stood, not in relation to the essence, but to the mode of having the essence. With respect to the essence, both the Son and the Holy Spirit are that God who is of himself. That the Deity is of himself-that, owing to the glory of his infinite perfections, he depends on no other, but has his existence and all that he possesseth of himself, is so necessarily included in the notion of the Deity, that one who, with regard to his essence, is from another, for this precise reason, cannot be God. The ancients, therefore, rightly called Christ, God of himself, and by himself. Amongst other instances, Eusebius, in a panegyrical Oration on Paulinus, Bishop of Tyre, denominates Christ "the proper Son of "the supreme God, and God of himself;" + because being the true God, he possesses that Divine essence, which is from itself, although he has it as a Son from the Father. The Father, then, is from himself with regard to personality; that is, the Divine essence is communicated to him from no other person; for nowhere does the sacred volume intimate that the Father was begotten, or proceeded, or in any manner came forth from another. Athanasius, accordingly, has well said: "We believe in one unbegotten God, the Father Almighty, who hath his subsistence from himself."‡ IX. The third distinguishing property of the Father, is that HE ALONE FROM ETERNITY, BEGAT THE SON. He, accordingly, says, "Thou art my Son; this day "have I begotten thee." These words were addressed to Christ, as the Apostle expressly assures us, in a sense altogether peculiar to himself: but, in what this ge

66

* Αυτοθεός.

+ Τ5 καθόλ8 Θεῖ παιδα γνήσιον, καὶ ̓Αυτοθεόν. Hist. lib. x. cap. 4. + Exposit. Fidei.

n Ps. ii. 7. Heb. i. 5.

66

neration consists, it is impossible for us weak mortals to understand or explain. Athanasius, whom I have just quoted, very properly says, " He was begotten in a man"ner ineffable and incomprehensible."* The very idea of generation, however, properly so called, namely, that by which one is constituted the son of any person, includes the communication of the same nature.39 In created

persons, the nature is the same only in species; but in God, owing to his absolute unity, it is the same in reference to number. By the generation of the Son, then, we understand that act of God, by which he has communicated to the Son the same numerical essence which he himself hath, that the Son may have it in like man

ner.

x. We do not hazard these assertions without authority from sacred writ. The Son himself leads the way, saying, "As the Father hath life in himself, so hath "he given to the Son, to have life in himself."

"To

"have life in himself," is, not merely, to have enough for himself for that infinitely happy life, which alone is worthy of God; but, also, to be a fountain of life, to impant it to those who had no existence, and to restore it to those who are dead. These are essential perfections of God. In this manner," the Father hath life "in himself." Now the Father hath given to the Son to have the same life in himself, in the same manner; and this necessarily implies the communication of the same essence, which lives by itself, and is the source of all true life.40 Several Protestant Divines, I am aware, and some, too, of great eminence, contend that these expressions refer to Christ, not directly in relation to

* Εγεννήθη δε ανεκφραστος και απερινοήτως.

• John v. 26.

59 See NOTE XXXIX.

40 See NOTE XL.

his Divine character, but to his Mediatorial office.† But, although we should grant them this, (which, however, it is not necessary for us to do,) still it could not have been given to Christ, that, as Mediator, he should possess a fountain of life in himself, unless he possessed a nature which lives of itself, and which is even life from and by itself: For this is the peculiar prerogative of God, and hence the Psalmist adores him thus: "With thee is the fountain of life;" and this glory he will give to none that is not God.

XI. But we cannot so easily concede to our adversaries, that, by the generation of Christ mentioned in the second Psalm, his resurrection from the dead is intended; and that, by this day, we are to understand the day on which God, having raised him from the dead, appointed him the King of his church. For, 1st, To beget, signifies nowhere in the sacred volume, to rescue from death; and we are not at liberty to coin new significations of words. 2dly, Though, possibly, it were sometimes used in that metaphorical acceptation, (which, however, is not yet proved,) it cannot be understood in this passage in other than its proper

any

sense. It is here adduced as a reason for which Christ is called the Son of God. Now Christ is the Son of God, not figuratively, but properly; for the Father is called his proper Father, and he himself is denominated the proper Son of the Father;s by which designation he is distinguished from those who are his sons

* Κατα θεολογίαν.

† Αυτοζωή.

+ Κατ' οικονομίαν.

9 Is. xlii. 8.

$ To 1318 18. Rom. viii. 32.

in a metaphorical sense. 3dly, These words are spoken to Christ with a certain emphasis, with which they could not have been addressed to any of the angels, much less, to any of mankind. But if they meant nothing more than the raising of him from the dead, they would attribute nothing to Christ, which he doth not possess in common with many others, who, in like manner, are raised up by the power of God to glory and an everlasting kingdom. 4thly, Christ raised himself from the dead, too, by his own power;" from which it would follow, according to this interpretation, that he begat himself, and that he is his own Son. 5thly, It is not true, in fine, that Christ was not begotten of the Father, nor called his Son till that very day on which he was raised from the dead; for, as is abundantly manifest from the Gospel history, he often, when yet alive, professed himself the Son of God, and was often acknowledged as such. 6thly, To-day refers to time, when human concerns are in question; but this expression, when applied to Divine things, must be understood in a sense suitable to the majesty of the godhead. And if any word may be transferred from time to denote eternity, which is the complete and perfect possession, at once, of an interminable life; what can be better adapted to express its unsuccessive duration, than the term to-day?

XII. Nor can our adversaries derive any support to their cause from the words of Paul, Acts xiii. 32, 33. "And we declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the fathers, God hath "fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he

66

* Θεοπρεπώς.

t Heb. i. 5.

u Jolin ii. 19. x. 18.

66

66

"hath raised up Jesus ;* as it is also written in the se"cond Psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I be"gotten thee." For, 1st, Paul doth not here prove the resurrection of Jesus from the dead, from this expression in the second Psalm, (which, though it describes him who is raised again, doth not prove his resurrection;) but from Isaiah lv. 3, and Psalm xvi. 10, while he adds, verses 34th and 35th, " And, as concerning that he raised him up from the dead," &c. 2dly, The words, " having raised up Jesus," do not even relate to the resurrection of Jesus from the dead, but to the exhibition of him as a Saviour. This raising of him up,'is expressly distinguished from the raising of him again from the dead, which is subsequently spoken of, verse 34th. The meaning is, that God fulfilled the promise made to the fathers, when he exhibited Christ to mankind in the flesh. But what was that promise? This appears from the second Psalm, where God promises to the Church that, in due time, he would anoint as King over her, his own Son, begotten of himself, TO-DAY; that is, from eternity to eternity; for with God there is a perpetual to-day. Grotius, whose name is not offensive to our opposers, has remarked that Luke makes use of the same wordt to signify exhibiting in Acts ii. 30. iii. 26. To these we add another instance from chap. vii. 37. "A Prophet shall the Lord

your God raise up unto you." 3dly, Were we to admit that the words of the Psalm are applied to the resurrection of Christ, which seemed proper to Calvin,

̓Αναστήσας Ιησοῦν. The particle again, which is added after Jesus in our English version, is, at all events, unnecessary; and, if our author's interpretation be just, it tends, in some degree, to obscure the sense. T.

+ Αναστήσας.

+ Προφήτην ύμιν αναστήσει κύριος.