To know God is everlasting life; but all true know ledge of God proceeds only from revelation. As the sun is seen only by its own light, so is the Infinite contemplated only in the light which He Himself sheds for the eye of him who seeks Him. And in reality He has not left Himself without witness to man, created after His own image. Nature is the clear mirror which displays to us His adorable Being; reason and conscience are the revelation of God in our heart; the history of the ages shows to us not only that there is a God, but also how He, the Almighty One, with adorable wisdom, righteousness, and love, guides the course of events, and makes them subservient to the fulfilment of His high decrees. Thus He gave to our race a general revelation, even to those upon whom the light of the Gospel does not shine. And when sin, having come into the world, exerted its baneful influence, and called forth the need for redemption, it pleased Him to give another revelation, and to open up the way of deliverance, which sinful man, left to his own light, could not possibly have discovered.¹ In the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament we have the original documents of this nearer, particular revelation. Its history is thus admirably set forth by an Apostolic writer: “God, having spoken at sundry times and in divers manners in time past to the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken to us by the Son.”²

In receiving this memorial of the special revelation of God into our hands, we have, without doubt, taken an important step in advance, upon the way to the sanctuary of the knowledge of God. Questions, the solution of which earth had attempted in vain, have been answered for us with indisputable authority from heaven itself: that with regard to which the voice of nature had been silent, is proclaimed to us by the word of grace. Yet we have no right to expect that such nearer revelation of God will explain to us all the enigmas of His adorable Being. Rather is it to be expected, from the nature of the case, that every unravelled mystery will awaken in us the supposition of the existence of additional mysteries, which it is not given us perfectly to fathom. With every veil of mist which the sun dispels from before its face, the brighter becomes the lustre which it sheds, but the more too does it dazzle our eyes. Holy Scripture accordingly never comes to us with the promise of explaining to us the deepest mysteries of the nature of God. On the contrary, it everywhere places in the foreground the incomprehensibleness of God for the finite intellect; the knowledge of God attained to by the light of the Bible may indeed be a pure one, but never a complete one. How then can we be surprised to learn from the Bible things in relation to the nature of God, of which we should never have had the faintest conception without a nearer revelation, and which, even after they are made known to us, display a dark and mysterious side? Much more would it call forth reasonable surprise, and awaken a well-grounded distrust, if we should here learn nothing but what the mind. of man could easily have itself discovered by prolonged reflection. It is true, we might reasonably expect of a special revelation of God, that it would contain nothing which is in irreconcilable conflict with the general revelation, in reason and conscience, in nature and history. The true and unchangeable One cannot possibly be in conflict with Himself; the one revelation may complete the other, but not contradict or annul it. But certainly the special revelation may proclaim things which surpass the power of our limited understanding to comprehend, and in connection with which we accept the fact on Divine testimony, without the manner in which it is so becoming perfectly clear to us. It is the province and duty of reason to examine the basis, the sense, the connection of an extraordinary revelation, and its harmony with the character of God; and it will do this so much the better, in proportion as it is enlightened by the Holy Spirit. But to reject the irrefutable contents of the Biblical revelation, merely because this contains depths as yet unfathomed, and perhaps unfathomable, may be designated as not merely unchristian, but also as unreasonable and immoral. It is impossible conscientiously to regard the nature and limits of the human capacity for knowledge in the supersensuous domain, without coming to the conviction that Rationalism, as well in its newer as in its more ancient form, is nothing but vain assumption, in part sprung from boundless pride, and not seldom allied to the greatest superficiality, under the guise of a profoundly scientific spirit. Conscientious heathen and philosophic thinkers or poets have often spoken with greater modesty of the mysteries of the Godhead,³ than Christian Theologians, who, with lofty tone, decide à priori what in its nature and operation were possible or impossible, and could, perhaps, prove everything, except their own competency.

It will surely not be asked, why: we begin our investigation by reminding of that which is perhaps doubted by none, and yet is forgotten by so many? We could not address ourselves to the task of presenting the image of the Son of God in His relation to the whole Divine Nature, without first of all placing ourselves at the standpoint from which this thrice hallowed mystery must be regarded and treated of. He who knows no other God than the God of nature and reason alone, will at once meet with a stumbling-block in the conception of a Son of God, as existing in distinction from the Father. He who reverences the Revelation of the Bible, but only so far as he can grasp it with his finite intellect, must be offended with all which the Gospel proclaims to him of this Son of God, in His original, pre-mundane relation to the Father. Only he who has learnt to distrust all his own knowledge of, and acquaintance with, Divine things, so far as this does not rest upon the testimony of God Himself, is in a condition to prize the light which the Gospel sheds upon the nature of the Son, not less than upon the work of the Father.

“Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God is one Lord.”⁴ This word contains the fundamental truth, not only of the Mosaic Religion, but also of the Christian, and even of that of Islam. The Biblical Revelation inexorably excludes the doctrine of Polytheism, not less than that of Pantheism. The God who here speaks by His divinely enlightened messengers, is a personal, sovereign, living God, definitely distinct from all that exists through Him and outside Himself; no power, but a Being; no something, but a person, a. God who can be personally worshipped, loved, and obeyed. Existing from all eternity in and of Himself, He unites all perfections in Himself, in the most perfect manner; but although these perfections are, for our clouded eye, separated, even apparently in conflict with each other, yet He who possesses them is unchangeably one and the same. He is that He was, He remains that He is; and as His nature is perfectly unlimited and infinite, so also it remains absolutely indivisible, because it is purely spiritual. Yet this oneness of the Divine nature is no abstract,. uniform, mere numerical unity, no unity of the intellectual conception, but of life; which so far from excluding an inner diversity and fulness of existence, rather presupposes and requires it. As we observe in one and the same man a clearly defined diversity of spirit, soul, and body, by which the higher unity of his nature is by no means destroyed, but rather preserved and expressed, so do we meet with a manifold life, in perfect consistency with the oneness of His Nature, in the God who here reveals Himself. And this we might expect, for He is the highest Love, and the highest Love can just as little exist as be thought of without an object adequate to it. This object, cannot be the finite, imperfect world, which is dependent on God. He must possess this object, if it is to be fully worthy of Him, not out of, but in Himself. It was this conviction which has led even heathen philosophy of earlier and later centuries, either to suppose an eternal existence of creation, as the object of the love and delight of God, or to ascribe to the One True God a plurality of existence, by which alone He could be perfectly self-sufficient. Holy Scripture knows no other than a finite creation, which has arisen, not as the result of the blind impulse of an unconditional necessity in the nature of the Creator Himself, but only at the fiat of. His omnipotence, and by the free will of His love. But the same Scripture also assures us that the highest love had no need of a world external to Himself, in order to be perfectly happy and blessed in Himself, The Father loveth the Son, and the Son is one with the Father. He who, as no other, can utter the words “I, the Lord,” has in Himself another I, inseparably united to Him by the bond of the most intimate, but at the same time the most independent, love.

