not imply that he is a created being, separate from and of a nature inferior to the Father, and even to the Son, neither do similar expressions, when used of the Word, necessarily imply that he is a created being, separate from and of a nature inferior to the Father. They may, indeed, imply that the Father is the principle both of the Word and Spirit, the fountain, so to speak, from whence they flow, their source and original. And this is undoubtedly implied in the very names, Father, Son, Word, Spirit, and is what the primitive church uniformly believed and taught. But as to anything further, 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 saveрwπоs, 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 understood 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 seeking 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 descriptive of his nature, is that given him by St. John in the beginning of his gospel, viz.,

ο

o Aoyos, "the Word," or, as he is called, Rev. xix. 13, "the Word of God;" 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 likeness 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 pre-existent 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, 66 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

6

6

And

ascribe it, so we must endeavour to preserve it.” "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 inconsistent 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.""

6

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," 66 the Author," "the Root," "the Fountain," and "the Head" of the Son.*

• Of this the bishop produces numerous and indubitable testimonies in his notes.

"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;' 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 that there are 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 the 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 man

* I had made, and thought to have added here, further 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."

ner, 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 And yet, with St.

be equal? saith the Holy One." 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