause of them; “without him is not anything made that is made”; and the Holy Spirit has a concern in the same; as has been observed (see Ps. 33:6). The salvation of men is commonly attributed to the Son, and he is called Jesus Christ our Saviour; and yet, in the same place, God the Father is called God our Saviour, and is said to save “by the renewing of the ” (Titus 3:4-6). is more commonly said to be the work of the Spirit; and yet men are said to be born of God, of the Father, and of Jesus Christ, as well as of him; and God the Father is expressly said, to beget men again, according to his mercy (1 Peter 1:3). I have made use of the works of God, both to prove the Being of God, and to illustrate and confirm the doctrine of a of Persons in the Godhead; but these do not make God to be, but to appear to be what he is; had they never been wrought, he would have been just the same as he is in his Being, Perfections, and Persons; for,

3. His works are arbitrary, depending upon his pleasure: thus of the works of creation it is said, “For thy pleasure, or by thy will, they are and were created”, (Rev. 4:11) and as all things in , so all things in , are done according to the counsel of his will; it is of his will he has mercy on men, is gracious to them, regenerates and saves them; these are things that might or might not be, just as he thought fit; but not so his Being, the Persons in the Deity, and their manner of subsisting in it; for if there had never been a creature made, nor a soul saved, nor a sinner , God would have been the same he is, three Persons in one God. In the economy of man’s salvation, to which some ascribe the distinction of Persons, as taking its rise from ; the three divine Persons are manifested, but not made, nor made distinct; but were so before, and would have been so, if that had never taken place, as it might not have done, since it flows from the goodwill and pleasure of God; whereas,

4. What gives the distinction, be it what it may, is by necessity of nature; God exists necessarily, and not by choice and will, as has been before argued; for if his existence is owing to will and choice, it must be either the will and choice of another, or his own; not another’s, for then that other would be prior and superior to him, and so be God, and not he; not his own will, for then he must be before he was; have will and choice before he existed, which is an absurdity not to be endured: if the one God then necessarily existed, and the three Persons are the one God, they must necessarily exist; and if they exist as three distinct Persons, that which gives them the distinction, must be necessary also, or arise from the necessity of nature; as God is, and the manner in which he is, so the distinction in him is by necessity. But,

5. When I say it is by necessity of nature, I do not mean, that the divine nature, in which the divine persons subsist, distinguishes them; for that nature is one, and common to them all; the nature of the Son is the same with that of the Father; and the nature of the Spirit the same with that of the Father and the Son; and this nature, which they in common partake of, is undivided; it is not parted between them, so that one has one part, and another a second, and another a third; nor that one has a greater, and another a lesser part, which might distinguish them; but the whole fulness of the Godhead is in each.

6. To come to the point; it is the personal relations, or distinctive relative properties, which belong to each Person, which distinguish them one from another; as paternity in the first Person, filiation in the second, and spiration in the third; or, more plainly, it is “begetting”, (Ps. 2:7) which peculiarly belongs to the first, and is never ascribed to the second and third; which distinguishes him from them both; and gives him, with great propriety, the name of Father; and it is being “begotten”, that is the personal relation, or relative property of the second Person; hence called, “the only begotten of the Father”, (John 1:14) which distinguishes him from the first and third, and gives him the name of the Son; and the relative property, or personal relation of the third Person is, that he is breathed by the first and second Persons; hence called, the breath of the Almighty, the breath of the mouth of Jehovah the Father, and the breath of the mouth of Christ the Lord, and which is never said of the other two persons; and so distinguishes him from them, and very pertinently gives him the name of the Spirit, or breath (Job 33:4; Ps. 33:6; 2 Thess. 2:8). Those men I have now respect to, hold that there are three distinct persons in the Godhead, or divine nature; and therefore it must be something in the divine nature, and not anything out of it, that distinguishes them; not any works “ad extra”, done by them; nor their concern in the economy of man’s salvation; nor offices bore by them, which are arbitrary things, which might, or might not, have been, had it pleased God; and what that is in the divine nature that can distinguish them, besides what has been mentioned, let it be named if it can. If one of these distinct Persons is a Father, in the divine nature, and another a Son in the divine nature, there must be something in the divine nature which is the ground of the relation, and distinguishes the one from the other; and can be nothing else than generation, and which distinguishes the third Person from them both, as neither begetting nor begotten. From generation arises the relation, and from relation distinct personality. And as an ancient writer says, “unbegotten, begotten, and proceeding”, are not names of essence, (and it may be added, nor of office) but are modes of subsistence; and so distinguish persons.