Already do our eyes begin to grow dim, and yet we are at present only at the threshold of the sanctuary. The same Scripture which teaches us to distinguish the Son from the Father—though always without affecting the unity of the Divine Nature—testifies also of the Holy Spirit, in such wise that it is absolutely impossible to confuse or identify Him, either with the Father or the Son. Not less to this Spirit than to the Father Himself, does it regard the Son of God as standing in a very definite relationship. Only in the sacred Trinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, does it reveal to us the whole fulness and glory of the one and unchangeable Divine Being. The conception of God in Holy Scripture, especially of the New Testament, is by no means Unitarian, but definitely Trinitarian. It lies not within the scope of our argument to enter into proofs for the soundness of this proposition, with regard to which we are fully convinced, both that it is indubitably certain, and that it is indispensable to the right understanding of the Gospel of Redemption. Not the doctrine of the Trinity, but Christology, is the subject of our investigation. All that has been said, however, imposes on us the weighty obligation of seeking, under the guidance of the sacred writers, an answer to the three following questions:—

What is the Son of: God in Himself?

In what relation does He stand to the Father, and the Father on His side to Him?

In what relation, finally, does He stand to the Holy Ghost, and consequently to the whole Divine Nature?

The Son of God. For him who is not an entire stranger to the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament, there is no need here of proof, that this name is given to our Lord in an entirely different sense from that in which it is said also of ordinary men, that they are the children of God. Without doubt the Most High is called the Father of spirits, the God of the spirits of all flesh, from whom every family in heaven and earth is named. The rational being, man, created after His image and likeness, is thus a child of this Father; and the inhabitants of heaven, also, are sometimes represented in Scripture as the sons of God.⁵ But He, who is here exclusively called the Son, occupies not merely an exalted place among all these, but an entirely unique place above them. That is clearly taught us, not only by the holy Apostle, who expressly declares that to the Son, as such, a dignity belongs, to which no Angel may lay claim,⁶ but also by the Lord Himself, who as Son, places Himself far above all creatures, and ascribes to Himself a relation to the Father, not merely intimate, but entirely unique.⁷ On a single occasion He may be termed in the. Gospel the Son of God, on account of His extraordinary birth, of His dignity as Israel’s Messiah, of His resurrection from the dead, or on other grounds;⁸ as a rule not a merely moral or spiritual. relation, but a natural one, is indicated by this term, of a like character to that which on earth exists between a child and the father, to whom it owes its life. With less justice it is not seldom said, that the relation between our Lord and the Father cannot be better expressed for our imperfect understanding, than by comparison with the bond which, among men, unites the child to his parents. The earthly relation is not in this case the express image of the heavenly, but the heavenly the archetype of the earthly; and the latter only the feeble defective shadow of that which is found in an infinitely higher, more glorious sense above. The son of man stands in relation to his earthly parents, as the Son of God to the Father; God created man after His image, not the converse.

It becomes thus already evident, how extremely superficial and unsatisfactory is the assertion, that the Lord is called the Son of God for no other reason than because He, the sinless man, as such is especially God’s child and image. In the philosophic domain it may be thought that sufficient reasons exist for thus regarding as one and the same the Divine and the purely human nature, and on that account admitting no other distinction than one of degree between the Christ of God and other imperfect, sinful men; before the forum of a sound exegesis this opinion is most decisively condemned, and is besides, on further reflection, found to be in contradiction with the nature of the case itself. No doubt the first Adam also is called a son of God;⁹ but to infer from this fact, that he is called so in the same sense in which this name is given to the only begotten, beloved Son, the Son of God’s good pleasure, is surely caprice itself. The pure man, who manifests the image of the Godhead, will reflect in unsullied lustre the moral attributes of God— wisdom, holiness, love; but he will not on that account by any means possess God’s natural perfections—e. g., omnipotence, eternity, omniscience, infinity—and these last no less than the others, are, as we shall soon see, ascribed to this Son of the Father, who is the centre of God’s last and highest revelations. Even of the most perfect man I do not read that he, as such, pre-existed before his coming into the world; Christ, on the other hand, the Son of the living God, was, in and after His incarnation, continuing merely in another form His pre-, mundane existence. The perfect man also, according to the teaching of Scripture, is yet lower than the angels; for God’s only begotten Son the demand is made, that all the angels of God should worship Him. Not the perfect son of man is as such the son of God; but the eternal Son of God appeared, in the fulness of the time, as the Son of man.

We are not unacquainted with the great difficulties which attach to the employment of human names and ideas in the supersensuous domain. We would gladly see a heavenly language. placed at our disposal, in order that we might to some extent speak worthily of heavenly things. Yet, compelled to have recourse to ordinary language, we can no longer avoid employing the inadequate terms Person and Nature.¹⁰ And to the repeated question, What is the Son of God in Himself? it is for us impossible, with the Scripture in our hands, to return any other answer than this: a thrice glorious, heavenly Person, partaker of the Nature and Majesty of God, and object of the love of the Father, even before His coming into the world. 7

Not without reason do we lay special stress upon the fact, that a personal existence must be ascribed to the Son of God even before His incarnation. For not a few, both in earlier and later times, have asserted that the Word and Wisdom of the Father had indeed existed from all eternity as an attribute of the Divine nature, but appeared personally only with the coming of the Son of God in the flesh. Sabellius, a presbyter of Ptolemais, in the middle of the third century, already gave expression to the proposition that Father, Son, and Holy Ghost were nothing but three different appellations or forms of manifestation of the same Divine Being. Starting from a very superficial conception of Revelation, he asserted that God had revealed Himself in Christ, in such wise as, for instance, the talent of the architect. is seen in the structure which he raises. According to him, the appearing of Christ proceeded from God, as a ray of light from the sun, and returned in like manner to Him again; where thus the historic manifestation of Christ ceased, | the Son as such also ceased to exist. He believed in the existence of a God, who as Creator is called Father, as Redeemer, Son, as Renewer, Holy Ghost, while a personal distinction between the one and the other was not to be thought of. The history of this article of doctrine shows how the same error, to some extent modified, was espoused, among others, by a Paul of Samosata, and later by the notorious Servetus. “Modern” Theology, also, does not simply hesitate to acknowledge the personal pre-existence of the Son beside and along with the Father and the Holy Ghost, but explains with many words, that the Logos, incarnate in Christ, is nothing else but the Divine plan of the world.

In opposition to this gross misrepresentation of the letter and spirit of the New Testament, we maintain the doctrine, which indeed admits of proof, that the Son of God had a personal existence before His incarnation; ve., one in which the attributes of personality—self-consciousness and freedom—must be ascribed to Him. The

Son of God did not merely exist before His coming in the flesh, but He was also conscious that He existed; He was not simply present in the counsel and foreknowledge of God, but livingly present in personal communion with Him; He was not merely in God, but also with God¹¹ from the Father Himself thus personally and definitely distinguished. He, who even before His incarnation has the name of God, can assuredly in no case be conceived of as something impersonal; He, who is the highest object of the Father’s love, must, like the Father, be the personally living One. How could the Father at all times (even before the incarnation) show to the Son all things which He Himself doeth,¹² if this Son began His personal life only with His birth of Mary? And how can it be said of the Logos, that even from the beginning He was the Life and Light of men,¹³ if He then existed only in the idea of the Father, and not essentially, i.e., personally?

