|
The Trinity
The Economy of the
Trinity
1062. Economy of the Trinity. We should be careful that we do
not go upon uncertain grounds, and fix uncertain determinations in
things of so high a nature. The following things seem to be what we have
pretty plain reason to determine with respect to those things.
1.
That there is a subordination of the Persons of the Trinity, in their
actions with respect to the creature, that one acts from another, and
under another, and with a dependence on another, in their actings, and
particularly in what they act in the affairs of man’s redemption. So
that the Father in that affair acts as Head of the Trinity, and the Son
under him, and the Holy Spirit under them both.
2.
It is very manifest that the Persons of the Trinity are not inferior one
to another in glory and excellency of nature. The Son, for instance, is
not inferior to the Father in glory, for he is the brightness of his
glory, the very image of the Father, the express and perfect image of
his person. And therefore the Father’s infinite happiness is in him, and
the way that the Father enjoys the glory of the deity is in enjoying
him. And though there be a priority of subsistence, and a kind of
dependence of the Son, in his subsistence, on the Father, because with
respect to his subsistence, his is wholly from the Father and is
begotten by him. Yet this is more properly called priority than
superiority, as we ordinarily use such terms. There is dependence
without inferiority of deity, because in the Son the deity, the whole
deity and glory of the Father, is as it were repeated or duplicated.
Everything in the Father is repeated, or expressed again, and that
fully: so that there is properly no inferiority.
3.
From hence it seems manifest that the other Persons’ acting under the
Father does not arise from any natural subjection, as we should
understand such an expression according to the common idiom of speech.
For thus a natural subjection would be understood to imply either an
obligation to compliance and conformity to another as a superior and one
more excellent, and so most worthy to be a rule for another to conform
to, or an obligation to conformity to another’s will, arising from a
dependence on another’s will for being or well-being. But neither of
these can be the case with respect to the Persons of the Trinity, for
one is not superior to another in excellency: neither is one in any
respect dependent on another’s will for being or well-being. For though
one proceeds from another, and so may be said to be in some respects
dependent on another, yet it is not dependence of one on the will of
another. For it is no voluntary, but a necessary proceeding, and
therefore infers no proper subjection of one to the will of another.
4.
Though a subordination of the Persons of the Trinity in their actings,
be not from any proper natural subjection one to another, and so must be
conceived of as in some respect established by mutual free agreement,
whereby the Persons of the Trinity, of their own will, have as it were
formed themselves into a society, for carrying on the great design of
glorifying the deity and communicating its fullness, in which is
established a certain economy and order of acting. Yet this agreement
establishing this economy is not to be looked upon as merely arbitrary,
founded on nothing but the mere pleasure of the members of this society,
not merely a determination and constitution of wisdom come into from a
view to certain ends which it is very convenient for the obtaining. But
there is a natural decency or fitness in that order and economy that is
established. It is fit that the order of the acting of the Persons of
the Trinity should be agreeable to the order of their subsisting. That
as the Father is first in the order of subsisting, so he should be first
in the order of acting. That as the other two Persons are from the
Father in their subsistence, and as to their subsistence naturally
originated from him and are dependent on him, so that in all that they
act they should originate from him, act from him and in a dependence on
him. That as the Father with respect to the subsistences is the fountain
of the deity, wholly and entirely so, so he should be the fountain in
all the acts of the deity. This is fit and decent in itself. Though it
is not proper to say, decency obliges the Persons of the Trinity
to come into this order and economy. yet it may be said that decency
requires it, and that therefore the Persons of the Trinity all consent
to this order, and establish it by agreement, as they all naturally
delight in what is in itself fit, suitable and beautiful. Therefore,
5.
This order or economy of the Persons of the Trinity with respect to
their actions ad extra, is to be conceived of as prior to the
covenant of redemption: as we must conceive of God’s determination to
glorify and communicate himself as prior to the method that his wisdom
pitches upon as tending best to effect this. For God’s determining to
glorify and communicate himself must be conceived of as following from
God’s nature, or we must look upon God from the infinite fullness and
goodness of his nature, as naturally disposed to cause the beams of his
glory to shine forth, and his goodness to flow forth. Yet we must look
on the particular method that shall be chosen by divine wisdom to do
this as not so directly and immediately owing to the natural disposition
of the divine nature, as the determination of wisdom intervening,
choosing the means of glorifying that disposition of nature. We must
conceive of God’s natural inclination as being exercised before wisdom
is set to work to find out a particular excellent method to gratify that
natural inclination. Therefore this particular invention of wisdom, of
God’s glorifying and communicating himself by the redemption of a
certain number of fallen inhabitants of this globe of earth, is a thing
diverse from God’s natural inclination to glorify and communicate
himself in general, and superadded to it or subservient to it. And
therefore, that particular constitution or covenant among the Persons of
the Trinity about this particular affair, must be looked upon as in the
order of nature after that disposition of the Godhead to glorify and
communicate itself, and so after the will of the Persons of the Trinity
to act, in so doing, in that order that is in itself fit and decent, and
what the order of their subsisting requires. We must distinguish between
the covenant of redemption, that is an establishment of wisdom
wonderfully contriving a particular method for the most conveniently
obtaining a great end, and that establishment that is founded in fitness
and decency and the natural order of the eternal and necessary
subsistence of the Persons of the Trinity. And this must be conceived of
as prior to the other.
It
is evident by the Scripture that there is an eternal covenant between
some of the Persons of the Trinity, about that particular affair of
men’s redemption, and therefore that some things that appertain to the
particular office of some of the Persons and their particular order and
manner of acting in this affair, do result from a particular new
agreement; and not merely from the order already fixed in a preceding
establishment founded in the nature of things, together with the new
determination of redeeming mankind. There is something else new besides
a new particular determination of a work to be done for God’s glorying
and communicating himself. There is a particular covenant entered into
about that very affair, settling something new concerning the part that
some at least of the Persons are to act in that affair.
6.
That the economy of the Persons of the Trinity, establishing that order
of their acting that is agreeable to the order of their subsisting, is
entirely diverse from the covenant of redemption and prior to it, not
only appears from the nature of things, but appears evidently from the
Scripture, being plainly deduced from the following things evidently
collected thence.
First. It is the determination of God the Father, whether there
shall be any such thing admitted as redemption of sinners. It is his
law, majesty and authority, as supreme ruler, legislator and judge, that
is contemned.
He
is every where represented as the Person who, (in the place that he
stands in among the Persons of the Trinity), is especially injured by
sin, and who is therefore the Person whose wrath is enkindled, and whose
justice and vengeance are to be executed, and must be satisfied. And
therefore, it is at his will and determination whether he will on any
terms forgive sinners, and so whether there shall be any redemption of
them allowed any more than of fallen angels. But we must conceive of the
determination that a redemption shall be allowed for fallen men, as
preceding the covenant or agreement of the Persons of the Trinity
relating to the particular manner and means of it; and consequently,
that the Father, who determines whether a redemption shall to be allowed
or no, acts as the Head of the society of the Trinity, and in the
capacity of supreme Lord and one that sustains the dignity and maintains
the rights of the Godhead antecedently to the covenant of redemption;
and consequently, that that economy by which he stands in this capacity
is prior to that covenant.
Second. Nothing is more plain from Scripture than that the Father
chooses the Person that shall be the Redeemer and appoints him, and that
the Son has his authority in his office wholly from him: which makes it
evident, that that economy by which the Father is Head of the Trinity,
is prior to the covenant of redemption. For he acts as such in the very
making of that covenant, in choosing the Person of the Redeemer to be
covenanted with about that work. The Father is the Head of the Trinity,
and is invested with a right to act as such, before the Son is invested
with the office of a Mediator. Because the Father, in the exercise of
his Headship, invests the Son with that office. By which it is evident,
that that establishment, by which the Father is invested with his
character as Head of the Trinity, precedes that which invests the Son
with his character of Mediator, and therefore precedes the covenant of
redemption, which is the establishment that invests the son with that
character. If the Son were invested with the office of a mediator by the
same establishment and agreement of the Persons of the Trinity by which
the Father is invested with power to act as Head of the Trinity, then
the Father could not be said to elect and appoint the Son to his office
of Mediator, and invest him with authority for it, any more than the Son
elects and invests the Father with his character of Head of the Trinity,
or any more than the Holy Ghost elects both the Son and the Father to
their several economical offices, and the Son would receive his powers
to be a mediator no more from the Father, than from the Holy Ghost.
Because in this scheme it is supposed that prior to the covenant of
redemption, all the Persons act as upon a level, and each Person, by one
common agreement in that covenant of redemption, is invested with his
proper office: the Father with that of Head, the Son with that of
Mediator, the Spirit with that of common emissary and consummator of the
designs of the other two. So that by this supposition no one has his
office by the particular appointment of anyone singly, or more than
another, but all alike by common consent: there being no antecedent
establishment giving one any power or headship over another, to
authorize or appoint another.
