Chapter XXVI: Part 26

“It will be asked, perhaps, when all this is excluded from our ideas
of generation, of Father and Son, what idea will remain in our minds,
which is conveyed by these words? Will they not be without any
signification to us, and altogether useless? To this, the following
answer may be given: From what is revealed concerning this high and
incomprehensible mystery, we learn, that in the existence of the
Deity, there is that which is high above our thoughts, as the heavens
are above the earth, infinitely beyond our conception, and different
from any thing which takes place among creatures, which is a
foundation of a personal distinction, as real and great as that
between father and son among men, and infinitely more perfect: which
distinction may be in the best manner conveyed to us by Father and
Son, to express the most perfect union and equality; that the Son is
the brightness of the Father’s glory, and the express image of his
person, and that there is infinite love and endearment between them;
and that in the economy of the work of redemption, the Son is obedient
to the Father, &c. All this, and much more, our minds are capable of
conceiving from what is revealed on this high and important subject;
which is suited to impress our hearts with a sense of the
incomprehensible, infinite, adorable perfection and glory of the
Father and the Son; and is necessary in order to give us a right
understanding of the gospel; of the true character of the Redeemer,
and of the work of redemption.

“What has been now said under this second particular, may serve to
remove the other supposed difficulty in admitting the eternal
filiation of the second person in the Trinity, _viz._ that it
represents the Son as inferior to the Father, and as existing _after
him_, and therefore his existence had a beginning. This is obviated by
the above observations; and particularly by this, that it is a _divine
filiation_, and therefore infinitely unlike that which is human; and
above our comprehension. Besides, to suppose eternal generation admits
of _before_ or _after_, or of a beginning, is inconsistent. It may be
further observed,

“3. That the opinion that Jesus Christ is the first and only begotten
Son of God, by the second person in the Trinity becoming incarnate,
and united to the human nature, is, perhaps, attended with as great
difficulties as the other which has been considered, if not greater.
If so, the inducement to embrace it, and reject the other, which we
are examining, wholly ceases.

“If the Son was begotten by the miraculous formation of the human
nature; then the Holy Ghost begot the Son and is the Father, as much
as the first person in the Trinity. For the angel said to the virgin,
‘The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest
shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be
born of thee, shall be called the Son of God.’ If we take these words
as referring only to the production of the human nature, and if it be
granted that by the highest, is meant the first person in the Trinity,
of which there does not appear to be any evidence, yet the third
person, the Holy Ghost, is represented as doing as much, and being as
active in this production as the first person. But if this were no
difficulty, and the first person of the Trinity be supposed to produce
the human nature, and in this sense to be the Father of Jesus Christ;
yet this will make him his Father in no other and higher sense than he
is the Father of angels, and of Adam; and Jesus Christ will be the Son
of God in no other, or higher sense than they; for they were created
and formed in an extraordinary, miraculous way.

“If the Son was begotten by uniting the second person of the Trinity
with the human nature, and the filiation of the Son is supposed to
consist wholly in being thus united to man; this is attended with the
following difficulties, as great, perhaps, if not greater, than those
which attend the eternal Sonship of the second person.

“1. This is as different in nature and kind from natural or creature
generation, as eternal divine generation; and the one bears no analogy
or likeness to the other.

“2. This union of God with the creature so as to become one person, is
as mysterious and incomprehensible, as the eternal Sonship of the
second person of the Trinity; and as inexplicable: so that nothing is
gained with respect to this, by embracing this scheme.

“3. It is not agreeable to scripture to suppose that the first person
of the Trinity only, united the second person to the human nature, and
so became a Father by thus begetting a Son. The third person, the Holy
Ghost, is represented as doing this, or at least, being active in it;
and there is nothing expressly said of the first person doing any
thing respecting it as such. ‘The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and
the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also, that
holy thing which shall be born of thee, shall be called the Son of
God.’ ‘Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise. When his
mother, Mary, was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, _she
was found with child of the Holy Ghost_.’ And the angel of the Lord
said unto Joseph, ‘Fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: _For that
which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost_.’ Matt. i. 18, 20. And
this uniting the divine nature with the human, is expressly ascribed,
not to the first, but to the second person. ‘For as much as the
children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself took part
of the same. For verily _he took not on him_ the nature of angels;
_but he took on him the seed of Abraham_.’ Heb. ii. 14, 16. Do not
they speak not only _without scripture_, but _contrary to it_, who say
that the first person of the Trinity became a Father by uniting the
second person to the human nature, in the womb of the virgin Mary; by
which the latter became the only begotten Son of the Father? That the
relation of Father and Son began in the incarnation of Christ, and
consists wholly in this? And do they by this supposition avoid any
difficulty, and render the filiation of the Redeemer more consistent,
intelligible, or honourable to him? Let the thoughtful, candid
discerning reader judge.”