This personal life the Son of God did not receive at any point of time, but was ever partaker thereof. The Gospel teaches the eternal pre-existence of the Logos, not less distinctly than His personal pre-existence. Here especially do we feel that we only stammer like children, and can never adhere too closely to the distinct testimonies of Scripture. With good reason, however, we believe it must be maintained, that Scripture ascribes eternity to the Son, not less than to the Father. As concerns the place which appears to teach the opposite, namely, Colossians i. 15, where the Lord is called “the first-born of all creation,” this appellation denotes nothing else than that He is placed at the head of the whole creation, and already existed before anything else had a being. The Logos is definitely opposed to all that has been created. The Word was, while everything else began to be (ἐγένετο, werd); “Before Abraham came into existence, I am,” says the Lord, speaking with a tone equally exalted as does the Jehovah of the Old Testament, when He ascribes an Existing, without beginning and without change, to Himself, in opposition to all finite being. The Logos is not called—as the prologue of John has been diluted into saying—a God, but God, and thereby clearly distinguished, in this connection, from all created beings. When it is said of Him, that He was “in the beginning,” these words certainly cannot be taken in any feebler sense than in the opening words of the primeval narrative, “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” A time before the beginning of time at the creation of all things, the sacred writers do not know; and that which exists before the foundation of the world must, taken in their sense, be eternal, and thus also not merely relatively, but absolutely, Divine. He who is not a stranger to the history of the Church, will certainly have already observed, that in what has just been said we take a decided part in a controversy which has been waged with varying success since the beginning of the fourth century, and even in the present day divides the Christian world into two different’ camps. It was the presbyter Arius in Alexandria who first ventured to declare that the Son of God was created, and the Father alone without beginning; in opposition to which his bishop, Alexander, taught that, “even as there was ever a God, so also was there ever a Son; that the Son exists uncreated with God, born from eternity, born of the Unborn; that God was not even any part of a moment before the Son, since the latter Himself is ever God, and ever Son, and Son of God Himself.¹⁴ Quickly the conflict rose to such a height, that Arius and his adherents were driven out of the city by the exasperated bishop. The apple of discord was now cast into the bosom of the whole Church, and soon party arose against party, synod against synod, bishop against bishop. Even the common people regarded themselves as qualified and called to answer the intricate question as to the Eternal Existence of the Son, now in an affirmative, now in a negative sense. The points of difference were discussed in the public places, by lips not always the most reverent or consecrated. In vain the Emperor Constantine sought, by a writing specially designed for that purpose, to reconcile the disputants. The word of peace, as usually is the case in times of conflict and separation, found acceptance with neither party. The fire of battle was kindled throughout the whole East, so that the question threatened to pass over from the ecclesiastical to the civil domain, and the dignity of the Emperor, even, was here and there ignored or assailed. There remained now no other measure than to call together a General Assembly of the Church, which was accordingly held at Nicæa in the year 325, and was attended by about 318 bishops, presbyters, and deacons, representatives, for the most part, of the Greek or Eastern churches. This synod framed the confession that the Lord Jesus Christ is “the only begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, God of God and Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, of the same essence (ὁμοαύσιος) with the Father, by whom all things were made.” The triumph of this confession was especially due to the “Father of Orthodoxy,” Athanasius, at that time deacon, afterwards for forty-six years Bishop of Alexandria; as it was afterwards yet more fully analysed and expounded in the Creed of later origin preserved under his name, and which became one of the accepted formulas for expressing the faith of the holy Church universal upon this fundamental article. From this time forth the Arian doctrine was condemned as. heretical, although it was far from being on that account vanquished or extirpated. On the contrary, the conflict for and against Arianism was continued with varying success, and scarcely three years after the Council of Nicæa the condemned party again triumphantly raised its head. Even the sudden death of Arius did not check the progress of his principles; the Emperor Constantine had during the later years of his life drawn perceptibly nearer to the once condemned heretic, and after his death Arianism ascended the imperial throne of the East in the person of Constantius. Under his powerful influence the Arian doctrine soon spread throughout the whole Roman Empire, whilst the acceptation of the Scripture doctrine defended by Athanasius found for a time fewer disciples and advocates. Only after his death the sun of Arianism began to decline, as that cause had been weakened even before his death by the inner discord amongst its most violent advocates. Ultra-Arians and Semi-Arians alike contributed to transfer into the camp of his followers the discord which Arius had occasioned in the Christian Church. Under the Emperor Theodosius the Great (879), the crown, once apparently lost, was again set upon the head of the Athanasian faith. The second General Assembly of the Church, summoned at Constantinople in the year 381, completed what the first at Nicæa had begun. The conflict of eighty years, so fruitful in tears and blood, was decided in a sense adverse to the Arians; and although Arianism was able afterwards to open up for itself a new path among the Germanic tribes, and even maintained itself with vigour among the Goths, Lombards, and Vandals for about two hundred years, yet finally, with the conversion of the last-named, the last bulwark of Arianism had fallen. The triumph of the Franks was the triumph of the Catholic faith.

It lies not within the purpose we have in view to pursue any further this brief outline of the earliest history of Arianism, or to enumerate all the phenomena of after centuries which testify to an unmistakable affinity with this type of thought; Just as little do we need to approve of all the weapons with which Arianism has been opposed in earlier or later times, or to form an unmerciful judgment upon Arius himself, in connection with his mysterious death. We may speak of Athanasius as a brilliant sun in the firmament of his restless age, without on that account ignoring the fact that this sun, too, had his spots. But though we regard the persons with calm impartiality, we cannot possibly look upon the views of the Arians with so kindly and lenient a judgment as is not seldom shown by the opponents of the ecclesiastical doctrine even in the midst of us. Much rather mist we subscribe to the judgment which one of the most renowned church-historians of our century has pronounced upon Arius: “The profound thought expressed by Origen with regard to the eternal Generation of the Logos, remained incomprehensible for his common-place intellect.¹⁵ His controversy was the polemic of the so-called common sense against the mysteries of Christianity, at core as rationalistic as so many another one before and after him. In taking from the Logos the predicate of absolute eternity, he deprived Him at the same time, among so many other tributes of homage, of the crown of His true Godhead. He now made of the Son a sort of intermediate nature, the most excellent of the created heavenly spirits, by whom again God on His part called all things else into existence, and who thus also is worthy to be reverenced and worshipped as Divine. But the thought of such an intermediate person between the Infinite and the Finite has just as little basis in Scripture as it is called for by a sound philosophy. The direct relation of God Himself to the world created by Him is in this way destroyed, and adoration of the Arian Christ is in principle nothing else but heathen deification of the creature. And whilst alike Scripture and sound reason teach us to regard the attributes of God as eternally and inseparably one, they are divided in an unwarrantable manner by Arianism, since this ascribes to the Logos all the Divine attributes, except eternity. When we rightly regard the matter, we cannot then feel surprised that the Christian consciousness rose with ever fresh power against an error whose injurious and yet inevitable consequences became constantly more manifest. In this way we should lose the very conception of a personal manifestation of God, as well as of His real incarnation, and with this the essence of Christianity. We should receive here, as so often happens in such cases, instead of the mystery which has been rejected, an absurdity; and while the matter became still less comprehensible for the intellect, the heart would run the risk of losing its highest treasure. Or how could He, who was not Himself true God, reveal to us the Father, make for us the atonement for our sins, and in reality make us partakers of the Divine Nature in communion with Himself? With the eternal Godhead of the Head fell also the whole restoration of the members, yea, in the Son of God being lowered, as to His higher nature, to the level of a finite creature, the reality of His human nature was involved in the most serious difficulties by the conclusions of Arianism. From this standpoint the holy visitant from heaven was indeed for a time incarcerated in a human body, but—what belongs not less to true humanity—a purely human soul He did not possess. The Logos had appeared in a body, it is true, but was not truly made flesh, and the note of jubilation, “God was manifested in the flesh,’ became in this way a sound devoid of force or significance. Are we, then, justified in looking, with some, upon the controversy against Arianism as merely a fruitless and insignificant controversy about “abstract doctrinal notions,” a vain contention about questions concerning which the one knows as little as the other, because they are removed so far above our finite thinking? If any one must be blamed here, it is surely the Arian party; which to an unfathomable mystery opposes a rash denial, to a profound depth, a platitude; and this under the fair name of acumen and scientific method.