Third. That the forementioned economy of the Persons of the Trinity
is diverse from all that is established in the covenant of redemption
and prior to it, is further confirmed by this: that this economy remains
after the work of redemption is finished, and everything appertaining to
it brought to its ultimate consummation, and the Redeemer shall present
all that were to be redeemed to the Father in perfect glory, having his
work completely finished upon them, and so shall resign up that dominion
that he received of the Father subservient to this work, agreeably to
what had been stipulated in the covenant of redemption. Then the
economical order of the Persons of the Trinity shall yet remain, whereby
the Father acts as Head of the society and supreme Lord of all, and the
Son and the Spirit shall be subject unto him. Yea, this economical order
shall not only remain, but shall then and on that occasion become more
visible and conspicuous, and the establishment of things by the covenant
of redemption shall then, as it were, give place to this economy as
prior. For thus the apostle represents the matter, 1 Cor. 15:24-28.
“Then cometh the end when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God,
even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule, and all
authority, and power. For he must reign till he has put all enemies
under his feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. For he
hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put
under him, it is manifest that he is excepted which did put all things
under him. And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the
Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that
God may be all in all.”
Now
if that establishment that settles the economy of the Persons of the
Trinity, was no other than the covenant of redemption itself, or that
agreement that the Persons of the Trinity entered into establishing
their order of acting in that affair, and assigning each one his part
and office in that work, it would at least be unreasonable to suppose
that this economy or order of the persons of the Trinity should be least
conspicuous and manifest while this work lasts, and most so after the
Redeemer has finished it and resigned his office, and that the
resignation of his office should be to that end: that things might
return to that economical order, and be governed more conspicuously and
manifestly agreeable to it.
Fourth. Another argument that shows the covenant of redemption to be
entirely a distinct establishment from that which is the foundation of
the economy of the Persons of the Trinity, is this: that the place and
station that the Son attains to by this establishment is entirely
distinct from that which he stands in by the economy of the Trinity,
insomuch that by the covenant of redemption the Son of God is for a
season advanced into the economical seat of another Person, viz.,
of the Father, in being by this covenant established as the Lord and
Judge of the world, in the Father’s stead and as his vicegerent, and as
ruling in the Father’s throne, the throne that belongs to him in his
economical station. For by the economy of the Trinity, it is the
Father’s province to act as the Lawgiver and Judge and Disposer of the
world.
Fifth. Another argument of the same thing is this, that the
Scriptures do represent that the promises made to the Son in that
covenant are made by the Father only, and that the honor and reward,
that he has by that covenant, are granted only by the Father. Whereas,
if the economy empowering the Father thus to act as the Son’s Head, in
making promises to him and making over rewards to him, were not prior to
the covenant in which these promises are made and these things made
over, the Father could have no power to make such promises, and grant
such things to the Son: nor would it be done by the Father any more than
by the Holy Spirit. For it would be done equally by all the Persons of
the Trinity acting conjunctly.
Concerning the COVENANT OF REDEMPTION.
In order rightly to understand it and duly to distinguish it from the
establishment of the economy of the Persons of the Trinity, the
following things may be noted:
1.
It is the Father that begins that great transaction of the eternal
covenant of redemption, is the first mover in it, and acts in every
respect as Head in that affair. He determines to allow a redemption, and
for whom it shall be. He pitches upon a Person for a Redeemer. He
proposes the matter unto him, offers him authority for the office,
proposes precisely what he should do, as the terms of man’s redemption,
and all the work that he should perform in this affair, and the reward
he should receive, and the success he should have. And herein the Father
acts in the capacity in which he is already established, viz.,
that of the Head of the Trinity and all their concerns, and the fountain
of all things that appertain to the deity, and its glorification and
communication.
2.
Though the Father, merely by virtue of his economical prerogative as
Head of the Trinity, is the first mover and beginner in the affair of
our redemption, and determines that a redemption shall be admitted, and
for whom, and proposes the matter first to his Son, and offers him
authority for the office. Yet it is not merely by virtue of his
economical prerogative, that he orders, determines and prescribes all
that he does order and prescribe relating to it. But he does many things
that he does in the work of redemption in the exercise of a new right,
that he acquires by a new establishment, a free covenant entered into
between him and his Son, in entering into which covenant the Son (though
he acts on the proposal of the Father), yet acts as one wholly in his
own right, as much as the Father, being not under subjection or
prescription in his consenting to what is proposed to him, but acting as
of himself. Otherwise there would have been no need of the Father and
Son’s entering into covenant one with another, in order to the Son’s
coming into subjection and obligation to the Father, with respect to any
thing appertaining to this affair. The whole tenor of the gospel holds
this forth, that the Son acts altogether freely and as of his own right,
in undertaking the great and difficult and self-abasing work of our
redemption, and that he becomes obliged to the Father with respect to it
by voluntary covenant engagements, and not by any establishment prior
thereto. So that he merits infinitely of the Father in entering into and
fulfilling these engagements. The Father merely by his economical
prerogative can direct and prescribe to the other Persons of the Trinity
in all things not below their economical characters. But all those
things that imply something below the infinite majesty and glory of
divine Persons, and which they cannot do, without, as it were, laying
aside the divine glory, and stooping infinitely below the height of that
glory: these things are below their economical divine character. And
therefore the Father cannot prescribe to the other Persons anything of
this nature, without a new establishment by free covenant empowering him
so to do. But what is agreed for with the Son concerning his coming into
the world in such a state of humiliation, and what he should do and
suffer in that state, is his descending to a state infinitely below his
divine dignity. And therefore the Father has no right to prescribe to
him with regard to these things, unless as invested with a right by free
covenant engagements of his Son.
3.
From what has been said it appears that besides that economical
subordination of the Persons of the Trinity that arises from the manner
and order of their subsisting, there is a new kind of subordination and
mutual obligation between two of the Persons, arising from this new
establishment, the covenant of redemption, the Son undertaking and
engaging to put himself into a new kind of subjection to the Father, far
below that of his economical station, even the subjection of a proper
servant to the Father, and one under his law, in the manner that
creatures that are infinitely below God and absolutely dependent for
their being on the mere will of God, are subject to his preceptive will
and absolute legislative authority. The Son engaged to become a
creature, and so to put himself in the proper circumstances of a
servant: from which engagements of the Son, the Father acquires a new
right of Headship and authority over the Son, to command him and
prescribe to him and rule over him, as his proper Lawgiver and Judge.
And the Father, also, comes under new obligation to the Son, to give him
such success, rewards, etc.
4.
It must be observed that this subordination that two of the Persons of
the Trinity come into, by the covenant of redemption, is not contrary to
their economical order, but in several respects agreeable to it, though
it be new in kind. Thus, if either the Father or the Son be brought into
the subjection of a servant to the other, it is much more agreeable to
the economy of the Trinity, that it should be the latter, who by that
economy is already under the Father as his Head. That the Father should
be servant to the Son would be contrary to the economy and natural order
of the Persons of the Trinity.
5.
It appears from what has been said that no other subjection or obedience
of the Son to the Father arises properly from the covenant of
redemption, but only that which implies humiliation, or a state and
relation to the Father wherein he descends below the infinite glory of a
divine Person: all that origination in acting from the Father, and
dependence on and compliance with his will, that implies no descent
below his divine glory, being no more than what properly flows from the
economical order of the Persons of the Trinity. No other subjection or
obedience is new in kind, but only that which implies humiliation. And
if there were any such thing as a way of redemption without the
humiliation of any divine Person, the Persons would act in man’s
redemption in their proper subordination, without any covenant of
redemption or any new establishment, as they do in the affair of
rewarding the elect angels. It is true that if there were not
humiliation of any divine Person required, in order to man’s redemption,
the determination that there should be a redemption would be a
determination not implied in the establishment of the economy of the
Trinity, as indeed the determination of no particular work is implied in
that establishment. The establishment of the economy is a determination
that in whatever work is done, the Persons shall act in such a
subordination: but the determining what works shall be done is not
implied in that establishment. God’s determining to make a certain
number of the angels happy to all eternity was not implied, but yet that
being determined of the Father, the Son and the Spirit act in
subordination to the Father in that affair of course, without any
particular covenant or new establishment to settle the order of their
acting in that particular affair. Merely the work to be performed being
superadded to the agreed general economy, the order of their acting in
that particular affair does not require any new agreement.
6.
The obedience which the Son of God performs to the Father even in the
affair of man’s redemption, or as Redeemer or Mediator, before his
humiliation, and also that obedience he performs as God-man after his
humiliation, when as God-man he is exalted to the glory he had before,
is no more than flows from his economical office or character, although
it be occasioned by the determination or decree of the work of
redemption, which is something new, yea, is occasioned by the covenant
of redemption. Yet that decree and covenant being supposed, such an
obedience as he performs in his divine glory follows of course from his
economical character and station. Nor is it any other kind of obedience
than what that character requires. There is no humiliation in it, and no
part of it implies that new sort of subjection, that is engaged in the
covenant of redemption.
