very names, Father, Son, Word, Spirit, and is what the primitive Church uniformly believed and taught. But as to any thing farther, we cannot fairly infer it from such like expressions, which are manifestly accommodated to our weakness, and must be understood in such a sense as not to militate against other passages which speak so clearly of their divinity. 4. I observe, secondly, If expressions of this kind might be used of the Holy Ghost, they may much more be used of the Logos, who, according to the Scriptures, though the living Word of the Father, and a Son, took upon him the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men. Hence being Sɛave pros, God-man, he both has, and may have things predicated of him which, properly speaking, belong only to the human nature; nay, only to the inferior part thereof, viz. the body. And probably the passages objected above, and others of a similar nature, are to be under. stood either wholly of the human nature, or if of the Divine, of it only because of its union with the human, in the same sense as when God is said to "lay down his life," or to "purchase the Church with his own blood." Add to this, that this Word and Son of the Father, having condescended to become a servant, and having accordingly taken the form of one, we need not wonder to find him acting in character, and not " doing his own will," nor sceking" his own glory," but doing his will, and seeking his glory, whose servant he undertook to be, in the work of man's redemption.

5. I observe, thirdly, Though it seems to me that the most proper name of our Lord before his incarnation, (I mean the name most descrip. tive of his nature,) is that given him by St. John in the beginning of his Gospel, viz. o Xoyos, the Word, or, as he is called, "The Word of God," Rev. xix, 13; yet it appears from what has been advanced in the former part of this work, that he is also properly called "the Son of God." Accordingly we read, "God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son. When the fulness of time was come, God sent forth his Son, made [man] of a woman: God sending his own Son in the like. ness of sinful flesh: God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world." It seems plainly implied in these, and such like passages, that he who was "given, sent forth, sent in the likeness of sinful flesh, sent into the world," &c, was previously God's Son. This is still more manifest from Heb. i, 2: "God hath, in these last days, spoken unto us by his Son, by whom he made the worlds." He was God's Son, therefore in his preexistent state, when God made the worlds by him. And there are divers other texts, many of which have been quoted above, which speak a similar language. He is indeed called the Son, even in the Old Testament, and that, it seems, without any reference to his future incarnation, as by Agur, "What is his name, and what is his Son's name, if thou canst tell?" A question this which our Lord answers, when he says, "No man knoweth the Son but the Father, neither knoweth any man the Father but the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal him :" which words our Lord surely did not speak of his human nature, as if this were such an unsearchable mystery that no one could know it, but of his Divine. Add to this, that it appears, by the passages quoted above from Philo, that the Jews were wont to call the Logos or Word the first born and only begotten Son.

6. Now if this language of our Lord himself, and his inspired apostles and prophets, to whom he revealed himself by his Spirit, be allowed to be proper, then, as Bishop Pearson argues, "we may safely observe, that, in the very name of Father, there is something above that of Son. And some kind of priority or pre-eminence we must ascribe unto him whom we call the first, in respect of him whom we term the second person and as we cannot but ascribe it, so we must endeavour to preserve it." And " upon this priority or pre-eminence may safely be grounded the congruity of the Divine mission. We often read that Christ was sent, from whence he bears the name of an apostle himself, as well as those whom he therefore named so, because as the Father sent him, so he sent them. The Holy Ghost is also said to be sent, sometimes by the Father, sometimes by the Son: but we never read that the Father was sent at all, there being an authority in that name which seems incon. sistent with this mission. In the parable,—' A certain householder, who planted a vineyard, first sent his servants to the husbandmen, and again other servants; but last of all he sent unto them his son.' It had been inconsistent, even with the literal sense of an historical parable, as not at all consonant to the rational customs of men, to have said, that last of all the son sent his father to them. So God, placing man in the vineyard of his Church, first sent his servants, the prophets, by whom he spake at sundry times, and in divers manners;' but in the last days, he sent his Son.' And it were as incongruous and inconsistent with the Divine generation, that the Son should send the Father into the world." The Father, then, "is that God who sent forth his Son, made of a woman,' that God, who hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, Abba, Father.' So the authority of sending is in the Father: which, therefore, ought to be acknowledged, because upon this mission is founded the highest testimony of his love to man; for herein is love,' saith St. John, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.'

