The orthodox fathers used the phrase logos endiathetos to designate the Word, whom they held to be a distinct person, dwelling from eternity with the Father. The ground of their use of this phrase was a fanciful analogy which they conceived existed between the relation which the eternal logos (word, or reason),. (John i., 1,) sustains to the Father, and the relation which the reason of a man sustains to his own rational soul. Thus the logos endiathetos was God's own reflective idea hypostatized. They were led to this vain attempt to philosophize upon an in- comprehensible subject by the influence exerted upon them by the Platonic philosophers of that age, who taught a sort of metaphy- sical trinity, e. g., that in the one God there were three constitu- ent principles, to dyadov, goodness, vovg, intelligence, ipvxrj, vital- ity. Their immediate object was to illustrate the essential unity of the Trinity, and to prove, against the Arians, the essential divinity of the Son, from the application to him by John of the epithet Xoyog 6eov.
By the phrase logos prophoricos they intended to designate
146 THE HOLY TRINITY.
him as the reason of God revealed, when he proceeded from the Father in the work of creation.— See Hill's Lectures.
The Arians, taking advantage of the essential inadequacy of this language, confused the controversy by acknowledging that the phrase logos prophoricos did truly apply to Christ, since he came forth from God as the first and highest creation and image of his mind. But declaring, with some color of truth, that the phrase logos endiathetos, when applied to Christ, taught pure Sabellianism, since it marked no personal distinction, but signified nothing else than the mind of the Father itself.
51. How is the doctrine of Christ's sonship stated in the Ni- cene and Athanasian creeds ?
See those creeds in Appendix A.
52. What is the common statement and explanation of this doctrine given by orthodox writers ?
The eternal generation of the Son is commonly defined to be an eternal personal act of the Father, wherein, by necessity of nature, not by choice of will, he generates the person (not the essence) of the Son, by communicating to him the whole indi- visible substance of the Godhead, without division, alienation, or change, so that the Son is the express image of his Father's per- son, and eternally continues, not from the Father, but in the Father, and the Father in the Son. — See particularly Heb. i., 3 ; John x., 38 ; xiv., 11 ; xvii., 21. The principal Scriptural sup- port of the doctrine of derivation is John v., 26. — Turrettin, Tom. I., L. 3, Q. 29.
Those theologians who insist upon this definition believe that the idea of derivation is necessarily implied in generation ; that it is indicated by both the reciprocal terms Father and Son, and by the entire representation given in the Scriptures as to the rela- tion and order of the persons of the Godhead, the Father always standing for the Godhead considered absolutely ) and they hold that this theory is necessary to the vindication of the essential unity of the three persons. The older theologians, therefore, styled the Father nnyw 6 sornrog, fountain of Godhead, and atria vcov, principle or cause of the Son, while the Son and Holy Ghost were both called airiaroi (those depending upon another .as their principle or cause).
ETERNAL SONSHIP OF CHRIST. 147
They at the same time guarded the essential equality of the Son and the Holy Ghost with the Father, by saying, 1st, that the whole divine essence, without division or change, and, there- fore, all the divine attributes, were communicated to them ; and, 2d3 that this communication was made by an eternal and necessary act of the Father, and not of his mere will.
53. What is essential to the scriptural doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son ?
In the above rendered account of the orthodox doctrine there is nothing inconsistent with revealed truth. The idea of deri- vation, as involved in the generation of the Son by the Father, appears rather to be a rational explanation of revealed facts than a revealed fact itself. On such a subject, therefore, it should be held in suspense. All that is explicitly revealed is, 1st, the term Son is applied to Christ as the second person of the Godhead. 2d. This term, and the equivalent one, "only begotten," reveal some relation, within Godhead, of the person of the Son to the person of the Father. The designation Father being reciprocal to that of Son. 3d. That this relation is such that Father and Son are the same in substance, and are personally equal ; that the Father is first and the Son second in the order of revelation and operation, that the Son is the express image of the Father's per- son, not the Father of the Son's, and that the Son is not from the Father, but in the Father, and the Father in the Son.
54. How may it be shown that the common doctrine is not self -contradictory ?