Upon the whole, it is easy to observe, that the distinction of Persons in the Deity, depends on the generation of the Son; take away that, which would destroy the relation between the first and second Persons, and the distinction drops; and that this distinction is natural and necessary, or by necessity of nature, and not arbitrary, or of choice and will; which, if it was, it might not have been at all, or have been otherwise than it is: those who place it to the economy of the Persons in the of men, have been urged with this, that if it was so, he that is called the Father, might have been called the Son; and he that is called the Son, might have been called the Father; which has so pressed them, that they have been obliged to own, that so it might have been, if it had so seemed to God, and been agreeable to his will. Moreover, those who are in this way of thinking, and explain away the generation of the Son, and make it no other than a communion of nature, and a co-existence with the first Person, though they profess there are three Persons in the Godhead, they are not able to prove it, nor to point out that which distinguishes one from another; and besides, are not able to call them by any name, only say, the one is the first Person, the other the second, and the other the third; and even the reason of this order they cannot account for; for if they have their names and distinction from the economy of man’s salvation, and the part they take therein, these cannot be given them antecedent to the said economy; and yet they must exist, and be considered as existing previous to it: if the first Person has the name of a Father, from his constituting and appointing Christ to be the and Saviour; and the second Person the name of a Son, from his constitution as such; though the reason of such names from hence does not appear; and the third Person has the name of Spirit, from any office or work undertook by him, to breathe into men in creation or ; these names cannot be given them antecedent to such economy, constitution, and agreement, taking place; and yet they must be considered antecedent thereunto, in some view or another. To such straits are men reduced, when they leave the form of sound words, which to do is dangerous, and generally leads into one error or another. But all this will more manifestly appear, by considering each divine person particularly, his relative property, and name pertinent to it. I shall begin with,

6a. First, The first Person; whose distinctive relative property is “begetting”, and who is very pertinently called, the Father, which distinguishes him from the second and third Persons: and here let it be observed, that it is not his being a Father with respect to the creatures, that distinguishes him; not a Father in creation, , and : not in creation; he is a Father as the Creator of all; all his creatures are his offspring; and he is particularly the Father of spirits, of angels, and the souls of men; but this does not give him the name of Father in the ; so he would have been, if not one man had ever been made, or an angel formed; nor does his being a Father to creatures distinguish him from the second and third Persons, for they are equally concerned with him in creation; and being the one God that has made us, they are the one Father of us, even the second and third Persons, as well as the first: nor in ; God is the Father that provides for all his creatures, supplies them with things necessary, and supports them in their Beings; but this is not peculiar to the first Person; in this the second Person jointly and equally operates with him, by whom all things consist, and by whose power all are upheld; and so the third Person; and therefore on this account equally entitled to the character of Father: nor in , in , and ; in which all the three Persons have a concern: in , as the Father bestows the wonderful on the sons of men, the son gives to them that believe in him power to become the sons of God; and the Spirit has so much to do with it, that he is called the Spirit of : in , the Father of Christ begets men again to a lively hope of an inheritance; the Son and regenerates whom he will; and those that are born again, are born of the Spirit: it is not therefore what the first Person does in either of these respects, that entitles him to the character of Father in the Godhead, and distinguishes him from the others; but it is his being the Father of the second Person, or the Father of Christ, as he is often called, and very emphatically and significantly, God the Father, (Gal 1:1; Eph 1:3, 3:14) and this name he has from begetting the Son, who is therefore called his Son, his begotten, his only begotten Son, (Ps. 2:7; John 1:14, 18) and this personal relation, or relative property, is what distinguishes the first Person in the , it being never attributed to any other.