Even in the present day Arianism and Unitarianism —both at bottom one and the same—find countless advocates. This doctrine finds its impulse in the inextinguishable desire to comprehend, as far as possible, even the deep things of God, and its principal support in several places of the New Testament (of which we shall later have to speak), which certainly seem to teach a definite inferiority of the Son, a subordination of the Son to the Father. While, therefore, it wins the assent of acute minds, the more profound minds in the Christian domain are usually more repelled than attracted by this theory. However much Unitarianism enchains and satisfies in some single respects, yet it is evident from history and experience that it is not in a condition to found a living and permanently flourishing religious community. As a salutary corrective to the extravagances of the orthodox Church, it may stimulate the Church to a constant repetition, development, defence of its good confession, but never supplant this confession. We at least do not hesitate to assert that the Christian Church was guided in the rejection of Arianism, by a sound tact, or, to speak in a more Christian manner, by the Spirit of Truth. We do not contend for the term of one substance (or essence); it has all the imperfections to which such terms are subject; it had been well that there had been no necessity for framing it.¹⁶ But the conception expressed by it is surely nothing but the natural consequence of the proposition, that the Son of God has from eternity been a sharer of the nature and majesty of God; and we cannot deny this proposition, without openly contradicting the Lord and His witnesses. If it is wished to hear the same thought expressed in a somewhat different form, listen to the Bishop Alexander, who declares in so many words against Arius, “that Christ was the Son of God by nature; that the Father created all times and ages by the Son; that, if the Son had had a beginning, the Father must necessarily have been before without any Logos (ἄλογος).” We can no more suppose this last, in particular, than could Alexander or Athanasius. The more we seek to realise the Gospel conception of the Logos, in His most intimate communion with the whole Divine Nature, so much the more clear does it become to us that God can be just as little conceived of without the Logos as a body can be without shadow, or a sun without radiance. The shadow and the beams exist not a moment sooner, but also not a moment later than body and sun; the Logos has existed just as long as the Godhead; the Son was not before the Father, but also the Father was never without the Son. The Son of God has had no beginning, but is Himself the beginning of all things.

We have seen, so far as we are enabled to do so in the light of Scripture, what we are to understand as a rule where mention is made of the Son of God. The Supernatural, the Personal, the Eternal character of His being, as such, has successively occupied us. Now we see the way prepared for answering the second question: In what relation does the Son of God stand to the Father, and the Father, on His part, to the Son?

The Son of God has the ground of His existence in the Father. As this truth necessarily follows from the idea of Sonship, so is it also taught on many a page of the Gospel. Not the Son is the ground of the Father’s existence, but, the direct converse; and if one could suppose—which we deny—the Father to exist a moment without the Son of His love, yet the Son, for the very reason that He is Son, cannot possibly be conceived of apart from the Father. “As the Father hath life in Himself, so hath He given the Son to have life in Himself.” Because the Son is God, He has life in Himself; because He is not Father but Son, He has originally received this independent life from the Father. This thrice holy mystery later found its defective expression in the Church doctrine of the Eternal Generation of the Son. Its defective expression, we say, for it is evident - that the words of the Psalmist: “Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten Thee,” afford only a very doubtful support for this doctrinal form. The more deeply do we deplore that so delicate and tender a subject has not always been treated with the necessary caution, and that only too often those who have spoken of this relationship have been led, even without designing it, to apply (at least to some extent) the notion of human descent and ‘consanguinity to God, who is eternal and wholly superterrestrial. Truly, if generation be regarded as the act by which that which once did not exist is now called into being, it is self-evident that this whole conception just as little admits of being applied to God as to His Son. For God is Spirit; and the Son of God is eternal as the Father, so that there was never a time when He did not already exist. Athanasius has already justly remarked “that the Father alone can be called unbegotten (ὠγέννητος), but that the generation of the Son is something too lofty to be fully comprehended, even by angel intellects.” If, however, by this term, “Generation of the Son,” is only meant, that the Son has the origin, or rather the ground, of -His existence in the nature and essence of God, and on that account may be spoken of as absolutely of one essence with the Father; we do not know that any objection can be raised against the idea, whether from the Biblical or from the Christian-philosophic standpoint. Only we must here be especially on our guard against every sensuous conception, whether more or less refined; and above all against supposing a period at which the Son received from the Father the life which He had not before. Not a generation ages before the Creation, but from all Eternity, is the only true and worthy conception; and it would perhaps even be more accurate to speak, not of the Son’s having been brought forth, but of an everlasting being brought forth of the Son by the Father. According to the doctrine of Scripture, the Son did not simply once for all receive life of the Father, henceforth independently to exist and operate outside of Him; but the Son, as from eternity, so to eternity, has constantly the ground of His life in the Father alone. As the Spirit unceasingly proceeds from the Father through the Son, so has the life of the Son continuously. its root in the independent life of the Father, and (if Biblical language is here to be held authoritative), as it were, unceasingly flows forth there from. He who, after this explanation, still looks down with a certain disdain, or even worse feeling, upon the idea of a generation, and asserts that this is in irreconcilable contradiction with the spiritual nature of the Godhead, merits no other answer than the repeated assurance that we also do not by any means suppose a generation in the human sense of the term, but would only ascribe to the Son of God such an origin and ground of life as is best proximately expressed by this language. So far from its detracting anything from the Divine Nature of our Lord, its paramount importance rather arises from its characterising the eternal Godhead of the Logos definitely as a. Godhead of the Son. Where, moreover, should we more deeply feel the limited nature of our human thinking than here, where we have to be so much on our guard, against, on the one hand, ascribing to God anything absurd, and, on the other hand, surrendering the reality of the distinction, which exists in the Divine Nature, with the defective mode of presenting it?

