Chapter 34

104.This is an incontestable proof that the Son is God, even JEHOVAH. The Psalmist often says, “Blessed are they, blessed is the man who trusteth in the Lord.” And here he says, Blessed are all they who trust in the Son of God, and yet forbids us to put our trust in any but God. “Put not your trust in princes, or in the son of man, in whom there is no help. Happy is he that hath the God of Jacob for his help, whose hope is in the Lord his God.” Psalm cxlvi. 3, 5. And he says, “My soul, wait thouonlyupon God; for my expectation is from him.” Psalm lxii. 5. Theyonlyare blessed, who trust in God; and all others are cursed. “Thus saith the Lord, Cursed be the man that trusteth in man. Blessed is the man that trusteth in the Lord, and whose hope the Lord is.” Jer. xvii. 5, 7. They are blessed, who trust in the Son of God. Therefore he is the Lord.

105.It has been before observed, that the denial of the eternal sonship of Christ seemed to have a tendency to a rejection of the doctrine of the Trinity; and in what way. But what is here observed, shews how the denial of the former tends,another way, to the rejection of the latter. For if the former be rejected, because it is incomprehensible, and appears inconsistent, it may be expected that when the doctrine of the Trinity is more particularly considered, it will appear equally unintelligible; and therefore be rejected, for the same reason. Is it not probable, that Sabellius, the ancient Anti-trinitarian, was in this way led to give up the doctrine of the Trinity?

106.See Dr. Owen against Biddle, p. 362.

107.Ονομα ανεκφωνητον.

108.Antiq. Lib. III. Cap. 5.

109.This the Holy Ghost has condescended, for what reason I know not, to give countenance to, in all those quotations in the New Testament, where the nameJehovah,is referred to from the Old.

110.In two places, indeed, it is rendered byΘεος,God, Gen. iv. 1. and Isa. liv. 13. And there is one place in which some think they attempt a literal translation of it, 2 Sam. i. 11. where, instead of the people of the Lord, they translate the text, επι τον λαον Ιουδα,in which, some think, Ιουδα,is put forΙουα,orΙουβα,through the mistake of some amanuensis; but it seems rather to be an explication than a literal translation of the words; and whereas some think, the reason of this method used by them in their translation, is, because the Hebrew letters, of which that name consists, cannot well be expressed by the letters of the Greek alphabet, so as to compose a word like it, that does not seem to be the reason of it, inasmuch as they attempt to translate other names equally difficult; as in Gen. x. 2.Ιωυαν,for Javan; and 2 Kings xii. 2.Ιωδαεfor Jehoiada.

111.See Dr. Allix’s judgment of the Jewish church against the Unitarians, chap. xiii. to xvi.

112.Vid. Catech. Racov. ad Quest. lix.

113.It is elsewhere said concerning him, 1 John iii. 5. that he was manifested, &c.εφανερωθη,as also in ver. 8. And as for what is said in the last clause of the verse we are considering, thathe was received up into glory,it is a very great strain on the sense of these words, to apply it to a mystery, or to the gospel, since the words, ανεληφθη εν δοξη,plainly intimate a person’s meeting with a glorious reception when ascending into heaven; αναλαμβαινομαιsignifiessursum recipere,therefore we render it, received up; and so it is often applied to our Saviour, Acts i. 2, 11, 22. and his ascension is called, Luke ix. 51.ἡμερα της αναληψεως,the time in which he should be received up.

114.See Whitby in loc.

115.See Dr. Clarke’s reply to Nelson, page 86.

116.Thus they are four times, Luke i. 68. 2 Cor. i. 5. Eph. i. 3. and 1 Pet. i. 3. whereinευλογητοςis put beforeΘεος.

117.Dr. Owen against Biddle, page 256.

118.See Dr. Clarke’s reply to Nelson, page 97.

119.See Page307.

120.It is certain, thatκαιis oftentimes exegetical, as well as copulative; and it appears to be so, by a great many instances in the New Testament; when it is put between two nouns, the first whereof has an article, and the other none; thus it will be acknowledged by all, that it is taken, in 2 Cor.i. 3. Blessed be God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, ὁ Θεος και Πατηρ;so inEph. i. 3. 2 Thes. ii. 16. 1. Pet. i. 3. Rom. xv. 6. Phil. iv. 20. 2 Cor. xi. 31.and inCol. ii. 2.In these scriptures, and others of the like nature, the Arians themselves allow that this rule holds good, though they will not allow it, when it proves our Saviour’s Deity, because it militates against their own scheme; as inEph. v. 5.where the apostle speaks of thekingdom of Christ, and of God,as we render it; but, I think, it ought to be rendered, even of God;for it is, του Χριστου και Θεουso in2 Thess. i. 12. The grace of our God, and,or even, of the Lord Jesus Christ,the words are, του Θεου ἡμων και κυριου Ιησου Χριστου.See among many other scriptures to the like purpose, 1 Tim. v. 21.andchap. vi. 13. 2 Pet. i. 2.It is true there are several exceptions to this rule, though they are generally in such instances, in which it is impossible for the latter word to contain an explication of the former, though, in other instances, it, for the most part, holds good; and therefore it will, at least, amount to a probable argument, that the words in this text, του μεγαλου Θεου και σωτηρος ἡμων Ιησου Χριστουought to be rendered, of the great God, even our Saviour Jesus Christ.Vide Granville Sharp on the Greek article, and Middleton on the same subject.

121.See Dr. Clark’s reply to Nelson, page 85.

