have severely condemned Arians, and yet were not orthodox themselves. And if they could have been persuaded to explain their own notion, it would have appeared that they were in the Arian scheme, or near it. But they were too positive, and too well satisfied of being in the right, to hear any argument from those who would have debated with them, and led them into the merits of the controversy.

Disputes about the person of Christ, and the doctrine of the Trinity, as is well known, have been exceedingly prejudicial to the christian cause and interest; and chiefly so, because those disputes have been managed with too much heat; and contending parties on both sides have not been contented to dispute and argue, and then leave it to every one to determine conscientiously according to the best of his own judgment; but would impose their own sense. And if they had the authority, and civil power on their side, would require men under heavy pains and losses to profess, in word or writing, an assent to their opinion, whether convinced or not. Whereas serious and impartial, free and patient enquiries and debates might have been instructive and let in light; and different sentiments have been allowed without detriment either to truth or piety.

I hope we may now have an example of this kind; and that all will bear with patience an argument which is intended to be proposed with mildness, though with plainness, free from all reserve and disguise.

In order to understand this text, and to give free scope to every one to judge of its design, according to several apprehensions concerning the person of Christ, it will be needful to consider the several schemes of divines relating to the doctrine of the Trinity. For, as christians among us have before them, beside what is said in the scriptures, divers determinations upon the doctrine of the Trinity, in catechisms, articles, and liturgies, they will apply those determinations to this, and other texts of scripture.

I have therefore thought, that no method will more directly lead to a clear judgment in this point, than to propose and consider the common schemes or ways of thinking of the Deity, which obtain among the professed disciples and followers of Jesus.

The first shall be that which is reckoned the commonly received scheme, and called orthodox and catholic.

In the Assembly's catechism it is said: There are three 'persons in the Godhead, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; the same in substance, equal in power and 'glory.'

VOL. IX.

2 P

The first article of the church of England is: There is but one living and true God, everlasting, without body, parts, or passions, of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness, the maker and preserver of all things, both visible and invisible. And in the unity of this godhead there be three 'persons, of one substance, power, and eternity, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.'

Here certainly ariseth a difficulty. How are we to understand these expressions? And how are they understood by those who use them, and approve of them, and assent to them, as right? One God, three persons, the same in sub'stance, equal in power and glory; or of one substance, 'power, and eternity.' Is it hereby meant, that there are three really distinct minds, or intelligent agents? So we might be apt to conclude from the use of the word person, and saying, that these three are equal.'

Nevertheless there are two different sentiments among those who are called orthodox. Some believe three distinct persons or beings, of the same substance or essence in kind; as three men are distinct, but are of the same kind of substance. Others do not understand the word "person" in the common acceptation. They believe only a modal distinction. They openly say, that in discoursing on the mystery of the Trinity, they do not use the word "person in what is now the common meaning of that word. We might be disposed to think that these went into the Sabellian scheme, which holds one person only in the Deity, under three different denominations. But yet they deny it, and disclaim Sabellianism, and speak of it as a very pernicious opinion. They say, that though the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, are not three distinct beings, or individuals, there is a distinction, which may be represented by that of three persons.

Here then are two different opinions among those who pass for orthodox.

And which is right? that is, which of these is the prevailing and generally received opinion? I answer, the latter; [or the opinion of those] who hold only a modal distinction in the Trinity. This appears to me evident from what is called the Athanasian Creed," which is always allowed by

I say, called the Athanasian Creed, for it is now generally allowed by learned men, that it is not the work of the celebrated Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, who flourished in the fourth century, but of some other person long after his time. Nor is it certainly known by whom it was composed. For proof of this I refer to the Benedictine edition of Athanasius's works, tom. p. 719, &c.

II.

those who bear the denomination of orthodox, to be the standard of the true doctrine of the Trinity. It is to this purpose: The catholic faith is this; that we worship one God in Trinity-Trinity in Unity; neither confounding "the persons, nor dividing the substance. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of 'the Holy Ghost. But the god head of the Father, of the 'Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one, the glory equal, the majesty co-eternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Ghost.-The Father eternal, the Son • eternal, and the Holy Ghost eternal. And yet there are not ⚫ three eternals, but one eternal. As also there are not three 'incomprehensibles, nor three uncreated, but one uncreated, and one incomprehensible. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Ghost almighty. And yet there are not three Almighties, but one Almighty. 'So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet there are not three Gods, but one God.' According to this creed, there are not three eternals, • but one eternal, not three Almighties, but one Almighty.' So this seems to me. However, let every man judge for himself. And let every man, who thinks himself orthodox, examine himself by this creed, whether he be so, or not. For it is not impossible that many well meaning people, of lower rank, may believe a real Trinity of distinct intelligent beings. Yea, it is likely, that this is indeed the firm belief and persuasion of great numbers of the vulgar sort among christians. It may be also the sentiment of some who make no small figure in the learned world.

