sustain to each other, as to the manner of their subsistence, that the one infinite nature is communicated from the Father to the Son, in a generation, not voluntary, but of the very nature of the divine essence; a generation which is not occasional, but continual; which does not originate, but is from everlasting and to everlasting; and in which, each of those blessed Persons possesses the whole infinite fulness of the divine essence, not jointly, but in common and undivided.*

2. Whilst this wondrous generation of the Son does indicate a priority of the Father, in the order of subsistence and of operation,—yet is it so far from implying any essential or real inferiority in the Son, that it involves directly the reverse. A superficial view might suggest the idea that analogy is opposed to the equality of father and son. But in fact, even among men, the difference is merely one of order and precedence of action, dependent upon temporal relations, and reasons of social convenience. Essentially, they are equal; possessing the same nature, and endowed with the same attributes. The Jews, seeking to kill Jesus, "because he said that God was his Father, making himself equal with God,"-John v. 18, were correct in the conclusion which they derived from the language of Christ; and fully sustained by analogy, in coming to that conclusion.

3. As to the Holy Spirit, the mode of his subsistence is by a necessary and eternal communication of the same divine essence, which is in the Father and Son, not by generation, but by a spiration or breathing forth, from them; through which the Third Person has communion in the divine nature coequally with the First and Second. Here the remark, already made respecting the Son, is to be applied; that the relation thus subsisting is one of essential equality; inasmuch as it involves the possession by each of the whole fulness of the one divine essence, in which each Person equally and wholly subsists.

"Ut omnis generatio dicit communicationem essentia a parte gignentis genito, per quam genitus fiat similis gignenti, et eandem cum ipso naturam participet; ita generatio ista admirabilis recte exponitur per communicationem essentiæ a Patre, per quem eandem cum illo essentiam Filius indivisibiliter possidet, et illi sit simillimus.”—Turrettin., Loc. III., Quæst. xxix. 4.

4. Not only are these Persons of the Godhead coequal, but coeternal. Although the phenomena of generation and spiration, as observed in men, intimate-as do all phenomena of creatures-finite origin and temporal succession, this suggestion is precluded in the cases here considered, by the fact that the phenomena are predicated of the very nature of God. And as every idea of beginning or change is incompatible with true conceptions respecting that nature, it follows, that the Three are equally and alike unoriginated and eternal,-a conclusion abundantly attested by the Scriptures.

5. From the whole doctrine here stated, it will be seen that it would be improper to speak of any one of the Persons as God, in contradistinction to the rest. Whilst each one is God, it is by a common and not a several divinity; by virtue of the common possession of the one undivided divine essence. It is objected that the assertion of three divine Persons is equivalent to saying that there are three Gods. But the objection is groundless. A person is a several subsistence, endowed with a moral nature. And although there be three several subsistences in the divine nature, and therefore three Persons, this is perfectly consistent with the unity of the Godhead; since the nature or essence in which these Three subsist is a unit. There is "one Lord, and his name one."-Zech. xiv. 9.

Should any object to the phraseology employed in this discussion; and insist that the various expressions used, such as, "communication," "begetting," "generation," "spiration," are expressive of finite and human relations; and, by the very force of the terms, involve the supposition that the relations so described are of a finite nature and temporal origin,—our reply is,—that if the nature of God were described in terms peculiar to it alone, the result would be to render the account utterly unintelligible; that most of the objectionable expressions are the very words of the Scripture; and all of them abundantly authorized by scriptural usage;-and that, as we have sufficiently seen, the manner in which they are introduced, and the subjects to which they are applied, obviate any danger of misapprehension on the part of the candid and teachable. In fact,

there are very few words employed in the Bible, to designate divine perfections, which do not require to be understood in a sense different from that recognised in their application to other things. We are justified, by the usage of the sacred writers, in attributing thought, deliberation and decision, to God. Yet a moment's reflection must satisfy the intelligent reader, that it is as impossible for our finite capacities to conceive of these, divested of relation to time, as so to conceive of generation. The attempt is vain by searching to find out God.

The object of this discussion has been,-not so much a full exposition of the doctrine concerning the nature of God,-as, a notice of some of the aspects of that nature, which, commonly, are less insisted upon, and which sustain very important relations to the doctrines of the following pages.

The Three whom we have here seen, in revealed, yet mysterious relations to each other, are that one God whom we adore, —a spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable: in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth; by whom all things were created, and for whose pleasure they are, and were created. Unto Him be glory in the church, by Christ Jesus, throughout all ages, world without end. Amen.

demands object.

an

CHAPTER II.

THE ETERNAL PLAN.

"His ways are everlasting."-HABBAKUK iii. 6.

It would be extreme folly, or madness, were an individual to expend toil and money, in the construction of a vast and com1. Wisdom plicated piece of mechanism, without having fixed on any specific object to be accomplished by it. The same charge would apply, if, having a purpose in view, he should proceed, without careful consideration so as to adapt his means to the proposed end; or should he devise a suitable plan and place it in the hands of the superintendent, whilst individual workmen are permitted to act independently of that plan, and to use such materials and work to such a model as may happen to suit their convenience or strike their fancy. In short, no intelligent person will bring his resources to task, without setting before himself some specific and suitable end; it is the part of a wise man, proposing to himself such an end, to devise a plan as perfect in all its parts as possible, and in its execution to use such materials, labourers and machinery, and such only, as are precisely suited to the end in view; and, to secure success, strict attention is as requisite to the minutest details as to the more extensive features. Not only so, but, where an enterprise has been undertaken, failure in any of its parts is proof either of ignorance or of want of forethought and deficiency of resources; as it is certain that he who has fully comprehended the obstacles which lie in his way, unless he is conscious of resources adequate to surmount them, will abandon the plan as sure to fail.

These principles are as applicable to the works of God, as to those of man. "Known unto God are all his works from the be

ginning of the world."-Acts xv. 18. If it is a characteristic of rational creatures that their acts are prompted by the expectation of attaining suitable ends, how much more must it be with Him whose understanding is infinite! The existence of the simplest piece of mechanism, the product of human labour, demonstrates the maker to have had an object in view. What then must be our conclusion, as we behold the creation of God; the heavens, the work of his fingers, the moon and the stars which he hath ordained, in all their astonishing structure and motions, our own bodies, so fearfully and wonderfully made, and the innumerable beings which fill and people earth and heaven! Can we believe that He, who in wisdom made them all, had no object in so doing? The Scriptures are unambiguous in their testimony on this subject. They declare the glory of the Creator to be the great end of all his works.

Let us for a moment forget that the teeming universe has existence, and contemplate that eternity where Jehovah dwelt from everlasting. When, in the council of the blessed Three, creation was decreed, where shall we look for the motive of this determination? Certainly not to the creatures which as yet have no existence. To operate as a motive, to exercise an influence, implies existence already possessed. But here, the very question is, whether such beings shall be called into existence. Plainly, the motive in such a case, must be sought, not in the possible creatures, who may, as the result, receive existence, but in the Being who is at once sole Existence and only Cause. Let it not, however, be imagined that this reason consisted in any need of the Creator; as though by this means he could acquire any new power, pleasure, or emolument. This would, in any aspect of the supposition, be the contradiction and absurdity of supposing the creature, which receives its existence and all that is in it from him, and which lives and moves in him, to have something which is not from its Creator, the acquisition of which may be profitable to him. But the very name which he proclaims rebukes the impious suggestion :-"I AM that I am.

This is my name forever, and this is my memorial to all