That the Holy One has revealed himself to man, in the use of a variety of names, each of which is appropriated to the illustration of some grand characteristic of the divine nature and its relations to man,-and that these names, taken together, serve to proclaim almost every important element in those characteristics, every one knows, who knows any thing of his Bible. That the Third Person is made known by a name which is peculiar to him, and descriptive of his relations to the other Persons, is also incontrovertible. Is it, then, conceivable that the First and Second are left without names equally descriptive and peculiar to them, as subsisting in the Godhead and concurring in man's creation and redemption, each in his appropriate mode? Can this be possible, when these are they, as Christ declares, the knowledge of whom, in their several and united divinity, is eternal life? (John xvii. 3.) 2. Still more absurd appears such an assumption, when we find that the Scriptures do actually reveal the names of Father and Son; and appropriate them in such a way as precisely to fill all the conditions of the case here set forth. In baptism,that most signal act of homage, in which the recovered members of a race apostate from God enter anew into his covenant, and consecrate themselves to him, as the object of their worship, and the author of their salvation, the Triune God,-the Persons of the Godhead are announced by the several names, "the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost." Thus is the distinctive name of the Third Person given; and with it are associated designations of the other Persons, which, thus occurring, we must conclude to be equally appropriate, equally descriptive and divine. This argument is yet further strengthened, by the fact that there is nothing revealed, concerning either the nature or the works of these blessed Persons, which does not find its normal relation to, and exposition in, these names, and the doctrine which they contain. Fully to unfold this argument, would be to write a volume. And our present treatise is designed to set forth, imperfectly, some of the great truths concerning God, in this very aspect. For the present, it is enough to suggest, that if eternal blessedness is attributed to these adorable Ones, it is as the Son rejoices always before the Father and dwells in his bosom; whilst the Father delights in him, his beloved, his Son. If they are the Creator of all things, it is as the Father forms the plan, and commissions the Son, his appropriate agent, to perform the work. If the plan of salvation is unfolded, it is as the Father devises it, and sends the Son. And the Son, on the other hand, though essentially equal, yet thus relatively as Son subordinate, presents himself, saying, "Lo, I come to do thy will." In short, he who will examine with careful scrutiny the whole revelation, concerning the Persons and works of the Trinity, will discover that every thing has its solution in these names; and the entire scheme acquires congruity and beauty, as its elements cluster around the central truths which are involved in their use, and asserted in appropriate description of the things signified by them. In fact, the unavoidable alternative is, practically to ignore the fact of a specific relation between the Persons of the Godhead, and assume that all which is revealed to us respecting them is, that, in some sense, they are three, and, in some other sense, one; or, else, distinctly to recognise the reality and significance of the doctrine of the eternal generation. For, in the Scriptures, every thing which is said by way of particular revelation, on the subject of the divine plurality, is spoken in terms of this doctrine. Every thing tends to present it as one of the essential relations in which the unity, plurality and perfections of God have their solution, and shine forth to bless the creatures. 3. Our last argument the reader will be better prepared to appreciate, when the discussions of this volume are closed. We merely state it; to be kept in view, as we endeavour to unfold and contemplate the wondrous way of God with man. In the whole doctrine of the Bible concerning God and man, the names and the relations of father and son occupy a position of signal importance. However to be explained, they are used, as we have seen, in a most intimate relation to the nature of God himself and the creation of all things. In them, we have the terms of the problem respecting the ruin of our race,-Adam our father and his sons. In the plan of redemption, Christ appears alternately, Son of man, bearing the curse,-Son of God, triumphing over Satan and death,—and father of a seed, who are redeemed by his blood. In the consummation of the work of grace, God proclaims himself our Father; and the full glory of that love and grace of God, which has embraced our world, culminates in the adoption of sons, and the privileges and inheritance thence resulting, on earth and forever in heaven. To us, these facts, which give the Scriptures all their lustre, and make the love and grace of God to shine in an ineffable light, are utterly irreconcilable with the supposition that the relations, paternal and filial, thus honoured, are relations merely human. Is it conceivable, that the glorious nature of God and Persons of the Godhead, the history of man, and the several steps in the scheme of God's eternal glory and man's unending bliss, all revolve as satellites around a relation purely human,-a relation limited to the earth, and destined to perish with the passing scenes of time? This seems especially absurd, when we remember the fact of man's destination to be the image and likeness of God; and the purpose of the whole work of God to be, the revelation and glory,—not of man, but of God. Of all this we shall see more hereafter. 