122.The words, ὁ Κυριοςandὁ Θεοςare in the nominative case, which denotes that they are not spoken in a way of exclamation.

123.See reply to Nelson, page 67.

124.Acts vii. 43. chap. xiv. 11.

125.See Matt. xix. 26. compared with Mark x. 27.

126.See Scripture-doctrine, &c. page 67, 68, and in many other places.

127.This is the sense of Dr. Clarke’s first section in Part 2, on which the whole scheme seems to be founded; and he speaks to the same purpose in several other places; and, in particular, in his reply to Nelson, page 67, 68, he concludes the wordΘεος,God, absolutely taken to import the same, asὁ παντοκρατωρ or ὁ επι παντων Θεος,by which he always intends the Father.

128.See Scripture-doctrine, page 3.

129.See page120.

130.See Dr. Clarke’s Scripture Doctrine, page 176.

131.Whitby is very particular in laying down this sense of the text, with the defence thereof, in his annotations on this scripture, from Heliodorus, where he finds the words, ἁρπαγμα ποιειν,which he renders, to snatch at;andἁρπαγμα ἡγεισθαι,which, he supposes, signifies to pursue, or covet, a thing that is desirable, but, however, the words going before, or following, in that author, may determine that to be his sense thereof, as the sense of particular words is oftentimes greatly varied thereby; yet this will not justify the rendering them in the same sense, in other instances, very foreign thereunto, as certainly the text we are explaining must be reckoned to be; besides, the word is not the same, for it isἁρπαγμα,which properly signifies a prey, or the thing stolen; and therefore thoughἁρπαγμα ποιειν ξυντυχιανmay signify, to catch an opportunity,as a person catches at what he thinks for his advantage, yet if the wordἁρπαγμονhad been used instead of it, it would very much have altered the sense thereof; also thoughἁρπαγμα ἡγεισθαιsignifies, to esteem a thing worthy to be pursued, or catched at, as a prey,yetἁρπαγμον ἡγεισθαι,which are the words in the text we are considering, signify no such thing, but ratherto reckon a thing unlawful to be pursued, as what he has no right to;and that is the sense thereof in our text, q. d.He did not think it unlawful to pursue, or lay claim to that divine honour, of being equal with God, or, as we render it, thought it not robbery,&c. For the justifying of this sense, every one, that observes the acceptation of the Greek words, will find thatἁρπαγμοςsignifies, the action of robbing,andἁρπαγμαthe thing stolen, as may be observed in many other words, where the former construction signifies the act; the latter the effect: as inλογισμοςandλογισμα, κομπασμος,andκομπασμα, κολασμοςandκολασμα, ὁρισμοςandὁρισμα, ὁπλισμοςandὁπλισμα, στοχασμοςandστοχασμα;and, in the New Testament, βαπτισμοςsignifies theaction of baptizing,andβαπτισμαthe ordinance in which it is performed. See Mark vii. 8. compared with Matt. iii. 7. and chap. xxi. 25. Multitudes of instances might have been given, but these are sufficient.

132.Grotius in loc.

