scheme, who, in other parts of their writings, appear to be remote from it. (a)

(a) "Philo uses not the name for his derivative Being in the Godhead, which we see the other Jews of the time using in the Gospels. He speaks not of him, by his natural appellation of the Son of God. No! He takes up another title for him, which indeed was known equally to other Jews, or Philo could not possibly have adopted it; which was known equally to the Gentiles, as I shall show hereafter; but which was known only to the scholars of either. He calls him "the LOGOS of God." This is a name, that can be borrowed, together with the idea annexed to it, only from the Jews, or from the common ancestors of them and of the Gentiles; that answers exactly to the Dabar of Jehovah in the Hebrew Scriptures, and to the Memra of Jehovah in the Chaldee paraphrasts upon them; and signifies merely "the WORD of God." This name has been since introduced into our religion, by one of the inspired teachers of it. And notwithstanding the ductility of the Greek language in this instance, which would allow it to be rendered either the Word or the Reason of God; yet the English Bible, with a strict adhe rence to propriety, and in full conformity to the ancient Christians and ancient Jews, has rejected the accidental signification, and embraced only the immediate and the genuine. Yet, even now, the name is confined in its use to the more improved intellects among us. And it must therefore have peculiarly been, in the days of Philo, the philosophical denomination of Him, who was popularly called the

Son of God.

The use of the name of Logos, or Word, by Philo and by St. John in concur rence, sufficiently marks the knowledge of the name among the Jews. But the total silence concerning it, by the Jewish writers of the three first Gospels; the equal silence of the introduced Jews concerning it, in all the four; and the acknowledged use of it through all the Jewish records of our religion, merely by St. John himself; prove it to have been familiar to a few only. It is indeed too mysterious in its allusion, and too reducible into metaphor in its import, to have ever been the common and ordinary appellation for the Son of God. Originating from the spiritual principle of connexion, betwixt the first and the second Being in the Godhead; marking this, by a spiritual idea of connexion; and considering it to be as close and as necessary as the Word is to the energetick Mind of God, which cannot bury its intellectual energies in silence, but must put them forth in speech; it is too spiritual in itself, to be addressed to the faith of the multitude. If with so full a reference to our bodily ideas, and so positive a filiation of the Second Being to the First, we have seen the grossness of Arian criticism endeavouring to resolve the doctrine into the mere dust of a figure; how much more ready would it have been to do so, if we had only such a spiritual denomination as this, for the second? This would certainly have been considered by it, as too unsubstantial for distinct personality, and therefore too evanescent for equal divinity.

St. John indeed adopted this philosophical title, for the denomination of the Son of God; only in one solemn and prefatory passage of his Gospel, in two slight and incidental passages of his Epistles, and in one of his Book of revelations. Even there, the use of the popular instead of the philosophical name, in the three Gospels antecedent to his, precluded all probability of misconstruction. Yet, not content with this, he formed an additional barrier. At the same instant in which he speaks of the Logos, he asserts him to be distinct from God the Father, and yet to be equally God with him. "In the beginning," he says, "and THE WORD was with God; and THE WORD was Gon." Having thus secured the 66 was THE WORD; two grand points relating to the Logos, he can have nothing more to say upon the subject, than to repeat what he has stated, for impressing the deeper conviction. He accordingly repeats it. His personality he impresses again, thus; "THE SAME was in the beginning with God." His divinity also he again inculcates, thus: “ALL, THINGS WERE MADE BY HIM, and WITHOUT HIM WAS NOT ANY THING MADE THAT WAS MADE." Here the very repetition itself, of enforcing his claim to divinity, by ascribing the creation to him; is plainly an union of two clauses, each announcing him as the Creator of the universe, and one doubling over the other. And the un

VOL. I.

G g

And this leads us to consider the method which some divines have taken, in using similitudes to explain the doctrine of the

created nature of his own existence is the more strongly enforced upon the mind, by being contrasted with the created nature of all other existences. These were MADE, but he himself was; made by Him, who was with God, and was God. Nor would all this precaution suffice, in the opinion of St. John. He must place still stronger fences against the dangerous spirit of error. He therefore goes on to say, in confirmation of his personality and divinity; and in application of all to our Saviour: "He was in the world, and THE WORLD WAS MADE BY HIM, and the world "knew him not; He came unto HIS OWN [PROPER DOMAINS,] and HIS OWN [PROPER "DOMESTICKS] received him not." And he closes all, with judiciously drawing the several parts of his assertions before into one full point; and with additionally explaining his philosophical term, by a direct reference of it to that popular one which he uses ever afterwards: "and THE WORD was made flesh, and dwelt among us and we beheld his glory, the glory as of THE ONLY BEGOTTEN OF THE *FATHER, full of grace and truth."