HOPKINS.

Footnote 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 thou _only_ upon God; for my expectation is from him.”
Psalm lxii. 5. They _only_ are 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.

Footnote 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?

Footnote 106:

_See Dr. Owen against Biddle, p. 362._

Footnote 107:

Ονομα ανεκφωνητον.

Footnote 108:

_Antiq. Lib. III. Cap. 5._

Footnote 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 name_ JEHOVAH, _is referred to from the Old._

Footnote 110:

_In two places, indeed, it is rendered by_ Θεος, _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 for_ Ιουα, _or_ Ιουβα, _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._ Ιωδαε _for Jehoiada._

Footnote 111:

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

Footnote 112:

_Vid. Catech. Racov. ad Quest. lix._

Footnote 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, that_ he 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_; αναλαμβαινομαι
_signifies_ sursum 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._

Footnote 114:

_See Whitby in loc._

Footnote 115:

_See Dr. Clarke’s reply to Nelson, page 86._

Footnote 116:

_Thus they are four times, Luke i. 68. 2 Cor. i. 5. Eph. i. 3. and 1
Pet. i. 3. wherein_ ευλογητος _is put before_ Θεος.

Footnote 117:

_Dr. Owen against Biddle, page 256._

Footnote 118:

_See Dr. Clarke’s reply to Nelson, page 97._

Footnote 119:

_See Page 307._

Footnote 120:

_It is certain, that_ και _is 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 in_ Eph. i. 3. 2 Thes.
ii. 16. 1. Pet. i. 3. Rom. xv. 6. Phil. iv. 20. 2 Cor. xi. 31. _and
in_ Col. 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 in_ Eph. v. 5. _where the
apostle speaks of the_ kingdom 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 Θεου _so in_ 2 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. _and_ chap. 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 Χριστου _ought 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._

Footnote 121:

_See Dr. Clark’s reply to Nelson, page 85._

Footnote 122:

_The words_, ὁ Κυριος _and_ ὁ Θεος _are in the nominative case, which
denotes that they are not spoken in a way of exclamation._

Footnote 123:

_See reply to Nelson, page 67._

Footnote 124:

_Acts vii. 43. chap. xiv. 11._

Footnote 125:

_See Matt. xix. 26. compared with Mark x. 27._

Footnote 126:

_See Scripture-doctrine, &c. page 67, 68, and in many other places._

Footnote 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 word_ Θεος, _God, absolutely
taken to import the same, as_ ὁ παντοκρατωρ or ὁ επι παντων Θεος, _by
which he always intends the Father._

Footnote 128:

_See Scripture-doctrine, page 3._

Footnote 129:

_See page 120._

Footnote 130:

_See Dr. Clarke’s Scripture Doctrine, page 176._

Footnote 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; _and_ ἁρπαγμα 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 is_ ἁρπαγμα, _which
properly signifies a prey, or the thing stolen; and therefore though_
ἁρπαγμα ποιειν ξυντυχιαν _may signify_, to catch an opportunity, _as a
person catches at what he thinks for his advantage, yet if the word_
ἁρπαγμον _had been used instead of it, it would very much have altered
the sense thereof; also though_ ἁρπαγμα ἡγεισθαι _signifies_, to
esteem a thing worthy to be pursued, or catched at, as a prey, _yet_
ἁρπαγμον ἡγεισθαι, _which are the words in the text we are
considering, signify no such thing, but rather_ to 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 that_ ἁρπαγμος _signifies_, the action of robbing,
_and_ ἁρπαγμα _the thing stolen, as may be observed in many other
words, where the former construction signifies the act; the latter the
effect: as in_ λογισμος _and_ λογισμα, κομπασμος, _and_ κομπασμα,
κολασμος _and_ κολασμα, ὁρισμος _and_ ὁρισμα, ὁπλισμος _and_ ὁπλισμα,
στοχασμος _and_ στοχασμα; _and, in the New Testament_, βαπτισμος
_signifies the_ action of baptizing, _and_ βαπτισμα _the 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._