133.“It may readily be granted that any tract published by an apostolick man, in the early Christian church, would be circulated among the Christians of those times, with great dispatch,immediatelyon its publication. This is a natural and indefeasible position, since it arises from a principle in human nature itself. It is natural, too, that, in those times, it should be copied without delay in such churches as were then extant. And thisfirstedition would be circulated to the widest extent, of course. Churches that were established afterwards were more likely to receive thesecondedition of such a writer’s works; especially, if they had intercourse with the town where he resided in his latter days, and drew their copies from thence, immediately. But I think we may say, that for one copy of the second edition that was circulated, there would be 20, or 50, or 100 copies of the first edition; since not only would it have the advantage of priority, but not one reader in a hundred would think of the second as different from the first. And this has led our translators to mark, asdoubtful, the first quotation which I selected from the first Epistle of John, in my last; chap. ii. 23. I have no doubt of the genuineness of theaddition; but possibly there may be 50 copies without it toonewhich contains it.“Admitting, then, the residence of St. John be at Ephesus, or any part of Asia Minor, for the last thirty years of his life, for which we have the testimony of ancient history, we may date his first epistle, early in that period: or even before he came to live there. This would spreadfirst, among the neighbouring churches in Asia Minor:secondly, eastward, to those countries which professed Christianity, Antioch, for certain: Syria, Cilicia, Pontus, Cappadocia, Galatia, Babylonia, &c. Toward these countries, there are caravans which go every month, or six weeks, from Asia Minor: there is a regular intercourse maintained, between Smyrna, and the internal parts of Asia Minor, and on through Tarsus to Antioch:—from Ephesus to Smyrna was easy. We have every reason to affirm, that it was the same anciently, and therefore, there was animmediateconveyance of such addresses as the apostle John published for the general use of all Christians, from Ephesus, eastward to the oriental provinces of the Roman empire, where Christianity was settled and flourished. In these churches his writings would be in request. Moreover, these churches would be the first to translate his writings into their current language, for the use of the natives of these provinces, who did not understand Greek (which, however prevalent the Greek language was, must have been many) because here was a great number of professing Christians, who desired to be acquainted with their contents.“It is evident, therefore, that these translations, having for their basis thefirstedition, can be no evidences of what the apostle thought proper to add in hissecondaddition. The Syriac version, for instance, if we suppose that to be the earliest of all, would represent thefirstedition, as would also, all versions made from it, and all copies made from those, at that time, received in those parts. Whereas, the Armenian version, because it is much later, would at least stand the chance of obtaining (and being made from) thesecondedition. The Syriac version, therefore, is no evidence against anaddition. The Armenian version is an evidenceforit. This version contains 1 John v. 7.“Also, the churches in Africa were not planted till many yearsafterthose of Asia; their intercourse with Ephesus, being by sea, was irregular, and could only take place, occasionally, if it was direct. If we suppose it to be, on the subject before us, through Italy, then it was subject to the same circumstances as attended the intercourse between Ephesus and Rome. I say Rome, because we have no reason to think that there was any number of Christians, worth mentioning, in any other city of Italy. The apostle Paul, when travelling from Rhegio upward was met by brethrenfrom Rome; which when he saw, he thanked God, andtook courage. Certainly, then, he had not met with many friends in places that he passed through, and his courage had been somewhat cast down, for that reason. We find no trace of Christianity in Herculaneum, one of the cities of Italy, of the second size, which was destroyed A. D. 79, though we meet with traces of Judaism there; and in short, it must be admitted, that, compared with Asia, the western provinces had but few Christians. We have no reason to think that Rome sent out missionaries early. The south of France was christianized from Asia, though so much further off than Rome. The natural inference is, that these parts would receivelatercopies of any apostolick writing, published in Asia Minor, than those parts which had a regular intercourse, half a dozen times in a year, at least, but probably much oftener, with Ephesus. And whatever versions were extant in the west, would represent the second edition with its variations, whatever they might be.“As to Rome itself, I infer, that that capital of the empire had, if any place had,botheditions. Suppose, for a moment, that thefirstedition had reached Rome, when Aristobulus quitted that city for Britain, or that it was sent to Aristobulus, in Britain, from Rome, it will follow, that the ancient British copies wouldnotcontain those additions which the apostle John inserted in thesecondedition. And to this agrees the fact: for Pelagianism could hardly have been repressed by any text more effectually than by the one in question. Yet that errour rose in Britain, and it was not so decidedly opposed then, as it is now,minusthe testimony of this text. Moreover, the text is not quoted by the venerable Bede, in a passage of his works, where we should expect to find it, at least, alluded to. He, therefore, might have the first edition.“In short, almost all the arguments employed against the authenticity of the text may be admitted. They cease to have any great force, after it is once conceded to those who use them, that thefirstedition, together with all its representatives, in the first century, suppose, had not the words in debate. They are reduced to the infirmity of a negative argument, at best.“I must now observe, that the African churches being planted long after the Asiatick, they, no doubt, would obtain the best transcripts of the works of any inspired writer, which could be procured about the time of their being founded;i. e.thesecondedition of the letter under consideration. To this agrees the fact;the African bishops quote the passage. Tertullian, Cyprian, Eucherius, Eugenius, with his consistory of 400 bishops, Vigilius, Fulgentius, &c. &c. so that it was undeniably extant in their copies from the second century downwards. The argument, then, is reduced to a point: either these divinesfoundthe passage in their copies, or theyputit there. The latter alternative is so dishonourable to Christians and to Christianity, that one is willing to accept of any hypothesis which may vindicate professors and teachers from such enormous guilt.—But further:“I have said, that Rome might be expected to procure whatever was most excellent in Christian literature, as well as in other studies. It had, then, thefirstedition, because that was theearliestwhich could be procured; and thesecondbecause the influx of persons to Rome from all parts was so great, that every thing which was portable of a literary nature, might be expected to be brought there. Rome had an ancient version of the scriptures, known under the name of the oldItalic version. It is not of any consequence to our argument, whether this version contained the text of theheavenly witnesses, since it was made very early; but if therevisedRoman version of the New Testament contained it, we are reduced to the same dilemma as before, in reference to the African bishops—The reviser of this edition (Jerom) eitherfoundit, orforgedit. The same arguments that relieve the characters of the African bishops, relieve the character of this father. The accusation is incredible. It is loading the party with a crime so far beyond ordinary culpability, that the mind revolts at the charge. It is admitted, then, that the Latin version reads this verse; that St. Jerome adopted it; that it was adopted by the learned after him; as by our own famous Alkwin, at the time, and in the court of Charlemagne, and has so continued ever since. The inference is, that St. Jerome preferred the authority and text of the second edition, and followed it.“These, moreover, areindependentwitnesses; for, the African bishops, who wrote before Jerom, could not receive this passage from his revised version: or, if any choose to affirm that the African bishops received this passage from the oldItalicversion, then the authenticity of the passage follows of course, in proportion to whatever importance is attached to this increased antiquity.”SELECT REVIEWS.

“Admitting, then, the residence of St. John be at Ephesus, or any part of Asia Minor, for the last thirty years of his life, for which we have the testimony of ancient history, we may date his first epistle, early in that period: or even before he came to live there. This would spreadfirst, among the neighbouring churches in Asia Minor:secondly, eastward, to those countries which professed Christianity, Antioch, for certain: Syria, Cilicia, Pontus, Cappadocia, Galatia, Babylonia, &c. Toward these countries, there are caravans which go every month, or six weeks, from Asia Minor: there is a regular intercourse maintained, between Smyrna, and the internal parts of Asia Minor, and on through Tarsus to Antioch:—from Ephesus to Smyrna was easy. We have every reason to affirm, that it was the same anciently, and therefore, there was animmediateconveyance of such addresses as the apostle John published for the general use of all Christians, from Ephesus, eastward to the oriental provinces of the Roman empire, where Christianity was settled and flourished. In these churches his writings would be in request. Moreover, these churches would be the first to translate his writings into their current language, for the use of the natives of these provinces, who did not understand Greek (which, however prevalent the Greek language was, must have been many) because here was a great number of professing Christians, who desired to be acquainted with their contents.