Yet, when such guards were requisite, what induced St. John to use this philosophical title at all? The reason was assuredly this. The title was in high repute, and in familiar use, among the refined spirits of the age; and his Gospel was peculiarly calculated for the service of such. The almost perpetual recurrence of the appellation in Philo's works shows evidently the use and the repute in which it was, among the more spiritualized of the Jews. St. John therefore adopted it himself, for the more easy access to their conviction. It was also congenial, probably, of itself to the spiritualized state of St. John's mind. He, who has dwelt so much more than the other Evangelists upon the doctrines of our Saviour; and who has drawn out so many of them, in all their spiritual refinement of ideas; would naturally prefer the spiritual term of relationship for God the Son and God the Father, before the bodily, whenever the intellect was raised enough to receive it, and whenever the use of it was sufficiently guarded from danger. These were two reasons, I suppose, that induced St. John to use it a few times. And these were equally (I suppose) the reasons, that induced him, with all his guards, to use it only a few.

Nor let us be told, in the rashness of Arian absurdity, that we misunderstand St. John in this interpretation of his words. If reason is capable of explaining words, and if St. John was capable of conveying his meaning in words to the ear of reason; then we may boldly appeal to the common sense of mankind, and insist upon the truth of our interpretation. Common sense indeed hath already determined the point, in an impartial person, in an enemy, in a Heathen. I allude to that extraordinary approbation, which was given by a Heathen of the third cen tury to this passage of St. John. "Of modern philosophers," says Eusebius, **Amelius is an eminent one, being himself, if ever there was one, a zealot for the "philosophy of Plato; and he called the Divine of the Hebrews a Barbarian, as "if he would not condescend to make mention of the Evangelist John by name." Such is Eusebius's account of our referee. But what are the terms of his award? They are these. "And such indeed was the Logos," he says, "by whom, a perpetual existence, the things created were created, as also Heraclitus has said: "and who by Jupiter, the Barbarian says, being constituted in the rank and dig. "nity of a Principle, is with God and is God, by whom all things absolutely were "created; in whom the created living thing, and life, and existence, had a birth, "and fell into a body, and putting on flesh appeared a man; and, after showing "the greatness of his nature, and being wholly dissolved, is again deified and is "God, such as he was before he was brought down into the body and the flesh "and a man. These things, if translated out of the Barbarian's theology, not as "shaded over there, but on the contrary as placed in full view, would be plain." In this very singular and very valuable comment upon St. John's Gospel in gene ral, and upon his preface in particular, we may see, through the harsh and ob scure language of the whole, some circumstances of great moment. The bold air of arrogance in the blinded Heathen over the illuminated Divine must strike at

Trinity, which, at best, tend only to illustrate, and not to prove a doctrine and we can hardly make use of this method of illus trating this doctrine, without conveying some ideas, which are unbecoming, if not subversive thereof; and while we pretend to explain that which is in itself inexplicable, we do no service to the truth.

I shall here give a short specimen of this matter, that hereby we may see how some have unwarily weakened the cause which they have been maintaining. Some have taken a similitude from three of the divine perfections, viz. that there are three invisibles of God; power, wisdom, and goodness. Power creates, wisdom governs, and goodness conserves; and so they have gone on to explain this doctrine, till they had almost given it into the hands of the Sabellians: and, indeed, they might have instanced in more divine perfections than three, had it been to their purpose.

Again, others have explained this doctrine by some resemblance which they apprehend to be of it in man; and so they speak of the soul as a principle of a threefold life, rational, sensitive, and vegetative. Others speak of three causes concurring to produce the same effect; such as the efficient, constitutive and final cause. Others have taken their similitude from inanimate things; as the sun, in which there is light, heat, and motion, which are inseparably connected together, and tend to produce the same effects.

Moreover, others illustrate it by a similitude, taken from a fountain, in which there is the spring in the bowels of the earth, the water bubbling out of the earth, and the stream diffusing it self in a perpetual course, receiving all it communicates from the fountain. I am sorry there is occasion to caution any against

once upon every eye. But the Logos appears, from him, tohave been known to the philosophers of antiquity later than the Gospel; and known too as a perpetual Existence, and the Maker of the world. St. John also is witnessed by a Heathen, and by one who put him down for a Barbarian, to have represented the Logos as THE MAKER OF ALL THINGS, AS WITH GOD, and as Gon; as one likewise," in whom the created living Thing," or the human soul of our Saviour, "and" even "Life and Existence" themselves, those primogenial principles of Deity, “had a birth, and fell into a body, and putting on flesh appeared a man," who was therefore man and God in one; who accordingly" showed the greatness of his nature" by his miracles, was "wholly dissolved," and then " was again DEIFIED, and Is God," even SUCH AS HE WAS, before he was brought down into the body and the flesh and a man." And St. John is attested to have declared this, "not even as shaded ́over, but "on the contrary as placed in full view." We have thus a testimony to the plain meaning of St. John, and to the evident Godhead of his Logos, a Godhead equally before and after his death; most unquestionable in its nature, very early in its age, and peculiarly forcible in its import. St. John, we see, is referred to in a language, that shows him to have been well known to the Grecian cotempora ries of Amelius, as a writer, as a foreigner, and as a marked assertor of Divinity for his Logos."

