*

investigate the characters of the divine nature, has tended to establish the unity of God. In regard to this part of the doctrine therefore no difficulty can exist. In regard to its plurality the speculations of Plato have approached so near to the trinitarian doctrine of christians, that some, though without any real probability, have supposed them to be notions transmitted by tradition from an early revelation; and even bishop Horseley has expressed a disposition to explain christianity by the doctrine of that philosopher. Nor is it merely in the philosophy of Plato that we find a support given by human reasoning to the doctrine of the plurality of the divine nature, for it is agreeable to all analogy. We observe that all living beings have been endowed by their Creator with the power of communicating a derivative existence; and may naturally conclude, that the Father of all is not destitute of a power in such a manner analogous to that, which he has bestowed upon his creatures, as might be correspondent to the infinite superiority of his own perfect nature. The analogy is even acknowledged in the divine revelation, by the adoption of terms expressive of the derived existence of a human progeny. Since then human reason would establish the unity of the divine nature, and since not only philosophic speculation, but the

Horseley's Tracts, p. 77, 515, 516.

analogy of our own ordinary observation, would lead us to the acknowledgment of a derivation from it, we should conclude, though we are unable to explain the mystery, that the revealed trinity is not inconsistent with the unity of God. The doctrine therefore of a trinity in unity is supported by our own reasoning in each of its parts; and that these parts are contradictory can never be demonstrated, because this question relates to a consideration placed quite beyond our comprehension, that of the manner in which the nature of an infinite being may be communicated by derivation.

A great difficulty has been conceived to exist in the doctrine of the eternity of the derived Persons of the Trinity, and it has accordingly been urged again and again, that, as an effect must be posterior to its cause, these cannot be admitted to be coeternal to the Father in regard to antecedent duration.

*

For the solution of this difficulty bishop Horseley has resorted to the speculations of the platonizing fathers, who, agreeably to the doctrine of their favourite philosopher, held that the intellect of the Father must, by the necessary energy of its nature, have generated the Son from all eternity, as the mind of man must from the beginning of its existence generate a thought. But this solution, on which

* Horseley's Tracts, p. 515, 516.

however the bishop does not insist, is collected from a very slight analogy, for the thought of the human mind has no personal existence; and moreover it is not applied, and does not seem to be in any manner applicable, to the Holy Spirit.

Bishop Bull, whom bishop Horseley has generally followed, had stated with approbation a solution of this mystery, which appears to have been devised by Athenagoras, a distinguished writer of the second century. He conceived that the Son had from all eternity existed in the Father, but was manifested as a distinct Person a short time before the creation, that he might be the agent of the work. This solution however the author of this treatise confesses himself wholly unable to comprehend, for he cannot understand how a derived being can be said to have existed before he was generated, nor can he perceive what authority can be alleged from the sacred writings to prove, that the generation of the Son preceded but by a short interval, or by any assignable interval, the creation of the world.

John, in his gospel, says, that the Word "was in the beginning with God," but he does not say, that the Word was then first manifested in distinct personality. Consistently with the meaning of the expression he might have ex

*Defensio Fid. Nic. Sect. 3. cap. 5. § 4.

isted with the Father from eternity, in the same manner in which he was represented to have existed in the beginning," for it merely states, that he then existed with God, when the world was to be made. The opinion, that the distinct personality of our Saviour had then its commencement, receives indeed some apparent support from the authorised version of the passage of the epistle to the Colossians already noticed, in which he is described as "the firstborn of every creature." This translation however the author of this treatise trusts that he has shown to be incorrect. If the original words should be interpreted, not the first-born of every creature, but the begotten before all creation, there is no necessity for supposing any other existence of the Son, than that which was given by this generation, the time of which is perfectly undefined.

It will be readily acknowledged, that it could no more have been the purpose of a divine revelation, to instruct mankind in the metaphysical notion of duration, than in the physical conception of the planetary system. We find accordingly no expression, by which the nature of the eternity of God is intimated. All which

* See pages 85-88 of this treatise. Justin M. a greek writer early in the second century, must have understood the passage as it has been here interpreted, for, in evident allusion to it, he says Γνόντες αὐτὸν πρωτότοκον μὲν τῇ θες, και πρὸ πάντων τῶν *TIOμάτNY. p. 352. Lond. 1722.

was in this respect necessary for our information, was that we should be assured, that the Son had existed in glory with the Father before that creation, of which he was the agent. This therefore is distinctly and satisfactorily declared. Any further communication would have unnecessarily involved us in all the embarrassment of a metaphysical discussion of eternal duration. The creed does indeed assert, that the derived Persons of the Trinity are coeternal to the Father. The assertion is not however made in reference to any metaphysical notion of eternal duration, but merely as belonging to their participation of the same godhead. Fortunately in this particular the creed explains itself, and no man needs to suppose, that he is required by it to pronounce upon a question of metaphysics. When the creed enters into particulars, it recurs to the simple language of the scripture, and states, in perfect correspondence to the interpretation of the passage of the epistle to the Colossians already proposed, that the Son had been "begotten before the worlds," or, as it has been more distinctly expressed in the original creed, before the ages. We are therefore authorised by the creed itself to say, that, when the derived Persons of the Trinity are stated to be co-eternal to the Father, the meaning is that they so

• John, ch. 1. V. 1, 2, 3. ch. 17. v. 5. Ep. to the Philip. ch. 2. v. 6. Ep. to the Coloss. ch. 1. v. 15. Ep. to the Hebr. ch. 1.