7.
Hence it comes to pass, that that obedience, that Christ performs to the
Father even as Mediator, and in the work of our redemption, before his
humiliation, and now, in his exalted state in heaven, is no part of that
obedience that merits for sinners. For it is only that obedience which
the Son voluntarily and freely subjected himself to from love to
sinners, and engaged to perform for them in the covenant of redemption,
and that otherwise would not have belonged to him, that merits for
sinners. And that is only that obedience that implies an humiliation
below his proper divine glory. Therefore it is only that obedience that
he performs as made under the law, and in the form of a servant, that
merits for us. The obedience he performs in the affair of our redemption
in his state of exaltation does not merit for sinners, and is no more
imputed to them than the obedience of the Holy Spirit.
8.
As there is a kind of subjection, that the Son came into by the covenant
of redemption, that does not belong to him in his economical character,
which subjection he promises to the Father in that covenant: so also
there is a kind of rule and authority which he receives by the covenant
of redemption, which the Father promises him, that does not belong to
him in his economical character, viz., that of Head of authority
and rule to the universe, as Lord and Judge of all. This does not belong
to the Son but the Father by the economy of the Trinity. It is the
Father that is economically the King of heaven and earth, Lawgiver and
Judge of all. Therefore when the Son is made so, he is by the Father
advanced into his throne, by having the Father’s authority committed
unto him, to rule in his name and as his vicegerent. This the Father
promised him in the covenant of redemption as a reward for the
forementioned subjection and obedience that he engaged in that covenant.
And to put him under greater advantages to obtain the success of his
labors and sufferings in the work of redemption, this vicarious dominion
of the Son is to continue to the end of the world: when the work of
redemption will be finished, and the ends of the covenant of redemption
obtained, and when things will return to be administered by the Trinity
only, according to their economical order.
9.
Not only does the Son, by virtue of the covenant of redemption, receive
a new dignity of station which does not belong to him merely by the
economy of the Trinity, in the dominion he receives of the Father over
the universe, but also in his having the dispensation and disposal of
the Holy Spirit committed to him. For when God exalted Jesus Christ,
God-man, and set him at his own right hand in heavenly places, and
solemnly invested him with the rule over the angels and over the whole
universe, at the same time did he also give him the great and main thing
that he purchased, even the Holy Spirit, that he might have the disposal
and dispensation of that, to the same purposes for which he had the
government of the universe committed to him, viz., to promote the
grand designs of his redemption (This is very evident by the Scripture).
And this was a much greater thing, than God’s giving him the angels and
the whole creation. For whereby the Father did, as it were, commit to
him his own divine infinite treasure, to dispense of it as he pleased to
the redeemed, he made him Lord of his house, and Lord of his treasures.
This new authority that the Son receives with regard to the Spirit of
God, at his enthronization at the Father’s right hand, will be resigned
at the end of the world, in like manner as he will then resign the new
dominion that he then is invested with over the universe.
10.
But it is to be observed, that there is a two-fold subjecting of the
Holy Spirit to the Son, as our Redeemer, in some respect new and diverse
from what is merely by the economy of the Trinity.
First. The Spirit is put under the Son, or given to him and
committed to his disposal and dispensation, as the Father’s vicegerent
and as ruling on his Father’s throne, as the angels and the whole
universe were given to him to dispose of as the Father’s vicegerent. So
that the Holy Spirit, till the work of redemption shall be finished,
will continue to act under the Son, in some respects, with that
subjection that is economically due to the Father. For the Son will have
the disposal of the Spirit in the name of the Father, or as ruling with
his authority. This authority that the Son has over the Spirit, will be
resigned at the end of the world, when he shall resign his vicarious
dominion and authority, that God may be all in all, and that things
thenceforward may be dispensed only according to the order of the
economy of the Trinity.
Second. There is another subjecting of the Spirit to the Son, that
is in some respect diverse from what is merely by the economy of the
Trinity, and that is, a giving him to him not as the Father’s
vicegerent, but only as God-man and Husband, and vital Head of the
Church. All that is new in this subjection is this, that, whereas by the
economy of the Trinity the Spirit acts under the Son as God or a divine
Person. He now acts in like manner under the same Person in two natures
united, or as God-man, and in his two natures the Husband and vital Head
of the Church. This subjection of the Spirit to Christ will continue to
eternity, and never will be resigned up. For Christ, God-man, will
continue to all eternity to be the vital Head and Husband of the Church,
and the vital good, that this vital Head will eternally communicate to
his church, will be the Holy Spirit. The Spirit was the inheritance that
Christ, as God-man, purchased for himself and his church, or for Christ
mystical. And it was the inheritance that he, as God-man, received of
the Father, at his ascension, for himself and them. But the inheritance
he purchased and received, is an eternal inheritance. It is, in this
regard, with the authority with which Christ was invested at his
ascension, with respect to the Spirit, as it is with the authority which
he then received over the world. He then was invested with a two-fold
dominion over the world: one vicarious, or as the Father’s vicegerent,
which shall be resigned at the end of the world, and the other, as
Christ, God-man and Head and Husband of the Church, and in this latter
respect he will never resign his dominion, but will reign forever and
ever, as is said of the saints in the new-Jerusalem, after the end of
the world, Rev. 22:5.
11.
Though the subjection of the Holy Spirit to the son has, in these
respects that have been mentioned, something in it that is new and
diverse from that subjection that flows merely from the economical order
of the Persons, yet it is only circumstantially new. It is not new in
that sense, as to be properly a new kind of subjection, as the Son’s
subjection to the Father as made under the law is. There is no
humiliation or abasement in this new subjection of the Spirit to the
Son. The Spirit’s subjection to the Son as God-man (though the human
nature in its union with the divine be a sharer with the divine in this
honor and authority), implies no abasement of the Spirit; i.e.,
is no lower sort of subjection, than that which the Holy Spirit is in to
the Son by the economy of the Trinity. When once the eternal Son of God
was become man, and this Person was not only God, but God-man, this
Person considered as God-man was a no less honorable Person than he was
before: and especially was it visibly and conspicuously so, when this
complex Person was exalted by the Father to his throne. For God the
Father glorified him as God-man, with the glory that he had before the
world was. And therefore, divine respect was as properly due to him as
before, and the respect that was before due to the second Person by the
economy of the Trinity, is now given to him by all, without any
abasement of those that give it. It is given by angels and men without
any debasing or degrading of their worship. And the same subjection is
yielded by the Holy Spirit that it before yielded according to the
economy of the Persons, without stooping at all below the station the
Spirit stood in with respect to the Son before. And when once it has
pleased the Father to set the Son on his throne, as his vicegerent, the
subjection of the Spirit to the Son, as to the Father, follows of
course, without any stooping below the dignity of his economical
character. The Holy Spirit is not thus subject to the Son by any
abasement he submits to, by any special covenant, but by the gift of the
Father, exercising his prerogative as Head of the Trinity, as he is by
his economical character.
12.
From what has been now observed, we may learn the reason why the
obedience of the Holy Spirit to the Son, though it be in some respect
new, and for our sakes, yet is not meritorious for us, viz., that
it implies no humiliation, is properly no new kind of subjection or
obedience besides what, under such circumstances, flows from the
economical order of the Persons of the Trinity. As I observed before, it
is only that obedience of the son of God that merits for sinners, that
is properly new in kind, and implies humiliation. Hence the Scripture
mentions no reward that the Holy Spirit receives of his obedience for us
or himself.
13.
The things that have been observed, naturally lead us to suppose that
the covenant of redemption is only between two of the Persons of the
Trinity, viz., the Father and the Son. For as has been observed,
there is need of a new establishment, or particular covenant, only on
account of the new kind of subjection of the Son, and the humiliation he
is the subject of in his office of Mediator, wherein he stoops below his
proper economical character. Otherwise, there would be no more need of a
new establishment, by a special covenant in this affair, than concerning
God’s dealing with the elect angels, or any other work of God
whatsoever. But it is the Son only that is made the subject of this
humiliation: which humiliation was in his new subjection and obedience
to the Father. Therefore the covenant of redemption is only between the
Father and the Son. Neither is there any intimation in Scripture of any
such thing as any covenant, either of the Father, or the son, with the
Holy Ghost. He is never represented as a party in this covenant, but the
Father and the Son only. The covenant of redemption, which is the new
covenant, the covenant with the second Adam, that which takes effect in
the second place (though entered into first in order of time), after the
covenant with the first Adam was broken, was made only between God the
Lawgiver, and man’s Surety and Representative, as the first covenant,
that was made with the first Adam, was. The covenant of redemption was
the covenant in which God the Father made over an eternal reward to
Christ mystical, and therefore was made only with Christ the Head of
that body. No proper reward was promised or made over in that covenant
to the Holy Ghost, although the end of it was the honor and glory of all
the Persons of the Trinity.
14.