66

༢༼a1TAKER.

this method of explaining the doctrine of the Trinity. But these, and many other similitudes of the like nature, we find in the writings of some, who consider not what a handle they give to the common enemy. There are, indeed, in most of them, three things, which are said, in different respects, to be one; but we may observe, that all these similitudes, and others of the like nature, brought to illustrate this doctrine, lead us to think of the whole divided into those parts, of which they consist, whereof they take notice of the number three; or they speak of three properties of the same thing; and if their wit and fancy saw it needful to speak of more than three, the same method of illustrating would serve their purpose, as much as it does the end for which they bring it. Therefore I would conclude this head, by using the words of God to Job, Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge? Job xxxviii. 2. Who are these, that, by pretending to illustrate the doctrine of the Trinity by similitudes, do that, which, though very foreign to their design, tends to pervert it?

6. We shall now consider what general rules may be observed for our understanding those scriptures, on which our faith, with respect to the doctrine of the Trinity, is founded; and since it is a doctrine of pure revelation, as has been before observed, we must keep close to scripture, even to the words thereof, where they are express and distinct, as to this matter; and to consequences deduced from it, so far as they are just, and self-evident; and, at the same time, while we are sensible that we cannot comprehend this mystery, we must take care that we pretend not to be wise above what is revealed. Now there are some rules, which may be of use to us, in our enquiries into the sense of scripture concerning this doctrine; as,

(1.) We must not suppose that the words of scripture, rela ting thereunto, are to be taken in a sense, which can be known by none but criticks, as though it were designed only for them to understand; or that the unlearned part of the world should be left in the dark, or led astray, as to several things contained in this important doctrine. Thus we are not to suppose that we are at a loss as to the proper sense of the word God; or could hardly know how to direct our faith and worship, founded thereon, without the help of criticism; or, for want of being acquainted with some distinctions, concerning one that may be called God by nature, or the supreme God, and others who may be called gods by office, or subordinate gods, we should be led to ascribe divine honour where it is not due; or else we must be able to distinguish also concerning worship, and, instead of honouring the Son as we honour the Father, must give him an inferior kind of divine worship, short of what is due to, the Father. This we have no scripture warrant for; neither are we

led by the scriptures to have any notion of a middle being between God and the creature, or one that is not properly God, so as the Father is, and yet more than a creature, as though there were a medium between finite and infinite; neither are we led, by scripture, to conceive of any being, that has an eternal duration, whose eternity is supposed to be before time, and yet not the same with the eternal duration of the Father. These things we shall have occasion to mention in their proper place, and therefore need make no farther use of them at present, but only to observe, from hence, how intelligible the scripture would be in what relates to this doctrine, if the words thereof had not a plain and determinate sense; but we must make use of these methods of reasoning, if we would arrive to the meaning thereof.

(2.) If some divine perfections are attributed in scripture to the Son and Spirit, all the perfections of the divine nature, may, by a just consequence from thence, be proved to belong to them, by reason of the simplicity and unity thereof: therefore, if we can prove, from scripture, that they have some perfections ascribed to them, which, I hope, it will not be a difficult matter to do, we are not to suppose that our argument is defective, or that the doctrine of the Trinity is not sufficiently maintained, if we cannot produce a scripture to prove every perfection of the divine nature to be ascribed to them.

(3.) When any thing is mentioned in scripture, concerning our Saviour, or the Holy Spirit, which argues an inferiority to the Father, this is to be understood consistently with other scriptures, which speak of their having the same divine nature; since scripture does not, in the least, contradict itself; and how this may be done, will be farther considered under a following head.

(4.) If we have sufficient arguments to convince us of the truth of this doctrine, our faith ought not to be shaken, though we cannot fully understand the sense of some scriptures, which are brought to support the contrary; not that we are to suppose that the scripture gives countenance to two opposite doctrines : but a person may be fully satisfied concerning the sense of those scriptures that contain the doctrine of the Trinity, and yet not be supposed perfectly to understand the meaning of every word or phrase used in scripture, or of some particular texts, which are sometimes brought to support the contrary doctrine; so that objections may be brought, which he is not able readily to reply to. Shall he therefore deny the truth, because he cannot remove all the difficulties that seem to lie in the way of it? That would be to part with it at too easy a rate, which, when he has done, he will find greater difficulties attending the contrary scheme of doctrine. Do they object, that we believe things contrary to reason, because we assert the incomprehen