Footnote 132:

_Grotius in loc._

Footnote 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, _immediately_ on 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 this _first_ edition would be
circulated to the widest extent, of course. Churches that were
established afterwards were more likely to receive the _second_
edition 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, as _doubtful_, 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 the _addition_; but possibly there
may be 50 copies without it to _one_ which 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
spread _first_, 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 an _immediate_ conveyance 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 the _first_ edition, can be no evidences of what the apostle
thought proper to add in his _second_ addition. The Syriac version,
for instance, if we suppose that to be the earliest of all, would
represent the _first_ edition, 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) the
_second_ edition. The Syriac version, therefore, is no evidence
against an _addition_. The Armenian version is an evidence _for_ it.
This version contains 1 John v. 7.

“Also, the churches in Africa were not planted till many years _after_
those 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 brethren _from Rome_; which when he saw, he thanked
God, and _took 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 receive _later_ copies 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, _both_ editions. Suppose, for a moment, that the
_first_ edition 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 would _not_
contain those additions which the apostle John inserted in the
_second_ edition. 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, _minus_ the 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 the _first_ edition,
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._ the _second_ edition 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
divines _found_ the passage in their copies, or they _put_ it 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, the _first_ edition, because that was the _earliest_ which
could be procured; and the _second_ because 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 old
_Italic version_. It is not of any consequence to our argument,
whether this version contained the text of the _heavenly witnesses_,
since it was made very early; but if the _revised_ Roman 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) either _found_ it, or _forged_ it. 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, are _independent_ witnesses; 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 old _Italic_ version, then the
authenticity of the passage follows of course, in proportion to
whatever importance is attached to this increased antiquity.”

SELECT REVIEWS.

Footnote 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._

Footnote 135:

_See Histoire Crit. du. Nouv. Testam. chap. 18. page 204._

Footnote 136:

_See this conjecture of Father Simon learnedly opposed in Smith.
Miscellan. contra Simon._

Footnote 137:

_Vid. Epist. lxxiii. ad Jubaianum, & de Unitate Eccl. § v._

Footnote 138:

_See true Scripture-doctrine, &c. page 53._

Footnote 139:

_Contra Praxeam, cap. 25._

Footnote 140:

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

Footnote 141:

Vide Abbadie on the Divinity of Christ, per totum.

Footnote 142:

_See Quest._ vii.

Footnote 143:

_See Dr. Clarke’s Scripture doctrine, page 127._

Footnote 144:

_Reply to Nelson, page 169._

Footnote 145:

_See a parallel scripture, Prov._ xxx. 2, 3.

Footnote 146:

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

Footnote 147:

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

Footnote 148:

_See Dr. Clarke’s Scripture Doctrine, page 63._

Footnote 149:

_See page_ 344, 345, ante.

Footnote 150:

_Dr. Waterland, Serm. III. in defence of Christ, page 106._

Footnote 151:

“That Christ was not a _mere instrument_ which God used in the work of
creation, as the _Arians_ pretend, 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
that _no instrument was used_ in that work. It was wrought immediately
by _God 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 by _himself alone_, Isa. xliv. 24. with
_his own hands_. Isa. xlv. 12.”

BELLAMY.

Footnote 152:

δια Ιησου Χριστου are omitted by Griesbach.

Footnote 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._

Footnote 154:

_See_ Matt. xii. 32. 1 Cor. x. 11. Eph. i. 21. _and_ chap. ii. 7. Heb.
vi. 5. _and_ chap. ix. 26. _the apostle speaking of_ the foundation of
the world, _meaning the first creation, uses the word_ Κοσμος; _but
when, in the following words, he speaks of_ Christ’s appearing in the
end of the world, to put away sin, &c. _he uses the words_ των αιωνων.

Footnote 155:

_See page 304._

Footnote 156:

_See Quest._ lxvii. _and_ lxxv.

Footnote 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 an _exaltation_; 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.

Footnote 158:

_See Quest._ vii.