6b. Secondly, The second Person, whose distinctive relative property and character is, that he is “begotten”, which is never said of the other two Persons, and so distinguishes him from them, and gives him the name of “Son”; and that he is the Son of God, there is abundant proof; all the three Persons bear testimony of it; the Father at the baptism and transfiguration of Christ, (Matthew 3:17; 17:5; Ps. 2:7, 89:27) the Word, or Son of God himself, (John 19:7, 5:17, 18, 10:30; Mark 14:61, 62; John 8:13-18) and the Spirit, (Matthew 3:16, 17) it is testified and acknowledged by angels, the good angels, (Luke 1:31, 35; Heb. 1:6) evil angels, the devils, (Matthew 8:29; Mark 3:11; Luke 4:41) by men of all sorts; by good men, (John 1:6, 7, 33, 34, 49; Matthew 16:15, 16; John 6:67, 11:27; Acts 8:37) by bad men (Matthew 27:54). So that he is on all hands acknowledged and owned to be the Son of God. The Sonship of Christ is an article of the greatest importance in the Christian religion; it has a very great concern in, and connection with the of Christian baptism; it was declared by a voice from heaven, at the baptism of our Lord, “saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased” (Matthew 3:17). That is ordered by our Lord himself to be administered “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the ”, (Matthew 28:19) considered as in their natural relative characters to each other, equally divine persons, and not as sustaining any office, which no one name or term used is expressive of; and it is mentioned in the first confession of faith, and as the sum of it, in order to an admission to that the scripture gives an account of; “I believe”, says the eunuch desiring baptism of Philip; who required an express declaration of his faith; “I believe”, says he, “that Jesus Christ is the Son of God”, (Acts 8:37) and this was the sum and substance of the ministry of the apostle Paul, with which he first set out, and continued in, that Christ is the Son of God, (Acts 9:20; 2 Cor. 1:19) and, indeed, it is the distinguishing criterion of the Christian religion, and what gives it the preference to all others, and upon which all the important doctrines of it depend; even upon the Sonship of Christ as a divine person; and as by generation, even eternal generation. Without this the doctrine of the can never be supported; of this the adversaries of it are so sensible, as the Socinians, that they have always set themselves against it with all their might and main; well knowing, that if they can demolish this, it is all over with the doctrine of the ; for without this, the distinction of Persons in the can never be maintained; and, indeed, without this, there is none at all; take away this, and all distinction ceases. A writer of the present age, and who was the first among us who objected to the eternal generation of the Son of God, though Roell, a Dutchman, before him, attempted to explain it away; or, at least, to a different sense; deed, pretends to hold the doctrine of three distinct Persons in the Deity, and yet explodes this: a strange paradox! He owns some divines have strenuously maintained, and “judiciously defended”, the doctrine of the , who held the eternal generation of the Son, and the procession of the . Why then should this judicious defence be deserted by us? he owns that these properties, begetting, begotten, and proceeding, “plainly prove” the Father, Son, and , to be distinct Persons; why then should they be laid aside? and especially, since without them there is no proof to be made of their being distinct Persons “in the divine nature”. He says, that his account of Christ’s Sonship, that is, by office, and not by nature, does not take away any argument by which we prove his Deity. But without his eternal generation no proof can be made of his being a distinct divine Person “in the Godhead”, and so not of his Deity: he farther says, that it does not take away any argument to prove his distinct personality from the Father and the ; whereas it takes away that which is the only proof of it, without substituting a sufficient one in its room; and, indeed, no other in the divine nature can be substituted in its room; not the office of Christ, as ; for he must first be proved to be a distinct divine Person, before he can be considered as . The doctrines of , , , and pardon of sin, depend upon the divinity of the Person of Christ, as the Son of God, (Gal. 4:4; Rom. 8:3, 4; Heb. 1:2, 3; 1 John 1:7).