“It is evident, therefore, that these translations, having for their basis thefirstedition, can be no evidences of what the apostle thought proper to add in hissecondaddition. The Syriac version, for instance, if we suppose that to be the earliest of all, would represent thefirstedition, as would also, all versions made from it, and all copies made from those, at that time, received in those parts. Whereas, the Armenian version, because it is much later, would at least stand the chance of obtaining (and being made from) thesecondedition. The Syriac version, therefore, is no evidence against anaddition. The Armenian version is an evidenceforit. This version contains 1 John v. 7.

“Also, the churches in Africa were not planted till many yearsafterthose of Asia; their intercourse with Ephesus, being by sea, was irregular, and could only take place, occasionally, if it was direct. If we suppose it to be, on the subject before us, through Italy, then it was subject to the same circumstances as attended the intercourse between Ephesus and Rome. I say Rome, because we have no reason to think that there was any number of Christians, worth mentioning, in any other city of Italy. The apostle Paul, when travelling from Rhegio upward was met by brethrenfrom Rome; which when he saw, he thanked God, andtook courage. Certainly, then, he had not met with many friends in places that he passed through, and his courage had been somewhat cast down, for that reason. We find no trace of Christianity in Herculaneum, one of the cities of Italy, of the second size, which was destroyed A. D. 79, though we meet with traces of Judaism there; and in short, it must be admitted, that, compared with Asia, the western provinces had but few Christians. We have no reason to think that Rome sent out missionaries early. The south of France was christianized from Asia, though so much further off than Rome. The natural inference is, that these parts would receivelatercopies of any apostolick writing, published in Asia Minor, than those parts which had a regular intercourse, half a dozen times in a year, at least, but probably much oftener, with Ephesus. And whatever versions were extant in the west, would represent the second edition with its variations, whatever they might be.

“As to Rome itself, I infer, that that capital of the empire had, if any place had,botheditions. Suppose, for a moment, that thefirstedition had reached Rome, when Aristobulus quitted that city for Britain, or that it was sent to Aristobulus, in Britain, from Rome, it will follow, that the ancient British copies wouldnotcontain those additions which the apostle John inserted in thesecondedition. And to this agrees the fact: for Pelagianism could hardly have been repressed by any text more effectually than by the one in question. Yet that errour rose in Britain, and it was not so decidedly opposed then, as it is now,minusthe testimony of this text. Moreover, the text is not quoted by the venerable Bede, in a passage of his works, where we should expect to find it, at least, alluded to. He, therefore, might have the first edition.

“In short, almost all the arguments employed against the authenticity of the text may be admitted. They cease to have any great force, after it is once conceded to those who use them, that thefirstedition, together with all its representatives, in the first century, suppose, had not the words in debate. They are reduced to the infirmity of a negative argument, at best.

“I must now observe, that the African churches being planted long after the Asiatick, they, no doubt, would obtain the best transcripts of the works of any inspired writer, which could be procured about the time of their being founded;i. e.thesecondedition of the letter under consideration. To this agrees the fact;the African bishops quote the passage. Tertullian, Cyprian, Eucherius, Eugenius, with his consistory of 400 bishops, Vigilius, Fulgentius, &c. &c. so that it was undeniably extant in their copies from the second century downwards. The argument, then, is reduced to a point: either these divinesfoundthe passage in their copies, or theyputit there. The latter alternative is so dishonourable to Christians and to Christianity, that one is willing to accept of any hypothesis which may vindicate professors and teachers from such enormous guilt.—But further:

“I have said, that Rome might be expected to procure whatever was most excellent in Christian literature, as well as in other studies. It had, then, thefirstedition, because that was theearliestwhich could be procured; and thesecondbecause the influx of persons to Rome from all parts was so great, that every thing which was portable of a literary nature, might be expected to be brought there. Rome had an ancient version of the scriptures, known under the name of the oldItalic version. It is not of any consequence to our argument, whether this version contained the text of theheavenly witnesses, since it was made very early; but if therevisedRoman version of the New Testament contained it, we are reduced to the same dilemma as before, in reference to the African bishops—The reviser of this edition (Jerom) eitherfoundit, orforgedit. The same arguments that relieve the characters of the African bishops, relieve the character of this father. The accusation is incredible. It is loading the party with a crime so far beyond ordinary culpability, that the mind revolts at the charge. It is admitted, then, that the Latin version reads this verse; that St. Jerome adopted it; that it was adopted by the learned after him; as by our own famous Alkwin, at the time, and in the court of Charlemagne, and has so continued ever since. The inference is, that St. Jerome preferred the authority and text of the second edition, and followed it.

“These, moreover, areindependentwitnesses; for, the African bishops, who wrote before Jerom, could not receive this passage from his revised version: or, if any choose to affirm that the African bishops received this passage from the oldItalicversion, then the authenticity of the passage follows of course, in proportion to whatever importance is attached to this increased antiquity.”

SELECT REVIEWS.

134.Mr. Abraham Taylor, in his true Scripture-doctrine of the Trinity, Part. I. chap. 2. in which we have his own method of reasoning in defence thereof, which is, at least, sufficient to remove the boasts and insults of those who wonder that we should not give up the cause entirely to them.

135.See Histoire Crit. du. Nouv. Testam. chap. 18. page 204.

136.See this conjecture of Father Simon learnedly opposed in Smith. Miscellan. contra Simon.