Footnote 159:

_Creatures are said to be believed, as our Saviour speaking concerning
John the Baptist, in Mark_ xi. 31. _says_, Why did ye not believe him?
διατι ουν ουκ επιστευσατε αυτω; _and, in Acts_ viii. 12. _the
Samaritans believed Philip_, επιστευσαν τω Φιλιππω; _and, in John_ v.
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 is_ believed 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 believe_ in them.” _But as for our Saviour, we are
not only to believe him, namely, what he has spoken, but_ πιστυειν εις
αυτον, _to believe in him._

Footnote 160:

_The words are_, ενωπιον του Θεου του ζσττοο ωοποιουντος τα παντα και
Χρις του Ιησου; _where_ και _seems to be exegetical, according to the
rule laid down, page 318. 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_.

Footnote 161:

_See Dr. Clarke’s Scripture Doctrine, page 58, 77._

Footnote 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._

Footnote 163:

_See Dr. Clarke’s Scripture Doctrine, page 132._

Footnote 164:

_See page_ 322, 323. ante.

Footnote 165:

_See Dr. Waterland’s defence of the divinity of Christ, serm._ iv.
_pag._ 127. & seq. _where he proves, that the exclusive terms of_ One,
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 had_ a 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. _that_ his 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 word_ man
_often 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.”_

Footnote 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._

Footnote 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 not _appear_ of 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 be _the
effeminate and dissipated spectators of athletic games, and the
auditors of musicians and oratorial sophists!_[173]”

SMITH’S LETTERS TO BELSHAM.

Footnote 168:

Letter to Dr. Priestley, in vol. i. of Dr. Williams’ edition of Owen
on the Hebrews.

Footnote 169:

Dr. Williams refers only to Chillingworth by name. I would take the
liberty of adding, that M. Daille’s admirable work _On the Use of the
Fathers in Determining Religious Controversies_, is deserving of the
most careful perusal with reference to this subject.

Footnote 170:

See his valuable work, Vindication of the Primitive Faith, &c. in
Reply to Dr. Priestley’s Hist. of Early Opinions: vol. i. p. 284-313.

Footnote 171:

Mr. Belsham’s Disc. p. 24, 25.

Footnote 172:

Hist. of Early Op. vol. iii. p. 128, 129.

Footnote 173:

Mr. Belsham denies that these characters are the antecedent to the
exceptive clause in question, and conceives that it refers to the mass
of unlearned Christians, who are placed in opposition to “the
spectators and auditors of John, men that are become angels, or are
desirous of becoming such.” But the Greek fathers give some additional
features of their character. “These,” he says, “are devoted to
merriment and luxuriousness, living in riches, honours, and gluttony.”
The candid reader will judge whether this description be more
applicable to plain and honest christians, than to the gay and
dissipated persons mentioned in a preceding part of the discourse.

Footnote 174:

_In this they agree with those who were formerly called Macedonians,
from Macidonius, bishop of Constantinople, who lived about the middle
of the fourth century, who entertained such sentiments of the Holy
Ghost, and had a considerable party that adhered to him, who were also
called Pneumatomachi._

Footnote 175:

_See page 249, 250._

Footnote 176:

_See Woltzogen, and other Socinian writers_, in loc. _and Dr. Clarke’s
Scripture-doctrine, page 13. where he inserts this among those
scriptures; in all which he supposes that the word_ God _is applied to
the Father_.

Footnote 177:

_See page 358._

Footnote 178:

_Several of the Post Nicene Fathers have taken the words_, καθαπερ απο
του πνευματος, _in the same sense as by the Lord, the Spirit; and, in
particular, Basil. de Spirit. Sanct. ad Amphiloc. Cap. 21. & Chrysost.
in loc._

Footnote 179:

_See page 249, 250, 251._

Footnote 180:

_See page 359, 360._

Footnote 181:

_See Dr. Clarke’s Scripture-doctrine, page 198._

Footnote 182:

_See Quest._ lix. lxvii. lxxii. lxxv.

Quest. XII., XIII.

QUEST. XII. _What are the decrees of God?_

ANSW. God’s decrees are the wise, free, and holy acts of the counsel
of his will; whereby, from all eternity, he hath, for his own glory,
unchangeably fore-ordained whatsoever comes to pass in time;
especially concerning angels and men.