It is true that the Holy Spirit is infinitely concerned in the affair of
our redemption, as well as the Father and the Son, and equally with
them. And therefore we may well suppose that the affair was, as it were,
concerted among all the Persons, and determined by the perfect consent
of all. And that there was a consultation among the three Persons about
it, as much doubtless as about the creating of man (for the work of
redemption is a work wherein the distinct concern of each Person is
infinitely greater, than in the work of creation), and so, that there
was a joint agreement of all, but not properly a covenant between them
all. There is no necessity of supposing that each one acts, in this
consent and agreement, as a party covenanting, or that the agreement of
each one is of the nature of a covenant, stipulation and engagement.
15.
It is not only true that the Holy Ghost is concerned in the work of
redemption equally with the other Persons, but that he is also
concerned in the covenant of redemption, as well as they. And his
concern in this covenant is as great as theirs, and equally honorable
with theirs, and yet his concern in the covenant is not that of a party
covenanting.
Corollary. From the things that have been observed, it appears to be
unreasonable to suppose, as some do, that the
SONSHIP of the second Person in
the Trinity consists only in the relation he bears to the Father in
his mediatorial character, and that his generation or proceeding
from the Father as a son, consists only in his being appointed,
constituted and authorized of the Father to the office of a mediator;
and that there is no other priority of the Father to the Son but that
which is voluntarily established in the covenant of redemption. For it
appears by what has been said, that the priority of the Father to the
Son is, in the order of nature, before the covenant of redemption. And
it appears evidently to be so, even by the scheme of those now
mentioned, who suppose the contrary. For they suppose that it is the
Father who by his power constitutes the Son in his office of Mediator,
and so that the Mediator is his Son, i.e., is made a mediator by
him, deriving his being in that office wholly from him. But if so, that
supposes the Father, in the economy of the Trinity, to be before the Son
or above him (and so to vest with authority and thus to constitute and
authorize the other Person in the Trinity) before that other Person is
thus authorized, which is by the covenant of redemption, and
consequently that this superiority of the Father is antecedent to that
covenant. And the whole tenor of the gospel exhibits the same thing. For
that represents the wondrous love and grace of God as appearing in
appointing and constituting his own only begotten and beloved Son, to be
our Mediator; which would be absurd, if he were not God’s Son,
till after he was appointed to be our Mediator.
UNITY OF THE GODHEAD
651. One God. Unity of the Godhead. It appears that there is
but one Creator and governor of the world by considering how the world
is created and governed. The world is evidently so created and governed
as to answer but one design in all the different parts of it and in all
ages, and therefore we may justly argue that it is but one design that
orders the world. This appears, first, by the mutual subserviency
of all the various parts of the world. This great body is as much one,
and all the members of it mutually dependent and subservient, as in the
body of man one part is so and acts so and is in every respect ordered
so as constantly to promote the design that others are made for. All the
parts help one another and mutually forward each other’s ends. In all
the immense variety of things that there are in the world, everyone has
such a nature and is so ordered in every respect and circumstance as to
comply with the rest of the universe, and to fall in with and subserve
to the purposes of the other parts. This argues that it is the same
design and contrivance or the same designing, contriving being that
makes and orders one part as doth the other. Second. It appears
also by this: that the same laws of nature obtain throughout the
universe. Every part of matter, everywhere, is governed by exactly the
same laws, which laws are only the appointment of the governors. This
argues, therefore, that they are all governed by one appointment or
will. Third. The same laws obtain in all ages, without any
alteration. There is no alteration seen in any one instance, in all
those numberless and infinitely various effects that are the result of
those laws in different circumstances. This argues that it is not
several that have the government by turns, but that it is one being that
has the management of the same things in all ages of the world — one
design and contrivance. Not only the identity of law in inanimate
beings, but in the same sort of animals, especially in the nature of
man, in all men, in all ages of the world, shows that all men in all
ages are in the hand of the same being. Another thing that argues that
the world has but one Creator and governor is the great analogy that is
in the works of creation and providence; the analogy there is in the
bodies of all animals and in all plants and in the different parts of
the inanimate creation; the analogy there is, likewise, between the
corporeal and spiritual parts of the creation; and the analogy in the
constitution and government of different orders of being — this argues
that the whole is the fruit of but one wisdom and design.
697. Unity of the Godhead. The unity of the Godhead will
necessarily follow from God’s being infinite. For to be infinite is to
be all, and it would be a contradiction to suppose two alls, because, if
there be two or more, one alone is not all but the sum of them put
together are all. Infinity and omneity, if I may so speak, must go
together, because if any being falls short of omneity, then it is not
infinite. Therein it is limited. Therein there is something that it does
not extend to or that it does not comprehend. If there be something
more, then there is something beyond. And wherein this being does not
reach and include that which is beyond, therein it is limited — its
bounds stop short of this that is not comprehended. An infinite being,
therefore, must be an all-comprehending being. He must comprehend in
himself all being. That there should be another being underived and
independent, and so no way comprehended, will argue him not to be
infinite, because then there is something more: there is more entity.
There is some entity beside what is in this being, and therefore his
entity cannot be infinite. Those two beings put together are more than
one; for they taken together are a sum total, and one taken alone is but
a part of that sum total and therefore is finite. For whatsoever is a
part is finite. God, as he is infinite and the being whence all are
derived and from whom everything is given, does comprehend the entity of
all his creatures; and their entity is not to be added to his, as not
comprehended in it, for they are but communications from him.
Communications of being ben’t additions of being. The reflections of the
sun’s light does not add at all to the sum total of the light. It is
true mathematicians conceive of greater than infinite, in some respects,
and of several infinites being added one to another, but it is because
they are in some respect finite, as a thing conceived infinitely long
may not be infinitely thick, and so its thickness may be added to. Or if
it be conceived infinitely long one way, yet it may be conceived having
bounds or an end another. But God is in no respect limited, and
therefore can in no respect be added to.
1180. Trinity. The following is taken from the
Philosophical Principles of Natural and Revealed Religion by the
Chevalier Ramsay, in the Monthly Review for March, 1751, p. 341. “The
eternal, self-existent, infinite Being presents himself to the mind
under the notion of a single, uncompounded, indivisible essence, without
distinction of parts, without succession of thoughts, and without
division of substance. Yet he contains necessarily the three real
distinctions of Spirit conceiving, idea conceived, and love proceeding
from both, which in the supreme infinite are not three single attributes
or modes, but three different persons or self-conscious intellectual
agents. The infinite Spirit, by a necessary, immanent, eternal activity,
produces in himself his consubstantial image, equal to himself in all
his perfections, self-origination only excepted, and from both proceed a
distinct, self-conscious, intelligent, active principle of Love,
co-equal to the Father and the Son, called the Holy Ghost. This is the
true definition of God in his eternal solitude, or according to his
absolute essence distinct from created nature.”
1252. Unity of the Godhead. 1. “Absolute infinite excludes
all negation, privation, and defect.” (Philosophical Principles of
Natural and Revealed Religion by the Chevalier Ramsay p. 42)
“Absolute infinite excludes all duality and plurality of substance. If
there were two or more absolute infinites, their perfections, powers,
and forces united in one sum would be greater than those of one singular
absolute infinite. — Therefore, there cannot be in nature a duality nor
a plurality of distinct self-existent, independent, and absolutely
infinite substances. That which exhausts the whole plenitude of
perfection in all sense can admit no other of its kind.” (Revealed
Religion, p. 48.) [M 1252 continues with M 1253.]
1253. Trinity. 2. “The absolutely infinite mind must be
infinitely, eternally, and essentially active and productive of an
absolutely infinite effect. Absolute infinite contains all possible
perfections: (1.) Infinite activity, or the production of an infinite
effect, is a supreme perfection. (2.) Therefore, the absolutely infinite
mind must be infinitely, eternally, and essentially active, and
consequently productive of an absolutely infinite effect, since an
absolutely infinite cause acting according to all the extent of its
nature must necessarily produce an absolutely infinite effect. Men
generally imagine that God is infinitely active, only because he can
produce innumerable beings from without, or distinct from himself; but
unless this faculty be forever reduced into act it is not infinite
activity, but infinite power. It is a real inaction, though it supposes
an infinite capacity of acting. Now such inactive powers as lie dormant
during a whole eternity in God are absolutely incompatible with the
perfection of the divine nature, which must be infinitely, eternally,
and essentially active.” (Philosophical Principles of Natural and
Revealed Religion by the Chevalier Ramsay pp. 74, 75.)
3.
[Since absolutely infinite must be absolutely, eternally, and
essentially active,] “and since he God cannot be eternally active from
without, or upon anything external, he must be eternally active from
within. And since his essence is indivisible, and cannot act by parcels,
he must be necessarily and immanently active, according to the whole
extent of his infinite nature. Now an absolutely infinite agent that
acts according to all the extent of its absolutely infinite nature must
necessarily produce in itself an absolutely infinite effect. Otherwise
the effect would not be proportionate to the cause, and so the cause
would not act according to all the extent of its absolutely infinite
nature, which is contrary to the supposition. Moreover, the production
of an absolutely infinite effect is a far greater perfection than the
creation of any number of infinite effects how great soever. And,
therefore, this immanent fecundity must be an essential, co-eternal,
consubstantial, perfection of the divine nature.
