Nicene Creed for what it teaches on that &i!')ioLt. It does not go beyond the facts of Scripture. But llie iiilljris v/mo framed that creed, and those by whom it was defended, {o<[ go o^'vond those facts. They endeavoured to explain wlipt av.is ilie n:Miiie of that subordination. While denying to the Father any priority or su- periority to the other persons of the Trinity, as to being or perfec- tion, they still spoke of the Father as the Monas, as having in order of thought the whole Godhead in Himself; so that He alone was God of Himself QavToOeos, in that sense of the word), that He was the fountain, the cause, the root, fons, origo, principium, of the divinity as subsisting in the Son and Spirit ; that He was greater than the other divine persons. They understood many passages which speak of the inferiority of the Son to the Father, of the Logos as such ; and not of the historical Son of God clothed in our nature. Thus Waterland ^ says of these fathers, " The title of o ©cos, being understood in the same sense with avrd^eo?, was, as it ought to be, generally reserved to the Father, as the distinguish- ing personal character of the first person of the Holy Trinity. And this amounts to no more than the acknowledgment of the Father's prerogative as Father. But as it might also signify any Person who is truly and essentially God, it might properly be ap- plied to the Son too : and it is so applied sometimes, though not so often as it is to the Father."
Hilary of Poictiers expresses the general idea of the Nicene fathers on this point, when he says : " Et quis non Patrem potio- rem confitebitur, ut ingenitum a genito, ut patrem a filio, ut eura qui miserit ab eo qui missus est, ut volentem ab ipso qui obediat ? Et ipse nobis erit testis : Pater major me est. Hsec ita ut sunt, mtelligenda sunt, sed cavendum est, ne apud imperitos gloriam Filii honor Patris infirmet."^
Bishop Pearson^ says the preeminence of the Father "unde- niably consisteth in this : that He is God not of any other but of Himself, and that there is no other person who is God, but is God of Himself. It is no diminution to the Son, to say He is from another, for his very name imports as much ; but it were a dimi- nution to the Father to speak so of Him ; and there must be some preeminence, \^'here there is place for derogation. What the Father is. He is from none ; what the Son is. He is from Hint ; what
1 Works, vol. i. p. 315.
2 De Trinilale, in., Works, Paris, 1631, p. 23, a. See on this point SchafTs History of the Christian Church, vol. iii. § 130. Gieseler's Kirchencjeschichte, vol. vi. § 60. Pearson On the Creed, and especially, Bull's Defence of the Nicene Creed, fourth section.
« Page 35. VOL. I. 30
466 PART I. — THEOLOGY. [Ch. VI. — The Trinity.
the first is, He giveth ; what the second is, He receiveth. The First is Father indeed by reason of his Son, but He is not God by reason of Him ; wliereas the Son is not so only in regard of the Father, but also God by reason of the same." Among the pati'istical authorities quoted by Pearson, are the following from Augustine : ^ " Pater de nullo patre, Filius de Deo Patre. Pater quod est, a nullo est : quod autem Pater est, propter Filium est. Filius vero et quod Fihus est, propter Patrem est ; et quod est, a Patre est." " Fihus non hoc tantum habet nascendo, ut Filius sit, sed omnino
ut sit Filius non tantum ut sit Filius, quod relative dici-
tur, sed omnino ut sit, ipsam substantiam nascendo habet." ^
The Reformers themselves were little inclined to enter into these speculations. They were specially repugnant to such a mind as Luther's. He insisted on taking the Scriptural facts as they were, without any attempt at explanation. He says : " We should, like the little children, stammer out Avhat the Scriptures teach : that Christ is truly God, that the Holy Ghost is truly God, and yet that there are not three Gods, or three Beings, as there are three Men, three Angels, three Suns, or three Windows. No, God is not thus divided in his essence ; but there is one only divine Being or substance. Therefore, although there are three persons, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost, yet the Being is not divided or distinguished ; since there is but one God in one single, undivided, divine substance." ^
Calvin also was opposed to going beyond the simple statement of tlie Scriptures.* After saying that Augustine devotes the fifth book on the Trinity to the explanation of the relation between the Father and the Son, he adds : " Longe vero tutius est in ea quam tradit relatione subsistere, quam subtilius penetrando ad sublime mysterium, per multas evanidas speculationes evagari. Ergo quibus cordi erit sobrietas et qui fidei mensura contenti erunt, breviter quod utile est cognitu accipiant : nempe quum profitemur nos cre- dere in unum Deum, sub Dei nomine intelligi unicam et simplicem essentiam, in qua comprehendimus tres personas vel hypostaseis : ideoque quoties Dei nomen indefinite ponitur, non minus Filium et Spiritum, quam Patrem designari : ubi autem adjungitur Filius Patri, tunc in medium venit relatio: atque ita distinguimus inter per- sonas. Quia vero proprietates in personis ordinem secum ferunt,
1 In Joannis Evangelium Trnctatus, xix. 13, edit. Benedictines, vol. iii. p. 1903, a. 3 De Trinitate, v. xv. 16, vol. viii. p. 1286, c, d.
3 Die Dritte Predujt a. Tnge d. Iieil. Dreifaltif/k, 5; WorJcs, ed. Walch, vol. xiii. p. 1510
4 InslUutio, I. xiii. 19, 20, edit. Berlin, 1834, part i. pp. 100, 101.