137.Vid. Epist. lxxiii. ad Jubaianum, & de Unitate Eccl. § v.

138.See true Scripture-doctrine, &c. page 53.

139.Contra Praxeam, cap. 25.

140.See the Author before referred to, in the true scripture-doctrine, &c. as also Trigland de tribus in cælo testibus.

141.Vide Abbadie on the Divinity of Christ, per totum.

142.See Quest.vii.

143.See Dr. Clarke’s Scripture doctrine, page 127.

144.Reply to Nelson, page 169.

145.See a parallel scripture, Prov.xxx. 2, 3.

146.ὁ ων εν τω ουρανω, is admitted by Griesback into his text.

147.By the wisdom of God seems here to be meant the wisdom of God essentially considered. But see Matt. xxiii. 34.

148.See Dr. Clarke’s Scripture Doctrine, page 63.

149.See page344,345, ante.

150.Dr. Waterland, Serm. III. in defence of Christ, page 106.

151.“That Christ was not amere instrumentwhich God used in the work of creation, as theArianspretend, is plain from this, that the Scriptures not only teach, that Christ was the very supreme God himself that created all things; Psal. cii. 25. Heb. i. 10. but also thatno instrument was usedin that work. It was wrought immediately byGod himself. As it is written, ‘God himself formed the earth and made it.’ Isa. xlv. 18. (This, all grant, was the supreme God: And this God was Jesus Christ.) ‘He alone spread out the heavens.’ Job ix. 8. Not by an instrument, but byhimself alone, Isa. xliv. 24. withhis own hands. Isa. xlv. 12.”Bellamy.

Bellamy.

152.δια Ιησου Χριστου are omitted by Griesbach.

153.Vid. Bez. in loc. Unus Deus omnes populos condidit, sic etiam nunc omnes ad se vocat; condidit autem per Christum, sic per Christum instaurat.

154.SeeMatt. xii. 32. 1 Cor. x. 11. Eph. i. 21.andchap. ii. 7. Heb. vi. 5.andchap. ix. 26.the apostle speaking ofthe foundation of the world,meaning the first creation, uses the wordΚοσμος;but when, in the following words, he speaks ofChrist’s appearing in the end of the world, to put away sin, &c.he uses the wordsτων αιωνων.

155.See page304.

156.See Quest.lxvii.andlxxv.

157.“The Father, saith he, is greater than I. John xiv. 28. As Christ is the head of the church, so the head of Christ is God. 1 Cor. iii. 23. xi. 3. He calleth the Father his God. Matt, xxvii. 46. John xx. 17.—The Father raised him to Israel; Acts xiii. 23. anointed him with the Holy Ghost and with power; Acts x. 38. spared him not, but delivered him up for us all; Rom. viii. 32. and raised him from the dead. Acts ii. 24.—God had appointed him to execute his saving designs, sent him into this world, and gave him commandments. John iii. 16, 17. vi. 38-40. The work given him he finished, and in it he was faithful to the Father. John iv. 34. xvii. 4. Heb. iii. 2. x. 9.—Therefore, God hath also exalted him above measure; Phil. ii. 9. set him at his own right hand in heaven; Eph. i. 20. and gave him all power. Matt, xxviii. 18. He hath made him Lord and Christ; Acts ii. 36. exalted him to be a Prince and a Saviour, to give to Israel repentance and remission of sins. Acts v. 31. He hath also ordained him to judge the world in righteousness; Acts xviii. 31. and to him, Christ shall then be subject, and deliver up the kingdom. 1 Cor. xv. 24-28.“To be the true God, and to be under God, to be the Infinite, and to be the subject, are, according to all reason, and the scripture itself, inconsistent properties. By undeniable authority, however, they are ascribed to the same subject; and therefore, there must be a way to solve the difficulty. How often do we meet with particulars in the system of truth, which seem to oppose one another; but when well considered, agree, and even support one another. The human constitution itself, exhibits a clear instance. The grand inquiry is, upon what foundation every different truth is established, and how to reconcile seeming contradictions. Now, while they who attack the Godhead of Jesus, can never in our opinion, answer the multitude of proofs in its favour; there is on the contrary, for the confessors of that doctrine, the greatest store of solutions, as often as something not divine, something beneath the nature and authority of his Father, and something finite are testified concerning him. ‘He who was in the form of God, and counted it not robbery to be equal with God, took upon him the form of a servant.’ Phil. ii. 6, 7. ‘The Word who was with God, and who was God, became flesh; but in that flesh, manifested a glory as of the only-begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.’ John i. 1, 14.—According to the infallible testimony, he is therefore true God and true man; and his saving mediatory performances are inseparably founded on both natures. While the value of these, the power to save his people forever, and to direct all things in heaven and on earth to that end, as also the fitness to be the object of their grateful confidence, and his capacity for conducting the general judgment, are founded on, and give an invincible proof of his divine perfection; it is at the same time his finite nature, wherein he finished the human ministrations of his teaching office, and of his priestly sacrifice.—And thus it is intelligible, how the glory and majesty with which he governs the kingdom of God, to the mighty ingathering and defence of his people, and to the destruction of all opposition, occur as anexaltation; in as far as the human nature, according to its capacity shared therein, obtained the fruit and reward of its labour, and the Lamb that was slain, deserves and receives everlasting honour, because of the works of salvation in both natures. This appears, because every where, his obedience and deepest humiliation are assigned as the reason of his exaltation.—‘I was dead and behold I am alive for evermore, Amen! and have the keys of hell and of death.’ Rev. i. 18. ‘To this end Christ died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord over the dead and the living.’ Rom, xiv. 9. See also Phil. ii. 7-10. Heb. i. 3. John v. 27. Rev. i. 5, 6. v. 12-14.”Wynpersse.