I cannot see there is any reason to object to the use of the phrase “eternal generation”, as applied to the sonship of Christ, since one divine person is said to “beget”, (Ps. 2:7) and therefore must be a Father; and another divine person is said to be “begotten”, (John 1:14, 18) and elsewhere, and therefore must be a Son; and if a begotten Son, as he is often said to be, then he must be a Son by generation: for he must be a very illiterate man indeed who does not know that to “beget” and “generate” are the same; and that also to be “begotten” and “generated” are the same; and therefore generation, with great propriety, may be used of the divine persons; and if used of the divine persons as in the divine nature, as if of the Father in the divine nature, then of the Son in the divine nature; and there being nothing in the divine nature but what is eternal, then this generation must be “eternal generation”; there are no persons in the divine nature but who are eternal, the eternal Father, the eternal Son, and the eternal Spirit; nor is there anything in it but what is eternal; every attribute in it is eternal, as eternal power, eternal wisdom, &c. every will, decree, and purpose in it is eternal, the eternal birth of the eternal minds; why not then the Son of God, the Word and Wisdom of God? and indeed Wisdom, or Christ, is expressly said to be “brought forth”, חוללתי, a word expressive of generation, twice used in Proverbs 8:24, 25, and there, in some ancient versions, rendered “begotten”, as אמון “brought up”, (Prov. 8:30) is in some later versions rendered carried in the bosom, as a son in the bosom of the Father; all which is spoken of as done in eternity: now if Christ was begotten from everlasting, or ever the earth was, before there were any fountains of water, or mountains and hills, and was as early as a son in the bosom of his Father, one would think there can be no difficulty in admitting his eternal generation. To which may be added, that if no moment or instant can be given or pointed at, neither in eternity nor in time, in which Christ was not the begotten Son of the Father, then he must be eternally begotten of him, or be his Son by eternal generation; but no moment and instant can be given or pointed at, neither in eternity nor in time, in which Christ was not the begotten Son of the Father; therefore he must be eternally begotten of him; or, in other words, be the Son of the Father by eternal generation. The phrase “eternal generation” is said to be a contradiction in terms; surely, not more so, than “eternal creation”, and an “eternal creature”: it may be thought so by those who will say the same of a in Unity, or of three being one, though expressly asserted in 1 John 5:7 and so is no more a contradiction than a of persons in one God. Indeed if the phrase was used of human generation, and applied to that, it might well be thought to be a contradiction in terms; but not as used of divine generation, and as applied to that; the one being in a nature finite, the other infinite. Perhaps the distinction of a priority of order, and a priority of time, may serve to remove the seeming contradiction; the former may be in things eternal, but not the latter. Thus, for instance, God is eternal, and so are his decrees; as the decree of , or rather God’s act of choosing men before the foundation of the world; now God may be conceived of as previous to his act of choosing in priority of order, though not in priority of time, which cannot be admitted in eternity. So the Father generating the Son, may be considered in priority of order previous to the Son generated by him, though not in priority of time, of which there can be none in eternity; considering therefore the Son’s generation of the Father from eternity, in a priority of order, though there can be none of time, it will not appear to be a contradiction in terms.