Less difficulty will be felt with regard to a second proposition, which follows naturally from the former. Between the Father and the Son there exists a constant recuprocal communion of life and love. The Lord Himself indicated this in the days of His flesh, when He spoke of Himself as one with the Father, and declared that He was in the Father, and the Father in Him; yea, testified in prayer that. the Father loved Him before the foundation of the world. It would be an entirely arbitrary mode of proceeding to understand these words only of God’s incarnate Son—however perfectly applicable they are also to Him as such—since, on the contrary, they afford us a distinct glance into that relation which has at times, even before and independently of His incarnation, united the Son to the Father. The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into His hand;¹⁷ not merely in, or after, the fulness of the time, but before all eternity, in an everlasting To-day, so long as He has been Son. The Father showeth Him all things that He Himself doeth;¹⁸ while He is walking on earth, it is true, but why not, also, so long as He has known the Son and regarded Him with Divine good-pleasure? The Father honoureth the Son:?¹⁹ wherefore should we confine this statement to the three years during which the Son was exposed to all the contumely of His foes? A relation is here indicated, unless we are entirely mistaken, which is not merely temporal, but absolutely eternal; not merely outward, but inward; not accidental merely, but necessary; not moral merely, but supernatural; one equally unique and unfathomable as the whole nature of the Godhead. So intimate and holy is it that the Lord, even while He is sojourning on earth, can declare that He still continues to be in heaven,²⁰ and that He can ask nothing higher for His disciples than a communion with the Father, as close as that of which He Himself is conscious.²¹ Who will venture to search out in all its depths the meaning conveyed by these hints which the Gospel lets fall, and to speak in earthly language; in some degree worthily, of the things of heaven? Between the Father and the Son there existed thus a personal communion of life, before the mountains were created, or the earth and the world was formed. The Father contemplates Himself in the Son with unspeakable delight, and sees His perfect love most perfectly responded to by the Son. From this Son He keeps back nothing; in this Son He sees no single imperfection; higher than this Son, even He, the Omniscient One, knows nothing. “All things that are Mine are Thine, and all that are Thine are Mine;”²² thus, in the mysterious silence of eternity, can the Father speak to the Son, the Son to the Father. It is an unceasing, reciprocal, blessed beholding and being beheld, a communicating and receiving, a willing and accomplishing, such as is unknown on earth. The Son on His part lives, but He lives by reason of the Father,²³ and hears and learns of Him, that which He shall afterwards communicate on earth. He loves the Father with a love which can be by nothing dimmed, by nothing destroyed, by nothing surpassed— not even by the love the Father causes to rest upon Him; for both are alike infinite and Divine. That which He seeth the Father do, the same doeth the Son likewise;²⁴ that which He does is ever well-pleasing to the Father. Rather were it conceivable that God should with His own hand sever the bond which unites Him to the work of His creation, than that the Father should cease to be one with the Son, the Son one with the Father. Can we be surprised, while shrinking from further inquiry, that a Divinely enlightened apostle testifies of an original “being rich” on the part of the Lord, which preceded His earthly poverty?²⁵ and that the Son of man at the beginning of His sufferings longs, as it were with holy impatience, for the glory which He remembers having possessed with the Father, even before the times of the ages?²⁶ ‘Truly, in order to form a conception, to some extent worthy, of the glory of the Son of God before His incarnation, it is not even necessary that a rapt imagination should depict Him clothed with light as with a garment; surrounded with millions upon millions of blessed spirits, of every rank and every order, about His throne, who minister at His footstool, and sing His praise; crowned with a glory and honour which dazzles the vision of every created being. The one thought, that He was the perfect object of the Father’s love, transcends, if possible, all that has just been said. Who can conceive of anything higher than to love, and to be loved, as He?

The Son, nevertheless, as such, remains definitely subordinate to the Father, and dependent upon the Father. With sacred reverence do we take into our lips a word which may be so easily misunderstood, and which yet, beyond doubt, is most explicitly taught in the Gospel. Not seldom has the charge of confusion of ideas been brought against the defenders of the Godhead of the Son; as though they overlooked the eternal and natural distinction between the Son and the Father. To obviate this reproach, we contemplate a truth which has ofttimes been sadly exaggerated and misapplied by the advocates of Subordinationism. Both the Father and the Son have been, from all eternity, partakers of the same Divine Nature and the same Divine Essence; yet, by virtue of the very relation existing between them, the Godhead of the Father is other than the Godhead of the Son.²⁷ The Logos is not the Brother (pardon the seeming irreverence of the expression, which was not first used by us), but the Son of God; whom He hath appointed heir of all things,²⁸ who is Himself God, but God of God (ἐκ θεοῦ), His Father. Is it possible to separate from the conception Son the conception of a certain dependence, which yet detracts not in the least from the true and eternal Godhead of the Son? But the Lord Himself testifies, in so many words, that the Son can of Himself do nothing, but only what He seeth the Father doing;²⁹ that the Father shows Him all that He doeth, ere He on His part doeth the same; that He lives by the Father, whereas it cannot possibly be said that the Father lives by (or by reason of) Him. This is also, without doubt, the profound reason why the name of God, although it applies with the most perfect right to the Saviour, and is repeatedly given Him in the Gospel, is especially ascribed to the Father, in distinction from the Lord Jesus Christ;³⁰ and why the Father of glory is called the God of our Lord Jesus Christ;³¹ whereas we can scarcely conceive of the Son being in turn spoken of as the God of the Father. And does not the same fundamental thought also underlie the Apostolic utterances, “Ye are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s; the head of every man is Christ, and the head of Christ is God; then shall the Son also Himself be subject unto Him that put all things under Him”³² If in the exposition of these words we are to reject that mode of interpretation, according to which the Son of God is deprived of His highest crown, a dependence of the Son upon the Father is, nevertheless, still taught, such as can by no means be applied to the Father in relation to the Son. How it is possible to be at the same time dependent, and yet free; Son, and yet God; subordinate to the Father, and yet not less Divine than the Father, remains a problem for Christian thinking, the perfect solution of which will never be given us on this side the grave. Enough that here the rule has its application: Two propositions, each of which is sufficiently proved, remain also immovably true, even though we do not succeed in penetrating their mutual connection. No jot or tittle do we detract from the confession, “I and my Father are one;” but just as little also may we deny the truth of the Lord’s own utterance, when He constantly places the Father, as Father, above Himself.

