of the soul; so in the person of Jesus Christ, the human nature was entire, and still acted according to its own character. Yet there was such a union and inhabitation of the eternal Word in it, that there did arise out of that a communication of names and characters, as we find in the Scriptures. A man is called tall, fair, and healthy, from the state of his body; and learned, and wise, and good, from the qualities of his mind. So Christ is called holy, harmless, and undefiled; is said to have died, risen, and ascended up into heaven, with relation to his human nature. He is also said to be in the form of God,' to have created all things,' to be the brightness of the Father's glory,' and the express image of his person,' with relation to his Divine nature. The ideas that we have of what is material, and what is spiritual, lead us to distinguish in a man those descriptions that belong to his body, from those that belong to his mind; so the different apprehensions that we have of what is created and uncreated, must be our thread to guide us into the resolution of those various expressions which occur in the Scriptures concerning Christ.

·

17. "The design of the definition that was made by the Church, concerning Christ's having one person, was chiefly to distinguish the nature of the indwelling of the Godhead in him from all prophetical inspirations. The Mosaic degree of prophecy was, in many respects, superior to that of the subsequent prophets; yet the difference is stated between Christ and Moses, in terms that import things of quite another nature: the one being mentioned as the servant; the other as the Son that built the house. It is not said that God appeared to Christ, or that he spoke to him; but God was ever with him, and in him; and while the Word was made flesh,' yet still his glory was as the glory of the only begotten Son of God.' The glory that Isaiah saw, was his glory; and, on the other hand, God is said to have purchased the Church with his own blood. If Nestorius, in opposing this, meant only (as some think it appears by many citations out of him) that the blessed virgin was not to be called simply the mother of God,' but 'the mother of him that was God;' and if that of making two persons in Christ was only fastened on him as a consequence, we are not at all concerned in the matter of fact, whether Nestorius was misunderstood and hardly used or not; but the doctrine here asserted is plain in the Scriptures; that though the human nature of Christ acted still according to its proper character, and had a peculiar will, yet there was such a constant presence, indwelling, and actuation on it from the eternal Word, as did constitute both human and Divine nature one person. As these are thus so entirely united, so they are never to be separated. Christ is now exalted to the highest degrees of glory and honour; and the characters of blessing, honour, and glory,' are represented in St. John's vision, as offered unto the Lamb for ever and ever."" (Burnet on the Articles.)

CHAPTER XIII.

Some objections answered.

1. WHAT has been advanced in the last chapter upon the humanity of Christ, will, I presume, if thoroughly considered, be found to contain a sufficient answer to most of the arguments brought to disprove his

divinity. For they seem, in general, to be built on a supposition, that those who believe him to be God, either deny him to be man, or imagine his manhood to have been absorbed by, or converted into his Godhead, so as no longer to retain its proper nature, and possess an understanding and will distinct from those of the Deity. Nay, some speak as if they thought we believed the man, strictly speaking, to be God-the creature to be the Creator. But none of these things is, in the least, supposed or intended. We only believe and wish to establish such a union between this humanity of our Saviour and the Divine essence, through the indwelling of the eternal Word of the Father, as will justify the conduct of the apostles, in applying to Christ so many passages of the Old Testament, manifestly intended of the true God, will account for his bearing Divine names and titles, and having Divine perfections and works ascribed to him, and will lay a proper foundation for that dependence upon him as a Mediator and Redeemer, without which there is no salvation; and for that honour and worship, which, according to the Scriptures, are his due.

2. But it will be objected by those who admit the pre-existence of Christ, and yet deny his Godhead, that "what has been said concerning his humanity does not come up to the point: that he uses a variety of expressions concerning himself, even before his incarnation, which seem incompatible with true and proper Deity; such as-— I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me: I proceeded forth, and came from God, neither came I of myself, but he sent me: I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world: again I leave the world, and go to the Father.'

3. In answer to this, I observe, first, we find expressions, similar to these, used even of the Holy Ghost, whom the Unitarians themselves allow, though not to be a proper person, yet to be truly Divine. Of him Jesus uses the following language. "The Comforter, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things," John xiv, 26. Again: "When the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me," John xv, 26. And again: "I tell you the truth: it is expedient for you that I go away; for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you: but if I depart, I will send him unto you, and when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, of righteousness, and of judgment. When the Spirit of truth is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that he shall speak; and he will show you things to come. He shall glorify me, for he shall receive of mine, and show it unto you: all things that the Father hath are mine; therefore said I, that he shall receive of mine, and show it unto you,' John xvi, 7-13, 15. Now if these, and such like expressions, when used of the Holy Spirit, do 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 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 Savepwos, 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 descrip tive of his nature,) is that given him by St. John in the beginning of his Gospel, viz. o λoyos, 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 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 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 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.'

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 potes.

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 multipli. city 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."