When the scriptures ascribe generation to the Divine Being, it must be understood in a manner suitable to it, and not of and corporal generation; no man in his senses can ever think that God generates as man does; nor believe that ever any man held such a notion of generation in God; yet Socinus has the impudence to say, that some called Evangelics, hold that God generates in the divine essence one like himself, “more animantium”, as animals do. But generation must be understood of such generation as agrees with the nature of a spirit, and of an infinite uncreated spirit, as God is; that spirits generate we know from the souls or spirits we have about us and in us; our minds, which are spirits, generate thought; thought is the “conception” and “birth” of the mind; and so we speak of it in common and ordinary speech, “I conceive”, or such a man “conceives” so and so; this is my “conception” of things, such are the “conceptions” of others, &c. So with the Platonic philosophers, thought is the birth of the mind; they call it the mind begotten by the mind, as it were another like itself; now as soon as the mind is, thought is, they commence together and they co-exist, and always will; and this the mind begets within itself; without any mutation or alteration in itself. Now in some respect these answer: the mind to God who is νους, the eternal mind, and thought, the birth of the mind, to Christ, the eternal λογος, word and wisdom of God; who is in some sort represented by λογος ενδιαθετος, the internal mental word. So Plato says, “thought is λογος, word or speech, by which the soul declares and explains to itself what it considers”; or elsewhere, “thought is a discourse within the soul to itself, without a voice”. Aristotle somewhere calls it the λογος, or word, τω νοι συναιδιον, co-eternal with the mind. Now if our finite created spirits, or minds, are capable of generating thought, the internal word or speech, and that without any motion, change, or alteration, without any diminution and corruption, without division of their nature or multiplication of their essence; then in an infinitely more perfect manner can God, an infinite uncreated spirit, beget his Son, the eternal Word, wisdom, reason, and understanding, in his eternal mind, which he never was without, nor was he before it: “In the beginning was the word”, &c. (John 1:1) and this same Word is expressly said to be “the only begotten of the Father”, (John 1:14) and this perfectly agreeable to the sense and language of the old Jewish church, as appears from the ancient paraphrases, and from Philo, who says of the λογος, or Word, that it is not unbegotten as God, nor begotten as men, and that it is the first begotten Son, with other expressions of like nature: these things considered, may serve in some measure to relieve our minds, and make it more easy to us to conceive of this wonderful and mysterious affair.

“Mental or metaphysical generation, as a learned divine observes, is a similitude and adumbration of divine generation; as the mind begets by nature, not by power, so likewise God; as the mind begets a birth co-essential and co-eternal, so God; as the mind simple and perfect begets a birth simple and perfect, so God; as the mind begets immutably (or without mutation) so God; as the mind begets of itself in itself, so God; as the mind does not beget out of matter without itself, so neither God: as the mind always begets and cannot but beget, so God the Father; as metaphysical generation , so the divine.”

Not but that there is in some respects a great dissimilitude between these, as the same writer observes; for the mind begets only a faculty, or an inexistent propriety, but God the Father begets a person existing by himself; the mind begins to beget in time, but God begins not to beget, but always begets from eternity, &c. To this may be added another similitude, which may help us in this matter, and serve to illustrate it; and that is the sun, to which God is sometimes compared; the sun generates its own ray of light, without any change, corruption, division, and diminution; it never was without its ray of light, as it must have been had it been prior to it; they commenced together and co-exist, and will as long as the sun endures; and to this there seems to be an allusion, when Christ is called the “brightness”, απαυγασμα, the effulgence, the beaming forth “of his Father’s glory”, (Heb. 1:3) “ut radius ex sole”, as the ray from the sun, as Tertullian expresses it. Though such allusions are not to be stretched too far, nor admitted where they imply any imperfection.

It will be granted that the phrases “begetting” and “begotten”, as attributed to the divine persons in the Godhead, are used in reference to human generation; between which and divine generation there is some resemblance; as likeness, sameness of nature, personality, &c. and as we consider divine generation, it comes nearer to generation, properly so called, than any scheme or hypothesis opposed to it; but then care must be taken to remove from our minds everything and impure; and what implies an imperfection; as division of nature, multiplication of essence, priority and posteriority, motion, mutation, alteration, corruption, diminution, cessation from operation, &c. to reason from the one to the other, as running parallel to each other, is unreasonable; to argue from human to divine generation; from that which is physical or natural, to that which is hyperphysical or supernatural; from what is in finite nature, to that which is in a nature infinite, unbounded, and eternal, is very irrational; and to reason from the one to the other, without limitation, restriction, care, and caution, is very unsafe and dangerous; since it may lead unawares into foolish and hurtful errors; and when objections of this sort are made, as they too often are, in a vain, ludicrous, and wanton manner, they are to be rejected and detested, as impious and blasphemous; and they that make them are not to be disputed with, but despised: what is objected in a modest and decent way may be attended to; and the chief that I have met with are, that the sonship of Christ by generation makes him to be later than the Father, to be dependent on him, and subordinate to him; or, in other words, that it seems to be contrary to his eternity, independence, and equality. Let us a little consider each of these objections.