indeed, imply that the Father is the Principle both of the Word and Spirit, the Fountain (fo to fpeak) from whence they flowtheir 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 further, it feems we cannot fairly infer it from fuch like expreffions, which are manifeftly accommodated. to our weakness, and must be understood in fuch a fenfe as not to militate against other paffages which fpeak fo clearly of their Divinity.

4. I obferve, fecondly, If expreffions of this kind might be ufed of the Holy Ghoft, they may much more be ufed 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 fervant, being made in the likeness of men. Hence being JavIgwños, God-man, he both has, and may have things predicated of him which, properly fpeaking, belong only to the human nature; nay, only to the inferior part thereof, viz. the body. And probably the paffages objected above, and others of a fimilar 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 fame fenfe as when God is faid 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 condefcended 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 feeking his own glory,but doing his will, and feeking his glory, whofe Servant he undertook to be in the Work of Man's Redemption.

5. I obferve, thirdly, Though it feems to me that the most proper name of our Lord before his incarnation, (I mean the name of the most defcriptive of his nature) is that given him by St. John in the beginning of his Golpel, viz. o oyas,

THE

THE WORD, or, as it is expreffed, 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 alfo properly called the Son of God. Accordingly we read, God fo loved the world, that he gave his only begotten SON-When the fulness of time was come, God fent forth his Son, made (man) of a woman:-God fending his own SoN in the likeness of finful flesh-God fent not his SON into the world to condemn the world:-The Father fent the SON to be the Saviour of the world. It feems plainly implied in thefe, and fuch like paffages, that he who was given, fent forth, fent in the likeness of finful flejn, fent into the world, &c. was previously God's Son. This is ftill more manifeft from Heb. i. 2.

God

hath, in thefe laft days, fpoken unto us by his SONby whom he made the worlds. He was God's Son, therefore, in his pre-exiftent ftate, when God made the worlds by him. And there are divers other texts, many of which have been quoted above, which fpeak a fimilar 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 queftion this which our Lord anfwers, when he fays, 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 furely did not speak of his human nature, as if this were fuch an unfearchable myftery that no one could know it, but of his. divine. Add to this, that it appears, by the paffages quoted above from Philo, that the Jews were wont to call the Logos, or Word, the firstborn and only begotten Son.

6. Now if this language of our Lord himself, and his infpired Apofiles and Prophets, to whom he revealed himself by his Spirit, be allowed to be proper, then, as Bishop Pearson argues, “We may fafely obferve, that, in the very name of

Q 3

Father,

Father, there is fomething above that of Son: and fome kind of priority we must afcribe unto him whom we call the firft, in refpect of him whom we term the fecond perfon and as we cannot but afcribe it, fo we must endeavour to preferve it.

66

7. Now that privilege, or priority, confifteth not in this, that the Effence or Attributes of the one are greater than the Effence or Attributes of the other (for they are the fame in both, but only in this, that the Father hath that Effence of himfelf, the Son by communication from the Father. From whence he acknowledgeth that he is from him, that he liveth by him, and that the Father gave him to have life in himfelf,and generally referreth all things to him as received. from him. Wherefore, in this fenfe, fome of the Ancients have not fuck to interpret thefe words, The Father is greater than I, of Chrift as the Son of God, as the fecond perfon in the Trinity; but ftill with reference not unto his Effence, but his generation, by which he is understood to have his being from the Father, who only hath it of himfelf, and is the original of all Power and Effence in the Son. I can of mine own felf do nothing, faith our Saviour, becaufe he is not of himself; and whofoever receives his being, must receive his power from another, cfpecially where the Effence and the Power are undeniably the fame, as in God they are. The Son, then, can do nothing of himself but what he feeth the Father do, because he hath no power of himself but what the Father gave; and being he gave him all the

* I am much in doubt, whether fome of the paffages of Scrip ure, here quoted by the Bishop, are not rather to be understood of our Lord's human nature, or at least of him as God-man. We must take care that we do not conceive of his divine nature as being divided from the Father, as though it were a diftin& and feparate Intelligence. This would be to fuppose him Another God.

power

power as communicating his entire and undivided Effence, therefore what things foever he doth, thefe doth the Son likewife by the fame power by which the Father worketh, because he hath received the fame Godhead in which the Father fubfifteth."

8. "We must not, therefore, fo far endeavour to involve ourselves in the darkness of this myftery, as to deny that glory which is clearly due unto the Father; whofe pre-eminence undeniably confifteth in this,that he is God not of any other but of himself,-and that there is no other perfon who is God, but is God of him. It is no diminution to the Son to fay he is from another, for his very name imports as much but it were a diminution to the Father, to speak fo of him: and there muft be fomne pre-eminence where there is place for derogation. What the Father is, he is from none; what the Son is, he is from him: What the firft is, he giveth; what the fecond is, he receiveth. The firft is a Father indeed by reafon of his Son, but he is not God by reafon of him; whereas the Son is not a Son only in regard of the Father, but also God by reafon of the fame."

-་་

9. In the following paragraph the Bishop fully accounts for the expreffions objected above, refpecting Chrift being fent. Upon this preeminence (as I conceive) may fafely be grounded the congruity of the Divine Miffion. We often read that Chrift was fent, from whence he bears the name of an Apoftle himfelf, as well as those whom he therefore named fo, becaufe as the Father fent him, fo he fent them: The Holy Ghost is alfo faid to be fent, fometimes by the Father, fometimes by the Son: but we never read that the Father was fent at all, there being an authority in that name which feems inconfiftent with this Million. In the parable,-A certain houfeholder, who planted a vineyard, firft fent his fervants to the hufbandmen, and again other fervants; but laft of all he fent unto them his Son: It had been inconfiftent, even with the literal sense of an hif

torical

tórical parable, as not at all confonant to the rational customs of men, to have faid, that last of all the Son fent his Father to them. So God placing man in the Vineyard of his Church, first fent his fervants the Prophets, by whom he spake at fundry times, and in divers manners; but, in the laft days, he fent his Son: and it were as incon- . gruous and inconfiftent with the divine generation, that the Son fhould fend the Father into the world. As the living Father hath fent me, and I live by the Father, faith our Saviour; intimating, that by whom he lived, by him he was fent ; and, therefore, fent by him, because he lived by him, laying his generation as the proper ground of his Miffion. Thus he who begetteth fendeth, and he who is begotten is fent. For I am from him, and he hath fent me, faith the Son: from whom I received my Effence by communication, from him alfo I received this commiffion.

He, then is that God who fent forth his Son, made of a woman, that God, who hath fent forth the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, Abba, Father, So the authority of fending is in the Father; which, therefore, ought to be acknowledged, becaufe upon this Miflion is founded the higheft teftimony of his love to man--for herein is love, faith St. John, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and fent his Son to be the propitiation for our fins.

10. Neither can we be thought to want a fufficient foundation for this priority of the first perfon in the Trinity, if we look upon the numerous teftimonies of the ancient Doctors of the Church, who have not ftuck to call the Father the Origin, the Caufe, the Author, the Root, the Fountain, and the Head of the Son."*

Of this the Bishop produces numerous and indubitable teftimonies in his Notes.

"By