11. Sum of the scriptural Brown of Haddington compresses the scriptural evidence, as to the eternal generation, into a few brief paragraphs, which are here presented, as a recapitulation of the Bible argument. argument. "He is not the Son of God by his miraculous conception and birth. (1.) The Holy Ghost is never represented as his Father, nor could be, without admitting two fathers in the Godhead. That 'holy thing born' is called the Son of God, because his manhood subsisted in the person of the Son of God.-Luke i. 35. He had the character and relation of Son of God, long before his conception or birth.-Prov. xxx. 4; Psalm ii. 7; Gal. iv. 4; John iii. 16, 17. (2.) According to his human nature or flesh, he is the Son of man,-of Abraham, David,-and not the Son of God. (3.) His being 'made of a woman' was subsequent to his being the Son of God.-Romans viii. 3, 32; Gal. iv. 4. (4.) His extraordinary conception and birth could never render him 'the only begotten Son of God,' as he is termed,-John i. 14, and iii. 16, 18; 1 John iv. 9; since Adam was his son by creation, and Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Samson, Samuel, and John Baptist, were procreated by extraordinary influence; tho' indeed very different from that which was exerted in the production of Christ's manhood. "Nor is he called the Son of God, on account of God's raising him from the dead; for (1) He was the Son of God long before. -Matt. iii. 17, xvii. 5; John v. 16, 17, x. 30, 36; Mark xiv. 61, 62; Matt. xvi. 15, 16; John vi. 69, i. 49. (2.) If his resurrection had rendered him the Son of God, he would have been his own father, as he raised himself.-John x. 17, 18, ii. 19. (3.) This could not have rendered him 'the only begotten Son of God;' as millions beside have or shall be raised from the dead.—Matt. xxvii. 52, 53; John v. 28, 29; 1 Thess. iv. 14, 16; Rev. xx. 12. Nor doth Acts xiii. 33 import that he became Son of God by his resurrection, but that his sonship was manifested by it, (compare Rom. i. 3, 4;) and that his resurrection publicly proved that the word of salvation, particularly that Psalm ii. 7, 8, was then exhibited, given, and fulfilled to men. "Nor doth his mediatorial office constitute him the Son of God. (1.) A mission on an errand, or an appointment to service, cannot, in the nature of things, constitute sonship. (2.) His sonship is represented as prior to his commission to, or execution of, his mediatorial office.-John iii. 16; Gal. iv. 4; 1 John iv. 9, 10, iii. 8; Heb. v. 8. (3.) His divine sonship puts virtue into his mediatorial office; and so cannot depend on it.—Heb. iv. 14. (4.) His being 'from the Father' in respect to his sonship is expressly distinguished from his being 'sent' to execute his mediatorial office. John vii. 29. "But he is the Son of God by necessary and eternal generation; that is, by such necessity, that the divine nature cannot at all exist without subsisting in him, in the form and relation of a Son to the First Person. (1.) In many texts of Scripture, he is simply called the Son of God, and in that character represented as the Most High God, the Lord God of his people, the Lord God, God the Saviour.-Luke i. 16, 17, 32, 35, 46, 47,—as coming from heaven and above all,-John iii. 31; Matt. xi. 27, -and as the object of faith and worship,-John iii. 17, 36, ix. 35-38; Matt. iv. 33, xxvii. 54,—or as the same with God,—Heb. i. 8; 1 John iii. 8, with 1 Tim. iii. 16,-and as equal with his Father.-Matt. xxviii. 19; John v. 21. (2.) God hath given the most solemn and emphatic testimonies to his divine sonship.Matt. iii. 17, xvii. 5. The first of these texts, literally translated, runs, 'This is that my Son, my beloved one, in whom I am well pleased.' And in the other, we are commanded to 'hear him,' as infinitely superior to Moses and Elias, his then visitants, who had been the most extraordinary of all the Old Testament prophets..... (3.) The Scriptures represent him as God's 'own Son,' his 'proper Son,' his 'Son of himself.'-John i. 14, 18, iii. 16, 18; Rom. viii. 3, 32; 1 John iv. 9, 12. If these expressions do not represent him as the Son by natural generation, what can do it? (4.) His being the Christ, Messiah, or Mediator is plainly distinguished from his being the Son of God.-John i. 49, vi. 69; Matt. xvi. 16; Heb. v. 8; 1 John iv. 14. (5.) When he was charged with blasphemy in making himself equal with God, by calling himself the Son of God, he plainly acquiesced in their interpretation of his words; and, instead of showing them that his claim of sonship to God, did not infer his claim of equality with God, he took occasion further to assert and demonstrate his supreme Godhead.-John v. 16-29, x. 30-36, xix. 7; Matt. xxvi. 63-65. Nay, perhaps, 'making himself equal with God,' John v. 18, are not the words of the persecuting Jews, but of the inspired evangelist. (6.) It was not from acts properly mediatorial, but from divine acts, that he was concluded to be the Son of God.Matt. iv. 3, 6, xiv. 33, xxvii. 40, 54; John i. 49. (7.) If the title, Son of man, import his possession of a real manhood, his character, Son of God, God's proper Son, Son of himself, and only begotten Son of God, must certainly import his possession of the divine nature, true and supreme Godhead. Now, if he be the Son of God, by nature, he must be his eternal Son, begotten from all eternity; for nothing that is not necessarily eternal in the highest sense, can be natural to God. Nor is there the least impropriety in God's calling his own eternity, 'this day,' as |