4.
Hence absolute infinite in his pure and solitary essence, antecedent to
all creation, must have produced within himself an eternal, necessary,
absolutely infinite effect.
5.
Hence an absolutely infinite mind or intelligent subject supposes an
absolutely infinite object or idea known. Otherwise it would be only an
infinite capacity of knowledge, and not an infinite understanding that
knows and possesses its object. Let us now examine what this infinite
effect and object of the divine mind must be.
6.
The absolutely infinite effect and object of the absolutely infinite
mind can be no other than its own IDEA,
IMAGE, or
REPRESENTATION.
7.
An absolutely infinite and infinitely active mind supposes an absolutely
infinite effect produced, and an absolutely infinite object or idea
known: (1.) God cannot produce any absolutely infinite effect from
without, and consequently can have no other absolutely infinite object
of his thought but himself or him own idea, image, or representation:
(2.) Therefore God’s own idea, image, or representation of himself must
be the absolutely infinite effect and object of the absolutely infinite
mind.
8.
The Deists, Unitarians, and Socinians deny this eternal generation of
the Word, because they do not fully enter into their own spiritual
natures to examine what passes in themselves. When we think, it is clear
that the object of our thought is distinct from our thinking faculty.
Otherwise we would think equally at all times, and have always the same
idea, since we have always the same powers. Our ideas are changeable and
imperfect modes of the mind; whereas God’s idea of himself is a
permanent, necessary, and essential image, and not a free, accidental
mode. All our simple ideas are produced in us by other objects that act
upon us, while we are altogether passive. Whereas this consubstantial
idea of the divine mind is not produced by any other object distinct
from itself. It is conceived from within, not received from without. It
is produced, not perceived. We may therefore in comparing absolute
infinite with finite spirits (which, as we shall show, are his living
images), distinguish in him the thinking subject, or the
MIND CONCEIVING, from the object
of this thinking essence, or the IDEA
CONCEIVED.
9.
Some moderns will say that intelligence is not action, and that to know
is not to produce. I answer that perception is not an action; but
conception is the highest act of the understanding. To receive ideas,
sensations, or modifications from objects that act upon us is purely
passive. But to form or create in the mind new ideas is a real
production. We do not form our simple ideas, for we receive them from
external objects that act upon us. God is impassible and eternal, and so
cannot be acted upon by other objects. He does not perceive, but he
CONCEIVES, his essential,
consubstantial idea, image, or representation. He does not receive this
idea from others, but he produces it in himself. We form our complex
ideas by a successive combining of our simple perceptions. God forms his
consubstantial idea by one unsuccessive act. Now this is the highest and
most exalted of all activities and perfections.” (Revealed Religion,
pp. 76-79)
10.
“Hence absolute infinite, in his pure and solitary essence, antecedent
to the production of any finite ideas, is infinitely intelligent,
self-knowing, and self-conscious, as well as infinitely active and
productive of an eternal, immanent, and absolutely infinite effect,
object, or idea.
Hence this generation of the Logos, or of God’s consubstantial idea, is
sufficient to complete the perfection of the divine understanding. For
an infinite mind can desire nothing more to fill, enlighten, and satiate
it than an infinitely infinite object.
11.
The eternal, permanent, consubstantial idea God has of himself produces
necessarily in him an infinite, eternal, immutable, Love.” (Revealed
Religion, pp. 80, 81.)
12.
“Thus it is certain that antecedent to all communicative goodness toward
anything external, God is good in himself and just to himself, as he is
infinitely, eternally, and essentially active and intelligent, because
as he produces within himself an absolutely infinite effect and idea, so
he is infinitely, eternally, and essentially good and just. Infinitely
good, because from the knowledge and enjoyment of his consubstantial
idea flows an infinite sensation of joy, and unbounded love, an
unspeakable pleasure, and an eternal self-complacency, which constitute
his uninterrupted happiness. Infinitely just, because it is this
permanent love that constitutes his essential justice, for by this love
he renders to himself all that is due to his supreme perfection. He does
not therefore want to create innumerable myriads of finite objects to
exert his essential beneficence and equity, since he produces within
himself from all eternity one infinite object that exhausts, so to
speak, all his capacity of loving, beatifying, and doing justice.”
13.
“The Deists, Unitarians, and Socinians, who deny the doctrine of the
Trinity, cannot explain how God is essentially good and just
antecedently to, and independently of, the creation of finite. For God
cannot be eminently good and just, where there is no object of his
beneficence and equity. If then he be essentially, eternally, and
necessarily good and just he must be so immanently; he must be so in
himself; he must therefore find an infinite object within himself, to
whom he displays all his essential love, beneficence, and equity.”
14.
“Hence God’s consubstantial love of himself is sufficient to complete
the felicity of his infinite will. Here all its motions, tendencies, and
desires fix, concenter and reunite. Wherefore all other acts and
productions, that do not necessarily flow from and enter into this
consubstantial love, are not essential to the perfection of the divine
will.”
15.
“To complete the idea of perfect felicity there must be an object loving
as well as an object loved.
Such is the nature of love that it must be communicative. Infinite love
therefore must be infinitely and necessarily communicative. It must have
an object upon which it exerts itself, and to which it displays itself:
into which it flows, and that flows back to it again. There is a far
greater felicity in loving and in being loved than in loving simply. It
is the mutual harmony and correspondence of two distinct beings, or
persons, that makes the completion of love and felicity.
Hence God could not have been infinitely and eternally loved if there
had not been from all eternity some being distinct from himself, and
equal to himself, that loves him infinitely; since as we have shown
creation could not be co-eternal, [consubstantial, and necessary to the
divine nature.]
The
eternal, infinite, and immutable LOVE
which proceeds from the idea God has of himself is not a simple
attribute, mode, or perfection of the divine mind; but a living, active,
consubstantial, intelligent being or agent.”
16.
[It is evident therefore from the four preceding propositions, that we
may represent, etc.] “Therefore we may represent the divine essence
under these three notions, — as an infinitely
ACTIVE MIND that conceives, or as
an infinite IDEA that is the
object of this conception, or as an infinite
LOVE that proceeds from this
idea: [the Eternal Mind produces necessarily in itself the idea of
itself. This idea is not like our free, floating, false ideas, but is a
necessary, permanent, true idea. From this idea known, possessed, and
enjoyed, flow or proceed not inconstant, bounded, accidental desires
like ours, but an essential, immutable, infinite love.] There are three:
there can be but three, and all that we can conceive of the Infinite
Mind may be reduced to these three: infinite
LIFE,
LIGHT and
LOVE.”
17.
“They are not three simple attributes or modalities, because they are
distinct intelligent principles, and self-conscious agents. They must
therefore be three distinct beings, realities, somethings, or persons,
because the idea of personality includes that of an intelligent
self-conscious agent.”
18
“Hence we may conceive in the divine nature three real distinctions, and
we can conceive no more, since all that we can comprehend of absolute
infinite, is either MIND
conceiving, IDEA conceived, or
LOVE proceeding from both. God
self-existent, God of God, and God the Holy Ghost: These three
distinctions in the Deity are neither three distinct independent minds,
as the Tritheists alleged; nor three attributes of the same substance
represented as persons, as the Sabellians affirmed; nor one supreme and
two subordinate intellectual agents, as some refined Arians maintain;
but three co-eternal, consubstantial, co-ordinate persons co-equal in
all things, self-origination only excepted.”
19.
“This eternal commerce of the co-eternal three is the secret fund of the
Deity,” [of which we can form no idea till we be lost and immersed in
our center, ‘see light in his light, and ‘behold him as he is.’ Then we
shall see how the paternal mind conceives within himself the
consubstantial image, and how from both proceeds the loving spirit, by
two permanent, immanent, co-eternal acts, wherein no idea of
multiplicity, variation or succession can enter.]
20.
“All those who are ignorant of the doctrine of the Trinity, of the
generation of the Logos, of the procession of the Eternal Spirit, and of
the everlasting commerce among the sacred three, look upon God’s still
eternity and solitude as a state of inaction and indolence.”
94. Trinity. There has been much cry of late against saying
one word, particularly about the Trinity, but what the Scripture has
said, judging it impossible but that, if we did, we should err in a
question so much above us. But if they call that which rises and results
from the joining of reason and Scripture, though it has not been said in
Scripture in express words, I say, if they call this what is not said in
Scripture, I am not afraid to say twenty things about the Trinity which
the Scripture never said. There are deductions of reason from what has
been said of the most mysterious matters, besides what has been said,
and safe and certain from them too, as well as about the most obvious
and easy matters.
