"his offspring." Now these expressions are to be deemed no less applicable to the Second and the Third, than to the First Person in the Godhead. II. The name FATHER, however, now falls to be considered by us personally, as the designation of the First Person. We shall observe that he is from himself; that he alone begat the Son, in an incomprehensible manner; and that from him, together with the Son, the Holy Spirit proceeded, in a manner equally ineffable. All that the Scriptures propound as the distinguishing properties of the Father, are comprised in this description. III. The first of these properties, is the Father's being the FIRST PERSON.* When we call the Father the first person, let it be observed, we do not understand the expression as relating to the order of DuraTION; as if he were before the other persons with regard to age or time. For the "goings forth" of the Son," have been from of old, even from everlasting." "The LORD possessed," this personal wisdom, "in the "beginning of his way, before his works of old," before all time. Hence Athanasius has justly said; "The "Son is of the Father without beginning, and begotten "of him from eternity." The Spirit also, through whose agency Christ was offered up as a spotless sacrifice to God, (which without any inconvenience, and even with great propriety, may be understood of the Third person,)38 is called "the Eternal Spirit."s Eter * Patris Personalis Primitas. † Ὑιὸν ἐκ τῇ Πατρὸς ἀναρχως και αϊδίως γεγεννημένον. Exposit. Fidei. d Acts xvii. 26, 27, 28. .2 .Mic. v מקדם מימי עולם * f Prov. viii. 22. 8 Heb. ix. 14. 38 See NOTE XXXVIII. vine. nity, indeed, is so essential a property of God, that a person not eternal ought not to be acknowledged as Di"Eternal power," is part of that which may be known of God from the suggestions of nature itself." What is eternal, too, could have nothing prior to it, even for a moment. Athanasius has, accordingly, well said in his Creed; "The Godhead of the Father, and "the Son, and the Holy Ghost, is one; and their ma"jesty CO-ETERNAL.”* IV. Again, we do not call the Father the First person, in the order of NATURE or CAUSALITY. This is nowhere affirmed in Scripture, beyond which it is not safe to speak on so awful a mystery. A cause is properly defined, that which gives existence to something else. But this cannot take place among the Divine persons, whose essence is one and the same. It is wrong, too, where the nature is one, as here, to entertain any conception of priority or posteriority of nature. The ancient Greek Christians, I am aware, admitted the cause and what is caused,† amongst the Divine persons. But though they thus employed phrases which scarcely merit approbation, their meaning was sound; they explicitly denied all priority and inequality of nature. Let us see how Damascenus expresses himself on this topic. "When "we say that the Father is the head of the Son, or 66 greater than the Son, we by no means affirm that he "is PRIOR IN TIME OR SUPERIOR IN NATURE TO "THE SON, for by him he made the worlds: We in"tend nothing but this, that the Father is the cause "of the Son; that is, that the Son was begotten of the "Father, not the Father of the Son." We disap * Καὶ συνδιαιωνιζεσα (alii legunt συναΐδιος) ή μεγαλειότης. † Tò dítiov xai To ITITY. See Forbes, lib. i. cap. 20. De Orthodoxa Fide, lib. i. cap. 9. h Rom. i. 20. prove of some expressions in this quotation, as inaccurate. To say that "the Father is the cause of the Son," is harsh, indistinct, and unscriptural. Nor is it true that, in that respect, the Father is greater than the Son; since the Son accounts it no robbery "to be equal "with God." Orthodoxy, however, is secured, when it is affirmed, that the Father is not styled the cause of the Son, in any other sense, but as the Son is begotten of him; and when all priority of nature and of time is excluded. i any v. In fine, we do not consider the Father as first in DIGNITY OF EXCELLENCE. Infinite and supreme excellence is an essential attribute of Deity: and if person were possessed of greater excellence and dignity than the Son or the Holy Spirit, neither of these persons could be the Most High God. "These three are one," i in essence, and in all essential attributes; equal in dignity, and equal in glory.* VI. But the Father is the First person in the following respects. 1st, In the order of SUBSISTENCE. The hypostasis is ascribed to the Father. The Son is called" the express image of his person," the character of his hypostasis. The Father, therefore, is the archetype, the Son the resemblance :‡ But the archetype is prior to that which is conformed to it.§ The Apostle makes use of the same similitude in another place, when he calls the Son "the image of the invisible "God." Whilst this priority deprives the Son of no part of his excellence, it brings no addition to that of * Ισότιμοι και ιτόδοξοι. † Εκτυπωμα. i Phil. ii. 6. k Χαρακτηρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως ἀντὅ. † Αρχέτυπος. § Τω ἐκτυπωθεντι. l'Eixwy tõ O18 tõ άogars. Col. i. 15. the Father. On the contrary, the equality of both is elegantly pointed out by this metaphor. Theophylact has the following beautiful remark: "The charac"ter, or the form expressed, doth not exceed the hypostasis, or the form expressing; lest, in so far as it "exceeds, it should have no hypostasis. Nor is the hypostasis greater than the character; otherwise, "some part of it, at least, would not be expressed." 66 66 VII. 2dly, In the order of OPERATION. Since the Father works by the Son, it necessarily follows that, in relation to the other persons, he works originally and from himself, and has in himself the principle of operation, as well personally as essentially. The following assertion of our Lord relates to this subject: "The Son "can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Fa"ther do; for what things soever he doeth, these also "doeth the Son likewise."m This declaration holds respecting the Son, considered as well in his Divine, as in his Mediatorial character. As, in his human nature, the Son doth nothing without the incitement, command, and example of the Father, but in all his actions performs the will and displays the holiness of the Father; so as the Son of God, he can do nothing "of himself," + nothing, as the Hebrews would express it 17, separately from the Father. The essence, the power, and the will of both, are one and the same; yet the Father takes the lead in the order of operation, and the Son "sees" him operating; that is, knows intimately, approves, and executes with perfect exactness, the Father's counsels and decrees,-which are, at the same time, his own. Thus it is clear that the order of operation begins on Αναρχος. preroga the part of the Father. Nor, again, doth this tive of order, derogate in the least from the supreme dignity of the Son; unless one should very absurdly regard it as an evidence of weakness and inferiority that, since the power and will of the Father and the Son are one and the same, the Son can neither do nor will any thing, but in and with the Father. The Son himself hath amply guarded his own dignity, by testifying, that "what things soever the Father doth, these also "doth the Son likewise." The meaning is not, as Grotius wrests the expression, that the Son does other works corresponding to these; but that he does the same works, and performs them in like manner. This is to be understood, as Nazianzen observes," not with respect "to the likeness of the things done, but with respect "to an equal dignity of power and authority." The expression intimates too, as Cyril of Alexandria says on this text," the absolute identity of the works." ‡ If the words are explained in this manner, they will furnish an incontestable proof, not only that our Lord had done nothing wrong in curing the impotent man, but even that it was utterly impossible for him to do wrong; because, provided only the distinction of the personal order of operation be preserved, the power and the will by which he works miracles, are the same with the power and the will of the Father. Now this was the scope of our Lord's discourse. VIII. The second characteristical property of the Father, is that he is OF HIMSELF. This is to be under • Ομοίως. † Ου κατα την γενομένων ὁμοίωσιν, ἀλλα κατα την της ἐξουσίας ομοτιμιαν. - Την εν τοις ἔργοις ἀπαράλλακτον ταυτότητα. VOL. I. 2 c 8. |