Nevertheless I do not think that to be what is called the commonly received doctrine of the church. This appears to me evident from the forecited creed.

Before we proceed to apply this doctrine to the words of the text, it may be proper to observe still more distinctly the received doctrine concerning the Son. The second article of the church of England is thus. The Son, which is the word of the Father, begotten from everlasting of the Father, the very and eternal God, of one substance with 'the Father, took man's nature in the womb of the blessed virgin, of her substance; so that two whole and perfect 'natures, that is, the godhead and manhood were joined together in one person, never to be divided. Whereof is one Christ, very God, and very man; who truly suffered, was dead and buried.'

I have taken the words of that article, that I may be sure

to avoid all misrepresentation, and that there may be no suspicion of it.

6

6

Let us now observe the explication of the text, agreeably to this scheme; which I shall take in the words of a pious annotator.b "Let this mind be in you, which was also in 'Christ Jesus." As Christ denied himself for you, so 'should you for others. "Who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:" that is, 'who being the essential image of the Father, and enjoying the divine essence and nature with all its glory, knew that it was no usurpation in him, to account himself so, and carry himself as such. "But made himself of no reputation." Yet he emptied himself of that divine glory and majesty, by hiding it in the veil of his flesh; " and took upon him the form of a servant :" that is, the quality and 'condition of a mean person, not of some great man. "And 'was made in the likeness of men;" that is, subject to all 'the frailties and infirmities of human nature, sin only ex⚫cepted. "And being found in fashion as a man, he hum'bled himself." By what appeared to all, and by the whole 'tenour of his carriage, he was found to be a true man. "And became obedient unto death, even unto the death ⚫ of the cross." He manifested his obedience, as in all other particulars, so in resigning up himself to death, the death of the cross, the most cruel, contemptible, and accursed death. “Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and 'given him a name, which is above every name." Where'fore God advanced his human nature to the highest degree of glory, and has given him honour, authority, and majesty, ' above all created excellence.'

6

Upon this interpretation it is easy to remark, that it does not seem exactly to answer the apostle's expressions. It supposes two things to be spoken of, first the Deity, then the humanity of Jesus. I say, it is supposed, that the apostle first speaks of Christ's being " of the divine nature and essence," and therein humbling himself. And the human nature is exalted. Whereas the apostle seems to speak all along of one thing or person. "Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus, who made himself of no reputation.Wherefore God also has highly exalted him, and given him a name above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow." He who had humbled himself is exalted. Nor can true Deity either be abased or rewarded.

b Mr. Samuel Clark's Annotations upon the place.

There is therefore no small difficulty in applying the commonly received opinion concerning Christ, as God, of the same substance, and equal with the Father, to this text. Or, it is not easy to reconcile the doctrine of the apostle in this place, and the commonly received opinion concerning the Trinity.

I shall now conclude with these two remarks.

I. The commonly received doctrine of the Trinity, which is reckoned orthodox, and the doctrine of the church, is obscure. Indeed it is generally acknowledged to be very mysterious. And it appears to be so from the authentic accounts which have been now given of it. For it is said that there are three persons in the godhead, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost:' and they are said to be equal in power and glory.' Which expressions seem to intimate, that there are three distinct beings, and minds. But yet, on the other hand, it is as plainly said, that there is but one eternal, and one Almighty.'

These expressions must be allowed to represent an obscure doctrine. Some have said, that it is contradictory.

All I affirm is, that it is obscure, and difficult to be conceived and understood, if it be not absolutely incomprehensible.

II. Secondly, I would observe, that obscure doctrines ought not to be made necessary to salvation. They who consider the general tenour, and great design of the preaching of Christ and his apostles, to all sorts of men, in order to bring them to repentance and holiness, and thereby to everlasting happiness, by the good will and appointment of God, will be easily led to think that there should not be any doctrines, necessary to be believed, which are of such a nature, that the most metaphysical and philosophical minds can scarcely know what they are, or reconcile them to reason. Therefore the commonly received doctrine of the Trinity, if it be obscure, should not be made a necessary article of a christian's faith. And yet this is the introduction to the Athanasian creed: Whosoever will be saved, ⚫ before all things it is necessary, that he hold the catholic 'faith. Which faith, except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the catholic faith is this, that we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity' and the rest. And the more fully to enforce the necessity of this doctrine, it is repeated again at the end: This is the catholic faith. Which except a man believe faithfully, he cannot be saved.'