“To be the true God, and to be under God, to be the Infinite, and to be the subject, are, according to all reason, and the scripture itself, inconsistent properties. By undeniable authority, however, they are ascribed to the same subject; and therefore, there must be a way to solve the difficulty. How often do we meet with particulars in the system of truth, which seem to oppose one another; but when well considered, agree, and even support one another. The human constitution itself, exhibits a clear instance. The grand inquiry is, upon what foundation every different truth is established, and how to reconcile seeming contradictions. Now, while they who attack the Godhead of Jesus, can never in our opinion, answer the multitude of proofs in its favour; there is on the contrary, for the confessors of that doctrine, the greatest store of solutions, as often as something not divine, something beneath the nature and authority of his Father, and something finite are testified concerning him. ‘He who was in the form of God, and counted it not robbery to be equal with God, took upon him the form of a servant.’ Phil. ii. 6, 7. ‘The Word who was with God, and who was God, became flesh; but in that flesh, manifested a glory as of the only-begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.’ John i. 1, 14.—According to the infallible testimony, he is therefore true God and true man; and his saving mediatory performances are inseparably founded on both natures. While the value of these, the power to save his people forever, and to direct all things in heaven and on earth to that end, as also the fitness to be the object of their grateful confidence, and his capacity for conducting the general judgment, are founded on, and give an invincible proof of his divine perfection; it is at the same time his finite nature, wherein he finished the human ministrations of his teaching office, and of his priestly sacrifice.—And thus it is intelligible, how the glory and majesty with which he governs the kingdom of God, to the mighty ingathering and defence of his people, and to the destruction of all opposition, occur as anexaltation; in as far as the human nature, according to its capacity shared therein, obtained the fruit and reward of its labour, and the Lamb that was slain, deserves and receives everlasting honour, because of the works of salvation in both natures. This appears, because every where, his obedience and deepest humiliation are assigned as the reason of his exaltation.—‘I was dead and behold I am alive for evermore, Amen! and have the keys of hell and of death.’ Rev. i. 18. ‘To this end Christ died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord over the dead and the living.’ Rom, xiv. 9. See also Phil. ii. 7-10. Heb. i. 3. John v. 27. Rev. i. 5, 6. v. 12-14.”

Wynpersse.

158.See Quest.vii.

159.Creatures are said to be believed, as our Saviour speaking concerning John the Baptist, in Markxi. 31.says, Why did ye not believe him? διατι ουν ουκ επιστευσατε αυτω;and, in Actsviii. 12.the Samaritans believed Philip, επιστευσαν τω Φιλιππω;and, in Johnv. 46.Moses is described as a person who ought to be believed; Had ye believed Moses,&c. says our Saviour, ει γαρ επιστευετε Μωση;but it is never said that a creature isbelieved in.This was Augustin’s observation; upon which occasion he says, In Exposit. Evangel. Johan. Tract. 29. “Though we may be said to believe Paul and Peter, yet we are never said to believein them.”But as for our Saviour, we are not only to believe him, namely, what he has spoken, butπιστυειν εις αυτον,to believe in him.

160.The words are, ενωπιον του Θεου του ζσττοο ωοποιουντος τα παντα και Χρις του Ιησου;whereκαιseems to be exegetical, according to the rule laid down, page318. and therefore I would render the words, God, who quickeneth all things even Jesus Christ;and, if this be a just rendering, then the Father is not mentioned in the context; and therefore this doxology is not ascribed to him but to our Saviour.

161.See Dr. Clarke’s Scripture Doctrine, page 58, 77.

162.The chief opposers of Christ’s being the object of worship, were Jacobus Palæologus, Franciscus Davidus, Christianus Franken, Simon Buduæus; and, on the other hand, it was defended by Socinus, and several others, though not in the same sense in which we maintain it.

163.See Dr. Clarke’s Scripture Doctrine, page 132.

164.See page322,323. ante.

165.See Dr. Waterland’s defence of the divinity of Christ, serm.iv.pag.127. & seq.where he proves, that the exclusive terms ofOne, only,&c. do not except the Son, so as to deny him to have the same Godhead with the Father: this he proves from several scriptures,viz.Mat.xi. 27. No one knoweth the Son, but the Father; nor any one the Father, save the Son;it does not follow from hence, that the Father does not know himself nor the Son himself: and when it is said, in 1 Cor.ii. 11. The things of God knoweth no one, but the Spirit of God;this does not exclude the Son, for that would contradict the scripture but now mentioned; no more than the Son’s only knowing the Father excludes the Holy Ghost, which would be contrary to this scripture; so in Rev.xix. 12.it is said, that the Son hada name written which no one knew but he himself:none ever thought that the Father was excluded by this exclusive term; so when God the Father saith, in Isa.xliv. 24. I am he that maketh all things, that stretcheth forth the heavens alone, that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself:this would contradict many other scriptures, which speak of the Son as the Creator of all things, if he were to be excluded by it. Again, when the Psalmist saith, concerning the Father, in Psal.lxxxiii. 18.thathis name alone is Jehovah,we must set aside all those scriptures in which our Saviour is called Jehovah, if he is contained in this exclusive term. See more to this purpose in the said sermon, in which this argument is managed with a great deal of judgment. I shall only take leave farther to cite what is well observed in page 33. “That, perhaps the word God in those places, namely, such in which there are these exclusive terms, is to be understood in the indefinite sense, abstracting from the particular consideration of this or that person, in like manner as the wordmanoften stands not for any particular human person, but the whole species, or human nature; as when we say, man is frail; man is mortal,or the like.”