I
think that it is within the reach of naked reason to perceive certainly
that there are three, distinct in God, the nature of which is one, and
the three are manifestly distinct; and that there are not nor can be any
more distinct, really and truly distinct, but three, either distinct
persons or properties or anything else; and that of these three one is,
more properly than anything else, begotten of the first, and that the
other proceeds alike from both, and that the first neither is begotten
nor proceeds. It is often said that God is infinitely happy from all
eternity in the enjoyment of himself, in the reflection and infinite
love of his own essence, that is, in the infinite idea he has of
himself, infinitely perfect. The Almighty’s knowledge is not so
different from ours, but that ours is the image of it. It is by an idea,
as ours is, only it is infinitely perfect. If it were not by idea, it is
in no respect like ours: it is not what we call knowledge nor anything
whereof knowledge is the resemblance, for the whole of human knowledge,
both in the beginning and end, arises by ideas. It is also said that
God’s knowledge of himself includes the knowledge of all things, and
that he knows, and from eternity knew, all things by the looking on
himself and by the idea of himself, because he is including all things —
so that all God’s knowledge is the idea of himself. But yet it does not
suppose imperfection in God to suppose that his idea of himself is
anything distinct from himself. None will suppose that God has any such
ideas as we, that are only, as it were, the shadows of things and not
the very things. We cannot suppose that God reflects on himself after
the imperfect manner we reflect on things, for we can view nothing
immediately. The immediate object of the mind’s intuition is the idea
always, and the soul perceives nothing but ideas. But God’s intuition on
himself, without doubt, is immediate. But it is certain it cannot be,
except his idea be his essence. For his idea is the immediate object of
his intuition. An absolutely perfect idea of a thing is the very thing,
for it wants nothing that is in the thing, substance nor nothing else.
That is the notion of the perfection of an idea, to want nothing. That
is to say, whatsoever is perfect and absolutely like a thing is that
thing. But God’s idea is absolutely perfect. I will form my reasoning
thus: that nothing has any existence, any way at all, but in some
consciousness or idea or other, and therefore that things that are in no
created consciousness have no existence but in the divine idea — or
supposing the things in this room were in the idea of none but of God
(they would have existence no other way as we have shown in natural
philosophy) and if the things in this room would nevertheless be real
things, then God’s idea, being a perfect idea, is really the thing
itself and it (if so and all God’s ideas are only his own ideas of
himself), as has been shown, must be his essence itself. It must be a
substantial idea having all the perfection of the substance perfectly.
So that by God’s reflecting on himself the being is begotten, that is, a
substantial image of God begotten. I am satisfied that though this word
“begotten” had never been used in Scripture, it would have been used in
this case — that there is no other word that so properly expresses it.
It is this perfection of God’s idea that makes all things truly and
properly present to him from all eternity, and is the reason why God has
no succession. For everything that is, has been, or shall be, having
been perfectly in God’s idea from all eternity, and a perfect idea
(which yet no finite being can have of anything) being the very thing,
therefore all things from eternity were equally present with God, and
there is no alteration made in idea by presence and absence, as there is
in us.
Again, that which is the express and perfect image of God is God’s idea
of his own essence. There is nothing else can be an express and fully
perfect image of God, but God’s idea. Ideas are images of things and
there are no other images of things in the most proper sense but ideas,
because other things are only called images as they beget an idea in us
of the thing of which they are the image — so that all other images of
things are but images in a secondary sense. But we know that the Son of
God is the express and perfect image of God, and his image in the
primary and most proper sense. (2 Cor. 4:4, “lest the light of the
glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto
them.” Phil. 2:6, “who being in the form of God.” Col. 1:15, “who is the
image of the invisible God.” Heb. 1:3, “who being the brightness of his
glory, and the express image of his person.”)
Again, that image of God which God infinitely loves, and has his chief
delight in, is the perfect idea of God. It has always been said that
God’s infinite delight consists in reflecting on himself and viewing his
own perfections or, which is the same thing, in his own perfect idea of
himself. So that it is acknowledged that God’s infinite love is to, and
his infinite delight is in, the perfect image of himself. But the
Scriptures tell us that the Son of God is that image of God which he
infinitely loves. Nobody will deny this: that God infinitely loves his
Son (John 3:35, “The Father loveth the Son;” John 5:20). So it was
declared from heaven, by the Father at his baptism and transfiguration,
“this is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased.” So the Father calls
him his elect, in which his soul delighteth (Isa. 42:1). He is called
the beloved (Eph. 1:6). The Son also declares that the Father’s infinite
happiness consisted in the enjoyment of him; Pro. 8:30, “I was daily his
delight, rejoicing always before him.” Now none, I suppose, will say
that God enjoys infinite happiness in two manners, one in the infinite
delight he has in enjoying his Son, his image, and another in the view
of himself different from this. So if not, then these ways wherein God
enjoys infinite happiness are both the same: that is, his infinite
delight in the idea of himself is the same with the infinite delight he
has in his Son, and if so his Son and that idea he has of himself are
the same.
Again, that which is the express image of God, in which God enjoys
infinite happiness, and is also the Word of God is God’s perfect idea of
God. The Word of God, in its most proper meaning, is a transcript of the
divine perfections. This Word is either the declared Word of God or the
essential. The one is the copy of the divine perfections given to us,
the other is the perfect transcript thereof in God’s own mind. But the
perfect transcript of the perfections of God in the divine mind is the
same with God’s perfect idea of his own perfections. But I need tell
none, how the Son of God is called the Word of God.
Lastly, that which is the express image of God, in which he infinitely
delights and which is his Word and which is the reason or wisdom of God,
is God’s perfect idea of God. That God’s knowledge or reason or wisdom
is the same with God’s idea, none will deny. And that all God’s
knowledge or wisdom consists in the knowledge or perfect idea of himself
is shown before and granted by all. But none needs to be told that the
Son of God is often called in Scripture by the names of the wisdom and
logos of God. Wherefore God himself has put the matter beyond all
debate, whether or no his Son is not the same with his idea of himself.
For it is most certain that his wisdom and knowledge is the very same
with his idea of himself. How much does the Son of God speak in proverbs
under that name of wisdom!
There is very much of image of this in ourselves. Man is as if he were
two, as some of the great wits of this age have observed. A sort of
genie is with man, that accompanies him and attends wherever he goes, so
that a man has conversation with himself. That is, he has a conversation
with his own idea, so that if his idea be excellent, he will take great
delight and happiness in conferring and communing with it. He takes
complacency in himself, he applauds himself. And wicked men accuse
themselves, and fight with themselves as if they were two. And man is
truly happy then, and only then, when these two agree. And they delight
in themselves and in their own idea and image as God delights in his.
The
Holy Spirit is the act of God between the Father and the Son, infinitely
loving and delighting in each other. Sure I am that, if the Father and
the Son do infinitely delight in each other, there must be an infinitely
pure and perfect act between them, an infinitely sweet energy which we
call delight. This is certainly distinct from the other two. The delight
and energy that is begotten in us by an idea is thus distinct from the
idea, so it cannot be confounded in God, either with God begetting, or
his idea and image — or Son. It is distinct from each of the other two,
and yet it is God. The pure and perfect act of God is God, because God
is a pure act. It appears that this is God, because that which acts
perfectly is all act and nothing but act. There is image of this in
created beings that approach to perfect action. How frequently do we say
that the saints of heaven are all transformed into love and dissolved
into joy — become activity itself, changed into pure ecstasy! I
acknowledge these are metaphorical in this case, but yet it is true that
the more perfect [Manuscript is torn] the act is, the more it resembles
those infinitely perfect acts of God in this respect. And I believe it
will be plain to one that thinks intensely, that the perfect act of God
must be a substantial act. We say that the perfect delights of
reasonable creatures are substantial delights, but the delight of God is
properly a substance, yea, an infinitely perfect substance, even the
essence. It appears by the Holy Scriptures that the Holy Spirit is the
perfect act of God. The name declares it: (1.) The Spirit of God denotes
to us the activity, vivacity, and energy of God, and: (2.) It appears
that the Holy Spirit is the pure act of God and energy of the deity, by
his office, which is to activate us and quicken all things, and to beget
energy and vivacity in the creature. And it also appears that the Holy
Spirit is this act of the deity, even love and delight, because from
eternity there was no other act in God but thus acting with respect to
himself, and delighting perfectly and infinitely in himself as that
infinite delight that is between the Father and the Son. For the object
of God’s perfect act must necessarily be himself because there is no
other. But we have shown that the object of the divine mind is God’s Son
and idea. And what other act can be thought of in God from eternity, but
delighting in himself, the act of love which God is (1 John 4:8, “he
that loveth not, knoweth not God: for God is love”)? And if God is love,
and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him, doubtless
this intends principally that infinite love God has to himself so that
the Scripture has told us that that love which is between the Father and
Son is God. The Holy Spirit’s name is the Comforter. But no doubt but it
is the infinite delight God has in himself is that Comforter, that is,
the fountain of all delight and comfort.