7. "Neither can we be thought to want a sufficient foundation for this priority of the first person in the trinity, if we look upon the numerous testimonies of the ancient doctors of the Church, who have not stuck to call the Father the origin, the cause, the author, the root, the fountain, and the head of the Son."** "By which titles it clearly appeareth, first, that they made a considerable difference between the person of the Father, of whom are all things,' and the person of the Son, by whom are all things;' and secondly, that the difference consisteth properly in this, that as the branch is from the root, and river from the fountain, so the Son is from the Father, and not the Father from the Son, as being what he is from none." Accordingly we find, "that the name God, taken absolutely, is often in the Scriptures spoken of the Father; as when we read of 'God sending his own Son;' of 'the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God;' and, generally, wheresoever Christ is called the Son of God,' or the Word of God,' the name of God is to be taken particularly for the Father, because he is no Son but of the Father. From hence he is styled one God, the true God, the only true God, the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ :' Of this the bishop produces numerous and indubitable testimonies in his

notes.

which, as it is most true, and so fit to be believed, is also a most necessary truth, and therefore to be acknowledged, for the avoiding multiplicity and plurality of gods. For if there were more than one which were from none, it could not be denied but there were more gods than one. Wherefore this origination in the Divine paternity hath anciently been looked upon as the assertion of the unity; and therefore the Son and Holy Ghost have been believed to be but one God with the Father, because both from the Father, who is one, and so the union of them."**

8. The Father, therefore, is the fountain of Deity, and of Divine power and hence it is, that as the gifts and operations of the Holy Ghost are ascribed to him in Scripture, (because they really are his gifts and operations, in and by the Holy Ghost, his own Spirit,) so, in like manner, respecting the Word, the Son. His manifestations and works are ascribed to the Father, because they really are the Father's works and manifestations, in and by the Logos, his own Word. If it be asked, "How far are the Word and Spirit distinct, and how do they differ from the Father, and from each other?" I answer, How far they are distinct, and how they differ, is impossible for us fully to say, because it is not told us. We only know that they are manifestly distinguished, and have personal actions attributed to them in the Holy Scriptures; and that the Father is spoken of as the source and principle, both of the Word and Spirit, and is represented as calling creatures into existence, and revealing himself and his will to the intelligent part of those creatures by that Word, and communicating himself and his nature by that Spirit. So that, as he is distinguished from them both, as the sun is distinguished from his rays, and a fountain from its streams; so they are distinguished from each other, the Word chiefly appearing, and, as the express image of the Father's person, externally revealing the Deity; and the Holy Ghost remaining invisible, and internally communicating him. And, no doubt, there is in the nature of the Godhead a reason for this, though we cannot comprehend it. We have, therefore, only one Jehovah, one living and true God, manifesting himself and his will by his Word, and communicating himself and his nature by his Spirit.

9. Hence we may put the question which the prophet puts, with as much propriety as any Unitarian in the world, "To whom, then, will ye liken God, or what likeness will ye compare unto him?" Or, in the language of the Lord himself, "To whom will ye liken me? or shall I be equal, saith the Holy One?" And yet, with St. Paul and St. John, we may answer, The Word that was in the beginning with God, and was God, "being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God." For as Jehovah did not exclude, but comprehend his own Spirit when he said, "To whom will ye liken me, or shall I be equal?" so also he did not exclude, but comprehend his own Word. And when we say God's Word and Spirit are equal to God, we do not mean to separate them into two other gods, but only to signify that they are not

* I had made, and thought to have added here, farther extracts from Bishop Pearson, as well as a large one from Bishop Bull's Defence of the Nicene Faith to the same purpose; but as it would be little better than a repetition of what has now been observed, I forbear to insert them. Bishop Beveridge and Mr. William Stephens, have considered the matter in the same light. And, of late, Dr. Horsley, in his letters to Dr. Priestley, has observed that "three co-ordinate persons would be manifestly three gods."

creatures at an infinite distance from true Deity, but really Divine, partaking of the nature of that Godhead from which they proceed, and in which they are comprehended.

10. The Socinians and Arians, indeed, with a view to get rid of the irrefragable argument which the text just referred to furnishes against their scheme, would fain force a very different sense upon it, and trans. late it, "Being in the form of God, he coveted not after, or did not eagerly catch at an equality with God." But there are two insuperable objections to this translation, (if it may be called one ;) the first is, that the words will not bear it, nyalo aprayov, signifying not "he coveted not after," or "did not eagerly catch at," but simply and only, he thought it not an act of robbery, or any usurpation of another's right; and the following words, siva oa Jew, meaning only-to be equal with God. The second objection to this forced translation is, that it would make the apostle very absurdly represent it as a great instance of Christ's humility, that he was not as proud as Lucifer; who, (as is supposed,) though highly exalted in the scale of being, yet being a mere creature, and, as such, infinitely inferior to God, manifested insufferable pride in eagerly coveting and catching at an equality with God. Now, surely, if Christ had been a mere creature, the apostle would never have mentioned it as a great proof of his humility, that he did not, like Satan, aspire after an equality with one infinitely above him!