166.Τι με ερωτας περι του αγαθου.Beza speaks of two or three of the most ancient copies in which this reading is found; and Grotius also adheres to it, from the credit, as he says, of the most ancient and correct copies; and it is also observed, that the vulgar Latin version renders it so; and Augustin read it so in the copy that he made use of: and whereas the evangelists, Mark and Luke, read it, Why callest thou me good,he endeavours to reconcile this different reading therewith as supposing there was a seeming contradiction between them which he might better have done, by referring to some copies which had it, as we read it, why callest thou me good;from whence, it is probable, he saw none that so rendered it in his time.Vid. Agust. de Consensu. Evan.lib.ii.cap. 63. It is also thus translated in the ancient Hebrew version of the gospel of Matthew.

167.“If Dr. Priestley, in his celebrated efforts to establish the Unitarianism of the primitive church against Dr. Horsley, fell so short of ‘complete victory;’ it may be presumed, that the failure would, in some degree, affect his greater work, The History of Early Opinions concerning Jesus Christ. Many parts of that elaborate performance are merely a republication of the Letters, excluding the personalities. Their merits and their fate must, therefore, be closely, interwoven.“This large and capital work was given to the world under circumstances which appeared very promising for bringing the controversy to a satisfactory issue. With great and long continued diligence the indefatigable author collected his materials. He digested and arranged them, with that lucid perspicuity for which he was so justly distinguished. He tried every method to call forth into the field of preparatory discussion, some learned and able Trinitarians and Arians. He waited for some years after the publication of the work; and then renewed his public challenge, affording an additional period for the fate of the question. It was, of course, implied, and the obligation was frankly avowed by the Doctor; that he would in proper time duly notice what any fair and candid opponents should produce.“It is to be lamented, however that the expectations thus excited have not been completely answered; and the decease of Dr. Priestly excludes every hope that they will be so.“Early in the year 1790, a mild and amiable writer, Dr. Williams,[168]addressed to Dr. Priestley his objections to the whole structure of the argument built on the History of Early Opinions. He offered reasons to shew, that the appeal to the fathers was a method calculated to increase difficulties, and to render the controversy almost interminable; that it has been experimentally proved an insufficient mode of argument; that it has been long ago solidly refuted;[169]that it was plainly reprehended by Jesus Christ; that it is highly untheological in its just consequences; and that it is illogical and inconclusive. This letter breathed the sincere spirit of amicable controversy; and I cannot but think that it deserved the very candid and serious attention of your learned friend. But I believe it was never noticed in any other way than that of private compliment.“In 1794, Dr. Jamieson published a professed and minute examination of the History of Early Opinions. This elaborate and learned work was the very performance which Dr. Priestley had so long desired and challenged. It surely, then, had a just claim on his particular and public notice. At the time of this work’s appearance, Dr. Priestley was occupied in the important measure of emigration to America. But when that step was accomplished, he enjoyed, for the remaining years of life, a calm and undisturbed retreat. We have, however, yet to be informed of the reason why his former pledge was not fulfilled.“As the controversy has been thus left open, it cannot be deemed illiberal in me to mention the result of personal observation in reading this large work of Dr. Priestley’s. I am the more inclined to do so, since what I have remarked may be of use in answering a question of some importance; What degree of reliance can be placed on Dr. Priestley’s care and accuracy in his citations of the fathers?“You, Sir, are well aware of the importance which Dr. Priestley attaches to the position, that the doctrines of the pre-existence and divinity of Christ were acknowledged by the orthodox fathers to have been most cautiously concealed, in the earlier preaching of the apostles, and not to have been clearly divulged, till John taught them at the close of the apostolic age.“Dr. Jamieson appears to me to have solidly refuted this assertion.[170]But he has, by no means, proceeded so far as he might easily have done, in shewing Dr. Priestley’s remarkable inattention to rigid accuracy in the allegation of his authorities.“The instances of this kind which I have observed have given me much astonishment. If they concerned merely the literary reputation of this truly eminent character, to drag them into public notice could only be the work of a petulant and little mind. But they become cases of a very different nature, when conclusions of prime importance on a very interesting subject are inferred from egregious misconstructions of an author’s meaning. In such cases regard to truth must supersede personal delicacies.“This duty becomes the more urgent when we are told, from high and respectable authority, that, ‘in all the most important controversies in which’ Dr. Priestley ‘was engaged, he had studied the subject thoroughly, and was a complete master of the whole question:’ and that, in his reasoning, ‘there was nothing artificial and ambiguous; no design to slur over difficulties and objections, or to lay greater stress upon a topic than it would well bear.’[171]“The doctor has selected Chrysostom as the father whose evidence is most ample in support of the opinion, that John first taught the divinity of Christ. ‘Chrysostom,’ says Dr. Priestley, ‘represents all the preceding writers of the New Testament as children, who heard, but did not understand things, and who were busy about cheese-cakes and childish sports, but John,’ he says, ‘taught what the angels themselves did not know before he declared it.’[172]“At the bottom of the page, Dr. Priestley faithfully transcribes the Greek of this passage, and no one can say that his translation is materially unfair, so far as it goes. The sentence is exactly thus: ‘All the rest, like little children, hear indeed, yet do not understand what they hear, but are captivated with cakes and childish sports.’ The omission of the clause ‘all the rest,’ (οι γε αλλοι παντες) does notappearof much consequence. The insertion of it would only have led the reader to inquire for the antecedent, and Dr. Priestley has provided a ready answer: ‘all the preceding writers of the New Testament.’“Do me the favour, my dear Sir, to take down the volume of Chrysostom, and turn to the passage. Will you find the antecedent to this relative clause to be any ‘writers of the New Testament,’ or any persons at all connected with the New Testament? No, Sir. You will find it to bethe effeminate and dissipated spectators of athletic games, and the auditors of musicians and oratorial sophists![173]”Smith’s Letters to Belsham.