It
may be objected that at this rate one may prove an infinite number of
persons in the Godhead, for each person has an idea of the other
persons. [See M 308] Thus the Father may have an idea of his Son, but
you will argue that his [i.e., the Son’s] idea must be
substantial. I answer, that the Son himself is the Father’s idea
himself, and if he [i.e., the Son] has an idea of this idea, it
is yet the same idea. A perfect idea of an idea is the same idea still
to all intents and purposes. Thus, when I have a perfect idea of my idea
of an equilateral triangle, it is an idea of the same equilateral
triangle to all intents and purposes. So if you say that God the Father
and Son may have an idea of their own delight in each other — but I say,
a perfect idea or perception of one’s own perfect delight cannot be
different, at least in God, from that delight itself. You’ll say, the
Son has an idea of the Father. I answer, the Son himself is the idea of
the Father. And if you say, he has an idea of the Father, his idea is
still an idea of the Father, and therefore the same with the Son. And if
you say, the Holy Spirit has an idea of the Father, I answer, the Holy
Ghost is himself the delight and joyfulness of the Father in that idea,
and of the idea in the Father. It is still the idea of the rather. So
that if we turn in all the ways in the world, we shall never be able to
make more than these three: God, the idea of God, and delight in God.
So
I think it really evident from the light of reason that there are these
three, distinct in God. If God has an idea of himself, there is really a
duplicity, because if there is no duplicity, it will follow that Jehovah
thinks of himself no more than a stone. And if God loves himself and
delights in himself, there is really a triplicity, three that cannot be
confounded, each of which are the deity substantially. And this is the
only distinction that can be found or thought of in God. If it shall be
said that there are power, wisdom, goodness, and holiness in God, and
that these may as well be proved to be distinct persons, because
everything that is in God is God, I answer, as to the power of God,
power always consists in something — the power of the mind consists in
its wisdom, the power of the body in plenty of animal spirits and
toughness of limbs, etc. — and as it is distinct from those and other
things, it is only a relation of adequateness and sufficiency of the
essence to everything. But if we distinguish it from relation, it is
nothing else but the essence of God. And if we take it for that which is
that by which God exerts himself, it is no other than the Father; for
the perfect energy of God, with respect to himself, is the most perfect
exertion of himself, of which the creation of the world is but a shadow.
As to the wisdom of God, we have already observed that this wholly
consists in God’s idea of himself, and is the same with the Son of God.
And as to goodness, it is the perfect exertion of the essence of that
attribute — it is nothing but infinite love which, the apostle John
says, is God. And we have observed that all divine love may be resolved
into God’s infinite love to himself. Therefore this attribute, as it was
exerted from eternity, is nothing but the Holy Spirit, which is exactly
agreeable to the notion some have had of the Trinity. And as to
holiness, it is delight in excellency, it is God’s sweet consent to
himself, or in other words, his perfect delight in himself, which we
have shown to be the Holy Spirit.
98. Trinity. This Observation finds in the Biblical
application to the Holy Spirit of “the symbol of a dove” reason for
supposing that he “is nothing but the infinite love and delight of God.”
Part of p. 103 of the “Essay” recently published by Professor Fisher is
identical with this number. The closing sentence of the Observation
is clearer than the corresponding one in the “Essay.” It reads: “It was
under this representation that the Holy Ghost descended on Christ at his
baptism, signifying the infinite love of the Father to the Son, and that
thereby is signified that infinite love that is between the Father and
the Son; which is further illustrated by the voice which came with the
dove, ‘This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.’”
117. Trinity. Love is certainly the perfection as well as the
happiness of a spirit. God doubtless, as he is infinitely perfect and
happy, has infinite love. I cannot doubt but that God loves infinitely,
properly speaking, and not only with that which some call self-love,
whereby even the devils desire pleasure and are averse to pain, which is
exceeding improperly called love and is nothing at all akin to that
affection or delight which is properly called love. Then there must have
been an object from all eternity which God infinitely loves. But we have
showed that all love arises from the perception, either of consent to
being in general or a consent to that being that perceives. [See The
Mind, No. 45] Infinite loveliness to God, therefore, must consist
either in infinite consent to entity in general or infinite consent to
God. But we have shown that consent to entity and consent to God are the
same, because God is the general and proper entity of all things. So
that it is necessary that that object which God infinitely loves must be
infinitely and perfectly consenting and agreeable to him. But that which
infinitely and perfectly agrees is the very same essence, for if it be
different, it does not infinitely consent.
Again, we have shown that one alone cannot be excellent, inasmuch as in
such case, there can be no consent. Therefore, if God is excellent,
there must be a plurality in God. Otherwise there can be no consent in
him.
143. Trinity. Corollary to a former meditation of the
Trinity. Hence we see how generation by the Father, and yet coeternity
with the Father, or being begotten, and yet being eternal, are
consistent. For it is easy to conceive how this image, this thought,
reason or wisdom of God should be eternally begotten by him, and
begotten by him from eternity, and continually through eternity. And so
the Holy Spirit, that personal energy, the divine love and delight,
eternally and continually proceeds from both.
Corollary 2. Hence we see how and in what sense the Father is the
fountain of the Godhead, and how naturally and properly God the Father
is spoken of in Scripture, as of the Deity without distinction, as being
the only true God, and why God the Son should be commonly spoken of with
a distinction, and be called the Son of God, and so the Holy Spirit, the
Spirit of God. Remember to look, the next time I have the opportunity
of, to see if Spirit, in scripture phrase, is not commonly put for
affection, and never for understanding, and to show that there is no
other affection in God but love to himself.
146. Trinity. The word Spirit most commonly in Scripture is
put for affections of the mind. But there is no other affection in God
essentially, properly, and primarily, but love and delight, and that in
himself; for into this is his love and delight in his creatures
resolvable.
I
do not remember that any other attributes are said to be God, and God to
be them but ëóãïæ
and, áãáðç or
reason and love. I conclude because no other are in that a
personal sense….
151. Trinity. Vid. I believe that Jesus Christ not
only is exactly in the image of God, but in the most proper sense
is the image of God. Now however exactly one being, suppose of
one human body, may be like another. Yet I think one is not in the most
proper sense in the image of the other, but more properly in the image
of the other. Adam did not beget a son that was his image properly, but
in his image; but the idea of a thing is, in the most proper
sense of all, its image; and God’s idea the most perfect image….
179. Logos. It the more confirms me in it (that the perfect
idea God has of himself is truly and properly God) that the existence of
all corporeal things is only ideas. [See The Mind, No. 45.]
223. Trinity. The Apostle’s blessing, wherein he wishes “the
grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, the love of the Father, and the
communion of the Holy Ghost” (2 Cor. 13:14), contains not different
things but is simple: it is the same blessing, even the Spirit of God,
which is the comprehension of all happiness. Therefore, the Apostle in
his blessing to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 16:23-24) says, “The grace of
our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. My love be with you in Christ Jesus.
Amen.” — Christian love being the communication of Christ’s love, and
the Holy Ghost dwelling in us.
259. Trinity. It is evident that there are no more than these
three, really distinct in God — God, and his idea, and his love and
delight. We cannot conceive of any further real distinctions. If you say
there is the power of God, I answer, the power of a being, even in
creatures, is nothing distinct from the being itself besides a mere
relation to an effect. If you say there is the infiniteness, eternity of
God, and immutability of God — they are mere modes or manners of
existence. If you say there is the wisdom of God — that is the idea of
God. If you say there is the holiness of God — that is not different
from his love, as we have shown, and is the Holy Spirit. If you say
there is the goodness and mercy of God — they are included in his love,
they are his love with a relation. We can find no more in God that (even
in creatures) are distinct from the very being. Or there is no more than
these three in God but what (even in creatures) are nothing but the same
with the very being, or only some mere modes or relations. Duration,
expansion, changeableness or unchangeableness, so far as attributed to
creatures, are only mere modes and relations of existence. There are no
more than those three that are distinct in God, even in our way of
conceiving. There is, in resemblance to this threefold distinction in
God, a threefold distinction in a created spirit — namely, the spirit
itself, and its understanding, and its will or inclination or love. And
this indeed is all the real distinction there is in created spirits.
260. Trinity. There is no other properly spiritual image but
idea, although there may be another spiritual thing that is exactly
like. Yet one thing being exactly like another does not make it the
proper image of that thing. If there be any distinct spiritual substance
exactly like another, yet is not the proper image of the other, though
one be made after the other, yet it is not any more an image of the
first, than the first is of the last.
That Christ is the spiritual image and idea of God (see John 12:45;
14:7-9). Seeing the perfect idea of a thing is, to all intents and
purposes, the same as seeing the thing. It is not only equivalent to
seeing of it, but it is seeing of it. For there is no other seeing but
having an idea. Now, by seeing a perfect idea, so far as we see it, we
have it. But it cannot be said of anything else, that in seeing of it,
we see another, speaking strictly, except it be the very idea of the
other. The oil that signifies the Holy Ghost, with which Christ is
anointed, is called the oil of gladness: the Holy Ghost is God’s
delight, joy. Psa. 45:7; Isa. 61:3, “The oil of joy for mourning.” They
anointed themselves to express joy.