11. We must, therefore, of necessity, abide by the grammatical and literal sense of the words above mentioned; which we may do with the greater satisfaction, having seen it confirmed, in the preceding chapters, by so many testimonies of the same apostle in other places, as well as of other apostles and inspired writers. For surely he who appeared to the patriarchs and prophets, at sundry times, in the character of God; he to whom the apostles, speaking by inspiration of God, applied many passages of the Old Testament, containing proper descriptions of the Most High; he to whom Divine names and titles are given, and Divine attributes are ascribed; he who is represented as the immediate author of all the Divine works, and who has been, is, and is to be worshipped as God-he must be equal with God; or, in other words, he must be God, possessed of true and proper Deity, in union with the Father, whose Word and only begotten Son he is, and from whom he never can be separated.

་

12. But if the Word and Son of God be really a Divine person, how could he 'empty himself,' (which in this very text he is said to do,) 'leave the glory' he had with the Father, or become poor?" See John xvii, 3; 2 Cor. viii, 9. I answer, it is easy to conceive that he might do this, as far as these texts signify that he hath done it. They do not say that his nature underwent any change, that his wisdom, power, or love, his holiness, truth, or justice, were either lost or lessened: they only speak of his form or mode of manifestation. This passage in the Epistle to the Philippians being much more particular, is plainly a key to the other two; and all that he asserts is, that (when in the "form of God, and equal with God," the Godhead of the Father being his Godhead,) he emptied himself, taking the "form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men." So that the emptying of himself, which the apostle speaks of, manifestly consisted in his taking the form of a ser

vant, which form he took when he was made in the likeness of men. It consisted in this, in that though he was the Word and Son of the Father, who had spoke the universe into being, and had manifested himself to the patriarchs and prophets of old, as the Creator, Preserver, and Lord of all, he now appeared in the form of a creature; yea, of a mere and mortal creature,-a creature compassed about with infirmity, liable to pain and misery, and subject to dissolution and decay! And surely this might very properly be termed an emptying himself, a leaving his glory, and becoming poor. For how great the contrast! He had given the law on Sinai, amidst thunder and lightning, storm and tempest, earthquake and devouring fire: he had appeared in glory to the nobles of the children of Israel, when there "was under his feet, as it were, a paved work, of a sapphire stone, and, as it were, the body of heaven in its clearness." Isaiah had seen him "upon a throne, high and lifted up, when his train filled the temple, and the seraphim cried one to another, Holy, holy, holy is Jehovah of hosts! the whole earth is full of his glory!" And now that same Word and Son of the Father dwells in the flesh; in the meek and lowly Jesus," a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief, despised and rejected of men, having neither form nor comeliness that we should desire him;" whose greatest triumph was to ride into Jerusalem upon a colt, the foal of an ass, amidst the acclamations of children and a few poor people; and who, at last, was executed upon a cross, between two thieves, as a malefactor!

13. "It is a vain imagination (says the author last quoted) that our Saviour then first appeared a servant, when he was apprehended, bound, scourged, and crucified: for they were not all slaves who ever suffered such indignities, or died that death; and when they did, their death did not make, but find them, or suppose them, servants. Beside, our Saviour, in all the degrees of his humiliation, never lived as a servant unto any master on earth. It is true, at first he was subject, but as a son, to his reputed father and undoubted mother. When he appeared in public, he lived after the manner of a prophet, and a doctor sent from God, accompanied with a family, as it were, of his apostles, whose master he professed himself, subject to the commands of no man in that office, and obedient only unto God. The 'form, then, of a servant,' which he took upon him, must consist in something distinct from his sufferings or submission unto men, as the condition in which he was when he so submitted and so suffered. In that he was made flesh,' sent in the likeness of sinful flesh, subject unto all the infirmities and miseries of this life, attending on the sons of men, fallen by the sin of Adam: in that he was made of a woman, made under the law,' and so obliged to perform the same; which law did so handle the children of God, as that they differed nothing from servants: in that he was born, bred, and lived in a mean, low, and abject condition as a root out of a dry ground, he had no form nor comeliness; and when men saw him, there was no beauty that they should desire him; but he was despised and rejected of men, a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: in that he was thus made man, he took upon him the form of a servant :' which is not mine but the apostle's explication; as adding it, not by way of conjunction, in which there might be some diversity, but by way of apposition, which signifieth a clear identity.