“This large and capital work was given to the world under circumstances which appeared very promising for bringing the controversy to a satisfactory issue. With great and long continued diligence the indefatigable author collected his materials. He digested and arranged them, with that lucid perspicuity for which he was so justly distinguished. He tried every method to call forth into the field of preparatory discussion, some learned and able Trinitarians and Arians. He waited for some years after the publication of the work; and then renewed his public challenge, affording an additional period for the fate of the question. It was, of course, implied, and the obligation was frankly avowed by the Doctor; that he would in proper time duly notice what any fair and candid opponents should produce.

“It is to be lamented, however that the expectations thus excited have not been completely answered; and the decease of Dr. Priestly excludes every hope that they will be so.

“Early in the year 1790, a mild and amiable writer, Dr. Williams,[168]addressed to Dr. Priestley his objections to the whole structure of the argument built on the History of Early Opinions. He offered reasons to shew, that the appeal to the fathers was a method calculated to increase difficulties, and to render the controversy almost interminable; that it has been experimentally proved an insufficient mode of argument; that it has been long ago solidly refuted;[169]that it was plainly reprehended by Jesus Christ; that it is highly untheological in its just consequences; and that it is illogical and inconclusive. This letter breathed the sincere spirit of amicable controversy; and I cannot but think that it deserved the very candid and serious attention of your learned friend. But I believe it was never noticed in any other way than that of private compliment.

“In 1794, Dr. Jamieson published a professed and minute examination of the History of Early Opinions. This elaborate and learned work was the very performance which Dr. Priestley had so long desired and challenged. It surely, then, had a just claim on his particular and public notice. At the time of this work’s appearance, Dr. Priestley was occupied in the important measure of emigration to America. But when that step was accomplished, he enjoyed, for the remaining years of life, a calm and undisturbed retreat. We have, however, yet to be informed of the reason why his former pledge was not fulfilled.

“As the controversy has been thus left open, it cannot be deemed illiberal in me to mention the result of personal observation in reading this large work of Dr. Priestley’s. I am the more inclined to do so, since what I have remarked may be of use in answering a question of some importance; What degree of reliance can be placed on Dr. Priestley’s care and accuracy in his citations of the fathers?

“You, Sir, are well aware of the importance which Dr. Priestley attaches to the position, that the doctrines of the pre-existence and divinity of Christ were acknowledged by the orthodox fathers to have been most cautiously concealed, in the earlier preaching of the apostles, and not to have been clearly divulged, till John taught them at the close of the apostolic age.

“Dr. Jamieson appears to me to have solidly refuted this assertion.[170]But he has, by no means, proceeded so far as he might easily have done, in shewing Dr. Priestley’s remarkable inattention to rigid accuracy in the allegation of his authorities.

“The instances of this kind which I have observed have given me much astonishment. If they concerned merely the literary reputation of this truly eminent character, to drag them into public notice could only be the work of a petulant and little mind. But they become cases of a very different nature, when conclusions of prime importance on a very interesting subject are inferred from egregious misconstructions of an author’s meaning. In such cases regard to truth must supersede personal delicacies.

“This duty becomes the more urgent when we are told, from high and respectable authority, that, ‘in all the most important controversies in which’ Dr. Priestley ‘was engaged, he had studied the subject thoroughly, and was a complete master of the whole question:’ and that, in his reasoning, ‘there was nothing artificial and ambiguous; no design to slur over difficulties and objections, or to lay greater stress upon a topic than it would well bear.’[171]

“The doctor has selected Chrysostom as the father whose evidence is most ample in support of the opinion, that John first taught the divinity of Christ. ‘Chrysostom,’ says Dr. Priestley, ‘represents all the preceding writers of the New Testament as children, who heard, but did not understand things, and who were busy about cheese-cakes and childish sports, but John,’ he says, ‘taught what the angels themselves did not know before he declared it.’[172]

“At the bottom of the page, Dr. Priestley faithfully transcribes the Greek of this passage, and no one can say that his translation is materially unfair, so far as it goes. The sentence is exactly thus: ‘All the rest, like little children, hear indeed, yet do not understand what they hear, but are captivated with cakes and childish sports.’ The omission of the clause ‘all the rest,’ (οι γε αλλοι παντες) does notappearof much consequence. The insertion of it would only have led the reader to inquire for the antecedent, and Dr. Priestley has provided a ready answer: ‘all the preceding writers of the New Testament.’

“Do me the favour, my dear Sir, to take down the volume of Chrysostom, and turn to the passage. Will you find the antecedent to this relative clause to be any ‘writers of the New Testament,’ or any persons at all connected with the New Testament? No, Sir. You will find it to bethe effeminate and dissipated spectators of athletic games, and the auditors of musicians and oratorial sophists![173]”

Smith’s Letters to Belsham.

Back to Index Next