Let it suffice us that what has been said by no means forbids us, but, on the contrary, leaves us perfectly free to make the old confession our own: “Christ alone is by nature the eternal Son of God; but we are, for His sake, by grace adopted as children of God.”³³ While it is true He does not apply to Himself the name of God— this would have clashed with His great principle, “I seek not mine own glory”—yet He fully merits that we should, after the example of His Apostles, ascribe to Him this title of honour; while nothing justifies us in understanding this word in a feebler sense than that in which it is elsewhere used. We do not thus assert that the Logos, after the birth of the man Jesus, united Himself to Him, but that the Logos was from all eternity, and afterwards became truly incarnate in Jesus of Nazareth; not that Jesus in the moral sense became the Son of God, in consequence of a spotlessly pure human development, but that the Son of God was from all eternity, and would have existed as such, even though He had never been pleased to clothe Himself with this our human flesh and blood. We shall afterwards come to treat more fully of this important. point; but if we are asked why we lay such great stress precisely upon this point, that we would rather, if need be, express ourselves too much at large upon it than leave an impression with regard to it in any respect obscure or doubtful—it is because the distinct confession of the Godhead of the Son stands, according to our innermost conviction, in such inseparable connection with our enlightenment, consolation, and sanctification, that if this foundation be taken away the whole structure of the plan of salvation necessarily falls into ruins. If we are to find in the Son of God everlasting life, we cannot hesitate to render to Him the full honour which belongs to Him. What this honour is we believe we have in some measure shown in the light of Scripture, with the consciousness of being able to prove every single trait of our description from Scripture, and with the conviction of being able to defend every single trait also before the tribunal of philosophic thought. Is it necessary in connection therewith to repeat that, even after all that has been said, the word, “No man knoweth the Son, but the Father,” remains the conclusion of our reverential examination?

Yet we cannot quit this mysterious domain before we have sought an answer to yet another question. We were baptised not simply in the name of the Father and of the Son, but also of the Holy Ghost. In what relation does the Son of God stand to the Holy Spirit, and consequently to the whole Divine Nature?

In the books of the Old Testament we find, it is true, that the Spirit of God, the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of the Lord, is very often spoken of; but in what relation He stands to the whole Divine Nature cannot be determined with sufficient clearness from the language of Moses and the Prophets alone. On a single occasion the Word and. the Spirit of God are so closely associated that we can scarcely suppose a definite distinction to exist in the mind of the Sacred Writer. Thus it is, for instance, in the poetic utterance, “By the Word of the Lord were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the Spirit (Ruach) of His mouth.”³⁴ It has been already observed by the illustrious Calvin, on this place, that, according to the law of Hebrew poesy, the one expression supplements and explains the other. And when later we read in Isaiah³⁵ that Israel was saved by the Angel of God’s presence (the Angel of His face), but that they rebelled and vexed His Holy Spirit, we may suppose, not without reason, that the two expressions by no means imply the same thing; yet, as regards the relation between this Spirit and this Angel of the Lord, as little here as elsewhere do we meet with any kind of nearer indication. Only to this extent can we say that the Old Testament affords us any light, in that it presents to us the future Messiah as anointed with the Spirit of God in the fullest measure. Thus it is said of the Rod of the stem of Jesse, “The Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon Him, the Spirit of wisdom and understanding, the Spirit of counsel and might, the Spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the Lord.”³⁶ And afterwards the Servant of Jehovah arises with the word, “The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me, because the Lord hath anointed me.”³⁷ And in Joel the days of the New Covenant are represented as a time of the gracious and abundant communication of the Spirit.³⁸ Much clearer, however, is the light which is shed from time to time in the writings of the New Testament on the relation of the Son of God to the Holy Spirit. So far from the terms Word and Spirit of God being here arbitrarily interchanged with each other, we see the two definitely distinguished. “He whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God; for God giveth (Him) not the. Spirit by measure.”³⁹ If the Son, of whom this testimony is given, is the same as the Word that was made flesh, we see thus upon this incarnate Word, in contradistinction from all earlier messengers of God, the Holy Spirit conferred wholly without limitation; and nothing compels us to confine this communication of, the Spirit by the Father to the Son to that which took place. on the bank of the Jordan at His baptism by John. Rather do we see here the indication of an eternal act of the Father, just as little confined to one point of time — as that which immediately follows: “The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into His hands.”⁴⁰ As this love is infinite, so is the communication of the Spirit to the Son unlimited, not merely in measure, but also in time; and we certainly do not err when we find precisely in this constant communicating of the Spirit the bond of the inseparable unity which exists between the Son and the Father. The Father and the Son are from eternity to eternity one in the communion of the Holy Ghost.

We behold what is certainly a significant moment in this unceasing communication: on the occasion of our Lord’s baptism. The Spirit, who has from all eternity formed the bond of union between the Father and the Son, now entered into a new relationship towards the incarnate Son, the Messiah. He took whole and entire possession of Him, penetrated and consecrated His humanity, and unceasingly united His Divinity, during its manifestation in the flesh, with the Godhead of the Father. The Lord Himself declared that the Spirit of God rested upon Him, that by this Spirit He cast out devils, that the Father would give the same Spirit to all who ask Him. On the other hand, however, He spoke many a word which, we believe, is to be explained only as indicating the existence of a personal distinction between Himself and the Holy Ghost, not less than between Himself and the Father. As He had received the Spirit, so He promised the Spirit as another Comforter, who should lead them into all the Truth, and constantly bring His words to their remembrance.⁴¹ From this Representative of Himself He looks for the enlightening, strengthening, and perfecting of His people; and when these on their part arise to proclaim abroad the Gospel of the Kingdom, there are not wanting in their writings deeply significant hints, which at any rate justify us in regarding the expression, “the Holy Ghost another than the Son,” as something higher than an utterance of human wisdom. “Because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father;” thus writes Paul to the Christians of Galatia.⁴² From the one God and the one Lord he distinguishes the one Spirit, who distributes manifold gifts.⁴³ And according to the testimony of Peter on and after the day of Pentecost, it is no other than the glorified Saviour Himself, who shed forth the Holy Spirit, with audible and visible signs accompanying.⁴⁴ No wonder that John also, in his book of Revelation, represents the Holy Spirit in contradistinction from the Lord, in a manner which renders it absolutely impossible to confound the one with the other; but also equally impossible to ascribe to the Holy Spirit a lesser Divine rank and dignity than is ascribed to the Father and the Son.⁴⁵