Another name of the Son of God that shows that he is God’s perfect idea,
is the Amen, which is a Hebrew word that signifies truth. Divine truth,
or the eternal truth of God, is God’s perfect understanding of himself,
which is his perfect understanding of all things.
308. Trinity. With respect to that objection against this
explication of the Trinity that according to this sort of reasoning,
there would not only be three persons but an infinite number — for we
must suppose that the Son understands the Father as well as the Father
the Son, and consequently the Son has an idea of the Father, and so that
idea will be another person, and so it may be said of the Holy Ghost —
objection is but a color without substance, and arises from a confusion
of thought and a misunderstanding of what we say. In the first
place, we do not suppose that the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost
are three distinct beings that have three distinct understandings. It is
the divine essence that understands, and it is the divine essence that
is understood. It is the divine being that loves, and it is the divine
being that is loved. The Father understands, the Son understands, and
the Holy Ghost understands because every one is the same understanding
divine essence, and not that each of them have a distinct understanding
of their own. Second. We never supposed that the Father generated
the Son by understanding the Son, but that God generated the Son by
understanding his own essence, and therefore the Son is that idea itself
or understanding of the essence. The Father understands the Son no
otherwise than as he understands the essence — that is, the essence of
the Son. The Father understands the idea he has merely in his having
that idea, without any other act. Thus a man understands his own partial
idea merely by his having that idea in mind. So the Son understands the
Father, in that the essence of the Son understands the essence of the
Father as, in himself, the understanding of the essence. And so of the
Holy Ghost. After you have in your imagination multiplied understandings
and loves never so often, it will be the understanding and loving of the
very same essence, and can never make more than these three, God, and
the idea of God, and the love of God. I would not be understood to
pretend to give a full explication of the Trinity. For I think it still
remains an incomprehensible mystery, the greatest and the most glorious
of all mysteries.
309. Trinity. The name of the second person in the Trinity,
Ëïãïò, evidences
that he is God’s idea, whether we translate the word “the reason of
God” or “the Word of God.” If the reason or the understanding of God,
the matter is past dispute, for everyone will own that the reason or
understanding of God is his idea. And if we translate it “the Word of
God,” it is either the outward Word of God or his inward. None will say
he is his outward. Now the outward word is speech, but the inward word,
which is the original of it, is thought, the Scripture being its own
interpreter. For how often is thinking in Scripture called speaking,
when applied to God and men! So that it is the idea, if we take
Scripture for our guide, that is the inward word.
336. Trinity. All the metaphorical representations of the
Holy Ghost in the Scripture, such as water, fire, breath, wind, oil,
wine, a spring, a river of living water as proceeding from God, do
abundantly the most naturally represent the perfectly active flowing
affection, holy love and pleasure of God. So the Holy Ghost is said to
be poured out, and shed forth; Acts 2:32, 33, and Titus 3:5-6. So love
is said to be shed abroad in our hearts.
341. Trinity. I can think of no other good account that can
be given of the apostle Paul’s wishing “grace and peace,” or “grace,
mercy, and peace from God the Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ” in the
beginning of his epistles without ever mentioning the Holy Ghost, but
that the Holy Ghost is the grace, the love and peace of God the Father,
and the Lord Jesus Christ. We find it so fourteen times in all
his salutations, in the beginning of his epistles, and in his blessing
at the end of his 2nd Epistle to the Corinthians, where all three
Persons are mentioned, he wishes grace and love from the
Son and the Father, but the communion of the Holy Ghost, that is
the partaking of him. The blessing from the Father and the Son,
is the Holy Ghost, but the blessing from the Holy Ghost is himself, a
communication of himself.
362. Trinity. We have a lively image of the Trinity in the
sun. The Father is as the substance of the sun; the Son is as the
brightness and glory of the disk of the sun, or that bright and glorious
form under which it appears to our eyes; the Holy Ghost is as the heat
and powerful influence, which acts upon the sun itself, and being
diffusive enlightens, arms, enlivens, and comforts the world. The
Spirit, as heat is God’s infinite love and happiness, is as the internal
heat of the sun, but as it is that by which God communicates himself, he
is as the emitted beams of God’s glory: 2 Cor. 3:18, that is, we are
changed to glory or to a shining brightness, as Moses was from, or by
God’s glory or shining, even as by the Spirit of the Lord, i.e.
which glory or shining is the spirit of the Lord. The word, that is
translated from with respect to glory, and by with respect to the
Spirit, is the same in the original: it is, in both, and therefore would
have been more intelligibly translated, “we are changed by glory into
glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord.” Moses was changed by God’s
glory shining upon him, even as we are changed by God’s Spirit, shed as
bright beams on us.
The
Spirit of God is called the Spirit of glory, 1 Pet. 4:14. The Spirit of
glory resteth upon you, upon two accounts, because it is the glory of
God, and as it were his emitted beams, and as it is the believer’s
glory, and causes him also to shine.
Indeed the whole animal creation, which is but for the shadows of
beings, is so made as to represent spiritual things. It might be
demonstrated by the wonderful agreement in thousands of things, much of
the same king as is between the types of the Old Testament and their
antitypes, and by their being spiritual things — being so often and
continually compared with them in the Word of God. And it is agreeable
to God’s wisdom that it should be so, that the inferior and shadowy
parts of his works should be made to represent those things that are
more real and excellent, spiritual and divine, to represent the things
that immediately concern himself and the highest parts of his work.
Spiritual things are the crown and glory, the head and soul, the very
end and Alpha and Omega of all other works. What, therefore, can be more
agreeable to wisdom than that they should be so made as to shadow them
forth? And we know that this is according to God’s method, which his
wisdom has chosen in other matters. Thus the inferior dispensation of
the gospel was all to shadow forth the highest and most excellent which
was its end. Thus almost everything that was said or done, that we have
recorded in Scripture from Adam to Christ, was typical of gospel things.
Persons were typical persons: their actions were typical actions, the
cities were typical cities, the nation of the Jews and other nations
were typical nations, their land was a typical land, God’s providences
towards them were typical providences, their worship was typical
worship, their houses were typical houses, their magistrates were
typical magistrates, their clothes were typical clothes, and indeed the
world was a typical world. And this is God’s manner to make inferior
things shadows of the superior and most excellent, outward things
shadows of spiritual, and all other things, shadows of those things that
are the end of all things and the crown of all things. Thus God
glorifies himself and instructs the minds that he has made.
370. Trinity. The various sorts of rays of the sun and their
beautiful colors do well represent the Spirit, and the amiable
excellency of God, and the various beautiful graces and virtues of the
Spirit. The same we find in Scripture are made use of by God for that
purpose, even to signify and represent the graces and virtues of the
Spirit. Therefore I suppose the rainbow was chosen to be a sign of the
covenant, and St. John saw a rainbow round about the throne of God, Rev.
4:3, and a rainbow upon the head of Christ, 10:1. So Ezekiel saw a
rainbow round about the throne, Eze. 1:28. And I believe the variety
that there is in the rays of the sun, and their various beautiful colors
were designed in the creation for this very purpose. See shadows of
divine things, No. 58.
There is yet more of an image of the Trinity in the soul of man. There
is the mind, and its understanding or idea, and the will or affection,
or love: answering to God, the idea of God, and the love of God.
376. Trinity. It can no other way be accounted for, that in
the first of 1 John 1:2-3, “Our fellowship” is said to be “with the
Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ,” and that it is not said to be
also with the Holy Ghost, but because our communion with them consists
in our communion of the Holy Ghost with them. It is in our partaking of
the Holy Ghost, that we have communion with Father and Son, and with
Christians. This is the common excellency and delight, in which they all
are united: this is the bond of perfectness, by which they are one in
the Father, and the Son, as the Father is in the Son and the Son in the
Father.
405. Trinity. It may be thus expressed, the Son is the Deity,
generated by God’s understanding or having an idea of himself. The Holy
Ghost is the divine essence flowing out, or breathed forth in infinite
love and delight, or which is the same, the Son is God’s idea of
himself, and the Spirit is God’s love to and delight in himself.
446. Trinity. Christ is called the “face” of God, Exo. 33:14,
and the “angel of God’s face” (Isa. 63:9), the word in the original
signifies face, or looks, form, or appearance of a thing. Now what can
be so fitly called so as God’s own perfect idea of himself, whereby he
has every moment a view of his own essence? This is that face, aspect,
form, or appearance, whereby God eternally appears to himself, and more
perfectly than man appears to himself by his form or appearance in a
looking glass. The root, that the word comes from, signifies to look
upon or behold. Now what is that which God looks upon, or beholds, in so
eminent a manner, as he does on his own idea, or the perfect image of
himself, which he has in view. This is that which is eminently in his
presence, this is the angel of his presence. |
