There is evidently no inconsistency in the simple scriptural statement given in the answer to the last question. Heterodox controversialists, however, have claimed that there is a manifest inconsistency in the orthodox theory that the Father communi- cates to the Son the whole divine essence without alienating it from himself, dividing or otherwise changing it. This subject does not fall within the legitimate sphere of human logic, yet it is evident that this theory involves no contradiction and no mys- tery greater than that involved in the whole essence of God being at the same time present, without division or diffusion to every point of space.
148 THE HOLY TRINITY.
55. If God is " ens a se ipso" self -existent, how can the S071 he really God, if he be " Oeog en deov," God from the Father ?
The objection presented in this question does not pi ess against the scriptural statement of the eternal generation of the Son pre- sented above (question 53,) but solely against the theory of deri- vation as involved in the ordinary definition (see question 52.) Those who insist upon the validity of that view rebut the objec- tion by saying that self-existence is an attribute of essence, not of person. The Father, as a person, generates the person, not the essence of the Son, whose person is constituted of the very same self-existent essence with the Father's. Thus the Son is dvrodeog, i. e., Deus a se ipso as to his essence, but Oeog etc deov, God from God, as to his person.
56. What argument for the eternal sonship of Christ may be derived from the designation of the persons of the Trinity as Father, Son, and Holy Ghost ?
In the apostolical benediction and the formula of baptism the one God is designated as Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. The term Son cannot here be applied to Christ as an official title, or as a miraculously generated man, because, 1st, he is so called as one of the three divine persons constituting the Godhead. 2d. The term Son is reciprocal to the term Father, and therefore designates the relation of the second person to the first. What- ever this relation may involve besides, it evidently must be eter- nal and necessary, and includes paternity on the part of the first person, and filiation on the part of the second.
57. What argument in support of this doctrine may be de- rived from the use of the word son in Matt. xi. 27 and Luke
x. 22 ?
In both of these passages the term Son is used to designate the divine nature of the second person of the Trinity in his rela- tion to the first. The Son, as Son, knows and is known by the Father as Father. He is infinite in knowledge and therefore knows the Father. He is infinite in being and therefore can be known by none other than the Father.
ETERNAL SONSHIP OF CHRIST. 149
58. State the argument from John i., 1-14.
Here the eternal Word, who was God, discovered himself as such to his disciples by the manifestation of his nativ^ divine glory, " the glory as of the only begotten of the Father." He was " only begotten Son," therefore as God, and not either as Mediator or as man.
59. State the argument from the application in Scripture of the terms fiovoyevrjg, (only begotten) and Idiog, {own) to the Son- ship of Christ.
Although many of God's creatures are called his sons, the phrase, Son of God in the singular, and when limited by the terms " own" and " only begotten," is applied only to Christ.
Christ is called "only begotten Son of God." — John i., 14, 18; iii., 16, 18 ; 1 John iv., 9.
In John v., 18, Christ calls God his oivn Father, (see Greek.) He is called the own Son of the Father. — Rom. viii., 32.
The use of these qualifying terms proves that Christ is called Son of God in a sense different from that in which any other is so called. Therefore it designates him as God and not as man, nor as the bearer of an office.
60. What is the argument derived from John v., 22, and con- text, and from John x., 33-37.
In the first passage the terms Father and son are used to designate two divine and equal persons. As Son, Christ does whatsoever the Father doeth, and is to receive equal honor.
In the second passage, Jesus assumes the title, " Son of God," as equivalent to assenting that he was God. The Jews charging it upon him as blasphemy.
61. What is the evidence furnished by such passages as speak of the manifestation, giving or sending of the Son ?
See 1 John iii., 8 ; Rom. viii., 3 ; John iii., 16, etc. To say that the Son was sent or manifested implies that he was Son before he was sent or manifested as such.
62. State the argument from Rom. i., 3, 4.
The argument from this passage is two-fold : 1st. The Son of
150 THE HOLY TRINITY.