In connection with the comparative paucity of the indications which are found in the Gospel with regard to the peculiar nature of the relation between the Son of God and the Holy Spirit, we cannot be surprised that the earliest Fathers of the Church have not always expressed themselves unanimously or sufficiently in regard to it, and that the ecclesiastical definitions, which eventually fix the doctrine, are of comparatively later origin. Thus the Church Father, Gregory of Nazianzus, gave a résumé of the different opinions which were prevalent in his time.⁴⁶ “Of the intelligent among us,” he says, “some. hold the Holy Ghost to be a power, others a creature, others again God Himself; yet others know not—as they say, out of reverence for Scripture—which side of them all they shall choose, since this teaches nothing definite with regard thereto.” We need not remind the reader how greatly a similar diversity of opinions with regard to this important point prevails in the present day. It is not our purpose in the present case to confirm, with Biblical and Christian-philosophic reasons, our conviction as to the personality and Divinity of the Holy Ghost, as distinguished from the Father and the Son. This question lies beyond the province of Christology, properly so-called. In general, however, we think we may set forth, as the result of oft-renewed and continued investigation, that—according to our innermost conviction—the opinion of Arius, that the Holy Ghost is the-first of all the creatures called into being by the Son, is entirely wanting in all support; that also in the view of the Holy Ghost as the “power and virtue of God” there is unquestionable truth, but by no means the whole truth expressed; and that the later confession of the oneness of essence of the Holy Ghost with the Son and the Father is the perfectly legitimate deduction from the premises contained in the Gospel. We may be fully convinced of the limitation of our knowledge, and the insufficiency of all human presentations of doctrine, in the domain of the supernatural, without on that account denying the relative accuracy of certain formulas, in which the believing consciousness of former centuries has expressed itself. We may thus take upon ourselves the defence of the expression, “the Holy Ghost, not created, not begotten, but proceeding from the Father;”⁴⁷ while, with regard to the question which divided the Eastern and the Western Church, whether the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father alone, or also from the Son, we are convinced— though we can in this connection only speak of the economic doctrine of the Holy Trinity⁴⁸—that we must think of a proceeding of the Holy Ghost from the Father through the glorified Son. While the Lord terms Him, in so many words, the Spirit of Truth who proceedeth from the Father, He yet declares, with equal emphasis, that the Apostles cannot become possessed of this Spirit, except in consequence of His personal intercession.⁴⁹ Thus He Himself justifies us in saying that the Spirit is in a certain sense equally dependent on the Son, as the Son is subordinate to the Father. But just as little as the latter fact detracts from the Godhead of the Son, just so little does the former take away anything from the Godhead of the Holy Ghost. Through the Son He proceeds from the Father; with the Father and the Son He is God. The conception to be formed of this Proceeding must remain equally above our finite comprehension, as that of the Generation of the Son; and it were greatly to be desired that men had not contended so bitterly about things which are too high and too wonderful for us, but — had rather heeded the counsel of wisdom, not to be wiser than Scripture. But, on the other hand, the true peace of the Church is not to be furthered by the denial and toning down of those doctrinal definitions which are warranted by the word of the Lord Himself and that of His Apostles; but rather by a development of the truth, which, clearly conscious of its own fallibility, cleaves as closely as possible to the Gospel, and ever again returns to it.

We have sought, in the light of the Gospel, to describe the relation of the Son of God to the Father, as well as to the Holy Ghost, and consequently to the whole incomprehensible and infinite Nature of God. At the close of this contemplation, the peculiar character of this Christian idea of God—God, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost—presents itself in augmented lustre before our eyes; and that which we heard of God’s only begotten Son, even before His incarnation, gives us fresh reason to hold immovably fast to that confession by which Christianity is exalted so infinitely above every other religion. It is true, we know that the Church of the Lord has, throughout all ages, borne this treasure, too, in earthen vessels. Its doctrinal definitions concerning the Son of God and the Holy Ghost were laudable, but always imperfect, attempts to maintain the truth which they found expressed in the Gospel, against the inroads of denial and doubt.⁵⁰ What a wide difference between the heavenly simplicity with which the Christian confession of faith is presented by Jesus Himself in the baptismal command, before His departure, and the hair-splitting exactness with which the relation of the Trinity to the Unity is spun out in the Church formulary which bears the name of Athanasius! We are far removed from the attempt to decide, from certain expressions here employed, that which the Word of God has left undecided. We do not enter into the defence of the ecclesiastical terms Trinity, - Person, and Substance or Essence (οὐσία); if any choose to use for the first of these, Threefold Existence, for the second, Mode of Being, they would perhaps avoid a natural cause of offence, without in reality greatly affecting the doctrine itself. Yet we believe, on the ground of all that which we have just recalled to mind, that in the Church doctrine of the Trinity is embodied a Plurality, which is more or less contradicted by every other and heretical conception of the subject. If the edifice of this dogma is itself of later origin, the stones for its upbuilding are incontestably given in the very Word of Truth; the need for combining them together is implanted by nature in the human spirit, which strives after unity; and we think it may be satisfactorily proved, that every combination of these materials which is in any essential points in contradiction with the Church dogma is not in. harmony, but in irreconcilable conflict, with the doctrine of the Lord and His Apostles. That the life of each one of the three modes of existence in God is a self-conscious, free, and Divine life; that the Son is in truth other than the Father, and, again, the Holy Ghost other than the Father and the Son; that, while this personal distinction exists, the same Divine Nature is present in all, and yet that the Unity of the Divine Essence is absolutely inseparable—this indeed is no doctrine of Athanasius and Nicea alone, but expressly the doctrine of Jesus and the Apostles, If, therefore, we combine their hints and utterances into one compact whole, we are necessarily led to a conception like that above mentioned. We can on that: account only rejoice that gradually the days are passing away in which this dogma was looked down upon with a certain haughty disdain, and was decried as one of those antiquated notions belonging to a school of an already vanished orthodoxy, which it was scarcely worth while formally to contradict. It is ever increasingly acknowledged that this truth, rightly regarded and developed, is a head- and corner-stone in the structure of the whole Christian doctrine of faith; that the superficiality is on the side of Unitarianism, the depth on the side of the Church dogma; that, in a word, this Confession is nothing less than the guarantee and expression of the Christian belief in the Incomprehensibleness of God, which is not. merely confessed, but is also clearly recognised, in the acknowledging of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. We thankfully appreciate every attempt made by Christian philosophy, whether by the way of reflection or of comparison, to bring this revealed mystery of the faith more or less within the province of Christian thinking. We have already referred to the fact that, e.g., from the notion of Divine love, the supposition has been arrived at, that this love must not only have an object worthy of it (adequate object) in the Logos; but also a personal bond of union, which resolves again the diversity of the two into a perfect unity, and this is found in the Holy Ghost. But whatever may be judged of. such endeavours, even though one may, with us, despair of arriving in this way at a clear and satisfactory conception of the truth itself, our faith does not stand or fall with the success of these attempts. Knowledge, in this domain, must always, from the nature of the case, fall a few steps behind faith; and from the exaltedness of the subject above our limited human comprehension its absolute unreasonableness by no means follows. Whether it is comprehended or not, it remains an incontrovertible fact, that God has revealed Himself as Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, one unique incomprehensible essence. And why should we, with some, rest content with this, without— with the believing Church of all ages—going yet a step farther? As God reveals Himself to man, so He certainly is in Himself: how can we suppose the Unchangeable and True One to give a revelation of Himself which is not the faithful expression of His adorable nature? This very conviction, that God truly is (exists), in the form in which the Gospel proclaims Him, as Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, is in our estimation not simply the solid bulwark against a dry Deism, which recognises only an external mechanical relation between God and the world; but also the great weapon for combating that Pantheism which we see making such rapid progress in our age, and to which all philosophy apart from the light of the Gospel, from the nature of the case, and in accordance with history, must necessarily come.⁵¹ Only from the standpoint of this confession accordingly can the Person and Work of Christ be to some extent satisfactorily comprehended; while, on the other hand, the inexhaustible riches of this Christ can never be worthily estimated by those who, to the question, What is God? have only the superficial, answer to give, “God is Father,” instead of confessing with Scripture and the Church, “God is Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.” No Biblical Christology without belief in the Threefold Nature of God; while, on the other hand, the practical importance of the above-named doctrine never strikes us more than when we bring it into direct ’ connection with the redemption conferred upon us in Christ. The one stands or falls with the other; and only when we have accepted in all its significance the testimony of Scripture as regards the relation of the Son of God to the whole Divine Nature, are we to any extent in a position to understand and appreciate that which the same Scripture proclaims to us as regards His relation to all created beings, and especially to humanity.