QUEST. XIII. _What hath God especially decreed concerning angels and
men?_

ANSW. God, by an eternal and immutable decree out of his mere love,
for the praise of his glorious grace, to be manifested in due time,
hath elected some angels to glory, and, in Christ, hath chosen some
men to eternal life, and the means thereof; and also, according to
his sovereign power, and the unsearchable counsel of his own will
(whereby he extendeth, or with-holdeth favour, as he pleaseth) hath
passed by, and fore-ordained the rest to dishonour and wrath, to be
for their sin inflicted, to the praise of the glory of his justice.

Having considered the perfections of the divine nature, and the Personal glories of the Father, Son, and Spirit, the next thing to be insisted on is, what God has purposed to do from eternity, or does, or will do, in pursuance thereof; the former we call his decrees; the latter, the execution of them. The object of his decree is whatever comes to pass, which is the most large and comprehensive sense of his purpose: but whereas his determinations, in a particular manner, respect angels and men, or the intelligent part of the creation, and more especially the eternal happiness of some, or the display of his righteous judgments against others; in these respects, they being taken in a more limited sense, are called as relating to the former, election, and, with respect to the latter, reprobation, which is the subject matter of these two answers. And, before we proceed to insist on this sublime and difficult subject, it may not be inexpedient for us to premise some things concerning it in general.

1. It is well known that there is no doctrine, contained in scripture, which is more contested than this, which lies before us; and it is not only denied by some, but treated with the utmost dislike or detestation, and that to such a degree, that we must either wholly forbear to mention it in public discourses, or writings, or else must be liable to the hard fate of being censured by those who will not do that justice to the argument, to consider what may be advanced in defence thereof, as though it were to be taken for granted that we are maintaining a doctrine that is not only indefensible, but injurious to mankind, and subversive of all religion.

2. If there be any who give just occasion to these prejudices, by the methods which they have used in explaining, as well as the weakness of their arguments in defending it, or by laying themselves open to those popular objections, which are usually brought against it, we cannot but conclude that they are highly to blame; and therefore we are far from approving of any unguarded expressions, which are to be met with in some writings, whereby a stumbling-block is laid in the way of those who are disposed to make men offenders for a word, rather than to judge impartially of the main drift of their discourse: it is to be owned, that this has done dis-service to the cause, which might have been better defended.

3. If these prejudices against this doctrine are ill grounded, and the objections only founded on the popular cry, by which it is endeavoured to be run down, and condemned with reproach and censure; and if persons know not, nor desire to know what may be said in defence thereof, how such-like objections may be answered; the disgust and opposition is both unreasonable and uncharitable, and contains a capricious resolution not to be undeceived, and consequently renders the person thus prejudiced, highly culpable in the sight of God, especially if there be any ground to conclude that his cause is therein maintained.

4. Let it be farther considered, that it is not a new doctrine, or such as was altogether unheard of in the world before; nor has it been only defended by the more ignorant or licentious part of mankind, or those who have been bold and presumptuous in affirming that for truth, which they had not duly weighed, or been convinced of, from the strongest evidence. Whether it be as ancient as scripture, and, indeed, founded upon it, we shall leave others to judge, when we have considered what may be said from it in defence thereof.

5. It was generally asserted, and publicly owned in most of the confessions of faith of the reformed churches in the last age, and, in particular, in the church of England, as contained in one of the articles thereof, and there is no apparent ambiguity in the words themselves, however, some have endeavoured, of late, to strain the sense thereof, and put such a meaning on them, as is very different from the writings of those who compiled them, which might serve as a comment on them.

And to this we may add, that it was maintained by far the greatest number of divines, in their public discourses and writings in the last century, how much soever the contrary doctrines are maintained at this day: however, we do not insist on this as a proof of the truth thereof, as though it needed to be supported by numbers of advocates for it, or were founded thereon; nor do we suppose, that when it has been most strenuously, and almost universally defended, there were not at the same time, others who opposed it. This I only mention, that I may, if possible, remove those prejudices that are inconsistent with persons judging impartially of it.

Since we are considering the head of prejudices against this doctrine, we think it necessary to add, that we shall endeavour to vindicate it, from the reproach that is generally cast on it, by those who suppose that it cannot be defended, without asserting God to be the author of sin, or supposing him to be severe, cruel, and unjust to his creatures, as some conclude we represent him to be, by unjust consequences deduced from it. We are far from asserting, as will hereafter appear, that God from all eternity, purposed to damn a great part of the world, as the result of his mere sovereign will, without the foresight of sin, which would render them liable to that condemnation.