λεσάμενος το ονομα αυτου 1 to be baptized, calling on his name) -it is such an honour as he had demanded previously to the institution of the ordinance of baptism, and such as had actually been shown him by the apostles before that time; for we are told, пoooεxvvησav avro,3 they worshipped him or made obeisance to him, προσκυνήσαντες αυτον 4 worshipping him. As it has been proved (§ 42), that it is our duty to worship Jesus, as being God in the highest sense of the word; so the honour shown to the Son in baptism, must necessarily be the same honour (John 5: 23) as that ascribed to the Father in this ordinance; and therefore divine honour, in the strictest sense (1 Pet. 3:21). Just as circumcision was a declaration, on the part of its subjects, that Jehovah was the God of the posterity of Abraham (Gen. 17: 10-14. comp. 1: 7 &c.), and that they regarded themselves under obligation to live to the honour [ in the name, Mic. 4: 5] of Jehovah; so also, by baptism in honour of the Father and the Son (§ 112), its subjects declared that the Father and the Son are the God of the christians, whom they are bound to adore, and to whom they are permitted to have access. This last clause is found in 1 Pet. 3: 21, where the words επερωτημα συνειδήσεως αγαθής εις θεον signify, "that baptism procures us an acceptable approach to God with a good conscience, through the resurrection and glory of Christ." 1 Acts 22: 16. 2 John 5: 18-23. 10: 28-33. comp. § 42. Illust. 7, 6. 3 Matth. 28: 17. 4 Luke 24: 52. John 20: 28. See § 42. Illust. 11. § 44. There is a real difference between the Father and the Son; but they are not two Gods. Independently of the union of the Son with the man Jesus, he is so distinguished (1) from the Father (2), that we are obliged to acknowledge not only a logical but a real distinction between them (3). But as the Scriptures teach, that the Son is God, in the same sense (§ 42) as the Father (4); and yet as there is but one God (§ 28); therefore we must regard this distinction, which has a foundation and is a real distinction, as being such a distinction as does not imply a plurality of Gods (5). The omnipotence of the Son is no other than the omnipotence of the Father, but is one and the same omnipotence (6). The omniscience of the Son and the omniscience of the Father, are one and the same (7). In a word, the very same and the entire divine perfection (8) which belongs to the Father, belongs also to the Son (9). Col. 1: 19. ILLUSTRATION 1. John 17:5, Δοξα ᾗ είχον προ του τον κοσμον ειναι, παρασοι the glory which I had with thee before the world existed. ch. 1: 1, ο λογος ην προς τον θεον the Word (or Logos) was with God: comp. 1 John 1; 2. ILLUSTRATION 2. 1 John 1: 2, ή ζωη ἡ αιωνιος, ήτις ην προς τον πατερα that life eternal which was with the Father. John 17:24, Hy απησας με, πατερ, προ καταβολης κοσμου thou lovedst me, Ο Father, before the creation of the world. See Comment. on Hebrews, p. 8 &c. ILLUSTRATION 3. The distinction between Father and Son is real. It was not God [o 9εos], considered as distinct from the Logos [oyos], but it was that Logos who was with God [ó hoyos ô лs Toν Dεov John 1: 1, 2], that became man [oaq§ eyeveto1]. Or, according to 1 John 1: 2, that eternal life which was with the Father, revealed himself to men [ή ζωη ή αιωνιος, ήτις ην προς τον πατέρα, εφανερωθη ἡμιν]. The phrases, “ the Logos was with the Father," "he was in the Father's bosom," "the Father loved him," will not suffer us to conceive of the distinction between the Father and the Logos, as a difference merely of relation, sustained by one and the same person. Thus, for example, it would be absurd to say, "God, considered as one who promoted and still promotes the happiness of mankind, through the man Jesus; was with God, considered as the Creator of the world.' ILLUSTRATION 4. 1 Cor. 8: 6, θεος ὁ πατηρ, ἐξ οὗ τα παντα-εἷς κυριος Ιησους Χριστος, δι' ού τα παντα God the Father, of whom are all things-one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things. John 17: 1, 3. 1: 1, 2. comp. v. 18. 