In many a product of the ecclesiastical art. of the Middle Ages we meet with plastic representations of the Holy Trinity, which, on a superficial notice, not seldom call forth a smile. No, that venerable man, depicted with the child in his bosom, upon his kingly throne, and the dove which hovers with outstretched wings over the head of the two, is no worthy expression of the majesty and greatness of Him “whom the heaven of heavens cannot contain.’ Yet the thought speaking forth from this painting is infinitely higher than many an abstract-philosophic conception, which has proceeded from the denial of the same thought; and the naïveté of the faith which thus depicted: the thrice Holy One, approached nearer the truth than the assumption of the Rationalist, which has a thousand times claimed to have so absolutely refuted this dogma, that henceforth every intelligent man would be ashamed to attach to it any weight. whatever. Like a phoenix from its ashes, it rises ever afresh, with renewed youth, out of the flame, and ever is it proved anew that whoever does not acknowledge God as Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, even with the best will is not in a position to render to the Christ of God His highest honour. For these reasons, therefore, we felt ourselves expressly called upon to arrest the attention for a moment in connection with this mystery, and to direct the mind of the reader to the inseparable connection of the one with the other. At the same time no one comprehends better than we do how difficult it is to dwell, even for a brief while, on this highest mountain peak of all, in the contemplation of Christian truth, without one’s head growing dizzy, and one’s step wavering. We have now, however, firm ground beneath our feet, as we gradually descend from these cloudy heights to regions more familiar, Even as John at the beginning of his Gospel, we proceed from the relation of the Son to that which from eternity was, to His relation to that which once at the beginning of time came into existence—geworden ist.

1) I Cor. ii. 9)

2) Heb. i. 1.

3) Think of the striking account, with regard to Simonides, which is found in Cicero, De Nat. Deorwm I., c. 22. In a similar sense a French poet of the last century, Sylvain Marechal, replied to a prize question, proposed as to the nature of God, with the verse:

“Loin de rien décider sur cet Etre Suprême,
Gardons en l’adorant un silence profond.
Le mystère est immense et l’esprit s’y confond.
Pour savoir ce qu’il est, il faut être lui-même.”

4) Deut. vi. 4.

5) Job i. 6; xxxviii. 7.

6) Heb. i. ii.

7) John v. 19, sqq.; Mark xiii. 32; and other places.

8) Luke i. 35; John i. 49;? Rom. i. 3, 4. (Cf. Theol. N. T., p. 299.)

9) Luke iii. 38,

10) In using them we are mindful of the advice of Calvin, who writes, in the exposition of John i. 1, “I have already observed that we ought to be sober in thinking, and modest in speaking, about such high mysteries.” But at the same time we add with him, “Yet the ancient writers of the Church were excusable, when, finding that they could not in any other way maintain sound and pure doctrine in opposition to the perplexed and ambiguous phraseology of the heretics, they were compelled to invent some words. . . . Hypostases, Persons, ete.” [Cf. Christian Dogmatics, p. 290, sqq.]

11) πρὸς τὸν θεόν, John i. 1. Compare the beautiful words of Bengel on this place: “πρός denotes as it were the perpetual tendency of the Son to the Father in the unity of essence.”

12) John v. 20.

13) John i. 4.

14) Compare the letter of Arius to Eusebius, Bishop of Nicomedia, in the writings of Eusebius.

15) Neander.

16) “The Church would have done better to retain the simplicity of the apostolic expressions; but the manifold attacks and misconstructions of heretics have rendered necessary sharp and exclusive definitions, and even now these are not yet superfluous.” —Chemnitz.

17) John iii, 35.

18) John v. 20.

19) Ib. viii. 54.

20) Ib. iii. 13.

21) See, on this point, the author’s Theology of the New Testament, 2nd ed., p, 149.

22) John xvii. 10.

23) διὰ τὸν πατέρα, John vi. 57.

24) Ib. v. 19.

25) 2 Cor, viii.9)

26) John xvii. 5, Listen to the echo of this feeling in the sigh of Matt. xvii. 17.

27) Both to the Father and the Son we ascribe Deitas; but to the Father alone, Aseitas.

28) Heb. i. 2.

29) John v. 19.

30) Compare, eg., 1 Cor. viii. 6; 1 Tim. ii, 5.

31) Ephes, i. 17.

32) Cor. iii, 23; xi. 3; xi. 28.

33) Heid. Catechism, Answer 33.

34) Ps, xxxiii. 6,

35) Isaiah lxiii. 9, 10.

36) Isaiah xi. 2.

37) Isaiah lxi. 1. 

38) Joel ii. 28-32.

39) John iii.34, Although Scripture here speaks in general terms, yet the context requires our supplementing αὐτῷ (to Him), and thus referring this statement definitely to the Son of God. Compare the remarks of Lücke on this place.

40) John iii. 35.

41) John xiv.-xvi.

42) Gal. iv. 6. (The Spirit of Jesus, breathing again the words of Jesus; comp. Mark xiv. 36.]

43) 1 Cor. xii, 4-6.

44) Acts ii. 33; v. 32

45) Rev. i. 4, 5; v.6; and other places.

46) In the fifth of his Theological Discourses, belonging to the year 380.

47) Athanasian Creed, Art. 22.

48) I.e., the doctrine regarding the part sustained by each of the Divine Persons in the economy of Redemption.

49) John xv. 26; xvi. 7.

50) “The Church’s definitions with regard to the doctrine of the Trinity, from their origin and design, do not claim to be regarded as religious-philosophic and perfect explanations as to the nature of the Trinity, but as Ecclesiastical and Social protests against definite and matured degenerate forms, mutilations, and caricatures of the doctrine of the Trinity, protests having their origin in historical circumstanees,”—Lanez, Positive Dogmatik, p. 136.

51) “The apparent Tritheism, but in reality Trinity of God, it is alone which preserves the Christian worshipper and thinker, who does not misinterpret it, not merely from Polytheism, but, above all, from Pantheism. History shows, as well in the case of Mahomedans and Jews, as of those children of Aufklärung among Christians who resemble them, that, not satisfied with the isolated God, they fall back, in their thirst for life and life’s fulness, into a Heathenism which deifies the totality of nature.” —Nitzsch.