Reformed Covenanter
Cancelled Commissioner
In my reading this Sabbath afternoon, I noticed that Ebenezer Erskine expressed his dislike of referring to God the Father as the "fountain of the deity", but I am just after reading Stephen Charnock's affirmation of this very phrase. Charnock said, "The Father being the root and fountain of the deity, all actions are originally ascribed to him, though common to all; so he is first in order of being, as he is first in order of working." (Works, 4: 543). Erskine expressed his dissent from this terminology:
Some orthodox divines, when speaking of the Trinity of persons in the glorious Godhead, are pleased to say, that the Father is the fountain of the Deity. I do not love that way of speaking; for I think the whole Deity, including the three persons, are their own fountain and original; and that the eternal generation of the Son, and procession of the Holy Ghost, are essential to the Deity; and that the whole Deity is originally in every one of these sacred and divine persons; and that it is inconsistent for anything that is God, to be an inferior or independent being. (Works, 2: 253-54)
What do you make of Erskine's comments?
Some orthodox divines, when speaking of the Trinity of persons in the glorious Godhead, are pleased to say, that the Father is the fountain of the Deity. I do not love that way of speaking; for I think the whole Deity, including the three persons, are their own fountain and original; and that the eternal generation of the Son, and procession of the Holy Ghost, are essential to the Deity; and that the whole Deity is originally in every one of these sacred and divine persons; and that it is inconsistent for anything that is God, to be an inferior or independent being. (Works, 2: 253-54)
What do you make of Erskine's comments?