1 John 1: 2. ILLUSTRATION 5. The unity of God. The proposition, "God was the Word [eos nv o hoyos]," rectifies our idea of the phrase preceding it, "the Word was with God;" and guards against such a misconstruction as would contradict the unity of God. The proposition, "the Word was with God," is in precisely the same predicament with the pro 1 v. 14. comp. v. 18. 2 On the Object of the Gospel of John, p. 471 ff. comp. Flatt, de Deitate Christi, p. 30 &c. position in dogmatics, "the Father and the Logos are two persons." As the distinction between the Logos and the Father, is the only one of its kind, and is, a distinction of which we have neither a perfect conception nor an appropriate expression; the sacred writers had to use the language of approximation, or to borrow terms from things which are known to us: such as two men who stand connected, who are intimately united with each other, as a father and his son. Thus, too, the word person is only a term of approximation: it calls up the idea of two human persons, but is intended to denote a mere negative idea, or to deny that the difference is merely a difference of relation sustained by a single person.1 The language of the Augsburg Confession, Art. 1, is this: "Et nomine personae utuntur ex significatione, qua usi sunt in hac causa scriptores ecclesiastici, ut significet non partem aut qualitatem in alio, sed quod proprie subsistit ;" i. e. and by the word person, is meant, not a part or a quality in another, but that which has itself a subsistence; as the word is used by ecclesiastical writers on this subject. John 10: 30, εyw nai o πατηρ Ev εσμεν I and my Father are one; comp. v. 28, 29. ILLUSTRATION 7. The omniscience of the Father and the Son, is one. John 16: 13, το πνευμα της αληθειας, όσα αν ακουση (com pare 1 Cor. 2: 10, 11) hahnoɛ the things which he shall hear. the Spirit of truth shall speak The same idea is expressed thus in v. 14: εκ του εμου λήψεται, και αναγγελει ύμιν, and in v. 15, it is added, παντα όσα εχει ὁ πατηρ, εμα εστι. ILLUSTRATION 8. The nature of the divine perfection in the Trinity. By the divine perfection, is here meant the combined whole of all the predicates contained in the idea of God, as they are 1 On the Object of the Gospel of John, p. 476 &c. stated above (§ 20); although it is not denied, that the threefold distinction between Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and the close union of these three with one another, constitute a great perfection of the Deity. Each of these three (persons) sustains a relation to the other two, which is peculiar to himself. But, as to each (person) there belongs a certain relation to the others peculiar to itself, the perfection of the divine Being does not so much consist exclusively of the characteristics which are appropriate to any one of the three (persons), as e. g. to the Father; but rather in the close union of these appropriate characteristics with the peculiar characteristics of the other two, e. g. of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. And this divine perfection, which proceeds from the reciprocal relation of the three (persons), or which is founded on the indissoluble union of each with the other two; belongs in common to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.1 Dr. Taylor has objected to the doctrine of the Trinity: that "the peculiar character which each of the two persons Father and Son, possesses, must be a perfection; and consequently a perfection is lacking to each of them; and hence neither of them can be an infinitely perfect being, i. e. be God." This objection is thus answered by Flatt, de Deitate Christi (p. 97 &c.): "If the expression divine Being [ovora divina, God] be taken in a more extended sense, so as to embrace in it what are termed the personal characteristics; then it is evident, that all the three persons constitute one divine Being [one Godhead]. But if by divine Being [God], we mean the complex of those characteristics and attributes which are ascribed to the Deity or supreme Being by natural religion, and thus exclude the personal characters from our idea of the Deity; then this idea is applicable to all the three persons of the Godhead. And as it cannot be proved that the peculiar characteristics of either of the three 1 Flatt, de Deitate Christi. p. 97. |